Dated to around 170–200 AD, it provides a unique historical snapshot of the Bible before it was officially finalized. Its significance lies in what it tells us about how early Christians decided which books belonged in the Bible and which did not.
Here is a breakdown of why it is historically and theologically significant:
- The Consensus: By AD 200, the church had already accepted the four Gospels, Acts, and all 13 of Paul's letters as authoritative.
- The Takeaway: The later councils didn't invent the Bible; they mostly ratified what the church had already been using for centuries.
- The Muratorian Canon explicitly rejects writings by Marcion and Gnostic groups.\
- It demonstrates that the early church defined the canon not just to say "what we read," but to draw a protective line against false
Here is a breakdown of why the late 2nd-century date is the dominant scholarly view.
1. The "Smoking Gun": The Reference to Pius I
The strongest argument for the 2nd-century date is a specific historical claim found within the text regarding the Shepherd of Hermas (an early Christian writing). The fragment states:"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome."
Note that Pius I was the Bishop of Rome (Pope) roughly from 140 to 155 AD.
The Implication: For an author to describe Pius's term as "very recently, in our times," they must be writing shortly after that period. This naturally places the composition of the document in the latter half of the 2nd century (c. 170–180 AD), likely within living memory of Pius's bishopric.
2. The Historical Context: Addressing 2nd-Century Heresies
The document appears to be written defensively against specific heresies that were most dangerous and prominent in the 2nd century, rather than the 4th.
Marcionism: The fragment explicitly rejects the writings of Marcion, a 2nd-century heretic who rejected the Old Testament and much of the New Testament. The fragment’s emphasis on accepting four Gospels (rather than Marcion's one mutilated Luke) and the connection between the Old and New Testaments fits the anti-Marcionite struggles of that era.
Montanism: The text stresses that the number of prophets is "complete," which scholars interpret as a rebuttal to Montanism (the "New Prophecy"), a movement that claimed new divine revelation was continuing through its own prophets in the late 2nd century.
Gnosticism: It mentions and rejects writings by Gnostic leaders like Valentinus and Basilides, who were active in the mid-to-late 2nd century.3. The State of the Canon
The list of books itself represents a "primitive" or transitional stage of the New Testament canon that fits the 2nd century better than the 4th because it's a bit messy. By the 4th century (e.g., the Council of Carthage or Athanasius's list in 367 AD), the New Testament canon was largely stabilized at 27 books. The Muratorian Canon, however, accepts the Apocalypse of Peter (later rejected) and excludes standard books like Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter.
Western/Roman Bias: The list reflects the specific usage of the church in Rome during the 2nd century. For example, it accepts the Wisdom of Solomon (often used by Roman Christians then) but is silent on books more popular in the East.
4. Linguistic Evidence
Although the physical manuscript we have is a sloppy Latin copy from the 7th or 8th century, philological analysis suggests it is a translation of an earlier Greek original.
The Christian church in Rome spoke primarily Greek until the mid-3rd century. If the document were a 4th-century Latin original, it would likely be written in better Latin. The poor quality of the Latin suggests a "literal" and clumsy translation from Greek, consistent with a 2nd-century.
The "Sloppy Scribe" & Muratorian FragmentThe specific details about the 8th-century scribe and his errors come from the physical analysis of the manuscript itself (Codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup), largely popularized by Bruce Metzger.
The "30 Errors" Proof: This specific claim comes from an analysis of the codex where the scribe accidentally copied a passage from St. Ambrose (De Abraham) twice.Source: Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Metzger (and scholars like Samuel P. Tregelles) compared the two identical passages and found that the scribe made roughly 30 mistakes in just 30 lines (misspellings, dropped words, nonsense grammar), proving he was likely illiterate in the language he was copying.
- The "Barbarous Latin": The description of the text as "rustic" or "vulgar" Latin is the standard academic view, noting that it breaks the rules of classical Latin grammar (e.g., wrong case endings), which suggests it was a poor translation from a Greek original.
The "Seven Churches" Principle
The core of this argument relies on a very specific, somewhat odd theological claim found in the Muratorian Fragment.
The Fragment tries to explain why the Apostle Paul wrote letters to exactly seven specific churches (Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans). The author argues that Paul did this to mimic the Apostle John, who wrote to seven churches in the Book of Revelation. By writing to "seven," they were symbolically writing to the "universal" (whole) church.
The Muratorian Fragment says: "...the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name..."
Chromatius of Aquileia (c. 398–407 AD) says: "...that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown by this sevenfold writing... following the example of his predecessor John, [Paul] writes to no more than seven churches by name..."
2. The Trap for the 4th-Century Theory
This parallel creates a logical trap for scholars who argue the Muratorian Fragment was written in the late 4th century (c. 375 AD).
A. The Direction of Borrowing The textual similarities are so close (specifically the phrase "following the rule/example of his predecessor John") that one author clearly copied the other. Scholars agree that Chromatius is the one borrowing, because he is summarizing a tradition that the Muratorian Fragment is explaining in detail.
B. The "Victorinus" Connection (The real nail in the coffin) While Chromatius writing in ~400 AD is bad for a theory that dates the Fragment to ~375 AD (because it implies instant, authoritative acceptance of a "new" document), the evidence goes back even further.
Scholars have noted that Victorinus of Pettau, a bishop who died in 304 AD, also uses this same "Seven Churches" argument in his commentary on the Apocalypse.
If Victorinus (c. 300 AD) knew this specific argument, the Muratorian Fragment (the source of the argument) must exist before 300 AD. This renders the "Late Date" theory (that it was written in the East around 375 AD) chronologically impossible.
3. Why this reinforces the 2nd-Century Date
If the text existed before 300 AD (proven by Victorinus) and was widely enough known to be quoted as authoritative tradition by Italian bishops like Chromatius in 400 AD, it aligns perfectly with the document's own internal claim—that it was written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD) near the time of Pius I. origin.
Summary Table: The Timeline Problem
The information provided in our conversation is based on the scholarly consensus of New Testament textual criticism and Church history. Here are the specific primary sources (ancient texts) and secondary sources (modern scholars) that back up the information provided:
1. The "Sloppy Scribe" & Muratorian FragmentThe specific details about the 8th-century scribe and his errors come from the physical analysis of the manuscript itself (Codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup), largely popularized by Bruce Metzger.
The "30 Errors" Proof: This specific claim comes from an analysis of the codex where the scribe accidentally copied a passage from St. Ambrose (De Abraham) twice.
Source:
Bruce Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament
The "Barbarous Latin": The description of the text as "rustic" or "vulgar" Latin is the standard academic view, noting that it breaks the rules of classical Latin grammar (e.g., wrong case endings), which suggests it was a poor translation from a Greek original.
The history of the "Bible trade" between East and West is documented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers themselves.
The Primary Sources (Ancient Witnesses):
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 325 AD): In his Ecclesiastical History (Book III, Chapter 25), he famously lists the "Antilegomena" (Disputed Books). He notes that Revelation is accepted by some but rejected by others (specifically in the East).
St. Jerome (c. 400 AD): Jerome explicitly mentions in a letter to Dardanus (Letter 129) that the "custom of the Latins" (West) rejects Hebrews, while the "Greek churches" accept it, and conversely, the Greeks reject Revelation. He argues that both should be accepted.
Modern Scholarship:
F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture Lee Martin McDonald: A leading scholar on canon formation who emphasizes that the "Bible" was a fluid concept for the first 400 years.
If you want to read the books that serve as the "gold standard" for this topic, these are the two most cited works:
1) "The Canon of the New Testament" by Bruce Metzger: This is the definitive academic book on how the books were chosen, containing the detailed analysis of the Muratorian scribe.
No comments:
Post a Comment