Muratorian fragment

thumb|right|Last page of the Canon Muratori, as published by [[Samuel Prideaux Tregelles|Tregelles in 1868]]

The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon (Latin: ), is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a Latin manuscript bound in a roughly 8th-century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written in the late 2nd century (). Other scholars suggest it might have been originally written as late as the 4th century, although this is not the consensus opinion. Both the degraded condition of the manuscript and the poor Latin in which it was written have made it difficult to translate. The beginning of the fragment is missing, and it ends abruptly. The fragment consists of all that remains of a section of a list of all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its original compiler.

During the time period of early Christianity, there was no accepted "New Testament", merely books considered of greater or lesser value. While likely not intended strictly as a canon list, the fragment is evidence of the first attempts to systemize such a group of approved writings, at least if it indeed dates to the 2nd century. Debates on what works should be accepted as scripture would continue. The earliest version of the eventual consensus New Testament canon did not occur until 367, when bishop Athanasius of Alexandria in his annual Easter letter composed a list that is still recognized today as the canon of 27 books. However, it would take several more centuries of debate until agreement on Athanasius' canon was reached within all of Christendom.

Manuscript history

The Muratorian fragment was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by Father Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), the most famous Italian historian of his generation. Realizing its significance and antiquity, he published it in 1740. The manuscript was likely copied sometime during or near the 8th century at Bobbio Abbey. A few lines of the Muratorian fragment were later found preserved in some codices of Paul's Epistles at the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino. These documents date from the 11th and 12th centuries, and the copied lines largely concur with the Bobbio version with minor variations.

Authorship and date

thumb|right|300px|Muratorian fragment preserved in Milan, Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, Cod. J 101 sup.

The original author of the fragment is unknown. The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to the second half of the second century because the author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (140—155), as recent:

<blockquote>But Hermas wrote The Shepherd "most recently in our time", in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.</blockquote>

Another reason suggesting a date toward the end of the second century is the concern with denouncing Marcion, a Christian bishop whose influence was the strongest in the second century, as well as Gnostics, who were also more prominent in the 2nd century than at later dates. as has Charles E. Hill. A reason to suspect an origin in the Western church, other than the obvious of the manuscript being found in Italy, is the absence of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the list, which appears to have been more widely accepted in the Greek-speaking east of the Roman Empire than in the Western, Roman church. In this interpretation, the reference to the Shepherd of Hermas merely meant "recently" in a broader sense of "not stretching all the way back to the 1st century", in this view. Another option propounded by Clare Rothschild is that the fragment was written in Latin originally in the 4th century, possibly even later, and the reason for the awful Latin style was not poor translation but rather the copyist being unfamiliar with the abbreviation style used in the older manuscript. Rothschild also sees the fragment as a forgery attempting to portray itself as being written in the 2nd century, to explain the reference to the Shepherd and Pius. As an example, most scholars do not believe the Gelasian Decree to have been written by Pope Gelasius or even during his reign; similarly, it is possible that the writer was merely backdating their work by saying Pius was recent.

The theories for a later composition date have in general not prevailed over the existing scholarly consensus suggesting a second century date as the most likely.

Acceptance of the Gospels of Luke and John

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Scholars find it highly likely that the missing two gospels are Matthew and Mark, although this remains uncertain. This hesitation with the Apocalypse of Peter would manifest in later centuries with it not being included in later canons. As the manuscript legacy for the Apocalypse of Peter is more sparse than books that made it into the New Testament, it is difficult to know how closely the Apocalypse of Peter read by the author of the fragment matches the few surviving manuscripts of it.

Canon list

{| class="wikitable"

! Book

! Muratorian Canon

! Present canon

!Gospel of Matthew

| ||

!Gospel of Mark

| ||

!Gospel of Luke

| ||

!Gospel of John

| ||

!Acts of the Apostles

| ||

!Romans

| ||

!1 Corinthians

| ||

!2 Corinthians

| ||

!Galatians

| ||

!Ephesians

| ||

!Philippians

| ||

!Colossians

| ||

!1 Thessalonians

| ||

!2 Thessalonians

| ||

!1 Timothy

| ||

!2 Timothy

| ||

!Titus

| ||

!Philemon

| ||

!Hebrews

| ||

!James

| ||

!1 Peter

| ||

!2 Peter

| ||

!1 John

| ||

!2 John

| ||

!3 John

| ||

!Jude

| ||

!Apocalypse of John

| ||

!Apocalypse of Peter

| ||

!Wisdom of Solomon

| || Varies by denomination

Rejected works

{| class="wikitable"

! Book

! Muratorian Canon

! Comments

!Shepherd of Hermas

|style="background: #FF8; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center|Recommended

|The author admires it and suggests it should be read, but does not consider it a work of scripture as it was "recently written," and the author considered only works from prophets or apostles to be worthy of canonicity.

!Epistle to the Laodiceans

|Called a forgery of Marcion of Sinope and his followers. A lost work.

!Epistle to the Alexandrians

|Called a forgery of Marcion of Sinope and his followers. A lost work.

!Works of Arsinous,<br/>Valentinus, Miltiades,<br/>and Basilides

|Many of these were figures in Gnosticism, a major sect of Christianity in the second century. The manuscript becomes impossible to read afterward, providing no explanation for why they were condemned.

Notes

References

Bibliography

External links

, an 1885 translation of the Muratorian fragment

The facsimile of the Muratorian Canon
"The development of the canon of the New Testament": The Muratorian Canon
Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian biography: Muratorian fragment
Earlychristianwritings.com: Original and amended Latin and English translation of the Muratorian fragment.
Muratorian Fragment in the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible
C. E. Hill, "The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon," Westminster Theological Journal 57:2 (Fall 1995): 437–452(PDF)
More information at Earlier Latin Manuscripts

Muratorian fragment

Manuscript history

Authorship and date

Contents

Acceptance of the Gospels of Luke and John

Canon list

Rejected works

Notes

References

Bibliography

Further reading

External links