The Muratorian Fragment
The Muratorian Fragment
The Muratorian Fragment[1] is our last (allegedly) second-century canon list. I include it here because Professor Bart Ehrman once gave implicit support for this dating,[2] and (as a frequent opponent of Christianity) I consider him neutral enough to arbitrate this one, since I do not see why he would care how it helps or hurts arguments over the canon. Gallagher and Meade say “second, third, or fourth century,” which is true enough, but that wording is itself evidence that they slant things when they want. They determined that the Bryennios List was “100-150 AD” when it was equally disputed (and rightly so, as it turns out). Accordingly, I go with Ehrman.
Gallagher and Meade give us more detail:
The traditional dating and provenance were challenged by Albert Sundberg, who proposed a fourth-century Eastern provenance. The movement to revise the Fragment’s date gained momentum due to Geoffrey Mark Hahneman’s elaboration of Sundberg’s thesis; their arguments have gained a significant following. … (p. 176).
So, we went from “most scholars” and the “usual dating” as being a reason to accept the second century for the Bryennios List, to now pushing for a later date on the Muratorian Fragment because a minority view has gained a significant following. I think we can assume, with great confidence, that this list will not be favorable to Gallagher and Meade’s deeply cherished beliefs. A footnote (10) goes on to tell us that:
“On the influence of Hahneman 1992, see Schnabel 2014…”[3]
We have reached the point where they have started telling us to go read articles about the influence of their favored minority view.
…Whereas Sundberg and Hahneman insist that the Fragment has its most exact parallels with the fourth-century canon lists, other scholars… (p. 177).
Just a reminder that Sundberg’s and Hahneman’s basis for arguing for the later dating of the Muratorian Fragment is the (allegedly) more precise method that failed so spectacularly to correctly date the Bryennios List.
…A recent assessment asserts that the older consensus (i.e. on an earlier date) has now been widely restored. Perhaps widely, but not universally… (p. 177).
The view that supports their preferred dating must be badly outnumbered—and the fragment must be really, really bad for their deeply cherished beliefs.
…Clare Rothschild takes another mediating position, arguing that the Fragment is a forgery designed to legitimate later views of the canon by representing them as earlier, second-century views. (p. 177).
(You will have to figure out their intended meaning of “mediating,” as calling it a forgery does not sound like mediating to me!)
Here, we have the opposite situation than with the Bryennios List: this time, it is Gallagher and Meade who are promoting the idea that the Muratorian Fragment is not really what it seems. Their citation (written in 2017) is to “See Rothschild forthcoming,” and since then, a book is now available for a steep price ($125),[4] and an article is available for an amazingly steep price ($40 for just one article?).[5]
On the other hand, a critique of her book by Christophe Guignard is available for free.[6] This is the part I particularly focused on:
10. … Even more surprising is what Rothschild writes in the following lines: “Church leaders such as Chromatius of Aquileia, Jerome, and Isidore of Seville—whose writings are often considered dependent on the Fragment—were present at the Council of 381. Together with Ambrose, bishop in Milan at the time, they could have drafted the Fragment as evidence in a case against heresies” (p. 81).
So now you have Ambrose, Chromatius, Isidore, and Jerome faking evidence. The idea that Jerome might have been proven to be a lying fraud producing fake canon lists would certainly change the discussion around the canon forever! Still, that is a level of conspiracy theorizing that I do not want to spend $165 to read. But to each their own.[7]
I searched for responses to Guignard’s critique and found people saying that it was mean and that he is Catholic. Otherwise, the closest to a real defense were statements that, despite his critique, Rothschild’s views still “merited debate”—which sounds like damning with faint praise to me. (So says an author who is literally begging for even such faint praise in Amazon reviews, social media, etc. Hint, hint…).
But enough about the dating; what exactly is the Muratorian Fragment? It is a scrap of paper that lists a New Testament canon and says:
… Moreover, the Epistle of Jude and two of the above-mentioned (or, bearing the name of) John are counted (or, used) in the catholic [Church]; and [the book of] Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honor. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] 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[8]
And there it ends—it is just a fragment. The key thing for our purposes is that the Book of Wisdom is listed, as if it is part of the New Testament. Gallagher and Meade tell us that:
The presence of the Wisdom of Solomon-usually considered a part of the Old Testament, even if apocryphal or deuterocanonical-in a discussion of NT books is strange and often remarked upon. Zahn (1888-92: 2.66) conjectured that a negative had fallen out of the text. (Footnote 33).
No one I have read actually endorses Zahn’s idea. Without strong evidence, it is pure speculation of the most extreme sort, obviously.
Proponents of a fourth-century date point to the parallels in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.1-8 (discussing Irenaeus) and Epiphanius, Pan. 76.22.5… (Footnote 33).
Allow me to remind you, yet again, that relying on such parallels was the (allegedly) more precise method that failed so spectacularly to correctly date the Bryennios List. Perhaps the Fragment is itself evidence of an earlier practice that continued into the later period.
Horbury (1994) has suggested that the Fragment’s reference to the Wisdom of Solomon coheres with a wider patristic practice of placing at the end of the entire canon the useful non-canonical books for each Testament. (Footnote 33).
The reason one can see such a “wider patristic practice” in other writings is that those other authors (Jerome, Rufinus, Athanasius, etc.) specifically state that they mean certain works to be “useful non-canonical books.” The claim that someone just named some extra books at the end of the list and expected the reader to intuitively understand that those books are, therefore, merely “useful non-canonical books” is contrary to the plain meaning of the text. The Muratorian Fragment’s author actually identifies and discusses Books that do not quite fit in the canon—and yet does not say such things about the Book of Wisdom.
By any fair reading, the list identifies the Book of Wisdom as canon.
[1] www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
[2] After The New Testament, A Reader in Early Christianity, p. 311
[3] Ehrman wrote his book in 1998, after Hahneman 1992’s influence had occurred but before Schnabel 2014 had been written—so, for all I know, he has now changed his mind.
[4]www.amazon.com/Muratorian-Fragment-Translation-Commentary-Christianity/dp/3161611748
[5] www.brill.com/view/journals/nt/60/1/article-p55_55.xml
[6] www.journals.openedition.org/rsr/6220
[7] I have no idea how much of Rothschild’s claim was known when Gallagher and Meade cited to it. I have no reason to question the sanity of their scholarship, or even hers—I would still have bought and considered her arguments, if they were available at a reasonable price. As it is, I am not going to rely on her claims. Gallagher maintains a blog devoted to “Saint Jerome” (www.sanctushieronymus.blogspot.com), but I found no mention of Rothschild or her paper.
[8] www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html. Since it is an incomplete fragment covering only the New Testament, lack of mention of other Apocrypha (or other Old Testament canonical Books) is presumably irrelevant; the only reason to mention this list for our purposes is to discuss the mention of the Book of Wisdom.
