At the End of the Second Century, the Muratorian Fragment lists 22 of our 27 NT books (6/10)

canon fodder ^ | May 6, 2013 | Michael J. Kruger

[Gamecock]

This series is designed to introduce lay Christians to the basic facts of how the New Testament canon developed. One of the key data points in any discussion of canon is something called the Muratorian fragment (also known as the Muratorian canon). This fragment, named after its discoverer Ludovico Antonio Muratori, contains our earliest list of the books in the New Testament. While the fragment itself dates from the 7th or 8th century, the list it contains was originally written in Greek and dates back to the end of the second century (c.180).

Some have argued that the list should be dated to the fourth century (e.g., Sundberg and Hahneman), but the consensus of scholars today still places the list in the second century. Joseph Verheyden sums up the modern debate, “None of the arguments put forward by Sundberg and Hahneman in favour of a fourth-century, eastern origin of the Fragment are convincing.”[1]

What is noteworthy for our purposes here is that the Muratorian fragment affirms 22 of the 27 books of the New Testament. These include the four Gospels, Acts, all 13 epistles of Paul, Jude, 1 John, 2 John (and possibly 3rd John), and Revelation. This means that at a remarkably early point (end of the second century), the central core of the New Testament canon was already established and in place.

Of course, it should be acknowledged that the Muratorian canon also seems to affirm the Apocalypse of Peter. However, the author of the fragment immediately expresses that some have hesitations about this book. Those hesitations eventually won out, and the Apocalypse of Peter was never widely affirmed by the early church, and never earned a final spot in the canon.

The fact that there was some disagreement during this time period over a few of the “peripheral” books should not surprise us. It took some time for the issue of the canon to be settled. This occasional disagreement, however, should not keep us from observing the larger and broader unity that early Christians shared regarding the “core” New Testament books.

If there was a core canon from an early time period, then there are two significant implications we can draw from this. First, this means that most of the debates and disagreements about canonical books in early Christianity only concerned a handful of books. Books like 3 John, James, 2 Peter and so on. Early Christianity was not a wide open literary free for all, where there was no agreement on much of anything. Instead there was an agreed-upon core that no one really disputed.

Second, if there was a core collection of New Testament books, then the theological trajectory of early Christianity had already been determined prior to the debates about the peripheral books being resolved. So, regardless of the outcome of discussion over books like 2 Peter or James, Christianity’s core doctrines of the person of Christ, the work of Christ, the means of salvation, etc., were already in place and already established. The acceptance or rejection of books like 2 Peter would not change that fact.

Thus, the Muratorian fragment stands as a reminder of two important facts. First, Christians did disagree over books from time to time. That was an inevitability, particularly in the early stages. But this list also reminds us of a second (and more fundamental) fact, namely that there was widespread agreement over the core from a very early time.

[Gamecock]

Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should:

1. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
2. The New Testament Books are the Earliest Christian Writings We Possess
3. The New Testament Books Are Unique Because They Are Apostolic Books
4. Some NT Writers Quote Other NT Writers as Scripture
5. The Four Gospels are Well Established by the End of the Second Century

[Pollster1]

Mark for New Testament reference.

[boatbums]

Thank you for posting this.

From Formation of the New Testament Canon:

Roman Catholic theologians have traditionally held that the authority of the canon was guaranteed by an infallible Church. The Reformers sensed here a threat to the sola Scriptura principle. For them the authority of Scripture was not dependent on the Church. Rather it was self-authenticating and sealed to the hearts of God's people by the witness of the Holy Spirit. (However, this witness was generally appealed to more to affirm the overall authority of the Bible than to validate the specific contents of the canon. For this, appeal was made to God's overriding providence). The Scripture is of divine origin, character and authority. It bears the marks of its divinity. It clearly evidences that it is of God, but man is unable to perceive this on his own and hence needs the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. 38 The Reformed and Roman Catholic positions are clearly contrasted in the Belgic Confession, Article 5 ("The Authority of Scripture"):

We receive all these books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith. And we believe without a doubt all things contained in them — not so much because the church receives and approves them as such but above all because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and because they prove themselves to be from God. 39

The internal witness of the Holy Spirit is not communication of additional information. It is not a divinely given proposition. It is simply one aspect of the organic action of the sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit. It is always cum verbo ('with the Word'). It is an integral element of the process by which the mind of the sinner is enlightened and his will renewed (1 Cor.2:10-16; 1 Thess.2:4,13). John Murray refers to it as "supplementary attestation," 40 i.e. in addition to the objective excellencies inherent in Scripture. The Word must be allowed to establish its own claim, i.e. independently of the Church.

[GreyFriar]

An interesting & informative series of posts.

[plain talk]

thanks for posting.

[smvoice]

We know from John 14:25,26; John 16:12,13; and Daniel 12:4 that Hebrews through Revelation were PRE-AUTHORIZED by Jesus Christ. They contain the body of information He promised would come to equip them to handle the last days of the judgment of Israel.

We know that Paul's letters and epistles were authorized by direct revelations given to him by the risen Christ. They contain everything necessary to the formation of the Church the Body of Christ.

We know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts were authorized because they are part of the OT, and fulfill the OT prophecies of Israel's Messiah.

So that leaves nothing that wasn't authorized by God. Except those pesky apocryphal fiascoes.

[reed13k]

bfl

[zot]

Thanks for the ping. I’m not convinced that the Muratorian Fragment should be dated as early as the Second Century.

[Thorliveshere]

Fascinating! Thank you!!

[imardmd1]

Nice picks, especially toward laying the questions thrown at evangelicals by those insisting that the Catholic Church (note: proper adjective and noun, hence capitalized) wrote the Bible for posterity. Investigativly treated, that theory will not hold water. For sure, when 22 of the NT canon were known and commonly agreed, each and every church was autonomous, thus there was no episcopacy exterior to any local assembly, AFIK.

Therefore, the text kept by the emerging RCC was only partially authentic. Even Desiderius Erasmus rejected the Vaticanus and Alexandrian genre as insufficient. We must view them as corrupted, and the WH critical text as synthetic. The Sinaiticus was considered by generation after generation of St. Catherine monks, th possessers, as so bad that it was finally consigned for burning and was not copied for posterity one must suppose--until, that is, Tischendorf rescued it from the monastery's burn barrel.

The preservation of the NT canon and contents must be credited to the plurality of the Byzantine/Majority Textform codices and portions.

Thanks!

[CTrent1564]

With respect to the Shepherd of Hermas the Fragment states :”was written by Hermas quite recently in our time, in the City of Rome, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the Chair of the Church in the City of Rome; and therefore, it too should be read. But it can’t be read publicly to the people in church, for it is neither among the prophets, whose number is complete to the end of time, nor among the Apostles”

So, what this Letter indicates [written circa 180AD] was the that their was Hierarchal Church [SS Clement of Rome’s letter in 95AD and Ignatius of Antioch’s Letters 105-110AD confirm that] and 2) that the Church in Rome was developing the NT Canon starting in the 2nd century. THis, was the result of Marcion’s call to throw out the OT and define the NT as Luke’s Gospel and St. Pauls Letters. Marcion, who was a Gnostic, was “Excommunicated by the Church of Rome in 144AD]. So, given the challenge by Marcion to Rome, we see within 40 years of Marcion’s heresy, the Church of Rome developing the Canon, which it would more formally define at the end of the 4th century.

Futhermore, it shows what I have posted here numerous times, the highest priority for canonicity was 1) Could the Book be read in the Liturgy [worship of the Church] since prayer conveys faith and faith dictates prayer and 2) Apostolic Origin was also a key criteria to ensure that orthodox doctrine was upheld in worship and of course against heretical teachings.

The Codex Vaticanus reflects the Alexandrian text, which we now have evidence based on the NT fragments that were found in the last 100 years are the oldest and closest to the time of the Apostles. So your criticism of the Vaticanus and the related Alexandrian text type is incorrect.

And, this local assembly stuff has no base in history either, despite your “protests”.