The Muratorian fragment, dated 170 A.D., affirms 22 out of 27 New Testament books

Wintery Knight ^ | 03/19/2016

[SeekAndFind]

The Muratorian fragment / The Muratorian canon (click for larger image)

I sometimes hear this odd objection that the books that were to be included in the Bible were not decided until the 4th century. I think it comes from some Hollywood movie, or maybe a TV show. Anyway, this post should help fix that myth.

I’m going to quote from New Testament expert Dr. Michael J. Kruger from his blog.

He writes:

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).

[…]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.

Although there is still dispute about some books, that does not negate the fact that the main books we use (the gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul) are all considered to be canon by 180 A.D., much before any famous church councils ever happened. And those books were decided on because they were in widespread use and respected by everyone.

What about the books that were in dispute? Do they throw any core doctrines into doubt?

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.

By the way, I’d actually heard that the date for this fragment was 170 A.D., so it might even be earlier than Dr. Krueger says.

I did search around a bit for something to break the tie between me and Krueger, because I couldn’t remember my source for the date. I found this book “Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity” by David E. Aune, and he writes on p. 22:

The four Gospels are also referred to in the Canon Muratorianus, a seventh or eighth century manuscript originally translated from Greek into a deponent form of Latin and widely regarded as having been produced ca. 170 CE. Though the beginning of this canonical list is fragmentary (though obviously referring to Mark), the first two clear references to New Testament books are to Luke and John (lines 2, 9): tertio euangelii librum secando Lucan guard evangeliorutn lohannis ex decipolis.” (“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke … The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one) of the disciples”).

So, that’s why the date in the title of this post is 170 A.D., and not the later 180 A.D. he mentions. And that’s why there’s no reason to be skeptical that the Bible we have today is any different than the Bible that everybody in the early church had.

[kaehurowing]

Has Professor Robert Langdon been notified of this?

[Walkingfeather]

Actually the scriptures are the most historical validated written text period. No other book comes close.

[Kay Ludlow]

Interesting, Thanks for sharing it!

[umgud]

Thanks very much for the post.

[dangus]

The key point is that it *only* included 22 of 27. 5 more were still occasionally disputed. They definitely were widely considered scripture by AD 190, but there were some other books that were widely considered scripture, too, within apostolic doctrinally orthodox churches. Among these were the First Epistle of Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Teaching of the Twelve.

The Muratorian fragment considers the Book of Wisdom to be scripture, even though it seems to include it in the New Testament.

The first canon which lists every New Testament book and no other books is that of Athanasius, in AD 367, quickly followed by many others (Rufinus, 380; Epiphanius, 385; Jerome, 390, Augustine, 397; 3rd Council of Carthage, 397; Pope Innocent I, 405)

Another odd thing about citing the Muratorian fragment is that its author is plainly defining the canon not by which books are doctrinally authoritative, but which are fitting to be used in public worship.

[dangus]

Ah, yes... but Polycarp also cites several books which did NOT become part of the canon.

[dangus]

(The Protestant canon excludes Tobit, from which Polycarp cites, “alms delivers from death.”)

[onedoug]

Interesting read. Thanks for posting.

[Falconspeed]

Correct. I rode my bike past St. Jerome’s house every day for a year while studying in Rome. I would say to myself, Yup, that is where the Bible was assembled.

St. Jerome and his lion had two hundred or so fragments on his desk including fragments similar to the Muratori document. Myth? You wish. Give a high five to St. Augustine for encouraging St. Jerome to stop being slothful and start being industrious.

[Mrs. Don-o]

:o)

[Mrs. Don-o]

And the same authority of the "sensus fidelium" --- "big-T Tradition," the actual practice of the actual churches of Asia, Africa and Europe--- which gave us the Canon of Scripture, gave us also the Sacraments, praying for the dead, praying with the Saints in Heaven, veneration for Beata Maria Semper Virgineand other beliefs and practices still carried on by over a billion Christians to the present day.

[Mrs. Don-o]

And the same authority of the "sensus fidelium" --- "big-T Tradition," the actual practice of the actual churches of Asia, Africa and Europe--- which gave us the Canon of Scripture, gave us also the Sacraments, praying for the dead, praying with the Saints in Heaven, veneration for Beata Maria Semper Virgineand other beliefs and practices still carried on by over a billion Christians to the present day.

[Falconspeed]

Gold star. This is Holy Thursday when the Lord picked up a towel and got a basin of water. He is the true Lord and we are not worthy of His care.

[Ciexyz]

Here’s wishing a blessed Easter week to all celebrating.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: So, it comes from the 7th century, and might be quoting works from 170 to 400

Well, I think we shouldn’t stop here. The next question to ask is are the works quoted in 170 AD FROM THAT ERA, or were they quoting from even earlier sources?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Amen, Falconspeed.

[daniel1212]

And the same authority of the "sensus fidelium" --- "big-T Tradition," the actual practice of the actual churches of Asia, Africa and Europe--- which gave us the Canon of Scripture, gave us also the Sacraments, praying for the dead, praying with the Saints in Heaven, veneration for Beata Maria Semper Virgineand other beliefs and practices still carried on by over a billion Christians to the present day

Your logic, once again, is fallacious, as simply because the NT became correctly established - as testified to by its enduring near universal acceptance - does not support the premise that all else that is attributed to tradition - as magisterially defined by Rome - is correct. If so then we must concur with all Jewish tradition that was held by those who sat in the seat of Moses. Such traditions of Rome as you list are invalid like as so many Jewish ones are.

Moreover, "the sense of the faithful" for Rome can mean making a binding belief out of something that is so critically lacking evidence that it was an early belief of tradition that her own scholars opposed it as being apostolic tradition, but which presumption, over 1700 years after the alleged even occurred, is justified under the premise that Rome can remember what history "forgot" to record and preserve.

Thus once again, your attempts to promote Rome are an argument against her. Repent.

[boatbums]

I’ve read that the entire New Testament could be compiled from the numerous and accurate quotations and citings from the writings of the church leaders called the Early Church Fathers.

[boatbums]

They were also written on papyrus.

The word papyrus /pəˈpaɪrəs/ refers to a thick type of paper made from the pith of the papyrus plant, Cyperus papyrus.[1] Papyrus can also refer to a document written on sheets of papyrus joined together side by side and rolled up into a scroll, an early form of a book. The plural for such documents is papyri.

An official letter on a papyrus of the 3rd century BC Papyrus is first known to have been used in ancient Egypt (at least as far back as the First Dynasty), as the Cyperus papyrus plant was a wetland sedge that was once abundant in the Sudd of Southern Sudan along with the Nile Delta of Egypt. Papyrus was also used throughout the Mediterranean region and in Kingdom of Kush. The Ancient Egyptians used papyrus as a writing material,[2] as well as employing it commonly in the construction of other artifacts such as reed boats, mats, rope, sandals, and baskets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

[fidelis]

Papyrus was used for scrolls, but later on vellum was used for codexes (which were constructed more like modern books), such as that which the Muratorian Fragment came from.