Page 1 of 1
Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:31 pm
by Secret Alias
https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/60/1 ... ml?lang=en
This paper argues that the Fragment represents an attempt to provide a venerable second-century precedent for a later position on canon.
Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:52 pm
by Leucius Charinus
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26566520
Closing para =
9th century fake?
If the Muratorian Fragment is a fake, then its appeal to Pius may not reflect an actual fourth-century tendency, but a fourth-century tendency cropping up later—in the eighth or ninth century when the codex in which it appears was copied. As such it would supplement the rapidly developing legacy of a centralised Roman papacy effective against opposition with the first formulation and institution of canon. [141]
[141] Notwithstanding Armstrong’s suggestion that the Fragment may have preceded a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (particularly as an imitation of the prologue to Origen’s Commentary on Matthew), it is possible that the Fragment represents the contents of a letter. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals contained numerous false letters from early popes. The Donation of Constantine is a forged letter from Constantine. In this case, the Muratorian Fragment would be part of a letter concerning early canon standards from a contemporary of Pius.
Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:56 am
by Secret Alias
The way you read things. I posted this with you in mind. You epitomize the 'give an inch take a mile' approach. No not the ninth century.
Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:30 am
by andrewcriddle
It is not
certain that the Muratonian Canon claims to be a c 200 CE work. The claim that the Shepherd of Hermas was written recently
possibly means recently compared to the Old Testament prophets not recently in the sense of within living memory.
Andrew cRIDDLE
Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2022 3:00 pm
by perseusomega9
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Jun 16, 2022 8:30 am
It is not
certain that the Muratonian Canon claims to be a c 200 CE work. The claim that the Shepherd of Hermas was written recently
possibly means recently compared to the Old Testament prophets not recently in the sense of within living memory.
Andrew c
RIDDLE
see riddle? Hmmm
Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:36 pm
by Leucius Charinus
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 6:56 am No not the ninth century.
But that's precisely what your cited source outlines as a terminus ad quem. What's so difficult about the proposition that the manuscript is the product of the 9th century Latin church industry? You don't know. IDK. Nobody knows for sure.
The classical method of literary source criticism therefore implies that a date range is to be deduced. From the earliest possible date (2nd century) to the latest possible date (9th century).
Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?
Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:47 am
by mlinssen
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:36 pm
The classical method of literary source criticism therefore implies that a date range is to be deduced. From the earliest possible date (2nd century) to the latest possible date (9th century).
I read the article, it's pretty good. 4th at the earliest is what the textual evidence suggests - everything else is just opinion based on hearsay and the house of cards of the dating game
Funny how these things just continue to happen with non-apocryphal texts, innit? Whereas nobody pays any attention to e.g. the utter absence of XS in Thomas, for instance - or the fact that his IHS has a superlinear that covers only the last 2 letters
Oh wait, now I'm doing textual criticism again - foolish me