Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14499
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post 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.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1456
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post 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.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 14499
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post 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.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jun 13, 2022 2:31 pm 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.
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
perseusomega9
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post 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 cRIDDLE
see riddle? Hmmm :popcorn:
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1456
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post 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).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2000
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fourth Century Fake?

Post 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
Post Reply