The Muratorian Fragment

From Textus Receptus

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 13:52, 25 January 2015

last page of the Canon Muratori, as published by Tregelles 1868

The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columban's monastery at Bobbio; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century. Both the degraded condition of the manuscript and the poor Latin in which it was written have made it difficult to translate. The beginning of the fragment is missing, and it ends abruptly. The fragment consists of all that remains of a section of a list of all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its anonymous original compiler. It was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by Father Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), the most famous Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740.^[]

Characteristics

The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142—157), as recent:

But Hermas wrote The Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the 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 the Apostles, for it is after their time.

A few scholars<ref>Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. (Oxford: Clarendon) 1992. Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. "Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List" in Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 1–41.</ref> have also dated it as late as the 4th century, but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community. For more detail, see the article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Bruce Metzger has advocated the traditional dating.^[]

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the "Acts of all Apostles" and 13 of the Pauline Epistles (the Epistle to the Hebrews is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have Paul as author that are ostensibly addressed to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of Marcion."

Of the General epistles, the author accepts the Epistle of Jude and says that two epistles "bearing the name of John are counted in the Catholic Church", 1 and 2 Peter and James are not mentioned in the fragment. It is clear that the author assumed that the author of the Gospel of John was the same as the author of the First Epistle of John, for in the middle of discussing the Gospel of John he says "what marvel then is it that John brings forward these several things so constantly in his epistles also, saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled that have we written," (1 John 1:1) which is a quotation from the First Epistle of John. It is not clear whether the other epistle in question is 2 John or 3 John. Another indication that the author identified the Gospel writer John with two epistles bearing John's name is that when he specifically addresses the epistles of John, he writes, "the Epistle of Jude indeed, and the two belonging to the above mentioned John." In other words, he thinks that these letters were written by the John whom he has already discussed, namely John the gospel writer. He gives no indication that he considers the John of the Apocalypse to be a different John from the author of the Gospel of John; indeed, by calling the author of the Apocalypse of John the "predecessor" of Paul, who, he assumes, wrote to seven churches (Rev 2–3) before Paul wrote to seven churches, he most likely has in mind the gospel writer, since he assumes that the writer of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness disciple who knew Jesus, and thus preceded Paul, who joined the church only a few years after Jesus' death.^[]

In addition to receiving the Apocalypse of John into the church canon, the author remarks that they also receive the Apocalypse of Peter, although "some of us will not allow the latter to be read in church." However, it is not certain whether this refers to the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the quite different Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, the latter of which, unlike the former, was Gnostic. The author also includes the Book of Wisdom, "written by the friends of Solomon in his honour" in the canon.

Notes

Other sources

According to The Catholic Encyclopaedia, lines of the Muratorian fragment are preserved in "some other manuscripts", including codices of Paul's Epistles at the abbey of Monte Cassino.

External links

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[Image:Canon Muratori.png|thumb|right|last page of the Canon Muratori, as published by Tregelles 1868]]
-THE MURATORIAN CANON
+The '''Muratorian fragment''' is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the [[New Testament]]. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century [[Latin]] manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century [[codex]] from the library of [[Columban]]'s monastery at [[Bobbio]]; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a [[Greek language|Greek]] original written about 170 or as late as the [[Christianity in the 4th century#Defining scripture|4th century]]. Both the degraded condition of the manuscript and the poor Latin in which it was written have made it difficult to translate. The beginning of the fragment is missing, and it ends abruptly. The fragment consists of all that remains of a section of a list of all the works that were accepted as [[Biblical canon|canonical]] by the churches known to its anonymous original compiler. It was discovered in the [[Biblioteca Ambrosiana|Ambrosian Library]] in [[Milan]] by Father [[Ludovico Antonio Muratori]] (1672–1750), the most famous Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740.<sup>[]</sup>
-The following translation usually follows the amended text edited by Hans Lietzmann, Das Muratorische Fragment und die Monarchianischen Prologue zu den Evangelien (Kleine Texte, i; Bonn, 1902; 2nd ed., Berlin, 1933). Owing to the wretched state of the Latin text, it is sometimes difficult to know what the writer intended; several phrases, therefore, are provided with alternative renderings (enclosed within parentheses). Translational expansions are enclosed within square brackets. The numerals indicate the lines of the original text. For a discussion, see chap. VIII.1 above, where freer renderings are sometimes given in place of the following literalistic translation.
+== Characteristics ==
-. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]: concerning the (21) nativity, concerning the passion, concerning the resurrection, (22) concerning life with his disciples, (23) and concerning his twofold coming; (24) the first in lowliness when he was despised, which has taken place, (25) the second glorious in royal power, (26) which is still in the future. What (27) marvel is it then, if John so consistently (28) mentions these particular points also in his Epistles, (29) saying about himself, 'What we have seen with our eyes (30) and heard with our ears and our hands (31) have handled, these things we have written to you? [4] (32) For in this way he professes [himself] to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, (33) but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds of the Lord, in their order. (34) Moreover, the acts of all the apostles (35) were written in one book. For 'most excellent Theophilus' [5] Luke compiled (36) the individual events that took place in his presence — (37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] [5a] (39) when he journeyed to Spain. As for the Epistles of (40-1) Paul, they themselves make clear to those desiring to understand, which ones [they are], from what place, or for what reason they were sent. (42) First of all, to the Corinthians, prohibiting their heretical schisms; (43) next, [6] to the Galatians, against circumcision; (44-6) then to the Romans he wrote at length, explaining the order (or, plan) of the Scriptures, and also that Christ is their principle (or, main theme). [6a] It is necessary (47) for us to discuss these one by one, since the blessed (48) apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor (49-50) John, writes by name to only seven churches in the following sequence: To the Corinthians (51) first, to the Ephesians second, to the Philippians third, (52) to the Colossians fourth, to the Galatians fifth, (53) to the Thessalonians sixth, to the Romans (54-5) seventh. It is true that he writes once more to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians for the sake of admonition, (56-7) yet it is clearly recognizable that there is one Church spread throughout the whole extent of the earth. For John also in the (58) Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, (59-60) nevertheless speaks to all. [Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred (62-3) in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There is current also [an epistle] to (64) the Laodiceans, [6b] [and] another to the Alexandrians, [6c] [both] forged in Paul's (65) name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others (66) which cannot be received into the catholic Church (67)— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. (68) 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]; [7] and [the book of] Wisdom, (70) written by the friends [7a] of Solomon in his honour. (71) We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, (72) [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. (73) But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome. [7d] (77) And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but (78) it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among (79) the Prophets, whose number is complete, [8] or among (80) the Apostles, for it is after [their] time. (81) But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, (82) who also composed (83) a new book of psalms for Marcion, (84-5) together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians [8a] . . .
+The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to [[Pope Pius I|Pius I]], [[bishop of Rome]] (142—157), as recent:
+: But Hermas wrote [[The Shepherd of Hermas|''The Shepherd'']] very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the 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 the Apostles, for it is after their time.
-______________________
+A few scholars<ref>Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark. ''The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon.'' (Oxford: Clarendon) 1992. Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. "[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1509348 Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List]" in ''Harvard Theological Review'' '''66''' (1973): 1–41.</ref> have also dated it as late as the [[Christianity in the 4th century#Defining scripture|4th century]], but their arguments have not won widespread acceptance in the scholarly community. For more detail, see the article in the ''[[Anchor Bible Series#Anchor Bible Dictionary|Anchor Bible Dictionary]]''. [[Bruce Metzger]] has advocated the traditional dating.<sup>[]</sup>
-The meaning may be that Mark arranged the material of his Gospel in the order indicated by Peter, who was participant in the events narrated.
+The unidentified author accepts four [[Gospel]]s, the last two of which are [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] and [[Gospel of John|John]], but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Also accepted by the author are the "[[Acts of the Apostles|Acts of all Apostles]]" and 13 of the [[Pauline Epistles]] (the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] is not mentioned in the fragment). The author considers spurious the letters claiming to have [[Paul of Tarsus|Paul]] as author that are ostensibly addressed [[Epistle to the Laodiceans|to the Laodiceans]] and [[Epistle to the Alexandrians|to the Alexandrians]]. Of these he says they are "forged in Paul's name to [further] the heresy of [[Marcion]]."
-The reading of the Fragment, quasi ut uris studiosum, 'as so to speak, one zealous for (or, learned in) the law,' has been variously interpreted and/or emended. For example, Routh took iuris as translating του δικαιου, i.e. Luke was studious of righteousness; Buchanan replaced ut iuris with adiutorem, 'assistant'; Bartlet supposed that the translator read νοσου as νομου (Luke was 'a student of disease'); Zahn replaced ut iuris with itineris, thereby referring to Luke's readiness to accompany Paul on his journeys; Lietzmann conjectured litteris, i.e. Luke was well versed as an author. Harnack (Sitzungsberichte der königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [1903], p. 213) and Ehrhardt (op. cit.), who retain iuris studiosus of the Fragment, have pointed out that in technical language of Roman law this could refer to an assesor or legal expert who served on the staff of a Roman official. Although this title was current prior to the time of Justinian's Digest (published in 533) and so was available to the translator of the Fragment, it is anybody's guess what Greek phrase it represented—assuming, of course, that the Canon was drawn up originally in Greek (unfortunately no help is provided in David Magie, De Romanorum iuris publici sacrisque vocabulis sollemnibus in Graecum sermonem conversis [Leipzig, 1905]).
-   It is significant that the Latin text of the Fragment appears to have been a source for Chromace of Aquileia, who in his commentary on Matthew (written between 398 and 407) refers to Luke as follows: Dominum in carne non vidit, sed quia eruditissimus legis erat quippe qui comes Pauli apostoli ... (See Joseph Lemarie, 'Saint Chromace d'Aquilee temoin du Canon de Muratori,' Revue des etudes augustiniennes, xxiv [1978], pp. 101-2).
+Of the [[General epistles]], the author accepts the [[Epistle of Jude]] and says that two epistles "bearing the name of John are counted in the [[Catholic Church]]", [[First Epistle of Peter|1]] and [[Second Epistle of Peter|2 Peter]] and [[Epistle of James|James]] are not mentioned in the fragment. It is clear that the author assumed that the author of the Gospel of John was the same as the author of the First Epistle of John, for in the middle of discussing the Gospel of John he says "what marvel then is it that John brings forward these several things so constantly ''in his epistles also,'' saying in his own person, "What we have seen with our eyes and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled that have we written," (1 John 1:1) which is a  quotation from the [[First Epistle of John]]. It is not clear whether the other [[Epistles of John|epistle]] in question is [[2 John]] or [[3 John]].  Another indication that the author identified the Gospel writer John with two epistles bearing John's name is that when he specifically addresses the epistles of John, he writes, "the Epistle of Jude indeed, and the two belonging to ''the above mentioned John.''" In other words, he thinks that these letters were written by the John whom he has already discussed, namely John the gospel writer. He gives no indication that he considers the John of the Apocalypse to be a different John from the author of the Gospel of John; indeed, by calling the author of the [[Apocalypse of John]] the "predecessor" of Paul, who, he assumes, wrote to seven churches (Rev 2–3) before Paul wrote to seven churches, he most likely has in mind the gospel writer, since he assumes that the writer of the Gospel of John was an eyewitness disciple who knew Jesus, and thus preceded Paul, who joined the church only a few years after Jesus' death.<sup>[]</sup>
-Here ex opinione is taken as the equivalent of εξ ακοης. Others conjecture ex ordine, representing καθεξης ('orderly sequence.' Luke i.3).
-a Latin, principia. —M.D.M.
+In addition to receiving the [[Apocalypse of John]] into the church canon, the author remarks that they also receive the ''Apocalypse of Peter'', although "some of us will not allow the latter to be read in church." However, it is not certain whether this refers to the ''[[Apocalypse of Peter|Greek Apocalypse of Peter]]'' or the quite different ''[[Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter|Coptic Apocalypse of Peter]]'', the latter of which, unlike the former, was [[Gnostic]]. The author also includes the [[Book of Wisdom]], "written by the friends of [[Solomon]] in his honour" in the canon.
-b Latin, principali. —M.D.M.
-I John i.1-3.
+==Notes==
-Luke i.3.
-a That is, the city of Rome. This lack of specificity is one indication that the author was a Roman. —M.D.M.
-The letter 'b' in the Latin text before 'Galatians' may belong to 'Corinthians' (προς Κορινθιους Β').
+==Other sources==
-a Latin, principium. —M.D.M.
-b Tregelles writes, “It appears impossible to suppose that the cento of phrases from St. Paul’s genuine Epistles, often found in Latin MSS. under the name of Epistola ad Laodicenses, is here intended. … the writer seems to have intended the Epistle to the Ephesians, which Marcion altered, and to which he gave this name, either as part of his changes, or it may be from having obtained his copy of it from Laodicea.” (p. 47) —M.D.M.
+According to [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10642a.htm ''The Catholic Encyclopaedia''], lines of the Muratorian fragment are preserved in "some other manuscripts", including codices of Paul's Epistles at the abbey of [[Monte Cassino]].
-c Nothing is known of the Epistle to the Alexandrians mentioned here. —M.D.M.
-It may be, as Zahn (Geschichte, ii, 66) and others have supposed, that a negative has fallen out of the text here.
+==Further reading==
-a Tregelles suggests that the Latin translator of this document mistook the Greek Philonos "Philo" for philon "friends." Many in ancient times thought that the so-called "Wisdom of Solomon" was really written by Philo of Alexandria. —M.D.M.
+*[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce M.]], 1987. ''The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance''. (Clarendon Press. Oxford) ISBN 0-19-826954-4
-b The Apocalypse of Peter describes with some imaginative detail the torments of hell and the blessings of heaven. It was read with respect and used for admonition throughout the churches in early times. —M.D.M.
+* Jonathan J. Armstrong, "Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori," ''Vigiliae Christianae'', 62,1 (2008), pp 1–34.
-c The Shepherd of Hermas is another work widely read in early times. It is a kind of moral allegory, like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, but more impressive in that it purports to convey a series of divine revelations. —M.D.M.
+*''[[Anchor Bible Series#Anchor Bible Dictionary|Anchor Bible Dictionary]]''
-d This would be Pius I, bishop of Rome from about 142 to 157. —M.D.M.
+*Bruce, F.F. ''The Canon of Scripture.'' Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
-Perhaps the Fragmentist means that there are three major Prophets and twelve minor Prophets.
+*Verheyden, J., "The Canon Muratori: A Matter of dispute," Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (2003), The Biblical Canons, ed. by J.-M. Auwers & H. J. De Jonge, p.&nbsp;487–556.
-a The few words that follow this are unintelligible, and so the fragment practically ends here. —M.D.M.
+==External links==
+* [http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html Text of the Muratorian fragment.]
+* [http://www.ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml "The development of the canon of the New Testament"]: The Muratorian Canon
+* Henry Wace, [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.Muratorian_Fragment.html ''A Dictionary of Christian biography'']: Muratorian fragment
+*[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/muratorian.html Earlychristianwritings.com: Original and amended Latin and English translation of the Muratorian fragment.]
+*[http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/Muratorian.html Muratorian Fragment in the Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible]
+* C. E. Hill, [http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/fragment_hill.pdf “The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 57:2 (Fall 1995): 437–452](PDF)
+*[http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/MOS_NAN/MURATORI.html Encyclopædia Britannica: Muratori]
+{{DEFAULTSORT:Muratorian Fragment}}
+[[Category:7th-century biblical manuscripts]]
+[[Category:Christian biblical canon]]
+[[Category:2nd-century works]]

The Muratorian Fragment

From Textus Receptus

Revision as of 13:52, 25 January 2015

Contents

Characteristics

Notes

Other sources

Further reading

External links

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox