The Muratorian Fragment

The Muratorian Fragment is a short Latin document, eighty-five lines long, that lists the books of the New Testament accepted by its author’s church and comments briefly on each. It survives in a single manuscript of the seventh or eighth century in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana at Milan, and it takes its name from the Italian scholar Ludovico Antonio Muratori, who found it there and published it in 1740. The beginning is lost, and the text opens in the middle of a sentence about the Gospel of Mark. The Latin is poor, and the copyist careless, so that many passages are obscure. Yet the fragment has been at the centre of the study of the New Testament canon for nearly three centuries, because on the most common view it is the oldest surviving list of New Testament books, written at Rome in the late second century. That view has been challenged since the 1970s by scholars who date it to the fourth century, and the debate is not settled. This article describes the manuscript and its discovery, the contents of the list, its strange and interesting judgments, the arguments over its date and origin, and its significance for the history of the Christian Bible.¹²³

The Manuscript

The manuscript that contains the fragment is a modest book. It is a codex of seventy-six leaves of coarse parchment, written in an uncial script of a kind used in northern Italy in the seventh and eighth centuries, and it is a miscellany of theological texts. It includes extracts from Ambrose, Eucherius of Lyons and John Chrysostom, several creeds and a treatise on the Trinity. The list of New Testament books occupies two leaves near the beginning, between two works of Eucherius. There is no title and no attribution. Nothing in the surrounding texts explains why the copyist included it.⁴⁵

The book came from the monastery of Bobbio in the Apennines south of Piacenza, founded by the Irish missionary Columbanus in 614. Bobbio built up one of the greatest libraries of early medieval Europe, and many of its manuscripts passed in the early seventeenth century to the new Ambrosian Library at Milan, founded by Cardinal Federico Borromeo. The Ambrosiana opened to readers in 1609 and became one of the first public libraries of Europe. Its collection of Bobbio manuscripts includes some of the oldest Latin books in existence, and it was among these that the fragment lay.⁶⁷

The copyist was not skilled. The text is full of misspellings, confused grammar and repeated words. In two places the copyist wrote the same passage twice, and comparison of the two versions shows how much he altered as he went. The Latin itself is of a late and vulgar kind, with forms and constructions that a classical writer would not have used. Most scholars have concluded that the text is a translation from Greek, made by someone with an imperfect command of Latin, and then copied by someone with an imperfect command of the translation. Many sentences can be understood only by guessing at what the Greek might have said.⁸⁹¹⁰

Muratori and the Discovery

Ludovico Antonio Muratori was born in 1672 at Vignola near Modena and became one of the founders of modern historical scholarship in Italy. As a young priest he was appointed to the staff of the Ambrosian Library in 1695, and he spent several years cataloguing and studying its manuscripts before returning to Modena in 1700 as librarian and archivist to the Duke of Modena. He held that post for the rest of his life. His great collections of sources for medieval Italian history, the Rerum Italicarum Scriptores and the Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, remain basic works of reference, and he was in correspondence with most of the learned men of Europe.¹¹¹²

Muratori found the list during his years at the Ambrosiana and published it four decades later, in the third volume of his Antiquitates, issued in 1740. He included it in a dissertation on the literary culture of the early Middle Ages, and he presented it as an example of the kind of ancient material that medieval copyists had preserved. He recognised that the list was early, because of its reference to the Shepherd of Hermas as a recent work, and he suggested that it might have been written by the Roman presbyter Gaius, who was active around 200. He also commented, with some severity, on the barbarous Latin of the copy. His publication brought the text to the attention of scholars, though its full importance was not appreciated for another two generations.¹³¹⁴

In the nineteenth century the fragment became the subject of intense study, above all in Germany and England. The theologian Johann Leonhard Hug drew attention to it in his introduction to the New Testament, and from the 1840s onwards it was discussed in every account of the history of the canon. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, the English textual critic, published a careful edition in 1867 with a facsimile of the manuscript, and Theodor Zahn devoted a long study to it in his history of the canon in 1890. Hans Lietzmann’s small edition of 1902, designed for students, made the text easily accessible and is still used.¹⁵¹⁶¹⁷

At the end of the nineteenth century four short passages of the same text were identified in manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries at Monte Cassino, embedded in a medieval collection of prologues to the letters of Paul. These passages are copies of parts of the fragment’s comments on Paul’s letters, and they are written in better Latin than the Milan manuscript. They show that the text circulated in the Middle Ages beyond Bobbio, and they help in correcting some of the errors of the Milan copy. They do not, however, supply the missing beginning.¹⁸¹⁹²⁰

The Gospels

The fragment opens with the last words of a sentence that seems to concern the Gospel of Mark: at which, however, he was present, and so he set them down. The words probably refer to the tradition, recorded by Papias in the early second century, that Mark wrote down the preaching of Peter, being present at some events and not at others. What came before is lost. Presumably the fragment began with a short notice on Matthew and a fuller one on Mark, of which only the last line remains.²¹²²

The fragment then describes Luke as the third book of the Gospel. Luke, it says, was a physician who, after the ascension of Christ, was taken by Paul as a companion, and he wrote in his own name according to what he had heard, for he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh. He began his account with the birth of John. The emphasis on Luke’s dependence on others, and on his connection with Paul, reflects the concern of second-century writers to show that each Gospel rested on apostolic testimony even if its author was not himself an apostle.²³²⁴

The notice on John, the fourth Gospel, is the longest passage in the fragment. It tells a story: when his fellow disciples and bishops urged him to write, John said to them, fast with me for three days, and let us tell one another whatever is revealed to each. That same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should write everything in his own name, and all should review it. The fragment draws the conclusion that, although the Gospels begin differently, this makes no difference to the faith of believers, since all things in all of them are declared by one sovereign Spirit: the birth, the passion, the resurrection, the conversation with the disciples and the two comings of Christ. It then quotes the opening of the First Letter of John to show that John was an eyewitness.²⁵²⁶

This passage reveals one of the central concerns of the author. The differences between the four Gospels were a well-known difficulty in the second century. Pagan critics such as Celsus made use of them, and some Christians tried to solve the problem by using only one Gospel, as Marcion did, or by combining the four into one, as Tatian did in his Diatessaron. The fragment, like Irenaeus in the same period, insists that there are four Gospels, that they differ only in their starting points and arrangement, and that the same Spirit speaks through them all. The story of John and Andrew is designed to give the fourth Gospel, which differed most from the others, the authority of the whole apostolic company.²⁷²⁸²⁹

Acts and the Letters of Paul

The fragment says that the Acts of all the Apostles were written by Luke in one book for the most excellent Theophilus, and that Luke included only what took place in his presence. As evidence, the author points out that Acts does not record the martyrdom of Peter or Paul’s journey from Rome to Spain. The remark about Spain is interesting, because Paul’s intention to go to Spain is mentioned in his letter to the Romans, and a tradition that he actually went there is found in the First Letter of Clement and in the apocryphal Acts of Peter. The fragment seems to know this tradition and to treat it as fact.³⁰³¹

Paul’s letters are then discussed in a long and somewhat confused passage. The author says that Paul wrote to seven churches, following the pattern of his predecessor John, who also wrote to seven churches in the Apocalypse. The seven churches are listed: Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians and Romans. The order is unusual and has provoked much discussion. The author adds that Paul wrote twice to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, for their correction, but that one church is recognised as being spread throughout the whole world, for John too, though he wrote to seven churches, speaks to all. The number seven is thus a sign of universality.³²³³

The fragment also accepts four letters to individuals: one to Philemon, one to Titus and two to Timothy. These were written, it says, out of personal affection, but they are held sacred in the esteem of the catholic church for the ordering of church discipline. The total of thirteen letters corresponds to the collection of Paul’s letters as it was generally received in the late second century. The Letter to the Hebrews is not mentioned, either among Paul’s letters or elsewhere in the list.³⁴³⁵

Forgeries in Paul's Name

The fragment then rejects two letters circulating under Paul’s name: one to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in the name of Paul to further the heresy of Marcion. There are also several others, it says, which cannot be received in the catholic church, for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The image of gall and honey is the fragment’s most memorable phrase, and it expresses vividly the author’s concern to keep the genuine writings separate from the false.³⁶³⁷

The reference to a Marcionite letter to the Laodiceans is puzzling. Marcion, the second-century teacher from Pontus who rejected the Old Testament and its God, compiled a canon of his own consisting of a version of Luke and ten letters of Paul. In his collection the letter known to other Christians as Ephesians was called the letter to the Laodiceans. It is possible that the fragment refers to this. A short Latin letter to the Laodiceans, composed from phrases of Paul’s genuine letters, also circulated widely in the Latin church and was included in many medieval Latin Bibles, but it shows no sign of Marcionite doctrine. Nothing is known of a letter to the Alexandrians.³⁸³⁹⁴⁰

The Catholic Letters and Wisdom

After Paul the fragment mentions the Letter of Jude and two letters of the John mentioned above, which are received in the catholic church. It is not clear which two letters of John are meant. The author had already quoted the First Letter of John in connection with the Gospel, and some scholars think that the two letters accepted here are the second and third, so that all three were in fact accepted. Others think that only the first and second were known. The Letter of James and the two letters of Peter are not mentioned at all, although the fragment may have discussed First Peter in a passage now lost through the corruption of the text.⁴¹⁴²⁴³

In the same sentence the fragment mentions the Wisdom of Solomon, written by friends of Solomon in his honour. It is surprising to find a book of the Greek Old Testament in a list of New Testament writings. Some scholars have argued that the translator misread a Greek phrase meaning written by Philo as one meaning written by friends, since a tradition attributing the Wisdom of Solomon to Philo of Alexandria is mentioned later by Jerome. Others suggest that the book’s presence reflects its wide use in the early church, which made it seem natural to list it among the books read in Christian worship.⁴⁴⁴⁵

The Apocalypses

The fragment accepts two apocalypses: we receive only the Apocalypses of John and of Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. The Apocalypse of Peter, written in the first half of the second century, contains a vivid description of the punishments of the damned and the rewards of the righteous, and it was widely read in the early church. It is quoted by Clement of Alexandria as scripture, and it appears in the list of the Codex Claromontanus, a sixth-century manuscript that preserves an earlier list of biblical books. Eusebius in the fourth century classed it among the spurious books. Its acceptance in the fragment, with the note that some disputed it, shows that the boundary of the canon was still uncertain.⁴⁶⁴⁷⁴⁸

The Apocalypse of John, on the other hand, is accepted without reservation. This reflects the situation in the West, where the book was generally received from an early date. In the East its authority was questioned in the third century by Dionysius of Alexandria, who argued on grounds of style that it was not written by the author of the Gospel, and it remained disputed in parts of the Greek and Syriac churches for centuries. The fragment’s unquestioning acceptance of it has been taken as one of the indications of its Western origin.⁴⁹⁵⁰

The Shepherd of Hermas

The most famous passage in the fragment concerns the Shepherd of Hermas, a long work of visions, commandments and parables that was immensely popular in the early church. The fragment says that Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius occupied the chair of the church of the city of Rome. 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.⁵¹⁵²

This passage has two kinds of importance. First, it gives a reason for excluding a book from public reading that is expressly historical: the Shepherd is too recent. The age of prophecy and the age of the apostles are closed, and a book written after them, however edifying, cannot stand with them. This is one of the clearest early statements of the principle that canonical books must belong to the apostolic period. Second, the passage provides the main evidence for the date of the fragment. Pius was bishop of Rome from about 140 to about 155. If the author is speaking literally when he says very recently, in our own times, he must have been writing not long after the middle of the second century, and the conventional date of about 170 to 200 rests on this.⁵³⁵⁴

The Shepherd was not excluded everywhere. It was copied in the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century after the books of the New Testament, together with the Letter of Barnabas. Irenaeus quoted it as scripture, and Clement of Alexandria and Origen valued it highly. Tertullian, after he joined the Montanists, scorned it as the shepherd of adulterers because of its teaching that a second repentance after baptism was possible. The fragment’s position, that it may be read privately but not in church, stands between these extremes and corresponds to the view later expressed by Athanasius, who listed it among books useful for instruction but not canonical.⁵⁵⁵⁶⁵⁷

The Heretics

The last lines of the fragment reject the writings of several heretics: we accept nothing at all of Arsinous, also called Valentinus, or of Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians. The text is badly corrupted, and the names appear to have been confused by the copyist. Valentinus and Basilides were well-known Gnostic teachers of the second century. Marcion was the founder of the Marcionite church. The Cataphrygians were the followers of Montanus, the prophet from Phrygia whose movement, later called Montanism, claimed new revelations of the Spirit. Arsinous and Miltiades are not otherwise clearly identified, although a Miltiades is mentioned by Eusebius as an opponent, not a follower, of the Montanists.^58596061

The list of heretics is consistent with a date in the late second century, when Valentinians, Marcionites and Montanists were the principal rivals of the catholic church. It is less obviously consistent with a fourth-century date, when the main controversies concerned the Trinity and the Arians, although writers of that period still condemned the older heresies. Supporters of both dates have used this passage in their arguments.⁶²⁶³

What the Fragment Omits

The books not mentioned in the fragment are as interesting as those included. Hebrews, James and the two letters of Peter are absent, as is one of the letters of John. These books were among those whose status remained uncertain in the third and fourth centuries. Eusebius listed James, Jude, Second Peter and Second and Third John among the disputed books, and noted that some rejected Hebrews because the Roman church denied it was by Paul. The omission of Hebrews from the fragment fits with what is known of Roman opinion in the second and third centuries, when Hebrews was valued but not regarded as Pauline.⁶⁴⁶⁵⁶⁶

Some of the omissions may be accidental. The text is so corrupt that passages may have been lost in copying. The absence of First Peter, which was widely accepted in the second century, is particularly surprising, and several scholars have suggested emendations that would restore it. A passage in the discussion of the apocalypses, where the copyist seems to have garbled the text, has been read by some as a reference to Peter’s letters. None of these suggestions has won general acceptance.⁶⁷⁶⁸

The Traditional Date and the Question of Authorship

From Muratori onwards, most scholars dated the fragment to the late second century and placed it at Rome. The arguments were the reference to Hermas and Pius, the description of Rome as the city, the treatment of the Apocalypse of John and Hebrews, the list of heretics, and the general character of the list, which seemed to belong to a period when the canon was still being formed. On this view, the fragment is a document of the same period as Irenaeus’ great work against heresies, written about 180, and it shows the Roman church formulating its list of authoritative books at the same time as Irenaeus was defending the four Gospels in Gaul.⁶⁹⁷⁰⁷¹

Many authors have been proposed. Muratori suggested Gaius. In the nineteenth century J. B. Lightfoot argued for Hippolytus of Rome, the prolific theologian of the early third century, and suggested that the list had originally been written in Greek verse. Theodor Zahn also favoured Hippolytus, as did several others. Other candidates have included Papias, Hegesippus, Melito of Sardis, Rhodon and Victor of Rome. None of these suggestions rests on solid evidence, and most scholars today regard the author as unknown. The original was presumably in Greek, the language of the Roman church until the third century.⁷²⁷³⁷⁴

The Fourth-Century Challenge

In 1973 the American scholar Albert C. Sundberg Jr. published an article in the Harvard Theological Review entitled Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List. Sundberg argued that the traditional date rested almost entirely on the reference to Hermas and Pius, and that this reference could be understood differently. The words very recently, in our own times, might mean simply in the post-apostolic period, as opposed to the time of the apostles. If so, they give no precise date. Sundberg further argued that lists of canonical books of this type are characteristic of the fourth century, when such lists were drawn up by Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius and others, and that a list of this kind in the second century would be an anomaly. He proposed an Eastern origin in the fourth century, perhaps in Syria or Palestine.⁷⁵

Sundberg’s argument was developed at length by Geoffrey Mark Hahneman in his Oxford doctoral thesis, published in 1992 as The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Hahneman examined each element of the fragment and argued that it fitted better in the fourth century than in the second. He pointed to the acceptance of the Wisdom of Solomon, to the treatment of the Shepherd, which was still regarded as scripture by many in the late second century, to the rejection of the Apocalypse of Peter by some, and to the list of heretics. He noted that no other writer of the second century refers to the fragment or to a list of this kind, and that the closest parallels to its form are fourth-century Eastern lists.⁷⁶

The fourth-century date has been strongly contested. Everett Ferguson, in an article of 1982, replied to Sundberg, arguing that the reference to Hermas must be taken literally and that the fragment’s concerns are those of the second century. Charles Hill, in a review of Hahneman’s book in 1995, argued that the fourth-century theory required too many special explanations and that the evidence still favoured the traditional date. Joseph Verheyden, in a long and careful study of 2003, examined all the arguments and concluded that the case for a fourth-century date had not been made and that the late second or early third century remained the most likely. Other scholars, such as Lee Martin McDonald, have found the arguments for a later date persuasive or at least serious enough to make the traditional date uncertain.^77787980

In 2022 Clare Rothschild published a new edition and commentary that went further. She argued that the fragment was a deliberate fiction composed in the fourth century and designed to appear as a second-century document, so as to give an archaic authority to a contemporary list. On this view, the reference to Hermas and Pius is a device to create an impression of antiquity. The suggestion is provocative and has stimulated discussion. Most scholars continue to regard the fragment as a genuine early document, but the debate shows that its date cannot simply be assumed.⁸¹

The fragment’s language has also been examined for clues to its origin. Scholars who favour a Roman origin have pointed to expressions that seem to reflect Roman church usage, such as the reference to the chair of the church of the city of Rome, and to the treatment of Rome simply as the city. Those who favour an Eastern origin have argued that the Greek original, as far as it can be reconstructed, resembles the language of fourth-century Eastern lists. Attempts have been made to retranslate the whole text into Greek, and Lightfoot even suggested that the original had been composed in verse. None of these reconstructions has proved decisive, because the Latin is so corrupt that almost any Greek original can be imagined behind it.⁸²⁸³⁸⁴

Why the Date Matters

The date of the fragment matters because of its place in the story of the canon. If it was written at Rome around 180, it shows that by that time the church there had a clear idea of which books belonged to the New Testament, which were disputed and which were excluded, and that it could give reasons for its decisions. The canon, on this view, was substantially formed in the second century, in the generation of Irenaeus, and the later fourth-century lists only confirmed and refined what had already been decided. If the fragment belongs to the fourth century, this evidence disappears, and the formation of a closed list of New Testament books appears as a later development, the work of the fourth-century church.⁸⁵⁸⁶⁸⁷

The difference should not be exaggerated. Even on the traditional date, the fragment shows that the boundary of the canon was not yet fixed: the Apocalypse of Peter was accepted but disputed, the Wisdom of Solomon was included, and several books later accepted were not mentioned. Even on the later date, it remains true that the core of the New Testament, the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, was accepted throughout the church by the end of the second century, as Irenaeus and other writers show. The fragment’s date affects the interpretation of the process rather than its broad outlines.⁸⁸⁸⁹

The Criteria of the Fragment

Whatever its date, the fragment is valuable for what it reveals about the reasons for which books were accepted or rejected. The author appeals to several criteria. The first is apostolic origin: the Gospels rest on the testimony of apostles or their companions, and the letters of Paul and John are accepted as theirs. The second is the period of composition: the Shepherd is excluded from public reading because it was written after the apostles. The third is orthodoxy: the forged letters of Paul and the books of the heretics are rejected because they promote false teaching. The fourth is the practice of the catholic church: books are accepted because they are received in the church and read publicly.⁹⁰⁹¹

These criteria are not applied mechanically. The Wisdom of Solomon is accepted though it was not written by an apostle, and the Apocalypse of Peter is accepted though it was disputed. The fragment shows a church weighing tradition, use and doctrine together, rather than applying a single test. This is consistent with what is known of the development of the canon from other sources, in which the use of books in worship and their acceptance by the major churches played as large a part as arguments about authorship.⁹²⁹³

The Fragment and the Latin Bible

The Latin translation of the fragment, whatever its date, was made in a period when Latin Christians were developing their own Bible. The Old Latin translations of the New Testament were made in the second and third centuries in Africa and Italy, and they were gradually replaced by Jerome’s revision in the fifth and following centuries. The fragment’s Latin shows signs of having been made in the period of the Old Latin versions or soon after, and its preservation in an Italian monastery of the seventh or eighth century reflects the continued interest of Latin scholars in questions of canon.⁹⁴⁹⁵⁹⁶

In the medieval Latin church the canon was settled, and the fragment had no practical importance. That it was copied at Bobbio, and that parts of it were included in prologues to Paul’s letters at Monte Cassino, suggests that it was read as an ancient witness to the authority of the books, rather than as a guide to which books to accept. Its rediscovery in the eighteenth century came at a time when the history of the canon was a subject of controversy between Catholics and Protestants, and between orthodox scholars and their critics, and it was quickly drawn into those debates.⁹⁷⁹⁸

The Fragment and the Manuscripts

The fragment’s list may be compared with the contents of the great early manuscripts of the Bible. The papyri of the second and third centuries show that the four Gospels and the letters of Paul were already being copied in collected forms. The Chester Beatty papyri include a codex of the four Gospels and Acts and another of Paul’s letters, in which Hebrews is placed among the letters of Paul after Romans. The Bodmer papyri include copies of Luke and John. The fourth-century codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, and the fifth-century Alexandrinus, contain complete or nearly complete New Testaments, and Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus include additional books: Barnabas and Hermas in the one, the two letters of Clement in the other. These manuscripts show that the boundary of the New Testament was still somewhat fluid in the fourth and fifth centuries, as the fragment suggests it had been earlier.^{99100101102103}

The papyri also show the use of the Gospels in the period to which the fragment is traditionally dated. The small fragment of John in the John Rylands Library, often dated to the first half of the second century, shows that the Gospel was circulating in Egypt by the time the fragment’s author was writing about its composition. The evidence of the papyri therefore confirms the fragment’s picture of a church in which the four Gospels were already established, while other books remained in question.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁵

Assessment

The Muratorian Fragment is a document of extraordinary interest preserved in a manuscript of extraordinary poverty. Its eighty-five lines, copied by a careless scribe from a poor translation of a lost Greek original, contain the oldest surviving discussion of the books of the New Testament as a group, with reasons given for their acceptance or rejection. They preserve traditions about the origins of the Gospels, the story of John and Andrew, the image of gall and honey, and the judgment on Hermas that has made the fragment famous.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁷

The debate about its date has made it a test case for the history of the canon. Those who regard the canon as substantially formed in the second century see the fragment as their chief witness. Those who regard it as a fourth-century development see the fragment either as a fourth-century document or as an isolated and unrepresentative early list. The evidence does not allow certainty. The majority of specialists still favour a date in the late second or early third century, but the arguments for a later date have made scholars more cautious than they once were.^108109110

What is not in doubt is the fragment’s value as evidence of how early Christians thought about their scriptures. It shows them distinguishing between books read in church and books read privately, between the age of the apostles and their own time, between genuine and forged writings, and between the teaching of the catholic church and that of the heretics. These distinctions, worked out over several centuries, shaped the New Testament as it has come down to the present day, and the Muratorian Fragment, whatever its date, remains one of the most vivid witnesses to the process.^111112113

Notes

1. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, vol. 3 (Milan: Typographia Societatis Palatinae, 1740), Dissertatio XLIII. ↩
2. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
3. Grokipedia, “Muratorian fragment”. ↩
4. Grokipedia, “Muratorian fragment”. ↩
5. Grokipedia, “Biblioteca Ambrosiana”. ↩
6. Grokipedia, “Bobbio Abbey”. ↩
7. Grokipedia, “Biblioteca Ambrosiana”. ↩
8. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867). ↩
9. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
10. Hans Lietzmann, ed., Das Muratorische Fragment und die monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien, Kleine Texte 1 (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1902). ↩
11. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, vol. 3 (Milan: Typographia Societatis Palatinae, 1740), Dissertatio XLIII. ↩
12. Grokipedia, “Muratorian fragment”. ↩
13. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, vol. 3 (Milan: Typographia Societatis Palatinae, 1740), Dissertatio XLIII. ↩
14. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
15. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867). ↩
16. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. 2 (Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert, 1890). ↩
17. Hans Lietzmann, ed., Das Muratorische Fragment und die monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien, Kleine Texte 1 (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1902). ↩
18. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
19. Grokipedia, “Monte Cassino”. ↩
20. Hans Lietzmann, ed., Das Muratorische Fragment und die monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien, Kleine Texte 1 (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1902). ↩
21. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
22. Grokipedia, “Muratorian fragment”. ↩
23. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
24. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867). ↩
25. Grokipedia, “Gospel of John”. ↩
26. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
27. Grokipedia, “Irenaeus”. ↩
28. See also “Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Harmony of the Gospels” on this site. ↩
29. Grokipedia, “Marcion of Sinope”. ↩
30. Grokipedia, “Acts of the Apostles”. ↩
31. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
32. Grokipedia, “Pauline epistles”. ↩
33. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
34. Grokipedia, “Pauline epistles”. ↩
35. Grokipedia, “Epistle to the Hebrews”. ↩
36. Grokipedia, “Epistle to the Laodiceans”. ↩
37. Grokipedia, “Marcion of Sinope”. ↩
38. Grokipedia, “Marcion of Sinope”. ↩
39. Grokipedia, “Epistle to the Laodiceans”. ↩
40. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
41. Grokipedia, “Epistle of Jude”. ↩
42. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
43. Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007). ↩
44. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
45. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus: The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1867). ↩
46. Grokipedia, “Apocalypse of Peter”. ↩
47. Grokipedia, “Book of Revelation”. ↩
48. Grokipedia, “Eusebius”. ↩
49. Grokipedia, “Book of Revelation”. ↩
50. Grokipedia, “Antilegomena”. ↩
51. Grokipedia, “Pope Pius I”. ↩
52. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
53. Grokipedia, “Pope Pius I”. ↩
54. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). ↩
55. See also “Codex Sinaiticus and the Sinai Manuscript Tradition” on this site. ↩
56. Grokipedia, “Athanasius of Alexandria”. ↩
57. Grokipedia, “Montanism”. ↩
58. Grokipedia, “Valentinus (Gnostic)”. ↩
59. Grokipedia, “Basilides”. ↩
60. Grokipedia, “Marcion of Sinope”. ↩
61. Grokipedia, “Montanism”. ↩
62. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). ↩
63. Everett Ferguson, “Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance,” Studia Patristica 17.2 (1982): 677–83. ↩
64. Grokipedia, “Eusebius”. ↩
65. Grokipedia, “Antilegomena”. ↩
66. Grokipedia, “Epistle to the Hebrews”. ↩
67. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
68. Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk Jan de Jonge, BETL 163 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 487–556. ↩
69. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
70. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). ↩
71. Grokipedia, “Irenaeus”. ↩
72. Grokipedia, “Hippolytus of Rome”. ↩
73. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. 2 (Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert, 1890). ↩
74. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
75. Albert C. Sundberg Jr., “Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List,” Harvard Theological Review 66 (1973): 1–41. ↩
76. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). ↩
77. Everett Ferguson, “Canon Muratori: Date and Provenance,” Studia Patristica 17.2 (1982): 677–83. ↩
78. Charles E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon,” Westminster Theological Journal 57 (1995): 437–52. ↩
79. Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk Jan de Jonge, BETL 163 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 487–556. ↩
80. Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007). ↩
81. Clare K. Rothschild, The Muratorian Fragment: Text, Translation, Commentary, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022). ↩
82. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
83. Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk Jan de Jonge, BETL 163 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 487–556. ↩
84. Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. 2 (Erlangen and Leipzig: Deichert, 1890). ↩
85. Grokipedia, “Development of the New Testament canon”. ↩
86. Grokipedia, “Biblical canon”. ↩
87. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
88. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). ↩
89. Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007). ↩
90. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
91. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). ↩
92. Grokipedia, “Development of the New Testament canon”. ↩
93. Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007). ↩
94. See also “The Vetus Latina and the First Latin Bibles” on this site. ↩
95. See also “The Latin Vulgate and Jerome’s Translation of the Bible” on this site. ↩
96. Hans Lietzmann, ed., Das Muratorische Fragment und die monarchianischen Prologe zu den Evangelien, Kleine Texte 1 (Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1902). ↩
97. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi, vol. 3 (Milan: Typographia Societatis Palatinae, 1740), Dissertatio XLIII. ↩
98. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
99. See also “The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri” on this site. ↩
100. See also “The Bodmer Papyri and the Earliest New Testament Codices” on this site. ↩
101. See also “Codex Sinaiticus and the Sinai Manuscript Tradition” on this site. ↩
102. See also “Codex Vaticanus and the Oldest Large Bible” on this site. ↩
103. See also “Codex Alexandrinus and the Fifth-Century Bible” on this site. ↩
104. See also “P52: The Rylands Fragment of the Gospel of John” on this site. ↩
105. See also “The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri” on this site. ↩
106. Grokipedia, “Muratorian fragment”. ↩
107. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987). ↩
108. Joseph Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori: A Matter of Dispute,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. Jean-Marie Auwers and Henk Jan de Jonge, BETL 163 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 487–556. ↩
109. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). ↩
110. Clare K. Rothschild, The Muratorian Fragment: Text, Translation, Commentary, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022). ↩
111. Grokipedia, “Development of the New Testament canon”. ↩
112. Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985). ↩
113. Grokipedia, “Biblical canon”. ↩