The Muratorian fragment and the development of the Canon
The traditional consensus that the New Testament Canon was formed by the end of the second century has been weakened by the results of modern studies. The traditional viewpoint now depends primarily upon the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., in his argument for a revision of the history of the Christian Canon, has called for the redating of the Muratorian Fragment. Through a careful analysis of the Fragment's traditional dating, and of its place within the history of the Canon, this study will confirm Sundberg's theory. The second century date of the Fragment is ultimately dependent upon the simple Latin phrase, nuperrime temporibus nostris, within a series of references to The Shepherd of Hermas. Sundberg has attempted to broaden the common interpretation of this phrase, but the commonly held interpretation is dubious in itself because of the known poor transcription and the suspected careless translation of the Fragment, and because the other references to The Shepherd are erroneous and late. No other references within the Fragment support a conclusive second century date. Within the history of the Christian Canon, the Fragment, if traditionally dated, is a serious anomaly in
Hahneman, Geoffrey Mark
Canon
The Muratorian fragment and the development of the Canon. The traditional consensus that the New Testament Canon was formed by the end of the second century has been weakened by the results of modern studies. The traditional viewpoint now depends primarily upon the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., in his argument for a revision of the history of the Christian Canon, has called for the redating of the Muratorian Fragment. Through a careful analysis of the Fragment's traditional dating, and of its place within the history of the Canon, this study will confirm Sundberg's theory. The second century date of the Fragment is ultimately dependent upon the simple Latin phrase, nuperrime temporibus nostris, within a series of references to The Shepherd of Hermas. Sundberg has attempted to broaden the common interpretation of this phrase, but the commonly held interpretation is dubious in itself because of the known poor transcription and the suspected careless translation of the Fragment, and because the other references to The Shepherd are erroneous and late. No other references within the Fragment support a conclusive second century date. Within the history of the Christian Canon, the Fragment, if traditionally dated, is a serious anomaly in
fragment development canon traditional consensus new testament canon form end weaken modern study traditional viewpoint depend primarily upon evidence fragment argument revision history christian canon call fragment careful_analysis fragment traditional dating place_within history canon study confirm theory date fragment ultimately dependent_upon simple latin phrase within series reference attempt broaden common interpretation phrase commonly_hold interpretation dubious know poor transcription suspect translation fragment reference erroneous late reference within fragment support conclusive date within history christian canon fragment traditionally date serious anomaly