Loading...One of the best ways to follow the proto-orthodox line of reasoning for what to include in the canon of the new testament is to consider the earliest surviving canonical list, a fragmentary text, subject to considerable debate in recent years, that is commonly known as the Muratorian Canon.
Here is what I say about it in my book Lost Christianities (Oxford University Press)
******************************
This “canon” is a list of books that its anonymous author considered to be part of the New Testament Scriptures. It is named for the eighteenth-century scholar, L. A. Muratori,. who discovered the manuscript that contains it in a library in Milan. Muratori published the manuscript in 1740, not so much to provide the world access to the documents it contained — principally treatises of several fourth- and fifth-century church fathers — but in order to show how sloppy copyists could be in the Middle Ages. In a treatise of Ambrose, for example, the scribe inadvertently copied
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Of all the texts I’d want to see preserved, it figures that the first two gospels are missing!
I’ve noticed this maddening pattern in manuscript discoveries: right at the exact moment when a text might finally say something decisive, it breaks off. I can think of several cases.. passages in the DSS where the community seems poised to name a figure who could help date and contextualize the group… Or the Gospel of Philip, where Jesus is about to kiss Mary… but where??!!
My suspicion is that Irenaeus depends on Papias for his attribution of Matthew and Mark (as an aside, I think he misunderstood Papias). I also think many later Christians inherit these attributions from Irenaeus and his (mis)reading of Papias.
However, I don’t think the Muratorian Fragment is dependent on Irenaeus. If Irenaeus is drawing on Papias, and both knew 1Peter, then I would expect the Muratorian canon to mention 1Peter.
I wonder if Irenaeus learned of Johannine authorship from the Roman community that supplied the names on the Muratorian Fragment. If so, then I desperately want to know what that same community said about the authorship of the first two Gospels.
But, alas.. such is life.
Dear Professor Ehrman,
Thank you very much for this. If Justin’s death is around 160s, we have a
chronology of this canon around 170s?
And another question. In a recent book arguing the pseudepigraphon of Paul’s letters,
I read that Ignatius, 1st Clement, Polycarp etc are now dated after Marcion – around 150-60s.
I find this incredible. Is there any truth to this opinion?
Thank you for your attention!
The Muratorian canon is usually dated to around 180-85, though there are some scholars who think it was actually from the fourth century.
No, 1 Clement must be dated sometime in the mid 90s; Ignatius is from about 110 or so. Polycarp was active in Ignatius’s day (Ignatius wrote one of his letters to him), but there are debates about when to date Polycarp’s own letter.
Do any of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers explain why later canon lists differ from the Muratorian list? Is there any reason to believe any of them were aware of the Muratorian list?
No, it is not mentioned in any ancient source. Then again, most other ancient Christian writings (outside the NT) aren’t either!
The thing that makes me think it’s fourth century is “cataphrygians” at the end. That term is unattested until the fourth century, then in the writings of Athanasius, Cyril of Jer, and Epiphanius. Seems like an anachronism in the second century. Also, the Vulgate order of the gospels seems more like IV century than II. Just my 2c.
In the feeding 5,000, the twelve baskets symbolize the twelve tribes, with the disciples commissioned to carry Jesus (the bread) to the scattered sheep. And the feeding of the 4,000 points to the Gentile world, with seven baskets symbolizing seven Gentile cities Joshua conquered.
What makes this intriguing is the Muratorian Canon counts Paul’s letters by the number of cities.. seven.. while also noting four letters to individuals. If fish symbolize people, as in “fishers of men,” this pattern may not be accidental.
This aligns with Paul’s account in Galatians, where the apostles agree to focus on Judea while Paul goes to the Gentiles. It raises the possibility that Paul’s letters (his “bread”) were intentionally limited to seven churches, like the author of Revelation.
While Paul didn’t belong to Rome, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that the compilers of his letters were working with a symbolic framework when shaping a Pauline collection. This may shed light on the disputed letters: if the collection fell short of a desired number of cities, later followers composed letters in Paul’s style to complete the symbolic total of seven.
It also explains the copiest errors- hard to keep up with symbolic numbers!
The author accepts Colossians, but rejects Laodiceans? Could this be the book referenced in Colossians 4, and possibly revelation 3? I wonder what his criteria for including or excluding books is.
Wisdom of Solomon made it into old testament for many churches?
Yes, we know of a couple of “epistles to the Laodiceans” allegedly by Paul (one can be found in many Latin manuscripts of the NT), and they were almost certainly motivated by the reference in Colossians 4. He is including Wisdom of Solomon, oddly enough, in the New Testament (not the Old)!
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Did ancent people have better memories? Well i dont think so they had no education, often had hunger and no medacine, but i heard that someone said that ancent people acctually had better memories.
People say that, but it just ain’t true. I talk about it a good bit in my book Jesus Before the Gospels (a book mainly about what we know about memory from psychology, sociology, and anthropology, and how it all relates to the ealry Christian Gospels)
Professor Ehrman,
Nothing to do with the subject, only I’ve got a question . Many people today are speaking of “deconstruction”, and I’m wondering what that actually means. Deconstruction is a term used by the french philosopher Jacques Derrida , concerning common lay affairs as well as theology,but by some other writers too ( Harvey Cox ?). Did you experience deconstruction yourself ? Would you please explain more about it ?
I know! Every time I hear the term I wonder if people know what it means. It’s a postmodernist term (yup: Derrida et al). BUT, it has become the term people use for “deconversion.” I don’t know who started it but it seems to be what people use these days.