Rothschild: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fake?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Rothschild: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fake?

Post by Secret Alias »

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... -fake.html

"Today scholarship has reached an impasse as to the origin of the well-known fragment published by L. A. Muratori. Approximately half accepts a second-century Roman provenance based on views held by, for example, Adolf von Harnack and Samuel Tregelles. The other half, following Albert C. Sundberg Jr., accepts a fourth-century Eastern provenance. This paper argues that the Fragment represents an attempt to provide a venerable second-century precedent for a later position on canon. The present essay restricts itself to three aspects of the debate: (1) initial discovery; (2) Fraternity Legend and Catalogue of Heresies; and, (3) historical settings in which such a text might have emerged."

https://www.classics.upenn.edu/events/c ... ment-fraud

"Like the Pseudo-Isidoriana and other forgeries, it betrays itself through anachronisms, including use of the Vulgate, clichés, mistakes as well as plagiarism, that is, an arbitrary array of sentences, phrases and words freely excerpted from older writings, not just the Bible and writings of late antique Christians but also abridgments and collections such as florilegia and anthologies both genuine and apocryphal without attribution. The Muratorian Fragment is an epitomic mosaic of ideas seeking to trace canon publication standards of a later date to the bishopric of Pius. The first part of the project undertakes the heretofore unexplored question of the fragment’s transmission history. Its initial publication by Ludovico A. Muratori and the unusual circumstances surrounding Samuel P. Tregelles’ later facsimile publication suggest modern awareness of the fraud. The second part of the project pursues philological questions, explores anachronisms and compares the Latin text with other examples of forgery."

Rothschild's conclusions:

"The text dates itself to the second century but can only be a product of the (earliest) fourth" (79); second "Fragmentist wished the church had rejected Montanism from the beginning, rather than allowing it to function as an ecclesiola in ecclesia for many years" (80), third, "Fragment represents a view on publication standards or even copying directives of this era." Fourth, and since the fragment appeals to the authority of Pius, "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."
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Rothschild: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fake?

Post by Peter Kirby »

"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."

Is this saying that it could be 8th century? Or that it could be revised in the 8th century? Or neither / something else?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Rothschild: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fake?

Post by Secret Alias »

I think she argues that it was 4th century.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Rothschild: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fake?

Post by Secret Alias »

Guignard's answer - https://journals.openedition.org/rsr/6220
Dans un article récent, Clare K. Rothschild a cherché à rouvrir le débat sur la date du Fragment de Muratori en proposant une thèse inédite : il s’agirait d’un faux tardif, qui s’inscrirait, selon les divers contextes historiques qu’elle propose, entre le ive et le viiie siècle, si ce n’est même le ixe. Le présent article entreprend une critique de cette thèse. Il rappelle en particulier que, puisque Chromace d’Aquilée (✝ 407) a connu et utilisé le Fragment, toute date postérieure au début du ve siècle est exclue en toute hypothèse. Il attire également l’attention sur un problème que C. K. Rothschild ne discute pas, celui de la langue originale du Fragment. Or, puisque le texte a été composé en grec et non en latin, tout en étant vraisemblablement d’origine occidentale, une datation au iie siècle reste l’hypothèse la plus plausible.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Rothschild: Is the Muratorian Canon a Fake?

Post by Secret Alias »

* C. K. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, Novum Testamentum 60, 2018, p. 55-82; a (...)
1 For a general introduction to the MF, see e.g. E. Norelli, “Les bases de la formation du canon du (...)
2 See A. C. Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List”, Harvard Theological Review 66, 1973/1 (...)
3 See especially E. Ferguson, “Canon Muratori. Date and Provenance”, Studia Patristica 17/2, 1982, p (...)
4 Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 616.
5 Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 627.
6 This phrase is applied to Ireneaus of Lyons by F. Bovon – E. Norellli, “Dal Kerygma al canone. Lo (...)
7 Cf. the Fragmentist’s remark about the Apocalypse of Peter: quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesi (...)
1One could have thought that the controversy over the date of the Muratorian Fragment (henceforth MF)1 was over. For some decades, following proposals made by Sundberg (1973) and Hahneman (1992),2 some scholars (especially from the English-speaking world) have dated this short anonymous text to the 4th century. However, the traditional 2nd-century dating has been confirmed by prominent scholars with solid arguments.3 As a result, the Sundberg-Hahneman thesis seems to have lost almost all its advocates in the last 15 or 20 years. A review of the evidence for the 2nd-century date would exceed the limits of the present note; I shall content myself with reminding readers of important observations that Jean-Daniel Kaestli made 25 years ago in favour of the traditional view: the MF cannot simply be likened to the 4th-century New Testament canon lists; its form is not yet that of a “canon”, i.e. of a closed list of books.4 On the contrary, “la structure du document et la distinction qu’il opère entre diverses catégories de livres renvoient à une époque où le Nouveau Testament n’est pas encore un recueil clos, auquel on ne peut rien ajouter et rien retrancher”.5 In other words, the MF relates to the context of the 2nd century, when the churches had already (more or less) fixed corpora of scriptures and a “canonical consciousness”6 was developing, but when there was still no New Testament canon in the sense of a permanently closed and widely agreed list.7

2The lines about the Shepherd of Hermas are crucial to the MF’s dating and, accordingly, were at the core of the controversy over the Sundberg-Hahneman thesis:

Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius.

8 L. 73-77. Unless otherwise noted, I quote the translation of B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New T (...)
But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome.8

9 Pace Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 70, who claims (without giving reason (...)
10 Admittedly, one should probably not stress too much the superlative nuperrime (“very recently”), s (...)
11 Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List”, p. 11. See also Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragme (...)
12 To my knowledge, H. W. J. Thiersch might be the only (partial) exception: this 19th-century German (...)
3The traditional view gives these lines their most obvious meaning: the Fragmentist is writing at a time subsequent to the episcopacy of Pius (ca. 141-155),9 but close enough for the author to describe it as recent.10 On the other hand, the advocates of a 4th-century date had to force a rather artificial understanding—and this was precisely one of the main weaknesses of the Sundberg-Hahneman thesis: “Shepherd of Hermas,” Sundberg paraphrases, “was written ‘most recently’ (that is, later than the apostolic books previously mentioned) ‘in our time’ (that is, not in apostolic time) when Pius was Bishop of Rome.”11 It might be conceivable that temporibus nostris alone refers to post-apostolic times, but with nuperrime it is hard to admit that the Fragmentist is referring to a remote past. However, there is still another possibility, which no one seems to have proposed until very recently:12 that this chronological clue is part of the strategy of some forger who wanted the readers to believe that the text dates back to the time of Pius, whereas it was in fact written much later.

13 See Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 79-82.
14 “Quanto alla data, in attesa di ulteriore indagine, lascio per prudenza un limite elastico, fra la (...)
15 See also below, p. 83, the quotations from p. 80-81 of Rothschild’s article.
4This is the direction in which the controversy over the date of the MF will perhaps be relaunched, if some scholars were to accept the audacious theory recently presented by C. K. Rothschild. She regards, indeed, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, as the title of her contribution puts it. According to Rothschild, “the Fragment represents a fictitious attempt to provide a venerable second century precedent for a later position on canon” (p. 59) and the possible historical settings range, so it seems, from the 4th to “the eighth or ninth century when the codex in which it appears was copied” (p. 82).13 In other words: from the period proposed by Sundberg and Hahneman to a period that, pace Rothschild, likely postdates the copying of our main textual witness, the codex Ambrosianus I 101 sup. Indeed, this manuscript is usually dated to the 8th century; in an in-depth codicological and palaeographical study, Mirella Ferrari even proposed a dating between the end of the 7th to the middle of the 8th century.14 At first reading, such a proposal, with this somewhat eccentric dating, seems so strange that—had it not been published in a serious academic journal like Novum Testamentum—it could trigger the suspicion that the article itself is a fake—or a hoax. Indeed, this impression could be reinforced by a number of strange statements or mistakes. Examples include:15

P. 61 and passim: the name of the famous palaeographer Bernard de Montfaucon is always written “Montfauçon”.

16 S. P. Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus. The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, Oxf (...)
17 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 8.
P. 62: “In 1845, Samuel P. Tregelles […] travels to Milan to trace a pencil facsimile of the Fragment.” And on p. 63: “After Tregelles completed his facsimile (1845) extenuating circumstances delayed publication for twenty-two years (1867).” This chronology is expressly contradicted the narrative of the British scholar, who writes: “When in Italy, from Nov. 1845 till June 1846, I was closely occupied with the collation of Greek MSS., with vain endeavours to gain access to the Vatican MS., so as fully to use it, and with the Latin Codex Amiatinus at Florence; and at that time I could not visit Milan.”16 It was only twelve years later that he saw the Muratorian codex for the first time: “During the latter days of August, 1857, I paid a short visit to Milan; and when at the Ambrosian Library, I recollected the Muratorian Canon, and the desire which I had felt in former years to examine it and to make a facsimile tracing.”17 Thus, only ten years separate his trip to Milan and the publication of his edition.

18 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 7.
19 It is thus strange to claim, as Rothschild does: “According to Tregelles, at that time no one had (...)
20 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 8.
21 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 8-9.
P. 62: In his introduction, Tregelles “[notes] with surprise that other scholars who had requested to see the Fragment had been denied” by the Biblioteca Ambrosiana. As Jean-Daniel Kaestli pointed out to me, this statement is totally incorrect. In the pages quoted by Rothschild (p. 62, n. 28) Tregelles records to have felt “surprise”, but about different matters: first, “that no one interested in the subject seemed to have ever examined the MS. since Muratori himself”18 (as he once believed, though it was indeed untrue, as he himself remarks19); second, “that [significant] variations should exist in the descriptions of the MS. and not only in the transcript”.20 Indeed, Tregelles’ report shows exactly the opposite of Rothschild’s claim: several scholars had access to the manuscript between Muratori’s and Tregelles’ publications of the Fragment (Nott, Friedrich Wieseler, Hertz). What was denied (but, seemingly, only to one scholar, Christian Karl Josias von Bunsen, for the sake of not damaging the manuscript) was the permission to make a facsimile—a permission, however, which Tregelles very easily obtained in 1857.21

P. 65 and 66, n. 44: Rothschild seems to consider the possibility that not all scholars saw the same manuscript in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana: “Muratori refers to the tractates that Tregelles finds after the repeated Ambrosian texts as if they immediately followed the Fragment, prompting question as to whether the two fragments of Ambrose were in the codex that Muratori discovered.” And below: “… if Tregelles saw the same codex as Buchanan, then differences exist between Tregelles and Muratori not only in what follows the Fragment in the codex but in what comes before it.” That there were two similar manuscripts in the Ambrosiana is totally unlikely. Indeed, omissions of short texts are very common in manuscript descriptions from Muratori’s time.

22 First proposed by S. P. Tregelles (« On a Passage in the Muratorian Canon », Journal of Classical (...)
23 Et nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc Iudaei Filonis adfirmant (Prologus in libris Salomonis de hebr (...)
P. 78: Since the MF, as we read it, states that the Wisdom was “written by friends of Solomon in his honour” (sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta, l. 69-71), the “suggestion that Wisdom was written by Philo (l. 68-70)” should not be included in a list of “traditions” (p. 77) in the MF. The idea is only a modern conjecture22 inspired by a passage of Jerome, who states that some writers attributed the Wisdom to the Alexandrian exegete.23 It supposes a corruption of the underlying Greek text: an original ὑπὸ Φίλωνος (“by Philo”) was transformed into ὑπὸ φίλων (“by friends”), eventually becoming ab amicis in Latin.

24 See B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, London, Mac (...)
P. 79: “Westcott once observed that these traditions [i.e. various traditions listed by Rothschild in the previous pages] look like quotations from Eusebius, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen.” Westcott’s statement is quoted on p. 60 (n. 13), yet is misrepresented; its point is a completely different one: “The present form of the Fragment makes the idea of a chasm in it very probable; and more than this, the want of coherence between several parts seems to shew that it was not all continuous originally, but that it has been made up of three or four different passages from some unknown author, collected on the same principle as the quotations in Eusebius from Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen.”24 Westcott does not consider the MF as “a mosaic of ideas” (Rothschild, p. 60) taken from various writers, but he is questioning the integrity of the text. Moreover, he does not speak of quotations from Eusebius, but he compares the text, as we have, to the collections of extracts of some previous writers that are collected in some chapters of the Church History.

25 Quoted by Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 67; see Ferrari, “Il ‘Codex Mura (...)
26 L. A. Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medi Aevi, vol. 3, Mediolani, Ex Typographia Societatis Pala (...)
27 See Ferrari, “Il ‘Codex Muratorianus’ e il suo ultimo inedito”, p. 22 and 25-32.
P. 79: “Unless someone wishes to argue that the Fragmentist is John Chrysostom, its position in a codex attributed to Chrysostom alone qualifies the Fragment as a kind of pseudepigraphon.” This odd statement seems to be based on the short description of the (essential) content of the manuscript on the old back cover (Grisostomi de diversis rebus. Eiusdem de reparatione lapsi),25 on a note added on f. 1r by Cristoforo di Valsassina in 1461-1462, which Rothschild oddly calls “the inscription of the codex” (p. 79, n. 125) and on the following comment by Muratori: “Titulus praefixus omnia tribuit Johanni Chrysostomo, sed immerito.”26 In fact, the manuscript is mutilated at the beginning and in other places (most notably at the beginning of the MF, where 7 quires are missing27). Thus, nothing suggests that the codex, as a whole, was attributed to Chrysostom, if one excepts a 15th-century note, which aimed only at broadly indicating its content.

P. 79, n. 125: “The inscription of the codex assigns ownership to Columbanus (ca. 543-615) …” However, note that the “inscription” (in fact, only another 15th-century note on f. 1r) refers to the monastery of St. Columbanus in Bobbio rather than its founder.

P. 82: Marcion, one reads, arrived in Rome “as a consecrated bishop”.

28 See Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 77, n. 112, and p. 80, n. 126.
5In her article, Rothschild presents her theory in a provisional form, alluding to a forthcoming monograph on the subject.28 At the moment, she confines herself to some aspects: first, “external evidence”, i.e. “the Fragment’s discovery, its publication by Muratori, and subsequent reports about the Fragment and Codex”; second, “internal evidence”, mainly the “Fraternity Legend” about Pius and Hermas (l. 73-77) and the “Catalogue of Heresies” at the end of the text (l. 81-85); a third section aims to propose four possible historical settings for the supposed fake, in the chronological range indicated above (p. 60). This partial presentation does not help the reader to always understand Rothschild’s argumentation in full detail and some points remain unclear. Thus, though the section on the history of the publication of the MF is perhaps the most interesting in the article, its importance for the whole argument is not easy to grasp. In addition, some of the historical settings or scenarios proposed are sketched in such a cursory manner that they leave the reader with many unanswered questions. Last but not least, Rothschild does not explain how the MF might represent “a later position on canon” (p. 59). Under these circumstances, a detailed discussion would be premature, and I shall limit myself to a few remarks on her contention that the MF is a fake.

29 Rothschild seems to be hesitant on this point; cf. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman F (...)
30 See n. 3. On the issue of the quotation of 1 John 1:1.4, which Rothschild regards as influenced by (...)
31 I.e. mainly the “Fraternity Legend” and the rejection of heretical books. On the former passage, R (...)
6First, it is (or should be) obvious that, given the loss of the beginning of the MF and especially of its title (if it had any), one should avoid labelling it a pseudepigraphon.29 Of course, the MF might have been a pseudepigraphon (whatever its date). Indeed, if it were a fake, it would even be likely that it was put under some false name, since in the ecclesiastical (and, more broadly, religious) spheres forgeries usually aim to harness the authority of some important figure of the past. This state of facts compels anyone who wants to argue that the MF was a kind a forgery to base this claim on more tenuous and/or equivocal evidence. This explains why Rothschild has to reopen the issue of potential “anachronisms” in the text, i.e. ideas, traditions or statements that could not be assigned to the 2nd century but would betray the hand of a later forger. Thus, the discussion is partly sent back to the controversy about the Sundberg-Hahneman thesis and, to a large extent, it will be sufficient to refer to the work of the scholars who have refuted it.30 Accordingly, I will not enter here in a detailed discussion of the cases that Rothschild presents as anachronisms in the second part of her article.31

32 I. Peirano, The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake. Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge, University (...)
33 Cf. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 77: “… since the Apocalypse of Peter i (...)
34 Such features would even be unthinkable in an early mediaeval canon list, as a comparison with the (...)
7By proposing the idea of a fake, Rothschild avoids one of the main problems of Sundberg and Hahneman’s case, namely the unnatural reading of lines that deal with the Shepherd, but she has to maintain with them, at least to a certain extent, both that the Fragment’s content is not datable to the 2nd century and that it better fits a later context. Admittedly, the situation is somewhat different if the MF is a fake. Rothschild relies on the definition provided by Irene Pierano in a study on Latin poetry: “fakes” are “texts which self-consciously purport either to be the work of the author to whom they are attributed or to be written at a different time from that in which they were composed.”32 Thus elements in the text that have a 2nd-century flavour, like the inclusion of the Apocalypse of Peter, will be regarded as included for the sake of verisimilitude.33 On the one hand, this expedient seems to make the demonstration easier, since there is no need to explain away every archaic feature. On the other hand, to conciliate archaic elements with the mind and agenda of a later forger is not so easy. Although late-antique forgers had a certain antiquarian feeling, they had no clear sense of the evolution of Christianity, being mostly convinced that the ideas, dogmas and practices of their time were apostolic in origin. Moreover, late-antique or early-medieval forgers usually did not work for art’s sake, but were pursuing a precise agenda, and an agenda of their own time. Searching for possible agendas is indeed central to the last part of Rothschild’s article. To use the same example as above: was a forger from the 4th century or, a fortiori, from a later period, aware that some churches deemed the Apocalypse of Peter canonical in the second century? Admittedly, it is not completely impossible, but it would require a forger with a remarkable knowledge of the Christian literature of that century. Moreover, since this apocryphon was virtually forgotten and given that no contemporary church was promoting it as a canonical book, it is unclear for what purpose a 4th-century counterfeiter would include it, even with some restriction, in a New Testament canon list, if his scope was to promote a particular form of the canon. In this case, it seems that “second-century verisimilitude” is hardly a sufficient explanation. And, on the whole, who could have been interested, in the 4th century or later, to promote a canon with so archaic features (absence of Hebrews and no more than four Catholic Epistles) and apparently somewhat hesitant on some books (Apocalypse of Peter, Shepherd)?34

35 See also the abstract of the article, p. 55. This claim is based on a somewhat misleading represen (...)
8These difficulties render the hypothesis that the MF is a late antique (or early mediaeval) fake a not particularly economical one. It is certainly less economical than the traditional view, even if we have to assume that the MF is, to our knowledge, the first source to attest some traditions or ideas. Indeed, it might be justified to doubt its authenticity, if it was possible to disprove a 2nd-century date on the basis of indisputable arguments or, at least, a strong body of evidence. Yet, without wishing to prejudice what she will add in her forthcoming monograph, we can only observe that such arguments are lacking in Rothschild’s article. This absence cannot be compensated for by claiming that “today scholarship has reached an impasse” (p. 58).35 It would be true if, after the rejection of the Sundberg-Hahneman thesis, there was no alternative, but the traditional view, which is commonly endorsed by scholars, remains a valid one, since the arguments for a 4th-century date have not proven to be cogent. Indeed, there is no stalemate, and, consequently, no need to construct complex historical scenarios.

9I shall not discuss in detail the four historical settings proposed by Rothschild, but it is worth noting that the second one involves a historically untenable scenario:

The Fragmentist may have wanted to establish the fourth-century church’s rejection of Montanism with a second-century precedent. We know that Montanism is still a problem in 385, only officially proscribed by the Council of 381 […] it is possible that the Fragmentist wished the church had rejected Montanism from the beginning, rather than allowing it to function as an ecclesiola in ecclesia for many years (p. 80-81).

36 See e.g. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica V, 16, 10 about synods in Asia.
10This is a rather novel view of both the early and later history of Montanism. Indeed, the “New Prophecy” was of course condemned already in the 2nd century36 and some scepticism about the urgency of fighting against this movement at the end of the 4th century seems to be justified. Admittedly, the 7th canon of the First Council of Constantinople (381) mentions the Montanists—among many other heretics—, but the issue is that of the integration of those who convert to the church and one should notice that in the case of converts from Montanism the procedure is the same as for pagans. This is hard to explain if they were “an ecclesiola in ecclesia”. Even more surprising is what Rothschild writes in the following lines:

Church leaders such as Chromatius of Aquileia, Jerome, and Isidore of Seville—whose writings are often considered dependent on the Fragment—were present at the Council of 381. Together with Ambrose, bishop in Milan at the time, they could have drafted the Fragment as evidence in a case against heresies (p. 81).

37 See e.g. R. McEachnie, Chromatius of Aquileia and the Making of a Christian City (Studies in the E (...)
11It is hardly necessary to comment on Isidore (✝ 636). Jerome was actually at the Council of Constantinople in 381, but the council in which Chromatius (who was still a presbyter) took part was the local synod held the same year in Aquileia under the presidency of Ambrose.37

12Beside these observations, I would like to add some remarks about two problems so crucial to Rothschild’s case that the absence of a discussion in her article is barely understandable, even considering that she does not yet present her theory in all details.

38 Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 68.
39 I remain unconvinced by the theory of Beatrice that Chromatius did not die in 407, but moved to Pa (...)
40 Such a silent reuse is not uncommon in Chromatius, who only rarely quotes his sources.
41 J. Lemarié, “Saint Chromace d’Aquilée témoin du Canon de Muratori”, Revue d’études augustiniennes (...)
42 The (uneconomical) hypothesis of a common source was not formulated either, as far as I know.
43 Chromatius of Aquileia, Tractatus in Matthaeum, prol., 2, l. 28; ed. R. Étaix and J. Lemarié, CCSL (...)
44 Chromatius used the MF in the Latin translation that we know (see Guignard, “The Original Language (...)
45 My translation.
46 Cf. Lemarié, “Saint Chromace d’Aquilée témoin du Canon de Muratori”, p. 102.
47 On the secular usage of iuris studiosus, see G. Kuhn, Das Muratorische Fragment über die Bücher de (...)
48 See above, p. 83. Strangely enough, beside this rather eccentric proposal, Rothschild does not con (...)
49 On Chromatius’ style, see J. Lemarié, Chromace d’Aquilée. Sermons, vol. 1 (Sources chrétiennes 154 (...)
13First, it should be noted that any dating of the MF after the end of the 4th century is hindered by a decisive objection. According to Rothschild, “no ancient author cites it”38, but this statement is true only if “cites” is taken in its most strict meaning. There is at least one ancient author who clearly uses it: Chromatius of Aquileia († 407)39 obviously echoes the MF in the prologue of his Tractatus in Matthaeum, though he fails to indicate that he is quoting from a source.40 Accordingly, the date of 400 represents a chronological bolt for any hypothesis. To my knowledge, since the time when the use of the MF by Chromatius was identified by Lemarié,41 no one has ever contested his view about the direction of the literary influence: it is Chromatius who used the Fragment as a source, and not the reverse.42 Under these circumstances, the onus probandi rests on scholars who want (or need) to invert the direction of the borrowing. A detailed analysis would exceed the limits of the present note, but I would like to highlight a significant case. Chromatius presents Luke as eruditissimus legis (“very learned in the [Mosaic] Law”43), whereas the MF labels him iuris studiosus44 (“expert in law”, l. 445). Given the overall similarity of the respective contexts, these phrases must be regarded as parallel.46 Yet, how could we imagine that an author who had found eruditissimus legis in his source would rephrase it with the obscure iuris studiosus? On the contrary, it is easy to see how eruditissimus legis is a way to give a religious meaning to the puzzling phrase of the MF, which seems to refer to secular law.47 This case clearly shows that it is Chromatius who uses the Fragment. Since these phrases have different meanings, this case also rules out the possibility that Chromatius took part in its redaction, as Rothschild imagines in her anti-Marcionite scenario48—a view, furthermore, that faces serious objections from a stylistic perspective: although the style of Chromatius is not especially refined, his Latin is fluent and pleasant unlike that of the Fragment.49

50 See Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 58-59, n. 8; p. 62; p. 68; p. 76 with (...)
51 See Guignard, “The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment”, p. 609-617.
52 According to Rothschild, “the debate as to whether the Fragment is based on a Greek or Latin origi (...)
53 Rothschild mentions my article (“The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 59, n. 8), but the ver (...)
14A second major difficulty arises from a problem that Rothschild sometimes alludes to,50 but without offering a discussion: that of the original language of the MF. Since the publication of the Latin text, a large number of scholars have argued for a Greek original (or even taken it for granted), and I hope to have presented decisive arguments in favour of this assumption.51 Nevertheless, Rothschild presents the issue as an open one,52 without taking into account the case I have made.53 The fuzziness on this point in her article is all the less understandable since the original language of a fake is crucial to the question of its origin: it can be a clue to its provenance or to the forger’s time or milieu. It is strange, therefore, to make hypotheses about possible historical settings without having considered this issue.

54 See n. 32.
55 The issue of the Western or Eastern origin appears mainly when Rothschild deals with the history o (...)
56 Rothschild seems to exclude a 3rd-century date: “The text dates itself to the second century but c (...)
57 See e.g. Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori”.
58 Surprisingly enough, the references to a Greek origin in the course of the article betray little o (...)
59 Such clues would include not only an overall Grecianizing syntax, but even the insertion of an app (...)
15How Roman is Rothschild’s “Roman Fake”? This is not entirely clear to the reader, although there are reasons to suspect that this phrase is a tribute to Irene Peirano’s Rhetoric of the Roman Fake54 rather than a historical description. Nonetheless, among the four proposed historical settings, the last three, at least, are Western, while the first—deliberately, it would seem55—is not specifically assigned to a geographical area: Rothschild broadly evokes “the late third- and fourth-century’s drive toward unification in all aspects of church life” (p. 80).56 In any case, the content of the MF points toward a Western origin, as suggested, inter alia, by the absence of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the case built by Sundberg and Hahneman for an Eastern provenance is ultimately unconvincing.57 Yet, if the MF was forged in the West within the chronological range considered by Rothschild, i.e. broadly between the 4th and the 8th century, it would be very surprising that it was written in Greek.58 Unless she wants to argue that the text was forged by an Easterner who wished to defend an outdated Western canon or by Westerners who, by inserting deceptive clues of an incredible subtlety,59 tried to make the readers believe that the text had been translated from Greek, the strong evidence in favour of a Greek original is a major hindrance to the emergence of the MF in a 4th-century or later Western milieu, i.e. at times when Greek had fallen behind or was completely forgotten in the West.



16Although still incompletely presented, C. K. Rothschild’s theory that the MF is a late antique or early mediaeval fake is untenable. Admittedly, by avoiding Sundberg and Hahneman’s unnatural interpretation of the lines about Hermas and, seemingly, by renouncing the idea of an Eastern provenance, her thesis avoids the major pitfalls of the approach of the previous advocates of a 4th-century dating and, from this view point, she succeeds better in reconciling a late date with the explicit chronological indications in the text. However, it does so at the cost of even more serious improbabilities, or even impossibilities. All in all, the attempt of Rothschild has the paradoxical merit of confirming the validity of the MF’s traditional dating.

17Therefore, we can safely conclude that the traditional view remains the most likely and economical one. Indeed, a Christian Latin text that has a Greek original and at the same time is distinctively Western-minded was likely written in an European Western church at a time when Greek was still the main language of many of the Western churches outside North Africa, namely in the 2nd century or, at the latest, in the first half of the 3rd. Accordingly, we should continue to date the MF in the second half of the 2nd century or at the very beginning of the 3rd, when the episcopate of Pius in Rome was recent enough for the Fragmentist to say that a book written under this bishop was a contemporary production.

Top of page
Notes
* C. K. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, Novum Testamentum 60, 2018, p. 55-82; all page numbers in the text refer to this essay. I express all my gratitude to Lukas J. Dorfbauer, Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Eckhard J. Schnabel for their comments and suggestions, and to Christopher Sinclair for checking the English.

1 For a general introduction to the MF, see e.g. E. Norelli, “Les bases de la formation du canon du Nouveau Testament”, in: B. Pouderon (ed.), Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne, vol. 2: De Paul apôtre à Irénée de Lyon (Initiations aux Pères de l’Église), Paris, Cerf, 2013, p. 915-991 (p. 972-981); C. Guignard, “Canon Muratori”, in: D. G. Hunter – P. J .J. van Geest – B. J. Lietaert Peerbolte (ed.), Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online, Leiden, Brill, published in Oct. 2018. On the history of scholarship, see especially E. J. Schnabel, “The Muratorian Fragment: The State of Research”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 57/2, 2014, p. 231-264.

2 See A. C. Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List”, Harvard Theological Review 66, 1973/1, p. 1-41; G. M. Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (Oxford Theological Monographs), Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992.

3 See especially E. Ferguson, “Canon Muratori. Date and Provenance”, Studia Patristica 17/2, 1982, p. 677-683; J.-D. Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon. À propos de la thèse de Sundberg et Hahneman”, Cristianesimo nella Storia 15/3, 1994, p. 609-634; J. Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori. A Matter of Dispute”, in: J.-M. Auwers – H. J. de Jonge (ed.), The Biblical Canons (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 163), Leuven, University Press, 2003, p. 487-556.

4 Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 616.

5 Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 627.

6 This phrase is applied to Ireneaus of Lyons by F. Bovon – E. Norellli, “Dal Kerygma al canone. Lo statuto degli scritti neotestamentari nel secondo secolo”, Cristianesimo nella Storia 15, 1994, p. 525-540 (p. 534).

7 Cf. the Fragmentist’s remark about the Apocalypse of Peter: quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt (l. 72-73).

8 L. 73-77. Unless otherwise noted, I quote the translation of B. M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament. Its Origin, Development, and Significance, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987, p. 305-307.

9 Pace Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 70, who claims (without giving reasons) that “on a ‘plain reading,’ these lines internally date the text to 140-161 CE (the episcopate of Pius).” Note that sedente with the perfect conscripsit implies simultaneity (the same is true if we assume, like T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, vol. 2/1, Erlangen, Deichert, 1890, p. 142 in his back-translation, that the Greek original had an aorist with an absolute genitive). It thus suggests that the episcopate of Pius, contemporary with the writing of the Shepherd, belongs to the past.

10 Admittedly, one should probably not stress too much the superlative nuperrime (“very recently”), since the author wants to insist on the time interval between the apostolic writings and the composition of the Shepherd. Nevertheless, nuperrime dissuades to date the MF much beyond the end of the 2nd century.

11 Sundberg, “Canon Muratori: A Fourth Century List”, p. 11. See also Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, p. 34-72, and the critical discussion in Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori”, p. 501-512.

12 To my knowledge, H. W. J. Thiersch might be the only (partial) exception: this 19th-century German scholar confessed that the state of corruption of the text had made him wonder “ob nicht das ganze Fragment eine spaßhafte Mystification des Herausgebers Muratori sein könnte” (Id., Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts für die Kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften, Erlangen, C. Heyder, 1845, p. 387; cf. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 62). Thus, unlike Rothschild, Thiersch imagined that the text was a modern fake (without manuscript evidence, obviously).

13 See Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 79-82.

14 “Quanto alla data, in attesa di ulteriore indagine, lascio per prudenza un limite elastico, fra la fine dell’VII e la metà dell’VIII secolo” (M. Ferrari, “Il ‘Codex Muratorianus’ e il suo ultimo inedito”, Italia medioevale e umanistica 32, 1989, p. 1-51 [p. 25]). If we add that the MF in the Ambrosianus shows a state of advanced textual corruption, we have to assume a number of successive copies before the text can present itself in such a poor condition. Therefore, in any hypothesis, a date after the end of the 7th century (at the latest) would be impossible. Indeed, as Hahneman rightly observes: “Excerpts from the Muratorian Fragment discovered in a Prologue to Paul’s Epistles confirm that the poor Latin of the Fragment is not that of the original” (The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, p. 9; partly quoted by Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 69, n. 56).

15 See also below, p. 83, the quotations from p. 80-81 of Rothschild’s article.

16 S. P. Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus. The Earliest Catalogue of the Books of the New Testament, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1867, p. 7.

17 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 8.

18 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 7.

19 It is thus strange to claim, as Rothschild does: “According to Tregelles, at that time no one had examined it since Muratori” (“The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 62), all the more since she refers to Tregelles’ self-correction in her n. 25.

20 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 8.

21 Tregelles, Canon Muratorianus, p. 8-9.

22 First proposed by S. P. Tregelles (« On a Passage in the Muratorian Canon », Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 2, 1855, p. 37-43; see also Id., Canon Muratorianus, p. 53), this conjecture gained wide acceptance among scholars. It is very ingenious, indeed, but certainly not self-evident; see the complementary critiques by W. Horbury, “The Wisdom of Solomon in the Muratorian Fragment”, The Journal of Theological Studies 45/1, 1994, p. 149-159 (p. 150-152) (republished in E. Ferguson [ed.], Norms of Faith and Life [Recent Studies in Early Christianity 3], New York, Garland, p. 47-57) and Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 623-624.

23 Et nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc Iudaei Filonis adfirmant (Prologus in libris Salomonis de hebraeo translatis, l. 18-19, in: Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. R. Weber and R. Gryson, Stuttgart, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 20055, p. 957).

24 See B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, London, Macmillan, 18967, p. 223. Why Rothschild refers to the third edition (1870, p. 198) is unclear to me.

25 Quoted by Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 67; see Ferrari, “Il ‘Codex Muratorianus’ e il suo ultimo inedito”, p. 6.

26 L. A. Muratori, Antiquitates Italicae Medi Aevi, vol. 3, Mediolani, Ex Typographia Societatis Palatinae, 1740, col. 851 B.

27 See Ferrari, “Il ‘Codex Muratorianus’ e il suo ultimo inedito”, p. 22 and 25-32.

28 See Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 77, n. 112, and p. 80, n. 126.

29 Rothschild seems to be hesitant on this point; cf. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 79 and n. 125.

30 See n. 3. On the issue of the quotation of 1 John 1:1.4, which Rothschild regards as influenced by the Vulgate (“The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 78, n. 117) and seems to regard as “a smoking gun” (p. 77, n. 112), I refer to my discussion in C. Guignard, “The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment”, Journal of Theological Studies 66/2, 2015, p. 596-624 (p. 608 and 621-623).

31 I.e. mainly the “Fraternity Legend” and the rejection of heretical books. On the former passage, Rothschilds’ argumentation seems partly novel, since she identifies a contradiction: “If the Fragment accepts the Shepherd, the Fraternity Legend poses a serious logical challenge: an (absurdly) late composition date for the Shepherd contradicts the Fragment’s intention to receive the text” (Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 74). She is probably right in arguing that the Fragmentist does not reject the Shepherd (see R. Roukema, “La Tradition apostolique et le canon du Nouveau Testament”, in: A. Hilhorst [ed.], The Apostolic Age in Patristic Thought [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae. Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and Language 70], Leiden, Brill, 2004, p. 86-103 [p. 97]; Guignard, “The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment”, p. 623). However, this book is only accepted for reading on condition that any confusion with the prophetic books (of the Old Testament) or with the apostolic writings (the New Testament) is avoided. Thus, the Shepherd has a special status (which, pace Rothschild, is not exactly that of an antilegomenon, a category that is alien to the MF). Under these circumstances, the legend about Hermas and Pius, which implies that the Shepherd postdates the apostolic age, plays a role similar, but opposite, to that of the traditions that establish the apostolic character of other books (Mark, probably; Luke and Acts; John): the legend is necessary to justify the book’s peculiar status. Accordingly, the former does not contradict the latter. As for the section on heretical books, at first glance the statement that (οἱ) κατὰ Φρύγας (a nickname for the Montanists), of which catafrygum (l. 84-85) is a Latin transposition, “[occurs] in neither Greek nor Latin until the fourth century” (Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 76) seems to be a solid argument; it should be briefly noted, however, that Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori”, p. 549-550 and C. E. Hill, “The Debate over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon”, Westminster Theological Journal 57, 1995, p. 437–452 (p. 442) (repr. in E. Ferguson [ed.], Norms of Faith and Life, p. 31-46) have provided evidence that disprove this claim; indeed this nickname can be traced to the third century and it could be even earlier.

32 I. Peirano, The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake. Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge, University Press, 2012, p. 3.

33 Cf. Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 77: “… since the Apocalypse of Peter is scant mentioned after the second century, its presence in the list must represent second-century verisimilitude.”

34 Such features would even be unthinkable in an early mediaeval canon list, as a comparison with the Decretum Gelasianum makes clear. This widespread list of admitted and rejected books (see the edition by E. von Dobschütz, Das Decretum Gelasianum de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 38/4], Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs, 1912) is transmitted under the name of various popes, mainly Damasus (366-384) or Gelasius (492-496), but is, in all likelihood, a (“true”) fake of the 6th century. As Lukas Dorfbauer pointed out to me, it includes the Shepherd among the apocryphal books (chap. 5, § 4, 3) and it doesn’t even mention the Apocalypse of Peter. In the wake of E. Schwartz (“Zum Decretum Gelasianum”, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 29, 1930, p. 161-168), many scholars admit that the first three chapters reuse a document that dates back to Damasus (see lastly U. Reutter, Damasus, Bischof von Rom (366-384). Leben und Werk [Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 55], Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2009, p. 468-513; cf. W. Löhr’s review in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 63/1, 2012, p. 111-113 [p. 112-113]); but even if the Damasian provenance of the these chapters is granted, it is none the less true that the New Testament canon in chap. 2 lists all the 27 books that eventually became canonical and only those books, without any hint at uncertainties. If the FM was an early mediaeval fake, its canon would probably resemble that of the Decretum Gelasianum.

35 See also the abstract of the article, p. 55. This claim is based on a somewhat misleading representation of the respective popularity of the 2nd- and 4th-century dates. The very optimistic statement of G. A. Robbins, who evoked the decline of the traditional view and the emergence of “a new consensus” around Sundberg’s hypothesis (« Muratorian Fragment », The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4, 1992, p. 928-929 [p. 929], quoted by Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 58), dates back to the beginning of the year in which Hahneman published his book. It is telling, however, that, when Rothschild needs to refer to partisans of the 4th-century date, she limits herself to refer to a list that dates back to 15 years ago (Rothschild, ibid., p. 57, n. 6, referring to Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori”, p. 498‑499). Indeed, it would probably be difficult to add many names to it, apart from L. M. McDonald (The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Peabody [MA], Hendrickson, 20073, p. 378), who in the 2017 reedition of this work adds a largely positive evaluation of Rothschild’s own theory (Id., The Formation of the Biblical Canon, vol. 2, London, Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 20174, p. 297). Yet, other scholars have expressed very different assessments of the situation: beside Verheyden, who evoked “the few scholars who have argued for a later date” (ibid., p. 491), E. J. Schnabel, in a very meticulous review of research, observes: “Most scholars dismissed Sundberg in brief comments as unconvincing” (“The Muratorian Fragment”, p. 241), and, about Hahneman’s monograph: “The majority of reviews, essays, and comments in monographs have been critical” (p. 245). Rothschild quotes only Verheyden (“The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 58). Moreover, she tries to make him contradict himself to a certain extent: “Elsewhere, Verheyden refers to the discussion as a ‘stalemate’, acknowledging that both sides of the argument have support” (Rothschild, ibid., p. 58, n. 8). This partial quotation is deceptive, since Verheyden refers in fact to another debate: “The question of the authorship is a stalemate: scholars have simply never been able to arrive at a consensus” (ibid., p. 490; italics mine).

36 See e.g. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica V, 16, 10 about synods in Asia.

37 See e.g. R. McEachnie, Chromatius of Aquileia and the Making of a Christian City (Studies in the Early Christian World), London, Routledge, 2017, p. 63.

38 Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 68.

39 I remain unconvinced by the theory of Beatrice that Chromatius did not die in 407, but moved to Palestine, became bishop in that country and took part in the synod of Diospolis in 415 (see P. F. Beatrice, “Chromatius and Jovinus at the Synod of Diospolis: A Prosopographical Inquiry”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 22/3, 2014, p. 437-464); but it makes little difference for our purpose.

40 Such a silent reuse is not uncommon in Chromatius, who only rarely quotes his sources.

41 J. Lemarié, “Saint Chromace d’Aquilée témoin du Canon de Muratori”, Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 24, 1978, p. 101-102; for a more exhaustive presentation of the relation between the two texts, see Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 630-634.

42 The (uneconomical) hypothesis of a common source was not formulated either, as far as I know.

43 Chromatius of Aquileia, Tractatus in Matthaeum, prol., 2, l. 28; ed. R. Étaix and J. Lemarié, CCSL 9 A, p. 185.

44 Chromatius used the MF in the Latin translation that we know (see Guignard, “The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment”, p. 607). Kaestli, “La place du Fragment de Muratori dans l’histoire du canon”, p. 632, n. 64 rightly observes that the testimony of Chromatius proves that the Fragments’ Latin text should not be corrected here, although many scholars did or wanted to do so. In all likelihood, iuris studiosus is an inadequate translation of an original Greek phrase whose meaning was that Luke was an expert in the Jewish Law.

45 My translation.

46 Cf. Lemarié, “Saint Chromace d’Aquilée témoin du Canon de Muratori”, p. 102.

47 On the secular usage of iuris studiosus, see G. Kuhn, Das Muratorische Fragment über die Bücher des Neuen Testaments. Mit Einleitung und Erklärung, Zürich, S. Höhr, 1892, p. 39-41. In (rightly, cf. n. 44) understanding that ius referred to Jewish rather than secular Law against the letter of the MF in its Latin translation, was possibly influenced by the Aquileian exegetical tradition: in his prologue to his commentary on the Four Gospels, Fortunatianus explains that each evangelist followed a particular “rule” or principle (regula) in the writing of his Gospel and the one of Luke is precisely the “rule of the Law” (Commentarii in evangelia, praef., l. 8-12; ed. L. Dorfbauer, CSEL 103, p. 110).

48 See above, p. 83. Strangely enough, beside this rather eccentric proposal, Rothschild does not consider Chromatius, though she cites Lemarié’s article (“The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 81, n. 136).

49 On Chromatius’ style, see J. Lemarié, Chromace d’Aquilée. Sermons, vol. 1 (Sources chrétiennes 154), Paris, Cerf, 1969, p. 57. The stylistic problem would be even more serious if we had to imagine that a stylist like Jerome also took part in the writing of the MF (see above, p. 83).

50 See Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 58-59, n. 8; p. 62; p. 68; p. 76 with n. 104; p. 78, n. 117; and p. 79.

51 See Guignard, “The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment”, p. 609-617.

52 According to Rothschild, “the debate as to whether the Fragment is based on a Greek or Latin original rages on” (Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 58, n. 8). Thus, again (cf. n. 35), the presentation of the current state of the scholarship seems outdated or even somewhat misleading.

53 Rothschild mentions my article (“The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 59, n. 8), but the very short summary she gives does not allow the reader to grasp how the case I have made could interfere with her theory.

54 See n. 32.

55 The issue of the Western or Eastern origin appears mainly when Rothschild deals with the history of research or when she quotes the work of other scholars, whereas it nearly disappears in the rest of the article; the only exception seems to betray a concern to leave the issue open (Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 76).

56 Rothschild seems to exclude a 3rd-century date: “The text dates itself to the second century but can only be a product of the (earliest) fourth” (Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 79). In her opinion, “this setting would also explain the Fragment’s ‘motif of ecumenicity’ [Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament, p. 201]” (ibid.), but such a motif is at home in the 2nd century as well (cf. e.g. Irenaeus, A.H. III, 3, 1-3).

57 See e.g. Verheyden, “The Canon Muratori”.

58 Surprisingly enough, the references to a Greek origin in the course of the article betray little or no opposition to this view (cf. especially Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake”, p. 68 and 76, n. 104). Her assumption that the MF attributes the Wisdom to Philo (see above, p. 76) even presupposes a Greek original.

59 Such clues would include not only an overall Grecianizing syntax, but even the insertion of an apparently meaningless B in the list of the Pauline Epistles (l. 43) to suggest that it was a fossilized Greek numeral! If this is the work of a forger, it was probably a little bit too subtle, since it was overlooked by many modern scholars (see Guignard, “The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment”, p. 615-617).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply