Sundberg, Canon Muratori, A Fourth-Century List

Harvard Divinity School
Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List

Author(s): Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.
Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), pp. 1-41
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509348 .
Accessed: 20/03/2011 13:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
HARVARD THEOLOGICALREVIEW
VOLUME 66 JANUARY 1973 No. 1
CANON MURATORI:
A FOURTH-CENTURY LIST
ALBERT C. SUNDBERG, JR.
GARRETT THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
EVANSTON, ILLINOIS 60201
To HENRY JOELCADBURY,NONAGENARIAN
As everyone knows, Canon Muratori is a list of New Testament
books that was found by Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672-1750)
in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and is contained in a codex
dating from the eighth or possibly the seventh century,1 which
belonged originally to Columban's Monastery at Bobbio.2 The
list of New Testament books is part of this codex, which also con-
tains a collection of tracts and creeds that appeared between the
second and fifth centuries and that seem to have been collected
and transcribed in the eighth (or seventh) century.3 The frag-
ment on the canon is just that, since the beginning is lost, and the
text ends abruptly, showing that it was copied from a mutilated
and presumably ancient exemplar.4 There are also some bits of
the Muratoriancanon that were found in four eleventh- or twelfth-
century Latin manuscriptsof St. Paul's epistles at Monte Cassino.5
1 L. A. MURATORI, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi (Mediolani, 1740), III, 809-
8o. For bibliography cf. S. RITTER, Il Frammento Muratoriano, Rivista di Archeo-
logia Cristiana, III (1926), 226-31; J. QUASTEN, Patrology (Utrecht, 195o-6o), II,
2o9f.; T. ZAHN, Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig,
1901), 74. The text of H. LIETZMANN, Das Muratorische Fragment, in Kleine
Texte, I (Bohn, 90o8), i-16 will be used.
2QUASTEN, Op. cit., II, 207; IRITTER, op. Cit., 217-24.
' B. F.
WESTCOTT, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New
Testament (London, 1866), I84f., 466f.; G. KUHN, Das Muratorische Fragment
1892), 4; E. S. BUCHANAN, The Codex Muratorianus, JTS VIII (90o7),
(Ziirich,
537-39, etc.
*S. P. TREGELLES, Canon Muratorianus (Oxford, 1867), facsimile following p.
viii; H. LIETZMANN, op. cit., 4f., IOf.
5 Fragmentum
Muratorianum iuxta Codd. Casinenses, in Miscellanea Cassinese,
II, I (1897), 1-5, cited by A. HARNACK,Excerpta aus dem Muratorischen Fragment
(saec. xi et xii), in Theologische Literaturzeitung XXIII (1898), 131-34; LIETZ-
MANN,op. cit., 3, 6, 8, IO. Cf. QUASTEN, op. cit., II, 207; J. P. KIRscH, Muratorian
Canon, in Catholic Encyclopedia, X (New York, 1911), 642.
2 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
And it has been shown that the compiler of the prologue in which
these occur cannot have used the Milan manuscript. The fact
that he was working from an independent source indicates that
the poor Latin of the Milan text was not that of the original
author."aA Greek original was suggested by Muratori when he
first published the list in 1740; 6 his suggestion has received wide
support,' though some have argued for a Latin original.8 Muratori
assigned the list to Caius, a presbyter in Rome, but others have
suggested Papias, Hegesippus of Rome, Rhodon, Melito of Sardis,
and others.' But all attempts to identify the author of the list are
subject to Westcott's comment, "There is no significant evidence
to determine the authorship of the Fragment. . . . such guesses
5a HARNACK, op. cit., 133; T. ZAHN,Muratorian Canon, The New Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia (New York, 1908-14), VIII, 53f.
M
MURATORI'S comments on the canon are reproduced in TREGELLES, op. cit.,
11-13.
7 WESTCOTT, op. cit., 186, 188 n.I; B. J. LIGHTFOOT,The Apostolic Fathers, Pt. I,
vol. II (New York, 1890), 407, etc. For translations into Greek cf. C. K. J. BUNSEN,
Analecta anti-Nicaena, I (London, 1854), 142ff.; A. HILGENFELD, Einleitung in das
N.T. (Leipzig, 1875), 79ff.; T. ZAHN, Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons
(Erlangen, 1888/90), II, 138-43; and LIGHTFOOThas attempted a translation into
Greek verse, op. cit., 409ff. RITTER,op. cit., 233.
8 F. H. HESSE, Das Muratorische Fragment (Giessen, 1873), 25-39; A. T.
EHRHARDT, The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment, Ostkirchliche Studien, II
(1953), I2I. Cf. J. CAMPOS, Epoca del fragmenta Muratoriano, Helmantica, Revista
de Humanidades Clasicas, II (1960), 495 n.8. He, however, by examination of
spelling, vocabulary, and syntax (pp. 486-95) has shown that the Latin of the
fragment dates from not earlier than the last decade of the fourth century. He
goes on to show (pp. 495f.) that the Latin text discloses close acquaintance with
the Vulgate and, hence, could not have been produced earlier than the first part of
the fifth century. This late date for the Latin of the text precludes the possibility
of a Latin original for the fragment, since it contains elements that must be dated
earlier than the Latin of the text. Cf. RITTER,op. cit., 233f. It seems unlikely that
an earlier Latin text would have been revised early in the fifth century to accom-
modate it to the Vulgate, whereas the Vulgate may well have influenced the word-
ing of a translation from Greek at that time. Cf. KUHN, op. cit., 3-16, who also
argued for a fourth- or fifth-century translation from a Greek original. KUHN
also countered the thesis of G. VOLKMAR (in C. A. CREDNER,Zur Geschichte des
Kanons [Halle, 1847], 341ff.) that the text of the fragment is not in Latin but in
the lingua vulgata (the language of the provinces such as Africa). J. DONALDSON,
History of Christian Literature, III (London, 1866), 2I1ff., argued that the frag-
ment was composed originally in Latin, probably in the African church toward the
end of the first half of the third century. But WESTCOTT, op. cit., 188 n.i, noted
that the order of the gospels in the fragment is not that of the African church,
where the oldest authorities have Matthew, John (but cf. TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc.
4.2,5, John, Matthew). Therefore, he concluded that an African (and therefore
Latin) origin for the list is very unlikely. Cf. ZAHN, NT Kanons, II, 128-31.
o Cf. WESTCOTT, op. cit., 186; KUHN, op. cit., 32f., etc.
ALBERT C. SUNDBERG, JR. 3
are barely ingenious."10 The fragment, which has been dated as
early as the middle of the second century,"1is now commonly
placed in the last decades of that century.12 This date became so
generally accepted that by the seventh decade of the last century
Westcott could observe, "the opinions of those who assign it to the
fourth century. . . . scarcely deserve mention." 13 Indeed, the
case for the Muratorian canon and its relationship to the history
of the New Testament canon is so pat that the Interpreter'sDic-
tionary of the Bible needed to devote only eight lines to its descrip-
tion. They read, "Muratorian Fragment. A fragment of a cor-
rupt Latin manuscript named for its discoverer, L. A. Muratori
(in 1740), and comprising the greater part of a list of the Chris-
tian writings accepted as canonical by someone, probably at
Rome near the end of the 2nd century. The document has great
importance in the history of the New Testament Canon. J.
Knox." 4" Neither the old nor the new R. G. G. gives a more
comprehensivetreatment.15
Adolf von Harnack was, perhaps, the last great apologist for
the Muratorian canon."1 Confident that the time and place for
1o
Op. cit., 186, following CREDNER, op. cit., 93.
1 ZAHN, NT Kanons, II, I34f.
12E. HENNECKE, W. SCHNEEMELCHER,Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tiibin-
gen, 1959-64), I, 18f.; RITTER, op. cit., 233, etc.
13 Op. cit., 4. Cf. TREGELLES, op. cit., 5 and CAMPOS, op. cit., 495 n.7 for bibli-
ography on various datings of the list. A. HARNACK, Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1958), II. 2, 331, cites G. KOFFMANE-KUNITZ, Das
wahre Alter und die Herkunft des sogenannten Muratorischen Kanons, in Neue
Jahrbiicher deutsche Theologie, II (1893), 163-223, as an example for a late
dating of thefitrcanon. This is a substantial and well-argued case and deserves close
attention. HARNACK,however, dismisses it with a reference to H. ACHELIS, Zum
Muratorischen Fragment, Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie XXXVII
(1894), 223-32. ACHELIS,however, deals only with KOFFMANE-KUNITZ' statement
regarding the time and place of the script of the fragment and makes no attempt to
reply to other considerations in KOFFMANE-KUNITZ' case.
1 G. A. BUTTRICK, ed. (New York, 1962), III, 456.
' Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart IV (Tiibingen, 1930), 289; (1960),
II9I.
" A.
HARNACK, Tatians Diatessaron im Muratorischen Fragmente nachgewiesen,
in Zeitschrift fiir lutheranische Theologie und Kirche XXXV (1874), 276-88.
Also his Der polemische Abschnitt im Muratorischen Fragmente als Schliissel fiir ein
geschichtliches Verstiindniss desselben, ibid., 445-64, XXVI (1875) 207ff.; Zur
Geschichte der Marcionitischen Kirchen, ZWT XIX (1876), 109-13; Das Murator-
ische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung Apostolisch-Katholischer
Schriften, Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte III (1879), 358-4o8, 595-98; Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur, I, 646f., II, 330-33.
REVIEW
the canon was already clearly staked out, Harnack proceeded to
interpretit as an officialdocumentpublishedin Rome and defining
the content of the New Testament for the whole church.17 He
argued that the author of the canon speaks with authority. For
this reason he must either have been a bishop or, less likely, in
close association with a bishop, and writing under the bishop's
direction. He assumed that what the church from which the
canon emanated did, or may do, in reference to the New Testa-
ment canon is self-evident and requires no defense (though the
author of the list does partly defend and justify the acceptance or
exclusion of some books). The procedure, argued Harnack, is
intelligible only on the supposition that the author was addressing
himself to outsiders who were uncertain about what should be
included in the new collection of Christian sacred writings. He
proclaimed, "this is our custom," and assumed that this custom
must be the custom of the church everywhere. This attitude, says
Harnack, is exactly the same as that of Rome in the Easter con-
troversy. Secondly, Harnack argued that the apostolic, catholic
standard dominates the fragment from beginning to end. He re-
garded the phrases, "we" and the "Catholic Church,"when used
in the fragment, as interchangeableand as denoting the Roman
church. Hence, the terms "a nobis" (line 46), "recipimus"and
"non recipimus"(lines 72 and 82), and "quidamex nostris" (lines
72f.) designate properly and certainly the church to which the
authorbelonged,as did "in catholica habentur,"is since the phrase
is linked with "recipimus."Unequivocally identifying this church
with the Roman church, Harnack asked whether any western
church, at the transition from the second to the third century,
A. HARNACK, tber den Verfasser und den literarischen Charakter des Mura-
17
torischen Fragments, ZNW XXIV (1925), 5-7, and Die Mission und Ausbreitung
des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1924), II, 860 n.2.
'sLine 69. M. J. ROUTII,Reliquiae Sacrae (Oxonii, 1818), I, 425; III, 44, has
shown that TERTULLIAN and later writers sometimes omit "ecclesia." The usage
here, however, may be due to the translator or the copyist. C. K. J. BUNSEN,
Hippolytus und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1852), II, 136, followed by WESTCOTT, op. cit.,
191 n.2, is almost certainly wrong in amending the text to "Catholicis," presup-
posing KaOoXtK71 •r71-TroTXj, since this passage is clearly parallel to "in honore tamen
ecclesiae catholicae" (lines 6if.), and to the negative, "in catholicam ecclesiam
recipi non potest" (lines 66f., cf. lines 72, 82). Cf. WESTCOTT, op. cit., 480, where
his corrected text reads "in catholica" with n. 4, "if the original reading was not 'in
catholicis' "
ALBERT C. SUNDBERG,JR. 5
other than the Roman and its bishop or his agent could have
spoken thus. Thus Harnack found the Roman church here defin-
ing the New Testament for herself as well as for the church at
large, holdingthat the fragmentgives clear testimony that this par-
ticular canon is the specific work of the Roman church which
cherishes, guards, and develops it, and now also delivers it to the
other churches as the apostolic-Catholiccanon to be accepted by
them and observed.
Here Harnack has pushed beyond the position held by Zahn that
"the circumstantial solemnity with which the position of Pius is
described [in Canon Muratori] is intelligible only if the author
was writing not indeed in Rome for Romans, but in or for a
western church in some way connected with Rome," 19 whereas
Harnack made the fragmentinto an officialpromulgationof a New
Testament canon by and for the Roman church, and not for it
only, but also for the whole of Christendom.20 Harnack suggested
Victor, bishop of Rome 189-199, or less probably Zephyrinus
(199-217), or someone under his authorization as the probable
author. It is Harnack's view, but with relief at some points, such
as the official character.of the fragment or the author specified,
that has come to be the accepted view on Canon Muratori.
However, Harnack overextendedhimself in his argument. This
has been conclusively demonstratedwith respect to the linguistic
argument for Rome by H. Koch in his article "Zu A.v.Harnacks
Beweis fiir den amtlichen rb*mischen Ursprung des Muratorischen
Fragments."21 Koch shows that Harnack has jumped to a rash
conclusion in making the identification "catholica (ecclesia)"
equals Rome, by showing that Cyprian in the third century was
able to use the term in writing to bishops of other than the see of
Rome, meaningby it their several individual seats, and "catholicae
ecclesiae" when more than one were involved. Hence for Cyprian
the Christian community in each city could be called "catholica."
Koch points out that he had already made this point in his
S"Muratorian Canon," p. 54.
2?TREGELLES, Op. cit., i, however, regarded the canon as an incidental account
rather than a formal canon. And EHRHARDT, op. Cit., 121, thinks that the canon was
produced to mark the occasion when the four-gospel canon was established in the
church at Rome.
'ZNW XXIV (1925), 154-63.
6 REVIEW
HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
book, Cyprian und der riimische Primat (1925), but Har-
nack was ignorant of or has ignored his work. Koch then goes on
to show that the terms "in urbe Roma" and "cathedra urbis
Romae ecclesiae" are not, as Zahn had already noticed, the lan-
guage one would expect in a document written from the city of
Rome. Rather, Koch illustrates, writings emanating from the
city of Rome use the phrase "hic in urbe Roma" in reference to
that city. Thus, if the Muratorian fragment emanated from the
city of Rome, one would expect not simply the phrase "urbs
Roma," but rather a phrase such as "pastoremhic in urbe Roma
Hermas conscripsit. . . ." Koch concludes that Harnack thus
has no grounds to support his argumentthat the Muratorianfrag-
ment must have originated in the city of Rome.22 That Koch's
article lies buried and forgotten while Harnack's position pre-
vails is probably to be explained by the fact that in Harnack's
day Harnack was the man to read and Koch was not.
There is one word that has been related to the place of origin of
the fragment that was not discussed by Koch. It is the word urbs
standing alone in lines 38f. Since in line 76 we find the phrase
"urbis Romae," it is argued that "urbs" standing alone can only
refer to the city of Rome (which, indeed, it does) and that it is
only in the city of Rome or in its environs that the word "urbs"
could be thus used and mean the city of Rome.23 One must allow
that this certainly would be the case if the usage of the term
"urbs"dependedupon the place of writing for its meaning. But in
lines 34-39 of the fragmentthat is certainly not the case. Rather,
the meaning of "urbs"is clearly defined by its reference to a sup-
posed journey by Paul to Spain following his release from prison
in Rome, which events are not describedin the Book of Acts. The
passage reads: "Acta autem omnium apostolorum sub uno libro
scripta sunt. Lucas optimo Theophilo comprendit, quae sub
22 QUASTEN, op. cit., II, 208, concedes that KoCH has destroyed HARNACK'S argu-
ment that Canon Muratori is "an official document involving the responsibility
of the Roman Church" (EHRIARDT, op. Cit., 132 n.64, erroneously cites KOCH as
supporting HARNACK'Sposition). But what QUASTENhas not seen is that KOCH also
destroyed HARNACK'S argument for Rome as the place of origin for the fragment,
which is the main point of KocH's argument.
23HARNACK, Verf. u. literarischer Charakter des Muratorischen Fragments, 5;
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, II, 2, 331; TREGELLES,Op. cit., 40, etc.
praesentia eius singula gerebantur,sicuti et semota passione Petri

evidenter declarat, sed et profectione Pauli ab urbe ad Spaniam
proficiscentis." Quite evidently here the author of the fragment
has assumed that since Acts closes abruptly with Paul in prison
in Rome preaching the gospel freely for two years, and since Paul,
in Rom. 15:24, 29, had evidenced his desire of continuing on to
Spain after visiting Rome, that Paul, upon being released from
prison, did depart the city (Rome) on his way to Spain but with-
out Luke in his company.24 Hence, it is fruitless to argue from the
use of "urbs," though it stands alone in this passage, that the
fragment can only have been written in the city of Rome (though
it does refer to that city) because the meaning of the term
"urbs"does not depend upon the place of writing of the fragment
but, rather, upon the place designated in Acts 28:3of. and Rom.
15:24, 28. Thus the linguistic argument for the designation of
place of writing as Rome is lost.24a
24WESTCOTT, op. cit., 189 n.I. Cf. HENNECKE, op. Cit., II, 177f., for refutation
of the argument that Canon Muratori was dependent on the Acts of Peter for
information about these events.
24a
ERHARDT, op. Cit., 124f., rightly dismissed the arguments that the play on
words in line 67, "fel enim cum melle misceri non congruit," and the phrase in line
75, "sedente in cathedra urbis Romae Pio episcopo," are useful language and place-
of-origin indicators as inconsequential, since the first is a Latin proverb that could
easily be included in a translation (cf. KUHN, op. cit., 86; QUASTEN, op. Cit., II,
209), and IRENAEUS used the same method as the latter for dating Valentinus' stay in
Rome (Adv. Haer. 3.4.3). However, the case made by HARNACK, Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur, II, 2, 330f., independently restated by ERHARDT that the
phrase "iuris studiosum" (line 4) is "a remark pointing to Roman secular life which,
in this form, could not have been made anywhere but at Rome" (op. cit., 124f.),
appears erroneous. That this is a legal term is certain. However, HARNACK and
ERHARDT tacitly assume that this fact is a sure pointer to Rome. But the study of
Roman law in Latin was not limited to Rome. Probably in the second century a
school of Roman law had been established in Beirut (P. COLLINET, Beyrouth, centre
d'affichage et de dep6t des constitutions imperiales, Syria V [1924], 359-72), and
similar schools developed at Constantinople and Carthage (H. I. MARROU, A His-
tory of Education in Antiquity, trans. G. Lamb [New York, 1956], 389f.; E. S.
BOUCHIER, Life and Letters in Roman Africa [Oxford, 1913], 34). And, according
to BOUCHIER,students of jurisprudence at Carthage became "iuris studiosi" or
"studentes" (however, I am not able to discover these terms at the places cited by
BOUCHIER:
C. I. L. VIII, 2470; Ephemeris Epigraphicus V, 191). It would appear
that legal terminology, such as the term "iuris studiosus" would follow the study
and practice of Roman law, especially in a center such as Beirut, which was a cen-
ter for public proclamations, and the archives of the imperial laws and constitu-
tions affecting the eastern portion of the empire were located there (MARROU, Op.
cit., 389). Thus, the use of "iuris studiosus" for a staff member of a Roman
official can hardly have been exclusively Roman. But cf. also KUHN, op. cit., 40;
KOFFMANE-KUNITZ, op. cit., I64f.
REVIEW
But not only is the linguistic argumentas to place of origin lost;
it would also appear that the linguistic argument for date is sub-
ject to question as well. The passage upon which dating depends
is that dealing with the writing of the Shepherdof Hermas (lines
73-77), which reads: "Pastoremvero nuperrimetemporibusnos-
tris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit sedente cathedra urbis
Romae ecclesiae Pio episcopo fratre eius." 24b Zahn succinctly
puts the alternativesof date implied in this passage thus: i) If the
words "very recently, in our own times" are intended to be con-
trasted with the times of the prophets and apostles, which follow
hard upon the statement about Shepherd and read, "and there-
fore, while it ought to be read, to the end of the ages, it cannot be
read publicly in church to the people, either among the prophets
whose ranks are complete or among the apostles," then these
words would allow a lapse of a considerable amount of time be-
tween the writing of the Shepherdand this document. But Zahn
finds the words "temporibusnostris" to be conclusive for the other
alternative; 2) that the author of the fragment must have been
born before the death of Pius, i.e., not later than Easter, A.D.
154.25
But is it possible to argue so conclusively from the words
"nuperrimetemporibusnostris?" Scholarswho have discussed the
matter, in their willingness to date the fragment and establish a
New Testament canon about the end of the second century A.D.,
have apparently overlooked significant alternatives to their con-
clusions. One of these is to be found in the term "nuperrime,"
translated almost universally "very recently." And, indeed, one
possible translation of "nuperrime"is "very recently" if taken as
a diminished superlative. Otherwise, and equally viable, the
meaning is "most recently." And with the latter the compari-
son of date for the Shepherd of Hermas is with the preceding
books in the list. The meaning is that Shepherdof Hermas is not
comparableto the precedingbooks in the list in terms of antiquity
of authorship. Here it is not necessary nor do I intend to argue
that the second alternative is the only correct translation. It is
24bWESTCOTT, op. cit., 185; TREGELLES, op. cit., 58-64; ZAHN, NT Kanons,
134-36; KUHN, cit., 29; HARNACK, Altchristlichen Literatur, II, 331, etc.
op.
' "Muratorian
Canon," p. 54; cf. ZAHN,NT Kanons, II, 134.
important,however, to note that the second alternativeis as viable

a translation as the one commonly received. That is to say, the
term "nuperrime"does not necessarily fix the time-comparison
with the lifetime of the author of the list, but may relate the time-
comparisonfor the writing of the Shepherdof Hermas to the pre-
viously listed apostolic books, as Zahn allowed.25a
As we have noted, Zahn regarded the words "temporibusnos-
tris" to be conclusive evidence that the author of the list must
have been born before the death of Pius. This conclusion implies
that these words also are subject to only one meaning, i.e., "with-
in our lifetime." But that this is the only meaning possible for
these words is also subject to question. Already, as early as
Ignatius (d. 117) and Polycarp (d. 156) a conscious differenti-
ation between the apostles and these men was noted.26 And a
tradition subsequently arose in the church setting apart the apos-
tolic time from subsequent periods of church history. This tradi-
tion is illustrated, for example, by Hegesippus (I5O-I8o), who
believed that the church remained a pure and uncorruptedvirgin
throughoutthe times of the apostles and their hearers. "But when
the sacred band of the apostles" and their hearershad passed, then
heresies arose in the church.27 For Hegesippus the turning point
seems to have been the reign of Trajan. Or again, Eusebius, ob-
serving that he had described "the facts concerning the apostles
and their times" in H. E. 3.31.6, continued the narrative in 3.32.1
after Nero and Domitian. Thus, the times of the apostles and
the times subsequent to the apostles are set off by the reign of
either Trajan or Domitian.27a A passage that has special bearing
upon our interest here is found in Irenaeus, Haer. 5:30.3 28 which
reads, "We therefore will not take the risk of making any posi-
tive statement concerning the name of the Antichrist. For if it
had been announced clearly at the present time, it would have
been spoken by him who also saw the Revelation; for it was not
25a
Cf. PHILASTRIUS, Haer. iio, "Alia est heresis quae dicit Christianas nuperio-
res et posteriores Iudaeis . . ." (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, X [Turn-
holte, 1957], 247).
28 IGNATIUS, Eph. 13; POLYCARP,Phil. 3.9.
'
EUSEBIUS, H. E. 4.22.4; cf. 3.32.6.
2a
KOFFMANE-KUNITZ, op. cit., 177.
' Cf.
EUSEB., H. E. 5.8.6 for the Greek text. The translation is K. Lake's.
REVIEW
even seen a long time ago, but almost in our own generation
towards the end of the reign of Domitian" (o'8 yap wrporToXXoo3
XPOVOV qX,raa -XESOV ET 7' - yEvEa,
E(paO•1 0EErE'pc, •TpOrT(J TEXrEL
7-^, Ao?Erteavovdpx-g).29 It would be surprisingthat Irenaeus
could use such language to describe a lapse of time approachinga
century apart from the fact that he is utilizing the tradition which
differentiates between apostolic and subsequent time. It is clear
that he believed that the Apocalypse of John was written about
the end of the apostolic period, i.e., "almostin our own generation
(o-XE8obdE'r'trij )1ETE'pag yEvEam). And the similarity of the lan-
guageused by Irenaeusto describethe time in which the Apocalypse
of John was written to the language used in the Muratoriancanon
to describe the time in which the Shepherdof Hermas was written
leaves the argument poorly founded that the words "temporibus
nostris" can mean nothing else than within the lifetime of the
author. It is clear from the Irenaeus citation that he would call the
time subsequent to Domitian 4i(qLErupayEVEd,and this appears to
be the equivalent of Canon Muratori's phrase, "temporibusnos-
tris." Thus, the similarity of the language used by Irenaeus to
describe the time in which the Apocalypse of John was written to
the language used by the Muratorian canon to describe the time
in which the Shepherdof Hermas was written is evident. I would
suggest that, in view of the language and time lapse involved in
Irenaeus' statement, it is not inconceivable that we may be deal-
ing with a time lapse of similar magnitude in the statement in
Canon Muratori, if indeed the author of the Muratorian frag-
ment had accurate information on the matter.3,
That the statement in the fragment is apologetic, and that the
29'The Latin translation of IRENAEUSreads, "Neque enim ante multum temporis
visum est, sed pene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii." J. P. MIGNE,
Patrologia ... Graeca (Paris, 1857-87), VII, 1207.
"3Cf. B. H. STREETER, The Primitive Church (New York, 1929), 213, "The
phrase 'in our own time,' occurring in such a context, is of course the rhetorical
exaggeration of the controversialist. It cannot be pressed, as has been often done,
to imply that the author lived near enough to the time of Pius to be well informed
in the matter. In any case such language in early Christian usage allowed con-
siderable elbowroom." And he goes on to cite IREN., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3. Cf. KUHN,
op. cit., 25 n.i; KOFFMANE-KUNITZ, op. cit., i76f. But STREETERfailed to notice
that this undercut the accepted basis for dating the Muratorian fragment. Conse-
quently he continued to regard it as reliable evidence for the shape of the New
Testament canon about the end of the second century in Rome. Ibid., 2IIf.
DONALDSON, op. Cit., III, 212, etc. Cf. EUSEBIUS, H. E. 3.28.3; 5.28.I.
author of the fragment is pleading a negative case against the
canonicity of the Shepherd,is clear.31 The point of the argument
is that the Shepherd of Hermas was written too late to be con-
sidered apostolic. And the conclusion of the argument for the
late dating of the Shepherdrefers not to the lifetime of the author
of the Muratorianlist but rather to the lifetime of Pius of Rome.
Thus, the negative argument in the canon could be paraphrased
as follows, Shepherd of Hermas 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. Thus, the language of Canon Muratori can be understood
as making its case against the Shepherd of Hermas without any
reference to the lifetime of the author of the list.
It is to be noticed that I do not argue that the alternative trans-
lation, "but Hermas wrote the Shepherdmost recently, in our time
(i.e., in post-apostolic times), in the city of Rome, while his
brother Pius was the bishop occupying the episcopal chair of the
church of the city of Rome," is the only possible translation but
that this is a possible translation and that it is a viable alternative
to the traditional dogmatic interpretation of the passage. This
means that the argument that the author of the fragment must
have been born before the death of Pius is inconclusive, and that
the phrase "nuperrime temporibus nostris" understood as con-
trasted with the times of the prophets and of the apostles is an-
other viable meaning of the passage.
If then the statement about Rome and the statement about the
Shepherddo not conclusively place and date the Muratorianfrag-
ment, as has been dogmatically held in the past, it becomes neces-
sary to look at other items in the fragment in order to establish
its date and place. Samuel Tregelles has devoted section four of
his work, Canon Muratorianus,to the relation of the Muratorian
canon to authorities in the second century.32 These are not sur-
prising, whether the fragment is to be dated at the end of the
31 WESTCOTT, op. cit., 186; HARNACK, Der polemische Abschnitt im Muratorischen
Fragmente, 276-88; P. VIELHAUER, Apocalyptic in Early Christianity, in HENNECKE,
op. cit., II, 453; STREETER,op. cit., 213; B. J. LIGHTFOOT,et al., Excluded Books of
the New Testament (New York, 1927), 251; S. GIET, Hermas et les Pasteurs (Paris,
1963), 286f.; KUHN, op. cit., 98.
32Op. cit., 66-91.
REVIEW
second century or later. What is wanting in Tregelles' work is a
section discussing those features in the canon which cannot be
paralleled within the second-century church fathers and which
find parallels only in substantially later materials.
J. Donaldson, one of the few authors who has questioned the
second-century dating of the canon, has noted that the phrase
"ecclesiastica disciplina" is unknown to any writer described in
his third volume of A Critical History of Christian Literature
and Doctrine, which deals with the apologists in the latter part of
the second century; 32a nor can he find the words "sedente
cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae" paralleled in Tertullian, but ob-
serves that there are many such expressions in Cyprian (A.D.
258).33
Again, the place of Hermas in Canon Muratori is of particular
importance.33aThe Shepherd of Hermas was highly regarded in
the early church. Irenaeus (c. 185) cited it with approval; 34
32a
Op. cit., 212. He also includes the phrase "ecclesiae catholicae" as late. But its
Greek equivalent appears as early as IGNATIUS, Smyrna. 8.2; Martyrdom of Poly-
carp 8.1; 16.2; 19.2, etc. Cf. KUHN, op. cit., 29.
"
Op. cit., 212. DONALDSONindeed regarded the wording of the passage dealing
with the date of Hermas as so strange to the time of Hegesippus that he believed
it to be an interpolation by the Roman or African translator expressly as proof
that Hermas was not inspired. Ibid., 209. Cf. G. SALMON,Muratorian Fragment,
in Dictionary of Christian Biography, III (London, 188o), 1oo2, who, noting the
disparity between the historical circumstances of leadership in the Roman church
at the time of Pius and that assumed by the author of the fragment, concluded that
a much greater interval between the time of Pius and that of the Muratorian writer
than the generally allowed twenty years must have occurred, since the author of the
fragment reflects no memory of the struggle for monarchical episcopacy in Rome
but simply assumes it. That struggle was far from over in Pius' day. Cf. G. LA
PIANA, The Roman Church at the end of the Second Century, HTR XVIII (1925),
201-77; KOFFMANE-KUNITZ, op. cit., 175f.
33a The late dating of the Shepherd of Hermas at about the middle of the second
century is dependent upon the Canon Muratori statement. However, if the end-
of-the-second-century dating of Canon Muratori proves erroneous, then Shepherd
must be dated by its internal evidence and appears to belong to the end of the
first century. Cf. W. J. WILSON, The Career of the Prophet Hermas, HTR XX
(1927), 21-62; W. COLEBORNE,A Linguistic Approach to the Problem of Structure
and Composition of the Shepherd of Hermas, Colloquium III (1969), 133-42.
' Adv. Haer.
4.20.2; EUSEB., H. E. 5.8.7. Cf. A. JULICHER, An Introduction to
the New Testament, trans. J. P. Ward (London, 1904), 500. For citations of Hermas
in the church fathers cf. O. GEBHARDT,A. HARNACK,T. ZAHN, eds., Patrum Apostol-
icorum Opera, third ed., III, Hermae Pastor (Lipsiae, 1877), xliv-lxxi. Though
IRENAEUScalls Hermas ypaqo, it is overstatement to say that this means canonical
since ypao' was not a technical term. Cf. A. C. SUNDBERG,JR., Towards a Re-
vised History of the New Testament Canon, Studia Evangelica IV (1968), 454-57;
Clement of Alexandria (c. 215) regardedit as divinely spoken and
by revelation; 3" Tertullian (c. 222-25), while initially accepting
the book,36under the influence of Montanism came to reject the
Shepherd, calling it "the book that loves adulterers," and saying
that even the synod of the orthodox counted it spurious." Ap-
parently Tertullian's objection was that the Shepherd taught a
doctrine allowing a fallen Christian to be restored,38and his
statement that it was rejected by 'the synod of the orthodox is
probably to be understood as an expression of prejudice since we
have no confirmation of it and since it is contrary to orthodox
usage of the time.39 Origen (c. 185-253) had a high regard for
the Shepherd of Hermas, calling it "authoritative scripture"4o
and "divinely inspired,"41 and attributing it to the Hermas men-
tioned in Rom. i6:14. He was aware that some opposed the
work 4" and seems himself to have become more sensitive to this
opposition toward the latter part of his life.43 We do not know
the reasons for his objection. Quite possibly, as with the Mon-
tanists, objection to Hermas was raised by rigorist supporters of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. And Origen was known for his ascet-
icism and came to be a defender of Hebrews.44
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339/40) seems to mark the turn-
J. LAWSON,The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London, 1948), 50f.; J.

WERNER, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus, in Texte und Untersuchungen, VI.2 (Leip-
zig, 1889), 36-38.
3 Stromata1.17, 29; 2.1, 9, 12.
36 De oratione 16.
3 De pudicitia 10, 20. Cf. KRiGER, Op. cit., 41.
38 SALMON, op. cit., I002f. dated the canon between TERTULLIAN'S publication of
De oratione and De pudicitia, since the latter marks the first instance of the re-
jection of the Shepherd. However, SALMON overlooked Tertullian's conversion to
Montanism as the probable reason for his subsequent rejection of this work.
SALMON regarded the fragment as anti-Montanist. If it is, one would have ex-
pected it to defend the Shepherd against this Montanist attack.
9 Cf. JiJLICHER, op. cit., 521,
"The 'Shepherd' of Hermas was treated by practi-
cally all the Greek theologians of the third century who had occasion to use it as a
canonical document."
40De principiis 1.3.3; 2.1.5; 3.2.4.
"*Comm. in Rom. 10.31, cf. Tractatus 35 (on Lk. 12:59).
4 De princ. 4.1.11.
3 Comm. on Matt. 14.21; ibid., Pt. 2.53; Trac. on Num. 8.1; ibid., Trac. I (on
Ps. 38), sect. i. Cf. R. P. C. HANSON,Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London,
1954), 139f., where the foregoing passages from ORIGEN are cited.
44 EUSEB., H. E. 6.25.11-3.
14 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
ing point with respect to Hermas. He notes that some take the
Shepherd to be the work of that Hermas mentioned in Romans;
on the other hand, he feels it should be known that Hermas is
rejected by some. Hence, for their sake, it should not be placed
among the accepted books (6/zoXoyo1+Evot) though it is judged to
be most valuable by others, especially for those needing elemen-
tary instruction.45Eusebius knows that it has been used in public
in churches and he says he has found it quoted by some of the
most ancient writers. Immediately following these comments on
Hermas in H. E. 3.3.6-7, he continues, "let this suffice for the
establishment of the divine writings which are disputed, and of
those which are not received by all" IrTlo-tv
(',Jv /tq lrap
OGElov
6FLOXoyovLE/WvY Wpgrpo-Ow). However, while here
ypa~eLtL/oTv
placing Hermas among the divine but disputed writings, a little
later in H. E. 3.2 5.4, where Eusebius is giving a summary of the
New Testament books, he places Hermas among the spurious
books (v6Oot). These passages are particularly important, since
in each of them Eusebius is making his own evaluation of the
books named, in one naming Hermas among the divine but dis-
puted books, in the other listing Hermas as spurious. Following
Eusebius, Hermas finds no place in New Testament lists.46 Atha-
nasius of Alexandria,in his Easter Letter of 367, is the earliest to
give a list of twenty-seven books of the New Testament which
alone are to be regarded as canonical."47His list matches ours.
Shepherdis not included in the canon, but he notes that it may be
read by catechumens together with the so-called Teaching of the
Apostles. Thus, Eusebius appears to mark the transition to the
rejection of Hermas. But even after the will of the east had re-
moved Hermas from the New Testament canon, there was an
5H. E. 3.3.6f.; cf. 5.8.7.

8 However,
the Shepherd is included together with the Epistle of Barnabas in
the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, and JEROME, De vir. ill. io notes the tradi-
tion that the author of the Shepherd was the Hermas mentioned in Rm. 16 and
says that some in the Greek church read the Shepherd in public. However, see his
Comm. on Habak. 1.14.
" G.
SALMON, Hermas, in Dictionary of Christian Biography, III, 913f. The
list of the apocrypha reads: Wisd. Sol., Wisd. Sir., Esther, Judith, Tobit, Teaching
of the Apostles, Shepherd. Since the list of the apocrypha follows the Old and the
New Testament canons, it apparently was intended to include both Old and New
Testament apocrypha.
ALBERTC. SUNDBERG,JR. 15
attempt in the west to preserve the book by attaching it to the Old
Testament list.4"
Let me now return to the matter that first attracted my atten-
tion to the quesion of place and date of the Muratorian fragment.
These are the statements that describe the circumstance of Old
Testament canon in the church at the time and place when the
Muratorian fragment was written. First, there is the statement
that the Shepherd of Hermas cannot be read publicly in the
church to the people "either among the prophets whose ranks are
complete (neque inter prophetas completo numero), or among the
apostles" (neque inter apostolos) (lines 77-80). And there is the
other statement a few lines previous to this one that reads, "cer-
tainly the epistle of Jude and the two bearing John's name are ac-
cepted in the Catholic (Church), as well as the Wisdom,written by
the friends of Solomon in his honor (et Sapientia ab amicis Salo-
monis in honoremipsius scripta) (lines 68-71)." These two state-
ments give us two bits of informationconcerningthe status of Old
Testament canon at the time and place where the Muratorian
canon was written. First, they tell us that the author of the Mura-
torian canon knew the Old Testament as a closed canon, for I take
the words "inter prophetas"to refer to the Old Testament. "Pro-
phetas" can hardly be a referenceto apocalypses,i.e., by John and
Peter, since the writer of the list nowhere names their authors
"prophets,"since no closed collections of apocalypses as such are
48SALMON,Hermas, 913; A. HARNACK, History of Dogma, 3rd ed. trans. N.

Buchanan (Boston, 1897), III, 198 n.i and The Origin of the New Testament,
trans. J. R. Wilkinson (Covent Garden, W. C. 2, 1925), 171; 0. DE GEBHARDT et al.,
op. cit., xii-xxiv, where Hermas appears: in Cod., Bodleianus Oxoniesis between
Tobit and Macc.; in Cod. Dresdensis A 47 between Ps. (of Sol.?) and Prov. Sol.;
Cod. Vindobonensis Lat. 1217 (Theol. 51) between Wisd. and Isa., exemplars of the
versio Latina vulgata. Cf. S. BERGER, Histoire de la Vulgate (New York, N.Y.,
orig. pub. 1893), 67, for the inclusion of Hermas among the 0. T. Apocrypha.
SALMON, however, is mistakenin supposingthat ATHANASIUS' list set the example
for this practice (cf. n. 47 above). It is rather JEROME who -apparently set this
precedent, saying in Prologus Galeatus (before the Book of Kings) that Wisd. Sol.,
Sir., Judith, Tobit, and Shepherd are not canonical. In the Decretum of Gelasius
(492-96) 17, the Shepherd is called "apocryphus" and placed among writings
"quae . . . a catholicis vitanda sunt."
40 BUNSEN'S attempt to find evidence
here of the omission of Hebrews (op. cit.,
II, 138, 152) can only be regarded as fanciful. Cf. TREGELLES, op. cit., 51; and his
On a Passage in the Muratorian Canon, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology
IV (1855), 37-43.
REVIEW
known in the church, and since the reference to "prophets and
apostles" was a common designation for the Old Testament and
Christian writings in the church. These statements also tell us
that the closed Old Testament canon known to the author of Canon
Muratoridid not include the Wisdom of Solomon,since the author
of the list included it in the New Testament. Until recently, each
of these statements has been an enigma."0This is because it has
long been assumed that early Christianity received a closed canon
from Judaism, not the Palestinian or Hebrew canon of scripture
of A.D. go, but a larger collection that included the books of the
Apocrypha and was thought to be the Alexandrianor the Septu-
agint canon of diaspora Judaism. But since this supposed larger
Alexandrian canon included the Wisdom of Solomon, what need
was there for Wisdom of Solomon to appear in a New Testament
list? Now, however, it has become evident that the legacy the
church received from Judaism cannot be described as a closed
canon." An Alexandrianor Septuagint canon never existed. And
it is now possible to understand these two statements in Canon
Muratori in view of what has been shown to be the differing his-
tories of the Old Testament canon in the church in the east and
in the west. So far as our extant informationgoes, it would appear
that the church in the west, including Rome, was relatively slow
in becoming concerned with the closing of the Old Testament
canon. And when it did take up the matter, the Old Testament of
the western church usually included the Wisdom of Solomon.12
In the eastern church, however, the impact of a closed Jewish
canon from Jamnia upon the more inclusive usage of Jewish scrip-
tures in the churchwas felt at a much earlier date. Already by the
sixth decade of the second century Melito, bishop of Sardis (c.
170),
travelled to the east to the "place where these things were
preachedand done," to inquire into the facts concerningthe num-
ber and order of the ancient writings."3 He obviously obtained
50 WESTCOTT, op. cit., 192; TREGELLES, Canon Muratorianus, 50-55, followed by

P. KATZ, The Johannine Epistles in the Muratorian Canon, JTS VIII (1957),
273f. But cf. J. REIDER, The Book of Wisdom (New York, 1957), if.
51A. C. SUNDBERG, JR., The Old Testament of the Early Church (Harvard
Theological Studies XX, Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 51-103.
52 Ibid., 59, 148-59.
53EUSEBIUS, H. E. 4.26.13.
his list from the Jews, since his Old Testament canon exactly
parallels that of Jamnia except that he inadvertently omitted
Lamentations."5And thereafter in the eastern fathers we find a
tendency to exclude several of the books that we call the
Apocrypha, including the Wisdom of Solomon. So, for example,
Athanasius (295-373) excludes the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach,
Esther, Judith, and Tobit from his Old Testament canon. And he
goes on to say, "but for greater exactness I add this also, writing
of necessity: that there are other books besides these [i.e., the
Old and New Testaments], on the one hand not canonical (ob'
Kavo•tLO/dEva), but appointed by the fathers to be read by those
who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of
Godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon and the Wisdom of Sirach
and Esther and Judith and Tobit and the so-called Teaching of
the Apostles and the Shepherd" (Letters on the Pascal Festival,
A.D. 367).55 It is interesting to find that in Athanasius not only
is Wisdom excluded from his Old Testament canonical list but he
is also concerned to say that the Shepherd of Hermas is not
canonical, which was also the concern of the author of the
Muratorianlist. And surprisinglyenough, another eastern father,
Epiphanius of Salamis in Cyprus (d. 403), omits the Wisdom of
Solomon from his Old Testament lists,56but he includes the Wis-
dom of Solomon and Sirach as a part of his New Testament
canon.57 Similarly, Eusebius, when illustrating Irenaeus' use of
New Testament books, mentions Irenaeus' quotations from the
Wisdom of Solomon among them.5" These are interesting com-
5 SUNDBERG, O. T. of the Early Church, I33f.
5Ep. Fest. 39, in J. P. MIGNE, P. G. XXVI, 1436f.
"5Adv. Haer. 1.1.8, in MIGNE, P. G. XXXIII, 497-500; De mens. et pond. 6,
in MIGNE, P. G. XLIII, 244; De mens. et pond. 23, in MIGNE, P. G. XLIII, 277-80.
In De mens. et pond. 6, however, Wisdom and Sirach are added as at ycip
Uo lipXot, a continuing interest in these books even though they cannot standrtLXcPeL•
in
the Old Testament list.
5 Adv. Haer. 76, in MIGNE, P.G. XLVII, 560f.
5"H. E. 5.8.1-8. The books named are: Matt., Mk., Lk., Jn., Apoc. of Jn., I Jn.,
I Pet., Shep., Wisd. Sol. Eusebius' list for Irenaeus is certainly not complete. But
the writings he does include show that Eusebius thought that Irenaeus treated them
as scripture, since Eusebius introduced the passage thus: "At the beginning of this
work we made a promise to quote from time to time the sayings of the presbyters
and writers of the church of the first period in which they have delivered the
traditions which have come down to them about the canonical scriptures (rckW
yypao.Tv) of whom also was Irenaeus" (5.8.1).
Cf. the index of Codex
v8taOlKKWV
parisons to make with the status of the Old Testament canon as

we find it in the Muratorianfragment. It is probable that Sirach,
Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, and Tobit were excluded from the
Old Testament canon in the eastern church because they were not
included in the Jewish Jamnia list, and the traditions concerning
them in the eastern church did not make it possible for them to
be included by the process of agglomerationunder the titles in the
Jewish list. However, the impact of the Jamnia list on the eastern
church did not become a live issue until the time of Athanasius.
And the inclusion of Sirach and Wisdom of Solomonby Epiphan-
ius in his New Testament list in all probability was due to an
interest to continue the usefulness of these books in the church
even though they could not be fitted under authors of the Jamnia
list of the Old Testament canon.59Thus, the inclusion of Wisdom
of Solomon in the New Testament list in Canon Muratori is seen
to have a close parallel in the inclusion of Wisdom of Solomon
and Sirach in the New Testament list of Epiphanius and in Euse-
bius' inclusion of Wisdom of Solomon among the New Testament
books used by Irenaeus. There are no parallels to this practice
in the west. However, we have noted previously a similar attempt
in the western church to include the Shepherd of Hermas in the
Old Testament when it could no longer stand in the New Testa-
ment canon. Thus, we observe parallel phenomena in east and
west respecting the treatment of books once generally accepted
when they could no longer be included in the canonical list to
which they belonged. The east tended to include Wisdom of
Solomon and Sirach in the New Testament, and the west some-
times included the Shepherd of Hermas in the Old. Canon
Muratori is an example of the former tendency; it follows the
eastern church in including the Wisdom of Solomon in the New
Testament, and the reason for this tendency in the east is first ob-
served in Athanasius,with Epiphanius being the earliest clear ex-
ample of parallel inclusion.
Further information concerning time and place of writing for
Canon Muratori may be obtained from its statements concerning
Alexandrinus, probably Palestinian, which concludes the New Testament list with
the Psalms of Solomon, in WESTCOTT, Op. cit., 493f.
59 SUNDBERG, O. T. of the Early Church, 145-48.
apocalypses. The Apocalypse of John is referredto three times in
the list: lines 47-50, "cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus sequens
prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem non nisi nominatim septem
ecclesiis scribat"; lines 57-59 (which are a continuation of the
argument of lines 47-50), "et Iohannes enim in apocalypsi licet
septem ecclesiis scribat, tamen omnibus dicit." While these lines
are related by the author to the letters of Paul, it appears un-
likely that they were used by the author to argue for the canonic-
ity of Paul's letters, as K. Stendahl has suggested.60 The author
first begins to list Paul's letters in lines 39-46 with no apologetic
concerning their canonicity other than that they are Paul's.61
" The Apocalypse of John and the Epistles of Paul in the Muratorian Fragment,
W. KLASSENand G. F. SNYDER,eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpreta-
tion (New York, 1962), 239-43. V. BARTLET, observing that Canon Muratori, in
making Paul dependent on the example of the Apocalypse of John in writing letters
to seven churches, is the reverse of the situation described by HIPPOLYTUS, accord-
ing to BAR SALIBI, cited in T. H. ROBINSON, The Authorship of the Muratorian
'Canon, Expositor, Series 7, I (I906), 488, where John, in writing to seven
churches in his Apocalypse, is dependent on the example of Paul (cf. V. BARTLET,
Melito the author of the Muratorian Canon, Expositor, Series 7, II [Igo6], 211).
He suggests in explanation that the Muratorian form must have taken shape where
the Johannine tradition was even stronger than the Pauline; "there only could the
notion of making John the norm of fitting action readily occur, without the
chronological question, too, needing to be considered very seriously" (ibid., 218).
Both STENDAHLand BARTLET, however, have overlooked the larger tradition con-
cerning the universality of Paul's letters. Thus TERTULLIAN remarked, "But of what
consequence are the titles, since in writing to a certain church the apostle did in
fact write to all," in explaining that Ephesians, rather than Laodiceans, was the
correct name of that letter (Adv. Marc. 5.17). And CYPRIAN, after citing ex-
amples in which the mystical number seven occurs in scripture, continues, "And
the Apostle Paul who was mindful of this proper and definite number writes to
seven Churches. And in the Apocalypse the Lord writes his divine commands and
heavenly precepts to seven churches and their Angels" (De exhort. mart. ii).
VICTORINUS, bishop of Pettau in Pannonia, similarly says, "There are . . . seven
spirits . . . seven golden candlesticks . . . seven churches addressed by Paul, seven
deacons . . ." (cited in ROUTH,op. cit., III, 459). And JEROME comments, "The
Apostle Paul writes to seven churches, for his eighth epistle to the Hebrews is by
most excluded from the number" (ad Paul. 50, cited in WESTCOTT, op. cit., 324f.).
These show that the concept of the universality of Paul's letters existed apart from
the connection of that tradition with the numerological interest in seven, and that
the seven-churches interest also existed apart from its being related to the seven
churches of the Apocalypse of John. CYPRIAN's remark simply observes the coin-
cidence that seven churches are addressed in Paul's letters and in Revelation.
1 The text reads: Epistulae autem Pauli, quae a quo loco vel qua ex
causa
directae sint, volentibus intellegere ipsae declarant: primum omnium Corinthiis
schismae haereses interdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem
ordinem scripturarum sed et principium earum esse Christum intimans prolixius
scripsit.
REVIEW
Similarly, Philemon, Titus, and I and II Timothy are accepted as
written by Paul for ecclesiastical discipline," and the comparison
to Revelation in lines 47-59 does not apply to them. But this
provoked no hesitation concerningtheir status in the list. Rather,
lines 47-59 argue that although Paul's letters are addressed to
particular churches, Paul must have intended them for the uni-
versal use to which they have been put, since he addressed them
by name only to seven churches, thus paralleling John's writing
to seven churches as an introduction to Revelation, which was
intended for the whole church.63 The final statement is about the
apocalypses of John and of Peter, lines 71-73: "Apocalypses
62 Lines
59-63: Verum ad Philemonem unam et ad Titum unam et ad Timotheum
duas pro affectu et dilectione, in honorem tamen ecclesiae catholicae in ordinationem
ecclesiasticae disciplinae sanctificatae sunt.
6a On the significance of seven churches addressed cf. WESTCOTT,op. Cit., 189;
ROUTH, op. cit., I, 416f; KUHN, op. cit., 76; N. A. DAHL, The Particularity of the
Pauline Epistles as a Problem in the Ancient Church, in Neotestamentica et Patris-
tica, ed. W. C. VAN UNNIK (Supplements to Novum Testamentum 6, 1962), 261-63.
It appears to this writer that the author of the Muratorian list had two different
arrangements of the Pauline corpus in hand when he composed his list. This is
indicated by the fact that one arrangement commences in line 39 with the order:
Corinthians, Galatians, Romans; the other, beginning in line 47, gives the order:
Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Romans.
The first arrangement is obviously not complete. But its format, though intro-
duced: Epistulae autem Pauli, quae a quo loco vel qua ex causa directae sint, volenti-
bus intellegere ipsae declarant, evidently was to name Paul's letters, giving for each
a brief statement of the purpose for writing, whereas the second arrangement simply
names and numbers the letters written to churches (cf. N. A. DAHL,Welche Ordnung
der Paulusbriefe wird vom muratorischen Kanon Vorausgesetzt?, ZNW LII
(I96I), 44, "Die Darstellung des Mur. ist offenbar nicht aus einem Gus." DAHL
notes lines 54-55 as particular evidence of this. However, he also refers to lines
42-46, 50-54, 59-60 as "beide Hauptgruppen," 43, cf. 45. That lines 39-46
contain a real arrangement of Paul's letters with Romans standing third (fourth)
is confirmed by the arrangement of the Pauline letters in Marcion (EPIPHANIUS,
Haer. 1.3.42; TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc. 5.2-21; and a Syrian list of about A.D.
400 [in A. SOUTER, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (New York, I913),
226]), which run: Galatians, Corinthians I II, Romans. . ... Here, however, the
order is Corinthians, Galatians, which has a parallel in TERTULLIAN, Adv. Haer. 4.5
(where Romans is placed at the end of the list). It is evident that lines 39-41 intro-
duce one arrangement of Paul's letters available to the author and lines 47-50
another. And the introduction to the first arrangement appeals to the self-eviden-
tial character of Paul's letters (i.e., their usage), including, presumably, their in-
spiration, since their inspiration was everywhere accepted (cf. DAHL, The Par-
ticularity of the Pauline Epistles, 264ff.). Note also TERTULLIAN'S comment, "But
of what consequences are the titles (to Paul's letters), since in writing to a cer-
tain church the apostle did in fact write to all" (Adv. Haer. 5.17), which recog-
nizes the catholicity of Paul's letters (presumably deduced from their catholic use)
without appeal to any formula of catholicity (ibid., 265).
etiam Iohannis et Petri tantum recipimus, quas quidam ex nostris
legi in ecclesia nolunt."64
That the Apocalypse of John is an accepted book in the list is
evident. But the tentative nature of this acceptance has not been
recognized. It appears possible to divide the Muratorianlist into
the categories used by Eusebius: accepted, questioned, spurious,
and rejected.64aAnd if so, then it is to be noted that while John's
Apocalypse is named in the main body of the list, that naming is
only related to the letters-to-seven-churchesstatement and not as
a received book in the list. As a received book in the list, John's
Apocalypse appears only as the last accepted book and then in
close conjunction with the Apocalypse of Peter, which is ques-
tioned. Thus the Apocalypse of John seems to lie on the very
fringe of acceptance. Another indicator of the tentative nature of
the acceptability of Revelation in this list is that it is positioned
among the accepted books, but only after the naming of Wisdom
of Solomon. We have noted above the reason for the inclusion of
Wisdom of Solomon,Sirach, and Psalms of Solomonin New Testa-
ment lists. Apart from Canon Muratori, wherever these books
are included, they are placed at the end of the list. Thus Epi-
phanius' list concludes: Apocalypse of John, Wisdom of Solomon,
Sirach; Eusebius on Irenaeus: Apocalypse of John, I John, I
Peter, Shepherd, Wisdom of Solomon; the index in Codex Alex-
andrinus: Apocalypse of John, I and II Clement, Psalms of
Solomon.64bHowever, in Canon Muratori the apocalypses are
relegated to positions below Wisdom of Solomon, with John's re-
ceived, Peter's questioned. This indicates that the apocalypses
are on the very fringe of canonicity in this list. And we must seek
a historical situation that will lend understanding to this fringe
position for the Apocalypse of John in the Muratorianlist.
It is evident that the Apocalypse of John was early received as
authoritative in the church. In the west its imagery appears to
have been employed by Hermas.65Justin Martyr (A.D. 165) used
"Apocalypse should be amended to apocalypses. J. VAN GILSE,Disputatio de
Antiquissimo Librorum Sacrorum novi foederis Catalogo, qui vulgo Fragmentum
Muratorii Appellatur (Amstelodami, 1852), 16; LIETZMANN,op. Cit.,8f.
64a H. E. 3.25.
"b EPIPIANIUS, Adv. Haer. 76.5; SOUTER, op. cit., 2I1, respectively.
SA. H. CHARTERIS, Canonicity (Edinburgh, 1880), 336f. n. Hermas I.
REVIEW
the book and attributed it to John the apostle."6 It was used and
named as John's frequently by Irenaeus," and it is quoted in
the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons of about the same
date.6" In the latter part of the second century the Apocalypse
of John came under attack in Rome by Gaius and the Alogoii."
However, it does not appear to be their attack that is reflected in
the precariousposition of John's Apocalypse in Canon Muratori,
since Gaius and the Alogoi rejected not only the Apocalypse but
also the Gospel and the Epistles of John as well, whereas the Gos-
pel and two Epistles of John are securely accepted in the Mura-
torian canon (lines 9-15, 68f.). But the anti-Montanist attack of
Gaius and the Alogoi was of only limited effect. Hippolytus (c.
236) cites the Apocalypse as by the apostle and disciple John,7o
and Victorinus of Pettau (c. 304), whose commentary on the
Apocalypse is the earliest that is extant," accepted it as written
by the John who wrote the Gospel.7"Hilary of Poitiers (c. 367)
accepted the Apocalypse as written by St. John,73 and Jerome
(c. 340-420) included it in his New Testament canon.7" Thus,
apart from Gaius and the Alogoi, the Apocalypse of John was
fully accepted in the west.Ia
Similarly,the Apocalypse of John was accepted in North Africa.
Tertullian spoke of it as by John the apostle,75Cyprian regarded
"•I Ap. 2.8; Dial. 81; EUSEB., H. E. 3.I8.If.; 4.I18.8.
67Haer. 4.18.6; 4.20.10, II; 5.26.1, etc.; EUSEB., H. E. 5.8.5. The attempt to
distinguish between John the Apostle, author of the Apocalypse and 2, 3 John, and
John the disciple, author of the Gospel and I John, apparently begins with CREDNER,
op. cit., I5If. Cf. WESTCOTT, Op. cit., 187 n. 2, who finds no evidence that the
author of the Muratorian list made any distinction between the Johns named.
s EUSEB., H. E. 5.1.58.
6'R. M. GRANT, Second Century Christianity (London, 1946), I04-o8. Cf.
ROBINSON, op. cit., 481-85, 487. Note that, according to TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc.
4.5, the Apocalypse was rejected by Marcion as well.
' De Christo et Antichr. 36, 6, 47, 60, 61, etc.
"7 CHARTERIS, Op. Cit., 351, Victorianus n. I; QUASTEN, Op. cit., II, 411f.
" De
fabrica mundi, in CHARTERIS, Op. cit., 351. Cf. JEROME, De vir. ill. 74.
77 In Psalm. I; De trinit. 6, in CHARTERIS, Op. cit., 355.
Epist. II, ad Paulinunm, in CHARTERIS, op. cit., 22; Catal. script. eccl. 9;
Praefatio in codd. antiq.; Adv. Jovinianum 1.26. But cf. Ep. 129.4: nec Graecorum
quidem ecclesiae Apocalypsin Joannis eadem libertate suscipiant (MIGNE, P. L.
XXII, II103), and In Isa. Lib. i8 Proem., where JEROME notes that the "most
eloquent" Dionysius of Alexandria had written an "elegant" book against the
Apocalypse.
7a JfiLICHER, Op. cit., 536.
7 De praescript. haer. 3; Adv. Marcion. 3.14; 4-5.
it as the words of the Lord and by John,76 and Lactantius (c. 340)
spoke of it as written by John." It was included in the canon of
the Third Council of Carthage (397).71 Thus the west provides
no parallel to the treatment of the Apocalypse of John in Canon
Muratori.
Initially in the east the Apocalypse of John was as generally ac-
cepted as it was in the west. Papias of Hierapolis (early second
century) is said to have used it,79Melito of Sardis (c. 194) to have
commented upon it,s0 and Apollonius (c. 186) to have used it.8s
Theophilus of Antioch (c. 186) quoted from the Apocalypse,82 as
did Pamphilus of Caesarea (c. 309),83 and Methodius of Olympus
(311)."4
But it was questioned by Amphilochius of Iconium
(c. 400)s5 and it was omitted by Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 389).8"
In Egypt Clement of Alexandria named and quoted the Apoc-
alypse s7 and Origen used and spoke of it as by John the son of
Zebedee and disciple of Jesus." Dionysius (265), however, intro-
duces a change of attitude toward the Apocalypse of John in the
east. It was the work of Nepos of Arsione that directed Dionysius'
attention to the Apocalypse. Nepos had refused Origen's allegori-
cal interpretationof the Apocalypse and insisted on what Eusebius
called a more Jewish (i.e., literal) interpretation in support of
chiliastic views and wrote a book entitled Refutation of the Alle-
gorists, setting forth his position. Dionysius, who had been
Origen's pupil and was now his successor, attacked Nepos' in-
terpretation in two volumes entitled On Promises; in the second
76Epist. 63.x; De eleemos. 21; De bono patient.; etc.

77Epist. 42; Instit. 7.10.
78 G. D. MANSI, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florentiae,
1759-92), II, 1177.
S7ANDREAS CAESARIENSIS, in Apoc. 34, Serm. 12; OECUMENIUS et ARETHAS,
Comment. in Apoc. 12.7, both in CHARTERIS, op. cit., 338.
so EUSEB., H. E. 4.26.2; repeated in JEROME, De vir. ill. 24.
s EUSEB., H. E. 5.18.14.
82 Ad Autolyc. 2.28; EUSEB., H. E. 4.24.1.
83Apol. pro Orig.,in CHARTERIS, op. cit., 352.
s proleg. in Apoc., in CHARTERIS, op. cit., 339; Conviv. 1.5; 7.5, etc.
ANDR.,
Epist. iambica ad Seleuc. 316.
85
s6 Carm. I.I.12.39, in MIGNE, P.G. XXXVII, 474.

7Instr. 1.6; 2.9; Strom. 6.13, 16, etc.
ssDe princip. 1.2.IO; 4.1.25; Contra Cel. 6.6.6.; Hom. in libr. Jesu Nave. 7.2;
Comm. in Matt. 16; Comm. in Joann. 2.8; 5.3; EUSEB., H. E. 6.25.10.
REVIEW
he treated the Apocalypse of John.s9 His arguments are summa-
rized by Eusebius.9oFirst noticing that the Apocalypsehad earlier
been rejected by some who attributed it to Cerinthus (probably
Gaius and the Alogoi), Dionysius says that he would not dare to
reject the book. But, although he did not understand it, still he
thought that the Apocalypse was written by a holy and inspired
person named John. Dionysius argued, however, that the author
of the Apocalypsecould not have been the disciple John, the author
of the Gospel and a catholic epistle or of the two shorter epistles:
differencesin general arrangement,vocabulary, and style are too
great. Moreover, the disciple John never named himself in his
writings, whereas the author of the Apocalypse put his name
forward at the very beginning and repeatedly. Since there were
many persons named John and since there were two tombs of
John in Ephesus, Dionysius concluded that the Apocalypse must
have been written by another John than the disciple. Subse-
quently, however, Athanasius included the Apocalypse in the
canonicallist of his Festal Letter of 367.91
As in the discussion of the Shepherd of Hermas above, Euse-
bius' treatment of the Apocalypse of John calls for particular
attention. On occasion Eusebius could use and name this writing
as the Apocalypse of John without further comment,"9while else-
where he would indicate that he was aware that it was questioned,
dubbing it the "so-called (XEyop~vlq)Apocalypse of John," 9" or
stating that some advocated its acceptabilitywhile others disputed
it."9 The final step of rejection is found in the Canones Aposto-
lorum" and in Cyril of Jerusalem,"9where the Apocalypse of
John is missing in both canonical lists, though it is included in the
list of Epiphanius of Salamis."9It was included in the Byzantine
text of the New Testament, probably created by Lucian of An-
89EUSEB., H. E. 7.24.1-4. QUASTEN'S citation, 7.14.1-3 (op. cit., II, 104), is
incorrect.
90H. E. 7.25; cf. 7.10.2.
"1Ep. Fest., in MIGNE,P. G. XXVI, I436f.
92Demonstr. Ev. 8.
" H. E.
3.18.2.
94Ibid., 3.24.18.
95 76 (85), in WESTCOTT, op. cit., 484, cf. 389.
96 Catech. 4.36, in CHARTERIS,op. cit., 19.
"1 Haer. 76.5, in WESTCOTT,op. cit., 492, cf. 398.
tioch (c. 312),"9 but it was omitted from the Peshitta Version of
the Syriac, created toward the end of the fourth century, and did
not come to be included in Syria until 508.99
We must return to Eusebius and his canonical list 100because
his treatment of the Apocalypse of John provides an interesting
parallel to its treatment in Canon Muratori. Eusebius divided the
books named in his list into four classifications: acknowledged
books disputed books (&vrtXEydOEvot),spurious
(6O.toXoyoLE•vot),
books (v6Oot),and heretical books (alpE7TKOt).The Apocalypse
of John is first mentioned as the last of the acknowledgedbooks,
but with a reservation. He says, "In addition to these should be
put, if it seem desirable (E'IyE avar), the Apocalypse of John,
the arguments concerning which we will expound at the proper
time. These belong to the acknowledgedbooks." 101"'Then, after
disputed books, the Apocalypse of John appears again as last
among the spurious books. Concerningit Eusebius says, "And in
addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if this view prevail.
For, as I said, some reject it, but others count it among the
acknowledgedbooks. ... These all belong to the disputedbooks"
(VrLXEydeVoEt).102 Eusebius thus in the summary statement
combines the disputed and the spurious books under the classi-
fication "disputed" (vr-EtEy'/d.tvo). Subsequently Eusebius sug-
gests that this apocalypse was written by John the presbyter,
noting that Papias had named two Johns, one among the apostles
and another among the apostolic men with whom he had con-
versed, and that there are still two tombs at Ephesus called
John's.o03Eusebius concludes, "This calls for attention: for it is
probable that the second (unless anyone prefer the former) saw
the Revelation which passes under the name of John." 104
The similarity of the treatment of the Apocalypse of John in
Canon Muratori to that of Eusebius is immediately apparent,
once it is called to attention. Canon Muratori mentions John's
9s B. METZGER, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964), 141, 213.
9 Ibid., 69, 136 n. 2, 7of.

"oH. E. 3.25.
"ox
Ibid., 3.25.2.
102
Ibid., 3.25.4
"o0Ibid., 3.39.5f-
10oIbid., 3.39.4.
REVIEW
Apocalypse in illustrating the catholicity of Paul's letters written
to churches, which favors its acceptability, but does not name it
as a listed book until the most tenuous position, following Wis-
dom of Solomonand associated in the same sentence with the dis-
puted Apocalypse of Peter. In Eusebius' list the Apocalypse of
John, while being listed among the acknowledgedbooks, is with
the notation that it is questioned and later to be named among the
spurious books. Thus, in Eusebius, as in the Muratorian canon,
the Apocalypse of John is on the very fringe of canonicity. The
slight preponderancein Eusebius' judgment appears to be nega-
tive; in Canon Muratori the judgment is slightly positive. But
both appear to stem from the same milieu of discussion about the
canonicity of the Apocalypse of John. And this questioning of its
status finds no sitz im leben in the church until subsequent to
Dionysius, and then only in the east.
If this evaluation be correct, then definition with respect both
to time and locale reaches considerableprecision with respect to
the treatment of the Apocalypse of John. Although apostolic
authorship of the Apocalypse of John was questioned by Diony-
sius, serious doubts about it appear not to have taken root in
Egypt, since it is included without question in the canon of Atha-
nasius. Similarly, its continued use by the fathers in Asia Minor
and its inclusion in the Byzantine text of the New Testament
would appear to exclude Asia Minor. It is Palestine-Syriaand the
Eusebius-Cyril-Peshittacontext that are most closely related to
Canon Muratori with respect to its treatment of the Apocalypse
of John, with Eusebius providing the closest parallel.
As to the Apocalypse of Peter, it is first to be noted that, as
M. R. James has said, there is only the scantiest evidence of its
use in the west.1'0 He observes that A. Harnack "'ohad cited the
Muratorian Canon (which is here under question), Hippolytus,
TEpL 70ro Tavros and Ref. Haer. 10.34, a passage from de laude
Martyrii (printed among the works of Cyprian but which Har-
nack ascribed to Novatian), the Acts of SS. Felix, Fortunatus,
"'0A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter, II, JTS XII 380-83.
(I910-I1),
The text may possibly have originated in Egypt. Cf. HENNECKE, op. cit., II, 49.
10 Die Petrusapokalypse in der alten Abendliindischen Kirche, Texte und Un-
tersuchungen, XIII, i (1895), 71-73.

and Achillaeus (Acta SS. 23 Ap.), and the Acts of Ferreolus and
Ferrutio (June 16) and of Dorothea and Theophilus (Feb. 6).
To these James adds a list of twenty-one "veiled allusions and
reminiscences"in the Shepherd of Hermas (which, he concludes,
are possible though not certain), a passage in de Aleatoribus, and
finally a passage in the fourth-centuryHomily on the Ten Virgins,
which names the apocalypse: "Ostiumclausum flumen igneum est
quo impii regno Dei arcebuntur, ut apud Danielem et apud Pet-
rum - in Apocalypsi eius - scriptum est" (lines 58ff.).1O7 James
considers "that Hippolytus' acquaintancewith the Apocalypse of
Peter is rendered certain by his use of the word -rap-rapoi3Xo in
Ref. Haer. 10.34," o108which is his earliest certain text. However,
he has overlooked the use of -rap-rapo-raain II Pet. 2:4, which was
better known in the west than was the Apocalypse of Peter.1o9
Thus the Homily on the Ten Virgins appears to be the first sure
evidence of the use of the Apocalypse of Peter in the west.
In the east the situation with respect to the Apocalypse of Peter
is very different. Clement of Alexandriaappears to quote from it
in Eclogae ex propheticis scripturis 41.1,110 and names it in Ecl.
41.2, 48.1, and 49 (8q0KaLil po , 'v r? dcrOKXvEt EL 4o-lv, etc.).
According to Eusebius, Clement commented on it in his Hypoty-
poseis."' Thus Clement gives us our earliest sure indication of
the use of the Apocalypse of Peter. Zahn, however, noting that
Origen, who used other apocryphal writings attributed to Peter,
has no evidence of knowledge of the Apocalypse of Peter, that it
is not mentioned by Athanasius, and that no Coptic translation is
known, wonderedwhether Clement had not learned of this writing
JAMES, op. cit., 383. A. WILMART, Un anonyme ancien de x virginibus,
107
Bulletin d'ancienne litterature et d'archeologie chre'tiennes I (1911), 37, 46-49;

HENNECKE, op. cit., II, 469.
`08 Ibid., 381, cf. 370f.
1'0 Cf. Job 40:15 (20); 41:23 (24); Prov. 24:51; Enoch 20:2.
JAMES acknowledges that this passage might be suggested by Wsd. 3:16-18;
11no0
4:8, 16. Ibid., 377, cf. 369. ZAHN, NT Kanons, II, 2, 81off., and others suggest
that the quotation is from another apocalypse, since the Apocalypse of Peter is
named in the following citation. However, there is no recognizable pattern in
Clement relative to the naming or non-naming of works from which he quotes.
Moreover, JAMESis certainly correct in holding it to be a considerable risk to at-
tribute this quotation to another apocalypse when the words ra3p .
. .
d'yyEXcware found also in a named quotation from the
T•fLpE0XovX '7rapa•oi3a0T
of Peter in Ecl. 48. JAMES, op. cit., 370.
Apocalypse
111H. E. 6.14.1.
from Palestinian Christians and questioned whether the writing
was in circulationin Egypt.112Zahn's inference, however, appears
to be overdrawn,since the Greek text of the Apocalypsewas found
in Upper Egypt 113 and an Ethiopic translation was found in
1910.114 However, the absence of any mention of the Apocalypse
of Peter in Origen and Athanasius does indicate that this Apoc-
alypse was so little known in Egypt that it did not figurein canoni-
cal discussions there. Methodius, who Quasten says was prob-
ably bishop of Philippi but who must have resided in Lycia for a
considerable period, "so that for a long time he was thought to
have been bishop of Olympus,"1" quotes the Apocalypse of
Peter with the introduction, "Whence also we have received in
inspired writings that .. ." (o60v 84 Ka . . .rapEtXra~LEv EV
.G .
ypdptao-w)
eoi.TrEv.o-ot'7o
Eusebius' evidence runs from negative to equivocal on the
Apocalypse of Peter. On the one hand is his complete rejection
of the book. He says, "of the Acts bearinghis (Peter's) name and
the Gospel named according to him, and the Preaching called his
and the so-called Apocalypse (KaXovUt`&v'v'AlroKMdv4Iv), we have
no knowledge at all in catholic tradition, for no ecclesiastic
writer of the ancient time or of our own has used their testi-
monies."117 But this is certainly an erroneousoverstatement. As
we have seen, it is Eusebius who informs us that Clement of Alex-
andria commented on the Apocalypse of Peter. And since it was
Eusebius who divided the books upon which Clement commented
into categories, it will be useful to cite his statement:
Andin the Hypotyposeis,to speakbriefly,he (Clement)has given
concise explanations of all the canonical scriptures (Tiy1 ivsta60pKov
not passing over even the disputedwritings (-Tas dVTXAyo-
ypatos), I mean the
tdva'), Epistle of Jude and the remainingCatholic Epistles,
and the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse known as Peter's.118
112NT Kanons, II, 2, 81off.

113 HENNECKE, op. cit., II, 468.
114JAMES, op. cit., 36-54, 362-83, 573-83.
11 Op. cit., II, 129. Cf. G. KRtiGER, Op. Cit., 235.
"oSymposium 2.6. JAMES, op. cit., 373; ZAHN, NT Kanons, II, 2, 8iof. n.2.
117H. E. 3.3.2. This is the only passage in EUSEBIUS cited by QUASTEN on the
Apocalypse of Peter, op. cit., I, 144.
11sH. E. 6.I4.If.
Here Eusebius placed the Apocalypse of Peter among the dis-
puted books and before the Epistle to the Hebrews, the discus-
sion of which follows immediately upon the passage cited. In
Eusebius' canonical list,"9 however, the Apocalypse of Peter ap-
pears among the spurious books (v60ot), which are then combined
with the disputed books (diVrhEYtZEvot). It thus appears that a
New Testament canonical list was far from being a settled matter
for Eusebius; his comments suggest rather that the canon was in
the process of formation in his own mind. In his canonical list
the Apocalypse of Peter appears as the third entry together with
the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letter of Barna-
bas, the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse of John.
And to these, it is noted, some add the Gospel according to the
Hebrews. The heretical books in Eusebius' list include gospels
of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and others, acts of Andrew, John,
and others. And Eusebius goes on to say,
To none of these has any who belongedto the successionof the
orthodoxever thoughtit rightto referin his writings. Moreover,the
type of phraseologydiffersfromapostolicstyle, and the opinionand
tendencyof their contentsis widely dissonantfrom true orthodoxy
and clearlyshowsthat they are the forgeriesof heretics.They ought,
therefore, to be reckoned not even among the spurious books (veo'L)
but shunnedas altogetherwickedand impious.120
This passage gives us some understanding of H. E. 3.3.2. Judging
from these comments of Eusebius, it would appear that when he
wrote H. E. 3.3.2 he was thinking of the Apocalypse of Peter as a
pseudepigraphalwork rather than of its usage in the church of his
acquaintance, and thus described it and the other pseudonymous
works attributed to Peter in language very similar to that with
which he described the heretical books in his canonical list. Euse-
bius' testimony concerningthe Apocalypse of Peter therefore sug-
gests that it was acknowledgedby some and questioned by others
toward the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth cen-
tury in Palestine, and Eusebius is to be numberedamong the lat-
ter.
no
Ibid., 3.25.4.
Ibid., 3.25.6f.
1.
REVIEW
The Apocalypse of Peter is also named and cited by Macarius
Magnes (c. 400) in his Apocriticus.121 The philosopher-criticof
Christianity, whose arguments are given and then answered by
Macarius in this work, is described as giving two citations from
the Apocalypse of Peter, naming the book in the first instance.
The second quotation is followed by a quotation supporting the
same point from Matthew. In his answer Macarius says, "for
even if we pass over the Apocalypse of Peter, we are brought to
the same thing by the other two passages," citing from Isaiah and
Matthew.'12 From these passages some have read a favorable
treatment123 and others a rejection of the Apocalypse of Peter by
Macarius.124It is not possible to judge accurately to what extent
the philosopher-antagonistin this work, especially with respect
to his use of scripture, is Macarius' straw man,125similar to Jus-
tin's Trypho. If the antagonist's position and use of scripture is
verisimilar, then we must conclude that the Apocalypse of Peter
was so widely used in the church in the vicinity where this docu-
ment was composed that it had come to the attention of the an-
tagonists of Christianity. And it is to be marked that Macarius'
reply attempts no denial of the Apocalypse as a heretical book.
At most Macarius' reply indicates hesitation on his part about a
book that is acknowledged by (most?) other Christians in his
area. On the other hand, if the antagonist in the Apocriticus,
especially with respect to the use of scripture, is Macarius' cre-
ation, our conclusion concerning the status of the Apocalypse of
Peter is much the same, except that the cursory treatment of the
Apocalypse may carry the overtones of a mild attack upon a
popularly acknowledgedbook. In either case, Macarius' position
appears to be very similar to that of Eusebius in that it is Chris-
tian usage in their environment that brought attention to the
121 6, 7, in T. W. CRAFER, The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (London, I919),
129, 130. The Greek text edited by C. BLONDEL and P. FOUCART, Mdyvr70To
i) MovoYTEV'. Macarii Magnetis quae supersint ex inedito codice ed.
'A-OKpLTLK6S
(Paris, 1876) was not available to this writer.
122Apocrit. 16, in CRAFER, op. cit., 131.
"1 KRtGER, op. Cit., 34.
124 CRAFER, op. cit., 13o n. 2, 131 n. 2; HENNECKE, op. cit., II, 469. Cf. E. J.
GoODSPEED, A History of Early Christian Literature (Chicago, Illinois, 1942), 55.
125QUASTEN,
op. cit., III, 487.
Apocalypse of Peter in their works, even though they themselves
were hesitant about or rejected it.
This similarity of Macarius' attitude toward the Apocalypse of
Peter to that of Eusebius makes the locale of this writing impor-
tant. Macarius Magnes, the author of the Apocriticus,12' is usually
identified with Macarius, bishop of Magnesia, who was present
at the Synod of the Oak (403), which would place the work in Asia
Minor.'27 Crafer, however, has shown that there are significant
reasons for relating the work to Syria; his argument runs as fol-
lows: 128 I) The author of the Apocriticus cannot have been the
ardent anti-Origenist that accused Heraclides of heresy at the
Synod of the Oak because of his Origenism,because the Apocriti-
cus is full of Origenism.1292) When the interlocutorsuggests that
since to "drink any deadly thing" cannot hurt a believer, this
ought to be a test in the choosing of bishops, the author does not
answer with any sense of self-defence.130 These argue against the
author's having been a bishop.130a Moreover, there are reasons to
think that the Apocriticuswas not written in Asia Minor. 3) The
authorpoints to Syria, especially Edessa and Antioch, as examples
of the effects of the faith; 131 he once uses the Persian word
"parsang"as a measure of distance; 132 and Ethiopia is located to
the southwest.'33 Crafer notes that there are indications that the
author had some acquaintance with Asia Minor and Rome 134
(though he also calls the Romans "a barbarianrace" 135) and con-
cludes that Macarius was probably born in Magnesia (though he
was not the bishop of that name there), traveled as far as Rome,
and settled in Syria, where he wrote the Apocriticus.135aCrafer's
126T. W. CRAFER, Macarius Magnes, A Neglected Apologist, JTS VIII (1907),
401.
127 QUASTEN,
op. cit., III, 486f. The second name is probably to be regarded as
a place name meaning "Magnesian." Cf. CRAFER, Apocriticus, xixf.
128Ibid., xx-xxiii.
129Ibid., xxii.
130Apocr. 3.16, 41.
130a CRAFER notes that Nicephorus had already come to this conclusion in the
ninth century. Ibid., xxii.

131Ibid., 3.24.
132
Ibid., 3.40.
133Ibid., 4-13.
3 Op. cit., xxi.

135Apocr. 2.17.
135a im Orient G.
Cf. F. C. BURKITT, Urchristentum (Tiibingen, 1907), 58;
REVIEW
furtherhypothesis that the work of this Macarius,written in Syria,
came to be seized upon by Macarius, Bishop of Magnesia (403),
and was workedby him into the present form is impossible. There
is no more reason to suppose that Bishop Macarius would have
found this work with all its Origenismsmore to his liking than he
found Origen's followers. More probably the author of this work
came to be confused with Macarius, the bishop of Magnesia, and
the work subsequentlyattributedto the latter. And if the author's
name was Macarius, his name would have provided a ready basis
for the confusion.136 Thus we have another illustration of the
presence of the Apocalypse of Peter in Syria/Palestine in prob-
ably the late third or early fourth century.137
It was after Jerome had moved east and settled at Bethlehem
that he wrote his De viris illustribus sive de scriptoribusecclesi-
asticis (393-95). In the first chapter of this work, having noted
the acknowledgedwritings related to Peter, he goes on to list the
books attributed to Peter but rejected (dro80KLa'~?ECV) as apoc-
rypha (JdarKpvca): The Acts, the Gospel, the Preaching, the
Apocalypse, and the Trial.'38 This passage follows in the tradition
of Eusebius, H. E. 3.3.2, except that Jerome added the Trial of
Peter. And it is not unlikely that Jerome gained his acquaintance
with the Apocalypse of Peter in Palestine. Despite the negative
judgment of Eusebius and Jerome, however, Sozomen tells us in
his Historia Ecclesiastica 7.I9.9f., written between 439 and 450,
that the Apocalypse of Peter, though considered completely
spurious (vdOov TavTEXCo) by the ancients, nevertheless was being
read in his day in some of the churchesin Palestine on the Day of
Preparationat a feast in memory of the passion.'39
Codex Claromontanus,a sixth-century codex containing only
the letters of Paul,'40 includes between Philemon and Hebrews a
QUISPEL,Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle (Leiden,
1967), 7-9.
136 Cf. D. LUMPER, De Magnete Presbytero, MIGNE, P. L. V., 343f.
137 places the Apocriticus among the writings from Antioch and Syria.
QUASTEN
Op. cit., III, 386ff.
138Here SOZOMEN, who wrote his history as a sequel to that of Eusebius, also
appears to be dependent on EUSEB., H. E. 3.3.2.
139MIGNE, P. L. XXIII, 6o8-io.
14oMETZGER, op. cit., 51.
list of Old and New Testament books.'41 This list, persuasively
argued by Zahn to be eastern and dating from the third or fourth
century,142gives the following as the last six books in the list:
Epistle of Barnabas, Apocalypse of John, Acts of the Apostles,
Shepherd, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter.'43 In the list the
scribe placed a horizontal line before Barnabas, Shepherd, Acts
of Paul, and Apocalypse of Peter, perhaps thus indicating some
question concerningthem.144Also, the Stichometryof Nicephorus
(c. 500?), a list of biblical books appended to Nicephorus' (828)
Chronography,is also regarded as Palestinian."45In it the New
Testament list is given under three categories: the new teaching
(rijg vE'ag 8aOK41jK), the new disputed books (hj9 vEag
The
and the new apocrypha (n39 viag dLTordKpvLa).
avT•LXEyovrat),
disputed books, similar to Canon Muratori, include the apocalyp-
ses of John and Peter as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Gospel according to the Hebrews, whereas the apocrypha include
the travels of Peter, John, and Thomas, the Gospel of Thomas,
the Teaching of the Apostles, I and II Clement, Ignatius, Poly-
carp, and Hermas.146
The presence of the Apocalypse of Peter in the canonical list
of the Muratorian fragment led Kuhn to conclude that the frag-
ment was of eastern origin.147 He was unacquainted with the
western Homily on the Ten Virgins, but on the other hand he
41In ZAHN, NT Kanons, 11.2, 157-59; CHARTERIS, op. cit., 27 and n. 2.
142 He thinks especially of the Alexandrian tradition. NT Kanons, II, 161-72,
followed by KR-iGER, op. cit., 37. Cf. SOUTER, op. Cit., 2IIf. ZAHN's persuasive
arguments are not to be set aside for J tLICHER'S assessing the list as Latin, op. cit.,
536, followed by HENNECKE, op. Cit., I, 21. JULICHER, however, makes no reference
to ZAHN and gives only a similar acquaintance with apocryphal books by the
Spaniard PRISCILLIAN (385) as the reason for "unhesitatingly" regarding the list in
Claromontanus as Latin. But see the parallel status of the Acts of Paul in EUSE-
BIUS (H. E. 3.3.5) and Codex Claromontanus described in HENNECKE,Op. cit.,
II, 223. JtiLICHER's remark is not accompanied by a comparison of the apocryphal
books used by PRISCILLIAN, which show a marked proclivity for asceticism, with
those included in Codex Claromontanus, which do not.
143 CHARTERIS, op. Cit., 27.
14 A. SOUTER, op. cit., 212 n. I.
14"KRGER, op. cit., 37; HENNECKE, op. cit., I, 24,
where a date earlier than c.
850 is left open.
146 Against EHRHARDT, op. cit., 121, who thinks
that the treatment of the Apoc-
alypse of Peter as a canonical book was a view "we can say for certain . . . was
no longer tenrableafter about A.D. 240."
147 Op. cit., 30f., 9of. Cf. BARTLET, 214-19.
op. cit.,
REVIEW
counted Jerome as a western witness. And the Apocriticus of
Macarius Magnes was unknown to him. Otherwise our informa-
tion does not differ markedly from his. It is evident that the
Apocalypse of Peter circulated in the eastern church with the
witnesses to it especially concentrated in Syria/Palestine. And
the position of the Apocalypse of Peter in Canon Muratori, ac-
cepted but questioned by some, is parallel to its position in
Codex Claromontanus,and is the converse to the position in which
it is located in Eusebius' list and Macarius Magnes' apparent
treatment, where the Apocalypse of Peter is disputed but evi-
dently accepted by some. The Stichometry of Nicephorus repre-
sents the middle ground,with the Apocalypse of Peter being listed
as disputed but with no indication of the attitude of the author of
the list.
In the foregoing discussion it has become increasingly clear
that there are several salient features of Canon Muratori that
have no place in the early western church but find their earliest
parallels in the eastern church during the late third and fourth
centuries. In the place of the Shepherd (outside the canon, though
proper to be read), in the inclusion of Wisdom of Solomon, in the
equivocal position of the apocalypses of John and Peter, Canon
Muratori reflects an eastern orientation. And these items are
of particular importance because it is just at the edges of can-
onicity that identification can be made. Thus the position of
Shepherd in the Muratorian list appears to be later than the
equivocal circumstance observed in Eusebius and more closely
parallels the place of Shepherd in Athanasius' Festal Letter 39.
The inclusion of Wisdom of Solomon in Canon Muratori finds its
earliest parallels in Eusebius and Epiphanius. Canon Muratori's
uncertain treatment of the Apocalypse of John finds its closest
parallel in Eusebius' similar treatment of that book, and the
evidence for location points to Syria-Palestine. Similarly, it was
only in the east that the Apocalypse of Peter was ever considered
as canonical material, and again it is Eusebius who provides the
closest parallel to Canon Muratori's treatment of this book. In
view of the foregoingcritique of the traditional date and place for
this list, features such as these become the prime factors in re-
assessing the time and place from which this list emanated. And
the evidence herein adduced points strongly to the eastern church
and the fourth century.
It would be an anomaly if the Muratoriancanon were produced
and put forth about the end of the second century in Rome, since
there are no known parallels to it in the church for more than a
century. It is usually held that the first known New Testament
canon was created by Marcion. But if the differentiationbetween
"scripture" (as writings regarded as in some sense authoritative)
and "canon" (as a closed collection of scripture to which nothing
can be added, nothing subtracted) 14" is a correct one, then it
probably is an overstatement to call Marcion's collection a canon.
On the one hand Marcion represents a special case, since he re-
jected out of hand the Jewish scriptures received into the church.
But it was not a defined Old Testament canon that he rejected.149
In their place he put the Pauline scriptures: the Gospel of Luke,
regardedas Paul's gospel,1'5and Paul's letters.'5 But it appears
that his own work, the Antitheses, stood at the head of his collec-
tion.'52 And it is not at all clear that he regardedthis collection as
a closed collection. Instead, the proscriptionof letters to Laodicea
and Alexandriaand "a new book of Psalms for Marcion" (novum
Psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripserunt)153 in Canon Mura-
tori suggests that these were accepted as scripture by the Mar-
cionites when Canon Muratori was written. The orthodox answer
to Marcion was the first step toward a canon; the church defined
a closed four-gospel collection.'" But it is evident that no con-
4s W. C.
VAN UNNIK, De la regle C re dloeXEipdans l'histoiredu
u•re rpo-cr•Oipal
A. C. SUNDBERG, JR., Towards a
Canon, Vigiliae ChristianaeIII (i949), 1-36;
Revised History of the New Testament Canon, Studia Evangelica IV (Berlin,
1968), 452-54.
149 Ibid., 459f.
'O TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc. 4.2,5; 5.1; 1.2o.

151Ibid., 4.5; 5.
15 Ibid., 1.19; 4.1. It is to be noted that TERTULLIAN in his Adversus
Marcionemdeals first with the Antitheses(books I-3) then with Luke (book 4),
and finally with Paul's letters (book 5). Cf. A. HARNACK, Origin of the New
Testament,30 and n. i. But cf. A. HARNACK, Marcion (Leipzig, 1921, Texte und
Untersuchungen,45), 70oand n. i.
6 Lines 83f. Cf. E. C. BLACKMAN, Marcionand His Influence (London, 1948),
64f.
' IRENAEUS, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; 3.11.8; CLEMENT of Alexandria,Strom. 3.13, and
EUSEBIUS,H. E. 6.14.5-7; TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc. 4.2, 5; ORIGEN, Comm.in Matt.
cept of a New Testament was in mind. Irenaeus, the prime

mover in defining the closed four-gospel collection,155made no
further movement toward defining a New Testament collection.
Tertullian, in pitting orthodox Christian scripture against Mar-
cion's collection, in one place listed the gospels John, Matthew,
Luke, Mark,156and shortly thereafter John, Matthew, Mark,
Luke; 15i6aand first he listed Paul's Letters in the order Corin-
thians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Ephesians,
Romans,157but in discussing them does so in the order Galatians,
I and II Corinthians,Romans, I and II Thessalonians, Ephesians
(Laodiceans), Colossians, Philippians, Philemon- Marcion's
order.15' And while he accused Marcion of tampering even with
the numberof Paul's letters 159 he did not correct this error in his
own list.1•9a So little did Tertullian have a New Testament order
and collection in mind. Similarly, though Eusebius attempted to
create a canonical list for him,16"R. P. C. Hanson has shown that
Origen had no list nor concept of a canonical collection of New
Testament scriptures.1"'What has been regardedas Origen'sNew
Testament list was Eusebius' creation."12And this is particularly
significant since Origen did give a list of the Old Testament
canon.163 But he did not deduce from it the concept of a New
Testament canon. Though he knew the four gospels as a closed
I, in EUSEBIUS, H. E. 6.25.4; Comm. in Jn. 5.3. Cf. SUNDBERG, Towards a Re-

vised History of New Testament Canon, 459f.
155Cf. note 154. A. C. SUNDBERG, Jr., Dependent Canonicity in Irenaeus and
Tertullian, Studia Evangelica III (Berlin, 1964), 403-09. Even if the anti-Mar-
cionite prologues to the gospels are to be dated before Irenaeus (D. DE BRUYNE,
Les plus anciens prologues Latins des RIvangiles, Revue Benedictine XL [1928],
193-214. But cf. W. F. HOWARD, The Anti-Marcionite Prologues to the Gospels,
Expository Times XLVII [1935-36], 537f.), no evidence of a prologue for
Matthew exists, and no definition of a closed fourfold gospel canon is made in the
three prologues available.
156Adv. Marc. 4.2.
156a Ibid., 4.5.
157Idem.
158
Ibid., 5.
5"'Ibid., 5.1.
15a
Ibid., 5; but, while not discussing them, he does name the pastorals as
omitted by Marcion (ibid., 5.21).
160H. E. 6.25.3-14.
161 Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954), 133, 137, 143, 182ff.
162 SUNDBERG, Towards a Revised
History of the New Testament Canon, 460.
163 In EUSEBIUS, H. E. 6.25.2.
collection,1" he seems to have been unaware of a Pauline corpus
because, while having just quoted from I Cor. 2:6-8 in Contra
Celsum 3.19, he continues in 3.20, "first of all examine the epistles
of him who utters these words, . . . say, in those to the Ephe-
sians, and Colossians, and Thessalonians, and Philippians, and
Romans. .. ." But Corinthians and Galatians go unmentioned,
which would be unthinkableif Origen had been aware of a "Paul-
ine corpus.""" And while he was aware of one acknowledged
(6ItoXoyo0udit`v)and one doubted (aCLpufMlXXErat) epistle of Peter,
of writings of John: Gospel, Apocalypse, one Epistle, and a second
and third but "not all say that these are genuine" (yvYro-ove), and
of the dispute over the authorship of Hebrews, whether Clement
or Luke ("but who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows"), 65a
still Origen shows no evidence of relating these concerns to the
larger question of a New Testament collection paralleling the
Old.
From the time of Origen to that of Eusebius, apart from chance
remarks on particular books, we have only the usage of the
fathers to inform us on the circumstances concerning Christian
scriptures.166 Thus, no lists of Christian scripture are found
stemming from the third century. But this circumstanceis signif-
icantly changed in the fourth century, since during that century
New Testament canonical lists came to appear in many parts of
the church: 167 in Syria/Palestine the list of Eusebius, H. E. 3.25
(303?-25); that of Cyril of Jerusalem (348), Catech. 4.33; of
Epiphanius, Haer. 8.6; and of Chrysostom (c. 407), Synopsis
Sacr. Script.; the list in Codex Claromontanus; and a Syrian
canon of c. 400; in Alexandria, the list of Athanasius, Ep. Fest.
39; an African canon of about 360; and the CarthaginianCata-
logue (397); in Asia Minor, the list of GregoryNazianzus, Carm.
14 Cf. n. I54.
'" Both the Chicago school and its critics have overlooked this listing of Paul's
letters that actually commences with Ephesians! The handbooks take the quota-
tion from I Corinthians as the beginning of ORIGEN'S list, and students of the
Pauline corpus have followed their lead. But the text is clear; the list begins with
Ephesians. Note that TERTULLIANomits Colossians in his listing of Paul's letters
in Adv. Marc. 4.5.
Ma Cf. n. 160.
1o WESTCOTT,op. cit., 321-48.
"1 Ibid.,481-515; SOUTER,Op. Cit., 211-26.
REVIEW
12.3 ; of Amphilochius,Iambi. ad Seleucum; and the Laodicene
Catalogue (363); and in Rome, a canon dated about 400.
Previously, when it was thought that Origen had produced a
New Testament canonical list,"Gsthe Muratorian list did not ap-
pear so strange as a product of the Roman church toward the end
of the second century. But now its verisimilitude is brought into
question. And it appears more likely that this list was produced
during the fourth century under the circumstances that brought
forth the several other similar lists of that time than that Canon
Muratori appeared in Rome about the end of the second century
but remained an isolated phenomenon for a century before any
other similar New Testament canons appeared.
In the foregoing it has been argued that the Muratoriancanon
is an eastern list. However, the codex in which it is found is
western and belonged formerly to Columban's Monastery at
Bobbio. Similarly,fragmentsof the same list were found in manu-
scripts at Monte Cassino. And the problem arises as to how one
can explain the presence of such an eastern list in western manu-
scripts. The reasons for such an inclusion lie beyond the knowl-
edge of the present writer. However, it may be useful to note that
such an inclusion is not unique for Canon Muratori. The codex
itself in which the Muratorian fragment is found, while filled in
major portion with western texts, also includes De reparatorem
lapsi of John Chrysostom (345/7-407)"1 of Antioch until 398,
and thereafter Constantinople. The inscription on the first page
of this codex reads: liber sZticolfibanide bobio/Iohis grisostomi.o70
But this attribution of the entire contents of the codex to Chry-
sostom is obviously erroneous.171Codex Claromontanus,contain-
ing the epistles of Paul,17"is another example of a western codex
containing a canonical list of eastern origin."" Since this is a
stichometriclist, one possibility is that it moved west as a reckon-
ing-sheet in the process of book production. However, since it is
18 Ibid., I82f.; C. R. GREGORY,Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edin-
burgh, 1907), 224-27, etc.
1.9 BUCHANAN, op. cit., 537.
170
Ibid., 538.
171Idem.
172 METZGER,
op. cit., 5I.
173 Cf. n. 142.
a list of Old Testament and New in this codex of Pauline letters,
and since it appears within the codex between Philemon and
Hebrews rather than at the end, it is unlikely that its presence in
Codex Claromontanus can be understood as a scribe's charge-
sheet.173aIts placement in the codex and the difference in the
order of Paul's letters from that of the codex suggest that it was
included because of an interest in the stichometry as a canonical
list. The list displays two judgments on the contents of the canon,
the list itself being one judgment, and the editorial horizontal
lines before Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd, Acts of Paul, and
Apocalypse of Peter another, which probably wished to exclude
these books from the canon. And since the list appears between
Philemon and Hebrews in the codex and does not itself contain
Hebrews (similar to Canon Muratori), its presence in the codex
probably expresses a scribal protest against the inclusion of
Hebrews in the codex among the letters of Paul. Thus, this
stichometry in Codex Claromontanusprobably served a polemical
purpose within the codex. In this way the presence of the sticho-
metry in Codex Claromontanusmay give some hint as to why such
eastern lists may have come to be included among western ma-
terials. The codex containing Canon Muratori, however, is other-
wise made up of miscellaneous writings not related to the ques-
tion of canon and thus provides no information as to the reason
for its inclusion in the codex.
While the location of Canon Muratori offers no information
concerning the use of such an eastern list in the west, the use of
the bits of Canon Muratori in the Monte Cassino manuscripts
mentioned above may, however, provide a clue to the use of this
canon in the west. They form part of a prologue to the text of the
Pauline letters in four separate codices. And Harnack has shown
that this prologueis composite and that an archetype of the Mura-
173a According to ZAHN'S description (NT Kanons, II, I57-65), Hebrews is

separated from Paul's letters in the codex by markings following Philemon and by
the space in which the stichometry now appears. The stichometry is not by the
same hand as that of the letters of Paul and Hebrews. Thus it would appear that
the stichometry was introduced into the codex to reinforce what appears to have
been a concern of the original scribe, i.e., to separate Hebrews from the letters of
Paul.
REVIEW
torian canon was used by the author in compiling this prologue."17
Each of the four codices in which this prologue is found contains
fourteen Pauline letters, with Hebrews appearing as the last."5
The enumerationof the Pauline letters in the prologue, however,
is of only ten letters in the usual western order, but with Philemon
(and the Pastorals) missing and, again, with Hebrews at the
end."1 The prologue begins with an introduction to the list of
Paul's letters from the archetype of Canon Muratori lines 42-50.
Therein is contained the letters-to-seven-churchesstatement (dis-
cussed above) which anticipates a seven or nine-letter list. As
noted, Philemon is not included, presumablybecause it is not ad-
dressed to a church. But Hebrews is included as the last item in
the list. It appears that Hebrews, like Galatians, is regarded as
addressedto a church,and the list of letters addressedto churches
is thus expanded to ten (= eight churches).'" It would appear,
therefore, that the author of this prologue not only intended to
substitute a western ordering of Paul's letters for that found in
Canon Muratori,but also desired to extend the aegis of the Mura-
torian introduction to the Pauline list to a list that included
Hebrews as a Pauline letter. This suggests that the author was in-
volved in the controversy over the inclusion or noninclusion of
Hebrews among Paul's letters. It further suggests not only that
he favored the inclusion of Hebrews but, in thus appropriatingthe
Muratorian introduction to Paul's letters for a list that included
Hebrews, that he was deliberately attempting to alter the support
of this introduction from a list that did not include Hebrews to a
list that did. Thus, indirectly the prologue to the Monte Cassino
codices witnesses to the use of the archetype of Canon Muratori
against the inclusion of Hebrews among Paul's letters in the west.
Therefore a utilization of the Muratorian list in the west as a
polemic against the inclusion of Hebrews among the letters of
Paul or in the New Testament canon, similar to that observed
for the stichometry in Codex Claromontanus,appears probable.
17' Excerpte aus dem Muratorischen Fragment (saec. XI et XII),

A. HARNACK,
132f.
175Ibid., col. 131.
17. Ibid., col. 132, where the text of the prologue is reproduced.
"17Cf. SOUTER, op. Cit., I9Of.; CHARTERIS, op. Cit., 276 n. I.
It would appear, then, that when the west was being pressuredby
the east to include Hebrews in the New Testament, arguments
against that pressure included the utilization of eastern New
Testament lists (with salient features foreign to the west that
clearly identifiedthem as eastern) that did not includeHebrews.

Sundberg, Canon Muratori, A Fourth-Century List

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sundberg, Canon Muratori, A Fourth-Century List

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvard Divinity School

Canon Muratori: A Fourth-Century List

praesentia eius singula gerebantur,sicuti et semota passione Petri

important,however, to note that the second alternativeis as viable

J. LAWSON,The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London, 1948), 50f.; J.

5H. E. 3.3.6f.; cf. 5.8.7.

48SALMON,Hermas, 913; A. HARNACK, History of Dogma, 3rd ed. trans. N.

50 WESTCOTT, op. cit., 192; TREGELLES, Canon Muratorianus, 50-55, followed by

parisons to make with the status of the Old Testament canon as

76Epist. 63.x; De eleemos. 21; De bono patient.; etc.

s6 Carm. I.I.12.39, in MIGNE, P.G. XXXVII, 474.

9 Ibid., 69, 136 n. 2, 7of.

tersuchungen, XIII, i (1895), 71-73.

Bulletin d'ancienne litterature et d'archeologie chre'tiennes I (1911), 37, 46-49;

112NT Kanons, II, 2, 81off.

ninth century. Ibid., xxii.

3 Op. cit., xxi.

'O TERTULLIAN, Adv. Marc. 4.2,5; 5.1; 1.2o.

cept of a New Testament was in mind. Irenaeus, the prime

I, in EUSEBIUS, H. E. 6.25.4; Comm. in Jn. 5.3. Cf. SUNDBERG, Towards a Re-

173a According to ZAHN'S description (NT Kanons, II, I57-65), Hebrews is

17' Excerpte aus dem Muratorischen Fragment (saec. XI et XII),

You might also like