Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
4 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
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.
ALBERT C. SUNDBERG, JR. 7
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
"'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-
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.
28 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW
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
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.
ALBERT C. SUNDBERG,JR. 33
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.,
34 HARVARDTHEOLOGICAL
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-
ALBERT C. SUNDBERG, JR. 35
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.