¹ Muratori, L. A., Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi (Mediolani, 1740), III, 809–80Google Scholar. For bibliography cf. Ritter, S., II Frammento Muratoriano, Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, III (1926), 226–31Google Scholar; Quasten, J., Patrology (Utrecht, 1950–60), II, 209f.Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Grundriss der Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Leipzig, 1901), 74Google Scholar. The text of Lietzmann, H., Das Muratorische Fragment, in Kleine Texte, I (Bohn, 1908), 1–16Google Scholar will be used.

² Quasten, op. cit., II, 207; Ritter, op. cit., 217–24.

³ Westcott, B. F., A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London, 1866), 184f.Google Scholar, 466f.; Kuhn, G., Das Muratorische Fragment (Zürich, 1892)Google Scholar, 4; Buchanan, E. S., The Codex Muratorianus, JTS VIII (1907), 537–39, etcCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ S. P. Trecelles, Canon Muratorianus (Oxford, 1867), facsimile following p. viii; H. Lietzmann, op. cit., 4f., 10f.

⁵ Fragmentum Muratorianum iuxta Codd. Casinenses, in Miscellanea Cassinese, II, 1 (1897), 1–5, cited by A. Harnack, Excerpta aus dem Muratorischen Fragment (saec. xi et xii), in Theologische Literaturzeitung XXIII (1898), 131–34Google Scholar; Lietzmann, op. cit., 3, 6, 8, 10. Cf. Quasten, op. cit., II, 207; Kirsch, J. P., Muratorian Canon, in Catholic Encyclopedia, X (New York, 1911), 642Google Scholar.

^5a Harnack, op. cit., 133; T. Zahn, Canon, Muratorian, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia (New York, 1908–14), VIII, 53fGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Muratori's comments on the canon are reproduced in Tregelles, op. cit., 11–13.

⁷ Westcott, op. cit., 186, 188 n.1; Lightfoot, B. J., The Apostolic Fathers, Pt. I, vol. II (New York, 1890), 407Google Scholar, etc. For translations into Greek cf. Bunsen, C. K. J., Analecta anti-Nicaena, I (London, 1854), 142ff.Google Scholar; Hilgenfeld, A., Einleitung in das N.T. (Leipzig, 1875), 79ff.Google Scholar; Zahn, T., Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erlangen, 1888/1890), II, 138–43Google Scholar; and Lightfoot has attempted a translation into Greek verse, op. cit., 409ff. Ritter, op. cit., 233.

⁸ Hesse, F. H., Dos Muratorische Fragment (Giessen, 1873), 25–39Google Scholar; Ehrhardt, A. T., The Gospels in the Muratorian Fragment, Ostkirchliche Studien, II (1953), 121Google Scholar. Cf. J. Campos, Epoca del fragmenta Muratoriano, Helmantica, Revista de Humanidades Clasicas, II (1960), 49s 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 accommodate it to the Vulgate, whereas the Vulgate may well have influenced the wording 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). Donaldson, J., History of Christian Literature, III (London, 1866), 210ff.Google Scholar, argued that the fragment 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.1, 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.

⁹ Cf. Westcott, op. cit., 186; Kuhn, op. cit., 32f., etc.

¹⁰ Op. cit., 186, following Credner, op. cit., 93.

¹¹ Zahn, NT Kanons, II, 134f.

¹² Hennecke, E., Schneemelcher, W., Neutestamentliche Apokryphen (Tübingen, 1959–64), I, 18f.Google Scholar; Ritter, op. cit., 233, etc.

¹³ Op. cit., 4. Cf. Tregelles, op. cit., 5 and Campos, op. cit., 495 n.7 for bibliography on various datings of the list. Harnack, A., Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius (Leipzig, 1958), II. 2, 331Google Scholar, cites Koffmane-Kunitz, G., Das wahre Alter und die Herkunft des sogenannten Muratorischen Kanons, in Neue Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, II (1893), 163–223Google Scholar, as an example for a late dating of the canon. This is a substantial and well-argued case and deserves close attention. Harnack, however, dismisses it with a reference to Achelis, H., Zum Muratorischen Fragment, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie XXXVII (1894), 223–32Google Scholar. 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.

¹⁴ G. A. Buttrick, ed. (New York, 1962), III, 456.

¹⁵ Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart IV (Tübingen, 1930), 289; (1960), 1191Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Harnack, A., Tatians Diatessaron im Muratorischen Fragmente nachgewiesen, in Zeitschrift für lutheranische Theologie und Kirche XXXV (1874), 276–88Google Scholar. Also his Der polemische Abschnitt im Muratorischen Fragmente als Schlüssel für ein geschichtliches Verständniss desselben, ibid., 445–64, XXVI (1875) 207ff.; Zur Geschichte der Marcionitischen Kirchen, ZWT XIX (1876), 109–13Google Scholar; Das Muratorische Fragment und die Entstehung einer Sammlung Apostolisch-Katholischer Schriften, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte III (1879), 358–408, 595–98Google Scholar; Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, I, 646f., II, 330–33.

¹⁷ Harnack, A., Über den Verfasser und den literarischen Charakter des Muratorischen Fragments, ZNW XXIV (1925), 5–7Google Scholar, and Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Leipzig, 1924), II, 860 n.2Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Line 69. Routh, M. J., Reliquiae Sacrae (Oxonii, 1818), I, 425Google Scholar; 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. Bunsen, C. K. J., Hippolytus und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1852), II, 136Google Scholar, followed by Westcott, op. cit., 191 n.2, is almost certainly wrong in amending the text to “Catholicis,” presupposing καθολικὴ ἐπιστολή, since this passage is clearly parallel to “in honore tamen ecclesiae catholicae” (lines 61f.), 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’”.

¹⁹ “Muratorian Canon,” p. 54.

²⁰ Tregelles, op. cit., 1, 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.

²¹ ZNW XXIV (1925), 154–63.

²² Quasten, op. cit., II, 208, concedes that Koch has destroyed Harnack's argument that Canon Muratori is “an official document involving the responsibility of the Roman Church” (Ehrhardt, op. cit., 132 n.64, erroneously cites Koch as supporting Harnack's position). But what Quasten has 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.

²³ Harnack, Verf. u. literarischer Charakter des Muratorischen Fragments, 5; Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, II, 2, 331; Tregelles, op. cit., 40, etc.

²⁴ Westcott, op. cit., 189 n.1. 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 dépôt des constitutions impériales, Syria V [1924], 359–72), and similar schools developed at Constantinople and Carthage (Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. Lamb, G. [New York, 1956], 389fGoogle Scholar; Bouchier, E. S., Life and Letters in Roman Africa [Oxford, 1913], 34)Google Scholar. 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 center for public proclamations, and the archives of the imperial laws and constitutions 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., 164f.

^24b Westcott, op. cit., 185; Tregelles, op. cit., 58–64; Zahn, NT Kanons, 134–36; Kuhn, op. cit., 29; Harnack, Altchristlichen Literatur, II, 331, etc.

²⁵ “Muratorian Canon,” p. 54; cf. Zahn, NT Kanons, II, 134.

^25a Cf. Philastrius, Haer. 110, “Alia est heresis quae dicit Christianas nuperiores et posteriores Iudaeis …” (Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, X [Turnholte, 1957], 247).

²⁶ Ignatius, Eph. 13; Polycarp, Phil. 3.9.

²⁷ Eusebius, H. E. 4.22.4; cf. 3.32.6.

^27a Koffmane-Kunitz, op. cit., 177.

²⁸ Cf. Euseb., H. E. 5.8.6 for the Greek text. The translation is K. Lake's.

²⁹ The Latin translation of Irenaeus reads, “Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est, sed pene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii.” Migne, J. P., Patrologia … Graeca (Paris, 1857–87), VII, 1207Google Scholar.

³⁰ Cf. Streeter, B. H., The Primitive Church (New York, 1929), 213Google Scholar, “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 considerable elbowroom.” And he goes on to cite Iren., Adv. Haer. 5.30.3. Cf. Kuhn, op. cit., 25 n.1; Koffmane-Kunitz, op. cit., 176f. But Streeter failed to notice that this undercut the accepted basis for dating the Muratorian fragment. Consequently 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., 211f. Donaldson, op. cit., III, 212, etc. Cf. Eusebius, H. E. 3.28.3; 5.28.1.

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; Lightfoot, B. J., et al. , Excluded Books of the New Testament (New York, 1927), 251Google Scholar; Giet, S., Hermas et les Pasteurs (Paris, 1963), 286f.Google Scholar; Kuhn, op. cit., 98.

³² Op. cit., 66–91.

^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 Polycarp 8.1; 16.2; 19.2, etc. Cf. Kuhn, op. cit., 29.

³³ Op. cit., 212. Donaldson indeed 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, 1880), 1002, 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. La Piana, G., The Roman Church at the end of the Second Century, HTR XVIII (1925), 201–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 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. Wilson, W. J., The Career of the Prophet Hermas, HTR XX (1927), 21–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coleborne, W., A Linguistic Approach to the Problem of Structure and Composition of the Shepherd of Hermas, Colloquium III (1969), 133–42Google Scholar.

³⁴ Adv. Haer. 4.20.2; Euseb., H. E. 5.8.7. Cf. A. Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament, trans. J. P. Ward (London, 1904), 500. For citations of Hermas in the church fathers cf. Gebhardt, O., Harnack, A., Zahn, T., eds., Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, third ed., III, Hermae Pastor (Lipsiae, 1877), xliv–lxxiGoogle Scholar. Though Irenaeus calls Hermas γραφή, it is overstatement to say that this means canonical since γραφή was not a technical term. Cf. Sundberg, A. C. Jr., Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon, Studia Evangelica IV (1968), 454–57Google Scholar; Lawson, J., The Biblical Theology of Saint Irenaeus (London, 1948), 50f.Google Scholar; Werner, J., Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus, in Texte und Untersuchungen, VI.2 (Leipzig, 1889), 36–38Google Scholar.

³⁵ Stromata 1.17, 29; 2.1, 9, 12.

³⁶ De oratione 16.

³⁷ De pudicitia 10, 20. Cf. Krüger, op. cit., 41.

³⁸ Salmon, op. cit., 1002f. dated the canon between Tertullian's publication of De oratione and De pudicitia, since the latter marks the first instance of the rejection 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 expected it to defend the Shepherd against this Montanist attack.

³⁹ Cf. Jülicher, op. cit., 521, “The ‘Shepherd’ of Hermas was treated by practically all the Greek theologians of the third century who had occasion to use it as a canonical document.”

⁴⁰ De principiis 1.3.3; 2.1.5; 3–2.4.

⁴¹ Comm. in Rom. 10.31, cf. Tractatus 35 (on Lk. 12:59).

⁴² De princ. 4.1.11.

⁴³ Comm. on Matt. 14.21; ibid., Pt. 2.53; Trac. on Num. 8.1; ibid., Trac. 1 (on Ps. 38), sect. 1. Cf. Hanson, R. P. C., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954) 139f.Google Scholar, where the foregoing passages from Origen are cited.

⁴⁴ Euseb., H. E. 6.25.11–3.

⁴⁵ H. E. 3–3.6f.; cf. 5.8.7.

⁴⁶ However, the Shepherd is included together with the Epistle of Barnabas in the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, and Jerome, De vir. ill. 10 notes the tradition 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 Cotnm. on Habak. 1.14.

⁴⁷ 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.

⁴⁸ Salmon, Hermas, 913; Harnack, A., History of Dogma, 3rd ed. trans. Buchanan, N. (Boston, 1897), IIIGoogle Scholar, 198 n.1 and The Origin of the New Testament, trans. Wilkinson, J. R. (Covent Garden, W. C. 2, 1925)Google Scholar, 171; O. de Gebhardt et al., op. cit., xii–xxiv, where Hermas appears: in Cod., Bodleïanus 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. Berger, S., Histoire de la Vulgate (New York, N.Y., orig. pub. 1893), 67Google Scholar, for the inclusion of Hermas among the O. T. Apocrypha. Salmon, however, is mistaken in supposing that 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.”

⁴⁹ 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), 37–43Google Scholar.

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. Reider, J., The Book of Wisdom (New York, 1957), 1fGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ Sundberg, A. C. Jr., The Old Testament of the Early Church (Harvard Theological Studies XX, Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 51–103Google Scholar.

⁵² Ibid., 59, 148–59.

⁵³ Eusebius, H. E. 4.26.13.

⁵⁴ Sundberg, 0. T. of the Early Church, 133f.

⁵⁵ Ep. Fest. 39, in J. P. Migne, P. G. XXVI, 1436f.

⁵⁶ Adv. 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 ɑἱ γὰρ στιχήρɛις δύο βίβλοι, a continuing interest in these books even though they cannot stand in the Old Testament list.

⁵⁷ Adv. Haer. 76, in Migne, P.G. XLVII, 560f.

⁵⁸ 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 (τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων γραφῶν) of whom also was Irenaeus” (5.8.1). Cf. the index of Codex 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.

⁶⁰ The Apocalypse of John and the Epistles of Paul in the Muratorian Fragment, Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F., eds., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation (New York, 1962), 239–43Google Scholar. 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, according to Bar Salibi, cited in T. H. Robinson, The Authorship of the Muratorian Canon, Expositor, Series 7, I (1906), 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 [1906], 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 Stendahl and Bartlet, however, have overlooked the larger tradition concerning 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 examples 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. 11). 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 coincidence that seven churches are addressed in Paul's letters and in Revelation.

⁶¹ 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.

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.

⁶³ 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 Patristica, 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 introduced: Epistulae autem Pauli, quae a quo loco vel qua ex causa directae sint, volentibus 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 (1961), 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, 1913), 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 introduce 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-evidential character of Paul's letters (i.e., their usage), including, presumably, their inspiration, since their inspiration was everywhere accepted (cf. Dahl, The Particularity 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 certain church the apostle did in fact write to all” (Adv. Haer. 5.17), which recognizes the catholicity of Paul's letters (presumably deduced from their catholic use) without appeal to any formula of catholicity (ibid., 265).

⁶⁴ 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.

^64b Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 76.5; Souter, op. cit., 210, respectively.

⁶⁵ Charteris, A. H., Canonicity (Edinburgh, 1880), 336f. n. Hermas 1Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ I Ap. 2.8; Dial. 81; Euseb., H. E. 3.18.1f.; 4.18.8.

⁶⁷ Haer. 4.18.6; 4.20.10, 11; 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., 151f. 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.

⁶⁸ Euseb., H. E. 5.1.58.

⁶⁹ Grant, R. M., Second Century Christianity (London, 1946), 104–08Google Scholar. Cf. Robinson, op. cit., 481–85, 487. Note that, according to Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.5, the Apocalypse was rejected by Marcion as well.

⁷⁰ De Christo el Antichr. 36, 6, 47, 60, 61, etc.

⁷¹ Charteris, op. cit., 351, Victorianus n. 1; Quasten, op. cit., II, 411f.

⁷² De fabrica mundi, in Charteris, op. cit., 351. Cf. Jerome, De vir. ill. 74.

⁷³ In Psalm. I; De trinit. 6, in Charteris, op. cit., 355.

⁷⁴ Epist. II, ad Paulinum, 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, 1103), and In Isa. Lib. 18 Proem., where Jerome notes that the “most eloquent” Dionysius of Alexandria had written an “elegant” book against the Apocalypse.

^74a Jülicher, op. cit., 536.

⁷⁵ De praescript. haer. 3; Adv. Marcion. 3.14; 4.5.

⁷⁶ Epist. 63.1; De eleemos. 21; De bono patient.; etc.

⁷⁷ Epist. 42; Instit. 7.10.

⁷⁸ Mansi, G. D., Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florentiae, 1759–92), II, 1177Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Andreas Caesariensis, in Apoc. 34, Serm. 12; Oecumenius et Arethas, Comment. in Apoc. 12.7, both in Charteris, op. cit., 338.

⁸⁰ Euseb., H. E. 4.26.2; repeated in Jerome, De vir. ill. 24.

⁸¹ Euseb., H. E. 5.18.14.

⁸² Ad Autolyc. 2.28; Euseb., H. E. 4.24.1.

⁸³ Apol. pro Orig., in Charteris, op. cit., 352.

⁸⁴ Andr., proleg. in Apoc., in Charteris, op. cit., 339; Conviv. 1.5; 7.5, etc.

⁸⁵ Epist. iambica ad Seleuc. 316.

⁸⁶ Carm. 1.1.12.39, in Migne, P.G. XXXVII, 474.

⁸⁷ Instr. 1.6; 2.9; Strom. 6.13, 16, etc.

⁸⁸ De princip. 1.2.10; 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.

⁸⁹ Euseb., H. E. 7.24.1–4. Quasten's citation, 7.14.1–3 (op. cit., II, 104), is incorrect.

⁹⁰ H. E. 7.25; cf. 7.10.2.

⁹¹ Ep. Fest., in Migne, P. G. XXVI, 1436f.

⁹² Demonstr. Ev. 8.

⁹³ H. E. 3.18.2.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 3.24.18.

⁹⁵ 76 (85), in Westcott, op. cit., 484, cf. 389.

⁹⁶ Catech. 4.36, in Charteris, op. cit., 19.

⁹⁷ Haer. 76.5, in Westcott, op. cit., 492, cf. 398.

⁹⁸ Metzger, B., The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 1964), 141, 213Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ Ibid., 69, 136 n. 2, 70f.

¹⁰⁰ H. E. 3.25.

¹⁰¹ Ibid., 3.25.2.

¹⁰² Ibid., 3.25.4

¹⁰³ Ibid., 3.39.5f.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., 3.39.4.

¹⁰⁵ A New Text of the Apocalypse of Peter, II, JTS XII (1910–11), 380–83. The text may possibly have originated in Egypt. Cf. Hennecke, op. cit., II, 49.

¹⁰⁶ Die Petrusapokalypse in der alten Abendländischen Kirche, Texte und Untersuchungen, XIII, 1 (1895), 71–73Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ James, op. cit., 383. Wilmart, A., Un anonyme ancien de x virginibus, Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes I (1911), 37Google Scholar, 46–49; Hennecke, op. cit., II, 469.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., 381, cf. 370f.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Job 40:15 (20); 41:23 (24); Prov. 24:51; Enoch 20:2.

¹¹⁰ James acknowledges that this passage might be suggested by Wsd. 3:16–18; 4:8, 16. Ibid., 377, cf. 369. Zahn, NT Kanons, II, 2, 810ff., 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, James is certainly correct in holding it to be a considerable risk to attribute this quotation to another apocalypse when the words τὰ βρέφη … τημελούχῳ παραδίδοσθαι ἀγγέλῳ are found also in a named quotation from the Apocalypse of Peter in Ecl. 48. James, op. cit., 370.

¹¹¹ H. E. 6.14.1.

¹¹² NT Kanons, II, 2, 810ff.

¹¹³ Hennecke, op. cit., II, 468.

¹¹⁴ James, op. cit., 36–54, 362–83, 573–83.

¹¹⁵ Op. cit., II, 129. Cf. G. Krüger, op. cit., 235.

¹¹⁶ Symposium 2.6. James, op. cit., 373; Zahn, NT Kanons, II, 2, 810f. n.2.

¹¹⁷ H. E. 3.3.2. This is the only passage in Eusebius cited by Quasten on the Apocalypse of Peter, op. cit., I, 144.

¹¹⁸ H. E. 6.14.1f.

¹¹⁹ Ibid., 3.25.4.

¹²⁰ Ibid., 3.25.6f.

¹²¹ 6, 7, in Crafer, T. W., The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (London, 1919), 129, 130Google Scholar. The Greek text edited by Blondel, C. and Foucart, P., Μάγνητος Ἀποκριτικὸς ἢ Μονογενής. Macarii Magnetis quae supersint ex inedito codice ed. (Paris, 1876)Google Scholar was not available to this writer.

¹²² Apocrit. 16, in Crafer, op. cit., 131.

¹²³ Krüger, op. cit., 34.

¹²⁴ Crafer, op. cit., 130 n. 2, 131 n. 2; Hennecke, op. cit., II, 469. Cf. Goodspeed, E. J., A History of Early Christian Literature (Chicago, Illinois, 1942), 55Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Quasten, op. cit., III, 487.

¹²⁶ Crafer, T. W., Macarius Magnes, A Neglected Apologist, JTS VIII (1907), 401CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹²⁷ Quasten, op. cit., III, 486f. The second name is probably to be regarded as a place name meaning “Magnesian.” Cf. Crafer, Apocriticus, xixf.

¹²⁸ Ibid., xx–xxiii.

¹²⁹ Ibid., xxii.

¹³⁰ Apocr. 3.16, 41.

^130a Crafer notes that Nicephorus had already come to this conclusion in the ninth century. Ibid., xxii.

¹³¹ Ibid., 3.24.

¹³² Ibid., 3.40.

¹³³ Ibid., 4.13.

¹³⁴ Op. cit., xxi.

¹³⁵ Apocr. 2.17.

^135a Cf. Burkitt, F. C., Urchristentum im Orient (Tübingen, 1907), 58Google Scholar; Quispel, G., Makarius, das Thomasevangelium und das Lied von der Perle (Leiden, 1967), 7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁶ Cf. D. Lumper, De Magnete Presbytero, Migne, P. L. V., 343f.

¹³⁷ Quasten places the Apocriticus among the writings from Antioch and Syria. Op. cit., III, 386ff.

¹³⁸ Here Sozomen, who wrote his history as a sequel to that of Eusebius, also appears to be dependent on Euseb., H. E. 3.3.2.

¹³⁹ Migne, P. L. XXIII, 608–10.

¹⁴⁰ Metzger, op. cit., 51.

¹⁴¹ In Zahn, NT Kanons, II.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 Krüger, op. cit., 37. Cf. Souter, op. cit., 211f. Zahn's persuasive arguments are not to be set aside for Jülicher's assessing the list as Latin, op. cit., 536, followed by Hennecke, op. cit., I, 21. Jülicher, 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 Eusebius (H. E. 3.3.5) and Codex Claromontanus described in Hennecke, op. cit., II, 223. Jülicher'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.

¹⁴⁴ A. Souter, op. cit., 212 n. 1.

¹⁴⁵ Krüger, 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 Apocalypse of Peter as a canonical book was a view “we can say for certain … was no longer tenable after about A.D. 240.”

¹⁴⁷ Op. cit., 30f., 90f. Cf. Bartlet, op. cit., 214–19.

¹⁴⁸ van Unnik, W. C., De la règle μήτε προσθεῖναι μήτε ἀφελεῖν dans l'histoire du Canon, Vigiliae Christianae III (1949), 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sundberg, A. C. Jr., Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon, Studia Evangelica IV (Berlin, 1968), 452–54Google Scholar.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., 459f.

¹⁵⁰ Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.2,5; 5.1; 1.20.

¹⁵¹ Ibid., 4.5; 5.

¹⁵² Ibid., 1.19; 4.1. It is to be noted that Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem deals first with the Antitheses (books 1–3) then with Luke (book 4), and finally with Paul's letters (book 5). Cf. A. Harnack, Origin of the New Testament, 30 and n. 1. But cf. Harnack, A., Marcion (Leipzig, 1921Google Scholar, Texte und Untersuchungen, 45), 70 and n. 1.

¹⁵³ Lines 83f. Cf. Blackman, E. C., Marcion and His Influence (London, 1948), 64fGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵⁴ 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. i, in Eusebius, H. E. 6.25.4; Comm. in Jn. 5.3. Cf. Sundberg, Towards a Revised History of New Testament Canon, 459f.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. note 154. Sundberg, A. C. Jr., Dependent Canonicity in Irenaeus and Tertullian, Studia Evangelica III (Berlin, 1964), 403–09Google Scholar. Even if the anti-Marcionite prologues to the gospels are to be dated before Irenaeus (D. de Bruyne, Les plus anciens prologues Latins des Évangiles, Revue Bénédictine 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.

¹⁵⁶ Adv. Marc. 4.2.

^156a Ibid., 4.5.

¹⁵⁷ Idem.

¹⁵⁸ Ibid., 5.

¹⁵⁹ Ibid., 5.1

^159a Ibid., 5; but, while not discussing them, he does name the pastorals as omitted by Marcion (ibid., 5.21).

¹⁶⁰ H. E. 6.25.3–14.

¹⁶¹ Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London, 1954), 133, 137, 143, 182ffGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶² Sundberg, Towards a Revised History of the New Testament Canon, 460.

¹⁶³ In Eusebius, H. E. 6.25.2.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. n. 154.

¹⁶⁵ Both the Chicago school and its critics have overlooked this listing of Paul's letters that actually commences with Ephesians! The handbooks take the quotation 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 Tertullian omits Colossians in his listing of Paul's letters in Adv. Marc. 4.5.

^165a Cf. n. 160.

¹⁶⁶ Westcott, op. cit., 321–48.

¹⁶⁷ Ibid., 481–515; Souter, op. cit., 211–26.

¹⁶⁸ Ibid., 182f.; Gregory, C. R., Canon and Text of the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1907), 224–27, etcGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶⁹ Buchanan, op. cit., 537.

¹⁷⁰ Ibid., 538.

¹⁷¹ Idem.

¹⁷² Metzger, op. cit., 51.

¹⁷³ Cf. n. 142.

^173a According to Zahn's description (NT Kanons, II, 157–65), 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.

¹⁷⁴ A. Harnack, Excerpte aus dem Muratorischen Fragment (saec. XI et XII), 132f.

¹⁷⁵ Ibid., col. 131.

¹⁷⁶ Ibid., col. 132, where the text of the prologue is reproduced.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. Souter, op. cit., 190f.; Charteris, op. cit., 276 n. 1.