The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon

The traditional consensus that the New Testament Canonwas formed by the end of the second century has beenweakened by the results of modern studies. The traditionalviewpoint now depends primarily upon the evidence of theMuratorian Fragment. Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., in hisargument for a revision of the history of the ChristianCanon, has called for the redating of the MuratorianFragment. Through a careful analysis of the Fragment'straditional dating, and of its place within the history ofthe Canon, this study will confirm Sundberg's theory.The second century date of the Fragment is ultimatelydependent upon the simple Latin phrase, nuperrimetemporibus nostris, within a series of references to TheShepherd of Hermas. Sundberg has attempted to broaden thecommon interpretation of this phrase, but the commonly heldinterpretation is dubious in itself because of the knownpoor transcription and the suspected careless translationof the Fragment, and because the other references to TheShepherd are erroneous and late. No other referenceswithin the Fragment support a conclusive second centurydate.Within the history of the Christian Canon, theFragment, if traditionally dated, is a serious anomaly interms of concept, form, and contents. There is nothing todistinguish the Fragment from the fifteen undisputedCatalogues which appear in the fourth and early fifthcentury, and nothing to suggest that the Fragment isearlier. Indeed, there are numerous elements within theFragment that are unparalleled in the West or areexceptional until later. The cumulative evidence is toosiqnificant to be dismissed because of one, most likelyincorrect, association of Hermas with Pius of Rome.The Muratorian Fragment redated as a fourth centuryEastern document, possibly originating from Palestine orwestern Syria around 375, is a more reasonable conclusionof the evidence available.