Subject: tc-list muratorian canon

From: "Roderic L. Mullen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:51:45 -0400

Query for the cognoscenti:  would anyone care to share an opinion about G.
M. Hahneman, THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), in which he suggests redating the Muratorian
Canon to the Fourth Century?  I'll reserve my own comments for now.  Thanks,
Rod Mullen

---

From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:44:54 -0400

>Canon to the Fourth Century?  I'll reserve my own comments for now.  Thanks,

I've read it about two years and was persuaded that the late second century
is not the best dating for the Muratorian Canon.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:[email-masked]
Synoptic Problem Home Page   http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

---

From: Mike Logsdon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 22:14:35 -0500

Hahneman's work, though it is difficult to follow at times, does deal with
the issue at hand--strengthening the case for a late fourth-century date
and an eastern provenance designation of the fragment.  Nevertheless one of
his weaknesses from the outset is his overstatement regarding the
Muratorian fragment to canon study.  As such, he does not demonstrate why a
later date necessitates a revised canon history toward a more gradual
process, but instead his own dating of the Muratorian canon seems to be
predicated upon this gradual process of canon formation.  Still other
weaknesses do occur.  His argumentation is largely based on speculative
postulations rather than concrete demonstrations about the contents of the
fragment.  Nowhere does he demonstrate a peculiarity or other aspect of the
fragment that absolutely requires a fourth century dating.  When he does
attempt to offer a concrete characteristic, he erroneously concludes that
the fragment is completely synonymous to the other fourth century
catalogues.  In fact, the lists in the fourth century catalogues are just
that, lists.  The Muratorian list, comparatively, is an expanded or
apologetic commentary.  What is more, Hahneman's dating is questionable
since he so quickly accepts Sundberg's translation of nuperrime that is at
best a mere plausible choice.  In fact, Hahneman does not offer a critique
of the traditional view that the reference is in fact not about the
Shepherd of Hermas and Pius, but the Muratorian fragment and Pius.
Hahneman rightly identifies the need to view the canon process as gradual,
but over emphasizes the distinction between canon and scripture in
reference to the fourth-century.  In the end, Hahneman's conclusion appears
plausible and his argumentation is good, but at the same time his own
rejection of traditional conclusions offers little reason to completely
accept his position thereby leaving readers cynical towards all positions
concerning the Muratorian fragment.  When one considers the abrupt ending
and beginning of the fragment, cynicism towards conclusive remarks about
the fragment might be a good position to maintain.