Thoughts on Antiquity

This is part 2 (not counting the introduction) in a series on ancient Christian canonical lists. Part 1 was on the Marcionite canon. My humble thanks to Stephen Carlson for including that post in Biblical Studies Carnival IX, hosted on his weblog.

The Muratorian canon has been online both in Latin and in English for some time. Peter Kirby has links to the text, and I have it on my own site as well. So I do not intend to reproduce it in its entirety here, as it is fairly lengthy. Rather, I intend to explore some of its (many) quirks and mysteries.

In what follows it is important to be aware that the Latin orthography in this text is a disaster. My quotations of the text are corrected to reflect standard Latin spelling and grammar; but sometimes the corrections are mere conjectures.

The first issue at hand is a matter of scholarly frustration; both the opening and the closing of the canon are missing. The text begins as follows in line 1:

…quibus tamen interfuit et ita posuit.

…among which however he was and so he put them down.

We are not completely in the dark. The very next line names the third book of the gospel (tertium evangelii librum) as that according to Luke (secundum Lucam), and line 9 names the fourth of the gospels (quartum evangeliorum) as that of John from among the disciples (Iohannis ex discipulis). It hardly seems controversial, then, to assume that what has been cut off is a discussion of the gospels of Matthew and Mark. I am aware of no canonical list which names Matthew after Mark, so it seems virtually certain that the first line of the Muratorian canon is the end of the discussion of Mark, that of Matthew being lost in its entirety.

What then could the first line mean? It is possible that the topic is the Christians at Rome, and that the sense is that Mark was present among them and so wrote certain things down (in his gospel). The basis for this conjecture would be what certain other church fathers say about the origins of our second canonical gospel. Consider Clement of Alexandria, for example, according to Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14.6:

Του Πετρου δημοσια εν Ρωμη κηρυξαντος τον λογον και πνευματι το ευαγγελιον εξειποντος, τους παροντας, πολλους οντας, παρακαλεσαι τον Μαρκον, ως αν ακολουθησαντα αυτω πορρωθεν και μεμνημενον των λεχθεντων, αναγραψαι τα ειρημενα, ποιησαντα δε το ευαγγελιον μεταδουναι τοις δεομενοις αυτου.

While Peter was preaching the word publicly in Rome and speaking out the gospel by the spirit, those who were present, who were many, called upon Mark, as having followed him from far back and remembering what was said, to write up the things that were said, and having made the gospel he gave it out to those who had requested it.

But this hypothesis can of course be no more than a conjecture until such time as the opening of the document is discovered.

The text ends abruptly after lines 81-85:

Arsinoe autem seu Valentini vel Mitiadis nihil in totum recipimus, qui etiam novum psalmorum librum Marcioni conscripserunt una cum Basilide Assianum Cataphrygum constitutorem….

We receive nothing at all, however, of Arsinoes or of Valentinus or of Mitiades, those also who composed a new book of psalms for Marcion together with Basilides and the Cataphrygians of Asia….

These losses at both ends of the text mean that precious information on its authorship and date may well be lost to us forever. In the case of the Marcionite canon we at least know who approved (and indeed who disapproved) of the selection of authoritative books; in the case of the Muratorian canon we cannot be sure.

Which naturally is not to say that scholars have not tried to ascertain such information from the text as it stands! Let us begin with the date. All attempts to date the Muratorian canon must at some point pass through lines 73-80:

Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma Hermas conscripsit, sedente cathedra urbis Romae ecclesiae Pio ep{i}s{copo} frater eius. et ideo legi eum quidem oportet, se publicare vero in ecclesia populo, neque inter prophetas, completum numero, neque inter apostolos, in finem temporum potest.

However, Hermas composed the Shepherd recently, in our own times, in the city of Rome, while his brother Pius the bishop was sitting in the chair of the city of Rome. And therefore it is fitting that it be read, but it cannot be published for the people in the church, neither among the prophets, since their number is complete, nor among the apostles, since it is the end of their times.

There are three separate dates at stake here:

• The date of the Shepherd of Hermas.
• The date of the Muratorian canon.
• The date of the episcopate of Pius.

Of these dates, the episcopate of Pius seems to be the most secure. Irenaeus, who lived in Rome for a time late in century II, writes in Against Heresies 3.3.3 (Greek courtesy of Eusebius, History of the Church 5.6.4-5):

Τον δε Κλημεντα τουτον διαδεχεται Ευαρεστος και τον Ευαρεστον Αλεξανδρος. Ειθ ουτως εκτος απο των αποστολων καθισταται Ξυστος· μετα δε τουτον Τελεσφορος, οφ και ενδοξως εμαρτυρησεν· επειτα Υγινος, ειτα Πιος, μεθ ον Ανικητος· διαδεξαμενου τον Ανικητον Σωτηρος, νυν δωδεκατω τοπω τον της επισκοπης απο των αποστολων κατεχει κληρον Ελευθερος. τη αυτη ταξει και τη αυτη διδαχη* η τε απο των αποστολων εν τη εκκλησια παραδοσις και το της αληθειας κηρυγμα κατηντηκεν εις ημας.

* Perhaps a mistake for διαδοχη.

Huic autem Clementi succedit Evaristus, et Evaristo Alexander, ac deinceps sextus ab apostolis constitutus est Sixtus, et ab hoc Telesphorus, qui etiam gloriosissime martyrium fecit; ac deinceps Hyginus, post Pius, post quem Anicetus. cum autem successisset Aniceto Soter, nunc duodecimo loco episcopatum ab apostolis habet Eleutherius. hac ordinatione et successione ea quae est ab apostolis in ecclesia traditio et veritatis praeconatio pervenit usque ad nos. et est plenissima haec ostensio, unam et eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae en ecclesia ab apostolis usque nunc sit conservata, et tradita in veritate.

Evarestus succeeded Clement, and Alexander succeeded Evarestus. Then Xystus, the sixth from the apostles, was appointed. After him Telesphorus, who suffered martyrdom gloriously, then Hyginus, then Pius, and after him Anicetus; Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, Eleutherus holds the office of bishop. In the same order and succession the tradition in the church and the preaching of the truth has descended from the apostles unto us.

Irenaeus, writing circa 180, thus places Pius in the ninth place from the apostles, only three episcopates before his contemporary Eleutherus. Hegesippus agrees with Irenaeus regarding those later stages of the Roman succession according to Eusebius, History of the Church 4.22.3:

Γενομενος δε εν Ρωμη, διαδοχην εποιησαμην μεχρις Ανικητου, ου διακονος ην Ελευθερος. και παρα Ανικητου διαδεχεται Σωτηρ, μεθ ον Ελευθερος. εν εκαστη δε διαδοχη και εν εκαστη πολει ουτως εχει, ως ο νομος κηρυττει και οι προφηται και ο κυριος.

And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.

It may be that Irenaeus indeed has derived his succession from Hegesippus, in which case he has derived it from a contemporary, and the information is probably good.

The Liberian catalogue, century IV, has the following to say about Pius:

Sub huius episcopatu frater eius Ermes librum scripsit in quo mandatum continetur quod ei praecepit angelus, cum venit ad illum in habitu pastoris.

Under his episcopate his brother Hermes wrote a book in which is contained a mandate which an angel commanded him, when he had come to him in the garb of a shepherd.

The Book of Popes (Latin liber pontificalis), Felician catalogue, century VI, dates Pius absolutely to the rule of the Roman emperor Antonius Pius (138-161), and even more particularly to the consulship of Clarus and Severus (146):

Pius, natione Italus ex patre Rufino, frater Pastoris, de civitate Aquileia, sedit ann{os} XVIII, mens{es} IIII, dies III. fuit temporibus Antonii Pii a consulatu Clari et Severi. sub huius episcopatu frater ipsius* Hermis librum scripsit in quo mandatum continetur quod praecepit angelus domini, cum venit ad eum in habitu pastoris et praecipit ei ut sanctum paschae die dominica celebraretur.

* The Cononian catalogue of this work, century VII, lacks the words frater ipsius.

Pius, an Italian from his father Rufinus by birth, the brother of Pastor, from the city of Aquileia, sat [as pope] for eighteen years, four months, and three days. This was in the times of Antonius Pius from the consulship of Clarus and Severus. Under his episcopate his brother Hermes wrote a book in which is contained a mandate which an angel of the Lord commanded, when he had come to him in the garb of a shepherd and commanded him that the holy Passover be celebrated on the day of the Lord.

(Our extant text of the Shepherd actually has nothing to say about the Quartodeciman controversy over the celebration of Easter.)

Thus Pius can be fairly securely dated to the middle of century II. Dating the Shepherd of Hermas and the Muratorian canon, however, does not prove to be quite so straightforward. Both the Muratorian canon itself and the papal catalogues date the Shepherd to the episcopate of Pius and attribute it to his brother Hermas. Now, the Shepherd was certainly written by someone named Hermas; the author names himself several times throughout the work. But there is at least cause for suspicion when it comes to the datum that Hermas and Pius were brothers. In lecture VIII of his 1913 Bampton Lectures, published as The Church of Rome in the First Century, George Edmundson pointed out that the Latin title for the Shepherd was liber pastoris (book of the shepherd). The significance of this fact is that Pius, as the Felician catalogue above acknowledges, was known to have a brother named Pastor. It is but one short step from discussing the book of the shepherd to discussing the book of Pastor, for the Latin would be the same in both cases.

An alternate possibility, it seems to me, is that the Shepherd was known to have been penned by the brother of Pius, and the Latin title liber pastoris was mistakenly thought to name the author as Pastor, thus artificially giving the name Pastor to the brother of Pius.

Hermas and Pastor, or the shepherd, appear to be conflated in a poem attributed to Tertullian against Marcion (listed among the spurious works at the Tertullian Project) as follows:

Post hunc deinde Pius, Hermas cui germine frater angelicus pastor, quia tradita verba locutus.

Then after him Pius, whose biological brother was Hermas, the angelic shepherd, because he spoke the words delivered to him.

It ought to be noticed that Hermas is not the shepherd, or pastor, in the Shepherd of Hermas; rather, the shepherd is an angel who appears to Hermas. Nevertheless, confusion may also have arisen from the long speech by the angelic shepherd in the ninth parable of the work. In this speech the angel identifies himself in the first person as the shepherd. In Parable 9.31.5, for example, he says: Et ego sum pastor (and I am the shepherd, also translatable as and I am Pastor); refer also to Parable 9.33.1. An inattentive reader may have confused this embedded speech with the actual words of the author Hermas, thus conflating Hermas with Pastor.

All this to say that we cannot necessarily trust the seemingly straightforward datum that Hermas, brother of Pius, wrote his book during the episcopate of the same. There is too much opportunity for confusion between Pastor, Hermas, and the shepherd.

But what now of dating the Muratorian canon itself? Fortunately, dating the Shepherd and dating the canon are two independent operations, since, even if the canon is mistaken about the date of the Shepherd, it does not follow that it has to be mistaken about the date of the episcopate of Pius. The canon regards the Shepherd as having been written recently (nuperrime), but, since it also dates the Shepherd to the episcopate of Pius, it must regard that episcopate as recent. Indeed, its very wording suggests that the episcopate of Pius is the fixed point by which the Shepherd is to be dated. Unfortunately, however, it is not clear exactly how long an interval the word nuperrime (recently) should imply, nor even how broad a span of time the phrase temporibus nostris (in our own times) is supposed to mean.

The phrase temporibus nostris (in our own times) could be easily taken as meaning that the author of the canon regards the author of the Shepherd as a contemporary; but it could just as easily be taken as merely contrasting the times of the apostles with the times after their era, since lines 79-80 forbid grouping the Shepherd of Hermas among the apostles, [since we are] at the end of their times (inter apostolos, in finem temporum). The word nuperrime (recently) is likewise too vague to pinpoint a date even to within a decade or two. Any date from the middle of century II to early century III seems possible.

So who authored the Muratorian canon? Ludovico Muratori, who published the canon in 1740, suggested Gaius of Rome. The suggestion is at first glance quite attractive. Eusebius writes of Gaius in History of the Church 6.20.3:

Ηλθεν δε εις ημας και Γαιου, λογιωτατου ανδρος, διαλογος, επι Ρωμης κατα Ζεφυρινον, προς Προκλον της κατα Φρυγας αιρεσεως υπερμαχουντα κεκινημενος, εν ω των δι εναντιας την περι το συνταττειν καινας γραφας προπετειαν τε και τολμαν επιστομεζων, των του ιερου αποστολου δεκατριων μονων επιστολων μνημονευει, την προς Εβραιους μη συναριθμησας ταις λοιπαις, επει και εις δευρο παρα Ρωμαιων τισιν ου νομιζεται του αποστολου τυγχανειν.

And there has reached us also a dialogue of Gaius, a very learned man who was at Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, with Proclus the champion of the heresy of the Phrygians, in which, while curbing the recklessness and audacity of his opponents in composing new scriptures, he mentions only thirteen epistles of the holy apostle, not numbering the epistle to the Hebrews with the rest, seeing that even to this day among the Romans there are some who do not consider it to be of the apostle.

From this summary it follows that Gaius compiled a list of authentic scriptural writings in response to what he perceived as a deplorable Phrygian (Montanist) tendency to compose inauthentic scriptures, and this list was detailed enough to tell which Pauline epistles were genuine and which were not. The Muratorian canon, in fact, does not list the epistle to the Hebrews amongst the Pauline epistles.

Discoveries subsequent to the publication of the Muratorian canon, however, have rendered this hypothesis untenable. John Gwynn and T. H. Robinson pointed out more than a century ago certain passages from the Syrian father Dionysius bar Salibi which indicate that Gaius of Rome rejected the apocalypse of John. The Muratorian canon, on the other hand, accepts the apocalypses… of John and of Peter (apocalypses… Iohannis et Petri) in lines 71-72. So Gaius is ruled out.

An intriguing suggestion is that the author was Hippolytus, who wrote, according to bar Salibi, a work against Gaius, which work is to be identified with the head[ing]s against Gaius catalogued by Ebed-Jesu as a Hippolytan work and possibly with the book called On Behalf of the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse ([τ]α υπερ του κατα Ιωανην ευαγγελιου και αποκαλυψεως), of which only the title is preserved; it is found on the statue of Hippolytus kept at the Lateran Museum.

Robinson points out in his 1906 article the following passage from Dionysius bar Salibi, in the introduction to his commentary on the apocalypse of John:

Hippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius had appeared who said that neither the gospel nor yet the revelation was of John, but that they were the work of [A] Cerinthus the heretic. And the blessed Hippolytus opposed this Gaius and showed that the teaching of John in the gospel and revelation was different from that of Cerinthus.

This Cerinthus [B] was one who taught circumcision and was angry with Paul when he did not circumcise Titus, and [C] the apostle calls him and his disciples, in one of his letters, sham apostles and crafty workers. Again, [D] he teaches that the world was created by angels, and [E] that our Lord was not born of a virgin. He also teaches carnal eating and drinking, and many other blasphemies. The gospel and revelation of John, however, are like the teaching which the scriptures contain; and so they are liars who say that the revelation is not by the apostle John.

And we agree with Hippolytus that the revelation is of John the evangelist.

Robinson takes the central portion of this extract as a paraphrase of Hippolytus. In the first portion bar Salibi introduces Hippolytus as contrasting Cerinthus and the Johannine texts (against Gaius, who compared them so far as to identify Cerinthus as the author of these texts); in the second, or central, portion he gives the content of this contrast; and in the last portion he agrees with what he has just offered.

That Hippolytus was the source of this information on Cerinthus is also suggested by the parallels in Epiphanius, Panarion 28.1, 4, since Epiphanius has long been suspected of plagiarizing Hippolytus in this section of his heresiology:

Τα ισα γαρ τω προειρημενω εις τον Χριστον συκοφαντησας εξηγειται και ουτος εκ Μαριας και εκ σπερματος Ιωσηφ τον Χριστον γεγεννησθαι και τον κοσμον ομοιως υπο αγγελων γεγενησθαι. ….

For [Cerinthus] too [A] slanders the same things as the aforementioned [Carpocrates] against Christ and [E] provides the exegesis that Christ was born from Mary and from the seed of Joseph and [D] that the the world likewise was made by angels. ….

Αλλα ταυτα μεν τοτε επραγματευθη κινηθεντα υπο του προειρημενου ψευδαποστολου Κηρινθου, ως και αλλοτε στασιν αυτος τε και οι μετ αυτου ειργασαντο εν αυτη τη Ιερουσαλημ, οπηνικα Παυλος ανηλθε μετα Τιτου και ως ουτος εφη οτι, Ανδρας ακροβυστους εισηνεγκε μεθ εαυτου, ηδη περι Τιτου λεγων· Και κεκοινωκε τον αγιον τοπον. ….

But these things were instigated, set into motion by the aforementioned false apostle Cerinthus, as also at another time he himself and those with him worked out a tumult in Jerusalem itself when [B] Paul came up with Titus and Cerinthus said: He has brought uncircumcised men in with him, now saying concerning Titus: And he has made the holy place common. ….

Και ουτοι εισιν οι παρα τω αποστολω Παυλω ειρημενοι· Ψευδαποστολοι, εργαται δολιοι, μετασχηματιζομενοι εις αποστολους Χριστου.

And [C] these are those about whom it has been said by the apostle Paul: False apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ.

If both Dionysius bar Salibi and Epiphanius are paraphrasing Hippolytus, what are we to make of lines 42-46 of the Muratorian canon?

Primum omnium Corinthiis schisma haeresis in terdicens, deinceps Galatis circumcisionem, Romanis autem ordine scripturarum, sed et principium earum esse Xr{istu}m intimans prolixius scripsit.

First of all to the Corinthians against the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians against circumcision; to the Romans, however, he wrote rather at length, but also intimating by an order of scriptures that Christ was their beginning.

These Pauline epistles are singled out in particular, and the main themes to be expounded upon seem to be heretical schisms, circumcision, and, despite the obscurity of the comment on Romans, something to do with the relation of Christ to the scriptures; perhaps the preexistence of Christ is in view. These themes look like a bullet list, as it were, of topics to be discussed later on in the text. The Muratorian canon, it would seem, was not meant as a stand-alone list, but rather as the introduction to a polemical work of some kind. These themes also seem quite well suited to contrast, against Gaius, the teachings of the heretic Cerinthus, who approved of circumcision and questioned proto-orthodox christology, with those of the genuine scriptures.

There is more. Dionysius bar Salibi remarks further in his commentary on the apocalypse:

Hippolytus says that, in writing to seven churches, John writes just as Paul wrote thirteen letters, but wrote them to seven churches. That to the Hebrews he does not judge to be of Paul, but perhaps of Clement.

Likewise, lines 47-50 of the Muratorian canon also compare the seven churches in the apocalypse to the seven churches addressed by Paul:

…beatus apostolus Paulus sequens prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem non nisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat….

…the blessed apostle Paul, following the order of his predecessor John, wrote only to seven churches….

Victorinus of Pettau makes the same connection between Paul and John in his own Commentary on the Apocalypse 1.7 (English translation slightly modified from that of Kevin Edgecomb):

Denique, sive in Asia sive in toto orbe, septem ecclesias omnes; et septenatim nominatas unam esse catholicam Paulus docuit. Primum quidem, ut servaret et ipsum, septem ecclesiarum non excessit numerum, sed scripsit ad Romanos, ad Corinthios, ad Ephesios, ad Tessalonicenses, ad Galatas, ad Philippenses, ad Colossenses; postea singularibus personis scripsit, ne excederet numerum septem ecclesiarum.

Finally, as in Asia, so in the whole world; seven churches as all; and Paul taught that the seven named are the one catholic church. Indeed, at first, so he might keep this [rule], he did not exceed the number of seven churches, but rather wrote to the Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Galatians, to the Philippians, and to the Colossians; afterward he wrote to individual people, lest he exceed the number of seven churches.

Perhaps Victorinus knew the work of his fellow chiliast Hippolytus. At any rate, the Muratorian canon appears to bear a Hippolytan connection of some kind; Robinson may well be correct that Hippolytus was its author. He judges that it derives from the Head[ing]s Against Gaius. There are difficulties with this view; for example, I notice that the canon admits in lines 72-73 that some in the church do not wish the apocalypses of Peter and of John to be read in the church. Unless this is a subdued anticipation of the opinion of Gaius, it does not look like the kind of nonchalant admission one should make in a text written against a man who rejects at least one of those apocalypses. Nevertheless, the view has its merits, too, and I admit that, if Hippolytus did not pen the Muratorian canon, then we not only have no idea who did but also have to explain its parallels to material that was probably derived from Hippolytus.

If we are even marginally correct in our above discussion, it would appear that the Muratorian canon should be dated to early century III, or possibly late century II, and located in or near Rome. Which books, then, did this Roman who lived nearly two centuries after Christ accept into his canon? His list of accepted books runs as follows:

• Four gospels:
  • [Matthew?]
  • [Mark?]
  • Luke.
  • John.
• Acts of the Apostles.
• Epistles of Paul:
  • To the seven churches:
    1. Corinthians, two.
    2. Ephesians.
    3. Philippians.
    4. Colossians.
    5. Galatians.
    6. Thessalonians, two.
    7. Romans.
  • To individuals:
    1. Philemon.
    2. Titus.
    3. Timothy, two.
• Epistle of Jude.
• Epistles of John, two.
• Wisdom of Solomon.
• Apocalypse of John.
• Apocalypse of Peter.

The canon also mentions books that are to be rejected:

• Epistles of Paul:
  • Laodiceans.
  • Alexandrians.
• Shepherd of Hermas.
• Anything by Arsinoes.
• Anything by Valentinus.
• Anything by Mitiades.
• Psalms for Marcion.
• Anything by Basilides.
• Anything by the Cataphrygians of Asia.

There is nothing surprising about the fourfold gospel. Irenaeus in about 180 gives a rather contrived but obviously after-the-fact argument for the four gospels in Against Heresies 3.8.11, and before him Justin Martyr appears to have known all four gospels in the middle of century II. There is even evidence that Papias, early century II, knew all four gospels.

That the Acts of the Apostles make the list is not a shock. Late in century II Irenaeus names Luke as the author and uses this Lucan text as the very basis for chapters 12-15 of book 3 of Against Heresies. Clement of Alexandria quotes from it as authoritative in Miscellanies 5.11 and also names Luke as the author in 5.12. Tertullian calls the book the memoir of Luke in On Fasting 10.3 and strongly defends its position as scripture in Prescription 22.10-11; 23.3-5.

Nor do the epistles of Paul occasion much surprise. All thirteen epistles attributed to Paul in our present canon make the list; the unattributed epistle to the Hebrews is missing. Given the Hippolytan connections that we have already investigated, it is worth pointing out what Photius has to say about Hippolytus in Bibliotheca 121:

Λεγει δε αλλα τε τινα της ακριβειας λειπομενα, και οτι η προς Εβραιους επιστολη ουκ εστι του αποστολου Παυλου.

But he says other things somewhat lacking in accuracy, even that the epistle to the Hebrews is not of the apostle Paul.

The reference to the epistle of Jude may be the first to that epistle by name, though some earlier writers appear to allude to it. On the other hand, Clement of Alexandria may have beaten our canon to the punch in The Instructor 3.8, where he quotes from Jude by name. Tertullian argues on behalf of 1 Enoch in On Female Fashion 1.3, using the apostle Jude (refer to Jude [1.]14-15) as an authority in its favor.

The reference to the epistles of John is puzzling, inasmuch as only two are mentioned. Since 1 John is quoted in the discussion of the gospel of John in lines 29-31, it has been conjectured that our author regarded 1 John as a sort of appendix to the gospel, and thus meant 2 and 3 John by the reference to two Johannine epistles. But this seems quite unlikely to me, given that in line 28 the author explicitly says that the quote in lines 29-31 is to be found in (one of) his epistles (in epistulis suis).

Perhaps even more puzzling is the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon in a list that otherwise includes and explicitly excludes only New Testament works.

Most puzzling of all, in my judgment, is the omission of the (first) epistle of Peter entirely (though omission of the second epistle of Peter is par for the course). By this time in Christian history authorities both from the east and from the west were quoting from this epistle approvingly and by name. In the west Irenaeus cites it under the name of Peter in Against Heresies 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2. Likewise Tertullian in On Prayer 20; Antidote for the Scorpion 14. In the east Clement of Alexandria cites it under the name of Peter in The Instructor 1.6; 3.11; 4.12; Miscellanies 3.11; 3.18; 4.7. That the Muratorian canon should pass over the epistle of Peter in silence is at least a bit perplexing. Perhaps there is a lacuna in the text somewhere in the vicinity of lines 68-71. Or perhaps, since this list seems to be part of a longer polemical work and not a list compiled for its own sake, the omission of 1 Peter is simply an oversight.

Two apocalypses, not just one, make the list. I presume the Greek apocalypse of Peter is intended, not the gnostic one extant in Coptic from codex VII of the Nag Hammadi library. (Mark Goodacre has made this text available in Greek on his weblog in MS Word format, and of course the English translation is available from Early Christian Writings.)

It is worth noting that the (accepted) epistle to the Ephesians and the (rejected) epistle to the Laodiceans are now, unlike in the time of Marcion, two different texts. There is an epistle to the Laodiceans extant in some Latin manuscripts from century VI and later; the James translation is available from Comparative Religion. The mystery is why the Muratorian canon would attribute this innocuous little pastiche of Pauline phrases to Marcion, but the bare fact that Marcion was known to have approved a Laodicean epistle might have led to this (mis)identification.

Finally, the last few canonical rejects in our list are a list of heretics such as Basilides, valentinus, and Marcion. I do not know who Mitiades or Arsinoes are. The Cataphrygians would be the Montanists; the name Cataphrygians derives from the Greek label attached to that movement (by Epiphanius in Panarion 49.1, for example), namely οι κατα Φρυγας (those from among the Phrygians), since the movement reportedly began in Phrygia.

Implications for attestation.

How does the Muratorian canon affect modern investigations of attestation?

First, this canon attests to the fourfold collection of gospels. The four gospels will remain, in fact, the most stable element in the canonical lists that we have yet to investigate.

Second, we have official canonical attestation for the Acts.

Third, all thirteen canonical epistles attributed to Paul are deemed authoritative, but the epistle to the Hebrews is absent. This again must be considered a strike against its Paulinicity.

Fourth, the epistle of Jude is considered authoritative, but that of James is absent. It is my sense that modern readers of the Bible know James quite a bit better than Jude, but I think primitive Christians knew Jude better than James.

Fifth, what are we to make of the two epistles to John? Since the Muratorian canon quotes from the first epistle, that one at least must be considered authoritative (and written by John, naturally). But which of the other two is accepted? Which is rejected? It seems very odd to have to choose between 2 and 3 John, since they certainly appear to share the same author; indeed, the presumption of common authorship between these two epistles is greater than that between either of the two and 1 John, in my humble opinion.

Sixth, what are we to make of the absence of 1 Peter? I myself would count this as a strike against the authenticity of that epistle, but not a very big one, since surely by this time 1 Peter would have merited a mention, even if to reject it, since contemporaries of the canon clearly regarded it as authoritative all over the Roman world. This may be a case of accidental oversight. 2 Peter is a very different story. With very little patristic support at this point in time, it is not surprising that the Muratorian canon would fail to list it.

Seventh, the apocalypses of John and Peter are both accepted as authorities, though it is frankly admitted that not all Christians at the time were enthusiastic about either of them. The inclusion of the apocalypse of John is compatible with the author of our canon being a chiliast (like, say, Hippolytus, to use an example off the top of my head), but does not necessarily prove it.

Eighth, the ongoing battles of the proto-orthodox and the groups that they labelled as heretics have left their mark on this canonical list. The author feels the need to pointedly exclude the writings of various named heretics. Perhaps he goes out of his way to exclude them because somebody had at some point first suggested including them. Even so, however, the tone taken with these writings seems very different than that taken with the two (accepted) apocalypses and the (rejected) Shepherd of Hermas. In the latter cases, the dispute sounds like an internal affair, a debate between insiders; in the former, the dispute sounds external, like an argument with outsiders whose opinions are to be rejected in their totality (in totum, line 82). We will find a similar gradation of canonical status in other canonical lists that I will present in upcoming installments.

In my next installment of this series I will (hopefully more briefly) discuss the canon of Origen.

Update 09-12-2006: Stephen Carlson comments that William Horbury suggested an original Old Testament section to the Muratorian canon based on the reference to the Wisdom of Solomon. Thanks, Stephen. Though the category crossover would still be a little strange, that would make more sense of the reference; and there are much stranger things about this canon than an Old Testament book leaking over into New Testament territory, at any rate.