The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake
Today scholarship has reached an impasse as to the origin of the well-known fragment published by L. A. Muratori. Approximately half accepts a second-century Roman provenance based on views held by, for example, Adolf von Harnack and Samuel Tregelles. The other half, following Albert C. Sundberg Jr....
| Published in: | Novum Testamentum |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2018
|
| In: |
Novum Testamentum
Year: 2018, Volume: 60, Issue: 1, Pages: 55-82 |
| Further subjects: | B
Biblical Canon
canon list(s)
Muratori
Ambrosian Library
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Today scholarship has reached an impasse as to the origin of the well-known fragment published by L. A. Muratori. Approximately half accepts a second-century Roman provenance based on views held by, for example, Adolf von Harnack and Samuel Tregelles. The other half, following Albert C. Sundberg Jr., accepts a fourth-century Eastern provenance. This paper argues that the Fragment represents an attempt to provide a venerable second-century precedent for a later position on canon. The present essay restricts itself to three aspects of the debate: (1) initial discovery; (2) Fraternity Legend and Catalogue of Heresies; and, (3) historical settings in which such a text might have emerged. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1568-5365 |
| Reference: | Kritik in "The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake? (2019)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Novum Testamentum
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15685365-12341590 |