The Muratorian Fragment

Introduction

In 1740, an Italian historian named Ludovico Antonio Muratori published a damaged Latin manuscript he had discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan. The manuscript — a poorly copied, grammatically mangled Latin text — turned out to be one of the most important documents in the history of the New Testament canon. Known as the Muratorian Fragment (or Muratorian Canon), it is the oldest surviving list of books recognized as belonging to the New Testament.

The Fragment is invaluable not because it settled the canon — it did not — but because it provides a snapshot of what one Christian community regarded as authoritative Scripture at a remarkably early date. It reveals a canonical consciousness that is both recognizable (most of the books it lists are the same ones in our New Testament) and still in development (a few inclusions and exclusions differ from the final 27-book canon). It is, in short, a window into the canon in formation.

Date and Origin

The traditional dating of the Muratorian Fragment places it in the late second century — approximately AD 170–200. This dating rests on internal evidence: the Fragment refers to the Shepherd of Hermas as having been written "very recently, in our times" during the episcopate of Pius of Rome (c. AD 140–155). If the author is writing within living memory of Pius's episcopate, the document dates to roughly the last quarter of the second century.

This dating has been challenged by some scholars — most notably Albert Sundberg and Geoffrey Hahneman — who have argued for a fourth-century date, primarily on the basis of the Fragment's similarities to fourth-century canonical lists and its poor Latin, which they argue reflects a later period. However, the majority of scholars continue to accept the second-century dating. The internal reference to Pius remains the strongest piece of evidence, and the Fragment's canonical profile — with its inclusions, exclusions, and uncertainties — fits the late second century better than the fourth, when the canon was much more settled.

The Fragment is generally believed to have originated in Rome or its environs, based on the reference to Pius as bishop of Rome and the document's overall perspective. The surviving manuscript is a Latin translation of what was almost certainly a Greek original.

What the Fragment Includes

The beginning of the Fragment is broken off, but the surviving text begins mid-sentence with what appears to be a discussion of Mark's Gospel (the missing portion likely discussed Matthew). From there, the Fragment provides a remarkably detailed survey of the books it recognizes:

The Four Gospels — The Fragment clearly recognizes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and provides brief notes on the circumstances of their composition. Luke is identified as a physician and companion of Paul. John is described as writing at the encouragement of his fellow disciples, after a period of fasting and revelation.

Acts — Attributed to Luke, described as a record of events that occurred in his own presence, which explains why it does not include the martyrdom of Peter or Paul's journey to Spain.

Thirteen letters of Paul — The Fragment lists all thirteen Pauline epistles (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon). Notably, Hebrews is absent — it was not universally attributed to Paul in the West and would remain a matter of debate for centuries.

Jude and two epistles of John — The Fragment accepts Jude and "two bearing the name of John." Scholars debate whether this means 1 and 2 John, or 2 and 3 John (with 1 John perhaps discussed in the lost portion about the Gospels).

Revelation of John and the Apocalypse of Peter — Both are accepted, though the Fragment notes that "some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church." This is a remarkable admission: the Fragment includes a book while simultaneously acknowledging that its canonical status is disputed.

The Wisdom of Solomon — Perhaps surprisingly, the Fragment lists this Old Testament apocryphal book among the accepted writings. This may reflect the book's widespread use in Christian worship and teaching rather than a formal canonical judgment, or it may indicate that the boundaries of the canon were still somewhat fluid at this early date.

What the Fragment Excludes

Equally instructive are the books the Fragment rejects or omits:

Hebrews — absent entirely, reflecting the Western church's longstanding uncertainty about this letter's authorship and canonical status. The East generally accepted Hebrews as Pauline and canonical much earlier than the West.

James, 1–2 Peter, 3 John — If the standard identification of the "two epistles of John" is correct, then James, both letters of Peter, and 3 John are absent. These are among the books that took longest to achieve universal recognition.

The Shepherd of Hermas — This is the Fragment's most revealing exclusion. The Shepherd was widely read and respected in the early church (it appears in Codex Sinaiticus alongside the New Testament books). The Fragment acknowledges its value — it "ought indeed to be read" — but excludes it from the canon on the grounds that it was written too recently: it cannot be counted "among the prophets, whose number is complete, or among the apostles." This statement reveals the Fragment's operative criterion: canonical books must belong to the apostolic period. The prophetic canon (Old Testament) is closed, and the apostolic canon (New Testament) is bounded by the apostolic generation. A book written after the apostolic age, however edifying, cannot be Scripture.

Marcionite and Gnostic writings — The Fragment explicitly rejects letters attributed to Paul that were forged by Marcionites ("to the Laodiceans" and "to the Alexandrians"), declaring that they "cannot be received into the catholic church — for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey." It also rejects writings by Valentinus, Basilides, and Miltiades.

The Fragment's Canonical Profile

When we compare the Muratorian Fragment's list with the final 27-book New Testament, the overlap is striking. Of the 27 books, the Fragment clearly accepts at least 22 (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, all 13 Pauline letters, Jude, two Johannine epistles, Revelation). It omits or is uncertain about Hebrews, James, 1–2 Peter, and possibly one Johannine epistle. It includes two books not in the final canon (the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon), though with noted reservations about the former.

This profile — a large, stable core with a few disputed books at the margins — is exactly what we would expect if the canonical process was a gradual recognition of books that were already functioning as Scripture in the churches. The core was settled very early. The disputes were at the edges. And the direction of the process was consistently toward the 27-book canon that was eventually universally recognized.

Conclusion

The Muratorian Fragment is a messy, damaged, imperfect document — and that is part of its value. It was not a polished statement from a church council; it was an informal document from a particular community at a particular moment. Its very informality makes it a credible witness to the state of the canon in the late second century. It shows us a church that knew what its Scriptures were — not perfectly, not without dispute at the margins, but with a clarity and consistency that demolishes the myth that the New Testament canon was a fourth-century invention.