Arguing against a second century and in favour of a middle-to-late fourth or early fifth century dating for the Muratorian Fragment (MF), Lee Martin McDonald noted that
If the MF is a second-century
document, it has no other parallels until the fourth century when multiple NT
canon lists were produced. This coincides with the Diocletian persecution of
the Christians, which began in May of 303, when Christians were forced to turn
over their sacred texts to Roman authorities to be destroyed. Christians thus
needed to decide which of their sacred texts to save and which they would turn
over to authorities. At that time, there is evidence that some Christians tried
to protect their sacred texts from destructing (later they were called “martyrs,”
μαρτυρες), but some Christians turned all
of their sacred texts over to the authorities to avoid torture and death, and
they were called “traitors” (traditores or lapsi). Eusebius
describes the persecution in considerable detail (Hist. eccl. 8.5-6), including
some successes and losses (Hist. eccl. 8.2.1, 4-5; cf. Gesta apud
Zenophilum). IN this atmosphere, Christians were deciding which texts were
most sacred and which needed protection. Obviously not all Christians saved the
same texts though there was likely considerable overlap in the selections. In
the fourth century, Eusebius identified the NT writings referred to by Irenaeus
(Hist. eccl. 5.8.2-8), Clement of Alexandria (Hist. eccl.
6.14.1-7), and Origen (Hist. eccl. 6.25.3-14); but it is not clear that
all these church fathers advocated a firmly fixed collection of NT scriptures.
Their lists of sacred texts are not precisely the same, but they do overlap considerably.
(Lee Martin McDonald, “Forming Christian Scriptures as a Biblical Canon,” in Ancient
Jewish and Christian Scriptures: New Developments in Canon Controversy, ed.
John J. Collins, Craig A. Evans, and Lee Martin McDonald [Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2020], 135)
McDonald, in his essay, offers a number of arguments for a middle-to-late
fourth-century or early fifth-century dating of the MF, including:
Anomalies (lines
69-70). The MF accepts 2 or 3 John, but these letters were both doubted as late
as 324-25. The acceptance of two epistles of John without question is different
from the doubts about 2 and 3 John expressed by Eusebius in the firth third of
the fourth century (Hist. eccl. 3.25.3). Also, the lack of any defense
of the four canonical Gospels, such as we have in Irenaeus in the late second
century, is more common in the fourth century. There Eusebius calls the four
Gospels the “holy tetrad” (Hist. eccl. 3.25.1). At that time most
churches accepted only the four canonical gospels. (Ibid., 137)
Wisdom of Solomon in a NT list (lines
69-70). There are no other parallels in the second century where Wisdom (or
Wisdom of Solomon) is found in a NT list. It is only found elsewhere in a NT
list from the fourth century, as we see in Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 5.8.7)
and in Epiphanius (Pan. 76.5). (Ibid., 138)
The Shepherd of Hermas (lines
73-80). Although the MF encourages reading the Shepherd, it was not to be read
in the church, that is, it was rejected as scripture and not listed
among the NT scriptures in the earlier part of the MF. However, there was no
other parallels in this rejection of the Shepherd as scripture in the second
century. In fact, Irenaeus cited the Shepherd as “scripture” in the second
century (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.2-8). Allowing the reading of the
Shepherd, but not in churches as sacred scripture, is much more at home
in the fourth century, not in the second century. The Shepherd of Hermas,
a popular text in the second and third centuries was even included in the
fourth-century NT portion of the Codex Sinaiticus and listed, along with the Epistle
of Barnabas. It is also in the NT-list dating from around 300-350 inserted
in Codex Claromontanus (6th c.). The Shepherd was cited positively by
Athanasius in 367 CE (in this 39th Festal Letter) to be read, but not
listed as scripture; that judgment is like that of the MF. Rufinius (Commentarius
in symbolum apostolorum 36, from 394 CE) similarly refers to Shepherd as an
“ecclesiastical” writing that could be read, but not in church. This text was
read publicly before the fourth century but not only privately in the fourth
century and later, as these fourth-century parallels show. (Ibid., 138-39)
Miltiades (lines
81-83). The references to the rejected works of Miltiades (2nd c. CE) are more
clearly at home in the late fourth century than in the second. For example,
Tertullian praised Miltiades as an eminent sophist and writer who wrote against
heresy in the late second century (Val. 5). Later Eusebius (Hist. eccl.
5.17.1, 5) praises Miltiades for his writing against Jews, Montanists,
Valentinians, and pagans; he also refers positively to Miltiades’s Apology
to secular rulers. Noe of Miltiades’s writings have survived antiquity; yet
again, it appears that he was popular in the second century and even in the
early fourth century with Eusebius. The rejection of him appears more at home
in the later fourth or early fifth centuries. (Ibid., 139)
The Cataphrygians (line
85). The reference to the works of the “Cataphrygians” is also more at home in
the later fourth century than in the second century. Even in the early fourth
century, the followers of Montanus (fl. Ca. 157-172) are generally called “Montanists,”
and the term “Cataphrygians” is not yet commonly used for them. Eusebius (ca.
324-25), for example, still speaks of the followers of Montanus as the “Montanists”
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.16.10), though in the fourth century he was
aware of the emerging title for them and speaks of the “so-called Cataphrygian
heresy” (5.16.1). The Montanists were only regularly called “Cataphrygians” in
the later fourth and early fifth centuries, especially by Epiphanius (Haer.
98; in PG 41:856B) and Jerome (Comm. Gal. 3) (PL 26:356C). (Ibid., 139-40)
McDonald also notes that:
If the MF is a second-century
text, it is not representative of what is known about second-century thought,
and, as noted above, is without parallel. The special interest in the church at
that time was its regula fidei, that is, the churches’ sacred
traditions, rather than a list of NT scriptures. (Ibid., 140)