The discussion surrounding the Muratorian Fragment has sparked significant debate, particularly regarding its authenticity and dating. In an interview I heard, Dr. Lee Martin McDonald, a noted pastor and Canon expert, claimed, “The Muratorian fragment is a forgery from the fourth century.” His assertion, which seemed to unsettle the evangelical interviewer, prompted me to further investigate the dating of this fragment.

Previously, I held the belief that the dating of the Muratorian Fragment was uncertain, having learned about its purported second-century origin during my seminary studies. At that time, the consensus among evangelical scholars was that it represented an early understanding of the biblical canon.

Toward the end of my seminary journey, I encountered a commentary by Dr. Dale Allison on the book of James, where he referred to the fragment as having an "unknown" date. This led me to explore various sources, and I discovered that scholars were divided, with a slight inclination towards a second-century dating.

After reflecting on my initial assumptions, I chose to remain undecided. However, hearing Dr. McDonald’s insights shifted my perspective, leading me to delve into several works, including Dr. Clare K. Rothschild’s article, which ultimately convinced me that the Muratorian Fragment likely belongs to the fourth century.

This overview of my evolving thoughts serves as a backdrop for my response to Jeremy Armiger, whose article on the Muratorian Fragment can be found here. Rather than addressing every point he raises, my intention is to present a broader argument supporting the notion of the fragment as a fourth-century document while also engaging with Christophe Guignard's article.

To begin, I will outline the fundamental arguments for considering the Muratorian Fragment as a fourth-century text:

The Muratorian Fragment and Its Contextual Challenges

1. Assumptions of Gospel Acceptance Across Churches:

   The fragment presupposes that all four gospels were universally recognized, which conflicts with the historical context of the second century. Irenaeus, in the late second century, debated the necessity of having four gospels, suggesting that this was not yet settled.

2. Unification Efforts in the Fourth Century:

   The fourth century marked a pivotal moment in Christian history, establishing doctrines such as the Trinity and defining Christ's relationship with God. It also represented a shift towards a formalized canon and the acceptance of texts viewed as inspired.

3. Inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon:

   The presence of the Wisdom of Solomon alongside New Testament texts raises questions. Bruce Metzger highlights its unusual inclusion, while F.F. Bruce suggests it may have been composed as late as the first century, aligning with the NT.

4. Inclusion of Eusebius's Disputed Books:

   The fragment lists several letters regarded as disputed in Eusebius’s work, which raises doubts about a second-century dating, as their inclusion would likely have warranted discussion.

5. Dating Issues with the Shepherd of Hermas:

   The Muratorian Fragment references the Shepherd of Hermas as being written "in our time," suggesting a later dating than the second century would allow.

6. Athanasius’s Festal Letter:

   If the Muratorian Fragment had already established a canon, Athanasius's subsequent letter would be unnecessary. The absence of mention of the fragment in later significant documents also raises questions.

These points are not exhaustive but illustrate my reasoning for dating the Muratorian Fragment to the fourth century.

Moving on to Guignard’s article, “The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake? An Answer to C. K. Rothschild,” I find several issues with its presentation. Firstly, the article's aggressive tone detracts from its scholarly merits. Secondly, it lacks peer review, raising concerns about its accuracy.

Guignard's arguments often seem misinformed, and he appears to misunderstand Rothschild's careful approach. Until I see further evidence published in a trusted journal, I remain unconvinced by his claims.

In closing, I appreciate Jeremy's willingness to engage in this dialogue. His openness to differing perspectives is commendable, especially in the often polarized field of biblical studies. While I disagree with the notion that this debate hinges on worldview, I affirm that many scholars maintain a vibrant faith while conducting critical research.

Ultimately, I believe that the evidence supports a fourth-century dating for the Muratorian Fragment, a perspective that I owe to Dr. McDonald’s enlightening interview.