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....
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
2018
|
| Dans: |
Novum Testamentum
Année: 2018, Volume: 60, Numéro: 1, Pages: 55-82 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Biblical Canon
canon list(s)
Muratori
Ambrosian Library
|
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Édition parallèle: | Non-électronique
|
| Résumé: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Description matérielle: | Online-Ressource |
| ISSN: | 1568-5365 |
| Référence: | Kritik in "The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake? (2019)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Novum Testamentum
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15685365-12341590 |