The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical ...

120 Bulletin for Biblical Research 6
imprisonment, surely the individual churches had by that time
begun to finalize the issue of which writings were sacred and which
were not as important to its life and ministry. There is nothing at this
time to suggest, however, that the Church at large had full agreement
on the matter, but it is likely that churches in isolated geographical
locations were in broad agreement by this time.
What factors then led to a more universal acceptance of certain
books in the NT canon? Arguably, Eusebius is one of the most pivotal
personalities in the final stages of the canonization process, and he
had the greatest influence on the Church at large through his Ecclesiastical
History and his relationship with the Roman Emperor. This was
especially so when Eusebius was asked by the Constantine himself to
produce fifty copies of the Scriptures for the churches in the New
Rome, Constantinople. Whatever it was that Eusebius produced and
the emperor accepted surely must have had a large impact on the
churches in the region of Constantinople if not the whole empire. 59
Nevertheless, by the end of the fourth century there were many canonical
lists produced with variations among them in both the eastern
and western churches. Later in that century church councils were
beginning to get involved in the discussion, especially in deciding on
the questionable books, or "fringe" writings (2, 3 John, Jude, etc.),
that did make it into the Scripture canons. This is where I believe that
the stage of definition is largely concluded but never finalized for the
whole Church.
B. The Muratorian Fragment
So what of the Muratorian Fragment? The Muratorian Fragment may
properly be described as the "Achilles heel" of NT canon discussion.
It is often the chief piece of evidence presented for the origins of the
NT canon near the end of the second century. If it was written in the
late second century CE, it stands in isolation from all other evidence
of the origins of canonical discussions in the ancient Church and had
no influence or parallels whatever for more than 180 years after that.
There are a number of arguments against its second century origin,
however, and also its supposed western provenance—the most commonly
accepted views of this strange and poorly written fragment.
Besides the important arguments of Sundberg and Hahneman, which
59. G. A. Robbins argues that these copies were only of the Gospels, but I do not
find his arguments on this point convincing (" 'Fifty Copies of Sacred Writings,' VC 4.36;
Entire Bibles or Gospel Books," Studia Patristica [vol. 19; ed. E. A. Livingstone; Leuven:
Peeters Press, 1989] 91-98).