Answering Alisa Childers on the Muratorian Fragment

Sometimes, Christians forget that consequences have actions.

For example, all conservative Christians love to date the Muratorian Fragment ("MF") to the early 2nd century, since that means its list of canonical works, mostly matching the modern Protestant canon, is so early that it can be said to have apostolic roots.

I don't know if Alisa Childers "forgot" any such thing as she blogged in support of an early date for the MF, perhaps not, but most Christians don't realize that before the MF author moves from John to Acts, he gives a version of how John's gospel was composed, a version that most conservatives would rather see struck from history. Here it is, in context, from Metzger's translation:

. . . at which nevertheless he was present, and so he placed [them in his narrative]. [1] (2) The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. (3) Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, (4-5) when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, [2] (6) composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. [3] Yet he himself had not (7) seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, (8) so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John. (9) The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples. (10) To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], (11) he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what (12) will be revealed to each one (13) let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed (14) to Andrew, [one] of the apostles, (15-16) that John should write down all things in his own name while all of them should review it. And so, though various (17) elements [3a] may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, (18) nevertheless this makes no difference to the faith (19) of believers, since by the one sovereign [3b] Spirit all things (20) have been declared in all [the Gospels]:

Notice what else you are early-dating when you early-date the MF:

1. you are early-dating the tradition that apostle John wanted his gospel to be the result of him and the other apostles discussing visions they'd have after fasting for three days.
2. you are early dating the tradition that before John's gospel was published, it was "reviewed" by the other apostles.

The consequences that follow from both of these traditions make it more difficult for today's conservative apologists to argue that the material in John's gospel is simple authentic eyewitness recollection:

Under tradition # 1, the fact that John first thought his gospel should be the result of him and the apostles discussing visions with each other, raises problematic questions about John's intent in writing a gospel:  He was willing to present visionary material as if it was simply eyewitness testimony in written form (and given this, it may very well be that this is exactly what happened, see John's exclusive statement in 16:7, 14 about how further information about Jesus will be disclosed by the Holy Spirit after Jesus goes away).  So if theory # 2 is true, and John wrote it, well, the guy who wrote it was the kind of guy who saw no problems in characterizing vision-based information as eyewitness-based information.  How's that for a solid boost in apologetic potential?

Under tradition # 2, the fact that the apostles "reviewed" it would not make sense unless they were given the right to modify or correct it.  But this raises several concerns:  Why would any of the apostles believe God wanted them to modify John's composition, assuming as true the conservative view that these apostles would have thought John to have written inerrantly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Or maybe the historical facts given here in the MF falsify the modern conservative notion that John was incapable of error while he was composing his gospel?  What fool "reviews" a composition that is already guaranteed to be without error?  Maybe the apostles were reviewing in the sense of their learning from John, things about Jesus which they never previously knew?  How can "review" make coherent sense here without doing violence to the doctrine of inerrancy?

Donald Guthrie's "New Testament introduction" is standard fare in conservative seminaries and bible colleges, yet notice his pessimism toward getting any useful results from analyzing 2nd-century sources speaking to authorship of John's gospel:

The problem of the authorship of this gospel has been so widely and so thoroughly discussed that it is not easy to express with any conciseness all the ramifications of the different hypotheses which have been proposed.

…It is always difficult to assess the evidence of the second-century Church Fathers on the New Testament books, for a critic’s estimate will be invariably influenced by his general presuppositions. Thus some will place more emphasis than others on negative evidence, rather than positive, and others will be inclined to give credence only to the first of a sequence of witnesses, dismissing the rest as mere echoes of the first and therefore weakening the whole cumulative testimony. Although a completely unprejudiced approach is probably not possible, an attempt will be made here to give a brief survey of the facts.3

Guthrie, D. (1996, c1990). New Testament introduction.

Series taken from jacket. (4th rev. ed.). [The master reference collection].

Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press.

Guthrie's NT Introduction does not discuss the MF's testimony to John's gospel.

The Word Biblical Commentary draws a conclusion from the MF that makes reasonably confident assessment of the eyewitness value of John's gospel impossible:

John’s Gospel is thus represented as a joint production of a number of the apostles, with John as their spokesman.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary :

John. Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxvii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

If the content of the gospel of John draws from more apostles than John, then how are we to figure out which sections of John drew from which apostles, so that we can do proper historiography and evaluate the credibility of the individual contributors?  As most Christians know, most of the original apostles are disregarded by the NT after the time Jesus is alleged to have risen from the dead.  Therefore, if the MF is correct and, say, Bartholomew contributed in any way when "reviewing" John's gospel, what part did he review, how do we know, and what historical evidence about Bartholomew would assist us in ascertaining his ability or willingness to stick to just the facts?

Or could it be argued that because the MF says John wanted his gospel to be based on visions, this esoteric attitude was likely shared by the other apostles, so that when they "review", they are just as willing to make additions on the basis of divine revelation, as they are on the basis of their own eyewitness memories?  How does this historical possibility change the "reliable gospels" calculus?

The Word Biblical Commentary asserts that this part of the MF is legendary:

The Muratorian Canon has reproduced sheer legend in suggesting that a group of the original Apostles, with Andrew in particular, shared with the apostle John in the writing of the Fourth Gospel; the motive for this is clearly to reinforce the authority of the Gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of it—an early example of the tendency to confuse apostolic authority with apostolic authorship.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. (2002). Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary: John.

Word Biblical Commentary (Page lxvii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

I find the "reinforce the authority of the gospel by adducing joint apostolic production of it" excuse to be unpersuasive, since the early patristic testimony to Matthew and Mark does no such thing.  Then again, nobody said that the early church could only err in a uniformly consistent way.

Consequences flow from the conservatives who say the MF's story of John's origin is legendary.  Inerrantists often forbid the bible to have even a single error because they think if they admit one genuine error, the floodgates will open and they will have to admit they can't be sure there aren't other errors too.  If that reasoning is valid, then why doesn't the legendary "how it happened" stuff in the MF justify suspicion toward the allegedly factual "list of canonical books" stuff?  If there's one error, then all is lost, amen?

Could it be that the MF author got the canonical list right, but not the history of the canonical books?  Yes, technically that could be the case, but how does that benefit us more than 1500 years after the fact, who are limited to just the MF and our historical methods, and our need to judge credibility by known acts and statements?

The WBC rehabilitates this "legend" by offering the following as a possibly correct explanation for the "we" in John 21:24:

 (iii) The writer and others closely linked to him. So, e.g., Schlatter: “The speaker stands in this ‘we’ in the first place, but he knows that he is not alone, but sees himself in a greater circle of such as share his knowledge with him” (376). This accords with the famous passage in the Muratorian Canon, which states that John wrote the Fourth Gospel at the entreaties of his fellow disciples and bishops, but not until he had asked them to pray with him concerning the matter; then “it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles, that John should write down all things in his own name with the recognition of all.”

For kicks, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to John's gospel says John dictated and Papias wrote.
Eusebius said Papias did not live early enough to be a contemporary of the apostles:

" But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends^."

Did Eusebius say this merely because he didn't like Papias' chiliasm?  If so, how many other early church fathers likewise allowed their theological prejudices to cause them to make false statements about Christian history?  Was Eusebius' prejudice here typical, or exceptional?
 
In my opinion, the attempt of conservatives to harvest wheat from the MF while rejecting the chaff, is fraught with peril on every side,. and the more objective procedure would be to leave the MF alone as nothing more than a historical curiosity.  

But the consequence of avoiding the use the MF is, one less ancient historical source in favor of apostolic authorship of John's gospel.