Clare Rothschild says yes in “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake,” NovT 60, no. 1 (2018): 55–82 and now Christophe Guignard says no in “The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake? An Answer to C. K. Rothschild,” RevSR 93/1–2 (2019): 73–90.I haven’t had time to read either so I’m just the messenger here. For an informed opinion, I’d ask John Meade except he’s on vacation. Slacker!
PG,
ReplyDeleteI have only read Guignard‘s response, but he seems to have laid out the position for the MF being 2/3rd century in a convincing argument. He also took the time to address Rothschild fully.
Tim
One problem with Guignard’s article is his aggressive tone against Rotschild which should have caught the eyes of the editors. We do not need this rhetoric.
ReplyDelete"problem" . . . "should have" . . . "we do not need" . . . That kind of rhetoric?
DeleteNot exactly. First of all, I do not personally agree with Rotschild's argument, but I reacted when I read paragraph 4 in particular, the passage that follows after: "At first reading, such a proposal, with this somewhat eccentric dating, seems so strange that—had it not been published in a serious academic journal like Novum Testamentum—it could trigger the suspicion that the article itself is a fake—or a hoax. Indeed, this impression could be reinforced by a number of strange statements or mistakes." This is followed by a list of examples starting with the point how to correctly spell Montfauçon. Hmm.
DeleteIt sounds more bewildered than aggressive to me. Bewildered especially that editors would have thought it was a good argument. I have myself shared that bewilderment on other occasions.
ReplyDeletePH,
DeleteI also thought he sounded bewildered (great word by the way)! I find reviews or responses that disagree with the original author throughout and then end with niceties, disingenuous.
Even in academia do we need to focus on feelings instead of the arguments, I hope not!
Tim
Disclaimer: I am a friend and close colleague of Clare K. Rothschild, so readers of this blog may take my remarks for whatever they may be worth.
ReplyDeleteLike Tommy, I regard Guignard’s article as ill-suited to scholarly debate. The fact that the journal Revue des Sciences Religieuses is “edited and published” by Guignard’s faculty (the Catholic Theological Faculty of Strasbourg) invites the question who in Strasbourg was available to make a “peer review” evaluation of the article prior to its publication. Possibly emblematic of Guignard’s influence over the journal are his five contributions to the current issue.
On my reading, Rothschild makes a strong argument for the Muratorian fragment’s late(r) date, which could call into question using the fragment as “evidence” for canon formation around 200 CE. That conclusion, as well as Rothschild’s other contentions, merit debate, a debate focused on the evidence and without unwarranted personal attacks.
Additionally, if I could make a plea to the ETC blog, it would be for such posts to include a summary of each side’s main arguments, as well as an assessment of those arguments.
James A. Kelhoffer
Although I am not a specialist on the early history of the canon (and, like Jim, speaking as a friend and colleague of Clare Rothschild, as well as someone who has read *both* articles), I entirely welcome renewed debate about the date and authenticity of the Muratorian Fragment (with respect to my own research interests, as a potential instance of strategic pseudepigraphy); and I do not regard Guignard's efforts to head off such a renewal of debate (with a snarky list of corrigenda?) as likely to succeed.
ReplyDeleteR. Matthew Calhoun
The whole friend thing is ridiculous. When did it become necessary to defend a ‘friend’ against an academic review, critical or not. Enough with the snarky, mean-spirited claims!
DeleteIt is totally unnecessary to defend a friend. That was not the point though, but rather to acknowledge one’s bias. However, I do not wish anyone, friend or not, this type of snarky review using words like fake or hoax and listing errata in the main text. This was the specific problem I had with the article. I welcome sharp responses, but without such rhetoric.
DeleteRothschild's article seems to be ensconced behind a fairly substantial paywall, so it's understandable that most of us can only read Guignard's response. But from what I can glean of her writing from that of her detractor (a common situation in studying ancient authors), it occurs to me that if it such an easy thing to frame the Muratorian Fragment as a forgery of a couple centuries later, it should be just as easy to formulate and defend the same charge against the writings now attributed to Ignatius of Antioch.
ReplyDelete