Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list muratorian canon

Expand Messages
  • Michael Holmes
    ... My review of the book is in CBQ 56 (1994) 594-5. The last lines of it read: H. has rightly highlighted the problematic character of the traditional
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 9, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 09:51 PM 10/8/98 -0400, Rod Mullen wrote:
      >Query for the cognoscenti: would anyone care to share an opinion about G.
      >M. Hahneman, THE MURATORIAN FRAGMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CANON
      >(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), in which he suggests redating the Muratorian
      >Canon to the Fourth Century? I'll reserve my own comments for now. Thanks,
      >Rod Mullen
      >

      My review of the book is in CBQ 56 (1994) 594-5. The last lines of it read:
      "H. has rightly highlighted the problematic character of the traditional
      dating, but nothing he has presented eliminates it or requires a later
      dating. His own case for a fourth-century date is just as problematic; in
      support of it he offers many possibilities and some probabilities, but
      nothing more certain than the case for the traditional date. The book, well
      written and engagingly presented, leaves this reviewer skeptical of all
      dates sugested for the MC, but of H.'s more than of the traditional one."

      Mike Holmes
      Bethel College
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.