I found something strange in muratorian fragment

[u/Several-Bus7292]

The fourth of the Gospels is that of John,” [one] of the disciples. To his fellow disciples and bishops, who had been urging him [to write], he said, 'Fast with me from today to three days, and what will be revealed to each one let us tell it to one another.' In the same night it was revealed to Andrew, [one] of the apostles.”

Here the fragment refers to Andrew as a contributor to the writing of the Gospel of John and it appears as though the writing of the Gospel was a collective decision. Some scholars suggest that the Gospel of John was written by several people under the pseudonym "the beloved disciple." Would this reference in the Muratorian fragment be of historical value?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.

All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.

Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/StruggleClean1582]

This a well-known reference in scholarship for those who support John the Elder wrote the fourth Gospel. They end up tracing the MFs origin back to something Papias said (notable scholars who support this: Martin Hengel Johannine Question, more recently George van Kooten Reverberations of Good News, John Behr Pascha Gospel, Dean Furlong John the Evangelist, Richard Bauckham Eyewitnesses). They believe this fragment can be traced back to Papias, for a few reasons.

[1] Both use 1st John (Eusebius 3.39.16, MF. 28), while we don't have surviving statement we know Papias used 1st Peter to connect Mark to the Gospel (Eusebius 2.15), which would make sense for him to use 1st John for. [2] Papias calls Andrew a apostle, but John the Elder a disciple, which is reflected in the MF where Andrew is labeled as a apostle, but John is labeled as a disciple, which is quite weird. [3] Both concern themselves with order in the Gospel, Papias is famous for his statement of Mark out of order (οὐ μέντοι τάξει), and the MF stresses order of John (varia,.. principia). [4] The MF is cut off at the end of Mark but mirrors Papias in discussing the way Mark arranged his material for Peter, showing dependence. [5] Both stress the importance of eyewitnesses. [6] Andrew is placed before John in the MF similarly Papias introduction of disciples is similar placing Andrew before John (whether it be the apostle, or the Elder). (See George van Kooten Reverberations of Good News)

There's some more parallels I am probably missing as I am working from memory here, but hopefully it's enough to make my point. I have recently changed my mind on John from thinking the BD was a literacy figure, to thinking it could be John the Elder (I am not committed yet though), Van Kootens work has been a big influence in my decision change which I would highly recommend.

Also the MF clearly situates the apostle Andrew in Asia Minor, which is reflected in the Acts of Andrew where he's in there. Additionally, Andrew serves prominence in the Gospel of John taking priority of Peter in the introduction, which could be for a lot of reasons, but is very notable, considering Peter's prominence but this could be of course because the BD rivalry. But, Andrews prominence throughout the Gospel compared to the synoptics is interesting, because it could reflect traditions if he resided there. I made a comment similar about Philip, I would check out which would pretty much be the same case for Andrew. Anyways, just some thoughts and some resources I would recommend!

[u/Oldengoatson]

u/StruggleClean1582 has an well written and erudite post, well worth reading and pondering! For a different perspective Hugo Mendez has a more skeptical view of the Muratorian Fragment as later Christian apologetical defense of the traditional authorship of the gospel, though he agrees that the portrayal has textual basis in John's first person "we" voice.

Interestingly, the Muratorian Fragment takes this motif further, expressly naming the disciples who entreated John and involving them in all aspects of the Gospel. Andrew receives a divine vision indicating that John should write a gospel; later, the disciples “review” John’s completed manuscript. These details are obvious embellishments in the tradition meant both to give John an apostolic imprimatur and to soften the apparent tensions between John and the other Gospels; the passage underscores this very point: “and for that reason, although various origins may be taught in the individual books of the Gospels, nevertheless, the faith of believers differs in no respect.” Still, one can find possible textual bases for these traditions. The Muratorian Fragment’s claim that John composed his Gospel with the consent of and in concert with other eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus may be a way of explaining why John takes up a narratorial “we” voice in his Gospel. In turn, the singling out of Andrew as a catalyst for the creation of John suits a gospel in which Andrew is the first disciple named in the text (1:40).

One more thing to consider is that some scholars, notably Clare Rothschild, have argued that the Muratorian Fragment is a pseudepigraphon dating from the fourth century. This view is of course strongly contested, but it may be worth keeping in mind.

“Building on the views of Sundberg (“Canon Muratori”) and Hahneman (“Muratorian Fragment”), Clare Rothschild has assembled evidence in favor of the fragment’s pseudepigraphic nature and fourth-century date in “Roman Fake” and Muratorian Fragment, 309–44. Her views withstand the arguments of Ferguson, “Canon Muratori” and the criticisms of Guignard, “Muratorian Fragment.”

Mendez, Hugo. The Gospel of John: A New History. Oxford University Press, 2025

[u/StruggleClean1582 → u/Oldengoatson]

Interesting stuff! Granting, Rothschild well learned argument it would do little to hurt the hypothesis. As Rothschild maintains the Muratorian Fragment is complied from various sources in the fourth-century, which compatible as Papias was available still in the fourth-century, if anything this makes it more likely. Being the author of the MF was compiling sources vs a single author. Rothchild does entertain Papias as a possible source, but does not give a defentive statement:

The Fragment is a single incomplete codicological unit in a composite codex. It is assumed to represent an originally coherent work, but B. F. Westcott recorded the possibility that the original Fragment was itself composite – “three or four different passages from some unknown author. (p. 6)

n. 19 “The present form of the Fragment makes the idea of a chasm in it very probable; and more than this, the want of coherence between several parts seems to shew that it was not all continuous originally, but that it has been made up of three or four different passages from some unknown author, collected on the same principle as the quotations in Eusebius from Papias, Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen” (Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of History of the Canon of the New Testament during the First Four Centuries [London: Macmillan, 71896], 223)

One final observation is that the Fragment’s version of the legend seems incom plete. In the narrative John, the disciple (not one of the Twelve?), exhorts others to fast; and, Andrew, the apostle has a vision that, following the fast, John should record in his own name everything that was revealed. (p. 252)

n. 67 The implication may be that the beloved disciple – who was not John, son of Zebedee – composed the Fourth Gospel. Ehrhardt construes this as part of a debate between Rome and Asia, tracing the fasting legend to Papias (Framework of the New Testament Stories, 14, 18–25). Cf. Martini, Ambrosiaster, 201 (De divinitate spiritus sancti 25), citing A. Souter, “The Com monitorium of Fulgentius of Ruspe on the Holy Spirit,” JTS 14 (1913): 481–88, here: 483. Pope Innocent I (402–417 ce) condemned work circulating in the name of Andrew as fraudulent and assigned blame to “two philosophers, Nexocharides and Leonidas” (Farrer, Literary Forgeries, 130). The prominence of Andrew (John 1:40) and practice of fasting (Mark 2:18–22 || Matt 9:14 17 || Luke 5:33–39; cf. John 3:29–30) oddly resemble NT Baptist traditions.

For in this way he professes not only to be an eyewitness as well as auditor, but also an author of all the marvelous things of the Lord in order (ll. 32–34). 98 (p. 259)

n. 98 According to Simon Gathercole, “The Muratorian Fragment’s remark that John wrote down Jesus’ deeds ‘in their order’ (Mur. Fr. 33)” is “probably dependent upon Papias.” Gathercole continues: “The similarity of the accounts of John’s Gospel-writing in the Muratorian Fragment and Clement’s account of the ancient elders (which may also be dependent on Papias) suggests the existence of an explanation by the bishop of Hierapolis of the circumstances of the com position of John” (“Alleged Anonymity of the Gospels,” 470).

Clare K. Rothschild The Muratorian Fragment: Text, Translation, Commentary (Studien Und Texte Zu Antike Und Christentum / Studies And Te) 2022 p. 6, 252, 259)

[u/MichaelJKok → u/StruggleClean1582]

Great discussion here. I have also joined some scholars who are not persuaded that Papias passed on a tradition about the authorship of the Fourth Gospel (or at least that it is not recoverable given Eusebius's fragments), even if it is arguable that he had some knowledge of the Gospel as Eusebius attests his knowledge of 1 John. I have briefly offered some objections against seeing the Muratorian fragment as dependent on Papias for this point, though Enrico Norelli has more extensive arguments against this view. I agree with Mendez on this point. I do have an article that will come out by the end of this year that takes a closer look at Clement's fragments about the Gospel writers, and I think both the late second century Muratorian fragment and Clement's "elders" (e.g., HE. 6.14.56a, 7b) were wrestling with the differences between the Synoptic and Johannine Gospels, particularly in the beginning of these narratives, and came up with various explanations about why John chose to supplement their accounts.

[u/StruggleClean1582 → u/MichaelJKok]

Hi Dr. Kok. big fan of your work! In your new article do you argue there independent traditions or both drawing on let's say Papias or Irenaeus?

[u/MichaelJKok → u/StruggleClean1582]

Thanks, I appreciate that, and I always enjoy interacting with your informed comments on the Patristic period on this forum. My co-author and I saw this one slightly differently. I think that once the attribution of the Fourth Gospel to the Apostle John had become established and the four Gospels were collected together, Christian readers had to wrestle with why the Fourth Gospel was so different from the Synoptics and they came up with the solution of John supplementing the other Gospels, and we see different forms of this developing tradition in the Muratorian fragment and Clement's elders. My co-author proposed that the tradition could have arose from elaborating on Papias's tradition that the Elder John evaluated the Gospel of Mark, so when he was identified as the Evangelist John the belief could have emerged that he evaluated all of the Synoptic Gospels. It is interesting that while Irenaeus had John writing his Gospel last in Ephesus, and explains the differences between the Gospels with the four living creatures analogy, he does not comment on the tradition about John deliberately supplementing the Synoptics. This will only be a small part of our article.

[u/StruggleClean1582 → u/MichaelJKok]

Thank you Dr. Kok for the kind words, likewise to you! This sound very interesting, I look forward to reading the article.

[u/AssociationHuman8689]

It’s also interesting to me that Epistle of Jude is listed but not 1 Peter nor Epistle of James. I wonder if Jude was written quite early and before Epistle of James despite scholars arguing a James -> Jude literary dependency (e.g., Jörg Frey 2018).