Regardless of who wrote it, or whether or not they were a heretic, the Muratorian fragment proves that a vast majority of the New Testament was considered scriptural,
By whom? By some anonymous individual who claimed what the church allowed to be read amongst the masses. If you believe in this anonymous source so much, then jettison First Peter. Jettison Second Peter. Jettison the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jettison James. Jettison Revelation.
If you really believe in the historical accuracy of the Muratorian fragment as disclosing the canon of the New Testament, then you are compelled to do all of these things. But you don’t. Because you have certain unsupported presuppositions that you refuse to investigate.
and if we take the text as legitimate (and we have no reason not to, especially considering the numerous other texts supportive of the same scriptures),
Then give the numerous other texts that support it, but remember that if they list books that are not in the Muratorian Fragment, better reject them, or else be ready to explain why the Muratorian Fragment is wrong.
we see that at least a good portion of the churches considered these volumes as such.
Once again, evidence? It shouldn’t make any difference what a good portion of the churches accepted. According to you they are not infallible. They can’t suddenly declare certain writings canonical, some of which weren’t even written by an apostle (ie. Hebrews).
Does this establish their canonicity in itself – no. What it does is proves that Rome really wasn’t settling an issue that was very devisive in the church.
Well if it doesn’t establish their canonical status, then it can’t possibly prove that there was no issue that needed to be resolved in that regard. I like how you use local councils like Carthage and Hippo as (poor) evidence against the necessity of Rome, but then assert that what constitutes canon didn’t need to be resolved by these superfluous councils.
Scripture was already well on its way to becoming established long before that, and without the action of any council or pope, I might add.
“Well on it’s way.” If anybody else here used language like that you would be all over them. So what you claim is the infallible word of God became more certain as time went on, not less. Perhaps you can explain how that works when one is relying solely on historical evidence to support that all 27 books are canonical.
Oh come on! We’re talking a period of more than 10 years between the supposed canonization by Rome, and the next known canonization event. I’d consider it close to impossible that the word of Rome’s decision wouldn’t have reached to Africa by then, and again, if Rome had decided, there’d be no reason for the others to do so, and in fact we should expect them to have made reference simply as promulgating the decision of Rome. And even so, we should expect to see that much sooner than over a decade later.
Just because you keep mentioning it doesn’t make it any less a diversionary fallacy, but since you can’t seem to help yourself. These were all local councils, not ecumenical councils or papal declarations. You haven’t shown that other distant church’s had access to the texts of Rome’s local council. You are guessing. If you are really serious about debating this, then you need to do your homework and come back and make your case.
They were identified as scriptural within the first century. Peter’s works seem to indicate that Paul’s writings were considered as scripture in his very own lifetime. So, do you have something that’s earlier than that?
Which ones? Not Hebrews. Reject it. It isn’t in the Muratorian fragment, and I guarantee you it isn’t referenced by Peter because Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul. And guess what? Peter’s works are not included in the Muratorian Fragment.
As for evidence – are you actually disputing that the gospels and Paul’s writings were in circulation in the first century? If not, what are you saying actually happened to them during this time? Or are you doubting their dates of authorship?
Yes I am disputing that. There isn’t any evidence they were being circulated in the first century. Some of them are dated to the first century, others to the second century. Of course you don’t like to talk about those ones.
Now, after all this: why is your one anonymous source more reliable than the earlier writings of Clement of Rome (ordained by St. Peter) and Ignatius of Antioch (an associate of the Apostle John) on the structure of the Church?
