In doing research on this subject, I noticed that the Society uses this fragment as a basis for the canon of the NT.
sipp.302-303pars.18-19StudyNumber4—TheBibleandItsCanon******
The
EvidenceofEarlyCatalogs. A glance at the accompanying chart reveals that a number of fourth-century catalogs of the Christian Scriptures, dated prior to the above-mentioned council, agree exactly with our present canon, and some others omit only Revelation. Before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul’s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas. Likely this was so because such writings were limited in their initial circulation for one reason or another and thus took longer to become accepted as canonical.19
One of the most interesting early catalogs is the fragment discovered by L. A. Muratori in the Ambrosian Library, Milan, Italy, and published by him in 1740. Though the beginning is missing, its reference to Luke as the third Gospel indicates that it first mentioned Matthew and Mark. The Muratorian Fragment, which is in Latin, dates to the latter part of the second century C.E. It is a most interesting document, as the following partial translation shows: "The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, wrote it in his own name . . . The fourth book of the Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. . . . And so to the faith of believers there is no discord, even although different selections are given from the facts in the individual books of the Gospels, because in all [of them] under the one guiding Spirit all the things relative to his nativity, passion, resurrection, conversation with his disciples, and his twofold advent, the first in the humiliation arising from contempt, which took place, and the second in the glory of kingly power, which is yet to come, have been declared. What marvel is it, then, if John adduces so consistently in his epistles these several things, saying in person: ‘what we have seen with our eyes, and heard with our ears, and our hands have handled, those things we have written.’ For thus he professes to be not only an eyewitness but also a hearer and narrator of all the wonderful things of the Lord, in their order. Moreover, the acts of all the apostles are written in one book. Luke [so] comprised them for the most excellent Theophilus . . . Now the epistles of Paul, what they are, whence or for what reason they were sent, they themselves make clear to him who will understand. First of all he wrote at length to the Corinthians to prohibit the schism of heresy, then to the Galatians [against] circumcision, and to the Romans on the order of the Scriptures, intimating also that Christ is the chief matter in them—each of which it is necessary for us to discuss, seeing that the blessed Apostle Paul himself, following the example of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name in the following order: to the Corinthians (first), to the Ephesians (second), to the Philippians (third), to the Colossians (fourth), to the Galatians (fifth), to the Thessalonians (sixth), to the Romans (seventh). But though he writes twice for the sake of correction to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, that there is one church diffused throughout the whole earth is shown [?i.e., by this sevenfold writing]; and John also in the Apocalypse, though he writes to seven churches, yet speaks to all. But [he wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy; [and these] are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the Church. . . . Further, an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted . . . We receive the apocalypses of John and Peter only, which [latter] some of us do not wish to be read in church."—TheNewSchaff-HerzogEncyclopediaofReligiousKnowledge, 1956, Vol. VIII, page 56As I read through this, I was struck by the number of "..." that frequently characterize the WTS writings.
First of all, in paragraph 18 the book states that it wasn't the RCC that chose the canon. A look at the Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia would indicate otherwise. It states on p. 54 (after stating that the Muratorian fragment mentions the Bishop of Rome):
"The earlier date assigned by some, about 170 or 180, is improbable, if only the writer speaks as a member of the Catholic Church which has definitely cast out not merely the parties of Valentinus, Basilides, and Marcion, but Montanism as well...
"For the present, then, all that can be said is that a member of the Roman church, or of some Catholic community not far from Rome, wrote in Greek about 200-210 a sysnopsis of the writings recognized as belonging to the New Testament in his part of the church. "
Wow. Besides seeing the boldfaced lie that the WTS says that the Church had nothing to do with the canon, the very source that they quote to support their views shows that they are lying. Additionally, the part that I ellipsized "..." above contained further details as to the debates going on as to which books were canonical and which were being rejected at the time... some 170 years after the supposed death of Christ. Feel free to read the source at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_54.html
Was holy spirit involved in this decision? The encyclopedia concludes:
"When, how, and by whom the canon as he received it was established the author does not say, nor does he display any historical knowledge of the process and the grounds on which the decision was made."
The fragment also mentions books that we no longer consider canonical:
"Wisdom written by the friends of Solomon in his honor"
"Apocalypse of Peter"
"The Shepaherd of Hermas"
The fragment itself is translated here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08/Page_56.html
Interestingly, the words "catholic chuch" appear IN THE FRAGMENT ITSELF! Look it up!
Note the WTS use of ellipse to conceal this fact:
"And these are held sacred in the honorable esteem of the Church [WTS inserts "..." here] catholic in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are adduced also (one) to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians, forged in the name of Paul for (i.e against) the heresy of Marcion, and many others which cannot be received into the Church catholic, for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. [here the WTS resumes] Further an epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted [again, the WTS introduces it's famous "..."] among the Catholic [epistles] and Wisdom, writen by the friends of Salomon in his honor... [WTS resumes] We recieve the apocalypses..."
Wow... the WTS censored all mention of the Catholic church, and claims that the RCC had nothing to do with the selecting of the Bible canon. Yet the RCC is mentioned at least 3 times in the fragment.
If I were a Christian, this would make me want to do further research on the origins of the book that I call holy. Since I am not a Christian, reading the full text of the fragment helps me to see that holy spirit had nothing to do with the selection of the New Testament at all.