Movie Review: Fragments of Truthiness

If you’re looking for a high-quality video presentation of some of the most important early Greek manuscripts known to exist, Fragments of Truth is worth watching.  Fred Sprinkle, the graphics-designer responsible for the excellent visuals which appear throughout the 75-minute movie, has done superb work.   Directed by Reuben Evans of Faithlife, Fragments of Truth introduces viewers to Papyrus 45, Papyrus 66, Papyrus 19, Papyrus 64 and 67 (the Magdalen Papyri), Codex Vaticanus, Papyrus 75, Codex Bezae, and Papyrus 52. 

Minuscule Greek manuscripts never appear onscreen, so viewers are not given a glimpse at what most Greek New Testament manuscripts look like.  Instead, the focus is upon fragmentary papyri which were found in Egypt, beginning with excavations at a site at Oxyrhynchus by Grenfell and Hunt in 1897 (which is briefly re-enacted).  In the course of brief interviews with librarians, professors, and curators, viewers may learn how papyrus was transformed from plant-fiber into paper-like writing-material, and how specialists undertake the task of discerning the production-dates of manuscripts.  Within the first 15 minutes, viewers will have met scholars such as Dan Wallace, Larry Hurtado, J. K. Elliott, and David Trobisch.  

Unfortunately, throughout this tour of early Christian documents and the institutions where they are kept, Dr. Craig Evans of Houston Baptist University provides rosy comments designed to support his pet theories.  (More about that later.)  The narration (provided by John Rhys-Davis, who also narrated KJB: The Book That Changed the World) is far more objective.  Also, a flatly wrong description of the relationship between Constantine and the early canon of the New Testament is provided by Dr. Michael Heiser.  If there were a way to turn the tinted comments of Evans and Heiser into more focused assessments of the evidence, Fragments of Truth would be a highly commendable resource. 

          Documentaries should get things right.  Here are some things which this movie either got wrong, or else presented in a very unfair way, leaving out details which would very likely have had a strong impact on viewers’ impressions if they had been mentioned.

● Is Papyrus 19 Related to the Medieval Shem-Tob?  Dr. Evans pointed out that in Papyrus 19, there is an omission in Matthew 10:37-38 that is shared by a medieval Hebrew text known as Shem-Tob.  Evans used this as support for the idea that some books of the New Testament were written in Hebrew or Aramaic as well as in Greek.  However, all that we have here is an example of two unrelated copyists making the same mistake at the same point in the text.  The Greek words ἔστιν μου ἄξιος (“is worthy of Me”) appear in verses 37-38 three times.  What has happened is that somewhere in the transmission-lines of both these witnesses, a copyist lost his line of sight and skipped from the first appearance of the phrase to the third one.   

● Are Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 “Ringers”?  Dr. Evans stated that these two passages “don’t appear in the earliest manuscripts.”  This is technically true, but the entire chapter of Mark 16 does not appear in any of the papyri that are featured in Fragments of Truth.  Codex Bezae, which is featured, includes Mark 16:9-15; the rest of the passage is lacking due to damage (although a repairer has provided his Greek and Latin text of the whole passage).  Codex Bezae contains John 7:53-8:11, too – in Greek, and in Latin, which is particularly significant if one believes Evans’ claim that the Latin text in Codex D comes from the 200s.  Only one featured manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) contains Mark 16 and ends the text at the end of verse 8, but it also proceeds to leave a special blank space that is large enough to include the absent passage – a blank space that includes the only fully blank column in the entire New Testament in Codex Vaticanus.  (Only two ancient Greek manuscripts – the other one being Codex Sinaiticus – end Mark’s text at 16:8 followed by the closing-title of the book; only one medieval Greek manuscript (out of over 1,600) similarly ends the text at 16:8.)  

          But the most problematic aspect of Evans’ treatment of these two passages is what he does not say:  he fails to mention the evidence from patristic authors such as Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Irenaeus that supports the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20.  Irenaeus, around the year 180 (over 150 years before Codex Vaticanus was made), specifically quoted Mark 16:19 in Book Three of his composition Against Heresies.  Yet Evans mentioned none of this evidence.

            Why not?  He certainly knows about Irenaeus’ quotation of Mark 16:19, because the quotation is mentioned in Nicholas Lunn’s 2014 book, The Original Ending of Mark:  A New Case for the Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20.  Evans wrote a stunning comment which appears on the back cover of Lunn’s book; the first part of Evans’ comment runs as follows:  “Nicholas Lunn has thoroughly shaken my views concerning the ending of the Gospel of Mark.  As in the case of most gospel scholars, I have for my whole career held that Mark 16:9-20, the so-called ‘Long Ending,’ was not original.  But in his well-researched and carefully argued book, Lunn succeeds in showing just how flimsy that position really is.  The evidence for the early existence of this ending, if not for its originality, is extensive and quite credible.”

            Yet barely four years after writing that, Dr. Evans looked into the camera and told viewers of Fragments of Truth, “There are only two passages of any length where there is any doubt.  But there is no doubt, because the manuscript evidence is so substantial and so early, we can identify them as ringers; they don’t really belong in the text.”

            Dr. Evans and Dr. Evans should get together some time and sort this out.  (I commend to them my defense of Mark 16:9-20 – Authentic:  The Case for Mark 16:9-20 – and my defense of the story about the adulteress – A Fresh Analysis of John 7:53-8:11.) 

● Are There Only Four or Five Important Textual Variants?  Dr. Evans is not doing his audience a favor when he gives them the impression that aside from those two 12-verse passages, there are only two or three other passages where there are significant differences in the manuscripts.  A mere glance at Bruce Terry’s online A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Variants should mercifully kill any such notion. 

Dr. Craig Evans repeatedly suggested that
the original New Testament documents
survived for centuries outside Egypt.

● Did Bruce Metzger Claim That There Are Only 40 Lines of Text in the New Testament About Which There Is Any Doubt At All?  About halfway through Fragments of Truth, Dr. Evans makes another inexplicable claim:  “Text-critic great Bruce Metzger remarked that there were only 40 lines out of 20,000, where there was any doubt at all about how it should originally read.”  Preposterous.

  If Dr. Evans can demonstrate that Bruce Metzger ever wrote those words, I will eat asparagus.  Anyone with the late Dr. Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament can verify that the compilers of the UBS Greek New Testament expressed doubt regarding hundreds of textual variants.  (This is stated in the Introduction to the UBS Greek New Testament, second edition, page xi.:  “B” indicates some degree of doubt, “C” indicates a considerable degree of doubt, and “D” indicates a very high degree of doubt.)

         

● Did Constantine Instruct the Bishops at Nicea to Establish the New Testament Canon?  Dr. Evans is not the only scholar who makes misleading statements in Fragments of Truth.  Dr. Michael Heiser, in the process of refuting the myth that Constantine the Great decided which books should be in the New Testament, made a myth of his own:  the notion that Constantine “forced the issue” at the Council of Nicea (in 325), telling the bishops there to decide which books should be considered authoritative by Christians.  Heiser stated:   

“He [i.e., Constantine] wanted the church to make a decision.  And he sort of forced their hand.   What he asked for at Nicea was 50 copies of the New Testament.  He wanted them produced by a certain time, so they could be distributed throughout the empire.”

In real life, Constantine made no such request at the Council of Nicea.  In an entirely different context, Constantine wrote a letter to Eusebius of Caesarea (who attended the Council of Nicea along with Constantine, precluding the need for a letter if that had been the occasion for the request) instructing him to make 50 Bibles.  In the letter, which Eusebius preserved in his composition Life of Constantine, Book Four, chapter 36, Constantine told Eusebius that these Bibles were for the congregations in the city of Constantinople (not “throughout the empire”).   

Contrary to Heiser’s claims in Fragments of Truth, Constantine did not “force this issue on the leadership of the church.”  Nor did Eusebius establish a “minimalist canon,” for in his composition Ecclesiastical History, Book Three, chapter 25, Eusebius listed the four Gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles, First John, First Peter, and then – “if it really seems proper” – Revelation as the books with a high level of acceptance.  Eusebius listed “among the disputed writings” the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, Second Peter, and Second and Third John.  And, when listing rejected books, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, Eusebius mentioned that some people rejected Revelation, although others accept it.  Clearly Eusebius did not consider his production of 50 Bibles for the congregations of Constantinople as a definitive resolution of the question about which books were canonical.    

● Is There Evidence That the Autographs of the New Testament Books Lasted for Centuries?  Besides featuring the problematic statements just described, Fragments of Truth is thoroughly peppered with Evans’ theory about the longevity of the autographs (i.e., the original documents) of the books of the New Testament.  This aspect of the movie is, it seems, the “groundbreaking new evidence” that theater-goers were led to expect.  Basically, Evans noticed evidence from the excavations at Oxyrhynchus that implied that some documents that were produced in the 100s and 200s were not discarded until the 300s and 400s, implying that some of those documents may have lasted two or three centuries before being discarded.  If the original documents of the books of the New Testament lasted just as long, that would mean that the autographs were still in existence when copies such as P45, P66, P64/67, and P75 were produced. 

However, it’s just not that simple, and here’s why:  Egypt’s dry conditions, as Evans pointed out near the beginning of the movie, “made it the perfect place for manuscripts to be preserved in the sand for hundreds of years.”  Egypt’s dry, low-humidity climate did not exist in the locations where the autographs of the New Testament books were produced; nor did it exist in the locations where the Epistles were sent.        

          It is as if someone were to say, “If the dry Egyptian climate existed in the locations where the autographs were, then the autographs would last 200 years.”  The conclusion is a conclusion about a make-believe world, since Egypt’s dry climate did not exist where the autographs were.  Yet this does not stop Evans from repeatedly using this line of reasoning as the basis for an apologetic defense of the accuracy of the text of the New Testament Scriptures.    

          Similarly, Evans recruited the longevity of Codex Bezae and Codex Vaticanus (which, despite being damaged, have mostly survived to the present day) into his argument, but this is like saying, “If parchment and papyrus are equally durable, then we have evidence that the autographs lasted a long time.”  This is, again, a make-believe scenario.

          Evans offered, as evidence for the position that “the Bible we have now is the same as the Bible when it was originally produced long ago,” the possibility that the original documents of New Testament books were in existence when P45, P66, P75, and other fragments were produced – and that there was “continuity” between those fragments and the production of codices such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 

          It would have been helpful – to viewers, not to Evans’ theory – if Fragments of Truth had taken a minute or two to examine the differences in the papyri at points where they share the same parts of the New Testament text.  Larry Hurtado, had he been asked, could have helpfully explained that Papyrus 45’s text of Mark is quite unlike the text of Mark in Codex Vaticanus – which implies that the kind of continuity that Evans encourages viewers to believe in does not exist – at least, not between P45 and Codex Vaticanus. 

Rather than suggesting a simple line of descent from the autographs to these specific papyri to these specific parchment codices, the textual evidence implies that copyists in different locales undertook in different ways to render the meaning of the original text, without uniformly and invariably prioritizing the form of the text, which one would think would be prioritized if the autographs were readily available.  In other words, the degree of variation in the manuscripts (including most of the manuscripts presented in Fragments of Truth) weighs in against Evans’ picture of copyists using the autographs in the late 100s and early 200s.    

          At the risk of diverging from the movie, I will provide an example of textual variations that weigh in against the idea that any copyists of the extant manuscripts of the seventh chapter of the Gospel of John possessed the autograph.  In John 7:31-44, P66 and P75 disagree 21 times.  In the same passage, P66 and Codex Vaticanus disagree 27 times, and P75 and Codex Vaticanus disagree 14 times.  I invite Dr. Evans to explain how this is possible in a world where the copyist of P66 or P75 used the autograph, and the copyist of Codex Vaticanus used P66 or P75.  Close continuity can be imagined, but it is not exhibited in these manuscripts.  The closest relationship among them is between P75 and Vaticanus, and even there we observe not only small differences (such as πέμψοντά versus  πέμψαντά in v. 33 and ζητήσατέ versus ζητήσετέ in v. 34) but also the appearance in Codex Vaticanus of εκει at the end of  v. 34, and the appearance in Codex Vaticanus of δεδεμένον in v. 39.

          More could be said about this, but let’s get back to the movie.  There are a few more statements made in Fragments of Truth that need qualification, such as when Dr. Evans describes Codex Vaticanus as if it contains the entire New Testament.  A larger problem, though, may be that this movie’s focus on papyri does not give viewers a clear look at how the Greek base-texts of their New Testaments were made.  Papyrus fragments are fascinating, but viewers should consider what Dr. Dan Wallace affirmed in 2012:  “In the last 130 years, there’s not been a single manuscript discovered that has a new reading, that scholars have said, ‘Ah, that’s the original, and no other manuscript has it.’” 

          The Greek base-texts of English versions of the New Testament such as the NIV, ESB, CSB, NLT, and NRSV are descended from a compilation that was published by two British scholars, Westcott and Hort, in 1881.  The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th edition) diverges from their 1881 compilation at only 661 places – not counting places where the editors of one compilation or the other placed the text in brackets, basically making a non-decision.  Before Grenfell and Hunt ever touched a New Testament papyrus, over 85% of the decisions to depart from readings found in the majority of manuscripts, in favor of readings found in a relatively small number of early manuscripts (especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), had already been made.  We should not lose sight of this.      

          In conclusion, although Fragments of Truth features an impressive tour of early manuscripts (including, toward the end, Papyrus 52, which many scholars consider the earliest New Testament manuscript in existence), the tour-guide’s frequent promotion of a flawed theory tends to weaken rather than strengthen its usefulness for apologetics.  While it is commendable to teach our fellow Christians that their accurately translated New Testaments teach what the original text of the New Testament taught, this should not be done by misrepresenting the evidence.  This movie is likely to induce the spread of a lot of misinformation if its shortcomings go uncorrected before it is released for wider distribution on DVD.  

(Note:  the theatrical presentation had a long epilogue, in which miscellaneous subjects were addressed.  I have not covered that in this review.) 

Other reviews of Fragments of Truth – mostly favorable – are online:
Peter Gurry’s review at Evangelical Textual Criticism

Tim Chaffey’s review at Answers In Genesis

Movie Review at Apologetics315

Movie Review at MovieGuide
Timothy Mitchell’s review at The Textual Mechanic

I have left some things unmentioned, such as a couple of scholars’ comments on the late dating of Papyrus 66 proposed by Dr. Brent Nongbri (who, being in Australia, was not in the movie, which visited manuscripts in Europe).  I may reserve a future post for smaller concerns.

The Date of Easter and Early Lection-Cycles

         

Constantine

  In the year 325, Roman Emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicea.  This council, attended by 318 bishops from all over the empire, focused on the subject of the nature of Christ. (The number 318, drawn from Genesis 14:14, was considered to have a special meaning, since in Greek gematria the letters ΤΙΗ (tau, iota, eta) have a total value of 318, and are also, visually, the shape of a cross plus the first two letters in Jesus’ name.) 

The result of this council was the Nicene Creed, which declared, among other things, that Jesus was “very God of very God, begotten, not made.”  This meant that Arius – the Egyptian cleric whose controversial teachings had elicited the council – was wrong in his insistence that there was a time when the Logos did not exist.

            Something else was also addressed at the Council of Nicea.  It was not the New Testament canon, contrary to the fictitious gobbledegook that has been spread by The Da Vinci Code and similar books.  It was the date of Easter.

            When the early church first celebrated the resurrection of Christ, their celebration coincided with the Jewish Passover.  A vestige of this arrangement can still be found in the King James Version in Acts12:4:  the Passover-festival is referred to as Easter.  In this passage the KJV’s translators did not intend to convey that the Jewish ruler Herod was celebrating the Christian holy day of Easter or that he was celebrating some pagan holiday.  They simply retained the rendering that had been made almost 90 years earlier by William Tyndale, who also coined the term “Passover,” a term which eventually caught on and facilitated the recognition of the two holidays as separate events.  (Tyndale’s English version repeatedly refers to the Passover as “Easter,” even in episodes in the Gospels that precede the death and resurrection of Christ.)  

            Some Christians had a special annual celebration of the Lord’s resurrection on the same day as the Jewish Passover.  Others, though, celebrated Holy Week annually with the Lord’s resurrection always observed on a Sunday.  This difference had persisted for a long time – ever since the days of the students of the apostles.  In Ignatius’ closing comments in his Letter to the Philippians, he stated that whoever observes the Passover with the Jews or receives the emblems of their feast is a partaker with those who killed the Lord and His apostles - quite a heavy denunciation, though it is unclear if Ignatius was referring to merely celebrating the Lord’s resurrection at the same time the Jews celebrated Passover, or to participating in the Judaic Passover observance itself. 
            Hippolytus, in Book 8 of his lengthy composition Refutation of All Heresies, firmly opposed those who celebrated Easter on the 14th of the month; yet even though he called them heretics, he acknowledged that in other regards they kept the apostolic faith and traditions. 

Hippolytus

            Eusebius of Caesarea (a participant in the Council of Nicea who tended to sympathize with Arius, but not too vocally) described the controversy that arose in the 100’s, in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chapters 24-25.

            Congregations in Asia (i.e., western Turkey), Eusebius reported, customarily observed a tradition that the resurrection of Christ corresponded annually with the Jewish Passover (the 14th day of the month Nisan), whether it was a Sunday or not.   But in other places, including Jerusalem and Rome, it was customary to always celebrate the resurrection of Christ on a Sunday – and the leaders of those places wrote to the churches in Asia, appealing to them to alter their custom.

               Polycrates, a leader in the Asian churches, responded with a letter – Eusebius cited it specifically and presented its contents – in which he stated that Philip the evangelist, John the apostle, Polycarp the martyr, Melito of Sardis, and others (including relatives of Polycrates) had all observed the resurrection of Christ on the 14th of the month – and he had no intention of deviating from that tradition. 

             In 193, Victor, bishop of Rome, initially resolved to excommunicate Polycrates and everyone who agreed with him.  This course of action was averted, though, by advice given by several other bishops – one of whom was none other than the renowned Irenaeus of Lyons. 

            Eusebius presented a snippet of Irenaeus’ letter, which has a remarkably conciliatory tone.  Irenaeus advised Victor of Rome that the disagreement involved not only the annual date, but also details about the length of the fast that preceded it.  To excommunicate people over such details would not look good.  In addition, Irenaeus pointed out, earlier generations of Christians had not condemned one another over this issue; their inactivity implied that they did not consider it something worth separating about:

            “This variety in its observance,” Irenaeus wrote, “has not originated in our time, but long before in that of our ancestors.  It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode.  Yet all of these lived nonetheless in peace, and we also live in peace with one another.”

            And there is more.  In the composition by Irenaeus presented by Eusebius, Irenaeus mentions that Polycarp, when he was at Rome, disagreed with Anicetus (apparently about when to celebrate Easter), and neither could persuade the other – so they agreed to disagree.

              The agreement to disagree effectively ended, though, at Nicea.  The Quartodecimanians – those who observed Easter on the 14th of the month – were summarily denounced.  The exact wording of the decree at Nicea about this is unknown, but in 341 at the the Council of Antioch, a decree was issued which, in the course of affirming the Council of Nicea, stated that bishops who observed the Lord’s resurrection at the same time as the Jews (that is, on the 14th of Nisan) were to be relieved of duty. 

            With the Quartodeciman tradition thus rejected, a consensus emerged that Easter was to be observed annually on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.  The details of this approach were probably based on the Paschal Canon of Anatolius of Alexandria (from A.D. 270).  Alas, even this objective calculation has not resulted in uniformity among all churches, due to the effects of the different calendars that have been retained as the basis for the calculation.  This year (2018), Passover-week is March 31- April 6, and Easter Sunday is April 1 (although for the Orthodox Churches it is April 8).  (Panos Antsalkis of the University of Notre Dame explains it all in a detailed essay.)

            “Fascinating,” you may be thinking, “but what does all that have to do with the text of the New Testament?”

            The thing to see is that an annual cycle of Easter-observance emerged very early, and became entrenched very quickly, in the first half of the 100s.  It seems very likely that other annual observances spread at the same time and that this elicited the early emergence of lection-cycles.  In the case of the annual feast of Pentecost, Christian observance of Pentecost is mentioned not only in the New Testament book of Acts, but also in the anonymous second-century composition Epistula Apostolorum (which also mentions the Easter celebration). 

Tertullian, writing in Latin in North Africa in the late 100’s or early 200’s, mentioned Christians’ observance of Pentecost in chapter 23 of his composition On Prayer:  “We, however – just as we have received – only on the day of the Lord’s resurrection ought to guard not only against kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring even our businesses lest we give any place to the devil.  Similarly, to, in the period of Pentecost, which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation.”

Not only was the Day of Pentecost a special occasion from the sub-apostolic era onward, but the whole fifty-day period from Eastertime to Pentecost was considered a special period of celebration.  Evidence of this is provided in Tertullian’s allusion to Pentecost in the third chapter of his composition On the Soldier’s Crown, in the course of referring to activities which in his time were already regarded as traditional practices:  “We consider fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s Day to be unlawful.  We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Pentecost.” 

Slightly later, Origen mentioned Christians’ annual observance of Pentecost too, in Against Celsus, Book 8, chapter 22:

“If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s Day, the Preparation, the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer that to the perfect Christian, who is constantly in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is always keeping the Lord’s Day.”

He continued in chapter 23:  “But the majority of those who are accounted believers are not of this advanced class; but because they are either unable or unwilling to keep every day in this manner, they require some sensible memorials to prevent spiritual things from passing altogether away from their minds.”

The early establishment of annual Christian festivals provided a setting in which it was almost inevitable that specific passages were assigned to be read on specific days.  This established the basic building-blocks of what eventually became annual cycles of lectionary-readings – reading-cycles that were initially independent and localized (like the manner in which Easter was observed), but which gradually became more uniform.

John Burgon, in his 1871 book The Last Twelve Verses of Mark Vindicated, pointed out some readings in early manuscripts which, he proposed, are early adaptations of the text made at the beginning or ends of lections to either introduce, or to round off, the episode.  Not all of his examples seem persuasive, but the following are interesting and suggestive:    

● Matthew 8:13.  A small assortment of manuscripts has an extra sentence attached to this verse:  “And the centurion returned to his house, and in that hour the servant was made whole.”  If these manuscripts were all medieval, this reading would likely be dismissed as a harmonization to the parallel in Luke 7:10, intended to round off a lection.  And, indeed, this verse concludes the lection for the fifth Sunday after Pentecost in the Byzantine lectionary-cycle.  But that small assortment of manuscripts includes Codex Sinaiticus (from the mid-300s) and several other uncials. 

● Mark 14:3.  Codex D (05, Codex Bezae) inserts Jesus’ name.  Codex Bezae’s text includes so many little expansions that one might argue that it is a mere coincidence that this one occurs at the beginning of the lection for the seventeenth Friday after Easter.  

● Luke 7:1.  Codex D basically rewrites the verse, which happens to begin the lection for the fifth Saturday after Pentecost.

● Luke 4:16.  Codex D (and F and G and 579) insert Jesus’ name in the first part the verse; this happens to be the beginning of the lection for first Thursday after Pentecost. 

● Luke 5:17.  Codex D rewrites the verse, which happens to begin the lection for the second Saturday after Pentecost.

● Luke 16:19.  Codex D reads “And He spoke another parable,” which could be an arbitrarily made harmonization, but which interlocks snugly with Burgon’s idea that the purpose for the harmonization at this particular point was to serve as a lection-incipit, that is, one of the brief phrases with which lectors introduced the daily reading.

● John 14:1.  Codex D begins the verse with “And He said to His disciples,” which looks very much like an lection-incipit, that is, one of the brief phrases with which lectors introduced the daily reading.  As it turns out, a lection does indeed begin at this exact point; in the Byzantine lectionary John 14:1-10 is the lection for the sixth Friday after Easter.      

Lectionary 152,
       from the 900s.

Burgon also proposed, in the same book, an interesting theory about Codex Bezae’s unusual reading in Mark 14:41, το τέλος και (between ἀπέχει and ηωρα):  “Nothing else has happened here,” Burgon proposed, “but that a marginal note, designed originally to indicate the end (το τέλος) of the lesson for the third day of the second week of the Carnival, has lost its way from the end of verse 42, and got thrust into the text of verse 41.”  Burgon noted that this reading is supported by the Peshitta, by the Old Latin, and by the Philoxenian version – which would mean that this quarter of witnesses echoes a yet-earlier ancestor; Burgon proposed that such an ancestral text came from the 100s.

Willker’s Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels confirms that το τέλος Or its non-Greek counterparts) is in the text of Mark 14:41 not only in Codex D but also in Codex W (ἀπέχει το τέλος ἰδου ηλθεν) and Codex Θ (ἀπέχητο· το τέλος ηλθεν), as well as 0233, family 13 (a small cluster of MSS that share an earlier ancestor-copy), 565, 713, 1071, lectionary 844, and the Armenian version and one Georgian copy, and that it is not only supported by the Peshitta but also by the Siniatic Syriac and the Harklean Syriac – plus several Old Latin manuscripts including Codex Vercellensis (which probably was produced in the 370s). 

Willker also observes that in the margin of Codex Vaticanus at this point there is a distigme (that is, a symbo resembling an umlaut which conveys that the person who added it was aware of a textual variant in the line of text that it accompanies – though there is some debate about the date at which this person worked) and that not only Burgon, but also Scrivener advocated the theory that το τέλος had first entered the margin to signal the end of a lection before being blended into the text of Mark 14:41, and that later copyists and translators tackled it in their own ways. 
A consultation of a footnote on page 76 of the first volume of the 1894 edition of Scrivener’s Plain Introduction confirms that Scrivener regarded Codex D’s readings in Luke 16:19 and John 14:1 as lection-incipits, and he also says that the το τέλος in Mark 14:41 “probably has the same origin.”  Yet Burgon, in chapter 12 of Causes of Corruption (written some time after his defense of Mark 16:9-20), explained the presence of το τέλος as a slight expansion, rather than as an insertion of stray marginalia, stating in a footnote that he retracted unreservedly what he had proposed in The Last Twelve Verses of Mark regarding this variant.      

Hort, in his 1881 Notes on Select Readings, proposed that το τέλος was added not as a lost lection-ending note, but as an attempted harmonization drawn from Luke 22:37, where Jesus – still in the upper room – states that the prophecies about Him are being fulfilled, that is, reaching their end (καὶ γαρ το περι εμου τελος εχει).  This seems unlikely, inasmuch as a harmonizer would have no motive to be so frugal.

Metzger resorted to the guess that a copyist was puzzled by the somewhat rare ἀπέχει (or thought that the readers of their manuscripts would be puzzled) and added το τέλος to add clarity – but it seems to me that this would be far down any clarity-prioritizing copyist’s list of options. 

The presence of such phenomena in Codex Bezae and in the Old Latin copies is especially interesting because these particular witnesses tend to echo the Western text that circulated widely in the latter half of the 100s.  The case that the variants in the list just given show the influence of early lection-cycles might not be irresistible, but it is strong, and the inference from this is that the influence of basic lection-cycles involving the main annual Christian feasts should not be casually dismissed as a possible cause of textual variants that emerged as early as the 100s, when the bishop of Rome, until cooler heads prevailed, was willing to excommunicate fellow Christians because they would not celebrate Easter at the same time he did. 
            C. R. Gregory – the scholar whose name is recalled whenever textual critics refer to manuscripts by their Gregory-Aland numbers – theorized that specific passages were assigned for Sundays “at an extremely early date.”  Although it was a matter of centuries before lections were collected into  separate volumes, nothing precludes the idea that on the major Christian feasts, and particularly for the period from the beginning of Easter-week to Pentecost, specific passages were assigned to specific days.  (This may have even been the custom in the time of Justin Martyr, who mentioned in the 67th chapter of his First Apology that Christians gathered on the day called Sunday and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets were read, as long as time permitted, before a sermon and the observance of the Lord’s Supper.)    
This factor – the influence of lection-cycles – should be considered not only when evaluating the variant-units mentioned earlier, but also some other variant-units, including Luke 22:43-44 and John 7:53-8:11.


[Readers are encouraged to explore the embedded links in this essay which lead to additional resources.]

The Text of Phoebadius

            Today’s subject requires some historical background.

            Following the Council of Nicea in 325, Arius – who promoted the view that there was a time when the Word did not exist, and was the first created thing – was declared a heretic and was sent into exile.  But in the years that followed, Athanasius – Arius’ most vocal opponent, who promoted the orthodox view that the Word is uncreated and worthy of worship – was also sent into exile, and then was restored to his office, and then was exiled again; this happened repeatedly.  If emperor Constantine’s purpose for organizing the Council of Nicea had been to reduce disharmony in the Christian churches, he did not succeed.  Eventually, just before dying, Constantine was baptized (or sprinkled) by Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea) – a bishop who was in the minority that favored Arianism. 

            The bishops at the Council of Nicea had established the divinity of Christ and issued the Nicene Creed – but some other important subjects were not addressed (particularly, the subject of which books were to be considered authoritative was not covered, contrary to widespread claims that may be traced to the fictitious Da Vinci Code) and in the decades that followed the leaders of the Arians managed to stretch the vocabulary of the creed in such a way that it seemed to the emperors that their theology could fit through it.

Julian the Apostate
(Emperor, 361-363)

            Constantius II (co-emperor from 337 to 350, and sole emperor from 350 to 361) favored Arian theology, and just before he died, he was baptized (or sprinkled) by Euzoius, the Arian bishop of Caesarea.  His successor Julian (reigned 361-363) was neither orthodox nor Arian; he attempted to revive paganism and for this reason is known as Julian the Apostate.

            In the middle of this chaotic stage entered Phoebadius of Agen in what is now southwestern France.  He was a bishop from sometime before 357 to sometime after 392 (when Jerome, in his Lives of Illustrious Men, mentioned that Phoebadius was still living).  In the mid-300’s, when the Arian bishops of Caesarea were busy transferring texts from papyrus onto parchment to remedy the destructive natural effects of humidity, Phoebadius boldly and busily defended orthodox theology, participating in councils and writing letters against the slippery word-games used by his Arian contemporaries. 

            Phoebadius wrote in Latin, and thus the Scripture-quotations in his sole extant composition – Against the Arians – provide a glimpse at the Old Latin text that he used.  R. P. C. Hanson has observed that Phoebadius was well-acquainted with at least some of the writings of Tertullian, and that Phoebadius “certainly had Hebrews in his canon.”  Phoebadius also quoted from the book of Tobit.  His work was influential in the theological disputes of the mid-300’s.  Against the Arians was translated into English by Keith C. Wessel in 2008 and this English translation can be downloaded for free.  Using that resource, let’s take a look at some of Phoebadius’ citations and utilizations of the New Testament in the first 12 chapters of his composition Against the Arians, remembering that this was composed in 357 and thus represents a witness as old as Codex Sinaiticus.  I list them in the order in which they appear.

●  John 20:17b

●  Philippians 2:9

●  John 17:3

●  Matthew 19:17 or Mark 10:19 or Luke 18:19 – “Why do you say that I am good?  No one is good except God alone.”

●  John 5:44 – “Why do you not seek honor that comes from the one and only God?”

●  Matthew 24:36 – “Concerning that day and hour no one knows except the Father alone.”  (Notice that Phoebadius’ text does not include the phrase “nor the Son.”)

●  John 11:35 – Phoebadius does not quote this verse but mentions that Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus.

●  Luke 19:41 – Phoebadius does not quote this verse but mentions that Jesus wept over Jerusalem.

●  John 3:6

●  Matthew 26:41 or Mark 14:38 – “The flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing.”  (Notice the transposition.)

●  First John 3:7 (a snippet) – “The one who has the substance of the world”

●  Luke 19:8 (a snippet) – “Look, I am giving half of my substance.”

●  Colossians 1:27

●  First Corinthians 1:24 – “Christ is the power (virtus) of God”

●  Romans 11:34 (snippet)

●  First Corinthians 2:16 (snippet)

●  First Corinthians 2:11 (snippet, twice) – “from him and with him and in him”

●  John 9:29

●  John 16:28 – “I have come forth from the Father and from the bosom of the Father”

●  (20) Matthew 11:27

●  John 16:13

●  First Corinthians 2:10-11

●  Matthew 7:7 or Luke 11:9 (notice the transposition)

●  Matthew 11:25

●  Matthew 13:11 or Mark 4:11 (Byz) or Luke 8:10

●  Ephesians 3:5

●  Colossians 1:27 (an allusion)

●  John 8:14-15

●  John 4:24 (snippet)

●  (30) First Corinthians 15:28 (allusion)

●  Revelation 13:11 (adaptation) – “having horns like lambs but speaking as dragons” 

●  John 14:28 (snippet)

●  John 5:23 (snippet)

●  John 1:18 – Phoebadius specifies that he is citing from John, and quotes, “No one has ever seen God except the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father.”  We see here a defender of Christ’s divinity using the reading “only begotten Son.” 

●  John 17:10

●  John 5:19

●  John 6:38

●  John 8:29 (snippet)

●  John 14:10

●  Second Corinthians 1:20

We thus see that in these 12 chapters, 40 verses are used, mostly from the Gospels.  Let’s continue, covering the remainder of Phoebadius’ composition.

●  Matthew 16:27 – Phoebadius specifically quotes from Matthew:  “The Son is going to come in the glory of his own Father.”

●  Luke 9:26 – Phoebadius specifically quotes from Luke:  “When the Son of Man comes with his own glory and that of his Father.” 

●  Colossians 2:9

●  John 16:15 (snippet)  

●  First John 5:11 – “We proclaim to you eternal life, life that was with the Father, and he adds, and in the Son.” 

●  John 14:10

●  John 5:19

●  John 1:3

●  John 10:30

●  John 7:28-29 – “You neither know me or where I am from, nor that I have not come on my own.  But the one who sent me is true, the one you do not know.  But I know him because I am with him, and he has sent me.”  (Notice the rendering of the first part)

●  John 8:16b 

●  John 10:15a

●  John 3:35b

●  (15) John 5:43a

●  Revelation 1:8 or parallels – “He who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”  (Notice the transposition.)

●  First John 1:1-2

●  John 16:27 (snippet)

●  John 10:30

●  John 14:9-10 (snippets)

●  John 8:29a

●  Romans 11:36 (snippet)

●  John 5:37 (allusion)

●  John 8:19

●  John 4:24a

●  Second Corinthians 13:4 

●  Matthew 26:41 or Mark 14:38 – “The flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing.”  (Notice the transposition, which also occurred the first time Phoebadius quoted the sentence.)

●  First Corinthians 1:18 (snippet)

●  First Corinthians 15:3 (snippet)

●  (30) John 10:30

●  John 14:10

●  John 10:30

●  John 14:9

●  John 4:24a

●  First Corinthians 2:11

●  Romans 11:34

●  John 1:3

●  Philippians 2:6-7

●  Romans 11:33

●  Romans 11:36

●  John 14:16

●  Galatians 1:8

            Taking all 28 chapters of Phoebadius’ Against the Arians into consideration, we see that in this composition he used material from the New Testament 82 times.  He used a few passages – particularly Matthew 26:41 (or Mark 14:38), John 4:24a, and John 10:30 – more than once.  All in all, no less than 70 passages from the New Testament are utilized in this composition.  If it had never been discovered until today, we would announce a rather significant discovery, equivalent to the discovery of 70 little manuscript-fragments as old as Codex Sinaiticus.    

            Yet Phoebadius is hardly known, and lately it seems that the entire category of patristic evidence is being unfairly and unscientifically minimized.  No patristic evidence of any kind appears in the apparatus of the recently published Tyndale House edition of the Greek New Testament.  And in the “textual flow diagrams” in Tommy Wasserman and Peter Gurry’s A New Approach to Textual Criticism, intended as an introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method, I did not see any patristic writers at all. 

            Recently apologist James White claimed that “The citations of Scriptural material from patristic sources are notoriously vague,” but I welcome him to go through the list presented here and see where, aside from the parallel-passages and the three instances specifically described as allusions, there are any grounds for not affirming that Phoebadius used the passage that is listed.  He also said, “I do not believe that patristic citations can overcome the actual manuscript evidence.”  But where the patristic citations are clear and there is no reason to question the contents of the patristic text itself, they should have the same weight as the owners’ manuscripts.  What does Dr. White think the patristic writers were citing?

            Even relatively little-known patristic compositions can provide significant text-critical data.  Those who would minimize or dismiss patristic testimony run a high risk of investing a lot of effort in a method that is doomed to produce inaccurate results, like a recipe in which the cooks have chosen to omit important ingredients.
            In other news:  Merry Christmas, everyone!

Fortunatianus Speaks!

            Fortunatianus’ Latin commentary on the Gospels, written c. 350 – about the same time as the production of Codex Sinaiticus, “The world’s oldest Bible” – has been found, edited, and translated!  The announcement of its discovery by Dr. Lukas Dorfbauer in 2012 is old news to regular readers; that was mentioned here a couple of years ago, and Roger Pearse had spread the news about it before that.  But now its text has been thoroughly studied and edited, and it has been translated into English.  Dr. Hugh Houghton tells about what has been done with the commentary of Fortunatianus since its rediscovery in an article at The Birmingham Brief.
          

            This discovery is highly significant, because Fortunatianus quoted from the New Testament over and over.  A quick survey of the Scripture-index in Hugh Houghton’s translation of Fortunatianus’ Commentary on the Gospels indicates that he made over 300 utilizations of New Testament passages, especially from the Gospel of Matthew.  This abundance of Scripture-quotations allows analysts to get a pretty good idea of the kind of Latin text that was used by Fortunatianus.  Here are some passages in which Fortunatianus’ Scripture-citations involve passages in which textual variants occur:

            ● Mark 1:1 – Fortunatianus reads, “In Isaiah the prophet,” disagreeing with the reading in most Greek manuscripts, “in the prophets.”

            ● Matthew 1:25 – Fortunatianus reads “she gave birth to a son,” disagreeing with the reading in most Greek manuscripts, “she gave birth to her firstborn son.”

            ● Matthew 13:55 (or Mark 6:3) – Fortunatianus reads “Is this not the son of Joseph the craftsman [or, carpenter],” thus adding Joseph’s name.

            ● Matthew 2:18 – Fortunatianus reads “weeping and much wailing,” disagreeing with the reading in most manuscripts, “grieving and weeping and much wailing.”

            ● Matthew 8:28 – Fortunatianus reads “Gerasenes,” not “Gergasenes.”

            ● Matthew 9:13 – Fortunatianus reads “to repentance,” agreeing with the majority of manuscripts and disagreeing with the Alexandrian base-text of the ESV, NIV, NLT, etc.

            ● Matthew 10:8 – Fortunatianus includes the phrase “raise the dead.” 

            ● Matthew 10:10 – Fortunatianus reads “staff” instead of “staffs.”

            ● Matthew 16:2-3 – Fortunatianus confirms the inclusion of all of these two verses.

            ● Matthew 20:28 – Fortunatianus uses a text which, like Codex Bezae, contains a brief passage at this point resembling Luke 14:8-10.

            ● Matthew 21:31 – In the text cited by Fortunatianus, the answer to Jesus’ question is given as “The latter,” instead of “The first.”

            ● Matthew 24:26 – Fortunatianus’ Latin text had an apparently unique addition which referred to false claims of the Messiah’s appearance not only in the wilderness, and in inner rooms, but also “in the mountains.” 

            ● Matthew 24:36 – Fortunatianus’ text includes “or the Son,” and he expounds upon this reading in his commentary, proposing that this statement should not be taken literally.

John 1:18, quoted in Fortunatianus'
commentary, with "only-begotten Son."

            ● John 1:18 – Fortunatianus very clearly uses “only-begotten Son,” and not “only-begotten God.”

            ● John 1:28 – Fortunatianus reads “Bethany,” but – echoing Origen somewhat – he proposes that “Here, then, we find a mistake either of the Latin translator of the copyists.”  And he proceeds to mention that “Bethara” (rather than Bethabara) is the “house of preparation,” and is the name of the place where John began to baptize. 

            ● John 1:34 – Fortunatianus reads “the chosen one of God” instead of “the Son of God,” but then continues with something else:  “And I have seen and borne witness that this is the chosen one of God.  And this is the Son of the highest God, begotten of him.” 

Who Was Fortunatianus?

            How much is known about Fortunatianus?  Unfortunately, not much, except that he was a bishop in Aquileia in the mid-300’s.  Jerome mentions him in De Viris Illustribus, in chapter 97:  “Fortunatianus, an African by birth, bishop of Aquileia during the reign of Constantius [reigned 337-361], composed brief commentaries on the Gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style.  And he is held in detestation because when Liberius, bishop of Rome, was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.” 

            Depite giving such a negative appraisal of Fortunatianus’ theology, Jerome was willing to praise Fortunatianus’ commentary in Epistle X (To Paul of Concordia), as he requested a copy of it, stating, “You are asked to give me the pearl of the Gospel, the words of the Lord, pure words, even as the silver which from the earth is tried, and purified seven times in the fire; I mean the commentaries of Fortunatianus and – for its account of the persecutors – the History of Aurelius Victor, along with the Letters of Novatian, so that, learning the poison set forth by this schismatic, we may the more gladly drink of the antidote supplied by the holy martyr Cyprian.”  (This could be understood, I think, as a cautious compliment, as if to say that Fortunatianus’ commentary contains fine silver if one is willing to go through the trouble of refining it, or that it is a pearl, if one is willing to pick out the valuable part from the unclean material around it.)

Where Was Fortunatianus?

            Before describing the commentary, a brief description of Aquileia may be helpful.  During the time when Fortunatianus served as its bishop, the city of Aquileia, along the coast of the northeastern corner of Italy (on a modern map, northeast of Venice and northwest of Trieste), was one of the most prominent and prosperous cities of the Roman Empire.  An imperial palace was among its buildings, and Constantine himself visited there, and in 340, Constantine II was killed near the city.  It remained one of the empire’s finest cities until it was attacked and destroyed by the Huns in 452.

What Book Does Fortunatianus Comment on the Most?

            Fortunatianus focused mainly on the Gospel of Matthew.  His method of commenting is far from systematic or exhaustive.  Those who approach this Latin text – which is extant, mostly, in a manuscript which can be viewed page by page at the Codices Electronici Ecclesiae Coloniensis (CEEC) website – expecting a verse-by-verse analysis of all four Gospels will be disappointed.  Fortunatianus’ main focus is the Gospel of Matthew.  He spends hardly any time on the Gospel of Mark, and although he covers John chapter 1 very thoroughly, most of John’s Gospel receives only spotty attention.  The episodes in Luke which are not repeated in the Gospel of Matthew receive some attention from Fortunatianus; almost all the rest is set aside.  In addition, except for parenthetical uses, the chapters which one might assume would be a commentary’s zenith – those about Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection – do not receive close attention.

Does Fortunatianus Use John 7:53-8:11 or Mark 16:9-20?

               Fortunatianus gives no hint that he is aware of the pericope adulterae, but this should not be overplayed:  Fortunatianus only used a single verse from John 6, and a single verse from John 7, and four verses from John 8, none from John 9, and two from John 10, and none from John 11.  We do not therefore conclude that Fortunatianus was unaware of the healing of the man who was born blind, or of the resurrection of Lazarus.  Fortunatianus’ sequential, focused commentary on the Gospel of John stops after his description of Jesus’ first miracle.  After John 2:11, the rest of Fortunatianus’ utilizations of passages from the Gospel of John are fairly random and sporadic, not systematic. 

            Fortunatianus does not explicitly quote from Mark 16:9-20; however, in a passage which inexactly echoes the comments of Irenaeus about the symbols of the Evangelists, Fortunatianus states that “it is not inappropriate that he [that is, Mark] bears the image of an eagle, since he demonstrates that Christ flew to heaven.”  The only reference in the Gospel of Mark to Jesus’ ascent to heaven is, of course, 16:19.  And in another place, Fortunatianus writes, “Jesus showed that, after he had trampled down death, and risen from the dead, he himself would preach everywhere through his apostles” – which, while not a quotation of Mark 16:20, seems like a strong allusion to it.  And, near the start of his commentary, Fortunatianus mentions that the evangelist Mark “lists his [that is, Christ’s] Passion and Ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father.”

How Does Fortunatianus Organize the Text?

            Fortunatianus begins his commentary with a summary of each Gospel’s thematic emphasis, metaphorically expressed as one of the faces of the cherubim (Matthew as a man, Luke as an ox, Mark as an eagle, and John as a lion) and as one of the rivers of Eden.  Fortunatianus proceeds to build an allegorical case for the inevitability that the apostolic gospel should be fourfold, arguing that a divine pattern, in which the gospel of the twelve apostles is displayed in four parts, is shown in the high priest’s breastplate (which had three rows of four gemstones) and in the shape of a walnut shell, and via various typologies in the Old Testament.    

            He then shifts directly into a interpretation of the first two chapters of Matthew, offering reasons why Matthew’s genealogy and Luke’s genealogy go in different chronological directions, and why Matthew mentions 42 generations but only names 41, and why Matthew 1:25 does not imply that Joseph and Mary were intimate, and so forth. 

            After finishing his comments on Matthew 1-2, Fortunatianus introduces a list of the sections of each Gospel which he proposes to interpret:  129 sections from Matthew (consisting of material from 1:17 to 27:51), thirteen sections from Luke (consisting of material from 2:1 to 5:12 (or 5:16, where the episode concludes)), and 18 sections from John (consisting of material from 1:1 to 2:11).  Fortunatianus mentions that he will also comment on a few things that the other Gospels do not cover.  Having this established the borders of the territory to be explored, he proceeds.

What Kind of Interpretation Does Fortunatianus Give?

            While Fortunatianus does not deny the historicity of the reports of events in the Gospels, he consistently interprets them so as to convey a spiritual, typological, or allegorical lesson; as he says in the course of commenting on Matthew 15:  “Even though we can see that these were fulfilled on a literal level, they also have a spiritual meaning” – and this spiritual meaning is his constant quarry. 

A few forms of
the quadrans.

           Two examples may illustrate the quality of Fortunatianus’ interpretive method.  Commenting on Matthew 5:26, he writes:  “The quadrans [the Roman coin that is called a “farthing” in the KJV] is the smallest sin.  It says that you will not come out from there except when the account of all your sins, even of the smallest, has been paid off.  For a quandrans has three dots on it. What do these three dots represent, if not the Trinity?  It is necessary that if anyone does not acknowledge wholeheartedly that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is made of one substance, they are called to account for this.  For just as a quadrans consists of one, so the Trinity is of one substance.”

            Modern commentators of all theological persuasions may chuckle at the notion that the true lesson of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5:26 is about the necessity of belief in the Trinity.  And yet, while we may prefer historically grounded commentaries, how many historically grounded commentaries have you read that mentioned the dots on a quadrans?  

            Occasionally Fortunatianus shares genuinely interesting data-nuggets, and makes some edifying connections.  However, most of what he sees requires some extreme squinting.  Commenting on Matthew 15:28, where Jesus addresses the foreign woman with the words, “O woman,” Fortunatianus perceives that Jesus’ answer began with the letter Ω (that is, in Greek, omega), and that because omega is the last letter of the Greek alphabet, this signifies that it is in the last days that the church has believed in the Son of God, and given Him his due worship.

What Is Fortunatianus’ Canon?

             Fortunatianus described the Septuagint with approval; he quoted Habakkuk 3:2 with its distinct reading; he utilized passages from Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and Susanna.  This shows that he recognized an Old Testament canon broader than the 39-book canon; yet it cannot be safely assumed that he regarded texts such as First and Second Macabees as authoritative. 

            Fortunatianus utilized passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, First Timothy, Second Timothy, Titus, First John, and Revelation.  It is plausible that he simply did not have an occasion to quote from Philemon, Second John, Third John, and Jude – but the lack of quotations from Hebrews is interesting.  Fortunatianus took for granted the authority of Revelation, citing its contents 14 times.

What Theology Does Fortunatianus Promote?

            Fortunatianus affirms orthodox beliefs.  He describes Trinitarian theology as apostolic, and Arianism as deviant.  For the most part, he is more interested in drawing out intellectually stimulating or spiritually edifying lessons from specific passages, one by one.  Although the paths he takes to his conclusions are twisted – any occurrence of the number three will serve as the basis for a lesson about the Trinity – the conclusions themselves are orthodox or, at least, benign.  He affirms that baptism is for the remission of sins; commenting on John 1:12-13 he states that the church bears children of God “through the baptismal font.”

            Fortunatianus seems like a complete stranger to the tradition about the dormition of Mary, expressing a belief that Mary was put to death with a sword, as suggested by the prophecy of Simeon in Luke 2:35.  Another unusual belief to which he subscribes is that the John, though included among the twelve apostles, was quite young during Jesus’ ministry – young enough to be the little child mentioned in Matthew 18:2-4.

            It should probably be noted, in response to some sensationalistic and inaccurate news-reports about Fortunatianus and how he interpreted the Gospels, that Fortunatianus did not deny the historicity of the Gospels’ accounts about Jesus; he simply emphasized the spiritual lessons that he saw in the typological aspect of things.  (Peter Williams has made some brief comments on this theme.)       

                

How Can Fortunatianus’ Commentary Be Accessed?

Dr. Hugh Houghton describes some
of the work involved in translating
Fortunatianus' commentary in a short video.

            DeGruyter has released Dr. Lukas Dorfbauer’s critical edition of Fortunatianus’ commentary on the Gospels as Volume 103 in the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum series.  It is currently priced at $114.99 and is described as “of extraordinary significance for patristics.”  A most welcome item for academic libraries.  A volume containing analytical essays about Fortunatianus’ work is also available.

            Dr. Hugh Houghton has completed an English translation of Fortunatianus’ commentary.  The translation is also distributed by DeGruyter, and hardcover copies of it may be purchased for $68.99.  The English translation was part of a project funded by the European Research Council, and its funds also made possible the provision of digital versions of Dr. Houghton’s English translation of Fortunatianus’ commentary on the Gospels which are available to download for free in Open Access via a series of links at their website (just scroll down a bit on that page to see the links).  Thank you to all concerned, and congratulations to Dr. Dorfbauer and Dr. Houghton upon the completion of this important work!