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 – 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?
