Ambrosiaster orPseudo-Ambrose is the name given to the unknown author of a commentary on theepistles of Saint Paul, written some time between 366 and 384AD.[1] The name "Ambrosiaster" in Latin means "would-beAmbrose". Various conjectures have been made as to Ambrosiaster's true identity, and several other works have been attributed to the same author, with varying degrees of certainty.
Pseudo-Ambrose was the name given byErasmus to refer to the author of a volume containing the first complete Latin commentary on thePauline epistles.[2]
Attempts to identify Ambrosiaster with known authors has continued, but with no success. Because Augustine cites Ambrosiaster's commentary onRomans 5:12 under the name of "Hilary", many critics have attempted to identify Ambroasiaster with one of the many writers named "Hilary" active in the period. In 1899,Germain Morin suggested that the writer was Isaac, a converted Jew and writer of a tract on the Trinity and Incarnation, who was exiled toSpain in 378–380 and then relapsed toJudaism. Morin afterwards abandoned this theory of the authorship in favour ofDecimus Hilarianus Hilarius, proconsul ofAfrica in 377.[3] Alternatively,Paolo Angelo Ballerini attempted to sustain the traditional attribution of the work to Ambrose, in his complete edition of that Father's work. This is extremely problematic, though, since it would require Ambrose to have written the book before he became a bishop, and then added to it in later years, incorporating later remarks ofHilary of Poitiers on Romans.[4] No identifications, therefore, have acquired lasting popularity with scholars, and Ambrosiaster's identity remains a mystery.
Internal evidence from the documents has been taken to suggest that the author was active in Rome during the period ofPope Damasus, and, almost certainly, a member of the clergy.[2]
TheCommentary on Thirteen Pauline Letters is considered valuable as evidence of the state of theLatin text of Paul's epistles before the appearance of theVulgate ofJerome, and as an example of Pauline interpretation prior toAugustine of Hippo.[1][3] It was traditionally ascribed toAmbrose, but in 1527,Erasmus threw doubt on the accuracy of this ascription, and the anonymous author came to be known as "Ambrosiaster". It was once thought that Erasmus coined this name; however, René Hoven, in 1969, showed that this was incorrect, and that credit should actually be given to theMaurists. Later scholars have followed Hoven in this assessment, although it has also been suggested that the name originated withFranciscus Lucas Brugensis.[5]
Several other works which now survive only as fragments have been attributed to this same author. These include a commentary onMatthew 24, and discussions on theparable of the leaven, thedenial of Peter, andJesus's arrest.[6] In 1905, Alexander Souter established that Ambrosiaster was also the author of theQuaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, a lengthy collection of exegetical and polemical tractates which manuscripts have traditionally ascribed toAugustine.[1][6]
Other works ascribed to the same author, less definitely, are theLex Dei sive Mosaicarum et Romanorum legum collatio,De bello judaico, and the fragmentaryContra Arianos sometimes ascribed to the pseudo-Hilary and thesermo 246 of pseudo-Augustine.[2][7] They mentionSimon Magus.[8]
Many scholars argue that Ambrosiaster's works were essentiallyPelagian, although this is disputed.Pelagius cited him extensively. For example,Alfred Smith argued that Pelagius got his views on predestination and original sin from Ambrosiaster. However,Augustine also made use of Ambrosiaster's commentaries.[9]
^abDavid G Hunter, "Fourth-century Latin writers", in Frances Young, Lewis Ayres and Andrew Louth, eds,The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, (2010), p307
Bussières, Marie-Pierre (2010). "L'Esprit de Dieu et l'Esprit Saint dans les Questions sur l'Ancien et le Nouveau Testament de l'Ambrosiaster".Revue d'Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques.56:25–44.doi:10.1484/J.REA.5.101054.
Bussières, Marie-Pierre (2006). "L'Influence du synode tenu à Rome en 382 sur I'exégèse de I'Ambrosiaser".Sacris Erudiri.45:107–124.doi:10.1484/J.SE.2.302460.
Bussières, Marie-Pierre. Ambrosiaster. Contre les Païens. Sur le destin. Texte, traduction et commentaire. Paris, Éditions du Cerfs (Sources chrétiennes 512), 2007.
Cain, Andrew (2005). "In ambrosiaster's shadow : A critical Re-evaluation of the last surviving letter exchange between pope damasus and jerome".Revue d'Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques.51 (2):257–277.doi:10.1484/J.REA.5.104912.
Cooper, Stephen A.; Hunter, David G. (2010). "Ambrosiaster redactor sui: The Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles (Excluding Romans)".Revue d'Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques.56:69–91.doi:10.1484/J.REA.5.101056.
De Bruyn, Theodore S. (2010). "Ambrosiaster's Revisions of His Commentary on Romans and Roman Synodal Statements about the Holy Spirit".Revue d'Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques.56:45–68.doi:10.1484/J.REA.5.101055.hdl:10393/44249.
Hoven, René (1969). "Notes sur Érasme et les auteurs anciens".L'Antiquité Classique.38:169–174.doi:10.3406/antiq.1969.1547.
David g. Hunter (2009). "2008 NAPS Presidential Address: The Significance of Ambrosiaster".Journal of Early Christian Studies.17:1–26.doi:10.1353/earl.0.0244.S2CID170919473.
Moreschini, Claudio, and Enrico Norelli. 2005 "Ambrosiaster," inEarly Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers. vol. 2, p. 296-98.
Papsdorf, Joshua (2012). ""Ambrosiaster" in Paul in the Middle Ages". In Cartwright, Steven (ed.).A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill.ISBN978-90-04-23671-4.
Queis, Dietrich Traugott von, and Augustine. 1972.Ambrosiaster: Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Quaestio 115: De fato. Basel.
One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in thepublic domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Ambrosiaster".Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 1 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 801.