Search Results

The anonymous theologian generally known as Ambrosiaster, writing in Rome in the time of pope Damasus, was remarkable for his independence of mind. He is particularly noteworthy in the descriptions of religious life in Rome at this time and his criticisms of the shortcomings of the clergy.

Both radical and moderate forms of encratism proliferated in the fourth century, encouraged by the spread of monasticism and Manichaeism. Anti‐heretical responses followed, both in literary works and in imperial legislation: the labels ‘Manichaean’ and ‘Encratite’ were applied to all types of ascetics, thereby blurring the boundaries between ‘orthodoxy’ and ‘heresy’. Heresiologists, such as Epiphanius and Filastrius of Brescia, also indiscriminately mixed Manichees, Encratites, Montanists, and even the followers of Origen. Thus they prepared the way for the kind of polemics articulated by Jovinian.

This chapter concerns Jerome's efforts to make his biblical scholarship seem like a necessary commodity to Christians in Rome in the early 380s. At that time he was still an obscure biblical scholar who championed a text‐critical and hermeneutical methodology (Hebraica veritas) that was viewed, in the Latin‐speaking Christian world at least, as a dangerous innovation. The burden thus was on him to prove why it held the key to the proper understanding of the biblical text. It is argued that Jerome circulated some of his exegetical correspondence with Pope Damasus in order to furnish proof that he was the latter's hand‐picked Scriptural advisor. The apparently close relationship between this influential pope and Jerome, as it seems to unfold episodically in these exchanges, implied that his avant‐garde scholarship came with a papal stamp of approval and that it therefore could be embraced with confidence by the Roman Christian community.

Compares Augustine's Commentary with the other Latin commentaries on Galatians from this period, chiefly with a view to tracing lines of influence, and uncovers a complex network of interconnections among them. An argument based largely on Augustine's Confessions and De Doctrina Christiana is put forward to show the strong likelihood that Augustine made use of Marius Victorinus’ Commentary when composing his own. Augustine's rejection of Jerome's interpretation of Galatians 2: 11–14 is explained, as is Jerome's rejection of Marius Victorinus’ interpretation of the same passage. Augustine's use of Ambrosiaster's Commentary is deemed highly probable but not demonstrable, as is Pelagius’ use of Augustine's Commentary. Parallels between Augustine's Commentary and that of the anonymous commentator discovered by H. J. Frede are judged insignificant.

This chapter attempts to resolve the question concerning which of the later Latin commentators of the fourth and early fifth century had read Victorinus on Paul. The claim of Harnack that Augustine’s Paulinism was influenced by Victorinus, largely rejected but now maintained by recent scholars again, is sustained by a comparative analysis of the commentaries of Victorinus and Augustine on Galatians. The influence of Victorinus on Ambrosiaster is also apparent and more strongly supported than the case for his influence on Augustine. Jerome is likely to have read Victorinus’ commentary on Galatians, since he argues against the latter’s exegesis of Gal. 2: 11-14. Of the fifteen passages from Galatians discussed in the comparative analysis, twelve suggest the influence of Victorinus on Ambrosiaster and eleven indicate Augustine’s reading of Victorinus’ commentaries. The history of scholarship on this issue is fully discussed.

This chapter examines the writings of Jerome, showing that he was a lifelong advocate of free will, that he interpreted predestination as God’s foreknowledge of autonomous human actions, that he stated that grace was given in accord with merit, and that he consistently referred to perfection as the goal of ascetic endeavour and as achievable. It analyses Jerome’s uncomfortable attempt to change his interpretation of Scripture in around AD 414 in order to meet accusations of heresy, since he had taught for decades the ideas now suddenly being labelled heretical. The chapter explores Ambrosiaster’s Commentaryon the Pauline Epistles and shows that it asserted free will and interpreted predestination as God’s foreknowledge of autonomous human actions, in order to preserve God’s justice.

Chapter 4 analyses Augustine’s Christology of Romans 8.3 as a reception of Origen’s exegesis of that text. The methodology for this argument is established by reviewing the debate over Augustine’s use of the term massa peccati as a reception from Ambrosiaster. Discounting Ambrose as the primary source of Augustine’s theology of Christ ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’, the chapter identifies parallels to Augustine’s treatment of the text in Origen’s homilies on Luke, exposition of Psalm 28, and commentary on Romans. This leads to the conclusion that the Christology Augustine uses to combat Pelagianism is in fact Origen’s, and functions as a subtextual apology for Origen from within his anti-Pelagian project. The chapter closes by suggesting that Augustine may have received an early draft translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans from Simplicianus, or from a close circle of readers gathered around him at Milan.

Ultimately, the Christian theology of creation rested not simply on Genesis 1–2 but on an intertextual constellation of biblical writings, including the Psalms, Deutero-Isaiah, and the Wisdom literature, which resourced reflection on creation’s active participation in the Creator’s plan; divine providence; evil; the austerity, beauty, and redeemability of material creation; and the paradox of the “vanity” of creation (Ecclesiastes). The chapter next turns to patristic exegesis of salient New Testament texts, beginning with the “vanity” of “groaning” creation (Romans 8) in interpreters like Irenaeus, Origen, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Next are texts on the “cosmic Christ” and on the interconnected dimensions of Christ’s role as Creator and Redeemer of the cosmos. The last set for analysis is the “new creation” texts describing the recreation of humanity in baptism and the eschatological unfolding of a “new heavens and new earth.”

This chapter examines Ambrosiaster's thought on original sin and whether it influenced Augustine's doctrine. It shows that Ambrosiaster did not exert any real influence on the formation of Augustine's doctrine of hereditary sin. It is only by pure coincidence that he comes to be cited in one of Augustine's anti-Pelagian works.

The idea of a unified ‘paganism’ is usually taken to be an intentional Christian distortion of the true diversity of ancient polytheism. This chapter presents a different view. Inscriptions recorded by antiquarians and archaeologists at Rome since the fifteenth century document fourth-century senators’ participation in a vast range of priesthoods and mystery initiations. These inscriptions include epitaphs, senatorial résumés, and especially altars commemorating performance of the taurobolium, a sacrifice of a bull to the Magna Mater. The (admittedly fragmentary) evidence reveals a philosophical theology that united all the gods into a single divine reality. It also suggests, contrary to recent scholarship, that the senators’ religious involvement was driven by a desire not just for personal prestige but also (and sometimes more important) for divine favour and mystical insights. When this polytheistic religiosity is set alongside the polemical ‘paganism’ of Firmicus Maternus and ‘Ambrosiaster’, a new picture takes shape. The Christian polemicists’ sharp opposition between ‘pagans’ and ‘Christians’ is an oversimplification of a religious situation whose tensions were generally less overt. Nevertheless, the idea of ‘paganism’ is not polemical invention but a Christian theorisation of a prominent contemporary approach to polytheism.

Jerome composed a total of eight prefaces for his four Pauline commentaries: one for each of the three books of the Galatians and Ephesians commentaries, and one each for the Titus and Philemon commentaries. In half of these prefaces he includes personal content which has nothing to do with the epistle under comment. This chapter argues that he deployed these four prefaces to work toward a number of goals at once—cultivate literary patrons in Rome, defend his opus Paulinum against anticipated criticism, and displace Marius Victorinus and install himself as the Latin West’s first legitimate commentator on Paul.