INTRODUCTION
Ambrosiaster was an anonymous fourth century Christian writer who is credited with writing commentaries on all of St. Paul’s epistles and a compilation of treatises known as the Questions on the Old and New Testaments. The name Ambrosiaster is not the actual name of the writer, but the name means “Star of Ambrose,” and this name was given after the Ambrosian authorship of the commentaries on Paul’s epistles had been ruled out, which will be discussed further below. Scholars are still unsure of the author’s identity, but they are certain that the same author is responsible for both the commentaries on the epistles and the Questions. These Questions (Quaestio) means ‘an enquiry’ or investigation into passages of Scripture which are difficult to understand.1 The Questions on the Old and New Testaments is a compilation of essays of various sizes as well as discourses and sermons. Some of the questions thoroughly examine and explain important doctrinal matters such as the meaning of God, the sin of Adam and Eve, baptism of the Savior, etc. Some questions are treatises against opponents to Christianity and heretics such as Pagans, Arians, Novatian, etc. There are some questions that are running commentaries on the Psalms and Gospels, while others are on Old Testament heroes such as Melchizedek, Abraham, Job, and Tobit.2 The Questions by Ambrosiaster are found in two different manuscript traditions. Both manuscript traditions are manifested in this translation and placed in sections or categories, such as, 1st Category and 2nd Category. The manuscript tradition of the 1st Category is a compilation of 127 “Questions” and the MS tradition of the 2nd Category is a compilation of 150. “Of these questions, eighty-nine are common to both collections, and almost two thirds of these eighty-nine have undergone some rewriting.”3 The English translation for this book is based upon the text from the collection of Migne (PL 35 2214-2416). There are a lot of explanations to specific passages of Scripture in the Questions by Ambrosiaster, which means that they are useful for exegetical purposes. The way that the questions are organized in the manuscripts and the printed edition that this translation is based upon would make it difficult, to say the least, to use it for looking up specific passages to see what Ambrosiaster had to say about them, because the order of the questions in the manuscripts do not follow a consistent pattern nor order that the Scripture passages would be in the Bible. For this reason, I have chosen to provide the questions that concern specific passages of Scripture to follow the order found in the Bible, such as by book, chapter, and verse. For those questions that are polemic in nature, they are placed in a section separate called “Polemic,” and other questions that are not polemic nor exegetical are placed in a section called “Miscellaneous.” For many years, the Questions on the Old and New Testaments were thought to have been written by Augustine of Hippo and were placed among his works. Scholars have long determined since then that it was not written by Augustine, and was in fact the same author of the Bible commentaries of Paul’s epistles that is mentioned above. There are many examples that demonstrates how scholarly rejection of the Augustinian authorship of the Questions is more than justified, starting with the choice of topics, the method of teaching, the difference of style, which are quite in opposition to the genius and the faith of Augustine. Augustine’s teachings on original sin is an indicator that he was not the author of the Questions, because the author claims without constraint, in Question 13, that the children who died with their parents in the fire of Sodom were “exempt from the punishments of hell, because they have been victims of a crime they did not commit.” Therefore, the author of these questions has appeared here to deny ‘original sin.’ Also, the same author claims, in questions 21 and 45, that ‘woman’ was not created in the image of God, while St. Augustine teaches the contrary in his book on the Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 3, chapter 22. Another example, in question 41, the author endeavors to prove that these words of Genesis: "The Spirit of God was carried on the waters," should not be understood of the Holy Spirit, as Augustine, however, explains it in several places.4 As mentioned above, scholars are of the opinion, for good reason, that the authorship of the Questions on the Old and New Testaments is the same for the Bible commentaries on the epistles of Paul.5 Alexander Souter, who devoted nearly 130 pages to this point, demonstrated by comparing these two works and found the greatest similarities between the community of illustrations and allusions, comparison of Scripture quotations, comparison of style and language, identity of thought such as favorite texts of Scripture and interpretations of Scripture.6 Scholars think, moreover, that these two works must have been composed at about the same time; the commentaries, under the pontificate of Pope Damasus, who died towards the end of the year 384, as attested by the author of these writings in chapter 3, verse 15 of the second epistle to Timothy, and Question 44 (Against the Jews).7 As mentioned above, scholars are uncertain of the identity of the author of the commentaries and the Questions, but I will leave the readers with a quote from Alexander Souter on this point… “Erasmus, in the year 1527, was the first to suspect the accuracy of this ascription; and thereafter speculation became rife as to the real author. At the dawning of modern scholarship, as it is still more clearly at the present time, Ambrosian authorship was seen to be an impossibility. Some guessed that the work was a cento made from S. Jerome and S. Chrysostom by some unknown person; others believed it to be by Julian of Aeclanum or some other Pelagian; others by Remigius, others by Tyconius, the author of the ‘Rules,’ others by S. Hilary of Poitiers, others by Hilary of Pavia, others by Hilary of Syracuse; very many have attributed the work to Hilarius, a deacon of Rome. The statement of S. Augustine, who undoubtedly meant S. Hilary of Poitiers as the author of the quotation he makes, is responsible for the last four views. S. Hilary of Poitiers is unhesitatingly to be rejected owing to known differences of style. Most of the other names are idle conjectures, carelessly thrown out before the days of exact method in the study of literature and history. Langen himself put forward a view that Faustinus, a Roman presbyter, is the author. His proof, built up chiefly from a comparison of the language of both works with that of the De Tririitate and other writings of Faustinuss, is so far from being convincing that it certainly shows Faustinian authorship to be impossible. This conjecture has had the fate of the others. Dr Marold and Dom Morin, for example, explicitly reject it. The recent view, that Isaac, a converted Jew, who was concerned in the disturbances at the election of Pope Damasus and afterwards relapsed to Judaism, wrote the commentaries and the Quaestiones V. et N. Testamenti, is due to Dom Germain Morin, O.S.B., of the Abbaye, Maredsous, who by his successful researches and independent criticism has shown himself a worthy follower of his Benedictine predecessors. Dr. Zahn and Mr. A. E. Burn, both called for a fuller treatment of the subject. This I have endeavored to supply, as the special study I had devoted to the language of the commentary seemed to invite me to the task. I can heartily support Dom Morin’s second suggestion, that Hilary, the Layman, was the author.”8
1 Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pg. 8) 2 See Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pgs. 8-9) 3 Ambrosiaster’s Method of Interpretation in the Questions on the Old and New Testament. Marie-Pierre Bussieres. Interpreting the Bible and Aristotle in Late Antiquity: The Alexandrian Commentary Tradition between Rome and Baghdad, Dr John W Watt, Dr Josef Lössl Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Jul 28, 2013; (pg. 54) 5 English translation of the Epistles of Paul by Ambrosiaster: Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians; Commentaries on Galatians--Philemon (Ancient Christian Texts) translated and edited by Gerald L. Bray. IVP. 6 Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pgs. 23-152) 7 See Patrologiae cursus completes, the Benedictine editors; Volume 35, Jacques-Paul Migne, Apud Garnier Fratres, 1902. (pgs. 2208-09) 8 See Alexander Souter, A Study of Ambrosiaster, Volume 7, Issue 4 of Texts and studies: Contributions to Biblical and patristic literature, Publisher Kraus Reprint, 1967, Original from the University of Virginia. (pgs. 4-5) |