Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:01:36.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Sin of Adam and Eve: A Little-Known Defense of Marriage and Childbearing by Ambrosiaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

David G. Hunter
David G. Hunter
Affiliation:
College of St. Thomas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The rise of asceticism and its impact on Roman society in the fourth century have increasingly attracted the notice of scholars. Recent studies, such as Peter Brown's The Body and Society, have called attention to the transformation of civic and social values brought by the spread of ascetic piety. What is less frequently noted, however, is the degree of Christian resistance to asceticism which emerged in the late fourth century. The ascetic enthusiasm of men such as Jerome and Ambrose was not representative of that “silent majority” of Christians who married, raised children, and remained committed to civic and social life. It may even have been the case, as this study will suggest, that the majority was not as silent as it would appear. One need only recall the controversies surrounding Helvidius, Jovinian, and Vigilantius to be reminded that asceticism encountered vocal opposition in the West during the late fourth century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , July 1989 , pp. 283 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* An earlier draft of this paper was delivered at the annual meeting of the North American Patristic Society, May 1988. I am grateful to Professors Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert A. Markus, and Robert L. Wilken for reading it and providing helpful comments.

1 Brown, Peter, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988)Google Scholar. Connections between ascetical theology and political ideology have also been suggested by Pagels, Elaine H., Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (New York: Random House, 1988).Google Scholar

2 On the anti-ascetic views of Helvidius, see Jerome Contra Helvidium (PL 23. 183–206), and Jouassard, G., “La personality d'Helvidius,” in Melanges J. Saunier (Bibliothèque de la faculté catholique de lettres de Lyon 3; Lyon, 1944) 139–56Google Scholar. On Jovinian, see Jerome Adversus Jovinianum (PL 23. 211–338), and Hunter, David G., “Resistance to the Virginal Ideal in Late-Fourth-Century Rome: The Case of Jovinian,” TS 48 (1987) 45–64Google Scholar, and the literature cited there. For the views of Vigilantius, see Jerome Contra Vigilantium (PL 23. 339–52), and Massie, Michel, “Vigilance de Calagurris face à la polémique hiéronymienne,” BLE 81 (1980) 81–108.Google Scholar

3 On this subject see Gordini, Gian Domenico, “L'opposizione al monachesimo a Roma nel IV secolo,” in Fois, M., et al., eds., Dalla chiesa antica alia chiesa moderna (Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 50; Rome: Gregorian University, 1983) 19–35. Gordini, however, does not mention Ambrosiaster. I am grateful to Professor Michael Slusser for referring me to Gordini's paper.Google Scholar

4 Text edited by Alexander Souter in CSEL 50. 399–416.

5 The Pauline commentary has been edited by Heinrich Vogels in CSEL 81/1–3. The argument for the attribution of the Quaestiones to Ambrosiaster is found in Souter, Alexander, A Study of Ambrosiaster (Texts and Studies 7/4; Kraus reprint, 1967)Google Scholar. Fragments of several other works survive, including a discussion of the three measures of flour into which the woman in the parable placed the yeast (Matt 13:33; Luke 13:21), a commentary on Matthew 24, and a treatment of Peter's denial and the arrest of Jesus in Gethsemane. These fragments were edited by Mercati, Giovanni, “Anonymi chiliastae in Matthaeum c. 24 fragmenta,” Studi e Testi 11/1 (1903) 23–45Google Scholar, 46, 47ff. The text is reprinted in Hamman, Adalbert, Patrologiae Latinae Supplementum (Paris, 1958) 1. 655–70Google Scholar. Further arguments for the attribution of these fragments to Ambrosiaster can be found in Martini, Coelestinus, Ambrosiaster: De auctore, operibus, theologia (Rome: Pontificum Athenaeum Antonianum, 1944) 50–73.Google Scholar

6 He refers to the church at Rome “whose rector at present is Damasus” (cuius hodie rector est Damasus): In epistulam ad Timotheum primam 3:15 (CSEL 81/3. 270).

7 Quaes. 115.16 (CSEL 50. 323): hic enim in urbe Roma; cf. Quaes. 101 and Quaes. 102.

8 See Jerome Epp. 35 and 36, and Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster, 173–74. On Jerome's knowledge of Ambrosiaster, see Vogels, Heinrich, “Ambrosiaster und Hieronymus,” RBén 66 (1956) 14–19.Google Scholar

9 Quaes. 115.49 (CSEL 50. 334): a famine in Italy, Africa, Sicily, and Sardinia, also mentioned by Ambrose and Symmachus; Quaes. 115.72 (CSEL 50. 343): a woman with eleven husbands and a man with twelve wives; the woman's funeral during Jerome's stay in Rome appears to be mentioned in Jerome Ep. 123.10. Cf. Souter, , The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford: Clarendon, 1927) 42.Google Scholar

10 The complex history of the Quaestiones, which exist in three different editions in the manuscripts, is discussed by Martini, Coelestinus, “De ordinatione duarum Collectionum quibus Ambrosiastri ‘Quaestiones’ traduntur,” Anton 21 (1947) 23–48Google Scholar; idem, “Le recensione delle ‘Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti’ dell'Ambrosiaster,” Ricerche di Storia Religiosa 1 (1954) 40–62.Google Scholar

11 Stuiber, Alfred, “Ambrosiaster,” ThRE 2 (1978) 357Google Scholar, says that Ambrosiaster's clerical status cannot be determined for certain. Brown refers to him (Body and Society, 377) without discussion as an “anonymous Roman priest.” Lydia Speller suggests that Ambrosiaster was “a presbyter who once hoped to be bishop” (“Ambrosiaster and the Jews,” StPatr 17 [1982] 75).Google Scholar

12 Study of Ambrosiaster, 175–76. Souter based his case primarily on Ambrosiaster's scathing criticism of the Roman deacons in Quaes. 101, De iactantia Romanorum levitarum.

13 A point noted by Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster, 6–7.

14 See, e.g., Quaes. 100 and 116–21.

15 Quaes. 120.1 (CSEL 50. 361).

16 Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster, 177; see also 23–31.

17 Quaes. 127.36 (CSEL 50. 415–16).

18 Souter concludes (Study of Ambrosiaster, 179–80) that Ambrosiaster “had held office there, had been perhaps either dux or comes Aegypti.” Othmar Heggelbacher has studied Ambrosiaster's attitudes toward and use of Roman, Jewish, and Christian law (Vom römischen zum christlichen Recht: luristische Elemente in den Schriften des sog. Ambrosiaster [Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1959]).Google Scholar

19 See Quaes. 114, Adversus paganos, and the discussions of Cumont, Franz, “La polémique de l'Ambrosiaster contre les païens,” Revue d'Histoire et de Littérature Religieuses 7 (1903) 417–40Google Scholar, and Courcelle, Pierre, “Critiques exégétiques et arguments antichrétiens rapportés par Ambrosiaster,” VC 13 (1959) 133–69Google Scholar. On the persistence of paganism in the Western senatorial aristocracy, see Jones, A. H. M., “The Social Background of the Struggle between Paganism and Christianity,” in Momigliano, Arnaldo, ed., The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon, 1964) 17–37Google Scholar. On philological grounds it has been determined that Ambrosiaster was probably not a native Latin speaker. See Zelser, Michela, “Zur Sprache des Ambrosiaster,” Wiener Studien 83 (1970) 196–213.Google Scholar

20 See n. 8 above. Vogels’ arguments have been accepted by Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975) 89–90.Google Scholar

21 Ep. 21 (CSEL 54. 224); cf. 27.3 (CSEL 54. 225): bipedes asellos. Later letters of Jerome (Epp. 73 and 146) also refer to opinions of Ambrosiaster.

22 Brown, Body and Society, 378. Brown, however, does not refer to Quaes. 127, De peccato Adae et Evae.

23 Quaes. 127.1 (CSEL 50. 399).

24 Quaes. 127.2 (CSEL 50. 400): hominum genus adhibita cura id studeret, ut creatoris cognitione percepta vitam suam frenaret ad promerendum eum.

25 Quaes. 127.3 (CSEL 50. 400).

26 See Ritzer, Korbinian, Le mariage dans les églises chrétiennes du Ier au Xe siècles (Paris: Cerf, 1970) 223Google Scholar, for a discussion of this passage; also Stevenson, Kenneth, Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) 26Google Scholar. Such a blessing is mentioned in the earliest extant nuptial prayers found in the Sacramentarium Veronense. Dr. Thomas Fisch has pointed out to me the liturgical background of Ambrosiaster's views.

27 An excellent discussion of this theme in Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine can be found in Clark, Elizabeth A., “Heresy, Asceticism, Adam, and Eve,” in her Ascetic Piety and Women's Faith: Essays on Late Ancient Christianity (Studies in Women and Religion 20; Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1986) 353–85Google Scholar. Clark suggests (361) that Jovinian was probably the first of the later Latin writers to argue that Adam and Eve could have had sinless sex in Eden. Ambrosiaster, however, appears to have anticipated this position of Jovinian. Robert Markus has pointed out to me that the Virgilian cento, De laudibus Christi, composed by the Roman matron Proba already contained this theme. But the date of the cento is disputed; see Shanzer, Danuta, “The Anonymous Carmen contra paganos and the Date and Identity of the Centonist Proba,” Revue des études augustiniennes 32 (1986) 232–48. Shanzer argues for a date after 385. I am grateful to Peter Brown for this reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Ep. 22.19.2–3 (CSEL 54. 168–69). Translated in Mierow, Charles Christopher, The Letters of St. Jerome (ACW 33; New York: Newman, 1963) 150–51.Google Scholar

29 Quaes. 127.4 (CSEL 50. 400).

30 Contra Helvidium 20 (PL 23. 213).

31 Ibid.,21 (PL 23. 215)

32 Ep. 22.21.2.

33 Ep. 22.21.3 (CSEL 54, 172). Jerome develops the same theme against Jovinian: Adversus Jovinianum 1.16 (PL 23. 246).

34 Quaes. 127.5 (CSEL 50. 400): Quod ergo a deo benedictum est, cur sordidum et contaminatum opus a quibusdam adseritur, nisi quia ipsi deo manus quodam modo inferunt?

35 Cf. Quaes. 127.7 (CSEL 50. 401).

36 Quaes.127.7 (CSEL 50. 401): quod a deo iunctum est neque prohiberi neque separari debere salutari praecepto monstravit.

37 Quaes. 127.7 Cf. Quaes. 127.9 (CSEL 50. 402): tam nova quam vetus lex per omnia istis [nuptiis] favere videatur.

38 Quaes. 127.12 (CSEL 50.403): quis quod benedictum audit, maledictum putet, nisi alio spiritu animetur? Cf. Quaes. 127.14 (CSEL 50: 405): quanto magis de coniugiis dubitare non debet deo dicente! est enim res aperta et simplex.

39 Ep. 22.1 4 (CSEL 54. 145). Jerome is echoing Eph 5:32 and 1 Cor 6:17. Cf. Adversus Jovinianum 1.16.

40 Ep. 22.21.1 (CSEL 54. 171): Alia fuit in veteri lege felicitas.

41 Ep. 22.21.2 (CSEL 54. 171): nunc benedicuntur pauperes et Lazarus diviti praefertur in purpuram.

42 Ep. 22.21.3 (CSEL 54. 172). Similar arguments are found in Jerome's Adversus Jovinianum 1.16 (PL 23. 246). His response to Jovinian's use of Gen 1:28 is that “it was necessary first to plant the wood and to let it grow, so that there might be an aftergrowth for cutting down.” Text cited in Clark, “Heresy, Asceticism,” 360.

43 Quaes. 127.17–18. When he refers to the Manichees, Ambrosiaster notes that they have been condemned “not only privately, but also by the edicts of the emperors.” Legislation against the Manichees was renewed several times during Ambrosiaster's lifetime: Codex Theodosianus 16.5.3 (372), 7 (381), 9 (382), 11 (383), and 18 (389). In his commentary on 2 Tim 3:7 (CSEL 81/3. 312) Ambrosiaster cites verbatim Diocletian's rescript of 297 against the Manichees.

44 It is noteworthy that in Ep. 22.13.3 Jerome was already sensitive to the charge of Manicheism. Later (Adversus Jovinianum 1.5, 9) Jerome reveals that this charge was explicitly made against him.

45 Ambrose Exhortatio virginitatis 6.36, cited in Clark, “Heresy, Asceticism,” 357, 378 n. 29.

46 Ep. 22.18.2 (CSEL 54. 167); Mierow, Letters of St. Jerome, 150–51.

47 Quaes. 127.24 (CSEL 50. 409): Itaque si ab anima coepit peccatum, cur natura corporis accusatur, cum in causa peccati Adae nonfuerit desiderium corporate, sed spe deitatis inlecta anima transgressa sit dei praeceptum, ut et corpus suum subiugaret peccato et nascerentur homines sub peccato?

48 Cf. Quaes. 127.23 (CSEL 50. 408–9). Essentially the same point is made in Ambrosiaster's commentary on Rom 5:12 (CSEL 81/1. 162–65). In Quaes. 19 (CSEL 50.45–46) Ambrosiaster insists that Adam and Eve were created with mortal bodies, which participated in immortality, only so long as Adam and Eve remained sinless and ate of the tree of life.

49 Quaes. 127.30 (CSEL 50. 412).

50 Quaes. 127.31 (CSEL 50. 412–13). In the case of Eve, Ambrosiaster adds that subjection to her husband was part of the original creation. This subordination, which Eve's disobedience violated, was restored by the penalty given in Gen 3:16.

51 Ep. 22.4.1; Mierow, Letters of St. Jerome, 136.

52 Ep. 22.24.2 (CSEL 54. 176). In context, however, this remark seems to refer to pride and not primarily to sexual desire.

53 Cf. Brown, Body and Society, 378: “‘Ambrosiaster’ adopted a less alarmist, more old-fashioned, attitude to the power of the sexual drive. He presented sexuality as amenable to self-control.… [Christian couples] did not need to fill their heads with misplaced anxiety about the subtle ravages of sexual feeling that so evidently obsessed Jerome.”

54 Clark, “Heresy, Asceticism,” 353.

55 Quaes. 127.35 (CSEL 50. 414).

56 Quaes. 127.35 (CSEL 50.415). Ambrosiaster goes on to quote 1 Cor 7:5 where Paul recommends temporary abstinence for the sake of prayer. Cf. the similar sentiments expressed in Ambrosiaster's In epistulam ad Corinthios primam 7:5 (CSEL 81/2. 71–72).

57 Quaes. 127.36 (CSEL 50. 415).

58 Ibid.: ac per hoc antestitem eius puriorem ceteris esse oportet.

59 Ibid.: ita quae ad nos licita et munda sunt, ad dei autem dignitatem quasi inlicita et inmunda sunt; quamquam enim bona sint, dei tamen personae non conpetunt.

60 Quaes. 127.36 (CSEL 50. 415–16).

61 Quaes. 127.36 (CSEL 50. 415): quia sancta sunt quae ministrat.

62 See, e.g., Ep. 22.28.3.

63 Ep. 22.16.1, cited in Brown, Body and Society, 367. Cf. Ep. 24.5 to Marcella (dated 384), where Jerome says “let the priests look up to her”: suspiciant sacerdotes (CSEL 54. 217).

64 In the fragment Incipit de tribus mensuris Ambrosiaster asserts that the body of Christ is divided “not by nature, nor by profession, but only by merits” (PLSup 1. 668). Cf. In epistulam ad Timotheum primam 5:14 (CSEL 81/3. 283), where Ambrosiaster criticizes those who sin “under a good and pious profession” (see n. 81 below).

65 Brown (Body and Society) brings to light this dimension of Christian practice throughout his study. On the emergence of celibacy as a requirement for higher orders, see Callam, Daniel, “Clerical Continence in the Fourth Century: Three Papal Decretals,” TS 41 (1980) 3–50, and the literature cited there.Google Scholar

66 See, e.g., Jerome's attack on bishops who will ordain only married men to the deaconate and presbyterate: Contra Vigilantium 2.

67 Brown, Body and Society, 378.

68 In epistulam ad Corinthios primam 7:27 (CSEL 81/2. 83).

69 Cf. In epistulam ad Corinthios primam 7:31 (CSEL 81/2. 85): quotidie senescit mundus. Cf. the fragment on Matthew 24, cited above, n. 64.

70 In epistulam ad Corinthios primam 7:35 (CSEL 81/2. 88).

71 In epistulam ad Corinthios primam 7:26 (CSEL 81/2. 82): apud Deum virginitatem commendatiorem docet.

72 Ep. 27.2 (CSEL 54. 225); trans, by W. H. Fremantle in St. Jerome: Letters and Select Work (NPNF, ser. 2, vol. 6) 44.

73 Ep. 22.16.1–3 and 28.3.

74 Epp. 33.5; 38.5; and 39.6 also mention the opposition that Jerome's ascetical views aroused.

75 Kelly, Jerome, 111–14.

76 Ep. 45.2 (CSEL 54. 324): Ego probrosus, ego versipellis et lubricus, ego mendax et satanae arte decipiens!

77 Quaes. 127.12.

78 Quaes. 127.10–11 (CSEL 50. 402–3).

79 Ep. 45.3–4.

80 Ep. 45.4; trans. Fremantle, St. Jerome, 59.

81 In epistulam ad Timotheum primam 5:14 (CSEL 81/3. 283): multum expedit nubere, quam sub bona et pia professione notabiliter incedere.

82 Ibid.: melius est enim domus suae curam gerere, quam in aliena domo adulari.

83 Ibid.: nihil enim tam periculosum est quam si professioni gesta repugnent.

84 Ep. 38.5; trans. Fremantle, St. Jerome, 49.

85 Quaes. 127.10.

86 Jerome would not have been encouraged by Ambrosiaster's view on the ascetic renunciation of possessions. Ambrosiaster tried to reconcile Jesus’ radical demands (Luke 14:33) with the fact that wealthy people were among his followers (Joseph of Arimathea, Zachaeus, and Cornelius the centurion). He appeals to 1 Cor 7:29–31 and suggests that to “abandon” possessions means not to be attached to them “by desire” and not to boast about wealth (CSEL 50. 463).

87 Ep. 49.2 to Pammachius (CSEL 54. 352), cited in Hunter, “Resistance to the Virginal Ideal,” 48 n. 13.

88 The moderate attitude of the Roman clergy towards marriage also has been noted by Pietri, Charles, “Le mariage Chrétien à Rome,” in Delumeau, Jean, ed., Histoire vécue du peuple chrétien (Toulouse: Privat, 1979) 105–31. Without detailed annotation Pietri (108–13) refers to the views of Ambrosiaster, Jovinian, and the bishops Siricius and Innocent.Google Scholar