Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

AMBROSIASTER

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V01, Page 801 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

AMBROSIASTER . A commentary on St See also:

Paul's epistles, " brief in words but weighty in See also:matter," and valuable for the See also:criticism of the Latin See also:text of the New Testament, was -See also:long attributed to St See also:Ambrose. See also:Erasmus in 1527 threw doubt on the accuracy of this ascription, and the author is usually spoken of as Ambrosiaster or pseudo-Ambrose. Owing to the fact that See also:Augustine cites See also:part of the commentary on See also:Romans as by " Sanctus See also:Hilarius " it has been ascribed by various critics at different times to almost every known Hilary. Dom G. See also:Morin (Rev.d'hist. et de lift. religieuses, torn. iv. 97 f.) See also:broke new ground by suggesting in 1899 that the writer was See also:Isaac, a converted See also:Jew, writer of a See also:tract on the Trinity and Incarnation, who was exiled to See also:Spain in 378-380 and then relapsed to Judaism, but he after-wards abandoned this theory of the authorship in favour of Decimus Hilarianus Hilarius, proconsul of See also:Africa in 377. With this attribution See also:Professor Alex. Souter, in his Study of Ambrosiaster (See also:Cambridge Univ. See also:Press, 1905), agrees. There is scarcely anything to be said for the possibility of Ambrose having written the See also:book before he became a See also:bishop, and added to it in later years, incorporating remarks of Hilary of See also:Poitiers on Romans. The best presentation of the See also:case for Ambrose is by P.

A. Ballerini in his See also:

complete edition of that See also:father's See also:works. In the book cited above Professor Souter also discusses the authorship of the Owes-hones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, which the See also:MSS. ascribe to Augustine. He concludes, on very thorough philological and other grounds,'that this is with one possible slight exception the See also:work of the same " Ambrosiaster." The same conclusion had been arrived at previously by Dom Morin.

End of Article: AMBROSIASTER

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
AMBROSIANS
[next]
AMBROSINI, BARTOLOMEO (1588-1657)