AMBROSIASTER. – A fictitious name coined by Erasmus of Rotterdam to designate an ancient anonymous Christian writer hitherto identified with St. Ambrose of Milan.
Erasmus was the first to discover that the famous Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, traditionally attributed to St. Ambrose, was not by Ambrose. Since he believed that the false Ambrosian attribution was the work of the actual author of the Commentary, he applied to him the disparaging name of A. or “false Ambrose.”
This particular opinion of Erasmus does not seem to be supported by recent scholarship, but the discovery that the Commentary was by a different author has remained a settled fact in patristic science.
**The Works.** – Various other writings have recently been attributed to A., but only two can be considered authentic: the pseudo-Augustinian *Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti* and some anonymous fragments on St. Matthew. The other claims, partly advanced by Morin and partly by Wittig, lack serious foundation and are sometimes even at odds with A.’s authentic work.
The *Commentaria in XII Epistolas b. Pauli* (except for the one on Hebrews, which A. himself states is not by St. Paul) are, in the judgment of both ancient and modern scholars, one of the best and most restrained patristic interpretations of Pauline thought. The critical edition, long in preparation since the early years of this century, is still awaited. Nevertheless, thanks to the paleographic examination recently conducted by Souter, it has become clear that the work exists in several recensions, not evident from the edition in *PL 17*. There are, in fact, three recensions of the commentary on Romans, two of the commentary on Corinthians, while the others survive in a single form. The critical edition of the commentary will be published in two volumes of the *CSEL* of Vienna.
The *Quaestiones* shares deep and numerous affinities of thought and form with the *Commentaria*. It is a very interesting collection of exegetical, polemical (e.g., against Porphyry), and speculative treatises. The manuscripts transmit three recensions of this work as well, though only two are authentic: one of 127 treatises and the other of 151. The critical edition prepared by Souter (*CSEL*, 50 [1908]), despite its great merits, is nevertheless insufficient regarding the double recension of the *Quaestiones*. In fact, Souter publishes only the “127” collection in full, which he considers the second revised edition by A. It is likely, however, that this collection contains only part of the second edition, with the remainder to be found in the “151”; hence it is still necessary to consult Migne (*PL* 35, 1207–1416).
In addition to the two works mentioned above, A. is also credited with a long eschatological fragment on Mt 24, a shorter work *De Petro Apostolo*, and the very brief *De tribus mensuris*, all three preserved in Codex Ambrosianus I and published by G. Mercati in *Studi e testi*, 11, I, Rome 1903, pp. 23–49.
**The Author.** – From these writings emerges a well-defined personality: a sober exegete attached to the historical-grammatical sense, a vigorous yet reasonable polemicist, and a theologian not deeply profound but with clear ideas. Undoubtedly Western, and originally Italian or Spanish, he was probably converted from paganism. He wrote in Rome during the pontificate of St. Damasus (366–84), bringing to his literary work a legal mentality and an uncommon knowledge of both paganism and Judaism. He seems to have held the rank of presbyter in the Roman curia.
As for his identification, both internal and external testimonies are silent. St. Jerome, who appears to know a treatise by A. (*Quaest.* 109; cf. *Epist.* 73, of 398), does not name the author. The names of St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Augustine found in manuscript and literary tradition are merely ancient conjectures. Likewise, all attempts by modern scholars to uncover his identity have failed. A. is neither Ticonius, proposed by Morel, nor Hilary the Roman deacon, the dominant opinion of the last century, nor Faustinus the presbyter, suggested by Langen, nor finally Isaac, the converted Jew, a name proposed among others by Morin, though it met with considerable but unjustified favor among some critics.
**