AMBROSIASTER. – A fictitious name, coined by Erasmo da Rotterdam, to designate an ancient anonymous Christian writer, until then identified with s. Ambrogio di Milano.
Erasmo was the first to discover that the famous Commentario delle Epistole di s. Paolo, traditionally attributed to s. Ambrogio, was not by Ambrogio. Since he thought that the same actual author of the Commentario was responsible for the false Ambrosian attribution, for this reason he applied to him the derogatory name A., or false Ambrogio.
This particular opinion of Erasmo does not seem to be supported by recent investigation, but the discovery that the Commentario had a different author remained an established fact in patristic scholarship.
The Works. – Various other writings have recently been attributed to A., of which only two are to be regarded as authentic: the pseudo-Augustinian Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, and some anonymous exegetical fragments on s. Matteo. The other claims, due in part to Morin and in part to Wittig, lack serious foundation, when they are not actually in conflict with A.’s authentic work.
The Commentaria in XII Epistolas b. Pauli (except for the one on the Hebrews, which according to A. is not by s. Paolo) are, in the judgment of ancient and modern scholars, one of the best and most sober patristic interpretations of Pauline thought. The critical edition, on which work has been proceeding since the early years of this century, is still awaited. Nevertheless, thanks to the paleographical examination recently pursued by Souter, a fact has become known that does not appear in the existing editions (cf. PL 17), namely, the variety of recensions in which the work has been transmitted. There are in fact three recensions of the commentario ai Romani, two of the commentario ai Corinti, while the others exist in only one form. The critical edition of the commentary will be contained in two volumes of the Vienna CSEL.
The book of the Quaestiones displays profound and countless affinities of thought and form with the Commentaria: it is a highly interesting collection of exegetical, polemical (e.g. against Porfirio), and speculative treatises. The manuscripts likewise transmit three recensions of this work, of which, however, only two—one comprising 127 and the other 151 treatises—are authentic. The critical edition prepared by Souter (CSEL, 50 [1908]), despite its great merits, must nevertheless be considered inadequate with regard to the twofold recension of the Quaestiones. Souter publishes in full only the Collection « 127 », which, in his judgment, represents the second edition revised and corrected by A. It must be believed, however, that this Collection contains only part of the second edition. The other part must be sought in the « 151 »; it is therefore still necessary to use Migne (PL 35, 1207-1416).
In addition to the two works mentioned above, there also belong to A. not only the lengthy eschatological fragment on Mt. 24 and the shorter De Petro Apostolo, but also the very brief De tribus mercuris, all three preserved in cod. Ambros. I and published by G. Mercati in Studi e testi, 11, 1, Roma 1903, pp. 23-49.
The Author. – These writings reveal a clearly defined personality: an original writer, a sober exegete attached to the historical-grammatical sense, a vigorous but reasonable polemicist, and a theologian who was not very profound but whose ideas were clear. Certainly Western, and of Italian or Spanish origin, probably converted from paganism, he wrote in Rome under the pontificate of s. Damaso (366-84), bringing to his literary work the mentality of a jurist and an uncommon knowledge of both paganism and Judaism. It seems that he held the rank of presbyter in the Roman curia.
As regards his identification, both the internal and external testimonies are silent. S. Girolamo, who shows that he knew a treatise by A. (Quaest. 109; cf. Epist. 73, of 398), was unaware of its author. The names of s. Ambrogio, s. Ilario, and s. Agostino found in the manuscript and literary tradition are merely conjectures of the ancients. Yet all the attempts by modern scholars to uncover the anonymous author have likewise failed. A. is neither Ticonio, proposed by Morel, nor Ilario, the Roman deacon, the prevailing opinion in the last century, nor Faustino the presbyter, suggested by Langen, nor finally Isacco, the converted Jew, a name proposed among many others by Morin, although it has received great but unjustified favor from certain critics.