Questions on the Old and New Testament 115.1–115.15
Authorship disputed: Transmitted under Augustine's name (Pseudo-Augustine); since the 1900s generally ascribed to the same unknown author as the commentary on Paul called Ambrosiaster.
Latin text: CSEL 50 (Latin text: CSEL 50, digitized by Open Greek and Latin (csel-dev, University of Leipzig), CC BY-SA 4.0).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0).
Chapter 115
115.1CSEL 50:318
Nihil tam contrarium Christiano, quam si arti matheseosadhibeat curam. haec enim inimica dinoscitur dei legi. si enim nascuntur qui mali sint et e contra qui boni sint, frustra lex data dicetur, et non solum hoc, sed et iniustus habebitur legis lator. qui enim lege data cogit homines contra id quod nati sunt facere sciens non posse mutari naturam, ad hocutique legem dedisse uidetur, ut haberet occasionem, qua crudelitatem suam de nece hominis satiaret. ut quid enim prohibet, quod scit auerti non posse? aut quemammodum damnat hominem qui non fecit, quod facere non potuit?
Nothing is so contrary to a Christian as to devote himself to the art of astrology, for it is known to be hostile to God’s law. If people are born to be bad and, conversely, born to be good, the law will be said to have been given in vain; and not only that, the lawgiver will be held unjust. One who gives a law that compels people to act against what they were born to be, knowing that nature cannot be changed, would surely seem to have given the law so as to have an occasion to satisfy his cruelty with human death. Why would he forbid what he knows cannot be avoided? Or how can he condemn a man for not doing what he could not do?
Notes and citation
Summary: Astrology contradicts God’s law, for if people were born good or bad, the law would be pointless and God unjust in punishing.
- Question 115 is headed “On fate.” “Astrology” renders mathesis.
Topics: Ethics, Magic, divination, and astrology, Free will
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.1 (CSEL 50:318; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-1). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-1
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.2CSEL 50:318
Si autem iustus uidetur, ut est — quia istud de deo sentire nefarium est —, recte et salutari ratione legem dedit, scius posse hominem continere se ab id quod prohibet lex. igitur quia iuste legem dedit, non est utique inicus, cum uindicat.
But if he is seen to be just, as he is (for it is impious to think otherwise of God), he gave the law rightly and for our salvation, knowing that man can restrain himself from what the law forbids. Since, then, he gave the law justly, he is certainly not unjust when he punishes.
Notes and citation
Summary: Because God is just, his law presupposes that people can obey it, and so his punishments are just.
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.2 (CSEL 50:318; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-2). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-2
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.3CSEL 50:318–319
Itaque si legi dei fides commodanda est, quia iuste probatur data, ars matheseos euitanda et fugienda est. hanc enim astutia et subtilitas inuenit diaboli. quia enim aperte repugnare non audet auctori, tergiuersatione id agit, ut et deo iniuriam faciat et hominem legi inimicam constituens morte multet secunda.
So if faith is to be given to God’s law, because it is shown to have been justly given, the art of astrology must be avoided and fled. The cunning and subtlety of the devil invented it. Because he does not dare to fight the Creator openly, he works by evasion, so as both to do injury to God and, by making man hostile to the law, to punish him with the second death.
Rev 20:14 (allusion, medium confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Astrology is the devil’s invention for insulting God and leading people to break the law and suffer the second death.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (OCR slips): ©onstitueDS → constituens.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.3 (CSEL 50:318–319; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-3). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-3
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.4CSEL 50:319
Qui ergo dei auctoritati cedit et factum eius retractari nefarium ducit, legi ab illo datae obtemperat die noctuque studiis eius insistens, nec aliquid aduersum respicit non dubitans quia potens est homo praecepta eius seruare. nam hi, qui peccare gestiunt, occasiones quaerunt quo modo peccata sua a se faciant aliena, ut, dum naturae quasi inputanda peccata sunt, inmunis esse uideatur a poena peccator. hoc propositum horum est, qui desperatione promissae uitae praesenti desiderant frui uoluptate.
Whoever, then, yields to God’s authority and thinks it impious to second-guess his work obeys the law he gave, applying himself to its study day and night, and pays no attention to anything opposed to it, not doubting that man is able to keep his precepts. Those who are eager to sin look for pretexts by which to make their sins someone else’s, so that, since their sins are to be blamed on their nature, as it were, the sinner may seem exempt from punishment. This is the aim of those who, despairing of the promised life, want to enjoy the pleasures of the present.
Ps 1:2 (allusion, medium confidence) · 1 Cor 15:32 (allusion, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: The faithful study and keep God’s law, while those who want to sin use fate as an excuse, having given up hope of the life to come.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (OCR slip (h read as b)): nam bi, qui → nam hi, qui.
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.4 (CSEL 50:319; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-4). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-4
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.5CSEL 50:319–320
At hi, qui freti fiducia fidei spem futurorum expectant, hoc implere contendunt, quod in primordio renascibilitatis polliciti sunt, ut abrenuntiarent pompis et uoluptatibus satanae. quanta ergo subtilitate usus est satanas, ut promtiorem hominem faceret ad peccandum, per quod inuidiae suae expleret nequitiam! dum enim audit sic se natum esse, ut peccet, et deum non ignorat esse iustissimum, credit se inpune peccare, quia, qui iustus iudex est, non damnat eum, qui imperante natura peccauit, nec quidem eius peccatum dicendum est, quod alius egit per illum, si deceptus est homo; peccatis enim pressus factus est morti obnoxius. igitur tollit omne hominis bonum, qui tollit et malum. si enim peccator non habet poenam, nec iustus coronam; et quid laudantur boni et reprehenduntur mali? si enim huius naturae est ut peccare non possit, quid laudas in illo, quod non est eius? et ut quid condemnas in peccatore delictum, cum scias non eius esse, quod peccat, nisi quia iniustus erit, qui bonum laudat et malum accusat?
But those who, relying on the confidence of faith, await the hope of things to come strive to fulfill what they promised at the beginning of their rebirth, to renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan. How great a subtlety Satan used, then, to make man readier to sin, and so to satisfy the malice of his envy! When a man hears that he was born to sin, and knows that God is most just, he believes he sins with impunity, because a just judge does not condemn one who sinned at nature’s command; nor indeed is it to be called his sin, if it was done by another through him, if the man was deceived; for weighed down by sins he has been made subject to death. So whoever takes away man’s evil takes away all his good as well. If the sinner has no punishment, neither does the righteous have a crown; and why then are the good praised and the wicked blamed? If it is his nature that he cannot sin, what do you praise in him that is not his own? And why do you condemn the offense in the sinner, when you know that his sinning is not his own, unless because whoever praises the good and accuses the bad will then be unjust?
Rom 6:23 (echo, low confidence) · 2 Tim 4:8 (allusion, low confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Fatalism, Satan’s device, removes both guilt and merit, contradicting the baptismal renunciation of Satan and making praise and blame meaningless.
- “Renounce the pomps and pleasures of Satan” recalls the baptismal renunciation.
Topics: Ethics, Baptism, Free will, Magic, divination, and astrology
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.5 (CSEL 50:319–320; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-5). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-5
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.6CSEL 50:320
Sed forte dicatur e contra: \'bonam naturam in homine laudo et malam condemno, quia et uinum bonum laudatur, cum per naturam bonum sit, et malum recusatur, cum adaequenatura hoc praestet). si ita esset, nihil erat reprehensionis in causa, ut sic laudaretur iustus, ne corona dignus iudicaretur, neque ita accusaretur iniustus, ut poena dignus diceretur. porro autem et in praesenti et in futuro iustos remunerari scimus et legimus et iniustos poenis subditos concremari,quod iniustum utique uideretur, si iste, qui naturae suae rem gesserat, igne ultore poenas pateretur aut alius adaeque naturae suae rem exsequens praemiis adficeretur.
But perhaps it will be objected: “I praise a good nature in a man and condemn a bad one, just as good wine is praised because it is good by nature, and bad wine is refused, though nature makes it so too.” If that were so, there would be nothing blameworthy in the matter, so that the righteous would be praised without being judged worthy of a crown, and the unrighteous blamed without being called worthy of punishment. But we know and read that both in the present and in the future the righteous are rewarded and the unrighteous are subjected to punishments and burned; and this would certainly seem unjust, if one who had done what belonged to his nature suffered punishment by avenging fire, and another, likewise doing what belonged to his nature, were given rewards.
Matt 25:46 (allusion, medium confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Praising good nature like good wine does not answer the problem, since Scripture promises real rewards and punishments, which would be unjust if conduct were fixed by nature.
Topics: Ethics, Eschatology
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.6 (CSEL 50:320; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-6). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-6
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.7CSEL 50:320
Si autem laudandus est bonus, quia quod naturae suae erat fecit, laudari debet et malus, quia et ipse similiter quodnaturae suae erat gessit, ut unus quisque permanens in eo, quod factus est, laudetur, quia, si in quo factus est manens uituperabilis habetur, auctorem tangit uituperatio, qui talem nasci fecit, qui displiceret.
But if the good man is to be praised because he did what belonged to his nature, the bad man ought to be praised too, because he likewise did what belonged to his nature, so that each, remaining what he was made, is praised; for if one who remains what he was made is held blameworthy, the blame touches the maker, who caused him to be born such as to displease.
Notes and citation
Summary: If conduct were fixed by nature, the bad would deserve praise as much as the good, and blame would fall on the Creator.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.7 (CSEL 50:320; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-7). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-7
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.8CSEL 50:320–321
Quodsi iure remunerandus est iustus et condemnandusiniustus, iam non naturae respondetur, sed uoluntati, quia natura libera est, uoluntas autem in causa est, quae sensibus accessus patitur et recessus, ut iniustus uidens coronari iustum, se autem damnari, sibi inputet, qui contra legem sensibus credens malum fecit, cum potuit facere bonum. numquid potest accusari sol, quia urit, aut aqua, quia infrigidat? aut numquid remuneranda est aqua, quia siti adfectos homines recreat, uel praemiis adficietur sol, quia reficit homines calore suo post frigorem? quod enim naturae suae est faciunt, unde nec condemnantur nec laudantur; aliud enim facere nesciunt.
But if the righteous is rightly rewarded and the unrighteous condemned, then the response is made not to nature but to the will; for nature is blameless, but the will is responsible, being subject to the approaches and withdrawals of the senses, so that the unrighteous man, seeing the righteous crowned and himself condemned, may blame himself, who trusted his senses against the law and did evil when he could have done good. Can the sun be blamed because it burns, or water because it chills? Or is water to be rewarded because it refreshes the thirsty, or the sun given prizes because it warms people after cold? They do what belongs to their nature, and so they are neither condemned nor praised; they do not know how to do otherwise.
Notes and citation
Summary: Reward and punishment concern the will, which chooses, not nature, which acts necessarily like the sun or water and earns neither praise nor blame.
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.8 (CSEL 50:320–321; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-8). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-8
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.9CSEL 50:321
Sed quoniam non ita est, ut aestimant stellarum speculatores, ratio actuum probat. nemo enim inueniri potest, qui bene faciat semper aut male. tunc enim uideretur sic natus, ut bene ageret, si inreprehensibilis permaneret; et ita digne aestimaretur, ut esset malus, si in eo duraret ut male faceret semper. at cum et illum, quem bonum putas natum, aliquotiens uideas male agere et hunc, quem malum natum dicis, non numquam cernas facere bonum, quo modo hoc uerum probas, ut malus malus sit et bonus bonus, nisi quia hoc magis certissimum est, quia, ubi animum quis dederit, in eo proficit? nam et causae sunt, quae generant peccata, ut aut inuideat aut litiget aut inimicus existat.
But that things are not as the star-gazers think, the evidence of human conduct proves. No one can be found who always does good or always does evil. A man would seem born to act well if he remained blameless throughout, and he would rightly be thought born bad if he persisted in always doing evil. But since you see the one you think was born good sometimes acting badly, and you sometimes see the one you say was born bad doing good, how do you prove that the bad is bad and the good good, except that this is far more certain: that a person advances in whatever he has set his mind on? For there are also causes that give rise to sins, such as envy, quarreling, or becoming someone’s enemy.
Notes and citation
Summary: Since no one always does good or always evil, character is formed by what people set their minds on, not fixed at birth.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.9 (CSEL 50:321; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-9). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-9
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.10CSEL 50:321–322
Illa autem, quae a lege prohibentur, non palam neque manifeste, sed occulte admittunt. quare, nisi quia reuerentur legem ? sin uero, ita ut adserunt, ad hoc nati essent ut male facerent, non quaererent latibula neque aliquam legi reuerentiam exhiberent, sed passim ea facerent, quae cogeret natura. sed cum uideas procurari peccatis et excogitari ubi possint latenter admitti — et loca enim et personas et tempora eligunt, ut mali propositi impleant uoluntatem —, simili modo etiam boni iudicio quodam bona opera sua decernunt, ut pro tempore et causa alicuius bonum suum distribuant, quod utique non iam naturae inputandum est, sed, quae in natura est, uoluntati. si autem naturale esset, cessaret iudicium.
The things the law forbids they commit not openly or plainly but in secret. Why, unless because they revere the law? If, as they claim, they had been born to do evil, they would not look for hiding places or show the law any reverence, but would do everywhere whatever nature compelled. But since you see people planning their sins and devising where they can commit them unseen (for they choose places, persons, and times so as to carry out the will of their evil purpose), so too the good decide on their good works with a certain judgment, distributing their good according to the time and to someone’s need. This must certainly be imputed not to nature but to the will, which resides in nature. If it were natural, judgment would cease.
John 3:20 (allusion, medium confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Sinners hide their sins and the good choose when to do good, which shows that conduct comes from will and judgment, not from fate.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.10 (CSEL 50:321–322; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-10). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-10
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-10) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.11CSEL 50:322
Nam si rem plenius discutiamus, qui nunc iusti sunt, iniustos illos prius fuisse ostendemus, data autem opera inmutatisunt. ipse etenim Abraham per fidem iustus factus legiturante ergo non fuit, quippe cum patre suo duce idola coluisse intellegatur - et Zacheus utique, cui post uulgarem uitam testimonium perhibet dominus, et uas electionis, qui istud etiam fatetur dicens: eramus et nos natura filii irae, sicut et ceteri. quia cedit uoluntas pro natura — ex uoluntate enim quis iudicatur, non ex natura —, sine dubio et omnes martyres et iustificati sunt boni, quia non fideles nati, sed renati sunt. et quantos scimus turpis uitae fuisse et prodigos cultores luxoriae, qui nunc continentes et sancti sunt! accedente enim timore dei uincuntur uitia, quae prius dominabantur.
If we discuss the matter more fully, we will show that those who are now righteous were formerly unrighteous, and were changed by making an effort. Abraham himself is read to have been made righteous through faith; before that, then, he was not, since he is understood to have worshiped idols under his father’s leadership. So too Zacchaeus, to whom the Lord bears witness after a common life; and the vessel of election, who confesses this too, saying, “We too were by nature children of wrath, like the rest.” Because will takes the place of nature (for a person is judged by his will, not by his nature), without doubt all the martyrs and those who have been justified are good, because they were not born faithful but reborn. And how many we know who led shameful lives and were extravagant devotees of luxury, who are now continent and holy! When the fear of God comes, the vices that ruled before are overcome.
Gen 15:6 (allusion, high confidence) · Josh 24:2 (allusion, medium confidence) · Luke 19:9 (allusion, high confidence) · Acts 9:15 (allusion, high confidence) · Eph 2:3 (quotation, high confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Abraham, Zacchaeus, Paul, the martyrs, and many converts were changed from unrighteous to righteous, which shows that character is not fixed at birth.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.11 (CSEL 50:322; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-11). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-11
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-11) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.12CSEL 50:322
Quantum autem possit timor legis, hinc aduertamus. ante Iuliani edictum mulieres uiros suos dimittere nequibant accepta autem potestate coeperunt facere quod prius facere non poterant; coeperunt enim cottidie licenter uiros suos dimittere. ubi latuit fatum tantis temporibus? timore, credo, legis occultabat se. .
How much the fear of the law can do, let us observe from this. Before Julian’s edict, women were unable to put away their husbands; but once they received the power, they began to do what they could not do before, for they began every day to put away their husbands freely. Where was fate hiding for so long? Out of fear of the law, I suppose, it kept itself hidden.
Notes and citation
Summary: Wives began to divorce their husbands freely only after Julian’s edict permitted it, which shows that law, not fate, governs conduct.
- “Julian’s edict” is probably a law of the emperor Julian (361–363) allowing wives to divorce their husbands (uncertain). “Put away” renders dimittere, to divorce.
Topics: Ethics, Divorce and remarriage, Marriage
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.12 (CSEL 50:322; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-12). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-12
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-12) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.13CSEL 50:322–323
Illud autem quo modo subintrauit, quod tradidit Moyses? dormientibus, credo, fatis. tanta enim tradita sunt illis seruanda et talia qualia nulla gens habet praecepta. et ne hoc aliquis ad plagam caeli referendum putet, in omnem prope orbem dispersi mandata legis suae custodiunt. haec praecepta contra fata sunt non enim fuerunt forte tribus milibus annis et supra a constitutione mundi; postea autem data permanent usque ad finem. quod ergo tot milibus annis non fuit, quo modo coepit? stellarum enim cursus a constitutione mundi est..
And how did what Moses handed down slip in? While the fates were asleep, I suppose. So many things were handed down to the Jews to keep, precepts such as no other nation has. And lest anyone think this should be attributed to a region of the sky, they keep the commandments of their law though scattered over almost the whole world. These precepts run counter to the fates: they did not exist for perhaps three thousand years and more from the founding of the world, but once given they remain until the end. How did something begin that did not exist for so many thousands of years? For the course of the stars has been the same from the founding of the world.
Notes and citation
Summary: The law of Moses, unknown for thousands of years and then kept by Jews in every climate, cannot be explained by the stars, whose courses never change.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (stray hyphen): et -supra → et supra.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.13 (CSEL 50:322–323; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-13). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-13
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-13) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.14CSEL 50:323
Et quid illud est, ut, cum tanta multitudo Iudaeorum sit per totum mundum, nemo inmutetur ex his ut fiat gentilis, cum uideamus ex paganis, licet raro, fieri Iudaeos? ecce, quantum pertinet ad ritum Iudaeorum, exclusum est fatum, quia et extra fatum esse coeperunt et in eo permanent.
And why is it that, though there is so great a multitude of Jews throughout the world, none of them changes and becomes a gentile, while we see Jews made from pagans, though rarely? See, as far as the rite of the Jews is concerned, fate is excluded, because they began to be outside fate and remain so.
Notes and citation
Summary: Jews everywhere keep their law and pagans sometimes become Jews, which fate cannot explain.
- The claim that no Jews become gentiles is the author’s.
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.14 (CSEL 50:323; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-14). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-14
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-14) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.
115.15CSEL 50:323
Quid uidetur de Sodoma et Gomorra, quorum qualis fuerit exitus, uindictae obtutibus adiacet? sic fuit, ut omnes spurcitiae infamia adspersi diuino igne consumi mererentur. in cataclismo omnes unius fati fuerunt, ut una morte et eodem tempore cuncti perirent excepta domo Noe. et omnis exercitus Pharaonis uno decreto natus dicetur, ut ineptus error matheseos uindicetur, quia demersi sunt in Rubrum Mare cum suo rege? et alia quanta exempla sunt, quae praetermittimus, quia ad satisfactionem sufficiunt duo exempla, quanto magis tria!
What are we to think of Sodom and Gomorrah, whose end lies plainly before the eyes as an act of vengeance? It was such that all, stained with the infamy of filthiness, deserved to be consumed by divine fire. In the flood all were of one fate, so that all perished by one death at one time, except the house of Noah. And will the whole army of Pharaoh be said to have been born under one decree, so that the absurd error of astrology may be upheld, because they were drowned in the Red Sea with their king? And there are many other examples that we pass over, since two examples are enough to satisfy, and how much more three!
Gen 19:24 (allusion, high confidence) · Gen 7:23 (allusion, high confidence) · Exod 14:28 (allusion, high confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: The simultaneous destruction of Sodom, of the world in the flood, and of Pharaoh’s army cannot be explained by individual horoscopes but only by God’s judgment.
Cite (SBL): Ambrosiaster, Quaest. 115.15 (CSEL 50:323; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-15). (abbreviation not yet checked)
Permanent link: https://sophiascriptura.com/p/ambrosiaster-quaestiones/115-15
BibTeX · RIS · CSL-JSON (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-ambrosiaster-quaestiones-115-15) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin (Souter, CSEL 50, 1908); re-read against the Latin, since no public-domain English exists.