Ambrosiaster: Commentary on Romans 1:26-28, Recensions α, β, γ

The following four pages are a few verses from the most recently published texts of Ambrosiaster's Commentary on Romans. Over the course of his life, and in dialogue with his contemporaries, he continually added to and changed subsequent editions. The three recensions (editions) listed below evidence a change in Ambrosiaster's perspective on Romans 1:26. I believe it provides evidence for the hypothesis that the early church did not ever see this passage as a condemnation of "lesbians", but such an interpretation was late, developing in the early 400s. As can be seen, the earlier recension (α, on the left) clearly indicates Ambrosiaster believed Rom 1:26b was about unnatural sex between a man and a woman in relation to idolatry (see my essay on sacred sex and the goddess cults of Paul's day), not between two women. The parentheticals (in the left column) represent the second recension (β) where he appears to have absorbed the "lesbian" perspective that is also carried onto the third recension (γ) on the right, and the original male-female interpretation has been completely removed. All of the english translations of Ambrosiaster's Commentary refer only to the second or third recensions, where he takes up what has become the traditional view, that Paul here condemns lesbians, so this earlier tradition has been hidden from English readers. Part of this is because Ambrosiaster's earliest recension was the latest found. Migne's "Patrologiae cursus completus" published in 1879 uses the second recension, and is what most translators have had access to until this CSEL version in 1966. In the text below I have tried to copy the pages without comment or alteration, however I have highlighted some differences between the recensions. (I have also moved some of the text from p. 53 up to p. 51 to aid comparison, as well as altered CSEL textual spacing, similarly for comparison clarification).
p. 50	p. 51
Ad Romanos Recens. α β 1,26; 1,27,1a-1	Ad Romanos Recens. γ. 1,26; 1, 27, 1a-l
1,26. Propterea tradidit illos deus in passiones ignominiae. nam feminae eorum immutaverunt naturlem usum in eum usum, qui est contra naturam. haec irato deo propter idolatriam humano generi provenisse testatur, ut se viris feminae aliter quam natura dictavit offerrent (ut mulier mulierem turpi desiderio ad usum adpeteret). {quod quidam aliter interpretantur non perspicientes vim dicti. quid est enim immature naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam, nisi sublato concesso usu aliter uti, ut una atque eadem pars corporis aliter se ad usum praebeat quam concessum est? nam si illa est pars corporis, quomodo immutaverunt usum naturae, cum non habeat huiusmodi usum dataum a natura? superius iam traditos dixerat in inmunditiam, non tamen} qualitatem operis inmunditiae ipsius ostendit (ostendereat), pro quo nunc declarat: 1.27. Similiter autem et masculi relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt in desiderium sui invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes. {1a. nunc manifestavit, quomodo superius de mulieribus quod dixit, intellegi debeat. quando autem subiecit: simiiliter et masculi, dicens, exarserunt in desiderium sui, ostendit apertum peccatum mulierum. denique   mulieres inter se accusat et viros similiter.} 1. manifestum {autem} est, ut, quia veritatem dei immutaverunt in mendacium, immutarent et naturaelm usum in eum usum, per quem dehonesterentur, rei facti mortis {secundae}.	1,26. Propterea tradidit illos deus in passiones ignominiae. nam feminae eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum, qui est contra naturam. haec irato deo propter idolatriam humano generi provenisse testatur, ut femina feminam turpi desiderio ad usum adpeteret. quod quidam aliter interpretantur non perspicientes vim dicti. quid est enim inmutare naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam, nisi sublato concesso usu aliter uti, ut una atque eadem pars corporis [unusquisque inter se invicem sexus] aliter se ad usum praebeat quam concessum est? si ergo illa est pars corporis [quam putant], quomodo immutaverunt usum naturalem, cum non habeat huiusmodi usum datum a natura? igitur superius iam traditos dixerat in inmunditiam, non tamen qualitatem inmunditiae ipsius operis ostenderat, quod nunc declarat: 1,27. Similiter autem et masculi relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt in desiderium sui invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes. 1a. nunc manifestavit, quomodo [superius] de mulieribus quod supra dixit, intellegi debeat. quando autem subiecit dicens: similiter autem et masculi exarserunt invicem in desiderium sui, ostendit aperte peccatum mulierum. denique non dixit de viris, quod immutaverint naturalem usum in invicem, quia huiusmodi usus huic parti concessus non est. quid mirum, cum hodieque tales mulieres reperiantur, ut sicut illud a viris, ita et hoc a mulieribus sit inventum? nam mulieres inter se accusat et viros similiter. 1. manifestum est ergo, ut, quia veritatem dei immutaverunt in mendacium, immutarent et naturalem usum in eum usum, per quem dehonestarentur, rei facti mortis secundae.
13 cf Rom. 1,24	13 cf. Rom. 1,24
4 irato] in christo Φ 5 prouenisset NS1 14 sq. operis et S2IX 15 pro quo] pro NS1, prout S2IX 18 sq. desideriis suis in inuicem Φ	3sq. est-naturam] extra naturam est WA 7 enim om.FBODW1 8sq. contra] extra WA 9sq. unusquisque-sexus G2 11 illa] alia A 11 sq. quam putant DA 12 inmutarunt D 13 habeant DOA 17 femineo A exarserunt] accensi sunt WA suum A 17 sq.in inuicem GFA 24in om.DO 25 et quid Y 27 accusant G1BY DOW A1

p. 52	p. 53
52 Ad Romanos Recens. α β 1,27, 1-2; 1,28; 1,29	Ad Romanos Recens. γ 1,27,1-2; 1,28; 1,29
quoniam enim aliam legem dare non potest satanas - nihil enim habet concessa et licita -, in alium ordinem versat, ut dum aliter fiunt quam concessa sunt, sint peccatum. Et compensationem mercedis quam oportet erroris sui in semetipsos recipientes. 2. hanc dicit compensationem esse contempti dei, id est turpitudinem et contaminationem. haec est enim prima causa peccati. quid enim peius, quid deterius hoc peccato? quantum enim idolatria perimpium et gravissimum delictum est, tantum et compensatio eius horrenda et persordida passio est.   1,28. Et quoniam aestimaverunt deum non habere horum notitiam, tradidit illos deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant quae non conveniunt. propter errorem simulacrorum traditi sunt ad turpia facienda invicem, sicut iam dictum est. et quia impunitatem horum aestimaverunt, incuriosum deum iudicantes et (ac) per hoc neglegendum, hinc additum est, ut magis ac magis hebetati ad omnia mala admittenda fierent promptiores, ut facta, quae hominibus non ambigerent displicere, deum crederent non vindicare. nunc enumerat omnia {mala}, quae illis superaddita sunt, ut vel sic conversi ad naturalem intellectum intellegerent irato deo haec {sibi} provenisse. 1,29. Repletos {,ait,} omni iniquitate: hic. (hoc) summatim locutus est et subiecit membra iniquitatis:	[quoniam enim aliam legem dare non potest satanas -nihil enim habet concessa et licita -, in alium ordinem versat ut dum. aliter fiunt quam concessa sunt, sint peccatum.] Et compensationem mercedis quam oportet erroris sui in semetipsos recipientes. 2. hanc dicit compensationem esse contempti dei, id est turpitudinem et obscenitatem. haec est enim prima causa peccati. quid enim peius, quid deterius hoc peccato, quod et diabolum decepit et hominem morti fecit obnoxium? [quantum enim idolatria perimpium et gravissimum delictum est, tantum et compensatio eius horrenda et persordida passio est.] 1, 28. Et quoniam aestimaverunt deum non habere horum notitiam, tradidit illos deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant quae non conveniunt. propter errorem simulacrorum traditi sunt ad turpia facienda invicem, sicut iam dictum est. et quia impunitatem horum aestimaverunt, incuriosum deum iudicantes ac per hoc neglegendum, hinc additum est, ut magis ac magis hebetati ad omnia mala admittenda fierent promptiores, ut facta, quae hominibus non ambigerent displicere, crederent deum non vindicare. nunc enumerat omnia mala, quae illis superaddita sunt, ut vel sic conversi ad naturalem intellectum cognoscerent irato deo haec sibi provenisse. 1,29. Repletos, ait, omni iniquitate. hoc summatim locutus est et subiecit membra iniquitatis:
4 compensationem-oportet] mercedem quam oportuit Φ 11.Sq. et-notitiam] et sicut non probauerunt deum habere (Uidere K) in notitia (-am K) Φ 12 deus om. Φ 15 impunitatem] inanitatem S1K 17 hic SIX 18 amittenda S1K 19 ambierent X displicere] definire S1K 20 sq. superaddita-naturalem om. Φ 21 intellectum darent quo S2 IX 22 ad-prouenisse K 24 consummatim SKI (cf. Thes.IV 605,67, Barnab.10,10 edd. pro consummatam)	1 inmutauerunt WA 2 quoniam-5 peccatumG 2A 6 compensationem mercedis] reciprocam mercedem WA oportuit BYDWA 7 semetipsis GFMBYD0A 8 compensationem] reciprocam mercedem W A 10sq. quod-obnoxium om. D 10 et-obnoxium] diabol0 decipiente hominem mortificet obnoxium A 11sqq. quantum-est D 14 sq. et--notitiam] et sicut non probauerunt deum habere in notitia WA 16 ea quae WA 17 errores GFMBYDO 25 sibi om. G1FO IV prouenire GBD, praeuenire 0 W

Various Translations: Diana Swancutt, 2003. “Disease of Effemination,” New Testament Masculinities, ed. Moore. p.208-209, fn.34: “Paul tells us that… a woman lusts after another woman because God was angry at people for their idolatry… For what is it to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the genders in a way for which it was not intended? Therefore if this part of the body which they think it is, how could they have changed the natural use of it if they had not had this use given to them. (CSEL 81:51).” However, she seems to be translating the G recension and doesn’t even mention recension A. So while she concludes Ambrosiaster refers to Rom 1:26 as female homogenitality, this is curious since the A recension problematizes this assumption. Gerald Bray ed and transl. Ancient Christian Texts, Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians, Ambrosiaster. 2009 p. 13: “[Rom 1:26] Paul tells us that these things came about, that a woman should lust after another woman, because God was angry at the human race on account of its idolatry. Those who interpret this verse differently do not understand the force of the argument. For what is to change the use of nature into a use which is contrary to nature, if not to take away the former and adopt the latter, so that the same part of the body should be used by each of the sexes in a way for which it was not intended? Therefore, if this is the part of the body which they think it is, how could they have changed the natural use of it if this use had not been given to them by nature? He had said earlier that they had been handed over to uncleanness, but he did not explain in detail what he meant by that, which is why he goes on to state what follows next.” ”[Rom 1:27] It is clear that because they changed the truth of God into a lie, they changed the natural use into that use by which they were dishonored, and were condemned to the second death. For since Satan cannot make another law, having no power to do so, it much be said that they changed to another order, and by doing things which were not allowed, fell into sin.” “Paul says that the due penalty comes from contempt of God, and that it is wickedness and obscenity. This is the prime cause of sin. What is worse, what is more harmful than sin which deceives even the devil, and binds man to death? For just as idolatry is a most ungodly and serious sin, its reward is the most horrible and disgusting suffering.” My Translation This is my rendering of just the first sentence after the Vulgate quote from Rom 1:26 in the earliest recension: "haec irato deo propter idolatriam humano generi provenisse testatur, ut se viris feminae aliter quam natura dictavit offerrent" "We are told that these things occurred because God was angry at the human race because of their idolatry. For example, the women were offering themselves to the men in ways contrary to nature." Other than the clear heterogenital reference, this text begs the question--why is it that men performing anal sex on the women, or women performing oral sex on the men, an example of idolatry? I offer a suggestion in my Romans paper.