Guido Stucco has now published the first English translation of Arnobius the Younger’s Praedestinatus. The translation is based on the most recent critical edition by Franco Gori in 2000 (CCSL 25b). The translation is preceded by a long and detailed introduction (pp. 7-47). Stucco, after summarizing the problems related to the authorship of this treatise, clarifies the possible place and date of composition (Rome during the pontificate of Sixtus III, 432-440, p. 10). The rest of the introduction is divided into three sections. In the first, Stucco has brilliantly presented the most important events, theologians, and writings of the so-called semi-Pelagian (or post-Pelagian) controversy. In the late years of Augustine’s life, some of his boldest theological doctrines, in particular divine predestination, were the object of criticism both in North Africa and Gaul. Arnobius’ Praedestinatus is one of the outcomes of this theological controversy, in which the acceptance of some aspects of Augustine’s theology was at the center of a vivid debate.
In the following section, Stucco has presented the content and structure of the Praedestinatus. It is a treatise divided into three books. The first one is a list of ninety heresies, heavily dependent on Augustine’s De haeresibus, though Arnobius did not acknowledge this dependency. The second book exposed a radical version of Augustinianism in the literary form of a libellus written by the predestinarians, the ninetieth and latest heresy. Augustine’s doctrine of predestination is led to its extreme consequences: God does not only predestine the good ones to eternal life but also predestine the wicked ones to eternal death. Much scholarly debate aroused around the authorship of this booklet. Some scholars believed that it was a literary source produced by the predestinarians, a somewhat obscure sect, while other scholars, including Gori, argued that it was a literary product of Arnobius himself, as an attempt to slander the Augustinian view on predestination. In the third and final book, Arnobius counters the predestinarian booklet, thus presenting his theological position, refuting the doctrine of double predestination (to eternal life and death) and proposing a moderate position on the relationship between human free will and divine grace.
The last section of the introduction concerns the reception of the Praedestinatus and its role in the theological controversies from Late Antiquity to Early Modern times. This section of the introduction is the most innovative and, in my mind, the most interesting. Stucco clearly shows the impact of a Late Antique theological treatise in several historical contexts. Rather than being only an antiquarian exercise, Stucco has shown how deeply rooted in Western culture the doctrines discussed at the beginning of the fifth century were. The reception history of the debates on predestination, grace, and free will has been only partially explored in modern scholarship. As Stucco reminds us, this history can be fruitfully investigated only if the point of departure is the debate surrounding Augustine’s legacy erupted at the end of his life. Readers will learn a lot from Stucco’s introduction, which can easily bring new research in reception history.
Stucco’s translation follows next. It appears elegant, correct, and readable at the same time. It is also useful to have the Latin critical text on the opposing page since it allows the reader to directly check Stucco’s translation and to follow those sections in which the reader is most interested.
In what follows, I would like to propose some theological insights from the Praedestinatus. The image depicted in the second book, the predestinarian booklet, is a desperate one. Needless to say that rather than faithfully reproducing Augustine’s theology, it is misinterpreted and exacerbated. A couple of passages could be illustrative: “Nothing else can happen other than what God himself has willed. A person whom God wanted to be holy is holy indeed and will not be otherwise. One whom God has foreknown to be evil will be evil and not otherwise. God’s predestination has already determined the number of the just and the number of sinners; necessarily, their established number cannot be altered ” (II, 2; p. 131); “those whom God once predestined to life, even if they become negligent, or sin, or refuse to come along are led to eternal life against their wishes. Conversely, we also believe that those whom God predestined to death, even if they run or hasten, they work in vain” (II, 3; p. 133). In this context, not even the example of the apostle Paul can bring some relief and hope to the faithful: “but why do these people believe they can attain the fruit of edification through their own will power, when not even the vessel of election himself claims he was able to fulfill his own will? For the apostle about himself: For I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want (Rom 7:19)” (II, 5; p. 135).
The exegesis of Romans 7 deserves careful examination. Arnobius dedicates a paragraph on the correct interpretation of the subject of the seventh chapter of the Letter to the Romans. Rather than talking about himself, as claimed in the predestinarian booklet, Arnobius believes that the apostle Paul is talking in the person of a carnal human being (III, 19; pp. 197-201). In this way, Arnobius preserves the image of the apostle Paul and his role in inspiring Christians in following his example. Moreover, and more interestingly, this exegetical issue has a long prehistory, which dates back at least to Origen of Alexandria. In his Commentary on Romans, Origen too interpreted Romans 7 as if Paul was not talking in his person. This commentary was translated at the beginning of the fifth century from Greek to Latin by Rufinus of Aquileia. It is probably not by chance, that this issue resurfaced also during the Pelagian controversy. It was during this controversy that Augustine changed his interpretation of the subject of Romans 7, assuming a position closer to the predestinarian booklet, namely considering the apostle Paul the subject of this pericope.
These theological and exegetical observations, rather than being exhaustive, intend to show the importance of Arnobius’ Praedestinatus as a treatise written at the crossroads of several theological controversies between the late fourth and early fifth century, for instance, the Origenist, the Pelagian, and the so-called semi-Pelagian controversy. This treatise deserves increased attention from contemporary scholars and, in this perspective, Stucco’s translation is a welcome contribution and an essential research tool.