The Myth of Pelagianism. By Ali Bonner. British Academy Monographs.

Oxford: Oxford

University Press. 2018. 360 pp. £80. ISBN 9780197266397.

The main thesis of this book is that Pelagianism as such did not exist and that it is an

invention of its opponents. This thesis is not new, and is in fact discussed in a more thorough

way and on the basis of a much broader dossier by others such as O. Wermelinger in his

ground-breaking work Rom und Pelagius (1975). The informed reader will be surprised that

standard works on this matter – such as Drecoll’s article on Pelagius/Pelagianism in

Augustinus-Lexikon, Cipriani (defending Augustine), Dupont and Löhr, only to mention a few

other authors who discussed this thesis and came to sometimes different conclusions – are not

present in the bibliography.

A substantial part of the book (pp. 29–110) is focussed on the Vita Antonii, its

anonymous Latin translation and the translation by Evagrius. The tenor of this section is that

if Pelagius was condemned for the positions he held, so too should have both Athanasius and

Evagrius, since they promoted the same positions as did Pelagius later on. Here, Bonner has a

point and the similarities presented are revealing. However, these texts also speak about the

salvation of sinners through Christ (p. 54) and give an important place to prayer (cf. p. 57 and

59), which creates a dynamic of dependence not mentioned by Bonner when referring to

Pelagius’ idea that grace was given in accord with merit (p. 62). The position presented there

is in my view a simplification of Pelagius’ ideas on Christ as saviour (see J. Rivière,

‘Hétérodoxie des pélagiens en fait de rédemption’, Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 41 (1946)

pp. 5–43), proving Pelagius’ orthodoxy in this important matter). Pelagius was in line with the

previous ascetic tradition, but also did more in the new context of the end of the fourth and

beginning of the fifth century, when, with the return of interest in Paul (on whose letters
Pelagius wrote a commentary: see below), aspects such as grace, righteousness and the

activity of the Holy Spirit received more and perhaps new attention.

My main problem with the book’s thesis is the composition of the dossier. Because of

‘interpolations’, Pelagius’ most substantial work, the Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, is

excluded by Bonner. In doing so, she has dramatically reduced the corpus discussed, without

considering the work of S. Matteoli who, in 2013, published a thorough study on the origins

of Pelagius’ theology, focussing on his commentaries on Paul. As a result, the Pelagian

dossier becomes very small: Ad Demetriadem, Ad Celantiam, De virginitate, De divina lege,

and Libellus fidei (p. XVII). I do not understand why the fragments of De natura, Pro libero

arbitrio, and Epistula ad Innocentium, to mention only a few genuine works of Pelagius, are

not featured here. The way Rufinus the Syrian (pp. 207–12) is presented does not do justice to

the detailed research of Walter Dunphy, which in a sense questions the ‘Pelagius’ character of

Liber de fide – one of the corner stones of Bonner’s book – without denying that a Pelagian

editor has intervened in it after the condemnation of Pelagius in 418 (thus showing that

Pelagius had supporters during his lifetime). It is a pity that The Myth of Pelagianism not only

makes use of an arbitrarily limited dossier, but also avoids the real problems in this dossier

(authorship, fragments, interpolations).

But what about the dossier of Pelagius as is retained by Bonner? In Chapter 3, Bonner

first argues that Pelagius’ teachings were present in Jerome’s letters and exegesis up to 410.

Discussed are Jerome’s views on the innate goodness of human nature and the achievability

of goodness by means of willing; the will, habit and effort of human goodness; free will,

grace, perfection as a goal, and the possibility of human sinlessness; and the abandonment of

property. Original sin as such is not present in Jerome, Bonner states. However, she does not

really distinguish between Erbübel and Erbsünde, of which the former is present in Jerome.

Texts such as Commentary on Ezekiel X.31 or on Hosea III.13, deal with the impact of
Adam’s sin on humanity, and suggest a different position in comparison to Pelagius. Such

aspects are not discussed in this book and this reviewer is not convinced by its argument,

partly also because Jerome is presented as a coherent writer. In any case, Bonner does do

injustice to Jerome, summarizing his overall message in two pages, though this is more than is

given to Ambrose, important for both Pelagius and Augustine (half a page on p. 184). What is

said about the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine (pp. 168–9) would have

benefited from consideration of the impressive publications of A. Fürst.

In Chapters 4 and 5, Bonner argues that no organized Pelagian movement existed, an

idea that has been accepted in patristic research for more than fifty years, and that on the basis

of a substantial dossier. In the context of a network, however, it should be said that Julian of

Eclanum was positive about Pelagius (Ad Forum IV.112) though he protested against the use

of Pelagianus and Caelestianus as a label to attack those who defended free will (cf. Ad

Turbantium I, frg. 1). Augustine considered Julian not as the founder of a doctrine/heresy, but

as a disciple of Pelagius and Caelestius (Opus imperfectum VI.25). On the level of contacts,

there was interaction between Pelagius and sympathizers, while some of them were perceived

by their opponents as followers of Pelagius’ ideas. Anyway, Bonner’s discussion of the

(im)possibility of defining ‘Pelagian’ as a ‘group event’ is fair. Indeed, Pelagius himself

remained a man in the shadow, certainly after 415.

In chapter 6, Bonner examines the motive and means for the invention of

‘Pelagianism’. For this she makes use of the interpretative model of interactionist theory, a

theory already adapted to Pelagianism by É. Rebillard in 2000. Unlike Rebillard, Bonner

suggests that Augustine and the other opponents of Pelagius manipulated the debate, falsely

accusing Pelagius and making him a heretic. I am not sure that all this can be derived from the

model used. In any case, at the beginning of the fifth century, the unshaken trust in human

free will and autonomy was seriously questioned. The rediscovery of Paul might have played
a role in that, another reason why I regret that Bonner left out Pelagius’ commentary on Paul.

Contrary to Bonner, I do not think that predestination was at stake in the Pelagian controversy

(pp. 263–4): not once have I encountered a text in Augustine where predestination was

brought in as an argument against Pelagius. The opposition came from monastic milieus,

especially from the middle of the 420s.

The last chapter (‘The Manuscript Evidence and its Implications’) shows the

popularity of Pelagius’ works on the basis of manuscript traditions. It also makes clear that

anonymity can help to spread one’s ideas. I do hope that Bonner and other scholars will make

use of the valuable work of people such as Peter van Egmond in order to do justice to the

manuscript traditions and the texts: Pelagius, the man in the shadow, and his works deserve it.

In the years to come, Bonner’s work will serve as a reference point in the debates

about the Pelagian controversy and this reviewer is looking forward to the reactions of experts

in the field of Augustinian studies, for the Augustine as presented here might be questioned

by them. This too is a reason to be grateful to Bonner and her outspoken positions.

KU Leuven

NC University, Torun MATHIJS LAMBERIGTS