Abstract
ABSTRACTThis two-part article focuses on the question: Was Julian of Eclanum (c. 380–454) right in accusing Augustine (354–430) of still being a Manichaean, based on his view of sexual concupiscence and the transmission of (original) sin? The second part of the article focuses on the essentials of Augustine's views of sexual concupiscence and the transmission of original sin, in particular as they were expounded (and further developed) in his controversy with the “Pelagian” bishop, Julian of Eclanum. It is concluded that, in particular, Augustine's stress on the “random motion” (motus inordinatus) as typical of the sinfulness of sexual concupiscence is strikingly similar to the Manichaean views on the subject. In this respect, then, Julian seems to be right. Finally, some preliminary remarks are made on early Jewish and Jewish-Christian views of sexual concupiscence and (original) sin which may have influenced not only Mani and his followers, but also Augustine and his precursors in the tradition of Roman North Africa.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
