St. Jerome

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Born at Stridon, a town on the confines ofDalmatia and Pannonia, about the year 340-2; died atBethlehem, 30 September, 420.

He went toRome, probably about 360, where he wasbaptized, and becameinterested inecclesiastical matters. FromRome he went toTrier, famous for itsschools, and there began histheological studies. Later he went toAquileia, and towards 373 he set out on a journey to the East. He settled first inAntioch, where he heardApollinaris of Laodicea, one of the firstexegetes of thattime and not yet separated from theChurch. From 374-9 Jerome led anascetical life in thedesert of Chalcis, southwest ofAntioch.Ordainedpriest atAntioch, he went toConstantinople (380-81), where a friendship sprang up between him andSt. Gregory of Nazianzus. From 382 to August 385 he made another sojourn inRome, not far fromPope Damasus. When the latter died (11 December, 384) his position became a very difficult one. His harsh criticisms had made him bitter enemies, who tried to ruin him. After a few months he was compelled to leaveRome. By way ofAntioch and Alexandria he reachedBethlehem, in 386. He settled there in amonastery near aconvent founded by twoRoman ladies,Paula and Eustochium, who followed him to Palestine. Henceforth he led a life ofasceticism and study; but even then he was troubled by controversies which will be mentioned later, one with Rufinus and the other with thePelagians.

Chronology

The literary activity of St. Jerome, although very prolific, may be summed up under a few principal heads: works on theBible;theological controversies; historical works; various letters; translations. But perhaps thechronology of his more important writings will enable us to follow more easily the development of his studies.

A first period extends to his sojourn inRome (382), a period of preparation. From this period we have the translation of thehomilies ofOrigen onJeremias,Ezechiel, andIsaias (379-81), and about the sametime the translation of theChronicle of Eusebius; then the "Vita S. Pauli, prima eremitae" (374-379).

A second period extends from his sojourn inRome to the beginning of the translation of theOld Testament from theHebrew (382-390). During this period theexegeticalvocation of St. Jerome asserted itself under the influence ofPope Damasus, and took definite shape when the opposition of theecclesiastics ofRome compelled the causticDalmatian to renounce ecclesiastical advancement and retire toBethlehem. In 384 we have the correction of theLatin version of theFour Gospels; in 385, theEpistles ofSt. Paul; in 384, a first revision of theLatinPsalms according to the accepted text of theSeptuagint (RomanPsalter); in 384, the revision of theLatin version of theBook of Job, after the accepted version of theSeptuagint; between 386 and 391 a second revision of theLatinPsalter, this time according to the text of the"Hexapla" ofOrigen (GallicanPsalter, embodied in theVulgate). It isdoubtful whether he revised the entire version of theOld Testament according to the Greek of theSeptuagint. In 382-383"Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi" and"De perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae; adversus Helvidium". In 387-388,commentaries on theEpistles toPhilemon, to theGalatians, to theEphesians, to Titus; and in 389-390, onEcclesiastes.

Between 390 and 405, St. Jerome gave all his attention to the translation of theOld Testament according to theHebrew, but this work alternated with many others. Between 390-394 he translated theBooks of Samuel and of Kings,Job,Proverbs,Ecclesiastes, theCanticle of Canticles,Esdras, andParalipomena. In 390 he translated the treatise "De Spiritu Sancto" ofDidymus of Alexandria; in 389-90, he drew up his "Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim" and "De interpretatione nominum hebraicorum." In 391-92 he wrote the"Vita S. Hilarionis", the"Vita Malchi, monachi captivi", andcommentaries onNahum,Micheas,Sophonias,Aggeus,Habacuc. In 392-93,"De viris illustribus", and"Adversus Jovinianum"; in 395,commentaries onJonas andAbdias; in 398, revision of the remainder of theLatin version of theNew Testament, and about thattimecommentaries on chapters 13-23 ofIsaias; in 398, an unfinished work"Contra Joannem Hierosolymitanum"; in 401,"Apologeticum adversus Rufinum"; between 403-406,"Contra Vigilantium"; finally from 398 to 405, completion of the version of theOld Testament according to theHebrew.

In the last period of his life, from 405 to 420, St. Jerome took up the series of hiscommentaries interrupted for seven years. In 406, he commented onOsee,Joel,Amos,Zacharias,Malachias; in 408, onDaniel; from 408 to 410, on the remainder ofIsaias; from 410 to 415, onEzechiel; from 415-420, onJeremias. From 401 to 410 date what is left of hissermons; treatises onSt. Mark,homilies on thePsalms, on various subjects, and on theGospels; in 415,"Dialogi contra Pelagianos".

Characteristics of St. Jerome's work

St. Jerome owes his place in the history ofexegetical studies chiefly to hisrevisions and translations of theBible. Until about 391-2, he considered theSeptuagint translation as inspired. But the progress of hisHebraistic studies and his intercourse with therabbis made him give up thatidea, and he recognized asinspired the original text only. It was about this period that he undertook the translation of theOld Testament from theHebrew. But he went too far in his reaction against theideas of his time, and is open to reproach for not having sufficiently appreciated theSeptuagint. This latter version was made from a much older, and at times much purer,Hebrew text than the one in use at the end of the fourth century. Hence thenecessity of taking theSeptuagint into consideration in any attempt to restore the text of theOld Testament. With this exception we must admit the excellence of the translation made by St. Jerome.

Hiscommentaries represent a vast amount of work but of very unequal value. Very often he worked exceedingly rapidly; besides, he considered acommentary a work of compilation, and his chief care was to accumulate the interpretations of his predecessors, rather than to pass judgment on them. The "Quaestiones hebraicae in Genesim" is one of his best works. It is a philological inquiry concerning the original text. It is to be regretted that he was unable to continue, as had been hisintention, a style of work entirely new at the time. Although he often asserted his desire to avoid excessive allegory, his efforts in that respect were far from successful, and in later years he was ashamed of some of his earlier allegorical explanations. He himself says that he had recourse to the allegorical meaning only when unable to discover the literal meaning. His treatise, "De Interpretatione nominum hebraicorum", is but a collection ofmystical andsymbolical meanings.

Excepting the "Commentarius in ep. ad Galatas", which is one of his best, his explanations of theNew Testament have no great value. Among hiscommentaries on theOld Testament must be mentioned those onAmos,Isaias, andJeremias. There are some that are frankly bad, for instance those onZacharias,Osee, andJoel.

To sum up, theBiblicalknowledge of St. Jerome makes him rank first among ancientexegetes. In the first place, he was very careful as to the sources of his information. He required of theexegete a very extensiveknowledge of sacred and profane history, and also of the linguistics andgeography of Palestine. He never either categorically acknowledged or rejected the deuterocanonical books as part of theCanon ofScripture, and he repeatedly made use of them. On theinspiration, the existence of a spiritual meaning, and the freedom of theBible fromerror, he holds thetraditionaldoctrine. Possibly he has insisted more than others on the share which belongs to the sacred writer in his collaboration in theinspired work. Hiscriticism is not without originality. The controversy with theJews and with thePagans had long since called the attention of theChristians to certain difficulties in theBible. St. Jerome answers in various ways. Not to mention his answers to this or that difficulty, he appeals above all to the principle, that the original text of theScriptures is the only oneinspired and free fromerror. Therefore one must determine if the text, in which the difficulties arise, has not been altered by the copyist. Moreover, when the writers of theNew Testament quoted theOld Testament, they did so not according to the letter but according to the spirit. There are many subtleties and even contradictions in the explanations Jerome offers, but we must bear inmind his evident sincerity. He does not try to cloak over hisignorance; he admits that there are many difficulties in theBible; at times he seems quite embarrassed. Finally, he proclaims a principle, which, if recognized as legitimate, might serve to adjust the insufficiencies of his criticism. He asserts that in theBible there is no materialerror due to theignorance or the heedlessness of the sacred writer, but he adds: "It is usual for the sacred historian to conform himself to the generally accepted opinion of the masses in his time" (P.L., XXVI, 98; XXIV, 855).

Among the historical works of St. Jerome must be noted the translation and the continuation of the "Chronicon Eusebii Caesariensis", as the continuation written by him, which extends from 325 to 378, served as a model for theannals of the chroniclers of theMiddle Ages; hence the defects in such works: dryness, superabundance of data of every description, lack of proportion and of historical sense. The"Vita S. Pauli Eremitae" is not a very reliable document. The"Vita Malchi, monachi" is a eulogy ofchastity woven through a number of legendary episodes. As to the"Vita S. Hilarionis", it has suffered from contact with the preceding ones. It has been asserted that the journeys ofSt. Hilarion are a plagiarism of some old tales of travel. But these objections are altogether misplaced, as it is really a reliable work. The treatise"De Viris illustribus" is a very excellent literary history. It was written as anapologetic work toprove that theChurch had produced learned men. For the first three centuries Jerome depends to a great extent onEusebius, whose statements he borrows, often distorting them, owing to the rapidity with which he worked. His accounts of the authors of the fourth century however are of great value.

The oratorical consist of about one hundredhomilies or short treatises, and in these the Solitary of Bethlehem appears in a new light. He is amonk addressingmonks, not without making very obvious allusions to contemporary events. The orator is lengthy and apologizes for it. He displays a wonderfulknowledge of the versions and contents of theBible. His allegory is excessive at times, and his teaching ongrace isSemipelagian. A censorious spirit against authority, sympathy for thepoor which reaches the point of hostility against the rich, lack of good taste, inferiority of style, and misquotation, such are the most glaring defects of thesesermons. Evidently they are notes taken down by his hearers, and it is a question whether they were reviewed by the preacher.

The correspondence of St. Jerome is one of the best known parts of his literary output. It comprises about one hundred and twenty letters from him, and several from his correspondents. Many of these letters were written with a view to publication, and some of them the author even edited himself; hence they show evidence of great care and skill in their composition, and in them St. Jerome reveals himself a master of style. These letters, which had already met with great success with his contemporaries, have been, with the"Confessions" ofSt. Augustine, one of the works most appreciated by thehumanists of theRenaissance. Aside from their literary interest they have great historical value. Relating to a period covering half a century they touch upon most varied subjects; hence their division into letters dealing withtheology, polemics,criticism, conduct, and biography. In spite of their turgid diction they are full of the man'spersonality. It is in this correspondence that the temperament of St. Jerome is most clearly seen: his waywardness, his love of extremes, his exceeding sensitiveness; how he was in turn exquisitely dainty and bitterly satirical, unsparingly outspoken concerning others and equally frank about himself.

Thetheological writings of St. Jerome are mainly controversial works, one might almost say composed for the occasion. He missed being atheologian, by not applying himself in a consecutive and personal manner todoctrinal questions. In his controversies he was simply the interpreter of the acceptedecclesiastical doctrine. Compared withSt. Augustine his inferiority in breadth and originality of view is most evident.

His"Dialogue" against the Luciferians deals with aschismaticsect whose founder wasLucifer,Bishop ofCagliari inSardinia. The Luciferians refused to approve of the measure of clemency by which theChurch, since theCouncil of Alexandria, in 362, had allowedbishops, who had adhered toArianism, to continue to discharge theirduties on condition of professing theNicene Creed. This rigoristsect had adherents almost everywhere, and even inRome it was very troublesome. Against it Jerome wrote his"Dialogue", scathing in sarcasm, but not always accurate indoctrine, particularly as to theSacrament of Confirmation.

The book"Adversus Helvidium" belongs to about the same period. Helvidius held the two following tenets:

Earnest entreaty decided Jerome to answer. In doing so he discusses the various texts of theGospel which, it was claimed, contained the objections to theperpetual virginity of Mary. If he did not find positive answers on all points, his work, nevertheless, holds a very creditable place in the history ofCatholicexegesis upon these questions.

The relative dignity ofvirginity andmarriage, discussed in the book against Helvidius, was taken up again in the book"Adversus Jovinianum" written about ten years later. Jerome recognizes the legitimacy ofmarriage, but he uses concerning it certain disparaging expressions which were criticized by contemporaries and for which he has given no satisfactory explanation. Jovinian was more dangerous than Helvidius. Although he did not exactly teachsalvation byfaith alone, and the uselessness ofgoodworks, he made far too easy the road tosalvation and slighted a life ofasceticism. Every one of these points St. Jerome took up.

The"Apologeticum adversus Rufinum" dealt with theOrigenistic controversies. St. Jerome was involved in one of the mostviolent episodes of that struggle, which agitated theChurch fromOrigen's lifetime until theFifth Ecumenical Council (553). The question at issue was to determine if certain doctrines professed byOrigen and others taught by certainpagan followers ofOrigen could be accepted. In the present case thedoctrinal difficulties were embittered by personalities between St. Jerome and his former friend, Rufinus. To understand St. Jerome's position we must remember that the works ofOrigen were by far the most completeexegetical collection then in existence, and the one most accessible to students. Hence a very natural tendency to make use of them, and it is evident that St. Jerome did so, as well as many others. But we must carefully distinguish between writers who made use ofOrigen and those who adhered to his doctrines. This distinction is particularlynecessary with St. Jerome, whose method of work was very rapid, and consisted in transcribing the interpretations of formerexegetes without passing criticism on them. Nevertheless, it iscertain that St. Jerome greatly praised and made use ofOrigen, that he even transcribed someerroneous passages without due reservation. But it is also evident that he never adhered thinkingly and systematically to theOrigenistic doctrines.

Under these circumstances it came about that when Rufinus, who was a genuineOrigenist, called on him to justify his use ofOrigen, the explanations he gave were not free from embarrassment. At this distance oftime it would require a very subtle and detailed study of the question to decide the real basis of the quarrel. However that may be, Jerome may be accused of imprudence of language and blamed for a too hasty method of work. With atemperament such as his, and confident of his undoubtedorthodoxy in the matter ofOrigenism, he must naturally have beentempted to justify anything. This brought about a most bitter controversy with his wily adversary, Rufinus. But on the whole Jerome's position is by far the stronger of the two, even in the eyes of his contemporaries. It is generally conceded that in this controversy Rufinus was to blame. It was he who brought about the conflict in which heproved himself to be narrow-minded, perplexed,ambitious, even timorous. St. Jerome, whose attitude is not always above reproach, is far superior to him.

Vigilantius, the Gasconpriest against whom Jerome wrote a treatise, quarrelled with ecclesiastical usages rather than matters ofdoctrine. What he principally rejected was themonastic life and theveneration ofsaints and ofrelics.

In short, Helvidius, Jovinian, and Vigilantius were the mouthpieces of a reaction againstasceticism which had developed so largely in the fourth century. Perhaps the influence of that same reaction is to be seen in the doctrine of themonkPelagius, who gave his name to the principalheresy ongrace:Pelagianism. On this subject Jerome wrote his "Dialogi contra Pelagianos". Accurate as to thedoctrine oforiginal sin, the author is much less so when he determines the part ofGod and ofman in the act ofjustification. In the main hisideas areSemipelagian:manmerits firstgrace: a formula which endangers the absolute freedom of thegift of grace.

The book "De situ et nominibus locorum hebraicorum" is a translation of the "Onomasticon" ofEusebius, to which the translator has joined additions and corrections. The translations of the "Homilies" ofOrigen vary in character according to thetime in which they were written. Astime went on, Jerome became more expert in the art of translating, and he outgrew the tendency to palliate, as he came across them, certainerrors ofOrigen. We must make special mention of the translation of thehomilies "In Canticum Canticorum", the Greek original of which has been lost.

St. Jerome's complete works can be found in P.L., XXII-XXX.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT