Jerome on Trial, Part II

When the Interpreter Begins to Speak Louder Than the Text

This second examination of Jerome follows directly from the earlier study of Against Helvidius, in which Jerome’s defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary was tested section by section against the actual words of Scripture. That first investigation exposed a recurring tension in Jerome’s method. He could insist, quite rightly, that doctrine must not be built upon what Scripture does not say, and at times he challenged his opponent for attempting to draw conclusions beyond the written text. Yet Jerome repeatedly permitted himself precisely the liberty he denied to others. Where Scripture was silent, he frequently supplied motive, history, symbolism or theological consequence; where a word admitted more than one possibility, he often treated the interpretation most favourable to his ascetic theology as though it had been demonstrated; and where a biblical passage did not expressly teach his conclusion, allegory could be introduced until the conclusion appeared to emerge from the passage itself.

Against Jovinianus makes that problem even more visible.

The question here is not whether Jerome was learned. Nor is this an attempt to deny that he possessed extraordinary knowledge of Scripture, Greek, Hebrew, classical literature and the theological disputes of his age. The issue is far more fundamental: does immense learning give a theologian authority to place meanings into Scripture which the inspired writers themselves have not placed there?

Jerome repeatedly speaks as though the boundary must be the written Word. He objects when an opponent assumes what has not been stated. He can appeal to the precise wording of Scripture, correct translations, compare Greek and Latin readings and demand that claims be proved. Yet throughout Against Jovinianus the same Jerome repeatedly crosses that boundary himself. Circumcision becomes virginity. Slavery becomes marriage. Jordan becomes “the waters of marriage.” Moses’ shoes become marital bonds. Gold becomes virginity and silver marriage. Temporary abstinence becomes training for permanent continence. “The flesh” becomes marital intercourse. “Corruption” becomes the loss of virginity. John’s speed to the tomb becomes evidence of virgin superiority. Even a rumour which the Gospel expressly corrects is turned into a proof that “virginity does not die.”

This creates a serious question about theological authority. If one theologian may insert meanings into the biblical text because they appear spiritually fitting, another theologian may do the same in the opposite direction. Scripture then ceases to judge the interpreter; the interpreter begins to judge what Scripture must mean.

The New Testament presents a different order. Christ promised concerning the Holy Ghost:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth.”— John 16:13

Paul likewise distinguished spiritual truth from merely human wisdom:

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”— 1 Corinthians 2:13

This does not mean that study is unnecessary or that every private interpretation should simply be declared inspired. It means that the Word of God must remain the controlling authority. Language, history, grammar and textual scholarship can help uncover what Scripture says; they cannot authorise a theologian to supply what Scripture has omitted and then present the resulting construction as though it were revelation.

That distinction becomes especially important in Jerome because his arguments so often begin with a conclusion already in view. Virginity is assumed to be higher than marriage, and then biblical images are arranged accordingly. Once that hierarchy has been accepted, almost anything can be made to confirm it. If a virgin receives honour, the honour is attributed to virginity. If a married believer receives honour, the honour is said to have occurred despite marriage. If Scripture praises marriage, it is treated as a concession to weakness. If Scripture praises celibacy, it becomes proof of superior merit. If Paul permits remarriage, pagan widows who refused it are summoned to shame Christian women out of exercising apostolic liberty.

This is not allowing Scripture to establish the doctrine and then drawing its consequences. It is beginning with a theological preference and repeatedly interpreting Scripture through it.

The contradiction is particularly striking because Jerome himself often argues that what is not written should not be believed merely because someone wishes it to be true. That standard is sound. But it must bind Jerome as firmly as it binds Helvidius, Jovinian or anyone else. If Scripture does not say that John was loved because he was a virgin, the interpreter cannot supply the cause. If Scripture does not say that married bishops ceased intercourse after ordination, the interpreter cannot insert permanent continence into “the husband of one wife.” If Paul does not say that marital intercourse is sowing to the flesh, his condemnation of sowing to the flesh cannot simply be transferred to marriage. If Christ does not say that the sealed garden of the Song is Mary’s permanently sealed womb, the allegory cannot become proof of perpetual virginity merely because it is beautiful or ancient.

The purpose of this second study is therefore larger than another dispute over Jerome. It concerns the difference between the Word of God and the authority later attached to its interpreters.

A theologian may be brilliant and still reason from assumptions.

A Church Father may preserve valuable history and still overreach the text.

An ancient interpretation may be venerable and still remain an interpretation.

And a doctrine repeated for centuries does not become apostolic merely because the names attached to it are old.

The proper question is the same one that governed the earlier examination of Against Helvidius: What does the text itself actually say? What does it necessarily imply? What is merely possible? And what has the interpreter supplied?

Jerome deserves to be heard carefully because of his learning. He also deserves to be tested carefully for exactly the same reason. The greater the authority later generations attach to a theologian, the more important it becomes to distinguish his words from God’s.

The standard cannot finally be Jerome against Jovinian, Jerome against Helvidius, or one theologian against another.

The standard must remain the apostolic Word, illuminated by the Spirit who inspired it.

Against Jovinianus.pdf

Download PDF • 2.41MB