“Let Us Exercise in the Field of Scripture”

The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine for Insights into Contemporary Issues in Orthodox Biblical Scholarship

John Fotopoulos *

Jerome of Stridon (Hieronymus; Ἱερώνυμος) and Augustine of Hippo (Augustinus; Αὐγουστίνος) stand as two of the most renowned Fathers, theologians, and biblical exegetes in the history of Christianity. Both Jerome and Augustine have been officially canonized as saints within the Orthodox Church.1 Despite this, many people today do not know that these two Fathers (although never having met in person) engaged in an oftentimes contentious long-distance correspondence with one another over a period of twenty-five years during the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD. Augustine initiated the correspondence with deference and flattery toward Jerome (who was known at the time as the world’s leading biblical exegete), but then proceeded to communicate some very serious and biting criticisms of Jerome’s biblical scholarship. Jerome eventually responded to the issues that were conveyed by Augustine but also wisely cautioned him, “Let us exercise in the field of Scripture, if you please, without injuring each other” (In Scripturarum campo, si placet, sine nostro inuicem dolore ludamus).2

* Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame. 1 For a judicious and illuminating look at Augustine’s place within the Orthodox theological tradition, see Aristotle Papanikolaou, George E. Demacopoulos, eds., Orthodox Read- ings of Augustine (New York, 2008). It is interesting to note that in the Orthodox Church the feast days of both St. Augustine and St. Jerome are celebrated annually on June 15th. 2 Jerome, Epistle 81 (PL 33:275). For the sake of accessibility, English translations of the correspondence of Augustine and Jerome generally rely on ‘The confessions and letters of St. Augustin: with a sketch of his life and work’, in Philip Schaff, ed., A Select Library of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series 1 (Grand Rapids/ MI, 1983), pp. 209-593, esp. 251-361 (further quoted as NPNF series vol:pp.). The num- bering of the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome is cited in the present article 224 John Fotopoulos

The sometimes contentious correspondence between these two Fathers raise a number of important issues that are especially relevant to Orthodox Christian scholars engaged in biblical scholarship (i.e. those who “exercise in the field of Scripture”). Insights into issues related to the text of Scripture/ textual criticism, biblical translation, exegesis, and hermeneutics can all be gained by studying the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome – insights that are especially relevant since it is widely expected within Ortho- dox Christianity today that the scholarly methods and findings of contemporary Orthodox theologians and biblical scholars should have some foundation in the work of previous Church Fathers. In this way, the present article will investigate the correspondence of these two Fathers regarding issues of biblical scholarship while also drawing on other works of Jerome in order to further illuminate the issues at hand. It will be shown that many of their methods of biblical scholarship and the issues faced by them were shaped by these two Fathers’ respective cultural contexts in the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD. Consequently, their scholarly methods and many of the scholarly issues that they faced are analogous to methods and issues faced by biblical scholars today. To be sure, however, the context for biblical scholarship today is quite different from that of Augustine and Jerome. Thus, this article will address certain ways that biblical scholarship has continued to develop since the time of Augustine and Jerome, in addition to the issues that contemporary biblical scholars are oftentimes faced with in their work. These points are meant to make clear that it is not sufficient for Orthodox Christian scholars today to simply parrot the exegesis of the Fathers – whether it be Jerome, Augustine, or anyone else – but rather to consult the Fathers while using the best available scholarly methods and tools so as to interpret the Scriptures effectively within the contemporary situation.

as it appears in Augustine’s collected letters. This is the accepted practice in patristic scholarship. The Latin text of Augustine’s and Jerome’s correspondence is cited in the present article from Migne’s Patrologia Latina which is readily accessible to readers. Carole Fry, Lettres Croisées de Jérôme et Augustin: Traduites, présentées et annotées, Les Belles Lettres (Paris, 2010) has published a recent volume containing the Latin text of Jerome’s and Augustine’s correspondence, a French translation, and annotations. However, Fry’s Latin text is not a critical edition and is also not widely available. Finally, Jerome’s statement about exercising in the field of Scripture is translated slightly differently in NPNF1 1:349 from my own translation of the Latin which appears above. The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 225

Short Overview of the Correspondence

In 394/395 AD the exchange of seventeen extant letters between Augustine of Hippo in N. Africa and Jerome in Bethlehem was initiated by Augustine in Latin,3 finally ending in about 419 AD.4 Although Augustine’s first letter to Jerome begins with customary epistolary salutations and etiquette of the period, he quickly moves on to criticize Jerome regarding several biblical issues that are expanded and then debated throughout later correspondence with one another. It is important to note that Augustine’s initial letters to Jerome were not delivered to him in timely fashion due to unforeseen cir- cumstances. Rather, Jerome became agitated when he learned from his friends in Jerusalem that Augustine had composed letters to Jerome that had been published in Rome criticizing Jerome’s biblical work instead of Jerome receiving Augustine’s letters and critiques directly. Augustine’s letters to Jerome were indeed circulating widely, even being found on an island in the Adriatic Sea in a collection of Augustine’s published works five years before Jerome would ever read the letters!5 Jerome was irritated when he learned all of this and consequently almost ten years passed until Augustine would finally receive a substantial reply to the issues of biblical interpretation that Augustine had raised in his first and subsequent letters to Jerome. The correspondence between these two Fathers on heated issues of biblical interper- tation lasted until about 405 AD with their exchange of letters then ceasing for about another ten years. Then a second period of correspondence began again between the two Fathers from about 415 to 419 AD largely addressing the Pelagian controversy rather than issues of biblical interpretation.

Biblical Text and Translation

One biblical issue that is raised by Augustine several times in his letters to Jerome is that of Jerome’s Old Testament text and its subsequent translation into Latin from the Hebrew. In the 4th century AD, is it generally the case

3 Augustine, Epistle 28 (PL 33:111-114; NPNF1 1:251-253), was the first letter sent by Augustine to Jerome that attempted to engage Jerome in correspondence. 4 Fry, Lettres, p. XLIV, argues that there are two periods of letter exchange between Augustine and Jerome from 394/395-405 AD, and then from 415-419 AD. 5 Jerome, Epistle 72 (PL 33:243-244; NPNF1 1:328). 226 John Fotopoulos that the Old Testament (OT) used within the Greek-speaking Christian churches was the text commonly referred to as the Septuagint (LXX) – also referred to in biblical scholarship as the Old Greek text. Translations of the Greek LXX into Latin for Christian use – known as the Old Latin text – occurred in the second and third centuries AD. Long before Jerome’s and Augustine’s correspondence, Jerome himself had been engaged in efforts to improve the Old Latin translations of the LXX since some of those OT texts had been translated from faulty Greek manuscripts or simply contained errors in Latin translation. To be sure, it was widely believed by 4th-5th century AD Christians, including Augustine himself, that the LXX was divinely inspired – an idea supported by a popular story that conveyed that the text was the result of miracle whereby seventy/seventy-two Jewish translators independently made seventy/seventy-two identical Greek translations of the OT. Moreover, it was also believed by Christians of the time that the LXX had been used by Jesus’ apostles – a notion spread by Irenaeus6 and accepted by Augustine and many other Fathers – thus giving the LXX apostolic authority. Although Jerome had also shown fidelity to the text of the LXX in his earlier work, he later came to disregard it as the best available text of the OT to translate and interpret. Augustine, who held a very high regard for the text of the LXX, also realized that there were significant problems with the Latin translations of the LXX found in many church codices, confessing to Jerome at one point that “the variations found in the different codices of the Latin text are intol- erably numerous; and it is so justly open to suspicion as possibly different from what is to be found in the Greek, that one has no confidence in either quoting it or proving anything by its help”.7 By the late 4th century AD at least three different recensions of the LXX were in use within the Christian churches. Jerome sums up the provenance of these three recensions succinctly:

Alexandria and Egypt in their Septuagint claim Hesychius as their authority; the region from Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies of Lucian the mar- tyr; the intermediate Palestinian provinces read the manuscripts which were

6 Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 3.21.3 (PL 7a:949-950). 7 Augustine, Epistle 71 (PL 33:243; NPNF1 1:327). The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 227

promulgated by Eusebius and Pamphilus on the basis of Origen’s labors. Thus, the whole world is divided between these three varieties of text.8

Despite the almost universal Christian usage of some form of the LXX in the late 4th century AD, there was a great deal of diversity in the texts of the LXX used by the churches. Not only was Jerome aware of the textual differences in the various Christian recensions of the LXX, through his close study of the Scriptures he also recognized the textual variants appearing in the revisions of the LXX that had been done by the Jewish translators, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Jerome’s solution to these textual problems was to actively pursue the study of Hebrew from several Jewish rabbis during the course of his life9 and to translate the Hebrew text of the OT into Latin. The Hebrew text of the OT came to be an essential component of what Jerome referred to as Hebraica veritas (Hebrew truth) – “a hermeneutical methodology that privileges the Hebrew text as the holder of ‘truth’ in all matters of Old Testament exegesis”.10 Jerome’s reliance on the Hebrew text of the OT was a revolutionary act, especially because his new Latin translations oftentimes differed significantly from the text of the LXX. Because of these differences from the LXX, Augustine felt compelled to urge Jerome by letter to cease his use of the Hebrew text of the OT in scholarly work. Augustine writes:

For my own part, I cannot sufficiently express my wonder that anything should at this date be found in the Hebrew manuscripts which escaped so many translators perfectly acquainted with the language. I say nothing of the LXX, regarding whose harmony in mind and spirit, surpassing that which is found in even

8 See Jerome’s ‘Preface to Paralipomena’ in Roger Gryson, Bonifatius Fischer, Robert Weber, eds., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart, 1994), pp. 546. The important fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla contained the Septuagint with Origen’s addition of text critical signs to indicate conformity or divergence with the Hebrew text. 9 Among the several Jewish rabbis who taught Jerome Hebrew and even allowed him to use Hebrew texts from the synagogue, only three such teachers are named by Jerome: Lyddaeus, Baranina (i.e. Bar Ḥanina) of Tiberias, and a third rabbi who was possibly referred to as Chaldaeus. Jerome also seems to have first learned some Hebrew from a monk who was Jewish and had converted to Christianity. 10 Andrew Cain, Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity (New York, 2009), p. 54. 228 John Fotopoulos

one man… therefore very high authority must be conceded to them in this work of translation.11

In this letter Augustine had expressed his strong reservations to Jerome that a new Hebrew translation of the OT done by one man (i.e. Jerome) could contribute anything worthwhile to the understanding of the Scriptures since so many others had already translated the OT into Greek from Hebrew, namely Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Augustine then expands his thoughts on the value of the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodo- tion, and Jerome from Hebrew over/against the translation of the LXX:

I am more perplexed by those translators who, though enjoying the advantage of laboring after the LXX had completed their work, and although well acquainted, as it is reported, with the force of Hebrew words and phrases, and with Hebrew syntax, have not only failed to agree among themselves, but have left many things which, even after so long a time, still remain to be discovered and brought to light. Now these things were either obscure or plain: if they were obscure, it is believed that you are as likely to have been mistaken as the others; if they were plain, it is not believed that the LXX could possibly have been mistaken.12

Since Augustine feels that additional translations from the Hebrew text of the OT are unnecessary, he requests that Jerome only translate the LXX into Latin as Jerome had done in previous years by using diacritical marks and to desist from using his Hebrew vorlage (source text). In Jerome’s previous translation of the Greek LXX into Latin, words that were found in the Greek text but not in the Hebrew text he had placed between an obelus (÷) [a.k.a. obelisk] and a metobelus ( : ), whereas words added by Origen from the version of Theodotion were placed by Jerome between an asterisk (*) and a metobelus ( : ). These sigla were the diacritical marks used by the ancient pagan grammarian from Alexandria, Aristarchus, in his work on Homer’s writings to indicate textual corruptions. Ironically, Jerome’s earlier Latin translation of the LXX which used such diacritical marks clearly indicated Jerome’s preference for the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and were

11 Augustine, Epistle 28 (PL 33:112; NPNF1 1:251). 12 Augustine, Epistle 28 (PL 33:112; NPNF1 1:251). The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 229 meant to show how the LXX had been corrupted. Clearly Augustine did not understand the purpose of Jerome’s diacritical marks when Augustine made his request by letter. Finally for Augustine, the unity of the Church was at stake if different churches used different texts of the Scripture. In this regard, Augustine offers an interesting anecdote to Jerome. He writes:

A certain bishop, one of our brothers, having introduced the reading of your version in the church over which he presides, came upon a word in the book of the prophet Jonah of which you have given a very different translation from that which had been of old familiar to the senses and memory of all the worshippers, and which had been chanted for so many generations in the church. Thereupon arose such an uproar in the congregation, especially among the Greeks, correct- ing what had been read and denouncing the translation as false, that the bishop was compelled to ask for the testimony of the Jewish residents. This was in the town of Oea. These residents, whether from ignorance or from spite, answered that the words in the Hebrew manuscripts were correctly rendered in the Greek version and in the Latin one taken from it. What further need I say? The bishop was compelled to correct your version in that passage as if it had been falsely translated, since he desired not to be left without a congregation – a calamity which he narrowly escaped. From this case we also are led to think that you may be occasionally mistaken.13

In this anecdote Augustine reports that in Oea (which together with Lepcis Magna and Sabratha formed ancient Tripoli in Libya), members of the local church, especially Greek Christians there, noticed a difference in Jerome’s new Hebrew to Latin translation of the Prophecy of Jonah over/against the same verse as it is occurred in their Latin translation of the LXX. So significant a controversy arose that Augustine says that the local bishop was forced to seek out Jewish residents of the city in order to ascertain what the proper Hebrew to Latin translation should be. Augustine notes that the Jewish residents they consulted said that the correct translation of the Hebrew was what could already be found in that church’s Latin translation of the LXX, thus declaring that Jerome’s Latin translation of the Hebrew was wrong.

13 Augustine, Epistle 71 (PL 33:242-243; NPNF1 1:327). 230 John Fotopoulos

The verse of the LXX that was behind this episode is Jonah 4:6: καὶ προσέταξεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς κολοκύνθῃ καὶ ἀνέβη ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς τοῦ Iωνα τοῦ εἶναι σκιὰν ὑπεράνω τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ τοῦ σκιάζειν αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐχάρη Iωνας ἐπὶ τῇ κολοκύνθῃ χαρὰν μεγάλην. In this text God gave Jonah a type of plant to shade him from the sun. The LXX understands that plant to have been a gourd (κολοκύνθῃ). The term κολοκύνθῃ in the LXX was translated in the Old Latin version of the OT as cucurbita. How- ever, the word for the plant of Jonah 4:6 in the Hebrew text of the OT is qyqywn, a term which Aquila and Theodotion simply transliterate as κικεῶνα, while Symmachus translates the Hebrew word qyqywn as κισσός (ivy). In this regard, Jerome followed Symmachus and translated qyqywn into Latin as hedera (ivy). Apparently the difference between the Old Latin’s translation

Jonah Under the Gourd Vine (280-290 AD) Courtesy of: Art in the Christian Tradition, a Project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, Tennessee http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=55974 The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 231 as cucurbita (gourd) and Jerome’s translation as hedera (ivy) was obvious enough to the Christians of Oea when they heard Jerome’s translation used liturgically, but also because they were probably familiar with the artistic depiction of Jonah under the gourd – a common theme used in the iconog- raphy of ancient Christian burial symbolizing the resurrection. The sharp exchange between Augustine and Jerome regarding the LXX and the Hebrew text of the OT raise several interesting points related to contemporary biblical scholarship for Orthodox Christians to consider. The first and most obvious is the place of the LXX in Orthodox tradition. Augus- tine had the highest regard for the LXX and was quite concerned about Jerome’s Latin translation from the Hebrew (generally known today as the Vulgate). This reverence for the LXX stemmed from Augustine’s and others’

Jonah as Endymion (3rd-4th century AD) Courtesy of: Art in the Christian Tradition, a Project of the Vanderbilt Divinity Library, Nashville, Tennessee http://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=46400 232 John Fotopoulos widely held belief that the LXX was the result of a miraculous translation of seventy-two Jewish scholars, and because the LXX was the OT text believed to have been used by the apostles. Despite the gains of modern biblical scholarship regarding our knowledge about the LXX, Orthodox Christians generally hold this same belief today. For example, in an essay on reading the Bible, Metropolitan Isaiah (Chronopoulos) of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Denver (Colorado, USA) writes:

The human element cannot be ignored or denied, but neither can the divine. Yet most biblical scholars and textual critics wish to disregard any form of divine intervention or revelation in order to make their study ‘scientific.’ In fact, present-day biblical scholarship hides its fundamental unbelief from believers and even from itself…. Why haven’t serious modern scholars considered the incredible coincidence that 72 Hebrew scholars could all translate the Old Testament in exactly the same manner into the Septuagint Greek?14

The process of the LXX’s creation is certainly more complex than Metro- politan Isaiah has asserted and is not simply a matter of biblical scholars choosing to ignore the possibility of the miraculous. In the Letter to Aristeas, the first recorded account of the LXX’s creation, only the Pentateuch (the first five books of the OT) was translated into Greek by the seventy-two Jewish scholars for inclusion in Ptolemy’s great library of Alexandria, rather than the entire body of Hebrew Scriptures. This is an important detail because Metropolitan Isaiah and many Orthodox Christians believe that the traditional story of the LXX conveys that the entire corpus of Hebrew Scrip- tures was translated into Greek by the seventy-two Jewish scholars – a belief not supported by the Letter to Aristeas (or by biblical scholars). Moreover, the Letter to Aristeas explains the Jewish translators’ manner of translation, stating, “They proceeded to carry it out, making all details harmonize by mutual comparisons. The result of the harmonization was appropriately put in writing under the direction of Demetrios” (of Phalerum, the president of

14 Metropolitan Isaiah Chronopoulos, ‘Can You Tell Me Which Translation the Eastern Orthodox Church Uses and Why?’, Greek Orthodox Diocese of Denver Bulletin, 3/3 (March 1995), pp. 14-17. The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 233

King Ptolemy’s library).15 The Jewish scholars’ method of translating the Pentateuch and their final text were not the result of miraculous intervention by God, but were the result of careful, scholarly work. Jerome himself recognized that mutual comparison and harmonization were the method of the Jewish translators’ work in the LXX’s creation as reported by the Letter to Aristeas and by Josephus. Jerome even expressed incredulity at the pious myth that was popular in Jerome’s time and that is still held by many Ortho- dox Christians today which claims that the Septuagint’s creation was the result of a miraculous translation. Jerome states firmly:

I do not know whose false imagination led him to invent the story of the seventy cells at Alexandria, in which, though separated from each other, the translators were said to have written the same words. Aristeas… and Josephus… relate nothing of the kind; their account is that the Seventy assembled in one basilica consulted together, and did not prophecy. For it is one thing to be a prophet, another to be a translator.16

To be sure, the most widely accepted historical-critical theory of the LXX’s origins argues that the LXX it is the result of a complex process beginning in the 3rd century BC with prototype Greek translations of various Hebrew scriptural books starting with the Pentateuch (these prototype Greek OT writings are commonly referred to by scholars as the Septuagint Urtext).17 Later, Jewish revisions of the LXX were created in the 2nd century AD by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in reaction to Christian apologetic and polemical uses of the LXX, and then at least three Christian recensions of

15 Letter of Aristeas 302. This translation is a slightly edited version of Moses Hadas, Aristeas to Philocrates: Letter of Aristeas (Eugene/OR, 2007), p. 219 [Orig. 1951]. 16 Jerome, Adversus Rufinum II.25 (PL 23:470; NPNF2 3:516). 17 This is the most widely held theory in Septuagintal studies and was advocated by Paul de Lagarde and the Göttingen school. On the matter of a LXX Urtext, Albert Pietersma, ‘Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues’, Vetus Testamentum, 35 (1985), pp. 296-311, here p. 298, writes: “Why… belabour the obvious, particularly since the Lagarde-Kahle controversy of so-called Ur-Septuaginta versus Targum hypothesis has been decided in favour of Lagarde, and, to the best of my knowledge, no current LXX scholar seriously doubts that an Ur-Septuaginta did exist.” The Göttingen Septuaginta- Unternehmen is today a leading scholarly institute that is diligently working toward a critical Septuagint Urtext. 234 John Fotopoulos the LXX were produced (noted earlier in this paper by Jerome) – the recensions of Origen (Hexaplaric), Hesychius, and Lucian. Although Orthodox Christians widely claim that the LXX is the inspired OT of the Orthodox Church, the reality is much more complex. Augustine’s high regard for the LXX caused him to ask that Jerome stop translating from the Hebrew text and to translate into Latin from only the LXX, and to do so in the manner that Jerome had done previously by using diacritical marks. As noted earlier in this article, even Augustine had realized that there were significant problems with the Greek text of the LXX despite his high regard for it, Augustine himself confessing to Jerome that “the Greek text contains so many divergent readings in different manuscripts that it is almost intolerable”.18 Jerome’s previous solution to the textual problems of the LXX was to use diacritical signs as he revised the Old Latin OT translation in conjunction with Origen’s Hexaplaric LXX. Although Augustine praised and used this earlier revision of Jerome based on the LXX, Augustine did not truly understand what Jerome was doing with that textual work. Jerome responded to Augustine and explained his earlier work of translation from the LXX with his use of diacritical signs, stating flatly to Augustine:

You must pardon my saying that you seem to me not to understand the matter: for my former translation is from the Septuagint; and wherever obelisks are placed, they are designed to indicate that the Seventy have said more than is found in the Hebrew. But the asterisks indicate what has been added by Origen from the version of Theodotion. In that version I was translating from the Greek: but in the later version, translating from the Hebrew itself, I have expressed what I understood it to mean, being careful to preserve the exact sense rather than the order of the words. I am surprised that you do not read the books of the Seventy translators in the genuine form in which they were originally given to the world, but as they have been corrected, or rather corrupted, by Origen with his obelisks and asterisks; and that you refuse to follow the translation, however feeble, which has been given by a Christian man (i.e. Jerome himself), especially seeing that Origen borrowed the things which he has added from the edition of a man who, after the passion of Christ, was a Jew and a blasphemer (i.e. Theodotion). Do you wish to be a true admirer and supporter of the Seventy translators? Then do not read what you find under the asterisks; rather erase

18 Augustine, Epistle 71 (PL 33:243; NPNF1 1:327). The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 235

them from the volumes, that you may approve yourself indeed a follower of the ancients. However, if you do this you will be compelled to find fault with all the libraries of the Churches; for you will scarcely find more than one manuscript here and there which does not have these interpolations.19

What Augustine had not realized was that Origen had earlier attempted to correct the LXX by bringing it into conformity with the Hebrew text of his day and with the text of Theodotion. The effect of this work was the creation of a hybrid text of the LXX as corrected (or corrupted!) by Origen that was in widespread use in 4th century churches. Indeed, removing Hexaplaric (i.e. Origen’s) additions to the LXX remains as one of the biggest challenges facing LXX studies today. Not only did Jerome know that the LXX had been corrupted by the Hexaplaric additions of Origen, but also by the Jewish revisions of the LXX, and by the other two Christian recensions of the LXX (i.e. Hesychius’ and Lucian’s), thus giving Jerome insight and sensitivity into the wide textual differences between the various versions of the LXX. Jerome also understood that the Old Latin OT was in even worse condition, having worked on a revision of Job from the Hexplaric LXX and noting that 700-800 lines were missing in the Old Latin edition of that work!20 Although originally holding the text of the LXX in high regard just as did Augustine, Jerome quite simply developed as a scholar and attempted to solve the textual problems of the LXX by translating from a Hebrew OT source text. Jerome supported his novel attempt to translate the OT from the Hebrew by stating that he was not trying “to supersede what has been long esteemed, but only to bring prominently forward those things which have been either omitted or tam- pered with by the Jews, in order that Latin readers might know what is found in the original Hebrew”.21 Although Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew was not officially encouraged by the Church (only a limited revision

19 Jerome, Epistle 75 (PL 33:261; NPNF1 1:341). 20 See Jerome’s ‘Preface to Job’, in Weber/Gryson/Fischer, eds., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulga- tam Versionem, p. 731. The English translations of the Jerome’s works (with the exception of his letters to Augustine) generally rely on Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids/MI, 1983), and Series 2, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids/MI, 1989). 21 Jerome, Epistle 75 (PL 33:262; NPNF1 1:342). 236 John Fotopoulos of the Old Latin NT from Greek manuscripts and a revision of a few books of the OT from the LXX was sanctioned by his friend and patron, Pope Damasus I), Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew eventually displaced the LXX in the Western Church. For Jerome, using a Hebrew text was the best solution to the textual dilemmas that he encountered in his OT scholarship, even recognizing – unlike many Orthodox Christians today – that the Greek text of Daniel in use within Greek-speaking churches was not the text of the LXX, but rather the text of Theodotion.22 The text of Theodotion is still the Greek text for Daniel used by Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches today. There is no doubt that today Orthodox OT scholars need to use Hebrew, and to use it in conjunction with critical study of the LXX in order to improve our OT text and our understanding of it. Moreover, the great archaeological discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries themselves have also provided tools for the study of the Hebrew Bible/OT and its text that were simply not available to the Fathers. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (our oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible), the Rosetta Stone (opening Egyptian literature), the Bisitun Stone (opening Assyrian and Babylonian literature), the Ugaritic cuneiform tablets (opening the literature of the Canaanites) – have all changed the way that biblical scholars study the Scriptures, forcing us to consider cultural influences, the importance of literary forms and gen- res, and to move beyond simplistic, pre-critical assumptions about the provenance and meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures/OT and its text. We could also cite numerous examples of archaeological finds and our knowledge of the Greco-Roman world to make similar points about the Greek New Testa- ment text. Despite all of these finds and developments in biblical studies, many traditionalist Orthodox Christians as well as former evangelical Prot- estant converts to Orthodoxy completely reject the use of the Hebrew OT, being staunch advocates of the LXX which they seem not to understand has gone through numerous revisions and recensions over the years. An example of a naïve understanding of the LXX and it’s place in Orthodox tradition is expressed by the editors of the Orthodox Study Bible OT project who have written the following about the LXX and their English translation of it on their official website:

22 Jerome, Adversus Rufinum II.33 (PL 23:476; NPNF2 3:517), writes, “The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion”. The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 237

The Septuagint – that Greek version of scriptures in use at the time of Christ and used by him and the Apostles – has always been the Old Testament of the Orthodox Church. A new translation would be essential in order to finally bring the Septuagint to Orthodox Christians in America.23

This is a most interesting set of assertions. First, to claim that Jesus himself used the Greek LXX is rather odd (to say the least) in that Jesus was a Pal- estinian Jew who spoke Aramaic and knew a Hebrew text of the OT. When Jesus is depicted in the canonical gospels as citing the Scriptures in the LXX, this is because the evangelists frequently used LXX text-type citations, not because Jesus himself did.24 Moreover, it is demonstrably false that the apostles used only the Greek LXX in the NT. Apart from the Orthodox Study Bible project completely ignoring the issue of pseudonymity and the author- ship of many NT writings in the above quotation, it is true that 80% of the time NT authors do use the LXX for OT citations. However, 20% of the time non-LXX OT citations are used.25 Indeed, that Jesus and the NT authors did not exclusively cite from the LXX in the NT is something that Jerome himself knew all too well, giving copious examples of this in his writings.26 Moreover, Jerome’s use of Hebrew for his Latin translation and its acceptance by the Western Orthodox Church (pre-schism) further dem- onstrates that the LXX has not “always been the Old Testament of the Orthodox Church” (further demonstrated today by the use of Theodotion

23 http://orthodoxstudybible.com/articles/the_history_of_the_lxx_project/ (Site accessed on May 9, 2013). 24 Although some early Hebrew texts of the OT seem to have been closer to the text of the LXX (as evidenced by some Dead Sea Scrolls), this is a complicated matter and it should certainly not be asserted that Jesus’ Hebrew text was generally closer to the LXX. 25 Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody/MA, 1995), p. 89. 26 There are many examples of the NT citing the OT in non-LXX texts. One example of this is the quotation of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15 which does not agree with the LXX, but rather with the Hebrew text. Matthew writes, ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου (Out of Egypt I called my son), a literal translation of the Hebrew text of Hos 11:1 (l·bn·i qrathi u·m·mtzrim). However, the LXX of Hos 11:1 reads ἐξ αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ (Out of Egypt I recalled his children). For numerous examples in Jerome’s works where he recognized the NT citing OT texts agreeing more closely with the Hebrew OT than with the LXX, see his Epistle 57 (PL 22:568-579; NPNF2 6:112-119). Jerome’s Epistle 57 was written to Pammachius and thus appears in Jerome’s collected letters. 238 John Fotopoulos for the Prophecy of Daniel in the Orthodox Church, as was mentioned previously). To be sure, a new English LXX translation for Orthodox Christian liturgical use is a good idea, and I am not advocating a rejection of the LXX in favor of the Hebrew OT. However, consideration of the Hebrew text of the OT does need to be taken seriously by Orthodox scholars, theologians, and clergy at a minimum. Moreover, a quality English translation of the LXX for Orthodox use in North America should be done by qualified biblical scholars and experts in the LXX, as well as being done with a true critical edition of the LXX,27 unlike what has been done with the Orthodox Study Bible. Ironi- cally, the editors of the Orthodox Study Bible OT did not use an Orthodox text or manuscripts of the LXX for their translation, but rather decided to use the edition of Alfred Rahlfs28 which was originally published in 1935. Rahlfs LXX is an eclectic edition that used primarily three manuscripts for -and A). However, the work of the Göttingen Septuaginta ,א ,its text (B Unternehmen has made clear that there are some significant textual problems with Rahlf’s edition. Although Jerome and many other Fathers were textually and philologically sensitive as they attempted to establish the best text of Scripture for their exegesis, Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Christian leaders seem to be much less interested in the text of Scripture today.

Exegesis and Hermeneutics

Possibly one of the most pressing biblical issues that Augustine wrote to Jerome about was that of Jerome’s interpretation of Gal 2:11-14. The context of that text is the so-called Antioch Incident that occurred in about 49 AD. At Antioch, Peter had been eating meals with Gentile Christians until representatives of James the Brother of the Lord arrived from Jerusalem.

27 Another vital project is a needed revision of the Antoniades Patriarchal edition of the NT published in 1904 (revised 1912) and currently in popular use among Greek Ortho- dox today. However, the Greek liturgical readings of the NT for some special services within Greek-speaking Orthodox Churches are not taken from the Antoniades Patriarchal edition, but are a different text based on Greek NT readings used by publishers of liturgical books in Venice. 28 St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy, ed., Orthodox Study Bible (Nashville/TN, 2008), p. xi. The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 239

Once they arrived Peter withdrew from table fellowship with them because of “fear of the circumcision faction” (φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς, Gal 2:12). Paul notes his reaction to that occurrence in Gal 2:14. He writes: “But when I saw that they were not acting consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’” (ἀλλ’ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων· εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν). Jerome in his Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Galatas had written that Peter only pretended to withdraw from table fellowship with Gentile Christians in order to appease the Jewish Christians assigned to his care, whereas Paul only pretended to rebuke Peter in order to appease the Gentile Christians who adhered to his gospel. Jerome surmised that Peter and Paul must have dis- cussed this behavior beforehand and had agreed to stage the whole encounter. Jerome’s interpretation was consistent with that of a large number of the Fathers and was meant to defend against the attacks of Porphyry who had charged that Peter was blemished by dishonorable error and Paul by effron- tery, the Christians as a body being guilty of false doctrine and deception since the leaders of the Church were in disagreement with one another.29 Although Jerome’s intentions may have been noble in his defense against Porphyry, Augustine was quite disturbed when he read Jerome’s interpretation of Gal 2:11-14 and proceeded to chide Jerome for it. For Augustine the matter was quite simple: if Jerome’s interpretation was correct, then Peter and Paul were guilty of deception for staging the encounter and only pre- tending to take their respective positions, while Paul was also guilty of lying. Augustine writes to Jerome on the matter:

For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false. It is one question whether it may be at

29 Jerome, Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Galatas 334-335, writing, “Volens et illi maculam erroris inurere, et huic procacitatis, et in commune ficti dogmatis accursare mandacium, dum inter se Ecclesiarum principes discrepent”. See also Jerome’s mention of Porphyry’s attacks in Jerome, Epistle 75 (PL 33:253; NPNF1 1:335). 240 John Fotopoulos

any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question – it is no question at all. For if you once admit to such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to anyone diffi- cult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement in which intentionally and under a sense of duty the author declared what was not true.30

Augustine goes on to assert that in Gal 1:20 Paul had testified to the truth of what he wrote in the Scriptures when the apostle stated, “In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!” (ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι). Augustine’s interpretation was that Peter really had withdrawn from table fellowship with Gentile Christians and that Paul really had rebuked Peter for doing so. Augustine preferred to see Peter and Paul as imperfect human beings, even if apostles and leaders of the Church, rather than accept that they and the Scriptures promoted deception. Augus- tine’s interpretation also was meant to combat the Manichaeans who ques- tioned the truthfulness of Scripture as well as combatting the Donatists who did not accept the validity of sacraments practiced by sinful clergy. However, Jerome’s response by letter to Augustine was sharp and to the point: Jerome asserts that his interpretation is the same as that of seven other Greek exegetes – Origen, Didymus the Blind, Apollinarius of Laodicea, the early heretic Alexander, Eusebius of Emesa, Theodore of Heraclea, and John Chrysostom. Augustine would later reply that his own respective interpretation has two Latin exegetes in its favor: Ambrose of Milan and Cyprian. Even so, Jerome went on to explain his hermeneutical method to Augustine:

I do not presume to dogmatize in regard to things of great significance; I only confess frankly that I read the writings of the fathers, and, complying with universal usage, put down in my commentaries a variety of explanations, that each may adopt from the number given the one which pleases him. This method, I think, you have found in your reading, and have approved in connection with both secular literature and the divine Scriptures.31

30 Augustine, Epistle 28 (PL 33:112; NPNF1 1:251-252). 31 Jerome, Epistle 75 (PL 33:253; NPNF1 1:335). By Jerome stating here that “I do not presume to dogmatize in regard to things of great significance” (de magnis statuere non The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 241

Finally, Jerome argued that Paul could not have genuinely rebuked Peter over actual participation in Jewish rituals, because both Peter and Paul ceased engaging in Jewish observances after becoming Christians. In support of his position, Jerome provides numerous texts from the Acts of the Apostles showing that Peter and Paul had left Jewish observances behind as Chris- tians, while on the other hand presenting a selection of texts from Acts that would seem to indicate that Paul had engaged in Jewish observances as a Christian, thus Paul having engaged in contradictory behavior. The only logical conclusion that Jerome comes to is that Paul only pretended to engage in Jewish observances to gain the Jews to the gospel, and therefore Peter did likewise during the Antioch Incident of Gal 2:11-14. Otherwise, Jerome argues, the Law of Moses was not truly abolished by the Christian faith. Finally, Jerome asserts that if engaging in Jewish observances was truly acceptable for Peter and Paul as Augustine had argued, then by virtue of his interpretation Augustine is endorsing the practices of the Ebionites and the sect of the Minei (or the so-called ‘Nazarenes’), both groups being types of Judaizing Christians that Jerome was concerned about while living in Bethlehem. There are several points of interest for Orthodox biblical interpretation that can gleaned from Augustine and Jerome’s debate over Gal 2:11-14. In their interpretation of that text (and with many other texts), Jerome and Augustine both engaged the biblical interpretation of other exegetes and sometimes gave more than one interpretation of a text for readers to select. This procedure is very similar to that of modern exegetes who do much the same thing when writing biblical commentaries. Jerome and Augustine’s procedure of engaging the work of other biblical exegetes, however, should not be thought of as simply parroting or repeating patristic biblical exegesis as is done today by many Orthodox Christians in their biblical interpretation. The exegetes that Jerome and Augustine read and grappled with were roughly contemporaries with them, rather than living in a time, place, and culture far removed from their contemporary situation. Moreover, it should

audeo), he seems to mean that he is not a bishop as is Augustine and therefore Jerome is not expounding Church dogma in his exegetical work. In this way, Jerome seems to be making a distinction between the work of biblical interpretation which attempts to understand the meaning of a given scriptural text (such as a text’s literal sense) over/against the articulation of theological doctrine that might be done by the episcopacy. 242 John Fotopoulos be noted that Jerome was willing to use the exegesis of heretics, taking what was profitable from their work and discarding what was problematic.32 This should give all Orthodox Christians pause before castigating those Orthodox biblical scholars who read, use, and profit from the biblical studies of non- Orthodox scholars. Orthodox Christians have much to learn in the area of biblical studies from our Western Christian and our Jewish brothers and sisters. Orthodox Christians who are serious about studying the Scriptures should not allow doctrinal or religious differences to keep us from profiting from the gains of serious biblical scholarship. Moreover, in Jerome’s and Augustine’s arguments over the meaning of Gal 2:11-14, we witness these two skilled Fathers vying for their own particular interpretation of a biblical text. This is significant in that – despite what many Orthodox Christians believe today – there is no singular, official Orthodox Christian interpretation of Gal 2:11-14 to which either exegete could refer to for the ‘correct’ interpretation. Rather, Augustine and Jerome show us that there is frequently a variety of patristic interpretations on a given biblical text. Simply stated, in general the Fathers frequently disagree in their biblical exegesis. Although it may be argued that there are some generally accepted “Orthodox” interpretations of certain Scriptural texts as concerns matters of doctrine (e.g. John 14:28, ὁ πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν [The Father is greater than I]),33 the literal sense of Scripture is an entirely different matter. Regarding the propriety of various interpretations of Scrip- ture, Augustine writes to Jerome:

32 Jerome’s willingness to use and benefit from that which is positive in the exegesis of heretics is not unlike Basil the Great’s advice to young Christians on how they might benefit from reading pagan literature in Basil’s Πρὸς τοὺς νέους, ὅπως ἂν ἐξ Ἑλληνικῶν ὠφελοῖντο λόγων (PG 31:563-590). One of the many vivid illustrations that Basil uses to make this point (PG 31:569) is the hard-working bee that benefits by only visiting and drawing from flowers that are useful. 33 An accepted Orthodox doctrinal interpretation of John 14:28 is that this text conveys the personal attribute of the Father as the source (ἀρχή) of the Son and the Holy Spirit, while rejecting any Arian interpretation of this text regarding the Son – even rejecting the ontological subordination of the Son to the Father. However, the literal sense of John 14:28 as it was conveyed by the evangelist of the Gospel according to John in the 1st century AD within the social-historical context of the Johannine Community may be different from the accepted Orthodox doctrinal interpretation. The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 243

I am also longing to know… how to adjust the balance between the product of the translator’s acquaintance with the original language, and the conjectures of those who are able commentators on the Scripture, who, notwithstanding their common loyalty to the one true faith, must often bring forward various opinions on account of the obscurity of many passages; although this difference of interpretation by no means involves departure from the unity of the faith; just as one commentator may himself give, in harmony with the faith which he holds, two different interpretations of the same passage, because the obscurity of the passage makes both equally admissible.34

Augustine here affirms that there are certain standards of faith to which biblical exegetes working within the body of the Church must adhere, but that there may well also be differences in understandings of a biblical text’s literal sense. The literal sense is commonly understood as the search for what biblical texts meant when they were first written and read. A search for the literal sense of Scripture is opposed to the literalist interpretation of Scrip- ture. The literalist approach assumes that God has dictated every word of the Bible and that every statement in it is literally factual, complete, and inerrant, while generally ignoring the literary genre and historical context of the biblical writings. Literalist interpretation of the Bible is popular today among fundamentalist evangelical Christians and, unfortunately, among many traditionalist Orthodox Christians as well as certain former evangelical Protestant converts to Orthodoxy. The literalist approach views the human authors of Scripture as mere writing instruments that composed only that which God moved their hands to write, while also regarding God as having removed any limitations that these authors’ had as finite, human beings. However, it is clear that Jerome and Augustine had a much more sophisticated understanding of Scripture than do many traditionalist/fundamentalist Orthodox Christians. Jerome’s and Augustine’s sophisticated understanding of Scripture is directly related to their willingness to refer to the biblical exegesis of other Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, and even heretics so as to arrive at the literal sense of Scripture, only then later moving on to spiritual or allegorical exegesis. Although Jerome had a penchant for allegorical interpretation of the OT in his earlier writings because of the great influence

34 Augustine, Epistle 82 (PL 33:290-291; NPNF1 1:361). 244 John Fotopoulos that Origen had on him, as he developed as a scholar Jerome largely left allegory behind as a method of biblical interpretation. Indeed, Jerome even went on to consult various rabbinic writings in his interpretation of Scrip- ture, showing Orthodox Christians today how progressive and open-minded he was during a time that Jewish-Christian relations in general were quite poor. Jerome’s and Augustine’s methods of interpretation show us that there is generally not one, singular, Orthodox interpretation of a given scriptural text, despite what many traditionalist/fundamentalist Orthodox assert today. Augustine even affirms in the above quotation that sometimes a Church Father gives more than one interpretation to a particular text of Scripture, something recognized by scholars today but not by those Orthodox Chris- tians who assert that there is only one, singular, Orthodox interpretation. Jerome and Augustine both recognized in their own ways that the interpretation of Scripture is not always straightforward. Indeed, in one significant part of their correspondence, Jerome quotes from Augustine’s letter and then dissects it, reminding Augustine that Augustine’s own published exposition on the Psalms would be unnecessary if the interpretation of Scripture was so simple and its meaning so clear and unequivocal. Jerome writes:

A few words now as to your remark that I ought not to have given a translation after this had already been done by the ancients; and regarding the novel syllogism which you use: “The passages of which the Seventy have given an interpretation were either obscure or plain. If they were obscure, it is believed that you are as likely to have been mistaken as the others; if the passages were plain, it is not believed that the Seventy could have been mistaken”. All the commentators who have been our predecessors in the Lord in the work of expounding the Scriptures have expounded either what was obscure or what was plain. If some passages were obscure, how could you, after them, presume to discuss that which they were not able to explain? If the passages were plain, it was a waste of time for you to have undertaken a treatment of those things that could not possibly have escaped them. This syllogism applies with particular force to the book of Psalms, in the interpretation of which Greek commentators have written many volumes: 1st) Origen; 2nd) Eusebius of Caesarea; 3rd) Theo- dorus of Heraclea; 4th) Asterius of Scythopolis; 5th) Apollinaris of Laodicea; and, 6th) Didymus of Alexandria. There are also said to be minor works on selections from the Psalms, but I speak at present of the whole book. Moreover, among Latin writers the bishops Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli have The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 245

translated Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, the former of whom has in some things been followed by our own Ambrose. Now, I put it to your wisdom to answer why you – after all the labors of so many and so competent interpreters – differ from them in your exposition of some passages? If the Psalms are obscure, it must be believed that you are as likely to be mistaken as others; if the Psalms are plain, it is incredible that these others could have fallen into error. In either case, your exposition has been, by your own showing, an unnecessary labor. And on the same principle, no one would ever venture to speak on any subject after others have pronounced their opinion, and no one would be at liberty to write anything regarding those things that another person once treated, however important the matter might be.35

In this passage Jerome goes straight to the heart of the issue in biblical interpretation that is especially relevant to Orthodox Christianity: many scriptural passages are hard to understand (“obscure”) and require competent interpretation. Thus, many interpreters have struggled to explain the meaning of the Scriptures, such as in the case of the book of Psalms. Indeed, Jerome clearly lets it be known that if there were one, unequivocal, meaning of the Psalms, the interpretation of so many Fathers would be unnecessary, as would be the new commentary that had been done by Augustine himself! Jerome conveys that there is frequently not one, singular, Orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures and that is why so many Fathers have struggled to interpret the Scriptures – and this is one reason why efforts at biblical interpretation must continue by those engaged in biblical scholarship today. Moreover, both Augustine’s and Jerome’s interpretations of Gal 2:11-14 should remind us that their respective theological concerns and contexts significantly shaped their respective interpretations of that text. Jerome was concerned with the positions of Porphyry, the Ebionites, and the so-called ‘Nazarenes’, whereas Augustine was concerned with the positions of the Manichaeans and the Donatists. The theological concerns of both Fathers significantly impacted their exegesis. Such theological and pastoral concerns gave the Fathers a certain degree of creativity in their exegesis toward those ends, but this should also serve as a caution for Orthodox Christians today against the perils of simply repeating the biblical exegesis of the Fathers and

35 Jerome, Epistle 75 (PL 33:262; NPNF1 1:341). 246 John Fotopoulos then attempting to pass their exegesis off as sufficient contemporary interpretation of Scripture. Simply stated, the Fathers frequently shaped their interpretations of Scripture to meet external threats to the Church, and thus their interpretations are oftentimes not adequate or appropriate for today.

Conclusion

Contemporary Orthodox Christians would do well to follow the examples of Jerome and Augustine while also using contemporary biblical methods and responding to the contemporary situation. Orthodox can no longer read the Scriptures with a blind eye, ignoring its challenges, rejecting serious historical questions and scholarly findings, and simply taking refuge in clever harmonizations or fantastic allegorical flights of fancy. Such approaches to the Bible and history are completely unacceptable and unrealistic. Although Jerome and Augustine both used allegory, they did not engage in allegorical flights of fancy, and they generally first sought the literal sense of Scripture. Moreover, both Fathers were concerned with the text of Scripture for the Old Testament and the New Testament, so as to use the best available text in their philological and exegetical work. Neither was afraid of using textual criticism to revise the text of Scripture or to engage in bold exegetical interpretations.36 In Jerome’s case, his study of Hebrew gave him textual and philological insights that he used for his OT translations and for his exegesis, something that no Father had done in that way before. Moreover, Jerome’s efforts to translate the Hebrew OT into Latin were not officially endorsed

36 Although Augustine did not employ textual criticism in the way that Jerome did, Augustine did scrutinize scriptural texts noticing textual variants in manuscripts of the Old Latin OT and NT. Augustine writes in Epistle 82 (PL 33:277; NPNF1 1:350) regarding the truth of the Scriptures: “And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faculty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it”. Regarding the assertions of the Manichaeans that their particular beliefs would be supported by the Scriptures if biblical manuscripts in general had not been corrupted, Augustine, Epistle 82 (PL 33:278; NPNF1 1:351) writes: “Forasmuch, however, as they have never succeeded in proving this by more numerous and by earlier manuscripts, or by appealing to the original language from which the Latin translations have been drawn, they retire from the arena of debate, vanquished and confounded by truth which is well known to all”. The Correspondence Between Jerome and Augustine 247 by the Church at the time he was engaged in them, and he faced an onslaught of criticism for his work.37 However, his boldness, scholarly abilities, critical acumen, and his willingness to “exercise in the field of the Scriptures” has left the Church with a veritable treasure of biblical scholarship. In this way, Ortho- dox Christians engaging in biblical scholarship must continue to similarly exercise in the field of the Scriptures so as to generate similar treasures today.

Abstract

The frequently contentious long-distance correspondence between Augustine of Hippo and Jerome of Stridon over a twenty-five year period during the late 4th and early 5th centuries AD raise a host of interesting issues to consider for those engaging in Orthodox biblical scholarship (i.e. those who “exercise in the field of Scripture”). Insights on issues related to the text of Scripture/textual criticism, biblical translation, exegesis, and hermeneutics can all be gained by studying Augustine’s and Jerome’s correspondence. These insights are especially relevant because many within contemporary Orthodox Christianity assert that the scholarly methods and findings of Orthodox theologians and biblical scholars should have some foundation in the work of previous Church Fathers. Augustine’s and Jerome’s work on the Scriptures show many similarities with the methods of contemporary biblical scholarship.

37 An example of the criticism Jerome faced for this work is mentioned by Jerome in his ‘Preface to the Commentary on Job’, pp. 731. He writes: “I am forced, through each of the books of Divine Scripture, to respond to the slander of adversaries who accuse my translation of rebuking the Seventy translators, not as though among the Greeks Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion had also translated either word for word, or meaning for meaning, or by mixing both together, also a kind of translation of equal proportion, and also Origen had divided all the scrolls of the Old Instrument with obeli and asterisks which, either added by him or taken from Theodotion, he added to the ancient translation, proving what was added to have been lacking. Therefore my detractors should learn to accept in full what they have accepted in part, or to erase my translation along with their asterisks. For it should not be, that those who they accepted to have omitted many things may not be acknowledged to have certainly erred in some things, especially in Job, in which if you will have removed those things which are added under the asterisks, the greater part will be cut off. And this is only among the Greeks. Otherwise, among the Latins, before their translation which we recently edited under asterisks and obeli, almost seven hundred or eight hundred verses are missing, so that the book, shortened and cut up and eaten away, shows its deformity publicly to readers”.