Introduction
Between 394 and 405 Augustine and Jerome corresponded with one another through a series of letters, eleven in total, most famous for the theological content under discussion, as well as the tenacity of the argument between two church fathers.Footnote 1 These letters ranged in topics from Augustine's proposal that the Septuagint should form the basis of Jerome's Latin translation to the polemicised argument on Paul's actions in Galatians 2.Footnote 2 Along with the letters, both Jerome and Augustine wrote commentaries on Galatians.Footnote 3 From the letters and commentaries there is an adequate amount of material between the two to compare and contrast their interpretations of Galatians 2 and the theological issues which surround their interpretations, these issues being the verity of scriptures, along with Paul and the earliest Christians’ relationship to the law of Moses.
The first section will deal with Jerome's interpretation of Galatians 2:11–14. The second section will focus upon the letters exchanged between Jerome and Augustine, focusing primarily on Augustine's critique of Jerome's supposed interpretation and the consequent theological implications. While other issues do present themselves in the letters, such as the textual basis for Jerome's commentaries and even the submission of Augustine's works for Jerome's critique, this section will focus exclusively on the competing arguments for their interpretations. The third section will draw together the arguments of Jerome and Augustine and note the theological contributions of each to the contemporary discussion of Paul and the law.
Jerome on Galatians 2
Jerome, next to Origen, was one of the great biblical scholars in the early church.Footnote 4 After being expelled from Rome in 385, Jerome moved to Bethlehem and it was early in 386 that Jerome set out to write commentaries on all of Paul's epistles.Footnote 5 While he did not complete this task, he did produce commentaries on three of Paul's letters: Paul's letter to Philemon, then the letter to the Galatians and finally the letter to Titus. It has been noted that Jerome's Galatians’ commentary is one of the ‘lengthiest and most learned of the ancient patristic commentaries on Galatians’.Footnote 6 The legacy of Jerome's commentary on Galatians, and most notably the interpretation of the Antioch incident (Gal 2:11–14), would invite the commendation of Erasmus as well as strong critiques from Augustine and later Martin Luther.Footnote 7 Indeed, it is specifically Jerome's interpretation of the Antioch incident which spurs the decade-long debate between Jerome and Augustine. Before engaging the debate in the letters, we must first survey Jerome's exegesis of Galatians 2:11–14 to provide the proper context for understanding Augustine's response and the theological issues which arise in the letters.
Jerome begins his exegesis of Galatians 2:11–14 by focusing on the actions of Peter. Jerome notes the narrative progression whereby Peter is first sitting with Gentiles and then moves to sit with the Jews. Interestingly, Jerome makes use of the Acts material to provide the rationale for Peter's sitting with the Gentiles. Jerome remarks that, ‘Peter had not forgotten the precept “Do not call any man common or unclean”’ which is a textual reference to Peter's vision in Acts 10:28.
Jerome then comments on Paul's confrontation with Peter, giving the moniker to Paul of ‘Christ's fighter’.Footnote 8 However, Jerome casts doubt on whether this confrontation actually took place as, if it did, then it would have been hypocritical of Paul who ‘became a Jew to the Jews in order to gain the Jews’. Jerome then quotes Acts 18:18, 21:23–6, and 16:3, to show that Paul took part in Jewish religious activities, such as nazarite vows, alms giving and even circumcision.Footnote 9 Jerome's logic is that Paul himself took part in the same type of actions as Peter and therefore on what grounds could he rebuke Peter? Due to this dilemma, Jerome makes a distinction and states that Paul only rebuked Peter with his ‘public face’ and proposes the solution that ‘the hypocrisy of observing the law, which was harming those who had believed from the Gentiles, would be corrected by the hypocrisy of correction’.Footnote 10 Jerome's allowance of hypocrisy is found in the mimetic quality of Jehu, the king of Israel, and shows that ‘pretense is useful and should be adopted on occasion’.Footnote 11 One immediately notices the ‘mind of scripture’ at work in this cross-reference, for there is no apparent connection between Galatians 2:11–14 and 2 Kings 10:18–19. As Frances Young states, ‘Discernment of the mind of scripture meant discernment of its underlying coherence’, which meant the ‘assembly of texts pointing to the same conclusion’.Footnote 12 Thus Jerome refutes the plausibility of the confrontation on the basis of Paul's own actions in Acts and shows how Paul's actions are supported by scripture.
Jerome also refutes the plausibility by invoking the command of Jesus in Matthew 18:15.Footnote 13 Jerome contemplates how Paul could not have followed the command of Jesus to confront Peter in private. Jerome, well aware of the Pauline corpus, shows that Paul even commands this himself in Romans 14:15. Jerome surmises that one way this could have occurred was if ‘Peter was pleased to be convicted like this’. Jerome argues that Paul could not have publicly confronted a man whom he esteemed, unless by prior consent by Peter. Jerome argues for Paul's approval by Peter contextually by citing passages from within the letter (Gal 1:18–19; 2:8, 9).
Jerome then proceeds to a personal example to illustrate how such a rancorous debate between two highly esteemed individuals could take place. Jerome proposes the idea of a ‘fictitious lawsuit’ which was used for training in public disputations. From this background, Jerome proposes that the confrontation between Paul and Peter was a ‘feigned dispute between them that would bring peace to the believers and bring the faith of the church into harmony by means of a holy quarrel’.Footnote 14 One can clearly see the way in which the educational training of the patristic fathers influenced their interpretation of scripture. When Jerome seeks to find a metaphor or parallel he reaches to his rhetorical education.Footnote 15
Thus, for Jerome, the conflict between Peter and Paul is not really a conflict between them, for Peter knew what was right and Paul himself had participated in similar actions. Rather, the conflict was to bring about harmony in the group, and Paul's confrontation was not really a confrontation of Peter, but of those whom Peter represented. In Galatians then, Peter becomes a ‘foil’ for those whom Paul wishes to confront. Jerome notes that the confrontation with Peter in front of everyone was ‘not so much to convict Peter as to correct those for whose sake Peter had feigned’.Footnote 16 Likewise, in the comment on v. 14b, Jerome notes that his argument ‘binds Peter, or rather, through Peter those who were compelling him to create clashes among themselves’.Footnote 17 The conflict at Antioch is an argument for the sake of unity and thus the argument has rhetorical motivations to persuade Paul's readers of certain actions.
Near the end of Jerome's comments on this passage, he proposes a heuristic question for his readers, ‘if this interpretation displeases anyone, whereby neither Peter sinned nor is Paul shown to be imprudent in having accused his superior, he should explain what the consequences are of Paul's reproving in another what he himself has done’.Footnote 18 It is precisely this question which moves Augustine to respond, although Jerome will later state that Augustine misunderstood this statement. In the letters, Augustine will challenge Jerome's interpretation and propose his own solution of how Paul can both participate in Jewish activities and confront Peter for the same actions.
The Letters
Letter 28
Augustine, a pastor in North Africa from 388 to 430 ce, spent much of his time taking care of clergy and members of his community.Footnote 19 Between 394 and 395, Augustine writes this letter to Jerome, although it would not reach Jerome for another nine years. This initial letter sparked the now famous argument between Jerome and Augustine. Although this letter would not be read immediately, and subsequent letters would be read first, it is important to note some of Augustine's first concerns. Specifically important for this article are paragraphs 3–5 which deal with Jerome's interpretation of Galatians 2:11–14.
Beginning in paragraph 3, Augustine leaves his argument that the Septuagint should form the basis for Jerome's commentaries [and moves] to the discussion of Paul. Augustine notes that he has read some of Jerome's commentaries on the letters of Paul and his specific concern is with his commentary on Galatians.Footnote 20 Augustine notes that Jerome's interpretation of Galatians 2:11–14 leaves him ‘in more than a little pain’ and regards it as ‘absolutely disastrous to believe that there is a lie in the holy books, that is, that those men . . . lied in their books’.Footnote 21 Augustine argues that, if a lie has been introduced in scripture, then as a principle, one could apply this to any section of scripture which is deemed difficult. For Augustine, this issue strikes at a theological and pastoral concern. One of the enduring principles of Augustine's exegesis is its ‘ecclesial quality’, whereby the scriptures ‘must be read and understood within the framework of the life and doctrine of the Christian community’.Footnote 22 One must remember that in this context, Jerome is the scholar behind the desk, and Augustine is the pastor labouring among his congregation. The nature and truth of scripture in the lives of his people is the issue at stake in this interpretation.
In paragraph 4, Augustine continues to show how this ‘deadly rule’ could undermine other aspects of the faith, such as marriage. Augustine applies the same principle that Jerome uses to interpret Galatians 2:11–14 to the issue of Paul's discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians. Augustine argues that, if someone wanted to undermine Paul's teaching on marriage, they could easily appeal to the ‘useful lie’ principle and argue that Paul did not really believe what he said about marriage, or for that matter any issue.
In paragraph 5, Augustine begins to propose a solution to this dilemma. Augustine states the course of action must be to ‘prove that all those testimonies that have been used to defend the usefulness of a lie must be interpreted in some other way in order that we may teach that the truth of those books is solid in every respect’.Footnote 23 Part of Augustine's solution to correcting Jerome is to allow Jerome to change his mind. Augustine appeals to Jerome's intelligence and piety so that over time he will come to change his mind. Augustine argues that Jerome will be forced to change his mind once he sees that the ‘authority of divine scriptures is crumbling’.Footnote 24 Augustine also suggests at the end of this letter that if Jerome wants to maintain his ‘useful lie’ principle, then he ought to give some rules as to how a reader or interpreter of scripture might know when it is useful to lie and when it is not. Sadly, this letter would not reach Jerome for another nine years, which leaves no chance for Jerome to respond and in turn causes Augustine to write another letter.
Letter 40
In letter 40, Augustine further elaborates on the previous points he had made concerning Galatians 2:11–14 and the verity of scripture. Augustine reiterates his previous point that ‘useful lies’ undermine the authority of scripture, but this time adds a contextual issue to his argument. Augustine cites Galatians 1:20, where Paul explicitly states that he does not lie, thus stating Paul's intention to speak truthfully in Galatians. Augustine's primary question is: can Paul speak truth through lies?Footnote 25 Augustine's method highlights the ta methodikon of Quintilian, where problems in an author's work were solved by reference to other verses or works. As Young notes, speaking specifically of Homer, this attempt carries the critical presupposition that, ‘Homer explains his own meaning’.Footnote 26 In the context of Augustine, the operating assumption is that Paul explains his own problems, an assumption Augustine shares with his classical predecessors.
In paragraph 4, Augustine raises a new interpretative issue, the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:20. Augustine begins his interpretation with the analogy of a sick person. Augustine's persuasive analogy indicates that Paul maintained his Jewish activities, even as an Apostle. For Augustine, the Jewish activities were ‘suitably and legitimately received at the time when they were necessary’Footnote 27 for the Jewish people, including the Apostle Paul.Footnote 28 Augustine argues that Paul himself took part in Jewish activities to teach his fellow Jews on the rightfulness of the activities, as long as they were not laid upon his Gentile converts. Unlike Augustine's previous letter, which allowed Jerome to provide a framework for applying his ‘useful lie’ principle, Augustine sternly calls for Jerome to recant his position of error. Augustine asks Jerome to ‘correct and emend that work, and sing, as they say, a παλινωδίαν,’ which literally means a recantation.Footnote 29 Augustine, with eloquent words, indicates that this issue is worth going to war over, when he states that, ‘The truth of Christians is incomparably more beautiful than the Helen of the Greeks’.Footnote 30 Sadly, this letter was lost for around a year in Italy, but eventually made it to the desk of Jerome.Footnote 31 While Augustine shows numerous times a respectful deference towards Jerome, he will not receive the same attitude back, when Jerome responds.
Letters 75 and 81
In letter 75, paragraph 4, Jerome responds to Augustine with a high degree of contempt. Jerome states that Augustine ought to have paid more attention to Jerome's method as stated in the preface to his commentary. Jerome states that he was not exercising his opinion, but rather repeating the tradition that he had heard from Origen and Chrysostom.Footnote 32 Jerome notes that he has followed Origen, whom Jerome highly respected, on the interpretation of Galatians 2:11–14. Jerome states that he had his secretary write down ‘either my own ideas or those of others without paying attention to the order either of the words at times or of their meanings’.Footnote 33 Furthermore, Jerome notes that it was up to Augustine to ‘investigate whether those things that we wrote are contained in the Greek authors in order that, if they did not say them, you might rightly then condemn my view’.Footnote 34 As Frances Young has noted, we have here an example of intertextuality being taken for granted.Footnote 35 Jerome contends that Augustine should have been aware of this.
With high sarcasm, Jerome says he is content to be ‘in error’ if he is in the company of his predecessors, Origen and Chrysostom. In further heightened sarcasm, Jerome notes that, once Augustine notices that there are many others who hold this interpretation and are ‘in error’, Augustine ought to produce at least one supporter of his view.Footnote 36 Jerome thus lays a charge of novelty on Augustine, while he retains the ability to claim the history of interpretation in support of his view. Jerome moves in the rest of the letter to reiterate several points already made in his commentary.
Jerome's heaviest critique of Augustine comes in paragraph 13. Jerome reasons that, if Augustine's interpretation is accepted, that Jewish Christians are allowed to follow the law, then the implication for his day is a slip into the heresy of the Ebionites.Footnote 37 Jerome notes that the fathers deemed the Ebionites heretical because ‘they mixed the ceremonies of the law with the gospel of Christ’.Footnote 38 Jerome argues that Augustine's admission of heresy is far more dangerous than Jerome's own practice, surveying the ‘different views of the ancients in the explanation of the scriptures’.Footnote 39
A quick note must be made about letter 81. Shortly following letter 75, Jerome issues what is almost an ‘apology’ to Augustine. He seems cautious, and shows even a degree of embarrassment, in his response to Augustine. Jerome's new suggestion for correspondence is to forego the questions and to write letters of love. Jerome enjoins Augustine to ‘playfully exercise on the field of the scriptures without causing injury to one another’.Footnote 40
Letter 82
The most important contribution Augustine makes in this letter is in regard to the importance of the Mosaic law. Augustine states that the Mosaic law is neither good nor bad and argues that the rites of the law are prefigurations of the grace which makes one righteous. Furthermore, the law cannot be bad because God himself commanded it. Augustine warns that we must interpret the commands within the context of the time and persons to whom they were given. This will be further developed in De Doctrina Christiana as a way in which to interpret scripture.Footnote 41 In fact, Augustine in two accounts suggests that the circumcision commandment was a sign given to prefigure Christ – it cannot be expected to be obeyed by Gentiles, but there is no reason why Jews would not have had to obey it (Acts 15).Footnote 42 Augustine shows that this entire argument about the Mosaic law concerns the Apostles and that they observed the law out of faithfulness and not out of pretence.
Augustine argues that, although the coming of Christ abolished those laws for Gentiles, this was not immediately apparent for the Jews. Augustine argues that the most devout patriarchs practised them, along with Christ and his Apostles, and that it served an apologetic end for the new Christians, so that the practices would not be despised.Footnote 43 Augustine remarks that he should have added the phrase, ‘at least at the time when the grace of the faith was first revealed’ to his previous letter.Footnote 44 In Augustine's time, he does not allow even former Jews who are now Christians to follow the law. Thus, for Augustine, there was a period of time in nascent Christianity where the law was operative for Jews, and Galatians 2 was part of this period.
Augustine closes this letter by restating the importance of the verity of scripture and that no lies can be admitted. Namely, Paul correctly acted and wrote about the Antioch incident in Galatians 2. Further, he takes up Jerome's challenge to name persons who hold to his interpretation of Galatians 2, and he names Ambrose and Cyprian.Footnote 45 Augustine further emphasises that he will ‘believe such a great apostle who swears in his own letter and in defense of his own letter rather than anyone, however learned, who argues about someone else's letter’.Footnote 46 Augustine argues that Paul practised the law which had been divinely instituted by God and he did this in faithfulness to his calling in Christ and without pretence.
Theological Contribution: A Voice for Today?
The New Perspective on Paul (NPP hereafter) is an attempt by scholars to understand first-century Judaism in its own light, and so the Apostle Paul within the Jewish-Christian matrix of the first century. Key to this understanding is the role of the Mosaic law and its place within Pauline theology. Like Augustine, NPP scholars see a positive role for the Mosaic law within the life of the Apostle Paul and as something which the Apostle participated in. The works of Krister Stendahl and E. P. Sanders have sought to show that, for Paul, the law was not a legalistic burden, but rather part of Paul's rich Jewish history.Footnote 47 However, not all are convinced.
The critics of the NPP see Paul and the law as a prefiguration of meritorious works versus faith.Footnote 48 Unlike Augustine, they do not see the Apostle Paul, and the first Jewish Christians, as following the law as something ‘holy, just and good’. The NPP critics should take notice of several points Augustine makes in his correspondence with Jerome. Of first importance, they should notice that Augustine makes clear that the law is given by God, the same God to whom the New Testament consistently points. Second, they should note the critical distinction Augustine makes between the role of the law in Jewish and Gentile contexts. Augustine clearly emphasises that Acts 15 deals only with the relationship of the Gentiles and the Mosaic law. So Paul's negative treatment of the law specifically deals with its relationship to the Gentiles. Third, Augustine clearly notes that Paul continued to practise Mosaic law in the book of Acts,Footnote 49 thus confirming the thesis that there was a period in nascent Christianity where the law was still operative for the Jewish people. It can be surmised from Augustine's interpretation, and one could even make the case from Acts itself, that Paul did not think of the law as a legalistic way of earning God's favour, but as the proper response of Jewish Christians to the gracious initiative of God. Fourth, like Augustine, the NPP critics should view ‘the law on a continuum together with the grace and salvation available through Christ’.Footnote 50 Fifth, in a negative way, the critics of the NPP should heed Augustine's warning to Jerome that such an interpretation of Paul could dangerously lead to a heresy worse than Ebionism. Such an interpretation threatens the unity of scripture and even worse calls into question the actions and motives of Paul in the book of Acts.
Conclusion
Augustine's correspondence with Jerome is one of the fiercest exchanges between any two church fathers. Augustine saw Jerome's interpretation of Galatians 2 as a danger to the veracity of scriptures and having negative theological implications for the interpretation of scripture within the worshipping community. Augustine mounted an argument proportionate to the nature of the issue at hand. For Augustine, there was no middle ground, Paul either did or did not tell the truth in his letter to the Galatians. There was no place for useful lies of any kind. In the end, most probably due to the Pelagian controversies, Jerome ended up adopting Augustine's interpretation of Galatians 2.Footnote 51
Augustine's exchange with Jerome is just as important today for contemporary Pauline interpreters. His arguments for a law-observant Paul should be heeded by those who are otherwise critical of the NPP. Augustine issues a call that all interpretations should unify the testaments rather than driving wedges between them. Augustine issues this challenge to interpreters of Paul both past and present. We should follow Augustine in believing ‘such a great apostle who swears in his own letter and in defense of his own letter rather than anyone, however learned, who argues about someone else's letter’.Footnote 52
