In recent years there has been a flurry of activity dedicated to Jerome's works, a welcome corrective to his long-standing comparative neglect in the narrative of church history, exegesis, and theology in the fourth and fifth centuries. Not only has there been an international conference on his life and writings ("Jerome of Stridon: Religion, Culture, Society and Literature in Late Antiquity," Cardiff University, July 2006) and an accompanying volume of proceedings;[1] some works of Jerome also have received new critical editions whose nearest predecessor is in Migne's Patrologia Latina.[2] Thomas Scheck's translation of Galatians, Titus, and Philemon follows on in the wake of these new editions.
This past year saw the publication, in fact, of not one but two translations of Jerome's commentary on Galatians (a text which had never before been translated into English): the translation under review here and that of Andrew Cain in the Fathers of the Church series.[3] Cain's volume contains in general more scholarly apparatus and does more to situate Jerome historically, while Scheck, already a translator of numerous patristic texts, focuses most of his interpretive attention in the introduction and notes on questions of theology and exegesis.
Scheck's introduction (1-45) gives a helpful and clear biography of Jerome and his intellectual development in various locales (Rome, Trier, Aquileia, Antioch, Constantinople, Bethlehem). The commentaries Scheck translates were written in the early part of Jerome's Bethlehem period (ca. 386-88) in the order Philemon, Galatians, Titus (with a commentary on Ephesians, not translated here, written in between those on Galatians and Titus) and represent his first foray into Pauline exegesis.[4] After short sections on Jerome's use of Origen and of the Septuagint (8-11), the rest of the introduction deals entirely with the commentary on Galatians and issues surrounding it. The section on the Septuagint unfortunately does not do justice to the complexity of Jerome's views on the LXX vis-à-vis the Hebraica veritas.[5]
In the material on Galatians, Scheck concisely treats Jerome's relationship to prior Latin exegetes (for example, Marius Victorinus) and theological features of Jerome's exegesis, often cribbed from Origen. His position that, for Jerome, the phrase "works of the law" refers to the "works of Judaism, such as circumcision, Sabbaths, rituals, sacrifices" (28)--that is, to ceremonial aspects of the law that are not binding on Christians--seems to me too narrow. It gains support from such passages as Jerome's comments on 3.2, but even there we learn that actually "the law is spiritual," and Jerome goes on to say that "when we put faith first" we do not "destroy the works of the law." Jerome is concerned rather with the larger question of the letter and the spirit of the law: even the old law, already in its original institution, had not only a fleshly meaning, but also a deeper, spiritual meaning accessible to faith.[6] This broader letter- spirit dichotomy is especially important for the underpinnings of Jerome's hermeneutics, which he wishes to justify in this commentary.
Scheck's introduction also treats Jerome's view, perhaps surprising to the modern reader but shared by many Greek exegetes, that the dispute between Peter and Paul in Galatians 2.11-14 was feigned. Scheck, though he does not find Jerome's explanation "entirely satisfying" (33), nevertheless thinks it deserves more credit than it traditionally has been accorded, and he seeks to elucidate it as an understandable reaction to anti-Christian polemicists such as Porphyry. Augustine, for his part, thought Jerome's position dangerous, and his rebuke of Jerome gave rise to a long-running conflict between them. The introduction concludes with an overview of the reception of Jerome's Pauline commentaries during the Middle Ages and the Reformation.
In sum, in the course of the introduction it becomes clear why the modern reader, and especially one interested in the exegesis of Scripture, would want to read Jerome's three books of commentary on Galatians. The omission of introductory remarks for the commentaries on Philemon and Titus is therefore regrettable, for these too offer much of interest and a programmatic overview would have been helpful. Both commentaries are, like that on Galatians, dedicated to Paula and Eustochium. The commentary on Philemon, Jerome's first Pauline commentary, has, among other items of note, an intriguing discussion in its preface about the dispute over the canonicity of the letter as well as a thought-provoking explanation of the phrase "faith toward all the saints" in v. 5. In the commentary on Titus Jerome gives his view of the history of the development of church government from rule by councils of presbyters to the monarchical episcopacy (in the NT, Jerome notes, "overseer" and "elder" are used interchangeably). The change occurred for pragmatic reasons, namely, so that the bishop would be able to remove the "seeds of schism" (1.5b). Jerome's comments on the permissibility of second marriages for bishops (1.6) and on Paul's use of classical literature (1.12-14) are also worth noting. Finally, these two shorter commentaries share with the longer one on Galatians a concern not only for exegeting the text, but also for exegeting it in such a way as to refute heretics (Marcion is a favorite target).
The translations of the three texts fill the bulk of the book (47- 382). As a translator, Scheck essentially employs the word-for-word method, and he usually tries to maintain the same clause-order as is found in the Latin. This method gives a good indication of the style of the Latin but sometimes produces awkward results in English (for example, on 2.11-13 Scheck has "those who had believed in Antioch from the Gentiles and had not been circumcised were compelled to overstep in a move toward the burdens of the law").[7] Moreover, Jerome's meaning is sometimes difficult to construe. If there is ambiguity in Jerome's Latin, obviously ambiguity in the corresponding English is not the fault of the translator--but more regular notes on such passages explaining the difficulty would be useful for the reader. For instance, on 1.15-16a Jerome is discussing the views of haeretici who claim that sinners are estranged from God from the womb due to causes that lie in priorem vitam, because each person (or soul?) is assigned to good or to bad angels. Scheck understandably translates the phrase as "prior life." But the passage is difficult. Jerome may be referring to a view entailing the pre- existence of souls (so Cain), and some discussion of the possible meanings of the passage would help to aid the perplexed. To his credit, Scheck on other occasions provides such notes, and in addition gives notes for a plethora of Scriptural references, identifications of figures from Roman history and literature and from Christian history, and passages where Jerome is or is likely to be borrowing from Origen. These are of great use. A quick glance through the apparatus gives an indication of the stunning degree to which Jerome had committed Scripture to memory. The book concludes with a select bibliography of primary and secondary sources (383-7), a thorough index of Scriptural passages cited (389-409), and a general index (410-16).
There are some mistakes in the translations themselves. For purposes of illustration, I shall give a few examples from Book 1 of the Galatians commentary. On Galatians 1.1, in his discussion of apostleship, Jerome writes: Aiunt Hebraei inter ipsos quoque prophetas et sanctos viros esse quosdam qui et prophetae et apostoli sint. Scheck translates: "The Hebrews say that some among them are apostles and holy men who are both prophets and apostles." Ipsos apparently is treated as equivalent to eos and quoque is omitted, but both words intensify prophetas and viros, thus: "The Hebrews say that also among the prophets and holy men themselves there are certain men who are both prophets and apostles." Again, on 1.6-7 Jerome's passive translatos is translated as "those who have transferred." On 1.16b, the translation of videlicet is awkwardly inserted between an indirect statement and a ne-clause, when its position shows that it is modifying "God" (ne post doctrinam videlicet Dei). On 1.18a, Jerome comments: Quod si cui non videtur, cum superiori sensu iungat haec omnia, quod nihil sibi apostoli contulerint. Scheck translates: "But if this does not seem fitting to someone, he links all these things with the meaning given higher up, that the apostles did not discuss anything among themselves." But iungat is a jussive subjunctive, and sibi refers to Paul, thus: "But if this does not seem right to someone, let him connect all these things with the sense above, that the apostles conferred nothing on him." These examples could be multiplied. Sometimes the sense is not fatally obscured, but, when it is, it is especially unfortunate for the reader with no knowledge of Latin and therefore no ability to check the text.
In conclusion, Scheck's work represents overall a valiant effort to make three seldom-read and sometimes difficult texts available in translation, two of which are available only here. Cain's translation of the commentary on Galatians avoids some of the pitfalls mentioned above and presents a more readable alternative, but the commentaries on Titus and Philemon can be found nowhere else in English at present, and the translator is to be commended for the new access he has provided to them, and to have all three in one volume is wonderful. These three commentaries provide a good introduction to Jerome's views on the Pauline epistles specifically and to his theory and practice of exegesis more generally.
--------
Notes:
1. A. Cain and J. Lössl, eds., Jerome of Stridon: His Life, Writings and Legacy (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009).
2. Cf. F. Bucchi, ed., S. Hieronymi commentarii in epistulas Pauli apostolic ad Titum et ad Philemonem, CCSL 77C (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003); G. Raspanti, ed., S. Hieronymi commentarii in epistulam Pauli apostolic ad Galatas, CCSL 77A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006).
3. A. Cain, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary on Galatians, FOTC 121 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010.
4. For a translation, see R. Heine, trans., The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
5. Cf. G. Raspanti, "The Significance of Jerome's Commentary on Galatians in his Exegetical Production," in Jerome of Stridon, 163-71; Cain, "Commentary," 36-41.
6. See, e.g., Jerome's comments on 2.3-5; 4.21. His remarks on 3.5 are significant: "It is not that the works of the law are to be despised and one should seek simple faith apart from them, but that the works themselves are adorned by faith in Christ." See also Raspanti, "Significance," 167-8.
7. Cp. Cain: "Uncircumcised Gentile believers in Antioch were being forced to comply with the burdensome requirements of the Law."