Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:52:27.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law, Lies and Letter Writing: An Analysis of Jerome and Augustine on the Antioch Incident (Galatians 2:11–14)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2013

Jason A. Myers
Jason A. Myers*
Affiliation:
502 Tennent Drive, Wilmore, KY 40390, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various critics of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) often highlight the lack of church tradition as one deficiency of the various interpretations of Paul. To some, the lack of church history automatically renders such newer interpretations suspect. In turn critics of the NPP often turn to the reformers such as Calvin and Luther to defend the traditional reading of Paul and trace this traditional reading back to Augustine. For the critics, church tradition stands on the side of the traditional reading.

This article seeks to highlight an often neglected early church view on one aspect of the NPP, that of Paul and the Law. This article highlights one of the fiercest exchanges between two church fathers. Through a series of letters, Jerome and Augustine corresponded on Jerome's interpretation of Galatians 2 and the Antioch incident. For Augustine the pastor, nothing less than the veracity of scripture was at stake and Augustine mounts a defence of Paul's actions in Galatians 2 in response to Jerome's insistence of an agreed-upon lie between Peter and Paul. In the process of Augustine's rebuttal of Jerome, he notes that Paul followed the law without ‘pretence’ and that there was a period in early Christianity where Jewish Christians practised law observance. Augustine highlights the divine origin of the Mosaic law, which renders a positive role for the law in early Christianity, and notes that the negative critique of the law comes within the context of a Gentile audience, but did not have implications for Jewish Christians. Augustine rightly notices and raises the important context of Paul's negative statements on the law and offers a nuanced discussion of Paul's treatment of the law.

Augustine notes some of the important conclusions drawn by the NPP, namely a positive view of the law and its practice by Paul and other Jewish Christians. He also notes the various ways the law functions in Jewish and Gentile contexts. Such a positive view of Paul and the law may appear striking to many, but must be considered by those who are otherwise critical of the NPP. This article shows that there was at least one voice, among others, within the early church which advocated for a positive reading of Paul and the law. The history of interpretation of Galatians 2 offers many insights for contemporary Pauline scholars which ought to be heeded in future discussions. This article, by highlighting the exchange between Jerome and Augustine, seeks to give the NPP a historical ‘rootedness’ and placement within the history of interpretation.

Keywords

Augustinehistory of interpretationGalatiansJeromenew perspective on Paulworks of the law
Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 127 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Eno, Robert B., ‘Epistulae’, in Fitzgerald, Allen D., Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 298–308.Google Scholar

2 The Works of Saint Augustine: Letters 1–99, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland Teske, vol. 2 (2001), pp. 90–4, 148–52, 280–96, 313, 314–34.

3 Augustine's Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes, trans. Eric Plumer (New York: OUP, 2006); St. Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2010).

4 Sparks, H. F. D., ‘Jerome as Biblical Scholar’, in Ackroyd, P. R. and Evans, C. F. (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome (New York: CUP, 1978), p. 510.Google Scholar For a survey of Jerome's life cf. Sutcliffe, E. F., ‘Jerome’, in Lampe, G. W. H. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Fathers to the Reformation (New York: CUP, 1969), pp. 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Mark Vessey, ‘Jerome’, in Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages, pp. 460–1. Jerome did write commentaries on almost all of the Old Testament books. Cf. Brown, Dennis, ‘Jerome and the Vulgate’, in Hauser, Alan J. and Watson, Duane F. (eds), A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), pp. 366–8.Google Scholar

6 This point is made by the translator of Jerome's commentary, Thomas P. Schenk, in the editorial remarks on the commentary, St. Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, p. 23.

7 Luther notes that ‘no one has handled Holy Scripture more ineptly and absurdly than Origen and Jerome’. Cf. Luther, Martin, Career of the Reformer, vol. 3, ed. Watson, Philip S. and Lehmann, Helmut T., Luther's Works – American Edition, vol. 33 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p. 167Google Scholar.

8 St Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, p. 97.

9 Unlike the modern period, Jerome has no problem with the relationship between Acts and Paul's letters. This is due to the early patristic assumption on the unity of scriptures. For a modern discussion of the relationship between Acts and Paul's letters cf. Witherington III, Ben, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 86–96.Google Scholar

10 St Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, pp. 98–9.

11 Ibid., p. 99.

12 Young, Frances M., Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002), p. 35.Google Scholar Cf. Burnett, Carole C., ‘The Interpretation of the Bible before the Modern Period’, in Gorman, Michael J. (ed.), Scripture: An Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible and its Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), pp. 135–8.Google Scholar

13 While it could be questioned that Paul did not have access to the written form of Jesus’ command and thus could not ‘read’ it, it has been shown that Paul did have access to a form of the Jesus tradition, at least an oral version. For a helpful discussion of Paul's knowledge of the Jesus tradition(s) Cf. Dunn, James D. G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 183–95.Google Scholar

14 St Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, p. 100.

15 Young, Biblical Exegesis, pp. 9–28.

16 St Jerome's Commentaries on Galatians, Titus, and Philemon, p. 102.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 For a concise summary of Augustine cf. TeSelle, Eugene, ‘Augustine’, in Fahlbusch, Erwinet al. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), pp. 159–61.Google Scholar

20 It should be noted at this point that Augustine has already written his commentary on Galatians so that he critiques Jerome as one who has also wrestled with the text and has severe issues with Jerome's interpretation. Cf. Augustine's Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes.

21 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, pp. 92–3.

22 Lamb, J. A., ‘Augustine as Biblical Scholar’, in Ackroyd, P. R. and Evans, C. F. (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to Jerome (New York: CUP, 1978), p. 561.Google Scholar

23 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 93.

24 Ibid., p. 94.

25 For Augustine, the acceptance of authority of scripture within the church was dependent upon the truthfulness of scripture and this is at the heart of the debate with Jerome. Cf. Richard A. Norris Jr., ‘Augustine and the Close of the Ancient Period of Interpretation’, in Hauser and Watson, History of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 388–9.

26 Young, Biblical Exegesis, p. 78.

27 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 149.

28 This is a primary point of interpretation in Augustine's hermeneutic in De Doctrina Christiana, a point he also makes in several other places. Cf. Augustine, Teaching Christianity: De Doctrina Christiana, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 11 (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1996), p. 178. Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, 28.394–395; 40.397; 82.405.

29 Augustine, Teaching Christianity, p. 151.

30 Ibid.

31 Eno, ‘Epistulae’, p. 307.

32 Modern exegetes should not underrate the significance and impact of these two interpreters on early patristics. Margaret Mitchell has noted that Chrysostom's homilies were ‘widely available and highly influential’ and that he had a ‘pervasive and enduring influence on the subsequent history of interpretation’. Cf. Mitchell, Margaret, The Heavenly Trumpet: John Chrysostom and the Art of Pauline Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

33 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 283.

34 Ibid.

35 Young, Biblical Exegesis, pp. 97–103.

36 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 284.

37 Ebionites was a term used since the time of Irenaeus to refer to Jewish Christians in the list of heretics of the church fathers. Part of the heresy, among others, was that the Ebionites emphasised observance of the Mosaic law. However, even though Jerome doesn't mention this, they also rejected the Apostle Paul and his letters. This was most likely what incurred the charge of ‘heresy’. Cf. Helmut Merkel, ‘Ebionites’, in Fahlbusch et al., Encyclopedia of Christianity, pp. 8–9.

38 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 289.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid., p. 313. Augustine will respond to Jerome's request in letter 82, but thinks that the nature of the truthfulness of scripture is too high a concern for mere pleasantries. Cf. ibid., pp. 314–18.

41 Augustine, Teaching Christianity, p. 178.

42 In paragraph 9 of this letter, Augustine has an extended discussion on the role of Acts 15 and the activities of Gal 2. Ironically, Augustine's interpretation that the meeting of Acts 15 only applied to the Gentiles’ relationship to the law has gone unheeded by modern commentators, and to their peril. Cf. Augustine, Teaching Christianity: De Doctrina Christiana, 3.30–1; Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, pp. 319–20.

43 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 323.

44 Ibid., pp. 323–4.

45 Ibid., p. 328. Augustine also calls into question the supporters of Jerome's view.

46 Ibid.

47 Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977)Google Scholar; Stendahl, Krister, ‘The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West’, Harvard Theological Review 56/3 (1963), pp. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Moo, Douglas J., The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996)Google Scholar; Schreiner, Thomas R., Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Westerholm, Stephen, Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ‘Lutheran’ Paul and his Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).Google Scholar

49 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, pp. 319–20.

50 Paula Fredriksen, ‘Paul’, in Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages, p. 622.

51 Vessey, ‘Jerome’, p. 462.

52 Works of St Augustine: Letters 1–99, p. 328.