1
-FINAL DRAFT-
Questioning Authority: Christian Education Leading to Lay Participation in Doctrinal
Debates
J.I.O. van ‘t Westeinde1
Durham University
Numerous studies have been dedicated to the Christianisation of the Roman Empire
and the influence of classical education – or paideia – on the development of a Christian
discourse.2 However, these studies have mainly focussed on how preachers (bishops in
particular) used their classical education to instruct their congregations by means of
catechesis and sermons. In other words, these studies focus on education in a strict
liturgical setting. I would like to take a different approach, and look at how a Christian
education3 might have encouraged the laity to debate alongside ecclesial authorities on
doctrinal issues.4 It is known that the laity in the churches did express dissent to certain
1 I would like to thank the reviewers and Professor Carol Harrison for their helpful suggestions and constructive comments. 2 A few excellent studies that have recently been published include A. Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. The Development of Christian Discourse, Sather Classical Lectures 55 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991); R. Cribiore, Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005); M.B. Cunningham, P. Allen, (eds.), Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics (Leiden: Brill, 1998); P. Gemeinhardt, Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 41 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); W. Harmless, “Salt for the Impure, Light for the Pure: Reflections on the Pedagogy of Evagrius Ponticus”, in Studia Patristica 37 (2001), 514-525; J. L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity. John Chrysostom and his Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006); M.-Y. Perrin, “A propos de la participation des fidèles aux controverses doctrinales dan l’Antiquité tardive: considérations introductives”, in AntTard 9 (2001), 179-199; S. Rappe, “The New Math: How to Add and to Subtract Pagan Elements in Christian Education”, in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed. Y. L. Too (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 405-432.3 As an aside, I would like to stress that the working definition of ‘education’ in this contribution might perhaps better be understood as ‘instruction’: a means to provide instructions for people to deal with certain theological issues; as such it does not refer to a systematic study programme. In other words, when I speak of ‘education’ it is not to be understood in the modern sense of an administratively (i.e. by central authorities such as government or episcopate) governed programme with a set curriculum. However, since Jerome offers his students more than just a ‘set of guidelines’, I nevertheless prefer to address it as ‘education’ rather than a mere ‘instruction’. 4 This study has to be situated in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, and as such one should realise that Christian education was not ‘institutionalised’ yet: education was offered through pagan schools – or by private teachers – and formation in the faith was only available through catechesis and, if one wished to receive further education (doctrinal, exegetical) this could be offered by a private spiritual mentor, or alternatively through monasteries should one wish to enter one.
2
ideas and changes presented by their bishops5, but there was a certain group of ascetic
Christians – often Roman aristocrats – who actively participated in significant doctrinal
debates.
In this article my aim is to show how some specific types of Christian education
enabled the laity to participate in the significant doctrinal debates of their times. This is part
of my doctoral research project, in which I try to reconstruct Jerome’s pedagogical paradigm
and its sources through a systematic analysis of his pedagogical correspondence, and I will
investigate how this particular form of education could have influenced faith, lives,
doctrines, identities, communities, the Church, and society; and how this Christian
education was, vice versa, influenced by classical education and society.6
Letters, commentaries, and treatises not only provided formation in the faith, but
the chance for in-depth study of that faith; they were not restricted to guidelines concerned
with the perfection of ascetic life but covered exegesis and orthodox doctrine7, too. One
could actually call this a ‘theological education’. As such it transcended traditional
catechesis and education by means of sermons. I will argue that dedicated study under the
guidance of a spiritual mentor, in casu Jerome (c. 347-419), offered the students a chance to
take part in ecclesial and doctrinal debates, to formulate authoritative arguments, and to
challenge authority defined by those in hierarchical positions. The illustrations in this
contribution will be limited to Jerome’s epistolary correspondence.8
First, I will contextualise the topic so as to offer the necessary hermeneutical keys.
Secondly, I shall try to illustrate how lay people, on various occasions, clashed with the
5 Cf e.g. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication, esp. p. 141, who shows this is very clear from John Chrysostom’s sermons, but this form of dissent could generally be situated on a liturgical level, e.g. changes in the liturgical calendar. 6 The working title of the project is ‘Pedagogical sources and models in Jerome’s epistolary correspondence’, a doctoral project that I am currently undertaking at the Deparment of Theology and Religion at Durham University, under supervision of Professor Carol Harrison and Professor Lewis Ayres.7 Jerome specifically refers to the importance of studying doctrinal treatises from authors considered ‘orthodox’ in the faith, see e.g. Jerome, Ep. 22.22 which refers to treatises on virginity; in his letter to Pammachius he orders the latter to consult the works of Eusebius and Didymus on Origen, see Ep. 84.10; Ep.64.22 where he directs Fabiola to consult Tertullian’s seven-volume work on Aaron’s vestments; and in Ep. 107 for example he tells little Paula (daughter of Laeta and Toxotius, son of Paula) should study works by Cyprian and Athanasius, see Ep. 107.12.8 The references to Jerome’s epistolary correspondence are all based on the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) series unless stated otherwise. A decent critical translation is provided in Budé’s collection of Jerome’s letters, in eight volumes, cf. Saint Jérôme (transl. J. Labourt), Lettres (Collection des Universités de France), in 8 vol. (Paris : Société d’édition «Les Belles Lettres» (l’Association Guillaume Budé), 1949-1963). All references to Jerome’s epistles are given as « Ep. »
3
ecclesial authorities9; by exploring several of Jerome’s letters, I will also show how he
himself had a part in providing the ammunition. The third part will highlight a specific aspect
in this endeavour so as to offer a concrete example, namely the Origenist controversy10;
here I shall focus on the role some lay people decided to take on. Drawing on the
correspondence between Jerome and Pammachius (d. c.409) in particular, I will attempt to
show how their theological training enabled them to formulate authoritative arguments
that could influence or inspire a change in the doctrinal course of the Church. This is but a
very small part of the very extensive debate on Origen (185-c.253/4), but it is merely my aim
to give an indication of how a lay person could play a significant role in a doctrinal debate,
rather than to present an exhaustive list of actions and reactions in the debate on
Origenism. Finally, in order to prove that lay participation in doctrinal debates did not
always imply conflict with the authorities, the last aspect of this contribution will look at
Jerome’s instruction to Marcella (c.335–411) on Montanism and Novatianism: already
“condemned heresies”, but still influential in Rome, and therefore potentially dangerous.
Social context11
The letters, conflicts, and debates dealt with in this article are all to be dated in the
last two decades of the fourth century, and around the turn of the century. In a nutshell,
Christianity was growing rapidly and had become the Empire’s principal religion, thereby
9 I.e. the ordained Church hierarchy, the institutional authorities. 10 In a nutshell, this conflict was about the reception of Origen, and originated in a dispute (accusations made) between Rufinus/John of Jerusalem and Jerome/Epiphanius. The conflict spread to the west (Rufinus moving back, Jerome’s friends taking on the self-appointed task to destroy ‘Origenism’ in Rome) and to Egypt when Theophilus of Alexandria got involved in the conflict in Jerusalem, and later on got in conflict with the monks of Nitria (political interests have clearly motivated Theophilus’s decisions). So what started as an argument between two authors (and two bishops) over the interpretation of Origen’s doctrine, spread across the Christian world and eventually lead to a condemnation of Origen(‘s work). For Jerome’s account on the controversy, Benoît Jeanjean offers a good survey, cf. B. Jeanjean, Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie (Paris: Institutes d’Études Augustiniennes, 1999). For a study on the Origenist controversy and its context, see E. A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1992). 11 Two recently published excellent introductory handbooks on the social context and the Christianisation of the Roman world are M. Peachin (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and S. Ashbrook Harvey, D. G. Hunter (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), with both publications offering extensive bibliographies.
4
replacing the former pagan religions.12 This implied a greater political interest in ecclesial
affairs, and it is often apparent that the decisive power in a doctrinal debate or conflict was
politically determined rather than based on theological argument.13 The Emperor required
the God of the Christians to protect the Empire and to ensure its prosperity; this could only
be achieved if this God would not be affronted by inner-ecclesial squabbles. In order to
ensure the satisfaction of God, the Emperor took on an active role to safeguard unity and
eliminate division, much in the same way as the Emperor would have watched over the
correct practice of rituals for worship, to honour and satisfy the pagan gods. Like pagan
religions before it, Christianity found itself to be regulated by Roman law. However, the
major difference now would be that Roman law not only had to cover orthopraxis, it had to
incorporate a judicial structure which would define doctrines or ideas as correct or
incorrect.14 As such, heretics – and heresies – could be prosecuted and penalised by imperial
courts. There are a few critical developments, particularly towards the end of the fourth
century, that could both illustrate an increase in the Emperor’s concern with regard to the
Christian God’s safeguarding the prosperity of the Empire (in light of the Church not being
united in worship), and a growing distrust of Christians on the part of their pagan
compatriots. One of the most critical of such developments were the foreign armies that
had been threatening the northern (German, Gothic tribes) and eastern borders (Huns), and
12 Theodosius had made it the Empire’s official religion in 381: it has to be stipulated that this was the product of almost a century of ‘developments’, i.e. from a religion that was gradually being tolerated to receiving increasing (public) support from the imperial court, combined with a decreasing (public) support of pagan cults, it gradually pushed the pagan cults of the public stage (and it did so in an increasingly aggresive and violent manner). For more detail on the process of Christianisation of the Roman Empire (in the fourth century in particular) see e.g. P. Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000, The Making of Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003); R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).13 E.g. the Arian controversy (the position changed with change of Emperor, i.e. it depended on whether the Emperor was Arian or whether he adhered to ‘orthodox’ Christianity), the Donatist controversy (Constantine’s first interference in a theological debate), the Pelagian controversy (North-African bishops addressing the Emperor at Ravenna rather than the bishop of Rome to force the condemnation of Pelagius and Caelestius). The turn in the Origenist controversy could also be seen in this light: Theophilus of Alexandria’s U-turn in the matter seem to have been political tactics rather than concern for orthodoxy or doctrinal truth, see J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, (London: Duckworth, 1975) 243ff.14 Although a full discussion on the role of Roman law would digress us too far, it is important to stress that the judicial system had developed in such way that it shaped a structure which could be applied to define what were correct – orthodox – and what were incorrect – heterodox – doctrines. Constantine had already categorised it under criminal law, so heresy would be considered a crimen publicum, see C. Humfress, Roman Law, Forensic Argument and the Formation of Christian Orthodoxy (III-VI Centuries), in S. Elm, E. Rébillard, A. Romano (ed.), Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire, Collection de l'École française de Rome, 270, (Rome: 2000) 126, 129.
5
had successfully invaded parts of the Empire15; whereas in other parts civil wars were being
fought.16 The God of the Christians had done little to stop them; moreover, some of these
armies were Christian themselves. One example is the Visigoth leader Alaric (d. 410), who
led his army deep into the western Empire eventually causing the sack of Rome, and who
was an Arian Christian.17 Therefore, the reasons to distrust Christianity were again twofold:
the Christians were accused of collaborating with the enemy in order to bring down the
Empire18, and they had distracted the Emperor from the things that really mattered (i.e. the
defence of the Empire) by their theological quarrels.19
An example of such a theological dispute that is of particular concern for the
contextualisation in this contribution is the Origenist controversy (cfr. infra). In the first
15 In 395 from the northern border Alaric and his army ravaged their way through Illyricum towards Constantinople (they got as far as Greece (e.g. Athens capitulated) when emperor Arcadius decided to align with Alaric); in the west, from 406 onwards Vandals invaded Gaul; in 408 Alaric’s army invaded Italy, making their way towards Rome. For a more comprehensive study on Alaric’s movements and the ‘foreign invasions’, see A. Robertson Brown, Banditry or Catastrophe?: History, Archeology, and Barbarian Raids on Roman Greece, in eds. R. W. Mathisen and D. Shanzer, Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011), 88-96 (for Alaric’s invasion of Greece); B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), esp. 42-46 (for Alaric’s invasion of Italy, the unrest in the west, and the siege of Rome), and S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284-641 (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), 89-95. At the eastern border an army of Huns entered into Syria in 395, threatening Antioch and beyond. Jerome and his group joined the large number of refugees who fled to the coastal area, see Jerome, Ep. 77.8. 16 See B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome, 33-48.17 An interesting observation that could be made in this context is that although Alaric might have been regarded a ‘heretic’ by most of the ‘orthodox’ Christian authors, ultimately what would constitute ‘orthodox Christianity’ depended upon the Emperor’s preference, that is to say at least it depended upon the Emperor’s beliefs whether Arians were being persecuted or not, and whether they were allowed to have their cathedrals and bishops. To illustrate, Emperor Valentinian II (whose mother Justina was Arian) allowed Arians freedom of worship, and ordered Ambrose of Milan to give the Portian basilica to the Arians, see J.H.W.G. Liebeschuetz, Ambrose of Milan. Political Letters and Speeches (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010) 124-135. 18 This accusation would become particularly prominent after the Fall of Rome in 410, see note 19 below. The accusation seems plausible in light of the context and events that had preceded it: in 394 Alaric and his army had supported emperor Theodosius in his (successful) attempt to bring down his western rival emperor Eugenius (who was also significantly more lenient towards paganism and the pagan Senate), see H. Bloch, The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century, in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. A. Momigliano (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), 199. It made Theodosius the last emperor to reunite the empires and rule over east and west. But during Honorius’s reign, Alaric and his army, in an attempt to get better benefits for their services to the imperial court and for their people living within the empire’s borders, marched into Italy and besieged Rome in 408 for the first time, and a third and last siege happened in 410 (the last one being the most documented). What is more, the destruction of Rome seems to mainly refer to pagan sites and heritage: Alaric’s army left Christian property (churches) untouched. For references, see note 16 and 17 above.19 See J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome, p. 204 who writes about the invasion of the Huns that “[t]he attention of the government was directed to this much more important menace”. For an example of pagans accusing Christians of collaboration, see e.g. H. Sivan, Anician Women, the Cento of Proba, and Aristocratic Conversion, in Vigiliae Christianae 47 (1993) 140-157, p. 153, who refers to Procopius, BV, 1.2.27 for the accusation that Anicia Faltonia Proba had helped admitting the Gothic army to Rome. As I have already stipulated, and as this example shows, these accusations would increase after the fall of Rome.
6
stage of the controversy it is Bishop John of Jerusalem (c. 387-417) who would decide to
write to Flavius Rufinus (d. 395), minister and guardian of emperor Arcadius (395-408), in
order to seek his support and have Jerome and his monks expelled from the Holy Land.20
Although in this particular instance the emperor (in casu his guardian) did issue an edict that
would meet Bishop John’s request, the edict would never be enforced; their attention was
drawn to the defence of the borders since the Huns were now invading the most eastern
part of the Empire and they had made their way through to Syria, putting Antioch and
Jerusalem under direct threat. Obviously, this had to have priority over such seemingly
trivial theological squabbles. It was a clear indication for pagans that the Christians had
made the Emperor obsessed with their disputes in order to anticipate the decline and fall of
the Empire. So the turn of the century witnessed a last ‘pagan revival’21 in Rome as a
reaction against the rise of Christianity and its political impact and power, against the
appalling radical ascetics who terrorised the civilised city, and because of the impression
that Christianity was not able to save or protect the glorious Empire and its capital from the
aggressive barbaric armies that were approaching Rome.22
Not only were there manifold consequences on a political level – which influenced
the relations between Church and Empire – but also on an economic level. The western
Empire was gradually losing territory, and thereby also supplies and financial resources. By
the beginning of the fifth century this had resulted in a ‘power shift’ from the European
20 Ep. 82,10.21 A ‘turning point’ that allowed or enabled such a revival was emperor Eugenius’s short reign (392-394), during which pagans saw themselves encouraged to restore their ancient cults, cf. H. Bloch, The Pagan Revival in the West, 199-201. For a far more critical review of Eugenius and his ‘alleged’ role in a pagan revival, see A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 74-89, who elaborates there is hardly any reliable evidence for such claim. However, what we might be able to conclude is that Eugenius’s attitude was at least ‘favourable’, in the sense that he did not seem to have actively or rigorously repressed, persecuted, or condemned pagans (and the public display of their cults). 22 For anti-Christian sentiments on the pagan side, see P. Courcelle, Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius to St. Ambrose, in ed. A. Momigliano, The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity, 161; see also P. Brown, “Pelagius and His Supporters: Aims and Environment”, in Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine, P. Brown (London: Faber and Faber, 1972) 183-207; H. Bloch, The Pagan Revival in the West, see also A. Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome. Cameron revolutionary argues that the downfall of paganism had already started much earlier than commonly argued by scholars. It would digress too far from the topic and intent of this contribution to discuss this in detail. See also notes above. Apparently, the pagan gods were not that helpful either, to quote H. Bloch: “Flavianus set up statues of Jupiter […] and standards bearing the picture of Hercules were carried before the army. The two gods who had been the patrons of Diocletian and Maximian a century before presided over the defeat of the last pagan army of the ancient world on 6 September 394”, see H. Bloch, The Pagan Revival, 201 – but this interpretation is largely based on Christian records of the battle at the Frigidus. Cameron has challenged the idea that the army was
7
mainland to the Roman province of North-Africa, which had become the sole supplier of
grain, horses, and military forces after the Emperor had lost Gaul to Germanic tribes.23 It is
this economic aspect that will come to play a major role in the later Pelagian controversy
and the eventual excommunication of Pelagius and Caelestius. Influences of political and
economic power often go together and are not to be underestimated. Although Christian
authors often show the desire to present something as a purely theological debate, it is
definitely worth looking into the broader politico-economic context when researching the
debate on defining orthodoxy.
Apart from political and economic tensions, there are also some important social
remarks to be made. One of the first questions that arise from the title of this study is: who
was questioning the authorities? When we analyse Jerome’s target audience – his students,
his admirers in Rome – we observe how almost every single one of them belongs to the
Roman aristocracy.24 They were part of the clarissimate25 and thus accustomed to being
listened to. As members of the Senate the men were used to speaking up, although it is
interesting to see how women take on an active part in the theological debates, too.
Furthermore, these people were well-versed: they had received an excellent education
which was reserved only for the top notch of society. Therefore, if we are speaking of
‘education made available to the laity’, we must realise that this was often reserved for the
‘happy few’: it was only a tiny minority within the large population of the Roman Empire
‘pagan’, and that they carried standards with depictions of pagan gods, see Cameron, The Last Pagans, 94, 105-107.23 The Vandals started to invade Gaul from 406 onwards, subsequently causing the emperor to lose control over Gaul, and as such Roman control also got cut off from Britain (‘definitely’ lost 410, see C. Thomas, Christianity in Roman Britain to AD 500, (London: Batsford, 1993) 58, 240). For more on this topic see e.g. P. Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD (Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012) and Id., The Rise of Western Christendom. See also R. Lim, Public Disputation, Power and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), and B. Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome.24 E.g. Pammachius, a Roman aristocrat and senator from the gens Furii, had also been a former fellow student of Jerome; his cousin Marcella from the illustrious Roman gens Marcelli, who had a palace on the Aventine with her mother Albina – a residence and society she would never leave, not even when she devoted herself to the ascetic life; Paula, a Roman noble woman from the gens Aemillii (also connected to Gracchi, Scipios, and Agamemnon), married to senator Toxotius (Julian family) - archetypical Roman patrician household; Furia, a Roman noble lady of the family of Furius Camillus; Oceanus, a Roman noble man probably from the Julian family, and Fabiola who belonged to the same circle. For their biographical details, see H. Wace and W. C. Piercy (eds.), A dictionary of Christian biography and literature to the end of the sixth century A.D: with an account of the principal sects and heresies (London: J. Murray, 1911); see Jerome Ep. 108 on Paula, Ep. 127 on Marcella, Ep. 77 on Fabiola, Ep. 66 for details on Pammachius, and Ep. 54 on Furia.
8
who were blessed with sufficient degrees of literacy, knowledge of rhetoric, philosophy, and
the classics; who had the time, space, and means to study, to hire spiritual mentors, to
travel, and to host renowned guests from abroad.26 And in this case, it is only the Christian
part of this privileged elite. Jerome’s students were lay people and clergy; male and female,
but they were all part of the Roman upper class: a Christian aristocracy. Jerome knew very
well how to satisfy the minds of these self-conscious elite, which we see for example from
his letter to Eustochium (d. 419), where he opposes holy virginity to noble married women,
saying: “on this issue, teach yourself a holy pride, for you know you are better than them”.27
After their conversion these aristocrats had to redefine their identity and one can observe
how they again seek to elevate themselves above the plebs. To a certain extent they were
forced into this redefinition: still members of the governing class as they were, they had to
distinguish themselves from their pagan peers yet show how they were still equally ‘worthy’
and should receive praise and respect.28 This came particularly to the fore when – as I
mentioned earlier – the God of the Christians did not seem to protect the Empire all too
well. The aristocratic Christians were therefore not only concerned with defining orthodox
25 “[A] social stratum legally defined and requiring high social and economic status in one of several distinct sets of elites”, M. R. Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire, (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002) 23.26 On literacy rates, see M. H. Williams, The Monk and the Book. Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship (Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 2006) 136-137, who estimates 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire had basic reading skills. On the social habitus of the elite, see for example H. I. Flower, “Elite Self-Representation in Rome”, in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, ed. M. Peachin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 271-285; W. A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); R. Laurence and J. Berry (eds), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge, 1998); and M. R. Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy. 27 Ep. 22,16: “Disce in hac partem superbiam sanctam, scito te illis esse meliorem.”28 ‘Reputation’ was key aspect of identity of the clarissimate, the landowners, the aristocracy; their education was built to shape this identity, and the rhetorical school in particular served to form a Roman ‘person’ as a whole rather than just teaching the technical and practical skills of rhetoric. They shared a collective identity: who they were, what their social position was depended upon peer support: praise and respect of equals established one’s position/standing in (this) society, defined their Roman personhood. See Salzman, The Making of a Christian Aristocracy, for an extensive discussion on this topic; see also R. Laurence and J. Berry (eds), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire (London: Routledge, 1998). However, their conversion to Christianity was in such circles not often well-received, and entering a new community – that of the church –meant that they (at least partially) lost their identity that was so embedded in the social life and establishment of the clarissimate. Especially the eager ascetics had to give up a lot of what was core to their identity and lives. They thus had to ‘re-establish’ themselves, in other words, ‘redefine their identity’. My argument in my thesis is growing towards perceiving Jerome’s education as a Christian equivalent to pagan rhetorical education, in that it shapes, forms, and defines the (ideal) Christian person: as opposed to pagan rhetorical schools creating the ‘Roman person/citizen’, Jerome aims to create the ‘citizen of the city of God’.
9
doctrine; they also had to be eloquent defenders of their Christian faith towards their pagan
relatives and colleagues.29
These social aspects – that is, the level of education attained, consciousness of social
status; a sense of (collective) identity30 and belonging – might all form contributing factors
to (public) expressions of dissent towards authorities; they might explain their active
engagement in doctrinal debates.
Authority clash
After having illustrated the social context, the second section of this contribution will
concentrate on clashes with the institutional authorities. I will illustrate this topic by
introducing some of the conflicts that arose between lay people and the ecclesial
(institutional) authorities. The key factors in these clashes seem to be identity – or the quest
to redefine identity -, the forming of communities, and the defining of ecclesial authority.31
These clashes are neither restricted to one single incident, nor are they limited in time or
space: they occurred in the west as well as in the east, and the fourth century alone knew
quite a few such conflicts, where lay people tried to order their bishops on how to act and
what to do.32 I have singled out a few in which Jerome and his students were directly
involved.
The first aspect that needs to be examined is the rise of asceticism and the search for
identity. In Jerome’s instruction to the priest Nepotian (c. mid 360s–c. 396) one can observe
29 E.g. Paula (d. 404) and members of her family who saw the family fortune disappear into church (Jerome) affairs (see Ep. 108); Pammachius who dressed in sackcloth but still went to the Senate (see Ep. 66,6); the dispute with the pagans over the altar to Victoria in the Senate, see e.g. H. Bloch, The Pagan Revival, 196-197. 30 The concept of identity is to be understood as addressed in note 28: all aspects that shape a person as a member (individual) of a social structure. 31 A good approach to the concept of identity in late antiquity can be found in R. Miles (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity (London – Milton Keynes: Routledge and The Open University Press, 1999). See also Flower, Elite Self-Representation, 271-285; J. Huskinson, “Women and learning. Gender and identity in scenes of intellectual life on late Roman sarcophagi”, in Constructing identities in late Antiquity, ed. R. Miles; W. A. Johnson, Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite Communities (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); L. Pani Ermini, and P. Siniscalco, La comunita cristiana di Roma, Atti e Documenti, 9 (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000); R. Laurence and J. Berry (eds), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire. For defining ecclesial or institutional authority, it needs to be stipulated that first and foremost the reason for being granted (and claiming) such authority was ordination (into the priesthood, and for highest authority into the episcopate). 32 John Chrysostom testifies to such dissent of the laity in a fair number of his sermons, a phenomenon that has been thoroughly researched by Maxwell, Christianization and Communication, esp. 8, 118, 141.
10
how he urges him “to learn, so that he may teach”33. It bears evidence of how important it is
for Jerome that priests and lay people – who were leading domestic churches and study
groups34 – receive a sound education, and that they, in their turn, enriched with knowledge,
will transmit this to their congregations and study groups. Some dedicated Christians who
got inspired by desert asceticism started to gather in groups to read Egyptian monastic
literature, to study Scripture and doctrinal treatises, thereby instructed by a spiritual
mentor.35 This enabled them to define an identity in fact not much different from the
exclusive position they already had in belonging to the Roman nobility, and it granted them
confidence that they knew what authentic Christian conduct was. As such, they tried to live
according to what they studied, to practice what they preached, and as such they became
public examples of radical ascetic life. This not only roused negative reaction from pagans,
but also from moderate Christians who could, not or did not want to, live up to these high-
flying ascetic ideals.36 It caused concern to the bishops who were trying to maintain and
safeguard unity in their diocesan churches.37 However, these radical Christians were not
only a potential threat for unity; they also took the liberty of publicly criticising the clergy
and bishops who failed to be such living examples of authentic Christian faith. Hence, I
would argue that the above illustration shows that authority is not necessarily defined by
hierarchical position, but rather by the authenticity of ascetic or moral conduct.38
33 Ep. 52,7: “Disce, quod doceas.”34 The leaders of these domestic churches and study groups were often women, see e.g.: Marcella who was leading study groups, Paula who was head of a domestic church in Rome and later on was leading a monastery at Bethlehem, see Ep. 127 and Ep. 108. On women in leading roles, particularly with regard to household churches, see e.g. P. Laurence, Jérôme et le nouveau modèle féminène, La conversion à la « vie parfaite », Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 155, (Paris : Cerf, 1997).35 See e.g. Gerontius, Vie de Sainte Mélanie (Source Chrétienne, 90), see also D. Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), and on mentorship in Rome see for example B. Gold, Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1982).36 This was particularly the case in the Jovinianist controversy, see e.g. D. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).37 In fact, it is there where we can observe a clear distinction between spiritual mentors on the one, and ecclesial authorities on the other side: e.g. Jerome and Pelagius who are privileged to only preach to a select group of Christian aristocrats, and Augustine on the other who needs to be much more diplomatic in his approach as he presides over a congregation made up of Christians of all sorts. 38 The essential question was, as R. A. Markus has stressed it, “Quid sit Christianum esse”, which incorporates a concern for being as well as identity, community, and belonging, see R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity, 20. The concern for being an ‘example’ is rooted in the ancient Roman tradition of exemplumwhere an important role was granted to the family (and public figures) being examples for their offspring growing to become adult Roman citizens. For a comprehensive study of the Roman educational system see e.g. H.-I. Marrou, L’Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1955).
11
An example of a clash between ‘ascetic’ and ‘institutional’ authorities39 which
centred round a doctrinal issue, was the conflict between members of Jerome’s monastery
– who were mostly lay people (the monastery had no priests of its own so it had to rely on
the sacramental services of the diocesan clergy40) – and Bishop John of Jerusalem. What is
relevant here is that “laity” – that is, Jerome’s monks – disregarded the authority of the
episcopal see in which diocese they were located, and took the freedom to liaise with
Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis (367-403). This shows that Epiphanius did not respect the
authority and sovereignty of his colleague either.
This extensive conflict knew many actors and was – on a theological level –
concerned with the teachings of Origen.41 At a given point, this led to the (temporary)
excommunication of Jerome and his monastery at Bethlehem. However, this conflict
managed to spread to the west, and the way it did is relevant with regard to the laity
interfering and imposing their perceived authority in such conflicts or doctrinal debates.
Whereas it was first and foremost a local issue42, the act of excommunication came to be
known beyond the Jerusalem diocese,43 and a further spread of rumours regarding the
conflict had proceeded from Jerome’s translation of the letter of Epiphanius (c. 310-403)
addressed to Bishop John of Jerusalem.44 It somehow ended up in the hands of Rufinus (c.
345 – 411) and John (c. 356-417), who noticed that Jerome had amended the wording in
39 A comprehensive study on the authority claim by ascetics can be found in P. Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian (Notre Dame (Ind): University of Notre Dame Press, 2010), whereas a good survey on the authority of bishops can be found in C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkely: University of California Press, 2005). David Hunter has addressed the complexity of the relation asceticism – authority (claim), see D. G. Hunter, “Rereading the Jovinianist Controversy: Asceticism and Clerical Authority in Late Ancient Christianity”, in Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33/3 (2003), 453-470.40 J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 200. I have deliberately used the more nuanced ‘mostly’ in reference to lay people, since Jerome and Vincentius were ordained, but they did not perceive priestly tasks to be compatible with the monastic life.41 One of the motives or ‘inducements’ of the conflict was Epiphanius’s (c. 310-403) concerns about the popularity of Origen’s teachings in the Holy Land. Nevertheless, it must be stipulated that it might have been more a conflict of authority and loyality (rather than theological), and an infringement on diocesan sovereignty on behalf of Bishop Ephiphanius of Salamis (Cyprus), who had already clashed with John on several issues (and had repeatedly disrespected John’s territorial power): e.g. Epiphanius had decided to ordain Paulinian, Jerome’s younger brother. Although technically the ordination took place in the diocese of Eleutheropolis, outside John’s jurisdiction, it was aimed at enabling Paulinian to serve Jerome’s monastery at Bethlehem, now that John had prevented local clergy from serving the monastery. For a more elaborate recollection of the ‘facts’ see J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 198-202. 42 See J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 202.43 Possible evidence could be found in Jerome’s complaint that Vigilantius, the messenger of Paulinus of Nola(c. 354-431), was reluctant to stay at Jerome’s monastery any time longer than absolutely necessary, cf. Ep. 58.44 Ep. 51. See also Kelly, Jerome, 203.
12
order to caricature John.45 Whether the leak was the addressee of the translation, that is,
Eusebius of Cremona (d.c.423), remains unsure. However, the translation was sent to Rome
and Jerome feared the consequences, thereby deciding to justify his actions in an address
sent to Pammachius (cfr. infra).46 On the other hand, John’s Apology also got dispatched to
Rome, and it seemingly impressed the Christian population who were already rather
unsympathetic towards Jerome for reasons rooted in a not-so-distant past. This obviously
disturbed the few close friends Jerome had left in the capital. It was Pammachius who first
demanded an explanation from his former fellow student. Jerome’s treatise Against John of
Jerusalem served to meet this request. But it was not just Jerome’s behaviour that had
made them anxious about the case. The increasing popularity of Origen’s teaching in Rome
had sufficiently concerned Pammachius and Marcella, and they had decided to contact
Jerome for advice. A relevant observation with regard to this article’s argument is that much
of the spread and preaching of the anti-Origenist campaign that was launched in the west is
to be accredited to the efforts of Pammachius, Marcella, Oceanus, and Eusebius of
Cremona. Jerome would claim, from the isolating distance of the Holy Land, to have had no
control over the developments of the anti-Origenist activities of his students and admirers:
for a significant part, they had acted on their own initiative.47 However, he seems to have
appreciated Marcella’s efforts. In letter 127 he recounts how the Origenists were finding a
willing ear among priests, monks, laity, and even Siricius, the bishop of Rome (384/5-398).
Jerome elaborates how Marcella had taken a public stance against him:
Finally, our saintly Marcella, who for a long time had closed her eyes
to all this lest she should be thought to put herself in rivalry, finding
that the faith which the apostle once praised was now in many
people being endangered, came forward openly on my side. As the
heretic was drawing to his cause not only priests, monks and above
all laity, but was even imposing on the simplicity of the bishop, who
45 J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 203: “Jerome had [...] both toned down Epiphanius’s expressions of courtesy to John and accentuated his accussations.” Cf. Ep 57,2. 46 This is the letter on good translation, Ep. 57, and his Apologia. See J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 203: “the real object of this was to set out his own version of events and to emphasise the trifling character of the deviations of his Latin from the Greek original. At the same time he developed the view that, except when dealing with Scripture, the intelligent translator should always seek to render the sense rather than the words. This was the principle, he argued, which he himself had always followed, and upon which the great classical and ecclesiastical writers, and even the inspired authors of the New Testament, had consistently acted.”
13
judged other men by himself, she publicly withstood him, choosing
to please God rather than men.48
This illustration is yet another corroboration of how lay people voiced their concerns
on orthodox doctrine, and how they argued against what they thought were heterodox
views, regardless of the fact that these views were being held by fellow lay people or by
bishops – the ordained Christians to whom the highest level of institutional authority was
entrusted.
Pammachius and the Origenist controversy
Now the general picture of authority clashes and conflicts has been presented, the
third section of this article will highlight one particular conflict and one particular actor,
namely the role of Pammachius in the Origenist controversy. It has already been shown in
the above section that both Marcella49 and Pammachius took an active role in the Origenist
debate. We learn of Marcella’s role in the proceedings from Jerome’s consolatory letter to
Principia. Jerome records her having been the one who took the first steps in getting the
Origenists condemned: she had provided the witnesses, the numbers, and she had
challenged the heretics themselves.50 She also seems to have had a decisive influence on
Bishop Anastasius of Rome (398-402) in the condemnation of Origen’s writings.51 It is quite
remarkable that in this case a lay person – a lay woman even – had to inform the bishop of
Rome about the teachings of Origen, of whose teachings he had not yet heard.52
47 See e.g. Jerome, Apology against Rufinus.48 Ep. 127,9: “tunc sancta Marcella, quae diu coniuerat, ne per aemulationem quippiam facere crederetur, postquam sensit fidem apostolico ore laudatam in plerisque uiolari, ita ut sacerdotes quoque et nonnullos monachorum maximeque saeculi homines in adsensum sui traheret <hereticus> ac simplicitati inluderet episcopi, qui de suo ingenio ceteros aestimabat, publice restitit malens deo placere, quam hominibus.”; translation taken from F. A. Wright, in Jerome, transl. F. A. Wright, Select Letters (Loeb Classical Library, 262). 49 An interesting study on Marcella has been published by S. Letsch Brunner, Marcella. Discipula et Magistra. Auf den Spuren einer römischen Christin ds 4. Jahrhunderts (Berlin – New York : De Gruyter, 1998).50 Ep. 127,10: “Damnationis hereticorum haec fuit principium: dum adducit testes, qui prius ab eis eruditi, et postea ab heretico fuerant errore correcti; dum ostendit multitudinem deceptorum [...] dum acciti frequentibus litteris heretici ut se defenderent, uenire non ausi sunt [...].”51 Ep. 95,2 might contain a reference to Marcella as his source of information : “igitur hoc praeceptum tenentes illud, quicquid est fidei nostrae contrarium ab Origine quondam scriptum, indicauimus a nobis esse alienum atque punitum.” 52 A possible indication of Anastasius not having been familiar with Origen’s teachings may be found in Ep. 95,3 : “[...] qui calorem fidei gestans et amorem circa deum habens quaedam capitula blasphemiae obtulit,
14
However, the focus of this section will be on Pammachius, whose role in the
controversy is interesting with regard to various aspects of the level of Christian theological
education.53 As said before, Jerome had addressed his Against John of Jerusalem to
Pammachius, in order to define and explain his position in the Origenist debate.
Furthermore, Pammachius had asked Jerome to send him an instruction on the correct
method of translation54, after he had found out that Jerome had tampered with the
translation of Epiphanius’s letter to John of Jerusalem. Therefore, this letter is as much an
instruction as it is a justification of Jerome’s behaviour. Jerome sets out the principles of a
good translation, followed by a list of examples of incorrect translations which can be found
in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint, in secular literature, and in works by Christian
authors. In these examples he systematically presents the Greek original, the wrong
translation, and what the translation should be. To conclude this methodological
instruction, he summarises his argument and concludes that he hopes he has given enough
material so that Pammachius can now judge for himself whether the translation is accurate,
by comparing it with the original text in Greek.55 Hence, although the instruction was
concerned with the translation of a particular letter, Jerome offers a valuable instruction,
which teaches Pammachius how to judge the quality and validity of a translation which
could be applied on a general level.
The debate on Origen’s heritage and the validity of his teachings was set to continue,
and rumours had spread that Rufinus was working on a translation of Origen’s Peri archōn
of which a draft version was now circulating in Rome.56 Again, Pammachius voiced his
concerns to Jerome57 – conjointly with Oceanus58 – by sending him a request to provide
quae nos non solum horruimus et iudicauimus, uerum etiam, si qua alia sun tab Origene exposita, cum suo auctore partier a nobis scias esse damnata.” It must be stressed that here he is referring to Eusebius as his informant, not Marcella. 53 E.g. his knowledge of Greek allows him to study eastern authors as well as Latin ones, he studies and has studied the Scriptures and doctrinal treatises, Jerome teaches him how to form his theological arguments in the Origenist debate.54 Ep. 57, see above. 55 Ep. 57,13: “Unde arbitrio tuo cuncta permitto ut legas ipsam epistulam, tam Graecam quam Latinam.”56 Rufinus complains about his draft version having been stolen from his desk, see J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome, 235.57 Pammachius seemed to have been speaking on behalf of a number of people, and Jerome mentions in a letter to Paulinus of Nola that not only Pammachius voiced his concerns about a prospective translation of the Peri Archon, but ‘almost the entire Roman brotherhood’ had voiced these concerns, cf. Ep. 85,3: “Et quidem quamuis mei amantissimi et egregii uiri Pammachii, tamen unius uoluntatem in tempus aliud distulissem, nisi omnis paene fraternitas de Vrbe eadem postulasset, adserens multos periclitari et peruersis dogmatibus adquiescere.” Labourt adds, in a complementary note to the letter, that Jerome’s words seem to indicate theexistence of a certain collective of ascetics in Rome: “Ces mots semblent indiquer un certain lien religieux
15
them with his own translation of the Peri archōn. Jerome responds to Pammachius’ and
Oceanus’ request by sending the former a copy of his literal translation of the Peri archōn,
accompanied by a letter (Ep. 84) addressed to both. Although he mostly seems to repudiate
accusations made against him by Rufinus and his adherents, there are clear indications that
he is indeed providing instructions for Pammachius and Oceanus so that they can defend
their position in the debate. I will illustrate this by a few fragments from the letter.
Jerome advises his addressees to study his commentaries on Ecclesiastes and on
Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, where they can discern Jerome’s views on Origen.59 He then
continues to present his readers with the arguments of his opponents. He teaches them
how they can recognise Origenist doctrinal arguments, and how to respond to them. A
central dilemma is how to interpret the resurrection of the body. Against the Origenists who
proclaim the resurrection of the soul (celestial bodies)60, Jerome sets out the ‘correct’
interpretation of the fleshly resurrection of our earthly bodies: our entire bodies will be
resurrected, every single part of it.61 It is only when one interrogates the “heretical”
Origenists on the details of the resurrection that it will become clear that they do not
believe in a factual resurrection of our terrestrial body. Jerome thus shows how
Pammachius and Oceanus ought to conduct such inquiries and how they should formulate
entre les ascètes de Rome, pour se soutenir contre la réprobation d’une grande partie de l’aristocratie, même chrétienne, et la neutralitié plutôt malveillante du clergé. Mais il ne saurait être question d’un « congrégation », au sens moderne du mot. A Rome, la vie cénobitique n’apparaît guère avant le milieu du ve
siècle. Par « fraternité romaine », il faut donc entendre Marcella, Pammachius, Océanus et leur cercle d’amis.” See p. 169, P. 140,l,6 (Budé, 4). 58 Oceanus was a Roman nobleman probably related to the Julian family, connected to the circle of Fabiola (d. 399), and acquainted with Pammachius. He is an example of a lay man publicly voicing his opinion about ecclesial matters, such as his protest against the second marriage of the Spanish Bishop Cartesius (see Ep. 69). Oceanus also took an active part in the proceedings which eventually led to the condemnation of Origenism at Rome (see Ep. 62). About a decade later he expressed interest in some of the questions challenged in the Pelagian controversy. Apparently, he had gained such expertise that Jerome directed Marcellinus and Anapsychius to consult Oceanus on the matter, since he considered him an expert who would be capable of instructing them, see Ep. 126. This is a remarkable feature since teaching authority was normally also only reserved to ordained Christians: their ordination granted them the authority and mission to teach, see C. Rapp,Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, 104. According to Rapp’s categories, Oceanus’s – and Marcella, Paula, who are also ‘allowed to teach’ or ‘suggested to instruct’ others by Jerome – authority would in that case mostly resemble the teaching authority of the desert fathers: it is a spiritual authority gained by their expertise in asceticism, see C. Rapp, 102-104. 59 Ep. 84,2: “Quod sit uolunt super Origine meum scire iudicium, legant in Ecclesiasten Commentarios; replicent in Epistulam ad Ephesios tria uolumina, et intellegent me semper eius dogmatibus contra isse.”60 Ep. 84,5: “Exempli causa subiciam: ‘credimus’, inquiunt, ‘resurrectionem futuram corporum’. hoc si bene dicatur, pura confession est. sed quia corpora sunt caelestia et terrestrial et aer iste et aura tenuis iuxta naturam suam corpora nominantur, corpus ponunt, non carnem, ut orthodoxus corpus audiens carnem putet, hereticus spiritum recognoscat.”61 Ep. 84,5.
16
their questions in doctrinal debates. What is particularly interesting is that Jerome also
urges his addressees to read Origen, so that they know his errors directly from the source62,
and he again stresses that not everything by Origen is heretical: just because some of his
writings are erroneous does not imply all his writings need to be put aside; the same holds
for Lactantius, Apollinaris, Porphyry, Didymus, and many more.63 Jerome continues to
provide instructions as to how they can find out whether a certain work has been tampered
with,64 and he names Eusebius and Didymus as the most reliable sources to find the ‘original
material’: they did not try to amend Origen’s errors, but they tried to explain them.65
In line with Pammachius, Tranquillinus66 too was concerned to what extent one
could study Origen without falling into his heresy. Jerome’s instruction regarding the study
of Origen, which he had composed in reply to Tranquillinus’ request, has been preserved in
letter 62. Despite its brevity it gives a) another account of the wider popularity of Origen’s
teachings in Rome, and b) a clear indication of what Jerome deems fit to be read. It further
acknowledges Oceanus’s efforts to inform the Roman populace of Origen’s errors.67
These examples illustrate how Jerome’s instructions by means of letters, treatises,
and translations had a significant influence on his Roman students – Pammachius and
Marcella in particular – taking a position and acting in doctrinal debates.
Orthodox doctrine
On a more general note, and in order to show how the teaching of doctrine did not
necessarily trigger the immediate action of lay Christians towards the authorities – in the
sense that education did not always lead to public expressions of dissent towards the
authorities –, the final aspect of this contribution will explore Jerome’s doctrinal
instructions; with particular emphasis on the instructions to Marcella, with regard to the
62 Ep. 84,7.63 See e.g. Jerome’s comment on Lactantius, Ep. 84,7 : “Quis mihi interdicere potest, ne legam Institutionum eius libros, quibus contra gentes scripsit fortissime, quia superior sententia detestanda est?”64 Ep. 84,10: “Illud uero quod adserutn, a quibusdam hereticis et maliuolis hominibus libros eius esse uiolatos, quam ineptum sit, hinc probari potest.”65 Ep. 84, 10: “[...] quis prudentior, doctior, eloquentior Eusebio et Didymo, adsertoribus Origenis, inueneri potest ? […] non scriptum negans, sed sensum scripti edisserens. ”66 He seems to have been a Roman acquaintance of Jerome, but not much else is known of him other than that.67 Ep. 62,2: “Quod dicis Origenis multos errore deceptos, et sanctum filium meum Oceanum illorum insaniae repugnare [...].”
17
‘condemned heresies’ of Montanus and Novatian. The limitation to these two ‘heresies’
does not make the instructions any less significant: the instructive letters are clear examples
where the content deals with the question of orthodox doctrine. Moreover, they deal with
major, significant doctrinal debates about Christology and the Trinity; debates about the
‘official’ definition were still ongoing and more importantly, they kept being challenged.
The two letters68 that serve as an illustration to my argument were written in 385.
The first one, Ep. 41, presents arguments against Montanism and Sabellianism. Jerome’s
exhortation starts with the observation that a certain Montanist has produced a collection
of Scriptural quotations from the Gospel of John.69 The collection of textual fragments had
been presented to Marcella, which is the reason why Jerome is now addressing this letter to
her. It must be stressed that he seems to acknowledge that she had requested him to share
his thoughts on the matter.70 He sets out the ‘stages’ of revelation with a particular
emphasis on the completion or culmination in the sending of the Holy Spirit, fifty days after
the resurrection (Pentecost), as it is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. This would form
the basic argument – an argument Marcella is encouraged to use in the debate with the
Montanists, who claim that Montanus was a prophet directly inspired by the Paraclete.71
However, her debating partners would have their own answers ready. Jerome therefore
warns Marcella that although their arguments might sound legitimate, they focus on the
wrong object: it is not the prophecy that is rejected by orthodox doctrine, but their self-
proclaimed prophets whose prophecies do not correspond to what has been revealed
through the Scriptures.72 He then continues to set out on which points they disagree. In the
first section (Ep. 41, 3) he elaborates what ‘we’ believe to be orthodox and compares it to
what ‘they’ believe, subsequently arguing why they are wrong, and why ‘we’ rightly claim
authority. The disagreements cover topics on theological, moral, liturgical, and hierarchical
(i.e. ecclesiology) doctrine.73 For example, the Montanists follow the Sabellian idea of the
Trinity as one single person – as opposed to three persons who share one substance. On a
6868 Ep. 41 and Ep. 42. 69 Ep. 41,1: “Testimonia quae de Iohannis euangelio congregata tibi quidam Montani sectator ingessit [...].”70 Ep. 41,4: “[...] cum et tu ipsa scripturas adprime tenens non tam ad eorum mota sis quaestiones, quam, quid sentirem, a me uolueris sciscitari.”71 See e.g. Ep. 41,2: “Si igitur apostolus Petrus super quem Dominus fundauit ecclesiam et prophetiam et promissionem Domini illo tempore conpletam memorauit, quomodo possumus nobis tempus aliud uindicare?”72 Ep. 41,2: “[...] sciant a nobis non tam prophetiam repelli quae Domini signata est passione, quam eos non recipi qui cum scripturae ueteris et nouae auctoritate non congruant.” 73 See Ep. 41,3.
18
moral level, the Montanists forbade remarriage, and it is interesting to see how Jerome
stresses that the orthodox doctrine holds that second marriages are allowed, although they
are not encouraged.74 In the second section (Ep. 41,4) he restricts himself solely to attacking
the Montanists’ explanation of salvation history.75 Jerome argues that it is unnecessary to
compose a critique, since exposing them will lead to an automatic refutation of their ideas.
In other words: reason can compose a response by itself and Marcella does not need
training to rebuke what is so obviously blasphemous.76
Hence, one could analyse Jerome’s pedagogical method as follows: he presents
arguments as ‘us’ versus ‘them’, whereby the illustration of ‘their’ arguments should enable
Marcella to identify ‘them’ in debates, whereas the counter-arguments – which follow the
orthodox line – are to be used by her in debate. Throughout his discourse he is
simultaneously explaining why their arguments are wrong, and he provides Scriptural
references to support his own argument.
A similar process is evident in Ep. 42, which offers Marcella an explanation of certain
errors preached by Novatianists. The opening of the letter indicates that Marcella had
requested this particular clarification from Jerome.77 Although the original debates stem
from the persecutions of the third century, Novatianism was still vibrant in certain Christian
circles. Their preaching must have disturbed Marcella who was prompted to write to
Jerome. He was to clarify the orthodox doctrine with regard to unforgivable blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit. The letter focuses on the Scriptural fragment in Mt. 12:32, which
states that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is irremissible.78 Jerome sets out to explain the
doctrine preached by the Novatianists, and illustrates their argument that only Christians
can lapse and commit this particular blasphemy; for example, Jews cannot be accounted for
such blasphemy.79 He further tries to illustrate how their arguments lack logic and Scriptural
basis, and exemplifies this by writing up a Novatianist-style argument applied to St Peter’s
74 Ep. 41,3. Jerome has based his argument on Paul, who urges young widows to get married: “nos secundas nuptias non tam adpetimus, quam concedimus Paulo iubente, ut uiduae adulescentulae nubant [...].”75 I.e. the argument their sect is most famous for, namely Montanus (together with Prisca and Maximilia) as final medium of divine revelation. Jerome categorises this as blasphemy: “Aperta est conuincenda blasphemia [...].”76 Ep. 41,4: “haec coargutione non indigent; perfidiam eorum exposuisse superasse est.” 77 Ep. 42,1: “Breuis quaestiuncula, quam misisti, et aperta responsio est.” 78 Mt 12,32: “quicumque dixerit uerbum contra filium hominis, remittetur ei; qui autem dixerit contra spiritum sanctum non remittetur ei neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro", see Ep. 42,1. 79 Ep. 42,1: “Nouatianus adfirmat non posse peccare in spiritum sanctum nisi eum, qui Christianus sit et postea negauerit, manifestum est Iuaeos, qui eo tempore blasphemabant, peccato blasphemiae non teneri, [...].”
19
denial of knowing Jesus when asked by the Roman servant girl. Following the Novatianists’
way of reasoning he shows how he must conclude that Peter would have committed the
irremissible sin against the Holy Spirit – which, as Jerome argues, is a fallacy. As such one
could argue that Jerome’s pedagogical method in this letter comprises of presenting the
heterodox argument of the ‘opponent’, and subsequently arguing why their teaching should
be rejected; in particular by illustrating their way of reasoning as wrong through adapting it
to a concrete example. This method enables Marcella to see how the Novatianists have built
up their arguments so that she could recognise and rebut them whenever she was exposed
to their ideas. Furthermore, Jerome directs Marcella to the Scriptures, where she will be
able to find proof of the fallacy of the Novatianists – subject to careful analysis of the text.80
To summarise this brief analysis, one could say that Jerome’s tactics reveal a two-
fold pattern of thesis-antithesis. In this way, he does not just explain what orthodox
doctrine is: he projects it against various – in his eyes – heretical interpretations. He
presents the arguments of his opponents, so that his students are well-prepared for battle:
they are made familiar with the enemies’ armoury, and Jerome provides them with plenty
of ammunition to fire off in debate.
Conclusion
In conclusion we can say that Christian education on doctrine did indeed have an
influence on lay participation in significant doctrinal debates. Jerome’s teaching was of a
level that transcended the ‘ordinary’ catechesis which every catechumen would receive in
their local church. Instead, Jerome was offering his students insights not only into the
pursuit and perfection of the ascetic life, but also in exegesis and Christian doctrine, up to
what we could call ‘expert level’. It was precisely this shared or transmitted expertise that
gave his students the chance to formulate informed arguments in doctrinal debates that
could be perceived as persuasive and authoritative. This implies that education was a
means, not only to make people understand their faith, but to let them apprehend
80 Ep. 42,2: “[...] sicut tibi ipsa scriptura atque contextus adtentius lecta poterunt demonstrare.”
20
(orthodox) doctrine and to help define it.81 Furthermore, his students were encouraged to
transmit their knowledge; in other words, they were encouraged to instruct others in the
same way as Jerome had instructed them.
However select and elitist his students might have been, we have seen that
education plays a great role in such (Christian) communities: both in defining their faith and
their identities, and enabling them to have a significant impact on the Church at large.
81 It must of course be stressed that the final word on the definition of orthodox doctrine was always with the bishops, but as we have seen this does not take away the fact that they did try and manage to influence bishops’ decisions on these matters.
21
Bibliography
Primary sources
Gerontius, Vie de Sainte Mélanie (Source Chrétienne, 90)
Jerome, Apology against Rufinus (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 3)
Lardet, P./ Jérôme, S. Jérôme, Apologie contre Rufin . Introduction, texte critique, traduction
et index, (Source chrétiennes, 303) Paris: Cerf, 1983
Jerome, Ep. 22, 41, 42, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 62, 64, 66, 69, CSEL 54; Ep. 77, 82, 84, 85, 95, 107,
108, CSEL 55; Ep. 126, 127, CSEL 56/1
Saint Jérôme (transl. J. Labourt), Lettres (Collection des Universités de France), in 8 vol.
(Paris : Société d’édition «Les Belles Lettres» (l’Association Guillaume Budé), 1949-1963)
Jerome, transl. F. A. Wright, Select Letters (Loeb Classical Library, 262), Cambridge (MA),
London : Harvard University Press, 1933
Secondary sources
Ashbrook Harvey, S., and D. G. Hunter (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008
Bloch, H., The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century, in A. Momigliano
(ed.), The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1963, pp. 193-218
Brakke, D., Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford Early Christian Studies) Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1995
Brown, P., The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200-1000 (The
Making of Europe), Oxford: Blackwell, 2003
Brown, P., “Pelagius and His Supporters: Aims and Environment”, in Religion and Society in
the Age of Saint Augustine, London: Faber and Faber, 1972, 183-207
Brown, P., Through the Eye of a Needle, Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of
Christianity in the West, 350-550 AD, Princeton – Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2012
Cameron, A., Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire. The Development of Christian
Discourse (Sather Classical Lectures 55), Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991
Cameron, A. The Last Pagans of Rome, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011
Clark, E. A., The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian
Debate, Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press, 1992
22
Courcelle, P., Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius to St.
Ambrose, in A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, pp. 151-192
Cribiore, R., Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt,
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005
Cunningham, M. B., and Allen, P. (eds.), Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian
and Byzantine Homiletics, Leiden: Brill, 1998
Flower, H. I., “Elite Self-Representation in Rome”, in The Oxford Handbook of Social
Relations in the Roman World, edited by M. Peachin, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011,
271-285
Gemeinhardt, P., Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung (Studien und
Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 41), Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007
Gold, B., Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient Rome, Austin: University of Texas Press,
1982
Harmless, H., “Salt for the Impure, Light for the Pure: Reflections on the Pedagogy of
Evagrius Ponticus”, in Studia Patristica 37 (2001), 514-525
Humfress, C., “Roman Law, Forensic Argument and the Formation of Christian Orthodoxy
(III-VI Centuries)”, in Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire (Collection de l'École française de
Rome,270), edited by S. Elm, E. Rébillard, A. Romano, Rome, 2000, 125-147
Hunter, D. G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist
Controversy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
Hunter, D. G., “Rereading the Jovinianist Controversy: Asceticism and Clerical Authority in
Late Ancient Christianity”, in Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 33/3 (2003),
453-470
Jeanjean, B., Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie, Paris: Institutes d’Études Augustiniennes, 1999
Johnson, W. A., Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study of Elite
Communities, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010
Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome. His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London: Duckworth, 1975
Laurence, P., Jérôme et le nouveau modèle féminène, La conversion à la « vie parfaite »,
Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 155, Paris : Cerf, 1997
Laurence, R. and J. Berry (eds), Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, London: Routledge,
1998
23
Letsch Bruenner, S., Marcella. Discipula et Magistra. Auf den Spuren einer römischen Christin
ds 4. Jahrhunderts, Berlin – New York : De Gruyter, 1998
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G., Ambrose of Milan. Political Letters and Speeches, Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 2010
Lim, R., Public Disputation, Power and Social Order in Late Antiquity, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1995
Markus, R. A., The End of Ancient Christianity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990
Marrou, H.-I., L’Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité, Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1955
Maxwell, J. L., Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity. John Chrysostom and
his Congregation in Antioch, Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006
Peachin , M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011
Perrin, M.-Y., “A propos de la participation des fidèles aux controverses doctrinales dans
l’Antiquité tardive : considérations introductives”, in AntTard 9 (2001), 179-199
Pina Polo, F., Public Speaking in Rome, in Peachin , M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social
Relations in the Roman World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 286-303
Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: the Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of
Transition, Berkely: University of California Press, 2005
Rappe, S., The New Math: How to Add and to Subtract Pagan Elements in Christian
Education, in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, edited by Y. L. Too, Leiden: Brill,
2001, 405-432
Robertson Brown, A., Banditry or Catastrophe?: History, Archaeology, and Barbarian Raids
on Roman Greece, in R. W. Mathisen and D. Shanzer (eds.), Romans, Barbarians, and the
Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late
Antiquity, Farnham: Ashgate, 2011, pp. 79-96
Rousseau, P., Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian, Notre
Dame (Ind): University of Notre Dame Press, 2010
Salzman, M. R., The Making of a Christian Aristocracy: Social and Religious Change in the
Western Roman Empire, Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2002
Wace, H. and W. C. Piercy (eds.), A dictionary of Christian biography and literature to the
end of the sixth century A.D: with an account of the principal sects and heresies, London: J.
Murray, 1911
24
Ward-Perkins, B., The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005
Williams, M. H., The Monk and the Book. Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship,
Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 2006
