Was Jerome an Innovator in his Defense of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? PT. 2
A FURTHER response to an accusation of dishonesty
Good evening everybody!
I was not expecting to have to write a Part 2 to yesterday’s post, but the accusation of dishonesty on behalf of James White and myself was doubled-down upon by Samuel, a Sedevacantist Roman Catholic who is the founder of Catholic Dogmatics Press. I appreciate Samuel taking the time to read my article and write out a response; however, it is the content of his response, including the same allegations from his original post with renewed strength, that I found disappointing.
Here is Samuel’s response to Part 1 of these posts: https://x.com/unmovediguana/status/1742769396215382247?s=20
This post will constitute my final response to Samuel, and will hopefully extend in utility beyond settling a Twitter feud and will work toward providing a peek at some solid (yet old) scholarship on the issue of Jerome and the perpetual virginity.
While the segment of my interview with James White which centered on Jerome went from timestamps 7:40 - 13:35, the passing comment that Samuel’s entire original thread was written in relation to (which he clipped in a video for that tweet) was James mentioning that, in Jerome's treatise supporting the Perpetual Virginity against Helvidius:
"What's interesting is that Jerome never once even tries to suggest that anyone in the Church before him had ever held the position that he presented."
I focused on this quote because it is it the one that Samuel’s critique seemed to be centered on and in response to which he wrote his extended tweet accusing James as well as myself of being bad-faith actors.
What Samuel seemed to miss when watching that portion of the interview is that, shortly after the above-quoted passing comment, James explicitly mentions the scholar JB Lightfoot and his commentary on Galatians. After a brief aside, James cites Lightfoot as evidence for his above-cited claim and recounts that Lightfoot notes that, Jerome, later in his life, seems not to continue defending the same thesis he puts forth against Helvidius -- this is *extremely important* given Samuel’s claim that James isn’t speaking to Jerome's specific argumentation in the above-cited quote. Especially when James was simply citing and agreeing with Lightfoot's own commentary regarding Jerome.
As Korperski thoroughly discusses in his Master's Thesis (which I quoted heavily from in my original response to Samuel), JB Lightfoot's 1865 commentary, "St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians," observes and documents this shift in Marian apologetics produced by Jerome precisely because of the way that Jerome was innovating with his supporting arguments -- this is well documented in the scholarship since the 1800s.
Since I find immediate context valuable for understanding not just a scholar’s one point, but also how said point is situated in said scholar’s overall research, I would like to provide Lightfoot's recounting of Jerome's arguments as well as his evaluation of them here (my apologies to Samuel if he finds that these are just “irrelevant lengthy excerpts” — I find them quite informative). Rather than rephrasing it all here, especially when doing so seems to get one accused of malicious lying these days, I will simply cite part of Lightfoot's comments on the Perpetual Virginity as found in his Commentary on Galatians.1
On page 89, Lightfoot introduces Jerome’s involvement with defending the Perpetual Virginity:
Such was the state of opinion, when towards the close of the fourth century Jerome struck out a novel hypothesis. One Helvidius, who lived in Rome, had attacked the prevailing view of the superiority of virgin over married life, and in doing so had laid great stress on the example of the Lord’s mother, who had borne children to her husband. In or about the year 383 Jerome, then a young man, at the instigation of “ the brethren” wrote a treatise in reply to Helvidius, in which he put forward his own view. He maintained that the Lord’s brethren were his cousins after the flesh, being sons of Mary the wife of Alphaeus and sister of the Virgin. Thus, as he boasted, he asserted the virginity not of Mary only, but of Joseph also.2
On pages 91 - 94, Lightfoot recounts Jerome’s unique view:
St. Jerome then states his view in the treatise against Helvidius somewhat as follows:
The list of the twelve apostles contains two of the name of James — the son of Zebedee and the son of Alphaeus. But elsewhere we read of one James the Lord’s brother. What account are we to give of this last James? Either he was an apostle, or he was not. If an apostle, he must be identified with the son of Alphaeus, for the son of Zebedee was no longer living; if not an apostle, then there were three persons bearing this name. But in this case how can a certain James be called “the less,” a term which implies only one besides ? And how, moreover, can we account for St. Paul’s language, “Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. i. 19)? Clearly, therefore, James the son of Alphaeus and James the Lord’s brother are the same person. And the Gospel narrative explains this identity. Among the Lord’s brethren occur the names of James and Joseph. Now it is stated elsewhere that Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph (or Joses) was present at the crucifixion (Matth. xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40). This Mary, therefore, must have been the wife of Alphaeus, for Alphaeus was the father of James. But again in St. John’s narrative (xix. 25) the Virgin’s sister “ Mary of Cleophas” (Clopas) is represented as standing by the cross. This carries us a step in advance.
The last-mentioned Mary is to be identified with the wife of Alphaeus and mother of James. Thus James the Lord’s brother was in reality the Lord’s cousin. But if his cousin, how is he called his brother? The following is the explanation: The term “brethren” is used in four different senses in holy scripture; it denotes either (1) actual brotherhood, or (2) common nationality, or (3) kinsman- ship, or (4) friendship and sympathy. These different senses St. Jerome expresses by the four words, “natura, gente, cognatione, affectu.” In the case of the Lord’s brethren the third of these senses is to be adopted. Brotherhood here denotes mere relationship, just as Abraham calls his nephew Lot brother (Gen. xiii. 8), and as Laban uses the same term of Jacob his sister’s son (Gen. xxix. 15).
So far St. Jerome, who started the theory. But, as worked out by other writers, and as generally stated, it involves two particulars besides:
(i.) The identity of Alphaeus and Clopas. These two words, it is said, are different renderings of the same Aramaic name soby or wavy (Chalphai), the form Clopas being peculiar to St. John, the more completely grecized Alphaeus taking its place in the other evangelists. The Aramaic guttural Cheth, when the name was reproduced in Greek, might either be omitted, as in Alphaeus, or be replaced by a « (or x) as in Clopas. Just in the same way Aloysius and Ludovicus are recognized Latin representatives of the Frankish name Clovis (Clodovicus, Hludovicus, Hlouis).? This identification, however, though it materially strengthens his theory, was unknown to Jerome himself. In the course of his argument he confesses plainly that he does not know why Mary is called Clopae (or Cleophae, as he writes it). It may be, he suggests, after her father, or from her family surname (“‘gentilitate familiae”), or for some other reason.! In his treatise of Hebrew names, too, he gives an account on the word Alphaeus which is scarcely consistent with this identity. Neither have I found any traces of it in any of his other works, though he refers several times to the subject. In Augustine, again, who adopts Jerome’s hypothesis and his manner of stating it, it does not anywhere appear, so far as I know. It occurs first, I believe, in Chrysostom, who incidentally speaks of James the Lord’s brother as “son of Clopas,”’ and after him in Theodoret, who is more explicit (both on Gal. i. 19). To a Syrian Greek, who, even if he were unable to read the Peshito version, must at all events have known that Chalphai was the Aramaean rendering, or rather the Aramacan original of ’Ardaios, it might not unnaturally occur to graft this“ identification on the original theory of Jerome.
(ii.) The identity of Judas the apostle and Judas the Lord’s brother. In St. Luke’s catalogues of the twelve (Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13) the name “Judas of James” ('Iovéas ’Iax@Bov) occurs. Now we find a Judas also among the four. brethren ^ of the Lord (Matth. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3); and the writer of the epistle, who was doubtless the Judas last mentioned, styles himself “ the brother of James” (Jude 1). This coincidence suggests that the ellipsis in “ Judas of James” should be supplied by brother, as in the English version, not by son, which would be the more obvious word. Thus Judas the Lord’s brother, like James, is made one of the twelve. I do not know when the Hieronymian theory received this fresh accession, but, though the gain is considerable in apparent strength at least, it does not appear, so far as I have noticed, to have occurred to Jerome himself.
And some have gone astep further. We find not only a James and a Judas among the Lord’s brethren, but also a Symeon or Simon. Now it is remarkable that these three names occur together in St. Luke’s lists of the twelve: James (the son) of Alphaeus, Simon called Zelotes, and Judas (the brother) of James. In the lists of the other evangelists, too, these three persons are kept together, though the order is dif- ferent, and Judas appears under another name, Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus. Can this have been a mere accident? Would the name of a stranger have been inserted by St. Luke between two brothers? Is it not therefore highly probable that this Simon also was one of the Lord’s brethren? And thus three out of the four are included among the twelve. Without these additions the theory is incomplete; and, indeed, they have been so generally regarded as part of it that advocates and opponents alike have forgotten or overlooked the fact that Jerome himself nowhere advances them. I shall, then, consider the theory as involving these two points; for indeed it would never have won its way to such general acceptance, unless presented in this complete form, where its chief recommendation is that it combines a great variety of facts and brings out many striking coincidences.3
On pages 94-97, Lightfoot makes the comments that are most relevant to the topic at hand:
But, before criticising the theory itself, let me prepare the way by divesting it of all fictitious advantages, and placing it in its true light. The two points to which attention may be directed as having been generally overlooked, are these:
(1) Jerome claims no traditional support for his theory. This is a remarkable feature in his treatise against Helvidius. He argues the question solely on critical and theological grounds. His opponent had claimed the sanction of two older writers, Tertullian and Victorinus of Pettaw. Jerome in reply is obliged to concede him Tertullian, whose authority he invalidates as “ not a member of the church,” but denies him Victorinus. Can it be doubted that if he could have produced any names on his own side he would only too gladly have done so? When, for instance, he is maintaining the virginity of the Lord’s mother, a feature possessed by his theory in common with the Epiphanian, he is at no loss for authorities. Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, and many other “ eloquent apostolic men” occur to him at once. But in support of his own account of the relationship he cannot, or at least does not, name a single writer; he simply offers it as a critical deduction from the statements of scripture. Again, in his later writings, when he refers to the subject, his tone is the same: ‘ Some suppose them to have been sons of Joseph ; it is my opinion, I have maintained in my book against Helvidius, that they were the children of Mary the Virgin’s sister.” And the whole tenor of patristic evidence, as I shall hope to show, is in accordance with this tone. No decisive instance can be produced of a writer holding Jerome’s view before it was propounded by Jerome himself.
(2) Jerome does not hold his theory stanchly and consistently. The references to the subject in his works taken in chronological order, will speak for themselves. The theory is first propounded, as we saw, in the treatise against Helvidius, written about 383, when he was a young man. Even here his main point is the perpetual virginity of the Lord’s mother, to which his own special solution is quite subordinate ; he speaks of himself as not caring to fight hard (‘‘contentiosum funem non traho”’) for the identity of Mary of Cleophas with Mary the mother of James and Joses, though this is the pivot of his theory. And as time advances, he seems to hold to his hypothesis more and more loosely. In his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (i. 19), written about 387, he speaks very vaguely. He remembers, he says, having when at Rome written a treatise on the subject, with which, such as it is, he ought to be satisfied (‘qualiacunque sunt illa quae scripsimus his contenti esse debemus”); after which he goes on, inconsistently enough: “ Suffice it now to say that James was called the Lord’s brother on account of his high character, his incomparable faith, and extraordinary wisdom; the other apostles also are called brothers (John xx. 17; comp. Ps. xxii. 22), but he pre-eminently so, to whom the Lord at his departure had committed the sons of his mother (i.e. the members of the church of Jerusalem),” with more to the same effect; and he concludes by showing that the term apostle, so far from being confined to the twelve, has a very wide use, adding that it was “a monstrous error to identify this James with the apostle the brother of John.” In his catalogue of illustrious men (A.D. 392) and in his Commentary on St. Matthew (A.D. 398) he adheres to his earlier opinion, referring in the passages already quoted to his treatise against Helvidius, and taunting those who considered the Lord’s brethren to be the sons of Joseph by a former wife with “ following the ravings of the apocryphal writings, and inventing a wretched creature (mulier- culam) Melcha or Escha by name.” Yet after all, in a still later work, the Epistle to Hedibia (about 406 or 407), enumerating the Maries of the Gospels, he mentions Mary of Cleophas the maternal aunt of the Lord and Mary the mother of James and Joses as distinct persons, adding, “although others contend that the mother of James and Joses was his aunt.” Yet this identification, of which he here speaks with such indifference, was the keystone of his own theory. Can it be that by his long residence in Bethlehem, having the Palestinian tradition brought more prominently before him, he first relaxed his hold of, and finally relinquished, his own hypothesis? If these positions are correct, the Hieronymian view has no claim to any traditional sanction; in other words, there is no reason to believe that time has obliterated any secondary evidence in its favor; and it must therefore be investigated on its own merits. And compact and plausible as it may seem at first sight, the theory exposes, when examined, many vulnerable parts.4
Lightfoot goes on from this point to further critique Jerome’s views on the topic of Jesus’ brothers, but that is beyond the scope of this post. As one can plainly see from reading these excerpts: James White was not making up this take on Jerome on the spot. In fact, it is not even his own take: it is that of celebrated English scholar, theologian, and Bishop of Durham JB Lightfoot.
And this does, in fact, take into account Against Helvidius, chap. 19, where Jerome says:
Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proved from the Gospel— that he spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature. We are, however, spending our strength on trifles, and, leaving the fountain of truth, are following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views, and wrote volumes replete with wisdom.5
As quoted earlier in this post, Lightfoot points out, and reasonably so, that Jerome cites Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr as “holding these views” in a general sense, which likely refers to the position that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Supporting this reasoning is that fact Jerome never cites any of these Fathers throughout his thesis in reference to specific points which he puts forth.
Even as regards this appeal to general ancient agreement on the Perpetual Virginity, however, Jerome fails to provide us with any of the names of the works where the ECFs he mentions write in support of his views — he simply claims that they were works written against heretics. Samuel bizarrely takes this as evidence that by naming these authors, “[Jerome] appeals not merely to the thesis which they held, but to the form, manner, and way in which they defended it;” However, this can just be Jerome’s attempt to further discredit Helvidius as a heretic, by trying to associate him with arch-heretics the church had previously faced. To my knowledge, we don’t even have any works where they support Jerome’s views on this issue to this day.
In order to help illustrate this point, I would like to point to a graph that Lightfoot presents in this same work I’ve thoroughly quoted from in this post: 6
Notice who are absent from the list? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr.
To Samuel’s credit, the only point where I concede that there can be some dispute is as regards Jerome’s perspective on Victorinus, whom Jerome does claim “spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary, but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship not by nature.” However, that being said, Jerome’s language here regarding Victorinus’ views is still ambiguous and we don’t even have any writings of Victorinus on this subject. Adding on to this, Helvidius was actually the first to claim that Victorinus was on his side of this dispute — so we may never know who was the one misrepresenting Victorinus here. That being said, Samuel can definitely differ in his interpretation of this line by Jerome, but his disagreement with Lightfoot’s interpretation does not warrant accusations of dishonesty.
All of this to say: I guess one could call James unoriginal on his view of Jerome on this matter if one so wanted — but certainly not an innovator hoping to “sway people, not by the easily accessible facts, but by his puffed up, over-confident, emphatic, and arrogant tone.” As for Samuel’s claim that this take on Jerome is a “radical” one… he should take it up with the scholarship which, from the 1800s, has not responded to Lightfoot’s arguments here by writing them off as such.
Would some more systematic source citing have helped to clear things up better during the interview? Sure. But James wasn’t doing a scholarly presentation on the topic; we were simply having an informal back and forth. So demanding such carefulness and meticulousness of speech would be a bit silly.
Ultimately, James and I find Lightfoot’s arguments regarding Jerome here to be quite insightful and compelling — and maybe we’re wrong. But we’re certainly not bad faith actors throwing our heads back cackling maniacally after making wildly radical and unsubstantiated statements. And it’s not helpful to pretend that such is the case when one will not even take the time to track down the scholars being brought up in the conversation that one is objecting to.
I think this article and this situation as a whole is a perfect demonstration of what a little charity and research can do. Respectfully, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, this will be my final response to Samuel. I may have been interested in further dialogue, but the false accusations, derisive tone, and vitriol do not warrant further engagement.
Beyond answering to some Twitter accusations, I hope this article was an interesting read and helped bring to light some interesting scholarly observations on the topic of Jerome and the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This issue one the Perpetual Virginity is one which I hope to do a lot more reading on in the near future, so y’all may have another video or article on this topic coming down the pike at a later date!
Until then,
May the Lord bless you and keep you all in His good graces.
Proverbs 18:17 ESV "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
The relevant section of this scholarly Galatians commentary which focuses on the Perpetual Virginity as a whole can be found in Pages 88-128 of that rather large work, “Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians” by JB Lightfoot.
Joseph Barber Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 89 (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1870).
Joseph Barber Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 91-94 (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1870).
Joseph Barber Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 94-97 (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1870).
Jerome, Against Helvidius, Chapter 9, Link: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Joseph Barber Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, p. 128 (Andover: W. F. Draper, 1870).