Talk:Jerome/Archive 1

Plagiarism in "Reception by later Christianity" section

Some of the content in the Reception by later Christianity is lifted directly from "The Christian Church the Early Years" by Richard Oxley. Such as this line: "He showed more zeal and interest in the ascetic ideal than in abstract speculation." Also, can someone elaborate on what "ascetic ideal" and "abstract speculation" mean?

Letters

Do we really need the "breaking lances" idiom? It feels silly to include a figure of speech that is unnecessary, has an unnecessary link, and is anachronistic anyways. Theophilus Wallace (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Theophilus Wallace

His greek name was absent

His greek name was abcent is his original form. Eυσέβιος is equivalent with the latin Pius, Σωφρόνιος means "sensibile" (sensible in English) , as Ιερόνυμος derives from greek ιερό (divinus in latin)therefore the one that has "divine name".

Distracting blank spaces

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed versions of name: Jerome

Please note: Trier (p. 1) is located in the Rhone, not the Rhine.

I've removed a paragraph recouncting the versions for the name Jerome in various European languages. It was not to the point and, anyway, wasn't all that remarkable.

--Philopedia 13:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Unreasoning obedience

"Unreasoning obedience" is a phrase used of the Jesuits in para.4 of the Theological Position section. Can it be justified from a NPOV?--shtove 10:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Links

Some of the links don't work very well like Paula. I think that we should clean up the links. Tom 04:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to expand the references to Rufinus in Wiki and explain the disputes more. He was a few years older than Jerome,and was learned in the literature of the early church including Hebrew. He translated Eusebius Church History and the Clementine Recognitions, possibly Josephus which if circulated make any idea of Roman primacy impossible. Jerome attacked Eusebius, Origen, and the Clementine histories. Pope Damasus I was, according to Chadwick and other historians, the first 'pope' to use the Petrine texts for political power. There is very little about what the controversies were about and these are of huge importance in the history of religion in Europe. Rufinus was ordained by the Bishop of Jerusalem, whom Jerome also attacked as a heretic. Jerusalem was the headquarters of the church up to the time of the death of James, the brother of Jesus, and then via a long series of bishops of Jerusalem the bishoprick of worldwide primacy. This clearly came into conflict with Rome, which was hugely rich with the popes more wealthy than emperors. 80.201.194.102 12:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)David

Links to Saint Paula and Tyrannius Rufinus have already been provided in the article.

I'm not sure what to make of your claim that Jerusalem Jerusalem was a bishoprick of worldwide primacy. What pope of Rome ever deferred to the bishop of Jerusalem? For that matter, what pope of Alexandria? Or Patriarch of Antioch? Or even Patriarch of Constantinople? The Patriarch of Jerusalem was the junior member of th Pentarchy. Your claim that the popes were richer than the emperers also seems farfetched. During the days of Innocent III maybe, but not during the days of Rufinus or Jerome. Rwflammang 04:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Victor of Tannuna?

Article says: "Jerome produced a valuable work, if only for the impulse which it gave to such later chroniclers as Prosper, Cassiodorus, and Victor of Tannuna to continue his annals.". All Google hits of "Victor of Tannuna" points to the Wikipedia or it's mirrors, so it would be nice to have some references to prove this person really existed. --ML 15:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Propably should be "Victor of Tunnuna". --ML 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Jerome and the lion

St. Jerome is commonly depicted with a lion, sometimes pulling a thorn from its paw (see Androclus). I'm not sure what the legend or symbolism behind this is, though.

For an account, from a 10th-11th century Vita of Jerome, click here. Hagiographies are full of this kind of stuff, usually edited out for increased believability nowadays. Compare also Androcles. --Wetman 10:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Jerome on the Web

Can we add some links to Jerome's writings and other sites on Jerome?Christian Askeland 16:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote

I removed the following recently added purported quote from St. Jerome, as I could not verify it.

The Only good that comes from marriage is that it produces virgins.

AxelBoldt 03:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad paraphrase. The intended quote is actually "I praise marriage, but it is because they give me virgins." Jerome's Letter XXII to Eustochium, section 20 (on-line) Perhaps it could go back, corrected and sourced... --Wetman 14:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Jérôme or Jerome

I think that his real name is "Jérôme", and not Jerome. This french version of the name seems to be the historic one. 82.234.10.207 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghostbusters

In the beginning of the first Ghostbusters movie, when asked if there has been any history of mental illness in her familyjhudye bytbgrnb the librarian said that she had an uncle who thought he was Saint Jerome. As Jerome is the patron saint of librarians, this is almost certainly intentional.

dates

347 – 0420-09-30; looks terribly ugly and hard to read. Can't we remove the 0 before the 420? Kdammers 08:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Strido verses Stridon

In Jerome's De Viris Illustribus Jerome states he was born in "Strido" nor Stridon. The city of Stridon was just assumed by some editor (years back) to be the same thing, which it is not. There is no actual reference showing Jerome was born in Stridon, therefore I have put it back to Strido (as Jerome identifies himself). --Doug ^talk 11:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, the town is identified as Stridon in Kelly's biography, in Rebenich's English book and every other thing I've read on it. Strido is how the town is translated in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers edition. This translation is from the 19th century and has now been superceded.84.13.133.57 (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Hello I am totally new to editing Wiki. I recently changed the dates of Saint Jerome but the actual date of September 30th isn't in the ref i cited but was in the original article before i edited it. I am reluctant to remove it because i don't know if it is right or not. I don't have time to research the specifics right now as i am studying for my final exams so if someone else can spare time to that would be great.

Cheers :)

Was Saint Jerome really a Cardinal?

I ask this because the article, as of right now, doesn't say that Saint Jerome was a Cardinal, but it says that he's represented in art with Cardinals' clothes. What was he? Should the article be altered to reflect that?J.J. Bustamante 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerome predates the formal College of Cardinals by some centuries. However, he was certainly a "cardinal", if not a Cardinal. The Latin adjective cardinalis means "chief" or "key". The top clergy of Rome were traditionally called cardinales before the legal establishment of the college. Rwflammang 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, cardinal comes from the latin cardo which has a second meaning as a peg that was inserted into a beam during construction. A cardinal was simply a priest or bishop who had been moved (ie inserted) from the church of his ordination to a church that lacked its own clergy. In Rome during the persecutions there were not major churchs. Rather, there were twenty-some small communities, that together served the function that a cathedral normally would. After the persecutions, however, basillicas were built, and clergy from the small churches were transfered or incardinated to them to perform the liturgy. These priests, deacons, and bishops were therefore cardinals. Well into the middle ages their primary function was the liturgy of the Roman basillicas. There were cardinals in cathedrals and other churchs across Europe. It was not until, oh, the 9th century or so that the term cardinal began to have the conotation that we associate with it. The point is that Jerome was not a cardinal in the manner in which most readers would understand the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajones65 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Death

There isn´t general consensus about his exact death date. Others versions of the Wikipedia, like you can see, give the year 420 as the date of his passing. I don´t think there is exact sure if the date of his death took place in 419 or 420. I ask someone to show the most reliable sources about one of these two dates. User:Mistico 00:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Should controversy be mentioned?

Many of Jerome's writings have been criticized for being misogynistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaylegoh (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Prophetic exegesis" - WP:OR and WP:SYN

This section is OR, exactly like the Augustine article. See the discussion on the Augustine talk page. Tonicthebrown (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This section simply reports what Jerome had to say about Bible prophecy. It says nothing about whether it was or was not more important than anything else Jerome had to say. It is based on Froom who is a secondary, world class source, who far out classes your opinions. And no one has shown or proven Froom biased or wrong. All there have been are opinions--no evidence ever. And it is ONLY your biased opinions on which you base your silly, assertions. The only NPOV you allow are those that you believe in. This is NOT WP:SYN. And you cannot prove it. It is just your biased opinion. Come up with real evidence of what Jerome "really" had to say THEN you can make the claims you make. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"This is NOT WP:SYN. And you cannot prove it."

With all due respect it is clearly WP:SYN and OR. The section consists almost entirely of a series of direct quotations from the ancient primary source, subdivided into topical sections according to the WP editor's own personal assessment, with virtually no third party analysis or secondary source support.Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

— From WP:SYN

Everything in this section, all the comments and the quotes from Jerome, comes directly from Froom. You would know this if you would read Froom. But I forget, you don't need to read Froom. The only thing I did was to reference Jerome's quotes to on-line sources. You are so paranoid. So eager to censor anything you don't agree with. Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate you not descending to the level of personal attacks (WP:PA, WP:CIV). If the material really comes from Froom, then rather than just being presented as an unprocessed collection of block quotes (WP:IINFO) it needs to be written in an encyclopedic style which makes it clear that this is one scholar's analysis of Jerome. At present the style and tone are unencyclopedic. Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it was decided on Augustine of Hippo that Froom does not meet RS standards, I propose that we heavily edit the section to bring it in line with policy on verifiability, OR, synthesis, and POV. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It was NOT decided, it was railroaded, based on ONE insignificant and incomplete review and the utter biases of you and other "editors" (read censors). You twist the WP policies to force your biases on everybody else. You are no different than any other religious bigot and book burner. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You've failed to make a convincing argument that he should be used as a source. I used the only scholarly review that was readily available to me, and I cannot be faulted for that. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited the section, and took what was good to the section on his translations and commentaries. What remains is verified by the provided copy of the Commentary on Daniel or by published works whom I have no reason to question. So Tonic's concern about it consisting "almost entirely of a series of direct quotations from the ancient primary sources...with virtually no third party analysis or secondary source support" are withstanding. It may be appropriate to delete the parts which merely record what Jerome said based only on his writings, but as for me, I'm fine keeping it. I don't believe there to be anything now there which is spurious in nature. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek

The article currently spells his Greek name with an omega, but a comment at the top of this talk page spells it with an omicron, which seems more likely to my small knowledge of Greek. Peter jackson (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Ιερώνυμος, with an omega. See for instance this entry at Lewis & Short's Latin dictionary. Iblardi (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Translated from Masoretic text?

I might be wrong, but I think that the Masoretic text dates from after the time of Jerome. Lilofee 17:31 3 October 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

Cannot be answered with simple yes or no. Best to refer to the excellent presentation in Masoretic Text. --Dampinograaf (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholic priest?!

"Jerome (c. 347 – September 30, 420) (Latin: Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus; Greek: Εὐσέβιος Σωφρόνιος Ἱερώνυμος; also known as Hieronymus Stridonensis) was a Catholic priest"

How could Jerome be a Catholic priest before even The Roman Empire has split? Roman empire has split in 476 AD and Christianity has split (oficially) in 1054 AD but Jerome DIED in 420 AD. --Felix Petrar (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

yes what makes him a Catholic priest? 99.253.184.27 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of 'Roman Catholic' priest is anachronistic, and I am removing it. Although 'catholic' was often used in contrast to heretical groups (it meant other things as well), it did not mean the same as what is now understood as 'Roman Catholic', i.e. in the context of second-millenium denominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.163.71 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The source supports the use of Catholic, so it is justified. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

- I agree with the previous remark: the use of the word Roman Catholic is misleading, as in the modern English language it means a branch of Christianity split in 1054 AD. The meaning of the 4th century - "universal" (say, as opposite to "heretical" sects) must be therefore expressed differently in modern English (as the article doesn't exactly aim at the 4th century reading audience). For the lack of a better word (historians, please help!) I replaced it with "Christian". DmitryVL. 10:06 18 September 2011

Homosexual Jerome???

The life section states:

"As a student in Rome, he engaged quite casually in the gay activities of students there yet suffered terrible bouts of repentance afterwards."

Did the writer intend "gay," as in happiness, or as in homosexual terms??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.46.11 (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I TOO wish to draw attention, and protest, this unclear use of the word, GAY. Either establish its ancient meaning of happiness, or its modern English meaning of homosexual, or else drop it. Please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KHomstad (talk • contribs) 13:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a distinct whiff of HOMOPHOBIA to this article! I cite this as proof: "Jerome initially used classical authors to describe Christian concepts such as hell that indicated both his classical education and his deep shame of their associated practices, such as homosexuality." It seems to say that Jerome "initially" used classical authors, etc. which were associated with homosexuals, and then, what? Changed his mind?

The homosexuality reference is a silly non-sequitur that seems to be just tossed in to provoke and titillate. It does NOT need to be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KHomstad (talk • contribs) 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Payne meant homosexual. Jerome had homosexual feelings (and earlier, practised these feelings). See his letter to Rufinius: For I who fancied it too bold a wish to be allowed by an exchange of letters to counterfeit to myself your presence in the flesh,....Oh, if only the Lord Jesus Christ would suddenly transport me to you...,with what a close embrace would I clasp your neck, how fondly would I press kisses upon that mouth which has so often joined with me of old in error or in wisdom. But as I am unworthy (not that you should so come to me but) that I should so come to you, and because my poor body, weak even when well, has been shattered by frequent illnesses; I send this letter to meet you instead of coming myself, in the hope that it may bring you hither to me caught in the meshes of love's net. - many Church fathers rejected anything that was associated with pagan practices, whether justified or not. Acapella alternating singing, because it resembled choirs of angels praising God was accepted in Church. Instrumental music, because they felt it was used to incite emotions, was banned. Particularly, the organ (still banned in Eastern Churches) was disliked because it was used to rouse the crowds in gladitorial contests. -Jerome, schooled in the classics, tried to use classical authors and their thoughts to describe Christian concepts. This description would be a way to familiarise Christianity, and its concepts, to a classically-trained audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GerryTodd (talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Robert Payne a Reliable Source ?

The article states that this author believed St. Jerome while a student engaged in gay activities. In what does this author bases this opinion ? This needs cleanup and a better context of what this author means.213.13.244.249 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest much of the original text of this article was borrowed from highly dated sources, written when the term 'gay' typically meant simply 'merry'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Payne is from 1951, and gay had been used as meaning 'homosexual' as early as 1922, so it's entirely possible, though I agree he was in all probability using it in that sense. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See Robert Payne (author): a popular writer whose -works are praised for their readability and literary power, although not always for their historical rigor. His biography of Hitler is described as "it incorporates speculation as fact". It appears Payne was too busy cranking out books to do much fact checking. -just saying. Mannanan51 (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Froom is a reliable source

Froom is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. Those interested in Froom's work on prophecy may now visit the article on Froom, which I have updated. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, since when is Froom a RS? That's news to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

When I say 'Froom', I'm referring to Froom's work on prophecy, 'The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers' (PFOOF), discussed earlier in this Talk page. This work by Froom is a reliable source because it meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. Have you read the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source? Many people haven't. I have, so let's look at the highlights of the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, and use them to evaluate Froom's work PFOOF:

• 'Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process': True of PFOOF
• 'their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand': True of PFOOF
• 'How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication': True of PFOOF (a very large team was involved, Froom was simply the editor)
• 'Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available': PFOOF is both academic and peer-reviewed
• 'Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses': PFOOF has been extensively vetted by the scholarly community
• 'The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes': PFOOF is frequently cited in the scholarly literature
• 'How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence': PFOOF is extensively used as a source for scholarly literature

Froom's work 'The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers' meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source? Have you read the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source? If you have read it, have you read Froom's work on prophecy? If you have read the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, and you have read Froom's work on prophecy, do you believe Froom's work on prophecy meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source? --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We had a lengthy discussion on this earlier. Clearly, I do not believe Froom constitutes a RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read the lengthy discussion. What I want to know is why you do not believe Froom constitutes a RS. I saw that your objection was not evidence based, nor was it in any way based on Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source (a throwaway out of context quote from an article you haven't read doesn't count). Your objection therefore is groundless and irrelevant. The work of Froom under discussion meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source, as I have described. You'll find evidence for this in the Froom article (which I have updated with scholarly references). I also have here another 10 scholarly articles and half a dozen academic books which I can use to substantiate the fact that Froom's work meets the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. I'm entirely ready to list them all here (complete with citation references, page numbers, and even quotes), if necessary.

What I would like to see is a lot more attention to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, and a lot more evidence based arguments, instead of than 'I do not believe Froom constitutes a RS'. Wikipedia is not interested in what your or I believe. Let's try to be slightly scholarly, shall we? --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll restate what I said before: "which does strike me as itself rather POV. He quotes Augustine plenty, but I feel like he is selectively quoting him and making a novel synthesis, especially since Augustine wrote so, so much. Froom's writing is easily discernable as POV and anti-Augustine. Also, he is held up only by evangelicals, and the only scholarly review I could find, from Speculum, made note that "The author's own particular viewpoints so dominate the work..."" This does not bode well for him being a RS. Google scholar yields 19 cites of Froom, four of which are from the past 20 years. This is hardly "extensive". And as Leadwind has said elsewhere, a source this old is not really useful. If it is still relevant, then we can find newer and better sources for what he is saying. If not, then he has fallen by the wayside and is not suitable for use here.

More immediately, why are we discussing this? Is there something in particular which you want to include from Froom? It would be much easier to discuss the merits of a particular edit, rather than the worthiness of an entire work. I myself pointed out on the Augustine talk page that there are tidbits which I think could be useful. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Restating what you said before is simply restating something which is irrelevant, unsubstantiated, makes no reference to Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, is based on subjective personal interpretation ('does strike me', 'I feel'), is inadequately researched, and is itself POV without any attempt to verify it. You haven't even read the references I've placed in the article on Froom. This just simply isn't good enough. I'm going to go through this one more time, and if this is all I continue to get in return I'll take this straight to WP:RSN, where educated, informed, and serious analysis of sources is to be found. Now let's go through your arguments:

• 'does strike me as itself rather POV', 'I feel like': What you 'feel like', or what 'strikes you', is irrelevant. There's no kind way to put this. Wikipedia has a policy on reliable sources precisely to stop people making decisions on what they 'feel like'. When we want to assess the reliability of a source, we use that policy, we don't ask you what you 'feel like'. Furthermore, dismissing an entire 4,000 page work on the basis of a single section which you don't like isn't remotely logically coherent.
• 'Froom's writing is easily discernable as POV and anti-Augustine': In other words, Froom doesn't like Augustine's postmillennialism because Froom was a premillennialist. So what? Unless you can demonstrate that Froom distorted his presentation of Augustine as a result, such that his entire 4,000 work is unreliable, you have no argument. This is irrelevant.
• 'Also, he is held up only by evangelicals': Completely untrue. I'll demonstrate this shortly.
• 'the only scholarly review I could find, from Speculum': As soon as I read this, I knew you're simply not in a position to be making a judgment on this subject. You were only able to find one review? Why is that? I found eight. How could you miss them? How is it that you only found one? Simple. You don't know how to look, and you don't know where to look. This is precisely why Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on reliable sources, so articles aren't at the mercy of people who just don't know how to evaluate sources properly. You didn't follow these policies and guidelines, and it seems that you simply don't have the skills to do so anyway.
• 'from Speculum, made note that "The author's own particular viewpoints so dominate the work...""': Again, as soon as I read this alarm bells rang. You've quoted a partial sentence, completely out of context. We don't even know what the reviewer's conclusion was, because you deliberately concealed it. The author's own particular viewpoints so dominate the work that... what? We don't know, because you deliberately didn't tell us. You've already been corrected on this once, and I'll correct you again, since I have read the review in Speculum. I'll provide the full quote, 'The author's own particular viewpoints so dominate the work and so dictate the selection of material that it is doubtful that those who do not share them will find themselves convinced by the argument'. This simply says that it's unlikely the reader will be swayed by the argument Froom makes from his sources, unless they are already sympathetic to it. But it says nothing about Froom's research or presentation of those sources being misleading, inaccurate, or unreliable. You have grossly misrepresented this quote, which is appalling practice. The same reviewer said 'An immense amount of extensive and arduous research has gone into the project, and a vast amount of material is reviewed in these weighty volumes', and 'These volumes are carefully prepared, profusely illustrated, elaborately indexed, and equipped with exhaustive bibliographies and useful charts', and 'Specialists can find here a wealth of material', but curiously (or not curiously), you didn't quote any of those complimentary statements.
• 'Google scholar yields 19 cites of Froom, four of which are from the past 20 years': This is further evidence of your lack of ability to research the topic properly. I found thirty cites of Froom using Google scholar before I stopped counting, and I was only halfway through five pages of results. Shortly I'll present a copious list of citations, many of which date within the last 10 years.
• 'And as Leadwind has said elsewhere, a source this old is not really useful': On what grounds? Has Augustine changed his opinions recently? Has John Napier reached conclusions other than those described by Froom? Has there been any new scholarship recently which has overturned Froom's usefulness as a source? This is a throwaway line which means nothing.

Now having looked at the previous edits, I cannot in fact find anything quoted from Froom in which Froom asserts Augustine was a Historicist or interpreted all the prophecies literally, as has been claimed. Unlike you I actually have a hardcopy of Froom, and I have read it cover to cover several times. Froom doesn't quote selectively 'to give the impression that he interpreted prophecies in a literal and linear manner, making him appear as a historicist or futurist'. In fact, Froom specifically says:

• Augustine 'reversed his earlier acceptance of the doctrine [of premillennialism] (volume 1, page 307)
• Augustine taught 'an alternative millennium, into exchanging a future dominion of the saints in the Holy City for the present dominion of the saints in the church' (volume 1, page 307)
• Augustine supported an 'abandonment of millenarianism' (volume 1, page 307)
• Augustine 'was anxious to spiritualize the different visions in the Apocalypse even more' volume 1, page 407), and to 'interpret the tremendous struggle pictured there as a spiritual struggle between the church, which represents the forces of struggle between the church, which represents the forces of light, and the world, which stands for the forces of evil' (volume 1, page 407)
• Augustine was a 'Reviser of the Millennial Position' (volume 1, page 473)
• Augustine was 'Repelled by the literal interpretation of the Scripture' (volume 1, page 477)

He says plenty more to the same point, including declaring that 'allegorism became completely victorious under Augustine' (volume 1, page 477). This is all the complete opposite of what has been claimed of Froom. So whoever thinks that Froom misrepresented Augustine as a literalist belonging to the Historicist or Futurist school simply has no idea what they are talking about whatsoever. That's the kind of ignorant comment which results when people haven't studied a subject but think they somehow know all about it. What absolute nonsense, and no one here bothered to check it, which is utterly reprehensible.

Now let's move on to reviews and citations of Froom in the scholarly literature:

• 1947: Review, Frank H. Yost, Church History, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Dec., 1947), pp. 256-257
• 1948: Review, E. Harris Harbison, Church History, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Sep., 1948), p. 257
• 1952: Review, Robert T. Handy, Speculum, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1952), p. 551
• 1952: Review, Robert T. Handy, Church History, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1952), p. 155
• 1953: Review, R.A. Renfer, ‘The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, volume 110, pages 366-367
• 1953: Review, Allen Cabaniss, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Jan., 1953), p. 80
• 1956: Review, Ernest Trice Thompson, Church History, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Jun., 1956), pp. 184-185
• 2000: Review, Mal Couch, ‘The Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers’, in Conservative Theological Journal, volume 4, page 227 (2000)

That's eight reviews. Now let's look at citations. These works are on a range of subjects, including literature, history, science, religion, social science, bibliographic history, literary criticism, and philosophy, showing just how widely cited Froom is across the breadth of scholarship:

• 1952: Ira V. Brown, The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Dec., 1952), pp. 441-458
• 1952: Sidney E. Mead, Church History, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Jun., 1952), pp. 150-152
• 1958: Roy Aldrich, ‘Can the End of the Age Be Computed by the Year-Day Theory?’, in Bibliotheca Sacra, issue 458, page 165 (1958)
• 1963: John Edwin Smylie, The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1963), pp. 297-311
• 1965: David E. Smith, American Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Autumn, 1965), pp. 535-549
• 1965: Walter Ralston Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, page 363 ('in the fourth volume of his masterful series The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers')
• 1974: Robert G. Clouse, The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Apr., 1974), pp. 101-114
• 1974: John E. Groh, Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 257-267
• 1975: Stephen J. Stein, Early American Literature, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Winter, 1975), pp. 211-225
• 1975: Bryan W. Ball, Studies in the History of Christian Thought, cites Froom on pages 10, 73, 74, 75, 85, 148, 170, 178, 245, 269
• 1986: Avner Cohen, Steven Lee, Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions, cites Froom on pages 147, 148, 149
• 1986: Edna Ullmann- Margalit, The Prism of Science, cites Froom on page 44
• 1988: Russell R. Standish, Colin D. Standish, The Antichrist is Here, cites Froom on page 15
• 1988: Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, cites Froom on pages 205, 207
• 1989: Nabil I. Matar, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Summer, 1989), pp. 52-70
• 1989: George L. Berlin, Defending the Faith, cites Froom on pages 176, 196
• 1990: James E. Force, Richard Henry Popkin, Essays on the Context, Nature, and Influence of Isaac Newton's Theology, cites Froom in footnote 20 (page 178), footnotes 35, 40, 50 and 51 (page 179), footnote 54 (page 180)
• 1992: Kathryn Zabelle Derounian-Stodola, Harrison T. Meserole, Early American Literature and Culture: Essays Honoring Harrison T. Meserole, cites Froom on pages 107 and 249
• 1993: John Walsh, Jane Garnett, Colin Matthew, Revival and Religion Since 1700: Essays for John Walsh, cites Froom in footnotes 26 ('On Wolff, see Froom'), and 27 ('He is extensively treated in Froom'), page 106
• 1994: B.J.T. Dobbs, Isis, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Sep., 1994), pp. 515-517
• 1994: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: K-P, cites Froom on pages 358, 359, 361
• 1996: Robert Compton, Counting the Days to Armageddon, cites Froom on pages 26, 153, 156
• 1997: Malcolm Couch, Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, cites Froom on pages 37, 378, 379
• 1998: Stephen D. O'Leary, Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, cites Froom in footnotes 29, 31, 33, 34 (page 262), footnote 5 (page 265), footnotes 15, 16, 17, (page 266)
• 1998: Nabil I. Matar, Islam in Britain, 1558-1685: 1558 - 1685, cites Froom on pages 153, 210
• 1998: Esther Gilman Richey, The Politics of Revelation in the English Renaissance, cites Froom on page 5
• 2000: Malcolm Bull, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 658-662
• 2001: Grayson Carter, Anglican Evangelicals: Protestant Secessions from the Via Media, C. 1800-1850, cites Froom on pages 111, 157, 162, 176, 203, 204, 433, 450
• 2001: Edmond C. Gruss, Jehovah's Witnesses, cites Froom on page 36
• 2002: Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Kathleen Coburn, Merton Christensen, Anthony John Harding, The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: 1827-1834, cites Froom on pages 5486, 768
• 2002: J D. Fause, The Rod: Will God Spare It?, cites Froom on pages 358, 367, 369, 371, 418
• 2003: Richard Henry Popkin, The History of Scepticism: From Savonarola to Bayle, cites Froom on page 350
• 2003: Juliet Cummins, Milton and the Ends of Time, cites Froom on page 39
• 2004: Steve Wolhberg, End Time Delusions, cites Froom in footnotes 27, 34, 39, 41 (page 210)
• 2006: Timothy Marr, The cultural roots of American Islamicism, cites Froom on page 87
• 2006: Jeffrey K. Sue, Heaven Upon Earth: Joseph Mede (1586-1638) and the Legacy of Millenarianism, cites Froom on pages 4, 133, 134, 168, 261, 262

That's thirty six works citing Froom, and ten of them between 2000 and 2006. I'm sure I could find more, I still have 10 pages of results to look through. But this is enough for the purpose.

Why am I doing this? Because as a trained information professional who is also a regular editor of Wikipedia I tire of coming across articles littered with the wildly inaccurate and utterly unsubstantiated personal opinions of people who know nothing about the subject on which they are pontificating and who simply will not follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I am not an SDA, I have no personal investment in Froom, I'm simply interested in maintaining a scholarly standard in these articles. --Taiwan boi (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, do you have anything specific in the article you want changed in reference to Froom? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a lot of material there on Jerome's eschatology which cites Jerome's work directly, a primary source, which I thought was WP:OR. We could use Froom's analysis of Jerome to say the same thing through a secondary source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well make the changes; we can discuss them afterwards. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stridonium

What the heck is Stridonium? Isn't the name of the town Stridon? Rwflammang (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth date

There is some disagreement over Jerome's birthdate. Prosper of Aquitaine places it in 331. Cavallera dates it to 347, but this is rejected by Kelly who keeps prospers dating. More recently, however, the tendency has been to accept the later dating for a number of reasons. I would propose a dating of ca. 347, which seems to be corroborated by the most recent literature on Jerome. I will change this now, and add citations later. (probably much later...) 78.145.55.158 (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Doctrines Section

I've seen a lot of Church Father's pages have 'doctrines' sections where people can post perculiar doctrines espoused by said Fathers. I placed a quotation by St. Jerome in 'quotes' which states he believed in the Virginity of Jesus Christ. I think it would be best to add a doctrines section, but I'll leave that up to whoever wishes.24.125.102.206 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Help

In good faith I created a new category "Church History" which I attached to many other articles and to the article The Jerome. It has now been nominated for deletion. Please participate in the discussion here: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 31

Thank you so much.

  Bfpage |leave a message  11:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

His origin

He was born in Stridon, which was located in the province of Dalmatia.And Dalmatia was inhabited by the Illyrians.Second, he also before learning latin, spoke Illyrian as a tongue language.So I think that those facts enough to prove his Illyrian origin, and I don't know why there are some Wikipedia contributors deleting my edits, over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.231.255 (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

If the source does not explicitly state he was Illyrian your speculation is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and is not allowed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And how could he spoke the Illyrian language if he was not an Illyrian?He claimed in his writing that he spoke the Illyrian language46.19.231.255 (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You mean if people speak English they must be English? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Illyrian language wasn't an international language..It was an language spoken mostly in Illyrian villages and countryside.46.19.231.255 (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant. There are many ways that someone could learn to speak the laguage. Again, your conjecture is your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and as in the other article your editing method of choice is edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How could he had learned the Illyrian language, when he spoke it as a tongue language??You are just an ignorant who knows nothing about Jerome, but just keep foolishly removing my edits.46.19.231.255 (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jerome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081228175424/http://www.fourthcentury.com:80/index.php/jerome-chart to http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/jerome-chart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

{ Wasn't it Jerome who changed the original order of books in the Bible to take the emphasis off of Jerusalem and put it onto Rome? } — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.188.147 (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Animos?

I read Latin poorly, which makes me the ideal sort of person to notice small typos--the more fluent often correct errors mentally without even being conscious that they're there.

And I was brought up short by "Horror ubique animos, simul ipsa silentia terrent". Didn't make sense...unless one loses that "s". "Animo", dative singular, makes perfect sense.

So I checked the Loeb Virgil, where sure enough, it's "animo". Aeneid ii: 755.

It is not possible for me, in the (remote)situation in which I find myself, to adhere to very rigorous standards of scholarship. But I was able to check the reference to the Patrologia Latina. It's wrong, but not by much--the quotation is actually in column 375. not 373, of Volume 25. And it's hard to blame the poster much for this--the printing is so lousy that the only way I know it's 375 is that it's between 374 and 376.

Anyway, it's a good thing I did this before making a public fool of myself here. Migne DOES IN FACT HAVE "ANIMOS"!

The meter doesn't help us-- the "o" would be long, I think, and the syllable heavy either way.

Are we looking at a 150=year-old mistake?

Maybe not. It occurs to me that this could (possibly) be an example of the so-called "Greek Accusative" or "Accusative of Respect" (I have seen this before with "anima", though one's anima is not really a "body part" as the usual explanations of grammarians would seem to require). There is, furthermore, a strong tendency for such words to be couched in the singular, even when parts of multiple persons are denoted, and in any case the plural number seems to me here substantially to weaken the direct, personal flavor of what is overall an extremely powerful bit of prose.

In the end I've made no changes at all in the article, but am depositing this here in the hope that some better qualified authority will be able to shed some light on what first Vergil and then Jerome actually wrote.

Quite incidentally: I know it's tough to include bits of non-English in an English encyclopedia article-- I have no idea what the Wikipedia policy may be on this-- but I think it is a good idea to include, at least in a note, at least a little of this amazing House-of-Usher bit of Hieronymian prose, showing as it does both how well he could write, and a little something of his character (what exactly are the autobiographical bits doing in a commentary on Ezekiel, anyway?).

Mjhrynick (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Jerome → ? – Jerome should be a redirect to either Jerome (disambiguation) or Jerome (given name). This article's name should be something like Jerome of Stridon, or use one of the existing redirects. —Jerome Potts (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This looks like the primary topic to me: the name derives from him, and there aren't any other mononymous usages that stack up. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Nohomersryan. —  AjaxSmack  05:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Native language

None of the sources quoted in notes 9 and 10 establish that Jerome's native language was Illyrian. Pevarello, p.1, only says "(...) the Illyrian theologian and ascetic, Jerome of Strido embarked (...)". Nothing in the while page is said about his native language. I haven't checked Wilkes 1995 (the complete title of this work appears nowhere in the page) but the Latin text he refers to (Commentary on Isaiah 7.19) does not establish that Jerome spoke Illyrian (natively or not). The only time Illyrian is mentioned in Commentary on Isaiah 7.19 is when Jerome writes: "notandum quod pro lacunis LXX ζῦθον transtulerunt, quod genus est potionis ex frugibus aquaque confectum et vulgo in Dalmatiae Pannoniaeque provinciis gentili barbaroque sermone appellatur sabaium." "it must be noted that instead of pond, they translate [in the Septuagint, from the Hebrew] it as “beer.” This is a type of drink made from grains and water; and, in the common and barbaric speech of the locals from the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia, it is called “sabaium.”" (translation taken from https://brewingclassical.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/5501/).

I therefore propose that the sentence about Jerome's native language is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khveysnisht (talk • contribs) 12:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the points made, it does make sense to remove that sentence (I realized this was brought to the tak page after I made the edit). On the contrary, only his ability to speak the Illyrian dialect causes controversy, not his origin (i.e. he was still ethnically Illyrian, as per "(...) the Illyrian theologian and ascetic, Jerome of Strido embarked (...)" ).ArbDardh (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)ArbDardh

Saint Jerome

There you are Johnbod, charging in to directly revert my edits with an insulting and patronizing comment: "consider yourself lucky this isn't the actual title, as it arguably should be". Consider myself lucky? In what way? The man was not born as "Saint Jerome". He is "Jerome". That a number of people with a particular religious belief think he is in "Heaven" and a "saint" may be notable, but detracts from the historical accuracy of the article. He isn't primarily known as a "saint", he is known as an early Christian leader who assembled and translated the Christian Bible. So instead of edit warring how about you set out your arguments rationally and politely and we can collectively take a view as to what works best. Thanks!Contaldo80 (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Before any more warring over this, form a consensus based on the relevant section of the style guide. Zero^talk 07:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

To editor Contaldo80: I disagree that calling him Saint Jerome indicates a religious belief. It only acknowledges that the Catholic Church bestowed this title on him, which is an objective fact. However, I believe that that a reasonable reading of MOS:HON is that we should not start the article with "Saint Jerome". It is enough that the lead section mentions the title.

To be precise, MOS:HON says "In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to:" and sainthood is given as an example. There is only one exception that can be considered, namely "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it", but that does not apply to Jerome who is referred to without "Saint" in a very clear majority of scholarly sources. Zero^talk 17:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

An overwhelming majority of book sources too: [1] Zero^talk 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not arguing to change the title. The relevant section of the MOS is MOS:SAINTS which does not say this is wrong (or right). Very typically, Contaldo's drive-by edit left no mention of his sainthood (recognized by ALL Christian denominations that have a concept of sainthood, not just "the Catholic Church") until the last paragraph of the lead, which is ridiculous and misleading for such a major figure. Sadly the chances of forming a consensus with Contaldo are very low indeed, as many past experiences show. The last time time, he worked himself into a highly frothy state over wording that, it turned out, he had actually added himself! Having forgotten this, he described his own phrasing as a "childish piece of editing", "as if we're contributing to a Victorian sex manual", "prurient extension of someone's personal hang-ups" .... Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Working collaboratively with you Johnbod also reveals itself to be an thankless and unpleasant activity. You immediately litter your interventions with personal abuse from the start - "you're lucky that", "forming consensus...low indeed", "highly frothy state" etc. Zero0000 has made the point elegantly. Happy to refer to "saint" Jerome in the lead but not literally the first two words. Johnbod can I suggest you adopt a different approach in future as your aggressive response this time was not what one would expect from someone editing as long as you have. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

There are penalties for personal attacks. Cut it out now. Zero^talk 10:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)