St. Jerome and the filioque
Today is the feast of the greatest Latin Scripture scholar of all time – St. Jerome.
Jerome is most famous for his Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate. This translation became the norm in Western Christianity for more than a millennium, and its impact was far-reaching. One area, however where it had an (unintended) impact is in the debate over the filioque (“and [from] the Son”), that addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which has caused such division in the Church.
When translating John 15:26 (“When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me”), Jerome used the Latin verb procedere to translate the Greek word εκπορευεται (“proceeds from”). This decision is not a bad one, as both mean “proceed” or “come forth from”. However, by the time of Jerome, this Greek word had come to take on a particular meaning in Greek theology – a meaning that was not there originally. It was used to designate the Holy Spirit’s unique mode of proceeding as opposed to the begetting of the Son in the Godhead. But the Latin term had no such meaning in the West; it could be used interchangeably for both processions.
For example, in John 8:42 (“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me”) Jerome again uses the Latin verb procedere, yet the Greek term used is εξηλθον, which means “come forth”, but by Jerome’s time was not identical to εκπορευεται. So in the Latin, both the Son’s procession and the Spirit’s procession used the same broad term – procedere – but the Greeks used different terms for them. Both East and West agreed that both processions could not be identical, so in the West there developed an understanding that the Spirit’s procession was “from the Father and the Son“, a development that did not take hold in the East, which saw the begetting of the Son and the generation of the Spirit as distinct even though both were “from the Father.”
It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jerome’s translation; the fact is that the languages are just different and any translation sometimes has to use the best word available even if it is not an exact match. Furthermore, the Greek language, like every language, had developed, so the term εκπορευεται came to have a precise theological meaning in the East which it did not have at the time of the New Testament. Even without Jerome’s translation decisions the debate over the filioque might have erupted, but the human constraints of language surely played their part in this divisive phrase.
St. Jerome, pray for us!














Looks like spellcheck got the best of you here, correcting your Latin infinitive “procedere” to the English “procedure” in a couple of places.
Dr silverrose,
Spell-check is getting a bit uppity!
Thanks for the catch; I’ve updated the post.
This is fascinating. And I can’t imagine this being an issue at all if this translation was discussed among most current English speakers. The notion of precision in language seems to have utterly disappeared.
I detest spellcheck. Our local paper relies on it heavily and the results can be hilarious, like the time a local high school was ‘beatified’. It wasn’t even a Catholic school…
Since, as an unreflective ‘Filioquist’ having become aware of the controversy many a year ago, now, I have never yet encountered a convincing apologia for/presentation of “Filioque” (as distinct from any ‘per’ formulation).
Could you direct me to one (preferably online, as there is no really good library close by…)?
With thanks for this interesting post (with its sensible discussion of the development of technical uses of Biblical words)!
D,
If you really want to study the Western understanding of the processions and relations in the Godhead, you need to read On the Trinity by St. Augustine. It is foundational to the genesis of the filioque.
Dear Eric Sammons,
Thank you (belatedly) for the recommendation! I have never yet read ‘On the Trinity’ right through, but am grateful for the encouragement (and the link) and hope to follow it up! From what I recall of the quotations from it which I have read in detailed and intelligent online articles, etc., St. Augustine was judiciously ‘per Filium-ist’ (if I may say it in that way) – which would not necessarily lead to ‘Filioque’. (That might, indeed, leave ‘Filioque’ exceedingly well-meant in its original context, but still ‘a “-que” too far’(?). But, to the book!