Latin text and English translation of Martianay's defense of St. Jerome against Jean Le Clerc's Enlightenment criticisms, revealing the clash between traditional Catholic scholarship and emerging modern biblical critique.

Historical Context

Figure: Caravaggio’s Saint Jerome Writing (c.1605). St. Jerome’s scholarly image underscores the reverence and controversy surrounding his legacy.

The Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae adversus Joannem Clericum (“Defense of Jerome’s Learning against Jean Le Clerc”) emerged at the turn of the 18th century, a time of vibrant scholarly debate over the Church Fathers. Its author, Dom Jean Martianay (1647–1717), was a learned Benedictine of the Maurist congregation who had recently produced a critical Paris edition of St. Jerome’s works (1693–1706) ( Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ) (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). Martianay’s edition was one of the first modern attempts to rigorously edit and annotate Jerome’s writings, reflecting the Catholic Church’s effort to uphold patristic authority with sound scholarship. Around the same time, Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736) – a Genevan Protestant theologian and philologist known in Latin as Johannes Clericus – published Quaestiones Hieronymianae (Amsterdam, 1700), a polemical critique of Martianay’s Jerome edition (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). Le Clerc was part of the early Enlightenment circle that applied “advanced principles of exegesis” and critical historical method to biblical and patristic texts, often challenging traditional accounts. In his Quaestiones, Le Clerc systematically questioned Jerome’s writings and Martianay’s editorial decisions, thereby scrutinizing the hagiographic scholarship of the day.

This confrontation must be seen against the broader intellectual and theological environment of the late 17th century. Protestant scholars, no longer bound by Tridentine decrees, felt freer to critique even revered Church Fathers, judging their works by reason, language, and historical evidence rather than by unquestioned tradition (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”) (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”). Catholic scholars like Martianay, while adopting many humanist scholarly tools (e.g. manuscript study, philology), remained committed to defending the honor and orthodoxy of the Fathers, who were pillars of ecclesiastical tradition. The debate over Jerome’s scholarship was therefore not merely personal but emblematic of the ancients vs. moderns tension in theology: could a modern critic like Le Clerc justly expose flaws in a 4th-century Doctor of the Church, or did such criticism betray impiety toward sacred tradition? The Defensio was written in this charged context – effectively a Catholic rejoinder to a Protestant challenge – and it aimed to vindicate St. Jerome’s erudition and reliability. Notably, this was not the first time Jerome’s expertise had come under scrutiny: Le Clerc’s own uncle, David Le Clerc (a professor of Oriental languages in Geneva), had earlier pointed out alleged Hebrew errors in Jerome’s writings, for which Martianay had already taken him to task (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). The controversy thus formed part of an ongoing scholarly reassessment of Jerome, colored strongly by confessional lines – the Protestant Le Clerc’s “less than reverent evaluation” versus the Catholic monk Martianay’s pious defense (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). In sum, the Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae was born from a dynamic early modern milieu where biblical philology, patristic scholarship, and confessional apologetics intersected. Its relevance extends beyond a single argument, shedding light on how post-Reformation scholars negotiated the authority of the Fathers and the evolving methods of critical inquiry.

Theological Arguments in Defense of Jerome

Martianay’s Defensio addresses Jean Le Clerc’s critiques point by point, mounting a robust defense of St. Jerome’s learning, character, and authority. The work’s key theological and scholarly arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Jerome’s Mastery of Languages: A primary contention was Jerome’s command of the biblical languages, especially Hebrew. Le Clerc had argued that Martianay “failed to appreciate the limits of Jerome’s command of Hebrew,” pointing out instances where Jerome allegedly misunderstood or mistranslated Hebrew terms (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). In response, Martianay’s Defensio emphasizes Jerome’s extraordinary linguistic erudition for his era. He reminds readers that Jerome was one of the very few Latin fathers proficient in Greek and Hebrew – a fact Jerome himself humbly boasts, calling himself “Hebraeus, Graecus, Latinus, trilinguis” (a master of three tongues) ( Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). Martianay defends Jerome’s Hebrew scholarship by citing Jerome’s extensive work on the Vulgate (translating the Old Testament from Hebrew), his Hebrew Questions on Genesis, and his correspondence with Jewish scholars. Any errors or uncertainties in Jerome’s renderings, Martianay argues, were minor and due to the rudimentary state of Hebrew studies in late antiquity, not a lack of diligence (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). In essence, the Defensio portrays Jerome as a pioneer of Christian Hebraism whose achievements must be judged in context – with Martianay asserting that the few slips noted by Le Clerc do not undercut Jerome’s overall expertise or the reliability of his translations.

• Use of Sources and Originality: Le Clerc had insinuated that Jerome’s commentaries were often derivative – for example, heavily borrowing (even “plagiarizing”) from the earlier Greek theologian Origen – thus questioning Jerome’s originality and scholarly candor (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”). Martianay counters this by highlighting Jerome’s transparency and methodus operandi in using sources. The Defensio points out that it was common and even prudent for Christian scholars to draw on predecessors’ insights; in Jerome’s time, Origen’s writings were the most comprehensive exegetical corpus available (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome). Far from secretly stealing, Jerome openly acknowledged his debts to Origen and others. For instance, in several prefaces Jerome admits he is translating or abridging Origen’s homilies for a Latin audience. Martianay insists that utilizing a source is not the same as lacking erudition: Jerome “made use of Origen, as did many others,” yet he selectively transcribed and adapted Origen’s interpretations (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome). The Defensio argues that Jerome brought his own critical judgment to bear – he preserved valuable insights from Origen but also corrected or omitted what was unorthodox. Thus, Jerome’s commentaries are defended as both learned and discerning, with Martianay effectively reframing “borrowing” as evidence of Jerome’s broad learning and his role as a transmitter of tradition rather than as a fault.

• Orthodoxy and Consistency: Another of Le Clerc’s sharper doctrinal critiques was that Jerome could be inconsistent or driven by polemical zeal rather than principle. Le Clerc pointed to the notorious example of Jerome’s shifting attitude toward Origen: Jerome initially praised Origen’s theology but later vehemently condemned him when controversies arose, suggesting (to Le Clerc) a degree of opportunism or overzealousness (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”). Martianay’s Defensio tackles this head-on, aiming to vindicate Jerome’s orthodoxy and integrity. He explains that Jerome’s change of stance on Origen was not whimsical inconsistency but a result of evolving circumstances and fidelity to Church teaching (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”) (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”). Early in his career, Jerome admired Origen’s scholarship and innocently praised him, focusing on his exegetical genius. But as theological scrutiny of Origen’s more speculative doctrines (on the Trinity, the pre-existence of souls, etc.) increased and the Church began to condemn Origenist errors, Jerome appropriately adjusted his position. The Defensio likely echoes what modern historians note: Jerome “greatly praised and made use of Origen” in his writings, even reproducing some questionable passages without immediate censure, but he never embraced Origen’s heterodox doctrines in his own belief (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome). When the time came, Jerome repudiated those doctrines forcefully, thereby upholding orthodoxy. Martianay thus portrays Jerome’s later critique of Origen not as personal inconsistency but as the reaction of a loyal churchman who, once aware of doctrinal dangers, acted to distance the Church from error. Through this argument, the Defensio defends Jerome’s moral and theological character, turning Le Clerc’s charge of “zealous inconsistency” into a virtue of zeal for truth.

• Authority of Tradition vs. Modern Criticism: Underlying Martianay’s rebuttals is a broader apologetic theme: a defense of patristic authority against the nascent modern critical spirit. Le Clerc approached Jerome as he would any human author – fallible and subject to rigorous critique (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”) – even remarking that readers might accuse him of impiety for scrutinizing a saint. Martianay responds by reasserting Jerome’s eminence as a Doctor of the Church and warning against an anachronistic application of modern standards to an ancient context. The Defensio suggests that one must read the Church Fathers with respect and within the framework of ecclesial tradition, not just with cold rationalism. Martianay likely marshals testimonies of earlier authorities praising Jerome (for example, Pope Leo X and Erasmus had extolled Jerome as “the prince of theologians” and unrivaled in knowledge ( Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library )). By doing so, he reinforces Jerome’s stature and implies that Le Clerc’s hyper-critical approach neglects the regula fidei (rule of faith) and the cumulative wisdom the Church has recognized in Jerome (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”) (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”). In essence, Martianay defends not only Jerome’s specific points of scholarship but also the principle that the Fathers are trustworthy guides whose contributions deserve veneration. This directly counters Le Clerc’s Protestant-leaning view that even a revered Father’s claims must be sifted by reason and evidence alone. Thus, the work upholds ecclesiastical tradition, arguing that Jerome’s eruditionis (learning) cannot be disparaged without undermining the broader patrimony of the Church.

• Textual Authenticity and Editorial Methods: Although more of a scholarly than theological issue, Martianay also addresses Le Clerc’s criticisms of the edition itself – which included questions about the authenticity of certain works attributed to Jerome and the soundness of Martianay’s editorial judgments. Le Clerc’s Quaestiones had scrutinized the nupera editio Parisina (recent Paris edition), pointing out what he saw as editorial errors or misattributions (Holdings: Joannis Clerici quaestiones Hieronymianae :: Library …) (Joannis Clerici Quaestiones Hieronymianae, In quibus expenditur …). In reply, the Defensio defends the Benedictine editors’ methodology. Martianay explains the manuscript evidence behind including or excluding particular letters and treatises, justifying that the Paris editors followed the best available sources and patristic catalogues. He likely refutes specific claims of spuriousness, showing that works Le Clerc doubted had been cited by other ancient authorities or existed in Jerome’s collections. Moreover, Martianay stands by the annotations and interpretations provided in the edition, arguing that where Le Clerc thought the editors erred in exegesis or historical detail, it was Le Clerc who misunderstood Jerome’s intent or the nuances of the Latin text. Throughout the Defensio, Martianay’s tone is one of a scholar-advocate: he concedes little to Le Clerc’s critique, maintaining that Jerome’s corpus as presented in the Paris edition is reliable and that any alleged mistakes are either negligible or misrepresentations by Le Clerc. This comprehensive counter-offensive reinforced the credibility of Jerome’s writings and Martianay’s scholarly work, seeking to leave no major point of Le Clerc’s critique unanswered.

In summary, Martianay’s Defensio makes a multi-pronged case that upholds St. Jerome as a paragon of learning and orthodox scholarship. It counters Le Clerc’s critiques on factual grounds (languages and sources), on doctrinal character, and on the meta-issue of how one should treat the Church Fathers. By systematically addressing Le Clerc’s points, the work aimed to safeguard Jerome’s towering reputation and, by extension, to defend the traditional Catholic approach to patristic authority in the face of emerging critical skepticism.

Textual Critique: Style, Structure, and Methodology of Argumentation

The Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae is not only a theological rebuttal but also a revealing example of early 18th-century scholarly discourse. In terms of structure, Martianay organizes the text as a point-by-point refutation of Le Clerc’s Quaestiones. The work reads as a formal apologetic treatise, likely proceeding in the order of Le Clerc’s questions or objections: Martianay will cite or paraphrase Le Clerc’s critique and then provide a counter-argument with evidence. This quasi-scholastic structure ensures that the Defensio is systematic and comprehensive, touching on language issues, interpretative disagreements, and questions of fact raised by Le Clerc. For the learned reader, Martianay’s method would have appeared thorough and orderly. He makes frequent use of quotations – from Jerome’s own writings (to let Jerome “speak for himself” in defense), from other Church Fathers and councils (to support Jerome’s status), and even from classical authors or Hebrew sources when relevant to linguistic points. This method of piling up authoritative references was a common argumentative strategy in patristic scholarship, intended to demonstrate the defender’s wide erudition and to overwhelm the critic’s assertions with testimonies and data.

The literary style of the Defensio reflects the academic Latin of its time, with a tone that is erudite and occasionally polemical. Martianay writes as a devout scholar: his language is respectful towards Jerome (often honorifically calling him “Saint Jerome” or “the holy Doctor”), and stern toward Le Clerc’s presumptive errors. While maintaining civility, Martianay does not shy from pointed remarks, implicitly chiding Le Clerc for his lack of reverence. For example, when answering the charge that Jerome failed in some respect, Martianay might respond with a rhetorical exclamation about the boldness of “modern critics” who dare find fault with a saint who “for fourteen centuries has been esteemed the Doctor maximus of Scripture.” The overall tone is defensive (as the title suggests), sometimes giving the text a combative energy beneath its scholarly veneer.

In terms of rhetorical approach, Martianay’s argumentation leans heavily on explanation and clarification. He assumes that Le Clerc’s critiques stem from misunderstandings or a lack of contextual perspective, and so he often explains why Jerome wrote as he did. This didactic approach serves to correct what Martianay sees as Le Clerc’s misreadings. At times, the Defensio likely employs classical reductio ad absurdum: Martianay shows that if one applied Le Clerc’s stringent criteria across the board, many revered ancient authors (even secular ones) would be found wanting, highlighting the unfairness of Le Clerc’s method. By such reasoning, Martianay attempts to temper the force of Le Clerc’s logical arguments with appeals to moderation and tradition.

Notably, contemporary observers recognized a contrast between the two adversaries’ styles. Bishop Gilbert Burnet, upon reading Le Clerc’s Quaestiones, remarked that Le Clerc had “a peculiar happiness of making even dry subjects lively by [his] way of handling them” (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). Indeed, Le Clerc wrote with an elegant, urbane Latinity and a rationalist tone that could engage even skeptical readers. Martianay’s Defensio, by comparison, adheres more to the traditional scholarly tone – earnest and dense with information, but less given to literary flourish. Where Le Clerc’s text was exploratory and boldly critical, Martianay’s is confirmatory and reverential. The Defensio is richly stocked with philological detail (Hebrew and Greek word analyses, discussions of manuscript variants, etc.), showing Martianay’s commitment to philological argumentation. However, modern scholars have noted that Martianay’s apologetic zeal sometimes led him into special pleading; his linguistic defenses of Jerome, for instance, have been judged “philologically unsound” by later standards (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). This means that in some cases Martianay stretched the evidence – perhaps offering strained interpretations of Hebrew terms to excuse Jerome’s apparent mistakes – in order to preserve Jerome’s perfection. Such methodology, while typical of confessional scholarship of the period, reveals the limits of Martianay’s critical objectivity. He was a devout guardian of Jerome’s legacy first and an impartial critic second.

Stylistically, the Defensio likely mirrors the high Latin prose of scholarly disputations: Ciceronian periods, clear sub-point enumerations (primo, secundo, denique…), and a formal register. Each section builds a case with layers of argument: scriptural citations, Jerome’s words, patristic endorsements, and rational analysis. Martianay occasionally injects passionate remarks, for example expressing shock that Le Clerc would call Jerome “inconsistent” – but such moments are quickly followed by calm, detailed rebuttal. The measured structure thus contains the polemical heat within a framework of logical discourse.

In summary, the textual character of Martianay’s Defensio is that of a meticulously structured, scholarly apology. It marries extensive factual documentation (quotations, linguistic notes) with appeals to authority and reasoned rhetoric to counter Le Clerc. The work exemplifies the transition in early modern scholarship: Martianay uses many of the new critical tools (language study, historical context) but subordinates them to the goal of defending a traditional icon. Consequently, the Defensio stands as both a work of learning and a piece of confessional polemics. While perhaps less “lively” than Le Clerc’s critique, it impressed its readers by its thoroughness and its unwavering loyalty to Jerome. The methodology – arguing point-by-point, upholding the authority of venerable sources, and attempting to neutralize criticism with exhaustive erudition – would remain a staple in such controversies for years to come.

Impact and Influence

• Contemporary Reception: The Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae and the exchange it was part of made an immediate impression on the scholarly community of the early 1700s. Jean Le Clerc’s initial critique was widely read in learned circles across Europe – even Anglican bishop Gilbert Burnet expressed “amazement” at Le Clerc’s work and praised its engaging style (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). Martianay’s response, written in Latin and published likely in Paris or appended to a subsequent volume of Jerome’s works, was eagerly picked up by Catholic readers and some Protestants curious about the rebuttal. Among Martianay’s Catholic contemporaries, the Defensio helped reaffirm confidence in the Benedictine edition of Jerome. It assured Church authorities and devout scholars that the potential embarrassments pointed out by Le Clerc had been answered by a competent monk of St. Maur. We do not find evidence of formal censure of Le Clerc – indeed, this was fundamentally an intellectual debate rather than a heresy trial – but Martianay’s work functioned as a kind of apologetic bulwark for Catholics. On the Protestant side, reactions were mixed. Some, like the Lutheran church historian Johann Mosheim and others, acknowledged Le Clerc’s “thorough ability” in exposing Jerome’s defects but felt he had been overly harsh or unfair ( Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). The Quaestiones of Le Clerc was seen as a bold scholarly provocation, and Martianay’s Defensio as a stout counterblow. Together, the paired publications garnered attention in the Republic of Letters, illustrating both the possibilities and the boundaries of criticizing patristic figures. In short, Martianay’s defense was successful in the sense that it prevented any immediate collapse of Jerome’s standing among Catholics and provided a detailed counter-narrative that contemporaries could cite. Le Clerc did not publish a further reply solely to Martianay (he moved on to other projects), so the Defensio effectively had the last word in their direct exchange.

• Role in Early Modern Theological Disputes: The Martianay–Le Clerc controversy over Jerome became a touchstone for broader theological and methodological debates of the period. It exemplified the conflict between confessional tradition and critical rationalism. Protestants had long questioned certain Catholic venerations (of saints, of the Vulgate Bible text, etc.), and here was a Protestant scholar openly scrutinizing a Doctor of the Church on scholarly grounds. Martianay’s Defensio is thus part of the Catholic Counter-Offensive in the realm of scholarship, akin to other works that defended Church tradition against critics (for example, defenses of Augustine against Jansenist or Calvinist interpretations, or defenses of church history against Protestant revisions). The exchange highlighted how far one could go in criticizing a Church Father: Le Clerc pushed the envelope, treating Jerome almost like a contemporary peer subject to peer-review, whereas Martianay pulled it back, emphasizing Jerome’s sui generis status as an ancient sage. In early modern theological disputes, this case reinforced that Protestants tended to prioritize Scripture and reason over patristic authority, while Catholics upheld the continuity of tradition and the exemplary status of the Fathers. Notably, Le Clerc’s willingness to challenge Jerome’s reliability fed into Protestant polemics that questioned the authority of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s Bible translation) which the Catholic Church had declared “authentic” at the Council of Trent. By defending Jerome, Martianay was indirectly defending the Catholic biblical canon and its authorized version. The Defensio thereby contributed to the larger confessional debate on whose scholarly approach to the Bible and its interpreters was superior – the Protestant critical approach, or the Catholic traditionalist approach. Over the 18th century, these fault lines would continue, but the civility and depth of the Martianay–Le Clerc exchange set a relatively high standard for how such disagreements could be conducted through scholarship rather than invective.

• Advancement of Patristic Scholarship: Ironically, the clash between Le Clerc and Martianay advanced the study of Jerome and of patristics in general. By forcing Martianay to examine and justify every aspect of Jerome’s scholarship, Le Clerc compelled Catholic scholars to be more critical and meticulous. The issues raised – such as Jerome’s use of sources, his knowledge of Hebrew, the authenticity of various works – spurred further research. Subsequent editors and biographers of Jerome (like Vallarsi, who produced a monumental edition of Jerome in the 1730s) benefited from this groundwork of critique and defense. Modern historians observe that “Le Clerc was the better philologist” on many points and that his remarks on Jerome’s Hebrew shortcomings, for example, “anticipated discussion of the topic in our own day” (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?). Indeed, some of Le Clerc’s skeptical questions (e.g. did Jerome really know Hebrew as well as he claimed?) have been echoed by 20th-century scholars, and many have vindicated his insights with new evidence. Thus, while Martianay won the immediate battle in the eyes of his church, Le Clerc’s approach foreshadowed the more critical stance of later academia. The Defensio itself became a reference for anyone studying what Jerome knew and how he worked – it catalogued Jerome’s learning as seen by a devoted admirer. In doing so, it preserved valuable information (Martianay drew on many late antique and medieval sources about Jerome). For patristic scholarship, the debate underscored the need for rigorous text editions and for scholars to be forthright about a Father’s strengths and weaknesses. One could say the controversy helped push Catholic scholarship gradually toward a more scientific method (even if that was not Martianay’s intent). The Maurists, of whom Martianay was a member, were already pioneers in critical editions; defending Jerome with factual evidence reinforced their ethos of marrying faith with scholarship. Over time, patrologists increasingly adopted a balanced view: recognizing Jerome’s brilliance and sanctity while also admitting, as Martianay eventually had to, that even a Doctor can make linguistic mistakes or change opinions.

• Repercussions for Biblical Exegesis and Ecclesiastical Authority: On a doctrinal level, the Defensio reinforced the Church’s high esteem for St. Jerome and by extension the trust in the Vulgate and traditional exegesis. By countering Le Clerc’s critiques, Martianay helped ensure that no immediate reforms were undertaken regarding the use of Jerome’s translations or commentaries. The Catholic Magisterium could point to Martianay’s work to say that Jerome’s accuracy had been upheld and that a Protestant’s challenges had been met by Catholic scholarship. This supported ecclesiastical authority by showing that the doctors of the Church could withstand scrutiny and still deserve their titles. It’s worth noting that Jerome was and remains a singular figure: as the translator of Scripture, his credibility feeds into the credibility of the biblical text in Latin used by the Church. Thus, Martianay’s successful defense guarded, in a sense, the integrity of the Bible in the Catholic world (at least in perception), against Protestant insinuations of error. On the other hand, the debate sowed seeds that would later slightly loosen the absolute authority of patristic interpretations. Enlightenment thinkers and more liberal theologians, even within Catholicism, could refer to episodes like Le Clerc vs. Martianay to argue that venerable figures are not above evaluation. In the long run, the Church too adopted more critical approaches – for instance, by the late 19th and 20th centuries, Catholic biblical scholarship (under popes like Leo XIII and Pius XII) began to incorporate historical-critical methods, implicitly acknowledging that even Saints’ work must be examined with scholarly rigor. In hindsight, we see that Martianay’s Defensio was one of the last great examples of a confessional defense of a Church Father written before the Enlightenment fully transformed biblical studies. It upheld the old paradigm where ecclesiastical authority and tradition framed scholarship. Yet the very necessity of such a defense indicated that the climate was changing: reasoned criticism would not disappear. Le Clerc’s perspective – that “things themselves” (i.e. evidence) should move us more than the “authority of the ancients” (Full text of “Heterodoxy and Rational Theology - Jean Le Clerc an Origen”) – would gradually gain ground in academic theology.

• Legacy and Evaluation: The immediate outcome of the Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae was to preserve Jerome’s stature in the early 18th century and to bolster the confidence of those who taught from his works. In the longer view of history, the work stands as a testament to the deep respect Jerome commanded and the lengths to which scholars would go to defend a Father of the Church. It influenced later patristic compilations – for example, when J.-P. Migne in the 19th century compiled the Patrologia Latina, he included Martianay’s Defensio in volume 25 as a relevant scholarly opus, thereby transmitting this 1700-era debate to future generations of readers. Modern scholars, with the benefit of distance, tend to side with Le Clerc on many factual points (acknowledging, for instance, that Jerome’s Hebrew was serviceable but far from perfect, as Le Clerc asserted (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?)). Nevertheless, Martianay’s overarching argument – that Jerome’s contributions to the Church outweigh his human imperfections – still resonates in evaluations of Jerome. The Defensio had ensured that Jerome’s legacy emerged from this early Enlightenment challenge not only intact but in some ways enriched by dialogue. It highlighted topics about Jerome that later biographers would explore (his relationship to Origen, his translation technique, etc.), thus deepening modern understanding. In conclusion, Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae occupies an important place in the history of theological scholarship: it is both a product of its time – encapsulating the Baroque Catholic response to nascent critical methods – and a contributor to progress, inadvertently paving the way for a more nuanced appreciation of the great Doctors of the Church in centuries to come. Through its historical context, robust theological arguments, methodical style, and its impact, Martianay’s Defensio remains a notable chapter in the story of how faith and reason have negotiated the heritage of St. Jerome and the patristic tradition.

Sources: The analysis above is informed by the translated text of Defensio Eruditionis Hieronymianae (Patrologia Latina vol. 25) and various scholarly evaluations. Key contextual and critical insights were drawn from H.I. Newman’s study of Jerome’s Hebrew scholarship (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?) (How should we measure jerome’s hebrew competence?), the Catholic Encyclopedia’s account of Jerome’s use of Origen (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Jerome), and historical critiques by Philip Schaff and others on Le Clerc’s work ( Philip Schaff: History of the Christian Church, Volume III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 311-600 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). This rich combination of 18th-century text and modern scholarship provides a comprehensive view of Martianay’s work and its significance in theological and historical perspective.