Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 8. Antioch

by | Apr 29, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology

Antioch: Silva says, “We would not be exaggerating greatly if we described the progress of biblical exegesis as the gradual abandonment of allegorical interpretation.”[1] The Antiochene school arose as “a fairly systematic program aimed at debunking the more objectionable features of Origen’s approach.”[2] It is obvious from subsequent history that it failed at this task. 

A school at Antioch was established toward the end of the third century by Lucian (circa A.D. 240-312). It became the rival school to Alexandria. Antioch’s most respected pupils were Theodore of Mopsuestia (circa A.D. 350-428) and John Chrysostom (circa A.D. 354-407). As noted above, the Antiochene school utilized aspects of literalism, typology, and allegory, though certainly not like the Alexandrians. Where did the Antiochenes get their brand of literalism from? Dockery suggests, “It is likely that wherever the synagogue’s influence was felt, the church’s interpretation of Scripture had a tendency toward literalism. Certainly this was the case at Antioch.”[3] Granting Dockery’s claim, we see once again how contemporary factors contribute to hermeneutical practice.

Antioch’s unique contribution to the history of Christian hermeneutics is stated clearly and succinctly by Dockery, when he says, “the distinctive feature in the Antiochene hermeneutical method was theoria.”[4] Theoria was a complex method of interpretation. It is, therefore, simplistic to label Antioch as the literal school. As we are learning, things aren’t always as simple and clear-cut as we might think. Theoria involved aspects of what we would call literalism, a modified form of allegory, and typology.[5] Also, between individual authors there were various expressions of these hermeneutical methods.

If we asked the question: What is the Antiochene school’s over-arching hermeneutical contribution to the history of Christian interpretation? The expanded answer would be the further development of a typological interpretation of the Old Testament in the light of the first advent of Christ and the New Testament Scriptures. Dockery says, “Perhaps, as Rowan A. Greer has suggested, it is better to think of typological exegesis as the normative method of Antiochene exegesis.”[6] Dockery continues:

Typology, rightly conceived, asserts that since Christ is the culmination of the line of Abraham and of David and is the fulfillment of the hope of Israel, the Old Testament description of Israel’s history, institutions, worship, and prophetic message often anticipate the life and work of Christ. Chrysostom and the Antiochene school distinguished allegorical interpretation from typological interpretation in two primary ways. Typological interpretation attempted to seek out patterns in the Old Testament to which Christ corresponded, while allegorical exegesis depended on accidental similarity of language between two passages. Second, typological interpretation depended on a historical interpretation of the text. The passage, according to the Antiochenes, had only one meaning, the literal (extended by theoria[7]), and not two as suggested by the allegorists. In the typological approach, the things narrated by the text had to be placed in relationship to things which were not in the text, but which were still to come.[8]

The Antiochene theory of typology was fueled by their view of the fulfillment which took place at the first advent of Christ and how Christ and the Apostles interpreted the Old Testament.

The major difference between Alexandria and Antioch, in terms of exegetical conclusions, occurred while interpreting the Old Testament. Their understandings of the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament was very similar. Once again, the major issue was the interpretation of the Old Testament and its relation to the New. Alexandria utilized allegory of the Neoplatonic variety; Antioch utilized typology of the New Testament variety.

Finally, as with the Alexandrians, the Antiochenes adhered to the rule of faith which kept them within orthodox bounds on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith.

[1] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.

[2] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.

[3] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 105. Dockery references Rowan A. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian (London: Faith, 1961), 86-88.

[4] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 107.

[5] See the discussion in Hall, Reading Scripture, 160-63.

[6] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 110.

[7] We will be confronted with this concept – literal-extended meaning – in subsequent discussion.

[8] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 118-19.

Brief survey of the history of hermeneutics – 6. Alexandria and Antioch

by | Apr 25, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology

Introduction: Our study of the Patristics has set the stage for a brief discussion on the schools of Alexandria and Antioch. In one sense, they are a natural development of things already in place. In fact, Bradley Nassif claims, “Origen did not invent his interpretive techniques but borrowed them from a complex hermeneutical environment [Christian and non-Christian] that was already present in his day.”[1] Both Christian allegory and Christian typology pre-date these schools of thought. These two schools have sometimes been pitted against each other. Silva says:

This description, however, leaves out a series of interesting and suggestive bits of information. It is simplictic, for example, to view Origen and the Antiochenes as representing two opposite approaches more or less exclusive of each other. As we shall see, Origen used and defended literal interpretation on a number of occasions. Moreover, certain exegetical features that we would quickly dismiss as in some sense “allegorical” were consciously adopted as legitimate by the Antiochene exegetes.[2]

Silva goes on to give two examples of allegory by Antiochenes – Chrysostom and Theodoret. Chrysostom interprets Jesus’ making wine from water as “changing wills that are weak and inconsistent.” Theodoret takes the dew from heaven and the fatness of the earth of Genesis 27:39 this way: “…according to the higher interpretation they depict the divinity of the Lord Christ by means of the expression dew; and by the fatness of the earth, his humanity received from us.”[3]

More recent studies have uncovered less discontinuity in their hermeneutical methods. What used to be seen as an antithetical pendulum is now seen as a sort of mini-pendulum with more continuity than previously thought. Whereas the Alexandrians were seen as primarily allegorists and the Antiochians were seen as primarily literalists further study has shown that the two schools, though certainly not one and the same, have more in common than a first glance approach might conclude. Both schools developed in similar historical, theological, and philosophical contexts and were, as are we, affected by those contexts. As stated above, both Christian allegory (Alexandria) and Christian typology (Antioch) had the same goal – the Christian use of the Old Testament.

[1] Bradley Nassif, “Origen,” in DMBI, 793.

[2] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.Cf. Christopher A. Hall, Reading the Scripture with the Church Fathers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 157.

[3] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?,” 47.

Pin It on Pinterest