Church History, Question 2

Compare and contrast the theological schools of Alexandria and Antioch. Make note of their respective leaders and methodologies.

Most of the information which Walker provides regarding the School of Alexandria may be found at pages 76 through 83, In Period II, Section IX, The Alexandrian School.
Walker first points out the antecedent contribution of Alexandria to both Judaism and Christianity: an Egyptian city with a large Greek speaking population, and a large Jewish population as well, it was the home of Greek and Jewish scholarship which led to the writing of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the biblical text of the Orthodox Church. I note also that it is quite likely that when the Holy Family fled Herod the Great into Egypt, that they sojourned in Alexandria.

Be that as it may, Alexandria was both the home of Jewish scholarship, and the ascendency of Neo-Platonism, as well as of several schools of Gnosticism. It is not surprising that by 185 A.D., a Christian school of catachesis was formed under a Stoic philosopher who had converted to Christianity, Pantaeus. While we know little about the founder of this school, we know more about his pupil and successor, Clement of Alexandria.

Clement appears to have sought a synthesis between the best of philosophy and Christianity in his surviving works, Exhortation to the Heathen, Instructor, and Stromata. Like his Jewish counterpart, Philo of Alexandria, he sought to show that the Greek logos, and the associated inquiry of reason and order, had its fulfillment in Christ, the living Word. Walker characterizes Clement as a true Christian Gnostic, who taught that in Christ is the fulfillment of all knowledge and philosophy. Clement appears to have been the first to have propounded a synthesis between Christianity and Neoplatonism.

While Clement left no systematic theology, his successor, Origen, did. Origen appears to have been a diligent student not only at the catechetical school of Alexandria, but of the Jewish and Neo-Platonist schools there, and appears as well to have studied in Greece and Palestine as well.

A principle fruit of this study was his Hexapla, a parallel text of the Hebrew Scriptures, four Greek translations, and his commentaries. Additionally, Origen made numerous commentaries upon the whole of the Old and New Testament. His Against Celsus has been considered one of the most capable apologies, or defenses, of Christianity that has ever been written. But his De Principiis was the first treatise of systematic Christian theology ever written.

While Origen’s philosophical system was largely Neo-Platonic, and sought a synthesis with this and Christianity, Origen’s method of hermaneutics, or interpretation of Scripture, appears to have been the first to have posited multiple meanings in Scripture, that is, the literal meaning, an ethical application, and a mystical or allegorical interpretation. With Origen, and after him, the School of Alexandria is noted for its allegorical interpretation of Scripture.

The School of Antioch, on the other hand, appears to have been founded around the year 275 A.D by Lucian, a priest about whom little is known. He appears to have rejected the allegorical method of interpretation of the Alexandrian school, and instead limited himself to the grammatical and historical study of Scripture. He, and his followers, also appear to have been more wary of association with Gnosticism, and largely avoided attempts to achieve a synthesis between Christianity and philosophy. Lucian’s main pupils were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius.

The two schools of Antioch and Alexandria began entering into conflict when Arius taught (and quoted Origen to that effect) that Christ was a created being, and not God. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (312?-328), who was a follower of the school of Alexandria, condemned Arius (also quoting Origen as his authority), who was a priest under Alexander’s omophorion, for this teaching. Arius was later condemned for the same teaching by the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

Undoubtedly, John Chrysostom, Arius’ successor to the School of Antioch, was a far more orthodox and influential exponent of that school. Chrysostom favored the grammatical and historical interpretation of Scripture over the allegorical, and his many sermons interpreting the books of the Old and New Testament were and are a counterpoint to those of Origen. His successor, Gregory of Nazianzus, continued the School’s literalist interpretive bent, and added to it the doctrine of the council of Nicaea. Nazianzus, and his followers, also combined the study of Aristotle with that of Plato.

In short, the schools of Alexandria and Antioch appear to have maintained, both between and within themselves, a tension between Tertullian’s query (“What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?”) and Origen’s goal of making all thoughts subject to Christ, even those of Plato and Aristotle.