Alexandrian School of Theology

Ray,

Your representation of Antioch and Alexandria is skewed. Antioch leaned towards a more literal sense, and Alexandria leaned towards the spiritual senses. In no way did Antioch hold fast to the literal and disregard the spiritual, and in no way did Alexandria dispense with the literal for the sake of the spiritual. This is bad history you're presenting.

My Historical foundations professor in my graduate program spent the majority of his doctoral studies in the Early Church, esp. among the Cappadocian fathers. His dissertation was on Basil the Great's Trinitarian theology. From our reading and discourse in that class mixed with my time spent under my Biblical foundations professor - who studied under Fitzmyer at CUA (one of the leading Biblical scholars in the world) - I know what I have stated above to be accurate.

You also present Antioch as having strict manuscript copying techniques as if Alexandria didn't copy manuscripts word for word. This has nothing whatsoever to do with interpretive methods; it has to do with manuscript reproduction, in which both schools venerated, honored, and upheld the manuscripts derived from the original autographs equally. Like I said, you're presenting bad history.

[ July 06, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,
You very well know that Origen was a heretic.
He was known as the Father of Arianism. I recall that you once posted a list of other strange beliefs that he held to. Would mind posting that again.
DHK

 

"Ray is saying, 'It is fine that God the Holy Spirit uses allegory in the Word of God, and we gladly welcome this. When the Lord uses allegory He also explains it. "


I find this to be an interesting comment. Ray, condemns allegory when it is outside the Bible. Now when Paul first spoke to the Bereans do you suppose he may have used some of the allegory that later was written down? Were the Bereans obligated to reject it until he wrote it, being noble and all? Just askin.

 

Ray Berrian

I am going to lovingly “pick” on you since you said some things that are debatable , but is not about you but about what you said

I am not a Catholic and do not agree with much of their theology, I like and use the Historical-Grammatical method (with some reservations). I am strictly evangelical in theology and even predominantly Baptist in belief
But I cannot agree with you

You said

“Allegory, though once used by Paul by way of passing illustration, is unknown to the other Apostles, and is never sanctioned by Christ”

If you understand allegory in a broad sense (i.e. not the literal meaning of an OT passage) the other NT writers and Jesus often make use of such interpretation of the OT (from Typology to “Sensus Plenior” or Fuller Meaning). In fact more often than not the Use of the OT in the NT is not about strict application of the Historical-Grammatical method


It is not as you seem to imply elsewhere "an either or" situation between the literal meaning and the spiritual/ “Sensus Plenior” / Fuller Meaning but it is in the NT a situation of literal AND spiritual

Are there dangers in allowing a more than literal meaning to a passages? Of course yes (and you illustrate them well) but who are we to forbid what Scriptures does not and even employ

You said

“The better Jewish theory, purified in Christianity, takes the teachings of the Old Dispensation literally”

I am afraid again you are mistaken, Jewish hermeneutics (especially of the second temple period) is not as close to the Historical-Grammatical method as you present
Midrash hermeneutics held that Scriptures could yield many meanings and many applications (in contrast to the one meaning many applications of the Historical-Grammatical method)

It is interesting that the early Church followed in many respect Jewish hermeneutics and attributed to the Scriptures different levels of meanings


You said

"The school of theology at Alexandria pioneered the allegorical or figurative style of interpretation while the school at Antioch taught a strict literalist mode of interpretation and orthodoxy which moved in the direction of a more exacting word-for-word copying of manuscripts."

Aside of the fact that the Church fathers’ hermeneutical method had no bearing on how they copied manuscripts (as textual criticism shows)you are overstating the difference between the two schools and are mistaken when you affirm that the school at Antioch taught a strict literalist mode of interpretation and orthodoxy


You Said

"Ray is saying, 'It is fine that God the Holy Spirit uses allegory in the Word of God, and we gladly welcome this. When the Lord uses allegory He also explains it. When modern day interpreters read the Word of God, they take the unwarranted authority to interpret it by use of their own new allegory."


On what Ground where is it in Scriptures saying that we can imitate the Apostle teachings, lives and conduct but not their hermeneutics.?
Even more compelling is that the early Church continued the apostles’ hermeneutics

There is much to learn, as Carson Weber said ( strange bed fellow, but should I compromise truth and historical facts for party lines ), from historical theology and hermeneutics and even more form the NT itself
Although Carson Weber and I might not agree on a definition and limit of proper allegory. One cannot deny it use and influence in Jewish, New Testament and patristic hermeneutics.


The novelty is the Historical-Grammatical method, which with the Historical-Critical method is in its present form really a child of rationalism and the enlightenment

Does that mean that the Historical-Grammatical method is wrong, no but it surely means that it cannot be the last word and must allow for the careful use of other practices found in Scriptures and present in the early Church


Alain

 

Hi Alain,

I don't mean to stray too far from the topic, but I'd like to take a second to welcome you to the board!

(It's nice to have another Virginian around here -- that is, if I'm reading your profile right).

God bless,

Mark

 

Mark

Thanks for your warm welcome

yes I am in virginia and I am pleased to have found this forum

I like the level an spirit of most discussions

In Christ

Alain

 

Welcome to the Baptist Board Alain. Glad to see you jump right in the foray of things. Hope to hear more from you.

One can see from Origen’s above method of textual criticism how easily the manuscripts of his day were corrupted, and indeed they were deliberately corrupted, changed by Origen himself, who at random inserted in preserved manuscripts what he thought would be “better” renderings of any given passage. Thus the Alexandrian texts passed down to us today are not the most accurate texts.
DHK

 

Ray

I understand where you are coming from and I appreciate that you did document your arguments with scholarly sources

me personally, I have no allegiance to theological systems (“wholesale doctrines- buy in bulk” as I call them) or theologians (or at least I am trying not to). I judge each doctrine individually on its own merit; not based on which theological system it belongs to or which theologian is advancing it

I try as best as I can to let the Bible reign supreme and speak of itself

You could call me theological independent

That is why an argument by lets say Bernard Ramm will not be accepted because... it is from Bernard Ramm but because of its own merits if any

I do however, appreciated and value primary sources (i.e. quoting Origen, Philo or Hillel) over secondary sources quoting what someone else said Origen, Philo or Hillel said

I do appreciate and value the contribution of Scholars or as you called them "doctors of the church" (I like the term) but since Historical Theology and Church History tells us that they have disagreed in the past among themselves and still do now , one must conclude that they cannot be all correct and one must judge for himself the validity of their arguments

Additionally, I study people and theological system's methodologies, background and presuppositions since those factors greatly affect their conclusions and pronouncements

This is the framework inwhich I work


Historical-Grammatical method (like any other method of biblical interpretation)
does not receive a pass but must be tested against Scriptures and history

Scriptures, to see if it has biblical foundations that is, if it is not only used but also advocated in Scriptures (I know I am stating the obvious but to be biblical something must be in Scriptures)


History, to see it the method in its present form can trace its root back to the Early Church and was the traditional method of Christians throughout history. (This last point only helps to supplement the previous point but cannot be normative)


So the following question must be answered

Who made the Historical-Grammatical method king?
It is Scriptures itself, is it the rise of rationalism and the reformation /enlightenment, or is it something else?

It would be a fallacy to judge other methods of interpretation by the Historical-Grammatical method

Since competing methodologies are not qualified to judge other methodologies

Instead, all methodologies must be judge in light of what Scriptures “says” and “does”

To accomplish this task one must guard from reading back the present into the past
But instead we must consider

- Jewish hermeneutics especially of the second temple and its similarity if any with NT hermeneutics
- NT hermeneutics, especially as illustrated in the use of the OT in the NT
- Early Church hermeneutics in contrast to Jewish and NT hermeneutics
- The differences and similarity between Antiochian and Alexandrian Schools of thought
- History of interpretation throughout the 2000 years of the Church
- the roots and presuppositions of hermeneutical methods: allegory, Historical-Grammatical and its relationship with Historical-Critical and so on in light of Biblical revelation and usage

Of the above, the only source of normative methodology could only come from NT hermeneutics with preference for prescriptive statements followed by descriptive statements (could be supplemented by intra-OT hermeneutics)

Only then can one judge the biblical value of a methodology of interpretation


In Christ

Alain

[ July 08, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Alain ]

 

"Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was rather tentative and I would have thought that someone of his spiritual level in Catholicism would have nailed the issue down more clearly. For example, he said, 'Purgatory may involve existential rather than "temporal" duration. Which is it Reverend?"

Ah Ray, the Catholic Church never claimed to have everything spelled out on the other side. We only know that a purification exists. This is obvious from the fact that you and I are sinners today (you are a sinner aren't you ray. You know what John said about any man who says they have not sinned). Further, since time is a created thing it would be difficult for purgatory to be defined in our terms of time since it is not a part of time. Augustine proves quite nicely and not allegorically that time is a part of creation. Purgatory is not beyond your mental capacity ray.

7. (at the conclusion) said, 'Purgatory may simply be an instantaneous 'in the twinkling of an eye transformation.' I am sure he is inconclusive because nothing is dilineated about this in the concept of Purgatory.


Amen. It may be a relative thing. You know how slow time can seem to go when the trials of life are befalling you. Of course these trials are God's grace for the one who is in Christ.

"And lastly, II Maccabees 12 is not a part of our canon of Scripture so we consider these books spurious."

That would be since the reformation in the 1600's took them out after they had been clearly included long before that. Remember Pope Damusus declared them a part of the canon (which does not mean that that is when they became a part of the canon or you would have to say that the whole NT didn't become scripture till then). Check your history Ray. Somehow the reformers thought they had the authority to take maccabees out. Glad they at least stopped at that. Old Martin would have taken out James and Hebrews and one or two others.

Blessings.

 

Ray,

Your attaching allegory to Origen is essentially saying that since Origen had some severe problems with his theology and also over alagorized, that allegory is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Origen let himself go beyond the traditions passed down to his time quite clearly. This is recognized by Augustine, Jerome, and the rest of the Church since Origen's death. That he had errant ideas in one area of his theology does not mean that all his theology is wrong, just as the Mormons stand on abortion is not wrong because their stand on the trinity has Jesus as a man who grew up to be God, as we will.

Do you deny the use of allegory in applying scripture to our own lives. Is our life not like a desert (read exodus) which God leads us through with it's ebb's and flows and boredoms and joys, trials and toils, in which he provides for our daily needs just as he did with the Jews in Exodus? And what does it mean that we are supposed to take up our cross and follow him if we don't have to allegorize Jesus Cross to the things that happen in our lives. No Ray, I think your throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.