Alexandrian School of Theology

[Carson Weber]

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 ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Carson Weber said, 'Like I said, you're presenting bad history.'

I have given the board credible doctors of the church who probably used materials from their dissertations that have been cited in various texts and most worthy publication centers. We all know one of the first rules of debate is to destroy the credibility of the witnesses. These men have researched their materials and have wisely presented their cases. Your flip and brief sentence will not undue the truth. Truth always rises to the surface.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Dr. F.W. Farrar pinpoints where the allegorical method originated.

'Allegory by no means sprang from spontaneous piety, but was the child of rationalism which owed its birth to the heathen theories of Plato. It deserved its name, for it made Scripture say something else than it really meant . . . . Origen borrows from heathen Platonists and from Jewish philosophers a method which converts the whole of Scripture, alike the New and the Old Testament, into a series of clumsy, varying, and incredible enigmas. Allegory helped him to get rid of chiliasm and superstitious literalism and the "antithesis" of the Gnostics, but it opened the door for deadlier evils.' {Dr. Farrar, "History of Interpretation" Macmillian Press, p. 126.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Under a Search of Origen one comes to "Origen Catholic Encyclopedia" -Origen & Origenism. Origen was born in 185 and after the withdrawal of Clement, Origen filled his station. This encyclopedia documents that Origen studied the philosophic schools of Ammonius Saccas plus the philosophy of Plato and the Stoics.

This being documented above also agrees with Dr. F.W. Farrar in a former post of mine on page 2. His book was "The History of Interpretation" (Macmillian Press) p. 126.

It was hardly a century after the Apostolate died that men like Origen and Augustine commingled philosophy and theology and allegorizing until the Word of God was tainted into less that the original impact that God had intended for His Word.

Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost in his text, "Things to Come" says on page 32 that:

'The literal method was the method of the Church Fathers until the time of Origen when the allegorical method, which had been devised to harmonize Platonic philosophy and Scripture, was adopted. Augustine's influence brought this allegorizing method into the established church and brought an end of all true exegesis. This system continued until the Reformation. At the Reformation the literal method of interpretation was solidly re-established and, in spite of the attempts of the church to bring all interpretation into conformity to an adopted creed, literal interpretation continued and became the basis on which all true exegesis rests. . . . any other method was introduced to promote hetrodoxy.' {Dr. Pentecost is the distinguished professor of Bible exposition emeritus at Dallas Theological Seminary, where he taught from 1955 on. A graduate of Hampden-Sydney College and Dallas Seminary. He holds the Th.D. degree from Dallas. He formerly served on the teaching staff of Philadelphia Bible Institue.

This post is directed to people of all theological persuasions and not merely to people in the Catholic Church. It is intended for the good of the Body of Christ. Please, understand that covenant theologians and several Protestant denominations are persuaded that allegorical interpretation is fine. Even these Protestant types have drunk at the polluted, tainted springs of Augustinian quasi-theology, and approximately 90% never knew the source of the beliefs.

God speaking through the Apostle Paul to the Colossian Church warned them and us not to spiritually, consume the philosophies of humankind, [Colossians 2:8] and yet Origen and his Alexandrian Theological Center, in pagan Egypt, fed their souls on Platonic philosophy and a non-literal method of interpretation of Scripture.

I am sure that the Devil could not tell us the opposite of what God is saying to us in the Bible, without causing us to say this is not correct. But, on the other hand, if the evil one could give us an incorrect key to unlock the truths of the Word of God he would have accomplished his twisted mission in our world. And guess what? This was Satan's mode of approach toward the saints of God. The diabolical one would say, the Word of God does not have the simple meaning that the Lord intended; just allegorize the truth you do not understand. This has frustrated the Lord's holy intentions toward us so we cannot unlock the mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

You see, Origen paid no attention to Jesus words through the Apostle Paul who said,

'Beware! lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradtion of men, after the rudiments of the world, {system} and not after Christ.' [Colossians 2:8]

The New International Version says,

'See to it that no one takes you captive through hallow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world, rather than on Christ.'

Have you been taken captive?!

 

[DHK]

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 Berrian]

DHK,

Dr. Earle E. Cairns, "Christianity Through the Centuries-A History of the Christian Church", 1st edition, rev. (Zondervan Publishing House for Academic Books, 1981. p. 112 says,

'Clement {of Alexandria} believed that Plato's writings were inspired because they contained the truth, (quote 13) while his celebrated pupil, Origen denied both a physical resurrection and a literal Hell. (quote 14) (Concerning Origen's departures from othodoxy, scholars are uncertain whether his mental faculties were affected by his self-mutilation in obedience to Matthew 19:12 or vice versa. (quote 15)

I guess Origen went with the literal interpretation on this issue. No doubt the pitch of his voice was much higher after his professed obedience.

His favorite student, Eusebius prophecied that Constantine and Christ would reign together throughout eternity. (quote 16)

If these men were the first Roman Catholics, I see not too much to shout about as to their belief system or their hermeneutical abilities to interpret holy Scripture.

 

[thessalonian]

"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.

 

[Alain]

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

 

[dumbox1]

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

 

[Alain]

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

 

[DHK]

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

Origen’s Work
The great critical work of Origen was the Hexapla or Six-columned Bible; an attempt to provide a revised text of the Septuagint translation of Old Testament Scripture. On this undertaking he is said to have spent twenty eight years of his life, and to have acquired a knowledge of Hebrew in order to qualify himself for the task. Each page of this work consisted, with the exception to be noticed immediately, of six columns. In the first was placed the current Hebrew text; in the second, the same represented in Greek letters; in the third, the version of Aquila; in the fourth, that of Symmachus; in the fifth, the text of LXX, as it existed at the time; and in the sixth, the version of Theodotion. Having come into possession also of certain other Greek translations of some of the books of Scripture, he added these in their appropriate place, so that the work presented in some parts the appearance of seven, eight, or nine columns, and was termed Heptapla, Octopla, or Enneapla, in consequence. He inserted critical marks in the text of the LXX, an asterisk to denote what ought to be added and an obelus to denote what ought to be omitted; taking the additions chiefly from the version of Theodotion. The work, with the omission of the Hebrew column, and that representing the Hebrew in Greek letters, was termed Tetrapla; and with regard to it, it is uncertain whether it is to be considered a preliminary work on the part of Origen, undertaken by way of preparation for the larger, or merely as an excerpt from the latter. The whole extended, it is said, to nearly fifty volumes, and was, of course, far too bulky for common use, and too costly for transcription. It was placed in some repository in the city of Tyre, from which it was removed after Origen’s death to the library at Caesarea, founded by Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius. It is supposed to have been burnt at the capture of Caesarea by the Arabs in 653 A.D. The column, however, containing the version of the LXX. had been copied by Pamphilus and Eusebius, along with the critical marks of Origen, although, owing to carelessness on the part of subsequent transcribers, the text was soon again corrupted. The remains of this work were published by Montfaucon at Paris, 1713, 2 vols. folio; by Bahrdt at Leipsig in 1769; and is at present again in course of publication from the Clarendon press, Oxford, under the editorship of Mr. Field, who has made use of the Syriac-Hexaplar version, and has added various fragments not contained in prior editions. (For a full and critical account of this work, the English reader is referred to Dr. Sam. Davidson’s Biblical Criticism, vol 1. ch. 12, which has been made use of for the above notice.)

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 Berrian]

Alain,

Welcome to the board.

You suggested that all of my posts were my own views of interpretation of the Scriptures. If you reread them you will see that I have documented each of my quotes from doctors of the church in their various texts. Of course, I for the most part, agree with them in their opinion that the Bible is to be interpreted literally. We all know that God has used allegory and illustrations that cause us to better understand the Word of God in the N.T. passages. The ritual of the Day of Atonement all plays out in the New Testament passages, and as I said, if allegory/illustration is used in the O.T. He explains it in the N.T. as we study in depth. His allegory has even greater fulfillment in fact and in our sanctified, human understanding.

My point, for example is this. It is improper Biblical interpretation to say that the thousand years mentioned repeatedly in Revelation 20 is merely 'a perfect number' and does not have any prophetic value for our understanding. The thousand years means exactly what John said it meant. The Judgment Seat of Christ and the Great White Throne Judgment are separate judgments, the first for saints and the latter for all lost souls.

If, or when, the religious try to allegorize these concepts and facts away as meaning hardly anything, then allegory is totally incorrect. Why? Because when they do this God's Word has been compromised and His truth has been aborted. Those who willfully do this have a future judgment to deal with as the Apostle John states in Revelation 22:18-19.

 

[Alain]

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 ]

 

[thessalonian]

"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 Berrian]

In my much earlier years when I heard about Origen, Irenaeus, or men like Augustine, it immediately jumped into my mind that these were the best of the very best of the first three centuries of the church. Some time since then I have learned to research each of these men and have found that they were not always orthodox in belief.

For example, 'Origen denied both a physical resurrection and a literal Hell.' Cairns, Earle E. "Christianity Through the Centuries" -A History of the Christian Church, 1st. Edition {Zondervan Publishing House for Academie Books}, p. 112

The theological school at Alexandria rose to its greatest prominence under Clement, 190-c. 202 and Origen (c.202-231}. The city's intellectual-theological character had been steeped in Greek philosophy for almost five centuries. The more we conjecture as to how Philo's paganistic foundation suddenly sported an orthodox superstructure, the more hilarious the theories become.

For example, in the text "Alexandrine Teaching on the Universe," (The Macmillian Co., 1932, p. 137 and written by R.B. Tollinton states this.

'But Gnostics, Origen, Platinus, and even the earlier book of "Wisdom," teaches the advent of the soul, not its creation. This concept is a challenge to Genesis 1:27 and 5:1 that declares that God created human beings in the image or likeness of the Lord God. "I was a goodly child and a good soul fell to my lot, nay rather, being good, I came into my body undefiled." The independent and prior existence of the soul is already implied.' {end quote from Dr. Tollinton} Origen was involved, 'hook, line and sinker' with the secular philosophy of the then known world, in violation of Colossians 2:8 which starts out, 'Beware! Lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit . . .' Also, I John 2:15 says, 'Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.'

Origen believed that he was a good soul and that his soul entered his body, undefiled, a complete defiance as to what God was saying through David in Psalm 58:3. 'The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.''

We can eternally thank Origen for his Alexandrian School of Theology in Alexandria, Egypt which allegorized most of Scripture and or disagreed with God's prophet David and other true messengers from the Lord God.

The result of the Alexandrian School of interpretation still continues in our day through the churches/denominations that agree with allegorization, especially in the Book of Revelation.

 

[thessalonian]

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

thessalonian,


thessalonian said, '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.

Ray is saying, yes I can agree with the paragraph above.