|
| The Threatened Series - 13
|
| THE ANIOCHENE TRADITION. It will be helpful at this point to mention
| the succession of teachers in the Antiochene tradition, and some of the
| characteristics of their teaching.
|
| DIODORE OF TARSUS (d. 390) was a native of Antioch. He studied in
| Athens and then ruled a monastery near Antioch until the strength of
| Arianism drew him into the city to combat it. He became Bishop of
| Tarsus in 378 and was considered a model of orthodoxy; in fact in 381
| the Emperor Theodosius named him as a bishop being in communion with
| whom was a test of orthodoxy. He upheld the Antiochene tradtion in
| theology, insisting on the literal and historical exegesis of scripture
| (as opposed to the Alexandrian school, who following Origen were rather
| fond of the allegorical exegesis). He insisted, against Apollinarius,
| on the full humanity of Christ.
| <snip>
| JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (347-407) studied with Theodore in the schools of both
| Libanius and Diodore. He wrote sermons of many books of the Bible -
| Genesis, Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, John, Acts, the Pauline Epistles,
| Hebrews. In the Antiochene tradition, he stressed the literal sense as
| opposed to the allegorical. He incurred the enmity of the Patriarch of
| Alexandria, and of the Empress Eudoxia. Despite the support of the
| people of Constantinople, of the Pope and of the entire western Church,
| he was deposed and exiled, and died from his harsh treatment in 407.
| He has never been accused of heresy, and indeed is considered a Saint
| and a Doctor of the Church.
| <snip>
I wonder if this Antiochene-Alexandrian distinction is actually
sustainable. For one thing, the opposing christologies (at least the
within the Cyrillian-Nestorian nexus) rely as equally upon using
both literal and spiritual exegesis (I think it is vital to point out that
one of the driving forces in Nestorius' thought was a specific
exegetical strategy for the Gospels: one reads the narrative ad
literam [pardon the use of a Latin phrase] at some points in terms
of Christ's humanity, at others in terms of his divinity: the unity is
conceived through the eyes of faith [a spiritual reading?], while
recognising the ontological distinction between the two). Moreover,
Chrysostom's exegesis is highly tropological and NOT literal.
The distinction arises, I believe, out of an old polemic, which was
an attempt to valorise Alexandrian Christology, and vilify the
Antiochene school for its supposed excessive reliance upon literal
exegesis--and look at which 'school' produces more heretics! Hah!
that must prove it ;-).
What we really need is careful study of these sources, which is
willing to suspend, momentarily, the distinction. Perhaps in the
end the differences will be reconstructed, but it requires far more
research than these sources have received.
Cheers
Jim
=====================================================================
Dr James R Ginther
Dept. of Theology and Religious Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44.113.233.6749
Fax: +44.113.233.3654
-=*=-
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/cms/
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/rg **** NEW ****
====================================================================
"First up ther wor nobbut God. An 'e said, "Ee, lad, turn th'bloody
light on." -Yorkshire paraphase of Gen. 1.2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
