Antiochene and Alexandrian theology

[Bob Kovacs]

What were the main differences between the school of Antioch and the school of Alexandria with regards to theology?.

[John Charmley]

Dear Bob,

There is an excellent discussion of this at http://www.monachos.net/library/Two_%27Schools%27:_Alexandria_and_Antioch

Its focus is on matters Christological, which is natural since that was where an important difference manifested itself. But, as Matthew points out in the article here, it is important to note two things: the first is that the division into 'schools' is very much a construct of modern scholarship; the second is that whilst there was a catechical school at Alexandria, there was no equivalent at Antioch; we are talking about 'schools' in the sense of 'schools of thinking'.

Broadly speaking the Antiochene 'school' held a 'Word/Man' (Logos/Anthropos) Christology, which emphasised the complete humanity of Our Lord, including a soul; it tended to see the perfection and obedience of Our Lord as man as the root of our salvation; the Incarnation was 'the word' with a human body and soul. It grew out of a struggle against Appolinarian and Docetist notions of Christology, which tended to mean that at its extreme it could sound as though it was 'adoptionist' in the manner of Paul of Samosata; its classical representatives are often taken to be Diodore of Tarsus, Theordore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius of Constantinople, as well as John of Antioch; it might be doubted whether the first and last of these really fit the picture. Because of its emphasis upon the two natures, it could be (and was by those in Alexandria on the look out for it) taken as preaching a doctrine of 'two Sons'.

Even more broadly speaking, the Alexandrian Christology has been taken to represent a 'Word/Flesh' view (Logos/Sarx). Here there is an emphasis on the divinity of Our Lord, and upon the union of natures; the basis of salvation is in the physical theory of antonement - the union of the Word and the human body. Since it grew out of struggles with adoptionism, at its most extreme it could be (and was) read as Appolinarianism - especially by those in Antioch who were always on the look out for this. It could be, and was, taken to proclaim a defective view of Christ's humanity.

The room for misunderstanding was increased by the tendency of the Alexandrians to favour an allegorical reading of scripture, and of the Antiochenes to go for a more literal reading.

Almost every statement in the above is open to being contested. If one takes St. Cyril as a key test, whilst some from the Antiochene 'school' read his views as Appolinarian (not helped here by his unwitting adoption of a phrase used by Appolinarius), they were not, as John of Antioch himself recognised; most modern scholars recognise the complexity and dynamism of St. Cyril's Christology, which is almost the measure of Orthodoxy; Professor McGuckin's excellent book on St. Cyril and the Christological controversy is to be had from St. Vladimir's Seminary Press and is an excellent read.

But if you want a version shorter than that, and more nuanced than this, then do go to Matthew Steenberg's excellent piece on the Patristics section of this site as listed above.

Hope this helps - and does not arouse too much controversy.


In Christ,

John

[Kosta]

The School of Antioch emphasised the humanity of Christ while the School of Alexandria emphasized his divinity.

For instance Nestorius was educated in Antioch and prefered to call the Virgin Mary as Christotokos. Cyril of Alexandria fought against the Nestorian heresy and prefered the title Theotokos, which was made dogma in 431 a.d.

St John Chrysostom whose from the Antiochan school never refered to the Virgin Mary as sinless but always held to a humanistic portrayal of Her. Origen on the other hand who was from Alexandria was the first to call Mary, "Panaghia" (all holy).

Alexandria which struggled against Arianism always emphasised the Divinity of Christ. St Flavian of Constantinople an adherent of the Antiochan School was the first to depose Eutyches for being a monophysite. Eutyches was an entreme anti-nestorian and started teaching that Christs divinity overtook his humanity. When Eutyches was deposed for heresy he naturally found support among the Alexandrians.
This was the first seeds of the schism (to come) on the human and divine natures of Christ (of course politics was involved as well).

In 433 A.d. Cyril reconciled with the Antiochans who taught the "two natures" of Christ. But some only found Cyril's terminology "One incarnate nature of God the Word" as acceptable, the latter being too close to nestorianism.

We can see the differences between the two schools from these events. Antioch stressed the literal while ALexandria the more mystical.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I've enjoyed reading the posts above.

It seems that these two schools are actually two tendencies within the Church which at one time were identified with Alexandria & Antioch.

To completely deny these schools would be to deny a reality which has always been within the Church and which continues to be so to this day. In fact it's hard to see how there could be a living Church without these two tendencies constantly at work. This alerts us to the fact that no theological vision is complete in itself. Its balance will always be found from another theological vision.

Maybe this help explain the interesting fact that some of the most 'Antiochene' Fathers have been so Alexandrian in their way of thinking: eg St Isaac the Syrian. Evagrius was very popular within the Persian church.

On the other hand if we are justified in thinking that monasticism was born in Egypt then many of the great original ascetic Frs stressed praxis over theoria.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bob Kovacs]

Thanks everyone for your replies. Now I have a better understanding.

[Anthony]

Leaving aside the Christological controversy, I have been wondering whether the Church has ever taken a stance over the different approaches of the two "schools" to reading Scripture.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Leaving aside the Christological controversy, I have been wondering whether the Church has ever taken a stance over the different approaches of the two "schools" to reading Scripture.
Yep, as I understand it, we use BOTH! One coin, two sides and all that...

DISCLAIMER The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.