INTRODUCTION
The city of Alexandria was probably the most important city for the rise of Christianity in Egypt.[1] It was a significant city culturally, socially, politically, economically, and scholastically. This northern port city was strategically located and became the most influential city-center in Egypt. Its prominence attracted various ethic groups from across the vast Roman empire in early church history. The city of Alexandria saw a large influx of Jews stemming from the Diaspora. Being the second largest city of the empire, this commercially iconic city was the seedbed for culture, scholarship, and the academy particularly of Hellenistic, Jewish, and later Christian thought.
This post is a brief examination of the history and hermeneutics of the Alexandrian School as well as the proponents and influences that largely shaped and contributed to its perpetuation. Some brief examples of biblical texts will also be examined. This paper will now examine the chief proponents and authorities that began to shape the biblical hermeneutics in the second and third centuries of the early church.
ALEXANDRIAN PROPONENTS
In the late second century, a catechetical school began to arise in the diverse cultural milieu of Alexandria. The origination of this school of thought is commonly credited to the scholar, Pantaenus. Pantaenus is largely overshadowed by his main pupil, Clement of Alexandria, who was succeeded by his well known student, Origen. These three men are frequently referred to as the chief proponents of the Alexandrian catechetical school.
Of the three scholars previously mentioned Pantaenus is least known. The data on his life and influence is scarce. Little is known about this scholar, but the fruit of his work is recognized in his successors. His student, Clement is considered the “first Christian scholar.”[2] Much of his life is also unknown. He died somewhere between 211 to 216. Clement was a brilliant scholar. He was well versed in the classical, philosophical (particularly Platonic), and Christian literature of his day. Roger Olson likens Clement as “the prototype of the broad, liberally minded, intellectual and philosophical Christian theologian who seeks to synthesize Christian belief with culture as much as possible.”[3]
Clement attempted to coalesce the Christian faith with the culture of his day. He held a high view of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic teachings. He employed Greek philosophy to aid him in his interpretation of Scripture. For him God’s word was intelligible and therefore logic and reason would aid the reader in his understanding of the text. Five of his writings exist today and are largely instructive in nature. Clement fiercely opposed the heretical teaching of his day: Gnosticism. He argued against Gnosticism’s insistent ideology of dualism. For him the faith of man had precedent over knowledge.
As Pantaenus is overshadowed by Clement, so too is Clement overshadowed by his student, Origen. Persecution raged in the church of Alexandria during the early third century. The violence forced Clement to leave the city in 202 and it was during this time that Origen succeeded Clement in his position at the Alexandrian school. Origen’s life is probably best remembered in the traditional account of his rescue as a sixteen-year-old by his mother. Later in life Origen wished to be ordained, but due to various speculative reasons he fell out of favor with the bishop of Alexandria and his request was denied. Undeterred, Origen went to the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was ordained and never returned to his hometown of Alexandria. Origen died a martyr’s death. He was tortured and executed during the middle of the third century during the persecution of the Roman emperor, Decius.
His academic and scholarly career were marked by his incredible writing ability. Approximately 800 manuscripts derived from his hand. His most well known works were his disputation against the Roman philosopher, Celsus titled, Contra Celsus and his theological treatise, De Principiis. Gerald Bray states, “By any standard of measurement, Origen was the greatest biblical scholar of antiquity.”[4]
ALEXANDRIAN HERMENEUTICS
The Alexandrian school is characterized by their allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Their understanding of Scripture was combined with Greek philosophical influences. Clement employed three main approaches to interpreting Scripture.[5] He saw that the literal aspect of the text brought out the historical and doctrinal features. Typology yielded the prophetic interpretation, and allegory gave the spiritual or mystical meaning of Scripture. For example in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, Clement allegorized the robe which the son upon his return received from his father as immortality. His sandals represented the upward progress of the soul, and the fattened calf depicted Christ as the Christian’s spiritual sustenance.[6]
Origen had a similar approach. His hermeneutic corresponded with the triad found in human beings – the body, soul, and spirit. His triadic hermeneutic featured the literal (bodily), moral (soulish), and spiritual (mystical).[7] Origen allegorically appealed to texts such as 1 Cor. 9:9-10; 10:1-4; Gal. 4:21-31; Eph. 5:31-32.[8] For example he interpreted the account with Lot and his daughters in Gen 19:30-38 as follows:
…the passage has a literal sense…, but its moral meaning is that Lot represents the rational human mind, his wife the flesh inclined to pleasures, and the daughters vainglory and pride. Applying these three elements yields the spiritual…meaning: Lot represents the OT Law, the daughters represent Jerusalem and Samaria, and the wife represents the Israelites who rebelled in the wilderness.[9]
In regards to a literal interpretation some of the commands and imperatives in the Scriptures were helpful and instructive. Taken at this level, a literal interpretation was useful for the Christian. Clement viewed literal interpretation of the Bible as a beginning point for immature Christians.[10] The moral level was found in examples given in the narrative portions of the text. The ethical paradigms exemplified in these narratives were to be seen as underlying the literal level. Passages that encouraged moral living in contrast to the world were considered part of the rational or moral level. According to this interpretation, all texts contain a mystically deep and spiritual meaning. It was up the mature believer to decipher such a meaning. In Alexandrian hermeneutics the spiritual meaning is superior to the literal.[11]
Several contributing factors challenged the early proponents to adopt an allegorical approach to Scripture. One of the dynamics that compelled this school to emphasize and at times impose an allegorical or spiritual meaning into the text was because of the negative view by the pagans concerning the validity and legitimacy of the biblical text. They felt constrained to safeguard the Bible against the pagan’s attacks on the seeming obvious and ridiculous accounts of the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic teachings. Allegory seemed like a legitimate technique to ward off the assaults and criticisms of those who attempted to deny the authority of the Scriptures. This however was not the primary motivation of the Alexandrian school; rather this method was viewed as having “basic theological significance,”[12] and this significance became the principal motivation.
Another reason for the use of allegory was to alleviate the tension of the Bible’s divine nature and its humanity.[13] Origen attempted answer the myriad of questions that face the interpreter. How are the very words of the Divine interpreted and applied to the finite? Since God is absolute and infinite and mankind’s situations are relative, how does his law relate to human events? How does the interpreter handle the issue of literal versus figurative? What is the essence of allegory, typology, and analogy? What is the relationship of the two Testaments? For Origen the way of allegory seemed to assuage much of the tension.
The Jewish misunderstanding of Jesus Christ gave the proponents of the allegorical approach yet another reason. Origen perceived that if the Jews of Christ day misunderstood the prophecies about the coming Messiah from a literal hermeneutic than a meaning deeper than the literal must be veritable.[14] Although he did not detect the difference between the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah and allegorical interpretation, he nonetheless felt the tension of a purely “literal” interpretation.
CONCLUSION
It seems apparent that Origen, Clement, and church fathers alike understood a literal hermeneutic as “literal.” By not perceiving a “straightforward reading,” they failed to see a hermeneutic that considered genre and figurative language.[15] For them the literal should be considered, but the spiritual must be ascertained. However, we can hardly point fingers. The church fathers were committed to the texts of Scripture and their entire purpose was purely of a practical nature.[16] Not that this in anyway justifies their actions; nevertheless God in his divine providence orchestrated men with devotion to him in the molding of Christian theology. David Dockery states, “It is clear that the Alexandrians lived in a complex hermeneutical environment. Out of this environment Clement began to forge a hermeneutical methodology.”[17]
The Alexandrian method of interpretation had positive and negative affects upon the church.[18] Positively, it always took the text of Scripture to a spiritual level.[19] For these men the Bible was more than a moral storybook. It was God’s Word. However, the negative side was also inherent this spiritual reading. Allegory tended to take the Scriptures out of history. Unguarded and often negligent interpretations would result, and man’s “spiritually” subjective intuitions gave precedent over proper interpretational methods.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arnold, Clinton E., “Centers for Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Bray, Gerald, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Dockery, David S., “The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation.” Faith and Mission vol. 10:1 (Fall 1992): 3-34.
Goldsworthy, Graeme, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
Klein, William W., Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004.
Knight, Jonathan M., “Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Olson, Roger E., The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)
[1] Clinton E. Arnold, “Centers for Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 149.
[2] Jonathan M. Knight, “Alexandria, Alexandrian Christianity” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 37.
[3] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 85.
[4] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 83.
[5] Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Interpretation, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 91.
[6] William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2004), 38-39.
[7] Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 106.
[8] Moisés Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible? in Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 55.
[9] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, 39.
[10] Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, 90-91.
[11] Ibid., 91.
[12] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 51.
[13] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 102.
[14] Silva, Has the Church Misread the Bible?, 51.
[15] Ibid., 52.
[16] Ibid., 54.
[17] David S. Dockery, “The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation,” Faith and Mission, vol. 10:1 (Fall 1992): 14.
[18] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 103.
[19] Dockery remarks, “The spiritual sense served an apologetic purpose against the Gnostics and other challengers to the orthodox mainstream, but primarily it served a pastoral purpose to mature the soul” (“The History of Pre-Critical Biblical Interpretation,” 17).
