My Upload Files
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY I THE SCHOOL OF ATIOCH BY CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS AD ITS EASTER RELATIOS FROM THE THIRD CETURY OWARD 1. The Christians at Antioch, until the middle of the third century, received their training in the bishop's school, and went for higher culture to the public schools. There is a long list of bishops of the Church of Antioch for the first three Christian centuries ; but the most of them were undistinguished men. one of them attained to the eminence of the second bishop, Ignatius ; and except for Theophilus, no other bishop rendered notable service in the study of theology. There is no evidence for the existence of any Christian school for higher education in Antioch before the middle of the third century ; but in the latter part of that century the presbyters of Antioch had among them several men of exceptional learning and ability, who built up a school of Christian literature. In the follo\\1ng century there sprang up in Antioch and the neighbourhood cloister schools, one of which became very famous. Thus Antioch had several important schools of different types. But all were built up by her presbyters, and all were characterised by the same tendencies in theology and philosophy, and by the same method in Biblical study. As students of theology the scholars of Antioch all belonged to one school of thought ; and it is therefore 112 HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY [pt. n. possible to speak of ' the school of Antioch ' as well as of ' the school of Alexandria.' 2. The apparent founder of the Christian school of Antioch was Malchion, a converted Sophist, the chief opponent of the heretical bishop, Paul of Samosata, in the second half of the third century. Malchion was principal of a Sophist school in Antioch. He was converted to Christianity, became a presbyter, and organised his school as a Christian school. This must have been prior to 260, when Paul of Samosata became bishop ; for Malchion was his chief opponent, and so thoroughly exposed his errors and immorality that he was deposed by a general council of bishops (267-9) . Jerome describes Malchion as ' the highly gifted presbyter of the Church at Antioch, who had most successfully taught rhetoric in the same city.' ^ 3. The school of Antioch gained its chief renown through Lucian, the ablest teacher and theologian of his time, especially in Biblical learning. Lucian {^ c. 312) was probably bom in Samosata of a prominent family, and received his early education at Edessa under Macarius. He removed to Antioch, c. 260-265, where he became a presbyter and an eminent teacher. At first he seems to have been friendly with Paul, the bishop, his compatriot and possibly his early acquaintance and friend ; and for some time did not recognise Paul's deposition. But he does not seem to have been compromised by Paul's theological opinions, and for a long period the orthodoxy of Lucian and his school remained unquestioned. Eusebius tells of his death by martjn-dom, and his fame ' for learning in sacred things.' ^ He was acquainted with Hebrew, and ' united what Syria, Alexandria, and Palestine had to offer for a 1 Jerome, De vir. iU., 71. ' Eusebius, ix. 6. OH. m.] THE SCHOOL OF ATIOCH 113 scientific treatment of the Bible.' ' What Origen had been for the Alexandrian school, that was Lucian for the school of Antioch.' ^ His principal work was in textual criticism, the revision of the Greek Bible known as Lucian' s text. Jerome says : ' Alexandria et ^gj^tus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem, Con- stantinopolis usque ad Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat.' ^ Thus at the beginning of the fourth century there were three rival texts of the Greek Bible in circulation, one from each of the three great centres of theological education. Lucian, however, was chiefly active as a teacher who influenced many scholars throughout the East, especially in the interpretation of the Scriptures. 4. The school of Antioch was characterised by historical and literary principles of interpretation, and by a tendency towards Aristotelianism in philosophy. How far the principles of the school can be carried back to Lucian we do not know ; but probably in the main they may be, for he is universally recognised as the greatest teacher of the school, as Origen was of the school of Alexandria ; only unfortunately he has left us but little in literature by which he may be judged. The fundamental principles of interpretation of the school are as follows : ' (1) Every passage has its literal meaning, and only one mean- ing. We must, however, distinguish between plain and figurative language, and interpret each passage in accordance with its nature. (2) Alongside of the literal sense is the typical sense, which arises out of the relation of the Old Covenant to the ew. It is based upon the Uteral sense, which it presupposes. 1 Kihn, TheodoT von Mopsucstia und Juniliut A/ricanus als Exe- geten, p, 9. 2 Jerome, Prcef. in Parcdip, ; vide Briggs, Study of Holy Scrip- ture, p. 193. 3 Vide Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia, pp. 26 teq. VOL. I. H 114 HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY [ft. n. The school of Antioch rejected the allegorical method of the school of Alexandria, and did much to preserve a sounder exegesis in the Church. In Theodore of Mopsuestia, Chrysostom, and Theodoret the principles of the school found expression in the noblest products of Christian exegesis. As Kihn says : ' The Antiochians mediated between the two contrasted posi- tions : a coarse, childish, literal sense, and an arbitrary allegorical interpretation ; between the extremes of the Judaizers and Anthropomorphites on the one hand, and the Hellenistic Gnostics and Origenists on the other ; and they paved the way for a sound Biblical exegesis, which remained influential for all coming time, although indeed not always prevalent. Basil, Gregory azian- zen, and Gregory of yssa, Epiphanius, and even the later Alexandrians, like Didymus the BUnd, felt the healthful influence on their exegetical method. Jerome introduced it into the West.' 1 The Aristotelian philosophy was more influential in this school than the Platonic ; and eo-Platonism seems to have had little, if any, influence. Lucian was the teacher of Arius and of Eusebius of icomedia, the chief Arians, and is therefore often held responsible for their views ; but incorrectly, if the creed attributed to him and adopted at the Council of Antioch in 341 was really his. It was probably the Creed of the Church of Antioch coming down from his time, and doubtless professed by him as an unchallenged presbyter of that church until his death. 5. Dorotheus, a presbyter of Antioch, was a younger cotemporary of Lucian, and also an eminent teacher of the school. Little is known of Dorotheus (f 303), but Eusebius knew him personally, and says that he was ' a man of learning 1 Kihn, TheodoT von Mopsuestia, pp. 29 seq. ; vide Briggs, Study o» Holy Scripture, pp. 451 aeq. CH. m.] THE SCHOOL OF ATIOCH 115 among those of his day, who was honoured with the office of presbyter in Antioch. He was a lover of the beautiful in divine things, and devoted himself to the Hebrew language, so that he read the Hebrew Scriptures with facility. He belonged to those who were especially liberal, and was not unacquainted with Grecian pro- paedeutics.' ^ He suffered in the Decian persecution ; and, according to Eusebius, in him and his companions this persecution * produced martyrs divine and illustrious above all whose praises have ever been sung, and who have been celebrated for courage, whether among Greeks or barbarians.' ^ Dorotheus seems to have been associated with Lucian in the building up of the school, and the development of its principles of exegesis.^ 6. The most eminent scholar of the school was Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, who was distinguished as a teacher, whether he taught in Antioch or not. Eusebius of Emesa (t c 360) was bom of a noble family, in Edessa, where he received his early training. He then went to Palestine, and studied ^ith Eusebius of Csesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, under whom he 'acquired a more intimate knowledge of sacred literature.' * Dissatisfied with the allegorical method of interpretation, he left for Antioch and the school of Lucian, whose principles of exegesis were the same as those of his first school at Edessa. From Antioch he went to Alexandria to study philosophy, but reverted to the Aristotelianism of his native city. Socrates ascribes this visit to Alexandria to his Tvish to ' avoid a bishopric' ^ He was offered the episcopate at Antioch, but declined the honour. After another sojourn in that city he was made bishop of Emesa, Phoenicia. Whether 1 Eusebius, vii. 32. « Eusebius, riii. 6. 3 Vide Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia und Jumlius Afrxcanus als 4 Sozonien, iii. 6. • Socrates, EccUsiastxcal Uxstory, ii. 9. 116 HISTORY OF THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY [pt. n. he taught at Antioch is not known, but he is reckoned as belonging to the school in the larger sense. He was certainly a teacher, for he taught Diodorus of Tarsus. Sozomen attributes to him a ' great reputation for sanctity and consummate eloquence.' Jerome says that he had ' fine rhetorical talent, composed innumerable works suited to win popular applause, and, writing historically, is most diligently read by those who practise public speaking.' ^ He wrote commentaries and polemic, apologetic and dogmatic treatises, of which only frag- ments have been preserved. 7. Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, was for some years presbyter and teacher in the church of Antioch, and had as his pupils Theodore of Mopsuestia and Chrysostom.