The last generation of scholarship has challenged the traditional modern
dichotomizing of Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis. The exegetical
goals of the so-called Antiochene ‘historical’ approach are often
fundamentally similar to Alexandrian allegorical interpretive goals. This
paper seeks to highlight the similar exegetical goals of Antiochene and
Alexandrian biblical interpretation in order to underscore a more
substantive difference between the two interpretive schools. John
Chrysostom’s Homily 7 on Genesis and Origen’s Homily 1 on
Genesis are both classic examples of Antiochene and Alexandrian
exegesis. Chrysostom’s literal approach and Origen’s allegorical
imagination are on clear display. Nevertheless, the message to each
preacher’s congregation is the same: Genesis chapter 1 leads the
congregation into virtue and warns them against vice. The difference
between the two approaches to the text is not in the content of the
interpretation, but where the exhortation is placed in the homily and
how it is connected to the biblical narrative. Chrysostom leaves his
moral exhortation until the end of his homily, presenting it without
explicit connection to the biblical text. Origen finds it in the signs
of the text itself as the narrative unfolds. The content of
Chrysostom’s and Origen’s homilies is, in the end, similar. But the
experience of the homilies is still quite different. This paper argues
that the method of interpretation also conveys meaning to
readers/hearers. The difference in what the scripture means to the
Antiochene and Alexandrian congregations represented in these homilies
is not in what they hear, but in how they hear it.
No comments:
Post a Comment