Reading the Old Testament in Antioch

Robert Hill: Reading the Old Testament in Antioch

A central part of the history of the early church is the dynamic between Antioch and Alexandria, a dynamic which exists to this day, albeit under different names. But as useful as this handle is for speaking in broad terms, does it accurately reflect the situation? This book sets out to present how the Old Testament was viewed in Antioch, specifically in the commentaries of the primary Antiochenes. 

The connection of the Antiochenes and the literal sense, which is the standard presentation in broad early church studies, is given a more nuanced presentation in this book. Clearly, the literal sense is important for them. The only way to determine the correct interpretation of a text was to return to the historical context and literal meaning. “Antioch cannot tolerate arbitrary interpretation of prophetic and other texts that have been disconnected from their historical roots” (144). When some people use Haggai 2:8 in a way which Chrysostom does not appreciate, he corrects them by going back to the historical background of Haggai (144). When the Antiochenes read the Bible, they sought to take it literally, as Hill gives a multitude of examples. For example, Theodore understood the command to Hosea to marry a prostitute literally (146-147).  

The Antiochenes also sought to read the Old Testament without reading New Testament ideas into it, using rather strong language for those who would presume to do such an activity. They are opposed to finding the Trinity in the Old Testament, although Theodoret is an exception, as he saw the Trinity in Genesis 1:26 and Isaiah 48:16 (171-172). They also looked for the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy primarily in the Old Testament itself and not in the eschaton or even in Jesus (160).  Theodore, in his commentary on Zechariah, speaks against the practice of reading the New Testament into the Old Testament.

Now, the statement of certain commentators, characterized by extreme error and stupidity, and not innocent of impiety, is to the effect that he saw the Son of God here. It is, in fact, obvious that none of those who lived before the coming of Christ the Lord knew of Father and Son, none knew that Go the Father was the father of God the Son, that God the Son was the son of God the Father, being what the Father is in also being from him. (170)

However, contrary to popular perception, Hill also shows how the Antiochenes were not restricted to the literal sense. The difference between Antioch and Alexandria was not absolute. When Chrysostom was preaching on Genesis, he told his congregation that there was much treasure in Scripture under the surface and that they would need to work hard to find it (153). Theodoret in particular understood extensive figurative meaning in the text of the Old Testament. For example, he reprimanded earlier commentators for taking the Song of Songs in a literal fashion (152). Diodore rejects any inclination to “draw us to Judaism and suffocate use by forcing us to settle for the literal sense alone and attending only to it, instead of allowing us to proceed further to a more elevated understanding” (139).  These points help to remind us that Antioch was not monolithic, that our conception of the Antioch-Alexandria divide is only a heuristic model, not an absolute one.

Some of the Antiochenes also cannot pass up an opportunity to use their commentating to support their theology, even if the particular text does not lend itself particularly well to that endeavor. Theodoret is predictably the one who does this the most, as demonstrated in his comments on Song of Songs 5:10 “My nephew is white and ruddy.” “She mentions white first and ruddy second: he was always God, but he became man as well, not by abandoning what he was or being turned into a man, but by putting on a human nature” (176).

Chrysostom is so-named for a very good reason, and his rhetorical brilliance shines through in his sermons on the Old Testament, as Hill helps the reader to see. Here is an example from a sermon on prayer based on Psalm 4.

Instead, when on the point of conversing with some people of a class above us we ensure our appearance and gait and attire are as they should be, and dialogue with them in this fashion. In approaching God, by contrast, we yawn, scratch ourselves, look this way and that, pay little attention, loll on the ground, do the shopping. (190)

The major weakness of the book is the insistence of the author on historical critical conclusions. Hill reads the Antiochenes through a historical critical grid and faults them whenever they deviate from this standard. For example, he calls Theodoret’s attempt to validate the chronology of the Daniel “an (impossible) task which we saw distracted him from a critical approach to the text” (127). Similarly, he criticizes Theodoret for not noticing that different parts of the book were composed by different people at a later date (127). Hill chides Theodoret for not recognizing the difference between fact and truth when Theodoret defends the factual history of the details of the plagues. This assumption of modern ideas is clearly seen in the following quotation: 

And so on throughout The Twelve, the narrative’s ιστορια always defended and always the focus of comment, even when an author has in fact ventured into satirical fiction (as in Jonah) or an apocalyptic scenario (as in Zechariah). The primacy given to the historical sense of Scripture by Antioch is in those cases shown to have its limitations. (147)

One further feature of the book I would have liked to read would have been a short comparison with Alexandria and how the Old Testament was read there. I realize that the author decided to not go down the comparison road, but it would have been nice to have at least a short summary of the differences. After seeing how nuanced the “literal” hermeneutic was at Antioch, I wonder how true the “allegorical” hermeneutic was in Alexandria. I suppose I shall have to wait for another volume: Reading the Old Testament in Alexandria. Let us just hope it does not cost $130 like the Antiochene volume.

A further comment in relation to the topic, although not a critique as such, is that we need greater access to commentaries from Antioch and from the rest of church history. Hill lists modern editions of the five major Antiochene writers, but none of these are in English. He also lists English translation of Antiochene OT commentaries, but only the ones that he has translated himself (although that is an impressive list with 17 entries). It would have been nice to have a more comprehensive list of Antiochene works in English. It would also be great to have an annotated list of commentaries throughout church history, divided up by book of the Bible. Hence, I could pick up an annotated list of commentaries on Deuteronomy from church history which told me about the commentary and where I could find the authoritative edition, as well as easily accessible English versions. This kind of access would provide great benefit to modern scholars, as it would make it easier for them to interact with church history and those who have gone before.

Login to add comments