About those easy dichotomies

For many years the prevailing conclusion was that Antiochenes rejected the Alexandrian approach to biblical interpretation because of their diametrically opposed view of allegory and concomitant emphasis on the literal/historical aspect that was believed to be reflected in typology, Allegory was thought to be poor interpretation because of its callous treatment of history, while typology was thought to be good interpretation because it takes history seriously. In the past half century or so, there has been a reassessment of the traditional antithesis between allegory and typology and its foundation in historical connection. The reassessment has concluded that Alexandria and Antioch represent complementary rather than contradictory or competitive viewpoints.

Reflecting this reassessment, Theodore Stylianopoulos bemoans any sharp distinction between the Alexandrian and Antiochene exegetical traditions. Rather than seeing these approaches as mutually exclusive, he avers that they are both “fundamentally metaphorical and symbolic.” The desire of both approaches in reading Scripture was spiritual edification. By the same token, neither had any desire to abandon the literal sense (as they understood it).

Similarly, Karlfried Froehlich explains that while there is little doubt the Antiochenes did have issues with the excesses of Alexandrian spir- itualism, he also warns that it is problematic to make a sharp dis- tinction between Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis. To claim that only the Alexandrian fathers allegorized while the Antiochene fathers adhered only to the literal meaning of the text is incorrect.—Early Christian Readings of Genesis One, pages 125–26