Scriptural Interpretation

[Padraig]

I have a question for our Oriental brothers and sisters. In the reading and interpretation of Scripture, are the Alexandrians your only influence, or is there some of the Antiochian school mixed in with it? In the EO, we tend to use a synthesis of the two schools, although I prefer the Alexandrian myself. Is the Alexandrian method the authoritative method of reading Scripture?

What do you folks think of Philo, and the Cappadocians?

May we yield to the Holy Spirit and be reunited,
Padraig

 

[erinipassi]

Hi Padraig,

Sorry it took a while to answer your post, but we haven’t forgotten your question I promise. We too also use both the Alexandrian and Antiochian School. For example, St. John Chrysostom, who was the Patriarch of Antioch and Bishop of the See of Constantinople, is highly respected in the Coptic Church and we use his commentaries of the bible. St. John Chrysostom writings are considered an authority in the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Here is an extract from this website which I think you will find interesting: http://www.stshenouda.com/coptlang/coptval.htm

“The Coptic language handed to us a great collection of the writings of the fathers of the Church. Such writings carry an authority in the Church second only to that of the Scriptures. In essence they are an extension to the Bible. Such collection that survived can be divided into two groups. The first one is a collection of translation from Greek originals of writings of Egyptian and non-Egyptian Church fathers. The second group is a collection of writings of Egyptian Fathers.

The collection of translations from Greek originals are characterized either as being commentaries on the Bible or dealing with spiritual subjects that are suitable more to the monastic community who used them more. The collection of original Coptic writings featured a more variety of subjects. However they still projected the monastic flavor. In other words, most of the Coptic writings did not address the more theoretical aspects of theology as other Greek writings did.

The value of the first collection, that of translated texts, lies in either being an ancient witness to the Greek original or at times the only surviving witness to such writings. The Copts did not translated every thing that came into their hands. They rather translated only those of the more widely known or accepted fathers; and of course those which they considered to be pertinent to their ascetic nature. The most popular writer was St. John Chrysostom. The writings of Saints Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory the Theologian were also popular but not as much as those of St. John Chrysostom.

The second collection, that of original Coptic writings is the more valuable one. It include writings from Alexandrian fathers who usually wrote in Greek, like Saints Athanasius, Theophilius, and Cyril the Great. They also included the monastic writings of St. Pachomius and his disciples as well as those of bishops from the Pre-Arab invasion like Pisentius of Qift, Constantine of Asyut, Mena of Pshati, and Rufus of Shotep. However the greatest of them all is without a doubt the writings of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite, which was the most voluminous with a wider variety of subjects. Worthy of mention here are the substantial writings of St. Besa (Wissa), St. Shenouda's disciple.

The writings of St. Shenouda the Archimandrite are truly the crown jewels of Coptic Literature. Their style, their variety, and their subject matters make them worthy of such distinction. The literary style of St. Shenouda was a unique one. It blended many of the great feature of his time as well as his own added flavor. It dealt with more subjects that are not normally expected to be seen within the writings of a monastic leader. They addressed laymen, clerics, and even high government officials. Their subject matters dealt with what such a variety of people needs along Christian lines. However they presented the reader with a feature that is unprecedented. This feature was the simplification of St. Cyril the Great's theoretical theology into a practical one that the masses can understand and apply.”

We also have a respect for Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish Philosopher, who you could also see in his writings “the parallels between the Christian understanding of the 2nd Person of the Trinity and the Jewish philosophy of the Logos.” http://www.coptichymns.net/mod-pagesetter-viewpub-tid-1-pid-31.html

This is a website of all the sources used by the Coptic Orthodox Church: http://www.suscopts.org/copt/apostolicage.html

We also have a great respect for the Cappadocians. “The Cappadocians - They were a trio with close ties, St. Basil of Caesarea (the author of the Coptic Liturgy), his friend St. Gregory Nazianzen (called "the Theologian"), and his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa. A vast literature of letters, sermons, treatises, poems, and commentaries survives from them. They were responsible for the triumph of Nicene orthodoxy in the later fourth century (i.e. Trinitarian theology).” http://www.coptichymns.net/mod-pagesetter-viewpub-tid-1-pid-17.html


Please feel free to ask any question and we will try to reply to the best of our abilities.

Love and blessings
erini

 

[minasoliman]

One person could argue that although St. John Chrysostom was Antiochian, his interpretation of Scriptures sounded more Alexandrian. But I didn't research this; this is what many scholars have written. Among other "Alexandrians" is also St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who graduated from the School of Alexandria.

Xrictoc anecti!