Guest post at History For Atheists: Lee Clarke, on literalism. I am here for that Alexandria / Antioch dustup, which cities birthed the Miaphysite / Dyothelete schism.
Clarke claims here that the Alexandrine school held to the spiritual interpretation of Scripture; the Antiochenes, more moral. We could say that Alexandria held to the Gospel of John against Antioch's Matthew. Clarke's argument is that neither of them were literal - both schools made use of qiyas, as the Muslims would say.
From that common ground, in where they chose different emphases: I am not seeing a schism. There is room in our Father's mansions for a Christianity both spiritual and moral. I cannot but see that the third century Christians saw it the same.
Where there may have been openings for schism is where either side fell into writing new scriptures of their own. The Egyptians were infamous for composing new Coptic "gospels", often gnostic. West Syria bequeathed to the world the Pseudo-Clementines.
It was in literature that schisms could be forged.
No comments:
Post a Comment