The notion that there existed a distinction between so-called
“Alexandrian” and “Antiochene” exegesis in the ancient church has become a
common assumption among theologians. The typical belief is that Alexandria
promoted an allegorical reading of Scripture, whereas Antioch endorsed a
literal approach. However, church historians have long since recognized that
this distinction is neither wholly accurate nor helpful to understanding
ancient Christian hermeneutics. Indeed, neither school of interpretation
sanctioned the practice of just one exegetical method. Rather, both
Alexandrian and Antiochene theologians were expedient hermeneuts, meaning
they utilized whichever exegetical practice (allegory, typology, literal,
historical) that would supply them with their desired theology or
interpretive conclusion. The difference between Alexandria and Antioch was
not exegetical; it was theological. In other words, it was their respective
theological paradigms that dictated their exegetical practices, allowing
them to utilize whichever hermeneutical method was most expedient for their
theological purposes. Ultimately, neither Alexandrian nor Antiochene
exegetes possessed a greater respect for the biblical text over the other,
nor did they adhere to modern-day historical-grammatical hermeneutics as
theologians would like to believe.