Allyson Presswood Nance

HIST9401
10-6-14
Wallace-Hadrill, D.S. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Biographical Data
David Sutherland Wallace-Hadrill (1920-1999) was a British priest, deacon, curate,
painter, schoolmaster, theologian, and writer. He held degrees from Oxford and Manchester,
receiving a doctorate of divinity from the latter. Through most of his life he served as teacher and
chaplain at Aldenham School and as an Anglican priest and curate. Despite the many hats he
wore during his lifetime, he excelled in every area, garnering testimonies of his parochial
dedication1 from parishioners and writing three substantial works in the area of patristics. His
first major work was Eusebius of Caesarea (1961), followed by a rather apologetic The Greek
Patristic View of Nature (1968), and finally the work reviewed here (1982). Wallace-Hadrills
rather mystic approach to life can be seen in some words he penned previous to his death: We
are most truly ourselves in an act of creatingIt is a kind of blissful annihilation of the self. But
this experience of losing oneself outside time and space is also what we mean by deathDeath
is a completion and the realisation of the best that is in us.2
Purpose
Wallace-Hadrill succinctly states the reason for his writing in his forward: This book had
its beginning, I think, on a day early in the second World War when I asked Professor Thomas
Walter Manson to recommend a book which would give me a general view of all that was meant
by the term 'Antiochene'. He replied, 'There isn't such a book', and then with the twinkle of the
eye which endeared him to so many, he added, 'so you had better write it (vii). An incredibly
broad scope is in view with that question, and Wallace-Hadrill does not necessarily define the
limits of what he intends to include as Antiochene in order to define the term. One reviewer
(justly) criticizes him for using the term sometimes in a geographical sense and sometimes in an
ideological one (Slusser 506).
In the end, he answers the question by describing Antiochene thought (an ideological
answer) as consistently anthropologically-centered. Antiochene interpretation focuses on the
human context surrounding any text, their understanding of Christ emphasizes his historical
existence, their use of philosophy and theology always emphasizes human responsibility and
relation to the humanity of Jesus as the way forward. Does this fulfill his purpose? Though
certainly one could garner a wealth of valuable information about Antioch from reading WallaceRichard Jones, Obituary: The Rev Dr David Wallace-Hadrill, The Independent (May
29, 1999): 1, accessed October 7, 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/artsentertainment/obituary-the-rev-dr-david-wallacehadrill-1096499.html.
1

2 Jones, Obituary.

Hadrills work, questions still linger over definition, including but not limited to: 1) What
qualifies an ancient writer as Antiochene? Geography, theology, or something else?, 2) Are
certain interpretations or a specific school of thought legitimately linkable to geographic
locations?, 3) Does Antiochene thought remain substantively the same throughout the several
centuries he covers? Without addressing these or a host of other questions that anyone interested
in defining Antiochene should deal with, Wallace-Hadrills book does not seem to fulfill his
purpose completely. He has contributed greatly to the state of the question (or the state of the
answer?), but has not satisfactorily resolved it.
Summary
Wallace-Hadrill divides his work into eight main parts: 1) an introduction dealing with
the history of Antioch, 2) general religious background (pagan, Jewish, Gnostic), 3) Antiochene
interpretation, 4) Eastern historiography, 5) the doctrine of the nature of God, 6) Greek
philosophy in the Eastern Church, 7) Christology, and 8) the practical implications of Antiochene
theology. He also includes two appendices containing 1) a list of Eastern bishops represented at
the Council of Nicaea, and 2) a brief overview of the possible feminine element in Syrian
Christianity (v).
These parts are not all created equal, and Wallace-Hadrills interests as a theologian
occupy him for a great deal of his work. What is Antiochene often turns into what theology
belongs to Antioch. Thus Chapters 4 through 7 (pages 67-164), the bulk of the book, deal with
theological topics, looking at how various Antiochene writers resolved the doctrinal issues of
their time. This is the strongest section in the book, and probably its greatest contribution to the
field of early Christian historical studies. But Wallace-Hadrill has insights to offer into earlier
periods of Antiochene history as well.
Wallace-Hadrills introduction and first chapter set the stage for the rest of his book. His
introduction gives a narrative retelling of the chronology of the history of Antioch itself, dealing
specifically with the city (within the walls) itself, but also more broadly with the surrounding
patriarchate of Antioch. Wallace-Hadrill begins with the founding of Antioch around 300 B.C. by
Seleucus Nicator, who named it after his father. Despite Antiochs location on an earthquake
plain and its lack of natural geographical protective features which led to its oft-conquest, the
citys political importance nearly at the border of the Western and Eastern empires ensured its
constant rebuilding after various catastrophes. From Seleucid rule to Roman rule, with brief
periods of Eastern rule or self-governance (as under Odeinath and Zenobia, 266-72 A.D.),
through centuries of Roman emperors with differing policies, until 638 A.D. when Antioch fell to
Arab invaders, the city withstood constant demolition and construction and political policies
ranging from governance as a nearly free Metropolis to punitive tax burdens (1-12).
Chapter 1 deals with three backgrounds to Antiochene Christianity: pagan, Jewish, and
Gnostic. All three of these systems of thought had prominence in Antioch at one point or another,
and they were all in a state of flux during the first century when the church in Antioch was
founded. Pagan cults in Antioch had ancient Syrian roots, Hellenistic overlays, and Roman
admixture. Judaism in the first century dealt with the loss of the temple and was moving toward
what would become Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity was spreading rapidly, and was preached in

Antioch as early as the 30s A.D. (Acts 8:1, 11:19). Wallace-Hadrill immediately turns to his
thesis: In seeking to understand the markedly-individual flavor of Antiochene Christianity, we
turn first to the soil in which it germinated, pagan and Jewish, and to the Gnostic sects which
exercised great influence upon all religious activity in Syria during the early years of the
Christian era, for it was converts from these three great religious groups who constituted the
primitive Antiochene church (14, italics added). Christianity was constantly opposed to
paganism, but especially in Antioch, the Christian community remained close to the Jewish one
in practice if not in acceptance. Christians in Antioch retained Jewish hermeneutics, the Hebrew
Bible, and some Jewish ascetic practices, and the closeness between the two groups can be seen
in the scathing comments recorded by Christian writers warning their congregations not to fall
into Judaism (Ignatius, Lucian, Chrysostom, etc., 19). Gnostic myths enter Christian circles at
times, and Wallace-Hadrill gives excellent explanations of the teachings of Mani and Bardaisan.
Indeed, the emphasis upon the reality of Christs humanity, which is the hallmark of Antiochene
theology, starts from this point, in its deeply-rooted hostility to the docetism of the Gnostics
(26).
Chapter 2, The Interpretation of the Biblical Record, follows mostly well-worn lines in
seeing Antioch as the center for literal-historical interpretation as opposed to Alexandria, the
center for allegory and spiritual interpretation. While Wallace-Hadrill recognizes that the two
hermeneutical methods often overlap and that a specific scholar may fall anywhere on a
spectrum between the two, he still reiterates a basic conflict between the steady concentration
upon the historical event at Antioch (especially in Eustathius and Theodore of Mopsuestia) and
the whole range of defences of allegorization and mystical speculation which Alexandria had
built up over the centuries (30). An early Antiochene hermeneut is Lucian, whose version of the
OT was the recension of choice in the area, and who focused on the primacy of the historical
event as against that of the text narrating the event (31) in his text-critical work. Eustathius
follows in his footsteps, criticizing Origen and others for focusing on minutiae and missing the
forest for the trees. Theodore of Mopsuestia typifies Antiochene exegesis in some ways, but he
urges more strongly than any other the historical context as preeminent. Theodoret, Cyril,
Theophilus, Afrahat, and Ephrem, and later the school of Narsai represent more clearly the actual
Antiochene practice, which combined a more literal-historical practice with some typological
interpretations and many findings of Christ-prophecies in the Old Testament.
Historiography, the subject of Chapter 3, has a distinctive characteristic in Antioch.
Eusebius of Caesarea forms a major beginning to those writing church history, but several
other scholars follow in his footsteps. Theodoret continues the tradition, but along more
anthropologically-pessimistic lines. Syrian historians tended to focus on Gods kingdom more
highly than mans, so that they barely mention the fall of Antioch in 540, concentrating instead
on describing internal struggles between Christian groups (57). Theological battles are more
important than actual ones (58). Another characteristic of Antiochene historiographers concerns
their focus on the event itself, not morals which could be drawn from it (66).
The first truly theological issue which Wallace-Hadrill tackles is the first which attacks
the church in the second century. The Doctrine of the Nature of God, Chapter 4, primarily
deals with how to understand the tri-unity of the Godhead. The term Trinity was coined by an
Antiochene, Theophilus, but he really was a Monotheist who explained God more in terms of

modalism his God is rather a Unity with ill-defined offshoots or personified qualities (69).
Paul of Samosata, who refused to recognize distinct persons in the Trinity, and Sabellius, who
argued that God simply acted in different ways and thus received different names for his various
actions, continued in the monotheistic vein common to early Antiochene scholars. Eustathius,
who became bishop of Antioch in 324, insisted on homoousius as the correct term to describe the
one substance composing Father and Son, but similarly refused to recognize distinct persons in
the Trinity (calling that an Origenist tritheistic heresy!) and he actually led a split from the
Nicene church which lasted until 414 (77-79). Arius came on the scene and further complicated
the picture by drawing an extreme in which Jesus seemed to be classed with other mere humans
instead of distinct from God as a person (84). Throughout the Trinitarian debates, Antiochene
scholars consistently tended toward positions emphasized monotheism and anathematizing tritheism.
Though scholars have sometimes linked Alexandria with Platonic philosophy and
Antioch with Aristotelian philosophy, Wallace-Hadrill devotes Chapter 5, The Uses of Greek
Philosophy by the Eastern Church, to explaining more exactly which types of philosophy were
used in Antioch. Actually it was the Syriac-speaking Church to the east of Antioch which, in the
centuries after Antioch itself had ceased to be important as an intellectual center, adopted
Aristotelian logical method wholeheartedlyBut in this Antioch itself played no part (96).
Antiochene writers focused more on history than philosophy, although several scholars,
including Nicolaus of Damascus, Numenius of Apamea, and Iamblicus, did write significant
philosophical works (97). Wallace-Hadrill shows that early Antiochene writers were dependent
upon Aristotelian ideas merely as they were the continuation of Platonic ones. Some Stoic
elements creep into certain authors: Theophilus and Nemesius, to name two. Significant
philosophical writing does not come into prominence until the question of Monophysitism enters
the sceneat that point, Aristotles works become more popular and he is used as a source to
answer theological questions (107). Wallace-Hadrills summary of the uses of philosophy by the
Syrian church deserve quotation:
Perhaps the greatest contribution that Greek thought made to the Syrian Nestorians was
to stiffen their polemic by teaching them to define, to distinguish, to categorize. They
may not have seen very clearly what were the pre-Christian Athenian roots from which
their Syriac logic books were derived, and they certainly saw Aristotle through latePlatonist eyes and differentiated but little between Pythagorean, Stoic, and Platonist
elements in what was transmitted to them. They absorbed what Greece had to give
because they neede dit, and it becamse integrated into the older structure of their religion,
adding a weapon to their intellectual armoury without which the forces of Magianism and
Gnostic speculation might have overwhelmed them (116).
In Chapter 6, Wallace-Hadrill reaches the height of his theological summation in
describing the golden age of Antiochene theology, approximately 330-458 (117). During this
time Diodore, Theodore, Nestorius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ibas all write, and the existence
of a specifically-Antiochene way of thinking becomes more defendable. Ignatius focus on
Christs life as a very real model for suffering was strengthened by the need to argue for Christs
humanity against Gnosticism, and Diodore put this way of thinking into philosophicaltheological terms, setting forth what is usually seen as the Antiochene position: no confusion

between the divine Word and the human Jesus (119), an ontological distinction between divine
and human in Christ, butno twofold activity, for the Scriptures know only one person, Jesus
Christ (120). Theodore more fully elucidated the details of this theology by the term
inhabitation, arguing no mixture of human and divine but rather a union made of the divine
inhabiting the human (124). Nestorius took this theology a step farther in his quest to emphasize
the human reality of Christ, and those arguing against him said that he actually separated Christ
into two pieces. His refusal to accept the term theotokos led to his condemnation as a heretic
(126-27). Later writers stressed various aspects of the humanity of Christ to a more or less
extent, and were sometimes considered heretical. At its root the Antiochene position found
comfort in their harsh warfare in the belief that the Saviour was like us in all things apart from
sin,there was strength to be derived from the Man of Sorrows (150).
Chapter 7, Antiochene Theology and the Religious Life, provides a summary of
Antiochene theology as it related to praxis, and Wallace-Hadrill points out the fact that the
constant persecution and political turmoil which surrounded the Antiochene church may have led
to many of their emphases. The Monophysite monk found strength in the divinity of Christ: the
Nestorian found it in his humanity (151). Antiochene writers looked to Hebrews, which
includes much argument about Christians likeness to Christ and Christs suffering; its strong
emphasis upon the reality of Christs humanity and his brotherhood with the rest of mankind and
his learning of obedience to the divine will were well suited to the humanist tendency of
Antiochene Christianity (156). As the church continued to develop, it moved further from this
emphasis in favor of the clear-cut Monophysite doctrine, and the great Antiochene fathers failed
to be greatly translated (into Latin) or canonized by the Roman Catholic church. In fact, only
John Chrysostom, a more moderate Antiochene, had a great influence on later theology. But
looking back, great value and courage can be seen in what Wallace-Hadrill terms Antiochene.
He summarizes:
The human experience of Christ provides a point with which the struggling Christian can
identify himself and which brings within the realm of human capability the daunting
words, 'Follow me.' The Antiochene quest of the historical Jesus was rather a function of
religion than of antiquarian curiosity, the answer to the human need for a salvation which
fits the facts of man's condition and which does not sacrifice facts to the interests of neat
abstract patterns. It kept its feet on the ground (164).
Critique: Uniqueness, Style, and Biases
While quite a few books address Antioch in some form or fashion, none purport to fulfill
the same purpose as Wallace-Hadrill. Wayne Meeks and Robert Wilken (Jews and Christians in
Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era) include primarily source material
(letters and orations of Libanius, Homily of Chrysostom) in order to aid scholars interested in
further study of the period and place; Raymond Brown and John Maier (Antioch and Rome: New
Testament Cradles of Christianity) give information about early Antioch, focusing on the late
first and early second centuries; Magnus Zetterholm (The Formation of Christianity in Antioch:
A Social-Scientific Approach to the Separation between Judaism and Christianity) deals with the
titular question, again with a focus on the earliest Christian centuries. Others have of course
written dealing with specific writers or ideas located in Antioch, but none survey the entirety of

Antiochs Christian history, from its earliest mention until its fall to the Arabs in the 600s. No
one else has written a monograph simply to answer what is Antiochene?
Wallace-Hadrill writes with a narrative style that is engaging but sometimes frustrating.
He prefers relationship to rule and story to structure, resulting in a book that freely wends from
one ancient writer to another, drawing the reader into their lives and ideas, but rarely stopping for
summary or strict delineations. Thus one can read an entire chapter and not understand quite why
a certain writer has been chosen as the exemplification of a point, and can arrive at the end of the
book without being quite sure who and what the author would classify as Antiochene apart from
those included in his work. The narrative style works quite well in this historical survey, but it
does lend itself to some confusion for a reader wanting concrete answers to foundational
questions. By reading Wallace-Hadrills brief biography above, one can easily see that he was 1)
quite busy (with all kinds of activities!), and 2) not primarily (with regard to time allotted at
least) a writer. His access to materials was limited, and perhaps some of the gaps in scholarship
noted by reviewers (see especially Slusser, 505) are due to this fact. He seems to write to satisfy
his own question rather than that of others.
Wallace-Hadrills bias as a rather conservative churchman (at least in the scholarly world)
certainly influences his conclusions, since he shares the faith held by those ancient writers he
summarizes, and cares about their theology at a practical as well as a theoretical level. This bias
affects the book at the basic level of his preoccupation with theology and also at the level of
occasional comments which show that Wallace-Hadrill certainly identifies with ancient writers
statements about Christ, God, and faith.
Concluding Evaluation
Wallace-Hadrills work contains a scholarly depth of research and a collection of ideas
not presented in the same way anywhere else. His greatest contribution is probably to the area of
Antiochene theology, especially as it was more systematized during the 4th-6th centuries. His
narrative, free-flowing style gives snapshots of incredible ancient church leaders and draws the
modern reader into their story, not just a summary of their particular viewpoint on a, b, or c.
Wallace-Hadrill is able to situate each writer such that their ideas can be seen as stemming from
their overall framework a very valuable contextualization which continues the Antiochene
tradition quite remarkably. While his book does not by any means answer all questions one
would have about Antiochene issues, it is an excellent starting point to become familiar with
basic ideas, most of the prominent writers in the area, and at least an introduction to the
historical, theological, and hermeneutical questions and answers so many wish to discover about
this ancient see.

Reviews
Grant, Robert McQueen. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the
East. Church History 52, no. 4 (December 1, 1983): 494-495.
gives too brief information on the early Antiochenes such as Ignatius
is the traditional geographical classification of church scholars with particular places as
schools of thought even valid anymore?; the basic scheme arises out of classifications
helpful only to partisans, students, and teachers (495)
Bauers work is ignored
excellent book, especially for doctrine
Griffith, Sidney H. "Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East."
Catholic Historical Review 75, no. 1 (January 1, 1989): 123-124.
Scholars have often regretted the fact that historians persists in describing the differing
styles of biblical exegesis in use in the early church by reference to the cities where the
seemingly mutually exclusive modes of interpretation were said to be most at home
(123)
topics addressed are too extensive for complete coverage
a larger geographic range (the patriarchate, not the city) of Antioch and a larger
chronological range (through the seventh century) make the book worthwhile
uses Eusebius of Caesarea and Evagrius Ponticus because of their influence in the Syriac
church
completely out-of-date bibliography for Syrian sources (124)
Hanson, R.P.C. Antiochene Theology. The Expository Times 94, no. 6 (March 1983): 186-187.
great summary of theology from 4th-7th centuries
does not give good evidence for an earlier recognizably Antiochene tradition or
character (186)
Ignatius, Paul of Samosata, and Theophilus have very different viewpoints
Eusebius has little connection with Antioch
Lucian, as a heretic, should not be considered representative of Antioch
errors: Eusebius of Nicomedia cannot be exiled for religious convictions and politically
subservient (86); Henana was not first to claim that Moses wrote Job (48)
Slusser, M. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Theological
Studies 44, no. 3 (September 1, 1983): 505-507.
This book is both likable and frustrating. On the one hand, it is bold in conception and
broadens the readers mind by juxtaposing materials from a variety of sources which the
theologian in search of enlightenment from history would not otherwise encounter in
proximity to one another. On the other hand, it is idiosyncratic, uneven in style, and too
frequently inaccurate or misleading (505).
includes many writers linked with Antioch who are not usually included in Antiochene
surveys (i.e. Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus, etc.)
uses Antiochene in a geographical and an ideological sense (506)

useful and undependable (507)

Bibliography

Hanson, R.P.C. Antiochene Theology. The Expository Times 94, no. 6 (March 1983): 186-187.
Jones, Richard. Obituary: The Rev Dr David Wallace-Hadrill. The Independent
(May 29, 1999): 1. Accessed October 7, 2014. http://www.independent.co.uk/ artsentertainment/obituary-the-rev-dr-david-wallacehadrill-1096499.html.
Slusser, M. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Theological
Studies 44, no. 3 (September 1, 1983): 505-507.
Talk in Class
intro: all about Antioch, specifically about Antiochene theology, more focused on later
controversies
divided into 8 sections: moves from background stuff to a little bit of hermeneutics in general to
theological controversies
give overview of each section
give basic critiques