What were the ‘school of Antioch’ and the ‘school of Alexandria’ and what is the importance of the difference

between them in regard to Christology?

When talking about the development of Christological understanding in the early church, we find the
two great camps of thought constantly in the background. There is the School of Alexandria and the School of
Antioch. These schools each have a mix of great orthodox theologians and great heretics, from Arius to John
Chrysostem. The combination of having different philosophical influences and biblical interpretations, lead to
two very distinct schemas of thought and through their struggles our understanding of Christ has been forged.

One of the roots of these schools are the philosophical fathers: Plato and Aristotle. The Alexandrians
were Platonists, while the Antiochians were Aristotelians. Why does this make a difference? If one is to
understand Christology one must understand man, and the Platonists and Aristotelians understand man
differently. Aristotelians had a Hylomorphic Anthropology, man is one composite thing, body and soul. The
Aristotelians claim that the soul of man is the form of the body itself, under an Aristotelian's point of view it
would be impossible for the soul of a man to switch to another body, or to have a body without a soul. The
Platonists, on the other hand, believed that the soul existed before the body. The soul is placed into the body
and animates it. This is a Dualistic Anthropology, we are our souls and we have a body. These philosophical
ideas are the building blocks to be combined with revelation.

The way revelation is seen also has differing tendencies. When looking to the scriptures the
Alexandrians tend towards Allegorical Biblical interpretations. This is why you have fantastical accounts of
creation amongst the Alexandrians (such as that of Appollonius who claims that Christ and Man were the same
type of thing, until there was a great war in heaven and Man went to earth while Christ was united with God.)
On the other hand we have the Antiochians who tend toward Literal/Historical Biblical interpretations. A
common confusion made while distinguishing the two schools comes from these biblical interpretations. Often
people will claim that the Alexandrians emphasize the divinity of Christ while the Antiochians emphasize the
humanity of Christ. Now this is a problematic division when you remember that Arius, great denier of Christ's
divinity, was from the School of Alexandria! The Gospels are fundamentally about the life of Christ when he is
a man on earth, when one focuses on the allegorical meanings one can forget about the humanity of Christ in
the Gospels, on the other hand an overly historical interpretation might forget about Christ’s divinity. So
although those tendencies are there, it comes from a deeper thing, an understanding of how to read the bible.

These two things combine to form two distinct thoughts on Christ Logos-Sarx and Logos-Antropos. The
School of Alexandria came up with the Word-Flesh (Logos-Sarx) conception. The ides is the one of ratios, the
soul relates to the body in a man as the Word relates to the flesh in Christ. Soul:Body::Word:Flesh.