Frustrations with Arnold on Hebraism and Hellenism

I find it rather interesting that Arnold finds Hebraism and Hellenism, the names of the two forces that he claims guide our energies, or lights, as he would call it, such an integral part of a man’s pursuit of perfection. For me, his contradictions are slightly annoying and make the already difficult task of interpreting his work even more difficult. For example, it is evident that Arnold finds the coexistence and balance of Hebraism and Hellenism laudable and a way to move toward the same goal of man’s perfection, despite their utter differences.

Hebraism- strictness of conscience; conduct and obedience
Hellenism- spontaneity or consciousness; to see things as they really are
Pg.127

He uses Solomon and Aristotle’s outlooks on knowledge to demonstrate the two forces’ differences. Arnold explains that Solomon finds it that “understanding is a well-spring of life unto him that hath it” while Aristotle believes that “in what concerns virtue, three things are necessary—knowledge, deliberate will, and perseverance; but, whereas the two last are all-important, the first is a matter of little importance” (Arnold 129).

While I understand Arnold’s point surrounding the polarity of the two forces, my issue lies with his well-known value for education. If Arnold is a man who values education, in a cultural sense, and by my mind’s definition one who is educated has knowledge, then how can Arnold appreciate Aristotle’s outlook on knowledge? It seems that Arnold would disagree with Aristotle because Aristotle fails to appreciate knowledge, both in its literal and cultural forms. The paradox in supporting Hebraism and Hellenism is understandable, the confusion lies within Arnold’s appreciation of both, being the knowledgeable cultured man that he is.

Points to consider:
Why then does Arnold agree with Aristotle? Does he at all, or is it that he supports the unifying of both Solomon and Aristotle’s ideas in the name of “Hebraism and Hellenism”?