EXEGETICAL CULTURES 2 | 165Isagoge especially influential.^2 Indissociable from this didactic emphasis was
the spread of encyclopedic undertakings, which reflected the universal reach
of Aristotle’s project.
The dynamic role of secondary scholarship in the First Millennium,
among philosophers but also in medicine,^3 law, and of course Judaism, Chris-
tianity and Islam, leads me to characterize the period as hospitable to “exe-
getical cultures.” Exegetical cultures feed off earlier prophetic and scriptural
phases, which provide them with materials for commentary and analysis.
Their influence may then filter down, say through the medium of sermons, to
less educated circles with little or no firsthand familiarity with the scrip-
tures.^4 I already noted in chapter 1 the galvanizing effect on First Millen-
nium scholarship of Richard Sorabji’s Ancient commentators on Aristotle
project. To be fully appreciated, though, this has to be seen against the back-
ground of previous generations’ conviction that commentary, as a literary
genre, is a symptom of unoriginality and (once more) decline.^5
The writing of commentaries serves several purposes. A body of canonical
writings or scriptures may emerge without, for a while, provoking commen-
tary. But in practice commentary helps define the canon, and mold it by giv-
ing some scriptural texts more attention than others: note for example the
prominence of Genesis and Psalms in Christian exegesis. Commentaries also
embed scripture in a wider literary context, they make its meaning more ac-
cessible, and they establish its applicability in the sphere of public doctrine
and often also law. In this last respect they contribute directly to shaping the
boundaries of community, especially in situations where several exist in close
proximity in a multicultural empire; and this is perhaps the main function of
a canon as well.^6 Commentary is furthermore, as we saw in chapter 5, a neces-
sary school activity. It provides a framework for teaching, and initiates the
young into a defined curriculum based on scripture, earlier commentary, and
the lessons of their immediate teachers, on which pupils may build new com-
mentaries and so contribute to the sedimentation of tradition^7 —and the
strength and influence of their own guild, a theme that will occasionally sur-
face in the following pages.
2 On this genre of Introductions, already emergent by c. 200 BCE and routine in the late Alexan-
drian schools, see J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena (Leiden 1994); id., Prolegomena mathematica (Leiden 1998).
On prologues, see Dubois and Roussel (eds), Entrer en matière [5:27].
3 On Hippocratic/Galenic exegesis and its relationship to Peripatetic exegesis, see Mansfeld, Prole-
gomena [6:2] 148–76.
4 See, e.g., R. Bagnall, Livres chrétiens antiques d’Ég ypte (Geneva 2009) 21–22.
5 Wisnovsky [1:36], in Adamson and others (eds), Philosophy, science and exegesis [1:35] 150–
52.
6 Note the remarks of Brown, Canonization [3:18] 20–46.
7 Cf. also G. W. Most, “Preface,” in id. (ed.), Commentaries- Kommentare (Göttingen 1999)
VII–XI.