EXEGETICAL CULTURES 1 | 135attacked, as by the Christian John Philoponus (d. 570) in his On the eternity
of the world against Aristotle, a polemical treatise in commentary form. Philo-
ponus was the first to debate with Aristotle in terms of scriptural revelation
as well as philosophical rationality;^37 for the Bible (and Philoponus) held the
physical world was created and had a beginning, while for Aristotle it had
always existed. His in-depth engagement with Aristotle on a front far wider
than just the Organon provoked an attack from Simplicius the champion of
the Greek tradition’s unity and integrity, especially as regards the eternity of
matter.^38 Simplicius rejected Philoponus’s treatment of Aristotle, while
Christian critics excoriated his view that Moses taught a Ptolemaic, spherical
cosmolog y.^39 yet the dialogue of revealed religion and philosophy could
hardly be wished away. The Church of Constantinople anathematized Philo-
ponus in 680 and Christians forgot him; but Muslim thinkers found in him
just the arguments they needed on the beginnings of the universe.^40
Even when strictly philosophical in content, late Greek commentaries
might also partake of the nature of a prayer, a hymn, or a spiritual exercise, a
map for the soul’s ascent, especially if one of Plato’s more theological dia-
logues, such as the Timaeus, was the subject.^41 That commentaries on Plato
have survived from Athens more than Alexandria reflects not a fundamental
difference in intellectual orientation between a cultic- theological Athens
and a rational Alexandria, but rather a greater exposure of the Alexandrian
schools to Christian students and the sensitivities of the city’s powerful eccle-
siastical Establishment. “An exegetical preference for Aristotle would be less
likely to precipitate a sense of rivalry with Christian theolog y, whereas Pro-
clus’ detailed system of Platonic dogmatics easily appears as if it were almost
intended as an alternative to Christian doctrine.”^42 Compromises had to be
made; and while Athens—especially Proclus—produced totalizing synthe-
ses and summaries of ancient Platonism, Alexandria’s flexibility fitted it to
become the foundation not just for Christian (including Armenian and
Syriac) philosophy, but eventually for Arabic Aristotelianism too, and the
attempt to formulate a rational approach to reality capable of accommodat-
ing the Qurʾān. That commentary was the preferred vehicle, whatever re-
vered foundational text—Parmenides, Categories, Gospels, or Qurʾān—one
was dealing with, reflects the substantial common ground, and scriptural
37 C. Wildberg, “John Philoponus,” SEP, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries
/philoponus/.
38 Baltussen, Philosophy and exegesis [5:26] 176–88.
39 Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus [4:72] 2/4.153–54.
40 R. Wisnovsky, “yahyā al-Nahwī,” EIs^2 11.251–53.
41 L. Brisson, “Le commentaire comme prière destinée à assurer le salut de l’âme,” in M.- O. Goulet-
Cazé (ed.), Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation (Paris 2000) 329–53; Baltussen, Philosophy and
exegesis [5:26] 195; A. Fürst, “Origen: Exegesis and philosophy in early Christian Alexandria,” IBALA 23.
42 H. Chadwick, Boethius (Oxford 1981) 18.