EXEGETICAL CULTURES 2 | 177the earlier part of the First Millennium. A comparative approach is imposed
by their partially shared scriptures, and by the fact that Islam drew on both.
But there was considerable complexity, and we are not always as well in-
formed as we would like. In discussing, for instance, the uses to which Aris-
totelian logic was put, I already mentioned the Organon- fueled disputatious-
ness of fourth- century Christianity and the reaction it sparked, the conceit
among certain Christian intellectuals that they thought “like fishermen,” not
Aristotle. But beyond this affectation, and despite continuing interest in Ar-
istotle, there was growing conviction in thinkers like Evagrius of Pontus
(lived mainly in Constantinople and Eg ypt, d. 399), Ps.- Dionysius the Are-
opagite (c. 500), and Isaac of Nineveh (d. c. 700), that it was vain to speak
about God. Better say as little as possible, or just what God is not, “apophati-
cism.” “Competitive forms of knowledge such as Aristotelian dialectic were
subordinated to an apophatic, mystical theōria that stressed the importance
of a hierarchical status quo and the mediation of priests in the spiritual
a n a g o g y.”^65 The more scholastic approach also persisted, though, and is well
exemplified by the grammatical, historical, typological, antiallegorical, non-
speculative, and Organon- influenced Biblical exegesis practiced, especially
from the late fifth century to the early seventh, by the school of Nisibis, and
propagated among adherents of the Church of the East in Sasanid Mesopo-
tamia.^66 Note once again the Syriac contribution to these interesting evolu-
tions in “late” Hellenism.
There is no sign that the Nisibenes talked to the rabbis of Pumbedita
(near or at Anbār, Iraq), or vice versa; but both circles belonged to the same
region, era, and scripturalist, exegetical milieu.^67 Daniel Boyarin has detected
shared ground between the rabbis and both the scholastic and the apophatic
strands in Christian thought. On the one hand he compares the Babylonian
Talmud’s obsession with Torah for its own sake, and “the pure spiritual plea-
sure of... logic chopping,” to the scholasticism of Nisibis. But we must also
consider the fluctuating state of the Talmudic corpus, the slowness with
which it reached the state we are now familiar with, and the later generations
of Babylonian rabbis’ joy in the multiplication of opinions and insistence on
discussing even the most improbable of them, rather than pursuing certain
65 R. Lim, “Christian triumph and controversy,” in G. W. Bowersock and others (eds), Interpreting
late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass. 2001) 205.
66 Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus [4:72] 2/3.252–56 (T. Hainthaler); P. Bruns, “Aristoteles-
Rezeption und Entstehung einer syrischen Scholastik,” in P. Bruns (ed.), Von Athen nach Baghdad (Bonn
2003) 32–34; Becker, Fear of God [5:94] 87–92. For the possibility Christians were still teaching the
Organon at Nisibis in the early ninth century, see S. Stroumsa, Ginzei qedem 3 (2007) [5:110] 143*.
67 D. Boyarin, “Dialectic and divination in the Talmud,” in S. Goldhill (ed.), The end of dialogue in
Antiquity (Cambridge 2008) 239–41; y. Arzhanov, “Zeugnisse über Kontakte zwischen Juden und
Christen im vorislamischen Arabien,” Oriens Christianus 92 (2008) 90–91. E. Narinskaya, Ephrem, a
“Jewish” sage (Turnhout 2010), argues Ephrem of Nisibis was closely acquainted with rabbinical circles in
that city.