This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk
Author: Magny, Ariane Title: Porphyry in fragments : Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and the problem of reconstruction
General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message:
• Your contact details • Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL • An outline nature of the complaint
Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. 1512330046
Porphyry in Fragments: Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine and the Problem of Reconstruction.
Ariane Magny
A dissertationsubmitted to the University of Bristol in accordancewith
the requirementsfor awardof the degreeof PhD in the Facultyof Arts,
Schoolof HumanitiesSeptember 20 10.
69,625 words Abstract
Everyoneworking on Porphyry's Againstthe Christiansrefers to the fragment collection compiledby Adolf von Harnackin 1916.Harnack's scholarshipwas impressive,but his work is difficult to use,and needs revision in the light of new approachesto the collection and interpretationof fragments.This dissertationdraws mainly on the methodologicalwork of Most et al. (1997) to arguethat a fragment shouldnot be readapart from its contextualframework. The dissertationanalyses the fragmentspreserved in Eusebius,Jerome, and Augustine, and explains how each author's agenda,as well as their religious andintellectual contextsinfluence the way in which they refer to Porphyry.Ultimately, this study aims at proposinga new fragmentcollection.
I UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL LIBRARY Acknowledgments
The idea for this dissertation emerged during the writing of a Master's thesis on Porphyry and the Book of Daniel entitled: "Porphyre et le Livre de Daniel: rdaction A la tradition ex6g6tique chr6tienne du Ille si&cle" and submitted at McGill University in 2004.1 am very grateful to Gillian Clark, my supervisor, whose scholarship and human qualities have been invaluable throughout the realisation of this project, even after she had retired. I also wish to thank Neville Morley, from the University of Bristol, for his comments on the first stagesof this dissertation during my upgrade interview, as well as Bella Sandwell, also from the University of Bristol, who was my examiner at the upgrade interview, and who oversaw to the very final and crucial stagesof the dissertation in Gillian's abstentia. Peregrine Horden, from Royal Holloway, and the reviewers of the Journal of Early Christian Studies have provided very helpful feedback on the chapters "New Methods" and "Jerome," as well as Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, from UCSB, during seminar discussion. David J. Miller has patiently helped me to decipher Eusebius' Greek. I am also grateful to the Arts SSHRC for Faculty of the University of Bristol, as well as to the their financial dissertation. support throughout the writing of the
Finally, I wish to thankmy husband,Dominic, aswell as my family and friendsfor their incrediblesupport throughout the pastfew years,especially given the fact that doing this PhD meantmoving abroad. Author's Declaration
I declarethat the work in this dissertationwas carried out in accordancewith the requirements of the University's Regulations and Code of Practice for ResearchDegree Programmes and that it has not been submitted for any other academic award. Except where indicated by specific reference in the text, the work is the candidate'sown work. Work done in collaboration with, or with the assistanceof, others, is indicated as such. Any views expressedin the dissertation are those of the author.
SIGNED: CAI ...... DATE:..,c. ý Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
I-NEW METHODS 18
THE PROBLEM HARNACK OF 18 AFTER HARNACK 26 FRAGMENTS CONTEXT IN 39 PRESENTATIONOF FRAGMENTCOLLECTION A 46 TEXTUAL COMPLICATIONS 47 How METHODOLOGY MAY INFLUENCE AssumPTIONS 56
II-EUSEBIUS 60
111-JEROME 86 PORPHYRY JEROME IN 89
IV-AUGUSTINE'S LETTER 102 115
ON THE HARMONY OF THE Gs V-AUGUSTINE'S 147 PORPHYRY DE CONSENSUEVANGELISTARUM AND 143 AuGuSTINE's AGENDA 146 THE PROBLEMOF AUGUSTINE'SRHETORICAL PRACTICE 157 THEORY IN PRACTICE 158 BERCHMANAND DE CONSENSUEVANGELISTARUM 177
CONCLUSION 184
APPENDIX 194
BIBLIOGRAPHY 201 Introduction'
The proceedingsof a conferenceheld at the Sorbonnein September2009 on
the problemsraised by Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians:"Le traitd de Porphyre
contreles chr6tiens.Un si&clede recherches,nouvelles questions, " to which I am
lucky to contribute,will be publishedin the Collectiondesttudes Augustiniennesjust
on time for the centenaryof the first ftagmentcollection published by the German
scholarAdolf von Hamackin 1916.In this work, an entirely new andreturning
generationof Porphyrianscholars gather to reflect on a centuryof scholarly
developmentsin, andon the future of the questionsraised by, Againstthe Christians.
This is in line with the currentrevival of interestin Porphyry'scorpus. Contributors to
Studieson Porphyry,edited by G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppardin 2007,2focussed
on Porphyry'sNeoplatonism; Sdbastien Morlet, the organizerof the Sorbonne
colloquium,has himself publishedon Porphyryand Eusebius, as well as on Against
the Christians;3 AaronJohnson has written on Eusebius,ethnicity, andAgainst the 4 Christians; JeremySchott used Porphyry to discussGreek ethnicity;' andAude
Businehas been interested in Porphyry'sPhilosophyfrom OracleS.6 Porphyry's
Againstthe Christiansis meantto be at the centerof this dissertation.His nameis
1All abbreviationsfollow LAnnýe Philologique,and all translationsare mine, unlessotherwise specified. 2G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppard(eds), Studies on Porphyry(London: 2007), Supplementto the Bulletin of ClassicalStudies 98. bude 3S. Morlet, La Dýmonstrationevangilique'd`Eusýbe de Cgsarge: sur PapologMquechritienne h Pipoque de Constantin(Paris: 2010); S- Morlet, "La Dýmonslralion6vangilique d'Eus&be de Cdsarde A contient-elledes fragments du Contra Christianosde Porphyre? propos du frg. 73 Harnack" (forthcomingin StudiaPatristica); S. Morlet, "Un nouveaut6moignage sur le ContraChristianos de Porphyre?" Semilicaet Classica,1 (2008):157-166. 4 A. Johnson,"Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry, c. christ. Fr. I, " (forthcoming in Studia Patrislica) 5J. Schott,"Porphyry on Christiansand Others: 'BarbarianWisdom', Identity Politics, and Anti- ChristianPolemics on the Eve of the GreatPersecution. " JECS 13no3 (2005): 277-314;Christianity, Empire, and the MakingofReligion in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2008). 6A. Busine,Paroles dApollon: pratiqueset traditions oraculairesdans IAntiquiti tardive (Ile-IV2e si&les) (Leiden:Brill, 2005). is actually its first word. But the Porphyry that we shall be looking at the product of have been in secondary elaborations of his anti-Christian ideas. These ideas compiled fragments various fragment collections, but recent developments on the gathering of have led me to question the word 'fragment' itself. Therefore, am I being just as dishonest about my intentions as Jerome of Stridon is, when the very first sentenceto his Commentary on Daniel goes as follows: "Porphyry wrote his 121h book against the
Book of Daniel.... 997and when he later insists that, "In fact, we arenot proposingto respondto the calumniesof that adversary,which would require a lengthy argument, 8 discuss ,, Jeromeis for but to the things, which our prophetsaid .... our main source
Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians.This must lead us to ask,what the subjectmatter of this dissertationis going to be if, from the start,we questionthe existenceof
Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians.Studying Against the Christiansis just like studyingan enigma,for it constantlyescapes those reflecting on it. It exists in a very abstractway, becauseit is a lost work whosecontent needs to be carefully reconstructed,a task that is almostimpossible. In that respect,this madewriting the dissertationa real challenge.But at the sametime, this is alsowhat madeit exciting.
Let us look at the problemsraised by Against the Christians,and at how we can try to
overcomethem.
Porphyryof Tyre is a Neoplatonistphilosopher, who flourished in the end of
the Yd c. C.E. (232-ca.305), 9 right in the midst of profound religious changes,which
will affect the entire Romanempire. Indeed, the emperorDiocletian will launchthe
7 Jerome,Commentary on Daniel Prologue:"Contra prophetamDanielern duodecimurn librurn scribit Porphyrius." 8 Jerome,Commentary on Daniel Prologue:"Verum quia nobis propositurnest non aduersariicalumniis longo indigent, dicta disserere respondcre,quae sermone sedea quaea propheta sunt nostris .-- ." 9 Porphyry, Vita Plotini 4, was 30 ca.263; Eunapius; Vitae sophistarum s. v. Porphyrios, ed. and trans. by W. C. Wright, Philostralus and Eunapius: The Lives of the Sophists (London: 1922), 3 53. -nop(pu6v Tinroq A ( ); " Porphyry Diocletian: Souda ý& naTpi; ... was probably still alive under s.v. Porphyrios 2.2098, ed. A. Adler, in A. Smith, Porphyrfiphilosophifragmenta (Stuttgart: 1993), 6. 6'napa-reiva; 60; AtOKkIlTIUVOO."
2 GreatPersecution in 303,an empire-widepersecution targeting the Christians,and
Constantinewill becomethe first Christianemperor in 312. Porphyry'sreal namewas
Malkos, which translatesfrom Syrianinto Greekas basileusor 'king', and 'porphyry'
(Greekfor 'purple'), is the colour of kingship.'O When he was very young,Porphyry
met with the Christianapologist Origen, whom he mentionsin his Life qfPlotinus.II
He thenstudied rhetoric, literature, and philology with Longinusin Athens.When he 12 was 30, Porphyrytravelled to Rometo study with Plotinus.
The scholarlyconsensus is that Porphyrywrote a treatisein fifteen volumes ' 3 calledAgainst the Christians. It survivesmainly in a fragmentarystate in the works
of late antiqueChristians, just as most anti-Christianwritings from the period. Other 1h famousanti-Christian philosophers were Celsus (2 nd century), and Julian (4 century).
The fon-ner,a Platonist,wrote a work, now lost, entitled TrueDoctrine, which was
greetedwith an extensiveresponse from the ChristianOrigen (Against Celsus). As
Wilken puts it, Celsus's"portrait of the Christianmovement is detailedand concrete.
He hasa keeneye for Christianity's most vulnerablepoints and the wit to exploit them
for a laugh." Celsus' portrayalof Christianity was basicallymeant to enhancethe
existing prejudices- suchas Jesuswas a magician- andto associatethe Christians
with what the Romanshated most, namely poor anduneducated people, believers in a
10Porphyry, Vita Plotini 17. "13.aa6; U TOýV%M To nopyupiq) gpoi npo,,ýv, 1111T&ýL& 716TPtOV 6 6VOROL st M6xKoU 516týxKTOV M6XKq) KEICXIjgvcp,67rFp got Kai IMTýp KtKXIITO, TOZ tpýLqveiav 'EUTivi5a 516LXFKTOV gXov, roý pc; tXd;, el Tt; ei; J.16MMUCIV dOtkot;" see also Eunapius Vitae sophistarums. v. Porphyrios. 11See Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus Church History X 36PG 146,561A3-11 and Socrates ScholasticusChurch History 3.23.37-39,ed. A. Smith, Porphyrii 14; Porphyry Vita Plotini 20.40, EusebiusHE 6.19.5. himself saysthat he met a certainOrigen; seealso for Porphyry disciple Longinus Plotinus; 12Eunapius Vitaesophistarum s. v, Porphyrios, as of and then Porphyry Vita Plolini 4, for Porphyrydisciple of Plotinus;see J. Bidez, Viede Porphyre (Gand: 1913), for 30 for Longinus' qualities. When Porphyry left Longinus Rome and Plotinus, he was 30 (Vita Plotini 4-5). Longinusis the one who providedhim with his nickname 'Porphyry' [cf EunapiusVitae saphistarums. v. Porphyrios). 13Morlet, "La Dgmonstrationivangelique d'Eus&be. " 14 he new religion, and followers of a crucified criminal. In one instance, even quotes
Paul I Corinth. 1:25-26, who said that the Christians should not ask questions, but
Christians' simply believe and be faithful (Against Celsus 1.19), in order to mock the reluctance to appeal to reason. As for the emperor Julian, an apostate of Christianity
had first-hand he himself - and therefore a man who experienced the new religion - in wrote a book called Against the Galilaeans, which is also lost and partly preserved
Cyril's Against Julian. His criticism of Christianity was very close to Celsus', as he
discussed the divinity of Jesus and Christianity as being an apostasy from Judaism,
and opposed the Christians' sophisticated Platonist ideas of God. " The fragmentary
state of these works mean that we are left with little evidence for the response of non-
Christians to Christianity; hence the importance of Porphyry's work to our
understanding of interreligious debates in Late Antiquity.
Augustinesays, in City of God 19.23,that Porphyryis the most learned
philosopherof all, but the worst enemyof the Christians.Many modem scholarsagree
with Augustine'sassessment of Porphyry,who is saidto be the most learnedancient
critic of Christianity,because, from what we know of his writings, he seemsto have
skillfully performedthe fiercestattacks on Christian sacredtexts andinterpretations of
JewishScripture. 16 Many alsosay that Porphyry'sAgainst the Christians
demonstratedan extensiveknowledge of Scripture,which was ratherunusual for a
14See R. L. Wilken, The Christiansas the RomansSaw Them(New Haven: 1984),94-125, for a completediscussion. 15See Wilken, Christians, 164-96,for a lengthydiscussion. 16Wilken, Christians, 126,labelled Porphyryas the most learnedcritic of all, seehis book for a discussionon pre-porphyrianphilosophical attacks on Christianity (seealso, for instance,J. G. Cook, TheInterpretation of the New Testamentin Greco-RomanPaganism (Peabody: 2000), 103,who says that, "Porphyry was probably the most acuteand philologically skilled critic of Christianity"). See Porphyry, Vie de Plotin, ed. and trans.L. Brisson et a]. (Paris: 1982),or M. Edwards(trans. ), NeoplatonicSaints: TheLives ofPlotinus and Proclus by their Students(Liverpool: 2000) for the information that Porphyryprovides on his own life.
4 third centurypagan philosopher. " But do the Porphyrianfragments themselves bear
witnessto this characterizationof their authoras the detailedcritic of Scriptures,or
aremodem (and other late ancient)interpreters simply following Augustine?It may
be that the materialselected by the authorswho preservedthe majority of fragments
misleadinglysuggests that Porphyrywas well versedin the knowledgeof Scripture.
Or it may be that, as G. Clark haspointed out, Porphyry,who alsowrote a treatise
demonstratingthat the writings of Zoroasterwere a later forgery, liked to work by
analyzingtexts. " It is evenpossible, as W. Kinzig, amongothers, has argued, that 19 Porphyry,like Julian, hada Christianbackground, which would explainhis
knowledgeof the religion aswell as his aversionfrom it. The importantfact is that,to
judge from the fragmentsand Christianreferences to him, Porphyrywas seenas a
well-informedcritic, andhis ideaswere very disturbing.This certainly raises
20 problemsabout how to readthe fragmentsextant in Christianliterature.
Porphyryis saidto havewritten two works againstChristianity: Against the
Christiansand ThePhilosophyfrom Oracles.This study focuseson Against the
Christians,a treatisein 15volumes, of which only books 1,3,4,12 and 14 have
survived,and in which Porphyryattacked the Old and New Testaments.The remains
17T. W. Crafer, "The Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians,and its Reconstruction," JThS n. s. 15 (1914): 364-69.Crafer wrote, however,before Harnack, and did not evaluatePorphyry's ideas;see also Bidez, Vie dePorphyre, 74-5.Although hedoes not developthis as fully as Crafer did, Bidezhas long beenan authorityon Porphyry'sbiography; see also Wilken, Christiansas the Romanssaw them;A. Benoit, "Un adversairedu christianismeau Ille si6cle:Porphyre, " RBi 54 (1947): 555,also supports this point. 18G.Clark, "Philosophic Lives and the PhilosophicLife, " in GreekBiography and Panegyricin Late Antiquity, T. HAggand P. Rousseau,eds (Berkeley: 2000), 43. 19W. Kinzig, "War der NeuplatonikerPorphyrios ursprOnglich Christ? " in MousopolosStephanos. - Festschriftfir Herwig Gdrgemanns,M. Baumbach,H. Kdhler and A. M. Ritter (eds.), (Heidelberg: 1998),320-32. die Christen.15 Bücher: Zeugnisse, 20A. von Hamack,"Porphyrius, Gegen Fragmenteund Referate," AKPA W (1916): 1-115,for his collection of fragments,used the Latin edition of texts as foundin J.-P. Migne Patrologia Latina. I havedecided to usethe most recenteditions of the textsfor this dissertation;as a result, when a quotationdiffers from Harnack,it meansthat it is from another,more recentedition than PL (PL had to be usedwhen no other edition existedfor a text). Pleasealso note that bold type is usedfor the portion of the translation,which correspondsto the fragmentas found in Harnack,in order to makeit clearly standout of the context.
5 by Christian of Porphyry'santi-Christian ideas survive only in the answerswritten fragmentsin apologists,and thus in a polemical context.Besides the existing
Eusebius,Jerome, and Augustine, a few were alsofound in the works of Diodorusof
Tarsus,Epiphanius, Methodius, Nemesius, Pacatus, Severus of Gabala,Theodoret,
21 andTheophylactus.
The fact that Porphyry'swork survivesonly in fragmentsis a direct result of
the fact that the Christianauthorities saw it as a dangeroustext. ThreeChristian emperorsissued edicts ordering the burning of all of Porphyry's "impious" works.
The first wasissued by Constantinein 325, shortly after the first council of Nicaea; it
was primarily directedagainst the priest Arius, andit alsomentions that Porphyry's 22 issued works - as well as his reputation- shouldbe destroyed. A secondedict was
by Theodosius11 and Valentinian 11 in 448. Again, Porphyryis mentionedin the
contextof the prosecutionof two Christianbishops charged with heresy,namely
Nestoriusand Ireneus of Tyre. The philosopher'santi-Christian writings were
condemnedto be burnt, becauseit wasthought that they may causeGod's wrath and
be harmful to men's SOUIS.23It seems,therefore, that Porphyrywas not the main target
of theseedicts, and that associatingPorphyry's infamousname with thoseChristians
21There is a debateon whetheror not the fragmentsfrom Macarius' Apocriticos, which representthe greatestnumber of fragmentscollected from Against the Christians,actually belongto the series.It will be discussedlater. There are also Syriac and Arab fragments,which will not be discussedhere. They be found in Smith,Porphyriiphilosophiftagmenta. 22can See Socrates,Church History 1.9.30, ed. by R. Hussey (Oxon: 1953), in Smith, Porphyrij, 30. OPVFICF'OLý "6)(MCP TOiVUV n0P(Pf)P10; 6 TA; 0COCEPEW; &OP6;, MVTdL7R(1TCE RCEP&Opa MIT& TA; W; 01XTT1jGdLREVK, &410V 6PETO R1066V K(A T0100TOV, 6)(YrE 6[0V6i81(rT0V gtv CEýT& 7tP6; T6V dEWAXTI(Twal 'yCV900CR; XP6V0V KCLI 7[kEiGqq Ica](0804iaq,dupavlcroAvat ft Th 6LCFCPA610ý CnrfYP6LRRCLTCL,ojýTo)1cotj Nrrjv 9804cv Apet6v Tc ical robSApdou 6ýtoyvd)gova;r1opyluptavoi)q ýýv KCM00al, 1' (OV TObq Tpkou; "pipilvTca T016TON EXCR =1 TýV 71P0CT9^f0PiGEV,API); U T6`t0t; KCLI F-t'rl ai&rpagga ýno Apetolu au*TeTayV.&ov e6picwotTo, ToOTonup! xctpa8i8oa0ctt;" see also Gelasius Church History 2.36.1. ed. by H. G. Opitz, Urkunden Geschichledes Streites (Berlin, zur arianischen " 1934-35),Urk. 33 [cf. P-F Beatrice,"Le traitd de Porphyrecontre les chrdtiens.Udtat de la question, Kernos, 4 (1991), 120]. 23 "Edicturn Theodosii et Valentiniani," 17 February 448 (Collectiana Vaticana), 1.1.4 in Acta Conciliorurn Oecumenicorum,1.1.4, ed. by Eduard Scwartz (Berlin: 1927), 66.3-4; 8-12, in Smith, Porphyrii, 32. "R&TCE 'f&P Tdt K1V0bVTCL T6V 0E6V Ei; 6PYflV aMP6Lgg(%T(1 KCEI T&; WluX6t; dE5tKo&T(X Oý)51 0,6etv ei; &Ko&; dLVOP6)710)V Po1)X6tLE8CE-"
6 accusedof heresywas a powerful meansto discredit them.It hasbeen argued that
Porphyrypresented his anti-Christianideas to Diocletian's court,which wasbased in
Nicomedia,during the meetingspreceding the GreatPersecution of 303-311launched 24 againstthe Christiansby the Tetrarchy. The questionthat we haveto ask is whether
Porphyry'swritings againstthe Christianswere destroyed because they were
influential, or becausethey becamea symbolof anti-Christianargument? Extant
fragmentsfrom Againstthe Christianshave at leastled us to believethat Porphyry
hadbeen both influential andsymbolic.
But what is a 'fragment'? This questionrests at the coreof this study.I started
this project with the firm intention of revising the main fragment collection on which
all scholars still rely, and which dates back to the early 201hC. (Harnack 1916). Over
the course of my research, however, I came to the realization that there may be no
such thing as a 'fragment' per se. Everyone refers to Against the Christians'
fragments, however, as this study seeks to show, the very term 'fragment' needs to be
himself had seriously questioned. Even Hamack expressedreservations, and never
meant to publish a 'fragment' collection; it seems, therefore, that we have been going be astray for almost a century. How, then, should we reading Porphyry on
Christianity? And can we read him at all? before Various problems need to be addressed we can start our investigation.
have for The very feature of Porphyry studies that we taken granted for so long, Against Christians, be namely, that there is a fragment collection of the could not more open to doubt.
24Namely E. Digeser,"Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles?The AnonymousHellene in Makarios Magnes' Apokritikos," JThS (2003):466-502.
7 Date and title of Against the Christians
Traditional translations from the Greek dictate scholars' assumptions about the
Against Christians, date title - and even existence - of the as well as the of its composition. It is Eusebius who reports that Porphyry is "the one who settled in Sicily in our times, setting works against us [i. e. the Christians]. "" "&cFTij(Y6tpcvoq"is a singular, masculine, nominative and middle, aorist participle of the verb "to set" or "to put; " "myyyp&jiýtara" is a neuter, plural, noun meaning "writings. " Porphyry was thus, according to Eusebius, setting writings against the Christians. But when? The Greek syntax does not include Sicily (6TF-Kai 6 xcto' ýRdq & Y-mcki9tKaracrr&; ) in the part of the sentenceon "writings against us." Since both Sicily and the writings are mentioned in the same sentence,Eusebius seems to mean that he thought Porphyry had written in Sicily, but as we cannot be certain about this, we simply cannot tell 26 what he means. We could well understand from Eusebius' sentence that Porphyry was in Sicily while Eusebius was writing, and that this is where he wrote his works against them, the Christians. What is certain is that scholars have wanted to see in this sentenceevidence for Porphyrywriting a collection againstthe Christianswhile residing in Sicily. The passagewas usedsince Bidez in orderto dateAgainst the
27 Christiansto Porphyry's stayin Sicily beforePlotinus' deathin 270. T. D. Barnes, who arguedfor a later datecloser to the GreatPersecution (c. 300), and, as a result, for a direct implication of the philosopherinto stateaffairs, seemsto haveused the nuancesoffered by the Greek in order to associatePorphyry with Sicily during
25 6TF EusebiusHE 6.19.2: Kai 6 KaO'ýgd; & I; tKFXiqKaTacyTh; rloP(Optoý ýAwv IVCFT7jGdLAevo;. ampdgjLaTa KaW . 26 As M. Edwardspointed out to me, Eusebius,with the allusion to Sicily, could meanto remind his readershipof the suicidaltendancies of Porphyry,which led him toward Sicily. Only a man who has contemptfor the laws of God could have written sucha work againstthe Christians. 27Bidez, Vie de Porphyre.See alsoA. Cameron,"The Date of Porphyry's Karr&XptcFTIQvCbv, " Class. Quart. 18 (1967): 382-84.
8 28 Eusebius' time. He suggestedthat Porphyry went back to Sicily years after Plotinus'
death, where he wrote Against the Christians. The problem is that we have no
evidence for this. Barnes has even argued that Eusebius was referring to Sicily as
being the backwater of education and culture, and that associating Porphyry with it
was a way of downgrading the philosopher. But Eusebius praises Porphyry for being a 29 great philosopher, so why does also say that he was uneducated?The same argument
applies to Augustine, who commends Porphyry for being one of the wisest
3' but him the "Sicilian "31 The is philosophers, who also calls . association with Sicily
therefore quite scant.
Eusebius' sentenceraises an additional problem: that of what exactly Porphyry
wrote. Although Eusebius does not explicitly name it, the 'works' he mentions are
traditionally referred to as Against the Christians, in accordance with Eusebius'
"against us", which has been associated with a reference in the Souda (10'h century
Greek lexicon) to Porphyry's " 15 logoi against the Christians. 902The actual title of
the treatise is much debated. Harnack was the first to argue that two anti-Christian
works traditionally assigned to Porphyry, namely Against the Christians and
Philosophyftom Oracles, were in fact one single work, but he later dismissed that
hypothesis in 1916, when he published his fragment collection of Against the
28T. D. Barnes,"Scholarship or Propaganda?Porphyry Against the Christiansand its Historical Setting," BICS 39 (1994): 53-65. It hasbeen argued that Porphyrypresented his anti-Christianideas to Diocletian's court, which was basedin Nicomedia,during the meetingspreceding the GreatPersecution of 303-311 launchedagainst the Christiansby the Tetrarchy(see E. Digeser,"Porphyry, Julian,or Hierokles?The AnonymousHellene in MacariusMagnes'Apokritikos, " JThS(2003): 466-502;see also J. Schott,"Porphyry on Christiansand Others: 'BarbarianWisdom', Identity Politics, and Anti- Christian Polemicson the Eveof the GreatPersecution, " JECS 13.3(2005): 278, who mentionsthe debate). 29Eusebius, PE 1.10.44. 30Augustine, City of God 19.23. 31Augustine, Retractationes 2.3 1. 32Souda, s. v. Porphyrios, 2,2098, ed. A. Adler, in Smith, Porphyrii, 6: "flopy-6ploq6 KaT& XptaTtctv6v KaT&XptaTtav(35v X6you; " yp6ya; ... tg.
9 33 debateby that both Christians. P.-F. Beatricelater renewedthe arguing works were one.34 Indeed, he claimedthat Against the Christians,The Philosophyfrom Oracles, andDe regressuanimae were all part of the samework, the Philosophyfrom
Oracles.35 Beatrice's argument is basedon a Eusebiancitation found in TheProof of the Gospel,which statesthat no othertestimony could better convinceus than that 36 written by Porphyryin the third book of his work Philosophyfrom Oracles.
Eusebiusthus clearly associatedPorphyry with the title Philosophyfrom Oracles.It should be notedthat Eusebiusoften makesthat kind of association,e. g. "Porphyry
, 07 alsowrote this in his treatiseentitled Philosophyftom Oracles. The point is that
Eusebiusnever mentions the title Against the Christians,nor doesany other Christian
writer.
The main problem scholarsare facing is that the Soudais the only sourcethat
mentionswhat somewould like to seeas the title Against the Christians,as well as its
number of volumes. However, the Souda does not mention the Philosophy frorn
Oracles. It is thereforedifficult to rely solely on this lexicon to judge whether there
were two works or not. As for Eusebius,when he mentions works "against (them)
[Christians]" or ica0' ýIift, he may well be referring to either the Philosophyfroln
Oracles or Against the Christians. Recently, M. Edwards made a very interesting
argument,which supportsBeatrice's thesis.He has noted that like anywhereelse, in
the Souda, 'the usual term for divisions of a single work is biblia, or 'books',"
33A. von Hamack, Geschichteder altchristlichenLiteratur bis Eusebiuszu Die Überlieferungund der Bestand 12(Berlin: 1893),873. 34 P.-F. Beatrice,"Towards a new Edition of Porphyry's FragmentsAgainst the Christians," in ZOOMS AMIHTORES,ed. M. 0. Goulet-Cazdet al. (Paris: 1992),349. 35As well as Peri agalmaton,On Matter, Chronicle,On Abstinence. 36Eusebius, DE 3.6. "Tiq 8' riv y9votT6 aotrof)-r(ov 640incno; 6gokoyia "galkov" TA;, rob icaO' flgo)v noke4iou ypa(pj;, Av tv ol; txtypaWev- -nw Tjq & koyicov (pt),ocro(pia; " & -rpirq) aUYYpdtýtlICtTI TtfttTat, OUt no); icrrop6v KaT&44W" 37 Eusebius,PE 3.14.4. 'Tpd(pEt 6t 6 n0P(Pf)PI0q Mi TabTa & olte; &&Yp(xXVFn8pt TA; & Xoyiwv qIx000(Pia;."
10 38 whereas in this case the term logoi, 'discourses', is Eusebius, he in or used. argues, his Evangelical Preparation, named the title Philosophy from Oracles only, and
referred to "a collection against us" five times. The only reason why we can link this
collection to Porphyry is that it is mentioned twice along with the title Philosophy
from Oracles. Edwards also notes that even Augustine does not use the title Against
the Christians. The fifteen logoi against the Christians mentioned in the Souda would
thus be comprised of various anti-Christian writings (or discourses), including the
Philosophyftom Oracles, which was written in three volumes (the number of volumes
was attributed on the basis that no other volume was mentioned in the ancient
literature). 39
Anotherproblem has prompted scholars to questionthat Porphyrywas the
authorof a single compositionin fifteen booksagainst the Christians.Lactantius
mentions,in Divine Institutes,an anonymouspamphleteer, who wrote an anti-
Christiantreatise in threebooks, and who was activein Nicomediaon the eveof the 40 Chadwick GreatPersecution . H. was the first to associatethe philosophermentioned 41 by Lacatantiuswith Porphyry. Lactantiusdescribes a man,who is a priest of
philosophy,and who, while preachingabstinence, endulges in the worsevices. Barnes
hasalways refused to makethat association,reading the text literally, and arguingthat
Lactantiusis not describinga vegetarianman, like Porphyrywas, andthat Porphyry
38 M. Edwards,"Porphyry and the Christians," Studiesin Porphyry, eds.G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppard(London: 2007). 39 Eusebius,DE 3.6, mentionsvolume 3: Tt; 8' av y6votT6 o0t T016TCOV64t6maToq 6gokoyia "gduov" ýV Tqq TOi) KaO'ýgcov n0xgiolu yp(xq)qq,ýv ol; atypawev- -mpi Tj; & xoyicovqtxoao(pi(x;, - TPiT(q OUrPdj1gCtTt TgOmTat,JoU nw; iorrop6vKCtT& Xk4tV"' 40Lactantius, Divine Institutes5.2.2-12. "Ego cum in Bithynia oratoriaslitteras accitus docerem, contigissetqueut eodemtempore dei templumeuerteretur, duo extiteruntibidem qui iacenti atque importuniusinsultarent.. ( ) Alius abiectaeueritati nescioutrurn superbiusan ... eamdemmateriam mordaciusscripsit, qui eratturn e numeroiudicum et qui auctor in primis faciendaepersecutionis fbit quo scelerenon contentus,etiam perscutionisfuit H. Chadwick,The Sentences of Sextus(Cambridge: 195 9), 142-3. 42 be was not blind, like the anonymous philosopher. However, Lactantius could well both making a satire of Porphyry. R. L. Wilken and E. DePalma Digeser concluded that the three books mentioned by Lactantius were in fact the Philosophyftom
Oracles, which contains some anti-Christian elements, and which were written in
three books.43 The issue is that if Porphyry is the anonymous philosopher who wrote
three books against Christianity, then those books could well be part of a fifteen-
volume compendium written by Porphyry, whether they are Philosophyfrom Oracles
or not. Berchman's fragment collection actually enforces this idea, for it incorporates
passagesfrom Against the Christians, The Philosophyfrom Oracles, and De regressu
animae (although without ever mentioning Beatrice's work). However, this argument
44 is being vehemently rejected by many.
Beatrice disagrees with the argument that the Philosophy from Oracles was
written in three volumes, and argues that we have traces of a tenth book in a
manuscripttradition, for both A. Steuchusand A. Mai mention the sameoracle from
volume 10.45It is on a Neapolitanmanuscript, which puts that oracle in volume 2 of
PhilosophyfiromOracles, that the editor G. Wolff relies, andhis edition set the wrong
standard,according to Beatrice.46 However, Beatricehimself admits the impossibility
of resolving this issue,since the sameoracle could havebeen mentionedby Porphyry
42Barnes (1994), 59. 43R. L. Wilken, Christiansas the Romanssaw them (New Haven, 1984),134-7; E. DePalmaDigeser (2000),93-107. 44 R.L. Wilken, "Pagan Criticism of Christianity: Greek Religion and Christian Faith," in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition, ed. W.R. Schoedel and R. L. Wilken (Paris: 1979), 129; idem Christians, 136: the title Philosophyfrom Oracles is cited by many Christian writers; W. H. Frend,"Prelude to the Great Persecution:the PropagandaWar, " JEH 38 (1987): 11; A. J. Droge, Homer or Moses?Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture (Tabingen: 1989), 172; R. Goulet, "Hypoth6sesr6centes sur le trait6 de PorphyreContre les Chritiens," in HeWnisme et t. christianisme,M. Narcy and Rebillard (eds.), coll. "Mythe, Imaginaires,Religions" (Villeneuve- d'Ascq: 2004), 61-109. Oppositions to Beatrice's thesis were also raised in the recent colloquiurn entitled I'Le traitd de Porphyry contreles chrdtiens.Un sitcle de recherches,nouvelles questions. " 45Beatrice, "Towards a new Edition of Porphyry," 351; A. Steuchus,De perenniphilosophia 3.14 (Lugduni: 1540),155-157, and A. Mai, Philonis Iudaei, Porphyrii philosophi, Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita (Mediolani: 1816),59-64. 46G. Wolff, Porphyrii De philosophia ex oraculis'haurienda librorum reliquiae (Berlin: 1856),39 and 143-47.
12 in both volumes 2 and 10, but still arguesthat Philosophyfrom Oracles andAgainst Christians the are the samework. It is thereforevery difficult to tell whetheror not we
are facing a copyist error, as far as book 10 is concerned,and the safestposition is to
assumethat Philosophyfrom Oracleswas written in three volumes.To come back to
Edward's hypothesison the fifteen logoi, it remainshard to prove, especiallyin the
eventthat one cannoteven find convincing evidenceas regardsthe number of books in Philosophyfrom Oracles.
But the Philosophyfrom Oraclescannot be usedas an umbrellatitle; written in
threebooks or not, it was certainly not written in fifteen, as the Soudastates about
Against the Christians.If one work could be usedas an umbrellatitle, though,it hasto be Against the Christians, for it is possible to think of it as a huge compendium of anti-Christian writings, and this could explain our complete ignorance of the content of books 5-11. M. Edwards has already pointed out, in "Porphyry and the Christians," that the Souda mentions "fifteen logoi against the Christians," i. e. fifteen discourses against the Christians. We should therefore see the logoi against the Christians as the kind of philosophy one can get from the Bible. The Philosophyfrom Oracles is about the kind of philosophy one can get from oracles, or, as A. Busine put it, it is a philosophical explanation of oracles to guide those looking for truth."
Beatrice's 1982 article, although highly criticised, has this one quality: that it questioned how confident we should be about the title Against the Christians. For the convenience of this argument, I shall use the title Against the Christians when referring to Porphyry's writings on Christian sacred texts. However, one should bear in mind that it cannot be understood as being the title of a work per se, but rather a collection of arguments denouncing Christianity.
47Busine, Paroles dApollon, 242 and 290. She alsothinks that the Philosophy.from Oracleshad an anti-Christiantone.
13 Aims
This thesisaims to providethe necessarysteps for a new collection of the fragmentsthat havein the pastbeen assigned to a work entitled Againstthe
Christians,whose existence we now question.It is my goal to realisethis project in a book on which I will work after the dissertation.Previous studies show that there is a needfor a more usefuland accessiblecollection, and that thereis also a needto create a new collectionbased on the recentmethodological approaches that arecurrently dominatingthe field of fragmentgathering. Studies on methodologyinsist that a fragmentshould never be readapart from the contextof the work in which it is embedded(called "cover-text"). The argumentis that a closerlook at that context reveals important information on the rhetorical style of a citing author, and that by
analysing that style, one has better chances to recover the original passageof a lost work, or at least to evaluate its quality. Even the very word 'fragment' is being re- assessed,for various scholars are raising the issue of the quality of a citation in
Antiquity, given the absenceof copy right concerns. Furthermore, if Eusebius,
Jerome, and Augustine never name the work from which they cite, it makes it harder for us to know which work their citations come from, and we are dealing with a lost work which eludes us; this makes the task of fragment collectors even more difficult than in the regular caseswhere the existence of a lost work is at least being
acknowledged by the citing authors. Part of the aim of the thesis is thus also to assess
the methodological approaches,and to determine to what extent they can be applied to
Against the Christians, a lost work which survives in a polemical context, and whether
new nuances need to be developed.
14 Structure
The chapterentitled "New Methods"will addressthe methodologythat will be
usedin orderto preparesection B of the future book: the collection.An appendix
includeexamples that I havechosen to illustrate the methodologicalchanges made to
previousfragment collections. The commentarywill be comprisedhere of three
chapterson the threemain Church fathers,who may havepreserved passages from the
work that we call Againstthe Christians.Recent methodological approaches will be
applied to the "cover-texts, " namely the work of Christian authors. The style of each author will be analysed in order to make decisions on Porphyrian authorship. For this project, I have chosen to study the Christian authors, who preserved the most extensive passagesfrom the treatise that we call Against the Christians. This is both becauseof spacerestrictions, and becauseof the scholarly interest that these authors have generated in the literature on Porphyry. Christian authors will be discussedin a chronological order, namely Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine. All of the Eusebian and Augustinian fragments will be covered, but only the fragments on the New
Testament will be discussed in the chapter on Jerome, because I have already studied
fragments in 4' The book include the Old Testament other pieces of work . will all those fragments, as well as the fragments, far less numerous, preserved by other authors.
Augustine will receive far more attention than Eusebius and Jerome. Two chaptersare indeed devoted to him, becausehe is the most difficult of the three authors to tackle.
48A. Magny, Torphyre, Hippolyte et Orig6ne cornmententDaniel, " in 1. Hendersonand Gerbern S. 0egerna (eds.), The Changing Face of Judaism, Christianity and Other Greco-RomanReligions in Antiquity (Gittersloh: 2006), 425-46; "Porphyry Against the Christians:A Critical Analysis of the Book of Daniel in Its Historical Context," in F. Young, M. Edwards,P. Parvis (eds.), Studia Patristica Vol. XLII. Other Greek Writers, John of Damascusand Beyond, The Westto Hilary (Leuven: 2006), 181-186.
15 When he appears to be citing Porphyry, a closer inspection deten-ninesthat he is not
(Letter 102), and when he names Porphyry in a work (On the Harmony of the
Gospels), he mixes his arguments with those of other opponents to Christianity. I am
focussing on Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine becauseI am not only interested in a
re-editionof the fragmentsof Against the Christians,but alsoin the history of their
transmissionthrough the ages.Indeed, the historical contextin which eachauthor
wrote providesus with importantclues as to their interest,and the reasonswhy they
may havemade a specificselection from Porphyry.It can alsotell us more, in turn,
aboutthe stateof the remnantsof Againstthe Christians,for it will becomeapparent
that what is left of the treatiseactually dependson the Christian authors'respective
agenda.The appendixwill show a few 'fragments' (the term will be challenged)
ascribedto Porphyry,embedded in their textualcontext, or 'contextualized.' As will
be discussed,there are caseswhere Porphyrian authorship is debated,but I consider
thesepassages as beingpart of the anti-Christianargument of the period. I hope,with
this method,that the attentioncan be shifted from the debateson the authenticityof
the fragmentsto the transmissionof anti-Christiantexts in Late Antiquity, andto the
anti-Christiandebate, to which Porphyryseems to havebeen a major contributor.
Brief note on the term 'paganism'
Over the past few years,scholars have insisted on the needto reviseour
terminologywhen discussingissues related to late antiquepeople. They arguethat for
far too long,we have Christian dominated 49This desireto relied on a perspective. get
the bestpicture possibleof the late antiquesociety stems from the trajectoryof the
field sinceP. Brown's most influential book The World ofLate Antiquity, published
49 M. Kahlos, Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360-430 (Aldershot: 2007), 2.
16 in 197150 As A. Cameron . explainsin "The 'Long' Late Antiquity,"" historians
beforeBrown - andA. H. M. Jones,she insists - would considerthat the Classical
world had ended with the advent of the emperor Constantine. Anything beyond that
period, they felt, would be the realmof theologians.Increasing interest in early
Christianity andsociety, following Brown's anthropologicaland social history of the
period,was novel in itself The troublewas that the Christiansources represented the
majority of the writings from the period andcontinued to dictatescholars'
terminology until rising interests in religious identities in the 90s. A logical, next step
was the attribution of a new vocabularyto eachreligious group for identification
purposes, a vocabulary that would be as free as possible from the Christian point of
view, andthat would better definethe relationsbetween late antiqueindividuals.
Therefore, the term pagan, used solely by Christians to identify 'the Other, ' has been
challenged.A consensushas yet to be reachedamong scholars as to what ten-n(s)
would bestsuit the other religious affiliations." For the purposeof this study,
however,I shall consciouslyuse the terms 'pagan' and 'paganism,' for I will be
digging into Christiansources to recoverPorphyry's ideas on Christianity.This
requiresentering the worldview of thoseChristians, who preservedpassages from
Porphyry'ssubversive discourses against their faith.
50P. Brown, The WorldofLate Antiquity (London: 1971). 51A. Cameron,"The 'Long' Late Antiquity: a late twentieth-centurymodel, " in Classicsin Progress: Essayson Ancient GreeceandRome, ed. T. P. Wiseman(Oxford: 2002), 166. 52For instance,1. Sandwell,Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks,Jews and Christians in Antioch (Cambridge:2007), decided to call the pagansand paganismthe "Greco-Romans"and "Greco- Romanreligions, " while Kahlos, DebateandDialogue, developedthe term incerli, namelythe cryptopagans,who hesitatebetween paganism and Christianity.
17 I-New Methods
The problem ofHarnack
Porphyry'swork, which we call Againstthe Christians,survives only in
fragments,chiefly in Eusebius,Jerome, and Augustine. A few werealso found in the
works of Diodorusof Tarsus,Epiphanius, Methodius, Nemesius, Pacatus, Severus of 1 Gabala, Theodoret, and Theophylactus. How can we collect the fragments and
reconstruct Porphyry's critique of Christianity? Everyone refers to Harnack's 1916
collection, but everyone who has tried to use this work knows the problems, so we
needto devote someattention to assessinghow useful Hamack'sapproach to
Porphyry really is.
Hamack's achievement was to produce the first printable collection of the
fragments of Against the Christians, and he had his own point of view on how the
gathering of the fragments should be conducted. Scholars before him had discussed
individual fragments, but Hamack was the first to collect them.2 He also states that he
3 did not try to reconstruct the content of individual books of Porphyry's work. Thus,
Hamack was not interested in offering an interpretation in-depth. Rather, he meant to make a printablecollection, for no scholarhad ever tried, by the time he was writing, 4 to perform sucha task. He orderedthe various fragmentsaccording to their content, and assigneda number to eachof them. He then classified the fragmentsunder five headings,namely I- Critique of the charactersand reliability of the evangelistsand
I There is a debateon whetherthe fragmentsfrom Macarius' Apocriticos, which representthe greatest number of fragmentscollected from Against the Christians,actually belong to the treatise.It will be discussedlater. 2 Hamack, "Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 14. "In allen diesen Schriften sind die Fragmentedes Teil ', Porphyriusnicht gesammeltund abgedruckt,sondern zum nur angedeutet... . 3 Hamack, "Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 10. "Dagegenhabe ich mich nicht dazu entschliessen können, den Inhalt der Bücherzu rekonstruieren." ... einzelnen 4 Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 14. ln allen diesen Schriften sind die Fragmentedes Teil So far, historians Porphyriusnicht gesammeltund abgedruckt,sondern zum nur angedeutet...... had settledfor giving an interpretationof particularfragments only.
18 2- Critique Old Testament, 3- apostles, as a basis for the critique of Christianity, of the The Critique of the deeds and words of Jesus, 4- The dogmatic element, and 5- did 5 contemporary Church. He did not attempt a reconstruction as previous scholars .
According to Harnack, this thematic division is preferable, for nothing is known about the content of books 5 to 11 of Against the Christians, only about books 1,3,4, and
12; book I discusses the truthfulness of the apostles and evangelists, hence Hamack's first heading.6 Harnack argues that his choice to group the fragments under the five headings gives a better impression of the extent of Porphyry's attack than organizing them in the sequence of the relevant books of the Bible, but he does not further
his In he fragments: fifty-two are from explain position .7 all, published ninety-seven
Macarius's Apocriticos and therefore questionable (see below).
As far as his method is concemed, Harnack was very careftil in selecting what
he considered as belonging to Porphyry's discourses Against the Christians, as
opposedto what belonged to his other works, or to other writers-including those
8 who preserved fragments. Following the principles of Quellenforschung, Harnack
5 Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, " 46-104. "1 -Kritik des Charakters und der Glaubwardigkeit der Evangelisten und Apostel als Grundlegung der Kritik des Christenturns, 2-Kritik des Alten Testaments, 3-Kritik der Taten und Sprache Jesu, 4-Dogmatisches, 5-Zur kirchlichen Gegenwart"; see also P. de Labriolle, "Porphyre et le christianisme, " RHPhR 3 (1929): 405, who comments further on Harnack's classification. See also reconstruction attempts made prior to Harnack's work: K. Wagenmann, "Jahrb0cher fdr deutsche Theologie, " 23 (1878), 138 ff-, A. Georgiades, nep! ,r8v XptaTtavtbv Ano(maagdTwv -rot I'lopyipiou (Leipzig: 1891; A. 1. Kleffner, Porphyrius, der Neuplatoniker und Christenfeind (Paderborn: 1896); T. W. Crafer, "The Work of Porphyry against the Christians, and its Reconstruction, " JThS ii. s. 15 (1914): 360-95. None of these authors offers a collection of fragments. 6 Hamack,"Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen," 10-11. 7 Hamack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen," 10-11. "Aber auch das ist nicht zweckmässig,mit Lardner die Fragmenteund Referatenach der Reihenfolgeder biblischen Bücher zu ordnen. Dadurch wird der Eindruck der Angriffe sehr geschwächt,da eine ganzebunte Reihe entsteht.Die Fragmente Erachtens besten ihrem Rechte, das ( )." See kommenmeines am zu wenn man material also ordnet: ... N. Lardner, The Credibility of the Gospel History, 2.37 ("Testimonies of Ancient Heathens: Porphyry"), in The WorksofNathaniel Lardner with a Life by Dr. Krippis (London: 1838),7.2,347-90. 8 According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Quellenforschungis "the study of the sourcesof, or influences upon, a literary work" (Etymology: GermanQuelle, source and Forschung,research). in other words, it meanssource criticism. In this case,one must assessJerome as a sourcefor Porphyry's treatise.That meansassessing fragments according to their quality (i. e. quotationor allusion; authentic, la likely, polemical). See A. Benoit's table on this: "Le Contra christianos de Porphyre: oii en est
19 arguesthat thereis no point in trying to distinguish"absolutely certain" from "certain" quotations,thus acknowledgingthat thereis a scalefor fragmentquality, i. e. certain 9 fragments,less certain fragments, and testimonia.(This methodis still typical of fragmentcollections: Andrew Smith usesbold type for the wordshe thinks canbe confidentlyascribed to Porphyry.)10 Furthermore, Harnack states that the selection dependson the expertjudgment of the scholar.II
Thereare practical difficulties in using Harnack.The editionsof the texts are now outdated: they are principally those reprinted by Jacques-PaulMigne in the
Patrologia. As for Harnack's mise-en-page, it consists of a series of numbered fragments in the original ancient languages, each with the author's name, abbreviated; the title of the work also abbreviated; reference sometimes by book and chapter, sometimes by paragraph or page number; and, occasionally, the critical edition used, also abbreviated. Harnack also includes footnotes explaining his selection, when this is lessobvious to the reader.The fragmentsthemselves vary in length,from oneline to a page(only in the caseof the fragmentsexcerpted from book 12 againstthe Book of Daniel), andare, as discussedabove, grouped under themes. As for their content,
Harnackfocused solely on what he thoughtwas part of the discoursesagainst the
Christians.The fragmentsare thus obviously extractedfrom a discussionin an ancient author,and they presentpart of an argument,of which the contentis obscure,as well as a Porphyrianreference, paraphrase, or quotation.Fragment 2 can serveas an
collecte de fragments?" In Paganisme,Judaisme, Christianisme: Influences et affrontementsdans le mondeantique. Wlanges offerts ä Marcel Simon(Paris: 1978),261-75. 9 Hamack,"Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen," 9- 10. "Hat man sich aberhiervon überzeugt,dann wäre es eine überkritischePedanterie, jene 52 Stückeund überhauptalles nicht ganzSichere von dem für drucken Man dabei dass absolutSicheren zu scheidenund sich zu ... magsich sagen, nicht überall Porphyriusrein und sicherhervortritt, sonderndass Abgeleitetes untennengt ist. " " SeeSmith, Porphyriiphilosophifragmenta. His is the authoritativecollection of Porphyrian fragments,however it doesnot includeAgainst the Christians,because there is Harnack'scollection.
" Hamack,'Torphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 10.
20 fragments italics for example to illustrate this (throughout, I will use bold for the and
Jerome'slemma):
2.
Hieron. ep. 57.9 (ad Pamm.), 9-"Haec replico, non ut evangelistas
arguam falsitatis, hoc quippe impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii,
luliani. 5912He adds,in much smaller font size, "Besieht sich auf
Matth.1,22f (Jes.7,14) und die Anfänge der Evangelien."
If we do not know what "haec"---"thesethings"- refer to, then it is difficult to make any conclusionabout what Porphyry,Celsus, and Julian might have criticized.
Furtherissues need to be raised.Nr. 37 is problematic,for Harnackassumes
thathis readersknow what the passagerefers to. His envisagedreaders, in 1916,were
theologianswho knew Paul's letter to the Galatians.The fragment,which refers to
circumcision, says:
6661 wish thosewho disturb you were cut ofP' It is asked
lquaeriturl how Paul, the disciple of him who said 'Bless those who
curse you,' and himself said 'Bless, and do not curse,' and in
another place 'Nor shall thosewho curse possessthe kingdom of
heaven,' has now cursed those who disturb the Churches of
Galatia, and has cursed them with the expressionof a wish. q wish
those who disturb you were cut ofP.I For the experienceof cutting
off is so much to be denouncedthat someonewho inflicts it on the
unwilling is punished by public laws, and someonewho has
castrated himself loseshis civil rights. To make 'Christ lives in me'
12Jerome, Letter 57.9 to Pammachius- Hamack Nr. 2. "I'm going over thesethings, not to accusethe evangelistsof falsity; this indeedis the argumentof the impious Celsus,Porphyry, and Julian." (Bud6 3:67)
21 true, they say: 'Do you seekproof of Christ who speaksin me?" the
words of a curse cannot be understood as being from him who says
'Learn from me, for I am humble and mild and gentle of heart. '
(Paul) is thought to have been unable to restrain himself, because
of Jewish rage and some kind of uncontrolled madness, rather than
to haveimitated him who like a lamb to the shearer did not open
his mouth, and did not curse thosewho cursed him." 13
Jerome says "quaeritur, " "it is asked," but does not say who asks. Hamack thinks
"quaeritur" refers to Porphyry becauseof the convictions expressed in the argument,14 15 and the literary style. But the parallel he cites, namely fragment 78, is a Macarius
fragment (Macarius 4.23). 16 Someonereading Hamack's collection may not be aware,
initially, that the authenticity of such Macarian fragments has been called into
question. Hamack cites the context of fragment 37 in a note:
"If this passageis everblamed by the gentiles,we show how they may
be answered. Now let us advance arguments to show how the heretics,
that is Marcion, Valentinus, and all those who bark against the Old
Testament,who accusethe Creatorof being bloodthirsty,a harsh
13 Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 3.5.12-Harnack Nr. 37. "Utinam et abscindaniur qui vos confurbant. Quaeritur quomodo Paulus discipulus ejus qui ait: Benedicite maledicentibus vobis. Et ipse loquens: Benedicite et nolite maledicere (Rom 12.14). Et in alio loco: Neque maledici regnum Dei possidehunt (I Cor 15): nunc et maledixerit eis, qui Ecclesias Galatiae conturbant, et cum optantis voto maledixerit: Ulinam ef ahscindantur qui vos conlurbant. Tam enim detestanda abscisionis est passio, ut et qui invitis earn intulerit, legibus publicis puniatur, et qui seipsurn castraverit, infarnis habeatur. Ut enim illud, aiunt, verum sit: Vivit in me Christus (2 Cor 13.3); et hoc: An experimenturn quaerilis ejus qui in me loquitur Chrisfus? certe maledictionis vox non potest ejus intelligi, qui dicit: Discite a me, quia humilis sum, el milis, el mansuetus corde (Matth 11.29). Et magis putatur Judaico furore, et quadarn effrenata insania se non potuisse cohibere, quarn imitatus esse eum, qui tamquarn agnus corarn tondente se, non aperuit os suum, et maledicentibus non remaledixit. " (PL 26: 432-3) 14Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, " 63. 15Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen, " 63. 16Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, " 63.
22 warrior, and so great a judge, manage to excuse this in the apostle of
the good God.""
Harnack observed that this passageof Galatians can be used very successfully as an argument against the separation of the two testaments. His comment is unclear unless the reader already knows why Marcion and Valentinus rejected the Old Testament, so we can see that there is a parallel to be made between the violent God depicted in the
Old Testament, and the violent behavior of Paul in the New Testament. Hamack thus suggeststhat Porphyry meant Paul was behaving like someone in the Old Testament cursing his enemies, not like a follower of Christ who commanded the blessing and not the cursing of our persecutors. But this does not entirely solve the problem of
"quaeritur. " Since the Macarius fragments are questionable, the content of fragment
37 can no longer be matched with certainty with the content of any other fragments of
the collection. It is difficult to determine whether Harnack's intuition was right, but it
is at least possible to guessthat since the ideas expressed in these fragments are found
in Jerome, and since the latter devoted a fair amount of attention to the philosopher's
attacks, then the chances are that among "those who ask," to whom Jerome refers, is
Porphyry. Although it may also be the case that many opponents noted the apparent
contradictions, fragment 37 may reasonably be considered as belonging to the work
that we call Against the Christians.
The last example also illustrates the risk of misinterpretation due to the
fragment order, and shows how much clearer it would be if Harnack kept the sequence
of Jerome's commentary instead of grouping fragments by themes.18 Harnack's
17Jerome, Commentary on Galatians3.5.12. "Hic locus si quandoab ethnicis reprehenditur,quolnodo eis responderipossit, ostendimus.Nunc: a nobis contra haereticosproferatur, Marcionern videlicet, et Valentinum et omnes qui contra vetus latrant Testarnenturn,qua ratione illi qui Creatorern sanguinarium,severum bellatorern, et tantum judicem criminantur, hoc in Apostolo Dei boni valeant excusare." (PL 26:433) 18See the appendix.
23 thematicgrouping led him to separatefragments derived from the samework, and
changetheir original placein the text; the result is misleading.Fragments 19,20 and
21a illustrate this point.
Nr. 19 reads:"This can be understoodas spokenindirectly againstPeter and
others,because the Gospelwas not transmittedfrom the apostlesto him" (that is, Paul
says he did not receive the Gospel from the apostles-see context below). 19The
assertionabout the Gospelin questionin 19 is from the epistleto the Galatians,which
says, "Paul, Apostle not by men, not by the authority of any man, etc."
The context of Nr. 19 (Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.1.1) reads:
"Paul, Apostle notftom men, nor through any man, hut through Jesus Christ
and God the Father who raised him from the dead. It is not becauseof pride,
as some think, but by necessity that Paul declared that he was Apostle not from
men, nor through any man, but through JesusChrist, and God the Father, so as
to confound with such authority those who published everywhere that Paul was
not one of the twelve apostles, and that he had suddenly come out of nowhere,
or who claimed that he was ordained by the elders. This can be understood as
spoken indirectly against Peter and others, because the Gospel was not
transmitted from the apostlesto him. iQ0
Nr. 20 (JeromeCommentary on Galatians 1.1.16)reads:
"Most peoplethink this (that I did not at once acquiescein flesh and
blood," or, as the better version in the Greek text has it, I did not
'9 Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.1.I-Harnack Nr. 19. "Potest autem et oblique in Petrum et in caeteros dictum accipi, quod non A apostolis ei sit traditurn Evangelium. " (PL 26: 335) 20 Jerome, Commentaryon Galatians 1.1.1: "Paulus apostolus, non ah hominihus, neque per hominem: sed per Jesum Christum et Deum Palrem, qui suscilavil eum a mortuis. Non superbe,ut quidarnputant, sednecessarie, neque A hominibus,neque per hominem,se Apostolum esseproponit: sedper JesurnChristurn, et Deum Patrem,ut eos qui Paulum extra duodecimapostolos ventilabant, et nescio unde subito prorupisse,vel a majoribus ordinaturn astruebant,hac auctoritate confunderet. Potest autem et oblique in Petrum et in caeteros dictum accipi, quod non ab Spostolis ei sit traditum Evangelium." (PL 26:335)
24 For associate with flesh and blood") was said of the apostles.
Porphyry too objects that after the revelation of Christ he did not
deign to go to people and engage in conversation with them, be presumably so that after teaching from God, he should not
instructed by flesh and blood. 1521
Nr. 21a (JeromeCommentary on GalatiansPrologue) reads:
"And the wholly unintelligent Bataneot and famous villain
Porphyry objects, in the first book of his work against us, that
Peter is blamed by Paul, becausehe starts off on the wrong foot in
evangelizing;he wants to brand Peter with the mark of error, and
Paul with that of insolence,and to accuseboth of the falsehood of
feigned teaching, while the chiefs of the Churches disagreewith one
But it is the another .... abouttime that settingout the words of ,, 22 Apostlehimself, we shouldexplain eachseparate question.
In the context of Nr. 21a,Jerome refers to the aim of his commentaryon Galatians,
in which he will make passagesclear.
It would havebeen much clearerif Harnackkept the sequenceof the quotation
within Jerome'scommentary instead of groupingfragments by themes.Nr. 19 comes
beforeNr. 21a in Harnack,because fragment 21 a was groupedwith Nr. 21b, c, andd
specificallyon the disputebetween Peter and Paul. However,21a is part of Jerome's
21 Jerome, Commentaryon Galatians 1.1.16-Harnack Nr. 20. "Plerosque de apostolis hoc (Continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini. Sive ut in Graeco melius habet: Non contuli cum carne el sanguine.) dictum arbitrari. Nam et Porphyrius objicit, quod post revelationern Christi non fuerit dignatus ire ad homines,et cum eis conferre sermonem:ne post doctrinam videlicet Dei, a came et sanguineinstrueretur. " (PL 26:35 1) 22Jerome, Commentary on Galatians Prologue-Hamack, Nr. 21a. "Quod nequaquarnintelligens Bataneoteset sceleratusille Porphyrius,in primo operis sui adversumnos libro, Petrum a Paulo objecit essereprehensum, quod non recto pede incederetad evangelizandum:volens et illi maculam crroris inurere, et huic procacitatis, et in commune ficti dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum inter se Sed jam ipsius Ecclesiarumprincipes discrepent... tempus est, ut Apostoli verbaponentes, singula quaequepandamus. " (PL 26:334)
25 prologue,while 19 is part of his first book. Whenthe readerencounters Nr. 19before
21a, they canhardly understandto what it refers,since the contentof 19 is madeclear
only through the context of 21a, which states that Jerome will explain passagesfrom
Galatians.Nr. 19 alsopertains to Nr. 21a,in which it is saidthat Paul withstoodPeter
to his face.The order of the fragmentsis thus confusing.
The other problem encounteredis that although Harnack rightly assumed
that Nr. 19was part of the discoursesAgainst the Christians,given the contentof
Nr. 20- and this even though Porphyry was not named- he missed out an
importantpart of the contextwhich would haveprovided his readerswith better
evidencethat he was right.23 In Nr. 19,Jerome clearly mentionssome anonymous
detractors-"ut quidam. putant"- who think that Paul was arrogant to call himself
apostle. Both Nr. 19 and 20, when put together, actually mean that some opponents
said that Paul was arrogant by calling himself Apostle and by refusing to share his
revelationwith "flesh and blood."
Harnack's pioneer work on Porphyry's anti-Christian fragments was
extensive and impressive, as is evidenced by his prominent position in Porphyrian
studiesto this day. However,his fragmentcollection bearsmethodological
problemsthat needto be addressed.
After Harnack
The historiographyon the fragmentssince Harnack shows changing
perspectiveson the task of scholarshipand on pagan-Christianinteraction. The caseof
MacariusMagnes'Apocriticos is a hotly debatedtopic with many scholars
23See Hamack,'Torphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 52, on Nr. 19: "Sehr wahrscheinlichist Porphyrius' Interpretation die folgenden gemeint. .., s. Nummer" (i.e. Nr. 20).
26 24 disagreeing with Hamack as to the authorship of the Macarius fragments. In the
Apocriticos, Macarius-a Christian apologist of the end of the 4th century-presents a fictive argument occurring between himself and an anonymous Greek philosopher, nicknamed "the Anonymous Hellene" by the scholarly community, in which the
Greek is criticizing the New Testament. Harnack found many parallels between the
Porphyrian fragments, where Porphyry is named and is seen to be attacking the New
Testament, and the content of the Anonymous Hellene's criticisms. He thus decided to
include in his collection all the fragments from the Apocriticos pertaining to the
Anonymous Hellene, arguing that Porphyry is the philosopher in question, but also 25 arguing that Macarius was not aware he was quoting from Porphyry.
In general, however, it seemsas though most scholars are interested in revising
24See the following on the problem of the Macarius fragments: L. Duchesne,De Macario Magneteet Scriptis Ejus (Paris: 1877);K. Wagenmann,Jahrbiicherftir deutscheTheologie 23 (1878): 138; K. I. Neumann,Iuliani Imperaloris Librorum Contra Christianos Quae Supersunt (Leipzig: 1880); G. Schaulkhauser,Zu den Schriften des Makarios von Magnesia, Texte und Untersuchungenzur Geschichte der aftchristlichen Liferatur 31.4 (Leipzig: 1907); J. Gefficken, Zwei grieschiche Apologeten(Hildesheim, New York: 1970), 301; J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre (Leipzig: 1913), 74-5; T. W. Crafer, "The Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians,and its Reconstruction," JThS n.s. 15 (1914): di 360 and 481; P. Frassinetti, " "Sull" autore delle questioni pagane conservatenell' Apokritico Macario di Magnesia," Nuovo Didaskaleion 3 (1949): 41-56; S. Pezzella, "Il problcma del kala christianon di Porfirio," Eos 52.1 (1962): 87-104; Bames "Porphyry Against the Christians," 424-42; de R. Waelkens, Ltconornie, thýme, apologgtique et principe hermgneutiquedans 1,Apocriticos 4 Macarios Mqgnýs,Recued de travaux dHistoire et de Philologie, Universit6 de Louvain, ser 6, no. (Louvain: 1974), 117-34; A. Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian against the Christians," ANRW 2.23.2 (1980): 1127-1128; J. Hoffman, Porphyry's Against the Christians (Amherst: 1994); E. Digeser "Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles?Makarios Magnes' Apocritikos," JThS (2003): 466-502; R. Goulet, Macarios de Magn6sie:Le Monogiruis (Paris: Vrin, 2003); J. Schott, "Porphyry on Christians and Others: "Barbarian Wisdom," Identity Politics, and Anti-Christian Polemicson the Eve of the Great Persecution," JECS 13.3(2005): 283. 25Hamack, "Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 7-9. "Die grosseMasse der Stücke verdankt man der indirekten Überlieferungbei Hieronymus Makarius Aber diesem Masstabist es und .... eben nach überauswahrscheinlich, dass in die 52 Stückenbei Makarius Magneswesentlich porphyrianisches Gut zu erkennenhaben. Zwar sind sie durch eine doppelteVermittelung auf uns gekommen,indem sie erst von einemUnbekannten exzerpiert, dann von Makarius aufgegriffenund in eine umfangreichefingierte Man darf daher die Streitunterredungeingestellt worden sind .... mit gutem kritischen Gewissen Auführungendes Heidenbei Makarius als porphyrianischin Anspruchnehmen, wenn man auch keine Garantiefür die Zuverlässigkeitjedes Satzesund jeder Wendung- am wenigstenfür dasBeiwerk - zu übernehmenvermag. " See T. D. Barnes, "Porphyry Against the Christians," 428-30, and Digeser, "Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles?" who both arguedagainst Harnack's thesis.
27 26 Harnackonly when new fragmentsare discovered. Indeed,as Benoit noted30 years
ago,studies that attempteda new fragmentcollection did not contributeanything new,
in the sensethat they failed to presenta significantlydifferent pieceof work.27
First, threescholars added or removedfragments, but did not makeany fundamental revision to Harnack 1916. In 1923, F. Jacoby, who undertook a huge
collection of the fragments of Greek historians, collected some Porphyrian fragments,
28 including Against the Christians. He used Harnack's numerical system, but changed
the order of the fragments, and added, according to T. D. Barnes, "Several conjectural
fragments not in Harnack"'29 and did so without any explanation. He also included
fragments from a chronicle, which he considered as a source for Porphyry's exegesis
Daniel 30 According to historians, this have of . chronicle would covered the period
from the fall of Troy to the reign of the emperor Claudius 2 (268-270) The .3'
argument in favour of the existence of such a work is that Euseblus would have used it
for his own chronicle without naming it, especially for his chronology of Alexander
26Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 267; P. Nautin, "Trois autres fragments du livre de les Chr&iens," Revue Biblique 57 (1950): 409-16; Porphyre Contre see also, for examples,J. -M. Demarolle, "Un aspectde la poldmique palienneA la fin du file si&cle: le vocabulairechrdtien de Porphyre," Vigiliae Chrisfianae26 (1972), 117-29,who does not discriminatebetween the Porphyry fragments and the Macarius ones when she analyses Porphyrian vocabulary (Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 263,note 4). 27Benoit, "Contra christianosde Porphyre," 267. 28F. Jacoby, Die Fragmenteder GriechischenHisforiker (Berlin: 1923), no 260 "Porphyrios von Tyros." Jacoby's collection of fragmentsfrom Against the Christians will not be used in this study, since he only kept most of the fragments on Porphyry's Book 12 - preservedby Jerome in his Commentaryon Daniel one fragmentfrom Macarius(Apocriticos 3.15 - HarnackNr. 69), one from Augustine (Letter 102.8 Hamack Nr. 81), and one from Jerome,Letter 133.9- Hamack Nr. 82, whereas there were many other authors who preservedPorphyry's ideas. G. Schepens,"Jacoby's FGrHist: Problems,Methods, Prospects," in Collecting Fragments, ed. by G. W. Most, 144-73 (G6ttingen: 1997),discusses Jacoby's FGrHist methodology,and his article will be addressedlater. " Christians," 426. Barnes,"Porphyry Against the ". .. only those fragmentsrelating to historical topics" ; Benoit,"Contra christianosdc Porphyre," 267, disagreeswith him on this. 30Barnes (1973), 435; Bidez (1913), 64 believesin the existenceof sucha chronicle; F. Jacoby,Die Fragmenteder griechischenHistoriker (Berlin, 1923)gathered the fragmentsof Porphyry's so-called Chronicle from Eusebius'Chronicle under the numeration260F 1-3,31-32. 31Barnes (1973), 435; Eusebius,Chronicle, ed. Jacoby(1923), 260F T2.
28 32 the Great's successors,the Ptolemaic dynasty, and the Macedonian monarchy.
basis Historians believed until recently that Porphyry had written this Chronicle as a for his Against the Christians, just like Eusebius had used his Chronicle to write
Church History. Because Porphyry demonstrates in his twelfth book that the Book of
Daniel was written during the reign of Antiochus 4 Epiphanes, the argument was that he would have used his Chronicle, which covered the reign of Antiochus 4, to draw by this conclusion. However, the existence of such a Chronicle has been invalidated
B. Croke, who argues that Eusebius merely mentioned "writings by Porphyry, " not a 33 chronicle; this argument has been supported by Beatrice. Furthermore, the list of
events presumably found in the Chronicle are also found in Jerome's Commentary on
Danie 1.34It f 0IIOWS that Eusebius could well have taken his Porphyrian list from
Jerome.35
32Barnes (1973), 435; Eusebius,Chronicle, ed. Jacoby(1923), 260F 2,3. Eusebius'sChronicle sten's from Creationto the year 303. 33 353. B. Croke, "Porphyry's anti-Christian Chronology, " JThS n. s. 34 (1983), 181; Beatrice (1992), Eusebius, Chronicle, ed. Jacoby (1923), 260 F2. "Ot RET&'AM4(XV8POV T6V MaiceMva My'611TOUlccý! the 'Ake4av8peia; Pac;ukz6aavTE; &n6 TAq rlopyupiou ypayq;. " See also M. Edwards, "Porphyry and Christians, " in Studies in Porphyry, eds. G. Karamanolis and A. Sheppard (London: 2007). 34 6), Croke (1983), 182; Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue (Nr. 43c); according to Harnack (191 in Nr. 43h Jerome Commentary - on Daniel 5.1 - Jerome's information come from Porphyry's chronicle. ill 35Barries (1994), 55: "The only apparentexplicit quotation from Porphyry's Chronicle occurs August Willer's Germantranslation of a ninth centuryArab writer, who cites it for the fact that Thales, the son of Mallus the Milesian, was the first of the seven sages" [A. Willer, Die griechische" Philosophenin der arabischenfiberlieferung (Halle, 1873),5, transfrom ed. De al-Nadirn by G. Fldgel, KiMb al-Fihrist (Leipzig, 1871-2) 1.245,1.13-141.According to Barries (1994), 55 and Croke (1983), 169, this Arab writer said that he studied a Syriac version of Porphyry's Chrnicle. However, Croke (1983), 170, argues that another Arab writer cites the Syriac version of Porphyry's Historill philosopharum for the sameinformation on Thales. Eusebiuscites this Historia philosopharum in the liber prior of his Chronicle. The information on Porphyry's chronicle as obtained from the first Arab writer is therefore doubtful, accordingto Croke. Bames further added to Croke's argumentthat the Soudadoes not list a Porphyrianchronicle, which confirms that it neverexisted. I UNWERSITY OF BRISTOL 29 LJBFZARY In 1962,S. Pezzellarejected 36 fragmentsfrom the collection,including 23
from MacarioS.36 He arguedthat six fragmentsfrom Jerome(3,14,44,45,56,85),
threefrom Augustine(46,81,85), onefrom SeverusGabala (42), onefrom
Epiphanius(12), one from AnastasiusSinaita (65), and finally onefrom Julian (66),
shouldbe excluded.37 However, later compilersdid not follow his lead.Then, in 1966,
M.V. Anastostried to reorganiseHarriack's subsections, but did not succeedin fully
revising his work, sincehe wasworking with the fragmentsidentified by the Gen-nan
scholar,and therefore did not provide a collection.38 A few yearslater, Bames
establisheda list - including a commentary- of the fragmentcollections published so far 39He fragmentsdiscovered . then commentedon various after Harnackhad publishedhis collection, andrejected most of them as not being from Porphyry.40
Finally, he demonstrated- and is the first to havepointed this out - that Harnackwas 4 wrong aboutthe Macariusfragments, which arenot from Porphyry. 1Although he
successfullyproved that Harnack's dating of the fragmentsto the third century-
which had allowed him to pair themwith Porphyry,the only known anti-Christian
36S. Pezzella,"ll problernadel Kata Christianondi Porfirio," Eos 52.1 (1962): 87-104. 37Pezzella Ilproblemo, 104,n. 87. 38 Anastos,"Porphyry's Attack on the Bible," 426. 39Barnes, "Porphyry Against the Christians," 424. 40Barnes, "Porphyry Against the Christians, " 426. Namely Nautin, "Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre Contre les cWtiens, " 409-16; F. Altheirn and R. Stiehl, "Neue Bruchst-ficke aus Porphyrios' kata Chrisfianous" (sic), Gedenkschrift fir G. Rohde. Aparchaj: Untersuchungen zur klassischen Philologie und Geschichle des Allerlums, 4 (1961): 23-38; D. Hagedorn and R. Merkclbach, "Ein neus Fragment aus Porphyrios Gegen die Christen," Vig. Chr. 20 (1966): 86-90; G. Binder, "Eine Polemik des Porphyrios gegen die allegorische Auslegung des Alten Testaments durch die Christen," ZPE 3 (1968): 81-95; M. Gronewald, "Porphyrios Kritik an den Gleichnissen des Evangeliums," ZPE 3 (1968): 96. 41Barnes, "Porphyry Against the Christians," 428-30. He convincingly invalidatedthe points that were traditionally used to pair Porphyry with the anonymousHellene of the Apocriticos (points which led Harnack to date the commentsto the third century). First, Barnesisn't convincedthat, "The writer states that Christianity was illegal at the time he is writing" (he noted a Greek past tense in the passage).Next, the knowledge expressedabout the martyrs is not precise enough to be link with a contemporarysituation. Thirdly, the silenceabout pictures in Churcheshas been contradicted by recent archeological discoveries,and the silence about monasticism is normal until the end of the fourth century. Fourthly, naming Hadriandoes not makemore sense150 years after his deaththan 250 after. Finally, "(Apollonius of Tyana)was still a bogey of the Christiansin the days of Augustine." Barnes addsthat somepassages are evenlikely to be from Julian.
30 polemicist of the third century - was not necessarily correct, other studies comparing the content and style of the Macarius fragments with other pagan authors and
42 Porphyry are even more convincing.
Benoit then produced a "tableau r6capitulatif des fragments de Porphyre
ddnombrds," howeverthat it is 4' He actuellement recognising not original. actually merely changedthe order of Harnack's collection,and preserved the samenumbers. 44
He managedto innovate,however, by addinga categoryfor the quality of the
fragments,as well as by including the recentdiscoveries of fragments,and by
classifyingthe fragmentsaccording to their authorin a very usefultable. 45
Unfortunately,he doesnot ftilly explainhow he discriminatedbetween certain and
46 ratherdoubtful fragments. He does,however, propose a researchdirection for future fragment collectors;he believesthat it is still possibleto make new discoveries,and
arguesthat, "11y auraitA reprendrede fagoncritique le contextede nombreux
fragmentsnotarnment chez Mr6me. 947 As he puts it, "On s'est trop focalisd sur les
citationsexpresses sans se rendrecompte que le contextedes r6futations dtaient
,, 48 modeMpar les argumentsporphyriens. He is, so far, the only onewho hasreally
questionedHarnack's method. It is not until the 90's that the methodological
42i. Pezzella, 11 e. problema," 87-104, and E. Digeser "Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles? Makarios Magnes' Apocritikos," JThS (2003): 466-502. 43Benoit, "Contra christianosde Porphyre," 270. 44Benoit, "Contra christianosde Porphyre," 270. 45 Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 271-75. According to him, the fragments Of interest here, most of namely the Jerome fragments pertaining to the critique of the New Testament and evangelists(books I and 14), are either authentic or likely to be Porphyry's; however, fragments 6 (Commentary Matthew 9.9), 3 (Commentary on on Matthew 21.21), 14 (Commentaryon Matthew 27.45), and2 (Letter 57.9) are doubtful. 46 Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 263. Benoit placedthe above--mentionedfragments in the because 'polemical' category, their content do not refer directly to Porphyry, but are likely only to be connectedto Against the Christians. 47Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 267. 48Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 267.
31 approachesfor the gatheringof fragmentstended toward the realisationof a
contextualizedcollection.
A notedaddition to Hamack'scollection was carriedout by R. Wilken in
1984,but his work on this aspecthas not so far receivedmuch attention in the
literature49His does . work not aim at a fragmentcollection, but ratherat a broad
analysis of the content of the remaining fragments from Against the Christians. Still,
he observed that Porphyry was mentioned in Augustine's On the Harmony of the
Gospels, which was written in response to pagans claiming that the evangelists had
50 66invented the portrait of Christ presented in the GospelS.,, While Wilken remains
careful and insists that what he has found in Harmony of the Gospels may not
necessarily have been entirely drawn from the discourses Against the Christians, he
paired all relevant passages with known fragments. For instance, Jerome, in his Letter
to Pammachus (57.9), says that Porphyry charged the evangelists with falsity. In the
chapter on Augustine, I investigate the matter, and come to the conclusion that
Harmony was not drawn from Porphyry's anti-Christian discourses. However, Wilken
has made a very interesting observation, for what he says pushes fragment collectors
to look more closely at Augustine's rhetoric before we can make any Porphyrian
association.
In 1974, R. Waelkens's challenged Barnes's 1973 argument that the Macarius
51 fragments were from a source other than Porphyry. R. Hoffmann then offered a new
fragment collection, comprised of the Macarius fragments only, translated into
English, and of a "partial reconstruction of the 'objections' in the Apocriticos, " based
49Wilken, Christians, 144-5. 50Wilken, Christians, 144 51Waelkens, tconomie, Wme, apolog&ique el principe hermýneutique,117-34; followed by Hoffman, Porphyry's Against the Christians,22-3.
32 51 be Macarius' While on the assumption that only Porphyry could pagan philosopher. discussion long it Hoffmann's work is debatable, it is concerned with the present as as
it further lack is linked with Hamack's work. Indeed, offers a example of the of revision that the German collection received.
Richard Goulet's 2003 thorough study on the Apocriticos (which he named 53 "Monog6n&' or "logos") alsorevisits Barnes'conclusions as regardsthe fragments.
According to Goulet,the debatebetween the ChristianMacarios and the anonymous
Greek is not historical; however,it may well havebeen based on an anti-Christian
work.54 Evidence for this lies in the dialectical link betweenthe objectionsand
responses,the two different versionsof the New Testamentused by Macariosand the
Anonymous,as well as a literary analysisof the pagansource. " Furthen-nore,Goulet
establishedthat thereis a link betweenthe pagansource in the Monogenesand the
Westernof the New Testament,which he will use in order to identify the
Anonymous.56 Goulet alsodated the text to beforethe triumph of Christianity and the beforethe developmentof the Christianiconographic cult - i.e. toward the end of
third century(the Anonymoustalks aboutthe persecutionsin the past,and therefore
was not a contemporaryof Dicocletian'spersecution, and mentions Christian
57 churches). The last two points are,however, conjectural. The former is basedon the
absenceof a criticism on cultural iconography,while the latter is basedon a statement
by Eusebius,in Church History, sayingthat beforethe GreatPersecution, churches
52Note that he included only a little more than a half of what Harnack had selected.See Hoffman Porphyry's Against the Christians, 18. I: 53R. Goulet, Macarios de Magn9sie:Le MonogkL. tdition critique et traduction franVaise. Tome tdition Introduction gin6rale; Tome II: critique, traduction et commentaire (Paris: 2003)*
54Goulet, Monoginýs,66. " Goulet,Monogýnýs, 71-89. 56Goulet, Monoginýs,99. 57Goulet, Monogkýs, 103.
33 were popping out of the ground in every city. 58 Goulet is following Hamack here,
and his discussion brings us back to Barnes' 1973 argument. According to Goulet, two
facts unden-nineany identification between Porphyry and the Anonymous. First, the
Anonymous refers to Paul and Christ in terms that dates him to the mid-fourth
century. To counter this problem, Goulet argues that Macarios, who wished to present 59 a recent debate, adapted his source to that period. Second, the Anonymous asks his
Christian adversary to confirm his sayings on pagan sacrifices with the Philosophy
from Oracles. Here again, Goulet uses the argument that Macarios might not have
wanted his readers to associatethe Anonymous with Porphyry, and had the intention, 60 in any case,to transform the text dramatically. His argument, although interesting,
is, overall, conjectural. It is beyond the scope of this paper to solve the question of the
Macarios fragments. As will be shown later, there are, however, significant parallels
between Porphyry's and the Anonymous' treatment of Paul and Peter that may be of
interest in the debate.
In short, it is of great interest that Goulet realised a comparative study of all
the Anonymous passagesand Porphyry's works other than Against the Christians, and
concluded that although there is no definitive evidence that Porphyry is the
Anonymous, it is certainly probable that Macarios drew his Greek opponent's
criticism from the lost treatise or on a secondary source - it is even probable, he
adds,that Porphyry'scritique haspoints in commonwith other,unknown, pagan
works." However,Goulet is adamantthat the Anonymous' objectionscannot be Christians. consideredas fragmentsof any work entitledAgainst the He alsopoints
out that Harnackhimself hadnever meant his collectionto compriseuncontestable
" Eusebius,Church Hislory 8.1.5. "Goulet, Monoggnýs, 127. 60 Goulet, Monpgýnýs,128. 6'Goulet,Monpg6nýs, 135.
34 fragments,and that researchershave consistently made the mistaketo cite the
Macariosfragments as being Porphyrianwithout further explanations.62
Goulet's Monogýnýsalso includes a sectionon fragmentsof Against the
Christians.According him La d'un des to ...... compilation corpus fragments
,, 63 authentiquesde Porphyreimplique uneforte dosed'incertitude. Gouletbasically argues that fragments 39,40, and 41 come from a direct reading of Porphyry by
Eusebius, while the rest may come from secondary material, such as Christian 64 refutations. He established a list of all the treatise's fragments, which he paired with their 65The list Benoit's it includes critical value . adds to table, in that recently discovered fragments 66 - e.g. Michael the Syrian - but is far less handy. Goulet also suggeststhat Macarios and Gregory of Nysa (Discours cat&hitique) both used
Porphyry as a source.67
Recently, R. M. Berchman has published a collection of all of the Against the
Christiansftagments, arranged chronologically by author(i. e. startingwith the most ancientauthor who preservedfragments), including a useful translationof Harnack's fragments,and using new editions of texts. This is the major work that hasbeen done on the fragmentssince Harnack, and it further showshow lively the study of the discoursesagainst the Christiansis, andhow much scholarsare in need of a usable collection.Berchman, unlike Harnackwho groupedthe fragmentsthematically, did not aim at reconstructingthe outline of the lost work's structure,for he agreeswith
62Goulet, Monoginýs, 135; seealso Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen," 10. 63Goulet, MonoggnL, 130. 64 SeeCook, New Testament,134, and Harnack,"Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen," 7 n. 4: Jeromedoes not provide verbal quotations,but often mentionsother refuting authors. 63Goulet, Monoggnýs,131-2. 66See 1. G. Cook, "A possiblefragment of Porphyry's ContraChristianos from Michael the Syrian" LIC 2 (1998): 113-122. 67Goulet, Monpggnýs, 136.
35 Barnes it is impossible 68This that an taskto perform. is why, he explains,he decided to offer "a collection of fragmentsaccording to author;" theseare arranged 69 chronologically. Berchmanargues that this arrangement"makes it possibleto
for Against Christians, establishthe earliestevidence the and ... allows for the tracingof issuesand problems from the earliestfragments through the latest
testimonieson Against the Christians., 70 Berchman's translation makes the fragments
easierto use,and he usedrecent editions of the textsin which the Porphyrian
fragmentsare extant- for thesereasons, Harriack's work wasoutdated and difficult to
use. He also included Augustine's Harmony of the Gospels, the work having been
ignored in previous fragment collections. But Berchman also included irrelevant
fragments as well as fragments that most consider as belonging to Philosophyfrom
Oracles, and he did not justify this choice. Furthermore, Berchman's method for
gathering the fragments does not significantly differ from Hamack's. He set himself
guidelines for the collection, namely "direct quotations from Porphyry, direct
references to quotes from Porphyry, indirect references to quotes from Porphyry, and 1 testimonies that may be derived from the writings of Porphyry.197 As a result, the
fragments are out of context, and the Harnack fragments retained are exactly the same
as they originally were.
In 2006, a Spanish team from the University of Cidiz published yet another 72 lay in fact fragment collection of Against the Christians. Their motivation the that
despite Harnack's good work, it was nearly a century old, and there had since been
68R. Berchman,Porphyry Againstthe Christians(Boston: 2005), 7; seeBarnes "Porphyry Against the Christians," 424-42. 69Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians,7. 70Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians,7. 71Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, 119. 72 A. R. Jurado et al., Porfirio de Dro Contra los Chrislianos. Reconpilacion de fragmentos, traduccion, introduccion y notas (CAdiz: 2006).
36 73 new discoveries,which justify a new collection. More interestingly,they proposeto usea new methodin orderto assessthe authencityof the fragmentstraditionally ascribedto Porphyry,following the expressionof sucha needby Benoit in 1978.74
The teamthus re-orderedand re-numbered the fragments.The introduction briefly
discussesmethodological concerns. The main argumentof the team is that Harnack
concentratedall the anti-Christianfragments into one collection, andunder one
author,Porphyry. 75 However, the teamthinks it is best to invalidate all fragments
where Porphyryis not named.As a result, they introducetheir own authentIcityscale,
basedon whetherPorphyry is namedor not. But Harnack,as hasbeen discussed, was
issues7' Furthermore, fragments well awareof authenticity . the collection containsthe deemed"unauthentic" by the team (the fragmentsfrom AnastasiusSinaita, Arethas Of
Caesarea,and some by Augustine,Diodorus of Tarsus,Nemesius, and, more
77 importantly,Macarius). The teamprovides its own numeration,which they paired
with Harnack's to make it clearer,and includedthe Macarios fragmentson the basis
Goulet's 78The the of work. researchersalso provide a most handy bibliography of ancientauthors who preservedAgainst the Christians' fragments.They do not include
Augustine'sOn the Harmony of the Gospels.Seeking to avoid an "arbitrary"
organization,however, the Spanishteam produced a collection, which is not thernatic,
and,as a result, still difficult to use.There is an attemptat including the context of the fragments,but this context is limited to the historical and literary context of the works
73 18 Juradoet al., Porfirio, 59. "Y decimos'supuestamente' porque la hay que ser conscientesde que labor del berlin6s( ), todos meritoria profesor .... aun cuandohoy dia es la edicion de referenciapara los estudiosos,consideramos que necesitauna actualizaciony revision, segunse ha puestode manifesto en la secciondedicada al estadode la cuestion." 74Jurado et al., Porfirio, 59. 75 Porfirio, 59. Jurado et al., como si 6ste hubiera sido pricticamente el Anico polemist3 del mundo antiguo antichristiano ... ." 76Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen, " 9-10. 77 Jurido et al., Porfirio, 59. 79Jurado et al., Porfirio, 60-1.
37 in which they areextant; it doesnot includethe textual contextin which they were
inserted.It also fails to take into accountmethodological studies on fragment
collecting, for the aim of the work was clearly not to gathernew fragments,but to
reproducethe fragmentsas found in Hamack,together with later additions.More
researchis thus neededin the field to counteractthose problems. But, as A. Quiroga
argues,the book as a whole is a significant contributionto the debate,for it is not
limited to a merecollection, but ratherto analyzingthe wider problemof the
transmissionof the text, andthe philosophicalbackground of the fragments.'9
This work is far more usefulthan Berchman'sfor it is an actualcompilation of
all the fragments,namely thoseidentified by Hamackas well as the later ones,and it
containsboth an edition and translationof the fragments.It alsorepresents an effort at
reorganisingand modernising a collection,which is hard to use.In that respect,
however,Berchman's re-ordering by authordate allows for a betterunderstanding of
Against the Christians' content,as it helps putting the fragmentsback into their
historical context,i. e. the ideological debategoing on at the time of the referencesto
Porphyry's anti-Christiantreatise.
Finally, in 2009,yet anotherfragment collection was published:that of G.
Muscolino.80 It consistsin a brief introductionto the work of Harnack,its problems,
andthose raised by Against the Christians,and Harnack'stext, as well as the
fragmentsfrom his 1916collection and the later additions,all in the original
languagesand Italian translationon the facingpage. Muscolino's work also includesa
very useftil, commentedbibliography on the historiographyon the discoursesAgainst
the Christians.It is a re-editionof Hamack,and the order of testimoniaandfragmenta
79A. Quiroga,"Zamora Calvo, Porfirio de Pro contra los cristianos.Recopilaci6n deftagmentos, traducci6n, introducci6ny notas,CAdiz: Servicio PublicacionesUniversidad de Cidiz 2006," book review, in Vigiliae Chrisfianae,61.2(2007): 232-234. 80G. Muscolino, Porfirio Contro i christiani: Nella raccolta di Adotr von Harnack con fulti i nuovi frammenti in appendice(Milan: 2009).
38 81 was preserved. It is not meantto questionthe methodologyused by the German scholar,and there is thus still a needto work on this aspect.
Fragments in context
New methodologicalapproaches allow for an expandedand more nuanced readingof the discoursesagainst the Christiansthrough the settingof the criteria requiredto study the treatise.First, there is the generalproblem of survival. As is too often the casewith works from Antiquity, fragmentsare the only meansfor acquiring knowledgeabout lost writings.82 Indeed, as far as ancientGreek literature is
, 83 concerned,"the ratio of surviving literatureto lost literatureis in the order of 1:40 .
Many factorscontribute to preservationor destructionof works, and they are not 84 alwaysrelated to the quality of theseworks, which were thereforenot deliberately
eliminated.According to G. Schepens,"There are difficulties the distribution of
in had face before invention "books" Antiquity ... to the of typography;the
preferencefor easy-to-handlecompilations over the often too voluminous (and more
valuable)originals; ... and, aboveall, the role of chance."85 Furthermore, adds
Schepens,most of the works from that period survived only partially in direct
81S. Morlet, "Comment le probl6medu Contra Christianospeut-il seposer aujourd'hui? " (forthcoming Collection desbudes A ugustiniennes) 82Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 144. in 83Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 144; furthermore, as A. C. Dionisotti points out, "On Fragments ClassicalScholarship, " in Collecting Fragments,1, only copiesof the ancientmaterial survive. in 84Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 145; according to A. Laks, "Du t6moignage comme fragment, 1 I Collecting Fragments, 237, "la fragmentation de Poeuvre peut atre due au support, quand le manuscript (parfois) ou le papyrus (toujours) qui I'ont transmise sont incomplets, ou endommagds." Portions of works may also survive in the form of an anthology, i. e. as citations of works without direct tradition. 85Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 145-6.
39 transmission. Textual distortions are thus very common, he argues, and are due to the
mode of transmission from Antiquity to the Middle Ages.
In the case of Porphyry, there are specific problems. The complete version of
the work that we entitle Against the Christians is unknown. It was deliberately
destroyed after the Great Persecution (303-311), various emperors having issued
Porphyry's infamous to the flames 86Some edicts condemning all of works . copies
must have survived, but the principal sources for Porphyry's treatise are Christian
apologists who aimed at defending their dogmas against any future threat of
persecution, in the case of Eusebius, or against ridicule in the case of Augustine-who
writes, for instance, in his letter 102 to Deogratias, that stories such as Jonah in the
belly of a whale were provoking laughter in pagan circles (102.30). These Christians
quotedor paraphrasedthe philosopherwhen answeringhis ideas,which, in turn,
createsa major problemfor the fragmentcollectors. According to Schepens,"the
methodologicalkey-problem the studentof (historical) fragmentshas to face is
invariably a problemof context., 8'Historians must contextualizecitations in the texts
in which they were found in orderto be able to understandtheir meaningfully; but, in
so doing, they risk distorting Porphyry'soriginal meaning.Consequently, the risk
with contextualizingis the distortion of the meaningof the discoursesAgainst the
Christians' original version." Here,"Contextualization" thus meansreading the fragmentas if it belongedto the context in which it was transmitted.
86See Socrates, Church History 1.9.30;see also Gelasius,Church History 2.36.1;the TheodosianCode 16.5.66;and "Edictum Theodosiiet Valentiniani," 17 February448 (CollectaneaVaticana_138), 1.1.4 in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum,1.1.4, ed. by E. Schwartz(Berlin, 1927),66.3-4; 8-12, in Smith Porphyrfiphilosophifragmenta, 32. 87Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 166. 88Schepens, "Jacoby's Fgrffist, " 166. Schepensfurther points out that ancienthistorians preferred an anonymousreference to one by name. One by namehad a specific purpose:either to show that they disagreedor to show off their better knowledge. Schepensproposes to first examine critically the referenceby namebefore using it "as evidencefor reconstructingthe contentsof lost works." He then suggeststhat any study of fragmentsshould ideally be supplemented"by an examinationof the indirect tradition." The starting-point of such an investigation should be the named fragments,otherwise the
40 While establishingthe requiredparts of a good,modem, historical fragment collection (taking as examplethe work of the late F. Jacoby),Schepens argues that the commentaryshould "consist of two moments." These"aim at relocatingthe fragments in the lively political, intellectualand artistic processof intertextualexchange that oncetook place andto which the survival of thesevery fragmentsis testimony." The first momentis "an act of deconstructionof the cover-textby which the fragmentis setfree from the potentialbiases of the text in which it survives.This operationaims at establishing the original meaning (if possible also the "wording") of the fragments.,,89 Schepens named as "cover-texts" the works in which the fragments survive, for this wording creates,according to him, a distinction from the (con)text "Of the later works in which the fragments survive. "90As he put it, "The notion of cover- text conveys-... better than the phrasescommonly used (sources of fragmentsor expressionslike the citing or quotinglater authors)-the consequentialand multiple functionsthese texts perform in the processof transmittinga fragment."91 He usesthe word "cover" to mean"to conceal,protect or enclosesomething. " He arguesthat the later authorsperform just thosethree tasks when transmittinga text:
"They, first of all, preserve(= protect from being lost) texts drawn
from works that areno longerextant; very often, too, they more or
lessconceal the precursortext (form characteristicssuch as the
original wording and style of the precursortext are no longer
discernible;often alsofragments seems to "hide" in the cover-text,so
work will becomespeculative. Since Schepens is writing hereon Jacoby'sFragmente der griechischen Historiker, he is concernedwith historians, therefore his argumentmay well be applied to ancient writers such as Christians, especially since it is well-known that they were imitating the classical writing style. It may be argued, however, that Christian writers tend to be more precise in giving references,perhaps because they had a tradition of quoting official lettersor edicts. 89See Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist," 168-9,on the quotations. 90Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 166-7n. 66. Schepensuses the words "(con)text" and "con-text," but it remainsunclear how theseare different from the usual word "context." 91Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHisl, " 168.
41 that onecan only guesswhere a paraphrasebegins or wherea
quotationends); and, last but not least,the cover-textencloses the
precursortext: it is insertedor envelopedin a new con-text,which
may imposeinterpretations that differ considerablyfrom the original
writer's understandingof his text." 12
The second moment that should be part of the commentary, according to Schepens,
"Is an attempt to reconstruct the lost context of the original work and try to re-insert
the fragment in it.,, 93
Next, the work of A. Laks exposesthe necessityto redefinethe word
'fragment.' He saysthat thereis a distinction to makebetween a testimoniumand a
fragment.According to him, "le couplefragment/t6moignage fait partiede I'appareil
critique primaire de tous les historiensde I'Antiquit6. " Laks explainsthat a testimony
is what can be found in the ancientliterature about a lost text or its author,whereas a
fragmentis a part of that lost work. A fragmentis thus a literal quotation,and a fait d'un lecteur livre 61aboration " testimonyis, "Le ... qui ... nous une secondaire. The difficulty lies in the fact that testimoniescan be confusedwith fragments,or that
onecan hesitatebetween where a testimonyand a fragmentstart andend, if present
together.But Laks arguesthat scholarsshould go beyondthe traditionalseparation of
the two categories(commonly made under the lettersA- fragments- andB-
testimonies)in fragmentcollections, and understand that a testimonymay alsobe a
fragment,and thereforemay be includedin the A category.The only reasonwhy a
testimonyshould be excludedis when the selectionis madeaccording to what is
literal; only the fragmentis literal. But if the selectioncriterion is changedto
9' See Schepens,"Jacoby's FgrHist, " 166-7 n. 66, on the quotations. 93 Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHisl, " 168. Schepens does not provide further explanations for what he meansby "lost context." Instead, he refers his readers to R. Vattuone, Sapienzad'Oecidenle. It pensierostorico di Timeodi tauromenio,(Bologna: PAtron, 1991) 7-17.
42 "content," thenthe testimonyshould not be excludedfrom the fragments.Laks says that, "Ce dont le t6moignageest tdmoignage--quand il estun t6moignagesur 94 l'oeuvre-n'est en effet derechefqu'un fragment., Laks applieshis argumentto doxographies(works that are collectionsof opinions),and therefore not to works such asJerome's, however he introducesthe interestingnotion that fragmentcollections
shouldbe more flexible in what they understandas being a fragment.As far as
methodologyis concerned,what an authorsays about a work beforequoting or
paraphrasingit shouldalso be consideredas part of the fragment.
In the context of a conferenceheld in September2009 on Porphyry's Against
the Christians, A. Laks was asked to discuss the problems related to a collection of the
fragments of Against the Christians. Giving a fresh look at the topic, he exposed an
error that has been missed by all the scholars who have been studying the treatise:
Harnack never meant to publish a fragment collection, but of collection of
(testimonium) fragments ) Referate."95 and references - "(Zeugnisse, Fragmente und
All of those who worked on the fragments since Harnack have, it seems, forgotten to
translate part of the title of his work. As a result, our constant references to the
fragments as, say, Fr. I or 44, are wrong, for Harnack did not attribute a number to
'fragments, ' but rather to 'Fragmente und Referate.' Indeed, he himself abstained
from using the word 'fragment, ' and refers to the passages from his collection as
follows: 'Nr. ' (Nummer/number) 1,5 or 28, and not 'Fr, ' 1,5, or 28. Laks, therefore,
does not only suggest a greater flexibility in our definition of 'fragment, 06 but he also
corrects almost a century of misinterpretation of Harnack's work. This is why I have
decided to use the abbreviation Nr. myself.
94See Laks, "Du tdmoignagecomme fragment, " 237-9, for the quotations. " A. Laks, "Rdflexions sur quelquesmod6les dditoriaux. A propos de I'ddition Harnackdu Contre les Chrifiens de Porphyre"(forthcoming in Colleclion desbudes Augusliniennes). 96Laks, "Du t6moignagecomme fragment, " 237.
43 As I wish to demonstratein this dissertation,the traditional definition of the
term 'fragment' is inappropriateas far as the remains of the discoursesagainst the Christians are concerned.Hamack had alreadyobserved this, as has been said, and
recentstudies on the citation techniquein Antiquity are ruining any hope in finding,
among the Church Fathers' corpus, some intact passagesfrom the anti-Christian
discourses,namely 'fragments.'
Finally, oneof the methodologicalissues raised by Schepensis the distinction
betweenfragments that survivewith or without title and/orbook number.97 Assigning
a title andbook numberis very important,because it allows an attemptto reconstruct
the work, andbecause the fragments'order necessarily affects their interpretation.The
title andnumber of books(fifteen) of Againstthe Christiansare provided by a
referencein the Souda;it may alsoderive from Eusebiusof Caesarea.98 This mention
may be associatedwith the title Against the Christiansfound in the Souda-should it,
of course,be an actualtitle. After having foundthe title, the volumesmust be
reconstructed,which is difficult sincefragments are related to books 1,3,4,12,13,
and 14only. Somefragments, therefore, allow for pairing Porphyry'sideas with a
book number,and the onesthat seem to correspondto the sameideas should thus be
groupedunder the right number.99 This is how Harnackchose his five headings,as has
beendiscussed above. Jerome identifies for us someof the contentof book 1: "And
the wholly unintelligentBataneot and famousvillain Porphyryobjects, in the first
97Schepens, "Jacoby's Fgrffist, " 165. 98 Souda, s. v. Porphyrios 2.2098, ed. A. Adler, in Smith (1993), 6. "flop(Pf)PtO; 6 KaT& XPICYTICEVCOV ypdya; KaT& Xpicrriawov k6yolu; it. " The Souda mentions fifteen "logoi" against the Christians, ... not Against the Christians. Eusebius, Church History 6.19.2. flopqbpto; a1uyypdpaTa KOtO'I)A(OV 6crTqadgE:vo;. " (LCL 265: 56) 99Beatrice, "Towards a new Edition of Porphyry's FragmentsAgainst the Christians," 123. See also J. Dillon, "Gathering Fragments:The Caseof lamblichus," in FragmentsammlungenPhilosophischer Texleder Antike, ed. by W. von Burkert et al. (G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998),170, on methodology.
44 00 book of his work againstus, that Peteris blamedby Paul."' The first book may thus havebeen devoted to attackson the apostles-or it may well havebeen an introductory survey of the incoherence of Christian teaching. Porphyry then gives examplesof how the evangelistsmisquoted the Prophets.Eusebius, in the
EcclesiasticalHistory (6.19.9),says that Porphyrycriticized Origen's useof the allegoricalmethod of interpretationto decodeScripture in book 3 of the discourses
Against the Christians.The book was thus most probably concemedwith how the
Bible shouldnot be readas containingdivine revelationsaimed at the Christians, 101 ratherthan the Jews. Jeromealso identifies someof the contentof book 14: ". -
The famous impious Porphyry, who vomited his rage against us in numerous volumes, argues against this passagein book 14 and says 'The evangelists were so ill-informed
9"102 ... Book 14was thus probablyon the evangelists.We should,therefore, logically try to group all the fragmentspertaining to thesetopics under eitherbook I or 14. It is, however,impossible to take for grantedthat everythingwritten on these topics was originally found only in these books. Furthermore, we have admitted earlier, following Edwards' conclusions, that Against the Christians might be a compendiumof discoursesagainst the Christians.If he is right, then eitherJerome or someoneelse had already assembled a number of worksinto a 15-volumecollection, but this cannotbe verified. Finally, sincethe contentsof books2,15, and 5 to II
remainunknown, all the fragmentsof the discoursesagainst the Christiansmight need
103 re-athibution.
100 Jerome,Commentary on GalatiansPrologue -Harnack Nr. 2 Ia. Cited n. 2 1. 101See Schott, "Porphyry on Christiansand Others," 303. Jerome,On the beginningof Mark 1.1-2-Hamack Nr. 9. "Locurn isturn impius ille Porphyrius,qu, adversurnnos conscripsitet multis voluminibus rabiern suarn evornuit, in XIV volumine disputat et imperiti fueranthomines dicit: "Evangelistaetam ...... (CCL 78:452) 103See Benoit, "Contra chrishanosde Porphyre," 265, on the contentof thesebooks.
45 Presentation of afragment collection
How can we translatethese methodological problems into a tangiblereality ?
This is precisely what 1. G. Kidd did when he worked on a redefinition of the tenn
'fragment' from theoretical methodology.104 Kidd was interestedin the case of the
philosopherPosidonius (I" c. B.C. ), whosework is entirely fragmentary.His caseis
thus different from Porphyry's, becausehis fragments were not preservedin a
polemical and interdisciplinary corpus (from philosophy to theology), but Kidd's
reflections may be applied to Porphyry's discoursesagainst the Christians.Kidd first
asks himself what is a fragment, and explains that the Ancient world had different
standards from ours as regards citation: "We must remind ourselves of the
( ) in freedomin unreliability ... of ancient reporters, the senseof the quotationthey themselves, based 105Kidd flexible allowed often on memory ...... proposes a
definition of 'fragment' by considering it as it actually is. A paraphrase,he says, even
if it is not an exact passagefrom a lost work, is still a precious clue as to its original
content,and thus needsto be taken into account.The fragmentcollector must analyse
the quality of a 'citation,' anduse its context in orderto betterunderstand its meaning:
"Context is essentialin two ways, both in defining the 'quotationalreference' itself,
and for judging its presentation,validity, bias, etc." 106Kidd suggeststhat the context
shouldbe includedwith the fragmentinto any collection, andthat one shouldlook at
the entire context of a fragment,i. e. the entire work of the citer, in order to identifiy his specific literary and intellectual strategies.This will enablethe collector to better
104I. G. Kidd, "What is a Posidonianfragment? " in Collecting Fragments,225-36. 105Kidd, "PosidonianFragment, " 227. 106Kidd, "PosidonianFragment, " 228.
46 be 'commentary' assessthe quality of a citation. Such analysis should part of the ' 07 sectionof the fragmentcollection.
Kidd's methodology can be applied to the named fragments. However,
Porphyry's case is different from Posidonius', for it seemsthat the anti-Christian ideas,which the Church Fathersrefer to, incorporateall of the post-Porphyriananti-
Christianideas. I would thus like to suggestthat insteadof only looking at Against the
Christians, it would be interestingto also look at the treatise as part of the polemic betweenChrisians and pagans,as well as the transmissionof anti-Christian ideas in
Late Antiquity.
Textual complications
Thereare other importantissues to take into accountwhen it comesto locating
an "original" text within its (con)textand cover-text, in particularthe complexitiesof
the citation process.'" In the caseof Porphyryand Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustinel
there are specialfactors in their relationship.This sectionof the currentchapter will
thus look at the textualproblems raised by a fragmentarytext that doesnot survive
independentlyfrom its cover-text.I will discusshow texts werequoted in Antiquity,
and how Jerome'sreaction to Porphyry,as well as his background,might have shaped
the fragmentsinto their currentform.
The context in which Christianauthors might haveread and then used
Porphyryshould first be further analyzed.It haslong beenestablished that in
Antiquity, citationshad a very different meaningthan in our modemworld. Ancient
107Kidd, "PosidonianFragment, " 232. logDrawing on Mikha*flBakhtin (whosewritings were rediscoveredby Westernwriters around 1960- seeM. Acouturier (trans.), "Prdface," Esth9tiqueet Thgoriedu roman by M. Bakhtin (Paris: Gallimard, 1978), 9, on this) literary theorists startedto take into accountall the variously-locatedvoices, which constitutethe writing of any univocal text-see M. Bakhtin, "Discoursein the Novel," in TheDialogic Imagination,ed. and trans.M. Holquist et al. (Austin: 1981).
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL 47 LIBRARY- historians would very much like to take it for grantedthat when an authorclaims to be
quoting andthe work is lost, this is a "proper" citation,that is, a passageliterally
reproducedfrom a work. Unfortunately,this is not straightforward.What is a citation
in a modemview, if not a fully referencedand clearly identifiedpassage, either in the
direct or indirect form of speech,which is untouchedin that no changeshave been
madeto the wording andmeaning of the duly acknowledgedauthor? None of the
allusionsmade by the Christiansto Porphyrylive up to this modemideal. They at
times namePorphyry, at other timesmay be referring to him; they eitherquote,
summarize, or make passing comments apparently from memory; they may even be
distorting the meaningof the excerptsthey choose.So how canwe makesense of
sucha messand get as closeas possibleto the lost treatise?
To begin untangling Christian citations of Porphyry, we must first understand
the citation process as practiced in Antiquity. First, a quotation-or allusion-depends
on the reading that the quoting author made of a text, and belongs to a particular
politico-social context, which invariably interferes with the original text.
Sabrina Inowlocki took on the task of defining the concept of citation in
Antiquity, ". the has since, as she states, .. no comprehensive study on subject yet been published."109 Although she focuses on Greek texts, her findings can be applied
to Latin authors,who sharedthe commonculture. She first notesthat therewere no citation techniquesin Antiquity. Rather,the ancients"choose or not to mark the useof citation." When they chooseto indicatea citation clearly,they (or their scribes- anothercomplication! ) mark it with a sign in the margin,as can be seenin
linguistic (e. Iego' 9 ). 110According D. manuscripts,as well as with markers g. , etc. to
109S. Inowlocki, Eusebiusand the Jewish Authors: His Citation Techniquein an Apologetic Context (Boston:2006), 33. 110Inowlocki, Eusebius,33-36.
48 Delattreand R. Goulet, when an authorand/or title are mentioned,it meansthat the writer appealsto the authority of the cited author,in orderto back up their own argument, for precision might better convince a reader; it is not done for the purpose of locating a passage."' This explainswhy second-handsources are almostnever indicated-unless to showthe learning andresearch of the authorwho cites them,as in Porphyry's OnAbstinence: "Phylarchos (2.56.7)112 it e.g. reportsthat. .. ." -and makesit impossibleto decidewhether or not the Christiansmay haveused others' works in order to readthe work that we call Against the Christians.There is alsothe practical difficulty of locating a passage,which Inowlocki doesnot mention:authors usually signal the beginningsand ends of books,but books-scrolls or codices- didn't havestandard subdivisions or pagination.The most difficult problem,however, when it comesto recoveringfragments from a lost treatise,certainly lies in the fact that authorsare not alwaysfaithful to the text, but make changesto it either deliberatelyor accidentally.Inowlocki, however,explains that the ancientswould not hesitate to changethe wording of a text in order to "expressits essencemore clearly," not for the purposeof falsifying it. Shegoes on to list and explainthe kinds of modificationsthat canbe madeto a cited text, and concludesby sayingthat the line betweenliteral citation andallusions is very unclearbecause it was uselessto the ancients.The meaningwas more importantto them than the phrasingwas, and, as a result, modificationswere commonas they were an explication of the truth. Inowlocki gives, amongothers, the exampleof Aristobulus, a Jewishphilosopher, who cited
Aratus,but sayshe subtractedthe word "Zeus" from the poems,and replacedit by
... Inow1ocki,Eusebius, 39-40. She cites from D. Delattre,"Les titres des oeuvres philosophiques de Itpicurien Philod6mede Gadara et desouvrages qu"il cite," in J.-Cl. Fredouille,Ph. Hoffmann, P- Petitmengin,M.-O. Goulet-Cazd, and S. DdIdani (eds. ) Titreset articulationsdu lexte dans les oeuvres antiques(Turnhout: 1997), 125; and R. Goulet,"Les rdfdrences chez Diog6ne Laarce: sources ou autoritds?,"in Threset articulations A texte,149-66. "' Porphyry,De IAbstinence, 2 (Paris: 1979),119. "Ob?, icrtopel." vol apXo; ...
49 "God," for he thoughtthe meaningof the wordsrefers to God, not to Zeus.He thus
produced"his own readingof the text," while not changingits meaning;"in his own
view, he hasonly establishedthe truth."' 13
One of Inowlocki's most disturbingfindings, as far as this study is concerned,
is the fact that the ancientswould make semanticchanges for the purposeof adapting
the meaningof a citation to make it fit with its new context.P. Chiron also underlines
the problem of the 'decontextualization,' which, he claims, he far more serious.To
him, the decontextualizationis an action in which the meaning is affected "par
dlimination d'dldments du texte citd qui ne sont pas impliquýs dans le propos du
citateur; ce genre de d6formation est de celles qui pourraient condulre A une
interprdtationtr&s diffirente du texte."' 14Only the 'contextualization'(or, in this case,
the 'recontextualization') of the fragmentcan allow to identify such a problem.
Inowlocki alsonoted that, "Faithfulnessto the text often depend(ed)on the
feelingsof the quoting authortowards the quotedauthor. " 115It is obviousthat
Porphyry, being a famous anti-Christian author, was not very dear to, say, Jerome, ' 16 who on so many occasions presents him as "barking" rather than arguing. This
suggestsanother reason why Christians may not have worried very much about reporting accurately what Porphyry said. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that an
opponent would accuse a Church Father of misquoting Porphyry. Therefore, as
Jerome himself says, for example, he will quote Porphyry when the occasion arises
113Inowlocki, Eusebius,40-47. 114J. Chiron, "Tibdrios citateur de Ddmosth&ne," in Riceptions antiques, C. Ciccolini, C. Gu6rin, S. hic, S. Morlet (eds) (Paris : 2006), 123. 115Inowlocki, Eusebius, 43-45. 116 See, for instance, Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 21.21-Harnack Nr. 3. "Latrant contra nos gentilium canes in suis uoluminibus. " (SC 2: 122)
50 is while writing his commentaryon Daniel, for the purposeof his work not to refute him, but to talk aboutDaniel. 117
P. Chiron added a further difficulty to the problem of the reliability of a the citation, namely copyist errors. He reminds us that obstaclesdo not stop with ancientauthor, but with thosewho reproducedtheir works. While comparingdifferent manuscripts,Chiron listed the many difficulties that fragmentcollectors are regularly
facing ('mdcoupures,' misreading, pronounciation errors, additions, omissions,
transpositions,and, finally, secondarymistakes). ' 18Furthermore, Chiron says that 119 copists,were often copying from a languagethat they did not master. There thus
seemto be endlesspossibilities to making errorsand diverging from the original text.
Thereare further complicationsof Porphyry's treatise.First, it is deprivedof
what G. Genettewould term a complete"paratexte. " As Genetteput it, " (le paratexte
est) ce par quoi un textese fait livre et se proposecomme tel ý seslecteurs, et plus
99120Genette here by g6ndralementau public. means that texts are accompanied a
variety of practices(such as titles, prefaces,etc. ) and discourses(what the world
would say abouta text), which participatein their presentationto the public
("pr6sentee%as well astheir actualization("pr6senter" as in "rendre pr6sent").But, 121 "ll est... desceuvres, disparues ou avort6es,dont nousne connaissonsque le titre."
Against the Christiansis thus a text, of which only an obscure"paratexte'9 remains,
i. e., not only is the title uncertain,but the text was very partially preservedby
Christianadversaries. As a result, it is very difficult to assessthe receptionof the
discoursesAgainst the Christiansin late antiquecircles, both paganand Christian, and
117Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue-Harnack Nr. 43a. 118Chiron, "Tibdrios citateur de DdmostMne," 107-118. 119Chiron, "Tibirios citateur de Ddmosth6ne," 108. 120G. Genette,Seuils (Paris: Seuil, 1987),7-9. "' Genette,Seuils, 9.
51 this it harder makes even to know the contentof the lost text. Genettefurther explains that, ". Un 616mentde A .. paratextepeut ... apparaitre tout moment,(et) 11peut
dgalementdisparaitre, d6finitivement ou non, par d6cisionde Fauteurou sur intervention dtrang&e,ou en vertu de Pusuredu temps., 122The discoursesagainst the Christians weremeant to disappearfor good when it was burnedon the ordersof
Christianemperors, although it is impossibleto confirm whethertheir edictswere
respected.
Ancient conventionsof citation are not the only factors,which may have
contributedto the Porphyrycreated by the Christians.There is alsothe subjectiveway
in which they might haveprocessed the text in their mind. In a major work entitledLa
Secondemain, Antoine Compagnontakes a philosophicallook at citation, and
explains how a reader systematically selectspassages of a text as part of a complex
readingprocess formed by the characteristicsof memory.He arguesthat there are
sentencesthat readersdo not read,and others that they will remember.It is those
sentencesthat they will cite. As he aptly put it, "Lorsque je cite, j'excise, je mutile, je
pr6l6ve.,, 123Compagnon defines four distinctive features of reading, namely
"ablation" or "taking out", underlining,accommodation, and solicitation. 124
122Genette, Seuils, 12. 123A. Compagnon,La secondemain, ou, le traval de la citation (Paris: Seuil, 1979),17. 124 Compagnon,La secondemain, 25. Compagnon'swork also containsa chapterentitled "Un comble, le discoursde la thdologie," in which he analysesthe principlesgoverning patristic commentaryin Late Antiquity, and how it is basedon citation. He developsthe idea that what he names"theological discourse"is a forever expandingrepetition in the form of a commentary,which hasas its sourcethe Bible. Compagnonmainly arguesthat, "L'argument patristiquea(... ) la valeur d'une preuveou d'une (p. 220) While Compagnon's be better confirmation de la doctrine ...... conclusionscould usedto explain the relationshipbetween Porphyry's text and Jerome'scommentaries (in that Porphyrycannot be a sourcefor Jerome,who was naturally more likely to look for authority in patristic scholars),it is not applicable, for Compagnon'sargument on patristic authority is not valid. In a recent article, E. Rebillard, "A New Style of Argument in Christian Polemic: Augustine and the Use of Patristic Citations," JECS 8.4 (2000): 559-78, reacheda different conclusion:"In his useof patristic citationsas an argumentin theological controversy,Augustine makes a clear distinction betweenthe authority of a single writer and the authority of the consensusof the largestnumber of writers. As a consequence,he criticizes or rejectsthe authority of an argumentfrom a patristic citation."
52 Compagnonargues that when someonereads, "(Sa) lectureproc&de d6jA d'un actede citation qui d6sagr6gele texte et d6tachedu contexte." He meansthat someone will cite the sentencesthat seemto them to be summarizingthe main idea of a book or to a paragraph,or other sentencesthat caughttheir attention.Reading thus allows one go back to a passage,and reorganize the text, in orderto makesure that they are following the Therefore, "La lecture dispose et A author's argument. ... au.souvenir l'imitation, A la (et) la lieu de un soit citation.... citation ... est un reconnaissance, rep6re de lecture." 125
The Christians,when they readeither the work thatwe entitleAgainst the
Christiansor secondhand material, must haveexperienced the readingprocess as
explainedby Compagnon.In the eventthat the text was readto them, they would have neededto assimilateits contentswiftly, andwould havememorized the passagesthat
madethe whole meaningfulto them,and others which they found of interest.What
needsto be understoodhere is what sort of sentencesor passagescaught their
attention,as well as the reasonwhy they eithermemorized or notedthese. What do the
Porphyrianfragments represent in their work? Do they representthe main ideasof the
text they cite from, so that they might representa summary,or were they "thrown"
into their work simply becausethey bore a relation to their own argument?The last
sectionof this thesisshould help to negotiatethis question.
Of interesthere is alsowhat Compagnondefines as "sollicitation. ", 26While
reading,the readerbumps into certainsentences in particular. For various reasons,a
specificsentence solicits their attention,and this doesnot necessarilyhappen because
it summarizesan idea.In the samefashion, Jerome must havebeen solicited by a few
125Compagnon, La secondemain, 18and 23. 126Compagnon, La secondemain, 18-23.
53 sentences,which caughthis attentioneither because he especiallydisliked themor
becausehe wantedto correctthem.
It follows that what the Christiansretained from Porphyrymight havebeen
influencedby their opinion of the philosopher.To Jerome,for instance,an ordained
Christianfrom the late fourth century,Porphyry's discourse is not legitimatefor
various reasons.First, as a pagan, he does not write from the right social perspective.
Although at the time he was writing (end of third century) paganism was still the
official religion, it had been unlawful since 391 (edict of Theodosius 1) when Jerome
was writing, and therefore Christianity was not under threat. Furthermore, Porphyry is
not Christian; he cannot talk about Christianity, and even less so on behalf of
Christians. Jerome writes as a Christian in ftill authority, while Porphyry "speaks
wrong. "
Furthermore, Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine's status as Christians-and
therefore as followers of the official religion in Rome, in the case of Jerome and
Augustine-might haveshaped the way they usedthe discoursesAgainst the
Christians.According to Genettel27 and Compagnon,Plato, in book 3 of Republic, identified two narrativegenres in poetry, namelypure narrative-when the poet speakson his own behalf-and mimesis (or imitation)-when the poet wantsto give the illusion that a characteris speaking.Plato forbadethe useof "oratio recta" (direct speech)to the guardiansof his ideal city, becauseit was a mimesis,i. e. an imitation, dangerousfor their soul in that it consistsin imitating the discourseof another,talking on their behalf,therefore making one's speechsimilar to someoneelse's through imitation. In other words,it implied appropriatingtheir discourse.Mimesis is a The thus representationthrough art, andit was usedprimarily by the poet. philosopher
127G. Genette,Figures III (Paris: 1972),184.
54 forbids poetry for guardians, becauseit lacks a direct relationship to truth. To Plato, in turn, indirect speech is acceptable, since it is deprived of mimesis, and therefore closer to truth. 128
Mimesis is thus the processby which one appropriatesthe words-or discourse-of someoneelse. However, the Christians,when they cite Porphyry, appropriatehis discourse,but not for the purposeof imitation. They rephraseit at their convenience,remember what either helpedthem to makesense of the philosopher's treatise,or solicited their attentionwhile readingit (Compagnon),and find an appropriatespace for themselvesin the text wherethey will be able to oppose
Porphyryand showhim under a distastefullight. Furthermore,the Christiansmay well havelooked for evidencethey could cite againstPorphyry by selectingthe quotation,which do most damage,a standardrhetorical technique.129
According to theoriesof intertextuality,one of the voices,which influence the writing of any text is the audience.In this case,Porphyry's audiencebecomes the
Church fathers' audience,for his ideassurvive in texts that will be readby their readers.Genette, in Seuils,explains how the author's original prefaceis targeting specificreaders by settingout clearly the 30To purposeand scope of the work .1 Genette,an authorcannot put his work forward in its preface,for it would be presumptuous,but may at leastuse it to point out its accuracy,and thereforecatch the 131 audience'sattention. In his Commentaryon Daniel (written in 407), Jeromestates that althoughPorphyry has written a whole book on Daniel, he doesnot intend to
128Compagnon, La secondemain, 10 1- 105. 129 SeeG. Clark, "Augustine's Porphyry and the Universal Way of Salvation," in Studieson porphyry, G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppard(eds. ), (London: 2007), 133, who arguesthat Augustine, in City Of God, selectedfrom Porphyrywhat would makehim soundlike a Christian. 130Genette, Seuils, 197. 131 Genette, Seuils, 191.
55 answerthe philosopher,for Eusebius,Apolfinarius andMethodius have already done 132 so extensively. Furthen-nore,by the early fifth century, the work that we call
Against the Christians was not supposed to be freely circulating and read. Jerome and
Augustine empower themselves by delivering the unavailable work to posterity, a
mighty deviceagainst the enemyof Christendom,for not only is the treatisemeant to
disappearover time, but its authoris no longeralive to defendhimself andaddress his
own audience.Jerome and Augustineare alone with an inaccessiblework, andthey do
as they pleasewith it. In the process,they appropriatePorphyry's audience. The
Church fathersare in a positionto promotetruth, andthis is what their discourseis
meant to represent.
How methodology may influence assumptions
Not taking into accountall the methodologicaland literary considerationscan
lead to mistaken claims about the discoursesAgainst the Christians. Examples of such
mistakes made even by an expert, relying on Hamack, rather than on an analysis of
Jerome's use of Porphyry, can be found in R. Wilken's The Christians as the Romans
Saw Them. In his chapter on Porphyry, Wilken writes that Jerome answered Porphyry
on Daniel "verse by verse." 133But Jerome himself says that his task was "not to long answer the calumnies of (their) adversaries,which would require a discussion,
but to plant here and there what was said to (the Christians) by the prophet, (he)
remind(s) in (his) preface, that none of the prophets has spoken so clearly about
132Jerome, Commentaryon Daniel Prologue-Harnack Nr. 43a. "cui solertissime responderunt EusebiusCaesariensis episcopus tribus uoluminibus, octauo decimo et nono decimo et uicesimo, Apollinaris quoqueunc, grandi fibro, hoc est uicesimo sexto, et ante hos ex parte Methodius.11 (CCL 75A:772) 133Wilken, Christians, 138.
56 Christ."' 34Further on, Jeromewrites: "And wheneverthe occasionarose in the course ""' Harnack of the explanation,I attemptedto respondbriefly to thesecalumnies. .. . preservedvery little of the context,and, as a result, fragments43a and b are misleading.Indeed, the cover-texttells us aboutthe task Jeromehad setfor himself, andhow he intendedto treatthe Porphyrianproblem. Jeromeclearly did not plan a formal refutation,even less a "verseby verse" one.Wilken evidently readJerome's
Commentaryon Daniel, for he notedthat Porphyry's interpretationof Daniel 9 is absentfrom Jerome'scommentary on the samepassage (this is discussedlater in
Daniel 12.7-11),but seemsto havebeen misled by Harnackwhen he saidthat Jerome answeredPorphyry verse by verse.' 36
Later on, Wilken asks:"Why shouldPorphyry devote such attention to the
Book Daniel ?9037 It is from Porphyry'sbook 12, he Daniel, that of ... which wrote on the most extensiveset of fragmentssurvives. Wilken rightly notesthat this topic wasa highly sensitiveone for the Churchat the time, for the book was saidto havebeen written by Daniel during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,and to foretell the coming of
Christ andthe destructionof the templeof Jerusalem.Porphyry, when he claimedthat the book hadbeen written at a later period (during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes
IV) andby different authors,meant that the book was historical ratherthan
134Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue-Hamack Nr. 43a. "Verum quia nobis propositurnest nOn aduersariicalumniis respondere,quae Iongo sermone indigent, sed ea quae a propheta dicta Sunt nostris disserere, id est Christianis, Mud in praefatione commoneo,nullum prophetarumtam aperte dixisse de Christo." The passagein bold is not in Hamack,but only in Jerome.(CCL 75A:772) in 135Jerome, Commentaryon Daniel Prologue-Harnack Nr. 43a. "Et tarnen sicubi se occasiO explanatione elusdem uolurninis dederit, calumniae illius strictim respondere conabor, et philosophiaeartibus, immo malitiae saeculari, per quam subuerterenititur ueritatem, et quibusdarn praestigiisclarum oculorurnlumen auferre,explanatione simplici contraire." (CCL 75A:772) 136See Wilken, Christians, 142-3.
137Wilken, Christians, 138.
57 prophetical, and a forgery at that. 138Without unden-nining the importance of this topic,
can we say with confidence that Porphyry devoted more attention to it than to others?
The philosopherclearly succeededat creatingunease within the Church,for, as
Jerome reports, his criticism on Daniel earned him extensive replies from Eusebius,
Apollinarius, andMethodius. But a closerlook at Jerome'scommentary on Daniel
revealsthat he cited lengthy passagesfrom Porphyryon Daniel II only, not on the
other books.Jerome interpreted the eyesof the smallhorn of the fourth beastin
Daniel II as representingthe anti-Christ,while Porphyryassociated it with Antiochus,
who, accordingto him, uprootedall the other horns,or kings, andtherefore their
kingdoms.This meansthat Jeromeconcentrated his efforts on answeringPorphyry on
that point only. Lessis extantfrom the rest of Porphyry'scommentary on Daniel, for
the philosopheris mentionedenpassant in relation to Daniel2,3,5,7, and9. Jerome
only felt the needto answerhim when it cameto the anti-Christ,and it is on Daniel II
that he reproducesthe lengthiestpassages. Perhaps Jerome thought that Porphyryhad
not yet beenanswered in a satisfyingway on thatpoint? To contradicthis adversary,
the Church fatherused the samemethod, i. e. he performeda historicalinterpretation
of Daniel.139 In sum, Wilken's statementneeds to be given morenuances. While it is
true that devotingan entirebook to Daniel is remarkablein thatit showsa needto
downgradeits importance,what is extantof it is not at all representativeof its original
138Porphyry followed Theodotion's reading, a Hellenistic Jew who translatedthe Bible into Greek c.180-190. See Jerome,Commentary on Daniel 11.44.45-Hamack Nr. 43u. quia secutusest Theodotionisinterpretationem. " (CCL 75A:93 1) 139Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue-Harnack Nr. 43c. "Ad intellegendas autem extremas historia Sutorii Callinici, Diodori, partes Danielis, multiplex Graecorurn necessaria est: uidelicet Hieronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronyci cognomento Alipi, quos et Porphyrius secuturn esse se dicit, losephi quoque et eorum quos ponit losephus, praecipoeque nostri Liuii, et Pompei lustini. (CCL 75A: 775) Trogi, atque .. ."
58 content.Contextualizing the work would allow us to avoid making suchassumptions as"(Jerome) cites (Porphyry)at length in the commentary.""'
140Wilkcn, Christians, 138.
59 II-Eusebius
The first Christianauthor in whosecorpus many passages from Porphyryappear
to be extant is Eusebiusof Caesarea,one of the most importantChristian writers of Late
Antiquity. We will first apply the methodologyand theories discussed in the previous
chapteron him, becausechronologically, he comesbefore Jerome and Augustine, and we
want to get an idea of how Porphyrywas preserved at that time. As an eye-witnessto the
GreatPersecution and the accessionof Constantineto the throne,Eusebius' legacy as the
father of Church History and his general work on Christianity stand at the forefront of
important religious transformations in the Roman empire. Porphyry's anti-Christian
treatiseand Eusebius's Church History, Preparationfor the Gospel,and Proofs of the
Gospels may be closely related in time, as will be discussed.Furthermore, we know from
Jerome that Eusebius wrote twenty-five books in responseto the Neoplatonist
philosopher's invectives. ' Where does Porphyry stand in Eusebius' corpus? Scholars have 2 long seen Porphyry as standing at the centre of Eusebius' apologetic work, but recently
some have seriously questioned the relevance of such claims not only by challenging the 3 authorship of the Eusebeian fragments, but also by arguing against the view that
4 it is difficult Eusebius was ever an apologist at all. Some ftirther argue that to claim that for Eusebius does PE and DE are a refutation of the discourses Against the Christians, not
I Jerome, Letter 48.13 to Pammachus. 2 Since Harnack, "Porphyrius, Gegen die Christen," selected Nr. I from Eusebius'PE 1.2.1-5, and argued that this passagewas extracted from Porphyry's proem. 3 S. Morlet, "La Dgmonstration &angilique d'Eus&be de Usarde contient-elle des fragments du Contra Chrislianos de Porphyre? A propos du frg. 73 Hamack, " forthcoming in Studia Patrislica vol. XLVl (Peeters, 2010): 59-64, ed. J. Baun, A. Cameron, M. Edwards and M. Vinzent; A. Johnson, "Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry, c. Christ. fr. I, " (forthcoming Studia Patristica); J. Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament, (Peabody: 2002). 4 C. Zamagni, "Porphyry est-il la cible principale des 'questions' chr6tiennes des We et Ve si6cles?" (forthcoming in Collection des hudes A ugustiniennes); see also A. Kofsky, Eusebius of CaesareaAgainst Paganism (Brill: 2002), 17, who argues that those who see in Eusebius' apolegetic and polemical work a response to Porphyry do so without sufficient proof
60 5 mention such an intention in either works. We are trying to establish whether or not actual 'fragments' of the discourses against the Christians can be found in Eusebius, and how far Eusebius' agenda obsucres Porphyry's original arguments during the citation process. This is where the "cover-text, " as defined by Schepens,will become a necessary tool. We shall thereforetest Schepens'methodological approach to the gatheringof fragmentsagainst Eusebius. We shall then test Kidd's views on the presentationof a fragmentcollection, which would includethe context of any given fragment, andtry to
establishin which conditionsany Eusebianpassage can appearin a collection of
fragmentsof the work that hasbeen entitled Against the Christians.
But is there sucha thing as a 'Eusebianfragment'? Recent studies have sought to
demonstratethat oneshould be doubtful of Eusebiusas a sourcefor Porphyry,when the latter is not named.The main argumentpresented as a challengeto advocatesof Eusebian
fragmentsis that the style of the anonymousGreek in Eusebius'Preparation for the
Gospeland Proof of the Gospelis closerto that of Celsusthan to that of Porphyry.The
fragmentsat stakeare I and 73 of the Harnackcollection. Their associationwith
Porphyryis surroundedby a long history of academicdebate. Indeed, Harnack viewed the
contentof I as a possiblesummary of Porphyry'smain argumentagainst the Christians
as it was presentedin his treatise.He classifiedit under the title: "Wahrscheinlichaus der
Vorrede" (probablyfrom the Harnack prologue).6 explainsthat U. von Wilamowitz-
M61lendorffhas proved suchan association,and identifies sharedvocabulary between
this passageand 28 and39, aswell asLetter to Marcella 18, amongothers. 7 The
5 Kofsky, Eusebius,250. 6 Hamack,'Torphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 45. "Man darf dem Eingangdes Werks " sie zuschreiben. is 7 Hamack,'Torphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 45. N. B.: while Nr. 39 is ftom EusebiusHE 6.19.2,Nr. 28 from Macarius,and thereforedoubtful.
61 assumption is, therefore, that the anonymous Hellene, to whom Eusebius addresseshis answers, could be Porphyry. Nr. I reads as follows:
"For a start,one might well be seriouslypuzzled as to who we arethat
havecome forwardas authors:whether we arebarbarians or Hellenes -or
what could therebe betweenthese? -; and what we saywe are - not just
our name,because that is actuallyclear to all, but our characterand way of
life. For they see that we are not either on the side of the Greeks in our
ideas,nor of the barbariansin our practices.Therefore what is it aboutus
that is foreign, andhow havewe revolutionizedlife? How could they not
be entirely impious and atheistic, these people who have renounced the
ancestraldivinities thatguaranteed the cohesionof any people,and of any
city? Or what good is it reasonableto expectof thosewho havebecome
hostile, andenemies of all that leadsto their preservation,and who have
rejected their benefactors? What is that but fighting against the gods? What
sort of forgiveness do people deservewho have turned their backs on the
theologiansfrom all times, all Greeksand barbarians,in cities and
countrysidealike, in all kinds of templesand initiationsand mysteries by
all kings and law-giversand philosophers together, and have chosen
insteadwhatever in humanaffairs is impious andatheistic? To what sort of
punishmentshould they not be subjected,those men who havedeserted
ancestralcustoms to becomezealots of the Jews' weird fables,universally
criticized?Is it notthe last degree of perversity,as well asfickleness, to
abandontheir own institutionsand calmly to adopt,in unreasoningand
62 unconsideredfaith thoseof an impious peoplewho areenemies of every by the nation?And not evento devotethemselves to the God honoured for Jewsin a way that accordswith the Jews'ownlaws, but to cut
themselvesa new, lonely path that is no path,and doesnot respectthe
traditions either of the Greeksor of the Jews?,,8 PE SdbastienMorlet arguesthat it is not Porphyrythat Eusebiusis answeringin it andDE, but Celsus.9 He analysedthe style of HarnackNr. 73 andcompared to the as manuscript.He found many indicationsthat Harnackhad truncated the text, as well In his parallelsbetween the vocabularyused in Eusebiusand Celsus, but not in Porphyry. book LapologMque cWtienne 6 Vepoquede Constantin:la D6monstration6vang6lique for d'Eusýbede Cgsarge,which is forthcoming,Morlet has shown how Eusebius'source
the anti-Christianpolemic was Celsus.To him, therefore,only two of the six fragments 10). found in PE andDE are Porphyrian,namely Nr. 41 (PE 1.9.21) andNr. 80 (PE 5.1- in both Morlet cites,for instance,the term "sycophantes",which is conspicuouslypresent
8 Eusebius, PE 1.2.1-5. "rIP(ÖTOV UM 8ICtnOpýCrFIE: ÜVE9 ÖVTE9ýA TýV YPct(PýV KýV Yäp EiK6T0)ý Ttý V, '1'VCL'_ ncLpe),illi)OagEv, lcöTFpov -EUilwý fi ßäpßCtp01, fi Ti EMYÜVOITO TO-ÖT(üV gýcyov, Kai TiVaý ýaUT0i)ý F, 9(Iýfflg 0'Ü TýV IEPOGIJYOPiCLV,ÖTI K(II TÖ% ICÜCYIVZKÖTIXOý (LÜTII, älkä TäV TP6nOV KUI TýV npOaiPF-(Y'VTol) ý Iccto, ßio,u- of),rc yäp Tä'EUAv(ov (ppovoßvTctýöpäv ATE ýrä ßctpßäpwvýniTnöcýöovT(Iý. -ri oi)V iiv ybo'TO "0 6 ÜÜFOI Agäý #VOV KQI Tg VE(OTSPIGgäý TOÜ ßiOU; Ird)ý 5' Olý ltGtVTCLXÖOCVblUGCF£ßE71ý ÜV EIEV Kctl Oi T6)V änocrrävTFg, 8t' 90VOý rolýý MITP(ýCOV 060)V WV ndV KOCIIräga 1tAtý OUVigT1lKEV; A Ti K(IXÖV ýx71i0U1 EiKäý, TWV CYCOTllpiWV9X0P0Üý K(II ICOIF- giOU; KCLTa(ITäVTCLgKal TOÜ; CIÜEP'19TCLýIr(IPO)(YCtkLkV01)ý KOLI Ti TÖLPiiÄ10 A OSOýtGtXO'ÜVTCLý;nOiaý KCLTCtgt(OÜAGFGOCttOMM6)gllg Uffiý TO'Üg « CLUVog pýV ltCtpä ltttCrtV'TU1lC; l Kai ßCtpßäpotý KctT6 TG 7r Kal äypOi)ý 7[GtVT0i01ý kpO% K(II TEý£TOL71;KOCI 91)OTIlpiOtý lEpäý &7[äVTO)V 6gof) ßctcrinctvToi01ý isPO% Kat TF,)£Ta% Kal gU()TllpiDtý Ilpäý älräVTQ)V 6g015 ß(ICYtleC0V TE Kal V0gO0ET(ÖV K(II (P"06(P(1)V OFOAOYO')gýVo älto(YrpCL(pMCtý, 9X0J1bOUg 8t TÜ äGEßfi KUI ÜOEU TG)V tV äV0P6)71019; 710i(Itý 8' OýK ÜV b8iKÜ)ý lýlCoßýlleje S' TI)lWpialý Oi TUN gb naTpiWV glUyäÖ£g, T6W öovci(t)VKai irctpä nttcrt ölaßgßkij)Itvcov'l01)8(1iK(OV)ll)OOIO(T1RäT(OV YEV6ýLEVOI gll)ý(OTai; 1Z0)ý 8' Olý 6V goXOlpiGtgEtvat Kal EýÜXCP£iütgýýäT119 TÖggrÜt0t(; ÜCLI ktb ElýKÖXWýTOIV OiKFÜOV, äk6-«P St K(XI i0V9(Yl kU(YOC(t, itiCITFI TÜ TG)V8'U(YCY£ß(bV KGLI ItrICYIV 7C0)£ýtiWV Kal ýt118'(AT(b T(ý 7[Upä'IolL)bCtiOtý'rIPÜ)PV(9 ktA"' 0Ce KOLTÜTÜ 7[Gtp'CL'ÜTOi; IrPOCCLVtX£IV VÖJAWU, K(IIAV Öt TIV(I Kai ipýkL11V('ZVO8iG(V eG(UTO% 01)VTEýC'VI ýtý,r6 Tä ! XÄAVWVRA-rg ýrä'Iouöaiwv (pi)läTToi)crctv; Taf)Ta RkV OUVEiK6M)ý VT 'EÄÄýv(t)v, gijöäv äxlloýý T(j)v oilcpitt)v gýTe Tiov m0' ýgüg braTiow, irpäg ýgilg änopýestav. " (ed. K. Mras) 9 Morlet, 'Ta DMonstration ývangýliqued'Eusebe. "
63 Eusebiusand Origen (Against Celsus), but absentfrom Porphyry'scorpus. However,
Morlet alsonotes that somewords, althoughpresent in Celsusand Eusebius,are typical
of Eusebius.He thus concludesthat Nr. 73 is not Porphyrian,but mainly Celsian,and
was taintedby Eusebius'style. However,Morlet's soundanalysis of Eusebius',
Porphyry's, Origen'sand Celsus' Greekdoes not take into considerationapproaches to
citation in Antiquity. As S. Inowlocki has shown,any authorwas prone to makechanges
to the texts they wereciting from, especiallyin caseswhere the original text was profane,
and,as we haveshown, even more so in casesof opponents,who arenot consideredas
intellectualauthorities. Recovering either Celsus or Porphyrymeans reading Origen on
Celsusand Eusebius on Porphyry.Therefore, both On TrueDoctrine and the discourses
against the Christians are very likely to have been transfon-nedalong the way.
Furthermore, Jerome says that Eusebius wrote a lengthy refutation of Porphyry in 25
volurnes; ' 0why, then, would he have repeated his argument in PE and DE? And why
would he have written the work Against Celsus, and not name him? But Morlet's
conclusions on how Eusebius adapted Celsus serve to strengthen Inowlocki's ideas on the
citation process in Antiquity, and also provide good evidence that many passagesthat
have been ascribed to Porphyry are only vaguely related to him, and may only belong to
the broader anti-Christian argument. They are not 'fragments' of Porphyry. Also,
further insist Morlet's analysis of the language of Harnack gives us reasonsto on revising his Porphyrian his work, and not be content with a mere translation or re-organisation of
material. Going back to the 'cover-texts' from which passagesfrom the discourses
Against the Christians were extracted is thus a mandatory step in the reconstruction of
Porphyry's ideas.
10Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue.
64 both himself Morlet, Following the samelead - andwriting, unbeknownstto and Nr. I the basisof at the sametime - Aaron Johnsonhas questioned the authorshipof on Eusebius'failure to identify the attackshe mentionswith a specificauthor, the rhetorical that style (in the form of questionsand answers), which is typically Eusebian,and, finally, Morlet the vocabularyof the passagewas also typically Eusebianrather than Celsian,as
argues." Johnsoncould also not find a clearcorrespondence between the ideasput
forward by Eusebius,and those expressed in Porphyry'sworks, as regardsthe notion of
6apostasy.' In PE, the anonymousGreek arguesthat the Christianshave rejected their
previousway of life. But Eusebius,Johnson explains, wants us to think, in HE, that
Porphyryattacks Origen for being an apostatefrom Hellenism,when he actually simply
wantsto say that Origen andthe Christiansin generalwere not applying Greek learning
propertywhen they usedit to decipher"Jewish riddles." Johnsonargues that the
vocabularyrelating to 'apostasy,' which is found in both Eusebiusand Porphyry, is not
usedto conveythe samemeaning: Porphyry, when he talks aboutapostatising from the
previouslife, meanswithdrawing from the public sphereas a philosopher.Therefore, Nr- Johnsonconcludes, it is not becausecommon words arepresent in both Porphyryand
I that the idea expressedis similar: the anonymousGreek meansapostatising frorn
ancestral,religious tradition, while Porphyry,when he usessuch a term, refers to either
withdrawing from societyor misusingGreek learning. But Johnson'sconclusions are not the convincing.As J. Cook noted,it seemsthat Porphyry's assertionactually goesbeyond
misuseof the allegoricalmethod of interpretation:
Besidesthe echoes with HE 6.19.4-8("Christians who leavetheir ancestral to religionand who becomezealots for foreignJewish mythologies are justly subjected
11Johnson, "Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry," see53-58 n.6.
65 any sort of punishment"- Cook's translation),the text from Eusebiusis relatedto
Porphyry's commentsto his lapsedvegetarian friend, Castricius,in On Abstinence
(1.2.3).There he tells Castriciusthat he doesnot scornhis ancestraltraditions
(vegetarianism)because of greed.He alsodoes not havea natureinferior to peoplewho
acceptlaws contraryto thoseby which they oncelived andendure the amputationof their 12 body parts andrefuse to eat the flesh of certainanimals. Thereare thusechoes not only
of Eusebius,but alsoof Porphyry.
The Porphyriancriticisms mentionedin PE fit with argumentsin Porphyry's
extant works, which inavalidates Johnson's thesis. First, in The Proof of the Gospel,
Eusebius reports that according to Porphyry, "[they - the Christians] cannot at all provide
[them] anything by way of proof but [they] think that the people who encounter should
rely entirely on faith, " who shut their eyes to any form of examination, an attitude which
13 his On earned them the title of "faithful. " Second, Porphyry devoted a good part of
Abstinence to documenting ancestral customs of the Greeks and the barbarians, which all
pointed to a way of life very close to the philosophic way he aspired to. Porphyry says the
have true ancestral custom is vegetarian, both in diet and sacrifice, and that all traditions
an ascetic elite; the true philosopher will stay clear of current sacrificial practice, which
" than interested may be necessary for cities to placate daimones. Porphyry was thus more
he to the in identity-related questions. As Jeremy Schott argues, wanted re-establish
15 in both On Abstinence Letter difference between Greeks and barbarians. Next, and the
link between to Marcella 18 22 23, written to his wife, Porphyry makes the antiquity and
12Cook, TheInterpretation of the New Testament,134. 13 Eusebius,DE 1.1.12 HarnackNr. 73. "68& yol5výp6ý Uvao0al ycLcrt61,6710564M; 7[aptXEW, 7liaTEt - ýýITIV " (ed. Heikel) R p6vfl RPOCItX61V 64WOV T0b; 71P0(716VTa;. 14G. Clark, OnAbstinencefrom Killing Animals (London: 2000). 15J. Schott,"Porphyry on Christiansand Others:'Barbarian Wisdom', Identity Politics, and Anti-Christian Polemicson the Eve of the GreatPersecution, " JECS 13 no3 (2005): 277-314.
66 truth very obvious.16 He also explainshow the godsshould be worshipped,i. e. through traditional, paganchannels as far asthe ordinary man is concerned,or through an assiduous,demanding, and silent discipline in the caseof the philosopher.irrational thinking is thereforenot an appropriateway to the One.
So Nr. I is not inconsistentwith Porphyry's thoughtin other works, but we can concludefrom Johnson'sanalysis that Nr I is not a 'fragment' from Porphyry,but rather part of anti-Christianideas that Eusebiusgathered from different pagansources (e. g. frOn,
Celsus,Porphyry, Maximinus Daia, and/orHierocles). It is in that respectonly that we can considerPorphyry as being relatedto Nr. 1. After all, as JohnCook hasnoted, there are parallelsbetween the ideasexpressed by Eusebius'Greek in PE and thoseexpressed in a passagefrom Eusebius' ChurchHistory, which is undoubtedlyPorphyrian. Cook addsthat becausethe "complaint that Christiansdo not arguefor their faith" was also
foundin Celsusand Galen,it continuesa tradition." As a result, we should seeNr. I as belongingto the overall argumentagainst the Christians,to which Porphyry certainly
contributed,more than as a passageper se of the discoursesAgainst the Christians.
A closerlook at Eusebius'rhetorical strategiesallows us to doubt seriouslythat
we may be holding authenticpassages of the work that we may call Against the
Christians.We shall first look at Eusebius'pattern when referring to secularauthors. l1r,
Eusebiusand the JewishAuthors, S. Inowlocki notesthat Eusebius'PE and DE consist
almost entirely of citations-71% in the caseof PE, while DE consistsmainly in
16 Porphyry, in book I of On Abstinence,gives credit to the most ancientpeoples for their attitude toward ho, sacrifice,and their way of life. In Letter to Marcella 18 and 22-3, he explainsthat the proper way to 1010 the gods is accordingto traditional customs. 17Cook, New Testament,134.
67 18 citations. We have already pointed out the problem of citations in Antiquity; Inowlock,
argues that Eusebius' method makes him stand out from the other ancient citers. Indeed, does not only Eusebius unintentionally changethe meaning of the passageshe quotes, he
also uses citations as a rhetorical technique, claiming it will allow his reader to get an
impartial picture of the Greek arguments he exposes in PE, as opposed to reading his own
words. In the words of A. Kofsky, this method "allow(s) (the pagans') testimony to speak
for (them)self rather than quoting evidence from the Scriptures, so as to avoid raising 19 suspicion of being biased in favour of Christianity. " Eusebius' aim is to appear as an
objective and faithful witness. He thus wished to expose "the contradictions (the pagan
religious and philosophical concepts) presented in every field. ý920"When Eusebius cites
opponents such as Porphyry, Inowlocki says, "he aims to shatter the foundations of 21 paganism by using their [the opponents'] own testimonies. , In other words, Eusebius
exposes the pagan doctrines in order to turn them against the pagans.We shall see later
on that Augustineuses a similar rhetoricaltechnique. To Kofsky, this is a direct response
to pagancritics of Christianity, namelyCelsus and Porphyry,who had alsosought to show ChristianScripture as being full of contradictions.In sum, the purposeof presenting 22 pagansources is to further Eusebius'argument about the truth of Scripture. The consequenceof theseclaims for the presentstudy is that Eusebiuswould certainlyhave chosenthe passagesfrom his opponentsthat would be most harmful to them.Even if he meansto offer an impartial account,we may assumethat Eusebiusmade a personal selectionfrom Porphyry,which would allowed him to portray the mannegatively.
18Inowlocki, Eusebius,54. 19 A. Kofsky, Eusebius of CaesareaAgainsl Paganism (Boston: 2002), 240. 20Kofsky, Eusebius, 240. 21Inowlocki, Eusebius, 56. 22Kofsky, Eusebius, 244.
68 Eusebius' method is therefore treacherous: he claims to be reporting objectively for the purpose of exposing the truth (Christianity), which will become evident to anyone from a comparison of Greek and Christian doctrines, but he still selected the passageshe quoted.
Moreover, Eusebius is more faithftil to the text than other writers, and, as Inowlocki has noted, there is a clear distinction in Eusebius between his words and those of the cited authors, for he uses "linguistic markers," as well as book and chapter titles to mark the beginning and end of a passage.However, although he claims to be citing literally, taking him at his word would mean understanding citations in a modem way. "
Furthennore, Eusebius uses 'Targument par autorit65924as a strategy when citing authorsand, Inowlocki adds,this is especiallythe casewith PE. That is to say,most Of the time, Eusebiuswill namethe authorshe quotesfrom, aswell as the reasonswhy theY are famous,so that his argumentis reinforcedwhen pagansrecognise their authority.
However,although he will alsoname the famousauthors, he will not explainwhere their reputationcomes from, assumingthat his readerswill be awareof it; Inowlocki cites
Plotinus andPlutarch as examplesof peoplewho "require no introduction." That is to SO, when he talks aboutPorphyry, he doesname him, but he doesnot mention his nameor in in anyone particular the introductionto his PE (HamackNr. 1). This, again,could fact point to the that Porphyryalone was not the authorof the attacksEusebius mentions in book. that But onemust not forget that Eusebiushad refuted Porphyryextensively in Against Porphyry. It could be taking for grantedthat his readerswould know aboutthat work andits content.
23Inowlocki, Eusebius,68-69. 24Inowlocki, Eusebius,6 1. cf 0. Ducrot,Le Dire et le Dit (Paris-,1984), 158.
69 Beyond theseproblems related to Eusebius'faithfulness to a text, Inowlocki
remindsus that the problemof ancientcitations and manuscripts must be takeninto
account.Indeed, there are Eusebius'original texts, in which the citationslie in indirect
transmission,but thereare also the medievalmanuscripts, directly copiedfrom Eusebius.
As we havealready shown, these 25 can containerrors of multiple types. Therefore, Inowlocki argues,it is difficult to assessthe faithfulnessof Eusebiusby comparingthe
manuscriptsthat we haveof his works with thoseof the ancientauthors hrom which he
quoted. The problem is further enhanced in the case of Porphyry, for we do not even have
manuscriptsof all of his works. It is thusimpossible to establishwhether Eusebius
preservedthe literal passages,and whetherwhat we haveof Eusebiusis faithful to his
original words.
Inowlocki used Plato's and Plutarch's texts to understandhow Eusebius was citing
from paganauthors, for, shesays, we still havetheir textsand cancompare with
Eusebius'citations, but this is not the casewith most of the authorsthat he quotesfrom.
Shenotes that althoughthe Church father is consideredby modemscholars to be among
the ancientChristians who cite most faithfully, thereis evidencethat he tamperedwith
the original text. For instance,in Preparation 11.29.4,Eusebius adapted Timaeus 28c 3-4
to his "Christian andNeoplatonic credo. 1926 In addition,Eusebius has a reputationfor
being carelesswith quotations- Bidez has,among others, noted this whenworking on 27 Porphyry's fragmentsin PE Scholarly it to the . opinionsvary when comes the intentionality of Eusebius'tampering with texts,but, accordingto Inowlocki, we must at
25 SeeChiron, "Tibdrios citateur de D6mosth&ne," cited in chapter1. 26See Inowlocki, Eusebius,87-88. cf Favrelle,Eusýbe de Cgsarge.La Pr9paralion ivangilique IX (SC 292:383), 27B idez, Videde Porphyry, 144.
70 degree least be aware that he is modifying the original to a certain and that this was
furthers hoping find common practice at the time. This our argument that to original in favour passagesfrom the discourses against the Christians should be abandoned of a is more all-encompassing approach, i. e. we must understand that what extant of the
treatise are ideas, references, and allusions to Porphyry, tainted by Eusebius' own
concerns,beliefs, andunderstanding, and most possiblyentangled in the existing anti-
Christianargument. We do not havethe actualwords of the philosopher.
Kofsky also arguesthat consideringPE andDE as a refutationof Porphyryis a 28 difficult claim to make, for in neitherwork doesEusebius mentions such an intention.
According to Kofsky, Eusebiusused Porphyry as a representativeof paganreligion and
philosophyin order to discreditpaganism and promote Christianity. Sincehe had already
written AgainstPorphyry, what he presentsto his readersis a summaryof his major 29 arguments- hencethe silenceon the discoursesAgainst the Christians.
Eusebius' Porpbyry
Eusebiusis our earliestsource for Porphyry(his datesare ca.275-339). We knOý
from Jerome'sCommenta? y on Daniel that at somepoint, Eusebiuswrote a refutationof
Porphyry's argumentagainst the Christians,and dedicated books 18,19, and20 to an
Porphyry's book 12 Daniel 30 date is, answerto on . The of EusebiusAgainst Porphyry
however,unknown, andits twenty-five volumesare lost, but Kofsky suggeststhat it MOY
28Kofsky, Eusebius,250. 29Kofsky, Eusebius,275. 30Jerome, Commentary in Daniel Prologue: cui solertissimeresponderunt Eusebius Caesariensis decimo decimo episcopustribus uoluminibus,octauo et nono et uicesimo ... 11
71 be 31 an early Work. The title Against Porphyry is mentioned in the Codex Laurentianus (Nr. 8), one of the manuscripts of Eusebius' Church History (I 0_II 1hC. ). It can be found
in Florence, 32 at the Medicean-Laurentian library. If Eusebius engagedwith the
discoursesAgainst the Christiansin EvangelicalPreparation and Proof of the Gospel,
composedbetween 314 and318, he did not do so earlierin Chronicleand Ecclesiastical
History. L desPlaces noted in his introductionto the edition of the Evangelical
Preparationthat Porphyryis quoted96 times in the EvangelicalPreparation, and his
various writings are regularly referred to, whereasEusebius seemsnot to have known a
lot about him when he wrote his Chronicle, presumably around 306 according to R.
Burgess' dating, and Ecclesiastical History - first version composedaround 313/314
again according to Burgess.33 Nor does Eusebius in these earlier works seem to see
Porphyry as a major threat to Christianity. This is, however, most probably due to the
content of Eusebius' works, since he focuses on specific parts of Porphyry's critique.
Both the Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History were meant to establish a history of the
Church and its chronology. We thus find in these two works one fragment on the date of 34 Moses, and one on Origen's allegories as part of a biography of Origen. As for the
Evangelical Preparation and the Proof of the Gospel, which were two parts of a single work designed to explain Christianity, we find what may be a synthesis of the pagans' thesis on Christianity and its dangers, as well as a few Porphyrian passagesrelated to the
31Kofsky, Eusebius,7 1. 32 Kofsky, Eusebius,71-72, suggests that the Churchhistorian Socratesmight havegot the story of Porphyry's youth as a Christian(HE 3.23) from Eusebius'AgainsiPorphyry. He alsonotes that two Greek (on he cataloguesfrom the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturies mention Eusebius'manuscript this, refers his readersto Hanarck,Chronologie 11,118, and Stevenson,Studies, 36). 33See L desPlaces, Eusebýbe de Cesaree.La Preparation ývangilique. I SC 206 (Paris: 1974);R. W. " Burgess,"The Datesand Editionsof Eusebius'Chronici Canonesand Historia Ecclesiastica. JAS 48 0997): 486. 34 Nr. 39. Eusebius,Chronicle Preface - HarnackNr. 40; Eusebius,HE 6.19.1-9- Harnack
72 35 first date of Moses, Daniel, and the evangelists. The choice of passagesappears, at sight, to depend on the subject matter of the books.
Let us now look at Porphyry in Eusebius as represented by the Hamack collection.
According to Harnack, Eusebius allowed three categories of passagesto be preserved:
attacks on dogma; attacks on the New Testament, and the evangelists and apostles; and two attacks on the Old Testament. Eusebius is also our primary source for the content of he books that Porphyry wrote "against us (the Christians), " namely books 3 and 4, since
refersto them by their number.We havealready looked at the contentof Nr. 1, from
Eusebius'preface. It seemsto summarizethe pagans'general critique, or at leastthe
reasonwhy Eusebiusanswered the questionsof the Greeks.Nr. I mainly saysthat the
Christianshave abandoned the commonreligious tradition. What seemsto be at stakeare 36Their Christianidentity andfideism - arethe ChristiansGreeks or barbarians,or both?
way of life seemslike neither,and soundsespecially new, in additionto being impious
anddivorced from traditionalreligion. It is evenjust to punish those,who refuseto
placatethe godsand therefore endanger the safetyof the communityfor Jewishmyths.
The pagansalso accuse Christianity of being an irrational religion basedon merebelief, a
religion that desertedthe old laws of the Jews.
WherePorphyry is clearly identified, we learn that he was very scepticalabout the
storiesreported in the Gospels.He said thatthe evangelistsfalsified the recordof what
Jesusactually did, while providing no evidencefor their claims.Their writings are
obviously full of lies, for Jesusnever performed any miracle.The disciplesthus failed tO
35Eusebius, PE 1.2.1-5 HamackNr. 1; PE 1.9.20-1 HarnackNr. 41; PE 5.1.9 HarnackNr. 80; PE - - - 57 1.10.44 P. Nautin, "Trois autresfragments du livre de PorphyreContre les Chr6liens." RevueBiblique - Nr- (1950):409-16; DE 1.1.12-15- HarnackNr. 73; DE 3.5.95- HarnackNr. 7; DE 6.18.11.1- Harnack 47. 36Fideism is a doctrine which concedesto a revelationan accessto truth that is consideredas superiorto that of reason.
73 37 report honestlythe actionsof their master,a majorform of disrespect. As for the
evangelists,they areunable to providerigorous arguments for what they claim.
According to Porphyry,"how could they [the Christians]not justifiably agreethat these
people[the evangelists]have made themselves free from all self-interestand lying, and
furthermoreadmit that they haveprovided clear and transparent proofs of a truthloving
disposition?5538 It follows that Porphyrytaxes them with lies andblasphemies, and
accusesthem of being the enemiesof truth itself, andmere sophists. "Made themselves
free from all self-interestand lying, " is not just heavyirony; Porphyrymeans that
Christianswould haveto saythis aboutthe evangelists.The followers of Christ falsified
the wordsof their masterto their own satisfaction,and Porphyry even went as far as
questioningwhether they alsolied aboutthe sufferingsof Jesus.39
Eusebius accounts for a few points that Porphyry made in relation to the Old
Testament.In the third book of the work composedagainst the Christians,we know from
Eusebius'Ecclesiastical History, Porphyryespecially criticised Ongen among others.
The philosopherrelates how he hadmet with Origenin Plotinus' classroom,and how he wasdevoted to philosophicalteachings, having studiedwith Plotinus' master,Ammonius
Saccas.The Christianapologist, however, became an apostatefrom theseteachings, and madeuse of the allegoricalmethod of interpretation,that he borrowedfrom the Greeks,in orderto find deepermeanings in the crudenarratives of the Jewishmyths. And in so doing, he had Scripturesay thingsthat werevery inconsistentwith the original contentof
Scripture.Therefore, "Origen, who was educateda Helleneamong Hellenes, fell
37Eusebius, DE 3.5.1.Note that this passageis not in Hamackor in any other collection, and is a personal addition. 38Eusebius, DE 3.5.95. 39Eusebius, DE 3.5.95.
74 disastrously into barbarian temerity. He prostituted himself and his intellectual
but far his the capabilities, living illegally as a Christian, as as opinions about reality and belonged to the divine were concerned, he was behaving like a Greek and subjecting what
Greeks to despicable story-telling. 9A0
In the preface to Eusebius' Chronicle, translated into Latin by Jerome, Eusebius says that Porphyry dated Moses to 850 years before the Trojan War. In Evangelical
Preparation, Eusebius wishing to promote the antiquity of Moses, says that Porphyry
hýtrov),the established, in the fourth book that he wrote "against us," the Christians (K(IO'
validity of Jewishsources; in this passage,he doesname Porphyry. On history,
Sanchuniathonof Beirut "was inquiring into the truestthings of the Jews" (i.e. their
history), accordingto the philosopher.He was thus the most reliable historianof the by Philon Byblos, Jews.41 This Porphyryestablishes using the writings of of which discussthe ancientreligion of the Phoenicians,and which are, in turn, basedon
Sanchuniathon'sPhoenician chronicle. The latter lived under Semiramis,queen of
Assyria, andhad access to the Phoenicianrecords of Hierambalus,priest of the god
IEUO. According to A. Meredith, Porphyrywished to demonstratethat the Jewish
religion was derivedfrom the Phoenicianone, and was thereforenot older,hence the
resemblancein nameto the Jewishgod YHWH.42 Crafer assumesthat afterhaving dealt
with interpretationsof the Old Testamentinterpretations in his third book, Porphyry
40 k6yot;, T6 Eusebius, HE, 6.19.7 - Hamack Nr. 39.8t'RXjv Jv'Rky1crw nal6eveci; npb; pdppapov t46)KeiXevT6Agilga- (ýp6ý 99pwv aýT& Te icalrýv & Toit; ),6yot; 94tv &airýýCrEv, KaTa ýL& Tbv 81 piov Xptcntavej; ý(bvKai 7rctpav6p(o;,KaT& 81 T&; g6v T6v Pfov XpuyTtavo); ý6v Kal napav6g(o;, KaTd T&; Upi TOVI[PCLYg&T(0V Kcd TolD OFiou 864a; iUTjviý(ov TEKOti Th 7EXXflvWvT61; 60veiol; i)noPaxx6R&Vo; 00or, " (LCL 265: 54-60). 41See Nr. 41. This passagewas also quoted by Theodoret (Nr. 38); see T. W. Crafer, "The Work of Porphyry against the Christians, and its Reconstruction, " JThS n. s. 15 (1914): 486 on this; see A. Benoit, "Contra Christianos, " 265, who lists all the quoted anti-Christian books. 42A. Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian," 1132; see also Wilken, Christians, 137, who says that Porphyry's aim was to show that Judaism was not older than other religions.
75 43 turned to the history of the Jews his fourth book He have in . may thus compared Sanchuniathon's history with the Old Testament in order to show all the inconsistencies between the two accounts, since Eusebius says that Porphyry condemnedthe Christians, the Jews, 44 and their prophets altogether. This argument is further enhancedby a
reference, in Eusebius's Chronicle (Nr. 40), to a passagefrom Porphyry's book 4, in
which Moses and Semiramis are used for dating purposes.In this passage,Porphyry
arguedthat Semiramis"lived 700years after Mosesand 150before Inachus, '4' which
allows him to dateMoses to 850years before the Trojan war.46 Crafer concludes that, "Porphyry hadmade an elaboratecomputation and comparison of dates,and had drawn
conclusionswith regardto the placeof the Jewsin the world's history which hadto be
seriouslyconsidered. 947 We may thus deducethat Porphyry,in his fourth book,
establishedthe chronologyrelated to Moses,and, in orderto provehis points,used what he consideredto be the bestof all sourceson Jewishhistory (accordingto the passage,
Sanchuniathonwas from Beirut, but usedJewish information), and his credibility was based, accordingto Porphyry,on his antiquity andveracity, following his usualway of
thinking. Dating Moseswas most probablymeant to establishthe credibility of the history
Of Mosesas found in the Old Testament,so that Porphyrycould showthat Moses- and Judaism - wasnot as ancientas the Christiansclaim.
WhenEusebius demonstrates how Christ wasannounced in the OT, he makes
mention of a passagewhich is more completein Jerome'sCommentary on Daniel,
43 Crafer,"The Work Porphyry," 486. 44 of Crafer, "The Work Porphyry," 487. 45 of Eusebius,Chronicle Preface: ". post MoysenSemiramin fuisse adfirmat. 46 -. .. Meredith, "Porphyry Julian," 1131. 47 and Crafer, "The Work of Porphyry," 487. He alsopoints out that Theodoretmade similar allusionsto Against the Christians' fourth book, and that this confirms,in his view, his thesisabout Porphyry making an argumenton the Jewsand the Old Testament.
76 namely that the prophecyof Daniel regardingthe uprootedlittle horn refers to Antiochus 48 in Epiphanes, not to Christ (DE 6.18). Eusebius is commenting on Zechariah 16.1 -10, which it is saidthat the Hebrewrace will experiencethe destructionof Jerusalemand captivity at the handsof the Gentiles.According to Eusebius,Porphyry attributed those eventsto the persecutionof the Jewsunder Antiochus EpiphanesIV. We know from
Jeromethat Porphyrybased his critique of the Book of Daniel on his dating of the text to the years 165-4B. C., i.e. to Antiochus Epiphanes'reign. According to Porphyry,the is forgery, sacredtext a mere written in different languages- he identified wordplays typical of Greek- by many anonymouswriters to supportthe morale of the Jewsduring the persecution,and Antiochus is depictedmetaphorically as the persecutorof the one that Christiansidentified Christ 49The Book with . of Daniel is thereforenot prophetic,as it tells the pastrather thanthe future. BeforeEusebius, then, Porphyry had matchedthe biblical story with history, but with different results.Eusebius certainly refershere to the well-known interpretationthat Porphyryhad made of this passage,but without the informationprovided by Jerome,readers would be temptedto think that if Eusebius to referredto Porphyryin this passage,then Porphyry dated Zechariah, rather than Daniel, the period of AntiochusEpiphanes. Porphyry might in fact haveused his dating of Daniel interpret Zechariah to this passageof andwithout the contextthe passagealone taken out Proof Gospelis tO of the of the meaningless.It is very dauntingto extrapolatethis thought any other fragmentthat we havefrom onesource only, without being able to compare different authors.In this case,Jerome paraphrased Porphyry extensively, because he wantedto promotehis thesisthat Daniel wasreferring hereto the secondparousia, vvheil
48 Eusebius, DE 6.18.11.1 - Hamack Nr. 47. 49Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue.
77 the Son of Man will comeback at the endof times to fight the Antichrist." This
interpretationis not in line with Eusebius,who hadanswered Porphyry at lengthin his lost Against Porphyry, and therefore Jerome felt the need to answer Porphyry on that
specificmatter.
The Hamackcollection can thus allow for theseconclusions. But how can the
passagesselected by Hamack be reconciled with the work in which they belong, namely
Eusebius'corpus? In otherwords, what sort of knowledgecan we acquireon the content
of Porphyry's thought by reading Eusebius?
Harnack's collection cannot allow for an overview of Porphyry's books against
the Christians, becauseit does not fully recognise that Eusebius' own concerns shapehis
selection from Porphyry. One of the main preoccupations of Eusebius was to demonstrate " that Christianity had a long, established tradition, and therefore was not a new religion.
This aspect is very present in his Ecclesiastical History, a work devoted to the History of
the Christians as a nation. The Ecclesiastical History is based on the material gatheredfor
the Chronicle.52 As H. Drake puts it, Eusebiusargues in thesetwo booksthat the Roman 53 peaceis part of God's plan for the spreadof Christianity. The GreatPersecution is
thereforenot a good sign of the fulfilment of the will of God.As for the Evangelical
Preparationand the Proof of the Gospel,they areboth part of onesingle work, aiming at
answeringthe adversariesof the Christians- both Jewishand Greek- and written in a time of major changein the religiouspolitics of the Romanempire. Both the PE andthe
DE were designed,as Eusebiusputs it, to explainwhat Christianity is to thosewho do not so Jerome,Commentary onDaniel 11.21 - HarnackNr. 43m and n. 51Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History is devotedto showingjust that. 52 Burgess,"The Dates Editionsof Eusebius," 482-3. 53 and H. Drake,Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics ofInIolerance (Baltimore: 2000), 363.
78 know aboutit, and who would be temptedto listen to the detractorsof the Christians.
According to Kofsky, Eusebiuswould havecompleted the writing of thoseworks between312 and324, thereforewell after HE.54 Eusebius sets as his first stepan explanationof what the Gospelsare. 55 He thus seeksto establishthat the events accountedfor in the Gospelshad been predicted long beforetaking place,namely during the time of the Hebrews.If we recall Eusebius'concept of the world as presentedin the
EcclesiasticalHistory, the Ancient Hebrewswere the ancestorsof the Christians,and were the true worshippersof the Sonof God,although not yet ready to receivethe Word of God. The EvangelicalPreparation is thus meantto answerany questionthat a pagan or a Jewmight haveregarding Christianity, and,in turn, to preparesomeone to receive demonstration,i. higher 56 the e. teachings. We shall not forget that the attackson fideisn' andChristianity in generalhad led to a cruel form of punishment,namely the Great
Persecution.Eusebius did certainly havein mind Porphyryon the punishmentthat
Christiansdeserve for denyingthe godswhen he wrote his Prefaceto the Evangelical Preparation.
In the introductionto his Proof of the Gospel,Eusebius makes a passingcomment in most probablyreferring to Porphyryand other Greeks,whom he sayshe has answered Evangelical the preparation. While he is summarizingthe argumentsdeveloped in Evangelical preparation, as well as the purposeof the work, he ironically saysthat: Togetherit [his .. book] is demonstratingthe divine quality of the "th it accordingto us and its freedomfrom falsehood,and simultaneouslyalso
is evengagging the tonguesof thosemaking false accusationsthrough 0'0
54Kofsky, Eusebius,74. " Eusebius,PE 1.2; seealso Kofsky, Eusebius,chapter 3, on PE and DE, and Johnson,Ethnicity, OnP'C' 56Eusebius, PE 1.1.12.
79 logical proof, which our malicious prosecutors insist we have no part of at
all, pounding away very well day after day as hard as they can on their
slanderous accusationsagainst us. Becausethey say that we cannot at all
provide anything by "" way of proof. ... He then refers to the Greek opponents, who condemn Christian followers for their lack of
ability to think about their religion and the teachingsthey receive. While the passage
sounds very much like an indirect quotation of Porphyry's words, it is obvious that the
context alone is responsible for its occurrence in the text. Eusebius is thus more
concerned with being ironic than with preserving Porphyry's treatise.
As for his point of view on Daniel, that he developed extensively in three lost
books, the reference in Proof of the Gospel to Porphyry's disturbing thesis on the
chronology of Daniel may only allow us to think that it was an obvious criticism to
mention. Eusebius says that, "According to [his own] interpretation, [the books] are
fulfilled both literally and also in another sense.s, 58 The passage,which follows, may well
be a mere summary of the argument that he elaborated in Against Porphyry. Without the
extensive fragments preserved by Jerome on Porphyry and Daniel, it would be very
difficult for us to realise the extent of the importance of the supposedEusebian fragments
to Porphyry's thesis, since according to Jerome, Porphyry wrote all of his twelfth book on
57 Eusebius, DE 1.1.12. Iläptiöai: te 5' dv Kai naiaiv'EUAvwv, ei cÜyvwgovoicv, Stä Tjý irapa864010 T(U IIEXXÖVTü)VlrpOYV6)GEO)ý TIg TET OIV IrpaypäTÜN KaTä Täý I[POPPACrEtý iKßdoc(i)ý, 6P0f) 14b TÖ 9v060v Kai äYCI)stý Tjý Ka0' flgäý äÄllOciag ýntöctKvuýtbl, ögolü U Kai Täý T(7)v YEI)811yÖpü)VYX6Maý ilrlCFTOPKOUCyaStä TAý lOytKO)Tkpag ält08Ei4£0)ý, Ilg OÜ5aPG)gflg-tV Oi GUKO(p VT t gETEiVat 8ICtTFiVOVTat,915 gäka 6(FllgýpCtl Tai; Ka0' AjAv (pävTat geTEivat ätaTcivovTat, ei") gäka öaggipat Taig Ka0' Ag(ZV StOtßOla-týKaTä KpäTOg i7[EVTptpÖýLEVOI.oüötv yoüv Agäý SlüvacrOaigotat öt' ä7roöci4c(oý irctpgXztv, Iri(yTet & gövln irpocyýXgtv ä4toüv Toi)ý Ag-tv npocrtövTaý. " (ed. Heikel) 58 Eusebius,DE 6.18.12 Hamack Nr. 47: "Ka0' ýpäý Öt TOCÜTaKai IrpäýU4IV ýt& ält()5tÖOTCtt, - Kai KOLG' iTtpaV Öt ÖtäVOI()LV*"
80 the prophecies of Daniel. This allows us to deduce that the dating of Moses may well havebeen as important,although only a few sentencesremain. his Eusebiususes the paganauthors, especially Porphyry, as authoritiesin arguing
59To Porphyry, the Greeks Christianityfor being irrational, own case. or who attacked Eusebiusanswers, in EvangelicalPreparation, with an overviewof the beliefs as found in pagancosmogony and mythology, aswell as Greekphilosophy, going back to very ancienttimes. 60 He thus wishesto demonstratehow the Greeksare mistaken, and how their insults areunfounded. Eusebius' discussion resembles the standardarguments of
Porphyryin OnAbstinence; the Churchfather providesa list of variousancient religions, which werenot polytheistic, citing the oldesttraditions as evidence,just as Porphyrycited the oldesttraditions to supportabstinence from animal food. Eusebiusthen turns to what he callsthe "polytheistic mistake." His sourcefor the "polytheistic mistake"is
Sanchuniathon,whose credibility wasattested by Porphyryhimself, ashas been discussed.It is in this contextthat Porphyryis cited on Sanchuniathon'sJewish history.
Eusebiuswas not interestedhere in telling us more aboutthe contentof the discourses
Againstthe Christians.
In book 5 of Evangelicalpreparation, Eusebiusargues that baddemons were the instigatorsof all the paganoracles and so-called prophecies. The world thereforeowes tl'e destructionof the demonsto the Gospeland to Christ. According to Eusebius,the Greeks 61 themselvesacknowledge the disappearanceof their oraclessince the adventof ChriSt.
This world hasbecome a betterplace in which to live, free of successivetyrants and of
59Kofsky, Eusebius,253, makesa similar observation. 60Eusebius, PE 1.6.5. 61Eusebius, PE 5.2.
81 the power the bad demons 62When Porphyry is likely to have been of . arguing that the
city has been sick since men have ceasedworshipping the gods, and since Jesushas been
adored, Eusebius merely retains what is of interest to his thesis, namely that Porphyry himself witnesses that Jesus is adored. To Eusebius, the best evidence of the superiority
63 of Christ over the gods is the fact that they are unable to triumph over him.
If we look at the Ecclesiastical History, Porphyry's anti-Christian treatise is
mentionedin the samefashion. Eusebius, who, as part of his History of the Church,wrote
the history of the Christianwriters, devotedmuch of his 6th bookto OrIgen.On the topic
Of Origen's successamong the Greek philosophers,and his relationto the classical heritage, which he considered useful but yet dangerous,Eusebius mentions what
Porphyry wrote about him. The Neoplatonist criticised the method employed by Origen to
decipher Scripture. But according to Eusebius, although Porphyry tried to ruin Origen's
reputation as a thinker, he also provided the world with valuable information regarding
his vast knowledge of Greek learning, as well as his renown among the Greek elite. As
Eusebius put it, Porphyry "is trying to slander him, but did not realise that he was actually
commending him. 9964
As for the referenceto Porphyry'sthesis on the origin andsignificance of the
Book of Daniel, Eusebiuscomments in Proof of the Gospel(6.18) on a passagefrom Zechariah from the Lord (14.1-10), in which it is announcedthat the coming of onwards,
the Jewswill suffer calamitiesat the handsof the Gentiles,and that Jerusalem, especially,
62Eusebius, PE 5.6. 63Eusebius, PE 5.12. 64 39. " ÖV ýkMiUV iyV(OKbat SIOLpäÄÄCIV Eusebius, HE 6.19.1-9 - Hamack Nr. KCCTäTýV VtaV qýCaý, IlýV UlPdTat, cyuvtcyT@vSt &pa T6V6tv6pa WAam
82 65Eusebius will be plundered,and its peopleforced into captivity. readsthe passageas to referring to Jesus,and he interpretsthe Gentilesas being the Romans.Matching history prophecy,he concludesthat his interpretationmakes perfectly good sense,since "what the presentprophet means by foretellingthe secondsiege of Jerusalem[after its destructionand desolation by the Babylonians]is the one that it underwentat the handsOf the Romans,only after its inhabitantshad carriedout their outrageon our Saviour Jesus
Christ. Thus the coming of our Saviourand the eventsconnected therewith are very
66 in this ,, He that, indeed, Jesus and the clearly shown passage.... notes as soon as came
Jews mistreated him, we observe that they have suffered under Nero, Titus, and
Vespasian. Eusebius says he consulted Flavius Josephus,the famous Jewish historian, on
this 6' He then that matter. mentions anyone who supposesthat this prophecy - 500 he Can announced years ago, says - was fulfilled at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
only be mistaken as regards the rest of the prophecy, for they would be unable to explain
the captivity of the Jews, the standing of the Lord on the Mount of Olives, and His
(Christ) becoming King of all the earth in that day, and His name encircling all the earth " and the desert. Kofsky suggeststhat one explanation for the writing of a number Of
refutations to Porphyry is that authors may have felt that Porphyry had not been
satisfactorily answered. This would be the case with Eusebius, who wrote a refutatiOll
65Zecharia 14.1-10. 66 Eusebius, DE 6.18. "ö op, irotpd)v npo(pAT% (MigF-1, TflV ýtFTä TOLZT(IÖEI)TtpaV 7rOktopKiaV TAý'IFPO'UG(XXýý fiV ýIrb 'P(üilCti(t)V ZLUOTF, A algaiVü)V, nkl[OVÜEV OýK ýLETä Tä KCLTÜTOZ OfflIpoý ýll(bV'l900Ü XPIGTOZrdt; hT% kVapye(YTaTa OiKýTOPGIV TC'CO),plqgtVOL. TOtyap0f)V KCLI eVTUýOa TO'Ü O(OTIPOý ýýMW, 10i) @£of) 66 (ed. A. Heikel) .. 67Eusebius, DE 6.18. 68Eusebius, DE 6.1g.
83 after Methodius did, and of Apollinarius and then Philostorgius, who wrote after Eusebius.69
To conclude,Eusebius was concerned with the generalideas expressed in the
work that we haveentitled Against the Christiansto the extentthat they interferedwith
his vision of the Christiancommunity, and threatened the Christians'identity and
security. The attacks made by Porphyry destabilized Eusebius' conception of the History
of the Christianrace, as well as the thesishe elaboratedin his EcclesiasticalHistory. The
consequencesof the attacks circulating in the empire were far too serious to be ignored;
after he had finished the first edition of the Ecclesiastical History, where Porphyry is
barely mentioned,Eusebius decided to educatethe Greeksand the Jewsabout Christian
identity, the content of the Old and New Testaments,as well the teachings of Christ, and
how Christ participates in a very complex system.
One must not forget, however, that Eusebius' Against Porphyry is no longer
extant.It is in this book thatthe Churchfather might haveextensively quoted and
paraphrasedhis enemy. This further explains why he was not concerned about redoing the
quotation work in his Evangelical preparation and Proof of the Gospel, and why the
quality of the Eusebianfragments is so limited. better The new collectionof 'fragments' shouldhelp us to understandthat these
Eusebianpassages were preserved according to Eusebius'interests: we may haveless
fragmentson topics other thanthe oneswe havediscussed above, but that doesnot mean
that Porphyrywrote lessextensively about them, rather, it meansthat Eusebiuswas less
interestedin them.This is an aspectwhich doesnot standout from the Harnack collection. Even if we do not havesure parts of the discoursesAgainst the Christians,we
69Kofsky, Eusebius,71.
84 do learn aboutwhat kind of ideas would have beenpreserved at the time, and aboutthe generalargument against Christianity contemporaryto Eusebius' time. The arguments preservedby Jerome almost a century later, however,are presentedvery differently, as we will next see.
85 111-Jerome
The Porphyrianmaterial preservedin Jeromeis very scatteredin his corpus,
but of the threeauthors studied here, he is the one who will most benefit from the
contextualizationof the remainsof the discoursesagainst the Christians. If the
Macariusfragments are discarded,Jerome is, as hasbeen said, the authorwho
preserved the most important part of Harnack's first heading, namely the critique of the evangelists and apostles, as a basis for the critique of Christianity. ' Books I and 14 2 are two of the very few books the Christian authors mentioned by book number.
Jerome says that book I of the discourses Against the Christians dealt with the dispute 3 betweenPeter and Paul. As for book 14, it was concernedwith the evangelists' 4 mistakesabout the Old Testament. According to Benoit, Harnack's decision to put all the attackson the New Testamentunder the first headingtestifies to the problem of ' reconstructingthe lost work. Indeed,books I and 14 are rather distancedfrom one
in the them together hardly be justified This is another series,and putting can .6 why, to Benoit, Harnack's plan soundsrather arbitrary, and it would havebeen more
7 appropriateto classify the fragmentsaccording to the Christian authors. As hasbeen previously said, scholarswaited until 2005 before anyoneftilly undertooksuch a
For the presentstudy, however, the Jeromefragments pertaining to task.8 the sakeof the New Testamentattacks will be discussedas an entity, sincetheir content is related
1There is one fragmentonly from Eusebius,The Proof of the Gospel 5.95 - HarnackNr. 7, and one from the Lawrentian Code (Athos) 184.B 64 saec.X- HarnackNr. 8, 2 Only books 1,3 (Eusebius,Church History 6.19.2 - Hamack Nr. 39), 4 (Eusebius,Chronicle Preface Eusebius,Evangelical 1.9.20 HarnackNr. 41), 12(Jerome, - HarnackNr. 40; and preparation - Commentaryon Daniel Prologue- Hamack Nr. 43a), 13 (Jerome,Commentary on Matthew 24.16s- HarnackNr. 44), and 14 (Jerome,From the beginningof Mark - HarnackNr. 9a) are directly referred to by book number. 3Jerome, Commentat: v on GalatiansPrologue - HarnackNr. 21a. 4 Jerome,From the beginning of Mark 1.1- 12 - HarnackNr. 9a. 5Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 266. 6 Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 266. 7 Benoit, "Contra christianos de Porphyre," 266. 8 Berchman,Porphyry Against the Christians.
86 in themesand concerns;issues linked to the Old Testamentfragments will be
addressedin anotherwork.
Scholarshave tried to reconstructthe contentof the attackson the New
Testament.This is why the difference betweenthe knowledgeacquired by historians
from the Harnack fragmentsand the knowledgethat can be acquiredfrom a
contextualizedreading of the Porphyry fragmentsneeds to be established.It is thus
necessaryto understandwhat can be graspedof Porphyry's critique of the New
Testament- accordingto Jerome'stestimony - from the existing literature.The
literature pertaining to the content of the fragmentsdoes not show any major
disagreement,and it further showsthat everyonerelied heavily on Harnack.
The attackson the headsof the Church, Peterand Paul, will be usedas an
illustration of what scholarshave done with Harnack's fragments.As hasbeen said,
Porphyry claimed that Peter andPaul did not evenagree on proper Christian doctrine, as exposedin Galatians.9 According to Wilken, this argumentwas advancedin order to show that the Apostles,who were authority figures to the Christians,were not reliable.' 0 As G. Boys-Stonessays in Post-HellenisticPhilosophy, non-Christians arguedthat the great tradition of philosophy was consistent,whereas the New
Testamentcontradicted the Old Testamentand Christian teacherscontradicted each " other. CrafeTbelieves that Gal 1.16- where it is said that Paulpreached among the
Gentiles,but did not condescendto 'flesh andblood' - was possibly discussedin detail by Porphyry, althoughhis intentionsremain the same,namely to highlight the
9Crafer, "Work of Porphyry againstthe Christians," 483. According to Crafer, Jeromeaddressed the issueof the disagreementin book 2 of his Commentaryon the Galatians in order to discardthe theory that the Cephasmentioned in Gal. is not Peter,an argumentadvanced by Christiansto refute a porphyriancritique. Porphyry saysthat Paul is blaming Peter - seeHarnack Nr. 21c; seealso Labriolle "Porphyre et le christianisme," 411-14on Porphyry, Peterand Paul. 10Wilken, Christians as the Romanssaw them,146; seealso Anastos,"Porphyry's Attack on the Bible," 429, and Hoffman, Porphyry's Against the Christians, 172. 11G. Boys-Stones,Post-Hellenistic Philosophy (Oxford: 200 1
87 discord betweenthe two chief apostles." Crafer doesnot, however, demonstratehis
point of view. 13Porphyry argued that Paul alsodemonstrated his "impudence"as he claimed that "he receiveda specialrevelation from the Lord (Gall. 16), and didn't want to sharethis revelationwith 'flesh and blood'. ýý14According to Anastos,the 15 passagesimply illustrates that Paul wasjealous of Peter, and Meredith ftirther 16 pointed out that for Porphyrythis meantthat Peterwas in error. The philosopheralso says that Paul did not owe his successto moral or intellectual excellence,but to magic, and in this respect,Apollonius of Tyana andApuleius did better.,7 Wilken arguesthat all thesevarious exampleswere usedby Porphyry to show that the Church had neverbeen united. " Porphyry further blamesPeter for the deathof Ananias and '9 Saphira,whom he had executed. Sinceall theseattacks are related to Peter,and sinceJerome explicitly saysthat book I was concernedwith criticizing Peter,Crafer arguedthat all of the relatedattacks on the followers of Christ may have beenmade at the beginningof the discoursesagainst the ChristianS.20
As will be shown,the existing fragmentcollections do not allow us to fully graspthe meaningof the extant fragments;what is missing is the contentof the conversationsbetween Jerome and the Neoplatonistphilosopher. Since Jerome's primary purposewas not to write formal refutationsof Porphyry's ideas,he can most probably be trusted.If he hadwritten a refutationof Porphyry,however, it would have
12Crafer, "Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians," 483-4. 13Crafer, "Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians," 484. 14Wilken, Christians, )46. 15Anastos, "Porphyry's Attack on the Bible," 429. 16Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian againstthe Christians," 1131. 17Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian againstthe Christians," 1130. 18Wilken, Christians, 146-7.Wilken further saysthat Porphyryused other examplesto demonstrate that there were contradictionsand inconsistenciesbetween the disciples,however these pertain to the Macarius fragments,and he thinks we can not attributethem with certainty to the Neoplatonist;see also Meredith, "Porphyry and Julianagainst the Christians," 1131, on the lack of harmony within the early Church. 19Crafer, "Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians," 484; Labriolle, "Porphyreet Ic christianisme," 411. 20Crafer, "Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians," 484.
88 been very difficult to trust him on what Porphyryargued. Jerome, indeed, is not writing Against Porphyry and selectingquotations as Origen doesin Against Celsus: in fact, he makesa small number of commentsen passant.This implies, in turn, that
Jeromeis not interestedin transmittingthe fifteen books.Nevertheless, Jerome regularly quoted and paraphrasedthe philosopher,thus conveyingto us important points of Porphyry's attacks.These issues will be discussedmore fully later in the chapter.
According to Wilken, Porphyry's criticisms of Christianity had a central concern,namely the reliability of the Christian accountsof the history of ChriSt.21
After a minimal examination, it was clear to Porphyry that the Christians had based their claims on falsified accountsand incompetentwriters. It is, however,difficult to evaluatethe content of books I and 14 from numberedfragments only, sincethese do not indicate the place they actually occupiedin the works in which they are extant.As a result, the methodologicalconditions in which the gatheringof the discourses
Against the Christians can be realisedneed to be established.
Porphyry in Jerome
It is Schepens'sfirst step,deconstructing the cover-text,which is of interest here, and it requiresan investigation of Jeromeand his motives for citing Porphyry.
Although Porphyry was a philosopher,it is clear, as will be shown,from the remaining fragmentsthat Porphyry's anti-Christiandiscourses constituted a historical and philological analysisof the Bible. Most et al. groupedtheir essayson fragments into three different categories:literary, historical, and finally philosophical, philologicaland medical. Porphyry's lost treatisedoes not exactlyfit in any of these
21Wilken, Christians, 147.
89 categories.Schepens's method, which is concernedwith reconstructinglost histories,
will thus be applied to a different literary genre to seewhether it can add to the previous fragmentcollections, and to our knowledgeof the discoursesAgainst the
Christians.
it shouldfirst be rememberedthat Jeromecites or paraphrasesPorphyry for a defensivepurpose. Furthermore, if we are to take Jeromeat his word in the prologue to his Commentaryon Daniel, his attackon the Neoplatonistphilosopher is not the ". principal aim of his work. He tells us that, -. Becausein truth it is not proposedby us to answerthe calumniesof an adversary,which demanda long discourse,but to discusswhat was saidby the prophet to our people,that is to Christians,I declarein
'22 my prefacethat none of the prophetsspoke so openly aboutChrist. 1 We owe to
Jerome'sCommentary on Daniel the most extensivefragments of the discourses againstthe Christians.Jerome is our only remaining sourcefor book 12, since the other works written in responseto Porphyry are lost. Fragmentsfrom other works of
Jeromeare so scatteredthat Jerome'sstatement may be applied as a generalrule in regardto his attitude toward Porphyry. Porphyry's attackson the Book of Daniel came in book 12 of the discourses,which he wrote to deny Christian claims that Daniel was a prophet who hadaccurately predicted the adventof Christ. This critique especially disturbedthe early Church fathers,Jerome among them. It explainswhy Jerome devotedso much attentionto the philosopher'scriticisms. Jeromesays in the prologue to his Commentaryon Daniel that Apollinarius, Eusebius,and Methodius have 23 alreadyanswered the philosopheron Daniel. There is thus no need for him to fully perform such a task. Who is Porphyry anyway,other than a "blasphemous,ignorant,
22Jerome, Commentary onDaniel Prologue-Hamack Nr. 43a. "Verum quia nobis propositurn est non aduersariicalumniis respondere, quae longo sermone indigent, sed ea quae a prophetadicta sunt nostris disserere,id est Christianis, illud in praefationecommoneo, nullurn prophetarum tam aperte dixisse de Christo." (CCL 75A: 772) 23Jerome, Commentary on DanielPrologue-Harnack Nr. 43a.
90 andimpious" philosopher?24 Jerome will refer to Porphyry's work when he treats specific topics only. Furthermore,in the prologue to his Commentaryon Daniel,
Jeromestates very clearly for his readersthat, "Whenever the opportunity offers in the causeof this work, (he) shall try to reply briefly to (Porphyry's) allegationsand to counterwith a simple explanationthe arts of philosophy, or ratherthe worldly malice with which he (Porphyry) tries to underminetruth and to removeclear light from the
deceptions"25 But does Jerome eyeswith . that suggestthat was writing a commentary on Daniel, not an "Answer to Porphyry," and answeringPorphyry was only a secondaryconcern.
As far as the fragments' "cover-text" is concerned,Jerome's assertion creates major methodologicalproblems. First, the fragmentswill representonly the threateningaspect of the treatiseto which Jeromecould not help alluding. The fragmentsare thus merely a metonymy for Porphyry's discoursesas Jeromesaw
26 interests 27 Following them. Second,Jerome's own were mainly textual. the stepsof the apologistOrigen, he studied Scriptureby comparingall the versions of the sacred texts, and himself translatedsome of the Bible into Latin in his Vulgate, thus being 28 fully awareof the problems linked to translationand edition. So he may have focusedon Porphyry's critique of texts and disregardedother aspectsof his argument.
Third, he may have readChristian refutationsof Porphyryrather than the full text of
24Jerome, Commentary on Galatians Prologue-Hamack NT.21 a "Quod nequaquarnintelligens 26:334) Jerome,Commentary Bataneoteset sceleratusille Porphyrius ... ." (PL ; on Galatians 1.2.11- 13-Hamack Nr. 21 ". Porphyrio blasphemanti (PL 26:366); Ahridged c. ,. .-. ." commentaryon the 77-Harnack Nr. 10. "Inpius ille Porphyrius (CCL 78:66) Jerome psalms proponit aduersumnos. .. ." stated,however, in the prologue to his Commentaryon Galatians,that the critiques of the debate betweenPeter and Paulwould deservea proper answeron his part, "in alio," i.e. in anotherbook. 25Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue-Hamack Nr. 43a. "Et tamensicubi se occasio in explanationeeiusdem uoluminis dederit,calumniae illius strictim respondereconabor, et philosophiae artibus, immo malitiae saeculari,per quamsubuertere nititur ueritatem,et quibusdarnpraestigiis clarum oculorum lumen auferre,explanatione simplici contraire." (CCL 75A:772) 26H. U. Gumbrecht,"Eat your Fragment!About Imagination and the Restitutionof Texts," in Collecting Fragments,319. 27E. Plumer,Augustine's Commentaryon Galatians (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 2003), 38. 28 SeeJ. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: his life, writings, and controversies(London: 1975),for a lengthy discussionof Jerome'swritings.
91 Porphyry. The full text may not havebeen available, andaccording to his own
testimony,Jerome once had a dream,ca. 374, in which he is told by a divine judge:
"You lying: Ciceronian, Christian -29Afterwards, Jerome are you are a not a . sworeto himself that he would neverpossess or readany secularliterature. 3 OAlthough the
importanceof this dreamfor understandingJerome's scholarship can be challenged,31
it is most revealing in termsof the complexity of using Jeromeas a sourcefor
Porphyry. E. Plumerreminds us that when Jeromewrote his Commentaryon
Galatians,he mentionedthis dreamin the prefaceto book 3. At that time, 15 years
havepassed since he presumablyopened a secularbook. 32 While Jerome'sregular
allusionsto the paganworld give reasonto doubt this, he might havewell used
secondarymaterial to readPorphyry-for instance,the lost works of Apollinarius,
Eusebius-instead Porphyryhimself 33Jerome himself Methodius, and of . saysthat anyonewho would like to readthose refutations (concerning the Antichrist) could do
so.34 Furthermore, if we are to believe Jerome'sstatement in his commentaryon
Galatians,the referencesto Porphyrywere madefrom memory, which, in turn,
explainswhy most of them are so scattered.Jerome also, however,quotes directly
29Jerome, Letter 22.30to Eustochium."Mentiris, ait, Ciceronianuses, non Christianus." seealso Kelly "Jerome," 41-4 and Plumer Augustine'sCommentary on Galatians,40. 30Jerome, Letter 22.30to Eustochium: "Domine, si umquarnhabuero codices saeculares, si legero, te negavi," in Saint Jjr6me, Lettres, ed. and trans.J. Labourt, vol 1, Collection Bud6 (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1949),145. 31And Jeromehimself tells Ruflnus not to take his dreamtoo seriously(Against Rufinus 1.31) 32Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.2.1-2; seePlumer, Augustine's Commentary on Galatians,40. "(Jerome)reminds Paula and Eustochiurnthat he hasnot readCicero, Virgil, or any paganwriter for more than fifteen years." (PL 26:358) 33According to Harnack,"Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen," 7, Jeromerelied on theseresponses. hat dasWerk desPorphyrius "Nachweisbarselbst gesehen ... sonst niemand,ja es ist sehr warhscheinlich,dass auch Hieronymuses nicht selbstin Händengehabt hat: denn so häufig, wenn er es zitiert, nennter zugleich die Gegenschriftendes Methodius, Eusebiusund Apolinarius, dassder Verdacht, sie seienseine einzigen Gewährsmännerfür den Inhalt desWerkes, nicht unterdrücktwerden kann"; but accordingto Beatrice,"Trait6 de Porphyrecontre les chr6tiens," 120,the Arian Philostorgis answeredPorphyry in 420, which meansthat the treatisewas possibly still circulating in the early 5th century. Beatricealso saysthat Libanius, Oration 18-cited by Socrates,Church History 3.23-refers to Porphyrywhen he writes "the old Tyrian," and that John ChrysostornDe S. Babyla II wrote ca.380 that the paganwritings againstthe Christians,if still extant,are to be found in Christianwritings; see also Bidez (1913), 130;see Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue-Harnack Nr. 43a, on the responsesof Eusebius,Apollinarius, and Methodius. 34Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 5.13.
92 from Porphyry, but in a very erratic fashion, which allows us to deducethat he may havehad other Christians' responsesin front of him while writing. The extent to which we can rely on Jeromeis not obvious. It is thus very important to distinguish betweenthe secondaryelaboration made by Jeromeon Porphyry's ideasand these ideas,i. e. to contextualizethe fragments.
Added to thesecomplications is the fact that Jerome,when he usesPorphyry, is translatinghis words from Greek into Latin. He himself says,in a letter to
Parnmachius,that sincehis youth he hasbeen translatingideas rather than words (ep.
57.6). He explainsthat a translatorhas to be an interpreter,and shouldnever translate a text word for word, but focus on rendering its meaningin anotherlanguage. What is left of Porphyry in Jeromehas thereforebeen alteredby both the translationprocess and by his intentions.
There is alsothe questionof how important Porphyry's treatisewas to Jerome.
Jeromebetrays his interestin a few points he may haveconsidered major to his argument.The greatestamount of existing fragmentswas excerptedfrom book II of his Commentaryon Daniel. Passagesfrom Porphyry's book 12 on Daniel" survive extensivelyto the point where the Church father andthe philosopherdisagree on the prophecyabout the fourth beast's little horn,which Jerome ascribed to theAntichrist, while Porphyry claims it was meantto representAntiochus Epiphanes4. Jeromesays that he will answeradversaries point by point: "Sequamurigitur expositionisordinem et iuxta utramqueexplanationem, quid aduersariis,quid nostris uideatur,breuiter annotemus."Stabit" inquiunt" in loco Seleuci,frater eius" (Dan. I 1.24-Harnack Nr.
43p). He later statesthat he hasbeen exposingPorphyry's argument,thus providing a concreteidentity for those"adversaries, " and,more significantly, that he hasbeen
35See Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue on this.
93 summarizing:"Haec, Porphyriussequens Sutoriurn sen-none laciniosissimo prosecutus
est,quae nos breui compendiodiximus" (Dan. 11.24-Harnack Nr. 43p), which
further points to the fact that it is impossibleto tell whetheror not Jeromeis either paraphrasingor quoting Porphyry elsewherein the work. 36
Jerome's style may thus merely vary according to the text he is composing, or to his argument. If Inow1ocki's line of argument is to be followed, then Jerome may be both citing the text and modifying it by making semantical, grammatical, or lexical changes; he does not recognize Porphyry as an authority, for he was a famous anti-
Christian, and therefore does not worry about respecting his thoughts, and summarizes at his own convenience (and discretion).
The "cover-text" will now be "deconstructed"by exploring why andwhen
Jeromerefers to Porphyry.The key questionis how andwhy Jeromecited or respondedto Porphyry.Attention will be given to the fragmentsof the discourses
Against the Christians which areextant in various lettersand commentariesof
Jerome,namely his commentarieson Matthew, on Joel, on Isaiah,on Mark, on
Daniel, on the psalms,and more importantly on Galatians,and his letters to
Pammachus,Augustine, and Demetrius.Jerome's fragments are a casestudy of how new methodsmight changeour interpretationof Porphyry. Porphyry's ideason the evangelistsand the apostlesare inscribedin a very large debate,which incorporates not only Porphyrythe philosopher,but alsoJerome's understanding of how to read
Scripture,as well as his contemporaryopponents. 37
36According to A. Cameron,"The Date of Porphyry's KaTa XpiaTtavow," ClassicalQuarterly 18 (1967), 382, "Callinicus Sutorius, (is) a sophistand historian from Petra who taught with great success in Athensin the late third century." 37See also Cook, Interpretation of the New Testament,who commentson all the New Testamentfragments and their context in Porphyry's philosophicalworks. He also includes Jerome's answers,but has less discussionof the cover-text thanthis study proposesto do.
94 Porphyry's argumentsfrom Books I and 14 will first be presented.The
fragmentsas gatheredby Hamack may allow us to get a generalsense of the philosopher's intent. By looking first at the contentof those fragmentsalone, it appearsthat three main groups are targetedby Porphyry,namely the apostlesand disciplesof Christ, the evangelists,and the headsof the Church, Peterand Paul. First,
Porphyry has specialcharges against the apostles,namely they were poor wretches from the countryside,38 who stupidly followed Christ "as if they had irrationally followed someoneor other who called them."'9 They boastedabout their quite ordinary miracles,when therewas nothing so extraordinaryabout performing magical art, for Apuleius and Apollonius were also skilled in that discipline: Jeromeconcedes that many peoplehad successfullydone magic-in order to attract the money of rich
40 Porphyry, women whom they duped. The apostles,according to usedthe antiquity of
Scriptureas a sourceof authority andabused by their teachings"the simplicity and
41 ignoranceof the listeners.,, Porphyry also mocks the lack of faith of the apostles,as they proved unableto perform the miracles orderedby Jesus-like moving mountains, for instance.4' As for the disciples, they irrationally interpretsigns, taking for granted that an easily predictedsolar eclipseis directly linked to the Resurrection.43
39 Jerome,Ahridged commentaryon the psalms 81-HamackNr. 4. "Hominesrusticanietpauperes.. (CCL 78:89) . ." 39Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 9.9-Harnack Nr. 6. "Arguit in hoc loco Porphyriuset lulianus Augustusuel stultitiarn eorurn qui statim,secuti sunt Salutorem,quasi inrationabiliter quemlibet uocantemhominem sint secuti (SC 242: 170) 40 ... ." Jerome,Ahridged commentaryon the psalms 81-Harnack Nr. 4. "Homines rusticani et pauperes, quoniamnihil habebant,magicis artibus operati sunt quaedamsigna. Non est autem grandefacere signa.Nam fecere signa in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius. Infiniti signa fecerunt. Concedotibi, Porphyri, magicis artibus signa fecerunt,ut divitias acciperenta divitibus mulierculis, quas induxerant:hoc enim tu dicis." (CCL 78:89) 41Jerome, Commentary on Joel 2.28-Harnack Nr. 5. "Ut quidquid utile audientibusesse cernebant, et non repugnarepraesentibus, de alterius temporis testimoniisroborarent, non quod abuterentur audientium simplicitate et imperitia, ut impius calumniaturPorphyrius. " (PL 25:975) 42 Jerome,Commentary on Matthew 21.21 -Hamack Nr. 3. "Latrant contra nos gentilium.canes in suis uoluminibus quos ad impietatis propriae memoriamreliquerunt, adserentes apostolos non habuisse fidem quia montestransferre non potuerint." (SC 259: 122) 43Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 27.45-Harnack Nr. 14.
95 Porphyry doesnot sparethe evangelists.As mentionedabove, Jerome says that
he criticized their mistakesin his book 14, presumablyof the discoursesagainst the
Christians.44 They are guilty of "falsity, " accordingto Porphyry, in that they arenot
able to cite properly the Bible on which they rely.45 In one instance,Mark cites Isaiah
forgets Malachi Matthew Isaiah Asaph4' forgets only and '46and confuses and and one generationin the Book of Daniel.48
As for the influential Peterand Paul, on whom Jeromepreserved the most
fragments,Porphyry highlights their disputein his first book-as Jeromesays in his
Commentaryon Galatians49-stating that Peterwas wrong, creating great 51 disturbanceswithin the Church'50and that Paul, led by jealousy, had boldly refuted
him, while they both pretendedto agree,52 thus actually making the samemistake.
44 Jerome, On the beginning of Mark 1.1-2-Harnack Nr. 9. "Locurn isturn impius ille Porphyrius, qui adversurn nos conscripsit et multis voluminibus rabiern suarn evornuit, in XIV volumine disputat et imperiti fuerant homines dicit: "Evangelistae tam ...... 45 Jerome, Letter 57.9 to Pammachius-Harnack Nr. 2. "Haec replico, non ut evangelistas arguarn falsitatis-hoc impiorurn est, Celsi, Porphyrii, lutiani (Bud6 3: 67) quippe ... ." 46Jerome, On the beginning of Mark 1.1- 12-Harnack Nr. 9. Jerome, quoting directly from Porphyry: "Evangelistae tam imperiti fuerunt homines, non solum in saecularibus, sed etiarn in scriptures divinis, de ut testimonium, quod alibi scripturn est, alio ponerent propheta. " (CCL 78: 452). Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 3.3-Harnack Nr. 9. "Porphyrius istum locurn Marci evangelistae principio in Cum enim testimoniurn de Malachia Esaiaque comparat quo scripturn est: ... contexturn putemus adsumptum. " (SC 242: 90) 47Jerome, Abridged commentary on the psalms- 77-Harnack Nr. 10. " 'Aperiarn in parabola os meum Asaph. Denique inpius Hoc Esaias non loquitur, sed et ille Porphyrius proponit aduersurn nos hoc ipsum, et dicit: "Euangelista uester Matthaeus tam inperitus fuit, ut diceret, quod scripturn est in Esaia fropheta, Aperiarn in parabola os meurn (CCL 78: 66) Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 1.1.I-Harnack Nr. 11. "Et ob hanc causam.in euangelio secundurn Matthaeurn una uidetur desse generatio (Matth. 1.11.12), quia secunda tesseriscedecasin loachim desinit filiurn losiae et tertia incipit a loiachin filio loachim; quod ignorans Porphyrius, calurnniarn struit ecclesiae, suarn ostendens imperitiam, durn evangelistae Matthaei arguere nititur falsitatem. " (CCL 75A: 777) 49Jerome, Commentary on Galatians Prologue-Harnack Nr. 21a. Cited n. 24. 50Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 3.5.10-Harnack Nr. 22. "Sed nec Paulustam procacimaledicto de Ecclesiaeprincipe loqueretur,nec Petrusdignus qui conturbataeEcclesiae reus fieret." (PL 26:430- 1) 51Jerome, Letter 112.6and II to Augustine-Harnack Nr. 21b. "Immo exarsissePaulurn inuidia Petri (Bud6 6:23) uirtuturn ...... 52See Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.2.1I-Harnack Nr. 21c. "Maxime cum Lucas scriptor historiae,nullarn hujus dissensionisfaciat mentionem;nec dicat umquarnPetrurn Antiochiae fuissecum Paulo,et locurn dari Porphyrio blasphernanti;si auternPetrus errasse, aut Paulusprocaciter apostolorurnprincipern confutassecredatur. " (PL 26:358); Jerome,Commentary on Isaiah 14.26-- HarnackNr. 21d. "Qui dispensatoriarninter Petrumet Paulurncontentionern (Gal 2) vere dicunt fuisse blasphemantiPorphyrio Referencefollows iurgiurn atquecertamen, ut satisfaciant. .. ." Commentairesde Jgr6mesur le proph&e Isaie, R. Gryson, C. Gabriel et al. (eds.), 4 vols. (Freiburg:
96 Furthen-nore,Paul proclaimedhimself apostle,53 refused to sharehis revelationwith
54 ChriSt. 55 the people, and his teachingsare violent, in comparisonwith thoseof Peter proved to be even more violent when he sentencedto deathtwo peoplewho had not gottenrid of all their money.56
Hamack's collection provides us only with thesehints, which require either a very good knowledgeof the subjectscriticized by Porphyry-e. g. the debatebetween
Peterand Paul as found in the epistle to the Galatiansand the Acts of the Apostles- or a very good knowledgeof Jerome'sdiscussion of thesetopics. Going back to the
66cover-text"allows us to get a very different senseof the fragmentsand of the way they are insertedin a debatewith Jerome,who has his own views on the biblical texts.
When it comesto answeringPorphyry's chargesagainst the evangelists,
Jeromemakes the point that the errors are not due to the evangelistsbut to translation issues.In the paragraphspreceding Porphyry's charge,in the Letter 57 to
Pammachius,Jerome exposes the textual discrepanciesbetween the Hebrewtext, the
Septuagint,the Vulgate, and the evangelists.He gives preciseexamples, and attributes the differencesto the problem of translation.For instance,Jerome mentions a text from Zachariahthat the evangelistJohn cites: "they will look at the one they pierced.9957 The Septuagint says rather: "and theywill look at me,the subject of their
Verlag Herder Freiburg, 1998);Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 3.5.1O-Hamack Nr. 22. "Occulte, inquiunt, Petrumlacerat, cui suprain faciem restitissese scribit, quod non recto pede incesseritad Evangelii veritatem. Sednec: Paulus tam procaci maledicto de Ecclesiaeprincipe loqueretur(Galat 2), nec Petrusdignus qui conturbataeEcclesiae reus fieret." (PL 26:430-1) 53Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.1.I-Hamack Nr. 19. "Potest autem et oblique in Petrumet in caeterosdictum accipi, quod non ab apostolis ei sit traditum Evangelium." 54 Jerome,Commentary on Galatians 1.1.16-Hamack Nr. 20. "Plerosquede apostolishoc (Continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini. Sive ut in Graecomelius habet:Non contuli cum carne el sanguine.) dictum arbitrari. Nam et Porphyrius objicit, quod post revelationernChristi non fuerit dignatus ire ad homines,et cum eis conferre sermonem:ne post doctrinam,videlicet Dei, a came et sanguine instrueretur." (PL 26: 351) 53Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 3.5.12-Hamack Nr. 37. 56Jerome, Letter 130.14to Demetrias-Hamack Nr. 25. 37Jerome, Letter 57.7 to Pammachius."Videbunt in quemconpuxerunt. " (Budd 3:63)
97 8 insults 10 The Latin versionstranslated: "and they will look at me, the subjectof their
games."'9 Jeromediscusses many other discrepancies,and these examples could well
meanthat Porphyry discussedexactly theseissues. Without the context of the
discussion,the "falsities" notedby Porphyryremain unidentified. This highlights a
major problem of the Hamack collection, e.g. his fragment2 on the evangelistswho
falsified the Old Testamentwritings is impossibleto understandwithout the context.60
As for Matthew, chargedwith having forgotten one generationof the Book of Daniel,
Jeromeexplains that the error is that of Porphyry,who confusedJehoiakim with
Jehoiakin,the former being the father of the latter. There are thus two men mentioned 61 in Matthew. Jeromealluded to Porphyry while discussing,at the beginningof his
Commentaryon Daniel, the two kings.62
Next, the other mistakesthat Porphyry notedare not due to the evangelists themselves,but rather to the copyists,according to Jerome.Porphyry had mockedthe fact that Mark hadmisattributed the following passageonly to Isaiah when he usedit in his Gospel:"The prophet Isaiahwas talking about him when he said:The voice of the one who was shoutingin the desert:Pave the way of the Lord, make his paths
58Jerome, Letter 57.7 to Pammachius. "Kai ýntPkýYOvTat RP6; 9E dLVO'66 Ivo)pXýcravTo." (Budd 3:63) 59 Jerome, Letter 57.7 to Pammachius: " 'et aspicient ad me pro his quae inluserunt' siue 'insultauerunt'. " (Bud6 3: 63-4) 60Jerome, Letter 57.9 to Pammachius-Hamack Nr. 2. 61 SeeJerome, Commentary on Daniel I-I-I- Seealso HarnackNr. 11. "Anno terlio regni loachim regis Judae,uenit Nabuchodonosorrex Babylonis Hierusalem,et obseditearn. loachim filius losiae, cuius tertio decimoanno prophetare orsus est Hieremias,sub quo etiarn Holda mulier prophetauit,ipse est qui alio nomine appcllaturHeliachim et regnauitsuper tribum luda et Hierusalemannis undecim, cui successitin regnurnfilius eius loiachin cognomentolechonias, qui tertio menseregni sui, die decima,captus a ducibusNabuchodonosor ductusque est in Babylonem,et in loco eius constitutusest Sedeciasfilius losiae patruuseius, cuius announdecimo Hierusalerncapta atque subuersa est. Nemo igitur putet eundernin Danielis principio esseloachim, qui in Hiezechielisexordio Joiachinscribitur : iste enim extremarnsyllabarn "chim" habet, ille "chin"-et ob hanc causain in euangelio secundum Matthaeum una uidetur deessegeneratio, quia secunda tesseriscedecasin loachim desinit fllium losise et tertia incipit a Machin fflio loachim; quod ignorans Porphyrius, calumniam struit ecciesiae,suain ostendensimperitiam, dum euangelistaeMatthaei arguere nititur falsitatem. Quodque"traditus" scribitur loachim, monstratnon aduersariorurnfortitudinis fuisseuictoriarn sed Domini uoluntatis. (CCL 75A:776-7) [bold passagecorresponds to Nr. II in Harnack] 62See Crafer, "Work of Porphyryagainst the Christians," 488. He discusses,here and elsewhere,some of the contextof Porphyry's fragmentsin Jerome,but neither extensively,nor exhaustively.
98 straight., 63 This passageis in fact also from Malachi. Relying on the authority of "the
churchmen"-"ecclesiastici'ý-Jerome claims that Mark did not makeany mistake.
The error is that of the copyists who addedthe nameof Isaiah in orderto make one
whole outof differentbible quotations.64 The next occurrenceprovides clues as to the
presencein Jeromeof other possiblefragments. In answerto Porphyry's critique on
the ignoranceof Matthew, who wrongly attributeda passageto Isaiah-"and I would
open my mouth in parables'ý--Jerorneexplains that the passageis from Asaph, but
that a copyist, not recognizingthis name,changed it to Isaiah, which soundedmore
familiar to him.65 Jerome goes on in his text with so many examplesthat it is possible
to infer that he is actually answeringPorphyry's points-e. g., the hour of the deathof
Christ, set to three hours by Matthew and to six hoursby Mark.66 This, of course, remains unnoticedwithout the context.
As for the chargesagainst the apostles,Jerome uses arguments based on his faith. To Porphyry, who claims that the apostleslured rich women by magical art,
Jeromeasks why, then, were the apostlescrucified, if their ultimate goal was making money?The apostles,Jerome insists, shedtheir blood so that the Christians' faith
63Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 3.3. "Initium evangelii lesu Christi filii Dei, sicut scriptum est in Esaiapropheta: Ecce mitto angelurnmeum ante facierntuam qui praeparabitviam tuam. Vox clamantis in deserto:Parate viam Domini, rectasfacite semitaseius. " (SC 242:88) 64Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 3.3. "Nos autem aut nomenEsaiae putamus additurn scriptorum uitio quod et in aliis locis probarepossumus, aut certede diuersis testimoniesscripturarum unum corpuseffecturn. Lege tertiurn decimum psalmurnet hoc idernreperies. " (SC 242:90) 65 See,Abridged commentaryon thepsalms 77-Harnack Nr. 10. "Aperiarn in parabolaos meum. (CCL 78:66). Seealso Jerome,Commentary on Matthew 13-35,where he discussespsalm 77. "Quod quia minime inueniebaturin Esaia,arbitror posteaa prudentibusuiris essesublaturn. Sed mihi uidetur in ita Asaph dicentern principio editum, quod scriptum est: per prophetam ... et primum scriptorem non intellexisse Asaph et putassescriptoris uitium atqueemendasse nomen Esaiae,cuius uocabulum manifestiuserat. " (SC 242:284). SeeJerome, Abridged commentaryon thepsalms 77, where he justifies somediscrepancies between the Gospels' accountsof Jesus'death. "Quomodo illud in Euangelioscriptum est, scripturnest in Matthaeoet lohanne quod Dominus nosier hora sextacrucifixus sit, rursum scripturn est in Marco quia horatertia crucifixus sit. Hoc uidetur essediuersum, sednon est diuersum. Error scriptorurnfuit: et in Marco hora sexta scriptum fUit, sedmulti pro ýXlailll(p graeco putaueruntesse gamma. Sicut enim ibi error fuit scriptorum, sic et hic error fuit scrptorum,ut pro Asaph Esaiamscriberent. " (CCL 78:67) 66Jerome, Abridged commentaryon the psalms 77 (quotedabove).
99 be deemed 67In the lack faith-as they did would good. what concems apostles' of not move mountains-Jerome againprovides a religious explanationwhen he statesthat the holy men actually performedmiracles, but theseare not to be found in any account,for Christianswould havebeen highly criticized on that point by the non- believers.Indeed, when God performed His miracles,the world was so skeptical that 68 Jeromethinks accountingfor the apostles'miracles would havedone them no good.
As for stupidly following Jesusto gain salvation,Jerome says that Matthew, who obtainedthe statusof apostle,actually achievedsalvation, and Jesus'call was 69 precededwith signs. With regardto the eclipseof the sun which, accordingto
Porphyry, is wrongly associatedwith the Resurrectionbecause the ignorant disciples did not know that it could havebeen easily predictedfrom moon cycles,Jerome in Gospels argues that since it is specified the that the event lasted three hours, it 'O cannotbe taken as a mereeclipse of the sun, and the prophecywas accomplished.
As regardsthe apostlesabusing their hearers,Jerome offers an answerof his 71 Joel Porphyry have fact that own in Commentary on . seems to criticized the a psalm was cited in order to strengthenPeter's argument.Jerome is commentingon Joel.
67See Jerome, Abridged commentaryon the psalms 81-and HarnackNr. 4. "Feceruntet a1iisigna magicis artibus: sedpro homine mortuo non sunt mortui, pro homine crucifixo. Sciunt isti hominern Felix essemortuum, et moriuntur sinecausa. ergo nostrauictoria, quaein sanguineapostolorum dedicataest. Fides nostranon probatur,nisi per illorurn sanguinem." (CCL 81:89-90) 68See Jerome,Commentary on Matthew 21.21 -and Hamack Nr. 3. "Quibus nos respondebimusmulta facta essesigna a Domino, iuxta lohanniseuangelistae tcstimonium, quae si scriptaessent mundus caperenon posset,non quo mundusuolurnina capere non potuerit quaepotest quarnuismultiplicia sint unurn armariolurnuel unurn caperescrinium, sedquo magnitudinernsignorurn pro miraculis et incredulitate ferre non possit. lgitur et haeccredimus fecisse apostolos, sed ideo scripta non essenc infidelibus contradicendimaior dareturoccasio. " (SC 259:122) 69See Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 9.9-and HarnackNr. 6. "Nullurn deberesalutern desperare si ipse de in Cum ad meliora conuersussit, cum publicano apostolurnsit repentemutatus ... tantae uirtutes tantaquesigna praecesserintquae apostolos ante quarncrederent uidisse non dubiurnest. " (SC 242: 170) 70See Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 27.45-and Hamack Nr. 14. "Nulli autem dubiurn estpaschae tempore lunarn fuisseplenissimam. Et ne forsitan uidereturumbra terraeuel orbis lunae soli oppositus horarurn breueset ferrugineasfecisse tenebras, triurn spatiurnponitur, ut omnis causantiurnoccasio tolleretur." (SC 259:296). Seealso Cook, Interpretation of the New Testament,146, on this. "Jerome (Porphyry's) somewhatcryptic commentby arguing that an eclipseof the sunonly happensat clarifies feast. a new moon and not at the full moon of the passover " 71Jerome, Commentary on Joel 2.28-Hamack Nr. 5.
100 2.28-31, namely on the Joel prophecyquoted by Peteron the day of Pentecost.72
Jeromegoes on andexplains that the apostlesare not abusingtheir audience's
ignoranceand stupidity, as Porphyry claimed, but that, "Whatever the Apostlesjudged
to be useftil to thoselistening and not inimical to the present,they strengthenedwith
73 ,, This did, Paul in the witnessof anothertime .... they as said, order to preach 74 "fittingly, andunfittingly. , As Craferjudiciously noted, the place of the fragment in the text implies that the philosopherwas referring to that event too, and it "suggests that his attackon the Gospelswas followed by a seriesof objectionsto the Acts of the
Apostles. ý975What Porphyry means in fragment 5-as preserved by Harnack-is thus very unclear,and rathermisleading, without the context of Jerome'sCommentary on
Joel, sinceneither Peter,nor the Acts are mentioned.Going back to the context allowed Crafer to make his inference. It is clear that these critiques are targeting the
Christian faith of the followers of Christ, which, in turn, explainswhy it attracted
Jerome'sattention.
Finally, the Christian apologistdeemed it very important to give attentionto
Porphyry's attackon the headsof the Church.The main subjectof tension is the epistle to the Galatians.It will becomeclear, from the following arguments,that to fully graspthe contentof Porphyry's points as representedin Harnack's collection,
Jerome'sexplanations are required, as well asthe context in whichhe insertedthe
72Jerome, Commentary on Joel 2.28. "Et erit post haec,effundam de spiritu meo superomnem carnem, elprophetabuntfifii vestri etfiliae vestrae,et senesvestri somniasomniahunt, etjuvenes vestri visiones videbunt; et superservos meos et super ancillas measin diebusillis effundamde spiritu meo, el dabo prodigia in caelo, et super terram sanguinem,ignem et vaporemfumi. Sol converielur in tenebras,el luna in sanguinem,anlequam veniat dies Domini magnuset illustris. Et erit, omnis qui invocaverit nomenDomini, saivus erit. Hunc locum beatusapostolus Pettus impleturntempore Dominicae descenditdie PentecostesSpiritus (CCL passionisexposuit, quando sanctussuper credentes ... ." 76: 192); seealso Crafer, "Work of Porphyry againstthe Christians," 487-8 who briefly discussesboth the passageand fragment. 73Jerome, Commentary on Joel 2.28-Harnack Nr. 5. Cited n. 39. 74Jerome, Commentary on Joel 2.28. "Sed juxta apostolumPaulum, praedicarentopportune, importune." (CCL 76: 194) 75Crafer, "Work of Porphyry againstthe Christians," 487-8. It is, however,less clear what Crafer, in his brief comment,means when assertingthat as regardsPaul's above-quotedwords, Jeromedoes not refer to Peter's speech,but does not mention the Acts-besides Acts 19on Peter and Paul's baptism.
101 fragments.The problemsbetween Peter and Paul really botheredJerome, especially
sincePorphyry accused Paul of challengingPeter. The apostlePaul was in chargeof
teachingthe Gospelto the uncircumcised(the gentiles),whereas the apostlePeter was
in chargeof the circumcised(the Jews)(Gal 2.7). Paul explainsin the epistle to the
Galatiansthat he "withstood to Peter'sface, 1976 because he would eat with the gentiles
only when membersof the circumcisionwere not present,for fear of their judgment 77 (Gal 2.12). This conductwas not, accordingto Paul, in line with the Gospel,for
Jewswho are faithful to Christ should not live accordingto the mannersof the Jews, but of the Christians,who include non-sinnergentiles (Gal 2.14-16).Paul clearly meantto define the Christian community here.Paul's disagreementwith Peter's behaviourmakes an easytarget for Christian opponentssuch as Porphyry; it allowed
Porphyryto show both that the foundationsof the Christian community are not solid andthat the teachingsof Christ are unclear, for eventhe headsof the Church cannot agreeon definition and conduct.
E. Plumer saysthat Jeromesystematically attacked all thosewho acceptedthat there was a disagreementbetween the two chief apostles,even the Christian Marius 78 Victorinus. He also answeredAugustine extensivelyin his famousletter 112.Jerome wantsto promotehis own explanationof the problemssurrounding Jewish Christian and Gentile Christianpractices, Peter andPaul having regularly compromisedtheir teachingsby promoting abstinencefrom JewishLaw, but then acting in conformity to the Law. Jerome'sexplanation is that Paul isn't actually blaming Peter (for eating with the Gentilesand then turning awaywhen he realized it was shockingthe Jewish
76Jerome, Commentary on Galatians Prologue-Harnack, Nr. 2 Ia. Petruma Paulo objecit esse reprehensum..- ." 77It is interesting to note that Macarios (3,22.4) reproduces very closely the passage discussed by Jerome : "KaTtYV(D KCtirl(IiJXO; rUTPOU), 40)v- '710 Tof) Y&PWCfv daWlaic6pou Tw6t;, gET&T(bV tai)T& jOV6jVaUVýCFOtEV. 6TE 89 i7l),Oov, &(pd)ptýev 90POf)MOq TOb; & RePITOgj;. Kai aUvEKPiO1lCFaV Ctf)TOROUOVIOU8CROL" (Goulet Le Monogjnýs 2: 151). See Goulet, Le MonogWs, 93-4 and 144. 78Plumer, Augustine's Commentary on Galatians,44.
102 Christian community), but that the two men only pretendto be in conflict in order to pleaseboth communities.79 Jerome, in his Commentaryon Galatians,says that the
Christians' answerto Porphyry's attack on Paul is not satisfying. Christianstried to work out a solution to the problem by claiming that Paulwas answeringanother
Cephasno one knows of. "The first answerto thesepeople is that we do not know the nameof someother Cephas than the one who in theGospel, in otherLetters of Paul, and in this Letter, is sometimeswritten "Cephas" and sometimes"Petrus. " Not because"Petrus" meansone thing and "Cephas" another:but what we call petra in
Latin andGreek, Hebrewsand Syriansname cephas because of the closenessof their language 80The Porphyry's fragmentsin debatefurther .,, place of the showsthat the philosopheralso had a problem with Paul faking obedienceto the Law from fear of the Jewish Christians,for example,when he circumcisedTimothy, a Gentile. Both
81 men are thus guilty of the samecrime. Porphyry also accusedthe two men of
79Jerome, Letter 112.8to AugustineJerome on Peter: "Prius enim quam uenirentquidam a lacobo, cum gentibus edebat:cum autemuenissent, subtrahebat se, et segregabat,timens eos qui cx circumcisione errant." (Budd 6: 27); Jerome,Commentary on Galatians 1.2.11."Sed ut antejam diximus, restitit secundumfaciern publicam Petro et caeteris,ut hypocrisis observandaeLegis, quaenocebat eis qui ex gentibuscrediderant, correptionis hypocrisi emendaretur,et uterque populussalvus fieret, dum et qui circumcisionemlaudant, Petrumsequuntur; et qui circumcidi nolunt, Pauli praedicantlibertatem. " (PL 26:364); seePlumer, Augustine's Commentaryon Galatians, 46, on Jeromeand how he dealt with the conflict betweenPeter and Paul; seealso Anastos(1966), 429, who also explains that Pauland Peter only pretendedto disagree"in order to facilitate the conversionand and rehabilitation of the Jews." Jeromeis answeringAugustine who, in his Letter 28.3, said that the leadersof the Church actually disagreedas towhetherGentile Christianswere requiredto observeJewish law. 80 SeeJerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.2,1I-and Harnack Nr. 21c. "Quibus primum respondendum,alterius nescio cujus Cephaenescire nos nomen,nisi ejus qui et in Evangelio, et in aliis Pauli Epistolis, et in hac quoqueipsa modo Cephas,modo Petrus, scribitur. Non quod aliud significet Petrus,aliud Cephas:sed quod quamnos Latine et Graecepetramvocemus, hanc Hebraeiet Syri propter linguae inter se viciniam, Cephannuncupent. Deinde totum argumenturnepistolae quod oblique de Petro,Jacobo, et Joannedicitur, huic intelligentiae repugnare,Nec mirum essesi Lucashanc rem tacuerit, cum et alia multa quaePaulus sustinuisse se replicat, historiographilicentia praetermiserit:et non statim essecontrarium, si quod alius ob causamdignum putavit relatu, alius inter caeteradereliquit. Deniqueprimum episcopumAntiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisseaccepimus, et Romam exinde translaturn,quod Lucaspenitus omisit. Ad extremurnsi propter Porphyrii blasphemiam, alius nobis fingendus est Cephas, ne Petrus putetur errasse,Inflnits de Scripturis erunt radenda divinis, quae file, quis non Intelligit, criminatur. " (PL 26:366) [the bold passagecorresponds to Harnack's Nr. ] 8' Jerome,Letter 112.9to Augustine-see also Harnack Nr. 21b, and Leiter 112.6.11.Jerome, quoting from Acts 2.17.20-24 and 26, "et eccediscipulus quidam erat ibi nomine Timotheus,filius mulieris iudaeaefidelis, patre gentili ... Hunc uoluit Paulus secumproficisci. Et adsumenscircumcidit eum propter ludaeos,qui erant in illis locis." (Budd 6:28)
103 violence: Peterfor having cursedtwo disobedientChristians, and Paul for orderingthe
" cutting off'-in both senseof the expression,i. e. circumcisionand shutting up-of
thosewho are causingtroubles in the Church of Galatia,82 To answerPorphyry,
Jeromesays that Peterdid not kill the men, as their punishmentwould comewith the
judgment of God. Peterwas thus merely responsiblefor propheticallyannouncing " their punishment. As Jeromehad stated elsewhere in On Galatians,after all, Peter 84 was the head of the Church in Rome. It follows that he might havebeen right, in
Jerome'sview. As for Paul, Jeromereports that he sayshe is condemnedto death,
which rathershows that the violent onesare the adversaries,whereas love is in the 85 Churchesof God. On Paul's refusal to sharehis revelation"with flesh and blood,"
Jeromeexplains that Paulmeans by this expressionthat he will only teachtheir spirit;
he doesnot meanthat he will not shareit with human beings.86
Let us now look at a further example: the passagesthat are extant in Jerome
from Porphyry's critique on Jesus.The fragments as they appear in the Harnack
collection will first be presented.Jerome preserved passages from Porphyrys anti-
Christian discoursesrelating to Jesusin Against Vigilantius, Against the Pelagians,
Hebrew Questions on Genesis, and Commentary on Matthew. In Against the
82 Jerome,Letter 130.14to Demetrias-Hamack Nr. 25. "Apostolus Petrusnequaquam inprecatur cis mortem." (Budd 7: 185);Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 3.5.12-Hamack Nr. 37. 83 Jerome,Letter 130.14to Demetrias-see also HamackNr. 25. "Sed Dei iudicium propheticospiritu adnuntiat,ut poenaduorum hominumsit doctrina multorum." (Budd 7: 185); here, however,Jerome goesas far as contradictinghimself, as Hamack (1916), 55 noted, since in anothertext-Letter 109.3- he clearly admits that Peterkilled the men. 84Jerome, Commentary on Galatians(PL 26:366). "Primum episcopumAntiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisseaccepimus, et Romamexinde translatum"-see Plumer,Augustine's Commentaryon the Galatians,45, who discussesthis. 85Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 3.5.12-see also Hamack Nr- 37. "Tradidit autemse morti condemnatus." (PL 26:432-3) 86Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.1.16-Hamack Nr. 20. " 'came instrueretur et sanguine' ... Cum talibus qui caro et sanguis erant, quae Petro quoque non revelaverunt Filium Dei, non contulit Apostolus Evangelium quod ei fuerat revelaturn, sed paulatim eos de came et sanguine vertit in spiritum: et tunc demum cis occulta Evangehi sacramenta commisit. Dicat quispiam: Si statim non contulit cum came et sanguine Evangelium, tamen subintelligitur, quod postmodurn. cum sanguine et came contulerit: et sensus hic, quo apostoli excusantur, ne caro et sanguis sint, stare non poterit: dum nihilominus qui in principio cum came et sanguine non contulit, postmodum, ut dixi, cum came et sanguine contulerit. " (PL 26: 35 1)
104 Pelagians, Porphyry is said to haveaccused Christ of "Inconsistency." As has already
been mentioned, we know from Jerome's Letter 57 to Parnmachusthat Porphyry
criticised in his book 14 the mistakesof the evangelists,who, he says, are guilty of
"falsity, " for they are unable to cite properly the Bible on which they rely. We also
know -- as has been mentionedabove -- from Jerome'sCommentary on Matthew that
Porphyry discussed discrepanciesbetween the Gospels' narratives. Therefore the
point that Porphyry wanted to make is that the evangelistscould not get their story
straight, either by agreeing with each other, or by presenting Jesus as acting
consistently.As evidencefor his claims, Porphyry recalls an episodefrom John 7.10,
where Jesustold his brethren that he will not yet go up to the feast of Tabernacles
(7.8). However, it is also said that after his brethen went up to the feast, Jesusalso
went up, "not openly, but as if it were a secret."8'As Jerome reports it, Porphyry
"barks [and] accuses[him] of inconsistencyand changeof heart. ,88 Same issueover the Samaritanwoman: Jesushad said that he would not go to her, but then did. The
wording usedby Jerome,namely that Porphyry "barks," tells us a lot about Jerome's opinion of Porphyry, who is portrayed as being no more than a yapping dog. As for the charge of "inconsistency," it certainly targetedChrist's intelligence and ability to be a Master. A Eusebianfragment of Porphyry says that the evangelistsfalsified the recordof what Jesusactually did, sinceJesus never performed any miracle (DE 3.5.1).
The disciples thus failed to report honestly the actions of their master, which is a major form of disrespect. Porphyry clearly wished to discredit their claimed relationshipas masterand disciples.
87 Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17. "Ut aulem ascenderuntfratres eius, func et ipse ascendit ad sollemnitatem, non manifieste, sed quasi in abscondito. " (CCL 80: 76) 89 Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17-Hamack Nr. 70 latrat Porphyrius, inconstantiae ...... ac mutationis accusat." (CCL 80: 76)
105 Porphyry also takesevery opportunity to ridicule Jesus.Jerome reports that the
philosopher,among others, is of the opinion that the Gospelsare full of scandals,i. e.
obstacles to belief In Matthew 15, there is a passage where Jesus answers the scribes
and Phariseeswho accusehis disciplesof transgressingthe tradition of the ancientsby
not washingtheir handsbefore eating.To this charge,Jesus answered that they were
themselvesdoing worse by transgressingthe commandmentof God "Honour thy
father and mother." Jesusreminds them of a prophecy from Isaiah which says that
their people would honour God with the lips, and not their heart. He arguesthat "all
that enters into the mouth, goes into the belly, and is then rejected into the privy, "89
and can thus not defile a man; whereasevil thoughtsdo come directly from the heart
and can defile a man. Porphyry jumped on the passageand claimed that Jesuswas
thus experiencing physiological processesOust like any human being), and Jesus
himself acknowledgesthis. The argumentis most probably meant to reduceChrist to a
mere humanbeing, and thereforeto contestthe Christian claim that he is a god.
Next, Porphyry, in an effort to downgrade the miracles performed by Jesus,
explains that the Lord cannothave walked on a sea, since the surface he walked on
was not a sea,but a lake, namely the Lake Genezareth.Porphyry heredoes not meanit
is easierto walk on a lake than on the sea: he meansthat the evangelistsdid not even lake. It follows realise that the "sea" - "maria" - was a that, "The evangelists
fashioneda miracle for the ignorant."90 Here Porphyry targetedboth the evangelists
and Christ, reducing the latter to his human condition, and accusing the former of crafting stories in order to delude. This accusationshould be associatedwith other chargesmade against the apostles,who, according to Porphyry, boasted about their
89Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 15.17-Harnack Nr. 56."Non intelligitis quia omne quod intrat in os in uentrem uadit et in secessumemittitur? " (CCL 75A) 90Jerome, Hebrew Questionson Genesis1.1 O-Harnack Nr. 55b. evangelistasad faciendum (CCL 72:3) ignorantibusmiraculum eo ......
106 quite ordinary miracles in order to attract the money of rich women whom they duped,91 and abused by their teachings "the simplicity and ignorance of their listeners."9'
Nr. 49 from Against Vigilantius also pertains to Christ's miracles, and its content is unclear without both the biblical context and the context of Jerome'swork.
This fragment says: "In the samemanner as the Gentiles and the impious, Porphyry and Eunomius,(said that) you pretendthat theseportents camefrom demons,and that the demons were not really shouting aloud, but were simulating their torments.9993
What we are missing here in the Harnack collection is the referent of "these"- "has".
We understand that Porphyry might have paired an aspect of Christianity with cosmogonyand the daimones.We can also deducethat heretics, such as Eunomius, have madethis kind of association.The passage'smeaning, however, is blurred, and it becomesuseless. Harnack, however, clearly retained this fragment becauseit named
Porphyry and could be paired with a passagefrom the Apocriticos of Macarius
94 Magnes. According to Hamack, there are allusions to passagesfrom Matthew (8.29) and Mark (5) that the Anonymous of the Apocriticos ridiculed. Matthew says that two peoplepossessed by demonscame out of tombs to meet Christ. They called out "Have you come to torment us?" The demonsasked Jesusto send them away to a herd of pigs, which leapt from a cliff into the sea. In Mark, the demon says "My name is
Legion, for we are many," and there are two thousand pigs. According to the
Anonymous, thesestories andtheir different versionsdo not show the might of Christ, but that the demonsactually got what they were after, namely disturbing the sea and
91Jerome, Abridged commentaryon the psalms 81-Harnack Nr. 4. 92Jerome, Commentary on Joel 2.28-Harnack Nr. 5. audientium simplicitate et imperitia tCCL 76: 194) ... 3Jerome, Against Vigilantius 10-Harnack Nr. 49b. "Nisi forte in morern gentilium impiorumque, Porphyrii et Eunotnii, haspraestigias daemonurn esse configas, et non vere clamaredaemones, sed sua simulare tormenta." (PL 23) 94 SeeNr. 49 and Mak. 3.4.1-5.
107 earth, and creating a deadly show. So the connectionwith the fragment of Porphyry is
that the demonssaid that they were being tortured.
Just as with the NT passagesdiscussed above, Harnack's collection provides
us only with thesehints, which require either a very good knowledge of the subjects
criticised by Porphyry, or a very good knowledge of Jerome's discussionof these
topics. Let us now re-insert these passagesinto their 'cover-text' in order to better
understandJerome's motivations for referring to Porphyry in the way he did.
The allusions to Porphyry that I mentioned are the only clues preservedby
Jeromeas to what Porphyry wrote about Jesusin his discourses,i. e. that Christ was a
mere inconsistenthuman being, who never performed the miracles attributed to him,
and who was fooled by daimones. But what are those allusions and referencesdoing
in Jerome'scorpus, and can their meaningbecome different when they are put back
into their original context? One reference to Porphyry in each of the texts does not
make a strong case for a refutation. It is clear that these are therefore passing
comments. Indeed, Jerome never wanted to formally refute Porphyry, although he
doesanswer some of Porphyry's points against Christianity in passing.As a reminder,
Jerome, in his Commentaryon Daniel, said that his main purpose was to interpret " Daniel, not to answer Porphyry. We are thus applying this rule to Jerome's other
works, and assumingthat his primary purposewas not to write formal refatationsof
Porphyry's ideas.We also rememberthat Jeromehas no intention to transmit the 15
books of the discoursesthat we call Against the Christians, especially sinceextensive 96 responseshave already been written by competentChurch fathers.
Here again, we observe that the texts in which the passageson Jesuswere
preservedbelong to the specific agendaof Jerome.Jerome associates his opponents
"Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue. 96Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue.
108 with bad people.Against Vigilantius was written in 406,97and Jerometells us that he
wrote it in one night, following the reading of Vigilantius' treatise.98 In 404, Jerome
had receiveda letter from Riparius, a priest of Aquitaine, warning him that Vigilantius was condemningthe cult of the martyrs in the South-West of Gaul. It had already come to the attention of Jerome that Vigilantius had been spreadingrumours about
Jerome being an Origenist. Therefore, as soon as he managed to get hold of
Vigilantius' writings, two years later, Jerome composed a vitriolic reply, in turn charging the man with heresy.Jerome says that, "Many monstershave beengenerated in the world. "99Vigi lantius is among them. Jerome relates how he is driven by "a filthy spirit,"100 for he maintains, among other things, that "no religious honours should be paid to the tombs of the martyrs, that vigils should be condemned,that
Alleluia should never be sung except at Easter,that continenceis a heresy,and that chastity is a hot-bed for pleasures."101 To Vigilantius, who denies the signs and miracles that happenin the basilicas of martyrs, Jeromeanswers that uncleanspirits force people like him to write such things, for they suffer from the signs and miracles.102 It is in this context that Porphyry and Eunomius,the renownedheretic, are
97See J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome:His Life, Writings and Controversies(London: 1975),286 n. 14, on the dateof composition,and 286-90on Jeromeand Vigilantius. 98 Jerome,Against Vigilantius 1.3. "Riparius, Desideriuset Sisinnius.Imperitia Vigilantii.---Sed jam tempusest, ut ipsius verba ponentesad singula responderenitamur. Fieri enim potest,ut rursum malignusinterpres dicat fictarn a me materiam,cui rhetorica declarnationerespondeam: sicut illam quam.scripsi ad Gallias, matris et filiae inter se discordantium.Auctores sunt hujus dictatiunculaemeae sanctipresbyteri Riparius et Desiderius,qui paroeciassuas vicinia istius scribunt essemaculatas, miseruntquelibros per fratrem Sisinnium, quos inter crapularnstertens evornuit. Et asseruntrepertos essenonnullos, qui, faventesvitiis suis, illius blaspherniisacquiescant. Est quidem imperitus,et verbis et scientia, ct sermoncinconditus; nc vera quidem potestdefendere: sed propter homines saeculiet mulierculas onerataspeccatis, semper discentes et numquarnad scientiamveritatis pervenientes,una lucubratiunculaillius naeniisrespondebo, ne sanctorumvirorum qui ut haec faceremme deprecatisunt, videar litteras respuisse." (PL 23)
99Jerome, Against Vigilantius 1.1: "Multa in orbe monstragenerata sunt. " (PL 23) 100Jerome, Against Vigilanlius 1.10."Spiritus immundus." (PL 23) ... 101Jerome, Against Vigilanlius 1.1. "Exortus est subito Vigilantius, seu.verius DorTnitantius,qui immundo spiritu pugnet contra Christi spiritum, et Martyrum negetsepulcra veneranda; damnandas dicat essevigilias: numquarnnisi in PaschaAlleluia cantandum:continentiam, haeresim; pudicitiam, libidinis seminarium." (PL 23) 102Jerome, Against Pelagius 1.10."Spiritus iste immundus haec (PL 23) qui te cogit scribere... ."
109 named,since they said that the demonsare only pretending to suffer. Jeromeis thus
pairing their ideaswith Vigilantius' ideas in order to discredit him. He doesnot tell us
in what context Porphyry talked about the tormented daimones; rather, he uses a
general idea that Porphyry expressedin a totally different context. Harnack tried to
trace back this context by associating it with the Anonymous Greek of the
Apocriticos, as we have said, and his complaints about the story of the dead pigs; but
this context cannot be garanteedif we remember that the Macarios fragments are
contested,and that Jeromedid not necessarilyuse theseideas with the samemeaning
in mind.
Jerome also used Porphyry and the Arians against his adversary Pelagius.
Jeromewrote his work againstPelagius in 415.103According to him, Pelagiuswas an
impious heretic, and Jerome even associated him with Origenism and Rufinus.
Pelagius and the Pelagiansargued that a man could live without sin if he wills it,
which was, to Jerome,a non-senseas men are not ruled by their free will, but by the
graceof God, our original nature,which was neededin every act. In the discussionOn
the sinlessnessof Christ, Jerome quotes Jesusin John 5.30 : "By myself I can do 04 nothing; I judge only as I hear."' Jeromethen tells us that according to the Arians, who are committing a sacrilege, Jesus is referring to his human condition.105
According to the Pelagianinterpretation it meansthat if we want to, we can be sinless.
To Jerome,however, the sentencerather means that Jesus,when he wants to show that 106 he made himself a man, says that he cannot do anything by himself Jeromethen recalls John 7.10, where it is said that Jesusattended the feast of Tabernacleseven
103Kelly, Jerome,319, on the date of composition,and chapter26 on Jeromeand the Pelagians. 104Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17. "Non possum, ait, egofacere a meipsoaliquid; sicut audio, iudico." (CCL 80:75) 105Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17. "Arriani obiciunt calumniam,sed respondet Ecclesia ex persona hominis hoc dici, qui assumptusest. " (CCL 80:75) 106Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17. "Tu e contratrio loqueris:Possum sine peccatoesse, si voluero. Ille nihil ex se potestfacere, ut hominis indicet veritatem: tu potes omnia peccatavitare, ut adhucin corpore constitutisdtVTi@cov esse te doceas." (CCL 80:75-6)
110 though he had said he would not.107 Porphyry "barks" that Jesuswas inconsistent.But
Jerome has his own explanation for the change of heart of Jesus: Porphyry clearly
does not know that "all stumbling-blocks bring (us) back to the flesh,"' 08i. e. that
whenwe find a problemin what Jesussays and does, for instancewhen he weepsor is
angry, this is becausehe is behaving as a human being. Jerome, in order to argue
against Pelagius,puts him in the sameboat with Porphyry and the Arians, obvious
opponentswho were wrong about Scripture; Jeromethus throws in a referenceto the
Arians becausethey were thought to teach that Christ was not fully divine, and a
reference to Porphyry becausehe was known to accusethe Christian scriptures of
inconsistency.He has no intention to answerPorphyry here.
Jerome also uses Porphyry to show his own knowledge in front of Church
opponents.In his Commentary on Matthew 15.17, Jerome mentions how Porphyry
and othersused a declarationmade by Jesusregarding the processof food in the body
in the hope to prove his human condition. Jerome,who certainly has in mind all the
attacks that Porphyry made on the ignorance of the evangelists, apostles, and
disciples, sincehe has himself preservedmany passageson this topic in his letters and
commentaries, is pleased to have an opportunity to point out Porphyry's own
ignorance. He answershim that "wanting to point to another's ignorance,men like
him show their own ignorance."109 Indeed, according to Jerome, the actual food
processis as follows : once in us, our food is scatteredthrough our members,veins,
marrows, and nerves.Evidence for this is that somekeep throwing up after their meals
and still remain overweight. Jeromeargues that upon the first contact with the body,
107Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17."Negat fratribus ac propinquis ire se ad scenopegiam,et postea scripturnest: 'Ut autem ascenderuntfratreseius, iunc et ipseascendit ad sollemnitatem,non manifeste, sed quasi in abscondito." (CCL 80:76) '08Jerome, Against Pelagius 2.17...... Nesciensomnia scandalaad carnemesse referenda. " (SC 80:76) 109Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 15.17:"Sed istiusmodi homines,dum uolunt alterius imperitiam reprehendere,ostendunt suam. " (CCL 242:328)
III the food is liquefied and scatteredin the members.Once assimilatedand digestedin the veins and members, following secret circuits in the body that the Greek call
"pores," the food goes down toward the privy. The whole argument is not very logical, but Jerome probably means that Jesus simply did not describe the whole process.What we needto understandis that the brief referenceto thosewho "unfairly criticised Christ""o and to the Gospelsare madein the context of the commentaryon
Matthew 15,not in the context of a refutationof the discoursesAgainst the Christians.
As for the passageon the Lake Genesareth,which was not a sea, it is part of the work Hebrew Questionson Genesiswritten, as Jerome explains himself in the prologue, in order to refute the mistakes that create suspicion toward the Hebrew texts, i.e. to reduce the mistakesof the Latin and Greek versions of the sacredtexts.
The aim is to make clearer the meaningand origins of things, places,and men that are not familiar to the Latin speakers.Jerome's interests, as has been said above, were mainly textual. While he is commenting on Genesis I- 10 on the Creation and specifically on the sentence:"And he called sea the gathering of the waters,"'" he explains that any gathering of waters, either salted or fresh, is called a sea in the
Hebrew language.Jerome takes the opportunity to mention that, therefore, Porphyry vainly criticised the evangelistsof crafting a miracle when they said that Jesuswalked " on the sea. Any lake or gatheringof waters, he adds, is called a sea., This allows
Jerometo show superiorknowledge of idiom andto point out that "sea" was alsoused for lakes. The referenceto Porphyry is thus made,once again,in passing,and haslittle
11()Jerome, Commentary on Matthew 15.17:"Et ex hac sententiolaquidam calumnianturquod Dominus.... " (SC 242:3 28) 11Jerome, Hebrew Questionson Genesis1.10: "Et congregationesaquarum vocavitmaria. " (CCL 72:3) 112Jerome, Hebrew Questionson Genesis1.10. "Notandurn quod omnis congrcgatioaquarum, sive salsaesint sive dulces,iuxta idioma linguae hebraicaemaria nuncupentur.Frustra igitur Porphyrius evangelistasad faciendurnignorantibus miraculum eo, quod dominus supermare ambulaverit,pro lacu Genesarethmare appellassecalumniatur, cum omnis lacuset aquarumcongregatio maria nuncupetur. " (CCL 72:3)
112 to do with the subjectmatter, which is the Creation,not Jesus'miracles.
As can be understoodfrom this final point, the fragmentsas they appearin
Harnack's collection do not allow for full comprehensionof Porphyry's allusions,or
thecore of his subjectmatter. It mayalso be suspected,from the specialattention that
Jeromegives to Porphyry's attackon the headsof the Church,that the philosopher
was effective in disturbing the Church, and that he clearly wished to ruin the
foundationsof Christianity.
To conclude,from what he preservedof Porphyry,we can seewhat concerned
Jerome,but that doesnot tell us what concernedthe philosopher.Porphyry probably did engagewith texts, but we cannotclaim that Porphyry did a verse-by-verse commentary.The contextualizationof the anti-Christian discourses'fragments shows to what extent theseare embeddedin the broaderwork of Jerome,based on his
interestin textual analysis,his concern for defendingPeter, Paul and his Christian faith. The length of the fragmentsdedicated to the headsof the Church indicatesthat
Jeromeconsidered it more important to cite Porphyry on this topic than on the attack on the apostlesand evangelists. The new collection of fragmentsshould help us better
to understandthis aspect,by demonstratingthat there are fewer fragments on other topics, but that doesnot prove that Porphyry wrote less extensivelyabout them. The new collection will also help to make inferencesas to the contentof the books that may have consistedof detailedcomparisons of the Gospels.It will certainly make
Porphyry more accessiblethan he is in the pioneeringwork of Harnack.
But while somefragments need to be re-insertedin their "cover-text," others needserious re-assessment, asis thecase with the Augustinianfragments. We shall thus next concentrateon the Letter 102,which, althoughin greatpart challengedby
113 severalscholars, continues to be an integral part of any collection of Porphyry's anti-
Christian discourses.
114 IV-Augustine's Letter 102
The caseof the Augustinian fragmentsis not as straight-forwardas actual
fragmentcollections would haveus believe. Upon looking closely at Augustine's letter
102to Deogratias,as well as his On the Harmony of the Gospels,it appearsthat no
fragments,or passages,in Augustine are explicitly from a lost work of Porphyry,
althoughthe letter, and,since recently, On Harmony, havebeen considered as sourcesfor
fragmentsof Against the Christians. Even the most extensivepassage of Augustine- in
which Porphyry is (possibly) cited on the oraclespertaining to the dinivity of Christ (City from discourses of God 19.23)- is explicitly not the Against the Christians, but from Philosophyftom Oracles.And if thoseoracles were usedby Porphyry in his discourses
Against the Christians as well as in Philosophyftom Oracles,or if Augustine was aware
of the discourses(which, aswe will see,cannot be proved),then why would he not say
that in a work againstthe Christians,Porphyry's godsacknowledge Christ? Because this
is preciselywhat the entire passageis about: Hecateand Apollo are both expressingtheir
views on Christ, but nowherein his corpusdoes Augustine acknowledgethe existenceof
Against the Christians.The aim of the next two chaptersis to re-evaluatethe fragments ascribedto Porphyry in Augustineby giving a fresh look at them and by studying the bishop of Hippo's rhetorical strategies,as well as his use of Porphyry.
The Augustinianfragments, which Harnackincluded in his collection of the discoursesAgainst the Christians, are from a letter that Augustinewrote to his friend
Deogratias(ep. 102)in late A. D. 408 or 409, i.e. aboutone year prior to the famoussack
115 of Romeby Alaric. ' In the introduction to the letter 102to Deogratias,Augustine
mentions a letter written by a commonacquaintance of himself and Deogratias,whom he
sayshe loves,and in which theanonymous author asks Deogratias a seriesof questions
pertaining to fundamentalquestions on Christianity. But Deogratiasreferred those
questionsto charismaticAugustine, who, in turn, arguesthat the anonymousauthor of the
questions,having neglectedto reply to his last letter for a reasonwhich, as Augustine put
it, "he knows best,112 is unlikely to want him to be in touch again.Augustine will thus
advise Deogratias,so that he can answerthe man in questionhimself From what
Augustine says,we can deducethat the unnamedman may havebeen somewhatoffended
by the proselytizing contentof Augustine's letter, for the bishop says"how great is (his,
i. e. Augustine's) grief that he should not yet be a Christian."' We rememberthat
Augustine also expressedgrief towardsPorphyry it in the City of God.4 And it is precisely
from the anti-Christian writings of Porphyry that the Anonymousdrew his questions
about Christianity - the Porphyrianauthorship will be discussedlater, for it hasbeen
much debated.
1See 1.Bochet, "Les quaestionesattribu6es A Porphyredans la Lettre 102 d'Augustin," (forthcoming in Collection des international EktudesAugustiniennes, proceedings from the colloquium "Le traitd de Porphyrecontre les chrdtiens.Un si6cle de recherches,nouvelles questions, " held at the Sorbonne,Paris, 8- 9 September2009 ) on the date. 2Augustine,Letter 102,1 ". " Note Latin for Augustine : .. viderit quarnob causam. that all quotations are from: Sant'Agostino: http://www. augustinus.it/latino/lettere/index2. htm. 3 Augustine,Letter 102,1 ". dolori : .. quantoquemihi sit, quod nondum christianusest. 4Augustine, City of God 10,28:"Mittis ergo homines in erroremcertissimum, neque hoc tanturnmalum te pudet, cum virtutis et sapientiaeprofitearis amatorem;quam si vere ac fideliter amasses,Christum Dei virtulem et Dei sapientiamcognovisses nec ab eius saluberrimahumilitate tumore inflatus vanaescientiae resiluisses."
116 Porphyry is said to be the fiercest opponentto Christianity, but Augustine's
portrayal of the man in City of God gives us the impressionthat he was onestep short of
being a Christian himself, if only he had beenless proud.'
The format of Augustine's letter 102 follows a seriesof questions- six in total -
askedby theunnamed pagan. What needs to be addressedhere is how areauthors
normally citing from their sourceswhen it comesto questionsand answers. The questions
from letter 102 seemto be drawn from the discoursesagainst the Christians,but this is
controversial. A statement made by Augustine himself is the root of the polemic. In his
Retractationes,the bishop of Hippo writes:
"Meanwhile, six questions were sent to me from Carthage. A friend whom
wanted to be Christian put them forward, so that they could be resolved
in answerto the pagans,especially as he saidthat severalof them had been
put forward by Porphyry the philosopher.But I do not think that this was
Porphyrythe Sicilian, whosereputation is very well known."'
5 Augustine,City of God 10.28; seealso, for instance,Augustine, City of God 10.23,where Porphyry's ideasare presentedas though he was describingthe Trinity: "Dicit etiam Porphyriusdivinis oraculisfuisse responsurnnos non purgari lunaeteletis atquesolis, ut hinc ostendereturnullorurn deorum teletis hominem possepurgari. Cuius enim teletaepurgant, si lunaesolisque non purgant, quos inter caelestesdeos praecipuoshabent? Denique eodem dicit oraculoexpressurn principia possepurgare, ne forte, cum dictum essetnon purgareteletas solis et lunae, alicuius alterius dei de turba valere ad purgandurnteletae crederentur.Quae autern dicat esseprincipia tamquamPlatonicus, novimus. Dicit enim Deum Patremet Deum Filium, quemgraece appellat patemum intellecturnvel patemarnmentem; de Spiritu autem Sancto aut nihil aut non apertealiquid dicit; quamvisquern aliurn dicat horurn medium,non intellego. Si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus substantiisdisputat, animaenaturarn etiarn iste vellet intellegi, non utique dicerethorurn medium, id est Patris et Filii medium. Postponitquippe Plotinus animae naturarnpaterno intellectui; iste auterncum dicit medium, non postponit, sedinterponit. Et nimirurn hoc dixit, ut potuit sive ut voluit, quod nos SanctumSpiritum, nec Patris tanturnnec Filii tantum, sedutriusque Spiriturn dicimus. Liberis enim verbis loquuntur philosophi, nec in rebusad intellegendurndifficillimis offensionernreligiosarum aurium pertimescunt.Nobis auternad certarnregularn loqui fas est, ne verborum licentia etiarn de rebus,quac his significantur,impiarn gignat opinionern." 6 Augustine,Retractationes 2.3 1: "Inter haec missaesunt rnihi a Carthaginequaestiones sex, quas proposuit amicusquidam, quemcupiebarn fieri christianum,ut contra paganossoluerentur, praesertim quia nonnullas
117 A. von Hamack included the six questionsin his fragmentcollection. The questionsgo as
follow (briefly summarized):
1) Will the promisedResurrection be in the form of that of Christ or Lazarus?(Hamack
Nr. 92)
2) If Christ is the only way to salvation,then what aboutall thosewho were bom before
him? (HamackNr. 8 1)
3) Why do Christiansreject sacrificial rituals, when this is what the God of the Jews,who
is also theirs, dictates?(Hamack Nr. 79)
4) Why is Christ contradictinghimself when he both threatensthe unfaithful with eternal punishmentand with punishmentaccording to measure?(Harnack Nr. 9 1)
5) Did Solomonsay or not that God has no Son?(Harnack Nr. 85)
6) How can the story of Jonah,who spentthree days in the belly of a whale, be true?
(Hamack Nr. 46)
SinceHarnack, some scholars have arguedthat almost all of the questionswere
Porphyrian(with, in most cases,the exceptionof question6), while P. Labriolle argued that only questions1,2,3 should be attributedto Porphyry, and R. Goulet that question2 should be classified as from a disciple of Porphyry, and question5 as an allusion to
Porphyry.'
earuma Porphyrio philosophopropositas dixit. Sednon eum essearbitror Porphyrium Siculum illum, cuius celeberrimaest fama." (CCL 57: 115) 7 SeeP. Vaguanay,"Porphyre, " Dictionnaire de TWologie Catholique22,1935, col. 2569; P. Courcelle, Les Lellres grecquesen Occident De Macrobe 6 Cassiodore(Paris: 1943), 175 n. 8 and 197 n. 2; P. Courcelle,"Propos antichr6tiensrapport6s par saintAugustin, " RecherchesAugustiniennes 1,1958,185-6 n. 190;J. Pipin, ThOologiecosmique el thiologie chritienne, p. 460 n. 3; G. Madec, "Augustin et Porphyre. tbauche d'un bilan desrecherches et des conjectures," 104)IHX M41HTOPE.E. Hommageti Jean Pipin, M. -O. GOULET-CAZt, 0. MADEC, D. O'BRIEN (eds.), (Paris: 1992), 376-377;La Bibbia di Pagani, 2. Teslie Documenti, Bologne, EDB, 1998,383-9,392-6,165-7,409-10,191-2,244-6; P. Labriolle, La
118 Meredith doesnot reject the quaestionesfrom his analysisof the content of
8 Porphyry's discourses. He evenoutlines parallels betweena few passagesand other
Porphyriancriticisms, as well as earlier Christianviews. For instance,Porphyry
underlines,in Nr. 91 and 92, a contradictionbetween Mark 16.6 andMatthew 7.2, for
Mark speaksof eternalpunishment, while Matthew rather speaksof punishment proportional to crime. "Here we can trace againthe Porphyriantechnique of trying to discredit the gospelby discoveringwithin its text minor discrepanciesand apparent contradiction."9 Meredith also seesa parallel betweenfragment 92 on the Resurrection andPorphyrian ideas on the questionas reportedby Augustine in The City of God 12.27, namely that the Resurrectionof the body is in contradictionwith the entirely spiritual life of the soul after death.However, he doesnot further develophis argumentabout the authenticity of the fragmentsfrom Letter 102traditionally ascribedto Porphyry.
1.Bochet, in a forthcoming article, scrutinisedthe languageof the Latin text and looked for occurrencesof the questions'themes in the City of God. She thinks that Many argumentsin City of God respondto Porphyry, so if they also respondto the quaestiones, that suggeststhat the quaestionesare from Porphyry. Shethus concludedthat all of the six questionsshould be consideredas Porphyrian:"Les quaestionestransmises par Fami palfend'Augustin me paraissentdonc avoir d6terminddes ddveloppementsimportants de la Citj de Dieu et les r6ponsesqu'Augustin leur donnedans la Lettre 102esquissent sans
budes riaction pa)lenne- sur la polimique anfichr&iennedU jerau Vr si&le, Paris, L'artisan du livre, 1934, 250 n. 3,277 and 440-2; R. Goulet (ed. and trans.), Macarios de Magnesie.Le Monogenýs(Paris: 2003) vol. 1,132 and vol. 2,380. On this, see1. Bochet, "Les quaestionesattribu6es i Porphyredans la Leure 102 d'Augustin." Lessrecent, Anglo-Saxon literature showsthe samelevel of disagreement.See, for instance,Wagenmann (accepts four questions);Kleffner (questions2,3,4, and perhapsI and 6); Georgiades(2,3,4), and Crafer (acceptsall six questions,although he admits that question I is less likely to be from Porphyry). 8 Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian," 1134-1136. 9 Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian," 1135.
119 aucundoute dejä des thýmesmajeurs de la Citý de Dieu."lo
However, Augustine himself seemsto havethought otherwise.Bochet exposedthe
main difficulty as follows: The letter 102has beencatalogued under two different names,
Quaestionescontra Porfyrium expositaesex (Six questionsset forth againstPorphyry) in
the Indiculus11 and Quaestiones expositae contra paganos,numero sex (Six questionsset
forth againstthe pagans),in the Retractationes.12 The first title attributedto the letter is
found in an earlier version of the Indiculus (from 420; there were two versions),13 which
is conspiciouslyfull of mistakes,and a statementmade by Augustine in Retract. 2.41
prompted Bochet to concludethat it was the work of a secretary,not of Augustine. In
Retractationes,Augustine has correctedthe title to "against the pagans," and said he did
not think thosequestions were from Porphyry the Sicilian. Furthermore,Bochet's
translationfor "item alia proposuerunt,quae dicerentde Porphyrio contra Christianos
tamquamualidiora decerpta"14 is: "ils disaient [ces objections] tirdesde Porphyre Contre
les chr9tienscomme pour les rendreplus fortes" (they - the opponentsto Christianity -
were saying that (theseobjections) were from Porphyry's anti-Christian discoursesso as
to make them stronger).She thus suggeststhat opponentstook eachof the six questions
from a treatisethat they claimed was by Porphyry in order to maketheir objections
stronger.But becauseAugustine did not think they were actually from Porphyry, he changedthe title of his treatiseto "Six questionsset forth againstthe pagans," the former title having beenattributed by a secretaryearlier on. Bochet concludesthat Augustine
10Bochet, "Les quaestiones," 16. 1Augustine, Indiculum 1.21. :32Augustine, Retractationes 12.3 1. SeeF. Dolbeau,"La survie desceuvres d'Augustin. Remarquessur I'Indiculum attribud A Possidiuset sur la bibliotMque d'Ansdgise," Du copisle au collectionneur.M91anges d'histoire des lextesel des bibliotUques en PhonneurdAndrg Vernet,D. Nebbiai-Dalla and J.-F. Genest(eds. ) (Turnhout: 1999),3- 22, cited by Bochet, "Quaestiones". 14Letter 102.2-8.Her translationis very satisfying, althoughthere are other possible ones.
120 could not recognisethe philosopherwhom he admired so dearly in theseobjections, and,
therefore,chose to downgradetheir value by not crediting Porphyry as their author.15
But this is only an assumption.From the material that we have,it seemsmore
likely that Augustinewas directly respondingto a text, which he knew only in extracts
madeby someoneelse. Furthermore, it also seemsthat he disagreedwith that personon
the authorshipof the text - he did not think it was by Porphyry. What then is left of
Porphyry in the Letter 102?
Numerousstudies have been written on the intellectual relationshipbetween
Porphyryand Augustine,but most of them are mainly interestedin Porphyry's
Neoplatonicinfluence on Augustine's portrayal of paganism,and, therefore, Christianity, 16 especially in City qf God. The other studiesare concerned,as hasbeen said,with the authenticity of the so-calledPorphyrian fragments in the epistle 102. However, no-one seemsto be primarily interestedin looking at Augustine's citation methodin that letter.
We are facing here a type of intertextuality,which is different from the oneswe havestudied so far. Eusebiuswas using Porphyry to give more credit to his claims, while
Jeromewas citing Porphyryen passant, in the midst of his corpus. Augustine is answeringquestions that havebeen sentto him as excerptsof a work, andhe presents them in the form of questions/answers,or 4quaestiones, ' a genre usedby the early
'5 Bochetis thus giving credit to A. von Hamack's argumentin Porphyrius,"Gegen die Christen," 39 : "Seine Bemerkung: "Non essearbitror Porfyrium Siculum", ist daher wertlos und aus seiner HochschAtzungdes Philosophen Porphyrius zu erklAren," and agreeswith G. Bardy, 'Vindulgence de saint Augustin A F6gard de Porphyre," BA 34,632; but shedisagrees with J. Pdpin, Th6ologiecosmique el thiologie chretienne,460, n. 1. 16See, for instance,G. Madec, "Augustin, disciple et adversairede Porphyre," REA ug 4 (1964); P. Hadot, "Citations de Porphyrechez Augustin, " RE Aug. 6 (1960): 205-44; D. O'Meara, "Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine(Paris: 1959); O'Connell, Porphyrianism in the Early Augustine: Olivier du Roys's contribution, From Augustineto EriugenaFesischriftfor John J O'Meara (Washington,199 1), Richey, "Porphyry, Reincarnationand Resurrectionin de Civitate dei "De civitate Dei", " A uSt26 (1995): 129-142;W. Theiler, "Porphyrios und Augustine" (Halle: 1933).
121 Christians,which has its own literary pattern.17 As far as our methodologicalapproach is
concerned,Bochet did not take into considerationAugustine's citation practices,nor did
sheconsider the quaestionesas a literary genre,when assessingthe authorshipof the
Letter 102.What is of interestto us is whetherAugustine reproducedthe questions
exactly as they were presentedto him. Did he transcribethe quaestioneswithout alteration, and did the man who sentthem to him also transcribethem from Porphyry, or even a translationof Porphyry?Or did either Augustine, or Deogratias'scorrespondent, shapethem into quaestiones?To answersuch questions, we shall first look at the
4quaestiones'as a genre,because we need to identify the rhetorical strategiesit employs, in order to link passagesto the discoursesAgainst the Christians.
The first Christian to use that methodwas Eusebiusof Caesareawith his " Questionsand Answerson the Gospels. Innovating here as in other fields - such as
History - Eusebiustook into accountthe Greek heritage.Zarnagni insists that defining the quaestionesas a genreis a hefty task, and that one should speakof a questionsand answersliterature ratherthan of a specific literary genre.The problem is that many
Christian works include a seriesof questionsand answers,while belongingto another, specific genre.Zamagni suggeststhat we shoulddifferentiate betweenthe literary genre and the literary process,the former requiring that we only include thosetexts which consistin a seriesof questionsand answers,and the latter comprisingall the texts whose
17C. Zamagni, "Porphyry est-il la cible principale des 'questions' chrdtiennesdes We et Ve si&cles?" forthcoming in Collection desbudes A ugustiniennes,proceedings of the internationalcolloquium "Le traiti de Porphyrecontre les chrdtiens.Un si6cle de recherches,nouvelles questions, " held at the Sorbonne, Paris, 8-9 September2009 [cf. C. Zamagni, "Is the Question-and-AnswerLiterary Genre in Early Christian Literaturea HomogeneousGroup? " (forthcoming), and A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-andAnswer Literature in Context Proceedingsof the Utrecht Colloquium, 13-14 October 2003 (Contributionsto Biblical Exegesisand Theology, 37) (Leuven: 2004), 7-24]. 18C. Zamagni, "Une introduction m6thodologiquei la litt6rature patristiquedes questions et r6ponses:le cas d'Eus6bede Cdsarde," in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.) Erotapokriseis(Paris: 2004), 7.
122 rhetorical structurecomprises a questionand its answer,but belongingto a specific genre.
R. J. Teske,in a paper on the quaestiones,exposes the problemswith identifying
the Augustinianworks that belongto the 'genre.' Someof Augustine's works clearly
belong to it, given their title; Quaestionesexpositae contra paganosis thus among
them." This work is also known as epistula 102,but Augustine listed it as a separate
work in Retractationes(2.31.58). Teske argues that to the nine works identified as
in Augustine's (eight questions and responses corpus - Expositio quarumdam
propositionum ex Epistula ad Romanos, De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus liber
unus, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, Quaestiones Evangeliorum,
Quaestiones sedecim in Matthaeum, De octo quaestionibus ex Veteri testamento,
in Heplateuchum, De Dulcitii Quaestiones and octo quaestionibus liber unus - by G. Quaestiones Bardy and the ninth - expositae contra paganos - by Pollastri), we should
add a further nine, namely Ad inquisitiones Januarii, De gratia Novi Tevamenti, Contra
Faustum,Letters 135,136, and 137(which constitute,according to him, a book of responsesto pagans),Letter 199Define mundi, De cura Pro mortuis gerenda,De peccatorummeritis et remissioneet de baptismoparvulorum, De spiritu et fittera, and
Contra Priscillianistas et Origenistasad Orosium. In order to include more works to G.
Bardy's and Pollastri's list, Teskehas had to rethink the rules of the questionsand answersgenre, which he thoughthad not beenclearly defined. According to him, the questionscan come from "one single personat one time," as is the casewith Deogratias.
They may also comefrom various personsover an extendedor unspecifiedperiod of time, from a group of peopleat onetime, or 'by the authorhimself over an extended
19R. J. Teske,"Augustine of Hippo and the Quaestioneset ResponsionesLiterature, " in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.) Erowpokriseis (Paris: 2004), 127.
123 20Teske further "some 'questions' period of time.,, arguesthat, of the are not really questions,that someof their answersare syllogistic argumentsor short treatises,and that someof the questionsare simply questionswithout answers.Some of the questionsare simply quotationsfrom other authors,and many scriptural responsescan be tracedto
Bible 21 Teske Augustine havekept earlier commentatorson the .,, suggeststhat may copiesof theseworks and listed them in the Retractationes,knowing that they would or could be usedin the future as "theological textbooksfor the next generations.q122 But he is alsoconcerned about the rules he proposesfor the questionsand answersgenre, stating that it will becomepossible to include more and more Augustinian works into that categoryif a more rigorous definition than his is not established.23
C. Jacobhas looked into the reasonswhy an authorwill chooseto usethe questionsand answersliterary method.24 Going back to Plato, he explainsthat Plato opted for the use of the 'dialogue' - or dialectical method- to communicatehis philosophical ideas.Plato argued,via Socrates(Phaedrus 275D), that the text, being fixed in time, could neverdefend itself againstor provide further explanationsto its readers.The solution was thus, accordingto him, to set in place a dialogue, in which all aspectsof an argumentwould beexplored, and which would answerthe reader's interrogations. The point is to mime an oral dialogue. This implies, therefore,that the authorof sucha dialoguehas set the questionsin order to confoundopponents before they could raise any objection.As we shall seein the next sectionof this chapter,Augustine uses this strategy extensivelyin De consensu;it ensuesthat one should not identify the questionshe asks
20Teske, "Augustine, " 142. 21Teske, "Augustine, " 142. 22Teske, "Augustine, " 143. 23Teske, "Augustine, " 144. 24C. Jacob,"Questions sur les Questions," in A. Volgers and C. Zarnagni(eds. ) Erotapokfiseis (Paris: 2004), 33.
124 with a specific opponent.In epistula 102,Augustine gives every indication that he is
answeringthe questionssent to Deogratiasand forwardedto him. However, the technique
of questionsand answersdemands that an author shouldboth exposeand defend his
views. In this case,the questionsasked are clearly polemical, and, in somecases, have
incurred laughterat the expenseof Christians(question 6 on Jonah).It is thus impossible
to tell the origin of suchquestions in the first place- where did the anonymouspagan
find them?In a specific anti-Christian work? Were they hearsays?Or were they a
combination of questionsregularly askedby the unfaithful? We haveevery reasonto
think that both Deogratiasand Augustine are seekingto answerjust what they were
asked,for it is here, in the end, a matter of gaining possibleconverts. But we cannot
assume that any of them has reproduced the questions as they were presented to them, without adapting their wording to an argument, which was meant to defend Christianity against fundamental attacks. In that case, considering these as 'fragments' from a work,
whichever it is, is simply wrong.
Since scholars have established that there were no strict 'rules' for the quaestiones
that would allow us to classify it as a proper genre,we shall look at Augustine's style when he usesthe questionand answermethod of arguing, in order to determinewhether or not he might have shapedthe six questionsthat were sent to him to make them fit his usual structure.Zamagni has determinedthat Eusebiushad his own style when writing his questions,it would thus be interestingto verify whether this is the casewith Augustine.25
Zamagni hasnoted that all of Eusebius'questions start with either M Ti or mb;. He tracedback their useto classicalauthors such as Plato, Philo of Alexandria, Aristotle, and
25C. Zarnagni,"Existe-t-il une tenninologie techniquedans les questionsd'Eus6be de Cdsarde?" in A. Volgers and C. Zarnagni(eds. ) Erotapokriseis(Paris: 2004), 81-98.
125 26 Plutarch, and noted that other Christians also used these words to introduce their
27 questionsin their dialogues(&& Ti in the caseof Diogenes). He conludesthat the words usedby Eusebiusin his questionsmay belong to the questionand answer genre, and representa tradition in the Church fathers' corpus.It would, however,be beyondthe scopeof the presentstudy to make an exhaustiveresearch on similar wording usedin the
Latin world. This questionis of coursecomplicated by the fact that the genre,if there is one, originated from the Greeks.Furthermore, A. Volgers has observedin relation to the answerssection of various Latin fathersthat theredoes not seemto be much consistency within them, which might meanwe must rule out the existenceof a specific set of rules
2' let look Augustine's traditionally usedin the Latin corpus. But us at style. If it is consistentwithin his work, then we might be inclined to think that he hasreformulated the questionspresented to him.
In letter 102,Augustine appearsto be enlarging on eachof the six general questionshe receivedfrom Deogratias.For instance,the first questionis set as follows:
"It (the resurrection)bothers certain people,and they ask which of
the two kinds of resurrectionscorresponds to the one promisedto us, is it
that of Christ, or that of Lazarus?If it is Christ's, they say,(then) how can
that resurrectionbe the samefor thosewho were born from seed,when He
was not born from any seed?But if the resurrectionof Lazarus corresponds
to ours,it too seemsnot to fit: (since)the resurrection of Lazaruswas
realisedfrom a body not yet decayed,but from the body in which he was
26Zamagni, "Questions, " 88-97. 27Zarnagni, "Questions, " 93. Note that we donot haveevidence that Diogenes was a Christian. 28A. Volgers,"Ambrosiaster: Persuasive Powers in Progress," in A. Volgersand C. Zamagni(eds. ) Erolapokriseis(Paris: 2004), 109.
126 saidto be Lazarus;ours, however,is put back togetherafter many
centuriesout of the thingswith which it has beenmingled. Then, if after
the resurrectionour stateis going to be fortunate,in that thereare no
injuries to the body, no necessityfor hunger,what doesit meanthat Christ
took food, and showedhis injuries? For if he did this for the unbelieving,
he was deceiving them: if, however, he displayedthe truth, the woundswe
havereceived will remain in the resurrection.1529
First, this reasoningreminds us of that of the Anonymousfrom Macarios'
Apocriticos:
"In fact, anyonewho is willing to reflect on what follows will find out that
this Resurrection is mere silliness: many, indeed - and this is often the
case!- perishedat seaand their body was eatenby fishes; many others
were eatenby wild beatsand birds of prey. How is it possible,then, that
their body should comeback? Ah! Let's look at this assertionin detail; for
instance,someone has been shipwrecked,and seaswallows have eaten
their body; fishermenhave then caughtthem and consumedthem; dogs
havethen killed anddevoured those men; ravensand vultures enjoyedthe
deaddogs without leaving any remains.How, then, will the body of the
shipwreckedman be re-assembledafter being decomposedin so many
29Augustine, Letter 102.2- HarnackNr. 92: "Movet quosdam,et requirunt de duabusresurrectionibus quae Christi Lazari? Si haec conveniatpromissae resurrectioni, utrumnam an Christi, inquiunt, quomodopotest convenireresuffectioni natorum ex semine,eius qui nulla seminis conditionenatus est? Si autem Lazari resuffectioconvenire asseritur, ne haec quiderncongruere videtUT: siquidern Lazari resurrectiofacta sit de Lazarusdicebatur; corporenondurn tabescente, de eo corpore, quo nostraautem multis saeculispost ex beatusfuturus confusoeruetur. Deinde si post resurrectionernstatus est, nulla corporis iniuria, nulla fuisse, necessitatefamis, quid sibi vult cibaturn Christurn et vulnera monstravisse?Sed si propter incredulum fecit, finxit: si autemverum ostendit,ergo in resurrectioneaccepta futura. sunt vulnera." Please from "Si Christi is note that the editor markedthe passagestarting ...... as if it were a citation, but there no evidencefor this.
127 animals?And let's imagine anotherbody consumedby fire, and another
one eatenby vermin; how could they come back to their original
00 substanceT
The Anonymous doesnot refer to Lazarusanywhere. If, however, both the Letter 102and the Apocriticos havethe discoursesas their source,then why is the contentof the attacks not similar? The resurrectionwas a common target for Christian opponents,for it was at the centerof the Christian belief system,but yet it was very easyto display its lack of rationality. Objections to a cruderesurrection of the body also stem from Origen. It ensuesthat whateverthe sourceof the polemic, whether it be Porphyry or Origen, none of thesepassages should be deemedas 'fragments' per se.
Next, let us look at the methodused by Augustine for setting the questions.In De consensuevangelistarum, as we shall seein the next section,Augustine incorporatesa seriesof questionsinto his argument,as though he were anticipating them.He introduces them by common interrogatives, such as quid, an, si, quae, qualia, quomodo, cur, qui, nunquid, quodlibet (cons. 7.12-13;8.13; 14.22,15.23,16.24). Let us take, as an example, the following passage,in which there is a seriesof conditional sentences:
"Verumtamen diligentius ab istis quaerendumest, quemnamputent esse
Deum Israel. Cur eum colendurn non receperunt sicut aliarum gentium
deos, quas Romanum subegit imperium, praesertim cum eorum sententia
sit omnes deos colendosesse sapienti? Cur ergo a numero ceterorumiste
30 Macarios, Apoeriticos 4.24.3-4: "Ei 8e KäKeiv6, rt<ý> 90klot KaTaV0etV, EýpýGet 14aaTbVäße), Tilpiaý npdyýta tö Tlg ävacrTäaeo)ý rloÄlol yäp 9V OaläTT'n lrOUäKtý ält6)IOVTO Kai ýültö iXoüü)V äVlqxd)Oll TÜ ad)ýtaTct, icoIXol 8'lünä Oilpi(ov Kai öpvk(t)V Aßpd)OllCFaVlrü)ý OUV Tä 0(;)IIUTU alW3V gnavEA,0eiv 7 o'tvovT; F, (Npe 'yäp TÖ ÄFX0kV 41[Tdäg ßaCaVi0(. ügFV OTOV,kvai)ä-filce ný, c't"ra Tpiykat TOÜ 96)gaTOý ýy£ýCaVTO, ,r Eto'ä, tEý6(YOLVTtgTIVB9 Kai lpaT6VT£g icgäyllCrO1V KCLI'Ültä KIN(OV ýßpd)0I1CraV,TOýÜg KlÜVaý ältO0C1V6VTaý Köpauý napgW Kai yÜns; deotvAaavTonöjg oluV CrUVCLXOACFETCLITÖ (Aýta TOZ VCCUayACYCLVTOýÖtä TOCFOÜTU)V 94avak(ü0&güýü)v; Kai Sý (zUo iräliv -ýirbirUp69 äVüt), (üÜkV Kai iTEPOVciý aKd», ilKag 114aV, 7rO)g OIÖV TE Eiý Týv d4 äpXlg glictvEkOEiv ýnöcrTaaiv;" (Goulet 316:6)
128 reiectusest? Si plurimum valet, cur ab eis solus non colitur? Si parum aut
nihil valet, cur contritis eorum simulacris ab omnibus gentibussolus pene
iam colitur? Nunquam huius quaestioniseximi vinculo poterunt, qui cum
maiores et minores deos colant, quos deosputant, hunc Deurn non colunt,
qui praevaluit omnibus, quos colunt. Si enim magnae virtutis est, cur
existimatusest improbandus?Si parvae nulliusve virtutis est, cur tantum
potuit improbatus?Si bonus est, cur a ceteris bonis solus separatur?Si
malus est, cur a tot bonis unus non superatur? Si verax est, cur eius
praeceptarespuuntur? Si mendaxest, cur eiuspraedicta complentur? "31
These conditionals are used to survey all possibilities of a given problem. Augustine has set the first questionof Letter 102in a similar fashion:
"Si Christi, inquiunt, quornodopotest haecconvenire resurrectloni natorum
ex semine, eius qui nulla seminis conditione natus est? Si autem Lazari
resurrectio convenire asseritur, ne haec quidem congruere videtur:
siquidem Lazari resurrectiofacta sit de corpore nondum tabescente,de eo
corpore, quo Lazarus dicebatur; nostra autem multis saeculis post ex
31Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, 1.17.25: "This is, however, a problem that should be evaluated more carefully by them; namely, what they take for the God of Israel, and why have they not deities admitted him into the pantheon of the that they Worship, just like they have done with the other nations' gods that they have subjected to Rome's imperial rule? This must be answered, especially since they think that all the gods should be worshiped by the man of wisdom. Why, then, has He been excluded from this pantheon? If He is very powerful, why is he the only god, who is not worshiped by them? If He has little or no power, why are all the nations smashing the images of other gods, while He is now almost the only god worshiped by those nations? These men will never be able to escape the toils of this question, they who worship both the greater and the lesser divinities, that they consider to be gods, while, at the same time, they refuse to worship the God of Israel, who has proved to be stronger than all the gods they worship. If He is very virtuous, why would he only be rejected? And if He is a God of little or no power, how come he has managed to accomplish so much, even when rejected? If He is good, why is He the only divinity not is is worshiped with the other gods? If He evil, why He not, being alone, subjected by the other good divinities? If He is truthful, why are His precepts ignored? And if He lies, why are His predictions fulfilled? " (my translation]
129 confuso eruetur. Deinde si post resurrectionemstatus beatus futurus est,
nulla corporis iniuria, nulla necessitate famis, quid sibi vult cibaturn
Christum fuisse, et vulnera monstravisse?Sed si propter incredulum fecit,
finxit: si autern verum ostendit, ergo in resurrectioneaccepta futura sunt
902 vulnera.
It is thus reasonableto infer that Augustine has shapedthe way the paganquestion was reproduced according to his own argumentative style. And, as a result, there is no evidence that the whole passsageshould be seen as an authentic fragment from a lost work. Augustine's method is more efficient than a mere rehashof the old anti-Christian argument: by reformulating it, he can enlarge on the original interrogation in a way that announcesthe kind of responseshe will provide, and he also appropriatesit fully, thus showinghis level of understandingof the problem and his superiority.
This questionof translationfrom Greek to Latin is not new to the debateon
Porphyrianauthorship. Scholars who have attributedthe questionsof Letter 102to
Porphyry havealready raisedconcerns about the wording of the quaestiones.Crafer argueda long time ago that the questionswere not his actualwords, becauseof their brevity (exceptfor question 2, which is lengthy).33 He evenwent as far as suggesting that,"Perhaps the statementthat it is scarcelyhis (Porphyry's) only meansthat it is part of 34 the stock in tradeof every heathenopponent. , Crafer, who was interestedin reconstructingthe discoursesAgainst the Christians, notesthat the six questionscannot
32Augustine, Letter 102.2(see n. 29 for a translation). 33Crafer, "Work of Porphyry," 49 1. 34Crafer, "Work of Porphyry," 492.
130 35 be from the samepart of the treatise,for their contentis not at all homogeneous.
Not only doesthe genre quaestionesmakes it improbablethat Augustine reproducedfaithfully the words of his source,it is not evenpossible confidently to
identify onesingle source.As A. Meredith already noted,the contentof Nr. 81 (Letter
happen born before Christ, 102.8)- which it askswhat will to all those sincethey arenot " eligible, accordingto John 1.7,for Salvation- can also be found in Celsusand Julian.
This echoesCourcelle's argumentabout the attackspresented in De consensu:they could 37 consist in a melting-pot of ideas originating from different sources.
Porphyryis namedthree times in the letter, and, as has beensaid, there were six questionsasked. Only question6 is explicitly not from Porphyry. Augustine did not name the work Against the Christians. The contentof the Quaestionesleaves little doubt as to the intention of their author;they were either meantto be purposelyvexing to Deogratias, or genuineinterrogations. What Augustinesays in 102.38implies that the man wants to is hesitatingbecause Scriptural difficulties: let becomea Christian, but of certain ". .. the personwho proposedthem (the questions)now becomea Christian, unlessif he delays until he is done with discussingall the difficulties related to Scripture,before he finishes 08 his life, andpasses from deathto life. Augustinealso confronts stories, suchas Jonah him, and the whale, which are, accordingto widely ridiculed among pagancircles. A thoroughand convincing answerwas thus required, so that Deogratiaswas neither losing a possibleconvert or losing face in his community. Either way, Deogratiasopted for a he very commonhabit in the clergy of that time: soughtAugustine's advice.
35Crafer, ,work of Porphyry," 492. 36Meredith, "Porphyry and Julian, " 1134;see also Origen, Against Celsus 4.7; Julian, Against the Galilaeans,106 A-E. 37p. Courcelle, "Propos anti-chrdtiens, " Recherches Augustiniennes vol. 4 (1958):184-85. 38 Augustine, Letter102,102.38: "sed ille qui proposuit, iarn sit christianus, ne forte cum exspectat ante " Librorurnsanctorum finire quaestiones, prius finiat vitam istam, quarn transeat a morte ad vitam.
131 Augustineis, accordingto Bochet, aware of the work Against the Christians, and is he is 39Those answeringPorphyry at the sametime as answeringthe pagan's questions. questionsfurther show that at the time of Augustine, paganswere using the sameold
argumentsagainst the Christians, andthat Porphyry's attackswere most probably still
read. Only question 6 is not from Porphyry, says Augustine : "The last question proposed
is on Jonah,and this one is not as from Porphyry, but as from paganjokes. 1940
Furthermore,as the style of other remaining Porphyrianfragments, extant in
Eusebiusand Jeromeshows, there is no indication that Porphyry hashimself usedthe question-and-answermethod when formulating his attackon Christianity. However, the letter 102is misleadingly presentedas suchby Augustine.
The questionsare centeredaround important, centralChristian themes:the
Resurrection,the Revelation,apostasy from Judaism,eternal punishment,Christ as the
Son of God, and miracles.Let us look at the quaestionesand look for corresponding passagesin extantpagan works in order to decidewhether they could havebeen drawn from different sourcesthan the discoursesagainst the Christians.
It is on the Resurrectionthat the paganasks his first question.The questionis twofold: Will the Resurrectionoccur in theform of that of Christor of that of Lazarus, and what about all thosewho died agesago and whosebodies have alreadyperished? 41
As hasbeen said, it is well-known that objectionsto this type of resurrectioncome from
Origen. The samequestions were also addressedby the anonymousHellene in fragment
39Bochet, "Quaestiones." 40Augustine, Letter 102.30:"Postrema quaestio proposita est de Iona, nec ipsa quasi ex Porphyrio, sed tamquamex itrisione Paganorum;" seealso Bochet, "Quaestiones," who questionsthe fact that Augustine did not think that question6 was not from Porphyry, on the groundsthat the sentencesounds like a deductionthat Augustineis making about that question. 41Augustine, Letter 102.2.(cited n. 29)
132 94 from MacariusMagnes' Apocriticos, andMethodius' On the Resurrection.42 The
questioningthus soundseither like a rehashof the usual pagancomplaints about the
Resurrection,or like the the issuesraised by Origen. They should thereforebe considered
as part of contemporaryobjections raised against the Resurrection.Celsus also expresses
his views on Resurrection,when he ridiculed the Christians' teachingon this topic. He
arguesthat the Christiansderive their doctrine from what they have misunderstoodof
Plato, thinking that it will allow them to know God and evento seeHim. 43The
philosopherhas alsoasked what forrn the resurrectedbody would take, in caseof a 44 reconstitutionof body parts.
Next, accordingto Augustine, the anonymousauthor of the questionsuses,
accordingto Augustine,a selectionof the more powerful argumentsof Porphyry against
the Christiansto formulatehis question2, which pertainsto the Revelationand fideism,
i.e. how can men who lived prior to Christ be saved,when they did not havethe chanceto hearhis word? (102.8)."Rome itself was for no lesstime, for a long successionof centuries,without knowing the Christian word. What, they asked,happened to the innumerablesouls, who werenot at all guilty? If only they had beenable to believe in
42According to Benjamins,"Methodius von Olympus, 'Ober die Auferstehung':gegen Origenes und gegen Porphyrius?" 97, passagesof On Resurrectionare from Porphyry. 43 `Qaw 6vaTfOETat SeeOrigen, Against Celsus,7.31-33: 51 a6T6qrývBtilyrlatv TOO 71ap6 maTowt pi)001),K6jg&O'U <&> Tý fti&DVI, MYG)v T&SE,Ti 6t 6id robrojv tp(paviCEi,oO iravri yv&, ai brateiv bcETvo6(plaw- da0evEiaq 0061ov. cipý&Tiq Uvaiw, Ti7ror'iariv '(IT' Kaifipa6vroro; oCýroTov; rE br'loXarov &pa'- hravý 6vaoXýaOaj 6ri ckai 6wýCAOETV r6v 'KaW4 (pbai; ch OccopoOaa,yv&vai 6v 646ý taTtv 6 &)70@; &)70iv6v '- 6Tt 6); MIcro;, 0L)PaV6;Kak6 (p(Z; ... o6X, olerat r& ircpi &airrdorccb; 016lievo; 6' ýVd; 5ib i6EIV pErcvao)parcborE(t);7rapaWboravreq r6 (Papev.... T6 yvG)val Wi 6va(YT6tcYf: hft)Tlý a Vrav T6V Oe6vj[pEcjpef)cjv T6 a6pi Tý; w; 0I)VCiPFI POWXTCtIKCd TOIaOT& (PTICFlv' 64 d)=cp 6K)jKo6rEq.6raviaaiv 7rcjVr0&VJýcjpycovrat KaMwAiyXcovrai, 7raiv oWtv i6r) r6 a&6 ip6rqua- HiA; 71 kOPEV o0v yv&pEvKa) AC0,UEv r6v O.-6v; Kai Nk 7rpk a&6v; " (SC 150 : 82-88) 44Origen, Against Celsus5.14 and 8.49.
133 him, not yet arrived to favour his men.945 Men were very pious towardstheir godsin
Rome andLatium, but the Romansonly receivedtheir Revelation at the time of the
Caesars.46 What about all thesesouls, he asks?Again, we find similarviews expressed in
Celsus' On the True Doctrine, when the philosopherasked why Christ's adventhappened
at a particular place and time, as well as in Julian's Against the Galilaeans, who asks why
God only caredabout the land of the Jews.47
Question3 blamesthe Christiansfor condemningpagan sacrifices and worship in temples,when they too practisea religion which has its roots in ancienttimes, revering a
God requestingexactly this type of worship "and first-fruits " (Latin 'primitiae' - Greek
667rapXý9).48 The anonymous writer is here repeating a well-known attack, which states
that Christianity originatesfrom Judaism,but doesnot evenrespect the Laws of Moses.
Augustine saysthat thosefirst-fruits are mentionedin the story of Cain and Abel; we could infer that someonereferring to it would have a good knowledgeof Scripture,and thereforerecognise Porphyry as the authorof the question.However, it was also a word commonly usedin Antiquity to designateofferings to the gods, and thus would havebeen presentin any paganwork. There are no known mentionsof the "first- fruits" in the
Eusebeianfragments, when he accountsfor the philosopher's attackon apostasyfrom
Judaism,but then Eusebiusdoes not mention the attack on sacrifices.When we look at
Celsus,on the other-hand,we do find very similar grievancesin relation to sacrifice.
45Augustine, Letter 102.8."Non paucioribussaeculis ipsa Roma, longo saeculorunitractu sine christiana lege fuit. Quid, inquit, acturn de tam innumerisanimis, qui omnino in culpa nulla sunt. siquidemis cui credi Eosset, nondurn adventurn suum horninibuscommodarat? " Augustine,Letter 102.8."Quid igitur acturn de Romanisanimabus vel Latinis, quaegratia nondum advenientisChristi viduataesunt, usquein Caesaruintempus? " (So what happenedto the Romanor Latin souls,which were bereft of the graceof Christ who did not yet come,until the time of the Caesars?) 47Celsus, On the True Doctrine 4.7 and Julian's Against the Galilaeans 106D and 141C. 48Augustine, Letter 102."Accusant, inquit, ritus sacrorum,hostias, thura, et caetera,quae templorurn cultus exercuit; cum idern cultus ab ipsis, inquit, vel a Deo querncolunt cxorsusest temporibuspriscis, cum inducitur Deus primitiis eguisse."
134 Celsusputs his criticism in the mouth of the Jews: "[His] Jew continuesto talk to those
of his peoplewho have becomebelievers: 'It was yesterdayor the day before, when we
punishedthe man who was leadingyou like a flock, that you havedeserted the law of our
fathers. ' ',49 Further on in the text, Celsus reminds the Christians that the divine must be
honouredwith proper rituals, for they must be grateful for the things over which it
50 presides. In Julian's Against the Galilaeans,the emperor insiststhat Christiansought to
sacrificeto their God: "Moses knew all the ways to make a sacrifice,and in orderto
prove that they were not polluted, accordingto him and contrary to what you think, listen
to what he himself says:'But the soul that eatethof the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-
offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleannessupon him, eventhat soul shall 01 be cut off from his people.' There is thereforeno clear indication that Porphyry is the
sole authorof the chargeof Christian apostasyand refusal to sacrifice.
When the anonymousdetractor asks his fourth question,he again displays knowledgeof Scripture,this time of the NT (102.22).Augustine tells us his question refers to passagesfrom the Gospelsof Johnand Matthew. The paganquestions the threats
6 49Origen, Against Celsus2.3-4: "ETTak6yet 7rap'aOTG) Jol. )8di"o; np6; Too; 6.n6TOO 6Tt 60A61COPEV ), (100 7[tcjTE16(YaWaý XOi; Kai IrPd)qV Kai&jviKa roU-r'ov POVKOAOCPVTa6pj5;, &re0-T)7TCT019 ; raTpiov 6pov (SC 132 : 288) ., .,. ." " r: 4ý; 5i TObTOt; 5(brigen, Against Celsus8.55: (pildiv6 Mkao; - Avorv ffirepov aipcT &MdTaý,, 0r'Ek &6p6; Adyo;.Eigiv &raýioDýi Oyaimbuv T6E&dTa TOLý TOV6E kvai p0r'6yEa0ai 6AAo & fiiýo, ! yvvarKa,UOT' 6vatpda0m dKva pýr' rptimm pqbb To XcopErv 6' v0Ev ; ravrcv6ipj766urýppa tUenropivovc, 6; dv 4opco&iq r6,p; Tav briyd; r6roto&rov E16tKaiyvvaTkaý; 6ýovrat fliQ) ykvo(;, &ITETayptv(I)v KahraAaý; Irolocovrai Kap7r& yEborovralKai r(Dv iv To PEWOV61 Kai KaK&)V T& 6Ve&vral- Kai 6petyK), x6vraq6v0p6rom; retp&r0al KaKOV* Ekai 6,6,Uj7v (pbmýjXEI-, piv&060rjoV ydpa0rj 64 piv y6p KaKj,X6pav 06C T6; XPOOnK06oraq AEITOVPY)? &I 6EUP(7)V&OADOC591, TOkTaCtr'6rjrErpq1j)UkV0Iq TIY6ý KaiTofii(p TiOV T6zpixowa, pIi-OXP T&V Jai 661KOV 144 Kai CýdPIUTOI 7rpk T060* 450KC50.Kai y6p PCTkXOVra;& obc4ovortyijM, a0rok o-vvTEAETv." (SC150: 298) 51Julian, Against the Galilaeans book 1: "6); ýL&OUV TOO; TGN DWICOV ýMCMTO Mcovaý;, JGTi 516 07106VT(OV.6Tt St 6; 67tE71;600apTa 'V6pI(YEV Tp6noiu; nOU TCOV 06X ATd, n6011V& T(7)V&EiVOU E6611X& &FTI 011p6TOW&aKOf)CTaTE* ' ýi 61 YL)A, krt; i6v (payn67r6 TIZV KperOV Tý; 01UGia; TOOMOT11piOD, 6 kn'(1641 6noXC'Tal ý &EMI & Kj)pjOIU,Kai ý 6Ka0apciaa6ToO WVX6 TOO XaOOATý;.' a6T6q 00TU); EOkapý;6 MWUCYý; Upi TýVTCOV !EpCov t8w6ýv. " (LCL 157:404)
135 of eternal punishmentwhich are inconsistent,according to him, for punishmentfor sin ought to be madeaccording to measure,and this measureis basedon time, andis, in turn, limited by the end of time. Here thereare no correspondingpassages that seemavailable in other pagansources.
Augustine presentsthe fifth questionraised by the anonymousman as follows:
"After thesequestions, which were proposedas from Porphyry, he added:"Will you pleasetell me, he asked,whether Solomon truly said or not that God had no Son?,,52 This problem was treatedextensively by Celsus,who raised,among others,the following question: "You (Jesus)pretend that, during your baptismby John,a bird appearedfrom
flew What Who heard sky and towardsyou ... ; crediblewitness sawthat appearance? a voice from the sky adoptingyou as Son of God? Who other than you and one of your torture companioncan you offer as a witnesS?9953 Julian also addressesthis issuein
Galilaeans: But if Word is God, bom from God Against the ". .. the was and was producedfrom the substanceof the Father,then why would the Virgin be the mother of
God? Indeed,how could she, as a human being, conceivea god? And when God says 'I am he and no other god can produceexcept me, ' are you still calling her son the
Saviour?"54
Finally, Porphyry himself, in Philosophyftom Oracles, has challengedthe divinity of Christ: "Hecate, it is said, also said aboutChrist, when askedwhether he was a god:
32Augustine, Letter 102.28."Post hanc quaestionem,qui easex Porphyrio proposuit, hoc adiunxit: 'Sane etiam de illo, inquit, me dignaberisinstruere, si vere dixit Salomon,Filium Deusnon habet.' 53 1 Origen, Against Celsus1.41: "Aovqpgv(P,yqai, troixa;p6 rO loidivvi7ga(TyaOpvIOo; tý &poq Akycl; briaTtIvai. EI-ranuvoctORevo; 6 nap' a6rrp lov8dib; (pTlat-Ti,;, roOrO ElbEv 6ý16XPECOý pdpTI); 'r6 (Pdapa,4 d; týrovarcv4 o6pavoOpcov& daxwo6ajq ac vi6v ro Ocip;Mt)v 6ri a& plk Kai riva Iva brdyn r&v pEr6 aoOKeKoAaar,uývcovr&vpcr6drOOKCKoAaergivcov. "(SC 132:186) 54 & MYO; t=i Julian, Against the Galilaeans book 1: "6U' el Oe6; OEoO Opaq6 K(XI Tý; 06aia; Kao' aV OE6v 6VOPWRO; tV(p'u'roO 7raTp6;,OeoT6KOV 6WI; 6VO'6TOI)TýV 7[ap0tvov ETvai (PaTE ; 7[@; 76p T&OI 64; tvapy&; ty6) fart klioO ' ouaa Kao' ; Kai irp6; ye TOi)T4) MyovTo; OCOG ' CiRt Kai 06K ndpE4 a6)ýwv, 6peTq 14 cra)Tjpar6v aOTýq CIRETVTETOX[LýKaTC ;" (LCL 157:400)
136 Gyouactually know the condition of the soul after leaving the body, and also that when it
breaksaway from wisdom it is always in error. That soul (you mention) is the soul of a
,, 55 superiorlypious man, they worship it for they are wrong aboutthe truth. There is thus
no evidencethat the problem of the divinity of Christ was raisedby Porphyry in his
dicoursesAgainst the Christians.
Augustinetells us that the last and sixth questionasked by the paganis not put as being from Porphyry,but as being "a paganjoke, " andtherefore can be consideredas a
56 rehashof existing charges. It pertainsto the story of Jonah,who would have spentthree days in the belly of a whale, fully clothed, andwas then vomited up by the
'fish' ('piscis'). Meanwhile, a gourd sprangup above his head.Augustine saysthat he has heardthat story surroundedby laughterin many pagancircles. It is thereforenot interestingto look for cross-referencesin other texts in this case.
As for our interestin the methodologyof fragmentgathering, it appearsuseless to attemptto preservethe context in which theseanti-Christian attackswere preserved.
Indeed,the content of the criticisms are clearly identified by Augustine, who setthem dialogue apartfor the purposeof presentinga in the tradition of the question-and-answer.
Herethe context doesnot addto our understandingof the chargesraised against
Christianity. Let us look at the contextsof question I and 2, for instance.In responseto the first questionon Resurrection,Augustine points out that that which is promisedis the
Resurrectionof Christ, for Lazarusdied twice; "The way in which you were bom does
55 Augustine, City of God, 19.23. "De Christo autem, inquit, interrogantibus si est Deus, ait Hecate: Quoniam quidern immortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti; a sapientia autern abscissa semper errat. hanc Viri pietate praestantissimi est ilia anima; colunt aliena a se veritate. " 56Augustine, Letter 102.30.(cited n. 39)
137 not make a difference to the way in which you will die or resurrect."5' He further explains that in nature,some bodies are not generatedby parents(102.4), andthat as for our bodies resurrectedafter a long time from an undistinguishablemass, " both thesethings are impossible to man, but are also very easyto divine power. ,58 Christ had the power to eat eventhough his body wasn't real (samefor angels)(102.6) and Christ also had the power to createillusion of wounds to convincethe unfaithful (102.7). "What reasoncould be
invoked to say (this). That if he did this to convince the incredulous, he faked it? "59 To which Augustinereplies that a perfectly healedwound cannotbe a deception.
Upon respondingto question2, which questionedthe universalismof Christianity via the Revelation, appearing at a certain time and place, and therefore probably not including past generations, Augustine points out that Christianity is actually very close to paganism. Augustine first replies to his opponent that the same reasoning applies to paganism, for many novelties have been witnessed over time: "If they say that the gods themselves have in fact always existed, and that they were able to liberate worshippers in every place equally, but wanted serviceto be offered to them differently in different times and places,in accordancewith the diversity of temporal and earthly things which they
ýM knew to be suitable for certaintimes andplaces
Augustine doesnot miss an opportunity to warn the pagansagainst false belief
The only difference with paganism,he says,is that the Christiansare guided in their
37Augustine, Letter 102.3."Sicut autemad mortis sic nec ad resurrectionisdifferentiam valet diversa nativitas." 38Augustine, Letter 102.5."Humanae facultati utrumqueimpossibile est,divinae autem potestatiutrumque facillimum. " 59Augustine, Letter 102.7."Quid estergo quod dicitur. Si propter incredulumfecit, finxit? 60Augustine, Letter 102.10."Hic si dicunt deosquidem ipsossemper fuisse, et ad liberandoscultores suos pariter ubique valuisse,sed pro varietatererum temporaliumac terrenarum,quae scirent certis temporibus locisque in his congruere, alias atquealias, alibi atquealibi, aliter atquealiter sibi voluisseserviri. . ."
138 61 worship by the True God, and are thereforeon the right side. Christ was announcedby
the prophets,so the Christiansnow believein Him as flesh, and previousmen believed in
62 Him into flesh Quite Augustine that the Christians do as coming . adroitly, suggests not
raise objections to any Roman religion - thus pointing to the multitude of cults - even
those which appeared at a certain time and place, such as Pythagoranism Oust like
Christianity). What bothers the Christians is "whether these gods are true (gods), or
63 should be worshiped, and whether that philosophy benefits the salvation Of SOUIS.,,
Augustine explains that this is this very reasoning, which is uprooting the pagan
"sophistries, " for time and the universe are ruled by divine Providence, and we should
worship the divinity, which transcends the ages. Pythagoras' philosophy cannot save
souls, because he was a man. He does not have Christ's power; "Can they even say that at
the time when he lived, and in the places where that philosophy flourished, all those who 64 were able to hear him chose to believe and follow him? , Those who refuse to believe
are resistingdivine authority, as well as what is so clear and conspicuous,for the message
is clearerto us now than at the time of the prophets,Augustine warns.
Augustine also usesPorphyry's argumentsthemselves to counterhis opponent.To the third question,in which the anonymouspagan blames the Christiansfor rejecting sacrifices,Augustine replies that sacrificesto God are for our own good,not His. He adds have discussedthe divine before did, have that the Jews,". .. who oracles we spoken
abundantlyabout the symbolsof sacrificesin the Old Testamentas shadowsand figures
61Augustine, Letter 102.10. 62Augustine, Letter 102.11-12. 63Augustine, Letter 102.13. "sed utrum illi dii, veri, aut colendi sint, et utrum illa philosophia animarum saluti aliquid prosit. " 64Augustine, Letter 102.14. "numquid hoc etiam dicere possunt, eo ipso tempore quando fuit, et terrarum locis ubi illa philosophia viguit, onmes qui cum audire potuerunt, etiam credere sectarique voluissc? "
139 of things to come." 65it follows that Christiansare not blaming pagansbecause they have priests,temples, and sacrifices,but becausethey are awareof the Old andNew
Testaments,but still continueto worship "idols and demons" ("idolis et daemoniis" - which are false godsand lying angels),instead of directing their worship towardsthe true
66 God This is in Porphyry's bad demons . argument accordancewith argumenton and proper worship in On Abstinence.67
To conclude,contextualization may not always be relevantto fragment collectors.
In the caseof letter 102,we learn more aboutthe rhetorical strategiesused by Augustine when counteringhis opponentsthan we learn aboutthe content of the attacksthemselves
However, as my argument has shown, it was necessary to identify these strategies in order to argueagainst the Porphyrianauthorship of the fragments.
As a broader conclusion,the closestwe can get to Porphyry's discoursesis thus the Quaestionesfrom letter 102,which may derive from Porphyry, eventhough
Augustinethought they did not. But the problem here is twofold: Augustine (or a copyist) has probably reshapedthe questions,and thesemay be standardanti-Christian arguments ascribedto Porphyry. Therefore,the questionsare not 'fragments,' though they may illustrate the kind of argumentsPorphyry would haveused. We can thus say that the anti-
Christian ideaspresented by Augustine in letter 102are part of the generalcriticism still addressedto the Christiansin the early 5thc. A. D., andbecause we have ruled out the possibility of preservingauthentic passages from the discoursesAgainst the Christians,
65Augustine, Letter 102.17."Et qui antenos Dei eloquia tractaverunt,de similitudinibus sacrificiorum Veteris Testamenti,tamquam umbris figurisque futurorum copioselocuti sunt." 66Augustine, Letter 102.18. 67Porphyry, On Abstinence 1.
140 we can include the letter 102into our contextualizedcollection, for the attacksit preservesbelong to that categoryof criticism.
141 V- Augustine's On the Harmony of the Gospels
Letter 102has been linked to the discoursesagainst the Christiansin the scholarshipsince Harnack.It is included in all of the fragmentcollections so far published.Porphyry is namedin chapters8,28, and 30 only, but this seemed satisfying to fragment collectors.However, there is anotherwork by Augustine,which alsomentions Porphyryby name,but which hasbeen generally ignoredby fragment collectors:On the Harmony of the Gospels. in it be Justas the previoussection, will shown that the context - or "cover- discussion text" - of fragmentsis necessaryto any on the authorshipof fragments.
Indeed,a closer look at Augustine's De consensuevangelistarum, his intentions,the he he tried to reasonswhy wrote, andwhat achieve- the "cover-text" - will allow us to rule out all of the Porphyrianfragments that havebeen recently ascribedto the discoursesagainst the Christians.It will also be shown that contrary to other contested fragments,such asthose from the Letter 102, it will actually not be possibleto include any part of De consensuinto the broaderanti-Christian argumentto which Porphyry contributed. First, only a few passagescan be linked with what we find elsewherein
Augustine (City of God) - as will be discussed- but thesehave alreadybeen linked to the Philosophyftom Oracles. Second,a study of Augustine's rhetorical style will show that the bishop intentionally presentedhis work as a possibledialogue between pagansand Christians.Those who considerOn the Harmony as being a sourcefor
Porphyry's discoursestake for grantedthat it belongsto the genreof the quaestiones.
However, as C. Zamagni argued,this is a false assumption,as is too often the norm as ' regardsthe genre,he argues. Instead,looking at Augustine's rhetoric andthe way he asksand answersthe questionsput forward, shouldmake it clear that the bishop of
1C. Zarnagni,"Questions, " 81.
142 Hippo mainly usesa commonChristian exegeticalliterary genre;that is, most of the
questionspresent in the text are his own, and he is merely anticipating the questions
from pagansor the shakenfaithful.
De consensuevangelistarum and Porphyry
Let us look at the reasonswhy De consensulooks like a good sourceof
Porphyrian fragments.R. Wilken noticed that,"Augustine mention(ed)Porphyry
992in On Harmony, Augustine severaltimes ... the and suggestedthat was answering Porphyry's discoursesagainst the Christians in that work, while R. Berchman
included severalpassages from De consensuin his recentfragment collection of the
discourses. Augustine does actually mention Porphyry by name, but only in the
following passage:
"But what shall be said to this, if thosevain eulogizersof Christ, and
thosecrooked slanderersof the Christian religion, lack the daring to
blasphemeChrist, for this particular reasonthat someof their
philosophers,as Porphyryof Sicily hasgiven us to understandin his
books,consulted their gods as to their responseon the subjectof [the
claimsofl Christ,and were constrained by their own oraclesto laud
Christ?Nor should that seemincredible. tý3
However, the above-mentionedexcerpts refer to the oracle,which in City of
God 19.23,is clearly ascribedto the Philosophyftom Oracles. In The City of God,
2Wilken, "Christians, " 145 3 Seealso Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.15.23.
143 Augustine preservedthe samePorphyrian ideas as in De Consensu,but he pairedthem
with a book title :4
"Finally, he is the God whom Porphyry himself, the most
knowledgeablephilosopher, but the bitterest enemyof the Christians,
acknowledgedas the greatestgod, eventhrough the oraclesof thosehe
thinks to be gods.... For in his book, which is entitled ThePhilosophy
from Oracles,in which he interpretsand writes aboutthe supposedly
divine "5 responseson matterspertaining to philosophy. .. .
Further on in the text, Augustinegoes into details about the contentof theseoracles,
andhow Porphyryused them:
"To the person who was asking about what god he should appeaseto
his wife from Christianity, Apollo these lines 'You recall said ... : will
be more able to write letters impressed on water or to fly through the
air as a light bird, wafting light wings, than to recall your impious wife
to her sensesonce she has been polluted. She should go on in what
manner she wants, persevering in void fallacies and singing mournfully
in error the death of her God, who was rightly sentenced by judges and
died a bad death, in public view, bound by iron. ' Then, after these lines,
(porphyry) said: 'In these words Apollo made clear the incurability of
their belief, saying that the Jews uphold God, rather than the Christians.
This same philosopher also said things Christ...... ' good about :
'What we will say, he said, will certainly seem unexpected to some
tbauche 4 According to Madec, "Augustin et Porphyre. d'un bilan des rechercheset desconjectures, " X00JH, rMAlHTOPEX. HommageLi Jean Pipin, M. -O. Goulet-Cazd,G. Madec, D. O'Brien (eds.) (Paris: 1992),371, the first mention of Porphyry in Augustinewas madein 400 in On Harmony. 5 Augustine,City of God, 19.22-23:"Postremo ipse est Deus,quem doctissimus philosophorum, quamvisChristianorum acerrimus inimicus, etiam per eorurnoracula, quos deosputat, deurnmagnum Porphyrius confitetur... Nam in libris, quos Ex logionfilosoflas appellat, in quibusexequitur atque conscribit rerum ad philosophiampertinentium velut divina responsa.... 11
144 people.The godsdeclared that Christ, indeed,was very pious, and they
said that he becameimmortal, and they mention him in favourable
tenns; but (he says)they say that the Christianswere polluted,
contaminated,and involved in error, and they make useof many other
blasphemies (the Christians). He such againstthem . .' also said that
Hecate,when askedabout whether Christ was a god, said: 'You know
that the immortal soul goeson its way after the body, but when it is
broken off from wisdom it wandersfor ever. That soul is of a man
outstandingin piety, but (the Christians)worship it becausetruth is
from 996 estranged them .... Just as in The City of God, in On Harmony, Augustine reiterates that, "They think, indeed,that he shouldbe honouredlike the wisest of men, but they also deny that he shouldbe worshippedas a god.... They do not keepsilent that He (Christ) was evensaid to be the wisest of men by the testimony of their [the pagans'] god
Apollo. 997Therefore, it is clear that Augustine is referring to the Philosophyfrom
Oracles in On Harmony, althoughboth Wilken andBerchman's conclusionssuggest otherwise.Berchnian is the first scholarwho included On the Harmony of the Gospels
6 Augustine, City of God 19.23. "Interroganti, inquit, quem deurnplacando revocare possit uxorem suama Christianismo,haec ait versibusApollo.... Forte magis poteris in aquaimpressis litteris scribere aut adinflansleves pinnas per aeraavis volare, quam pollutaerevoces impiae uxoris sensum. Pergatquornodo vult inanibus fallaciis perseveranset lamentarifallaciis mortuum Dcum cantans,quem iudicibus rectasentientibus perditurn pessimain speciosisferro vincta mors interfecit. Deinde post hos Apollinis, In his irremediabile versus ..., subiunxit atqueait: quidern sententiaeeorum manifestavit dicens, quoniarn ludaei suscipiuntDeurn magis quamisti.... Dicit etiam bona philosophusiste de Christo.... : praeter opinionern,inquit, profecto quibusdamvideatur essequod dicturi sumus. Christurn enim dii piissimum pronuntiaveruntet immortalem facturn et cum bona praedicationeeius meminerunt;Christianos vero pollutos, inquit, et contaminatoset errore implicatos essedicunt et multis blasphemiis De Christo inquit, interrogantibus Deus, talibus adversuseos utuntur. .. .' autem, si est ait Hecate:Quoniam quidem immortalis anima post corpusut incedit, nosti; a sapientiaautem abscissa Viri illa hanc sempereffat. pietatepraestantissimi est anima; colunt aliena.a se veritate...... 7 Augustine,On the Harmony of the Gospels1.7.11-12. "Honorandum enim tamquamsapientissimum virum putant, colendumautem tamquarnDeum negant.... ita ut testimonio quoquedei sui Apollinis omnium sapientissimumpronuntiaturn esse non taceant."
145 in a fragmentcollection. However, as will be shown,he doesit in a very arbitrary manner.
Augustine's agenda
A single mention of Porphyry by name is not sufficient to show that Augustine usesthe discoursesAgainst the Christians (whether directly or indirectly). We should thus dig into Augustine's agendain order to better understandwhat was the aim he had set up for himself when writing De consensu;as will be shown, the bishop was not writing a refutation of Porphyry.
On the Harmony of the Gospelswas written ca.399-400, and is thus an early work of Augustine, whose dates are 354-430, and who converted to Christianity in
386. It is also earlier than letter 102 and the City of God, in which Porphyrian attacks are preserved. The Porphyry presented here is a serious enemy, for though he "dares not blaspheme Christ, "' his aim is "to destroy the Christian faith. "9
However,Augustine explainsthat that he wrote On Harmony to defendthe evangelistsand to protect Christiansfrom anxiety. It is in book I that Augustine he couchedthe criticisms againstwhich wishesto defend the evangelists.He says that,
". assaultthem with calumnies,in impious vanity or ignorant temerity, .. somepeople in their truthful "10Augustine to deprive them of trust account.-. . arguesthat the at the core of the attackson the gospelwriters lies the chargethat they "are not in harmony with eachother. "" As a result, opponentsto Christianity arepreventing
8Augustine, On theHarmony of theGospels 1.15.23. "non audentblasphemare Christurn. " 9 Gospel 1.16.24."ita Augustine,On the Harmony of the volenteschristianam fidern Christurn ... convellere." " Augustine,On the Harmony of the Gospels1.7.10. "quidam vel impiavanitate vel imperitaterneritate calumniisappetunt, ut eisveracis narrationis derogent fidern. " 1Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.7.10. quodipsi evangelistaeinter se ipsos dissentiant."
146 somefrom converting,and challengethe faith of the thoseconverted. " This is why,
Augustine says,"We haveundertaken to show in this work the error or the temerity of
thosewho think they are advancingclever accusationsagainst the four booksof the
Gospels,which the four evangelistswrote separately." 13In order to achievehis goal,
Augustine explainsthat he must prove that thesefour writers "are not in disharmony
with eachother. 9914 To do so,he will, in books2,3, and4 of On Harmony,proceed to
group all four gospelsand write one, single narrative out of them. Augustine,
therefore,does not say that he wrote this work to answerone specific challenge,such
as Porphyry's attacksas found in the work that we call Against the Christians.
What are those"apparent" contradictionsidentified by the pagans?In order to
readthe Gospelsproperly, Augustine points to the evangelists'method. Once one is
acquaintedwith it, he argues,then their faith will remain unshattered.The issuehere
is obviously over the well-known discrepanciesbetween the four Gospelsthat are part of the canon.Pagans used them at their conveniencein order to discredit the Church.
To Augustine, thosewho believe that the Gospelsare not truthftil will easily think that the evangelistsactually contradict eachother. " However, thereare excellent reasons for what should only be seenas "apparentcontradictions. " First, let us look at the
problemof omissionsand chronology. When the deeds of Christ differ in the
accounts,namely when one evangelistrecords something, while another accountsfor
a different event that would havetaken place at the sametime, Augustine arguesthat
both incidentsactually took place,but were recordedseparately. 16 When incidents are recordedin the sameorder by anynumber of evangelists,these should never be
2Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.15.23. 3 On Gospels hoc demonstrare Augustine, the Harmony of the 1.7.10...... opere suscepimuserrorem vel temeritaterncorurn, qui contra Evangehi quattuor libros, quos evangelistaequattuor singulos conscripserunt,satis argutascriminationes se proferrearbitrantur. " 14Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.7.10."quam non sibi adversenturidem scriptores uattuor. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.65.126. 6 Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.50.105.
147 suspectedof "a want of harmony," i.e. they did so naturally, without consultingeach other." It may alsobe the casethat when Jesussaid the samethings at varying moments,according to different evangelists,the explanationis that He actually
Himsel 18 repeated - Variations among the Gospel stories may also be attributable to "order of " recollection," accordingto Augustine. By that he meansthat an evangelisthas introducedan event into his accountwhenever he recalledit while writing. One exampleof suchapparent error canbe found in Mark:
No think that Peter that ". .. one should received nameat the time when he said to him: 'You are Peter,and on that rock I will build my
Church.' Indeed,he did not receive that nameexcept where John
recordsthat it was said to him :'You will be called Cephas,which is
translatedas Peter.' So it shouldalso not be thoughtthat Peterreceived
that namein the passagewhere Mark, naming the twelve Apostles, says
that Jacoband Johnwere called the sonsof thunder : he said there that
[Christ] gavehim that name,so that he should be called Peter,because
he recalledit, not becauseit happenedon thatoccasion. 1920
Again, Augustine hasfound a convenientway to explain the discrepanciesbetween the Gospelstories. Following his line of argument,we should not concludethat Mark
17Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.58.116. 18Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.61.119. 19Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.53.109. 20Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.5 3.109. ne quis arbitreturquod hic Petrusnomen hanc accepit,ubi ait illi: Tu esPetrus el super petram aedificabo Ecclesiammeam. Non enim accepit hoc nomen,nisi ubi loannescommemorat ei dictum esse:Tu vocaberis Cephas,quod interpretatur Petrus. Unde nec illo loco, ubi Marcus duodecimdiscipulos nominatim commemorans,dixit appellatos Jacoburnet loannemfilios tonitrui, arbitrandurnest nomenaccepisse Petrum, quia dixit illic quod imposueritei nomen,ut vocareturPetrus; hoc enim recolendodixit, non quod tune facturn sit. "
148 andJohn are contradicting each other and crafting stories, but thatthe differences
betweentheir accountsare due to the normal functioning of their memory.
Most importantly, Augustineargues that the meaningremains the sameeven if
differs in For instance,Matthew Mark do theorder of events theaccounts .2' and not havethe samesequence of actionsin the story of the Phariseesclaiming that Jesushad
castout devils in the power of Beelzebub,the prince of the devils. Indeed,Mark does not mention this chargeright after the story of the blind and dumb man possessedwith the Devil, but after other matters,that he alone recorded.Augustine explainsthat this may be dueto Mark mentioning the chargeat that point in connectionto other matters:"he recalls it in anotherplace and addsit, or he omitted somethingand then returns to this sequence.9%22 As for Luke, herehis accountis very close in languageto that of Matthew, exceptthat he calls the Holy Spirit the "finger of God,"23 which
Augustine argues,does not conveya different meaningto the passage,but rather enlightensus as to how we should interpretthe expression'finger of God' when we come acrossit elsewherein Scripture.Any discrepancy,in this respect,only appears to be one; in fact, the senseremains the same,and the evangelistshave not diverged
"in the sequenceitself, even though one differs somewhatfrom another,', 24 and are
thereforenot in contradiction.
Augustine raisesthe following question,which was most probably inspiredby both contemporaryand older critiques: How can all the mattersrecorded in the four
21Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.38.85. 22Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.38.85. "sed post alia quaedamquae solus commemorat hoc quoquesubnectit sive alio loco id recolenset adiungens,sive aliquid praetennittenset deindead hunc ordinem rediens," 23Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.38.85. "digitum Dei. " 24Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.41.88. "Nec in ipso ordine, quamvis aliquantodiversum alius alium teneat......
149 Gospelsbe truthful if they differ from one another?15 Augustine answers this by pointing out that what is importantis the intention of the speaker,not the words 26 recorded.There is a genuineharmony betweenthe Gospels, and thosewho are not paying sufficient attentionto the text are attackingthe evangelistsinconsiderately. " In any case,the authority from which the Gospelaccounts have been spreadthroughout the world is the Word of God, which is unchangeableand eternal,and therefore 28 cannotbe unreliable. Only thosewho believethat Gospelsare unveraciouswill easily think that the evangelistsreally contradicteach other. 29 It is morally important, to Augustine,that we understandthis, so that our faith is not troubled and so that we
30 do not believe in falsethings. The theme is more important than the words. When a difficulty is encountered,therefore, the instinctive responsefrom a believer should be to always rememberthat the evangelistsmeant to speakthe truth, not to be dishonest
". the truth of the Evangelistsis 1%31 .. provided agreed.
Apparentdiscrepancies may also be explainedby what Augustinecalls
"recapitulation" ("recapitulatio" - e.g. 3.6.24,3.9.36,3.13.50,3.19.56,3.25.71) When the evangelistsaccount for a seriesof eventsin varying orders,Augustine argues that they are going back to someevents from a given starting point:
"So, he says,six daysbefore the Passover,Jesus came to Bethany,
where Lazarushad died, whom Jesushad resurrected.In that place they
madehim dinner. This is what Matthew and Mark rememberby
recapitulating,because they have said that Passoverwould be after two
25Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.46.96. 26Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.46.97. 27Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.46.98. 28Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.12.28, 29Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.65,126. 30Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.66.128. Gospels3.5.17. dum 31Augustine, On the Harmony of the ". .. tamenEvangelistarum veritas constet."
150 days. As a result of their recapitulation,they return to the day in
Bethany,which was six daysbefore Passover,and narratewhat John
said aboutthe dinner and the ointment.502
In the exampleabove, the processof recollection is usedto show how the Gospelsare
not in contradiction.
The evangelistsmay also skip a few eventsfor the sakeof brevity, as in: "But if we acceptthat this was included in what the evangelistin person said, the saying
will necessarilybe a little obscurebecause of its brevity, but intact,903 or: "It is
obvious that Matthew andMark, who recall his (Jesus')exit, havenot mentionedhis
9934 return, for the sakeof brevity.
Augustine sometimesgoes to great lengthsto make senseof apparent discrepanciesbetween the Gospelversions. Somecontradictions may be attributable to figures of speech,according to him. For instance,Augustine sayshe is facing "a questionwhich is not to be despised,"" namely the exact hour at which the women cameto Jesus'sepulchre. The bishop is struggling here, for Matthew clearly says"on
36 the eveningof the Sabbath"(therefore when it is dark), whereasthe other evangelistsuse different expressionsto meanearly in the morning, when it is still dark, at dawn. There is thus an obvious and problematiccontradiction between the texts. As usual,Augustine comesup with a clever explanation: "it is a mode of speech
32Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.78.153. "Iesus ergo ante sex dies, inquit, Paschaevenit in Bethaniam,ubifuerat Lazarus morluus, quemsuscilavit Iesus.Fecerunt autem ei cenamibi. Hoc est illud quod commemorantrecapitulantes Matthaeus et Marcus, cum iam dixissent post biduum futurum Pascha.Recapitulando ergo ad iflurn them redeunt in Bethania,qui erat antesex dies Paschae,et narrant loannesde " uod cenaet unguento ... 31Augustine, On theHarmony of theGospels 2.80.157. "Quod si ex personadictum evangelistae illud interpositumacceperimus, erit quidemnecessitate brevitatis subobscura locutio, sed tamen integra. " 34Augustine, On Harmony Gospels,3.6.24. ". Matthaeum Marcum, the of the .. autemet qui laoraveruntexisse eum foras, regressurn eius brevitatis causa tacuisse. " 35Augustine, On Harmony Gospels3.24.65. ". " the of the .. noncontemnenda exoritur quaestio. 36Augustine, On Harmony Gospels3.24.65. " Vespere " the ofthe ... sabbati,
151 37 often usedin divine Scripture,to signify the whole by the part , (Augustine will use
the samemode of explanationin 3.24.66when dealing with the problem of the three
daysbefore Resurrection).Matthew chosethe word "evening" ("vespere")when he
actually meant the whole night, which solvesthe problem of a possiblecontradiction.
The women thus cameto the sepulchreat somepoint during the night, when it was
dark.
Not only does Augustine not say that he wrote to answer one specific
challenge, but he also refers to opponents in the plural, and we know that writers other
than Porphyry advanced some of the same criticisms. There are clear instances where
Augustine refers to one or more pagan opponents. When he mentions oppositions to the Gospels, he uses the same wording. The expressions he "certain uses are: persons . impious or ignorant; "" "But first we must .. ... remove a problem which upsets some people: why the Lord Himself did not write anything; "'9 "some of their most celebrated philosophers ;1940 6&these persons" (e. g. 1.8.13 and 1.9.14); 41 "if there are
that they have read such books by Christ 42 "these people who claim written .... ;, gods of the Gentiles, whom the philosophers of the pagans may have consulted; 943 A4 "As a result, let those evil eulogizers of Christ say... ;, , the perverse eulogizers of
Christ and the detractors of Christians. "45A word of caution is necessary here, for
37Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels3.24.65. "Et usitatus loquendi modusest divinae Scripturaeest, a parte totum significare." 38Augustine, On Harmony the Gospels1.7.10. "quidarn impia imperita." the of ... vel ... 39Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.7.11. "Sed illud prius discutiendurnest, quod solet ipse nonnullos movere,cur Dominusnihil scripserit...... 40Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.7.12. "de quibusdarnnobilissimis philosophis." 41 On Harmony the Gospels1.9.14. ". isti desipiunt. Augustine, the of .. .. ." 42Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.8.13. "Et certe qui tales Christi libros legissese affirmant...... 43Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.15.23. quod illi dii gentium, quos philosophi ýaganorurnconsulere potuerunt ...... 4 On Harmony Gospels1.31.47, "Desinant dicere laudatoresChristi. Augustine, the of the ergo mali .. 45Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.32.49. perversi laudatoresChristi et christianorum obtrectatores."
152 Augustine doessometimes use a plural when he hasone personin mind, e.g. he will
46 say "most acuteand learnedmen" when talking about Varro. However, it cannotbe
impliedhere that he is addressingPorphyry only.
What is misleading is that Augustine only mentions Porphyry by name once,
but it may sound as if he is usedas a spokespersonfor the group that Augustine calls
the "philosophers": "some of their philosophers,such as Porphyry of Sicily revealed
in his books, "4' There is the the ". these .. . also evidence of aim of attackers: ..
persons (some of their philosophers- see 1.15.23),... thus want to tear Christian faith to piecesby honouring and praising ChriSt.'A' Although the "device" mentioned
is from the Philosophyfrom Oracles, tearing the Christian faith to piecesis precisely what Porphyry meantto do with the discoursesagainst the Christians.
Augustine mentions the opponentsin the plural form even if he may mean
'Porphyry'. But why would Porphyry be namedin chapter 15 of book I only? It could be that Augustine uses the same method as the evangelists,i. e. "(they) have reached
these storiesaccording to what eachhad recollected,"49 and that he only remembered
to namehim at that point of his writing. it is also possiblethat Augustine did not wish
to presenthis work as being "Against Porphyry," thus giving too much importanceto
the man. But it remains difficult to attribute the authorshipto Porphyry only, for, as
Augustine points out, "it is agreed that by these things [i. e. the acts and words of
Christ reportedby his disciples) the Christianreligion is opposedto these few [pagans]. 'O'oThe Augustine to havebeen .. . pagans refers may simply rehashingold
46Augustine, City of God 6.2: "hominem acerrimumac peritissimum." 47Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.15.23. quia quidam philosophi eorum,sicut in libris Porphyrius suis siculus prodit...... 48Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.16.24. ita volenteschristianam fidem Christum honoranteslaudantesque convellere...... 49Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.12.28. cui recordantitale aliquid acciderit." 50Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.16.24. quibus constatreligio christianaadbuc istis iam paucissimis......
153 attacksagainst Christianity, as well as including more recent ones.P. Courcelle made,
in 1958,a survey of all anti-Christian attacks found in Augustine. Courcelle's work
not only includesthe Letter 102 and On the Harmony, but also many of Augustine's
sermons. Although he does not formally identify the pagan criticisms from On
Harmony with any particular source,he concludedthat all attackswere not necessarily
dating from Augustine's time.51
Finally, becausewe know that writers other than Porphyry advancedsome of
the same criticisms, it is impossible to argue that Augustine would have been
responding to him only. Celsus did not directly attack the evangelists, but expressed
concerns that later Christians had changed the content of the Gospel: "Some believers, just like people who are drunk and hit themselves with their own hands, modified the original text of the Gospels three or four times, or even more, and altered it so that 52 they would be able to answer its critics.,, But Celsus was more preoccupiedwith between OT issues of diverging meaning the and the NT - thus blaming the evangelists for misinterpreting the OT - than he was with the lack of harmony betweenthe Gospelwriters:
"Are they not going to think about that point too? If the prophetsof the
God of the Jewshad predicted that Jesuswould be His child, how come
God, through Moses, is giving them for laws to grow rich, to fill the
earth, to slay their enemieswithout sparing the youth, to exterminate
their entire race, which is what He Himself is doing in front of the
Jews, according to Moses' testimony? And if they do not obey, He
threatens to treat them as enemies?While His Son, the man from
51P. Courcelle,"Propos anti-chr6tiens, " RecherchesAugusliniennes vol. 4 (1958): 184-85. 52Origen, Against Celsus 2.27. "MeT& TaiJTdLrivaq r&v mom6mov (PIICYIV05q IK Ptoýý#KOVraq EIq11 TO & I(pEoTdvaia6roTC pEraXapdMIV rqq 7rp6znq ypa(pqqrb e6ayytAtov rpi;ffl Kai rerpaX# Kai 7roAAaXfiKai &Oxov; dpvcTdOdi." (SC 132:356) perarAdmiv, fv'! XotEv xp6q ro6i;
154 Nazareth,professes laws that are in contradictionto these,namely that
the rich man will have no accessto the Father, nor will the one who
pretendsto be wise and successful;we shouldnot be more concerned
with food and the granary attic than the crows are, and be less
concernedwith clothesthan the lily and we mustoffer the personwho
struck us to strike again! Who, then, is lying, Moses or Jesus?Has the
Father,when He sent Jesus,forgot what He had commandedto Moses?
Has He denied His own laws, changed His mind, and sent His
messengerfor a contradictory purpose?'953
The emperor Julian raised the same concerns as Celsus as regards the OT
versusthe teachingsof the NT:
"You have now heard Moses himself and the other prophets. Moses
declaresmany things about this in many places: 'Thou shalt fear the
Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve. ' How come the Gospels
say: 'Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ' unless they were
supposed to serve Him as well?, 954
53Origen, Against Celsus7.18: "E41q 69Toihotq Totalkdt (pilatv 6 K&aoq- EKETVO6'06K Mvp)? Oýaovrai=Uiv; Ei rpoeTrovoi roff Yov6afcovOco6 irpo(pqrai Toftov &Eivov 7raT6aga6pevov, irCoý &cIvoq p& Mi Mwboriwqvqpo&rc7; rAov-re7v Kai 6vvaoTE6vvKai KarampxAdvajTýV Y#V Kai Kara(pove6civTo6i; xo)xpiovq 4,8166vKai irayyEvEiKreivEiv, 6; r9p Kai a6T6q9v 6(POG.AUoTq r&v Yovbaio)v, 65ýp7m McviDa#q,7roict, Kai 7rpbqTaffra, avpý ird0wvrai, 6tqpp46i7va6ro6; T&.rcDv xoAEpicov 6pdcavv 6xvdxT,6 6'vik apa a6roO,6 &Na(6)paToq"AvOpwroq, 6vvvqpo6ýTE7p)76g; rap"T6V Eivatrp6q r6v Yrariparip rAmoffm # (piAapXid$vv# ao(piaq# 66ýjq avv7rotovyivqj,6E7V U Olir(OVU&Kai rqpdovpý p&U6v v (ppovri(m # wrobqK6paKaq ", &61#roý& Irrov # (mi Kpiva", To 6'67raý rvmýcavri irqpýXvv Kai av'&q r6irretv; 176TcpovMwbaqC # Ytjoro6qyleb6srai; 'H 6 xarýp ro6rov 176repovM(0604q ý 716ooq Web6crai;7-16 xarýp Togrovziurcov 97rEA60m,riva Mcobad6xrci&ro; 'H Karayvobi;rcov WO)v v6pcov tertym Kai r6v ItyyeAovIxi rotc 9vavrioiq67rocTWxt; " (SC 150:52-4) Julian,Against the Gafflaeans book 1. "a6TOX) TE MORMUk); Kai TOV &XWV 6111KOfMaTFS npO(PqT(bV. 6 OU'vMomyj; noXI&TotaOTa Kai xokkapf) Myer 'Mptov T6vOE6v aou (popTIOhcrn Kai a-&TOR6v(p XaTpe0azt;. ' 118; o& 6'liqaoD; dv T611;e6ayyEkiot; napaWoTat nPOCT&TTIOV'rIOPEI)OkVTF-; PaoilTe6craTe XdLVTQET& go", PaXT40VTE; abTob; el; T6 6voga TOD 7raTp6; Kai TOO I)iOZ Kai TOD 6tyi0l) 7(VCf)jLaTO;, '6nEp ph Kai a6TO XaTpebEtv "geWv ;" (LCL 157: 402)
155 Even if thesepassages seem dissimilar in content from the questionsraised by
Augustine, we must bear in mind that what remainsof Celsuscomes from Origen and what remains of Julian from Cyril of Alexandria. As Wilken pointed out, Cyril does 55 say that Julian attacked the Gospels, but does not specify how. It is therefore difficult to completely rule out Celsus and Julian as possible sources.On the other hand, it is an entirely different story in the case of Macarios' Apocriticos. The
Anonymous Hellene preserves most of the points mentioned in Augustine: "The evangelists were the inventors and not the historians of the deeds accomplished around Jesus. Indeed, each of them composed a story of the Passion, which, instead of agreeing, is completely contradictory; "" "All the details that they gave about his
(Jesus') death were mere conjectures;, 957
"These words, uttered likewise for a long time, are, as it is often the
case, very unpleasant, and each point brought forward create against
itself a fight on contradiction. indeed, if a man in the street want to
explain the other word from the Gospels that Jesus addressesto Peter,
when he says: 'Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me,
for thou mindest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of
men, 'and then in another place: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom
heaven' 9958 of ....
Wilken, "Christians," 178. Macarios,Apocrificos 2.23.1-2." 1) & 6pipu4a; Kai kfav PXOUUP6V EkYaOPýCfa; 7FXIjKTIK6)TEPOV ýPTIV t(PEI)PET&; ObX lCTTOPa; '(pqcygvgf)cya; Tolb; Ebayyektmd; ) TQ)V 7EFpi T6V'IqCFODV yey"(YOat irpd4e(ov. 6 &W Tw=; y&p ai)T(OV (7611(P(OVOV ftEP&P(MV 9611CYTaT6V k6yov nEptT6 n0ou; 'ypayev. " (Goulet:34) 57 'OTt 14 WPOU Macarios,Apocriticos 2.24.1. " T& icep! TOf) TtkOl); aýTOO 716=a KaTccrroXdcyavTo, 11 MpW aiou TOOT'67COUIXOýCYEVII. " Macarios, Apocriticos, 3.19.1. '76m gkV Xý811VOýT(O gaKP117064CM 7EOUýV, 6; EiKO;, EXEI TýV 6Lv6iav. Kai &GnEP aýT& np6; taur& Tj; 6vTiXoyiaq 6tvaicaict Týv gdLX71v.Ei y&p 60xt Tt; 6); k 6ayyEkl())V 6911YýOaCftl k6YOV, 6V 611100f); Tpt68olu KdLICETtVOV TGN T6V Tq) 1UTP(p 6tagOt"ETat (Pdt;' '-YnayE 67tiM gO'U, ZaTaVd, olcdvSak6v golu Elt, 6TI Oi) (PPOVE-1;T& TOf) OEOiJ,&W T& T(OV&VOPd)n(OV-'
156 We have alreadydiscussed the controversysurrounding the Macarios fragments;both he and Augustine may be using the samesource(s), but, as we shall demonstrate,it is morelikely thatAugustine raised himself many of theissues he mentions.
Theproblem of Augustine's rhetorical practice
In De consensu,Augustine usesseveral rhetorical devices,and understanding them will allow us to acquire a better knowledge of Porphyry's place in Augustine's work. One of thosedevices is the "forensic technique," which consistsof challenging one's opponent. Caroline Humfress explains that mastering the practice of forensic rhetoric was a necessaryskill for educated,late antique Churchmenwishing to have influence on imperial politics." The technique involved citing opponents out of context in order to turn their works againstthemselves. As Hurnfress's work shows, the forensic argumentcould be usedto settle a caseby an advocatebefore it goesto
but before 60This in court, the chargesare made. may explain why so many passages De consensusound like answersto actualcharges; what Augustine is actually doing is foreseeingpossible accusations,and responding to them before they are formally raisedby an opponent.
Other studies suggest that Augustine could be following the sequenceof argument of one opponent, but without acknowledging it. G. Clark pointed out that
Augustine used a tactic establishedby Christian apologists,"of citing authoritiesthat non-Christiansdid accept."61 In City of God, he may be using Porphyry in the same way as he usesVarro, namely as authoritieswhose writings presenta hidden religious
eTT'& kTip4), r6xcp- ' Zib el nk-rpo;, ical int Taiftinrfl xkTpqt oiKoSopýaw POU Týv'Elclckijaicrv' WoUlet:146) 9C. Humftess,Orthodoxy and the Courts in LateAntiquity (Oxford: 2007), 140-4. 60Humfress, Orthodoxy, 97. 61G. Clark,"Augustine's Varro andPagan Monotheism, " in Monotheismin LateAntiquity Between Christiansand Pagans, S. Mitchelland P. van Nuffelen(eds. ) (Leuven:2010), 183.
157 truth. The question further raised by Clark is whether Augustine uses Porphyry because he was an acknowledged authority, or whether Augustine found him a convenient opponent (a Platonist in Latin translation). Clark argues that Varro's account of Roman polytheistic religion suited Augustine's purposes, becausehe wanted to show that paganswere actually monotheists;Porphyry could be used as an example of Platonist philosophy, but Augustine also portrayed him as almost
Christian. Ultimately, Augustine wished to demonstratethat pagan religion was not irreconcilable with Christianity, and that Christianity could guaranteesalvation to all.
Varro was commonly studied at school, not for his written style, but becausehe provides explanationsof traditional Roman cults. Therefore,those reading Augustine would have been familiar with Varro. Furthermore,he wrote in Latin, and Augustine 62 could not readGreek very fast, althoughhe was getting better at it over time. As for
Porphyry, some of his works had been translatedinto Latin and were thus accessible to Augustine (De regressuanimae), and in Milan, he would have heard a lot aboutthe philosopher on Platonism. Using the most famous anti-Christian thinker and presentinghim as a Christian is certainly a powerful rhetorical tool. In both the cases of Varro and Porphyry, scholarshave to rely on Augustine for Varro on religion, and
Porphyry's De regressuanima, hence the importance of understandingAugustine's citation method.
Theory in practice
How do theseideas apply to On the Harmony of the Gospels?Let us look more closely at the work in order to decidewhether we should considerany of the questions put forth as being actually part of the general anti-Christian argument. In On
62On Augustine and Greek,see J. LoessI,"Augustine in Byzantium," Journal ofEcclesiastical History 51 (2000): 267-95.
158 Harmony, Augustine showsthat paganbeliefs are really very closeto Christian beliefs
(even though the pagansare confused about this), and in City of God he usesexactly the samestrategy for Porphyry. Could Augustine havePorphyry in mind when writing
On Harmony?
First, following Hurnfress's and Clark's views on how Augustine cites his opponentsout of context and turns their ideas againstthem, it can be observedthat in
On Harmony, Augustine presentsPorphyry's philosophical views as being consistent with thoseof Christians.
Augustine was out to do more in book I than defend the evangelists.He demonstrateshow God is not only a god, but also the supremeGod, and proves how
He askedto be worshipped,i. e. alone andwithout idols.63 According to Augustine, the
Roman treatment of the God of the Hebrews was unusual. The Romans normally propitiated the deities of the nations they conqueredby worshipping them, and by undertaking the charge of their sacred rites. However, they always refused to do likewise with the God of the Hebrews, who have, according to Augustine, sinned when they put Christ to death, for they had been commissionedto prophesy Christ).
Augustineargues that the reasonlies in thenature of theworship required by God: I believe that they perceived that, if they admitted the devotion to this God, who orderedthat He only shouldbe worshipped,and that imagesshould be destroyed,they would have to reject all that they had fonnerly taken up for worship; and to thesecults
9964 theythink they owethe growth of their empire.
Not only did the Romansbelieve that their empire had grown becauseof their worship of the gods, but they also believed that they neededto placate the gods for
63Augustine, On theHarmony of theGospels 1.12.18. 64Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.12.18."Credo quod videbant,si eius Dei sacra reciperent,qui se solum deletis etiam simulacris coli iuberet, dimittendaesse omnia quaeprius colenda imperiurn susceperant,quorum religionibus suum crevissearbitrabantur. .. ."
159 their protection.65 Worshipping only one of them in the province of Judaeawas thereforetoo risky. The usual view is that the Romansdecided to leave the Jewsalone on the basisof the antiquity of their religion, which inspired respect.But Augustine offers a better explanation.He is actually helping us to understandthe incompatibility of paganism and Christianity. As S. Mitchell and P. van Nuffelen argue in the introduction to Monotheism in Late Antiquity Between Christians and Pagans, the main question that late antique people had to struggle with was "Who do I worship? 9966 To the bishop of Hippo, the answer certainly lies in God, and proving this is part of his agendain On Harmony of the Gospels.The evidence for God's supremacyis to be found in the ftilfilment in the New Testamentof the prophets' sayings.67 In contrast the pagan prophecieswere never fulfilled, and this testifies to the power and authority of the God the Christians.68
In order to properly answer all the above-mentioned attacks, Augustine interprets the idea that the pagans might have of God. Augustine starts with an investigation of paganideas on the God of the Jews.He reports that to someunnamed pagans,God is simply Saturn, possibly, Augustine infers, becausethe Sabbathday is 69 To on the day of Saturn. the philosopher he famously uses in The City of God,
Varro, the God of the Jews is Jupiter, but "the namewhich is used is not important, provided that the samething is understood.t0o The philosopherVarro's datesare 116-
27 B.C. E., thereforehe was never in contact with Christians, and is not commenting on thern. Augustine interpretsVarro's view in the light of Roman theogony: Jupiter being the supremeGod, equatingGod with him betrayshow respectfulVarro was and
65See Porphyry, On Abstinence1. 66S.Mitchell and P. van Nuffelen, "Introduction," in Monotheismin Late Antiquity BetweenChristians (eds.) and Pagans, S. Mitchell and P. van Nuffelen (Leuven: 2010), 9. 67Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.20.28. 68Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.20.28. 69Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.22.30. 70 Gospels1.22.30 Augustine,On the Harmony of the ...... quo norninenuncupetur, durn eadernres intellegatur......
160 how impressed the Him Here Augustine follows his line philosopher was with .71 usual of argument, for he uses Varro, an eminent pagan philosopher, in order to make a point against the pagans, just in the same way as he uses Porphyry in City of God.
Next, it would make sense, says Augustine, to identify Jupiter with God, in that, as
72 Virgil writes in Eclogues 3.5.60, "All things are full of Jove.,, This is also true of
God who "fills heavenand earth.1173 Augustine then askshimself who Virgil namesas
Ether in Georgics 2.325, for he is said to be "the omnipotent father descended(from the sky) into the bosom of his happy wife, with fruitful showers.9974 The paganssay, according to Augustine, that Ether is not spirit, but a "body they say is lofty and in which the sky is stretched out above the air."75 Therefore, the bishop of Hippo concludes,Virgil is at times following Plato, who says that God is spirit, and at times following the Stoics, who say that God is a body. Augustine uses the example of
Jupiter in order to underline the contradictions in paganism as to the nature of the gods: "If (what they worship in the Capitol) is a spirit, or if it is in fact the corporeal sky itself, then what is the shield of Jupiter doing there, which they call the AegiS?"76
Augustine later explainsthat this shield was made of the skin of a she-goatin honour of Jupiter's nurse.77 Here he certainly implies that if the pagansare not clear about the nature of their gods, this is because it is twofold. Jupiter thus has two natures.
Augustine arguesthat the pagansappear to be drawing their ideas on the gods from the books of philosophers,but worshipping them in temples accordingto their poets.
Augustine pushes the argument even further by demonstratingthat the pagans are
71Augustine, On the Harmony of theGospels 1.22.30. 72Augustine, On theHarmony Gospels1.23.3 1. "Iovis of the omniaplena. ... 73Augustine, On theHarmony of the Gospels1.23.3 1. "Caelumet terramego impleo. 74Augustine, On theHarmony of the Gospels1.23.3 1. pateromnipotensfecundis imbribus aether,coniogis in gremiumIdetae descendit. " 75 Augustine,On theHarmony of the Gospels1.23.3 1. sedcoxpus esse dicunt sublime, quo caelum superaerem distenditur. " 76Augustine, On theHarmony of the Gospels1.23.3 1. "Si spiritum,si deniqueipsum caelum corporcum,quid illic facit scutumillud lovis,quod appellant Aegida? " 77Augustine, On theHannony of theGospels 1.23.34.
161 worshipping deities that once were men. He uses the exampleof the Egyptian priest
Leon, "who revealedto Alexander of Macedonan accountof the origin of thosegods which differed from the opinion of the Greeks."" This implies that they are indeed worshippingdead men.
After having shownhow the pagans,just like the Christians,worship deadmen who havea divine spirit - which implies that pagansdo in fact shareChristian beliefs and cannot blame Christians for worshipping a dead man with a divine spirit -
Augustine comesback to Saturn. By a very skilled analogy and by using Virgil's
Aeneid 8.320-4, he managesto demonstratethat the pagan gods are temporal, and emanatedfrom a main deity, Time. He first equates Saturn with Chronus, who is
64universalTime" in Greek, and "Saturn" in Latin, "as though filled with years.979
Augustine thus adroitly showsthat the pagans' main deity is Time, and thereforethat all the gods, who issuedfrom him are temporal. But Augustine's argument doesnot end here. He pushes it even further in a bid to demonstratethat the pagans, too, worship a holy trinity similar to the Christians'. He first explains how the
Neoplatonists,disagreeing with the interpretationof the major deity as Time, say that
Chronus is actually "the fulness of intellect," 'koros' meaning 'satiety,' and 'nous' 80 meaningintellect. It follows that Saturnusis a combination of the Latin 'satur' and the Greek 'nous.' This implies that Jupiter, the son of Saturn, is the spirit engendered
intellect, "the filling by the supreme soul of this world, .. -, all heavenlyand earthly Augustine The bishop bodies," in the words of .81 of Hippo then brings back the words of Maro, "all things are full of Jove," and interpretsthem as meaningthat Jove is the
78 On Harmony the Gospels 1.23.33. ". Alexandro diversam Augustine, the of .. qui macedoni quidem deorum ita a Graecorunt opinione istorum originem verumtamen prodit. " 79Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.23.34. quasi saturetur annis." 80 Harmony Gospels 1.23.35. intellectus Augustine, On the of the velut a satietate ...... 81Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.23.35. animam mundi huius ornnia caelestia et terrena corpora implentern. "
162 soul of the world. He concludesthat the pagansare wrong to worship Jupiter as a
supremedeity, when they should be worshipping Saturn as such, for he is the source
of all souls. Instead, they place Saturn at the level of the stars as an evil deity'82as
though they had no understandingat all of their own theogony. In sum, Augustine
showedthat the paganswere worshipping a mortal soul, issued from the supremesoul,
and having beenpart of a world filled with Jove. Besides,they are addingto the insult
against their main deity by downgrading it to a far lesser rank. The Christians, as a
result, naturally emerge as a religiously superior group. However, Augustine thinks
none of these gods could correspondto God, for they never forbade the worship of
other deities."
The pagans,in turn, are very close to being Christians, says Augustine. Their
only mistake lay in not worshipping Saturnas their main deity, as their interpretations
logically require.84 Augustine maintains that although the pagansworship all the gods,
they deny Christ, "becausetheir pride made them ashamedto be humble under Christ
"85 This about the remission of their sins. argument reminds us of the point that
Augustine made in City of God (10.32) as regards Porphyry's own religion. The
pagansseem to be ambivalent in their choice of deity. Even though they claim to be
worshipping all gods, since they do not worship the God of the Hebrews, then this
claim is false. But if they were worshipping God, becausehe forbade the worship of
other deities, they cannot be also worshipping other gods. It follows that their
religious claims are wrong, one way or another,for as long as they refuse to become
Christians.
92Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.23.36. :4 3Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.22.30. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.24.37. 85Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.24.37. cum eossuperbos puderet pro peccatoruni rernissionehumilari subChristo. "
163 A great part of Augustine's evidencefor God being the true God lies in his interpretation of the relationship betweenvarious deities. Saturn and Jupiter cannot excludethe worship of one another:
"If indeedJupiter doesnot prohibit the worship of Saturn,because he is
not a man, who expelledanother man, his father, out of his kingdom,
but is either the body of the sky, or spirit filling both heavenand earth,
and therefore he cannot prohibit the worship of the supernal mind, from
which he is said to have emanated; if, in the same way, Saturn cannot
prohibit the worship of Jupiter, because he was not conquered by his
rebellion, as the man Saturn was by some Jupiter or other, whose
weapons he fled when he came to Italy, but the first mind favours the
soul which originated from it. ý,86
This gives further supportto Augustine's previous argument;Saturn and Jupiter are inter-dependent,just like the Christian God and Christ. But as far as the other godsare concerned,they should logically not approveof other godsbeing worshipped.For instance,Diana the virgin should not acceptVenus or Priapus,for thesedeities can " only undermineher influence. Sinceall thesecontradictory deities co-exist,
Augustineconcludes that none of them canbe consideredas true.
Augustinepoints to a familiar paganattack: the pagansdo not give credit to all of God's works. He cites examplestaken from the Old Testament,such as the Flood
88 andthe Creation,which hints at the pagan's denial of the God of Israel. In his letter
86Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.25.38. "Si enim luppiter non prohibet Saturnumcoli, quia non est ille homo, qui illum hominempatrem de regno expulit, sedaut caeli corpusaut spiritus implens caelurnet terram, et ideo non potestprohibere coli menternsupernam, ex qua dicitur emanasse, si earatione nec Saturnuslovern coli prohibet, quia non ab eo rebellante superatusest, sicut ille a love fugiens in Italiam, favet nescio quo, cuius anna venit sed prima mensanimae a se genitae...... 87Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.25.38. 88Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.25.39.
164 102,Augustine notesthe samekind of problem as regardsthe story of Jonahand the
in his in 89To Augustine, however, whale, which was mocked time pagancircles . God's miraculousworks, and especially the fulfilment of the propheciesof the OT,
areevidence that Godis thetrue One.
Another point raisedby Augustine implies that somepagans considered the
God of Israel as not being theirs, but the Hebrews'. Augustine explainsthat the God of
Israel is called such,because Abraham receivedthe following promise: "In your seed
all raceswill be blessed," and so did his son, Isaac,and then his grandsonJacob, who
was also called "Israel," but adds,"Not that he is not also the God of the Gentiles
himself, but becausein he ..., this people wantedthe excellenceof his promisesto
appearmore manifestly."90 The greaterimplication hereis that the God of Israel is
also not the God of the Christians,most of whom come from the Gentile community.
Augustine reportsthat the pagansare accusingthe Christiansof not worshipping the
God of Israel appropriately,for they are not worshipping idols like the Jewsdo. 9'
According to Augustine, the point of suchattacks is to argue that the Christians claim
that God had promisedto rid the earth of superstitionsand idol worship, i.e. paganism, 92 in order that Christianity can rule. By giving more credit to the Jewsfor their respect
of God's commands,the pagansare thus downgradingthe Christians.In sum, the
paganswere clearly distancingthemselves from the God of Israel, and further
discredit the Christiansfor not knowing how to placateHim. Augustine thus needsto
89Augustine, Letter 102.30. 90Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.25.39. "In seminetuo benedicenturomnes Genies... ipse Deus in isto non quod non sit omnium gentium ..., sedquia populo voluit manifestiusapparere virtutem promissorumsuonun. " 91Augustine, On the Harmony ofthe Gospels1.26.4 1. 92Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.26.4 1.
165 explain that in the OT, God actually forbade that a likenessof Himself be
93 worshipped.
Augustinementions a philosopherwho wrote that he had come to know what
God the Jewsworshipped. He doesnot provide a referenceor namefor that writer.
The latter said that, "[they must be subordinateto] him who holds authority over all the elementsand the massof the universe.c694 Once again, Augustineuses a
'philosopher' - whoeverhe is the title bearsauthority - against the pagansto argue that if the God of Israel is such, than he should be consideredas the supremeGod. He thereforequestions why the paganshave decided, for their sakes,not to worship Him, thinking that if they did so, they would losethe protection of other deities,however lesser.Next, Augustineuses the pre-Christianpoet Lucan, who, failing to discover who the God of the Jewswas, did not deny his divine status,when he called Him the
"uncertain God."95 Augustine has thus demonstratedthat one may find in the pagan books the evidencefor God's existence,and what deity He is, and that, as a result, it doesnot make senseto deny Him over lesserdivinities. In sum, Augustine doesnot ascribethese arguments to Porphyry; sometimeshe ascribesthem to other sources; sometimes,arguments are similar to argumentsascribed elsewhere to Porphyry,but it doesnot follow that he is the source.
SinceAugustine may well be challenging one opponent,while following his sequenceof argumentwithout acknowledgingit, how many of the argumentshe countersin De consensuevangelistarum are known to have beenused, or likely to havebeen used, by Porphyry?In order to answerthis question,we needto identify the
93Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.26.41. 94 Gospels Augustine, On the Harmony of the 1.29.45.". .. ut sub illo sint qui omnium elementorumet universaehuius molis praeposituramgerit. " 95Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.29.46,"incertum Deum "
166 passagesin which a responseto an opponentwas made,and seewhether or not they
can be attributedto Porphyry. As we shall see,this is not at all straight-forward.
Wilken's insight was sound,for we haveevidence that Porphyry's criticisms
as found in De consensuhave points in common with his criticisms preserved elsewhere,namely the evangelistsbeing inconsistentand misleading. Wilken paired some of the criticism found in On Harmony with fragmentstraditionally ascribedto the work that we call Against the Christians. I am proposing hereto develophis argumentby looking at the text in greaterdetail. Although Porphyry is named- in relation to the Philosophyfrom Oracles- and is the only Christian opponentever namedin the entirework, and althoughthe natureof the attacksaccounted for in
Augustine resemblethe kind of attacksthat are usually found in Porphyry,there are important clues in Augustine's rhetoric that do not allow us to concludePorphyrian authorship.
According to existing fragment collections,Porphyry madefour main charges againstthe evangelists.He accusedthem of being ignorant, of lying and falsifying the historical record,of presentingJesus as an inconsistentman, andof adaptingthe story of Jesusto their own needsin order to make him appearas divine (in Philosophyfrom
Oracles). We know from Jerome ". The famousimpious Porphyry, that, .. who wrote againstus andvomited his ragein numerousvolumes, argues in book 14: 'The
ignorant , 996 We know from evangelistswere such men ...... also Jeromethat Porphyry said the evangelistsclaimed that Jesushad walked on the sea,when he actuallywalked on theLake Genezareth. They were thus confusing a seawith a lake, either out of ignoranceor becausethey wanted to exaggeratethe deedsof Jesus.To
96 Jerome,From the beginningqfMark 1.1-2- HarnackNr. 9. "Locum istum impius ille Porphyrius, qui adversumnos conscripsitet multis voluminibus rabiernsuam evornuit, in XIV volumine disputatet dicit: 'Evangelistae imperiti fuerant homines '. " (CCSL 78:452) tam .. .
167 Porphyry,the gospelwriters proposeda miracle for ignorant people.97 Next, Porphyry
equates"miracles" with "magical art.9198 The gospel writers are also guilty of
"falsity, " for they could not even cite the Bible properly.99 In one instance,Mark cites
Isaiah only andforgets Malachi,100 and Matthew confusesIsaiah andAsaph, 'O' and
forgets one generationin the Book of Daniel.102 A Eusebianfragment of the
discoursesagainst the Christiansgoes even further and saysthat the evangelists
falsified the recordof what Jesusactually did, sinceJesus never performed any
miracle.'O' Finally, we know from Jeromethat the evangelistscould not get their story
straight, either by agreeingwith eachother, or by presentingJesus as acting
consistently.In John 7.10, Jesustold his brethrenthat he will not yet go up to the feast
of Tabernacles(7.8). However, after his brethenwent up to the feast,Jesus also went up,"not openly, but as if it were a secret." According to Jerome,Porphyry "barks
[and] accuses[him] of inconsistencyand changeof heart." 104
97Jerome, A bridgedcommentary on the psalms 81-Harnack Nr. 4. 98Jerome, Abridged commentaryon the psalms 81 - Hamack Nr. 4. "Homines rusticaniet pauperes, quoniamnihil habebant,magicis artibusoperati sunt quaedamsigna. Non estautern grande facere signa. Nam fecere signa in Aegypto magi contra Moysen (Exod 7). Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius- Infiniti signa fecerunt. Concedotibi, Porphyri, magicis artibus signa fecerunt, ut divitias acciperenta divitibus mulierculis, quasinduxerant: hoc enim tu dicis." (CCSL 78:89) 99Jerome, Letter 57.9 to Pammachius - HarnackNr. 2. "Haec replico, non ut evangelistasarguam hoc impiorum est,Celsi, Porphyrii, luliani (Budd falsitatis - quippe ... ." 3:67) 100Jerome, From the beginningof Mark 1.1- 12- HarnackNr. 9. Jerome,quoting directly from Porphyry: "Evangelistaetam imperiti fuerunt homines,non solum in saecularibus,sed etiarn in scripturesdivinis, ut testimonium,quod alibi scriptum,est, de alio ponerentpropheta. " (CCSL 78:452). Jerome,Commentary on Matthew 3.3 - Hamack Nr. 9. "Porphyrius istum.locurn Marci evangelistae principio comparatin quo scripturnest: Cum enim testimoniurnde Malachia Esaiaquecontexturn putermisadsumptum. " (SC 242:90) 101Jerome, Abridged commentaryon thepsalms 77 - HarnackNr. 10. "'Aperiarn in parabolaos meum Hoc Esaiasnon loquitur, sedAsaph. Denique et inpius ille Porphyrius .. .' proponit aduersurnnos hoc ipsum, et dicit: 'Euangelistauester Matthaeus tam inperitus fuit, ut diceret, quod scripturnest in Aperiarn in (CCSL Esaiapropheta, parabolaos meurn .. --'" 78:66) 102Jerome, Commentary on Daniel 1.1.1- HarnackNr. 11. "Et ob hanc causarnin euangeliosecundurn Matthaeurnuna uidetur dessegeneratio (Matth. 1.11.12),quia secundatesseriscedecas in loachim desinit filium losiae et tertia incipit a loiachin filio loachim; quod ignoransPorphyrius, calumniarn struit ecclesiae,suarn ostendens imperitiam, durn evangelistaeMatthaei arguerenititur falsitatem." (CCSL 75A: 777) 103Eusebius, Proof of the Gospels3.5.1. Note that this passageis not in Harnack,but is an addition that I have made. 104Jerome, Against Pelagius2.17-Harnack Nr. 70. latrat Porphyrius,inconstantiae ac mutationis accusat." (CCL 80:76)
168 Against the link between Judaism and Christianity, we know from Eusebius
HE 6.19 that Porphyry did not think highly of the Old Testament,whose content he calls "Jewish riddles". It has been long established that the pagans wished to undermine Christianity by presenting it as a new religion, therefore Christians had been trying to identify themselveswith the older, Jewish religion in order to gain recognition with the pagan community. One strategyto counterthat claim was thus to criticize the Jews themselves.As a result, the Christians are left with no legitimacy.
Therefore, Porphyry praised the Jews for worshipping their God appropriately, but maintains that the Christians have gone astray from their peersin their understanding of what their God requires. 105
Augustine, in On Harmony, reports exactly the samegeneral criticism on many occasions.We read that, "Although they (the evangelists)appear to have each kept their own order of narration, this doesnot mean that eachof them choseto write as if in ignorance had done. 99106 have of what their predecessors .... Next, the pagans Christ by ". Those deranged accused of performing miracles magical art: .. who are enoughto say that He was able to accomplishthat much by magical arts, and that by this art he made his name sacred for the conversion of peoples to himself, should
s9107 considerthis ....
Augustinetells us how heundertook that project in orderto counterthe claim that "the evangelistsdo not agreebetween themselves. "' 0' It is clear from many passagesof On Harmony that the evangelistswere criticised for presenting
'05See Augustine, City of God 19.22,on oracles. 106Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.1.4. "Et quarnvissingul i suum quemdarnnarrandi ordinern tenuissevideantur, non tamen unusquisqueeorurn velut alterius praecedentisignarus voluisse scriberereperitur ...... 107Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.11.17. "1Ilud quoque attendant, qui magicis artibus tanta in ipsa defirant potuisse et nornen suum ad populos se convertendos arte consecrasse ...... logAugustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.7.10. quod ipsi evangelistaeinter se ipsos dissentiant."
169 contradictory accountsof Jesus'life and sayings.For instance,Mark claims that Jesus
was crucified at the third hour on the Sabbathday, while the other three evangelists
claim that he was crucified at the sixth hour. Augustine reportstheir interrogation:"If
Jesus,therefore, was delivered to the Jewsfor crucifixion at aboutthe sixth hour,
while Pilate sat on the tribunal, how comehe was crucified at the third hour, as some
havethought because they did not understandthe words of Mark?"'
The evangelists are also ignorant men, who cannot cite the Bible accurately.
This is, for instance,the casewith Matthew:
". it hasbeen Matthew forty in .. acutely observedthat ... named men the series of generations with the exception of Christ himself. He
(Matthew) began with Abraham, and enumeratedforty men.... He
distinguished four times ten generations,dividing them into three
groups, saying that from Abraham to David there were fourteen
generations,from David to the migration to Babylon anotherfourteen,
andyet anotherfourteen generations until the birth of Christ, but he did
not add them up and say:they make forty-two in total.""O
Matthew thus enumeratesforty men, but the total count, accordingto his calculation,
should be 42. But Augustine doesnot say who "acutely observed" that, so we cannot
assumethat it was Porphyry. In another instance,Matthew attributed to Jeremiaha passagewhich is actually in Zechariah: "If anyone is disturbed by this, that the
109Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 3.13.40. "Si igitur hora quasi sexta Pilato sedente pro ludaeis, hora tribunali traditus est crucifigendus quomodo tertia crucifixus est, sicut verba Marci non intellegentes quidam putaverunt? " 110 On Harmony the Gospels 2.4.8- 10. "Acute Matthaeum Augustine, the of quippe animadversum est . homines in excepto ipso Christo quadraginta generationum serie nominasse.... Cum enim quater .. distinxisset dicens Abraham denas generationes tribus articulis ab usque ad David generationes esse transmigrationern Babyloniae quattuordecim et a David usque ad alias quattuordecim totidemque alias duxit in diceret: usque ad nativitatern Christi, non tamen eas summam ut fiunt omnes quadraginta duae."
170 evidence is not found in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah, and thinks for that
that faith in the is be lessened "'" According Jerome, reason evangelist to ... . to Porphyry pointed out a similar mistake in Matthew, who, according to the
philosopher,confuses Isaiah and Asaph.112
Augustine says that, "These persons (the pagan philosophers) are thus so
deluded as to claim that these books they reckon that he wrote contain the arts by
which they think he perfon-ned those miracles, the fame of which spread
(everywhere)."' 13The evangelistsare thus not accountingfor Jesus' miracles, for he
performed none. What he was performing was actually magic. Again, this attack is
attested,as has beenmentioned, in Jeromeand Eusebius.
The only mention by Augustine of the feast of Tabernaclesis the following:
"But, where they (the other evangelists)are silent, he (John) said that he (Christ) went
up to Jerusalemon the day of the feast, and there performed a miracle on a man, who had been ill for thirty-eight years."' 14Augustine is not concernedwith answering
Porphyry on Jesus' inconsistent behaviour here, but with explaining why John only recountsthis event, and not the others. In the text, no passagemeant to defend Christ against the charge of inconsistent behaviour could be found, becauseAugustine is more concernedwith harmony between the gospels. Porphyry used the event of the feast of Tabernaclesto mock Jesus,and certainly would have noticed that all other
111Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels3.7.29. "Si quis autem movetur, quod hoc testimonium invenitur in lererniae ideo fidei Evangelistae derogandurn non scriptura prophetae,et putat aliquid ... 112 Jerome,Abridged commentaryon thepsalms 77 - HarnackNr. 10. " 'Aperiarn in parabolaos meurn Hoc Esaias loquitur, Asaph. Denique inpius ille Porphyrius .. .' non sed et proponit aduersumnos hoc ipsum, et dicit: Tuangelista uester Matthaeustam inperitus fuit, ut diceret, quod scripturnest in Esaia Aperiarn in (CCSL 78:66) propheta, parabolaos meum ...... 113 Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.9.14. "Ita veto isti desipiunt, ut illis libris quos eum scripsisseexistimant, dicant contineri easartes, quibus eum putant ilia fecissemiracula, quorum fama ubiquepercrebruit ...... 114Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.45.94. "Sed sane,quod illi tacuerunt,dicit ascendisse eurnin die festo Hierosolymis et fecisseibi miraculum illud de homine, qui triginta octo annoshabebat in infirmitate ......
171 three evangelists omitted to mention it. The nature of the attacks found in the traditional fragmentcollections certainly haveparallels with the attacksmentioned by
Augustine, althoughsimilar points are not addressed.
Augustine also reports on an attack, which we know very well: That the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies in the New Testament is a Christian invention. Jerome's Commentary on Daniel is the best reference to use, for it preserved what might have been the thesis of Porphyry's twelfth book of the discoursesthat we call Against the Christians. In this book, Porphyry challengedthe
Christian claim that Daniel was an actual prophet by demonstratinghow the Book of
Daniel had actually been written in the secondcentury B. C.E. by contemporariesof
Antiochus EpiphanesIV's Jewishpersecution. Porphyry did so by matching prophecy by and history to date the text, and analysing the languagein which the book was written, concluding that two stories (Suzanna and Bel and the Dragon) had been written in Greek rather than in Hebrew, like the rest of Daniel. Augustine, in On
Harmony of the Gospels,reports that the Christians are being blamed for holding illegitimate views on their religion:
"I omit to mention that the things which are read in their books, which
they say are testimony on behalf of our own, that is, the Christian,
religion, they could have heard from the holy angels and from our But I prophets .... omit thesethings, which they say are fictions when 15 we producethem from our books."'
IISAugustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.20.28. "Ornitto enim dicere quod ea quaein illorurn libris legunturpro nostra,hoc est,christiana religione testimonium dicunt, quod a sanctisangelis et ab Sed haec ipsis Prophetisnostris audire potuerunt... ornitto, quaecum proferitnus a nostris ficta esse contendunt."
172 This accusationcertainly brings back to memory the argumentfound in Jerome,where
it is more developed,namely that the Old Testamentprophets were false prophets.' 16
It can also be paired with Porphyry's complaint about how Christians misused the
allegorical method of interpretationto deciphertheir sayings,117 and endedup reading
Scripturein a self-interestedmanner.
The pagansalso claim that the Christians are wrong to pretend that what was prophesiedin the Old Testamentwas actually fulfilled in the name of Christ. "But I omit these things, (says Augustine), which they say are fictions when we produce them from our books."' 18This accusationthus parallels the opponents'idea that the disciple of Christ forfeited history.
Finally, Augustine seemsto be answering old attacks on Christian identity:
"But who says that Christ and the Christians have nothing to do with Israel?"' 19The pagans-just as Porphyry did - want to set apart Christians and Jews, in an effort to discredit Christianity as an ancient religion. This is an accusationof fideism with which Eusebiuswas already confronted when he wrote Evangelical Preparation.
The paganswould also not credit the early work of God as depictedin Genesis,nor would they credit "that he took away Enoch, eradicatedthe impious with the flood, andfreed the righteousNoah and his housefrom the flood with the ark of wood." 121
Other attacks can be traced back to Porphyry. First, Augustine mentions that
Jesusis criticised.by the pagansfor not havingrecorded his deedshimself, and for
116Jerome, Commentary on Daniel Prologue. 117See Eusebius, HE 6.19. 118Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.20.28. "Sed haecomitto, quaecum proferimusa nostris ficta essecontendunt. " 119Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.26.4 1. "Quis autem dicat Christurn atquechristianos Israel. non pertineread .. 120Eusebius, PE 1.2.1-5. 121 Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.25.39. "Quod Enoch transtulit, quod impios diluvio delevit, quod Noe iustum domumqueeius per lignum inde liberavit. "
173 22 leaving us only with the testimony of other people that we must accept., This was clearly a means to further downgrade the evangelists, and show that they were free to adapt the record of Jesus' history at their own convenience. This was certainly done by Porphyry, for Augustine, in 1.7.11, refers to the Philosophy from Oracles, as has been discussed, and in 1.7.12, mentions that this attack was done by "certain of their most excellent philosophers" (note also that, as has been said, Augustine uses the example of Pythagoras' biographers, and that Porphyry was one of them). In City of
God, Augustine also calls Porphyry "the most learnedof the philosophers,,1123 which ftirther allow us to equatehim with the philosopherof On Harmony 1.7.
Other attacks,however, cannotbe tracedback to Porphyry.Augustine suggests that some evenwent as far as assertingthat they possessedbooks written by Jesus."'
Becausethe bishop of Hippo challengesthose retaining suchbooks "to reveal them to 125 (the Christians)," it would be reasonable to assume that he is referring to contemporarieshere, and not to Porphyry; however, becauseAugustine is not clear, for he also saysthat, "They assertthat be is the wisest of men.9026 The samepersons, saysAugustine, allegethat in thosebooks Jesuswould havewritten aboutthe magical is art he usedto perform miracles - an art which illegal, as Augustine adds_127 and even worse, that the books "are addressedto Peter and Paul as with the headingof a 28 letter."' Again, the bishop asks Christ's detractors to submit those books,129 and therefore the authors of such accusationsare not clearly identified. We know from
122Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.7.11-12. 123Augustine, City of God 19.22."doctissimus philosophorum. 11 124Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.8.13. 125Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.8.13 uos eum scripsisseasserant, prodant eos nobis." 126Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.8.13. "Deinde dicant, undesaltern quod sapientissimus fuerit nossevel audirepotuerunt. " [Tet them say how they could know or hearthat he was the wisest of men.'] 127Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.9.14. 128 On Harmony the Gospels1,10.15 Augustine, the of ...... ut eosdemlibros ad Petrumet Paulum dicant tamquamepistulari titulo pracnotatos." 129Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.9.14.
174 Jerome, however, that the chief apostles Peter and Paul were discredited by
Porphyry.130 As far as magic is concemed, we already knew that Porphyry had 131 accusedJesus of using magic - and Celsus did so famously in The True Doctrine - but Augustine ". he had been do addsthat the sameopponents claimed that, .. able to so much by magical arts and by that art had made his name sacredto make people
to him. ý032 This implies that Jesus's convert ... assertion reputation as a miracle- worker and a divine man was a creation of his disciples, for they wrongly recounted his deeds.
Another question raised by the opponentsis that of why the Romans,who would usually adopt the deities of the land under their dominion, never adopted the
God of the Hebrews,the nation that was meant to announcethe coming of Christ?133
On this topic, Augustine offers us his insight as to how the pagansperceived the God of the Christians. According to him, if the Romans had admitted God into their pantheon,they would haveneeded to give up the worship of all their other gods andto destroy all images,for God has to be worshipped alone. In the Romans' view, they could only do so at the expenseof their own safeguard, for that meant losing the
130Jerome, Commentary on the Galatians (seethe chapteron Jerome).Berchman's selection is not logical. Opponentsto Christianity argue that Christ did not teachthat the pagangods had to be abandoned,as well as their imagesdestroyed (1.31.47). The passagereads: "Neque enim temporibus christianis, sedtanto antepraedicturn est quod per christianosimpletur. lpsi ludaei qui remanserunt inimici nominis Christi, de quorum etiarn futura perfidia in illis propheticislitteris taciturn non est, ipsi habentet legunt prophetarndicentern: Domine Deus meusel refugium meumin die malorum, ad fe Geniesvenient ab extremoterrae et dicent: Veremendacia colueruntpaires nostri simulacra el non est in illis utilitas. Ecce nunc fit, eccenunc Gentesab extremoterrae veniunt ad Christurn ista dicenteset simulacrafrangentes. Et hoc enim magnumest, quod Deuspraestitit Ecclesiaesuae ubique diffusae, ut gensJudaea merito debellataet dispersaper terras,ne a nobis haec compositaputarentur, codices Prophetarumnostrorurn ubique portaret et inimica fidei nostraetestis fieret veritatis nostrae.Quomodo ergo discipuli Christi docueruntquod a Christo non didicerunt, sicut stulti desipiendoiactitant, ut deorurngentilium et simulacrorurnsuperstitio deleretur?Numquid et illas prophetias,quae nunc le untur in codicibus inimicorurn Christi, possuntdici finxisse discipuli Christi?" 13FSee Origen, Against Celsus1.28. 132Augustine, On Harmony Gospels 1.11.17 the of the ...... qui magicis artibustanta potuisseet nomen suumad populos in se convertendosarte ipsa consecrassedefirant. " 133Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.12.18-19.
175 protection from their gods. But the paganswent further in showing their lack of faith
andtrust in God, and hereAugustine seemsto report the authenticquestion asked:
"Why, then, has the God of the Hebrews, whom you claim to be the
highest and true god, not only not subjectedthe Romans to them, but
also not helped the Hebrews so that they would not be subject to the 134 Romans?" Christian detractors clearly did not think they would get
appropriate protection if left alone with God, "but they dare not deny
that he is (a) god. 95135
Attacks on religious practice also seemnew. The pagansargue that the God of
the Old Testament never expectedpeople to give up the making of idols and the
worship of the gods,according to opponents:"So thesewretched men, in vain, wish to
estrangefrom him that teaching by which the Christians dispute against idols and
eradicateall those false religions wheneverthey have the power (to do so).", 36But as
Augustine points out, Christ instructed Christians to abandon the gods and idols
through the record of his teachingsin the writings of the evangelists.137 And the fact
that the pagan deities are not forbidding the worship of God is further evidencethat
theseknow very well who is the master.' 38
Other chargesare directed against Christ himself Why did he not record his
life and sayings himself, but rather let others do it for him? Augustine answersthat
surprisingly, the pagansseem to be preparedto believe anything Jesuswould have
134Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.13.20, "Cur ergo DeusHebraeorum, quern surnmurn et verurn Deurndicitis, non solurnRomanos eis non subiugavit, sednec; ipsos Hebraeos,ne a Romanis subiugarentur,adiuvit? " '" On Harmony Gospels1.25.39 Augustine, the of the ...... Deurntarnen esse negare non audent." 136Augustine, On the Harmony the Gospels1.26.4 1: "Frustra doctrinarn of ergo miseri, ... volunt ab eo istarnfacere alienarn, qua christiani contra idola disputanteasque ornnes falsas religiones, ubi potuerint, eradicant." 137Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.31.47. 138Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.21.29.
176 said himself, but nothing that others said about him. 139He also points out that most
Greek philosophersdid not leave their own writings. Here he uses the example of
Pythagoras.
Augustine also reports that the pagans "more than any" claim that Christ, although they only consider him to be a man, and therefore were denying his divine nature, was the wisest of men (see matching passagein City of God), but that his disciples "conferred greaterthings on their master than he actually was." 140We have already linked this passagewith Porphyry, basedon a fragment from the Philosophy from Oracles. But when Augustine carries on with his argumentin book I and refers to "they" who question "why he has not written himself," and later on "those persons," 141 and then again in 1.8.13, for instance, it cannot be inferred that he is referring to Porphyry's criticism.
Furthermore,pagans allege that Christ wrote books on magic, and that he was the becausehe "illicit 59142His wisest of men precisely was practicing arts. so-called miracles were actually performed by the meansof magic. On this point, we can pair the attack with fragments found in Jerome and Eusebius, in which the miracles performed by Jesusare seriously questioned.
Berchman and De consensmevangelistarum
In the light of the ideaspresented above, it is quite surprisingthat Berchman should think he has identified severalPorphyrian fragments in De consensu.Although his work certainlyadds to our knowledgeof earlyfourth-century religious debates betweenChristians and pagans, it is very difficult to considerthe passages he included
39Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.7.11. 40Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.7.11. discipulos vero eiusdicunt magistrosuo " amPliustribuisse quamerat. .. 141Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels 1.7.12."quare ipse non scripserit"; "quibusdam." 142 Augustine, On Harmony Gospels 1.9.14."artes ". "illicita. " the of the ..
177 in his collection as having been directly drawn from Porphyry's discoursesagainst the
Christians. However,as arguedearlier, thereis certainly a caseto be madeas to its influence on Augustine's selectionof accusations,which may havebeen drawn from various pagancritics. Therefore,the problem is twofold: Berchman's Augustinian collection is unconvincing,and Augustine's style is misleading.
First, Berchman'swork shouldbe assessedfor he doesnot explain clearly why he thinks De consensuis a good sourcefor Porphyry's anti-Christian discourses.
Berchmanidentified lengthy passagesas being Porphyrian(and, being faithful to his method,does not justify his choice).In all, he addedtwenty-one new fragmentsto the onestraditionally ascribedto Porphyry in Augustine's other works. 143However, there are a number of problemsrelated to his choices.In addition to misleadingnumerical errors,we note, for instance,that fragmentsfrom book I were not selectedaccording to a logical, consistentpattern. It is hard to tell whetherthe first threefragments
(1.1.1,1.1.2 and 1.1.3) arereally answeringsome general criticism of Christianity.
They are addressingthe fact that the gospelwriters did not witnessa great part of
Jesus'life, and so their testimony must be basedon other sourcesthan themselves.
The fragmentsalso outline the problemsof Luke andMark who were not direct witnesses.Although similar attacksare commonly found in paganliterature, it is not clearwhether Augustinewas actually answeringthem, or whether his observationsare the result of his own reasoning.His aim is to demonstrateto both pagansand
Christiansalike that the evangelistsare trustworthy and as a result every time he encountersa problem which might affect any intelligent reader,he addressesit. In this case,Christians are relying on the Gospelwriters as witnessesto Jesus'life, and
143Berchman, Porphyry 1.1-1,1.1.2,1.1.3,1.1.4,1.7.10,1.7.11 (which he wrongly relists and partially retranslatesas 1.11.3- and 1.11.3does not exist), 1.7.12,1.8.13,1.16.24,1.31.47,1.31.48,1.32.50, 1.34.52(which he mistakenlyrefers to as 1.33.52), 1,35.54,2.1,2.17.34,3.2.8,3.7.29,3.7.30,3.11.28, 3.17.54.
178 Augustine notesthat not all of them were actualwitnesses. Therefore, he provides his audiencewith evidenceof their faithfulness.The apostles,who aimed at recording
Jesus'deeds and words, and thosewho wrote aboutJesus' early life, were careful when reporting anything. Mark and Luke were instructedby the Holy Spirit, which is a reasonablesource, and many apocryphaltexts were rejectedfrom the canon,because their record failed to convincethe Church.The selectionof the gospelswas thus of greatquality, and so are the four that were retainedas canonical.In any case,
Augustine's main point is dominantthroughout the work, namely that the gospel writers were filled with good faith when recording the words and deedsof Jesus,and thereforetheir effort should be recognisedas trustworthy.144 As a result, it is not possibleto ascribeanything from 1.1.1to 1.1.3to Porphyry with certainty, both becausethe contentof the passageis found in other pagansources, and becauseof
Augustine's argumentativestyle.
Berchman'scollection doesnot contain all the obvious passagesthat could be ascribedto Porphyry. For example, 1.7.13mentions pagans who pretendto hold copies of books written by Jesus,1.9.14 pagans who claim that Christ wrote books on magic - containing a superscriptionwith the namesof Peterand Paul (1.10.15),and
1.11.17tells us how pagansclaim that Christ convertedpeople by using magical art.
Jeromealso mentionsthe criticism on the two chief apostles.In 1.14.22,it is said that
Jesusused magical arts in order to fulfil the Old Testament'sprophecies. This accusation,pertaining to magic again, is not found in identified Porphyrianfragments or in Celsus.It is unclearwhy Berchmanignored all thesepassages, for argumentsfor assigningthe texts to thediscourses against the Christians are more cogent than in the
144Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels1.1.2.
179 caseof any citation from the Philosophyfrom Oracles.Berchman's methodis thus
erratic, for thereis no consistentselection pattern for the fragments.
Berchman's methodologyshould also havebeen further developed.It is
unclearwhy he included 3.7.30, which consistsof Augustine's explanationfor 3.7.29.
In 3.7.29, Augustine saysthat one may chargeMatthew for misquoting the Bible, for
we find in his gospelwords that he ascribedto Jeremiah,when they were actually
spokenby Zechariah.3.7.30 reads (Berchman's selection is in bold):
"How, then, is this to be understood,unless it was done by the hidden
plan of the Providenceof God, by which the minds of the evangelists
were governed?It could have happened, as it often happens, that
when Matthew was writing his Gospel Jeremiah came to mind
instead of Zechariah. He would undoubtedlyhave correctedsuch an
error, assumingthat otherswho could haveread it while he was still
alive in the flesh had told him aboutit, unlesshe had thoughtthat it was
not without purposethat the nameof oneprophet had come to his
memory, which was guidedby the Holy Spirit, insteadof another,
the Lord had decidedit be 99145 unless should so written .....
Here Berchmanhas thus included part of the context of 3.7.29.This is not a
Porphyrianfragment, but it is rather part of the cover-text.Berchman should set fixed
rules for his methodology.
145Augustine,On the Harmony of the Gospels3.7.30: "Quid ergo intellegendurnest, nisi hoc acturn essesecretiore consilio providentiaeDei, qua mentesEvangelistarum sunt gubematae?Potult enim flerl, ut animo Matthel Evangelium conscribends pro Zacharfa feremias occurreret, ut flerl solet, quod tamensine ulla dubitatione emendaretsaltem ab affis admonitus,qui ipso adhucin camevivente hoc legerepotuerunt, nisi cogitaretrecordationi suae,quae Sancto Spiritu regebatur,non frustra occurrissealiud pro alio nomenprophetae, nisi quia ita Dominus hoc scribi constituit."
180 The reasonwhy Berchmanincluded 3.11.38is obscure.The fragment reads:
"Next the sameMatthew adds: 'And they gavehim wine to drink
mixed with gall, andwhen he had tastedit, he would not drink. ' This is
presentedby Mark as follows: 'And they gavehim wine mixed with
myrrh to drink, and he took it not.' We may understandhere that
Matthew conveyedthe samemeaning as Mark when he saysthe wine
was 'mingled with gall. ' For gall is mentionedto convey the potion's
bitterness.And wine mingled with gall is renownedfor its bitterness.
Again, when Mark says:'He receivedit not,' we understandthe phrase
to meanhe did not receive it so as to actually drink it. However, he
tastedit, as Matthew verifies. ConsequentlyMark's words 'He received
it not' yield the samemeaning as Matthew's version 'He would not
drink. ' However, Mark said nothing abouthis tasting the potion." 146
Here Augustine finds himself in the obligation to explain why Matthew's and Mark's versionsdiffer as far as Jesuswas being given or not a mixture of wine and gall or wine and myrrh to drink. His conclusion is that whateverhappened, the important point is that he did not drink the potion, thereforethe evangleistsare in unison here.
This kind of comparision,between the texts can be found in so many placesin De consensu.Let us look at 2.37.84, for instance,on the story of the dumb demoniac:
146Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels3.11.38. "In hoc loco apertissitneconsentiunt. Deinde adiungit idern Matthaeus:El dederuntei vinum bibere cumfelle mixtum,et cum gustasset,noluil b1bere.Hoc Marcus ita narrat: Et dabant ei bibere myrratum vinum et non accepit. Hoc intellegendurn est Matthaeumdixisse: Cumfelle mixtum. Fel quippepro amaritudineposuit, et myrrhaturn enim vinum amarissitnumest, quamquamfieri possit, ut et felle et myrrha vinurn arnarissimurnredderent. Quod ergo ait Marcus: Non accepit, intellegitur: non accepitut biberet. Gustavit autem, sicut Matthaeum testis est; ut quod idem Matthaeusait: Noluji bibere, hoc Marcus dixerit: Non accepit; tacuerit autem quod gustaverit." [English trans. Berchman:183]
181 "Matthew then goeson with his recital in the following fashion: Then
was brought unto Him onepossessed with a devil, blind anddumb; and
He healedhim, insomuchthat he both spokeand saw. Luke introduces
this narrative,not in the sameorder, but after a numberof other
matters.He also speaksof the man only as dumb, and not as blind in
addition. But it is not to be inferred, from the mere circumstanceof his
silenceas to someportion or other of the account,that he speaksof an
entirely different person.For he has likewise recordedwhat followed
[immediately after that cure], as it standsalso in Matthew." 147
Here too Augustine wishesto provide an explanationfor differing versions.However, this passage,and many otherssimilar in nature,do not appearin Berchman's collection. Furthermore,3.11.38 does not contain any referenceor allusion to a specific opponent,such as Porphyry. It is in line with Augustine's rhetoric in On
Harmony. It is thus not possibleto justify selecting3.11.3 8 before any other excerpts, and evenselecting it at all.
In conclusion,there are, in On the Harmony of the Gospels,two referencesto
Porphyry, one explicit and the other implicit. The implicit reference,however, is to De be discourses regressu(which might part of the againstthe Christians).Furthermore, on Harmony cannotbe consideredas a responseto Porphyry; argumentsfrom
from Porphyry,but In apparentcontradictions might come neednot. addition to this,
Augustine himself usesthe forensictechnique of answeringlikely objections.And
147Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels2.37-84. "Matthaeus ergo sequitur et dicit: Tuncoblatus esi ei demonium habens, caecusel mutus, et curavit eum i1a ul loquerewr et videret. Hoc non isto dicit Sed ordine, sedpost alia multa Lucas commemoratet mutum tantum, non etiam caecum. non ex dicere ipse eo quod aliquid tacet de alio putandus est, ea enim sequentia etiam contexit quae Matthaeus." [English trans. S.D. F. Salmond.From Nicene and Post-NiceneFathers, First Series,Vol. ) Revised for New Advent by Knight] 6, ed. P. Schaff.(New York: 1888. and edited Kevin
182 evenif he is citing Porphyry in the process,it probably is not word for word. As a result, it is impossibleto concludethat there are 'fragments' per se of the discourses againstthe Christians in that work, or evenpassages, for that matter.De consensuhas thereforebeen wrongly associatedwith the discoursesby Berchman,whose argument is, in any case,unconvincing.
183 Upon using Schepens'method of contextualizationto look at Eusebius,
Jerome,and Augustine,it becomesevident that the methodologyfor fragment collecting needsto be adaptedto eachindividual author,and that there is no straight- forward approachto the problem of recoveringa lost work, which survive in a polemical context - or "cover-texts." In that respect,Kidd's views add a necessary dimension to contextualization:a fragment collector must identify the immediate context of a fragment, for this is what will appearin sectionB of the fragment collection; but collectorsmust also considerthe entire context of a fragment,namely the work in which it is embedded.The commentarysection of the collection, section
A, must, therefore,consist of an analysisof the wider context,not just the immediate one. This allows to assessthe quality of a fragment.
In the caseof the three authorsstudied here, the type of context neededfor sectionB variesaccording to their individual style and motivations for quoting, paraphrasingor referring to Porphyry's attackson Christianity, as evidencedby the commentary.Eusebius did answerPorphyry at length,we simply do not havehis
Against Porphyry anymore.He writes at a time when Christianity must be defended againstits detractors,for failure to do so efficiently could result in further fatalities.
Eusebius'corpus is dedicatedto explaining Christianity to the non-believers,as well as detailing the history of the Christiansas a legitimate race.Against Porphyry was embeddedin that context,and so are the passagesfrom Porphyry's anti-Christian discourses,which are still extant in Eusebius.Because we cannotread Against porphyry, it is difficult identify the kind of ideasthat Eusebiusfelt he had to answer.
We know from Jeromethat Eusebiuswrote extensivelyin responseto Porphyry's book 12 on Daniel. And Jeromehas preserved Porphyry's main argument:Daniel was not written by a prophet,but by severalindividuals recording history, rather than
184 announcingthe future. Sucha thesis,if well-argued,would have no doubt destabilised the Church, for its foundationsrested on the fulfillment, recordedin the New
Testament,of the Old Testament'sprophecies, and one of the pivotal booksused was preciselyDaniel, for it predictsthe secondcoming of Christ. We also know, from what is extant in Eusebius,that he reportedhow Porphyry criticised Origen for apostatisingfrom Hellenism, andliving contrary to traditional customsand ideas.In that passage,Porphyry expressescontempt towards the Jews,whose sacredtext is comprisedof 'riddles, ' andespecially towardsthe Christians,who are trying to give meaningto thoseriddles by using the Greek allegorical methodof interpretation.But here,he usesPorphyry only to show how he commendedthe man, saying how educatedand well-reputed he was. The sameis true of the passageon Sanchuniathon, the historian of the Jews: Porphyry is brought up, becausehe creditedthe work of that historian, and Eusebiusneeds him for his argument.When he discussesthe obvious victory of Christ over the demons,again, he needsPorphyry's testimony. And when
Eusebiusmentions Porphyry's dating of Moses in his Chronicle, he is trying to establishthat Christianity is not a new religion. Theseare the main ideasthat Eusebius transmittedto us via his work.
As a citing author, Eusebiusis probably the most reliable onewhen it comesto the quality of the passagesfrom Porphyry's anti-Christian discourses.However, this is very difficult to prove. Thosewho have looked at the way he cites from extant works have found that he was not alwaysthe impartial writer he claims to be; therefore,if he is not alwaysreliable on purpose,it is in a very subtlemanner. We do not havethe discoursesagainst the Christians, so we cannottell. Takingfor grantedthat his citationsare faithful to theoriginal, and that thepassages that he preserveswere of prime importanceto Porphyryis misleading.These are mistakes that have been
185 commonly madeboth by fragmentcollectors (as Johnsonand Morlet's studieson Nr.
I and 73 haveshown), andthat are, in turn, reproducedby thosewho are using the fragmentcollections. Contextualization has, in this case,allowed us to nuanceour understandingof the Eusebianfragments, because it revealsEusebius' agenda,and identifies his rhetorical strategies.As far as the fragmentcollection is concerned,it will be sufficient to add the immediatecontext of each'fragment, ' for it contains,as a generalrule, the reasonswhy Eusebiusneeds to refer to Porphyry (seeexamples in appendix).
As for Jerome,he is creditedwith being the author who preservedthe most discourses extensive parts of Porphyry's - with the exception of Macarius, who has not been discussed at length here. When we look at any fragment collection of Against the Christians, it sounds like a perfectly reasonable assumption to make: for instance, in the 2006 collection of the Spanish team, the Jerome fragments occupy about
Eusebian nineteen pages, while the ones occupy only eight, and that is when we included the very long, controversial Nr. 1. However, when we read Jerome further, i. e. when we look at the context of each passage where he refers to Porphyry, we realise that contrary to Eusebius, he never wrote a refutation of Porphyry: "But we
in shall fight against Porphyry another work, if Jesus Christ commands it. "' How could he, then, be considered as one of the best sources for Porphyry's anti-Christian writings? Although he might have read either the discourses themselves, or one of the
he did refutations (or both), certainly not put great efforts on the problem, like
Eusebius did. Jerome's situation is also different from Eusebius': his work does not have to be apologetic, but to participate in edifying the canon, and to ensure that
Scripture is interpreted correctly and made accessible to the Latin world. Jerome also
Jerome, Commentaryon the Galatians, 2.11. "Sed et adversurnPorphyrium, in alio, si Christus jusserit, operepugnabimus. "
186 hasmany detractors;his interestin languageshave led him toward the Hebrew
versionsof Scripture,and he needsto distancehimself from Origen, whose work he
usedextensively. In other words, he needsto showthat he is no heretic. Indeed,at the
time when he writes, Christianity must be defendedagainst heresy more than againsta
paganphilosopher, whose anti-Christian ideashave alreadyreceive careful attention
from eminent membersof the Church.Upon looking closely at Jerome'sPorphyry on
the New Testament,it thus becomesevident that he did not preservemuch of the
discoursesagainst the Christians.He is useful, becausehe indicatesa few book
numbersand part of their contents.However, we can mainly find passingcomments in
Jerome. The attacks on the evangelists, apostles, disciples, followers and on Christ
himself are clearly part of a wider argument.Jerome writes from the perspectiveof a man, who is well-versed in languages,therefore, a lot of the material he preserves from Porphyry is presentin his work, becauseit provideshim with an opportunity to show his ability to explain all the different versions of the Bible, and the consequences of copying manuscripts.Furthermore, Jerome's main task is to commenton Scripture, verseby verse, and in so doing, he answersa variety of personalopponents, not just
oneadversary of Christianity.
While Jeromewrites (or dictates),he seemsto experiencewhat Augustine would call "recollection," i.e. severalsacred passages are reminiscent of Porphyrian attacks,and he mentions them in the courseof his composition.Not only are the New
Testamentfragments quite rare in his impressivecorpus, but they are also misleading.
Jeromenever even say that he is quoting from Porphyry, like Eusebiuswould do; he contendswith reporting what looks like a summaryof someof his attacks(for instance,"I'm goingover these things, not to accusethe evangelists of falsity; this
187 indeedis the argumentof the impious Celsus,Porphyry, andJulian"). 2 It is therefore very difficult to draw conclusionson the quality of the fragmentsfound in Jerome.On onehand, because he almost always namesPorphyry, he doesprovide us with testimonia;this is evidencedby the absenceof scholarly debateson the Porphyrian authorshipof the Jeromefragments. On the other hand,the theoreticalproblems raised in the New Methods chapterapply very well to Jerome.With Jerome,we do not have authentic'fragments' of the anti-Christiandiscourses, for we do not evenhave what could possibly be intact passages,as is the casewith Eusebius.This is where contextualizationbecomes a necessarytool. Jeromeseems to simply expecthis readersto have readPorphyry's discourses,or refutationsof it, andto know what he is talking about.What he preservesare 'samples' of ideas.A fragmentcollection suchas thoseexisting right now cannotoffer that perspective.The advantagesof the methodologydeveloped by Schepenset al. arethus more evident in the caseof Jerome than in the caseof Eusebiusand Augustine. The immediatecontext (or 'cover-text') of eachreference to Porphyry actually addsto our understandingof the 'fragment' as found in currentfragment collections,because Jerome is always very clear about his motivations.I am illustrating this point with a few examplesin the appendix.
Last, but not least,is the caseof Augustine. It is not a coincidencethat he shouldoccupy sucha vastamount of spacein this dissertation,only to be challenged as a sourcefor Porphyry.With Augustine, the immediatecontext of a referencecannot fragment, be sufficient to assessthe quality of a or evento decidethat we havea fragmentat all. Augustine is by far the most subtleand treacherousof the three authorsdiscussed here. His agendais well-hidden. He obviously wants to promote
Christianity, explain the faith to the unfaithful, and reinforce the faith of thosewho
2 Jerome,Letter 57.9 to Pammachius - Harnack Nr. 2. "Haec replico, non ut cvangclistasarguarn falsitatis, hoc quippe impiorurn est, Celsi, Porphyrii, luliani. 1,
188 may havebeen shaken by pagandetractors, who are still scornfully mocking the
Christiansin intellectual circles (as evidencedby the sixth questionAugustine
receivedabout Jonah in the belly of the whale and the laughterthe story would cause).
Augustinetherefore writes in goodfaith andin thehope that he leadssouls toward
salvation. But Augustine's skillful use of the rhetorical art makeshim misleading
when it comesto recoveringthe fragmentsof a lost work. Not only doeshe tamper
with the original text, he also consciouslyplays with its meaningin order to make fit
his argument.He establishesPorphyry's credibility by presentinghim as the wisest of
men, andthen twists his ideasto the point that he makeshim sound almostChristian.
As far as the sixth questionsof the anonymouspagan are concerned,we have
establishedthat becauseof the rhetorical style that Augustine chose,namely the
questionand answergenre, as well as the doubtshe himself expressesas regardsthe
Porphyrianauthorship of question6 and his generallack of interestin the discourses
Against the Christians, which he never mentionsin his corpus,it is impossible to
determinewhether Augustine is preservingactual passages from the anti-Christian
discourses.At best,he may be preservingideas, but he is certainly not citing
Porphyry. This challengesall the scholarshipon Porphyry sinceHamack. The Letter
102 should be part of a fragmentcollection of the discoursesagainst the Christians,
becauseof its content,but it shouldbe noted that the five questionsthat havebeen unquestionablyassociated with Porphyry in the literature may needa more nuanced
approach,and far lessenthusiasm, for theyare more likely to belongto the wideranti-
Christian argument,encompassing other authorsthan Porphyry alone.
As for On the Harmony of the Gospels, unfortunately, it is not a source for
new fragments.However attractive the idea may sound,upon closer examinationthe work merely confirms the content of City of God's 19.23on paganoracles and the
189 divinity of Christ, as well as Augustine's admiration for Porphyry as a philosopher.
This passage (1.15.23) is actually the only one in which Porphyry is named in On
Harmony. We have established with Eusebius that a passagedid not need to include
Porphyry's name to allow us to link it with Porphyry, even if remotely, for the
reference to an attack against Christianity can be considered as part of the wider anti-
Christian argumentto which Porphyry contributed.But in this case,it is impossibleto
link any passageother than 1.15.23(which pertainsto Hecateand Apollo on Christ) of On Harmony with a specific work of Porphyry, or with Porphyry at all. Augustine usesa genericvocabulary to mention thosewho criticised the Gospels,and most of the attacksthat he refers to can be found in a variety of Christian opponents,such as
Celsusand Julian. On many occasions,Augustine alsouses the questionand answer genre,and seemsto be anticipating the questionsthat could be raised by somepassage that he commentson, ratherthan reporting and respondingto a specific challenge.In sum, many havebeen questioning the historical reliability of the Gospels,including
Porphyry, andthe entire work is devotedto proposing a new perspectiveon what
Augustine arguesare 'apparentcontradictions' between the evangelists.Indeed,
Augustine goesto great lengthsto detail the various reasonswhy we can find discrepanciesbetween the four writers. Differencesmay be due to a divine factor - the
Holy Spirit dictatedthe word of God to eachindividual evangelist- andto a human involved factor - the complexitiesof memory and the processes in the compositionof describes a text. While Compagnon the biasesinterceding with the readingand Augustinedescribes processingof a text, thoserelated to writing. Did Augustine have
Porphyry in mind when writing On Harmony? It is possible,just as he had him in mind when writing City of God. But before a refutation of his arguments,Augustine was skillfully using the main views of various paganson the godsagainst themselves,
190 in order to show that Christianity was not as foreign to paganismas they pretend it to
be. On Harmony cannotbe read as a responseto one single view.
How canwe explain Augustine's lack of interest in Porphyry's discourses
againstthe Christians? One theory that could be put forwardis thatthe Letter 102was
written in 409, just before the sack of Rome of 410. It was thus written before the paganshad renewedtheir anti-Christian discourse,blaming the Christians' rejection of the gods for Rome's calamities. It ensuesthat Augustine did not needto pay much attentionto Porphyry before writing The City of God. Another theory is that there were no Latin translationof the discoursesAgainst the Christians, and Augustine was slow when readingGreek The best sourcefor Augustine would have beenJerome, but he himself never wrote a refutation of Porphyry, and we know all too well by now how his work doesnot convey much information about Porphyry's discoursesagainst the Christians.Therefore, it is possibleto deducethat althoughAugustine must have known Porphyry's main points againstChristianity as well as his reputationas a
Christianopponent, he had simplynot readthem, and therefore did not engagewith them. Augustine is an important author,because he choosesPorphyry as an opponent in City of God, but it is very unclear which works of Porphyry he hasread.
What doesthis thesisadd or subtract from the current discussionof Porphyry and of the pagan-Christiandebate? First, the traditional methodologicalapproach to fragmentsis not sufficientto highlightall thenuances exposed here. The benefits of contextualizationare twofold: it allowsus to betterunderstand what a specific fragment meansto the citing author,and also why it may be presentin their work. As a result, not only does contextualization illuminate the fragment, but it also sheds light on the citing author.Authors usedto be completelyignored by fragmentcollectors until recently, when the importanceof studying their rhetorical style was put forward
191 by Schepenset al. The methodis alreadybeing usedon various ancient texts but it had yet to be testedon Porphyry's anti-Christian remains.The appendixsection should serveto illustrate how the new collection that I wish to work on will be presented.It consistsof a selectionfrom Eusebius,Jerome, and Augustine in bold, and the immediatecontext surroundingthe fragments.Second, the Porphyry emergingfrom suchan analysisseems even further away than he ever was. Literary theoriesand a new methodologyhave made the debateon Porphyrianauthorship far more complex than it usedto be, but we are still left in a position where we do not know exactly what we are dealing with. The evolution of responsesto Porphyry over time tells us, at least, that the discoursesagainst the Christianswere no longer important in the early fifth century. Lastly, the argumentproposed here also exposedthe extant of our lack of knowledgeof the anti-Christian argument,and the literary and rhetorical tools used by the Christiansto appropriatethe pagans' discourse. "fragments free Were the ... set from the potential biasesof the text in which 3 [they] survive," as promisedby Schepens?There is one simple answerto that question:no - at leastas long as polemical contextsare concerned.The only way we could set a fragment free from its "cover-text" would be by comparingit to the original, word by word. For the subjectivity of eachciting authorbrings in too many biases,related to their cultural, intellectual, andreligious backgrounds,as well as their for languageand motivations tamperingor not with the original text, and, quite importantly, the human factor, namely memory and reading. So what can the "cover- text" tell us abouta 'fragment' (or passage)?In the caseof Porphyry, unfortunately, it tells us how little we actually know abouthis lost treatise.To concludeon a more positive note, however,it also preventsus from making wrong and enthusiastic
3Schepens, "Jacoby's FgrHist, " 168-9.
192 assumptions,and it certainly illuminates the work of thoseChristian authors,who haveused Porphyry, and the way in whicha polemical,pagan text wastransmitted in the Christian literature throughout Late Antiquity.
193 Appendix
Passagesin bold correspondto the fragmentsas found in Harnack.
Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius,PE 5.1.9-11(Hamack Nr. 80)
Mpi ft TOf) gTlKgTt 6f)VC(CF00ti TI KGET- taXf)F, tV TObq (P(lb), 01)9 MiýIOVaq [LET& TýV TOf) aonýpoq ýgCavdq AvOp6wrouq 7E6tpoSoV KCLI CEi)Tbq 6 KC109 hIld; TCOV Sctttt6vfj)v jv Tfl KctO9 ýp6)v )vk'f(J)V 7rpoA-lopo; (MCFKVUfl TO'BT6V 7rOU IlCtPTI)PC-t T6V TpO2rOV* 'Tir7jv 4 "Nvvi tV OavjjdCo,)ffv -61' Toao, 3TOV c KardAilfev vAcroi; T#v aciliv, bubtlyim; T(5v &U(ov OctF)v plKin ,4, ff KAtprjobpýv Kai o6utlq. blaob 741p 17U(t)pjvov oV'deuid(; 6qpock; Oa5v fiaOcTo. " . n(; Mpeldag 0ýýtacrtv Taf)TcE oti)TOT9 6 rIOP(Pf)Ptog.d 6ý ol)Vicoah Tývk Týv 6go), OF-6V 671POGiaq o-yiav 'ITI(yof) Ttp(. O[L&01) 0-666ýttdq Tt; 6)(PF-Wa; fiCFOETO, PqlctT' AarjX7j7rtOiJ' bn8flRiCt; (XXX(OV OP-6)v, of)cr, q; ýtýTc [týTET6V 7r60Ev8ý kotn6V T6 6); 7CEpi06(bV K(A ýP6)(J)V86YRa;
On the destructionof the power of the bad demonssince our Saviour has come amongstmen, it is again the author who is, in our times, the advocate of demons himself, and who, in his writings against us, thus testifies: <(We wonder why today diseasehas ravaged the city during so many years, when Asclepios and the other godshave left. Indeed, since Jesushas been adored, no one has witnessed any assistanceto the people from the gods. Theseare, word for word, Porphyry's sayings.If, then, accordingto this admission, sinceJesus has been adored,no onehas witnessedany assistancefrom the gods,when Asclepios andthe othergods haveleft, how is there still any belief that thesewere gods and heroes?
[The passagesadded provide more precisionas regardsthe topic discussedby Eusebius; he questionsthe very existenceof gods andheroes, and gives an indication on how he judges his citing method:"word for word". ]
Eusebius,DE 6.18.11-2(Hamack Nr. 47)
AvTtoxov Ei ök ).ilot Tig lKeTä TövExi(pavA ruoTa ffEffIll. kaTiv &övul pt%a0«t, cyr-Eyd«Om Ei o14 -ri alroöl, Kul Tü kolnü Tqg AV1r96Z0U icpO(pq'TE(UýKUTÜ 1rOtý, 1 (jýOVTü UiZp"Cri«V X£. ÄGtÖV, «pÖvol)ý- iroV0iVUl TÜV Kütt TÖ aMVCLI TOÜ; lr68(Ig KI)pi01) knl ýrÖ ýraV aalffiv 6poc,Kai ei leY0VEVll"plog punjug i211 AV " EW 66j")&(. näcav AV YAV kv Tü Apkpq kKFivin, Kal EI Tö "ovopall K-1)piol) üty£V YAV AV " ÖTE EIDP(Uý AVTJOXO; ItdOrGtV KUI £wPqgOV, Tig iKp&, rE&. IKUI TÜ ). otitä ök Ag lipoppierEcog ÖICO(01)T1U01)ý j"Zev Avir16x01) pütet4-tov- irog,Icag ný ülroö(bccl; icao,ýgäý M TaÜTa Icalnpäg ug1v gb
194 dMOUSOTat, M! KaO' gTtpaV & 8tdVOtaV '
Now if any one supposesthat this was fulfilled in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, let him inquire if the rest of the prophecy can be referred to the times of Antiochus -1 mean the captivity undergone by the people, the standing of the Lord's feet on the Mount of Olives, and whether "the Lord becameKing of all the earth in that day", and whether "the name" of the Lord "encircled the whole earth and the desert" during the reign of Antiochus. What sort of fulfilment of the remainder of the prophecy can be assertedin the days of Antiochus? But, in our times,,they are fulfilled both literally and also in another sense.
[Here it is clear that Eusebiusmentions Porphyry's book 12 on Daniel becausehe wants to provide his own interpretationof the passage;we needthe last sentencein order to understandthis. ]
Jerome of Stridon
Jerome, Commentary on Galatians Prologue (H amack Nr. 21a)
Sedad Galatashoc proprium habet,quod non scribit ad eosqui ex Judaeisin Christum crediderant,et paternasputabant caeremonias observandas: sed ad eos qui ex gentibusfidem Evangelii receperant,et rursum retro lapsi, quorumdamfuerant auctoritatedeterriti, asserentiumPetrum quoqueet Jacobum,et totasJudaeae Ecclesias,Evangelium Christi cum lege veteri miscuisse.lpsum etiam Paulumaliud in Judaeafacere, aliud nationibus praedicare:et frustra.eos in Crucifixum credere,si id negligendumputarent quod Apostolorum principes observarent.Quamobrem ita caute inter utrumque et mediusincedit, ut nec Evangelii prodat gratiam,pressus pondere et auctoritatemajorum, nec praecessoribusfaciat injuriam, dum assertorest gratiae: oblique vero et quasi per cuniculoslatenter incedens: ut [Al. et] Petrum doceatpro commissasibi circumcisionis plebe facere,ne ab antiquo repentevivendi more desciscens,in crucemscandalizata non crederet,et sibi praedicationegentium credita, aequumesse id pro veritate defendere,quod alius pro dispensationesimularet. Quod nequaquam intelUgensBataneotes et sceleratusIlle Porphyrius, in primo operis sul adversum nos libro, Petrum a Paulo objecit essereprehensum, quod non recto pede incederet ad evangelIzandum: volens et illi maculam erroris inurere, et buic procacitatis, et In commune flcti dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum inter Ecclesiarum discrepent [AL discreparent]. Sedjam se principes ... tempus est, ut ipsius Apostoli verbaponentes, singula quaequepandamus.
But theepistle to theGalatians is particular,for Pauldid not write it to theJews who believein Christ,and who thoughtthat their fathers'ceremonies had to beobserved; hewas rather writing to theGentiles who hadreceived the faith, andwho went backwardunder the leadership of certainpeople who claimedthat Peter himself, James,and the Churches of Juadeahad mixed the Gospels of Christwith the ancient Law. Paulhimself, they were saying, preaches to theGentiles in a mannerdifferent from theway he behavesamongst the Jews,and it is in vain thatthey believe in the
195 Crucified if they think that they can neglectwhat the first apostlesobserved faithfully. Paul thereforecautiously operatesbetween these two spheres,he ensuresthat he does not betray anddeliver the Graceof the Gospel,being pushedby the authority of the ancients;and on the other hand he defendshis preachingof gracein order not to offend thosewho havepreceded him. He thus walks on two opposedpaths, like in a secretpassageway. He thus wills to teachPeter to behavein a certainmanner with the Circumcision,of whom he is in charge,so that he avoids offending this people,forced all of a suddento relinquish their traditional way of life, in casethey would refuseto believe in the crossof Christ. And for him who is in chareof the predication of the Gentiles,he thinks that it is just, for it is done for truth, to defendwhat anotherwas hiding for his ministry. And the wholly unintelligent Bataneot and famous villain Porphyry objects, in the first book of his work against us, that Peter is blamed by Paul, becausehe starts off on the wrong foot in evangelizing; he wants to brand Peter with the mark of error, and Paul with that of insolence,and to accuseboth of the falsehoodof feigned teaching, while the chiefs of the Churches disagree But it is with one another .... abouttime that setting out the words of the Apostle himself, we should explain eachseparate question.
Jerome, Commentary on Galatians I-I-I (Hamack Nr. 19)
hominibus, Paulus apostolus, non ab neque per hominem: sedper Jesum Christum et Deum Patrem, qui suscitavit eum a Mortuis. Non superbe, ut quidarn putant, sed necessarie,neque ab horninibus, neque per horninern, se Apostolurn esseproponit: sed Deurn per JesurnChristurn, et Patrern, ut eos qui Paulurn extra duodecim apostolos ventilabant, et nescio unde subito prorupisse, vel a majoribus ordinaturn astruebant, hac auctoritate confunderet. Potest autem et oblique in Petrum et in caeteros dictum accipi, quod non ab apostolis ei sit traditum Evangellum.... paul, Apostlenotftom men,nor through any man, but through JesusChrist and God the Father who raised himfrom the dead.It is not becauseof pride, as somethink, but by necessitythat Pauldeclared that he was Apostle not from men, nor through any JesusChrist, man, but through and God the Father,so as to confound with such authority thosewho publishedeverywhere that Paul was not one of the twelve apostles,and that he had suddenlycome out of nowhere,or who claimed that he was ordainedby the elders.This can be understood as spoken indirectly against Peter and others, becausethe Gospel was not transmitted from the apostles to him.
Jerome,Commentary on Galatians1.1.16 (Harnack Nr. 20)
Fragment20 Hieron, Comm. in Gal., 1.1.16:"Continuo non acquievi carni et sanguini. Sive ut in Graecomelius habet:Non contuh cum carne et sanguine.Scio, plerosque de apostolis hoc dictum arbitrari. Nam et Porphyrius objlcit, quod post revelationem Christi non fuerit dignatus ire ad homines, et cum eis conferre sermonem: ne post doctrinam videlicet Del, a carne et sanguine instrueretur. Sed absit ut ego, Petrum,Joannem et Jacoburncarnern et sanguinemputem; quaeregnurn Dei possiderenon possunt.Si spiritualesapostoli, caro et sanguissunt, quid de Xdbcol;
196 arbitramur?Non contulit plane Pauluspost revelationemChristi cum came et sanguine,quia noluit margaritasprojicere ante porcos,nec daresanctum canibus. Vide quid de peccatoribusscripturn sit: Non permanebitspiritus meusin hominibus islis, quia caro sunt. Cum talibus qui caro et sanguiserant, quae Petro quoquenon revelaveruntFilium Dei, non contulit Apostolus Evangeliumquod ei fuerat revelaturn, sed paulatim eosde came et sanguinevertit in spiritum: et tunc demumeis occulta Evangelii sacramentacommisit. Dicat quispiam: Si statim non contulit cum came et sanguineEvangelium, tamen subintelligitur, quod postmodurncum sanguineet came contulerit: et sensushic, quo apostoli excusantur,ne caro et sanguissint, starenon poterit: durn nihilominus qui in principio cum cameet sanguinenon contulit, postmodurn,ut dixi, cum came et sanguinecontulerit. Quaepraepositio nos coarctat, ut sic distinguamus,ne statim, sive continuo, cum camejungamus et sanguine;sed cum superioribushaerere faciamus, et legatur: Cum autemplacuit ei qui me segregavit de utero matris meae.Ac deinde: Ut revelaret Filium suum in me. Et ad extremum: Ut evangelizaremillum in gentibus continuo: ut a proprio incipiat exordio: Non contuh cum carne et sanguine;magisque arbitrandurn est sic staresensum: quia qui statim missussit, post revelationernChristi Evangeliurngentibus annuntiare, non steterit: nec moris quibusdarntempus produxerit eundoad apostolos,et revelationernDomini cum hominibus conferendo:sed abierit in Arabiam, et rursusreversus Damascum, post tres annosEvangeliurn praedicaverit: et tunc demumJerosolymam veniens, Petrum, Joannernet Jacobumviderit.
'Immediately I did not acquiescein flesh and blood', or, in the better Greek version, 'I did not confer with flesh and blood.' I know that most peoplethink this was said about the apostles.Porphyry too attacks [Paul] for not deigning, after his revelation of Christ, to go to people and confer with them, so as not to be instructed by flesh and blood after the teaching of God. But Heavenforbid that I should think Peter, Johnand Jamesto be flesh andblood, which cannotpossess the kingdom of God! If the spiritual apostlesare flesh and blood, what are we to think of the earthly? Obviously Paul, after his revelation,did not confer with flesh andblood, becausehe did not want to castpearls before swine or give what is holy to dogs. Seewhat is written aboutsinners: 'my spirit shall not remain in thosepeople, because they are flesh. ' The Apostle did not confer the Gospelthat was revealedto him on peoplelike that, who were flesh and blood (and flesh and blood did not reveal the Son of God to Peter either), but little by little he changedthem from flesh and blood to spirit, and then he entrustedto them the hidden mysteriesof the Gospel. Someonemay say: if he did not immediatelyconfer with flesh and blood, this implies that later he did confer with them, which would rule out the interpretationthat exemptsthe apostlesto avoid making them flesh andblood, becauseeven though he did not at first confer with flesh and blood, later (as I said)he did confer with them.But the prior placing of 'immediately' constrainsus not to take it with 'flesh andblood' but to attach it to what precedes.We should read 'When it pleasedHim who separatedme from my mother's womb', then 'to reveal His Son in me', then 'so that I should spreadhis gospelamong the nations immediately.' Then 'I did not confer with flesh andblood' hasits own beginning, andthat is the interpretationwe should prefer, becausethe man who was immediately sent,after the revelation of Christ, to announcethe Gospelto the nations,would not havestood still, or extendedthe time with delays by going to the apostlesand conferring with people aboutthe revelationof God. He would have goneto Arabia, then comeback to Damascusand preachedthe Gospelthree years later, then at last he would have cometo Jerusalemand seenPeter, John and James.
197 Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 2.11 (Hamack Nr. 21 c)
Et dicunt nequaquam Petrum a convictu. gentium se potuisse subtrahere, qui et centurionern Cornelium baptizarat. Et cum ascendissetJerosolymam, disceptantibus adversus se qui erant ex Circumcisione, et dicentibus: Quare introisti ad viros praeputium habentes, et manducasti cum illis? post narrationern visionis, tali responsionern suam fine concluserit: Si ergo eamdem gratiam dedit illis Deus, sicut et nobis qui credidimus in Dominum Jesum Christum: ego quis eram qui possem prohibere Deum? Quibus auditis, tacuerunt, et glorificaverunt Deum, dicentes: ergo et gentibus Deus poenitentiam ad vitam dedit; maxime cum Lucas scriptor historiae, nullam hujus dissensionis faciat mentionem; nec dicat umquam Petrum Antiochiae fuisse cum Paulo, et locum dari Porphyrio blasphemand; si autem Petrus errasse, aut Paulus procaciter apostolorum principem confutasse credatur. Quibus primurn respondendum, alterius nescio cujus Cephae nescire nos nomen, nisi ejus qui et in Evangelio, et in ahis Pauli Epistolis, et in hac quoque ipsa modo Cephas, modo,Petrus, scribitur. Non quod aliud significet Petrus, aliud Cephas: sed quod quam nos Latine et Graecepetram vocemus, hanc Hebraei et Syri propter linguae inter se viciniam, Cephan nuncupent... Ad extremurn si propter Porphyrii blasphemiam, alius nobis fingendus est Cephas, ne Petrus putetur errasse, infinita de Scripturis erunt radenda divinis, quae ille, quia non intelligit, criminatur. Sed et adversum Porphyrium, in alio, si Christus jusserit, opere pugnabimus: nunc reliqua prosequamur.
Peter,they say,was never able to part from the way of life of the Gentiles,he who had baptizedthe centurionCornelius. Indeed, when he arrived to Jerusalem,the faithful Circumcisedwere disputing againsthim and saying: "Why have you been with the Uncircumcisedand eatenwith them." But after telling them about his vision, he concludeshis story with thesewords : "If God gavethem the samegrace than he gave us, who havebelieved in the Lord JesusChrist, who was I to opposeHim ? Upon hearingthese words, they remainedsilent andglorified God by saying : God has thereforegiven penitenceto the Gentilestoo to lead them toward life?" But more especially Luke, the writer of History, doesnot make any mention of this disagreement,nor at any time doeshe say that Peter was at Antioch with Paul and gaveoccasion for Porphyry's blasphemy, if either Peter was believed to have gone astray or Paul to have insultingly refuted the chief of the apostles.The first answerto thesepeople is that we do not know the nameof someother Cephasthan the onewho in the Gospel,in other Letters of Paul, and in this Letter, is sometimes written "Cephas" and sometimes"Petrus. " Not because"Petrus" meansone thing and "Cephas" another:but what we call petra in Latin andGreek, Hebrewsand Syrians namecephas because of the closenessof their language... On the opposite,if on account of the blasphemy of Porphyry, we have to invent another Cephas so that it might not be thought that Peter had gone astray, infinite things must be erased from the divine Scripture, which he condemns becausehe does not understand. But we shall fight againstPorphyry in anotherwork, if JesusChrist commandsit; we shall now explain the rest of the epistle.
[In the chapterentitled "New Methods," we discussedthese passages, and how the context of the fragmentsis essentialto our understandingof their content.]
198 Augustine of Hippo
Augustine,Letter 102.2-3to Deogratias (Hamack Nr. 92)
Movet quosdam, et requirunt de duabus resurrectionibus quae conveniat promissae resurrectioni, utrumnam Christi an Lazari? Si Christi, inquiunt, quomodo potest haec convenire resurrectioni natorum ex semine,eius qui nulla seminis conditione natus est? Si autem Lazari resurrectio convenire asseritur, ne haec quidem congruere videtur: siquidem Lazari resurrectio facta sit de corpore nondum tahescente,de eo corpore, quo Lazarus dicebatur; nostra autem multis saeculispost ex confuso eruetur. Deinde A post resurrectionem status beatus futurus est, nulla corporis iniuria, nulla necessitatefamis, quid sibi vult cibatum Christum fuisse, et vulnera monstravisse? Sed A propter incredulum fecit, finxit: A autem verum ostendit, ergo in resurrectione accepta futura sunt vulnera. Quibusrespondetur, ideo non Lazari resurrectionem,sed potius Christi congruere promissaeresurrectioni, quia Lazarusita resurrexit ut iterum moreretur:Christus autem, sicut de illo scripturnest, surgensa mortuis, iam non moritur, et mors illi ultra non dominabitur. Quod etiarnpromissum estresurrecturis in fine saeculi,et cum illo regnaturisin aeternum.Sic autemnon pertinet ad resurrectionemdifferentia nativitatis Christi et nostrae,quod ille sine virili semine,nos auternex viro et femina creati sumus,sicut etiarnnon pertinet ad ipsius mortis differentiam.Non enim propterea illius non vera mors fuit, quia sine virili seminenatus est; sicut nec ipsius primi hominis aliter exorta caro quam nostra(quandoquidem ille sine parentibusde terra creatusest, nos vero ex parentibus)aliquid attulit ad differentiam mortis, ut aliter ille moreretur,aliter nos. Sicut autemad mortis sic nec ad resurrectionisdifferentiam valet diversa nativitas.
It (the resurrection) bothers certain people, and they ask which of the two kinds of resurrections corresponds to the one promised to us, is it that of Christ, or that of Lazarus? If it is Christ's, they say, (then) how can that resurrection be the same for those who were born from seed,when He was not born from any seed? But If the resurrection of Lazarus corresponds to ours, it too seemsnot to fit: (since) the resurrection of Lazarus was reallsed from a body not yet decayed, but from the body In which he was said to be Lazarus; ours, however, is put back together after many centuries out of the things with which it has been mingled. Then, if after the resurrection our state is going to be fortunate, in that there are no Injuries to the body, no necessityfor hunger, what doesit mean that Christ took food, and showed his injuries? For if he did this for the unbelieving, he was deceiving them: if, however, he displayed the truth, the wounds we have received will remain In the resurrection. To this I answer,that the resurrectionof Christ and not of Lazaruscorresponds to that which is promised, becauseLazarus was so raised that he died a secondtime, whereasof Christ it is written: "Christ, being raisedfrom the dead,dies no more; death has no more dominion over Him. " The sameis promisedto thosewho shall rise at the end of the world, andshall reign for ever with Christ. As to the difference in the manner of Christ's generationand that of other men, this has no bearingupon the natureof His resurrection,just as it had none upon the natureof His death, so as to make it different from ours. His deathwas not the less real becauseof His not having been begottenby an earthly father;just as the difference betweenthe mode of the origination of the body of the first man, who was formed immediately from the dust of the earth, and of our bodies,which we derive
199 from our parents,made no suchdifference as that his deathshould be of anotherkind than ours. As, therefore,difference in the modeof birth doesnot make any difference in the natureof death,neither doesit makeany difference in the natureof resurrection. [what is not in bold is a translationby J.G. Cunningham.From Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers,First Series,Vol. 1. ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887) Revisedand edited for New Advent by K. Knight]
[In the caseof Augustine, we can seethat the immediatecontext doesnot addmuch to what we areadyknew aboutthe fragment; it is necessaryto study the entire letter 102, as well as other Augustinian works, in other to make a decisionas to the quality of the passageas a fragment.]
200 Bibliography
Ancient Sources:
Augustine. Epistolae. [PatrologiaLatina 33], ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris: Venit Apud Editorem, 1857-1866.[htip: //www. auizustinus.it/latino/lettere/index2. htm - accessed29 September 2010] libri XXII [Patrologia Migne. Paris: ------De civitate dei contrapaganos Latina 41], ed.J. -P. Venit Apud Editorem, 1857-1866. [http://www. augustinus.it/latino/cdd/index2. htm - accessed29 September2010] ------Retractationes. [Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 57], ed. A. Mutzenbecher, Turnhout: Brepols, 1984. libri [PatrologiaLatina 34], J. Migne. Paris: ------De consensuevangelistarum quatuor ed. -P. Venit Apud Editorem, 1857-1866. [http://www. augustinus.it/latino/cdd/index2. htm - accessed29 September20 10] Bible de Rrusalem. trans. tcole biblique de J6rusalem.Paris, Montreal: Les tditions du Cerf, 2000. Eunapius. Livesofthe Philosophers.In PhilostratusandEunapius: The Lives ofthe Sophists, ed. and trad. W. C. Wright, London and New York: The Loeb ClassicalLibrary, 1922. Eusebius. Eus&e de Cýsar& Histoire eccNsiastique,vol. 1-4. ed. andtrans. G. Bardy, P. Penchon,Paris: 1987. History. [Loeb ClassicalLibrary 264 265], J. Henderson, ------Ecclesiastical and ed. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1932. de Cjsarje. La Pr6paration &angOique, 1-9. J. Sirinelli, ------Eusýbe vol. ed. and trans. tditions des Placesand G. Favrelle.Paris: Les du Cerf, 1974-87. Evangelica,Eusebius Werke,6 1.A. Heikel, Leipzig: J.C. ------Die Demonstratio vols. ed. Hinrichs, 1913. Gelasius.Church History. ed. H. G. Opitz,Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites. Berlin, 1934-35. Jerome.S HieronymiPresbyteri Opera, Pars I, Operaexegetica 1, Hebraicaequaestiones inlibri Geneseos,Liber interpretationisHebraicorum nominum, Commentarioli in Psalmos,
201 Commentariusin Eclesiasten[Corpus Christianorum.Series Latina 72], ed. P. di Lagarde, Turnhout: Brepols, 1959. S. HieronymiPresbyteri Opera,Pars I, Operaexegetica 2, Commentariorumin Esaiamlibri I-XI [CorpusChristianorum. Series Latina 73], ed. A Adriaen, Turnhout: Brepols, 1963. S.Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera, Pars I, Operaexegetica 2a, Commentariorumin Esaiamlibri XII-XVIRm in Esaimparuula adbreuiatio [CorpusChristianorum. Series Latina 73a], ed. M. Adriaen, Turnhout: Brepols, 1963. S. Hiironymi Presbyteri Opera, Pars I, Opera exegetica5, Commentariorumin Danielem Libri 111
------Contra Vigilantium liber unus[Patrologia Latina 23], ed. J.P. Migne, Paris:Venit Apud Editorem, 1857-1866. t. ------Commentairesur Matthieu, 3 vols. [SourcesChr6tiennes 242] ed. andtrans. Bonnard. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1977.
...... Commentariorumin epistolamad Galatas." [Patrologia Latina 261,ed. J. -P. Mignd. Paris: Venit Apud Editorern, 1857-1866.
------Lettres,vol. 1-8. ed. and trans.Mr6me Labourt. Paris : Les Belles Lettres, 1949- 1963.
------Die Chronik desHieronymus. Eusebius Werke, vol. 7. Ed. R. Helm, Leipzig, 1913. Julian. The Worksof the EmperorJulian, vol. I [Loeb ClassicalLibrary 157], ed. I Henderson,Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1923.
202 Origen. Contre Celse.ed. and trans.M. Borret. Paris: Les tditions du Cerf, 1969. Platon. Tim& Critias. ed. et trad. A. Rivaud. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1985. Porphyre. Viede Plotin. ed. andtrans. L. Brissonet al. Paris:Librairie PhilosophiqueJ. Vrin, 1982. Porphyre.- Vie de Pythagore,lettre 6 Marcella. ed. and trans.t. des Places.Paris: Les tditions du Cerf, 1982.
------Porphyrii sententiaead intelligibilia ducentes.ed. E. Lamberz. Leipzig: Teubner, 1975.
------Selectworks ofPorphyry; containing hisfour booksOn abstinencefromanimalfood, his treatise On the Homeric cave of the nymphs; and his Auxiliaries to the perception of intelligible natures.trad. T. Taylor. London: T. Rodd, 1823. Homeric Questions.ed. et trad. R.R. Schlunk.New York: P. Lang, 1993. Lantre des dansIOdyss& G. . nymphes ed. and trans. Lardreauet P. Quillard. [Paris?]: Verdier, 1989. Boethii, ------Isagoge.ed. trans.A. de Libera et A. -P. Segonds.Paris: Vrin, 1998. ------De Pabstinence.ed. and trans.J. Bouffartigue. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1977. Killing ------On Abstinenceftom Animals. trans.G. Clark, London: Duckworth, 2000. Socrates.Histoire eccMsiastique.ed. G.C. Hansen,trans. P. Pdrichonand P. Maraval. Paris: Les tditions du Cerf, 2004.
Monoaraghs:
Altheirn, F., andR. Stiehl. Gedankenschrififfir GeorgRhode. TObingen, 196 1. Athanassiadi, P. et M. Frede,eds. Pagan Monotheismin Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1999. tsthgtique Bakhtin, M. et thgorie du roman. trans. D. Olivier, prefaceM. Aucouturier. Paris: Gallimard, 1978. Barnes, T.D. Constantineand Eusebius.Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press,1981. Berchman, R. From Philo to Origen. Middle Platonismin Transition.Chico: ScholarsPress 1984. Against Christians. Boston: Brill, 2005. ------Porphyry the
203 Bidez, J. Vie de Porphyre. Gand et Leipzig: Librairie Scientifique E. van Goethem, 1913. Blondel, C. Macarii Magnetis quaesupersunt ex inedito codice edidit. Klincksleck: Paris, 1876.
Bodenmann,R. Naissanced'Une Exggýse: Daniel dans Viglise anciennedes trois premiers si&les. Ttibingen:Mohr, 1986. Braverman, J. Jerome'sCommentary on Daniel. A Study of ComparativeJewish and Christian Interpretationsof the Hebrew Bible. Washington:The Catholic Biblical Association,1978. Brown, P., TheWorld ofLate Antiquity,London: Thames & Hudson,197 1. Busine,A. ParolesdApollon: pratiqueset traditionsoraculaires dans I'Antiquite tardive. Leiden:Brill, 2005. Cerrato, J.A. Hippolytusbetween East and West:The Commentaries and theProvenance of the Corpus.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Chadwick, H. Early Christian Thoughtand the ClassicalTradition. Studies in Justin, Clement,and Origen.Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1984. ------TheSentences of Sewtus.Cambridge University Press, 1959. Cochrane,C. N. Christianityand ClassicalCulture. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1957. Collin, J.et P. W. Flint,eds. The Book ofDaniel: Compositionand Reception. Boston: Brill, 2001. Compagnon,A. La Secondemain ou le travail de citation.Paris: Seuil 1979. Cook, J. TheInterpretation of theNew Testament in Greco-RomanPaganism. Peabody: Hendrickson,2002. Crouzel, H. Origene et la "connaissancemystique ". Paris: Descl6eDe Brouwer, 1961. ------OrigMe et laphilosophie. Paris: Aubier, 1962. ------OrigMe. Paris: Lethielleux, 1985. Danlilou, J. Origen. London andNew York: Sheedand Ward, 1955. ------Pýres de PEglisedu troisiýmesi&le: Origýne. Coursdonngii la Faculle de theologiede l'Institut catholique de Paris. Paris: 1986. Digeser, E.D. TheMaking ofa Christian Empire: Lactantius and Rome.Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,2000.
204 Dillon, J.M. The Golden Chain: Studiesin the Developmentof Platonism and Christianity. Brookfield: Gower, 1990.
------The Great Tradition: Further Studiesin the Developmentof Platonism and Early Christianity. Brookfield: Ashgate, 1997.
Dodds, E.R. Pagan and Christian in an Age ofAnxiety. SomeAspects of Religious Experiencefrom Marcus Aurelius to Constantine.Cambridge University Press:1965.
------Les Grecs et Pirrationnel. Flammarion, Paris, 1977 Dorrie, H., ed. Porphyre, huit exposiýssuivis de discussions. Geneva: Vandceuvres, 1965. --Porphyrios Plotin Augustin. Orient ------als mittler zwischen und " In Antike und in mittelalter Vortrage der Kdlner Mediaevistentagungen, 1956-59, ed. P. Wipert et al., Berlin: De Gruyter, 1962. Lehre der Seele," in ------"Die von Porphyre: huit exposgs suivis de discussions. Geneva: Vandceuvres, 1965.
Ducrot, 0. Le Dire et le Dit. Paris: Minuit, 1984 Duchesne, L. De Macario Magnete et Scriptis Ejus. Paris, 1877. Drake, H. Constantineand the Bishops: ThePolitics ofIntolerance. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 2000.
Droge, A. J. Homer or Moses?Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Ttibingen: Collection "HermeneutischeUntersuchungen zur Theologie" 26,1989. Edwards, M. (trans.), Neoplatonic Saints: The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by their Students.Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,2000. Fkdou, M. Christianisme et religions pajennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origýne. Paris: Beauchesne,1988.
Finan, T. et V. Twomey, eds. The Relationship betweenNeoplatonism and Christianity. Dublin: Four Courts Press,1992. Fifigel, G. Kitdb al-Fihrist. Leipzig: F.C. W. Vogel, 1871-2. D. Studien Septuaginta Fraenkel, et al. zur - Robert Hanhart zu Ehren. Aus AnIqJ3 seines65. Geburtstages.G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,1990. Geffcken, J. TheLast Days of Greco-RomanPaganism. Amsterdam and New York: North Holland Publication Company,1978.
205 ------Zwei grieschicheApologeten. Leipzig-Berlin, 1907. Georgiades, A. Hep Lrcbv Xpiovavcbv kromraqu6mv To0 Hop(pipiov. Leipzig, 1891. Genette, G. Figures III. Paris: tdition du Seuil, 1972.
------Seuils. Paris: Seuil, 1987. Gigon, 0. Die Antike Kultur und das Christentum:Kelsos, Porphyrios, Julian. Gtitersloh: Mohn, 1966. Gorday, P. Principles ofPatristic Exegesis.Romans 9-11 in Origen, John Chrysostom,and Augustine.New York: Edwin Mellen Pr., 1983. Goulet, R. budes sur les vies de philosophes dans PantiquW tardive: DiogMe Lalyrce, Porphyre de Tyr, Eunapede Sardes.Paris: Vrin, 2001.
------Macarios de Magn9sie:Le Monogýnýs.Paris: Vrin, 2003. Hadot, P. Plotin, Porphyre: 9tudesngoplatoniciennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1999. ttudes ------Porphyre et Victorinus. Paris: Augustiniennes,1968. Hanson, R.P. C., Origen's Doctrine of Tradition. London: S.P. C. K., 1954. Hargis, J.W. Christian Exclusivismand theFormation ofEarly Anti-Christian Discoursein Celsus,Porphyry, andJulian. Thesis(Ph. D. ), Temple University, Philadelphia, 1998. ------Against the Christians. TheRise ofEarly anti-Christian Polemic.New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Harnack, A. von. Geschichteder altchristlichen Literatur bis EusebiusDie Uberlieferung und der Bestand12, vol 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1893. ------Die Mission undAusbreitung des Christentums,2nd edition 1. ------Die Chronologie der aitchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius,vol. 11.Leipzig: 1904. Heikel, 1.A. (ed.), EusebiusWerke, Sechster Band, Die DemonstratioEvangelica, Herausgegebenim Auftage der Kirchenvdter-Commission der Kdnigl. Preussischen Akademieder Wissenschaften.Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs' scheBuchhandlung, 1913. Hoffman, R.J., trad. Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains.Amherst: PrometheusBooks, 1994.
Houghton, H.A. G. Augustine's Text of John: patristic citations and Latin Gospel manuscripts,Oxford: Oxford Early ChristianStudies, 2008. Hulen, A.B. Porphyry'sWork Against the Christians. New Haven:Mennonite Press, 1933. Humfress,C. Orthodoxyand the Courtsin LateAntiquity. Oxford: Oxford University 206 Press,2007. Igal, J. La cronologia de la Vidade Plotino de Porfirio. University of Deustoand Madrid: CastaliaEditions, 1972. Inowlocki, S. Eusebiusand the Jewish Authors : His Citation Techniquein an Apologetic Context.Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2006. Jacoby, F. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin: Weidmann, 1923. Jurado, A. R. et al., Porfirio de Tiro Contra los Christianos. Reconpilacion de fragmentos, traduccion, introduccion y notas. Cddiz: Universidad de CAdiz, Servicio de Publicaciones, 2006.
Kahlos, M., Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c.360-430. Aldershot: Ashgate,2007. Kannengiesser,C. andW. L. Petersen,eds. Origen ofAlexandria: His Worldand His Legacy. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,1988. Karamanolis, G. andA. Sheppardeds. Studieson Porphyry. Supplementto the Bulletin of the Institute of ClassicalStudies 98. London: 2007. Keresztes,P. Imperial Romeand the Christians: From the Severito Constantinethe Great, vol. 11.Lanham, London andNew York: University of PressAmerica, 1989. Kerr, H. T. The First SystematicTheologian: Origen of Alexandria. Princeton:Princeton Theological Seminary,1958. Kleffner, A. 1.Porphyrius, der Neuplatonikerund Christenfeind.Paderbom, 1896 Kofsky, A. Eusebiusof CaesareaAgainst Paganism.Leiden: Koninklijke Brill, 2000. La Bibbia di Pagani, 2. Testi e Documenti.Bologne, EDB, 1998. budes, Labriolle, P. La r9action paFenne. sur la pol9miqueanticWtienne du I' au Vr si&le. Paris,L'artisan du livre, 1934. Laistner, M. L.W. Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford University Press,1968. Lane Fox, R. Pagansand Christians. New York: Knopf, 1989. Lange, N. de. Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third- CenturyPalestine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1976. Lee, A. D. Pagansand Christians in Late Antiquity: A Sourcebook.London andNew York: Routledge,2000. 207 Lubac, H. de. Histoire et esprit; lintelligence de 1tcriture d`aprýsOrigýne. Paris: Aubier 1950. Mai, A., Philonis Iudaei, Porphyrii philosophi, Eusebii Pamphili opera inedita. Milan: Mediolani, 1816. Millar, F. Rome,the Greek World, and the East vol. 1: TheRoman Republic and the AugustanRevolution. eds. HannahM. Cotton and Guy M. Rogers,Chapel Hill, 2002. Morlet, S. La Dimonstration &ang6lique d`Eusýbede Cgsarge.Etude sur Papolog&ique chritienne 6 Pgpoquede Constantin.Paris : Institut d'dtudesaugustiniennes, 2009. Müller, A. Die griechischenPhilosophen in der arabischenüberlieferung. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlungdes Waisenhauses,1873. Muscolino, G. Porfirio Contro i christiani : Nella raccolta di Adolf von Harnack con tutti i nuoviftammenti in appendice,Milan: Bornpiani, 2009. Muti, C. ed. Porfirio, Discorsi contro i christiani. Padua,1977. Neumann, K. I. Iuliani Imperatoris Librorurn Contra ChristianosQuae Supersunt. Leipzig, 1880. Nugent, B. P. Jerome'sPrologues to his Commentarieson the Prophets.The University of Texas at Austin, 1992. O'Connell, R. Porphyrianism in the Early Augustine: Olivier du Roys's contribution, From Augustineto Eriugena Fesischriftfor John J O'Meara. Washington, 1991. Ollivier, C. J&6me. Paris: tditions Ouvri6res, 1993. O'Meara, J.J. Porphyrys Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine. Paris: Ludes Augustiniennes,1959. Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius's Praeparatio Evangelica and Augustine'sDialogues of Cassiciacum.Paris: Ludes Augustiniennes,1969. Platonopolis: Platonic Political Philosophyin Late Antiquity. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 2003.
Pipin, I De la philosophie ancienne ti la thgologie patristique. London: Variorurn, 1986. ------Tho6ologie cosmique et thjologie chretienne (Ambroise, Exam. 1,1,1-4), Biblioth6que de Philosophie conternporaine et Philosophie g6ndrale, Paris, 1964. Plumer, E. Augustine's Commentary on Galatians. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003. Romano, F. Porfirio, di Tiro. Filosofia e cultura nel II secolo D. C. Catania, 1979. 208 Rosier, L. Le discoursrapportý: Histoire, theories,pratiques. Paris:tditions Duculot, 1999. Sandwell, 1.Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks,Jews and Christians in Antioch, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2007 Schaulkhauser, G. Zu denSchriften desMakarios von Magnesia.In Texteund Untersuchungenzur Geschichteder altchristlichen Literatur. JL4 Leipzig, 1904. Schott, J. Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia:University of PennsylvaniaPress, 2008. Sirinelli, J. andt. desPlaces, Eusebýbe de C&ar& La Prýparation &angMque. I SC 206, Paris: Cerf 1974. Sodano,A. R. Porfirio: Vangelodi un Pagano. Milan: Rusconi, 1993. Smith, A. Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonist Tradition. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1974. Stuttgart: ------Porphyriiphilosophifragmenta. B. G. Teubner,1993. Smith, J. C. TheAncient Wisdomof Origen. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press,1992. Smith, R.C et S. Loubinos, eds.Pagan and Christian Anxiety. A Responseto E-R. Dodds. Lanham: Md, 1984. Stephenson,J. Studiesin Eusebius.Cambridge: 1929. Steuchus,A., De perenniphilosophia, New York: JohnsonReprint Corp. 1972 Torjesen, K. J. HermeneuticalProcedure and Theological Method in Origen's Exegesis. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. Trigg, J-W- Origen. The Bible and Philosophy in the Third Century Church. Atlanta: John Knox Press,1983. London: Routledge, ------Origen. 1998. Tripolitis, A. TheDoctrine of the Soul in the Thoughtof Plotinus and Origen. New York: Libra Publishers,1978. A Critical Reading.New York: Lang, 1985. ------Origen. volgers, A. and C. Zamagni (eds.) Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-Answer Literature in Context.Proceedings ofthe Utrecht Colloquium, 13-14October 2003, Leuven: Peeters,2004.
209 Ward, A. M. A History of the Roman People. Upper Saddle River: PrenticeHall, 1991. Waelkens, R. Ltconomie, thýme, apolog&ique et principe hermýneutique dans I'Apocriticos de macarius Mqgnýs, Recueil de travaux dHistoire et de Philologie. University of Louvain 6.4 (1974): 117-34. Weber, K. -O. Origenesder Neuplatoniker. Versucheiner Interpretation. Munich: Beck, 1962. Wilken, R. L. The Christians as the Romanssaw them.New Haven:Yale University Press, 1984. Wolff, G. Porphyrii De philosophia ex oraculishaurienda librorum reliquiae. Berlin Springer, 1856. Woude, A. S. van der, ed. TheBook ofDaniel in the Light ofNew Findings. Louvain: PressesUniversitaires de Louvain, 1993.
Articles:
Adkin, N. "A note on Jerome'sknowledge of Hebrew." Euphrosyne23 (1995): 243-45. Altheim, F. et R. Stiehl. "Neue Bruckstficke aus Porphyrios Kata Christian6n." In GedenkschriftG. Rhode, Untersuchungenzur klassischen Philologie und Geschichtedes Altertums 4 (1961): 23-38. Annstos, M. V. "Porphyry's Attack on the Bible." In TheClassical Tradition, ed. L.Wallach, 421-50. Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1966. Bakhtin, M. "Discourse in the Novel." In The Dialogic Imagination. ed. and trans. M. Holquist et al., Austin: University of TexasPress, 198 1. Bammel, E., "Die Zitate aus den Apokryphen bei Origenes." In Origeniana quinta: Historica, Text and Method, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica, Origenism and Later Developments.Papers of the 5th International Origen Congress,Boston College, 14-18 August 1989,ed. R.J. Daly, 131-36.Louvain: PressesUniversitaires de Louvain, 1992. Barnes, T.D. "Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and Attribution of Fragments." JThS n.s. 24 (1973): 42442...... The chronology of Plotinus' life. " GRBS 17 (1976): 65-70...... The Editions of Eusebius' EcclesiasticalHistory. " GBRS21 (1980): 191-201. 210 Propaganda?Porphyry Against Christians its Historical ------Scholarship or the and Setting." BICS 39 (1994): 53-65. " (2001): 142-59...... Monotheists all? Phoenix 55 ------TheMaking ofa Christian Empire.- LactantiusandRome. Book review by T.D. Barnes, EH 1 (2001). Bartha6my, D. "Orig&ne et le texte de I'Ancien Testament." In Epeklasis, MýIanges patristiques qfferts 6 Jean Danielou, ed. J. Fontaine et C. Kannengieser,247-61. Paris: Beauchesne,1972. Beatrice, P-F. "Le trait6 de Porphyrecontre les chrdtiens.L'6tat de la question." Kernos, 4 (1991): 119-38. Edition Porphyry's Fragments Against Christians." In ------"Towards a new of the Y-O(DIHY-MAIHTOREY., ed. M-0 Goulet-Caz6et al, 347-55. Paris: Collection des ttudes Augustiniennes,1992. Judgement Origen." In Origeniana Method, ------"Porphyry's on quinta: Historica, Textand Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica,Origenism and Later Developments.Papers of the 5th International Origen Congress,Boston College, 14-18August 1989.ed. R.J. Daly, 351-67. Louvain: Leuven University Press,1992. Benjamins, H. S. "Methodius von Olympus, 'Ober die Auferstehung',gegen Origenes und gegenPorphyrius? " In: Origeniana Septima.Origenes in denA useinandersetzungendes 4. Jahrhunderts,Leuven: Peeters,91-98. Benotit, A. "Le Contra christianos de Porphyre: ofj en est la collecte de fragments?" In Paganisme,Judaisme, Christianisme:Influences et affrontementsdans le monde antique. M61angesofferts i Marcel Simon. Paris: tditions E. de Boccard, 1978,261-75. du ...... Un adversaire christianismeau Ille si&cle:Porphyre. " RBi 54 (1947): 543-72. Beutler, R. "Porphyrius." RE 22 (1953): 253-313. Binder, G. "Eine Polemik des Porphirios gegen die Allegorische Auslegung des Alten durch die Christen. Testaments " Zeitschrififfir Papirologie undEpigraphie 3 (1968): 81-95. Bochet, I. "Les quaestiones attribu6es i Porphyre dans la Lettre 102 d'Augustin. " Forthcoming in Collection des Etudes A ugustiniennes, acts from the international colloquiurn "Le traitd de Porphyre contre les chrdtiens. Un si6cle de recherches, nouvelles questions," held at the Sorbonne, Paris, 8-9 September 2009. 211 Bod6fis, R "Plotin a-t-il emp8ch6Porphyre de mourir de m6lancolie?" Hermes 129 (4) (2001): 567-71. Boer, W. den."A PaganHistorian andHis enemies:Porphyry Against the Christians." CPh 69 (1974): 198-208. Bonner, G. "The Extinction of Paganismand the ChurchHistorian. " JEH 35 (1984): 339-57. Borret, M. "Introduction critique." In ContreCelse, tome 1,ed. M. Borret, 15-57.Paris: Les tditions du Cerf, 1967. Burgess, R.W. "The Dates and Editions of Eusebius' Chronici Canones and Historia Ecclesiastica." JThS 48 (1997): 471-504. Cameron, A. "The Date of Porphyry's KaT&XptaTtavcov. " Class. Quart. 18 (1967):382-84. Cameron, A. "The 'Long' Late Antiquity: a late twentieth-centurymodel, " in Classics in Progress:Essays on Ancient Greeceand Rome,T. P. Wiseman(ed. ), Oxford: OUP, 2002. Carlini, A. "La polemica di Porfirio contro 1'esegesi"tipologica " dei cristiani." SCO 46 (1996): 385-94. Clark, G. "Philosophic Lives andthe PhilosophicLife. " In GreekBiography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity. eds T. Hagg and P. Rousseau,Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. "Augustine's Varro and PaganMonotheism. " In Monotheismin Late Antiquity BetweenChristians and Pagans.eds. S. Mitchell and P. van Nuffelen, Leuven: Peteers, 2010. Casey,C. M. "Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel." JThS27 (1976): 15-33...... Porphyry and Syrian Exegesisof the Book of Daniel." ZNTW 81 (1990): 139-42. Chiron, P. "Tibdrios citateurde Ddmosth6ne, " In R9ceptionsantiques. Lecture, transmission, appropriation intellectuelle.(eds. ) L. Ciccolini et al., Paris : Editions Rued'Ulm, coll. Etudes de Littdrature anciennen' 16,2006. Cilento,U. "Porfirio." RFIC 96 (1968):483-99. Clark, G. "PhilosophicLives and the Philosophic Life. " In GreekBiographyandPanegyric in LateAntiquity, T. HAggand P. Rousseau,eds. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 2000. "Translateinto Greek:Porphyry of Tyre on the new barbarians." In Constructing Identitiesin LateAntiquity, ed. R. Miles. London:Routledge, 1999. 212 UniversalWay Salvation." In Studies Porphyry, G. ------Augustine's Porphyry and the of on Karamanolisand A. Sheppardeds., London: 2007. Cook, J.G. "A PossibleFragment of Porphyry'sContra Christianos from Michael the Syrian." ZAC 2 (1) (1998): 113-22. Courcelle, P. Les Lettres grecquesen Occident.De Macrobeei Cassiodore.Paris: tditions de Boccard, 1943. Augustin." In RecherchesA 4 ------Propos antichr6tiens rapport6s par s. ugustiniennes (1958): 149-186. I'Ambrosiaster." ...... Critiques ex6g6tiqueset argumentsantichr6tiens rapport6s par Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959): 133-169. Christian Platonismfrom Amobius to St. Ambrose." ------Anti-Christian argumentsand In The Conflict betweenPaganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,essays edited by A. Momigliano (Oxford, 1964), 151-192. Crafer, T.W. "The Work of Porphyry againstthe Christians,and its Reconstruction." JThSn. s. 15(1914): 360-95. Croke, B. "Porphyry's anti-ChristianChronology. " JThSn. s. 34 (1983): 168-85. Era Porphyry's " JRH 13 (1984): 1-14. ------"The of Anti-Christian Polemic. H. "La dontjouit Dieu Plotin Orig&ne." In Studia -rouzel, connaissance suivant et suivant "atristica XXP Paperspresented to the tenth international conferenceon patristic studies 'ield in Oxford 1987: second century, Tertullian to Nicaea in the West, Clement of 41exandriaand Origen,Athanasius, ed. E.A. Livingstone,283-97. Louvain: Peeters,1989. "Les 6tudessur Orig&nedes douze derni&es anndes." EThR 58 (1983): 97-107. "Actualitd d'Orig6ne." NRTh 102(1980): 386-99. Demarolle, J-M. "La chr6tient6A la fin du Ille si&cleet Porphyre." Greek, Roman,and ByzantineStudies, 12 (1971): 49-57. "Un Aspect de la pol6miquepaTenne a la fin du Me siecle,le vocabulairechr6tien de Porphyre." VChr 26 (1972): 117-29. "Les femmeschrdtiennes vues par Porphyre." JbAC 13 (1970): 42-47. Digeser, E. D. "Lactantius, Porphyry, and the Debateover Religious Toleration." AS 138 (1998): 129-46.
213 "Persecutionand the Age of Reading:Exegesis in Lactantius' Divine Institutes." in 0. Nicholson,ed., The First Christian Humanist: Lactantius in Late Antiquity and the Renaissance.(submitted)
"Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles? The Anonymous Hellene in Makarios Magnes' Apokritikos." JThS (2003): 466-502. Dillon, J. "Gathering Fragments: The Case of lamblicus." In Fragmentsammlungen philosophischerTexte derAntike, ed. W. Burkert et al.,168-8 1. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998. Dionisotti, A. C. "On Fragmentsin ClassicalScholarship. " In Collecting Fragments, ed. G. W. Most, 1-34.Gbttingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht,1997. Dolbeau, F. "La survie des wuvres d'Augustin. Rernarques sur l'Indiculum attribud A Possidius et sur la biblioth6que d'Ansdgise. " In Du copiste au collectionneur. Mýlanges d'histoire des textes et des bibliotWques en Vhonneur d'Andrý Vernet, D. Nebbiai-Dalla and
J.-F. Genest (eds.), Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Edwards, M. J. "Ammonius, Teacherof Origen." JEH 44 (1993): 169-81. ------Precursors of Origen's HermeneuticTheory. " Studia Patristica (1995): 232-37. "Porphyry andthe Christians." In Studiesin Porphyry, eds.G. Karamanolisand A. Sheppard,London: Bulletin of the Institute of ClassicalStudies, 2007. 9vangellou, C. "Plotinus'Anti-Gnostic Polemic andPorphyry's Against the Christians." In Neoplatonismand Gnosticism,ed. R.T. Wallis and J. Bregman, It 1-28. Albanie: SUNY Press,1992. kvrard, E. "Le maltre de Plutarqued'Ath6nes et les originesdu ndoplatonismeathdnien, 11: Plutarque,Jamblique, Porphyre. " AD 29 (1929): 391-406. Ferch, A. J. "Porphyry: An Heir to ChristianExegesis? " Zeitschriftfifir die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft73 (1898): 141-47. Ferrar, W.U. "A Philosopherto his Wife: Porphyry's Ad Marcellam." Church Quarterly Review94 (1922): 85. Follet, R. "Sandruniaton,personnage mythique ou personnehistorique? " Biblica 34 (1953): 81-90.
...... Defficari in otio Augustin, Epistula 10.2." Rec Aug 2 (1962): 225-36.
214 ------In penetralibusmentis adorareDeurn (Augustin,Epistula 10.3)." SEJG33 (1992-93): 124-33. Fowden, G. "Between Pagansand Christians." JRS 88 ( 1988): 173-82. Frassinetti, P. "'Sull'autore delle questionipagane conservate nell'Apokritico di Macario di Magnesia," NuovoDidaskaleion 3 (1949): 41-56. del Daniele. ------Porfirio Eseqeta profeta " Rendicontidell'Istituto Lombardo 86 (1953): 194-210. Frede, M. "Celsus'sAttack on the Christians." In Philosophia TogataIT- Plato andAristolle Rome, J. Bames M. Griffin, 218-40. Oxford: Clarendon Pr., 1997 Oxford: at ed. et . ClarendonPress, 1997. Frend, W.H. "Preludeto the GreatPersecution: the PropagandaWar. "JEH38 (1987): 1-18. Goulet, R. "Recherchessur le traitd de PorphyreContre les Chretiens." Annuaire de Itcole Pratique desHautesbudes, vol. V section84 (1975-1976):289-92. Ararnonius, ------Porphyre, les deux Orig&neset les autres..." RHPhR 57 (1977):471-96. la datation de Molfse...... Porphyreet " RH R 192(1977): 137-64. de la Vie ...... Le plan de Plotin. " In Viede Plotin, introd., trad. andnotes L. Brissonet al, 77-87.Paris: Librairie PhilosophiqueJ. Vrin, 1982.
------Notes critiques sur le texte grec." In Viede Plotin, introd., trad. andnotes L. Brisson et al, 119-31. Paris: Librairie PhilosophiqueJ. Vrin, 1982...... Les r6fdrenceschez Diog&ne Ladrce: sources ou autorit6s?" In Titres et articulations du texte, 149-66.
...... Hypothýsesr6centes sur le traitd de PorphyreConfre les Chr9tiens," In Helignismeel Christianisme.eds. M. Nancy and E. Rebillard, Paris: Septentrion,2004,61 -110...... Cinq nouveauxfragments nominaux du traitd de Porphyre 'Contre les chrdtiens'," Vigiliae Christianae 4 (2010): 140-159. R.M. "Porphyry Grant, Among the Early Christians." In Romanitaset Christianitas, ed. W. den Boerj, 181-87.Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1973. Stomateis ...... The of Origen." In Epektasis,Wanges patrisliques offerts 6 Jean Danielou, ed. J. Fontaineet C. Kannengieser,285-92. Paris: Beauchesne,1972. Gronewald, M. "PorphyriosKritik anden Gleichnissen des Evangeliums. " ZPE 3 (1968):96.
215 Gurnbrecht, H. U. "Eat your Fragment!About Imaginationand the Restitution of Texts." In CollectingFragments, ed. G. W. Most, 315-29.Gbttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997. Hadot, 1. "Les introductionsaux commentairesex6g6tiques chez les auteursn6o-platonic lens et les auteurschr6tiens. " In Les ftles de Pinterpr&ation, ed. M. Tardieu,99-122. Paris:Les tditions du Cerf, 1987.
Hadot, P. "Neoplatonist spirituality 1: Plotinus and Porphyry. " In Classical Mediterranean Spirituality, ed. A. H. Armstrong, 230-49. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1986.
...... Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin. " RE Aug. 6 (1960): 205-44. Hagedorn, D. et R. Merkelbach. "Ein neues Fragment aus Porphyrios Gegen die Christen. " VChR 20 (1966): 86-90.
Hansen, G. "Ein verkannteslosephos Zitat bei Porphyrios." Klio 48 (1967): 199-208. Hanson, R.P. C. "The ChristianAttitude to PaganReligions up to the Time of Constantinethe Great." Auftieg und Niedergangder RömischenWelt 11 23.2 (1980): 910-73. Harnack, A. von. "Porphyrius, Gegendie Christen. 15 Bücher: Zeugnisse,Fragmente und Referate." AKPAW (1916):l-115. "Neue Fragmentedes Werks des Porphyrius gegen die Christen:Die Pseudo-Polycarpia und die Schrift des RhetorsPacatus gegen die Porphyrius." SAW-Berlin (1921): 266-84. Hill, C. E. "Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan." JThS 199546 (1): 99-117. lgal, J. "The Gnosticsand TheAncient Philosophy in Porphyry and Plotinus." In Neoplatonismand Early Christian Thought.Essays en Fhonneurde A. H. Armstrong, ed. H. J. Blumenthal and R.A. Markus, 138-49.London: Variorum, 1981. Jacob, C. "Questions sur les questions:arch6ologic d'une pratique intellectuelle et d'une forme discursive." In Erotapokriseis : Early Christian Question-and-AnswerLiterature in Context.Proceedings ofthe Utrecht Colloquium, 13-14October 2003.(eds. ) A. Volgers and C. Zamagni,Leuven: Peeters,2004,25-54.
Jerphagnon,L. "Les sous-entendusanti-chrdtiens de la VitaPlotini ou Nvangile de Plotin selonPorphyre. " AN 47 (1990):41-52. Johnson,A. "Rethinkingthe Authenticityof Porphyry,c. Christ. fr. I", StudiaPatristica, forthcoming.
216 Porphyry's Lýfe Plotinus' Enneads I-Ill. " CPh 23 Jones, R.-M. "Notes of ofPlotini, and on s (1928): 371-76.
Judge, E.A. "Christian Innovation and its Contemporary Observers." In Histoty and Historians in Late Antiquity, ed. B. Croke et A. Emmett, 13-29. Sydney: Pergamon Press, 1983.
Kellner. "Der Neuplatonikerund sein Verhältnis zum Christentum." In ThQ 47 (1865): 60-102. Kettler, F.H. "Origens, Ammonius Sakkas und Porphyrius. " In Kerygma und Logos: Beiträge zu den geistesgeschichtlichen Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum: Festschrift. ftir Carl Andresen zum 70. Geburstag, ed. A. M. Ritter, 322-28. G6ttingen: Vandenhack et Ruprecht, 1979. Kinzig, W. "War der Neuplatoniker Porphyrios ursprfinglich Christ? " In Mousopolos Stephanos: Festschrififtir Herwig, ed. M. Baumbach, H. K6hler et A. M. Ritter, 320-32. Heidelberg: Winter, 1998.
Kobusch, T. "Das Christentum als die wahre Philosophie. Zum Verhältnis zwischen Platonismusund Christentum bei Origenes." In Origeniana Quarta. Die Referatedes 4. Origeneskongresses 442- Internationalen (Innsbruck,2. -6. September1985), ed. L. Lothar, 46. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verl., 1987. Labriolle, P. de. "Porphyre et le Christianisme." RHPhR 3 (1929): 385-440. Laks, A. "Du t6moignagecomme fragment. " In CollectingFragments, ed. G. W. Most, 237- 73. G6ttingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht, 1997. Lange, N. de. "La lettre i Africanus sur I'histoire de Suzanne." In Philocalie 1-20 et La lettre a Afticanus sur I'histoire de Suzanne, ed. M. Harl et N. de Lange, 47 1. Paris: Les tditions, du Cerf, 1983.
Latsix, J. "Le commentairede Jdr6me sur Daniel." Revue dHistoire et de Litt6rature Religieuse2 (1897): 164-73. Loesche,B. "Haben die spAterenNeuplatonischen Polemiker gegendas Christenthumdas Werk desCelsus gebraucht? " ZWTh 27 (1883), 122-24. Lloyd, C. " Porphyry and lamblichus" in A. H. Armstrong, ed. Cambridgehistory of Later Greek andEarly Medieval Philosophy(1967). Madec, G. "Augustin, disciple et adversaire de Porphyre. " RE Aug 4 (1964). 217 budes ...... Chronique porphyrienne. " Revuedes Augustiniennes15 (1969): 174-80. "Augustin et Porphyre.tbauche d'un bilan desrecherches et des conjectures." X001HI AMIHTOPEX. Hommageti Jean Npin, M. -O. Goulet-Cazd,G. Madec, D. O'Brien (eds.), Paris: IEA, 1992,376-377.
Magny A., "Porphyry in Fragments:Jerome, Harnack, and the problem of reconstruction," JECS, forthcoming Dec. 2010. "Porphyre, Hippolyte et Orig&ne commententDaniel. " In The Changing Face of Judaism,Christianity and Other Greco-RomanReligions in Antiquity, (eds.) 1.Henderson and G. S. Oegema,Gfltersloh: GiltersloherVerlagshaus, 2006,425-46.
...... Porphyry Against the Christians: A Critical Analysis of the Book of Daniel in Its Historical Context." In StudiaPatristica Vol. XLII. Other Greek Writers,John ofDamascus andBeyond, The Westto Hilary, (eds.) F. Young, et al., Leuven: Peeters,2006,181-186. Mansfeld, J. "Doxographical Studies,Quellenforschung, Tabular Presentationand Other Varietiesof Comparativism." InFragmentsammlungenphilosophischerTexte derAntike, ed. W. Burkert et al., 16-40.G6ttingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht,1998. McEvoy, J. J. "Neoplatonismand Christianity: Influence,Syncretism or Difference?" In The Relationshipbetween Neoplatonism and Christianity, ed. T. Finanand V. Twoney, 155-70. Dublin: FourcourtsPress, 1992. Meredith, A. "Ascetism, Christian and Greek." JAS 27 (1976): 313-32...... Potphyry and Julian againstthe Christians." ANR W 2.23.2 (1980): 1119-51. Moffat, U. "Great Attacks on Christianity, 11:Porphyry Against the Christians." Expository Times43 (1931): 72-78.
Moreschini, C. "L'utiizzazione di Porfirio in Gerolamo." In Motivi litterari ed esegeticiin Gerolamo:A tti del convegnotenuto a trento il 5- 7 dicembre1995, ed. C. Moreschini et G. Menestrina.Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997.
Morlet, S. "Un nouveaut6moignage sur le Contra Christianosde Porphyre?" Semiticaet Classica, 1, (2008): 157-166.
...... Commentle probl6medu Contra Christianospeut-il seposer aujourd'hui? " Collection desbudes Augustiniennes,forthcoming.
218 Munnich, 0. "Orig&ne,6diteur de la Septantede Daniel." In Studienzur Septuaginta:Robert Hanhart zu Ehren: aus Anlass seines 65. Geburtstag,ed. von F. Detlef et al., 187-218. Gbttingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht,1990. Nautin, P. "Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre Contre les Chr&iens." Revue Bihlique 57 (1950): 409-16. Nebes,N. "Zum sprachlichenVerständnis des Fragmentes aus Porphyrios Gegen die Christen bei Michael dem Syrer." ZAC 2 (1998): 268-73. Nestle, W. "Die Haupteinwändedes antiken Denkensgegen das Christentum." Archivfür Religionswissenschaft37 (1941): 51-100. Nuffelen, P. van "Introduction" In Monotheismin Late Antiquity BetweenChristians and Pagans,(eds. ) S- Mitchell and P. van Nuffelen, Leuven:Peeters, 20 10. O'Leary, J. S. "How to read Origen. " In Origeniana Quarta. Die Referate des 4. Origeneskongresses 358- internationalen (Innsbruck, 2. -6. September 1985), ed. L. Lothar, 61. Innsbruck: Tyrolia-Verl., 1987.
O'Meara, D. "A proposd'un t6moignagesur 1'exp6riencemystique de Plotin." Mnemosyne, 27 (1974): 238-44. Orth, E. "De Porphyrio." Helmantica 5 (1954): 49-60. Pezzella,S. "11problema del kata christianondi Porfirio." Eos 52.1 (1962). Pirioni, P. "11soggiorno siciliano di Porfirio e la composizione del KATA XPIETIANnN." RSCI 39 (1985 ): 502-8.
Prinz, F. "Die Kirche und die paganeKulturtradition. " Historische Zeitschrift. Band276 Heft 2 (April 2003). Quiroga, A. "Zamora Calvo, Porfirio de Tiro contra los cristianos.Recopilaci6n de ftagmentos, traducci6n, introducci6ny notas. CAdiz:Servicio Publicaciones Universidadde Cddiz 2006," book review, in Vigiliae Christianae,61.2(2007): 232-234. Rebillard, E. "A New Style of Argument in Christian Polemic: Augustine andthe Use of Patristic Citations," JECS 8.4 (2000): 559-78. Richey, "Porphyry, Reincarnationand Resurrectionin de Civitate dei "De civitate Dei", " AuSt 26 (1995): 129-142. Rinaldi, G. "Studi porfiriani, 1: PorphyriusBataneotes. " Koinonia 4 (1980): 25-37.
219 Rousseau,P. "The Developmentof Christianity in the Roman World: Elaine Pagels and Peter Brown." Prudentia 22.2 (1990): 49-70. Schepens,G. "Jacoby's FGrHist: Problems,Methods, Prospects. " In Collecting Fragments, ed. G. W. Most, 144-73.G6ttingen: Vandenhoeckand Ruprecht, 1997. Schibli, H. S. "Origenes und Plotin." In Origeniana quinta: Historica, Text and Method, Biblica, Philosophica, Theologica,Origenism and Later Developments.Papers of the 5th International Origen Congress,Boston College, 14-18August 1989,ed. R.J. Daly, 284-95. Louvain: Leuven University Press,1992. Schneidweiter, F. "Zu PorphyriosKATA XPIETIANnN. " Philologus: Zeitschriftfir das KlassischeAltertum 99 (1955): 304-12. Schott, J. "Porphyry on Christiansand Others: 'Barbarian Wisdom', Identity Politics, and Anti-Christian Polemicson the Eve of the Great Persecution." JECS 13 no3 (2005): 277- 314. Schrdder, H. 0. "Celsus und Porphyriusals Christiengegner." Die Weltals Geschichte17 (1957): 190-202. Sellew, P. "Achilles or Christ? Porphyry and Didymus in Debate over Allegorical Interpretation." HAR 82 (1989): 79-100. Smith, A. "Porphyrian Studiessince 1913." ANR W 2.36.2 (1987): 717-73. Stein, A. "Kallinikos von Petrai." Hermes 58 (1923): 448-56. Stemberger, G. "Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit." In Begegnungenzwischen ChristentumundJudentum in Antike undMittelalter: Festschriftfür Heinz Schreckenberg,ed. K. Lehnardt et al., 347-64. G6ttingen:Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1993. Thefler, W. "Porphyrios und Augustine." Schriften der K6nigsberg. Gelehrten Geselischaft10.1, Halle, 1933.
Vaguanny, L. "Porphyre." Dictionnaire de thgologie catholique 12.2 (1935): 2570 -72. Verheyden, J. "Orig6ne et la Bible." EAL 72.1 (1996): 165-80. Volgers, A. "Ambrosiaster: PersuasivePowers in Progress." In A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.) Erotapokriseis, Leuven: Peeters,2004,99-126. Wagenmann, K. Jahrbijcherfir deutscheTheologie 23 (1878), 138 ff. Whittaker, H. "The purposeof Porphyry'sLetter to Marcella." SO 2001 76: 150-68.
220 Wilamowitz-Möllendorff, U. von. "Ein Bruchstückaus der Schrift desPorphyrius gegen die Christen." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums,1(1900): 101-5. Wilken, R. L. "PaganCriticism of Christianity: GreekReligion andChristian Faith. " In Early Christian Literature and the ClassicalIntellectual Tradition, in honour of R.M. Grant, ed. W. R. Schoedelet R.L. Wilken, 117-32.Paris: Beauchesne,1979. Zamagni, C. "Existe-t-il une ten-ninologie technique dans les questions d'Eus&be de C6sar6e?" In Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Question-and-AnswerLiterature in Context. Proceedingsof the Utrecht Colloquium, 13-14 October 2003. (eds.) A. Volgers and C. Zamagni,Leuven: Peeters,2004,81-98. Zamagni, C. "Une introduction m6thodologiqueA la litt6rature patristiquedes questions et r6ponses:le cas d'Eus&bede Cdsar6e"in A. Volgers and C. Zamagni (eds.) Erotapokriseis: Early Christian Questionand AnswerLiterature in Context,Paris, 2004. "Porphyry est-il la cible principale des 'questions' chr6tiennesdes IVe et Ve si&cles?" Collection desbudes Augustiniennes,acts from the internationalcolloquium "Le trait6 de Porphyrecontre les chrdtiens.Un siMe de recherches,nouvelles questions" held at the Sorbonne,Paris, 8-9 September2009, forthcoming. Question-and-Answer ------"Is the Literary Genrein Early Christian Literature a HomogeneousGroup? " forthcoming.
221
UNIVERSITY1 C-TBRISTOL I if."."A &%Nf