Universal Salvation in 

Late Antiquity
 Ox f ord St u di e s i n   L at e Ant i qui t y
Series Editor
Ralph Mathisen

Late Antiquity has unified what in the past were disparate disciplinary, chrono-
logical, and geographical areas of study. Welcoming a wide array of method-
ological approaches, this book series provides a venue for the finest new
scholarship on the period, ranging from the later Roman Empire to the
Byzantine, Sasanid, early Islamic, and early Carolingian worlds.

The Arabic Hermes
From Pagan Sage to Prophet of Science
Kevin van Bladel

Two Romes
Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity
Edited by Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly

Disciplining Christians
Correction and Community in Augustine’s Letters
Jennifer V. Ebbeler

History and Identity in the Late Antique Near East

Edited by Philip Wood

Explaining the Cosmos
Creation and Cultural Interaction in Late-Antique Gaza
Michael W. Champion

Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Porphyry of Tyre and the Pagan-Christian Debate
Michael Bland Simmons
 Universal Salvation in
Late Antiquity
Porphyry of Tyre and the Pagan-Christian Debate

Michael Bland Simmons

1
 1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of
Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.

Oxford  New York
Auckland  Cape Town  Dar es Salaam  Hong Kong  Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto

With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by

Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

© Oxford University Press, 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,
by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Simmons, Michael Bland.
Universal salvation in late antiquity : Porphyry of Tyre and the pagan-christian
debate / Michael Bland Simmons.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN  978–0–19–020239–2  (hardcover : alk. paper)  1.  Porphyry, approximately 234-
approximately 305.  2.  Salvation—Comparative studies.  3.  Salvation—Christianity—History of
doctrines—Early church, ca. 30-600.  4.  Universalism.  5.  Rome—Religion.  I.  Title.
B697.Z7S56 2015
186ʹ.4—dc23
2014017554

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
 Dedicated to My Beloved Wife
MARÍA ANTONIETA RUIZ SIMMONS
“Tu eres ‘La Cosita’ de mi corazón.”

De las sierras morenas, Cielito Lindo, vienen bajando

Un par de ojitos negros, Cielito lindo, de contrabando
Una flecha en el aire, Cielito Lindo, tiró Cupido
Él la tiró jugando, Cielito Lindo y a mí me ha herido.
De tu casa a la mía, Cielito Lindo, solo hay un paso
Ahora que estamos solos, Cielito lindo, dame un abrazo
Ay, ay, ay, ay canta y no llores
Porque cantando se alegran, Cielito Lindo, los corazones
 Contents

Preface  ix
Acknowledgements  xxi
Abbreviations  xxiii

Part I  Porphyry and the Quest for a Pagan Counterpart

to Christian Universalism
1. Porphyry of Tyre: Life and Historical Context  3
2. Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  20
3. De Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  32
4. The Contra Christianos in the Context of Universalism  52
5. Eusebius and Porphyry: The Theophany  92

Part II  The Historical and Cultural Context of Universalism

6. The Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  107
7. The Philosophia ex oraculis: A Tripartite Soteriological Universalism  126
8. Porphyry and Iamblichus  134
9. Eschatological Salvation  159
10. Historical Context: Caracalla to Constantine  187
11. Religious Universalism: Paganism and Christianity  198
12. Conclusions  210

Appendices I–VIII  227

Notes  269
Bibliography: Primary Sources  397
Bibliography: Secondary Sources  408
Index  479

vii
 Preface

“There must be some way out of here,”

Said the joker to the thief,
“There’s too much confusion,
I can’t get no relief.”

Bob Dylan,
All Along the Watchtower

Universal salvation—the offer of deliverance for all regardless of social class,

gender, ethnicity, economic status, and intellectual aptitude from present or
impending dangers, or the promise of safety procured by various ceremonies or
rituals dedicated to a deity—is normally attractive, but especially when unprec-
edented crises threaten the very existence of an individual, group, or nation, and
traditional rites and ideologies do not adequately answer new questions being
posed or meet real or perceived needs. This book deals with Porphyrian soteri-
ology, or the concept of the salvation of the soul in the thought of Porphyry of
Tyre, the disciple of Plotinus, whose significance for Late Antiquity was summed
up years ago by one of the greatest scholars of ancient Greco-Roman religious
culture, Arthur Darby Nock: “For the study of the paganism of the third century
of our era no writer is more important than Porphyry.”1 More recently he has
been referred to as “a prototype of what we now call a historian of religion.”2
Porphyry’s concept of salvation is important for an understanding of those
cataclysmic forces, not always theological, that caused the greatest transfor-
mation in antiquity when Europe and the Mediterranean were converted from
paganism to Christianity.3 Andrew Smith has already shown the centrality of
soteriology in Porphyry’s works: “One word which dominates his thought is
σωτηρία, the salvation of the soul.”4 Elizabeth Digeser has analyzed the rele-
vant texts from the Christian apologists Eusebius, Arnobius, and Lactantius,
concluding that each one of these contemporary authors responded to

ix
x  Preface

Porphyry’s “associating Christian pollution and the abrogation of traditional

cult with harms to the Roman polity.”5 The Neoplatonic philosopher was the
last and greatest anti-Christian writer to vehemently attack the Church before
the Constantinian Revolution.6 His contribution to the pagan-Christian
debate on universalism during the critical period of the last decades of the
third century can thus help the ancient historian, Patristics scholar, philoso-
pher, church historian, and the Roman historian to get a better understanding
of both the failure of paganism on the one hand, and the triumph of Christianity
on the other. In a broader historical and cultural context this study will address
some of the issues central to the debate on universalism, or the universal salva-
tion of humankind, in which Porphyry was passionately involved and which,
I argue, was becoming increasingly significant during the unprecedented
series of economic, cultural, political, and military crises of the third century
in the Greco-Roman world;7 and these, in turn, had an indelible impact upon
developing Mediterranean spirituality,8 particularly nuanced in the poignant
conflict between Christianity and other salvation cults, and a growing percep-
tion during this critical period, when life was difficult for both the elite and
the disenfranchised and hurting masses of the Late Roman Empire, that
Christianity was the only authentic way of salvation for all people.9
Unprecedented empire-wide problems causing disunity and threatening the
very survival of the imperial infrastructure were urgently requiring a political
program of universal crises-management conducive to unification. In light of
this, Porphyry’s historical context is important both for the history of
Christianity and of the Roman Empire: Between A.D. 260–300, the apex of
the crises of the Empire,10 when the Christian Church11 was apparently experi-
encing exponential growth due to the “Peace of Gallienus,”12 this perception
that Christ alone offered universal salvation regardless of one’s social, eco-
nomic, gender, class, racial, age, and even moral status was an increasingly
attractive component that gave it the edge in its competition with all the other
salvation cults of the empire, leading, first, to the Constantinian Revolution,13
then culminating in the eventual acceptance of Nicene Orthodoxy by around
400 owing to the Theodosian policies that made the latter official and pagan-
ism14 illegal.15 Cumulatively, these events laid a foundation for the success of
Christianity centuries later. It was not therefore the case that Christianity
saved the beleaguered empire of the third century, but rather the third century
in a true sense might have saved Christianity; or to put it differently, Christian
soteriology was the best equipped of all the religious cults of the period to
provide an efficient crisis-management ideology. When the concept of Christ
the via salutis animae universalis met face-to-face with the crises of the third
century, the Christians took full advantage of a series of events that had been
 Preface  xi

set into action by the religious programs of the emperors of the third century,
which culminated in the inevitable success of the Church in the Roman world,
owing principally to the fact that none of the other religious cults or philo-
sophical sects of the period contained such a crisis-management soteriology.
Scholars for many years have posited a dual soteriology in Porphyry’s works.16
First, there is one way of salvation for the (Neoplatonic) philosopher, which is
analyzed below. For a vast majority of human beings, however, who are unedu-
cated and thus not possessed with the intellectual aptitude for philosophy,
theurgy17 enables them to cleanse the lower or spiritual part of the soul and
experience a temporary period in a lower ontological realm in the afterlife, most
probably the Ethereal level,18 until the soul returns to earth and is reincarnated
into another human body for the sole purpose of learning its evils, ideally expe-
riencing the philosophical way of salvation, and all the salvific benefits apper-
taining thereunto.19
In addition to the philosophical and theurgical ways to salvation, however,
Porphyry also posited what I refer to as a third way for the salvation of the soul.20
In this book—the first ever on this subject21—I shall argue that although
Porphyry failed to find one way of salvation for all humanity, as Augustine
informs us,22 he nonetheless arrived at a hierarchical soteriology, something
natural for a Neoplatonist, which resulted in an integrative system based on
religious and philosophical paganism and offered in a sense universal salvation,
according to which stage on the ascending scale one belongs as the result of
one’s choice.23 Even as far back as 1913 the Belgian scholar Bidez could refer to
the author of the Philosophia ex oraculis (Porphyry) as one committed “a prêcher
une religion universelle.”24 Smith has correctly described Porphyrian soteriol-
ogy as a tiered approach in which the “divine operates at different levels and each
level has its appropriate form of worship,”25 and a recent work argues that
Porphyry “claims to have discovered a via universalis” in the Philosophia ex
oraculis.26 By using Porphyry’s own definition of universalism found in De civi-
tate dei X, I shall analyze the structure and function of his soteriology in the
context of his intensive research for the one universal way for the salvation of
the soul, how the Neoplatonic scala virtutum of Sententiae ad intelligibilia
ducentes xxxii formed the philosophical basis of his system, and the Ad
Marcellam was written for the purpose of indoctrinating novice philosophers
into the basic teachings of the second soteriological tier for novice philosophers.
In this study I reevaluate the contents and the chronology of the Philosophia ex
oraculis to show in the last section how Porphyry’s soteriological paradigm is
best understood in the context of developing universalist ideologies, which were
used by the emperors as agents of political and religious unification during a
period of unprecedented imperial crises. Christianity finally triumphed over its
xii  Preface

competitors owing to its being perceived to be the only universal salvation cult
that was capable of bringing about this unification. In short, it won due to its
unique universalist soteriology.
I further argue that Porphyry studied under Origen at his theological school
in Caesarea, and it was there that he was first exposed on a grand scale to the
theological and exegetical teachings of the great Alexandrian theologian on
soteriological universalism from a Christian perspective. Porphyry’s time spent
at Origen’s school helped to lay a solid ideological foundation for his future
investigations into the possibility of a via salutis animae universalis for religious
and philosophical paganism during a period when both were in decline and all
of the crises of the third century were being blamed upon the Christians. During
the 260s this interest in finding a way of salvation for the masses was intensified
by the idealistic concept of Platonopolis, the city of philosophers, and by the
need to find a connecting link or conveyor that might enable individuals to
“move up” the traditional Neoplatonic scala virtutum. It will also be made clear
in the pages that follow that Porphyry never abandoned his interest in the tradi-
tional cults and how they played a role in his “ascending scale” soteriological
paradigm.
From A.D. 260–300, Porphyry became concerned (so I argue) about the
unprecedented institutional and numerical growth of the Church resulting from
the Peace of Gallienus, and early in this period began a lengthy process of
research, reflection, and writing whose dual purpose was (1) to demonstrate the
false claims of Christian soteriological universalism and (2) to construct a pagan
counterpart to the latter that offered various ways of salvation (purification) for
the souls of individuals based upon their specific spiritual and ontological lev-
els. In accomplishing these two goals, Porphyry believed that Christianity would
lose its attraction as a universal saving cult and religious and philosophical
paganism would be revitalized. I suggest that during the decades between
270–300, Porphyry wrote a trilogy on pagan soteriology: the De regressu animae
(c. the late 290s), the Contra Christianos (c. 300), and De philosophia ex oraculis
(c. 302). The first work in this trilogy (De regr. an.) represents Porphyry’s first
attempt at designing a soteriological counteroffensive by offering two distinct
ways for the salvation/cleansing of the soul: one by means of theurgy to purify
the spiritual soul, and the other by Neoplatonic philosophy to purify the
intellectual soul.
By the beginning of the fourth century, Porphyry had modified his soterio-
logical system sufficiently enough to incorporate another way for the cleansing
of the lower soul by means of the virtue of continence, which enabled especially
novice philosophers (among whom were his wife Marcella and her colleagues)
to wean themselves from the soul’s attachment to corporeal reality and begin its
 Preface  xiii

focus upon the intelligibles. Augustine’s undeniable reference to this via salutis
is corroborated by such Porphyrian works as Sententiae, Ad Marcellam, and as
I shall argue below, Book II of the De philosophia ex oraculis.27 This second tier
within Porphyry’s soteriological paradigm enabled the novice philosopher to
move up the Neoplatonic scala virtutum and thus from the civic to the exem-
plary virtues. The third tier or final way of salvation was reserved for the mature
Neoplatonic philosopher.
In light of the aforementioned outline of the main points of the argument
developed in this book, and turning now to the individual chapters, c­ hapter 1,
“Porphyry of Tyre: Life and Historical Contexts” places Porphyry in his original
Phoenician and ultimately his broader Greco-Roman cultural and historical
contexts, noting particularly the Semitic milieu and that Phoenicia was not only
a crossroads for cultural exchange, but also a melting pot where East converged
with West. It is furthermore accentuated, after a careful analysis of the
Greco-Roman and Semitic religious background of Tyre, where Porphyry was
reared, that this city provided him a seedbed where his ideals of a via salutis
animae universalis were cultivated, and this cosmopolitan Weltanschauung was
made possible by the universal empire established by Alexander the Great in the
fourth century B.C. The ancient religious traditions of both Semites and
Greco-Romans produced a rich and varied complex of ritual, myth, and belief
during the Hellenistic Age (323–30 B.C.), which positively impacted the multi-
faceted ideology related to civic and personal views of σωτηρία/salus bestowed
upon the towns, villages, and cities of the Mediterranean world. It is important
to note here my argument that Porphyry attended Origen’s exegetical and theo-
logical school in Caesarea where he received a sound foundation in biblical the-
ology and exegesis, hermeneutics, the importance of virtue for the religious life,
and his first exposure on a grand scale to Christian views on soteriological uni-
versalism. The tradition that states that Porphyry was a Christian at some time
during his youth coheres well with the plausible period of study at Origen’s
school. 28
His further studies at Athens under Longinus and other prominent teachers
laid the foundation for his eventual reputation as a polymath: Eunapius informs
us that no branch of learning was neglected, but especially the science of literary
and philological criticism, which was refined in the 260s at Plotinus’ Neoplatonic
School in Rome. And the latter’s concept of a city of philosophers called
Platonopolis, though it never materialized, certainly provided Porphyry with the
necessary inspiration to sharpen his inquisitive mind and to continue his search
for knowledge and ultimate spiritual meaning. The Plotinian ethos was not an
elitist system for philosophers only, as we can indisputably show in Plotinus’
care for children and adults who might not have an aptitude for philosophy in
xiv  Preface

the strict sense. Platonopolis was to be a city where philosophers lived with bak-
ers, carpenters, unskilled laborers, and their wives and children, and the Platonic
scala virtutum will have offered some sense of σωτηρία/salus or a true sense of
spiritual safety for all residents according to their spiritual and ontological levels
of existence. The entire complex of philosophical and religious concepts formed
the ideological basis and spiritual inspiration for what eventually became a
decades-long search for a universal way for the salvation of the soul.
Chapter 2 is dedicated to the unenviable task of contextualizing Porphyry’s
works with a keen sensitivity to the central theme of his entire literary
corpus—the salvation of the soul (Bidez, A. Smith, Digeser, Simmons), which,
it must be made clear here, for the ancient Platonic philosopher meant the puri-
fication of the soul. This soteriological interest spanned most of Porphyry’s
career as an author and is the best compass for understanding the composite
picture of his apparently diverse and disparate religious, theological, and philo-
sophical writings. In this trailblazing chapter, the Wolff-Bidez hypothesis is
both analyzed and rejected as spurious. This posits that all of the religious and
superstitious works should be dated to Porphyry’s pre-Plotinian period; and the
philosophical works should be dated to the post-Plotinian period. One of the
weaknesses of this chronology is its insensitivity to the age in which Porphyry
lived and wrote most of his works, the unprecedented crises of the third century,
which was characterized by the convergence of a keen interest in oracular rev-
elation with philosophical inquiry. As one who came under the influence of this
cultural confluence, Porphyry sought a universal way for the soul’s salvation
during the last decades of the century, which, in turn, had a direct influence on
the political and social ambience leading up to the Great Persecution. Having
failed to find one way of salvation for everyone including philosophers and the
uneducated alike, Porphyry worked out a brilliant soteriological system that
provided three distinct ways: one for the uneducated by means of the traditional
cults and theurgy; the second by means of the virtue of continence; and the final
way for the mature Neoplatonic philosopher.
We find snippets of this developing theology of the soul’s purification for all
people in what I call Porphyry’s Soteriological Trilogy: The De regressu animae
(c. 290s), which offered two distinct ways; the Contra Christianos (c. 300), which
most probably had the central theme of disproving the doctrine that Christ was
the via salutis animae universalis; and the De philosophia ex oraculis (c. 302),
which offered the three ways noted as a proactive, positive soteriological system
that resulted from Porphyry’s attendance at Diocletian’s conference whose
objective was the creation of a plan for persecuting the Christians. This last
component of the trilogy aimed at supporting Diocletian’s attempt to revitalize
religious paganism. It should be noted here that the conventional chronology
 Preface  xv

for the two “bookends” of this soteriological trilogy is reversed: I argue that the
De regr. an. was written some years before the Phil. orac. was written, and not
afterward.
Chapter 3 gives a detailed analysis of the soteriological structure and con-
tents of De philosophia ex oraculis, showing how Gustavus Wolff ’s thematic clas-
sification of each of the three books (1. Gods; 2. Demons; 3. Heroes), as Busine
has already observed, is totally arbitrary, and a fresh appraisal is necessary.
I thus show that many of the books designated per theme by Wolff are not sup-
ported by the evidence found in the fragments collected by Andrew Smith, and
a new classification according to the tripartite soteriology of Porphyry coheres
much better with the evidence. Hence the conclusion that Book I’s theme was
the first way of salvation; Book II’s, the second way; and Book III’s, the third
way. Supplementary data derived directly from Smith’s fragments primarily
related to the salvific benefits of theurgy are further analyzed to show the weak-
ness of the argument (e.g., Beatrice, A. Johnson, G. Clark29) that the Phil. orac.
was written only for a very small and elitist group of philosophers.30
Chapter 4 addresses a question which has never been asked: Did Porphyry
address Christian soteriological universalism in the fifteen books of the Contra
Christianos? In an attempt to contextualize universalism themes in the CC a list
of Christian authors who are relevant for this great anti-Christian work are
placed in chronological order, and the reader is then taken from the first writer
to respond to Porphyry, Arnobius, to the late medieval works which either
allude to or cite Porphyry. My conclusion is that although the present evidence
cannot give us a clear picture as to the details of the structure and content of the
CC, enough evidence can be gleaned from the works of such authors as (e.g.)
Arnobius, Eusebius, Lactantius, Jerome, and Didymus the Blind to suggest that
universalism may indeed have played a central role in the polemical argument
of the CC.
In ­chapter 5 I exhibit the pioneer spirit by entering the terra incognita of
Eusebius’ last apologetic work, the Theophany, and make some unprecedented
connections between this work and Porphyry’s soteriological universalism.31
Since only seventeen fragments from the original Greek text have survived and
the complete is extant in an early fifth century Syriac translation, I exegete sev-
eral representative passages to show that Eusebius, reflecting upon the tremen-
dous transition which occurred in the Roman Empire between Diocletian and
Constantine and having been an eye-witness of the Great Persecution in the
East, develops a heightened triumphalism undergirded by a nuanced soterio-
logical universalism. In the case of Book V, it is evident that Eusebius has
reworked and theologically modified passages derived from the original
Demonstratio evangelica and inserted in each one ‫ ܕܒܠ‬ ‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬or Universal
xvi  Preface

Savior, to demonstrate to his readers in the post-Constantinian period (I date

the text to c. 337–8) that Jesus Christ is the one universal savior for all peoples in
the Roman world regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, social class, and intellec-
tual aptitude. Many passages in the Theophany presuppose a Porphyrian con-
nection, and the passage in V.3 which alludes to the ‫ ܦܝܠܘ܅ܤܦܐ‬ ‫܅ܬ‬ ‫ ܚܕ ܐ‬or New
Philosophers, has ideological parallels with the viri novi of Arnobius, Adv. nat.
II.15 and the τῶν νέων of Eusebius, PE III.6, and is placed in the group of frag-
ments of the De philosophia ex oraculis. It is hoped that this chapter in particular
will help shed new light on the place of the Theophany in the Eusebian corpus,
the conflict/dialogue between pagan and Christian intellectuals in the fourth
century, and in a much broader context the religious and philosophical develop-
ments of Late Antiquity.
Painting with broad strokes on my historical canvass in c­ hapter 6, I delineate
with the support of a great many data from inscriptions and archaeological
works the general notions of salvation from a Greco-Roman pagan perspective,
laying here a foundation that I build upon in later chapters when Porphyry’s
concept of the purification of the soul becomes the focus of attention. The evi-
dence indicates that pagans prayed for the same kinds of assistance from their
gods that Christians emphasized in their prayers, for example deliverance from
dangers, good health, an abundance of food, success in one’s business, safety in
an unstable and unpredictable environment, victory in war, and many other real
or perceived needs. By classifying the epigraphic data around the general themes
of salvation from, for, in, and beyond the world, I show how representative
pagan cults of the late third and early fourth centuries offered various ways to
meet the spiritual and material needs of their adherents. The conventional wis-
dom claiming that traditional Roman religion was devoid of any means to pro-
vide for what often is called individual or personal experiences of salvation or
salvific blessings is shown to be without support from the evidence; nor were the
traditional cults on the whole as formal, detached, and mechanical as hitherto
assumed. The same can be said concerning a strong interest in eschatology. It
has been often assumed that there was not a keen interest in the afterlife in tra-
ditional Roman religion, but I show that there is evidence for this during the
Regal Age of Rome (753–509 B.C.). The eastern mystery religions simply added
to this eschatological substratum by offering an emotional appeal, a sense of
worth for the individual, and a personal spiritual rebirth by means of an initia-
tion rite. Motivated by an acute interest to find a way of salvation for the com-
mon masses, Porphyry incorporated this rich complex of religious concepts and
practices for the first way of his tripartite soteriology.
Chapter 7 contains an analysis of De philosophia ex oraculis. Opposing again
conventional wisdom, I suggest that Porphyry’s De regressu animae was written
 Preface  xvii

before the Phil. orac., and the latter was a product of the events preceding the
Great Persecution. The philosopher who dined at Diocletian’s court and was
mentioned by Lactantius was undoubtedly Porphyry, and not only is the work
to which he alludes the De philosophia ex oraculis in three books, but the the-
matic structure of each book has been long overdue for a critical evaluation. The
reason for this reevaluation of the contents of this important work on oracular
revelation is due to the fact that a vast majority of scholars have uncritically
accepted the arbitrary classification proposed by Gustavus Wolff: Book I con-
cerned the gods; Book II, the demons; and Book III, the heroes. I show that only
twenty-six of the fifty-eight extant fragments of the Phil. orac. can be indisput-
ably identified as deriving from a named book; and more that 55% of the frag-
ments cannot be so designated. After a careful analysis of the fragments,
I suggest that the thematic classification should now be: Book I: Salvation of the
Soul for the Common Masses; Book II: Salvation of the Soul for the Novice
Philosopher; and Book III: Salvation of the Soul for the Mature Neoplatonic
Philosopher. The Phil. orac. was thus the closest that paganism ever came to
providing a proactive soteriological universalism during a period when the tra-
ditional cults needed revitalization and Christianity was becoming increasingly
attractive.
Chapter 8 analyzes Porphyry’s soteriological system synthetically by showing
how he incorporated (a) the traditional Platonic doctrine on the tripartite
nature of the soul (appetitive, spirited, rational), (b) the four virtues of his scala
virtutum (political, purificatory, contemplative, exemplary), and (c) the three
paths of salvation that he developed (for the uneducated masses, novice phi-
losophers, mature philosophers). This three-path soteriology is then contrasted
with that of Iamblichus, who interestingly posited three classes of souls (the
herd, the median class, which is further subdivied, and the noetic class) in De
mysteriis V.18, existing at different spiritual and ontological levels whose mem-
bers, in turn, require a corresponding type of theurgical ritual for their salva-
tion. I suggest that the rift that developed between Porphyry and Iamblichus
most probably occurred before the latter left Rome for Syria to start his own
school, it centered on the salvific importance of theurgy as opposed to philoso-
phy, and the sparks began to fly in specifically how souls in the median class
(Porphyry’s Path II group) can receive purification: Porphyry stessed philoso-
phy through discursive thought, and Iamblichus concluded that theurgical rit-
ual was salvifically efficacious for all three classes. These serious disagreements
about the process of temporal salvation led to even more dramatic conflicts over
eschatological salvation which is the theme of ­chapter 9.
In this chapter I first give an overview of the eschatological myths found in
Plato’s Gorgias, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Laws, and the Republic, especially the latter’s
xviii  Preface

Myth of Er. While modern scholars often ignore completely or downplay the
importance of eschatology in Platonism as a whole, but specifically Neoplatonism
as a later development of it,32 I argue that the eschatological myths were accepted
by the Neoplatonists as stories that contained truths about the afterlife. In other
words, Neoplatonists from Plotinus to Olympiodorus believed in these myths,
and recent studies continue to ignore this fact.33 Like Plato, they were taken seri-
ously, though not all Neoplatonists had the same interpretation of stories like
Er’s out-of-body experience in the underworld. Very generally I then give an
overview to the reception history of these eschatological doctrines in the
thought of Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus, showing also, where applicable,
how Proclus’ Commentary on the Republic, and primarily his exegesis of the
Myth of Er, may shed light on their teachings about the status of the soul in the
afterlife. For Porphyry, Path I and II souls go to the Ethereal Region after death,
where they remain until they are recycled and descend to earth. I argue that,
according to Porphyry’s interpretation of Phaedrus 249, the cycle of rebirths
(reincarnations) is broken permanently when the soul chooses three consecu-
tive philosophical lives, at which time the soul is perpetually in union with the
One. The locating of the soul of Plotinus by the Oracle of Apollo at the end of
the Vita Plotini (22–3) in the Ethereal Region is explained in light of this inter-
pretation of the Phaedrus.
Basing his own views of the afterlife on the same text (Phdr. 249), Iamblichus
came to a different conclusion: Purified souls remain for a period of time with
the gods and angels, then they descend back to earth. Those of the median class
will receive an amelioration of their characters before being recyled again; and
the highest class, the noetic souls, descend as John Dillon has suggested, like
Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist tradition, so that they can help other souls to
achieve purification. I conclude that the apparently sharp disagreements
between Porphyry and Iamblichus concering the proper interpretation of the
Phaedrus myth—Porphyry understanding that the text should be read as a per-
manent release of the soul after it chose three philosophical lives; and Iamblichus
following conventional hermeneutics by arguing that there is no promise that
the recycling process is ever terminated—added more fuel to the fire between
the two philosophers and may have been another reason for Iamblichus leaving
Rome for the East.
Notions of salvation, whether pagan or Christian, did not develop in a vac-
uum, and for this reason c­ hapter 10 attempts to place Porphyry’s search for the
via universalis animae salutis in its proper historical context. I argue that owing
to the decline of the Senate’s power during the period, there were now only three
major components of the imperial infrastructure: the emperor, the army, and
Roman religious culture. From Caracalla to Constantine imperial policies
 Preface  xix

increasingly depended upon religious culture as an agent of unification during

the hard times of the third century. During the Peace of Gallienus the pagan
cults were becoming more expensive to maintain, and Christianity was experi-
encing unprecedented growth. Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana, such docu-
ments as the Feriale Duranum, and the reigns of Elagabalus, Alexander Severus,
Aurelian, and Diocletian are analyzed within the historical context of imperial
policies that depended upon religious culture to unify an empire that seem was
becoming unglued. And similar developments occurred in the Sassanian
Dynasty of Persia with respect to the rise of a new prophetic movement, and a
concomitant soteriological universalism motivated by a fresh missionary impe-
tus to win converts throughout the Roman world. Eusebius of Caesarea took full
advantage of the times in which he lived by not only writing the two great apolo-
getic masterpieces, the Praeparatio evangelica and the Demonstratio evangelica,
but also the Theophany. Prior to writing these works, he had written the
Chronicle, which was a world history, truly universal in its scope, theologically
designed from a Christian perspective, and permeated by the grand theme of
God’s universal plan of salvation, which began with Adam at Creation and has
now found its fulfillment in the Universal Savior Jesus Christ. This might have
been the most uplifting message during an age of crisis for an ever-widening
audience whose angst caused an abandonment of hope in the old cults. Finally,
Constantinian Universalism, with its salient features of One God, One Emperor,
and One Empire (to borrow terminology here from Fowden), took the
politico-religious unification policies of preceding emperors to new heights and
can be seen as the logical culmination of the program of Caracalla.
Continuing the general theme of ­chapter 10, ­chapter 11 addresses pagan and
Christian universalism in its cultural contexts. Here I argue that whereas
Constantine came to the eventual conclusion for reasons that might not be
always clear to us that Christianity was the only religion of the Roman world
that truly offered universal salvation, Porphyry opted for his tripartite soterio-
logical system that, he believed, would compete successfully with Christianity.
Various plausible reasons are given to explain why Christian universalism might
have become more increasingly attractive to pagans during the crises of the
third century, and these are contrasted with notions of salvation found in the
cults of Isis, Cybele, Mithras, Manichaeanism, Jupiter Dolichenus, Sol Invictus ,
and the Imperial Cult. My conclusion (­chapter 12) is that there was no such
thing as a pagan universal salvation cult, and one of the major causes of the
triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire was its unique universalist soteri-
ology, which Constantine gambled on embracing as an agent of political and
cultural unification.
 Acknowledgments

It is with great gratitude that I acknowledge those who have contributed to

making this book possible beginning with those past mentors of mine who laid
a strong foundation for academic pursuits. While I was a graduate student at
Yale I was fortunate to have as my thesis supervisor the Rev. Dr. Rowan A. Greer,
III, Professor of Anglican Studies, who inculcated in me a great passion for
Patristics. Orval Wintermute, Professor of the Old Testament, Duke University,
taught me much concerning re semitica including Classical Hebrew, Ugaritic,
Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and indirectly, Classical Arabic. At New College, the
University of Edinburgh, Professor David Wright offered constant wisdom as
the supervisor of my Ph.D. program. Professor W. H. C. Frend’s warm hospital-
ity, tremendous sense of humor, and fascinating stories provided the perfect
context for conversations about Roman North Africa at lunch visits to the
University of Glasgow during my three years at Edinburgh. Sir Henry Chadwick,
the external examiner of my doctoral dissertation and the general editor of my
first book published by Oxford University Press (Arnobius of Sicca), was a source
of inspiration and encouragement to me in the years after his retirement from
the University of Cambridge.
I am grateful to Prof. John Dillon, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, who
offered invaluable advice on Porphyry and Neoplatonism during brunch at his
home in August 2003; Prof. Andrew Smith, University College, Dublin, for
reading and commenting upon an earlier (and smaller) draft of Part I of this
book; Prof. Wayne Meeks; and Ms. Martha Smalley, Coordinator, Image
Database for Biblical Studies, Yale Divinity School. Professors John Finamore,
John Bussanich, Pier F. Beatrice, and Anne Sheppard provided invaluable
insight and counsel on a number of issues related to philosophy in Late Antiquity.
This book would not have been written without the generous grants that
I received from the Research Council at Auburn University Montgomery

xxi
xxii  Acknowledgments

(AUM) for the years 2003, 2007, and 2011; and a professional leave for 2010;
which enabled me to do research at the Bodleian Library, the University of
Oxford, the University Library, Cambridge; Sterling Memorial Library, Yale; the
University College, Dublin; and research trips to the University of Alabama,
Auburn University, and Emory University. Dr. Sebastian Brock of the Oriental
Institute, the University of Oxford, and Dr. Robert Kitchen, provided expert
advice on a number of critical problems related to the Syriac text of the
Theophany. Parts of this book are expanded versions of papers given at the
southeastern meetings of the American Academy of Religion, Atlanta; the
annual meetings of the North American Patristics Society, Chicago; and the
International Conference on Patristics, Oxford. Many thanks are due to Carolyn
Johnson, Karen Williams, and Steve Wheat of the Department of Inter-Library
Loans, AUM, for their kind help; to my graduate assistant, Joseph Miller, who
double-checked the accuracy of a part of the manuscript; and to Mary Ellen
Allen, Reference Section, Gorgas Library, the University of Alabama. I am
grateful to Fariba Deravi, Director, the Office of Sponsored Programs, AUM, for
her kind help and advice in procuring grants to do research. The late Rev. Canon
Gregory Taylor helped me in my Archdiocese to balance ministerial and aca-
demic responsibilities.
Professors Mike Fitzsimmons and Tim Henderson, of the Department of
History; and Michael Burger, Dean, the College of Arts and Sciences, AUM,
encouraged me to persevere on this project. The Rev. Canon Charles Fulton,
Rector, St. Jude’s Episcopal Church, Marietta, Georgia, where I was consecrated
an Anglican bishop on June 21, 2000, and a fellow Yalee, was a constant source
of inspiration. Finally, many thanks to the Rev. Prof. Nicu Dumitrascu of the
Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Oradea, Romania; Dr. Crystal
Addey; Dr. Deepa Majumbdar; the two anonymous readers who offered invalu-
able comments; Stefan Vranka, Sarah Pirovitz, Heather Sieve, Kendra Millis,
and the Editorial Board at Oxford University Press; Aaron D. Rubin, Rich
Penaskovic, the Staff at the Harvard Divinity School, Garth Fowden, Severin
Schroeder, Gillian Clark, Larry Mullins, former Dean, School of Liberal Arts,
AUM; LaKendrick Richardson; and Janice Willis and Tracy Goodwin, secretar-
ies of the Department of History, AUM. Finally, I have saved the best until now.
This book is dedicated to my beloved and beautiful Latin wife, Maria Antonieta,
who has encouraged, inspired, and supported me during our wonderful mar-
riage, not only in the academy but also in faithful ministry to Christ’s Church.

The Alpha & Omega Archiepiscopal Chancellery, Luverne, Alabama

March 17, 2014
The Feast of St. Patrick, Bishop and Missionary of Ireland
 Abbreviations

AAASH Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae

AAE Allan D. Fitzgerald, O.S.A., Gen. Ed., Augustine
through the Ages. An Encyclopedia. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1999)
AAP Atti della Accademia Pontaniana
AAEA Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueología
AAW Approaching the Ancient World (Stoneman, series ed.)
AB Analecta bollandiana
ABD The Anchor Bible Dictionary (David Noel Freedman
et al., eds., 6 vols.; New York and
London: Doubleday, 1992).
Abst. De abstinentia
AC L’Antiquité classique
ACA Ancient Commentators on Aristotle (Richard Sorabji,
gen. ed.)
ACEEC Actas del VIII Congreso Español de Estudios Clasicos
(Madrid, 23 al 28 de septiembre de 1991)
AChr Antike und Christentum
ACI Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: Plotino e il
Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente (Roma, 5–9
ottobre 1970)
ACIEC XIIe Actes de la XIIe Conférence Internationale d’Etudes
Classiques
ACIEO Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL su Epigrafia e
ordine senatorio, Roma 14–20 maggio 1981
ACIL Actes de Colloque Internationale de Louvain
(13–16 Mai 1998)

xxiii
xxiv  Abbreviations

ACME ACME: annali della facoltà di lettere e filosofia

dell’Università degli studi di Milano
ACS Ancient Culture and Society
ACU Australian Catholic University
ACW Ancient Christian Writers
ACUSD Acta Classica Universitatis Scientaru Debreceniensis
Ad Demetr. Ad Demetriadem
Ad Marc. Ad Marcellam
Adv. Iud. Adversus iudaeos
Adv. Iul. Adversus Iulianum
Adv. nat. Adversus nationes
Adv. haer. Adversus haereticos
Adv. Pelag. Adversus Pelagianos
Adv. Ruf. Adversus Rufinum
AECR Association pour l’étude de la civilization romaine,
Strasbourg
Aegyptus Aegyptus: rivista italiana di egittologia e di Papirologia
Aet. Mundi De aeternitate mundi
Aevum Aevum: rassegna di scienze storiche, linguistiche e
Filologiche
AFAM L’Association Française d’Archéologie Mérovingienne
Affect. Affectationes
AfR Archiv für Religionswissenschaft
AG Analecta Gregoriana
AGP Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie
AGRL Aspects of Greek and Roman Life
AHB The Ancient History Bulletin
AHDL Archives d’Histoire Doctrinale et Littérature Du
Moyen Age
AHMA Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du
Moyen Âge
AI Acta Iranica
AION Annali dell’Instituto Universitario orientale di Napoli:
Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli,
Dipartimento di Studi del Mondo Classico e del
Mediterraneo Antico
AIPHO Annuaire de l’institut de Philologie et d’histoire
Orientales
AIPHOS Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’histoire
Orientales et slaves
 Abbreviations  xxv

AIPK Akten des Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses

Berlin, 13–19.8.1995, 2 vols.
AIRF Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae
AJP American Journal of Philology
AJPh American Journal of Philosophy
AKPAW Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse
AMMTC Ancient Mediterranean Texts and Contexts
AMP Ancient and Medieval Philosophy
AMPWM Ancient and Medieval Philosophy de Wulf-Mansion
Centre
Anab. Anabasis
AncPhil Ancient Philosophy
AncW The Ancient World
ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, 3rd ed. (Pritchard, ed., PUP, 1969).
ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers
ANL Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
Ann. Annales
AnnSE Annali di Storia dell’esegesi
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt
Ant Antaios
AnTard Antiquité Tardive
Ant. Rom. Antiquitates Romanae
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Veröffentlichungen
zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des
Alten Testaments (Dietrich and Loretz, eds.)
AOAW Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse
AP Ancient Philosophy
APA American Philological Association
APAACS American Philological Accociation. American Classical
Studies
Apapyrol Analecta papyrologica Messina: Sicania
Apocr. Apocriticus
Apol. Apologia
Apol. ad Const. Apologia ad Constantium
Apol. c. Hier. Apologia contra Hieronymum
APS American Philosophical Society
xxvi  Abbreviations

APTLA Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in

Late Antiquity
ArchPhilos Archives de Philosophie
Arctos Acts philologica fennica. Helsinki
ARG Archiv für Religionsgeschichte
ARS Annual Review of Sociology
AS Ancient Society
ASE Annali di storia dell’esegesi
ASMA Aarhus Studies in Mediterranean Antiquity
ASP Arabic Science and Philosophy
Aug Augustiniana
AUGre Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae
AugStud Augustinian Studies
Augustinianum Augustinianum: Roma, Institutum Patristicum
Augustinianum
AUP Aarhus University Press
AV Analecta Vlatadon (Panayotis C. Christou, ed.)
BA Biblioteca Athenaeum
BAB Bulletin Antieke Beschaving
BAC The Bible in Ancient Christianity
BACTH Bulletin Archéolgique du Comité des Travaux
Historiques
BAGRW Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World
BAH Bibliothèque Archeologique & Historique
BAL Blackwell Ancient Lives
BAR British Archaeological Reports
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BBI Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute
BCP Bristol Classical Press
BCPEN Bollettino del Comitato per la preparazione dell’edizione
nazionale dei classici greci e latini
BDEC The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity (Ken
Parry et al., eds., 1999)
BEC Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes
BEFAR Bibliothèque des Ecoles Françaises d’Athènes et
de Rome
BeiAlt Beiträge zur Altertumskunde, Michael Erler, et al., eds.
BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium
BG Blätter für das Gymnasialschulwesen
 Abbreviations  xxvii

BGPR The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic (Gerasimos

Santas, ed., 2006)
BHAC Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium
BHP Bibliotheque d’Histoire de la Philosophie
BHR Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance. Travaux et
Documents
Biblica Biblica: Commentarii editi cura Pontificii Instituti
Biblici. Roma
BHRTD Bibliotheque d’Humanisme et Renaissance. Travaux et
Documents
Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Codices
BiblAth Biblioteca di Athenaeum
BICS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
Bidez J. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre. Le philosophe neo-platonicien.
Avec les Fragments des traites ΠΕΡΙ ΑΓΑΛΜΑΤΩΝ
et De regressu animae. (Gand: E. Van Goethem, 1913;
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1913).
BJRL Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in
Bonn und des Veriens von Altertumsfreunden im
Rheinlande
BJRLM Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester
BKAW Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft
BKP Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie
BlAR Blackwell Ancient Religions
BMCR Bryn Mawr Classical Review
BPC Bibliothèque de Philosophie contemporaine
BPM Bulletin de Philosophie Medievale
BPW Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift
Brit Britannia
BRPS Berner Reihe philosophischer Studien
BSGRT Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum
Teubneriana
BSR Biblioteca di scienze religiose
BT Biblioteca Teubneriana
BTP Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques, Henri
Gouthier, Directeur
BV Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter
BWGN The Biographical Works of Gregory of Nyssa. Proceedings
of the Fifth International Colloquium on Gregory of
Nyssa (Andreas Spira, ed.)
xxviii  Abbreviations

Byz Byzantion
CA Christianisme Antique. Bibliothèque de recherches
dirigée par P. Nautin
CAG Die Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
CAH 2nd Cambridge Ancient History, Second Edition
CAHS Clarendon Ancient History Series
Cassiodorus Cassiodorus. Rivista di studi sulla tarda antichità
C.C. Contra Christianos
CCAC Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine
CCC Civilità Classica e Cristiana
CCCA Corpus Cultus Cybelae Attisdisque (M.
J. Vermaseren, ed.)
C.Cels. Contra Celsum
CCERG-R Collection du Centre d’Etudes Romaines et
Gallo-Romaines Nouvelle série, No 20
CCID Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni (M. Hörig and
E.Schwertheim, eds.)
CCP Cambridge Companion to Plotinus (Lloyd Gerson,
ed., 1996)
CCPR Cambridge Companion to Plato’s Republic (G. R. F.
Ferrari, ed., 2007)
CCSMP Cátedra de Ciencias Sociales, Morales y Políticas
CEA Collection des Etudes Augustiniennes. Série
Antiquité
CECS Centre for Early Christian Studies
CEFR Collection de l’École Française de Rome
CER Centre d’Etudes de la Renaissance
CERL Centre d’Etudes des Religions du Livre
CFC Cuadernos de Filologia Clásica
CH Church History
Chiron Chiron: Mitteilungen der Kommission für alte
Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, München
CHRAW The Cambridge History of Religions in the Ancient
World (Michelle Renee Saltzman and Marvin
A. Sweeney, eds., vol. 1; Michelle Renee Salzman and
William Adler, eds., vol. 2)
Chron. Chronicon
CHS Center for Hellenic Studies
 Abbreviations  xxix

CIERGA Centre International d’Etude de la Religion Grecque

Antique
Cima Cahiers de L’Institut du Moyen Age Grec et Latin
CIMRM Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis
Mithriacae (M. J. Vermaseren, ed., 1956-60)
C. Hier. Contra Hieroclem
CIL Corpus inscriptionum latinarum
CIPL Centre Informatique de Philosophie et Lettres (Liège)
Civ. Dei De civitate dei
CJ Classical Journal
CJAS Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series
CL Collection Latomus
ClaL Classical Lives
CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
CNS Cristianesimo nella Storia
C & M Classica et Mediaevalia
Cod. Just. Codex Justinianus
Cod. Theod. Codex Theodosianus
Comm. Eccles. Commentarii in ecclesiasten
Commonit. Commonitorium
CP Classical Philology
CPAA Cahiers de Philosophie Ancienne No.
3. ARISTOTELICA. Mélanges offerts à Marcel de
Corte (Liège: Presses Universitaires, 1985)
CQ Classical Quarterly
CR Classical Review
CRAI Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres
CRHA Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne
CRTP Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie
CSCP Cornell Studies in Classical Philology
CSIC Conejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas
CSLP Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum
CUAP The Catholic University of America Press
CUECM Cooperativa Universitaria Editrice Catanese di Magistero
C. Vigil. Contra Vigilantium
CUF Collection des Universités de France
CUP Cambridge University Press
CW The Classical World
D & A Dialogue and Alliance
xxx  Abbreviations

DANE Dictionary of the Ancient Near East (Piotr Bienkowski

and Allan Millard, eds.)
DCB Dictionary of Christian Biography. (William Smith and
Henry Wace, eds.; Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1880)
DCBL Dictionary of Christian Biography and
Literature (Wace and Piercy, eds.; London: John
Murray, 1911)
DE Demonstratio evangelica
De an. De anima
De antr. nymph. De antro nympharum
De cons. evang. De consensu evangelistarum
De cultu sim. De cultu simulacrorum
De decret. nic. De decretis nicaenae synodi synodi
De err. prof. rel. De errore profanarum religionum
De nat. deor. De natura deorum
De nat. hom. De natura hominis
De opif. Mundi De opificio mundi
De prin. De principiis
De regr. an. De regressu animae
De s. Bab. De sancto hieromartyre Babyla
De Trin. De Trinitate
De unitate De unitate ecclesiae catholicae eccle. cath.
De vir. ill. De viris illustribus
Dionysius Dionysius: Halifax, Nova Scotia. Dalhousie University,
Department of Classics
Diotima Diotima: Revue de Recherche Philosophique
Div. inst. De divinae institutiones
DL Deutsche Litteraturzeitung
DRCS Daniel and Revelation Committee Series
DPA Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques (Richard
Goulet, ed.)
DSAM Dictionnaire de Spiritualité. Ascetique et Mystique,
Doctine et Histoire
DSTradF Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale
DTC Dictionaire de Théologie Catholique
EA Etudes Augustiniennes
EAC Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique
EB Etudes Bibliques
ECCA Early Christianity in the Context of Antiquity
(David Brakke et al., eds.)
 Abbreviations  xxxi

EFA Ecole Française d’Athènes

EFR Ecole Française de Rome
EIBMBOR Editura Institutului Biblic si de Misiune al Bisericii
Ortodoxe Romane (Bucharest)
EL Études de lettres: bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de
l’Université de Lausanne et de la Société des Études de
Lettres
Elenchos Rivista di studi sul pensiero antico
EMA Europe in the Middle Ages (Richard Vaughn,
gen. ed.)
EMC Echos de Monde Classique
Emerita Emerita: revista de linguistica y philologia clasica, Madrid
Enn. Enneads
ENS École Normale Supérieure
Eos Eos: commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum
EP Les Etudes Philosophiques
Ep. Aneb. Epistola ad Anebonem
Ep. Barn. Epistle of Barnabas
EPG Études de philosophie grecque
EPHE École Practique des Hautes Études. IVe Section,
sciences historiques et philologiques
Epimeleia Revista de estudios sobre la tradicion. Buenos Aires
Departamento de filosofia. Universidad Argentina
John F. Kennedy
EPHE Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Section Science
Religieuses
EPHR Encyclopédie de la Pleiade, Histoire des Religions
Epist. ad epis. et Epistola ad episcopos et plebes
EPRO Etudes Préliminaires aux religions orientales dans
L’Empire Romain (M. J. Vermaseren, ed.)
ERAW Edinburgh Readings on the Ancient World
ESPR École des Sciences philosophiques et religieuses
ET Expository Times
Eth. nic. Ethica Nicomachea
EUP Edinburgh University Press
FC The Fathers of the Church (Hubertus R. Drobner, ed.)
F & F Forschungen und Fortschritte
FGrHist Die Fragmente der griechischen Hisotriker (Felix Jacoby,
1923-58)
FGT Fragmente griechischer Theosohien (H. Erbse, ed., 1941)
xxxii  Abbreviations

FI Florentia Iliberritana: revista de estudios de antiguedad

clasica
FKD Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte
GB Grazer Beiträge
GCRW Greek Culture in the Roman World (Susan E. Alcock,
et al., eds.)
GCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten
Jahrhunderte
Ger Germania
GFF Giornale Filologico Ferrares
GH Gorgias Handbooks
GIF Giornale Italiano di filologia
Glotta Glotta. Zeitschrift für Griechische und Lateinische
Sprache
Gorg. Gorgias
G & R Greece and Rome
GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies
Gregorianum Gregorianum: commentarii de re theologica et
philosophica
GRRS Graeco-Roman Religion Series (Hans Dieter Betz and
Edward N. O’Neill, eds.)
GSIA Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches
HAA Hamburger Arbeiten zur Altertumswissenschaft
HA Historia Antigua
H&A History and Anthropology
HABES Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und
Epigraphische Studien
Habis Habis: arqueologia, filologia, clasica. Sevilla,
Universidad
Harnack Adolf Harnack, Porphyrius, « Gegen die Christen », 15
Bücher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate,”
Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klassa.
(1916) 1–115. (CC=Contra Christianos, followed by
Frag. and no.)
HCS Hellenistic Culture and Society (Bulloch et al., eds.)
HDAC Histoire des Doctrines de l’Antiquité Classique
(Fondateur, Jean Pépin)
H.E. Historia ecclesiastica
HEL Helikon
 Abbreviations  xxxiii

Helikon Helikon: Rivista di tradizione e cultura classica

Helmantica Helmantica: revista de filologia clasica y hebrea
Hermathena Hermathena: A Series of Papers by Members of Trinity
College, Dublin
Hermes Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassiche Philologie
Hesperia Hesperia: Journal of the American School of Classical
Studies at Athens
His Historia
Hist. adv. pag. Historia adversus paganos
Hist. arianorum Historia arianorum ad Monachos ad mon.
Hist. Laus. Historia Lausiaca
Hist. Phil. De historia philosophiae
H.N. Historia naturalis
HJ The Hibbert Journal
Hom. in Johannem Homiliae in Johannem
HPQ History of Philosophy Quarterly
HR History of Religions
HS Hellenic Studies
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HTR Harvard Theological Review
Humanitas Revista do Instituto de Estudios classicos. Faculdade De
Letras, Coimbra
HUP Harvard University Press
HUT Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie (Hans
Dieter Betz, Gerhard Ebeling, and Manfred
Mzsger, eds.)
HWP Historische Wörterbuch der Philosophie (J. Ritter
et al., eds.)
HYPERBOREUS Studia Classica. St. Petersburg: Bibliotheca Classica
Petropolitana
IAHR International Association for the History of
Religions
IAP Irish Academic Press
IASH Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
ICP Inscriptions of Central Pisidia (G. H. R. Horsley and
Stephen Mitchell, eds.)
ICS Institute of Classical Studies
IEA Institut d’Études Augustiniennes
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IEPI Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali
xxxiv  Abbreviations

IFC Instituto di Filologia Classica

IGA Inscriptiones Graecae Aegypti
IGLN Inscriptions greques et latines de Novae (Mésie
Inférieure) (Jerzy Kolendo and Violeta
Bozilova, eds.)
IGRom Inscriptiones Graecae ad res romanas pertinentes (R.
Cagnat, et al., eds., vols. 1–3; G. Lafaye, ed., vol. 4)
IGRRP Inscriptiones Graecae ad res romanas pertinentes
IGSK Inschriften Griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien
IGUR Inscriptiones graecae urbis Romae (L. Moretti, ed.)
IH L’Information Historique
IHBR Institut Historique Belge de Rome
IJPT The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition
ILS Inscriptiones Latinarum selectae (H. Dessau, ed.)
ILSL Istituto Lombardo di Scienze e Lettere (Milan)
In Dan. Commentarium in Danielem
In Ezech. Hom. In Ezechielem Homiliae
In Gal. Commentarium in Galatas
In Gen. Quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim
In Ioel. Commentarium in Ioelem
In Is. Commentarium in Isaiam
In Matth. Commentarium in Mattheum
In Os. Commentarium in Osee
In Psalm. Commentarii in Psalmos
In Remp. Commentarii in platonis rem publicam
In Tim. In Pltonis Timaeum commentariorum fragmenta
InvLuc Invigilata Lucernis
IPA Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum
IPQ International Philosophical Quarterly
Iraq Iraq. Published by the British School of Archaeology
in Iraq
ISAC Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture
Isag. Isagoge
Isis Isis: International Review Devoted to the History of
Science and its Cultural Influences. Washington,
Smithsonian Institution
ISMC Ian Sanders Memorial Committee
ITQ Irish Theological Quarterly
ITQM Irish Theological Quarterly Monograph Series
IUP Indiana University Press
 Abbreviations  xxxv

JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum

JAH Journal of Ancient History
JAMS Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies
JANES Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
JCPS Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JHI Journal of the History of Ideas
JHP Journal of the History of Philosophy
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JHUP Johns Hopkins University Press
JLA Journal of Late Antiquity
JHUP Johns Hopkins University Press
JMS Journal of Mithraic Studies
JNG Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte.
München: Bazerische Numismatische Gesellschaft
JOB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Bzyantinistik
JOUHS Journal of the Oxford University History Society
JPNP Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique
JPR Journal of Philosophical Research
JPST Jahrbuch für Philosophie und speckulative Theologie
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRH Journal of Religious History
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSAH Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
K Klio H. Donner & W. Röllig (Wiesbaden, 1966–1969)
KHA Kölner Historische Abhandlungen
Koinonia Κοινωνια: organo dell’Assoc. di Studdi Tarddoantichi
KTAH Key Themes in Ancient History
LAS Libreria Ateneo Salesiano
Latomus Latomus: revue d’études latines. Bruxelles
LCE Licinio Capelli Editore
LCL Loeb Classical Library
LH Legal History
Liber Caes. Liber de caesaribus
LivUP Liverpool University Press
LN Le Neoplatonisme. Colloque international du C.N.R.S.,
Royaumont, juin 1969 (Paris: CNRS, 1971)
xxxvi  Abbreviations

LSAW Law and Society in the Ancient World (Dennis

P. Kehoe et al., eds.)
LUP Leuven University Press
LZD Literarisches Zentralblatt für Deutschland
Maia Maia: Rivista di letterature classiche
Met. Metamorphoses
MH Museum Helveticum
MIR Moneta Imperii Romani
ML Memorial Lagrange
Mnemosyne Mnemosyne: Bibliotheca Classica Batava
Mort. pers. De mortibus persecutorum
M.P. Martyrs of Palestine
MRev The Maynooth Review
MS Medieval Studies
MSM Medieval Studies at Minnesota
MSch The Modern Schoolman
MUP Manchester University Press
Muséon Muséon: Revue d’études orientales
MUSJ Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph
De myst. De mysterii
NAFMM Nuovi Annali della Facoltà di Magistero dell’Università
di Messina
NAPS North American Patristics Society, Monograph Series
NC La Nouvelle Clio
NCHP Nouvelle Clio. L’Histoire et ses problèmes
NChron Numismatic Chronicle
ND Nuovo didaskaleion
NF The Nicene Fathers
NHPC North Holland Publishing Company
NPAW New Perspectives on the Ancient World
NPNF The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers
NT Novum Testamentum
OAWNW Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften
Nordhein-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften
OC Oriens Christianus
OCA Orientalia Christiana Analecta
OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary (Simon Hornblower and
Anthony Spawforth, eds., 3rd ed.; Oxford: OUP, 1996).
OCD2 Oxford Classical Dictionary (N. G. L. Hammond and
H. H. Scullard, eds., 2nd ed.; Oxford: OUP, repr., 1978)
 Abbreviations  xxxvii

OCM Oxford Classical Monographs

OCP Orientalia Christiana Periodica
Od. Oddyssey
ODCC Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church 3rd ed. (F.
L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, 1997)
OEAGR Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome
(Michael Gagarin and Elaine Fantham, eds.,
5 vols., 2010)
OECS Oxford Early Christian Studies
OECT Oxford Early Christian Texts
OEEC Oxford Encyclopedia of the Early Church (Angelo Di
Berardino, 1992)
OHCC Oxford History of the Christian Church
OHJDL Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman
Palestine (C. Hezser, ed., 2010)
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary (P. G. W. Glare, ed.)
O-O Oriens-occidens
Opus Theol. Opus Theologicum
Or. Orationes
Or. ad sanc. coet. Oratio ad sanctorum coetum
Or. c. Iul. Oratio contra iulianum
Or. Fr. Chaldaean Oracles (Fragments)
ORP Oxford Readings in Philosophy
Orpheus Orpheus: Rivista di unmanità classica e cristiana
OSAPh Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy
OSHT Oxford Studies in Historical Theology
OUP Oxford University Press
PA Philosophia Antiqua
PAB Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge (Pedro
Barceló et al., eds.)
Pan. Lat. Panegyrici latini
Pap. Geiss. Papyrus Gissensis
Pap. Oxy. Oxyrhynchus Papyri
PAPhS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
Pat Patavium
PBR Patristic and Byzantine Review
PC Problèmes et Controverses, Jean-François Courtine,
Directeur
PCBE Prosographie Chrétienne du Bas-Empire I. Afrique
(A. Mandouze, 1982)
xxxviii  Abbreviations

PCPS Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society

PCRMUP Publications de Centre de recherches mythologiques
de l’Université de Paris X
PE Praeparatio evangelica
Per Perficit
PG Patrologia Graeeca (Migne)
PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae (K. Preisendanz et al., eds.)
PhAnt Philosophie der Antike
Pharos Pharos. Studien zur griechisch-römischen Antike
PHC Penguin History of the Church
Phd. Phaedo
Phdr. Phaedrus
Phil. Hist. Philosophiae Historia
Phil. orac. De philosophia ex oraculis
PhilosAnt Philosophie Antique
Philologus Philologus: Zeitschrift für Klassiche Philologie
Phoenix The Phoenix: The Journal of the Classical Association
of Canada
Ph&Rh Philosophy & Rhetoric
Phronesis A Journal for Ancient Philosophy
PIAC Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Cristiana
PIPS Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies
PISO Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium
PL Patrologia Latina (Migne)
PLRE Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (A. H. M.
Jones et al., eds., Cambridge, 1971).
PMS Patristic Monograph Series
PPF Philadelphia Patristic Foundation
PPhil Prima Philosophia
PPHSA PERIPATOI. Philologisch-Historische Studien zum
Aristotelismus
PRE Paulys Real Encyclopädie der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft
Protr. Protrepticus
PSB Parinti si Scriitori Bisericesti
Ps. Just. Pseudo Justin
PSUP Pennsylvannia State University Press
PTA Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen
PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series
PTS Patristische Texte und Studien
 Abbreviations  xxxix

PUC Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz

PUF Presses Universitaires de France
PUL Publications Universitaires de Louvain
PUP Princeton University Press
PWN Editions scientifiques de Pologne, Warsaw
QUCC Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica. Pisa: Istituti
Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali
RA Recherches Augustiniennes
RAC Rivista di archeologia cristiana
RAnt Revealing Antiquity
RAAL Rendicotti della Accademia di archeologia, lettere e
belle arti
RArc Revue Archeologique
RAL Rendiconti della Classe di delle Scienze morali, Storiche
e filologiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei. Roma
RAR Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia romana
d’archeologia
RB Revue Biblique
RBN Revue belge de numismatique et de sigillographie.
RBPH Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire
RCSF Revista critica di storia della filosofia
RC Religione e cultura
REA Revue des Etudes Anciennes
REAP Revue des Études augustiniennes et patristiques
REAug Revue des Études Augustiniennes
REG Revue des Études Grecques
REHMC The Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Collection
REL Revue des Études Latines
RelSR Religious Studies Review
REP Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Edward Craig,
ed., 1998)
Rep. Republic
Retract. Retractationes
RFIC Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica
RFN Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scholastica
RGRW Religions in the Graeco-Roman World
RHAW Routledge History of the Ancient World
RHE Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique
RHHA Regards sur l’Histoire. Histoire Ancienne sous la
direction de Olivier Picard
xl  Abbreviations

RHLR Revue d’Histoire de literature religieuses

RHP Revue d’Histoire de la Philosophie
RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses
RHR Revue de l’Histoire des Religions
RIB The Roman Inscriptions of Britain (R. G. Collingwood
and R. P. Wright, eds., 1995)
RIC The Roman Imperial Coinage (Sutherland and Carson,
eds., 1967)
RiSR Ricerche di Storia Religiosa
RLAR Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Daniel Boyarin
et al., eds)
RMeta The Review of Metaphysics
RMM Revue de Metaphysique et de Morale
RMP Rheinisches Museum für Philologie
RN Revue numismatique
ROr Res Orientales
RPA Revue de Philosophie Ancienne
RPFE Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger
RPhL Revue Philosophique de Louvain
RPL Res publica litterarum : Studies in the classical tradition.
RQS Revue des Questions Scientifiques
RRel The Review of Religion
RRP Religion der Römischen Provinzen
RS Religious Studies
RSA Rivista di Storia Antica
RSCI Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia
RSI Rivista Storica Italiana
RSLR Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa
RSM Religion, Science, and Magic
RSPh Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques
RSR Revue des Sciences Religieuses
RSRel Recherches de Sciences Religieuses
RTHP Université de Louvain Recueil de Travaux d’Histoire et
de Philologie
RTP Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie
RVV Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten
S Sophia
SA Studienbucher Antike
SAEIAP Studiea Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, Ius
Antiquum et papyrologicam pertinentia
 Abbreviations  xli

SAPERE Scripta antiquitatis posterioris ad ethicam

religionemque pertinentia Religionemque pertinentia
Sat. Saturnalia
SBA Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft
SBAW Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SC Sources Chrétiennes
SCI Scripta Classica Israelica
SCO Studi classici e orientali Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e
Poligrafici Internazionali
ScRel Sciences Religieuses
SDR Storia Delle Religioni
SemetClass Semitica et Classica
Sent. Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes
Serm. Sermones
SFMA Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike (Maria
R.-Alföldi, ed.)
SGKA Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums
(Chantraine, Hackens, and Zwierlein, eds.)
SGLG Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia
SHA Scriptores Hisotirae Augustae
Shep. Herm. Shepherd of Hermas
Sim. Similitudes
Sileno Sileno: rivista di studi classici e cristiani
SIRIS Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae
(Vidman, ed.)
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity
SH Studia Historica
SicGymn Siculorum Gymnasium
SIFC Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica
SIG Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (W.
Dittenberger, ed.)
SIRIS Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Sarapiacae
SM Scripta Mercaturae
SMC Studi di metrica classica FragmentaArabica David
Wasserstein interpretante. (Stuttgart and
Leipzig: Teubner, 1993).
SMP The Society of Medicine Press, Ltd. (London)
SNAM Studies in Neoplatonism, Ancient and Modern
xlii  Abbreviations

SNTSMS The Society for New Testament Studies

Monograph Series
SO Symbolae Osloenses
Soc. Schol. Socrates Scholasticus
SOHE Shorter Oxford History of Europe
SP Studia Phoenicia
SR Studies in Religion (Per Bilde et al., eds.)
SRE The Scholar’s Reference Edition (Chicago)
SRel Studies in Religion
SPAW Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften
SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
SR Storia di Roma
S-S Saalburg-Schriften
SSTF SYMBOLON. Studi e Testi di Filosofia Antica e
Medievale, Università di Catania
ST Studi e Testi
STA Studia et Testimonia Antiqua (V. Buchheit, ed.)
STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum
S Tar Studi Tardoantichi
STT Studia Traditionis Theologiae. Explorations in early
and Medieval Theology (T. O’Loughlin, ed.)
StudCl Studies in Classics (Routledge)
StudPat Studia Patristica
SubHag Subsidia Hagiographica
SUNYP State University of New York Press
SyllClass Syllecta classica. University of Iowa
SWC Sammlung Wissenschaftlicher Commentare
SWKGR Sammlung Wissenschaftlichen Kommentare zu
Griechischen und Römischen Schriftstellern
TaF Testi a fronte
Tal Talanta
TALA Textes A L’Appui
TAPhA Transactions and Proceedings of the American
Philological Association
TCH The Transformation of the Classical Heritage (Peter
Brown, gen. ed.)
TCL Translations of Christian Literature
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Gerhard
Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich )
 Abbreviations  xliii

TF Testi a Fronte
TH Théologie Historique
ThL Theologische Literaturzeitung
Theoph. Theophany
ThPi Theta-Pi
ThQ Theologische Quartalschrift
ThR Theologische Revue
TIR Tabula Imperii Romani Iudaea Palaestina (Y. Tasfrif,
L. Di Segni, and J. Green, eds.)
Tht. Theaetetus
TKAWR Texte und Kommentare eine
Altertumswissenschaftliche Reihe
TPV Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana
TRAC Annual Theoretical Archaeology Conference
Tract. in Marc. Tractatus in Marci evangelium
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1996)
TSECLL Texts and Studies in Early Christian Life and Language
TSJL Thomas Spencer Jerome Lectures
TT Texts and Translations (Hans Dieter Betz and Edward
O’Neill, eds.)
TTrad Textes et Traditions
TTH Translated Texts for Historians
TU Texte und Untersuchungen
TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
Altchristlichen Literatur
UCCS University of California Publications Classical Series
UCP University of California Press
UChiP University of Chicago Press
UDP Université de Dakar Publications de la Section De
langues et littératures
ULP University of London Press
UMP University of Michigan Press
UNDP University of Notre Dame Press
UOP University of Oklahoma Press
UPA University Press of America
UPP University of Pennsylvania Press
OSCC Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture
USHS Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg.
Contributions et travaux de l’Institut d’Histoire Romaine
xliv  Abbreviations

UTP University of Toronto Press

VC De vita constantini
VChr Vigiliae Christianae
VCSS Varioum Collected Studies Series
VD Verbum Domini
VetChr Vetera Christianorum
Vit. Phil. Vitae Philosophorum
Vit. Plot. Vita Plotini
Vit. Pythag. De Vita Pythagorae
Viv Vivarium
VÖAW Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften (Wien)
VU Vrije Universiteit
WaG Die welt als Geschichte
WBEP William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
WGRW Writings from the Greco-Roman World (John
T. Fitzgerald, gen. ed.)
Wolff Gustavus Wolff, Porphyrii de Philosophia ex oraculis
haurienda librorum reliquiae (Berlin, 1856).
WS Wiener Studien
WSUP Wayne State University Press
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament. Hengel and Hofius, eds.
YCS Yale Classical Studies
YSR Yale Studies in Religion
ZA I Ziva Antika
ZAC Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum
ZAG Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte
ZAS Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen
Gesellschaft
ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirkengeschichte
ZNTW Zietschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und
die Kunde des Urchristentums
ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
ZRG Zeitschrift für Religions und Geistesgeschichte
ZWT Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie
PA RT  I

Porphyry of Tyre and the Quest for a

Pagan Counterpart to Christian
Universalism
 1

Porphyry of Tyre
Life and Historical Context

Si al comienzo no muestras quién eres,

No podrás después cuando quisieres.
Don Juan Manuel, El Libro del conde Lucanor

A cknowledged by friend and foe alike for his intellectual

acumen and superb knowledge of the philosophical and religious traditions of
the ancient Mediterranean world, Porphyry possesses the indisputable crown of
being the greatest anti-Christian writer of antiquity.1 Modern scholars have
noted his multifaceted expertise as well, and he has thus been variously called
philosopher, pagan believer, controversialist, scientific theologian, historian,
polymath, propagandist, and even the first systematic theologian in the history
of Western civilization.2 Though his first modern biographer, Bidez, concluded
that Porphyry’s thought was without originality,3 there has been a growing con-
sensus since Hadot’s monumental two-volume work, published in 1968, that the
Neoplatonic philosopher was much more of an original thinker than has hith-
erto been thought.4 Equally one of the most enigmatic and influential writers of
Late Antiquity,5 much of his work has been preserved only in fragments, and
modern interpretations of his life and writings have often been influenced by
what his Christian adversaries wrote about him.6 Until modern scholarship
begins to take a careful look at Porphyry not from the perspective of his
Christian adversaries, but rather with an open mind sensitive to the distinct
cultural developments of a religious and philosophical nature that characterized
the later Roman Empire, we will continue to misunderstand this enigmatic
thinker whose writings are indispensable for an understanding of the unprece-
dented transformations that occurred during the period from Diocletian to
Constantine.7 This chapter will analyze Porphyry’s life and works and their col-
lective influence upon his age with just such an open mind. We are now pre-
pared to trawl in the deep and often murky waters of Porphyry’s world.

Birth and Early Life

Ancient sources are in overwhelming agreement that Porphyry was born in the
Phoenician coastal city of Tyre,8 and the year appears to have been a.d. 234.9

3
4  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

According to Eunapius, Porphyry’s ancestors were “distinguished men.”10 His

original name was Malcus which derives from the Syriac word ‫ܡܠܟܐ‬, which
means king.11 Porphyry himself informs us that the Greek equivalent for the lat-
ter was βασιλεὺς:
Basileus was in fact my name, for in my native language I was called
Malcus (my father’s name), and if one translates Malcus into Greek it is
interpreted as Basileus.12
It was only after he began his studies in Athens that Longinus changed his name
to Porphyry,13 which is related to the color worn by kings and emperors in the
ancient Mediterranean world.14 He was certainly not the only person who bore
these names in his city or the eastern half of the Roman Empire.15
Though there is no incontrovertible evidence that Phoenician was still spo-
ken in Tyre in Porphyry’s times,16 Eunapius’ testimony that he advanced rapidly
in an excellent liberal education, 17 corroborated by the contents of his surviving
works, may suggest that he knew Syriac and other Semitic languages, and per-
haps also Latin as well.18 We can concur with Bidez, who asserted that Porphyry
was very knowledgeable of the Orient and its culture, being well versed in the
mysteries of Chaldaea, Persia, and Egypt.19 Augustine’s remark, moreoever, that
Porphyry had thoroughly investigated the religious cultures of the Indians and
Chaldeans in his quest to find the via universalis animae salutis liberandae,20
reveals not only the intensity of his intellectual pursuits and research, but also
his vast knowledge of eastern civilizations.21 The latter, however, as Millar
astutely observes, does not imply knowledge of the languages of these
cultures.22
Several ancient authors connect Porphyry geographically with Batanaea,23
which was a village circa sixteen miles due east of Caesarea in Palestine, and
circa sixty miles south of Tyre.24 It has even been suggested that this was possibly
his birthplace.25 It was famous for its medicinal baths,26 and Josephus informs us
that Herod established a colony of Babylonian Jews there to protect caravans of
pilgrims travelling from Babylon to Jerusalem.27 Keeping in mind that Eunapius
claims a prominent ancestry for Porphyry and considering the fact that he
received an excellent education both in Tyre and later in Athens,28 we may con-
clude that he most probably grew up in a wealthy family; the references to
Batanaea should thus be accepted as historically accurate and suggest that
Porphyry’s family might have owned an estate in this area south of Tyre that
they visited during summer vacations.29 Though it is going too far to conclude
that the word Bataneota as a description of Porphyry was used simply for
polemical purposes by his Christian adversaries,30 it is equally erroneous to
claim this as his birthplace.31
 Porphyry of Tyre  5

Tyre was located in the Semitic country of Phoenicia north of modern

Israel.32 Located off the coast of modern Lebanon, it is included in a list of Asiatic
city-states conquered by the second-millennium B.C. Egyptian Pharoah
Thutmose III (r. 1479–1425 b.c.).33 Historical data derived from the centuries
before Christ strongly indicates that early in its history, primarily due to its geo-
graphical location as an important port in the eastern Mediterranean, Tyre
developed a very lucrative system of international trade and commerce with
many countries beyond its borders including those of Asia, Africa, and Europe.34
It was ruled by kings, and the monarchy was most probably hereditary.35
Ashurbanipal II’s (883–859 b.c.) expedition to Lebanon mentions tribute from
Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, and other coastal cities of Phoenicia, a tribute which con-
sisted of a diversity of commodities such as gold, silver, tin, copper and copper
products, linen garments with multicolored trimmings, monkeys of various
species and sizes, ebony, boxwood, and ivory.36 Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727
b.c.), a later Assyrian emperor, received similar tribute from Hiram, king of
Tyre:37 among the items enumerated are purple- and blue-dyed wool,38 which
eventually made the city one of the principal purple-dye manufacturers and
international markets of this expensive commodity in the Greco-Roman
world.39 Colonists from Tyre, Sidon, and other cities in the Levant began to
establish settlements along the coast of North Africa in the ninth and eighth
centuries B.C.40
The Assyrian exploitation of the Tyrian economy, however, appears to have
produced political revolts against this north Mesopotamian imperial power,
and these occurred during the reigns of Esarhaddon (680–669 b.c.)41 and
Ashurbanipal (668–633 b.c.),42 both of whom were forced to besiege the city, a
military tactic repeated by the later conquerors Alexander the Great (most
famously) and Antigonus.43 After the successful implementation of these sieges,
there is no evidence for the continuation of kingship in Tyre, and Grainger is
correct to suggest that the monarchy was probably replaced by a Republican
constitution with the citizens as the sovereign authority.44 By 200 b.c. it had
come under the rule of the Seleucids,45 and in 64 b.c., as a result of the eastern
campaign of Cn. Pompeius Magnus, the people of Syria and Phoenicia became
Roman subjects.46 During the war of succession of a.d. 194 between the North
African general Septimius Severus and Pescennius Niger, Tyre was among a
number of Palestinian cities which allied themselves with the Severan camp and
was accorded the status of metropolis of the province of Syria.47
From the preceding survey of Tyre’s history, it is apparent that owing to a
convergence of eastern and western cultures, the city became thoroughly
Hellenized in the centuries between Alexander the Great (d. 323 b.c.) and the
rise of Rome as an imperial power after the Battle of Actium (31 b.c.).48 Not only
6  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

was Hellenization acutely felt in the cities of Phoenicia and Syria, but also, as
Bowersock has shown, in outlying villages and rural areas as well.49 All the con-
ventional features of Greek civilization, from gymnasia, temples, and basilicas
to one of the largest circuses in the eastern Roman Empire,50 made Tyre one of
the most Hellenized cities in the eastern Mediterranean world.51 Its religious
culture, moreover, is representative of the religious history of the Roman Near
East, which has been described as an intersection between “indigenous” and
“foreign” elements.52 It also produced a rich Christian hagiographical tradition
with which Porphyry will have been familiar.53
The city’s trade and commerce flourished and enhanced its status in the
Roman Empire. In addition to its thriving purple-dye factories,54 Tyre minted
silver shekels and half-shekels, a rare and privileged enterprise, which displayed
the Semitic, Tyrian deity Melqart and an eagle on the obverse and reverse,
respectively.55 Some of the more noteworthy Tyrian exports included olive oil;
the purple dye noted; timber; bronze manufactured goods;56 as well as dates and
fine flour exported to Egypt;57 and its most famous industry was shipbuilding.58
Imports consisted of such items as wine, grains, raw materials, manufactured
goods, incense from Arabia, slaves from Africa and the interior of Palestine, and
fish from the Mediterranean.59 From this composite picture of the economic life
of the city, one can readily deduce that Tyre developed into a prosperous inter-
national hub of trade and commerce during the Hellenistic and Roman Empire
periods.
A pre-Hellenic inscription from the city reveals a very early interest in liter-
ary culture, writing, the precise formation of letters of the alphabet, and litera-
ture in general.60 Ancient sources also inform us that Tyre had a reputation for
teaching geography,61 and it became famous as a center for the study of Roman
Law: Ulpianus of Tyre was the major jurist of the third century, undoubtedly the
most widely read lawyer of the imperial period, and his works on Roman juris-
prudence were the most comprehensive until Justinian’s Digest in the sixth
century a.d.62
Based upon data derived from more than six thousand extant Phoenician
and Punic inscriptions and the rich information that the two relevant mytholo-
gies or religious systems of Philo of Byblos’ The Phoenician History and the
Ugaritic texts from Ras Shamra (composed before 1200 b.c.) provide the mod-
ern historian,63 it is clear that religion played a vital role in the history and cul-
ture of Phoenicia in general and Tyre particularly.64 Though Herodotus says that
the most important deity of Tyre was Heracles,65 he is speaking from the per-
spective of Hellenic cultural influence, but before the latter was conspicuous in
Phoenicia it was the cult of Baal that reigned supremely in the city-states of
ancient Lebanon.66 The god’s name is Semitic: the cognate terms in the Hebrew
 Porphyry of Tyre  7

(‫) ַּבעַל‬, Aramaic (‫ ) ַּב ֲעלָא‬and Syriac (‫ )ܒܥܠ‬languages denote owner, lord, ruler, or
even husband,67 and convey the cultic meaning that Baal was worshipped as the
supreme deity in ancient Phoenicia and demanded total dedication of his wor-
shippers.68 Hence the concept of ownership best describes the relationship
between the Phoenician Baal and his devotees, exemplified in the most horren-
dous manner by the ancient practice of infant sacrifice.69 The latter was
demanded by Baal-Hamon,70 denounced by a number of Hebrew prophets,71
and after the Phoenicians colonized North Africa in the late ninth century b.c.,
it continued in the Punic culture.72 On the latter, Clifford’s assessment is signifi-
cant: “The practice of infant sacrifice is surely verified for Carthage by massive
archeological evidence.”73 Porphyry himself alludes to the ritual in his De absti-
nentia,74 and infant sacrifices to Baal Hamon and his consort Tinnit performed
at the tophet in Carthage date from the late eighth century b.c.75 When the
Romans conquered the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars, which ended in 146
b.c. and eventually created Africa Proconsularis as a province, Baal-Hamon was
syncretized into Saturn,76 and worship of the god, apparently including the
practice of infant sacrifice,77 continued until the early fourth century a.d.,
attested by a stela consecrated to the deity and dated 8 November a.d. 323,
located circa sixty-four kilometers north of Le Kef (Sicca Veneria) close to the
Zahret Mediène and due west of Bejá.78 Originally given the Phoenician name
Tinnit Pene Baal, the god’s consort in Roman North Africa was identified with
Caelestis.79
Ugaritic myths antedating the Greco-Roman period provide invaluable data
on the principal deities worshipped at Tyre. These include (e.g.) Athirat; Melqart,
one of the principal deities associated with Tyre whose cult appeared there in
the tenth century b.c.;80 Baal Malage (earth deity); Baal Saphon (sea deity);81
Baal Shamin (sky deity);82 and Shamash (sun deity).83 We may add to these
Eshmun, whose magnificent temple was located at Sidon;84 Ishtar; a number of
lesser deities described as “Cedar gods;” fertility deities with their concomitant
cults; and a good number of “sky” or “high” gods, most notably Theos Hagios
Ouranios, probably to be associated with Baal Shamin.85 The latter was wor-
shipped across Syro-Phoenicia at high altars, which were a salient feature of
ancient Semitic religious culture.86 In his anti-Christian rescript set up initially
at Tyre, Maximin Daia proudly referred to the city as “a temple and dwelling
place of the immortal gods” where Zeus presided royally over its citizens.87
Noteworthy also is what appears to be the full acceptance and popularity of the
Imperial Cult at Tyre, evidenced in the dedication of a market during the
Tetrarchy to the genius of Maximian Herculius.88 By Porphyry’s period,
Christianity appears to have been established in Tyre and other Phoenician cit-
ies, and we may conclude with Bidez that there was strong resistance to the
8  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

religion before the outbreak of the Great Persecution.89 It is worth noting that
Eusebius lists Tyrannion, the bishop of Tyre, who was drowned at sea, as one of
the most famous martyrs during the persecution.90 Though it is impossible to
give any solid numbers for the Christian community at Tyre during this period,
Dionysius of Alexandria provides evidence strongly suggesting that it was the
principal Phoenician bishopric by the middle of the third century.91
The sense of individual or collective safety, well-being, and success, with a
great emphasis upon temporal, as opposed to eschatological, blessings, which
all of the nuances of σωτηρία or salus conveyed in the religious and philosophi-
cal beliefs and practices of Greco-Roman paganism, which will be analyzed in
the next chapter, is amply documented by a rather rich and diverse number of
primary sources derived from Tyre and surrounding cultures.92 These reveal the
importance of blessings and curses,93 the centrality of animal sacrifice on the
apparent basis of do ut des,94 and the ubiquitous votive offering,95 all of which
underwent a process of syncretization during the Hellenistic Age (323–30 b.c.);96
and the perceived need, recorded in (e.g.) prayers, rituals, and political treaties,
of receiving such blessings as divine mercy and forgiveness, physical healing,
military victories, good harvests, protection from one’s enemies, regular rain-
fall, successful voyages, civic harmony, and an abundance of good food and
clothes.97 Finally, it is very significant for the present study to note that the
Northwest Semitic cultures that included Phoenicia and Syria were renowned
for their belief in and support of oracles and prophetic revelation, or as one
scholar describes it, the prophetic arts in general.98 And we also must mention
the widespread belief in Phoenicia in the sacredness of the king’s tomb.99 This
apparently goes far back into the early history of these areas, and a few examples
of the many that can be given must suffice: Arrian informs us that a Syrian
prophetess followed Alexander the Great, giving oracles during his eastern
Mediterranean campaign;100 and half of a century before Porphyry’s birth,
Origen says that Syria experienced an influx of itinerant prophets who were
predicting the end of the world.101 It is little wonder, then, that the same cultural
milieu produced the most formidable anti-Christian writer of antiquity, whose
primary objective was not only to calumniate biblical prophecy, but also to pub-
lish circa a.d. 302 his De philosophia ex oraculis for the purpose of offering
prophecies from the pagan gods that offered salvation for all who read its
divinely inspired pages.102
During his youth Porphyry undoubtedly travelled to Alexandria, Syria, and
Palestine,103 but the story found in Eunapius about Porphyry’s casting out a
demon from a certain bath when he was young should not lead one automati-
cally to conclude that the date for the writing of De philosophia ex oraculis was
from the same period.104 This is one of the principal texts that inspired the
 Porphyry of Tyre  9

Wolff-Bidez hypothesis, which dates all of the so-called highly religious and
superstitious works, including especially the Phil. orac., in the period before
Porphyry had come under the influence of Plotinus (i.e., before a.d. 263) and
the more philosophical works like De regressu animae in the post-Plotinian
period (after a.d. 263).105 Eunapius’ full text needs to be analyzed:
He himself says (but perhaps as seems likely he wrote this while he was
still young), that he was granted an oracle different from the vulgar sort;
and in the same book he wrote it down, and then went on to expound at
considerable length how men ought to pay attention to these oracles. He
says too that he cast out and expelled some sort of daemon from a certain
bath; the inhabitants called this daemon Kausatha.106
It is clear that Eunapius himself is not certain (“as seems likely”),107 the name of
the book from which the story is derived is unknown, and there is no evidence
that suggests it was published when Porphyry was young. Also, “there is no
evidence in the entire Porphyrian corpus that suggests Porphyry ever lost
interest in the religious traditions of the masses, so a work containing such an
interest does not preclude a post-Plotinian date.”108 We shall analyze this pas-
sage more thoroughly below. Though Bidez is correct to say that the story about
chasing a demon from a bath reveals Porphyry’s interest in demonology and
angelology, this does not mean that the work in which the story was found
must have been written in his youth.109 Eunapius gives the name of the demon
as Καυσάθαν,110 which Barton originally suggested should be derived from the
Syriac for both “cleansing” and “filth,”111 but a better possibility perhaps is the
verb ‫ܟܤܐ‬112 which in the passive participle form gives the meanings of concealed,
secret, or occultic or mystical revelation.113 If this is correct, Porphyry may indeed
have performed an exorcism in the bath noted of a demon thought to be
involved in occultic arts of the sinister kind, condemned by the Old Testament
and patristic authors,114 which plausibly included the casting of magical spells,115
a widespread practice that formed a significant aspect of the religious
Weltanschauung of ancient Phoenicia attested by (e.g.) two seventh-century
b.c. spells from Arslan Tash that invoke Sasam and Horon against what appears
to be malevolent nocturnal spirits; and the seventh-century b.c. treaty between
Esarhaddon and Ba’al king of Tyre.116 Magical incantations were not, however,
restricted to the Levant, as the story given by Porphyry himself about Olympius
of Alexandria’s attempt to cast a spell on Plotinus attests.117 We can conclude
that the story about the exorcism might have come from Phil. orac. or a num-
ber of other Porphyrian works, but Bidez’s hypothesis that it must have been
written before Porphyry went to Athens when he was young is highly
tendentious.118
10  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Another and even more important aspect of Porphyry’s youth concerns his
relationship with Origen,119 the great biblical exegete and theologian from
Alexandria. Exactly when the encounter took place between the two cannot be
established, but we know that Origen was in Caesarea, a city with a population
of around forty thousand inhabitants at that time, from a.d. 230–circa 254,120
which coheres with Porphyry’s youth,121 and the meeting may have occurred in
the years just before the Decian Persecution when Porphyry was circa sixteen to
eighteen years old.122 Though Alexandria and Tyre are possibilities for the
venue,123 a vast majority of scholars conclude that they met each other in
Caesarea.124 Goulet suggests that we do not know whether the meeting was brief
or occurred over a prolonged period of time.125 However, as Digeser judiciously
observes, the statement found in Athanasius Syrius, corroborated by Nicephorus
and Socrates Scholasticus, which she suggests may derive from Eusebius of
Caesarea’s Contra Porphyrium in twenty-five books, that Porphyry was a disci-
ple of Origen the Christian from Alexandria appears to be based on historical
fact.126
In light of the aforementioned data, we may posit the following plausible
scenario. Porphyry, in his late teens when he was impressionable and possessed
with a precocious and curious mind, was attracted to the intellectually stimu-
lating lectures on biblical exegesis and theology that Origen gave at the school
in Caesarea, a city circa fifty miles due south of Tyre on the coast and circa fif-
teen miles east of the family estate at Batanaea. He was mentored by the latter,
and this helped to lay a foundation in the development of his skills in philology
and literary criticism, as well as advanced studies in the Old and New
Testaments based primarily on Origen’s allegorical method of hermeneutics.127
Porphyry was converted to Christ, and for a brief period in his youth he was
committed to the Christian faith.128 Magny has astutely observed: “It is even
possible, as W. Kinzig, among others, has argued, that Porphyry, like Julian,
had a Christian background, which would explain his knowledge of the reli-
gion as well as his aversion to it.”129 Whether this implies receiving the sacra-
ment of baptism cannot be ascertained and is doubtful,130 but the position of
this study accepts as valid the testimony of Socrates Scholasticus and the
Theosophia131 that Porphyry was a Christian in his youth, and he abandoned the
faith after being physically assaulted by Christians in Caesarea.132 We may thus
suggest the following possible areas of influence which Origen may have
exerted upon Porphyry:

1. Knowledge of the Christian scriptures, especially the prophetic books of

the Old Testament,133 with the high possibility that Porphyry learned
Classical Hebrew.134 If Porphyry knew Phoenician and Syriac,135 since they
 Porphyry of Tyre  11

are in the same language family as Classical Hebrew (Northwest Semitic),

they have much in common with respect to grammar, cognate words, ver-
bal paradigms, the use of prefixes and suffixes, morphology, word order,
alphabet, sibilants, triliteral roots, and syntax. It will not have been diffi-
cult for him to learn Classical (Biblical) Hebrew at Origen’s school in
Caesarea within the period I have suggested, around a.d. 248–50.136
A good number of the extant fragments of the Contra Christianos betray a
sound knowledge of the Old Testament.137 One informs us that Porphyry
knew the prophetic books of the Old Testament very well because he spent
much time in studying them.138
2. Biblical exegesis and theology and an exposure to the allegorical method
of biblical hermeneutics for which Origen’s school was famous.139
3. Literary criticism and philological analysis of the Greek text of the New
Testament. The fragments of the CC reveal that, whether Porphyry’s exe-
gesis and hermeneutical method were accurate, the detailed analysis
implies an advanced knowledge of scripture, which presupposes a pro-
tracted period of time under the tutelage of one or several mentors.140
4. The importance of virtue from a religious (biblical) and philosophical per-
spective, something that Porphyry developed later in such works as
Sententiae, which became the basis for his soteriological paradigm found in
(e.g.) De philosophia ex oraculis and De regressu animae.141 If the relationship
between Origen and Porphyry was one of mentor and disciple, Stefaniw’s
remark about the importance of its ethical content is significant:  “Participating
in noetic exegesis, for a student, meant engaging in a relationship of disci-
pleship or spiritual patronage with the teacher-exegete, and also signified
dedication to spiritual, mental, and moral advancement.”142
5. The first exposure to an advanced study of the Greek philosophical tradi-
tion. Beatrice is correct to posit that the list of Greek philosophers con-
tained in Harnack CC frag. 39 (Eus., HE VI.19.2–9 [=Jurado CC 24])
strongly suggests that Porphyry spent a sufficient amount of time at
Origen’s school in Caesarea where he heard the Alexandrian theologian’s
lectures on these authors and their works.143 Origen’s knowledge of both
Greek philosophy and the Christian scriptures will have attracted a young
intelligent man like Porphyry whose curiosity about religious matters
might have been initiated as a result of listening to lectures in the school
at Caesarea: “Un jeune païen intelligent et curieux de religion pouvait
avoir le désir d’approcher ce chrétien célèbre dont on disait qu’il connais-
sait les Écritures jueves et chrétiennes mieux que personne, et les philos-
ophes aussi bien que les Écritures, et qui réalisait á un rare degré dans sa
vie l’idéal ascétique du sage.”144 This first exposure to the epistemology,
12  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

ontology, and metaphysics of the Platonic tradition will have inculcated in

Porphyry the importance of cultivating his mind, “cleansing” his soul, and
progressing in the virtues: “Engaging in noetic exegesis signified one’s
awareness of and interest in a particular goal in the spiritual life, namely
the cultivation of the νoῦς. It signalled a certain superiority over those
‘simpler brethren’ for whom a superficial understanding of biblical narra-
tives was sufficient.”145
6. Personal knowledge of Christian homiletics and church administration.
Since Origen was well known for his preaching based upon the biblical
text, Porphyry will have heard him during the Eucharistic gatherings at
Caesarea.146
7. Conversion to Christianity. As noted above, however, this would not
imply that Porphyry was baptized or advanced to one of the lower orders
(e.g., reader) in the Church. It is highly possible that Origen was instru-
mental in Porphyry’s attachment to the Christian faith. It is suggested that
circa a.d. 250 the physical assault mentioned by Christian sources took
place in Caesarea at a critical moment in the Roman Empire’s relationship
with Christianity: the first universal state persecution of the Christians
under the emperor Decius.147 These two factors, one personal and the
other international, will have caused Porphyry to reconsider his commit-
ment to Christ and eventually abandon the faith to which he once had
been attracted.
8. An understanding of Christian theology and the experience of debating
major theological doctrines with other Christians at the school in
Caesarea, a practice which continued in the Neoplatonic School under
Plotinus in Rome as evidenced in Porphyry’s refutation of the rhetorician
Diophanes’ defense of Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium.148 A fragment
from the CC derived from Jerome’s commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
24:16–17 states that Eusebius responded to Porphyry’s criticism of the
“Abomination of Desolation” found in that passage in books 18, 19, and 20
of his Contra Porphyrium (which had a total of twenty-five books); and
Apollinarius “scripsit plenissime” against the same Porphyrian argument.
I suggest that (a) this implies that Porphyry developed a meticulous argu-
ment against this prophetic teaching; and (b) it strongly suggests a prior
experience of debating theological doctrines in Origen’s school at
Caesarea.149 Trigg’s remark is sagacious: “To assure that his student would
develop his own critical sense, Origen would exercise oikonomia in the
ethical sense, accommodating himself to his pupils by deliberately con-
cealing his own opinions.”150 We may note here that Harnack’s argument
that the testimony of Athanasius about Gregory Thaumaturge’s refutation
 Porphyry of Tyre  13

of Porphyry must be erroneous because he died circa a.d. 270 in the reign
of Aurelian and Porphyry (he assumed) wrote the CC circa the same year
is not acceptable if the refutation came from the period when both he and
Porphyry were students at Origen’s school in Caesarea.151

A very plausible conclusion is that such a detailed knowledge of the scriptures—

including a working knowledge of passages in the original languages (Classical
Hebrew and Hellenistic Greek); the books of the Old Testament and New
Testament; Christian theology, exegesis, hermeneutics, and homiletics—
implies, if not a prolonged, at least an intensive period of study under one or
more Christian mentors. Porphyry certainly did not learn these Christian dis-
ciplines at Plotinus’ school in Rome. Both the presupposed length of time in
which he studied and the fact that he was mentored by a Christian teacher
points to Porphyry’s studying under Origen. The period suggested is circa a.d.
248–50, and the place would appear to be the school in Caesarea.152 We may
add that Porphyry most probably was first exposed to Christian concepts of
soteriological universalism in a well-developed form by hearing Origen’s
lectures.
It was sometime in the early a.d. 250s, perhaps in the year 253, that Porphyry
began his studies under Longinus in Athens.153 One ancient source calls his
teacher, Longinus,“a living library and a walking museum.”154 Longinus studied
under Ammonios Sakkas. Garth Fowden is undoubtedly correct to say that
Longinus dominated the intellectual life in Athens in the mid-third century,155
and he probably occupied one of the prestigious chairs of philosophical educa-
tion that had been created by the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius circa a.d.
176.156 As noted above, Longinus changed his pupil’s name from the Semitic
Malchus to Porphyry, the color of imperial clothing.157 Both men apparently
remained close friends throughout their respective careers,158 for Porphyry
mentions a letter from his former professor circa a.d. 268 in which he was
invited to return to Phoenicia.159 Not long after receiving Porphyry’s negative
response to the invitation, Longinus was summoned to the court of Queen
Zenobia at Palmyra where he apparently possessed political responsibilities,
promoted Hellenistic culture, and might have been an advisor to the govern-
ment.160 After the successful invasion of Palmyra by Aurelian in a.d. 272,
Longinus was executed as a traitor.161
Porphyry’s insatiable thirst for knowledge came to fruition during his studies
in Athens. Eunapius informs us that there was no branch of learning that he
neglected, mentioning rhetoric, grammar, mathematics, geometry,162 music,
philosophy, and the “art of divination” (θεoυργὸν τελεταῖς) as some of the
major disciplines in which he was well read.163 He further states that Porphyry
14  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

read philosophy widely,164 and though history is not found on the list, we can
conclude from his works that he was very knowledgeable of this subject as well,
recalling Peter Brown’s judicious observation: “As a historian, Augustine was
quite outclassed by Porphyry.”165 He studied geometry under Demetrius and
grammar under Apollonius, but it was Longinus’ expertise in Greek philology
that profoundly impacted his intellectual development and helped to lay a foun-
dation for what eventually became a successful career in literary criticism, edi-
torial work, and the philological works for which Porphyry became famous.166
The precise interpretation of and commentary upon texts that became a central
feature of his works are, indeed, indebted greatly to the literary education he
received from Longinus;167 and what Porphyry tells us about Longinus and his
work, the historian of ancient history can equally attribute to his pupil: “. . . the
most discerning critic of our times, a man who subjected practically all the
works of his other contemporaries to drastic investigation, to show what con-
clusion he came to about Plotinus…”168 While still in Athens Porphyry proba-
bly published the Homeric Questions, a textual and literary analysis of the
Homeric poems; De antro nympharum, an allegorical interpretation of Homer,
Od. 12.102–12;169 and Περὶ ἀγαλμάτων, a philosophical study of the statues of the
gods.170 Though his thought certainly underwent transformations after he left
Athens, the philological skills that he developed under Longinus continued to
benefit him in his later career as a Neoplatonic philosopher, religious scholar,
and literary critic.171
When he was thirty years old Porphyry came to Rome in either July or August
in the tenth year of the emperor Gallienus, or the year a.d. 263.172 Porphyry
attended the lectures there given by Plotinus at his Neoplatonic School and
eventually became his disciple.173 Though the lectures were open to all,174 Bidez
is undoubtedly correct in saying that the school was organized “avec plusieurs
degrés d’initiation,”175 and Porphyry himself distinguishes between the ζηλωταί
and ἀκρoαταί among Plotinus’ disciples.176 A similar reference to two different
levels of philosophical instruction is found in Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae.177 We
are told that many physicians and Roman senators came to hear Plotinus,
including Marcellus Orontius, Sabinillus, and Rogatianus, who renounced his
political career to become a philosopher.178 Plotinus’ sphere of influence was
presumably extensive, and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of Porphyry’s
statement that the emperor Gallienus and his wife greatly honored him and
seriously considered his request to build a “city of philosophers” in Campania
south of Rome apparently patterned after Plato’s Republic.179 It should be noted
that below I will develop an argument that Porphyry’s search for a universal way
to the salvation (purification) of the soul resulted in what can conveniently be
called a tripartite universalist soteriological paradigm which included not only
 Porphyry of Tyre  15

the mature Neoplatonic philosopher, but also philosophical students at the nov-
ice and intermediate levels and the uneducated masses who participated in the
traditional cults. Perhaps the concept of Platonopolis provides a clue as to how
this system would have been implemented, considering especially the four
classes of virtues in the Plotinian scheme, and particularly taking careful note of
how the civic virtues might have played a vital salvific role in incorporating the
masses in this ideal Platonic city. The project indeed proposed that a “city of
philosophers” would be built, but in any community of this nature the common
masses, including the proverbial butcher, baker, and candlestick maker (not to
mention carpenters, mail carriers, and so forth) will have made up an important
component in the city’s political, social, and spiritual welfare. In the Vita Plotini
we are told that many men and women of the highest social classes of Roman
society brought their children to Plotinus before they died so that he could rear
them because, Porphyry says, he was a holy and godlike guardian.180 This
strongly implies that Plotinus was very sensitive to the spiritual welfare of the
children under his care; and we can venture to say that they were not introduced
to Plotinian Metaphysics 101 right away. Hence a “way” for the salvation/purifi-
cation of the souls of both the children and those adults who were not possessed
with an aptitude for philosophy will have been provided in this ancient utopia
which was characterized by the conventional Neoplatonic emphasis upon the
need to move up the scala virtutum to ultimate union of the soul with the One.181
As Helm has observed, this ideal had the purpose of harmoniously uniting
rational individuals and rational government based on the Platonic doctrine of
the purification of the soul: “La educación es por consequente de importancia
suprema en la sociedad Platónica como un instrumento para ofertar a cada
individuo la máxima oportunidad para liberarse de la servidumbre de un medio
que lo esclaviza.”182
During his six years in Rome (a.d. 263–268) Porphyry evidently became
a close confidant of his master, and we often read in the pages of the Vita
Plotini fascinating insights into his character and more than superficial
information about his life. Admittedly, often it is difficult to separate his-
torical fact from the biographical topos carefully designed by its author for
propaedeutic and didactic purposes. Early on we are informed that Plotinus
had a god—not a daimon—as a guardian spirit that manifested itself during
an occultic ritual conducted by an Egyptian priest in the temple of Isis.183
When Amelius invited Plotinus ritualistically to participate in worshipping
the gods, Plotinus is reported to have given the now famous response: “They
ought to come to me, not I to them.”184 This does not as much imply that he
rejected the traditional cults as it denotes the great importance that he
placed upon the life of contemplation.185 Plotinus’ supernatural discernment
16  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

and superior intellect are accentuated. His surpassing ability to penetrate

the character of individuals, we are told, enabled him to identify a thief,186
and he was able to foretell the future of children and exactly when people
would die.187 Porphyry believed that he wrote under the inspection and
supervision of the gods and attacked the deceptive revelations of the
Gnostics.188
More than a glimpse of Porphyry can be gleaned from the pages of the Vita
Plotini as well. His analytical mind and inquisitive spirit are apparent in the
statement that he persisted for three days in asking Plotinus about the soul’s
connection with the body, which bothered a fellow-student at the school named
Thaumasius,189 revealing the very methodical and meticulous nature of
Porphyry’s intellectual pursuits. Noteworthy here also is the latter’s testimony
about a poem he read at Plato’s feast:
At Plato’s feast I read a poem, The Sacred Marriage; and because much in
it was expressed in the mysterious and veiled language of inspiration
someone said, “Porphyry is mad.” But Plotinus said, so as to be heard by
all, “You have shown yourself at once poet, philosopher, and expounder of
sacred mysteries.”190
The reference to καί τινoς διὰ τὸ μυστικῶς πoλλὰ μετ’ ἐνθoυσιασμoῦ
ἐπικεκρυμμένως and Plotinus’ response, ἔδειξας ὁμoῦ καὶ τὸν πoιητὴν καὶ τὸν
ϕιλόσoϕoν καὶ τὸν ἱερoϕάντην, strongly indicate that even while he was a stu-
dent under Plotinus, Porphyry did not abandon his interest in the traditional
cults.191 Bidez’s assessment of Porphyry as a religious man during his age is saga-
cious: “Le besoin de révélation, de rédemption, d’ascéticisme et d’immortalité
lui inspire une foi apparenteé à celle de ses adversaires.”192
As one might expect, Porphyry’s philological expertise and the concomitant
precise interpretation of texts that he learned under Longinus in Athens surface
intermittently in the Vit. Plot. A few examples will suffice. In Vit. Plot. 15 we read
that Plotinus asked Porphyry to write a refutation of the rhetorician Diophanes’
defense of Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium.193 Second, when Eubulus the Platonic
Successor in Athens sent treatises to the school in Rome on various Platonic
questions, Plotinus entrusted Porphyry with the responsibility of analyzing
them and submitting his notes to him.194 Third, Porphyry’s refutations of the
book of Zoroaster showed it to be a spurious and recent work not written by the
author by that name.195 This most probably gives the reader a glimpse of the kind
of literary criticism that characterized the Contra Christianos. Finally, Porphyry
was the main one who encouraged Plotinus to write his philosophical lectures
down at length, organize his doctrine, and this ultimately resulted in the editing
of the Enneads.196
 Porphyry of Tyre  17

Porphyry left Rome at Plotinus’ suggestion in a.d. 268 after succumbing to

depression that resulted in suicidal tendencies197 and went to Lilybaeum, Sicily,
where he lived at least until the death of Plotinus in 270.198 How much time he
lived in Sicily is not known, but the suggestion that he may have continued to
live there for most of his life is judicious.199 The fact that he was known as “the
Sicilian” by Christian writers may corroborate this view.200 And although the
claim that the Contra Christianos was written while he was living in that island
country appears to be credible, a date of a.d. 270 as a probable terminus ante
quem for its publication is not tenable, and it will be argued below that T. D.
Barnes’s suggestion of circa a.d. 300 coheres best with the events preceding the
outbreak of the Diocletianic Persecution in February 303.201 In any event, the
Sicilian sojourn was one of the most fruitful periods of his literary career: In
addition to the CC, he wrote also the Isagoge, the first text in Late Antique and
Medieval philosophical studies that impacted Western intellectual develop-
ments for a millennium;202 commentaries on several Aristotelian works; and
most likely the De abstinentia.203 At Lilybaeum, we are told, he attended the
lectures of the philosopher Probus, exchanged correspondence with his former
professor Longinus, who invited him to return to Phoenicia,204 probably visited
Tyre,205 and lived in Carthage, Africa Proconsularis (modern Tunisia) long
enough to raise a partridge.206 We can venture to say that during his time in
North Africa, Porphyry will have given lectures on philosophy, which included
his developing anti-Christian arguments, and the result will have been the
obtaining of followers whom Arnobius of Sicca Veneria, a city to the south of
Carthage, called the “New Men” or viri novi.207 Since Arnobius betrays knowl-
edge of Porphyry’s anti-Christian arguments found in the CC and Phil. orac.,
and may himself have been one of the viri novi in his attacks upon the Christian
faith, the pledge of sincerity that the bishop of Sicca required him to write
resulted in the Adversus nationes in seven books.208 These contained the retrac-
tations of his formerly held Porphyrian anti-Christian criticisms of Christianity.209
We shall analyze more thoroughly Arnobius’ response to Porphyry below.
After Plotinus’ death in a.d. 270, Porphyry returned to Rome.210 How long he
stayed there is unknown, and it is possible that he continued to move back and
forth between the imperial capital and Sicily throughout his life. It has been sug-
gested that he continued Plotinus’ school, but evidence for this is lacking.211
Hoffmann’s hypothesis that Porphyry developed an “intense dislike for popular
religion” after his return to Rome is certainly erroneous.212 A number of ancient
sources state that Iamblichus was his disciple.213 After a period of study with
Porphyry in Rome, the latter returned to his native country of Syria where he set
up a Neoplatonic school in Apamea,214 which probably occurred sometime in
the 280s.215 Porphyry published the Enneads when he was sixty-eight.216 Two
18  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

years later he forsook the philosophical principle of celibacy and married a

Jewish widow named Marcella from Palestinian Caesarea, who had seven chil-
dren, five daughters and two sons.217 A letter written to her while Porphyry was
en route to the imperial conference convened by Diocletian whose purpose was
to discuss what the imperial government should do with the Christians gra-
ciously encourages his wife of ten months to continue her studies in philoso-
phy.218 Below we shall see how his advice to her on the purification of the soul is
related to his universalist soteriological paradigm.
The final years of Porphyry’s life are shrouded in absolute obscurity.219
Though Barnes believes it is highly doubtful that Iamblichus ever studied
under Porphyry,220 a good number of scholars accept Eunapius’ testimony
about their relationship in Rome, though Fowden is correct to note that after
Iamblichus completed his studies, the center of gravity of Neoplatonism
shifted to the eastern provinces when Iamblichus eventually settled in Apamea,
Syria.221 Sometime before his sixty-eighth birthday Porphyry claims that he
experienced union with the One, something that his mentor achieved several
times before he died.222 Eunapius says that Porphyry lived to an advanced old
age, and the Souda asserts that he died during the reign of Diocletian. Since
the latter abdicated in a.d. 305, we may offer this as the probable year of
Porphyry’s death.223
Among the legacies of Porphyry is his fame as the most formidable
anti-Christian writer of antiquity. Though the De philosophia ex oraculis in three
books was certainly not written primarily to attack Christianity, it undoubtedly
contained a number of anti-Christian oracles. The Contra Christianos, on the
other hand, written in fifteen books and based upon the method of literary
retorsion, had the overt purpose of attacking the Bible, and as we shall see below,
a good number of Christian writers wrote against this work.224 His writings on
philosophy, science, biology, religion, literary criticism, vegetarianism, embry-
ology, an allegorical interpretation of Homer, mysticism, oracles, and many
other subjects created a perceived image of Porphyry as one of the leaders of the
Greco-Roman intelligentsia in the third century a.d. The Isagoge, probably writ-
ten while he was in Sicily, exerted significant influence upon Latin-, Greek-, and
Arabic-speaking cultures for many centuries after his death.225 Reading between
the lines given us by Eunapius at the end of his short biographical sketch of
Porphyry’s life, his thought, like that of any thinker from any period in history,
evolved throughout his career.226 As Luc Brisson has noted, the student of
Plotinus influenced Marius Victorinus in Rome, as well as Calcidius, whose
Latin translation and commentary on the Timaeus had a critical impact through-
out the Middle Ages.227 Others who came under his spell included Claudianus
 Porphyry of Tyre  19

Mamertus, Nemesius, Synesius of Cyrene, Aeneas of Gaza, John Philoponus,

St. Ambrose, St. Gregory of Nyssa,228 and St. Augustine.229 His overall legacy can
perhaps best be summed up in the astute assessment of Dörrie:
“Porphyrios war der letzte grieschischer Denker, der den Westen in fun-
damentalen Weise beeinflußt hat.”230
 2

Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology

I’m not going to die. I’m going home like a shooting star.
Sojourner Truth

Elizabeth Digeser is correct to say that the “ideas about

the chronology, titles, and even the contents of Porphyry’s books have varied
widely throughout the twentieth century.”1 However, in his biographical
study of Porphyry published in 1913, Bidez argued that a great part of the
Neoplatonic philosopher’s work was dedicated to the search for a salut indi-
viduel,2 something that scholars since then have, unfortunately, often
ignored. Soteriological principles do appear to permeate a vast majority of
his writings. A major thesis of this book thus takes its cue from Bidez,
expands the ideological perimeters, and posits that Porphyry’s quest for a
via salutis universalis animae liberandae, including both Neoplatonic phi-
losophers and the uneducated masses, is the grand thème littéraire of the
entire Porphyrian corpus, and thus represents the Weltbild that thematically
forms a unifying catalyst enabling the modern historian to get an under-
standing of the major objectives of his philosophical and religious works.
We now turn to these before placing them in their cultural, historical, social,
and philosophical contexts. It should be noted that the following general
survey of Porphyry’s works is not exhaustive and the chronology suggested
is based upon the premises, as noted above, that the major objective of
Porphyry’s literary career was to offer a way of salvation for the soul that
included both philosophers and the uneducated masses. If this “big picture”
description is correct, the project indeed might have taken him decades to
develop, and the so-called contradictions in Porphyry’s thought—for exam-
ple, in the De abstinentia sacrifice is rejected, but in the De philosophia ex
oraculis it is upheld—become complementary components of an integral
whole: a comprehensive soteriological paradigm whose individual stages
served the purpose of cleansing that part of the soul that was appropriate for
the recipient’s spiritual or metaphysical level. This is the major focus of the
present study and will be explored in detail in the following chapters both
with respect to Porphyry’s quest to find universal salvation and Eusebius’
response.

20
 Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  21

CATEGORY NUMBER OF WORKS NUMERICAL LISTING IN

SMITH (1993)

Aristotelian 10 1–10
Platonic 9 11–19
Plotinian 2 20–21
Historical 2 22–23
Metaphysical 13 24–36
Ethical 6 37–42
Mythological & Mystical 7 43–49
Homerica 6 50–55
Rhetorical & Grammatical 7 56–62
Scientific & Miscellaneous 7 63–69
Spurious or Uncertain 5 70–75

Smith gives sixty-nine indisputable works of Porphyry, which are subdivided

into the eleven categories above:3
Though other scholars have given different numbers and categories for the
Porphyrian corpus,4 Smith’s classifications would appear to be the most accurate,
notwithstanding the fact that the all-important chronological question related to
individual works is often completely ignored.5 In any event it will become obvi-
ous from the categories given that Porphyry was a prolific author and a polymath
whose knowledge was vast and interests were far-reaching. Before turning to
individual works and their specific and overall soteriological purpose, it is neces-
sary to make six preliminary observations about the corpus.
1. The erroneous assumption, espoused by such scholars as Wolff and Bidez,
which posits that a clearly delineated development of Porphyry’s thought
can be chronologically pinpointed as moving from a superstitious and
highly religious focus in the pre-Plotinian period, to a more rationalistic,
philosophical outlook in the post-Plotinian era, has in recent years come
under a critical reassessment and is now rejected by an increasing number
of scholars. The present study finds this hypothesis extremely weak and
thus completely rejects its premises as representing a plausible explana-
tion for the development of Porphyry’s thought.6
2. The importance of Porphyry’s allegorical method of hermeneutics must
be noted, though as Meredith has observed, Platonists rejected allegory on
the whole.7 Derived most likely from Numenius, Porphyry’s allegorical
method had the twofold purpose of (1) attempting to uncover the deeper
meaning of the text and (2) the use of proper exegesis to arrive at the
deeper meaning. Finally, even if Origen’s influence upon Porphyry in this
22  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

area of literary criticism is obvious, he did not accept the Alexandrian

theologian’s allegorization of the Bible.8
3. During the third-century crisis particularly there developed an acute inter-
est in oracles and oracular revelation as evidenced in the pagan-Christian
conflict concerning prophetic texts from their respective religious and phil-
osophical traditions, with the obvious pagan attack upon the prophetic
books of the Christian scriptures to disqualify the Christians’ claim that
Jesus Christ fulfilled all the messianic passages of the Old Testament. This
conflict impacted the intelligentsia of the Greco-Roman world including
the Neoplatonists of Plotinus’ school in Rome, as Mitchell has
noted: “Prophets of Apollo and pagan intellectuals of the late empire joined
forces to construct a way of talking about the gods which also pervades later
Greek philosophical writing.”9 Works such as De philospohia ex oraculis and
Contra Christianos are best understood against this cultural background.
4. Porphyry’s search for a via salutis universalis animae liberandae was sig-
nificant, and it greatly influenced his literary career as a whole. This not
only presupposes a lengthy period of time in which a final soteriological
paradigm was produced, but it also illuminates our understanding of the
“big picture” pagan-Christian conflict during the third-century crisis,
which will be analyzed in the following chapters. A better understanding
of the purpose of the Contra Christianos can be procured also if this gen-
eral Sitz im Leben is kept in mind.
5. The political influence of Plotinus and his school in Rome, from which
Porphyry benefitted in a very significant way, and the important role
which the latter played in the period immediately preceding the outbreak
of the Diocletianic Persecution in February a.d. 303 can shed invaluable
light on the significance of Porphyry’s literary career. Already in the a.d.
260s, as Porphyry informs us in the Vita Plotini, Plotinus and his circle of
philosophers in Rome were influencing the upper classes of the empire.
Mention here can be made of Zethus, an Arabian physician who gave
Plotinus an endowment from his estate.10 Paulinus of Scythopolis and
Eustochius of Alexandria were other physicians who attended the lectures
at the school.11 A number of these were involved in the affairs of state, and
Porphyry states they were very active and influential politicians.12 We are
also told that many Roman senators attended Plotinus’ lectures, among
whom were Marcellus Orrontius and Sabinillus.13 Rogatianus, another
senator, renounced his political career and became a philosopher.14 Many
men and women of the highest rank entrusted their children to Plotinus
when they realized their death was approaching.15 For twenty-six years,
moreover, while he lived in Rome, Plotinus acted as the arbitrator in many
 Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  23

people’s disputes.16 Plotinus’ influence went beyond the rich and famous,
however, for we are told that even the Emperor Gallienus and his wife
Salonina “greatly honoured and venerated” Porphyry’s mentor.17 They
appear to have been the source of the inspiration to revive a city of phi-
losophers in Campania, which the Neoplatonists were planning to name
Platonopolis.18 Plotinus’ connections with and influence upon the political
ambience of Rome, which we have just noted, and their legacy for
Porphyry’s later career have not been given the serious attention by schol-
ars that they merit. If historically we fast forward more than three decades
to when Diocletian and the other members of the Tetrarchy were involved
in the early stages of planning for the Great Persecution and keeping in
mind the important fact that by that time Porphyry was universally known
throughout the Roman Empire as the most formidable anti-Christian
writer, it would be surprising if Diocletian did not take full advantage of
Porphyry’s expertise and influence in the period just before the outbreak
of the persecution. We shall cover this aspect of Porphyry’s literary career
below, arguing that Porphyry attended the imperial conference that
Diocletian convened in the East in a.d. 302 to discuss what direction to
take against the Christians, and Porphyry alludes to the meeting in his
letter to his wife, the Ad Marcellam.
6. Though many scholars in the past have argued that Porphyry’s thought
contains nothing original,19 in recent years this position has been chal-
lenged and critically re-evaluated. There is now a growing consensus that
the opposite is true: The original aspects of Porphyry’s thought are now
being increasingly recognized by scholars. One key area is rhetorical the-
ory.20 However, there is much unexplored territory yet to be analyzed,
including Porphyry’s historical method, his interpretation of Aristotle,
scientific studies, social theory, and religious works, to mention a few.21

Before turning to individual books, it should be noted first that the position
taken by this study is that Porphyry’s quest for a via salutis universalis animae
liberandae is the great theme permeating many of his works, it is the ideological
glue that held the Porphyrian corpus together, and it involved a lengthy and
rather complex process necessitating decades of intensive research and the
development of thought before arriving at a final solution from a pagan polythe-
istic perspective, namely, a tripartite soteriological paradigm that included phi-
losophers and the uneducated masses.22 Two texts are critical for a precise
chronological assessment of this process. The first is derived from De regressu
animae and cited by Augustine.23 The second is derived from the Prologue to De
philosophia ex oraculis and cited by Eusebius.24 In the De. regr. an. passage
24  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Porphyry is reported to have searched for the via salutis universalis animae
liberandae and after what would appear to be a rather long period of investigat-
ing ancient religious texts and traditions, he concluded that one way for the
salvation of the soul for everyone was not possible. In the Phil. orac. text, how-
ever, Porphyry offers σωτηρία for all who read the work, and the view of the
present study is that the invitation was not restricted to a very small group of
elite philosophers, but in addition to the latter, it included the uneducated
masses as well.25 The conventional interpretation is that De regr. an. is the later
of the two works and was written in the last decades of the third century. The
Phil. orac. was thus the earlier work, from Porphyry’s so-called superstitious/
religious (i.e., pre-Plotinian) period. If this is correct, then we are to believe that
Porphyry offered universalism in the earlier work, only to change his mind later
when he became Plotinus’ disciple, resulting in the publication of De regr. an. Or
one might dance around the evidence and suggest that the “universalism” that
Porphyry offers in Phil. orac. is only for a small elite group of Neoplatonic phi-
losophers, which means that it was not really universalism in the strict sense,
and there is no contradiction between the two works.26 Causa finita est! These
interpretations are, however, quite forced and unnecessary.
In a recent article the present author has suggested the best way out of this
hermeneutical dilemma: The De regr. an. was the (probably much) earlier work
in which the possibility of universalism was denied; and the Phil. orac., written
(probably much) later, circa a.d. 302, represents Porphyry’s final solution to find
a form of universalism in the religio-philosophical traditions of Greco-Roman
paganism, which were naturally inimical to such a theological construct.
Porphyry’s conclusion was the tripartite soteriological paradigm that will be ana-
lyzed in the following chapters. It was the closest that Greco-Roman polytheism
ever came to a semblance of universalism, which was, in turn, constructed as a
counter-assault upon Christian claims that in Christ alone was found the via
salutis universalis animae liberandae.27 The following survey of pertinent soterio-
logical works will be categorized according to the tripartite paradigm noted.

The First Way: Salvation for the Masses

Included here are works that taught the importance of the traditional cults,
often incorporating theurgy, which enabled the participant to cleanse the spiri-
tual soul. A few examples may suffice. Book One of De philosophia ex oraculis, a
work written circa a.d. 302, set forth the basic guidelines for the first way of
salvation (for the masses).28 As we shall see below, it was his final word on a
complex problem—that related to finding the via salutis universalis animae
liberandae —which involved most probably decades of study and reveals the
 Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  25

final phase in the evolution of his mature thought. De cultu simulacrorum or On

Images29 has been called an apology for paganism, and it was written probably
before Porphyry left Athens.30 It analyzes the role that statues of the deities
played in traditional polytheism and how they symbolized deeper, philosophi-
cal principles.31 The Epistula ad Anebonem is very important soteriologically
because it reveals what appears to be the first phase of the intensive research into
the known religions of the world for the one via salutis mentioned by Augustine.32
After Iamblichus moved to Apamea he wrote a refutation of the epistle, which
had severely criticized the theurgical rituals that Iamblichus championed.33
A possible date for the epistle is thus the decade of the 260s when Porphyry was
making the transition from conventional philological studies to a life devoted to
the Neoplatonic doctrines of Plotinus,34 while simultaneously not abandoning
his desire to find a way to incorporate in some way the masses into his soterio-
logical system.35 As evidenced in the contents of the Epistula ad Anebonem,36
Porphyry was critically sorting out the inter-relationship between religious
practice and philosophical inquiry, asking the Egyptian priest penetrating ques-
tions about such matters as human religious experience, the traditional cults,
the nature of the gods and demons, the importance of prayer and sacred rites,
theurgy, and cult images.37 At the end of the letter Porphyry asks the Egyptian
priest Anebo a question which is very important for this study: ἐπέστησας γὰρ
μήπoτε ἄλλη τις λανθάνῃ oὖσα ἡ πρὸς εὐδαιμoνίαν ὁδóς καὶ τίς ἄν γένoιτo
ἐτέρα ἀϕισταμένη πρὸς εὐδαιμoνίαν εὔλoγoς πρὸς αὐτὴν ἄνoδoς;38 Augustine
informs us in the tenth book of the City of God that Porphyry, after extensive
research in the fields of philosophy, Indian religious culture, the initiation of the
Chaldaeans, and “any other way of life” (“aut alia qualibet via”), concluded in his
De regressu animae that there was no one system of thought that offered the via
universalis animae salutis liberandae). Since in the text cited above from the
Epistle to Anebo the question is raised concerning the possibility that another
way (ὁδóς) to ascending (ἄνoδoς) to a higher level of well-being (πρὸς
εὐδαιμoνίαν) with the gods may exist, I suggest that this work was written at the
beginning of Porphyry’s search for the universal way, and thus before the De
regressu animae.39
A precise description of the contents of De regressu animae cannot be estab-
lished owing to the fact that only fragments survive from this work. However,
based upon the data provided by Augustine in his De civitate dei, there is little
doubt that, though the one via universalis animae salutis liberandae had not
been discovered, Porphyry did offer at least two ways for the purification of the
soul, one for the intellectual part and the other for the spiritual part; and the
very erudite observation of Digeser on the soteriological themes common to
both De philosophia ex oraculis and De regressu animae is noteworthy for the
26  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

present study: “What is particularly interesting about both treatises is that they

firmly reject the notion that there is one path along which all souls must travel
in their return to the divine, and their claims that different paths lead different
types of souls to different heavenly spheres.”40 It is incorrect to assume that
because there are no noticeable Plotinian influences in De regr. an., the text can-
not be given a precise date of publication41 or that it must antedate Porphyry’s
Plotinian period; the chronology noted above, therefore, and analyzed below,
suggests that this work was written before the Phil. orac.,42 which, in turn, was
written circa a.d. 302. Although the work survives in fragments, which are
found only in Augustine’s De civitate dei, the primary purpose, major themes,
and sub-themes of De regressu animae are nonetheless rather easily ascertain-
able, and consequently they can help us get a good idea of the composite sote-
riological plan of the Porphyrian corpus as a whole.
Though the De regressu animae is not mentioned by name until X.29 in De
civitate dei, the thematic template of the work is obvious from the beginning
and can be deduced from Augustine’s developing argument. His introductory
statements thus imply that he is responding to Porphyry’s work. He begins by
giving the meaning of the traditional cults, religio, pietas, and other aspects cen-
tral to Greco-Roman polytheism (X.1). Then he addresses the themes of attain-
ing immortality and blessedness in the afterlife (X.3), the purification of the
human soul (X.3), the importance of virtue in the religious life (X.3), the mean-
ing of the true sacrifice (of Christ) (X.4–6), and the one universal path of salva-
tion offered by Christ (X.8). Augustine then turns to theurgy (X.9) and theurgical
ritual capable of cleansing the spiritual part of the soul, both of which are cri-
tiqued in more detail later in Book X (X.10).43 In X.26 an interesting statement
is made: Porphyry did not “fight against polytheism” (“sed contra multorum
deorum cultum non libere defendebat.”). Then two distinct ways for the salva-
tion (purification) of the soul are given.44 There are, thus, two soteriological
paths. One cleanses the lower or spiritual soul by means of theurgy, and the
other cleanses the higher or intellectual soul by means of Platonic philosophy
(X.27). Those who are cleansed in the spiritual soul do not return to the Father,
but rather go to the aetherial deities (X.27).45 Porphyry evidently emphasized in
the work that the intellectual soul cannot be cleansed by theurgical rites (X.27);
and Augustine, apparently referring to Book Two (see below) of De philosophia
ex oraculis, alludes to yet “another way” to cleanse the spiritual soul by means of
the virtue of continence (X.28: “posse continentiae virtute purgari”). It will be
argued below that this cleansing by means of one of the major virtues in the
Neoplatonic scala virtutum represented the second way or path in the Porphyrian
tripartite soteriological paradigm. Porphyry also accentuated the fact that only
a few attain to God by virtue of their intelligence (X.29).46
 Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  27

Eschatological salvation was another sub-theme in the work. Porphyry noted

that the purpose of the soul’s coming to earth from its prior incarnation was to
learn the evils of temporal existence and then ideally achieve permanent release
to the Father (X.30).47 In X.32, Augustine mentions Book I of De regr. an. and
the statement found at the end of that book that Porphyry had done intensive
research into the known religions of the world seeking to find the one via salutis
animae universalis without success, and the definition of universalism is
given: “Nam quae alia via est universalis animae liberandae nisi qua universae
animae liberantur ac per hoc sine illa nulla anima liberatur?” (X.32) Christianity
is eliminated as a viable candidate for universalism because Porphyry believed
that the religion would soon be destroyed (X.32). Finally, Augustine returns to
the two paths of purification for the lower and higher souls, respectively (X.32).
We can deduce from the aforementioned data related to the contents of De
regressu animae that the work dealt with traditional polytheism and Platonic
philosophy, the central subject was soteriology, and the two major literary
themes were the salvation of the lower soul through theurgy and the salvation
of the higher soul through Platonic philosophy. The work most probably con-
tained only two books, with each book addressing one of these two ways. We
may suggest that Book I addressed how theurgical rites cleansed the spiritual
soul and Book II taught how Platonic philosophy cleansed the intellectual soul.48
Based upon the fact that the time-consuming research to which Porphyry refers
at the end of Book I in De regr. an. and the fact that universalism was denied in
the work but was offered in Phil. orac., we may give a date for the former of the
decade of the 290s. We may further suggest that some of the earlier material
found in De regr. an. was reworked into Phil. orac. when it was published circa
a.d. 302 and the “other way” for the cleansing of the soul was the theme of the
second of the three books of that work.

The Second Way: Salvation for the

Novice Philosopher
In order to convert the soul from being attached to corporeal reality to contem-
plation upon the intelligible world by means of the Neoplatonic scala virtutum,49
Porphyry envisioned an intermediate stage or “second way” for the purification
of the soul by means of the virtue of continence whose primary target group
were novice philosophers.50 This second stage for the purification of the soul,
with its distinct class of students, should not surprise us: We have already noted
two distinct levels of instruction in the school of Pythagoras mentioned in Vit.
Pythag. 37 (trans. K. S. Guthrie): “His utterances were of two kinds, plain or
symbolical. His teaching was twofold: of his disciples some were called Students
28  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

(mathematikoi), and other Hearers (akousmatikoi). The Students learned the

fuller and more exactly elaborate reasons of science, while the Hearers heard
only the summarized instructions of learning, without more detailed explana-
tions.” And the tradition appears to have continued in the school in Rome
because Porphyry himself distinguishes between the ζηλωταί and ἀκρoαταί
among Plotinus’ disciples (Vit. Plot. 7.1–2):51 “Hierarchical soteriological sys-
tems, which included progressive spiritual stages culminating in a supreme
ontological or metaphysical principle, were common in the religious and philo-
sophical culture of Late Antiquity, and undoubtedly played a significant role in
the development of Porphyrian universalism.”52 In a broader cultural context,
we may give the seven initiatory levels of Mithraism, various levels for the
Gnostic sects, Origen’s tripartite classification, Manichaeanism’s two categories
of adherents, multiple initiations in Isiac worship,53 and even the Early Church
with its “practice of instructing catechumens to become full communicants.”54
Beginning with Wolff and Bidez and continuing to the present time, scholars
often classify Porphyry’s religious/superstitious works that convey sympathy for
the traditional cults as pre-Plotinian and those works that address philosophical
principles as post-Plotinian. This method of explaining the chronology of the
Porphyrian corpus is deficient. A thematic approach based upon the grand
thème littéraire of the corpus, the salvation/purification of the soul, is offered
here, and the second sub-theme is the “other” or “second” way which is analyzed
below. We shall give a few examples of the works which fall naturally into this
category.
The Vita Pythagorae formed part of the larger work titled Historia philoso-
phiae55 and depicted the great sage Pythagoras as the ideal holy man who
attained to “the universal wisdom of primeval times.”56 Written for the didactic
purpose of showing how one might achieve salvific knowledge and obtain the
purification of the soul,57 the Vit. Pythag. depicted the philosopher as a
miracle-worker who, like Apollonius of Tyana, theologically functioned as a
rival to Christ and a pagan competitor for the Gospels.58 Covering such
sub-themes as the purity of the ascetic life; reverence for the gods, demons, and
heroes; knowledge of God; the immortality of the soul; universal harmony; and
the mystical meaning of Pythagorean numerology, there was much in the work
to inspire the novice philosopher to cleanse his soul by the virtue of continence
and strive for contemplation upon intelligible reality and ultimate union with
the One. Though some have given a pre-Plotinian date for the work, we may
suggest that it was written circa the decade of the 260s at the beginning of the
intensive period of research into the religious and philosophical systems of the
world mentioned in Civ. Dei X.32.59 The dual soteriological system of the work
represents Porphyry’s tentative conclusions before writing the Phil. orac. when
 Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  29

he modified the system by incorporating the other or “third” way for the purifi-
cation of the soul (which technically was the second in the tripartite system).
The Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes is another example of a philosophical
work whose purpose was the instruction of novice philosophers in the basics of
Neoplatonism.60 Designed as a concise summary of the Plotinian system, the
Sententiae provides a soteriological guide for the purification of the soul which
incorporates the Platonic scala virtutum and how σωϕρoσύνη plays a central
role in the salvific progression from the civic to the exemplary virtues.61 Since
the work betrays indisputable Plotinian influence, it was probably written in the
late 260s. From the same period comes De abstinentia,62 written to Porphyry’s
friend Castricius for the purpose of convincing him to return to the ascetic life.63
It is significant that the tripartite nature of the soul is viewed in the context of an
existential struggle between the rational and irrational aspects of temporal
life: “De este modo, el esquema tripartito del alma (ἐπιθυμία, θυμóς, λoγισμóς),
tal como aparece en la República platónica, se adapta a una bipartición entre
ἀλoγία y λoγισμóς.”64
The Commentary on Ptolemy’s Harmonics, a “Greek philosophical school text
of the post-Plotinian period”65 and probably written in the same decade (260s),
gives metaphysical meanings to musical terms and was probably used to indoc-
trinate novice philosophers in basic Neoplatonic principles like “Intellect,”
“Being,” and “Soul.”66 Gersh is correct to say that the work was used in this man-
ner.67 The Cave of the Nymphs (De antro nympharum)68 is an allegorical inter-
pretation of Homer’s Odyssey 13.102–112 in the context of Platonic epistemology,
cosmology, and the flight of the soul from sensible to intelligible reality69 that
continued the author’s allegorization of mythological themes analyzed in the
earlier Homeric Questions.70 Though some scholars date it to the period when
Porphyry studied under Longinus, there is nothing to prevent us from assigning
it to the same period as the aforementioned texts—the decade of the 260s.71
Written as a propaedeutic philosophical tract whose primary aim was to
establish the novice philosopher in the basic rudiments of the “second way” for
the purification of the soul, the Epistola ad Marcellam contains the elementary
doctrines of Porphyry’s system,72 and “in spite of the cryptic references to
advanced Neoplatonic concepts, is best understood as an elementary exposition
of Neoplatonism which is neither fully representative of the complexity of
Porphyry’s mature thought nor of Neoplatonism as a philosophical system.”73
The criteria for inserting this work here is obvious: Ad Marcellam contains a few
references to the importance of the traditional cults and nothing about theurgy,
on the one hand; and on the other, one finds no mention of the higher Plotinian
principles like intelligible reality, the One, the Nous, and so forth. Indeed, the
letter to Porphyry’s wife of ten months fits perfectly with the doctrines of the
30  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

“second way” that we shall investigate in the following chapters. While recog-
nizing the importance of honoring the gods according to ancestral customs
(κατ̀α τὰ πατρία),74 Porphyry throughout the epistle emphasizes those elements
of Platonic philosophy that will have been beneficial to the novice: fleeing the
body, controlling the passions, living a virtuous life, weaning the reader from a
dependence upon corporeal reality, and moving her to the ultimate goal of con-
templating the two highest levels of the scala virtutum.75 A vast majority of
scholars date the work to the very late 290s or the early 300s.76 In the epistle
Porphyry says, “the needs of the Greeks summoned me and the gods joined
their requests,”77 which is a reference to his attendance at Diocletian’s imperial
conference in a.d. 302 whose primary purpose was to discuss strategy for a uni-
versal persecution of Christianity.78 We shall investigate this and other aspects
of the epistle below.79

The Third Way: Salvation for the Mature

Neoplatonic Philosopher
Turning now to those works that are pertinent to the “third way” for the purifi-
cation of the soul or the way of salvation for the mature Neoplatonic philoso-
pher, we begin with the Enneads. Representing the lectures given by Plotinus in
the school in Rome that were organized and edited by Porphyry after his mas-
ter’s death, the Enneads was arranged according to subject matter rather than by
chronological order.80 Put together circa a.d. 302–305,81 the work adopts the
six-nine division from which its title is derived.82 Its soteriological importance
for the Porphyrian tripartite paradigm analyzed below is inestimable: Plotinus
offers the ontological, metaphysical, theological, and ethical principles that
served as the primary spiritual guide for the purification of the intellectual soul
for the mature Neoplatonic philosopher and that, in turn, prepared him for ulti-
mate, permanent union with the One.83 Moreover, in order to show his readers
the salvific ideal toward which they should be striving, Porphyry inserted the
Vita Plotini at the beginning of the Enneads.84 Other Porphyrian works written
for mature philosophers would include his commentaries on such Platonic trea-
tises as the Timaeus, Cratylus, Phaedo, Philebus, Republic, Sophist, and the
Parmenides.85 We may also include here the Isagoge, which was for more than a
thousand years “every student’s first text in philosophy”86 and was translated
into Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Armenian.87 It is one of the works by Porphyry
that is the most difficult to date precisely, but owing to the contents, and the fact
that the author addresses a Roman, we may safely conclude that it was written
in the post-Plotinian period.88 It was written as an introduction to logic,89 and
important to keep in mind is the fact that students in antiquity began their study
 Contextualizing a Porphyrian Soteriology  31

of Platonic philosophy with Aristotle’s Organon.90 It will have served as an intro-

duction to elementary philosophical principles before students progressed to
more advanced studies in Plotinian physics, ethics, metaphysics, and
ontology.91
Rather than taking a chronological approach to dating Porphyry’s works on
the erroneous assumption that the religious and superstitious works are
pre-Plotinian and the philosophical works are post-Plotinian,92 we have taken a
thematic approach on the basis of the grande thème of the Porphyrian corpus,
the salvation of the soul, and have argued that a good number of the works fall
naturally into one of the three ways of salvation that Porphyry delineated.
Although a detailed analysis of this tripartite system will be given below, suffice
it to say now that the first way of salvation was designed for the masses who did
not have an aptitude in philosophy, and it included an emphasis upon the
importance of the traditional cults and an explanation as to how theurgical rit-
ual might cleanse at least the lower soul. The second way had the purpose of
weaning novice philosophers from a dependence upon traditional cults, and it
taught how one might cleanse the lower soul by means of the virtue of conti-
nence.93 This middle path prepared novice philosophers to progress to the third
and final way, which was for the mature Neoplatonic philosopher. The latter
obviously taught the importance of contemplation upon intelligible reality, flee-
ing corporeal existence, and ultimate union with the One. But arriving at this
conclusion did not occur in a short period of time. If Augustine’s testimony is
accurate—and there is no reason to assume otherwise94—the intensive research
into all the known philosophical and religious systems in the world must have
taken, not years, but decades to accomplish; and there is a discernible evolution
to Porphyry’s thought according to the composite soteriological picture which,
it appears, developed into its final form by the end of the 290s of the Diocletianic
Age. We shall explore this tripartite soteriology in the following chapters, how
they cohere with the age of crisis in the third century of the Roman Empire, and
how Eusebius’ universalism can be explained to a great extent as a Christian
response to Porphyry’s views (final chapters).
 3

De Philosophia ex oraculis
Soteriological Structure and Contents

There’s a Red House over yonder,

That’s where my baby stays…
Well, I aint been home to see my baby,
In about ninety-nine and one-half days.
Jimi Hendrix, Red House

T he Philosophia ex oraculis is certainly one of the most mis-

understood, while simultaneously one of the most controversial,
works of the Porphyrian corpus. Extant only in fragments quoted in works writ-
ten by his enemies, the Christians, there is very little about the work on which
scholars agree.1 We begin here with the very important chronological question.
Discarding the isolated and unconvincing argument made by Lardner in 1838
that Porphyry did not write the Phil. orac.,2 a good number of scholars, follow-
ing Bidez (1913), have suggested that the work was written when Porphyry was
young.3 In recent decades, however, there has been a growing number who take
the opposite view, namely, that he wrote the work in his later years, and some
have connected the work with the events preceding the Great Persecution. This
is the position taken by the present study. Fowden’s observation on the chrono-
logical question is significant here: “In short, there are no positive grounds for
dating the Phil. orac. to Porphyry’s youth… and it is naïve to suppose that
Porphyry passed from juvenile θρησκóληπτoς to middle-aged rationalist with-
out ever a backward glance.”4 The position of the present study is that the Contra
Christianos was written circa a.d. 300. Two years later, after Porphyry had
become known throughout the Roman Empire as the most formidable anti-
Christian writer of the third century, Diocletian invited him to the imperial
conference at Nicomedia referred to in Ad Marcellam 4.5 The Phil. orac. was
published shortly after this meeting and most probably in the same year (302) or
early in 303, and with the full support of the imperial government, to serve as a
proactive soteriological treatise aimed to confront Christian claims to univer-
salism. It was a work distinct from the Contra Christianos, De regressu animae,
De cultu simulacrorum, and all other polemical or religious works written by
Porphyry.6 Finally, the anonymous philosopher who, according to Lactantius,7
wrote three books against the Christians before the outbreak of the Great
Persecution was undoubtedly Porphyry of Tyre.8

32
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  33

We begin our investigations of De philosophia ex oraculis with the question

about the purpose of the work. Since Gustavus Wolff published his De philoso-
phia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae in 1856,9 an overwhelmingly vast
majority of scholars have uncritically accepted his arbitrary thematic classifica-
tion: Book I concerned the gods; Book II, the demons; and Book III, the heroes.10
Only a few scholars (e.g., Busine, Simmons, and A. Johnson) have questioned
Wolff ’s hypothesis. Busine has observed that according to Wolff, the first book
of Phil. orac. concerned the gods, but this was inspired largely from the sole
fragment 316 (Smith).11 Wolff thus built his entire argument on the theme of
Book I (gods) based primarily on one fragment. As will be shown below, more-
over, Wolff often attributed a fragment to a specific book when the passage from
which it was derived does not allow for such a designation at all. Busine’s assess-
ment of Wolff ’s methodology in creating his classifications per book as “toute
arbitraire”12 should be henceforth seriously heeded by any Porphyrian scholar
who attempts to analyze the contents of the De philosophia ex oraculis.13 I have
recently suggested that each of the three books concerned a distinct way of sal-
vation, namely, I. Uneducated Masses; II. Novice Philosophers; and III. Mature
Neoplatonic Philosophers.14 The latter classification will be further investigated
in the following chapters.
Scholars are not in agreement about the audience that Porphyry is addressing
in the Phil. orac.15 Some have argued that it was primarily an anti-Christian
work,16 while others believe it was written for pagans.17 Although it would appear
indisputable that the Chaldaean Oracles, which were introduced by Porphyry
into Neoplatonism sometime after Plotinus’ death,18 influenced the Tyrian’s
thought,19 owing to the fragmentary nature of the Phil. orac., it is often difficult
to get a clear picture as to the extent of Chaldaean theology upon the work.20 It
would appear, however, that basic concepts like the initial stages of ascent
involving the purification of the lower soul are examples of Chaldaean influ-
ence.21 Keeping in mind the aforementioned soteriological emphasis in the
Porphyrian corpus as a whole—what might be called the “ideological big pic-
ture”—and Andrew Smith’s suggestion that the Phil. orac. aimed at connecting
philosophy and religion and that “it forms perhaps part of his search for a ‘uni-
versal way’ of salvation,”22 the most prudent conclusion is that although the
work contained anti-Christian oracles, these were found in Book III where
Porphyry aimed at disqualifying Christ as the via universalis in the larger con-
text of offering to pagans three paths—one religious and two philosophical—to
the salvation (purification) of the soul.23
Recently two scholars, P. F. Beatrice and A. Johnson, have argued that the
Phil. orac. was written for a small group of “elite” philosophers whom Porphyry
was mentoring in the advanced principles of Neoplatonic philosophy.
34  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

According to this hypothesis, highly esoteric and mystical language permeated

the contents of the work, the exact meaning of which Porphyry expounded to
his students as if they were being initiated into a philosophical mystery reli-
gion. For example, Beatrice states: “Porphyry is mainly interested in stressing
the esoteric, elitist nature of the only universal way for the salvation of the soul,
the knowledge of which is of course reserved to the initiates of his school.”24
Stressing the pedagogical nature of the work, Johnson believes that it “was
meant only for those initiated into the philosophic quest of spiritual salvation.
A small coterie of students was envisioned, rather than the open-door policy
that we are told Porphyry’s own teacher, Plotinus, maintained.”25 Schott and
Tanaseanu-Döbler should also be added to this list.26 Though contributing
much to our understanding of Porphyry and his polemical works for the period
under analysis here, the premise of his book, namely, that Porphyry was search-
ing for and found the universal philosophy, and this was offered in the Phil.
orac., fails to appreciate the sensitivity which Porphyry expressed for incorpo-
rating the uneducated masses into his soteriological paradigm. The evidence,
moreover, derived from the extant fragments, as we shall see, does not support
this interpretation.
With respect to these revisionist views on the so-called “elitist” focus of
Porphyry’s works, nothing, however, could be further from the truth concern-
ing the aims and purpose of the De philosophia ex oraculis. First, everything
that we know about Porphyry and his works militates against such an elitist
interpretation. There was indeed an elitist substratum in Porphyry’s thought,
but this served as one component, as we have observed, in his broader soterio-
logical paradigm. There is not a shred of evidence that supports the view that
Porphyry ever abandoned an interest in the role played by the traditional cults
in the purification of at least the lower soul of those who did not have the apti-
tude for philosophical pursuits. Indeed, one of his latest works, Ad Marcellam,
speaks of the greatest fruit of piety being the honoring of ancestral customs.27
This was written many years after his conversion to Neoplatonism, and it is not
the kind of an elitist approach to soteriology that Beatrice, Johnson, Schott,
and others would have us believe.28 Second, the underlying ideology of univer-
salism, or the attempt to find the via salutis for everyone, contradicts the view
that the work was written only for a small elitist group of philosophers; and
according to the chronology just analyzed above, he began his search at least in
the 260s, and Augustine’s citation of De regr. an. implies a long period of inten-
sive research on the problem of universalism. Third, both Beatrice and Johnson
interpret the statement of Porphyry in the Prologue, namely, that his readers
should not cast the contents of the work before the “uninitiated” (PE 4.8.2) as
misleading at best, and poor contextual hermeneutics at worst.29 There is
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  35

nothing about either the “initiated” or “uninitiated” in the Prologue.30 The

statement there about not divulging the contents to the “profane” simply gave
the work an aura of sacredness and a claim for a unique status of divine inspira-
tion and prophetic authority, which were both inclusive and comprehensive,
during a time when the imperial infrastructure was coming unglued and the
Tetrarchy needed a theological rallying cry from its most ardent anti-Christian
philosopher; but it was certainly not in toto esoteric and elitist (though Book
III might be construed as such). If so, how do we explain those oracles that sup-
port the traditional cults and their practices? It should be noted that the con-
tents of the Phil. orac. and the religious program of the Tetrarchy fit together
like peas in a pod. Exactly what kind of philosophy does the work espouse?
There has never been a Porphyrian scholar who has even addressed the latter
question.31 What kind of philosopher did the work attract? And what should
one do with the extant fragments which do not deal with philosophy at all,
which form the majority?32 Fourth, if the Prologue indicates that Porphyry’s
task was to teach “an esoteric wisdom hidden in the cracks of oracular ambigu-
ity,”33 and it was for a small elitist group, then one must ask how do we explain
(a) the acceptance of animal sacrifice in the work; and (b) contextual analysis
of Eusebian passages where they are cited show that none states that Porphyry
gave an allegorical interpretation to the latter? Fifth, if we restrict those
addressed in the Prologue to a small elite group, the universalist language
found there, which we have seen offers salvation to all who read the work, is
blatantly contradictory. Finally, if the work was written circa 302, Porphyry will
have been a Neoplatonist for more than three decades, so any fragment that
treated philosophical themes would have been related to the (Neoplatonic)
philosophical way of salvation; and those fragments that undeniably do not
relate to the latter dealt with nonphilosophical ways for the salvation/purifica-
tion of the soul.
Since this elitist interpretation is often accepted blindly and uncritically as
the conventional wisdom for a proper understanding of a number of Porphyry’s
works, especially the Phil. orac., it is necessary to give examples from Andrew
Smith’s list of fragments which indisputably contradict this view. The argument
will be that the beliefs and practices expressed in them cohere with the first
component of the tripartite soteriological paradigm already noted, or the puri-
fication of the soul for the masses.
First, in 303 F (Eusebius, PE IV.6.2–7.2) Porphyry in the Prologue of the
Philosophia ex oraculis offers universalism to his readers: “Sure, then, and stead-
fast is he who draws his hopes of salvation from this as from the only sure
source, and to such thou wilt impart information without any reserve.”34 Then in
the second paragraph of the Prologue he says:
36  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

And our present collection will contain a record of many doctrines of phi-
losophy, according as the gods declared the truth to be; but to a small
extent we shall also touch upon the practice of divination, such as will be
useful both for contemplation, and for the general purification of life. And
the utility which this collection possesses will be best known to as many as
have ever been in travail with the truth, and prayed that by receiving the
manifestation of it from the gods they might gain relief from their per-
plexity by virtue of the trustworthy teaching of the speakers.
It has recently been suggested that in this passage Porphyry is contrasting the
“many doctrines of philosophy,”35 which evidently made up the bulk of the con-
tents of the work, with the “small extent” to which the theme of divination will
be addressed, with a further subdivision of the latter into (a) contemplation and
(b) the general purification of life (ἐπ’ ὀλίγoν δὲ καὶ τῆς χρηστικῆς ἁψóμεθα
πραγματείας, ἡτής πρóς τε τὴν θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κάθαρσιν τoῦ
βίoυ.).36 The conclusion of this study is that most of the Phil. orac. dealt with the
philosophical way to salvation (Book III); but the ἐπ’ ὀλίγoν with respect to the
two subthemes of divination were dealt with in the other two books: the general
purification of life equals salvation of the soul for the masses in Book I; and
contemplation that would eventually lead the soul to separating itself from
material reality in order to achieve ultimate union with the One in Book II.37
There is no evidence in the Prologue for an exclusively elitist audience being
addressed.
The aforementioned scholars38 make the specious claim that the Phil. orac.
was written only for the “initiated,” citing (e.g.) the following passage:
[PORPHYRY] And do thou endeavor to avoid publishing these above all
things, and casting them even before the profane for the sake of reputa-
tion, or gain, or any unholy flattery. For there would be danger not only
to thee for transgressing these injunctions, but also to me for lightly
trusting thee who couldst not keep the benefits secret to thyself. We must
give them then to those who have arranged their plan of life with a view
to the salvation of the soul.39
First, there is nothing either in this passage or in any of the fifty-eight extant
fragments of the Phil. orac. that even hint at Porphyry’s audience being initiated
into a mystery religion or philosophy. Even if one were to consider those frag-
ments that imply some kind of theurgical rituals being described, there is noth-
ing to suggest that Porphyry concerned himself with initiation rites, and
Lieferringe states correctly that “si l’on doit parler de théurgie dans l’oeuvre de
Porphyre, ce n’est pas au sens restreint d’une secte de mystiques mais au sens
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  37

large du rite paien.”40 Second, the elitist theory crumbles upon a close and care-
ful reading of the text. Again, there is nothing in it that would suggest a small
group of elite philosophers is being addressed.41 The last sentence indisputably
proves that the contents of the work were for “those who have arranged a plan
of life with a view to the salvation of the soul.” The use of “profane” a few lines
before simply excludes anyone who does not wish to find a way for the salvation
(purification) of the soul appropriate to his ontological and spiritual level (e.g.,
the spiritual or intellectual parts of the soul). Thus the language in this fragment
(304 F) and the preceding fragment (303 F) can best be understood not as being
designed for an elite group of philosophers, but rather for (a) the masses (gen-
eral purification of life: Book I), (b) novice philosophers (contemplation: Book
II), and (c) mature Neoplatonic philosophers (many doctrines of philoso-
phy: Book III). In light of this we may give the following for the collective pur-
pose of writing the Phil. orac.:
1. The terms like “profane” and phrases like “do thou endeavor to avoid pub-
lishing these above all things” have nothing to do with an elite audience,
but rather were intentionally created by Porphyry according to a premedi-
tated rhetorical design to give the work an aura of sacredness.42
2. We may interject here that Eusebius in the Prologue to the Laus Constantini,
which was delivered in the presence of the emperor Constantine on July
25, 336, in the imperial palace in Constantinople, uses very similar rhetori-
cal devices. “Let those who admire a vulgar style,” the bishop from
Caesarea exclaims, “abounding in puerile subtleties, and who court a
pleasing and popular muse, essay, since pleasure is the object they have in
view, to charm the ears of men by a narrative of merely human merits.” He
then adds:

Those, however, who are initiated into the universal science, and have
attained to Divine as well as human knowledge, and account the choice
of the latter as the real excellence, will prefer those virtues of the
emperor which Heaven itself approves, and his pious actions, to his
merely human accomplishments; and will leave to inferior encomiasts
the task of celebrating his lesser merits. For since our emperor is gifted
as well with that sacred wisdom which has immediate reference to
God, as with the knowledge which concerns the interests of men; let
those who are competent to such a task describe his secular acquire-
ments, great and transcendent as they are, and fraught with advantage
to mankind. . . . , yet still inferior to his diviner qualities, to those who
stand without the sacred precincts. Let those, however, who are within
38  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the sanctuary, and have access to its inmost and untrodden recesses,
close the doors against every profane ear, and unfold, as it were, the
secret mysteries of our emperor’s character to the initiated alone. And
let those who have purified their ears in the streams of piety, and raised
their thoughts on the soaring wing of the mind itself, join the company
which surrounds the Sovereign Lord of all, and learn in silence the
divine mysteries.43
Eusebius employs the same kind of mystical language to give the LC an aura
of sacredness, contrasting the profane from the initiated, a rhetorical device very
similar to what Porphyry employs in the Phil. orac. Are we to conclude that the
LC was written only for the initiated, and thus Eusebius failed in his attempts to
protect its contents from public consumption? This would be a ludicrous sug-
gestion. It is surprising that no one has ever noted the similaries between the
two works here.
3. It is clear that Porphyry gives an invitation to any of his readers to receive
the salvation of their souls. The term profane should thus not be construed
as separating a small elite group of philosophers from anyone else who
wishes to accept the offer found in the Prologue. Indeed, if the work was
designed for a small “elitist” group of philosophers, and thus not published
for public consumption, it is interesting that Porphyry and his followers
failed miserably to keep the sacred contents of the Phil. orac. a secret only
for the “initiated,” when Clement of Alexandria could give only a few pal-
try data about a mystery cult that had antedated him by many centuries!
The work included religious and philosophical ways or paths for the puri-
fication of the soul.
4. According to this inclusive interpretation, the Phil. orac. will have been
viewed as invaluable as a unifying agent at the outbreak of the Great
Persecution.
5. The work was written as a result of the winter conference in Nicomedia
that Porphyry attended, and it was further supported by Diocletian’s
government.
6. It was a proactive defense of religious and philosophical paganism during
a time of decline and cohered with the program for reforming
Greco-Roman polytheism in the Tetrarchy. Otherwise, why would the
Christians have bothered to respond to an esoteric work supposedly writ-
ten only for an elite group which represented less than 1% of the popula-
tion of the Roman Empire?
7. Though it was not entirely an anti-Christian work like (e.g.) the Contra
Christianos, at least Book III contained anti-Christian oracles whose
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  39

primary function was to critique and disprove the Christians’ claim that
Christ was the one via salutis universalis animae.

Thus, rather than trying to put all of one’s hermeneutical eggs into one salvific
basket, the best way out of this otherwise perplexing problem is to suggest that
Porphyry makes a truly universalist claim in the Prologue,44 and the remark
concerning the “profane” would simply imply those who do not wish to accept
his offer; and the tripartite soteriology to which we have alluded above and will
analyze further below was the principal theme of the work. This provided his
readers, starting with the masses, moving to the novice philosophers, and end-
ing with the mature Neoplatonic philosophers, three distinct ways of salvation
for the soul designed for the cleansing of that part existing at the ontological and
spiritual level of the recipient.45 The first way was for the lower or spiritual part
of the soul and emphasized the importance of the traditional cults, including
the practice of animal sacrifice, and theurgical rituals. The other two ways were
designed for the novice and mature Neoplatonic philosopher, respectively. And
each of the three books of Phil. orac. covered each of the three ways in conse-
quential order: Book I for the masses; Book II for the novice; and Book III for
the mature philosopher.46
In 314 F (Eusebius, PE IV.8.4–9.2) Porphyry enjoins the practice of animal
sacrifice, another reason that the elitist theory should be discarded. Note care-
fully the first line: “Friend, who hast entered on this heaven-taught path” (italics
mine). The fragment derives from Book I, and the verb entered in the context of
a discussion about animal sacrifice is illuminating in light of the present tripar-
tite interpretation. If indeed the (uneducated)47 masses were addressed in Book
I, the first line concerning the person who sacrifices animals to the gods has
“entered” or “begun” the “heaven-taught path” is very significant here, a fact
often ignored by scholars. In any event, the entire passage deals with animal
sacrifice, and Eusebius himself introduces the passage for polemical purposes
by attempting to show just how contradictory Porphyry was: In one work (Abst.)
he rejects the practice, and in another (Phil. orac.) he upholds it.48 Though his
presentation of Porphyrian texts is subjective, polemically motivated, and not
always given an accurate hermeneutical analysis, the temptation to depict
Porphyry in this manner was too great to ignore. The fact was, as Eusebius him-
self knew more than most of his readers, there was no contradiction at
all: Animal sacrifice was rejected as a viable path for philosophers (Abst.), but it
was upheld, at least in Book I of the Phil. orac., for the religious path for the
salvation of the souls of the masses49
Perhaps, however, one might respond to this interpretation by saying that
Porphyry first gave the literal meaning of a text, in this case one that addresses
40  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

animal sacrifice, and then in his commentary on the same text he gave a “deeper”
meaning for the “initiated” or the “elite” who were intellectually capable of
understanding the allegorical meaning given by Porphyry. This would be a rea-
sonable deduction if it were not for statements made by Porphyry in fragments
like 315 F (Eusebius, PE IV.9.3–7). After analyzing the method of sacrificing ani-
mals to terrestrial and infernal deities, he enjoins the sacrifice of four-footed
animals. He continues the passage by discussing the kinds of animals (e.g., birds
to gods of the air) that should be sacrificed to various kinds of deities, even
instructing which parts of the sacrificed animals should be eaten by worship-
pers. Then Porphyry offers his explanation of the “symbolic meanings” of the
sacrifices:
Will it then be necessary to explain the symbolic meanings of the
sacrifices, manifest as they are to the intelligent? For there are
four-footed land animals for the gods of the earth, because like
rejoices in like. And the sheep is of the earth and therefore dear to
Demeter, and in heaven the Ram, with the help of the sun, brings
forth out of the earth its display of fruits. They must be black, for of
such colour is the earth, being naturally dark: and three, for three
is the symbol of the corporeal and earthly.
To the gods of the earth then one must offer high upon altars, for
these pass to and fro upon the earth; but to the gods beneath the
earth, in a trench and in a grave, where they abide. To the other
gods we must offer birds, because all things are in swift motion.
For the water of the sea also is in perpetual motion, and dark.
And therefore victims of this kind are suitable. But white victims
for the gods of the air: for the air itself is filled with light, being
of a translucent nature. For the gods of heaven and of the ether,
the parts of the animals which are lighter, and these are the
extremities; and with these gods we must participate in the
sacrifice: for these are givers of good things, but the others
are averters of evil.
In this passage he gives the reader of Book I instructions as to how, why, where
(altars, in a trench, a grave), what (birds, four-footed animals, sheep, a ram), and
to whom (terrestrial and infernal deities) animal sacrifices should be made, and
he does give an allegorical meaning to various elements related to the practice,
but never is there a hint of rejecting it. An allegorical meaning is given to (e.g.)
the reason for a certain method of sacrifice (four-footed animals because “like
rejoices in like”); or why birds are offered to some deities (because “all things are
in swift motion”); or why a specific number of victims is required (three, because
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  41

it is the symbol of “the corporeal and earthly”)—but not at the exclusion of the
practice itself. Is this a teaching for a very small, elite group of Neoplatonic
philosophers?
Other examples can be given. Porphyry deals with compelling the deities in
the context of discussing sacrifice and the images of the gods. The language used
concerning compelling the gods indicates that in Book I he showed how theurgi-
cal rituals could cleanse at least the lower or spiritual soul.50 A number of frag-
ments discuss the function of the gods’ statues in the traditional cults.51 In 320 F
(Eusebius, PE V.14.2–3) Porphyry dealt with exorcisms of evil spirits and the
symbolism surrounding the cult of Hecate. He also discussed the cessation of
oracles at (e.g.) Delphi;52 the many “paths” to the gods according to the ancient
religious customs of the Phoenicians, Assyrians, Lydians, and the Hebrews;53 and
the “road” to the gods, which most likely implies the first way to salvation offered
to the masses in Book I.54 Such cultic and religious language kept at the level of
understanding for the masses cancels out any possibility that the Phil. orac. was
written exclusively for a small, elite group of Neoplatonic philosophers.55
One of the most fervently debated issues related to the Phil. orac. concerns a
statement of Lactantius found in his Institutiones Divinae 5.2:

When I was teaching rhetorical learning in Bithynia, having been called

thither, and it had happened that at the same time the temple of God was
overthrown, there were living at the same place two men who insulted the
truth as it lay prostrate and overthrown, I know not whether with greater
arrogance or harshness: the one of whom professed himself the high priest
of philosophy; but he was so addicted to vice, that, though a teacher of
abstinence, he was not less inflamed with avarice than with lusts; so extrav-
agant in his manner of living, that though in his school he was the main-
tainer of virtue, the praiser of parsimony and poverty, he dined less
sumptuously in a palace than at his own house. Nevertheless he sheltered
his vices by his hair and his cloak, and (that which is the greatest screen) by
his riches; and that he might increase these, he used to penetrate with won-
derful effort to the friendships of the judges; and he suddenly attached
them to himself by the authority of a fictitious name, not only that he might
make a traffic of their decisions, but also that he might by this influence
hinder his neighbours, whom he was driving from their homes and lands,
from the recovery of their property. This man, in truth, who overthrew his
own arguments by his character, or censured his own character by his argu-
ments, a weighty censor and most keen accuser against himself, at the very
same time in which a righteous people were impiously assailed, vomited
forth three books against the Christian religion and name; professing,
42  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

above all things, that it was the office of a philosopher to remedy the errors
of men, and to recall them to the true way, that is, to the worship of the
gods, by whose power and majesty, as he said, the world is governed; and
not to permit that inexperienced men should be enticed by the frauds of
any, lest their simplicity should be a prey and sustenance to crafty men.56

Henry Chadwick argued in 1959 that Lactantius’ anonymous philosopher was

Porphyry.57 He suggested that the remark about three books refers to the first
three books of the Contra Christianos, which were written in Sicily, and Books
4–15 were written later in conjunction with Diocletian’s propaganda campaign
against the Christians.58 In two publications Robert L. Wilken identified
Lactantius’ “priest of philosophy” as Porphyry, and the three books referred not
to the CC, but to the Phil. orac., which was possibly written at the request of
Diocletian.59 Since Wilken’s publications a growing number of scholars have
identified the anonymous philosopher with Porphyry.60 Since the most cogent
and detailed argument to date concerning this identification has been put for-
ward by Jeremy Schott, it is necessary to give a summary of it herewith.
First, Lactantius calls the anonymous philosopher a “priest of philosophy,”
which Schott rightly notes has a parallel with Ad Marc. 16 where Porphyry
states, “The only (true) priest is the wise man.” He suggests that this is an adept
play on Porphyry’s own rhetoric.61 Second, with respect to Lactantius’ describ-
ing the philosopher as licentious, Schott says this is purely polemical.62 Also, as
Digeser and I have noted, the aging Porphyry could have been guilty of moral
and philosophical vacillation,63 and the fact that he married Marcella late in life
proves that he certainly deviated from some conventional Neoplatonic teach-
ings about the ascetic life.64 Third, the strongest case against identifying Porphyry
with the anonymous philosopher is the fact that according to Lactantius, he
“vomited forth” three books against the Christians.65 Schott gives a number of
possible scenarios, for example that Porphyry may have written Phil. orac. for
the conference at Nicomedia and the CC at about the same time, as well as other
possibilities.66 Fourth, Lactantius’ D.I. was written in response to the two polem-
icists (D.I. 5.2)—Hierocles Sossianus was the other one and is named by
Lactantius—and his use of oracles and metaphors like “paths” were used as
retorsions to Porphyry’s arguments.67 Finally, Lactantius’ description of the
anonymous philosopher’s position on the state persecution of Christians is very
similar to Porphyry’s views found in the PE of Eusebius.68
Lactantius states in the passage above that the anonymous philosopher
owned land, and this presumably would imply that it was located in the eastern
provinces of the Roman Empire. Barnes uses this as evidence that he cannot be
identified with Porphyry because if the latter had owned land, he believes it
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  43

would have been in Rome, Sicily, or Phoenicia.69 If however one accepts the
tradition that states that Marcella was a wealthy widow when Porphyry married
her, it is quite possible that she will have owned lands in the eastern provinces,
and Porphyry assumed management of them.70 Barnes’s argument thus implodes
like a house of cards. Barnes also insists that Lactantius’ philosopher was blind,
and bases this on the statement in D.I. 5.2.9: “hominem profitentem se inlumi-
naturum alios, cum ipse caecus esset, reducturum alios ab errore, cum ipse
ignoraret ubi pedes suos ponenet.”71 He then adds:
If Porphyry had gone blind in old age, the fact would most assuredly have been
recorded by his Christian adversaries, who would have seized on his blindness
as evidence that God had punished him for his hostility to Christianity and for
advocating the execution of Christians (fr. Harnack = Eusebius PE 1.1.2–4; cf.
Barnes 1994b: 65). Equally, if Porphyry had been blind when he put out his
edition of Plotinus’ Enneads in or after 300, he could hardly have written as he
does about Plotinus’ inelegant handwriting and careless orthography or
excused the condition of his master’s manuscripts on the grounds that he had
poor eyesight (Vita Plotini 8.1–19).72
The fact of the matter is that the Christians did believe that Porphyry had gone
blind, but his “blindness” was certainly of a spiritual nature. Throughout the D.I.
Lactantius, moreover, uses the word caecus metaphorically to denote those who
live in spiritual darkness and have not “seen the light” of Christ’s truth.73 This is
a very common figure of speech, which can be traced in the Old and New
Testaments, the Early Church Fathers, and indeed in any period of the History
of Christianity. The argument, therefore, that the anonymous philosopher was
blind is unfounded and should be completely discarded from any serious her-
meneutical analysis of Lactantius’ anonymous philosopher.74
John J. O’Meara published Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine in
1959 in which he developed the hypothesis that Porphyry’s De regressu animae
and Philosophia ex oraculis were one and the same work.75 A vast majority of
scholars have not found O’Meara’s argument convincing.76 In recent decades the
Italian scholar Pier F. Beatrice has revived and modified O’Meara’s interpreta-
tion to include not only the two works noted, but also the Contra Christianos,
On Images, and other Porphyrian works, to conclude that Porphyry never wrote
a work by the name of Contra Christianos, but rather by the name of Philosophia
ex oraculis,77 asserting in an article written in 1993 “daß Porphyrios nie eine
Schrift mit dem Titel Gegen die Christen verfaßt hat, sondern daß sein christen-
feindliches Werk mit seiner wohlbekannten Orakelphilosophie identifiziert
werden muß.”78 Andrew Smith, however, rightly notes that Eusebius and Jerome
give clear titles for Phil. orac. and the CC, respectively.79 Beatrice’s hypothesis is
44  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

unconvincing primarily for the reason that the major premise of his argument,
namely, that the Phil. orac. is an anti-Christian work, is extremely weak and
therefore indefensible, because, as we have just noted above, Porphyry’s state-
ments in the Prologue concerning the purpose of writing provides irrefutable
evidence that nullifies Beatrice’s interpretation.80 Although Book III of the Phil.
orac. contained some anti-Christian oracles to disprove the universalism claims
of the Christians, a vast majority of the extant fragments support the contents of
the Prologue’s claims that religious and philosophical universalism is being pro-
vided for a pagan audience in a very positive, proactive manner.81 In recent years
a growing number of scholars have found Beatrice’s hypothesis weak and uncon-
vincing, and Richard Goulet has written the definitive refutation of the Italian’s
scholar’s thesis to date.82 The evidence indisputably indicates that Philosophia ex
oraculis, Contra Christianos, Ad. Anebonem, De cultu simulacrorum, and De
regressu animae were separate works of Porphyry written for different purposes
and at different periods in his literary career.
A central question related to the proper interpretation of the extant frag-
ments of the Philosophia ex oraculis concerns the role that theurgy played in the
work. Though according to Eusebius Porphyry appears not to have actually used
the term theurgy/θεoυργἰα but only terms like γoητεία, κακóτεχνoς,83 both he
and Philoponus inform us that he did use theosophy,84 a term that Eusebius
defines pejoratively as magic and that seems to have denoted a complex of reli-
gious beliefs and practices including theurgical rituals.85 In that case, as Van
Liefferinge has suggested, Porphyry must have used a system of theurgy without
explicitly naming it.86 This should not be surprising because Porphyry will have
been the first Neoplatonic philosopher who incorporated theurgical practices
into his soteriological system. But what did they mean to him, and what kind of
significance were they given in the Phil. orac.? We may begin on terra firma with
Luck’s definition of theurgy as an activity, operation, or technique associated
with worshipping the gods in which a ἱερατικὴ τέχνη provided a path of salva-
tion to deliver the soul from the Fate to which the ordinary masses of humanity
were thought to be subject, and a means by which the individual was able to
wash the soul of its terrestrial and corporeal pollution.87 Theurgical rituals were
thus capable of purifying the soul and raising it up to union with the gods, sepa-
rating soul from body, and positively advancing into the divine realm.88
The mention of πρακτικὴ θεoσoϕἰα in 340aF (Smith), therefore, as Busine
has convincingly argued, was employed in the Phil. orac. to indicate a “practical
wisdom” from the gods,89 and her conclusion is very significant for the present
study, especially as it applies to the first path of salvation, which was described
in Book I of the Philosophia ex oraculis: “Aussi, pourait-on en dêduire que
Porphyre considère l’accomplissement des rites, qui pourrait correspondre à
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  45

une certaine ‘vertu pratique’, comme une étape, valable et même salutaire, vers
la purification de l’âme.”90 Five years before Liefferinge published her book on
theurgy, Sarah I. Johnston concluded the following about the function of
theurgy in the Phil. orac., after noting Augustine’s understanding of the practice
as γoητεία:
In contrast, Porphyry, from whose works on theurgy Augustine drew
much of his own information, approved of theurgy as a means of improv-
ing or purifying a lower level of the soul, although he understood contem-
plation and virtue to be necessary for salvation of the higher level; he also
apparently recognized a level of theurgy concerned not at all with spiritual
salvation but with more worldly, immediate goals.91
If theurgy can more precisely be defined as “being worked upon by the gods”
rather than “working upon the gods,”92 it would thus be a mistake to conclude
that it should be placed in the category of magic. The numerous fragments from
Phil. orac. that deal with rituals concerning coercing the gods,93 clearly reveal
that there is a qualitative difference between magic and theurgy,94 and Majercik’s
four major differences between them is very illuminating:
1. Magic has a profane goal (e.g., to influence a lover, the weather, etc.);
theurgy has a salvific end (the purification and “salvation” of the soul).
2. Magic is coercive; theurgy is passive.
3. Magic is non-sacramental; theurgy is “sacramental” ex opero operato,
through the act alone divine grace operating.
4. Magic functions in a utilitarian manner within the practitioner’s immedi-
ate environment; theurgy is based on an emanationist view that posits a
“sympathetic” link between all aspects of the cosmos.95
Having established the distinct differences between theurgy and magic and
using Luck’s four main principles of δύναμις, συμπάθεια τῶν ὅλων, ὁμoιóτης,
and ὄχημα as the soul’s vehicle, which was thought to be conducive to the sal-
vific function of theurgy, we are now prepared to examine the extant fragments
of the Phil. orac. to ascertain whether there is convincing evidence to support
the view that Porphyry did indeed espouse theurgical rituals in the work.96 The
principle of δύναμις refers to that divine or daemonic power in the universe that
is made available to the theurgist by means of rites and material objects.97
A number of the fragments contain this principle. In 308 F (Eusebius, PE
V.6.2–7.2) Hecate is depicted as saying (italics inserted for emphasis): “Lo! By
my side walks Wisdom with firm step, Leaning on oracles that ne’er can fail. In
bonds secure me: for my power divine can give a soul to worlds beyond the sky.”
We will examine the reference to bonds below, but for the time being it is
46  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

important to note that the divine power of Hecate procured through some kind
of theurgical ritual will enable the recipient, here called a soul, eschatologically
to exist in the “worlds beyond the sky.” Other fragments deal with rituals to
make this power accessible;98 receiving divine wisdom and healing;99 entering
on “this heaven-taught path” to salvation;100 the granting of wisdom by heavenly
deities;101 accessing daemonic power either by prayer or “magic arts”;102 the all
important theosophy;103 Hecate descending to bless humans as a result of theur-
gical rites which bind the god;104 and the use of material objects like linen,
wreaths, water, branches of laurels, flowers, and so forth, to receive divine power
and salvific blessings.105 In this context we may add 330 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.1),
which refers to “silent prayers” and coheres with the long periods of silence dur-
ing which the practitioners of theurgical rituals passively waited on the deity to
descend upon them;106 and Bidez’s astute observation is notable here: “Et en
effet, le traité nous donne tout un système de théurgie à l’usage des prêtres des
mystères paiens.”107
Several fragments convey the principle of the συμπάθεια τῶν ὅλων, the cos-
mic sympathy containing inter-related elements in the universe, perceived to be
living, in which nothing happens in the organism without influencing the other
parts thereof.108 For example, 324 F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.3–5) deals with the seven
heavenly zones as paths to the gods. Others address (e.g.) appeasing bad demons
in caves and on the earth;109 gods who speak with knowledge of things deter-
mined by fate;110 sympatheia with celestial bodies;111 astral fatalism;112 the purpose
of the fates;113 the star of Saturn and astrology;114 Mars’s natal star;115 the
inter-relationship between the gods and astral fatalism;116 fate and human
affairs;117 the relation between the empyrean realm and humankind;118 and
Apollo and prophetic revelation.119 Included in this category of the συμπάθεια
τῶν ὅλων are the very important σύμβoλα which the theurgist believed estab-
lished a sympathetic relationship between a deity or a good daemon and a
human being,120 which could cover anything from a rock, incense, a magical
password, or even a sound,121 and via theurgical rituals identified natural sub-
stances with certain parts of the cosmos and their corresponding spiritual enti-
ties.122 There are several fragments of the Phil. orac. that indisputably contain
these kinds of σύμβoλα,123 one of the most important being 320 F. (Eusebius, PE
V.14.2–3): Porphyry states: “The symbols of Hecate are wax of three colours,
white and black and red combined, having a figure of Hecate bearing a scourge,
and torch, and sword, with a serpent to be coiled round her; and the symbols of
Uranus are the mariners’ stars nailed up before the doors. For these symbols the
gods themselves have indicated in the following verses.” He then continues: “The
speaker is Pan:
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  47

‘Evil spirits drive afar:

Then upon the fire set wax
Gleaming fair with colours three,
White and black must mingle there
With the glowing embers’ red,
Terror to the dogs of hell.
Then let Hecate’s dread form
Hold in her hand a blazing torch,
And the avenging sword of fate;
While closely round the goddess wrapp’d
A snake fast holds her in his coils,
And wreathes about her awful brow.
Let the shining key be there,
And the far-resounding scourge,
Symbol of the daemons’ power.’ ”
The third principle concerns the Greek concept of ὁμoιóτης, which according to
Luck connects the subject with object as a “family” relationship between humans
and the gods.124 Based upon the number of fragments that deal with this con-
cept, it would appear that the Philosophia ex oraculis covered it in detail: 307 F
(Eusebius, PE V.5.7–6.2) addresses the relation of subject and object in cultic
acts; 308 F (Eusebius, PE V.6.2–7.2), gods and the company of men; 309 F
(Eusebius, PE V.6.4–5), the gods and nature and human affairs; 314 F (Eusebius,
PE IV.8.4–9.2), sacrifices to demons and deities;125 317 F (Eusebius, PE V.12.1–2),
the giving of proper vows, the animation of Hecate’s cultic statue, (also known
as τελεστική)126 and sleep, which is a metaphor for the trance to which the theur-
gist aspired;127 318 F (Eusebius, PE V.13.1–2), accomplishing vows to Pan; 319 F
(Eusebius, PE V.13.3–4), worshippers and cultic statues; 320 F (Eusebius, PE
V.14.2–3), salvific benefits of worshipping Hecate; 321 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.4–15.4),
cultic statues and breaking the bonds of the fates; the underlying likeness of
gods in images; 326 F (Eusebius, PE IV.22.15–23.6), wicked daemons’ relation to
Serapis and Pluto; gaining access to the divine in likeness of animals; 327 F
(Eusebius, PE IV.23.6), Hecate and the demons and salvific meaning of Hecate’s
symbols; 329 F (Eusebius, PE IV.19.8–20.1), cultic practices to ensure visibly see-
ing a deity; 338 F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.2–3.1), Erichthonius’ godlike race; and 339
F (Eusebius, PE VI.3.5–4.3), maintaining a proper cultic relationship with
the gods.
The fourth and final principle is that of the ὄχημα as the soul’s vehicle,128
which was thought to be conducive to the salvific function of theurgy, and in the
Porphyrian sense vis-à-vis the Phil. orac., capable of cleansing the spiritual soul
48  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

as the first stage in his tripartite soteriological progression. The human body is
a kind of astral body, and the evocation of light illumines the ὄχημα as the soul’s
vehicle of the theurgist.129 Several fragments from the Phil. orac. fall into this
category. In 318 F (Eusebius, PE V.13.1–2), an oracle of Serapis states:
A brilliant light shone through the god’s own house;
He came, the mighty god, and met me there.
My matchless strength, and glow of lordly fire,
And waving curls he saw, which from my head
On either side play round my radiant brows,
And mingle with the red beard’s sacred locks.
Phrases like “A brilliant light shone through the god’s own house,” (Φαιδρὴ μὲν
κατὰ δῶμα θεoῦ καταλάμπεται αὐγή) “glow of lordly fire,” (λαμπηδóνα
ϕλoγμoτύραννoν) and “radiant brows” (χαρoπoῖσι μετώπoις) taken together in
context, denotes metaphorical language which represents the light conceived to
be capable of illuminating the ὄχημα as the soul’s vehicle.130 Another fragment is
319 F (Eusebius, PE V.13.3–4), in which Hecate describes herself as Demeter
“bright with autumn fruits.” The next fragment states: “Let the shining key be
there, and the far-resounding scourge, symbol of the daemons’ power.”131 Other
fragments contain references to prophetic revelation and the fates;132 the “light”
of oracles;133 heavenly revelation for humans;134 shafts of gold representing the
“light of men”;135 evoking the deity from “bright empyrean far removed”;136 “A
stream of heavenly light from Phoebus flowing,” which “Falls like a glory round
the prophet’s head”;137 and bringing closure to the “saving work” of the god upon
the theurgist.138 The latter is important because theurgy produced a saving work
of a deity upon its practitioner.
Though the aforementioned data, which have been examined and catego-
rized in the four groups noted, provide impressive evidence to support the
present interpretation, it must be noted that if Porphyry incorporated theurgy
into the Phil. orac., we should expect to find in the fragments the kind of cultic
terminology of (e.g.) “coercing,” “compelling,” or “persuading” a deity by
means of theurgical rituals that convey the important salvific benefit of allow-
ing the deity to perform a “saving work upon” the theurgist.139 The following
fragments reveal this kind of terminology. In 308 F, Hecate speaks in an ora-
cle: “In bonds secure me: for my power divine can give a soul to worlds beyond
the sky.”140 Note that there is no promise of a permanent release for the recipi-
ent of these salvific benefits, nor is there any hint of an ultimate (permanent)
union with the One, which we should expect if Porphyry was describing the
process that entails the cleansing of the intellectual soul.141 Yet there is a tem-
porary eschatological transference to the “worlds beyond the sky,” which
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  49

implies the empyrean realm, the same heavenly place where the soul of Jesus
went according to another Hecatean oracle.142 Two other fragments address
either prevailing upon and compelling the deities, or propitiating or averting
the influence of demons.143 In 347 F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7) Porphyry uses the
language of compulsion and refers to “binding” the gods to ensure their
descent via theurgical rituals from the ethereal realm. Augustine confirms
that Porphyry dealt with the transmigration of the soul to the empyrean or
ethereal realms, and the divine revelations that the deities gave to the theur-
gist:144 With the fragment quoted above (347 F) we should compare 348 F
(Eusebius, PE V.8.8–10), which employs similar terminology of ritual compul-
sion, and 350 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.13–9; 9.12), which not only speaks of compel-
ling the deities to come down to the theurgist, but also of dismissing them
after the practitioner of the rituals has allowed the god to perform his “saving
work” upon him: “Go now, return with speed; thy saving work on me is done.”
(῞Ερπε, καὶ ὀτραλέως ἐπιέρχεo, τóνδε σαώσας) Such cultic language, preg-
nant with soteriological meaning, incontrovertibly cancels out the possibility
that Porphyry is speaking about magic in the traditional sense as noted
above.145 Augustine’s explanation is noteworthy: “Sufficit quod purgatione
theurgica neque intellectualem animam, hoc est mentem nostrum, dicis posse
purgari, et ipsam spiritalem, id est nostrae animae partem mente inferiorem,
quam tali arte purgari posse asseris, inmortalem tamen aeternamque non
posse hac arte fieri confiteris.”146 And a few lines later he adds: “quasi ne
operam perdidisse videaris ista discendo, mittis homines ad theurgos, ut per
eos anima spiritalis purgetur illorum qui non secundum intellectualem ani-
mam vivunt?”147 But exactly what was the nature of this “saving work” wrought
by theurgy? To this question we now turn.
To answer this question, it is important first to acknowledge that the salvific
function of theurgy enabled Porphyry to offer a way of salvation for the masses
that, incorporated within the context of ancestral Greco-Roman religious tradi-
tion, will have provided the following benefits: (a) cleansing the spiritual soul
(but not the intellectual soul); (b) breaking the bonds of fate; (c) eschatologi-
cally enabling the soul to exist in the Ethereal Realm before its next reincarna-
tion; and (d) offering the possibility for those with the requisite aptitude to
move beyond this first path of salvation and learn the basic philosophical prin-
ciples conducive to weaning the soul from an attachment to corporeal reality
and orienting itself toward the initial phases of contemplation upon intelligible
reality.148
In the Prologue to the Phil. orac., we recall that Porphyry says he will deal
mainly with philosophy, but to a certain extent he will address two other
important matters: ἐπ’ ὁλιγoν δὲ καὶ τῆς χρηστικῆς ἁψóμεθα πραγματείας,
50  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

ἥτης πρóς τε τὴν θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κάθαρσιν τoῦ βίoυ. Points A,
B, and C above are implied in the phrase καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κάθαρσιν τoῦ βίoυ; and
the πρóς τε τὴν θεωρίαν, a principle very essential for the ascent of the soul,
alludes to point D. With respect to the utter necessity of breaking the bonds of
fate as a central aspect of the lower soul’s purification, it is significant that
Porphyry devoted a number of passages to this principle. For example, Hecate
weaves “the tangled web of human fates”;149 the gods speak with a knowledge of
things determined by fate;150 a number of fragments address astral fatalism,151
the purpose of the fates in human affairs,152 and life’s “fated day”;153 others men-
tion Mars’ natal star,154 and the counsels of the fates that know no change.155
Finally, 339 F (Eusebius, PE VI.3.5–4.3) addressed the soteriologically signifi-
cant method of “dissolving the decrees of fate,” which Porphyry states is
achieved by τoίαισι μαγείαις, the same language used by Augustine to describe
theurgical rituals mentioned by Porphyry.156
The fourth salvific benefit derived from theurgical rituals concerns offering
the possibility for those with the requisite aptitude to learn the basic philo-
sophical principles conducive to weaning the soul from a hyper-dependence
upon corporeal reality and orienting itself toward the initial phases of contem-
plation upon intelligible reality. Augustine’s omne corpus fugiendum esse to
describe this conversion process reveals the importance that Porphyry placed
upon the ascent of the soul in progressive stages.157 The pivot that enables the
soul to turn toward intelligible reality, mentioned in the Prologue to the Phil.
orac., is contemplation, at which point the individual reaches the second path.158
Majercik notes that the initial stages of ascent for the theurgist involved the
purification of the lower soul (= ὄχημα/πνεῦμα) by various material rites,159
which coheres with the fragments of the Phil. orac. that have been examined.
Sarah I. Johnston’s observation about the salvific benefits of theurgy is very
significant as well: “The primary goal of the theurgist was ἀναγωγή, the tempo-
rary raising of his soul to the ‘intellectual fire’ of the noetic realm while the
body was still alive; repeated practice of ἀναγωγή purified the soul for its even-
tual release from Fate when the theurgist’s body died.”160 The turning of the soul
toward this noetic realm is mentioned in several of the Chaldaean Oracles,161
which Porphyry introduced to the Greco-Roman world, and Johnston believes
that the oracles made otherwise difficult philosophical and spiritual principles
immediately practical by combining them with the practices of traditional reli-
gion and magic.162 This was evidently the goal of Porphyry in designing the first
path of salvation, which was covered in Book I of Philosophia ex oraculis.
Finally, as Busine has shown, ἀρετή is an indispensable element for the purifi-
cation of the soul, and she cites Ad Marc. 16 and argues that in the Phil. orac.,
 Philosophia ex oraculis: Soteriological Structure and Contents  51

Porphyry proposes to open the way for virtue and an understanding of

θεoσoϕία (340a F [Philoponus, op. mundi, 200.20–6]), which he probably
invented.163 The phrase πρακτικὴ θεoσoϕία thus indicates that for Porphyry, the
cults, and especially magic and divination, should be perceived collectively as
a “practical wisdom” derived from the gods.164 We shall see later how virtue, in
particular the virtue of continence, played a vital soteriological role in Phil.
orac. for the second path of salvation.165
 4

The Contra Christianos in the Context

of Universalism
A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens
inwards; as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Is there evidence in the fragments of the Contra Christianos, 1

which was written circa a.d. 300,2 that might indicate that soteriological uni-
versalism played an important role in Porphyry’s polemical argument? Though
it has never been asked, this question is significant for the present study not
only from the perspective of the Christian-pagan debate on the via universalis
animae salutis liberandae represented by the works of Porphyry of Tyre and
Eusebius of Caesarea, respectively, but the works of Porphyry may also help to
provide a better understanding of the eventual triumph of Christianity in the
Roman Empire during the critical period between Constantine and
Theodosius. This sub-section will give a summary of the Christian writers
who wrote against Porphyry and then analyze those fragments of the CC that
may relate to Porphyry’s argument concerning universalism.3 The following is
a list of ancient Christian writers who either wrote works against Porphyry or
whose works contain anti-Porphyrian material, beginning with the early
fourth century and ending in the sixteenth century. The last three writers who
appear on the list provide five new fragments from the Contra Christianos
according to a recent study by the French scholar Richard Goulet.4 Though it
is sometimes impossible to give exact dates, an estimated sequential order is
given.5
Arnobius, c. 302–5
Methodius of Olympus, d. c. 311
Lactantius, c. 250–325
Eusebius of Caesarea, 260–340
Athanasius, 296–373
Apollinarius, 310–90
Julius Firmicus Maternus, d. after 360
Themistius, c. 317–88
Diodore of Tarsus, d. c. 390

52
 Contra Christianos  53

John Chrysostom, 347–407

Rufinus, c. 345–411
Didymus the Blind, c. 313–98
Epiphanius, 315–403
Nemesius, fl. c. 390
Severianus of Gabala, fl. c. 400
Jerome, 345–420
Theodore of Mopsuestia, c. 350–428
Polychronius, d. c. 430
Philostorgius, 368–439
Augustine, 354–430
Cyril of Alexandria d. 444
Theodoret of Cyrus, 393–460
Macarius Magnes, 4th–5th cents.
Pacatus, 4th–5th cents.
Anastasius Sinaita, d. c. 700
Arethas Caesariensis, c. 860–940
Michael Psellus, 1018–786
Theophylact , c. 1060–after 1125
Michael Syriacus, 1126–99
Michael Glykas, 12th cent.7
Damascenus Studites, 1500–778

Arnobius, c. 302–5
Arnobius was a rhetor from Sicca Veneria (modern Le Kef, Tunisia) who
attacked the Christian faith and according to St. Jerome was converted to
Christ by means of dreams, whereupon he asked the bishop of Sicca for per-
mission to become a member of the church there. The bishop was reluctant to
admit him without a pledge of faith, and to fulfill this requirement Arnobius
wrote the Adversus nationes in seven books.9 The first two have been described
as a retraction of his former criticisms of Christianity, heavily indebted to
Porphyry’s Contra Christianos,10 but also showing knowledge of the Phil. orac.
and other works.11 The final five books are dedicated to a sustained attack upon
paganism.12 The Adv. nat. was written between a.d. 302–5, making Arnobius
the first Christian writer to respond to Porphyry.13 Arnobius most probably
heard Porphyry’s lectures, which included his anti-Christian argument, during
the Neoplatonist’s sojourn in Africa Proconsularis.14 The following passage
54  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

from Adv. nat. contains an identification of Arnobius’ opponents as the

“New Men”:

Arnobius, Adversus nationes 2.15

Quare nihil est quod nos fallat, nihil quod nobis polliceatur spes cassas, id
quod a novis quibusdam dicitur viris et inmoderata sui opinione sublatis,
animas immortales esse, domino rerum ac principi gradu proximas digni-
tatis, genitore illo ac patre prolatas, divinas sapientes doctas neque ulla
iam corporis attrectatione continguas.
Beginning in the early twentieth century and continuing to the present time,
many scholars have argued that Arnobius is responding to Porphyry;15 and some
of these have identified the Viri Novi of the passage cited above to be Porphyry
and his Neoplatonic followers.16 The second passage is from the Praeparatio
evangelica of Eusebius:

Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica III.6

ὥρα καὶ τῶν νέων τῶν δὴ καθ” ἡμᾶς αὐτoὺς ϕιλoσoϕεῖν ἐπαγγελλoμένων
ἐπαθρῆσαι τὰ καλλωπίσματα oἴδε γὰρ τὰ περὶ νoῦ δημιoυργoῦ τῶν ὅλων
καὶ τὰ περὶ ἀσωμάτων ἰδεῶν νoερῶν τε καὶ λoγικῶν δυνάμεων τoίς ἀμϕὶ
τὸν Πλάτωνα μακρoῖς πoθ̓’ὕστερoν χρóνoις ἐϕευρημένα καὶ λoγισμoῖς
ὀρθoῖς ἐπινενoημένα συμπλέξαι τῇ τῶν παλαιῶν θεoλoγίᾳ πεπειρα μένoι
μείζoνι τύϕῳ τὴν περὶ τῶν μύθων ἐπαγγελίαν ἐξῆραν. A῎κoυε δ̓’oὖν καὶ
τῆς τoύτων ϕυσιoλoγίας, μεθ’ oἵας ἐξενήνεκται τῳ Πoρϕυρίῳ ἀλαζoνείας
Eusebius in this passage refers to Porphyry and his followers as “New Men.”
The third passage is also from Eusebius:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Theophany 5.3

 ‫ܠܒܕ܅ܚܐ �ܚܡܝ �ܠܗ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐܦ� ܡܠܬܐ ܪܝܠܗ܂ ܐ� ܿܕܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܘܬ ܚܕܬ ܐ‬ ܼ �  ‫ܐ� ܗܕ ܐ‬
ܵ ܵ ܿ ܿ ܿ
‫ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܩܖܝܡ ܕܢܝܝܘ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܗܘܬ  ܪܡܝܗܘܢ ܐܦ ܗܢܘܢ ܦܝܠܘܣܦܐ ܚܕܬ ܐ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܡܢ‬
‫ ܐܬܥܕܪܘ ܼ ܘܠܝܘܠܦܢܗܘܢ ܫܠܡܘ ܼ ܘܡܫܬܒܗܪܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܐܦ ܿܗܢܘܢ‬ ‫�ܘܪܒܬ ܐ‬
‫ܠܥܒܖܝܐ ܡܕܒܪܝܢ ܒܠܚܘܕ‬ܵ ܵ
‫ܕ�ܗܝܗܘܢ ܟܕ ܗܟܢܐ‬ ܵ
‫ܒܩܨܡܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܚܟܝܡܐ‬
‫ܕܢܘܢܝܐ‬ ܵ
‫ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܟܠ ܐܝܬܝܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܡܛܬ ܘܥܒܕ܅ܝܐ �ܠܗ ܐ‬ ܵ
 ‫�ܠܟܠܕܝܐ ܚܟܡܬ ܐ‬ ܵ
ܼ
‫ܕܟܝܐܝܬ ܿܤܓ ܸܖܝܢ‬
The English translation of this passage is:
And this was not new, nor his word only, but of those
Hebrews, the friends of God, who from ancient times
 Contra Christianos  55

appeared, and it was from them also that these

new philosophers were assisted by these mighty
works, and they consented to it for their doctrines.
For, also, the wise men of the Greeks, glorying in
the oracles of their gods, have likewise recorded of
the Hebrews: “Wisdom came to the Chaldaeans
alone, and the Hebrews purely worshipped the
Being of the Self-Existent God, the King of
all.”17
Eusebius has prefaced this with a reference to the belief in monotheism which
was passed on to the Christians from the Hebrews. The ‫ܚܕܬ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ ܦܝܠܘ܅ܤܦܐ‬or “New
Philosophers” is certainly referring to Porphyry and his followers because the
quotation at the end of the passage also occurs in Phil. orac. 324 F, which is
derived from PE IX.10.3–5, obviously reinforced by the wise men of the
ܵ ‫)ܚܟܝܡܐ‬
Greeks (‫ܕܝܘܢܝܐ‬ ܵ glorying or boasting (‫ )ܘܡܫܬܒܗܪܝܢ‬in the oracles of their
ܵ ܵ
gods (‫)ܒܩܨܡܐ ܕ�ܗܝܗܘܢ‬, a clear reference to Philosophia ex oraculis which paral-
lels the Viri Novi of Arnobius and the τῶν νέων of the PE III.6 passage cited
above.18 The two quotations should now be compared:
ܵ
‫ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܟܠ ܐܝܬܝܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ‬ ‫ܘܥܒܖܝܐ �ܠܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܬ‬ ܵ ‫ܒܠܝܝܘܕ �ܠܟܠܕܝܐ‬
 ‫ܚܟܡܬ ܐ‬ ܵ
ܼ
‫ܕܟܝܐܬܝ ܿܤܓܕܝܢ‬
Μoῦνoι Χαλδαῖoι σoϕίην λάχoν ἠδ ’ἄρ ’‛Εβραῖoι,
αὐτoγένεθλoν ἄνακτα σεβαζóμενoι Θεὸν ἁγνῶς.
Though not a direct quote from the Philosophia ex oraculis, we may also com-
pare 344 a F, derived from Augustine, Civ. Dei XX.24.8–26, with the first
lines being:
Quid est quod Porphyrius, cum pietatem laudet Hebraeorum qua magnus
et verus et ipsis numinibus terribilis ab eis colitur Deus, Christianos ob
hoc arguit maximae stultitiae etiam ex oraculis deorum suorum quod
istum mundum dicunt esse periturum?
Porphyry is named in the PE passage and an oracle from Phil. orac. is cited in
both PE and Theoph. passages, leaving no doubt that Eusebius is referring to
Porphyry and his followers as the New Philosophers who have attacked
Christianity, which is the same meaning that should be given to the viri novi or
new men of Adv. nat. 2.15. It is therefore indisputable that Arnobius is using
these words to identify Porphyry and his followers during the period of the
Great Persecution. Digeser rightly notes that “the key opponents whom
Arnobius addresses in Against the Nations, written during this persecution,
56  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

were the viri novi, Hellenes linked to and including Porphyry, a group that once
included Arnobius himself.”19
Since I published my Arnobius of Sicca, Mark Edwards has made the errone-
ous suggestion that Arnobius wrote the Adversus nationes circa a.d. 327 during
the reign of the first Christian emperor, Constantine, and after the termination
of the state persecutions of the Christians.20 Although a vast majority of scholars
conclude that a scibal error is the best explanation for the date given by Jerome
for Arnobius in the Chronicon s.a. a.d. 327,21 and thus the correct date is sub
Diocletiano principe, which is found in Jerome’s De viris illustribus 79 (Arnobius)
and 80 (Lactantius); Edwards insists that there is no contradiction between the
passages in Jerome and concludes that the Adv. nat. was written circa a.d. 327.22
Barnes has rightly noted, however, that “Edwards treats Against the Nations as a
product of the period after Constantine had defeated Licinius and hence arrives
at the utterly perverse conclusion that Lactantius is ‘more conciliatiory’ towards
pagans than Arnobius ‘because he is writing earlier.’ ”23 If the date of a.d. 327 is
correct, so claims Edwards, then the viri novi could be used to identify (e.g.)
Iamblichus and his followers. He uses Lactantius’ silence concerning Arnobius
in an attempt to further corroborate his chronology, but he does not address the
solution given by me that Jerome’s date in De vir. ill. 79 as sub Diocletiano prin-
cipe was the correct one, and Jerome acquired this information from the lost
works of Lactantius mentioned in De vir. ill. 80.24
There are other weaknesses of Edwards’s argument. First, he does not address
the passage cited above from PE III.6, which indisputably connects the “new
men” with Porphyry and his followers; its possible relation to the viri novi of
Adv. nat. II.15, and the important fact that in none of his works does Eusebius
name Iamblichus or even allude to the Neoplatonic philosopher. We shall ana-
lyze more weaknesses of the Iamblichean theory below. Second, Edwards cites
Adv. nat. I.16.1 as “internal evidence” that points to a date after the Scythians
were Christianized and the Goths were defeated by the Romans, or sometime
after a.d. 303.25 Yet the passage cited does not imply that all the Scythians had
been Christianized—Tertullian and Origen make similar rhetorical statements
about the Christianization of Britain26—any more than Eusebius makes use of
the evangelization of “all” the Hindus of India circa a.d. 338;27 nor should we
ignore earlier victories over the Germanic tribes.28 Monuments were regularly
dedicated to the gods after Roman legions won a battle, as evidenced (e.g.) in
the inscription found in August 1992 in Augsburg, from Postumus’ reign
(260–9), which celebrated a victory over Germanic tribes.29 If indeed Arnobius
knew Roman history well enough to accurately cite such events from the past as
(e.g.) the ceremonies of ancient Alba;30 the rites of pre-Regal Rome;31 the intro-
duction of the Cult of Isis during the consulship of Piso and Gabinius in 58
 Contra Christianos  57

b.c.;32 the Hannibalic invasion of Italy in 218 b.c.;33 the Cult of Magna Mater
introduced in Rome in 204 b.c.;34 the reigns of specific kings of Rome;35 the
Battle at the Caudine Forks in 321 b.c. during the Second Samnite War;36 the
Battle of Lake Trasimene in 217 b.c.;37 and the Battle on the Plains of Diomedes
near Cannae in 216 b.c.;38 there is no reason that would prevent us from inter-
preting his reference to Roman victories over the “Goths” to a few decades in the
past from the time of writing the Adv. nat. (a.d. 302–5). Wells’s insightful analy-
sis that ethnic names employed by Latin writers are “rarely defined precisely,”
they “are used inconsistently,” and such terms as Franks, Goths, and Alamanni
“are highly problematical” for the modern historian to ascertain their exact
meaning, might have benefitted Edwards immensely here.39
Ethnic terms, moreover, like Goths and Scythians are often used as rhetorical
topoi which do not denote ethnic identity as much as an indication of a geo-
graphical marker to designate the farthest extension of the Roman Empire, and,
thus, of civilization. Eusebius, for example, uses the term Scythian as such a
rhetorical topos rather often in the Theophany, his last work, written circa a.d.
337–8.40 Jerome refers to the British, Scythians, and the Barbarian nations even
to the ocean in the same manner, namely to designate the farthest extension of
the Empire, and which thus should not be taken literally.41 The same rhetorical
device is found in Adv. nat. II.5, the main point being that Christianity is now in
all nations. Later in the same book, Arnobius acknowledges the universal dis-
semination of his newly acquired faith, including such areas as Arabia, Parthia,
and Persia, and even emphasizing that every province and island of the Roman
Empire has been Christianized. This is certainly good ammunition for a rhetori-
cal argument, but solid historical facts to support such claims are obviously
nonexistent.42
Another specious assertion made by Edwards concerns Jerome’s remark that
the bishop of Sicca required Arnobius to write Adversus nationes as proof of the
sincerity of his conversion to Christ:
If we believe Jerome’s story that the treatise Against the Nations was sub-
mitted by Arnobius to his bishop as proof of his sincerity in conversion,
we cannot suppose that such a guarantee would have been exacted in a
time of persecution, when his courage would have been its own
certificate.43
This fails to appreciate the fact that it was not Arnobius’ courage about which
the bishop was so concerned, as much as it was, as Jerome himself states, that
Arnobius had been viciously attacking Christianity during the period leading
up to his conversion;44 and the episcopal concern will have been multiplied
exponentially if in fact, as I have argued, Arnobius was employing material
58  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

derived from the most formidable anti-Christian writer of the period in his
attack upon the Church of Roman North Africa, during a time when tensions
between pagans and Christians were escalating just before the outbreak of
Diocletian’s Great Persecution.45
That brings us to the very important and inter-related question as to why
would a professor of Latin literature in the province of Africa Proconsularis
(modern Tunisia) during a period of escalating tensions between pagans and
Christians and the initial phases of what became known as the Great
Persecution, in any way wish to become a member of a Church under hostile
attack? The answer is given by Jerome: Arnobius was converted to Christ by
means of dreams.46 The fact that this testimonial is puzzling to scholars is
quite puzzling to me.47 A careful analysis of this statement, being sensitive to
its cultural Sitz im Leben in Roman North Africa, will provide more evidence
against the view that Arnobius’ courage would have been its own guarantee
for the bishop. The belief that dreams were the primary media of divine reve-
lation for adherents to the Cult of Saturn, which was the major pagan religion
of Roman North Africa, had been deeply imbedded in the national religious
consciousness of the African provinces since the time when the Phoenicians
planted their unique Semitic civilization in Carthage many centuries before
the advent of Christianity.48 Saturn was the god par excellence of North Africa
during the imperial period. Evidence derived from ex-votives shows that a
vow to the god was the result of immediate contact between Saturn and his
worshipper via a dream, which is expressed on many stelae related to the cult
by such phrases as ex visu, visu monitus, and iussi visu.49 It was quite natural
for Arnobius, whose work often betrays an African background, to be con-
verted to Christ by means of dreams, at which time, feeling compelled by
Christ, he will have had no option except to present himself to the bishop of
Sicca for eventual admittance in his church.50 The bishop will have been quite
suspicious of a recent hostile opponent of the faith suddenly appearing at his
church asking to become a member. We can venture to say that although
Arnobius most probably shared the contents of the dreams that led to his con-
version with the bishop, the latter nevertheless hesitated about his sincerity
due to the professor’s association with Porphyry, the greatest anti-Christian
writer of antiquity. After submitting the written verification of (a) retractions
of his formerly held Porphyrian views (Books I and II) and (b) a sustained
attacked upon Greco-Roman polytheism (Books III–VII),51 the bishop was
convinced that his conversion was genuine (as Jerome asserts), and Arnobius
was admitted into his church in Sicca.
Arnobius gives a number of references to the persecution of Christians
that cannot be dated to any known persecution conducted by the Roman
 Contra Christianos  59

Empire except that which took place during the Diocletianic period, or a.d.
303–5. The explicit reference to the First Edict of February 303 in Adv. nat.
4.36.17–18,52 for example, which ordered the destruction of Christian places
of worship and the burning of scriptures, is a contemporary event, as are the
passages which contain references to other Diocletianic edicts.53 The com-
posite picture derived from these passages is that of a Church under a sus-
tained hostile attack, and many of the details Arnobius mentions make sense
only if they were written at a time contemporaneous with the Great
Persecution, and not, as Edwards argues, during a time of peace when other
Christian writers were basking in the sunshine of a new and refreshing tri-
umphalism brought about by the Constantinian Revolution.54 The same can
be said about Adv. nat. VII, which is an attack upon the practice of animal
sacrifice,55 a topic which coheres better during the period of the Fourth Edict
of Diocletian ordering universal sacrifice in the Roman Empire than after
Constantine had proscribed animal sacrifice (see below).56 It is very impor-
tant to note here that Constantius II mentions in a.d. 341 a law of his father
forbidding sacrifice.57
If Arnobius is referring to “Goths” or “Scythians” contemporaneously in a.d.
327 concerning happenings on the other side of the Roman Empire and related
to a minor ethnic group in the far eastern provinces, then the historian is justi-
fied in asking why is there not one sentence in the entire Adv. nat. remotely
related to Constantine, e.g., his vision in October A.D. 312, the victory of the
Milvian Bridge, the so-called “Edict of Milan,” the liberation of the churches in
Africa Proconsularis as evidenced in the letters of Constantine to the provincial
governor, Anulinus, the policies against paganism, the pro-Church program,
and so forth? At least some references to the first pro-Christian emperor of the
Roman Empire will have made for a stronger argument if Arnobius was writing
during the 320s. If indeed, Edwards can use the argument from silence concern-
ing Lactantius (which can be explained for different and more convincing rea-
sons than he gives), for a date of 327, even more logically can the same method
be used vis-à-vis Constantinian policies that were pro-Christian, against the
same chronology (a.d. 327) that he proposes. It is incredible to think that
Arnobius would not have been aware of happenings in the province where he
lived (Africa Proconsularis) that had an immediate, positive impact upon the
state of Christianity; and it is even more incredible to imagine that he would not
have used these data to reinforce his polemical argument in the Adv. nat., if
indeed, Arnobius was writing in the 320s, especially since mentioning these
pro-Christian events will have certainly impressed the bishop of Sicca who was
hesitant to admit him to his church. In short, the Adversus nationes gives the
composite picture of a Church under hostile attack, and there is no hint of the
60  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

perceived triumphalism which permeates the writings of his contemporaries,

Eusebius and Lactantius, who are keen to rub the pro-Christian policies of
Constantine in the faces of their pagan opponents.
The following represents a list of these important events, which occurred
during the reign of Constantine and of which Arnobius will have had some
knowledge; and he would have undoubtedly used them in his work against the
pagans if he had written the Adv. nat. circa a.d. 327.58

1. Constantine’s vision or dream of October 312 and his conversion to Christ.

It is the kind of major event that would have circulated quite rapidly
among Christian communities throughout the empire. Lactantius and
Eusebius, both contemporaries of Arnobius, mention it.59 On Edwards’s
dating we are led to believe that Arnobius completely ignored it. Yet it
would have immensely corroborated his argument against the pagans.
Eusebius and Lactantius certainly thought it was significant. It is incon-
ceivable that Arnobius, who is writing to convince the bishop of Sicca of
his sincerity to be admitted into his congregation, and who was himself
converted to Christ by dreams, would not have mentioned the first
Christian emperor’s initial commitment to Christ also by means of
a dream.
2. The edict granting tolerance to the churches by Galerius, posted in
Nicomedia 30 April a.d. 311.60 Both Lactantius and Eusebius mention this
unprecedented imperial edict, which was a source of pride for the
Christians who had been recently persecuted by the Tetrarchy.61 Are we to
think that Arnobius would not have also jumped at the opportunity to rub
it in the pagans’ faces? As McCracken noted in 1949, the year 311 thus
“becomes a terminus ante quem which is absolute: the entire work was
completed before that time.”62
3. The so-called Edict of Milan.63 Certainly Arnobius would have known
about the granting of freedom to, and legal recognition of, the Christians,
but there is no evidence in the Adv. nat. to suggest that Arnobius had
knowledge of this event, which Eusebius and Lactantius mention.64
4. Constantine’s letter to Anulinus65 ordering the restoration of property to
the churches in Africa Proconsularis confiscated during the Diocletianic
Persecution. Eusebius notes “of the Christians in any city” in Anulinus’
province, which logically would include the church at Sicca Veneria to
which was restored the property it possessed before the persecution.66
5. Constantine’s letter to Caecilian,67 bishop of Carthage, notifying him that
Ursus, the finance minister of Africa Proconsularis, must bestow upon
Caecilian grants of money for the churches in his province.68
 Contra Christianos  61

6. Constantine’s letter to Anulinus, mentioning Caecilian, bishop of

Carthage, concerning exemptions related to the munera civilia for the
clergy in Africa Proconsularis, dated to before 15 April A.D. 313.69
7. It is inconceivable if, as Edwards suggests, the Adv. nat. was written circa
a.d. 327, that Arnobius would have mentioned nothing about Old St.
Peter’s Basilica, a church built in Rome by Constantine that had a seating
capacity of around four thousand70 and which contained a shrine dedi-
cated to St. Peter, who is the only Christian figure mentioned by name in
the Adversus nationes.71
8. None of the imperial edicts of Constantine is mentioned, for example a
law of a.d. 321 making Sunday a holiday;72 the imperial letter to provin-
cial leaders that forbade pagan sacrifice,73 divination, and the dedication
of new cult images;74 laws that proscribed the private use of haruspices
and harmful magic;75 and the moral legislation of April 326.76 It is to be
noted that Adv. nat. VII, which is dedicated entirely to disparaging ani-
mal sacrifice among the pagans, would have been an unnecessary polem-
ical argument in 327 after Constantine’s law that forbade the practice; and
in any event the book coheres much better with circa a.d. 305, when the
Fourth Diocletianic Edict was promulgated ordering universal sacrifice
in the Roman Empire.77
9. The Council of Nicaea, a.d. 325. It is reasonable to assume that Arnobius
would have heard about this first universal Church council convened by
Constantine,78 and even taking into consideration that his knowledge of
the Bible and theology was deficient, he certainly would have been aware
of its significance for the Christians in the empire.
10. If Arnobius wrote the Adv. nat. in circa 327, it is extremely puzzling to find
nothing mentioned in the work about the building of any of the other
churches during the Constantinian period, data which Edwards com-
pletely ignores. We may give the following list of churches whose construc-
tion falls in the pre-326 period:79 the church built at Cirta (Constantine) in
Numidia, Roman North Africa in the 320s;80 the metropolitan church of
Alexandria, completed by a.d. 328, and other churches in Egypt;81 the
Lateran (St. John’s) Basilica begun by 312;82 the Lateran Baptistery, begun
circa 314;83 SS Marcellino e Pietro, begun by 315;84 S. Lorenzo fuore le mure,
begun in the 320s;85 Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, c. 326;86 Basilica
Apostolorum, begun by Constantine and completed by Constans;87 Old St.
Peter’s at the Vatican, begun circa 32588 and important, as noted above, in
light of the fact that Peter is the only person mentioned by name from
Christian history found in the Adversus nationes; the Basilica at Tyre, built
by 315;89 and St. Paul’s fuore le mure, begun circa 325.90 We could give more
62  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

examples, but suffice it to note here that the only reference to Christian
churches in the Adv. nat. concerns their being demolished under Diocletian,
and not their being constructed under Constantine.91
Thus, according to Edwards, we are led to believe that Arnobius strained at a
very small Scythian gnat, only to swallow a very large Constantinian and North
African camel! Nothing further from the historical facts could be construed
from the internal evidence of the Adversus nationes.
Finally, on the notion that though some argue that Arnobius is responding to
Porphyry, he is not the only candidate, and Iamblichus can be brought forth to
support a later dating for the Adv. nat. and as a candidate for the Viri novi men-
tioned by Arnobius;92 we must ask the following important questions:
1. Was Iamblichus ever known primarily, essentially, or in any way overtly as
an anti-Christian writer?93 The answer is, emphatically, no. There is no
evidence from any Iamblichean text that would support this view.
Conversely, Arnobius’ opponents, who are called the “New Men,” are
obviously contemporary philosophers who have been attacking
Christianity, and only one anti-Christian contemporary fits the composite
picture revealed in the books of the Adv. nat.: Porphyry. Although Clark,
Dillon, and Hershbell flag a reference to atheists (ἄθεoι) in De mysteriis
III.31 as a term used against the Christians in the pagan camp;94 and Dillon
and Hershbell interpret Pythagoras’ miracle in Croton95 as a reference to
Jesus’ miracle of multiplying the fishes;96 none of these passages overtly
mentions the Christians,97 the similarities between the two texts are mar-
ginal at best, and there is no case whatsoever for Iamblichus here to be
identified as an anti-Christian writer.
2. Did Iamblichus ever write one or more anti-Christian works? The answer
is, again, no.
3. Did Iamblichus’ works ever contain any anti-Christian passages? Although
Dillon, et alii, claim to find anti-Christian references as noted in number 1
above, the interpretation appears to be forced. According to John Finamore:
Iamblichus would certainly have been aware of Christians and their
beliefs, just as Plotinus and Porphyry were. It is possible that some of his
students were Christian, but I doubt it. Given Iamblichus’ radical views
on theology and magical practice, I doubt any Christians would have
stayed long in his school. The best we can say is that Iamblichus knew of
Christians, didn’t approve, but did not deign to respond to them in any
open way, perhaps fearing that an open attack would lend their beliefs a
sense of importance that he did not believe they merited.98
 Contra Christianos  63

4. Were there ever any Christian fathers/writers who wrote a response to

Iamblichus because he was identified as an anti-Christian teacher/author?
The answer: There are none that we know about.
5. Did any pagan writer, whether Neoplatonic or from another school of phi-
losophy, or some other discipline and writing in another genre, ever iden-
tify Iamblichus as an anti-Christian writer? Based upon the four answers
given above, the historian is forced to give a negative answer.
Hence Iamblichus and his followers in the eastern part of the empire are not
viable candidates for the New Men whose doctrines are attacked vehemently by
Eusebius (two passages above) and Arnobius (II.15), since there is no evidence
whatsoever of a connection between these Christian writers and Iamblichus.
We must conclude that Arnobius is the earliest of the Christian apologists to
refute Porphyry, the Neoplatonist and his followers are the New Men/New
Philosophers noted above, and Edwards’s date of 327 is unacceptable; and as
I have convincingly argued, the Adversus nationes was written circa a.d. 302–5
during the Diocletianic Age, and internal evidence derived from the work indi-
cates that the teacher of Lactantius designed a polemical argument in response
to Porphyry’s critique of Christian claims that Christ was the via salutis animae
universalis liberandae.99

Methodius of Olympus, d. 311
Although Jerome informs us that Methodius of Olympus, who died circa a.d.
311,100 wrote 10,000 lines against Porphyry,101 his now lost work is rarely acknowl-
edged by modern scholars.102 Some have even argued that the CC fragments
attributed to Methodius should not be designated as belonging to the Bishop of
Olympus.103 Jerome gives the following testimony about Methodius:
Methodius, Olympi Lyciae et postea Tyri episcopus, nitidi compositique
sermonis adversus Porphyrium confecit libros, et Symposium decem vir-
ginum, de resurrection opus egregium contra Origenem, et adversus
eumdem de Pythonissa, et de αὐτεξoυσίῳ, in Genesin quoque et in Cantica
Canticorum commentarias, et multa alia quae vulgo lectitantur. Et ad
extremum novissimae persecutionis, sive, ut alii affirmant, sub Decio et
Valeriano, in Chalcide Graeciae martyrio coronatus est.104
It is extremely difficult, if not indeed impossible, to date Methodius’ work against
Porphyry, but if the latter wrote the Contra Christianos circa a.d. 300, it is plau-
sible that Methodius’ response came soon after Arnobius’ Adv. nat., between
circa 305–10, especially allowing for the time required to compose a work as
64  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

lengthy as Jerome asserts105 and interpreting the latter’s et ad extremum novissi-

mae persecutionis as referring to the termination of the persecutions circa a.d.
311–2.106 There are two fragments in the lists supplied by Harnack and Jurado.107

Lactantius, c. 250–325
The present study accepts as tenable the central thesis of Elizabeth Digeser’s The
Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius and Rome (2000),108 which maintains
that the principal adversary of Lactantius’ Institutiones Divinae was Porphyry,109
and a number of oracles cited by the Christian author are intended as a response
to the De philosophia ex oraculis.110 The argument of Digeser that Lactantius
(D.I. 5.4.1–2) is responding to the Nicomedia winter lectures of circa 302–3 is
quite cogent,111 further corroborated by her most recent book, which studies
together the works of Lactantius, Eusebius, and Arnobius and concludes that all
three Christian writers responded to Porphyry.112 And the anonymous philoso-
pher mentioned in D.I. V.2.3–4, who wrote three books against the Christians
and dined at the imperial palace in Nicomedia was, as Digeser argues, Porphyry.113
Also, more recently Schott interprets Porphyry’s statement in Ad Marc. 4 that
“the needs of the Greeks called and the gods confirmed their request,” as a refer-
ence to Porphyry’s attendance at the imperial conference.114 Schott cites the works
of recent scholars who have made the same conclusions.115 The arguments against
this view of (e.g.) Riedweg and Goulet are totally unconvincing here. Goulet tries
to make a strong case against the view that Porphyry attended the conference
convened by Diocletian in a.d. 302 due to the fact that Lactantius does not men-
tion that philosophers attended the meeting.116 By the date of the imperial confer-
ence (302), whether one dates the CC circa 270 or as this study, in 300, he was the
most famous and formidable anti-Christian writer in the Roman Empire. This
easily explains both the silence of Lactantius and the very general statement
about the conference in Ad Marc. 4. Suffice it to say that the pupil of Arnobius
represents one of the earliest Christian writers who responded to Porphyry.

Eusebius of Caesarea, 260–340

The great Father of Church History, who was also a theologian, apologist, bibli-
cal scholar, bishop, and biographer of Constantine, wrote his two great apolo-
getical works, Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica, in response
to Porphyry of Tyre. He also wrote his Contra Porphyrium in twenty-five books,
which is now lost. Although Barnes’s assertion that it “must have been an
ephemeral and hasty work” is pure conjecture,117 it makes sense in light of the
fact that later generations did not preserve such an important polemical work
 Contra Christianos  65

written by one of the most influential bishops of the early Church. Another
Eusebian work that is invaluable for its anti-Porphyrian content is the Theophany,
the last apologetic composition of the bishop, written circa a.d. 337–8, and cer-
tainly representing one of the most neglected works in the history of patristic
scholarship.118 Only a few fragments are extant of the original Greek text, but the
Theophany survives in a Syriac translation of the fifth century. Since very little
has ever been written on this apology of Eusebius since the 1840s, and it is sig-
nificant for an understanding of the response of the bishop of Caesarea to
Porphyry’s works, the next chapter will address the important issues of the
Christian-pagan debate on soteriological universalism in that work. As we shall
observe, the Theophany is very significant not only for an understanding of
Eusebian soteriology, but also for the pagan-Christian debate on universalism at
the end of the Constantinian Age.119
According to Jerome, Eusebius devoted Books XVII, XIX, and XX of the
Contra Porphyrium to Porphyry’s attack on the Book of Daniel.120 Eusebius
states that Porphyry wrote the CC in Sicily.121 What is very interesting about this
testimony from the bishop of Caesarea is his remark that Porphyry composed
συγγράμματα, which can be interpreted as (separate) works against the
Christians, rather than books in one composition. If this is the meaning of the
word in the above passage, Eusebius is undoubtedly referring to the Contra
Christianos and the De philosophia ex oraculis. This should not be taken to mean
that the latter was ipso facto an anti-Christian work (though it contained some
anti-Christian oracles in Book III), but rather that Eusebius perceived the work
as such. The same can be said about, for example Lactantius and Arnobius.122
The venue for the writing of both works should not pose problems, since it is
reasonable to suggest that Porphyry might have moved back and forth to Rome
and Sicily during his career.
There are ten genuine fragments of the CC derived from the works of
Eusebius123 that address various important issues related to the conflict between
paganism and Christianity of the late third and early fourth centuries. Porphyry
accused Christians of being estranged from the kind of ancestral customs
through which every nation is nurtured. Since the Christians have abandoned
worship of the pagan gods, Porphyry called for their persecution. Barnes is
undoubtedly correct in his assessment of this fragment: Porphyry argued that
the profession of Christianity ought to be a capital crime.124A couple of frag-
ments reveal criticism of the historical reliability of the Bible.125 Harnack CC 80
is one of the most important fragments for the present study, because in it
Porphyry states that since the plague has overtaken the city—and we assume he
is referring to Rome here—Asclepius and the other (healing) deities have not
provided any public utility, thus relegating Jesus to an anti-salvific status.
66  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

This would imply that at least in some sections of the CC, Porphyry addressed
the claims of Christians that Christ was the universal savior.126
Another fragment contains the common Porphyrian critique that Christians
cannot show a logical demonstration or proof of their beliefs, but rely only on
faith. It is a refutation of the Christians to which Eusebius, Augustine, and
Arnobius responded with great zeal and vehemence.127 We may compare with
this Harnack CC 7 (=Jurado CC 20; Berchman CC 17), where Eusebius turns
Porphyry’s accusation that the Apostles of Christ were liars against him, reprov-
ing them for self-love, mendacity, and not being capable of providing clear and
evident documentation. Porphyry further asserts that the Apostles were friends
of envy and enemies of the truth, establishing themselves as criminals and ter-
rible sophists. The crux of the argument then manifests itself: If they produced
in their writings things that did not happen, did they not also lie about Christ’s
sufferings?128 Three fragments are related to Porphyry’s attempt to prove that the
so-called prophecies of the Old Testament, which the Christians had interpreted
as being fulfilled in the Christ event, were written post eventum, and thus were
not genuine prophecies.129 In the last Eusebian fragment Porphyry is quoted
criticizing Origen’s allegorical method of interpreting scripture and his intro-
ducing Greek notions into foreign myths. It is noteworthy also that the
Neoplatonist refers to Christianity as a “path,” which is reminiscent of the theo-
logical language employed in the De philosophia ex oraculis 130 Digeser’s recent
works have indisputably shown that Eusebius’ polemical response to Porphyry
played a vital role in the pagan-Christian debate on the via salutis in the period
leading up to the Great Persecution.131 As noted above, since Eusebius’ Theophany
is one of the most neglected texts in the history of patristic scholarship, and it
contains many passages that are relevant to the bishop of Caesarea’s response to
Porphyry’s vituperation of Christian doctrine and practices, we shall analyze its
significance below.
Kofsky has noted that the first five books of Eusebius’ General Basic
Introduction are now lost, and Stevenson not only argued that they served as the
basis for Book III of the DE,132 but he went further to propose that the lost part
of the General Basic Introduction was based on Eusebius’ Contra Porphyrium.133
Finally, though it is impossible, based upon available evidence, to give a precise
date for the writing of the Contra Porphyrium, some time circa a.d. 310, before
Eusebius wrote the PE and DE, would seem reasonable.134

Athanasius, 296–373
The Italian scholar Pier F. Beatrice has concluded that Athanasius’ Against the
Pagans should be considered “dans son ensemble comme réponse organique et
 Contra Christianos  67

articulée à l’attaque portée par Porphyre contre le christianisme durant la sec-

onde moitié du 3ème siècle.”135 If this is correct, we can safely assume that
Athanasius is responding to the Contra Christianos, and the title of his work,
Against the Pagans, is reminiscent of another anti-Porphyrian work, Arnobius’
Adversus nationes. Athanasius also states that Gregory Thaumaturgos wrote
against Porphyry, who had made an (ignominious) interpretation of the Holy
Gospel.136 There is no reason to doubt the veracity of this statement, and if the
refutation of Gregory to which Athanasius refers is alluding to the Contra
Christianos of Porphyry, then circa a.d. 270, the year of Gregory’s death, must be
given as the terminus ante quem for the anti-Christian work. However, as noted
above,137 the refutation most probably is to be dated during the period when
both Gregory and Porphyry were students at Origen’s school in Caesarea. If this
is correct, 270 is not a terminus ante quem for the CC, but rather the remark
made by Athanasius concerns the kind of lively debates between students in
Caesarea when Porphyry, a young Christian interested in philological studies,
might have indeed disagreed with Gregory’s exegesis of one of the Gospels.138
The writing of such refutations in the philosophical schools of Late Antiquity
was commonplace: Porphyry himself, at Plotinus’ suggestion, wrote such a refu-
tation in the Neoplatonic School in Rome of Diophanes’ defense of Alcibiades
in Plato’s Symposium.139

Apollinarius, 310–90
Very little is known about the work against Porphyry that was written by
Apollinarius of Laodicea.140 Jerome simply reports: “Fortissimos libros contra
Porphyrium scripsit Apolinarius.”141 In the Prologue to his commentary on the
Book of Daniel, Jerome further informs us that Book XVI of Apollinarius’ work
comprised an attack upon Porphyry’s criticism of the Book of Daniel,142 and in
the De viris illustribus he says that the work contained thirty books,143 making it
most probably the longest anti-Porphyrian treatise in antiquity.144 Finally,
beyond the general statement by Philostorgius that Apollinarius’ work against
Porphyry was superior to those written by both Eusebius and Methodius, noth-
ing can be said either about the contents or the other themes covered by the
bishop of Laodicea.145

Julius Firmicus Maternus, d. after 360

Probably born in Sicily, the rhetor Julius Firmicus Maternus became a Christian
as an adult and wrote two works that are significant for this study. The Mathesis
in eight books was devoted to astrology. Written in Rome circa 347, the De errore
68  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

profanarum religionum was an attempt to convince the emperors Constantius

and Constans to destroy pagan images of the gods. In the former work, Firmicus
includes Porphyry along with Pythagoras in a reference to the Pythagorean
principle of maintaining silence before the deity.146 His reference to noster
Porphyrius indicates that Firmicus was still a pagan at the time of writing the
Mathesis. By the mid 340s when he had written the De errore profanarum reli-
gionum, his otherwise positive attitude toward the Neoplatonist had changed,
for in the work he describes Porphyry in pejorative terms: He is a defender of
idols, an enemy of God, and an adversary of the truth.147 It is not known, how-
ever, whether these general statements are based upon a reading of the Contra
Christianos, the De philosophia ex oraculis, or both works.

Diodore of Tarsus, d. c. 390

Diodore studied at Athens and became a fervent enemy of Arianism. By the
early 360s he became a priest in Antioch where it is said he disputed with Julian
the Apostate. He played a prominent part in the Council of Constantinople
(a.d. 381) and was acknowledged by Theodosius I as an outstanding proponent
of Nicene Orthodox Christianity.148 One fragment of the CC from Diodore is
extant that addresses the Christian doctrines of creation and the resurrection of
the flesh.149 It cannot be deduced from this fragment whether Diodore had
direct knowledge of the CC.150 Suidas reports that Diodore wrote a work titled
Contra Porphyrium, de animalibus et sacrificiis, but this most probably did not
contain any references to the Contra Christianos.151

John Chrysostom, 347–407

As noted in c­ hapter 1 above, John Chrysostom is one of the Christian writers
who uses the term Bataneota to describe Porphyry.152 The bishop of
Constantinople also provides evidence for the continued availability of cop-
ies of the CC in various Christian libraries after it was consigned to the flames
by the Constantine circa 324.153 The law was not successful in destroying all
copies of the CC because Theodosius II and Valentinian III condemned the
work to be burned in a law issued February 17, 448.154 Yet we should not
restrict the accessibility of the CC only to the libraries of Christians during
the period because, as Barnes has wisely suggested, Julian the Apostate most
likely attempted to put Porphyry’s anti-Christian work back into circulation
in the early 360s.155 In any event, it is very possible that Chrysostom pos-
sessed knowledge of the CC and responded to the criticism of the scriptures
found in it. Berchman gives two passages from Chrysostom’s homilies that he
 Contra Christianos  69

includes in his revised list of the CC fragments. The first coheres with the
kind of logic applied by Porphyry to various theological and biblical princi-
ples in order to demonstrate their contradictory nature: “How did he go up
after saying, I am not going up? How then also did he not go up? For if he did
not go up because the time had not yet come, he should not have gone up at
all” (Jn. 7:8–10).156 The second applies the same logic to a major focus of
Porphyry’s biblical criticism—the Apostles of Christ: “And how does he (scil.
Peter), told not to have a scrip, not to have two coats, own a sword; how does
he, who was forbidden to even strike a blow with the hand, become a killer of
men?”157

Rufinus, c. 345–411
Rufinus Tyrannius158 was born circa 345 in Concordia near Aquileia in north
Italy to an upper class family and eventually studied rhetoric in Rome. He
was a monk and a historian, but his greatest contribution to the history of
Christianity was as a translator of Greek works into Latin as the West began
to decline. Of his translations the most notable was of Origen’s De principiis,
and his fondness for the great Alexandrian theologian embroiled him in con-
flicts with Jerome and other contemporary ecclesiastics including
Epiphanius.159 Jurado’s Testimonio XVIII lists five short passages from
Rufino’s Apol. adv. Hier. that contain general remarks about Porphyry’s being
an enemy of Christ because he wrote blasphemous things about Christ and
scripture.160 Another remark about how Porphyry disparaged Christian vir-
gins, priests, and deacons might imply that Rufinus had a direct knowledge
of the CC, though there is no tradition that attests that he ever wrote a refuta-
tion of it.161

Didymus the Blind, c. 313–98

Didymus the Blind lost his sight as a young child and eventually became known
for his great erudition.162 According to Rufinus, Athanasius appointed him
director of the Catechetical School of Alexandria.163 He died at the age of
eighty-five.164 He was a prolific author, primarily writing commentaries on
books of the Bible and on Origen’s De principiis. He was condemned as an
Origenist by the Council of Constantinople in a.d. 553. Harnack’s list of CC frag-
ments did not include any from the works of Didymus the Blind. However,
D. Hagedorn and R. Merkelbach published an article in 1966 that contained the
following passage from Didymus the Blind’s Commentary on the Book of Job
10:13 (oἶδα ὅτι πάντα δύνασαι ):165
70  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Some have used sophistical arguments, among whom are Porphyry and
those like him, to say that “if all things are possible with God, then God
could also lie. And if every-thing is possible to the believer (Mt. 17:20),
then he could make a bed and a man.”166
The same argument is found in Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus IV.24,167 and it
was undoubtedly employed by Porphyry. There is no reason to reject its authen-
ticity as a genuine fragment of the CC.168
Two years after Merkelbach and Hagedorn169 published their discovery,
G. Binder analyzed a passage from Didymus’ Commentarii in Ecclesiasten 9:10
and concluded that it should be listed as a genuine fragment of the CC.170 In it
Porphyry says that the passage in Homer where Achilles and Hector are men-
tioned should be given an allegorical meaning for Christ and the devil, respec-
tively.171 Sellew has convincingly shown that Porphyry’s allegorical exegesis of
passages in the Iliad derived from the Tura papyrus of Didymus’ Commentarii
in Ecclesiasten was not aimed at being a reductio ad absurdum of the Christian
interpretation of the Old Testament, but as a serious counter-allegory by which
the Neoplatonist read moral principles into Greek works.172 Barnes is correct to
say that this hermeneutical method cohered with Porphyry’s De antro nym-
pharum in which his exegesis of Homer found deeper spiritual truths hidden
beneath the literal meaning of the Iliad and the Odyssey.173 The fragment states:
Porphyry, who intends to make charges against us, says we proceed vio-
lently, when we fabricate spiritual explanations and allegories from the
literal sense (of a text). He interprets the lines of Homer, where Achilles
and Hector are mentioned, allegorically (as if they are) about Christ and
the Devil. And what we tend to say about the Devil, he said about Hector,
and what we tend to say about Christ, he said about Achilles. He presents
the following words: “Before the victory of Achilles, Hector dominated
over everything and one held him to be more powerful than all others.” He
did this for purposes of diabolical confusion. The method is to interpret a
text in the highest sense in the end. However, we often powerfully don the
historical-literary sense of interpretation, not in order to show something
historical-literal, but rather to lead the hearer to understanding; for
example—with the sentence: “Thorns grow in the hands of the intoxi-
cated” (Prov. 26:9).174
The final fragment from Didymus the Blind comes from his Commentarii in
Psalmos 43:2 and was published in 1968 by M. Gronewald:175
For not everyone can say this, but only a few, who have received from God
an additional ear. The savior had this ear, when he said: “He who has ears
 Contra Christianos  71

to hear, let him hear!” (Mt. 11:15). However not everyone possessed ears,
which perceived the veiled words of Jesus, which were words announced in
parables. Therein, therefore, Porphyry represents a mistaken viewpoint.176
Revealing Porphyry’s fondness for disparaging and ridiculing the Christian
scriptures and attempting to demonstrate their inconsistent and contradictory
nature, this fragment betrays Didymus’ direct knowledge of the contents of
the CC.

Epiphanius, 315–403
Epiphanius was born in Besanduche in Palestine circa a.d. 315 and the edu-
cation that he received in Egypt impacted both his spiritual formation and
his understanding of biblical interpretation.177 Renowned for his zealous
adherence to Nicene Orthodoxy, Epiphanius wrote the Panarion, also known
as the Refutation of all Heresies, which was a compendium of all heresies
known to him, beginning in the apostolic period and continuing to his time.
Only one fragment of the CC is attributed to him.178 Epiphanius begins by
including the pagan philosophers Porphyry, Celsus, and the very obscure
Philosabbatius among those who have accused the evangelists of falsifying
chronological data related to the birth narratives of Christ in the Lukan
account; ridiculing the stories about Simeon and Anna; and accusing Luke
of lying about the journey to Jerusalem forty days after the birth of Jesus.
Although these statements are common Porphyrian stock, the facts that
they are very general and include the names of other philosophers may
count against any direct knowledge of the Contra Christianos that Epiphanius
might have possessed.

Nemesius, fl. c. 390
Nemesius was bishop of Emesa in Syria, whose Περὶ Φύσεως ’Ανθρώπoυ (De
natura hominis) reflects an eclectic philosopher’s attempt to employ technical
Greek philosophical terminology to analyze the Christian concept of the human
being. It is the first complete treatment of Christian anthropology in the history of
patristic theology. The work is also invaluable as a source for Porphyry’s Symmikta
Zetemata. The sole fragment of the CC that Nemesius’ De nat. hom. provides,
though short, reveals the fact that Porphyry often focused upon the major soterio-
logical themes—in this case the resurrection—of the Christian faith:179
And by this apocatastasis, some say, the Christians imagine there is a res-
urrection, but they have erred greatly because concerning the words
72  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

ascribed to Christ, it is supposed that the resurrection will take place only
once, and not periodically.

Severianus of Gabala, fl. c. 400

Very little is known about Severianus.180 He was the bishop of Gabala and
adhered to the Antiochene School of biblical exegesis. He participated in the
Synod of the Oak (403) and was known for his homiletical skills. Metaphors
used in his homilies, a number of which have survived, demonstrate an affin-
ity with St. Ephrem of Edessa. Harnack CC fragment 42, derived from
Severianus’ De mundi creatione, is the only passage attributed to him from the
anti-Christian work of Porphyry.181 It includes the interesting statement that
Pophyry’s Contra Christianos had caused many believers in Christ to aposta-
tize from the “divine teachings.”182 Doctrinally it calumniates the story found
in Genesis about the tree of knowledge, ridiculing the view that God forbade
knowledge of evil and asking why he did not forbid knowledge of the good
as well.

Jerome, 345–420
The great biblical exegete and translator, who studied in Rome and spent most
of his adult life in Bethlehem devoted to his study, has provided more fragments
from the CC than any other Christian writer.183 Jurado’s list gives nos. 25–52 as
fragments derived from Jerome’s works according to the following:
The columns above are misleading because most of the fragments come from
the Commentary on Daniel and are represented by only two fragments, 29–30,

Commentary on the Psalms Nos. 25–6

Commentary on Isaiah Nos. 27–8, 30U
Commentary on Daniel Nos. 29–30
Commentary on Hosea No. 31
Commentary on Joel No. 32
Commentary on Matthew Nos. 33–8
Commentary on Galatians Nos. 39–44
Ep. 57 No. 45
Ep. 112 No. 46
Ep. 130 No. 47
Ep. 133 No. 48
C. Vigil. No. 49
Adv. Pelag. No. 50
Quaest. in Gen. No. 51
Tract. in Marc. No. 52
 Contra Christianos  73

but no. 30 is further divided into sub-categories A–U and covers almost thirteen
pages.184
Jerome informs us that Book XII of the Contra Christianos was devoted to the
Book of Daniel.185 Porphyry’s main argument seems to have been that the book
was not written by the prophet Daniel, but by a person who lived during the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes.186 The book does not, therefore, foretell the future,
but narrates the past. In short, the Book of Daniel is a forgery, not divinely
inspired prophetic revelation.187 Porphyry accused Daniel of making up some of
the contents and thus of deceiving his readers into thinking they are reading
true prophecy.188 The Neoplatonist further attempted to demonstrate that a care-
ful study of Greek history is required to produce a proper interpretation of
Daniel.189 Porphyry apparently reinforced this point by showing that Daniel did
not receive prophetic revelation about the Anti-Christ, and those passages in
the book that had been interpreted in this manner by the Christians were given
a strictly historical meaning.190 For example, the last two beasts in Daniel 7:6–7,
the leopard and the fourth beast, were interpreted as representing Alexander the
Great and his four successors, respectively, and thus were placed in the histori-
cal periods of Macedonia and Rome.191 Jerome says that Porphyry then counted
ten kingdoms up to the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, but he did not
associate the kings with separate kingdoms (e.g., Macedon, Syria, Asia, Egypt),
but rather he ordered the various kingdoms into a single kingdom, making up a
series.192 He did this so that “a mouth speaking beasts,” which is a reference to
Daniel 7:8, ‫ופם ממלל רברבן‬, would be applied to Antiochus rather than the
Anti-Christ.193
According to Porphyry, analyses of later passages produce the same herme-
neutical result.194 The little horn of ­chapter 7 is Antiochus Epiphanes, and the
three uprooted horns of that passage are Ptolemy VI, Ptolemy VII, and the
Armenian king Artaxias.195 This whole line of argumentation continues through
several chapters until reaching a climax at 11:31–43,196 which is the famous
Abomination of Desolation, which Christian exegetes, following the Olivet
Eschatological Discourse of Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, placed in the
future reign of the Anti-Christ, but for Porphyry it referred to Antiochus’ great
act of irreverence towards the God of the Jews manifested when he set up his
own statue in the temple in Jerusalem.197 According to a remark made by Jerome
in his Commentary on Matthew, Porphyry critiqued the Abomination of
Desolation in Book XIII of the Contra Christianos.198 Two other fragments, one
that criticizes women holding offices in the government of the Church and the
other ridiculing the marriage between the prophet Hosea and the prostitute
Gomer, complete Porphyry’s criticism of Old Testament books derived from
Jerome.199
74  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

With respect to the New Testament, Porphyry seems to have concentrated on

the major doctrines related to divine providence, creation, Christology, the mir-
acles of Christ, the reliability of scripture, the mendacity of the Apostles, and
salvation. For example, in his attempt to demonstrate that the New Testament is
unreliable as divine scripture, Matthew is accused of being ignorant and creat-
ing falsehoods.200 Owing to the simplemindedness and ignorance of their audi-
ence, the evangelists used the testimonies taken from another time.201 Their
references to and interpretation of Old Testament passages were confusing and
untrustworthy.202 All gospel passages are replete with scandals and slanderous
statements.203 Mockingly, Porphyry asserts that the Apostles did not have real
faith because they could not move mountains.204 The doctrine of the resurrec-
tion of Christ is disparaged,205 as is the moral character of his disciples.206 Jesus
is charged with being fickle and inconsistent because he said that he would not
go to the feast in Jerusalem, but he went anyway.207 Jesus’ miracles appear to
have been a major focus of Porphyry’s polemics. One example is his disparage-
ment of the miracle of walking on the water, which is misconstrued to indicate
that the evangelists did not know the difference between a lake (Genezareth)
and a sea.208 Finally, in the fourteenth book of the CC (according to Jerome),
Porphyry accused the evangelists of ignorance not only of profane things, but
also of the divine scriptures, giving as his proof text Mark 1:1–12, because they
attributed to a prophet the testimony found in another biblical passage.209
The number of the fragments (seven) of the CC derived from Jerome’s works
that portray Porphyry’s criticism of the Apostles of Christ strongly suggests that
one of the major points of his attack focused upon the apparent dissension that
existed between Paul and Peter. Notwithstanding the significance of the appar-
ently isolated passage in which Porphyry accuses Peter of prayer for the deaths
of Ananias and Sapphira,210 the remaining six fragments of this sub-category
accentuate the disunity between the two leading Apostles of the West. One of
these simply comments upon the serious conflict between them,211 and in
another, from book I of the CC, Porphyry asserts that Paul reprimanded Peter
for not immediately beginning his ministry of evangelization.212 Jerome inter-
prets Porphyry’s motives as wanting to brand Peter with the blemish of error,
the lie of impertinence, and publicly teaching fictitious stories, all resulting from
the serious so-called differences that existed between the princes of the
Church.213 Three other fragments continue the same polemical argument, and
one stresses the contradiction between the teachings of Peter and Paul.214 Finally,
not only did the two Apostles disagree, but Porphyry further claimed that Peter
and Cephas were two different persons.215 Eusebius, in responding to Porphyry’s
attacks upon these two Apostles, emphasizes the harmony between them, their
great fame and success, the fact that Peter and Cephas were one and the same
 Contra Christianos  75

person, and posterity has honored both men as great heroes of the faith with
their own churches and magnificent tombs in the city of Rome.216
There are four fragments from Jerome which are very important for the pres-
ent study because they relate to Porphyry’s criticism of Christian universalism,
and for that reason should be quoted in full and in the original Latin. And the
fact that the four fragments come from four different works strongly suggests
that this theme played a vital role in the overall polemical argument of the CC.
The first one reveals that Porphyry did not deny the extensive geographical dis-
semination of Christianity during his day, but explained its phenomenal growth
as being due to the lust for power and material profit.217 Porphyry grew up dur-
ing the Peace of Gallienus, circa 260–300, during which there were no official
state persecutions of Christianity conducted by the Roman Empire, and as we
shall see below, it was a period of intensive evangelization that produced unprec-
edented growth in the churches. We may therefore rightly assume that by the
time he was writing the CC (a.d. 300), the continued growth of Christianity was
of great concern not only to him, but also to the leaders of the Tetrarchy.
The second fragment concerns the Christian teaching about Christ the Savior
of the world: “Arguit in hoc loco Porphyrius et Julianus Augustus uel imperi-
tiam historici mentientis uel stultitiam eorum qui statim secuti sunt Saluatorem,
quasi inrationabiliter quemlibet uocantem hominem sint secuti.”218 Porphyry
bases his argument that Christ should be disqualified as the Savior of all human-
kind upon the premise that it is misleading to believe that he was anything but
a man. This is a common attack upon orthodox Christology in Porphyry’s works
(e.g., Phil. orac. and CC). Taking the different approach to the claims of Christian
universalism, the third fragment poses a very important question from the per-
spective of the pagan intelligentsia who took pride in their ancient religious
traditions which had been preserved by the mos maiorum of the Roman
Empire.219 Porphyry’s argument here is clear. How could a compassionate and
merciful God allow all the souls who lived before the advent of Christ to perish
in their ignorance of the law and commandments of God? Rather than approach
the problem from the traditional philosophical perspectives of the kind of cycli-
cal or topical historiographical universalism that was employed by the Greek
historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, etc.), Porphyry, by a shrewd strat-
egy of retorsion, turns the customary linear and teleological lines of the
Christians’ historiographical arguments against them.220 What was the purpose
of God’s sending Christ to save humankind from sin if indeed so many souls
who lived before his advent were to perish? For Porphyry, Christian scripture
neither contained prophetic revelation, nor did it make good historical sense.
The final universalism fragment from Jerome contains Porphyry’s exegesis of
Daniel 2:31–5:
76  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

“Factus est mons magnus et impleuit uniuersam terram”; quod Iudaei et

impius Porphyrius male ad populum referunt Israel, quem in fine saecu-
lorum uolunt esse fortissimum et omnia regna conterere et regnare in
aeternum.221
The phrase Factus est mons magnus et impleuit uniuersam terram derives from
the Hebrew at the end of Daniel 2:35 (‫)הות לטור רב ומלת כל־ארעא‬. Underlying this
is Porphyry’s critique of the Christians’ exegesis of this passage to indicate that
the eternal reign of God that would be established at the eschaton by Christ,
should rather be applied to the people of Israel who would be the greatest power,
crush all other political powers, and rule for all eternity.

Conclusions to the Fragments of the Contra Christianos in Jerome

Was there a presence of universalism in the Contra Christianos as represented

by the fragments derived from Jerome? Undoubtedly, we can answer this ques-
tion positively, but the larger and thus more important questions are: To what
extent was this theme developed in the CC, how did it relate to the other major
themes of the work, and did it play a vital role in Porphyry’s polemical argument
as a whole? In other words, was it a theme of only one book, or a part of a book
or books, or did it function as one of the major themes of the work? Or was it
possibly the major theme? Due to the fragmentary nature of the CC, the number
and often (questionable) nature of the fragments, the answers to these questions
evade the modern historian. Also, even in the case where fragment x from
Jerome might be described as an authentic passage from Porphyry’s work, one
often is confronted with other inter-related issues that must be considered in
attempting to reconstruct the main lines of argumentation, and these include
such things as the personal, subjective psychological, theological, biblical, and
polemical aims that motivated the Christian author to select passage or section
x of the CC and comment upon it/them, and that are often beyond the reach of
the historian’s investigations. Simply put, these questions often cannot be
answered, because they bring the analytical process to the very important ques-
tion concerning whether the passage that is reportedly taken from the CC is a
direct quote, a summary, or a paraphrase that may or may not accurately repre-
sent Porphyry’s argument as it occurred in the larger polemical context from
which it derived. The Christian author might have unconsciously applied the
passage in a way that was not the original hermeneutical intention of Porphyry.
What F. Jacoby observed many years ago about fragment collections certainly
applies to Jerome and the other Christian writers who claim to be citing the
CC: Both the content and the form of the fragment are the two basic issues in an
 Contra Christianos  77

attempt to discover the original passage in which it occurred.222 Also, as Glen

Most has noted, why an author quotes a text may greatly influence the way he
quotes it, and how fully and exactly: “But the character of the quoter must also
be borne in mind (is he honest? What kinds of texts did he have access to?).”223
The transmission of the fragment(s) must be kept in mind as well.224
The hermeneutical dilemma that the fragmentary nature of the CC poses for
the modern historian might be similar to a person who is trying to put together
a puzzle consisting of many thousands of pieces, and who, in turn, does not have
the picture of the final product before him or her. Thus, he does not have all the
pieces to complete the puzzle. He begins to piece together what appears to be
the head of a man with little horns protruding from the top. The conclusion
which he makes is that the “big picture” might be that of a demonic figure or the
Devil. Then enough pieces are later found to piece together enough of the puzzle
to conclude that the “Devil” turns out to be Michelangelo’s Moses. The inter-
preter of the CC must keep this fragmented picture in mind in the attempt to
piece together even a semblance of the contents of the fifteen books of the
anti-Christian work.
However, does this mean that it is impossible to get a general idea as to some
of the major themes of the work, how these were related to each other, and the
possibility of the role that universalism might have played in the polemical
argument as a whole? While being sensitive to such important issues as the
transmission of the text, composition, motives for selection, hermeneutical
method(s), and other important matters related to contextualization, I suggest
that if we carefully analyze and piece together the themes that have been evalu-
ated in this section on Jerome, and determine how they relate to each other
thematically, it is possible to get a rather clear “big picture” understanding of
Porphyry’s main lines of argumentation that he brought against Christianity.225
In this kind of contextual analysis some of the major themes that surface are
Christology, divine providence, creation and God’s plan of salvation for human-
kind, the reliability of scripture as God’s written Word, the characters of the
Apostles of Christ, the miracles of Christ, and for the present study, the
all-important theme of soteriology. In a number of cases these fragments from
Jerome are complemented and reinforced by fragments provided by (e.g.)
Eusebius, Augustine, and other Christian writers.
Acknowledging that we do not have access to all the pieces of the Porphyrian
puzzle, we can nevertheless conclude that in examining these themes and how
they fit together, it is plausible that the theological catalyst that played a vital
role in the development of the main structure of Porphyry’s polemical argu-
ment in the CC, as it was in the De regressu animae and the De philosophia ex
oraculis, was universalism. Hoffmann has noted that, in his criticism of Daniel,
78  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Porphyry tried to undermine a whole system of Christian interpretation based

upon the belief that the book contained important prophecies that were
applied eschatologically to Christ. This exegetical tradition goes as far back as
Justin Martyr and Hippolytus, who argues that Daniel predicted (1) the birth
of the Messiah, (2) the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and (3) the
Second Coming of Jesus Christ.226 Andrew Smith articulates Porphyry’s criti-
cism of Daniel as an attack upon an important prophecy concerning the pres-
ent triumph of the Church in the late third/early fourth centuries, and a
confirmation of the authenticity of its mission.227 It is very plausible, therefore,
that Christian universalism was one of the major themes of the CC.
In other words, in negatively evaluating the Christian doctrines related to (e.g.)
providence, God, Christology, the Bible, and salvation, the main literary theme of
the CC might very well have been that Christ is not the one way of salvation for
the human soul. If this is correct, we can view the three Porphyrian works, the De
regr. an., the CC, and Phil. orac.—and in this order chronologically—as a trilogy
that offered, on the one hand, a very positive assessment of religious and philo-
sophical paganism’s possibility of finding a way of salvation for everyone; and on
the other, a negative assessment of the Christian claim that only in Christ is found
universal salvation.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, c. 350–428

Theodore, the theologian and biblical scholar, who studied under Diodore at
Antioch and became the bishop of Mopsuestia in 392, exemplifies the Antiochene
School of biblical exegesis. His Christological doctrines were condemned at the
Councils of Ephesus (431) and Constantinople (553). In an article published in
1970, Christoph Schäublin cited a remark found in Theodore’s Commentary on
Ecclesiastes catalogued by Ebed-Jesu, “Ecclesiastem uno libro exposuit depre-
cante Porphyrio,” but as Richard Goulet has noted, we cannot conclude that
Theodore had a direct or indirect knowledge of Porphyry’s work.228

Polychronius, d. c. 430
Theodore of Mopsuestia’s brother was Polychronius, the bishop of Apamea in
Syria, who also espoused the principles of biblical exegesis according to the
hermeneutical school of Antioch. Very little is known about his life and career
other than that he wrote commentaries on such books as Job, Daniel, and
Ezekiel. Only fragments of these have survived. Harnack believed that Poly-
chronius was a very significant source for our knowledge of Porphyry’s criti-
cism of the Book of Daniel, but it cannot be ascertained with any certainty
 Contra Christianos  79

whether he had a direct knowledge of the CC or acquired it from secondary

sources.229

Philostorgius, c. 368–c. 439
Philostorgius wrote a History of the Church from the perspective of Arianism
that covered the period from circa a.d. 300–430 and survives only in frag-
ments.230 It was written circa a.d. 420, and it has already been suggested that this
presupposes that the anti-Christian work of Porphyry was again in circulation
in the first decades of the fifth century a.d.231 John Chrysostom further corrobo-
rates this evidence when he refers to the anti-Christian works of pagans that
were preserved in the libraries of Christians in his day.232 At a critical point in his
ecclesiastical career and theological development, he came under the influence
of Eunomius, who had been a disciple of Aetius, and from that time onward he
espoused the basic tenets of the anomoean community of Arianism.233 Photius’
Epitome of the work contains many negative comments undoubtedly due to his
adherence to Nicene orthodoxy.234 Unfortunately, the work which he wrote
against Porphyry is lost, as it would have undoubtedly provided the historian
with a goldmine of information about the great opponent of Christianity from
an Arian perspective, and therefore the selection of passages which he attacked
might have shed a different light on the structure and lines of argumentation of
the CC.235

Augustine, 354–430
Augustine of Hippo, the great synthesizer of Catholic theology for the Western
Church, was indebted to Plotinian metaphysics and ontology for some of the
fine points of his understanding of the Trinity and other Christian doctrines,
but he knew the works of Porphyry as well.236 Although Berchman gives
twenty-three fragments from the De consensu evangelistarum,237 seventeen from
the De civitate dei,238 one from the De sermone domini, 239and three from the
Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti240 as deriving from the Contra Christianos,
and many of these undoubtedly come from Porphyry, nonetheless it is very dif-
ficult, if indeed not impossible, to identify which work (e.g., the CC, the Phil.
orac.) is being cited by Augustine.241 For this reason, only those six fragments
that occur in the lists of Jurado and Harnack will be accepted here as genuine
CC fragments.242
As we have already observed concerning the CC fragments preserved in
Jerome’s writings, a very striking feature of these fragments also is that all of
them deal with doctrines that were central, and thus very important to, Christian
80  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

theology.243 For example, in one of these Porphyry develops a critique of the

doctrine of the resurrection, playing off the resurrection of Lazarus with that of
Christ. Porphyry asks which resurrection should it be, for example, for the
believer in Christ at the end of the age, Lazarus’ or Christ’s? Then he asks if the
resurrection applies to one born “in seed” (Lazarus), how could it apply to one
born without the condition of seed (Christ)? Furthermore, if the post-resurrection
situation is so blissful as to be without pain, suffering, and without the necessity
of being hungry, why did Christ both dine with his disciples after his resurrec-
tion and show his wounds to them? The logic here dictates that wounds will
remain after the resurrection.244 Because the human body was not viewed as a
part of God’s salvific process according to Neoplatonic philosophy, and
Augustine notes that Porphyry consistently harped about the importance of the
soul’s fleeing from the body,245 the Christian doctrine of the resurrection must
have appeared quite perplexing and contradictory to Platonic philosophers. The
fragment that contains a critique of the Old Testament story of Jonah, who lived
for three days in the whale’s stomach, which was interpreted by the Christians
allegorically as signifying the resurrection of Christ, should be understood as a
part of Porphyry’s larger criticism of this important doctrine central to the
Christian faith.246
Central doctrines are criticized in three other fragments. First, Porphyry
calumniates Christian worship, implying that it is illogical and contradictory.
He argues that the Christians find fault with various pagan practices like sacri-
fices, when this kind of worship had its origins in antiquity with themselves.
Here Porphyry evidently attempted to turn the Christians’ criticism of pagan
worship practices against them by referring to ancient Hebrew rituals related to
animal sacrifice, incense, and other elements of worship. One of the main argu-
ments seems to have been that the God of the Hebrews is depicted in the Bible
as in need of (e.g.) the first fruits, and at least one of the proof texts was the
story of the offerings of Cain and Abel in the Book of Genesis.247 The second
fragment concerns Christian eschatological teachings, specifically the doctrine
of eternal punishments. By referring to texts like Matthew 7:2 and Luke 6:38
where Christ says that “with the same measure that you mete withal it shall be
measured to you again,” Porphyry described as ridiculous and contradictory
Christ’s teaching about eternal punishments prepared for those who do not
receive him as their savior.248 Underlying this criticism was undoubtedly an
attack upon the Christians’ claims that in Christ was found the one via salutis
universalis animae liberandae. The final fragment concerns Christology.
Porphyry often found contradictions in Christian scriptures, delighting in jux-
taposing seemingly contradictory Old and New Testament passages. In con-
structing his hermeneutical argument in this way, he wanted to provide
 Contra Christianos  81

indisputable evidence to his readers that the Christians’ claims to the (uni-
form) truth of holy scripture found in both testaments will, upon careful and
critical inspection, fall like a house of cards. Hence his question—Did Solomon
really have a son?—appears to have had the purpose of driving a wedge of cred-
ibility between Old Testament prophecy and the Christian teaching that stated
that all the prophecies about the Messiah have been fulfilled in Christ, who is
the unique Son of God.249
The most important CC fragment from Augustine for the present study is
found in Ep. 102.8 (Ad Deogratias, sex quaestiones contra paganos expositas con-
tinens) and concerns the Christians’ claim that Christ was the only via salutis
animae universalis.250 As Peter Brown has judiciously observed, Augustine’s
finding solace in the Universal Church might have mirrored Porphyry’s search
a century earlier for the via salutis universalis animae liberandae, and this
included the uneducated masses as well as the erudite Neoplatonic philosophers
of his day: “. . . Augustine might have seen his own dilemma and its solutions,
reflected as in a distant mirror, in the works of that other, unquiet soul, Porphyry,
the great enemy of the Christians. For Porphyry, also, had hoped for a ‘Universal
Way’, open to the mass of men.”251 We have analyzed above one fragment from
the CC that derives from Jerome and that addresses what certainly was quite
puzzling to pagans of the intelligentsia, namely, if God is so merciful and loving,
and has sent Christ to save all of humanity, what has happened to all the souls
who lived before the Incarnation? To put it differently, why did God wait so late
in history to send the savior of the world?252 Eusebius and Arnobius were forced
to deal with the same kind of pagan criticism, and there is little doubt that their
common adversary was Porphyry.253 In addition to disqualifying Christ as the
only way to the salvation of the soul, an ancillary purpose for this polemical
argument was to show that the Christians were revolutionaries who did not
honor the religious mos maiorum of the Roman Empire and should therefore be
exterminated for opposing those traditions that had made Rome the greatest
empire in history.254

Cyril of Alexandria, d. 444
Although the great Alexandrian theologian of the fifth century a.d. wrote many
theological and exegetical works and undoubtedly knew Porphyry’s anti-
Christian writings, there is no evidence that suggests that he ever wrote any-
thing against the Neoplatonic philosopher. However, he does mention him sev-
eral times in his works.255 It is plausible, owing to the sheer volume of his
writings, many of which have not survived, that he responded to portions of the
CC as did several of his contemporaries.256
82  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Vincent of Lérins, d. before 450

Vicentius Lerinensis enters our list due to one brief remark that he makes in his
Commonitorium about a visit that Porphyry made to Alexandria when he was
very young where he met Origen, who was at that time advanced in age.257
Harnack rejected this testimonial as spurious, concluding that Vincent of Lérins
must have reported the contents of Eusebius, HE VI.31.2 mistakenly.258 We can-
not ascertain whether the story is based upon fact, and if it is, who was its origi-
nal source, but Jerome is plausible. The meeting mentioned took place between
Porphyry and Origen undoubtedly, as Muscolino notes, in Caesarea in Palestine,
where Origen lived beginning in a.d. 231.259 It is doubtful whether Vincent of
Lérins ever wrote anything substantial against Porphyry’s CC.

Socrates Scholasticus, c. 380–450

Socrates the Church Historian gives the following testimony concerning
Porphyry:
But now as it seems a similar cause of disgust seems to have operated upon
him to that which affected Porphyry, who having been beaten by some
Christians at Caesarea in Palestine and not being able to endure [such
treatment], from the working of unrestrained rage renounced the Christian
religion: and from hated of those who had beaten him he took to write
blasphemous works against Christians, as Eusebius Pamphilius has proved
who at the same time refuted his writings.260
As noted above,261 there is no reason to reject this testimony as spurious, and it
was suggested that although Porphyry most probably was not baptized, for a
period in his youth he associated himself with the Christian faith and pursued
biblical studies in Origen’s school in Caesarea. Augustine implies that Porphyry
abandoned the faith he at one time in his life had espoused.262 There is no evi-
dence that Socrates wrote a work against Porphyry.263

Theodoret of Cyrus, 393–460

Theodoret’s Graecarum Affectionum Curatio contains a fragment of the CC
that gives the very interesting statement that Porphyry meticulously read the
prophetic books of the Old Testament and devoted much time to studying
them, which I suggest strongly indicates that he studied these books in
Classical Hebrew.264 The fragment also states that Porphyry argued in the CC
that sacrifices were contrary to piety, a remark that would otherwise
 Contra Christianos  83

contradict the acceptance of the same cultic practice in De philosophia ex

oraculis unless one acknowledges that animal sacrifice was incorporated into
his first way of salvation for the soul analyzed in my book, and thus impor-
tant soteriologically for the uneducated masses. The Neoplatonic philoso-
pher did not rely upon such cultic practices for the purification of his soul. In
any event, as Berchman has rightly noted, it is certainly not clear if Theodoret
had direct knowledge of Porphyry or whether he might have received indi-
rect information concerning the CC through the Contra Porphyrium of
Eusebius.265

Macarius Magnes, 4th–5th cents.

Very little is known about the life of Macarius Magnes with the exception that
he was certainly a gifted Christian apologist who wrote, circa the last quarter of
the fourth century a.d.,266 the Μoνoγενὴς ἢ ’Απoκριτικὸς πρὸς ῞Ελληνας περὶ
τῶν ἀπoρoυμένων ἐν τῇ Καινῇ Διαθήκῃ ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων, commonly
known as the Apocriticus, in five books.267 Of the ninety-seven fragments found
in Harnack, fifty-one derive from Macarius Magnes, and a recent work has
demonstrated that twenty-three of the latter provide “parallèles étroits” with the
Contra Christianos due to their common criticisms on the same themes, apply-
ing the same philosophical arguments, and the use of the same formulae.268
Although Celsus, Sossianus Hierocles, and Julian the Apostate have been given
as possible candidates for identifying the pagan adversary of the Apocriticus,269
Richard Goulet has convincingly argued that Porphyry furnishes more numer-
ous parallels with Macarius Magnes’ opponent than any other writer270 and con-
cludes: “C’est en effet avec les fragments du Contra Christianos et leur perspective
polémique fundamental que les objections du Monogénes offrent le plus de
similitudes.”271 At the same time, however, it would be imprudent, as Goulet
himself acknowledges, to conclude that Macarius is quoting directly from
Porphyry’s anti-Christian work.272
In an article published in 1973, T. D. Barnes made the following conclusion
concerning the fragments derived from the Apocriticus found in Harnack’s
1916 list:
Let the conclusion, therefore, be sharply formulated: in no case can it be
assumed that Macarius preserves either the words or the precise formula-
tions of Porphyry. It will be wise to disregard him in order to attain valid
conclusions about Against the Christians, and to concentrate instead on
the fragments which later writers explicitly and unambiguously attribute
to Porphyry by name.273
84  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

To this draconian assessment, which rather hyper-critically throws the baby out
with the bath water, we may add a different approach by Elizabeth Digeser, who
has argued that Macarius’ anonymous Hellene is not Porphyry or Julian, but
Sossianus Hierocles, concluding that the Apocriticus preserves about 50% of
Hierocles’ Lover of Truth, which, she asserts, played a vital role in the Diocletianic
persecution.274 However, the impact of Hierocles’ anti-Christian pamphlet
appears to have been restricted to the Greek-speaking provinces of the Roman
Empire in the eastern Mediterranean world, and Goulet’s 2003 two-volume
work on Macarius Magnes leaves little doubt that the pagan adversary attacked
in the Apocriticus was Porphyry of Tyre.275 Cook has conveniently provided a
systematic list of the New Testament criticisms of the pagan adversary in which
he claims, “Porphyry is the ultimate source for many if not most of the
objections.”276
The general categories in which the fragments of Macarius Magnes naturally
occur are: Christian Soteriology; The Crucifixion of Christ;277 Christian
Martyrdom;278 Christology;279 Jesus’ Miracles;280 Contradictions of the Bible;281
The Doctrine and Character of Christ;282 The Apostles Peter and Paul;283 and
Christian Worship and Sacraments.284

Pacatus, 4th–5th cents.
Pacatus is an obscure figure whose dates cannot be fixed with certainty. Only a
few fragments are extant from his work against Porphyry.285 Five years after his
1916 publication listing ninety-seven fragments from the Contra Christianos,
Adolf von Harnack added five more fragments that were reconstructed from a
catena on the Gospels printed by F. Feuardentius.286 According to Harnack,
Victor of Capua acquired the fragments from a work against Porphyry written
in the early fifth century by a certain Pacatus, whom he identified as the rhetor
Latinus Pacatus Drepanius and the author by the same name who desired to
write a life of Paulinus of Nola. T. D. Barnes’s 1973 article that provides a reas-
sessment of Harnack’s list of fragments convincingly argues that the rhetor and
the biographer were not the same person, though Barnes accepted the
Porphyrian provenance of the fragments.287 Though the dates above for Pacatus
are only estimates and his true identity evades the modern historian, he should
nevertheless be placed in the group of later Christian writers who responded to
Porphyry. Jurado’s edition of the CC fragments occurs under the number 109,
further sub-divided into eight sections. The first indicates that Porphyry cri-
tiqued the story of creation in the Book of Genesis, particularly the statement of
Adam that Eve was “bone of my bone,” and so forth, and he probably continued
his argument by showing the inconsistencies and contradictions between Moses
 Contra Christianos  85

and Jesus on the subject.288 The second demonstrates the absurdity of Paul’s
statement, “I die daily,” when in reality humans only die once.289 Both the third
and eighth fragments attempt to prove the inconsistencies of Jesus’ genealogies
in the Gospels.290 The remaining fragments offer a critique of the parable of the
banquet to which Jesus said the weak and the sick should be invited rather than
one’s friends; a question about how Jesus could speak about fulfilling the work
of salvation before dying on the cross; a criticism of the story of Eve being cre-
ated from Adam’s rib; and of the story of Mary’s being pregnant without “know-
ing” a man.291 The fragments together show that Porphyry’s method of biblical
criticism was based upon demonstrating the contradictions, inconsistencies,
and illogical contents of both Old and New Testaments.

Anastasius Sinaita, d. c. 700

Anastasius Sinaita was a seventh-century Greek writer and the abbot of the
monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai. Renowned as a defender of orthodoxy
against such heresies as Monophysitism, one fragment from the Contra
Christianos that upholds the orthodox Christology of the period is derived from
his ‛Οδηγóς:
Or rather, as Porphyry now says: “If Jesus wanted to be believed as a man
beyond men, why did he not call together all from the nations to Zion—as
he did on Pentecost with the Jews and Greeks? And in view of all the
assembled this man would come down from Heaven—as he will descend
at his second coming (parousia)?”292

Arethas Caesariensis, c. 860–940

Arethas Caesariensis was born at Patrae, Greece, and became a disciple of
Photius. Early in the tenth century he was elected bishop of Caesarea and
eventually rose to eminence as one of the greatest theologians of the
Byzantine Church.293 He wrote scholia on the works of Plato, Lucian, and
other classical writers; and in the tradition of the Commentaria in
Aristotelem Graeca, he published scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and
Aristotle’s Categories (Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 35).294 Harnack listed one
fragment of the Contra Christianos originally cited in Julian’s Against the
Galileans and quoted in Arethas’ Contra Julianum.295 Harnack saw in this
fragment an underlying critique of passages from the New Testament like
Romans 5:20 where Paul states oὗ δὲ ἐπλεóνασεν ἡ ἁμαρτία,
ὑπερεπερίσσευσεν ἡ χάρις, which indisputably presupposes the kind of
86  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

logical argument brought against the doctrine of the incarnation found in

a number of other CC fragments. 296 We may add that the reference to the
λóγoς in a passage that addresses the soteriological significance of Christ,
as the one who “carries away sin,” may have been derived from the book of
the CC that criticized the high Christology of the Gospel of John. The
underlying criticism may be of John the Baptist’s statement that Jesus was
the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. If this is correct,
I would suggest that this fragment’s larger context might have addressed
the deficiencies of Christian soteriological universalism.

Michael Psellus, 1018–78

In an article published in 2010, the French scholar Richard Goulet analyzed
five new fragments of the Contra Christianos, which included two from Michael
Psellus, two from Michael Glykas, and one from Damascenus Studites.297
Psellus was a theologian and a counselor to a number of Byzantine emperors
during the eleventh century whose erudition and knowledge of Greek philoso-
phy was phenomenal: “Sa production littéraire très diversifiée témoigne d’une
connaissance incomparable de la littérature et de la philosophie grecques, tout
aussi bien que de l’Écriture et des écrits des Pères.”298 As noted in the apparatus
fontium of P. Gautier’s 1989 edition of Michaelis Pselli theologica, two opuscules
théologiques of the Byzantine theologian that cite Porphyry’s criticisms of
Christianity most probably derive from the Contra Christianos.299 The first pas-
sage occurs in the work titled Εἰς τὸ “ἐν ἀρχῇ ην ὁ λóγoς” and contains a sus-
tained critique of the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John,300 juxtaposing
the λóγoς πρoϕoρικóς in logical contradistinction with the λóγoς ἐνδιάθετoς
and showing how neither philosophical concept can cohere with the doctrine
of the incarnation.301
The second passage comes from the work titled Εἰς τὸ τί ἐστιν “ὁ τoῦ πατρὸς
ὅρoς καὶ λóγoς” and reveals the same kind of sustained attack upon the incarna-
tion,302 again showing the illogical application of both the λóγoς
πρoϕoρικὸς/λóγoς ἐνδιάθετoς to the concept of the Son of God who has
descended to earth.303 Since Psellus mentions Apollinarius in this passage, his
Contra Porphyrium in thirty books may be his source.304 Goulet has correctly
observed that this fragment contains ideological similarities with a fragment
listed by Harnack from Theophylact.305

Theophylact, c. 1060–after 1125
A student of Michael Psellus and tutor to Constantine Doukas, the son of the
emperor Michael VII, Theophylact was Archbishop of Ohrid, Bulgaria, a
 Contra Christianos  87

Byzantine theologian and biblical exegete.306 The only fragment of the Contra
Christianos attributed to him derives from his commentary on St. John’s
Gospel307 in which Porphyry argues:
If the Son of God is the Logos, he is either an outward Logos [prophorikos]
or an inward Logos [endiathetos]. But he is neither the former or the latter.
Therefore he is not the Logos at all.308
We have already seen this sort of criticism of the Johannine Logos theology in
Michael Psellus, who most probably was Theophylact’s source of inspiration for
his polemical argument against Porphyry.309

Michael Syriacus, 1126–99

Michael I the Syrian, also known as Michael the Great, was born at Melitene and
eventually became the archimandrite of the monastery of Barsauma, close to his
home town, and succeeded the Jacobite Athanasius VIII as the Patriarch of
Antioch in 1166.310 An author of books on spirituality, Christian doctrine, and
liturgy, Michael’s most famous work was the Chronicle, a universal history in
twenty-one books beginning with creation and ending in 1195.311 The fragment
of the CC in Syriac was published by John Granger Cook with a critical analysis
and comparison of a similar text written by Bar Hebraeus.312 Michael’s fragment
contains Porphyry’s accusations about Origen’s inability to evangelize a pagan
village, the residents making fun of him, the Alexandrian theologian’s belief in
the pre-existence of souls, and his unorthodox views on the Trinity.313 Cook is
undoubtedly correct to suggest that the fragment coheres with Harnack CC
Frag. 39 (Eus., HE VI.19) which states that Porphyry believed Origen was an
apostate from Hellenism, and at least parts of the testimony from Michael the
Syrian most likely derive from Porphyry’s Contra Christianos.314

Michael Glykas, 12th cent.

Michael Glykas was a Byzantine theologian and the secretary of the emperor
Manuel I (1143–1180) who wrote a number of theological works and a Chronicle
that covered the period from creation to the death of Alexius I Comnenus
(1118).315 Goulet’s 2010 article gives two CC fragments from his Quaestiones in
sacram scripturam. Both concern Adam’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden in
relation to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9–17; 3:3). In the
first fragment we find the logic that Porphyry typically applied to biblical texts: If
God commanded Adam not to eat from the fruit of the tree in the Garden of
Eden, knowing that he would die if he disobeyed his command, why did he cre-
ate such an evil tree in the garden at all?316 The second passage similarly criticizes
88  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the text in Genesis 2 where God is depicted as commanding Adam not to eat the
fruit from the tree. Porphyry understands why the command was given not to
partake of evil, but not of the good.317

Damascenus Studites, 1500–77

Damascenus Studites was born in Thessalonica and became the bishop of Lita
and Randina, then metropolitan of Naupacte and Arta. His Thesaurus con-
tains thirty-six sermons on various passages of scripture, and it has never
been edited.318 The fragment listed by Goulet contains the same kind of criti-
cism of Adam’s disobedience that we have seen in Michael Glykas: Porphyry
accused God of planting the tree in the garden as an evil thing and also pre-
vented Adam from eating the fruit and thus becoming equal to God.319 As
Goulet has noted, Porphyry made two objections to the passage in Genesis.
First, why did God create a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the gar-
den if indeed it was evil and would cause the death of Adam? Second, God
expressed jealousy toward Adam by commanding him to eat of the fruit of the
tree, due to the fear that he might become equal to God, as the serpent
suggested.320

Conclusions: Universalism and the Contra

Christianos
It is not possible, based on present data/fragments of the CC, to give a precise,
detailed account of the contents of the work, including the major premises and
themes, hermeneutical method, thematic structure, and the sub-themes of
Porphyry’s overall argument in the fifteen books of the work. It is possible, how-
ever, to get a general idea as to at least some of the practices and doctrines that
Porphyry attacked. These would include such central concepts as the incarna-
tion, crucifixion, resurrection of Christ, resurrection of the flesh, providence,
apostolic authority, reliability of scripture, OT prophecy, and the deity of Christ.
Based upon the present data from the fragments, it is possible that Porphyry’s
criticisms of these doctrines were incorporated into the polemical argument
which attempted to negate Christ as the one way for the soul’s salvation, similar
to what Augustine tells us concerning De regr. an. and what our analysis of the
Phil. orac. above has revealed as well. Indeed, since the De regr. an. was written
before the CC, it is quite possible that Porphyry reworked some of the material
derived from it into the CC. And we can say the same about the Phil. orac.: Written
about two years later (c. 302), it may very well have reworked some material
found in the CC. The present study offers a.d. 300 as the date of publication for
 Contra Christianos  89

the latter, which occurred just before the outbreak of the Great Persecution. If
this is correct, it is very reasonable to conclude, therefore, that one of the main
themes which Porphyry addressed in the CC was Christian universalism (note
the CC fragment that refers to Christianity as a “way”), albeit in a negative sense,
characterized by the polemical method of proactively disparaging the most
important soteriological doctrines to show that the Christians’ claims to univer-
salism are absolutely false. In order both to sum up what we have analyzed to
this point and offer some conclusions about the extent to which Porphyry plau-
sibly addressed soteriological universalism in the CC, we may suggest the
following:
1. We have concluded that it is highly probable that Porphyry studied for a
period of time in Origen’s theological and exegetical school in Caesarea. If
this is correct, Origen’s biblical themes noted in c­ hapter 1 of the present
study will have certainly given Porphyry a comprehensive understanding
of the major themes of the Bible, Christian theology, and the principles of
exegesis and hermeneutics. I would further venture to say that Porphyry
was first exposed in a substantial manner to Christian soteriological uni-
versalism while listening to the lectures of the great Alexandrian biblical
theologian, which he used later in his polemical argument against
Christian teachings on the salvation of the soul, the incarnation, the fall of
humankind, the atonement, and the belief that only in Christ can human-
kind be saved.
2. Porphyry might have begun to develop a keen interest in finding a “way of
salvation” for the masses during his six-year tenure at Plotinus’ school in
Rome in the A.D. 260s, spurred by the philosophical and religious ideals
that were connected with the city of the philosophers, Platonopolis, and
the concomitant need to “move up” the Platonic scala virtutum. The seed
that was planted in Porphyry’s mind was cultivated in the ensuing decades
as he began to seriously search for the via salutis animae universalis
liberandae.
3. We have already noted that even while he was residing in Rome at Plotinus’
school, Porphyry never abandoned an interest in the traditional cults of
the Roman world. This is a very important key in understanding his “solu-
tion” soteriologically speaking.
4. Also noted above, the intensive research into the known religious and
philosophical traditions of the world in his day led Porphyry to a quest
for a comprehensive soteriological paradigm that, being faithful to
Platonism, would be a tiered system each of whose rankings would be
geared to the ontological and spiritual level of souls at their particular
90  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

tier, and including three: the uneducated masses, the novice philoso-

phers, and the mature Neoplatonic philosophers.
5. Porphyry was greatly influenced by the revival of interest in and ritual
practices related to oracular revelation during the third century a.d., cul-
minating in the intensive criticism of the prophetic books of the Bible
and the total rejection of Christian claims that Christ fulfilled numerous
Old Testament prophecies.
6. It is plausible to suggest that during the decades after Porphyry left Rome
and the death of Plotinus, for example from circa a.d. 270–300, con-
cerned about the unprecedented growth of the Church throughout the
Roman Empire, and desiring to construct the comprehensive soterio-
logical paradigm that might revitalize religious and philosophical pagan-
ism, Porphyry was involved in a lengthy period of research, reflection,
and development, which Augustine refers to as the via salutis animae
universalis liberandae.321
7. It is difficult to argue convincingly against the view that Porphyry not
only attended the imperial conference in the period preceding the Great
Persecution in February a.d. 303, but also that he and other anti-Christian
writers like Sossianus Hierocles offered a proactive, positive soteriologi-
cal message for all the classes and ethnic groups of the Roman Empire in
order to revitalize religious and philosophical paganism in conjunction
with Diocletian’s New Imperial Theology. As a result of these imperial
policies, Porphyry’s De philosophia ex oraculis was written to foster reli-
gious unity, offer new hope, check the spread of Christianity, revive the
pagan cults, and provide unprecedentedly the via salutis on a compre-
hensive scale to all his readers.
8. By the end of this intensive period of research Porphyry’s trilogy on sote-
riology was written: De regressu animae, late 290s; Contra Christianos,
circa 300; and De philosophia ex oraculis, circa 302.
9. The first work in this trilogy offered (as noted above) two distinct ways of
salvation for the soul: theurgy to cleanse the spiritual soul and Platonic
philosophy to cleanse the intellectual soul.
10. By the beginning of the fourth century, Porphyry had tweaked the sys-
tem sufficiently to include “another way” of salvation, mentioned by
Augustine, by means of the virtue of continence, which serves as an ethi-
cal “conveyor” of the soul toward the intelligibles by weaning it from its
attachment to corporeal reality. Clearly delineated in such works as Sent.,
Ad Marc., and Phil. orac., this second way or soteriological tier was espe-
cially important for novice philosophers who needed to progress up the
scala virtutum by means of σωϕρoσύνη/continentia, and thus moving
 Contra Christianos  91

from the civic to the exemplary virtues. This system will have been quite
attractive to pagans during a time when the traditional cults were in
sharp decline (late A.D. 3rd/early 4th cents.) by offering a proactive com-
prehensive soteriology, while aiming simultaneously at demonstrating
that Christian claims to universal salvation through Jesus Christ were
unfounded.
11. If Porphyry never abandoned an interest either in the traditional cults or
in finding a way to incorporate those elements of Roman society who did
not have an aptitude for philosophy into his soteriological system, we can
also state the same about his adherence to a “top tier” via salutis exclu-
sively for the mature Neoplatonic philosopher. We shall see below that
this is the third and final way for the salvation (= cleansing or purifica-
tion) of the soul within Porphyrian soteriology.
12. To sum up the Christian writers whose works contain anti-Porphyrian
passages that may indicate that the CC addressed and critiqued the
Christian claims that Christ was the only way of salvation for all people
in the world, we have observed that Arnobius, Eusebius, Jerome, and
Augustine head the list of candidates; but perhaps we get some glimpses
of this theme from the CC fragments derived from Macarius Magnes,
Arethas Caesariensis, Michael Psellus, and Theophylact.
 5

Eusebius and Porphyry

The Theophany

Now to discover the Maker and Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and
having discovered Him, to declare Him unto all men were a thing impossible.
Plato, Timaeus 28C

History, Purpose, and Structure

In the preceding chapter all of the works of Eusebius of Caesarea relevant to his
written response to Porphyry were noted with the exception of his last apolo-
getic work, the Theophany, which is certainly one of the most neglected works
in the history of patristic scholarship.1 For example, a recent Patrology omits
mentioning the work altogether in the section devoted to a discussion of
Eusebius’ apologetic works,2 and modern studies on Eusebius often either gloss
over the significance of the Theoph. or completely ignore it and its place in the
Eusebian corpus.3 One should not be too critical here, however, especially tak-
ing into account that only seventeen fragments remain from the original Greek
text, and the work survives in toto solely in a Syriac translation dated to the early
fifth century a.d.4 Owing to the fact that this is the first published study in
English on any aspect of the Syriac text of the Theophany since 1843, and more-
over that very little has ever been written on the work in any language, it is first
necessary to give a brief overview of the history, purpose, and structure of this
last “apology” written by the bishop of Caesarea before introducing the details
of the argument developed herein.
Samuel Lee published the first edition of the Syriac text of the Theophany in
1842.5 In the following year an English translation with notes by the same author
appeared.6 According to Lee, in 1839 during a visit in Egypt at the Monastery of
the Blessed Virgin in the desert of Nitria (the Coenobium Scetense Asseman), the
Revd. Henry Tattam of Bedford procured a number of Coptic and Syriac manu-
scripts and sent them to Lee with the request that he examine them and give an
account of their contents.7 After looking over the manuscripts Lee “had the
extreme pleasure of discovering that of which the following Work is a transla-
tion.”8 The work noted was first mentioned by Jerome who, after naming some
of Eusebius’ writings, adds θεoϕανείας libri quinque,9 followed by Suidas,10
which had been cited in the earlier Catalogue of Hebed Jesu with the reference
‫( ܘܒܬܒܐ ܥܠ ܕܢܝܝܐ �ܗܝܐ‬and the Book on the Divine Manifestation).11 The Italian

92
 Eusebius and Porphyry  93

Cardinal and pioneer philologist Angelo Mai published his Novae Patrum
Bibliothecae Tomus Quartus in Rome in 1847, in which he identified many Greek
fragments found in catenae on the Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews
ascribed to Eusebius’ Theoph., but as Kofsky has noted, the fragments that Mai
analyzed are similar rather than identical in content, often leaving large lacu-
nae.12 The fourth and final book that has ever been written exclusively on the
Theoph. was published by the German scholar Hugo Gressmann in 1903 in Band
III.2 of the Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller13 and published in a second
edition by Adolf Laminski in 1992.14 The philological groundwork for this had
been laid a year before in volume twenty-three of Texte und Untersuchungen in
which Gressmann compared the Syriac translation of the Theoph. with its paral-
lel Greek texts derived from the Praeparatio evangelica, Demonstratio evangel-
ica, Laus Constantini,15 Historia ecclesiastica, the extant Greek fragments of the
Theophany, and biblical passages.16 Gressmann concluded that, on the whole,
the Syriac translation is faithful to the original Greek text.17 Hence in one para-
graph can be summed up all the major studies (four) on an important work that
was written by one of the most pivotal fathers of the Early Church during the
greatest transitional period of the Roman Empire!
Turning to articles or essays on the Theoph., there have been only seven stud-
ies on various aspects of the Syriac text: Two in the nineteenth century (Bernstein
and Geiger),18 two in the early twentieth century (Heikel and Peters),19 two
forthcoming (Simmons),20 and one unpublished (Toda).21 Two articles appeared
in the 1930s on the theological meaning of specific passages in the work,22 and
mention should be made of several entries in dictionaries or patrologies.23 In
addition to the works of Barnes (1981) and Schott (2008) noted already, which
briefly address the Theoph., Wallace-Hadrill (1960) and Kofsky (2000) provide
a more thorough analysis in respect of chronological, socio-historical, and con-
textual issues.24 Finally, notwithstanding a few other works that contain brief
references,25 mention should be made of A. A. Garcia’s article published in 1987,
which argues that the theological content of the Theoph. was influenced by
Neoplatonic philosophy;26 and unpublished papers on the scriptural citations in
Theophany Book IV, which is the most original part of the work;27 on how the
phrase ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫( ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬the Universal Savior) in Book V functions within Eusebius’
argument on soteriological universalism;28 and the indisputable identification
of the  ‫܅ܬ‬ ܵ
‫ܦܝܠܘܤܦܐ ܚܕ ܐ‬ or New Philosophers of Theoph. V.3, philologically and contex-
tually compared with the viri novi of Arnobius, Adv. nat. II.15.2f., and PE III.6,
as Porphyry and his followers.29
What was the original purpose of the Theophany? In the Preface to his 1843
English translation, Lee described it as a “brief exposition” of the “Divine
authority” and “amazing influence” of Christianity, which has “perhaps never
94  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

been surpassed.”30 Wallace-Hadrill suggested that it was not a literary work, but
rather a compilation of homilies, sermons, and discussions.31 This view is unten-
able, however, due to the long inventory of biblical prophecies in Book IV, which
Eusebius offers as proof for the fulfillment of Christ’s predictions in contempo-
rary society, thus cohering with the literary genre of an apology.32 Since circa
70% of the Theoph. represents an exact reproduction or paraphrase of passages
in Eusebius’ two larger and earlier apologetic works, and Book V is dependent
upon DE III.3–7,33 with occasional modifications in the order of the passages
and their contents, it is obvious that it is closely related to the PE and the DE in
respect of purpose, audience, and text.34 It follows that the Theoph. can be
described as “a condensation and popularization of Eusebius’ earlier apologetic
effort.”35 Most scholars agree that it should be defined as an apology that aimed
at a broader audience than that of the former PE and DE.36 With his customary
erudition and critical acumen T. D. Barnes has rightly refined this conventional
classification by stating that it “develops a tone more protreptic than apologetic,
and it stresses theology rather than history.”37 The overarching structure and
contents indeed fit the designation Christian Apology in a general sense, but it
must be added that there is a strong emphasis upon worldwide evangelization
aimed at the pagan intelligentsia who, it is reasonable to assume, were convert-
ing to Christianity in increasing numbers and beginning to hold positions in the
newly Christianized imperial government established by Constantine.38 I there-
fore suggest that, within an apologetic structure, the work functioned dually as
a tract on evangelism and as a catechetical manual on the basic teachings of
post-Nicene Christianity.39
Each of the five books of the Theoph. has a distinct soteriological theme.40
Book I concerns the transcendence of God the Father and the immanence of
God the Son, whom Eusebius throughout the work calls the Universal Savior
(‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫)ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬,41 and their interrelationship to the providential design of, and
care for, the universe. The Savior of all creation who came to earth for the salva-
tion of all races and to destroy the error of polytheism is the theme of Book II.
Book III posits that universal salvation is available only through Christ.42 Citing
166 biblical passages mostly from the New Testament,43 Book IV argues that
Christ’s foreknowledge of events now being fulfilled in Eusebius’ time indisput-
ably proves his divinity.44 The final book develops an argument based primarily
upon the universal dissemination of the Gospel to all nations which, again,
proves Christ’s divinity, the truth of scripture, and the trustworthiness of the
Apostles’ witness, and thus dismantles the pagan accusation that Christ and his
disciples were deceivers. Hence soteriological universalism is the major theme
of the Theophany.45 But what definition does Eusebius give of Christian
universalism?
 Eusebius and Porphyry  95

In Theophany 2.76 we find a passage to help us answer this question:

For, since the doctrine of our Saviour has obtained throughout the whole
creation of man, in every city, village, and place; and again, since no race
of demons, but He alone who is the King of all, God, and that creator of
the whole world, the Word of God, has been made known and honoured
by all men, Barbarians and Greeks; every word about fate has been ren-
dered unavailing: every war-making necessity too has been removed far
away: the Divine peace-making Word is hymned throughout the whole
earth: the race of man is reconciled to God its Father; and peace and love
have been restored to all nations!
From this basic concept of reconciliation between humankind and God and the
knowledge of God revealed through Christ, the Word of God, Eusebius con-
structs a soteriological universalism infrastructure that ingeniously intercon-
nects such doctrines as divine providence, the divinity of Christ, the fulfillment
of Old and New Testament prophecies, the deliverance from demonic powers
and polytheistic error, and the climax of his universalism argument, in Book
V: the universal dissemination of the Gospel. As I have already noted with
respect to the DE, Eusebius’ view of salvation in the Theophany has a dual
meaning:
First, it concerns the saving grace of God that delivers humankind from its
bondage to polytheistic error, diseases and sicknesses of body and soul,
superstition, and sin and dissolution.46 Secondly, it has to do with God’s
work of grace within those humans who accept Christ’s gift of salvation,
offered to all nations, which results in the bestowal of the knowledge of the
Supreme God, remission of sins, and eternal life.47
There are conceptual similarities with the PE as well. The shift in emphasis, as
we shall see in the final part of this chapter, is that in the Theophany Eusebius
focuses upon the success of post-Nicene theology by emphasizing the universal
dissemination of the Gospel. All of these important aspects of Eusebius’s sote-
riological argument have a polemical role to play: For Eusebius, and more
importantly for his opponents, they prove the divinity of Christ and the truth of
the Christian religion. We may give the sub-classifications of the general univer-
salism theme of the Theophany as follows to show how these fit together:
The 336 passages48 related to this theme can be further sub-classified as
follows:
1. Universal Providence. 97 occurrences.49
2. Universal Dissemination of the Gospel. 60 occurrences.50
96  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

3. Salvific Benefits of Christ. 50 occurrences.51

4. Deliverance from Polytheistic Error. 47 occurrences.52
5. Fulfillment of New Testament Prophecies. 44 occurrences.53
6. Deliverance from Demonic Powers. 21 occurrences.54
7. Deity of the Universal Saviour. 9 occurrences.55
8. Eschatological Salvation. 5 occurrences.56
9. Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies. 3 occurrences.57
Comparing the number of occurrences of soteriological universalism pas-
sages in Eusebius’ three apologies, we note that the fifteen books of the PE
contain 187;58 the ten books of the DE, 471;59 and the five of the Theoph., as
noted above, 336.60 The latter thus has a proportionately much higher num-
ber of universalism passages than the larger PE and DE. Also important here
is that the largest sub-theme in the PE is The Lord of Creation/Divine
Providence with seventy-five occurrences, and only thirty-three for The
Universal Dissemination of the Gospel, which is the second most frequent
sub-theme.61 The largest sub-theme of the 471 passages in the DE is The
Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecies, coming to 320.62 These data make
perfect sense because, whereas the PE addresses the pagan intelligentsia and
attempts to show the relationship between Christianity and Greco-Roman
culture, the DE primarily addresses Jews and Christians to explain the rela-
tionship between Christianity and Judaism. Soteriologically speaking, the
emphasis within the universalism argument of the PE is that the Christian
God is the one majestic Lord of the cosmos who has providentially offered
salus/σωτηρία for all humanity; and that of the DE is the universal fulfill-
ment of Old Testament prophecies salvifically manifested in the Christ
event. In turning to the Theoph., we observe that the second sub-theme
listed above, the Universal Dissemination of the Gospel, has sixty occur-
rences,63 but it is significant for the present study64 that forty of these are
found in Book V, which according to my dating of the work to circa a.d.
338–9, might very well have been some of the last words ever penned by the
bishop from Caesarea.
One final observation needs to be made. The PE has an average of 12.4
occurrences of soteriological universalism per book; the DE, 47.1; and the
Theoph., 67.2.65 These data reveal that Eusebius’ use of this major apologetic
theme consistently increased between c. a.d. 314 and the late 330s when the
three apologies were written, significant for the argument related to the five
emendations that are covered below. In the following I shall show that
Eusebius, writing during the period circa a.d. 337–8, makes five emendations
to passages derived from the DE that were strategically inserted at key places
 Eusebius and Porphyry  97

in Book V, these are significant for his main argument on soteriological uni-
versalism, and Eusebius created them to form a counter-attack upon Porphyry’s
soteriological paradigm analyzed in this book. If the date is correct, it would
appear that the bishop of Caesarea ended his long and productive episcopate
further developing and reworking the universalism themes of his earlier apol-
ogetic writings.

Theophany, Book V: The Universal Dissemination

of the Gospel
There are fifty-one universalism passages in Book V of the Theophany of
Eusebius of Caesarea.66 Nine of these concern the lord of creation and divine
providence; one relates to deliverance from demonic powers by the name of
Christ; one proves Christ’s deity due to the fulfillment of Old Testament proph-
ecy; and the remaining forty deal with the universal dissemination of the
Gospel to prove Christ’s divinity, the Apostles’ trustworthiness, the destruction
of demonic powers, the deliverance from polytheistic error, and the redemp-
tion of humankind through “the common savior of all” (‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫)ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬. Using
his proof text as Matthew 28:19–20, “the Great Commission,” the bishop repeat-
edly accentuates the universal propagation of the Gospel as a “divine philoso-
phy” taught by the Savior that produced a purity and holiness of life for men,
women, children, and slaves in every nation. Christ’s laws, he affirms, have
converted the Scythians, Persians, and other barbarians from a savage and law-
less life (5.17), and have brought peace and love to the world. And the fact that
the disciples were rustic and uncultivated men whom God used in spreading
the Gospel to all races only confirms Christ’s divinity and the Apostles’ virtu-
ous lives because their success with global evangelization was foretold by their
lord before he was crucified. One final question remains: Who is Eusebius’
principal adversary in the Theophany? I suggest that the answer is Porphyry of
Tyre, the great anti-Christian author and Neoplatonic philosopher, against
whom he had already written three major works in his career (the PE, DE, and
Contra Porphyrium), and the evidence to support this interpretation derived
from the Theophany can be given as follows:
1. The primary motive of the 336 universalism passages in the work can best
be explained as a counterargument to oppose Porphyry’s search for a via
universalis animae salutis liberandae (Augustine, Civ. Dei X.32). Porphyry
is the best candidate as the one against whom Eusebius’ arsenal is aimed;
Celsus and Hierocles pale in comparison to the threat that the disciple of
Plotinus was posing during Eusebius’ later career.
98  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

2. The affirmation, repeated throughout the work, that Christ is divine, in

the context of the assertion that all pagan oracles have now been silenced
is a retorsion of several passages of Porphyry’s Philosophia ex oraculis.
3. The depiction of Christ and his disciples as preaching the same doctrines
in response to the accusation of Porphyry’s that the disciples were deceiv-
ers who taught something totally different from their master.
4. The affirmation that the disciples were not magicians.
5. The importance of the virtue of continence (σωϕρoσύνη) in the salvation
of the soul.67
6. Depicting Christ as a divine philosopher who miraculously taught rustic
and uneducated men his divine philosophy in response to Porphyry, who
calumniated the disciples as rustic and uncultivated.
7. The depiction of the universal savior as a philosopher greater than Plato
who cleanses the rational soul, in response to Porphyry (according to
Aug., Civ. Dei X.32), who claimed the same in the name of Neoplatonic
philosophy.
8. The emphasis Eusebius places upon Peter and Simon being the same per-
son is a counter-argument to Porphyry indisputably found in the CC (see
Jerome’s fragments of the CC).
9. Depicting female believers in Christ as “priestesses of the Supreme God,”
which is a retorsion of similar language Porphyry uses in the De absti-
nentia (but applied to men); and also of a CC fragment disparaging
female members of Christian churches.
10. The general argument based on the fulfillment of New Testament proph-
ecies as a retorsion of Porphyry’s calumniating of Christian scripture.
Many data can be found in Book III here.
1. The use of technical Neoplatonic terms (e.g., the rational soul) to
describe Christian universalism.
2. The reference to Eusebius’ adversaries as “new men” in Theoph. 5.2,
with parallels in the PE and in Arnobius. The use of the term “new
men” to describe his opponents, which undoubtedly refers to Porphyry
and his followers, the Neoplatonists. Eusebius uses the same term in
PE III.6 to describe his Porphyrian opponents, and I and others have
argued that Arnobius’ “viri novi” in Adv. nat. 2.15 are employed in the
same manner.
3. As we have noted, five of the six occurrences of the term “common
savior of all” in the Syriac text of the Theophany are strategically found
in major transitions of Book V’s universalism argument, which, I have
argued, were designed to mount a counter-attack upon Porphyry’s
claims of a universal way of salvation for paganism.
 Eusebius and Porphyry  99

The Six ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫( ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬Common Savior of All) Passages

of Theophany Book V

There are six passages in Book V of the Theophany that contain the soteriologi-
cally important term ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬, which do not occur in any of the five paral-
lel passages of the DE.68 Appendix VIII below contains the Greek and Syriac
texts with accompanying English translations. The first passage occurs in V.1,
the only one of the six without a parallel passage from the DE. This introduces
Book V and thus it begins one of its subsections, V.1–13, in which Eusebius
defends against the charges that Christ and his disciples were magicians and
deceivers. The passage noted, V.1, represents a transition from Book IV, one of
the most original apologetic arguments of the entire Eusebian corpus, which
asserts that Christianity is true because the prophecies of Christ found in the
New Testament have been fulfilled. The Common Savior of all is applied to Jesus
Christ, and it introduces the unique nature of Eusebian universalism connect-
ing the divine words and deeds of Christ of Book IV with the major theme of
Book V: Christ was not a magician or deceiver because he has made disciples of
all nations. After referring to divine providence (V.1), the major theme of Book
I, which depicts the cosmic lordship of Christ and the need for a universal sav-
ior, Eusebius acknowledges the things he had formerly investigated in the “proof
of the Gospels,” a clear reference to the earlier DE, which provides many paral-
lels throughout Book V. He counters the charge of magic by showing that Christ
was a very virtuous teacher of divine philosophy (5.2) whose doctrine trans-
formed the lives of his disciples, who, in turn, spread his teaching throughout
the world. Immediately before quoting from Porphyry in V.3, Eusebius refers to
“new philosophers,” terms which have parallels in the PE and Arnobius describ-
ing Porphyry and his followers. From V.3–V.8, the theme of the virtue of Christ
continues to be developed.
The second occurrence of Common Savior of all is found in V.8, which
comes at the end of the first major sub-section of Book V and serves as the
climax of Eusebius’ argument that Christ’s teaching produced the precepts of
a philosophy which was divine. The Common Savior of all became the cause of
purity and holiness of life (‫ ܕܟܝܐ ܘܢܟܦܐ‬ ‫ ܕܥܘܡܪ ܐ‬ ‫ )ܥܠܬ ܐ‬to all nations and provided the
knowledge of the Creator of all things (‫ ܕܒܪܘܝܐ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ ܕܤܓܕܬ ܐ‬ ‫)ܘܕܝܕܥܬ ܐ‬. The first
sub-section (5.1–13) thus begins its climax at this passage (5.8), emphasizing
the divine philosophy taught by Christ and disseminated by the apostles who
persuaded the Gentiles to burn their books on magic (5.9–12). He ends this
first sub-section (5.13) acknowledging the multitudes of congregations who
have accepted Christ’s philosophy and now are able to conquer bodily lusts
and preserve their minds from evil passions, thus laying a foundation of his
100  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

later argument that Christ and his apostles taught a philosophy superior to
Plato’s. The general context of this section can best be described as
anti-Porphyrian.
The third passage is 5.14, which begins the second sub-section of Book V
(5.14–20), the general theological theme being that the universal extension
of Christianity proves (a) that Christ was divine and (b) the disciples were
not liars. The emphasis upon the perfect and harmonious doctrinal unifor-
mity between Christ and his disciples would appear to be a retorsion of
Porphyry, who argued that the apostles taught something entirely different
from their master. He begins 5.14 by noting that not only men who followed
Christ became philosophers, but also thousands of women throughout the
world are “like priestesses of the Supreme God.” Again, this is undoubtedly
a counterargument aimed at a very similar statement of Porphyry in the De
abstinentia. Then Eusebius’ polemical coup de grace comes at the end of
5.14: Plato confessed that it was difficult to know the creator of the universe,
and once he is known, impossible to explain him to others. However, due to
accepting Christ’s divine philosophy, the disciples easily found the Father
and Creator of the universe, and also preached knowledge of him to all
nations. “Such were,” he asserts, “the victories of the common savior of all”
(5.14). Hence by not only knowing the Creator of the universe but also being
able to explain him to all people regardless of social background, education,
race, age, or gender, Christ and his disciples were superior to Plato and his
followers.
As we noted in 5.8, the next (and fourth) passage, 5.16, is placed at the end of
a major sub-section of Book V. Eusebius asserts that no magician, Barbarian or
Greek, has ever manifested the power of “the common savior of all.” Using
Matthew 28:19–20 as his proof text, he states that the laws of Christ have con-
verted all races from every lawless kind of life (5.17), liberated them from poly-
theistic error by which demons have enslaved humanity (5.18–19), and he then
ends this second sub-section addressing the pagan charge that although Christ
was a good man, his disciples fabricated stories about his miraculous powers
(5.20). We thus find for the second time Eusebius strategically interweaving the
term “common savior of all” into his overall universalism argument, and again
aiming it at Porphyry and his followers.
The fifth passage is found at 5.34, which is the climax of Eusebius’ argu-
ment developed in the third major subsection of Book V, which covers
21–34, whose main theme is polemical: Against those who attack Christ’s
disciples, he emphasizes the latter’s fulfilling Christ’s prophecies by spread-
ing the Gospel throughout the world. By affirming that Christ and the dis-
ciples taught exactly the same doctrines; and thus the disciples did not
 Eusebius and Porphyry  101

fabricate lies (5.21–23; cf. 5.27; 5.28); the dissemination of the divine philoso-
phy throughout the whole creation of humankind (5.24); the stress upon
Jesus not being a human but God (5.25) and that the apostles did not lead
men astray by deception (5.25–27); denying that Jesus was a Teacher of error
(5.28); climaxing in an argument on Christian universalism (5.29–34)—all of
these demonstrate many counter-attacks to well-known criticisms of
Christian teachings found in Porphyry’s works. We see yet again that the
Common Savior of all comes at a climactic point in Eusebius’ universalism
argument.
The sixth and last occurrence of the term is found in 5.46, which comes
at the beginning of the climax of Eusebius’ final universalism affirmation,
which is developed in the last subsection, 5.35–52, whose general theme is
Christ is God and the disciples loved the truth that he taught them. The sec-
tion begins with a conspicuously anti-Porphyrian statement: The disciples,
though rustic and uncultivated, lived a life of temperance according to the
divine philosophy of Christ (5.35), and they therefore did not fabricate false-
hoods about him (5.36–45). Then in 5.46, after quoting the great commis-
sion of Matthew 28, Eusebius states that all nations have now received the
scriptures concerning the Common Savior of all. This universalism theme
continues to the end of the book (5.52). We now turn to a philological com-
parison of the relevant texts of the Demonstratio evangelica in Greek, and
how Eusebius emended these to reinforce his argument vis-à-vis soterio-
logical universalism.

Comparison of the ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬Passages with Parallel Texts

of the DE

If we compare the Syriac translation with the original text of the DE from which
it derives, keeping in mind that there exist such parallel passages in five of the
six Common Savior of all occurrences in Book V of the Theophany, we note that
there is no parallel between the first Syriac passage and the Demonstratio evan-
gelica (see Appendix VIII). We shall therefore dispense with this text and begin
with Theoph. V.8.

2.  Theoph. 5.8 and parallel passage DE 3.6

(126–127)
This is a fluid translation of the Greek. Whereas the DE III.6 (126f.) has our Lord
and Savior (ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ κύριoς ἡμῶὺ); the Syriac gives Common Savior of all
‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬. Both passages occur in larger thematic contexts that address
Christian universalism. (See Appendix VIII)
102  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

3.  Theoph. 5.14 and the parallel DE 3.6 (129–130)

A rather loose translation of the Greek. Whereas the DE gives the name Jesus
twice and Christ once, the Syriac emphasizes the victories of the Common Savior
ܵ
of all, ‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܩܐ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܙܟܘܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬, which is not found in the Greek text. The DE
stresses the availability now for all “of their knowledge of the one God as Savior
and Creator of the Universe,” demonstrating the superiority of monotheism
over the errors of polytheism. Both use the term “Father and Creator” in the
context of analyzing Plato, Timaeus 28C, the difference being that the DE offers
a quotation, whereas the Syriac simply alludes to it. Again, both the Greek and
Syriac passages are found in a larger context addressing Christian universalism.
(See Appendix VIII.)

4.  Theoph. 5.16 and the parallel DE 3.6 (131 b–c)

The Syriac gives “the power of this the common Savior of all” (‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܕܓܘ‬
‫;)ܝܚܠܗ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܐ‬
the DE has “as the power of our savior has shown forth,” and the translation fol-
lows closely the Greek text. Both occur in larger contexts of their respective
works, which address Christian universalism. (See Appendix VIII)

5.  Theoph. 5.34 and the parallel DE 3.5 (117 c)

The DE text simply has “Jesus,” whereas the Syriac translation is the Common
Savior of all; the Syriac text is a very loose paraphrase of the Greek, and both
passages are found in a larger context related to Christian universalism. (See
Appendix VIII.)

6.  Theoph. 5.46 and the parallel DE 3.7 (137 a)

This is a close and accurate translation of the Greek text into Syriac, with one
major exception: In the DE we simply find the name “Jesus,” about whom the
Greeks and Barbarians possessed writings in their “ancestral script and lan-
guage” (καὶ βάρβαρoι καὶ ῞Ελληνες τὰς περὶ τoῦ ’Ιησoῦ γραϕὰς πατρίoις
χαρακτηρ̑σιν καὶ πατρίῳ ϕωνῇ μετελάμβανoν.); and the Syriac text contains: “so
that the Barbarians and Greeks received the Scriptures, respecting the common
Savior of all, in the handwriting of their Progenitors, and in the words of their
spiritual Fathers.” (�‫ܒܟܬܝܒܬܐ ܕܐܒܗܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܘܒܒܪܬ ̈ܘܢ‬
̈ ̈
‫ܟܬܒܐ ܕܥܠ ܦܪܘܘܝܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܘܒ�ܒܪܝܐ ܘܝܘܢ̈ܝܐ‬
̈
‫)ܕܐܒܗܬܗܘܢ ܩܒܠܘ܂‬ (See Appendix VIII). The most philologically distinguishing fea-
ture, therefore, is the term Universal Savior, which again is found in the Syriac
 Eusebius and Porphyry  103

of the Theoph., but not in the Greek text of the DE. Finally, both passages occur
in a larger polemical argument dealing with Christian universalism.
In critically evaluating the thematic and philological data we have just noted,
three important questions must now be addressed:
1. Did Eusebius employ the term ὁ κoινóς ἁπαντων σωτήρ, which the Syriac
translator accurately gave as ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ ?ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬Or was this an insertion made
by the translator himself?
2. If Eusebius used this term, what was his purpose? (I.e., why was this
phrase which is lacking in the DE inserted in the Theoph.?)
3. Is there any significance in where Eusebius inserts the phrase in Book V of
the Theoph.?
To answer these, it would appear reasonable to suggest that Eusebius himself
employed the phrase Common Savior of all in the original Greek (ὁ κoινóς
ἁπαντων σωτήρ), and its polemical function was definitively to counter the
claims of universalism made by Porphyry and his followers. There are many
data in the Theophany, upon which I cannot elaborate in detail, that point to
Porphyry being the main adversary. Writing a few years before he died, Eusebius
is now looking back on the past tumultuous decades of Church history, and
expresses in the last book of the Theophany a renewed confidence, and I suggest
that the soteriological phrase Common Savior of all was strategically placed in
key transitional sections to reinforce this perceived victory of the Christians
now living in the post-Nicene Constantinian Age.

Conclusions
In his lifetime Eusebius had witnessed Christianity’s move from potential anni-
hilation under Diocletian to a perceived triumph under Constantine. He expe-
rienced one of the greatest periods of transition in antiquity. As Book VIII of the
Church History reveals, he could speak of eye-witness accounts of the brutal
slayings of Christians during the Great Persecution, but not long thereafter he
dined with the new Christian emperor during the first universal council of the
Church. And over these critical times there loomed the formidable shadow of
Porphyry, bombarding the Christians with unprecedented insults and accusa-
tions, and claiming that religious and philosophical paganism offered the way to
the salvation of the soul.
Times had changed drastically by the 330s when the bishop, now in his
seventies, took pen in hand and wrote his last work. Porphyry was dead, his
movement was dying, and the hopes of Christians for a better future were
104  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

flying high. It is no wonder, therefore, that throughout the Theophany, but

especially in Book V, the elderly bishop exudes a renewed confidence, exem-
plified in the phrase “common savior of all,” that in Christ alone is found the
universal way for the salvation of the soul (via universalis animae salutis
liberandae).
PA RT   I I

The Historical and Cultural Context

of Universalism
 6

The Meaning of Salvation in a

Greco-Roman Milieu
But if on the contrary the gods have neither the power nor the will to aid us, …
what ground have we for rendering any sort of worship, honour or prayer to
the immortal gods?
Cicero, De natura deorum I.ii.3

T he numerous meanings and applications of salvation (salus

in Latin; σωτηρία in Greek)1 found in the culture of the Roman Empire can be
classified into four major groupings and need to be analyzed now because in the
following chapters I shall place Porphyry’s soteriological system in its broader
historical and cultural context and show how it related to a growing propensity
toward universalism during the third-century crises of the Roman Empire. The
logic here is, if Porphyry tried to find a universal way, it will have included one
that met these varied perceived needs common to pagans and Christians alike.
The categories are:
A. Salvation from the world: Cleansing, something life-threatening from
which the person or group needs to be delivered in order to maintain
well-being, health, safety, and so forth.
B. Salvation for the world:  Caring. Collective, personal, and/or inter-personal
blessings for the individual, his/her community, the ruler, and the empire.
This can include a perceived need to proselytize or evangelize others.
C. Salvation in the world: Community. A state of well-being, happiness, suc-
cess, prosperity, and so forth in the temporal realm.
D. Salvation beyond the world: Continuity. Eschatological salvation or a
continuation of life beyond death in a blessed and happy place or state
of being.
These are henceforth cited as GA, GB, GC, and GD, respectively.
Before turning to them I must add Porphyry’s definition of universalism,
found in Book I of the De regressu animae2 and important for my argument, as
a religion (or philosophy) that offered (1) a uniform doctrine;3 (2) one universal
way of salvation of the soul;4 and (3) a path for all nations.5 Then at the end of
Civ. Dei X.xxxii, Augustine argues that Christ alone cleanses each of a human
being’s constituent parts, body, soul, and spirit, at the same time, and not by
separate means as Porphyry taught.6 This latter point is a critique of Porphyry’s

107
108  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

tripartite soteriology that will be examined below and that, I shall argue, was the
central thesis of Porphyry’s Philosophia ex oraculis.
There are six sub-categories in GA (Salvation from the World): healing, deliv-
erance from enemies, victory in battle, protection, safe voyages, and philosophi-
cal escape from the body. For salus/σωτηρία as healing we have a plethora of
data often associated with Asclepius and a number of other healing deities.7
Asclepius as healing savior8 was invoked for miraculous healings by people from
every social class who used a wide variety of methods to bring about a cure,9
including magical formulae covering such maladies as erectile dysfunction,
migraines, scorpion stings, and nagging coughs.10 The success of salvation cults
like Mithraism,11 Isis-Serapis,12 Manicheanism,13 and Christianity14 in the Roman
Empire can be partly explained by the belief that their deities were perceived to
be able to cure diseases. It is interesting in light of this that Porphyry, in the
Contra Christianos, argued that Asclepius and the other (healing) deities had
not sent a cure for the plague that had ravaged Rome for so many years because
Jesus was being worshipped.15
The next sub-theme, deliverance from enemies, including (e.g.) fate,16
demons,17 all kinds of dangers,18 wild animals,19 and other beings real or imag-
ined and thought to be lurking with malicious intent in one’s environment,20
was a salvific blessing constantly sought after by many. We can only imagine
the relief experienced by an individual or a community when “Zeus the
Savior” or his associates, via one of many possible revelatory media, declared,
“Nothing will harm you.”21 Salvation was also often synonymous with military
victories and has a rich tradition in Rome.22 The first temple built in the city
(8th cent. B.C.) was to Jupiter Feretrius: Romulus was thought to have kept his
military victories there.23 Monuments were regularly dedicated to the gods
after Roman legions won a battle, as evidenced (e.g.) in the inscription found
in August 1992 in Augsburg, from Postumus’ reign (260–9), which celebrated
a victory over Germanic tribes.24 The ideology impacted local communi-
ties: Palmyrene deities, for example, normally wore military uniforms to pro-
tect their devotees’ long caravan trade journeys through the desert;25 and it
coheres conceptually with the fatalism that permeates the Thirteenth Sibylline
Oracle, written during the third century.26 Many extant votive inscriptions
commemorating military victories reveal a great sense of thanksgiving to the
Roman gods27, as the following one from an army camp somewhere in
Germania: Σωθεὶς ἐκ πολέμου καὶ ἀμετρήτων μάλα μόχθων εὐξάμενος
ἀνέθηκα Γενίου εἰκόνα σεμνήν.28
Simply put, the gods were thought capable of granting victory on the battle-
field,29 a concept which, as we shall see below, posed serious problems during
the many invasions, wars, and usurpations of the third century.
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  109

Closely associated to deliverance from enemies and military victories is the

gods’ ability to protect those who worship them,30 believed to be guaranteed in
return for human obedience31 and universally present in all social classes and
belief systems. The Sortes Astrampsychi is a good example. Written in the third
century and circulated as a collection of oracles which answered basic questions
about human existence, it is a soteriological goldmine of the religiosity of the
masses and the perceived needs that worshipping the gods was thought to sat-
isfy.32 We may note here that Porphyry’s Philosophia ex oraculis is of similar
provenance, content, language, and purpose. Such oracle collections give us a
good picture of the sociology and psychology of religion in the Greek East of the
period, which cannot have been qualitatively different from the Latin-speaking
western provinces, for the human needs that they address transcend every reli-
gion, philosophy, and system of magic in the Roman Empire.33
Going back to the Samothracian mysteries of early Greece34 and continuing
throughout the imperial period,35 the gods were invoked often for safe voyages.
Aelius Aristides (Sacred Speeches II.12–14) claimed that Asclepius protected him
from perils at sea.36 Many inscriptions and literary sources attest to saving dei-
ties like Isis who were thought to be able to bless and protect seafarers.37 Port
cities and naval bases across the empire possessed shrines dedicated to such
deities, as for example the altar dedicated to Neptune by Lucius Aufidius Pantera,
Prefect of the British fleet, in Lympne, Kent.38 The last sub-category of GA is the
necessity of separating the soul from the body in order to allow final release and
permanent union with the One. This doctrine is best represented by Plotinus,
Porphyry, Iamblichus and other followers of Neoplatonism, always numerically
in the minority, and is an elitist pathway to God that stresses the importance of
separating the soul from the body; controlling the passions; turning the soul to
the intelligible realm; contemplating true Being; and, finally, experiencing a
unio mystica with the One in this life, and ultimately, a final release and perma-
nent union in a blessed postmortem life.39 We are ontological light years from
the many members of the common masses mentioned by Augustine who con-
stantly sought the gods for finding runaway slaves, possessing a field, arranging
a marriage, or making a successful business transaction.40
The next grouping (GB: Salvation for the World) has four sub-themes: agrarian
blessings, personal/individual salvation, the ruler as bringer of salus/σωτηρία, and
civic religion. Since the empire’s economy was always predominantly based upon
agricultural productivity, one’s life and health depended upon regular good crops,
so it is not surprising to find salus conceived as agrarian blessings.41 From North
Africa where Saturn was worshipped as Deus Frugifer, the Lord of the harvests;42
to Voorburg in Germania Inferior where votive offerings were given to Isis the
“fruit bringer” at the forum Hadriani;43and in the many farming communities of
110  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the provinces,44 sacrifices were performed (and votive offerings made) for fruitful
fields,45 regular rainfall,46 good weather,47 and plentiful harvests.48
Conventional models of traditional Roman religion that are based upon the
erroneous belief that it was totally devoid of personal experiences of “salvation”
have no evidence to support them, assume too much, define “personal salva-
tion” almost exclusively in eschatological terms, and injudiciously assume that
only Christianity and the mystery religions of the East can have offered this
great blessing. Was all that pertained to religious practice before these eastern
cults came to Rome impersonal, detached, formal, and mechanical? After the
prescribed ritual or sacrifice was performed, did everyone involved simply leave
with a great longing to make personal contact with the deity? Or did it really
matter at all? This arbitrarily designed method of interpretation needs to be
critically re-evaluated simply because it is not based upon historical facts. Votive
offerings, the heartbeat of the religious mos maiorum, from archaic Rome reveal
individuals seeking a direct and personal relationship with the gods not only for
physical healing, but also for answers to their daily problems.49 Nor can we any
longer assume that traditional Roman religion was totally devoid of an eschato-
logical basis because going as far back as Latial Culture I of early Italy, which
covers 1000–900 b.c., archaeological excavations have discovered ash urns from
the period in the Roman Forum and in the Alban Hills that “are miniature mod-
els of the people’s huts and were apparently designed to serve as the deceased’s
dwelling for eternity.”50 Temple incubations, practiced regularly at various sites
in the early Republic, for example near Tor Tignosa near Lavinium, whose pur-
pose was to receive divine (=personal) revelations from a deity,51 also easily dis-
pel the myth that early Roman religion was stolid and its practitioners
disconnected from the gods they worshipped. Votives ex iussu dei or somnio
monitus, which certainly presuppose very ancient customs, indisputably dem-
onstrate that the Romans experienced personal contact with their gods, and this
resulted in the amelioration of their human existence.52 Indeed, whether tempo-
ral or eschatological, this is the essence of salus/σωτηρία.53
There appears, however, to have been a significant increase in the concern for
the gods’ meeting the individual’s personal needs,54 and by Plutarch’s period the
Pythia’s oracles were addressing public and civic issues less, more so private and
individual concerns.55 Epigraphic data show a distinct preponderance along
these lines, often containing the formula “for my salvation.”56 And mention
must be made of the many “intercessory salus” votive inscriptions with the for-
mula pro se et suis or ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τῶν υἱῶν ἀνέθηκεν57 on behalf of the dedi-
cator and his/her associates, most often close family members,58 conveying a
concern for the well-being of others, but still falling far short of the kind of
proactive plan of missionary evangelism or proselytism for which Christianity
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  111

was well known.59 Adherents to paganism did not feel compelled to “save oth-
ers” in that sense.60
If there was already within Roman religion a personal aspect, then we must
rightly ask what new dimension did the eastern religions add? The answer is
emotional appeal, a concrete spiritual rebirth either by baptism or initiation
rites,61 in some cults a sacramental meal that produced a sense of belonging to a
community and intimacy with the deity, often life after death, and a cosmopoli-
tan soteriology that transcended local regions and gave a sense of unity and soli-
darity to the inhabitants of the empire.
The Imperial Cult, with historical roots in Egypt62 and, via Alexander, the
Hellenistic kings acknowledged as σωτήρες,63 depicted the Roman emperor as
the preserver of the pax deorum. We find physicians, philosophers, and states-
men being called σωτήρ64 but not worshipped as gods. Worship of the deity (or
numen) of the emperor was universal, though in the West normally restricted to
emperors deified posthumously by the senate.65 During the third century crises,
in order to bring about unification in the empire, Aurelian is depicted as Deus
Aurelianus et Dominus or Deo et Domino nato Aureliano Augusto.66 Because the
emperor represented the gods of Rome and the welfare of the empire depended
upon him, a huge number of inscriptions show concern for his safety and
well-being (salus).67 There was thought to be a close association between the
health of the emperor and the favor of the gods, as evidenced for example in the
edict promulgated by Galerius on 30 April A.D. 311.68 It is not therefore surpris-
ing to find the correlative concept of the emperor as bringer of salus for his
people,69 which increasingly converges with themes of universalism in the Later
Empire, as evidenced in an inscription from Heracleae-Perinthi depicting
Diocletian as the savior of the oikoumene.70
Because Roman religion was primarily civic in nature—the last sub-theme of
GB—dedications abound with the formula ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας ἀνέθηκεν,71
or for the stability and health of a city.72 Many prayers were offered and votives
given to the gods for the safety and welfare of the cities and villages across the
empire.73 City magistrates were called benefactor (εὐεργέτης), savior (σωτήρ),
and restorer (κτίστης) as the bearers of collective salus for their communities,74
corresponding locally to the emperor as savior and divine benefactor of his
empire.
Salvation in the World (GC) contains the three sub-themes of temporal suc-
cess and happiness, good human relationships, and material prosperity. Success
and happiness spanned the entire gamut of human aspirations from, for exam-
ple, personal undertakings,75 career promotions,76 plans in life,77 lawsuits,78
guidance for decisions,79 business matters,80 and even killing a prize boar on a
hunting expedition.81 Here I place the bonus eventus inscriptions, which
112  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

commemorate a successful result attributed to answered prayer.82 Salus from the

gods was needed for human relationships including happy marriages,83 family
life,84 and good and fruitful friendships.85 Finally, recalling Cotta’s remark in the
De natura deorum that the Romans did not call Jupiter Best and Greatest because
he made them just, temperate, and wise, but safe, wealthy, and opulent;86 mate-
rial prosperity was the tangible evidence of the god’s temporal salvation in the
lives of their devotees.87 It is worth asking how the economic crises of the third
century affected this ideology since the maintenance of the cults posed increas-
ing financial burdens for benefactors in the cities, while at the same time
Christianity was very cost-effective.88 And there is evidence that temple mainte-
nance declined during the period.89 Was conversion to Christianity becoming
increasingly attractive from an economic perspective?90
The final group, Salvation beyond the World (GD), concerns the promise of
life beyond the grave. Lacking in traditional Roman religion,91 this belief was
found in a number of oriental mystery cults92 and expressed by many on epi-
taphs as a faint hope that the deceased would be received dis manibus93 into
Pluto’s shadowy Acherusian realm94 or where the Cimmerian folk had gone.95
The doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, however, and the promise of a
blessed, eternal existence in heaven, not taught by any pagan cult, was “a truth
proclaimed to the decisive advantage of the Church.”96
All four categories outlined above for salus/σωτηρία are found in the extant
fragments of the De philosophia ex oraculis, something that we should expect to
find if Porphyry was indeed offering salvation to the masses in the work. On
GA, Salvation from the World, with the exception of safe voyages, all sub-themes
are represented. There are two instances of salus as healing;97 eighteen, deliver-
ance from fate;98 six related to deliverance from evil demons;99 two concern vic-
tory in war;100 two, divine protection;101 and five are associated with philosophical
salvation.102 Salvation for the World, GB, includes the two sub-categories of
agrarian blessings (3)103 and personal/individual salvation (9).104 For Salvation in
the World (GC) we have three passages conveying temporal success and happi-
ness,105 one denoting good human relationships,106 and one for material prosper-
ity.107 Finally, three fragments contain material related to Salvation beyond the
World (GD).108
From these data we can deduce a religious Weltanschauung designed by
Porphyry for the readers of the Phil. orac. that presupposes a way of salvation for
the common masses of the Roman Empire to which they were able to relate and
whose religiosity, including beliefs and practices, offered a spirituality both
intelligible and practical. I shall turn now to Porphyry’s attempt to find a univer-
sal way of salvation, how these traditional and fluid meanings of salus/σωτηρία
might have been incorporated into his final conclusion; and then (last section)
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  113

analyze both in the context of a growing movement toward universalism in the

third century among the major salvation cults.

Porphyrian Universalism: Textual Analysis of the

Third Way
First, on the locus classicus for the third way, we note that Augustine structures
the entirety of Book X of the City of God around Porphyry’s tiered soteriology
and argues that the one way to the salvation of the soul is through Christ. He
begins the book with the theme of the blessed life and how humans experience it
and tells us that he will focus on the Platonists, the most renowned of philoso-
phers (X.i). After defining important terms (e.g., cultus, religio, pietas, eusebes,
latreia, servitus, theosopheia), he presents the reader with a summary of the his-
tory of salvation beginning with Abraham and Moses, stressing the great mira-
cles of God in the life of his people, and noting carefully that God’s promise to
Abraham was that all the nations of the earth would be blessed, and showing how
these preliminary divine works in history were part of the “one path of salvation”
(in via liberationis), which was superior to the magic of the Egyptians—a subtle
criticism of theurgy (10.ix)—and climaxing with the incarnation and crucifixion
of Christ. His argument on the superiority of miracles performed by Moses to
polytheistic magic is worth quoting: “These miracles … were performed in
order to promote the worship of the one true God and to forbid that of the many
false gods. Moreover, they were performed through simple faith and pious trust
in God, not by means of incantations and charms, . . . an art that they call either
magic or, using a more hateful name, witchcraft or, using a more honorable one,
theurgy” (10.ix). Later in the same section (10.ix), we are told that Porphyry
taught that theurgy cleansed the lower or spiritual part of the soul, but was inca-
pable of cleansing the intellectual part, thus clearly revealing that he offered one
way of salvation for the soul by theurgical practices, and the other way through
Neoplatonic philosophy, something repeated in 10.xxvii:
You, being a philosopher, … can see that for you no such rite of cleansing
by theurgic art is necessary in the least! Yet for all that you bring in such
rites for the benefit of others … and you do it by decoying those who are
incapable of becoming philosophers into practices that you admit are of no
value to you, you who are capable of higher things. Evidently you want all
who are turned away from the pursuit of philosophic excellence, which is
too lofty for all but a few, to seek out theurgists on your recommendation,
in order to obtain catharsis at least of their spiritual, though not, to be sure,
of their intellectual soul. (X.27)
114  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Augustine retorts by saying that only through Christ can the soul be cleansed of
its sin:

and victory over it (sic: “sin”) is won in the name of Him who took
human form and lived without sin in order to accomplish the remission
of sins by being himself both priest and sacrifice, that is, the mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, through whom we are
cleansed of sin and reconciled to God. For nothing but sin separates
men from God, and our sins are cleansed, not by any virtue of ours, but
by God’s mercy, thanks to his indulgence and not to our own power, for
even the very virtue that is called ours, however little it be, is a free grant
of his bounty.109

By mentioning virtue in this passage, Augustine sets the stage for the locus clas-
sicus of yet another or “third way” for the salvation/purification of the soul
which was taught by Porphyry:

Still, you do admit that even the spiritual soul can, without the aid of the
theurgic arts and rites, which you have wasted so much effort to learn, be
purified by the virtue of continence. (X.xxviii)

In his seminal book on Porphyry’s place in Neoplatonism, Andrew Smith

acknowledges the importance of soteriology in Porphyry’s works and even
notes “another way” in his thought for the salvation of the soul, which he sim-
ply refers to as “virtue.”110 But no one, to my knowledge, has noticed the fine
points of Porphyry’s doctrine here, especially the phrase, posse continentiae
virtute purgari (X.xxviii). Hence this other way is not just by virtue, but spe-
cifically “by the virtue of continence.”111 Basing my investigations primarily
upon Porphyry’s Epistola ad Marcellam and the Sententiae, in what follows
I shall demonstrate that the information that Augustine gives us concerning
Porphyry’s search for a universal way for the salvation of the soul is accurate;
then I shall reconstitute his tiered soteriological system, which was an attempt
to provide a pagan response to Christian soteriological universalism.
This brings me to the relationship between the Neoplatonic scala virtutum
and the Porphyrian phrase, posse continentiae virtute purgari. In Sententiae 32
(according to Lamberz’s (1975) edition) Porphyry, following Plotinus, analyzes
the four classes of virtues (scala virtutum): the civil, purificatory, contemplative,
and exemplary virtues.112 Each of these, however, contains the four cardinal vir-
tues of Platonism: Prudence, Courage, Temperance, and Justice.113 This means
that the definition of Continentia/σωφροσύνη is determined by which class of
the four virtues into which it falls:
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  115

1. CIVIL VIRTUES114—σωφροσύνη consists in the agreement and harmony

of appetite and reason (Lamberz (1975), p. 23, 9–10: σωφροσύνη δὲ ἐν
ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ συμφωνίᾳ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ πρὸς λογισμόν) and moderates the
passions so human conduct conforms to the laws of human nature
(Lamberz (1975), p. 30, 6–8: τῶν μὲν γὰρ πολιτικῶν μέτρον ἐπιθεῖναι τοῖς
πάθεσι πρὸς τὰς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν ἐνεργείας.),115 making human beings
benevolent toward each other and mutually uniting citizens.116
2. PURIFICATORY VIRTUES—σωφροσύνη consists in the soul’s purifying
itself of passions (Lamberz (1975), pp. 30, 8–31, 1): τῶν δὲ καθαρτικῶν
τελέως τῶν παθῶν ἀποστῆσαι (τὸ) τέως μέτρον λαμβανόντων.117
3. CONTEMPLATIVE VIRTUES—σωφροσύνη is the conversion of the
soul toward intelligence (Lamberz (1975), p. 23, 1–2): καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ ἤδη
τελείου θεωρητικοῦ καὶ ἤδη θεατοῦ.118
4. EXEMPLARY VIRTUES—σωφροσύνη is conversion toward oneself/
residing in intelligence (Lamberz (1975), p. 23, 2–3): καὶ ἄλλαι αἱ τοῦ νοῦ,
καθ’ ὃ νοῦς καὶ ἀπὸ ψυχῆς καθαρός.
These are understood to be on an ascending scale within the divinization of the
human soul, that is, the civil virtues are inferior to the purificatory which, in
turn, are inferior to the contemplative, reaching an apex in the exemplary vir-
tues.119 Also, Porphyry says: “He who possesses the virtues of the superior order
necessarily [potentially] possesses the inferior virtues. But the converse does
not occur.”120 So to whichever class of the four virtues we assign Porphyry’s
“third way,” we must keep in mind this principle of ascending ontological and
spiritual values.121
If each class of the four virtues mentioned (Civil, Purificatory, Contemplative,
and Exemplary) contains temperance (Augustine’s continentia or Porphyry’s
σωφροσύνη), and according to Civ. Dei X.xxviii, as noted above, the “third
way” of salvation for the soul is by the “virtue of continence,” we must now ask
ourselves to which class of virtue within the scala virtutum is Porphyry refer-
ring? I suggest that the key is in posse continentiae virtute purgari, (Civ. Dei
X.xxviii) with continentia corresponding to σωφροσύνη; and purgari relating
to the Greek καθαρίζω/κάθαρσις.122 If this is correct, then there is only one
class that is possible, and that is the second, or the Purificatory Virtues, espe-
cially if we recall that according to Augustine, Porphyry taught that by the
“virtue of continence” the lower soul can be cleansed. In the Sententiae
Porphyry says that the Purificatory Virtues, the second class, are superior to
the Civil Virtues because they free the soul from its union with “lower
things.”123 They also enable one to rise to contemplation, which means that the
third class has not been yet achieved, only that one at the second class is
116  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

ideally moving toward contemplation (πρὸς θεωρίαν) of intelligible reality.124

Furthermore, the Purificatory Virtues detach the soul from things here (τῶν
ἐντεῦθεν) and enable one to abstain from the carnal affections.125 Temperance—
Augustine’s continentia or Porphyry’s σωφροσύνη—within the Purificatory
Virtues is defined as the soul’s not sharing or obliterating the passions of the
body.126 The soul is purifying itself from the brutal passions characteristic of
the body.127 The object of the Purificatory Virtues is to detach the soul com-
pletely from the passions and raise the soul to true existence by assimilating it
to the divinity,128 another way of expressing the Platonic principle “being like
God,” which “could suggest greater continuity in the process of divinization,
to the extent that the divine appears as a more graduated structure in which
levels are linked by means of more intermediate terms.”129 Finally, the benefits
of each of the scala virtutum need to be mentioned:
1. CIVIL VIRTUES—make the human being virtuous, or in conformity with
the laws of human nature (Lamberz (1975), p. 25, 6–8: ἡ μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὰς
πολιτικὰς ἀρετὰς διάθεσις ἐν μετριοπαθείᾳ θεωρεῖται, τέλος ἔχουσα τὸ ζῆν
ὡς ἄνθρωπον κατὰ φύσιν).130 The first step in the divinization of the soul is
thus the practice of the political virtues within the Neoplatonic Platonopolis131
that will guarantee the salus of the cities and the concomitant perpetual
blessings of the gods, an ideology that will have cohered well with the
Diocletianic program for imperial unification and revitalization.132
2. PURIFICATORY VIRTUES—make man a good δαίμων (Lamberz (1975),
p. 31, 6–7: ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὰς καθαρτικὰς δαιμόνιος ἄνθρωπος ἢ καὶ δαίμων
ἀγαθός).
3. CONTEMPLATIVE VIRTUES—deify man=make man a θεóς. (Lamberz
(1975), p. 31, 7–8: ὁ δὲ κατὰ μόνας τὰς πρὸς τὸν νοῦν θεός).133
4. EXEMPLARY VIRTUES—make man a father of gods. (Lamberz (1975),
p. 31, 8: ὁ δὲ κατὰ τὰς παραδειγματικὰς θεῶν πατήρ.)134
We recall that Augustine states that Porphyry taught that the spiritual part of the
soul can be purified by the “virtue of continence.”135 Two passages from the
Sententiae help to elucidate the meaning of this otherwise enigmatic phrase.
First, in Sententiae 32 (Lamberz (1975), p. 31, 9–32, 2), Porphyry stresses the
importance of the Purificatory Virtues above the other three for the cleansing or
separating of the soul from the body:
’Επιμελητέον οὖν μάλιστα τῶν καθαρτικῶν ἡμῖν σκεψαμένοις, ὅτι τούτων
μὲν ἡ τεῦξις ἐν τῷ βίῳ τούτῳ, διὰ τούτων δὲ καὶ ἡ εἰς τὰς τιμιωτέρας
ἄνοδος. διὸ θεωρητέον, ἄχρι τίνος καὶ ἐπὶ πόσον οἵα τε παραλαμβάνεσθαι
ἡ κάθαρσις ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἀπόστασις σώματος καὶ τῆς ἀλόγου παθητικῆς
κινήσεως.
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  117

Second, just before this, we are told that σωφροσύνη within the Purificatory
Virtues consists in the soul’s not sharing the passions of the body, which clearly
refers to Augustine’s spiritual soul cleansed by the virtue of σωφροσύνη: τὸ δὲ
γε μὴ ὁμοπαθεῖν συνίστησι τὸ σωφρονεῖν (Lamberz (1975), p. 25, 2–3: cf. Civ.
Dei X.xxviii: continentiae virtute posse purgari). We shall come back to these
benefits later, especially the importance of σωφροσύνη in the conversion pro-
cess from each lower stage to the next higher one.136
The third and final point of this section concerns how Porphyry’s epistle to
his wife, the Ad Marcellam, written circa a.d. 300–2,137 relates to the passages
from the City of God and the Sententiae that we have looked at in the first two
sections. I shall argue that this is a propaedeutic philosophical tract whose pri-
mary purpose is to indoctrinate his wife of ten months into the elementary doc-
trines of the “third way.” In the preface of her translation of the Epistle to
Marcella, Kathleen Wicker states that it “presents basic doctrines of Porphyry’s
system in a simplified form, illustrated through the use of sententiae and exem-
pla to make them readily understood and remembered by a novice philoso-
pher.”138 She then adds that “the Ad Marcellam, in spite of the cryptic references
to advanced Neoplatonic concepts, is best understood as an elementary exposi-
tion of Neoplatonism which is neither fully representative of the complexity of
Porphyry’s mature thought nor of Neoplatonism as a philosophical system.”139
While there is nothing in these descriptions with which I disagree, we can sig-
nificantly refine both their scope and application.
It is certainly true that Marcella is a novice philosopher.140 Porphyry speaks of her
natural aptitude for philosophy,141 apologizes that he has been away on business,142
and encourages her to adhere to the precepts he had begun to teach her during the
ten months of their marriage.143 He informs her that he is eager to resume her instruc-
tion as soon as possible144 and admonishes her not to forget what she has been
taught145 because she has chosen reason (τὸν λόγον), not passion (τὸ πάθος), as her
guardian.146 From this point in the epistle to the end (Ad Marc. 6–35), the general
theme is soteriology, and he focuses on temperance by which the soul flees the body,
controls the passions, is purified, and begins to turn itself to God.147 The question now
is whether the sub-themes of his exposition in this section (6–35) relate to what we
have defined as the “third way.”148 I believe that they do for the following reasons.
First, Porphyry consistently emphasizes the importance of virtue in Marcella’s
life.149 After the introduction, the first section (Ad Marc. 7) in which his central
theme (soteriology) begins to be developed, reveals the importance of the virtue
of σωφροσύνη for the cleansing of the lower soul, Augustine’s posse continentiae
virtute purgari (Civ. Dei X.xxviii): On their road to the ascent to the gods, the
practitioners of the virtue of σωφροσύνη have thought that painful experiences
contribute more to virtue than pleasures do.150 Marcella has already encountered
many struggles in the contest (εἰς ἀγῶνα) of self-control.151 This coheres with
118  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Sent. 9, where Porphyry describes the separation of the soul from the body
required of philosophers as a death;152 and Sent. 32, where he states that struggles
(μάχη) will have been left behind once the soul has made progress toward
κάθαρσις.153 Hard work is necessary for the person aspiring to virtue on the
“blessed road to the gods” (τὴν μακαρίαν εἰς θεοὺς ὁδóν:).154 Recalling the via
salutis universalis animae liberandae of Civ. Dei X.xxxii, Porphyry speaks of the
way of salvation (τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν ὁδóν)155 requiring the soul’s separation from
the body, especially every passion of the soul, which is extremely hostile to its
salvation.156 Only then can the soul be free from sins that result from passions.157
Plato (Phaedo 67 AB), he says, taught that it is not lawful for the impure to par-
take of the pure (Ad Marc. 9: καθαροῦ γὰρ μὴ καθαρὸν ἐφάπτεσθαι οὐδὲν), and
then Porphyry says something to Marcella that is very significant for our analy-
sis: there exists in her both “savior and that which is being saved” (Ad Marc.
9: τὸ σῷζον καὶ τὸ σῳζόμενον).158 (Ι shall return to this important concept later.)
Thus she should train herself to flee the body and ascend into herself (Ad Marc.
10).159 Virtuous hard work (πόνους)—and the context dictates that σωφροσύνη
is meant—is important in this salvific process because it is preparatory for the
liberation from the body (Ad Marc. 12). It alone can draw the soul upward to
God (Ad Marc. 16).
Katharsis as the agent by which the soul is cleansed for the purpose of living a
life of temperance (Augustine’s continentia; Porphry’s σωφροσύνη) is accentu-
ated throughout the epistle as well. Remembering that σωφροσύνη within the
Purificatory Virtues is defined by Porphyry in Sent. 32 as the soul’s purifying itself
of passions, we first note that in Ad Marc. 6 Porphyry recommends Marcella to
stay away from pleasures and indolence since she has chosen not to follow pas-
sion; and later he says that the soul who longs for the things related to the body
is ignorant of God (Ad Marc. 13). Katharsis is stressed: a pure body, he says, must
be subservient to a pure soul (καθαρᾷ καθαρόν) undefiled by passions (Ad Marc.
13). Intemperance (ἀφροσύνη) and ignorance prevent the impure soul from
knowing the Divine Law (Ad Marc. 26): ὁ δέ γε θεῖος ἀγνοεῖται μὲν ψυχῇ δι’
ἀφροσύνην καὶ ἀκολασίαν ἀκαθάρτῳ, ἐκλάμπει δὲ δι’ἀπαθείας καὶ φρονήσεως.160
The Intellect guides the soul’s ascent, first in grasping the law of nature—an allu-
sion to the Civil Virtues—written for temperate men, and then the divine law
(Ad Marc. 26–27).161 He elaborates upon the virtue of continence in sections
29–29: she is to remain pure by “abstinence,” break away from every vain yearn-
ing, and be totally in control of herself. Using the example of the physician who
heals the body with medicine, later he compares this to how philosophy purges
the soul of passions.162 In doing this, the soul becomes more like god (Ad Marc.
32) because God protects only the “pure” from destruction (Ad Marc. 33). Pure
here, again, refers to being separated from the passionate attachment to the body.
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  119

Great education is required to be in control of the body; she should be prepared

to amputate the whole body to save her soul;163 he warns her not to be a slave to
the passions because a person cannot be “free,” and thus “like God,” and at the
same time be governed by the passions (Ad Marc. 32).164 Such admonition would
not be necessary for a mature Neoplatonic philosopher who had at least already
arrived at the third level of virtues, the Contemplative, let alone the highest,
those of the Exemplary.165 It is reasonable to conclude that the Ad Marcellam had
the propadeutic objective of training the novice philosopher in the via salutis by
which the spiritual soul is cleansed by the virtue of σωφροσύνη.166
In sections 18–25 we find more important information that not only supports
the present interpretation, but also helps to shed light on the perplexing prob-
lem of dating Porphyry’s works. First, he says that the greatest fruit of piety is to
honor God according to ancestral customs (κατὰ τὰ πάτρια: Ad Marc. 18),167 a
statement that destroys the Bidez hypothesis published in his Vie de Porphyre in
1913, which dates all of the highly religious/superstitious works like the Phil.
orac. in a pre-Plotinian period (before a.d. 260); and the more philosophically
mature, and therefore less religious/superstitious works (De regr. an., Sent., etc.)
to a post-Plotinian period (after a.d. 260). Since the Ad Marcellam supports
traditional polytheism and contains, at best, elementary philosophical doctrines
and it is dated to circa a.d. 300–2,168 it does not easily fall into either category.
For example, in section 18, after he stresses the importance of τά πάτρια,
Porphyry apparently contradicts himself by saying that tears do not move God;
sacrifices do not honor God; votive offerings do not adorn God; and thus
Marcella must let her God-filled intellect be united to God because “like must
gravitate to like,” resulting in her intellect being a temple to God. (Ad Marc. 19).
Then at the end of the section on piety, section 23, he concludes that Marcella
should leave the door open to worship the gods both ways, by sacrificial rites
and by thought.169 How can we explain his emphasis upon τὰ πάτρια and philo-
sophical approach in the same passage? I would suggest that this is the crux of
the “third way”: it functions somewhat as a spiritual pivot, connecting the nov-
ice with the world in which she lives, but also allowing her to progress beyond
it, indeed, weaning her from a dependence upon corporeal reality, and thus
ultimately practicing the two highest levels of the scala virtutum, at which time
she would be able to contemplate intelligible reality, experience the unio mys-
tica, final release, break the cycle of reincarnations, and experience permanent
union with the One. Thus spiritual conversion from each lower stage to the next
implies noetic progression, and σωφροσύνη, as I hope to demonstrate below,
plays a pivotal role in the conversion process toward, and then in union with,
the Nous.170 At the two lowest levels (Civic and Purificatory), there is a conver-
sion toward true existence for which, Porphyry seems to imply, divine assistance
120  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

is necessary, and thus all of the meanings of salus/σωτηρία that were analyzed
above will have been incorporated at these levels and subsumed in the phrase τὰ
πάτρια;171 after them one does not need help from the gods because one has
become either θεός (Theoretical) or Πατὴρ Θεῶν (Exemplary), as we shall see
below.172
Two other passages are worth mentioning. In Ad Marcellam 25, Porphyry
speaks of the one who has gained control over the body in contradistinction
with the one who lives according to natural law, which parallels the distinction
made between the definitions of σωφροσύνη within the Civil and Purificatory
Virtues, respectively (Sent. 32). Finally, in Ad Marcellam 32, in the context of
discussing the value of fleeing the body,173 Porphyry stresses the importance of
knowing oneself, recalling the statement in Sent. 32 that the foundation of
purification—and hence, the Purificatory Virtues—is to “know yourself,”174 or to
have an openness toward one’s source in the hierarchy of which one is a mem-
ber.’175: πῶς δ’ ἂν γένοιτο καὶ μέχρι τίνος, ῥητέον. πρῶτον μὲν οἶον θεμέλιος καὶ
ὑποβάθρα τῆς καθάρσεως τὸ γνῶναι ἐαυτὸτὴν ψυχὴν ὄντα ἐν ἀλλοτρίῳ
πράγματι καὶ ἐτεροουσίῳ συνδεδεμένον.176
The Epistle to Marcella is very important for the present argument since it is
a soteriological work that says absolutely nothing about theurgy; and though it
does contain philosophical doctrines, they are, as we have noticed, quite ele-
mentary, thus not going into the deeper metaphysical and ontological teachings
of Neoplatonism: for example, there is nothing about the One, very little about
the Nous, or the importance of contemplation upon the intelligible realm; con-
versely, there is a great deal about controlling the body, passions, and cleansing
the soul from detachment to the things of material reality. Why would Porphyry
harp on controlling the passions like this throughout the epistle if Marcella had
already moved on to the highest soteriological tier? And we recall that Augustine
(Civ. Dei X.xxvii) states that Porphyry taught that the theurgical way to salva-
tion was for “all who turned away from the pursuit of philosophy,” clearly indi-
cating that any other way to the salvation of the soul would have to be through
philosophy. I conclude that the Ad Marcellam served the purpose of being a
propaedeutic soteriological epistle for circulation within Marcella’s social and
intellectual circles,177 whose primary purpose was to indoctrinate his wife of ten
months, and other beginning philosophers, into the elementary doctrines of the
“third way.”178 Its high ethical content, emphasis upon traditional piety, and the
offer of a way of salvation for at least the lower soul will have represented an
attractive counter-plan to the concepts of salvation found in Christian
scripture.179
Augustine informs us at the end of Book X of the City of God that Porphyry
was involved in much research trying to find one way of salvation for all
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  121

humanity, adding that he failed in finding a universal way for the salvation of
the soul.180 Building on an anti-Porphyrian argument first devised by Arnobius
of Sicca,181 Augustine concluded that such a way was provided by God through
the incarnation and crucifixion of Christ for all humans and for all constitutive
parts of every individual human (X.xxxii). We can agree that he did indeed fail
to find one way of salvation for all humans, everywhere, and for all time. But his
tripartite soteriology as presented in this study reveals that he in a true sense
offered different ways of salvation with differing benefits to the practitioner.
I would suggest that the paradigm looked like this:

1. SALVATION/PURIFICATION for the uneducated masses, which

embraced traditional polytheism, including animal sacrifice and theurgi-
cal rites.182 This purified only the lower part of the soul (I shall probe
deeper into the meaning of what Porphyry calls the ‘lower part’ [the appe-
titive soul] in ­chapter 8). According to my argument this would presup-
pose the practice only of the Civic Virtues. As noted above, the practice of
the political virtues within the Neoplatonic Platonopolis represents the first
step in the divinization of the soul and will have guaranteed the salus of
the cities and the perpetual blessings of the gods, an ideology expressed in
the Tetrarchic New Imperial Theology.183
2. SALVATION/ PURIFICATION for those who have shown some aptitude
for philosophy and have begun to receive training, like Marcella, in fleeing
the bodily pleasures, controlling the passions, and thus cleansing the
lower part of the soul.184 This included the Purificatory Virtues, as we have
seen. Though one could ideally progress from here to the third and high-
est way, I suggest that Porphyry viewed this path as mutually exclusive to
the others.185
3. SALVATION/ PURIFICATION through Neoplatonic philosophy, which
included contemplation upon intelligible reality and ultimate union with
the One. This included the third and fourth classes of virtues, or the
Contemplative and the Paradigmatic. Though we shall give a synthesis of
these three parts in c­ hapter 8, which shows how each part of the soul was
related to each of these three paths, suffice it to say at this juncture that this
tripartite soteriological scheme was incorporated into the Phil. orac., with
each via salutis addressed in each one of the three books of the work, as
noted in the Preface. This will be analyzed in the next section below.186

If there are three ways to the purification of the soul in Porphyry’s thought, what
do we finally do with four classes of virtues? The key is Sent. 32: because, begin-
ning at class 3, at the level of the Contemplative (or Theoretical) Virtues, the soul
122  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

now contemplates intelligence (νοερῶς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνεργούσης). I suggest that

the tripartite soteriology which we have examined relates to the scala virtutum
as follows: class one=first tier, which encourages traditional polytheism, includ-
ing animal sacrifice and theurgy; class two=second tier, which acts as a pivot
between levels one and three, whose objective, clearly seen in the Ad Marc., is to
begin to wean the soul from the traditional religious way and to train it to be
cleansed of the passions so that it can begin to turn upward toward contempla-
tion of true reality;187 and three and four together comprise the (fully mature)
philosophical way, because, beginning at level three the soul is not bothered by
the passions and can contemplate reality; and number four can be seen as the
final stage of this process. This should not surprise us that Porphyry viewed this
highest ontological and epistemological stage as a conflation of the two highest
virtues in his scala virtutum, which he inherited from Plotinus, expanding and
incorporating them into his soteriological path for philosophers. Iamblichus
did the same thing with respect to his median class of souls in which he pro-
vided further subdivisions.188 And we might add that Plato had to deal with
another kind of three and four fusion when he analyzed the relationship between
the three parts of the soul to the four corresponding (cardinal) virtues in the
Republic.189
Augustine’s statement that Porphyry believed that the soul becomes consub-
stantial with Nous is an important passage thatmay help to shed light on some
of the fine points of the philosophical way to salvation: “Vos certe tantum tribu-
itis animae intellectuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstan-
tialem paternae illi menti, quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis.”190
How can the soul retain its individuality after its union with Nous, (“consub-
stantialem … fieri …”), and thus bring about the full divinization of man,
while simultaneously maintaining its consubstantiality with Nous?191 The answer
seems to be that when stage four is achieved, the soul is in permanent union
with Nous, but at the same time, it can practice the virtues of the lower stages as
circumstances require while simultaneously maintaining its inseparable noetic
union with Nous: καὶ ὁ μὲν ἔχων τὰς μείζους ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔχει καὶ τὰς ἐλάττους,
οὐ μὴν τὸ ἔμπαλιν.192 This is because knowledge is identified with Being, and
there is thus a “duality in unity” whereby intellection is integral to the entire
conversion process (from the lower stages to stage four) and in which reflection
occurs.193
Fieri has to do with the conversions brought about by the soul’s choice (cf. Ad
Marc. 6; 23),194 commensurate with the Platonic principle that with each transi-
tion to the next spiritual stage of the soul’s ascent, there is a concomitant and
qualitative noetic progression, climaxing in the ultimate (Paradigmatic) level in
which the knowing subject becomes identified with its “author,”195 the Porphyrian
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  123

phrase being “the savior and the saved” becoming one.196 Since at the second
stage (Purificatory Virtues) Porphyry can only then speak of a conversion to real
existence, we may assume that he perceived that the last two stages, contempla-
tive and exemplary, were more closely related than the others, thus together
forming a final path to salvation/purification separate from the preceding two
paths (theurgy and the virtue of continence), and I interpret a passage in
Nemesius’ De natura hominis quoted from the Symmikta Zetemata to mean the
same: ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ ποτὲ μὲν ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἐστιν, ὅταν λογίζηται, ποτὲ δὲ ἐν τῷ νῷ,
ὅταν νοῇ.197 Porphyry is not saying that soul and Nous become ontologically
identical, but rather ποτὲ δὲ ἐν τῷ νῷ, ὅταν νοῇ means that they are substan-
tially inseparable after their union takes place, and he posits the same principle
in Sent. 40, where he asserts that the soul should always be present with itself in
order to enjoy the presence of that being (=Nous) from which the soul is so
“substantially inseparable” as from itself (ἀναπόσπαστον κατ’ οὐσίαν ὡς συ
σαυτοῦ).198
Another passage from the Symmikta Zetemata reveals that he is speaking of
an inseparable union in which participation, assimilation, and reciprocity are
implied, but not one of absolute identical consubstantiality:
Οὐκ ἀπoγνωστέoν oὖν ἐνδέχεσθαί τινα oὐσίαν παραληϕθῆναι εἰς
συμπλήρωσιν ἐτέρας oὐσίας καὶ εἶναι μέρoς oὐσίας, μένoυσαν κατὰ τὴν
ἐαυτῆς ϕύσιν μετὰ τὸ συμπληρoῦν ἄλλην oὐσίαν ἕν τε σύν ἄλλῳ
γενoμένην, καὶ τὸ καθ’ ἐαυτὴν ἓν διασώζoυσαν καὶ τὸ μεῖζoν αὐτὴν μὲν
μὴ τρεπoμένην, τρέπoυσαν δὲ ἐκεῖνα ἐν oἶς ἂν γίγνηται εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῆς
ἐνέργειαν τῇ παρoυσιᾳ.199
Though Nemesius informs us that Porphyry addressed the union of body and
soul in this passage, we can infer from the context that this was only an example
generally applicable to the inter-relationships between all the other ontological
levels. So the same principles apply to Nous/intellectual soul as they do to soul/
body: Nous can complete the being of (the intellectual) soul and become one
with it, while simultaneously “preserving its own proper nature after it has
afforded completion to the other being, both becoming one with the other, and
continuing one in itself … without suffering any change itself …”200 Hence fieri
denotes the conversion from image knowledge when the intellectual part of the
soul is cleansed by turning toward the Nous, to true knowledge of the forms
within the Nous.201 The transition is from copy to exemplar. Note that Augustine
says the soul is consubstantial with the mind of the Father, which can only mean
here Nous.
Two other data related to continentia/σωφροσύνη support this interpreta-
tion. First, at the third and fourth stages, temperance is described as a
124  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

conversion, reminiscent of Plotinus’ statement that σωφροσύνη is a “turning to

Nous” (πρὸς νοῦν στροφή),202 and the only other conversion lower than this
mentioned in Sent. 32 is at the point after which purification takes place, thus
allowing the soul to ascend to true existence; it therefore seems that σωφροσύνη
is the pivotal virtue at each stage of the soul’s ascent that causes the conversion
to the next.203
Second, the quality of divinity is produced in the soul who practices both
virtue levels three (theoretical) and four (paradigmatic),204 the difference being
that number three produces θεος and number four πατηρ θεων, but the essen-
tial substance that they have in common is deity, not daimon (=purificatory
virtues), which is an intermediary level, between the good person and the prac-
titioner of the purificatory virtues; nor simply a good human at the civic level.
This coheres with the Neoplatonic doctrine that each lower ontological level, in
this case θεóς=contemplative virtues, derives its existence from the next higher
one, or Πατὴρ θεῶν=Exemplary Virtues. On the latter, within the Greek pan-
theon, Zeus was “father” of the gods, but he was still “god,” his nature being the
same as the other θεoί. Πατὴρ Θεῶν thus denotes priority of rank; or superior-
ity in degree but not in kind; generation; and the providential care, guidance,
and authority that the supreme god provided for his subordinate deities; and
which the divinized human, at the level of Nous, provides for his (microcos-
mic) being (including corporeal existence and the lower soul) as an intelligible
universe in itself, similar to the manner in which Nous gives life to all constitu-
ents of the universe as a living Being. Owing to the participation, assimilation,
and reciprocity brought about by the union of the intellectual part of the soul
with Nous and described as sharing a common nature, deity, albeit one active
(Πατὴρ Θεῶν), the other passive (θεóς), at stage four, due to the duality in
unity principle whereby the knower and the known are one, the soul and Nous
become substantially inseparable. Perhaps Porphyry alludes to this principle in
Ad Marc. 16, when he says: “After God, nothing is great except virtue. God is
greater than virtue.” (Καὶ μέγα οὐδὲν ἄλλο μετὰ θεὸν ἢ ἀρετὴ μείζον ἀρετῆς
θεός.) But how can we emulate by our virtues a Supreme Being “of whom vir-
tue cannot meaningfully be predicated”?205 Porphyry seems to be following
Plotinus here, who used the metaphor of fire that causes heat in others, so, as
Dillon notes, “God is ‘virtuous’ in the sense of causing virtue in others,”206 with
God denoting Nous. The latter is beyond virtue, but when the union of soul and
Nous is complete, it causes (the paradigmatic) virtues in the (intellectual) soul.
And the presence of subdivisions within the same ontological or epistemologi-
cal level should not surprise the historian of ancient philosophy: We find the
same principle in a number of Platonists beginning with Plato himself.207
 Meaning of Salvation in a Greco-Roman Milieu  125

The intellectual part of the soul is thus cleansed or separated from all asso-
ciations with the body and (lower) soul, and undertakes a conversion when it is
in union with Intelligence, but it begins to be converted to true existence at
stage three.208 Based on the Plotinian and Platonic premise of ὁμοίωσις θεῷ209
and the Socratic principle that virtue is knowledge, we have, in the Porphyrian
scheme, an intrinsically epistemological soteriology: The soul ascends or pro-
gresses in knowledge until it achieves its ultimate goal when the savior and the
saved are one. I would suggest that is what the Porphyrian phrase fieri … con-
substantialis means. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that stages three and
four were perceived by Porphyry to be taken together and represented the final
path of salvation of the soul, for the mature Neoplatonic philosopher, along
with theurgy and the virtue of continence. All three were mutually exclusive,
but also integrative, inclusive, and progressive; and within a polytheistic frame-
work, this tiered system was the closest that religious and philosophical pagan-
ism ever came to offering a truly universal salvation for all peoples of the
empire. And based upon the response from the Christian writers, Porphyry’s
system was perceived to be a formidable threat to their own distinct view of
universalism.
Hence the so-called “third way” actually functioned as the second in
Porphyry’s tripartite soteriological system, an intermediary between the two
others. If this interpretation is correct, we can now get a better picture of
Porphyry’s soteriology and the broader context in which it developed during the
third-century crises when Christianity was growing rapidly and was in sharp
competition and conflict with a good number of other universal salvation cults
(Mithraism, Isiac worship, the Cult of Cybele, Sol, Jupiter Dolichenus, the
Imperial Cult, and Manichaeism, some of which had a tiered soteriology as
well); it will help us explain the apparent contradictions in some of his writings
(e.g., the rejection of sacrifice in the De abst.; and its acceptance in the Phil.
orac.); and it may give us a better interpretation of the contents of the De phi-
losophia ex oraculis, which I and others have argued is best dated to the late
third century. In the next section I shall argue in greater detail that the three
books of this work, whose main theme was the salvation of the soul, each cov-
ered one of the three ways which I have analyzed. And in the final section I shall
attempt to place the Porphyrian system within the broader historical context of
the third-century crises when, just before the Constantinian Revolution, the last
attempt of paganism to win in the battle for souls was at its zenith in the Roman
Empire was at its zenith. I hope these last two sections will shed further light on
both the ideological content and the historical context of the Porphyrian soteri-
ology delineated above.
 7

The Philosophia ex oraculis

A Tripartite Soteriological Universalism

I went down to the crossroad, fell down on my knees.

I went down to the crossroad, fell down on my knees.
Asked the Lord above, “Have mercy now, Save poor Bob if you please.”
Robert Johnson, Crossroads

Philosophia ex oraculis
According to Augustine, Porphyry’s De regressu animae contained his thesis
that, after much philosophical and historical research, he had concluded that
there was a universal way of salvation, but he had not found it. However, in the
prologue to the Περὶτῆς ἑκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας Porphyry offers his readers
the very thing he denied them in the De regressu animae.1 Either the latter is the
later work, and thus Porphyry changed his mind; or it preceded the Phil. orac.,
which was the culmination of his intensive research for universalism. The pro-
logue clearly states that the central theme of the work is the salvation of the
soul,2 but the thematic details, which have been totally ignored by scholars,
indisputably delineate three distinct ways of salvation that will be covered.3
First, Porphyry4 says that the collection of oracles will contain many doctrines
of philosophy, indicating that most of the contents will deal with philosophical
salvation. He then informs his readers that, “to a small extent” (ἐπ’ ὁλίγον), he
will touch upon prophetic revelation (δὲ καὶ τῆς χρηστικῆς ἀψόμεθα
πραγματείας), which will be beneficial for (1) contemplation (πρός τε τὴν
θεορίαν ὁνήσει) and for (2) the entire purification of life (καὶ πρὸς τὴν ὅλην
κάθαρσιν τοῦ βίου).5
Porphyry claims that the contents of his work will provide the only sure source
of salvation for its readers (Βέβαιoς δὲ καὶ μóνιμoς ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἂν ἐκ μóνoυ
βεβαίoυ τὰς ἐλπίδας τoῦ σωθῆναι ἀρυτóμενoς) predominantly by means of phi-
losophy, but to a lesser extent, contemplation, and the entire purification of life,
τὴν ὅλην which implies both kinds of purification of the soul as noted above,
either by theurgy or by the virtue of continence, with the latter (continence)
implied in contemplation (πρός τε τὴν θεωρίαν).6 I shall thus argue here that, as
Augustine informs us,7 after much intensive research in the religious traditions
of the world, which presupposes many years of meticulous studies (and Porphyry

126
 Philosophia ex oraculis: A Tripartite Universalism  127

was certainly, if anything, a very meticulous scholar8), the kind of exploratory

inquisitiveness and critical analysis represented in the Epistle to Anebo, and the
initial work exclusively devoted to the philosophical way to salvation noted
above, De regressu animae—both of which antedated the Phil. orac. and were
written in the post-Plotinian period9—Porphyry had not found the one via
salutis animae universalis liberandae for all peoples everywhere and for all
time.10 His final solution, stated in the prologue of the Phil. orac., was the tripar-
tite soteriology described in the third section of this book and introduced in the
preface to the Phil. orac. It was integrative, comprehensive, and, in a true sense,
offered universal salvation in the form of a tiered, progressive, and hierarchical
system, something (as noted) quite natural for a Neoplatonist. The Phil. orac.
thus complements, but certainly does not contradict, both the Ep. Anebo and the
De regr. an. and is best dated to the end of the third century.11 (I shall place
Porphyry’s universalism in its historical context below.) This allows for the long
period of research in which Porphyry sought for the universal way, the writing
of the works mentioned, and his final solution—the three ways to
salvation—which, I suggest, were covered individually in each of the three
books of the Phil. orac., respectively.12
Gustavus Wolff ’s Porphyrii de Philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum
Reliquiae, first published in Berlin in 1856, however, lists the three books accord-
ing to the following themes: I. Gods; II. Demons; III. Heroes.13 The weakness of
Wolff ’s argument, which has been uncritically followed by a vast majority of
Porphyrian scholars since its creation,14 arbitrarily assumes that an ambiguous
and subjective remark of Eunapius concerning Porphyry leads to the conclusion
that the Phil. orac. was certainly written when Porphyry was young—hence
during his pre-Plotinian period—and still very interested in traditional reli-
gion.15 Wolff ’s argument was the basic foundation of the Bidez hypothesis,
which, as noted, is still followed blindly by many scholars even today; it is based
on the same passage from Eunapius and dates all of the highly religious/super-
stitious works like the Phil. orac. in the pre-Plotinian period (before a.d. 260),16
and the more philosophically mature, and therefore less religious/superstitious
works (De regr. animae, Sent., etc.) to the post-Plotinian period (after a.d. 260).
Beginning, however, with O’Meara’s works (1959 and 1969), an increasing num-
ber of scholars have begun to have doubts about the hypothesis.17 There is no
prima facie evidence in the entire Porphyrian corpus, including the fragments
of various works, that he ever abandoned a personal interest in traditional reli-
gion; and we have observed that the Ad Marcellam, written late in Porphyry’s
life, upholds the practice of ancestral religious customs.18 It is hoped that this
study will convince Porphyrian scholars to put to rest the Wolff-Bidez hypoth-
esis once and for all. A critical reevaluation of Wolff ’s thematic classification of
128  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the Phil. orac. fragments is now necessary. With few exceptions, for example
O’Meara and the Belgian scholar Busine,19 most scholars have uncritically
accepted Wolff ’s thematic classification.20 Smith’s Fragmenta (1993a) closely fol-
lows Wolff ’s reconstruction, which “est somme toute arbitraire et ne nous éclaire
pas sur l’allure originale que devait présenter l’ensemble de l’ouvrage.”21 Of the
fifty-eight22 fragments of the Phil. orac. in Smith, twenty-two are designated as
deriving from Book I; nineteen from Book II; and seventeen from Book III.23 As
the table below indicates, however,24 the fragments that the ancient author
indisputably names the book in which they are found can be given as follows:

BOOK I 6 fragments of 22 in Smith (1993a) = 27.27% (Eusebius, 5; F. Maternus, 1)

BOOK II 9 fragments of 19 in Smith (1993) = 47% (FGT, 2; Eusebius, 3; Philoponus, 4)
BOOK III 12 fragments of 17 in Smith (1993) = 70% (Augustine, 8; Eusebius, 2;
Philoponus, 2)

Thus overall, we have twenty-six of fifty-eight fragments that we can say with a
high degree of certainty that the specific book from which they derive can be
identified. This is 44.82% of the total number of fragments in Smith that we can
identify as deriving from a named book in the Phil. orac. The remaining 55.18%,
well over half of the fragments in Smith, cannot with any certainty be desig-
nated as deriving from a specific book of the Phil. orac. What can we say, if
anything, about the fragments that can be identified per book? And what do we
do with the 55.18% that can be classified as being in any one of the three books?
Is there anything that can guide the historian in his reevaluation of the frag-
ments which will allow for a reclassification? If so, what is defective in the pres-
ent classification? To answer these and similar questions, one must analyze
Wolff, whose major premise in classifying the books was his dating of the Phil.
orac. when Porphyry was an adolescent, and thus presumably steeped in the
traditional and superstitious polytheism of his upbringing, which he later aban-
doned when he became Plotinus’ disciple, thus the terminus ante quem for the
Phil. orac. is a.d. 262/3, the date when Porphyry met Plotinus. But Wolff ’s foun-
dation is built exclusively upon a statement found in Eunapius (quoted above),
which is an intelligent guess at best. So if Wolff could base his dating on
Eunapius, then he could take the next step and arbitrarily organize the books
around major themes cohering with his presupposition that Porphyry was a
traditional polytheist at the time of writing, thus the theme of Book I = the gods;
Book II = demons; Book III = the heroes.
We can deduce from these data that only twenty-six of the fifty-eight frag-
ments, or 44.82%, can with certainty be identified as deriving from a named
book of the Phil. orac.; and the remaining 55.18%, more than half, cannot be so
 Philosophia ex oraculis: A Tripartite Universalism  129

designated. Because Wolff ’s proposed classification is suspect, it is incumbent

upon the historian to create a more objective thematic reconstitution. Since
I have established that Porphyry constructed a tripartite soteriology, the general
theme of the Phil. orac. was the salvation of the soul, the Prologue addresses the
three ways of salvation delineated above, and the Phil. orac. contained three
books, the most plausible question to ask now is whether each book addressed
each one of the three ways, respectively: Book I. Ancestral Religion and Theurgy;
Book II. Lower-Soul Salvation by Virtue; and Book III. Higher-Soul Salvation
by Neoplatonic Philosophy. Keeping in mind Smith’s subdivision of the frag-
ments per book (I = 303 F–324 F; II=325 F–340 F; III=341 F–350 F), we must now
critically examine them and ask whether they provide evidence that supports
this hypothesis. I shall analyze the fragments of each book by focusing first on
those that certainly name the book under investigation, then evaluate those that
cannot be so classified.25
We have six fragments in which Book I is named. Half of these derive from
the prologue in which Porphyry offers, as noted, salvation of the soul to his
readers and introduces his three soteriological sub-themes.26 In addition, a frag-
ment from Firmicus Maternus alludes to divinatory rituals summoning Serapis
in the context of discussing animal sacrifices and images, leading to the author’s
calling Porphyry a defensor sacrorum.27 This fits a thematic context of salvation
via τὰ πάτρια with an emphasis upon theurgy, a word which, though not found
in the extant fragments of the Phil. orac., was as noted above probably called
theosophy in this pre-Iamblichean period, a fluid term coined by Porphyry that
allowed him to incorporate ancestral customs, the civic cults, and what was the
initial evolutionary phase of theurgical rites and practices into the via salutis for
the uneducated masses.28 It was an easy and irresistible target for Christian
polemicists to ridicule. The remaining two fragments naming Book I are 323 F,
which speaks about the innumerable paths on the road (ὁδός) to heaven learned
by the Hebrews and others;29 and 324 F, which addresses the many ways to the
Gods of the barbarians, the fact that the Greeks went astray, and depicts Apollo
extolling the Hebrew and Chaldean worship of a self-born God.30
We can safely deduce from these six fragments that Book I dealt with animal
sacrifices for purifications and finding a via salutis for the soul within tradi-
tional polytheism and based upon a reductionist-syncretistic plan, which might
have been attractive from a universal salvation perspective for Diocletian dur-
ing the period immediately preceding the Great Persecution.31
Of the remaining sixteen fragments conventionally (though not certainly)
ascribed to Book I, 314 F, a very long oracle of Apollo about how to sacrifice
and make vows, most probably derives from the book and was located after
323 F and 324 F,32 which we have seen spoke of the many ways, but now Apollo
130  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

claims that his friend has entered a divinely given path (i.e., to salvation).33
Hence the logical progression seems to have been that probably early in Book
I (=323 F and 324 F), Porphyry started talking about the many ways to heaven
found in the religions of the Mediterranean, then later showed his readers the
one via salutis reminiscent of the τὰ πάτρια of Ad Marcellam with an empha-
sis here upon theurgy/magic (=theosophy). How can we explain Augustine’s
assertion that Porphyry claimed at the end of Book I of De regressu animae
that after intensive research, he had not found the one way?34 Did Porphyry
contradict himself from one work to another? Did he change his mind?
Should we explain the relationship between Phil. orac. and De regr. an. as an
intellectual development from superstitious beliefs to mature philosophical
doctrine (Wolff-Bidez)? The answer is no because the De. regr. an. was based
upon historical research (nondumque in suam notitiam eandem viam histo-
riali cognitione perlatam), which produced a negative answer, whereas the
Phil. orac. was oracular revelation thought to be given by the gods them-
selves, and this gave a positive answer. Thus contrary to the conventional
wisdom related to the chronology of the Porphyrian corpus, the De regressu
animae was the (probably much) earlier work. By relying upon oracles,
Porphyry, circa a.d. 302, provided the one via salutis to the masses in Book
I of the Phil. orac.35
Another group of fragments designated as belonging to Book I also reveals
the importance of τὰ πάτρια and addresses the salvific benefits that the gods
confer on humans via animal sacrifice,36 making and maintaining images,37 and
theosophical rites accompanied by votives and resulting in dream revelations,
theophanies, healing, personal safety, good harvests, and other examples of per-
sonal salus analyzed above.38 Five of the remaining six fragments probably
derive from the same section of Book I that discussed theurgy in the context of
traditional piety, or what Porphyry calls theosophy.39 Ιt is very important here to
point out that Eusebius, just after 321 F (PE V.14.4–15.4), makes a clear reference
to Porphyry’s three ways at the end of PE V.14.
Τί γὰρ ἂν γένoιτo βιωϕελὲς ἀνθρώπoις ἐκ τῆς κακoτέχνoυ γoητείας; Τί δ’
ἂν ἔχoι θεoϕιλὲς ἡ τῶν ἀψύχων ξoάνων περιεργία; Πoίας δ’ ἂν εἰκὼν
γένoιτ’ ἂν ἐνθέoυ δυνάμεως ἡ τῶν τoιῶνδε σχημάτων μóρϕωσις; Τί δ’ oὐ
μᾶλλoν ϕιλoσoϕεῖν περὶ ἡμᾶς ἢ μαγεύειν καὶ τὰ ἀπειρημένα διώκειν
συμβoυλεύειν ἐχρῆν, τoῦ κατ’ ἀρετὴν καὶ ϕιλoσoϕίαν τρóπoυ πρὸς
εὐδαίμoνα καὶ μακάριoν αὐτάρκoυς τυγχάνoντoς βίoν;40
This should be compared with PE VI.6.242d, which occurs in the context of
twelve quotations from the Phil. orac. in Book VI and thirteen references to
universalism.41
 Philosophia ex oraculis: A Tripartite Universalism  131

The only fragment classified in Smith as Book I that should probably be

changed to Book II is 308 F due to the assertion that the gods benefit human-
kind by setting examples of σωφροσύνη, introduced by Eusebius with these
words: Πάντως δήπoυ χρῆν αὐτoὺς σωϕρoσύνης κατάρχειν, καὶ τὰ λυσιτελῆ καὶ
ὠϕέλιμα τoῖς ἀνθρώπoις ὑπoτίθεσθαι oἱ δὲ τoύτων μὲν oὑδέν.42 If Book II
addressed the second way via σωφροσύνη and the other virtues, this fits that
context better, though Eusebius may be alluding to Book II’s theme before intro-
ducing a fragment from Book I that does appear to deal with theurgical
salvation.
There are nine fragments that can be certainly identified as deriving from
Book II.43 Two of these indisputably taught the same kind of fleeing from the
body for which Porphyry was well known (cf. Civ. Dei X.xxix: omne corpus
fugiendum esse) and the soul’s conversion to the Nous, which we have seen char-
acterized the second way.44 The first is 325 F, which Lewy gives as an example of
Porphyry’s “universal theistic religion.”45 The second is 325aF: νoῦν τεὸν εἰς
βασιλῆα θεὸν τρέπε, μηδ’ ἐπὶ γαίης πνεῦμασι μικρoτέρoισιν ὁμίλει τoῦτó σoι
εἶπoν.46 The other seven fragments indisputably from Book II concern what
Philoponus (340aF = Op. mundi 200.20–26) calls πρακτικὴν θεοσοφίαν τὴν
μαγείαν and cover, for example how to drive evil demons from houses and puri-
fications to expel them from bodies,47 or salvation from astral fatalism.48 How
were these two groupings related to each other in the same book? I suggest that
the πρακτικὴ θεοσοφία group was at the beginning of Book II and served as a
short summary of the contents of Book I, and 325 F and 325aF came later as
Porphyry developed his central theme of salvation by the purificatory virtues
and the importance of the soul’s conversion toward the Nous. Book II did not,
therefore, focus on demons or angels.49 Moreover, the contents of 325 F and
325aF will have been unintelligible to the uneducated masses, but too elemen-
tary for a mature Neoplatonic philosopher. This coheres perfectly with the con-
tents of the Ad Marcellam and is exactly what we should expect to find if Book
II of the Phil. orac. offered the second way to salvation.
The remaining ten fragments conventionally classified as Book II fit better
the known contents of Book I because they discuss either rituals to avert evil
demons50 or astral fatalism,51 climaxing with a partial citation from a passage
that must have provided theurgical/theosophical rituals to dissolve the bonds of
fate;52 all of which relate to fragments, designated Book I, of the same theme53
and, taken together, probably constituted Porphyry’s argument for the first way.
Twelve of the seventeen fragments attributed to Book III unquestionably derive
from that book.54 Probably found in the preface to the book was 346 F because its
conclusion appears to be a summary of the second way.55 The emphasis here upon
adoring God by means of the virtues, the imitatio Dei, the knowledge of God that
132  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

purifies the soul, and the ὁμοίοσις θεῷ provide indisputable evidence that
Porphyry summarized the second way in this fragment. Next in order probably
came 341 F, 341aF, and 342 F, which refer to astral fatalism or explain why some
oracles are false,56 the latter undoubtedly serving as the logical basis for Porphyry’s
disparagement of biblical prophecies57 leading to the climactic Hecatean oracle,
representing four fragments, extolling Christ’s piety while asserting that his dis-
ciples were given the fatal gift not to have (saving) knowledge of Jupiter,58 which
fits well 341 F, 341aF, and 342F above, which analyzed astral fatalism. Hecate, who
is the source of all virtue according to Chaldean theology,59 lauded Christ for his
piety and wisdom, proclaimed that his soul was in heaven, but rejected his deity.60
Porphyry’s locating Christ’s soul in heaven (caelum) should be contrasted with the
oracle of Apollo in Vita Plotini 23, which placed Plotinus’ soul with the Father,
who is synonymous with the One in Porphyry’s thought.61 Neither is Jesus depicted
as a Hellenistic hero incorporated into traditional polytheism,62 nor were heroes
the central theme of Book III,63 but rather Jesus is represented as an example,
owing to his virtue and piety, of the second way to salvation, whose soul is in the
ethereal (=caelum) realm where all souls go after death whose intellectual part has
not been cleansed.64 We may also note here that in Sent. 29, the salvation/purifica-
tion of the lower soul enables its ascent only to the ethereal level.65
In addition to the four Hecatean fragments we can add two other
anti-Christian oracles: 342 F, an oracle of Apollo responding to a man’s ques-
tions about how to recall his wife from the delusions of Christianity;66 and
344aF, which contains a critique of Christian eschatological doctrine.67 These
six anti-Christian oracles were probably preceded by 344 F and 344bF, which
contrasted the power and majesty of the Hebrew God with the inferior status
of the pagan gods.68 One final note: I suggest that the Hecatean oracle came at
the climax of Porphyry’s argument, probably supported by a number of other
oracles, positing that Christianity was devoid of any soteriological benefits. Of
the remaining fragments classified as Book III, one (344cF) praises the Hebrew
God and should be grouped with 344 F and 344bF,69 and should thus be kept in
that book; whereas the other four deal with either the mechanics of prophecy
(1),70 or rituals causing the gods to descend by compulsion (3),71 all of which are
more compatible with the contents of Book I and should be classified
accordingly.
It is very doubtful that one can build a strong case based on the extant frag-
ments that the Phil. orac. was primarily an anti-Christian work.72 It was a sote-
riological treatise for pagans, and I have argued that each of the three books
addressed the three ways of salvation, respectively. Though I believe we have
enough evidence from the fragments of Books I and II to support this thesis,
Book III poses problems because none of its fragments contain philosophical
 Philosophia ex oraculis: A Tripartite Universalism  133

oracles. However, we can make the same observation about all fifty-eight frag-
ments found in Smith (1993a), but these represent probably only circa 3–4% of
the work as a whole.73 We have seen that those fragments that do contain some
philosophical content, for e­ xample 325 F, 325aF, and 346F,74 though they will
have been unintelligible to the uneducated masses, reveal elementary doctrines
primarily aimed at the novice philosopher, and fit well with what we have called
the second way of virtue. How can we explain this silence, especially keeping in
mind that Porphyry in the prologue to the Phil. orac. explicitly states that his
focus will be upon philosophical salvation?75 Why did the Christians ignore the
oracles, (as argued) found in Book III, that offered the third (and highest/philo-
sophical) way to the soul’s salvation? I would venture to say that it was polemi-
cally more attractive to calumniate those oracles of the first way, and a majority
of the extant fragments support this interpretation. There was much to ridicule
here and to prove that Porphyry was full of contradictions.76 Also, the main
focus of Christian polemicists—the only writers who cite from the Phil. orac.—
concerning Book III appears to have been the anti-Christian oracles, and par-
ticularly the Hecatean passages that praised Christ while condemning his
disciples, evidenced in (e.g.) Arnobius’ Adversus nationes, the earliest surviving
work that addresses the Phil. orac.77 As Augustine concluded, their collective
purpose was to prevent anyone from becoming a Christian.78 It was evidently
extremely offensive to the Christians that Porphyry relegated Christ, who they
believed was the savior of the world, to the status of a second-class human sote-
riologically speaking. Defending against a direct assault upon the person and
nature of Christ, as evinced in the responses of Eusebius and Augustine,79 will
have taken priority over counter-attacks against unquestionably sophisticated
and strong arguments made in favor of the philosophical life by one who stud-
ied under the master Plotinus.
 8

Porphyry and Iamblichus

Can two walk together, unless they are agreed?
Amos 3:3

It is important now to place Porphyry’s soteriological system

analyzed in the preceding chapters in its proper Platonic context by comparing
and/or contrasting his views with those of Plato, Plotinus, and most impor-
tantly, his pupil Iamblichus; and to show how his doctrines on epistemology,
cosmology, ontology, the tripartite nature of the human soul, eschatology, and
the four virtues in the scala virtutum relate to his tripartite soteriology. In other
words, in this chapter I shall attempt to bring together synthetically all of the
various components analyzed above in order to give an overview to Porphyry’s
doctrines on the three ways for the cleansing of the soul and how they relate to
the four virtues and the conventional Platonic doctrine concerning the three
parts of the soul,1 both with respect to temporal and eschatological salvation
(next chapter), and with a primary focus upon how the views on these subjects
differed within the Porphyrian and Iamblichean systems. The premise of my
argument is that although the two Neoplatonic philosophers agreed that there
were three paths, they had strong disagreements on why and how the soul pro-
gressed to each ontological level: Porphyry stressed philosophy via discursive
thought, and Iamblichus focused upon the power of theurgical rituals. Finally,
since their soteriological views reveal important implications about the final
destiny of the soul in its post-mortem state, it will be necessary to investigate
how both master and pupil interpreted Plato’s eschatological myths found in
such dialogues as the Gorgias, Phaedo, Phaedrus, and the Myth of Er, found in
Book X of the Republic. I shall argue here that differences between Porphyry
and Iamblichus concerning the nature of the soul, its relation to the world and
matter, and the role which philosophy and/or religion played in the soul’s ascent
and final release produced qualitatively different eschatologies: Whereas
Porphyry stressed ascent due to the necessity of the soul’s escape from the mate-
rial and corporeal realm of Becoming by means of discursive thought derived
from Neoplatonic philosophy with the possibility for a final, permanent release,
Iamblichus focused upon descent, giving a much less pejorative meaning of mat-
ter and offering a positive, integrative approach to the temporal realm within an
eschatological framework that accentuated the salvific value of theurgical rituals
for all classes of souls, and eschatologically stressing a continual cycle of rebirths.

134
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  135

Porphyrian Soteriology: A Synthesis
The following is an overview of the three major ideological components of
Porphyry’s soteriological system including the three paths analyzed in preced-
ing chapters:
(A) The tripartite soul:
Rational
Spirited
Appetitive
(B) The four scala virtutum:
Civic/Political/Practical
Purificatory
Contemplative
Paradigmatic/Exemplary
(C) The three ways of salvation:
First: The uneducated masses by traditional religion & theurgy
Second: The virtue of continence for novice philosophers
Third: By rational thought through philosophy
Much analysis has already been given in the present study to (B) and (C), and
now (A) will be analyzed in the context of Platonic thought, focusing upon
Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus, and how the tripartite nature of the
soul would have been integrated into Porphyry’s three paths. In order to under-
stand the inter-relationships that exist between these three components, it is
first necessary to note the following basic principles of Platonism that directly
relate to the synthesis given in this chapter:
1. Virtue is knowledge2
2. Epistemology and Ontology are inseparable3
3. Development in Virtue presupposes ontological and epistemological
progression4
Regardless of how one cuts the Platonic soteriological pie, these three ingredi-
ents will always be present. The following analysis of Porphyry’s three paths
will thus show how these principles served as foundational, ideological cata-
lysts that gave structure and substance to his views on the salvation of the soul
represented in (A), (B), and (C), and, in turn, how these differed from his fel-
low Platonists, especially Iamblichus; with respect to the all-important concept
of progression within the hierarchy of Being, and the fact that each ontological
level is potentially conducive to the next level, the highest ontological stage at
each point being a transition to the next level,5 and each containing increasing
136  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

epistemological value and benefits for the soul.6 The significance of progression
within Platonism has been acutely described by A. C. Lloyd, and its ontological
and epistemological importance in Porphyry’s (and for that matter, other
Platonists’) soteriology should be kept in mind as we proceed in this chap-
ter: “It is a familiar feature that the highest point of any stage in the hierarchy
has begun to lose the character of that stage, or seems partially to have replaced
it with that of the next higher stage.”7Also, though we will place these various
Platonic and Christian soteriologies in their respective historical and cultural
contexts in the following chapters, another, very practical fact to keep in mind
is that these philosophers were real people who lived during some of the most
difficult times in the history of the Roman Empire. Their way of perceiving or
looking at the events of the third-century crises produced an evolving world-
view as it related to the status of the soul in a body, its relation to the world and
the cosmos, and how its spiritual and existential dilemma might be amelio-
rated, if, indeed, not completely resolved. This is very important to keep in
mind because the age in which people like Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus
lived was “permeated by a profound pessimism about the cosmos and a disen-
chantment with the material world.”8 In ­chapter 10 we shall indeed see how the
unprecedented crises of the third century helped to shape these evolving phi-
losophies, both Christian and pagan, of universalism. For the time being, we
now turn to the three paths and offer a soteriological synthesis.

First Path: Traditional Cult, Theurgy,

and Civic Virtues
As the analyses in the preceding chapters have shown, Porphyry’s Path I for the
salvation of the soul contained the following salient features:
1. The initial step forward in progressing in the practice of virtue for
the non-philosopher showing the importance of maintaining a proper
harmony between appetite and reason in the soul9 and moderation
(μετριoπάθεια).10
2. A focus upon σωϕρoσύνη as applied to the Civic Virtues (Sent. 32) empha-
sizing the importance of being benevolent to one’s fellow human beings.11
3. The importance of moderating the desires/passions in the soul, which
requires proper elementary training.12
4. Conducting oneself in conformity to the laws of the city, thus being a good
citizen.13
5. Honoring ancestral religious custom by supporting traditional cults and
practicing animal sacrifice and living according to the Platonic maxim
ὁμoίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατóν.14
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  137

6. Guaranteeing the blessings of the gods and mutually uniting the citizens
for the salvific welfare of the family, city, and ultimately, the empire.15
7. Employing theurgical rituals to maintain cosmic sympathy, to break the
bonds of fate, and to allow the gods to do their work of salvation16 by
cleansing the spiritual part of the soul.17

By the time he wrote the De philosophia ex oraculis (c. a.d. 302), Porphyry’s
views on the salvation of the soul that were delineated in the earlier De regressu
animae had sufficiently evolved, causing him to tweak his system in key places,18
one major result being the addition of another way for the salvation of the soul
which we have identified as Path II (for the novice philosopher or the philoso-
pher in training).19 Also, by this time storm clouds were quickly gathering over
the Christians in the Roman Empire, and the overview above that analyzed
σωτηρία for the masses during very difficult times, and during a period in which
there apparently occurred exponential growth in the Church, will have cohered
perfectly with Diocletian’s policies to restore traditional Roman religion, unify
the empire politically and religiously, and annihilate Christianity. We have seen
that the CC, which was written around the turn of the fourth century, combined
with the earlier De regr. an. and the contemporary Phil. orac., represent what
I have called Porphyry’s trilogy on soteriology, which offered a proactive and
positive assessment of the salvific value of religious and philosophical (Platonic)
polytheism,20 and simultaneously attempted “to undermine Christianity’s claim
to being a via universalis.”21
There is little doubt that Porphyry, who by this time had gained the reputa-
tion as the leading anti-Christian philosopher in the empire, was called to the
imperial conference in a.d. 302 whose distinct purpose was to discuss what the
imperial government must do with the Christians. For this reason, it makes
perfect sense to suggest that the Tetrarchy funded the circulation of the De phi-
losophia ex oraculis throughout the eastern provinces of the empire.22 In any
event, Porphyry modified the former two-way soteriological system of De. regr.
an., now to incorporate a median way (Path II) for the novice philosopher,
which, in turn, forced him to restructure the salvific benefits for each corre-
sponding part of the soul according to conventional Platonic doctrine concern-
ing the tripartite nature of the soul (i.e., the appetitive, spirited, and rational
parts).23 In addition, he expanded and made more coherent Plotinus’ two types
of virtue on which he certainly heard lectures while he lived in Rome.24 He put
the final pieces of this soteriological paradigm together in the Phil. orac.: Book
I offered Path I and focused upon the appetitive part of the soul according to the
summary given above (nos. 1–7); Book II offered Path II and showed the impor-
tance of σωϕρoσύνη in turning the soul from corporeal to intelligible reality;
138  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

and Book III offered Path III emphasizing the salvific function of discursive
thought by contemplation on intelligible reality and ultimate union with the
One. This tripartite system was a precedent for multiple-path soteriologies in
later Neoplatonism.25
The question must now be asked: What part of the soul benefitted from
Porphyry’s Path I? The first clue here is found in point 1 in the list above, derived
from Sent. 32, and stating that the civic virtues, the lowest class in the scala vir-
tutum, have the purpose of maintaining a proper harmony between appetite
and reason in the soul.26 The former undoubtedly refers to the τὸ ἐπιθυμητικóν,
the lowest part of the soul located in the lower abdomen which is the seat of
bodily desires for things like sex, food, and drink.27 The harmony mentioned
refers to the importance for the soul to keep such desires under the constant
surveillance of reason as Plato stressed in (e.g.) Rep. 389 D9–E3,28 and critiqued
by Iamblichus in his De anima.29 As I have noted above, theurgical rituals helped
the soul salvifically at this stage to break the bonds of fate, maintain proper bal-
ance with cosmic sympathy, and allow the gods to do their work of salvation by
helping the soul to “cleanse” or separate itself not from bodily desires all together,
but from an immoderate involvement with them.30 It is clear from Augustine that
Porphyry did not understand theurgy as being useful for the philosopher,31 but
only as a means for purifying the lower soul,32 and Damacius’ Commentary on
Phaedo clearly states that Porphyry honored philosophy more highly than
theurgical rituals.33
Although Porphyry conceded that theurgic praxis could purify
the lower soul and its vehicle, the use of such ritual was of
value only to the ordinary man who could not follow the en-
tire Plotinian path. In any event, for Porphyry, theurgy could
elevate the soul only to a position within the material world.
It could never lead the soul back to the One.34
The Bishop from Hippo also informs us that the common man in Roman soci-
ety held Porphyry in high esteem particularly because of his interest in theurgi-
cal rites.35 We can agree with Digeser that Porphyry toward the end of the third
century was becoming “increasingly troubled by the theological and metaphysi-
cal claims that were being used to justify the use of these rituals within philo-
sophical circles.”36 Owing to the belief that a part of the soul is undescended and
his conclusion that there was not a common way of salvation for philosohers
and the masses,37 amongst other philosophical doctrines,38 Porphyry did not see
any soteriological value in theurgy for philosophers:39 “Evidently you want all
who are turned away from the pursuit of philosophic excellence, which is too
lofty for all but a few, to seek out theurgists on your recommendation, in order
to obtain catharsis at least of their spiritual, though not, to be sure, of their
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  139

intellectual soul.”40 We can infer from these data, therefore, that Paths II and III
precluded the practice of theurgical rituals,41 and the latter were salvifically effi-
cacious for primarily purifying the appetitive part of the soul. The reference in
De Civitate Dei X to theurgical rituals which cleanse the spiritual part of the soul
for non-philosophers42 most probably presupposes the intentional creation by
Porphyry of a sacrament which bestowed salvifc grace upon the recipient whose
benefits were predominantly eschatological,43 ensuring the soul a place in the
ethereal region with the gods in the afterlife, and serving as a pagan answer to
the Christian sacrament of baptism during a time in which Christianity was
experiencing exponential growth.44
If we ask, What were the benefits for the appetitive part of the soul that had
begun its salvific trajectory on Path I?, from the preceding analyses the answer
should be clear. The soul maintaining harmony between appetite and reason
(Sent. 32) would be sufficiently trained in the civic virtues which resulted in
coming to the knowledge of the importance of honoring ancestral religious
customs, worshipping the gods of his/her city, and practicing the basic ethical
behavior commensurate with good citizenship by maintaining a moderation
(μετριoπάθεια) of the passions within the soul which helped it to achieve the
initial phase of the goal of the virtuous life: ὁμoίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατóν.45
The Platonic doctrine positing that virtue is knowledge presupposes that at
this stage the acquisition of knowledge of the civic virtues concomitant with
theurgical cleansing, ensured the beginning of the soul’s ontological and epis-
temological progress. And due to the ritual (theurgical) cleansing of the appe-
tites,46 the soul was able to receive all the benefits noted in the overview above
(nos. 1–7), which derived from theurgical rites.47 On the macrocosmic scale,
the soul thus cleansed would certainly contribute in a positive manner to the
welfare of his/her family, city, and empire.48 Though it is possible, as we have
noted in an earlier chapter, that Plotinus’ concept of the city of Platonopolis
might have inspired Porphyry’s views on a number of issues in the construc-
tion of his own soteriological system, a better paradigm was most likely Plato’s
three classes of souls in the state, mentioned in the Republic, and their existen-
tial involvement in the four cardinal virtues (courage, wisdom, temperance,
and goodness) at their respective levels and with respect to the tripartite
nature of the soul.49

Second Path: The Role of σωϕρoσύνη, Training

the Spirited Soul, and Initial Conversion
toward the Intelligible Realm
If Porphyry’s first path focused upon cleansing the appetitive part of the soul,
logic would dictate that the second path had something to do with cleansing the
140  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

spirited part.50 This section will show that that was indeed the case, but first
I will give a summary of Path II:51
• Based upon such works as Ad Marcellam, De regressu animae, De
Abstinentia, Sententiae (32), De philosophia ex oraculis (bk. II), Path II
offered to the novice philosopher (or the philosopher in training) a way to
cleanse the lower soul.52
• Since Path I focused primarily upon cleansing the appetitive part,53 the
lower soul for this path as argued below had to do with the spirited part.
• Theurgy did not play any role in Path II, but rather stressed the second
class in Porphyry’s scala virtutum, σωϕρoσύνη,54 which enabled the soul
to wean itself from corporeal life in the realm of Becoming. (We recall that
Path I’s stress upon the need for moderation (μετριoπάθεια) of the pas-
sions is ontologically different from weaning all together.) As noted under
Path I above, it is clear that the philosopher did not need to employ theur-
gical ritual of any kind.
• There begins an ontological and epistemological turning or conversion of
the mind toward true Being in the intelligible realm. I will show below
how a detailed and lengthy study of the curriculum of Platonic dialogues,
which was obviously quite time-consuming,55 concomitant with advanced
studies in mathematics, trained the novice’s mind to move up the episte-
mological ladder from, for example, δóξα and πίστις to an intermediate
level commensurate with the soul’s epistemological and ontological stage,
that is, to a διάνoια of the μαθηματικά.56 This kind of intellectual training
played a vital role in the conversion of the mind to pure Being.
Epistemologically, it was an essential component of the ontological eleva-
tor that took the soul to the top floor. And since the training took a long
time to complete, an eschatological safety valve was included: If the novice
were to die in the process of training, his/her soul would not return to the
Father (=the One), but rather go to the ethereal regions.57
• There is no focus whatsoever (as noted above) upon the deeper principles
of Neoplatonic metaphysics like the unio mystica. These principles relate
strictly to the Path III trajectory.58
• The novice philosopher (e.g., Marcella) is admonished to continue to
“honor” his/her ancestral religious customs, while simultaneously train-
ing the soul for the conversion.
• The absolute necessity to separate the soul from the body and train the
mind to begin to move from a dependence upon the law of nature to divine
law, and to practice the Platonic principle of ὁμoίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ
δυνατóν.59 In doing this, as is stated in Ad Marcellam 25, the novice
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  141

controls his/her body and ceases to live according to natural law, and
according to Sent. 32, the four cardinal virtues (wisdom, courage, temper-
ance, and justice) have specific functions in the purificatory process.60 The
latter contrast between one who is in a state of σωϕρoσύνη philosophi-
cally speaking, and the soul being dominated by the law of nature is
important for Class I souls (corresponding basically to Porphyry’s Path I)
in Iamblichean soteriology, as I shall show below.61
In turning to synthesis, it is first important to note that Porphyry and Iamblichus
part company at this stage, the former emphasizing the importance of philoso-
phy, and the latter, theurgy.62 Path II for Porphyry, therefore, was exclusively for
the philosopher in training;63 whereas the median class of souls in the Iamblichean
system (see below) according to De myst. 5.18.224.2–6, concerned the theurgist
in training,64 whose soul had descended from the higher realms in order specifi-
cally to undergo purification.65 Porphyry, on the other hand, following Plato and
Plotinus, viewed philosophy as the agent of purification,66 stressing the com-
plete separation of soul from body perceived as the first turning or conversion of
the soul toward true Being,67 and training in the purificatory virtues.68 The latter,
as we have observed, emphasized σωϕρoσύνη, which had a long and rich devel-
opment in the Academy. As it related to the three parts of the soul, this virtue in
Plato functioned as the agent controlling bodily desires and ensured that the
lesser parts of the soul were governed by the λoγίστικoν.69 It particularly
involved being obedient to those in authority, ruling the pleasures, and keeping
the appetitive part in control vis-à-vis the desire for drink, sexual indulgence,
and food;70 and it was instrumental in separating the soul, as far as possible,
from the body.71 As a median between the appetites and the rational part, it
maintained a proper balance and harmony in the life of the soul.72
Although not as systematically articulated as one might expect,73 the virtues in
Plotinus are nonetheless generally categorized into two classes.74 The civic vir-
tues, following Rep. IV.427 E-444 E, are for the well-being of the state; and the
superior virtues permit the soul to achieve the Platonic goal of being like the
gods.75 Purification involves removing everything alien to the soul in itself
(ἀϕαίρεσις ἀλλoτρίoυ παντóς).76 Keeping with the Platonic principle that virtue
is knowledge, it also provides the soul with knowledge of the intelligibles.77 As
Dillon has shown, the civic virtues in Plotinus set the soul in proper order
(κατακoσμoῦσι) by imposing μέτρoν and κoσ́μoς on the appetitive part; whereas
the kathartic (purificatory) virtues “are not concerned with the ordering of the
irrational soul or of the body, but rather with escaping from all entanglement
with the sense-world.”78 Hence there are degrees of virtues in Plotinus that enable
the soul to ascend to true Being.79 It is clear that much of what Plato taught about
142  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the virtues here—living in accordance with the higher part, separation from the
body, withdrawal to the intelligible realm, and so forth.80—was not only accepted
by Plotinus, but also passed on to Porphyry with few modifications. The critical
function of σωϕρoσύνη in the turning or conversion (ἐπισρέϕεσθαι) of the soul
(Enn. I.2.4), however, may be a good example of the latter especially as it applied
to the second path trajectory.81 Finally, since a part of the soul is undescended—and
Porphyry concurs—and at the same time the goal of the philosopher is diviniza-
tion, by discursive thought the soul awakens to its heavenly vision.82
We have seen in Porphyrian soteriology that there is a specific virtue obtained
that epistemologically not only benefits the soul at its present level, but will also
provide a cleansing or separation corresponding to one of its three parts, which,
in turn, will allow it to move forward to the next stage. For example, we have
observed in stage I, the appetitive part is cleansed by being separated from
immoderate desires for sex, food, money, drink, and so forth; and training in the
political or civic virtues is conducive to the soul’s contributing to the well-being
of the city. In turning to Path II, which I have argued was designed exclusively
for the philosopher in training, we can see the same principles in operation,
albeit the process as we shall see is more prolonged, intellectually challenging,
and time-consuming. We begin our analysis with a very important statement
found in Porphyry’s Life of Pythagoras:
He cultivated philosophy, the scope of which is to free the mind implanted
within us from the impediments and fetters within which it is confined,
without whose freedom none can learn anything sound or true, or per-
ceive the unsoundness in the operation of sense. Pythagoras thought that
mind alone sees and hears, while all the rest are blind and deaf. The puri-
fied mind (italics mine) should be applied to the discovery of beneficial
things, which can be effected by certain arts, which by degrees induce it
to the contemplation of eternal and incorporeal things which never vary.
The orderliness of perception should begin from consideration of the
most minute things, lest by any change the mind should be jarred and
withdraw itself, through the failure of continuousness in its subject-
matter.83
Porphyry is speaking about Pythagoras. The purified mind (Νoῦς… Καθαρθέντι)
in this text arrives at the level of the contemplation of eternal and incorporeal
things (ἀσωμάτων) gradually, or by degrees, which began with a consideration of
the most minute things (ἐκ τoῦ κατ’ ὀλίγoν πρoβιβάζων). Porphyry then explains
what the anterior progression entailed that enabled the purified soul to advance
from the temporal realm to that of the incorporeals: That is the reason he made
so much use of the mathematical disciplines and speculations, which
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  143

are intermediate between the physical and the incorporeal realm … 84 Plato
incorporated the Pythagorean teachings on mathematics as capable of offering
an intermediate knowledge between sensible and intelligible reality. For example,
in the Republic, he shows how mathematics serve as a median between Becoming
and Being by saying the discipline “uses as images or likenesses of the very
objects that are themselves copied and adumbrated by the class below them.”85
The Guardians in that dialogue are not to begin their studies with philosophy,
but rather with mathematics because it is the best way to lead the soul to the
highest level of understanding.86 To illustrate how mathematical studies fit in
the epistemological paradigm of Plato, in Rep. 509 D–513 E is found his famous
epistemological line, which illustrates degrees of knowledge from the lowest to
the highest with respect to the four παθήματα ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, and which include
two degees of ἐπιστήμη and δóξα, respectively:

TWO DEGREES OF ἐπιστήμη:

Νóησις — Reason/Intellection
Διάνoια — Understanding
TWO DEGREES OF δóξα:87
Πίστις — Belief
Εἰκασία — Picture-Thinking/Conjecture88

Intellection (νóησις) is the highest kind of thought or dialectic and concerns

knowledge of the Forms. Understanding (διάνoια) is a lower level of thinking
that Plato says is not reason (oὐ νoῦν) but the mental habit of geometers (under-
standing: διάνoια) “because you regard understanding as something intermedi-
ate between opinion and reason” (ὡς μεταξύ τι δóξης τε καὶ νoῦ τὴν διάνoιαν
oὖσαν).89 Porphyry stresses the importance of developing this faculty in the Ad
Marcellam.90 Philosophy makes mathematics intelligible, providing direct
knowledge of true Being, and thus, by the power of dialectic the soul achieves
“something truer and more exact than the object of the so-called arts and sci-
ences whose assumptions are arbitrary starting-points.”91 In the creation myth
of the Timaeus, when the Demiurge emulates the Forms to create the physical
world and the cosmos, the terminology employed seems to have been derived
from the mathematical sciences.92 This is an important fact to keep in mind in
attempting to understand Porphyry’s Path II, especially with respect to the turn-
ing or conversion (ἐπισρέϕεσθαι) noted earlier because, as Shaw notes: “From a
strictly Platonic perspective, all transformations of the soul were numerical
because the soul’s ‘original body’ was a mathematical composition that was bro-
ken apart in the soul’s embodiment.”93 It is regrettable that owing to the frag-
mentary nature of the Porphyrian corpus, we do not have detailed information
144  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

concerning his views on the mathematical sciences, but the texts like those cited
above from the Vit. Pythag., coupled with such texts as Enn. 1.3(20) where one
finds the gradualist method of entering the intelligible for the philosopher by
means of mathematical studies according to the traditional Platonic curricu-
lum,94 and the extent to which Iamblichus stressed the same discipline in his
soteriology (see below),95 leave very little doubt that Porphyry upheld the basic
mathematical teachings of the tradition that he inherited from Plotinus.96
Moreover, the close relation between mathematics and dialectic continued to
the end of the Neoplatonic period as is evident in Proclean epistemology.97
However, we can, and I suggest must, go further. Earlier I alluded to the sote-
riological (e.g., epistemological and ontological) progression at the level of Path
II as being prolonged, intellectually challenging, and time-consuming, and
though mathematical studies alone would unquestionably satisfy all three of
these descriptions, it is important to keep in mind that the philosopher in train-
ing was normally expected to be involved in a lengthy period in which many of
the dialogues of Plato were meticulously studied under a mentor. According to
the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, for example, a curriculum
consisting of ten Platonic dialogues is given, starting with Alcibiades I, progress-
ing to Gorgias, Phaedo, Cratylus, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Phaedrus,
Symposium, and Philebus, then culminating with the two main dialogues on
physics (Timaeus) and theology (Parmenides).98 Though the recent editors of
Iamblichus’ De mysteriis explain the absence of the Republic and Laws from this
list as probably being due to their being too long, necessitating exegesis of only
sections of these dialogues,99 a more plausible explanation is that the list as we
have it includes introductory and intermediate studies in Platonism. The longer
two dialogues containing Plato’s mature thought on such important doctrines as
the state, the human soul, immortality, virtues, eschatology,100 and many more,
I suggest, made up the list of required texts for advanced students. Including
mathematical and philosophical studies, how long did the entire curriculum
take? Recently it has been suggested that the mathematical studies alone
required at least a decade.101 But this is based upon the training program for the
guardians in the Republic, and both the content and methodology of the cur-
riculum most probably varied according to location, accessibility of resources,
size and aptitude of the student body, pedagogical philosophy of the mentor(s),
and the hermeneutical and exegetical principles employed by each individual
school in Late Antiquity. A reasonable conjecture would be from ten to fifteen
years to complete all of the required mathematical and philosophical readings.
If this is correct, we recall that in ­chapter 6 Porphyry’s Epistle to Marcella, his
wife of only ten months, was described as a propadeutic tract that provides
important data for an understanding of Porphyry’s second soteriological tier.
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  145

A careful reading of this text reveals that Marcella is indeed a novice philoso-
pher, and there is no need here to go over all the details of the argument now.
Suffice it to reiterate that the more advanced aspects of Neoplatonic metaphys-
ics, ontology, and epistemology are absent from the letter, yet the salient features
of Porphyry’s Path I are as well. We can now add that there is no mention of
mathematical studies or any hint of the Platonic curriculum noted above.
Porphyry stresses (e.g.) to his new wife the importance of fleeing the body, con-
trolling the passions, living a virtuous life, especially one exemplifying
self-control; and he reminds her not to forget what he taught her before his
departure because she has chosen reason, not passion, as her guardian.102 If we
recall that metaphors like death, struggle, hard work, and so on, describe the
conversion of the soul from the body to intelligible realty via σωϕρoσύνη as an
agent of κάθαρσις, Porphyry may have used such terminology to compassion-
ately prepare Marcella for the time-consuing and arduous endeavor that he
knew Path II would require,103 justifiably assuming that she would need more
than one life to achieve the primary goal of Platonic soteriology: The return of
the soul to its origins in the intelligible realm, and beyond that, to a permanent
union with the One.104
Since it was an intermediate stage in the epistemological and ontological pro-
gression of the soul, Porphyry’s Path II logically will have focused upon cleans-
ing particularly the spirited part. We now turn to an analysis of the soteriological
benefits for the soul at this stage. First, if Lorenz is correct that the spirited part
was conceived by Plato as counteracting the appetitive part and possessing a
competitive streak that pursued victory, dominance, esteem, the love of honor,
and admiration of excellence in others,105 then keeping in mind the long and
arduous process that Porphyry’s Path II required, it is obvious that a specific and
very vital role that σωϕρoσύνη will have played at this stage was in refining and
developing these and other personal qualities like self-esteem and self-confidence,
which were required for the perseverance of the soul toward its next stage, that
of being a mature philosopher whose rational soul is cleansed. In this sense the
spirited person distinguished himself through bold and decisive action with a
concomitant awareness of his own worth and accomplishment.106 Without these
qualities one may rightly ask how the soul could ever reach the epistemological
summit. Porphyry undoubtedly took his cue from Plotinian doctrine, which
posited that the spirited soul judges sensations.107 But does not the appetitive
soul already do this? The answer is yes, but not at the same level of recognition
and discernment since “it must be part of being spirited to have acquired a fairly
settled and rather specific sense as to what kinds of behavior are respectable and
worthy of esteem and what kinds are not.”108 The appetitive soul as we have seen
simply moderates the desires for (e.g.) sex, food, and drink; and is referred to as
146  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the “undisciplined part, not tightly closed, a leaking jar, as it were.”109 However,
the spirited soul accesses and evaluates specific actions at a deeper and more
important behavioral level conducive to the conversion process leading to con-
templation of true Being.
Though one might include courage in the preceding group, I suggest that
Porphyry will have understood this as a separate, and very important, salvific
benefit for the spirited soul. Again, keeping in mind what would have been a
tremendous inner transformation of the individual both psychologically and
intellectually at stage II, perseverance in the development of character can take
one but so far without the Platonic ally of reason, that is, the virtue of courage.
Commenting on Rep. 442 B–C, Annas is correct to observe that the Platonist “is
brave when spirit has been made the ally of reason as a result of training that
ensures not only recognition of what is right but the power to stick to that rec-
ognition and feel motivated to act in accordance with it.”110 As noted, the soul’s
promotion from Path II to Path III required a gargantuan endeavor, and unques-
tionably the development of courage in conjunction with σωϕρoσύνη played a
pivotal role in the process. Finally, we have seen that the soul cleansed by
σωϕρoσύνη begins epistemologically to turn itself (ἐπισρέϕεσθαι), with the
assistance of mathematics, from διάνoια to νóησις.111
But did the soul at stage II continue to participate in traditional cult and
in the political life of the community in which he/she lived? And if so, how
did such participation function in society, and how did it differ from stage
I participation? Before turning to the final section of Porphyry’s system, we
must address these important questions. To begin, we recall that Porphyry’s
first two classes of virtues, the civic and purificatory, reveal that the soul is
in need of divine assistance, and his use of τὰ πάτρια in the Ad Marcellam
implies not only participation in ancestral religious customs, but also a posi-
tive involvement in the political well-being of the city.112 Both together are
presupposed in the statement that honoring τὰ πάτρια is the fruit of piety.113
And although there is not much detail in the Porphyrian corpus on just how
the novice philosopher might be expected to participate in these two areas,
Dominic O’Meara has shown that Neoplatonic philosophers were involved
in the political life of their cities,114 which, in turn, implies cultic
participation.
The vision of Platonopolis, mentioned in the Life of Plotinus, was most prob-
ably inspired by Plato’s Republic and Laws. For example, in both dialogues the
pious man is one who honors the gods of his city and participates in its reli-
gious cult. By worshipping the gods, the soul can not only aim at becoming like
God, but also the city can maintain its collective piety as well.115 With a focus
upon the virtue of justice, the Republic develops a similar theme: “Justice is a
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  147

virtue of the city as a unity, for it requires of each citizen a recognition of his or
her own role as contributing in some characteristic way to the common good.”116
The virtues practiced by citizens have salvific value for themselves and their
city.117 Members of the Nocturnal Council are required to study the unity of the
virtues and the existence of the gods.118 By studying the nature of the gods,
magistrates of a city will increase in their knowledge of virtue.119 Magistrates
were involved in the daily sacrifices and prayers made on behalf of the city and
ensured that impious behavior against images would be punished.120 What
marked a man as pious in Greco-Roman culture was found primarily in the
correct observance of ancestral customs121 including sacrifices, hymns, temples,
festivals, priests, prayers, and many other elements of civic religion.122 I would
suggest that, in being involved in the political and religious life of the city, the
primary service to the gods rendered by the novice philosopher who had
embarked upon Path II was “to help them produce goodness in the universe via
the improvement of the human soul.”123 As Coppleston has noted, in the Greek
world it is primarily through society that the good life becomes possible for the
individual soul.124 Each soul had its own niche and contributed to the well-being
of the πóλις.125 It will not have been different in the Greco-Roman society of
Porphyry’s day.126 Indeed, as Marinus’ Vita Procli (15–17) reveals, the emphasis
upon the sage’s concern for his or her fellow human beings exhibited by his
political involvement in his community continued to the end of the Neoplatonic
period.127
All of the aforementioned components of civic religion were, I suggest, sub-
sumed in Porphyry’s insistence that Marcella honor the gods according to τὰ
πάτρια, and in the Περὶ ἀγάλματων, On Images, we can see more than a glimpse
of his perception of how the philosopher in training might existentially partici-
pate in traditional cult:

But they have made the representation of Zeus in human form, because
mind was that according to which he wrought, and by generative laws
brought all things to completion; and he is seated, as indicating the stead-
fastness of his power: and his upper parts are bare, because he is mani-
fested in the intellectual and the heavenly parts of the world; but his feet
are clothed, because he is invisible in the things that lie hidden below. And
he holds his sceptre in his left hand, because most close to that side of the
body dwells the heart, the most commanding and intelligent organ: for
the creative mind is the sovereign of the world. And in his right hand he
holds forth either an eagle, because he is master of the gods who traverse
the air, as the eagle is master of the birds that fly aloft—or a victory, because
he is himself victorious over all things.128
148  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Porphyry’s commentary is quite revealing. The Neoplatonic philosopher who

attended a cultic ceremony was able to worship the gods on a higher epistemo-
logical and ontological level. By looking upon the image of the deity, the human
mind could begin to meditate upon the harmony and order of the cosmos, and
the generative laws by which Zeus as Mind governs the universe. The god’s cre-
ative mind connected the philosopher’s mind with Nous, which we have seen is
the object of contemplation as the soul initiates its conversion to true Being. The
statue is thus a concrete symbol of the great Mind/Zeus manifested in the intel-
lectual and heavenly parts of the world, and it is the visible image of the Intellect
to which his mind is being converted.129
The modern philosopher, theologian, and historian who studies Porphyry
laments the fact that, with the exception of (e.g.) the Ad Marcellam and the Ad
Anebonem, Plotinus’ pupil has left to posterity very few letters. If scholars had
access to more letters like the one he wrote to his wife circa a.d. 302, they could
most likely have a better understanding of just how the novice philosopher
applied the principles which he/she learned to his/her own Sitz im Leben. In
other words, we could have a better idea as to how the philosopher in training
applied or “lived out” the soul’s virtues according to its own soteriological tra-
jectory. I suggest, however, that the surviving letters of Porphyry’s pupil
Iamblichus admirably compensate for this deficiency and can give the modern
scholar a window through which to gaze in order to obtain a fairly clear picture
of how the “Path II” soul in Porphyry’s soteriological trajectory lived his life in
contemporary society. We now turn to these letters to make some important
inferences concerning such applications.130
As Dillon has observed, Iamblichus’ letters are written at the level of popular
philosophy, or for the general educated public, often addressed to magistrates
serving in the imperial government; and they contain no hint of Iamblichus’
rather complex metaphysical system, nor anything about his theory of multiple
levels of virtue (though he does address individual virtues as we shall see).131
Addressing prominent members of Anatolian and Syrian society, the letters have
ideologically much in common with Ad Marcellam, and they remind us of “the
extent to which a late antique philosopher was a public figure, despite the deter-
mined otherworldliness of their philosophical stance.”132 If there is one major
theme in the letters, it is that the addressee should cultivate practical virtues for
the well-being of his or her own soul, his or her household and family, and the
city in which he or she lives.133 Since these themes do not display Iamblichus’ full
philosophical system but rather focus upon the higher virtues while simultane-
ously showing the importance of the civic virtues, they show the benefits of prac-
tical philosophy for educated people and fit perfectly with the median class of
souls mentioned in De mysteriis V.18.134 We now turn to examples of major
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  149

sub-themes found in the letters to show how they have similarities with Porphyry’s
second soteriological tier.
Probably the most fascinating letter for the present study is no. 3 Πρóς
’Αρετὴν περὶ σωϕρoσύνης, To Arete, On Self-Control.135 In Fragment 1,
Iamblichus admonishes Arete136 in the same way that Porphyry did in his letter
to Marcella:
I would make the same statement also about all the powers of the soul,
that orderliness consists in the symmetry of these with each other, and the
correct arrangement of the spirited element and the libido and the reason,
in accordance with the ranking proper to each;137
In Fragment 2 of this letter we read that σωϕρoσύνη despises the pleasures
which nail the soul to the body.138 It is noteworthy that this virtue, which we
have seen plays a prominent role in Porphyry’s Path II trajectory, is defined as
εὐκoσμία or orderliness139 with respect to the tripartite nature of the Platonic
soul, reason, spiritedness (θυμóς), and the passions, but they do not function as
parts (μέρη) as in Rep. Book IV, but rather as powers (δυνάμεις), a concept that
evolved from centuries of debate in the philosophical schools of Greece and
culminated in Porphyry’s On the Powers of the Soul.140 In any event, in liberating
the body from being dominated by pleasures, σωϕρoσύνη has the added capac-
ity of enabling the soul to be assimilated to the gods according to the Platonic
doctrine of ὁμoίωσις θεῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατóν. Otherwise, if the passions dominate
the soul, it is dragged down toward the nature that is irrational, bestial, and
disordered (πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἀλóγιστoν αὐτoὺς ἕλκει καὶ θηριώδη καὶ ἄτακτoν).141
Good order contains the pleasures of the soul within measured bounds and con-
sequently saves households and cities, which results in bringing the soul near to
the form of the gods.142 The beauty of σωϕρoσύνη permeates all the other vir-
tues,143 it guarantees the best habits of the mind,144 and its power extends to the
whole cosmos as the harmonizer of the seasons and the natural elements.145
Collectively, the virtues bring about the perfection of the soul and represent the
highest and purest activity of reason and intellect that is pure and free from all
bodily influences.146
Another theme in the letters stresses the importance of good government,
which upholds and administers the law of the state for the common good of its
citizens, which, in turn, may shed light on how Porphyry’s second-tier soul
involved itself in the political life of its city. In the letter To Agrippa, On Ruling
(Πρὸς ’Αγρίππαν περὶ ἀρχῆς), Iamblichus advises a member of the imperial
administration or local aristocracy147 that ruling should combine noble charac-
ter with sympathy for one’s fellow human beings.148 The king of all, says
Iamblichus, is the law of the state whose benefits permeate the administrations
150  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

of cities and the lives of individuals, and exists for the common good of all.149 He
expands upon the same theme in his letter to Dyscolius, who was probably a
governor of Syria circa a.d. 323,150 telling him that the common good is insepa-
rable from the individual good. The individual good is subsumed in that of the
whole, and the particular is preserved in the universal (καὶ σῳζεται ἐν τῳ παντὶ
τὸ κατὰ μέρoς).151 Addressing his teacher Anatolius, in Letter 2 he makes a simi-
lar statement about δικαιoσύνη.152 Justice, he says, is for the common advantage,
and all the virtues are subsumed in it.153 It is the τέλoς καὶ σύναγωγή of all the
virtues.
In Letter 4, To Asphalius, On Wisdom (Πρὸς ’Ασϕάλιoν περὶ ϕρoνήσεως),154
Iamblichus shows how wisdom dominates all the other virtues in constituting a
community in right relationship with the gods. It directs men in relations with
each other, he says, and enables individuals, households, and cities to live in
conformity with a divine model.155 Dillon’s comment on the role of wisdom in
maintaining the practical relation between political order and honoring ances-
tral customs is illuminating: “Cetainly it is portrayed as having a practical
aspect, directing cities and men in the right direction, but that is in the direction
of divinity, so it is practical in the way that the wisdom of the Guardians of the
Republic is practical.”156 To another imperial adiministator named Macedonius,
we read that concord extends itself to cities and homes.157 Letter 10, To Olympius,
On Courage (Πρὸς ’Ολύμπιoν περὶ ἀνδρείας),158 leaves very little doubt that
Iamblichus’ teaching on virtue in his letters was aimed primarily at the median
class of De myst. V.18, which generally coheres with Porphyry’s doctrine on tier
two, because it is said in Fragment 2 that courage relates to those forces that
adhere to the harmonious and median path.159 It should also be added here that
Dillon rightly states that Iamblichus’ understanding of courage in this passage is
more dependent upon Porphyry than Plotinus.160
Iamblichus’ teaching on virtue in the letters includes the education of chil-
dren in a household. Probably addressed to a friend named Sopator who was
also his favorite pupil, the philosopher offers his wise counsel on the proper way
to bring up children, focusing upon the importance of teaching them elemen-
tary principles that are called the seeds of the virtues (σπέρματα τῶν ἀρετῶν).161
The correct education of children will result in their souls turning to the better
by teaching shame for what is base and emulation of what is noble.162 Then they
must be educated through logical arguments, laying down clearly the defini-
tions of the virtues.163 It was advice that did not fall on deaf ears, as both sons of
Sopator were successful in life: Sopator the younger was a prominent civic
leader in Apamea, holding the office of decurion, and Himerius held several
offices as well.164 As the beginning of Ad Marcellam reveals, Porphyry also was
concerned about educating children in the elementary virtues of the
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  151

philosophical life. Referring to his new wife’s five daughters and two sons, some
of whom are still young children (ἔτι νηπίων) and others of whom have reached
a marriageable age (εἰς γάμoυ ἠλικίαν), he expresses the hope that they might
become lovers of the true wisdom and “someday embrace the correct philoso-
phy as they are brought up under our guidance” (εἰ ϕιλoσoϕίας τῆς ὀρθῆς
ἀντιλάβoιτó πoτε ὑϕ ’ἡμῖν ἀνατρεϕóμενα).165 Porphyry and Marcella thus edu-
cated the children of their household in the basic principles of Neoplatonic
virtues.
A final question must be posed concerning Iamblichean soteriology: What
role did mathematics play in the salvific process? How was its function similar
to or different from that of Porphyry’s system? We may begin to answer these
questions with a very important observation made by Gregory Shaw:
“Pythagorean arithmology influenced Iamblichus, and he viewed all manifes-
tation, sensible or intelligible, as reducible to numerical principles, and we can
speak of the influence on Iamblichus of an ‘immanentist Pythagorean meta-
physics’ as opposed to the Plotinian metaphysic of the transcendent.”166
Although, as we have observed, it would appear that mathematics was impor-
tant for Porphyry’s novice philosopher in that they helped him to develop his
mind vis-à-vis διάνoια and contemplate the mystical and numerical meaning
of intelligible reality, mathematics was more distributed in the Iamblichean
system in that it had a direct and integrated correlation with theurgical ritual167
and benefitted all classes of souls. Theurgy contained a great deal of mathemat-
ical meaning that established “a continuity between mortal and immortal
realms by allowing embodied souls to enter divine energies through the per-
formance of ritual.”168 Whereas the discipline was viewed as efficacious at a
lower epistemological level and used as an ontological stepping stone by which
the mind ascended to pure Being in Porphyrian soteriology, in Iamblichus even
the highest souls, the Noetic, were involved in immaterial sacrifices which pos-
sessed a numerical meaning undoubtedly indebted to the doctrines of
Pythagoras.169 Another final, and major, difference between Iamblichus and
Porphyry was that the former viewed the theurgist not as one who must escape
from matter and corporeal reality, as the soul is required to do according to
Porphyry, but “engaged them theurgically to free the soul of their alienating
grip. The theurgic engagement through numbers was the soul’s last, and most
effective, release.”170
In conclusion, we may make the following observations about the soterio-
logical significance of the letters of Iamblichus as they concern the present
study. First, as we have noted, they were primarily addressed to Iamblichus’
median class of souls (De myst. V.18), which, in turn, corresponds generally to
Porphyry’s Path II soul, the difference being, as we shall see below, that
152  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Iamblichus placed greater importance on the salvific value of theurgical

rituals—“It is not thought that links the theurgists to the gods: otherwise what
should hinder those who philosophize by means of contemplation alone from
enjoying theurgic union with the gods?”171—while Porphyry emphasized dis-
cursive thought and saw no value for theurgy in the life of the philosopher.
Second, the letters reveal very little about Iamblichus’ more advanced teachings
on theurgy. Porphyry, we recall, followed the same principle vis-à-vis
Neoplatonic philosophy in his letter to Marcella. Third, the letters predomi-
nantly focus on practical ethics similar to the contents of Porphyry’s Ad
Marcellam. Fourth, both philosophers believed that children of households
were to be taught Neoplatonic virtues at the elementary level. Finally, and most
importantly, although the virtue of σωϕρoσύνη appears to have played a more
central role in the salvific process in Porphyry’s soteriological system, on the
whole he will have found very little in Iamblichus’ letters with which to dis-
agree, especially as they relate to the novice philosopher. I would thus conclude
that their contents can be used as a general guideline to give us insight into the
practical applications of virtue, both in a political and a cultic sense, with
respect to Porphyry’s Path II trajectory.

Third Path: Purification of the Rational Soul and

the Unio mystica
Once the soul is fully trained in the principles of philosophy (with the help of
mathematics), which is a time-consuming process, according to Porphyry it can
then move to the third and final soteriological path, 172 that of a mature
Neoplatonic philosopher whose mind now contemplates intelligible reality in
conjunction with the last two virtues of the scala virtutum, the contemplative
and the paradigmatic.173 The ultimate goal, as we shall see in the next chapter, is
permanent release, a breaking of the rebirth cycles,174 and (permanent) union
with the One, the latter explicitly rejected by Iamblichus.175 Thus, following
closely Plato’s doctrine here, Porphyry believed that the soul of the philosopher
attained truth by discursive thought,176 and it reasons best when it is not associ-
ated with the body, matter, or material reality.177 At this epistemological and
ontological summit, as Gerson so admirably says, the renunciation of all wordly
concerns was conceived as a metaphorical dying for the philosopher.178 Plotinus’
and Porphyry’s doctrine of the undescended soul led both thinkers to construct
a noetic mysticism that did not need divine assistance, but rather focused upon
philosophy as the cleansing (separating) agent of the rational and highest part of
the soul. It should be apparent to the reader what the differences were between
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  153

the Plotinian/Porphyrian views and those of Iamblichus.179 Whereas Plotinus’

noetic mysticism understands the ascended soul “as rediscovering its original
self in visionary union with intelligible forms and intellects” (e.g., in V 8 [31]),
Iamblichus often employs a displacement or possession-model where the high-
est, divine part of the soul, the one of the soul, appears in the form of the imma-
nent god.180 Iamblichus’ remark in De anima 380.19–29,181 shows that the highest
class of souls (the Noetic) were those who successfully attained to union with
the gods and Intelligible reality, which should be compared with the following
passage from De myst.:
But come now, you say, is it not the highest purpose of the hieratic art
to ascend to the One, which is supreme master of the whole multiplicity
(of divinities), and in concert with that, at the same time, to pay court
to all the other essences and principles? Indeed it is, I would reply; but
that does not come about except at a very late stage and to very few
individuals, and one must be satisfied if it occurs even in the twilight of
one’s life. But the purpose of the present discourse is not to prescribe
precepts for such a man (for he is superior to all legislation), but to
provide a set of rules for those who need regulation. Our prescription,
then, declares that, even as an ordering structure unites various classes
of entity into one system, so should the performance of sacrifices, if it is
to be complete and without deficiency, join together the whole class of
higher beings. But if this class is in fact vast and complete and ramified
on many levels, it is necessary that sacred cult represent its variety by
paying due reverence to all its attendant powers. In the same way, then,
the various things at our level should not be linked together, on the
basis of one part only of what is proper to them, to the divine causes
which preside over them, but should ascend in their entirety to their
leaders.182
It is clear from this passage that Iamblichus believed that theurgy was required
even at the highest stage, that is to say, theurgical rituals were salvifically effica-
cious for the Noetic class of souls.183 And though Porphyry saw the contempla-
tive and paradigmatic virtues as very essential for the cleansing of the rational
soul,184 Iamblichus believed that the seventh (and highest) of his own system of
scala virtutum, the theurgic/hieratic virtues, transformed the soul into a divine
being.185 Also, only a few souls at any given time are truly Noetic and thus able
to worship at their corresponding Noetic and immaterial level: “Following the
law of ‘like to like’ the noetic souls, liberated from the bonds of nature, offered
immaterial sacrifices to the immaterial gods.”186
154  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Iamblichean Soteriology
A very important text related to Iamblichean soteriology187 for the present study
is found in De mysteriis:
We may however employ another basis of division. The great mass of men,
on the one hand, is subject to the domination of nature, and is ruled by
natural forces, and directs its gaze downwards toward the works of nature,
and fulfills the decrees of fate, and takes upon itself the order of what is
brought about by fate, and always employs practical reasoning solely
about natural phenomena. A certain few individuals, on the other hand,
employing an intellectual power which is beyond the natural, have disen-
gaged themselves from nature, and turned toward the transcendent and
pure intellect, at the same time rendening themselves superior to natural
forces. There are some, finally, who conduct themselves in the middle area
between nature and pure mind, some following after each of them in turn,
others pursuing a mode of life which is a blend of both, and others again
who have freed themselves from the inferior level and are transferring
their attention to the better.188
We are now ready to make a detailed analysis of the Porphyrian and Iamblichean
soteriologies by comparing and contrasting the fine points of each, which, as we
shall see in the next chapter, have important implications for their different
views on eschatology and the final destiny of the soul.189 As John Finamore has
noted, it is clear from the passage just cited that Iamblichus gives a tripartite
division of humanity.190 They are classified according to their intellectual abili-
ties as follows:
1. The masses who are dominated by nature, which seems to mean that they
rarely experience salvation by theurgical ritual.191
2. A median group between nature and the pure mind.
3. A small minority who render themselves superior to nature by their intel-
lectual powers.192
There is much at first glance with which Porphyry will have been in agreement
(De myst. V.18) The first level, called the great mass of men, coheres with
Porphyry’s Path I, which included the uneducated masses who do not have an
aptitude for philosophy, and I suggest that Porphyry will have not found any
fault with Iamblichus’ following descriptions about them:
• They are dominated by nature and ruled by natural forces.
• They direct their gaze downward toward nature.
• They fulfill the decrees of fate.193
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  155

• They take upon themselves what is brought about by fate.

• They employ practical reasoning solely about natural phenomena.

The reference to practical reasoning can certainly relate to the soul living accord-
ing to the practical or political virtues while not being able to ascend to intelli-
gible reality.194 In earlier chapters we have also seen how fate functions at stage
one for Porphyry, and the reference to being dominated by natural forces coheres
with the soul in need of letting reason rule over the appetitive part. Another
similarity with Porphyry can be found in the various purificaitons of the soul
mentioned in De anima 39: removing passions, using images, enabling the soul
to move away from opinion to knowledge, moving away from matter to Intellect
and Intelligible reality.195 Iamblichus’ highest class employs intellectual power
beyond the natural and has disengaged itself from nature and turned toward
pure intellect. There is nothing here that logically contradicts Porphyry’s Path III.
The most interesting, if indeed not the most puzzling, component, is
Iamblichus’ median class, which, though further divided, I would suggest agrees
in general principle with Porphyry’s Path II.196 It also indirectly may offer cor-
roborative evidence to support my interpretation concerning how Porphyry
incorporated the last two virtues in the scala virtutum (the contemplative and
paradigmatic) and together applied them to Path III (purification for the phi-
losopher), because Iamblichus, in making further subdivisions of the median
class, follows the same principle.197 The creation of this class puzzled the transla-
tors of the recent edition of the De mysteriis:198 “It is not quite clear why ‘Abamon’
thinks it necessary to postulate this median class of people between the enlight-
ened (theurgic) sages and the common herd (and then to make further subdivi-
sions within this median class). Is it perhaps to accommodate such non-theurgic
philosophers as Porphyry?” It was not, however, for the purpose of accommo-
dating Porphyry as a non-theurgic philosopher that Iamblichus created the
median class, but rather because, although the two thinkers agreed on the tri-
partite division of humanity and had substantial agreement on how souls at the
first stage were saved/purified, they had serious disagreements on the salvific
process beginning at the second class owing to the value that Porphyry placed
on philosophy and discursive thought, and, conversely, the value that Iamblichus
placed on theurgy. And the fact that the former’s Eschatology of Ascent differed
greatly with the latter’s Eschatology of Descent, and the underlying religious and
philosophical principles that characterized each system soteriologically, pro-
duced quite vastly conflicting and irreconcilable Weltanschauungen.199 We might
explain their differences this way: Porphyry wants to catch the next train out of
town, permanently; Iamblichus patiently waits at the station, enjoying the ambi-
ence, and looking forward to a nice ride out into the countryside, but with a
156  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

return ticket. Dillon and Finamore are correct to observe that this median class
“descends in a partially free manner since it must still pay for its previous
offences but it also is somewhat willing to make the descent since it will thereby
improve its lot and work its way further upward toward the rank of pure soul.”200
And it must be kept in mind that for Iamblichus, the human soul completely
descends from the higher levels into the world,201 whereas Plotinus and Porphyry
taught that a higher part of the soul is undescended.202
As Shaw has so eloquently stated, intermediate (median) souls were between
the divine Nous and the material world, and their sacrifices were less densely
material because of the transformation of their somatic identities: “They were
not yet the unified and immaterial offerings of noetic theurgy nor were they as
varied and dense as the material rites.”203 Regrettably, Iamblichus does not give
any details concerning these rites, but Shaw is undoubtedly correct to suggest
that they were “visual and audible phenomena” like images of the gods, theurgic
hymns, ineffable sounds, and so forth.204
In the De anima Iamblichus gives the three purposes for the descent of souls:
Furthermore, I actually think that the purposes for which souls descend
are different and that they thereby also cause differences in the manner of
the descent. For the soul that descends for the salvation, purification, and
perfection of this realm is immaculate in its descent. The soul, on the
other hand, that directs itself about bodies for the exercise and correction
of its own character is not entirely free of passions and was not sent away
free in itself. The soul that comes down here for punishment and judg-
ment seems somehow to be dragged and forced.205
If we compare the text above (De myst. V.18) with this text, De anima 29, the
qualitative differences between the two philosophers acutely begin to surface.
Iamblichus, whose understanding of the salvation of the soul is more integrative
and places a much more positive value upon corporeal and temporal existence
than does Porphyry, emphasizes the descent of the soul into a realm (this world)
characterized by matter that is a mutually beneficial participant in the σωτηρία
of the entire cosmos.206 “For Iamblichus the cosmos was a living temple, a vast
theophany, where the soul progressively recovered its divinity in the process of
unifying itself with the divine powers revealed in the material world.”207 The
world is thus not something from which one must escape or be delivered, but
rather is to be accepted, participated in and cooperated with as sentient particu-
lars of the entire salvific process of which the sentient particulars are players and
to which each part contributes something beneficial to the well-being of the
whole.208 In this aspect of the soul’s participation in the temporal realm,
Iamblichean soteriology has been described as cooperative demiurgy by which
 Porphyry and Iamblichus  157

the theurgist participates in the creation and ordering of matter similar to the
Demiurge’s role as creator (fabricator) in the cosmological myth of the
Timaeus.209 This Soteriology of Descent is the exact opposite of Porphyry’s
Soteriology of Ascent: The world, including matter, the body, and temporal exis-
tence as a whole, is a realm from which the soul must escape.210 It is thus
anti-salvific. For Iamblichus, the embodied soul, which unlike in the teaching of
Plotinus and Porphyry was completely descended, was capable of attaining sal-
vation only by means of the theurgic use of matter.211
The method of salvation is likewise different. Porphyry stressed at the
third level the importance of discursive thought via philosophy with no need
for divine assistance at the highest stage; Iamblichus saw theurgy as effica-
cious at all three levels.212 His system also stressed more the soul’s need of
divine assistance than did that of Porphyry. There are two principle reasons
for this: (a) the descent of the soul completely in embodiment and (b) the
soul as completely embodied is entirely separated from the Nous and cannot
ascend on its own power.213 As Shaw has rightly noted, “The kind of theurgic
rite one performed had to be coordinated with one’s spiritual capacity.”214
Each class had a corresponding purpose for embodiment as noted in De an.
29, mode of worship, specific theurgical ritual, and types of gods involved in
the salvific process:215
Class I: Noetic souls descend to the world to bring about salvation, purifica-
tion, and perfection of generated life; they use rituals involving immaterial
and noetic sacrifices and worship hypercosmic and immaterial gods. They
are ultimately recycled through rebirth in the temporal realm. Souls do not
achieve an absolute or permanent union with the One.216
Class II: Median or intermediate souls descend to correct moral behavior
from past lives; they use a mixture of material and immaterial sacrifices,
and they worship encosmic and hypercosmic gods.217
Class III: Material souls who descend for judgment and punishment from past
lives, offer material sacrifices, and worship encosmic and material gods.
The purposes for which each class comes into this realm are predetermined by
the spiritual condition of each.218 The first observation to note here is that
Iamblichus is clear that Class I (Noetic) souls are rare, so that at any given time
on earth, a soul very rarely offered purely immaterial forms of ritual worship.219
Also, due to the fragmentary nature of Iamblichus’ works, and the fact that there
are “no extant records of theurgic ceremonies,”220 the modern historian or phi-
losopher is often forced to theorize concerning various aspects of theurgy.221
Though definitions of the latter are in abundance in the secondary literature,222
Iamblichean theurgy (θεoυργία) is best described as the salvific works of the
158  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

gods (θεῶν ἔργα) employed in this world by various rituals which have nothing
to do with sorcery (τoῖς γóησιν) or wonder-working (θαυματoυργία) and whose
purpose was to subordinate the human soul to the will of the gods and, ulti-
mately, to transcend all intellectual endeavors.223 Though there might not be
much here with which Porphyry will have disagreed, it is in the aims, purposes,
and benefits of theurgy in Iamblichean soteriology that reveal the substantial
differences between his views and those of his former pupil.
In turning to the Iamblichean definition of theurgy,224 we may first observe
the following salient features and their importance for soteriology:
• A synthetic approach to philosophy and religious (theurgical) ritual;225
• The cosmos viewed as homogeneous rather than a spatial hierarchization
and an unbroken continuity between the intelligible and sensible realms;226
• Sensate particularity is integrated into the process of theurgical salvation
and thus given a positive value;227
• Theurgy is the highest on a scale of seven virtues;228
• It offered its own distinct via universalis salutis animae in that theurgy
saved the souls of all three classes;229
• Embodiment as participation in the World Soul and not in an isolated
prison;230
• The soul’s participation in its own demiurgic volition and creativity.231
Theurgy thus had a much less restricted function in Iamblichean soteriol-
ogy: Porphyry relegated it to the herd, as we have seen, and defined it as capa-
ble of only cleansing the lower soul; for Iamblichus, on the other hand, “it was
man’s way of participating in a cosmological procession and conversion that
included every part of nature.”232 Theurgy played a more central role in the
salvific process for Iamblichus than it did for his teacher, and because the whole
soul was completely descended from the higher realms, there was a greater
need of divine aid in the salvific process.233 His soteriological system was, there-
fore, much more integrative, all-encompassing, descent (this-cosmos) ori-
ented, and continual/cyclical. The cosmos, including this world and matter,
had great soteriological value and benefits that the soul embraced;234 for
Porphyry, certain components—the world, corporeal existence, matter—must
be abandoned if the soul was successfully to ascend to pure Being. And the way
to achieve the ontological and epistemological summit was through philoso-
phy, not theurgy.235
 9

Eschatological Salvation
Der Türhütter erkennt, daß der Mann schon an seinem Ende ist, und, um sein
vergehendes Gehör noch zu erreichen, brült er ihn an: „Hier konnte niemand
sonst Einlaß erhalten, denn dieser Eingang war nur für dich bestimmt. Ich gehe
jetz und schließe ihn.“
Franz Kafka, Vor dem Gesetz

I t is an indisputable principle, according to Platonic teach-

ing about the afterlife, that how the soul lives its present life in
this world of Becoming will determine both where and how long it will exist in
its post mortem life, and whether it will continue in the rebirth cycle, or in the
case of philosophers, eventually live in some kind of blissful place beyond the
temporal realm.1 Though as we shall see, Plato himself believed in the eschato-
logical myths about which he commented in a good number of his dialogues
and thus took them very seriously, it is regrettable, as Julia Annas has noted,
that “philosophers have mostly not thought to include the myths as part of
Plato’s thought.”2 And David Sedley is correct to say that it “remains the case
that Plato’s myths, for all the interest they have attracted, are far too rarely used
in the interpretation of the dialogues to which they belong.”3 This neglect is
especially lamentable when we acknowledge that beginning with the early
Apology, and continuing with the later dialogues Gorgias, Phaedo, Republic,
Timaeus, and Laws,4 the student of Platonism finds many passages concerning
the final destiny of the soul and how Plato’s eschatological views evolved dur-
ing his career. One of the premises of the present study on Porphyry’s under-
standing of the salvation of the soul, as we have noted, is that epistemology is
inseparable from ontology in the Neoplatonist’s thought, and we can say the
same about Platonism in a general sense. I should like to add another impor-
tant principle here on a subject that still represents a great deal of unexplored
territory for scholars, namely, soteriology cannot be separated from eschatol-
ogy if one wishes to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the teachings of
Platonism on the nature and destiny of the soul. Indeed, the major aspects of
the unexplored territory related to Plato’s eschatological myths concerns their
Reception History within the Neoplatonic tradition. Not much has ever been
written about exactly how these myths were hermeneutically evaluated by
thinkers like Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus;5 and often modern
scholars completely ignore the importance of eschatology in in their works.6

159
160  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

And the universe of Neoplatonic scholarship still eagerly awaits a thorough

analysis of this aspect of ancient philosophy.
One is thus justified in asking, Why is our knowledge of the reception history
of Plato’s eschatological myths within Neoplatonism still quite deficient? I would
suggest two answers to this important question: (1) modern historians, philoso-
phers, and theologians are notorious for not taking the myths as seriously as
Plato originally intended; and (2) post-Enlightenment hyper-critical and
hyper-rational methodologies have produced a negative assessment of the
myths that describes them as silly, absurd, vulgar, superstitious, and poetic, and,
thus, not to be understood as important components of Plato’s thought.7 A little
light, however, is beginning to illuminate this dark cavern, thanks to recent
work by (e.g.) the philosopher John Bussanich.8 In what follows I shall give an
overview to the basic elements of Plato’s eschatological myths and analyze
important aspects of their reception history primarily in Plotinus, Porphyry,
and Iamblichus.9 My argument is that these thinkers took the tradition on the
final destiny of the soul that they received from Plato very seriously,10 and so
should the modern scholar; and the best way to truly discover the content of
their doctrines is to let the texts that they wrote speak for themselves.

Plato’s Eschatological Myths
Before analyzing the eschatological teaching found in Plato’s dialogues, it is first
necessary to define the meaning of myth, which seems to have been an integral
part of philosophical discourse that has increasingly attracted the attention of
recent scholarship.11 Betegh suggests that it is used by Plato to designate tale,
fable, or story.12 Annas notes that the word originally meant nothing more than
speech, but by Plato’s time it came to mean something like story.13 Since both
μῦθoς and λóγoς are in some sense often intertwined in the dialogues, it is
sometimes difficult to know with certainty what Plato originally intended each
to mean, though usually the larger context in which the word is found helps to
bring clarity for the exegete.14 Noteworthy also is the fact that a number of ear-
lier traditions provided Plato with various strata that he molded into the myths
found in his dialogues.15 These include Pythagorean, Eleusinian, and Orphic
teachings on the afterlife, as well as doctrines passed down from writers like
Empedocles,16 Pherecydes, and Pindar: “Plato’s myths are thus the product of
great imaginative and inventive power which both fuses traditional elements to
create new philosophical and mythical statements, and also produces com-
pletely new mythical constructs as alone adequate to express the wealth of
thought clothed by them.”17 Hence we can define myth in this context as a story
perceived to be true, or containing truth, parts of which were supplied by older
 Eschatological Salvation  161

sources that contained poetic and symbolic meaning of deeper spiritual truth
upon which Plato philosophically elaborated for his own purposes.18
It is also important to address the general structure and content of this rich
tradition before turning to specific issues. Useful here is Bussanich’s general
paradigm of the five major elements in the Plato’s Rebirth Eschatology, which, in
turn, was accepted by Plotinus:
1. Embodiment as punishment for previous sins;
2. Afterlife judgment including rewards for virtue and punishment for
wrongdoing;
3. Souls choose their next incarnations and experience rebirth;
4. New births are determined by a combination of choices and actions of
previous lives;
5. Exceptionally good and purified philosophers are liberated from the
cycles of rebirth and achieve divine status.19
If it is true that the purpose of the eschatological myths in Plato was to induce
belief in the principles of morality and religion,20 about which he held strong
convictions even at the end of his career,21 it is important to keep in mind how
modern scholars should read them. Bussanich suggests the best method is syn-
optic or proleptic analysis: “The broader perspective afforded by synoptic read-
ing enables us to see how Plato wove together disparate elements to address a
host of distinct problems, combining the more popular motifs of judgment,
punishment, and reward with the more esoteric doctrines of rebirth and libera-
tion inherited from the Orphic-Pythagoreans and the mystery-religions.”22 This
interweaving of disparate elements in the myths is important to keep in mind as
we proceed, especially since apparent contradictions in the judgment dialogues
(Gorgias, Phaedo, Republic) may often indicate a shift in emphasis rather than
inexplicable inconsistencies.23 And though the modern exegete of the myths
may find them lacking in harmony and thus often contradictory, the ancient
readers came to these texts with a hermeneutical presupposition that there was
basic agreement between them: “For any neoplatonist, the arguments of Plato in
one dialog must be in harmony with those of another.”24
A major theme that permeates the eschatological myths in Plato’s dialogues
is the concept of justice in the afterlife and the concomitant doctrine of divine
judgment resulting in rewards for virtue and some kind of punishment for
wrongdoing. Plato’s first attempt at an eschatological myth is found in the
Gorgias.25 The judges Rhadamanthus, Aeacus, and Minos dispatch the soul of
the philosopher to the Isles of the Blessed.26 We shall come back to these judges
later when we analyze Porphyrian eschatology.27 All other souls are judged
according to the state in which they are in, there are no roads back from either
162  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Tartarus or the Isles of the Blessed, and Annas is correct to say that the dialogue
gives a consequentialist reason for the soul to be just and does not presuppose at
this stage in the development of Plato’s thought the doctrine of reincarnation.28
Also, whereas in the Gorgias the reader finds the Socratic separation of politics
from philosophy stressing the latter’s superiority, in the later dialogues Republic,
Statesman, and Laws “philosophy will not replace politics but will be called to
improve it.”29 There are degrees of rewards as well. The soul of the philosopher is
granted disembodiment before going to the Isles of the Blessed, but the good,
non-philosophical soul attains some kind of embodiment,30 a distinction which
Porphyry modified in his system. Finally, as Bussanich has eloquently noted, the
close relationship between the celestial existence of purified souls and the noetic
vision of the Forms of the Good in a number of ascent passages in Symposium,
Phaedrus, and Republic has not been given the attention it merits by scholars.31
In the Phaedo the good souls are divided into two classes: (a) those who have
lived well live on the “true earth”; and (b) souls of philosophers live without
bodies in indescribably beautiful places.32 This should be compared with Laws
904D–E, which states that the good soul is taken to a holy place. It appears that
the philosopher in the Phaedo passage has obtained the eschatological goal of
escaping from reincarnation,33 but it is going too far to describe this dialogue as
a “confused and confusing myth, and its message is blurred.”34 This too intel-
lectualist interpretation fails to be sensitive to the kind of synoptic reading of
Plato’s eschatological myths, alluded to earlier, in order to get a composite
understanding of the philosopher’s thought. It also misses the “big picture” of
the post mortem experiences of the soul, namely, the journey of the soul from its
earthly life to its final cosmic resting-place.35 At the beginning of the myth
Socrates makes an interesting observation:
But now, since the soul is seen to be immortal, it cannot escape from evil
or be saved in any other way than by becoming as good and wise as pos-
sible. For the soul takes with it to the other world nothing but its educa-
tion and nurture, and these are said to benefit or injure the departed
greatly from the very beginning of his journey thither.36
If it is correct to say that education (τῆς παιδείας) in this text does not just mean
virtue or cultivation, but rather instructions on how to navigate the otherwise
unknown and mysterious geography of the underworld, which Socrates later
describes (e.g.) as possessing paths with forks and crossroads,37 or a holy road
(ἁγίαν ὁδὸν) by which the virtuous soul is transported to “a better region” in the
hereafter;38 the numerous references to the way, paths, or roads to the gods men-
tioned in the works of Porphyry plausibly include important eschatological
meaning as well.39 These metaphors for the journey to the underworld were
 Eschatological Salvation  163

found in the mysteries as evidenced by Pherecydes, Socrates, and many others.40

Finally, it should be noted that the doctrine that posited that the best fate for a
soul is permanent escape from a body41 became a central concept in Porphyry’s
thought which, in turn, impacted his notions of the afterlife.42
In the Republic the Island of the Blessed is the final destination for the souls of
philosophers.43 Here a synoptic reading of Plato’s eschatological passages is most
beneficial because one must compare the information about where the philoso-
pher’s soul goes in the Republic, Phaedo, and Phaedrus with the Myth of Er,
which is silent on the subject.44 After their judgment, the good souls ascend to
heaven and remain there for a thousand years when they descend to relate “their
delights and visions of a beauty beyond words.”45 Permanent disembodiment
and a release from the rebirth cycles are prominent motifs in the eschatological
myth of the Phaedrus.46 After being judged, Justice takes the good souls to live
in a heavenly place.47 The doctrine of reincarnation and the cycle of rebirths are
central themes, and the apparent contradiction between the Timaeus and the
Phaedrus on the doctrine of the soul’s descent is reconcilable if, as Bussanich
suggests, the former is taken as presenting the primordial descent followed by
the subsequent descents recounted in Phaedrus.48 Each life-cycle either improves
or worsens according to the choices that the soul makes during its earthly exis-
tence, and “the height of achievement is that of the philosopher who is finally
released from the cycle and disembodied forever.”49 The soul is winged and thus
able to ascend to the realm of the gods.50
With great poetic imagination Plato describes how the discarnate souls
depicted as chariots with a charioteer and a white and black horse traverse the
cosmos in the train of the Olympian deities, intermittently gazing at the Forms
existing beyond the heavens.51 Winged souls rule the universe, but some souls
lose their wings, take on bodies, and descend to earth.52 The rebirth cycle begins
afresh, and souls who live a bad life eventually are sent to some kind of punish-
ment depending upon whether they are curable or incurable.53 Finally, the souls
that have chosen the philosophical life for three consecutive periods of a thou-
sand years each will get their wings at the end of three thousand years and “go
their way.”54 As we shall see below, this passage is important for an understand-
ing of Porphyrian eschatology, especially as it relates to the post mortem location
of Plotinus’ soul according to the Oracle of Apollo.55

The Myth of Er: Republic 614B–21D

For the first time in Plato’s works the Myth of Er, which has not been taken as
seriously as Plato had originally intended,56 makes it clear that all souls must
experience a prolonged cycle of rebirths.57 As I shall show below, this story is
164  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

very important for an understanding of Porphyrian eschatology.58 A Pamphylian

soldier who had died in battle, Er, comes back to life on the funeral pyre and
begins to relate what he had seen and heard in the underworld.59 Though not a
philosopher, he had lived with a degree of virtue and is rewarded accordingly.
Modern scholars are often puzzled about how to interpret the contents of this
profoundly symbolic and powerfully poetic eschatological myth: Annas, for
example, stresses the need to demythologize it, and McPherran says it is impos-
sible to discover Plato’s original meaning.60 Nor is there a great deal of agree-
ment on the central message or major themes of the story, with scholarly
interpretation ranging from positing that the happiest life is one of justice,61 to
the relationship between free-will and determinism,62 to an understanding of
the cosmic activities of the gods and how they produce good citizens,63 to a con-
sequentialist view of human behavior,64 and even the suggestion that the myth
plays a mere therapeutic and argumentative role at the end of the Republic.65 In
recent scholarship perhaps the best assessment is that of R. J. Johnson. In an
article published in 1999, Johnson showed how Julia Annas’s two studies on the
myth “relies too heavily on the emotional reactions of twentieth-century read-
ers of the Republic,” and convincingly demonstrates that the Myth of Er com-
pletes the argument of the dialogue “by showing that the just life is worth living
in this world and in whatever world may lie beyond it.”66 A hermeneutical meth-
odology stressing contextualization of this nature, combined with a synoptic
reading of all eschatological narratives in Plato’s works, can give the modern
reader of these texts a clearer understanding of their purpose and meaning.67 If
this is how these texts were read by Neoplatonic philosophers—and I believe
they were—this method must be kept in mind when we examine Porphyry’s
eschatological views later.
Er wanders in the underworld for a period of time where he witnesses the
judges of souls who either receive their just rewards for being good or punish-
ments for wrongdoing.68 Some of these were returning after serving their allot-
ted thousand years, and they approach the Spindle of Necessity accompanied by
Lady Necessity and the fates.69 A being called the Prophet then addresses the
assembled souls to prepare them for their next rebirth and life-cycle.70 A celes-
tial lottery is conducted resulting in each soul receiving its assigned lot, where-
upon each soul chooses its next life.71 Then each soul is assigned a guardian
spirit and drinks from the River Lethe (forgetfulness).72 At midnight they are
lifted up to their various rebirths and become embodied.73 Er wakes up after the
souls have completed their journey to find himself on the funeral pyre.74 If there
is any clear message at the end of this profoundly imaginative story, it is found
in the belief that the soul of the non-philosopher can at least temporarily escape
the reincarnation cycle.75 And though a recent study concludes that in the myth
 Eschatological Salvation  165

there is no hint that anyone, even Socrates, will escape the series of reincarna-
tions,76 I suggest that a synoptic reading of this eschatological myth with those
found in other dialogues, like the Phaedrus, can fill certain hermeneutical gaps
and provide a fairly clear and composite understanding of Plato’s views on the
afterlife. We will now turn to the reception history of Plato’s eschatological
myths in Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus.

Plotinian Eschatology
Owing to the lack of specificity in Plato’s views on eschatology and the some-
times apparent or real contradictions found in (e.g.) the Gorgias, Phaedo,
Phaedrus, Republic, and Laws concerning exactly what takes place in the after-
life, later Platonists often took it upon themselves to fill the gaps and thus
tweaked the tradition that they received, often resulting in sharp debate and
disagreement between them.77 Plotinus poses unique challenges in that, on the
one hand, he has relatively little to say on the subject of eschatology; and, on the
other,78 his entire philosophical system is centered in a highly mystical experi-
ence whereby the soul in this life achieves a temporary union with the One in
the temporal realm. Especially as it pertains to the afterlife, moreover, the spe-
cific meaning of this latter aspect of his thought is often passionately debated by
Plotinian scholars (as we shall see), but it should be kept in mind, as Rist has
incisively noted, “If reality could be fully expressed, there would be no ‘mysti-
cism’ at all.”79 Yet Henry Blumenthal is correct to say that the main features of
Plato’s eschatology were accepted by Plotinus with the belief in reincarnation
playing a central role in his thought.80 Though the doctrine on παλιγγενεσία is
often inconsistent and this can be attributed to inconsistencies already found on
the subject in Plato,81 the general concept is clear enough: The ethical behavior
of a soul in its previous reincarnations determines the nature of the incarnate
soul in its present life-cycle.82 And we should expect some modifications to the
system he inherited, which can be explained not just due to inconsistency in
Plato’s myths, but more so to the fact that he was a profoundly original thinker.
The doctrine of the undescended soul is one example of the latter:
And, if one ought to dare to express one’s own view more clearly, contra-
dicting the opinion of others, even our soul does not altogether come
down, but there is always something of it in the intelligible; but if the part
which is in the world of sense-perception gets control, or rather if it is
itself brought under control, and thrown into confusion [by the body], it
prevents us from perceiving the things which the upper part of the soul
contemplates. For what is grasped by the intellect reaches us when it
166  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

arrives at perception in its descent, for we do not know everything which

happens in any part of the soul before it reaches the whole soul; for
instance desire which remains in the desiring part is known by us, but
[only] when we apprehend it by the power of inner sense or discursive
reason, or both. For every soul has something of what is below, in the
direction of the body, and of what is above, in the direction of Intellect.83
The soul has fallen, in a true sense, from the goodness and truth of the intelli-
gible realm, but the higher part remains undescended and thus connected with
its source.84 This bifurcation of the self makes a distinction between the rational
part of the soul, which is immortal, as we find in the dialogues of Plato, but it
“does not altogether come down” and “there is always something of it in the
intelligible.”85 The lower soul that has descended is called a compound
(σύνθετoν) that is capable of committing vice or virtue, and it is the self that
experiences the cycles of rebirths familiar with traditional Platonic eschatology,
but Plotinus has segregated the intelligible soul from the rebirth cycle by means
of his doctrine concerning the bifurcation of the self.86 Moreover, his distin-
guishing between a higher providence that teleologically orders all things in the
universe and a lower fate to which souls attached to matter subordinate them-
selves might have been seminal concepts that were planted in the mind of
Porphyry who, in turn, eventually incorporated them into his three-path sote-
riological system.87

The Unio Mystica

Though it is indisputable that Plotinus believed in this life a permanent union
with the One was not possible,88 scholars have perhaps read too much into the
statement made by Porphyry that his master attained this mystical experience
only four times, simply because, as Bussanich has rightly noted, Plotinus never
relaxed his concentration on Intellect, and Porphyry was with Plotinus in Rome
only for a period of six years.89 In any event, the descriptions of the Unio mystica
represent the most beautiful passages in the Enneads.90 Separating itself from
δóξα and αἴσθησις and thus attaining to ὁμoιωθῆναι θεῷ, the soul transcends
Intellect to see the One itself.91 The two become one during the union, and thus
the distinctions of duality and otherness are not ontologically applicable.92 That
brings us to the final destiny of the soul and the important questions: (a) is the
eschatological (post mortem) Unio mystica permanent? and (b) does this imply
a monistic or a theistic union? The former posits that the soul becomes identical
with the One itself, and the latter maintains that the soul retains its own indi-
vidual subsistence.93 As we have seen in Porphyrian soteriology, the early stages
 Eschatological Salvation  167

of ascent involve the soul’s purifications and turning or converting itself to the
Forms. The soul ascends through and beyond Intellect to the One because ulti-
mate mystical union transcends being and thought.94 “Likeness to God in the
full sense must mean an ascent beyond the realm of the infinite Forms to the
realm of the infinite One whose dominant character of simplicity (ἁπλωσις) is
emphasized throughout the Enneads.95
What exactly happens to the soul in this eschatological, and permanent,
union with the One? Wallis insists that for Plotinus, return to the One does not
“result in abolition of the soul’s individual existence.”96 I would suggest, how-
ever, that it is not an abolition of the soul’s individuality, but an absence of dual-
ity, otherness, and the ontological and epistemological separation that are the
distinctive identity markers of the soul in the realm of Becoming. Otherwise,
how can the two really become one?97 Rist also assumes that an absolute union
theory results in the soul’s annihilation or obliteration,98 but such language of
obliteration misses the essential meaning of the two becoming one in Plotinus’
view of permanent union which, I suggest, we should understand as a comple-
tion or fulfillment of the soul’s achieving the salvific summit of its ontological
and epistemological progression. It becomes its true self by identical union with
its source. Otherwise the Platonic doctrine of “like is known by like” is
non-sensical.99 Exegeting all pertinent texts in the Enneads that concern perma-
nent union with the One, Bussanich notes that often γίνεσθαι is the verb used
by Plotinus to describe an ontological transformation in which he “envisions an
ultimate state where the soul is completely merged with the One.”100 The union,
he suggests, results in an absorption of the soul into the One.101 The final destiny
and state of the soul is not, therefore, the annihilation or obliteration of its indi-
viduality, but an infinite expansion of its true self:
The very fluid and dynamic Plotinian self expands—both ontologically
and psychologically—as it ascends through the intelligible world to the
One. Its awareness at the beginning of the ascent is quite restricted and so
dramatically different than what it becomes at the end, despite the fact
that the true, essential self eternally inhabits the intelligible. But from
there it continues to ascend, losing even intelligible boundaries, until,
after repeated contacts with the one, it merges completely with it. In the
end, both its substance and its awareness are utterly transformed, not only
the latter, and not for only a few moments.102
Let us now turn to relevant texts in the Enneads.
First, in VI.9.3.11ff., Plotinus states: “But when the soul wants to see by itself,
seeing only by being with it and being one by being one with it, it does not think
it yet has what it seeks, because it is not different from what is being thought.”103
168  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

The phrase καὶ ἓν oὖσα τῷ εἶναι αὑτῷ indicates a union with the One that tran-
scends ontologically and epistemologically the state of being in which thinker
and what is being thought are the same (ὅτι τoῦ΄νooυμένoυ μὴ ἕτερóν ἔστιν) at
the level of Intellect.104 The beginning and end (ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλoς) of the soul is to
be filled with God (πληρωθεισ̑α θεoῦ): its beginning because it comes from
there, and its end because its good is there.105 Embracing God, the soul does not
allow any part of itself not to touch God (ᾦ μὴ ἐϕαπτóμεθα). There it becomes
“full of intelligible light” (ϕωτὸς πλήρη νoητoῦ).106 When the concentric circles
of the soul and the One come together, they are one and there is no duality, the
latter occurring only when they are separate (καὶ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα συνελθóντα ἓν
ἐστι, τó τε δύo, ὅταν χωρίς).107 There are not two, but One, the seer and the seen
being now united (ἐπει τoίνυν δύo oὐκ ἦν, ἀλλ’ ἓν ἦν αὐτoς ὁ ἰδ̀ὼν πρὸς τὸ
ἑωραμένoν, ὡς ἂν μὴ ἑωραμένoν, ἀλλ’ ἡνωμένoν…).108 He then adds that “like
is united with like” (τῷ ὁμoίῳ τὸ ὅμoιoν), presupposing logically the abandon-
ment of duality and otherness that define the essence of the soul’s
individuality.109
When the soul goes down it arrives at evil (εἰς κακὸν) and non-existence (εἰς
μὴ ὄν),
But if it runs the opposite way, it will arrive, not at something else but at
itself, (oὐκ εἰς ἄλλo, ἀλλ’ εἰς αὑτήν) and in this way since it is not in some-
thing else it will not be in nothing, but in itself; but when it is in itself alone
and not in being, it is in that; for one becomes (γίνεται), not substance, but
‘beyond substance’ (oὐκ oὐσία, ἀλλ’ ἐπέκεινα oὐσίας) by this converse. If
then one sees that oneself has become this (τoῦτo αὑτὸν γενóμενoν), one
has oneself as a likeness of that, and if one goes on from oneself, as image
to original (ὡς εἰκὼν πρὸς ἀρχέτυπoν), one has reached ‘the end of the
journey.’110
As conveyed by the use of γίνεται and γενóμενoν, it is clear that Plotinus is
describing an ontological transformation that brings about union with the One,
resulting in duality giving way to an absolute and irrevocable identity of the soul
with the One. The true self has returned to its source and its infinite complete-
ness and fulfillment is achieved only when it converges with (and thus not in any
way remaining separate from) the One. Plotinus approaches this radical trans-
formation from a higher ontological level in another text in which he states that,
even if Intellect were to abide in that place and behold the One, it would be one
with him, not two (ἀλλ’ ἓν ἐκείνῳ ὢν καὶ oὐ δύo).111 Time and again he stresses
that the soul loses duality when it unites with the One.112 When the union takes
place, the soul is no longer another (ἕτερoν);113 it falls away from being one, for
example, an individual soul (πάσχει δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τoῦ ἓν εἶναι τῆν ἀπóστασίν καὶ oὐ
 Eschatological Salvation  169

πάντη ἐστὶν ἓν),114 the two become one when the vision comes to the soul (ἔρχεται
δὲ ἡ θέα καὶ εἱς αὐτὴν καὶ τὰ δύo ἓν γίνεται),115 and there is nothing between it
and the One (μεταξὺ γὰρ oὐδὲν oὐδ ’ ἔτι δύo ἀλλ’ ἓν ἄμϕω).116 Based on the pre-
ceding texts, I thus conclude that according to Plotinian eschatology, the soul of
the philosopher will ultimately117 achieve a post mortem, permanent union that
ontologically and epistemologically transcends being, Intellect, and thought
whereby it experiences an absolute identity with the One.118

Porphyrian and Iamblichean Eschatologies

It is highly regrettable that although there has been an exponential growth in
scholarly works on Neoplatonism in the last few decades, there has never been
a book-length study in English on the eschatological doctrines of the later
Neoplatonic philosophers.119 It is not my purpose here to offer such a meticulous
analysis on Porphyry and Iamblichus, but rather to give an overview of each
thinker’s basic teaching on the status and final destiny of the soul in the afterlife.
We begin with Porphyry, who according to Proclus was the most perfect exegete
of the Myth of Er than all the philosophers named in his Commentary on the
Republic who had studied it.120 The problem is, however, that many of Porphyry’s
works are either lost or have survived in fragmentary form, which often forces
the philosopher to piece together from various sources, both pagan and
Christian, a plausible composite picture of his thought. This is most applicable
to his views on eschatology.
Augustine informs us at the beginning of De civitate dei, Book X, that in
searching for philosophers “who might contribute to my disquisition on the
blessed life that is to come after death,” the Platonists who are “the most renowned
of all philosophers” were selected because “they assert that no man will obtain
what all men eagerly desire, namely, a blessed life, who has not clung with the
purity of a chaste love to the one supreme good, which is the unchangeable
God.”121 This certainly does not imply, however, uniformity of belief among those
Platonists who came after Plotinus, especially as we shall see with respect to the
final destiny of the soul. For example, should we fast-forward from Porphyry’s
time to the end of the Neoplatonic period in the sixth century a.d., we realize
that there was still an ongoing debate on the exact meaning of the eschatological
realms and the final dwelling places of the various classes of souls, as exemplified
in the reinterpretation by the Athenian Damascius of Plato’s double division of
good souls in Phd. 114 B–C: “Those without philosophy dwell on the heights of
the earth with very subtle pneumatic bodies, those who practiced philosophy at
the level of the polis live in heaven with luminous bodies, and those who are
completely purified are restored to the hypercosmic place without bodies.”122
170  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

The second group, “those who practiced philosophy at the level of the polis,”
implies a development of Porphyry’s Path II trajectory. Also, there is an explicit
tripartite pattern similar to Porphyry’s: Damascius posits (a) the soul of the
non-philosopher, (b) the soul of the practitioner of philosophy at the polis level
who is not completely purified, and (c) the soul of the completely purified phi-
losopher.123 Important to note here is that, with each class of soul, there is a cor-
responding eschatological realm in which it dwells.124 Two centuries before the
last of the Neoplatonists, Porphyry had already laid a foundation for this para-
digm and subsequent debates.
A central feature of Porphyry’s eschatology is his indebtedness to the
Chaldean cosmological division of the universe into three realms: the Material
(ὑλαῖoν), the sublunar region including the earth; the Ethereal (αἰθέριoν), the
realm of the stars and planets;125 and the Empyrean (ἐμπύριoν) or the Intelligible
world.126 In conjunction with these cosmological divisions, it must be kept in
mind as we proceed with our analysis of Porphyry’s eschatology that the One,
whom he often calls the Father,127 is considerably less transcendent than that of
Plotinus’ system. Though it is clear that Poprhyry believed that the lower soul
continues after death,128 and in some manner this includes both the vehicle
(ὄχημα) and the irrational part,129 due to the highly fragmentary nature of his
works (especially as they relate to his doctrines on the afterlife,) one gets only
glimpses of the eschatological function of the material or hylic realm. For exam-
ple, Augustine, after referring to Porphyry’s locating demons in the aeria and
angels in the Ethereal or Empyrean regions,130 informs us: “. . . and although he
advises making use of the friendship of some demon, by whose support an indi-
vidual can rise, though ever so little, above the earth after death, yet he acknowl-
edges that it is another way that leads to fellowship on high with the angels.”131
The key words here are quo subvectante vel paululum a terra possit elevari quisque
post mortem, which eschalogically locate the (good) souls of the herd that have
not been cleansed by theurgy in the hylic realm beneath the moon.132 And the
mention of another way implies a different and higher (superna) eschatological
path for the souls who have been so cleansed. The question now is: Where do
souls go post mortem whose spirited part is cleansed by theurgy?
Augustine provides the answer in two passages from De civitate dei. The first
is found in X.9.133 After saying Porphyry posited theurgical purification for the
spiritual soul and that “He asserts, however, that this art cannot provide for any
man a path back to God,”134 he then adds:

Next he declares that it is possible for the rational or, as he prefers to call
it, the intellectual soul to escape into its own realm, even though the spir-
ited part of it has never been purified by any art of theurgy. Furthermore,
 Eschatological Salvation  171

he says, the purification of the spiritual part by the theurgist does not go
so far as by itself to lead all the way to immortality and eternity.135

Note first that the intellectual soul has its own realm (in sua posse dicit eva-
dere): This is the eschatological path, which we will examine later, for the soul of
the (mature) philosopher.136 The second text continues the same line of thought
for the spiritual soul, but now we are informed as to its eschatological
dwelling place:

Evidently you want all who are turned away from the pursuit of philo-
sophic excellence, which is too lofty for all but a few, to seek out theurgists
on your recommendation, in order to obtain catharsis at least of their
spiritual, though not, to be sure, of their intellectual soul … that those
who have been cleansed in their spiritual soul by the theurgic art, though
they do not, to be sure, return to the father, yet they will dwell above the
realm of air among the aetherial deities.137

Thus, after death, the soul that has been cleansed in its spirited part by theurgy
ascends to the second eschatological realm, the ethereal world.138 This corre-
sponds to Path I in Porphyry’s soteriological system. But where do the Path II
souls go in the afterlife? Since those souls who have begun their philosophical
studies and have learned how to cleanse their spirited parts by means of
σωϕρoσύνη have, like Path I souls, not yet cleansed the rational part, their post
mortem dwelling place is by a logical inference the same place: The Ethereal
realm.139
Turning to the dwelling place of the (fully mature) philosopher’s soul (Path III),
the first principle to keep in mind is Porphyry’s doctrine on permanent escape,
which, as we shall see, had some important things in common with Plotinian
eschatology.140 Since the One/Father is less transcendent in his thought, however,
we find Porphyry often relying upon the traditional doctrines found in Plato’s
eschatological myths to fill important gaps and explain the relations between each
class of soul in the ontological hierarchy and exactly how the soul can break the
otherwise incessant cycle of reincarnations. The fact that Plato himself never her-
meneutically ironed out this latter problem, thus bequeathing to posterity an
eschatology that both contained inconsistencies and also did not provide clear
answers to important questions about the afterlife, meant that issues like perma-
nent escape were hotly debated among Neoplatonists: Plotinus and Porphyry
accepted it, while (e.g.) Iamblichus, Proclus, and Sallustius rejected it.141 We have
already noted that Porphyry’s belief that the rational soul escapes to its own
realm.142 Showing the close connection that Platonism placed between ontology
and epistemology and, we may add now, their relation with eschatology, later in
172  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the City of God we are told Porphyry believed that ignorance (ignorantiam) can-
not be cleansed by any rites (per nullas teletas purgari), but only by the πατρικὸν
νoῦν, or the mind or Intellect of the Father.143 The use of purgari does not imply, as
we have seen, a state of pollution or sin in the rational soul, but rather the separa-
tion of the mind from the temporal to the intelligible realms by means of discur-
sive thought. Only a few souls attain to God by their intelligence.144 Porphyry is
clear that in this life the soul cannot ad perfectionem sapientiae pervenire, but
“those who live on an intellectual level may find their want fully supplied after this
life by God’s providence and grace.”145 The soul of the philosopher thus becomes
complete (post hanc vitam posse compleri) when it is with the One, having perma-
nently broken the cycle of reincarnations.146
Ulysses is depicted in the De antro nympharum as a symbol of the philoso-
pher who, after a long process of purifying his soul,147 strongly desires to return
to his true home: the Intellect and the One.148 The soul must avoid all union with
the body to attain eternal happiness with God.149 Once the soul is purged from
all evil and joined to the Father, it will never again suffer the evils in this world.150
Though it is going too far to call this doctrine a “radical innovation,”151 nonethe-
less the release for Porphyry is permanent and eternal.152 We are perhaps not too
far metaphysically from Paul of Tarsus’ teaching that to be absent from the body
is to be present with the Lord.153 Yet we must now ask whether the permanent
escape entails the same kind of Unio mystica eschatologically that we have seen
in Plotinus’ thought. In other words, did Porphyry teach a monistic or theistic
union? In this case, the pupil did not accept the teachings of his master. We have
already noted that Porphyry’s One is less transcendent than that of Plotinus, and
though his works are fragmentary, the available evidence strongly favors the
view that the soul, once fully purged and released from the last cycle of reincar-
nation (see below) is in close union with the Father but does not lose its indi-
viduality. For example, the text in Civ. Dei X.30 speaks of the soul’s relation with
God in its permanent disembodied state as Patre constitutam, logically implying
a spiritual coexistence with, but not an absorption in, the divine.154 Furthermore,
in De anima 48, as Dillon and Finamore have observed, Iamblichus says
Porphyry did not allow the soul any continued role in the universe after its
(final) ascent.155 This appears to cohere perfectly with Bidez 11.1 (Civ. Dei X.30).156
Later in the same work Iamblichus attempts apparently with less clarity to
explain what happens to the rational soul once it is permanently separated by
saying Porphyry “assimilates the soul to the universe.”157 This statement puzzled
the editors of De anima because it seems to oppose the conventional Neoplatonic
goal of assimilation to God,158 but it is best interpreted to refer to the less tran-
scendent One in Porphyry’s thought, who is conceived as being in the Empyrean
realm, to which Iamblichus’ universe is alluding, with (and thus not beyond) the
 Eschatological Salvation  173

Intelligibles. Another text comes from Stobaeus, who says that Porphyry,
opposed to Plotinus, taught that the soul after death retains its own τάξις, which
Andrew Smith rightly interprets to mean a union with the One, but not result-
ing in the soul becoming the One.159 Finally, Augustine attributes to Porphyry
the doctrine of the soul’s consubstantiality with the mind of the Father, which
has already been analyzed in an earlier chapter, to support the view that the soul
retains its individuality in its eschatological state.160 Porphyry’s permanent
escape can thus be best described as a theistic union of the soul with the One/
Father in the Empyrean Realm and as eschatologically indebted to the
Phaedrus.161

Cycles of Rebirth
Porphyry’s doctrine of permanent escape does not preclude the incorporation
of traditional Platonic concepts of cycles of reincarnation into his views on
eschatology. Though Augustine praises Porphyry for correcting Plato’s eschatol-
ogy, which “conceived of souls as swinging in a circle between alternate joy and
misery,”162 this does not mean that he rejected the rebirth cycles, but rather that
at some point in the cycles the soul was able to escape from them. We now turn
to investigating how and when the escape is made possible, keeping in mind
that the soul’s progression to the One, which we have seen is central to Porphyry’s
soteriology, is best understood in the structure of reincarnations.163
We begin with Porphyry’s Περὶ τoῦ ἐϕ ’ ἡμῖν (On What Is in Our Power),164
which by most accounts was either a commentary or an interpretative essay on
Plato’s Myth of Er165 and originally formed a part of his commentary on the
Republic.166 Evidence in favor of this hypothesis is based on the fact that all of the
fragments preserved from the commentary deal with the Myth of Er, and the
same can be said about On What Is in Our Power.167 The latter survives only in
fragments derived from the Anthology of John Stobaeus (fifth century A.D.),
totaling fourteen pages in Andrew Smith’s 1993 Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta.168
And though Proclus mentions Porphyry rarely in his commentary on the
Republic,169 he praises him as “a perfect interpreter in particular of all the hidden
material in the myth.”170 We can thus assume that Proclus was significantly influ-
enced by Porphyry’s earlier commentary and incorporated a great deal of mate-
rial from him into his own commentary on Plato’s myth.171 Be that as it may, we
begin our analysis with a remark made by Augustine concerning Porphyry’s
teaching on the soul’s descent: “He also says that God’s purpose in giving a soul
to the world was that it might recognize the evils inherent in material things and
so return to the Father, and never again find itself held fast and polluted by their
contagion.”172 The word cognoscens in the Latin text, which the LCL editor gives
174  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

as recognize, is a philosophically pregnant term that is best translated as to

become thoroughly familiar with or to learn thoroughly by inquiring and investi-
gating, presupposing the lengthy process of training characterized by Porphyry’s
Path II trajectory, the successful completion of which moved the soul to the final
stage, which ensured permanent escape.173 After noting that both Plato and
Plotinus believed that souls were reincarnated into the bodies of animals,
Augustine informs us that Porphyry was correct in rejecting this doctrine and
adds: “He held that human souls return to earth and enter human bodies, not
indeed those they had discarded, but new and different ones.”174
The Περὶ τoῦ ἐϕ’ ἡμῖν provides invaluable details on the cycle of rebirths and
helps to fill important gaps resulting from the rather general remarks of
Augustine. For example, Porphyry in a number of passages of this work refers to
souls as being outside, and Wilberding is right to conclude that this means out-
side the body rather than the universe175 and that both Porphyry and Proclus
interpreted the Myth of Er primarily as not being about souls descending from
the Intelligible Realm.176 As we have seen, according to the myth, souls take a
journey in the meadow of the netherworld for seven days then continue until
they come to a light brighter than a rainbow extended above throughout heaven,
which includes the Spindle of Necessity and eight whorls representing the heav-
enly spheres.177 This is the place where the Prophet gives the souls their lots and
where they make their choice about their next life on earth.178 Exactly where
Porphyry locates the choice is important for his views on eschatological rebirths.
Although Proclus, following Porphyry, interprets the light here to refer to the
vehicle of the World Soul,179 he does not agree with him on the location of the
Prophet. Whereas Proclus argues that the location of the aether is the best place
from which the souls can see both the heavens and the vehicle of the World
Soul,180 Porphyry places the Prophet and the souls’ first choices in the lunar
realm181 probably because of the Chaldaean doctrine mentioned in Ad Gaurum
and reinforced by Smith 271F,182 which posited that souls choose their lives
among a number of possibilities written in the stars and enter the universe
through the hôroskopos located at the eastern horizon.183
In Plato’s myth, the Prophet is responsible for the lots and the order in which
the souls make their choices.184 Porphyry interjected at this point a novelty into
the myth by bringing in “two lives and choices that each soul makes prior to
each reincarnation.”185 The first choice, made in the lunar sphere, concerned the
species and gender of the soul in the next life;186 the second concerned its
career.187 Porphyry then posited that the second choice was made while the soul
was “in the planetary sphere en route to the hôroskopos in the sphere of fixed
stars”188 due to his theory of the vehicle of the soul, noted above, which required
that the soul must first move up to the fixed sphere where it receives its
 Eschatological Salvation  175

vehicle.189 Iamblichus appears to be alluding to the latter when he says Porphyry

taught “each irrational faculty is freed into the whole life of the universe from
which is was detached …”;190 with which we should compare a statement in the
Ad Gaurum concerning the soul receiving its irrational and corporeal substance
before its descent:

However, regarding the corporeal and irrational substance, what is lack-

ing in terms of its being joined to [a captain] at birth is provided and
afforded by the universe, as an individual soul is immediately present, the
very soul which comes to be present to the [body] that has been brought
forth at just the right moment, and comes to be in harmony with the
instrumental body that is suited to receive it.191

Functioning as a divine matchmaker, the World Soul in Ad Gaurum ensures

that the descending souls find their way to bodies perfectly suited to them.192
And as Wilberding judiciously observes, the second life is still to a certain extent
in the control of the individual soul making the choice based on the belief that
“by ‘choosing’ its second life, a soul is born to a certain family with certain tal-
ents and difficulties, all of which predispose the soul towards a certain career
trajectory.”193
We may conclude that the lunar sphere served as a cosmological recycling
center for the soul’s next reincarnation. Its first life (species and gender) is chosen
there, and as it ascends toward the fixed stars to acquire its vehicle and irrational
part,194 it makes its second choice (career), only to descend again to the sublunary
sphere and then to its new life on earth. Since in the Myth of Er this re-cycling
process, however, is depicted as taking place during a short period of time and
there is nothing to suggest that it took longer according to Porphyrian eschatol-
ogy, this would not preclude a much longer period of time in which Path I and
Path II souls existed in the Ethereal Realm. How many times the soul goes there
post mortem depends upon the choices it makes for the next life-cycle and how it
lives while on earth. Some souls would undoubtedly require more rebirths than
others to achieve eschatological union with the One. But since Porphyry posited
a permanent escape, exactly when does the recycling process end for the soul of
the philosopher? Would this not require more than one life? I know of no pas-
sage from the surviving works of Porphyry that provides a clear answer to these
questions, but Proclus’ exegesis of the Myth of Er, which we have seen is indebted
to Porphyry, may shed some important light. Wilberding notes:
Proclus emphasizes several times throughout his commentary that
Plato is not describing souls that are coming down into the sensible
world from the intelligible world. He points to relevant features of the
176  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

myth as well as to other parts of the Platonic corpus to back up his

view. First, the choice in question follows the thousand years of subter-
ranean punishments and celestial rewards (615A2–9), and it is obvious
that the souls being punished were not in the intelligible region. Nor
may one interpret the celestial rewards to refer to a journey to the
intelligible region. After all, the duration of a thousand years wouldn’t
make sense in that case, and more importantly Plato says explicitly
that at least some of the souls coming down from the heavens had not
lived philosophically (Rep. 619C8). But a philosophical life would
seem to be a prerequisite for succeeding to the intelligible region after
death. Indeed, as Proclus reminds us, according to the Phaedrus
(249Bff.), it is only after completing three philosophical lives that one
regains one’s intelligible wings (in Remp. 2.161,3–8; 2.300,10–2;
2.330,18–331,1; etc.).195
It would appear that the eschatological myth in the Phaedrus filled some gaps or
helped to answer some questions that the Myth of Er either did not address or
did not adequately clarify. For Porphyry, the philosophical life was indeed a
prerequisite for succeeding to the Intelligible (Empyrean) World, the realm of
permanent escape, and I suggest that the oracle of Apollo at the end of his Life
of Plotinus may be partially indebted to the Phaedrus, which, in turn, may help
us get a better understanding of his doctrine of permanent escape. It is to this
oracle that we now turn our attention.

Vita Plotini 22–23, The Oracle of Apollo: Where Is

Plotinus’ Soul?
The oracle of Apollo provides an answer to the question posed by Amelius con-
cerning the present post mortem location of Plotinus’ soul.196 After a brief intro-
duction (22.8–30), the oracle covers the two themes of Plotinus’ earthly existence
(22.31–44) and then addresses the question about where his soul is now
(22.45–63). These are followed by Porphyry’s commentary on the same two
themes: Plotinus’ earthly existence (23.1–29) and his post mortem status
(23.29–40). Apollo declares that Plotinus has been liberated from the tabernacle
(σκῆνoς) and tomb (σῆμα) that held his heavenly soul (ψυχῆς δαιμoνίης)197 and
has now come to the company of heaven (μεθ’ ὁμήγυριν ἔρχεαι ἤδη δαιμoνίην)198
“full of pure joy, brimming with streams of immortality from the gods which
carry the allurements of the Loves, and sweet breeze and the windless brightness
of high heaven.”199
 Eschatological Salvation  177

The last word of this passage, which Armstrong translates as heaven from
αἰθήρ, is obviously incorrect and should be replaced with aether,200 the second
eschatological realm between the Hylic and the Empyrean in Chaldean cos-
mology; and the place, as we have noted, where according to Augustine, in
referring to De regressu animae, the souls cleansed either by theurgy or conti-
nence go until they have achieved permanent union.201 The very important
question as to why the soul of Plotinus is located here will be addressed later.202
For the time being, we also find in the oracle that Plotinus’ soul has entered
the company of the judges Rhadamanthus, Minos, and Aeacus, not to be
judged by them, but to become a fellow-judge with them, Plato, and
Pythagoras,203 all of whom are described as kindred spirits (δαίμoσιν) most
blessed.204 Depicting the philosophical soul in heaven with the daimones and
gods appears to be indebted to the Phaedrus myth.205 Then the god makes an
interesting acknowledgement: “O blessed one, you have borne so many con-
tests, and now move among holy spirits, crowned with mighty life.”206 It is
puzzling why Armstrong gives life for the plural ζωῇσι207 in this text because if
we are to think that Plotinus’ life in the Ethereal Realm should be so defined,
logic dictates that this would be his permanent dwelling place, which poses a
major hermeneutical problem because in these lines, the oracle in toto, and
Prophyry’s commentary upon it, there is no hint of the Forms, the Intelligible
Realm, or the One. Living eternally separated from the One contradicts the
very essence of Plotinian metaphysics!208 I would thus suggest that the better
translation is lives, and the text is thus referring not only to his past lives but,
more importantly for the present analysis, to future ones as well. For when the
latter materialize into the union of the soul with the One in the highest
(Empyrean) realm, the result will have been permanent escape according to
Porphyry’s system. To sum up: Apollo locates the soul of Plotinus with the
heavenly company along with Plato and Pythagoras in the Ethereal Region,209
where upon entering this place he does not need to be judged, but rather gets
an ontological promotion as a fellow-judge of souls due to his exemplary phil-
osophical life.210 There is no mention of the Forms, the Intelligible World, or
the One. But why is Plotinus’ soul not in the Empyrean Realm with the One,
how long will he remain in the Ethereal Realm, and what will he have to do to
experience permanent union?
Before attempting to answer these questions, let’s turn to Porphyry’s com-
mentary on the oracle. He follows the same two-theme pattern: Plotinus’ life on
earth (23.1–29) and his post mortem existence now (23.29–40). In this section,
Porphyry refers with admiration to the Unio mystica that Plotinus experienced
during his life in this world:
178  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

So to this god-like man above all, who often raised himself in thought,
according to the ways Plato teaches in the Banquet, to the First and
Transcendent God, that God appeared who has neither shape nor any
intelligible form, but is throned above intellect and all the intelligible. I,
Porphyry, who am now in my sixty-eighth year, declare that once I drew
near and was united to him. To Plotinus ‘the goal ever near was shown’: for
his end and goal was to be united to, to approach the God who is over all
things. Four times while I was with him he attained that goal, in an
unspeakable actuality and not in potency only.211

This text has nothing to do with permanent escape: Porphyry first states that
Plotinus experienced mystical union with the One four times while he was with
him in Rome, and at the end of the passage he acknowledges that this has hap-
pened only once in his sixty-eight years. He then turns to the post mortem status
of Plotinus, following closely the contents of the oracle: His soul is in the com-
pany of heaven; it has entered as a fellow-judge with Rhadamanthus, Minos, and
Aeacus because he was accounted, along with Plato and Pythagoras, among the
noblest (ἄριστoι) of humankind.212 He then adds: “There, he says, the most
blessed spirits have their birth and live a life filled full of festivity and joy; and
this life lasts forever, made blessed by the gods.”213
Armstrong’s translation leads one to the conclusion that Plotinus’ soul is now
in its final dwelling place, which de facto must be in the Ethereal Region accord-
ing to the oracle (22.51: ἀιθήρ), but there are some subtle points made in this
commentary which militate against this interpretation. First, the spiritual beings
who dwell there are called δαίμoνας (23.37).214 We should expect a higher desig-
nation for residents of the Empyrean Realm according to Porphyry’s soterio-
logical system, and Festugière was correct to translate ether as the lieu
demonique.215 Though Plotinus has been promoted due to his excellent earthly
life, he is nonetheless serving as a judge of souls who come to this region.
Second, Porphyry says it is there that the spirits have their birth (τὴν γένεσιν),
which coheres with the statement of Iamblichus in De anima 37 analyzed above
and the data provided from the fragments of Porphyry’s Commentary on the
Republic and the Περὶ τoῦ ἐϕ’ ἡμῖν related to the cycle of rebirths, the choices
made by the souls in the lunar and planetary spheres, and the reconstitution of
the soul’s vehicle and irrational part upon its descent into the realm of
Becoming.216 It is important to note here that other scholars have noted that lines
46–58 of the oracle are a description of the Champs Élysées which Porphyry
situates in the moon.217 Moreover, the presence of εὐκαμπέα, well-curved path, is
not “an odd way to describe a correct path,” but it rather presupposes the kind
of precise knowledge that the soul required into order to successfully journey to
 Eschatological Salvation  179

the underworld.218 Third, according to MacLachlan, a very puzzling feature of

the oracle is its frequent allusions to eros.219 Keeping in mind, however, where
Plotinus’ soul is in the oracle and that it has not achieved permanent escape,
these allusions are best understood vis-à-vis Phaedrus 249C–D, where Plato
informs us that souls nourish or regrow their wings by experiencing philosophi-
cal eros.220
Fourth, it is clear that in Porphyry’s mind ἐκεῖ refers to a specific place.
Precluding Hades,221 that brings us to one of three possibilities: the Hylic,
Ethereal, or Empyrean Worlds. Since the oracle locates Plotinus’ soul in the
αἰθήρ and Porphyry does not express any disagreement with this in his com-
mentary, nor change in any way the reference to his master’s lives (ζωῇσι), which
I have suggested relate to past and future reincarnations,222 it is clear that accord-
ing to both oracle and commentary the present location of Plotinus’ soul is in
the Ethereal Realm. Finally, I suggest that the use of the verb διατελεῖν to
describe the life of the soul in this realm should not be translated as to last for-
ever, but rather to accomplish, continue, or persevere.223 Otherwise, Plotinus’ soul
has entered an eschatological event horizon.224 So we must now ask: Why is his
soul not in the Empyrean Realm, where one would expect it to be, enjoying the
presence of the One forever? If the prerequisites for permanent escape were
attaining moral and spiritual perfection as a fully mature philosopher (Porphyry’s
Path III), did Plotinus not make the short list which Augustine mentions in De
civitate dei?225 Indeed, if Porphyry really taught that only a few attained to God
because of their intelligence, Plotinus will have graduated at the head of his
class. Have we not smashed into a hermeneutical brick wall?
The answer is a resounding no, if we recall that Proclus, who I believe was
following Porphyry in this context, found a way out of this dilemma by referring
to Phaedrus 249B–D, which taught that the soul could regain its intelligible
wings after completing three philosophical lives.226 I can imagine that in his
Commentary on the Republic or Περὶ τoῦ ἐϕ’ ἡμῖν, which we recall dealt exclu-
sively with the Myth of Er, Porphyry let his readers know that the answer as to
when the soul achieves permanent escape cannot be found in this myth, but in
accordance with the exegetical tradition whose goal was to harmonize the
Platonic dialogues, he explained the escape along the lines found in the
Phaedrus.227 Hence, attaining permanent escape to the intelligible world and
eschatological union with the One required three consecutive philosophical lives.
Plotinus’s soul being located by Apollo in the Ethereal Region presupposes that
he has not completed the specific cycle of rebirths required of philosophers.228
Laying a foundation for what became characteristic in the Later Neoplatonists’
hermeneutical methodologies and keeping in mind that we should not expect
ontological precision from an oracle, Porphyry here combines a “connaissance
180  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

philosophique et révélation oraculaire”229 to shape his views of the afterlife. One

can also say the same about the presence of the souls of Plato and Pythagoras
who, according to the oracle and commentary, by implication are finishing their
own thousand-year cycle in the Ethereal Region. And because Augustine was
not familiar with either of the works just noted,230 which address—and to
Porphyry’s mind, correctly answer—this important eschatological question, we
do not find it mentioned in the pages of De civitate dei. If this is correct, after the
present thousand-year cycle, the soul of Plotinus will have to make its choices
for the two lives and go through another rebirth cycle, attaining permanent
escape after its third successive philosophical life.231 One final point should be
made here. Though Porphyry believed in a permanent escape to the One, we
have already concluded that he did not believe the union resulted in the soul
losing its individuality.
Since many of the salient features of Iamblichus’ eschatology have already
been noted above, it is necessary here only to give a summary of his views on
the afterlife and the purpose for the soul’s descent. The two testimonii found in
Dillon’s edition of Iamblichus’ letters attest to the fact that eschatological
themes were at the forefront of philosophical debates among the Neo-
platonists.232 The first, Πρὸς ἀγνωςτóν τινα περὶ καθóδoυ ψυχῶν (To an
Unknown Recipient, on the Descent of Souls) deals with a similar topic
addressed in Iamblichus’ Commentary on the Phaedo (107E), namely, the rea-
sons for the soul’s descent and whether all souls are required to come down at
the same intervals.233 Testimonium 2 from Olympiodorus, In Gorg. 46.9.20–28,
alludes to a letter of Iamblichus that addressed the fate of the soul in the other
world.234 Both fragments reveal that Iamblichus addressed, and thus believed
in, the eschatological myths of Plato, though specifically how he interpreted
them is not clear. One indisputable fact to consider, however, is that in the
Iamblichean system, theurgical rituals were salvifically efficacious for all three
classes of souls, and these, in turn, had eschatological applications, for the
Syrian philosopher
admitted that both the irrational soul and its vehicle were worthy of salva-
tion (along with the rational or higher soul), and that all three could be
purified by theurgy. Since Iamblichus maintained that the soul, in its
entirety, was implicated in matter, the corresponding use of theurgy—at
every level of the soul—could therefore elevate the soul beyond the mate-
rial to the intelligible world and ultimately back to the One.235
Though he taught a return to the One, it is clear that Iamblichus did not accept
the doctrine of permanent escape.236 Nor did he accept the teaching that at the
point of union the soul loses its individuality, for in De anima 50, he addresses
 Eschatological Salvation  181

whether the soul experiences absolute identity with the One or forms a sepa-
rated unity resulting in the soul’s retaining its own substance. Iamblichus
argues for the latter view.237 He then critiques the views of other philosophers
(though only Numenius is named) who posit that there is an undifferentiated
(ἀδιάκριτoς) union of the soul with the One, calling the fusion between the two
as somewhat like a dissolving (ἀνάλυσις) that results in the soul’s losing its indi-
viduation (ἀδιóριστoς), or as Dillon and Finamore describe it, “the human soul
becomes part of the divine.”238 The absence of a permanent union directly
impacted Iamblichus’ fundamental understanding of the recycling process.
After death, the purified soul spends a certain amount of time with the gods
and angels, but then “must again descend and fulfill its other essential role of
being human and living with a body.”239 It would thus appear that there was a
significant difference between the Porphyrian and Iamblichean exegesis of the
eschatological myth found in the Phaedrus 248E–49A, upon which both phi-
losophers depended in developing their respective views on the destiny of the
soul after death: Whereas Porphyry took the liberty to tweak the original
Platonic doctrine of the continual cycles of incarnations to conform with his
views on permanent escape,240 Iamblichus appears to have adhered to the con-
ventional hermeneutical method that interpreted the myth as teaching that the
cycles were incessant.241 Due to his understanding that the cosmos, the world,
and matter played a positive role in the salvific process, Iamblichus’ under-
standing of the soul’s purification in the larger context of this process was both
integrative and inclusive. Like individual musicians in a symphonic orchestra,
each component contributed to the well-being of the whole. The centerpiece of
this soteriological and eschatological system was not in the soul’s escaping
from the world, matter, and corporeal existence as in the Porphyrian system,
but rather releasing itself by means of theurgical rituals to all of the temporal,
cosmological, and eschatological benefits of the drama of salvation both in this
world and in the afterlife.
As we saw earlier, Iamblichus gives three reasons for the descent of
souls: (1) for the salvation, purification, and perfection of this realm; (2) for
the correction of character; and (3) to undergo punishment for sin.242 A simi-
lar tripartite distinction is addressed in De myst. V.18, though the median class
is further subdivided.243 The third class descends unwillingly, and Finamore is
right to say that the concept of the punishment for the past sins of the soul is
most likely indebted to Plotinus.244 This lowest class of souls is controlled by
nature; they are subject to fate and use practical reasoning but not their intel-
lects.245 Based upon Phdr. 246D–49D,246 they are forced to descend in order to
get another chance to better themselves, the gist being that in the next cycle,
ideally they would receive an ontological promotion to the median class.
182  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Iamblichus is clear that very few from the herd will salvifically benefit from
theurgy. The members of the second class come down to correct their charac-
ter through theurgy and exist between nature and intellect,247 or between the
states of purity and impurity,248 which again betrays influence from the
Phaedrus.249
Iamblichus undoubtedly developed his own tripartite system based upon the
exegetical method that aimed at hermeneutical harmony of the inconsistent
doctrines on the soul’s descent found in the Phaedrus and the Timaeus.250 And
I would suggest that, especially with respect to the purpose of the descent of the
second class of souls, Iamblichus is not addressing a small, elite group of phi-
losophers, but rather cultivated local magistrates who might benefit from a
basic indoctrination in the virtuous life, similar to the content of Porphyry’s
epistle to Marcella.251 The Noetic class descends willingly, and Dillon’s compari-
son of these with the Buddhist concept of the Bodhisattvas who come to earth
to help other souls in the salvific process is judicious.252 They maintain a close
contact with the Intelligible Realm253 after making a descent that is unconnected
with generation,254 and unlike Porphyry, who taught that the vehicle is released
back into the cosmos when the soul reascends, Iamblichus believed “it is ethe-
real and created whole by the Demiurge, and not subject to destruction or dis-
solution of any kind.”255
How did Iamblichus derive his three classes of souls from the Phaedrus myth?
Dillon and Finamore suggest that he saw the three categories in Phdr. 248A–C,
where it is stated of the highest of the two classes of soul, that if a soul can always
see the forms, it will consequently always be free.256 The editors observe:
“Iamblichus seems to be subdividing Plato’s second class of souls into those that
have had a better view of the Forms than others and those who have the ability
to choose the philosophical life thrice.”257 If this is correct, Iamblichus, like
Porphyry, relied upon the Phaedrus myth to refine his views on eschatology, and
the key text appears to have been Phdr. 248E–49C, which concerned the soul
that chose the philosophical life for three successive thousand-year periods. For
Iamblichus this meant that such a soul escapes the cycle of births for the remain-
der of the ten-thousand-year cycle, descends to earth in its next embodiment to
play a positive role in the world and the cosmos as a Bodhisattva, and thus assists
other souls in the continual cycle of rebirths.258 There is no permanent escape.
Relying upon the same Platonic text, Porphyry interpreted the three successive
philosophical lives as a way that the soul could achieve permanent escape from
the rebith cycles and perpetual union with the One.
 Eschatological Salvation  183

A Comparison of Porphyrian and Iamblichean Soteriologies

In order to illustrate the differences between the soteriological systems of

Porphyry and Iamblichus, we may give the following:

PORPHYRY IAMBLICHUS

Philosophy is superior to theurgy. Theurgy is superior to philosophy.

Theurgy is salvifically important only for the
herd or Path I soteriological trajectory.
Porphyry offered a tripartite soteriological
system for (a) the masses, (b) the novice
philosopher, and (c) the mature
philosopher with an emphasis upon
theurgy for stage I and philosophy for
stages II and III.
Universalizing by discursive thought. The
epistemological and ontological Summum
bonum is achieved by means of philosophy.
Alienation of the soul in this world
necessitating an escape from bodily
plesures, material reality, and matter, which
is defined as evil.
Since a part of the soul is undescended at the
intellectual conversion during Path II, it
does not need divine assistance.
An emphasis upon intellectual Askesis.
An exclusive eschatology of Ascent whose
goal is the Perfection of the soul, breaking
the rebirth cycle, and permanent, absolute
union with the One in the Empyrean
Realm.
Theurgy is important for all three classes of
souls.
Iamblichus (De myst. V.18) gives three classes of
souls: (a) the herd, (b) the median class (with
further subdivisions), and (c) Noetic souls
with an emphasis upon theurgical rituals.
Incorporation of sensate particularity within
theurgical salvation.259
Participation of the soul as a homogeneous
entity integrated into the whole of the
cosmological salvific process; matter comes
from God.260
Since the soul is completely descended and thus
cut off from the divine, assistance from the
gods is necessary, and brought about by
theurgical rituals.261
An emphasis upon ritual Askesis.262
An inclusive (integrative) eschatology of Descent
whose goal is the continual participation of the
soul in the salvific amelioration of the world,
matter, and the entire cosmos entailing
perpetual rebirths in the temporal realm.

The comparison above clearly shows the serious differences that existed between
the two great Neoplatonic philosophers on the salvation and final destiny of the
soul. In ending this chapter I should like to propose the following as a plausible
explanation for the departure of Iamblichus from Rome where he had been a
student at Porphyry’s school and why Porphyry, possibly followed by Iamblichus,
chose a tripartite soteriological system.
1. I suggest that the serious rift which developed between Porphyry and
Iamblichus was initiated while the latter was studying under Porphyry in
Rome and before he departed to eventually establish his own Neoplatonic
school in Syria and resulted from sharp disagreements concerning how
184  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

the soul achieved perfection and the exact nature of the salvific process
that this entailed.
2. The rift did not concern the number of epistemological and ontological
“paths” or trajectories and their concomitant eschatological realms,
because we have solid evidence that both philosophers taught a tripartite
system.
3. The rift focused on the role that theurgical ritual and philosophy played in
the cleansing, conversion, and perfection of the soul: Iamblichus stressed
the central role played by theurgy for all three classes of souls, and Porphyry
understood theurgy to cleanse the lower part of the soul and thus to be
efficacious only for the uneducated masses. For the novice philosopher
(Path II) and the mature Neoplatonic philosopher (Path III) philosophy
played a central role in the salvific process, which culminated in the final
release of the soul and permanent union with the One.
4. Because as noted above there were very few differences in the way that the
soul was cleansed at the first stage (natural soul for Iamblichus; Path I for
Porphyry), I further suggest that the serious disagreement between the
two philosophers concerned how the soul was cleansed and converted at
the second stage. If the paradigm that I have offered in the preceding chap-
ters is correct, Porphyry at this stage saw no purpose for the philosopher
to use theurgical rituals to cleanse his spirited soul and opted for an
emphasis upon σωϕρoσύνη as the virtue that enabled the soul to turn
toward intelligible reality. There is very strong evidence that the move-
ment of the soul from this stage to that of the mature Neoplatonic philoso-
pher involved a lengthy period of concentrated studies in mathematics
and the Platonic dialogues, which might indeed have required more than
a decade to complete. Iamblichus, on the other hand, stressed the central
role that theurgy played in both stage II and III (or following De myst.
V.18, the median and noetic classes of souls) and rejected the salvific value
of philosophy and discursive thought at these ontological and epistemo-
logical levels. Disagreements about how the soul is purified in the tempo-
ral realm led to different positions concerning the afterlife. Both
philosophers used the Phaedrus myth to refine their respective eschatolo-
gies. Whereas Porphyry interpreted the passage concerning the soul’s
choosing three consecutive philosophical lives to mean that this broke the
cycle of reincarnations permanently, resulting in the perpetual union of
the soul with the One, Iamblichus read the same text as indicating a
decreasing of the ten-thousand-year cycle, which resulted in the descent
of the noetic soul (De myst. V.18: De an. 29) after choosing three philo-
sophical lives so that it could help other souls in the salvific process.
 Eschatological Salvation  185

5. Thus, due to the serious ideological rift between Porphyry and Iamblichus
on how the soul is cleansed, converted, and perfected, it is very plausible
that Iamblichus departed Rome in order to establish his own school in the
East. He continued to develop his own soteriological system focusing on
the importance of theurgical rituals and eventually wrote De myst., which
was his response to Porphyry’s critique of theurgy.263
6. A final word needs to be made on the question, not investigated in this
book until now, concerning whether we might know why Porphyry
arrived at a three-way soteriological system, as opposed to two, four, etc.
I would suggest that there are two important answers here, which should
be taken together. First, we have seen how mathematics played an impor-
tant role in the middle path for Porphyry. Due to the influence of
Pythagorean doctrine, there developed in the Academy a theological
interpretation of numbers, which were thought to convey a deep spiritual
and mystical meaning of the order of the cosmos and how the divine
related itself to the world. Even though the TA ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΥΜΕΝΑ ΤΗΣ
ΑΡΙΘΜΗΤΙΚΗΣ (The Theology of Arithmetic) was probably not written
by Iamblichus, we know that he had intended to write an arithmological
treatise.264 In the Academy after Plato, Speusippus and Xenocrates both
wrote mathematical works, and mention should be made also of the
prominent mathematician Eudoxus of Cnidos.265 These thinkers com-
bined philosophy and mathematics and understood numbers “as authori-
tative symbols and paradigms of divine principles.”266 The Theology of
Arithmetic is dependent upon the works of people like Anatolius and
Nicomachus, and it gives a theological analysis of the first ten numbers.
The section called On the Triad obviously attracts our attention. Anatolius
posits that this number is called perfect by some because it is the first
number to signify the totality beginning, middle, and end. Even common
people, he says, speak about extraordinary events as “thrice blessed” or
“thrice fortunate,” and prayers and libations are normally performed three
times.267 He continues by referring to three kinds of triangles (acute,
obtuse, and right) and three parts of time, and ends with the importance
of the triad among virtues, which are likened to moderation, commensu-
rate between excess and deficiency.268 From the Theology of Nicomachus
one gleans similar concepts. “The triad,” he asserts, “is the form of the
completion of all things.”269 Note here the use of “form,” and its obvious
epistemological meaning in mathematical studies as we have noted above.
The triad is the source of all qualities; there are three configurations of the
moon (waxing, full, waning); three types of irregular planetary motion;
three circles that define the zodiacal plane; and three kinds of
186  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

living creatures in the world (land, winged, and water).270 But the most
interesting remark made by Nicomachus is the theological meaning he
attaches to the triad with respect to progressive stages leading to a specific
summit: “But it is also the very first which admits of end, middle and
beginning, which are the causes of all completion and perfection being
attained.”271 Sarah Johnston’s recent study has shown the significance of
the number three in Neoplatonism, and especially in the thought of
Porphyry.272 I would suggest that Porphyry will have been familiar with
these kinds of philosophical and theological interpretations concerning
the deeper spiritual meaning of the triad, which, in turn, influenced his
choice of the three paths for his soteriological system.273
The second, and I believe a better, reason brings us to the mysteries of ancient
Greece, including the Orphic tradition.274 We know that in a number of
Porphyry’s works, for example the Philosophia ex oraculis, there is an aura of the
sacred that betrays an ideological indebtedness to the mysteries. With respect to
Porphyry’s three paths, it is interesting that there was a tripartite sequence of
stages through which the initiate in the Eleusinian mysteries proceeded.275
The first was purification (καθαρμóς),276 the second required instruction
(παράδoσις),277 and the third and final stage gave the initiate a vision of the
divine (ἐπoπτεία).278 This influence from the mysteries may also have been rein-
forced by the Chaldaean oracles, which often reveal the importance of the triad
for Chaldaean cosmology and soteriology.279 The same motif occurs in the
Orphic tradition. An inscription dating to the fifth century b.c. found on
bone-plates from Olbia on the coast of the Black Sea gives the tripartite formula
βίoς - θάνατoς - βίoς citing the ὀρϕικoί, a reference to the initiation that released
the soul from the cycles of metempsychosis.280 I conclude that it is highly prob-
able that the theological interpretations given to the triad in Late Antique math-
ematical studies combined with the three stages of initiation in the ancient
mysteries of Greece, and also Chaldaean influence, inspired Porphyry’s
three-path soteriological system.
 10

Historical Context: Caracalla to Constantine

“Ride, boldly ride,” the shade replied, “If you seek for Eldorado!”
Edgar Allan Poe, Eldorado

It is now necessary to analyze Porphyry’s universalism within

the cultural and political milieu in which it evolved. There were three compo-
nents of the infrastructure of the Roman Empire during the third century: the
emperor, the army, and Roman religion.1 Of these, the first two experienced an
almost total meltdown during the third century crises. Septimius Severus’
advice to his sons 4 February a.d. 211 as he lay dying in York was ominous for
subsequent emperors up to (and including) the Constantinian Revolution: “Be
harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and despise all the rest.”2 The constant war-
fare;3 invasions by Germanic tribes along the Rhine and the Danube borders;4
plagues;5 rapid turnovers of emperors, mainly by assassination at the hands of
their own soldiers;6 regional revolts and successful usurpations resulting in the
establishment of rebel regimes;7 economic problems; and a progressive debase-
ment of the coinage8 collectively produced a situation of unprecedented politi-
cal instability in which the tail (the army) for much of the period was wagging
the dog (the emperor and his empire).9 Dylan’s first verse from All Along the
Watchtower, quoted at the beginning of the preface above, conveys the angst
that pervaded the Mediterranean world at this time. Many were seriously ques-
tioning the ability of the emperor and his army to establish the long desired pax
deorum upon which the mos maiorum had been founded, and the three-legged
organism was hopping around with two of its three legs severely injured. From
the Severan Dynasty to the Tetrarchy, thus, in their attempt to unite an empire
perceived more than ever as a cosmopolitan Mediterranean state,10 the emper-
ors increasingly relied upon Roman religion as an agent of unification.11 I shall
argue here that the centerpiece of imperial policies whose primary goal was to
bring about unity during the third century was a developing religious universal-
ism, and Porphyry’s tiered soteriology, designed at the apex of the crises,12
coheres well with the universalistic tendencies of the period,13 it represents the
greatest threat to Christian claims that in Christ alone can all the world be saved,
it was supported by Diocletian just before launching the Great Persecution in
303,14 and it ironically contributed to the eventual success of Christianity under
Constantine.

187
188  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Though we cannot speak of a universal economic collapse permeating all the

provinces,15 the period a.d. 235–90 was certainly characterized by unprece-
dented economic problems that adversely affected the empire as a whole.16 One
of the major causes was the increase in the costs of maintaining the army,
including soldiers’ salaries, frontier defenses, quelling local revolts, and wars
against usurpers, Germanic tribes, and the Persians.17 As Rostovtzeff noted long
ago, the emperors focused now on the unity and strength of the state.18 The con-
sistent debasement of the coinage, producing a spiraling inflation, also had a
debilitating impact on the economy of the period,19 necessitating the increase of
taxes, which made life for many extremely burdensome.20 Evidence points to a
sharp decline in long-distance trade and its corollary, the decrease in the num-
ber of large villas, along with normally lucrative exportable goods, which
affected urban areas everywhere as material culture diminished.21 If we add to
this gloomy picture food shortages caused by famine, we can understand why
the Romans always interpreted crises like these as signs of divine displeasure.22
Pagan cults suffered greatly from these economic hardships.23 It was expen-
sive to build or repair temples,24 maintain temple income,25 pay for festivals,26
and provide imperial subsidies for the material needs of the cults.27 Not surpris-
ingly, literary and archeological data from the third century generally indicate a
decline in temple construction, renovation, and the numbers of priests, causing
the diminution of the former vitality of the traditional cults.28 Civic benefactors,
normally expected to help finance urban cults across the empire, often could
not afford such assistance,29 and the two other sources of monetary support—the
sacred and the civic funds—which usually paid for festivals and other needs,
were, simply put, in sharp decline during the third century.30 “Paganism was
thus forced into ‘decline’ for reasons that had little to do with ‘belief ’ or ‘faith.’ Its
financial basis was undermined.”31 It was becoming increasingly expensive to
worship the gods.32
We can go further. The practice of animal sacrifice was a universal ritual that
formed the basis of worship in the cults, and even in the fourth century Libanius
could still assert that the stability of the Roman Empire depended on the sacri-
fices performed in Rome. Indeed, from the foundation of Rome under Romulus
until the attempt to re-paganize the Roman Empire under Julian, animal sacri-
fice was the centerpiece of the religious mos maiorum. By the second half of the
third century, however, sacrificing animals at the temples had undoubtedly
become economically very burdensome. Moreover, the distinct message of uni-
versal salvation central to (developing orthodox) Christianity—that of the Lamb
of God as the ultimate and permanent sacrifice for everyone and for all time that
had been provided and “paid for” by means of God’s Son, Jesus Christ—might
have met with unprecedented success, especially if we consider that the “Peace
 Historical Context  189

of Gallienus” (a.d. 260–300) resulted in exponential growth in the Church. Can

it be that during this economically depressed time, the Christian message that
salvation is a gift for anyone who accepts it became more universally attractive
because it was simply more cost-effective? And was Porphyry, during this same
period, which coincided with his greatest literary productivity (260–300),
becoming increasingly concerned that this distinct soteriology might be win-
ning in its competition with paganism?33 In the pages that follow, I hope to dem-
onstrate that the answer to both is “yes” and re-address the effects of the economy
upon paganism below.
Simultaneous with the crises of the third century there developed a politico-
religious movement toward universalism as the emperors progressively
depended upon Roman religion as an agent of unification. The foundation was
laid by Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana,34 promulgated in 212, which con-
ferred universal citizenship on the inhabitants of the empire.35 Though Dio
asserts that its main objective was to generate revenue,36 as Potter observes, he is
not telling us the full story,37 and the soteriological significance of the law has
never been acknowledged. Roman citizens were subject to Roman law,38 and
they were thus expected to worship Roman gods.39 Commensurate with his
attempt to unite the Roman and Persian empires as a cosmopolitan state,
Caracalla’s favorite epithets seem to have been Savior of the Oikoumene and
Kosmocrator,40 and these cohere with a statement by Caracalla about the corre-
spondence between the power of Zeus and that of the emperor: “As Zeus alone
holds power, so he gives it to one among men.”41 In the Constitutio Caracalla
thanks the gods for saving him.42 Though the specific event that underlies this
statement is unknown,43 his desire for all the people of the empire to share his
good fortune set a precedent, followed by later emperors, of a great unifying
soteriological principle that bound inseparably the salus of the emperor with
that of the citizens of his empire. Turcan’s assessment of the emperor’s motives
in promulgating the edict is judicious: “Il ne fait aucun doute qu’en voulant uni-
fier le statut politique des citoyens libres de l’Empire, Caracalla ait eu en vue la
solidarité religieuse de l’Orbis Romanus.”44
Another third-century document revealing a distinctly Romanized
politico-religious universalism is the Feriale Duranum, dated to the reign of
Alexander Severus (a.d. 224–35) and used by the XX Palmyrenorum at
Dura-Europos, a military garrison on the Euphrates.45 A religious calendar with
historical roots in the Augustan period that underwent modifications in suc-
ceeding centuries to accommodate changing political ideologies, it prescribed
set days and offerings (mainly sacrifices) that exclusively commemorated a
number of Roman festivals to be observed throughout the year and closely asso-
ciated with the Imperial Cult.46 Scholars have debated both its origin and
190  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

political purpose,47 but the consensus is that a copy of the Feriale was issued
from Rome to every unit of the Roman army down to the cohort.48 The calendar
began with January 3 when each year the soldiers across the empire renewed
their “vota et pro aeternitate imperii et pro salute principum.”49 Of the forty
references to cults, twenty-seven concern the Imperial Cult,50 all cultic practices
are Roman, and sacrifices are prescribed for the divi and deified members of the
imperial household.51
It is clear that the underlying concept here is that of the emperor as the
bringer of salus to his empire. Its “universal validity”52 is conveyed in its being
centrally issued from Rome to every military garrison and camp in all prov-
inces.53 Pro salute vows renewed annually by the soldiers for the Emperor’s sal-
vation and for the eternity of his empire were thought to ensure a relationship of
concord and divine blessings between him and the gods responsible for main-
taining the pax deorum that guaranteed the state’s continued success and safety.
And they could effectively support the Severan transformation of the Imperial
Cult in which “the human Roman emperor was now proclaimed as a divinized,
oriental saviour who with his house will bring the blessings of a new Golden
Age.”54 Finally, it ostensibly enhanced the solidarity that was supposed to exist
between the army and the emperor, who from the Severan Age onward, increas-
ingly relied upon Roman religion as a great unifying and universalizing soterio-
logical principle.55
Sassanian rulers used similar means to revive the Persian Empire by the mid-
dle of the third century.56 By 226 Ardashir from his capital at Ctesiphon near
Baghdad initiated an aggressive military policy vis-à-vis Rome’s eastern prov-
inces that accelerated into war under his son Shapur (241–72).57 The Sassanian
state was characterized by a strong centralized government, an expansionist
military policy, and similar to Roman policies of the period, a reliance upon
religion as a unifying force.58 The old paganism gave way to the “flowering of
universal religions”59 as Zoroastrianism became more organized and centralized
with a high priest, Mobadan mobad, who corresponded to the great “King of
Kings.”60 The state religion did help to bring about cultural and political unifica-
tion, but Zoroastrianism never developed into a universal salvation cult in the
strict sense. That was left up to the religion of Mani.
Mani was a self-proclaimed prophet born in Persia61 who proclaimed the
message of salvation for all people: “But my religion is of that kind that it will be
manifest in every country and in all languages, and it will be taught in far away
countries.”62 From its beginnings in the mid-third century,63 Manichaeism grew
rapidly owing to such strengths as the belief that the founder was a prophet who
received a distinct revelation from God;64 a missionary zeal;65 a scripture-based
religion;66 a cosmopolitan worldview;67 the occurrence of healing miracles;68
 Historical Context  191

systemic organization;69 various levels of instruction for adherents;70 the prac-

tice of benevolence toward fellow humans;71 a remarkable uniformity of doc-
trine;72 a dualist theology which offered answers about human suffering;73 the
promise of personal salvation;74 a rigid asceticism;75 rapid geographical dissemi-
nation;76 and exclusive claims to divine revelation superior to preexisting ances-
tral religions.77 Its most successful feature, however, was in its claim to offer
universal salvation,78 and this was the primary reason that Diocletian issued an
edict against the religion on March 31, 302;79 and a similar one against the
Christians in February 303:80 Both religions were growing rapidly due to their
common universalism, and hence posed a formidable threat to the religious
mos maiorum that was believed to be the very foundation of the empire’s exis-
tence and to the unification that was so greatly needed.81 In his letter to Julianus,
the governor of Africa, Diocletian condemns the Manichaean sect because it
opposes the ancient religious tradition of the Romans:
Thus it is improper to oppose or resist these principles nor should ancient
religio be criticized by a new one. For it is the greatest crime to re-examine
what has been fixed and defined by the ancients and what holds and pos-
sesses its own position and course.82
Though certainly concerned that it had originated in Persia, the main sentiment
expressed is the fear that Manichaeanism is “introducing the greatest harm into
cities” and injecting the “whole world” with its malignant drugs.83 Hence in
Diocletian’s mind it was the ideological content (universalism) of this new reli-
gion from the East, combined with a tremendous missionary zeal, and not its
provenance (Persia), that posed the greater threat to the unity of the empire.
From Caracalla to Constantine, political stability progressively deteriorated,84
and with the death of Alexander Severus in 235, which terminated the last impe-
rial dynasty until Constantine’s restoration in a.d. 325, there was an acute need
for the Roman emperor to use religion as an agent of unification for an empire
that was quickly coming unglued. Alföldy is right to observe that imperial reli-
gious policies of the third century were founded “in der Idee, daß die traditio-
nelle Religion Roms bewahrt und erneurert warden muß, um das Reich zu
erneuern”85 whose goal was to create a strong link between emperor and gods
and, more importantly, a Weltpolitik that converged with the movement of cul-
tural universalism that we have been analyzing.86 It ostensibly offered the guar-
antee of perpetual safety bestowed by the pax deorum upon all inhabitants of the
empire.87
Antoninus (Elagabalus: 218–22) transported the sacred stone of the Emesene
Sun-God Elagabalus to Rome, where he was priest of the god and performed
rituals of the cult.88 His attempt to subsume all Roman gods, including Jupiter,
192  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

under the godhead of Elagabalus, motivated by the urgency of establishing

unity, failed miserably because of the perception of the upper classes and the
soldiers that this was an imposition upon the Roman people of a Syrian, and
thus foreign, cult inimical to the ancient religious mos maiorum.89 When sol-
diers assassinated the emperor in 222, the religious message conveyed was that
only Rome and her gods had a legitimate claim to universalism.90 It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that his successor, Alexander Severus, removed the cult from
Rome, recatholicized its religion, and was the first emperor to be celebrated in
epigraphical documents as Restitutor orbis.91
By the middle of the century and soon after his accession,92 the Roman
emperor Decius in 249 promulgated an edict as a supplicatio to secure the pax
deorum ordering universal sacrifice93 to be performed at pagan temples through-
out the empire.94 Though a number of recent scholars have argued that it was
not aimed at Christians,95 the question must be raised whether there was even a
need overtly to do so,96 simply because the emperor knew what the Christian
response will have been.97 It is presumptuous to assume that Decius did not real-
ize that Christians would not obey a law ordering them to sacrifice to pagan
gods. He indeed may not have been familiar with the fine points of their doc-
trine, but since the time of Trajan we can rightly assume that the intransigence
of the Christians to sacrifice to the gods was common knowledge.98 Before
Decius became emperor, Persia had been posing a serious threat to the eastern
provinces for almost twenty-five years, and there had been conflicts with the
Carpi in the Balkans, battles with the Quadi and Iazyges in Pannonia, a massive
Gothic invasion in Moesia Inferior, riots in Alexandria, natural disasters, and
usurpations.99 There were many evils here for which to blame Christianity, and
an urgent need to enforce religious conformity. The emperor undoubtedly con-
cluded that universal sacrifice would procure the safety of the empire and
remove its greatest impediment to universal blessings.100 The edict of 249 is one
of the most important data revealing the development of a politico-religious
policy of universalism of the third century. It was the first step toward a genuine
Weltreligion, exemplified in an inscription from Cosa that calls Decius Restitutor
sacrorum et libertatis.101
In the aftermath of the tumultuous decades of the 250s and 260s and after
restoring a semblance of political and military order in the wake of his Palmyrene
victories,102 Aurelian’s (270–5) imperial reunification policies were based on the
revived worship of the Sun-God,103 now called Sol Invictus, the universality of
which was propagated by the building of a huge temple for the cult in Rome and
the establishment of a collegium of priests.104 The emperor knew that the prob-
lems facing the Roman Empire, particularly the eastern provinces, were far
more insurmountable than even the imperial propaganda articulated in the
 Historical Context  193

exaltation of a successful military emperor could resolve.105 And he went further

than any of his predecessors. Coins from his reign depict Sol as Dominus Imperii
Romani,106 inscriptions are dedicated DEO AVRELIANO, and coins depict the
emperor as Restitutor orbis receiving the orb from Jupiter with the obverse as
Deo et Domino nato Aureliano.107 Sol is now the Lord of the Roman Empire, and
Frend observes correctly: “This was to be the universal faith of the empire.”108
Porphyry was not the only one searching for a via universalis salutis animae
liberandae (Aug., Civ. Dei 10.32) at this time, and we can conclude that both
philosopher and emperor were the products of the same movement toward uni-
versalism that so pervasively affected their century.109 Watson rightly notes that
coins inscribed IOVI CONSERVATORI, issued from all imperial mints and
showing Jupiter giving Aurelian a globe, convey the message of a restored impe-
rial dominion worldwide and “must be taken to indicate the emperor’s personal
intervention.”110 Possibly corroborating Christian texts accusing the emperor of
planning a persecution of the Church before he died,111 Aurelian attempted to
transform his predecessors’ Weltreligion into a Universalerlösung conferred by
Sol, and thus bring his besieged state closer to the ideal of One God, One
Emperor, One Empire.112
Diocletian (284–305) restored order to the chaos that had permeated the
empire since the death of Alexander Severus (235) and launched a reunification
program that possessed five salient features. The first feature was a cultural con-
servatism rooted in the belief that worship of the traditional gods of Rome is the
source of its greatness and continued success, as exemplified in the law against
consanguineous marriages:
There is no doubt that the immortal gods, as always friendly towards
Rome, will be reconciled to us only if we have ensured that everyone
within our empire pursues a pious, religious, peaceful life, and one thor-
oughly pure in all regards … For our Laws safeguard only what is holy
and venerable; and it is in this way that the majesty of Rome, by the favour
of all the divine powers, has attained its greatness.113
The second feature consisted of puritanical moral reforms including the laws
against incest noted above, and adultery.114 These cohere with the laws against
Christianity and Manichaeanism and together promote ancestral religious cus-
toms and traditional Roman virtues,115 a harking back to the majesty of the
Augustan Age.116 Third, as noted already in the policies of his predecessors,
Diocletian wanted to impose religious conformity on his subjects.117 The fourth
feature was the launching of the Great Persecution, which began with the edict
ordering the destruction of Christian scriptures and churches118 and ended with
the fourth edict ordering universal sacrifice.119 The latter reveals the emperor’s
194  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

attempt to procure the universality of divine salus/σωτηρία for all people while
simultaneously purging the empire of the greatest impediment to the safety that
it was thought to confer.
Finally, whether to legitimize his new regime or to show unity against
Carausius, Diocletian created a New Imperial Theology, assuming the epithet
Jovius for himself, and Herculius for Maximian,120 yet stopping short of claiming
divine status for both Augusti.121 Numismatic evidence shows the emperors as
bearers of salus, victoria, and virtus,122 and Diocletian is depicted, as Aurelian
was, receiving the globe from Jupiter.123 Mamertinus asserts that all blessings
come from Jupiter and Hercules: Diocletian initiates and Maximian realizes.124
The panegyrics extol the Augusti for conferring salus upon the world: before
their accession there were bad harvests, famine, and disease, but now the empire
is blessed.125 Perfect Concordia exists between Jupiter the Father and his son,
Hercules.126 The soteriological emphasis of this theology is clear: Jovius and
Herculius have ushered in a New Age in which salus will be freely enjoyed by all
citizens in the empire. This is without parallel in the history of the empire and
might have been designed intentionally to oppose Christianity’s doctrine of God
the Father and God the Son: “The pagan state religion and Christianity were
never closer in theology than at the time of the Great Persecution.”127 To sum
up: Diocletianic universalism promoted the traditional gods of Rome, upheld a
puritanical morality, and targeted Christianity as the enemy of the religious mos
maiorum that had made the empire great for the purpose of unifying his empire
whose subjects were “searching for the kind of overarching system or summa
that Christian doctrine offered, a system that could map out paths to God, that
could identify and explain proper and improper worship.”128 This coheres with
the relationship between traditional piety, sacrifice, and theurgy which, we have
noted, Book I of the Philosophy from Oracles addressed. It thus makes perfect
sense to conclude, as others have done already, that the Phil. orac. was the result
of Diocletian’s attempt to unite his empire in the worship of the traditional gods
thought to have been responsible for making Rome a great empire. The work fits
best a late third century cultural and political context, and it was most probably
disseminated by the state for the implementation of Diocletian’s unification pro-
gram.129 We now must ask how the Church fared during the last decades of the
third century.
Soon after Valerian was captured by Shapur in 260, Gallienus issued pro-
grammata to provincial governors announcing the termination of the persecu-
tions of the Christians and ordering the restoration of their property that had
been confiscated.130 Though it is going too far to say that this Peace of Gallienus
“presupposes imperial recognition of Christianity as a legitimate religion,”131 it
certainly initiated four decades (260–300)132 of exponential growth caused by
 Historical Context  195

the uninhibited evangelization of the Church, and DeBlois is correct to say that
the period 260–303 was characterized by the “rapid expansion of Christianity in
all layers of society, of extension of community organization, and the elabora-
tion of Christian art and philosophy.”133 I have shown that pagans of noble birth
and honorable social and political positions were converting to Christ, resulting
in the geographical expansion and numerical growth of the faithful.134 Two late
third-century eyewitnesses attest to the rapid growth of the Church in the prov-
inces.135 Coins depict Gallienus as the bringer of salus, peace, prosperity, “a sav-
iour or an imperial servant and protegé of the gods whose pietas and other
virtues produced universal welfare.”136 Conversely, there was a sharp decline in
paganism during the same period.137
Universalism also gave birth to a genre of literature that added new weapons
to the Christian arsenal against paganism. Building upon his Hellenistic precur-
sors like Eratosthenes, who wrote a “universal chronology” from Troy to
Alexander; and Apollodorus, who wrote the Chronika; Eusebius was the first to
establish the Christian World Chronicle, published in the 280s, updated c. 326,
and translated into Latin by Jerome, who extended it to 378.138 The groundwork
was laid by two Christian writers of the early third century: Julius Africanus,
who wrote De Temporibus in 221 in five books and attempted to synchronise the
Old Testament and secular Greek history; and Hippolytus, whose Chronika
appeared c. 234/5 with the purpose of showing the importance of biblical his-
tory from Adam to his day.139 The content, scope, and format, however, of
Eusebius’ work were more historically comprehensive and its grand theme was
universalism.140
Scholars have not recognized the soteriological significance of Eusebius’
Chronicle vis-à-vis the politico-religious universalism of the period. It provided
a comprehensive coverage of human events from Adam to the late third century.
The initial date of publication, the 280s, is very important for the present study.
Eusebius not only wanted to prove that Christianity was older than all the pagan
cults, and the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah have been now ful-
filled in Jesus Christ of Nazareth; but more importantly, God’s plan of salvation
is universal in its historical context: From Abraham until the end of time, God
has had a plan for the universal salvation of humankind, and his great salvific
acts have culminated in the life, death and resurrection, and (coming) parousia
of Jesus Christ. It would be rash to think that this work was coincidental and
unaffected by the currents of universalism in the late third century, and equally
naive to think that Porphyry did not write the twelfth book of the Contra
Christianos, which attempted to dismantle Christian claims to the Messianic
prophecies in Old Testament books like Daniel, in response to it.141 Finally, the
Chronicle laid a foundation for the universalism of the Praeparatio evangelica,
196  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Demonstratio evangelica, and other works of Eusebius.142 This brings us to

Constantine.
The transformation of the empire under Constantine is the climax of the
politico-religious universalism that originated in the third century.143 Though
scholars have differing views about its cause and purpose,144 the Constantinian
Revolution came closer than any preceding regime to the ideal of One God,
One Empire, One Emperor. Already in the Pre-Nicene Oratio ad sanctorum
coetum, delivered April 325 in Nicomedia,145 Constantine consistently weaves
the subtheme of Christian universalism into his speech. Among all nations, he
posits, the Spirit of God was announcing the truths of Christ through the
prophets.146 In what I suggest is a retorsion of the via salutis animae of the
Philosophia ex oraculis, Christ is depicted as “the road that leads to eternal life,”
“the way of life for humankind,” and so forth.147 The Savior has compassed the
inhabited world to establish his Church on earth for the salvation of every-
one.148 In contradistinction to the myths of the poets, which have disseminated
falsehoods throughout the Greek and barbarian world,149 the universality of
God’s love and providential care for all humanity,150 his cosmic power,151 and his
offer of salvation for all152 are accentuated. In the last section we read that those
who pursue piety should confess gratitude to the “Savior of all” for their own
salvation.153
Several passages unquestionably reveal anti-Porphyrian vituperations and
appear to have been intentionally aimed at the soteriology of the Phil. orac.,
particularly the separating by Porphyry of the second way (salvation by virtue)
from the third way (philosophical salvation). For example, in developing the
theme of the salvific benefits of Christ’s incarnation for all humankind,
Constantine asserts:
His wisdom instilled, not prudence only, but real wisdom: his hearers
were instructed, not in the mere social virtues, but in the ways which con-
duct to the spiritual world; and devoted themselves to the contemplation
of immutable and eternal things, and the knowledge of the Supreme
Father.154
Christ has blessed those who believe in him with every kind of virtue.155 He
summons all to a virtuous life.156 Daniel excelled in all virtues.157 Moses excelled
his predecessors in wisdom, and philosophers emulated him.158 The emperor
enjoins his listeners to lift their intellects to what is right and sublime:159 God is
seated in the intellect.160 Apparently responding to Porphyry’s elitist philosophi-
cal way, he asserts that now the fruits of iniquity should be destroyed by Christ’s
incarnation and passion
 Historical Context  197

and the whole world partake of the virtues of wisdom and sound discre-
tion, through the almost universal prevalence of those principles of con-
duct which the Saviour should promulgate, over the minds of men;
whereby the worship of God should be confirmed, and the rites of super-
stition utterly abolished.161
By relying on the exclusive claims of the doctrine that only Jesus Christ has
provided salvation for all humankind, Constantinian universalism took the
politico-religious unification policies of its third-century predecessors to an
unprecedented level of application owing to the inherent weaknesses of poly-
theism and the equally perceived innate strengths of Christianity (see below),
resulting in the emperor’s imposition of uniformity in practice and beliefs,
exemplified (e.g.) in the Nicene Creed, permeated with universalist theology,162
and the celebration of Easter on the same day everywhere.163 Drake observes
correctly that only after Constantine was there a “universally recognized author-
ity above that of the bishop to enforce conformity.”164 It appears that Constantine,
supported by his “court theologian” Eusebius,165 concluded that cultural and
political unification without doctrinal uniformity was impossible, and every
one of his predecessors in the purple failed to unify the empire because pagan-
ism was incapable of providing the very thing that Christianity could offer,
namely, universal salvation based upon the ideal of uniform beliefs and prac-
tices,166 a uniformity which was not achieved until many years later beginning
with the Theodosian settlement; but the first nail in the coffin of paganism in the
Roman world was driven at Nicaea, the significance of which can be seen in
Constantine’s calling the Arians Porphyrians because of their rejection of Christ’s
deity167 and his consigning all copies of the Contra Christianos to the flames
circa 324–5.168
 11

Religious Universalism
Paganism and Christianity

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the
Father except through me.”
John 14:6

C hristianity was the only religion in the Roman Empire that

offered universal salvation: Constantine acknowledged this fact and knew that
the time had come for the emperor officially to embrace it; Porphyry came to
the same conclusion, but opted for the creation of his tripartite soteriology to
compete with Christian universalism. Moreover, he must have realized that he
was swimming against the current, for the strengths of his enemies’ doctrines
on universal salvation were formidable and, I suggest, became increasingly
attractive during the third-century crises. What were those strengths? I shall
give ten salient features of Christian universalism that contributed to the ulti-
mate triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire.
First, the essential nature of Christian faith, its very raison d’être, was
out-going, public, evangelistic, and compelled by the missionary mandate (the
“Great Commission”) from its founder that his disciples were to go to all the
world, preach the Gospel, and make disciples.1 As Wilken notes, the mission of
early Christianity was to “win the hearts and minds of men and women and to
change their lives.”2 This is very significant if we consider the fact that no pagan
cult ever in the history of the Roman Empire practiced evangelism or developed
a missionary campaign, with perhaps the qualified exception of the Imperial
Cult, but even it never expanded beyond imperial borders.3 On the other hand,
we have a plethora of literary evidence from the ante-Nicene period affirming
the widespread belief that Jesus Christ alone is the way of salvation for all human-
kind.4 Second, Christianity was not restricted regionally, ethnically, or racially,
something we cannot say about paganism.5 Third, a requisite conversion to
Christ according to a well-defined ethical code, resulting in a reformation of
character:
. . . we who formerly delighted in fornication, but now embrace chastity
alone; we who formerly used magical arts, dedicate ourselves to the good
and unbegotten God; we who valued above all things the acquisition of
wealth and possessions, now bring what we have into a common stock,

198
 Religious Universalism  199

and communicate to every one in need; we who hated and destroyed one
another, and on account of their different manners would not live with
men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly
with them, and pray for our enemies, and endeavor to persuade those who
hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good precepts of Christ to the
end that they may become partakers with us of the same joyful hope of a
reward from God the ruler of all.6

Fourth, there was a cohesive community that provided its members a genuine
sense of belonging and solidarity, something that gave them a higher level of
existential worth in a world that treated the ordinary human as a persona non
grata.7 Next, Christianity was characterized by doctrines that claimed to have
been revealed to the world by God and recorded by the writers of the Bible, and
candidates for baptism were not only required to learn them, but also to profess
belief in them.8 During the third-century crises when many pagans were cer-
tainly asking questions about the evils to which the empire was succumbing,
and which were often adversely affecting them personally, the Christians might
have been increasingly perceived as the group with the best answers.
If not, then the next factor, which, I suggest, was probably the most con-
vincing during the period, was the practice of benevolence and love towards
both fellow Christians and pagans alike. Clark is certainly right to say, “No
Roman cult groups, not even those that were primarily mutual support groups,
are known to have looked after strangers and people in need.”9 In his Oration
to the Assembly of the Saints, Constantine is describing what was by then (325)
an established tradition of the Church when he speaks of almsgiving, the
recovery of those in need, helping the fallen, and philanthropic distribution to
the poor.10 Eusebius informs us that the Roman church by 250 was daily pro-
viding food for more than 1,500 widows and the needy.11 During the devastat-
ing plague that swept through Egypt in the 250s, we hear from Dionysius
about Christians who indiscriminately nursed those of their community and
pagans alike, while the latter abandoned even their own family members.12
Bishops were well known for their hospitality, sheltering the widows, and car-
ing for the destitute.13 Christian churches practiced benevolence toward wid-
ows, orphans, the elderly, and those oppressed by debtors.14 Rich and poor
alike were to help and love each other.15 Almsgiving was a common and wide-
spread Christian practice.16
The care given to the sick and dying, which was an acknowledged duty of
Christians, during the plagues of the 250s, 260s, and 270s,17 undoubtedly made
Christian universalism increasingly attractive—a fact almost totally ignored by
scholars.18 “The effect of disastrous epidemic, therefore, was to strengthen
200  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

Christian churches at a time when most other institutions were being discred-
ited.”19 McNeil notes further that elementary nursing by offering basic provi-
sions of food and water will greatly reduce mortality rates,20 important when we
consider that 5,000 persons died daily in Rome during the plague under
Gallienus (260s).21 We can presume that rural areas were equally hard hit.22
Porphyry gloomily asserted that Asclepius and other divine healers had not
cured anyone in the many years since the plague came to Rome, blaming it all,
of course, on the Christians,23 and thus revealing paganism’s major weakness,
namely its inability to offer any reasonable theodicy for its adherents during
hard times. Hence, the Christians might have been winning more converts not
necessarily because they had all the answers, but simply because they offered
any at all. Conversely, to those who did eventually die, the Christians could
comfort with the promise of eternal bliss with God in heaven.24 Plague was the
most devastating of all the crises of the third century, especially upon the reli-
gious Weltanschauung of pagans, but it is largely overlooked by scholars, and its
contributions to the success of Christian universalism almost totally ignored.
Yet it is apparent that the Christian Church was the best crisis-manager of all
institutions of the empire during the third century.25
The seventh salient feature of Christian universalism was its exclusivity.
Already in the Gospel traditions, Jesus is depicted as the only savior of human-
kind.26 Disciples were to preach the Good News to the entire world: Believers
would be saved; non-believers would be condemned.27 Johannine theology
presents Jesus as declaring: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me.”28 The Jesus movement is called the Way
in the Acts of the Apostles.29 Similarly, the two ways of life and death are con-
trasted in the Didache.30 Underlying the mandate to evangelize the world, noted
above, was the pervasive belief that there was no salvation for anyone outside
Christ,31 a doctrine that Porphyry passionately despised.32 Next, in Christian
universalism there converged harmoniously the insatiable hunger for divine
power, very prevalent in the religiosity of the period, and the desire to experi-
ence a personal saving deity,33 which, in the form of a universal monotheism,34
became more attractive to the ruling aristocracy of the late Roman Empire.35
Ninth, added to this is the inclusiveness of the Church. Regardless of one’s social
or economic background, gender, race, age, or ethnicity, all were welcome to
receive the gift of salvation; and the phrase of Jesus, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε,
found often in the Gospels and referring to the whole person, covered the wide
range of needs that I have enumerated above on the meaning of salus/σωτηρία
in a Greco-Roman milieu.36
The tenth and final feature of Christian universalism, its economic appeal, has
already been partly noted. In short, paganism was becoming more financially
 Religious Universalism  201

burdensome, making it onerous for the masses, already economically depressed,

to perform the duties of their religio. The cults were always supported monetarily
from the top down, subsidized either by imperial or local sources, or aristocratic
benefactors who were expected to provide assistance for their maintenance. It
was becoming increasingly expensive for both the state and the aristocracy to pay
for the costs of pagan cults, and I have shown that benefactions were in decline
during the period. Conversely, the cost-effectiveness of Christianity, coupled
with the fact that the salvific sacrifice had been offered by Christ’s crucifixion as
the Lamb of God once for all humankind and forever, might have been very
appealing during unprecedented economic crises characterized by spiraling
inflation to pagans whose ancestral religion obligated them to finance the build-
ing of temples and their renovation, sacrifices, festivals, and many other needs of
local cults. Saving one’s soul, and at the same time one’s money, was a marketable
product with far-ranging benefits for the Church that its pagan competitors
could not offer. I will venture to say that especially during the peak period of the
economic crisis, circa 260–300, both the ruling classes and the uneducated
masses were finding more than spiritual consolation in a religion, now growing
exponentially, whose financial demands upon its converts were much less
burdensome.
Did any of the pagan cults possess a universalist soteriology? Of the salvation
cults there are only seven which competed in this capacity with Christianity:
Isis-Serapis, Mithras, Manicheanism, Cybele, Jupiter Dolichenus, Sol, and the
Imperial Cult. Using Porphyry’s definition of universalism as my primary guide-
line, I shall now analyze each one of these and then give a composite picture of
the strengths and weaknesses of paganism vis-à-vis soteriological universalism.
My argument is that Christianity was the only genuine universal salvation cult in
the Roman Empire, and one of the main causes of its eventual triumph was its
distinct universalist soteriology, which was successfully used by Constantine as an
agent of political and cultural unification.
Originating in Egypt but spreading throughout the provinces of the empire,
the cult of Isis-Serapis might have been Christianity’s chief competitor until the
early third century.37 It was established along the trade routes in the Rhine and
Danube areas, but provinces like Britain and Greece were largely unaffected.38
Isis offered personal salvation through an initiation rite in which the initiate
received the gift of new life, and votives were made to her ὑπὲρ τῆς σωτηρίας
from individuals, families, or even military cohorts.39 A recent study has sug-
gested that there were several Isiac initiations, which “led some individuals up
to higher ranks within the hierarchy of the cult.”40 Often in association with
other deities,41 Isis was thought capable of curing diseases,42 preceded by a rite of
confession in some areas,43 and she met a great diversity of needs in the lives of
202  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

her devotees including breaking the bonds of fate,44 protecting sailors,45 giving
life to the natural world,46 providing deliverance from personal danger,47 releas-
ing her saving power upon worshippers,48 granting success and victory,49 agri-
cultural blessings,50 and conferring upon humankind all the blessings of a
civilized society.51 Her worship was often performed in conjunction with the
Imperial Cult.52 She was certainly perceived as a universal savior, as attested by
Lucius who prays after his initiation: “Tu quidem, sancta et humani generis sos-
pitatrix perpetua,”53 but the greatest weakness of her cult was her identity as the
goddess of many names (μυριώνυμος); and we might add, as Witt noted years
ago, too many, thus becoming all things to all people.54 Simply put, Isis lost her
unique identity as the result of being hyper-syncretized,55 and thus never became
a truly universal saving deity.
Though the origin of Mithraism is unknown,56 during the second century the
cult spread predominantly in the western provinces57 with the help of Roman
legions and within families of adherents passed on from one generation to the
next, reaching its peak period in the third century, and then declining by the
following century.58 Initiates were spiritually renatus,59 brought about by the
blood of the bull slain by Mithras,60 the omnipotent Lord of heaven and earth,61
and they received a wide variety of blessings including (e.g.) personal salva-
tion,62 salus for the family and military units,63 and good crops.64 The obser-
vance of a sacramental meal provided a sense of unity and camaraderie.65 This
coheres with the list of needs perceived to be met by pagan gods noted above
including votives for the salus/σωτηρία of the emperor.66 Mithras as the great
Kosmocrator of heaven and earth was thought to procure eschatological and
temporal salvation for his worshippers and a sense of solidarity for an exclu-
sively male constituency of soldiers, freedmen employed in the imperial admin-
istration, and ordinary citizens.67 Lacking a centralized government,68 local
Mithraea were autonomous and consisted of small groups of twenty to forty
men69 who passed through seven progressive soteriological grades of initiation
beginning with Raven and climaxing with Pater.70
A progressive soteriology through seven initiations that offered both tempo-
ral and eschatological salvation will certainly have provided the Mithraist a
secure hope and assurance in his earthly life and a better one in the heavens in
the hereafter, and perhaps a better way than any other pagan cult of coping with
the often perilous vicissitudes that characterized human existence in the third
century. Yet its highly secretive71 and pluralistic nature; the fact that it was the
only mystery religion that came from outside the borders of the Roman Empire
and it never won official support from the state;72 and, most importantly, its
exclusion of women and children, precluded Mithraism from any claim, at any
time in its history, to being a bona fide universal salvation cult.
 Religious Universalism  203

Cybele was originally worshipped in Phrygia, Asia Minor,73 and during the
crises caused by the Hannibalic invasion of Italy,74 the Sibylline Books were con-
sulted, which resulted in a decree of the Roman Senate officially approving the
introduction of the cult’s sacred black stone in Rome in 204 b.c.75 M. Iunius
Brutus, the Praetor urbanus, dedicated Cybele’s temple on the Palatine, April 10,
191 b.c.76 The cult continued until the late fourth century.77
Often depicted in the iconography enthroned as a majestic goddess holding
the patera, symbolizing motherly nurture, in her right hand,78 the Magna Mater
inspired in her ecstatic worshippers charismatic praise and adoration mani-
fested by flagellations and, for priests, self-castration.79 The central rite of initia-
tion was the Taurobolium or Criobolium by which the goddess was believed to
confer divine power upon those who had been baptized in the respective ani-
mal’s blood, and the salvific blessing, often described as renatus, repeated in
twenty-year intervals.80 During the course of the third century, the rite was
transformed from a public ceremony focusing on the salus/σωτηρία of the
emperor,81 to a private/cathartic one for the individual, owing to the tendencies
of the period, as we have seen, for people to have a desire to experience divine
power and personal salvation.82
Venerated as σωτεῖρα83 in the tradition of the Hellenistic saving deities,
Cybele bestowed many salvific blessings upon her worshippers.84 Gasparro
gives examples including fertility of fields and flocks; physical healing; protec-
tion from dangers of war and navigation; protection of tombs; and many other
temporal and eschatological blessings that gave the individual and his/her com-
munity a sense of safety and well-being.85 In short, they covered the entire gamut
of salus/σωτηρία benefits that I analyzed in part I above. However, several fac-
tors prevented Cybele from ever becoming a universal saving deity: eventual
over-syncretization;86 self-castration of priests; overly ecstatic worship;
self-flagellation by worshippers; geographical restriction;87 and the central fig-
ure of the cult was a female of oriental provenance and attributes. These fea-
tures, though offering emotional appeal and many various benefits, were too
foreign, provincial, and charismatic to have won universal acceptance for
the cult.
Epigraphic evidence strongly indicates that members of the Roman fleet
played a vital role in the dissemination of the worship of Jupiter Dolichenus
throughout the provinces,88 and the cult appears to have maintained a successful
following of devoted adherents until the mid-third century when the Persians
sacked its chief sanctuary at Doliché: “A god who could not protect himself and
his followers could hardly survive unscathed.”89 Owing to the fairly large num-
ber of votive inscriptions with such designations as ex iussu eius, iussu dei fecit,
issu numinis, ex praecepto, somno monitus,90 and so forth, we can rightly
204  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

conclude that the relationship between Jupiter Dolichenus and his worshippers
was a contractual one tantamount to that existing between a Lord and his ser-
vants, and Henig cogently argues that these kinds of inscriptions depict the god
as a divine reflection of the earthly emperor.91 Until its decline in the late third
century the cult held an important place in the complex of ideologies and rites
connected to ruler worship,92 and Jupiter Dolichenus occupied a primary posi-
tion during most of the third century in pro salute inscriptions dedicated to
emperors.93
The soteriological benefits that are attested by the inscriptions address the
needs and aspirations of the various social orders in the empire, which, we have
noted, were prevalent in other prominent salvation cults,94 including (e.g.)
health and/or healing; success in life; military matters; family and individual/
personal needs; and salus/σωτηρία for the city and community.95 Yet his lofty
and majestic nature, which produced the awe and reverence in his devotees,
who saw him as the heavenly counterpart to their earthly ruler, concomitant
with the conferral of divine power, were corollaries of an intrinsic deficiency
that prevented Jupiter Dolichenus from being identified as a universal saving
deity: The legalistic, contractual relationship with his worshippers made him
formal, distant, staid, and impersonal, disqualifying his cult as a mass move-
ment with widespread popular appeal, and thus incapable of offering the hurt-
ing masses of the third century what the evidence shows that they were
desperately needing, namely intimate contact with a personal and powerful
savior.
Worshipped as Helios in the eastern provinces,96 the Sun was conceived as a
great saving deity that gives life and nourishment to the earth,97 and the Cult of
Sol Invictus began to receive imperial support under Septimius Severus.98
Severan coins reveal a proactive policy to depict Sol as an agent of universalism
with legends like oriens, pacator orbis, rector orbis, and conservator.99 It
was Aurelian, however, as we have observed, who established the worship of Sol
Invictus as the official universal religion of the Roman Empire, and this status
continued until circa a.d. 323 when Constantine finally abandoned his devotion
to the god for Christianity.100 From that time onward, the cult lacked state sup-
port and began to decline.101 Though Julian used the deity to bolster his failed
attempt to re-paganize the eastern provinces,102 the Pontifices dei solis continued
until the late 300s, and the god had many devotees still in the fifth century,103 Sol
Invictus’ success had reached its zenith long before Constantine assimilated a
number of his attributes to his new savior, Christ, the Sun of Justice.104 Sol was a
god of power and majesty,105 but his close association with the monarch and,
consequently, an Imperial Cult that was in sharp decline after a.d. 235, pre-
cluded him from offering personal salvation to all inhabitants of the empire.
 Religious Universalism  205

As Goodman has shown, of all the purely pagan106 cults of the empire, the
Imperial Cult was at least potentially the most proselytizing religion that pos-
sessed universalist claims.107 The emperor was perceived as the representative of
the gods whose presence ensured his empire’s safety and whose religious aura
imposed an ideological uniformity that approximated more than any other
pagan cult an official, though very general, ideology centered on the divine maj-
esty of the emperor.108 Epigraphic evidence abounds with soteriological epithets
associated with the emperor as savior, and it is interesting to note that Christ is
depicted in the catacombs in Rome with the features of the emperor.109 Though
Nock was correct to point out that there are no ex votos that have been found
connected to the Imperial Cult that give thanks for divine recovery, answered
prayers, and other examples of salus associated with the piety of traditional
cults, Pleket noted that the εἰκόνες of the emperor were accorded the same
devotion of the people as the ἀγάλματα of the gods, and there were various
kinds of ritual piety attached to the person of the emperor that existed between
the adoratio of the ex votos and the expression of political loyalty universally
expected of all.110 On coins he is depicted as savior and benefactor whose pres-
ence preserves and variously blesses all humanity.111 The universality of the
emperor’s salvific presence was acknowledged in such epithets as the Savior of
the Inhabited World and Lord of the Earth and the Sea, Restitutor orbis, ὁ γῆς
σωτήρ, and so forth, and he was often called Son of God.112
As noted above, of the three components of the imperial infrastructure of
emperor, army, and Roman religion, two (emperor and army) increasingly
experienced a meltdown, and many emperors of the third century were forced
to rely upon religious culture to bolster an imperial system now besieged by
many destructive forces from within and without. Unity of the empire was
founded directly, and at times, exclusively, upon the belief that the policies of
the emperors must rely upon paganism, and this, in turn, was by design insepa-
rably connected with the person of the emperor, now conceived as more sacred
than in preceding centuries.113 Fishwick notes that beginning with Septimius
Severus “the human Roman emperor was now proclaimed as a divinized, orien-
tal saviour who with his house will bring the blessings of a new Golden Age.”114
Turcan has shown that epigraphic data conceptually related to pro salute imper-
atoris begins to increase in the Severan epoch,115 and these are no more directed
to a deity

. . . sino a la persona del emperador. Estas manifestaciones reflejan un

giro: se representa cada vez más claramente el deseo de elevar al empera-
dor reinante- y a su casa—a un status sobrehumano que lo asimila a los
dioses tradicionales, incluso dejándoles a veces en la sombra.116
206  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

From Aurelian onward, the emperor was increasingly hedged with an aura of
divinity.117 This coheres with my argument that from Caracalla to the death of
Constantine there is plenty of evidence that reveals a consistently developing
program of politico-religious universalism whose goal was to bring about unifi-
cation during the crises of the period.
It seems that the imperial propaganda related to the worship of the emperor
assumed an increasingly soteriological meaning that became more centralized,
uniform, and universal as the third century evolved, as if to prop up the most
important political institution of the empire and thus attempt to save it from
imploding upon itself. It seems equally valid to conclude that the Imperial Cult
as a politico-religious unifier did indeed have significant success owing to its
strengths as a dispenser of salus to its devotees,118 one being that the cult was
“much less empty of emotion than might have been thought.”119 Also, it unified
and integrated the civic cults of the empire, and as Fowden suggests, the reli-
gious system and values of the center were effectively projected to the periph-
ery.120 Third, it “helped to articulate the power relationships of the Greek
communities,” and the emperor was integrated into the polytheistic cults of the
Hellenistic East.121 Next, it universalized the important concept of divine saving
power by which the other saving deities could be subsumed in or associated with
the person of the emperor who represented the safety and well-being of the
empire which worship of the Roman gods not only was thought to cause, but
also ensure its perpetuation. Finally, the cult had the full support of the imperial
government, which made it the most successful agent of the politico-religious
universalism that developed from Caracalla to Constantine. In short, the
Imperial Cult was the greatest rival to Christian claims of being a universal
salvation cult.
There are, however, good reasons why the cult should not be so classified.
First, the last dynasty of the third century ended with the assassination of
Alexander Severus in 235, ushering in political instability and dynastic disconti-
nuity for the next fifty years until Diocletian established some semblance of
order beginning in 284—though dynastic government was not restored until
Constantine in the 320s—but the irrevocable damage had been done. By the
middle of the century, the cult was in sharp decline and never recovered.122 With
the rapid turnover of third-century emperors, most of whom were killed by
their own soldiers, there were fifty-one claimants to the throne in the period
235–85, and the insecurity of the emperor’s position exacerbated a deep sense of
hopelessness already present in the minds of many, which can be seen (e.g.) on
the marble portrait bust of Decius c. 250, depicting a somber frown, deeply
creased face, and grief-stricken eyes that reflect the heightened crises of the
period.123 The conclusion reached from the ruling classes to the uneducated
 Religious Universalism  207

masses will have been that the savior himself needed salvation. And if the savior
could indeed not save himself, how could he deliver his empire from the destruc-
tive forces from which he was thought capable of saving his subjects? The
third-century crises showed how incapable the cult of the emperor was in pro-
viding salus, in the sense of safety, well-being, and success, to the empire and its
people. Whereas the crises saved Christianity and ensured its ultimate success
and triumph, they destroyed the chances of the Imperial Cult’s ever becoming a
truly universal salvation religion in the Roman world.124 Moreover, the eco-
nomic problems of the third century undoubtedly exacerbated the crises caused
by dynastic discontinuity. The annual priesthood of the Imperial Cult, most
probably restricted to rich citizens, became increasingly costly during a period
when benefactors of local cults were in sharp decline, and often involved “expen-
sive outlays on cult ceremonial and the provision of elaborate games.”125 One
final observation is necessary. The cult was never taken beyond the borders of
the empire, it lacked the kind of ideological coherence that otherwise could
have provided more than a semblance of doctrinal uniformity,126 without which
politico-religious unification could not have been achieved, and these are yet
other reasons for precluding it in the strict sense from the category of
universalism.127
Having analyzed the individual salvation cults that competed with (develop-
ing orthodox) Christian soteriology in the pre-Nicene period, it is now neces-
sary to conclude this section by noting the deficiencies of paganism as a
composite religious culture. First, there was no “center” in paganism, and thus
soteriology, as we have seen, was never an ideologically fixed component, but a
continuing, fluid, and negotiable, contractual complex of subjective experiences
initiated by the perceived needs of the individual devotee of a specific deity,
several deities, or even many deities.128 There was no such thing as an orthodox,
or for that matter, heretical teaching on salvation, simply because there was no
saving deity par excellence, or any official dogma that clearly delineated what
being, known or unknown, who might confer salvation or how one must go
about receiving it, as is evidenced (e.g.) in the dedication of a certain Julius
Victor in Risingham: “Dis cultoribus129 huius loci Iulius Victor tribunus.”130
There were many such unknown divine saviors at local shrines or temples across
the empire. Second, there was no salvific experience, event, or sacrament that
was ever perceived to be permanent. Even in the mysteries, as we have noted,
the salus that the initiation rite conferred often had to be renewed every twenty
years. Moralee is correct to state that in the pagan cults σωτηρία did not last for
a lifetime, but “pertained to specific moments of anxiety, sickness, disorder, and
dislocation.”131 Conversely, under normal circumstances Christian baptism was
administered once in the recipient’s lifetime and thus offered a greater sense of
208  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

safety and permanence. Third, as noted above there is very little evidence of any
conscious, proactive proselytizing in the pagan cults or any organized effort to
make converts.132 Next, there were no dogmatic or creedal requirements: pagan-
ism embraced a wide variety of practices and beliefs and was essentially what
Fowden describes as “additive and pluralistic.”133
Moreover, conversion in the sense of changing the mind about how one is
living, resulting in the reformation of one’s character, was not a requirement in
any pagan cult. There was no need to repent of sin or immoral acts, and no need
to make a serious commitment to the exclusion of any other god or cult.134 This
is not to argue that religious paganism was completely devoid of any moral or
ethical content, but rather to suggest that religious practice and belief were not
as inseparably associated with morality as they were in Christianity. Next, with
perhaps the exception of the Imperial Cult, pagan religion did not possess a
centralized organization that acted as the supreme authority to which all inter-
nal components were accountable.135 Also, because there was no sense of belong-
ing, benevolence programs were essentially nonexistent.136 And because
involvement in religious ceremony and worship was inclusive in paganism, so
too was its soteriology: one could have as many saviors as one wished without
adversely affecting the paradigm of theological reality or upsetting the balance
of heavenly powers. The gods were not jealous of each other.137 The final and
greatest deficiency of paganism was that it possessed multiple paths to the gods,
and hence to “salvation,” which by the third century must have been perceived
by many in the empire as an overwhelmingly confusing jungle of cults which
became too pluralistic and fluid to give much qualitative existential meaning.138
Christian universalism might have stood out in this morass not as a sore thumb,
but the proverbial city on a hill that cannot be hidden. This appears to be exactly
what Augustine claims that Porphyry concluded after his intensive research into
the religions and philosophies of his day. In the cultural and historical context
of the third-century crises, therefore, Porphyry’s claim in the prologue of the
Phil. orac. that, based upon the authority of divine revelation, he was offering
the only sure source of salvation to his readers, is very significant for the debate
on universalism when the transformation of the empire was taking place.139

Conclusions
From the data analyzed concerning pagan universalism we can infer that
Augustine’s information about Porphyry’s intensive research into the religions
and philosophies of his day is accurate, and the Neoplatonist was correct to
conclude that universalism did not exist in the religious culture of the Roman
Empire at any time in its prior history. This conclusion has been made after
 Religious Universalism  209

(1) defining salvation in a Graeco-Roman context, (2) investigating the major

salvation cults of the empire, (3) placing Porphyry’s soteriological system in the
context of the politico-religious universalism that developed from Caracalla to
Constantine, and (3) basing the historico-hermeneutical method applied herein
upon Porphyry’s own definition of universalism. The evidence strongly indi-
cates that Porphyry was very concerned about the success of Christianity,140 par-
ticularly during the apex of crises in the last half of the third century, and this
concern was primarily motivated by the distinct type of Christian universalism
investigated in this study. Moreover, I have tried to show that this was one of the
major causes of the religion’s success leading up to Constantine, who realized
that political stability could not be possible without religious unity, this was pos-
sible only if it was accompanied by an ideological uniformity, and only
Christianity could provide him with the ability to achieve his goals. This is not
to say that Constantine simply used the Christian religion for political purposes,
and the evidence indicates that between 312–24 he experienced a conversion to
Christ in the classical sense. Hence the first Christian emperor did not cause an
unprecedented cultural and political revolution: He simply embraced a move-
ment already experiencing exponential growth, whose universalism was the
most suitable for a successful politico-cultural unification program, which his
predecessors failed to achieve due to the pluralistic, inclusive, and quite fluid
nature of pagan views on salvation.141 This fact makes Porphyry’s tripartite and
(ideally) progressive soteriology, whose salient features found in his Philosophia
ex oraculis I have analyzed, all the more revealing as to its significance for both
the demise of paganism in Europe and the Mediterranean world, and its replace-
ment by Nicene orthodoxy beginning in the fifth century a.d. I would venture
to say that future research in the pagan-Christian debate on universalism in the
late third–early fourth centuries will give us a clearer understanding of the
greatest politico-religious transformation in antiquity.
 12

Conclusions
In fact I selected the Platonists … because they had the good sense to see that
the soul of man, though it is immortal and rational or intellectual, yet cannot
be blessed unless it partakes of the light shed by God, who created the soul itself
and the Universe.
St. Augustine, City of God X.1

I n 1974, commenting on Porphyry’s philosophical system in his

seminal study on the disciple of Plotinus’ place in Neoplatonism, Andrew Smith
judiciously stated: “One word which dominates his thought is σωτηρία, the sal-
vation of the soul.”1 Yet to date, the relationship between the centrality of the
salvation of the soul in Porphyry’s thought and his search for the via animae
salutis universalis, as noted by Augustine,2 has not been given the careful atten-
tion that it deserves.3 We may add that scholarship in recent decades has shown
an acute interest in universalism in Late Antiquity,4 and this has not been
restricted to pagan and Christian views. For example, Hirshman has shown that
there existed a Rabbinic movement in Palestine during the second and early
third centuries that stressed a Jewish vision of universalism and developed an
active program of converting Gentiles to Judaism.5 Yet by the late third century
and beyond, the school opted for a particularism of the kind found in Akiva’s
Rabbinic school, and Hirshman notes: “The unique fusion of empire and religion
tilted the scales in favor of Christian universalism.”6 Can we not say the same
about the cults, namely, that pagan particularism, ill-equipped to preach a mes-
sage of “salvation for everyone,” ultimately gave way to a Christianity that by the
third century must have seemed ideologically prepared to meet the soteriological
needs of a cosmopolitan state? On a higher plane, can we not explain the entire
Greco-Roman Heilsgeschichte, or history of salvation, whether pagan, Christian,
or Jewish, as the history of how the otherwise conflicting political, social, and
cultural elements, which existed between particularism and universalism, might
be found religiously and philosophically compatible? Did the Christians finally
win the cultural wars of the third and early fourth centuries because they were at
least perceived to be, of all the other cults and schools of the period, the most
successful in blending particularism and universalism together?7 Or were they at
least the most successful in diminishing the tension between the two? And was
the lynchpin of this successful cultural synthesis their own unique concept of
soteriological universalism? This study has offered an interpretation of the data
that posits that this is quite plausible, and I have suggested that the crises of the

210
 Conclusions  211

third century were the fires in which this distinct universalist message was most
successfully forged. Ironically, it may well have been two edicts promulgated by
pagan emperors that helped to lay a foundation for the eventual success of
Christian universalism: Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana, which restored a
sense of unity to the oἰκoυμένη, thus bringing the Roman world more closely in
line with its perceived divine purpose;8 and Decius’ edict of a.d. 249, which Rives
has shown helped to establish a new type of Roman religion linked not to the city
of Rome, but to the Roman Empire.9 If Rives is correct that the Decian edict of
249 was “a highly innovative and important step towards a radical restructuring
of religious organization in the Roman world,” the restructuring element of the
law might best be interpreted as the imperial government’s attempt to provide
the pagan counterpart to Christian universalist claims when the cults were
beginning to decline. Otherwise, why would an emperor order all men, women,
and children of his empire to do something (sacrifice to the gods) that they would
normally do, and quite naturally, as adherents of polytheistic practice?10 And if it
is true that Porphyry represents “the first effort of a Greco-Roman philosopher to
articulate a universal theology, but also some reasons why this effort—and the
Great Persecution—ultimately failed,”11 it is all the more important to attempt to
find just how he and his soteriological system were related to the extremely
important political and religious developments of the Tetrarchy, and how these,
in turn, built upon antecedent imperial legislation and policies.
From the time when Alexander the Great built his own cosmopolitan state to
the period of Augustus’ Principate and to the end of the Severan Dynasty in 234,
the Roman Empire seemed to have possessed all the cultural, political, and mili-
tary components to offer some semblance of a universal salus for all its various
ethnic groups from Britain to North Africa, and from the Danube in the east to
Arabia. The concepts of the monarch as “ensouled law” (νóμoς ἔμψυχoς) and a
deified being on earth were passed on to the Romans: “Alexander became closely
identified with a new world order in which all free people, ‘barbarian’ and Greek
alike, are ‘cosmopolitans’, citizens of one world-state (kosmopolis), not of paro-
chial, particular city-states.”12 And philosophy gave its lion’s share to the New
World Order: Stoic Cosmopolitanism, for example, or the idea that all people
are equally the citizens of the world because they share in the Divine Logos,
certainly impacted Roman society far beyond the philosophers’ lecture halls.13
But the problem here was that pantheism must have been perceived as spiritu-
ally a bit too loose and superficial. For the masses at least, it was soteriological
Teflon. In short, it lacked that personal experience of the deity that makes all the
difference when the soul, whether that of a philosopher, sailor, butcher, or sol-
dier, is going through difficult times like those of the third century, and is in
desperate need of a saving deity who is immediately accessible.
212  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

If the period under study in this book has demonstrated anything, it is that
there was a search for some sense of spiritual intimacy with the great power or
powers thought to be residing in, or sometimes beyond, the heavens. Porphyry
was not alone here, for we see this yearning for existential meaning in the cults
and other philosophical schools as well. Siorvanes has rightly noted that even
before the advent of Alexander’s form of cosmopolitanism, Cynic philosophers
were preaching that human beings were not just members of their particular
societies, but part of a great universal nature. The individual was thus seen as
both self-sufficient (αὑταρκῆς) and a citizen of the cosmos.14 But one can get
only so close to the cosmos, and it would seem certain that the Cynic doctrines
conveyed few salvific benefits for most of the struggling masses of humanity
during the period. The Achilles heel of all philosophical attempts to offer some
semblance of salus for all, and thus to achieve the delicate balance between eth-
nic particularism, cultural pluralism, and soteriological universalism, seems to
have been in the fact that religious faith and reason were both incompatible and
irreconcilable.15 The two blended together like oil and water.16 As Andrew Smith
astutely notes, “Porphyry raised but did not solve the problem of the relation-
ship of philosophy to religion.”17 By its very nature, Platonism appears always to
have had problems with adequately incorporating the traditional cults with
philosophical doctrines. Plotinus seems not to have seen any value in participat-
ing in them, and this attitude can be traced back to Plato himself, who taught
that the soul’s Summum Bonum is to acquire knowledge of God, attain happi-
ness by the pursuit of virtue, resulting in the soul becoming like God.18 The
religious cults did not play a significant role in the philosopher’s attaining this
supreme goal of Platonic philosophy. Porphyry’s attempt to integrate Platonism,
the practices of popular piety, and the divinely inspired oracles of the gods
might indeed have caused him to experience “the collision of faith and reason,”19
nevertheless his “second tier” or middle way to the soul’s cleansing, as we have
seen, was a valiant effort to iron out the wrinkles inherent in religious and philo-
sophical paganism. And I have suggested that the theological interpretation
given to the triad in Late Antique mathematical studies combined with the three
stages through which the initiate in the Eleusinian mysteries proceeded—
purification (καθαρμóς), instruction (παράδoσις), and vision of the divine
(ἐπoπτεία)—most probably provided Porphyry with the ideological foundation
for his soteriological paradigm.
For the Christians’ soteriological system, there were no such wrinkles to iron
out, and the two (faith and reason) were compatible. Eusebius, among the many
patristic fathers who lived before, during, and after the reign of Constantine,
harps upon this as if to rub it in the faces of philosophers like Porphyry who
were trying to find some ideological common ground. The hermeneutical
 Conclusions  213

foundation of this ideological common ground was based upon the claims of
both pagans and Christians, who were increasingly relying upon their respec-
tive prophetic traditions to prove the truthfulness of their notions of salvation,
though, admittedly, the motives were quite different: Porphyry and other mem-
bers of the pagan intelligentsia used oracles not only to revive a declining pagan-
ism, but also to disprove the claims of Christian soteriology, namely, that only in
Christ can the soul achieve salvation/purification/eternal life; while the
Christians used prophecies found in their scriptures to dismantle the very basis
of the Greco-Roman religious and philosophical Weltanschauung, which is a
common method when a new religious culture or movement attempts to bring
about a successful usurpation of the status quo tradition:
Conscious departures from tradition in the establishment of a new order
have originally been due almost entirely to prophetic oracles or at least to
pronouncements which have been sanctioned as prophetic.20
In light of this use of prophetic revelation on both sides of the pagan-Christian
conflict, it should come as no surprise that of the 166 passages in which Eusebius
uses scripture in Book IV of the Theophany to prove the truthfulness of Christ
and his Apostles, seventy-five of these are directly related to proving that the
universal spread of Christianity in Eusebius’ day was the fulfillment of prophe-
cies spoken by Christ Himself.21 Owing to the fact that this prophetic methodol-
ogy is unique to the Eusebian corpus and the Theophany is the final apologetic
writing of the bishop of Caesarea, it follows that the importance of universalist
themes in the pagan-Christian conflict were certainly increasing by the end of
his life.22 Successfully bringing about such a revolutionary departure from a reli-
gious tradition that had been embedded in the Greco-Roman world for millen-
nia entailed a long and complex process, and only glimpses of this process can
be gleaned from the primary data of the period. Prophecy is rarely used success-
fully to preserve the status quo, but rather to make legitimate a new system or
movement whose main raison d’être is to usurp conventional forms of religious
authority. Moreover, I would add that any fair and objective scholar who inves-
tigates the data must acknowledge that the achievement on the part of the
Christians was a phenomenally amazing accomplishment.23 And one would also
have to acknowledge that the tripartite system devised by Porphyry equally
reveals his brilliance as a theologian and his originality as a thinker.
Because he was living at the point in history when this dismantling feat was
perceived to be potentially close to materializing, Porphyry knew exactly what
he was confronting: One might say, he had read the writing on the wall of
Greco-Roman philosophical and religious culture with respect to its conflict
with Christianity, and it did not look very promising for the home team. And
214  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

I have argued, based upon statements from Augustine and other Christian writ-
ers, that Porphyry’s attempt to construct a counter-argument to Christian uni-
versalism was not done at the last minute, nor was it necessarily an ill-conceived
religio-philosophical soteriology produced from anxiety or desperation, but
rather the great Neoplatonist’s final solution, a “Tripartite Soteriology,” required
decades of research, development, and intermittent modifications. This kind of
detailed, thorough, systematic, and philologically based project coheres with
the known facts of Porphyry’s literary methodology. Hence, as argued in this
book, beginning with such early texts as Ad Anebonem and De regressu animae,
and continuing with later works like Contra Christianos and De philosophia ex
oraculis,24 Porphyry was developing his soteriological system motivated primar-
ily by universalist concerns, or as Augustine states, trying to find the via univer-
salis animae salutis liberandae.25 This debate on universalism between the pagans
and Christians of the intelligentsia of the Roman Empire, which came to its cli-
max during the period between Diocletian and Constantine, represents one of
the most fascinating, innovative, and significant periods in the religious history
of the Greco-Roman world; and I have argued in this book that it also gives us
at least one important key in our understanding of the eventual “triumph” (or at
least for the hypercritical mind, “success”) of Christianity in Late Antiquity.
Since I began research on this book several years ago, there has been a grow-
ing consensus of scholars who have argued that there was a closer connection
between Porphyry and the Christians who lived during his period, and whose
works contain indisputable counter-attacks upon the great anti-Christian
Neoplatonist. The very fine books of Digeser have shown, for example, that no
longer should scholarship keep the Christians Eusebius, Lactantius, and
Arnobius separate from each other in appraising their composite contribution
to the literary response to, and polemical attacks upon, such Porphyrian works
as (e.g.) De regressu animae, Contra Christianos, and De philosophia ex oraculis.
Also, as recently as 2007, J. A. North could say in the Festschrift dedicated to
Wolf Liebeschuetz and concerning the Adv. nat. of Arnobius:

It has long been certain, as was already known to Liebeschuetz in 1979,

that the first two Books refer definitely to the debates between pagans and
Christians of the third century and in particular to Porphyry’s
anti-Christian works, which Arnobius seeks to refute, without ever nam-
ing their author. Building on this earlier work, Simmons now makes a
strong and important case for the discussion of sacrifice in Book 7 being
also a polemic against the view of sacrifice and of the nature of deity in
Porphyry’s De abstinentia. On this view, in the course of Book 7, Arnobius
both echoes Porphyry’s arguments against the eating of animals, with
 Conclusions  215

which he to some extent agrees, and those in favour of the sacrificial ritual,
with which he radically disagrees.26

Though it would be erroneous to assert that universalism was not present in

earlier Christian writers—the “Great Commission” of Jesus in Mt. 28, Justin
Martyr, and Origen are good examples27—it would be equally incorrect to
ignore the centrality of universalism in the pagan-Christian conflict of the late
third and early fourth centuries.28 Arnobius’ soteriological universalism is now
well documented.29 For Lactantius, Bowen and Garnsey have rightly noted that
he assumes that Christianity is the original and natural religion of all human-
kind,30 and add: “The idea was evidently current and ‘in the air’ c. ad 300.”31 In
Div. inst. III.30.3–5, we read of one hope for all, the one salus of Christian doc-
trine.32 Finally, as we have seen in this study, universalism is even more central
to the works of Eusebius than to those of his Christian contemporaries. And the
bishop of Caesarea’s interest in, and as I have shown above, emphasis upon, uni-
veralism increases proportionately in the three apologies, PE, DE, and the
Theophany. If Porphyry answered the Christians from their own sacred texts,
our understanding of how the Christians did the same thing to Porphyry that he
was doing to them has become clearer over the past few decades. And I predict
that many more data from the works of Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, and
others will surface in the years to come that will make this picture ever clearer.33
For the latter’s Theophany, the most neglected work in the history of patristic
scholarship, represents a goldmine of information for future analysis. It is even
becoming more apparent how Christian writers were indebted to Porphyry in
their construction of a new Christian world history,34 as Burgess, for example,
has shown in the case of Eusebius’ interest in chronography.35
This book has attempted for the first time to map out some of the main ideo-
logical aspects of what I have suggested was an argument very central to the
pagan-Christian conflict of the third century, a period of unprecedented crisis
in the Roman world.36 Though it is impossible to retrieve from the past all of the
fine points of the debate here, it is hoped that I have sufficiently pieced together
a plausible reconstruction of what appears to have been the “hot debate” of the
period, namely, whether the subjects of a beleaguered empire living during hard
times might find a way to salvation/happiness/inner strength applicable for all
people regardless of their social, economic, intellectual, ethnic, gender, age, and
class distinctions. Bidez years ago in an essay in the first edition of the Cambridge
Ancient History argued that in Porphyry’s day people were turning away from
“nature” or external things because they revealed nothing but “change, deterio-
ration, corruption, materiality, coarseness and meanness,” and added that they
were thus “driven in upon themselves.”37 In his book on how the empire
216  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

managed crises published in 1976, Ramsay MacMullen further suggested that as

the Roman Empire declined, particularly during the third century, faith in cool
reason and free inquiry gave way to revelation, and added: “Revelation came
from looking inward, from mystical communication.”38 If Bidez and MacMullen
are correct, was this “turning inward” during difficult times in the real world
that was common to the spiritual, cognitive, and psychological experiences of
both Christians and pagans alike, intrinsically related to the search by both
groups for a universal path of salvation? And was the Christian notion of “inner
revelation” and mysticism better equipped for the creation of a soteriological
construct that became increasingly attractive during the period to both the
uneducated masses and the cultivated “elite” as well? I believe that the evidence
that has been analyzed from the period would cause one to respond affirma-
tively to both of these important questions.
It appears that Porphyry’s search for just this one way to the soul’s salvation
(cleansing) not only coincided with the Tetrarchy’s attempt to revitalize the tra-
ditional cults of the Roman Empire, but it was also confronted with a vibrant
and assertive Christianity that got its second wind after the persecutions of
Decius and Valerian in the 250s A.D., and most probably experienced unprece-
dented numerical growth and systemic development during the four decades of
the so-called “Peace of Gallienus.”39 The result was, as I have argued above, a
declining paganism that was put on the defensive in the face of a Christian
Church now resurgent and able, during this time when the imperial govern-
ment did not issue any persecuting edicts, to evangelize the masses with its own
unique form of soteriological universalism.40 At the same time, the
larger-than-life image of the emperor as the bringer of salus/safety for his sub-
jects was beginning to crumble mainly due to the shift in loyalty from the leader
of the empire to generals of regional armies. Wolf Liebeschuetz has judiciously
observed that during the periods of Diocletian and Constantine, “the Roman,
once the great Romanizer, had become regionalized, and the soldiers’ concern
for their native province, and often their attachment to particular generals had
become stronger than their loyalty to the Empire as a whole.”41
One can read the texts written by the Christians from the period starting
with Arnobius, then Lactantius, and finishing with Eusebius, and recognize a
growing optimism, even a sense of Christian triumphalism, as the empire
underwent the great transformations between Diocletian’s regime that attempted
to destroy Christianity, and that of Constantine which began fully to embrace
and support it. Among the many literary examples that can be brought forth, we
can here observe a very conspicuous shift in both tone and outlook between the
two large apologies (PE and DE) of Eusebius and the Theophany, which was
written at the end of his great career as bishop, theologian, biblical exegete,
 Conclusions  217

Church historian, and biographer of the first Christian emperor. In the first two
works, Eusebius’ worldview is one of hope and a growing confidence that even-
tually Christianity would win over its enemies; in the Theophany, the message is
“mission accomplished”: The victory has been achieved.
As a counterpart to Porphyry’s tripartite system42 and as a precursor to the
Christian message of the via salutis in Christ, Eusebius even alludes to the two
“sections” of ancient Hebrew culture in PE 8.11 (378 b–c). There he informs us
that while the Lawgiver of the Hebrews intended to lead the multitude on gently
by the precepts of the laws, he exempted the “other class” who had acquired an
aptitude for virtue from this requirement, and they were allowed “to give atten-
tion to a philosophy of a diviner kind too highly exalted for the multitude, and
to contemplation of things signified in the meaning of the laws.” And it cannot
be explained as simply a coincidence that at the end of Book II of the Theophany,
the Bishop of Caesarea emphasizes that Christ is the Universal Savior (‫ܕܦܪܘܩܐ‬
‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ܕܓܘ ܐ‬ = κoινóς τε ἁπάντων σωτὴρ) who has revealed (1) the true worship of
God, (2) virtue, and (2) philosophy:
El libro termina con las tres últimas ocurrencias de Salvador Universal
poniendo un énfasis en la venida de Cristo el Salvador mundial a un
tiempo apropiado en la historia humana. Pero no creo que se explica por
una coincidencia que entre la diatriba contra la filosofía platónica de
II.24–49 y las últimas secciones mostrando la necesidad de un Salvador
Universal en II.50–97, se encuentra en II.93 una contestación a la soteri-
ología universal tripartito de Porfirio de Tiro, o sea los tres diferentes
caminos de la salvación del alma: (1) el culto pagano de los dioses, (2) la
virtud, y (3) la filosofía neoplatónica. En este pasaje (II.93), que sirve
como prefacio a las últimas secciones donde Eusebio menciona  ‫ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬
‫ ܕܟܠ‬tres veces y que terminan Libro II, leemos que Cristo el Salvador
Universal ha revelado al hombre (1) el veradero culto de Dios (‫ܕܠܐܗܐ‬
 ‫)ܕܤܓܕܬ ܐ‬, (2) la virtud (‫ܐ‬ ‫ )ܘܫܡܐ ܕܡܝܬܪܬ‬y (3) la filosofía (‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܘܕܦܝܠܘܤܦܘܬ‬.43
Exactly the same components, as we have seen, were the salient features of what
I have described as a Porphyrian tripartite soteriology.44 The philological
changes which Eusebius made to technical soteriological terminology like ‫ܚܝܠܗ‬
‫ �ܝܗܝܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܟܠܢ‬in Book III of the Theophany,45 particularly noting how he
reworked earlier material from (e.g.) the PE, DE, LC, and the SC, and the way in
which he inserted the very significant ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ =( ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬κoινóς τε ἁπάντων
σωτὴρ) Universal Savior in the five passages of Book V of the same work, show-
ing indisputably that he significantly modified the DE passages from which they
derived by inserting in each case this soteriological title,46 in the larger context
of a sustained anti-Porphyrian argument leave very little doubt that Eusebius is
218  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

doing to Porphyry what he had done to the Christians: Turning his own argu-
ment on the via salutis animae universalis against him.
What was the crowning event that can help us understand how this Christian
triumphalism was accomplished? I have suggested that it can be found in the
message of universal salvation that was most attractive to pagans during the
third-century crisis when the traditional cults were in decline, the maintenance
of the temples and basic rituals of animal sacrifice were increasingly expensive,
and many benefactors of the state religion in the urban areas of the empire were
no longer willing to contribute monetarily. Perhaps the fact that Christianity
was more “cost effective” became increasingly appealing to pagans during the
period.47 Could this be one important key for the ancient historian’s under-
standing of what Rousseau has defined as a growing confidence of the Christians
during the third century?48
As noted above, the three components of the infrastructure (emperor, army,
religious culture),49 which normally sustained the empire and gave it its life and
vitality, were now undergoing a meltdown where two of the three parts, the
emperor and the army, were not in a good and proper relationship, and hence
the tail was wagging the dog, certainly after the assassination of Alexander
Severus in a.d. 234. The Roman emperors from Alexander to Constantine
increasingly relied upon religious culture to form a unifying principle, many
examples of which I have analyzed above. The emperor was increasingly viewed
as a divine savior who conferred salus upon his subjects.50 Yet from Alexander
Severus to Diocletian, from the perspective of the intended recipients of this
imperial salvific largesse, it must have looked like the savior himself was in need
of salvation, perceived as a universal sense of safety. Owing to the rapid turn-
over of emperors, the “saviors” were shown to be unable to save themselves from
assassination, capture by enemy troops, or if fortunate enough to rule more than
half a decade, to solve the many problems facing the empire. It is no coinci-
dence, therefore, that the so-called Imperial Cult51 was in sharp decline during
the third century.
We can safely conclude that Augustine is reporting factual information when
he says that Porphyry failed, after much thorough research, in his attempts to
find a universal way for the salvation of the soul for all people, in all times, and
everywhere;52 but what Augustine does not want to give us too many details
about is his compromise resulting from the failure, and that was a three-tier
soteriological system that, for the first time in the religious history of the Roman
Empire, offered the closest that traditional religious and philosophical polythe-
ism could come to a universal salvation for the soul.53 Smith is certainly correct
to say that Augustine’s remark at the end of Civ. Dei X.32 that Christ saves the
anima intellectualis, the anima spiritualis, and the body “contains the implied
 Conclusions  219

criticism that Porphyry had different ways of salvation for the higher and lower
soul.”54 We have argued that there were three such ways in Porphyry’s soterio-
logical system.55
We begin with Path III: philosophical salvation for the mature Neoplatonic
philosopher through discursive thought including the practice of the contem-
plative virtues and focusing upon the nous;56 the paradigmatic virtues that
focused upon the One;57 and not being involved in the traditional rites and prac-
tices of the religious cults, including animal sacrifice, the topic of the De absti-
nentia. This stressed contemplation on the intelligibles, the unio mystica, the
function of σωϕρoσύνη in the conversion of the soul toward intelligence and
final release to the One, all of which are not found in the Ad Marcellam or the
Sententiae.58 I have argued that Book III of the Phil. orac. covered this final stage
in the salvation of the soul. However, though Porphyry did not write a separate
work on this way, he did edit one, the Enneads, and evidently he concluded that
he could not improve upon his master’s magnum opus here. The Christian writ-
ers did not present Porphyry adequately, but rather depicted him as a misguided,
vacillating author full of many contradictions; thus they did to Porphyry what
he had done to the Christians. They could not afford, for the sake of their apolo-
getical argument, to concede that Porphyry’s system was the very best and the
most formidable vis-à-vis the Christian way that the polytheistic religious and
philosophical culture could design in its last time up to bat against the Christian
religion. But the structure of Book X of the Civ. Dei and the universalism argu-
ment dispersed throughout the books of the PE, as well as the argument of
Arnobius, the first Christian to write against Porphyry, circa 302–5, are best read
as polemical attacks upon Porphyry’s universalism. We may add that Eusebius,
in contrasting the “many paths” to the gods discovered by the Barbarians and
analyzed by Porphyry in De philosophia ex oraculis in PE IX.10, and the “two
sections” of ancient Hebraic soteriology (noted above), emphasizes that the
Christian “philosophy” is now offered to all subjects of the Roman Empire
including the young and old, slaves and free, learned and uneducated, Barbarian
and Greek, and even women and children (e.g., PE VI.6 [254b]; XII.32 [609b]).
The “one way” to the salvation of the soul for all was provided by Christ. As
Digeser, Schott, and I have shown as well, many examples from Arnobius and
Lactantius can be given for the same general argument.
A middle soteriological stage was developed (Path II), stressing the need to
train the body, separate it from the passions, and train the soul to begin to move
from corporeal reality and begin its ascent to the intelligible world.59 This tier
stressed the function of σωϕρoσύνη in conjunction with the purificatory virtues
vis-à-vis purifying the soul of its passions (Sent. 32).60 It is indisputable that
Porphyry understood this stage as a distinct path to salvation (τῆς σωτηρίας τὴν
220  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

ὁδoὺ)61 for the novice philosopher,62 and I suggest that this was the principal
source of inspiration for the second component in the tripartite soteriological
systems of later Neoplatonists like Iamblichus and Damascius. Conceived as a
transitional stage from the corporeal to the intelligible realms, this intermediate
phase is described as a struggle (ἀγῶν)63 involving painful experiences and hard
work as the new philosopher aspires to the life of virtue while training the soul
to detach itself from bodily pleasures.64 The savior here, as found in the Ad
Marcellam, is the nous; and the “saved” is the soul. This allowed some participa-
tion in the traditional religious cults, and we can assume that the acceptance in
Ad Marc. 18 of ancestral religious customs allowed for animal sacrifice,65 while
at the same time weaning the soul from its attachment to the body66 primarily by
means of the second class in Porphyry’s scala virtutum, σωϕρoσύνη, and pre-
cluding any need of theurgical ritual for the purification of the spirited part of
the soul.
In conjunction with a lengthy process of training whereby the novice phi-
losopher underwent intensive studies of the Platonic dialogues and mathemat-
ics possibly lasting from ten to fifteen years, there was initiated an ontological
and epistemological conversion of the mind from being dependent upon δóξα
and πίστις to an intermediate stage by means of διάνoια, which enabled the
mind to contemplate intelligible reality. The class of virtues stressed was the
Purificatory, and Porphyry greatly accentuated continentia/σωϕρoσύνη as
the main virtue at this level that was salvifically efficacious, the benefits being
that, not only can the spirited soul be cleansed by the virtue of continence, but
it is ontologically at a better position now to move to the final stage.67 The Ad
Marcellam was, therefore, a propaedeutic soteriological tract that admonished
Porphyry’s wife, and presumably her social circle,68 to continue in this second
tier: We have made the important observation that the Ad Marc. provides no
evidence for either Path I or III for the purification of the soul, but rather sub-
stantial evidence for what Augustine called cleansing the lower soul “by the vir-
tue of continence,” which has conceptual connections with (e.g.) Sent. 32.69
Apparently aimed at the median class of souls in his own tripartite system,
Iamblichus’ letters should be compared with the contents of the Ad. Marc.
because they arguably reveal how the philosophical principles related to this
stage were practically applied in one’s daily life. To this should be added the
principle found in the Sentences that the soul not only practiced the virtue cor-
responding to its own spiritual level but also those existing below it. Therefore,
the novice philosopher de facto practiced the civic virtues and continued to con-
tribute proactively to the political and social well-being of his community,
which will have admirably cohered with Diocletian’s program to politically and
culturally resuscitate the Roman Empire.
 Conclusions  221

Book II of De philosophia ex oraculis covered this second stage of Porphyry’s

soteriological system. This served as a pivot (to use Smith’s term) or ontological/
spiritual conveyer, moving the soul progressively upward to the Nous. This gave
to the soul the salvific benefits of (1) cleansing the spirited soul; (2) being mutu-
ally exclusive from Path III and possessing its own ethical system; (3) offering its
own distinct eschatological benefits by guaranteeing that the soul post mortem
lived for a period of time in the Ethereal Realm; (4) directing the soul’s spiritual
progress by intensive studies in the Platonic dialogues and mathematics toward
the highest stage; (5) allowing a person with an aptitude for philosophy to begin
to be trained in the elementary principles of cleansing the soul, who might not
ever progress onward in this life owing to things like age, and so forth, a case in
point being Marcella, the plausibly elderly wife of Porphyry; and (6) placing the
soul in the next reincarnated life on earth (at least theoretically) closer to per-
manent union with the One if the highest soteriological level is not reached in
the present earthly existence. Logically this would mean, as we have seen in
­chapter 9, that the eschatological benefit of this second stage, compared with the
first one to which it is superior, is that, upon returning to earth in the next rein-
carnated life, the soul will be closer to final release than it would have been if it
had reincarnated at level one, which is, presumably, the level at which most
souls enter the world.70
I would venture to say that the De regressu animae concerned the issues
related to entry and reentry, and the final release of the soul, with a focus upon
the first two levels in particular, and how the second one served as a pivot
between the first and third levels. This middle (or second) soteriological tier
provided an eschatological “safety valve” that allowed for a post mortem exis-
tence in the Ethereal realm, and, we can safely assume, a greater possibility to
attain to the third and final soteriological level in the individual soul’s next
(reincarnated) life.71 The essential components of this tier of salvation for the
soul of the novice philosopher will have allayed all the fears and concerns sub-
sumed in the all-important existential question: “What happens if I die before
reaching the final tier (that of the mature Neoplatonic philosopher) while, at the
same time, I have achieved true spiritual progression towards intelligible real-
ity?” In that case, the reincarnated soul would ideally not have to “start from
scratch” existentially in the next life.
The lowest soteriological tier (Path I) stressed theurgy and an involvement in
the traditional rites of religious polytheism, including animal sacrifice for the
non-philosopher.72 Theurgical rituals helped to maintain cosmic sympathy,
broke the bonds of fate, and allowed the gods to do their work of salvation by
cleansing the spiritual part of the soul. This way was for those members of the
uneducated masses who were concerned about ameliorating their souls during
222  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

their earthly lives and finding something that guaranteed them a better place in
the afterlife.73 It also stressed exclusively the civic virtues and the function of
σωϕρoσύνη in the agreement of appetite and reason,74 with the main goal
(exemplified in the ideal city of Platonopolis and Diocletian’s support of the De
philosophia ex oraculis before the Great Persecution) of persuading the masses
to adhere to the basic principles of good citizenship, which was inseparably tied
in with the traditional cults of the empire.75 The soul at this stage received ele-
mentary instruction in moderating the passions by focusing upon how to con-
duct oneself in conformity with the laws of the city. Since the gods were thought
to ensure that blessings would be bestowed upon the city, honoring one’s ances-
tral religious customs, which guaranteed the salvific welfare of the family, city,
and the empire as a whole, was stressed. This was extremely important because,
as I have argued, of the three components of the imperial infrastructure (politi-
cal bureaucracy centered on the emperor and including Roman law, the army,
and traditional polytheism of the mos maiorum), only one of these—religious
culture—during the period 250–300 seemed to have even a faint chance of uni-
fying the empire, now plagued by many crises and owing to the almost absolute
breakdown in the first two (the emperor and the army).76 Thus imperial leader-
ship resorted to relying on religion to create a viable unifying substratum to
keep the otherwise disparate and centrifugal forces threatening the very life of
the Roman Empire functioning coherently, in unity, and harmoniously. I there-
fore conclude that Book I of the Phil. orac. covered Path I.
The benefits provided by Paths I and II, however, were not only for the souls
who received them. The city, and ultimately the empire, benefitted as well, for
both those members of the herd who decided to receive the theurgical sacra-
ment that purified their lower souls and Path II souls who opted for cleansing
through continentia were expected to practice the civic virtues for the well-being
of their city and empire. With respect to the fusion between personal, social,
and political benefits of Porphyry’s soteriological system, and their value as
political and religious propaganda for Diocletian’s New Imperial Theology,77
I should like to make the following suggestions to illustrate how Porphyry’s first
two stages might have plausibly been applied at the personal and civic levels:

• Porphyry’s Philosophia ex oraculis promoted good citizenship and ances-

tral religious custom, which cohered with Diocletian’s attempts to revital-
ize the empire both religiously and politically.
• Local theurgists were available in urban areas who were capable of admin-
istering the sacrament that purified the lower soul and offered the tempo-
ral and eschatological benefits for Path I souls that we have delineated in
earlier chapters.
 Conclusions  223

• The prerequisite for the theurgical sacrament was instruction in the mod-
eration of the passions, which contributed to the well-being of the city by
promoting civic virtues and supporting the traditional cults of the city.
Though their lower souls were not cleansed by theurgical ritual, the novice
philosophers (Path II) were also involved in practicing the civic virtues
and, as is clear in Porphyry’s letter to Marcella, in honoring τὰ πάτρια.

Thus we have the topics of the three books of the Philosophia ex oraculis as fol-
lows: I. Theurgy and Traditional Cults; II. The Via Media by the Virtue of
Continence; III. Neoplatonic Philosophy. As we saw in ­chapter 3, very few cita-
tions from Phil. orac. by ancient sources can be classified certainly according to
the book from which the passage is quoted, and there is a great need now to
reevaluate the classification first postulated (and that arbitrarily) by Gustavus
Wolff, and followed rather blindly by, for example, Bidez, Smith, and many oth-
ers.78 There is no contradiction in Porphyry’s soteriology, and the Phil. orac. is to
be dated to around the end of the third century/beginning of the fourth, which
was the result of much intensive research to find the via universalis salutis ani-
mae. This presupposes years of studying the ancient religions of Porphyry’s
world, mentioned by Augustine in Book X of De civitate dei. The Bidez hypoth-
esis, which dated Porphyry’s works either as pre-Plotinian or post-Plotinian on
content alone should now be discarded.
If my argument is correct, the content, as Eusebius’ quotation from the pref-
ace of the Phil. orac. states (found in PE 4.7), the Phil. orac. was a mixture of
philosophical and religious teachings and practices.79 Thus it is completely erro-
neous to assume either that the pre-Plotinian Porphyry was not very well read
in philosophy or that the post-Plotinian Porphyry would have never written
anything on traditional religious polytheism. And though we do not have much
written by Porphyry concerning his metaphysics, we can glean enough from
such works like De philosophia ex oraculis, De regressu animae, De Vita
Pythagorae, Vita Plotini, Sententiae, Ad Marcellam, Ad Aneboem, and the frag-
ments of the Contra Christianos to get a fairly clear idea as to the composite
picture of his soteriological system. We must note carefully and always that
soteriology was central to the entire literary career of Porphyry, and then
acknowledge his innovative ideas, versatility, compassion and concern for the
common person, and how this whole complex of issues was addressed and
interwoven in his works as a whole. As I have pointed out, there is enough evi-
dence that we can glean from the fragments of the CC to suggest that Christian
universalism was most probably one of the central theological issues that
Porphyry calumniated in the work. Augustine does admit that the “more
weighty arguments” of Porphyry against the Christians concerned the question
224  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

if Christ was “the Way” to salvation for all, what has happened to all the many
souls who lived before Christ?80 And among a good number of the other Contra
Christianos fragments that appear to have addressed universalism, one worth
mentioning here asserts that after Christ began to be worshipped, there have not
been any salvific benefits bestowed upon the people of Rome.81
Thus it would appear that beginning at level two (Path II), Porphyry and
Iamblichus began to have serious disagreements, leading Porphyry to take the
high road to philosophical salvation and a Soteriology of Ascent; and Iamblichus
taking another route to theurgical ritual stressing a Soteriology of Descent. One
could argue that because Iamblichus was living during a period that was quite
different than that of his master Porphyry, keeping his mouth shut about the
Christians was in his best interests; or we might conclude as Athanassiadi and
others have suggested, that on a number of key issues there was much agree-
ment between Iamblichus and the Christians; but these explanations fall far
short of getting at the heart of the matter, and that was that an obvious and very
serious disagreement developed between Porphyry and Iamblichus on the
nature of the soul, its relation to the world and matter, the purposes for its
descent and ascent, the role of the divine in the salvific process, exactly how the
soul is saved, the importance of philosophy and theurgy in its salvation/purifi-
cation, and its final destiny. On the latter, and again with respect to the median
class in Iamblichean soteriology (= Porphyry’s Path II), the two Neoplatonists
butted heads over the correct interpretation of the eschatological myth of
Phaedrus 249. As we have seen, due primarily to his Soteriology of Ascent,
Porphyry read this text as providing a way for the soul to experience a perma-
nent escape contingent upon the soul’s choice of three successive philosophical
lives, and there appears to be sufficient evidence from the Vita Plotini, Ad
Gaurum, and On What Is in Our Power to support this view.
On the other hand, and relying upon the same Platonic text, due to what
I have called his Soteriology of Descent, Iamblichus followed conventional exe-
gesis of the Phaedrus myth to mean that the rebirth cycle, though characterized
by eschatological intervals during which purified souls enjoy a period of time
with the gods and the angels, would continue incessantly with the highest class,
the noetic souls, descending again and again to this world to help other souls in
the salvific process similar to Bodhisattvas in the Buddhist tradition.82 The con-
tents of the two conflicting soteriologies, therefore, with their equally irrecon-
cilable eschatologies resulting from conflicting exegesis of eschatological myths
like those found in the Phaedrus, strongly suggest that even before Iamblichus
left Rome for Apamea, there developed a serious rift between him and Porphyry
concerning the nature of the soul, the importance of religious, especially theur-
gical, rituals, the importance of discursive thought, why the soul came to this
 Conclusions  225

world, how it can be saved, and how the three classes of souls can achieve final
destiny.
These soteriological levels/tiers help us to understand dating, coherence of
themes, fine points of his arguments both for religious and philosophical pagan-
ism and against Christianity, how the last attempt to destroy Christianity failed
and how, ultimately, the latter triumphed over all its enemies in the Roman
Empire. Constantine wanted to establish his legitimacy and authority based
upon a central cult that served as a great unifying principle for his new govern-
ment. Yet he knew that recent history in the empire revealed that unity without
uniformity would produce the same kinds of problems that his predecessors of
the late third century had experienced.
Thus, a series of events in the third century initiated Constantine’s “Revolution,”
which he simply acknowledged as divine, embracing and tweaking it to make the
empire’s Christianization possible. The crux of the matter, sociologically, histori-
cally, theologically, economically, and culturally, was to be found in the unprec-
edented crises of the third century, without which there might not have been a
Constantinian Revolution at all. Being able to offer universal salvation in times of
great distress and agony could not have been the main cause of Christianity’s
triumph, for pagan cults, philosophers such as Porphyry, and emperors had, at
least with their best attempts, offered the same. Rather, the main reason for
Christianity’s success was its offering universal salvation while at the same time
providing uniformity in practice and doctrine—with the latter aspect being per-
haps the most attractive feature for Constantine.83 Polytheism could offer neither
universal salvation nor uniformity in practice and doctrine, but Porphyry’s tiered
plan of salvation was the most brilliant counter-offensive that paganism ever
marshaled against the Church.84 Porphyry had the keen intelligence, combined
with a poignant discernment of the times in which he was living, plus an advanced
knowledge of the scriptures, doctrines, and traditions of the Church, to acknowl-
edge that the universal salvation that Christianity offered to the people of the
Roman Empire was probably the most attractive, crisis-friendly component of
the movement; and he thus concluded, with the support and encouragement of
the Diocletianic regime, that philosophical and religious paganism needed to
respond in kind. Yet as Mastandrea noted years ago, Neoplatonism was not able
to resolve the problem of personal salvation.85 Porphyry was not attempting to
construct a new religious cult, but rather he devised a multidimensional soteriol-
ogy, which, in turn, was able to offer σωτηρία to all the people of the Roman
Empire, including the philosopher and non-philosopher, and which focused
upon those components of traditional polytheism and Neoplatonism (doctrines,
beliefs, practices, ethical norms, etc.) and incorporated them into a composite
whole with three distinct soteriological tiers. All peoples of the Greco-Roman
226  Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity

world who now felt seriously threatened by Christian universalism could now
personally benefit from a universal salvation that was claimed to be superior to
that offered by their main rival. A polytheistic culture was unable to offer univer-
salism in the strict sense, so Porphyry proposed a tiered approach by which the
“divine operates at different levels and each level has its appropriate form of wor-
ship.”86 Why did Porphyry’s soteriological system fail? Although it represents a
valiant and noble effort from the pagan perspective to save the traditional cults
that had survived many centuries, and to guarantee the continuation of
Neoplatonism as the principal philosophy of the intelligentsia, it was most likely
too late by Porphyry’s time to impede, let alone stop, the cultural tsunami that
Christian universalism brought about, which completely transformed the reli-
gious fabric of the empire.
In the hard times of the third century, not only did Christians make exclusive
claims about Jesus Christ being the only way to salvation for the soul of all
humans, and the pagan cults could not do the same about their gods, but they
also practiced a benevolence toward both their own coreligionists and pagans as
well during the crises of 250–300. Proof of how this was enviably successful is
easily found by “fast forwarding” to Julian the Apostate’s attempt to create a
“Hellenic Church” based upon such practices as helping the poor, the widows,
and the disenfranchised of the empire. Now with Constantine’s new order
Christians could claim to have one God, one king, one empire, beginning with
the Council of Nicaea, with an apparent reversal in Julian’s attempt to stop his
uncle’s Christianization policies, and climaxing in the second phase for the
Church’s triumph in the official adoption of Nicene orthodoxy by Theodosius,
which made paganism illegal. By the time of Justinian, the final phase is sym-
bolically manifested in the closing of the Academy in Athens in the early sixth
century. I end by reiterating that Christianity did not save the third century: the
third century, in a true sense, might have saved Christianity, or at least helped to
guarantee its ultimate success, by revealing how its distinct message of salvation
was perceived increasingly by both members of the intelligentsia and the uned-
ucated masses, during hard times, to be the best crisis manager and unifier cul-
turally and politically that offered a balance between ethnic particularism,
cultural pluralism, and soteriological universalism. The claims of the followers
of Christ that he alone is the via salutis universalis animae was the trump card
strategically played during a critical moment in history that enabled the once
beleaguered faith to achieve ultimate success in the Roman Empire and beyond.
 Appendix I

Porphyry’s Philosophia ex oraculis

Fragments from Smith (1993a)
A book is named in those fragments marked in bold print.

Book One
Fragment 303F (Eusebius, PE IV.6.2–7.2) Smith, Book I. Certainly from book I;
Wolff, 109–10.
Fragment 304F (Eusebius, PE IV.7.2–8.1) Smith, Book I. Certainly from book I;
Wolff, 110.
Fragment 305F (Eusebius, PE IV.8.2) Smith, Book I. Certainly from book I;
Wolff, 110.
Fragment 306F (Firmicus Maternus, De errore profanorum relig. XIII.4–5)
Smith, Book I. Certainly from book I; Wolff, 111.
Fragment 307F (Eusebius, PE V.5.7–6.2) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil.
orac. named; Wolff, 128–9.
Fragment 308F (Eusebius, PE, V.6.2–7.2) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil.
orac. named in preceding Fr. (307F); Wolff, 122–3.
Fragment 309F (Eusebius, PE V.6.4–5) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil.
orac. named; Wolff, 123–5 (Should be PE V.7.4–5).
Fragment 310F (Eusebius, PE III.14.3–4) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil.
orac. named; Wolff, 125–6.
Fragment 311F (Eusebius, PE III.14.5) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil. orac.
named; Wolff, 126–7.
Fragment 312F (Eusebius, PE III.14.6) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil. orac.
named in 310F = same literary context; Wolff, 126–7.
Fragment 313F (Eusebius, PE III.14.7) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil. orac.
named in 310F = same literary context; Wolff, 126–7.

227
228  Appendix I

Fragment 314F (Eusebius, PE IV.8.4–9.2) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil.
orac. named; Wolff, 111–8.
Fragment 315F (Eusebius, PE IV.9.3–7) Smith, Book I. No book named. Phil.
orac. named in 314F = same literary context; Wolff, 118–21.
Fragment 316F (Eusebius, PE V.10.13–11.1) Smith, Book I. No book named. This
is from Phil. orac. because just before this, Eus. has quoted from the Epistle to
Anebo and then says the same author in the aforesaid collection of oracles, etc.;
Wolff, 129–30.
Fragment 317F (Eusebius, PE V.12.1–2) Smith, Book I. No book named.
This continues 316F, so it derives from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 130–1.
Fragment 318F (Eusebius, PE V.13.1–2) Smith, Book I. No book named.
This continues 316F, so it derives from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 131–2.
Fragment 319F (Eusebius, PE V.13.3–4) Smith, Book I. No book named.
This continues 316F, so it derives from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 133–4.
Fragment 320F (Eusebius, PE V.14.2–3) Smith, Book I. No book named. This
continues 316F, so it derives from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 134–7.
Fragment 321F (Eusebius, PE V 14.4–15.4) Smith, Book I. No book named. This
continues 316F, so it derives from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 137.
Fragment 322F (Eusebius, PE V.15.6–16.1) Smith, Book I. No book named. This
continues 316F, so it derives from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 172–4.
Fragment 323F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.1–2) Smith, Book I. Book I named. Phil.
orac. named; Wolff, 139–41.
Fragment 324F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.3–5) Smith, Book I. Certainly from book
I because this continues the preceding fragment (323F); Wolff, 139–41.
According to Smith, fragments from Book I, Phil. Orac. stop here.

Book Two
Book II fragments begin here according to Smith.
Fragment 325F (Fragmente Griechischer Theosophien 173.17–174.22, Erbse)
Smith, Book II. Book II named & Phil. orac. named; Wolff, 143–7.
Fragment 325aF (Fragmente Griechischer Theosophien 30, p. 174, 23–25, Erbse)
Smith, Book II. From book II because this continues the preceding fragment (325F).
Fragment 326F (Eusebius, PE IV.22.15–23.6) Smith, Book II. No book named
but reference is made to what was mentioned in the first book. Phil. orac. is
named; Wolff, 147–50.
Fragment 327F (Eusebius, PE IV.23.6) Smith, Book II. No book named.
Phil. orac. not named, but connects with 326F where it is named; Wolff, 150.
 Appendix I  229

Fragment 328F (Eusebius, PE IV.23.7–9) Smith, Book II. No book named.

Phil. orac. not named, but connects with 326F where it is named; Wolff, 151.
Fragment 329F (Eusebius, PE IV.19.8–20.1) Smith, Book II. No book named.
Phil. orac. named; Wolff, 152–4.
Fragment 330F (Eusebius, PE V.14.1) Smith, Book II. Certainly book II because
of parallels with following fragment (330aF). Phil. orac. not named; Wolff, 138–9,
who places this fragment in Book I.
Fragment 330aF (Philoponus, op. mundi 200.2–7) Smith, Book II. Book two
named & Phil. orac. named.
Fragment 331F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.1 Smith, Book II. No book named. Phil. orac.
named; Wolff, 166.
Fragment 332F (Philoponus, op. mundi, 200.7–13) Smith, Book II. Book two because
it continues 330aF, which names the work and names Book Two; Wolff, 169 n. 13.
Fragment 333F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.2–3) Smith, Book II. No book named. Phil.
orac. not named, but this continues 331F where it is named; Wolff, 166–8.
Fragment 334F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.4) Smith, Book II. No book named. Phil. orac.
not named, but this continues 331F where it is named; Wolff, 168.
Fragment 335F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.5–7) Smith, Book II. Phil. orac. not named,
but this continues 331F where it is named; Wolff, 168.
Fragment 336F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.1) Smith, Book II. Phil. orac. not named, but
this continues 331F where it is named; Wolff, 168–9.
Fragment 337F (Philoponus, op. mundi, 200.13–20) Smith, Book II. Book two
because this continues 330aF where Book Two is named along with Phil. orac.;
Wolff, 170.
Fragment 338F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.2–3.1) Smith, Book II. No book named. Phil.
orac. not named, but this continues 331F where it is named; Wolff, 170–2.
Fragment 339F (Eusebius, PE VI.3.5–4.3) Smith, Book II. No book named. Phil.
orac. not named, but this continues 331F where it is named; Wolff, 165.
Fragment 340F (Eusebius, PE VI.4.3–5.1) Smith, Book II. Book two because it
has parallels with next fragment, which names Book Two. Wolff, 169.
Fragment 340aF (Philoponus, op. mundi, 200.20–26) Smith, Book II. Book two
because it continues 330aF, which names Book Two.

Book Three
Book III fragments start here according to Smith.
Fragment 341F (Eusebius, PE VI.5.2–4) Smith, Book III. Book three because it
relates to next fragment in which Book Three is named; Wolff, 175–6.
230  Appendix I

Fragment 341aF (Philoponus, op. mundi, 201.1–17) Smith, Book III. Book three
named; context determines it is from Phil. orac.; Wolff, 175.
Fragment 342F (Philoponus, op. mundi, 201.18–202.16) Smith, Book three
because this continues 341F; Wolff, 176–7.
Fragment 343F (Augustinus, De civitate dei XIX.22.17–23.17) Smith, Book three
because this refers to the oracle of Civ. Dei XIX.23, which has parallels with
Smith 345F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2), which names the Phil. orac. and Book Three;
Wolff, 183–4.
Fragment 344F (Augustinus, De civitate dei XIX.23.30–37) Smith, Book III.
Book three because the oracle of XIX.23 has parallels with Smith 345 F (Eus., DE
III.6.39–7.2), which names the Phil. orac. and Book Three. Wolff, 142, who
assigns it to Book I.
Fragment 344aF (Augustinus, De civitate dei XX.24.8–26) Smith, Book III.
Book three because this alludes to the oracle of XIX.23, which has parallels with
Smith 345 F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2), which names the Phil. orac. and Book Three.
Fragment 344bF (Augustinus, De civitate dei XXII.3.22–25) Smith, Book III.
Book three because this refers to the oracle of XIX.23, which has parallels with
Smith 345F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2), which names the Phil. orac. and Book Three.
Fragment 344 c F (Augustinus, De civitate dei XXII.25.1–15) Smith, Book III. No
book named. Porphyry is named, and his oracles, which say that the Hebrew
God causes the pagan deities to shudder.
Fragment 345F (Eusebius, DE III.6.39–7.2) Smith, Book III. Book three named.
Phil. orac. named also; Wolff, 180–1.
Fragment 345aF (Augustinus, De civitate dei XIX.23.43–73) Smith, Book III.
Book three because this has parallels with Smith, 345F, which names the work
and names Book Three; Wolff, 180–1.
Fragment 345bF (Augustinus, De civitate dei X.27.37–9) Smith, Book III. Book
three because, though neither the Phil. orac. nor any book is named, this refers
to “oracles” that proclaim Christ to be holy and immortal, so alluding to XIX.23,
which parallels 345F.
Fragment 345cF (Augustinus, De cons. evang. I.15.23) Smith, Book III. Book
three because, though neither the Phil. orac. nor any book is named, this refers
to “oracles” that praise Christ, so alluding to XIX.23, which parallels 345F.
Fragment 346F (Augustinus, De civitate dei XIX.23.107–133) Smith, Book III.
Book three due to parallels with 345F. Phil. orac. named earlier in this passage.
No book named; Wolff, 185–6.
 Appendix I  231

Fragment 347F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7) Smith, Book III. No book named. The
Phil. orac. is not actually named, but the work is named in the preceding frag-
ment (=Smith, 309F); Wolff, 154–8, who assigns it to Book II.
Fragment 348F (Eusebius, PE V.8.8–10) Smith, Book III. No book named. The
Phil. orac. is not actually named, but the work is named in the preceding frag-
ment (=Smith, 309F); Wolff, 159–65, who assigns it to BOOK II.
Fragment 349F (Eusebius, PE V.8.11–12) Smith, Book III. No book named. The
Phil. orac. is not actually named, but the work is named in the preceding frag-
ment (=Smith, 309F); Wolff, 159–65, who assigns it to Book II.
Fragment 350F (Eusebius, PE V.8.13–9; 9.12) Smith, Book III. No book named.
The Phil. orac. is not actually named, but the work is named in the preceding
fragment (=Smith, 309F); Wolff, 159–65, who assigns it to Book II.
 Appendix II

Occurrences of Universalism in the

PE (187 Total)
I give line citations from Gifford (1903) where more than one passage occurs in
the same section.

Book I: 36 occurrences

1.1.2a; 1.1.2c; 1.1.2d; 1.1.3a; 1.1.3b.1–4; 1.1.3b.5–10; 1.1.3c; 1.1.3d; 1.2.5a; 1.3.7d.1–5;
1.3.7d.6–19; 1.3.8b.1–4; 1.3.8b.5–14; 1.3.8d; 1.3.9b; 1.4.10a; 1.4.10b; 1.4.10d–11a;
1.4.11b; 1.4.12a; 1.4.12d; 1.4.13a; 1.4.13b–c; 1.4.13d; 1.4.13d–14a; 1.5.14b; 1.14c–d;
1.5.14d; 1.5.16a; 1.5.16c; 1.6.17c.1–5; 1.6.17c.6–18; 1.8.24c; 1.9.30b; 1.9.31c–d;
1.10.41b–c.

Book II: 10 occurrences

2.Praef.43d; 2.1.5Ib; 22.61b; 2.4.68a; 2.4.68c–d; 2.4.69a; 2.5.69d; 2.5.69d–70a;
2.5.70a; 2.6.72d.

Book III: 11 occurrences

3.5.95b; 3.6.96d; 3.10.103d; 3.10.104a–b; 3.10.105c; 3.10.106d; 3.10.107d; 3.11.111b;
3.13.119c; 3.13.119d–120a; 3.13.122c–d.

Book IV: 14 occurrences

4.1.130d; 4.1.131a; 4.4.140a–b; 4.4.140b–d; 4.7.143c–d; 4.10.147d; 4.10.148d;
4.15.154b–c; 4.16.161d; 4.17.164c–d; 4.17.165d–166a; 4.21.169c–d; 4.21.170a–b;
4.21.170b–d.

233
234  Appendix II

Book V: 10 occurrences

5.1.178b; 5.1.178c–d; 5.1.178d–179a; 5.1.179b–c; 5.1.179c–d; 5.1.180a; 5.1.180b;
5.1.180b–c; 5.1.180c–d; 5.18.208a.

Book VI: 13 occurrences

6.Praef.236a–b; 6.3.240c; 6.6.242d; 6.6.245c–d; 6.6.25la–b; 6.6.253a–b; 6.6.253b;
6.6.253c.1–4; 6.6.253c.5–10; 6.6.253d; 6.6.253d–254a; 6.6.254a–c; 6.11.295d–296a.

Book VII: 33 occurrences

7.2.300b; 7.3.302a; 7.4.302c–303a; 7.5.303d; 7.8.306d; 7.8.308a; 7.9.312d–313a;
7.9.313d–314a; 7.10.314b; 7.10.314c–d; 7.10.314d–315a; 7.10.316c; 7.11.317c–d;
7.11.318b; 7.11.320a–b; 7.12.320d–321a; 7.12.321d.3–10; 7.12.321d.11–15; 7.14.324b–c;
7.15.324c–d;7.15.325a–b; 7.15.325c; 7.15.326a; 7.15.326b; 7.15.326c; 7.15.327b–c;
7.15.327d; 7.16.328b; 7.16.330a–b; 7.17.330d; 7.18.331d; 7.18.332c; 7.18.333a.

Book VIII: 2 occurrences

8.Praef.348c; 8.Praef.349a–c.

Book IX: 1 occurrence

9.10.413d.

Book X: 7 occurrences

10.1.460d; 10.3.468b–c; 10.4.469c; 10.4.469d; 10.4.472d–473a; 10.4.473b–c;
10.8.482c–d.

Book XI: 26 occurrences

11.4.512c–d; 11.6.517d; 11.6.520c; 11.7.522c; 11.7.522d–523a; 11.9.524b; 11.13.530c;
11.13.531d; 11.14.531d–532a; 11.14.532c; 11.15.534b; 11.16.534d–535a; 11.18.538b;
11.18.539d; 11.19.540c; 11.19.540d.8–10; 11.19.540d.11–13; 11.19.541a; 11.21.542a;
11.21.543a; 11.23.545d; 11.23.546c; 11.29.557c–d; 11.30.558c; 11.38.567b–c; 11.38.569d.

BOOK XII: 4 occurrences

12.6.580d; 12.10.584a–b; 12.16.588d; 12.32.609b.
 Appendix II  235

BOOK XIII: 10 occurrences

13.3.647b; 13.3.648d; 13.3.649a; 13.3.649b; 13.11.663b–c; 13.14.692a; 13.15.694d;
13.15.695c; 13.18.702b; 13.18.704a.

BOOK XIV: 4 occurrences

14.3.719d; 14.3.719d–720a; 14.9.740a–b; 14.16.755c–d.

BOOK XV: 6 occurrences

15.Praef.788a; 15.Praef.789a; 15.3.793d; 15.5.798c; 15.6.801b; 15.61.852d.
 Appendix III

Occurrences of Universalism per book in

the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius
of Caesarea
(Numerical citations are according to the edition of W. J. Ferrar (1920) including
subsections for the purposes of specificity.)

Book I: 68 occurrences

1. I.1(4) p. 2; 2. I.1(4) p. 3; 3. I.1(6–7); 4. I.2(14); 5. I.2(15); 6. I.2(15–16); 7. I.2(16–17);
8. I.3(19) p. 12; 9. I.3(3)(b–c) p. 16; 10. I.3(3)(d)–(4)(a); 11. I.3(5)(d); 12. I.3(6)(a);
13. I.3(6)(b–c); 14. I.3(6)(c–d); 15. I.3(6)(d)–7(a); 16. I.4(7)(c); 17. I.4(7)(c–d); 18.
I.4(7)(d) p. 22; 19. I.4(7)(d) p. 23; 20. I.4(8)(a–b); 21. I.4(8)(c); 22. I.4(8)(d); 23.
I.4(9)(a); 24. I.5(a)(b–c); 25. I.5(9)(c–d); 26. I.5(10)(a–c); 27. I.5(10)(c–d); 28.
I.5(11)(c)–(12)(a); 29. I.6(12)(c); 30. I.6(13)(c); 31. I.6(16)(d); 32. I.6(18)(a–b); 33.
I.6(18)(b); 34. I.6(18)(d)–(19)(a); 35. I.6(19)(a–b); 36. I.6(19)(b); 37. I.6(19)(c–d);
38. I.6(20)(b); 39. I.6(20)(b–c); 40. I.6(20)(d)–(21)(a); 41. I.6(21)(c–d); 42. I.6(22)
(d); 43. I.6(23)(a–b); 44. I.6(23)(b); 45. I.6(24)(b); 46. I.6(24)(c); 47. I.6(24)(c)
[after Mt. 28:19 quote]; 48. I.7(25)(b–c); 49. I.7(25)(d)–(26)(a); 50. I.7(26)(a–b);
51. I.7(26)(b–c); 52. I.7(26)(d)–(27)(a); 53. I.7(27)(c); 54. I.7(28)(d); 55. I.8(30)(b);
56. I.10(36)(b–c); 57. I.10(36)(c); 58. I.10(37)(a); 59. I.10(37)(a–b); 60. I.10(37)(c);
61. I.10(37)(d); 62. I.10(38)(a); 63. I.10(38)(b–c); 64. I.10(39)(b–c); 65. I.10(39)
(c–d); 66. I.10(40)(a); 67. I.10(40)(a) [=Mal. 1:11]; 68. I.10(40)(b).

Book II: 95 occurrences

1. II.Pref.(43)(b); 2. II.1.(44)(b); 3. II.1.(44)(b–d); 4. II.1.(45)(b); 5. II.1.(45)(c);
6. II.1.(45)(d); 7. II.1.(46)(a–b); 8. II.1.(46)(c) [=Dt. 32:43]; 9. II.1.(46)(c) [=Ps.
21:28–32]; 10. II.1.(47) [=Ps. 46:1, 2, & 8]; 11. II.1.(47) [=Ps. 85:8–10]; 12. II.1.(47)
[=Ps. 95:1–4, 7, & 10]; 13. II.1.(48) [=Zech. 14:16–19]; 14. II.1.(48) [=Is. 9:1–2]; 15.
II.1.(48) [=Is. 49:1]; 16. II.1.(48)(c–d) [=Is. 49:6 and comm.]; 17. II.1.(49)(a–b]; 18.
II.2.(49)(c); 19. II.2.(50)(a) [=Ps. 71:1, 2, 8, 11, 17, 19]; 20. II.2.(50)(b) [=Ps. 97]; 21.

237
238  Appendix III

II.2.(50)(c); 22. II.2.(50)(d); 23. II.2.(51)(a); 24. II.2.(51)(b); 25. II.2.(51)(c); 26.
II.2.(52)(a); 27. II.2.(52)(b); 28. II.2.(52)(c); 29. II.2.(53) [=Is. 55:3–5]; 30. II.2.(53)
[=comm. after Is. 55:3–5]; 31. II.3.(54) [=Jer. 6:16]; 32. II.3.(54) [=Jer. 16:19–17:4];
33. II.3.(54)(d) [=Am. 9:9]; 34. II.3.(55) [=Mic. 3:9–4:2]; 35. II.3.(55) [=Zech.
9:9–10]; 36. II.3.(56)(a) [=Mal. 1:10–12]; 37. II.3.(56)(b); 38. II.3.(57)(a); 39.
II.3.(57) [=Is. 15:1–8]; 40. II.3.(57)(d) [=Is. 43:18–25; 45:22–25]; 41. II.3.(57)(d)
[=Is. 50:1, 2, 10; 51:4, 5]; 42. II.3.(59)(a); 43. II.3.(59)(d); 44. II.3.(60)(a); 45.
II.3.(60)(b–c); 46. II.3.(60)(c); 47. II.3.(60)(c–d); 48. II.3.(61)(a); 49. II.3.(61)
(a–b); 50. II.3.(61)(b); 51. II.3.(61)(c); 52. II.3.(61)(d) [=Hos. 2:23]; 53. II.3.(61)(d)
[=Is. 42:1, 6]; 54. II.3.(62)(a); 55. II.3.(62)(b–c); 56. II.3.(62)(c); 57. II.3.(62)(d); 58.
II.3.(63)(a–b); 59. II.3.(64)(c–d); 60. II.3.(65)(b); 61. II.3.(66)(d); 62. II.3.(67)(a);
63. II.3.(68)(b–c); 64. II.3.(68)(c–d); 65. II.3.(69)(b–c); 66. II.3.(69)(d)–(70)(a);
67. II.3.(71)(c); 68. II.3(72)(d); 69. II.3.(73)(b–c); 70. II.3.(74)(a–b); 71. II.3(74)(c);
72. II.3.(75)(a–b); 73. II.3.(75)(b–d); 74. II.3.(76)(c–d); 75. II.3.(76)(d)–(77)(b);
76. II.3.(77)(c–d); 77. II.3.(78)(b); 78. II.3.(78)(b–c); 79. II.3.(78)(d); 80. II.3.(78)
(d)–(79)(c); 81. II.3.(79)(c–d); 82. II.3.(79)(d); 83. II.3.(80)(b–c); 84. II.3.(80)(d);
85. II.3.(81)(a); 86. II.3.(81)(b–c); 87. II.3.(81)(c); 88. II.3.(82)(b); 89. II.3.(83)(a);
90. II.3.(83)(d); 91. II.3.(84)(a); 92. II.3.(84)(c–d); 93. II.3.(85)(c–d); 94. II.3.(85)
(d)–(86)(a); 95. II.3.(86)(b).

Book III: 50 occurrences

1. III.1.(88)(c–d); 2. III.1.(89)(a); 3. III.2.(90)(a–b); 4. III.2.(91)(a–b); 5. III.2.(91)
(c); 6. III.2.(91)(d); 7. III.2.(94)(a); 8. III.2.(95)(a); 9. III.2.(95)(b); 10. III.2.(95)
(d)–(96)(a–b); 11. III.2.(96)(c); 12. III.2.(96)(c)–(97)(a); 13. III.2.(97)(a–b); 14.
III.2.(98)(c)–(99)(a); 15. III.2.(99)(d); 16. III.2.(100)(b); 17. III.2.(101)(c–d); 18.
III.2.(101)(d)–(102)(a); 19. III.3.(103)(b–d); 20. III.3.(104)(b–c); 21. III.3.(105)(d);
22. III.3.(106)(a–b); 23. III.3.(106)(c); 24. III.3.(106)(d); 25. III.3.(107)(a); 26.
III.4.(108)(d)–(109)(a); 27. III.5.(110)(c–d); 28. III.5.(112)(c–d); 29. III.5.(114)
(b–c); 30. III.5.(114)(d)–(115)(a); 31. III.5.(115)(d); 32. III.5.(116)(b); 33. III.5.(117)
(a); 34. III.5.(125)(a); 35. III.6.(125)(b–c); 36. III.6.(129)(a–b); 37. III.6.(129)(d)–
(130)(b); 38. III.6.(132)(a); 39. III.6.(133)(d); 40. III.7.(135)(a–b); 41. III.7.(135)
(c–d); 42. III.7.(136)(a–b); 43. III.7.(136)(c–d); 44. III.7.(137)(a); 45. III.7.(137)
(a–b); 46. III.7.(138)(b–c); 47. III.7.(138)(c); 48. III.7.(139)(d)–(140)(b); 49.
III.7.(140)(c); 50. III.7.(140)(d).

Book IV: 55 occurrences

1. IV.1.(145)(a–b); 2.  IV.1.(145)(c–d); 3.  IV.2.(146)(a–d); 4.  IV.3.(147)(b–c);
5. IV.4.(149)(c)–(150)(a); 6. IV.5.(150)(b–d); 7. IV.5.(150)(d)–(151)(b); 8. IV.5.(151)
 Appendix III  239

(c–d); 9. IV.5.(152)(b–c); 10. IV.5.(152)(c); 11. IV.5.(152)(d)–(153)(b); 12. IV.5.(153)

(b–c); 13. IV.6.(153)(d)–(154)(b); 14. IV.6.(155)(a–c); 15. IV.6.(155)(c)–(156)(a); 16.
IV.7.(156)(b–d); 17. IV.7.(156)(d)–(157)(b); 18. IV.9.(158)(c–d); 19. IV.9.(159)(a–b);
20. IV.9.(159)(c)–(160)(a); 21. IV.9.(160)(c–d); 22. IV.10.(161); 23. IV.10.(162)(d)–
(163)(a); 24. IV.10.(163)(a–c); 25. IV.10.(163)(d); 26. IV.10.(164)(a–b); 27. IV.10.
(164)(b–d); 28. IV.10.(165)(a–c); 29. IV.12.(166)(b–c); 30. IV.12.(166)(d); 31. IV.12.
(167)(a–b); 32. IV.12.(167)(c–d); 33. IV.13.(168)(c–d); 34. IV.13.(169)(b–c); 35.
IV.14.(170)(d); 36. IV.15.(172)(d)–(173)(a); 37. IV.15.(175)(d); 38. IV.15.(176)(a–b);
39. IV.15.(178)(a); 40. IV.16.(182)(d); 41. IV.16.(183)(c–d); 42. IV.16.(184)(a); 43.
IV.16.(184)(d)–(185)(a); 44. IV.16.(185)(c–d); 45. IV.16.(186)(c–d); 46. IV.16.(187)
(c–d); 47. IV.16.(188)(c); 48. IV.16.(188)(c) (after Am. 4:12–5:2 quote); 49. IV.16.
(189)(a–b); 50. IV.16.(190)(d); 51. IV.16.(191)(d)–(192)(a); 52. IV.16.(193)(b–c); 53.
IV.16.(194)(a–b); 54. IV.17.(198)(c); 55. IV.17.(199)(a–b).

Book V: 31 occurrences

1. V.Pref.(204)(a–b); 2. V.Pref.(204)(c–d); 3. V.Pref.(207)(c–d); 4. V.Pref.(208)
(a–c); 5. V.Pref.(208)(d)–(209)(a); 6. V.Pref.(210)(a); 7. V.Pref.(210)(d);
8. V.1.(212)–(213)(a); 9. V.1.(214)(c–d); 10. V.1.(216)(a–c); 11. V.2.(218)(b–d); 12.
V.2.(218)(d)–(219)(a); 13. V.2.(219)(a–b); 14. V.3.(220)(c–d); 15. V.3.(221)(d); 16.
V.3.(223)(b); 17. V.3.(223)(c–d); 18. V.3.(224)(d); 19. V.4.(225)(b–c); 20. V.4.(228)
(a–b); 21. V.5.(229)(b–d); 22. V.5.(229)(d); 23. V.5.(230)(c); 24. V.6.(231)(d)–(232)
(a); 25. V.13.(240)(c–d); 26. V.19.(246)(d); 27. V.24.(251)(b); 28. V.25.(251)(c); 29.
V.26.(251)(d)–(252)(a); 30. V.27.(253)(a); 31. V.30.(255)(a).

Book VI: 57 occurrences

1.VI.Pref.(257)(a–b); 2. VI.Pref.(257)(d); 3. VI.1.(258)(c–d); 4. VI.2.(259)(c–d);
5. VI.2.(259)(d); 6. VI.2.(260)(b–c); 7. VI.2.(260)(c–d); 8. VI.3.(261)(d)–(262)
(a); 9. VI.5.(263)(b); 10. VI.6.(263)(c)–(264)(a); 11. VI.7.(264)(d)–(265)(a); 12.
VI.7.(265)(c); 13. VI.8.(266)(a–c); 14. VI.9.(267)(a); 15. VI.9.(267)(b); 16. VI.10.
(268)(a); 17. VI.11.(268)(d); 18. VI.12.(269)(b–c); 19. VI.12.(269)(d); 20. VI.13.
(270)(d)–(271)(b); 21. VI.13.(272)(b–c); 22. VI.13.(272)(c–d); 23. VI.13.(273)(a–b);
24. VI.13.(273)(d)–(274)(a); 25. VI.13.(274)(b–c); 26. VI.13.(274)(c–d); 27. VI.13.
(275)(c); 28. VI.13.(276)(a–b); 29. VI.14.(277)(c–d); 30. VI.15.(279)(a); 31. VI.15.
(280)(a); 32. VI.15.(280)(c)–(281)(a); 33. VI.15.(281)(a–c); 34. VI.16.(282)(a); 35.
VI.16.(282)(b–d); 36. VI.17.(283)(a–b); 37. VI.17.(283)(d); 38. VI.18.(284)(a)–(285)
(a); 39. VI.18.(285)(b–c); 40. VI.18.(285)(d); 41. VI.18.(286)(b)–(287)(a); 42.
VI.18.(287)(c–d); 43. VI.18.(288)(b–d); 44. VI.18.(289)(c–d); 45. VI.18.(293)
(c–d); 46. VI.18.(294)(a–c); 47. VI.18.(294)(c); 48. VI.20.(297)(d)–(298)(c); 49.
240  Appendix III

VI.20.(298)(d)–(299)(a); 50. VI.21.(300)(c)–(301)(b); 51. VI.21.(301)(b–c); 52.

VI.24.(304)(b–c); 53. VI.24.(304)(d); 54. VI.24.(305)(b); 55. VI.24.(305)(c); 56.
VI.25.(306)(a–d); 57. VI.25.(306)(d).

Book VII: 36 occurrences

1. VII.Pref.(308); 2. VII.1.(309)(c–d); 3. VII.1.(310)(c); 4. VII.1.(310)(d)–(311)(a);
5. VII.1.(311)(c–d); 6. VII.1.(312)(a–b); 7. VII.1.(313)(b–c); 8. VII.1.(313)(d)–(314)
(b); 9. VII.1.(314)(d); 10. VII.1.(319)(c); 11. VII.1.(319)(c–d); 12. VII.1.(323)(a); 13.
VII.1.(324)(b–c); 14. VII.1.(326)(d)–(327)(a); 15. VII.1.(330)(a–b); 16. VII.1.(330)
(b–c); 17. VII.1.(330)(d); 18. VII.1.(331)(a); 19. VII.1.(331)(c); 20.VII.1.(332)(c); 21.
VII.1.(335)(b–c); 22. VII.1.(337)(d); 23. VII.1.(339)(a–b); 24. VII.2.(343)(d)–(344)
(a); 25. VII.2.(344)(b–c); 26. VII.2.(344)(c–d); 27. VII.2.(345)(a–b); 28. VII.2.(348)
(d); 29. VII.3(352)(b–c); 30. VII.3.(354)(c)–(355)(c); 31. VII.3.(356)(a–c); 32.
VII.3.(356)(c); 33. VII.3.(358)(a–c); 34. VII.3.(359)(c–d); 35. VII.3.(360)(b–c); 36.
VII.3.(360)(d)–(361)(a).

Book VIII: 30 occurrences

1. VIII.Pref.(362)(a–b); 2.  VIII.Pref.(364)(d)–(365)(b); 3.  VIII.Pref.(365)(c);
4. VIII.1.(366)(b–d); 5. VIII.1.(366)(d)–(367)(a); 6. VIII.1.(367)(b–d); 7. VIII.1.(370)
(a–b); 8. VIII.1.(372)(a); 9. VIII.1.(373)(d); 10. VIII.1.(374)(c–d); 11. VIII.1.(375)
(a–b); 12. VIII.1.(375)(c); 13. VIII.1.(375)(d); 14. VIII.1.(376)(a–c); 15. VIII.1.(377)
(a–c); 16. VIII.1.(377)(d); 17. VIII.1.(379)(d); 18. VIII.2.(385)(c–d); 19. VIII.2.(385)
(d) (quote from Auila); 20. VIII.2.(385)(d)–(386)(c); 21. VIII.2.(400)(b); 22.
VIII.2.(402)(a–b); 23. VIII.3.(406)(d)–(407)(a); 24. VIII.4.(408)(d)–(409)(b); 25.
VIII.4(409)(d); 26. VIII.4.(410)(a–b); 27. VIII.4.(410)(c); 28. VIII.4.(411)(a); 29.
VIII.4.(412)(b); 30. VIII.4.(412)(c).

Book IX: 32 occurrences

1. IX.1.(418)(d)–(419)(c); 2. IX.1.(420)(a–b); 3. IX.1.(420)(c–d); 4. IX.1.(420)(d);
5. IX.2.(422)(c–d); 6. IX.3.(423)(d)–(424)(a); 7. IX.3.(424)(d); 8. IX.3.(425)(a);
9. IX.3.(425)(c–d); 10. IX.5.(429)(a) [=Jn. 1:29]; 11. IX.5.(429)(a–b); 12. IX.5.(429)
(c–d); 13. IX.6.(431)(d)–(432)(b); 14. IX.7.(434)(a–d); 15. IX.7.(436)(b–c); 16.
IX.7.(437)(c–d); 17. IX.8.(439)(b); 18. IX.8.(440)(a–b); 19. IX.9.(441)(b–c); 20.
IX.11.(444)(a–b); 21. IX.11.(445)(b–d); 22. IX.13.(447)(c–d); 23. IX.13.(448)(a–b);
24. IX.13.(448)(d)–(449)(b); 25. IX.13.(450)(a); 26. IX.15.(453)(c–d); 27. IX.16.
(455)(b–c); 28. IX.17.(456)(c); 29. IX.17.(456)(d); 30. IX.17.(457)(c)–(458)(a); 31.
IX.17.(458)(b–d); 32. IX.18.(460)(a).
 Appendix III  241

Book X: 17 occurrences

1. X.Pref.(462)(a–b); 2. X.Pref.(462)(b–c); 3. X.Pref.(462)(c–d); 4. X.1.(466)(d)–
(467)(a); 5. X.1.(467)(b)–(468)(a); 6. X.2.(473)(b); 7. X.4.(484)(a–b); 8. X.7.(488)
(d)–(489)(a); 9. X.8.(492)(a–c); 10. X.8.(495)(b)–(496)(a); 11. X.8.(499)(a–b); 12.
X.8.(501)(c); 13. X.8.(502)(d); 14. X.8.(508)(c); 15. X.8.(509)(c–d); 16. X.8.(509)
(d)–(510)(a); 17. X.8.(510)(a–d).
 Appendix IV

The Ten Subthemes of Universalism

found in the PE
1.  The Lord of Creation: 75 total occurrences
classified as follows:
Lord of Creation contrasted with mythological deities: 52 occurrences

1.6.17c.1–5; 1.8.24c; 2.6.72d; 3.10.104a–b; 3.10.106d; 3.10.107d; 3.11.1111,: 3.13.119c;

3.13.119d–120a; 4.10.147d; 7.3.302a; 7.8.306d; 7.8.308a; 7.9.313d–314a; 7.10.316c;
7.11.317c–d; 7.11.320a–1; 7.12.320d–321a; 7.14.324b–c; 7.15.325a–1b; 7.15.326b;
7.15.326c; 7.17.330d; 7.18.333a; 114.512c–d; 11.6.517d; 11.6.520c; 11.9.524b; 11.13, 530c;
11.14.531d–532a; 11.14.532c; 11.15.534b; 11.16.534d–535a; 11.18.538b; 11.18.539d;
11.19.540c; 11.19.540d.1–10; 11.19.540d.11–14; 11.19.541a; 11.21.542a; 11.21.543a;
11.29.557c–d; 11.30.558c; 12.16.588d; 13.3.647b; 13.14.692a; 13.15.694d; 13.15.695c;
13.18.702b; 13.18.704a; 15.6.801b; 15.61.852d.

God the Majestic King: 11 occurrences

1.1.2d; 3.5.951; 7.10.3141; 7.15.324c–d; 7.15.325c; 7.15.327b–c; 7.15.327d; 7.16.328b;

7.18.331d; 7.18.332c; 11.23.545d.

The Lord of the Universe superior to fate: 9 occurrences

4.10.148d; 6.3.240c; 6.6.242d; 6.6.253d–254a; 7.4.302c–303a; 7.10.314c–d;

7.10.314d–315a; 7.15.326a; 11.13.531d.

The Transcendent God above and beyond nature: 3 occurrences

3.6.96d; 3.10.103d; 3.10.105c.

243
244  Appendix IV

2.  Global Evangelization: 33 occurrences

classified as follows:
The rapid geographical extension of Christianity to all nations: 20
occurrences

1.3.8b.1–4; 1.3.8d; 1.4.11b; 1.4.12a; 2.5.69d–70a; 4.1.131a; 4.15.154b–c; 4.16.161d;

5.1.179b–c; 5.1.180b; 6.6.253a–b; 6.6.253b; 6.6.253c.5–10; 6.6.253d; 6.6.254a–c;
8.Praef.349a–c; 8.Praef.348c; 12.10.584a–b; 14.3.719d; 14.3.719d–720a.

The preaching of the gospel of salvation: 7 occurrences

1.1.3b.5–10; 1.1.3c; 1.3.7d.1–5; 1.3.7d.6–19; 7.9.312d–313a; 13.3.648d; 13.3.649b.

Salvation for all humans regardless of ethnicity, social class, age,

gender, or educational level: 6 occurrences

1.1.3a; 1.4.12d; 1.4.13d; 1.5.14d; 1.5.16a; 12.32.609b.

3.  Salvation from Universal Polytheism:

19 occurrences
1.2.5a; 1.9.31c–d; 1.10.41b–c; 2.Praef.43d; 2.4.68a; 2.4.68c–d; 2.5.70a; 4.1.130d;
4.4.140b–d; 4.17.165d–166a; 4.21.170a–b; 5.1.178b; 5.1.178c–d; 5.1.178d–179a;
10.4.469c; 10.4.469d; 14.9.740a–b; 14.16.755c–d; 15.Praef 788a.

4.  The One Way to Salvation: 16 occurrences

1.3.8b.5–14; 1.5.14c–d; 1.6.17c.6–18; 2.1.51d; 2.2.61b; 2.4.69a; 2.5.69d; 3.13.122c–d;
4.7.143c–d; 4.21.169c–d; 4.21.170b–d; 6.Praef.236a–b; 6.11.295d–296a; 9.10.413d;
10.8.482c–d; 13.11.663b–c.

5.  Epistemological Salvation: 12 occurrences

1.1.3b.1–4; 1.1.3d; 1.9.30b; 4.4.140a–b; 6.6.253c.1–4; 10.1.460d; 10.3.468b–c;
10.4.472d–473a; 10.4.473b–c; 11.7.522d–523a; 11.23.546c; 15.3.793d.

6.  Deliverance from Demons: 11 occurrences

1.3.9b; 1.4.l0b; 1.4.10d–11a; 1.5.14b: 4.17.164c–d; 5.1.179c–d; 5.1.180b–c; 5.1.180c–d;
5.18.208a; 7.2.300b; 7.16.330a–b.
 Appendix IV  245

7.  Salvific (Temporal) Blessings: 7 occurrences

1.1.2a; 1.4.10a; 5.1.180a; 7.5.303d; 7.12.321d.3–5; 7.12.321d.11–13; 15.Praef .789a.

8.  Divine Providence: 7 occurrences

1.1.2c; 6.6.245c–d; 6.6.251a–b; 7.11.318b; 11.7.522c; 13.3.649a; 15.5.798c.

9.  Moral Reformation of Character: 4

occurrences
1.4.13a; 1.4.13b–c; 1.4.13d–14a; 1.5.16c.

10.  Eschatological Salvation: 3 occurrences

11.38.567b–c; 11.38.569d; 12.6.580d.
 Appendix V

Subthemes of Universalism found in the DE

In some citations the page number or scripture citations in Ferrar (1925) have
been inserted to facilitate locating the passage more easily.

1.  The Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy

in Christ: 320 occurrences
I.1.(4) (p.2); I.1.(4) (p.3); I.1.(6–7); I.2.(14); I.2.(15); I.2.(15–16); I.2.(16–17); I.3.(19)
(p. 12); I.3.(3) (b–c) (p. 16); I.3.(3)(d)–(4)(a); I.3.(5)(d); I.3.(6)(a); I.3.(6)(b–c);
I.3.(6)(c–d); I.3.(6)(d)–(7)(a); I.4.(7)(c); I.4.(7)(c–d); I.4.(7)(d) (p. 22); I.4.(7)(d)
(p. 23); I.4.(8)(a–b); I.4.(8)(a–b); I.4.(8)(c); I.4.(8)(d); I.4.(9)(a); I.5.(9)(b–c);
I.5.(9)(c–d); I.5.(10)(c–d); I.6.(12)(c); I.6.(13)(c); I.6.(16)(d); I.6.(18)(a–b); I.6.(18)
(b); I.6.(18(d)–(19)(a); I.6.(19)(a–b); I.6.(19(b); I.6.(19)(c–d); I.6.(20)(b); I.6.(20)
(b–c); I.6.(20)(d)–(21)(a); I.6.(21)(c–d); I.6.(22)(d); I.6.(23)(a–b); I.6.(23)(b);
I.6.(24)(b); I.6.(24)(c); I.6.(24)(c); I.7.(25)(b–c); I.7.(25)(d)–(26)(a); I.7.(26)(a–b);
I.7.(26)(b–c); I.7.(26)(d)–(27)(a); I.7.(27)(c); I.7.(28)(d); I.8.(30)(b); I.10.(36)
(b–c); I.10.(36)(c); I.10.(37)(a); I.10.(37)(a–b); I.10.(37)(c); I.10.(37)(d); I.10.(38)
(a); I.10.(38)(b–c); I.10.(39)(b–c); I.10.(39)(c–d); I.10.(40)(a); I.10.(40)(a) [=Mal.
1:11]; I.10.(40)(b); II.Pref.(43)(b); II.1.(44)(b); II.1.(44)(b–d); II.1.(45)(b); II.1.(45)
(c); II.1.(45)(d); II.1.(46)(a–b); II.1.(46)(c) [=Dt. 32:43); II.1.(46)(c) [=Ps.
21:28–32]; II.1.(47) [=Ps. 46:1, 2, & 8]; II.1.(47) [=Ps. 85:8–10]; II.1.(47) [=Ps.
95:1–4, 7, & 10]; II.1.(48) [=Zech. 14:16–19]; II.1.(48) [=Is. 9:1–2]; II.1.(48) [=Is.
49:1]; II.1.(48)(c–d) [=Is. 49:6 & following]; II.1.(49)(a–b); II.2.(49)(c); II.2.(50)
(a) [=Ps. 71:1, 2, 8, 11, 17, 19]; II.2.(50)(b) [=Ps. 97]; II.2.(50)(c); II.2.(50)(d);
II.2.(51)(a); II.2.(51)(b); II.2.(51)(c); II.2.(52)(a); II.2.(52)(b); II.2.(52)(c); II.2.(53)
[=Is. 55:3–5]; II.2.(53) [=comm. after Is. 55:3–5]; II.3.(54) [=Jer. 6:16]; II.3.(54)
[=Jer. 16:19–17:4]; II.3.(54)(d) [=Am. 9:9]; II.3.(55) [=Mic. 3:9–4:2]; II.3.(55)
[=Zech. 9:9–10]; II.3.(56)(a) [=Mal. 1:10–12]; II.3.(56)(b); II.3.(57)(a); II.3.(57)
[=Is. 15:1–8]; II.3.(57)(d) [=Is. 43:18–25; 45:22–25]; II.3.(57)(d) [=Is. 50:1, 2, 10;
51:4–5]; II.3.(59)(a); II.3.(59)(d); II.3.(60)(a); II.3.(60)(b–c); II.3.(60)(c); II.3.(60)
(c–d); II.3.(61)(a); II.3.(61)(a–b); II.3.(61)(b); II.3.(61)(c); II.3.(61)(d) [=Hos.

247
248  Appendix V

2:23]; II.3.(61)(d) [=Is. 42:1, 6]; II.3.(62)(a); II.3.(62)(b–c); II.3.(86)(b); III.1.(88)

(c–d); III.1.(89)(a); III.2.(90)(a–b); III.2.(91)(a–b); III.2.(91)(c); III.2.(91)(d);
III.2.(94)(a); III.2.(95)(a); III.2.(95)(b); III.2.(95)(d)–(96)(a–b); III.2.(96)(c);
III.2.(96)(c)–(97)(a); III.2.(97)(a–b); III.2.(98)(c)–(99)(a); III.2.(99)(d);
III.2.(100)(b); III.2.(101)(c–d); III.2.(101)(d)–(102)(a); IV.12.(166)(d); IV.16.(182)
(d); IV.16.(183)(c–d); IV.16.(184)(a); IV.16.(184)(d)–(185)(a); IV.16.(185)(c–d);
IV.16.(186)(c–d); IV.16.(187)(c–d); IV.16.(188)(c); IV.16.(188)(c) (after quoting
Am. 4:12–5:2); IV.16.(189)(a–b); IV.16.(190)(d); IV.16.(191)(d)–(192)(a); IV.16.
(193)(b–c); IV.16.(194)(a–b); IV.17.(198)(c); IV.17.(199)(a–b); V.Pref.(207)(c–d);
V.Pref.(208)(a–c); V.Pref.(208)(d)–(209)(a); V.Pref.(210)(a); V.3.(221)(d);
V.3.(223)(c–d); V.4.(225)(b–c); V.4.(228)(a–b); V.5.(229)(b–d); V.24.(251)(b);
V.25.(251)(c); v.26.(251)(d)–(252)(a); V.27.(253)(a); V.30.(255)(a); VI.Pref.(257)
(a–b); VI.Pref.(257)(d); VI.1.(258)(c–d); VI.2(259)(c–d); VI.2.(259)(d);
VI.2.(260)(b–c); VI.2.(260)(c–d); VI.3.(261)(d)–(262)(a); VI.5.(263)(b);
VI.6.(263)(c)–(264)(a); VI.7.(264)(d)–(265)(a); VI.7.(265)(c); VI.8.(266)(a–c);
VI.9.(267)(a); VI.9.(267)(b); VI.10.(268)(a); VI.11.(268)(d); VI.11.(268)(d); VI.12.
(269)(b–c); VI.12.(269)(d); VI.13.(270)(d)–(271)(b); VI.13.(273)(a–b); VI.13.(274)
(b–c); VI.13.(274)(c–d); VI.13.(275)(c); VI.13.(276)(a–b); VI.14.(277)(c–d); VI.15.
(280)(a); VI.15.(280)(c)–(281)(a); VI.15.(281)(a–c); VI.16.(282)(a); VI.16.(282)
(b–d); VI.17.(283)(a–b); VI.17.(283)(d); VI.18.(284)(a)–(285)(a); VI.18.(285)
(b–c); VI.18.(285)(d); VI.18.(286)(b)–(287)(a); VI.18.(287)(c–d); VI.18.(288)
(b–d); VI.18.(289)(c–d); VI.18.(293)(c–d); VI.18.(294)(a–c); VI.18.(294)(a–c);
VI.18.(294)(c); VI.20(298)(d)–(299)(a); VI.21.(300)(c)–(301)(b); VI.21.(301)
(b–c); VI.24.(304)(b–c); VI.24.(304)(d); VI.24.(305)(b); VI.24.(305)(c); VI.25.
(306)(a–d); VI.25.(306)(d); VII.Pref.(308); VII.1.(309)(c–d); VII.1.(310)(c);
VII.1.(310)(d)–(311)(a); VII.1.(311)(c–d); VII.1.(312)(a–b); VII.1.(319)(c);
VII.1.(319)(c–d); VII.1.(323)(a); VII.1.(324)(b–c); VII.1.(326)(d)–(327)(a);
VII.1.(330)(a–b); VII.1.(330)(b–c); VII.1.(330)(d); VII.1.(331)(a); VII.1.(331)(c);
VII.1.(332)(c); VII.1.(335)(b–c); VII.1.(337)(d); VII.1.(339)(a–b); VII.2.(343)(d)–
(344)(a); VII.2.(344)(b–c); VII.2.(344)(c–d); VII.2.(345)(a–b); VII.2.(348)(d);
VII.3.(352)(b–c); VII.3.(354)(c)–(355)(c); VII.3.(356)(a–c); VII.3.(356)(c);
VII.3.(358)(a–c); VII.3.(359)(c–d); VII.3.(360)(b–c); VII.3.(360)(d)–(361)(a);
VIII.Pref.(362)(a–b); VIII.Pref.(364)(d)–(365)(b); VIII.Pref.(365)(c); VIII.1.(366)
(b–d); VIII.1.(366)(d)–(367)(a); VIII.1.(367)(b–d); VIII.1.(370)(a–b); VIII.1.(372)
(a); VIII.1.(373)(d); VIII.1.(374)(c–d); VIII.1.(375)(a–b); VIII.1.(375)(c);
VIII.1.(375)(d); VIII.1.(376)(a–c); VIII.1.(377)(d); VIII.1.(379)(d); VIII.2.(400)
(b); VIII.2.(402)(a–b); VIII.3.(406)(d)–(407)(a); VIII.4.(408)(d)–(409)(b);
VIII.4.(409)(d); VIII.4.(410)(a–b); VIII.4.(410)(c); VIII.4.(411)(a); VIII.4.(412)
 Appendix V  249

(b); VIII.4.(412)(c); IX.1.(418)(d)–(419)(c); IX.1.(420)(a–b); IX.1.(420)(c–d);

IX.1.(420)(d); IX.2.(422)(c–d); IX.3.(423)(d)–(424)(a); IX.3.(425)(a); IX.3.(425)
(c–d); IX.5.(429)(a) [=Jn. 1:29); IX.5.(429)(a–b); IX.5.(429)(c–d); IX.6.(431)(d)–
(432)(b); IX.7.436)(b–c); IX.8.(439)(b); IX.8.(440)(a–b); IX.9.(441)(b–c); IX.11.
(444)(a–b); IX.11.(445)(b–d); IX.13.(447)(c–d); IX.13.(448)(a–b); IX.13.(450)(a);
IX.15.(453)(c–d); IX.16.(455) (b–c); IX.17.(456)(d); IX.17.(457)(c)–(458)(a); IX.17.
(458)(b–d); IX.18.(460)(a); X.Pref.(462)(c–d); X.1.(466)(d)–(467)(a); X.2.(473)
(b); X.4.(484)(a–b); X.7.(488)(d)–(489)(a); X.8.(492)(a–c); X.8.(495)(b)–(496)
(a); X.8.(499)(a–b); X.8.(502)(d); X.8.(509)(d)–(510)(a); X.8.(510)(a–d).

2.  Christ Possessed a Divine Power:

60 occurrences
III.3.(103)(b–d); III.3.(104)(b–c); III.3.(106)(c); III.4.(108)(d)–(109)(a); III.5.(110)
(c–d); III.5.(112)(c–d); III.5.(114)(b–c); III.5.(114)(d)–(115)(a); III.5.(115)(d);
III.5.(116)(b); III.5.(117)(a); III.5.(125)(a); III.6.(125)(b–c); III.6.(129)(a–b);
III.6.(132)(a); III.6.(133)(d); III.7.(135)(a–b); III.7.(135)(c–d); III.7.(136)(a–b);
III.7.(136)(c–d); III.7.(137)(a); III.7.(137)(a–b); III.7.(138)(b–c); III.7.(138)(c);
III.7.(139)(d)–(140)(b); III.7.(140)(c); III.7.(140)(d); IV.10.(165)(a–c); IV.14.(170)
(d); IV.15.(172)(d)–(173)(a); IV.15.(175)(d); IV.15.(176)(a–b); IV.15.(178)(a);
V.2.(218)(b–d); V.2.(218)(d)–(219)(a); V.2.(219)(a–b); V.3.(223)(b); V.3.(224)(d);
V.13.(240)(c–d); V.19.(246)(d); VI.13.(272)(b–c); VI.13.(272)(c–d); VI.13.(273)
(d)–(274)(a); VI.20.(297)(d)–(298)(c); VII.1.(313)(b–c); VII.1.(313)(d)–(314)(b);
VII.1.(314)(d); VIII.1.(377)(a–c); VIII.2.(385)(c–d); VIII.2.(385)(d) (quote from
Aquila); VIII.2.(385)(d)–(386)(c); IX.3.(424)(d); IX.7.(434)(a–d); IX.7.(437)
(c–d); IX.13.(448)(d)–(449)(b); X.Pref.(462)(a–b); X.Pref.(462)(b–c); X.1.(467)
(b)–(468)(a); X.8.(508)(c); X.8.(509)(c–d).

3.  Remnant Theology: 39 occurrences

II.3.(62)(c); II.3.(62)(d); II.3.(63)(a–b); II.3.(64)(c–d); II.3.(65)(b); II.3.(66)(d);
II.3.(67)(a); II.3.(68)(b–c); II.3.(68)(c–d); II.3.(69)(b–c); II.3.(69)(d)–(70)(a);
II.3.(71)(c); II.3(72)(d); II.3.(73)(b–c); II.3.(74)(a–b); II.3(74)(c); II.3.(75)(a–b);
II.3.(75)(b–d); II.3.(76)(c–d); II.3.(76)(d)–(77)(b); II.3.(77)(c–d); II.3.(78)(b);
II.3.(78)(b–c); II.3.(78)(d); II.3.(78)(d)–(79)(c); II.3.(79)(c–d); II.3.(79)(d);
II.3.(80)(b–c); II.3.(80)(d); II.3.(81)(a); II.3.(81)(b–c); II.3.(81)(c); II.3.(82)(b);
II.3.(83)(a); II.3.(83)(d); II.3.(84)(a); II.3.(84)(c–d); II.3.(85)(c–d); II.3.(85)(d)–
(86)(a).
250  Appendix V

4.  Christ the Lord and Savior of the Universe:

33 occurrences
I.5.(10)(a–c); I.5.(11)(c)–(12)(a); III.3.(105)(d); III.3.(106)(a–b); III.3.(107)(a);
III.6.(129)(d)–(130)(b); IV.1.(145)(a–b); IV.1.(145)(c–d); IV.2.(146)(a–d);
IV.3.(147)(b–c); IV.4.(149)(c)–(150)(a); IV.5.(150)(b–d); IV.5.(150)(d)–(151)(b);
IV.5.(151)(c–d); IV.5.(152)(b–c); IV.5.(152)(c); IV.5.(152)(d)–(153)(b); IV.5.(153)
(b–c); IV.6.(153)(d)–(154)(b); IV.6.(155)(a–c); IV.6.(155)(c)–(156)(a); IV.7.(156)
(b–d); IV.7.(156)(d)–(157)(b); IV.10.(164)(b–d); V.Pref.(210)(d); V.1.(212)–(213)
(a); V.1.(214)(c–d); V.1.(216)(a–c); V.3.(220)(c–d); V.5.(229)(d); V.5.(230)(c);
V.6.(231)(d)–(231)(a); VI.15.(279)(a).

5.  All Nations in Subjection to the Devil and Evil

Spirits: 10 occurrences
IV.9.(158)(c–d); IV.9.(159)(a–b); IV.9.(159)(c)–(160)(a); IV.9.(160)(c–d); IV.10.
(161); IV.10.(162)(d)–(163)(a); IV.10.(163)(a–c); IV.10.(163)(d); V.Pref.(204)(a–b);
V.Pref.(204)(c–d).

6.  Vicarious Sacrifice of Christ: 4 occurrences

IV.12.(167)(a–b); IV.12.(167)(c–d); IV.13.(168)(c–d); IV.13.(169)(b–c).

7.  Salvation for Those Who Died Before Christ:

3 occurrences
IV.10.(164)(a–b); IV.12.(166)(b–c); X.8.(501)(c).

8.  Eschatological Salvation: 2 occurrences

III.3.(106)(d); IX.17.(456)(c).
 Appendix VI

Occurrences of Universalism per Book

of the Theophany
Book 1
Total number of universalism passages: 73.

Subthemes:

Universal Providence: 1.1 (a); 1.1 (b); 1.2 (a); 1.2 (b); 1.3 (a); 1.3 (b); 1.4; 1.5 (a); 1.5
(b); 1.5 (c); 1.15; 1.20; 1.21; 1.22; 1.23 (a); 1.23 (b); 1.23 (c); 1.23 (d); 1.24 (a); 1.24 (b);
1.25; 1.27; 1.28; 1.29 (a); 1.29 (b); 1.30 (a); 1.30 (b); 1.30 (c); 1.31; 1.32; 1.34 (a); 1.34
(b); 1.35; 1.37 (a); 1.37 (b); 1.37 (c); 1.37 (d); 1.38 (a); 1.38 (b); 1.38 (c); 1.38 (d); 1.39
(a); 1.39 (b); 1.40 (c); 1.40 (d); 1.41; 1.42 (a); 1.42 (b); 1.42 (c); 1.43 (a); 1.43 (b); 1.43
(c); 1.44; 1.45 (a); 1.45 (b); 1.46; 1.47 (a); 1.47 (b); 1.53; 1.54; 1.61; 1.67; 1.68; 1.72 (a);
1.79; Total: 65.
Eschatological Salvation: 1.72 (b); 1.72 (c); 1.72 (d); 1.73; Total: 4.
Salvific Benefits of Christ: 1.78 (a); 1.78 (b); Total: 2.
Deliverance from Demonic Powers: 1.40 (a); 1.40 (b); Total: 2.

Book 2
Total number of universalism passages: 75.

Subthemes:

Deliverance from Demonic Powers: 2.1; 2.2; 2.3 (a); 2.18 (a); 2.18 (b); 2.19 (a); 2.65;
2.70 (b); 2.82 (b); Total: 9.
Deliverance from Polytheistic Error: 2.13; 2.15; 2.16; 2.18 (c); 2.19 (b); 2.20 (b); 2.41;
2.46 (a); 2.46 (b); 2.51; 2.52; 2.64; 2.67; 2.69; 2.70 (a); 2.71; 2.72 (a); 2.73; 2.74; 2.75;
2.76 (a); 2.76 (b); 2.76 (c); 2.76 (d); 2.78; 2.79 (a); 2.79 (b); 2.80 (a); 2.80 (b); 2.80
(c); 2.82 (a); 2.82 (c); 2.83 (a); 2.85 (a); 2.86 (a); 2.86 (b); 2.86 (c); 2.87; 2.88; 2.93
(a); 2.95; Total: 41.
Salvific Benefits of Christ: 2.93 (b); 2.94 (a); 2.94 (b); 2.97; Total: 4.

251
252  Appendix VI

Universal Providence: 2.3 (b); 2.19 (c); 2.20 (a); 2.21 (a); 2.21 (b); 2.23; 2.24; 2.25;
2.26; 2.28; 2.29; 2.30; 2.44 (a); 2.44 (b); 2.50; 2.83 (b); 2.84 (a); 2.84 (b); 2.85 (b);
2.93 (c); 2.96; Total: 21.

Book 3
Total number of universalism passages: 88.

Subthemes:

Salvific Benefits of Christ: 3.1 (a); 3.1 (c); 3.1 (d); 3.2 (b); 3.2 (d); 3.7; 3.23; 3.28 (a);
3.28 (b); 3.31; 3.32; 3.33 (a); 3.33 (b); 3.34; 3.36; 3.37; 3.38; 3.39 (a); 3.39 (b); 3.39 (e);
3.40 (a); 3.40 (b); 3.40 (c); 3.40 (d); 3.40 (e); 3.55 (b); 3.57 (c); 3.58; 3.59 (a); 3.59
(c); 3.59 (d); 3.61 (a); 3.61 (b); 3.61 (c); 3.61 (d); 3.62 (b); 3.63; 3.71; 3.73; 3.79 (c);
3.79 (d); 3.80; Total: 42.
Universal Dissemination of the Gospel: 3.4; 3.6; 3.8; 3.9; 3.10; 3.15; 3.20 (a); 3.20 (b);
3.21; 3.27; 3.44; 3.60; 3.62 (a); 3.76; 3.77; 3.78 (a); 3.78 (b); 3.79 (a); 3.79 (b);
Total: 19.
Deliverance from Demonic Powers: 3.1 (e); 3.2 (a); 3.2 (c); 3.13 (a); 3.56; 3.57 (a);
3.57 (b); 3.59 (b); 3.70; Total: 9.
Divinity of the Universal Savior: 3.17; 3.19; 3.39 (c); 3.39 (d); 3.39 (f); 3.41; 3.55 (a);
3.67; Total: 8.
Deliverance from Polytheistic Error: 3.1 (b); 3.12; 3.13 (b); 3.13 (c); 3.16; 3.35;
Total: 6. Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy: 3.2 (e); 3.75; Total: 2.
Eschatological Salvation: 3.39 (g); Total: 1.
Universal Providence: 3.64; Total: 1

Book 4
Total number of universalism passages: 49.

Subthemes:

Fulfillment of New Testament Prophecy: 4.5; 4.6 (a); 4.6 (b); 4.6 (d); 4.6 (e); 4.7
(a); 4.7 (b); 4.7 (c); 4.7 (d); 4.7 (e); 4.7 (f); 4.8 (a); 4.8 (b); 4.8 (c); 4.8 (d); 4.8 (e);
4.8 (f); 4.8 (g); 4.9 (a); 4.9 (b); 4.9 (c); 4.9 (d); 4.10 (a); 4.10 (b); 4.11; 4.12; 4.14;
4.16 (a); 4.16 (b); 4.19; 4.23; 4.24 (a); 4.24 (b); 4.24 (c); 4.25 (a); 4.25 (b); 4.27; 4.31;
4.32; 4.34 (a); 4.34 (b); 4.36 (a); 4.36 (b); 4.36 (c); Total: 44
Salvific Benefits of Christ: 4.3; 4.4; Total: 2.
Divinity of the Universal Savior: 4.1; Total: 1.
Universal Dissemination of the Gospel: 4.6 (c); Total: 1.
 Appendix VI  253

Universal Providence: 4.37; Total: 1.

Book 5
Total number of universalism passages: 51.

Subthemes:

Universalism Dissemination of the Gospel: 5.2; 5.4; 5.8; 5.14 (a); 5.14 (b); 5.14 (c);
5.15; 5.16 (a); 5.16 (b); 5.17; 5.22; 5.23; 5.24; 5.26 (a); 5.26 (b); 5.28 (a); 5.28 (b); 5.28
(c); 5.28 (d); 5.30; 5.31 (a); 5.31 (b); 5.33 (a); 5.33 (b); 5.34; 5.40; 5.46 (a); 5.46 (b);
5.46 (c); 5.46 (d); 5.46 (e); 5.46 (f); 5.46 (g); 5.48; 5.49 (a); 5.49 (b); 5.52 (a); 5.52
(b); 5.52 (c); 5.52 (d); Total: 40.
Universal Providence: 5.1 (b); 5.3 (a); 5.3 (b); 5.6 (a); 5.6 (b); 5.19 (a); 5.19 (b); 5.21
(a); 5.21 (b); Total: 9.
Deliverance from Demonic Powers: 5.18; Total: 1.
Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy: 5.1 (a); Total: 1.
 Appendix VII

Scriptural Citations in Book 4

of the Theophany

Location in Testament Citation Theme/Polemical

Book IV Argumenyt

1. 4.2 NT Mt 8:7–9 Miracles Prove Christ’s Deity &

Christ Predicted Universalism
2. 4.2 NT Mt 8:10–13 Miracles Prove Christ’s Deity &
Christ Predicted Universalism
3. 4.3 NT Mt 8:13 Miracles Prove Christ’s Deity &
Christ Predicted Universalism
4. 4.5 NT Mt 8:11 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
5. 4.5 NT Lk 13:28–9 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
6. 4.6 NT Mt 4:18–22 Call of Nations Fulfilled in the
Apostles
7. 4.6 NT Lk 5:3 Fulfilment of ‘Fishers of Men’
(Universalism)
8. 4.6 NT Lk 5:4–5 Fulfilment of ‘Fishers of Men’
(Universalism)
9. 4.6 NT Mt 4:19 Fulfilment of ‘Fishers of Men’
(Universalism)
10. 4.7 NT Mt 5:14–16 Fulfilment of ‘Fishers of Men’
(Universalism)
11. 4.7 OT Is 9:1–2 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
12. 4.7 NT Mt 5:14a Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
13. 4.7 NT Mt 5:14b Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
14. 4.7 NT Mt 5:16a Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
15. 4.7 NT Mt 5:14a Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
16. 4.7 NT Jn 8:12 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
17. 4.7 NT Jn 1:9 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled

255
 Location in Testament Citation Theme/Polemical
Book IV Argumenyt
18. 4.7 NT Mt 10:27–8 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
19. 4.8 NT Mt 28:18–20 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
20. 4.8 OT Ps 2:8 Universalism Predicted in OT now
Fulfilled
21. 4.8 NT Mt 28:18a Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
22. 4.8 OT Ps 2:8 Universalism Predicted in OT now
Fulfilled
23. 4.8 OT Dt 32:8 Universalism Predicted in OT now
Fulfilled
24. 4.8 NT Mt 28:20b Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
25. 4.8 NT Mt 28:20b Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
26. 4.8 NT Mt 28:20b–c Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
27. 4.9 NT Lk 24:44–48 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
28. 4.10 NT Mt 26:13 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
29. 4.11 NT Mt 16:15–8 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
30. 4.11 NT Mt 16:18 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
31. 4.11 NT Mt 16:18 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
32. 4.12 NT Mt 10:34–6 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
33. 4.12 NT Lk 12:51–3 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
34. 4.12 NT Mt 10:34 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
35. 4.12 NT Mt 10:34a Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
36. 4.12 NT Jn 14:27 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
37. 4.13 NT Mt 21:33–43 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
38. 4.13 OT Is 5:1–2 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
39. 4.13 OT Is 5:7 Universalism Predicted by Christ
now Fulfilled
40. 4.14 OT I Kgs 19:10 Rejection of Jews Foretold (in Rm
11:3)
41. 4.14 NT Mt 21:40 Jesus Predicted Rejection of the
Jews
42. 4.14 NT Mt 21:41 Jesus Predicted Rejection of the
Jews

256
 Location in Testament Citation Theme/Polemical
Book IV Argumenyt
43. 4.14 NT Mt 21:42 Jesus Predicted His Rejection
44. 4.14 NT Mt 21:42 Jesus Predicted His Rejection
45. 4.14 OT Is 28:16 Chirst as Chief of the Church
Predicted in OT
46. 4.14 OT Ps 118:22–3 Christ as Chief of the Church
Predicted in OT
47. 4.14 NT Mt 21:43 God’s Rejection of the Jews Foretold
48. 4.14 NT Mt 21:41 Christ as Chief of the Church
Predicted in OT; God’s Rejection
of the Jews Fulfilled
49. 4.15 NT Mt 21:45–6 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
50. 4.15 NT Mt 22:1–10 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
51. 4.16 NT Mt 10:5–6 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
52. 4.16 NT Mt 22:7 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
53. 4.16 NT Mt 22:7 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
54. 4.16 NT Mt 22:8–9 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
55. 4.16 NT Mt 28:19 Universalism Predicted by Christ
Fulfilled
56. 4.16 NT Mt 10:5a God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
57. 4.16 NT Mt 22:8–9 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
58. 4.16 NT Mt 22:10 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
59. 4.16 NT Mt 22:10–14 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
60. 4.17 NT Mt 23:33–6 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
61. 4.17 NT Acts 5:41 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
62. 4.17 NT Mt 23:43a God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
63. 4.17 NT Mt 23:38 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
64. 4.18 NT Mt 23:37–9 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
65. 4.18 NT Mt 23:38 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
66. 4.18 NT Mt 23:38 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
67. 4.18 OT Hag 2:9 God’s Rejection of the Jews &
Calling of Gentiles Fulfilled
68. 4.18 NT Mt 24:2 Destruction of the Temple Predicted
69. 4.18 NT Mt 24:2b Destruction of the Temple Predicted

257
 Location in Testament Citation Theme/Polemical
Book IV Argumenyt
70. 4.19 NT Lk 19:41–44a Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
71. 4.19 NT Lk 19:42 Destruction of the Temple Predicted
72. 4.19 OT Ps 72:7 Universal Peace in Christ Foretold
73. 4.19 NT Eph 2:17 Universal Peace in Christ Foretold
74. 4.19 NT Jn 14:27 Universal Peace in Christ Foretold
75. 4.19 NT Lk 19:42–3 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
76. 4.19 NT LK 19:44 Judgment on Jerusalem
Foretold
77. 4.20 NT Lk 21:20–4 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
78. 4.20 NT Lk 21:20 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
79. 4.20 NT Lk 21:24 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
80. 4.20 NT Lk 21:24b–c Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
81. 4.20 NT Lk 21:24b–c Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
82. 4.20 NT Lk 21:23a Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
83. 4.20 NT Lk 21:21a Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
84. 4.20 NT Lk 21:21–2 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
85. 4.21 NT Lk 21:23a–b Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
86. 4.21 NT Lk 21:23b Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
87. 4.21 NT Mt 24:21 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
88. 4.22 NT Mt 24:21 Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
89. 4.22 NT Lk 21:24d Judgment on Jerusalem Foretold
90. 4.23 NT Jn 4:19–20 Jesus Predicted Demise of Jewish
Laws
91. 4.23 NT Jn 4:21 Jesus Predicted Demise of Jewish
Laws
92. 4.23 NT Jn 4:23–4 Jesus Predicted Demise of Jewish
Laws
93. 4.23 NT Jn 4:21 Jesus Predicted Demise of Jewish
Laws
94. 4.23 NT Jn 4:23 Jesus Predicted Demise of Jewish
Laws
95. 4.24 NT Jn 10:14–6 Universalism Predicted by Jesus
96. 4.24 NT Mt 15:24 Universalism Predicted by Jesus
97. 4.24 NT Jn 10:16a Universalism Predicted by Jesus
98. 4.23 NT Jn 10:16d Universalism Predicted by Jesus
99. 4.24 OT Ps 23:1 Shepherd of Souls Predicted
by OT Prophets (Universalism)
100. 4.24 OT Ps 80:1 Shepherd of Souls Predicted by OT
Prophets (Universalism)
101. 4.24 OT Ps 23:1 Shepherd of Souls Predicted by OT
Prophets (Universalism)
102. 4.24 NT Jn 10:11 Jesus Foretold He Would Be the
Shepherd of Souls (Universalism)
103. 4.24 OT Ps 2:8b O.T. Prophets Foretold Christian
Universalism
104. 4.25 NT Jn 12:23–4 Christ’s Death Provided Salvation
for All
105. 4.25 NT Jn 12:23a Christ’s Death Provided Salvation
for All
106. 4.25 NT Lk 15:32 Global Evangelization Foretold

258
 Location in Testament Citation Theme/Polemical
Book IV Argumenyt
107. 4.25 NT Mt 9:37 Global Evangelization Foretold
108. 4.25 NT Jn 4:35 Global Evangelization Foretold
109. 4.25 NT Mt 3:12 Global Evangelization Foretold
110. 4.26 NT Jn 13:33 Christ Predicted Peter’s Crucifixion
111. 4.26 NT JN 13:36 Christ Predicted Peter’s Crucifixion
112. 4.26 NT Jn 21:18–9 Christ Predicted Peter’s Crucifixion
113. 4.26 NT Jn 21:18c–d Christ Predicted Peter’s Crucifixion
114. 4.26 NT Jn 13:36b–c Christ Predicted Peter’s Crucifixion
115. 4.27 NT Mt 10:17–8 Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
116. 4.27 NT Mt 5:11–12 Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
117. 4.27 NT Mt 5:11d Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
118. 4.27 NT Mt 5:12 Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
119. 4.28 NT Mt 10:21–2 Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
120. 4.28 NT Mt 10:21a Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
121. 4.28 NT Mt 10:21a Christ Predicted Apostles’
Persecution
122. 4.28 NT Mt 10:21a Christ Predicted Christians’
Persecutions
123. 4.28 NT MT 10:21c Christ Predicted Christians’
Persecutions
124. 4.28 NT Mt 24:9c Christ Predicted
Christians’Persecutions
125. 4.29 NT Mt 13:47–50 Punishment of Evil in the Church
Predicted by Christ
126. 4.29 NT Mt 4:19 Universalism Predicted by Christ
127. 4.30 NT Mt 7:15–7 Christ Predicted Hypocrites
128. 4.30 NT Mt 7:16a Christ Predicted Hypocrites
129. 4.30 NT Jn 10:27 Christ Predicted Hypocrites
130. 4.30 NT Mt 10:16a Christ Predicted Hypocrites
131. 4.30 NT Mt 7:16a Christ Predicted Hypocrites
132. 4.31 NT Mt 10:24–6 Christ Predicted Apostles Would be
Accused of Magic
133. 4.31 NT Mt 10:26 Christ Predicted Apostles Would be
Accused of Magic
134. 4.32 NT Mt 19:10 Christ Foretold Holiness in His
Church
135. 4.32 NT Mt 19:11–12 Christ Foretold Holiness in His
Church
136. 4.33 NT Mt 13:3–9 Universalism Predicted by Christ
137. 4.33 NT Mt 13:18–23 Universalism Predicted by Christ
138. 4.33 NT Heb 4:12 Universalism Predicted by Christ
139. 4.33 NT Mt 9:37–8 Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)

259
 Location in Testament Citation Theme/Polemical
Book IV Argumenyt
140. 4.33 NT Jn 4:35 Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
141. 4.33 NT Mt 9:37c Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
142. 4.33 NT Mt 9:38 Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
143. 4.33 NT Mt 13:3b Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
144. 4.34 NT Mt 13:24–30 Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
145. 4.34 NT Mt 13:36d–43 Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
146. 4.34 NT Mt 13:37–38a Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
147. 4.34 NT Mt 13:38a Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
148. 4.34 NT Mt 13:27b Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
149. 4.34 NT Mt 13:43a Christ Foretold Harvest of Souls
(Universalism)
150. 4.35 NT Mt 24:3–5 Christ Foretold False Christs
151. 4.35 NT Mt 24:23–7 Christ Foretold False Christs
152. 4.35 NT Jn 5:43 Christ Foretold False Christs
153. 4.35 NT I Th 2:3 Christ Foretold False Christs
154. 4.35 NT Mt 24:5 Christ Foretold False Christs
155. 4.35 OT Dt 18:15, 18–19 Christ Foretold False Christs
(Allusion only)
156. 4.35 NT Acts 8:10c Christ’s Prophecy about False
Christ’s Fulfilled
157. 4.35 NT Mt 24:23 Christ Foretold False Christs
158. 4.35 NT Mt 24:27 Christ Foretold False Christs
159. 4.36 NT Mt 24:6–9 Christ Foretold Events of the
Eschaton
160. 4.36 NT Mt 24:10–14 Christ Foretold False Prophets and
Deception
161. 4.36 NT Mt 24:14b Universalism Predicted by Christ
162. 4.36 NT Mt 24:6 Christ Foretold Events of the
Eschaton
163. 4.36 NT Mt 24:14 Christ Foretold Events of the
Eschaton
164. 4.36 NT Mt 24:7 Christ Foretold Events of the
Eschaton
165. 4.36 NT Mt 24:9b–c Christ Foretold Persecutions of
Christians

260
 Appendix VIII

Parallel Passages from Theophany V

and the Demonstratio evangelica
I.  ‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬Passage I: Theophany V.1
ܵ ‫ܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܐܢܝܢ‬
‫ܬܚܘܝܬܐ ܕܕܢܝܝܗ � ܗܝܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܁ ܕܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܫܐ‬
ܵ ܵ ܵ ܵ ̈
‫ܒܥܝܢܐ ܡܬܚܐܝܢ ܡܝܝܘܝܢܝܬܐ ܕܡ� ܐܟܝܝܕܐ ܘܕܥܒܕܐ � ܗܝܐ‬
“Such as these (then), are the proofs of the Divine manifestation of the common
Saviour of all, Jesus the Christ, which have been thus far visible to the eyes,
shewing forth at once the Divine words and deeds.” (Lee 1842)

II.  Theoph. V.8 and the parallel DE 3.6 (126–7)

‫ ܕܟܠ‬ ‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬Passage II: Theophany V.8

‫ܠܡܐ ܗܟܝܠ ܡܢ ܡܬܘܡ ܐܢܫ ܒܟܠ ܗ ܓܢܤܐ ܕܟ�ܤܛܝܢܐ ܐܫܬܟܚ܂ ܡܢ‬

‫ܤܡܡܢܐ ܐ� ܠܝܬ �ܢܫ ܕܢܐܡܪ܂‬ ܵ ‫ܚܕܫܐ ܐܘ‬
ܵ ‫ܝܘܠܦܢܗ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ܂ ܕܥܒܕ‬
‫ ܡܫܢܝܢ܂‬ ‫ � ܗܝܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܵܡ� ܗܘ ܕܦܝܠܘܤܦܘܬ ܐ‬ ‫ ܡܬܝܝܙܝܢ ܕܠـ‬ ‫ܘܕܠܩܘܒ� ܕܢܢ ܕܗܕ ܐ‬
ܵ
 ‫ܥܡܡܐ ܕܒܗ ܗܘ ܗܘ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܿܗܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܕܒܟܠܗ ܬܒܝܠ‬
‫ܕܒܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ‬
ܿ
‫ ܕܒܪܘܝܐ ܕܟܠ ܡܢܐ ܟܐܢܐܝܬ‬ ‫ ܕܣܓܕܬܐ‬ ‫ ܕܟܝܐ ܘܢܟܦܐ ܘܕܝܕܥܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܥܘܡܖܐ‬  ‫ܥܠܬ ܐ‬
‫܂‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫܂‬
 ‫ ܕܟܠ ܘܡܠܦܢܐ ܕܥܘܡܪ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܒܫܪܪܐ ܗܘܝܘ ܦܪܘܩܐ ܓܘ ܐ‬ ‫ ܐ� ܗܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܙܕܩ ܕܢܬܩܪ ܐ‬
 ‫ ܕ�ܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܤܓܕܬ ܐ‬
“Was there ever, then, a man found among the whole Christian race, who fabri-
cated magical rites or drugs from the doctrine of our Saviour? There is no (such
thing) existing for any man to say; but, the contrary to this, that they have been
passing over to the precepts of the philosophy which is Divine. How then, can
He be justly styled other, in truth, than the Teacher of the life which worships
God, the common Savior of all,—who became throughout the whole habitable
world, and to all nations, the (sole) cause of purity and holiness of life, and of the
knowledge (inculcating) the worship of the Creator of all things?” (Lee 1843)

261
262  Appendix VIII

Parallel passage: Demonstratio evangelica III.6 (126–7)

τίς oὖν ἤ πώπoτε τὸ πᾶν Χριστιανῶν γένoς ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνoυ διδασκαλίας

γoητεῦoν ἢ ϕαρμακεῦoν κατείληϕεν; ἀλλ̓ oὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ἔμπαλιν δὲ λóγoυς
ϕιλoσóϕoυς μετιóν٫ ὡς ἀπoδέδεικται. ὁ δὴ oὖν ἑτέρoις σεμνoῦ καὶ σώϕρoνoς
βίoυ εὐσεβείας τε τῆς ἀνωτάτω παραίτιoς γεγένημένoς τίς ἄνἐνδίκως νoμισείη
ἢ ϕιλoσóϕων ὁ πρώτιστoς καὶ εὐσεβῶν ἀνδρῶν διδάσκαλoς; καὶ γὰρ ἂν εἲη
βελτίων δή πoυ πᾶς ὁ διδάσκων τῶν μαθητευoμένων ϕιλóσoϕoς ἂρα καὶ
ἀληθῶς εὐσεβής٫ πoλλoῦ δεῖ πλάνoς καὶ γóης٫ ὁμoλoγoῖτ’ ἂν ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ
κύριoς ἡμῶν.

“But who has ever so far found the whole body of Christians from His teaching
given to sorcery or enchantment? No one would suggest that, but rather that it
has been concerned with philosophic words, as we have shewn. What, then,
could you rightly call One Who was the source to others of a noble and pure life
and of the highest holiness, but the prince of philosophers and the teacher of
holy men? And I suppose so far as every master is better than his pupils, our
Lord and Saviour must be considered, so far from being a charlatan and a sor-
cerer, but philosophic and truly holy.” (W. J. Ferrar, 1920)

III.  Theoph. V.14 and parallel passage DE III.6

(129–30)
‫ܐ ܕܒܠ‬ ‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ‬Passage III: Theophany V.14

‫ ܘܐܦ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܕܒܪܒܪܝܐ ܘ� ܒܠܚܘܕ‬ ‫ܘܡܢܐ ܡܬܒܥܐ ܕܢܐܡܕ ܕܟܡܐ ̈ܖܒܘܬ ܐ‬

ܿ
 ‫ܟܘ�ܠܗ ܛܥܝܘܬ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܡܠܘܗܝ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ ܐܬܥܠܝܘ ܡܢ‬ܵ ‫ܕܝܘܢܝܐ ܕܒܝܘܠܦܢܐ‬ܵ ‫ܐ� ܘܐܦ‬
‫ ܟܠܚܘܕܘܗܝ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܘܝܐ ܕ ܗܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܥܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܤܓܝܐܐ ܘܠܚܕ �ܗܐ‬ ܵ ܵ
 ‫ܕ�ܗ ܐ‬
‫ܝܕܥܘ ܘܐܘܕܝܘ܂ ܗܘ ܕܡܢ ܩܕܝܡ ܚܕ ܦܠܛܘܢ ܝܕܥܗ܂ ܘܐܘܕܝ ܕ� ܡܡܪܚ‬
‫ ܠܗ ܐܝܟ ܗܢܐ ܟܘܠܗ‬ ‫ܕܢܐܡܪܝܘܗܝ ܩܕܡ ܟܠ ܐܢܫ ܡܛܠ ܕ� ܩܪܝܒ ܗܘܐ‬
‫ܐ܁ ܗܢܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܕܦܪܘܩܢ܂ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܡܥܕܪܢܘܬܗ‬ ‫ ܕ�ܗ‬ ‫ܝܚ� ܕܤܓܕܬ ܐ‬
‫ܗܘܬ ܠܗܘܢ ܕܢܕܥܢܝܗܝ ܘܢܫܒܚܘܢܝܗܝ‬ ܼ ‫ܕܪܒܗܘܢ �ܒܐ ܘܠܒܪܘܝܐ ܕܟܘܠ܂ ܕܠܝ �ܝܬ‬
ܿ‫ܕܒܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܓ�ܘܗܝ ܘܐܟܪܙܘ ܝܕܥܬܗ ܠܟܠܗܘܢ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܕܒܟ�ܠܗ‬ ܵ ‫ܒܟܠܗ ܓܢܤܐ‬
ܿ
‫ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܡܢ ܡܠܦܢܘܬܗܘܢ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܕܗܢܘܢ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܫܐ ܒܟܘܠܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܒܪܝܬܐ‬
̈
‫ܘܕܥܒܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܢܫܐ ܘܕܛ̈ܠܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܕ‬ ‫ܥܡܡܐ ̈ܖܒܘܬܐ ܕܟܢ̈ܫܐ � ܗܘ ܐ‬
ܵ ‫ܓܒܖܐ ܐ� ܐܦ‬ ̈
 ‫ܘܕܩܘܪܝܝܐ܂ ܗܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܡܢ ܿܗܘ ܦܝܠܘܤܦܐ � ܚܤܝܪܝܢ ܐܝܟܢܐ ܕܠܥܒܘܕ ܐ‬
‫ ܒܠܚܘܕ ܕܢܕܥܘܢܝܗܝ܂ ܐ� ܐܦ ܕܢܗܘܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܠܒܪܘܝܐ ܕܗܢܐ ܟܠܗ ܥܠܡܐ܂ � ܗܘ ܐ‬
‫ܙܟܘܬܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ܂‬ ̈ ‫ ܒܟܠ ܕܘܟܐ ܐܝܟ ܗܟܢܐ ܗܘܝ܂ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫ܠܗ ܐܝܙ ܵܓܕܐ‬
‫ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ‬ ‫ ܿܕܗܘ ܕܐܤܬܒܪ ܡܛܥܝܢܐ ܒܕ ܗܐ‬ ‫ܡܛܠـܝܢܝܬ ܐ‬
ܵ ܵ ‫ܗܠܝܢ‬
‫ ܢܕܥ܂‬ ‫ ܕܠܪܒܗܘܢ ܕܐܝܟܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܝܕܘܥܘܗܝ ܕܡܢܗܘܢ ܙܕܩ ܗܘ ܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܒܠܚܘܕ‬
 Appendix VIII  263

“And, what need can there be that we should say, how many myriads even of the
barbarians themselves, and not (of these) only, but also of the Greeks, have, by
the doctrine of the words of our Saviour, been raised above every error of a plu-
rality of gods, and have recognized and confessed the one only God, the Father
and Creator of this whole world? Him (I say), whom one Plato formerly knew,
but confessed that he durst not speak of Him before all men; because such
power as all this of God’s worship was not with him: but to these the Disciples
of our Saviour it was, through the help of their Lord, easy to acknowledge Him,
and to find Him (as hand as) the Father and Creator of all. To every race of men
did they reveal Him, and so preached the knowledge of Him to all, throughout
the whole creation, that, from their teaching, there are even to this time, among
all nations, tens of thousands of congregations, not only of men, but also of
women, children, slaves, and villagers! All this (then accrued to them) from this
philosopher, so that they were not wanting, not only to make Him known (as)
the Maker and Creator of this whole world, but they also became his ambassa-
dors in every place. Such were the victories of the common Saviour of all; these,
the deceptions of Him who was thought to be a Deceiver! While, behold, such
alone were His Disciples and acquaintances; from whom it was (but) right, we
should learn of what sort their Master was.” (Samuel Lee, 1843)

Parallel passage: Demonstratio evangelica III.6 (129–30)

Τί χρὴ λἐγειν ὁπóσαι μυριάδες καὶ αὐτῶν βαρβάρων٫ oὐχὶ δὲ μóνoν ’Ελλήνων٫
ἐκ τῶν ’Ιησoῦ λóγων πᾶσαν μὲν ὑπερεκκῦψαι πoλύθεoν πλάνην “τὸν δὲ πατέρα
καὶ δημιoυργὸν τoῦδε τoῦ παντὸς” μóνoν εἰδέναι θεὸν ἐμαρτύρησαν; o῝ν πάλαι
ϕιλoσóϕων ει῏ς μóνoς ὁ Πλάτων εἰδώς٫ εἰς πάντας ἐκϕέρειν ὡμoλóγει μὴ
πoλμᾶν٫ διαρρήδην ϕάσκων “τὸν μὲν oὖν πατέρα καὶ δημιoυργὸν τoῦδε τoῦ
παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργoν καὶ εὑρóντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατoν λέγειν”. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνῳ
μὲν καὶ ἔργoν εὑρεῖν ἐδóκει τὸ πρᾶγμα٫ καὶ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς μἔγιστoν٫ ἀδύνατoν
δ’ἦν αὐτῷ λέγειν εἰς πάντας٫ ὅτι μὴ παρῆν αὐτῷ τoσαύτη τις εὐσεβείας δύναμις
ὅση τoῖς ’Ιησoῦ μαθηταῖς٫ oι῏ς διὰ τῆς τoῦ διδασκάλoυ συνεργίας τὸν πατέρα
καὶ δημιoυργὸν τῶν ὅλων εὑρεῖν τε καὶ γνῶναι ῥᾴδιoν γέγoνεν٫ καὶ εὑρoῦσιν
εἰς πᾶν γένoς ἀνθρώπων ἐξενεγκεῖν ἀνακαλύψαι τε καὶ κηρῦξαι τὴν γνῶσιν
πᾶσιν٫ ὥστε ἐκ τῆς αὐτῶν ἐκείνων διδασκαλίας εἰσέτι νῦν κατὰ τὸν παρóντα
καιρὸν ἐν ὅλoις τoῖς ἐπὶ γῆς ἔθνεσιν μυρία πλήθη oὐ μóνoν ἀνδρῶν٫ ἀλλὰ καὶ
γυναικῶν καὶ παίδων٫ oἰκετῶν τε καὶ ἀγρoίκων٫ τoσoῦτoν (τῷ) τoῦ Πλάτωνoς
μὴ πείθεσθαι٫ ὡς τὸν πoιητὴν καὶ “δημιoυργὸν τoῦδε τoῦ παντὸς” μóνoν θεὸν
γνωρίζειν καὶ μóνoν σέβειν καὶ μóνoν διὰ τoῦ Χριστoῦ θεoλoγεῖν. ταῦτ’ ἦν τoῦ
νέoυ καὶ καινoῦ γóητoς τὰ κατoρθώματα٫ τoιαῦτα τoῦ νoμιζoμένoυ πλάνoυ τὰ
264  Appendix VIII

γoητεύματα٫ καὶ τoιoίδε oἱ τoῦ᾿ Ιησoῦ μαθηταὶ٫ ἀϕ’ ω῏ν δεῖ τὸν διδάσκαλoν
ὁπoῖoς τις ἦν γνωρίζειν.
“But why need I tell how many myriads of actual barbarians, and not Greeks
only, learning from the teaching of Jesus to despise every form of polytheistic
error, have borne witness to their knowledge of the one God as Saviour and
Creator of the Universe? Whom long ago, Plato was the only philosopher who
knew, but confessed that he dare not carry His Name to all, saying in so many
words: “To discover the Father and Creator of the Universe is a hard matter, and
when He is found it is impossible to tell of Him to all.” Yes, to him the discovery
seemed a hard matter, for it is indeed the greatest thing of all, and it seemed to
him impossible to speak of Him to all, because he did not possess so great a
power of holiness as the disciples of Jesus, to whom it has become easy by the
cooperation of their Master to discover and to know the Father and Creator of
all, and having discovered Him to bear forth that knowledge, to unveil it, to sup-
ply it, and to preach it to all men among all races of the world, with the result
that even now at the present time owing to the instruction given by these men
there are among all the nations of the earth many multitudes not only of men,
but of women and children, slaves, and country-folk, who are so far away from
fulfilling Plato’s dictum, that they know the One God to be the Maker and
Creator of the Universe, worship Him only, and base their whole theology on
Christ. This, then, is the success of the new modern sorcerer; such are the sor-
cerers who spring from Him Who is reckoned a charlatan; and such are the
disciples of Jesus, from whose character we may deduce that of their Master.”
(W. J. Ferrar, 1920)

IV.  Theoph. V.16 and the parallel DE 3.6 (131 b–c)

‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ‬Passage IV: Theophany V.16

‫ܠܡܢܐ � ܐܦ ܛܒܗܘܢ ܿܕܗܢܘܢ ܩܕܡ ܫܡܗ ܕܗܢܐ ܒܟܠܗܢ ܵܒܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܟܕܡܘܬܐ‬
‫ܐܝܟ ܕܗܢܐ ܪܗܛ܂ ܘܠܡܢܐ � ܐܦ ܬܫܟܘܚܬܐ ܿܕܗܢܘܢ ܥܕܡܐ ܠܗܫܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܗܢܐ‬
‫ܡܬܟܪܙܐ ܘܡܢܘ ܚܪܫܐ ܡܢ ܿܗܢܘܢ ܕܡܢ ܥܠܡ ܒܪܒܪܝܐ ܐܘ ܝܘܢܝܐ ܕܩܡ ܡܠܦܢܐ‬
ܵ ‫ܢܡܘܤܐ‬
ܵ ‫ܬܠܡܝܕܐ ܘܗܘܐ ܪܫܢܐ ܕܗܠܝܢ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬
‫� ܐܝܟ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܚܘܝ‬ ‫ܘܡ‬ ܼ ܵ ‫ܕܗܠܝܢ‬
ܵ
‫ܚܝܠܗ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ܂ ܘܐܤܘܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܕܡܬܥܗܕܝܢ ܕܥܒܕ ܦܪܘܩܢ‬
‫ܡܢܘ ܡܡܬܘܡ ܟܬܝܒ ܕܤܥܪ‬
“Why did not the fame of these also run forth, prior to His name among all men,
just as His has done? and, Why is not the praise of them also proclaimed, even
to this time, just as His has been? and, Who is the magician, of those who arose
at any time, Barbarian or Greek, who was the teacher of such disciples; the
 Appendix VIII  265

originator of all such laws and precepts as these are; and has shewed forth the
power of this the common Savior of all? and, of Whom has it ever been written,
that He did such cures as those which have been recorded of our Saviour?”
(Samuel Lee, 1843)

Parallel passage: Demonstratio evangelica III.6 (131 b–c)

τί oὖν oὐχὶ κἀκείνων٫ πρὸ τῆς τoύτoυ κατηγoρίας٫ ἔϕθασεν εἰς πάντας
ἀνθρώπoυς ἡ ϕήμη٫ ἢ τί μὴ oὐχὶ κἀκείνων εἰσέτι νῦν τὸ κλέoς ᾄδεται τῷ ἡμετέρῳ
παραπλησίως; Τίς δὲ τῶν ἀπ’ αἰῶνoς πώπoτε γóης٫ βάρβαρoς ἢ ῞Ελλην٫
τoιoύτων κατέστη διδασ́καλoς ϕoιτητῶν καὶ τoιoύτων νóμων καὶ λóγων
αὐθέντης٫ oἵων ἡ τoῦ σωτῆρoς ἡμῶν ἔπιδέδεικται δύναμις; ἰάσεις δὲ τoσάσδε
καὶ παραδóξoυς εὐεργεσίας τoιάσδε٫ oἵας ὁ ἡμέτερoς πεπoιηκὼς μνημoνεύεται٫
τίς πώπoτε διαπραξάμενoς ἱστoρεῖταὶ
“Why has not their fame among all men preceded this accusation of Him, and
why is not their glory even now celebrated in strains like ours? And what
enchanter from the remotest age, either Greek or Barbarian, has ever been the
Master of so many pupils, the prime mover of such laws and teaching, as the
power of our Saviour has shewn forth, or is recorded to have worked such cures,
and bestowed such marvelous blessings, as our Saviour is reported to have
done?” (W. J. Ferrar, 1920)

V.  Theoph. 5.34 and the parallel DE 3.5 (117 c)

‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ‬Passage V: Theophany V.34

‫ܗܠܝܢ ܗܟܝܠ ܐܬܒܩܝ ܕܝܗܒܢ ܠܗܝܢ ܒܡܗܡܝܢܘܬܐ ܒܘܠܝܬܐ܂‬

‫ܗܕܐ ܓܝܪ ܕܢܤܒܪ ܐܢܫ ܕܠܩܘܒ� ܕܡܟܬܒܢܘܬܐ ܘܢܐܡܪ ܥܠ ܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ‬
ܵ ‫ܕܟܠ ܕܡܠܦܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ � ܗܘܐ‬
�‫� ܕܢܟܦܘܬܐ ܐ� ܕܥܘ‬ ‫ܕܡ‬
ܵ
‫ܬܠܡܝܕܘܗܝ ܼܗܢܝܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܢܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܕܟܘ�ܠܗ ܨܚܘܬܐ‬
‫ܘܗܢܘܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܕܥܠܘܒܘܬܐ܂‬
ܵ ܵ ܵ
‫ܼܝܠܦܘ܂ ܘܗܘ ܖ ܓܝ ܟܘܠ ܘܒܝܫܐ ܡܢ ܒܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܕܡܢ ܥܠܡ‬
ܿ
‫ܐܝܬܝܗ܂‬ ‫ܐܟܘܬܗ ܕܫܪܟܐ ܐܗܡܝܢ ܗܕܐ ܕܡܢ ܟܠ ܡܕܡ ܕ� ܘܠܝܬܐ‬
“Let it be considered then, that we have granted these things, by connivance at
an unjust principle. For (in) this, that a man might imagine that which is adverse
to the Scripture, and, that we should say of the common Saviour of all that He
was a Teacher, not of righteous precepts, but of those of vice, fraud, and of every
sort of abomination; and, that these His Disciples learned the same from Him,
and were all lustful and vicious in every thing, beyond all men that ever existed;
we allowed, by connivance, according to the statement (supposed), that which
is of all things the most improper.” (Samuel Lee, 1843)
266  Appendix VIII

Parallel passage: Demonstratio evangelica III.5 (117 c)

Ταῦτα μὲν oὖν٫ ἀρχῆς ἀτóπoυ κατὰ συγχώρησιν δoθείσης٫ γεγυμνάσθω. Τὸ γὰρ
τoῖς ἐγγράϕoις τἀναντία ὑπoλαβεῖν٫ καὶ ϕάναι τὸν ’Ιησoῦν διδάσκαλoν
γεγoνέναι μὴ σωϕρóνων λóγων٫ ἀδικίας δὲ καὶ πλεoνεξίας καὶ πάσης ἀκoλασίας٫
τoύς τε μαθητὰς αὐτoῦ τoιαῦτα παρ’ αὐτoῦ δεδιδαγμένoυς παντoρέκτας
γεγoνέναι καὶ παμπoνήρoυς τῶν πώπoτε ἀνθρώπων٫ καθ’ ὑπóθεσιν ἡμῖν
συνεχωρεῖτo٫ …
“I have thus concluded the working out of what would follow if for the sake of
argument a ridiculous hypothesis were supposed. This hypothesis was, to make
suppositions contrary to the records, and to argue that Jesus was a teacher of
impure words, injustice, covetousness, and all kinds of intemperance, that the
disciples, profiting by such instruction from Him, surpassed all men in cupidity
and wickedness.” (W. J. Ferrar, 1920)

VI.  Theoph. V.46 and the parallel DE 3.7 (137 a)

‫ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ‬Passage VI: Theophany V.46

‫ܡܘܠܟܢܘܗܝ‬ܵ ‫ܟܕ ܦܩܕ ܓܝܪ � ܐܢܫ ܐܫܬܐܠ ܐ� ܐܬܬܟܠܘ ܥܠ ܪܡܙܗ ܘܐܝܟ‬

ܵ
‫ܕܒܢܝ ܐܢܫܐ ܬܠܡܕܘ ܘܡܢ ܐܪܥܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ ܠܘܬ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܥܡܡܐ‬ ܵ ‫ܠܟܠܗ ܓܢܤܐ‬
‫ ܒܥܒܕܐ ܐܬܚܙܝ ̈ܡܠܘܗܝ ܐܬܟܪܙܬ ܗܘܬ ܗܟܝܠ ܒܙܒܢܐ‬ ‫ܢܦܩܘ܂ ܘܒܙܒܢܐ ܙܥܘܪ ܐ‬
̈ ‫ܥܡܡܐ ܘܒ�ܒܪܝܐ‬
‫ܘܝܘܢܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܙܥܘܪܐ ܤܒܪܬܗ ܒܟܠܗ ܒܪܝܬܐ ܠܤܗܕܘܬܐ ܕܟܠܗܘܢ‬
̈ ̈
‫ܒܟܬܝܒܬܐ ܕܐܒܗܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܘܒܒܪܬ ܘܝ̈� ܕܐܒܗܬܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܟܬܒܐ ܕܥܠ ܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘܐ ܕܟܠ‬ ̈
‫ܩܒܠܘ‬
“For, when He gave them the command, not so much as one sought to be
excused; but they confided in what He had intimated: and, just as His promises
had been, so did they make Disciples of the whole race of men! They did go
forth from their own land into all nations; and, in a short time, His words were
seen in effect! His Gospel was therefore shortly preached, throughout the whole
creation, for the testimony of all nations, so that the Barbarians and Greeks
received the Scriptures, respecting the common Saviour of all, in the handwrit-
ing of their Progenitors, and in the words of their spiritual Fathers.” (Samuel
Lee, 1843)

Parallel passage: Demonstratio evangelica III.7 (137 a)

πρoστάξαντι γὰρ oὐδεὶς ἠπείθει٫ ἀλλὰ πειθαρχήσαντες αὐτoῦ τῷ νεύματι κατὰ

τὰ παρηγγελμένα πᾶν γένoς ἀνθρώπων ἐμαθήτευoν٫ ἐκ τῆς oἰκείας γῆς ἐπὶ
πάντα στειλάμενoι τὰ ἔθνη٫ ἐν oλίγῳ τε ἔργα θεωρῆσαι τoὺς λóγoυς. Κεκήρυκτo
 Appendix VIII  267

γoῦν τὸ εὐαγγέλιoν ἐν βραχεῖ χρóνῳ ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ oἰκoυμένῃ εἰς μαρτύριoν τoῖς

ἔθνεσιν٫ καὶ βάρβαρoι καὶ ῞Ελληνες τὰς περὶ τoῦ ’Ιησoῦ γραϕὰς πατρίoις
χαρακτῆρσιν καὶ πατρίῳ ϕωνῇ μετελάμβανoν.
“Not one of them disobeyed His command: but in obedience to His Will accord-
ing to their orders they began to make disciples of every race of men, going from
their own country to all races, and in a short time it was possible to see His
words realized. The Gospel, then, in a short time was preached in the whole
world, for a witness to the heathen, and Barbarians and Greeks alike possessed
the writings about Jesus in their ancestral script and language.” (W. J.  Ferrar, 1920)
 Notes

Preface

1. Arthur Darby Nock’s (1960) review of Sodano (1958b): 134.

2. Johnston (2010): 115–32.
3. On how the Neoplatonic virtues were related to σωϕρoσύνη in Porphyry’s tiered soterio-
logical system see now Simmons (2009): 169–92.
4. Smith (1974) 145. Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 146: on the major theme in Porphyry’s
works: “Die Reinigung und Erlösung der Seele aus der materiellen Welt ist ein solches
dominierendes Anliegen, ebenso wie die Betonung der rein intellektuellen, philoso-
phischen Verehrung des höchsten Gottes durch Kontemplation und tugendhaften
Lebenswandel.” Cf. Pépin (1982b): 259f.
5. Digeser (2012): 177; (2006a): 33–46; and (2009): 81–92.
6. The term is borrowed from the works of T. D. Barnes, though I would not see the triumph
of Christianity depicted as riding the wave of a moribund paganism, but rather the pro-
cess was more complex, gradual, and it occurred in the midst of a conflict with the impe-
rial government’s attempt to revive the religious culture of the Roman Empire.
7. For historical context see (e.g.) Rives (2007); id. (1999): 135–54; Mikalson (2005); Beard,
North, and Price, vol. I (1998); Burkert (1985); Turcan (1978): 997–1084, esp. 1064–73. On
universalism and Greco-Roman culture see (e.g.) Digeser (2006a); (2000): 96–104;
Simmons (2007); (1995):  264–303; Kaminsky and Stewart (2006): 139–63; Schott
(2005): 277–314; Brown (2003): 60–4; Buell (2002): 429–68; Hargis (2001): 63–90;
Hirshman (2000): 101–15; Chadwick (1993a); Fowden (1993); Levenson (1996): 143–69;
Alföldy (1989b); A. Smith, (1989): 25–41; Momigliano (1986): 285–97; King and Henig
(1981); Loriot (1975a); Remondon (1964); Nock (1952a): 203–22.
8. See (e.g.) P. Hadot (1986): 230–49.
9. On the pagan argument during the period, cf. Anastasius Sinaita’s testimony (PG 89, col.
525A) about Julian the Theurgist’s stopping a plague by magic, in Saffrey (1981): 211 & n. 7;
and Dodds (1947): 57 n.25; and the works cited in the preceding note.
10. See (e.g.) Loriot and Nony (1997); for Spain and Portugal: Palanca (1997); Alföldy (1989c);
id. (1974): 89–111; Birley (1976): 253–81.
11. I use the term “Church” or “Christianity” to refer to those Christians, living during the
Ante-Nicene period, who were obviously in the majority (as opposed to the heretical
groups like the Gnostics or schismatics like the Donatists), and who represented the

269
270  Notes

developing orthodox component within those otherwise disparate groups which modern
historians label “Christianities.”
12. See Birley (1976): 259 and n. 4.
13. See Lenski (2006b); Cameron (2005): 90–109; Drake (2000); MacMullen (1987); and
Barnes (1981) & (2011).
14. Herein I prefer the terms pagan/paganism, which are pejorative terms used by Christians,
to polytheist/polytheism because, as Athanassiadi and Frede (1999a) have shown, there
was a long tradition of belief in one God within Greek philosophy going back to the fifth
century before Christ.
15. Though certainly paganism continued well beyond the traditional date for the fall of
Rome, A.D. 476. Cf., e.g., MacMullen (1981) & (1997). On Theodosius, see Fowden
(2005): 552ff.
16. A. Smith (1974): xiii: the major theme of the Porphyrian corpus appears to be the ascent
and salvation of the soul. See pp. 59–61, 104, 130–5, 145, 60f: “Theurgy and virtue are both
involved though they are mutually exclusive and form two distinct ways of salvation for
the ordinary man.” Cf. id. (2004): 80, for the anima spiritalis, which is susceptible to
magic and ritual (=Plotinus’ lower soul connected with the semi-corporeal soul vehicle,
which is a link to universal sympathy used by magic); and the anima intellectualis, which
relates to the Forms (=Plotinus’ higher soul). On the De regr. an. dealing with the salva-
tion of the ordinary man via theurgical rites, pp. 59–60. See also Digeser (2007); Fowden
(2005): 530f.; A. Smith (2004): 79; (1974): xiii: “Porphyry’s search for the salvation of the
soul led him from a consideration of the nature of the soul to an attempt to find a univer-
sal teaching on salvation which would even embrace the magico-religious practice of
theurgy”; Zambon (2002): 274–6; Bregman (1999): 338; Van Fleteren (1999): 662; Van
Liefferinge (1999): 188–9; Carlier (1998); Cutino (1994): 43; Della Rosa (1992): xiv;
Culdaut (1992): 279; Girgenti (1997a): 105–11; Majercik (1989): 32–3; A. Smith, (1989);
(1987): 731–7; Wilken (1984): 150; Goulet (1982b): 402f.; Russell (1981): 160–70; Saffrey
(1981): 215f.; O’Daly (1978): 92–3; TeSelle (1974): 131–3; Lewy (1956); Bidez (1913): 95.
17. A select bibliography: Chase (2004a): 54; Van Liefferinge (1999); Luck (1989); Lewy
(1956); for Plotinus’ attitude towards traditional cults see now van den Berg (1999): 345–60,
analyzing the interpretations of Merlan, Harder, Armstrong, Rist, Luck, and Brisson.
18. Cf. Chase (2004a): Simmons (2001b); Sorabji (2000); Carlier (1998): 134; Majercik

(1989): 17–19; Lewy (1956): 89; and Augustine, Civ. Dei X.xxvii (LCL: Wiesen 1968): “. . .
quod in anima spiritali theurgica arte purgati ad Patrem quidem non redeunt, sed super
aerias plagas inter deos aetherios habitabunt.” Very good analysis is found in Carlier
(1998): especially 134ff.
19. A. Smith (1974): 135, argues that Porphyry believed theurgy connected humans with the
gods through φαντασία, on which see Sheppard (2007): 71–6; Cipriani (1997): 122.
20. A. Smith (1974): 59ff.; 104; 128; 130; 3; 134; 135; Simmons (2001).
21. A. Smith (1974: see n. 12) and Fowden (2005): 530–53; (1993): 131 only allude to the three
ways of salvation; cf. Busine (2005): 245 and n. 46; Simmons (1995): 226; (2001b): 210–2.
Whittaker (2001): 159 notes that Porphyry’s defence of τὰ πάτρια in Marc. 18 was partly to
preserve ancestral customs, but it is also important “as the first step to philosophical
enlightenment.” There has never been published a book or article analyzing Porphyry’s
third way, or salvation by the virtue of continence.
22. I base much of my argument on the premise that Augustine is providing accurate infor-
mation on Porphyry, though sometimes, as I shall demonstrate below, he does withhold
information to strengthen his argument. Contra: Clark (2007) who argues that Augustine
created a perception of Porphyry and “reworked and presented the Porphyry he wanted,”
 Notes  271

misconstruing Simmons (1995): 23, that Porphyry offered a “royal road” equivalent to a

motorway for all to follow; but I (226; 301) clearly proposed that he offered distinct ways
of salvation for the philosopher and the masses. The weaknesses of Clark’s argument
are: (1) not addressing Pophyry’s dual soteriology, which has independent support in the
PE of Eusebius; (2) ignoring the importance of theurgy in Porphyry’s thought; (3) refus-
ing to acknowledge that Porphyry offered a way of salvation for the masses; (4) depicting
Marcella as a philosopher and not a novice; (5) not recognizing the subtle points of
Porphyry’s argument in the Ad Marcellam; (6) misrepresenting the views on piety and its
relation to thought in the Ad Marc. as stopping at XIX; and (7) attempting unsuccessfully
to discard the late date for Ad Marcellam. Cf. id. (2000): 48: “Porphyry’s universalism is
that of the spiritual elite in a range of eastern Mediterranean cultures.” Cf. also Hoffmann
(1994):170, who says Augustine’s “defense” must be viewed with extreme caution. I also
do not find Hoffman’s argument convincing. Digeser (2001): 528 sees social limitations in
Porphyrian universalism.
23. See Digeser (2009): 81–92, 89f., who, after stating that A. Smith “distorts the issue” of
Porphyry’s religious system, adds: “Simmons, however, rightly perceives that Porphyry
actually advocated three separate paths which led the soul to three separate celestial
destinations—an observation that accords nicely with Arnobius’ allusion to the new men
(viri novi), now identified as Porphyrians, who had been advocating a three-fold
system.”
24. Bidez (1913): 19.
25. A. Smith (1989): 40.
26. Schott (2005): 289.
27. For a comparison of Porphyrian and Augustinian soteriologies see Bubloz (2005). I can-
not agree with Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 147, who argues that Augustine’s depiction of
Porphyry as a “Reformator des Heidentums” in search of a via universalis salutis animae
is a “propagierten Bild” and the Neoplatonist “bleibt ein elitärer Platoniker, kein Seelsorger
für alle.”
28. Cf. Böhm (2002): 16: “Daß Porphyrius den Origenes in dieser Zeit getroffen hat, ist
zumindest nicht auszuschließen.”
29. Clark (2000b): 48; (2007).
30. We may also add here Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 109–55, 121–9, 148.
31. The Theoph. is presented as a representative work in the Eusebian corpus. Hence the ear-
lier PE and DE are not analyzed in detail in this book.
32. For example, it is rare to find an article that exclusively addresses either Porphyrian or
Iamblichean eschatology, and there is no book-length analysis on the eschatology of the
Neoplatonists. Often modern scholars simply ignore the importance of eschatology in
Neoplatonism (cf. Chlup [2012]). The best recent study showing its importance in Plato
and Plotinus is Bussanich (2013): 243–88.
33. A good example is the otherwise very fine analysis of Proclus’ thought by Chlup (2012),
who covers metaphysics, theurgy, epistemology, and many other aspects of Proclean
Neoplatonism, but hardly anything on eschatology.

Chapter 1

1. See Jurado (2006): 81f., Test. X (= Lib., or. 18.178 [cf. Soc., HE III.23], comparing the
polemical arguments of Porphyry and Julian; 87, Test. XXI (=Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.22;
XXII.44: “a most learned philosopher”); ibid., Test. XXI (=Aug., Civ. Dei VIII.12: Porphyry
272  Notes

listed among the very famous Platonic philosophers); ibid., Test. XXI (=Aug., Civ. Dei
VII.25: “famous philosopher”); 89, Test. XXVIII (=6T Smith, p. 12) (=David in Porph.,
Isag. Proem., 92.2–6: Porphyry acknowledged by Pythian oracle for his great knowledge);
87, Test XXI (=Aug., Serm. 142.6: “great philosopher”); ibid., Test. XXI (=Aug., Retract.
II.57; Ep. 102); Test. XXIIb (=Cyril Alex., Contra Iulianum I); Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457
(LCL: Wright): “But Porphyry, like a chain of Hermes let down to mortals, by reason of
his many-sided culture expounded all subjects so as to be clear and easy of comprehen-
sion.” Cf. also Eus., PE 3.7, 13; 9.1; 10.1. For negative comments, all from Christians, see
Jurado (2006): 88, Test. XXIII (=Theodoret, Affect. II.3, 4, 10); ibid., 87, Test. XXIIb
(=Cyril Alex., Contra Iulianum I); Eus. PE 1.9; 4.6 (“friend of the demons”); 4.14 (“the
oracle-monger”); 10.9 (“bitterest enemy” of the Christians); Aug., Serm. 241.7; Civ. Dei
XIX.22, 23; Retract. II.57; Ep. 102.2, 8. On Augustine’s admiration for Porphyry, see
Hoffman (1994): 17; for Eunapius, see Matthews (1996).
2. See Simmons (2002): 90–105; for the cultural background see Nilsson (1964) &
(1969): pagan believer; de Labriolle (1929): 385–440; (1934): a controversialist; Raeder
(1942): a scientific theologian; den Boer (1954) & (1973a): a historian (cf. Hansen [1967]);
Jerphagnon (1990): a pagan evangelist (cf. Paschoud [1990]: 572); on Porphyry’s method
of biblical exegesis see the appropriate works by Beatrice below. P. Brown (1967): 91 calls
Porphyry the first systematic theologian in the history of thought. See also Meredith
(1980); Nock (1960): 134; Dodds (1951): 286f.; Evangeliou (1997): 181; Lloyd (1967): 411–2;
den Boer (1974): 203 goes too far to say that Porphyry was the precursor of the
nineteenth-century Tübingen school of biblical higher criticism. For the cultural back-
ground to Porphyry see the excellent essays in Brunschwig, Lloyd, and Pellegrin, eds.
(2000); and cf. Cilento (1968).
3. Bidez (1913); cf. Lamberton (1983): 4: “We have no reason to think that Porphyry was an
original thinker; in fact, the evidence of all his surviving works tends to indicate just the
opposite.”
4. P. Hadot (1968). Cf. Lévy (2004): 695 n. 64; Madec (1970). For the broader intellectual
context see Hadot (1998); and the pertinent entries in Hammond and Scullard, eds.
(1978).
5. See P. Hadot (1960a): 244: “. . . ce grand adversaire des chrétiens est une des figures les
plus énigmatiques de la fin de l’antiquité…”; and Chadwick (1999): 68 on Porphyry’s
being among the most influential third-century writers. Adcock, Charlesworth, and
Baynes, eds. (Repr. 1981) is useful for the general historical and cultural context.
6. See de Labriolle (1929): 386: “. . . le plus redoubtable adversaire que le christianisme ait
recontré durant les premiers siècles.”
7. See A. Smith (2010). For the general background see (e.g.) Chamoux (2003); Siorvanes
(1998); Brown (1982); and Vaganay (1908–50).
8. For Tyre as the place of birth: Vit. Plot. 7; Lib., Or. XVIII.178; Athan. Syr., Bibl. Apost., Vat.
Cod. III, 305 (Assemanus) = Smith, 29aT, p. 24; Al-Qifti Ta’rikh al-Hukama, ed. Lippert,
256–7; = Smith 4T, p. 10; who also states that Porphyry’s name was Ammonius, but he
changed it; Ibn Al-Nadim Fihrist (Flügel, ed.) = Smith 3aT, p. 8, Scholia in Lucian, Peregr.
II, H. Rabe, ed. (1906), p. 216; = Smith 11T, p. 15; and Jurado (2006), Test. XXIX, p. 90,
attesting to a Phoenician origin; cf. Bidez, 57*, App. 3, #5; Suidas IV.178.14–179.2; = Smith
2T, p. 6; Jurado (2006), Test. III, p. 78; Eunapius, Vit. Soph. III-IV = Smith, 1T, p.1; and
Jurado, Test. II, p. 77; Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 455 (LCL: Wright); id., Vit. Phil. (LCL: Wright)
455. Cf. also A. H. M. Jones (1971): 716f.
9. Some scholars give 232 as the year of birth, e.g., Hoffmann (1994): 16; Beatrice (1992a): 704
(232–3); Igal (1982): 122 (between summer of 232 and 233); Barcenilla (1968): 406; Lloyd
 Notes  273

(1967): 411f.; Benoit (1947): 232f.; Bidez (1913): 5: a.d. 232–3, giving Vit. Plot. 4; some give
a.d. 233, e.g., Wilken (1984): 128; Girgenti (1997a): 10, giving a.d. 233–4; most scholars
agree on a.d. 234, e.g., Schott (2008): 52; J. Barnes (2003): x; Cook (2000): 103 n. 1, citing
Bouffartigue and Patillon (1977): xi, who cite a horoscope in Hephaestio, Apotelesmatica
II.10 (I.112.16–20, Pingree), identified as Porphyry’s with a date of birth of October 5, a.d.
234, but lacking indisputable evidence; see A. Smith (1993a): 489F; Cook does accept,
however, 234 for the year of Porphyry’s birth; Digeser (2000): 93, depending on R. Goulet’s
work noted below; Simmons (1995): 218; Millar (1993): 294; Des Places (1982): accepting
the aforementioned horoscope and giving the date of birth as October 5, a.d. 234; Goulet
(1982a): 211; Barnes (1981): 175; id. (1973); A. Smith (1974): 719 n.2, rejecting the authentic-
ity of the aforementioned horoscope but accepting the year 234 according to the Roman
calendar years beginning on January 1; Beutler (1953): col. 276; Boyd (1937), 241–57,
rightly noting that if Porphyry was in his 30th year in 263 (Vit. Plot. II.13ff.), he must have
been born in 234, assuming he calculated the years according to the Roman calendar.
10. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 455 (LCL: Wright); for the background: Goulet (2012a) and (2012b);
Beatrice (1996a); and (1989); Hoffmann (1994); Igal (1982); Meredith (1980); Rinaldi
(1980); Geffcken (1978); Grant (1973); Beutler (1953); Benoit (1947); Vaganay (1935); Bidez
(1913); Kleffner (1896); Lardner (1838) and (1735).
11. See J. Payne Smith (1976): 277; Sokoloff (2009): 772.
12. Vit. Plot. 17. He continues by saying Amelius and others in the school in Rome knew
Porphyry by the name Basileus. For a comprehensive analysis of the life and works of
Porphyry see Goulet (2012b). Cf, Taran (1984).
13. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 456 (LCL: Wright); cf. Suda IV.178.14–179.2 = Smith 2T; Jurado (2006)
Test. III, p. 78.
14. On scholarly discussion on the various names of Porphyry listed in the ancient sources
see (e.g.): Jurado (2006): 5; J. Barnes (2003): ix; Cook (2000): 103; G. Clark (1999): 112f.;
Millar (1997): 249; Beatrice (1996a): 54; Hoffmann (1994): 16; Evangeliou (1989): 54;
Wilken (1984): 128; Barnes (1981): 175; Rinaldi (1980): 101, n. 15; Geffcken (1978): 57;
Dodds (1970): 864f.; Beutler (1953): col. 276; Benoit (1947): 545; Bidez (1913): 6; Kleffner
(1896): 17.
15. Note the Malchos from Tyre mentioned in IGRom III, no. 1104: [μ]άλχoς oὐε[τρανὸς]
εὐσεβεὶας χάριν. Cf. IGLM no. 107, 139–40: the epitaph of a young child named Basileus
from Novae; and Conquais (2002): 334 and n. 48, referring to “Porphyry” a charioteer,
who in a.d. 507 was involved in a riot in which many Jews died. Cf. Cameron (1973).
16. See Millar (1997): 247. Croke (1983): 169, suggests that Porphyry’s native tongue was
Syriac; and A. Carriker (2003): 20, n. 61, referring to Eus., Mar. Pal. 11.1, who mentions a
certain Porphyry the household slave of Pamphilius.
17. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 455–6 (LCL: Wright). For the cultural background see (e.g.)
Bowersock (1990): 31ff.
18. Disagreeing with Millar (1997): 246; cf. Barnes (1981): 175; and (1998): 61, suggesting that
Porphyry “knew Aramaic or Syriac” and giving Vit. Plot. 17.4–15 as evidence. Millar
(1997): 250, suggests that as an educated Tyrian, he will have been able to read works writ-
ten in Syriac, though his native tongue was Phoenician, closely related to Hebrew.
19. Bidez (1913): 8ff.
20. Aug., Civ. Dei X.xxxii. Cf. John J. O’Meara (1982a); and Cutino (1994): 49.
21. See Lacrosse (2001): 103–17, who convincingly argues that Porphyry reflects a broadly
accurate knowledge of Indian philosophy and culture, though it is difficult precisely to
determine the extent of Indian cultural influence in Bk. I of De regr. an. in Aug., Civ. Dei
X.xxxii, which refers to Indian accounts for the salvation of the soul.
274  Notes

22. Millar (1997): 256; Wilken (1984): 128: Tyre was Hellenized and Porphyry’s education was
in Greek; he possibly knew Hebrew. On Porphyry’s education see (e.g.): Benoit
(1947): 543ff.; Dodds (1947): 55–69, 58; Bidez (1913): iv.f; 5–10; Aug., Civ. Dei X.x, and
28–32; Clark (1999): 115, noting that Tyre became famous as a center for the study of
Roman law. See Burstein (1984) for Porphyry’s chronographic analysis of Babylonian
astronomy. On Augustine’s statements about Porphyry see Madec (1992): 369: Augustine
mentions him by name 49 times in the Civ. Dei, 24 in Bk. 10 and 13 in Bk. 22; most con-
cern the salvation of the soul.
23. Jerome, Pref. in Ep. Ad Gal.; Jurado (2006) CC Frag. 39, p. 120; (= Harn. Frag. 21a; Smith
8bT); John Chrysostom, Serm. in b. Barb. et contra Iulianum et ad Graecos c. 2; Jurado
(2006) Test. XVI, p. 84; id., Hom VI.3 in I Cor. (PG 61.52.31) = Smith, 8aT; Anastasius
Sinaita, Viae dux adversus acephalos 89, col. 233 Migne; Jurado (2006) CC Frag. 1, p. 91
(=Harn. Frag. 65). Rinaldi (1980): 36 suggests that Jerome and J. Chrysostom rely on a
common source, and the term Bataneotes is used pejoratively by the Christians. Cf.
Muscolino (2009): 454 n. 27, who concurs with Rinaldi (1980); and Aliquot (2011): 79
n. 30. The latter gives a good background for Tyre in the imperial period.
24. See Talbert (2000): Map # 69, “Damascus-Caesarea,” located at B-5; Digeser (2002): 482
n. 78; Cook (2000): 103 n. 1; Romano (1998) and (1979): 105f.; Lautner (1998); Tsafrir
(1994): 88; Rinaldi (1980); Benoit (1947): 545f.; Bidez (1913): 5; Kleffner (1896): 17; Wolff
(1962): 7 n. 3; and Abel (1938).
25. See Nautin (1977): 199 and n. 29, suggesting that the three sources which connect
Porphyry with this geographical area close to Caesarea (Libanius, Jerome, and John
Chrysostom) probably depended upon Eusebius’ Contra Porphyrium.
26. TIR, 88, with a reference to Eus., On. 30.5.
27. Josephus, Ant. 17.2.1–3; cf. Millar (1971): 1–17, 1 n. 2.
28. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 455–6 (LCL: Wright).
29. See Bidez (1913): 5; Evangeliou (1997): 1, n. 2.
30. See (e.g.) Girgenti (1997a): 10; Rinaldi (1992): 115 n.7; and (1980): 29–37; Romano

(1979): 105f.; Beutler (1953): col. 276: “Ein Beiname Βατανεώτης Ιoh. Chrysost. Homl. 6.3
in I Kor. P. 52, 31 Migne ist wahrscheinlich Schimpfname von Seiten der Christen”; Bidez
(1913): 5f.
31. See Rinaldi (1980): 32; De Labriolle (1934): 226 (a good possibility); Dodds (1970): 864f.
Note that Lardner (1838): 392 did not know what to make of Bataneotes.
32. See Schmitz (2013): 206–33, 206–10; Gatier (2011); Sapin (1999); Millar (1993): 264–95;
and Mattingly (2000): 229f.
33. ANET, 242f.
34. See Grainger (1991); Wilken (1984): 129; Dussaud (1927): 18–37. Strabo, Geog. 16.2.22, says
Tyre was the oldest of the Phoenician city-states.
35. Cf. Grainger (1991): 20.
36. ANET, 275f.
37. Ibid.,  283.
38. Ibid. The purple here is most probably a red-purple or magenta color, while the blue
mentioned would best be described as blue-purple.
39. Due mainly to the shellfish harvested along its coasts, from which was extracted the pre-
cious purple dye worn by the very wealthy aristocrats, kings, and emperors noted already.
Eus., HE 7.32.2–4, shows that Tyre was renowned for its purple dye factories in Late
Antiquity; already known in the time of Pliny, HN 5.12.
40. See B. Shaw (2013): 239f.
41. ANET, 291f., which required a siege by the Assyrian army against the Tyrian king Ba’lu.
 Notes  275

42. Ibid., 300. On Ashurbanipal’s siege: 295; and the Assyrian king’s boast that he is the “king
of the world,” naming Tyre as one of his imperial territories, 297.
43. See Grainger (1991): 35–39 (Alexander), and Arr., Anab. II.xv.6–xvii.4; Diod., XVII.xi.2–3;
which lasted seven months; 44f. and 58f. (Antigonus), which lasted over one year, ending
with Ptolemy’s garrison at the point of starvation.
44. Grainger (1991): 59.
45. See Millar (1993): 287.
46. For the historical background see Grainger (1991): 156–60; and Aubet (2001).
47. See Conquais (2002): 326; Belayche (2001): 20; and Millar (1993): 289ff.
48. See Jurado (2006): 5f.; Bowersock (1990): 31f.
49. Bowersock (1990): 31f.
50. See Chehab (1964): 17, revealing a seating capacity of more than 30,000.
51. See Millar (1993): 289ff.; Bidez (1913): 8f.; Chatonnet (2011); and Yon (2011).
52. See Kaizer (2013): 65.
53. See Gatier (2011): 129–53.
54. Eus., HE 7.32.2–4, mentioning Dorotheus, a biblical scholar and a eunuch, who was put in
charge of the purple-dye works at Tyre, which were still quite productive during the Later
Roman Empire.
55. See Millar (1993): 288f., for description and analysis. The city stopped minting these silver
coins c. a.d. 60 for reasons unknown.
56. See Grainger (1991): 65–72 for a detailed discussion.
57. Ibid.,  76.
58. Ibid., 70f. Cf. also Kuhrt (1995): II 402–10 for the historical background and the bibliog-
raphy at the end of vol. II.
59. ANET, 477, referring to Tyre as “richer in fish than the sands.” Cf. Grainger (1991): 70–6.
60. Cf. Kuhrt (1995): I, 5.
61. Grainger (1991): 185.
62. See Millar (1993): 288ff.
63. See the very informative essay by Clifford (1990); cf. Maldonado (1994); and Villena
(1994).
64. For the historical background see (e.g.) J. Elayi and A. G. Elayi (2009); Lipinski (1995);
and (1987); Eissfelt (1938); for the religious culture of Tyre specifically, Clifford (1990): 58ff.;
and the relevant entries found in Salzman and Adler, eds. (2013). Vella (2000): 34–43,
offers a good analysis of the religious symbolism of Oumm el-‘Amed, a cultic site 19 kilo-
meters south of Tyre.
65. Herodotus, II.44; cf. Millar (1993): 264; and on Tyre’s religious culture in general, 285–95;
and RIB I, no. 1129, p. 372: an inscription at Corbridge, Britain, concerning a dedication
of a priestess to “Heracles of Tyre.”
66. See Elayi and Elayi (2009): 271: By the seventh century in Tyre there were three kinds of
Baal deities perceived to be ruling over the forces of nature: Baal Shamin (sky); Baal
Malage (earth); and Baal Saphon (sea). Cf. also Bonnet (1987); and Katzenstein
(1973): 10–18.
67. Brown, Driver, and Briggs (1976): 127 (Hebrew); 1085 (Aramaic); J. Payne Smith (1976): 51
(Syriac); M. Sokoloff (2009): 171. Cf. also Clifford (1990): 57.
68. For the Ugaritic Baal Cycle see Wright (2013): 132f.
69. See the magisterial work by Leglay (1966a): 314–32; Schörner (2007); and Lipinski (1988).
70. Leglay (1966a): 318f.; Schmitz (2013): 212–5.
7 1. E.g., Jer. 32:35; 49:1, 3; Amos 1:15; Zeph. 1:5, referring to the cult of Molech/Moloch, on
which see Leglay (1966a): 321–31.
276  Notes

72. See Leglay (1966a): 321–31. For a general discussion on the pagan and Christian views see
Rives (1995).
73. Clifford (1990): 58, including works by scholars who have taken a revisionist approach to
the evidence on infant sacrifice, an approach which I do not find convincing, especially
the interpretation of the tophet as a regular infant cemetery; and redefining the Phoenician
practice of “passing through the fire,” denounced by biblical authors (e.g. 2 Kgs. 16:3;
20:10; Jer. 7:31), as actually “passing between the fires,” which would mean that it was an
initiation rite rather than a sacrifice. Cf. also B. Shaw (2013): 241, for the revisionist view
of various scholars (e.g., Moscati, Bénichou-Safar, Fantar, Richibini) positing that the
infants were already deceased when they were sacrificed to the god. I concur with Shaw
(242) that the evidence supports the view that the infants and young children were sacri-
ficed while still alive.
74. Porphyry, De abstin. II.27. See B. Shaw (2013): 239ff., for the cult of Baal Hamon in Punic
North Africa.
75. Cf. B. Shaw (2013): 241.
76. Leglay (1966a): 314–26; on the cult of Baal Hamon in Phoenicia and child sacrifice see
Wright (2013): 140f.
77. Cf. B. Shaw (2013): 248 for the geographical extension of the cult in Roman North Africa
which was primarily concentrated in the heartland of the Maghrib and excluding
Tripolitania and Maretania Tigitana.
78. A good bibliography is found in Leglay (1966). On the latest datable inscription related to
the cult of Saturn in Africa Proconsularis see Beschaouch (1968); and in general Simmons
(1995): 184–215. For a different interpretation see Wypustek (1993).
79. Cf. B. Shaw (2013): 240.
80. See Clifford (1990): 57; B. Shaw (2013): 240; Schmitz (2013): 210–5; and 212 for the appar-
ent celebration of the Adonis festival alluded to in the Althiburus (the modern Henchir
Medeine) Late Punic (North African) inscription mentioning the “servants of Melqart”
in Neo-Punic script: KAI 159.
81. Cf. Schmitz (2013): 216: a sacrificial tariff from the thirrd century B.C. of the temple of
Baal Saphon in Carthage and found in 1844/5 near the old harbor of Marseille, France
(KAI 69, referring to [e.g.] payments to priests and the distribution of portions of sacrifi-
cial victims).
82. For other Baal deities worshipped (e.g., Baal Lebanon, “god of the mountain”; Baal Addir,
“the mighty Baal”; and Baal Marqod, “Lord of the Dance” or healing deity) see Clifford
(1990): 56f.; and for social organization of the Baal cult in Syro-Canaanite religion, see
Wright (2013): 138.
83. Cf. Lipinski (1995): 219–64.
84. Eshmun in Phoenicia is connected with suffering and evil: cf. Wright (2013): 134. In
Roman North Africa the deity was identified with Aesculapius: cf. B. Shaw (2013): 240.
85. Cf. ANET, 352 for a Hittite evocatio ritual addressing the Cedar gods of the “country of
Tyre.” For the high place cults see Grainger (1991): 16; for Theos Hagios Ouranios see
Millar (1993): 293; and for fertility gods and Eshmun see Grainger (1991): 77ff. Contenau
(1922): I 39–43 gives a good analysis of Ishtar; and for the general background see the
essays in the Studia Phoenicia series published by Peeters.
86. Cf. Grainger (1991): 16; on the bull cult in Phoenicia and the E. Mediterranean in general,
see Contenau (1922): I 86f.
87. Eus., HE 9.7.5 and 9.7.7. It was set up at Tyre and promulgated in every eastern province
according to Eus., HE 9.7.3–15.
 Notes  277

88. Cf. Belayche (2001): 26f., citing the Talmud at TJ Av.Zar. 1.4.39c. and occurring during a
religious festival in the city which lasted eight days.
89. Bidez (1913): 6.
90. Eus., HE 8.13.3f.; at 8.7.1–2, he extols the martyrdoms that occurred at Tyre, among which
were those of a number of Egyptians living in the city (HE 8.7.4–8.8.1); cf. also HE 9.5.2.
91. Dionysius Alex., in Eus. HE 7.5.1. On the dedication of the rebuilt church at Tyre, whose
bishop was Paulinus, see Eus., HE 10.4.37ff. Cf. also G. Clarke (2005): 601f.
92. Cf. the next chapter for a thorough examination of the pertinent primary data including
bibliographical information.
93. Cf. ANET, 328f., the texts of execration of Asian princes from the Middle Egyptian
Kingdom now in the Berlin Museum. Among these is listed (e.g., among the Brussels
and Cairo figurines) “the Ruler of Tyre.”
94. Cf. Kuhrt (1995) II: 402–9, and the Bibliography, 737–43.
95. Cf. ANET, 145, the Legend of King Keret, a Ugaritic text written in the fourteenth cen-
tury b.c., mentioning a votive offering to the shrine of Asherah of Tyre of silver and gold
if Keret can take a certain princess as his bride. The votive offering was universal in the
Mesopotamian, Semitic, Greek, and Roman religious cultures and played a vital role in
the development of ritual, beliefs, and practices in antiquity.
96. Cf., e.g., Lipinski (1995): 232–42 (the Hellenization of Melqart-Heracles); Grainger
(1991): 77 (religious syncretism during the Ptolemaic Period, 287–225 b.c., in which
Astarte adopted the characteristics of Isis: a papyrus inscription of the second century
a.d. (=Grenfell (1898–1995): no. 1380); Whitehorne (1997); Grainger (1991): 118, noting
the establishment of the quinquennial games in honor of Melqart-Heracles at Tyre;
Verkinderen (1987):  287–96, on Alexander the Great’s desire to sacrifice to
Melqart-Heracles at Tyre; Katzenstein (1973): 9, citing an ancient legend that Tyre was
the birthplace of Astarte (Cic., De nat. deor. 3.33.59); Millar (1993): 290; Bidez (1913): 9;
and Schmitz (2013): 220, for one of the earliest inscriptions (KAI 73) from Carthage,
viz., a gold pendant dedicated to Astarte and Pygmalion discovered at the tomb of the
Douïmès necropolis dated to c. 800–750 B.C.
97. The examples are taken directly from the treaty between Esarhaddon and the King of
Tyre, ANET, 534, and admittedly the text gives a long list of curses if either party breaks
the treaty; but one can justifiably argue in the reverse order and assume that the oppo-
site of the divine curse (i.e., divine blessing) enumerated would be bestowed upon the
obedient parties involved. It is one of the earliest Mesopotamian texts that contains
substantial information on the pagan understanding of soteriology in the ancient world.
Specific later examples from Tyre can be found in Conquais (2002): 327 (a coin [no. 625]
dated a.d. 203 and inscribed A.AU.IER.ASU, which Conquais translates as “autonome,
sainte, inviolable”; 330: Fig. 4, inscription no. 3, a restored inscription of a prayer invok-
ing the gods for the σωτηρὶα of a person, group, or perhaps the city itself, found at Tyre’s
hippodrome; 331: inscription no. 4, a prayer apparently for victory at the hippodrome.
All of these betray a strong temporal understanding of soteriology.
98. Aune (1983): 35–42.
99. See Wright (2013): 146, for Phoenician inscriptions (KAI 1, 10, 13, 14, 30) that contain
curses against those who disturb the sarcophagi of dead kings.
100. Arr., Alex. 4.13.5–6; and cf. Aune (1983): 41f., for discussion.
101. Cf. Aune (1983): 41f., for more examples derived from primary sources.
102. Cf. Busine (2005): 25, who argues that Porphyry used pagan oracles to justify some reli-
gious practices like magic and sacrifices. For the phenomenon of oracular revelation
278  Notes

generally in the Greco-Roman world, see id. (2005) and (2012a); Parker (2000); Bruit
(1984); and Parke (1967) and (1956). Busine’s works represent the best critical analysis of
Porphyry’s De philosophia ex oraculis in modern scholarship. It should be noted that the
Suda does not list Philosophy from Oracles or The Letter to Anebo, on which see A. Smith
(1991): 184f.
103. Cf. A. Smith (2004): 90; Hoffmann (1994): 155; Bidez (1913): 8.
104. See Simmons (2009): 181f., esp. n. 65 for a list of modern scholarly works that have criti-
cally re-evaluated the Wolff-Bidez chronology related to Porphyry’s works. For a general
introduction to the latter see A. Johnson (2013).
105. Cf. Bidez (1913): 20–30; Wolff (1856; repr. 1962): 14–6; 38; 227f. For Plotinus and the Vit.
Plot. see Gerson (1996); Jovkovsky (1980); and Jones (1928); for his Egyptian origin see
MacCoull (1999); and Okamura (1995).
106. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (trans. Wright, LCL, 359).
107. See Goulet (1982c): 454, for the (sometimes questionable) reliability of Eunapius, espe-
cially “sa tendance à dèduire des textes conclusions contrivées et son total irrespect
à l’ègard des données de sa source.”
108. Simmons (2009): 182.
109. Cf. Bidez (1913):  14–20; and (e.g.) contra:  Digeser (2006b):  70 n.6; cf. Busine (2005):  289f.;
and Schott (2005): 285.
110. Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: Wright).
111. Wright (LCL): 358, n.2.
112. J. Payne Smith (1976): 220; cf. Solokoff (2009): 638.
113. J. Payne Smith (1976): 220; cf. Solokoff (2009): 638.
114. Cf. Eus. PE Book VI; Theoph. Books 1–2; Justin Martyr, I Apol. XVIII; XXVI; on the
O.T.: Ex. 22:18; Lv. 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; Dt. 18:10–14; 2 Kgs. 9:22; 17:17; 21:6; 23:24; 2 Chron.
33:6; Prov. 28:22; Is. 2:6; 8:19; 47:9, 12; Jer. 27:9; Mic. 5:12; Nah. 3:4; Hos. 4:12–14; 11:2;
13:1–2; Dn. 1:20; 2:2; 2:10, 27; 4:7; 5:11.
115. See Eliav (2010), for the widespread belief in the Greco-Roman world in the presence of
demons at bathhouses and the various kinds of magical rituals employed to exorcise
them. The story as noted by Eunapius thus has more than a modicum of historicity. For
the cultural background see the pertinent essays in Hezser (2010).
116. Discussion in Clifford (1990): 58ff.; for the treaty see ANET, 534.
117. Vit. Plot. 10, stating that Plotinus’ soul was so strong that it repelled the attacks resulting
from Olympius’ incantations. Cf. Brisson (1992b).
118. The weak premise being that there is a clearly delineated evolution of Porphyry’s thought
as noted in the pre- and post-Plotinian chronology examined, on which see Bidez
(1913): 26–30; and Benoit (1947): 544, who gives three phases for the same hypothetical
evolution: (1) the Phoenician or traditionalist period; (2) the Athenian period where
Porphyry developed philological and literary criticism skills; and (3) the Plotinian or
Roman period when he became a mature Neoplatonic thinker.
119. Cf. the new fragment of the CC by Michael the Syrian in the original Syriac, on which
see Cook (1998), also found in Muscolino (2009): 444; and for the background, Böhm
(2002): 7–23; Nebes (1998).
120. On the demographics see Grafton and Williams (2006): 19; on the chronology see (e.g.)
Berchman (2005): 36; Goulet (2001): 277 n. 31; and Chadwick (1993c): 110.
121. See (e.g.) Buresch (1889): 66 and 117, no. 65; Nautin (1977): 199; Simmons (1995): 218f.
122. Concurring here with Beatrice (1992b): 352; cf. Kettler (1979): 323, who gives a.d. 252–3.
123. For Alexandria see (e.g.): Jurado (2006): 88; Girgenti (1997a): 13, considering Caesarea
and Tyre as possibilities; Barcenilla (1968): 406; for Tyre (e.g.): Kleffner (1896): 18; Grant
(1973): 181–7, 181 (or Caesarea); Kettler (1979): 322–8, 323 (or Caesarea).
 Notes  279

124. Cf. Harn. CC frag. 39 (=Jurado [2006] CC frag. 24), which comes from Eus., HE 6.19.2–9;
see Grafton and Williams (2006): 64; Jurado (2006): 5, and Test. XXV, p. 88 (=Vincent.
Ler., Commonit. I.16.23); Cook (2004): 105; id. (1998): 122; Goulet (2001): 267–90; and
(1977b): 482 n. 31; Digeser (2000): 93, citing Athanasius Syrius in Smith (1993a), N 24;
Beatrice (1996a): 54; id. (1992a): II.704; Hoffmann (1994): 156; Sellew (1989): 88; Wilken
(1984): 129; Kettler (1979): 323; Grant (1973): 181; Benoit (1947): 553; Bidez (1913): 11;
Lardner (1838): VII.393.
125. Goulet (1977b): 482; and (2001): 277. I find very convincing Goulet’s argument
(2001): 267–90 and (1977b) that Porphyry’s testimony about Origen (Eus., HE 6.19)
shows that he confused data about a pagan Origen and the Christian Origen from
Alexandria whom Porphyry met when he was young, either in Caesarea or Tyre. He
thus confused Origen of Alexandria with Origen the Platonist, a disciple of Saccas; rely-
ing on the similar and earlier argument by Dörrie (1955): 439–77; see Cook (1998): 121;
Kettler (1979): 323 disagrees with Goulet and Dörrie. For new directions in the scholarly
debate see Cook (2008); Zambon (2002); Barbanti (2002); and Perelli (1988). Cf. also
Digeser (2012): 23–48; Schott (2005): 308 n. 154; Edwards (1993c); and for general dis-
cussion, Beatrice (1992b): 353f.; and Beutler (1953): col. 276.
126. Digeser (1998): 131 n. 10, citing Smith (1993a) N 24; on Nicephorus see Smith (1993a) N
14; Soc. Schol., ibid., N15 (=Codex Tubingensis, FrGrTh, 201, 1–5); Bidez (1913): 13f. had
doubts about these sources. For discussion see Cook (2000): 104 and n. 4; Kinzig
(1998): 320ff. Cf. also the pertinent essays in Daly, Robert J., ed. (1992); and Böhm
(2002).
127. On approaching this hermeneutical method for interpreting texts as noetic exegesis, see
now the valuable work of Stefaniw (2010): 365–86. Cf. also Carlini (1996); Pépin (1987);
O’Brien (1973); and Dellagiacoma (1956).
128. Origen’s Hexapla gives him the honor of the father of biblical criticism. If we note
(1) Porphyry’s superb philological education later in Athens under Longinus and (2) his
prior knowledge of Origen’s lectures, where he was undoubtedly influenced by his
method, which he later attacked vehemently, we can begin to appreciate just how much
of a threat Porphyry’s criticism of the Bible posed to the Christians of his day. For a
general discussion see Digeser (2000): 161; Kofsky (2000): 18; Simmons (1995): 218f.;
Kinzig (1998): 328; Hoffmann (1994): 16; Wilken (1984): 130; and Barnes (1981): 175.
129. Magny (2010): 516.
130. Cf. Nautin (1977): 199: “Ses relations avec Origène n’implique pas que Porphyre fût
baptisé ni même catéchumène.”
131. For the primary sources see Theos. II.25, No. 85 (Erbse, FGT, 201.1–5); Jurado (2006): Test.
XXVIb, p. 89 (Buresch, Klaros [1899]: 124, 9c); Smith (1993a): 10T; Beatrice (2001): xxvi;
Soc., HE III.23.37–39, on which see Jurado (2006): Test. XX, p. 86; Smith (1993a): 9T,
p. 14; and Nicephorus Callistus, HE X36 (Migne, PG 146, 561 A 3–11) and Smith
(1993a): 9aT, p. 14.
132. See the following for those scholars who do not believe the story that Porphyry was at one
time a Christian: Muscolino (2009): 454f., n. 30; A. Smith (2009): 38, says that the story
is “probably a Christian invention intended to discredit him.” However, if the Christians
invented the story to discredit Porphyry, would they have said that Christians beat him
up? This does not put the group that supposedly the inventors are defending in a very
positive light. Cf. id. (2004): 78; Viciano (2003): 40, believes he had been a catechumen;
Kofsky (2000): 18 n. 63; Wilken (1984): 130; Goulet (1982c): 455f.; Geffcken (1978): 57;
Grant (1973): 181; Barcenilla (1968): 406; Beutler (1953): col. 276; Benoit (1947): 553; De
Labriolle (1934): 232; Hulen (1933): 11; Bidez (1913): 6ff.; von Harnack (1916): 4; and
Lardner (1838):  393. The following accept the story:  Johnson (2009):  115 n. 63;
280  Notes

Chadwick (2001): 174 and 178; id. (1993c): 117; Digeser (2000): 93; and (1998): 130f.; Cook
(2000): 104; Kinzig (1998); Girgenti (1997a): 5–11; Beatrice (1992a): 704; Droge (1989): 172
n. 17; den Boer (1974), 198–208, 199; Nock (1933): 157; and (1981): 441.
133. Cf. (e.g.) Cook (2004): 141–257; and Beatrice (1993b).
134. Cf. Magny (2010): 541 n. 98, referring to Millar (2006): 340f., for a different view.
135. Though Millar (1997), states there is no proof for the thirrd century a.d. that Phoenician
was still spoken in Tyre or used in written documents, Syriac was the lingua franca,
spoken along the Euphrates and to the east in Mesopotamia. If he is correct about
Phoenician, an educated person like Porphyry will have conceivably spoken Syriac,
which was closely related to Classical Hebrew. See Cook (2000): 104 and n. 3.
136. According to Prof. Dennis Pardee of the University of Chicago, Classical Hebrew and
Phoenician were very closely related, as being members of the Northwest Semitic lan-
guage family. They constitute two principal “Canaanite” languages attested in the first
millennium b.c., with Moabite being another member. See the excellent study by Rubin
(2010). I am grateful to Prof. Rubin, who informed me that Phoenician and Classical
Hebrew were even more closely related than modern Spanish and Italian. See id. (2005);
Schramm, ABD IV, 203–14; Krahmalkov, ABD IV, 222–3; and the excellent essay by
Huehnergard, ABD IV, 155–70.
137. Cf. Jurado CC 30B (Harn. CC 43B): Jer., in Dan. Prolog. 45–66 (etymological compari-
son of Greek and Hebrew); Jurado CC 5 (Harn. CC 79): Aug., Ep. 102.16 Ad Deogratias
16 (revealing knowledge of the O.T.); Jurado CC 7 (Harn. CC 85): Aug., Ep. 102.28 Ad
Deogratias (on Solomon); Jurado CC 8 (Harn. CC 46): Aug., Ep. 102.30 Ad Deogratias
(the Book of Jonah); Jurado CC 13: Oct. frag. 71 (Deconninck, 91ff.) (Mosaic Torah leg-
islation on circumcision); Jurado CC 16 (Harn. CC 41): Eus., PE I.9.20f. (knowledge of
history and culture of Northwest Semites including Moses); Jurado CC 18: Eus., PE
I.10.44 (cf. Nautin [1950]) (knowledge of Phoenician history and culture); Jurado CC 21
(Harn. CC 47): Eus., DE VI.18.11.1 (historical criticism of prophecy of Zechariah); Jurado
CC 22 (Harn. CC 40): Eus., Chron. Freg. Apud Jer., Chron. A.Abr. praef. (Helm, 8) (refer-
ence to Moses, Semiramis, and Troy); Jurado CC 25 (Harn. CC 10): Jer., in psalm.
LXXVII 72–6 (on Mt. 13:35 and Ps. 78:2); Jurado CC 30A (Harn. CC 43A): Jer., in Dan.
Prolog. 1–32 (criticism of Daniel); Jurado CC 30B (Harn. CC 43B): Jer., in Dan. Prolog.
45–66 (comparing the Greek and Hebrew of Daniel); Jurado CC 30C (Harn. CC
43C): Jer., in Dan. Prolog. 86–93 (understanding Daniel based on the vast historiogra-
phy of the Greeks); Jurado CC 30D (Harn. CC 43D): Jer., in Dan. I.2:31–5 (criticism of
O.T. prophecy); Jurado CC 30E (Harn CC 43E): Jer., in Dan. I.2:46 (criticism of Daniel);
and the following contain criticisms of O.T. prophecy: Jurado CC 30F (Harn. CC
43F): Jer., in Dan. I.2:48; Jurado CC 30G (Harn. CC 43G): Jer., in Dan. I.3:9; Jurado CC
30H (Harn. CC 43H): Jer., in Dan. II.5:10a; Jurado CC 30I (Harn. CC43I): Jer., in Dan.
II.7:7b; Jurado CC 30J (Harn. CC 43J): Jer., in Dan. II.7:7c-14b; Jurado CC 30K (Harn.
CC 43K): Jer., in Dan. III 9:1; Jurado CC 30L (Harn. CC 43L): Jer., in Dan. III.11:20;
Jurado CC 30M (Harn. CC 43M): Jer., in Dan. (IV) 11:21; Jurado CC 30N (Harn.
43N): Jer., in Dan. (IV) 11:21; Jurado CC 30O (Harn. CC 43O): Jer., in Dan. (IV) 11:25f.;
Jurado CC 30P (Harn. CC 43P): Jer., in Dan. (IV) 11:27f.; Jurado CC 30Q (Harn CC
43Q): Jer., in Dan. (IV) 11:28b–30b; Jurado CC 30R (Harn. CC 43R): Jer., in Dan (IV)
11:31–43; Jurado CC 30S (Harn. CC 43S): Jer., in Dan. 11:44f.; Jurado CC 30T (Harn. CC
43T): Jer., in Dan (IV) 12:1–3; Jurado CC 30 U (Harn. CC 43U): Jer., in Is. IX:30; Jurado
CC 31 (Harn. CC 45): Jer., in Os. 1:2. For the CC in general see Zambon (2012).
138. Jurado CC 111 (Harn. CC 38): Theodoret, Graecarum Affectionum Curatio 7. This is
Berchman (2005): 191, CC frag. 163.
 Notes  281

139. Cf. (e.g.) Jurado CC 2 (Harn. CC 66): Arethas Caesariensis (Westerink, 221–5) (critique
of the Logos theology and Christian doctrine of redemption); Jurado CC 3 (Harn. CC
92): Aug., Ep. 102.2, Ad Deogratias (doctrine of the resurrection); Jurado CC 8 (Harn.
CC 46): Aug., Ep. 102.30, Ad Deogratias (knowledge of allegorization of the O.T.); Jurado
CC 10: Did. Caecus, Comm. in Ecclesiasten 9:10cd (critique of the allegorical method);
Jurado CC 12 (Harn. CC 93): Ps. Justin (Diod. Tars.), Qu. Gent. XIV.15 (Otto, 320); Jurado
CC 24 (Harn. CC 39): Eus., HE VI.19.2–9 (against Origen’s allegorical method); Jurado
CC 38 (Harn. CC 14): Jer., in Matth. IV 27:45 (doctrine of the resurrection of Christ);
Jurado CC 51 (Harn CC 55b): Jer., quaest. in Gen. 1:10; cf. also Cook (2008); Kofsky
(2000): 153; Frede (1999c): 223–250, 244; Struck (1995); Dillon (1982); Dörrie (1972) and
(1981); Chadwick (1966): 103; Pezzella (1962b): 303.
140. Jurado CC 1 (Harn. CC 65): Anasthasius Sin., Viae dux adversus acephalos (Migne, PG
89, col. 233) (Book of Acts); Jurado CC 4 (Harn. CC81): Aug., Ep. 102.8, Ad Deogratias
(Gospel of John); Jurado CC 6 (Harn. CC 91): Aug., Ep. 102.22, Ad Deogratias (Gospels
of Matthew and Luke); Jurado CC 11: Did Caes., Comm. in Psalmos 43:2 (criticism of
Matthew and Luke); Jurado CC 14 (Harn. CC 12): Epiph., Haer. 51.8 (critique of the
nativity, the visitation of the Magi, etc.); Jurado CC 20 (Harn. CC 7): Eus., DE
III.5.95.1–100.1 (the evangelists invented stories about Christ); Jurado CC 26 (Harn. CC
4): Jer., in Psalm. LXXXI 223–33; Jurado CC 28 (Harn. CC 21D): Jer., in Is. XIV 53 (the
conflict between Peter and Paul); Jurado CC 29 (Harn. CC 11): Jer., in Dan. I.1:1 (errone-
ous genealogy of Mt. 1:11f.); Jurado CC 32 (Harn. CC 5): Jer., in Ioel 2:28–32 (critique of
the apostles); Jurado CC 33 (Harn. CC 9B): Jer., in Matth. I.3:3 (critique of Mark 1:1–2 in
reference to Malachi and Isaiah); Jurado CC 34 (Harn. CC 6): Jer., in Matth. I.9:9 (cri-
tique of Jesus); Jurado CC 35 (Harn. CC 56): Jer., in Matth. II.15:17 (criticism of the N.T.);
Jurado CC 36 (Harn. CC 3): Jer., in Matth. III.21:21 (faith could not move mountains);
Jurado CC 37 (Harn. CC 44): Jer., in Matth. IV.24:16f. (abomination of desolation);
Jurado CC 38 (Harn. CC 14): Jer., in Matth. IV.27:45 (critique of the evangelists); Jurado
CC 39 (Harn. CC 21A): Jer., in Gal. prolog. (conflict between Peter and Paul); Jurado CC
40 (Harn. CC 19): Jer., in Gal. 1:1 (critique of apostles); Jurado CC 41 (Harn. CC 20): Jer.,
in Gal. 1:16 (criticism of Paul); Jurado CC 42 (Harn. CC 21C): Jer., in Gal. 2:11f. (Paul and
Peter in disagreement; cf. also Jurado CC 43 [Harn. CC 22]: Jer., in Gal. 5:10) and Jurado
CC 46 (Harn. CC 21B): Jer., Ep. 112, Ad Augustinum 6; Jurado CC 44 (Harn. CC 37): Jer.,
in Gal. 5:12 (contradictions in Paul’s teachings); Jurado CC 45 (Harn. CC 2): Jer., Ep. 57,
Ad Pammachium 9 (evangelists were liars); Jurado CC 47 (Harn. CC 25B): Jer., Ep. 130,
Ad Demetriadem 14 (critique of Acts 5:1–11); Jurado CC 48 (Harn. CC 82): Jer., Ep. 133,
Ad Ctesiphontem 9 (why did Christ not come at the end of the ages?); Jurado CC 49
(Harn. CC 49B): Jer., c. Vigil. 10 (scripture was the fabrication of demons); Jurado CC 50
(Harn. CC 50): Jer., Adv. Pelag. II.17 (critique of John 7:8–10); Jurado CC 51 (Harn. CC
55B): Jer., quaest. in Gen. 1:10 (evangelists mistakenly call Genesaret a sea rather than a
lake); Jurado CC 52 (Harn. CC 9A): Jer., tract in Marc. (de principio Marci, 1:1–12) (the
evangelists were ignorant of the divine scriptures).
141. Cf. especially Simmons (2009) for the significance of the four classes of Neoplatonic
virtues for the universalist soteriological paradigm of Porphyry; and (e.g.) Jurado CC 15
(Harn. CC 1): Eus., PE I.2.1–5 (on which see Johnson [2010]: 53–8); (Christians have
abandoned ancestral religions and merit punishment by law); Jurado CC 17 (Harn. CC
80): Eus., PE V 1.9f. (Christianity is anti-salvific; the plague in the city [Rome?] has
caused the gods to leave); Jurado CC 23 (Harn. CC 8): Cod. Lau (Athos) 184.B.64, saec.
X (Goltz, Texte und Untersuchungen, T.17.4, 41ff.) fol. 17r: Schol. Act. 15.20 (against the
ethical injunctions of Acts 15:20). On Origen’s method of training his students first in
282  Notes

ethics see Trigg (1998): 1–62; and Wilken (1984): 15–30. As I have shown (2009), the four
classes of virtue in the Neoplatonic tradition played a vital role in the formation of
Porphyry’s tripartite soteriological paradigm.
142. Stefaniw (2010): 368. Cf. Muehlberger (2011).
143. Beatrice (1992b): 354; cf. Chadwick (1993c): 112; and Grafton and Williams (2006): 65f.
In addition to the CC frag. noted, cf. also Jurado CC 3 (Harn. CC 92): Aug., Ep. 102.2, Ad
Deogratias (implies knowledge of pagan philosophy and logic in the critique of the doc-
trine of the resurrection of Christ); Jurado CC 12 (Harn. CC 93): Ps. Justin (Diod. Tars.)
Qu. Gent. XIV.15 (Otto, 320) (critique of doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh); Jurado
CC 19 (Harn. CC 73): Eus., DE I.1.12–15 (Christians cannot demonstrate a convincing
argument [i.e., logically and philosophically] but simply rely on “faith.”).
144. Nautin (1977): 199.
145. Stefaniw (2010): 368.
146. See Trigg (1998): 38–40 for Origen’s homiletical skills; and for general background,
Greer (1979): 1–40. See also Jurado CC 9: Did. Caecus, Comm. in Job 10:13 (the critique
of the belief that all is possible with God, something that he may have heard preached in
the school); and Jurado CC 27 (Harn. CC 97): Jer., in Is. 2:3 (a critique of church admin-
istration; Porphyry claims it is run by matronae et mulieres, certainly an exaggeration for
the period).
147. On the background see (e.g.) Barnes (1999): 293; Selinger (2002); Beatrice (1996a): 54, sug-
gesting that Porphyry studied at Caesarea under Origen c. a.d. 250; cf. Hoffmann
(1994): 155: “By the time of the persecutions of Christians under the emperor Decius (ca.
250), Porphyry was a committed enemy of the young religion”; the pertinent essays in
Hazlett, ed. (1991); Frend (1984): 311; Geffcken (1978): 25, with a reference to Eus., PE V.1.10.
148. Cf. Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 15 (LCL: Armstrong); cf. Jurado CC 4 (Harn. CC 81): Aug., Ep.
102.8, Ad Deogratias (a critique of Christian soteriology).
149. The fragment is Jurado CC 37 (Harn. CC 44): Jer., in Matth. IV.24:16f.
150. Trigg (1998): 38.
151. See Jurado (2006): Test. IV, Greg. Thaumaturgos apud Athanasius, Prolog to the Syriac
trans. of the Isagoge of Porphyry (cf. Assemani, Bibl. orient. III, 304f.). If such refuta-
tions occurred in the Neoplatonic School in Rome, logic dictates the same for Origen’s
School in Caesarea. Hence Gregory’s refutation of Porphyry need not have been of the
CC, which is, as Harnack noted, chronologically impossible, but an instance of a debate
between two former students of Origen on theological and biblical doctrines.
152. Cf. esp. Trigg (1998): 36ff., who analyzes the very illuminating testimony of Gregory
Thaumaturgus on the pedagogical method of Origen while he was a teacher in Caesarea.
Cf. Orth (1955a): 76f.
153. See (e.g.) van Fleteren (1999): 661; Beatrice (1992b): 356, suggesting that Porphyry stud-
ied under Longinus during the period a.d. 253–63; Evrard (1960): 401; Porphyry, Vit.
Plot. 14; Wilken (1984): 131 (Porphyry learned literary and historical criticism from
Longinus); Pépin (1992); Barnes (1981): 175 and n. 76; Wilkens (1977); Orth (1955b);
Beutler (1953): col. 277; and Cumont (1934). J. Barnes (2002) offers a good background.
154. Eun., Vit. Phil. 456 (LCL: Wright).
155. Fowden (1982): 44. Cf. Theiler (1966).
156. See Kalligas (2000): 115–28; and (2001): 584.
157. See Cook (2000): 104.
158. Cf. Hoffmann (1994): 156; Bidez (1913): 36.
159. Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 19–21 (LCL: Armstrong). See (e.g.) Brisson (1982): 49–141, 107; Bidez
(1913): 56. Note that at Vit. Plot. 20 and 21, Longinus calls Porphyry Basileus.
 Notes  283

160. See (e.g.) Chadwick (2001): 166; Kalligas (2000): 584f.; Watson (1999): 65f.; Potter

(1996); Bowersock (1990): 7f.; Gawlikowski (1984); Peters (1970): 601.
161. PE 10.3.1ff.; Libanius, Epp. 1078; HA Aurelian 30.3; Zosimus, I.56.2f.; and for discussion
see Barnes (1981): 175; Bidez (1913): 57.
162. We shall examine in later chapters the importance of mathematical studies for Porphyry’s
Path II soteriological trajectory. On mathematics and dialectic in Neoplatonism see
Chlup (2012): 151–8; for rhetoric see Ward (1974).
163. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: Wright); cf. ibid., 456, asserting that before Porphyry left
Athens he was “looked up to by all” for his learning. Cf. Jurado (2006): Test. III, p. 78;
Smith (1993a): 2T, p. 6 (Suda, IV.178.14–179.2); and Smith (1993a): 13T (Proclus, In
Rep. 2.23.14f.); Hoffmann (1994): 157; Dodds (1968): 126, claiming that Porphyry was the
best scholar of his time. For Porphyry’s History of Philosophy see Girgenti (1997b);
Kohlschiter (1991); M. Smith (1988); and Schrader (1888).
164. Eunapius, Vit. Phil., 456.
165. P. Brown (1967): 316.
166. On the teachers see (e.g.) Beutler (1953): col. 276; Smith (1993a): 13T and 14T; Eun., Vit.
Phil. 456 (LCL: Wright) and Porph., Vit. Plot. 20.90ff (LCL: Armstrong); Jurado
(2006): 6; Cook (2000): 105 n. 8; Girgenti (1997a): 15; Beatrice (1996a): 54; Geffcken
(1978): 57; Igal (1970): 283; Benoit (1947): 547f.; Bidez (1913): 439.
167. Eun., Vit. Phil. 456 (LCL: Wright); Vit. Plot. 20 (LCL: Armstrong); cf. Digeser (2000): 93;
Beatrice (1996a): 54ff.; Hoffmann (1994): 17, 156f.; Brisson et al. (1982): I.105; id.
(1990): 84; Sellew (1989): 87; Bowersock (1987): 26; Fazzo (1977): 182f.; Geffcken
(1978): 57; Romano (1978); Beutler (1953): col. 277.
168. Porph., Vit. Plot. 20 (LCL: Wright).
169. Cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 143; Brancacci (2002); Alt (1998); Hollis (1991); Edwards
(1990a); Penati (1988) and (1985); Lamberton (1986); Ford (1985); Pépin (1982a) and
(1966); Luppe (1978); Chomarat (1974); Pépin (1966–7); Setaioli (1966); Sodano (1966–7);
(1965); and (1965–6); Buffière (1956); Grant (1949): 15; and Daniel (1924). For the
Homneric Scholia see Combellack (1987) and Heitsch (1968–69): 652–56.
170. Cf. (e.g.): Wilken (1984): 131; Peters (1970): 673; Binder (1968).
171. For his legacy here see the general works of (e.g.) Bidez (1913); Beutler (1953); Smith
(1993a); Beatrice (1996a); Hoffmann (1997) and (1983); Mercati (1947); and Hubert
(1938). Kofsky’s (2000): 24 suggestion that Porphyry “may have cooperated with
Aurelian in matters concerning the Christians” is not convincing. On the philological
analysis of Zostrianos mentioned in Vit. Plot. 16, see Sieber (1973): 237; and Tardieu
(1996). Smith (1993a): 37T = Ishaq Ibn Hunayn’s (Rosenthal, ed., Oriens 7 [1954]
69) remark in Ta’rikh al-Atibba that in addition to being a philosopher, Porphyry was
also a physician is not supported by any other ancient source.
172. Vit. Plot. 4.1ff.; 5.1f.; 5.2.23ff. (LCL:  Armstrong); cf. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. (LCL: Wright): 456;
Jurado (2006): Test III, p. 78; Smith (1993): 2T, p. 6 = Suda IV.178.14–179.2. On the rela-
tionship with the wealthy Chrysaorius see Smith (1993a): 29aT, Athan. Syrus (Bibl.
Apost. Vat. Cod. III, 305, Assemanus). For discussion see (e.g.) Jurado (2006): 78; Cook
(2000): 105; G. Clark (2000c): 4; Girgenti (1997a): 18; Beatrice (1996a): 54; Hoffmann
(1994): 156, giving a.d. 262 or 263; O’Meara (1993b): 109; Wilken (1984): 132; Brisson
(1982): 65; Goulet (1982a): 206, 218; Barnes (1981): 175; cf. id. (1976c): 65–70; A. Smith
(1974): 719; Igal (1972): 125; Beutler (1953): col. 277; Benoit (1947): 548; Boyd (1937): 243f.;
Bidez (1913): 38.
173. Jurado (2006): Test III, p. 78; Smith (1993a): 2T, p. 6 (Suda, IV.178.14–179.2) and Vit.
Plot. 18 (LCL: Armstrong); Bidez (1913): 6–15.
284  Notes

174. Porph., Vit. Plot. 1 (LCL: Armstrong).

175. Bidez (1913): 41.
176. Goulet-Cazé (1982a): I 233–41; Fowden (1982): 39; Porph., Vit. Plot. 7.1–2 (LCL: Armstrong);
cf. Lim (1993). The Life of Plotinus is not a biography in the strict sense. For the art of
biography in the ancient world see Gigante (1986). For an attempt to reconstruct
Porphyry’s Life of Plato see Notopoulos (1940); cf. also Von Tudor (2002).
177. Vit. Pyth. 37 (trans. K. S. Guthrie): “His utterances were of two kinds, plain or symboli-
cal. His teaching was twofold: of his disciples some were called Students (mathema-
tikoi), and other Hearers (akousmatikoi). The Students learned the fuller and more
exactly elaborate reasons of science, while the Hearers heard only the summarized
instructions of learning, without more detailed explanations.” Cf. Riedweg (2002);
Philip (1959); and Shorey (1932).
178. See Porph., Vit. Plot. 7 (LCL: Armstrong); Wilken (1984): 132f.; Bidez (1913): 49.
179. Helm (1995): 236. On the connection with Gallienus and the idea of Platonopolis see Vit.
Plot. 12 (LCL: Armstrong).
180. Vit. Plot. 9. For the cultural context see Cox (1983); for a good analysis of Porphyry’s
theory of justice as it relates to his concept of community see Goldin (2001).
181. For an excellent discussion as to how the uneducated masses might have applied the
civic virtues of the Neoplatonic scala virtutum for personal salvific benefits, see Digeser
(2006b); cf. also Simmons (2009); Schott (2003): 501–31; and Helm (1995): 237.
182. Helm (1995): 244. In addition to Helm for modern views on Platonopolis see
(e.g.): Digeser (2006b); D. J. O’Meara (2003); Schott (2003); Jerphagnon (1981); De Blois
(1989); and Carratelli (1974).
183. Porph., Vit. Plot. 10 (LCL: Armstrong). Brisson (1992a); cf. Rist (1963).
184. Ibid.
185. Bidez (1913): 80, sees in this Plotinus’ elitist mysticism, which caused him not to be con-
cerned with the religion of the masses, but Potter (2004): 326 shows that Plotinus and
Porphyry had differing approaches to the traditional cults and thus how the individual
could have access to the gods. Cf. also Cherlonneix (1992); and A. Smith (2004): 77.
186. Porph., Vit. Plot. 11 (LCL: Armstrong).
187. Ibid.
188. Ibid., 16; 23; yet his humanity is apparent as well: Porphyry informs us that Plotinus
regularly suffered from some kind of bowel disease (Vit. Plot. 2). On attacking the
Gnostics see (e.g.) Poirier (2010); Majercik (2005); Aland (2002); Guerra (2000);
Kalligas (2000); Dillon (1999); Tardieu (1992); Abramowski (1983); Hadot (1981) and
(1971–6); and Igal (1981).
189. Porph., Vit. Plot. 13 (LCL: Armstrong).
190. Ibid., 15. See also Jurado (2006): 7; Carlini (1993); Bidez (1913): 47.
191. As I will argue below and maintain throughout this book, Porphyry never abandoned
his interest in ancestral religious culture of the Greco-Roman world, nor in finding a
way of salvation/purification for the souls of the uneducated masses.
192. Bidez (1913): 78.
193. Porphyry says he asked Diophanes to lend him his manuscript so he could obviously
(and very meticulously) analyze it, but he declined his request.
194. Vit. Plot. 15 (LCL: Armstrong).
195. Ibid., 16. Edwards (1988); Doresse (1950).
196. A brief overview of the Enneads is found below. Cf. Vit. Plot. (LCL: Armstrong) 18;
Cilento (1965); and Frenkian (1963).
 Notes  285

197. Cf. Porph., Vit Plot. 2, 6, 11 (LCL: Armstrong); and Berchman (2005): 113; Bodéüs
(2001a): 569, arguing that the suicidal tendencies were a secret known only to Plotinus;
Digeser (2000): 93; Cook (2000): 105; Evangeliou (1997): 3; Beatrice (1996a): 54; Goulet
(1982c); A. Smith (1974): 720; Igal (1972): 102; Beutler (1953): col. 277; Benoit (1947): 550f.;
Boyd (1937): 244, n.14; Bidez (1913): 52ff.; according to Vit. Plot. 3.10, Plotinus, too, suf-
fered from depression in his earlier career, on which see Whittaker (1997). For a differ-
ent interpretation of Porphyry’s bout with depression see Shaw (1995): 156.
198. Vit. Plot. 2 (LCL: Armstrong); Eus., HE 6.19.2, who claims Porphyry settled in his day in
Sicily. Cf. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 456 (LCL: Wright); Jurado (2006): Test. XXVII, p. 89
(=Smith [1993a]: 29T, p. 23), Elias in Porph. Isag. 39.8–19, says during his trip to Sicily
Porphyry observed the craters of fire of Mt. Etna because he loved the “spectaculars of
nature.” Cf. also (e.g.) Jurado (2006): 9; G. Clark (2000c): 5; Evangeliou (1997): 4;
Beatrice (1996a): 54; id. (1992a): I.704; Pirioni (1985), 502–8. Benoit (1947): 551; Boyd
(1937): 243. For the various reasons given by scholars for Porphyry’s departure from
Rome see Jonathan Barnes (2003): xi n. 9.
199. Barnes (1981): 175; cf. Beutler (1953): col. 278.
200. Jurado (2006): Test. XXI, p. 86, Aug., Cons. Evang. I.15(23); cf. Aug., Retract. 2.57.10;
G. Clark (2000c): 5; id. (1999): 113.
201. See Barnes (1994): 157, also arguing that the CC was written in Rome, not in Sicily. In
general see the excellent analysis of Zambon (2012).
202. Ademollo (2004); Jonathan Barnes (2003): ix–xxvi; Chiaradonna (2012); Nuñez (1996);
see also Moraux (1979); and Adamo (1967). Oehler (1965): 400 is worth quoting: “Sie
war im Mittelalter nach der Bibel die meistgelesene Schrift.”
203. Cf. Eus., HE VI.19.2 (=Jurado [2006]: CC frag. 24; Harn. CC frag. 39; Jurado (2006): 9;
Breloer (2002); Cook (2000): 105; Evangeliou (1997): 4; Girgenti (1997a): 22; Sodano
(1966); Beutler (1953): col. 278; Boyd (1936); Thedinga (1927); Kleffner (1896): 26; and
Bernays (1866). Cf. Brisson (2012c). For the genre of the commentary see the pertinent
essays in Most, ed. (1997a).
204. Porph., Vit. Plot. (LCL: Armstrong) 6.1–3; 19.
205. Porph., Vit. Plot. 19; 20 (LCL: Armstrong); cf. G. Clark (2000): 5; Cook (2000): 106,
n. 14; A. Smith (1974): 720.
206. Porph., Abst. 3.4.7; cf. G. Clark (2000c): 91; Cook (2000): 105; Simmons (1995): 219 and
n. 31; Barnes (1981): 177 n.100; Bidez (1913): 57f.
207. For Arnobius’ connection with Porphyry see Simmons (1995), and for the viri novi, 11,
13, 159, 161, 216ff., 286f., 289, 295. For a list of modern scholars who associate the viri novi
with Porphyry see ibid., 11, n.72; and 217, n. 8; cf. also Cutino (1994): 50.
208. See Simmons (1995): 94–130, esp. 122–30; and Thomas (2011): 129–64.
209. Simmons (1995): esp. 122–30; but see also the list of references in the index on p. 383.
210. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 456 (LCL: Wright); Porph., Vit. Plot. 6.1 (LCL: Armstrong).
211. See (e.g.) for discussion: Jurado (2006): 9; Jonathan Barnes (2003): x; Cook (2000): 105;
Digeser (2000): 93; Beatrice (1996a): 54; Evangeliou (1997a): 3, who believes that the
Neoplatonic School in Rome ceased to exist when Porphyry died; Girgenti (1997a): 23;
Hoffmann (1994): 16; Lloyd (1967): 411, “apparently” Porphyry took over Plotinus’
school in Rome after he died.
212. Hoffmann (1994): 16.
213. Jurado (2006): Test. III, p. 78; Smith (1993a): 2T (=Suda IV.178.14–179.2); cf. Smith
(1993a): 33cT, FGT 66, Erbse, p. 183, 27; cf. Jurado (2006): 10. See Digeser (2009): 81–92.
Cf. also Dillon and Finamore (2002): 1–10; and Dillon (1987).
286  Notes

214. See John M. Dillon (2012a): 51f.; also cf. Iamblichus, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell
(2003): xiii–lii.
215. Iamblichus, Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003): xxi.
216. Cf. the LCL ed. by Armstrong listed in the Bibliography below; also Jonathan Barnes
(2003): x; and T.D. Barnes (1981): 175.
217. Porph., Ad Marc. 1 (Wicker 1987). In addition to Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: Wright),
two other sources mention Marcella: Cyr. Alex., Adv. Iul. 6.209B (Migne PG 76, col.
819); and Aristocritus, FGT, H. Erbse, ed. (1941), 201, no. 85.
218. Porph., Ad Marc. 1. Other sources say Marcella had five children: Jurado (2006): Test.
XXVIb, p. 89, Aristocritus (Buresch, Klaros, 1899, p. 124 = Smith [1993a]: 10T, FGT,
Erbse, ed., 201.1–5; Buresch, no. 85); cf. also Schott (2008): 52; Jonathan Barnes (2003): x;
Whittaker (2001); G. Clark (2000c): 5; Digeser (2000): 93; and Chadwick (1959): 141f.;
id. (1999): 69; A. Smith (1996b): 229; Kinzig (1998): 321; Girgenti (1997a): 25; Wicker
(1989): 424; Faggin (1982); Barnes (1973b): 432; Geffcken (1978): 70; Beutler (1953): col.
278; Bidez (1913): 112; Kleffner (1896): 27; Wolff (1856): 12.
219. See Brisson (1982): I, 107; Barnes (1973b): 432.
220. Barnes (1998): 161, n.88; for a different view see (e.g.) Dillon (1987): 866; cf. also A. Smith
(2004): 90; Brisson (2000c): 907; Saffrey (1992): 36; on the relationship with Iamblichus
see Jurado (2006): Test. III, p. 78; Smith (1993a): 2T (=Suda IV.178.14–179.2); cf. Smith
(1993a): 33cT, FGT 66, Erbse, p. 183, 27; cf. Jurado (2006): 10; Beutler (1953): col. 275–8.
221. Fowden (1982): 40f.; cf. also des Places (1966): 5–11.
222. Porph., Vit. Plot. 23 (LCL: Armstrong); Geffcken (1978): 61; and O’Meara (1974).
223. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: Wright); Jurado (2006): Test III, p. 78; Smith (1993a): 2T,
p. 6 (=Suda, IV.178.14–179.2); cf. Jurado (2006): 10; see also (e.g.) Jurado (2006): 5 (a.d.
305); Berchman (2005): 113 (a.d. 310); Jonathan Barnes (2003): x (date of death is
unknown); Cook (2004): 150 (c. a.d. 304–5); G. Clark (2000c): 5 (a.d. 305); Digeser
(2000): 163 n.8 (skeptical of Suda text); Evangeliou (1997): 3 and n. 13 (1st decade of 4th
cent.); Girgenti (1997a): 26 (c. a.d. 305); Simmons (1995): 219; Hoffmann (1994): 39 n. 14
(a.d. 303); Beatrice (1992a): 704 (a.d. 305); A. Smith (1987): (a.d. 305); Wilken (1984): 134
(perhaps a.d. 305); Goulet (1982a): 210–3 (c. a.d. 305); Barnes (1981): 175 (not many
years after a.d. 301); cf. id. (1973b): 432 n. 1; Barcenilla (1968): 406 (a.d. 304); Lloyd
(1967): 411 (between a.d. 300–6); Beutler (1953): col. 278 (a.d. 305); Vaganay (1935): col.
2562 (a.d. 305); Hulen (1933): a.d. 304; Bidez (1913): 127 (a.d. 305); Wolff (1856):
13 (a.d. 304).
224. Wilken (2003): xv; Chadwick (1999): 69; Cook (1998): 120. Cf. also Zambon (2012).
225. Jonathan Barnes (2003): ix ff.; Chiaradonna (2012).
226. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: Wright).
227. Brisson (2000c): 907; cf. Tommasi (2001).
228. See Lévy (2004), showing how Porphyry influenced Augustine and the Latin West, and
Gregory of Nyssa in the Byzantine East. Cf. Clark (1991); Meredith (1984) and (1975);
Pfligersdorffer (1976); Pépin (1971): 101–6 and (1964); and Courcelle (1967) and (1958);
and For Gregory Nazianzus see Mathieu (1982).
229. Cf. Beatrice (1996a): 56 and the general introductions by (e.g.) Bidez, Beutler, and Smith
listed in the Bibliography below; Richey (1995): 138; and Courcelle (1956). For Porphyry’s
influence upon Boethius see (e.g.) Bobzien (2000): 114–15; Asztalos (1993); Shiel (1990);
(1987); and (1974); Sulowski (1961) and (1957); Hadot (1959); and Solmsen (1944). Cf.
Siddals (1987) for Porphyry’s influence upon logic and Christology in Cyril of
Alexandria.
 Notes  287

230. Dörrie (1962): 47. On Porphyry’s influence on later thinkers, especially Augustine, see
Gerson (2005) and Lévy (2004). Cf. (e.g.) Luna (2000); Hoffmann (2000a); Schlapbach
(1999); Teixidor (1998); Lilla (1997) and (1990); Tiné (1997); Kany (1992); Ebbesen
(1990a); (1990b); (1990c); and (1976); Gottschalk (1990) and (1986); Grillmeier (1990);
Mueller (1990); Wildberg (1990); De Libera (1989); Pines (1986); Evangeliou (1985) and
(1979); Gorman (1985); Clark (1982); Fabro (1982); Szidat (1982); Garcia (1981); Janko
(1982); Pinborg (1980); (1973); and (1965); Roueché (1980); Rescher (1962); Labelle
(1978); Marcovich (1975); Maroth (1975b); Hadot (1974) & (1956); Saenz (1975); Pépin
(1974); Gagnon (1973); Kustas (1973); Grilli (1971); Schmidt (1972); Wolfskeel (1972b);
Kannengiesser (1970); Waszink (1969) & (1941); Behr (1968); Walzer (1966); Frenkian
(1964): 302–3; Marrou (1963); Sodano (1963a); Zolla (1963–64):  355 Courcelle
(1954a):225–28; Dunlop (1951); and Stegemann (1942–44); and Mélandre (1931).

Chapter 2

1. Digeser (2000): 92.
2. Bidez (1913): 17; cf. also 18–28.
3. Smith (1993a): L–LIII; cf. id. (1996d): 1226, which also lists 69 works which can be
described as genuinely written by Porphyry.
4. See (e.g.) Jurado (2006): 11, for a discussion restricted to Beutler (1953): cols. 275–313;
Simmons (1995): 219 and n. 26, giving from 57–77 works with reference to Dodds, Bidez,
Beutler, and Boufffartigue-Patillon; Beatrice (1996a): 55, who says Porphyry wrote from
66–77 works and citing Bidez, Beutler, and Pötscher; Evangeliou (1997): 6, giving 77 in
agreement with Bidez (see below); Romano (1979): 217–21, giving 81; Beutler (1953): col.
278, gives the following eight categories for the Porphyrian corpus: (1) expositions on
Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus; (2) historical works; (3) metaphysics, psychology, and
morality; (4) religion and mythology; (5) rhetoric and grammar; (6) mathematics and
other sciences; (7) miscellaneous questions; and (8) “Erschlossenes.” Dodds (1970):
864–66 gives the following six categories: (1) early philosophico-religious works;
(2) later works on religion and philosophy; (3) life of Plotinus and the Enneads; (4) com-
mentaries on Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Theophrastus; (5) philological works; and
(6) technical subjects (e.g., embryology). Dodds agrees with Bidez (1913): 67*–73*, who
gives 77 works written by Porphyry. The testimony of Ibn Al-Nadim Fihrist (Flügel, ed.,
I, 316) (=Smith [1993a]: 3fT, p. 9), that Porphyry wrote a book on sleep and awakening
may not be factual.
5. A better attempt at dating works from the Porphyrian corpus can be found in A. Smith
(1987): (e.g.) 721.
6. See the following chapters below for a more thorough analysis. One of the earliest mod-
ern scholars who began critically to re-evaluate the Wolff-Bidez hypothesis is A. Smith
(1987): 722; cf. id. (1996b): 1227; Jurado (2006): 10, gives a different theory for Porphyry’s
intellectual development based upon Waszink; see also T. D. Barnes (2001a);
E. C. Clarke (2002): 6, arguing that the view that one can trace a clear development in
Porphyry’s thought has not found wide acceptance; Beatrice (1996a): 55; Fowden
(1981): 180, rejects the Bidez hypothesis and its chronology for P’s works and concludes
that P. did evolve but “in evolving he incorporated rather than abandoned his past …”;
Geffcken (1978): 57, suggesting that resolving the chronological issues of Porphyry’s
works will provide the most convincing solution to the contradictions in his thought;
288  Notes

S. L. Greenslade’s review (1961) of John J. O’Meara (1959), calling for the re-editing of all
Porphyry’s works. See Bidez (1913): 17–28 for his original hypothesis.
7. Meredith (1975): 423–27.
8. Ibid., 424ff. For a different terminology used for this particular hermeneutical
method—noetic exegesis—see Stefaniw (2010): 365–86.
9. Mitchell (1988): 120. On the revival of oracular revelation of the third century and its
close affiliation with pagan philosophy, see Fox (1987): 196–200.
10. Porph., Vit. Plot. 2, 7 (LCL: Armstrong).
11. Ibid., 7.
12. Ibid., 7, giving Zethus as a prominent example.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 9.
16. Ibid., 9.
17. Ibid., 12.
18. Ibid.
19. Dodds (1970): 864f., who agrees with Bidez (1913) who said there is nothing original in
the whole extant work of Porphyry. Recent scholarship has posited a different view on
Porphyry as an original thinker.
20. Heath (2003): 166, showing how Porphyry made original contributions to rhetorical theory.
21. See (e.g.) Bodéüs (2001b): 669f.; Evangeliou (1997): 177: the Neoplatonists Iamblichus,
Dexippus, Olympiodorus, Simplicius, Ammonius, Elias, and David were influenced by
Porphyry’s interpretation of Aristotle’s works; Blumenthal (1981a): 212–22; on Porphyry
the historian: Den Boer (1974); (1973b): and (1954); cf. also Romano (1985); and Beutler
(1953): cols. 279, 282.
22. For Chaldaean influence on Porphyry’s views about the divine triad, (1) God-Father;
(2) God-Son; and (3) a third god who is intermediary and a unifying principle, see Des
Places (1984): 2229–35. It would be interesting to analyze the relationship between the
tripartite soteriology delineated in this book, this divine triad, and the Platonic doctrine
of the tripartite nature of man.
23. Aug., Civ. Dei X.32 (LCL: Wiesen). Dei Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta
finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quondam sectam quod uni-
versalem contineat viam animae liberandae, vel a philosophia verissima aliqua vel ab
Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet via, non-
dumque in suam notitiam eandem viam historiali cognitione perlatam, procul dubio
confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam venisse notitiam.
24. PE IV.7 included in Smith, 303F: Βέβαιoς δὲ καὶ μóνιμoς ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἄν ἐκ μóνoυ
βεβαίoυ τάς ἐλπίδας τoῦ σωθῆναί ἀρυτóμενoς· oἶς δὴ καὶ μεταδώσεις μηδὲν
ὑϕαιρoύμενoς. ἐπεὶ κἀγὼ τoὺς θεoὺς μαρτύρoμαι ὡς oὐδὲν oὔτε πρoστέθεικα oὔτε
ἀϕεῖλoν τῶν χρησθέντων νoημάτων, εἰ μή πoυ λέξιν ἡμαρτημένην διώρθωσα ἤ πρὸς τὸ
σαϕέστερoν μεταβέβληκα ἤ τὸ μέτρoν ἐλλεῖπoν ἀνεπλήρωσα ἤ τι τῶν μὴ πρὸς τὴν
πρóθεσιν συντεινóντων διέγραψα, ὡς τóν γε νoῦν ἀκραιϕῆ τῶν ῥηθέντων διετήρησα,
εὐλαβoύμενoς τὴν ἐκ τoύτων ἀσέβειαν μᾶλλoν ἤ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ἱερoσυλίας τιμωρὸν
ἑπoμένην δίκην. ἔξει δὲ ἡ παρoῦσα συναγωγὴ πoλλῶν μὲν τῶν κατὰ ϕιλoσoϕίαν
δoγμάτων ἀναγραϕήν, ὡς oἱ θεoὶ τἀληθὲς ἔχειν ἐθέσπισαν ἐπ’ ὁλιγoν δὲ καὶ τῆς
χρηστικῆς ἁψóμεθα πραγματείας, ἥτης πρóς τε τὴν θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ τὴν ἄλλην
κάθαρσιν τoῦ βίoυ. ἥ δ’ ἔχει ὠϕέλειαν ἡ συναγωγή, μάλιστα εἴσoνται ὅσoιπερ τὴν
ἀληθειαν ὠδιν́αντες ηὔξαντó πoτε τῆς ἐκ θεῶν ἐπιϕανείας τυχóντες ἀνάπαυσιν λαβεῖν
τῆς ἀπoρίας διὰτὴν τῶν λεγóντων ἀξιóπιστoν διδασκαλίαν.
25. Cutino (1994): 49; Toulouse (2001): 206, n. 135. Contra: Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 121–9.
 Notes  289

2 6. Recently espoused by Johnson (2009).

27. See Lévy (2004): 675–82, for Porphyry’s influence upon Augustine’s search for the Αληθὴς
ϕιλoσoϕία.
28. See Addey (2010): 149–65, for the contextualization of Porphyry’s concept in the Phil.
orac. of the Supreme Deity and his relationship to the deities of Greco-Roman paganism
in the religious development of Late Antiquity.
29. See Jurado (2006): Test. XI (=Firmicus Maternus, err. 13.4), who is probably referring to
De sim. when he says that Porphyry was a defender of the idols. On the similarities
between Porphyry’s On the Sun and On Images see Altheim and Stiehl (1964–68).
30. Bidez (1913): 21, which also has an index listing the fragments of De cultu simulacrorum.
For the hermeneutical method employed in this work see Rouselle (2001): 399–402.
31. See (e.g.) Jurado (2006): 18; Berchman (2005): 52ff.; Fowden (1998); G. Girgenti

(1997a): 13; A. Smith (1996d): 1226f.; Beutler (1953): col. 295.
32. Aug., Civ. Dei 10.32 (LCL: Wiesen). See Courcelle (1951): 303–5; Digeser (2009): 87–91
argues that it is in the De regr. an. that Porphyry’s response to Iamblichus’ via universalis
is easiest to see; cf. Iamblichus: De mysteriis (2003): xxix; and Busine (2012b).
33. See Iamblichus: De mysteriis (2003): xxii; Athanassiadi (1993): 118 believes Ep. Anebo and
De myst. were written around the same time, c. A.D. 300 or later. Digeser (2009): 88 dates
the epistle (along with De regr. an.) “toward the end of Porphyry’s life in the late 290s.”
34. Cf. G. Girgenti (1997a): 13; Beutler (1953): col. 295: “Vielleicht nicht lange vor Porphyrios
Eintritt in die Schule Plotins.”; and Bidez (1913): 25.
35. For a very good analysis of the work and the debate between Porphyry and Iamblichus in
the context of cultural universalism, see Marx-Wolf (2010): 498–508.
36. Saffrey (1971): 232 believes that Anebo was a former student of Porphyry who later
became a disciple of Iamblichus. Cf. Busine (2012b).
37. Digeser (2009): 84; Jurado (2006): 18f.; E. C. Clarke (2002): 12; Saffrey (1992): 50; A. Smith
(1987): 734; Sodano (1960); Id. (1958a), 123–52; and for the text see Sodano (1958b).
38. Porph., Ad Aneboam 2.18: Sodano (1958b): 28.
39. Des Places (1966): 12, dates this epistle to the period of Porphyry’s first sojourn in Rome
(263–268), following Sodano (1958b): xxxiv–xxxvi.
40. Digeser (2009): 88.
41. As stated by A. Smith (1987): 733.
42. Digeser (2009): 88, referring to scholars who agree that both treatises noted were “prob-
ably written in the same period toward the end of Porphyry’s life in the late 290s”;
Berchman (2005): 49–52; 106ff.; Frend (1987): 9, giving the probable date for De regr. an.
as c. a.d. 262–6; cf. Id. (1984): 442; Voss (1963): 237–9; Evrard (1960): 400; Beutler
(1953): cols. 293f.; Bidez (1913): 28*–44* (Section II).
43. Cf. Watson (1983–4): 230. For the Greek religious background see Parker (1996b).
44. Civ. Dei X.26 (LCL: Wiesen): Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit, qui deorsum descenden-
tes hominibus theurgicis divina pronuntient; alios autem, qui in terris ea quae Patris sunt
et altitudinem eius profunditatemque declarent.
45. See the very good analysis found in Carlier (1998).
46. Cf. Chase (2004a): 56; Goldin (2001): 355–59; and Cipriani (1997): 122.
47. See Alfeche (1995): 122 & 139, the latter citing Civ. Dei XXII.27, which names Porphyry;
Culdaut (1993): 262; and Bubloz (2005): 134 n. 81: “La possibilité défendue par Porphyre
d’un salut éternel pour l’âme est en effet une originalité doctrinale dans l’histoire du néo-
platonisme.” A good analysis of Father in Neoplatonism can be found in Markchies
(2002): 3–15.
48. Cf. Bidez (1913): 161, who argued that the De regr. an. contained at least two books.
290  Notes

4 9. See Simmons (2009).

50. Augustine, Civ. Dei X.28.
51. This classification of Students and Hearers and the stress upon the importance of math-
ematics seems to have derived from Pythagoreanism. On how mathematical studies
played a role in Porphyry’s Path II soteriological trajectory, see Chapter 8 below.
52. Simmons (2009): 183.
53. Cf. Bowden (2010): 177.
54. Ibid., n. 70.
55. See Sodano (1997).
56. Kahn (2001): 134.
57. See Jurado (2006): 12.
58. Kahn (2001): 134; cf. also G. Clark (2000b): 32; Fowden (1982): 36; A. Smith (1996d): 1226f.;
Dodds (1970): 864f.; Marcovich (1964); Beutler (1953): cols. 287f.
59. Lorente (1987): 10–3, (without attempting to offer a date), who follows Des Places
(1982): 10, who dates the Vit. Pythag. to Porphyry’s Athenian period or at least before he
met Plotinus, with a reference to Bidez (1913): 34.
60. Cf. Brisson (2012a) and (2005) II; Pépin (2002b); Girgenti (1996); A. Smith (1996d): 1226f.;
Della Rosa (1992); Guthrie and Hornum (1988); Sodano (1979); Lamberz (1975); and
Lloyd (1967): 411–2.
61. Simmons (2009): 171–8, and below for a detailed analysis. Goldin (2001): 355–9.
62. Brisson (2012c): 1410 (a little after a.d. 271); G. Clark (2000c): 1 (written in the last third
of the 3rd century a.d.); Lorente (1984): 9 (written in Sicily before a.d. 270); Bouffartigue
and Patillon (1977): xii (in Sicily before a.d. 270); and T. Taylor (1965): 8 (mid-third
century a.d.).
63. See (e.g.) Marx-Wolf (2010): 494ff.; Jurado (2006): 12f; G. Clark (2001b): 41; and

(1999): 117; Chuvin (1990): 48; A. Smith (1996d): 1226f.; and (1987): 721; Meredith (1976);
and Beutler (1953): cols. 291f.
64. Jurado (2006): 13; Clark (2000c); Bubloz (1998); Bouffartigue and Patillon (1977) and
(1979); Patillon and Segonds (1995); Dombrowski (1987) & (1984): 141–3; Lorente (1984);
Preus (1983).
65. Gersh (1992): 148.
66. Ibid.,  149.
67. Ibid., 149: “The Porphyrian commentary on the Harmonics of Ptolemy is clearly not
intended as a metaphysical treatise, and so the epistemological or ontological ideas which
it contains are expressed in an allusive manner, perhaps functioning as signposts towards
more detailed analyses elsewhere.” For other analyses of the work see (e.g.) Olson and
Sluiter (1996): 596; Alexanderson (1969); and Dihle (1957).
68. Recent editions: Le Lay and Lardeau (1989); Simonini (1986); Lamberton (1983);

Barcenilla (1968).
69. For good background analysis see (e.g.) Alt (1998); Serra (1993); Agosti (1986); Dörrie
(1976a); Pépin (1974); and Boyancé (1960–1).
70. Geffcken (1978): 61, theorizes that the Homeric Questions, De antr. nymph., and Hist. Phil.
were all written in Athens under Longinus’ direction; cf. De Labriolle (1934): 265, who
believes Porphyry employed the same kind of allegorical method in Phil. orac. as he did
in the Homeric Questions.
7 1. E.g., T. D. Barnes (2001b): 156, referring to Lamberton (1986): 108–4; 119–33; Geffcken
(1978): 61. Jurado (2006): 14 gives an interesting analysis of the “tres etapas” of the soul
found in the work; for its general soteriological value see Barcenilla (1968); and Beutler
(1953): cols. 279f. for a good overview of structure and contents.
 Notes  291

7 2. See Simmons (2009).

73. Wicker (1987): 20f.
74. Ad Marc. 18.
75. See Simmons (2009): 183. For 1st-century pagan and Christian notions on the soul’s pas-
sions see Fiore (1990).
76. Ibid., 182f., n. 69, for an exemplary list. I do not find convincing A. Smith (1987): 721, who
argues against a date c. a.d. 300–2.
77. Ad Marc. 4.
78. See Simmons (2009): 191 and n. 103 for the scholarly discussion about the conference
mentioned by Lactantius, De mort. pers. 11.
79. See also Jurado (2006): 14; Busine (2005): 244f.; Beutler (1953): col. 293; and the good
summary of the work in Harnack (1911–2): 73f.
80. See the introduction to vol. I of Armstrong 1966–88 (LCL), esp. ix–xii; Saffrey (1992); Igal
(1982); and (1985); Barnes (1976c), 65–70; and Henry and Schwyzer (1951; 1959).
81. Cf. Vit. Plot. 7.51; 24.2; see also (e.g.) Dodds (1970): 864f.: after a.d. 300; Igal (1972): 122:
a.d. 300; Armstrong 1966–88 (LCL): viii–ix: between 301–5; and Bidez (1913): 53.
82. See Armstrong 1966–88 (LCL): Vol. I, x.
83. See (e.g.) Most (2003); R. Goulet (2001); Mansfeld (1995): 152, showing that Porphyry
could not start his biography in the usual manner due to the fact that Plotinus was
ashamed of being in a body; D. J. O’Meara (1993b), 1f.; Brisson (1990); and Jerphagnon
(1990), who compares the Vit. Plot. with the Gospel of John.
84. See Luc Brisson (1982) & (1992): 503–46; Goulet and Brisson (2012); Lamberton

(2001): 447; and Mansfeld (1994): 109.
85. Cf. A. Smith (1996d): 1226f. Scholars are not in agreement as to whether the Commentary
on Parmenides was written by Porphyry. See (e.g.) Chase (2012): 1362–5; Jurado
(2006): 20; Dillon (2007): 54, n. 10; Id., (1992b): 357; Karamanolis (2006): 309, n. 226;
Majercik (2005): 278ff. and (2001): 266, n. 5; J. Barnes (1999); Bechtle (2000) and (1999);
Girgenti (1994a) and (1993); Whittaker (1973): 81; P. Hadot (1961); and Kroll (1892).
Hadot (1961) was the early proponent of Porphyrian authorship of the treatise. This has
been criticized recently by Bechtle. J. Barnes (2003): 370 lists it as a spurious work by
Porphyry.
86. J. Barnes (2003): ix. Chiaradonna (2012).
87. For the phenomenal legacy of the work in both East and West see (e.g.) Share (1994);
Evangeliou (1985–6): 318–31; Blumenthal (1981b); Gyekya (1979); Maroth (1975a) and
(1975b).For the history of the various translations see J. Barnes (2003): xix–xxii.
88. J. Barnes (2003): xi: “It is plausible to suppose that the work was written after Porphyry
had come to Rome; for it is addressed to a Roman. Anything more is fancy.” On the
work in general and how it fits in the Porphyrian corpus, Bidez (1913): 58–62, is still
useful.
89. See (e.g.) De Libera (1999); Moraux (1985) and (1981).
90. J. Barnes (2003): xv. See also the introductions to this work in de Libera and Seconds
(1998); and Girgenti (1995).
91. The best introduction to the work in English is J. Barnes (2003): ix–xxiv.
92. According to the Bidez hypothesis.
93. See Simmons (2009).
94. Contra G. Clark (2007) who misinterprets Simmons (1995): 23 at 137, n. 46.
292  Notes

Chapter 3

1. The fragments can be found in A. Smith (1993a). For the general background see
Athanassiadi (1992) and Athanassiadi and Frede (1999b).
2. Lardner (1838): 451–67, for Lardner’s argument that the Phil. orac. is a forgery (and thus
not written by Porphyry).
3. Cf. Jurado (2006): 10 and 17; A. Busine (2005): 236 n. 12, gives a long list of scholars who
follow Bidez; Kofsky (2000): 141; Girgenti (1997a): 101; Romano (1979): 108; Grant
(1973): 181; Madec (1969): 176; Laurin (1954): 41; Vaganay (1935):2556; Hulen (1933): 14f.;
Harnack (1911–2): 72.
4. Fowden (1981): 180. See the following for examples of those scholars who date the Phil.
orac. to Porphyry’s later years: Beatrice (2009): 344 n. 6, giving a list who those who have
rejected the Bidez hypothesis; Simmons (2009): 181 n. 65, for a longer list; Johnson
(2009): 104f.; Digeser (2006b): 70 n. 6, citing id. (2000); (1998); Simmons (1995); Wilken,
in Schoedel and Wilken, eds. (1979); O’Meara (1959); A. Smith (1997).
5. I find the argument of Digeser (2000): e.g., 64, that Lactantius (D.I. 5.4.1–2) is responding
to the Nicomedia winter lectures c. 302–303 very cogent and convincing. Also, more
recently Schott (2008): 179f. interprets Porphyry’s statement in Ad Marc. 4, that “the
needs of the Greeks called and the gods confirmed their request,” as a reference to
Porphyry’s attendance at the imperial conference (with which I agree). Schott (231
n. 22) cites the works of other scholars who have made the same conclusions (i.e., Benoit,
Chadwick, des Places, Barnes).
6. Contra the views of Beatrice which are analyzed below.
7. D.I. 5.2.
8. Contra (e.g.) Riedweg and Goulet, whose works are cited below, and whose arguments
are totally unconvincing here. Goulet tries to make a strong case against the view that
Porphyry attended the conference convened by Diocletian in a.d. 302 due to the fact that
Lactantius does not mention that philosophers attended the meeting. If Porphyry, how-
ever, had been assaulted by Christians in his earlier life, he might have developed a para-
noia about a possible recurrence of the same behavior by the group whom he had attacked
vehemently and in an unprecedented manner just a few years before (i.e., in the CC), and
thus might have requested that the attendees at the conference keep his presence there
under “top secret” status. This easily explains both the silence of Lactantius and allusion
to the conference in Ad Marc. 4.
9. Wolff (1962): 40–3. See Haussleiter (1978–9): 445 for an example of a modern scholar who
blindly accepts Wolff ’s thematic division of Phil. orac. (gods, demons, and heroes).
Johnson (2009): 106 rightly questions this view, following Busine (2005): 240.
10. Cf. Schott (2008): 178 (citing Wolff [1962: 42f.] at 231 n. 15) who uncritically follows
Wolff ’s classification: “Of the known books, the first concerned the worship of the gods,
the second dealt with daimones, and the third with heroes and holy men.”
11. Busine (2005): 239f.; cf. id. (2012a).
12. Id. (2005): 240; and (2012a).
13. Advice from which Berchman (2005): 124–30 could have immensely benefitted.

Berchman’s fragments 3 and 4, which he attributes to the CC, are actually from Phil. orac.
(Frag. 3 = Wolff [1856]: 139ff.; Eus., PE 9.10.1–5 = Berchman [2005]: 124); Frag. 4 = Civ.
Dei XIX.23 = Berchman [2005]: 125–30; and in the section on Eus., 135–42, frags. 12–24,
he does not give the parallel text to Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23 (=Eus., DE 3.7 [PG 22]; on which
see Simmons (1995): App. I, 328.
14. See Simmons (2009) and the chapters below on Porphyrian soteriology.
 Notes  293

15. See ibid., 172 n. 7, for a list of scholars who believe that the work was written against the
Christians, and those who believe it was written for pagans. The latter position is taken
herein.
16. See in addition to Simmons (2009): 172 n. 7: A. Smith (2009): 45, stating that Wilken’s
(and others’) belief that Porphyry was attempting to “steal” Christ and positively incorpo-
rate him in Greco-Roman religious culture “goes too far.” Cf. Anastos (1966): 425; and
Cook (2000): 112: “Porphyry’s oracles about Christ appear in a context designed to dis-
courage people from the Christian faith.”
17. In addition to the list found in Simmons (2009): 172 n. 7, see (e.g.) Schott (2008): 179;
Jurado (2006): 17; Berchman (2005): 107; Goulet (2004): 67; Digeser (2000): 101; Van
Liefferinge (1999): 186; Ruggiero (1992): 169, calling the Phil. orac. a manual of theurgy
and an impassioned apology for paganism, with an emphasis upon the salvation of
the soul.
18. See (e.g.) Majercik (1998a). cf. Brisson (2000b).
19. Majercik (1998a); cf. Chase (2004a).
20. In general see Athanassiadi (1999a: 152 n. 15, stating that Porphyry was the first testified
commentator on the Chaldaean oracles. Aug., Civ. Dei X.xxxii, refers to Porphyry’s fre-
quent borrowings from the Chaldaean oracles. See also Athanassiadi (1999a); Majercik
(1998b); Dillon (1992a); and Des Places (1981b) and (1973); Hadot (1978); and Dodds
(1961). For the meaning and use of the technical term theologia in Greek mythology and
philosophy see Goldschmidt (1950).
21. See Majercik (1989): 36; and 67, Chal. Or. fr. 46, stressing that the virtues purify the soul
and lead it back to God; Brisson (2000a); and Saffrey (1981): 209 n. 2, for a list of works
on the Chaldaean oracles, especially as they relate to the Neoplatonists.
22. A. Smith (1989): 38.
23. On Porphyry ‘s interest in oracles see (e.g.) A. Smith (2004): 79f.; Rist (1964): 223; Dodds
(1951): 287.
24. Beatrice (2009): 358.
25. Johnson (2009): 112.
26. Schott (2008): 
179, referring to the “esoteric Philosophy from Oracles…”; cf.
Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 148.
27. Ad Marc. 18. Though it will be shown in Part II below that God for Porphyry does not
himself need anything (Ad Marc. 11), on which see Grilli (1962): 134f. Cf. also Schmidt
(1951): 144–9.
28. How this kind of language coheres with Porphyry’s soteriological paradigm is analyzed in
the following chapters.
29. Johnson (2009): 112; Beatrice (2010): 40, 45, and 49.
30. Contra Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 122f. See Toulouse (2001): 206 n. 135.
31. It should be noted that Beatrice (2010) does do a good hermeneutical tango with some of
the peripheral philosophical issues related to this subject.
32. Cf. Van Liefferinge (1994): 180: Il est vrai que les larges extraits que rapporte Eusèbe de ce
traité ne trahissent guère l’intention de Porphyre de transmettre un enseignement
philosophique.’’
33. Johnson (2009): 113.
34. Βέβαιoς δὲ καὶ μóνιμoς ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἄν ἐκ μóνoυ βεβαίoυ τὰς ἐλπίδας τoῦ σωθῆναὶ
ἀρυτóμενoς oἶς δὴ καὶ μεταδώσεις μηδὲν ὑϕαιρoύμενoς. The English translation is from
Gifford (1913). Cf. also Cutino (1994): 57.
35. ἑξει δὲ ἡ παρoῦσα συναγωγὴ πoλλῶν μὲν τῶν κατὰ ϕιλoσoϕίαν δoγμάτων ἀναγραϕήν,
ὡς oἱ θεoὶ τἀληθὲς ἔχειν ἐθέσπισαν.
294  Notes

36. Simmons (2009).

37. Ibid.
38. Beatrice, A. Johnson, and Schott.
39. 304 F (Eusebius, PE IV.7.2–8.1).
40. Van Liefferinge (1999): 183.
41. Van Liefferinge (1999): 186 states on the contents of the Phil. orac.: “. . . l’objet de ce traité
étant le culte paien tout entier… ”
42. Note that Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 11, proves the superiority of Plotinus’ soul by showing that
he could prophesy, thus giving his master’s life an aura of the divine.
43. I follow here the translation found in the NPNF, vol. 1, by Richardson.
44. On the Prologue see Busine (2005): 242–5; and the remark of A. Smith (1997): 29: “. . .
what Porphyry says here has been simply ignored”; and Cutino (1994): 57.
45. Potter (1994): 57, makes the intriguing observation that for Porphyry oracles provided
information important for the “passive side” of traditional cult, e.g., how the gods could
be prevailed upon, what to sacrifice, what to avoid, what cult statues should look like. See
Rea (1977), for a letter from a prefect in Egypt suppressing divination and oracles, c. a.d.
198–9. The Platonic tradition had a long history of being interested in prophecy, on which
see Guthrie (1986): IV, 15, noting that Plato visited “the prophets” in Egypt; and Vit. Plot.
2: Plotinus was eager to learn Persian philosophy.
46. Although he does not make the same connections with the three books of De philosophia
ex oraculis, Teselle (1974): 113–7, observes that Porphyry made a distinction between the
three aspects of man, and each has its own characteristic religious function.
47. By “uneducated” I do not mean this always to mean “illiterate” but only to include here all
who did not have the aptitude for philosophy.
48. 314 F (Eusebius, PE IV.8.4–9.2). Cf. Simonetti (2001) and Bonner (1942): 9. For the Abst.
see Clark (2000c) which provides a good introduction and notes to the text; Cosi (1985);
and Gallavotti (1976): 3–8.
49. For the rejection of animal sacrifice in Abst. see Toulouse (2001): 200; and Gasparro
(1989). For the zoophile in ancient thought see Chapouthier (1990); cf. also Clark (2000a);
and for the centuries before Porphyry, Giglioni (1991). For the philosophical argument
against animal sacrifice see Arnobius, Adv. nat. 7 and Newmeyer (1999).
50. 316 F (Eusebius, PE V.10.13–11.1). Cf. also 347 F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7), which contains
the language of compulsion or binding the gods by mystic spells. This fragment fits better
the religious way of Book I and will be analyzed below. See further 350 F (Eusebius PE
V.8.13–9; 9.12).
51. E.g., 317 F (Eusebius, PE V.12.1–2); 318 F (Eusebius, PE V.13.1–2); 319 F (Eusebius, PE
V.13.3–4); 321 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.4–15.4).
52. 322 F (Eusebius, PE V.15.6–16.1). See Frontenrose (1978) for an excellent study of the
Delphic Oracle. Forbes (1995) gives a good overview to pagan and Christian notions of
prophetic revelation and their Hellenistic environment.
53. 323 F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.1–2).
54. 324 F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.3–4). Since this passage comes after the preceding one in the
PE, I assume that Eusebius is following in sequential order here, i.e., he first cites a pas-
sage from the Phil. orac. (Book I) that dealt generally with the many “paths” to the gods
offered by the respective religious cultures named, then he began to instruct his readers
(e.g., in Book I) about the first way of salvation according to the tripartite system ana-
lyzed in this study.
55. Cf. A. Smith (2004): 79, who observes rightly that Porphyry had a more traditional affin-
ity to religious practice than Plotinus.
 Notes  295

56. ANF VII (William Fletcher): 137.

57. Chadwick (1959): 143.
58. Ibid. Cf. Zambon (2012).
59. Wilken (1979): 130 and (1984): 135f.
60. E.g., Beatrice (2009): 357 n. 57; (1996a): 55; (1995): 415 n. 63; and (1993a): 35 n. 13; 40; 43;
Schott (2008): 177–85; Berchman (2005): 4; Digeser (2006a); (2006b): 68–84, 73;
(2001): 522; (2000): 5; 91–114; and (1998): 129 n. 4; 144f.; Drake (2000): 146; Edwards
(2000): 67 n. 46; and (1999): 199; Simmons (1995): 24; 77 n. 191; Sodano (1993): 41; 112
n. 17; 113–16.
61. Schott does not analyze nor cite the important passages in Abst. II.49 and 50 (Bouffartigue
and Patillon [1979]), the former containing the phrase ὁ ϕιλóσoϕoς καὶ θεoῦ τoῦ ἐπὶ
πᾶσιν ἱερεὺς. Beatrice (1993a): 37 does cite the passages.
62. Schott (2008): 180, contra Barnes (1973b): 438–9, who insists that due to Porphyry’s
ascetic life, he was not the anonymous philosopher mentioned by Lactantius.
63. Digeser (1998): 144f.; Simmons (1995): 77, n. 191.
64. The suggestion of some that Porphyry and Marcella did not have a sexual relationship as
husband and wife is pure speculation.
65. Schott (2008): 180.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid.,  181.
68. Ibid.,  182–5.
69. Barnes (1973): 438f.
70. See Fragmente Griechischer Theosophien, Erbse 201.1–5 = Buresch (1889): no. 85 (= Jurado
[2006]: Test. XXVIb, p. 89; and Smith [1993a]: 10T, p. 15.)
7 1. Barnes (2001b): 158.
72. Ibid.,  159.
73. See Digeser (2006a): 43 n. 53, for a list of occurrences of the word in the D.I. used in a
figurative sense.
74. For those scholars who take the opposite view (i.e., that Porphyry should not be identified
with Lactantius’ anonymous philosopher) see (e.g.): A. Smith (2009): 34 and 48; and
(1989): 36; Jurado (2006): 34; Riedweg (2005): 155, 160–5; Goulet (2004): 100–4; and
(2003): 117, 120; Potter (2004): 657 n. 113; Bowen and Garnsey (2003): 2 n. 7; 284 n. 15;
Barnes (2001b): 158, as noted above; (1994): 58f.; (1981): 22; (1978): 105; and (1973b): 438f.;
Whittaker (2001): 155, agreeing with Barnes (1994): 58f. and Barnes (1973b): 438f.;
Hoffmann (1994): 164; Fox (1987): 196 n. 90; Croke (1984): 7; cf. Beatrice (1993a): 34 n. 12,
who lists other scholars.
75. J. J. O’Meara (1959) and (1969).
76. See the review of O’Meara (1959) by P. Hadot (1960a) and Busine (2012a).
77. See the following works by Beatrice (2010): 47; (2009): 357, 367; (2001): xxvii; (1996a): 54ff.;
(1996b): 317; (1995): 414; (1994): 225; (1993a): 45ff.; (1992c); (1991); (1990): 175f.; (1989).
78. Beatrice (1993a): 45. Note also id. (1989): 257: “In short, we think that all the Porphyrian
fragments de regressu animae, the fragments on the statues of the gods, and the Letter to
Anebo have to be linked to the Philosophy from Oracles.”
79. Andrew Smith (2009): 35, for the evidence from Eusebius and Jerome.
80. See (e.g.) the following works by Beatrice: (2010): 49; (2009): 357, 367; (2001): xxvii;
(1996b): 317; (1996a): 56; (1995): 414; (1994): 225; (1993a): 45ff; (1992c): 349; (1989): 267.
Very few scholars accept Beatrice’s hypothesis. See (e.g.) Berchman (2005): 3f.; Carriker
(2003): 116–21, who is sympathetic to Beatrice’s views; cf. G. Clark (2000b): 42, question-
ing whether Porphyry wrote a separate work with the title “Against the Christians”; van
296  Notes

Fleteren (1999): 661–3, 661: “Are they separate works or merely descriptive titles of parts
of the same work?’’ On Harnack’s abandonment of his earlier view that the CC and the
Phil. orac. were the same work see Beatrice (1992c): 349.
81. On the contents of the Prologue to Phil. orac. interpreted in this manner see (e.g.) Busine
(2005): 289f.; Goulet (2004).
82. The best refutation to date is Goulet (2004); see also (e.g.): Johnson (2009): 105; Busine
(2005): 289f.; J. Schott (2005): 285; Riedweg (2005); Digeser (2000): 98; and (1998): 138
n. 72; T. D. Barnes (2001b).
83. On this see Van Liefferinge (1994): 183.
84. Cf. Beatrice (2001): xxix, who concludes that the frag. of Phil. orac. from J. Philoponus
confirms Eusebius’ claim that pagan wisdom = θεoσoϕία (Eus., PE IV.6.3; Philoponus, De
opif. Mundi 200.20–6; 340a F [Smith]), and the term πρακτικὴ θεoσoϕία is used “by
which he meant that also recourse to theurgical techniques guarantees some form of
religious wisdom…”; see Steuchus (1972) for the 16th-cent. Bishop Augustinus Steuchus
who cited the oracles of the Theosophy. On theosophy as Christian wisdom see Beatrice
(1995): esp. 416. On Peripatetic influence upon Philoponus see Blumenthal (1982).
85. 340aF (Smith) (=Philoponus, De opif. Mundi 200.20–6); cf. 340F (Eus., PE VI.4.3–5.1).
See also Van Liefferinge (1994): 183f. For the demonization of magic in Late Antiquity see
Flint (1999).
86. Van Liefferinge (1994): 179.
87. Luck (1989): 186–9. Cf. Charles-Sagent (1993).
88. As noted by Fowden (1982): 37. In general see Bourque (2000).
89. Note that Luck (1989): 187 argues that another name for theurgy is theosophy.
90. Busine (2005): 245. Cf. also Van Liefferinge (1994): 179; 183f.
91. Johnston (1990): 79; and 76, n. 1 for a good bibliography of works on theurgy. Luck
(1989): 209f., rightly observes that Porphyry believed that the masses needed theurgical
rituals, but not philosophers. Cf. Jurado (2006): 26: “Porfirio sentirá la necesidad de dep-
urar y transformar la religión popular y de aportar una nueva concepción basada en la
filosofía. Su planteamiento filosófico, transido de religiosidad, se configura como un
camino para lograr la salvación del alma mediante la purificación del asceticismo y del
conocimiento de Dios.” For contemplation in the thought of Plotinus see Arnou (1937).
92. Johnston (1990): 87.
93. For a discussion of these texts see Busine (2005): 265–70.
94. Cf. (e.g.): 316 F (Eusebius, PE V.10.13–11.1); 326 F (Eusebius, PE IV.22.15–23.6); 339 F
(Eusebius, PE VI.2.5–4.3); 341 F (Eusebius, PE VI.5.2–4); 347 F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7);
350 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.13–9; 9.12). For the comparison of theurgy with “white magic” see
the interesting analysis of Johnston (1990): 77f., citing the still useful Rosán (1949), who
was the first scholar to propose a twofold division of theurgy as (1) lower theurgy, which
used ritual objects and actions for men still bound by appetites of the carnal nature; and
(2) higher theurgy, which was a more contemplative and theoretical exercise akin to the
θεoρία of Proclus. Berchman (1989) is useful for the cultural background.
95. Majercik (1989): 22ff.; cf. Potter (1989). But note Johnston’s astute observation

(1990): 80: “Obviously, much remains to be done towards the clarification of theurgy’s
development and its representation by individual authors.” For A. Smith’s thesis of
“vertical” and “horizontal” forms of theurgy see ibid., 77f., for Shaw’s critique of both
Rosán and Smith, saying there were different theurgies to meet the different types of
men with the ritual suited to the person practicing the particular theurgical ritual
involved.
96. Luck (1989): 189f.
 Notes  297

97. Following the definition found in Luck (1989): 189f., upon which the definitions of the
remaining two principles are derived. The following analysis will give examples from
the extant fragments of Phil. orac., and it should be noted that owing to the fact that
Porphyry will often cover several themes in the same fragment, there will sometimes be
an overlapping in the four categories under examination.
98. 309 F (Eusebius, PE V.6.4–5).
99. 312 F (Eusebius, PE III.14.6).
100. 314 F (Eusebius, PE IV.8.4–9.2); and 315 F (Eusebius, PE IV.9.3–7).
101. 324 F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.3–5).
102. 329 F (Eusebius, PE IV.19.8–20.1); Norris (1992). For magic in the Greco-Roman world
see Janowitz (2001).
103. 340a F (Philoponus, De opif. Mundi, 200.20–6).
104. 347 F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7). For Hecate in Geek religion see Culdaut (1993); and in
the Chaldaean Oracles, Johnston (1990).
105. 350 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.13–9; 9.12).
106. Cf. Luck (1989): 192f., citing Chaldaean Oracle no. 132. On the function of silence in
Plotinian spirituality see O’Brien (1992).
107. Bidez (1913): 17, basing this conclusion on the contents of the Phil. orac.
108. Luck (1989): 189f.; cf. Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 143; and Pigler (2001).
109. 329 F (Eusebius, PE IV.19.8–20.1).
110. 331 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.1).
111. 332 F (Eusebius, PE; Philoponus, De opif. Mundi 200.7–13).
112. 333 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.2–3).
113. 334 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.4).
114. 335 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.5–7).
115. 336 F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.1).
116. 338 F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.2–3.1).
117. 340 F (Eusebius, PE VI.4.3–5.1); and 341 F (Eusebius, PE VI.5.2–4).
118. 347 F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7).
119. 349 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.11–12).
120. See Johnston (1990): 82.
121. Ibid., 88, stating that in the Phil. orac. we see these kinds of theurgical objects.
122. Cf. Busine (2005): 162, referring to 315 F (Smith) of Phil. orac.
123. E.g., 315 F (Eusebius, PE IV.9.3–7); 316 F (Eusebius, PE V.10.13–11.1); 320 F (Eusebius, PE
V.14.2–3); 321 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.4–15.4); 326 F (Eusebius, PE IV.22.15–23.6); 327 F
(Eusebius, PE IV.23.6); and 330 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.1).
124. Luck (1989): 189f.
125. Cf. also 315 F (Eusebius, PE IV.9.3–7).
126. See Luck (1989): 186.
127. On the meaning of sleep in 317 F used in this manner see ibid., 200.
128. For the metaphysical principles related to Porphyry’s views of the vehicle of the human
soul, see (e.g.) Ad Gaurum 15.5.1–5, and the excellent commentary in Wilberding
(2011): 74 n. 201. Cf. also Brisson (2012b); Chase (2005); Sheppard (2002); and
(1997): 206f., for the connection between the ὄχημα and ϕαντασία.
Toulouse (2001): 200f.; and Pépin (1999a): 299–304. Taylor (1948–9) shows the concep-
tual similarities between Spiritus and πνεῦμα in Augustine and Porphyry, respectively.
129. Cf. Luck (1989): 189f.
130. For the ὄχημα constituting an intermediary substance between the material and imma-
terial see Chase (2005): 233–6; and Toulouse (2001): 200f.
298  Notes

131. 320 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.2–3).

132. 321 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.4–15.4).
133. 322 F (Eusebius, PE V.15.6–16.1).
134. 324 F (Eusebius, PE IX.10.3–5).
135. 328 F (Eusebius, PE IV.23.7–9).
136. 347 F (Eusebius, PE V.7.6–8.7).
137. 349 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.11–12).
138. 350 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.13–9; 9.12).
139. Theurgy defined as a “saving work of a god” is best interpreted in this light as is evi-
denced in (e.g.) 350 F (Eusebius, PE V.8.13–9; 9.12).
140. Δεσμῷ δ’ oὖν κλήϊζε θεὴν γὰρ ἄγεις με τoσήνδε, ὅσση ψυχῶσαι πανυπέρτατoν ἤρκεσα
κóσμoν.
141. Cf. Culdaut (1993): 262.
142. Cf. 345 F (Eusebius, DE III.6.39–7.2); and 345a F (Augustine, Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73
[II.394.22–395.19]); see Simmons (2001b) and (2009); Courcelle (1954b): 67–9; and
Culdaut (1993).
143. 316 F (Eusebius, PE V.10.13–11.1); 326 F (Eusebius, PE IV.22.15–23.6).
144. Aug., Civ. Dei X.xxvii (LCL: Wiesen): “Tu autem hos didicisti non a Platone, sed a
Chaldaeis magistris, ut in aetherias vel empyrias mundi sublimitates et firmamenta cae-
lestia extolleres vitia humana, ut possent dii vestri theurgis pronuntiare divina; quibus
divinis te tamen per intellectualem vitam facis altiorem, ut tibi videlicet tamquam phi-
losopho theurgicae artis purgationes nequaquam necessariae videantur.”
145. Clearly confirmed by Augustine in Book X of De Civitate Dei, e.g., X.x. See Glucker
(1994) on how the use of specific terms in Plato’s dialogues undergo a change in mean-
ing and application from one part of a work to another which is significant for the
proper interpretation of the whole dialogue. This hermeneutical principle should be
kept in mind when studying Porphyry’s works as well.
146. Aug., Civ. Dei X.27.
147. Ibid.
148. Chase (2004a): 54.
149. 321 F (Eusebius, PE V.14.4–15.4).
150. 331 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.1).
151. 332 F (Philoponus, De opif. Mundi 200.7–13); 333 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.2–3).
152. 334 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.4).
153. 335 F (Eusebius, PE VI.1.5–7).
154. 336 F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.1).
155. 338 F (Eusebius, PE VI.2.2–3.1).
156. Augustine, Civ. Dei X.9: “Fiebant autem simplici fide atque fiducia pietatis, non incanta-
tionibus et carminibus nefariae curiositatis arte compositis, quam vel magian vel detest-
abiliore nomine goetian vel honorabiliore theurgian vocant qui quasi conantur ista
discernere et inlicitis artibus deditos alios damnabiles,…”
157. Aug., Civ. Dei X.19. Cf. Bussanich (2013): 253, who rightly notes that the first element in
Plotinus’ rebirth eschatology is the belief that embodiment is itself conceived as a pun-
ishment for sins committed during a previous life. The text he cites, Crat. 400C, which
refers to the body (σῶμα) as the tomb (σῆμα) of the soul, coheres with Porphyrian
psychology. For the soul’s desire for God in Plotinus see Arnou (1967); and for Porphyry’s
concept of matter, Martano (1950).
158. Examined in more detail in later chapters.
159. Majercik (1989): 36. Cf. Toulouse (2001): 203–7.
 Notes  299

1 60. Johnston (1990): 89.

161. Ibid., 84, giving nos. 112, 116, 163, 172. For the use of astrophysical calendars in Chaldaean
theology see Bidez (1937).
162. Ibid. Cf. Lewy (1946) for the Latin Hymn to the Creator, attributed to Porphyry, which
was translated by a certain Tiberianus, most likely the praefectus praetorio of Gallia in
A.D. 335 and mentioned in Jerome’s Chronicles.
163. Busine (2005): 244f.; and (2012a).
164. Busine (2005): 245.
165. Based on the almost totally ignored, and very important statement of Augustine, Civ.
Dei X.28: “Confiteris tamen etiam spiritalem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine tele-
tis, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse continentiae virtute purgari”; indisputably
offering a way of salvation (purification) that is neither by theurgy and traditional reli-
gious practices nor by Neoplatonic philosophy, on which see now Simmons (2009). For
the Platonic background see Vorwerk (2001).

Chapter 4

1. For the title see Jurado (2006): Test. III, p. 78; Smith (1993a): 2T, p. 6; on the Suda
IV.178.14–179.2, stating that the CC contained fifteen books. On the possibility that
Porphyry used some of the anti-Christian material of Celsus, see Loesche (1883): 257–302;
and in general, Zambon (2012); Pezella (1962a); Altheim and Stiehl in Radke, G., ed.
(1961); and Moffatt (1931). Cf. also Bergjan (2001); Hargis (2001) and (1998); Schulze
(2001); Simmons (2000a); Rougier (1977); and Schröder (1957).
2. Generally scholars either date the work to c. 270 during the early period of Porphyry’s
sojourn in Sicily or c. 300 just before the outbreak of the Great Persecution. See the fol-
lowing for a cross-section of the scholarly debate: Grafton and Williams (2006): 64
(c. 303); Jurado (2006): 27 (c. 270); Berchman (2005): 3; 43 (between 298 and 303);
Goulet (2004): 61 (c. 270); cf. id. (1975–6); Carriker (2003): 121 (between 272 and 300);
Barnes (2001b): 152 (c. 300); Cook (2000): 125 (between 270 and 303); Digeser (2000): 93
(between 270 and 295); Girgenti (1997a): 99 (between 268 and 70); Beatrice (1996a): 55
(c. 270), keeping in mind that he believes the CC, De regr. an., Phil. orac., etc., are one
and the same work; Frend (1987): 10 (290 or a little later); Croke (1984): (271–2);
Geffcken (1978): 61 (sometime after 270 in Sicily); Cameron (1967): 384 (late 270 at the
earliest); Anastos (1966): 433 (c. 270); Altheim and Stiehl (1961); Hulen (1933): 13 (270 in
Sicily); Lardner (1838): 395 (a specific date cannot be determined).
3. The CC fragments will be categorized according to the numerical classifications found
in Harnack (1916), Jurado (2006), and Berchman (2005). Muscolino (2009) follows the
same numerical classifications as those found in Harnack. For an early attempt at recon-
structing the CC see Crafer (1914).
4. See Goulet (2010), who lists two fragments from Michael Psellus (1018–78), two from
Michael Glykas (12th cent. a.d.), and one from Damascenus Studites (1500–77).
5. Eudoxius the Philosopher, who is an otherwise unknown commentator on the Book of
Daniel and who lived c. the middle of the fifth century A.D., is not included in this list
because, as Harnack correctly argued, his knowledge of Porphyry probably came to him
by way of Apollinarius, and the contents of his commentary are unknown.
6. See Goulet (2010): 141–8.
7. Ibid., 149–53.
8. Ibid., 153–8.
300  Notes

9. See Magny (2014): 3; Simmons (1995): 47–93; Thomas (2011): 129–34; and Duval (1986).
10. See Simmons (1995). Berchman (2005): 145 n. 30, begins by saying, “Arnobius does not
mention Porphyry by name but his Adversus Nationes certainly had Porphyry in view and
the views he attacks are precisely the same as those outlined by Augustine.” Six lines later
in the same note Berchman adds: “Moreover, Arnobius mentions Porphyry by name; cf.
Adv. Nat. 2.67.” Nowhere in the seven books of the Adv. nat. does Arnobius ever name
Porphyry. Berchman totally ignores the evidence found in Simmons (1995).
11. Berchman (2005): 145–50 lists 21 fragments (nos. 29–49) from Arnobius that he claims
should not be identified as “a direct correspondence to Porphyry’s Against the Christians”
(145 n. 30). However, a number of the fragments he lists are superficial, and some can
equally be derived from Philosophia ex oraculis.
12. See (e.g.) Potter (2004): 659 n. 131, who says that the reconstruction of Porphyry’s thought
in Simmons (1995) is useful; cf. Barnes (2001b). See also Thomas (2011) and J. A. North
(2007).
13. See now Simmons (1995): 47–93. Cf. Beatrice (1988): 115: “. . . Arnobe serait le premier
témoin latin du De regressu de Porphyre, bien avant Augustin!’’; and 128: “Arnobe entre
donc de plein droit parmi les témoins chrétiens de l’oeuvre antichrétienne de Porphyre…”
Croke (1984): 7 is wrong therefore to say that Arnobius ‘‘saw no occasion to use Porphyry.’’
North (2007): 30, who refers to Liebeschuetz’s earlier work, represents the growing num-
ber of scholars who argue that the Arnobius-Porphyry connection is indisputable. See
also Thomas (2011): 134–40; and Masterson (2014).
14. According to Abst. 3.4.7, Porphyry was in Carthage long enough to raise a partridge, and
I (1995): 219 and n. 31 suggest he did this in conjunction with zoological research for De
abstinentia. A time frame of around one year’s residence in Carthage is thus plausible. For
De abstinentia see Brisson (2012c).
15. See Meiser (1908); Bidez (1913): 160; Kroll (1916); Courcelle (1953); (1955); and (1963);
Fortin (1973); P. Hadot (1968); (1971–6); and (1996); John J. O’Meara (1959): 145f.; Waszink
(1966): 78, n. 1; Wilken (1979): 123 and (1984): 154; Beatrice (1988): 120–3; 127–9; Simmons
(1995): 216–18; Potter (2004): 659 n. 131; Majercik (2005): 289ff.; Mertaniemi (2009): 109;
and Fragu (2010): xxv.
16. Cf. the works of the following in the preceding note: Courcelle, John J. O’Meara, Fortin,
Beatrice, Simmons, Majercik, and Mertaniemi. For possible influence of Cornelius Labeo
upon Arnobius see Nieggetiet (1908). See Simmons (1995): 216ff. for a list of scholarly
works that do not identify the Viri Novi of Adv. nat. 2.15 as Porphyry and his followers,
among which are: Carcopino (1941): 293–300; Festugière (1940): the viri novi were a het-
erogeneous Gnostic sect which taught Hermetic, Oriental Gnostic, Neopythagorean, and
Neoplatonic doctrines; Mazza (1963): the Viri Novi were a homogeneous Gnostic sect
greatly influenced by Iranian ideology, Numenius serving as the mediator; Bousset
(1915): 150 n. 1: a Hermetic and Neopythagorean group; McCracken (1949): I.309 n. 64,
simply agrees with Festugière (1940) without critical analysis; Liebeschuetz (1979): 252
does not attempt to define the Viri Novi; cf. Croke (1984): 7; and more recently, Lucarini
(2005).
17. The translation of the Syriac is mine. For a philological analysis of these three texts see
Simmons (2012b) and (1997).
18. See also Lee (1843): 288 n. 1; and Smith (1993a): 372. Cf. also Simmons (2012a) and (1997).
19. Digeser (2012): 176, citing Simmons (1995): 7, 11–13, 90–3, 130, 217–8, 261, 286.
20. Edwards (2004c): 263–71. See Simmons (2009): 186 n. 84 for criticisms of this article; see
also Thomas (2011): 134–40; and Masterson (2014): 375, n. 6: “The general scholarly con-
sensus, with which I agree, is that Adversus nationes came out around 300.”
 Notes  301

21. This interpretation states that instead of the Vicennalia of Diocletian in 303, Jerome (or
better, his secretary) wrote the date for the Vicennalia of Constantine in 327. See on this
Simmons (1995): 47–55.
22. Ignoring the astute observations of T. D. Barnes (2001b): 142–62, 152f.
23. Ibid., 152, citing p. 200 of Edwards (1999). On the dates given by Jerome for Latin writers
see T. D. Barnes (2001b): 153: “As long ago as 1929, Rudolph Helm demonstrated that
most of the dates for Latin writers which Jerome gives in his revision of Eusebius’
Chronicle are the product of mere guesswork—and hence mistaken.” This is not even
addressed by Edwards. See Thomas (2011): 139f.
24. See Simmons (1995): 47–53, not addressed by Edwards.
25. Ibid.,  270.
26. See G. Clarke (2005): 590, with references to Tert., Adv. Iud. 7.4 (CCSL II.1354), stating
that the remote parts of Britain were now subject to Christ; and Origen, In Ezek. Hom. IV
(PL XXV.723), “where Britannia along with the Mauri illustrates the verse Omnis terra
clamat sum laetitia.”
27. Eus., Theoph. III.79. Note also at (e.g.) Theoph. II.76, Eusebius makes the claim that the
whole of Asia, Europe, Lybia, and Egypt have been Christianized, which is an obvious
rhetorical device employed to support his argument vis-à-vis universalism (see the sec-
tion on Eusebius below). See Burgess (1999) for a fine study of Eusebian chronography.
28. As Edwards (2004c) does, 269 n. 60, which I find extremely unconvincing.
29. See König (1997): 341–54; Castricius (1996); Jehne (1996); Schallmayer (1995c); and
Bakker (1993) and (1996).
30. Cf. Adv. nat. II.68.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.,  II.73.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., IV.3. I am fully aware of the many mythological sub-strata in the accounts in Livy
and other Roman writers about the Regal Age, and often it is impossible to separate fact
from fiction in the stories. In any event, Arnobius will have accepted the stories about the
ancient kings as historical, as would his contemporary readers whether pagan or Christian.
36. Ibid., IV.4. (Livy, 9.2.6)
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid. (Livy, 22.44–50)
39. Wells (2008): 327.
40. Cf. (e.g.) Theoph. III.7 (used as a Topos to show how Christ’s gospel has reformed the
character of a barbarous ethnic group); III.32; IV.7; IV.20; V.17; V.46.
41. Jurado (2006):  CC 48 (Harnack CC 82): Jer., Ep. 133, ad Ctesiphontem 9.
42. Adv. nat. II.13–22: “Enumerari enim possunt atque in usum computationis venire ea quae
in India gesta sunt, apud Seras Persaset Medos, in Arabia, Aegypto, in Asia, Syria, apud
Galatas Parthos Phrygas, in in Achaeia Macedonia Epiro, in insulis et provinciis omnibus
quas sol oriens atque occidens lustrat, ipsam denique apud dominam Romam, in qua
cum homines sint Numae regis artibus atque antiquis superstitionibus occupati, non dis-
tulerunt tamen res patrias linquere et veritati coalescere Christianae.”
43. Edwards (2004c): 264.
44. All of the pertinent data with discussion can be found in Simmons (1995): 94–130.
45. See Simmons (1995) for analysis of the evidence that connects Arnobius and Porphyry,
which is accepted by Edwards (1999): 200 n. 14: “. . . a very cogent case.” See also
Masterson (2014): 387 and n. 37.
302  Notes

46. Cf. Simmons (1995): 117–22, analyzing Jerome, Chron. s. a. a.d. 327. For the broader
Greco-Roman background to dreams and visions see Hanson (1984).
47. E.g., Drake’s (1997) review of Simmons (1995). North (2007): 28f., on analyzing Jerome’s
testimony and Arnobius’ background, would have strengthened his argument if he had
incorporated into his essay those passages in the Adv. nat. that betray a North African
milieu. See Masterson (2014): 396, n. 68.
48. Simmons (1995): 117–22, giving many data concerning the North African views about
dreams.
49. Cf. Leglay (1966): 341f.
50. Edwards (1999): 198 makes another erroneous assertion: “Although he came from Sicca,
he shows few signs of being an African,” totally ignoring the evidence in Simmons
(1995): 97–11 (cf. also 184–215). The following passages from Adv. nat. demonstrate an
African background: references to (e.g.) the Caracheni (6.23.29f.); the Psylli, a local tribe
around the Greater Syrtes (2.32.12–18); the “Titanes et Bocchores Mauri,” deities of the
gens Maura (1.36); the Garamantes, an ethnic group who lived in the Wadi el-Agial in
Libya (6.5.6f.); the term frugiferius used as an epithet for Saturn, the main god of North
Africa (6.10.24); the Gaetuli and Zeugitani, tribes who lived in modern Tunisia and
Algeria (1.16.12–16); a possible allusion to the marble quarries at (e.g.) Simitthu (Chemtou)
(2.40.15, 19ff.); former pagan practices described which betray ancient North African ani-
mistic beliefs and practices (commonly but erroneously called dendrolatry and lithola-
try) (1.39.1–11); the Cult of St. Peter, which had associations with North Africa generally
and Sicca Veneria specifically (2.12.22: cf. Simmons [1995]: 111–3); and generally,
Masterson (2014): 396, n. 68.
51. See the very fine essay by North (2007).
52. “Nam nostra quidem scripta cur ignibus meruerunt dari? Cur immaniter conventicula
dirui?”
53. See Simmons (1995): 92–3 for the complete list with discussion. Edwards (2004c) uncon-
vincingly interprets these references as mainly wars of words during the period c. 327. Cf.
Thomas (2011): 140, who, commenting on Edwards’ argument, notes, “. . . Aduersus
nations 4:36 provides the strongest evidence in opposition for the moment. The reference
to the destruction of the Scriptures and Christian buildings is of as contemporary a
nature as can be observed from the work.”
54. For example, the Theophany of Eusebius, which clearly states that the persecutions are in
the past and a new age has dawned on the Church.
55. See now North (2007): 36, concluding that Adv. nat. VII shows that animal sacrifice “was
anything but an out-dated practice in his time.”
56. Edwards (2004c): 267–8, puts forth a valiant though unconvincing effort to argue that
Book VII’s theme of animal sacrifice fits better the period c. a.d. 327, but by then
Constantine had proscribed this pagan practice, on which see now Barnes (1981): 210–1,
246, 254–5, 269; and (1984): 69–72. This evidence is totally ignored by Edwards. Cf. Mora
(1999).
57. CTh 16.10.2.
58. The primary sources cited in this section can be found, with discussion, in Carriker
(2003): 279f.; cf. also A. H. M. Jones (1954).
59. Eusebius, VC I.28–32; Lactantius, Mort pers. 44.4ff. See the commentary in Cameron and
Hall (1999): 206–12.
60. See Corcoran (1996): 186f.
61. Eus., HE 8.17.3–10; Lact., Mort pers. 33.11–35; Eus., HE VIII.16.1 and VIII.17.1–11; Barnes
(1981): 39.
 Notes  303

6 2. McCracken (1949) vol. I, 8. Another fact which Edwards totally ignores.

63. This was not an edict, but rather a letter to the governor of Bithynia which was posted 13
June 313 by orders of Licinius after the flight of the defeated Maximinus. See Corcoran
(1996): 158–160.
64. Eusebius, HE X.5.2–14; Lactantius, Mort. pers. 48.2–12.
65. See PCBE (1982): 80f, s.v. “ANVLINVS 2.” Cf. Chiesa (1996): 247.
66. HE X.5.15–16.
67. Cf. PCBE (1982): 165–74, s.v. “CAECILIANVS 1.”
68. Eus., HE X.6.
69. Eus., HE X.7.2.
70. Even if the Basilica of St. Peter had not been completed by a.d. 327, its construction was
in progress by that time, and Arnobius would have certainly acquired knowledge of this
marvelous event for the Christians in the Roman Empire who had just experienced the
horrors of the Diocletianic Persecution. Note that Bowersock (2002): 209–17 (repr.
[2005]: 5–15) argues that Constantine did not order the construction of Old St. Peter’s
Basilica. Barnes (2011): 88 even boldly claims that Bowersock’s “critical examination” of
the evidence has “demolished the notion that Constantine played any part in the con-
struction of Saint Peter’s years ago.” Logan (2011) and Bardill (2012): 243 concur, the latter
asserting as fact that OSPB “was built by Constans between 337 and 350, rather than by
Constantine, as our sources claim.” Bardill (2012): 243 n. 127, refers to Bowersock (2005)
and Barnes (2011) for his “evidence.” I find Bowersock’s thesis weak, and his interpreta-
tion of the sources often forced. For a different and equally plausible view see (e.g.) Drake
(2009): 225 n. 40.
7 1. See Simmons (1995): 111–3.
72. Eus., VC 4.18.2; CTh 2.8.1; CJ 3.12.2(3); cf. Barnes (1981): 52; Cameron and Hall (2010): 317.
73. Noted by Edwards (2004c): 268 and n. 49, using it to bolster his interpretation that ani-
mal sacrifice was a “contemporary issue” during Constantine’s reign and Arnobius’ attack
upon it in Book VII is misconstrued accordingly.
74. Eus., VC 2.54.1; cf. Barnes (1981): 210f; Cameron and Hall (1999 [repr. 2010]): 243;
Corcoran (1996): 315f. As noted above, Constantius II mentions in a.d. 341 a law of his
father forbidding sacrifice (CTh 16.10.2).
75. CTh 9.16.1–4; see Cameron and Hall (1999 [repr. 2010]): 243.
76. E.g., CJ 5.26 (married men forbidden to have concubines); CTh 9.7.2 (concerning charges
of adultery); CTh 9.8.1 (on seducing virgins); CTh 9.24.1 (loss of inheritance rights of
violated virgins). See Barnes (1981): 219f.
77. Though some scholars argue that the 4th edict noted in Eus., MP 3.1 (cf. Lact., Mor. pers.
15.4) was not enforced in the western provinces, the Acta of Crispina, a young laywoman
of the Church in North Africa, indicates that it was enforced in Africa Proconsularis
because Anulinus, the proconsular governor at her trial on December 5, 304, which was
after the promulgation of the Fourth Persecution Edict earlier that year (see Corcoran
[1996]: 182), states to her: “Caput tibi amputari praecipio, si non obtemperaveris praecep-
tis imperatorum dominorum nostrorum, quibus deservire cogeris subiugata: quod et
omnis Africa sacrificia fecit, nec tibi dubium est.” It is doubtful that this is simply a rhe-
torical device, which is the opinion of de Ste Croix (1954). On Crispina see PCEA, 251f.
Barnes (1981): 23 opines that Anulinus added the requirement of sacrifice to the First
Persecution Edict. See discussion in Simmons (1995): 84–88; and Frend (1962): 2.141–8.
For the Passio Sanctae Crispinae see de Cavaliere (1902).
78. Eusebius, VC III.4–24; Cameron and Hall (1999): 122–31; 256–73; Barnes (1981): 208–23;
(2011): 76; 116–7; 121–5.
304  Notes

79. As indisputably indicated in Constantine’s Epistle to the eastern provincials dated to

c. a.d. 324, found in Eus., VC II.24–42, by the date of a.d. 327, the enormous and unprec-
edented construction of Christian basilicas of the Constantinian Age was well under way
in the western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire. See Holloway (2004): 57–119; and
Curran (2000): 90–113. White (1996) gives a good analysis of church buildings before
Constantine.
80. On the two churches built at Cirta, in the 320s and 330–1, respectively, see G. T. Armstrong
(1967a): 5 and (1974): 8.
81. See Eus., Theoph. V.49, listing Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, all Egypt, Libya, Europe, Asia;
cf. IV.6: Caesarea in Palestine, Antioch, Rome, Egypt, Alexandria. See MacMullen
(2009): 117, citing Athan., Apol. ad Constantium 15 (PG 25.613); Epiphanius, Adv. haer.
69.2 (PG 42.204B), and listing nine churches existing in Alexandria in the teens of the 4th
cent. On churches built by Constantine in Egypt see (e.g.) Armstrong (1967a): 3 (shrine of
St. Menas); 8, no. 40 (the Abu Mena crypt church, c. 330–65); a “North” and “South”
church at Oxyrhynchus existed since c. 295: P.Oxy. I.48; c. 305 at the Coptic village of
Chysis: P.Oxy. 33, on which see L. M. White (1996): 123; 194, nn. 78f.
82. See G. T. Armstrong (1967a): 4; (1967b): 7; and (1974): 6; Krautheimer (1977): 10; 90;
Holloway (2004): 57–60; MacMullen (2009): 136; Logan (2011): 33.
83. For the sources see Armstrong (1967a): 4; Holloway (2004): 73–76.
84. Built east of the walls of Rome along the Labican Way, on which see Gregory T. Armstrong
(1967a):  4; and (1974):  10; Holloway (2004):  87f.; MacMullen (2009):  137; Logan
(2011): 35–36.
85. Armstrong (1967a): 4; Holloway (2004): 110f.; MacMullen (2009): 137; Logan (2011): 37f.,
raising the possibility of construction under Constans.
86. Armstrong (1967a): 4; Holloway (2004): 67f.; cf. MacMullen (2009): 139, who gives a later
date; Logan (2011): 39–40, suggests between 324 and the death of Helena.
87. Styger (1918): 89, suggests the early 4th cent., which is certainly wrong; Marucchi

(1921): 61–9 (begun by Constantine); Armstrong (1967a): 2 (finished c. a.d. 340); Saxer
(1992): 676 (c. 350); Felle (1997): 2.248, no. 17; Holloway (2004): 105 (built under
Constantine); MacMullen (2009): 136, no. 6 (“most probably under Constantine”); Logan
(2007): 3f. (begun by Constantine and completed by Constans); and (2011): 40f.; cf. also
Nieddu (2009).
88. See n. 130. Eus., Theoph. IV.7 refers to multitudes of pilgrims coming to the magnificent
sepulcher (‫ )ܠܟܝܬ ܩܒܘܪܐ ܫܟܝܚܐ‬of St. Peter in Rome as to a temple and a tomb (‫ܘܢܪܗܛܘܢ ܠܗ ܐܝܟ‬
ܵ
‫ܕܒܢܝܢܫܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܙܗܘܡܝܐ‬ ‫)ܕܠܢܘܤܐ ܪܒܐ ܘܗܝܒ� ܪ�ܗܐ ܙܟܘܬܐ‬, clearly presupposing that the Christian
basilica memorializing the great martyr-saint of the West was completed by a.d. 337–8,
my dating of the Theoph.. If the construction began c. 325, certainly Arnobius will have
been aware of this momentous event for Christianity happening in Rome. For the back-
ground, logistics, and chronology see (e.g.) Krautheimer (1977). On the physical descrip-
tions see (e.g.) Ghetti et al. (1951) I, in which Tav.G between 138f. gives an excellent
picture. Cf. also Holloway (2004): 77–86.
89. Eusebius, HE X.4; cf. Voelkl (1953); Downey (1962); Simmons (2001a); Sessa (2009);
Schott (2011).
90. G. Armstrong (1967a): 4 (“begun ca. 326”); Holloway (2004): 84–86; MacMullen

(2009): 137 (“more probably under Constantine”).
91. Adv. nat. IV.36.17–18. Note the judicious observation of Thomas (2011): 140, in respond-
ing to Edwards’s dating of the Adv. nat.: “. . . the distinct lack of any hints in the text to the
era of the acceptance of Christianity following the patronage of Constantine is one of the
strongest points against the c. 327 dating.”
 Notes  305

92. Asserted by Edwards (2007): 122: “Iamblichus, a contemporary of Constantine, Arnobius,

and Lactantius, has been apt to escape attention in modern study of these apologists…”;
and rightly so, as I demonstrate why in the following five questions.
93. Cf. Athanassiadi (1993): 130: “The great majority of Christians, however, did not pay any
attention to Iamblichus. His name, unlike that of Porphyry, is hardly ever mentioned by
Christian polemicists.” This is true, but the reasons given for Christians’ ignoring him
(his style was not “relaxing”; he agreed with the Christians on fate and prophecy; and
“he never writes in a defensive or aggressive spirit,…” [130]) do not address the main
cause, and that was, as I argue here, that no writer, Christian or pagan, ever perceived
Iamblichus as in any way an anti-Christian philosopher.
94. Iamblichus: De mysteriis (2003): xxviii; 201. The editors also refer to De myst. X.2; and
III.31.170–180. Cf. Shaw (1995): 3f., who argues that Iamblichus had a more pressing
matter than the Christians, and this was the conflict between the old ways and the new
ways, or the ancient traditions passed down by the gods, and recently invented things of
the Hellenes.
95. The first miracle of Pythagoras noted by Iamblichus, which involved keeping fish alive
while being counted.
96. Iamblichus On the Pythagorean Way of Life (1991): 26.
97. I am very grateful to Professor John Finamore for pointing this out to me.
98. Communicated by Prof. John F. Finamore via electronic correspondence to the author
August 25, 2009.
99. See Simmons (1995): 264–303.
100. Following the dates given by Gallardo (1972): 264: his floruit is given as c. 270–300, and
date of death c. 311.
101. Jerome, De vir. ill. 83 (Jurado [2006]: Test. VII, p. 80); id., Ep. 48, Ad Pammachium 13
(Jurado [2006]: Test. XVII); id., Adv. Ruf. II.33 (Jurado [2006]: Test XVII, 84f.; id. Ep. 70,
Ad Magnum 3 (Jurado [2006]; the latter stating the Methodius wrote 10,000 lines
against Porphyry. See also Quasten (1975): II.137; Beatrice (1991): 119 n. 3; cf. also Jurado
(2006): Test XIX, p. 86, Philostorgius, which is a general reference to Methodius’ writ-
ing against Porphyry (Bidez [1913]: 115); Digeser (2000): 93f; Kofsky (2000): 72; Barnes
(1981): 176 n. 92; Beutler (PRE (1953): col. 299; and Croke (1984): 10f.
102. Digeser (2010): 21. The fragments from Methodius were collected by Bonwetsch (1891).
Cf. also Musurillo (1958): 9f.
103. Patterson (1997): 52 n.27; 176 n. 42; 223; allowing however for the possibility at 176 n. 42.
I do not find convincing Patterson’s reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the frag-
ments from the CC attributed to Methodius.
104. Jer., Vir. ill. 83.
105. Laurin (1954): 89–93.
106. It is possible that Methodius’ use of passages from the Book of Revelation in the
Symposium was designed in response to Porphyry’s attack upon Christian scripture. On
the use of such passages in the work (but not the suggestion that they were written in
response to Porphyry) see Mazzucco (1985). On Methodius’ Millenarianism see
Prinzivalli (1998).
107. Cf. Harnack (1916) CC frags. 83 (Jurado [2006]: 160, CC frag. 106; Bonwetsch
[1903]: 347); & 84 (Jurado [2006]: 159, CC frag. 105; Bonwetsch, 345f.); cf. Berchman
(2007): 134, nos. 10 and 11.
108. Imprudently disparaged by Edwards (2007): 120: “It must be confessed, however, that if
his goal was to countermine the Philosophy from oracles, Lactantius lit himself a long
fuse to explode a little powder.”
306  Notes

109. The following works by Salvatore Pricoco maintain indirect connections between the
oracular sources of Porphyry and Lactantius in their respective works: (1988a & b);
(1989); and (1991). For Lactantius’ Selbstverständnis as a Christian Apologist see Heck
(2005).
110. A very cogent argument. Unconvincing is (e.g) Freund (2006): 269–84, who hypercriti-
cally cancels out the possibility that Lactantius’s D.I. is a response to Porphyry’s Phil.
orac. based on the suggestion that the D.I. follows conventional rhetorical rules and the
use of oracles in the work are only a marginal phenomenon (283). Freund’s reservations
(283 n. 63) about Porphyry’s access to oracles from Asia Minor fail to recognize, as
Augustine clearly states in Civ. Dei Book X, that Porphyry was a meticulous scholar and
a polymath concerning the religious and philosophical learning of his time.
111. Digeser (2000): 64.
112. Digeser (2012). For Lactantius in general see Nicholson (1988); (1985); and the other
pertinent works by this scholar in the Bibliography below.
113. Digeser (2000): 91–102. See also Schott (2008): 52f.; 179–85; Simmons (1995): 24; Wilken
(1984): 136. For a different view see Barnes (1973b): 438; and (2001b): 158, who interprets
Lactantius’ statement (D.I. V.2.9), “hominem profitentem se inluminaturum alios, cum
ipse caecus esset, reducturum alios ab errore, cum ipse ignoraret ubi pedes suos pon-
eret,” literally, concluding that the anonymous philosopher was blind. Though there is
no evidence that Porphyry was blind toward the end of his life, the description, however,
of their enemies as “blind” by the Christians is a very common metaphor and should
not necessarily be taken literally in the statement of Lactantius.
114. Schott (2008): 179f. Berchman (2005): 150–55, lists possible fragments from Lactantius
(nos. 50–63), which he admits (150, 31) might be derived from the Phil. orac. Cf. also
Simmons (2010d).
115. Schott (2008): 231 n. 22 (i.e., with reference to Benoit, Chadwick, des Places, Barnes). Cf.
also Magny (2010): 517.
116. Goulet (2004): 101; cf. Riedweg (2005). See also above, c­ hapter 3 n. 8.
117. Barnes (1981): 174. Cf. Sirinellli (1961): 164–70.
118. See below for a detailed analysis of this work based upon the Syriac translation of the
fifth century a.d. It is extremely regrettable that many Eusebian scholars totally ignore
this very important apology.
119. Since the publication by Samuel Lee of the translation of the Theophany in 1843 until
now, there has been very little ever written about the work. Kofsky (2000) devotes a
chapter to it without an analysis of the Syriac text.
120. See Jurado (2006): 117f., CC frag. 30 (=Jerome, Comm. in Dan. Prolog, 1–31); Harnack,
CC frag. 43H; cf. Jurado (2006): 120, CC frag. 37 (=Jerome, in Matth. IV.24.16); Jurado
(2006): 86, Test. XX, Soc. Sch., HE III.23; Jurado (2006): 85, Test. XVII, Jerome, Ep. 48
Ad Pammachium 13; and Jerome, Adv. Ruf. II.33; Harnack believed that the excerpt from
the ΘΕΟΣΟΦΙΑ in Χρησμoὶ τῶν Ελλἠνων θεῶν no. 85 Buresch (1889), derived from
Eusebius’ Contra Porphyrium, on which see now Jurado (2006): Test. XXVI, Aristócrito;
cf. Jurado (2006): 84, Test. XVII, Jerome, De vir. ill. 81. Kannengiesser (1992): 444 is
probably correct when he says that the Contra Porphyrium lacked “philosophical
consistency.”
121. T  ̀ί δεῖ ταῦτα λέγειν, ὅτε καὶ ὁ καθ̓’ ἡμᾶς ἐν Σικελίᾳ καταστὰς Πoρϕύριoς συγγράμματα
καθ̓’ ἡμῶν ἐνστησάμενoς καὶ δι’ αὐτῶν τὰς θείας γραϕὰς διαβάλλειν πεπειραμένoς…
ἐπι τὸ λoιδoρεῖν τρέπεται… ; Jurado (2006): 81, Test VIII, Eus., HE VI.19.2 (=Jurado
CC frag. 24; Harnack CC frag. 39; Smith [1993a]: 30T). See Beatrice (1991): 119.
122. See Digeser (2012): 174–76; 178–82; 185–89 (Lactantius); 121–2; 174–9; 185–8 (Arnobius).
 Notes  307

123. Berchman (2005): 135–42, gives thirteen CC fragments (nos. 12–24) derived from the
works of Eusebius. Those that are not found either in Jurado (2006) or Harnack are: 136,
no. 14 (PE III.11.12); 138, no. 18 (DE, V Proem 3–5); 140, no. 22 (Chron. I.165); 141, no. 23
(Chron. I.255).
124. Jurado (2006):  CC frag. 15 (Harnack, CC frag. 1; [=Berchman (2005): 135, CC no. 12]).
Barnes (1981): 21f. and n. 62. Johnson (2010): 53–8 unconvincingly argues that the frag-
ment is not genuine.
125. Eus., PE I.9.20–1 (=Jurado [2006]: CC frag. 16; Harnack CC frag. 41; Berchman
[2005]: 136, CC frag. 13). See also Eus., PE I.10.44, Jurado (2006): CC 18; (no Harnack
parallel); on which see Nautin (1949) and (1950). This fragment deals with Porphyry’s
remark about infant sacrifice and Sanchuniathon’s history of the Jews, which analyzed
Cronus, whom the Phoenicians call El, an early king who was deified. Cf. Follet (1953);
and Picard (1950).
126. Jurado (2006):  CC frag. 17 (Harnack, CC frag. 80), on Eus., PE V.1.9f. (=Berchman
[2005]: 137, CC frag. 15). Cf. Mras (1956): 212f.
127. Eus., DE I.1.12–15; see Jurado (2006): CC frag. 19; Harnack CC frag. 73; Berchman
(2005): 137, CC frag. 16; and Simmons (1995): 335ff., Appendix IV, for a long list of pas-
sages from Arnobius, Adv. nat. which are best explained as responses to Porphyry’s
assertion that Christians cannot give a logical demonstration of their beliefs. Cf. Harris
(1987); and Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1900): 101.
128. Eus., DE III.5.95.1–100.1; Jurado (2006): CC frag. 20; Harnack CC frag. 7; Berchman
(2005): 137, CC frag. 17. On the latter see Simmons (2008).
129. Eus. DE VI.18.11.1; Jurado (2006): CC frag. 21; Harnack CC frag. 47; Berchman
(2005): 138, CC frag. 19; concerning whether the remainder of the prophecy found in the
biblical text about Antiochus Epiphanes be referred to his time as well, including the
Lord standing on the Mount of Olives. Eus., Chron. frag. apud Hier., Chron. a. Abr.,
praef. (Helm, p. 8.1–7); Jurado (2006): CC frag. 22; Harnack CC 40; Berchman
(2005): 140, CC frag. 21. This derives from Book IV of the CC in which Porphyry claims
that Semiramis lived after Moses, and thus the latter came almost 850 years before the
Trojan War. Cod. Lau. (Athos) 184.B.64 Saec. X (Goltx, Texte und Untersuchungen,
T. 17.4, pp. 41ff.; fol. 17r: Schol. Act. 15.20, Eus., C.Porph. Bks. 6–7; Jurado (2006): CC
frag. 23; Harnack CC frag. 8; Berchman (2005): 141, CC frag. 24; which shows that
Eusebius wrote in response to Porphyry’s attack upon the Book of Daniel.
130. Eus., HE VI.19.2–9; Jurado (2006): CC frag. 24; Harnack CC frag. 39; Berchman
(2005): 139, CC frag. 20.
131. See (e.g.) Digeser (2006a); (2000); and (2012).
132. Kofsky (2000): 51.
133. Ibid., n. 82.
134. Kofsky (2000): 71, believes it was an early work and refers to Harnack, who suggested
that it was written sometime before a.d. 300.
135. Beatrice (1990): 175.
136. Smith (1993a): 24, 29aT = Athanasius Syrus, Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. III 305 (Assemanus);
Jurado (2006): 78, Test IV, Gregorio Taumaturgo apud Athanasius, Prologue to the
Syriac translation of the Isagoge of Porphyry.
137. See c­ hapter 1above.
138. Harnack explained the testimony of Athanasius simply as an erroneous notice since
Gregory Thaumaturgos died during the reign of Aurelian (a.d. 270–75), and Harnack
assumed that the CC was redacted c. 270, thus making a refutation by Gregory of
Porphyry’s work chronologically impossible.
308  Notes

139. Vit. Plot. 15. Valantasis (2000) gives the religious context.
140. Cf. Jurado (2006): 120, CC frag. 37 (Harnack CC frag. 44) (=Jerome, in Matth. IV.24.16).
141. Jurado (2006): 85, Jerome, Ep. 84, ad Pammachium et Oceanum 2. Cf. Beatrice
(1996a): 56; (1991): 120.
142. Jurado (2006): 106, Jerome, in Dan. Prolog. (1–32), CC frag. 30 (Harnack CC frag. 43); cf.
Blasius (2004); Cook (2000): 126; Beatrice (1993b): 38; (1991): 120; and Lataix (1897).
143. Jurado (2006): 84, Test. XVII, Jerome, Vir. ill. 104.
144. Though it is not known which was the longer of the two works. Jerome, Ep. 48, ad
Pammachium 13 (Jurado [2006]: 84, Test. XVII), says that Apollinarius wrote “many
thousands of lines” against Porphyry, which probably implies that it was longer than
Eusebius’ work.
145. Jurado (2006): 86, Test. XIX, Philostorgius, HE (Bidez [1913]: 115).
146. Jerome, In Math. 7.1.1: “Pythagoras etiam et noster Porphyrius religioso putant animum
nostrum silentio consecrari.” Arnobius alludes to the same practice at Adv. nat. I.31 (to
understand God we must keep silent); see Aug., Ep. 102.32; De Trin. 8.12; 12.13; Arn., Adv.
nat. II.16; Porph., Abst. II.34.1; De antro nympharum 27; Eus., C. Hier. 12 (on the pagan
belief that Apollonius kept silent for five years which proved his divinity). See Simmons
(1995): 13 and n. 95.
147. Firm. Matern., De err. prof. rel. 13.4.
148. Codex Theodosianus XVI.1.3; cf. S. Simonetti (1992): 236f. and Drobner (2007) FC, 319.
149. Jurado (2006):  CC frag. 12 (=Harnack CC frag. 93): Ps. Just. (Diodore of Tarsus),
Quaestiones Gentilium ad Christianos XIV–XV. Cf. Berchman (2005): 221, CC frag. 215.
150. Cf. Schäublin (1970); Goulet (2003): 130. Cf. Doignon (1992).
151. See Jurado (2006): 83f., Test. XIV, Suidas, Diodore of Tarsus.
152. Jurado (2006): 84, Test. XVI, J. Chrysostom, Hom. VI 3 in I Cor.
153. J. Chrys., De sancto Babyla contra Iulianum et gentiles 2; cf. Jurado (2006): 84, Test.
XVI; and Barnes (1994): 54. On Constantine’s (and later emperors’) proscribing of the
CC see Soc. Schl., HE I.9.30; Cod. Theod. XV.5.66; Gelasius, HE II.36.1; CJ I.5.6; Acta
Conciliorum Oecumenicorum I.1.3.68, no. 111 (A.D. 435); CJ I.1.3 (A.D. 448). Cf. Jurado
(2006): 81, Test. IX, Const. Epist. Ad episc. et pleb. ap. Gel. Cyz. HE II.36 (38 T Smith).
Constantine made it a capital offence to possess a copy of the CC. See T. D. Barnes
(2002): 203. Athansius, De decret. Nic. Synod. 39.1–2 (Opitz [1934]: 37f.), records
Constantine’s comparison of Porphyry with Arius; Kofsky (2000): 18; Digeser
(1998): 131; Croke (1983): 168f.
154. Cod. Just. I.1.3 (448); cf. Jurado (2006): 88, Test. XXIV (Smith [1993]: 40T, p. 32); an Act
of the Council of Chalcedon prohibited possessing or even speaking about the CC
(Smith [1993a], 42 T); cf. Cook (2000): 125f.; Kofsky (2000): 19 n. 70; Hoffmann
(1994): 17; Beatrice (1991): 121; Barnes (1973b): 424; Bidez (1913): 79.
155. See Barnes (1994): 54; and Simmons (2006b): 96ff.
156. Berchman (2005):  171, CC frag. 109, John Chrys., Hom. in Joannem 98 (PG 59). I find no
reason to exclude this passage from the genuine passages of the CC. The translation is
Berchman’s, as is the one in the following note.
157. Ibid., John Chrys., Hom. In Joannem 133 (PG 59 Migne). Again, there is no reason to
exclude this passage from the CC fragments.
158. Or Turannius, on which see ODCC, 3rd edition revised (1996): 1433; Drobner (2007),
FC, 337ff.; Jurado (2006): 85.
159. Jer., Ep. 84 is a polemical letter which accompanied Jerome’s own very literal translation
of Origen’s De principiis. Cf. Drobner (2007), FC: 338.
160. Jurado (2006): 85f., Test. XVIII, Rufinus, Apol. adv. Hier. II.9; II.10.
 Notes  309

161. Cf. Jurado (2006): 85f., Test. XVIII, Rufinus, Apol. adv. Hier. II.12.
162. Cf. Nautin (1992): 235f.
163. Ruf., HE II.7.
164. Palladius, Hist. laus. IV.1.
165. Hagedorn and Merkelbach (1966). See Jurado (2006): CC frag. 9; Berchman (2005): 142,
CC frag. 25; and Pépin (1996): 50f.
166. Cf. Hagedorn and Merkelbach (1966): 86.
167. See Jurado (2006): CC frag. 102; Harnack CC frag. 94; Berchman (2005): 218f, CC
frag. 210.
168. Contra Barnes (1973b): 427.
169. Not mentioned at the section “After Harnack” in the article by Magny (2010): 524–8.
170. Binder (1968).
171. See Binder (1968): 83f., arguing that other passages from the CC complete this picture of
allegorical interpretation, and he gives as examples Harnack CC frag. 43 W (Jer., Comm.
in Dan. 12:1ff.); Harnack CC frag. 45 (Jer., Comm. in Os. 1:2); Harnack CC frag. 54
(Makar. IV.8); and Harnack CC frag. 69 (Makar. III.15). It will be noted here that the
inclusion of fragments from M. Magnes antedates the seminal article by Barnes (1973b)
which rejects all of the fragments derived from the Apocriticus found in Harnack; and
most scholars concur with Barnes’ argument.
172. Sellew (1989).
173. Barnes (1994): 63.
174. This is Berchman’s (2005): 142f. translation of Didymus, Comm. in Eccles. 9:10 (CC frag.
26; [=Jurado (2006): CC frag. 10], with very minor changes.
175. Gronewald (1968), 96; (1970): 104; and (1979): 38; Mühlenbern (1975–8).
176. Again following the translation of Berchman (2005): 143f., CC frag. 27 (= Jurado
[2006]: CC frag. 11).
177. See Riggi (1992): 281f.
178. Jurado (2006):  CC frag. 14; Harnack CC frag. 12; Berchman (2005): 144, CC frag. 28.
179. Jurado (2006):  CC frag. 108; Harnack CC frag. 90b; Berchman (2005): 191, CC frag. 162.
Jurado (2006): 88, Test. XXVIa, gives a short passage from Nemesius which generally
states that Porphyry “moved his tongue against Christ.”
180. See Voicu (1992): 772f.; cf. ODCC, 3rd ed. revised (2005): 1501.
181. Cf. Jurado (2006): CC frag. 110; Berchman (2005): 192, CC frag. 164.
182. Ibid.
183. See now (e.g.) the following works by Beatrice (1992a, b, c); (1993a & b); (1994); (1995);
(1996a & b); Goulet (2004) and (1977a); Moreschini (1997); Maurice Casey (1990); P. M.
Casey (1976); Croke (1983a & b). One can benefit from the useful bibliographical data
provided by Girgenti (1994b); and the analysis of CC fragments from Jerome by Magny
(2014) and (2010). A useful introduction to Porphyry’s works is Johnson (2013), though
I do not concur with a number of his interpretations.
184. Jurado CC 30 U is, however, derived from Jerome, in Is. 9:30.
185. Jurado CC 30 A; Harnack CC 43 A; Berchman (2005): 157, CC no. 70.
186. See Berchman (2005): 59; Kofsky (2000): 30f.; Beatrice (1993b): 36; Geffcken (1978): 63;
and Shea (1986).
187. Cf. Jurado CC 30 A, Jerome, in Dan. Prolog (1–32); Harnack CC 43 A; Berchman
(2005): 157, CC 70.
188. Jurado CC 30 B, Jerome, in Dan. Prolog. (45–66); Harnack CC 43 B; Berchman (2005): 157,
CC 71; Jurado CC 30 G, Jerome, in Dan. I, 3:98; Harnack CC 43 G; and Berchman
(2005): 158, CC 77.
310  Notes

189. Cf. Jurado CC 30 C, Jerome, in Dan. Prolog (86–93); Harnack CC 43 C; and Berchman
(2005): 157, CC 72; Jurado CC 30 E, Jerome, in Dan. I, 2:46; Harnack CC 43 E; and
Berchman (2005): 158, CC 75; Jurado CC 30 F, Jerome, in Dan. I, 2:48; Harnack, CC 43 F;
and Berchman (2005): 158, CC 76; and Jurado CC 30 H, Jerome, in Dan. II, 5:10a;
Harnack CC 43 J; and Berchman (2005): 158, CC 78.
190. Cf. (e.g.) Hoffmann (1994): 167; Barnes (1994): 54; and (1981): 177; Beatrice (1993b): 33–7;
Hollerich (1989): 438; Sellew (1989): 97; Wilken (1984): 137–43; Ferch (1982): 145;
Geffcken (1978): 63; Casey (1976): 31f.; Den Boer (1974): 200.
191. Beatrice (1993): 45 rightly disagrees with Ferch (1982), who argues that Porphyry was
indebted to the Syrian exegetical tradition.
192. Cf. Casey (1976): 20–3.
193. Jurado CC 30 I, Jerome, in Dan. II, 7:7b; Harnack CC 43 L; and Berchman
(2005): 159, CC 79.
194. Cf. Casey (1976): 17–23.
195. Jurado CC 30 J, Jerome, in Dan. II, 7:7c–14b; Harnack CC 43 M; and Berchman
(2005): 159, CC 80.
196. See Casey (1976): 18, on Porphyry’s interpretation of the defeat of Lysias by Jewish forces
under Judas Maccabaeus, the rededication of the temple, and the death of the persecu-
tor Antiochus Epiphanes.
197. See Jurado CC 30 R, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:31–43; Harnack CC 43 U; Berchman
(2005): 163, CC 88; cf. also Jurado, 30 K, Jerome, in Dan. III, 9:1; Harnack 43 N; Berchman
(2005): 159, CC 81; Jurado CC 30 L, Jerome, in Dan. III, 11:20; Harnack CC 43 O;
Berchman (2005): 160, CC 83; Jurado, CC 30 M, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:21; Harnack CC
43 P; Berchman (2005): 161, CC 84, which includes Harnack CC nos. 43 P and 43 Q;
Jurado CC 30 N, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:21; Harnack CC 43 Q; Berchman (2005): 161,
CC 84; Jurado CC 30 O, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:25ff.; Harnack CC 43 R; Berchman
(2005): 162, CC 85; Jurado CC 30 P, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:27f; Harnack CC 43 S;
Berchman (2005): 162, CC 86; Jurado CC 30 Q, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:28b–30b;
Harnack CC 43 T; Berchman (2005): 162, partially cited as CC 87 and designated simply
as “Harnack, fr. 43.”; Jurado CC 30 S, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 11:44f.; Harnack CC 43 V; and
Berchman (2005): 164, CC 89; Jurado CC 30 T, Jerome, in Dan. [IV], 12:5–12 and 12:1–3;
Harnack CC 43 W; and Berchman (2005): 165f., CC 165 and 166; and Jurado CC 30 U,
Jerome, in Is. 9:30; Harnack CC 43 X; and Berchman (2005): 156, CC 69, who, however,
cites Is. 30:1ff.
198. Jurado CC 37, Jerome, in Matth. IV, 24:16f.; Harnack CC 44; Berchman (2005): 168, CC
98; noting that Eusebius had already answered this criticism of Porphyry in three books
(18, 19, and 20) of his Contra Porphyrium; and Apollinarius, “abundantly.”
199. Jurado CC 27, Jerome, in Is. 2:3; Harnack CC 97; Berchman (2005): 156, CC 66; and
Jurado CC 31, Jerome, Comm. in Os., 1:2; Harnack CC 45; and Berchman (2005): 155, CC
65; Rinaldi (1982).
200. Jurado CC 25, Jerome, in Psalmo LXXVII, 72–7; Harnack CC 10; Berchman (2005): 167,
CC 92; Jurado CC 29, Jerome, in Dan. I, 1:1; Harnack CC 11; Berchman (2005): 157, CC 73.
201. Jurado CC 32, Jerome, in Ioel 2:28–32; Harnack CC 5; Berchman (2005): 156, CC 67.
202. Jurado CC 33, Jerome, in Matth. I, 3:3; Harnack CC 9b; and Berchman (2005): 168, CC 94.
203. Jurado CC 35, Jerome, in Matth. II, 15:17; Harnack CC 56; Berchman (2005): 168, CC 96.
204. Jurado CC 36, Jerome, in Matth. III, 21:21; Harnack CC 3; Berchman (2005): 168, CC 97.
205. Jurado CC 38, Jerome, in Matth. IV, 27:45; Harnack CC 14; Berchman (2005): 169, CC 99.
See also Beatrice (1993b): 38; Casey (1976): 30.
 Notes  311

206. Jurado CC 40, Jerome, in Gal. 1:1; Harnack CC 19; Berchman (2005): 169, CC 101, criti-
cizing the Pauline claim that his doctrine was “not from men”; Jurado CC 41, Jerome, in
Gal. 1:16; Harnack CC 20; Berchman (2005): 169, CC 102, arguing that Gal. 1:16 does not
refer to the Apostles; Jurado CC 45, Jerome, Ep. 57, ad Pammachium 9; Harnack CC 2;
Berchman (2005): not listed; Jurado CC 49, Jerome, c. Vigil. 10; Harnack CC 49b;
Berchman (2005): 170, CC 107, a retorsion of Jerome accusing Porphyry (and Eunomius)
of simulating demons.
207. Jurado CC 50, Jerome, Adv. Pelag. II.17; Harnack CC 70; Berchman (2005): 170, CC 108,
stating the same about the Samaritan woman of John 4. The former critiques John 7:10.
208. Jurado CC 51, Jerome, Quaest. in Gen. 1:10; Harnack CC 55b; Berchman (2005): 155, CC 64.
209. Jurado CC 52, Jerome, Tract. in Marc. 29–35, de principio Marci, 1:1–12; Harnack CC 9a;
and Berchman (2005): no listing.
210. Jurado CC 47, Jerome, Ep. 130 Ad Demetr. 14; Harnack CC 25b; Berchman (2005): 170,
CC 105.
211. Jurado, CC 28, Jerome, in Is. 14:53; Harnack CC 21d; Berchman (2005): 156, CC 68.
212. Jurado, CC 39, Jerome, in Gal. Prolog; Harnack CC 21a; Berchman (2005): 169, CC 100.
213. Ibid.
214. On the contradiction between the teaching of the two Apostles see Jurado, CC 44,
Jerome, in Gal. 5:12; Harnack CC 37; Berchman (2005): not listed; the other two frag-
ments are Jurado CC 43, Jerome, in Gal. 5:10; Harnack CC 22; Berchman (2005): not
listed; and Jurado CC 46, Jerome, Ep. 112, ad Augustinum 6; Harnack CC 21b; Berchman
(2005): not listed.
215. Jurado CC 42, Jerome, in Gal. 2:11 ff; Harnack CC 21C; Berchman (2005): 169, CC 103.
216. E.g., Eus., Theoph. IV.6.
217. Jurado CC 26, Jerome, in Psalmo LXXXI 223–33; Harnack CC 4; Berchman (2005): 167,
CC 93: “Totem urbem subegit ab oceano usque ad mare Rubrum. Dicat aliquis: Hoc
totum lucri causa fecerunt. Hoc enim dicit Porphyrius: Homines rusticani et pauperes,
quoniam nihl habebant, magicis artibus operati sunt quaedam signa. Non est autem
grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et
Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Concedo tibi, Porphyri, magicis
artibus signa fecerunt, ut, diuitias acciperent a diuitibus mulierculis, quas induxer-
ant: hoc enim tu dicis. Quare mortui sunt? Quare crucifixi sunt?”
218. Jurado CC 34, Jerome, in Matth. I, 9:9; Harnack CC 6; Berchman (2005): 168, CC 95.
219. Jurado CC 48, Jerome, Ep. 133, ad Ctesiphontem 9; Harnack CC 82; Berchman (2005): 170,
CC 106: “Et ad extremum (quod solet nobis contubernalis uester Porphyrius) qua rati-
one clemens, et misericors Deus ab Adam usque ad Moysen et a Moyse usque ad aduen-
tum Christi passus sit uniuersas gentes perire ignorantia Legis et mandatorum Dei.
Neque enim Britanni fertilis prouincia tyrannorum et Scythiae gentes omnesque usque
ad Oceanum per circuitum barbarae nationes Moysen prophetasque cognouerant. Quid
necesse fuit in ultimo uenire tempore, et non prius quam innumerabilis periret homi-
num multitudo?”
220. See Cornell, Fear, and Liddel (2010): 3ff.
221. Jurado CC 30 D, Jerome, in Dan. I, 2:31–5; Harnack CC 43 D; Berchman (2005):  158,  CC 74.
222. Cf. Schepens (1997).
223. Most (1997): v–viii.
224. Ibid.
225. See Magny (2010).
226. Hoffmann (1994): 167.
312  Notes

227. A. Smith (2004): 78. See also Berchman (2005): 59; Kofsky (2000): 30f.

228. Goulet (2003): I.130, n. 1.
229. See Jurado (2006): 83, Test. XIII and n. 15.
230. ODCC, 3rd ed. (2005): 1290.
231. Rightly noted by Beatrice (1991): 120, with references to Greg. Naz., Or. c. Jul. 5.41; Lib.,
Or. 18.178–9 (cited by Soc., HE 3.23).
232. J.  Chrys., De S. Bab. 11; cf. Simmons (2006b): 97ff.
233. See Labate (1992): 683f.
234. Ibid.,  684.
235. See Jurado (2006): 86 = Test. XIX, Philostorgius, HE (Bidez [1913]: 115; cf. 130).
236. See (e.g.) the following for the background to Augustine and Porphyry: Potter

(2004): 328; van Fleteren (1999): 661f.; Beatrice (1996a); (1992a); and (1991); A. Smith
(1996d) and (1987); Doucet (1995); Alfeche (1995); Simmons (1995): 80, 114f., 203, 209,
222, 225, 230, 236, 250, 260, 265, 273, 288f., 324; Hoffmann (1994); Culdaut (1992); Madec
(1992); M. T. Clark (1991); O’Connell (1991); Doignon (1989); Evangeliou (1989); Madec
(1988); Lilla (1987); Wilken (1984); Chadwick (1983); John J. O’Meara (1982b); Meredith
(1980); Teselle (1974); Barnes (1973b); Wolfskeel (1972b); Dodds (1970); Lloyd (1967);
Dörrie (1966a): and (1962); Pépin (1964a); Courcelle (1963) and (1958); Voss (1963);
P. Hadot (1960a); J. J. O’Meara (1959); Solignac (1957); Beutler (1953); Vaganay (1935);
Theiler (1933); Bidez (1913).
237. Berchman (2005): CC nos. 117–39, pp. 173–84.
238. Ibid., CC nos. 140–57, pp. 184–90.
239. Ibid., CC no. 158, p. 190.
240. Ibid., CC nos. 159–61, p. 190.
241. See (e.g.) Magny (2014): 99–147; Barnes (1973b) and Benoit (1978).
242. Though it is true that Porphyry’s arguments “are preserved by Augustine in his De Consensu
Evangelistarum” (Berchman [2005]: 65), it is, as noted, normally not possible to identify
the specific Porphyrian work that Augustine is citing. For Augustine’s De cons. evang. and
its connection with Porphyry see Magny (2014): 99–47, whose methodology is contextual-
ization; Wilken (1984): 144ff. Cf. also Zambon (2012); and in general, Benoit (1978).
243. See Frede (1999c): 239. Cf. also Borchet (2010) and (2004).
244. Aug., Ep. 102.2: Ad Deogratias, sex quaestiones contra paganos expositas continens: Jurado
CC no. 3 (Harnack CC no 92); Berchman (2005): CC no. 111, pp. 171f.
245. Aug., Civ. Dei X.24: “. . . hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis
libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praecipere
omne corpus esse fugiendum ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo?” Cf. Alfeche
(1995): 104, citing Aug., Sermo 241.7.
246. Aug., Ep. 102.30 Ad Deogratias, sex quaetiones contra paganos expositas continens: Jurado
CC no. 8 (Harnack CC no. 46); Berchman (2005): CC no. 116, p. 173. See generally Pépin
(1958): 462–6.
247. Aug., Ep. 102.16 Ad Deogratias, sex quaestiones contra paganos expositas conti-
nens: Jurado CC no. 5 (Harnack CC no. 79); Berchman (2005): CC no. 113, p. 172.
248. Aug., Ep. 102.22: Ad Deogratias, sex quaestiones contra paganos expositas continens:
Jurado CC no. 6 (Harnack CC no. 91); Berchman (2005): CC no. 91, p. 173.
249. Aug., Ep. 102.28: Ad Deogratias, sex quaestiones contra paganos expositas continens:
Jurado, CC no. 7 (Harnack CC no. 85); Berchman (2005): CC no. 115, p. 173.
250. Aug., Ep. 102.8: Ad Deogratias, sex quaestiones contra paganos expositas continens: Jurado
(2006): CC 4 (Harnack CC 81); Berchman (2005): CC 112, p. 172: “Item alia proposuerunt,
 Notes  313

quae dicerent de Porphyrio contra Christianos tamquam validora decerpta. ‘Si Chrisus
se,’ inquiunt, ‘salutis se viam dicit, gratiam, et veritatem, in seque solo ponit animis sibi
credentibus reditum, quid egerunt tot saeculorum homines ante Christum? Ut dimittant,
inquit, tempora ante Latium regnatum, ab ipso Latio quasi principium humani nominis
sumamus. in ipso Latio ante Albam diiculti sunt. in Alba aeque religiones ritusque valu-
ere templorum non paucioribus saeculis ipsa Roma longo saeculorum tractu sine
Christiana lege fuit. quid, inquit, actum de tam innumeris animis, quae omnino in culpa
nulla sunt, si quidem is, cui credi posset, nondum adventum suum hominibus commo-
darat? orbis quoque cum ipsa Roma in ritibus templorum caluit. quare, inquit, salvator,
qui dictus est, sese tot saeculis subduxit? sed ne dicant, inquit, lege Judaeorum vetere
hominum curatum genus; longo post tempore lex Judaeorum apparuit ac viguit angusta
Syriae regione, postea vero prorepsit etiam in fines Italos, sed post Caesarem Gaium aut
certe ipso imperante. quid igitur actum de Romanis animis vel Latinis, quae gratia non-
dum advenientis Christi viduatae sunt usque in Caesarum tempus?”
251. P. Brown (2000): 98; cf. also 83 and 315. For the background see Chadwick (2001): 473–8.
252. Jurado CC 48, Jerome, Ep. 133, ad Ctesiphontem 9; Harnack CC 82; Berchman (2005): 170,
CC 106.
253. Cf. (e.g.) Eus., DE I.5–6; Arn., Adv. nat. II.63. On the common elements of the
anti-Porphyrian arguments of Eusebius and Arnobius, see Simmons (1995): 264–303.
For a good analysis of the influence of Porphyry’s thought upon Augustine see Lévy
(2004). For the use of scripture in Augustine’s polemics against Porphyry, see the excel-
lent article by Bochet (2010).
254. See Bidez (1913): 20f.; and Pépin (1964b), who gives more fragments of the CC from
Aug., Civ. Dei: XXII.11, p. 453 n. 2; XXII.12 and XXII.20, p. 449 n. 4; X.28 and X.24,
p. 449 n. 4.
255. Cf. Jurado (2006): 87, Test. XXIIb: Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Iulianum I, p. 19; and
III, p. 87.
256. E.g., Jerome and Augustine.
257. Jurado (2006): 88: Test. XXV: Vincentius Lerinensis, Commonit. I.16.23.
258. Cf. Muscolino (2009): 456 n. 39 for discussion.
259. Ibid.
260. The English trans. is that of Zenos (1976): 93. Cf. Jurado (2006): 86: Test. XX, Soc., HE
III.23l; and Smith (1993a): 14, 9T.
261. See c­ hapter 1.
262. Cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei X.28: “Virtutem ac sapientiam si vere ac faciliter amasses,
Christum dei virtutem et dei sapientiam cognovisses nec ab eius saluberrima humilitate
tumore inflatus vanae scientiae resiluisses.”
263. For the opposite view see Muscolino (2009): 454f., n. 30.
264. Jurado (2006):  CC no. 111 (Harnack CC no. 38); Berchman (2005): 191, CC no. 163.
265. Berchman (2005): 191 n. 43.
266. According to Goulet (2003): I.65, Macarius Magnes wrote the Apocriticus during the
reign of Valens (A.D. 364–78). Cf. Goulet (1984).
267. See Goulet (2003) and (1984); Maeger (2001); Waelkens (1974); Hauschildt (1907).
Frassinetti (1949); Duchesne (1877); and Blondel (1876).
268. Goulet (2003): I.134f.
269. See Magny (2010): 524–8.
270. Ibid., 127. Goulet (2003), I.113f., notes rightly that Celsus does not demonstrate the kind
of familiarity with the contents of the Bible as M. Magnes’ opponent does; and Celsus’
314  Notes

criticism that Christianity is a subversive movement is absent from the Apocriticus. On

Celsus see Frede (1999a), (1999b), and (1997); and Rist (1981).
271. Goulet (2003): 139.
272. Ibid., 135–48. Cf. also (e.g.) Vaclav (2001); Cook (2000): 127; Kofsky (2000): 20;
Hoffmann (1994): 18, 22f., 164ff.; Evangeliou (1989): 67; Geffcken (1978): 61: “I do not
wish to question that it can be used extensively to reconstruct Porphyry, for the tone of
his polemic is clearly present in it.”; Demarolle (1972); Anastos (1966): 425; Scheidweiler
(1955); Beatrice (1992c): 349, goes too far when he says that Harnack’s “edition of the
fragments taken from a work entitled Against the Christians is therefore to be consid-
ered completely untrustworthy.”; Crusinus (1857).
273. Barnes (1973b): 430: Macarius can be supposed “to preserve something of the tenor and
arguments of Against the Christians, but only indirectly, from a later writer or later writ-
ers who used Porphyry.” Cf. also id. (1994): 54–7; the pertinent essays in Goulet-Cazé,
Madec, and Goulvin, eds. (1992); (1981): 176 n. 87; Beatrice (1992c): 347ff.; and (1991);
Cook (2000): 127; Fox (1987): 77 n. 1; Frassinetti (1953): 194 n. 1; Harnack (1911).
274. Digeser (2002).
275. Cf. Bidez’s [(1913): 75 n. 1] earlier assessment of Geffcken’s doubts (1907: 302) that
M. Magnes’ opponent was Porphyry.
276. Cook (2000): 175. For the excellent analysis of the pagan adversary’s criticism of the
N.T. see pp. 175–249; Nestle (1952).
277. M.  Magnes, Apocr. II.12 (Harnack CC 15; Jurado CC 60; Berchman [2005]: 194, CC 169).
Apocr. II.13 (Harnack CC 16; Jurado CC 61; Berchman [2005]: 194, CC 170).
278. Apocr. II.14 (Harnack CC 64; Jurado CC 62; Berchman [2005]: 195, CC 171).
279. Apocr. II.9 (Harnack CC 59; Jurado CC 57; Berchman [2005]: 193, CC 166).
280. Apocr. I (Harnack CC 50; Jurado CC 54); Apocr. IV.22 (Harnack CC 77; Jurado CC 100;
Berchman [2005]: 217, CC 208).
281. Apocr. IV.3 (Harnack CC 13; Jurado CC 89; Berchman [2005]: 212, CC 197); Macarius
Magnes, On Judas, probably derived from a lost section of the Apocr. (Harnack CC 17;
Jurado CC 53), on which note Jurado (2006): 124: “En el códice en pergamino Coisl. Gr.
205 de la Biblioteca Nacional de París se encuentra (fol. 41r), tachado por la mitad, un
comentario al cap. 1 de los Hechos de los Apóstoles, con la anotación ´Macario de
Magnesia, Sobre Judas´. Consta de 12 líneas. Schalkhauser, al que se debe la información,
supone que el escolio proviene de la parte perdida del Apocritikós. Es probable, pues,
que también Porfirio haya deducido la muerte de Judas de Act.Ap. 1.16ss. y de Ev.Matt.
27.3ss, puesto que las contradicciones del relato debían ser evidentes y no debían dejar
satisfechos. Todo ello es mera hipótesis de Harnack”; Apocr. II.7f. (Harnack CC 51;
Jurado CC 55); Apocr. II.8 (Harnack CC 53; Jurado CC 56; Berchman [2005]: 192, CC
165); Apocr. IV.5 (Harnack CC 60; Jurado CC 91; Berchman [2005]: 212, CC 199); Apocr.
III.7 (Harnack CC 61; Jurado CC 71; Berchman [2005]: 201, CC 180); Apocr. III.2
(Harnack CC 62; Jurado CC 66; Berchman [2005]: 197, CC 175); Apocr. II.11 (Harnack CC
67; Jurado CC 59; Berchman [2005]: 194, CC 168); Apocr. III.16 (Harnack CC 96; Jurado
CC 73; Berchman [2005]: 203, CC 182).
282. Apocr. V (Harnack CC 18; Jurado CC 104); Apocr. III.19 (Harnack CC 23; Jurado CC 76;
Berchman [2005]: 204, CC 185); Apocr. III.18 (Harnack CC 48; Jurado CC 75; Berchman
[2005]: 204, CC 184); Apocr. III.4 (Harnack CC 49a; Jurado CC 68; Berchman [2005]: 198,
CC 177); Apocr. IV.9 (Harnack CC 52; Jurado CC 95; Berchman [2005]: 214, CC 203);
Apocr. IV.8 (Harnack CC 54; Jurado CC 94; Berchman [2005]: 214, CC 202); Apocr. II.10
(Harnack CC 57; Jurado CC 58; Berchman [2005]: 193, CC 167); Apocr. III.5 (Harnack
CC 58; Jurado CC 69; Berchman [2005]: 200, CC 178); Apocr. III.1 (Harnack CC 63;
 Notes  315

Jurado CC 65; Berchman [2005]: 197, CC 174); Apocr. III.3 (Harnack CC 68; Jurado CC
67; Berchman [2005]: 198, CC 176); Apocr. III.6 (Harnack CC 55a; Jurado CC 70;
Berchman [2005]: 201, CC 179); Apocr. II.16 (Harnack CC 71; Jurado CC 64; Berchman
[2005]: 196, CC 173); Apocr. II.15 (Harnack CC 72; Jurado CC 63; Berchman [2005]: 195,
CC 172); Apocr. V (Harnack CC 74; Jurado CC 103); Apocr. IV.20 (Harnack CC 75; Jurado
CC 98; Berchman [2005]: 216, CC 206); Apocr. IV.21 (Harnack CC 76; Jurado CC 99;
Berchman [2005]: 216, CC 207); Apocr. IV.23 (Harnack CC 78; Jurado CC 101; Berchman
[2005]: 217, CC 209); Apocr. IV.10 (Harnack CC 87; Jurado, CC 96; Berchman [2005]: 214,
CC 204); Apocr. IV.7 (Harnack CC 90a; Jurado CC 93; Berchman [2005]: 213, CC 201);
Apocr. IV.24 (Harnack CC 94; Jurado CC 102; Berchman [2005]: 218, CC 210); Apocr.
III.17 (Harnack CC 95; Jurado CC 74; Berchman [2005]: 203, CC 183).
283. Apocr. III.20 (Harnack CC 24; Jurado CC 77; Berchman [2005]: 205, CC 186); Apocr.
III.21 (Harnack CC 25a; Jurado CC 78; Berchman [2005]: 205, CC 187); Apocr. III.22
(Harnack CC 26; Jurado CC 79); Apocr. III.30 (Harnack CC 27; Jurado CC 80; Berchman
[2005]: 206, CC 188); Apocr. III.31 (Harnack CC 28; Jurado CC 81; Berchman [2005]: 206,
CC 189); Apocr. III.32 (Harnack CC 29; Jurado CC 82; Berchman [2005]: 207, CC 190);
Apocr. III.33 (Harnack CC 30; Jurado CC 83; Berchman [2005]: 208, CC 191); Apocr.
III.34 (Harnack CC 31; Jurado CC 84; Berchman [2005]: 208, CC 192); Apocr. III.35
(Harnack CC 32; Jurado CC 85; Berchman [2005]: 209, CC 193); Apocr. III.36 (Harnack
CC 33; Jurado CC 86; Berchman [2005]: 209, CC 194); Apocr. IV.1 (Harnack CC 34;
Jurado CC 87; Berchman [2005]: 210, CC 195); Apocr. IV.2 (Harnack CC 35; Jurado CC
88; Berchman [2005]: 210, CC 196); Apocr. IV.4 (Harnack CC 36; Jurado CC 90;
Berchman [2005]: 212, CC 198); Apocr. IV.6 (Harnack CC 89; Jurado CC 92; Berchman
[2005]: 212, CC 200).
284. Apocr. III.15 (Harnack CC 69; Jurado CC 72; Berchman [2005]: 202, CC 181); Apocr. IV.19
(Harnack CC 88; Jurado CC 97; Berchman [2005]: 215, CC 205).
285. See (e.g.) Barnes (1973b): 425ff.; Cook (2000): 135–54; and Digeser (2000): 95 n.14; and
Harnack (1921).
286. Harnack (1921).
287. Barnes (1973b); Digeser (2000): 95 n. 14; and the insightful commentary in Cook
(2000): 135–53.
288. Jurado (2006):  CC 109: Pacatus, Contra Porphyrium I.
289. Ibid.,  II.
290. Ibid., III; Ad Matth. 1:11.
291. Jurado (2006):  Contra Porphyrium IV; V; Ad Gen. 2:21 and 24:16.
292. Jurado (2006):  CC frag. 1: Viae dux aduersus acephalos 13 (Migne 89, col. 233; Harnack
CC 65; Berchman [2005]: CC 211, p. 219).
293. See Share (1994).
294. Ibid. Chiaradonna (2012); Bodéüs (1997); and Strange (1987).
295. Harnack CC 66; Jurado CC 2; Berchman (2005): CC 213, 220: “First, although God’s
Logos carries away sin, nevertheless he is guilty of many patricides and infanticides
because people were forced either to assist their families or give priority to a piety trans-
mitted from the ages for the opening of new minds. Is not Moses equal to our saviour,
but not close to the greater promise, not coming as a destroyer of sin, but as someone
who must be considered as increasing it?” The translation is that of Berchman. For Cyril
of Alexandria’s philosophical argument in the Contra Iulianum see Moreschini (1999).
296. Porphyry seems to have had a special aversion for the Incarnation. Cf. Harnack CC
Frags. 80, 81, 82, 84; on the fate of souls before Christ (CC Frag. 82 = Jer., Ep. 133, Ad
Ctesiph. 9), cf. Arn., Adv. nat. II.63; De Labriolle (1929): 423; O’Meara (1959): 133;
316  Notes

Courcelle (1958): 160; Geffcken (1978): 63f.; den Boer (1954) and (1974); Barnes
(1981): 178; Evangeliou (1989): 56; Droge (1992): 495; Chadwick (1993c): 116; Hollerich
(1989): 441; Kofsky (2000): 64; A. Smith (2004): 79; Levieils (2007).
297. Goulet (2010).
298. Ibid., 141. Cf. Masullo (1988).
299. Gautier (1989).
300. Michael Psellus, Opus. Theol. 75. See Bochet (2010): 29; Dryoff (1939).
301. Goulet (2010): 141: ‘Εντεῦθεν γὰρ καὶ ὁ λῆρoς Πoϕυρικὸς τὸ θεῖoν ἡμῖν κατατεχνoλoγεῖ.
Εἰ γὰρ λὀγoς, ϕησίν, ἢ πρoϕoρικὸς ἢ ἐνδιάθετoςͅ oἀλλ̓ εἰ μὲν πρoϕoρικóς, oὐκ oὐσιὠδης,
ὁμoῦ γὰρ ἐξαγγἐλλεταί τε καὶ oἴχεται oεἰ δὲ ἐνδιάθετoς, ἀχώριστoς τῆς τoῦ πατρὸς
ϕύσεως oπῶς δὲ κεχώρισται καὶ πῶς ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τὸν βίoν καταπεϕoίτηκε; Τoύτων γὰρ
τῶν λήρων ἱερεὺς ἐκεῖνoς ὁ ἀνήρ.
302. Michael Psellus, Opus. Theol. 97. Cf. Bochet (2010): 29.
303. Ibid.,  144.
304. Ibid.
305. Harnack CC Frag. 86; Goulet (2010): 145 and n. 15, with reference to Cook (2000): 148f.
306. Cf. ODCC, 3rd ed. (2005): 1618.
307. Harnack CC Frag. 86; Jurado CC Frag. 112; Berchman CC Frag. 214, p. 220 (PG 123,
col. 1141).
308. Berchman (2005):  CC Frag. 214, p. 220.
309. On the philosophical critique of the Logos theology see (e.g.) Cook (2000): 148f.; and
Kotzia-Panteli (2000) for Greek philosophy.
310. Healey (1999): 317; cf. ODCC, 3rd ed. (2005):1090.
311. Edited, translated, and indexed by Chabot (1899–1924).
312. Cook (1998).
313. Ibid., 114.
314. Ibid.,  122.
315. Goulet (2010): 148.
316. Michael Glykas, Quaestiones in sacram scripturam, ­chapter 45; Goulet (2010): 149f.
317. Michael Glykas, Quaestiones in sacram scripturam, ­chapter 46; Goulet (2010): 150f.
318. For the background to Damascenus Studites and his works see Goulet (2010): 153f.
319. Goulet (2010): 155f.
320. Ibid.,  156.
321. See Simmons (1995); and Digeser (1998); (2001); (2006b); (2009); and (2012).

Chapter 5

1. See Simmons, “Universalism in Eusebius of Caesarea: The Soteriological Use of

‫ܝܠܗ �ܗܝܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܒܠܢ‬ ‫ ܚ‬in Book III of the Theophany” (forthcoming 2015, Studia Patristica),
giving two major reasons for the neglect: The entire work is extant only in a Syriac
translation, and modern scholars have made the sad and erroneous conclusion that
because it is simply a reworking of (e.g.) the PE and DE it thus contains nothing original.
See also Kofsky (2000): 279f.
2. Drobner (2007): 233–5. Only Gressmann’s 1903 essay is listed in the notes on p. 235 with-
out mentioning the Theoph. in the section “C. Apologetic Works,” 233–8.
3. See, e.g., Carriker (2003); Frede (1999c): 230, only noting that the PE (I.3.12) refers to an
earlier work on fulfilled prophecies which may have been reworked to form Bk. IV of
the Theoph.; Altaner and Stuiber (1978): 221, simply stating that the Theoph. “ist eine
 Notes  317

populäre, stark rhetorische Apologetik (fünf Bücher), die aus der Praeparatio und
Demonstratio schöpft.” More substantial assessments can be found in (e.g.) Barnes
(1981): 187f.; and Schott (2008): 155f. For Eusebius’ rethinking of history see Cameron
(1983) which should be read in conjunction with the Theophany.
4. The original manuscript in Estrangelo is located in the British Library in the third of six
works included in the ms. @ shelfmark Add.12150, according to the entry on pp. 631–33
of W. Wright’s Catalogue of Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum. The Greek frag-
ments are found in Gressmann (1992): 3–35. The reverse of the 4th folio at the end of the
Syriac ms. states it was written by a certain Jacob in Edessa and finished in February
A.D. 411 (Lee [1843]: xi–xii).
5. Lee (1842).
6. Id. (1843).
7. Ibid., viii–ix.
8. Ibid., ix.
9. Jerome, Vir. ill., lxxxi.
10. Closely following Jerome: θεoϕανείας λóγoι έ.
11. Lee (1843): iv.
12. Kofsky (2000): 277; Mai (1816).
13. Critically reviewed by Nestle (1904); Krüger (1904); Burkitt (1905); Braun (1905);
Frankenberg (1906); and Stählin (1909). Note especially Frankenberg’s concluding sen-
tence, (1906): 16: “Wer die Schwierigkeiten kennt, mit denen das Verständnis syr.
Übersetzungen und dieser insbesondere verbunden ist, wird sich nicht wundern, daß
auch diese Übersetzung noch manches für Text und Erklärung zu tun übrig läßt.”
14. Gressmann (1903); the 1992 edition was edited by Adolf Laminski and published under
the same title by Akademie Verlag. See the reviews by Chadwick (1993b) and Poggi (1995).
Worth mentioning here is O. Braun’s review (1905) of Gressmann’s (1903) translation,
which contains a little more than half a column (169) of critical notes on the Syriac text.
15. Gressmann made no distinction between the LC and the SC.
16. Gressmann (1903).
17. Most especially when the original Greek is available: Gressmann (1992): xx–xxiv; other-
wise one must rely upon Eusebius’ own style and phraseology and “man muß das
griechische Lexikon gebrauchen als das syrische, mehr kombinieren als konstruieren,
mehr raten als übersetzen” (xxiv); cf. Schwartz (1907): col. 1429: “Die Syrische
Übersetzung folgt mit starken Vergewaltigung des semitischen Idioms dem griechischen
Original Wort für Wort und ist daher nur durch die freilich oft sehr schwere und unsi-
chere Rückübersetzung ins Griechische voll verständlich; die modernen Übersetzungen
geben nur ein unvollkommenes Bild.”; cf. Lee (1843): vii, stating that the Syriac trans. is
a genuine copy of the Greek original; Burkitt (1905): 62: “The version is slavishly literal
in style, so much so as to be frequently quite incomprehensible”; Kofsky (2000): 277f.,
following Gressmann; Quasten (1975): III.333, calling the translation “very slavish.”
Wallace-Hadrill (1960): 60 believed that the translation was completed soon after
Eusebius’ death if not actually during his lifetime; cf. Nestle (1904): 1162.
18. Bernstein (1852); Geiger (1863).
19. Heikel (1911), an astute analysis of the literary parallels between the LC and the Theoph.
that has been almost totally ignored by Eusebian scholars.
20. Simmons, “Universalism in Eusebius of Caesarea: The Soteriological Use of ‫�ܗܝܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ‬
‫ܝܠܗ‬ ‫ ܕܒܠܢ ܚ‬in Book III of the Theophany,” a paper read at the XVI International Patristics
Conference at the University of Oxford, August 2011 (forthcoming, Studia Patristica);
and (2012c).
318  Notes

21. Satoshi Toda (2011) argues that the Syriac translator of the Theoph. was not the same as
that of the Ecclesiastical History. I am grateful to Prof. Toda for sending me a copy of this
paper. For the theological worldview and editions of the HE see Winkelmann (1991);
Louth (1990); Bardy (1955); Barnes (1980); and Grant (1980).
22. Dölger (1934): 280–1 (on Theoph. I.71); Quasten (1938): 51–8 (on Theoph. II.83; IV.24).
23. E.g., Lightfoot (1880); Schwartz (1907); Quasten (1975): III.309–45; Altaner and Stuiber
(1978): 217–33; Curti (1992); Cameron (1996); “Eusebius,” in ODCC 3rd rev. ed. (2005): 577f.
24. See Kofsky (2000): 276–311; and Wallace-Hadrill (1960): 50–8. Kofsky devotes a chapter
exclusively to the Theoph.; Wallace-Hadrill contains sub-sections covering various
aspects of the work. Neither analyzes the Syriac text.
25. E.g., Lietzmann (1950): III.170; Perrone (1996): 522 n. 30; Studer (2004): 141; Roldanus
(2006): 47.
26. A. Garcia (1987).
27. Simmons (2010a). This analyzes the soteriological argument of the 166 scriptural cita-
tions of Book IV and further demonstrates that the assumption of many that the Theoph.
contains nothing original is erroneous, concurring with Kofsky (2000): 277f.
28. Simmons (2010b).
29. Id. (2012b).
30. Lee (1843): xx. F. Burkitt (1905): 62, stating that the Theoph. “was intended as a more or
less popular commendation of Christianity to the heathen world.”
31. Wallace-Hadrill (1960): 58.
32. First noted by Kofsky (2000): 278 without acknowledging the apologetic nature of the
work. For Eusebius’ use of prophecy in his polemical argument see Kofsky (1998).
33. Lightfoot (1880): 331; Gressmann (1992): v; and Quasten (1975): III.332; followed by

Kofsky (2000): 278 and Frede (1999c): 230, proposed that Theoph. Bk. IV was based on an
earlier work mentioned by Eusebius in the PE I.3, devoted to the prophecies of Christ.
Quasten (1975): III.332; and Kofsky (2000): 276ff.; note that the first three bks. are depen-
dent upon the PE, DE, and LC; cf. Frankenberg (1906): 11f.; Barnes (1981): 187; the first
part of Bk. III contains parallels with the DE IV; the second part contains original mate-
rial on the Resurrection of Christ; Bk. V repeats DE III.3–7 with some modifications, on
which see Gressmann (1903): 143–7; Burkitt (1905): 62; Stählin (1909): 8; and Kofsky
(2000): 278. On the relationship between the Theoph. and the LC see Gressmann
(1992): xiv–xx; Nestle (1904): 1161f.; Burkitt (1905): 62; Frankenberg (1906): 11f.; Stählin
(1909): 114; Heikel (1911); Wallace-Hadrill (1960): 52ff.; Barnes (1981): 187; Kofsky
(2000): 276–82; and Schott (2008): 155f. Scholars do not agree whether the LC was writ-
ten before or after the Theoph. I take the former view, concurring with Wallace-Hadrill
(1960): 52–8 (see below).
34. See M. D. Smith (1989): 38; Kofsky (2002): 278; and Lietzmann (1950): III.170.
35. M. D. Smith (1989): 38; compare Barnes (1981): 187: the Theoph. “distilled the essence of
his apologetics into a work in five books addressed to a popular audience”; and Stählin
(1909): 114: “Diese Schrift über die Erscheinung des Herrn im Fleische, in der Eusebius
seine dogmatischen Anschauungen in einem geschlossenen System darstellen wollte…”
36. See (e.g.) Gressmann (1903): 36; Geffcken (1907): 311; Schwartz (1907): col. 1431; Baynes
(1934); Lietzmann (1950): III.170; Wallace-Hadrill (1960): 58; Quasten (1975): III.332;
Barnes (1981): 187f.; M. D. Smith (1989): 38; Perrone (1996): 522 n. 30; Studer (2004): 141;
Kofsky (2000): 278; Schott (2008): 156. Cf. Roldanus (2006): 47, who believes the Theoph.
was a popularized defense of the Incarnation that shows Eusebius’ mature views. This is
hermeneutically too narrow. For ethnic argumentation in the PE see A. Johnson (2004).
37. Barnes (1981): 187. In general see Berkhof (1939); and Opitz (1935).
 Notes  319

38. For the background see (e.g.) MacMullen (1984); and Salzman (2002). And the relevant
entries in Beardino (1992).
39. Cf. Lietzmann (1950): III.170, describing the Theoph. as “a compendium of Christian the-
ology in five books for converting educated laymen”; complemented by Wallace-Hadrill
(1960): 55: the Theoph. is a retractatio “recapitulating the best of what he has had to say
over forty years of writing.” There is no evidence of heterodox elements in the Theoph.,
and Eusebius is keen to identify heretics to his readers (e.g., Marcion, Valentinus,
Basilides, Bardesanes, Mani, Simon Magus, Montanus) in Theoph. IV.30, 34, and 35, who
were prophesied by Christ in Mt. 7:15–7; 13:24–30, 36–43; 24:3–5, 23–7; Jn. 5:43; and Acts
8:10 (fulfillment). Notably absent is Arius’ name. See Fotheringham (1911): 333.
40. See Appendix VI.
41. E.g., Theoph. I.23, 25, 35, 68, 72; II.1, 2, 20, 94, 95, 97; III.1; IV.1, 8; V.1, 8, 14, 16, 34, 46.
42. Cf. Quasten (1975): III.332f., which notes the importance of humankind’s redemption in
Bks. I–III.
43. See Appendix VII.
44. See Popescu (1991): 15.
45. Quasten (1975): III.332 posits that the main theme of the Theoph. is “the manifestation of
God in the Incarnation of the Logos.” This general description should be further contex-
tualized by the soteriological universalism that permeates all five books and is examined
vis-à-vis Bk. V below.
46. Simmons (2010c): 320f., citing DE IV.10.(163)(a–d).
47. Ibid., citing DE IX 13 (448) (d)–(449) (b); VIII 2 (385) (c–d); VIII Pref. (364)
(d)–(365) (b).
48. See Appendix VI.
49. 1.1 (a); 1.1 (b); 1.2 (a); 1.2 (b); 1.3 (a); 1.3 (b); 1.4; 1.5 (a); 1.5 (b); 1.5 (c); 1.15; 1.20; 1.21; 1.22; 1.23
(a); 1.23 (b); 1.23 (c); 1.23 (d); 1.24 (a); 1.24 (b); 1.25; 1.27; 1.28; 1.29 (a); 1.29 (b); 1.30 (a); 1.30
(b); 1.30 (c); 1.31; 1.32; 1.34 (a); 1.34 (b); 1.35; 1.37 (a); 1.37 (b); 1.37 (c); 1.37 (d); 1.38 (a); 1.38
(b); 1.38 (c); 1.38 (d); 1.39 (a); 1.39 (b); 1.40 (c); 1.40 (d); 1.41; 1.42 (a); 1.42 (b); 1.42 (c); 1.43
(a); 1.43 (b); 1.43 (c); 1.44; 1.45 (a); 1.45 (b); 1.46; 1.47 (a); 1.47 (b); 1.53; 1.54; 1.61; 1.67; 1.68;
1.72 (a); 1.79; 2.3 (b); 2.19 (c); 2.20 (a); 2.21 (a); 2.21 (b); 2.23; 2.24; 2.25; 2.26; 2.28; 2.29; 2.30;
2.44 (a); 2.44 (b); 2.50; 2.83 (b); 2.84 (a); 2.84 (b); 2.85 (b); 2.93 (c); 2.96; 3.64; 4.37; 5.1 (b);
5.3 (a); 5.3 (b); 5.6 (a); 5.6 (b); 5.19 (a); 5.19 (b); 5.21 (a); 5.21 (b).
50. 3.4; 3.6; 3.8; 3.9; 3.10; 3.15; 3.20 (a); 3.20 (b); 3.21; 3.27; 3.44; 3.60; 3.62 (a); 3.76; 3.77; 3.78 (a);
3.78 (b); 3.79 (a); 3.79 (b); 4.6 (c); 5.2; 5.4; 5.8; 5.14 (a); 5.14 (b); 5.14 (c); 5.15; 5.16 (a); 5.16
(b); 5.17; 5.22; 5.23; 5.24; 5.26 (a); 5.26 (b); 5.28 (a); 5.28 (b); 5.28 (c); 5.28 (d); 5.30; 5.31 (a);
5.31 (b); 5.33 (a); 5.33 (b); 5.34; 5.40; 5.46 (a); 5.46 (b); 5.46 (c); 5.46 (d); 5.46 (e); 5.46 (f);
5.46 (g); 5.48; 5.49 (a); 5.49 (b); 5.52 (a); 5.52 (b); 5.52 (c); 5.52 (d).
51. 1.78 (a); 1.78 (b); 2.93 (b); 2.94 (a); 2.94 (b); 2.97; 3.1 (a); 3.1 (c); 3.1 (d); 3.2 (b); 3.2 (d); 3.7;
3.23; 3.28 (a); 3.28 (b); 3.31; 3.32; 3.33 (a); 3.33 (b); 3.34; 3.36; 3.37; 3.38; 3.39 (a); 3.39 (b); 3.39
(e); 3.40 (a); 3.40 (b); 3.40 (c); 3.40 (d); 3.40 (e); 3.55 (b); 3.57 (c); 3.58; 3.59 (a); 3.59 (c); 3.59
(d); 3.61 (a); 3.61 (b); 3.61 (c); 3.61 (d); 3.62 (b); 3.63; 3.71; 3.73; 3.79 (c); 3.79 (d); 3.80; 4.3; 4.4.
52. 2.13; 2.15; 2.16; 2.18 (c); 2.19 (b); 2.20 (b); 2.41; 2.46 (a); 2.46 (b); 2.51; 2.52; 2.64; 2.67; 2.69;
2.70 (a); 2.71; 2.72 (a); 2.73; 2.74; 2.75; 2.76 (a); 2.76 (b); 2.76 (c); 2.76 (d); 2.78; 2.79 (a); 2.79
(b); 2.80 (a); 2.80 (b); 2.80 (c); 2.82 (a); 2.82 (c); 2.83 (a); 2.85 (a); 2.86 (a); 2.86 (b); 2.86 (c);
2.87; 2.88; 2.93 (a); 2.95; 3.1 (b); 3.12; 3.13 (b); 3.13 (c); 3.16; 3.35.
53. 4.5; 4.6 (a); 4.6 (b); 4.6 (d); 4.6 (e); 4.7 (a); 4.7 (b); 4.7 (c); 4.7 (d); 4.7 (e); 4.7 (f); 4.8 (a);
4.8 (b); 4.8 (c); 4.8 (d); 4.8 (e); 4.8 (f); 4.8 (g); 4.9 (a); 4.9 (b); 4.9 (c); 4.9 (d); 4.10 (a); 4.10
(b); 4.11; 4.12; 4.14; 4.16 (a); 4.16 (b); 4.19; 4.23; 4.24 (a); 4.24 (b); 4.24 (c); 4.25 (a); 4.25 (b);
4.27; 4.31; 4.32; 4.34 (a); 4.34 (b); 4.36 (a); 4.36 (b); 4.36 (c).
320  Notes

54. 1.40 (a); 1.40 (b); 2.1; 2.2; 2.3 (a); 2.18 (a); 2.18 (b); 2.19 (a); 2.65; 2.70 (b); 2.82 (b); 3.1 (e); 3.2
(a); 3.2 (c); 3.13 (a); 3.56; 3.57 (a); 3.57 (b); 3.59 (b); 3.70; 5.18.
55. 3.17; 3.19; 3.39 (c); 3.39 (d); 3.39 (f); 3.41; 3.55 (a); 3.67; 4.1.
56. 1.72 (b); 1.72 (c); 1.72 (d); 1.73; 3.39 (g).
57. 3.2 (e); 3.75; 5.1 (a).
58. See Simmons (2006a) and Appendices II and IV below.
59. Id. (2010c) and Appendices III and V below.
60. Appendix  VI.
61. Simmons (2006): 246ff.; and Appendix IV below.
62. See Appendix V below.
63. Ibid.
64. For the chronographical background to Eusebian universalism see Adler (1992).
65. Based upon the mathematical calculations of the occurences of universalism in the PE,
DE, and Theoph. and found in Appendices II (PE), III (DE), and VI (Theoph.).
66. The subsections of Book V containing more than one universalism passage are indicated
in parentheses: 5.1 (2); 5.2; 5.3 (2); 5.4; 5.6 (2); 5.8; 5.14 (3); 5.15; 5.16 (2); 5.17; 5.18; 5.19 (2);
5.21 (2); 5.22; 5.23; 5.24; 5.26 (2); 5.28 (4); 5.30; 5.31 (2); 5.33 (2); 5.34; 5.40; 5.46 (7); 5.48; 5.49
(2); 5.52 (4). See also Appendix VI.
67. See Simmons (2009).
68. The passages from both works are found in Appendix VIII below, which should be read
in conjunction with this chapter.

Chapter 6

1. For the background see, e.g.: the pertinent entries in Gagarin and Fantham, eds. (2010);
Fowden (2005); G. Clark (2004): 20–5; Edwards (2004a); Moralee (2004); Scheid (2003);
Wissowa (2003); Tripolitis (2002); M. Clauss (2001); Turcan (2001) and (1996b); Drijvers
and Walt, eds. (1999); Price (1999); Beard, North, and Price (1998); Stark (1997); Dumézil
(1996); Parker (1996a); Barnes (1991); Majercik (1989): 21–46, for Chaldean soteriology;
Curran (1988); Burkert (1985); Fox (1987); MacMullen (1984) and (1981); Benko (1984);
Drijvers (1982); Griffiths (1982); Leglay (1982); and other essays in Bianchi and Vermaseren
(1982); Reitzenstein (1978); Bianchi (1979); Fohrer and Foerster (1971); Demarolle (1971);
Hadas (1959); Grant (1953); Nock (1952b); (1951); (1947); (1933); (1930); Boissier (1891); and
the many collections of inscriptions from the first centuries of the Empire, some of which
are used herein.
2. Apud Aug., Civ. Dei X.xxxii: “Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de
regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam quod universalem
contineat viam animae liberandae, vel a philosophia verissima aliqua vel ab Indorum
moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet via, nondumque in
suam notitiam eandem viam historiali cognitione perlatam, procul dubio confitetur esse
aliquam, sed nondum in suam venisse notitiam.” (LCL: Wiesen 1968, p. 404)
3. Ibid.: “. . . nondum receptum in unam quondam sectam quod universalem contineat
viam animae liberandae… ”
4. Ibid.: “Quam certe iste homo non mediocri ingenio praeditus esse non dubitat.
Providentiam quippe divinam sine ista universali via liberandae animae genus humanum
relinquere potuisse non credit.” (LCL: Wiesen 1968, pp. 406 & 408)
5. Aug., in response to Porphyry, Civ. Dei X.xxxii (LCL: Wiesen 1968, p. 408): “Videbat ergo
Porphyrius ista . . . Haec est igitur animae liberandae universalis via, id est universis
 Notes  321

gentibus divina miseratione concessa . . . ” For a good analysis of salvation in

Greco-Roman religion see Bubloz (2005): 119ff.
6. See A. Smith (2004): 80; Hoffmann (1994): 163. For pagan and Christian sacrifice in the
City of God see Lettieri (2002).
7. Cf. e.g. ILS (Aesculapius) 3833–45; MacMullen (1981): 28, 49–57; for archaic Roman reli-
gion and healing see Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.12–3, fig. 1.2, p. 13: votive terracot-
tas (4th cent. B.C.) from Ponte di Nona, 15 km. east of Rome; Várhelyi (2003a): 204; cf.
also ILS 2194; 3711; 4323; 4534; 4739; 6048; cf. Lee (2000) for the cultural background.
Arnobius, Adv. nat. 6.16 gives a rather lengthy list of things for which pagans prayed to
the gods, and good health comes first. The Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS) can be
found in Dessau (1892–1905).
8. Cf., e.g. ILS (Aesculapius) 3833–45; ‘Ασκληπίῷ σωτῆρι (Pergamum), IGRom IV.508;
statue of Asclepius σωτὴρ Ασκληπιέ, IGUR vol. I no. 151, p. 131; CIL8.2579–2586: a
Templum Aesculapii et Salutis (Civitas Lambaesis); RIB I no. 1052, p. 351 (Altar to
Aesculapius, South Shields); and IGRom I/II no. 2 (Britain); no. 39 (Rome); no. 41
(Rome); no. 376 (Tibure, Italy); IG Rom III no. 62 (Prusias); no. 120 (Cappadocia); IGLM
no. 18, pp. 56f.; and Parker (1996a): 180–3. The IGRom inscriptions are found in Cagnat,
et al., eds. (1975). The Roman inscriptions of Britain (RIB) are found in Collingwood and
Wright, eds. (1995); those of the IGRom, in Lafaye (1965).
9. By philosophers: Julian (235D) claims the deity healed him often; Marinus, Vita Procli
29 (Saffrey, Segonds, and Luna [2001]), states while Proclus was praying in the temple
of Asclepius, the daughter of Archiadas was suddenly healed; by civilians: IGLM
no. 176, pp. 177–8; ILS 3846: “Aesculap. et Hygiae pro salute Iuniae Cyrillae quod a
longa infirmitate virtute aquarum numinis sui revocaverunt, t.b.a. eius v.s.l.m”; RIB
I no. 609, p. 204 (Overborough): a votive altar dedicated “Deo sancto Asclepio et
Hygiaeae pro salute sua cum suis Iulius Saturninus”; soldiers/officers: ILS 2095; and
3025, in this case to Jupiter, “. . . gravissima infirmitate liberates . . .”; by medical doc-
tors: IGUR III no. 1283, p. 141 (a Nicomedes medicus); cf. IGUR I no. 102, p. 86: τῷ
σωτῆρι ’Ασκληπιῷ σῶστρα καὶ χαριστήρια Νικoμήδης ὁ ἰατρóς; ILS 2092; IGRom I/II
no. 1159; RIB I no. 461, p. 153 (Chester), on which see Henig (1984); on behalf of chil-
dren: IGRom I/II no. 38 (Rome).
10. Cf. Betz (1986): e.g., PGM VII.167–86, p. 120 (to get an erection when desired); VII.193–6,
p. 120 (scorpion sting); VII.199–201, p. 121 (migraines); VII.209–10, p. 121 (swollen testi-
cles); VII.211–2, p. 121 (fever and shivering fits); for a 5th-cent. Christian amulet used
against fevers see PGM II, P5b, p. 213 (Pap.Oxy. 1151); physical healing is a common con-
cern of the oracle dice (3rd–4th cents. A.D.): e.g., ICP no. 5, Plates 7a–c, fig. 11, Side
A.VIII, p. 25; Side A.IX, p. 25; Side B.XIX, p. 27; Side B.XX, p. 27 (the gods will save the
sick person); Side C.XXXIII, p. 31 (a demon will help to heal the sick [cf. Orig., C.Cels.
VIII.60]); Side C.XXXIV, p. 31: the sick man has been saved (. . . τὸν νοσέοντα σεσῶσθαι);
Side C.XXXVIII, p. 31 (ICP no. 5: dice oracle, Plates 7a–c, fig. 11 [of the moon]): “God
proclaims that he saves the stranger who is ill.” (τὸν ξεῖνον νοσοέοντα σῴζειν θεὸς αὐδᾷ).
For magical spells to seduce a woman see PGM IV 2714–83, and Faraone (1997). For
magic in the Greco-Roman world see Luck (2000); (1999); and (1985); and Matthews
(1999).
11. Cf. Gordon (1994): 463, who states that in the three Gauls the cult “seems markedly linked
to local healing shrines with running water.”
12. Cf. e.g., Magness (2001): 164; and Takás (1995): 136, who argues that that the introduction
of Isis cults in Germania Superior might have been facilitated by the preexistence of
“thermal springs with medicinal properties” at Aquae Helvetiorum.
322  Notes

13. See, e.g., Gardner and Lieu (1996): 154, who claim that the early spread of Manichaeism
had more to do “with the success of the missionaries as peripatetic healers than as pro-
claimers of a unique (but recent) revelation.”
14. Jesus is often depicted in the Gospels as a great healer, on which see, e.g., Kee (1986), who
covers Paul’s listing of healing and performing miracles among the charismatic gifts of
the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 12:9–10); cf. Kydd (1973). For the historical and cultural back-
ground see Balch, Ferguson, and Meeks (1990); cf. Pilhofer (1995). For the healing mira-
cles attributed to Thekla see Dagron (1978); for Apollonius of Tyana, Vielberg (2000);
Mendelson (1992); and Dzielska (1986).
15. Harnack, CC Frag. no. 80. This is incorrectly translated by Berchman (2005), no. 15, p. 137,
giving no reason why he ignores the Greek words τοσοῦτον ἐτῶν of PE 5.1.10, rightly
translated “durant tant d’anneés” by des Places (1979): 244f. Note Eusebius’ argument in
the preface of DE V that the pagan oracles have not brought about any healing to their
recipients.
16. Cf. e.g. Porphyry, apud Eus., PE 6.4: deliverance from the bonds of fate is a gift of the
gods; Betz (1986), PGM CI.1–53, p. 307: a magical formula to bind the indissoluble fetters
of the Fates; and RIB I, no. 758, p. 256 (Brough-under-Stainmore): a tombstone of a six-
teen year old “sheltered” by fate (ὑπὸ μοίρης); cf. Chaldean oracle, frag. 153, stating that
the theurgists are not subject to fate, on which see Majercik (1989): 106f.
17. Glover (1910): 147–53 is still useful; as is MacMullen (1981 and 1984); how to ward off
demons is a common theme in PGM, on which see Betz (1986): PGM IV.2145–240; cf.
PGM I.262–347, p. 10 (a protective charm of Apollo); PGM IV.1227–64, p. 62 (exorcism).
18. Cf. SIRIS no. 406 (Rome) to Serapis from a temple custodian: Σεράπιδι καὶ τοῖς συννάοις
θεοῖς… .ἐκ μεγάλων κινδύνων πολλάκις σωθεὶς εὐχαριστῶν ἀνέθηκα. ‛Ιλεώς σοι ἀλύπι;
Betz (1986), PGM IV.2622–707, pp. 86f.: reverse-spell to remove enemies, common in the
dice oracle: ICP no. 5, Plates 7 a–c, fig. 11, Side C.XXIX, p. 29 (warning of impending dan-
ger); and Side C.XLVI, p. 33 (dangers related to travel).
19. Cf. Betz (1986), PGM IV.2145–240.
20. Cf. ICP no. 5, dice oracle, Plates 7 a–c, fig. 11, Side D.LVI, p. 35: The God promises release
from the fear (of one’s enemies) and will save the one who is struggling (τóν τε ϕóβoν
λύσει καὶ τὸν κάμoντα δὲ σώσει).
21. As in ibid., Side B.XVII, p. 27.
22. E.g. ILS 982; 3230. Arnobius, Adv. nat. 6.16 includes military victories in a long list of
things for which pagans prayed to the gods.
23. Cf. Beard, North, and Price (1998) I, p. 1.
24. See König (1997); and Bakker (1993).
25. Cf. Drijvers (1982): 713.
26. Potter (1990): 149, gives an inscription from the desert at Qual’at al Halwâys c. 252–3
(=IGLS 1799), which corresponds with the fatalism of the 13th Sibylline Oracle, ll. 106–37,
reporting that when a “Hero” prayed to Kronos, he saved his people from the barbarians.
See Thompson (1952) for other examples.
27. E.g., RIB I.844, p. 282 (Maryport) (=CIL 7.396), prob. during the Tetrarchy; 946, pp. 314–5
(Carlisle) (=CIL 7.924), after defeating barbarians by a cavalry regiment; 1130, p. 372: a pro
salute inscription to J.O.M. (victory altar) from legionaries in Corbridge; 1142, p. 376
(=CIL 7.481): altar dedicated by a cavalry officer after slaughtering a band of Corionototae
in fulfillment of his vow (Corbridge); 1334, p. 441 (=CIL 7.510; ILS 4828): a dedication slab
for a temple restoration to the Mother Goddesses by a cavalry officer, Terentius Agrippa
(Benwell).
28. IGRom I/II, no. 6.
 Notes  323

29. Cf., e.g., IGLM no. 12, pp. 51–52: an inscription “Dis militaribus” by the I Italian Legion;
and ILS nos. 427; 2334; 3012; and 3809.
30. Cf. Fox (1987): 618, who argues that the best proof of a god was found in his ability to
protect, and, e.g., ILS 3439 (Herculi denfensori); 3022 and 3024 (I.O.M. depulsori); 3026
(Iovi tutori); 3063 (Iovi propagatori conservatori); and many more.
31. Cf. Turcan (2000): 25; Potter (1990):154; and Nock (1951): 129.
32. On these see Potter (1994): 24f.; Browne (1976), who argues that the earliest papyrus of
the Sortes (Pap.Oxy. 2832) belongs to the 3rd cent. A.D. and originated in Egypt; cf. id.
(1974) and (1970); and Hercher (1863).
33. Cf. e.g., ILS 3021; Betz (1986) PGM IV.1167–1226, p. 61; RIB I, no. 436, p. 144 (Caernarvon);
and the works by Nock, MacMullen, Fox, Vermaseren, and Potter cited in the bibliogra-
phy. Cf. also O’Neil (2003); Kappelle and Vande (1984); Jonathan Z. Smith (1978): 172–89;
M. Smith (1978a) and (1978b); Rose (1959); and Nilsson (1950). For magic in the XII
Tables of early Roman history and how they were interpreted by later writers see Rives
(2002).
34. Cf. Burkert (1985): 284.
35. See Maximinus’ Rescript of 312, Eus., HE 9.7.8–9, discussed in Mitchell (1988): 120, listing
also agrarian fertility, military victories, (protection from) tempests and earthquakes, the
latter (and many other contemporary evils plaguing the empire) blamed on the Christians.
36. On this and other testimonia see Belayche (2001).
37. Though there appears to have been a decrease in the number of shipwrecks in the
Mediterranean in the 3rd cent., probably due to a decline in long-distance trade, on which
see Butcher (1995); and Reece (1981). On Isis see Dunand (1973): esp. III 214–30 for
inscriptions and the festival of Navigium Isidis and Apuleius, Met. XI.7; on the Isiac lit-
urgy for sailors and ships (Apuleius, Met. XI.17), see Griffiths (1975): 91; and in gen-
eral: IGLN, no. 8,48f.: “Deo Aeterno Sancto. Aurelius Statianus actor periculo maris
liberatus ex uoto promisso restituit”; Betz (1986) PGM, XXIX.1–10 (magical formulae for
safe voyages); and Turcan (1982) for background. The IGLN inscriptions are found in
Kolendo and Bozilova, eds. (1997).
38. RIB I, no. 66, p. 19 (=CIL 7.18); cf., e.g., ILS 3027: “Iovi tutatori maris”; and Leglay
(1982): 430f.
39. This is analyzed in more detail in the following section, particularly Porphyry’s views. Cf.
generally Bremmer (2002): 11–26; G. Clark (2000b); Athanassiadi (1999b); Billault (1995);
Fowden (1993); Dodds (1960); Bidez (1913): 93f.
40. Aug., Civ. Dei X.11.
41. Cf., e.g., Pap.Oxy. 2782; ILS 3336; Arnobius, Adv. nat. 6.16.
42. The classic work is Leglay (1961) and (1966a and b); cf. CIL 8.2666, “Frugifero Saturno,”
from Lambaesis, Numidia. For the monuments related to the cult see Leglay (1961).
43. SIRIS 724 (=CIL XIII.1337), on which see Takás (1995): 137: “Isidi frugifer(ae).”
44. Cf., e.g., RIB I, no. 600, p. 201 (Lancaster) (=CIL 7.284); ILS 4449–52.
45. Cf. ILS 3017.
46. ILS 3043. For Jupiter sending rain during the Tetrarchy for Maximian’s ships, see Pan. Lat.
II.12.5–8; for rain ceremonies like the Nudipedalia, associated with Jupiter, see Dumézil
(1996): I 177–181.
47. ILS 3061.
48. RIB I, no. 131, p. 39 (Custom Scrubs, Bisley) (=CIL 7.73): a deity holding a cornucopia full
of fruit. On the importance of Ceres the corn goddess, see Henig (1984): 173ff.
49. A good case is presented by Beard, North, and Price (1998): I 12–13. For a more conven-
tional view see Walbank (1992): 218ff. See Bakker (1994) for evidence for private religion
324  Notes

in the city of Ostia during the period A.D. 100–500. Várhelyi (2003a): 204, observes that
the religious Romanization of Italy before the Social War evolved in conjunction with
ex-votos offered to a wide variety of deities which reflect the growing popularity of heal-
ing cults from the 4th century onward.
50. Forsythe (2005): 54 and fig. 2, 55.
51. There was an insatiable hunger for personal revelations from the gods that extended well
into the imperial period. Aelius Aristides’ Golden Tales and Porphyry’s Phil. orac. are but
two literary examples; for magical formulae to acquire revelations see Betz (1986), e.g.,
PGM VII.319–34, p. 126; VII.335–47, p. 126; VII.359–69, p. 127. Cf. Hadot (1987) for the
intellectual background in Greek philosophy.
52. E.g., ILS 4289; 4290; 3005: “Iovi optumo (sic) maximo ex viso aram aedificavit…”; 3392;
3503; 3973: “iussu Proserpinae… aram posit sacrum.” For visu monitus pro salute sua et
suorum see ILS 2439. For the Augustan Age see Ogilvie (1969).
53. For ex iussu data see, e.g.: RIB, I.1131, p. 373 (=ILS 9318): the centurion of the Legio VI set
up an altar to Jupiter Dolichenus, in Corbridge, iussu dei; cf. ILS 4139, A.D. 238: “ex iussu
Matris deum pro salute imperii taurobolium fecit . . .”; and RIB, I.1022, pp. 340–1
(Piercebridge) (=CIL 7.422): altar dedication by a centurion from Upper Germany “ex
iussu ipsius posuit pro se et suis . . .”; for examples of ex iussu epigraphical data for the
Saturn cult of North Africa, see Leglay (1966a): 304, 341–2; 344; for somnio monitus, 294,
341; and ex visu, 294, 313; for Cybele see, e.g., ILS 4119. The CCID inscriptions are found
in Hörrig and Schwertheim, eds. (1987).
54. E.g., personal salus (ILS 3009); individual direction given by Jupiter (ILS 3019); and
answered prayer (ILS 3033).
55. Cf. Levin (1989): 1607, 1621, listing marriage, a voyage, a loan, family relationships, a con-
test, buying a slave, while the community inquired generally about harvests or public
health. For the relationship between miracles and prophecy in the Greco-Roman world
see Kolenkow (1980). Cf. Parker (2000); and Parke (1967) and (1956).
56. Cf., e.g., RIB, I.1532, p. 488 (Carrawburgh): an altar dedication: “Deae Covetine Crotus
uotum libens solui pro mea salute.”
57. Cf. RIB, I.1539, p. 490 (Carrawburgh) (=CIL 7.618): a certain Tranquila Severa fulfilled her
vow “pro se et suis”; and IGRom III.1107 (Doucir, Syria) for a Greek example.
58. A good example is the votive given by Maximus Iulianus of the V Macedonian Legion for
himself and his family (ILS 2439). For religion in the Roman family emphasizing festivals
see Harmon (1978b).
59. Cf. RIB, I.926, p. 308 (altar dedicated at Old Penrith): for the welfare of a military detach-
ment and their families (“. . . pro salute sua et suorum uotum soluerunt . . . ”; I.1045,
p. 347 (Eastgate, Chester-Le-Street) (=ILS 4557): altar dedicated for a man and his family;
I.1526, 486 (Carrawburgh) (=ILS 4726): an altar to the nymph goddess by a German “pro
se et suis”; I.2124, p. 653 (Newstead) (=CIL 7.1081): a centurion, Gaius Arrius Domitianus,
dedicates a monument to Silvanus “pro salute sua et suorum,” on behalf of Legio XX
Valeria Victrix (cf. CIL 7.40 & 41 for a similar military dedication, at Bath, for Legio VI;
and IGLM, no. 174, pp. 175–6, for Legio Italica I by the tesserarius, Priscinius Valens);
IGLM, no. 11, pp. 50–1 (for a family); other family votives: SIRIS 269 (Halicarnassus, to
Isis and Serapis); 717 (Colonia Agrippa, Germania Inferior, to I.O.M., Serapis, and the
local Genius); IGUR IV no. 1660, pp. 118–9; IGRom I/II, no. 45 (Rome, to two Palmyrene
gods); no. 1129 (Acoris, Egypt, to the Dioscuri saviors); for magical formulae, e.g., ICP,
no. 82, Plate 63, p. 93 (Kremna, Pisidia); for a husband’s votive offering (a temple restora-
tion to Isis in Dalmatia) for the salus of his wife, Claudia Valentina, see SIRIS 681.
 Notes  325

60. See MacMullen (1981): 99; 132: “ . . . pagans never sought to make converts to any

cult—only away from atheism, as they saw it.” Cf. Beard, North, and Price (1998): I 42;
Fox (1987): 31–34; and Hyde (1970). On the Christian urgency to evangelize the world,
see, e.g., Wilken (2003) xiv: the mission of the Church was “to win the hearts and minds
of men and women and to change their lives.”
61. E.g., Apuleius, Met. XI.22, where Lucius refers to the “saving grace of the powerful god-
dess,” on which see Griffiths (1975): 96f. For graffiti related to the saving deities of Serapis
and Bes worshipped at Abydos see Perdrizet and Lefrebvre (1919): XIX-XXII.
62. On the Hittite Evocatio Ritual, see ANET 352–353: prayer for the health, long life, and
many children for the king and queen.
63. Cf. TDNT VII, p. 1007; Leglay (1982): 429f.
64. Cf. TDNT VII, p. 1006ff; Pausanias, I.8.6 says Ptolemy was acclaimed σωτήρ for helping
the people of Rhodes.
65. All from RIB I, No. 5, p. 3 (London) (=CIL 7.22): “Num(ini) C(aesaris) Aug(usti)
prou(incia) Brita(nnia)”; No. 152, p. 48 (Bath) (=CIL 7.45; ILS 4920); No. 181, p. 59
(Somerdale Keynsham); No. 915, p. 305 (Penrith) (CIL 7.315); No. 1056, p. 353 (South
Shields): a temple dedicated Numinibus Augustorum; No. 1074, p. 358 (Lancester)
(ILS 4742).
66. See Halsberghe (1972): 153.
67. Often containing the formula pro salute imperatorum: e.g., CIL 8.8380 (Septimius Severus
and Caracalla); RIB I, No. 1219, p. 401 (Risingham) (CIL 7.990); No. 1265, p. 417 (High
Rochester) (CIL 7.995; ILS 4727); No. 1272, p. 420 (High Rochester) (CIL 7.1039; ILS 4234);
No. 1316, p. 435 (Newcastle upon Tyne); No. 1330, pp. 440–1; No. 1465, p. 472 (CIL 7.585);
No. 1579, p. 502 (Housesteads) (CIL 7.633; ILS 3230); No. 1613, p. 14 (Housesteads): Dominis
nostris Diocletiano et Maximiano; No. 1791, p 558 (Carvoran) (CIL 7.759); No. 1911, p. 590
(Birdeswald) (CIL 7.837); No. 2066, p. 634 (Hadrian’s Wall) (CIL 7.875; ILS 917); No. 2176,
p. 671 (Auchendavy) (CIL 7.1111; ILS 4831); cf. also Moralee (2004): 4–7; on dedication in
the Mithras cult for the emperor’s welfare, starting in the mid-second century, see Gordon
(1994): 463; and e.g., ILS 450; 484; 485; 502; 509; 531; 546; 549; 609; 1707; 2088; 2216; 4459.
68. Lact., DMP 34.5; Eus., HE 8.16.1 and 8.17.1–11; cf. John N. Dillon (2012): 106f.; Corcoran
(2000a): 186f.
69. Cf., e.g., IGRom I/II, Nos. 101; 669; L 14.2596: a senator in 216 honored Caracalla as numen
praesens; Moralee (2004): 25; MacMullen (1981): 73; Nock (1930): 260.
70. IGRom I/II, No. 789; No. 790 (same place and wording) is dedicated to Maximian.
7 1. E.g., IGLM No. 184, for the common σωτηρία of a rural village (Kozlovec); see also
IGRom III, No. 312 (Apollonia Galatia). For the use of oracles at Claros to promote civic
religion see Várhelyi (2001).
72. Cf. SIRIS 713, Olbia, Moesia Inferior, dedication to Isis and Serapis: ‛Υπὲρ… ὑγείας καὶ
εὐσταθίας τῆς πóλεως; and 715 (Stockstadt, Germania Superior); and the dedicatory
inscription upon the altar of Poseidon at Didyma concerning sacrifices for the well-being
of the city, in Robert (1968): 576f.; and Woolf (2003); and Sourvinou-Inwood (2000) for
polis religion.
73. E.g. ILS 3001; 3826; 4316; IGRom 888; 889; 890; 891; 4236; 4381.
74. Cf., e.g., IGRom IV.570 (Aezani), where the magistrate is honored with all three titles; also
see 435 (Termessus) and 529 (Lydis), both of which call the magistrate named the savior
of the city. For healing and saving deities in pre-classical times for the eastern
Mediterranean see Grottanelli (1982).
75. ICP, No. 5, pp. 22f., dice oracle, Plates 7 a–c, fig. 11, Sides A.I, II, and IV.
326  Notes

76. RIB I, No. 1329, p. 440 (=CIL 7.504; ILS 4715) (Benwell): thanksgiving for a military pro-
motion; I, No. 988, p. 329 (Bewcastle) (CIL 7.974): promotion from evocatus; I, No. 989,
p. 330 (Bewcastle) (=ILS 4721): promotion from staff clerk to the Praetorian Prefects.
77. ICP, No. 5, Plates 7 a–c, fig. 11, Side A.V, p. 25.
78. Ibid., Side A.XIII, p. 25.
79. Ibid., Sides B.XV and XXI, p. 27.
80. Ibid., Side B.XXII & XXIII, p. 29; Side C.XXX, p. 29; Side C.XXXIV, p. 31; Side c.XXXVII,
p. 31; Side D.XLVIII, p. 33.
81. RIB I, No. 1041, pp. 345–6 (Bollihope Common) (=CIL 7.451; ILS 3562): of remarkable
fineness, which many predecessors had been unable to bag.
82. E.g. ILS 1967 (for travelers); 3749; 3750; 3751; 3752; 4072. Often it is not known what exactly
was the underlying joyful event that initiated the thanksgiving.
83. E.g., P. Berlor. 21712, a Greek oracular question from the papyrus collection of the
Egyptian museum in Berlin, in Aly (1987): 99f.; Preisendanz, et al. (1973–4) Pl. LXXIII,
p. 205 (Pap.Oxy. IX 1213); ICP, No. 5, Plates 7 a–c, fig. 11, Side B.XXV, asking Isis the Savior
(Εἴσιδος Σωτείρης) if it was time to marry. For the pertinent Egyptian papyri see Kramer,
et al., eds. (1997).
84. Cf. in general Orr (1978); ILS 3442 to Herculi domestico; RIB I, No. 1599, p. 510

(Housesteads) (=CIL 7.645; ILS 4230; CIMRM 299, no. 864); No. 1600, p. 510 (Houssteads)
(CIL 7.646; CIMRM, 299, no. 863); No. 2025, p. 620 (Stanwix) (CIL 7.915); No 1589, p. 506
(Housesteads) (=CIL 7.769); and PGM II (Preisendanz (1973–4), et al.) Pl. XXXIb, p. 157
(Pap.Oxy. 1148).
85. E.g., Betz (1986), PGM VII.215–218.
86. De nat. deor. III.36.87f. For similar themes found in Varlerius Maximus who wrote during
the reign of Tiberius see Mueller (2002).
87. A representative inscription can be found in SIRIS 389 (Rome: cf. CIMRM 463), which
calls Serapis the savior and giver of riches (σωτῆρι πλουτοδοτῇ); cf. Betz (1986), PGM
IV.2359–72, p. 81; and IV.2373–2440, p. 81. For the promise of temporal prosperity in the
Greek mysteries see Nock (1952b): 178. In ICP, No. 5, Plates 7 a–c, fig 11, Side C.XLII, p. 31,
equating the achievement of success in life with the day of salvation (σωτήριον ὖμαρ
ἀπίξῃ). Cf. also PGM II (Preisendanz, et al.), Pl. XXVI, p. 153 (Pap.Oxy. 1477), c. 3rd/4th
cent. A.D., showing concern for monetary gifts (No. 72); business profits (No. 74); acqui-
sition of riches (No. 79); and property (Nos. 82, 83, & 92).
88. Many inscriptions indicate that the person giving the vow paid for its fulfillment from his
own (or his group’s) finances: e.g. RIB I, No. 707, p. 237 (York); from Old Carlisle: 892,
p. 295: “de sua pecunia”; 893, p. 296 (=CIL 7.340); 894, p. 296 (=CIL 7.341); 895, p. 297
(=CIL 6.342); 899, p. 299 (=CIL 7.346): an altar paid for from villagers’ contributions; 919,
p. 306 (Old Penrith) (=CIL 7.319); cf. No. 2, p. 1 (London) (=CIL 7.20): a district paid for
restorations of cult objects; 2102, p. 644 (Birrens) (=CIL 7.1069; ILS 7316a): a statue for
Mercury’s guild of worshippers purchased by a certain Julius Crescens de suo dedit. For
Central Pisidia see Horsley and Mitchell, eds. (2000).
89. See the last section below.
90. For the first three centuries of their history, the Christians did not build many churches,
thus building and maintenance costs were almost nonexistent; stone or marble altars,
monuments, and statues did not have to be purchased; and the regular sacrifice of ani-
mals was not necessary due to the dogma, universally propagated, that Christ as the
Lamb of God had been sacrificed once for the salvation of all humankind.
91. See, e.g., Moralee (2004): 1. Beard, North, and Price (1998) I.
 Notes  327

92. On (e.g.) the Isis cult see Griffiths (1982): 202; and cf. the Secret Hymn about Rebirth in the
Corpus Hermeticum 23.17–20 in Sellew (1997). Eschatological Salvation will be analyzed in
Chapter 9 below. Turcan (1996b) gives a good overview of the cults in the Roman Empire.
93. E.g., ILS 1643; 1644; 1645; 1648; 1649; 1688; 1742; but note 7518: “In hoc tumulo iacet cor-
pus exanimis cuius spiritus inter deos receptus est . . . ”
94. Cf. RIB I, No. 684, p. 230 (York) (=CIL 7.250).
95. Ibid., No. 758, p. 256 (Brough-under-Stainmore): ἐπὶ Κιμμερίων γήν.
96. MacMullen (1984): 136.
97. All Phil. orac. fragments come from Smith (1993a) and are sometimes duplicated due to
Porphyry’s covering multiple themes in the same passage: 310 F (Eus., PE III.14.3–4) and
312 F (Eus., PE III.14.6): Asclepius’ healing power. Cf. Eitrem (1948): 173–5. For Asclepius
as the god of medicine see Hart (2000); and cf. King (2001).
98. 321 F (Eus., PE V.14.4–15.4); 330 F (Eus., PE V.14.1); 330aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi
200.2–7); 331 F (Eus., PE VI.1.1); 332 F (Philoponus, Op. mundi 200.7–13); 333 F (Eus., PE
VI.1.2–3); 334 F (Eus., PE VI.1.4); 335 F (Eus., PE VI.1.5–7); 336 F (Eus., PE VI.2.1); 337 F
(Philoponus, Op. mundi 200.13–20); 338 F (Eus., PE VI.2.2–3.1); 339 F (Eus., PE
VI.3.5–4.3); 340 F (Eus., PE VI.4.3–5.1); 340aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi 200.20–26); 341
F (Eus., PE VI.5.2–4); 341aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi 201.1–17); 342 F (Philoponus, Op.
mundi 201.18–202.16); 345aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73). For astrological soteriology
see Flamant (1982).
99. 326 F (Eus., PE IV.22.15–23.6) (bis); 327 F (Eus., PE IV.23.6); 328 F (Eus., PE IV.23.7–9);
329 F (Eus., PE IV.19.8–20.1); 343 F (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.22.17–23.17).
100. 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2); 336 F (Eus., PE VI.2.1).
101. 307 F (Eus., PE V.5.7–6.2); 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2).
102. 325 F (FGT 173.17–174.22, Erbse); 325aF (FGT 30, p. 174.23–25, Erbse); 344 F (Aug., Civ.
Dei XIX.23.30–37); 344cF (Aug., De Cons. evang. I.15.23); 346 F (Aug., Civ. Dei
XIX.23.107–133).
103. 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2); 309 F (Eus., PE V.6.4–5) (bis).
104. 303 F (Eus., PE IV.6.2–7.2); 304 F (Eus., PE IV.7.2–8.1); 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2) (bis);
309 F (Eus., PE V.6.4–5); 311 F (Eus., PE III.14.5); 317 F (Eus., PE V.12.1–2); 329 F (Eus., PE
IV.18.8–20.1); 350 F (Eus., PE V.8.13–9.9; 9.12).
105. 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2): the gods set examples of σωφροσύνη and confer upon
humans various salvific benefits; 310 F (Eus., PE III.14.3–4); 313 F (Eus., PE III.14.7). The
latter two stress Hermes’ gift of wisdom to humanity.
106. 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2): the gods give amorous pleasures to humans.
107. 309 F (Eus., PE V.6.4–5): Artemis provides safety during the hunt.
108. 344aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XX.24.8–26): a criticism of biblical eschatology; 345 F (Eus., DE
III.6.39–7.2); and 345aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73): the latter two deriving from the
Hecatean oracle which located Christ’s soul in heaven (εἰς οὐράνιον; caelesti sedi insidet;
in caelum), on which see the 4th section below.
109. A. Smith (1974) rightly observes that in Civ. Dei X.32, Augustine says Porphyry looked
for a universal way, and Augustine understands this to mean a religion not restricted
geographically or temporally; but at the end of the chapter, Augustine introduces a new
idea: Christ saves the whole man, and this “contains the implied criticism that Porphyry
had different ways of salvation for the higher and lower soul.”
110. For the two roads to salvation—philosophy and theurgy—in later Neoplatonists, see
Athanassiadi (1999b) 56 and n. 121, on Dam., Phil. hist. 4, 88A, and 150; and
­chapter 8 below.
328  Notes

111. Hargis (2001): ­chapter 4, pp. 63–90, “Porphyry and the Polemic of Universalism.”

112. For a good analysis of these virtues, showing their compatibility with Aristotelian
Ethics, see Karamanolis (2006): 303–8; for development in the Platonic tradition see
Blumenthal (1984); Brisson (2000c); and Schwyzer (1974). Cf. Goldin (2001): 355–59.
113. Sent. 32 (Lamberz (1975), p. 23, 8–11): φρόνησις, ἀνδρία, σωφροσύνη, δικαιοσύνη. For
the development of the scala virtutum in Later Neoplatonism, e.g., in Marinus’ Life of
Proclus, see Saffrey, Segonds, and Luna (2001): 3–5 and 65–70; and Blumenthal (1984).
For Sent. 32 see, e.g., Blumenthal (1984): 476–9; and Sodano (1979): 36–42.
114. On these see now O’Meara (2003): 44ff., for Porphyry’s doctrine of the political
virtues.
115. See also Sent. 32 (Lamberz (1975), p. 29, 12–14): αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς ἀνθρώπον κατακοσμούσης
τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τὸ μέτρα τῇ ἀλογίᾳ ἀφορίζειν καὶ μετριοπάθειαν ἐνεργάζεσθαι.
116. Ibid. (Lamberz [1975], p. 23, 4–8): Αἱ μὲν τοῦ πολιτικοῦ ἐν μετριοπαθείᾳ κείμεναι τῷ
ἕπεσθαι καὶ ἀκολουθεῖν τῷ λογισμῷ τοῦ καθήκοντος κατὰ τὰς πράξεις διὸ πρὸς
κοινωνίαν βλέπουσαι τὴν ἀβλαβῆ τῶν πλησίον ἐκ τοῦ συναγελασμοῦ καὶ τῆς
κοινωνίας πολιτικαὶ λέγονται.
117. Blumenthal (1984): 476 states that Porphyry seems to have invented the term καθάρτικαι.
118. Cf. Girgenti (1997a): 113f.: “Porfirio pensa naturalmente all’Anima universale, ma ogni
anima individuale, in quanto partecipa di quella universale, può elevarsi a questo livello
delle virtù contemplative.”
119. Lamberz (1975), p. 27, 7–9: ἄλλο οὖν γένος τρίτον ἀρετῶν μετὰ τας καθαρτικὰς καὶ
πολιτικάς, νοερῶς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνεργούσης. Cf. Enn. I.2.1.21–23; and O’Meara (2003): 36ff.
On the background to the four classes of virtues see e.g., A. Smith (2004): 63; Brisson
(2000c): 907; O’Meara (1993b): 100–9; and Lloyd (1967).
120. I follow the translation of Guthrie. Lamberz (1975), p. 30, 1–2: καὶ ὁ μὲν ἔχων τὰς μείζους
ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἔχει καὶ τὰς ἐλάττους, οὐ μὴν τὸ ἔμπαλιν.
121. E.g., Lamberz (1975), p. 24, 5–7: αἱ δὲ πολιτικαὶ τὸν θνητὸν ἄνθρωπον κατακοσμοῦσι –
καὶ πρόδρομοι γε αἱ πολιτικαὶ τῶν καθάρσεων; ibid., p. 27, 7–9. Cf. Girgenti (1997): 112–8.
122. On the purificatory virtues, Lamberz (1975), p. 29, 11–12: αἱ δὲ ψυχῆς άνθρώπου
καθαιρομένης τε καὶ καθαρθείσης απὸ σώματος καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων παθῶν.
123. Lamberz (1975), p. 24, 1–4: Αἱ δὲ τοῦ πρὸς θεωρίαν προκόπτοντος θεωρητικοῦ ἐν
ἀποστάσει κεῖνται τῶν ἐντεῦθεν διὸ καὶ καθάρσεις αὗται λέγονται, ἐν
ἀποχῇ θεωρούμεναι τῶν μετὰ τοῦ σώματος πράξεων καὶ συμπαθειῶν τῶν πρὸς αὐτό.
The Sententiae is primarily concerned with the relationship between the corporeal and
the incorporeal, on which see A. Smith (1996c).
124. On this cf. (e.g.) A. Smith (1999): 235.
125. Lamberz (1975), p. 24, 7–9: δεῖ γὰρ κοσμηθέντα κατ’ αὐτὰς ἀποστῆναι τοῦ σὺν σώματι
πράττειν τι προηγουμένως. Note Porphyry, Sent. 32 (Lamberz (1975), p. 24), on the basic
definition of purificatory virtues: “The virtues of the man who tries to rise to contempla-
tion consist in detaching oneself from things here below; that is why they are called
‘purifications.’ They command us to abstain from activities which innervate the organs,
and which excite the affections that relate to the body.”
126. Lamberz (1975), p. 25, 2–3: τὸ δέ γε μὴ ὁμοπαθεῖν συνίστησι τὸ σωφρονεῖν.
127. Lamberz (1975), p. 29, 11–12.
128. Lamberz (1975), p. 24, 4–5: αὗται μὲν γὰρ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀφισταμένης πρὸς τὸ ὄντως ὄν. See
O’Meara (1993b): 102.
129. O’Meara (2003): 38.
130. Compare Lamberz (1975), p. 31, 5f.: καὶ ὁ μὲν κατὰ τὰς πρακτικὰς ἐνεργῶν σπουδαῖος
ὖν ἄνθρωπος.
 Notes  329

131. O’Meara (2003) has shown that Neoplatonic doctrine was conducive to political involve-
ment and traces the concept of the Ideal State from Plato to the early medieval period,
demonstrating how the Neoplatonic Platonopolis directly influenced political thought.
Cf. Smith (1999): 230ff., for the lower stages of virtues in Plotinus (Enn. I.2) and their
relationship to Aristotle’s concept, found in Eth. Nic. 1144b3f, of the φυσικὴ ἀρετή trans-
formed by φρόνησις.
132. For the soul and body operating at the level of the civil virtues see O’Meara (1993b): 109;
and Blumenthal (1984): 480.
133. Cf. also Lamberz (1975), p. 25, 8–9: ἡ δὲ κατὰ τὰς θεωρητικὰς ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ, η῏ς τέλος ἡ
πρὸς θεὸν ὁμοίωσις.
134. On the benefits of the scala virtutum see, e.g., Della Rosa (1992): xxxii–xxxiii; Sodano
(1979): 36ff. Cf. Chase (2004b): 84, who believes that Θεῶν πατήρ refers to Zeus who is
between the sensible and intelligible realms, citing Porphyry, Περὶ Στυγóς, Fr, 377
(Smith).
135. Civ. Dei X.28.
136. Cf. Plato, Rep. 525 for the conversion of the soul from generation to essence and truth.
137. I concur with Edwards (1993a): 163: the Ad Marc. and the Vit. Plot. are the only works of
Porphyry “which can be securely dated to the author’s latest years… ”; for the
Quellenfrage of the Ad Marcellam see Sodano (1991).
138. Wicker (1987): 20f. According to Whittaker (2001): 150, the Ad Marc. was intended for
public circulation and should be seen in association with Porphyry’s anti-Christian
polemic. It was written to encourage Marcella to continue her philosophical studies and
to convert “those women who might otherwise be attracted to Christianity” (162);
Sodano (1993): 35–42 also argues that it had an anti-Christian purpose; Wicker (1989)
rejects the genres of apology, consolation, a treatise on ontology, or philosophical epit-
ome, and concludes that the epistle is best described as “a carefully constructed philo-
sophical epistle devoted to exhorting Marcella to the practice of the philosophical life.”
Fideler in Guthrie (1987): 28, describes it as an introduction to the purificatory virtues
that are prerequisite for the soul’s assimilation to intelligible reality; Des Places (1982): 89,
calls it a “lettre de consolation,” and as it progresses it becomes “une sorte de protrep-
tique, traité de vie spirituelle et manuel de religión intérieure.” Festugiere (1944): 8f.
describes it as a moral discourse for the spiritual life; De Labriolle (1934): 224 calls it a
didactic treatise to help Marcella find in philosophy the comfort she needed. Cf. Hadot
(1980a); and Pincherle (1958–62).
139. Wicker (1987): 21.
140. Cf. Whittaker (2001): 162; Wicker (1987): 17.
141. Ad Marc. 3.
142. Ad Marc. 4.
143. Ad Marc. 4. Cf. Chadwick (1999): 69. Beutler (1953): col. 293, argues that a greater part
of the Epistle has its Grundlage in Sententiensammlunge, on which see also Whittaker
(2001): 153. Kleffner (1896): 27 goes too far to conclude that Marcella was a Christian.
144. Ad Marc. 4. I concur with Pötscher (1969: 11, n. 1; and Wicker (1987): 85, who posit that
philosophical instruction is the object of ἀναλαβεῖν.
145. Ad Marc. 5.
146. Ad Marc. 6.
147. See A. Smith (1974): 20; cf. Whittaker (2001): 158: “The central Neoplatonic doctrine of
salvation through philosophical separation of the soul from the body forms the basis of
the Letter to Marcella, and Porphyry particularly emphasizes the difficulties of the philo-
sophical life.” Cf. also Clavier (1982).
330  Notes

148. The structure of the Ad Marc. is: Chs. 1–6, Introduction; Chs. 7–10, Foundation of
Argument = Soteriology; Chs. 11–16, Being like God; Chs. 17–23, Piety; Chs. 24–35,
Natural and Divine Law (in context of separation of soul from body and controlling the
passions.)
149. Cf. Girgenti (1997a): 115f.
150. Ad Marc. 6. See A. Smith (1974): 48, referring to Sent. 32: “The highest ‘virtues’ belong to
nous, not to soul as the lower three grades do.”
151. Ad Marc. 5.
152. Lamberz (1975), p. 4, 3–6: ‛Ο θάνατος διπλοῦς, ὁ μὲν οὖν συνεγνωσμένος λυομένου
τοῦ σώματος ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὁ δὲ τῶν φιλοσόφων λυομένης τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ
σώματος καὶ οὐ πάντως ὁ ἕτερος τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἕπεται.
153. Lamberz (1975), p. 34, 15: οὐκ ἔσται τοίνυν μάχη προκοπτούσης τῆς καθάρσεως.
154. Ad Marc. 7.
155. Ad Marc. 8.
156. Ad Marc. 9.
157. Marcella’s education consists of discarding the passions from the soul, not in acquiring
vast learning, because they are not conducive to the salvation of her soul: πρὸς δὲ
τούτοις οὐκ ὅτι πᾶν πάθος ψυχῆς εἰς σωτηρίαν αὐτῆς πολεμιώτατον, καὶ ἀπαιδευσία
μὲν τῶν παθῶν πάντων μήτηρ, τὸ δὲ πεπαιδεῦσθαι οὐκ ἐν πολυμαθείας ἀναλήψει, ἐν
ἀπαλλάζει δὲ τῶν ψυχικῶν παθῶν ἐθεωρεῖτο.” (Ad Marc. 9)
158. On this see Majercik (2005): 282.
159. Marcella is admonished to train herself to ascend to herself and thus gather together all
of the parts scattered and cut from their former unity: εἰ μελετῴης εἰς σεαυτὴν
ἀναβαίνειν συλλέγoυσα ἀπὸ τoῦ σώματoς πάντα τὰ διασκεδασθέντα σoυ μέλη καὶ εἰς
πλῆθoς κατακερματισθέντα ἀπὸ τῆς τέως ἐν μεγέθει δυνάμεως ἰσχυoύσης ἑώσεως. (Ad
Μarc. 10); with this compare Sent. 32, Lamberz (1975), p. 32, 5–8: δεύτερoν δὲ τὸ ἀπὸ
τoύτoυ ὁρμώμενoν τoῦ πείσματoς συνάγειν αὑτὸν ἀπὸ τoῦ σώματoς καὶ τoῖς μὲν
τóπoις, πάντως’ε μὴν ἀπαθῶς πρὸς αὐτὸ διατιθέμενoν. Cf. Enn. I.2.5.6–7: in Plotinus’
response to the question, “How far is separation of the soul from the body possible?” he
answers: ‘Απὸ μὲν δὲ σώματoς ἴσως μὲν καὶ τoῖς oἶoν τóπoις συνάγoυσαν [πρὸς]
ἑαυτην… , etc.
160. Wicker (1987): 67 (Ad Marc. 26): “Divine law, of course, is unknown to the impure soul
because of its ignorance and intemperance, but it shines forth in the pure soul because
of its freedom from passion and prudence.”
161. See Rist (1962 [repr. 1985]): 170, for the Plotinian doctrine (e.g., Enn. 3.4.2.15) regarding
the direction of human life toward what is intellective, or toward the νοῦς or θεός.
162. Ad Marc. 31.
163. Ad Marc. 34: μεγάλη oὖν παιδεία ἄρχειν τoῦ σώματoς. πoλλάκις κóπτoυσί τινα μέρη ἐπὶ
σωτηρίᾳ·τῆς δὲ ψυχῆς ἕνεκα ἕτoιμoς ἔσo τὸ ὅλoν σῶμα ἀπoκóπτειν.
164. Και ὅσῳ τῆς τοῦ σώματος προςπαθείας ἀφίσταται, τοσούτῳ μέτρῳ τῷ θείῳ
πελάζει. For the conceptual affinities between Ad Marc. 32 and Valentinian Gnosticism see
Quispel (1968).
165. The importance of self-control for the novice philosopher is emphasized up to the last
section of the Ad Marcellam (35): ψιλῆς δὲ ἕνεκα ἡδoνῆς μηδέπoτε χρήσῃ τoῖς
μέπεσι·πoλλῳ γὰρ κρεῖττoν τεθνάναι ἢ δι’ ἀκρασίαν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀμαυρῶσαι. Here
ἀκρασίαν = incontinence or the lack of self-control/σωφροσύνη.
166. See Wicker (1987): 17, for a list of the major doctrines of Neoplatonism covered in the Ad
Marc., which reveals the elementary level of philosophical instruction that Porphyry
was giving Marcella. Cf. Ferrari (1979) for the aims of Augustine’s Confessions.
 Notes  331

167. οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια. τὰ πάτρια refers
to the religious rites, ceremonies, and duties that were passed down from one’s forefa-
thers and became collectively a sacred tradition within Greco-Roman paganism. Cf.,
e.g., Cotta the Platonist’s definition in Cic., De nat. deor. 3.2.5; Cassius Dio LII.36, noting
the connection between ancestral religious customs and political stability, which I ana-
lyze below; and the emphasis upon the proper worship of ancestral gods found in, e.g.,
SIRIS 322 (Hadrianeia: Θεοῖς πατρίοις); and ILS 4341 (Dacis: diis patriis; [cf. ILS
4349: Pressburg, dis patris); Arn., Adv. nat. 1.42.14–21 (Marchesi); and cf. Whittaker
(2001): 159; Fontenrose (1988): 203: “Probably Didyma often told the inquirer to follow
ancestral custom”; Dumézil (1996): I.125: the importance of patrium shows that the
Roman was so scrupulously conservative, he would obstinately maintain the traditional
rites of the cult even when he no longer understood them; Simmons (1995): 24f.; Markus
(1993): 4F., citing Theodoret, Hist. 26 (PG 82.147) which notes that conversion to Christ
required abandoning ancestral custom; Zaidman and Pantel (1994): 28; Alföldy
(1989b): 362, on Ad Marc. 18: “Porphyrios erinnerte an den Grundsatz, daß das
Festhalten an der alten Religion der utilitas publico diene: οὗτος γὰρ μέγιστος καρπὸς
εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖον κατὰ τὰ πάτρια.” Cf. Armstrong (1986b); MacMullen (1981): 3;
Barnes (1968): 49; Hadas (1959): 208f.
168. A vast majority of scholars date the work to the very late third or early fourth centuries,
e.g., Whittaker (2001): 76; Digeser (2000): 93; Van Liefferinge (1999): 206; Alt (1997): 30
and (1996); Bradbury (1995): 338; Edwards (1993a): 163; Wicker (1987): 1; Des Places
(1982): 90; Pötscher (1969): 3; Faggin (1954): 34; Vaganay (1935): col. 2562; Wolff
(1856): 36: “Senior etiam, quum iam sholis Platonicis Romae praeesset, epistulam ad
Marcallam dedit, de qua in vita Porphyrii dixit.” Barnes (1973): 432; and G. Clark (2007)
argue that the Ad Marc. cannot be dated with such precision.
169. See (e.g.) Wicker (1987): 14; and Whittaker (2001): 159f., for Porphyry’s combining of
traditional piety and ethics, which offers salvation for the non-philosopher. Cf. Digeser
(2000): 6f. It is puzzling that Potter (2004): 331 describes Porphyry’s De abstinentia as
being “as radical a critique of traditional cult as anything that the Christians had to
offer.” This is weak because De abst. was written by a philosopher to a former philoso-
pher who needed to be restored to the (fully mature) philosophical life. On De abst. in
general see now Brisson (2012c); cf. Festugière (1936).
170. For example, in the context of addressing the importance of becoming totally in control
of oneself, Porphyry advises Marcella to “turn” her intellect toward God: τὸ φρόνημα
τετράφθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Ad Marc. 20). Cf. Ad Marc. 11, where wisdom in the heart of
the philosopher is associated with a living statue, the intellect, on which see Pötscher
(1966): 237f. For cathartic virtue as the second stage of Porphyry’s concept of the soul’s
progressive movement toward the One see Edwards (1991): 462f. and A. Smith
(1974): 48–50.
171. See Plato, Rep. 536E for the importance of the soul’s contemplating the essence of reality;
A. Smith (1999): 235, for Plotinus’ concept of the act of contemplation as a conversion of
the individual from external sources of stimulus from below to the higher level of intu-
itions; and Blumenthal (1984): 488, for the political and cathartic virtues as preparatory
to detachment of the soul from the body so that it can be assimilated to God.
172. Cf. A. Smith (1974): 135: “It is only when a man reaches the higher virtues that he begins
to save his higher self or return to his real self by means of the theoretical virtues.”
173. Cf. Sent. 32, Lamberz (1975), pp. 32–4. A. Smith (1974): 51, argues that despite Porphyry’s
conviction that the Nous = real self, he would appear less firm than Plotinus about the
332  Notes

actual transition to the level of Nous. Yet the interpretation given herein concerning the
role that σωφροσύνη plays in the conversion process at each stage supports the
opposite view.
174. For this see Dörrie (1976b). On salvation as knowing oneself in the Hermetic corpus see
Luck (2000): 194ff.; and generally, Fowden (1986). On the fragments of Porphyry’s Περὶ
τοῦ Γνῶθι σαυτόν Suda IV.178.21  = 
272T Smith [1993A]; Stobaeus III.21.26
[III.579.6–580.5 = 273F Smith [1993a]), and their relationship with the Ad Marcellam,
see Sodano (1993):181–93; cf. also Karamanolis (2006): 293; Des Places (1982): 92, with
Delphic connections; and Zintzen (1965): 87f.
175. O’Daly (1973): 8. On Porphyry’s work Περὶ τοῦ γνῶθι σαυτόν (fragments derived from
Stob. III.21, 26–27; III.21, 28) see Beutler (1953): col 291.
176. Sent. 32, Lamberz (1975), p. 32, 2–5, answering the question, “How can one purify
the soul?”
177. Cf. Sodano (1993): 37, who makes a similar conclusion: “. . . la Lettera a Marcella è prob-
abilmente l’eco di riflessioni fatte nell’ambito di un circolo in cui l’ascetismo pitagorico
era confortato dalla parola.” Contra: Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 118. For Porphyry’s cri-
tique of Christian women see Demarolle (1970).
178. See Whittaker (2001), who argues that the Ad Marc. was written with the Christians in
mind in epistle form for a public audience not familiar with the tenets of Neoplatonism.
Edwards (1999): 206–210, notes that both Arnobius and Lactantius present Christ as the
only path to virtue. Digeser (2000): 75, says that Lactantius “was the first Latin author to
develop fully the concept of the teaching Christ and the first of all to conceive of Christ
as a teacher of virtue.”
179. Cf. Jerphagnon (1990), who compares the Vita Plotini with the Gospel of John; and Des
Places (1982): 89, who describes the letter as “une sorte de protreptique, traité de vie
spirituelle et manuel de religion interieure.”
180. Aug., Civ. Dei X.32 (LCL: Wiesen 1968): “Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta
finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quondam sectam quod uni-
versalem contineat viam animae liberandae, vel a philosophia verissima aliqua vel ab
Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet via, non-
dumque in suam notitiam eandem viam historiali cognitione perlatam, procul dubio
confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam venisse notitiam.” On Porphyry’s search
for universalism see (e.g.) Digeser (2006b); (2001): 522; and (2012): 98–127; Berchman
(2005): 10; Whittaker (2001): 159; Fowden (1993): 39; Van Fleteren (1999): 661; Richey
(1995); Wilken (1984): 163; and P. Hadot (1960a). Porphyry might have responded to
early developments in Christian universalism found in (e.g.) Justin Martyr, I Apol. 23;
and Arnobius responded to the Porphyrian critique, on which see now Simmons
(1995): 264–303.
181. Cf. e.g. Arn., Adv. nat. (Marchesi) II.65.36–40. For the universal dissemination of the
Christian message of salvation only through Christ, cf. Adv. nat. 1:55; 2:5; and for
Arnobius’ response to Porphyry’s via salutis universalis see Simmons (1995): 264–303.
182. Cf. Van Liefferinge (1999) : 183: “. . . si l’on doit parler de théurgie dans l’oeuvre de Porphyre,
ce n’est pas au sens réstraint d’une secte de mystiques mais au sens large du rite paien …”
For the salvific significance of sacrifices in the early imperial period see Colombo (1982);
and Várrrhelyi (2003b): 202, on knowledge of ritual syntax in Roman religion.
183. See Liebeschuetz (1979): 223–52.
184. Cf. A. Smith (1974): 104, who rightly observes that the Ad Marc. “involves what one
might term traditional piety rather than ‘theurgy’ with its sacramental and magical ele-
ments.” Cf. Chase (2004a): 53f.
 Notes  333

185. For a different view, see Digeser (2012): 121f., arguing that Porphyry’s second path
involved theurgy.
186. O’Meara (1969): 108.
187. Cf. Della Rosa (1992): xxxiv; for the historical development of polytheism Schmidt
(1987) is useful.
188. Iamblichus, Myst. 5.18, on which see Finamore (2012): 119. We shall compare and con-
trast the Porphyrian and Iamblichean soteriological systems in c­ hapter 8.
189. E.g., Rep. 427 D; cf. Annas (1981); and Dalcourt (1963).
190. This is fragment no. 10, Bidez (1913): 37*, 21–24, from the De regressu animae, Civ. Dei
X.29. Cf. Chase (2004a): 49.
191. Cf. Smith (1974): 48ff.
192. Sent. 32, Lamberz (1975), p. 30, 1–2.
193. See O’Daly (1973): 63 on this and Enn. V6[24]1.4ff.
194. Terminology he received from Plotinus: cf. Enn I.2.
195. Sent. 40, Lamberz (1975), p. 50, 16–21 and n. 69 below. See Zintzen (1965): 87
n. 56: “. . . wenn Subjekt und Objekt des Denkens zusammenfallen, findet die Seele das
wahre Sein. Diesen Weg der Gotterkenntnis über die Selbsterkenntnis hatte Porphyrios
offenbar ausführlich in seinen vier Büchern περὶ τοῦ γνῶναι σαυτόν erläutert.” Also
A. Smith (1974): 53, commenting on Sent. 40, arguing that here Porphyry undoubtedly
is referring to the fourth and highest stage of the soul’s ascent, though Smith interprets
it as participation rather than union.
196. See A. Smith (1974): 46, on the goal of the spiritual life being the identity of knowing
subject and known object which occurs at the level of Nous.
197. De nat. hom. 3.135.13–14, Morani (1987), p. 41; See Smith (1974): 48. For the Greek see
Morani (1987); I use the English trans. of Telfer (1955).
198. Sent. 40, Lamberz (1975), p. 50, 10–14: <αὐτὸς γὰρ ὅσῳ πρóσει σoι> {ὅσῳ γὰρ ἑαυτῷ
πρóσει} καίτoι παρóντι καὶ ἀναπoστάτῳ ὄντι, {αὐτὸς γὰρ ὅσῳ πρóσεσι} τóσῳ κἀκείνῳ
πρóσει, o῝ δὴ oὕτω σoῦ ἐστιν ἀναπóσπαστoν κατ’ oὐσίαν ὡς σὺ σαυτoῦ. Guthrie’s
(1988) translation (p. 68): “Though you should always be near yourself, and though you
cannot withdraw from it, you must be present with yourself to enjoy the presence of the
being from which you are so substantially inseparable as from yourself.” Cf. Miller
(1989–90) and see A. Smith (1974): 47 for modern critics who have said Porphyry con-
fused Nous and Soul, but Smith gives a number of passages (e.g., Sent. 5, 31, 44) to show
that he takes pains to show how they differed.
199. Porphyry, Symmikta Zetemata apud Nemesius, De nat. hom. 3.139.22–140.8, Morani
(1987), pp. 42–3; cited in Dörrie (1959): 70.
200. Porphyry, Symmikta Zetemata apud Nemesius, De nat. hom. III.22, Telfer (1955): 301.
201. Note Smith’s (1974): 49 helpful comments here: “Consubstantiality is also to be under-
stood in the spiritual sense in which x becomes ‘consubstantial’ with y by the closing of
the gap from image knowledge to true knowledge.”
202. Enn. I.2.6 (LCL: Armstrong).
203. In Marc. 24, he says that “conversion to God is the only salvation”: πιστεῦσαι γὰρ δεῖ ὅτι
μόνη σωτηρία ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐπιστροφή; cf. Sent. 13 (Lamberz (1975), p. 5, 10–11): every
generated being turns toward (ἐπιστρέφει) its generating principle; Sent 7 (Lamberz
(1975), p. 3, 4–5): the soul detaches itself from the body by “turning from” (ἐπιστροφῇ)
affections; Sent. 30 (Lamberz (1975), p. 20, 11–14): the Soul of the World is “converted” to
Nous, and Nous to the First—all beings thus aspire to the First from the lowest ranks up;
in Sent. 32 (Lamberz (1975), p. 27, 3–7), Porphyry states that the virtue of the pure soul,
after its “conversion,” (ἐπιστροφή) is found in its knowledge of true existence, not
334  Notes

because it lacks this knowledge, but because without intelligence, “she does not see what
she possesses”: Δεῖ τoίνυν καθηραμένην αὐτὴν συνεῖ΄αι τῷ γεννήσαντι καὶ ἀρετὴ ἄρα
αὐτῆς μετὰ τὴν ἐπιστρoϕὴν αὕτη, ὕπερ ἐστὶν ἐν γνώσει καὶ εἰδήσει τoῦ ὄντoς, oὐχ ὅτι
oὐκ ἔχει παρ’ αὐτῇ ταύτην, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἄνευ τoῦ πρὸ αὐτῆς oὐχ ὁρᾷ τὰ αὐτῆς. Sent. 43
(Lamberz (1975), p. 55, 11–13): intelligence is perceived only when it “turns itself ” and by
contemplating itself, etc.; on reciprocity, assimilation, and participation between two
(differing) substances, see Sent. 40 (Lamberz (1975), p. 50, 16–21): the one who by
thought can penetrate within his own substance and thus find knowledge of it, can
enjoy the “presence” of the being from which he is substantially inseparable, and the
substrate that knows becomes united with the object that is known (τὴν τοῦ γινώσκοντος
καὶ γινωσκομένου); [On the union of Seer and Seen, see Enn. V.3.5.21f; V.8.31.10, 35ff.;
and O’Daly (1973): 73]; and Sent. 44 (Lamberz (1975), p. 57, 10–11): Intelligence is its own
object, simultaneous thinker and thought, all that thinks and all that is thought (ὁ αὐτὸς
ἄρα νοῶν καὶ νοούμενον ὅλον ὅλῳ)]; finally, the role that σωφροσύνη plays in the “con-
version” process from level 2 (purificatory) on the one hand, to levels 3 and 4 (contem-
plative & paradigmatic), taken together, on the other, is clear in the Sent.: σωφροσύνη
contemplating Intelligence (level 3) is “the intimate conversion of the soul towards
Intelligence” (Sent. 32, Lamberz (1975), p. 28, 2–3: σωϕρoσύνη δὲ ἡ εἴσω πρὸς νoῦν
στρoϕή); and within the exemplary virtues (level 4), it is the conversion toward itself (τὸ
δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ σωφροσύνη).
204. Cf. A. Smith (1974): 60, n. 10: “. . . Plotinus and Porphyry maintain that the higher vir-
tues make one more godlike and blessed than the lower virtues.”
205. J. Dillon (1983): 95.
206. Ibid.
207. E.g., in Book IV of the Republic Socrates is forced to address the relationship between
the three parts of the soul and the four cardinal virtues and how they can be successfully
applied to the three classes in the state. Another example is Iamblichus, who we shall see
in ­chapter 8 posits three classes of souls who descend into this world (De myst. V.18), but
the median class is given further subdivisions.
208. For the Platonic and Aristotelian background to conversion to Intelligence, see Girgenti
(1996): 242–245.
209. Cf. Van Liefferinge (1999): 207; Girgenti (1997a): 112: “Per Porfirio, il fine ultimo della
vita umana è l’assimilazione a Dio…”

Chapter 7

1. Cf. O’Meara (1969), 103–39, 108, commenting on the claims of Porphyry in the preface
to the Phil. orac.: “The preface opens with an assurance that these doctrines are the most
reliable for one who hopes for salvation.” A. Smith (1999): 29 rightly observes that in the
prologue, Porphyry says that the Phil. orac. will deal more with philosophy than about
cultic practice, and adds: “This makes it immediately clear that the surviving material,
which is largely concerned with ritual—sacrifice, prophecy, manifestations of
gods—does not give an adequate picture of the work as a whole.” This corroborates the
argument that I develop in this section that the three ways of salvation, covered in the
preceding section, were addressed in each of the three books of the Phil. orac.,
respectively.
2. A very good analysis of the prologue is found in Busine (2004): 154–8. Cf. also Toulouse
(2001): 203–7.
 Notes  335

3. Cf. on the prologue Busine (2005): 242–5; Digeser (2001): 528, who states that the univer-
sal theme “deserves more attention”; Van Liefferinge (1999): 180; A. Smith (1997), 29–35;
29: what Porphyry says in the Prologue “has been simply ignored”; Beatrice (1989): 254f.;
Goulet (1982b): 376ff.; and Fowden (1981): 180.
4. No modern scholars question the Porphyrian authorship of the Phil. orac. However, in
recent years whether Lactantius’ reference in D.I. 5.2 to an anonymous philosopher who
owned land, enjoyed haute cuisine at Diocletian’s palace, and wrote three books against
the Christians, refers to Porphyry, has been sharply debated. Wilken (1979): 130–135,
modified Chadwick’s (1959): 142f. earlier thesis (viz., that Lact. is referring to Porphyry,
but the three books were bks. I–III of the CC, written in Sicily; bks. IV–XV were com-
posed for Diocletian’s pre-persecution propaganda) to argue that Lact. is alluding to
Porphyry and the three books refer to the Phil. orac. I concur, as do (e.g.) the follow-
ing: Edwards (2000): 67 n. 46; Berchman (2005): 4; Digeser (2006b); (2001): 521f.;
(2000): 5–8, 91–114, who makes this foundational to her thesis; and (1998): 129 n. 4, 144f.;
Drake (2000): 146; Beatrice (1996a): 55; (1995): 415 n 63; and (1993a): 34f.; 40–3; Simmons
(2000a): II.850; and (1995): 24, 77 n. 191; Sodano (1993): 41; 112–6; Vaganay (1935). Other
scholars disagree that Lact. is referring to Porphyry, e.g.: Riedweg (2005): 155; 160; 165;
Goulet (2004): 100–4; (2003): I.117, 120; Potter (2004): 657 n. 113; Bowen and Garnsey
(2003): 2 n. 7, 284 n. 15; Barnes (2001b): 158; (1994): 57f.; (1981): 22; (1978): 105; and
(1973b): 439f.; Whittaker (2001): 155; Hoffmann (1994): 164; Fox (1987): 196 n. 90;
A. Smith (1989): 36. Barnes (2001b) argues that Lact.’s philosopher owned land in Asia
Minor, not in Rome, Sicily, or Phoenicia where Porphyry would have had property; he
was a gourmet; and Barnes insists that he was blind, echoing (1973b): 438 that these data
“can hardly be reconciled with the known facts about Porphyry.” On the criticism about
land ownership, this discounts the possibility that Marcella might have been a wealthy
widow who inherited property from her former husband’s estate (cf. 10T Smith 1993a);
being a gourmet might be a rhetorical embellishment; and “blind” should be taken
polemically as a metaphor in a spiritual, not a literal, sense, as Edwards (2007) and
Digeser (2006b) correctly observe. On Porphyry’s marriage to Marcella, see Ad Marc. 1–2;
Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: Wright, 360), though Eunap. (along with Aristocritus)
gives five children, rather than seven (five daughters and two sons) mentioned by
Porphyry in Ad Marc. 1. Cyril of Alex., Adv. Iul. VI.209B says she was a Christian;
Aristocritus, (Erbse [1941], FGT 201.1–5=10T Smith [1993a] = Buresch [1889]: 85), a
wealthy Jew; cf. Wicker (1987): 2f.
5. Eusebius, PE IV.7 (Smith [1993a]: 303F).
6. Note Sent. 32 (Lamberz [1975]: p. 24), on the basic definition of the purificatory virtues
and their relation to contemplation. Cf. also A. Smith (1974): 133; Reix (1978); Pépin
(1999b), who offers an excellent contextual analysis; and Salaverri (1935).
7. Civ. Dei X. Smith (1974): 134 gives a more restrictive interpretation of the contents of the
prologue than that which is argued here.
8. Cf. Smith (1993a) 303 F (Eus., PE IV.6.2–7.2); 304 F (Eus., PE IV.7.2–8.1). The contents of
the Abst. also reveal the work of a meticulous scholar, on which see now G. Clark (2000).
Smith (1974): xvi notes correctly that Porphyry’s search for a universal way required thor-
oughness. This will have required a great amount of time.
9. Beatrice has argued in several works that the CC, the Phil. orac., and the De. regr. an.,
among others, are one and the same work, an idea inspired partly be A. Harnack’s early
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (1893), which identified the CC and Phil. orac. as
the same work (a thesis he later abandoned); and more directly by J. J. O’Meara’s (1959
and 1969) argument proposing basically the same thesis, which I do not find convincing,
336  Notes

and it is rejected by, e.g., Busine (2005): 241, 289f.; J. Schott (2005): 285; Goulet (2004);
and (2003): I.127–36; Barnes (2001b): 159; Digeser (2000): 162; and (1998): 138 n. 72;
Riedweg (2005); A. Smith (1987): 732; and P. Hadot (1960a). See also Beatrice (1996a),
(1996b); (1995); (1994); (1993a); (1992c); (1991); (1990); and (1989).
10. Aug., Civ. Dei X. Cf. Lafont (1965).
11. See Smith (1974). Also 322 F (Eus., PE V.15.6–16.1) expresses a concern for the decline in
Pythian oracles which coheres with a late rather than an early third century date.
12. Augustine Steuchus (16th cent.) and Cardinal Angelo Mai (19th cent.) claimed that the
Phil. orac. contained ten books. Wolff (1856): 143f., states: “Steuchus de perenni philoso-
phia libr. 3 cap. 14 p.189 ed. Basil. haec praefatur: ‘Post philosophos igitur non abs re for-
tasse sit audire daemonum quoque theologiam et arcanas quasdam divinitatis laudes…
Adducitur hoc oraculum non a Christianis, sed a Porphyrio Christianorum hoste decimo
libro εὐλογιων φιλοσοφίας. . . . Etiam Ambrosianus Maii similiter inscripsit:’Εκ τοῦ
δεκατοῦ τῆς Πορφυρίου εὐλογίων φιλοσοφίας.” Wolff, 39, rightly points out, however,
that the Neapolitanus codex correctly changed εὐλογίων to ἐκ λογίων and Steuchus’ dec-
imo libro to έν τῷ δευτέρῳ. Attempting (unconvincingly) to prove that the Contra
Christianos and the Phil. orac. were one and the same work by Porphyry, the Italian
scholar Beatrice (e.g., [1992c]: 351) bases his argument that the Phil. orac. contained ten
books on the witness of Steuchus and Mai; but as Digeser (2000): 162 notes, the two
medieval manuscripts more likely follow “a mistaken reading of δέκατος (tenth) for
δεύτερος (second).” Beatrice’s thesis is also untenable because (1) Steuchus and Mai are
medieval and thus late witnesses; (2) ancient sources give three, not ten, books for the
Phil. orac.; (3) even if Beatrice’s thesis is correct—the Phil. orac. had ten books—that does
not de facto mean that the CC and Phil. orac. were one and the same book, especially since
the former contained fifteen books. See also Busine (2005): 239 n. 23.
13. Wolff (1856): 38–42; iv: “Tamen Christum ipsum in libris περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας
haud exiguis laudibus effert, neque divinum fuisse negat, sed in heroum refert
numerum.”
14. E.g., Bidez, A. Smith, Wilken.
15. Eunapius, Vit. Phil. 457 (LCL: W. C. Wright, 358). Eunapius’ phrase ὡς ἔοικεν is proof that
he relies upon hearsay, but Wolff (1856): 38, bases his dating and classification of the
books of the Phil. orac. upon it: “Patet ab Eunapio libros περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλ. signifi-
cari; hos igitur a Porphyrio adolescente scriptos esse censet. Quod iudicium re ipsa con-
firmari in superioribus ostendimus; nam Plotinianae doctrinae nullum in his libris
apparet vestigium, vita Orphicorum non commendatur, deorum nomina et sacra secun-
dum communem ritum traduntur, oracular non ex philosophia, sed philosophia ex orac-
ulis explicatur.” His in superioribus ostendimus, based on a weak (and circular) argument,
then leads him injudiciously to conclude (42): “Ita si res potiores spectamus liber primus
deos, secundus daemones, tertius heroes complexus est”; cf. A. Smith (1974): 132 n. 19,
who notes that Eunapius was obviously not well informed.
16. Cf. e.g. Karamanolis (2006): 266 n. 72; Berchman (2005); Goulet (2004): 103; Riedweg
(2005): 156 n. 19; van Liefferinge (1999): 178 and 190; Barnes (1994): 59; Girgenti (1997a): 13
and 127; Sodano (1958a and b); Culdaut (1992); Della Rosa (1992): viii; Droge (1989): 176;
Frend (1987): 9; Faggin (1982); Romano (1979): 108; Grant (1973): 181f.; P. Hadot
(1960a): 211–4; Lewy (1956): 449 and n. 1; Beutler (1953): col. 295; Benoit (1947): 546;
Dodds (1947): 58; Bidez (1913): 632; Vaganay (1935): 2556; De Labriolle (1934): 233–9;
Hulen (1933): 14f.; Nock (1933): 111; Chaignet (1900): 337; Wolff (1856): 38; Lardner
(1838): 396, 452–3, argued that Porphyry cannot have been the author of the Phil. orac.
 Notes  337

because it “contradicts the sentiments which Porphyry has delivered in those writings
which are certainly his.”
17. E.g., Digeser (2006b); (2001): 521f.; (2000): 91; 95ff.; 161; and (1998): 130 n. 8, 134f., 146;
Simmons (2006a); (2002): 99f.; and (1995): 26; Busine (2005): 235–8; Schott (2005): 284f.
and 289; Zambon (2002): 270; Barnes (2001b): 156–9; Whittaker (2001): 155; Athanassiadi
and Frede (1999a): 178; A. Smith (1997): 29 and 34; Beatrice (1992c): 350–5; Fox (1987): 171,
196f.; Fowden (1981): 180; Wilken (1979): 131f.; Wallis (1972): 99; A. Smith (1974): 134
argues that the Phil. orac. reveals a much more critically minded Porphyry than has hith-
erto been assumed, and the work can thus “no longer be used to prove a ‘superstitious’
Porphyry”; O’Meara (1969): 109f., 119, 137; and (1959): 33f.
18. Cf. Schott (2005): 299: “Porphyry never denies the validity of sacrificial religion; in fact,
he offers explicit praise of tradition: ‘For this is the greatest fruit of piety, to honor the
divine according to ancestral customs.’ ” (Ad Marc. 18)
19. Cf. O’Meara (1959): 39–46, highly critical of Wolff ’s method, modifying the topics of the
Phil. orac. per book (97–9) as I. Daemonia; II. Principia; and III. Christus via universalis;
see also id. (1969): 118; Busine (2005): 256–85 gives a thematic analysis as Organization of
the Divine World; On Men and Gods with sub-categories; and On the Hebrews and on
Christ. Cf. also Busine (2012a).
20. E.g., Schott (2005): 284 n. 31; Cook (2000): 110; Smith (1993a); Fox (1987): 198; Wilken
(1984): 136, 150; Haussleiter (1978–9): 445; Sodano (1958b): xi.
21. A judicious analysis by Busine (2005): 240; and (2012a).
22. According to Simmons (2006b): 84–9; and (2000b): 1256–9; Aug., Civ. Dei XVIII.53, who
gives the pagan assertion that Peter predicted by magic the demise of Christianity
365 years after its birth, should be included in the fragments of the Philosophia ex oraculis.
Cf. Chadwick (1985).
23. See Appendix I below.
24. The fragments derived from a named book are marked in bold in Appendix I.
25. I do not question the authenticity of any of the 58 fragments in Smith (1993) under analy-
sis in this section, but only their classification according to the themes (e.g., Gods,
Demons, Heroes) of Wolff (1856), and critically evaluate whether some should be relo-
cated to another book of the Phil. orac.
26. 303 F (Eus., PE IV.6.2–7.2); 304 F (Eus., PE IV.7.2–8.1); and 305 F (Eus., PE IV.8.2).
27. 306 F (Firm. Mat., Err. Prof. rel. XIII.4–5).
28. In 315 F (Eus., PE IV.9.3–7), Eusebius calls Porphyry a wonderful theosophist and he often
equates theosophy with magic, which agrees with 340aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi,
200.20–266), qualifying it as pratical theosophy (including magic): πρακτικὴ θεοσοφία.
On theosophy see, e.g., Busine (2005): 244f.; Schott (2005): 288f., who restricts it to “uni-
versal philosophy”; van Liefferinge (1999): 183–6; 204; Beatrice (1995): 403–18; Siémons
(1988):11; Des Places and Zink (1979): 53ff.; Smith (1974): 140–7; Lewy (1956): 40; Bidez
(1913): 17. For the general background see the useful collection of essays in Asirvatham,
Pache, and Watrous (2001); Wickham and Bammel (1993); Culianu (1981); Merlan (1963).
29. E.g., the Phoenicians, Assyrians, and the Lydians: 323 F (Eus., PE IX.10.1–2). On the rela-
tion of Eusebius’ ϕιλανθρωπία to this text see Johnson (2006): 214f.
30. 324 F (Eus., PE IX.10.3–5; XIV.10.5): quoting from the XIV.10.5, part of which is to a great
extent a duplicate of IX.10.3–5.
31. See the final section below for historical context, esp. the question whether the Phil. orac.
might have been disseminated by the Tetrarchy before the persecution for propaganda
purposes. Cf. Simmons (1997) and (1995).
338  Notes

3 2. 323 F (Eus., PE IX.10.1–2); 324 F (Eus., PE IX.10.3–5; XIV.10.5).

33. 314 F (Eus., PE IV.8.4–9.2).
34. “Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum
receptum in unam quondam sectam quod universalem contineat viam animae liberan-
dae, vel a philosophia verissima aliqua vel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut induc-
tione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet via, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem viam
historiali cognitione perlatam, procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in
suam venisse notitiam.” (Civ. Dei X.32; LCL: Wiesen).
35. A. Smith (1989): 38 suggests that the Phil. orac. formed part of Porphyry’s search for a
universal way of salvation. For early Christian views on prophetic revelation and redemp-
tion see Fredrikson (1991). Cf. also A. Smith (2000b).
36. 315 F (Eus., PE IV.9.3–7).
37. 317 F (Eus., PE V.12.1–2); 319 F (Eus., PE V.13.3–4).
38. 307 F (Eus., PE V.5.7–6.2); 309 F (Eus., PE V.6.4–5); 310 F (Eus., PE III.14.3–4); 311 F (Eus.,
PE III.14.5); 312 F (Eus., PE III.14.6); 318 F (Eus., PE V.13.1–2).
39. 313 F (Eus., PE III.14.7); 316 F (Eus., PE V.10.13–11.1); 320 F (Eus., PE V.14.2–3); 321 F (Eus.,
PE V.14.4–15.4); 322 F (Eus., PE V.15.6–16.1). See Simmons (2006a); and Saffrey (1988a).
40. Eus., PE V.14.203b, using the numerical citations in the Greek text of Gifford (1903). For
Eusebius’ notion of a tripartite philosophy see Dal Covolo (1988). If the passage in which
reference is made to the three hypostases of the divine essence conventionally attributed
to Didymus, actually derives from Porphyry, as suggested by Simonetti (1974): 174, it
might have great metaphysical significance for the tripartite soteriological paradigm ana-
lyzed in this book. For Christianity called a philosophy see Van der Horst (1996), for the
late-third century anti-Manichaean work by Alexander of Lycopolis; and Van Winden
(1992) for other Patristic works including Eusebius.
41. Eus., PE VI.praef.236a–b; VI.3.240c; VI.6.242d; VI.6.245c–d; VI.6.251a–b; VI.6.253a–b;
VI.6.253b; VI.6.253c.1–4; VI.6.253c.5–10;VI.6.253d; VI.6.253d–254a; VI.6.254a–c;
VI.11.295d–296a. On this see now Simmons (2006a).
42. Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2.
43. 325 F (FGT 173.17–174.22, Erbse [1941]); 325aF (FGT 30, p. 174.23–25, Erbse [1941]); 326 F
(Eus., PE IV.22.15–23.6); 330 F (Eus., PE V.14.1); 330aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi 200.2–7);
332 F (Philoponus, Op. mundi, 200.7–13); 337 F (Philoponus, Op. mundi, 200.13–20); 340
F (Eus., PE VI.4.3–5.1); 340aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi, 200.20–26).
44. Culdaut (1993); Trapè (1978): 239ff.; and Magerie (1979): 110f.
45. Lewy (1956): 9 (325 F [FGT 173.17–174.22, Erbse 1941])
ἀθανάτων ἄρρητε πατήρ, αἰώνιε, μύστα, κόσμων ἀμφιδρόμων ἐποχούμενε δέσποτα
νώτοις αἰθερίοις, ἀλκῆς ἵνα σοι μένος ἐστήρικται παντ’ἐπιδερκομένῳ καὶ ἀκουιοντ’
οὖασι καλοῖς, κλύθι τεῶν παίδων, οὓς ἤροσας αὐτὸς ἐν ὥραις. σὴ γὰρ ὑπὲρ κόσμον τε
καὶ οὑρανὸν ἀστερόεντα χρυσῆ ὑπέρκειται πολλὴ αἰώνιος ἀλκὴ ἥς ὕπερ ᾐώρησαι,
ὁρίνων φωτὶ σεαυτόν, ἀενάοις ὁχετοῖσι τιταίνων νοῦν ἀτάλαντον. ὅς ῥα κύει τόδε πᾶν
τεχνώμενος ἄφθιτον ὕλην, ἥς γένεσις δεδόκηται, ὅτι σφε τύποισιν ἒδησας. ἔνθεν
ἐπεισρείσουσι γοναὶ ἀγίων μὲν ἀνάκτων ἀμφὶ σέ, παντοκράτορ βασιλέστατε καὶ μόνε
θνητῶν ἀθανάτων τε πάτερ μακάρων αἳ δʼ εἰσὶν ἄτερθεν ἐκ σέο μὲν γεγαῶσαι, ὑπʼ
ἀγγελίαισι δʼ ἕκαστα πρεσβυγενεῖ διάγουσι νόῳ καὶ κάρτεϊ τῷ σῷ`. πρὸς δʼ ἔτι και
τρίτον ἄλλο γένος ποίησας ἀνάκτων οἵ σε καθʼ η῏μαρ ἄγουσιν ἀνυμνείοντες ἀοιδαῖς
βουλομενόν ῥ’ ἐθέλοντες, ἀοιδάουσι δ ’ ἐσῶδε.
46. 325aF (FGT 30, p. 174.23–25, Erbse 1941).
47. 326 F (Eus., PE IV.22.15–23.6).
 Notes  339

48. 330 F (Eus. PE V.14.1); 330aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi 200.2–7); 332 F (Philoponus, Op.
mundi 200.7–13); 337 F (Philoponus, Op. mundi 200.13–20); 340 F (Eus., PE VI.4.3–5.1);
340aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi, 200.20–6).
49. Which is Wolff ’s classification. The three types of angels found in 325 F (FGT173.17174.22,
Erbse 1941).
50. 327 F (Eus., PE IV.23.6); 328 F (Eus., PE IV.23.7–9); 329 F (Eus., PE IV.19.8–20.1).
51. 331 F (Eus., PE VI.1.1); 333F (Eus., PE VI.1.2–3); 334 F (Eus., PE VI.1.4); 335 F (Eus., PE
VI.1.5–7); 336 F (Eus., PE VI.2.1); 338 F (Eus., PE VI.2.2–3.1).
52. 339 F (Eus., PE VI.3.5–4.3).
53. Cf. 306 F (Firm. Mat., Err. prof. rel. XIII.4–5); 308 F (Eus., PE V.6.2–7.2); 313 F (Eus., PE
III.14.7); 316 F (Eus., PE V.10.13–11.1); 318 F (Eus., PE V.13.1–2); 320 F (Eus., PE V.14.2–3);
321 F (Eus., PE V.14.4–15.4).
54. 341 F (Eus., PE VI.5.2–4); 341aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi 201.1–17); 342 F (Philoponus, Op.
mundi 201.18–202.16); 343 F (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.22.17–23.17); 344 F (Aug., Civ. Dei
XIX.23.30–37); 344aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XX.24.8–26); 344bF (Aug., Civ. Dei XXII.3.22–25);
345 F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2); 345aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73); 345bF (Aug., Civ. Dei
X.27.37–39); 345cF (Aug., De cons. evang. I.15.23); 346 F (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.107–33).
55. 346 F (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.107–33), quoting the last lines: “. . . Nam Deus quidem,
utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et casti-
tatem aliasque virtutes adoramus, ipsam vitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitatio-
nem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat,’ inquit; ‘imitatio deificat affectionem
ad ipsum operando.”
56. 341 F (Eus., PE VI.5.2–4); 341aF (Philoponus, Op. mundi 201.1–17); 342 F (Philoponus, Op.
mundi 201.18–202.16)
57. Cf. 344aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XX.24.8–26), containing a ridicule of biblical eschatology that
presupposes an underlying critique of various prophetic passages for which Porphyry
was well known in bk. XII of the CC, particularly criticizing the Book of Daniel. There is
not enough evidence from the Phil. orac. fragments to get a clear picture of the extent to
which Porphyry critiqued Christian scripture, and it is doubtful that the work was pri-
marily anti-Christian in its content, though it did contain some anti-Christian oracles.
58. See 345 F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2); 345aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73); 345bF (Aug., Civ.
Dei X.27.37–9); 345cF (Aug., De cons. evang. I.15.23); Culdaut (1993).
59. Des Places (1971) Chal. Or. Frag. 52 pp. 80f.; cf. Schott (2005): 312.
60. 345 F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2); 345aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73). For the pseudo-prophecy
in Coptic attributed to Porphyry and mentioned in a Christian homily based on Isaiah 27
see Lantshoot (1960).
61. See Rist (1964): 218.
62. An argument unconvincingly made by Wilken (1979): 117–34; and (1984): 136, 148–54;
rejected by A. Smith (1989): 39. Hoffmann (1994): 171 also disagrees with Wilken, but
goes too far by saying that Porphyry regarded Jesus as a criminal.
63. Contra: Wolff (1856): 42–3, 175–86.
64. Cf. Aug., Civ. Dei X.27; Toulouse (2001): 201; and Phil. orac. 347F (Smith) (=Eus., PE
V.7.6–8.7), on which see c­ hapter 3 above.
65. On this see Carlier (1998); Simmons (2001b) 210f.; and c­ hapter 9 below.
66. 343 F (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.22.17–23.17).
67. 344aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XX.24.8–26).
68. 344F (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.30–37); 344bF (Aug., Civ. Dei XXII.3.22–25).
69. 344cF (Aug., Civ. Dei XXII.25.1–15).
340  Notes

7 0. 349 F (Eus., PE V.8.11–12).

7 1. 347 F (Eus., PE V.7.6–8.7); 348 (Eus., PE V.8.8–10); and 350 (Eus., PE V.8.13–9.9; 9.12).
72. It is incorrect to describe Porphyry as an eclectic philosopher, as does Edwards

(2000): xxx–xxxi, on which see now Schott (2005): 279. Some scholars interpret the Phil.
orac. as primarily an anti-Christian work, e.g., Busine (2005): 288–95; and (2004);
Beatrice (1995): 416; (1993a): 45; (1992c): 348–55; (1989): 254f.; Droge (1989): 172; Frend
(1987): 11; Wilken (1984): 136; Vaganay (1935): cols. 2556f.; Kleffner (1896): 87; Seitz
(1895): 4f.; Kellner (1865): 87. Most scholars argue that it was written for pagans with sote-
riology being the central theme, e.g. Riedweg (2005): 166ff.; Goulet (2004): 67, 102f.;
Simmons (2001b): 210ff.; and (1995): 264–303; Cook (2000): 151; Digeser (2000): 102;
Kofsky (2000): 119; A. Smith (2000b): 187; (1996b); and (1974): 123–41; van Liefferinge
(1999): 185f.; Sodano (1993): 4; Ruggiero (1992): 169; Fox (1987): 197; O’Meara (1969): 108;
and (1959): 29; Faggin (1954): 18; Beutler (1953): col. 301; De Labriolle (1934): 233; Bidez
(1913): 17–28; Chaignet (1900): 339.
73. Chaignet (1900): 337 observed that the Phil. orac. had very little to do with philosophy, a
comment ignored by many scholars ever since. It is inaccurate to interpret the Phil. orac.
as a Neoplatonic philosophical manual, as does Beatrice (1989). The extant fragments
contradict that assertion.
74. 325 F (FGT 173.17–174.22, Erbse 1941); 325aF (FGT 30, p. 174.23–25, Erbse 1941); 346F
(Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.107–33).
75. 303 F (Eus., PE IV.6.2–7.2).
76. Cf. 314 F (Eus., PE IV.8.4–9.2) where Eus. attempts to prove that Porphyry contradicts
himself on animal sacrifice, upholding it in the Phil. orac., while (PE IV.10–12) rejecting it
in the Abst. This is not accurate. The De abst. was written to convince C. Firmus to return
to the ascetic life of a philosopher, while, as we have seen, the Phil. orac. embraced one
way of salvation for the masses, which included animal sacrifice, and even the second
way, as argued herein, did not preclude such practices. There was no contradiction here
for the mature Neoplatonic philosopher, and Porphyry’s personal position, though much
more concerned about the common man’s salus, was not too far from the response of
Plotinus to Amelius when the latter asked him to attend ritualistic worship of the gods in
the temples. Cf. also Digeser (2000): 99, who rightly notes that although Porphyry claims
the only offering worthy of a philosopher is a spiritual one, giving Abst. 1.28, 48, 52–56;
Eus., PE 4.10 as evidence; Abst. also defends sacrifices to the lesser gods, citing Abst.
2.33–34.
77. See now Simmons (1995): 47–93; 184–215 for the date c. A.D. 302–5, accepted by e.g.
A. Birley (2004): 265; Bowen and Garnsey (2003): 1 n. 3; Barnes (2001b): 152f.; (2011): 176;
and Digeser (2012): 3, 121f., 176ff., 185f., 188; (2006a): 34; (2000): 10 n. 19, 68 n. 9, 100, 102;
and (1998): 139; however, as noted above, Edwards (2007); (2004c) and (1999) unconvinc-
ingly attempts to date the Adv. nat. later because Lact. does not mention Arnobius in D.I.
V.1; cf. A. Birley (2004): 265: “This is hardly convincing”; and Barnes (2001b): 153, who
shows the weakness of Edwards’s argument: “The profound differences between their two
works reflect a difference of milieu, not date.”
78. Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23: “Una est tamen et illius et huius intentio, ut nolint homines esse
Christianos, qui, nisi Christiani erunt, ab eorum erui potestate non poterunt.”
79. See 345 F (Eus., DE III.6.39–7.2); 345aF (Aug., Civ. Dei XIX.23.43–73).
 Notes  341

Chapter 8

1. I use here traditional terminology. For another way of understanding the makeup of the
soul see Gerson (2003): 100f.: “In fact, I shall argue that a ‘part’ of the soul is just an ἀρχή
of action, that is, a distinct and ultimate type of sufficient explanation for a particular
action.” For the intellectual background see Ferrari (2007b); Athanassiadi (2002); Goldin
(2001): 355-59; Armstrong (1973); Dörrie (1966b) and (1966c); cf. Costa (1999); and Dillon
and Long, eds. (1988a) for eclecticism in later Greek philosophy
2. The essay on Plato’s theory of knowledge by Coppleston (1962): 166–87, is still very useful.
For the general background see the pertinent essays in Dörrie (1987-96); for knowledge
of the self in Plotinus and Porphyry see Pépin (2002a).
3. Ibid., 167: “It is difficult to separate Plato’s epistemology from his ontology.” The same can
be said about Porphyry.
4. Wildberg (2002): 263: metaphysics and moral philosophy cannot be separated in
Neoplatonism.
5. That is, until the summit is reached. I shall argue that for Porphyry this meant a final,
permanent release of the soul to be in perpetual union with the One. On the triad of
Being, Life, and Thought in Plotinus see Hadot (1960b).
6. See Finamore (2012) for grades of virtue being clearly linked to the stages in the life of the
philosopher in the thought of Plotinus and Porphyry. For the broader cultural context see
the very useful essay by O’Meara (1992).
7. Lloyd (1986): 264. An excellent introduction to Neoplatonism is Lloyd (1990); for the
influence of Aristotelian logic upon that of Neoplatonism see id. (1955-6).
8. G. Shaw (1988): 37. See also Beck (1982); and D. J. O’Meara (1982).
9. Already in Plato, Rep. 10.619C–E, this is a place for those souls who “participated in virtue
through habit and without philosophy.” On the Platonic concept of subordinating the
appetites to reason see Gerson (2003): 114–24; and Chase (2005), for the doctrine of the
ὄχημα as the πνεῦμα identified with the irrational part of the soul.
10. Porphyry, Sent. 32. See Dillon’s trans. in Brisson (2005) 2: 809; and 812: Porphyry says the
civic virtues are for “imposing order on the human being by assigning measures to the
irrational element and bringing about moderation of the passions.” Cf. also Wildberg
(2002): 271f. For the philosophical background to Porphyry’s Sentences see now the excel-
lent works by Luc Brisson (2012a) and M. Goulet-Cazé (2005).
11. See Brisson (2005): I: 131. Cf. Chase (2004b): 77f., for the function of the four Platonic
virtues at this stage.
12. Gerson (2005): 246, citing Phd. 82A 10–B3 & 69 B6–7; Rep. 365 C3–4, 500 D8; 518 D3–519
A6; 619 C7–D1, noting that Plato referred to τὴν δημoτικὴν καὶ πoλιτικὴν ἀρετὴν, which
developed from custom and practice without philosophy and intellect, and astutely
observing: “The difference between these popular or political virtues and the virtues that
purify is that the former do not result in self-transformation. They are entirely behavior
oriented.” See Ad Marc. 32-4. For the importance of guarding the πάθη in the soul see
Chase (2005): 235; and (2004a): 44, who explains how the πνεῦμα-ὄχημα, when incar-
nated in a human body, becomes associated with “the lower, irrational soul in general and
the imagination in particular. Throughout the individual’s lifetime, it fulfills the function
of a medium: our passions (πάθη) are imprinted upon it, and it preserves their traces;
through it we receive the visions of dreams and prophetic or demonic trances.” For the
influence of Plato and Aristotle upon Iamblichus’ Protrepticus see Flashar (1999).
13. Cf. Rademaker (2005): 351; and Brisson (2005): I.135.
342  Notes

1 4. Cf. Toulouse (2001): 216; and Baltzly (2004): 298ff.

15. Cf. Plato, Gorgias 507A 7–8: The σώϕρων will do what is due both to gods and men, and
he will be just and correct in religious matters, on which see Rademaker (2005): 310–6.
Note also that in Plato, Laws 10, the theology set forth “invites the citizen to see fostering
virtue as sharing in god’s plan for the universe as a whole,” according to Mayhew
(2008): 187.
16. See c­ hapters 2, 3, and 6 above. For the ritual dimension of Porphyry’s works and the rela-
tion between traditional religion and philosophy in his thought see Tanaseanu-Döbler
(2009).
17. Toulouse (2001): 203, 207, 218. For Porphyry’s views against a materialistic relationship
with the body see Mras (1936): 183f.
18. Hence the statement by Dodds (1947): 58, that the conflict between Plotinus’ influence
and the superstitions of the time appears in the “wavering attitude” of his pupil Porphyry
is completely erroneous in that it fails to appreciate the evolution of his thought on the
soul’s salvation.
19. Earlier (Part I) I simply referred to the concept of purifying the “lower part of the soul”
with the remark that I would probe more deeply into what Porphyry meant for this sote-
riological stage, which I will now proceed to analyze. For philosophy as a profession in
Late Antiquity see Dillon (2004).
20. The reader will recall that I have given the following dates for this trilogy: the late 290s for
De regressu animae; c. 300 for the Contra Christianos; and c. 302 for De philosophia ex
oraculis.
21. Digeser (2009): 92.
22. An argument made in my book on Arnobius (Simmons [1995]), and I am not aware of
any evidence which would change this position now.
23. Plato, Rep. Book 4; Tim. 69 D–E; 70 A–D; 70 D–71 D; Porphyry, Ad Gaurum 13.6.1–2
(Wilberding 2011); for good analysis cf. Coppleston (1962): 232–41; Annas (1981): 125;
Vegetti (1998): 29–40; Bostock (1999): 420f.; Ferrari (2007); Durand (1973); and compari-
son of Platonic and Christian concepts, Dörrie (1976c).
24. A good discussion is in Baltzly (2004): 301. Cf. also Armstrong (1974); and Benakis (1982)
for later developments in the Byzantine period.
25. An excellent topic for another book. A good source here is Sheppard (1982), who dis-
cusses (215f.) the four μανίαι found in the 5th-century Neoplatonist Hermias’ Commentary
on the Phaedrus 244ff. as “a gradual progression towards mystical union”; Syrianus pos-
ited three levels of theurgy (217); and Proclus (Plat. Theol. I.25) lists three ways of ascend-
ing to the divine (218f.); Sheppard is puzzled about the exact meaning in Proclus’
soteriological system of ἀνθρωπίνη σωϕπoσύνη καὶ ἐπιστήμη, which are inferior to the
θεία ϕιλoσoϕία and the θεoυργικὴ δύναμις, simply referring to Phdr. 244ff., but a better
explanation is that this is a vestige of the rift that occurred between Porphyry and
Iamblichus on the three paths and whether philosophy or theurgy should be placed at the
summit. I shall address this rift and its implications for Porphyrian and Iamblichean sote-
riology later. One may ask, what was so important with the number three found in many
of these systems of thought? An important clue might be found in Porphyry, Vita
Pythagoriae, 51 (Guthrie): “Things that had a beginning, middle and end they denoted by
number Three, saying that anything that has a middle is triform, which is applied to every
perfect thing.” Three thus possessed the mystical/theological meaning of perfection, on
which see the end of the next chapter. For Porphyry and the intelligible triad see Edwards
(1990b); and for Porphyrian triadic influence upon Augustine, Tselle (1975): 173ff.
26. Cf. Lorenz (2006): 158f.
 Notes  343

27. Cf. Plato, Rep. Book 9; and Porphyry, Ad Gaurum 4.4.10–13 (Wilberding 2011): “Indeed,
this thing that we are now discussing partakes in a third kind of soul which our account
locates between the midriff and the navel; it has no part in opinion, calculation or intel-
lection but does have a part in pleasant and painful sensation along with appetites.” Cf.
also Ad Gaur. 4.1.1; and Vigetti (1998): I, 35–8.
28. Cf. Rademaker (2005): 317 on this text. Cf. Chase (2004a): 44: “Because of its link with
the passions, the pneuma is affected by our moral behavior. A life of subservience to the
passions, characterized by overindulgence in rich food, sleep, wine, sex, an excessive con-
cern for wealth, glory, fame and the vicissitudes of the sensible world in general…”
29. For the De anima I follow Dillon and Finamore (2002): 348: Iamblichus, De anima 39
apud Stob. I 49, 65, 454.11–22, after discussing the Plotinian doctrine of the soul and its
purification, adds: “Some of them also often say that purification concerns the irrational
soul… ,” referring undoubtedly to Porphyry and his followers.
30. It should be clear to the reader by now that according to Porphyry, the higher up the soul
ascended on the ontological and epistemological ladder, the less it depended upon the
gods for assistance in the salvific progression. As we shall see, the opposite was true for
Iamblichean soteriology. On the latter cf. Shaw (1985): 7: ἕνωσις of the soul with God was
caused entirely by the divine, the soul’s action being only receptive.
31. Aug., Civ. Dei X.27. See Dodds (1947): 58–62; Cutino (1994): 44; and Bubloz (2005): 132.
32. Cf. Shaw (1985): 2: Though Porphyry was the first Platonist to discuss theurgical rituals,
they were efficacious only for the purification of the “lower soul.” (citing De regr. an.
27.21–28.15); and (2012): 92: “Porphyry disdained theurgic rites as unworthy of a Platonic
philosopher”; Toulouse (2001): 203–7; Baltzly (2004): 305 n. 11; and Cipriani (1997): 121–6.
33. Cited in Sheppard (1982): 212. This was once attributed to Olympiodorus (see 212 n. 4).
Damascius continues by saying Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus honor theurgy more
highly than philosophy.
34. Majercik (1989): 32. For the Parmenides and the origin of the One see Dodds (1928). For
the three hypostases of the One, Nous, and Soul in Porphyry’s thought see A. Smith
(1994).
35. Aug., Civ. Dei X.29; see Simmons (2001b): 194 n. 4.
36. Digeser (2009): 84, referring to Porphyry’s Epistle to Anebo.
37. Cf. Digeser (2009): 88, with reference to Porphyry’s Ep. Aneb. and De regr. an.
38. Cf., e.g., Shaw (1985): 13; Digeser (2009): 81; 84.
39. Cf. Sheppard (1982): 214, citing Hermias in his Commentary on Phaedrus, saying that
“certain people” (τινές) believe that τελεστική, the Neoplatonic name for theurgy, was
salvifically effective only in the area beneath the moon; citing Enn. 4.4.40 ff; and 2.3; De
regr. an.; and Ad Aneb.
40. Aug., Civ. Dei X.27: “ut videlicet quicumque a philosophiae virtute remoti sunt, quae
ardua nimis atque paucorum est, te auctore theurgos homines, a quibus non quidem in
anima intellectuali, verum saltem in anima spiritali purgentur…”. Cf. Bubloz (2005): 127f.
& 130; and Cipriani (1997): 122.
41. On Porphyry not seeing any reason why the philosopher should participate in theurgical
rituals to cleanse his lower soul, see Shaw (1988): 40; Digeser (2009): 90; Iamblichus: De
mysteriis (2003): xxx; Chase (2005): 241f.; (2004a): 39f., 48, 54; and Tanaseanu-Döbler
(2009): 139–46.
42. Cf. Smith (1974): 136, saying Porphyry “saw no reason why the philosopher… should
bother to participate in the theurgic rites pertaining to his lower soul.” Chase (2004a): 54
suggests that the goal for Porphyry of spiritual progress may have been the transforma-
tion of the individual soul’s ὄχημα-πνεῦμα. Though this study is in many ways excellent
344  Notes

and thus contributes to an understanding of Porphyrian soteriology and eschatology, it

nevertheless (1) does not adequately address how the three paths (which Chase accepts)
relate to their respective eschatological realms; (2) omits the Empyrean Realm altogether;
(3) does not show the importance of Porphyry’s On What is in Our Power; (4) does not
show the importance of his Commentary on the Republic; (5) incorrectly assesses the last
two virtues in Porphyry’s scala virtutum; and (6) fails to show the salvific importance of
σωϕρoσύνη for the Path II trajectory.
43. I thus suggest that this was the primary function of theurgy as an agent of purification for
the spiritual soul of the non-philosopher, viz., it guaranteed a place for the soul in the
afterlife (though not permanent release, as we shall see below). Although Augustine men-
tions sacrifices and prayers in the context of discussing how theurgy cleansed the spiri-
tual soul, the exact nature of these theurgical rituals is unknown.
44. Cf. Aug., Civ. Dei X.9: theurgy cleanses the spiritual part of the soul for non-philosophers;
X.27 (Bidez [1913], Fr. 3, 31*): the intellectual soul cannot be cleansed by theurgy; he later
says Porphyry brings in such rites “for others,” i.e., non-philosophers. See Watson
(1983–4): 230. For the phases of the theurgical sacrament of initiation, parts of which may
have inspired Porphyry, see Lewy (1956): 207–11.
45. Cf. Baltzly (2004): 298–300; and Brisson’s analysis (2005): I.132, is very important for
Porphyry’s Path I: “Pour attendre ce but, à savoir la vie en comun, les vertus civiques
imposent une mesure aux passions. Le term μετριoπάθεια désigne l’operation consistent
à imposer une mesure aux passions qui relèvent de l’irrationnel en les orientant vers les
actions qui s’exercent dans les choses conformes à la nature, imitant en cela le démiurge
qui, dans le Timée, impose la mesure à la nécessité considérée comme une cause errant
livrée à l’irrationel.”
46. Suffice it to say here that “cleansing” does not presuppose that the soul is somehow “dirty,”
“unclean,” or “soiled” in the sense of being “sinful,” but rather the term in a Neoplatonic
sense implies an ontological separation from that which presents a barrier to progression
toward the next ontological and epistemological stage.
47. On the value of the civic virtues in attaining likeness to God, Dillon’s statement (1983): 94,
is noteworthy when he says that the “purificatory virtues can only arise in a soul in which
the civic virtues already hold sway.” Cf. Chase (2005): 235.
48. Digeser (2009): 90, makes a good point when she says that the soul that is oriented
toward its appetites would direct itself toward the divine by involvement in the religious
rites of its native people, giving Arnobius Adv. nat. 2.62 (a reference to Etruscan Rituals)
as an example.
49. Annas (1981): 109 gives insightful analysis of the three classes found in the Republic
(Guardians, Auxiliaries, and the Productive Class) and how they practiced the four car-
dinal virtues. Cf. also Chase (2004b): 77ff.; and Dalcourt (1963).
50. See the preceding section of this chapter where I discuss how Porphyry, after writing De
regr. an., tweaked his former two-path soteriology by the time he wrote Phil. orac., thus logi-
cally necessitating a rearrangement of the three paths to correspond to each of the three
parts of the soul. All that was left was working out the fine points of how the latter related to
his four virtues found in Sent. 32. On the spirited soul in general see Vigetti (1985): 36f.
51. See c­ hapter 6 above.
52. Contra: Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 109–55, 113–9, who describes the Ad Marc. as “phi-
losophische Distanzierung von Ritualen.”
53. Also, as we have noted, theurgical ritual also cleansed the spirited part for Path

I (non-philosophical) souls.
 Notes  345

54. Cf. Baltzly (2004): 303f., for good analysis of how Porphyry turned Plotinus’ rather dif-
fuse discussion of the virtues into a fourfold distinction according to progressive levels.
55. Cf. Chase (2004a): 46, noting that the process of moral and contemplative ascent via
purification “rarely or never met with complete success in the course of one human life-
time.” For the philosopher as spiritual guide or advisor see I. Hadot (1986).
56. See Chase (2005): 245 n. 53, citing Smith (1993a), Test. 257 = Σύμμικτα ζντήματα; Cipriani
(1997): 138 believes that Porphyry in the De regr. an. “avesse indicato nello studio delle
discipline matematiche la condizione indispensabile per la contemplazione intellecttuale,
dal momento che già Platone aveva subordinato lo studio di dette discipline alla dialettica
e alla filosofia e l’indicazione del maestro era rimasta una costante nella tradizione pla-
tonica.” Cf. also Cutino (1994): 50f.
57. See Simmons (2001b). It is important to note that for novices who might have begun such
a rigorous and time-consuming curriculum, even though they possessed the intellectual
aptitude, due to their advanced years, might very well not finish their training, which
enabled them to “graduate” to the status of a mature philosopher. Marcella, a widow with
several children, and possibly rather advanced in age when she married Porphyry, is a
good example. Eschatological salvation will be analyzed in the next chapter.
58. Cf. Bubloz (2005): 113–37, 132, who offers a very good and succinct definition of Porphyrian
soteriology at this stage: “L’acquisition du salut se réalise par la négligence des solicita-
tions du corps, la purification des passions, la pratique des vertus et l’attention dirigée
constamment vers le monde spirituel.”
59. Dillon (1983): 95 asks how would God be perceived to be virtuous in Platonism and
answers that God is virtuous in the sense of causing virtue in others. For body and soul
in Plotinus see Clark (1996); and generally, Corrigan (1986).
60. Porphyry, Sent. 32: wisdom ensures that opinions are not formed conjointly with the
body; courage eliminates fear of leaving the body; temperance prevents being disturbed
by bodily affects; and justice relates to the unopposed reign of reason and the intellect. Cf.
Chase (2004b): 78.
61. I.e., under Iamblichean Soteriology.
62. For an analysis of the Epistle to Anebo and the De mysteriis (especially books IV–VII) see
the useful essay by Saffrey (1993); and Busine (2012b). See A. Smith (1993b) on the rela-
tionship of philosophy to religion in Iamblichus; and on Iamblichus as a critic of Porphyry
see Taormina (2002); (1999); and (1997).
63. Cohering with what Damascius says in his Commentary on Phaedo: “. . . some, such as
Plotinus, Porphyry, and many others honor philosophy more highly, while Iamblichus,
Syrianus, Proclus and the theurgists give more honor to the hieratic art.” Cited in G. Shaw
(1985): 2; and Sheppard (1982): 212.
64. I take the term theurgist in training from Finamore (1997): 171.
65. In addition to punishment and judgment (see below), on which see Iamblichus, De an. 29
in Dillon and Finamore (2002): 203; and Bussanich (2002): 46.
66. Cf. Trouillard (1974).
67. Cf. Blumenthal (1998): 126: “So the first stage in the soul’s return and reconstitution is its
turning away from the body and the affections and duties that arise from its associations
with it.” This coheres with Aug., Civ. Dei X.24: “. . . hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes
Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit,
tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum ut anima possit beata permanere
cum Dio?” Cf. Alfeche (1995): 104–9; and generally, Chevalier (1938). For the influence of
the doctrine of escaping from the sensible realm upon later Christian thought see Hadot
346  Notes

(1956). Lopez (1999) offers a good analysis of the spiritual/corporeal dichotomy in the
pre-Constantinian period; cf. also Martano (1950).
68. See Carlier (1998) and a good discussion of the theme in Plato’s Laws 10 in Mayhew
(2008): 187f.
69. An important theme in Book 4 of the Republic. Cf. Coppleston (1962): 246f.; Rademaker
(2005): 344.
70. Rep. 389 D–E. See North (1966): 150–96; cf. also Rademaker (2005): 293–356.
7 1. Phaedo 67 C.
72. See De Vries (1943): 97–100. This is an excellent study of the concept in Greek authors
from Homer to Aristotle. See also Broadie (2003); and Anton (1969).
73. Porphyry appears to have made them both more coherent and increased their number to
four, as is clear in Sent. 32. Cf. Dalcourt (1963): 64f., who argues that Plotinus was eclectic
on his moral theory.
74. Enn. I.2. See Brisson (2005): I.130; and Dillon and Finamore (2002): 187, citing Iamblichus,
De an. 39.
75. See Wallis (1972): 82–6; and Brisson (2005): I.130.
76. Enn. 1.2.4.5–7.
77. Ibid., 1.2.4.41–7. For a discussion of this text see Dillon and Finamore (2002): 187. And cf.
O’Daly (2001b); John M. Dillon (1983): 97f.; and in general see Armstrong (1957). An
excellent analysis of potentiality and plurality in the intelligible world is found in A. Smith
(1981).
78. Dillon (1983): 97; cf. Blumenthal (1974) and (1998): 119–21; and 125f., citing Enn.

III.6.5.13–15.
79. Commenting on such texts as Enn. 1.2[19]3.10–19, Phd. 67 B, and Tht. 176 A–B, Brisson
(2005): I.130–5 offers a good analysis of the two levels of virtue in Plotinus’ thought. For
the hierarchy of virtues in Proclus see Trouillard (1973): 442. For grades of virtue in
Plotinus and their relation to the doctrine of being like God, see Dillon (1983): 92f.
80. E.g., Enn. I.2.4; I.2.5; I.2.7f.; I.2.22–32; I.1.3.21–26; and the discussion in Dillon and
Finamore (2002): 202.
81. Dillon (1983): 98, is correct to say that once purified, the soul must turn itself around
because it has a natural tendency to go in both directions (i.e., to Being or Becoming),
hence ἐπιστρoϕή for Plotinus accompanies κάθαρσις. Cf. also Dillon and Finamore
(2002): 190; Blumenthal (1998): 126f.; and Hadot (1999) and (1973).
82. Enn. II.6, giving the purpose for the philosopher as ὁμoίoσις θεῷ, on which see Dillon
(1983): 97f.; and Dillon and Finamore (2002): 190. See also the fine essay by A. Smith
(1992); and Szlezák (1977).
83. Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. 46. The English translation is that of Guthrie (1987): 132.; for the
Greek text I use Des Places (1982) and (1981a). See also Bieler (1930). See also Dillon
(2002b). For the soteriological aspects of Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras see Du Toit
(2002). Von Albrecht (2002) is useful.
84. Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. 46. 47: Μαθήμασι τoίνυν καὶ τoῖς ἐν μεταιχμίῳ σωμάτων τε καὶ
ἀσωμάτων θεωρήμασι… πρoεγύμναζεν κατὰ βραχὺ πρὸς τὰ ὄντως ὄντα… (Des
Places[1982], 58). Cf. Skemp (1986): 116f. The italics are mine in the English translation
given. Porphyry discusses Pythagorean mathematical principles in Vit. Pyth. 46–52. For
Iamblichus see Lurje (2002a).
85. Rep. 511 A–B. By mathematics he means geometry. For the propadeutic studies of the
Guardians see Rep. 521 C–523 D; and Chase (2004b): 77. On the background for a related
theme, music in antiquity, see Baumbach, et al., eds. (1998); Meriani (1995); and Pizzani
(1982).
 Notes  347

86. Cf. Annas (1981): 272ff.

87. For Plato’s opinion of opinion see Rep. 509 D–517C; 533 E–534 A; and Dotter (2003): 136;
Dillon and Finamore (2002): 189, on Iamblichus, De anima 39: “Just as the descending
soul loses its access to the Intelligible and takes on δóξα in its stead, so too during the
ascent and ‘purification’ the soul must leave δóξα behind.”
88. An excellent analysis of Plato’s theory of knowledge can be found in Coppleston
(1962): 166–87.
89. Rep. 511 D. See Annas (1981): 275–9; and Sigurdarson (1998): 89. On Iamblichus’ median
class between nature and pure intellect, see Finamore (1997): 169f., and Iamblichean
Soteriology below. O’Meara (1993a) gives a good analysis of Iamblichean political phi-
losophy. On philosophical thinking in the Vit. Plot. see Plass (1987).
90. Ad Marc. 16: Καὶ τιμήσεις μὲν ἄριστα τὸν θεóν ὅταν τῷ θεῷ τὴν σαυτῆς διάνoιαν
ὁμoιώσης in Pötscher (1969); “You will honor God best whenever you make your
thought like God,” Wicker (1987). On the function of διάνoια as an agent of assimilation
to God see Toulouse (2001): 208.
91. Rep. 511 C; cf. Annas (1981): 282; and Chase (2004a), who argues that for Porphyry, phil-
osophical ascent was possible by an encyclopedic study of the liberal arts and philoso-
phy via the tripartite division of logic/dialectic, ethics, and physics/metaphysics.
92. On this see Sheppard (2002): 639f.; Porphyry, In Plat. Tim. comm., Smith (1993a): 198,
172F, Philoponus, Aet. mundi 172.5-20 (Plat., Tim. 29e4-30a1); and Rescigno (1997): 39-48.
Cf. Verrycken (1988); and Sodano (1982) and (1964).
93. Shaw (1993): 126.
94. Bussanich (1994): 5311; Jaeger (1928): 35f., on the Vit. Pythag. 6. For the Egyptian back-
ground see Porphyry, Abst. 4.8 and Marx (1924). For Pythagoras’ learning mathematics
and languages from Egyptian priests see Vit. Pythag. 11f. and Vergote (1939): 217ff.
95. On this see now Digeser (2012): 113: speaking about Iamblichus’ synthesis between reli-
gious ritual and philosophy with references to Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag.151 and De myst.
1.21.65: “Mathematics mediated between the divine and physical worlds by preserving
the knowledge of divine forms while providing practical applications to religion, medi-
cine, and political life. It was also a tool that allowed Iamblichus, in a novel move coher-
ent with Hermetic doctrine, to rid matter of its association with evil, which had been a
commonplace in Platonist thought.”
96. Cf. Trouillard (1973): 440: “Porphyre restera toute sa vie partagé entre sa dévotion et sa
fidélité plotinienne.”; and Toulouse (2001): 214f.
97. See now Chlup (2012): 151–8. For the mathematical sciences in Porphyry see (e.g.)
Cipriani (1997): 138; Cutino (1994): 50f.; Toulouse (2001): 214f.; Chase (2005): 245.
98. For a discussion of this curriculum see Iamblichus, De myst. V.18.223.8–224.4: Iamblich
us: De mysteriis (2003): xxiii. On Porphyry’s commentaries on Plato’s works see
D’Ancona (2000): 320-2; and Sodano (1963b); for Aristotle see Praechter (1990). On the
program of instruction in the Neoplatonic schools see Lurje (2002b); Rappe (2001) and
(2000); Pépin (2000b); Goulet-Cazé (1982b); cf. Lamberton (1998); Lim (1993); and
I. Hadot (1987). For Christian paideia and its indebtedness to classical Greek culture see
Pelikan (1993). I suggest that Porphyry is referring to this kind of training in the Ad
Marcellam 34 when he mentions to his wife that μεγάλη παιδεία is required to control
the body.
99. Iamblichus, De myst. V.18.223.8–224.4. Cf. Hoffmann (1998).
100. One recalls that in Book X of the Republic, we find the Myth of Er, which represents one
of several eschatological myths found in the Platonic dialogues, which, as we shall see in
the next chapter, were taken very seriously by Platonists in antiquity.
348  Notes

101. Sigurdarson (1998): 89. One recalls Amelius the Etrurian who attended the lectures of
Plotinus for twenty-four years which produced 100 notebooks of notes, on which see
Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 7 and Henry (1982): 5f.
102. Ad Marc. 6.
103. See esp. ­chapter 6 above, and (e.g.) Sent. 9 (separation of soul from body is a death); 32
(progress toward purification involves a struggle); hard work is necessary for the person
aspiring to virtue (Ad Marc. 7); cf. Ad Marc. 8–9. It is worth noting in this context that
Plato states philosophy should be studied only by the comparatively old in the state
(Rep. 521 C–523 D). Cf. Iamblichus, De myst. V.22 and Bussanich (2002): 56.
104. We recall that in Ad Marc. I.1, Porphyry refers to some of the seven children of Marcella
who had arrived at a marriageable age which, according to the gender, would place
them somewhere between 15–20 years old. If Marcella had married at, say, 20, based on
these calculations, she would have been between 35–40 years old. But we do not know,
of course, how old she was when she married. In any event, if she was approaching 40,
as I think she was, considering the fact that she had seven children to rear (or finish
rearing), it would appear that in Porphyry’s mind she stood a good chance of not arriv-
ing at perfection in her current lifetime, which, in turn, would necessitate another
rebirth in the next eschatological cycle, on which see the section on Porphyrian and
Iamblichean eschatologies below. And note the astute observation by Bussanich
(2013): 243: “In the Platonic perspective, to achieve that goal required purification that
could not be achieved within the brief compass of a single lifetime.” The essay by
Bussanich is the best critical study of Plato’s and Plotinus’ eschatology. I am most grate-
ful to Professor Bussanich for bringing this publication to my attention and for sending
me an advance copy before publication.
105. Lorenz (2006): 159, commenting on Rep. 581 A–B.
106. Ibid., 151. Lorenz makes the interesting analogy of Plato, Rep. 375A–B, concerning the
fact that the military class must be spirited, i.e., courageous, fearless, and invincible.
107. Cf. the remark made by D. Wiesen in the LCL edition of Civ. Dei, p. 288f., commenting
on Civ. Dei X.9. On the Neoplatonic theory of sensation and self-knowledge see I. Hadot
(1997).
108. Lorenz (2006): 151.
109. Gorg. 493A–C, speaking about the soul of the fool.
110. Annas (1981): 131.
111. For a more detailed analysis of the role that mathematics played in the progression of
the soul toward intelligible reality, see (e.g.) Annas (1981): 272f.: helps in developing
goodness and recognizing the Forms, including oneness or unity; 275: for contemplative
conception of philosophy and wisdom (Rep. 525 D, 526 A–B, D–E, 527 A, D–E, 529 B–C,
530 E, 531 C); 289: understanding basic axioms and rules of inference; cf. also Sigurdarson
(1998): 87; Zhmud (1997); and Westerink (1960).
112. See c­ hapter 6 and Porphyry, Sent. 32, and Ad Marc. 25–32.
113. Ad Marc. 4.
114. See O’Meara (2003); (2002); (1993a); (1993b); and (1992); and Dalcourt (1963), who gives
an excellent overview of the four cardinal virtues in Plato’s thought and their relation to
the tripartite nature of the soul. Cf. also Bremond (1933).
115. This is a theme developed in Laws 10, on which see Mayhew (2008): 213.
116. Annas (1981): 119.
117. Mayhew (2008): 188, citing Laws 12.961 D–963A, 964C–D, 5.734C–E.
118. Cf. ibid., commenting on Laws 12.963 A–965 E and 12.966C–968A.
119. Laws 963 A. Cf. Mayhew (2008): 7ff.
 Notes  349

120. Laws 828 B 2–3, on which see Coppleston (1962): 263; on prayer in the city see Mayhew
(2008): 188ff.; and Dillon (2002c): 285; and Laws 907 D–909D, for violation of the
images, and Mayhew (2008): 198. Pulleyn (1997) gives a good overview of prayer in
Greek religion.
121. McPherran (2006): 85; cf. Mayhew (2008): 5f.
122. Cf. McPherran (2006): 85 & 91, citing Rep. 419 A, 607 A, and 427 B–C; Sheppard
(2002): 646; on Proclus and traditional cult see Festugière (1971): 583. On the prayers of
philosophers see Dihle (1999); and Löhr (1999).
123. McPherran (2006): 85.
124. Coppleston (1962): 249; cf. Chiaradonna (2000).
125. For example, in Plato, Rep. 433 A–B, the Cardinal Virtues are applied variously to the
three classes: Wisdom is found in the Guardians; Courage in the Auxiliaries; Temperance
in the subordination of the governed to the governing; and Justice in everyone minding
his own business; on which see Coppleston (1962): 255f.; Dalcourt (1963); and Chase
(2004b): 77ff.
126. It would both be redundant and repetitive to address every aspect of traditional cult
to show how the philosopher in training might have participated in all of them. See
­chapter 3 above. On the practice of animal sacrifice, I can imagine that the Path II
soul will have been instructed to attend the cultic rituals where animals were sacri-
ficed, but as in the case of cult images of which I have given an example, the novice
will have “worshipped” the deities at these ceremonies at a higher ontological level,
giving them deeper spiritual and allegorical meanings. The allegorical meanings that
the novice philosopher will have given to these cultic practices are covered in
­chapter 3 above.
127. Chlup (2012): 236.
128. This fragment in Eusebius, PE III.9.1–5. See Athanassiadi (1993): 122 on Porphyry’s view
of the images and their use in oracular revelation.
129. See the excellent analysis of prayer as meditation in Plotinian Neoplatonism in Dillon
(2002c): 285: Asking to whom does Plotinus pray at the level of rational soul, Dillon says
this relates to Plotinus’ concept of contemplation or indulging in various forms of medi-
tation “by virtue of which he united his intellect quite regularly to the intelligible realm,
and even possibly—if that is what the famous ‘four occasions’ of which Porphyry speaks
in the Life (ch. 23)—to the One itself.” See also Dillon (1969); Campi, et al., eds., (1999);
and Saffrey (1988b) for the general historical context.
130. See D. J. O’Meara and Schamp (2006): 11–69, for the background accompanied by
Greek texts and French translations of representative letters.
131. Dillon (2012): 52ff.; Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): xvii–xx. For Iamblichus’
life and works see Dillon (2002a).
132. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 52.
133. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): xviii–xx; Finamore (2012): 113f., noting the dif-
ferences in the doctrines on Virtues found in Plato (four Cardinal Virtues of temper-
ance, courage, justice, and wisdom); Plotinus (civic and purificatory); Porphyry
(political, purificatory, contemplative, and paradigmatic); and Iamblichus (seven: natu-
ral, ethical, political, purificatory, contemplative, paradigmatic, hieratic/theurgic).
134. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): xviii–xx, xxii; Dillon (2012): 56. On Iamblichus
as the first philosopher of religion see A. Smith (2002) and (2000a).
135. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 62; Dillon (2012): 55ff.
136. According to Dillon and Polleichtner in Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 62,
Arete may be the same person by that name who, now much older, had troubles with her
350  Notes

neighbors in Phrygia, mentioned in Julian’s Ep. to Themistius 259D; cf. Dillon (2012): 55;
Blumenthal (1990).
137. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 62, Iamblichus, Letter 3, Fragment 1: τὰ αὐτὰ
δὴ ὀ̃υν καὶ περὶ πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπoϕαίνoμαι, τὴν συμμετρίαν αὐτῶν
πρὸς ἀλλήλας καὶ εὐταξίαν θυμoῦ τε καὶ ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λóγoυ κατὰ τὴν πρoσήκoυσαν
ἐκάστῳ τάξιν εὐκoσμίαν ·
138. Ibid., following Phd. 83D.
139. Cf. Taormina and Piccione (2010): 450: “. . . se una buona disposizione è data da sim-
metria delle potenze dell’anima e dal buon ordine di θυμητικóν, ἐπιθυμητικóν, e λóγoς,
la σωϕρoσύνη deriva da una εὐκoσμία, da un equillibrio nella distribuzione delle varie
parti.”
140. Cf. Smith (1993a), Fragments 251–255 and the analysis in Dillon and Polleichtner
Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 62.
141. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 62, Iamblichus, Letter 3, Frag. 3.
142. Ibid., Frag. 4.
143. Ibid., Frag. 4 and 6.
144. Ibid., Frag. 5.
145. Ibid., Frag. 7.
146. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): Iamblichus, Letter 16, Πρὸς Σώπατρoν περὶ
ἀρετῆς (To Sopator, On Virtue), Frag. 1 and 2. On Sopator see Venderspoel (1999): 457f.
147. Ibid., 59, Letter 1.
148. Ibid., Frag. 1.
149. Ibid., Frag. 2.
150. Ibid.:  Letter 6, To Dyscolius, On Ruling (Πρὸς Δυσκóλιoν περὶ ἀρχῆς).
151. See the sagacious analysis of D. J. O’Meara (1993a): 67f., noting that Iamblichus stresses
rulership is for the common good.
152. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 61, Letter 2, To Anatolius, On Justice (Πρὸς’Αν
ἀτóλιoν περὶ διακαιoσύνη).
153. Ibid., Frag. 1 & 2.
154. Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters (2009): 67. The identity of Asphalius is unknown.
155. Ibid.
156. Ibid.
157. Ibid., 79, Letter 9, To Macedonius, On Concord (Πρὸς Μακεδóνιoν περὶ ὁμoνoίας).
158. Ibid., 81. Nothing is known about Olympius.
159. Ibid.
160. Ibid.
161. Ibid., 85f., Letter 14, To Sopator, On Bringing up Children (Πρóς Σώπατoρ περὶ παίδων
ἀγωγῆς). Children often acquired religious knowledge by participating in cultic rituals
as is shown in Mantle (2002): 91, referring to the camilli or boy acolytes assisting priests
on the Ara Pacis scene showing Aeneas’ sacrifice; and Fig. 3, p. 93, a 2nd cent. funerary
monument in the Bardo Museum (inv. 3514B) depicting a camilla named Aninia Laeta
holding a jug and a small incense box.
162. Cf. Finamore (2012): 117, citing Olympiodorus, In Phaedonem 8.2–3, who says ethical
virtues are ingrained by habituation and right opinion and can be inculcated in chil-
dren. Hence they are learned.
163. Ibid.
164. Ibid.
165. Ad Marc. 1.1 (Wicker, 1987). I would suggest that in this context ἀνατρεϕóμενα should
best be translated as “being educated.”
 Notes  351

166. G. Shaw (1995): 29. On Plotinus’ apophatic theology see Sells (1985) and Armstrong
(1981) and (1991).
167. Id. (1993): 127, with references to Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. 3.13–5.20; De myst. I.1–2;
1.4–5.14.
168. G. Shaw (1995): 25f.
169. I follow Shaw (1993): 125, who suggests that Iamblichus’ Noetic or immaterial sacrifices
were numbers and that “all theurgies were effected through, and were sacrifices of, num-
bers.” Shaw stresses the fact that although Iamblichus did not discuss noetic sacrifices in
De myst., his other works, and those of later theurgists, strongly indicate that they were
mathematical in nature. For an analysis of the general historical background to the
theological and mystical meaning of numbers in the ancient world see Kalvesmaki
(2013).
170. Shaw (1993): 130.
171. Iambl., De myst. 11.11 (96–97); cf. John M. Dillon (2002c): 286. The reference to alone
implies a critique of Porphyry.
172. For the details of Porphyry’s Path III see the earlier chapters above. I only give in this
sub-section a general overview to Porphyry’s third tier accompanied by comparisons
with the Iamblichean system. A more thorough analysis is found below under
Iamblichean Soteriology.
173. On the contemplative virtues see above, c­ hapter 6; cf. Rist (1989): 195, noting that it
must not be forgotten that the denizens of the Kosmos noetos are Platonic Forms, which
are living, and they are “the sources of our human values in the moral world below.” On
the paradigmatic virtues see also ­chapter 6. On the one who practices these and becomes
a πατὴρ θεῶν, cf. Brisson (2005): I.136: “Il est dificile d’interpréter cette expression.” Yet
as Bussanich (2002): 45 notes, Plotinus used this in reference to the One (Enn. IV.7 [38]
23.22–24); and as I noted in ­chapter 6, this alludes to the union of the soul with the One.
In general cf. Baltzly (2004): 305; Corrigan (1987); and P. Hadot (1980b): 245. A good,
general analysis of the contemplative and paradigmatic virtues in Sent. 32 and their rela-
tion to Plato’s cardinal virtues can be found in Chase (2004b): 77ff. On the Aristotelian
influence upon Porphyry’s view of the soul see Chiaradonna (1996a).
174. See Culdaut (1993): 262.
175. See G. Shaw (1995): 114.
176. Good food for thought can be gleaned from Trouillard (1972): 5ff.; Annas (1981): 131–5;
Vegetti (1998): 34; Bussanich (2002): 53ff.; Corrigan (2002); and the important comment
of Lloyd (1986): 258, on the two intellects of Plotinus: “There is a psychic intellect whose
activity he often calls διάνoια and later philosophers discursive thought; and there is a
‘pure’ intellect which has not descended into the soul and whose activity later philoso-
phers often call intuitive or non-discursive thought.” For Plotinus’ hierarchical ordering
of reality see O’Meara (1996).
177. Cf. (e.g.), Plato, Phd. 65 B–C, and the insightful analysis in Gerson (2003): 57; and
O’Brien (1996).
178. Ibid.
179. See Bussanich (2002), for an excellent interpretive essay on the similarities between the
Plotinian and Iamblichean metaphysical systems. Also Blumenthal (1997) for the influ-
ence of Plotinian psychology upon later thinkers; and Chiaradonna (1998) for essence
and predication in Plotinus and Porphyry. Cf. also Hadot (1972a) & (1966).
180. Ibid., 57. Chiaradonna (1996b). For Plotinus see Jerphagnon (1974); on the Neoplatonic
debates on the Theory of Forms see Sambursky (1968).
181. Cf. Finamore (1997): 169.
352  Notes

182. Iambl., De myst. V.22:  Iamblichus:  De mysteriis (2003):  265. Cf. Bussanich (2002):  56:  “This
is a realistic judgment on the difficulties of making progress on the spiritual path of the
sort one finds in many classic texts on mystical spirituality.” A good essay on Essence
and Existence in the Enneads is Corrigan (1996).
183. See Shaw (1995): 105.
184. See Cipriani (1997): 116.
185. Finamore (1985): 2f.
186. Shaw (1993): 124.
187. It is my intention here to give only a general overview to the fine points of Iamblichus’
soteriological system as it applies to the use of theurgical rituals, on which the reader is
referred to the works by Gregory Shaw and John Finamore found in the bibliography
below. I will thus analyze important aspects of his thought on the salvation of the soul
and then compare/contrast them with Porphyry’s tripartite system.
188. Iamblichus, De myst. V.18.223.8–224.4: Iamblichus: De mysteriis (2003): 257. Saffrey
(1986) gives a good overview to Neoplatonic spirituality from Iamblichus to Damascius.
189. Very useful here is Digeser (2012): 98–127, who gives an overview of the differences
between Porphyry and Iamblichus on the various kinds of souls and how each class
achieves salvation. I disagree (Digeser [2012]:121f.), however, that Porphyry’s Path II
included theurgy, because, as noted in the earlier chapters, this stage involved the novice
philosopher, and it is clear that Porphyry did not see any need for theurgical ritual for
philosophers: Augustine, Civ. Dei X.9; cf. X.27: theurgical rituals are completely unnec-
essary for a philosopher; and X.28: “Confiteris tamen etiam spiritalem animam sine
theurgicis artibus et sine teletis, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse contientiae
vitute purgari.” The novice philosopher (or the philosopher in training) cleanses the
spirited part of the soul primarily by means of the virtue of σωϕρoσύνη.
190. Finamore (2012): 115–30.
191. This is, at least, how Finamore (2012): 119 understands the material class, commenting
on De myst. V.18.223.8–224.4: “The mass of humanity never actualizes its divine aspect
and so never seeks access to theurgic salvation.” I concur, and it is interesting that
Porphyry’s Path III would make the same claims, albeit for philosophers, not
theurgists.
192. On the three classes of souls in De myst. V.18 see Finamore (1985): 121, n. 73; and
(1997): 170 n. 22; Iamblichus: De mysteriis (2003): 224; Digeser (2009): 84; and Finamore
(2012): 118f.
193. Cf. Finamore (1997): 169.
194. I think that Finamore’s (2012): 119 interpretation is correct when he says this median
class falls into the grade of political virtues. As we have noted in earlier chapters, this
coheres with Porphyry’s Path I for the masses.
195. Iamblichus, 39: Dillon and Finamore (2002): 67; cf. Wallis (1986).
196. Cf. Des Places (1966): 173, commenting on De myst. V.18 with references to Porph., De
regr. an., Fr. 10 (Bidez) = Aug., Civ. Dei X.29: “Ad deum per virtutem intellegentiae per-
venire paucis dicis esse concessum.”
197. See c­ hapter 6.
198. Clarke, Dillon, Hershbell (2003): 224, commenting on De myst. V.18.223–4 with refer-
ence to Iamblichus, De an. 28.
199. On what I call an Eschatology of Descent, the remark by Shaw (2012): 109 is illuminat-
ing: “Far from trying to lift us up to the gods, ascending through the gradations of Being
and the astral spheres, Iamblichus recognized the heavenly orders on earth. He saw the
gods here below, hidden in our embodied and aesthetic life.” We should add to this the
 Notes  353

fact that, eschatologically speaking, Iamblichus did not teach a final, permanent release
resulting in an absolute union with the One, but rather a continuous rebirth cycle. See
the next chapter.
200. Dillon and Finamore and (2002): 16f. For the hermeneutical history of the work within
the Greek philosophical tradition see Moraux (1978).
201. See (e.g.) Shaw (1993): 116; and (1995): 16; Finamore (1997): 163; and Dillon (2005): 339–51.
On the theurgic function of the vehicle of the soul and divine revelation for the embod-
ied soul see Shaw (2012): 96.
202. Cf. Enn. IV.8(6)8.1–6; V.1(10).10.23; and Shaw (1993): 123; (1995): 104, 108f.; (1999b): 578f.;
Dillon (2005): 339; Taormina (2012): 63f.
203. Shaw (1993): 124. Cf. also Chlup (2012): 181ff.
204. Shaw (1993): 124; and cf. Chlup (2012): 182.
205. Iamblichus, De anima 29: Dillon and Finamore (2002): 57.
206. See Shaw (1995): 118; and Toulouse (2001): 169–223.
207. Shaw (1999b): 579.
208. I borrow here the terminology sentient particulars from G. Shaw. A good analysis of the
Iamblichean system in the broader context of Neoplatonism is found in Chlup
(2012): 168–84.
209. Shaw (1995): 24; cf. Von Werner (1977).
210. Shaw (1985): 22; (1995): 94f.
211. Shaw (1995): 94f. Shaw adds that the theurgist’s summum bonum was not in escaping
from material reality, but by embracing matter and multiplicity in a demiurgic manner.
212. Shaw (1985): 17; (1995): 72; and (2012): 92.
213. I am indebted here to Shaw (1995): 95, who attributes both reasons to the profound
influence of Aristotelian psychology upon Iamblichus. See also, generally, Athanassiadi
(1995); Blumenthal (1996) and (1991); and Jerphagnon (1983); cf. Whittaker (1969): 103f.
214. Shaw (1999b): 580; and (1995): 147.
215. The first court of appeal for Iamblichean soteriology is Gregory Shaw, to whom I owe a
debt of gratitude and from whom I have learned much concerning Iamblichus’ thought
on numerous issues. See his (1993): 125; and (1995): Table I, 152, for illustrations of the
three classes of souls, their mode of worship, etc.
216. Shaw (1995): 114.
217. Shaw (1993): 124.
218. Cf. Shaw (1995): 144; Finamore (1997): 170 n. 22 (with ref. to De an. 380.6–14); and
Dillon and Finamore (2002): 16f.
219. Iambl., De myst. 226.9–13; 230.15–19. A good analysis is found in Shaw (1999b): 580.
220. Shaw (1995): 47.
221. Ibid.,  15f.
222. Since Dodds’s (1947): 55 description of theurgy as “a special branch of magic,” scholar-
ship has made great advancements in our understanding of the term, on which see now,
e.g. (in addition to the works by Shaw cited in this book), Lewy (1956): 461–66;
Athanassiadi (1993): 116; Iamblichus: De mysteriis (2003): xxvii; Addey (2012).
223. This is the gist of Shaw’s definition (1985): 1.
224. See Shaw (1985) for a good analysis of the major theories about theurgy proposed by
modern scholars including Dodds, Festugière, Lewy, Trouillard, A. Smith, and
Sheppard.
225. See Shaw (1995): 15–20 with a discussion of pertinent texts; and (1999): 126, who says for
Iamblichus “theurgy attempts to awaken souls to the pre-conceptual eros that exists
prior to discursive thinking, to move us ‘out of our heads’ and back into the divine life
354  Notes

of the Egyptian wise men, back into the erotic trance of the circling stars and the dance
of nature around the One.”
226. Athanassiadi (1993): 124f.; Shaw (1988): 42; and (1999a): 127, for the soul projecting its
λóγoι into the world and recovering its original nature by appropriating theurgic rituals
corresponding to their ἀναλóγoι.
227. Cf. Shaw (2012): 102ff.
228. Shaw (1985): 11. A good discussion in Finamore (2012): 113f. The seven virtues on an
ascending scale are: (1) Natural (ϕυσικαί), (2) Ethical (ἠθικαί), (3) Political (πoλιτικαί),
(4) Purificatory (καθαρτικαί), (5)  Contemplative (θεωρητικαί), (6)  Paradigmatic
(παραδειγματικαί), and (7) Hieratic/Theurgic (ἱερατικαί/θεoυργικαί). Cf. also Taormina
and Piccione (2010): 227–71. For the higher virtues in Proclus, Syrianus, Damascius,
Olympiodorus, and Marinus see Finamore (2012): 120–4.
229. See Digeser (2009): 84ff.; and (2012): 98–127; cf. Shaw (1999): 125.
230. Shaw (1988): 57 and 41: for the Iamblichean doctrine positing that matter (ὑλη) origi-
nates from God.
231. Id. (2012): 102.
232. Shaw (1985): 21.
233. A central doctrine of Iamblichean soteriology. Cf. De myst. 2.11 and Finamore (1985);
113; and (1997): 165, on De an. 365.22–366.5; Athanassiadi (1993): 120–8; Shaw (1985): 21f.;
and (1999b): 579; Digeser (2009): 81;Taormina (2012); and Saffrey (1973).
234. The One’s unifying power was present in the Intellect and in the sublunary world, on
which see Shaw (1985): 19; and for Plotinian metaphysics see O’Daly (1978).
235. Cf. Chlup (2012): 173–84.

Chapter 9

1. This is my synoptic reading (to use John Bussanich’s term) of the Platonic eschatological
myths. Whether the rebirth cycle is permanently broken in such dialogues as (e.g.) the
Phaedrus is debated among scholars, as we shall see later in this chapter. A good back-
ground study is Davies (1999).
2. Annas (1982): 119.
3. Sedley (2009): 51.
4. See (e.g.) O’Meara (2003): 107–11; Dillon and Finamore (2002): 191; and Bussanich
(2013): 244f.
5. For example, there is still no corresponding English work to Festugière (1970). For the
influence of Porphyry and Iamblichus in Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides see
Dillon (1988c); cf. also id. (1991).
6. John Bussanich’s article (2013) would appear to be seminal here, and one can only hope
that future scholars will see the importance of eschatology in Platonic and Neoplatonic
works. It is lamentable that Chlup (2012), who otherwise gives an excellent analysis of
Proclean Neoplatonism, nonetheless does not address the importance of eschatology.
7. For example, Annas (1981): 349 calls the Myth of Er “a painful shock” and refers to its
“vulgarity” and “childishness.”
8. See his essay (2013) cited above. I am indebted to Bussanich’s work in this section of the
present study. Also encouraging is the panel convened by Crystal Addey and Deepa
Majumdar, “The Afterlife, Reincarnation and Return to the Divine in Neoplatonism,” at
the 11th Annual International Society for Neoplatonic Studies Conference, June 12–15,
2013, at Cardiff University, U.K.
 Notes  355

9. A thorough analysis including the important thinker Proclus would require writing
another book, so my goal in this section is simply to give the reader an overview to some
of the important aspects of eschatology in the Platonic tradition, primarily focusing upon
Porphyry.
10. As Bussanich’s publications have shown vis-à-vis Plotinus, I hope to show also that
Porphyry and Iamblichus accepted the tradition, though each modified it according to
his own views about the salvation of the soul. Even to the end of the Neoplatonic Age we
find Proclus a strong believer in the Myth of Er, as the long XVI dissertation found in his
Commentary on the Republic, which covers almost three hundred pages in Festugière’s
1970 translation, indisputably shows. If these later thinkers did not take seriously Plato’s
eschatological myths, why would they have bothered to meticulously study, exegete, and
interpret them?
11. Cf. Albinus (1998): 91f.
12. Betegh (2009): 77 n.1; cf. Kahn (2009): 148, who believes that Plato’s Statesman and
Phaedrus contain genuine myths or stories he received which were thus not fictions cre-
ated by himself.
13. Annas (1982): 120f., noting that the Timaeus cosmology is referred to as “likely mythos”
(Tim. 29D 2–3, 59C 6, 68D 2; also citing Rep. 501E 2–5).
14. Halliwell (2007): 445–73, 453, gives examples from the Republic. Cf. Rowe (2009): 134: “. . .
Platonic myths cannot usefully be treated in isolation from the contexts in which they
appear.”
15. Cf. Bussanich (2013): 245–8.
16. E.g., Empedocles, Frag. 115, cited in Bussanich (2013): 255, where he calls himself a fallen
δαίμων who had committed a primordial sin and was reborn for thirty thousand seasons
(=10,000 years); cf. Burkert (2004): 115ff. A good number of the Orphic Hymns end with
an eschatological emphasis, on which see Athanassakis (1977): xi; 18–21, no. 11, To Pan.
For possible Orphic influence upon Xenocrates see Boyancé (1948).
17. Stählin (1967): 774. Pherecydes appears to have been the first person to promulgate the the-
ory of metempsychosis in Greece, on which see West (1983): 19f.; and cf. Dubreucq (1997).
18. For a full discussion of the meaning of myth in ancient Greek culture see now Edmonds
(2004): 1–13.
19. Bussanich (2013): 244.
20. Saunders (1973): 233. I fully concur.
21. E.g., Plato, Letter 7 335A (LCL: R. G. Bury): “But we ought always truly to believe the
ancient and holy doctrines which declare to us that the soul is immortal and that it has
judges and pays the greatest penalties, whensoever a man is released from his body;
wherefore also one should account it a lesser evil to suffer than to perform the great iniq-
uities and injustices.”
22. See Bussanich (2013): 264; Bowden (2010): 145ff.; and Alfeche (1995): 102. Athanassakis
(1977): ix suggests the Orphic Hymns were used by a religious association (θίασoς) whose
members called themselves mystic initiates (μύσται) and who invoked various deities
through secret ceremonies (ὄργια, τελεταί) for certain blessings.
23. Saunders (1973) explains the eschatological differences between Tim. and Laws as being
due to Plato’s breaking away from a mythical to a scientific eschatology where rewards
and punishments are for the good of the cosmos, and the contradistinction with the ear-
lier dialogues and these later ones is because Plato developed a “replacement eschatol-
ogy.” Annas (1982): 119 notes the shift of emphasis in the eschatological myths; and says
this is due to the fact that Plato’s eschatology “was not fixed, but complex and
shifting” (139).
356  Notes

2 4. Finamore (1985): 111.
25. See Sedley (2009): 51. O’Meara (2003): 107f., commenting upon the penology of Plato’s
eschatological myths, rightly argues that Plato sees the primary purpose of punishment
as retribution, not reform, both of which are incompatible, but such “incompatibility was
not, however, felt by Plato’s Neoplatonist readers, who interpreted eschatological punish-
ment as essentially therapeutic and reformative, consistent therefore with Plato’s general
attitude to punishment.”
26. Gorg. 523B, 524A, & 526C–D, on which see Dillon and Finamore (2002): 203; Bussanich
(2013): 264; and Orth (1954): 58.
27. An excellent analysis of the various agents of judgment in Plato’s eschatological myths
and the reception history of this motif in Neoplatonism can be found in Dillon and
Finamore (2002): 191f.
28. Annas (1982): 122.
29. Sedley (2009): 70.
30. Annas (1982): 128. The post mortem destiny of the soul of the non-philosopher was an
important theme in the eschatological doctrines of the Neoplatonists. For example,
Proclus, in Rep. 300.1–301.7, is a significant text, on which see Festugière (1970): 258–66.
31. Bussanich (2013): 270 n. 84: “Philosophers tend to ignore the analogy between the celes-
tial experiences of purified souls in the afterlife and the noetic vision of the forms of the
Good in the ascent passages in Symposium, Phaedrus, and Republic, assigning the former
to Plato’s religious and poetic speculation, while reserving the latter for ‘serious’ critical
analysis. This is an arbitrary and unfruitful distinction.”
32. Phd. 114C. Cf. Bussanich (2013): 270; Dillon and Finamore (2002): 203.
33. Phd. 78B–84B, and Annas (1982): 127f.
34. Annas (1982): 125.
35. A good analysis is found in Betegh (2009): 77 and n. 1. See Pépin (1986) and (1964b) for
Neoplatonic cosmic piety.
36. Phd. 107D.
37. Ibid., 108A; crossroads appears in Gorg. 524A; cf. Rep. 614C (τρίoδoι) and the excellent
discussion in Bussanich (2013): 249ff.; cf. also Johnston (1991).
38. Plato, Laws 904D (LCL: R. G. Bury).
39. Cf., e.g., Porph., Phil. orac. 323F (Eus., PE IX.10.1–2); 324F (Eus., PE IX.10.3–4); Ad Marc.
6, 7; and the discussion of these texts in earlier chapters.
40. For Socrates, Phd. 108A, mentioning “many forks and windings” on the way to Hades, see
especially Seaford (1986): 13f., on Pherecydes of Syros and offering many examples from
ancient Greek religious culture. Cf. also Ogden (2001); Toulouse (2001): 197; Merkelbach
(2000); Johnston (1999); and De Ley (1967).
41. Cf. Phd. 78B–84B and Annas (1982): 126f.
42. Aug., Civ. Dei X.19, referring to Porphyry’s doctrine omne corpus fugiendum esse. See
Trapè (1978): 239ff.
43. Rep. 519C, 540B. Cf. 532E, a “rest from the road,” and Bussanich (2013): 270ff.
44. Bussanich (2013): 271.
45. Rep. 615A (LCL: Paul Shorey).
46. Phdr. 249A–B. This is my reading of the myth in this dialogue, but it is important to note
that scholars are not in agreement as to whether the Phaedrus explicitly teaches the final
liberation of the philosopher from the cycle of rebirths, on which see Bussanich (2013): 271
n. 85; and Wilberding (2011): 11, citing Phdr. 248D, Rep. 617D–20D, and Laws 967D. For
the influence of the Phaedrus on Porphyry’s eschatology see also Chase (2004a): 40ff.
 Notes  357

47. Phdr. 249A–B and the discussion in Dillon and Finamore (2002): 203; cf. also Griswold
(1996): 99–111 for the soul’s journey and the divine banquet in the myth.
48. Bussanich (2013): 259. On the different symbolism of embodiment Bussanich (256) sug-
gests that Tim. offers a positive narrative, while Phdr. offers a negative one. For the prob-
lem of the soul’s descent in Plotinus see Schuhl (1974).
49. Annas (1982): 128. Cf. Bett (1999): 443: “Again, the end-point of the soul’s progress is not
changeless and eternal contemplation of the Forms, but an eternal traversing of the heav-
ens, punctuated by contemplation of the Forms at intervals.”
50. Cf. Morgan (1990): 174, giving insightful analysis of Phdr 246B–E; Annas (1982): 136;
Albinus (1998): 95, on Phdr. 248E–249A, reads this myth as I do, viz., as a permanent
return to the divine.
51. Phdr. 247C. Cf. Annas (1982): 135f.; Griswold (1996); Albinus (1998): 95f.; 150ff.; Dillon
and Finamore (2002): 201; Bussanich (2013): 256.
52. Plato gives three reasons why the soul loses its wings and descends to earth: (a) the bad
horse drags its charioteer down (247B); (b) incompetent drivers of chariots unable to
ascend to the heights of heaven crash into each other (248A–B); and (c) some souls lose
their wings due to forgetfulness and sin (248C–D).
53. Descriptions vary from one dialogue to another: curable souls are imprisoned; incurable
ones are sent to Hades and Tartarus (Gorg. 527A); curable souls go to Acheron, incurable
souls to Tartarus (Phd. 113D–E); under the earth for curable souls; Tartarus for incurable
souls (Rep. 615A); under the earth to places of correction for all bad souls (Phdr. 249A);
curable bad souls go to Hades and “are haunted by most fearful imaginings…”
54. Phdr. 249A: on the philosophical lover: “. . . these, when for three successive periods of a
thousand years they have chosen such a life, after the third period of a thousand years
become winged in the three thousandth year and go their way…”; cf. Bussanich
(2013): 257; and 270, for an excellent discussion of this text. Arnobius, Adv. nat. 2.33, refers
to his Neoplatonic adversaries who believe that the souls receive wings after the corporeal
bonds are dissolved, and at 2.34 he mentions the Phaedrus as the source of this doctrine.
55. Porphyry, Vita Plotini 22f.; Igal (1984).
56. Cf. Johnson (1999): 12, who acknowledges that the myth “deserves serious reappraisal.”
I certainly concur.
57. Assuming, as noted by Bussanich (2013): 265, that Rep. postdates Phd. A good short list of
works to consult on this eschatological myth: Festugière (1970); Annas (1981) & (1982): 132;
Johnston (1999); Dotter (2003); Lear (2006); McPherran (2006); and (2010); Halliwell
(2007); Ferrari (2009); Inwood (2009); Bussanich (2013).
58. The myth appears to have been the centerpiece of exegetical studies concerning eschatol-
ogy in the Platonic schools, as Proclus’ lengthy commentary demonstrates. His commen-
tary on the Myth of Er is found in Remp. 2.85,3–359.11 in Festugière’s 1970 French
translation.
59. Rep. 614A-C. Cf. Halliwell (2007): 447–51; Bussanich (2013): 249.
60. Annas (1982): 132: Demythologizing the myth helps to discover the “conviction that my
character and way of life is as it is largely because of the effects of my family and political
situation.” McPherran (2006): 97.
61. McPherran (2006): 97; Inwood (2009) gives five types of justice in the myth.
62. Dotter (2003): 129.
63. McPherran (2006): 96.
64. Cf. the works of Annas cited above and McPherran (2010).
65. Lear (2006): 39ff.
358  Notes

66. Johnson (1999): 4f. I agree with the assertion that Annas has not satisfactorily answered
the question that the myth raises concerning justice. See, generally, Baltes (1996).
67. Ibid. and Bussanich (2013), who, though positing different methodologies, offer very
good analysis of the purpose of eschatological myths in Plato, and, together, offer the
modern reader a very good, composite view of their meaning and purpose.
68. Rep. 614C–E. An excellent overview is Halliwell (2007).
69. Rep. 615A–17C. Raasted (1979): 8f., noting Porphyry’s philological infelicities.
70. Rep. 617D–E. Festugière (1970): III.35, believes the Prophet collectively means the inter-
mediate class of angels presiding over the life of the souls.
7 1. Rep. 617E–20D. Cf. the analysis of Festugière (1970): III.35f., on the cosmic order which
determines the type of existence each soul will have.
72. Rep. 620D–21A. Dotter (2003) gives a good analysis of the interplay between “free-will”
and determinism in the myth, noting (135): “Even if our choices are always determined by
an infinite regress of previous choices, at least it seems that this chain of causality is not
an empty, meaningless, blind necessity, but a necessity that follows from the rational
nature of the universe.” We shall see later how these themes functioned in Porphyry’s
eschatology.
73. Rep. 621A–D. Ferrari (2009): 130 says that in the myth the “philosophic life guarantees
happiness in this world and reward in the afterlife, but does not, it seems, guarantee hap-
piness in future lives.” It does appear that the cycle of rebirths is continual.
74. Rep. 621B.
75. See Ferrari (2009): 129.
76. Inwood (2009): 46.
77. Cf. Dillon and Finamore (2002): 191, who give the example of Proclus, in Rep.

2.128.3–140.25, who gives the place of punishment for bad souls as the ether beneath the
moon; and Damascius, in Phd. 2.99, who says the place of judgment is the whole
cosmos.
78. See Blumenthal (1998): 128.
79. Rist (1989): 188. Cf. Trouillard (1974): 12; and Bussanich (1988).
80. Blumenthal (1971): 95.
81. Cf. Rich (1957): 233ff.
82. Cf. Blumenthal (1971): 95, citing Enn. IV.3.8.5–9 and III.4.2.11ff.; and (1998): 129. This con-
cept had a rich history in Greek culture centuries before Plotinus, as two Gold Plates, A2
and A3 from Thurii, attest (West [1983]: 22 n. 56): The soul of the deceased supplicates
Persephone: “I have paid the penalty for deeds not righteous.” Cf. Seaford (1986): 22. The
Gold Plates are associated with Orphic teaching and often address salvation in the after-
life: Albinus (2000): 102, 140. They contain brief texts mainly in dactylic hexameters dat-
ing from c. 400 B.C. to A.D. 260 and have been found in (e.g.) Calbria, Thurii, Magna
Graecia, Thessaly, Crete, Macedonia, and Rome. See Bernabé and San Cristóbal
(2008): 1–6; Edmonds (2004): 110 (Sigla); and Bowden (2010): 171: Pl. XVII, Gold Tablet
from Hipponion, c. 400 B.C.; Pl. XVIII, Gold Tablet from Thurii in S. Italy, c. 300 B.C.;
and Pl. XIX, Gold Tablet from Pharsalos in Thessaly, c. 350–300 B.C. For Palmyrene
notions of the afterlife see Droge (1982).
83. Enn. IV.8.8.1–13.
84. For a good discussion of this text see Bussanich (2013): 279.
85. Enn. IV.8.8.3f.
86. Bussanich (2013): 280.
87. See (e.g.) Enn. III.3.4.10–12, 5.15–17, and the discussion in Bussanich (2013): 284.
 Notes  359

88. See Rist (1989): 187. Scholarship has advanced exponentially since William James’s
1901–2 Gifford Lectures on “The Varieties of Religious Experience,” on which see Jantzen
(1989). Cf. Trouillard (1961).
89. V. Plot. 23.16f. Bussanich (1994): 5323. I suppose the flip side of the argument could very
well be that four times in six years is not a very high percentage; and Porphyry, who
followed his master’s teaching closely, testifies to attaining mystical union only once.
90. Cf. Bussanich (2013): 287 and 288 n.112, citing (e.g.) Enn. I.6.9.16–25; IV.7.10.14–20;
V.8.4.36ff.; VI.5.7 and 12; VI.7.12.22–30, 31–6.
91. Cf. Enn. V.5.6.19–21; VI.4–5; Thesleff (1980): 104; and Bussanich (2013): 182. For an anal-
ysis of “contact language” with the One see Bussanich (1988): 183, citing the Plotinian
terms συνάπτω, ἐϕάψασθαι, ἀϕή, ἐπαϕή, and θιγεῖν to describe contact with the One;
and Thesleff (1980): 109–13.
92. Bussanich (1988): 185.
93. See Rist (1989): 183.
94. E.g., Enn. VI.9.10.2f. Cf. Bussanich (1994): 5301; Rist (1989): 187; and (1967): 215–20;
Hadot (1988); and Culianu (1982).
95. Rist (1967): 217.
96. Wallis (1995): 89.
97. Ibid. gives as “proof ” Enn. II.2.2.6ff; V.1.11.9–15; and VI.8.18.8ff., that Plotinus did not
believe the soul lost its individuality after union with the One because the centers of the
two concentric circles mentioned in VI.9.10.16ff. are indistinguishable while together,
but distinct when they move apart, but Plotinus is referring to the Unio mystica in the
temporal realm in that passage, and not in the hereafter where as I argue below, the two
become one permanently.
98. Rist (1967): 219, 227f.; and (1971). In his 1989 article Rist (188) interprets passages like
Enn. VI.9.11 as indicating “that the self-realization of the soul in union with the One is
the realization of a natural but dependent immortality… ”; thus arguing against a the-
ory of monistic mysticism.
99. Rist (1967): 227 cites Enn. VI.9, where the soul joins the heavenly chorus at the happy
end of the journey, adding: “The members of a chorus are blended together when they
sing, but it would be absurd to say that they had no individual differences of any kind.”
This is a very narrow and literalist interpretation of what often is described by Plotinus
in highly mystical and symbolic terminology, and the opposite argument can be made
that the individual voices in the chorus are so perfectly blended together that they are
indistinguishable from each other. As I argue below, the composite picture one gets
from a synoptic reading of the relevant passages in the Enneads is conducive to a monis-
tic understanding of the permanent union with the One. On the early Christian views of
the self see de Vogel (1961).
100. Bussanich (1988): 186.
101. Bussanich (1994): 5325, citing Enn. VI.8.(39).16.12–16, 19–21, 30–35 and VI.8(39).15.1–8;
cf. ibid., 5326: “Absorption into this infinitely rich, superabundant reality means an
unlimited expansion, not an annihilation, of the self. Losing one’s ‘human’ identity, on
this view, is no loss at all, but an infinite gain.”
102. Bussanich (1994): 5328; and (1988): 185: after analyzing a number of pertinent texts (e.g.,
Enn. VI.9(9).3.10–13; VI.9(9).9.20–22; VI.9(9).9.50–52; VI.9(9).10.9–11; VI.9(9).10.14–17;
VI.9(9).11.4–16; VI.9(9).11.31–32), concluding they “establish that in the unified state there is
no otherness and that the soul is not different from what it apprehends… .the removal of
otherness from the soul and its experience makes it difficult to distinguish it fom the One.”
360  Notes

103. I use the LCL edition of the Enneads by Armstrong.

104. I.e., the One is beyond thought.
105. Enn. VI.9.9.20–22. An excellent discussion of this and related passages is found in
Bussanich (1996): 57f.
106. Enn. VI.9.9.55–59.
107. Ibid., VI.9.10.14–19. The separation, as noted earlier, applies only to the mystical union
in the temporal realm, not post mortem.
108. Ibid., VI.9.11.4–6.
109. Ibid., VI.9.11.32f.
110. Ibid., VI.9.11.40–45.
111. Ibid., V.5.8.21–22.
112. Ibid., VI.9.10.12ff.; VI.9.11.6f.; VI.9.11.9–11; VI.9.3.10–14; VI.9.10.15–20.
113. Ibid., VI.9.10.19f.
114. Ibid., VI.9.4.4f. Rist (1967): 217, who supports the theory of theistic mysticism, cites Enn.
V.3.17.38, where Plotinus states that the soul must “strip away everything” to ascend to
the One. If, however, Plotinus insists that the soul must do this, would such stripping
not include the soul’s otherness, which in turn, implies that permanent union means the
soul is absolutely identical with the One because otherness denotes separation?
115. Enn. VI.7.35.35f. Note here again the use of γίνεται.
116. Ibid., VI.7.34.13f.
117. Exactly when the soul achieves permanent union is, to my knowledge, not explicitly
addressed by Plotinus. As I shall argue below concerning Porphyry’s views, we can
rightly infer that this took place after at least three philosophical lives as taught in the
Phaedrus.
118. Cf. Bussanich (1996): 57: “Transcending Intellect, being, and thought is the final stage of
the mystical ascent: the soul ‘is carried out of it [i.e., the intelligible world] by the surge
of the wave of Intellect itself ’ VI.7.36.17–180 to vision of the Good as pure light.”
119. I am most grateful to Dr. Crystal Addey and Dr. Deepa Majumbdar for bringing this to
my attention.
120. Though Proclus does not mention Porphyry often in his commentary, I would think
that his own exegesis of the myth is significantly indebted to Plotinus’ disciple. See
Festugière (1970) III.40: Proclus, in Rep. Prologue 96.2–97.8, mentioning in his list also
Numenius, Albinus, Gaius, Maximus of Nicaea, Harpocration, Eucleides, and Porphyry;
cf. Blumenthal (2000); Toulouse (2001): 191f.; and Courcelle (1960): 25–36, esp. 28, n. 4.
This does not imply that Proclus always accepted Porphyry’s interpretations, on which
see Steel (1999): 354ff. For a good study of the ancient commentaries on Plato and
Aristotle see Chase (2000) and (2012a); Sorabji (1990a) and (1990b); and Evangeliou
(1988). On the harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle in Porphyry’s thought see Hadot
(1990); and Schwyzer (1941). Also useful is Van den Berg (2001); and Rist (1973).
121. Civ. Dei X.1. See Chadwick (2002); the relevant essays in O’Daly (2001a); and Capitani
(1984). For the opposing views of the Epicureans see Tescari (1944–5).
122. This text is cited in Dillon and Finamore (2002): 204, who refer to Westerink, vol. II,
282, who says the three groups correspond to those who lived according to ethical,
social, and purificatory virtues. It this is correct, it implies further debate and develop-
ment on the correlation of the virtues and the final destiny of the soul.
123. Cf. Chase (2004a): 52.
124. Cf. A. Smith (1974): 43.
125. It is incorrect to say that the Ethereal Realm is the highest place to which a soul can
ascend, as does Toulouse (2001): 202, which obviously ignores the eschatological
 Notes  361

significance of the Empyrean Realm. For the cosmic importance of Ether in the Orphic
Hymns see (e.g.) Athanassakis (1977): 10f., no. 5. For the astrological background see
Barton (1994); Cumont (1960).
126. See Lewy (1956):  137; A. Smith (1974):  63; Majercik (1989):  203; and Simmons
(2001b): 210; Toulouse (2001): 201; cf. Festugière (1970): III.151, for Proclus, in Rep.
201.10–202.2, who gives fire, ether, worlds. See Chase (2004a): 37–58, 39–45, who can be
given as an example of a modern philosopher who has perfectly apprehended the analy-
sis of Porphyry’s three-path soteriology and its indebtedness to Chaldaean eschatology
found in Simmons (2001b).
127. For the Supreme Being in Chaldean theology called Father see Lewy (1956): 76f. This is
plausibly a source which influenced Porphyry.
128. See A. Smith (1974): 27f.
129. According to Proclus, in Tim. III.234, 18–26, cited in Finamore (1985): 17 and interpreted
by him to mean that “the vehicle and irrational soul were made up of bits of the heavenly
spheres and their ultimate fate was to return to the cosmos. The mixtures are dissolved
but still exist separately from the soul.” Smith (1974): 66f., understands the statement that
the vehicle and the irrational soul remain yet are dissolved (διαλύεται) by exegeting μὴ
εἶναι as saying they are denied further existence as individuals. Finamore (1985): 26f., is
right to say that “since Porphyry denied any further association with this realm for those
philosophers escaping it, the immortality of the vehicle was not an issue.” But this does
not address what happens to the vehicle with respect to (1) the cycle of rebirths (reincar-
nations) that most souls must experience and (2) specifically what happens to Path I and
II souls in Porphyry’s system. In De anima 37 (Dillon and Finamore [2002]: 67),
Iamblichus says Porphyry taught “each irrational faculty is freed into the whole life of the
universe from which is was detached… ,” which appears to indicate some kind of con-
tinued existence in the afterlife and implying influence from Chaldean eschatology on
the salvation of the ὄχημα, which not only survives death, but secures a dwelling place in
the Ethereal realm (see Majercik [1989]: 32f., on Chaldean Oracle fragments 128f.; 95, Fr.
120 calling it… ψυχῆς λεπτὸν ὄχημα; and 125, Fr. 201 [souls become mundane through
their vehicles]; cf. Geudtner (1971). It is important to keep in mind, however, that
although there is indisputable Chaldean influence in the thought of Porphyry, it is equally
clear that he did not find all Chaldean doctrines credible (cf. Ad Gaurum 16.6.1f.
[Wilberding (2011): 53]), often modifying them to suit his own purposes. An example of
the latter is the location of the irrational soul and its vehicle: Porphyry will never have
placed them in the Ethereal realm. A positive influence: the Chaldean belief that the
vehicle is formed of the accretions from ether, air, the sun, and the moon, and it joins the
soul and the body (Majercik [1989]: 31); which should be compared with Iamblichus, De
an. 48 (Dillon and Finamore, [2002]: 213): When the soul descends back to earth for its
next reincarnation, its irrational faculties are reconstituted from the various celestial
bodies; and then they are “sloughed off and returned to those bodies during its re-ascent.”
On the semi-material πνεῦμα remaining attached to the soul of the non-philosopher
after death see Porphyry, Sent. xxix and Smith (1974): 23; (2004): 92; and Chase
(2005): 233–6. On Porphyry’s views about the vehicle of the World Soul see Proclus, in
Rep. 196.22–197.16 on Rep. 616 B 7 in Festugière (1970): III.145; and Porphyry, Comm. in
Rep. 185 F (on Rep. 6126B 5–6: Wilberding [2011]: 136f.).
130. Aug., Civ. Dei X.9 (Bidez, fr. 2, 29*).
131. Ibid.: “. . . et admoneat utendum alicuius daemonis amicitia, quo subvectante vel paulu-
lum a terra possit elevari quisque post mortem, aliam vero viam esse perhibeat ad ange-
lorum superna consortia.”
362  Notes

132. Ibid., X.11. Note that according to Proclus, in Rep. 254.4–256.21, commenting on the
Prophet in the Myth of Er (Rep. 617D), says that Porphyry called him a νoῦν σεληνιακóν.
133. Bidez, fr. 2, 28*–29*. Cf. Watson (1983–4): 230.
134. Civ. Dei X.9, Bidez, fr. 2, 27*: “. . . reversionem vero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cui-
quam negat;”; Watson (1983–4): 230.
135. Ibid., Bidez, fr. 2, 28*–29*: “Denique animam rationale sive, quod magis amat dicere,
intellectualem, in sua posse dicit evadere, etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nulla theurgica
fuerit arte purgatum; porro autem a theurgo spiritalem purgari hactenus ut non ex hoc
ad in mortalitatem aeternitatemque perveniat.” Manhester (1986) gives a good overview
for the religious experience of time and eternity in ancient Mediterranean spirituality.
For the philosophical background see Sorabji (1983).
136. Cf. Chase (2004a): 40ff.
137. Civ. Dei X.27, Bidez, fr. 4, 32*: “quod eos qui philosophari non possunt ad ista seducss
quae tibi tamquam superiorum capaci esse inutilia confiteris; ut videlicet quicumque a
philosophiae virtute remote sunt, quae ardua nimis atque paucorum est, te auctore
theurgos homines, a quibus non quidem in anima intellectuali, verum saltem in anima
spiritali purgentur, inquirant,… quod in anima spiritali theurgica arte purgati ad
Patrem quidem non redeunt, sed super aerias plagas inter deos aetherios habitabunt.”
A similar doctrine is found in Civ. Dei X.26, Bidez fr. 34*, on which see A. Smith
(1974): 59; cf. Chase (2004a): 55f.; and Cipriani (1997): 122. For procession and return in
Damascius see Dillon (1998).
138. Cf. Toulouse (2001): 202; Chase (2004a): 49.
139. Carlier (1998): 134–8, gives an excellent analysis of the various eschatological paths in
Porphyry’s system, viz., (1) evil souls return to mortal bodies; (2) those who purify the
anima spiritalis ascend to a “paradis de deuxième ordre, dans l’ether, au milieu des
astres” where the angels and gods, but not God, dwell; and (3) the soul of the sage
returns to the Father. Yet this does not eschatologically locate the soul in philosophical
training whose spiritual part is cleansed by the virtue of continence (Path II) mentioned
in Civ. Dei X.28, on which see Simmons (2001b): 196ff. The reference (196) to those “not
practicing philosophy” refers to the mature philosopher and does not, as argued in this
book, preclude the designation of philosopher in training. Cf. the works by John Michael
Chase in the bibliography below.
140. Cf. Finamore (1985): 26; Carlier (1998): 136. For the general background Dörrie (1957)
and (1966c) are useful.
141. For Iamblichus, see the pertinent works by Finamore and G. Shaw in the bibliography
below; for Proclus and Sallustius see A. Smith (1974): 58.
142. Aug., Civ. Dei X.9, Bidez, fr. 2, 28*–29*.
143. Ibid., X.28. For the ‘happy few’ in the mansion of Zeus in Abst. II.52 see Toulouse
(2001): 201.
144. Civ. Dei. X.29, Bidez, fr. 10, 37*. On this see Wolfskeel (1972b).
145. Civ. Dei X.29 “secundum intellectum tamen viventibus omne quod deest providential
Dei et gratia post hanc vitam posse compleri.” See Cutino (1994): 62–5, for a comparison
of divine providence in the thought of Augustine and Porphyry. For Augustine’s
Pneumatology see Studer (1995). Cf. Fox (2006). For Aristotelian views see Verbeke
(1975).
146. See A. Smith (1974): 58f.; and Bubloz (2005): 113–37, 126f.
147. Cf. Barcenilla (1968): 430: “Toda la vida de Ulises ha sido un símbolo de la lucha purifi-
catoria contra las pasiones. Es la culminación alegórica de Porfirio que convierte toda la
Odisea en un símbolo del espiritualismo neoplatónico.”
 Notes  363

148. Ibid. (1968): 405ff.; Girgenti (1997a): 47f. For the ascent and descent of the soul in De
ant. nymph.: Ulansey (1989): 60ff.; and Digeser (2000): 85.
149. Aug., Civ. Dei X.29, Bidez, fr. 10, 37*–38*: “. . . Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus
multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse
fugiendum ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo?” Cf. Trapè (1978): 239ff.
150. Ibid., X.30, Bidez, fr. 11.1, 39*: “. . . in eo tamen aliorum Platonicorum opinionem et non
in re parva emendavit, quod mundatam ab omnibus malis animam et cum Patre consti-
tutam numquam iam mala mundi huius passuram esse confessus est.” Cf. also A. Smith
(1974): 57.
151. As does Carlier (1998): 136, citing Aug., Civ. Dei XII.21 (Smith [1993a]: 298b), Bidez, fr.
11.4, 41* (cf. A. Smith [1974]: 58f., who makes a similarly erroneous assertion): “Si enim
de istis circuitibus et sine cessatione alternantibus itionibus et reditionibus animarum
Porphyrius Platonicus suorum opinionem sequi… et, quod in libro decimo… com-
memoravi, dicere maluit animam propter cognoscenda mala traditam mundo, ut ab eis
liberata atque purgata, cum ad Patrem redierit, nihil ulterius tale patiatur…” As we
have seen earlier in this chapter, Plotinus also believed in a permanent (eschatological)
union with the One. On this see (e.g.) A. Smith (1974): 42, citing Enn. III.4.2–6; and 57.
On the relationship between the One and eternity see A. Smith (1998) and (1996a).
152. Civ. Dei X.30, Bidez, fr. 11.1, 40*: “Vidit hoc Porphyrius purgatamque animam ob hoc
reverti dixit ad Patrem, ne aliquando iam malorum polluta contagione teneatur.” Cf.
Wildberg (2002): 269: “. . . bei Porphyrius das Erlebnis der Henosis eschatologisert
wird: Est ist etwas, auf das der Neuplatoniker nach seinem Tode hoffen darf, aber es ist
kein Erlebnis, das zum irdischen Dasein gehört.”
153. II Cor. 5:8, subtracting the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.
154. Bidez, fr. 11.1, 39*.
155. Dillon and Finamore (2002): 223. Cf. Chase (2004a): 50: “Thus the elements that make
up the vehicle, pneuma, or irrational soul do continue to exist, but not as such; not, that
is, as the vehicle, pneuma, or irrational part of an individual incarnate soul, but as ele-
ments of the whole.”
156. Ibid.
157. Iamblichus, De an. 51: Dillon and Finamore (2002): 223.
158. Ibid.
159. Stobaeus, I.457.11ff, cited in A. Smith (1974): 49.
160. The text is Civ. Dei X.29, Bidez, fr. 10, 37*: “Vos certe tantum tribuitis animae intellec-
tuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstantialem paternae illi menti,
quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis.” For Plotinian and Porphyrian influ-
ences upon Augustine’s understanding of the soul see Doucet (1993a) and (1993b); cf.
Pépin (2000a); (1999b); and (1964a); and Wolfskeel (1972a) and (1972b).
161. Cf. Chase (2004a): 40ff.; Toulouse (2001): 200f.; and Alfeche (1995): 96f., who shows
that Augustine’s Sermo 240.4, which describes Neoplatonic eschatology, is indebted to
the Phaedrus.
162. Civ. Dei X.30, Bidez, fr. 11.1, 40*: “. . . Porphyrii profecto est praeferenda sententia his qui
animarum circulos alternante semper beatitate et miseria suspicati sunt.” For
Neoplatonic influence upon Augustine’s conception of the soul’s ascent see Neil (1999).
163. Cf. A. Smith (1974): 35–9.
164. An excellent translation and commentary of this is found in Wilberding (2011): 141–7.
165. Rep. 614B–621D 3.
166. Cf. Wilberding (2011): 123, who argues that both came from a single work, an argument
with which I concur. See also Toulouse (2001): 195.
364  Notes

167. Wilberding (2011): 123.

168. Smith (1993a): 295–308: 268 F (Stobaeus, II.8.39 [II.163.16–167.7]); 269 F (Stobaeus,
II.8.40 [II.167.8–17]); 270 F (Stobaeus, II.8.41 [II.167.18–168.8]); 271 F (Stobaeus, II.8.42
[II.168.9–173.2]).
169. Wilberding (2011): 123f.: Fragments from Porphyry’s Commentary on the Republic
derive from Proclus and Marcrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio.
170. Smith (1993a): 181 T (Proclus, in Remp. II.96.10–5, on Plato, Rep. 614B-621D). Cf. also
Wilberding (2011): 124. On Pythagorean influence upon the Platonic tradition see (e.g.)
Bremmer (2002).
171. This is the scholarly consensus, on which see Wilberding (2011): 123ff.
172. Aug., Civ. Dei X.30, Bidez, fr. 11.1, 39*: “Dicit etiam ad hoc Deum animam mundo
dedisse, ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nec aliquando iam talium
polluta contagione teneretur.” Cf. A. Smith (1974): 36, who argues that this implies a
necessary fall of the soul; and Foubert (1992), for similar notions in Augustine’s
Confessions.
173. Cf. Cipriani (1997): 117.
174. See A. Smith (1984); Alfeche (1995): 97, 120ff.; Chadwick (1999): 67; and Wolfskeel
(1972). The passage occurs just before the preceding one cited: Aug., Civ. Dei X.30,
Bidez, fr. 11.1, 38*: “Nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem revolve usque ad
corpora bestiarum scripsisse certissimum est. Hanc sententiam Porphyrii doctor tenuit
et Plotinus; Porphyrio tamen iure displicuit. In hominum sane non sua quae dimiserant,
sed alia nova corpora redire humanas animas arbitrates est.”
175. Wilberding (2011): 127: E.g., Smith (1993a) 268F ταῖς ἔξω ψυχαῖς and 271F τῆς [ψυχῆς]
ἔξω, interpreted to mean outside the body because Porphyry refers to souls falling “into
their bodies,” εἰς τὰ σώματα, in 268F and 270F.
176. Contra Deuse (1983). Cf. Wilberding (2011): 124, 127f. Proclus’ commentary on the Myth
of Er occurs in Remp. 2.85,3–359,11.
177. Rep. 616B–C.
178. Ibid., 617D, 619B–C.
179. Cf. in Remp. 2.196, 22ff., Smith (1993a): 185F, and the commentary by Wilberding
(2011): 128f.
180. In Remp. 2.185, 23–188,5; 198, 29–199, 21, and Wilberding (2011): 129.
181. Proclus, in Remp. 2.2555, 4–9; 256, 9–16 (Smith, [1993a]: 186F). Cf. Wilberding (2011): 130,
noting correctly that Deuse’s (1983) reconstruction fails to acknowledge this important
fragment. On the function of the lunar area in Plotinian cosmology see now Wilberding
(2006): 57f.
182. Cf. Wilberding (2011): 77 n. 227. For the Chaldaean influence see Chase (2004a): 44ff.;
and Simmons (2001b). For the Ad Gaur. generally, see Jurisch (1991); and Brisson
(2012b).
183. Ad Gaur. 16.5.5–11 (Wilberding [2011]: 53): “And the Chaldeans say that from eternity
there has been a divine and intelligible stream through the eastern parts of heaven. And
this stream both moves and turns the cosmos, and brings to life everything in it by send-
ing them their own souls. And every degree, when it came to be around this eastern
region, which is a portal of souls and the spiritual inlet of the universe, is given special
powers. [This region] was called ‘centre’ and [more specifically] ‘horoscope’.” See also
Wilberding’s (77 n. 227) analysis of Smith (1993a) 271F (=Stobaeus, II.8,42 [II
168,9–173,2]). Cf. Ad Gaur. 16.6.1–2, however, revealing that Porphyry adopted
Chaldaean doctrine as he deemed appropriate to suit his philosophical purposes. See
also Congourdeau (2002).
 Notes  365

184. Rep. 617D–E.

185. Carlier (1998): 144; cf. Wilberding (2011): 131, referring to Smith (1993a) 186F and adding
a few lines (14–16): “[The prophet is] positioned not in the moon, as one person says but
in the aether. For we believe that this place is the starting point of nativity. And the
prophet is the guardian of the mortal cycle, and not of the upward journeys into heaven
but of the downward journeys into nativity (Proclus in Remp. 2.256,12–16).”
186. Smith,  271F.
187. Carlier (1998): 144. See Smith, 271F, and Wilberding (2011): 131, on Porphyry’s view that
the lots in the myth are in some way determined by the order in which they move
around in the lunar sphere.
188. Porphyry, On What is in Our Power 271F, 50–1,72–5,90–2, cited in Wilberding (2011): 130,
who makes the important observation that after making their choices, the souls are led
to both Clotho (Rep. 617C 6f.) and Atropos (Rep. 617C 7f.) who are associated with the
fixed stars and the planetary spheres, respectively, and Proclus had difficulty in explain-
ing how these were compatible with his locating the Prophet in the aether. Cf. also
Carlier (1998): 144f. For Proclus’ views on Creation see Bréhier (1953).
189. Porphyry, Sent. 29 and Wilberding (2011): 131: “Thus, a soul that has chosen a radically
different life would need first to shed the layers of its current vehicle by ascending to the
fixed sphere, and then acquire a new one by descending again along a new trajectory.”
Cf. also Chase (2005): 246, citing Porphyry, On the Faculties of the Soul, Frg. 253 (Smith
[1993a]).
190. Iamblichus, De anima 37 (Dillon and Finamore [2002]: 67.
191. Porphyry, Ad Gaur. 16.5.1–5 (Wilberding [2011]). For the Chaldaean belief that the soul
gathers its ὄχημα during its initial descent from the intelligible to the sensible world see
Chase (2004a), 43ff.
192. An important detail of the rebirth process which is lacking in the fragments of Porphyry’s
Commentary on the Republic and Περὶ τoῦ ἐϕ’ ἡμῖν. For the influence of ancient medi-
cine upon philosophy in the Ad Gaurum see Bertier (1990).
193. Wilberding (2011): 132, citing Smith (1993a): 268F. Cf. Chase (2004a): 44.
194. Toulouse (2001): 200f.; Chase (2005): 236.
195. Wilberding (2011): 125; cf. Bussanich (2013): 257.
196. Vit. Plot. 22.8f. I use the LCL translation by Armstrong. Brisson and Flamand (1992): 596,
suggest the oracle was written perhaps by Amelius between 270–301; cf. also Brisson
(1990). I do not find convincing Goulet (1992b), who argues that the oracle did not
come from a Plotinian circle, but “dans les conventicules théurgiques du néoplatonisme
syrien.” See also Edwards (1990c); Wolters (1990); and Goulet-Cazé (1982c). Schwyzer
(1986) and (1976) argues for a Delphic origin.
197. Vit. Plot., 22.45f.
198. Ibid.,  46f.
199. Ibid.,  49ff.
200. The eschatological connection which this word possessed in ancient Greek religious
culture goes far back in history, as the fifth-century B.C.E. epigram for the dead at
Potidaea attests: αἰθὴρ μὲμ ψυχὰς ὑπεδέξατo σώ[ματα] δέ χθων, on which see Edmonds
(2004): 211: “. . . the return of the soul to the aither was not an esoteric doctrine confined
to a few avant-garde thinkers, but part of the mainstream tradition.” For Proclus’ locat-
ing souls in the aether on top of the sublunary region (in Remp. 2.131,14ff.) see Wilberding
(2011): 125f.; and in general Lewy (1956): 137; Majercik (1989): 117 (Chal. Or. fr. 184); 125
(Chal. Or. fr. 203); and fr. 11/115 of the Poem of Empedocles depicting aether as the fire
whence the Demiurge shifts souls into the “sea,” referring to metempsychosis, in Inwood
366  Notes

(1992): 81 (Gk. text: 208); and 52–65 for immortality and reincarnation in Empedocles’
fragments. For Porphyry and Empedocles see Di Pasquale (2000) and Altheim and
Stiehl (1954). On Empedocles: Bidez (1894); and for Porphyry’s view of the Demiurge
see Deuse (1977); and in the Platonic tradition generally, Dillon (2000); and Frenkian
(1961).
201. Contra: Goulet (1982b): 400, who tries too hard to associate this and other concepts
found in the oracle with the belief in what he calls “l’immortalité astrale.” Cf. id.
(1992b): 612, correctly acknowledges Chaldaean influence on the oracle.
202. Carlier (1998): 136, remarks that the paradise of the second order where souls who have
been cleansed either by theurgy or by continence go after death and live with the gods
and angels, and then makes an astute observation on Vit. Plot. 23: “On remarquera que
c’est à peu près ce que l’oracle de la Vie de Plotin par Porphyre (§23) promet à Plotin.”
Brisson and Flamand (1992): II.590, see a connection between aether in the oracle
(22.51) and Il. 556.
203. Ibid., 53ff. Brisson and Flamand (1992): II.590, note the indebtedness here to Apology
41A and the myth at the end of Gorgias 524B–527A. Cf. also O’Meara (2003): 107–11;
Männlein-Robert (2002): 585; Bonazzi (2000); and Colle (1934).
204. Ibid., 57. An example of Neoplatonic exegetical methods whose primary goal was to
harmonize the disparate eschatological passages in Plato’s dialogues, see Proclus, in
Remp. 128.3–132.19, commenting upon Rep. 614C1, Gorg. 523B1 and 524A, in Festugière
(1970): III.71.
205. As noted by Brisson and Flamand (1992): II.577. Proclus, in Remp. 134.24–136.16

(Festugière [1970]: 79), interprets the judges in Plato’s myth (Rep. 614B–16B) as the souls
of heroes, demons, and gods.
206. Porphyry, Vit. Plot. 22.58–60.
207. On ζωῇσι of Vit. Plot. 22.60, cf. Brisson and Flamand (1992): II.593: “Le pluriel doit être
maintenu. On pourrait interpréter ainsi ces vers: au cours de ses vies antérieurs, l’âme de
Plotin n’avait cessé de pratiquer la purification.”
208. I do not find the least convincing Goulet (1982b): 396, who argues that the cosmology
implied in the oracle which he calls “une immortalité astrale” is badly adapted to con-
ventional Neoplatonic anthropology, resulting in his eisegeting (403) the contents of the
oracle to “correspondre à une expérience initiatique proprement théurgique et non pas
mystique au sens plotinien du terme.”
209. Cf. Alfeche (1995): 103, citing Aug., Sermo 241.6, which mentions Porphyry, Plato, and
Pythagoras as examples of philosophers who believe the soul must leave the body
behind on earth to obtain a happy life in the hereafter. Centrone (2000) gives a good
historical analysis including Neopythagoreanism; cf. also Doria (1994); Dillon (1988b);
and Levy (1953).
210. A common theme in the Neoplatonic exegesis of Plato’s eschatological myths, as seen in
Proclus, in Remp. 313.7–15.14 (Festugière [1970]: III.272), who says Plato put these fig-
ures as judges in his myths to show that they had led an exemplary life while on earth.
Cf. Pindar, O.2.71–5, for the Islands of the Blessed where souls become ἥρωες ἁγυoὶ after
a final judgment, and the analysis in Albinus (2000): 131; and the Orphic Gold Leaf L3,
line 11 from Petelia (mid fourth century B.C.E.), speaking of the soul’s reigning with
heroes in the underworld, in Bernabé and San Cristóbal (2008): 169; cf. Edmonds
(2004): 84f., for the Orphic belief depicted on some of the Gold Tablets of the sympo-
sium of the blessed in the afterlife including wine-drinking and participation in rituals
in the underworld; and Seaford (1986): 22.
211. Ibid., 23.8–17.
 Notes  367

212. Ibid.,  30–36.

213. Ibid., 38ff.
214. Though he acknowledges that the designation in the oracle of daimon for Plotinus is
incompatible with Neoplatonic ontology, Goulet (1982b): 395, does not get the central
eschatological point of the text and appears to be dumbfounded that the Supreme God
beyond Intellect is not mentioned in it. Yet according to the interpretation given in this
chapter, the reader would be shocked if he were mentioned.
215. Festugière (1970): III.77f., on Proclus, in Remp. 132.20–34.23, who exegetes several
Platonic dialogues (e.g., Symp. 202E; Epinomis 984D) to show that demons were between
mortals and gods. On the soul becoming a daimon or god in Plotinus, Enn. III.4.6.1f.;
III.2.11–2; & III.3.1, see Goulet (1992b): II.615; Bernabé and San Cristóbal (2008): 170,
Gold Tablets L8 & 9, speaking of the soul becoming a god; cf. 177, L8, L9, L11; Inwood
(1992): 203, Empedocles, fr. 1/112.4, who says he is a θεὸς ἄμβρoτoς, oὐκέτι θνητὸς;
53–6: reincarnations; 55, CTXT-1c & A18b: the daimonic man returns to the immortal
elements in the universe; 56f., fr. 17/109: the six elements of a daimon. As Inwood (55)
notes, the case for the immortality of the daimon in Empedocles is not strong.
216. Contra: Goulet (1992b): II.607, who gives five apparent contradictions between Plotinus’
and Porphyry’s philosophy and the contents of the oracle, none of which I find
persuasive.
217. Cf. Brisson and Flamand (1992): 587; 595; Brisson (1990); 82–5; Männlein-Robert
(2002): 586; and Goulet (1992b): 611, who makes the intriguing observation that σέλας
at 22.29 “renvoie à σεληνή… dont il est l’etymologie, ce qui permet de noter que selon
Porphyre, les Champs Élysées sont dans la lune.” These lunar associations are connected
with the cosmological re-cycling center where the Prophet from the Myth of Er plays an
important role in the reincarnation process.
218. MacLachlan, Appendix 2, in Brisson and Flamand (1992): 601. However, I read this
text as conveying the image of many paths and crossroads in the underworld of which
the soul needed exact knowledge to make its journey there successful. This interpreta-
tion coheres with Porphyry’s soteriological paths, which have corresponding eschato-
logical trajectories. The use of well-curved simply refers to the fact that Plotinus
achieved his destination without incident, or another way of saying he enjoyed the
journey. For paths in the underworld in Greek mythology see Werner (2012): 112;
West (1983): 14, n. 39: a scholiast on Homer, for the Pythagorean concept of beans as
an ascent by which souls return from Hades to the upper air (Hcld, fr. 41 = Orphic fr.
291); Inwood (1992): 81, Empedocles fr. CTXT-10(g), referring to the hard paths of the
souls during their transmigrations; Edmonds (2004): 197, citing Phd. 108A4, which
speaks of the τρίoδoι among which souls wander as they depart the land of the living;
Bernabé and San Cristóbal (2008): 9, L1, from Hipponion c. 400 B.C.E., mentioning
the ἱερὰ ὁδóς, which leads to eternal happiness; id., 24: Plato, Gorg. 524A: the judges
judge at the crossroads whence one leads to Hades and the other to the Isles of the
Blessed (cf. Phd. 108A); Bernabé and San Cristóbal (2008): 55, L3: Gold Tablet from
Petelia (mid-fourth century B.C.E.), which appears to be an instruction manual for
the soul’s journey to the underworld; cf. ibid., 95, L8, a Gold Tablet from Thurii (fourth
century B.C.E.), which says: “Take the path to the right towards the sacred meadows
and groves of Persephone.” Cf. Bowden (2010): 148ff.; and Orphic Hymn no. 1, which
addresses Hecate “of the roads and crossroads” (τριoδῖτιν, ἐραννήν). The mention of
meadows recalls the Myth of Er. Also worth noting is Porphyry, Phil. orac., Smith
(1993a): 323 F, which speaks about the innumberable paths on the road (ὁδóς) to
heaven learned by the Hebrews and others; and 324 F, which addresses the many ways
368  Notes

to the gods of the barbarians. For innate knowledge addressed in the Ad Marc. see
Dönt (1964).
219. MacLachlan, Appendice 2, in Brisson and Flamand (1992): 600.
220. For a good analysis of this text see Werner (2012): 79. I might add the possibility of
Chaldaean theological influence as well, especially the concept of eros as the cosmic
power interfused with the Ideas (=thoughts of the Supreme Intellect), which maintains
the order of the universe, on which see Lewy (1956): 126ff.; and Chal. Or. fr. 39 (Majercik
[1989]: 65), which says Eros keeps the cosmic elements on course.
221. It is as rare as the gold of Ophir to find hardly anything in Porphyry’s works on the sub-
ject of Hades. Cf. Chase (2005): 247 = Porph., On the Styx, Frgs. 373, 377 (Smith [1993a]);
and id., (2004), 47f.; in Sent. 29 the soul in Hades has a dark, subterranean existence (cf.
Chase [2004a]:  45, n.  38); Proclus, in Remp. 106.14–107.14 (Festugière
[1970]: III.49; = Smith [1993a]182F), says he believed it was logical for the philosopher to
discuss the soul’s journey into Hades in the context of its posthumous destiny. This
appears to be based upon a consequentialist understanding of justice: Smith
(1993a): 182F, Wilberding (2011): 136: “Plato did not frighten souls by setting up these
objects of fear in Hades. Rather, by presenting these [events] to the unjust, Plato makes
his listeners hesitant to commit injustice, and he all but draws the conclusion: if being
unjust is choice-worthy for you, then the most horrible places of punishment are
choice-worthy for you. But you flee these with all your might; therefore, you must also
flee injustice.” Cf. also Chadwick (1999): 67. According to Diodorus of Sicily, 1.96.5 and
1.22.6f., Orpheus learned about punishments in Hades from the Egyptians and intro-
duced these doctrines to the Greeks, on which see Albinus (2000): 131; for Pythagorean
concepts of Hades see West (1983): 22; and in later Neoplatonism see Dillon and
Finamore (2002): 194.
222. In the ancient Greek world, the sage was often thought to have knowledge of his past
lives. Porphyry, Vit. Pythag. 45, informs us that Pythagoras in his past lives had been,
first Euphorbus, then Aethalides, Hermotimus, Pyrrhus, and finally himself; cf. Bernabé
and San Cristóbal (2008): 9ff., L1–4, all of which mention drinking from the wáter of
mnemosyne, and the editors’ comment (16): “. . . remembering one’s previous lives is a
fundamental exercise for knowing who one is and getting to know one’s soul. Anamnesis
constitutes a purification of the soul.” Cf. Inwood (1992): 254f., Empedocles, fr.
111/117: “For I have already become a boy and a girl and a bush and a bird and a fish [cor-
rupt text] from the sea”; and West (1983): 18f.: Xenophanes, fr. 7ª: Pythagoras, upon see-
ing someone beating a puppy, said, “Stop! That’s the soul of a friend of mine; I recognize
the voice.” Is it possible that Plotinus claimed to have possessed similar knowledge of his
past lives, which might have been known to at least some of his followers? If so, this may
have influenced both the contents of Apollo’s Oracle and Porphyry’s commentary. For
the Sage in Greco-Roman culture see Hadot (1998) and (1991).
223. Vit. Plot. 23.39.
224. And this is not due to the oracle’s rapprochements with theurgy, which connects it geo-
graphically with Syrian Neoplatonism, according to Goulet (1982b): 393.
225. Aug., Civ. Dei X.29, Bidez, fr. 10, 37*: “Confiteris tamen gratiam, quando quidem ad
Deum per virtue intellegentiae pervenire paucis dicis esse concessum.”
226. Proclus, in Remp. 2.161,3–8; 2.300,10–2; 2.330,18–331,1. For an analysis of the Phaedrus
myth see Werner (2012): 77–85. The concept of the three-thousand-year cycle of the soul
came from the Egyptians according to Herodotus, 2.123, on which see Ryan (2012): 199;
and Seaford (1986): 11. On Empedocles, fr. 11/115, which gives thirty thousand seasons
(ten thousand years) for the banishment of the soul (daimon) from the Region of the
 Notes  369

Blessed Ones, see Inwood (1992): 57. According to the Rhapsodic Theogony (=Hieroi
Logoi in Twenty-Four Rhapsodies), fr. 231 (West [1983]: 75), souls spend three hundred
years in the underworld before rebirth. On the journey of a thousand years in Rep. 615A
2, see Proclus, in Remp. 168.27–171.6 (Festugière [1970]: III.113). Empedocles, fr. 136/146
(Inwood [1992]: 55), claims he is about to “sprout up” again in his next life as a god.
Arnobius, Adv. nat. 2.33–4, refers to souls that receive their wings after they are liberated
from bodies and cites the Phaedrus as his source for this concept. See n. 54 above.
227. Werner (2012): 79 n. 64, notes that Socrates is pessimistic in the Phaedrus about the pos-
sibility of the soul’s never having to be subject to reincarnation. I concur and suggest
that Porphyry modified the three-thousand-year cycle for the philosophical lives to suit
his concept of permanent escape. Goulet’s essays (1982b & 1992b) erroneously downplay
the importance of Platonic and Neoplatonic influence in the oracle, but for a better
assessment see Männlein-Robert (2002): 585, who I think rightly argues for a
Platonic-Neopythagorean influence.
228. It must be kept in mind also that it required an immense amount of time and even sev-
eral lives for the soul to escape the rebirth cycle, on which see Bussanich (2013): 270; and
in the Myth of Er (e.g., Rep. 620A–B) souls often do not make logical choices for the next
life, as the examples of Orpheus (swan), Thamyras (nightingale); Ajax (lion),
Agamemnon (eagle), etc., indicate. Hence the importance of choosing three successive
philosophical lives to break the rebirth cycle.
229. Brisson and Flamand (1992): 597, who give a much more convincing explanation for the
philosophical background to the oracle than does Goulet: “. . . ce sont les dieux qui dis-
pensent au philosophe une révélation du genre de celle qu’ils dispensent au devin.”
230. I.e., The Commentary on the Republic and On What Is in Our Power.
231. Provided, of course, that the soul makes the right choices. This is not always the case
according to the Myth of Er.
232. Cf. Dillon and Polleichtner (2009): 94–7; cf. Taormina and Piccione (2010): 535.
233. Dillon and Polleichtner (2009): 94.
234. Ibid., 97, mentioning Plato’s eschatological myths in Rep. and Phd., but not Gorg.
235. Majercik (1989): 32.
236. Cf. (e.g.) Smith (1974): 67; Majercik (1989): 32; and Shaw (1995): 114.
237. Iamblichus, De an. 50: Dillon and Finamore (2002): 219.
238. Dillon and Finamore (2002): 219.
239. Ibid., 18. Cf. Finamore (2012): 116, on the training in the higher virtues and how they
relate to past and future reincarnations.
240. It appears that the conventional reading in the Neoplatonic schools (followed by many
modern scholars) of the eschatological myth in Phdr. led to the assumption that Plato
did not explicitly posit a permanent escape from the cycles of reincarnation, but rather
a continual recycling process.
241. On the Imblichean side of this equation I am greatly indebted to Dillon and Polleichtner
(2009): 96.
242. Iamblichus, De an. 29.
243. See Iamblichus, De myst. V.18.223.8–224.4: Clarke, Dillon, and Hershbell (2003): 257; cf.
also Dillon and Finamore (2002): 159.
244. Finamore (1985): 105, citing Enn. 4.8.5.16–20. Cf. also Dillon and Finamore (2002): 159.
245. De myst. V.18.223.8–224.4; cf. Dillon and Finamore (2002): 161.
246. Noted by Finamore (1985): 105, citing Festugière. Cf. also Toulouse (2001): 200f.
247. See Dillon and Finamore (2002): 161.
248. Cf. Finamore (1985): 105f.
370  Notes

249. Ibid. I concur here with Finamore, who suggests that Iamblichus follows Phdr. 249A–B
where Plato distinguishes between souls being punished and souls living in heaven as a
reward for previous lives. The latter are not impure and thus do not go to Hades, so they
get another chance in the next life on earth to better themselves.
250. Finamore (1985): 91f., the Phdr. attributes the descent due to a fault in the soul resulting
in the cycle of rebirths; the Tim. depicts the Demiurge sending the souls down by neces-
sity. See Finamore (1985): 119 n. 48, for the compatibility of the two views. For the his-
tory of the hermeneutics of the Timaeus see Baltes (1975) and (1976).
251. Dillon and Polleichtner (2009): 96 conjecture for example the recipient of Testimonium
1, which concerned the soul’s descent, and suggest either a pupil or perhaps a local gran-
dée who might be considered one of these special souls.
252. Ibid.
253. Dillon and Finamore (2002): 161; Finamore (1985): 102f.
254. Finamore (1985): 26.
255. Ibid., 27. On Porphyry’s views on the soul’s re-ascent, indebted to Phdr. 246E–247C, see
Toulouse (2001): 199ff.
256. Dillon and Polleichtner (2009): 94; Dillon and Finamore (2002): 160.
257. Dillon and Finamore (2002): 161.
258. Ibid., on De an. 30: “Now a soul that chooses the philosophical life for three successive
1,000 year periods escapes the cycle of births for the rest of the 10,000 cycle (248e–249c).”
259. Shaw (2012): 104.
260. Ibid.,  104ff.
261. Cf. Chlup (2012): 181ff.; and Van den Berg (2001), who argues that Proclus’ Hymns are
best understood in the context of theurgical rituals.
262. I borrow these terms from the works of G. Shaw, e.g. (1995): 110.
263. See Digeser (2009): 87, who takes the conflict even further, suggesting that “a significant
number of Porphyry’s treatises from the Philosophy from Oracles to On Images should be
seen as a response to Iamblichus’ position.” Cf. in general Saffrey (2000).
264. Waterfield (1988): 23, who dates the work to the middle of the fourth century a.d.
265. Ibid.,  27.
266. Ibid., 25. Barker (1977), on early debates about number theories.
267. Waterfield,  51.
268. Ibid.
269. Ibid.
270. Ibid.,  52.
271. Ibid., 53, adding that “there are three Fates in theology, because the whole life of both
divine and mortal beings is governed by emission.” On the triad’s importance in
Chaldaean theology see Hoffmann (2000b); and Majercik (1989): e.g., 57, Chal. Or. nos.
22 and 23; 59, nos. 26–8; 67, nos. 46 and 48.
272. Johnston (2010). Johnston compares the De ant. nymph. with Frgs. 314 & 315 of the Phil.
orac., showing how Porphyry was driven to categorize the many gods found in these
texts to three general groups, illustrated by the diagram found on p. 122.
273. For an analysis of triads in Proclean metaphysics see Chlup (2012): 47–111.
274. The poetic tradition called ὄρϕικά goes back to the sixth century B.C. and passed
through a group of Athenian poets commissioned by Pisistratus. They contained a
theogony called Hieroi Logoi written by Pherecydes of Syros. According to the tradition,
Orpheus introduced esoteric and soteriological rituals of initiation (τελετή) into Greece
that offered eschatological salvation closely related to Pythagorean practice, though
there is no evidence for an organized Orphic cult. For the historical background see
 Notes  371

Albinus (2000): 101–5; and Athanassakis (1977): vii–xiv. For the Derveni Papyrus dis-
covered in 1962 at a cremation burial site near Thessaloniki, now located in the
Archaeological Museum in Thessaloniki, see Bowden (2010): 141ff.; and Most, ed. (1997)
and Most (1997b). It was placed on a funeral pyre of a rich man c. 350 BC. The text is a
commentary on a poem attributed to Orpheus and describes initiation rites. Bowden
suggests the author was probably an ‘Ορϕεoτελεστής, one who initiates into the myster-
ies of Orpheus. For the Orphic movement and Greek religion see Guthrie (1952).
275. For the background see the excellent study by Burkert (1987) and Dietrich (1982); cf.
Turcan (1996a). Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 20.1–21.1; and Arnobius, Adv. nat. 5.25f.
contain important Christian criticisms of the cult, on which see Marcovich (1986).
276. Cf. Ibid., 23f., 94–8, 103f., 164–7. And note the Rhapsodic Theogony, Fr. 156 (West
[1983]: 75): Zeus orders purification ceremonies vis-à-vis reincarnations to go forth
from Crete; cf. frs. 229–32: Dionysus helps humanity to find a release from the cycles
through rites and regular sacrifices. For καθαρμoί in the mysteries of Dionysus see
Bernabé and San Cristóbal (2008): 92f.; cf. Athanassakis (1977): x.
277. Burkert (1987): 69: “In fact, there are quite a few testimonies about the preparatory
‘learning’ and ‘transmission’ (paradosis) that took place in mysteries, as well as about the
‘complete’ or exact ‘knowledge’ that was to be acquired.”
278. Bussanich (2013): 252, citing Burkert (1987): 153 n. 13: “Apparently Aristotle systematized
the steps of Diotima’s speech in Plato’s Symposium and made the highest step of philoso-
phy analogous to epopteia; this still presupposes various forms of ‘teaching’ and ‘learn-
ing.’ ” On Porphyry’s sacrifice intellectif described as an “etape mystique et époptique” in
the progression of the soul, see Toulouse (2001): 213; and, generally, Ballériaux (1996).
279. See Majercik (2001); (1992); and (1989): 57 (frs. 22, 23); 59 (frs. 26, 27, 28); 67 (frs. 46 and
48); 125 (fr. 203).
280. Albinus (2000): 124; Seaford (1986): 14f.

Chapter 10

1. The embryonic stages of this tripartite infrastructure can be seen in Livy’s portrayal of
the reign of Romulus (I.xv). I do not include here the Roman Senate because by the
early third century it had already lost much of its former power and influence. When
Macrinus was assassinated (218), Herodian V.5.2 (LCL: Whittaker 1970) says there was a
sense of despondency in Rome, but the Senate and people “were forced to submit to the
course decided by the army.” See also Baharal (1999); Petit (1974); for the early empire
see (e.g.) Wilkes (2002).
2. Dio, LXXVII.15.2. A philosophy which the type legio coins minted under Septimius
Severus confirms, on which see Vermeeren (1991) and followed by Caracalla (Dio
LXXVII.10.4), who increased pay to the army by 50%, on which see Campbell
(2005): 1–27, especially 8 and 15; Bland (1995): 79; Alston (1994); and Rostovtzeff
(1926): 354, 367 n. 34. For Septimius Severus and his family see Barnes (1967).
3. Cf., e.g., Drinkwater (2005): 28; Alföldy (1974): 98–102; Petrikovitz (1971); and
Rostovtzeff (1926): 424f.
4. Cf., e.g., Heather (2006); and (1991); Ward-Perkins (2005); Todd (2004); Badel and
Bérenger (1998); Fletcher (1997); Geuenich (1997); Wolfram (1997); Schallmayer (1995b);
Russell (1994); Burns (1994); Bachrach (1993); Wolfram (1993); and Barrett (1989). For
Spain see Arce (1978); and Cotterill (1993) for Saxon raids on British coastal forts in the
imperial period.
372  Notes

5. See Bagnall (2002) and below. For earlier plagues in the Roman Empire see Gilliam
(1961).
6. As Drinkwater (2005): 28 notes, during the period 235–85, fifty-one individuals legiti-
mately or illegitimately were called Roman emperors; cf. Oost (1958); and the relevant
chapters in Seeck (1897–1920).
7. E.g., Clodius Albinus and the Italian bandit Bulla (Severan Dynasty); Samsigeramus in
Emesa; Faraxen in North Africa; Ingenuus in Pannonia and Regalianus in Illyricum
(259); T. Fulvius Macrianus (260); Aureolus in Italy (268); Bonosus and Proculus at the
Rhine under Probus, on which see Crees (1911); Postumus in the West (260s); Odenathus
(260s); Zenobia (270s); Blemmyes in Egypt (280); Saturninus in Syria (281); Bagaudae
(285); Carausius, who created his own regime in the West, minting his own coinage (286)
(Faulkner [2000]: 80–96; cf. Lyne [2000]); Burgundiaces, Alamanni, Chaibones, Heruli
(287–8); Allectus, who murdered Carausius (296); Quinquegentiani (296); and
L. Domitius Domitianus in Egypt (297). See, e.g., Drinkwater (2005); Campbell (2005);
De Blois (1984); Février (1983); Charanis (1975); and Altheim (1951) for the historical
background. For the 330s see Duyrat (2000); and the relevant sections of Sutherland and
Carson (1967).
8. See below and Corbier (2005a); and (2005b); Duncan-Jones (2004) and (1995); Ford
(2000); Göbl (2000); Howgego (1995a) and (1995b); Abad (1995); and Bland (1995).
9. Cf. the judicious description of Porphyry’s historical context by Tanaseanu-Döbler
(2009): 116: “Porphyrios schreibt in der zwifen Hälfte des dritten Jahrhunderts, in der das
römische Reich von verschiedenen militärischen und sozialen Problemen und Epidemien
heimgesucht wurde und gerade die alten Kulte oft als notwendig zur Rekonsoliederung
des Reiches angesehen wurden.”
10. Aelius Aristides, in his Roman Oration 61, asserted in the second century that the Roman
Empire had become a single city.
11. This belief persisted well beyond the Tetrarchy. Libanius, Or. XXX.33, states that the sta-
bility of the Roman Empire depends upon the sacrifices performed in Rome. Cf. Norman
(2000); and Schott (2005): 312: “The notion that the safety and success of the empire
depended on the traditional worship of the gods was shared by emperors and intellectu-
als.” For the Severan Dynasty and the Third Century crisis see Calderini (1949); cf.
Mazzolini (1999).
12. Cf. Witschel (2004): 268; MacMullen (1976): 180–6; G. Alföldy (1976a); and Mattingly
(1967).
13. A. Smith (1981): 99–107 argues cogently that Porphyry was metaphysically working out
the same kinds of problems that the Tetrarchy faced politically, viz., the reconciliation of
unity and plurality.
14. Yet another hotly debated topic among Porphyrian scholars mentioned for other reasons
in earlier chapters. By 302, the date of the Diocletianic concilium principis mentioned by
Lact., Mort. pers. XI. Porphyry was the most famous anti-Christian writer of the period,
thus it is difficult to think of a better context for his remark to Marcella that “the needs of
the Greeks summoned me and the gods joined their requests” (Ad Marc. 4, Wicker 1987
47: καλούσης δὲ τῆς τῶν ‛Ελλήνων χρείας καὶ τῶν θεῶν συνεπειγόντων) than his
attending an imperial conference whose purpose was to discuss the persecution of the
Christians. See the following for the same view: Digeser (2012): 179f.; (2006b); (2000): 96,
114, 162; (1998): 145; Simmons (2006b): 96; (2002): 101; (2000a): 850; and (1995): 22–7,
302; A. Smith (2004): 64; and (1989): 36; Whittaker (2001): 155f.; Chadwick (1999): 69;
and (1959): 142; Girgenti (1997a): 128; Sodano (1993): 112; Hoffmann (1994): 164; Beatrice
(1993a): 39; Droge (1989): 180; Pirioni (1985): 504f.; Wilken (1984): 134f.; and (1979): 131;
 Notes  373

Des Places (1982): 89, 106 n. 2; Pötscher (1969): 66; Benoit (1947): 552; Bidez (1913): 116.
Other scholars do not agree that Lact., De mort. pers. XI and Ad Marc. 4 imply Porphyry’s
attendance at the conference in 302, e.g.: Goulet (2004): 101–4; and (2003): 118, whose
argument is extremely weak and unconvincing: Lact. notes that Diocletian invited
“quelques juges et quelques militaires” and this precludes Porphyry’s participation; how-
ever, just before mentioning the judges and military commanders, Lact. says Diocletian
called in “many advisers” in addition to “the few” judges and generals that follow.
Porphyry can be included in the “many advisers” here; Riedweg (2005): 153 n. 9
(“Rätselhaft”); Alt (1996) and (1997): 30; Barnes (1994): 58f.; (1973b): 432; but note id.
(2001b): 157ff., who suggests a date for Phil. orac. c. 300; Wicker (1989): 417; Fox (1987): 196
n. 90; Festugière (1944): 8; and Wolff (1856): 13, who gives an interesting explana-
tion:  “Decem mensibus post nuptias in Graeciam profectus, negotiis aliquamdiu—Athenis
sine dubio, ubi schola Platonica florebat—retinebatur.” For the oracle at Daphne and the
Great Persecution see Digeser (2004). Simmons (1997) shows how oracles played a role in
the works of Porphyry and Arnobius. See Filosi (1987) for Neoplatonic influence on the
persecution of Christians by Maximinus Daia. Talloen and Waelkens (2004) is a good
analysis of the Roman emperors and Apollo.
15. Bar (2002): 43–54, argues that throughout the third century most cities in Palestine
remained stable and some even showed signs of prosperity. Archeological evidence indi-
cates synagogue construction in Galilee at, e.g., Gush, Halav, Bar’am, Meiron, and Hurvat
Shama, and material finds point to prosperity enjoyed by the Samaritans during the
period. There was inflation, but the Germanic invasions and Persian wars do not seem to
have adversely affected the economy of the Palestinian towns and villages. For urban
decline in general see Liebeschuetz (2001).
16. Witschel (2004): 274 asserts that from 250–90 there were no signs of economic dyna-
mism “anywhere in the empire…” which should be read in light of Bar (2002). For the
broader historical context from M. Aurelius to Anastasius see Rémondon (1964).
17. See, e.g., Corbier (2005a) and (2005b); Witschel (2004): 253; Forgiarini (1998); Nicasie
(1998); Potter (1994): 114; Speidel (1992); Christol (1988); Garnsey (1988): 247; Nobbs
(1986); De Blois (1984): 374; Rostovtzeff (1926): 367–400; for Gaul, Le Roux (1997); for
Syria, Pollard (2000); the Arabian frontier, Roll (1989); for imperial campaigns from A.D.
283–311 see Zuckerman (1994); and Barnes (1976b); cf. Campbell (1978) for the marriage
of soldiers under the Empire; on soldiers’ wills see Tellegen-Couperus (1982): 44–8, ana-
lyzing CJ 2.3.19 and 6.21.14. Cf. also Groenman-van Waateringe (1989).
18. Rostovtzeff (1926): 413.
19. See, e.g., Drinkwater (2005): 45f.; Potter (2004): 276 and (1990): 32ff. (the rapid degenera-
tion of the imperial silver coinage from 238–68); Witschel (2004): 251–8; Watson
(1999): 13; Meshorer (1998); Rabuffat (1997); Howgego (1995b): 223; Birley (1976): 259; and
Rostovtzeff (1926): 417. For Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices see Corcoran
(2000a): 205–33; and (1996): 204–33; Meissner (2000); Pruneti (1998–9); Rathbone
(1995); and Sironen (1992); for the monetary system generally see Depeyrot (1992); and
for epigraphic evidence, Feissel (1995). For coin hoards of the third century see Okamura
(1996).
20. See the essays by Drinkwater, Campbell, and Corbier (2005a and b); Bagnall (2000): 289;
Potter (1990): 8–13; Garnsey (1988): 246; De Blois (1984): 367; Hopkins (1980); and
Rostovtzeff (1926): 401.
21. See Reece (1981), for the decline in production and distribution of Samian pottery, as well
as amphorae, glass vessels, carved marble, and a decline in long-distance trade and in the
number of villas where the production took place; cf. also Butcher (1995), for the
374  Notes

breakdown in the trade networks that held the empire together; Garnsey (1988): 260f.;
Liebeschuetz (1992). For the decline of material culture generally see Witschel (2004).
22. See, e.g., Tacitus, Ann. 12.43: The bad harvest and following food crisis of a.d. 51 were
signs that the gods were displeased. Cf. also Tertullian, Ap. XL.1–2; Arnobius, Adv. nat. 1.1;
Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum 1–10; and Maximinus’ Rescript of 312 in Eus., HE 9.7.8–9. On
famine during the mid-third century see Duncan-Jones (1982): 252f.; on the decline in
Italian agriculture see Witschel (2004): 261–5; and in general, A. Alföldy (1967) & (1974);
Becker (1995); and Lewit (1991).
23. Cf. Bispham (2000a): 16.
24. Cf. Nock (1952a): 196.
25. Cf. Stark (1997): 197ff.; Bagnall (1993): 267f.; and MacMullen (1981): 129.
26. Bagnall (1993): 261–8.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid. Bagnall provides convincing evidence from third-century Egypt for the disappear-
ance of papyri related to pagan worship and to the decline in imperial support for temple
construction and renovation at, e.g., Herakleopolis (263f.).
29. E.g., Bradbury (1995): 347–53. Cf. Liebeschuetz (1992): 4, who gives evidence for the
decrease in benefactors of local cults in Caria.
30. Bradbury (1995): 351. Bradbury (348) notes that the local festivals of the cults in the
empire were funded in one of three ways: sacred funds, civic funds, and private benefac-
tors. All sharply declined in the third century. For the historical, social, economic, and
cultural background to the third century crisis see the essays in Bowman, Garnsey, and
Cameron, eds. (2005); and Stein (1968).
31. Bradbury (1995). For the general background see Andreau (1999).
32. We can safely assume that votives accomplished by the military, often cohorts as a unit to
fulfill vows, were in sharp decline. For examples see ILS 2107; 2186; 3381; and for individ-
ual benefactors, e.g., CIL 8.8826; ILS 1879; 2100. For the cult of Cybele, e.g., CCCA IV.5
(Baiae-Cumae): an altar paid for by an individual; IV.82 (Cales, Campania): an Epistulium
of a temple Matri magnae sua pecunia fecit by an individual. For Jupiter Dolichenus, e.g.,
CCID 234 (Gerulata, Pannonia Superior), an altar dedicated by an individual
pecunia sua.
33. Cipriani (1997): 121 explains Porphyry’s worldview as primarily characterized by pessi-
mism, but this fails to appreciate the historical context of his career as delineated in this
chapter.
34. For text and commentary see Oliver (1989): No. 260, Papyrus Gissensis 40 I. See Potter
(2004): 138 for the translation in English and 612 n. 67 for a list of scholars who do not
accept Oliver’s No. 260 as being derived from Caracalla’s law. See also Wolff (1976); and
Bickerman (1926).
35. See, e.g., Campbell (2005): 18; Fowden (2005): 555; (1999): 84; (1993): 22, 25, 58; Honoré
(2004); Potter (2004): 138f.; Hargis (2001): 83; Digeser (2000): 4; 50; 119; Watson (1999): 15;
Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.241; MacMullen (1976): 182; Millar (1962); Nock
(1952a): 203; Bickerman (1926), on which see Potter (2004): 612 n. 67, who does not
believe that the Greek Constitutions no. 260 is genuinely from the Constitutio
Antoniniana. For law and citizenship in the Late Empire see Garnsey (2004); and for law
and society see Mathiesen, ed. (2001).
36. Dio LXXVIII.9.5.
37. Potter (2004): 138f., though he had stated earlier, (1990): 8, that the purpose was no more
than a ploy to increase tax revenues.
38. Cf. Rostovtzeff (1926): 369.
 Notes  375

39. Cf. Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.317. For Roman Law and Christian exegesis in Late
Antiquity see Clark (2001a).
40. Cf. IGRRP I-II no. 128 (Rome): ‛Υπερ σωτηρίας τῶν κυρίων ἡμῶν αὐτοκρατόρων (Sept.
Severus, Caracalla, and Julia); ICP no. 151, pp. 155f. (Kocaaliler, Pisidia): σωτηρία τῆς
οἰκουμένης (Caracalla); ICP no. 110, p. 116 (Ariassos): Caracalla is called τὸν γῆς ἁπάσης
καὶ θαλάσσης καὶ παντὸς ἀνθρώπων ἔθνoυς δεσπóτην Αυτoκράτoρα καίσαρα… τoῦ
κυρίoυ ἡμῶν μεγίστoυ καὶ ανεικήτoυ Αὐτoκράτoρoς καίσαρoς… σωτῆρoς τῆς ἰδίας
oἰκoυμένης; cf. also IGRom I–II 1015 (Hierpytna, Crete); IGRom III 433 (Termessus);
IGRom IV 1012 (Minoa); IGRom IV 1109 (Nisyrus); Chadwick (1993a); Fowden (1993): 25f.;
and Rostovtzeff (1926): 323. For the personal σωτηρία of Caracalla see, e.g., SIRIS 552
(Ostia); ILS 2218 (with Sept. Severus and Julia); and IGRom I–II no. 854 (Sermatia,
Bosporus Olbiae, with Sept. Severus); cf. also Montalbo (1999); and Oliver (1978).
41. Herodian IV.5.7.
42. P.Geiss. 40.3–4.
43. Most scholars believe it refers to the murder of Geta, on which see Potter (2004): 138f.;
but Millar (1962): 130f. believes it refers to Caracalla’s being saved from shipwreck in the
Hellespont.
44. Turcan (1978). For the Orbis Romanus in the reign of Septimius Severus see Desnier
(1994).
45. See, e.g., Graddel (2002): 340f.; Beard, Price, and North (1998): I.324–6; Fishwick (1992);
E. Birley (1978): 1506–41, 1510; Helgeland (1978): 1488, gives the Latin text with English
trans. 1481–6; Nock (1952b); and Fink, Hoey, Snyder (1940).
46. Fink, Hoey, and Snyder (1940): 33 observe that not one celebration of a non-Roman cult
is mentioned in the Feriale. Hence its main purpose was for the Romanization of the
army which by the third century was increasingly made up of soldiers unaccustomed to
Roman traditions. I concur with Graddel (2002): 341, who argues that the Feriale must
have been sent out from Rome because it reflects the state cult in the city used by all units
of the Roman army throughout the empire.
47. Recently Graddel (2002): 341, has proposed that it taught the soldiers imperial history
and Rome’s proud traditions; Fishwick (1978) disagrees with Nock (1952a): 223;
Helgeland (1978) believes it helped maintain a “structured reality” for the army and
indoctrinated the soldiers in the meaning of their vocation, especially during stressful
times; Nock (1952a) argues that it began under Augustus and is consonant with his
policy of establishing Roman order and (223) rejects the view that officially the soldiers
were supposed to worship only the gods listed in the calendar; Fink, Hoey, and Snyder
(1940) stress its third-century context and that it was used to bring about Romanization
of the army.
48. Cf. Helgeland (1978): 1481; Graddel (2002): 341 f.
49. Cf. Fink, Hoey, and Snyder (1940): 1.2, 55, the lacuna is restored on the basis of Pliny’s
Panegyric 67.3.
50. Ibid.,  173.
51. Ibid., 173; 190–9.
52. Ibid.,  36.
53. See Graddel (2002): 341; Beard, Price, and North (1998): I.324–6; E. Birley (1978): 1510;
Helgeland (1978): 1481; Nock (1952a); Fink, Hoey, and Snyder (1940): 36.
54. Fishwick (1978): 1243; cf. Palmer (1978); and Parker (1978). For the annual vows paid by
Roman soldiers for the emperor’s well-being and renewed on January 3rd every year, see
Bagnall and Rives (2000). On the persecutions of Christians and the Imperial Cult see
Millar (1972).
376  Notes

55. Cf. Graddel (2002): 341: “The Feriale Duranum should caution us against seeing worship
of the Divi simply as an isolated feature of a narrow elite in Rome; as the document shows,
their cult and their statues were spread all over the empire.” For a different view see Nock
(1952a): 222. See Ando (2003b) for how pagan cults spread.
56. See Baynes (1939); Frye (2005): 474ff.; Drinkwater (2005): 30; Potter (2004): 249 and
(1990): 18; Fowden (1993): 32f.; 81; Millar (1993): 159–73; Williams (1985): 17, 160; Tyler
(1975); and A. Birley (1969): 259.
57. Drinkwater (2005): 30ff; Potter (2004): 248ff.; Williams (1985): 17, 21f., 29, 78; A. Birley
(1976): 259.
58. Cf. Williams (1985): 17. For the imperial administration of the third century see Lo Casico
(2005b).
59. Frye (2005): 474.
60. Ibid.
61. Cf. Hägg (2003); Finegan (1989): 283–309; Lieu (1985); Peters (1970): 662ff.
62. From a Middle Persian text (M 5797) cited in Potter (2004): 304f.
63. See Gardner and Lieu (2004): 1–108.
64. From Cologne Mani-Codex (=CMC) fr. I and I–5.13 in Gardner and Lieu (2004): 47ff.;
and a description of Mani’s second and definitive revelation in CMC 18.I–41.II;
12–26, 49–52.
65. See Gardner and Lieu (2004): 109–44; Heil (2002); Gardner (1995): xvii: Manichaeanism
had a “powerful evangelical mission”; in the Kephalaia 76, Gardner (1995): 194, Mani says
he has traveled, “so that I would do the will of the light, and spread the truth far and
wide…”; cf. Goodman (1994): 157–60; Finegan (1989): 305 gives a Middle Persian text
(M 2 recto I–II, verso I), which concerns sending missionaries into the Roman Empire;
Lieu (1985): 54–9; Ries (1982): 769; Chadwick (1979): 143, for the mission conducted by
Addai in Alexandria; Peters (1970): 664 says the Manichean missionary zeal was compa-
rable to that of Christianity.
66. E.g., Gardner and Lieu (2004): 151–75; Potter (2004): 306; Gardner (1995); and Lieu
(1985): 74.
67. See Potter (2004): 305; Lieu (1985): 61, for Mani’s declaration in a Middle Persian text: “My
Church, mine shall spread in all cities and my Gospel shall touch every country.”
68. See Gardner and Lieu (2004): No. 22, 112–4, on the healing by Mar Adda of Nafsha, prob-
ably the sister of Zenobia of Palmyra, on which see also Gardner and Lieu (1996); and
Potter (2004): 310 for a text from Asmussen in which Mani reportedly heals a king’s
daughter.
69. Fowden (1993): 80; Lieu (1985): 59 suggests that Shapor might have seen Manichaeanism
as an agent of unification for his empire; and 90: organization in local areas comprised a
network of cells and itinerant preachers. See also Ries (1982): 768. For the cult in
Mesopotamia and the Roman East see Lieu (1994).
70. See Potter (2004): 306 for the preface to the Kephalaia in which seven books are men-
tioned presumably for different levels of instruction: The Psalms simplified Mani’s teach-
ings for the masses; The Treasury of Life, Pragmateia, On the Mysteries, and Book of the
Giants for the more advanced disciples; The Great Gospel was probably about Mani’s life;
and The Letters might have been similar to the Pauline epistles and dealt with ethics and
doctrine.
7 1. Cf. Gardner (1995): 203, Kephalaia 80: catechumens are taught to rescue people from
danger, buy a slave, build a house for someone, and give alms to the church.
72. Ibid., xxv; Ries (1982): 769ff.
73. See Gardner and Lieu (2004): 176–226.
 Notes  377

7 4. See Asmussen (1975): 6–10.

75. See Gardner and Lieu (2004): 231–57; Peters (1970): 663.
76. Gardner and Lieu (2004): 
109–144; Potter (2004):  302; Lieu (1985):  85–90; and
the Πρὸς τὰς Μανικίου δόξας, an early anti-Manichaean work by Alexander of Lycopolis
written when Manichaean missionaries were attempting to establish their religion in
Egypt, on which see Van der Horst (1996).
77. Cf. e.g. (2004): 265–8, No. 91 On the ten advantages of the Manichaean religion.
78. E.g., Potter (2004): 304f.; Gardner (1995) xxiv: “. . . Mani turned his revealed knowledge
outwards to a universal evangelical purpose”; Asmussen (1975): 17–25.
79. Cf. Barnes (1976a): 247 and (1981): 20; Corcoran (1996): 135f.; for an English translation
see Beard, North, and Price (1998): II.282.
80. See now Corcoran (1996): 179ff.
81. Most scholars overemphasize the Persian origin of the cult, and none to my knowledge
makes the observation to its deeper threat as I have. The common universalism of
Manichaeanism and Christianity, resulting in the rapid geographical spread of both, was
the common denominator motivating Diocletian to persecute both cults. For the edict
and its background see, e.g., Potter (2004): 312f. and (1994): 208f.; Löhr (2002); Digeser
(2000): 54; Beard, North, and Price (1998): II.282; Corcoran (1996): 135f.; Gardner and
Lieu (1996): 168; Gardner (1995): xv; Sordi (1986): 125; Williams (1985): 84; 161; Ries
(1982): 768; Chadwick (1979): 138, stressing its rapid spread through the empire; Peters
(1970): 663. See also Altheim (1963–4); Altheim and Stiehl (1953). Cf. Zaninovic
(1998): 186.
82. Beard, North, and Price (1998): II.282. For Diocletian’s Edict on Incest see Corcoran
(2000b).
83. Ibid; and G. Alföldy (1960) & (1974).
84. See Fowden CAH 12.2 (2005): 555, for numismatic data on Caracalla’s gods which con-
formed to the Romanitas that he zealously promoted.
85. G. Alföldy (1989c): 359. For the second century background see G. Alföldy (1989a); and
Lippold (1975) and (1966–7) for Maximinus Thrax.
86. Von Domaszweski (1909): 226 used the term “Universalreligion” for Egabalus’ religious
policies.
87. See Lo Cascio, CAH 12.2 (2005a): 157f.
88. See Dio LXXX.11.1; SHA, Elagabalus I.4–7; Herodian, Hist. V.5.5–8; Turcan (1978): 1066–9;
Lemardelé (2008): 151; G. Alföldy (1976b); Domaszewski (1909).
89. Noteworthy is Turcan (1978): 1071: “. . . Elagabal avait commis l’erreur de prétendre uni-
versaliser un dieu exotique et local: il officilisait au centre de l’Empire un culte excen-
trique.” For background: Campbell (2005): 21f.; Fowden (2005): 555; Potter (2004): 153f.;
Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.256; Takás (1995): 118; Frey (1989); Halsberghe
(1984): 2185; Alföldy (1974): 102; Optendrenk (1969); and Von Domaszweski (1909): 226.
90. See Nock (1952b): 220, who makes a similar, though general, observation.
91. See Fowden (2005): 555, with a reference to Herodian Hist. VI.1.3. On Alexander Severus
as Restitutor orbis see Alföldy (1974): 92, referring to CIL VIII.8797a, and noting that the
title appears on coins under Hadrian. For imperial titulature to A.D. 284 see Peachin
(1990).
92. For the date see now Potter (1990): 261ff.
93. See e.g., Cyprian Epistles 15.4; 55.13; de lapsis 9.25. Fox (1987): 455, is unconvincing to sug-
gest that it would have been a bureaucratic nightmare to issue the libelli to the entire
population. See Selinger (2002) and Schwartz (1947); and Knipfing (1923) for the libelli.
For Cyprian’s correspondence and the Decian persecution see Saumagne (1962).
378  Notes

94. See e.g., G. Clarke (2005): 625–628; Drinkwater (2005): 37f., 61; and A. Alföldy (1938b).
95. E.g., Frend (2006): 513; G. Clarke (2005): 625ff.; Drinkwater (2005): 37–39, 61; Potter
(2004): 240–3 and (1990): 42f., 261–7; Selinger (2002): 12–3, 33, 55, 57, and 67: Selinger
argues that the edict must be considered in the wider scope of Decius’ accession as
emperor in the period September–December 249; T. D. Barnes (1999): 278; Rives
(1999): 141f.; Millar (1992): 567.
96. Cf. Graddel (2002): 368: the edict was “targeted against the Christians, though they
were not mentioned in it.” Clark (2004): 49; Drake (2000): 139; Beard, North, and Price
(1998): I.239; A. Birley (1998): 75; Fox (1987): 452f.; Sordi (1986): 101; and Sage (1975): 177
concur.
97. For a different view see Rives (1999): 142: “rather than wishing to wipe out Christianity,
as seems to have been true of Diocletian and Galerius, Decius may simply have failed to
understand why Christians could not offer a normal sacrifice in addition to worshipping
their god in their own fashion.” For the later Council at Carnuntum see Arnaldi (1975).
98. There was open dialogue between pagan political leaders and the Christians during the
period, and knowledge of the doctrines of Christianity easily accessible. Returning from
his Persian campaign, Philip stopped in Antioch and conversed with Bishop Babylas,
and Origen later wrote a letter explaining the faith to him. On the background see Potter
(1990): 38; Loriot (1975b).
99. For the background here including Philip, see, e.g., Drinkwater (2005): 36–8; Velkov
(1998): 155, n. 1; Potter (1990): 20–37; Trout (1989); De Blois (1978–9). On the attempt to
enforce religious conformity see Hall (2006): 470ff.
100. On the testimony of Cyprian, De lapsis 7 (and his Epist. 11.1.2; 13.1; 14.1.1) that the major-
ity of Christians sacrificed, see Rebillard (2012): 50–5; cf. also Brent (2010): 193–249;
Burns (2002): 12–24; and G. Alföldy (1973).
101. See Duval (2000); M. Christol (1997): 123 and A. Birley (1998): 75.
102. See Fowden (2005): 557.
103. Zosimus, I.61; SHA Aurelianus XXXV. For the general background see, e.g., Lo Cascio
(2005b):  171; Hargis (2001):  83; Watson (1999):  183–202; Estiot (1998); Fowden
(1993): 51–7; Chuvin (1990): 21, 24; Alföldy (1989c): 359; Halsberghe (1984): 2195; and
(1972); Geffcken (1978): 31; Polverini (1975); Millar (1971); M. Christol (1982b): 163;
Ferguson (1970): 54; Milburn (1945); Baynes (1939): 705f.; and Homo (1904): 190ff.
104. Ibid. See Herodian, Hist. V.5.8.Cf. also Watson (1999): 190; MacDowall (1979): 560;
Peters (1970): 582f.
105. For a similar view see Drinkwater (2005): 61; Ross (2001): 29–116; and Baynes
(1939): 703: “It looked as though the unification of the Mediterranean world was at
an end.”
106. RIC 5 I, 270, no. 48 and 279, no. 129; for the background here see Graddel (2002): 352;
Hargis (2001): 68; Harl (1999); Watson (1999): 190; Cizek (1994); Alföldy (1989c): 355;
Halsberghe (1984): 2200; Kent (1978); Callu (1969) and (1975).
107. See Frend (1984): 440; and Homo (1904): 192, citing CIL II.3832 and CIL VIII.4877.
108. Frend (1984): 440.
109. According to Elsner (1998): 6–8 the historical foundation was laid by the Second
Sophistic, which caused the empire to become “a culturally integrated whole,” and peo-
ples from Britain to Syria shared a single currency, army, government, but more impor-
tantly, an ideology of common Greco-Roman myths and religious rituals, including the
Imperial Cult.
110. Watson (1999): 186. Dio Cassius 79.11.1 and SHA Elagabalus 3.4, 6.7, 7.4 agree that Aurelian
wanted to subordinate all Roman gods, including Jupiter, to the lordship of Elagabalus.
 Notes  379

111. Eus., HE 7.30.20–1; Lact., De mort. pers. 6.2. Millar (1992): 573; Barnes (1981): 145.
112. See, e.g., Hargis (2001): 83, who cites Fowden (1993): 51; and Lemardelé (2008): 151.
113. Williams (1985): 162.
114. See Corcoran (1996): 173f., for the law against incest (Cod. Iust. 5.4.17), given at
Damascus May 1, 295; and on the adultery rescripts see ibid., 56 n. 94, 62, 70, 100, 126,
130, 132; Simmons (1995): 70f.; Dölger (1932–33). Codex Justinianus 1.19.1 and 7.13.1 which
include petitions to Diocletian and Maximian dated October 8 and December 7, respec-
tively, from a slave girl who desired to avenge her master’s death, reveal the sensitivity of
the rulers to local crimes, on which see Grubbs (2000).
115. Cf. Bowman (2005): 67–89, esp. 80–5; G. Clarke (2005): 649; Potter (2004): 330–5;
Digeser (2000): 54 and (1998): 146; Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.242; Corcoran
(1996): 171–83; Decret (1990); Barnes (1981): 9ff., 19f.; and Honoré (1979).
116. Cf. Digeser (2000): 4, who says traditional piety was “the linchpin in Diocletian’s resti-
tution of the empire.”
117. See Liebeschuetz (1979): 235–52; cf. Härtel (1986).
118. Lact., De mort. pers. 13.1; Eus., HE 8.2.4 and 8.5.1; Mart. Pal. Prologue 1; Corcoran
(1996): 179; on the origin see Lact., De mort. pers. 10.2–4; Div. inst. 4.27: Christians in the
imperial entourage prevented the haruspex from acquiring the needed omen due to
crossing themselves. Diocletian made the final decision to persecute the church after
consulting the oracle at Didyma (Lact., De mort. pers. 11.7; Eus., VC 2.5.1), on which see
now Potter (2004): 338; Portmann (1990); Duncan-Jones (1974); Ste Croix (1954); Rehm
(1938); and generally, Moraux (1956). On Lactantius, Divine Institutes 4.18.1–2 see
Nicholson (1989).
119. Eus., Mart. Pal. 3.1; Lact., De mort. pers. 15.4. Corcoran (1996): 182 says this was “prob-
ably confined to the east.” Most scholars concur (e.g., recently, Potter [2004]: 340;
Barnes [1981]: 24 n. 84). However, according to the Passio Sanctae Crispinae, Musurillo
(1972): No. 24, the remark of the governor of Africa Proconsularis, Anullinus, to
Crispina, a young laywoman, “quod et omnis Africa sacrificial fecit, nec tibi dubium
est,” is sufficient evidence that the 4th edict was promulgated in the West. There have
been unconvincing attempts to sweep this evidence under the rug. G. Clarke
(2005): 654f., asserts that the Acta Crispinae “provide suspiciously isolated testimony for
such a major upheaval”; Barnes (1981): 23, explains Anullinus’ remark by referring to
Optatus, App. 2 (Ziwsa [1893]: 198.31–199.1; CIL 8.6700), “eius temporis officium incum-
bebat, ut ex iussione proconsulari omnes sacrificarent et si quas scripturas haberent,
offerent secundum sacram legem,” applies eius temporis to the first edict of 303, and thus
Anullinus added mandatory sacrifice to it; cf. T. D. Barnes (2002): 193, n. 18 (contra
Simmons [1995]: 84–88, referring to Arn., Adv. nat. 6.27.1–9; 7.1–32); and de Ste Croix
(1954): 91, calls Anullinus’ remark a “rhetorical exaggeration.” It is prudent here to doubt
the doubters. Crispina was beheaded on December 5, a.d. 304 at Theveste, Africa
Proconsularis, for refusing to sacrifice to the gods. The fact that she was a young layper-
son, the date of her martyrdom (Corcoran [1996]: 182, gives “Early 304” for the promul-
gation of the 4th Edict), and the absence of any reference to the confiscation of scriptures,
noted in Optatus’ remark about the 1st Edict, in her Acta, provide evidence that the 4th
Edict was promulgated in the West. See Frend (1981): 502f., concurs. On St. Crispina see
PCBE (1982): 251f. For the enforcement of the edict in Haidra see Duval (1989); and for
universal sacrifice under Maximinus Daia see Grant (1975): 144f.
120. Williams (1985): 58 (legitimacy); Bowman (2005): 70 (against Carausius). On Carausius
and Allectus see Casey (1994).
121. Cf. Simmons (1995): 64–70.
380  Notes

122. RIC 5.2.229. For Diocletian’s currency reform see Ermatinger (1996); and Erim,
Reynolds, and Crawford (1971).
123. RIC., 295 no. 626: a.d. 285–90.
124. Pan. Lat. 9(4).8.2; 10.2 (Mynors).
125. Ibid., 11(3). 15.4.
126. RIC 5.2.250 and 254, nos. 290 and 313.
127. Liebeschuetz (1979): 243; cf. Kolb (2001): 25–58.
128. Digeser (2001): 528.
129. On this see, e.g., Digeser (2001): 522, 528; Bregman (1999): 338; Simmons (1995): 264–303;
Wilken (1984): 150; Wilkes (1977); Magny (2006): 181, agrees with a late third-century
date for the Phil. orac., with references to Barnes (2001 and 1994). On the argument
against Christian universalism in the Contra Christianos, see Berchman (2005): 10. For
the Tetrarchy’s aims in securing a lasting peace throughout the empire see the Latin
inscription from Yotvata in Roll (1989).
130. Eus., HE 7.13; cf. Jerome, Chron. ad ann. CCLV.3.6; Orosius, Hist. adv. pag. 7.22.5. Cf.
Frend (2006); Drinkwater (2005): 44f.; Potter (2004): 259; T. D. Barnes (1999): 278;
Millar (1992): 571; Tilley (1990): 386–91; Schwarte (1989); De Blois (1976): 177–85; and
Christol (1975).
131. T. D. Barnes (1999): 277.
132. Though the Great Persecution officially began February 24, 303, persecution of
Christians started in the army in the 290s, on which see, e.g,. the Acta Maximiliani
(Musurillo [1972]: no. 17) Woods (1992) and Davies (1989).
133. De Blois (1976): 185. G. Clarke’s attempted reconstruction (2005): 589–616, of the geo-
graphical spread of the third-century church paints a different picture. There was an
increase in Christians during the third century from 200,000 to c. 6,000,000 by 300
according to Hopkins (1998). Cf. also Barnes (1995); Lopez (2004): 136; Mazzini
(2001); and Stark (1997): 7. For Christianization of upper-class women see Cooper
(1992).
134. Simmons (1995): 32–5, giving many examples of members of the intelligentsia and upper
classes converting to Christianity. Arnobius, Adv. nat. 2.2, says men endowed with great
ability of Roman North Africa, including orators, grammarians, rhetors, lawyers, physi-
cians, and philosophers, were converting to Christ. See also T. D. Barnes (1999): 293f.;
(1986): 43; and (1981): 147; Frend (1984): 443; Chadwick (1981): 7; O’Donnell (1979): 50;
and Nilsson (1969): 183 (on the success of Christian universalism); A. Birley (1976): 259
and n. 4; Dessau (1905) and (1880).
135. Arnobius, Adv. nat. 1.55; cf. 2.5; and Eus., HE 8.9.6–7. See Simmons (1995): 33f. Earlier in
the century Origen boasted of the spread of Christianity to villages and towns in addi-
tion to cities (C.Cels. 3.9), on which see MacMullen (1984): 34; and Cyprian, De unitate
eccle. cath. 5, could speak c. 251 of the Church found over all the earth; cf. Cypr., Ep. 80.2
for Christians in the upper classes. The Roman church by the mid-third century had 155
salaried clergy and fed daily more than 1,500 widows and the needy (Eus., HE 6.43; 8.1).
Tertullian, Apology 37.4 asserts that the Church was growing by 200. See also Olmstead
(1942).
136. De Blois (1976): 122. Scheithauer (1996) provides an excellent analysis of the belief in the
emperor as guarantor of the empire’s Salus from Tiberius to Constantine.
137. Arnobius, Adv. nat. 1.24; 2.2; cf. Fox (1987): 585: “In the later third century, therefore, the
ceremonies of the pagan gods were undergoing a relative lull.”
138. Cf. Croke (1983a): 116–9; (1983b); and (1984); Beatrice (1992c): 353.
139. Cf. G. Clarke (2005): 670; Kannengiesser (2004): I.527; and Croke (1983a): 123.
 Notes  381

140. Croke (1983a): 124: Eusebius’ Chronicle began with Abraham and recorded each year to
a.d. 277–8. Croke, 126, calls this work an “authentic universal history.”
141. See ibid., 122. Due to Croke’s two articles (1983b) and (1984), it is now known that
Porphyry did not write a Chronicle; Barnes (1994): 57, suggests that the fragments that
Jacoby originally attributed to it can be reassigned either to Philosophos Historia (FGrH
260 F 1) or, in the majority of cases, to the Contra Christianos (Jacoby F2, 3, 31, 32). On
the Book of Daniel and Porphyry see A. Smith (2004): 78; Beatrice (1993b); and gener-
ally, Zambon (2012).
142. The only study of universalism in the PE is Simmons (2006a); (2010c) analyzes the
theme in the DE. In his panegyric addressed to bishop Paulinus at the dedication of the
church at Tyre, Eus. develops a universalism theme, on which see Simmons (2001a): 601f.;
for the theme in the Commentary on Isaiah see Hollerich (1999): 26–40; and in general,
id. (1992) and (1989); for the HE see Barnes (1981): 128.
143. Note Fowden (1993): 88: “Constantine does not just Christianize the Roman Empire; he
unifies it too. And he expounds a worldview to which, though it was not absolutely
original, he gave new force:  one god, one empire, one emperor. It was the politico-religious
universalist program that provided the nascent Christian empire’s motive energy.” Cf.
also Barnes (1992); and Momigliano (1986): 291f. For the broader historical context of
Late Antiquity see Garnsey and Humfress (2001).
144. Cameron (2006): Constantine was determined to unify the church; cf. id. (2005): 108f.;
Southern (2001): 281: political unification; Wallraff (2001): integration of the religious
culture of the empire; Drake (2000): 27: use of coercion and political prowess by
Constantine to bring about unity explained as social process; Stark (1997):  212:  Christianity
was a “revitalization movement” leading to Constantine; Fowden (1993): 85: there was
no sudden Constantinian Revolution; Nicene Orthodoxy triumphed only under
Theodosius; Millar (1993): 599: imposition of unity by using normal penalties of crimi-
nal law; Fox (1987): Christianity was insignificant until Constantine; Barnes (1981) &
(1986): Constantine benefited from an already strong and flourishing church. Cf. Drake
(1983). For Lactantius as a source of Constantine’s reign see Barnes (1973a); and
Nicholson (2004); (2001); (2000); (1999); and (1984).
145. For the date and provenance see now Barnes (2001a): 26–36. For a recent English trans.
see Edwards (2003): xxiii–xxix, who unconvincingly attempts to date the work in 315 in
Rome; cf. also id. (1999): 268.
146. Or. ad sanc. coet. 1.
147. Ibid., 1 and 11, respectively; cf. 12 (“the way of life”); 15 (the Savior provided a “solid road”
for those traveling on it); 23 (the believers’ sacred highway to eternal life).
148. Ibid.,  1.
149. Ibid.,  10.
150. Ibid., 3, 11.
151. Ibid., 3, 6, 9.
152. Ibid., 11.
153. Ibid., 26.
154. Richardson’s translation in the NPNF, 569.
155. Or. ad sanc. coet. 11, 13.
156. Ibid.,  15.
157. Ibid., 17.
158. Ibid.
159. Ibid.,  14.
160. Ibid.,  15.
382  Notes

161. Richardson NPNF, 573.

162. E.g., the Creed affirms the belief in one God, one Lord who “For us and our salvation”
came down from heaven as “God from God,” and will come to judge all humanity. It also
affirms “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,” and one baptism for the forgiveness
of sins. Before Nicaea, Christian creeds were local in character. On the creed see Kelly
(1972): 205–95.
163. Eus., VC III.17–19; Socrates, HE I.9; cf. also VC II.56; II.65.
164. Drake (2006): 124; cf. also Mitchell (2007): 62–73; Cameron (2005): 97ff.; Brown
(2003): 61; Leadbetter (2002); Lenski (2001); Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.370–1;
Fowden (1993): 82; Millar (1992): 598; Farina (1986); Fox (1987): 656; MacMullen
(1984): 132; Barnes (1997) and (1981): 208–23; Courcelle (1957): 313f., for a reference to
Christian universalism in the Oratio Constantini; Baynes (1939): 696–708. On the dis-
appearance of Sol from Constantine’s coins see Bruun (1958).
165. See Simmons (2006a); Grant (1992); Cranz (1952); and Eger (1939).
166. Cf. Liebeschuetz (1994): 211: “. . . early Christians from the very start made great efforts
to achieve uniformity in word, ritual and belief, and created a literature in the process.”
Cf. Lemardelé (2008).
167. The Edict of 333, on which see Socrates, HE I.9.30 (cf. CTh 16.5.66); Gelasius, HE II.36.1;
Athanasius, Hist. Arianorum ad mon. 50 (PG 25.753), on which cf. John N. Dillon
(2012): 47f. For the Edicta et Decreta quae Porphyrii Mentionem Faciunt see Smith
(1993a): 38T, 39T, 40T, 41T, 42T, and 43T.
168. Opitz (1934), Urkunde 33.1, which is found in Athanasius, De decretis Nicaenae synodi
39.1 (a.d. 333); and cf. CTh 16.5.66 = Cod. Iust. 1.5.6 = Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum
1.1.3.68 no 111 (a.d. 435); and Cod. Iust. 1.1.3 (a.d. 448).

Chapter 11

1. On the importance of Mt. 28:18–20 for the missionary enterprise of the Early Church,
see (e.g.) Goodman (1994): 92, who adds (93) Acts 1:8; and Fowden (1993): 90, who calls
Mt. 28:19–20 the “foundation text of Christian universalism…” Cf. Shep. Herm., Sim.
8.3.2–3, emphasizing the urgency to preach the Gospel to all the world. For the general
cultural context Cochrane (1980) is still useful. Harmon (2003) analyzes the biblical
rationale for universal salvation in Early Christian thought.
2. Wilken (2003): xiv. For a school of Rabbinic universalism that competed for the same
converts as the Christians in the second–third centuries, abandoning this approach for
particularism that banned Gentiles from Torah study, see Hirshman (2000), and
115: “The unique fusion of empire and religion tilted the scales in favor of Christian
universalism.” See Bremmer (1989) for the reasons that Christianity attracted upper-class
women. And the relevant essays in Williams, ed. (2002) for the evolving orthodoxy in
Early Christianity.
3. I will cover this in more detail below. Cf. MacMullen (1981): 132, who asserts that the
missionary motive was unique to Christianity and “pagans never sought to make con-
verts to any cult—only away from atheism, as they saw it.”
4. One of several second-century examples is Justin Martyr: Jesus’ teachings were for the
conversion and restoration of the human race (I Ap. 23); it was predicted in the Old
Testament that Christ would be believed on by men of every race (31, 40, 56); the Apostles
preached Christ among all nations (42, 50); men of every race are converted to Christ
(53); Christian universalism permeates Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, emphasizing
 Notes  383

(e.g., xxvi, xliv) that salvation for all is only through Jesus Christ, and this was prophe-
sied by Isaiah (xiii); and the righteous who died before Christ will be saved by him also
(xlv); cf. also the second-century Ep. to Diognetus 12.9; and Ep. Barn. 19.10: Christians go
out daily to save souls by the word (εἰς τὸ σῶσαι ψυχὴν τῷ λόγῳ); the data increase for
the third century: cf., e.g., Origen, C.Cels. 3.8; Arn., Adv. nat. 2.65; and the many works
of Eusebius of Caesarea, which continue the theme well into the fourth century. Sanders
(1982) is a good study of Christian inscriptions on the salvation of the soul.
5. See (e.g.) Johnson (2006); Buell (2002); Tripolitis (2002): 97; Trumbower (2001): 109;
Elsner (1998): 211; Stark (1997): 213; and Chadwick (1993a): 31.
6. Justin Martyr, I Ap. xiv (ANF, A Cleveland Coxe). On conversion in the ancient world,
Nock (1933) is the classic work. Cf. (e.g.) also Shep. Herm., Sim. 6.5.5, condemning the
sins of incontinence, robbery, adultery, drunkenness, evil-speaking, lying, covetous-
ness. Cf. Parente (1987); for the debate on the meaning of conversion after Nock; and
Snow and Machalek (1984); and Rambo (1982) for current research on religious
conversion.
7. On the concept of the Christian community see (e.g.) Stark (1997): 204–8; Goodman
(1994): 14; and Meeks (1983): 108f. (the Pauline ἐκκλησία). Judge (2003) argues there is
little evidence for a fresh mode of community or koinon in the pagan cults.
8. Cf. Stark (1997): 4; 211: “I believe that it was the religion’s particular doctrines that per-
mitted Christianity to be among the most sweeping and successful revitalization move-
ments in history.”
9. G. Clark (2004): 23. We do find pagans helping the needy, orphans, etc., as in Damascius,
Phil. hist. 56, on which see Athanassiadi’s translation, (1999b): 22–3: Aedesia, a noble-
woman of Alexandria, who gave generously to the poor and was rewarded with many
theophanies, but this is late and there is little such evidence for earlier periods, espe-
cially the third century. Rüpke (2001); and Scheid (1987) and (1985) are useful for the
general cultural context.
10. Chapters 13 and 15.
11. Eus., HE 6.43.
12. Ibid., 7.22.7–10.
13. Cf. Shep. Herm. Sim. 9.27.2–3.
14. Ibid., 8.9.10.; cf. 1.8; 5.3.7.
15. Ibid., 2.7–9.
16. E.g., Ep. Diognetus, 10.5–8; Ep. Barn. 20; Polycarp, Phil. 10.2; Didache 1.4–5; 4.5, 6, 7 8;
5.2; 13.4; Shep. Herm., Vision 3.9.1–4; Justin, Dial. Trypho 117.
17. For the 250s see McNeill (1976): 120; he believes (117) that the plague of 251–66 was
caused by measles and smallpox; and Drinkwater (2005): 40; for the 260s: Aurelius
Victor, Liber caes. 33; SHA, Gall. 5.5; Zos., I.37.3; Orosius, Hist. adv. pagan. 7.22.1–2; cf.
Eutrop. 9.9; and for the 270s and the death of Claudius Gothicus who died of the plague
in 270, see, e.g., Drinkwater (2005): 50; Potter (2004): 268; and Duncan-Jones
(1996): 115. On the effect of the plagues upon moral standards, see Aur. Vict., Lib.
caes. 33.
18. Stark (1997): 74, rightly noting that words like “epidemic,” “plague,” “disease,” etc., do not
even appear in the index of most prominent works on the rise of Christianity, adding,
“This is no small omission.”
19. McNeill (1976): 121.
20. Ibid., 121ff.
21. SHA, Gall. 5.5.
22. McNeill (1976): 116f.
384  Notes

23. Harnack, CC Frag. no. 80.

24. Cf. Cyprian, De mortalitate 7.95–100 (Simonetti [1976]: 20): “Quantum prosit exire de
saeculo Christus ipse salutis adque utilitatis nostrae magister ostendit: qui cum discipuli
eius contristarentur, quod se iam diceret recessurum, locutus est ad eos dicens: Si me
dilexissetis, gauderetis quoniam uado ad Patrem, docens et ostendens, cum cari quos dil-
igimus de saeculo exeunt, gaudendum potius quam dolendum.”
25. Note the similar comment of McNeill (1976): 122: “Christianity was, therefore, a system of
thought and feeling thoroughly adapted to a time of troubles in which hardship, disease,
and violent death commonly prevailed.”
26. E.g., Jn. 4:42b: “. . . καὶ οἴδαμεν ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου.”
27. Cf. Mk. 16:15–6.
28. John 14:6 in Coogan et al. (2001): 172.
29. Cf. Acts 9:2; 16:17 (ὁδὸν σωτηρίας); 18:26; 19:9; 19:23. For the cultural background to sote-
riological universalism in Luke-Acts see Balch (2003).
30. Didache I.1 (LCL: Lake).
31. Goodman (1994): 98.
32. See A. Smith (2004): 78.
33. E.g., expressed by an anonymous pagan in Betz (1986): 8, PGM I.195–222: “I call upon
you, Lord of the universe, in an hour of need… hear me, for my soul is [distressed], and
I am perplexed.” The obvious question here vis-à-vis paganism is: Which Lord? Cf.
Buresch (1889), No. 30: an oracle attributed to Porphyry asking which god should be
invoked, presumably for aid in time of need, and the answer: “Turn your spirit (Νοῦν) to
the Sovereign God.” For one of the best Christian expressions of this hunger for one great
divine power in Late Antiquity see Eus., DE IV.5; and Batiffol (1916): 186.
34. See Frend (1984): 703. For pagan and Christian monotheism during the Constantinian
period see Edwards (2004b); cf. Krebernik and Oorschot (2002).
35. Cf. Fowden (2005): 572. I do not find convincing the opposing view of Salzman

(2002): 201f., that the aristocracy of the Later Empire did not have a growing need for
salvation or an increasing anxiety that led to seek assurances in Christianity.
36. E.g., Mk. 5:34; Lk. 7:50; 17:19; cf. Fohrer and Foerster (1971).
37. See Magness (2001): 161f. The triumvirs vowed a shrine to Isis in 43 b.c., but we do not
know when the cult entered the official Roman calendar, on which see Beard, North, and
Price (1998): I.250f. According to Takás (1995): 205f., “the cult of Isis was hardly, as some
scholars postulated, an awesome challenge to Christianity.” Cf. also Bowden
(2010): 156–80; and Frankfurter (1998).
38. In general, see Magness (2001): 162; Takás (1995): i–ii; on Britain see Watts (1998): 10f.; in
the Hellenistic period, Green (1990); and Martin (1987): 72; Wild (1984), analyzes
forty-four Isis sites in the Roman world; and for Greece, Dunand (1973): II.217 and
passim.
39. The most famous initiate was Lucius in Apuleius, Met. e.g. XI.9.1; XI.15.4; XI.25.1, on
which see Griffiths (1975) and (1982): 201; but there were many more. For salus/σωτηρία
Isiac votives see, e.g., SIRIS 332 (a military cohort of Bithynia and Pontus); 382 (Rome);
and 390 (Rome); on the offer of new life see Apuleius, Met. XI.21.6, and the differing
interpretations of it in Burkert (1987): 18; and Nock (1933): 7; the day of initiation was
considered one’s new birthday, on which see Burkert (1987): 99f.; cf. also MacMullen
(1981): 53, on Lucius as renatus; and for Isis as a saving deity see Reitzenstein (1978): 28–40.
40. Bowden (2010): 177 and 172, Pl. XXI, showing the sanctuary of Isis at Gortyn.
41. E.g., SIRIS 323 (Mysia): Σαράπι ῎Ισι καὶ τoῖς ἄλλoις θεoῖς; cf. SIRIS 405 (Rome): Διὶ ‛Ηλίῳ
μεγάλῳ Σεράπιδι καὶ τoῖς συννάoις θεoῖς ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας καὶ αἰωνίoυ διαμoνῆς τῶν
κυρίων ἡμῶν… (etc.); IGRom I–II 1049 (Egypt); and IGRom III 155 (Ancyra).
 Notes  385

4 2. Cf. Diodorus I.25.4; Burkert (1987) 15 n. 16; and Turcan (1982): 175.

43. Cf. Burkert (1987): 16, 140 n. 18, with reference to certain Anatolian cultic sites.
44. Cf. Green (1990): 410; and Grandjean (1975).
45. Magness (2001): 162.
46. Betz (1986):  PGM XCVIII.1–7, p. 307.
47. Ibid.
48. Cf. Dunand (1973): III.270; P.Oxy. 1381.215, on which see Nock (1925): 86f.
49. Often the inscriptions do not tell us the exact nature of the victory or success being cele-
brated, e.g., ILS 4357, 4358, 4359.
50. ILS 4354. Cf. Bowden (2010): 179, no. 116, a wall painting from Herculaneum depicting
Isiac worship.
51. As expressed notably in the Kyme Aretalogy, an English translation of which can be found
in Meyer (1987): 172: Isis has devised letters, given laws to humans, blessed the earth with
fruit, built cities, ordered the courses of the planets, established justice, revealed mysteries
to humankind, etc., on which note Merkelbach (1995): 118: “Die Selbstoffenbarung enthält
ein ganzes Programm griechisch-ägyptischer Zivilisation: Isis hat die Welt geschaffen,
hat die Grundlagen für ein geordnetes und gerechtes Zusammenleben der Menschen
gelegt und wird alle strafen, die sich nicht an die von ihr gegebenen Gesetze und an die
Moral halten.”
52. E.g., SIRIS 335 and 336 (Galatia): Marcus Aurelius and Commodus; SIRIS 370
(Rome): Septimius Severus; SIRIS 375 (Rome): Caracalla; SIRIS 362 (=CIL III.13587: Hier
osolyma): Trajan. Cf. also Takács (1995): 206; Griffiths (1975): 91 and 267f.
53. Apuleius, Met. XI.25, on which see Griffiths (1975): 101. Bowden (2010): 179, no. 117, a
tombstone of an Isiac priestess from Athens with a sistrum in her right hand and a vessel
probably of water from the Nile in her left hand (though the text states the right hand).
For holy places in antiquity including tombs and temples see the intriguing essay by
MacCormack (2000).
54. Witt (1971).
55. Cf. Apuleius, Met. XI.2.5; note also XI.22: the priest calls Isis deae multinominis divinis;
Dunand (1973): III 269; and epigraphical evidence, e.g., SIRIS 351 (Sisium, Cilicia); SIRIS
505 (Minturnae, Campania); and SIRIS 692 (Apulum, Oacia).
56. Cumont (1956): 1–32, argued for a Persian-Iranian origin (cf. Edwards [1993b]: 122); this
has been rejected by a good number of scholars, e.g., Clauss (2001): 7; Beard, North, and
Price (1998): I.245; Beck (1992): 13; and (1984): 2067; Ulansey (1989): 12; Merkelbach
(1984); Bianchi (1979); Roll (1977): 53.
57. For Palestine see Belayche (2001): 194; for a map of cultic sites, Clauss (2001): 26f.; for
Italy and the Rhine-Danube area, but very little evidence for Greece, A. Minor, Syria,
Egypt, N. Africa, or Spain, Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.301; Rome, Ostia, and
Pannonia, Beck (1992): 11f.; for Britain, Watts (1998): 10; and Henig (1984): 97–109. I do
not find convincing MacDowall (1979): 568, who goes too far in saying that Rome was the
center for the diffusion of the cult during the second century.
58. Cf. Clauss (2001): 25, 39; Hinnells (1994); Liebeschuetz (1994): 208; Ulansey (1989): 4;
MacMullen (1981): 127; and Daniels (1972): 252.
59. For renatus in the cult see Griffiths (1982): 210; and Mithraic inscription no. 14 from Santa
Prisca: “Et nos servasti eternali sanguine fuso,” on which see Meyer (1987): 206f.; Betz
(1968); and Vermaseren and van Essen (1965). Cf. Bonafonte (1978). Turcan (1975): 82;
and (1982): 176, 181 argues that a cosmic, rather than a personal, salvation was offered by
Mithras; however, most of the Mithraic inscriptions in Vermaseren’s CIMRM are votive
in nature, showing a preponderance of personal experiences of salus/σωτηρία, on which
see Burkert (1987): 16. For a comparison with the New Testament see Betz (1968).
386  Notes

60. The tauroctony was depicted in the iconography of the underground mithraeae, on which
see e.g. CIMRM I 693 (Bononia, Italy); RIB I no. 3, pp. 1–2 (=Pl. II: London); and CIMRM
I Pl. 84, mon. 310; Pl. 99, mon. 352; Pl. 100, mon. 353; Pl. 101, mon. 354; and Pl. 114, mon.
415. See Clauss (2001): 81–84, 102, for the soteriological meaning of the bull-slaying and
its relation to the creation of the cosmos. Cf. Bowden (2010): 173, Plates XXII, XXIII, and
XXIV for the Mithraeum at S. Maria Capua Vetere. For Syrian images see Downey (1978).
61. Cf. Ulansey (1989): 95; 96, fig. 7.1 (=CIMRM 1283); 99, fig. 7.4, which depict Mithras as
Kosmocrator holding the globe in one hand; cf. also CIMRM I  175 (=CIL
X.1479: Pausilypum, Italy); I 305 (=CIL XIV.4309: Ostia); II 1941 (=CIL III.7779: Dacia),
all depicting the god as omnipotens; and IGLM 35, 36, 37, and 38, pp. 73ff.; cf. RIB I,
no. 1395, pp. 454f. (=CIL VII.541; CIMRM 841: Rudchester), giving the epithet Invictus.
See Turcan (1994); Ulansey (1994); Beck (1988) for planetary gods in Mithraism; and
Clauss (1994) for the cult in Roman North Africa.
62. Mithraic votive inscriptions provide evidence for this belief expressed by Mithraists. See
e.g., RIB I, no. 1398, p. 456 (=CIL VII.544; CIMRM I 839, 840: Rudchester); ILS 1661 (a pro
salute votive); CIMRM I 579 (Rome); CIMRM I 939 (=CIL XIII.11556) another pro salute
votive; Clauss (2001): 141; Burkert (1987): 27; and Lincoln (1982), who stresses eschato-
logical soteriology. Turcan (1981): 109–13, opts for a “bio-cosmic” one. Cf. Gordan (1980)
and (1994).
63. For the family, e.g., CIMRM I 863 (=CIL VII.646) and 864 (both from Britain); CIMRM
II 1524 (=CIL III.1584: Pannonia); II 1847 (Senia, Dalmatia); II 1916 (CIL III.7662: Napoca,
Dalmatia); for the military, CIMRM II 1596, under Gallienus (Pannonia) for Legio V
Macedonia and Legio XIII Gemina; CIMRM I 743 (=CIL V.811: near Auileia): an indi-
vidual legionary’s votive pro salute sua et suorum.” Cf. in general Bowden (2010): 181–97.
64. Cf. CIMRM I 236 (Ostia): Mithras-related marble of Silvanus holding a sickle and
pine-branch, showing the syncretistic nature of the cult.
65. Lemardelé (2008): 140ff., compares the repas rituals of Mithraism with the Semitic
Marzeah, which was a funerary rite. For the Mithraic cultic meal in the Greco-Roman
world see Kane (1975).
66. See CIMRM I 152 (Commodus); I 373 (=CIL VI 31181: Sol invicto pro salute imperatorum
made by a sacerdos Iovis Dolicheni); I 510 (=CIL VI 727: Commodus et al.); I 626 (=CIL
VI.738: Septimius Severus); I 754 (Philip the Arab); I 800 (=CIL II 259: for Sept. Sev. and
sons pro aeternitate imperi et salute imperatoris); II 1008 (pro salute for Alex. Sev.). Cf.
Clauss (2001): 39.
67. Cf. Beck (1992): 13. Although David (2000): 121–41 argues against the view that Mithraism
excluded women, most scholars argue it was exclusively for men, e.g., Clauss (2001): 33;
Gordan (1994): 463ff. and (1980); Fowden (1993): 76; Beck (1992): 10 and (1984): 2054f.;
Martin (1987): 118; Ranier (1984). Note that Porphyry, De abst. 4.16 refers to women being
called hyenas by adherents of Mithraism. For the allusions to Mithraism in De antr.
nymph. see Beck (1976); and Tanaseanu-Döbler (2009): 143f.; and Dillon (1977) for
Platonic views of the cult. Porphyry’s historical knowledge of Mithraism might have pri-
marily come from the books written by a certain Euboulos cited in Abst. 4.16, who was
probably the Athenian Platonist mentioned in Vit. Plot. 15, on which see Clark (2000): 187,
n. 634; and Pötscher (1968): 3.
68. Cf. Beck (1992): 8.
69. Turcan (2001): 219, gives the average no. in local Mithraea as c. 20; see e.g. CIMRM I 688
(=CIL XL.5737), giving the names of 35; and ILS 4215, listing 37; Clauss (1992), gives the
names of every known Mithraist (totaling 997); cf. Beck (1992): 8–11; and Clauss (2001: xxi,
who states that there were c. 420 Mithraea in the empire at the cult’s zenith.
 Notes  387

70. See Merkelbach (1984): 77f. Though Clauss (2001): 131; (1992): 275ff.; and (1990) argues
that there were seven grades of priests and only one initiation, most scholars interpret
them as seven initiations, e.g., Turcan (2001): 133; and (2000): 235; Beard, North, and
Price (1998): I.288; Goodman (1994): 27; Gordon (1994): 465f.; and (1980): 32; Beck
(1992): 6–10; and (1984): 2014; Mitthof (1992); Ulansey (1989): 6ff.; Burkert (1987): 42;
Henig (1984): 103; Merkelbach (1984): 75–133; MacMullen (1981): 124; Bianchi (1979);
Francis (1975): 439–43, 425–45; Cumont (1956): 154; and (1896–9). The Mithraeum at
Dura Europos III, dated c. a.d. 240, possessed an inner shrine with a stair of seven steps,
on which see Roll (1977): 55; for Corax see Gordon (1980): 32; on the Raven, Porphyry, De
abst. IV.16; Gordon (1980): 28; the Lion, Porphyry, De antr. nymph. 15–6; Beard, North,
and Price (1998): II.318, 12.5h(ix), who argue that spiritual rebirth was completed at this
stage; Merkelbach (1984): 86; 105 & n. 22; Gordon (1980): 24; 32, who argues that the Lion
represents a shift from a preparatory stage to membership, but I doubt that “member-
ship” in the modern sense was offered to the cult’s adherents; Cumont (1956): 155; CIMRM
I 689 (Sentinum, Italy); I 115 (Africa); cf. also Hansman (1978); for Pater, CIMRM I 336
(CIL VI.86); 351 (CIL VI.3730), both giving Pater Patrum; CIMRM I 355 gives Primus
Pater, presupposing hierarchical organization within the local cult; CIMRM I 401 (CIL
VI.750); 402 (CIL VI.751a); 403 (CIL VI.7516); 502 (CIL VI.510), all from Rome; CIMRM
I 741 (CIL V.805: Aquileia); CIMRM II 1717 (CIL III.11152); cf. also Burkert (1987): 42; and
a good analysis of all seven grades is found in Merkelbach (1984): 75–133; cf. also Bowden
(2010): 190–3; and Panciera (1979).
71. Cf. Burkert (1987): 42: the secrecy surrounding the cult seems to have been nearly
absolute.
72. Cf. MacDowall (1979): 560.
73. For the background see Bowden (2010): 83–104; and Gasparro (1985): 64–83.
74. Cf. Livy, XXIX.10.5; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. II.19.3–5; and Takács (1995): 10.
75. Borgeaud (2004): 58ff.
76. Ibid.,  60.
77. E.g., CCCA III.236 (Rome) dated June 16, a.d. 370, mentioning both the taurobolium and
criobolium.
78. A very good example is CCCA II.253, PL LVIII: Cybele enthroned with a lion in her lap
and the patera in her right hand; cf. also CCCA II.311, PL LXXIX; and CCCA II.328f., 331f.,
333, 335ff., 339f., 341f., 344f., 347, 350, 354, 356, 360, and 389.
79. Cf. Gasparro (1985): 58f., noting that the initial mournful quality of Cybele worship
underwent transformations during the third century including the more joyful (and less
physically painful) ceremonies of the Hilaria. For the general cultural background see
Harmon (1978a); Bowden (2010): 97, no. 73, gives a relief from the third century
A.D. depicting an Archigallus making a fruit offering before a cult image of the enthroned
Magna Mater.
80. See, e.g., CCCA III.233 (=CIL VI.504; CIMRM I 514); Burkert (1987): 18; Gasparro
(1985): 110–5; ILS 4142–7; and 4149–51; however, we have the isolated testimony of a tau-
roboliatus, CIL VI.510, who claims aeternum renatus (cf. Gasparro [1985]: 110). For the
cultic meal, see Clement of Alexandria., Protr. II.15.3 and the commentary in Gasparro
(1985): 79f.
81. For examples of pro salute votives for emperors see ILS 4125–6; 4130–7; CCCA III.407
(CIL XIV.43: Ostia); CCCA III.417 (Ostia); RIB I no. 1453, p. 469 (Chesters); and Nock
(1925): 92.
82. Cf. Gasparro (1985): 109; and Nock (1925b) 87–93; see the former, 113 n. 31, for the dies
natalis or natalicium in connection with the taurobolium (CIL II.5260; and CIL XIII.11352).
388  Notes

8 3. Gasparro (1985): 88 n. 12, gives many epigraphic data.

84. See Bowden (2010): 84, no. 57, a votive relief from Athens of the fourth century

B.C. depicting Cybele enthroned with a cymbal and a lion and receiving a grain offering.
For the soteriological aspects of the cult see Gasparro (1994) and (1982).
85. Gasparro (1985): 80–110; Bowden (2010): 87, no. 59, a votive image from Miletos of the
sixth century B.C.
86. E.g., the restoration of an altar to the Mother “Goddesses” in Italy, Germany, Gaul, and
Britain by Antonius Lucretianus in Winchester, England (RIB I no. 88, p. 24; CIL VII.5;
ILS 4786).
87. E.g., there is no evidence yet for the practice of a taurobolium or criobolium in Britain, on
which see now Henig (1984): 113; cf. Horne (1989).
88. Gordon and Reynolds (2003): 268.
89. Henig (1984): 120, dated a.d. 253 or 256. Conversely, the lack of significant numbers of
churches during the ante-Nicene period might have contributed to the rise of Christianity.
90. All from CCID: 158 (Sibio, Dacia): IOMD ex praecepto numinis Aesculapi somno moni-
tus… pro salute sua suorumque; 357 (Rome: pro salute under Hadrian): iussu numinis
Iovis Dolochini; 362 (Rome): IOMD… iussu dei fecit (altar); 383 (Rome):… iussu numinis
eorum aram d(edit); 453 (Brixia, Italy): IOMD ex issu eius (altar dedicated); 455
(Ravenna): Pro salute Augustorum ex iussu IOMD Conservatoris; 463 (Misenum): Iussu
Iovis optimi maximi Dolicheni; 576 (Gainford, Scotland): . . . ex iussu ipsius.
91. Henig (1984): 120.
92. E.g., CCID 564: an altar dedicated under Hadrian pro salute at Condercum, Vallum
Hadriani (Scotland); and CCID 640: pro salute under Septimius Severus at Praetorium
Latobicorum.
93. Cf. Turcan (1978): 1057; and the following from CCID: 9 (Kekliptepe: early 3rd cent.): ὑπὲρ
σωτηρίας καίσαρος; 54 (Cerna Gora Cillae: a.d. 202–11); 61 (Moesia Inferior: Elagabalus);
64 (Histria or Durostorum: Severan period); 71 (Moesia Inferior: Caracalla): ‛Υπὲρ
σωτηρίας; 112 (Moesia Superior: Caracalla); 113 (Moesia Superior: Sep. Sev. and
Caracalla); 115 (Moesia Superior:  Sep. Sev. and Caracalla); 116 (Μοesia Superior:  Caracalla);
120 (Dalmatia: S. Severus & Caracalla); 137 (Dacia: Caracalla); 150 (Dacia: Gordian III);
Caracalla); 155 (Dacia: Severan period); 161 (Dacia: Severan); 182 (Pannonia Inferior:
Alex. Sev.); and 467 (Naples: Severan), worth quoting in full: ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθηκεν κατὰ
κέλευσιν τoῦ θεoῦ Δoλεχηνoῦ ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας τoῦ κυρίoυ αὐτoκράτoρoς.
94. Cf. Spada (1982): 541–51.
95. All from CCID: Health/Healing: 418 (Rome):… Marcius Artemidorus medicus castrorum
aram posuit; 624 (Lambaesis, Africa); Military Matters: 32 (Dura Europos): for a legion;
60 (Moesia Inferior): for a military castrum; 87 (Moesia Superior): individual soldier at a
Castrum; 154 (Apulum, Dacia): Legio XIII Gemina; 158 (Sibio, Dacia): a veteran on behalf
of his family; 508 (Saalburg, Germania Superior): on behalf of the Legio XXII; 615 (Lepcis
Magna): for Severan victories; 616 (Ain Wif/Thanadassa, Africa): Severan period; 623
(Lambaesis, Africa): for military victory; Family: 131 (Samum, Dacia): pro salute sua et
suorum omnium VLMS; 183 (Aquincum, Pannonia Inferior): pro se et suis; 222
(Carnuntum, Pannonia Superior); 282 (Poetorio, Pannonia Superior): Pro salute sua et…
coniugis et suorum; 302 & 305 (Locus Felicis [?]‌, Noricum); 450 (Padua, Italy); 608
(Villadecanos, Hispania): pro salute sua et suorum; Individual/Personal salus: 111 (Colonia
Ulpia Rotiaria, Moesia Superior); 140 (Dacia); 373 (Rome); 554 (Vallum Antonini,
Scotland); 559 and PL CXXII (Bew Castle, Banna, Scotland); City/Community: 124
(Narona, Dalmatia).
 Notes  389

96. E.g., Betz (1986): PGM III.494–611, pp. 31f.; IV.154–285, pp. 40ff.; IV.1167–226, p. 61;
IV.1275–322, p. 62; IV.1596–715, pp.68f.; V.213–303, pp. 104–5; VII.528–39, p. 132;
XXXVI.211–30, p. 274. Cf. IV.475–829, pp. 48–54 for Helios Mithras. See also Ferguson
(1970): 44 for the Classical period in Greece.
97. E.g., IGRom I–II 1153 (Egypt): Διὶ ‛Hλίῳ Σωτῆρι.
98. Cf. Halsberghe (1984):  2182; Ferguson (1970):  50f.; CIL VIII.9331 (Mauretania
Caesariensis): SOLI INVICTO PRO SALVTE; ILS 1615: Soli invicto deo; though it is
worth mentioning that other deities were given the epithet Invictus: for Hercules see ILS
3407, 3408, 3409, 3424, 3434, 3435, 3436, 3446; and Silvanus, CIL VII.451 (Stanhope in
Weredale, Durham); for Serapis, Macrobius., Sat. I.20.18: “Serapis et Solis unam et indi-
viduam esse naturam,” on which see Belayche (2001): 158. On the evolution of the cult
see Di Palma (1999); cf. Hijmans (1996). The anonymous author of On the Sun associ-
ated other deities with the Sun, on which see Heuten (1936a) and (1936b), who attrib-
uted the work to Porphyry. It is listed as spurious or uncertain authorship in A. Smith
(1993a): 492 and 477-78 F.
99. See Gebhardt, et al., eds. (2000); Najdenova (1998); MacDowall (1979): 566; and
MacMullen (1981): 84f.
100. See e.g., Alan K. Bowman (2005): 78; Fowden (1993): 51; Staerman (1990); Halsberghe
(1984): 2195; Henig (1984): 214; and Simon (1979): 416; and (1978). Even though under
the Tetrarchy there was an attempt to revert to the traditional gods of Rome, the
Caesarswere still associated with Sol amongst other deities. Constantine did not convert
suddenly in 312, but certainly by 325 when the Council of Nicaea occurred, he was,
though not baptized, for all practical purposes seriously committed to Christianity. For
Constantine’s anti-pagan laws see Gaudemet (1990).
101. See Halsberghe (1984): 170; cf. Lafaurie (1965).
102. Cf. R. Smith (1995): 139–63; Fowden (1993): 56; and Judge (1983); cf. Dietz (2000); and
Simmons (2000b). For Gregory Nazianzus’ Oratio 4 Contra Julianum see Kurmann
(1988).
103. Halsberghe (1972): 170.
104. Ibid.,  171.
105. Preisendanz, et al. (1973–4): PGM I, P IV.1599–605, p. 125; Colombo (1979).
106. The fact that Manichaeanism was a mixture of oriental pagan and Christian beliefs pre-
cludes it from this category.
107. Goodman (1994): 30f.
108. Cf. A. Alföldi (1938a): 14f. Cf. the Latin inscription at Luxor by the Legion II Flavia
Constantia in Speidel and Pavkovic (1992): 152, which “follows a pattern in which army
units pronounce themselves lucky so long as the Emperors are safe.”
109. Ibid.,  15.
110. Cf. Nock (1952a); Pleket (1965). For a critical re-evaluation of Nock see Price (1984): 18;
for modern interpretations of the Imperial Cult after Nock, see Gordon and Reynolds
(2003):  261f.; for the background, Friesen (2001); Beard, North, and Price (1998):  I.348–63;
Mittag (1998-9); Speidel (1993); Parker (1992): 255–60; Walbank (1992): 41–4; 210–7;
Green (1990): 396–413; Henig (1984): 154ff.; Fishwick (1978); Nilsson (1964): 286: the
first to receive divine worship was Lysander, the conqueror of Athens.
111. Cf. De Blois (1984). Price (1984): 57. For Augustus as the benefactor of the whole world
see Price (1984): 56; and for members of the Tetrarchy as harbingers of a new and happy
age, see (e.g.) ILS 637 (CIL VIII.608: Henchir Midid, Africa): felicissimo saeculo domino-
rum nostrorum… quorum virtute ac providentia omnia in melius reformantur; and ILS
390  Notes

638 (Mauretania, Sûr Djuab [Municipium Rapidense]): a dedication in response to the

restoration of the city to its pristinum statum: felicissimis et beatissimi temporibus suis.
112. As Son of god: IGRom I–II 1150 (Athribis or Gebel-Toukh, Egypt); cf. IGRom I–II
no. 1164 (both Tiberius); IGRom III 426, 428, 429, 430; IV 1160 (all Hadrian); as sav-
ior: IGRom I–II 1138 (Acoris, Egypt: Domitian); 990 and 991 (Crete and Lyttus: Trajan);
ICP 149, pp. 154–5, Pl 99 (Kocaaliler, Pisidia: Antoninus Pius): σωτῆρι τῆς οἰκουμένης;
cf. IGRom III 646 (Idebessus: Gordian III); IGRom IV 764 (Metropolis, Asia: Sept. Sev.);
IGRom IV 1207 (Thyatira: Alex. Sev.); and ICP 107, Pl 72, p. 113: the council and people
of Panemoteichos honored Maximianus as σωτὴρ τῆς οἰκουμένης; Gordon and
Reynolds (2003): 233f. Emperors are often depicted as saviors of cities, as at Astypalaea
(IGRom IV 1035 and 1036: M. Aurelius). Concomitant with this active and dynamic
soteriological ideology we find also pro salute inscriptions on behalf of emperors, as at
Novae, Moesia Inferior (IGLM 25, p. 62: pro salute domini nostri = Sev. Alex.); and cf.
ILS 623 (Sirmii); and CIL VIII.4645 (Thagora, Numidia), both from the Tetrarchy; on
restitutor orbis under Aurelian see, e.g., ILS 577, 578, and 579; and the similar ILS 618,
under Diocletian. On Aurelian see (e.g.) CIL III.7586: Restitutor patriae; CIL V.4319: ὁ
γῆς σωτήρ; CIL II.3832: DEO AVRELIANO; and Watson (1999): 180f.: an inscription
from Moesia Inferior depicts Aurelian with a diadem, “suggesting an image of the
emperor as cosmocrator—universal ruler…” (181). On Nero as σωτῆρα καὶ εὐεργέτην
see IGRom I–II 876 (Bosporus); and for Hadrian, see Millar (1992): 447. See Nock
(1981): 431, for the geographical universality of the cult.
113. See the good discussion in Turcan (1978): 1064. See also Elsner (1998): 202; MacMullen
(1976): 33, on Aurelian; and Pan. Lat. XI.10.5, which states at Trier in 291 Diocletian was
addressed as “a visible and present Jupiter, near at hand,” and the good discussion in
Digeser (2000): 3ff.; cf. Nakamura (1999).
114. Fishwick (1978): 1243; cf. Papi (2004).
115. Turcan (1978): 1016.
116. Castillo and Sánchez-Ostiz (2000): 742.
117. As noted by Nock (1952a): 227.
118. On the cult as an agent of unification see (e.g.) Elsner (1998): 199; Liertz (1998); Fishwick
(1992); Alföldy (1989c): 90–5, who argues that the need to preserve and renew Roman
religion played a central role in the Religionspolitik of the third century; Liebeschuetz
(1979): 233; Turcan (1978): 1001f., 1064, 1070, 1072; Nock (1952a): 239.
119. Henig (1984): 154.
120. Fowden (1993): 37f.; cf. also Walbank (1992): 217; Millar (1992): 449.
121. Price (1984): 233ff.; cf. also 25–40.
122. Cf. Elsner (1998): 202: “In the third century, with the collapse of dynastic continuity and
political order, the imperial cult appears to have become severely undermined at pre-
cisely the point when a focalizing universalism affirming unity and salvation from chaos
was most needed.”; Fowden (1993): 51; Ferrero (1984–5); Price (1984): 59; and Fishwick
(1978): 1249f. For the Augustan Age see Galinsky (1996).
123. See Elsner (1998): 59, No. 26.
124. Fishwick (1978): 1243 notes that the adoption of dominus noster in the form of an address
beginning with Septimius Severus denoted a relationship between master and slave, so
even if the cult had survived the crises, one can rightly doubt whether it would have
fulfilled the needs, revealed by the epigraphic and literary data of the period, of a con-
tact with a personal savior. For the general historical context see Pelikan (1987).
125. Fishwick (1978): 1209.
 Notes  391

126. Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.12, 348–361, argue that though the cult might have
achieved relative success as a unifying agent in the empire, there was no single entity
that remained the same throughout the empire, and thus there was no such thing as an
imperial cult. Cf. also Bickerman (1972): 9: each city, province, and group worshipped a
particular emperor according to their own discretion and tradition. A better descrip-
tion for these religious phenomena would thus be Imperial Cults.
127. See Goodman (1994): 30. Conversely, owing to the “Great Commission” of Christ, in its
early centuries Christianity was spread throughout all provinces of the empire and mis-
sionaries were eventually sent to India and China.
128. Cf. MacMullen (1981): 56 who says that in the paganism of the Roman Empire there was
“no easily recognizable, universal, or at least very familiar deity to name, whose follow-
ers all trusted in his power to save them from extinction. Nothing like that existed.”
129. A variant reading is custodibus.
130. RIB I No. 1208, p. 397 (CIL VII.980): “To the gods who dwell in this place Julius Victor,
the tribune, (set this up).”
131. Moralee (2004): 1. I believe that Stark (1997): 88 goes too far when he says that the pagan
gods offered no salvation.
132. MacMullen (1981): 99.
133. Fowden (1993): 58; Celsus (C.Cels. VIII.72) asserted that there could not be one law for
all peoples. Origen retorted by quoting the prophet who said, “All shall call upon the
name of the Lord.” Cf. also Fowden (2005): 523; Scheid (2003): 20; Fox (1987): 31; 97;
MacMullen (1981): 102ff.
134. See (e.g.) Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.42; Burkert (1987): 14f.; Fox (1987): 34.
135. Cf. Fowden (1993): 50.
136. One of the salient features of the thesis of Stark (1997): 206.
137. See Goodman (1994): 25; and Hultgard (1982).
138. Cf. Stark (1997): 194.
139. Porphyry, Phil. orac. Pref. in Eus., PE 4.7 (304 F Smith).
140. Cf. Frend (1984): 443, who cites Harnack CC Frag. no. 76, which is actually from
Macarius Magnes, Apoctiticus IV.21, but the content appears to reveal Porphyrian
influence.
141. Minus the universalism component, this argument has been admirably articulated and
persuasively argued in a number of critical works by Professor T. D. Barnes.

Chapter 12

1. A. Smith (1974): 145; cf. also Beutler (1953): 301: “. . . in Zentrum seiner eigenen

Problematik steht das Problem des menschlichen sittlichen Lebens… sein Seelenheil,
die σωτηρία ψυχῆς…” citing Eus., PE IV.7.1.8; XIV 10.4; and Ad Marc. 31.
2. Cf. Bidez (1913): 95.
3. Cf. Teselle (1974): 129f., who states that the desire to find a way of salvation was a major
concern of Porphyry in De regr. an. apud Aug. Civ. Dei X.32.
4. E.g., Bochet (2010):  21ff.; and (2004):  456–61; Digeser (2006a):  33–47; and
(2000): 96–104; Simmons (2009); and (1995): 264–303; Kaminsky and Stewart (2006);
Schott (2005); Buell (2002); Hirshman (2000); Chadwick (1993a); Fowden (1993);
Levenson (1996).
5. Hirshman (2000).
392  Notes

6. Ibid., 115.
7. Schott (2008): 32 rightly states that the Christian apologists “explain the similarities
shared by Greeks and other peoples by positing a singular, universal truth that transcends
cultural and ethnic particularity.” Cf. Buell (2002): 435, who defines the Early Church’s
universalism as “ethnoracial inclusiveness” or “universalism equals not-race…”
8. As noted already by Meckler (1999): 45.
9. Rives (1999): 152ff., adding the important observation for our present study (154) that
Christianity “developed a large-scale and highly effective hierarchic organization that
provided a much more suitable structure for a universal religion.” Cf. also Berchman
(2005): 39.
10. I concur with Rives (1999): 137f., who argues that the Decian edict of a.d. 249 applied to
everyone regardless of sex, age, or civic status.
11. Digeser (2001): 522.
12. See Siorvanes (1997): 7.
13. Ibid.,  7ff.
14. Ibid.,  8.
15. Cf. Bidez (1981): 632, who asserts that Neoplatonism and Christianity were destined to be
rivals.
16. On this see Peters (1970): 698.
17. A. Smith (1996d): 1227. Berchman (2005): 22, is correct to note that Porphyry “proposed
that a linkage exists between the popular cults and philosophical religion.” Yet one must
acknowledge that he never clearly delineated the nature of this linkage nor solved the
metaphysical and ontological problems that it posed to philosophy.
18. See Coppleston (1962): 242–8.
19. Ibid.
20. Weber (1947): 131.
21. See Appendix VII below, nos. 1–39, 55, 72–74, 95–110, 127, 137–150, and 162. Book IV is one
of the most original parts in the entire Eusebian corpus. A vast majority of the scriptural
citations found in Book IV of the Theophany derive from the New Testament.
22. It is important to note that my dating of the Theophany, following earlier scholars like
Wallace-Hadrill (1960), is c. a.d. 337–8.
23. Cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei XIX.23, who quotes a pagan oracle given by Porphyry showing
how dedicated converts to Christianity were, and equally how impossible it was to recon-
vert them back to paganism.
24. Digeser (2009): 88, argues that De regr. an. and Phil. orac. were written by Porphyry
against Christianity’s claims to being a via universalis.
25. Aug., Civ. Dei X.32.
26. North (2007): 30.
27. Cf. Rousseau (2002): 189: Even before Constantine there had always been something
inherently universal in Christianity’s claim and appeal.
28. Justin Martyr, I Ap. XXIII, states that Christ as the Logos became man “for the conversion
and restoration of the human race,” and one finds glimpses of the universalism theme in
Origen, e.g., De prin. IV.1.1, on which see Chadwick (1993a): 36 n. 49.
29. Simmons (1995): 264–303.
30. Bowen and Garnsey (2003): 37.
31. Ibid., n. 141.
32. See Digeser (2006a).
33. For example, my forthcoming book on Eusebian soteriological universalism will exam-
ine how the new genre of literature, Christian Universal History, which appears for the
 Notes  393

first time in a fully developed form in the Chronographia of Julius Africanus, though
having both Greco-Roman and Jewish antecedents, provided a historiographical tem-
plate for Eusebius’ unique concept of Salvation History beginning with Yahweh’s creation
of Adam in the Garden of Eden and culminating in the unprecedented salvific benefits
of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for all humanity. Eusebius began to
develop his theology of world history in the HE, but its refinement manifests itself in the
apologetic trilogy, the PE, DE, and the Theophany. For universalism in his Chronicle see
(e.g.) Grafton and Williams (2006): 141: Eusebius arranged the tables of monarchies to
present a “visual argument” to prove that world history culminated in the contemporary
Roman Empire and the crucifixion, which was “the last step needed for the whole world
to be open to Christianity.” For the larger Greco-Roman context see the essays in Liddel
and Fear (2010); and for Julius Africanus see Adler (2011); Umberto (2011); and Wallraff
(2011).
34. And one of the central issues related to this concept of history was a defense of the
Incarnation, on which see Chadwick (1993c): 116; and A. Smith (2004): 79.
35. Burgess (1999): 81: “It was Porphyry’s influence in particular that made Eusebius more
than just an apologist and it was from the Olympiad chronicles that Eusebius learned the
succinct neutral or factual description, the importance of the existence of the person or
deed rather than just the chronology, the synthesis of historical narratives, the universal
synoptic view, and the annalistic structure that had not been seen in earlier Christian
chronography.”
36. Chadwick (1993c): 31 asserts that the Roman government did not take Christianity seri-
ously before the third century. This book offers one plausible reason for the change of
attitude. The fact that between 260–300, the Church had successfully extended its mis-
sion to the countryside, as noted by Frend (1987): 2, helped to create the perception of a
universal Church during the period. Cf. also, generally, Alföldi (1938a): 7; Chadwick
(1981): 7; and Frend (1984): 398. On how the Christians’ care of the sick and dying during
the period served to increase conversions, see Reff (2005): 74–80.
37. Bidez (1981): XII: 629.
38. MacMullen (1976): 13.
39. Barnes (1981): 147, rightly notes that from 260 onward, Christianity “prospered mightily.”
Cf. also Birley (1976): 259 & n. 4.
40. Marx-Wolf (2010): 207–15 shows how Porphyry’s daimonology has things in common
with that of the Christians in the context of universalism.
41. Liebeschuetz (1987): I.455.
42. See Simmons (2009).
43. Simmons (2012c).
44. Simmons (2009).
45. Simmons (forthcoming 2015).
46. See Simmons (2010e) and (2012c).
47. See P. Hadot (1998): 345, on how economic problems in the thirrd century contributed to
the decline of paganism.
48. Rousseau (2002): 195.
49. Cf. (e.g.) Alföldi (1938a) for the decline of the Roman Senate during the period.
50. L’Orange (1965): 63; Nilsson (1969): 177, stating what the Roman Empire needed was “a
universal world-wide religion, as all-embracing as the world-Empire.” The Imperial Cult
was the answer according to Nilsson, and this contributed to keeping the empire together;
Alföldy (1974): 108; A. H. Armstrong (1986b): 74; Frend (1987): 4; Ando (2000): 204;
Schott (2008): 76.
394  Notes

51. As noted above, one should speak now of “Imperial Cults” owing to the significant
regional differences. Cf. Iossif, Chankowski, and Lorber (2011).
52. Contra: G. Clark (2007): 140: “Augustine’s almost-Christian Porphyry sought a universal
way of salvation, but Augustine was wrong.” For better assessments see (e.g.): Wilken
(1984): 163: “Although Porphyry had not yet been able to discover a universal way, he did
believe that one existed”; Fowden (1993): 39, who asks if Porphyry really believed that
there may be a universal way of salvation for humanity, would he have admitted his fail-
ure to find it; Van Fleteren (1999): 661: “Augustine extolled Porphyry because of the
Neoplatonist’s search for a universal way of salvation”; Richey (1995): 135; Whittaker
(2001): 159: “According to Augustine (De Civitate Dei 10.32), Porphyry claimed in the De
regressu animae that there is no universalis via to Salvation. This can be seen as a reaction
to the central Christian claim to possess the universal and exclusive way of salvation.”
Whittaker refers to CC Frag. 81 (Aug., Ep. 102.8) as a critique of the Christian claim here.
53. I say for the first time here because it would appear that Porphyry had worked out his
three-path system before Iamblichus, who arguably constructed a more coherent univer-
salist soteriological system in that it offered salvation through theurgy for all classes of
souls. In general cf. Van Fleteren (1999): 662; Levieils (2007): 151–5; Addey (2010): 164.
54. A. Smith (1974): 136. I cannot agree with Chadwick (1999): 69, who says Augustine found
Porphyry “hopelessly inconsistent” because he believed omne corpus fugiendum (Civ. Dei
X.29), yet also upheld theurgy and the traditional rites (De abst. II.33f.). This fails to rec-
ognize the fine points of the various ways to salvation analyzed herein. See Bubloz (2005).
55. Cf. Digeser (2009): 90, who agrees with Simmons (2001b): 193–215, that Porphyry actu-
ally advocated three paths which led to three separate celestial destinations.
56. Cf. Teselle (1974): 132, noting that the purely intellectual way (i.e., to salvation) is for only
a few, the philosophers.
57. Cf. (e.g.) Porph., Vit. Plot. 23, affiriming that God has neither shape nor any intelligible
form, but is enthroned above intellect and all intelligible reality. Cf. Chal. Or. frag. 20: The
Pater is an intelligible; and Buresch oracle #21 in Batiffol (1916): 183; cf. Buresch oracle #15
(Batiffol [1916]: 183): God is incorruptible in a brilliant flame of supercelestial fire and he
engenders life; and Buresch oracle #13 (Batiffol [1916]: 182): Apollo defines God as the
Supreme God, inaccessible, immutable, incomprehensible, and resident in the remote
heaven in an eternal flame.
58. See Simmons (2009).
59. Porph., Ad Marc. 6.
60. See Simmons (2009), especially 176ff. For the salvation of the soul conceived as a quest
for wisdom in the pursuit of virtue, and the Platonic doctrine of the soul’s affinity to the
divine, see Hoffmann (1994): 163.
61. Porph., Ad Marc. 8; cf. 6: the path (ἡ ὁδὸς) for the initial ascent of the soul from the body
is described as difficult.
62. Whittaker (2001): 162: “Porphyry’s letter to Marcella presents the Neoplatonic doctrine
on salvation in a simplified form explained and illustrated through the use of sententiae,
similies and exempla.”
63. Porph., Ad Marc. 5; cf. Sent. 32, using the word μἀχη. Cf. Whittaker (2001): 158: “The cen-
tral Neoplatonic doctrine of salvation through philosophical separation of the soul from
the body forms the basis of the Letter to Marcella, and Porphyry particularly emphasizes
the difficulties of the philosophical life.”
64. Cf. Porph., Ad Marc. 7. For the relationship conceptually with Plato, Phaedo 67 AB, see
Wicker (1987): 92ff.
 Notes  395

65. Porph., Ad Marc. 18: oὖτoς γὰρ μέγιστoς καρπὸς εὐσεβείας τιμᾶν τὸ θεῖoν κατὰ τὰ
πάτρια; cf. the oracle no. 2 dated to the early sixth century b.c.: Θεὸς δ̀ὲ ἐ̑πεν·Δίκαιoν
πoιεῖν ὡς πατέρες, answering the question, “Is it better to do as our fathers did?”, in
Fontenrose (1988): 180; and 203: “Probably Didyma often told the inquirer to follow
ancestral custom.”; cf. Cassius Dio, LII.36, on the perceived connection in the Age of
Augustus between ancestral religious customs and political stability; and Cotta the
Platonist’s remark in Cicero, De nat. deor. III.2.5, that there is no doubt he should uphold
the beliefs about the immortal gods passed down from his ancestors concerning the rites,
ceremonies, and duties of Roman religion; cf. ILS 4341, 4349; Hadas (1959): 208f.; Barnes
(1968): 49; MacMullen (1981): 3; Zaidman and Pantel (1994): 11; Dumézil (1996): I.125;
Beard, North, and Price (1998): I.342; Belayche (2001): 28; Chadwick (2001): 174;
Whittaker (2001): 159.
66. Porphyry’s stress upon omne corpus esse fugiendum, as noted by Aug., Civ. Dei X.29; cf.
(e.g.) Ad Marc. 8, 9, 12, 14, 16, 26; Sent. 32; Dörrie (1962): 43; A. Smith (1974): 20: “The call
to separate soul from body seems to be the major ethical injunction which Porphyry lays
upon us in his moral treatises”; Richey (1995): 134f.; Beatrice (1989): 260; Evangeliou
(1989): 62ff.; and Trapè (1978): 239ff.
67. Cf. Simmons (2009).
68. I agree with Whittaker (2001): 153, who states that the structure, rhetorical form, and polemi-
cal tone of the Ad Marc. presuppose that the epistle was written for public circulation.
69. As noted in part I above, there is no mention in the Ad Marc., for example, of such impor-
tant Neoplatonic doctrines as the One, the unio mystica, contemplation on intelligible
reality, etc., on which see Whittaker (2001): 161; A. Smith (1974): 104; (1989): 38ff.; and
Wicker (1987): 7–20; 415–24.
70. This would be based upon the kinds of prenatal choices that the souls make before their
next reincarnation which Porphyry commented upon in the fragments that were ana-
lyzed in c­ hapter 9, and which, in turn, were indebted to the Phaedrus myth.
7 1. See Simmons (2001b); (2009); Cipriani (1997).
72. Cf. A. Smith (1974): xiv–xvii; on the role of theurgy in this tier, 59; Levieils (2007): 152
(Porphyry never rejected “les cultes populaires”); and on the relation with magic see Graf
(1999). See also Bubloz (2005): 132.
73. We recall that Augustine, Civ. Dei X.11, says Porphyry believed that the (good) souls of the
herd that have not been cleansed by theurgy after death go to the hylic realm beneath the
moon. Those (good) souls from the same group whose lower soul is so cleansed go to the
Ethereal Realm. The bad souls of the herd go to Hades. So there are technically three
subdivisions of the herd for Porphyry. Such classifications are fairly common among
Neoplatonists: Iamblichus, for example, as noted in ­chapter 8, gives further subdivisions
for his median class of souls in De myst. V.18.
74. See Simmons (2009): especially 174f.
75. On the relationship between the civic virtues and traditional piety in Neoplatonism see
Digeser (2006b): 76, citing Enn. VI.9.7.22–26.
76. For Aurelian’s religious program’s goal of unifying the empire see (e.g.) MacMullen
(1976): 33; and Halsberghe (1972): 149–55.
77. I borrow the term from Wolf Libeschuetz, from whom I have learned much about the
religious culture of the Roman Empire.
78. See Appendix I below.
79. Cf. A. Smith (1989): 38, who believes that De philosophia ex oraculis perhaps forms a part
of Porphyry’s search for a universal way of salvation.
396  Notes

80. Aug., Ep. 102 Ad Deogratias = Harnack (1916) CC frag. 81; Jurado (2006) CC frag. 4;
Berchman (2005) CC frag. 112.
81. Eus., PE V.1.9f. = Harnack (1916) CC frag. 80; Jurado (2006) CC frag. 4; Berchman (2005)
CC frag. 15, answering the question, “Why has the plague overtaken the city of Rome?”
Porphyry specifically notes that the pagan healing deity, Asclepius, and the “other gods”
have simply vacated the capital. The gist is Christianity is anti-salvific and cannot legiti-
mately claim to be a universal salvation cult. Cf. Barnes (1981): 178; and Hollerich
(1989): 443.
82. As noted above, this term was first suggested by John Dillon.
83. Cf. Eus., VC III.17ff.; Soc., HE I.9, for Constantine’s desire to see the Christian churches
attain one faith and uniform piety toward God.
84. Though the Iamblichean soteriological system was arguably more universalist in the
strict sense because it offered one way or method (theurgical ritual) for all three classes of
souls (De myst. V.18), it was neither overtly nor covertly anti-Christian. Porphyry’s
certainly was.
85. Mastandrea (1979): 125.
86. A. Smith (1989): 40.
 Bibliography

Primary Sources

The Acts of the Christian Martyrs

Musurillo, Herbert, ed. and trans. (1972). The Acts of the Christian Martyrs. Oxford: OUP.

Arethas Caesariensis

Share, Michael, ed. (1994). Arethas of Caesarea’s Scholia on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s
Categories (Codex Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 35): A Critical Edition. Bruxelles: Editions
Ousia.

Arnobius

Marchesi, Concetto, ed. (1953). Arnobii Adversus Nationes Libri VII. CSLP. 2nd ed.
Turin: G. B. Paravia & Co.
McCracken, George E., ed. and trans. (1949). Arnobius of Sicca: The Case Against the Pagans.
ACW 7–8. New York: Paulist Press.
Fragu, Bernard, ed. and trans. (2010). Arnobe. Contre les Gentils (Contre les Paiens). Tome VI.
Livres VI–VII. CUF. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Augustine

De Civitate Dei. Books VIII–XI. (1968). Trans. David Wiesen. LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
De Civitate Dei. Books XVIII.36–XX. (1960). Trans. W. C. Greene. LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.

Aurelius Victor

Aurelius Victor. De Caesaribus. (2003). Ed. H. W. Bird. TTH 17. Liverpool: LivUP.

The Bible

Coogan, Michael D. et al., eds. (2001). The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New Revised Standard
Version. 3rd ed. Oxford: OUP.

397
398  Bibliography

Celsus

Hoffmann, R. Joseph. (1987). Celsus On the True Doctrine. A Discourse Against the Christians.
Oxford: OUP.

Cicero

De Natura Deorum
Rackham, H. (1979). Cicero. De Natura Deorum. Repr. LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
McGregor, Horace C. P., trans., with an introduction by Ross, J. M. (1978). Cicero. The Nature
of the Gods. Repr. Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin.

Chaldean Oracles

Des Places, Edouard. (1971). Oracles Chaldaiques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Cyprian

Simonetti, M., ed. (1976). Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera Pars II. Corpus Christianorum Series
Latina III A. Turnholt: Brepols Editores Pontifici.

Dexippus

Dexippus On Aristotle’s Categories. (1990). Trans. John Dillon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Didache

Lake, Kirsopp, ed. (1977). Apostolic Fathers I. Repr. Cambridge, MA: HUP.

Damascius

Athanassiadi, Polymnia, ed. (1999b). Damascius. The Philosophical History. Text with
Translation and Notes. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Didymus the Blind

Hagedorn, Dieter and Ursula, and Koenen, Ludwig, eds. (1968). Didymos der Blinde.
Kommentar zu Hiob (Tura-Papyrus). Teil III Kommentar zu Hiob Kap. 7, 20c-11. PTA 3.
Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
Hagedorn, Dieter and Ursula, and Koenen, Ludwig, eds. (1985). Didymos der Blinde.
Kommentar zu Hiob (Tura-Papyrys). Teil IV.1 Kommentar zu Hiob Kap. 12,1–16,8a
(Einleitung, Text, άbersetzung) in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Δgyptischen Museum zu
Kairo. PTA Band 33,1. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt GMBH.
Gronewald, M. (1970). Didymus der Blinde. Psalmenkommentar Pt. 5. PTA 12. Bonn: Habelt.
Gronewald, M. (1979). Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura papyrus).
Vol. 5: Zu Eccl. 9.8–10.20. PTA 24. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag.

Dio Cassius

Cary, Earnest, ed. (1969). Dio’s Roman History IX Books LXXI–LXXX. LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
 Bibliography  399

Diocletian

Lauffer, Siedfried, ed. (1971). Diokletians Preisedikt. TKAWR Band 5. Berlin: Walter De

Gruyter.

Empedocles

Inwood, Brad, ed. and trans. (1992). The Poem of Empedocles. A Text and Translation with an
Introduction by Brad Inwood. Toronto/Buffalo/London: UTP.

Eunapius

Wright, Wilmer C., ed. (1998). LCL 134. Philostratus. Lives of the Sophists. Eunapius. Lives of
Philosophers. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: HUP.

Eusebius

Demonstratio Evangelica
W. J., Ferrar, ed. (1920). The Proof of the Gospel being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius
of Caesarea. 2 vols. TCL Series I: Greek Texts, Sparrow-Simpson, W. J., and Lowther
Clarke, W. K. eds. London: SPCK.
Historia Ecclesiastica
Bardy, Gustave, ed. (1952). Eusebe de Cesarée. Histoire Ecclesiastique. Livres I-IV. SC 31.
Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Bardy, Gustave, ed. (1952). Histoire Ecclesiastique. Livres V–VII. SC 41. Paris: Les Editions
du Cerf.
Bardy, Gustave, ed. (1952). Histoire Ecclesiastique. Livres VIII–X et Les Martyrs en Palestine.
SC 55. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Bardy, Gustave, ed. (1952). Histoire Ecclesiastique. Introduction. Pirichon, Pierre, S.J., Index.
(1960). SC 73. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Lawlor, Hugh Jackson, and Oulton, John Ernest Leonard, eds. (1927). Eusebius. Bishop of
Caesarea. The Eccelesiastical History and the the Martyrs of Palestine. London: SPCK.
Evangelica
Gifford, E. H., ed. (1903). Eusebii Pamphili. Evangelicae Praeparationis Libri XV. 5 vols.
Oxford: OUP.
Des Places, Edouard, ed. (1974). La Preparation Evangelique. Livre I. SC 206. Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, ed. (1976). La Preparation Evangelique. Livres II–III. SC 228. Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, and Zink, Odile, eds. (1979). La Preparation Evangelique. Livres
IV–V,1–17. SC 262. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, ed. (1980). La Preparation Evangelique. Livres V,18–36–VI. SC 266.
Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, and Schroeder, Guy, eds. (1975). La Preparation Evangelique. Livre VII.
SC 215. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, and Schroeder, Guy eds. (1991). La Preparation Evangelique. Livres
VIII–IX–X. SC 369. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, and Favrelle, G., eds. (1982). La Preparation Evangelique. Livre XI. SC
292. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
400  Bibliography

Des Places, Edouard, ed. (1983). La Preparation Evangelique. Livres XII–XIII. SC 307. Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf.
Des Places, Edouard, ed. (1987). La Preparation Evangelique. Livres XIV–XV. SC 339. Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf.
Oration to the Saints
Richardson, Ernest Cushing. 1979. Oration of Constantine to the Assembly of the Saints. NPNF
I, Repr., pp. 561–580.
Edwards, Mark, ed. (2003). The Oration to the Saints. The Greek and Latin Accounts of the
Discovery of the Cross. The Edict of Constantine to Pope Silvester. TTH 39.
Liverpool: LivUP.
In Praise of Constantine
Drake, Harold A, ed. and trans. (1976). In Praise of Constantine. A Historical Study and New
Translation of Eusebius’ Tricennial Orations. UCCS 15. Berkeley: UCP.
Theophany
Lee, Samuel, ed. (1842). Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, on The Theophania or Divine
Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. A Syriac Version, Edited from an
Ancient Manuscript Recently Discovered. Cambridge: CUP.
Lee, Samuel, trans. (1843). Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea on The Theophania or Divine
Manifetation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Translated into English with Notes, from
an Ancient Syriac Version of the Greek Original now Lost. Cambridge: CUP.
Gressmann, Hugo, ed. (1992). Eusebius Werke. Die Theophanie. Die Griechischen Bruchstüke
und Übersetzung der Syrischen Überlieferung. GCS 3.2. 2nd. ed., ed. by Adolf Laminski.
Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992. This is a reprint of the original 1903 edition, GCS 3.2.
Leipzig: Hinrichs.
Gressmann, Hugo, ed. (1903). Studien zu Eusebs Theophanie. TU 23. Leipzig: Hinrichs.
De Vita Constantini
Cameron, Averil, and Hall, Stuart, eds. (1999). Eusebius. Life of Constantine. CAHS.
Oxford: OUP.

Eutropius

Bird, H. W. (2003). Eutropius: Breviarium. TTH 14. Liverpool: LivUP.

Herodian

Whittaker, C. R., Trans. (1969). Herodian. History of the Empire. Books I-IV. LCL. Cambridge,
MA: HUP.
Whittaker, C. R., Trans. (1970). Herodian. History of the Empire. Books V-VIII. LCL.
Cambridge, MA: HUP.

Iamblichus

De Anima
Dillon, John M., and Finamore, John F., eds. (2002). Iamblichus De Anima. Text, Translation,
and Commentary. PA 92. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.
 Bibliography  401

De Mysteriis
Des Places, Édouard, S. J., ed. (1966). Jamblique. Les Mystères d´Égypte. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Ronan, Stephen, ed. (1989). Iamblichus of Chalcis On the Mysteries, De mysteriis Aegyptiorum.
Translated by Alexander Wilder and Thomas Taylor. Hastings: Chthonios.
Iamblichus: De mysteriis. Translated with an Introduction and Notes by Emma C. Clarke,
John M. Dillon, and Jackson P. Hershbell. (2003). WGRW 4. Atlanta: SBL.
De Vita Pythagorica
Dillon, John, and Hershbell, Jackson, eds. (1991). Iamblichus On the Pythagorean Way of Life.
Text, Translation, and Notes. TT 29, GRRS 11. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Deubner, Ludwig, and Klein, Ulrich, eds. (1975). De vita Pythagorica liber. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Letters
Dillon, John, and Polleichtner, Wolfgang, eds. (2009). Iamblichus of Chalcis: The Letters.
Edited with a Translation and Commentary by John Atlanta: SBL.
Taormina, Daniela Patrizia, and Piccione, Rosa Maria, eds. (2010). Giamblico. I Frammenti
dalle Epistole. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento. Index verborum a cura di Paolo
Cipolla. Elenchos. LVI. Collana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico fondata da Gabriele
Giannantoni. Naples: Bibilopolis.
Spurious: The Theology of Arithmetic
Waterfield, Robin. (1988). The Theology of Arithmetic. On the Mystical, Mathematical and
Cosmological Symbolism of the First Ten Numbers. Attributed to Iamblichus. Foreword by
Keith Critchlow. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press.

Inscriptions

Bernabé, Alberto, and San Cristóbal, Isabel Jiménez. (2008). Instructions for the Netherworld.
The Orphic Gold Tablets. With an Inographical Appendix by Ricardo Olmos, and
Illustrations by Sara Olmos. Trans. Michael Chase. RGRW 162. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Beschaouch, A. (1968). Une stèle consacrée à Saturne le 8 Novembre 323. BACTH n.s. 4: pp.
253–68.
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed. (1968). The Mithras Inscriptions of Santa Prisca and the New Testament.
NT 10: pp. 62–80.
Cagnat, R., et al., eds. (1975). Inscriptiones Graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. (=IGRom)
3 vols. SRE. (Reprint of the Paris edition, 1906–1927). Chicago: Ares.
Castritius, Helmut. (1996). Die Inschrift des Augsburger Siegesaltars als Quelle der Erkenntnis
zur Grosstammbildung bei den Germanen. In Schallmayer, ed. (1995a), pp. 18–21.
Chatonnet, François Briquel. (2011). Tyre et les inscriptions phéniciennes d´époque hellénis-
tique. In Gatier et al., eds., pp. 19–32.
Collingwood, R. G., and Wright, R. P., eds. (1995). The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. Vol. 1:
Tomlin, R. S. O., ed., Inscriptions on Stone. Far Thrupp and Stroud: Alan Sutton.
Conquais, J P Rey. (2002). Inscriptions de l’hippodrome de Tyr. JRA 15: pp. 325–35.
Dessau, Herman. (1880). Über enige inschriften aus Cirta. Hermes 15: pp. 471–4.
Dessau, Herman. (1892–1905). Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. 3 vols. Berlin: Weidman.
Felle, A. E., ed. (1997). Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae. 2 vols. (Bari: Edipuglia.
Gordon, Richard, and Reynolds, Joyce. (2003). Roman Inscriptions 1995–2000. JRS 93: pp. 212–94.
402  Bibliography

Hörig, Monika, and Schwertheim, Elmar , eds. (1987). Corpus Cultus Iovis Dolicheni (CCID).
EPRO 428. Leiden: Brill.
Horsley, G. H. R., and Mitchell, S., eds. (2000). The Inscriptions of Central Pisidia. OAWNW/
IGSK Band 57. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt.
Jehne, Martin. (1996). Überlegungen zur Chronologie der Jahre 259 bis 261 n. Chr. im Lichte
der neuen Postumus-Inschrift aus Augsburg. BV 61: pp. 185–206.
Kolendo, J., and V. Bozilova, eds. (1997). Inscriptions grecques et latines de novae (Mésie
Inférieure). Inscriptions greques par A. Bresson and Th. Drew-Bear sur un manuscrit de
V. Velkov. Inscriptions latines par J. Kolendo and V. Bozilova. (=IGLN). Bordeaux &
Paris: Boccard.
König, Ingemar. (1997). Die Postumus-Inschrift aus Augsburg. His 46: pp. 341–54.
Lafaye, G. (1975). Inscriptiones Graecae ad res romanas pertinentes. SRE. (=IGRom) Vol. 4.
Chicago: Ares. (Reprint of the Paris edition, 4 vols., 1906–27).
Le Roux, P. (1997). Armees, rhetorique et politique dans l’Empire gallo-romain. A propos de
l’inscription d’Augsbourg. ZPE 115: pp. 281–90.
Marucchi, Orazio. (1921). Di una iscrizione storica che può attribuirsi alla Basilica Apostolorum
sulla Via Appia. Nuovo Bullettino di Archeologia Cristiana 27: pp. 61–9.
Oliver, James H. (1989). Greek Constitutions of Early Roman Emperors from Inscriptions
and Papyri. Philadelphia: APS.
Perdrizet, Paul, and Lefrebvre, Gustave. (1919). Les Graffites grecs du Memnonion D’Abydos.
IGA III: Inscriptions ‘Memnonii’ sive Besae oracvli ad Abydvm Thebaides. Nancy/Paris/
Strasbourg: Berger-Levrault.
Schallmayer, Egon, ed. (1995a). Der Augsburger Siegesaltar. Zeugnis einer unruhigen Zeit.
Begleitheft zur gleichnamigen Sonderausstellung im Saalburgmuseum. Bad
Homburg: Saalburgmuseum.
Schallmayer, Egon. (1995c). Der “Augsburger Siegesaltar.” In Schallmayer, ed. (1995a):  pp.  13–26.
Vermaseren, Maarten J. (1956–60). Corpus inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis
Mithriacae. (=CIMRM) 2 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Jerome

Halton, Thomas P., trans. (1999). St. Jerome: On Illustrious Men. FC 100. Washington,
D.C.: CUAP.

Justin Martyr

Coxe, Cleveland. (1977). Repr. The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. Roberts,
Alexander, and Donaldson, James, eds. ANF I, Justin Martyr, pp. 159–306. Grand
Rapids: WBEP.

Lactantius

Bowen, Antony, and Garnsey, Peter, eds. (2003). Lactantius. Divine Institutes. TTH 40.
Liverpool: LivUP.
Creed. J. L, trans. and ed. (1984). Lactantius. De Mortibus Persecutorum. OECT. Oxford: OUP.

Livy

Radice, Betty. (1982). Livy. Rome and Italy. Books VI-X of The History of Rome from its
Foundation. Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin.
 Bibliography  403

Macarius Magnes

Blondel, C., ed. (1876). ΜΑΚΑΡΙΟΥ ΜΑΓΝΗΤΟΖ٫’Απoκριτικὸς ἤ Μoνoγενής. Macarii

Magneti quae supersunt ex inedito codice. Paris: Typographia Publica.

Manichaean Literature

Iain, Gardner, ed. (1995). The Kephalaia of the Teacher. The Edited Coptic Manichaean Texts in
Translation with Commentary. Leiden: Brill.
Gardner, Iain and N. C. Lieu, Samuel eds. (2004). Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire.
Cambridge: CUP.

Marinus

Saffrey, Henri D., Segonds, Alain-Philippe, and Luna, Concetta, eds. (2001). Marius, Proclus,
our Sur le Bonheur. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

Methodius of Olympus

Bonwetsch, G. N., ed. (1891). Methodius von Olympus I. Erlangen and Leipzig: Georg Böhme.
Musurillo, Herbert S.J., ed. (1958). St. Methodius The Symposium. A Treatise on Chastity.
ACW 27 Westminster, MD: Newman Press.

Michael the Syrian

Chabot, J.-B, ed. 1899–1924. Chronique de Michel le Syrien. Paris: E. Leroux.

Minucius Felix

Clarke, G.  W., ed. (1974). The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix.ACW 39. New  York:  Newman  Press.

Nemesius

Morani, Moreno, ed. (1987). Nemesii Emeseni De natura hominis. Leipzig: Teubner.

Telfer, William ed. (1955). Cyril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa. The Library of Christian
Classics. Vol. 4. Philadelphia: Westminister Press.

Optatus

Ziwsa, Karl. (1893). S. Optati Milevitani libri VII. Leipzig: F. Tempsky.

Edwards, Mark, ed. and trans. (1997). Optatus:  Against the Donatists. TTH 27. Liverpool:  LivUP.

Origen

Greer, Rowan A., III, ed. (1979). Origen an Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer and Selected
Works. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Orphic Poems

Athanassakis, Apostolos N., ed. (1977). The Orphic Hymns. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
West, M. L. (1983). The Orphic Poems. Oxford: OUP.
404  Bibliography

Panegyrici Latini

Nixon, C. E. V., and Saylor Rodgers, Barbara, trans., with the Latin Text of R. A. B. Mynors.
(1994). In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley: UCP.

Plato

Fowler, H. N., Trans. (1977). Plato I. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Repr. LCL.
Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Shorey, Paul, trans. (1980). Plato V & VI. Republic I and II. Repr. LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Bury, R. G., trans. (1975). Plato IX. Timaeus, Critias, Cleitophon, Menexenus, Episltes. Repr.
LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Mayhew, Robert, trans. (2008). Laws 10. Translated with a Commentary. Oxford: OUP.
Ryan, Paul, ed. (2012). Plato’s Phaedrus. A Commentary for Greek Readers. Introduction by
Mary Louise Gill. OSCC. Norman: UOP.
Vegetti, Mario, ed. (1998–2003). La Repubblica. 5 vols. Naples: Bibliopolis.

Porphyry

Ad Anebonem
Faggin, Giuseppe, ed. (1954). Lettera ad Anebo. Lettera a Marcella. Firenze: Casa Editrice
Sansoni.
Sodano, A. R., ed. (1958b). Porfirio. Lettera ad Anebo. Naples: L’arte Tipografica.
Ad Gaurum
Festugière, A. J. (1953). La Revelation d’Hermes Trismιgiste. Vol. 3: Les Doctrines de l’Ame.
Paris: Librairie Le Coffre.
Wilberding, James, ed. (2011). Porphyry. To Gaurus on How Embryos are Ensouled and On
What Is in Our Power. ACA. Bristol: BCP.
Brisson, Luc, et al., eds. (2012). Sur la manière dont l’embryon reçoit l’âme. Trans. Michael
Chase. HDAC 43. Paris: J. Vrin.
Ad Marcellam
des Places, Edouard, ed. (1982). Porphyre. Vie de Pythagore. Lettre a Marcella. With an appen-
dix by A.-Ph. Segonds. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Festugière , A.-J., ed. (1944). Trois devots paiens II. Porphyre Lettre a Marcella. Paris:  LaColombe.
Maius, Angelus, ed. (1816). ΠΟΡΦΥΡΙΟΥ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΥ ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΚΕΛΛΑΝ Porphyrii
Philosophi Ad Marcellam. Porphyrii Poeticum Fragmentum. Mediolani: Regis Typis.
Faggin, Giuseppe, ed. (1982). Porfirio. Lettera a Marcella. Il Testamento Morale dell’antichità.
(Genoa: Il Basilisco, 1982).
Pötscher, Walter, ed. (1969). Porphyrios ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΚΕΛΛΑΝ. PA XV. Leiden: Brill.
Segond, Alain-Ph, ed. (1982). Les fragments de l’histoire de la philosophie in Porphyre, Vie de
Pythagore, Lettre a Marcella. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Wicker, Kathleen O’Brien, ed. (1987). Porphyry the Philosopher. To Marcella.
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
De Abstinentia
Bouffartigue, Jean, and Patillon, M.,eds. (1977). Porphyre De L’Abstinence. Tome I: Livre I.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
 Bibliography  405

Bouffartigue, Jean, and Patillon, M.,eds. (1979). Porphyre De L’Abstinence. Tome II: Livres
II–III. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Clark, Gillian. (2000). Porphyry. On Abstinence from Killing Animals. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Patillon, M., and Segonds, A-Ph. (1995). Porphyre De L’Abstinence. Tome III: Livre IV (1995).
Lorente, Miguel P. (1984). Porfirio. Sobre la Abstinencia. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
Taylor, Thomas. (1965). Porphyry on Abstinence from Animal Food. London and
Fontwell: Centaur Press.
De Antro Nympharum
Barcenilla, Alejandro, S.J., ed (1968). Porfirio: La Gruta de las Ninfas. Un commenntarista de
Homero. Introduccion, traduccion y comentario. Per I, nos. 18–9 (1968): 403–31.
Lamberton, Robert, ed. (1983). Porphyry. On the Cave of the Nymphs. Barrytown, NY: Station
Hill Press.
Simonini, Laura, ed. (1986). Porfirio. L’Antro delle ninfe. Milan: Adlephi Edizioni.
Le Lay, Yann, and Lardeau, Guy. (1989). Porphyre. L’Antre des Nymphes dans l’Odyssιe: edition
bilingue / Porphyre; traduit du grec par Yann Le Lay; precede de La philosophie de Porphyre
et la question de l'interpretation par Guy Lardeau. Lagrasse: Verdier.
Lorente, Miguel P. (1987). Porfirio. Vida de Pitagoras, Argonauticas orficas, Himnos orficos.
Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
des Places, Édouard, ed. (1982). Porphyre Vie de Pythagore Lettre a Marcella. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1982.
Guthrie, Kenneth Sylvan. (1987). The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited and
Introduced by David Fideler. Grand Rapids: Phanes Press.
Contra Christianos
Berchman, Robert M. (2005). Porphyry Against the Christians. AMMTC I. Leiden &
Boston: Brill.
Jurado, Enrique A. Ramos, et al., eds. (2006). Porfirio de Tiro. Contra los Cristianos.
Recopilación de fragmentos, traducción, introducción y notas. Cádiz: PUC.
Weigt, Detlef, ed. (2004). Porphyrios Gegen die Christen. Auszüge aus Makarios Magnes’
‘Apokritikos’ Übersezt von Adolf von Harnack Bearbeitet und neu herausgegeben von Detlef
Weigt. Leipzig: Superbia.
Von Harnack, Adolf. (1916). Porphyrius „Gegen die Christen” 15 Bücher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente
und Referate. Berlin: AKPAW.
Muscolino, Giuseppe, ed. (2009). Porfirio Contro I cristiani. Nella raccolta di Adolf von
Harnack con tutti I nuovi frammenti in appendice. Milan: Bompiani Testi a fronte.
De Philosophia Ex Oraculis
Wolff, Gustavus, ed. (1856). Porphyrii De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae.
Berlin: I. Springer. [Reprint, Hildesheim: G. Olms: 1962].
Ennneads
Armstrong, A. H., ed. (1966–88). Enneads. Vols. I–VI. LCL. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Igal, Jesús, S.J., ed. (1982). Porfirio Vida de Plotino. Plotino Eneados I–II. Madrid: Editorial
Gredos.
Igal, Jesús, S.J., ed. (1985). Plotino. Eneados III–IV. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
Henry, Paul, and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf, eds. (1951; 1959). Plotini opera. Vol. 1 (1951); Vol. 2
(1959). Paris: Desclιe de Brouwer.
406  Bibliography

History of Philosophy
Sodano, Angelo Raffaele, ed. (1997). Porfirio Storia Della Filosofia (Frammenti).
Milan: Rusconi.
Isagoge
Barnes, Jonathan, ed. (2003). Porphyry’s Introduction. CLAP. Oxford: OUP.
De Libera, Alain, and Seconds, Alain-Philippe, eds. (1998). Isagoge: text grec, translatio
Boethii. Paris: Vrin.
Girgenti, Giuseppe, ed. (1995). Isagoge. Testo greco a fronte. Versione Latina di Boezio. TF.
Milan: Rusconi Libri.
Tricot, J., ed. (1947). Porphyre. Isagoge. Paris: Vrin.
On What Is in Our Power (Περι τoῦ ἐɸ̓ʼἡμῖν)
Wilberding, James, ed. (2011). Porphyry. To Gaurus on How Embryos are Ensouled and On
What is in Our Power. ACA Bristol: BCP.
Quaestionum Hoericarum Ad Odysseam Pertinentium
Schrader, Hermanus, ed. (1890). Porphyrii Quasetionum Homericarum ad Odysseam
Pertinentium Reliquias. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Sodano, A. R., ed. (1970). Porphyri Quaestionum Homericarum Liber I. Naples: Francesco
Giannini & Figli.
Sententiae Ad Intelligibilia Ducentes
Guthrie, K. S. and Hornum, Michael, eds. (1988). Porphyry’s Launching-Points to the Realms
of Mind. Grand Rapids: Phanes.
Della Rosa, Massimo, ed. (1992). Porfirio Sentenze Introduzzione, traduzione e commento.
Genoa: Garzanti.
Lamberz, Erich, ed. (1975). Porphyrii Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes. Leipzig: B.
G. Teubner.
Sodano, A. R., ed. (1979). Porfirio Introduzione agli Intelligibili. Naples: Associazione di Studi
tardoantichi.
Brisson, Luc, ed. (2005). Porphyre. Sentences. Etudes d’introduction texte grec et traduction
française, commentaire. 2 vols. Vol. 2 includes an English translation of the Sentences by
John Dillon. Paris: Vrin.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. ed. (1996). Sentenze sugli intellegibili. Milan: Rusconi.
ΣΥΜΜΜΙΚΤΑ ΖΕΤΕΜΑΤΑ
Dörrie, Heinrich, ed. (1959). Porphyrios’ ‘SYMMIKTA ZETEMATA’. Munich: C. H. Becksche.
Vita Plotini
MacKenna, Stephen. (1984). Porphyry: On the Life of Plotinus and the Arrangement of His
Work. Edmonds, WA: Alexandrian Press.
Caratelli, G. P. (1946). Vita de Plotino ed ordine dei suoi libri. Naples: Gaetano Macchiaroli.
Edwards, Mark. (2000). Neoplatonic Saints. The Lives of Plotinus and Proclus by Their Students.
Liverpool: LivUP.
Harder, Richard, ed. (1958). Plotins Schriften übersetzt von Richard Harder: Porphyrius όber
Plotins Leben und über die Ordnung seiner Schriften, Band V. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Moreschini, Claudio, ed. (1982). Porphyrii De Vita Plotini et ordine librorum eius.
Castello: Olschki.
 Bibliography  407

Proclus

In Platonis Rem Publicam Commentarii

Kroll, W., ed. (1899–1901). Procli Diadochi in Platonis rem publicam commentarii. 2 vols.
BSGRT. Leipzig: Teubner. Reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1965.
Festugière, A. J. (1970). Proclus. Commentaire sur la République. 3 vols. BTP. Paris: Vrin.
Festugière, A. J. (1970). Proclus Commentaire sur la République. Tome III. Dissertations
XV–XVII. (Rép X). BTP. Paris: Vrin.
Abbate, M. (1995). Proclo: Commento alla Repubblica, Dissertazioni I, III, IV, V. Traduzione,
introduzione, commento e appendici. Padua: Dipartimento di Filosofia dell’Università
di Pavia.
Abbate, M. (1998). Proclo: Commento alla Repubblica, Dissertazioni VII, VIII, IX, X.
Traduzione, introduzione, commento e appendici. Padua: Dipartimento di Filosofia
dell’Università di Pavia.
Abbate, M. (2004). Proclo: Commento alla Repubblica di Platone. Testo greco a fronte (Il pen-
siero occidentale). Milano: Bompiani.

Michael Psellus

Gautier, P. (1989). Michaelis Pselli theological. Vol. 1. BT. Leipzig/Stuttgart: Teubner.

Sanctorum Patrum

Pitra, Jean Baptiste. (1852). Spicilegium solesmense complectens sanctorum patrum scripto-
rumque Ecclesiasticorum anecdota hactenus opera, selecta e graecis orientalibusque et lati-
nis codicibus, Tomus Primus in quo praecipue auctores saeculo v antiquiores proferuntur et
illustrantur. Parisiis, Prostat apud Firmin Didot Fratres, Instituti Franciae Typographos.

Sextus

Chadwick, Henry. (1959). The Sentences of Sextus. A Contribution to the History of Early
Christian Ethics. Cambridge: CUP.

Socrates Scholasticus

Zenos, A. C. (1976). The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus. NPNF II, pp. 1–178.
Grand Rapids: WBEP.

Svidae Lexicon

Adler, Ada ed. (1935). Svidae Lexicon. Pars IV Π–Ψ. Leipzig: Teubner.

Themistius

Heinze, R., ed. (1899). Themistii In Libros Aristotelis de Anima Paraphrasis. CAG 5, 3
Berlin: Reimer.
408  Bibliography

Theosophorum Graecorum

Erbse, H., ed. (1995). Theosophorum Graecorum. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.

William of Occam

Galibois, Roland, and Valcke, Louis, eds. (1984). Guillaume d’Occam: Commentaire sur le
Livre des prédicables de Porphyre; précédé du Proême du Commentaire sur les Livres de l’art
logique. Sherbrooke: CER.

Zosimus

Paschoud, F., ed. (2000). Zosime. Histoire Nouvelle. Tome I. Livres 1–II. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: SECONDARY SOURCES

Abad, D. M. (1995). Currency Circulation in Hispania from A.D. 284 to A.D. 395. In King and
Wigg, eds., pp. 13–32.
Abel, P. F.-M. (1938). Géographie de la Palestine. II. Géographie politique. Les villes. EB.
Paris: Librairie Lecoffre.
Abramowski, Luis. (1983). Marius Victorinus, Porphyrius und die römischen Gnostiker.
ZNTW 74: pp. 108–28.
Adamo, Luigi. (1967). Boezio e Mario Vittorino traduttori e interpreti dell’ Isagoge di Porfirio.
RCSF 22: pp. 141–64.
Addey, Crystal. (2010). Monotheism, Henotheism and Polytheism in Porphyry’s Philosophy
from Oracles. In Mitchell and van Nuffelen, pp. 149–65. Leuven and Walpole,
MA: Peeters.
Addey, Crystal. (2012). The Role of Divine Providence, Will and Love in Iamblichus’ Theory
of Theurgic Prayer and Religious Invocation. In Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore, eds., pp.
133–150.
Ademollo, Francesco. (2004). Sophroniscus’ Son Is Approaching: Porphyry, Isagoge 7.20–1.
CQ 54.1: pp. 322–5.
Adler, William. (1992). Eusebius’ Chronicle and its Legacy. In Attridge and Hata, eds.,
pp. 467–91.
Adler, William. (2011). The Chronographie of Julius Africanus and its Jewish Antecedents.
ZAC 14.3: pp. 496–524.
Agosti, Gianfranco. (1986). De antro nympharum di Porfirio. GIF 38: pp. 283–92.
Aland, Barbara. (2002). Gnostischer Polytheismus oder gnostischer Monotheismus? Zum
Problem von polytheistischen Ausdrucksformen in der Gnosis. In Krebernik and van
Oorschot, pp. 195–208.
Albinus, Lars. (1998). The Katabasis of Er: Plato’s Use of Myths, Exemplified in the Myth of Er.
In Ostenfeld, ed., pp. 91–105.
Albinus, Lars. (2000). The House of Hades. Studies in Ancient Greek Eschatology. SR
2. Aarhus: AUP.
Alderink, Larry J., and Martin, Luther H. (1997). Prayer in Greco-Roman Religions. In Kiley
et al., eds., pp. 123–7. London and New York: Routledge.
Alexanderson, Bengt. (1969). Textual Remarks on Ptolemy’s Harmonica and Porphyry’s
Commentary. SGLG XXVII. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.
 Bibliography  409

Alfeche, Mamerto. (1995). Augustine’s Discussions with Philosophers on the Resurrection of

the Body. Aug 45.1–2: pp. 95–140.
Alföldi, André. (1938a). La grande crise du monde romain au IIIe siècle. AC 7: pp. 5–18.
Alföldi, André. (1938b). Zu den Christenverfolgungen in der Mitte des Jahrhunderts. K 31: pp.
323–48.
Alföldi, André. (1967). Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des 3. Jahhrhunderts nach Christus.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Alföldy, Geza. (1960). Pannoniciani Augures. AAASH 8: pp. 145–64. Also in Alföldy
(1989c): pp. 139–57.
Alföldy, Geza. (1973). Der Heilige Cyprian und die Krise des Römischen Reiches. Die
Bedeutung Cyprians für die Darstellung seiner Zeit. His 22: pp. 479–501.
Alföldy, Geza. (1974). The Crisis of the Third Century as Seen by Contemporaries. GRBS
15: pp. 89–111.
Alföldy, Geza. (1976a). Bemerkungen zu Ramsay MacMullen: Roman Government’s
Response to Crisis A.D. 235–337. HA 6: pp. 341–6.
Alföldy, Geza. (1976b). Zwei Schimpfnamen des Kaisers Elagabal: Tiberinus und Tractatitius.
BHAC 1972/74: pp. 11–21.
Alföldy, Geza. (1989a). Das neue Saeculum des Pescennius Niger. Die Krise des Römischen
Reiches. Geschichte, Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbetrachtung. HABES, Band 5,
Alföldy, Geza, ed., pp. 128–37. Stuttgart/Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Alföldy, Geza. (1989b). Die Krise des Imperium Romanum und die Religion Roms. In Eck,
ed., pp. 53–102.
Alföldy, Geza., ed. (1989c). Die Krise des Römischen Reiches. Geschichte, Geschichtsschreibung
und Geschichtsbetrachtung. HABES 5. Stuttgart/Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Afonsin, Eugene, Dillon, John, and Finamore, John F., eds. (2012). Iamblichus and the
Foundations of Late Platonism. AMMTC 13. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Algra, Reimpe A., van der Horst, Pieter, and Ruina, David T., eds. (1996). Polyhistor. Studies
in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy. Presented to Jaap Mansfeld on His
Sixtieth Birthday. Leiden: Brill.
Aliquot, Julien. (2011). Les Tyriens dans le monde romain d’Auguste à Dioclétien. In Gatier
et al., eds., pp. 73–115.
Alston, R. (1994). Roman Military Pay from Caesar to Diocletian. JRS 84: pp. 113–23.
Alt, Karin. (1988). Einige Fragen zu den “Katharmoi” des Empedokles. Hermes 116: pp.
245–70.
Alt, Karin. (1996). Porphyrios als Helfer in griechischen Nöten. Brief an Markella Kap. 4. In
Faber, Richard, and Seidensticker, Bernd, eds., Worte, Bilder, Töne: Studien zur Antike
und Antikerezeption, pp. 201–10. Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.
Alt, Karin. (1997). Glaube, Wahrheit, Liebe, Hoffnung bei Porphyrios. In Wyrwa, Dietmar, ed.,
Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Altenkirchen: Festschrift für Ulrich Wickert zum
siebzigsten Geburtstag, pp. 25–43. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Alt, Karin. (1998). Homers Nymphengrotte in der Deutung des Porphyrios. Hermes 126.4:
pp. 466–87.
Altaner, Berthold, and Stuiber, Alfred. (1978). Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der
Kirkenväter. 9 Auflage. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder.
Altheim, Franz. (1963–4). Mazdak und Porphyrius. HR 3: pp. 1–20.
Altheim, Franz, and Stiehl, Ruth. (1961). Neue Bruchstücke aus Porphyrios’ Κατα Xριστιανους.
In Altheim, Franz, von Fitz, Kurt, and Radke, G., eds., ΑΠΑΡXΑΙ. Untersuchungen und
Geschichte des Altertums, pp. 23–38. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Altheim, Franz. (1951). Aus Spätantike und Christentum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Altheim, Franz., and Stiehl, Ruth. (1953). Mazdak und Porphyrios. NC 5: pp. 1–4.
410  Bibliography

Altheim, Franz., and Stiehl, Ruth. (1954). Porphyrios und Empedokles. Tübingen: Max
Niemeyer.
Altheim, Franz., and Stiehl, Ruth. (1964–8). Porphyrios’ Schrift über die Sonne. In Altheim,
Franz, and Stiehl, Ruth, Die Araber in der Alten Welt. 6 vols. Vol. 3, pp. 198–243. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Aly, Azza Shaaban. (1987). Eight Greek Oracular Questions in the West Berlin Collection.
ZPE 68: pp. 99–104.
Anastos, M. V. (1966). Porphyry’s Attack on the Bible. In Wallach, L. ed., The Classical
Tradition. Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, pp. 421–449.
Ithaca: Cornell.
Ando, Clifford, ed. (2000). Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire.
Berkeley: UCP.
Ando, Clifford. (2003a). Roman Religion. ERAW. Edinburgh: EUP.
Ando, Clifford. (2003b). A Religion for the Empire. In Ando, ed. (2003a): 220–43.
Edinburgh: EUP.
Andreau, J. (1999). Banking and Business in the Roman World. Cambridge: CUP.
Ankarloo, Bengt, and Clark, Stuart, eds. (1999). Witchcraft and Magic in Europe. Ancient
Greece and Rome. Philadelphia: UPP.
Annas, Julia. (1981). An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford: OUP.
Annas, Julia. (1982). Plato’s Myths of Judgment. Phronesis 27: pp. 119–43.
Anton, John P. (1969). Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle’s Doctrine of Homonyma. JHP
7: pp. 1–18.
Arce, Javier. (1978). La crisis del III siglo d.C. en Hispania y las invasiones barbaras. HA 8: pp.
257–69.
Armstrong, A. H. (1957). The Background of the Doctrine “That the Intelligibles Are Not
Outside the Intellect.” In Les Sources de Plotin. Dix Exposés et Discussions, EAC, Tome V,
pp. 391–413. Geneva: Vandoeuvres.
Armstrong, A. H. (1973). Man in the Cosmos. A Study of Some Differences between Pagan
Neoplatonism and Christianity. In den Boer et  al., eds. (1973a):  pp. 5–14. Amsterdam:  North
Holland.
Armstrong, A. H. (1974). Tradition, Reason and Experience in the Thought of Plotinus.
ACI: pp. 171–94. Rome: Academia Nazionnale dei Lincei.
Armstrong, A. H. (1981). Negative Theology, Myth and Incarnation. In Les cahiers de Fontenay
n° 19.20.21.22. Néoplatonisme, Melanges offerts a Jean Trouillard, pp. 47–57. Fontenay aux
Roses: ENS.
Armstrong, A. H., ed. (1986a). Classical Mediterranean Spirituality. Egyptian, Greek, Roman.
New York: Crossroad.
Armstrong, A. H. (1986b). The Ancient and Continuing Pieties of the Greek World. In
Armstrong (1986a): pp. 66–101.
Armstrong, A. H. (1991). Apophatic-Kataphatic Tensions in Religious Thought from the
Third to the Sixth Century A.D.: A Background for Augustine and Eriugena. In Martin
and Richmond, pp. 12–21.
Armstrong, Gregory T. (1967a). Constantine’s Churches. Gesta: pp. 1–9.
Armstrong, Gregory T. (1967b). Imperial Church Building and Church State Relations, A.D.
313–363. CH 36.1: pp. 3–17.
Armstrong, Gregory T. (1974). Constantine’s Churches: Symbol and Structure. JSAH
33.1: pp. 5–16.
Arnaldi, Adelina. (1975). Osservazioni sul convegno di Carnuntum. ILSL XXXV, Fasc. 4: pp.
217–38.
 Bibliography  411

Arnou, René. (1937). La Contemplation chez Plotin. DSAM, II., 1727–42. Paris: Beauchesne.
Arnou, René. (1967). Le Désir de Dieu dans la Philosophie de Plotin, deuxième edition.
Rome: Presses de l’université Grégorienne.
Asirvatham, S. R., Pache, C. O. and Watrous, J., eds. (2001). Between Magic and
Religion:  Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediteranean Religion and Society.
Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Asmussen, Jes P. (1975). Manichaean Literature. Representative Texts Chiefly from Middle
Persian and Parthian Writings. Delmar, NY Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints.
Asztalos, Monika. (1993). Boethius as a Transmitter of Greek Logic to the Latin West. HSCP
95: pp. 367–407.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. (1992). Philosophers and Oracles: Shifts of Authority in Late
Antiquity. Byz 62: pp. 45–62.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. (1993). Dreams, Theurgy and Freelance Divination: The Testimony
of Iamblichus. JRS 83: pp. 115–30.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. (1995). The Oecumenism of Iamblichus: Latent Knowledge and Its
Awakening. JRS 85: pp. 244–50.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. (1999a). The Chaldaean Oracles: Theology and Theurgy. In
Athanassiadi and Frede (1999a): pp. 149–83.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. (2002). The Creation of Orthodoxy in Neoplatonism. In Clark and
Rajak, pp. 271–91.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia, and Frede, Michael. (1999a). Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity.
Oxford: OUP.
Athanassiadi, Polymnia, and Frede, Michael. (1999b). Introduction. In Athanassiadi and
Frede (1999a): pp. 1–20.
Attridge, Harold W., and Hata, Gohei, eds. (1992). Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism.
Detroit: WSUP.
Aubet, Maria Eugenia. (2001). The Phoenicians and the West. Translated from the Spanish by
Mary Turton. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP.
Aune, David E. (1983). Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Anicent Mediterranean World.
Grand Rapids: WBEP.
Bachrach, Bernard S. (1993). Grand Strategy in the Germanic Kingdoms: Recruitment of the
Rank and File. In Vallet and Kazanski, eds., pp. 55–63.
Badel, Christophe, and Bérenger, Agnès, eds. (1998). L’empire romain au iiie siecle apres J.-C.
Textes et Documents. RHHA. Paris: Sedes.
Bagnall, Roger S. (1993). Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton: PUP.
Bagnall, Roger S. (2000). P. Oxy. 4527 and the Antonine Plague in Egypt: Death or Flight?
JRA 13: pp. 288–92.
Bagnall, Roger S. and Rives, James B. (2000). A Prefect’s Edict Mentioning Sacrifice. ARG
2.1: pp. 77–86.
Bagnall, Roger S. (2002). The Effects of Plague: Model and Evidence. JRA 15: pp. 114–20.
Baharal, Drora. (1999). The Emperor Macrinus. Imperial Propaganda and the Gens Aurelia.
In Dal Covolo and Rinaldi, eds., pp. 47–65.
Bakker, Jan Theo. (1994). Living and Working with the Gods. Studies of Evidence for Private
Religion and its Material Environment in the City of Ostia (100–500 AD). Amsterdam: J.
C. Gieben.
Bakker, Lothar. (1993). Raetien unter Postumus—Das Siegesdenkmal einer Juthungenschlacht
im Jahre 260 n. Chr. Aus Augsburg. Ger 71: pp. 369–86.
Bakker, Lothar. (1996). Der Siegesaltar aus AVGVSTA VINDELICVM/Augsburg von 260 n.
Chr. In Schallmayer, ed. (1995a), pp. 7–13.
412  Bibliography

Balch, David. L. (2003). The Cultural Origin of “Receiving all Nations” in Luke-Acts. In
Fitzgerald, John T., et al., eds., Early Christianity and Classical Culture. Comparative
Studies in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Supplements to Novum Testamentum CX, pp.
483–500. Leiden: Brill.
Balch, David. L, Ferguson, Everett, and Meeks, Wayne. (1990). Greeks, Romans, and Christians.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Ballériaux, Omer. (1996). Porphyre et Aristote. Quelques fragments à ajouter auz Porphyrii
philosophi Fragmenta d’Andrew Smith. In Motte, André, and Denooz, Joseph, eds.,
Aristotelica Secunda. Mélanges offerts à Christian Rutten. CIPL, pp. 221–31. Liège:  Université
de Liège.
Baltes, Matthias. (1975). Numenius von Apamea und der Platonische Timaios. VChr 29: pp.
241–70.
Baltes, Matthias. (1976). Die Weltenstehung des Platonischen Timaios nach den antiken
Interpreten, Teil I. PA 30. Leiden: Brill.
Baltes, Matthias. (1996). Γεγονεν (Platon, Tim. 28B7). Ist die Welt real entstanden oder nicht?
In Algra, K. A., et al., eds., Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient
Philosophy Presented to Jaap Mansfeld on His Sixtieth Birthday. PA 72, pp. 76–96.
Leiden: Brill.
Baltzly, Dirk, (2004). The Virtues and Becoming like God. OSAPh XXVI: pp. 297–321.
Bar, Doron. (2002). Was There a 3rd Century Economic Crisis in Palestine? JRA 49: pp. 43–54.
Barbanti, Maria, et al., eds. (2002). ΕΝΩΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΦΙΛΙΑ. Omaggio a Francesco Romano.
Cantania: Cooperativa Universitaria Editrice Catanese di Magistero.
Bardill, Jonathan. (2012). Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age.
Cambridge: CUP.
Bardy, Gustave. (1955). La théologie d’Eusèbe de Césarée d’après l’Histoire ecclésiastique. RHE
50: pp. 5–20.
Barker, Andrew. (1977). Music and Mathematics: Theophrastus against the Number-Theorists.
PCPS 203: pp. 1–15.
Barnes, Jonathan. (2002). Ancient Philosophers. In Clark and Rajak, pp. 294–306.
Barnes, Jonathan. (1999). A Review of Gerald Bechtle, The Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s
Parmenides (Berne: Paul Haupt, 1999). RTP 131: pp. 423–4.
Barnes, Jonathan, and Griffin, Miriam, eds. (1997). Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle
at Rome. Oxford: OUP.
Barnes, T. D. (1967). The Family and Career of Septimius Severus. His 16: pp. 87–107.
Barnes, T. D. (1968). Legislation against the Christians. JRS 58.1–2: pp. 32–50.
Barnes, T. D. (1973a). Lactantius and Constantine. JRS 63: pp. 29–46.
Barnes, T. D. (1973b). Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and Attribution of Fragments.
JTS n.s.: pp. 424–42.
Barnes, T. D. (1976a). Sossianus Heriocles and the Antecedents of the “Great Persecution.
HSCP 80: pp. 239–52.
Barnes, T. D. (1976b). Imperial Campaigns A.D. 283–311. Phoenix 30: pp. 174–93.
Barnes, T. D. (1976c). The Chronology of Plotinus’ Life. GRBS 17: pp. 65–70.
Barnes, T. D. (1978). A Correspondent of Iamblichus. GRBS 19: pp. 99–106.
Barnes, T. D. (1980). The Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. GRBS 21: pp. 191–201.
Barnes, T. D. (1981). Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Barnes, T. D. (1984). Constantine’s Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice. AJP 105.1: pp. 69–72.
Barnes, T. D. (1986). The Constantinian Reformation. In Cohen, Ivan, and Fancy, Margaret,
eds., The Crake Lectures 1984, pp. 39–57. Sackville, New Brunswick: The Crake Institute.
Barnes, T. D. (1991). Pagan Perceptions of Christianity. In Hazlett, I., ed., pp. 231–43.
 Bibliography  413

Barnes, T. D. (1992). The Constantinian Settlement. In Attridge and Hata, pp. 635–57.
Barnes, T. D. (1994). Scholarship or Propaganda? Porphyry Against the Christians and its
Historical Setting. BICS 39: pp. 53–65.
Barnes, T. D. (1995). Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy. JRS 85: pp.
135–47.
Barnes, T. D. (1997). Julian or Constantine? Observations on a Fragmentary Imperial
Panegyric. In Kramer, Luppe, et al., eds., 2 vols., I. pp. 67–70.
Barnes, T. D. (1998). Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality.
CSCP 56. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Barnes, T.  D. (1999). Constantine and Christianity:  Ancient Evidence and Modern
Interpretations. ZAC 2: pp. 274–94.
Barnes, T. D. (2001a). Constantine’s Speech to the Assembly of the Saints: Place and Date of
Delivery. JTS 52: pp. 26–36.
Barnes, T. D. (2001b). Monotheists All? Phoenix 55: pp. 142–62.
Barnes, T. D. (2002). From Toleration to Repression: The Evolution of Constantine’s Religious
Policies. SCI 21: pp. 189–207.
Barnes, T. D. (2011). Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire.
BAL. Chichester, Oxford, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Barrett, John C., et al., eds. (1989). Barbarians in North-West Europe from the Later Republic
to Late Antiquity. Oxford: BAR International Series 471.
Barton, Tamsyn. (1994). Ancient Astrology. New York and London: Routledge.
Bastiaensen, A. A. R., et al., eds. (1989). FRVCTVS CENTESIMVS. Mélanges offerts à Gerard
J. 
M. Barteliink à l’occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire 1989.
Steenbrugis: Abbatia S. Petri.
Batiffol, Pierre. (1916). Oracula Hellenica. RB: pp. 177–99.
Baumbach, Manuel, et al., eds. (1998). Mousopolos Stephanos. Festschrift für Herwig
Görgemanns. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
Baynes, Norman H. (1934). Eusebius and the Christian Empire. AIPHO II Mélanges Bidez,
13–8. Brussels: Université Libre.
Baynes, Norman H. (1939). Constantine. CAH 12: pp. 678–99. Cambridge: CUP.
Baynes, Norman H. (1939). Epilogue. CAH 12: pp. 700–9. Cambridge: CUP.
Beard, Mary, North, John, and Price, Simon. (1998). Religions of Rome. Vol. 1: A History. Vol.
2: A Sourcebook. Cambridge: CUP.
Beardino, Angelo D. (1992). The Encyclopedia of the Early Church. Trans. Adrian Walford.
Foreword by W. H. C. Frend. 2 vols. New York and Oxford: OUP.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1988). Un oracle antichrétien chez Arnobe. In de Andia, Y., et al., eds.,
Memorial Dom Jean Gribomont, pp. 107–29. Rome: IPA.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1989). Quosdam Platonicorum Libros. VChr 43: pp. 248–81.
Beatrice, Pier F., (1990). La croix et les idoles d’après l’apologique d’Athanase Contre les païens.
In Gonzalez, A. G., and Blazquez Martinez, J. M., Antiguedad y Cristianismo. Monografias
historicas sobre la antiguedad tardia, pp. 159–177. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1991). Le traité de Porphyre contre les Chrétiens. L’état de la question. Kernos
4: pp. 119–38.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1992a). Porphyry. OEEC II: p. 704.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1992b). Porphyry’s Judgment on Origen. In Daly, ed., pp. 351–67.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1992c). Towards a New Edition of Porphyry’s Fragments. In Goulet-Cazé,
Madec, and O‘Brien, eds., pp. 347–55.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1993a). Antistes Philosophiae: Ein Christenfeindlicher Propagandist am Hofe
Diokletians nach dem Zeugnis des Laktanz. Augustinianum 33: pp. 31–47.
414  Bibliography

Beatrice, Pier F. (1993b). Pagans and Christians on the Book of Daniel. SP 25: pp. 27–45.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1994). On the Title of Porphyry’s Treatise Against the Christians. In Gasparro,
G. S., ed., pp. 221–35.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1995). Pagan Wisdom and Christian Theology According to the Tübingen
Theosophy. JECS 4: pp. 403–18.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1996a). Porphyrius. TRE 27: pp. 54–9. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Beatrice, Pier F. (1996b). Traces du texte occidental chez le Païen de Macaire Magnès. In
Parker, D.C., and Amphoux, C. B. eds., Studies from the Lunel Colloquium June 1994, pp.
317–26. Leiden: Brill.
Beatrice, Pier F. (2001). Anonymi Monophysitae Theosophia: An Attempt at Reconstruction.
Leiden: Brill.
Beatrice, Pier F. (2002). The Word Homoousios from Hellenism to Christianity. CH 71.2: pp.
243–72.
Beatrice, Pier F. (2009). The Oriental Religions and Porphyry’s Universal Way for the Soul’s
Deliverance. In Bonnet, C., Pirenne-Delforge, V. and Praet, D., eds., Les religions orien-
tales dans le monde grec et romain: cent ans après Cumont (1906–2006) IHBR, pp. 343–68.
Brussels and Rome: IHBR.
Beatrice, Pier F. (2010). Semantic Shifts in Augustine’s use of the Word Profanus. In Rebillard,
E., and Sotinel, C., eds., Les frontières du profane dans l’Antiquité Tardive. CEFR 428.
Rome: EFR.
Bechtle, Gerald. (1999). The Anonymous Commentary on Plato’s Parmenides. BRPS Band 22.
Bern/Stuttgart/Wien: P. Haupt.
Bechtle, Gerald. (2000). The Question of Being and the Dating of the Anonymous Parmenides
Commentary. AP 20: pp. 393–414.
Beck, Roger. (1976). The Seat of Mithras at the Equinoxes: Porphyry, De Antro Nympharum
24. JMS 1.1: pp. 95–8.
Beck, Roger. (1982). Soteriology, the Mysteries, and the Ancient Novel: Iamblichus as a Test
Case. In Bianchi and Vermeseren, pp. 527–40.
Beck, Roger. (1984). Mithraism since Franz Cumont. ANRW II.17.4: 2002–2115. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Beck, Roger. (1988). Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras.
Leiden: Brill.
Beck, Roger. (1992). The Mithras Cult as Association. SRel/ScRel 21: pp. 3–13.
Becker, Mario. (1995). Die Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts am Beispiel Ausgewählter Befunde. In
Schallmayer, ed. (1995a), pp. 27–54.
Behr, C. A. (1968). Citations of Porphyry’s Against Aristides Preserved in Olympiodorus. AJP
89.2: pp. 186–99.
Belayche, N. (2001). Iudaea Palaestina. The Pagan Cults in Roman Palestine (Second to Fourth
Century) RRP I. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Benakis, Linos. (1982). The Problem of General Concepts in Neoplatonism and Byzantine
Thought. In O’Meara, D., ed. pp. 75–86.
Benko, Stephen. (1984). Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. London: Batsford.
Benoit, A. (1978). Le Contre Christianos de Porphyre: Où en est la collecte des fragments? In
Mélanges offerts à Marcel Simon. Paganisme, Judaïsme,Christianisme. Influences et
affrontements dans le monde antique, pp. 261–75. Paris: Editions E. de Boccard.
Benoit, Pierre. (1947). Un Adversaire du Christianisme au IIIe Siècle: Porphyre. RB 54: pp.
543–72.
Berchman, Robert M. (1989). Arcana Mundi between Balaam and Hecate: Prophecy, Divination,
and Magic in Later Platonism. SBL Seminar Papers: 107–85. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
 Bibliography  415

Berchman, Robert M. (2005). Porphyry Against the Christians. AMMTC I. Leiden and
Boston: Brill.
Bergjan, Sikke Petra. (2001). Celsus the Epicurean? The Interpretation of an Argument in
Origen, Contra Celsum. HTR 94.2: pp. 179–204.
Berkhof, Hendrikus. (1939). Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea. Amsterdam: Uitgevers
maatschappij.
Bernays, J. (1866). Jahresbericht des jüdisch-theologischen Seminars,,Fraenckel’scher Stiftung”.
Breslau, am Gedächtnisstage des Stifters, den 28. Januar 1866. Eine Abhandlung von
Dr. J. Bernays: Theophrastos’ Schrift Über Frömmigkeit. Breslau: Druck von Grass, Barth
und Comp.
Bernstein, Georg Heinrich. (1852). Syrische Studien. ZDMG 6: pp. 349–68.
Bertier, Janine. (1990). Médecine et philosophie dans l’Ad Gaurum, sur la manière dont
l’embryon s’anime. In Lopez Férez, J. A., ed., Tratados Hipocraticos (Estudios acerca de su
contenido, forma e influencia) Actas del VIIe Colloque International Hippocratique
(Madrid, 24–29 de septiembre de 1990). Madrid: Rufino Garcia Blanco.
Betegh, Gábor. (2009). Tale, Theology and Teleology in the Phaedo. In Partenie, ed., pp.
77–100.
Bett, Richard. (1999). Immortality and the Nature of the Soul in the Phaedrus. In Fine, Gail,
ed., Plato 2. Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. ORP, pp. 425–449. Oxford: OUP.
Betz, Hans Dieter. (1986). The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation including the Demotic
Spells. Chicago: UChiP.
Beutler, R. (1953). Porphyrios. PRE XXII, cols. 275–313. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Bianchi, Ugo, ed. (1979). Mysteria Mithrae. Atti del Seminario Internazionale su ‘La specificità
sotrico-religioa dei Misteri di Mithra, con particolare riferimento alle fonti documentarie di
Roma e Ostia’ Roma e Ostia 28–31 Marzo 1978. EPRO 80. Leiden: Brill.
Bianchi, Ugo, and Vermaseren, Maarten J. (1982). La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell’impero
Romano. Leiden: Brill.
Bickerman, Elias. (1926). Das Edikt des Kaisers Caracalla in P. Geiss. 40. Inaugural-Dissertation
zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Berlin: A.
Collignon.
Bickerman, Elias. (1972). Consecratio. In den Boer, ed., 1–25.
Bidez, J. (1894). La Biographie d’Empédocle. Gand: Librairie Clemm.
Bidez, J. (1913). Vie de Porphyre. Le philosophe neo-platonicien. Avec les Fragments des traites
ΠΕΡΙ ΑΓΑΛΜΑΤΩΝ et De regressu animae. Gand: E. Van Goethem, 1913; Leipzig: B.
G. Teubner, 1913.
Bidez, J. (1937). Le nom et les origines de nos Almanachs. AIPHOS 5: pp. 77–85.
Bidez, J. (1981). Literature and Philosophy in the Eastern Half of the Empire. CAH 12: 611–45.
Cambridge: CUP.
Bieler, Ludwig. (1930). Zu Porphyrios Vita Pythagorae 27. WS: pp. 201–5.
Bienkowski, Piotr, and Millard, Alan, eds. (2000). Dictionary of the Ancient Near East.
Philadelphia: UPP.
Billault, Alain. (1995). “Le mythe de l’enfance philosophique dans les biographies des philos-
ophes grecs.” In Auger, Danièle, ed., Enfants et enfances dans les mythologies: actes du VIIe
colloque du Centre de recherches mythologiques de l’Université de Paris X (Chantilly, 16–18
Septembre 1992). PCRMUP, 217–228. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Binder, G. (1968). Eine Polemik des Porphyrios Gegen die Allegorische Auslegung des Alten
Testaments. ZPE 3: pp. 81–95.
Birley, Anthony. (1969). The Coups d’Etat of the Year 193. BJRL 169: pp. 247–80.
Birley, Anthony. (1976). The Third Century Crisis in the Roman Empire. BJRLM 58: pp. 253–81.
416  Bibliography

Birley, Anthony. (1998). Decius Reconsidered. In Frézouls and Jouffroy, eds., pp. 57–80.
Birley, Anthony. (2004). Attitudes to the State in the Latin Apologists. In Wlosok, Antonie
et al., eds., Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique. Tome LI. L’Apologétique chrétienne
gréco-latine a l’époque prénicénienne. (Vandoeuvres—Genève 13–17 Septembre
2004: Fondation Hardt), pp. 249–289. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Birley, Eric. (1978). The Religion of the Roman Army: 1895–1917. ANRW II.16.2: pp. 1506–1541.
Berlin: De Guyter.
Bispham, Edward. (2000a). Introduction. In Bispham and Smith, pp. 1–18.
Bispham, Edward, and Smith, C., eds. (2000b). Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and
Italy: Evidence and Experience. NPAW 2. Edinburgh: EUP.
Bispham, Edward., ed., (2008). Roman Europe. SOHE. Oxford: OUP.
Bland, R. F. (1995). The Development of Gold and Silver Coin Denominations, A.D. 193–253.
In King and Wigg, eds., 63–100.
Blasius, Andreas. (2004). Apokalyptik und Geschichte: Das Buch Daniel in der (alt)histo-
rischen Forschung. In Brokoff, Jürgen, and Schipper, Bernd U., eds., Apokalzptik in Antike
und Aufklärung. Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1971). Plotinus’ Psychology. His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul. The
Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1974). Nous and Soul in Plotinus: Some Problems of Demarcation. In
Atti del convegno Internazaionale sul temo: Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in
Occidente (Roma, 5–9 ottobre 1970), pp. 203–19. Rome: ANL.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1981a). Plotinus in Later Platonism. In Blumenthal and Markus, pp.
212–22.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1981b). Pseudo-Elias and the Isagoge Commentaries Again. RMP
124: pp. 188–92.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1982). John Philoponus and Stephanus of Alexandria: Two Neoplatonic
Commentators on Aristotle? In O’Meara, D., ed., pp. 54–63.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1984). Marinus’ Life of Proclus: Neoplatonist Biography. Byz 59: pp.
469–94.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1990). Themistius: the Last Peripatetic Commentator on Aristotle? In
Sorabji, ed., pp. 113–23.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1991). Nous Pathetikos in Later Greek Philosophy. In Blumenthal,
Henry, and Robinson, Howard, eds., Aristotle and the Later Tradition, pp. 191–205, OSAPh
Supplementary Volume. Oxford: OUP.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1996). On Soul and Intellect. In Gerson, ed., CCP, pp. 82–105.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1997). The Psychology of Plotinus and Later Platonism. In Cleary, John
J., ed., The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism. AMP Series I, XXIV, 269–90. Leuven: LUP.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (1998). The History and Destiny of the Individual Soul in Plotinus. In
Charles-Saget ed., PC, pp. 114–132.
Blumenthal, Henry J. (2000). Plotinus and the Platonic Theology of Proclus. In Segonds and
Steel, pp. 163–176.
Blumenthal, Henry J., and Clark, E. G., eds. (1993). The ‘Divine Iamblichus’ Philosopher and
Men of Gods. London: BCP.
Blumenthal, Henry J., and Markus, R. A., eds. (1981). Neoplatonism and Early Christian
Thought. Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong. London: Variorum.
Bobzien, Susanne. (2000). Wholly hypothetical syllogisms. Phronesis 45.2: pp. 87–137.
Bochet, Isabella. (2004). Le Firmament de L’Écriture’ L’Herméneutique Augustinienne.
Paris: IEA.
 Bibliography  417

Bochet, Isabelle. (2010). The Role of Scripture in Augustine’s Controversy with Porphyry.
AugStud 41:1, pp. 7–52.
Bodéüs, Richard. (1997). Le texte grec des “Catégories” d’Aristote et le témoinage du com-
mentaire de Porphyre. DSTradF 8: pp. 121–141.
Bodéüs, Richard. (2001a). Plotin a-t-il empeché Porphyre de mourir de mélancolie? Hermes
129: pp. 567–71.
Bodéüs, Richard. (2001b). Les interlocuteurs fictifs dans le commentaire de Porphyre aux
Catégories d’Aristote: Une mise au point. RSPT 85: pp. 669–78.
Böhm, Thomas. (2002). Origenes—Theologe und (Neu-) Platoniker? Oder: Wem soll man
mißtrauen—Eusebius oder Porphyrius? Adamantius 8: pp. 7–23.
Boissier, Gaston. (1891). La fin du paganisme. Etude sur les dernières luttes religieuses en occi-
dent au quatrième siècle. 2 vols. Paris: Librairie Hachette et Cie.
Bonafonte, Giulio. (1978). The Name of Mithra. In Duchesne-Guillemin, J., et al., eds.,
pp. 47–57.
Bonazzi, Mauro. (2000). Plotino e la Tradizione Pitagorica. Acme 53 no. 2: pp. 39–73.
Bonner, C. (1942). A Tarsian Peculiarity (Dio Prus. Or. 33) with an Unnoticed Fragment of
Porphyry. HTR 35.1: pp. 1–11.
Bonnet, C. (1987). Typhon et Baal Saphon. In Lipinski, E., (ed.), Phoenicia and ... Millennium
B.C. Studia Phoenicia 5, pp. 101–43. Leuven: Peeters.
Bonwetsch, N. (1903). Die Theologie des Methodius von Olympus. Berlin: Weidmann.
Borgeaud, Philippe. (2004). Mother of the Gods. From Cybele to the Virgin Mary. Trans. Lysa
Hochroth. Baltimore and London: JHUP.
Bostock, David. (1999). The Soul and Immortality in Plato’s Phaedo. In Gail Fine, ed., Plato
2. Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul. ORP, pp. 404–424. Oxford: OUP.
Bourque, Nicole. (2000). An Anthropologist’s View of Ritual. In Bispham and Smith, 19–33.
Bousset, W. (1915). Zur Dämonologie der Spätern Antike. Afr 18: pp. 134–72.
Bowden, Hugh. (2010). Mystery Cults in the Ancient World. London: Thames & Hudson.
Bowersock, G. W. (1987). The Hellenism of Zenobia. In Koumoulides, John T. A., ed., Greek
Connections: Essays on Culture and Diplomacy, pp. 19–27. Notre Dame: UNDP.
Bowersock, G. W. (1990). Hellenism in Late Antiquity. TSJL 18. Ann Arbor: UMP.
Bowersock, G. W., Brown, Peter and Grabar, Oleg, eds. (1999). Late Antiquity. A Guide to the
Postclassical World. Cambridge, MA and London: HUP.
Bowersock, G. W. (2002). Peter and Constantine. In Jean-Michel Carrié and Rita Lizzi Testa,
eds., Humana Sapit. Études d’antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, pp. 209–17.
Turnholt. This is reprinted in Tronzo, William, ed. (2005). St. Peter’s in the Vatican,
pp. 5–15. Cambridge: CUP.
Bowman, Alan K., Garnsey, Peter and Cameron, Averil, eds. (2005). The Cambridge Ancient
History. 2nd ed. Vol. XII: The Crisis of Empire, A.D. 193–337. Cambridge: CUP.
Bowman, Alan K. (2005). Diocletian and the First Tetrarchy A.D. 284–305. CAH 12.2: pp.
67–89. Cambridge: CUP.
Boyancé, Pierre. (1948). Xenocrates et les orphiques. REA: pp. 218–31.
Boyancé, Pierre. (1960–1). L’antre dans les Mystères de Dionysos. RAR 33: pp. 107–27.
Boyd, M. J. (1936). Porphyry, De Abstinentia I 7–12. CQ 30.3/4: pp. 188–91.
Boyd, M. J. (1937). The Chronology in Porphyry’s Vita Plotini. CP: pp. 241–57.
Bradbury, Scott. (1995). Julian’s Pagan Revival and the Decline of Blood Sacrifice. Phoenix 49
no. 4: pp. 331–56.
Brancacci, Aldo. (2002). Porfirio e Antistene: ΤΡΟΠΟΣ Ε ΠΡΟΛΥΠΟΠΙΑ in SSR V A 187. In
Barbanti et al., eds., pp. 409–417.
418  Bibliography

Braun, O. (1905). A Review of H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1904). ThR 4: pp. 169–70.
Bregman, Jay. (1999). Elements of the Emperor Julian’s Theology. In Cleary, John J., ed., pp.
337–50.
Bréhier, Emile. (1953). Les analogies de la création chez Cankara et chez Proclus. RPFE
143: pp. 329–33.
Breloer, Bernhard. (2002). Drei unbenannte Megasthenesfragmente über die pravrajya.
ZDMG: pp. 254–93.
Bremmer, Jan N. (1989). Why Did Early Christianity Attract Upper-class Women? In
Bastiaensen et al., eds., 37–47.
Bremmer, Jan N. (2002). The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife. London and New York: Routledge.
Bremond, A. (1933). Notes et documents sur la religion neo-platonicienne. RSR: pp. 102–12.
Brent, Allen. (2010). Cyprian and Roman Carthage. Cambridge: CUP.
Brisson, Luc. (1982). Notes sur les noms propres. In Brisson et al., eds., pp. 49–141.
Brisson, Luc, et al., eds. (1982). Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin. Vol. 1: Travaux Préliminaires et
Index Grec Complet. Paris: J. Vrin.
Brisson, Luc. (1990). L’oracle d’Apollon dans la vie de Plotin par Porphyre. Kernos 3: pp. 77–88.
Brisson, Luc, et al., eds. (1992). Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin. Vol. 2: Etudes D’introduction, texte
grec et Traduction Française,Commentaire, Notes Complémentaires, Bibliographie.
Paris: J. Vrin.
Brisson, Luc. (1992a). Plotin, une biographie. In Brisson, et al., eds., Vol. 2: pp. 1–29.
Brisson, Luc. (1992b). Plotin et la magie. Le chapitre 10 de La Vie de Plotin par Porphyre.” In
Brisson, et al., eds., Vol. 2: pp. 465–75.
Brisson, Luc. and Flamand, Jean-Marie. (1992). Structure, Contenu, et intentions de l’oracle
d’Apollon (VP 22). In L. Brisson et al., eds., Vol. 2: pp. 565–602.
Brisson, Luc. (2000a). Le commentaire comme prière destinée a assurer le salut de l’âme: La
place et le rôle des Oracles Chaldaïques dans le commentaire sur le Timée de Platon par
Proclus. In Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile, ed., pp. 329–53.
Brisson, Luc. (2000b). La place des Oracles Chaldaïques dans la théologie platonicienne. In
Segonds and Steel, eds., pp. 109–62.
Brisson, Luc. (2000c). Platonism. Trans. Rita Guerlac and Anne Slack. In Brunschwig et al.,
eds., pp. 893–917.
Brisson, Luc. (2005). Le système philosophique de Porphyre dans Les Sentences. B. Physique
et Éthique. In Brisson et al., eds., Vol. 1: 107–138.
Brisson, Luc. (2012a). Points de départ vers les intelligibles—Les Sentences. DPA Vb: 1398–1403.
Brisson, Luc. (2012b). Ad Gaurum sur l’animation de l’embryon. DPA Vb: 1403–8.
Brisson, Luc. (2012c). L’abstinentia. DPA Vb: 1408–19.
Broadie, Sarah. (2003). Aristotelian Piety. Phronesis 48.1: pp. 54–70.
Brown, Francis, Driver, S. R., and Briggs, Charles A., eds. (1976). A Hebrew and English
Lexicon of the Old Testament. With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic Based on
the Lexicon of William Gesenius as Translated by Edward Robinson. Oxford: OUP.
Brown, Peter. (1967). Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley and Los Angeles: UCP.
Brown, Peter. (1982). Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: UCP.
Brown, Peter. (2000). Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. New Edition, with an Epilogue.
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: UCP.
Brown, Peter. (2003). The Rise of Western Christendom. Triumph and Diversity, A.D. 200–1000.
2nd ed. Oxford: OUP.
Browne, Gerald M. (1970). The Composition of the Sortes Astrampsychi. BICSL 17: pp. 95–100.
Browne, Gerald M. (1974). The Papyri of the Sortes Astrampsychi. BKP 58. Meisenheim am
Glan: Anton Hain.
 Bibliography  419

Browne, Gerald M. (1976). The Origin and Date of the Sortes Astrampsychi. ICS 1: pp. 53–8.
Bruit, Louise. (1984). Sacrifices a Delphes sur deux figures d’Apollon. RHR CCI 4: pp.
339–67.
Brunschwig, Jacques, Lloyd, Geoffrey E. R., and Pellegrin, Pierre eds. (2000). Greek Thought.
A Guide to Classical Knowledge. Trans. Catherine Porter. Cambridge, MA and
London: HUP.
Bruun, Patrick. (1958). The Disappearance of Sol from the Coins of Constantine. Arctos: pp. 15–37.
Bubloz, Yvan. (1998). Quand la démonologie fournit des arguments au végétarisme.
CHRONOZONES 4: pp. 12–17.
Bubloz, Yvan. (2005). Augustin et Porphyre sur le salut: Pour une comparaison analogique et
non apologétique du christianisme et du néoplatonisme. EL 4: pp. 113–37.
Buell, Denise Kimber. (2002). Race and Universalism in Early Christianity. JECS 10.4: pp.
429–68.
Buffière, F. (1956). Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Buresch, Karl. (1889). Klaros. Untersuchungen zum orakelwesen des Späteren Altertums.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Burgess, Richard W, with the assistance of Witakowski, Witold. (1999). Studies in Eusebian
and Post-Eusebian Chronography. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Burkert, Walter. (1985). Greek Religion. Trans. John Raffan. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Burkert, Walter. (1987). Ancient Mystery Religions. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Burkert, Walter. (2004). Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture.
Cambridge, MA and London: HUP.
Burkitt, F. C. (1905). A Review of H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1904). CR 19: pp. 62–3.
Burns, J. Patout, Jr. (2002). Cyprian the Bishop. London and New York: Routledge.
Burns, Thomas S. (1994). Barbarians Within the Gates of Rome. A Study of Roman Military
Policy and the Barbarians, ca. 375–425 A.D. Bloomington and Indianapolis: IUP.
Burstein, Stanley M. (1984). Callisthenes and Babylonian Astronomy: A Note on FGrHist 124
T3. EMC 28: pp. 71–4.
Busine, Aude. (2004). Des logia pour philosohie. À propos du titre de la Philosophie tirée des
oracles de Porphyre. PhilosAnt 4: pp. 149–66.
Busine, Aude. (2005). Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans
l’Antiquitétardive (IIe–VIe siècles). RGRW 156. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Busine, Aude. (2012a). La Philosophie Tirée des Oracles: DPA Vb: pp. 1394–7.
Busine, Aude. (2012b). La Lettre à Anébon. DPA Vb: pp. 1397–8.
Bussanich, John. (1988). The One and its Relation to Intellect in Plotinus. A Commentary on
Selected Texts. PA 49. Leiden and New York: Brill.
Bussanich, John. (1994). Mystical Elements in the Thought of Plotinus. In Temporini
Hildegard and Haase, Wolfgang, eds., ANRW II.36.7: pp. 5300–30. Berlin and
New York: De Gruyter.
Bussanich, John. (1996). Plotinus’s Metaphysics of the One. In Gerson, ed., CCP, pp. 38–65.
Bussanich, John. (2002). Philosophy, Theology, and Magic: Gods and Forms in Iamblichus.
In Kobusch and Erler, eds., pp. 39–61.
Bussanich, John. (2013). Rebirth Eschatology in Plato and Plotinus. In Vishwa, Adluri, ed.,
Philosophy and Salvation in Greek Religion. RVV 60, pp. 243–88. Berlin and Boston: De
Gruyter.
Butcher, K. E. T. (1995). Coinage and Currency in Syria and Palestine to the Reign of Gallienus.
In King and Wigg, eds., pp. 101–12.
Buxton, Richard, ed. (2000). Oxford Readings in Greek Religion. Oxford: OUP.
Calderini, Aristide. (1949). I Severi. La crisi dell’impero nel III secolo. SR VII. Bologna: LCE.
420  Bibliography

Callu, Jean-Pierre. (1969). La Politique Monétaire des empereurs romains de 238 à 311.
Paris: E. de Boccard.
Callu, Jean-Pierre. (1975). Approches numismatiques de l’histoire du 3e. siècle (238–311).
ANRW II: 594–613. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Cameron, Alan. (1967). The Date of Porphyry’s ΚΑΤΑ XΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ. CQ 17: pp. 382–4.
Cameron, Alan. (1973). Porphyrius the Charioteer. Oxford: OUP.
Cameron, Alan. (1983). Eusebius of Caesarea and the Rethinking of History. In Gaba, E., ed.,
Tria Corda Scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano. BA I: 71–88, pp. 71–88. Como: Edizioni
New Press.
Cameron, Averil M. (1996). Eusebius. OCD: 575f. Oxford: OUP.
Cameron, Averil M. (2005). The Reign of Constantine, A.D. 306–337. CAH 12.2: pp. 90–109.
Cambridge: CUP.
Cameron, Averil M. (2006). Constantine and the “Peace of the Church.” In Mitchell, Margaret
M., and Young, Frances M., eds., The Cambridge History of Christianity.Vol. 1: Origins to
Constantine, pp. 538–551. Cambridge: CUP.
Campbell, Brian. (1978). The Marriage of Soldiers under the Empire. JRS 68: pp. 153–66.
Campbell, Brian. (2005). The Severan Dynasty. CAH 12.2: pp. 1–27. Cambridge: CUP.
Campi, Emidio, et al., eds. (1999). Oratio. Das Gebet in patristischer und reformatorischer
Sicht. FKD 76. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Capitani, Franco de. (1984). Platone, Plotino, Porfirio e Sant’Agostino sull’immortalità
dell’anima intesa come vita. RFN 76: pp. 230–44.
Carcopino, Jerome. (1941). Aspects mystiques de la Rome paienne. Paris: L’Artisan du Livre.
Carlier, Jeannie. (1998). L’après mort selon Porphyre. In Charles-Saget, ed., PC, pp. 134–60.
Paris: J. Vrin.
Carlini, Antonio. (1993). Lettere e “sillabe” negli autografi di Plotino. In Pretagostini, ed., pp.
1143–9.
Carlini, Antonio. (1996). La polemica di Porfirio contro l’esegesi “tipologica” dei cristiani.
SCO 46.1: pp. 385–94.
Carratelli, G. P. (1974). Plotino e I Problemi Politici del suo tempo. ACI: 61–70. Rome: ANL.
Carriker, Andrew. (2003). The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, in Boeft, J. den, et al., eds.,
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, Formerly Philosophia Patrum. TSECLL 67. Leiden
and Boston: Brill.
Casey, Maurice. (1990). Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis of the Book of Daniel. ZNTW 81: pp.
139–42.
Casey, P. J. (1994). Carausius and Allectus. The British Usurpers. With translations of the texts
by R. S. O. Tomlin. New Haven and London: YUP.
Casey, P. M. (1976). Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel. JTS n.s. 27: pp. 15–33.
Castillo, C., and Sánchez-Ostiz, Á. (2000). “Legiones y legionaries en los epígrafes pro salute
imperatoris: una panorámica.” In Le Bohec, Yann and Wolf, Catherine, eds., Les légions de
Rome sous le Haut-Empire. Actes du Congrès de Lyon (17–19 septembre 1998). 2 vols.
CCERG-R. II: 733–42. Lyon: Diffusion de Boccard.
Cavaliere, P. F. de. (1902). Nuove note agiografiche. ST 9. Vatican City: Bibliotheca Vaticana.
Centrone, Bruno. (2000). Cosa significa essere pitagorico in età imperiale. Per una ricon-
siderazione della categoria storiografica del neopitagorismo. In Brancacci, Aldo, ed., La
Filosofia in Età Imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche. Atti del Colloquio Roma,
17–19 Giugno 1999, pp. 137–68. Rome: Bibliopolis.
Chadwick, Henry. (1966). Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition. Studies in
Justin, Clement, and Origen. Oxford: OUP.
 Bibliography  421

Chadwick, Henry. (1979). The Relativity of Moral Codes: Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity.
In Schoedel, William R., and Wilken, Robert L., eds., Early Christian Literature and the
Classical Intellectual Tradition in Honorem Robert M. Grant. TH 54, pp. 135–53.
Paris: Beauchesne.
Chadwick, Henry. (1981). The Church of the Third Century in the West. In King and Henig,
eds., Part I, pp. 5–13.
Chadwick, Henry. (1983). New Letters of St. Augustine. JTS 34: pp. 425–52.
Chadwick, Henry. (1985). Oracles of the End in the Conflict of Paganism and Christianity of
the Fourth Century. In Lucchesi, E., and Saffrey, H, eds., Memorial A. J. Festugière, pp.
125–9. Geneva: Cramer.
Chadwick, Henry. (1993a). Christian and Roman Universalism in the Fourth Century. In
Wickham, and Bammel, eds., pp. 26–42.
Chadwick, Henry. (1993b). A Review of Hugo Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1992). JTS
44: p. 360.
Chadwick, Henry. (1993c). The Early Church. PHC 1. Rev. ed. London: Penguin Books.
Chadwick, Henry. (1999). Philosophical Traditon and the Self. In Bowersock et al., eds.,
pp. 60–81.
Chadwick, Henry. (2001). The Church in Ancient Society. From Galilee to Gregory the Great.
OHCC. Oxford: OUP.
Chadwick, Henry. (2002). Note sur la divinization chez saint Augustin. RSR 76.2: pp. 246–8.
Chaignet, A.-Ed. (1900). La philosophie tirée des oracles de Porphyre. RHR 41: pp. 337–53.
Chamoux, François. (2003). Hellenistic Civilization. Trans. Michel and Margaret Roussel.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Chapouthier, G. (1990). Le courant zoophile dans la pensée antique. RQS 161 (3): pp. 261–87.
Charanis, Peter. (1975). Observations on the Transformation of the Roman World in the
Third Century and the Question of the fall of the Empire. ANRW, II: 551–9. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Charles-Saget, Annick. (1993). La theurgie, nouvelle figure de l’ergon dans la vie philos-
ophique. In Blumenthal and Clark, eds., pp. 107–15.
Charles-Saget, Annick, ed. (1998). Retour, Repentir et Constitution de Soi. PC. Paris: J. Vrin.
Chase, John Michael. (2000). Etudes sur le commentaire de Porphyre sur les “Catégories”
d’Aristote adressé à Gédalios. Thèse de la Ve Section de l’Ecole pratique des Hautes
Etudes. Paris.
Chase, John Michael. (2004a). Omne corpus fugiendum? Augustine and Porphyry on the
Body and the Post-Mortem Destiny of the Soul. JAMS 2: pp. 37–58.
Chase, John Michael. (2004b). What Does Porphyry Mean by Θεῶν πατήρ? Dionysius
XXII: pp. 78–93.
Chase, John Michael. (2005). Porphyre et Augustin: Des trois sortes de “visions” au corps de
résurrection. REAP 51: pp. 233–56.
Chase, John Michael. (2012a). Commentaires à Platon et à Aristote. DPA Vb: 1349–76.
Chase, John Michael (2012b). L’attribution de l’Anonnyme de Turin à Porphyre. DPA
Vb: 1362–5.
Chehab, Maurice. (1964). Le cirque de Tyr. Archéologia 55: pp. 16–20.
Cherlonneix, Jean-Louis. (1992). L’intention religieuse de L’ “ésoterisme platonicien” a propos
d’un certain pacte du secret évoqué par Porphyre dans la Vie de Plotin. In Brisson et al.,
eds., Vol. 2: pp. 385–418.
Chevalier, R. P. (1938). Le relative « selon l’être » chez quelques témoins de la Renaissance
hellénistique.’ JPST 16: pp. 67–84.
422  Bibliography

Chiaradonna, Riccardo. (1996a). L’interpretazione della sostanza Aristotelica in Porfirio.

Elenchos 17.1: pp. 55–94.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo. (1996b). Porfirio e Giamblico critici di Plotino nei commenti alle
categorie di Dexippo e Simplicio. FI 7: pp. 77–91.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo. (1998). Essence et predication chez Porphyre et Plotin. RSPT 82: pp.
577–606.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo. (2000). La teoria dell’individuo in Porfirio e l’ιδιως ποιον Stoico.
Elenchos 21.2: pp. 303–31.
Chiaradonna, Riccardo. (2012). Isagogè. DPA Vb: 1335–43.
Chiesa, Paolo. (1996). Un testo agiografico africano ad Aquileia: Gli acta di Gallonio e Regia.
AB 114: pp. 241–68.
Chlup, Radek. (2012). Proclus: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP.
Christol, Michel. (1975). Les règnes de Valérien et de Gallien (253–258): travaux d’ensemble,
questions chronologiques. ANRW II: pp. 803–27. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Christol, Michel. (1982a). Les reformes de Gallien et la carriere senatoriale. ACIEO 1.4: pp.
143–66.
Christol, Michel. (1982b). L’Etat Romain et la crise de l’empire (253–268). IH 44: pp. 156–63.
Christol, Michel. (1988). Armée et société politique dans l’empire romain au IIIe siècle ap. J.C.
(de l’époque sévérienne au début de l’époque constantinienne). CCC 9: pp. 169–204.
Christol, Michel. (1997). L’Empire romain du III siècle. Histoire politique (de 192, mort de
Commode, à 325, concile de Nicée). Paris: Editions Errance.
Chomarat, J. (1974). L’initiation d’Aristée. REL 52: pp. 185–207.
Chuvin, Pierre. (1990). A Chronicle of the Last Pagans. Trans. B.A. Archer. Cambridge,
MA: HUP.
Cilento, Vincenzo. (1965). Stoira del testo delle Enneadi. RFIC 93: pp. 369–79.
Cilento, Vincenzo. (1968). Porfirio. RFIC 96: pp. 483–99.
Cipriani, Nello. (1997). Il rifiuto del pessimismo porfiriano nei primi scritti di S. Agostino.
Augustinianum 37.1: pp. 113–46.
Cizek, Eugen. (1994). L’Empereur Aurélien et son Temps. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Clark, Gillian. (1999). Translate into Greek. Porphyry of Tyre on the New Barbarians. In
Miles, Richard, ed., Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity, pp. 112–32. London:  Routledge.
Clark, Gillian. (2000a). Animal passions. G & R Ser. 2, 47.1: pp. 88–93.
Clark, Gillian. (2000b). Philosophic Lives and the Philosophic Life: Porphyry and Iamblichus.
In Hägg and Rousseau, eds., pp. 29–51.
Clark, Gillian. (2000c). Porphyry. On Abstinence from Killing Animals. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Clark, Gillian. (2001a). “Spoiling the Egyptians”: Roman Law and Christian Exegesis in Late
Antiquity. In Mathisen, ed., pp. 133–47.
Clark, Gillian. (2001b). Fattening the Soul: Christian Asceticism and Porphyry on abstinence.
SP 35: pp. 41–51.
Clark, Gillian. (2004). Christianity and Roman Society. Cambridge: CUP.
Clark, Gillian. (2007). Augustine’s Porphyry and the Universal Way of Salvation. In
Karamanolis, G., and Sheppard, A., eds., Studies on Porphyry. BICS Supplement 98, pp.
127–40. London: ICS.
Clark, Gillian, and Rajak, T., eds. (2002). Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World.
Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin. Oxford: OUP.
Clark, Mary T., R.S.C.J. (1981). The Neoplatonism of Marius Victorinus the Christian. In
Blumenthal and Markus, eds., pp. 153–9.
 Bibliography  423

Clark, Mary T., R.S.C.J. (1982). A Neoplatonic Commentary on the Christian Trinity: Marius
Victorinus. In O’Meara, D. J., ed., pp. 24–33.
Clark, Mary T., R.S.C.J. (1991). Augustine the Christian Thinker. In Martin and Richmond,
eds., pp. 56–65.
Clark, Stephen R. L. (1996). Plotinus: Body and Soul. In Gerson, ed., CCP, pp. 275–91.
Clarke, E. C. (2002). Iamblichus’ De mysteriis. A Manifesto of the Miraculous. Aldershot/
Burlington: Ashgate.
Clarke, Graeme. (2005). Third-Century Christianity. CAH 12.2: pp. 589–671. Cambridge: CUP.
Clauss, Manfred. (1990). Die Sieben Grade des Mithras-Kultes. ZPE 82: pp. 183–94.
Clauss, Manfred. (1992). Cultores Mithrae, die Anhängerschaft des Mithras-Kultes. HABES 10.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Clauss, Manfred. (1994). Die Verbreitung des Mithras-Kultes in den nordafrikanischen
Provinzen. In Le Bohec, ed., CL 226, pp. 165–73.
Clauss, Manfred. (2001). The Roman Cult of Mithras. The God and His Mysteries. Trans.
Richard Gordon. New York and London: Routledge.
Clavier, H. (1982). La mystique de fusion et sa transmission par le canal néoplatonicien. In
Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 803–16.
Cleary, John J., ed. (1997). The Perennial Tradition of Neoplatonism. Leuven: LUP.
Cleary, John J., ed. (1999). Traditions of Platonism. Essays in Honour of John Dillon.
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Clifford, Richard J. (1990). Phoenician Religion. BASOR 279: pp. 55–64.
Cochrane, Charles Norris. (1980). Christianity and Classical Culture. A Study of Thought and
Action from Augustus to Augustine. Oxford: OUP.
Colle, Gaston. (1934). Le divin Platon. Brussells: ESPR.
Colombo, I. Chirassi. (1979). Sol Invictus o Mithra. In Bianchi, U., ed., pp. 649–73.
Colombo, I. Chirassi. (1982). Il sacrificio dell’essere divino e l’ideologia della salvezza nei tre
più noti sistemi misterici dei primi secoli dell’Impero. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds.,
pp. 308–30.
Combellack, Frederick M. (1987). The Lusis ek tes lekseos. AJP 108: pp. 202–19.
Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène. (2002). L’embryon entre néoplatonisme et christianisme. O-O
4: pp. 201–16.
Contenau, G. (1922). La Glyptique Syro-Hittite. BAH 2. Paris: Paul Geuther.
Cook, John Granger. (1998). A Possible Fragment of Porphyry’s Contra Christianos from
Michael the Syrian. ZAC 2: pp. 113–22.
Cook, John Granger. (2000). The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman
Paganism. STAC 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Cook, John Granger. (2004). The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman
Paganism. STAC 23. Tübingen: Morh Siebeck.
Cook, John Granger. (2008). Porphyry’s Attempted Demolition of Christian Allegory. IJPT
2: pp. 1–27.
Cook, S. A., Adcock, F. E., Charlesworth, M. P., and Baynes, N. H., eds. (Repr. 1981). CAH.
Vol. 12: The Imperial Crisis and Recovery, A.D. 193–324. Cambridge: CUP.
Cooper, Kate. (1992). Insinuations of Womanly Influence: An Aspect of the Christianization
of the Roman Aristocracy. JRS 82: pp. 150–64.
Coppleston, Frederick. (1962). A History of Philosophy. Vol. 1: Greece and Rome. Part. I.
Westminster, MD: Image Books.
Corbier, Mireille. (2005a). Coinage and Taxation: the State’s Point of View, A.D. 193–337. CAH
12.2: pp. 327–92. Cambridge: CUP.
424  Bibliography

Corbier, Mireille. (2005b). Coinage, Society and Economy. CAH 12.2:  pp. 397–439.
Cambridge: CUP.
Corcoran, Simon. (1996). The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and
Government A.D. 284–324. OCM. Oxford: OUP.
Corcoran, Simon. (2000a). The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and
Government A.D. 284–324. Revised Edition. Oxford: OUP.
Corcoran, Simon. (2000b). The Sins of the Fathers: A Neglected Constitution of Diocletian
on Incest. LH 21.2: pp. 1–34.
Corcoran, Simon. (2002). A Fragment of a Tetrarchic Constitution from Crete. ZPE 133: pp.
251–58.
Cornell, Tim, Fear, Andrew, and Liddel, Peter. (2010). Introduction. In Liddel and Fear, eds.,
pp. 1–13.
Corrigan, K. (1986). Body and Soul in Ancient Religious Experience. In Armstrong, A. H.,
ed., pp. 360–83.
Corrigan, K. (1987). Amelius, Plotinus and Porphyry on Being, Intellect and the One.
A Reappraisal. ANRW II.36.2: pp. 975–93. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Corrigan, K. (1996). Essence and Existence in the Enneads. In Gerson, ed., CCP, pp. 105–29.
Corrigan, K. (2002). Review of Rappe, S., Reading Neoplatonism: Non-discursive thinking in
the texts of Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius. AP 22.2:  pp. 479–85. Cambridge:  CUP,  2000.
Cosi, Dario M. (1985). Astensione Alimentare e astensione sessuale nel De Abstinentia di
Porfirio. In Bianchi, U., ed., La Tradizione Dell’Enkrateia, pp. 689–703. Rome: Edizioni
dell’Ateneo.
Costa, Cristina D’Ancona. (1999). Porphyry, Universal Soul and the Arabic Plotinus. ASP
9: pp. 47–88.
Cotterill, John. (1993). Saxon Raiding and the Role of the Late Roman Coastal Forts of Britain.
Brit 24: pp. 227–39.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1951). Sur un passage enigmatique des confessions de Saint Augustin
(VIII,2,3): Harpocrate et Anubis. REL 29: pp. 295–307.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1953). Les sages de Porphyre et les “Viri novi” d’Arnobe. REL 31: pp. 257–71.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1955). La polemique antichrétienne au debut du IV siècle. RHR
147: pp. 122–3.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1954a). Litiges sur la lecture des Libri Platonicorum par Saint Augustin.
Aug 4: pp. 225–39.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1954b). Saint Augustin “Photinien” à Milan (Conf. VII,19,25).
RiSR: pp. 63–71.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1956). Nouvaux aspects du platonisme chez Saint Ambroise. REL 34: pp.
220–39.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1957). Les exégèses chrétiennes de la quatrième églogue. REA 59: pp.
294–319.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1958). Propos antichrétiens rapportés par Saint Augustin. RA 1: pp. 149–68.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1958). La colle et le clou de l’âme dans la tradition neo-platonicienne et
chrétienne (Phedon 82e; 83d). RBPH: pp. 72–95.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1960). Témoins nouvaux de la “région de dissemblance” (Platon, Politique
273d). BEC 118: pp. 20–36.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1963). Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius
to St. Ambrose. In Momigliano, ed., pp. 151–92.
Courcelle, Pierre. (1967). Gregoire de Nysse, lecture de Porphyre. REG 80: pp. 402–6.
Cox, Patricia. (1983). Biography in Late Antiquity. A Quest for the Holy Man. TCH 5.
Berkeley: UCP.
 Bibliography  425

Crafer, T. W. (1914). The Work of Pophyry Against the Christians, and its Reconstruction. JTS
15: pp. 360–95.
Cranz, F. Edward. (1952). Kingdom and Polity in Eusebius of Caesarea. HTR 45: pp. 47–66.
Crees, J. H. E. (1911). The Reign of the Emperor Probus. London: ULP.
Croke, Brian. (1983a). The Origin of the Christian World Chronicle. In Croke, Brian, and
Emmett, A.  M., eds., History and Historians in Late Antiquity, pp. 116–31.
New York: Pergamon.
Croke, Brian. (1983b). Porphyry’s Anti-Christian Chronology. JTS 34: pp. 168–85.
Croke, Brian. (1984). The Era of Porphyry’s Anti-Christian Polemic. JRH 13: pp. 1–14.
Croke, Brian, and Emmett, A. M., eds. (1983). History and Historians in Late Antiquity.
Sydney: Pergamon.
Crusinus, Magnus. (1857). Macarius Magnes Dissertatio Historico-Theologica, in Migne, PG
Vol. X, cols. 1343–1406. Paris: Imprimerie Catholique.
Culdaut, Francine. (1992). Un oracle d’Hécate dans la Cité de Dieu de Saint Augustin: “Les
dieux ont proclamé que le Christ fut un homme très pieux” (XIX,23,2). REAug 38: pp.
271–89.
Culdaut, Francine. (1993). Suggestions à propos d’un oracle d’Hécate dans la Cité de Dieu de
Saint Augustin (XIX,23,2). StudPatr 27: pp. 256–66.
Culianu, Ivan P. (1981). Le vol magique dans l’antiquité. RHR 198: pp. 57–66.
Culianu, Ivan P. (1982). L’“ascension de l’âme” dans les mystères et hors des mystères. In
Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 276–302.
Cumont, Franz. (1896–9). Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux mystères de Mithra. 2 vols.
Brussels: Lamartin.
Cumont, Franz. (1934). Antiochus d’Athènes et Porphyre’, AIPHO 2, Mélanges Bidez, 135–56.
Brussels: Université Libre.
Cumont, Franz. (1956). The Mysteries of Mithra. Trans. Thomas J.  McCormack.
New York: Dover.
Cumont, Franz. (1960). Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans.
New York: Dover.
Curti, C. (1992). Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine. OEEC I: pp. 299–301. Oxford: OUP.
Curran, B. F. (1988). Soteriological Themes and Motifs in Roman Religion. In Dockrill,
D. W., and Tanner, R. G., The Idea of Salvation. Prudentia Supplementary Number 1988.
Papers from the Conference on the Idea of Salvation, Sacred and Secular, held at St. Paul’s
College, University of Sydney, 22–25 August 1986, pp. 31–42. Aukland: University of
Aukland.
Curran, John R. (2000). Pagan City and Christian Capital. Rome in the Fourth Century. OCM.
Oxford: OUP.
Cutino, Michele. (1994). I Dialogi di Agostino dinanzi al De regressu animae di Porfirio. RA
27: pp. 41–74.
Dagron, Gilbert. (1978). Vie et miracles de Sainte Thècle. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire.
SubHag 62. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes.
Dalcourt, G. J. (1963). The Primary Cardinal Virtue: Wisdom or Prudence? IPQ 3.1: pp. 55–75.
Dal Covolo, Enrico. (1988). La philosophia tripartita nella Praeparatio evangelica di Eusebio
di Cesarea. RSLR 24: pp. 5115–23.
Dal Covolo, Enrico. (1999). I Severi e il cristianesimo Dieci anni dopo. In Dal Covolo and
Rinaldi, eds., pp. 187–96.
Dal Covolo, Enrico, and Rinaldi, Giancarlo, eds. (1999). Gli Imperatori Severi. Storia
Archeologia Religione. BSR 138. Rome: LAS.
Daly, Robert J., ed. (1992). Origeniana Quinta. BETL CV. Leuven: LUP.
426  Bibliography

D’Ancona, Cristina. (2000). Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la métaphysique

d’Aristote. Deuxième Partie: Antécédents et postérité. In Goulet-Cazé, ed., pp. 311–27.
Daniel, Valérie. (1924). Une fresque du viale Manzoni expliquée par un texte de Porphyre.
RBPH: pp. 703–11.
Daniels, C. M. (1972). The Role of the Roman Army in the Spread and Practice of Mithraism.
In Hinnells, John R. ed., Mithraic Studies. Proceedings of the First International Congress
of Mithraic Studies. Vol. 2, pp. 249–274. Manchester: MUP.
David, Jonathan. (2000). The Exclusion of Women in the Mithraic Mysteries: Ancient or
Modern? NUMEN 47.2: pp. 121–41.
Davies, Jon. (1999). Death, Burial and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. Religion in the First
Christian Centuries. London and New York: Routledge.
Davies, P. S. (1989). The Origin and Purpose of the Persecution of A.D. 303. JTS 40: pp. 66–94.
De Blois, Lukas. (1976). The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus. Leiden: Brill.
De Blois, Lukas. (1978–9). The Reign of the Emperor Philip the Arabian. Tal X–XI: pp. 11–43.
De Blois, Lukas. (1984). The Third Century Crisis and the Greek Elite in the Roman Empire.
His 33: pp. 359–77.
De Blois, Lukas. (1989). Plotinus and Gallienus. In Bastiaensen et al., eds., pp. 69–82.
Decret, François. (1990). Du bon usage du mensonge et du parjure. Manicheens et
Priscillianistes face a la persecution dans l’Empire chretien (IVe-Ve siecles). In Mactoux,
Marie-Madeleine, and Geny, Evelyne, eds., Melanges Pierre Leveque. 4 Religion. CRHA
vol. 96, pp. 141–149. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
De Labriolle, Pierre. (1929). Porphyre et le Christianisme. RHP 3: pp. 385–440.
De Labriolle, Pierre. (1934). La Réaction païenne. Etude sur la polémique antichrétienne du 1er
qu Vie siècle. Paris: L’Artisan du Livre.
De Libera, Alain. (1989). Les sources Gréco-Arabes de la théorie médiévale de l’analogie de
l’être. EP 25.3–4: pp. 319–45.
De Libera, Alain. (1999). Entre Aristote et Plotin: L’Isagoge de Porphyre et le problème des
categories. In Chiesa, Curzio and Freuler, Léo, eds., Métaphysiques Médiévales. Etudes en
l’honneur d’André de Muralt. RTP. CRTP 20: pp. 7–27. Geneva: RTP.
De Ley, Herman. (1967). Le traité sur l’emplacement des enfers chez Macrobe. AC 36: pp.
190–208.
Dellagiacoma, V. (1956). Fragmenta Porphyrii super Novum Testamentum. VD 34: pp. 211–6.
Demarolle, J. M. (1970). Les femmes chrétiennes vues par Porphyre. JAC 13: pp. 42–7.
Demarolle, J. M. (1971). La chrétienté à la fin du IIIe s. et Porphye. GRBS 12: pp. 49–57.
Demarolle, J. M. (1972). Un aspect de la polémique païenne a la fin du IIIe Siècle: le vocabu-
laire chrétien de Porphyre. VChr 26: pp. 117–29.
Den Boer, W. (1954). Porphyrius als historicus in zijn strijd tegen het Christendom. In
Byvanck, A. W., ed., Varia Historica, pp. 83–96. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Den Boer, W. ed. (1972). Le Culte des souverains dans l’empire romain. EAC XIX. Geneva:
Fondation Hardt.
Den Boer, W., et al., eds. (1973a). Romanitas et Christianitas. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Den Boer, W. (1973b). Allegory and History. In den Boer et al., eds., (1973a): 15–28.
Den Boer, W. (1974). A Pagan Historian and his Enemies: Porphyry Against the Christians.
CP LXIX: pp. 198–208.
Depeyrot, Georges. (1992). Le système monétaire de Diocletien à la fin de l’empire romain.
RBN 138: pp. 33–106.
Desnier, Jean-Luc. (1994). Septime Sévère, rasembleur de l’Orbis Romanus. Le Bohec, Y. CL
226: pp. 752–66.
Des Places, Edouard. (1971). Oracles Chaldaiques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
 Bibliography  427

Des Places, Edouard. (1973). La matiere dans le platonisme moyen surtout chez Numénius et
dans les oracles chaldaiques. ZETESIS:  pp. 215–23. Antwerp:  De Nedderlandsche
Boekhandel.
Des Places, Edouard. (1981a). Le texte de la Vie de Pythagore de Porphyre. In Marcovich,
Miroslav, ed. ICS 6.1, pp. 175–81. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
Des Places, Edouard. (1981b). Les oracles chaldaïques et Denys L’aréopagite. In Les Cahiers de
Fontenay n° 19.20.21.22. Néoplatonisme, Mélanges offerts à Jean Trouillard, pp. 291–5.
Fontenay aux Roses: ENS.
Des Places, Edouard. (1982). Elements de sotériologie orientale dans le Platonisme à la fin de
l’antiquité. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 243–52.
Des Places, Edouard. (1984). Les Oracles Chaldaïques, ANRW II.17.4: pp. 2299–335. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Dessau, Herman. (1905). Minucius Felix und Caecilius Natalis. Hermes 40: pp. 373–86.
de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. (1954). Aspects of the ‘Great’ Persecution. HTR 47: pp. 75–109.
Deuse, Werner. (1977). Der Demiurg bei Porphyrios und Jamblich. In Zintzen, ed., pp.
238–78.
Deuse, Werner. (1983). Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen
Seelenlehre. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
de Vogel, Cornelia J. (1961). Ego sum qui sum et sa signification pour une philosophie chré-
tienne. RSR 35: pp. 337–55.
De Vries, G. J. (1943). ΣΩΦΡΟΣΥΝΗ en grec classique. Mnemosyne, 3rd ser. 11: pp. 81–101.
Dietrich, B. (1982). The Religious Prehistory of Demeter’s Eleusinian Mysteries. In Bianchi
and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 445–71.
Dietz, Karlheinz. (2000). Kaiser Julian in Phönizien. Chiron 30: pp. 807–59.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (1998). Lactantius, Porphyry, and the Debate over Religious
Toleration. JRS 88: pp. 129–46.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2000). The Making of a Christian Empire. Lactantius and Rome.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2001). Porphyry, Lactantius, and the Paths to God. StudPat
34: pp. 522–8.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2002). Porphyry, Julian, or Hierokles? The Anonymous Hellene
in Makarios Magnes’ Apokritikos. JTS n.s. 53.2: pp. 466–502.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2004). An Oracle of Apollo at Daphne and the Great
Persecution. CP 99: pp. 57–77.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2006a). Lactantius, Eusebius, and Arnobius: Evidence for the
Causes of the Great Persecution. SutdPat 39: 33–47.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2006b). Religion, Law and the Roman Polity: The Era of the
Great Persecution. In Ando, Clifford, and Rüpke, Jörg, eds., Religion and Law in Classical
and Christian Rome. PAB 15, pp. 68–84. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2009). The Power of Religious Rituals: A Philosophical Quarrel
on the Eve of the Great Persecution. In Cain, Andrew and Lenski, Noel, eds., The Power
of Religion in Late Antiquity, pp. 81–92. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2010). Methodius and Porphyry. StudPat 46: 21–6.
Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. (2012). A Threat to Public Piety: Christians, Platonists, and the
Great Persecution. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dihle, Albrecht. (1957). Der Platoniker Ptolemaios. Hermes 85: pp. 314–25.
Dihle, Albrecht. (1999). Das Gebet der Philosophen. In Campi et al., eds., pp. 23–41.
Dillon, John M. (1969). Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, and Later Views on the Intelligible World. TAPhA
100: pp. 63–70.
428  Bibliography

Dillon, John M. (1977). A Review of R. Turcan’s Mithras Platonicus: Recherches sur

l’Hellenisation philosophique de Mithra, JMS 2: pp. 79–85.
Dillon, John M. (1982). Origin’s Doctrine of the Trinity and Some Later Neoplatonic Theories.
In O’Meara, D., ed., pp. 19–23.
Dillon, John M. (1983). Plotinus, Philo and Origen on the Grades of Virtue. In Blume,
Horst-Dieter, and Mann, Friedhelm, eds., Platonismus und Christentum. Festschrift für
Heinrich Dörrie. JAC 10, pp. 92–105. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Dillon, John M. (1987). Iamblichus of Chalchis (c. 240–325 A.D.). ANRW, II.36.2: pp. 862–909.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Dillon, John M., and Long, A. A., eds. (1988a). The Question of ‘Eclecticism’. Studies in Later
Greek Philosophy. HCS. Berkeley: UCP.
Dillon, John M. (1988b). “Orthodoxy” and “Eclecticism”:  Middle Platonists and
Neo-Pythagoreans. In Dillon and Long, eds. (1988a): pp. 103–25.
Dillon, John M. (1988c). Porphyry and Iamblichus in Proclus’ Commentary on the
Parmenides. In Duffy and Peradotto eds., pp. 21–48.
Dillon, John M. (1991). Philosophy and Theology in Proclus: Some Remarks on the
“Philosophical” and “Theological” Modes of Exegesis in Proclus’ Platonic Commentaries.
In Martin and Richmond, eds., pp. 66–76.
Dillon, John M. (1992a). Plotinus and the Chaldaean Oracles. In Gersh and Kannengiesser,
eds., pp. 131–40.
Dillon, John M. (1992b). Porphyry’s Doctrine of the One. In Goulet-Cazé, Madec, and
O’Brien, eds., pp. 356–66.
Dillon, John M. (1998). Damascius on Procession and Return. In Charles-Saget, ed., pp.
176–86.
Dillon, John M. (1999). Monotheism in the Gnostic Tradition. In Athanassiadi and Frede,
eds., pp. 69–79.
Dillon, John M. (2000). The Role of the Demiurge in Platonic Theology. In Segonds and Steel,
eds., pp. 339–49.
Dillon, John M. (2002a). Jamblich: Leben und Werke. In von Albrecht et al., eds.
(2002a): pp. 11–21.
Dillon, John M. (2002b). Die Vita Pythagorica—ein -,,Evangelium”? In von Albrecht et al.,
eds. (2002a): pp. 295–301.
Dillon, John M. (2002c). The Platonic Philosopher at Prayer. In Kobusch and Erler, eds., pp.
279–295.
Dillon, John M. (2004). Philosophy as a Profession in Late Antiquity. In Edwards and Swain,
eds., pp. 401–18.
Dillon, John M. (2005). Iamblichus’ Criticisms of Plotinus’ Doctrine of the Undescended
Soul. In Chiaradonna, Riccardo, ed., Studi sull’Anima in Plotino. Elenchos 42: pp. 339–351.
Naples: Bibliopolis.
Dillon, John M. (2007). What Price the Father of the Noetic Triad? Some Thoughts on
Porphyry’s Doctrine of the First Principle. In Karamanolis and Sheppard, pp. 51–9.
Dillon, John M. (2012a). The Letters of Iamblichus: Popular Philosophy in a Neoplatonic
Mode. In Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore, eds., pp. 51–62.
Dillon, John N. (2012b). The Justice of Constantine. Law, Communication, and Control. LSAW.
Ann Arbor: UMP.
Di Palma, Sabrina. (1999). Evoluzione dei culti solari a Roma: il Sol Invictus da Settimio ad
Alessandro Severo. In Dal Covolo and Rinaldi, eds., pp. 333–6.
Di Pasquale Barbanti, Maria. (2000). Empedocle in Plotino e in Porfirio. InvLuc 22: pp. 31–45.
 Bibliography  429

Dodds, E. R. (1928). The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic “One.” CQ
22.3–4: pp. 129–42.
Dodds, E. R. (1947). Theurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonism. JRS 37, Parts I and
II: pp. 55–69.
Dodds, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: UCP.
Dodds, E. R. (1960). Tradition and Personal Achievement in the Philosophy of Plotinus. JRS
50: pp. 1–7.
Dodds, E. R. (1961). New Light on the “Chaldaean Oracles”. HTR 54: pp. 263–73.
Dodds, E. R. (1968). Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Some Aspects of Religious
Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: CUP.
Dodds, E. R. (1978). Porphyry. OCD, 2nd ed., 864–5. Oxford: OUP.
Doignon, Jean. (1989). Le “progress” philosophique d’Augustin dans l’otium de Cassiciacum
d’après la Lettre 4. In Bastiaensen et al., eds., pp. 141–51.
Doignon, Jean. (1992). Autour d’un fragment du Livre 3 du De re publica de Ciceron invoqué,
au temps d’Augustin, par des Porphyriens contre la resurrection des corps. Orpheus
13: pp. 26–32.
Dölger, F. J. (1932–33). Die Ächtung des Ehebruchs in der vogellegende bei Älian und
Porphrios. AChr 4: pp.147–9.
Dölger, F. J. (1934). Zur antiken Embryotomie. Ihre moralische Bewertung durch Eusebius
von Caesarea. AC 4: pp. 280–1.
Domaszewski, Alfred von. (1909). Die politische Bedeutung der Religion von Emesa. Archiv
für Religionswissenschaft 11: pp. 223–44.
Dombrowski, D. A. (1984). Vegetarianism and the Argument from Marginal Cases in
Porphyry. JHI 45.1: pp. 141–3.
Dombrowski, D. A. (1987). Porphyry and Vegetarianism: A Contemporary Philosophical
Approach. ANRW II.36.2: pp. 774–91. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Dönt, Eugen. (1964). Vorneuplatonisches’ im Großen Alkibiades. WS 77: pp. 37–51.
Doresse, Jean. (1950). Les apocalypse de Zoroastre, de Zostrien, de Nicothée…(Porphyre,
Vie de Plotin, 16). BBI 2: pp. 255–63.
Doria, Luisa Breglia Pulci. (1994). Le Sirene di Pitagora. AION 16: pp. 55–77.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1955). Ammonios, der Lehrer Plotins. Hermes 83: pp. 439–77.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1957). Kontroversen um die Seelenwanderung im Kaiserzeitlichen
Platonismus. Hermes 85: pp. 414–35.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1962). Porphyrios als Mittler swischen Plotin und Augustinn. In Wilpert,
Paul, ed., Antike und Orient im Mittelalter, pp. 26–47. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1966b). Die Schultradition im Mittelplatonismus und Porphyrios. In
Dörrie et al., eds. (1966a), 1–32.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1966c). Porphyrios’ Lehre von der Seele. In Dörrie et al., eds. (1966a),
165–91.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1972). Une exégèse néoplatonicienne du prologue de l’évangile de Saint
Jean (Amélius chez Eusèbe, Prép. Ev. 11, 19, 1–4). In Fontaine, J., and Kannengiesser, C.,
eds., EPEKTASIS. Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou, 75–87.
Paris: Editions Beauchesne.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1976a). Platonica Minora. STA VIII. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1976b). Das fünffach gestufte mysterium: Der Aufstieg des Seele bei
Porphyrios und Ambrosius. In Dörrie (1976a), pp. 474–90.
Dörrie, Heinrich. (1976c). Was ist ,spätaniker Platonismus‘? Überlegungen zur Grenzziehung
zwischen Platonismus und Christentum. In Dörrie (1976a), pp. 508–23.
430  Bibliography

Dörrie, Heinrich. (1981). La manifestation du LOGOS dans la création. Quelques remqrques

à propos d’une contribution du platonicien Thrasyllos à la théorie des Idées. In
Neoplatonisme. Melanges offerts à Jean Trouillard, pp. 141–57. Les cahiers de Fontenay: ENS.
Dörrie, Heinrich, et al., eds. (1966a). Porphyre. EAC XII. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Dörrie, Heinrich, et al., eds. (1987–96). Der Platonismus in der Antike, 4 vols. Vol. 1: Die
geschichtlichen Wurzeln des Platonismus (1987); Vol. 2: Der hellenistische Platonismus
(1990); Vol. 3: Der Platonismus im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert nach Christus (1993); Vol. 4: Die
philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Einige grundlegende Axiome/Platonische Physik (im
antiken Verständnis) (1996). Stuttgart: Friedrich Fromman.
Dotter, Kenneth. (2003). Free Will, Luck and Happiness in the Myth of Er. JPR 28: pp. 129–42.
Doucet, Dominique. (1993a). Soliloques II, 12, 12: être dans un sujet. Aug 43 (1–2): pp. 43–51.
Doucet, Dominique. (1993b). Solliloques II, 13, 23, et les magni philosophi. REAug 39: pp.
109–28.
Doucet, Dominique. (1995). L’époux des âmes. Porphyre, Ambroise et Augustin: De bono
mortis 14–20; De ordine I, 8, 24. REAug 41: pp. 231–52.
Downey, Glanville. (1962). Constantine’s Churches at Antioch, Tyre, and Jerusalem (Notes on
Architectural Terms). MUSJ 38: pp. 191–6.
Downey, Susan B. (1978). Syrian Images of Mithras Tauroctonos. In Duchesne-Guillemin
et al., eds., pp. 135–49.
Drake, Harold. (1983). Review of T. D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius. (Cambridge,
Mass.: HUP, 1981): AJP 103.4: pp. 462–66.
Drake, Harold. (1997). Review of Michael Bland Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca. (Oxford, 1995).
CH 66:02: pp. 305–07.
Drake, Harold. (2000). Constantine and the Bishops. The Politics of Intolerance. Baltimore,
MD: JHUP.
Drake, Harold. (2006). The Impact of Constantine on Christianity. In Lenski, Noel, ed.
(2006a), pp. 111–36.
Drake, Harold. (2009). Solar Power in Late Antiquity. In Cain, Andrew, and Lenski, Noel,
eds., The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, pp. 215–25. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.
Drijvers, Han J. W. (1982). After Life and Funerary Symbolism in Palmyrene Religion. In
Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 709–33.
Drijvers, Jan Willem, and Walt, John W., eds. (1999). Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious
Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient. RGRW 137. Leiden: Brill.
Drinkwater, John. (2005). Maiminus to Diocletian and the ‘Crisis.’ In Bowman, Garnsey, and
Cameron, eds, pp. 28–66. Cambridge: CUP.
Drobner, Hubertus R. (2007). The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction.
Trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann with bibliographies updated and expanded for the English
edition by William Harmless, SJ, and Hubertus R. Drobner. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Droge, Arthur J. (1982). After Life and Funerary Symbolism in Palmyrene Religion. In Bianchi
and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 709–33.
Droge, Arthur J. (1989). Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of
Culture. HUT 26. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
Droge, Arthur J. (1992). The Apologetic Dimensions of the Ecclesiastical History. In Attridge
and Hata, eds., pp. 492–509.
Dryoff, Adolf. (1939). Zum Prolog des Johannes-Evangeliums. In Klauser and Rücker,
eds., 86–93.
Dubois, Jean-Daniel, and Bernard Roussel, eds. (1998). Entrer en matière. Les prologues.
CERL. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
 Bibliography  431

Duchesne, L. (1877). De Macario Magnete et scriptis ejus. Thesim facultati litterarum parisiensi.
Paris: Fr. Klincksieck.
Dubreucq, Eric. (1997). La chair, la grâce et l’esprit: métempsychose et résurrection, de Porphyre
à Saint Augustin. ArchPhilos 60.1: pp. 25–45.
Duchesne-Guillemin, J., et al., eds. (1978). Actes de Congrès Volume IV. Etudes Mithriaques.
Actes du 2e Congrès International Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975. AI IV. Leiden: Brill.
Duffy, John, and Peradotto, John, eds. (1988). Gonimos. Neoplatonic and Byzantine Studies
Presented to Leendert G. Westerink at 75. Buffalo, NY: Arethusa.
Dumézil, Georges. (1996). Archaic Roman Religion. With an Appendix on the Religion of the
Etruscans. Trans. Philip Krapp. 2 vols. Baltimore, MD: JHUP.
Dunand, François. (1973). Le culte d’Isis dans le basin oriental de la méditerranée. I. Le culte
d’Isis et les Ptolémées. II. Le culte d’Isis en Grèce. III. Le culte d’Isis en Asie Mineure. Clergé
et rituel des sanctuaires isiaques. Leiden: Brill.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1974). An African Saint and His Interrogator. JTS 25: pp. 106–10.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1982). The Economy of the Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies. 2nd ed.
Cambridge: CUP.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1995). Empire-wide Patterns in Roman Coin Hoards. In King and Wigg,
eds., pp. 139–52.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1996). The Impact of the Antonnine Plague. JRA 9: pp. 108–37.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. (2004). Economic Change and the Transition to Late Antiquity. In
Edwards and Swain, eds., pp. 20–52.
Dunlop, D. M. (1951). The Existence and Definition of Philosophy from an Arabic Text
Ascribed to al-Farabi. Iraq 13: pp. 76–94.
Durand, G. M. de. (1973). L’homme raisonable mortal: Pour l’histoire d’une definition.
Phoenix 27: pp. 328–44.
Dussaud, René. (1927). Topographie historique de la Syrie Antique et Medievale. BAH 4.
Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Du Toit, David S. (2002). III. Heilsbringer im Vergleich. Soteriologische Aspekte im
Lukasevangelium und Jamblichs De Vita Pythagorica. In von Albrecht et al., eds., pp.
275–94.
Duval, Nöel. (1989). Les églises d’Haidra VI: La basilique des martyrs de la persécution de
Dioclétion: Bilan de la campagne 1983. CRAI: pp. 129–73.
Duval, Yves-Marie. (1986). Sur la biographie et les manuscrits d’Arnobe de Sicca: les informa-
tions de Jérôme, leur sens et leurs sources possibles. REL 45: pp. 69–99.
Duval, Yvette. (2000). Le début de la persécution de Dèce à Rome: (Cyp. Ep. 37). REAug
46.2: pp. 157–72.
Duyrat, Frédérique. (2000). Arados et la guerre de 333 à 37 avant notre ère. RN 155: pp. 47–58.
Dzielska, Maria. (1986). Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History. Trans. Piotr Pienkowski.
Rome: L’Erma de Bretscheider.
Ebbesen, Sten. (1976). Anonymous Aurelianensis II, Aristotle, Alexander, Porphyry and
Boethius. Ancient Scholasticism and 12th century Western Europe. Cima 16: pp. 1–128.
Ebbesen, Sten. (1990a). Porphyry’s Legacy to Logic: A Reconstruction. In Sorabji, ed., pp.
141–71.
Ebbesen, Sten. (1990b). Boethius as an Aristotelian Commentator. In Sorabji, ed., pp. 373–91.
Ebbesen, Sten. (1990c). Philoponus, Alexander and the Origins of Medieval Logic. In Sorabji,
ed., pp. 445–61.
Eck, Werner, ed. (1989). Religion und Gesellschaft in der Römischen Kaiserzeit Kolloquium zu
Ehren von Friedrich Vittinghoff. KHA 53. Köln: Böhöau Verlag.
432  Bibliography

Edmonds, Radcliffe G., III. (2004). Myths of the Underworld Journey. Plato, Aristophanes, and
the ‘Orphic’ Gold Tablets. Cambridge: CUP.
Edwards, Mark J. (1988). How Many Zoroasters? Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I52. VC
42: pp. 282–9.
Edwards, Mark J. (1990a). Numenius, Pherecydes and the Cave of the Nymphs. CQ 40.1: pp.
258–62.
Edwards, Mark J. (1990b). Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad. JHS 110: pp. 14–25.
Edwards, Mark J. (1990c). A Late Use of Empedocles: The Oracle on Plotinus. Mnemosyne
43.1–2: pp. 151–5.
Edwards, Mark J. (1991). Two Episodes in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus. His 40: pp. 456–64.
Edwards, Mark J. (1993a). Two Images of Pythagoras: Iamblichus and Porphyry’, in Blumenthal
and Clark, eds., pp. 159–72.
Edwards, Mark J. (1993b). Porphyry and the Cattle Stealing God. Hermes 121: pp. 122–5.
Edwards, Mark J. (1993c). Ammonius, Teacher of Origen. JEH 44: pp. 169–81.
Edwards, Mark J. (1999). The Flowering of Latin Apologetic: Lactantius and Arnobius. In
Edwards et al., eds., pp. 197–221.
Edwards, Mark J. (2000). Birth, Death, and Divinity in Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus. In Hägg
and Rousseau, eds., pp. 52–71.
Edwards, Mark J. (2004a). Romanitas and the Church of Rome. In Edwards and Swain, eds.,
pp. 187–210.
Edwards, Mark J. (2004b). Pagan and Christian Monotheism in the Age of Constantine. In
Edwards and Swain, eds., pp. 211–34.
Edwards, Mark J. (2004c). Dating Arnobius: Why Discount the Evidence of Jerome? AnTard
12: pp. 263–71.
Edwards, Mark J. (2007). Porphyry and the Christians. In Karamanolis and Sheppard, eds.,
pp. 111–26.
Edwards, Mark, et al., eds. (1999). Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and
Christians. Oxford: OUP.
Edwards, Mark, and Swain, Simon, eds. (2004). Approaching Late Antiquity. Oxford: OUP.
Eger, Hans. (1939). Kaiser und Kirche in der Geschichtstheologie Eusebs von Cäsarea.
ZNTW: pp. 97–115.
Eisenberger, Herbert, ed. (1990). ΕΡΜHΝΕΜΑΤΑ. Festschrift für Hadwig Hörner zum sechzig-
sten Geburtstag. BKAW 79. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.
Eißfelt, Otto. (1938). Zur Frage nach dem Alter der Phönizischen Geschichte des Sanchujaton.
F & F: pp. 251–2.
Eitrem, S. (1948). Varia. SO: pp. 167–78.
Elayi, J., and Elayi, A. G., eds. (2009). The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian
Period (5th–4th Cent. BCE). Studia Phoenicia 20. OLA 188. Leuven, Paris, & Walpole,
MA: Peeters.
Eliav, Yaron Z. (2010). Bathhouses as Places of Social and Cultural Interaction. OHJDL, pp.
605–22. Oxford: OUP.
El-Khoury, Nabil, et al., eds. (1992). Lebendige Überlieferung Prozesse der Annäherung und
Auslegung. Festschrift für Hermann-Josef Vogt zum 60 Geburtstag. Beirut:  Friedrich-Rückert.
Elsner, Jas. (1998). Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph. The Art of the Roman Empire, AD
100–450. Oxford: OUP.
Erbse, H. (1941). Fragmente griechischer Theosophien. HAA 4. Hamburg: Hansischer Gilderverlag.
Erim, Kenan T., Reynolds, Joyce, and Crawford, Michael. (1971). Diocletian’s Currency
Reform: A New Inscription. JRS 61: pp. 171–77.
 Bibliography  433

Ermatinger, James William. (1996). The Economic Reforms of Diocletian. Pharos Band 7. St.
Katharinen: SM.
Esler, Phillip F., ed. (2000). The Early Christian World. 2  vols. London and New  York:  Routledge.
Estiot, Sylviana. (1998). Aurèlien: Numismatique et Epigraphie. In Frézouls and Jouffroy, eds.,
pp. 97–117.
Evangeliou, Christos. (1979). The Problematic of Aristotle’s Doctrine of Categories in the
Philosophy of Porphyry and the Plotinian Background. Ph.D.  dissertation. Atlanta:  Emory
University.
Evangeliou, Christos. (1985). Aristotle’s Doctrine of Predicables and Porphyry’s Isagoge. JHP
23: pp. 15–34.
Evangeliou, Christos. (1985–6). The Aristotelianism of Averroes and the Problem of
Porphyry’s Isagoge. Philosophia 15–6: pp. 318–31.
Evangeliou, Christos. (1989). Porphyry’s Criticism of Christianity and the Problem of
Augustine’s Platonism. Dionysius 13: pp. 51–70.
Evangeliou, Christos. (1997). Aristotle’s Categories and Porphyry. PA 48. Leiden: Brill.
Evrard, E. (1960). Le maître de Plutarque d’Athènes et les origines du Néoplatonisme
Athénien. AC 29: pp. 391–406.
Fabro, Cornelio. (1982). The overcoming of the Neoplatonic Triad of Being, Life, and Intellect
by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In O’Meara, D., ed., 97–108.
Faraone, Christopher A. (1997). Hymn to Selene-Hecate-Artemis from a Greek Magical
Handbook (PGM IV 2714–83). In Riley, Mark, et al., eds. Prayer from Alexander to
Constantine. A Critical Anthology, pp. 195–204. London and New York: Routledge.
Farina, Raffaello. (1986). Eusebio di Cesarea e la “Svolta Constantiniana.” Augustinianum
26: pp. 313–22.
Faulkner, Neil. (2000). The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus.
Fazzo, Vittorio. (1977). La Giustificazione delle immagini religiose dalle tarda antichità al cris-
tianesimo. I: La Tarda Antichità. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italianne.
Feissel, Denis. (1995). Les constitutions des Tétrarques connues par l’épigraphie: inventaire et
notes critiques. AnTard 3: pp. 33–53.
Ferch, Arthur J. (1982). Porphyry: An Heir to Christian Exegesis? ZNTW 73: pp. 141–7.
Ferguson, John. (1970). The Religions of the Roman Empire. AGRL. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.
Ferrari, G. R. F. (2007a). The Cambridge Companion to Plato´s Republic. Cambridge: CUP.
Ferrari, G. R. F. (2007b). The Three-Part Soul. In Ferrari, ed., CCPR, pp. 165–201.
Cambridge: CUP.
Ferrari, G. R. F. (2009). Glaucon’s Reward, Philosophy’s Debt: The Myth of Er. In Partenie,
ed., pp. 116–33.
Ferrari, Leo C. (1979). From Pagan Literature to the Pages of the Holy Scriptures: Augustine’s
Confessions as Exemplary Propaedeutic. In Ritter, ed., 173–82.
Ferrero, Isabel Moreno. (1984–5). La figura de Diocleciano en la Historia Augusta. SH 2–3: pp.
225–37.
Festugière, A. J. (1936). Une source hermétique de Porphyre: L’‘Egyptien’ du De Abstinentia
(II 47). REG 49: pp. 586–95.
Festugière, A. J. (1940). La doctrine des “Uiri noui” sur l’origine et sur le sort des âmes d’après
Arnobe, II, 11–16. ML, pp. 97–132. Paris: J. Gabala.
Festugière, A. J. (1944). Trois Dévots Païens. Paris: La Colombe.
Festugière, A. J. (1971). Proclus et la religion traditionnelle. EPG: pp. 575–84.
Février, Paul-Albert. (1983). Images et société (IIIe-IVe siècles). In Frézouls, ed., pp. 27–48.
434  Bibliography

Filosi, Silva. (1987). L’inspirazione neoplatonica della persecuzione di Massimino Daia. RSCI
41: pp. 79–91.
Finamore, John F. (1985). Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul. Chico, CA: SP.
Finamore, John F. (1997). The Rational Soul in Iamblichus’ Philosophy. Syllecta Classica 8: pp.
163–76.
Finamore, John F. (2012). Iamblichus on the Grades of Virtue. In Afonasin, Dillon, and
Finamore, eds., pp. 13–35.
Finegan, Jack. (1989). Myth and Mystery. An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical
World. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Fink, Robert O., Hoey, A. S. and Snyder, W. F. (1940). The Feriale Dunanum. YCS 7: pp. 1–222.
Fiore, Benjamin. (1990). Passion in Paul and Plutarch: I Corinthians 5–6 and the Polemic
against Epicureans. In Balch, David L., et al., eds., Greeks, Romans, and Christians. Essays
in Honor of Abraham Malherbe, pp. 135–43. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Fishwick, Duncan. (1978). The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western
Roman Empire. ANRW II.16.2: pp. 1201–53. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Fishwick, Duncan. (1992). The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. EPRO 108. Leiden: Brill.
Flamant, J. (1982). Sotériologie et systèmes planétaires. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp.
223–42.
Flashar, Hellmut. (1965). Plato und Aristoteles im Protreptikos des Jamblichos. AGP
49: pp. 53–79.
Fletcher, Richard. (1997). The Barbarian Conversion. From Paganism to Christianity.
New York: Henry Holt and Companym Inc,
Flint, Valerie. (1999). The Demonisation of Magic and Sorcery in Late Antiquity: Christian
Redefinitions of Pagan Religions. In Ankarloo and Clark, eds., pp. 279–348.
Fohrer, Georg, and Foerster, Werner. (1971). “σῴζω, σωτηρία, σωτήρ, σωτηρία,” TDNT
7: pp. 965–1023. Grand Rapids: WBEP.
Follet, R. (1953). Sanchuniaton, personage mythique ou personne historique. Biblica
34: pp. 81–90.
Fontenrose, J. (1978). The Delphic Oracle. Berkeley: UCP.
Fontenrose, J. (1988). Didyma. Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley: UCP.
Forbes, Christopher Brian. (1995). Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its
Hellenistic Environment. WUNT 2.75. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Ford, Michael. (2000). The Coin Hoards of Late Roman/Early Byzantine Egypt from the
Reform of Diocletianus to the Reform of Anastasius, AD 294–491. NChron 160: pp.
335–67.
Foubert, Jean. (1992). AD GLORIAM CORPORIS Au-delà de Sagesse 9,15: Corpus quod cor-
rumpitur adgravat animam (Confessions VII, 17, 23). In Goulet-Cazé, Madec, and
O’Brien, eds., pp. 383–402.
Ford, Philip. (1985). Conrad Gesner et le Faubleux Manteau. BHR 47: pp. 305–20.
Forgiarini, Tullio. (1998). A propos de Claude II: Les invasions gothiques de 267–270 et le role
de l’empereur. In Frézouls and Jouffroy, eds., pp. 81–6.
Forsythe, Gary. (2005). A Critical History of Early Rome. From Prehistory to the First Punic
War. Berkeley: UCP.
Fortin, E. L. (1973). The Viri Novi of Arnobius and the Conflict Between Faith and Reason in
the Early Christian Centuries. In Neiman, D., and Schatkin, M., eds., The Heritage of the
Early Church. Essays in Honor of G. V. Florovsky (OCA 195), pp. 197–226. Rome: PISO.
Fotheringham, J. K. (1911). Eusebius of Caesarea. In Wace, Henry, and Piercy, C., eds., DCBL,
pp. 318–34. London: John Murray.
Fowden, Garth. (1981). Late Antique Paganism Reasoned and Revealed. JRS 71: pp. 178–82.
 Bibliography  435

Fowden, Garth. (1982). The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society. JHS 102: pp. 33–59.
Fowden, Garth. (1986). The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind.
Princeton: PUP.
Fowden, Garth. (1993). Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late
Antiquity. Princeton: PUP.
Fowden, Garth. (1998). Polytheist Religion and Philosophy. In Cameron, Averil, and Garnsey,
Peter, eds., CAH 2nd, Vol. 13: pp. 538–60. Cambridge: CUP.
Fowden, Garth. (1999). Religious Communities. In Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar, eds.,
pp. 82–106.
Fowden, Garth. (2005). Public Religion. CAH 12.2: pp. 553–72. Cambridge: CUP.
Fox, Robin Lane. (1987). Pagans and Chistians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Fox, Robin Lane. (2006). Augustine’s Solliloquies and the Historian. StudPat 43.16: pp. 173–91.
Francis, E. D. (1975). Mithraic Graffiti from Dura-Europos. In Hinnells, ed., Vol. 2: pp. 425–45.
Frankenberg, W. (1906). A Review of H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1904). ThL 31: pp. 11–6.
Frankfurter, David. (1998). Religion in Roman Egypt. Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: PUP.
Frassinetti, Paolo. (1949). Sull’atuore delle questioni pagane conservate nell’apocritico di
Macario di Magnesia. ND 3: pp. 41–56.
Frassinetti, Paolo. (1953). Porfirio Esegeta del Profeta Daniele. RAL 86: pp. 194–210.
Frede, Michael. (1997). Celsus’ Attack on the Christians. In Barnes and Griffin, eds.,
pp. 218–40.
Frede, Michael. (1999a). Monotheism and Pagan Philosophy in Later Antiquity. In
Athanassiadi and Frede (1999a), eds., pp. 41–68.
Frede, Michael. (1999b). Origen’s Treatise Against Celsus. In Edwards et al., eds., pp. 131–55.
Frede, Michael. (1999c). Eusebius’ Apologetic Writings. In Edwards et al., eds., pp. 223–50.
Fredriksen, Paula. (1991). Apocalypse and Redemption in Early Christianity. VChr 45:
pp. 105–22.
Frend, W. H. C. (1962). A Note on the Great Persecution in the West. In Cuming, C. J., ed.,
Studies in Church History, vol. 2, pp. 141–8. London: Nelson.
Frend, W. H. C. (1981). Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of a Conflict
from the Maccabees to Donatus. Repr. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Frend, W. H. C. (1984). The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Frend, W. H. C. (1987). Prelude to the Great Persecution: The Propaganda War. JEH
38.1: pp. 1–18.
Frend, W. H. C. (2006). Persecutions: Genesis and Legacy. In Mitchell, Margaret M., and
Young, Frances M., eds., The Cambridge History of Christianity.Vol. 1: Origins to
Constantine, pp. 503–23. Cambridge: CUP.
Frenkian, Aram M. (1961). L’Ennéade IV, 7 de Plotin et l’édition d’Eustochius. Maia 13:
pp. 197–208.
Frenkian, Aram M. (1963). Les numerotations marginales intermittentes des manuscrits de
Plotin. Maia 15: pp. 142–44.
Frenkian, Aram M. (1964). Emendationen zu den,Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.
Philologus 108: pp. 301–13.
Freund, Stefan. (2006). Christian Use and Valuation of Theological Oracles: The Case of
Lactantius Divine Institutes. VChr 60: pp. 269–84.
Frey, Martin. (1989). Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers
Elagabal. ZAG/JAH/RSA 62. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Frézouls, Edmond, ed. (1983). Crise et redressement dans les provinces européenes de l’Empire
(milieu du IIIe–milieu du IVe siècle ap. J.C.). Actes du colloque de Strasbourg (décembre
1981). USHS 3. Strasbourg: AECR.
436  Bibliography

Frézouls, Edmond, and Jouffroy, Hélène, eds. (1998). Les empereurs illyriens. Actes du colloque
de Strasbourg (11–13 octobre 1990) organisé par le Centre de Recherche sur l’Europe centrale
et sud-orientale. Strasbourg: AECR.
Friesen, S. J. (2001). Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John. Reading Revelation in the
Ruins. Oxford: OUP.
Frye, Richard N. (2005). The Sassanians. CAH 12.2: pp. 461–80. Cambridge: CUP.
Gagarin, Michael, and Elaine Fantham, eds. (2010). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient
Greece and Rome. 5 vols. New York and Oxford: OUP.
Gagnon, Claude. (1973). Deux contresens dans la traduction française de l’Isagogé. RPL
71: pp. 205–9.
Galinsky, Karl. (1996). Augustan Culture. An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: PUP.
Gallardo, M. D. (1972). Los Simposios de Luciano, Ateneo, Metodio y Juliano. CFC 4: pp.
239–96.
Gallavotti, Carlo. (1976). Principi di Critica Testuale su versi di Menandro, Callimaco,
Archestrato. BCPEN 23: pp. 3–14.
Garcia, Aurelio A. (1987). Eusebius’ Theophany: A Christian Neoplatonist Response. PBR
6: pp. 230–7.
Garcia, Jorge J. E. (1981). Boethius and the Problem of Individuation in the Commentaries on
the Isagoge. In Obertello, Luca, ed., ATTI. Congresso Internazionale di Studi Boeziani
(Pavia, 5–8 ottubre 1980) Rome: Editrice Herder.
Gardner, I. M. F., and Lieu, S. N. C. (1996). From Narmouthis (Medinet Madi) to Kellis
(Ismant El-Kharab): Manichaean Documents from Roman Egypt. JRS 86: pp. 146–69.
Garnsey, Peter. (1988). Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Responses to Risk
and Crisis. Cambridge: CUP.
Garnsey, Peter. (2004). Roman Citizenship and Roman Law in the Late Empire. In Edwards
and Swain, eds., 133–55.
Garnsey, P., and Humfress, C. (2001). The Evolution of the Late Antique World.
Cambridge: Orchard Academic.
Gärtner, Helga and Hans Armin, Gärtner. (2003). Eusebios als Erzähler. Zu seinem
Origensbild im 6. Buch der Kirchengeschichte. In Meinhold and Berlejung, eds., pp.
223–36.
Gasparro, G. Sfameni. (1982). Sotériologie et aspects mystiques dans le culte de Cybèle et
d’Attis. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., p. 472–84.
Gasparro, G. Sfameni. (1985). Soteriology and Mystic Aspects in the Cult of Cybele and Attis.
EPRO 103. Leiden: Brill.
Gasparro, G. Sfameni. (1989). Critica del Sacrificio cruento e antropologia in Grecia: Da
Pitagora a Porfirio. II. Il De Abstinentia Porfiriano. In Vattioni, ed., pp. 461–505.
Gasparro, G. Sfameni., ed. (1994). ‘Αγαθὴ ἐλπίς. Studi Storico-Religiosi in Onore di Ugo
Bianchi. Rome: L’Erma’ di Bretschneider.
Gatier, Pierre-Louis, et al., eds. (2011). Sources de l’Histoire de Tyr. Textes de l’Antiquité et du
Moyen Âge. Beirut: Presses de l’Université Saint-Joseph et Presses de l’Ifpo.
Gatier, Pierre-Louis. (2011). Tyr dans les sources hagiographiques antiques. In Gatier et al.,
eds., pp. 129–53.
Gaudemet, Jean. (1990). La législation anti-païenne de Constatine à Justinien. CNS 11: pp.
449–68.
Gawlikowski, Michal. (1984). Palmyre VIII. Les “principia” de Dioclétien:“Temple des Enseignes.”
Varsovie: PWN.
Gebhardt, Rudi, et al., eds. (2000). Münzkatalog Römische Kaiserzeit. Vol. 4: Von Septimius
Severus bis Julianus I. Trier: Patermannchen-Verlag.
 Bibliography  437

Geffcken, Johannes. (1907). Zwi Griechische Apologeten. SWKGR. Leipzig: Teubner.

Geffcken, Johannes. (1916). Harnacks Ausgabe von Porphyrius gegen die Christen. DL 37: pp.
1637–42.
Geffcken, Johannes. (1978). The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism. Trans. Sabine
MacCormack. EMA 8. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Geiger, Abraham. (1863). Syrisches. ZDMG 17: pp. 725–9.
George, Martin. (2002). V. Tugenden im Verglich. Ihre soteriologische Funktion in Jamblichs
Vita Pythagorica und in Athansios’ Vita Antonii. In von Albrecht et al., eds., pp. 303–22.
Gersh, Stephen. (1992). Porphyry’s Commentary on the Harmonics of Ptolemy and
Neoplatonic Musical Theory. In Gersh and Kannengieser, eds., pp. 141–56.
Gersh, Stephen, and Kannengiesser, Charles, eds. (1992). Platonism in Late Antiquity. South
Bend: UNDP.
Gerson, Lloyd P., ed. (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Plotinus. Cambridge: CUP.
Gerson, Lloyd P. (2003). Knowing Persons. A Study in Plato. Oxford: OUP.
Gerson, Lloyd P. (2005). Aristotle and Other Platonists. Ithaca and London: Cornell
University Press.
Geudtner, O. (1971). Die Seelenlehre der Chaldäischen Orakel. Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain.
Geuenich, Dieter. (1997). Geschichte der Alemannen. Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: W. Kohlhammer.
Ghetti, A. M. Apollonj, et al., eds. (1951). Esplorazioni sotto la Confessione di San Pietro in
Vaticano eseguite negli anni 1940–1949. 2 vols. Vatican City: TPV.
Gigante, Marcello. (1986). Biographia e Dossographia in Diogene Laerzio. Elenchos
7: pp. 7–102.
Giglioni, Gabriella Bodei. (1991). Come gli uomini divennero malvagi: sviluppo della civiltà,
alimentazione e sacrificio in Teofrasto. RSI 103: pp. 5–32.
Gilliam, J. F. (1961). The Plague under Marcus Aurelius. AJP 82.3: pp. 225–51.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. (1993). Commentario al Parmenide di Platone/Porfirio a cura di Pierre
Hadot. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. (1994a). Porfirio negli ultimi cinquant’anni. Bibliografia sistematica e
ragionata della letteratura primaria e secondaria riguardante il pensiero porfiriano e i suoi
influssi storici. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. (1994b). L’identità di uno ed essere nel commentario al Parmenide di
Porfirio e la recezione in Vittorino, Boezio e Agostino. RFN 86: pp. 665–88.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. (1996). Il pensiero forte di Porfirio. Mediazione fra henologia platoniza e
ontologia aristotelica. Introduzione di Giovanni Reale. Milan: Vita e Pensiero.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. (1997a). Introduzione a Porfirio. Rome: Gius. Laterza & Figli.
Girgenti, Giuseppe. (1997b). Storia della filosofia: frammenti Porfirio introduzione, traduzi-
one, commento e note di Angelo Raffaele Sodano, impostazione editoriale notizia biografiza
e indici di Giuseppe Girgenti. Milan: Rusconi.
Glover, T.  R. (1910). The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire. London: Mehuen & Co.
Glucker, John. (1994). The Origin of ΥΠΑΡXΩ and ΥΠΑΡΞΙΣ as Philosophical Terms. In
Romano and Taormina, eds., 1–23.
Göbl, Robert. (2000). Die Munzpragung der Kaiser Valerianus I./Gallienus/Saloninus
(253/268), Regalianus (260) und Macrianus/Quietus (260/262) MIR Band 35. Wien: VÖAW.
Goldin, O. (2001). Porphyry, Nature, and Community. HPQ 18: pp. 353–71.
Goldschmidt, Victor. (1950). Théologia. REG 63: pp. 20–42.
Goodman, Martin. (1994). Mission and Conversion. Proselytizing in the Religious History of
the Roman Empire. Oxford: OUP.
Gordon, R. L. (1980). Reality, Evocation, and Boundary in the Mysteries of Mithras. JMS
3: pp. 19–99.
438  Bibliography

Gordon, R. L. (1994). Who Worshipped Mithras? JRA 7: pp. 459–74.

Gorman, Peter. (1985). The “Apollonios” of the Neoplatonic Biographies of Pythagoras.
Mnemosyne 38.1–2: pp. 130–44.
Gottschalk, Hans B. (1986). Boethius’ Psychology and the Neoplatonists. Phronesis 31: pp.
243–57.
Gottschalk, Hans B. (1990). The Earliest Aristotelian Commentators. In Sorabji, ed., pp. 55–81.
Goulet, Richard. (1975–6). Recherches sur le traité de Porphyre contre les Chrétiens. EPHE
84: pp. 289–92.
Goulet, Richard. (1977a). Porphyre et la datation de Moise. RHR 192: pp. 137–64.
Goulet, Richard. (1977b). Porphyre, Ammonius, les deux origène et les autres. RHPR 57: pp.
471–96.
Goulet, Richard. (1982a). Le système chronologique de la vie de Plotin. In Brisson et al., eds.,
Vol. 1: pp. 189–227.
Goulet, Richard. (1982b). L’oracle d’Apollon dans La Vie de Plotin. In Brisson et al., eds., Vol.
1: pp. 369–412.
Goulet, Richard. (1982c). Variations romanesques sur la melancolie de Porphyre. Hermes
110: pp. 443–57.
Goulet, Richard. (1984). Porphyre et Macaire de Magnésie. TUGAL 128. StudPat XI.1: pp.
448–52.
Goulet, Richard. (1992a). Notes sur La Vita Plotini. In Brisson et al., eds., Vol. 2: pp. 187–299.
Goulet, Richard. (1992b). Sur quelques interprétations récentes de l’oracle d’Apollon. In
Brisson et al., eds., Vol. 2: pp. 603–17.
Goulet, Richard. (2001). Sur quelques interprétations récentes de l’oracle d’Apollon. In Goulet,
Richard, ed., Études sur les vies de philosophes dans l’antiquité tardive, pp. 231–43. Paris: J.
Vrin. (Originally published in the preceding.)
Goulet, Richard. (2004). Hypothèses récentes sur le traité de Porphyre Contre les Chrétiens. In
Narcy, Michel and Rebillard, Eric, eds., Hellénisme et christianisme, pp. 61–109.
Paris: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.
Goulet, Richard. (2003). Macarios de Magnésie Le Monogénès: Introduction génèral, édition
critique, traduction, française et commentaire. Tome I. Introduction général. TTrad 7.
Paris: J. Vrin
Goulet, Richard. (2010). Cinq nouveaux fragments nominaux du traité de Porphyre Contre
les chrétiens. VChr 64: pp. 140–59.
Goulet, Richard, ed. (2012a). Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques. Vb. De Plotina à Rutilius
Rufus. Paris: CNRS.
Goulet, Richard, et al. (2012b). Porphyre de Tyre. DPA Vb: 1289–468.
Goulet, Richard, and Brisson, Luc. (2012). Sur La Vie de Platon et le Classement de ses Livres.
DPA Vb: 1384–91.
Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile. (1982a). L’Arrière-plan scolaire de La Vie de Plotin. In Brisson
et al., eds., Vol. 1: pp. 231–76.
Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile. (1982b). Excursus. Le Programme d’Enseignement dans les écoles
néoplatonicienns. In Brisson et al., eds., Vol. 1: pp. 277–327.
Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile. (1982c). La métrique de l’oracle d’apollon. In Brisson et al., eds.,
Vol. 1: pp. 619–24.
Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile, ed. (2000). Le Commentaire entre tradition et innovation. Actes du
Colloque International de L’institut des Traditions Textuelles (Paris et Villejuif, 22–25 setem-
bre 1999). BHP. Paris: J. Vrin.
Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile. (2005). Le système philosophique de Porphyre dans Les Sentences.
A. Métaphysique. In Brisson, L., ed., Porphyre. Sentences. Etudes d’introduction texte grec
et traduction française, commentaire. 2 vols. Vol. 1: pp. 31–105. Paris: J. Vrin.
 Bibliography  439

Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile, Madec, Goulven, and O’Brien, Denis, eds. (1992). ΣΟΦΙHΣ
ΜΑΙHΤΟΡΕΣ. Chercheurs de Sagesse. Hommage à Jean Pépin. CEA 131. Paris: IEA.
Graddel, Ittai. (2002). Emperor Worship and Roman Religion. OCM. Oxford: OUP.
Graf, Fritz. (1999). Magic in the Ancient World. RAnt 10. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Grafton, Anthony and Williams, Megan. (2006). Christianity and the Transformation of the
Book. Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Grainger, John D. (1991). Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: OUP.
Grandjean, Y. (1975). Une nouvelle arètalogie d’Isis à Maronée. Leiden: Brill.
Grant, Frederick C. (1953). Hellenistic Religions. The Age of Syncretism. Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing.
Grant, R. M. (1949). Patristica. VChr: pp. 225–9.
Grant, R. M. (1973). Porphyry among the Early Christians. In den Boer et al., eds.
(1973a): pp. 181–7.
Grant, R. M. (1975). The Religion of Maximin Daia. In Neusner, ed., pp. 143–66.
Grant, R. M. (1980). Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxford: OUP.
Grant, R. M. (1992). Eusebius and Imperial Propaganda. In Attridge and Hata, eds., pp.
658–86.
Green, Peter. (1990). Alexander to Actium. The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age.
HCS. Berkeley: UCP.
Greenslade, S. L. (1961). A review of J. J. O’Meara, Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles in
Augustine. (1959) Paris: Études Augustiniennes. CR 11: p. 83.
Grenfell, B. P., et al., eds. (1898–1995). The Oxyrhunchus Papyri. London: The Egyptian
Exploration Fund.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn. (1975). Apuleius of Madauros. The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI).
Leiden: Brill.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn. (1982). The Concept of Divine Judgement in the Mystery Religions. In
Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 192–222.
Grilli, Alberto. (1971). Un frammento d’Aristone Alessandrino in Porfirio. GIF 23: pp. 292–307.
Grilli, Alberto. (1962). Varia Graeca. ACME 15: pp. 121–36.
Grillmeier, Aloys. (1990). Die anthropologisch-christologische Sprache des Leontius von
Byzanz und ihre Bedeutung su den Symmikta Zetemata des Neuplatonikers Porphyrius.
In Eisenberger, ed., 61–72.
Griswold, Charles L., Jr. (1996). Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus. University Park, PA: PSUP.
Groenman-van Waateringe, W. (1989). Food for Soldiers, Food for Thought. In Barrett et al.,
eds., 96–107.
Gronewald, M. (1968). Porphyrios Kritik an den Gleichnissen des Evangeliums. ZPE 3: p. 96.
Gronewald, M. (1979). Didymus der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura papyrus). Vol.
5: Zu Eccl. 9.8–10.20. PTA 24. Bonn: Habelt.
Grottanelli, C. (1982). Healers and Saviours of the Eastern Mediterranean in Pre-classical
Times. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 649–70.
Grubbs, Judith Evans. (2000). The Slave who Avenged Her Master’s Death: Codex Justinianus
1.19.1 and 7.13.1. AHB 14.3: pp. 81–8.
Guérard, Christian. (1984). La théologie negative dans l’apophatisme grec. RSPh 68: pp.
183–200.
Guerra, Chiara. (2000). Porfirio editore di Plotino e la “paideia antignostica.” Pat 8.5: pp.
111–37.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1952). Orpheus and Greek Religion. A Study of the Orphic Movement.
London: Methuen and Co.
Guthrie, W. K. C. (1975). A History of Greek Philosophy. IV. Plato: The Man and his Dialogues.
Earlier Period. Cambridge: CUP.
440  Bibliography

Gyekya, Kwame. (1979). Ibn Al-Tayyib’s Commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge. Arabic Text
Edited with Introduction and a Glossary of Greek-Arabic Logical Terms. Albany: SUNYP.
Hadas, Moses. (1959). Hellenistic Culture. Fusion and Diffusion. New York: W. W. Norton.
Hadot, I. (1986). The Spiritual Guide. In Armstrong, ed., pp. 436–59.
Hadot, I. (1987). Les introductions aux commentaries exégétiques chez les auteurs néopla-
toniciens et les auteurs chrétiens. In Tardieu, ed., pp. 99–119.
Hadot, I. (1997). Aspects de la théorie de la perception chez les neoplatoniciens: sensation
(αισθησις), sensation commun (κοινα αισθησις), sensibles communs (κοινα αισθητα) et
conscience de soi (συναισθησις). DSTradF 8: pp. 33–85.
Hadot, Pierre. (1956). Platon et Plotin dans trois sermons de Saint Ambrose. REL 34: pp.
202–20.
Hadot, Pierre. (1959). Un fragment du commentaire perdu de Boèce sur les catégories
d’Aristote dans le Codex Bernensis 363. AHDL 34: pp. 11–28.
Hadot, Pierre. (1960a). Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin (a propos d’un ouvrage récent).
REAug 6: pp. 205–44.
Hadot, Pierre. (1960b). Etre, Vie, Pensée chez Plotin et avant Plotin. In Les Sources de Plotin,
pp. 107–57. EAC 5. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Hadot, Pierre. (1961). Fragments d’un commentaire de Porphyre sur le Parmenide. REG
74: pp. 410–38.
Hadot, Pierre. (1966). La métaphysique de Porphyre. EAC 12:  pp. 125–63.
Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Hadot, Pierre. (1968). Porphyre et Victorinus. 2 vols. Paris: EA.
Hadot, Pierre. (1971–6). Plotin et les Gnostiques. EPHE Ve Section. (1971–2): pp. 55–8;
(1973–4): pp. 64f.; (1974–5): pp. 67–9; (1975–6): pp. 75–7.
Hadot, Pierre. (1972a). Existentia. In Hadot, P. (1999), pp. 57–61. Also in Ritter et al., eds.,
HWP 2, Cols. 854–6. Basel: Schwabe.
Hadot, Pierre. (1972b). La fin du paganisme. EPHR 2: pp. 81–112. Reprinted in Hadot, P. (1998),
pp. 341–74.
Hadot, Pierre. (1973). L’Etre et l’etant dans le néoplatonisme. RTP 23: pp. 101–13.
Hadot, Pierre. (1974). L’Harmonie des philosophes de Plotin et d’Aristote selon Porphyre dans
le commentaire de Dexippe sur les catégories. ACI, pp. 31–47. Rome: ANL.
Hadot, Pierre. (1978). Bilan et perspectives sur les oracles chaldaïques. In Lewy, H., ed. (1956
[1978 repr.]), pp. 703–20.
Hadot, Pierre. (1980a). Vie. In Ritter et al., eds., HWP 5: Cols. 52–6.
Hadot, Pierre. (1980b). Les Niveaux de Conscience dans les états mystiques selon Plotin.
JPNP 77: pp. 243–66.
Hadot, Pierre. (1981). Ouranos, Kronos and Zeus in Plotinus’ Treatise Against the Gnostics.
In Blumenthal and Markus, eds., pp. 124–37.
Hadot, Pierre. (1986). Neoplatonist Spirituality I. Plotinus and Porphyry. In Armstrong,
A. H., ed., pp. 230–49.
Hadot, Pierre. (1987). Théologie, Exégèse, Révélation; Ecriture; dans la philosophie grecque.
In Tardieu, ed., pp. 13–34.
Hadot, Pierre. (1988). Images Mythiques et Theme Mystiques dans un passage de Plotin
(V.8.10–13). In Les Cahiers de Fontenay, pp. 205–14. Fontenay aux Roses: ENS.
Hadot, Pierre. (1990). The Harmony of Plotinus and Aristotle According to Porphyry. In
Sorabji, ed., pp. 125–40.
Hadot, Pierre. (1991). La figure du sage dans l’antiquité gréco-latine. In Hadot, P. (1998), pp.
233–57. Also in Les sagesses du monde. Colloque interdisciplinaire sous la direction de Gilbert
Gadoffre. Institut Collégial Européen, pp. 9–26. (1991). Paris: Editions Universitaires.
 Bibliography  441

Hadot, Pierre. (1996). Porphyre et Victorinus. Questions et hypotheses. ROr 9: pp. 117–25.
Hadot, Pierre. (1998). Études de Philosophie Ancienne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Hadot, Pierre. (1999). Plotin, Porphyre. Études Néoplatoniciennes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Hagedorn, D., and Merkelbach, R. (1966). Ein neues Fragment aus Porphyrios Gegen die
Christen. VC 20, pp. 86–90.
Hägg, Tomas. (2003). The Life of Mani in the Context of Graeco-Roman Spiritual Biography.
In Piltz, Anders, et al., eds., For Particular Reasons. Studies in Honour of Jerker Blomgvist.
Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
Hägg, Tomas, and Rousseau, Philip, eds. (2000). Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late
Antiquity. Berkeley: UCP.
Hall, Stuart George. (2006). Ecclesiology Forged in the Wake of Persecution. In Mitchell,
Margaret M. and M. Young, Frances, eds., The Cambridge History of Christianity. Vol.
1: Origins to Constantine, pp. 470–84. Cambridge: CUP.
Halliwell, Stephen. (2007). The Life-and-Death Journey of the Soul: Interpreting the Myth of
Er. In Ferrari, ed., CCPR, pp. 445–73.
Halsberghe, Gaston H. (1972). The Cult of Sol Invictus. Leiden: Brill.
Halsberghe, Gaston H. (1984). Le culte de Deus Sol Invictus a Rome au 3e siecle après J.C.
ANRW II.17.4: pp. 2181–201. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hammond, N. G. L., and Scullard, H. H., eds. (1978). The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed.
repr. Oxford: OUP.
Hansen, Günter Christian. (1967). Ein verkanntes Iosephos-Zitat bei Porphyrios. K: pp.
199–200.
Hansman, John. (1978). A Suggested Interpretation of the Mithraic Lion-Man Figure. In
Duchesne-Guillemin et al., eds., 215–27.
Hanson, J. S. (1984). Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity.
ANRW, II.23.2: pp. 1395–427. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hargis, Jeffrey Wayne. (1998). Christian Exclusivism and the Formation of Early Anti-Christian
Discourse in Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University,
Philadelphia.
Hargis, Jeffrey Wayne. (2001). Against the Christians. The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic.
2nd ed. New York: Peter Lang.
Harl, Kenneth W. (1999). Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BC to AD 700. Baltimore,
MD: JHUP.
Harmon, Daniel P. (1978a). The Public Festivals of Rome. ANRW II.16.2: pp. 1440–68.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Harmon, Daniel P. (1978b). The Family Festivals of Rome. ANRW II.16.2: pp. 1593–603.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Harmon, Steven R. (2003). Every Knee Should Bow. Biblical Rationales for Universal Salvation
in Early Christian Thought. New York/Oxford: UPA.
Harnack, Adolf. (1893). Geschichte der altchirstlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Vol. I. Leipzig: J.
C. Hinrichs.
Harnack, Adolf. (1911). Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem Griechischen Philosophen des
3. Jahrhunderts (Die im Apocriticus des Macarius Magnes Enthaltene Streitschrift).
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.
Harnack, Adolf. (1911–2). Greek and Christian Piety at the End of the Third Century. HJ
10: pp. 65–82.
Harnack, Adolf. (1921). Neue Fragmente des Werks des Porphyrius gegen die Christen. Die
Pseudo-Polycarpiana und die Schrift des Rhetors Pacatus gegen Porphyrius. SPAW, pp.
266–84. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.
442  Bibliography

Harris, R. Baine. (1987). Faith and Reason in the ealry Neoplatonists. D & A 1: pp. 6–17.
Hart, Gerald D. (2000). Asclepius, the God of Medicine. London: SMP.
Härtel, Gottfried. (1986). Die Religionspolitik der Römischen Kaiser von Diokletian bis
Justinian I. Anhand Ausgewäkter Beispiel aus dem Codex Theodosianus, dem Codex
Justinianus und der Novellen Justinians I. ACUSD 22: pp. 69–86.
Hauschildt, Hermann. (1907). De Porphyrio philosopho Macarii Magnetis apologetae chris-
tiani in libris ΑΠΟΚΡΙΤΙΚΩΝ auctore. Bonn: Typis Caroli Georgi Typographi Academici.
Haussleiter, Johannes. (1978–9). Prolegomena zu einer neuherausgabe der “orakelphiloso-
phie” des Porphyrios. Helikon 18–19: pp. 438–96.
Hazlett, Ian, ed. (1991). Early Christianity. Origins and Evolution to A.D. 600. In Honour of
W. H. C. Frend. Nashville: Abingdon.
Healey, John F. (1999). Michael I the Syrian. BDEC: p. 317.
Heath, Malcolm. (2003). Porphyry’s Rhetoric. CQ 53.1: pp. 141–66.
Heather, Peter J. (1991). Goths and Romans 332–489. Oxford: OUP.
Heather, Peter J. (2006). The Fall of the Roman Empire. A New History of Rome and the
Barbarians. Oxford: OUP.
Heck, Eberhard. (2005). Defendere—Instituere. Zum Selbstverständnis des Apologeten
Lactanz. In Wlosok, Antonie, et al., eds., Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique. Tome LI.
L’Apologétique chrétienne gréco-latine a l’époque prénicénienne. (Vandoeuvres—Genève
13–17 Septembre 2004: Fondation Hardt), pp. 205–48. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Heikel, Ivar A. (1911). Die Komposition der Laus Constantini. Was ergibt sich aus der
Theophanie für den Text der Laus? TU 36: pp. 81–97.
Heil, Uta. (2002). ,,…bloß nicht wie die Manichäer!” Ein Vorschlag zu den Hintergründen
des arianischen Streits. ZAC 6.2: pp. 299–319.
Heitsch, Ernst. (1968–9). Ilias B 557/8. Hermes 96: pp. 641–60.
Helgeland, John. (1978). Roman Army Religion. ANRW II.16.2: pp. 1470–505.
Helm, Robert Meredith. (1995). Un Nuevo examen de Platonopolis. Epimeleia 4.8: pp. 235–47.
Henig, Martin. (1984). Religion in Roman Britain. New York: St. Martin’s.
Henry, P. (1982). The Oral Teachings of Plotinus. Dionysius 6: pp. 3–12.
Hercher, Rudolf. (1863). Astrampsychi oraculorum decades CIII. Berlin: Joachimsthalsche
Gymnasium.
Heuten, M. G. (1936a). Sur le Traité du Soleil de Porphyre. RBPH: pp. 749–50.
Heuten, M. G. (1936b). Le “soleil” de Porphyre. AIPHOS IV: pp. 253–9.
Hezser, Catherine, ed. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine.
Oxford: OUP.
Hijmans, S. E. (1996). The Sun which Did Not Rise in the East: The Cult of Sol Invictus in the
Light of Non-literary Evidence. BAB 71: pp. 115–50.
Hinnells, John R., ed. (1975). Mithraic Studies. Proceedings of the First International Congress
of Mithraic Studies. 2 vols. SDR 9. Manchester: MUP.
Hinnells, John R. (1994). Studies in Mithraism. Papers Associated with the Mithraic Pamel
Organized on the Occasion of the XVIth Congress of the International Association for the
History of Religions, Rome 1990. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.
Hirshman, Marc. (2000). Rabbinic Universalism in the Second and Third Centuires. HTR
93.2: pp. 101–15.
Hoffmann, Philippe. (1983). Paratasis de la description des verbes grecs dans le néoplatonisme
tardif. REG 96: pp.1–26.
Hoffmann, Philippe. (1997). La problématique du titre des traités d’Aristote selon les com-
menteurs grecs: quelques exemples. In Fredouille, Jean Claude, et al., eds., Titres et articu-
lations du texte dans les œuvres antiques: actes du colloque international de Chantilly, 13–15
décembre 1994, pp. 75–103. Paris: IEA.
 Bibliography  443

Hoffmann, Philippe. (1998). La fonction des prologues exégétiques dans la pensée péda-
gogique néoplatonicienne. In Dubois and Roussel, eds., pp. 209–31.
Hoffmann, Philippe. (2000a). Les catégories aristotéliciennes πότε ποῦ d’après le commentaire
de Simpicius: méthodes d’exégèse et aspects doctrinaux. In Goulet-Cazé, Marie-Odile ed.,
Le commentaire entre tradition et innovation: actes du colloque international de l’Institut des
traditions textuelles. Paris et Villejuif, 22–25 septembre 1999, pp. 355–76. Pars: Vrin.
Hoffmann, Philippe. (2000b). La triade chaldaique ἔρως, ἀλήθεια, πίστις: de Proclus a
Simplicius. In Segonds and Steel, eds., pp. 459–89.
Hoffmann, R. Joseph. (1994). Porphyry’s Against the Christians. The Literary Remains.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Hollerich, Michael J. (1989). Myth and History in Eusebius’ De Vita Constantini: Vit. Const.
1.12 in its Contemporary Setting. HTR 82.4: pp. 421–45.
Hollerich, Michael J. (1992). Eusebius as a Polemical Interpreter of Scripture. In Attridge and
Hata, eds., pp. 585–618.
Hollerich, Michael J. (1999). Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentary on Isaiah. Christian Exegesis
in the Age of Constantine. OECS. Oxford: OUP.
Hollis, A. S. (1991). A New Fragment of Eratosthenes’ Erigone? ZPE 89: pp. 27–9.
Holloway, R. Ross. (2004). Constantine and Rome. New Haven and London: YUP.
Holzhausen, Jens, ed. (1998). ψυχή-Seele-anima. Festschrift für Karin Alt zum 7. Mai 1998.
Leipzig/Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.
Homo, Leon. (1904). Essai sur le règne de l’empereur Aurelien (270–275). Paris: Ancienne
librairie Thorin et Fils.
Honoré, Tony. (1979). Imperial Rescripts A.D. 193–305: Authorship and Authenticity. JRS
69: pp. 51–64.
Honoré, Tony. (2004). Roman Law AD 200–400: From Cosmopolis to Rechtstaat? In
Edwards and Swain, eds., pp. 109–32.
Hopkins, Keith. (1980). Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire. JRS 70: pp. 101–25.
Hopkins, Keith. (1998). Christian Number and its Implications. JECS 6.2: pp. 185–226.
Hornblower, Simon and Spawforth, Antony, eds. (1996). Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd ed.
Oxford: OUP.
Horne, Peter. (1989). Romano-Celtic Temples in the Third Century. In King and Henig, eds.,
Part I, pp. 21–7.
Howgego, Christopher. (1995a). Ancient History from Coins. AAW. London and
New York: Routledge.
Howgego, Christopher. (1995b). The Circulation of Silver Coins, Models of the Roman
Economy, and Crisis in the Third Century A.D.: Some Numismatic Evidence. In King
and Wigg, eds., pp. 219–36.
Hubert, Kurt. (1938). Zur indirekten Überlieferung der Tischgespräche Plutarchs. Hermes
73: pp. 307–28.
Huehnergard, Languages (Introductory). (1992). ABD IV: 155–70.
Hulen, Amos Berry. (1933). Porphyry’s Work Against the Christians: An Interpretation. YSR 1.
Scottsdale, PA: Mennonite Press.
Hultgard. A. (1982). Figures messianiques d’Orient comme sauveurs universels dans le monde
gréco-romain. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 734–52.
Hyde, Walter Woodburn. (1970). Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire.
New York: Octagon Books.
Igal, Jésus, S.J. (1970). Porfirio, Vida de Plotino y orden de sus escritos. Per, 2, 2nd ser.: pp.
281–323.
Igal, Jésus, S.J. (1972). La chronologia de la Vida de Plotino de Porfirio. Deusto: Universidad de
Deusto.
444  Bibliography

Igal, Jésus, S.J. (1981). The Gnostics and “The Ancient Philosophy” in Porphyry and Plotinus.
In Blumenthal and Markus, eds.. pp. 138–49.
Igal, Jésus, S.J. (1984). El enigma del oraculo de Apolo sobre Plotino. Emerita 52: pp. 83–115.
Inwood, Michael. (2009). Plato’s Eschatological Myths. In Partenie, ed., pp. 28–50.
Iossif, P. P., Chankowski, A. S., and Lorber, C. C., eds. (2011). More than Men, Less than
Gods: Studies on Royal Cult and Imperial Worship: Proceedings of the International
Colloquium Organized by the Belgian School at Athens. (November 1–2, 2007).
Leuven: Peeters Press.
Janowitz, Naomi. 2001. Magic in the Graeco-Roman World. London and New York: Routledge.
Jantzen, Grace M. (1989). Mysticism and Experience. RS 25.3: pp. 295–315.
Jaeger, W. (1928). ΑΠΑΡXΑΙ. Hermes 64: pp. 22–30.
Janko, R. A. (1982). A Fragment of Aristotle’s Poetics from Porphyry, Concerning Synonymy.
CQ 32: pp. 323–6.
Jerphagnon, Lucien. (1974). Exigences noétiques et objectivité dans la pensée de Plotin. RMM
79: pp. 411–6.
Jerphagnon, Lucien. (1981). Platonopolis ou Plotin entre le siècle et le reve. Les Cahiers de
Fontenay n° 19.20.21.22. Néoplatonisme Mélanges offerts a Jean Trouillard, pp. 215–29.
Fontenay aux Roses: ENS.
Jerphagnon, Lucien. (1983). Plotin, Epiphanie du Nous. Note sur la Vita Plotini comme
Typologie. Diotima 11: pp. 111–8.
Jerphagnon, Lucien. (1990). Les sous-entendus anti-chrétiens de la Vita Plotini ou l’évangile
de Plotin selon Porphyre. MH 47: pp. 41–52.
Johnson, Aaron P. (2004). Identity, Descent, and Polemic: Ethnic Argumentation in Eusebius’
Praeparatio Evangelica. JECS 12.1: pp. 23–56.
Johnson, Aaron P. (2006). Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica. OECS.
Oxford: OUP.
Johnson, Aaron P. (2009). Arbiter of the Oracular: Reading Religion in Porphyry of Tyre. In
Cain, Andrew and Lenski, Noel, eds., The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity, pp. 103–15.
Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.
Johnson, Aaron P. (2010). Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry, Contra Christianos Fr. 1.
StudPatr 46: pp. 53–58.
Johnson, Aaron P. (2013). Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre. The Limits of Hellenism in
Late Antiquity. GCRW. Cambridge: CUP.
Johnson, Ronald R. (1999). Does Plato’s Myth of Er Contribute to the Argument of the
Republic? Ph&Rh 32.1: pp. 1–13.
Johnston, Sarah Iles. (1990). HEKATE SOTERIA. A Study of Hecate’s Roles in the Chaldean
Oracles and Related Literature. APAACS. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Johnston, Sarah Iles. (1991). Crossroads. ZPE 88: pp. 217–24.
Johnston, Sarah Iles. (1999). Restless Dead. Encounters between the Living and the Dead in
Ancient Greece. Berkeley: UCP.
Johnston, Sarah Iles. (2010). Porphyry, Sacrifice, and the Orderly Cosmos: On the Philosophy
to be Derived from Oracles Fr. 314 and 315. Kernos 23: pp. 115–32.
Jones, A. H. M. (1954). Notes on the Genuineness of the Constantinian Documents in
Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. JEH 5: pp. 196–200.
Jones, A. H. M., Martindale, J. R. and Morris, J., eds. (1971). The Prosography of the Later
Roman Empire. Vol. 1: A.D. 260–395. (=PLRE I). Cambridge: CUP.
Jones, R. M. (1928). Notes on Porphyry’s Life of Plotinus and on Plotinus, Enneads I-III. CP
23: pp. 371–6.
 Bibliography  445

Jovkovsky, Françoise. (1980). Plotin dans les éditions et les commentaires de Porphyre,
Jamblique et Proclus a la Renaissance. BHRTD 42: pp. 387–400.
Joyal, Mark, ed. (1997). Studies in Platon and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to John
Whittaker. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Judge, E. A. (1983). Christian Innovation and its Contemporary Observers. In Croke and
Emmett, eds., pp. 13–29.
Judge, E. A. (2003). Did the Churches Compete with Cult Groups? In Fitzgerald, John T.,
et al., eds., Early Christianity and Classical Culture. Comparative Studies in Honor of
Abraham J.  Malherbe. Supplements to Novum Testamentum CX, pp. 501–34.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Jurado, Enrique A. Ramos, et al., eds. (2006). Porfirio de Tiro. Contra los Cristianos.
Recopilación de fragmentos, traducción, introducción y notas. Cádiz: Publicaciones de la
Universidad de Cádiz.
Jurisch, Ulrich. (1991). Grundfragen der Embryonalentwicklung aus der Sicht eines
Neuplatonikers. Übersetzung und Bearbeitung der Schrift des Porphyrios über due
Beseekybg der Enbryonen. Friedrich Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nuenberg: Inaugural
Dissertation.
Kahn, Charles H. (2001). Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: A Brief History. Indianapolis:
Hackett.
Kahn, Charles H. (2009). The Myth of the Statesman. In Partenie, ed., pp. 148–66.
Kaizer, Ted. (2013). Creating Local Religious Identities in the Roman Near East. In Salzman,
Michelle Renee and Adler, William, eds., CHRAW II: pp. 54–86. Cambridge: CUP.
Kalligas, Paul. (2000). Plotinus against the Gnostics. Hermathena 169: pp. 115–28.
Kalligas, Paul. (2001). Traces of Longinus’ Library in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica. CQ
51: pp. 584–98.
Kalvesmaki, Joel. (2013). The Theology of Arithmetic. Number Symbolism in Platonism and
Early Christianity. HS 59. CHS. Cambridge, MA and London: HUP.
Kaminsky, Joel, and Stewart, Anne. (2006). God of All the World: Universalism and
Developing Monotheism in Isaiah 40–66. HTR 99: pp. 139–63.
Kane, J. P. (1975). The Mithraic Cult Meal in its Greek and Roman Environment. In Hinnells,
ed., Vol. 2: pp. 313–51.
Kannengiesser, Charles. (1970). A Propos de la thèse de Pierre Hadot sur Porphyre et
Victorinus. REAug 16: pp. 159–69.
Kannengiesser, Charles. (1992). Eusebius of Caesarea, Origenist. In Attridge and Hata, eds.,
pp. 435–66.
Kannengiesser, Charles. (2004). Handbook of Patristic Exegesis. BAC. 2 vols. Leiden &
Boston: Brill.
Kany, Roland. (1992). Die gottgeschenkte Freiheit. Eine antike Sentenz bei Porphyrius, Sextus
und Pelagius. In El-Khoury, ed., pp. 153–70.
Kappelle, Robert, and Vande, P. (1984). Prophets and Mantics. In Smith, Robert C., and
Lounibos, John, eds., Pagan and Christian Anxiety. A Response to E. R. Dodds. Lanham,
Maryland: UPA.
Karamanolis, G. (2006). Plato and Aristotle in Agreement? Platonists on Aristotle from
Antiochus to Porphyry. Oxford: OUP.
Karamanolis, G., and Sheppard, A., eds. (2007). Studies on Porphyry. London: ICS.
Katzenstein, H. Jacob. (1973). The History of Tyre. From the Beginning of the Second Millennium
B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C.E. Jerusalem: The Shocken
Institute for Jewish Research.
446  Bibliography

Kee, Howard Clark. (1986). Medicine, Miracle and Magic in New Testament Times. SNTSMS
55. Cambridge: CUP.
Kellner, H. (1865). Der Neuplatoniker Porphyrius und sein Verhaltnis zum Christentum. ThQ
47: pp. 60–102.
Kelly, J. N. D. 1972. Early Christian Creeds. Repr. London: Longman.
Kent, J.  P. C., ed. (1978). Roman Coins. Photographs by Max and Albert Hirmer. New York: Harry
N. Abrams.
Kettler, Franz Heinrich. (1979). Origenes, Ammonius Sakkas und Porphyrius. In Ritter, ed.,
pp. 322–8.
Kiley, Mark, et al., eds. (1998). Prayer from Alexander to Constantine. A Critical Anthology.
London and New York: Routledge.
King, Anthony, and Henig, Martin, eds. (1981). The Roman West in the Third Century.
Contributions from Archaeology and History. 2 vols. Ser. 109 (i & ii). Oxford: BAR
International.
King, Cathy E., and Wigg, David G. eds. (1995). Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World.
The Thirteenth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History 25.-27.3. 1993. A Nato
Advanced Research Workship. SFMA Band 10. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
King, Helen. (2001). Greek and Roman Medicine. Bristol: BCP.
Kinzig, Wolfram. (1998). War der Neuplatoniker Porphyrios ursprünglich Christ? In
Baumbach, Manuel, et al., eds., Mousopolos Stephanos. Festschrift für Herwig Görgemanns.
Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
Kittel, Gerhard, and Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. (1964–76). Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament. (=TDNT) 10 vols. Trans. Geoffrey Bromily. WBEP. Grand Rapids: WBEP.
Klauser, Theodor, and Rücker, Adolf, eds. (1939). Pisciculi. Studien zur Rleigion und Kultur des
Altertums. Franz Joseph Dölger zum sechzigsten Geburtstage. Münster: Aschendorff.
Kleffner, Anton Ignaz. (1896). Porphyrius der Neuplatoniker und christenfeind. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Literarischen Bekäampfung des Christentums in Alter Zeit. Paderborn: J.
W. Schroeder.
Klingshirn, William E., and Vessey, Mark, eds. (1999). The Limits of Ancient Christianity.
Essays on Late Antique Thought and Culture in Honor of R. A. Markus. Ann Arbor: UMP.
Knipfing, John R. (1923). The Libelli of the Decian Persecution. HTR 16: pp. 345–390.
Kobusch, Theo, and Erler, Michael, eds. (2002). Metaphysik und Religion. Zur Signatur des
spätantiken Denkens. Akten des Internationalen Kongresses vom 13.-17. März 2001 in
Würzburg. BeiAlt 160, pp. 39–61. Leipzig and München: K. G. Saur.
Kofsky, Aryeh. (1998). Prophecy in the Service of Polemics in Eusebius of Caesarea. CNS
19: pp. 1–21.
Kofsky, Aryeh. (2000). Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism. JCPS 3. Leiden and
Boston: Brill.
Kolb, Frank. (2001). Herrscherideologie in der Spätantike. Berlin: Akademie.
Kotzia-Panteli, Paraskeve. (2000). ΕΝΝΟΗΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ und ΟΥΣΙΩΔΗΣ ΛΟΓΟΣ als exeget-
isches Begriffspaar. Philologus 144.1: pp. 45–61.
Kohlschitter, Silke. (1991). Parmeniddes and Empedocles in Porphyry’s History of Philosophy.
Hermathena 150: pp. 43–53.
Kolb, Frank. (2001). Herrscherideologie in der Spätantike. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Kolenkow, A. B. (1980). Relationships between Miracle and Prophecy in the Greco-Roman
World and Early Christianity. ANRW II.23.2: pp. 1470–506. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Krahmalkov, C. R. (1992). Phoenician. ABD IV: pp. 222–23.
Kramer, Bärbel, Luppe, W., et al., eds. (1997). Archiv für Papyrunsforschung und Verwandte
Gebiete. Beiheft 3. AIPK, 2 vols. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
 Bibliography  447

Krautheimer, Richard, et al., eds. (1977). Corpus Basilicarum Christianorum Romae. The Early
Basilicas of Rome (IV–IX cent.). Vol. 5: Monumenti di antichità cristiana pubblicati dal
Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana. II Serie. Rome: PIAC.
Krebernik, Manfred, and van Oorschot, Jürgen. (2002). Polytheismus und Monotheismus in
den Religionen des Vorderen Orients. AOAT 298. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Kroll, W. (1892). Ein neuplatonischer Parmenides commentar in einem Turiner Palimpsest.
RMP: pp. 599–627.
Kroll, W. (1916). Die Zeit des Cornelius Labeo. RMP 71: pp. 309–57.
Krüger, G. (1904). A Review of H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1904). LZD 55: pp. 1641–3.
Kuhrt, Amélie. (1995). The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 BC. 2 vols. RHAW.London and
New York: Routledge.
Kurmann, Alois. (1988). Gregor von Nazianz Oratio 4 Gegen Julian. Ein Kommentar. SBA 19.
Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt.
Kustas, George L. (1973). Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. AV 17. Thessaloniki: PIPS.
Kydd, Ronald A. N. (1984). Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church. Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson.
Labate, A. (1992). Philotorgius. OEEC II: pp. 683–4. Oxford: OUP.
Labelle, J. M. (1978). Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie Témoin de la langue et de la pensée philos-
ophiques au Ve siècle. RSR 52: pp. 135–58.
Lacrosse, J. (2001). La rêve indien de Plotin et Porphyre. RPA 19: pp. 79–97.
Lafaurie, Jean. (1965). Remarques sur les dates de quelques inscriptions du début IVe siècle.
CRAI: pp. 192–221.
Lafont, Ghislain, O.S.B. (1965). Le sacrifice de la Cité de Dieu commentaire au De Civitate Dei
Livre X, ch. I à VII. RSRel 53: pp. 177–219.
Lamberton, R. (1986). Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonic Allegorical Reading and the Growth
of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley and London: UCP.
Lamberton, R. (2001). The Schools of Platonic Philosophy of the Roman Empire: The
Evidence of the Biographies. In Too, ed., pp. 433–58.
Lantshoot, Arn. Van. (1960). Trois Pseudo-Prophéties Messianiques Inédites. Muséon
73: pp. 27–32.
Lataix, Jean. (1897). Le commentaire de Saint Jerome sur Daniel. RHLR 2: pp. 164–73 and 268.
Lardner, Nathaniel. (1735). The Credibility of the Gospel History. Part 2, Vol. 2: The Principal
Facts of the New Testament. London: Theodore Sanders.
Lardner, Nathaniel. (1838). The Works of Nathaniel Lardner, D.D. With a Life by Dr. Kippis.
10 vols. Vol. 7: The Credibility of the Gospel History, Part II. London: William Ball.
Laurin, Joseph-Rhéal. O.M.I. (1954). Orientations Maîtresses des Apologistes Chrétiens de 270
a 361. AUGre, Rome: AG LXI.
Lautner, Peter. (1998). Review of F. Romano, Il neoplatonismo. CR 53.1: pp. 83–85.
Leadbetter, Bill. (2002). Constantine and the Bishop: The Roman Church in the Early Fourth
Century. JRH 26: pp. 1–14.
Lear, Jonathan. (2006). Allegory and Myth in Plato’s Republic. Santas, Gerasimos ed.,
BGPR: pp. 25–43.
Le Bohec, Yann, ed. (1994). L’Afrique, la Gaule, la Religion à l’èpoque romaine. Mélanges à la
mémoire de Marcel Le Glay. CL 226. Brussels: Latomus: Revue d’Etudes Latines.
Lee, A. D. (2000). Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity. London and New York: Routledge.
Leglay, Marcel. (1961). Saturne Africain Monuments. Vol. 1 Paris: Arts et Metiers Graphiques.
Leglay, Marcel. (1966a). Saturne Africain. Histoire. BEFAR. Paris: Editions E. de Boccard.
Leglay, Marcel. (1966b). Saturne Africain Monuments. Vol. 2. Paris: CNRS.
Leglay, Marcel. (1982). Remarques sur la notion de Salus dans la religion romaine. In Bianchi
and Vermaseren, eds., 427–44.
448  Bibliography

Lemardelé, Christophe. (2008). Aspects du culte de Mithras: Des repas rituels à la théurgie

(de Mithra à Sol). SemetClass 1: pp. 139–56.
Lenski, Noel E. (2001). Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine.
In Mathisen, ed., 83–97.
Lenski, Noel E., ed. (2006a). The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine.
Cambridge: 2006.
Lenski, Noel E., ed. (2006b). Introduction. CCAC : 1–13.
Lettieri, Gaetano. (2002). Sacrificium civitas est. Sacrifici pagani e sacrificio cristiano nel De
Civitate Dei di Agostino. ASE 19.1: pp. 127–66.
Levenson, Jon D. (1996). The Universal Horizon of Biblical Particularism. In Brett, Mark G.,
ed., Ethnicity and the Bible, pp. 143–69. Leiden: Brill.
Levieils, Xavier. (2007). Contra Christianos. La critique sociales et religieuse du christianisme
des origenes au concile de Nicée (45–325). Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fürdie neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, Dunn, James D. G., et al., eds. Band 146.
Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Levin, S. (1989). The Old Greek Oracles in Decline. ANRW II.18.2, pp. 1599–649. Berlin and
New York: De Gruyter.
Lévy, Antoine. (2004). Porphyrius Christianus: L’intégration différenciée du platonisme à la
fin du IVe siècle (S. Grégoire de Nysse/S. Augustin d’Hippone). RSPh 88: pp. 673–704.
Levy, Isidore. (1953). Rien de nouveau sous le soleil. NC 5: pp. 326–8.
Lewit, Tamara. (1991). Agricultural Produdction in the Roman Economy A.D. 200–400. Series
568. Oxford: BAR International.
Lewy, Hans. (1946). A Latin Hymn to the Creator Ascribed to Plato. HTR: pp. 243–58.
Lewy, Hans. (1956). Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the
Later Roman Empire. Le Caire: Imprimerie de L’institut française d’archéologie orientale.
2nd edition by Michel Tardieu avecun supplément “Les Oracles chaldaïques 1891–2001.”
Collection des Étude Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 77. Paris: Institut d’Études
Augustiniennes, 1978.
Liddel, Peter, and Fear, Andrew, eds. (2010). Histoirae Mundi. Studies in Universal History.
London: Duckworth.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1979). Continuity and Change in Roman Religion. Oxford: OUP.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1987). Government and Administration in the Late Empire. In
Wacher, John, ed., The Roman World. 2 vols. Vol. 1: pp. 455–69. London and
New York: Routledge.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1992). The End of the Ancient City. In Rich, John, ed., The City in
Late Antiquity, pp. 1–49. London and New York: Routledge.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1994). The Expansion of Mithraism among the Religious Cults of
the Second Century. In Hinnells, ed., IAHR, pp. 195–216.
Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (2001). The Decline and Fall of the Roman City. Oxford: OUP.
Liertz, Uta-Maria. (1998). Kult und Kaiser. Studien zu Kaiserkult und Kaiserverehrung in den
Germanischen Provinzen und in Gallia Belgica zur Römischen Kaiserzeit. AIRF 20.
Rome: Paseggiata del Gianicolo.
Lietzmann, Hans. (1950). From Constantine to Julian. A History of the Early Church. Vol. 3.
London: Lutterworth Press.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. (1985). Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China.
A Historical Survey. With a Foreword by Mary Boyce. Manchester: MUP.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. (1994). Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East. RGRW 118.
Leiden: Brill.
Lightfoot, J. B. (1880). Eusebius. DCB II: pp. 308–55.
 Bibliography  449

Lilla, Salvatore. (1987). Un dubbio di S. Agostino su Porfirio. NAFMM 5: pp. 319–29.

Lilla, Salvatore. (1990). Le fonti di una sezione dell’omelia De Fide di S. Basilio Magno.
Augustinianum 30: pp. 5–19.
Lilla, Salvatore. (1997). The Neoplatonic Hypostases and the Christian Trinity. In Joyal, ed.,
pp. 127–89.
Richard. (1993). The auditor Thaumasius in the Vita Plotini. JHS 113: pp. 157–60.
Lincoln, B. (1982). Mithra(s) as Sun and Savior. In Bianchi and Vermaseren, eds., pp. 505–26.
Lipinski, Edward, ed. (1987). Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium
B.C. SP 5. Leuven: Peeters Press.
Lipinski, Edward (1988). Sacrifices d’enfants à Carthage et dans le monde sémitique oriental.
In Lipinski, E., ed. (1988). SP 6: Carthago, pp. 151–85. Leuven: Peeters Press.
Lipinski, Edward. (1995). Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. SP 14.
Leuven: Peeters Press.
Lippold, Adolf. (1966–7). Der Kaiser Maximinus Thrax und der Römische Senat
(Interpretationen zur vita der Maximini Duo. BHAC: pp. 73–89.
Lippold, Adolf. (1975). Maximinus Thrax und die Christen. ZAG 24: pp. 479–92.
Lloyd, A. C. (1955–6). Neo-Platonic Logic and Aristotelian Logic—II. Phronesis I: pp. 146–60
Lloyd, A. C. (1967). Porphyry. In Edwards, Paul, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Vols.
5–6, pp. 411–2. New York & London: Macmillan.
Lloyd, A. C. (1986). Non-Propositional Thought in Plotinus. Phronesis 31.3: pp. 258–65.
Lloyd, A. C. (1990). The Anatomy of Neoplatonism. Oxford: OUP.
Lloyd, G. E. R., and Owen, G. E. L., eds. (1978). Aristotle on Mind and the Senses.
Cambridge: CUP.
Lo Cascio, Elio. (2005a). The Government and Administration of the Empire in the Central
Decades of the Third Century. CAH 12.2: pp. 156–69. Cambridge: CUP.
Lo Cascio, Elio. (2005b). The Emperor and His Administration. CAH 12.2: pp. 170–83.
Cambridge: CUP.
Loesche, Georg. (1883). Haben die späteren Neuplatonischen Polemiker gegen das
Christenthum das Werk des Celsus benutzt? ZWT 27: pp. 257–302.
Logan, Alastair. (2007). When and by Whom Was the Roman Basilica Apostolorum Built?
JOUHS 5 (Michaelmas): pp. 1–14.
Logan, Alastair. (2011). Constantine, the Liber Pontificalis and the Christian Basilicas of
Rome. StudPat 50: pp. 31–53.
Löhr, Winrich A. (1999). Argumente gegen und für das Gebet: Konturen einer antiken
Debatte (im Anschluss an Origenes und Porphyrios). In Campi, Emidio, et al., eds.,
Oratio: das Gebet in patristischer und reformatorischen Sicht. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag
von Alfred Schindler. FKD 76, pp. 87–95. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Löhr, Winrich A. (2002). Some Observations on Karl-Heinz Schwarte’s “Diokletian’s
Christengesetz”. VChr 56: pp. 75–95.
Lopez, David Andrew. (1999). Killing Sisara: Salvation, Apocalypse, and Apologetic in
pre-Constantinian Christianity (AD 135–312). Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.
Lopez, David Andrew. (2004). Separatist Christianity. Spirit and Matter in the Early Church
Fathers. Baltimore: JHUP.
L’Orange, H. P. (1965). Art Forms and Civic Life in the Late Roman Empire. Princeton: PUP.
Lorenz, Hendrik. (2006). The Analysis of the Soul in Plato’s Republic. In Santas, Gerasimos,
ed., BGPR: pp. 146–65.
Loriot, Xavier. (1975a). Les premières années de la grande crise du IIIe siècle: De l’avènement
de Maximin de Thrace (235) à la mort de Gordien III (244). ANRW 2: pp. 657–787.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
450  Bibliography

Loriot, Xavier. (1975b). Chronologie du règne de Philippe l’Arabe (244–249 après J. C.).
ANRW 2: pp. 788–97.
Loriot, Xavier, and Nony, Daniel, eds. (1997). La crise de l’Empire romain 235–285.
Paris: Armond Colin.
Louth, Andrew. (1990). The Date of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica. JTS n.s. 41.1: pp. 111–23.
Lucarini, C. M. (2005). Questioni arnobiane. Materiali e discussion per l’analisi dei testi classici
54: pp. 123–64.
Luck, Georg. (1985). Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds.
Baltimore: JHUP.
Luck, Georg. (1989). Theurgy and Forms of Worship in Neoplatonism. In Neusner, et al., ed.,
RSM, pp. 185–225.
Luck, Georg. (1999). Witches and Sorcerers in Classical Literature. In Ankarloo and Clark,
eds., pp. 91–158.
Luck, Georg. (2000). Ancient Pathways and Hidden Pursuits. Religion, Morals, and Magic in
the Ancient World. Ann Arbor: UMP.
Luna, Concetta. (2000). Syrianus dans la tradition exégétique de la Métaphysiaque d’Aristote.
Première Partie: Syrianus entre Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Asclépius. In Goulet-Cazé, ed.,
pp. 301–9.
Luppe, Wolfgang. (1978). ΟΥΔΕΙΣ ΕΙΔΕΝ ΑΜΑΤΡΟXΙΑΣ (Kallimachos Fr. 383,10 PF.). ZPE
31: pp. 43–44.
Lurje, Michael. (2002a). Zur Einführung. In von Albrecht et al., eds., pp. 25–31.
Lurje, Michael. (2002b). Die Vita Pythagorica Jamblichs als Manifest der neuplatonischen
Paideia. In von Albrecht et al., eds., pp. 221–53.
Luzzato, Maria Tanja. (1996). Dialettica o retorica?: la polytropia di Odisseo da Antistene e
Porfirio. Elenchos 17.2: pp. 275–357.
Lyne, Malcolm. (2000). Two New Coin Types for Carausius and Allectus and their
Implications. NChron 160: pp. 290–2.
MacCormack, Sabine. (2000). Loca Sancta. In Ando, ed., pp. 252–72.
MacCoull, Leslie S. B. (1999). Plotinus the Egyptian? Mnemosyne 52.3: pp. 330–3.
MacDowall, D. W. (1979). Sol Invictus and Mithra. Some Evidence from the Mint of Rome. In
Bianchi, ed., pp. 557–71.
MacLaclan, Bonnie. (1992). Appendice 2. In Brisson, Luc, et al., pp. 599–603.
MacMullen, Ramsay. (1976). Roman Government’s Response to Crisis, A.D. 235–337. New
Haven and London: YUP.
MacMullen, Ramsay. (1981). Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven and London: YUP.
MacMullen, Ramsay. (1984). Christianizing the Roman Empire. New Haven and London: YUP.
MacMullen, Ramsay. (1987). Constantine. ClaL. London/New York/Sydney: Croom Helm.
MacMullen, Ramsay. (1997). Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries.
New Haven and London: YUP.
MacMullen, Ramsay. (2009). The Second Church: Popular Christianity, A.D. 200–400.
Atlanta: SBL.
Madec, Goulven. (1969). Chronique Porphyrienne. REAug 15: pp. 174–80.
Madec, Goulven. (1970). Augustin dans la thèse de P. Hadot. REAug 16: pp. 170–8.
Madec, Goulven. (1988). Si Plato viveret . . . (Augustin De Vera Religione, 3.3). In Les Cahiers
de Fontenay, pp. 231–47.
Madec, Goulven. (1992). Augustin et Porphyre. Ebauche d’un bilan des recherches et des
conjectures. In Goulet-Cazé, Madec, and O’Brien, eds., pp. 367–82.
Maeger, Annemarie. (2001). ΑΡΟΚΡΙΤΙΚΟΣ Der verschenkte Sieg des Christentums. Protokoll
eines frühchristlichen Philosophenwettstreits. Hamburg: G. Stubbemann.
 Bibliography  451

Magness, Jodi. (2001). The Cults of Isis and Kore at Samaria-Sebaste in the Hellenistic and
Roman Periods. HTR 94.2: pp. 157–78.
Magny, Ariane. (2006). Porphyry Against the Christians: A Critical Analysis of the Book of
Daniel in Historical Context. StudPat XLII.13: pp. 181–7.
Magny, Ariane. (2010). Porphyry in Fragments: Jerome, Harnack, and the Problem of
Reconstruction. JECS 18.4: pp. 515–55.
Magny, Ariane. (2014). Porphyry in Fragments: Reception of an Anti-Christian Text in Late
Antiquity. APTLA. Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Mai, A. (1816). Philonis Iudaei, Porphyrii philosophi, Eusebii Pamphilii opera inedita.
Mediolani.
Majercik, Ruth. (1989). The Chaldaean Oracles. Leiden: Brill.
Majercik, Ruth. (1992). The Existence-Life-Intellect Triad in Gnosticism and Neoplatonism.
CQ 42: pp. 475–88.
Majercik, Ruth. (1998a). The Chaldean Oracles and the School of Plotinus. AncW 29.2: pp.
91–105.
Majercik, Ruth. (1998b). A Reminiscence of the Chaldaean Oracles at Gregory Nazianzus, Or.
29,2: ΟΙΟΝ ΚΡΑΤΗΡ ΤΙΣ ΥΠΕΡΕΡΡΥΗ. VChr 52.3: pp. 286–92.
Majercik, Ruth. (2001). Chaldean Triads in Neoplatonic Exegesis: Some Reconsiderations.
CQ n.s. 51.1: pp. 265–96.
Majercik, Ruth. (2005). Porphyry and Gnosticism. CQ 55.1: pp. 277–292.
Maldonado Villena, Francisco. (1994). La tradicion etnogragica relative a los Fenicios conser-
vada fragmentariamente. In Actas del VIII congreso espanol de estudios clasicos: (Madrid
23–28 de septiembre de 1991). Vol. 3., pp. 235–41. Madrid: Ed. Clasicas.
Manchester, Peter. (1986).The Religious Experience of Time and Eternity. In Armstrong,
A. H., ed., pp. 384–407.
Mandouze, Andre. (1982). Prosographie Chretienne du Bas-empire. Prosographie de L’Afrique
Chretienne (303–533). Paris, CNRS.
Männlein-Robert, Irmgard. (2002). Biographie, Hagiographie, Autobiographie—Die Vita
Plotini des Porphyrios. In Kobusch and Erler, eds., pp. 581–609.
Mansfeld, Jaap. (1994). Prolegomena. Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author, or
a Text. Leiden: Brill.
Mansfeld, Jaap. (1995). Plotinian ancestry. ICS 20: pp. 149–56.
Mantle, I. C. (2002). The Roles of Children in Roman Religion. G & R 49.1: pp. 85–106.
Marcovich, Miroslav. (1964). Pythagorica. Philologus 108: pp. 29–44.
Marcovich, Miroslav. (1975). Pseudo-Elias on Heraclitus. AJP 96: pp. 31–4.
Marcovich, Miroslav. (1986). Demeter, Baubo, Iacchus, and a Redactor. VChr 40: pp. 294–301.
Margerie, B. de, S.J. (1972). La doctrine de Saint Augustin sur l’Esprit-Saint comme commu-
nion et source de communion. Augustinianum 12: pp. 107–19.
Markelbach, Reinhold. (2000). Porphyrios über das Totengericht der Ägypter. ZAS 127.2: pp. 181–2.
Markschies, Christoph. (2002). Normierungen durch “Väter” bei Neuplatonikern und
Christen. Ein Vergleich. In Markschies, Christoph, and van Oort, Johannes, eds.,
Zwischen Altertumswissenschaft und Theologie. Zur Relevanz der Patristik in Geschichte
und Gegenwart, pp. 1–30. Leuven: Peeters.
Markus, Robert. (1993). The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge: CUP.
Maroth, M. (1975a). Termini der Logik dei Porphyrios und bei den Araber. ACIEC
XIIe: pp. 51–4.
Maroth, M. (1975b). Die Eisagoge bei den Arabern. ZA 25: pp. 457–60.
Marrou, Henri I. (1963). Synesius of Cyrene and Alexandrian Neoplatonism. In Momigliano,
ed., pp. 126–51.
452  Bibliography

Martano, Giuseppe. (1950). Il concetto di materia nella ΑΦΟΡΜΑΙ Porfiriane. RCSF 5: pp.
277–80.
Martin, F. X., and Richmond, J. A., eds. (1991). From Augustine to Eriugena. Essays on
Neoplatonism and Christianity in Honor of John O’Meara. Washington, D.C.: CUAP.
Martin, Luther H. (1987). Hellenistic Religions. An Introduction. Oxford and New York: OUP.
Marx, Fridericus. (1924). Critica Hermeneutica. RMP 73: p. 482.
Marx-Wolf, Heidi. (2010). Third-Century Daimonologies and the Via Universalis: Origen,
Porphyry and Iamblichus on daimones and Other Angels. StudPat 46: pp. 207–15
Mastandrea, Paolo. (1979). Un Neoplatonico Latino Cornelio Labeone (Testimonianze e fram-
menti). EPRO 67. Leiden: Brill.
Masterson, Mark. (2014). Authoritative Obscenity in Iamblichus and Arnobius. JECS 22:3: pp.
373–98.
Masullo, Rita. (1988). Excerpta neoplatonici inediti di Michele Psello. AAP 37: pp. 33–47.
Mathisen, Ralph W., ed. (2001). Law, Society, and Authority in Late Antiquity. Oxford: OUP.
Matthews, John F. (1996). Eunapius. In Hornblower and Spawforth, eds., pp. 586–7. OCD3.
Oxford: OUP.
Matthews, Thomas F. (1999). The Clash of Gods. A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. Rev.
and exp. ed. Princeton: PUP.
Matthieu, J. M. (1982). Remarques sur l’anthropologie philosophique de Grégoire de Naziane
(Poemata dogmatica, VIII, 22–32; 78–96) et Porphyre. StudPat XVII: pp. 1115–9.
Mattingly, Gerald L. (2000). Phoenicia, Phoenicians. In Bienkowski and Millard, eds., DANE,
pp. 229–30. Philadelphia: UPP.
Mattingly, Harold. (1967). Christianity in the Roman Empire. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mazza, M. (1963). Studi Arnobiani I. La dottrina del ‘Viri Novi; nel Secondo Libro
dell’Adversus Nationes d’Arnobio. HEL 3: pp. 111–69.
Mazzini, Innocenzo. (2001). Lingua e linguaggi dell’evangelizzazione nel l’occidente latino dal
terzo all’ottavo secolo. In Mazzini and Bacci, eds., pp. 9–74.
Mazzini, I., and Bacci, L., eds. (2001). Evangelizzazione dell’Occidente dal terzo all’ottavo sec-
olo. Lingua e linguaggi. Dibattito teologico. Rome: Herder Editrice.
Mazzolini Danilo. (1999). L’Egrafia cristiana al tempo dei Severi. In Dal Covolo and Rinaldi,
eds., pp. 273–83.
Mazzucco, Clementina. (1985). Tra ombra e la realta: L’Apocalisse nel Simposio di Metodio di
Olimpio. CCC 6: pp. 399–423.
McNeill, William H. (1976). Plagues and Peoples. New York: Doubleday.
McPherran, Mark L. (2006). The Gods and Piety of Plato’s Republic. In Santas, ed., BGPR, pp.
84–103.
McPherran, Mark L. (2010). Virtue, Luck, and Choice at the End of the Republic. In
McPherran, Mark L. ed., Plato’s Republic. A Critical Guide, pp. 132–46. Cambridge: CUP.
Meckler, Michael. (1999). Caracalla the Intellectual. In Dal Covolo and Rinaldi, eds., pp. 2–46.
Meeks, Wayne A. (1983). The First Urban Christians. The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New
Haven: YUP.
Meinhold, Arndt, and Angelika Berlejung, eds. (2003). Der Freund des Menschen. Festschrift
für Georg Christian Macholz zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener.
Meiser, K. (1908). Studien zu Arnobius. SBAW: pp. 19–40.
Meissner, Burkhard. (2000). Über Zweck und Anlass von Diokletians Preisedikt. Historia
49.1: pp. 79–100.
Mélandre, M. (1931). Iepa ou Scot Erigène. AHMA: pp. 277–86.
Mendelson, Alan. (1992). Eusebius and the Posthumous Career of Apollonius of Tyana. In
Attridge and Hata, eds., 510–22.
 Bibliography  453

Mercati, S. G. (1947). Di una pretesa testimonianza presso Porfirio, Vita di Plotino, della pro-
nuncia in aperto della vocale η. Aegyptus: pp. 108–10.
Meredith, Anthony. (1976). Asceticism, Christian and Greek. JTS 27: pp. 313–32.
Meredith, Anthony. (1980). Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians. ANRW II.23.2: pp.
1119–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Meredith, Anthony. (1975). Allegory in Porphyry and Gregory of Nyssa. StudPat 16: pp. 423–7.
Meredith, Anthony. (1984). A Comparison Between the Vita S. Macrinae of Gregory of Nyssa,
the Vita Plotini of Porphyry and the De Vita Pythagorica of Iamblichus. In Spira, Andreas,
ed., BWGN, pp. 181–95.
Meriani, Angelo. (1995). Un “esperimento” di Pitagora: (Nicom. Harm. Ench. 6, pp. 245–248
Jan). In Gentili, Bruno, and Perusino, Franca eds., MOUSIKE: metrica ritmica e musica
greca: in memoria di Giovanni Comotti, pp. 77–92. SMC 11. Pisa: IEPI.
Merkelbach, Reinhold. (1984). Mithras. Meisenheim: Anton Hain.
Merkelbach, Reinhold. (1995). Isis regina—Zeus Sarapis. Die griechisch-aegyptische Religion
nach den Quellen dargestellt. Stuttgart-Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.
Merlan, P. (1963). Plotinus and Magic. Isis 44: pp. 341–8.
Mertaniemi, Markus. (2009). Acerrimus inimicus: Porphyry in Christian Apologetics. In
Ulrich, Jörg, et al., eds., Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics.
ECCA 5, pp. 97–112. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Meshorer, Ya’akov. (1998). Ancient Means of Exchange, Weights and Coins. REHMC.
Haifa: University of Haifa.
Meyer, Marvin W., ed. (1987). The Ancient Mysteries. A Sourcebook. Sacred Texts of the Mystery
Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean World. Philadelphia: UPP.
Mikalson, Jon D. (2005) Ancient Greek Religion. BlAR 1. Oxford: Blackwell.
Milburn, R. L. P. (1945). Ο ΤHΣ ΕΚΚΛHΣΙΑΣ ΟΙΚΟΣ. JTS (1945), 65–8.
Millar, Fergus. (1962). The Date of the Constitutio Antontiniana. JEA 48: pp. 124–31.
Millar, Fergus. (1971). Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: The Church, Local Culture
and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria. JRS 61: pp. 1–17.
Millar, Fergus. (1972). The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions. In den Boer, ed., pp. 145–65.
Millar, Fergus. (1992). The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC—AD 337). Ithaca and
London: Cornell University Press.
Millar, Fergus. (1993). The Roman Near East, 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge, MA.: HUP.
Millar, Fergus. (1997). Porphyry: Ethnicity, Language, and Alien Wisdom. In Barnes,
Jonathan, and Griffin, Miriam, eds., Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, pp.
241–62. Oxford: OUP.
Millar, Fergus. (2006). Porphyry: Ethnicity, Language, and Alien Wisdom. In Millar, F., ed.,
Rome, the Greek World, and the East, pp. 331–50. Chapel Hill, NC: UNCP.
Miller, Mitchell. (1989–90). A Review of Kenneth Guthrie, Porphyry’s Launching-Points to the
Realm of the Mind. CW 83: pp. 540–1.
Mitchell, Stephen. (1988). Maximinus and the Christians in A.D. 312: A New Latin Inscription.
JRS 78: pp. 105–24.
Mitchell, Stephen. (2007). The Later Roman Empire, 284–641. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mitchell, Stephen, and van Nuffelen, Peter, eds. (2010). Monotheism Between Pagans and
Christians in Late Antiquity. ISAC 12. Leuven and Walpole, MA: Peeters.
Mittag, Peter Franz. (1998–9). Commodus als Pollux?: Überlegungen zu den Dioskurendarstellungen
auf Münyen und Medaillons des zweiten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. JNG 48–49: pp. 165–76.
Mitthof, Fritz. (1992). Der Forstand der Kultgemeinden des Mithras: Eine Sammlung und
Untersuchung der inschriflichen Zeugnisse. Klio 74: pp. 275–90.
Moffatt, James. (1931). Great Attacks on Christianity II: Porphyry, Against Christians. ET
43: pp. 72–8.
454  Bibliography

Momigliano, Arnaldo, ed. (1963). The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the
Fourth Century. Oxford: OUP.
Momigliano, Arnaldo. (1986). The Disadvantages of Monotheism for a Universal State. CP
81.4: pp. 285–97.
Montalbo, Elena. (1999). I motive della dinastia e dell’esercito nella monetazione di Giulia
Domna. In Dal Covolo and Rinaldo, eds., pp. 343–6.
Mora, Fabio. (1999). La critica del sacrificio nel VII libro di Arnobio. Cassiodorus 5: pp.
203–24.
Moralee, Jason. (2004). For Salvation’s Sake. Provincial Loyalty, Personal Religion, and
Epigraphic Production in the Roman and Late Antique Near East. StudCl. New Yord and
London: Routledge.
Moraux, Paul. (1956). La Pesécution du christianisme dans l’empire romain. Liège: Presses
Universitaires.
Moraux, Paul. (1973). Der Aristotelismis bei den Griechen. Vol. 1: Die Renaissance des
Aristolismus im I. JH. V. CHR. PPHSA 5. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
Moraux, Paul. (1978). Le De Anima dans la tradition grecque. Quelques aspects de
l’interpretation du traité, de Théophraste à Thémistius. In Lloyd and Owen, eds., pp.
281–324.
Moraux, Paul. (1979). Ein unedierter Kurzkommentar zu Porphyrios’ Isagoge. ZPE
35: pp. 55–98.
Moraux, Paul. (1981). III. Kurzkommentar zu Porphyrios’ Isagoge. Nachtung: Der Vind.
Theol. Gr. 144. ZPE 41: pp. 59–61.
Moraux, Paul. (1985). Porphyre, commentateur de la Physique d’Aristote. CPAA: pp.
227–39.
Moreschini, Claudio. (1997). L’utilizzazione di Porfirio in Gerolamo. In Moreschini, C., and
Menestrina, G., eds., Motivi letterari ed esegetici in Gerolamo: atti del convegno tenuto a
Trento il 5–7 dicembre 1995. RC 9, pp. 175–95. Brescia: Marcelliana.
Moreschini, Claudio. (1999). Motivi della filosofia pagana nel “Contra Iulianum” di Cirillo di
Alessandria. In Mazzoli, G., and Gasti, F.,eds., Prospettive sul tardoantico atti del convegno
di Pavia 27–28 novembre 1997. BiblAth 41, pp. 129–42. Como: New Press.
Morgan, Michael L. (1990). Platonic Piety. Philosophy and Ritual in Fourth-Century Athens.
New Haven and London: YUP.
Most, Glenn W. (1997). The Fire next Time. Cosmology, Allegoresis, and Salvation in the
Derveni Papyrus. JHS 117: pp. 117–35.
Most, Glenn W., ed. (1997a). APOREMATA. Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte. Band
I: Collecting Fragments. Fragmente sammeln. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht.
Most, Glenn W. (1997b). Preface. In Most, ed., pp. v–viii.
Most, Glenn W. (2003). Plotinus’ Last Words. CQ 53.2: pp. 576–87.
Mras, Karl. (1936). Zu Attikos, Porphyrios und Eusebios. Glotta 25: pp. 183–8.
Mras, Karl. (1956). Die Stellung der Praeparatio Evangelica des Eusebius im antiken
Schrifttum. AOAW Nr. 17: pp. 209–17.
Muehlberger, Ellen. (2011). Review of Stefaniw, Blossom. (2010). Mind, Text, and
Commentary: Noetic Exegesis in Origen of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius
Ponticus. ECCA 6. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. BMCR 2011.05.56
Mueller, H. F. (2002). Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus. London and New York: Routledge.
Mueller, Ian. (1990). Aristotle’s Doctrine of Abstraction in the Commentators. In Sorabji, ed.,
pp. 463–80.
Mühlenbern, Ekkehard. (1975–8). Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung. 3 vols.,
PTS 15–17. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.
 Bibliography  455

Muscolino, Giuseppe. (2009). Porfirio Contro I cristiani. Nella raccolta di Adolf von Harnack
con tutti I nuovi frammenti in appendice. Milan: Bompiani Testi a fronte.
Najdenova, Varbinka. (1998). Nouvelles évidences sur le culte de Sol Augustus à Novae (Mésie
Inférieure). In Frézouls and Jouffroy, eds., pp. 169–78.
Nakamura, Byron Jiro (1999). Transmutatio memoriae: Representations of the Emperor
Diocletian and the Roman Past. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.
Nautin, P. (1949). Sanchuniathon chez Philon de Byblos et chez Porphyre. RB 56: pp. 259–73.
Nautin, P. (1950). Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre Contre les Chrétiens. RB 57: pp.
409–16.
Nautin, P. (1977). Origène: Sa vie et son œuvre. CA I. Paris: Beauchesne.
Nautin, P. (1992). Didymus the Blind. OEEC I: pp. 235–6. Oxford: OUP.
Nebes, Norbert. (1998). Zum sprachlichen Verständnis des Fragments aus Porphyrios ‘Gegen
die Christen’ bei Michael dem Syrer. ZAC 2.2: pp. 268–73.
Neil, Bronwen. (1999). Neo-Platonic Influence on Augustine’s Conception of the Ascent of
the Soul in De quantitate animae. In Allen, P., et al., eds., Prayer and Spirituality in the
Early Church. Vol. 2. Brisbane: CECS/ACU.
Nestle, E. (1904). A Review of H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1904), BPW 24: pp. 1156–63.
Nestle, Wilhelm. (1952). Zur Altchristlichen Apologetik im Neuen Testament. ZRG IV.
Jahrgang, Heft 2: pp. 115–22.
Neusner, Jacob, ed. (1975). SJLA vol. 12: Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults.
Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty. Part 4: Judaism after 70. Other Greco-Roman Cults.
Bibliography. Leiden: Brill.
Neusner, Jacob, et al., eds. (1989). Religion, Science and Magic. Oxford: OUP.
Newmeyer, Stephen T. (1999). Speaking of Beasts: The Stoics and Plutarch on Animal Reason
and the Modern Case against Animals. QUCC n.s., 63: pp. 99–110.
Nicasie, Martinus Johannes. (1998). Twilight of Empire:The Roman Army from the Reign of
Diocletian until the Battle of Andrianople. Amsterdam: Gieben.
Nicholson, Oliver. (1984). Hercules at the Milvian Bridege: Lactantius, Divine Institutes, I, 21,
6–9. Latomus 43: pp. 133–42.
Nicholson, Oliver. (1985). The Source of the Dates in Lactantius’ Divine Institutes. JTS 36: pp.
291–310.
Nicholson, Oliver. (1988). Golden Age and the End of the World: Myths of Mediterranean
Life from Lactantius to Joshua the Stylite. In Hiat, M., and Reyerson, K., eds., The Medieval
Mediterranean. Cross-Cultural Contacts. MSM 3, pp. 11–8. St. Cloud, MN: North Star
Press of St. Cloud.
Nicholson, Oliver. (1989). Flight from Persecution as Imitation of Christ: Lactantius, Divine
Institutes IV.18,1–2. JTS 40: pp. 48–65.
Nicholson, Oliver. (1999). Civitas Quae Adhuc Sustentat Omnia: Lactantius and the City of
Rome. In Klingshirn, and Vessey, eds., pp. 7–25.
Nicholson, Oliver. (2000). Constantine’s Vision of a Cross. VChr 54.3: pp. 309–23.
Nicholson, Oliver. (2001). Broadening the Roman Mind: Foreign Prophets in the Apologetic
of Lactantius. StudPat 36: pp. 364–74.
Nicholson, Oliver. (2004). Arnobius and Lactantius. In Young, Frances, et al., eds., The
Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, pp. 259–65. Cambridge: CUP.
Nieddu, Anna Maria. (2009). La basilica Apostolorum sulla Via Appia e l’area cimiteriale cir-
costante. Monumenti di Antichità Cristiana 559 pubblicati a cura del Pontificio Istituto di
Archeologia Cristiana. II Serie XIX. Vatican City: PIAC.
Niggetiet, Fredericus. (1908). De Cornelio Labeone. Typis Roberti Noske Bornensis.
Nilsson, M. P. (1950). Geschichte der griechischen Religion II. Munich: Beck.
456  Bibliography

Nilsson, M. P. (1964). A History of Greek Religion. New York: W. W. Norton.

Nilsson, M. P. (1969). Greek Piety. Trans. Herbert Jennings Rose. New York: W. W. Norton.
Nobbs, Alanna E. (1986). Revolt in the Time of Diocletian: The Evidence of the Paniskos
Papyri. AS 16: pp. 132–6.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1925). Studies I the Graeco-Roman Beliefs of the Empire. JHS 45: pp.
84–101.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1928a). Notes on Ruler-Cult I–IV. JHS 48: pp. 21–43.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1928b). Oracles Théologiques. REA 30: pp. 280–90.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1930). A Diis Electra: A Chapter in the Religious History of the Third
Century. HTR 23: pp. 251–74.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1933). Conversion. The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the
Great to Augustine of Hippo. Oxford: OUP.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1937). The Genius of Mithraism. JRS 27: pp. 108–13.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1942a). Religious Attitudes of the Ancient Greeks. PAPhS 85: pp.
472–82.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1942b). Ruler-Worship and Syncretism. A Review of Otto-Bengston,
Zur Geschichte des Niederganges des Ptolemäerreiches. AJP 63: pp. 217–24.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1947). The Emperor’s Divine Comes. JRS 37: pp. 102–16.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1951). Soter and Euergetes. In Johnson, S. L., ed., The Joy of Study. Essays
on the New Testament to Honor F. C. Grant, pp. 127–48. New York: Macmillan.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1952a). The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year. HTR 45: pp.
186–252.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1952b). Hellenistic Mysteries and Christian Sacraments. Mnemosyne,
ser. 4.5: pp. 177–213.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1957). Julian and Deification. JRS 47: pp. 115–23.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1960). Review of A. R. Sodano (1958). Porfirio, Lettera ad Anebo.
Naples: L’Arte Typografico. CJ 56: pp. 134–6.
Nock, Arthur Darby. (1981). The Development of Paganism in the Roman Empire. CAH
12: pp. 409–49. Cambridge: CUP.
Norman, A. F. (2000). Antioch as a Centre of Hellenic Culture as Observed by Libanius. TTH
34. Liverpool: LivUP.
Norris, W. Frederick. (1992). Eusebius on Jesus as Deceiver and Sorcerer. In Attridge and
Hata, eds., 523–42.
North, J. A. (2007). Arnobius on Sacrifice. In Drinkwater, J., and Salway, B., eds., Wolf
Liebeschuetz Reflected. BICS Supplement 91, Mike Edwards, general ed., pp. 27–36.
London: ICS.
North, Helen. (1966). SOPHROSYNE. Self-Knowledge and Self-Restraint in Greek Literature.
CSCP 35. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Notopoulos, James A. (1940). Porphyry’s Life of Plato. CP: pp. 284–93.
Nuñez, Manuel Mañas. (1996). El proemio de la “Isagoge” de Porfirio interpretado por Pierre
de la Ramée. Helmantica 47.142–3: pp. 59–74.
O’Brien, Denis. (1973). Allegory and History. In den Boer et al., eds. (1973a): pp. 15–27.
O’Brien, Denis. (1992). Plotin et le Voeu de Silence. In Brisson et al., eds. Vol. 2: pp. 419–59.
O’Brien, Denis. (1996). Plotinus on Matter and Evil. In Gerson, ed., CCP, pp. 171–95.
O’Connell, Robert J., S.J. (1991). Porphyrianism in the Early Augustine: Olivier DuRoy’s
Contribution. In Martin and Richmond, eds., pp. 126–42.
O’Daly, Gerard J. P. (1973). Plotinus’ Philosophy of the Self. New York: Harper & Row.
O’Daly, Gerard J. P. (1974). The Presence of the One in Plotinus. ACI. Plotino e il Neoplatonismo
in Oriente e in Occidente (Roma, 5–9 ottobre 1970), pp. 159–69. Rome: ANL.
 Bibliography  457

O’Daly, Gerard J. P. (1978). A Review of Smith, Andrew. (1974). Porphyry’s Place in the
Neoplatonic Tradition, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. CR 28: pp. 92–3.
O’Daly, Gerard J. P. (2001a). Platonism. Pagan and Christian Studies in Plotinus and Augustine.
VCSS. Aldershot: Ashgate.
O’Daly, Gerard J. P. (2001b). The Delphic Commandment as Philosophical Propaedeutic. In
O’Daly (2001a) pp. 7–19.
O’Donnell, James J. (1979). The Demise of Paganism. Traditio 35: pp. 45–88.
Oehler, Klaus. (1965). Neue Fragmente sum Esoterischen Platon. Hermes 93: pp. 397–407.
Ogden, Daniel. (2001). Greek and Roman Necromancy. Princeton: PUP.
Ogilvie, R. M. (1969). The Romans and Their Gods in the Age of Augustus. ACS. New York: W.
W. Norton.
Okamura, Lawrence. (1995). Plotinus in Syria and Mesopotamia. C & M 46: pp. 87–112.
Okamura, Lawrence. (1996). Hoards Lost During Third-Century ,,Wirren.” In Schallmayer,
ed., pp. 31–37.
Oliver, James H. (1978). The Piety of Commodus and Caracalla and the Εἰς Bασιλέα. GRBS
19: pp. 375–88.
Olmstead, A. T. (1942). The Mid-Third Century of the Christian Era. II. CP 37.4: pp. 398–420.
Olson, S. D., and Sluiter, I., ed. (1996). An Emendation in Porphyry’s Commentary on
Ptolemy’s Harmonics. CQ n.s. 46.2: p. 596.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (1974). A Propos d’un témoignage sur l’expérience mystique de Plotin
(Enn. IV 8 (^), I, I-II). Mnemosyne 27: pp. 238–44.
O’Meara, Dominic J., ed. (1982). Neoplatonism and Christian Thought. SNAM 3.
Albany: SUNYP.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (1992). Vie politique et divinization dans la philosophie neoplatonici-
enne. In Goulet-Caze, M.-O., et al., eds., ΣΟΦΙH ΜΑΙHΤΟΡΕΣ: Chercheurs de sagesse.
Hommage a Jean Pépin, pp. 501–10. Paris: J. Vrin.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (1993a). Aspects of Political Philosophy in Iamblichus. In Blumenthal,
H. and Clark, E. eds., The Divine Iamblichus. Philosopher and Man of Gods, pp. 65–73.
London: BCP.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (1993b). Plotinus. An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: OUP.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (1996). The Hierarchical Ordering of Reality in Plotinus. In Gerson, ed.,
CCP, pp. 66–81.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (2002). Neoplatonic Cosmopolitanism: Some Preliminary Notes. In
Barbanti et al., eds., pp. 311–5.
O’Meara, Dominic J. (2003). Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity.
Oxford: OUP.
O’Meara, Dominic J., and Schamp, Jacques, eds. (2006). Miroirs de prince de l’Empire romain
au IVe siècle. Vestigia 33. Paris: Editions du Cerf; and Fribourg: Academic Press.
O’Meara, John J. (1959). Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine. Paris: EA.
O’Meara, John J. (1969). Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius’s Praeparatio
Evangelica and Augustine’s Dialogues of Cassiciacum. RA 6: pp. 103–39.
O’Meara, John J. (1982a). Indian Wisdom and Porphyry’s Search for a Universal Way. In
Harris, R., ed., Neoplatonism and Indian Thought. Norfolk: Old Dominion.
O’Meara, John J. (1982b). The Neoplatonism of Saint Augustine. In O’Meara, D., ed., pp. 34–41.
O’Neil, Kerill. (2003). Review of Asirvatham, S. R., et al., eds. (2001). Between Magic and
Religion: Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society.
New York and Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. CR 53.1: pp. 208–9.
Oost, Steven Irvin. (1958). The Death of the Emperor Gordian III. CP 13: pp. 106–7.
Opitz, Hans-Georg. (1935). Euseb von Caesarea als Theologe: Ein Vortrag. ZNTW: pp. 1–19.
458  Bibliography

Opitz, Hans-Georg. (1934). Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streites, 318–328.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Optendrenk, Theo. (1969). Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal im Spiegel der Historia
Augusta. Habelts Dissertationsdrucke Reihe Alte Geschichte. Heft 6. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Orr, David G. (1978). Roman Domestic Religion: The Evidence of Household Shrines. ANRW
II.16.2: pp. 1559–91. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Orth, Emil. (1954). De Porphyrio. Helmantica 5: pp. 49–60.
Orth, Emil. (1955a). Varia Critica. Helmantica 19: pp. 69–79.
Orth, Emil. (1955b). De Longino Platonico. Helmantica 21: pp. 363–71.
Ostenfeld, Erik Nis, ed. (1998). Essays on Plato’s Republic. ASMA II. Aarhus: AUP.
Palanca, Adela Cepas. (1997). Crisis y Continuidad en la Hispania del Siglo III. AAEA 17.
Madrid: CSIC.
Palmer, Robert E. A. (1978). Severan Ruler-Cult and the Moon in the City of Rome. ANRW
II.16.2: pp. 1088–120. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Panciera, S. (1979). Leoni sancto deo praesenti. In Bianchi, ed., pp. 127–35.
Papi, Emanuele. (2004). A New Golden Age? The Northern Praefectura Urbi from the
Severans to Diocletian. In Edwards and Swain, eds., pp. 53–81.
Parente, F. (1987). L’idea di conversione da Nock ad oggi. Augustinianum 27: pp. 7–25.
Parke, H. W. (1967). Greek Oracles. London: Hutchinson.
Parke, H. W., and Wormell, D. E. W. (1956). The Delphic Oracle. I: The History. II: The Oracular
Responses. Oxford: Blackwell.
Parker, Robert E. A. (1978). Severan Ruler-Cult and the Moon in the City of Rome. ANRW
II.16.2: pp. 1085–120. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Parker, Robert. (1996a). Athenian Religion. A History. Oxford: OUP.
Parker, Robert. (1996b). Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion.
Oxford: OUP.
Parker, Robert. (2000). Greek States and Greek Oracles. In Buxton, ed., pp. 76–108.
Partenie, Catalin, ed. (2009). Plato’s Myths. Cambridge: CUP.
Paschoud, F. (1990). L’intolérance chrétienne et les païens. CNS XI: pp. 545–78.
Patterson, Lloyd George. (1997). Methodius of Olympus. Divine Sovereignty, Human Freedom,
and Life in Christ. Washington, D.C.: CUAP.
Peachin, Michael. (1990). Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 23–284. SAEIAP29.
Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1990; and Chicago: Ares Publishers. IGA, 1973.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. (1987). The Excellent Empire. The Fall of Rome and the Triumph of the
Church. San Francisco: Harper and Row.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. (1993). Christianity and Classical Culture. The Metamorphosis of Natural
Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism. New Haven: YUP.
Penati, Anna. (1985). L’antro delle ninfe di Porfirio. GFF 8: pp. 33–50.
Penati, Anna. (1988). Il motivo dell’antro nell’essegesi Porfiriana di Od. XIII, 102–112. Aevum
62: pp. 116–23.
Pépin, Jean. (1958). Mythe et Allégorie. Les origins grecques et les contestations Judeo-chrétiennes.
Paris: Editions Montaigne.
Pépin, Jean. (1964a). Une nouvelle source de Saint Augustin: Le ζητημα de Porphyre sur
l’union de l’âme et du corps. REA 66: pp. 53–107.
Pépin, Jean. (1964b). Théologie cosmique et théologie chrétienne. (Ambroise, Exam I, 1–4).
BPC. Paris: PUF.
Pépin, Jean. (1966). Porphyre, exégète d’Homère. EAC XII, pp. 229–72. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Pépin, Jean. (1966–7). Textes et doctrines de la fin de l’antiquité. Annuaire, EPHE: pp. 217–8.
Pépin, Jean. (1971). Idées grecques sur l’homme et sur Dieu. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
 Bibliography  459

Pépin, Jean. (1974). La fortune du De Antro Nympharum de Porphyre en Occident. ACI, pp.
527–36. Rome: ANL.
Pépin, Jean. (1982a). The Platonic and Christian Ulysses. In O’Meara, ed., 3–18.
Pépin, Jean. (1982b). Réactions du christianisme latin a la sotériologie métroaque. In
Vermaseren, Maarten J., and Bianchi, Ugo., eds.
Pépin, Jean. (1986). Cosmic Piety. In Armstrong, A. H., ed., pp. 408–35.
Pépin, Jean. (1987). La tradition de l’allégorie de Philon d’Alexandrie a Dante. Paris: EA.
Pépin, Jean. (1992). Philologos/Philosophos (VP 14.18–20). In Brisson et al., eds., Vol. 2: pp.
477–501.
Pépin, Jean. (1996). Celse, Origène, Porphyre sur les limites de la Theia Dunamis. In Romano
and Cardullo, eds., 31–61.
Pépin, Jean. (1999a). Pourquoi l’âme automotrice aurait-elle besoin d’un vehicle? (Nouveaux
schèmes porphyriens chez Saint Augustin, II). In Cleary, ed., pp. 293–305.
Pépin, Jean. (1999b). La hiérarchie par le degré de mutabilité (Nouveaux schèmes por-
phyyriens chez saint Augustin I). DSTrafF 10: pp. 89–107.
Pépin, Jean. (2000a). Le tout et les parties dans la connaisannce de la mens par elle-même
(De Trin. X3, 5–4, 6) [schèmes porphyriens chez Augustin]. In Brachtendorf, Johannes,
ed., Gott und sein Bild: Augustins De Trinitate im Spiegel gegenwärtiger forschung, pp.
105–26. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Pépin, Jean. (2000b). Les modes de l’enseignement théologique dans la Théologie Platonicienne.
In Segonds and Steel, eds., pp. 1–14.
Pépin, Jean. (2002a). Porphyre et Plotin. In Dixsaut, Monique, ed., La connaissance de Soi.
Études sur le traité 49 de Plotin, pp. 267–77. Paris: J. Vrin.
Pépin, Jean. (2002b). Porphyre et Plotin sur le tout et les parties dans la connaissance de
l’intellect par lui-même. In Barbanti et al., eds., pp. 399–407. Cantania: Cooperativa
Universitaria Editrice Catanese di Magistero.
Perelli, A. (1988). Nefanda Venus. GIF 40: pp. 241–54.
Perrone, Lorenzo. (1996). Eusebius of Caesarea as a Christian Writer. In Raban, Avner and
Holum, Kenneth G. eds., Caesarea Maritima. A Retrosepctive after Two Millennia, pp.
515–30. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill.
Peters, Curt. (1936). Die Zitate aus dem Matthäus-Evangelium in der Syrischen Übersetzung
der Theophanie des Eusebius. OC II (1936): pp. 1–25.
Peters, F. E. (1970). The Harvest of Hellenisim. A History of the Near East from Alexander the
Great to the Triumph of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Petit, Paul. (1974). Histoire générale de l’empire romain. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Petrikovitz, Harald von. (1971). Fortifications in the North Western Roman Empire from the
Third to the Fifth Centuries A.D. JRS 61: pp. 178–218.
Pezzella, Sosio. (1962a). Il problema del ΚΑΤΑ XΡΙΣΤΙΑΩΝ di Porfirio. Eos 52: pp. 77–104.
Pezzella, Sosio. (1962b). Note sul pensiero filosofico e sociale di Porfirio. Eos 52: pp. 299–307.
Pfligersdoffer, Georg. (1976). Der Schicksalsweg der Menschenseele nach Synesios und nach
dem jungen Augustinus. GB 5: pp. 147–79.
Philip, J. A. (1959). The Biographical Tradition-Pythagoras. TAPhA 90: pp. 185–94.
Picard, Ch. (1950). Sanchuniathon, d’après Philon de Byblos et Porphyre. RArc 35: pp. 122–3.
Pigler, Agnès. (2001). La reception plotinienne de la notion Stoicienne de la sympathie uni-
verselle. RPA 19.1: pp. 45–78.
Pilhofer, Peter. (1995). Philippi. Band I. Die erste christliche Gemeinde Europas. WUNT 87.
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
Pinborg, J. (1965). Eine unbeachtete Handschrift mit Texten des Matheus von Augubio. BPM
7: pp. 888–91.
460  Bibliography

Pinborg, J. (1973). Petrus de Alvernia on Porphyry. Cima 9: pp. 47–67.

Pinborg, J. (1980). Radulphus Brito on Universals. Cima 35: pp. 56–142.
Pincherle, M. (1958–62). A Review of M. Pezzella’s Le rapport des Sentences de Sextius et de la
lettre à Marcella de Porphyre. NC 10/12: pp. 252–3.
Pines, Shlomo. (1986). The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines. Vol. 2: Studies in Arabic Versions
of Greek Texts and in Mediaeval Science. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
Pirioni, P. (1985). Il soffiorno siciliano di porfirio e la composizione del ΚΑΤΑ XΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ.
RSCI 39: pp. 502–8.
Pizzani, Ubaldo. (1982). Una ignorata testimonianza di Ammonio di Ermia sul perduto opus
maius di Nicomaco sulla musica. In Studi in onore di Aristide Colonna, pp. 235–45.
Rome: IFC.
Plass, Paul. (1987). Porphyry, Life of Plotinus, 8: on Philosophic Thinking. IPQ 27: pp. 243–7.
Pleket, H. W. (1965). An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries. HTR 58.4: pp.
331–47.
Poggi, V. (1995). A Review of Hugo Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1992). OCP 61.1: pp. 309–10.
Poirier, Paul-Hubert. (2010). Chrétiens, Hérètiques et Gnostiques chez Porphyre. Quelques
précisions sur la Vie de Plotin 16,1–9. CRAI 2: pp. 913–42.
Pollard, Nigel. (2000). Soldiers, Cities, and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor: UMP.
Polverini, Leandro. (1975). Da Aureliano a Diocleziano. ANRW II: pp. 1013–35. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Popescu, Emilian. (1991). Studiu Introductiv: Eusebiu de Cezareea Scrieri partea a doua. PSB
14, pp. 5–44. Bucharest: EIBMBOR.
Pötscher, Walter. (1966). Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Porphyrios, Προς Μαρκελλαν,
cap. 11. WS 79: pp. 237–40.
Pötscher, Walter. (1968). Bemerkungen zum Porphyrios-Text. Emerita 36: pp. 1–6.
Portmann, Werner. (1990). Zu den Motiven der Diokletianischen Christenverfolgung. His
39: pp. 212–48.
Potter, David S. (1990). Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. A Historical
Commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. Oxford: OUP.
Potter, David S. A Review of Majercik, Ruth. (1989). Chaldaean Oracles. Leiden: Brill. JRS
81: pp. 225–7.
Potter, David S. (1994). Prophets and Emperors. Human and Divine Authority from Augustus
to Theodosius. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Potter, David S. (1996). Palmyra and Rome: Odaenathus’ Titulature and the Use of the
Imperium Maius. ZPE 113: pp. 271–85.
Potter, David S. (2004). The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180–395. RHAW. New York and
London: Routledge.
Praechter, Karl. (1990). Review of the Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. In Sorbji, ed.,
pp. 31–54.
Preisendanz, Karl, et  al., eds. (1973–4). Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die Griechischen
Zauberpapyri. 2 vols. SWC. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner.
Pretagostini, Roberto, ed. (1993). Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura Greca da Omero
all’età Ellenistica. 3 vols. Rome: Gruppo Editoriale Internazionale.
Preus, Anthony. (1983). Biological Theory in Porphyry’s De abstinentia. AP 3: pp. 149–59.
Price, S. R. F. (1984). Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor.
Cambridge: CUP.
Price, Simon. (1999). Religions of the Ancient Greeks. KTAH. Cambridge: CUP.
Pricoco, Salvatore. (1988a). Un oracolo di Apollo su Dio. RSLR 23: pp. 2–36.
 Bibliography  461

Pricoco, Salvatore. (1988b). Un oracolo di Apollo sull’anima (Lact. inst. 7,13,6). In Geraci, G.,
ed., Hestíasis. Studi di tarda antichità offerti a S. Calderone. S Tar 5, pp. 173–201.
Messina: Sicania.
Pricoco, Salvatore. (1989). Per una storia dell’ oracolo nella tarda antichità. Apollo Clario e
didimeo in Lattanzio. Augustinianum 29: pp. 351–74.
Pricoco, Salvatore. (1991). Tre fammenti oracolari di Apollo (Lact. Inst. 1.7.9–10). In
Polyanthema. Studi di letteratura cristiana antica offerti a S. Costanza. S Tar 7, pp. 337–51.
Messina: Sicania.
Prinzivalli, Emanuela. (1998). Il millenarismo in Oriente da Metodio ad Apollinare. ASE
15.1: pp. 125–51.
Pruneti, Paola. (1998–9). ΠΛΟΥΜΑΡΙΟΣ e BΑΡΒΑΡΙΚΑΡΙΟΣ: osservazioni lessicali in mar-
gine all’ “Edictum de Pretiis” e alla testimoniaza dei papyri. Apapyrol 10–11: pp. 149–59.
Pulleyn, Simon. (1997). Prayer in Greek Religion. OCM. Oxford: OUP.
Quasten, Johannes. (1938). Der Gute Hirte in Hellenistischer und frühchristlicher
Logostheologie: Heilige Überlieferung. In Casel, Odo, ed., Festschrift für I. Jerwegen, pp.
51–8. Münster: Ashendorff.
Quasten, Johannes. (1975). Eusebius of Caesarea. In Patrology. III: The Golden Age of Greek
Patristic Literature, pp. 309–45. Utrecht and Antwerp: Spectrum.
Quispel, G. (1968). Note sur De Resurrectione. VChr 22: pp. 14–5.
Raasted, Jorgen. (1979). A Neglected Version of the Anecdote about Pythagoras’s Hammer
Experiment. Cima: pp. 1–9.
Rademaker, Adriaan. (2005). Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint. Polysemy and
Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Radke, G., ed. (1961). Gedenkschrift fürGeorg Rohde. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Raeder, H., Porphyrios fra Tyros. Copenhagen: Poul Branner.
Rambo, L. R. (1982). Current Research on Religious Conversion. RelSR 8: pp. 146–159.
Ranier, M. (1984). Die Mithra-Verehrung in Ostia. Klio 66: pp. 104–13.
Rappe, Sara. (2000). Reading Neoplatonism. Non-Discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus,
Proclus, and Damascius. Cambridge: CUP.
Rappe, Sara. (2001). The New Math: How to Add and to Subtract Pagan Elements in Christian
Education. In Too, ed., pp. 405–32.
Rathbone, D. W. (1995). Monetisation, not Price-Inflation, in Third-Century A.D. Egypt? In
King and Wigg, eds., pp. 321–40.
Rea, John. (1977). A New Version of P. Yale inv. 299. ZPE 27: pp. 151–6.
Rebillard, Éric. (2012). Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa,
200–450 CE. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Rebuffat, François. (1997). Les enseignes sur les monnaires d’Asie Mineure: des origene à Sévère
Alexandre. Athens: EFA.
Reece, Richard. (1981). The Third Century; Crisis or Change. In King and Henig, eds., Pt.
I: pp. 27–38.
Reff, Daniel T. (2005). Plagues, Priests, and Demons: Sacred Narratives and the Rise of
Christianity in the Old World and the New. New York: CUP.
Rehm, Albert. (1938). Kaiser Diokletian und das Heiligtum von Didyma. Philologus
93: pp. 74–84.
Reitzenstein, Richard. (1978). Hellenistic Mystery Religions. Their Basic Ideas and Significance.
Trans. John E. Steely. PTMS 15. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press.
Reix, André. (1978). A Review of Andrew Smith’s Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition.
A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. RPL 76: pp. 117–8.
462  Bibliography

Rémondon, Roger. (1964). La crise de l’Empire Romain de Marc-Aurèle à Anastase. NCHP 11.
Paris: PUF.
Rescher, Nicholas. (1962). The Logic-Chapter of Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Al-Khawrizmi’s
Encyclopedia, Keys to the Sciences (c. 980 A.D.). AGP 49: pp. 62–74.
Rescigno, A. (1997). Desiderare componi a Deo: Attico, Plutarco, Numenio sulla materia
prima della creazione. Koinonia 21 (1–2): pp. 39–81.
Rich, Audrey N. M. (1957). Reincarnation in Plotinus. Mnemosyne 4th ser. 10.3: pp. 232–8.
Richey, Lance Byron. (1995). Porphyry, Reincarnation and Resurrection in De Civitate Dei.
AugStud 26: pp. 129–42.
Riedweg, Christoph. (2002). Pythagoras. Leben, Lehre, Nachwirkung. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Riedweg, Christoph. (2005). Porphyrios über Christus und die Christen: De philosophia ex
oraculis haurienda und Adversus Christianos im Vergleich. In L’apologétique chrétienne
gréco-latine à l’époque prénicénienne. Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’antiquité classique.
Entretiens Tome LI, pp. 151–203. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Ries, J. (1982). Sotériologie manichéeme et paganisme romain. In Bianchi and Vermaseren,
eds., pp. 762–77.
Riggi, C. (1992). Epiphanius of Salamis. OEEC I: pp. 281–2. Oxford: OUP.
Rinaldi, Giancarlo. (1980). Studi Porfiriani. Koinonia 4: pp. 25–37.
Rinaldi, Giancarlo. (1982). L’Antico Testamento nella polemica anti-cristiana di Porfirio di
Tiro. Augustinianum 22: pp. 97–111.
Rinaldi, Giancarlo. (1992). Giudei e pagani alla vigilia della persecuzione di
Diocleziano: Porfirio e il popolo d’Israele. VetChr 29: pp. 113–36.
Rist, J. M. (1962 [repr. 1985]). Theos and the One in Some Texts of Plotinus. MS 24: pp.
169–80.
Rist, J. M. (1963). Plotinus and the Daimonion of Socrates. Phoenix 17: pp. 13–24.
Rist, J. M. (1964). Mysticism and Transcendence in Later Neoplatonism. Hermes 92: pp.
213–25.
Rist, J. M. (1967). Plotinus: The Road to Reality. Cambridge: CUP.
Rist, J. M. (1971). The Problem of “Otherness” in the Enneads. LN: pp. 77–87.
Rist, J. M. (1973). The One of Plotinus and the God of Aristotle. RMeta 27: pp. 75–87.
Rist, J. M. (1981). The Importance of Stoic Logic in the Contra Celsum. In Blumenthal and
Markus, eds., pp. 64–78.
Rist, J. M. (1989). Back to the Mysticism of Plotinus: Some More Specifics. JHP 27.2: pp.
183–97.
Ritter, Adolf Martin, ed. (1979). Kerygma und Logos. Beiträge zu den geistesgeschichtlichen
Beziehungen zwischen Antike und Christentum. Festschrift für Carl Andresen zum 70.
Geburtstag. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Ritter, J., et al., eds. (1971–2007). Historische Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Basel: Schwabe.
Rives, J. B. (1995). Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine.
Oxford: OUP.
Rives, J. B. (1999). The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire. JRS 89: pp. 135–54.
Rives, J. B. (2002). Magic in the XII Tables Revisited. CQ 52.1: pp. 270–90.
Rives, J. B. (2007). Religion in the Roman Empire. BlAR. Malden, Massachusetts and
Oxford: Blackwell.
Robert, Louis. (1968). Trois oracles de la théosophie et un prophète d’Apollon. CRAI: pp. 568–99.
Roldanus, Johannes. (2006). The Church in the Age of Constantine. The Theological Challenges.
London and New York: Routledge.
Roll, Israel. (1977). The Mysteries of Mithras in the Roman Orient: The Problem of Origin.
JMS 2: pp. 53–68.
 Bibliography  463

Roll, Israel. (1989). A Latin Imperial Inscription from the Time of Diocletian found at Yotvata.
IEJ 39: pp. 239–60.
Romano, Francesco. (1978). Porfirio technologos? SicGymn 31: pp. 517–20.
Romano, Francesco. (1979). Porfirio di Tiro. Filosofia e cultura nel III secolo D.C.
Catania: Università di Catania.
Romano, Francesco. (1985). Porfirio e la fisica aristotelica. Catania: Università di Catania.
Romano, Francesco, and Taormina, D. P., eds. (1994). HYPARXIS e HYPOSTASIS nel neopla-
tonismo. Atti del I Colloquio Internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo.
Università degli studi di Catania 1–3 ottobre 1992. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Romano, Francesco, and Cardullo, R. Loredana, eds. (1996). Dunamis nel Neoplatonismo. Atti
del II Colloquio Internazionale del Centro di Ricerca sul Neoplatonismo. Università degli
studi di Catania 6–8 ottobre 1994. SSTF 16. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.
Romano, Francesco. (1998). Il Neoplatonismo. Rome: Corocci editore.
Rosan, L. J. The Philosophy of Proclus. New York: Cosmos.
Rose, H. J. (1959). Religion in Greece and Rome. New York/San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Ross, Steven K. (2001). Roman Edessa. London and New York: Routledge.
Rostovtzeff, Michael. (1926). The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire.
Oxford: OUP.
Roueché, Mossman. (1980). A Middle Byzantine Handbook of Logic Terminology. JOB
29: pp. 71–98.
Rougier, Louis Auguste Paul. (1977). Celse contre les chrétiens. Paris: Copernic.
Rousseau, Philip. (2002). The Early Christian Centuries. London: Longman.
Rousselle, Aline. (2001). Images as Education in the Roman Empire (Second–Third Centuries AD).
In Too, ed., pp. 373–403.
Rowe, Christopher. (2009). The Charioteer and his Horses: An Example of Platonic
Myth-making. In Partenie, Catalin, ed., pp. 134–149.
Rubin, Aaron D. (2005). Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization. Winona Lake,
Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Rubin, Aaron D. (2010). A Brief Introduction to the Semitic Languages. GH 19. Piscataway,
N.J.: Gorgias.
Ruggiero, Fabrio. (1992). La follia dei cristiani. Su un aspetto della “reazione pagana” tra I e V
secolo. Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.
Rüpke, J. (2001). Die Religion der Römer. Eine Einführung. Munich: C. H. Beck.
Ruschenbusch, Eberhard. (1977). Diokletians Währungsreform vom 1.9.301. ZPE 26: pp.
193–210.
Russell, James C. (1994). The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity. Oxford and
New York: OUP.
Russell, R., O.S.A. (1981). The Role of Neoplatonism in St. Augustine’s De Civitate Dei. In
Blumenthal and Markus, eds., pp. 160–70.
Saenz, Antonio Pinero. (1975). La imagen del filosofo y sus relaciones con la literature. Un
studio sobre el Dion de Sinesio de Cirene y de sus fuentes. CFC 9: pp. 133–200.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1971). Abamon, pseudonyme de Jamblique. In Palmer, Robert B.
and Hamerto-Kelly, Robert, eds., Philomathes: Studies and Essays in Memory of Philip
Merlan. The Hague: Nijhoff.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1973). Plan des Livres I et II du “De mysteriis” de Jamblique. In de
Strycker, E. and Hoogleraar, G., eds., ZETESIS. Album Amicorum aageboden aan Prof.
Dr. E. de Strycker & Gewoon Hoogleraar Antwerp: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1981). Les néoplatoniciens et les oracles chaldaïques. REAug
27: pp. 209–25.
464  Bibliography

Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1986). Neoplatonist Spirituality II. From Iamblichus to Proclus
and Damascius. In Armstrong, A. H., ed., pp. 250–65.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1988a). Connaissance et inconnaissance de Dieu: Porphyre et la
théosophie de Tübingen. In Duffy and Peradotto, eds., 1–20.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1988b). L’Hymne IV de Proclus Prière aux Dieux des oracles chal-
daïques. In Les Cahiers de Fontenay, pp. 297–312.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1992). Pourquoi Porphyre a-t-il édité Plotin? Réponse provisoire.
In Brisson et al., eds., pp. 31–64.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (1993). Les livres IV à VII du De mysteriis de Jamblique relus avec
la lettre de Porphyre à Anébon. In Blumenthal and Clark, eds., pp. 144–58.
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. (2000). Analyse de la répose de Jamblique à Porphyre, connue
sous le titre: De Mysteriis. RSPh 84: pp. 489–511.
Sage, M. M. (1975). Cyprian. PMS 1. Cambridge, MA.: PPF.
Salaverri, J., S. J. (1935). El origen de la revelacion y los garantes de su conservacion en la
Iglesia segun Eusebio de Caesarea. Gregorianum 17: pp. 349–73.
Salzman, Michele Renee. (2002). The Making of a Christian Aristocracy. Cambridge,
MA: HUP.
Salzman, Michele Renee, and Adler, William, eds. (2013). The Cambridge History of Religions
in the Ancient World. 2 vols. Vol. 2: From the Hellenistic Age to Late Antiquity.
Cambridge: CUP.
Salzman, Michele Renee, and Sweeney, Marvin A., eds. (2013). The Cambridge History of
Religions in the Ancient World. 2 vols. Vol. 1: From the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic Age.
Cambridge: CUP.
Sambursky, S. (1968). The Theory of Forms: A Problem and Four Neoplatonic Solutions. JHP
6: pp. 327–39.
Sanders, G. (1982). L’Idée du Salut dans les inscriptions latines chrétiens. In Bianchi and
Vermaseren, eds., 351–400.
Santas, Gerasimos, ed. (2006). The Blackwell Guide to Plato’s Republic. Oxford, Malden, MA,
and Victoria, Australia: Blackwell.
Sapin, Jean. (1999). La Syrie-Phenicie des VIIe–IV e siècles: Réflexions ceramologiques a pro-
pos d’un ouvrage récent. ANES 36: pp. 90–107.
Saumagne, Charles. (1962). La persécution de Déce en Afrique d’après la correspondence de
S. Cyprien. Byz: pp. 1–9.
Saunders, Trevor J. (1973). Penology and Eschatology in Plato’s Timaeus and Laws. CQ n.s.
23.2: pp. 232–44.
Saxer, V. (1992). Peter. OECC II: p. 676. Oxford: OUP.
Schallmayer, Egon (1995b). Germanien und Raetien im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. In Schallmayer,
ed. (1995a): pp. 7–12.
Schallmayer, Egon, ed. (1996). Niederbieber, Postumus und der Limesfall. Stationen eines poli-
tischen Prozesses. Berichten des ersten Saalburgkolloquiums. S-S 3. Bad
Homburg: Saalburgmuseum.
Schäublin, Christoph. (1970). Diodor von Tarsos gegen Porphyrios? MH 27: pp. 58–63.
Scheid, John. (1985). Religion et piété à Rome. TALA. Paris: Editions La Découverte.
Scheid, John. (1987). Polytheism Impossible; or, the Empty Gods: Reasons behind a Void in
the History of Roman Religion. H&A 3: pp. 303–25.
Scheid, John. (2003). An Introduction to Roman Religion. Edinburgh: EUP.
Scheidweiler, Felix. (1955). Zu Porphyrios ΚΑΤΑ XΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ. Philologus 99: pp. 304–12.
Scheithauer, A. (1996). Epigraphische Studien zur Herrscherideologie I. Salvis Augusus
Felix . . . Entstehung und Geschichte eines Formulars. ZPE 114: pp. 213–26.
 Bibliography  465

Schepens, Guido. (1997). Jacoby’s FGrHist: Problems, Methods, Prospects. In Most, Glen W.,
ed., APOREMATA. Kritische Studien zur Philologiesgeschichte. Band I: Collecting
Fragments. Fragmente Sammeln, pp. 144–72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Schlapbach, Karin. (1999). Ciceronishches und Neuplatonisches in den Proömien von
Augustin, Contra academicos 1 und 2. In Fuhrer, Therese, and Erler, Michael, eds., Zur
rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in der Spätantike: Akten der 1. Tagung der
Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stifung vom 22–25. September 1997 in Trier. PhAnt Band 9, pp.
139–51. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Schmidt, Francis. (1987). Polytheisms: Degeneration or Progress? H&A 3: pp. 9–60.
Schmidt, Wolfgang. (1951). Götter und Menschen in der Theologie Epikurs. RMP 94: pp.
97–156.
Schmitt, Charles B. (1972). De perenni philosophia by Augustinus Steuchus. With a New
Introduction by Charles B. Schmitt. New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation.
Schmitz, Philip C. (2013). Phoenician-Punic Religion. In Salzman and Sweeney, eds., CHRAW
I: pp. 205–33.
Schoedel, William R., and Wilken, Robert L., eds. (1979). Early Christian Literature and the
Classical Intellectual Tradition in Honorem Robert M. Grant. TH 54. Paris: Beauchesne.
Schörner, Günther. (2007). New Images for Old Rituals: Stelae of Saturn and Personal Cult in
Roman North Africa. In Croxford, Ben et al., eds., TRAC 2006. Proceedings of the Sixteenth
Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference which took place at the University of
Cambridge 24–25 March 2006, pp. 92–102. Oxford: Oxbow.
Schott, Jeremy M. (2003). Founding Platonopolis: The Platonic Πολιτεια in Eusebius,
Porphyry, and Iamblichus. JECS 11.4: pp. 501–31.
Schott, Jeremy M. (2005). Porphyry on Christians and Others: “Barbarian Wisdom,” Identity
Politics, and Anti-Christian Polemics on the Eve of the Great Persecution. JECS 13.3: pp.
277–314.
Schott, Jeremy M. (2008). Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity.
In Boyarin, D., et al., eds., Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion. Philadelphia: UPP.
Schott, Jeremy M. (2011). Eusebius’ Panegyric on the Building of Churches (HE
10.4.2–72): Aesthetics and Politics of Christian Architecture. In Inowlocki, S., and
Zamagni, C., eds., Reconsidering Eusebius, pp. 177–97. Leiden: Brill.
Schrader, Hermannus. (1888). Zu den Fragmenten der ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΣ ΙΣΤΟΡΙΑ des
Porphyrius bei Cyrill von Alexandria. AGP 1: pp. 359–74.
Schramm, G. M. (1992). Hebrew. ABD IV: pp. 203–14.
Schröder, Heinrich Otto. (1957). Celsus und Porphyrius als Christengegner. WaG 17: pp.
190–202.
Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime. (1974). Baudelaire, Bergson, Plotin et la scène du Balcon. Mélanges de
Philosophie, de littérqture et histoire ancienne offerts à Pierre Boyancé. Rome: EFR.
Schulze, Christain. (2001). Celsus. SA 6. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.
Schwarte, Karl-Heinz. (1989). Die Christengesetze Valerians. In Eck, ed., pp. 103–63.
Schwartz, E. (1907). Eusebios von Caesarea,” PRE 11: pp. 1370–1439. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Schwartz, J. (1947). Une déclaration de sacrifice du temps de Dèce. RB 54: pp. 365–67.
Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf. (1941). Die Pseudoaristotelisch Theologie und die Plotin-Ausgabe
des Porphyrios. RMP 90: pp. 216–36.
Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf. (1974). Plotinishches und Unplotinisches in den „ΑΦΟΡΜΑΙ” des
Porphyrios. ACI: pp. 221–52. Rome: ANL.
Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf. (1976). Plotins letztes Wort. MH 33: pp. 85–97.
Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf. (1986). Πλείων in der Bedeutung “plenus.” In Etter, Annemarie, ed.,
o-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift fürErnst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag, pp. 546–57. Berlin: De Gruyter.
466  Bibliography

Seaford, Richard. (1986). Immortality, Salvation, and the Elements. HSCP 90: pp. 1–26.
Sedley, David. (2009). Myth, Punishment and Politics in the Gorgias. In Partenie, Catalin, ed.,
pp. 51–76.
Seeck, Otto. (1897–1920). Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt. 6  vols. Berlin:  Siemenroth
& Troschel.
Segonds, A. Ph., and Steel, C., eds. (2000). Proclus et la Théologie Platonicien. ACIL, En hon-
neur de H. D. Saffrey et L. G. Westerink, AMPWM Series 26. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Seitz, Anton. (1895). Die Apologie des Christentums bei den Griechen des IV.  und V.  Jahrhunderts
in historisch-systematischer Darstellung. Würzburg: Andreas Göbel.
Selinger, Reinhard. (2002). The Mid-Third Century Persecutions of Decius and Valerian.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Sellew, Philip. (1989). Anchilles or Christ? Porphyry and Didymus in Debate over Allegorical
Interpretation. HTR 82.1: pp. 79–100.
Sellew, Philip. (1998). A Secret Hymn about Rebirth: Corpus Hermeticum XIII.17–20. In Kiley
et al., eds., 165–70.
Sells, Michael. (1985). Apophasis in Plotinus: A Critical Approach. HTR 78: pp. 47–65.
Serra, Giuseppe. (1993). Note critiche al De antro Nympharum di Porfirio. In Pretagostini,
ed., pp. 1151–69.
Sessa, Kristina. (2009). Domus Ecclesiae: Rethinking a Category of AntePacem Christian
Space. JTS n.s. 60 Pt. 1: pp. 90–108.
Setaioli, A. (1966). L’esegesi omerica nel commento di Macrobio al Somnium Scipionis. SIFC
38: pp. 154–98.
Share, Michael. (1994). Commentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina. 1, Arethas of Cesarea’s scholia
on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories (Codex Vaticanus Urbinas 35): A Critical
Edition. Athens: Akademia Athenon.
Shaw, Brent. (2013). Cult and Belief in Punic and Roman Africa. In Salzman and Adler, eds.,
CHRAW II: pp. 235–63.
Shaw, Gregory. (1985). Theurgy: Rituals of Unification in the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus.
Traditio 41: pp. 1–28.
Shaw, Gregory. (1988). Theurgy as Demiurgy: Iamblichus’ Solution to the Problem of
Embodiment. Dionysius 12: pp. 37–60.
Shaw, Gregory. (1993). The Geometry of Grace: A Pythagorean Approach to Theurgy. In
Blumenthal and Clark, eds., pp. 116–37.
Shaw, Gregory. (1995). Theurgy and the Soul. The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University
Park: PSUP.
Shaw, Gregory. (1999a). Eros and Arithmos: Pythagorean Theurgy in Iamblichus and
Plotinus. AncPhil 19: pp. 121–43.
Shaw, Gregory. (1999b). Neoplatonic Theurgy and Dionysius the Areopagite. JECS 7.4: pp.
573–99.
Shaw, Gregory. (2012). The Role of Aesthesis in Theurgy. In Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore,
eds., pp. 91–111.
Shea, William H. (1986). Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes Interpretation. In
Holbrook, Frank B., ed., Symposium on Daniel. DRCS 2, pp. 256–328. Hagerstown,
MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Sheppard, Anne. (1982). Proclus’ Attitude to Theurgy. CQ 32 (1982): pp. 212–24.
Sheppard, Anne. (1997). Phantasia and Inspiration in Neoplatonism. In Joyal, ed., pp. 201–10.
Sheppard, Anne. (2002). Image and Analogy in Later Neoplatonism. In Kobusch and Erler,
eds., pp. 639–47.
 Bibliography  467

Sheppard, Anne. (2007). Porphyry’s Views on Phantasia. In Sheppard, A., and Karamanolis,
G., eds., Studies on Porphyry. BICS Supplements 98, pp. 71–6. London: ICS.
Shiel, James. (1974). Boethius and Eudemus. Viv 12: pp. 14–7.
Shiel, James. (1987). The Greek Copy of Porphyrios’ Isagoge used by Boethius. In Wiesner,
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 312–40.
Shiel, James. (1990). Boethius’ commentaries on Aristotle. In Sorabji, ed., pp. 349–72.
Shorey, P. (1932). Note on Porphyry Vita Pythagorae, Section 53. CP 27.2: pp. 175–6.
Siddals, Ruth M. (1987). Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria. JTS 38: pp. 341–67.
Sieber, John H. (1973). An Introduction to the Tractate Zostrianos from Nag Hammadi. NT
15: pp. 233–40.
Siémons, Jean-Louis. (1988). Theosophia. Aux Sources néoplatoniciennes et chrétiennes (2e–6e
siècles). Paris: Cariscript.
Sigurdarson, Eiríkur Smári. (1998). Plato’s Ideal of Science. In Ostenfeld, ed., pp. 85–90.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (1995). Arnobius of Sicca. Religious Conflict and Competition in the
Age of Competition. OECS. Oxford: OUP.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (1997). The Function of Oracles in the Pagan-Christian Conflict
during the Age of Diocletian: The Case of Arnobius and Porphyry. StudPat 31:
pp. 49–56.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2000a). Graeco-Roman Philosophical Opposition. In Esler, ed.,
Vol. 2: pp. 840–68.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2000b). Julian the Apostate. In Esler, ed., Vol. 2: pp. 1251–72.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2001a). Eusebius’ Panegyric at the Dedication of the Church at
Tyre A.D. 315: Anti-Porphyrian Themes in Christian Rhetoric of the Later Roman Empire.
StudPat 37: pp. 597–607.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2001b). The Eschatological Aspects of Porphyry’s Anti-Christian
Polemics in a Chaldaean-Neoplatonic Context. C & M 52: pp. 193–215.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2002). Porphyry of Tyre’s Biblical Criticism: A Historical and
Theological Appraisal. In Bobertz, Charles A., and Brakke, David, eds., Readings in
Christian Communities. Essays on Interpretation in the Early Church. CJAS 14, pp. 90–105.
Notre Dame: UNDP.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2006a). Via universalis salutis animae liberandae:  The
Pagan-Christian Debate on Universalism in the Later Roman Empire (A.D. 260–325).
StudPat 40: pp. 245–51.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2006b). The Emperor Julian’s Order to Rebuild the Temple in
Jerusalem: A Connection with Oracles? JANES 43: pp. 68–117.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2008). A Review of Berchman, Robert M. (2005). Porphyry
Against the Christians. Leiden/Boston: Brill. JECS 16.2 (2008): 263–5.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2009). Porphyrian Universalism: A Tripartite Soteriology and
Eusebius’ Response. HTR 102.2: pp. 169–92.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2010a). The Function of Scriptural Citations in the Fourth Book
of the Theophany of Eusebius of Caesarea: Soteriological Themes. A paper read at the
annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Southeastern Commission for the
Study of Religion, March 2010, Louisville, Kentucky.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2010b). Eusebius and Porphyry: The Soteriological use of ‫ܕܦܪܘܩܐ‬
‫ ܕܒܠ‬ ‫ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬in Book Five of Eusebius of Caesarea’s Theophany. A paper read at the annual
meeting of the North American Patristics Society, May 2010, Chicago.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2010c). Universalism in the Demonstratio evangelica of Eusebius
of Caesarea. StudPat 46: pp. 319–24.
468  Bibliography

Simmons, Michael Bland. (2010d). A Review of Schott, Jeremy M. (2008).Christianity,

Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity. Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient
Religion. Philadelphia, PA: UPP. JECS 18.3: pp. 466–8.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2012a). The “viri novi” of Arnobius, Adversus nationes II.15: Who
Were the ‘New Men? A paper read at the annual meeting of the American Academy of
Religion, Southeastern Commission for the Study of Religion, March 2–4, 2012, Atlanta.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2012b). The ‘viri novi’ of Arnobius, Adversus nationes II.15.2f.: New
Evidence from Eusebius. A paper read at the annual meeting of the North American
Patristics Society, May 24–26, 2012, Chicago.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2012c). El Uso Soteriológico de ‫ ܕܒܠ‬ ‫“ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܓܘ ܐ‬SALVADOR
UNIVERSAL” en la Teofanía de Eusebio de Caesarea. A paper read at El Primer Congreso
Internacional de Estudios Patrísticos, August 7–10, 2012, San Juan, Argentina.
Simmons, Michael Bland. (2015). Universalism in Eusebius of Caesarea: The Soteriological
Use of ‫ܝܠܗ �ܗܝܐ ܕܦܪܘܩܐ ܕܟܠܢ‬ ‫ ܝܝ‬in Book III of the Theophany. (forthcoming [2015], Studia
Patristica).
Simon, Marcel. (1978). Mithra, rival du Christ? In Duchesne-Guillemin et al., eds., pp. 457–77.
Simon, Marcel. (1979). Mithra et les empereurs. In Bianchi, ed., 411–27.
Simonetti, Manlio. (1974). All’origine della formula teologica una essenza/tre ipostasi.
Augustinianum 14: pp. 173–5.
Simonetti, Manlio. (2001). Eusebio sui sacrifici pagani e giudaici. AnnSE 19.1: pp. 101–10.
Simonetti, S. (1992). Diodore of Tarsus. OECC I: pp. 236–7. Oxford: OUP.
Siorvanes, Lucas. (1997). Proclus: Neoplatonic Philosophy and Science. New Haven: YUP.
Siorvanes, Lucas. (1998). Poprphyry (c. 233–309 AD). REP 7: pp. 545–50.
Sirinelli, Jean. (1961). Les Vues historiques d’Eusèbe de Césarée durant la période prénicéene.
UDP 10. Dakar: Université de Dakar.
Sironen, Erkki. (1992). The Edict of Diocletian and a Theodosian Regulation at Corinth (Plate
52). Hesperia 61: pp. 223–6.
Skemp, J. B. (1986). The Spirituality of Socrates and Plato. In Armstrong, A. H., ed., pp.
102–20.
Smith, Andrew. (1974). Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. The Hague: Martinus
Nijhoff.
Smith, Andrew. (1981). Potentiality and the Problem of Plurality in the Intelligible World. In
Blumenthal and Markus, eds., pp. 99–107.
Smith, Andrew. (1984). Did Porphyry Reject the Transmigration of Human Souls into
Animals? RMP 127: pp. 276–84.
Smith, Andrew. (1987). Porphyrian Studies since 1913. ANRW II.36.2: pp. 717–73. Berlin: De
Gruyter.
Smith, Andrew. (1989). The Pagan Neoplatonists’ Response to Christianity. MRev
14: pp. 25–41.
Smith, Andrew. (1991). A Porphyrian Treatise against Aristotle? In Martin and Richmond,
eds., pp. 183–6.
Smith, Andrew. (1992). Reason and Experience in Plotinus. In O’Rourke, Fran, ed., At the
Heart of the Real. Philosophical Essays in Honour of the Most Reverend Desmond Connell
Archbishop of Dublin, pp. 21–30. Dublin: IAP.
Smith, Andrew. (1993a). Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta. Fragmenta Arabica Davide
Wasserstein interpretante. Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Smith, Andrew. (1993b). Iamblichus’ Views on the Relationship of Philosophy to Religion in
De Myseriis. In Blumenthal and Clark, eds., pp. 74–86.
 Bibliography  469

Smith, Andrew. (1994). ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΙΣ and ΥΠΑΡΞΙΣ in Porphyry. In Romano and Taormina,
eds., pp. 33–41.
Smith, Andrew. (1996a). Eternity and Time. In Gerson, ed., CCP, pp. 196–216.
Smith, Andrew. (1996b). Porphyrios. In Ricken, F., ed., Philosophen der Antike II, pp. 229–43.
Berlin: W. Kohlhammer.
Smith, Andrew. (1996c). Dunamis in Plotinus and Porphyry. In Romano and Cardullo, eds.,
pp. 633–77.
Smith, Andrew. (1996d). Porphyry. OCD3 pp. 1226–7. Oxford: OUP.
Smith, Andrew. (1997). Porphyry and Pagan Religious Practice. In Cleary, ed., pp. 29–35.
Smith, Andrew. (1998). Soul and Time in Plotinus. In Holzhausen, ed., pp. 335–44.
Smith, Andrew. (1999). The Significance of Practical Ethics for Plotinus. In Cleary, ed., pp.
227–36.
Smith, Andrew. (2000a). Iamblichus, the First Philosopher of Religion. Habis 31: pp. 345–53.
Smith, Andrew. (2000b). Porphyry and the Platonic Theology. In Segonds and Steel, eds., pp.
177–88.
Smith, Andrew. (2002). Further Thoughts on Iamblichus as the First Philosopher of Religion.
In Kobusch and Erler, eds., pp. 297–308.
Smith, Andrew. (2004). Philosophy in Late Antiquity. New York and London: Routledge.
Smith, Andrew. (2009). Philosophical Objectons to Christianity on the Eve of the Great
Persecution. In Twomey, Vincent, and Humphries, Mark, eds. The Great Persecution. The
Proceedings of the Fifth Patristic Conference, Maynooth, 2003, pp. 33–48. ITQM.
Dublin: Four Courts Press.
Smith, Andrew. (2010). Porphyry. OEAGR 5: pp. 447–48.
Smith, Mark. (1988). A Hidden Use of Porphyry’s History of Philosophy in Eusebius’
Preparatio Evangelica. JTS 39: pp. 494–504.
Smith, Mark Dennis. (1989). Eusebius of Caesarea: Scholar and Apologist. A Study of His
Religious Terminology and its Application to the Emperor Constantine. Ann Arbor,
MI: University Microfilms International.
Smith, Morton. (1978a). Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Smith, Morton. (1978b). On the History of the Divine Man. In Mélanges offerts à Marcel
Simon. Paganisme, Judaisme, Christianisme. Influences et affrontements dans le monde
antique, pp. 335–45. Paris: E. de Boccard.
Smith, Jonathan Z. (1978). Map Is Not Territory. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, R. Payne. (1976). A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: OUP.
Smith, Rowland. (1995). Julian’s Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of
Julian the Apostate. London and New York: Routledge.
Snow, David A., and Machalek, Richard. (1984). The Sociology of Conversion. ARS 10: pp.
167–90.
Sodano, A. R. (1958a). La questione cronologica della Lettera ad Anebo di Porfirio. RAAL
33: pp. 123–52.
Sodano, A. R. (1960). Una citazione apocrifa dalla Lettera ad Anebo di Porfirio nel “Kitab
al-Milal Wan-Nihal” di Muhammad As-sahnastani. RAAL 35: pp. 35–56.
Sodano, A. R. (1963a). Quid Macrobius De mundi aeternitate senserit quibusque fontibus
usus sit. AC 32: pp. 48–62.
Sodano, A. R. (1963b). Per un’edizione critica dei frammenti del commento di Porfirio al
Timeo di Platone. La problematica e la metologia critica delle fonti. AAP 12: pp. 91–137.
Sodano, A. R. (1964). Grammatica e filologia nel commento di Porfirio al Timeo di Platone.
RFIC 92: pp. 40–58.
470  Bibliography

Sodano, A. R. (1965). Gli αδύνατα omerici nell’esegesi di Porfirio. La metodologia

filogico-estetico di Aristotele. RAAL 40: pp. 227–78.
Sodano, A.  R. (1965–6). Gli ἄλογα omerici nell’esegesi di Porfirio. La metologia filogico-estetico
di Aristotele. AAP 15: pp. 205–39.
Sodano, A.  R. (1966). Porfirio commentatore di Platone, pp. 193–228. EAC 12.
Geneva: Fonddation Hardt.
Sodano, A. R. (1966–7). La tradizione manoscritta delle Quaestiones homericae di Porfirio. Il
codice Vaticano Greco 305 e alcuni aspetti della tradizione scoliastica all’Iliade. AAP
15: pp. 345–82.
Sodano, A. R. (1982). I frammenti dei commentari di Porfirio al Timeo di Platone nel De
aeternitate mundi di Giovanni Filopono. RAAL 37: pp. 97–125.
Sodano, A. R. (1991). Porfirio GNOMOLOGO contributo alla tradizione e alla critica testuale
delle sillogi gnomiche. Sileno 17: pp. 5–41.
Sodano, A. R. (1993). Vangelo di un Pagano. Milan: Rusconi.
Sodano, A. R., and Girgente, Giuseppe. (1997). Storia della filosofia. TaF 45. Milan: Rusconi.
Sokoloff, Michael. (2009). A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation form the Latin, Correction,
Expansion, and Update of C.  Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias.
Solignac, A. (1957). Réminiscenes Plotiniennes et Porphyriennes dans le début du De ordine
de Saint Augustin. ArchPhilos 20: pp. 446–65.
Solmsen, Friedrich. (1944). Boethius and the History of the Organon. AJPh 65: pp. 69–74.
Sorabji, Richard. (1983). Time, Creation and the Continuum. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Sorabji, Richard, ed. (1990a). Aristotle Transformed. The Ancient Commentators and Their
Influence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Sorabji, Richard. (1990b). The Ancient Commentators on Aristotle. In Sorabji, ed. (1990a),
pp. 1–30.
Sorabji, Richard. (2000). Is the True Self an Individual in the Platonist Tradition? In
Goulet-Cazé et al., eds., pp. 293–309.
Sordi, Marta. (1986). The Christians and the Roman Empire. Trans. Annabel Bedini. Norman
and London: UOP.
Sourvinou-Inwood, Christine. (2000). What Is Polis Religion? In Buxton, ed., pp. 13–37.
Southern, Pat. (2001). The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London and
New York: Routledge.
Spada, Aloe. (1982). Aspetti soteriologici del culto di Jupiter Dolichenus. In Bianchi and
Vermaseren, eds., pp. 541–51.
Speidel, M. Alexander. (1992). Roman Army Pay Scales. JRS 82: pp. 87–106.
Speidel, M. P., and Pavkovic, M. F. (1992). Legio II Flavia Constantia at Luxor. In Speidel,
M. P., ed., Roman Army Studies, pp. 397–9. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Speidel, M. P. (1993). Commodus the God-Emperor and the Army. JRS 83: pp. 109–14.
Spira, Andreas, ed. (1984). The Biographical Works of Gregory of Nyssa: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, Mainz, 6–10 September 1982. NAPS.
Philadelphia: PPF.
Staerman, Elena M. (1990). Le culte imperial, le culte du Soleil et celui du Temps. In Mactoux,
Marie-Madeleine, and Geny, Evelyne, eds., Melanges Pierre Leveque. 4 Religion. CRHA
96, pp. 361–79. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Stählin, G. (1967). μῦθoς. TDNT IV, pp. 762–95. Grand Rapids: WBEP.
Stählin, O. (1909). A Review of H. Gressmann, Eusebius Werke (1904). BG 45: pp. 113–5.
Stark, Rodney. (1997). The Rise of Christianity. How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement
Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries. San
Francisco: Harper Collins.
 Bibliography  471

Ste Croix, G. E. M. de. (1954). Aspects of the “Great” Persecution. HTR 47: pp. 75–113.
Steel, Carlos. (1999). NEGATIO NAGATIONIS Proclus on the Final Lemma of the First
Hypothesis of the Parmenides. In Cleary, ed., pp. 351–68.
Stefaniw, Blossom. (2010). Mind, Text, and Commentary. Noetic Exegesis in Origen of
Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, and Evagrius Ponticus. ECCA 6. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
Stegemann, Viktor. (1942–44). Eine Beobachtung zum Text der Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὴν
ἀπoτελεσματικὴν τoῦ Πτoλεμαίoυ. WS (1942–44): pp. 37–42.
Stein, Ernest. (1968). Histoire de Bas-Empire. Tome Premier. De L’Etat Romain à L’Etat Byzantin
(284–476). Edition Française par Jean-Remy Palanque. I. Texte. II. Notes et Cartes.
Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert Editeur.
Steuchus, Augustinus. (1972). De perenni philosophia by Augustinus Steuchus. With a New
Introduction by Charles B. Schmitt. New York and London: Johnson Reprint Company.
Strange, S. K. (1987). Plotinus, Porphyry and the Neoplatonic Interpretation of the Categories.
ANRW II.36.2: pp. 955–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Struck, Peter T. (1995). Allegory, Aenigma, and Anti-mimesis: A Struggle against Aristotelian
Rhetorical Literary Theory. In D. M. Schenkeveld et al., eds., Greek Literary Theory after
Aristotle: a Collection of Papers in Honour of D.  M. Schenkeveld, pp. 215–34.
Amsterdam: VU.
Studer, Basil. (1995). Zur Pneumatologie des Augustinus von Hippo (De Trinitate 15, 17, 27–27,
50). Augustinianum 50: pp. 529–53.
Studer, Basil. (2004). Die historische Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea. Adamantius
10: pp. 138–66.
Styger, Paul. (1918). La costruzione appartenente alla memoria Apostolorum coi suoi graffiti.
Dissertazioni della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 13: pp. 48–89.
Sulowski, François Jean. (1957). Les sources du De consolatione philosophiae de Boèce. S
25: pp. 76–85.
Sulowski, François Jean. (1961). The Sources of Boethius’ De consolatione philosophiae. S
29: pp. 67–94.
Sutherland, C. H. V., and Carson, R. A. G., eds. (1967). The Roman Imperial Coinage. VI: From
Diocletian’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximinus (A.D. 313). London: Spink and
Son Ltd.
Szidat, Joachim. (1982). Der Neuplatonismus und die Gebildeten im Wesen des Reiches.
Gedanken zu seiner Verbreitung und Kenntnis ausserhalb der Schultradition. MH 39: pp.
132–45.
Szlezák, Thomas Alexander. (1977). Plotin und die geheimen Lehren des Ammonios. In
Holzhey, H., and Zimmerli, W., eds., Esoterik und Exoterik der Philosophie, pp. 52–69.
Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co.
Takás, Sarolta A. (1995). Isis and Sarapis in the Roman World. RGRW 124. Leiden: Brill.
Talbert, Richard J. A. ed. (2000). BAGRW. Princeton: PUP.
Talloen, P. and M. Waelkens. (2004). Apollo and the Emperors. AS 34: pp. 171–216.
Tanaseanu-Döbler, Ilinca. (2009). Nur der Weise ist Priester: Rituale und Ritualkritik bei
Porphyrios. In Berner, U., and Tanaseanu-Döbler, I., eds., Religion und Kritik in der
Antike, pp. 109–55. Münster: LIT Verlag.
Taormina, Daniele P. (1997). Giamblico contro Plotino e Porfirio: il dibattito sull’atto e sul
movimento (apud Simplicio, In Categorias 301.20–308.10). SyllClass 8: pp. 95–112.
Taormina, Daniele P. (1999). Jamblique, critique de Plotin et de Porphyre: quatre études.
Paris: Vrin.
Taormina, Daniele P. (2002). Due scoli poco noti su Porfirio e Giamblico lettori dell’Organon.
In Barbanti et al., eds., pp. 419–24.
472  Bibliography

Taormina, Daniele P. (2012). Iamblichus: The Two-Fold Nature of the Soul and the Causes of
Human Agency. In Afonasin, Dillon, and Finamore, eds., pp. 63–73.
Taran, Leonardo. (1984). Amelius-Amerius: Porphyry Vita Plotini 7 and Eunapius Vitae Soph.
4.2. AMP 105: pp. 475–9.
Tardieu, Michel, ed. (1987). Les règles de l’interpretation. Patrimoines: religion du Livre CERL.
Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.
Tardieu, Michel. (1992). Les Gnostiques dans La Vie de Plotin. In Brisson et al., eds., Vol.
2: pp. 503–46.
Tardieu, Michel. ed. (1996). Recherches sur la formation de l’Apocalypse de Zostrien et les
sources de Marius Victorinus. In Michel Tardieu, ed., “Porphyre et Victorinus”: questions
et hypotheses. ROr 9. Leuven: Peeters.
Taylor, John H., S. J. (1948–9).The Meaning of Spiritus in St. Augustine’s De Genesi, XII. MSch
26: pp. 211–8.
Teixidor, Javier. (1998). La dédicace de Paul le Perse à Chosroès. In Dubois and Roussel, eds.,
pp. 199–208.
Tellegen-Couperus, Olga E., Testamentary succession in the Constitutions of Diocletian.
SAEIAP. Zutphen: Uitgeverij Terra.
Tescari, Onorato. (1944–5). Nota Epicurea (Il desiderio indefinito). RFIC 22–23: pp. 112–5.
TeSelle, E. (1974). Porphyry and Augustine. AugStud 5: pp. 113–47.
TeSelle, E. (1975). Regia dissimilitudinis in the Christian Tradition and its Context in Late
Greek Philosophy. AugStud 6: pp. 153–79.
Thedinga, Friedrich. (1927). Die Paraenese in der Porphyrios Schrift ΠΕΡΙ ΑΠΟXHΣ
ΕΜΨΥXΩΝ. RMP 66: pp. 54–101.
Theiler, Willy. (1933). Porphyrios und Augustin. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Theiler, Willy. (1966). Ammonios und Porphyrios. EAC XII, pp. 85–123.
Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Thesleff, Holger. (1980). Notes on Unio Mystica in Plotinus. Arctos 14: pp. 101–14.
Thomas, Nicholas L. (2011). Defending Christ: The Latin Apologists Before Augustine. STT 9.
Turnholt: Brepols.
Thomson, Bard. (1952). Patristic Use of the Sibylline Oracles. RRel 16: pp. 115–36.
Tilley, Maureen A. (1990). Scripture as an Element of Social Control: Two Martyr Stories of
Christian North Africa. HTR 83.4: pp. 383–97.
Tiné, Antonio. (1997). Le questioni su Porfirio di Pierre d’Auvergne. AHMA 64: pp. 235–333.
Toda, Satoshi. (2011). Eusebiana Syriaca: A Study in the Syriac Translation of the Works of
Eusebius of Caesarea. Unpublished paper read at the XVI International Conference on
Patristic Studies, the University of Oxford, August 2011.
Todd, Malcolm. (2004). The Early Germans. Second Edition. Oxford and Malden,
MA: Blackwell.
Tommasi, Chiara Ombretta. (1994). Porfirio e Vittorino. Humanitas n.s. 49.5: pp. 692–7.
Too, Yun Lee, ed. (2001). Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Leiden: Brill.
Toulouse, Stephanie. (2001). Que le vrai sacrifice est celui d’un Coeur pur: à propos d’un
oracle “porphyrien” (?) dans le Liber XXI sententiarum édité les œuvres d’Augustin. RA
32: pp. 169–223.
Trapè, Agostino. (1978). Escatologia e antiplatonismo di sant’Agostino. Augustinianum 18: pp.
237–44.
Trigg, Joseph W. (1998). Origen. ECF. London and New York: Routledge.
Tripolitis, Antonía. (2002). Religions of the Hellenistic-Roman Age. Grand Rapids: WBEP.
Trouillard, Jean. (1961). Valeur critique de la mystique plotinienne. RPhL 3rd ser. 59.63: pp. 431–44.
Trouillard, Jean. (1972). L’un et l’âme selon Proclus. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
 Bibliography  473

Trouillard, Jean. (1973). Le merveilleux dans la vie et la pensée de Proclus. RPFE 163: pp.
439–52.
Trouillard, Jean. (1974). Raison et mystique chez Plotin. REG 20: pp. 3–14.
Trout, Dennis E. (1989). Victoria Redux and dthe First Year of the Reign of Philip the Arab.
Chiron 19: pp. 221–33.
Trumbower, Jeffrey A. (2001). Rescue for the Dead. The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians
in Early Christianity. OSHT. Oxford: OUP.
Tsafrir, Yoram, et al., eds. (1994). Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea Palaestina. Eretz Israel in the
Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. With contributions by Israel Roll and Tsvika
Tsuk. TIR. Jerusalem: IASH.
Turcan, Robert. (1975). Mithras Platonicus. Recherches sur l’hellénisation philosophique de
Mithra. EPRO 47. Leiden: Brill.
Turcan, Robert. (1978). Le culte imperial au IIIe siecle. ANRW II.16.2: pp. 996–1084.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
Turcan, Robert. (1981). Le sacrifice mithriaque: innovations de sens et de modalités. EAC
XXVII, pp. 341–73. Geneva: Fondation Hardt.
Turcan, Robert. (1982). Salut mithriaque et sotériologie néoplatonicienne. In Bianchi and
Vermaseren, eds., pp. 173–91.
Turcan, Robert. (1994). La Royauté de Mithra. In Gasparro, ed., pp. 361–372.
Turcan, Robert. (1996a). Corè-Libéra?: Eleusis et les derniers païens. CRAI 2: pp. 745–67.
Turcan, Robert. (1996b). The Cults of the Roman Empire. Trans. Antonia Neville.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Turcan, Robert. (2000). Le laurier d’Apollon (en marge de Porphyre). In Haltenhoff, A., and
Mutschler, F.-H., eds., Hortus litterarum antiquarum: Festschrift für Hans Armin Gärtner
zum 70. Geburtstag, pp. 547–53. BKAW, Neue Folge 2. Reihe 109. Heidelberg: Winter.
Turcan, Robert. (2001). The Gods of Ancient Rome. Religion in Everyday Life from Archaic to
Imperial Times. Trans. Antonia Nevill. New York and London: Routledge.
Tyler, Philip. (1975). The Persian Wars of the 3rd Century A.D. and Roman Imperial Monetary
Policy, A.D. 253–68. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.
Ulansey, David. (1989). The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. Cosmology and Salvation in the
Ancient World. Oxford: OUP.
Ulansey, David. (1994). Mithras and the Hypercosmic Sun. In Hinnells, ed., IAHR: pp.
257–64.
Umberto, Roberto. (2011). From Hellenism to Christian Universal History. Julius Africanus
and the Atthidographers on the Origins of Athens. ZAC 14.3: pp. 525–39.
Vaclav, Jezek. (2001). How Original Was Porphyry’s Criticism of Christianity? Philotheos
1: pp. 100–09.
Vaganay, L. (1935). Porphyre. DTC 12.2: cols. 2555–90. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.
Valantasis, Richard. (2000). Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice. Princeton: PUP.
Vallet, François, and Kazanski, Michel, eds. (1993). L’Armée Romaine et les Barbares du IIIe au
VIIe siècle. Tome V. Rouen: AFAM; Saint-Germain-en-Laye: Musée des antiquités
nationales.
Van den Berg, R. M. (1999). Plotinus’ Attitude to Traditional Cult: A Note on Porphyry VP
10. AncPhil 19.2: pp. 345–60.
Van den Berg, R. M. (2001). Proclus’ Hymns. PA 90. Leiden: Brill.
Van der Horst, Pieter W. (1996). A Simple Philosophy: Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity.
In Keimpe, A., et al., eds., Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient
Philosophy Presented to Jaap Mansfied on His Sixtieth Birthday, pp. pp. 313–29. Leiden/
New York/Köln: Brill.
474  Bibliography

Van Fleteren, Frederick. (1999). Porphyry. In Fitzgerald, Allan D., O.S.A., gen.ed., AAE, pp.
661–3. Grand Rapids: WBEP.
Van Lieferringe, Carine. (1994). La theurgie: outil de restructuration dans le De Mysteriis de
Jamblique. Kernos 7, pp. 207–217.
Van Liefferinge, Carine. (1999). La Théurgie des Oracles Chaldaïques. Kernos Supplement 9
CIERGA. Liège: Presses universitaires.
Van Winden, J. C. M. (1992). True Philosophy—Ancient Philosophy. In Goulet-Cazé, Madec,
and O’Brien, eds., pp. 195–201.
Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. (2001). Magic, Religion, and Syncretism at the Oracle of Claros. In
Asirvatham, S. R., et al., eds., Between Magic and Religion. Interdisciplinary Studies in
Ancient Mediterranean Religion and Society. GSIA, pp. 13–31. Oxford: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. (2003a). Review of Bispham, E. and Smith, C., eds. (2000). Religion in
Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy:  Evidence and Experience. NPAW
2. Edinburgh: EUP. CR 53.1: pp. 203–5.
Várhelyi, Zsuzsanna. (2003b). Review of Rupke, J. (2001). Die Religion der Romer: Eine
Einfuhrung. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck. CR 53.1: pp. 202–3.
Vattioni, Francesco, ed. (1989). Sangue e antropologia nella teologia. Vol. 1. Rome: Edizioni Pia
Unione Preziosissimo Sangue.
Velkov, Velizar. (1998). Aurélien et sa politique en Mésie et en Thrace. In Frézouls and Joffroy,
eds., pp. 155–69.
Vella, Nicholas C. (2000). Defining Phoenician Religious Space:  Oumm el-’Amed
Reconsidered. ANES 37: pp. 27–55.
Venderspoel, J. (1999). Correspondence and Correspondents of Julius Julianus. Byz 69: pp.
396–478.
Vergote, J. (1939). Clément d’Alexandrie et l’écriture égyptienne. Essai d’interpretation de
Stromateis, V, iv, 20–21. Muséon 52: pp. 199–221.
Verbeke, G. (1975). Doctrine du Pneuma et entelechisme chez Aristote. In Lloyd and Owen,
eds., pp. 191–214.
Verkinderen, F. (1987). Les cités phéniciennes dans l’Empire d’Alexandre le Grand. Studia
Phoenicia 5 : pp. 287–308.
Vermaseren, Maarten J. (1982). La sotériologie dans les papyri gracae magicae. In Bianchi and
Vermaseren, eds., pp. 17–30.
Vermaseren, Maarten J., and van Essen, C. C. (1965). The Excavations in the Mithraeum of the
Church of Santa Prisca in Rome. Leiden: Brill.
Vermeeren, Thierry. (1991). Le type ‘legio’ dans le monnayage de Septime Sévère. RBN
137: pp. 65–94.
Verrycken, Koenraad. (1988). Porphyry, in Timaeum Fr. XXXVII (Philoponus, De Aeternitate
mundi contra Proclum 148, 9–23). AC 57: pp. 282–9.
Viciano, Albert. (2003). Cristianización del imperio romano. Orígenes de Europa. CCSMP.
Murcia: Fundación Universiataria San Antonio.
Vielberg, M. (2000). Klemens in den psedoklementinischen Rekognitionen: Studien zur liter-
arischen form des spätantiken Romans. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Villena, Francisco Maldonado. (1994). La tradicion etnographica relativa a los fenicos con-
servada fragmentariamente. ACEEC 3: pp. 235–41.
Voelkl, Ludwig. (1953). Die Konstantinischen Kirchenbauten nach Eusebius. RAC 29: pp.
187–206.
Voicu, S. J. (1992). Severian of Gabala. OECC II, pp. 772–3. Oxford: OUP.
 Bibliography  475

Von Albrecht, Michael. (2002). Das Menschenbild in Jamblichs Darstellung der pythagore-
ischen Lebensform. In von Albrecht et al., eds. (2002a): pp. 255–274.
Von Albrecht, Michael, et al., eds. (2002a). Jamblich. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΥΘΑΓΟΡΕΙΟΥ ΒΙΟΥ.
Pythagoras: Legende, Lehre, Lebensgestaltung. SAPERE 4. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Von Domaszweski, A. (1909). Die politische Bedeutung der Religion von Emesa. Archiv für
Religionswissenschaft 11: pp. 223–44.
Von Tudor, Andrei Sala. (2002). Die entwendeten (vor)letzten Wörte Plotins. PPhil 15: pp.
327–42.
Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich. (1900). Ein Bruchstück aus der Schrift des Porphyrius
gegen die Christen. ZNTW: pp. 101–5.
Von Werner, Deuse. (1977). Der Demiurg bei Porphyrios und Jamblich. In Zintzen, ed., pp.
238–78.
Vorwerk, Matthias. (2001). Plato on Virtue: Definitions of ΣΩΦΡΟΣΥΝH in Plato’s
Charmides and in Plotinus Enneads 1.2 (19). AJP 122: pp. 29–47.
Voss, Bernd Reiner. (1963). Spuren von Porphyrios De regressu animae bei Augustin De vera
religione. MH 20: pp. 237–9.
Waelkens, Robert. (1974). L’èconomie, theme apologétique et principe herméneutique dans
l’Apocriticos de Macarios Magnès RTHP VI.4. Louvain: PUL.
Walbank, F. W. (1992). The Hellenistic World. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: HUP.
Wallace-Hadrill, D. S. (1960). Eusebius of Caesarea. London: Mowbray.
Wallis, R. T. (1972). Neoplatonism. 2nd ed. Foreward by Lloyd P. Gerson. London: BCP.
Wallis, R. T. (1986). The Spiritual Importance of Not Knowing. In Armstrong, A. H., ed., pp.
460–80.
Wallis, R. T. (1995). Neoplatonism. Second Edition. Foreward and Bibliography by Lloyd
P. Gerson. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.
Wallraff, Marin. (2001). Constantine’s Devotion to the Sun after 324. StudPat 34: pp. 256–69.
Wallraff, Marin. (2011). The Beginnings of Christian Universal History: From Tatian to Julius
Africanus. ZAC 14.3: pp. 540–55.
Walzer, Richard. (1966). Porphyry and the Arabic Tradition. In Dörrie et al., eds. (1966a), pp.
274–99.
Ward, Allen M. (1974). Crassus’ Slippery Eel. CR 24: pp. 185–6.
Ward-Perkins, Bryan. (2005). The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization. Oxford: OUP.
Waszink, J. H. (1941). Die sogenannte Fünfteilung der Träume bei Chalcidius und ihre
quellen. Mnemosyne 9: pp. 65–85.
Waszink, J. H. (1966). Porphyrios und Numenios. In Dörrie et al., eds. (1966a), pp. 33–83.
Waszink, J. H. (1969). Calcidius’ Erklärung von Tim. 411e 2–42a4. MH 26: pp. 271–80.
Watson, Alaric. (1999). Aurelian and the Third Century. London and New York: Routledge.
Watson, Gerard. (1983–4). St. Augustine, the Platonists and the Resurrection of the Body. ITQ
50.2–4: pp. 222–32.
Watts, Dorothy. (1998). Religion in Late Roman Britain. Forces of Change. London and
New York: Routledge.
Weber, Max. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Trans. A. M. Henderson
and Talcott Parsons. New York: OUP.
Wells, Peter S. (2008). Peoples Beyond the Roman Imperial Frontiers. In Bispham, ed., pp.
299–328.
Werner, Daniel S. (2012). Myth and Philosophy in Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: CUP.
Westerink, L. G. (1960). A New Fragment of Euphorio. Mnemosyne 13: pp. 329–30.
476  Bibliography

Westerink, L.  G. (1976–77). The Greek Commentaries on Plato’s Phaedo. 2 vols.

Amsterdam: NHPC.
White, L. Michael. (1996). The Social Origins of Christian Architecture. I. Building God’s House
in the Roman World: Architectural Adaptation Among Pagans, Jews, and Christians.
Harvard Theological Studies 42. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International.
Whitehorne, John. (1997). The Supposed Co-regency of Clopatra Tryphaena and Berenice IV
(58–55 B.C.). In Kramer, B., ed., 21. Internationaler Papyrologenkongresses Berlin, 13.-
19.8.1995. 2 vols. 2: pp. 1009–13. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Whittaker, John. (1969). ΕΠΕΚΕΙΝΑ ΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ. VChr 23: pp. 91–104.
Whittaker, John. (1973). Neopythagoreanism and the Transcendent Absolute. SO
48: pp. 77–86.
Whittaker, John. (1997). Plotinus at Alexandria: Scholastic Experiences in the Second and
Third Centuries. DSTradF 8: pp. 159–90.
Whittaker, Helene. (2001). The Purpose of Porphyry’s Letter to Marcella. SO 76: pp. 150–68.
Wicker, Kathleen O’Brien. (1989). Porphyry’s Ad Marcellam: Marriage and the Practice of
Philosophy. In Sutton, Robert F., Jr., ed., DAIDALIKON. Studies in Memory of Raymond
V. Schoder, S.J., pp. 415–24. Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.
Wickham, Lionel R., and Bammel, Caroline P., assisted by Hunter, Erica C. D., eds. (1993).
Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Essays in Tribute to George
Christopher Stead Ely Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge (1971–1980). In
Celebration of his Eightieth Birthday 9th April 1993. Leiden: Brill.
Wiesner, Jürgen, ed. (1987). Aristoteles Werk und Wirkung. Vol. 2:  Kommetierung,
Überlieferung, Nachleben. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wild, Robert A. (1984). The Known Isis-Serapis Sanctuaries of the Roman Period. ANRW
II.17.4: pp. 1739–1851. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Wilberding, James. (2006). Plotinus’ Cosmology. A Study of Ennead II.1 (40). Text, Translation,
and Commentary. Oxford: OUP.
Wildberg, Christian. (1990). Three Neoplatonic Introductions to Philosophy: Ammonius,
David and Elias. Hermathena 149: pp. 33–51.
Wildberg, Christian. (2002). ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟ ΤΕΛΟΣ: Neuplatonische Ethik zwischen Religion
und Metaphysik. In Kobusch and Erler, eds., pp. 261–78.
Wilken, Robert L. (1979). Pagan Criticism of Christianity: Greek Religion and Christian
Faith. In Schoedel, W. R., and Wilken, R. L., eds., Early Christian Literature and the
Classical Intellectual Tradition in Honorem Robert M. Grant. TH 54, pp. 117–34.
Paris: Editions Beauchesne.
Wilken, Robert L. (1984). The Christians as the Pagans Saw Them. New Haven: YUP.
Wilken, Robert L. (2003). The Spirit of Early Christian Thought. Seeking the Face of God. New
Haven: YUP.
Wilkens, Karsten. (1977). Zwei Anmerkungen zur Plotinausgabe des Porphyrios. Hermes
105.3: pp. 275–89.
Wilkes, J. J. (1993). Diocletian’s Palace, Split: Residence of a Retired Roman Emperor.
Sheffield: ISMC.
Wilkes, J. J. (2002). The Legions in the Principate: Updating Ritterling. JRA 15: pp. 528–35.
Williams, Rowan, ed. (2002). The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick.
Cambridge: CUP.
Williams, Stephen. (1985). Diocletian and the Roman Recovery. New York: Methuen.
Winkelmann, Friedhelm. (1991). Euseb von Kaisareia. Der Vater der Kirchengeschichte.
Berlin: Verlags-Anstalt Union.
 Bibliography  477

Wissowa, Georg. (2003). The Historical Development of Roman Religion: An Overview. In

Ando, ed., pp. 330–57.
Witschel, Christian. (2004). Reevaluating the Roman West in the 3rd Century A.D. JRA
17: pp. 251–83.
Witt, R. E. (1971). Isis in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Thames & Hudson.
Wolff, Hartmut. (1976). Die Constitutio Antoniniana und Papyrus Gissensis 40
I. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophischen Fakultät der
Universität zu Köln. Köln: Universitätsdruck.
Wolfram, Herwig. (1993). L’armée romaine comme modèle pour l’Exercitus barbarorum. In
Vallet and Kazanski, eds., pp. 13–5.
Wolfram, Herwig. (1997). The Roman Empire and Its Germanic Peoples. Translated by Thomas
Dunlap. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: UCP.
Wolfskeel, C. W. (1972a). Augustin über die Weltseele in der Schrift De Immortalitate Animae.
ThPi 1: pp. 81–103.
Wolfskeel, C. W. (1972b). Ist Augustin in De immortalitate animae von der Gedankenwelt des
Porphyrios Beeinflusst worden? VChr 26: pp. 130–45.
Wolters, Al. (1990). The Oracle in Ficino’s Translation of the Vita Plotini. In Harlfinger, D.,
ed., ΦΙΛΟΦΡΟΝHΜΑ. Festschrift für Martin Sicherl zum 75. Geburtstag. SGKA IV.
Paderborn/Munich: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Woods, David. (1992). Two Notes on the Great Persecution. JTS n.s. 43.1: pp. 128–34.
Woolf, Gregory. (2003). Polis-Religion and its Alternatives in the Roman Provinces. In Ando,
ed., pp. 39–54.
Wright, David P. (2013). Syro-Canaanite Religions. In Salzman and Sweeney, eds., CHRAW I,
pp. 129–50.
Wypustek, A. (1993). The Problem of Human Sacrifices in Roman North Aftica. Eos 81: 263–80.
Yon, Jean-Baptiste. (2011). Les Tyriens dans le monde méditerranéen à l’époque hellénistique.
In Gatier et al., eds., pp. 33–61.
Zahn, T. (1878). Zu Makarius von Magnesia. ZKG 2: pp. 450–59.
Zaidman, Louise Bruit, and Pauline Schmitt Pantel. (1994). Religion in the Ancient Greek City.
Trans. Paul Cartledge. Cambridge: CUP.
Zambon, Marco. (2002). Porphyre et le Moyen-Platonisme. HDAC 27. Paris: J. Vrin.
Zambon, Marco. (2012). Contra Christianos. DPA Vb: 1419–47.
Zaninovic, Marin. (1998). Diocletien et le commerce du Marbre en Dalmatie. In Frézouls and
Jouffroy, eds., 179–86.
Zhmud, Leonid. (1997). Eudemus’ History of Mathematics. HYPERBOREUS 3.2: pp. 274–97.
Zintzen, Clemens. (1965). Die Wertung von Mystik und Magie in der Neuplatonischen
Philosophie. RMP 108: pp. 71–100.
Zintzen, C., ed. (1977). Die Philosophie des Neuplatonismus. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft.
Zolla, Elémire. (1963–4). Bomarzo—Eine Neuplatonische Weihestätte. Ant 5: pp. 353–67.
Zuckerman, Constantin. (1994). Les compagnes des Tétrarques, 296–298. Notes de chronolo-
gie. AT 2: pp. 65–70.
 Index

Abomination of Desolation, 12, 73 Ammonios Sakkas, 13

Abraham, 113, 195 Anatolius, 185
Achilles, 70 Anastasius Sinaita, 53, 85
Actium, 5 Ancestral Customs, xlii, 30, 130, 136, 139,
Acts of the Apostles, 200 140, 146, 147, 150, 201, 220
Ad Marcellam  See Porphyry of Tyre Anebo, Egyptian Priest, 25
Aeacus, 161, 177, 178 Anima Intellectualis  See Augustine,
Aelius Aristides, 109 Porphyry of Tyre, Soul
Aeneas of Gaza, 19 Anima Spiritalis  See Augustine, Porphyry of
Aether, 174, 177 Tyre, Soul
Africa Proconsularis, 7, 58, 59, 60, 61 Annas, Julia, 159, 162, 164
Afterlife, xxxv, xl, xlii, 161, 171, 180, 181, 184, Anonymous Philosopher, See Diocletian,
221, 222 Lactantius, Porphyry of Tyre
and Ethereal Realm, xxxv, xlii, 171, 175, Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic
177, 178, 179, 180, 221 Philosophy, 144
and Isles of the Blessed, 161, 162, 163 Antioch, 68, 72
Orphic teachings on, 160, 161, 186 Antiochus Epiphanes, 73
Plato’s teaching on, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165 Antigonus, 5
and Tartarus, 162 Antoninus (Elagabalus), 191
See also Chapter 9, Eschatology, Anulinus, 59, 60
Iamblichus, Porphyry of Tyre Apamea, 18, 78
Agrippa, Letter to, 149 Apollinarius, 52, 67, 86
Alamanni, 57 Apollo, Oracles of, xlii, 46, 129, 132, 163, 176,
Alcibiades, 12, 16, 67 177, 178, 179
Allegorical Method  See Origen Apollodorus, 195
Alexander Severus, xliii, 189, 191, 192, 193, Apollonius, 12, 14
206, 218 Arabia, 57
Alexander the Great, xxxvii, 5, 8, 111, 211, 212 Ardashir, 190
Alexandria Arethas Caesariensis, 53, 85, 91
Catechetical School of, 69 Arianism, 68
Metropolitan Church of, 61 Aristotle
riots at, 192 and the Categories, 85
Ambrose, 19 and the Organon, 31
Amelius, 15, 176 Armstrong, A. H., 177, 178

479
480  Index

Arnobius 169, 170, 173, 174, 180, 193, 208, 210, 213,
admitted to the church, 58 218, 219, 220, 223 See also Porphyry of
and Adversus nationes, 53, 62, 214 Tyre, Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 4,
and animal sacrifice, 58–59, 214 Chapter 5, Chapter 7
and the bishop of Sicca Veneria, 57–59 and Quaestiones Veteris et Novi
converted to Christ by dreams, 53, 58, 60 Testamenti, 79
and De Philosophia exoraculis, 53 and salvation only through Christ, 107,
and Eusebius and Lactantius, xxxiii, 60, 113, 121, 218
64, 214, 215, 216 and theurgical rituals, 50, 134, 170, 220
first Christian writer to respond to See also Porphyry of Tyre
Porphyry, xxxix, 121, 133, 219 Aurelian, xliii, 13, 111, 192
and the Great Persecution, 58–59, 214 coins of, 193
and Jerome, 53, 56 and DEO AVRELIANO, 193
retractations of Porphyry’s and Imperial Cult, 193, 206
criticisms, 58, 81 and Sol Invictus, 204
Rhetor, 53
and Sicca Veneria, 53 60 Baal, 6
and soteriological universalism, 215 Baal-Hamon, 6, 7
and Viri novi, xl, 17, 52, 53, 54, 55, 60, Baal Malage, 7
62–63, 93, 98 Baal Saphon, 7
Arrian, 8, 79 Baal Shamin, 7
Arslan Tash, 9 Barnes, T. D., 17, 18, 43, 64, 68, 70, 83,
Artaxias, 73 84, 93, 94
Asclepius, 65, 108, 200 Batanaea, See Porphyry
Ashurbanipal II, 5 Beatrice, P. F., xxxix, 11, 33, 43, 66
Asphalius, Letter to, 150 Berchman, R., 66, 68
Assyria, 5, 41 Bidez, J., xxxv, xxxviii, 3, 4, 7, 9, 14, 16, 20, 32,
Athanasius of Alexandria, 12, 52, 66 46, 119, 172, 215, 216, 223
Athanasius Syrius, 10 Blumenthal, Henry, 165
Athanassiadi, P., 224 Bodhisattvas, xlii, 182, 224
Athens, xxxvii, 13, 68, 226 See also Porphyry Bowersock, G. W., 6
of Tyre Brisson, Luc, 18
Athirat, 7 Brown, Peter, 14, 81
Augsburg, 56, 108 Bussanich, John, 160, 161, 162, 163,
Augustine 166, 167
and Ad Deogratias, 81 Busine, Aude, 33, 44, 50, 128
and anima intellectualis, 218 See also Byblos, 5
Porphyry of Tyre, Soul
and anima spiritalis, 218 See also Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage, 60
Porphyry of Tyre, Soul Caelestis, 7
and Contra Christianos, 53, 79–81 Caesarea, 10, 82
and De Civitate Dei, xxxv, 26, 28, 50, 113, Calcidius, 18
131, 139, 169, 170, 179, 180, 193, 218, Campania, 14, 23
219, 223 Caracalla, xlii, xliii, 191, 206, 209, 211 See
and De consensu evangelistarum, 79 also Constitutio Antoniniana
and De sermone domini, 79 Carthage, 7, 58
and Porphyry, xxxv, xxxvii, 4, 14, 19, 25, Cedar Gods, 7
26, 28, 31, 55, 88, 90, 107, 109, 113, 114, Celsus, 71, 83, 97
115, 116, 120, 122, 123, 126, 131, 133, 138, Chadwick, Henry, 42

Chaldaean
cosmology, 170, 174, 177
Empyrean realm, 46, 170, 172, 173, 176,
177, 179, 183
Ethereal realm, xxxv, xlii, 170, 171, 175, 177,
178, 179, 180, 221
Material realm, 170
Oracles, 50, 186
Religious practices, 25, 129
Theology, 132
Christ  See Jesus Christ
Christianity
as agent of unification, 201
economic appeal of, 200, 201
as effective crisis manager, xxxiv, xxxv,
200, 226
triumph of, xxxiv, xxxv, xliii, 52, 198, 201,
214, 216, 225, 226
See also Arnobius, Constantine,
Diocletian, Eusebius, Iamblichus, Jesus
Christ, Lactantius, Porphyry of Tyre,
Chapter 10, Chapter 11
Clark, Gillian, xxxix, 199
Claudianus Mamertus, 18
Clement of Alexandria, 38
Constantine
and Basilica Apostolorum, 61
Battle at the Milvian Bridge, 59
and calling Arians “Porphyrians”, 197
and Christian unification, 201, 206, 218,
225, 226
construction of churches under, 61, 62
conversion to Christ, 60, 209
and the De laudibus Constantini, 37
and “Edict of Milan,” 60
and Eusebius, 197, 212 See also Eusebius
law against the Contra Christianos, 197
laws against paganism, 59, 61
Letters to Anulinus, 59, 60, 61
Letter to Caecilian, 60, 61
and Licinius, 56
pro-Christian policies of, xxxix, xlii, xliii,
59, 60, 61, 94, 187, 201, 205, 206, 209,
216, 218, 225, 226
and the Roman army, 216
and Sol Invictus, 204
and soteriological universalism, xliii, 197,
198, 201, 205, 206, 209, 216, 225, 226
vision of A.D.  312, 59, 60
Index  481
Constantinian Revolution, xxxiv, xxxvix, 59,
125, 187, 196, 225
Constantinople, 68
Constantinople, Council of, 68, 69
Constantius II, 59
Constitutio Antoniniana, xlii, xliii, 191, 206,
207, 210, 211
Continentia(swfrwsuvnh), xxxvi, 26, 51, 90,
98, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 124,
126, 135, 142, 149, 152, 177, 184, 185, 196,
219, 220, 222, 223 See also Scala
Virtutum
Contra Christianos  See Porphyry of Tyre
and Chapter 4
Contra Porphyrium  See Eusebius of
Caesarea
Cook, John G., 84, 87
Criobolium  See Cybele
Ctesiphon, 190
Cybele, xliii, 57, 125, 201
Criobolium and Taurobolium of, 203
salvific benefits of, 203
and the Sibylline Books, 203
Cynic Philosophers, 212
Cyril of Alexandria, 53, 81
Damascenus Studites, 53, 88
Damascius, 138, 169
tripartite soteriology of, 170, 220
Daniel, Book of, 67, 72–78, 195, 196
Demetrius, 14
De antro nympharum See Porphyry of Tyre
De abstinentia  See Porphyry of Tyre
Demonstratio evangelica, See Eusebius of
Caesarea
De philosophia ex oraculis  See Porphyry
of Tyre
De regressu animae  See Porphyry of Tyre
De Vita Plotini See Porphyry of Tyre
De Vita Pythagorae See Porphyry of Tyre
Decius
and pax deorum, 192
and persecution of Christians, 10, 11, 192,
206, 211, 216
Weltreligion of, 192
Decian Persecution  See Decius
Demetrius
Demiurge, 143, 182
Deus Frugifer, 109
482  Index
Didache, 200
Didymus the Blind, xxxix, 53, 69
Digeser, Elizabeth, xxxiii, xxxviii, 10, 20, 25,
55, 64, 66, 84, 138, 214, 219
Dillon, John, xlii, 62, 124, 148, 150, 156, 172,
180, 181, 182
Diocletian
and the “anonymous philosopher,” xli,
41–43, 52, 56, 59, 60, 64
coinage of, 194
and dating Adversus nationes, 53–63
and the Edict against Adultery, 193
and the Edict against Consanguineous
Marriages, 193
and the Edict against Manicheanism, 191
and Great Persecution of Christians, xxix,
xxxviii, xxxix, xli, 8, 17, 22, 23, 32, 55, 58,
59, 60, 61, 62, 90, 187, 193, 194, 216, 222
and the Imperial Conference A.D. xxxviii,
302, 18, 30, 32, 64
imperial support of De philosophia ex
oraculis, 222
and Maximian, 194
and Mos maiorum, xxxviii, 194
New Imperial Theology of, xxxviii, 90,
121, 137, 194, 216, 218, 220, 222
Porphyry & Diocletianic Age, 31, 214, 220,
222, 225
propaganda campaign against
Christians, 42
and soteriological universalism, 194,
211, 225
and the Tetrarchy, xxxix, 38, 75, 187, 206,
211, 214, 215, 216, 220
and the title Jovius, 194
unification program of, xliii, 194, 211, 214,
216, 222, 225
Diodore of Tarsus, 52, 68
Dionysius of Alexandria, 8, 199
Diophanes, 12, 16
Drake, H., 197
Dura-Europos, 189
Dyscolius, Letter to, 150
Edwards, Mark, 56–63
Elagabalus, xliii
Eleusinian Mysteries, 160, 186, 212
three stages of initiation of, 186, 212
Empedocles, 160
Empyrean Realm, 46, 170, 172, 173, 176,
179, 183
Enneads  See Porphyry of Tyre, Plotinus
Ephrem, 72
Epiphanius, 53, 71
Er, Myth of, See Plato
Eratosthenes, 195
Erichthonius, 47
Eros, 179
Esarhaddon, 5
Eschatological Salvation, xl, xli, xlii, 27, 48,
49, 107, 132, 134, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164,
170, 179, 220, 221, 222 See also
Chapter 9
Eshmun, 7
Ethereal Realm, xxxv, xlii, 49, 170, 175, 177,
178, 179, 180, 220, 221
Eubulus, 16
Eudoxus of Cnidos, 185
Eunapius, xxxvii, 4, 8, 9, 13, 18, 128
Eunomius, 79
Eusebius of Caesarea
and Arnobius & Lactantius, xxxiii, 31, 64,
214, 215, 215
and the church in Rome, 199
Chronicle, xliii
and Constantine, xxxix, 60, 64, 197
and Contra Christianos, 52 See also
Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 5,
Chapter 7
Contra Porphyrium, 10, 12, 64, 65, 66,
67, 83, 97
De sepulchro Christi, 217
Demonstratio evangelica, xxxix, xliii, 64,
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102, 196, 215,
216, 217
General Basic Introduction, 66
Historia ecclesiastica, 93
and New Philosophers, xl, 93, 98
Oratio ad sanctorum coetum, 196, 199
Oratio de laudibus Constantini, 37, 38,
93, 217
and Porphyry, xxxix, 35, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, 81, 82, 92, 97, 131, 133, 195,
196, 212 See also Chapter 2, Chapter 3,
Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 7
Praeparatio evangelica, xlii, 34, 35, 39, 40,
41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 64, 93,
94, 96, 97, 98, 195, 215, 216, 217, 219, 223
 Index  483

soteriological universalism of, xliii, 31, 95, Hierocles, Sossianus, 42, 83, 84, 90, 97
100, 101, 102, 215, 217, 218 See also Hippolytus, 78, 195
Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 7 Hoffmann, J., 77
Theophany of, xxxix, xl, xlii, 54, 55, 57, 65, Homer, 14, 18, 29, 70
66, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101, 102, Homeric Questions See Porphyry of Tyre
103, 213, 215, 216, 217 See also Chapter 5 Hylic Realm  See Material (Hylic) Realm
World Chronicle of, xliii, 195
Eustochius, 22 Iamblichus
Ezekiel, Book of, 78 and Commentary on the Phaedo, 180
and cooperative demiurgy, 156
Fate, 49, 50, 108, 131, 154, 155, 166, 202, 221 and De anima, 138, 153, 155, 156, 157, 172,
Feriale Duranum, xliii, 189, 190 178, 180
Finamore, John, 62, 154, 156, 172, 181, 182 and the Demiurge, 157
Firmicus Maternus, 52, 67–68, 129 and De mysteriis, xli, 144, 148, 150, 154,
Fowden, Garth, xliii, 13, 18, 32, 206, 208 156, 183, 184, 185
Franks, 57 and Eschatology of Descent, xlii, 155, 157,
159, 160, 165, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184
Gallienus, xlii, 14, 23, 75, 189, 194 and letters of, 148, 149, 150, 151, 220
as bringer of salus, 195 and the masses (herd), xli, 154, 157, 182,
coinage of, 195 183, 184, 211
and growth of Christianity, xxxvi, 189, 195 and mathematical studies, 144, 151, 184
and plague under, 200 and median class of souls, xli, xlii, 122,
See also Peace of Gallienus 148, 150, 151, 155, 156, 157, 183, 184,
Galerius, Edict of Toleration A.D.  311, 220, 224
60, 111 and Neoplatonic school in Apamea, xli,
Genesis, Book of, 84, 87 xlii, 17, 18, 25, 183
Germanic tribes, See Rome and Noetic souls, xli, xlii, 153, 157, 182,
Gnostics, 16, 28 184, 224
Goths, 56, 57, 59, 192 See also Rome and the One, 109, 152, 179, 180, 181
Goulet, Richard, 10, 44, 52, 64, 78, 83, and permanent escape, xlii, 171, 177,
84, 86, 88 180, 184
Great Persecution  See Diocletian and Porphyry, xli, xlii, 134, 135, 148, 149,
Gregory of Nyssa, 19 172, 183, 184, 185, 224 See also Chapter 8
Gregory Thaumaturge, 12, 67 and Scala virtutum, 153
Gressmann, Hugo, 93 and Sensate Particulars, 156, 158
and Soteriology of Descent, 134, 157,
Hades, 179 158, 224
Hadot, Pierre, 3 and The Theology of Arithmetic, 185
Harnack, A., 11, 12, 43, 64, 65, 66, 69, 72, and Theurgy, xli, 138, 151, 151, 153, 155, 157,
79, 83, 85 158, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 220, 224
Hannibal, 57, 203 and Tripartite Soteriology of, 182, 183,
Hebrew, Classical, 82 220, 224
Hecate, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 131, 132, 133 and three classes of souls, xli, 154, 157, 180,
Hector, 70 182, 183, 184
Heracles, 6 and vehicle of the soul, 175, 180
Herod, 4 See also Chapter 8, Theurgy
Herodotus, 6, 75 Imperial Cult, xliii, 7, 111, 125, 193, 202, 204,
Hindus, 56 205, 206, 207, 208, 218 See also
Hiram, King of Tyre, 5 Chapter 10
484  Index

Infant Sacrifice, 7 Johnson, R. J., 164

Isagoge, See Porphyry of Tyre Johnston, Sarah I., 45, 50, 186
Ishtar, 7 Jonah, Book of, 80
Isis, xliii, 15, 56, 108, 125, 201 Josephus, 4
and healing, 201 Julian the Apostate, 10, 68, 83, 84, 85, 188, 204, 226
and personal salvation, 201 Julius Africanus, 195
salvific benefits of, 202 Jupiter, 112, 191, 193, 194
Isles of the Blessed, See Afterlife Jupiter Ferretius, 108
Jupiter Dolichenus, xliii, 125, 201, 203, 204
Jerome Jurado, Enrique, 64, 66, 72, 79
Chronicon, 56, 195 Justin Martyr, 78, 215
and Contra Christianos, xxxix, 12, 53, 64, Justinian, 6, 226
67, 69, 72–79, 81
De viris illustribus, 56, 57, 58, 67 Kofsky, A., 66, 93
and Eusebius, 65
Jerusalem, Santa Croce church, 61 Lactantius
Jesus Christ and the “anonymous philosopher”, xli,
Celsus’s criticisms of, 71 41–43, 52, 56, 59, 60, 64
Christology concernng, 74, 75, 84, 98, 100 and Arnobius and Eusebius, xxxiii, 64,
conversions to, 198, 199 214, 215, 216, 219
crucifixion of, 84, 121, 196, 201 and Porphyry, xxxix, 64, 219
disciples of, 74, 77, 98, 200, 213 Pupil of Arnobius, 63
Divine Philosophy of, 97, 99, 100 and soteriological universalism, 215
Eschaton of, 76 Lee, Samuel, 92
and fulfilment of Old Testament Le Kef  See Sicca Veneria
prophecies, 90, 94, 97, 195 Liebeschuetz, W., 216
and the “Great Commission”, 198, 215 Lilybaeum, 17
incarnation of, 196 Lloyd, A. C., 136
and Johannine theology, 200 Longinus, xxxvii, 4, 13, 17 See also Porphyry
as the Lamb of God, 188 of Tyre
miracles of, 74, 77, 84 Lucius, 202
Parousia of, 195 Luck, G., 45
Porphyry’s criticisms of, 66, 75, 76, 77, 78, Luke, Gospel of, 71, 73
79, 80, 85, 98, 99, 132, 133, 195, 196, 200, Lydians, 41
213, 215 See also Porphyry of Tyre
resurrection of, 74, 80 Macarius Magnes, 53, 70, 83, 91
salvific benefits of, 96 Macedonius, Letter to, 150
Universal Savior, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxix, xl, MacMullen, Ramsay, 216
xliii, 78, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, Magna Mater, See Cybele
102, 103, 107, 113, 187, 188, 196, 197, 198, Magny, Ariane, 10, 279, 280, 300, 306, 309,
200, 204, 217, 218, 223, 226 See also 311, 312, 313
Arnobius, Augustine, Constantine, Mai, Angelo, 93
Eusebius, Lactantius, Porphyry of Tyre Majercik, Ruth, 45
Chapter 5 Mani, 190
Job, Book of, 78 Manicheanism, xliii, 28, 108, 125, 191, 201 See
John, Gospel of, 86 also Diocletian
John Chrysostom, 53, 68, 79 Marcella, See Porphyry of Tyre
John Philoponus, 19, 131 Marcellus Orrontius, 14, 22
Johnson, A., 33 Marcus Aurelius, 13
 Index  485

Marinus, 147 Nicomedia, 32, 64
Marius Victorinus, 18 Nock, A. D., xxxiii, 205
Mark, Gospel of, 73, 74 Novice Philosopher, xxxv, xli, 33, 37, 39, 117,
Mars, 46, 50 137, 140, 141, 145, 146, 147, 151, 183, 184,
Masses, Salvation for, xl, xli, 23, 33, 37, 39, 220, 221, 223 See also Continentia
109, 112, 12, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 138, North Africa,
183, 184, 201, 206, 207, 221, 222, 226 See Phoenician colonies in, 7
also Chapter 6 Roman North Africa, 109
Mathematics, 141, 142, 144, 151, 184, 212, North, J. A., 214
220, 221 Nous, 131, 142, 143, 148 See also Chapter 7,
Material (Hylic) Realm, 170, 177, 179 Chapter 8, Chapter 9
Mattthew, Gospel of, 12, 73, 74, 80, 97, Numenius, 21, 181
100, 215
Maximian, 194 Oak, Synod of the, 72
Maximin Daia, 7 Olbia, 186
McCracken, George E., 60 Old St. Peter’s Basilica, 61
Melqart, 6, 7 Old Testament, 10, 22, 43, 66, 70, 73, 80, 82,
Methodius of Olympus, 52, 63 85, 88, 95
Michael Glykas, 53, 87 Olympiodorus, xlii
Michael Psellus, 53, 86, 87, 91 Olympius, Letter to, 150
Michael Syriacus, 53 Olympius of Alexandria, 9
Millar, Fergus, 4 O’Meara, Dominic, 146
Minos, 161, 177, 178 O’Meara, John J., 43, 127, 128
Mithraism, xliii, 28, 108, 125, 201, 202 On the Triad, 185
initiation rites of, 202 One, the, 15, 119, 120, 121, 138, 140, 145, 152, 153,
male participation in, 202 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 172, 173, 175,
Mithraea of, 202 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184, 219, 221
sacramental meal of, 202 Origen, xxxvi, 10, 12, 13, 56, 66, 69, 82,
seven initiation levels of, 202 89, 215
Mithras  See Mithraism Orphic teaching, 160, 161, 186
Moesia Inferior, 192
Mos Maiorum, 81, 110, 187, 191, 192, 194, 222 Pacatus, 53, 84
Moses, 113, 196 Palmyra, 13
Pan, 47
Nemesius, 19, 53, 71, 123 Parthia, 57
Neoplatonism, xlii, 18, 29, 114, 169, 186, Path I Salvation (Porphyry) See
208, 225 Eschatological Salvation, Iamblichus,
and the number three, 186 Masses, Salvation for, Porphyry of
See also Iamblichus, Plato, Plotinus, Tyre, Salvation, Soul, Tripartite
Porphyry of Tyre, Proclus, Chapters 1, Soteriology, Universal Salvation,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 7,
Neptune, 109 Chapter 8, Chapter 9
New Philosophers, See Viri novi Path II Salvation (Porphyry) See Ad
New Testament, 13, 43, 74, 80, 84, 85, 95 Marcellam, Continentia, Iamblichus,
Nicaea, Council of, 61, 226 Marcella, Novice Philosopher,
Nicene Creed, 197 Porphyry of Tyre, Salvation, Soul,
Nicene Orthodoxy, xxxiv, 209 Tripartite Soteriology, Universal
Nicephorus, 10 Salvation, Chapter 2, Chapter 3,
Nicomachus, 185 Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9
486  Index
Path III Salvation (Porphyry) See
Iamblichus, Marcella, Novice
Philosopher, Porphyry of Tyre,
Salvation, Soul, Tripartite Soteriology,
Universal Salvation, Chapter 2,
Chapter 3, Chapter 7, Chapter 8,
Chapter 9
Paul of Tarsus
eschatological teaching of, 172
and Macarius Magnes, 84
Porphyry’s criticisms of, 74, 85
Paulinus of Nola, 84
Paulinus of Scytholopis, 22
Pax deorum, 111, 192 See also Decius
Peace of Gallienus, xxxiv, xxxvi, xliii, 189,
194, 216
Persecutions of Christians  See
Diocletian, Decius
Persia, xlii, 57, 97, 188, 190, 192
and Sassanian Dynasty, xliii, 190
See also Ardashir, Rome, Shapur,
Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism
Pescennius Niger, 5
Peter, Simon
and Macarius Magnes, 84
and the name Cephas, 74
Porphyry’s criticisms of, 69, 74, 98
Pherecydes, 160
Philo of Byblos, Phoenician History, 6
Philosophia ex oraculis, See Porphyry of Tyre
Philosophical way to salvation  See
Eschatological Salvation, Iamblichus,
Plotinus, Porphyry of Tyre, Rebirth
Cycles, Salvation, Soul, Tripartite
Soteriology, Chapter 2, Chapter 3,
Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9
Philostorgius, 53, 67, 79
Phoebus, 48
Phoenicia, xxxvii, 3, 5–8, 41, 43, 58
Phoenician Colonies, See North Africa
Phoenician History, See Philo of Byblos
Phoenician Language, 4, 10
Photius, 79
Pindar, 160
Plato
Alcibiades I, 144
Apology, 159
Cratylus, 30, 144
and dialogues of, 144, 179, 184, 220, 221
and Epistemology, 138, 159
and eschatology, xlii, 144, 159, 160, 161,
162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 173, 174, 175, 175,
177, 179, 180
Gorgias, xli, 134, 144, 159, 161, 162, 165
and knowledge of God, 100, 152, 212
and the human soul, 134, 144, 166, 212
Laws, xli, 144, 146, 159, 162, 165
and mathematics, 143, 144, 151, 184, 212,
220, 221
and meaning of myth, xli, 160, 161
Myth of Er, xlii, 134, 163, 164, 169, 173, 174,
176, 179
Parmenides, 30, 144
Phaedo, xli, 30, 134, 144, 159, 161, 162, 163,
165, 169
Phaedrus, xli, xlii, 134, 144, 162, 163, 165,
173, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 184, 224
Philebus, 30, 144
and the Prophet, 164, 174
and reception history of, 159, 160
Republic, xli, 14, 30, 122, 134, 138, 139, 143,
146, 149, 150, 159, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165,
173, 175
Sophist, 30, 144
Statesman, 144, 162
and the Summum Bonum, 212
Symposium, 12, 16, 67, 144, 162, 178
Theaetetus, 144
Timaeus, 18, 30, 102, 143, 144, 157, 159,
163, 182
and virtue, 124, 139, 144
Platonopolis, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, 15, 23,
89, 121, 139, 146, 222
Plotinus,
and the Enneads, 144, 166, 167, 219
and eschatology, xlii, 159, 160, 165, 169,
174, 176, 177, 178, 179 See also Chapter 9
and metaphysical doctrines, 151, 166, 177
and Neoplatonic School in Rome, xxxvii,
22, 89, 178, 185
and the Oracle of Apollo, xlii, 132, 163,
176, 177, 178, 179
and permanent union with the One, 109,
166, 167, 168, 171, 172, 175, 177, 178, 179,
180, 181, 181, 184, 221
and Porphyry, xxxvii, 9, 13, 14, 17, 25, 67,
89, 124, 128, 134, 136
and traditional cults, 212, 218

and the undescended soul, 156, 165, 183
and Unio mystica, 172, 175, 178, 221
and virtues, 114, 124, 142
See also Iamblichus, Porphyry of Tyre,
Plato, Chapter 8, Chapter 9
Plutarch, 110
Pluto, 112
Polybius, 75
Polychronius, 53, 78
Pompey, 5
Porphyry of Tyre
Ad Gaurum, 174, 175, 224
Ad Marcellam, xxxv, xxxvii, 23, 29, 32, 34,
42, 64, 90, 114, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
124, 127, 130, 131, 140, 143, 144, 146, 148,
150, 152, 182, 219, 220, 221, 223
and allegorical method, 21, 40, 70
and the “anonymous philosopher”, 41–43,
52, 56, 59, 60, 64
and Arnobius, xxxix, 58, 81, 121, 133, 219
and Batanaea, 4, 10, 68
and biblical prophecies, 132
Christian misrepresentations of, 219
Commentary on the Republic, xlii, 178
common man’s respect for, 138
Contra Christianos, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii,
xxxix, 11, 16, 17, 22, 32, 38, 42, 43, 44, 52,
53, 65, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 90, 98, 195, 200,
214, 223, 224 See also Chapter 4
Controversialist, 3
Conversion to Christianity, xxxvii, 10
De abstinentia, 7, 17, 20, 29, 98, 100, 125,
140, 214, 219
De antro nympharum, 14, 29, 70, 172
De Philosophia ex oraculis, xxxv–xxxvii,
xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xli, 8, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22,
23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41,
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55,
64–66, 77, 78, 83, 90, 98, 108, 109, 112,
121, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133,
137, 140, 186, 194, 196, 209, 213, 214, 219,
220, 222, 223 See also Chapter 3,
Chapter 7, Prologue, De philosophia ex
oraculis
De regressu animae, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii,
xxxix, xl, 9, 11, 23, 25, 26, 27, 32, 34, 44,
77, 78, 88, 90, 107, 119, 127, 130, 137, 140,
177, 214, 221, 223
De Vita Plotini, xlii, 15, 16, 132, 146, 224
Index  487
De Vita Pythagorae, 14, 27, 28, 142,
144, 223
dual soteriology of, xxxv
editor of the Enneads, 16, 17, 30, 43,
144, 219
and education of children, 150, 151
and epistemology, 159, 212
Epistola ad Anebonem, 25, 44, 127, 148,
214, 223
and eschatology, xlii, 159, 160, 161, 164,
166, 169, 175, 179, 180, 181, 222 See also
Chapter 9
and Eschatology of Ascent, 155, 160 See
also Chapter 9
Eunapius on, 4, 8, 9, 13, 18
and Eusebius, xxxix, 35, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45,
46, 47, 48, 81, 82, 92, 97, 131, 133, 195,
196, 212 See also Chapter 2, Chapter 3,
Chapter 4, Chapter 5, Chapter 7
and faith and reason, 212
Historian, 3
Homeric Questions, 14, 29
and Iamblichus  See Iamblichus, Plotinus,
Chapter 1, Chapter 8, Chapter 9
and Imperial Conference A.D.  302, 18
Isagoge, 17, 18, 85
and Lactantius, xxxix, 64
legacy of, 19
and Longinus, xxxvii, 4, 13, 17
and Marcella, xxxvi, 18, 118, 121, 140, 145,
151, 152, 221, 223
and Myth of Er, xlii, 174, 175, 176, 179
and the name Malchus (Basileus), 4, 13
omne corpus fugiendum esse, 50,
80, 131
and the One, 171, 172, 173, 182
On Images (De cultu simulacrorum), 25,
43, 44, 147
On the Powers of the Soul, 149
On What is in Our Power, 173, 224
and Origen, 10, 12, 13, 89
and permanent escape, xlii, 171, 173, 174,
175, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 184
and Plotinus, xxxiii, xxxvii, xlii, 9, 13, 14,
17, 89, 90, 109, 175, 176, 177
Polymath, 3
Propagandist, 3
residence in Sicily, 65
Scientific Theologian, 3
488  Index

Porphyry of Tyre (Cont.) and Myth of Er, 169, 174, 175, 176, 179
Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes, xxxv, and permanent escape, 171, 176, 179
29, 90, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 140, 219, Probus (Philosopher), 17
220, 223 See also Chapter 3, Chapter 5, Prologue, De philosophia ex oraculis, 33–39,
Chapter 7 44, 49, 50, 126, 129, 133, 208, 223 See
and Soteriology of Ascent, 134, 157, 224 also Chapter 3
studies at Athens, xxxvii, 4, 13, 16 Prophet, the, 164, 174
Symmikta Zetemata, 71, 123 Ptolemy, 29
The Sacred Marriage, 16 and the Harmonics, 29
Theologian, 3 Ptolemy VI, 73
and Theurgy, xxxv, xxxvi, 44, 120, 138, 151, Ptolemy VII, 73
183, 184, 185, 194, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224 Punic Wars, 7
See also Chapter 3, Chapter 7, Pythagoras, 62, 142, 143, 151, 160, 161, 177,
Chapter 8, Chapter 9, Theurgy 180, 185
Triology on Soteriology of, xxxvi, xxxviii, Pythia, 110
90, 108
Tripartite Soteriology of, xxxiv, xxxix, Rebirth Cycles, 134, 152, 159, 161, 165, 166,
xlii, xliii, 23, 107, 125, 134, 138, 157, 166, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181,
174, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 196, 184, 221, 224
198, 209, 211, 212, 213, 217, 218, 219, 220, Three Philosophical Life Cycles, xlii,
222, 223, 225, 226 See also Chapter 2, 182, 184
Chapter 3, Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Reincarnation, See Rebirth Cycles
Chapter 9 Rhadamanthus, 161, 177, 178
and the undescended soul, 152, 156, 165, 183 Rist, John, 167
Unio mystica, 109, 119, 140, 152, 166, 172, Rogatianus, 14, 22
175, 177, 219, 221 Rome
and vehicle of the soul, 45, 47, 48, 138, 170, and Alba, 56
174, 175, 178, 182 Archaic Period, 110
and the Via salutis animae universalis, and Augustan period, 189, 193, 211
xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xlii, 4, Cannae, 57
20, 23, 25, 27, 34, 39, 52, 66, 80, 81, 89, 90, Catacombs at, 205
91, 97, 118, 119, 121, 127, 129, 137, 158, 187, Caudine Forks, 57
193, 196, 200, 210, 214, 216, 218, 223, 226 and Church of S. Lorenzo fuore le
visit to Alexandria, 82 mure, 61
visit to North Africa, 17, 53 and Germanic Tribes, 187, 188
Vita Plotini, 43, 176, 223 Lake Trasimene, 57
See also Arnobius, Eusebius, Iamblichus, and Lateran Baptistery, 61
Jesus Christ, Lactantius, Plotinus, Later Roman Empire, 200, 208, 209, 211,
Prologue, De philosophia ex oraculis, 216, 218, 220, 226
Scala Virtutum, Soul and Old St. Peter’s Basilica, 61
Porphyrian corpus, 21, 32, 143 and Persia, 188, 190, 192
Praeparatio evangelica, See Eusebius Regal Period, xl, 17, 43, 56–57
Postumus, 56 and Romulus, 108
Pro salute vows  See Salus Second Samnite War, 57
Proclus and SS Marcellino e Pietro, 61
Commentary on the Republic, xlii, 169, and St. John’s Basilica, 61
173, 176, 179 See also Iamblichus, Plotinus, Porphyry
epistemology of, 144 of Tyre
eschatology of, 159, 169, 175 Rufinus, 53, 69
 Index  489

Sabinillus, 14, 22 Schott, Jeremy, 34, 42, 64, 93, 219

Sacrifice, Animal Scythians, 56, 57, 59, 62, 97
Arnobius on, 59, 61, 214, 215 Sedley, David, 159
and benefactors, 201 Seleucid, 5
Constantinian laws against, 61 Sententiae ad intelligilia ducentes, See
and the Decian Persecution, 192 Porphyry of Tyre
and the Feriale Duranum, 189 Septimius Severus, 5, 187, 204, 205
and the Great Persecution, 59, 193, 194, coinage of, 204
214, 215 death at York, 187
Plato on, 147 Serapis  See Isis
Porphyry on, 40, 80, 219, 220, 221 See also Severan Dynasty, 190, 211
Chapter 3, Chapter 7, Third Severianus of Gabala, 53, 72
Century Crisis Shamash, 7
and the Third Century Crisis, 188, 218 Shapur, 190, 194
Sallustius, 171 Shaw, Gregory, 143, 151, 156, 157
Salus (swthriva)  xxxii, xxxviii, 8, 96, 107, Sibylline Books, 203
108, 109, 111, 112, 120, 195, 200, 203, 204, Sicca Veneria, 7, 17, 53, 121
207, 210, 211, 212, 216, 218, 225 Sicily, 17, 43
and Mithraism, 202 Sidon, 5
and pro salute vows, 190 Simmons, Michael Bland, xxxviii, 93, 214
and Roman emperors, xlii, 190, 194 Smith, Andrew, xxxiii, xxxv, xxxviii, xxxix,
Salvation 21, 33, 43, 44, 78, 114, 128, 131, 133, 173,
Beyond the World, xl, xli, 107, 112, 220, 210, 212, 218, 223
221, 222 See also Eschatological Socrates, 163, 165
Salvation, Chapter 9 Socrates Scholasticus, 10, 82
For the World, 107, 109, 110, 111 Sol, xliii, 125, 204
From the World, 107, 108, 109 Sol Invictus, xliii, 192, 204
In the World, 107, 111, 112 Solomon, 81
pagan religious notions of, See Chapter 6 Sopator, Letter to, 150
philosophical way to, xli, 122, 135, 183, 184, Sortes Astrampsychi, 109
219  See also Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Soul
Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9 and appetite, 136, 139, 142
Porphyry’s definition of, 107, 209 Intellectual (Rational), xxxvi, 49, 90, 113,
Samothracian Mysteries, 109 123, 124, 125, 129, 145, 170, 171, 172,
Sassanian  See Persia 180, 219
Saturn, 46, 58, 109 lower/spiritual soul, xxxv, xxxvi, 39, 47,
Scala virtutum, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii, xli, 15, 27, 49, 50, 90, 113, 115, 121, 129, 138, 140, 145,
89, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 131, 134, 146, 158, 166, 170, 178, 184, 219, 220, 221,
135, 138, 140, 151, 152, 155, 220  See also 222, 223
Continentia, Iamblichus, Plato, Passions of, 136
Plotinus, Porphyry of Tyre and Reason, 136, 139, 142, 143
and Civic Virtues, 115, 116, 119, 121, 135, tripartite nature of, xli, 134, 135, 137
136, 139, 142, 146, 148, 222, 223 vehicle of, 45, 47, 48, 138, 170, 174, 175,
and Contemplative Virtues, 115, 116, 121, 178, 182
124, 135, 152, 153, 155 Winged, 163, 179
and Exemplary (Paradigmatic) Virtues, World Soul, 174, 175
115, 116, 121, 124, 135, 152, 153, 155, 219 Speusippus, 185
and Purificatory Virtues, 115, 116, 117, 118, Spindle of Necessity, 164, 174
119, 121, 123, 131, 135, 146, 219, 220 and Lady Necessisty, 164
490  Index
Stobaeus, John, 173
Suidas, 68, 92
Sympatheia, 46, 137, 221
Synesius of Cyrene, 19
Syria, xli, 5, 18, 71, 148, 183
Syriac, xxxix, 4, 65, 87, 92, 93, 98, 102
Taurobolium  See Cybele
Temple Incubations, 110
Tertullian, 56
Tetrarchy, See Diocletian
Thaumasius, 16
Themistius, 52
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 53, 78
Theodoret of Cyrus, 53, 82
Theodosius xxxiv, I, 52, 68, 226
Theodosius II, 68
Theology of Arithmetic  See Iamblichus
Theophany, See Eusebius of Caesarea
Theophylact, 53, 86, 91
Theosophy, 44, 129, 130
Theosophia, 10, 51
Theurgy
cleanses the lower soul, xxxv, xxxvi, 44, 48,
49, 50, 113, 120, 123, 126, 138, 140, 170, 171,
177, 183, 184, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224
rituals related to, 50, 131, 138, 139, 151, 155,
158, 170, 171, 180, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224
See also Augustine, Iamblichus, Plato,
Porphyry of Tyre
Third Century Crisis, xxxiv, 187, 201, 202,
203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 211, 215
and animal sacrifice, 188, 218, 221
and debasement of coinage, 187
and economic collapse, 188, 201, 207
and frontier defenses, 188
and pagan cults, xxxviii, 188, 201, 202, 203,
204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 219
and pax deorum, 187, 190
and plagues, 200
and politico-religious movement, 189,
225, 226
and Roman imperial infrastructure, 218
and Roman religion, 187, 205, 218
and soteriological universalism, xxxvi,
189, 198, 200, 201, 210, 225, 226
and success of Christianity, xxxiv, xxxv,
xliii, 198, 199, 201, 208, 209, 210, 215,
225, 226 See also Chapter 10
and the emperor, xlii, 187, 187, 205, 206,
207, 208, 218
and the Roman army, xlii, 187, 205, 218
and usurpations, 187
Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle, 108
Three Philosophical Life Cycles  See
Rebirth Cycles
Thucydides, 75
Thutmose III, 5
Tiglath-Pileser III, 5
Tinnit, 7
Tophet, 7
Trajan, 192
Tripartite Soteriology
and De philosophia ex oraculis, xli, 108,
122, 166, 223, 225, 226  See also
Chapter 2, Chapter 3, Chapter 7
Philosophical way, 36, 37, 39, 135, 196, 225,
226 See also Chapter 2, Chapter 3,
Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9
stages of, 48, 122, 125, 134, 183, 196, 208,
209, 225, 226
See also Continentia, Masses, Salvation
for, Novice Philosopher, Porphyry of
Tyre, Scala virtutum
Turcan, Robert, 189, 205
Tyrannion, 8
Tyre, 3, 17, 32 See also Porphyry of Tyre
Ulpianus, 6
Unio Mystica, See Plotinus, Porphyry
Universal Philosophy, 34
Universal Savior, xliii See also Jesus Christ
Universal Salvation,
definition, xxxiii, xxxv, 209
and ethnic particularism, 226
Porphyry’s definition of, xxxiii, 107, 209 
and the Third Century Crisis, xxxiv,
xxxviii, 107, 198, 199, 200, 225, 226
and via salutis animae universalis, xxxiv,
xxxv, xxxvi, xlii, 52, 158, 210, 217, 218,
223, 226
See also Porphyry of Tyre, Soul,
Chapters 2–12
Uranus, 46
Ursus, 60
Valentinian III, 68
Valerian, 194, 216
 Index  491

Vehicle, See Porphyry of Tyre, Soul Winged Souls  See Soul

Via salutis animae universalis  See Porphyry Wolff, Gustavus, xxxix, xli, 21, 32, 127, 128,
of Tyre 129, 223
Vincent of Lérins, 82 Wolff-Bidez Hypothesis, xxxviii, 9
Viri novi, World Soul, See Soul
and New Philosophers, xl, 17, 54–5 See also
Arnobius Xenocrates, 185
Virtues, Cardinal, 139
Virtues, Civic  See Scala virtutum, Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, 13
Virtues, Contemplative  See Scala virtutum Zethus, 22
Virtues, Exemplary  See Scala virtutum Zeus, 7, 108, 124, 148
Virtues, Purificatory  See Scala virtutum Zoroaster, Book of, 16
Zoroastrianism, 190
Wicker, Kathleen, 117
Wilken, Robert L., 42, 198