Porphyry & recent publications about Eusebius about him

[MrMacSon]

From wikipedia (edited) -

Porphyry of Tyre (c. 234 – c. 305 AD) ... edited and published the Enneads, the only collection of the work of his teacher Plotinus. His commentary on Euclid's Elements was used as a source by Pappus of Alexandria.

He also wrote many works himself on a wide variety of topics. His Isagoge, or Introduction, is an introduction to logic and philosophy, and in Latin translation it was the standard textbook on logic throughout the Middle Ages. In addition, through several of his works, most notably Philosophy from Oracles and Against the Christians (banned by emperor Constantine the Great), he was involved in a controversy with a number of early Christians.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_(philosopher)

Against the Christians (Adversus Christianos)

... Against the Christians (Κατὰ Χριστιανῶν; Adversus Christianos) consisted of fifteen books. Porphyry [supposedly] acknowledged Jesus Christ only as an outstanding philosopher. Some thirty Christian apologists, such as Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris, Augustine, Jerome, etc., responded to his challenge. In fact, everything known about Porphyry’s arguments is found in these refutations, largely because Theodosius II ordered every copy burned in A.D. 435 and again in 448.[15][16][17]

Porphyry became [portrayed as] one of the most able pagan adversaries of Christianity of his day. His aim was [supposedly] not to disprove the substance of Christianity’s teachings but, rather, [to refute] the 'records' within which the teachings are communicated.[18]

His criticisms may have targeted Christians more than Christ; he is reported to have said in another work (the Philosophy from Oracles):

• "The gods have proclaimed Christ to have been most pious, but the Christians are a confused and vicious sect."

According to Jerome, Porphyry especially attacked the prophecy of [the Book of] 'Daniel' because Jews and Christians pointed to the historical fulfillment of its prophecies as a decisive argument. But these prophecies, he maintained, were written not by Daniel but by some Jew who, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (d. 164 B.C.), gathered up the traditions of Daniel's life and wrote a history of recent past events but in the future tense, falsely dating them back to Daniel's time.

• Daniel did not predict so much future events as he narrated past ones. Finally what he had told up to Antiochus contained true history; if anything was guessed beyond that point it was false, for he had not known the future. (quoted by Jerome)

The first part of Daniel, with the exception of the dream in Daniel 2, is historic, not prophetic. Porphyry, attacking only the prophetic portion, declares it to be merely a late anonymous narrative of past events, purporting to have been predicted long before by Daniel. Thus Porphyry's scheme was based on the supposed spuriousness of Daniel's prophecies.[19]

Porphyry devised his own interpretation where the third “prophetic kingdom” was Alexander, and assigned the Macedonian Ptolemies and Seleucids to the fourth kingdom. From among these he chose ten kings, making the eleventh to be Antiochus Epiphanes. In this way he threw his main strength against the book of Daniel, recognizing that if this pillar of faith be shaken, the whole structure of prophecy must tremble. If the writer was not Daniel, then he lied on a frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies which were never uttered, and making claim of miracles that were never wrought. And if Daniel's authorship could be shown to be false, then Christ Himself would be proved to bear witness to an imposter. (Matt. 24: 15.)[20] Porphyry's thesis was adopted by Edward Gibbon, the English deist Anthony Collins, and most Modernist scholars.[21]

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyry_ ... stianos.29

Two recent publications elaborate on some of those views^ (many based on Froom, LeRoy (1950). The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers (DjVu and PDF). 1.

1. Sébastien Morlet (2011) 'Eusebius’ Polemic Against Porphyry: a Reassessment'

• dans Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, & Theological Issues, éd. S Inowlocki – C Zamagni, Leiden, Boston; pp. 119-150.

2. Ariane Magny (2016) Porphyry in Fragments: Reception of an Anti-Christian Text in Late Antiquity (Routledge, Apr. 2016)

Both refer to A Kofsky's Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism (Leiden: Brill, 2002)


See next posts --

[MrMacSon]

1. Sébastien Morlet (2011) 'Eusebius’ Polemic Against Porphyry: a Reassessment'

• in Reconsidering Eusebius: Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, & Theological Issues, éd. S Inowlocki – C Zamagni, Leiden, Boston; pp. 119-150.

• "Eusebius is often considered as the ‘Anti-Porphyry’. Two reasons may account for this reputation: first, the fact that Eusebius wrote a Contra Porphyrium, now lost; second, and above all, the fact that his master work, composed of the Praeparatio euangelica (= PE) and the Demonstratio euangelica (=DE), is often considered as an answer to Porphyry’s Contra Christianos ... A von Harnack's decision to include among the fragments of the Contra Christianos no less than six extracts from Eusebius, three of which are from the PE and three from the DE, had a heavy consequence on subsequent research: it solidifed the idea that Eusebius’ apology was an answer to Porphyry’s work. Using Harnack’s edition uncritically, almost every scholar, from that date, has taken this hypothesis as an indisputable truth. However, only two fragments from Eusebius’ apology, taken from the PE, are explicitly presented by the bishop of Caesarea as quoted from Porphyry’s work. In the DE, there is no such explicit fragment. Despite this lack of direct evidence, many scholars still consider, paradoxically, that Porphyry is “everywhere” in the PE and the DE.
  
  • "...though Eusebius’ work contains only two explicit allusions to Porphyry’s treatise, the bishop of Caesarea quotes many texts from other works of Porphyry (Philosophy from oracles, On abstinence, On the soul, On the divine statues, Letter to Anebo, Philological lesson, and perhaps Philosophical history). Certainly, Eusebius was a good connoisseur of Porphyry. But that does not entail that his apology is an answer to the Contra Christianos, or to any of Porphyry’s works. In his recent analysis, A. Kofsky showed that Eusebius does not use Porphyry to answer his objections, but either as an “auxiliary witness”, or as a “self-contradictory author”. Yet, the same scholar agrees with the traditional idea that Eusebius’ apology, though not an answer to the Contra Christianos, was at least raised by Porphyry’s attack against Christianity.
  "[in] the frst pages of the PE ... Eusebius is reproducing pagan accusations against Christianity. Pagans accuse Christians for supporting an irrational faith and for being apostates from Hellenism and from Judaism. The accusation of being apostates from Judaism is then reproduced again, but this time in the mouth of Jewish opponents to Christianity. von Harnack, following Wilamowitz’ analysis, was convinced that the pagan accusations were taken from the prologue of the Contra Christianos, though, once again, no external argument may support that attribution ... Eusebius is reproducing common accusations against Christianity, primarily taken from Origen’s Contra Celsum ... Eusebius’ aim is to offer a complete defense of Chris-tianity. The plan of the work is not a reflection of a true and precise pagan accusation. More probably, the pagan accusation has been constructed by Eusebius so as to announce his argument.
  
  "2) In the very frst pages of the PE, Eusebius reproduces a pagan accusation that Christians cannot prove their faith. This accusation appears at least three times in PE, I, and recurrs at the beginning of the DE. It is obvious that Eusebius considers it as a major criticism against Christianity. Since Harnack, who thought that Eusebius was quoting exact words from Porphyry, this accusation has generally been considered as Porphyrian. Ths hypothesis immediately gives an anti-Porphyrian turn to Eusebius’ entire apologetic work. Yet, the accusation of 'irrational faith' has nothing distinctively Porphyrian in itself. We can find echoes of it in Lucian, Epictetus, Galen and above all, Celsus. In a paper read in August 2008 at the International Conference of Patristic Studies, I have shown that the wording of Harnack’s fr. 73 echoes Celsus’ style.
  
  "As a consequence, it is much more reasonable to think that Eusebius draws his pagan material here from Celsus, not from Porphyry. This conclusion is related to my analysis of Eusebius’ argumentation in the DE. A precise study of the work shows that Eusebius’ dependence on Origen’s Contra Celsum is important and that most of the anti-Christian criticisms in the DE stem from Celsus, not from Porphyry.
  
  
  CONCLUDING REMARKS
  "The preceding analysis leads us to reassess Eusebius’ polemic against Porphyry. The PE and the DE cannot be considered as an answer to the Contra Christianos. Eusebius does not aim at responding to the most innovative objections o the Pagans. The kernel of the pagan arguments he answers stems from Origen’s Contra Celsum. Interpreting Eusebius’ demonstration as a reaction against Porphyry leads to obvious misinterpretations. It remains possible that Porphyry’s work encouraged Eusebius to write a thorough apology of Christianity, and even that Eusebius has Porphyry in mind here and there, but his apology can in no way be considered as a direct answer to Porphyry. Likewise, Eusebius’ polemic against the Philosophy from oracles, though important, must not be exaggerated. It is reasonable to think that, apart from the explicit passages where Eusebius mentions Porphyry’s work (that is to say, essentially in the PE), the polemical intention in the PE—DE reduces itself to opposing the pagan prophecy praised by Porphyry. As a consequence, one must admit that the Porphyrian material in the apology is much less important than it is often thought to be. Only two texts from the PE are explicitly extracted from Porphyry’s anti-Christian work. In both cases, Eusebius does not quote Porphyry to refute him, but on the contrary to use him as an auxiliary witness. These concluding remarks imply that we can no longer be sure that Eusebius knew Porphyry’s whole pamphlet when he wrote the PE — DE, nor can we use the PE—DE to reconstruct the overall argument of the Contra Christianos. Most scholars take for granted that Eusebius had written the Contra Porphyrium long before the PE—DE."

Morlet refers (in footnote 2) to RM Berchman’s hypercritical view that Porphyry never wrote an independent work against Christianity (Porphyry Against the Christians (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 2–3).

.

[MrMacSon]

.
2. Ariane Magny (2016) Porphyry in Fragments: Reception of an Anti-Christian Text in Late Antiquity (Routledge, Apr. 2016)

• The Greek philosopher Porphyry of Tyre had a reputation as the fiercest critic of Christianity. It was well-deserved: he composed (at the end the 3rd century A.D.) fifteen discourses against the Christians, so offensive that Christian emperors ordered them to be burnt. We thus rely on the testimonies of three prominent Christian writers to know what Porphyry wrote. Scholars have long thought that we could rely on those testimonies to know Porphyry's ideas. Exploring early religious debates which still resonate today, 'Porphyry in Fragments' argues instead that Porphyry's actual thoughts became mixed with the thoughts of the Christians who preserved his ideas, as well as those of other Christian opponents.
  - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_B ... navlinks_s

An extract here - https://books.google.com.au/books?id=_B ... ry&f=false

eg. -

According to Kofsky, Eusebius used Porphyry as a representative of pagan religion and philosophy in order to discredit paganism and promote Christianity.

.