This entry in Ashgate's Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity offers a warning regarding the evidentiary value of a fragmentary text recoverable primarily from hostile engagements of it. At the centre of M.'s argument is the idea that by the time of later Patristic authors, ‘Porphyry had become merely a name for the Christian opponent, a sort of bogey-man’, whose name was misapplied to many texts (p. 3). Her caution to consider context and the use made of Porphyry by authors such as Eusebius, Augustine and Jerome is commendable. However, this monograph has some problems requiring that it be used with caution.
The issues with English spelling and grammar are surmountable, but distracting none the less. The reader is immediately bombarded with a number of spelling errors that should have been caught by editorial staff, for example ‘martyre’ (p. 2), ‘targetted’ (p. 4), ‘targetting’ (p. 7), etc., all of which might have been swiftly sorted by a computer spell check. Tenses in English suffer abundant abuse, as do prepositions, including the surprising revelation of Porphyry's vandalistic ‘writing threatening things on the Christians’ (p. 15). Translations of primary sources also present problems of style and clarity. For example, Augustine responded to an anonymous author with questions regarding salvation prior to the advent of Christ (Aug. Ep. 102.8 = Harnack Nr 81): Non paucioribus saeculis ipsa Roma, longo saeculorum tractu sine christiana lege fuit, which M. rather mechanically translates as ‘Rome itself was for no less time, for a long succession of centuries, without knowing the Christian word’ (p. 113). As part of Julian's attack on what he perceived as Christianity's inconsistent monotheism, he paraphrased an Old Testament passage as, Ἑγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστι πάρεξ ἐμοῦ σώζων, which M. renders as ‘I am he and no other god can produce except me’ (p. 115; cf. Julian, C. Gal. 277a), taking no account of the context of the original portrayal of God as deliverer (Deuteronomy 32.39), or the similar New Testament portrayals of Jesus that Julian was objecting to. Celsus’ ridicule of Christ regarding those he might offer as witnesses, Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων, becomes ‘Who other than you and one of your torture companion [sic] can you offer as a witness?’ (p. 115; cf. C. Cels. 1.41; nb M.'s text reads incorrectly: Πλὴν ὅτι σὺ φῂς τινα ἕνα ἐπάγῃ τῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένωντῶν μετὰ σοῦ κεκολασμένων). Presented without context, the above translation also obscures the fact that it refers to one of the thieves crucified with Christ whom he was also unable to save, as in Chadwick's rendition ‘one of the men who were punished with you’ (Chadwick, Contra Celsum [1953], p. 39).
Unfortunately, there are some more substantive issues with historical grounding and methodology as well. Although recent scholarly literature has called into serious question an actual ‘Edict of Milan’ legalising Christianity in 313, it appears here without discussion or qualification (p. 6). The dating of Against the Christians is a critical issue to which M. devotes two pages, but without clearly endorsing a date herself. She states that if Julian (d. 363) was aware of Porphyry's writings, he never mentioned them, although there exists ‘a possibility that a few copies of Porphyry's books survived the edicts of emperors ordering their burning’ (p. 6). Possible indeed, as Theodosius II and Valentinian were still compelled to proscribe Porphyry's anti-Christian works as late as the edict of a.d. 448 (Cod. Just. 1.1.3). The discussion of possible parallels between Julian and Porphyry would have benefited from the use of Bouffartigue's relevant works on this topic, which do not appear in the bibliography (Bouffartigue, L'Empereur Julien et la culture de son temps [1992]; ‘Porphyre et Julien contre le chrétiens’ [2011]). Similarly, Simmons’ monograph and numerous articles taking a prominently opposed stance on Porphyry and the validity of fragments are neither engaged in the text nor listed in the bibliography (e.g. Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca [1995]; ‘Porphyry's Universalism’, HTR [2009]). M.'s renewed emphasis on the need to approach each fragment or testimony individually is welcome, though unsurprising, which could also be said for carefully considering the way in which a citing author uses the text. Other principles are more subjective. Readers are confidently assured that ‘the Christians, when they cite Porphyry, appropriate his discourse … [and] rephrase it at their convenience’, and indeed, Jerome and Augustine ‘do as they please with it’ (p. 33). I also find cause for concern in pre-suppositional statements like: ‘Since Jerome's primary purpose was not to write formal refutations of Porphyry's ideas, he can most probably be trusted in his reports of what Porphyry said. If he had written a refutation of Porphyry, however, it would have been very difficult to trust him on what Porphyry argued’ (p. 57). Historians should not approach these writings uncritically, but the hermeneutic of radical suspicion is equally misleading, and a trap that M. seems to fall into. Of her claim in another work that ancient authors did not accurately reproduce the texts they cited, Chase has noted, ‘if it were true, would make impossible the study of Presocratic, Stoic, and many other branches of ancient philosophy based almost exclusively on the study of fragments’ (Chase, IJPT [2014], p. 95). M. finds no genuine fragments of Against the Galilaeans preserved in these authors, and she concludes that ‘the Porphyry emerging from such an analysis seems even further away than he ever was’ (p. 154).
The publisher's presentation of the fruit of M.'s years of study is profoundly dismaying, and I believe mirrors broader issues in academic publishing today. Though her new approach is diluted by the rigidity of her argument's theoretical framework and assertions, I would recommend libraries consider purchasing the volume as recent monographs on Porphyry and his Against the Christians have been limited, and the work contains a current bibliography and an index including citations of modern authors.
