Studies on Porphyry are necessarily limited by the fragmentary evidence, which leaves ample room for modern scholars to disagree as to the philosopher's intentions. A. Johnson has recently offered his portrayal of Porphyry's universal philosophy, reconstructed around the idea of Hellenic identity, a model that coheres better when it avoids Porphyry's interactions with Christianity. S., of Auburn University Montgomery, has now brought forth a model that offers a holistic explanation that is more convincing than other efforts. Here, he fleshes out the theme of universal salvation in Porphyry that he has been working his way around the edges of since his monograph on Arnobius of Sicca (1995), and including most recently a lengthy article on Porphyrian universalism (Harvard Theological Review 102 [2009]).

Like other recent scholars, S. begins by discarding the long-dominant hypothesis of Wolff and Bidez, who argued for an evolution in Porphyry's thought from superstition to rationalism, and chronologically ordered his works accordingly. S. adheres to most of the broad consensus regarding the chronological signposts in Porphyry's life, namely, that he was born in Tyre in a.d. 234, studied under Longinus in Athens in about 258, came to Rome in 263, but then moved to Sicily suffering from depression in 268. However, S. argues well for Porphyry's attending Diocletian's conference to plot a persecution of Christians (p. xiv), and writing Contra Christianos in approximately 300, before his death in 305.

S. argues that prior to Porphyry, Christianity was the only truly universal religion in the Roman Empire, and supports this with a thoroughly developed ten-point argument reviewing seven cults, from Mithraism to emperor worship, and why each failed to act as an effective counter to Christianity. This lack provides the motive for Porphyry's development of elements from traditional religion and philosophy into a competitive universal religion. S. highlights how the various third-century crises can be understood as catalysts for seeing Christianity in a different light, as not only the vehicle for hospitals and other charitable works, but as offering a universal message of salvation.

In contrast to Magny's recent monograph, S. maintains that it is possible to obtain ‘a clear “big picture” understanding of Porphyry's main lines of argumentation that he brought against Christianity’ (pp. 76–7). As his Porphyry loomed quite large in the minds of Christian writers, he believes that many more reacted against his works. S.'s reconstruction allows not only the opponent of Lactantius and of Eusebius to be Porphyry but, somewhat more controversially, the anonymous opponent of Macarius as well (contra Barnes, Digeser and Edwards). As it includes much more material, S.'s reconstruction of the Contra Christianos might be termed ‘maximum Porphyry’.

S. argues persuasively for the unifying theme in Porphyry's work being the search for a scheme of universal salvation. In this framework, Porphyry composed a soteriological trilogy consisting of De regressu animae (c. 290s), Contra Christianos (c. 300) and De philosophia ex oraculis (c. 302). This theme unites the philosopher's output across several decades, including some apparently disparate works. This is not based upon isolated texts, with six of the eight appendices devoted to tabulating Eusebius' engagements of the theme of universalism in his various works. S. also brings a renewed focus on Eusebius' Theophany, a work that has not received the attention it deserves. This is a tremendous weight of evidence, but one that highlights how dependent S.'s case is upon Porphyry being Eusebius' opponent. S. acknowledges some elitist elements in Porphyry's thought, but decides that they ‘served as one component … in his broader soteriological paradigm’ (p. 34).

S.'s position is firmly laid out, and opposing viewpoints engaged. Yet this never becomes polemical and, indeed, he finds places to praise scholars whose views of Porphyry and his C. Chr. are thoroughly opposed to his own. I am a little less sanguine regarding the incorporation of the Anonymous of Macarius into the Porphyrian canon, although it must be said that S. makes the best case possible for his inclusion, and that his argument ultimately does not depend on it. The volume is well-edited and laid out, although there are, inevitably, a few typos: ‘the Constantine’ (p. 68, para. 3, line 5), ‘Beardino’ for Berardino (pp. 319, 413). S. demonstrates command of sources in Greek, Latin and Syriac, and evidently expects some level of proficiency in the first two languages, as there are a number of untranslated Greek and Latin passages. Despite these demands which indicate an academic target audience, I expect the interest in the topic will draw a wide readership. The thoroughness with which he makes his case, typified by the 127 pages of endnotes and 80 pages of up-to-date bibliography, means that this is anything but light reading. Yet for those interested in Porphyry's response to Christianity, this will likely be the volume of choice for some considerable time.