Considering the importance of Porphyry of Tyre to philosophers and historians alike, the monographs on this figure have been few and far between in the Anglophone world. Though many of his works now survive in a rather tattered state, in his time he possessed extraordinary influence, transmitted to the modern era in large part by his Introduction to philosophy. Researchers in various fields will be pleased by the appearance of J.'s volume. The core of the work is divided into two parts treating Porphyry's examination of religious philosophy (Chapters 2–4) and his fitting of various ethnicities into a Hellenic framework (Chapters 5–7).

In his first chapter, J. carefully introduces the framework for his discussion of this rather controversial figure. Joseph Bidez set the tone for Porphyrian studies by framing the story of Porphyry's intellectual development as moving from an Oriental centre to a Hellenic one. J., among others, rejects this rigidly constructed chronology for a more nuanced approach. In broad strokes, J.'s portrayal of Porphyry's religious philosophy does not differ dramatically from that drawn by A. Smith a quarter of a century ago (‘Porphyrian Studies Since 1913’ in W. Haase and H. Temporini [edd.], Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, II.36.2 [1987], 717–72). However, he offers a distinct and useful framework of his own to understand Porphyry's thought, and to relate him to the wider culture he moved in. J. uses the term ‘translation’ to describe Porphyry's process of contextualisation. He uses the term vertical translation to describe the Platonic ascent and the location of the philosophy of various cultures into a hierarchical Platonic schema. His concept of horizontal translation refers to the perspective from the top of that ascent, namely that the peoples, ideas and religions of Porphyry's world needed translating in all their multiplicity. Following an introduction to the philosopher's major works, J. launches into a detailed exposition of this universal framework for Porphyry's thought.

In Chapter 2, ‘Porphyry's Taxonomy of the Divine’, J. looks in detail at the notion that the philosopher had left a more traditional view of religion in the East for a predominantly philosophical one when he moved to the West. Examining examples in their own context, J. argues that, when appropriate, Porphyry used the language of accommodation. This pattern was obscured both by the loss of many of Porphyry's works, as well as his flexible shifting between ‘popular and more philosophically precise’ language (p. 56). Porphyry fitted various expressions of Plotinus' One into a consistent Platonic framework. The traditional gods resided far down the hierarchy from the One, their source, and were defined in Porphyry's system as daimones. This distinction carries over to the chapter ‘Salvation, Translation, and the Limits of Cult’. In humanity's religious relation to the One, it was frequently missing the forest for the trees. As animal sacrifices corresponded to the lower categories of daimones, they were a hindrance to the philosophical life and the pursuit of the soul's return to the One. Porphyry was, at best, ambivalent regarding supporting endeavours such as astrology and oracles. In Chapter 4, J. reviews Porphyry's role as the editor of Plotinus' Enneads, which might initially suggest that he was focused upon translating his mentor's teachings to a wide audience. However, J. argues persuasively for a view of Porphyry as an educator focused on the elite.

Beginning with Chapter 5, J. explores ‘Porphyry the ethnographer’, highlighting the fact that for a supposedly Helleno-centric philosopher, Porphyry spent a great deal of time examining the ways that universal Platonic truth had been recognised in other peoples and cultures. Within all the nations were those seeking to pursue the philosophical life, again showing the coherence of Porphyry's intellectual system. In Chapter 6, J. explores ‘ethnic particularism’, comparing Porphyry's views on Hellenism and other cultures with authors such as Philo and Maximus of Tyre. J. notes Porphyry's mix of positive and negative views for both Hellenes and barbarians. In Chapter 7, ‘The Way Home: Transcending Particularity’, J. places Porphyry's views of the positives offered by the different cultures he was surrounded by. The truths preserved in their customs revealed the universal Platonic pattern he was attempting to articulate.

J. does an excellent job at presenting both Porphyry's religion and his thought within the structural framework of identity. However, he seems tentative when it comes to setting these issues in context vis-à-vis the upstart rival religion, Christianity. J. asserts that Contra Christianos was a single, unified text, which he is open to dating in the reigns of either Aurelian or Diocletian (pp. 47, 287). Although he remains suspicious regarding connection to the Great Persecution, he writes that he sets aside issues regarding the C. Chr. to avoid obscuring discussion of his thesis. He focuses instead on the rather abstract question of whether Porphyry's philosophical values would have driven him to support such an endeavour, suggesting that Porphyry would view the Roman Empire as impeding the philosophical life and hold himself aloof from civic obligations (pp. 291–3). A number of scholars have assembled compelling arguments for Porphyry's deliberate intellectual contribution to the emperor Diocletian's Great Persecution: Barnes, Simmons and most recently and fully Digeser.Footnote ¹ While I am not insisting that J. must agree with the above scholars, his sidestepping of the issue allows another reviewer to marvel at how scholars before J. could possibly have considered that Porphyry contributed to the Great Persecution (J. Maxwell, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, 2013.11.07). The evidence regarding Porphyry's participation is admittedly incomplete, but this is a matter that directly relates to J.'s thesis, and engaging the opposing argument would have improved the work.

The updated bibliography is excellent, and highlights J.'s engagement of key scholars who have provided the philosophical and historical framework for the study of Porphyry over the last few decades. J. adds two appendices, the first of which contains an annotated table of select fragments, and the second, translations of ten fragments, both of which are useful indeed. However, this richly detailed work is deserving of a more worthy general index. Cambridge has produced the volume as an attractively jacketed hardcover. While not ridiculously stiff as are the volumes of some competitors in the academic publishing world, the glued binding does inhibit ease of use. While I would direct those looking for an account of Porphyry's interactions with Christianity elsewhere, this does not negate this impressive study's value for those seeking to understand Porphyry's religious philosophy. Research libraries focusing on classics, philosophy or religion will need to purchase J.'s contribution to Porphyrian studies.