Once in a great while a controversial argument is made that threatens to upend a subfield. B.’s volume is one such work, and the argument he presents needs to be considered, especially as we seem to be experiencing a resurgence of interest in Porphyry of Tyre. The works of Porphyry were highly influential in his own lifetime. While most scholars are familiar with the ban issued by the emperor Theodosius II in 435 and 448, T. Barnes has convincingly argued that Constantine also banned Porphyry’s anti-Christian work in 324 or 325 (T. Barnes, Constantine [2012], p. 110). Many, including this reviewer, take that ban to be due to Porphyry’s role in intellectually supporting the Great Persecution of Diocletian (cf. E. Digeser, A Threat to Public Piety [2012] and M. Simmons, Universal Salvation in Late Antiquity [2015]). This history has led to a vexed transmission and endless debate over fragments and dating of Porphyry’s works. B. offers to cut through the Gordian knot of debates over dates of composition and chronological evolution of Porphyry’s thought with his thesis that most of Porphyry’s production was part of one massive work. Thirty-four years ago B. wrote that the relationship between Philosophy of Oracles and Against the Christians deserved closer study and might yield surprising results (‘Le traité de Porphyre contre les Chrétiens: L’état de la question’, Kernos 4 [1991], 134). Here, then, are the fruits of that three decades of closer study.

B. presents a philologically grounded case that Philosophy according to the Chaldean Oracles (the title for which he argues) was a massive single work incorporating the many smaller works that have circulated independently under differing names. In B.’s reconstruction, Porphyry included those other works as follows:

B.’s proposed reconstruction has a logical progression to it. In that reconstruction Porphyry began by challenging Iamblichus over the failure of theurgy in offering salvation (Books 1–3). He then set forth the historical sources for his own thought (Books 4–8), before laying out his own philosophy, integrating the teachings of Plato, Plotinus, Aristotle and the Chaldean Oracles into a new system (Books 9–12). Finally, Porphyry engaged in detail with the Christian religion, the rise of which had served as a catalyst for this enormous work (Books 13–15). Readers familiar with Porphyry’s writings can thus see how much of the philosopher’s output is encompassed in this proposed massive book. Regarding the date, B. holds to Porphyry beginning the work in Sicily in the 270s, but allowing that ‘the composition of such a vast and complex work must have taken many years’ (p. 61).

B.’s proposed uber-composition would provide a reason why Porphyry’s influence was so overwhelming in the early fourth century, establishing him as the dominant philosopher of the day; in turn this explains why there are so many Christian authors of that period writing against him, including perhaps Lactantius and Arnobius. Such a monumental work would prompt a reaction, and that reaction comes at the time of the Great Persecution, not before, and presumably from Christian writers responding because of the Great Persecution.

Although B. holds that Against the Christians had no independent existence, he offers information relating to the debates surrounding Porphyry’s anti-Christian writings. He points out that no evidence supports Against the Christians as a title, arguing instead that it is a description of the contents, much as works such as Celsus’ True Doctrine and Hierocles’ Lover of Truth were also described (p. 53). In addition, he offers praise for M. Becker’s edition (2016) because of its excluding the Anonymous of Macarius and separating out fragments of dubious authenticity (p. 4).

B.’s ideas, which he has been promoting for some time, are brought together and presented here with great cumulative force. I find his argument compelling, but not yet conclusive, though he has given us much worth considering. With a volume of this scope there are inevitably things that give one pause. One concern is that B. argues that the Letter to Anebo is a component of the large work entitled Philosophy according to the Chaldean Oracles, which was only broken up after being banned in the mid-fifth century. However, Iamblichus of Chalcis, writing in the mid-fourth century, appears to mention the Letter to Anebo as an independent document, referring to it in the singular as ‘the letter sent to my student Anebo’ (ἐπιστολή; Iamblichus, De mysteriis 1.1.2.5–7, tr. Dillon et al.). It is possible that the Letter to Anebo circulated independently from the start as well as being included in the larger Philosophy according to the Chaldean Oracles, but accepting that caveat, which could apply to other components of the larger work, might open the door to an unravelling of B.’s thesis.

If B. publishes a subsequent volume, as he seems to hint at in the conclusion, readers would benefit from indexes of texts and a list of the Porphyrian fragments that are, in B.’s view, either legitimate or spurious.

Engaging with this work will be critical for all attempting to establish the dating and provenance of Porphyry’s works, particularly Philosophy according to the Chaldean Oracles and Against the Christians (which, again, B. holds is a component part of the former). Those looking to assess the content of Porphyry’s engagement of Christianity may not be dependent upon such a work in the same way, but certainly would benefit from taking it into account. Libraries at both universities and theological colleges as well as scholars of Porphyry of Tyre would all do very well to obtain copies of B.’s work.