Book contents
- Divination and Revelation in Later Antiquity
- Divination and Revelation in Later Antiquity
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Notes on Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Perspectives on Divination, Revelation, and Prophecy
- Chapter 1 Theories of Prophecy in Philo of Alexandria
- Chapter 2 The Neoplatonic Background of a Text on Prophecy Attributed to John Chrysostom
- Chapter 3 ‘Revelation’ for Christians and Pagans and Its Philosophical Allegoresis
- Chapter 4 Divination and Dialogue in Porphyry and Iamblichus
- Part II Status, Role, and Functions of Human Intermediaries
- Part III Divine Transcendence and Pragmatic Purposes
- Index
- References
Chapter 4 - Divination and Dialogue in Porphyry and Iamblichus
from Part I - Philosophical Perspectives on Divination, Revelation, and Prophecy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 October 2023
Book contents
- Divination and Revelation in Later Antiquity
- Divination and Revelation in Later Antiquity
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Illustrations
- Notes on Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Perspectives on Divination, Revelation, and Prophecy
- Chapter 1 Theories of Prophecy in Philo of Alexandria
- Chapter 2 The Neoplatonic Background of a Text on Prophecy Attributed to John Chrysostom
- Chapter 3 ‘Revelation’ for Christians and Pagans and Its Philosophical Allegoresis
- Chapter 4 Divination and Dialogue in Porphyry and Iamblichus
- Part II Status, Role, and Functions of Human Intermediaries
- Part III Divine Transcendence and Pragmatic Purposes
- Index
- References
Summary
Divination was an important focus of philosophical dialogue and ‘pagan’-Christian religious debates in late antiquity.One of the most extensive late antique exchanges on the nature of divination and other religious practices is that evident in Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo and Iamblichus’ Reply of the Master Abamon to the Letter of Porphyry to Anebo and the Solutions to the Questions It Contains. This chapter re-assesses the key features of this exchange, arguing for its status as an important philosophical dialogue which bears some resemblance to oracular modes of discourse. In order to support this argument, the broader status of questioning, interrogation, and inquiry in traditional Greek oracular practices and within Platonism is examined. The chapter analyses the ways in which Porphyry’s and Iamblichus’ exchange is framed within these philosophical and oracular contexts, demonstrating that this dialogue draws implicitly on Socrates’ interrogation of the Delphic oracle as presented in Plato’s Apology and on Plutarch’s Delphic Dialogues. The citation and discussion of Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo by the Christian Church Fathers Eusebius and Augustine will also be considered in relation to exploring pagan-Christian religious approaches and debates.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Divination and Revelation in Later Antiquity , pp. 73 - 96Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Addey, Crystal. 2011. ‘Book Review: Iamblichus’ Letters, Edited with a Translation and Commentary by John M. Dillon and Wolfgang Polleichtner.’ International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 5.2: 321–3.Google Scholar
Addey, Crystal. 2014. Divination and Theurgy in Neoplatonism: Oracles of the Gods. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Addey, Crystal. (ed.). 2022. Divination and Knowledge in Greco-Roman Antiquity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Athanassiadi, Polymnia. 1993. ‘Dreams, Theurgy and Freelance Divination: The Testimony of Iamblichus.’ Journal of Roman Studies 83: 115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babbit, Frank Cole. 1936 [2003]. Plutarch. De defectu oraculorum. De E apud Delphos. De Pythiae Oraculis. Moralia, vol. 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bettenson, Henry. 1972 [2003]. Augustine: Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bidez, Josef. 1913 [1964]. Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe neo-platonicien. Ghent: E. van Goethem.Google Scholar
Blondell, R. 2002. The Play of Character in Plato’s Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bowden, Hugh. 2005. Classical Athens and the Delphic Oracle. Divination and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burns, Dylan M. 2020. ‘Alexander of Lycopolis and Titus of Bostra on Manichaeism and Providence.’ In Oerter, Wolf B. and Vitkova, Zuzana (eds.), Coptica, Gnostica und Mandaica: Sprache, Literatur und Kunst als Medien interreligiöser Begegnung(en). Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 141–53.Google Scholar
Bussanich, John. 2005. ‘Review article: Iamblichus: De Mysteriis. Translated by Emma C. Clarke, John M. Dillon and Jackson P. Hershbell. Iamblichus. De Anima. Text, Translation and Commentary by John M. Dillon and John F. Finamore.’ Ancient Philosophy 25(2): 478–94.Google Scholar
Cherniss, Harold. 1976. Plutarch. Moralia, Vol. XIII. Part 2: Stoic Essays. Against the Stoics on Common Conceptions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Gillian. 1999. ‘Translate into Greek: Porphyry of Tyre on the New Barbarians’. In Miles, R. (ed.), Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity. London: Routledge, pp. 112–32.Google Scholar
Clark, Gillian. 2007. ‘Augustine’s Porphyry and the Universal Way of Salvation.’ In Karamanolis, George and Sheppard, Anne (eds.), Studies on Porphyry. London: Institute of Classical Studies, pp. 127–40.Google Scholar
Clark, Gillian. 2009. ‘Can We Talk? Augustine and the Possibility of Dialogue.’ In Goldhill, Simon (ed.), The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–54.Google Scholar
Clarke, Emma C. 2001. Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis: A Manifesto of the Miraculous. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Clarke, Emma C., Dillon, John, and Hershbell, Jackson P. (eds.). 2003. Iamblichus: On the Mysteries. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
Des Places, Édouard (ed.). 1974–80. Eusèbe de Césarée: La Préparation Évangélique. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf.Google Scholar
Dillon, John, and Hershbell, Jackson (eds.). 1991. Iamblichus. On the Pythagorean Way of Life (De Vita Pythagorica). Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
Dillon, John, and Polleichtner, Wolfgang (eds.). 2012. Iamblichus: Letters. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature.Google Scholar
Dodds, Eric R. 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dombart, B., and Kalb, A (eds.). 1955. Augustine. De Civitate Dei. CCSL 47–8. Brepols: Turnhout.Google Scholar
Edwards, Mark. 2003. ‘Two Images of Pythagoras: Iamblichus and Porphyry’. In Blumenthal, Henry J. and Clark, Gillian (eds.), The Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, pp. 159–72.Google Scholar
Edwards, Mark. 2007. ‘Porphyry and the Christians’. In Karamanolis, George and Sheppard, Anne (eds.), Studies on Porphyry. London: Institute of Classical Studies, pp. 111–26.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. H. 1903 [1981]. Eusebius: Preparation for the Gospel. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.Google Scholar
Girgenti, Giuseppe, and Muscolino, Giuseppe (eds). 2011. Porfirio: Filosofia Rivelata Dagli Oracoli. Milan: Bompiani.Google Scholar
Goldhill, Simon (ed.). 2009. The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goulet, R. (ed.) (2005). Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques 4: de Labeo à Ovidius. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Hammond, Carolyn J.-B. (ed.). 2016. Augustine. Confessions, Vol. II: Books 9–13. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Aaron. 2013. Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre: The Limits of Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karamanolis, George, and Sheppard, Anne (eds.). 2007. Studies on Porphyry. London: Institute of Classical Studies.Google Scholar
Kindt, Julia. 2022. ‘The Enigmatic Divine Voice and the Problem of Human Misinterpretation’. In Addey, Crystal (ed.), Divination and Knowledge in Greco-Roman Antiquity. London: Routledge, pp. 30–49.Google Scholar
Long, Alex. 2009. ‘Plato’s Dialogues and a Common Rationale for Dialogue Form’. In Goldhill, Simon (ed.), The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx-Wolf, Heidi. 2016. Spiritual Taxonomies and Ritual Authority: Platonists, Priests and Gnostics in the Third Century CE. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Mastandrea, Paolo. 1979. Un neoplatonico latino Cornelio Labeone (Testimonianze e frammenti). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
McCabe, Matt Jackson. 2004. ‘The Stoic Theory of Implanted Preconceptions’. Phronesis 147: 323–47.Google Scholar
Miles, Richard. 2009. ‘Let’s (Not) Talk about It’: Augustine and the Control of Epistolary Dialogue’. In Goldhill, Simon (ed.), The End of Dialogue in Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–48.Google Scholar
Miller Jones, Roger. 1980. The Platonism of Plutarch and Selected Papers. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Nightingale, Andrea Wilson. 1995. Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Robert. 1985. ‘Greek States and Greek Oracles’. History of Political Thought 6(1/2): 298–326.Google Scholar
Saffrey, Henri Dominique. 1971. ‘Abammon, Pseudonyme de Jamblique’. In Palmer, R. B. and Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. (eds.), Philomathes: Studies and Essays in the Humanities in Memory of Philip Merlan. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 227–39.Google Scholar
Saffrey, Henri Dominique, and Segonds, Alain-Philippe (eds.). 2012. Porphyre: Lettre à Anébon L’Égyptien. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Saffrey, Henri Dominique, and Segonds, Alain-Philippe (eds.). 2013. Jamblique: Réponse à Porphyre (De mysteriis). Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Shaw, Gregory. 1995. Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Gregory. 2012. ‘The Role of Aesthesis in Theurgy’. In Afonasin, Eugene, Dillon, John, and Finamore, John F. (eds.), Iamblichus and the Foundations of Late Platonism. Leiden: Brill, pp. 91–112.Google Scholar
Simonetti, Elsa. 2017. A Perfect Medium? Oracular Divination in the Thought of Plutarch. Leuven: Leuven University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew. 1997. ‘Porphyry and Pagan Religious Practice’. In Cleary, John (ed.), The Perennial Tradition of Platonism. Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 29–35.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew. 2007. ‘Porphyry: Scope for a Reassessment’. In Karamanolis, George and Sheppard, Anne (eds.), Studies on Porphyry. London: Institute of Classical Studies, pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
Struck, Peter. 2016. Divination and Human Nature: A Cognitive History of Intuition in Classical Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Szlezák, T. A. 2007. ‘Platonic Dialectic: The Path and the Goal’. In Corrigan, Kevin and Turner, John D. (eds.), Platonisms: Ancient, Modern and Postmodern. Leiden: Brill, pp. 17–40.Google Scholar
Tanaseanu-Döbler, Ilinca. 2013. Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar