¹ On Porphyry in general see esp. Bidez, Joseph, Vie de Porphyre le philosophe néo-platonicien (Ghent: van Goethem; Leipzig: Teubner, 1913)Google Scholar; Geffcken, Johannes, The Last Days of Greco-Roman Paganism (1929; trans. MacCormack, S.; Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1978) 56–74Google Scholar; de Labriolle, Pierre, “Porphyre et la christianisme,” Revue d'histoire de la philosophie 3 (1929) 395–440Google Scholar; idem, La réaction païenne: Étude sur la polémique antichrétienne du I^er au VI^e siècle (Paris: Choureau, 1934) 223–96Google Scholar; Benoît, Pierre, “Un adversaire du christianisme au III^e siècle: Porphyre,” RB 54 (1947) 543–72Google Scholar; Schröder, Heinrich Otto, “Celsus und Porphyrius als Christengegner,” Die Welt als Geschichte 17 (1957) 190–202Google Scholar; Wilken, Robert L., “Pagan Criticism of Christianity: Greek Religion and Christian Faith,” in Schoedel, William R. and Wilken, Robert L., eds., Early Christian Literature and the Classical Tradition: In Honorem Robert M. Grant (Théologie historique 54; Paris: Beauchesne, 1979) 117–34Google Scholar; idem, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984) 126–63Google Scholar; Meredith, Anthony, “Porphyry and Julian against the Christians,” ANRW II.23.1 (1980) 1119–49Google Scholar; Croke, Brian, “Porphyry's Anti-Christian Chronology,” JTS n.s. 34 (1983) 168–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “The Era of Porphyry's Anti-Christian Polemic,” JRH 13 (1984) 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² See esp. Doutreleau, Louis and Koenen, Ludwig, “Nouvel inventaire des papyrus de Toura,” RechSR 55 (1967) 547–64Google Scholar; Koenen, Ludwig, “Zu den Papyri aus dem Arsenioskloster bei Tura,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 2 (1968) 41–53.Google Scholar

³ Didymus's commentaries are being published at Bonn in the series “Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen.” The relevant volume is edited by Michael Gronewald: Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus), vol. 5: Zu Eccl. 9.8–10.20 (Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 24; Bonn: Habelt, 1979).Google Scholar

⁴ Binder, Gerhard, “Eine Polemik des Porphyrios gegen die allegorische Auslegung des Alten Testaments durch die Christen,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 3 (1968) 81–95.Google Scholar

⁵ For the codicological information in what follows see Gronewald, Didymos der Blinde.

⁶ Ibid., 38. I have altered the punctuation slightly to correspond with my translation.

⁷ Binder, “Eine Polemik des Porphyrios”; Reinhold Merkelbach apud Binder; Brian Daley in private communication.

⁸ Prov 26:9; Binder (“Eine Polemik des Porphyrios,” 95) cites Origen's treatment of this verse in his Commentary on Genesis 3:21 (PG, 12. 101BC): λεκτέον ὅτι οὐ δεῖ περιέχεσθαι τογράμματος τς γραφς ὡς ληθος. τν δ κεκρυμμένον θησαυρν ν τῷ γράμματι ζητεῖν.

⁹ On Didymus's life and career see Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3: The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature (Utrecht/Antwerp: Spectrum, 1960) 85–100Google Scholar, and the convenient summary of more recent discoveries in Young, Frances M., From Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and Its Background (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 83–91.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Discussion of Didymus as exegete in Beinert, Wolfgang A., “Allegoria” und “Anagoge” bei Didymos dem Blinden von Alexandria (Patristische Texte und Studien 13; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Tigcheler, Jo, Didyme I'Aveugle et I'exégèse allégorique (Graecitas Christiana Primaeva 6; Nijmegen: Dekker, 1977).Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. the opening of Porphyry's Homeric Questions in Codex V: …ὡς αὐτς μν έαυτν τ ὅτι δαιμόνιον αὐτῷ συναίρεται πολλ Ὅμηρος ξηγεῖται (ed. Sodano, 1. 12–24 [n. 28 below]); see also Lamberton, Robert, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986) 109. The principle is at least as old as Aristarchus.Google Scholar

¹² Iliad 12.462–66:… ὃ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔσθορε φαίδιμος Ἕκτωρ / νυκτ θοῇ τάλαντος ύπώπια,λάμπε δ χαλκῷ / σμερδαλέῳ, τν ἓεστο περ χροΐ, δοι δ χερσ / δορ᾽ ἔχεν^. οὔ κέν τίς μινρυκάκοι ντιβολήσας / νόσφι θεν, ὅτ᾽ σλτο πύλας^. πυρ δ᾽ σσε δεδήει. This and the following passage are my translation.

¹³ … “Ἕκτωρ δ μέγα σθένει βλεμεαίνων / μαίνεται κπάγλως, πίσυνος Διί, οὐδέ τι τίεινέρας οὐδ θεούς^. κρατερ δ έ λύσσα δέδυκεν.

¹⁴ Binder, “Eine Polemik des Porphyrios,” 93. I would add also Il. 11.347–48; 13.136ff.

¹⁵ Job 3:8 (LXX); Binder, “Eine Polemik des Porphyrios,” 90–91, with references.

¹⁶ Binder, “Eine Polemik des Porphyrios,” 93–94.

¹⁷ Andresen, Carl (Logos und Nomos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 30; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1955])CrossRefGoogle Scholar argues that Celsus is responding directly to Justin; see the detailed discussion in Chadwick, Henry, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition: Studies in Justin, Clement and Origen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966) 133.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The Greek text of the Ἀληθς Λόγος must be reconstructed from Origen's reply (see next note). A separate English translation by Hoffmann, R. Joseph is now available: Celsus On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Κατ Κέλσου. Critical text: Origenes Werke, 1–2 (GCS 2–3; ed. Koetschau, Paul; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899)Google Scholar; English translation: Chadwick, Henry, Origen Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953)Google Scholar. For a chronology of Origen's works see esp. Nautin, Pierre, Origène: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977).Google Scholar

²⁰ For what follows see Tate, John, “On the History of Allegorism,” Classical Quarterly 28 (1934) 105–14Google Scholar; Buffière, Félix, Les mythes d'Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1956)Google Scholar; Pépin, Jean, Mythe et allégorie: les origines grecques et les contestations judéochrétiennes (Paris: Aubier, 1958)Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, Rudolf, History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968)Google Scholar; Lamberton, Homer the Theologian. On Jewish and Christian developments, see Grant, Robert M., The Letter and the Spirit (London: SPCK, 1957)Google Scholar; Hanson, R. P. C., Allegory and Event: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of Scripture (London: SCM, 1959Google Scholar)—to be used with caution on Jewish materials; idem, “Biblical Exegesis in the Early Church,” in P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970) 412–53Google Scholar; Klauck, Hans-Josef, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten (NTAbh N.F. 13; Münster: Aschendorff, 1978)Google Scholar; Torjesen, Karen Jo, Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen's Exegesis (Patristische Texte und Studien 28; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Modern historical critics, themselves often implicitly or explicitly hostile to allegorical interpretation (e.g., Johannes Geffcken, “Allegory, Allegorical Interpretation,” ERE, 1. 327–31), tend to explain the rise of the method in similar fashion. Cf. the survey of criticisms of Origen's allegorical methods in Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure, 1–12.

²² E.g., Rep. 2.378d; on this point see Tate, John, “Plato and Allegorical Interpretation,” Classical Quarterly 23 (1929) 142–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ibid., 24 (1930) 1–10; Boer, W. den, “Hermeneutic Problems in Early Christian Literature,” VC 1 (1947) 150–67; Pfeiffer, History of Scholarship, 57–60; Wilken, “Pagan Criticism of Christianity.”Google Scholar

²³ Plutarch Moralia 351c-384c, Περ Ἴσιδος κα Ὸσίριδος.—text and translation available in LCL vol. 306 (ed. Babbitt, F. C.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936) 6–191.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Waszink, J. H., “Porphyrios und Numenius,” in Porphyre (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 12; Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1965) 35–83; and esp. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 54–77.Google Scholar

²⁵ De antro nympharum; text available in Porphyrii philosophi platonici opuscula selecta (ed. Nauck, W.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1886) 53–81Google Scholar. The relative chronology of Porphyry's works is quite problematic; the early date traditionally ascribed to this work may be due in part to scholars’ reaction to its allegorizing content (so, e.g., Geffcken, Last Days of Paganism, 61). See in general Barnes, T. D., “Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments,” JTS n.s. 24 (1973) 424–42; Pfeiffer, History of Scholarship, 226; Croke, “Porphyry's Anti-Christian Chronology,” and “The Era of Porphyry's Anti-Christian Polemic.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ On Porphyry's Vita Plotini (as well as Eusebius of Caesarea on Origen) see Cox, Patricia, Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).Google Scholar

²⁷ φιλόλογος μέν, ἔφη, ό Λογγῖνος, φιλόσοφος δ οὐδαμς: Vita Plotini 14; text and translation available in Plotinus 1 (LCL 440; ed. Armstrong, A. H.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).Google Scholar

²⁸ Texts available in Schrader, Hermann, ed., Porphyrii Quaestionum homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium reliquias (Leipzig: Teubner, 1880–1882)Google Scholar and Porphyrii Quaestionum homericarum ad Odysseam pertinentium reliquias (Leipzig: Teubner, 1890)Google Scholar; also Sodano, A. R., ed., Porphyrii Quaestionum homericarum liber I (Naples: Giannini, 1970).Google Scholar

²⁹ Text available in Wolff, Gustav, ed., Porphyrii De philosophia ex oraculis haurienda reliquiae (Berlin: Springer,. 1856).Google Scholar

³⁰ Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.19.4–8; text and translation available in Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History (LCL 265; ed. Oulton, J. E. L. and Lawlor, H. J.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932) 2.56–61.Google Scholar

³¹ On the population and cultural character of Caesarea in Origen's day see Levine, Lee I., Caesarea under Roman Rule (SJLA 7; Leiden: Brill, 1975) esp. 46–60.Google Scholar

³² Gregory Thaumatourgos Oratio Panegyrica in Origenem (PG 10. 1051–1106). For discussion of Origen and his school see Levine, Caesarea, 119–24; on the historical use of Gregory's panegyric, Levine refers esp. to Knauber, A., “Das Anliegen der Schule des Origenes zu Cäsarea,” MThZ 19 (1968) 182–203.Google Scholar

³³ Translation adapted from that in Lawler and Oulton (see n. 30) 57–59.

³⁴ Textual reconstruction with notes by Harnack, Adolf von, Porphyrius “Gegen die Christen,” 15 Bücher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate (Abhandlungen der königlichen preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse; Berlin, 1916Google Scholar, no. 1); further possible fragments in idem, “Neue Fragmente des Werks des Porphyrius gegen die Christen,”Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Berlin, phil.-hist. Klasse (Berlin, 1921) 266–84Google Scholar and “Nachträge,” Ibid., 834–35; Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von, “Ein Bruchstück aus der Schrift des Porphyrius gegen die Christen,” ZNW 1 (1900) 101–5Google Scholar; or (improbably) Nautin, Pierre, “Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre ‘Contre les Chrétiens,’” RB 57 (1950) 409–16; Robert Berchman is preparing an English translation of the fragments.Google Scholar

³⁵ On the Κατ Χριστιανν see (in addition to the works cited in n. 1) esp. Crafer, Thomas W., “The Work of Porphyry against the Christians, and Its Reconstructions,” JTS 8 (1907) 401–23; 546–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anastos, M. V., “Porphyry's Attack on the Bible,” in Wallach, L., ed., The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966) 421–50Google Scholar; Barnes, “Porphyry Against the Christians.” Typical examples of Porphyry's points were his criticism of Matthew (13:35) for “ascribing to Isaiah a passage that occurs in the Psalms” and of Mark (1:2–3) for quoting as Isaiah alone a text derived partly from Malachi (3:1) and partly from Isaiah (40:3). See Anastos, “Porphyry's Attack,” 426. These criticisms were quoted by Jerome (Comm. in Ps. 77, PL. 26. 1108BC and Comm. in Matth. 1:3, PL. 26. 29–30). who explained the mistakes as due to copyists errors.

³⁶ See most recently Casey, P. Maurice. “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel,” JTS n.s. 27 (1976) 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Meredith, “Porphyry and Julian against the Christians” (n. 1 above).

³⁸ Cf. e.g., Socrates Hist. eccl. 3.23.

³⁹ Codex Theod. 15.5.66; Codex lust. 1.1.3; 1.5.6; cf. Socrates Hist. eccl. 1.9.30. The texts are provided in Harnack, Porphyrius “Gegen die Christen.” 15 Bücher (see n. 34 above).

⁴⁰ On the complicated literary problems see esp. Barnes, “Porphyry Against the Christians”; Wilken, “Pagan Criticism”; Croke, “Porphyry's Chronology” and “Era of Porphyry's Polemic.” Among the older literature, see the conversation among Schalkhauser, Georg (Zu den Schriften des Makarios von Magnesia [TU 31/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907])Google Scholar, Crafer, (“The Work of Porphyry” and “Macarius Magnes, a Neglected Apologist” [JTS 8 (1907) 401–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 546–71]), Geffcken (Zwei griechische Apologeten), and Harnack, (Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts [TU 37/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1911Google Scholar] and Porphyrius “Gegen die Christen,” 15 Bücher). Barnes covers similar territory in refuting Harnack's complex literary solution, but without mentioning Crafer. Binder and Gronewald seem unaware of critical developments subsequent to Harnack.

⁴¹ Barnes, “Porphyry Against the Christians.” In addition to the literature mentioned in the previous note, see further on the problem Frassenetti, Paolo, “Suit' autore delle questioni pagane conservate nell' Apocritico di Macario di Magnesia,” Nuovo Didaskaleion 3 (1949) 41–56Google Scholar; Pezzella, S., “Il problema del Kata Christianon di Porfirio,” Eos 52 (1962) 87–104Google Scholar; Wilken refers to Robert Waelkens, “L'Économie, thème apologétique et principe herméneutique dans l'Apocriticos de Macarios Magnes (Recueil de Travaux d'Histoire et de Philologie, Université de Louvain, ser. 6, no. 4; Louvain: University of Louvain, 1974).

⁴² Harnack, Porphyrius “Gegen die Christen,” 15 Bücher.

⁴³ This is acknowledged by Augustine De civ. dei 19.22–23.

⁴⁴ Apparently Porphyry did not know of the Marcionite Christians and their rejection of the Old Testament.

⁴⁵ E.g., Augustine De consensu evangelistarum 1.15 (23); cf. 1.7 (10–12).

⁴⁶ Macarius Magnes 4.9 (Harnack, Porphyrius, 79, frg. 52): ξομολογομαί σοι, πάτερ. κύριε το οὐρανο κα τς γς, ὅτι ἔκρυψας τατα π σοφν κα συνετν, κα πεκάλυψας αὐτ νηπίοις …. σαφέστερα οὖν δεῖ εἶναι καἰ ούκ αἰνιγματώδη τ τοῖς νηπίοις καἰ συνέτοις γραφόμενα^. εἰ γρ π τν σοφν κέκρυπται τ μυστήρια, νηπίοις δ κα θηλαζομένοις λογς κκέχυται, βέλτιον τν λογίαν ζηλον κα τν μαθίαν This fragment is quoted by Gronewald, Michael, “Porphyrios' Kritik an den Gleichnissen des Evangeliums,” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 3 (1968) 96Google Scholar. I have used Crafer's translation (The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes [London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1919) 134).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Macarius Magnes 4.8 (Harnack, frg. 54; Crafer, Apocriticus, 134): ὅταν γάρ τις περ μεγάλων ἢ θείων παγγέλῃ, κοινοῖ;ς μν φείλει κα νθρωπίνοις χρ;σθαι παραδείγμασι σαφηνείας ἓνεκεν. οὐ μν οὔτω χυδαίοις κα συνέτοις. … τατα τ ῥήματα, μετ το ταπειν εἶναι κα μ πρέποντα τηλικούτοις πράγμασιν, οὺδεμίαν ἔχει ν αυτοῖ;ς ἔννοιαν συνετν οὐδ σαφήνειαν. καίτοι σφόδρα προσ;κεν αὐτ εἶναι σαφ; δι τ μ σοφοῖ;ς μηδ συνετοῖ;ς, λλ νηπίοις γεγράφθαι.

⁴⁸ I am currently gathering material for a monograph on early Christian use of parables where I plan to discuss this topic in depth.

⁴⁹ Grant, R. M., “The Stromateis of Origen,” in Fontaine, J. and Kannengiesser, C., eds., Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972) 285–92.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ E.g., Mark 4:10–12, 33–34 and parallels.

⁵¹ On Origen's interpretive methods, see, e.g., Hanson, Allegory and Event; Torjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure.

⁵² See, e.g., Porphyry's opening remarks to his collection as preserved in Eusebius Praep. evang. 4.7: “And the utility which this collection possesses will be best known to as many as have ever been in travail with the truth, and prayed that by receiving the manifestation of it from the gods they might gain relief from their perplexity by virtue of the trustworthy teaching of the speakers” (trans. Gifford, E. H., Eusebius Preparation for the Gospel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1903] 1, 157).Google Scholar

⁵³ Hist. eccl. 6.19.4–8.

⁵⁴ It is not necessary to believe (1) that there was only one man named Origen who studied with Ammonius Saccas, so that later Neoplatonic references to an “Origen” are actually unwittingly quoting the Christian theologian; or, even less, the other extreme (2) that there were not only two Origens, but also two teachers named Ammonius, each with his own Origen as pupil. For the recent discussion see Kettler, Franz Heinrich, “Origenes, Ammonius Sakkas und Porphyrius,” in Ritter, A. M., ed., Kerygma und Logos: Festschrift für Carl Andresen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 322–28.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ On the κατ Κέλσου see esp. Andresen, Logos und Nomos, and Chadwick, Origen Contra Celsum; also Pichler, Karl, Streit um das Christentum: Der Angriff des Kelsos und die Antwort des Origenes (Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 23; Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 1980)Google Scholar; Trigg, Joseph W., Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-Century Church (Atlanta: John Knox, 1983) 222–39.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ This is Grant's summary, Letter and Spirit, 28.

⁵⁷ The case for Celsus knowing Philo's works, and even borrowing from them for arguments against the historical sense of the Pentateuch is made in Stein, E., Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik in der späthellenistischen Literatur (Lwow, 1935), cited by Grant, “The Stromateis of Origen,” 292 n. 62.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See Chadwick, Origen Contra Celsum, x–xi; Andresen, Logos und Nomos, 141–45; Daniélou, Jean, Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture (trans. Baker, J. A.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973); Trigg, Origen, 214–22; Wilken, Christians as the Romans Saw Them.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ On philosophers' complaints of the “immorality” of Homer (and the epic tradition overall) see esp. Buffière, Les mythes d'Homère, 13–25; also Grant, Letter and Spirit, 2–3; Müller, Konrad, “Allegorische Dichtererklärung,” PWSup 4 (1924) 16–22; Pfeiffer, History of Scholarship, 5–10; Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 10–22.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ C. Cel. 4.51 (Koetschau, 1. 324.6–11; Chadwick, 226).

⁶¹ Macarius Magnes 2.12 (Crafer, Apocriticus, 38).

⁶² Augustine De civ. dei 19.23.

⁶³ Vita Plotini 16.

⁶⁴ On Porphyry's critique of Daniel, see Geffcken, Last Days of Paganism; Braverman, Jay, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (CBQMS 7; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 1978) 116–17Google Scholar; Frassinetti, Paolo, “Porfirio esegeta del profeta Daniele,” Istituto Lombardo 86 (1953) 194–210; Croke, “Porphyry's Anti-Christian Chronology.”Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Jerome has preserved major chunks of Porphyry's arguments and summarizes them in the prologue to his Commentary on Daniel (PL, 25. 491C). Casey (“Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel”) has argued (1) that Porphyry relied on Syriac-language traditional exegesis of Daniel for his information, and (2) that he was not completely successful in his chronological placement of the pseudepigraph; on the first point see the criticisms of Ferch, Arthur J., “Porphyry: An Heir to Christian Exegesis?” ZNW 73 (1982) 141–47.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Henry Chadwick draws a more nuanced picture of Origen and Platonism in “Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought,” The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (ed. Armstrong, A. H.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 188–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is an excellent discussion of the broader question of relation to authoritative tradition in later Platonism in Armstrong's essay “Pagan and Christian Traditionalism in the First Three Centuries A.D.,” StPatr 15.1 (TU 128; ed. Livingstone, E. A.; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984) 414–31.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Binder, “Eine Polemik des Porphyrios,” 93–94.

⁶⁸ E.g., Achilles = the sun and Hector = the moon; see now more generally Katherine King, Callen, Achilles: Paradigms of the War Hero from Homer to the Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See esp. Lamberton, Homer the Theologian, 118–32.

⁷⁰ C. Cel. 6.42–44 (Koetschau, 2. 110–13; Chadwick, 357–60).

⁷¹ Matt 4:1 - 11 // Luke 4:1 - 13; cf. also Luke 10:18: θεώρουν τν σατανν ὡς στραπν κ το οὐρανο πεσόντα.

⁷² See, e.g., the scholiast tradition about Hector's psychological state and martial excellence (scholia in Codex B on Il. 11.269; in Codex A on 13.137, discussed by Schlunk, Robin R., The Homeric Scholia and the Aeneid [Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1974] 41–43).Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Schlunk's note: “Schol. BT on Λ 347 add, commenting on Homer's use of the middle/passive form of the verb κυλίνδεται, that he (Diomedes) knows that Hector is ‘possessed’ of a daimōn: κυλίνδεται) ντ το πιπέμπεται^. οἶδε γρ ώς τ δαιμόνιον αὐτῷ συνεργεῖ;. [Β] κυλίνδεται βριμος Ἕκτωρ) ντ το κυλίνδει, ώς ἄνεμος κυλίνδει κμα (Od. V, 296).οἶδε γάρ, ὅτι δαιμόνιον αὐτῷ συναίρεται. This presumably means no more than that he comes on ‘like one possessed,’ i.e., of an ‘evil spirit,’ such as Allecto” (The Homeric Scholia, 125–26 n. 14).

⁷⁴ Different versions of this essay were read as public lectures at the University of Minnesota and the University of California, Berkeley. I wish to thank Brian Daley, John Strugnell, Oliver Nicholson, and the editor of the HTR for the considerable improvements resulting from their critical reading and suggestions.