¹ Eus., , PE 1.2.ff.Google Scholar = Harnack 1: see R. Wilken, ‘Pagan criticism of Christianity: Greek religion and Christian faith“, in W. Schoedel and R. Wilken (eds), Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition (1979). 117–34; 127,forthe inclusion of this fragment, once assigned to Porphyry's Against the Christians, among those attributed to the Philosophy from Oracles. A. von Harnack, ‘Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, 15 Bücher: Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate’, AKPAW (1916), 1–115.

² Latin text is from Divinae institutiones, in L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera Omnia, CSEL 19, ed. S. Brandt and G. Laubmann (1965 repr. of 1890 edn).

³ The work was called Φιλαληθής (Inst. 5.3.22), a work which Eusebius identifies as that of Hierocles (Contra Hieroclem 1).

⁴ Authors from Seston to Chadwick have suspected that Porphyry was Lactantius' philosopher. Seston, W., Dioclétien et la Tétrarchie (1946), 246Google Scholar; Benoit, P., ‘Un adversaire du christianisme au IIIième siècle: Porphyre’, Revue Biblique 54 (1947), 543–72Google Scholar; 552; Chadwick, H., The Sentences of Sextus (1959), 142CrossRefGoogle Scholar; E. des Places in Porphyre: Vie de Pythagore, Lettre à Marcella, ed. and trans. E. des Places (1982), 89. But others, including J. Bidez and T. D. Barnes, have maintained that the philosopher from Tyre could not have been Lactantius' antagonist. Bidez, J., Vie de Porphyre (1964 repr. of 1913 edn), 112 n. 2Google Scholar; Barnes, T. D., ‘Porphyry against the Christians: date and attribution of fragments’, JThS n.s. 24 (1973), 424–42Google Scholar.

⁵ Although the traditional view has been that theoretical conceptions of toleration began in the sixteenth century (e.g., B. Crick, Political Theory and Practice (1973) 63), Peter Garnsey, Cary Nederman and others have successfully challenged this assumption. Garnsey, P., ‘Religious toleration in classical antiquity’, in Shiels, W. J. (ed.), Persecution and Toleration (1984)Google Scholar; Nederman, Cary J., ‘Tolerance and community: a medieval functionalist argument for religious toleration’, JOP 56 (1994), 901–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Vaganay, L., Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 12 (1935)Google Scholar, col. 2562, in Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 438; Baronius, Annal. Eccles., a.302.44SS in Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 112n. 2.

⁷ Studies that move in this direction are Buchheit, V., ‘Goldene Zeit und Paradies auf Erden (Laktanz, Inst. 5,5–8)’, WJA n.s. 4 (1978), 161–85Google Scholar; 5 (1979), 219–35; idem, ‘Der Zeitbezug in der Weltalterlehre des Laktanz (Inst. 5,5–6)’, Historia 28 (1979), 472–86; idem, ‘Juppiter als Gewalttäter: Laktanz (Inst. 5.6.6) und Cicero’, RhM 125 (1982), 338–42; Kolb, F., ‘L'ideologia tetrarchica e la politica religiosa di Diocleziano’, in Bonamente, G. and Nestori, A. (eds), I cristiani e l'impero nel IV secolo (1988), 17–44Google Scholar; Nicholson, O., ‘Hercules at the Milvian Bridge: Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 1.21.6–9’, Latomus 43 (1984), 133–42Google Scholar; idem, ‘The wild man of the Tetrarchy: a divine companion for the emperor Galerius’, Byzantion 54 (1984), 253–75; and Ocker, C., ‘Unius arbitrio mundum regi necesse est: Lactantius' concern for the preservation of Roman society’, VChr 40 (1986), 348–64Google Scholar.

⁸ His fourth-century biographer, Eunapius, seems to have drawn his account in the Vitae sophistarum (VS) from Porphyry's own works, especially the Life of Plotinus (VP) (cf. Eunapius, s.v. Πορφύριος, Vitae sophistarum, ed. J. Giangrande(1956), 3–4, in Porphyrii Philosophi Fragmenta, ed. A. Smith (1993), 1–6). In 1913, Bidez attempted to augment the ancient sources by using Porphyry's writings to chart his intellectual development. Despite the profound influence of Bidez's work, however, the arguments and chronology of his Vie de Porphyre are no longer universally accepted. For criticism of Bidez, see Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4); O'Meara, J., Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine (1959)Google Scholar; and Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1).

⁹ The dates here follow those of Goulet, R., ‘Le systéme chronologique’, in Porphyre: La vie de Plotin, ed. Goulet, R. (1982), 210–11Google Scholar. The calculations derive from Porphyry's remark in the VP (4.11) that he was thirty in the tenth year of Gallienius’ reign.

¹⁰ Eusebius' Church History (HE) quotes a passage from Porphyry in which he says that he met Origen (6.19.5). Athanasius Syrius says that, as a disciple of Origen, Porphyry developed an interpretation of the Gospel opposed by Gregory Thaumatourgos, then a fellow student (Bibl. Apost. Vat. Cod. III, 305, in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 24). Echoes of this incident appear in Nicephorus and Socrates Scholasticus, who cite Eusebius as their source (Nicophorus Callistus Xanthopulus, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Ducaeus (1630), 10.36, in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 14; Socrates Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. R. Hussey (1853), 3.23.37–9, in Smith). See also the Codex Tubingensis (Fragmente griechischer Theosophien, ed. Erbse (1941), 201, 1–5 in Smith, 15). Although Bidez doubted that the young Porphyry had any attachment to Christianity (op. cit. (n. 4), 13–14), the specificity of Athanasius' remarks raises the possibility that these authors are referring, not to the vague reference in the Church History, but to Eusebius' lost twenty-five-volume refutation of Porphyry (Hier., Vir. ill. 81). If this is so, the evidence in favour of Porphyry's youthful interest in Christianity would be much stronger–a view that seems to be gaining ground (R. Beutler, ‘Porphyrios’, in PWK 22 (1953), col. 175–313; Frend, W. H. C., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 357Google Scholar).

¹¹ Greek text is from Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. E. Schwartz (1903/1908), in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 25.

¹² Codex Tubingensis 201, 1–5 in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 15.

¹³ Greek text is from Porphyry, Ad Marcellam, in Porphyrii Opuscula, ed. A. Nauck (1886), in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 25.

¹⁴ Chadwick, op. cit. (n. 4), 142.

¹⁵ Since the Suda says that he lived into the time of Diocletian (παρατείνας ἔως Διοκλητιανοῦ), R. Beutler and others assumed that Porphyry died before 1 May 305—the date the emperor abdicated (Suda, s.v., in Lexicon, ed. A. Adler (1935), in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 6; Barnes cites Beutler, op. cit. (n. 10), col. 278 and Vaganay, op. cit. (n. 6), col. 2562 as scholars who have accepted this date (Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 432 n. 1); cf. also A. Smith, ‘Porphyrian studies since 1913’, ANRW 2.26.2 (1987), 717–73; 721). But this date may simply result from Porphyry's own statement that in his sixty-eighth year he published The Enneads (301), his last work with a firm date. ‘The Souda alone cannot provide proof that [Porphyry] was already deceased when Diocletian abdicated 1 May 305’ (Barnes, ibid., 431).

¹⁶ Hulen, A. B., Porphyry's Work Against the Christians: An Interpretation (1933), 4Google Scholar; C. Evangeliou, ‘Porphyry's criticism of Christianity and the problem of Augustine's Platonism’, Dionysius 13 (1989), 51–70; 54.

¹⁷ A. Chaignet, ‘La Philosophie des Oracles’, R.Hist.Rel. 41 (1900), 337–53; 338; Frend, op. cit. (n. 10), 510, inc. n. 26; de Labriolle, P., ‘Porphyre et le christianisme’, Revue d'Histoire de la Philosophie 30 (1929), 385–440Google Scholar; 400; see Harnack, op. cit. (n. 1), 30 for mss. that link Eusebius to a twenty-five-book attack on Porphyry. Augustine, , De civitate dei, ed. Dombart, B. and Kalb, A. (1928), in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 392–400Google Scholar. Theodoret, , Graecarum affectionum curatio, ed. Raeder, J. (1904), 12Google Scholar, in Smith, ibid., 221; Eusebius, , Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Schwartz, E. (GCS 2, 1–2) (1903/1908)Google Scholar, in Smith, ibid., 30; Edictum Theodosii et Valentiniani (Collect. Vatic. 138) (17 Feb. 448) I, 1, 4 in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz (1927– ), 66.3–4; 8–12, in Smith, ibid., 32.

¹⁸ cf. Vaganay, op. cit. (n. 6), in Barnes, op. cit. (n.4), 439.

¹⁹ ‘Quorum alter antistitem se philosophiae profitebatur, verum ita vitiosus, ut continentiae magister non minus avaritia quam libidinibus arderet, in victu tarn sumptuosus, ut in schola virtutis adsertor, parsimoniae paupertatisque laudator, in palatio peius cenaret quam domi. Tamen vitia sua capillis et pallio et, quod maximum est velamentum, divitiis praetegebat: quas ut augeret, ad amicitias iudicum miro ambitu penetrabat eosque sibi repente auctoritate falsi nominis obligabat, non modo ut eorum sententias venderet, verum etiam ut confines suos, quos sedibus agrisque pellebat, a suo repetendo hac potentia retardaret… eodem ipso tempore quo iustus populus nefarie lacerabatur tres libros evomuit contra religionem nomenque Christianum…’

²⁰ Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 438–9.

²¹ Harnack, op. cit. (n. 1), 26.

²² De principio Marci (Anecd. Maredsol. III, 2, p. 320, in Harnack, op. cit. (n. 1), 48; Comm. in Daniel, prol.); cf. Frend, op. cit. (n. 10), 357.

²³ For later additions, cf. A. von Harnack, ‘Neue Fragmente des Werks des Porphyrius gegen die Christen: Die Pseudo-Polycarpiana und die Schrift des Rhetors Pacatus gegen Porphyrius’, SAW-Berlin (1921), 266–84; 834–5; Nautin, P., ‘Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre Contre les Chrétiens’, Revue Biblique 67 (1950), 409–16Google Scholar; al-Biruni, in Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4); Hagedorn, D. and Merkelbach, R., ‘Ein neues Fragment aus Porphyrios gegen die Christen’, Vig. Chr. 20 (1966), 86–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Barnes accepts the fragments from Pacatus as Porphyrian. But he cautions that the fragments in Didymus the Blind are probably not direct quotations and disqualifies those Nautin located in Eusebius' quotations of Philo of Byblos in Porphyry and those in al-Biruni (425–7).

²⁴ Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 67; O. Gigon, Die antike Kultur und das Christentum: Kelsos, Porphyrios, Julian (1966), 119; Harnack, op. cit. (n. 1), 1, 25, 31; Hulen, op. cit. (n. 16), 13; de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 387; Nestle, W., ‘Die Haupteinwände des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum’, Archiv für Religionswissenschaft 37 (1941), 51–100Google Scholar; 54.

²⁵ Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 438–9; Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 112 n. 2; Croke, B., ‘The era of Porphyry's anti-Christian polemic’, JRH 13 (1984), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 7.

²⁶ cf. P. F. Beatrice, ‘Towards a new edition of Porphyry's fragments against the Christians’, in M.-O. Goulet-Cazé and D. O'Brien (eds), Σοφίης μαιήτορες «Chercheurs de sagesse«: Hommage à Jean Pépin (1992), 350, for a discussion of some of these authors; also Benoit, op. cit. (n. 4), 546; Beutler, op. cit. (n. 10), and especially Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 15–16; R. M. Grant, ‘Porphyry among the early Christians’, in W. den Boer (ed.), Romanitas et Christianitas (1973), 181–7; 181; Hulen, op. cit. (n. 16), 16; de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 396–7; Nock, A. D., ‘Oracles théologiques’, REA⁴ 30 (1928), 280–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 281; Sellew, P., ‘Achilles or Christ? Porphyry and Didymus in debate over allegorical interpretation’, HThR 82 (1989), 79–100Google Scholar; 90.

²⁷ νέος δὲ ὣν ἴσως ταῦτα ἔγραφεν, ὡς ἔοικεν: in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 4; cf. Chaignet, op. cit. (n. 17), 337.

²⁸ In addition, although Hans Lewy later disproved this assumption, Bidez argued that it showed no evidence of contact with the second-century collection called the Chaldaean Oracles. Cf. Dodds, E. R., ‘New light on the Chaldaean Oracles’, HThR 54 (1961), 263–73Google Scholar; 267. Lardner, W., The Credibility of the Gospel History II: Testimonies of Ancient Heathens (1788)Google Scholar, in Beatrice, op. cit. (n. 26), Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (1981), 175Google Scholar, drawing on Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 15ff.; Grant, op. cit. (n. 26), 181; Meredith, A., ‘Porphyry and Julian against the Christians’, ANRW 2.23.2 (1980), 1119–49Google Scholar; Sellew, op. cit. (n. 26), 90.

²⁹ Anastos, M. V., ‘Porphyry's attack on the Bible’, in Wallach, L. (ed.), The Classical Tradition (1966), 425Google Scholar; cf. Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 428 n. 1 for others.

³⁰ Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 428 n. 1 for scholars who also criticized the use of Macarius before Barnes's article; Beatrice, P. F., ‘Le Traité de Porphyre contre les Chrétiens: l'état de la question’, Kernos 4 (1991), 119–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 134–5.

³¹ Pezzella, S., ‘Il problema del Κατὰ Χριστιαῶν di Porfirio’, Eos 52 (1962), 104Google Scholar.

³² Meredith, op. cit. (n. 28), 1127. This finding has discredited the conclusions of some earlier scholars who accepted Macarius' fragments uncritically (e.g., Benoit, Beutler, Gigon, de Labriolle, Nestle, Evangeliou). This study uses only those fragments that Barnes approved (2, 4–6, 8–12, 20, 21, 25 (part), 38–44, 49 (part), 55 (part), 70, 79–82, 86, 91, 92, 97); cf. Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 430–1, n. 9.

³³ Beatrice, op. cit. (n. 30), 119; Sellew, op. cit. (n. 26), 79–100.

³⁴ Meredith, op. cit. (n. 28), 1136.

³⁵ Cameron, A., ‘The date of Porphyry's Κατὰ Χριστιαῶν’, CQ 17 (1967), 382–4, 382CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 433–4; cf. also Smith, op. cit. (n. 15), 717–73.

³⁶ Ammonius, , In Porphyrii Isagogen 22, 12–22Google Scholar, ed. Busse, A. (CAG IV.3) (1891)Google Scholar, in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 22; Elias, , In Porphyrii Isogogen, ed. Busse, A. (CAG XVIII. I) (1900), 39, 8–19Google Scholar, in Smith, ibid., 23; Cameron, op. cit. (n. 35), 382.

³⁷ HE 6.19.2 in Harnack, op. cit. (n. 1), 64; Pirioni, P., ‘Il soggiorno siciliano di Porfirio e la composizione del Κατὰ Χριστιαῶν’, RSCI 39 (1985), 502–8Google Scholar; 503; see Croke, op. cit. (n. 25), 10, for the date of the HE.

³⁸ Cameron, op. cit. (n. 35), 382–3.

³⁹ Barnes has tried to date Against the Christians later still. His efforts seem to be motivated by his belief that Against the Christians was Porphyry's great contribution to the debates immediately preceding the Great Persecution. As evidence, Barnes cited a passage in Jerome where Porphyry seemed to describe Britain as a ‘fertile province for tyrants’ (Ep. 133.9 = Harnack frag. 82), a remark that could have been written only after Carausius (286–93) (Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 436–7). He also noted the absence of references to Porphyry in Eusebius' Against Hierocles or his General Elementary Introduction (even though he discusses the Book of Daniel whose authenticity Porphyry had attacked) and Lactantius' Divine Institutes (Barnes, ibid., 439–42; idem, ‘Sossianus Hierocles and the antecedents of the Great Persecution’, HSCP 80 (1976), 239–52; 240–1). Brian Croke, however, has rightly challenged Barnes's fourth-century date on several counts: (1) since Porphyry had made only a passing reference to Apollonius, Eusebius' Against Hierocles could still claim that Hierocles was the first formally to compare Jesus with the second-century miracle worker; (2) in his Demonstratio evangelica, a work aware of Porphyry's anti-Christian writing, Eusebius also discusses Daniel without reference to Porphyry's criticism (8.2.55f.); (3) the reference to Britain as a ‘province of tyrants’ is not clearly marked off as a quotation; indeed it could well refer to Britain in Jerome's day (407 had seen three usurpers, Marcus, Gratian, and Constantine); (4) finally, Eusebius refers to Porphyry in the part of his Church History written c. 295, so it is difficult to imagine that these would be later interpolations (Croke, op. cit. (n. 25), 6–7, 9–10, 13). In sum, the arguments of Cameron, Barnes, and Croke taken together suggest that Porphyry could have written Against the Christians any time after 270 but before 295 (Frend, W. H. C., ‘Prelude to the Great Persecution: the propaganda’, JEH 38 (1987), 1–18Google Scholar; 10).

⁴⁰ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 131–2; O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 33; idem, Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius' Praeparatio evangelica and Augustine's Dialogues of Cassiciacum (1969), 7–8.

⁴¹ See above p. 133. Suda, s. vv. Πορφύριος and Φερεκύδης Άθηναῖος, in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 7, 231; O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 34; Smith, op. cit. (n. 15), 733; Beatrice, op. cit. (n. 26), 350; Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 132.

⁴² Rinaldi, G., ‘Giudei e pagani alia vigilia della persecuzione di Diocleziano: Porfirio e il popolo d'Israele’, VetChr 29 (1992), 113–36Google Scholar; 122–3.

⁴³ O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 51–7; Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 118; Rinaldi, op. cit. (n. 42), 121.

⁴⁴ O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 64; idem, op. cit. (n. 40), 5.

⁴⁵ See Beatrice, op. cit. (n. 26), 347–8 for other authors who have adopted this point of view.

⁴⁶ Courcelle, P., ‘Propos antichrétiens rapportés par saint Augustin’, Recherches Augustiniennes I (1958), 149–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 158, drawing on Augustine, De doctrina chr. 2.28.43.

⁴⁷ τοὺς πονηροὺς καὶ ἀσεβεῖς μιμησάμενος Άρειος. Letter to the bishops after Nicaea, in Socrates Scholasticus 1.9.30, in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 30.

⁴⁸ Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (Collect. Vatic. III) (3 Aug. 435?), II, 3, p. 68, 8–17 in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 31–2. Cf. also Augustine's discussion of the readers of Plato in De doctrina chr.: Courcelle, op. cit. (n. 46), 158; and de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 392, 395.

⁴⁹ de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 426–7; Hulen, op. cit. (n. 16), 25; cf. also Evangeliou, op. cit. (n. 16), 55, n. 18; Rinaldi, op. cit. (n. 42), 121.

⁵⁰ O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 29.

⁵¹ Chaignet, op. cit. (n. 17), 339.

⁵² R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians (1986); Chaignet, op. cit. (n. 17), 343; Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 133; idem, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (1984), 150.

⁵³ Frend, op. cit. (n. 39), 10 citing Hanson, R. P. C., ‘The Christian attitude to pagan religions’, in Studies in Christian Antiquity (1985), 190–1Google Scholar; Rinaldi, G., ‘Giudei e pagani alla vigilia della persecuzione di Diocleziano: Porfirio e il popolo d'Israele’, VetChr 29 (1992), 113–36Google Scholar; 119.

⁵⁴ O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8).

⁵⁵ Hadot, P., ‘Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin’, REA 6 (1960), 205–44Google Scholar; Dodds, op. cit. (n. 28), 263–73; cf. also Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 119, n. 3.

⁵⁶ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 118–19, n. 3.

⁵⁷ O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 58.

⁵⁸ O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 50–1, 53.

⁵⁹ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 126.

⁶⁰ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 123, 126–7.

⁶¹ Ferrar's translation, slightly altered (Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, trans. W. J. Ferrar (1920)). Greek text is from Eusebius, , Demonstratio evangelica, in Eusebii Caesarensis Opera, Vol. 3, ed. Dindorfius, G. (1867)Google Scholar, in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 395–8.

⁶² Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 125–6.

⁶³ ibid.

⁶⁴ Translation is that of E. H. Gifford (1903).

⁶⁵ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 124–5.

⁶⁶ cf. Jerome, De principio Marci = Harnack 9: ‘qui adversum nos conscripsit’; Theodoret, Graec. affect. cur. VII 36 = Harnack 38: ὁ Πορφύριος … τὴν καθ’ ἡμῶν τυρεύων γραφὴν; Eusebius, , HE 6.19.2ff.Google Scholar = Harnack 39: συγγράμματα καθ’ ἡμῶν; also Harnack 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 80.

⁶⁷ Nestle, W., ‘Zur altchristlichen Apologetik im neuen Testament’, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 4 (1952), 115–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnes, op. cit. (n. 28), 21–2; Frend, op. cit. (n. 10), 358–9; cf. also de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 432.

⁶⁸ Τί οὖν ἂν γένοιτο τὸ καθ' ἡμᾶς ξένον καὶ τίς ὁ νεωτερισμὸς τοῦ βίου.

⁶⁹ Meredith has questioned any attribution to the Neoplatonist philosopher (op. cit. (n. 28), 1129). However, since the passage switches from referring to Christians as ‘we’ to ‘they’, it has long been recognized as a quotation from another source, and most likely from Porphyry (Gigon, op. cit. (n. 24), 120).

⁷⁰ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 127.

⁷¹ Greek text is from Harnack's collection, op. cit. (n. 1).

⁷² Nevertheless, the presence of fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles among those attributed to Against the Christians does not imply, as Beatrice has suggested, that the two works are identical (Beatrice, op. cit. (n. 26), 348–9, drawing on von Harnack, A., Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius: Die Überlieferung und der Bestand 1.2 (1893, repr. 1958), 873)Google Scholar. Although the more ancient fragments that quote the Philosophy from Oracles by name refer to no book beyond the third, Beatrice cites two sixteenth-century manuscripts that cite an oracle from its ‘tenth book’. (The first reference to an oracle from Book Ten occurs in a work of Steuchus, the second reference is to the same oracle in the Codex Ambrosianus 569 (Beatrice, ibid., 350)). Beatrice took these references to mean, not only that the Philosophy from Oracles might be longer than originally thought, but also that it was an alternative title for Against the Christians. Nevertheless, since Wolff found the same oracle in a fourteenth-century manuscript that attributes it to the second book of the Philosophy from Oracles (Kellner, H., ‘Der neuplatoniker Porphyrius und sein Verhältniss zum Christentum’, ThQ 47 (1865), 86–7Google Scholar Chaignet, op. cit. (n. 17), 337; G. Wolff, Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae (1962 repr. of 1856 edn), 39, 132–47), it seems more likely that the older manuscript is more accurate and that Beatrice's manuscripts follow a mistaken reading of δέκατος (tenth) for δεύτερος (second). Indeed, Beatrice's later work is more cautious, noting only that the relationship between the two works needs to be studied with great care (Beatrice, op. cit. (n. 30), 134).

⁷³ cf. Simmons, M. B., Arnobius of Sicca (1995), 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁴ cf. Inst. 4.13.11 and Aug., , Civ. dei 19.22.17–23.17Google Scholar = Smith 343; Lact., , De ira 23.12Google Scholar and Aug., , Civ. dei 19.23.30–7Google Scholar = Smith 344 (Chaignet, op. cit. (n. 17), 338; Frend, op. cit. (n. 39), 9, n. 57; Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 124; O'Meara, op. cit. (n. 8), 115–18; Wolff, op. cit. (n. 72), 177).

⁷⁵ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 124. Wilken's argument has not been challenged by later authors (Croke, op. cit. (n. 25), 7; Lane Fox, op. cit. (n. 52), 196–7; Simmons op. cit. (n. 73), 24; see also Smith, op. cit. (n. 15), as the most recent assessment of Porphyrian scholarship).

⁷⁶ Lactantius' oracle in 4.13.11 is different from that in Augustine (where Augustine's text says that Jesus ‘was condemned by right-thinking judges and killed in hideous fashion’ (‘quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in speciosis ferro vincta mors interfecit’), Lactantius' Greek text has ‘Chaldaean judges’ (ὑπὸ Χαλδαίοισι δικασπολίαισιν ἁλώσας)), but it is possible that Lactantius himself changed the text to point toward Porphyry who was keenly interested in Chaldaean ideas (see e.g., Augustine, , Civ. dei 10.27.8–25Google Scholar), or that Augustine's translator (19.23.1) may have altered it. Translation of the City of God is that of H. Bettenson (Augustine, City of God (1984)) with some modifications; Latin text is from Augustinus, De civitate dei, ed. B. Dombart and A. Kalb (1928), in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 392–3.

⁷⁷ 4.13.12–14: ‘Primo versu verum quidem dixit, sed argute consultorem fefellit … videtur enim negasse ilium deum … si sapiens fuit, ergo doctrina eius sapientia est … et sapientes qui secuntur.’ 4.13.14: ‘[Q]ui sectamur magistrum etiam ipsorum deorum confessione sapientem.’ 4.16.1: ‘Venio nunc ad ipsam passionem, quae velut obprobrium nobis obiectari solet, quod et hominem et ab hominibus insigni supplicio adfectum et cruciatum colamus.’

⁷⁸ Wilken, op. cit. (n. 52), 155. See above for the text of 345. 343: The following reply, in verse, was given by Apollo to one who asked what god he should propitiate in order to recall his wife from Christianity …. ‘You might perhaps find it easier to write on water in printed characters, or fly like a bird through the air spreading light wings to the breeze, than recall to her senses an impious, polluted wife. Let her go as she pleases, persisting in her vain delusions, singing in lamentation for a god who died in delusions, who was condemned by right-thinking judges and killed in hideous fashion by the worst death, one bound with iron’…. Indeed in these verses Apollo made plain the incurability of their belief, saying that the Jews upheld God more than these.

⁷⁹ Ogilvie, R. M., The Library of Lactantius (1978), 23Google Scholar; Nock, op. cit. (n. 26), 281, n. 2.

⁸⁰ Nestle, op. cit. (n. 47), 115–23.

⁸¹ Although Bidez and Harnack assumed that Hierocles was a follower of Porphyry, probably because they read Macarius as a reliable source for Porphyry's Against the Christians, and several of these fragments seem to have come from Hierocles (Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 105; Harnack, op. cit. (n. 1), 27, 29; cf. also de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 436–7), Eusebius claimed that, even to the name of his treatise, Hierocles relied only on Celsus, not Porphyry (Contra Hieroclem = CH 1) (Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 440).

⁸² Greek text is from Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, ed. K. Mras (1954), in Smith, op. cit. (n. 8), 371–2. Cf. also Smith, frag. 323.

⁸³

⁸⁴ 6.4.6: ‘Via vero ilia caelestis difficilis et clivosa proposita est vel spinis horrentibus aspera vel saxis extantibus impedita.’ 6.7.9–6.8.1: ‘Haec autem via, quae est veritatis et sapientiae et virtutis et iustitiae, quorum omnium fons unus est, una vis, una sedes, et simplex est, quo paribus animis summaque concordia unum sequamur et colamus deum, et angusta, quoniam paucioribus virtus data est, et ardua, quoniam ad bonum quod est summum atque sublime nisi cum summa dimcultate ac labore non potest perveniri. Haec est via quam philosophi quaerunt, sed ideo non inveniunt.’ 6.7.1: ‘[V]ia ilia mendax, quae fert ad occasum, multos tramites habet propter studiorum et disciplinarum varietatem, quae sunt in vita hominum dissimiles atque diversae.’

⁸⁵ ‘Praeter opinionem … profecto quibusdam videatur esse quod dicturi sumus. Christum enim dii piisimum pronuntiaverunt et immortalem factum et cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt…’

⁸⁶ Inst. 4.13.4: ‘mediam inter deum hominemque substantiam gerens.’ Cf. Wilken, op. cit. (n. 1), 127, on Eusebius’ Arianism, and Loi, V., ‘Cristologia e soteriologia nella dottrina di Lattanzio’, RSLR 4 (1968), 237–87Google Scholar, for the importance of Lactantius' emphasis on Christus magister.

⁸⁷ Davies, P., ‘The origin and purpose of the persecution of A.D. 303’, JTS² 40 (1989), 66–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 92.

⁸⁸ Meredith, op. cit. (n. 28), 1134.

⁸⁹ cf. Garnsey, op. cit. (n. 5) 1, and Crick, B., ‘Toleration and tolerance in theory and practice’, Government and Opposition 6 (1971), 144–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁰ See also Garnsey, op. cit. (n. 5), 14–16, for a summary of Tertullian's arguments and Lactantius' position; also cf. M. Perrin, L'Idée de révolution: Colloque ouvert organisé par Le Centre d'histoire des idées (1991), 88.

⁹¹ ‘Ad divos adeunto caste, pietatem adhibento, opes amovento. Qui secus faxit, deus ipse vindex erit.“

⁹² See above p. 129.

⁹³ cf. e.g., Bolkestein, H., ‘Humanitas bei Lactantius: Christlich oder orientalisch?’ in Klauser, T. and Rücker, A. (eds), Pisciculi: Studien zur Religion und Kultur des Altertums (1939), 62–5Google Scholar; Loi, V., ‘I valori etici e politici della romanità negli scritti di Lattanzio’, Salesianum 27 (1965), 65–133Google Scholar; Alberte, A., ‘Actitud de los cristianos ante el principio de la latinitas’, EClás 33(1991), 55–62Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ See allusive references to Diocletian as Jupiter—a king who instituted worship of himself—in Inst. 1.3.11–12; 5.6.6, and allusive references to Augustus as Saturn in Inst. 1.11.51, 62; 1.13.13–15; 5.5.3; 5.5. Digeser, E., Lactantius, Constantine and the Roman Res Publica, unpubl. PhD dissertation, University of California at Santa Barbara (1996)Google Scholar, chs 4, 6.

⁹⁵ See Inst. 5.11.18–19 for the criticism of third-century jurists and most of ch. 6 for the equation of Christian law with natural law. Digeser, op. cit. (n. 94), chs 4, 6.

⁹⁶ Iamblichus, , De myst. 1.2Google Scholar: ‘If also you should propose any philosophic inquiry, we shall discuss it for you according to the ancient pillars of Hermes, which Plato and Pythagoras knew before, and from thence constituted their philosophy’. See also Arnobius' association of the Neoplatonists, in particular, with Hermes (2.13: ‘vos appello qui Mercuriam, qui Platonem Pythagoremque sectamini’); Courcelle, op. cit. (n. 46), 154; Fortin, E. L., ‘The viri novi of Arnobius and the conflict between faith and reason in the early Christian centuries’, in Neiman, D. and Schatkin, M. (eds), The Heritage of the Early Church (1973), 197–226Google Scholar; 201–2, inc. n. 24. See Inst. 3 for wide-ranging criticisms of Greco-Roman philosophy and the careful discussion of Christ in Hermetic terms in Inst. 4. Digeser, op. cit. (n. 94), ch. 4. See also eadem, Lactantius and Rome: Church, State and Tolerance in Late Antiquity (forthcoming), ch. 3.

⁹⁷ Pirioni, p. cit. (n. 37), 505.

⁹⁸ ibid.

⁹⁹ Chadwick, op. cit. (n. 4), 142. Although de Labriolle interpreted Porphyry's comment in Ad Marcellam (1) (‘even the basic necessities content those who are poor’) as indicating Marcella's poverty, these remarks do not necessarily lead to such a conclusion (de Labriolle, op. cit. (n. 17), 385; cf. Bidez, op. cit. (n. 4), 111, n. 2 for the alternative view). Indeed the Codex Tubingensis specifically notes that Marcella was rich (πλουσία). Cf. also Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 439.

¹⁰⁰ For Latin text, see n. 19.

¹⁰¹ Barnes, op. cit. (n. 4), 439.

¹⁰² Translation is that of K. O'Brien Wicker (1987). Ad Marc. 3: . For the first sentence, seen. 13.

¹⁰³ cf. Dio Cassius 56.25.5; Suet., , Tib. 63Google Scholar; Pauli sententiae 5.21.1–4.

¹⁰⁴ See above, p. 131.

¹⁰⁵ ‘[U]t quae levia sunt atque usitata dicamus, qui hereditates captent, testamenta supponant, iustos heredes vel auferant vel excludant, qui corpora sua libidinibus prostituant … qui caelum quoque ipsum veneficiis adpetant …’

¹⁰⁶ Chadwick, op. cit. (n. 4), 143, inc. n. 2.

¹⁰⁷ ‘[A]nte omnia philosophi officium esse erroribus hominum subvenire atque illos ad veram viam revocare id est ad cultus deorum, quorum numine ac maiestate mundus gubernetur, nec pati, homines inperitos quorundam fraudibus inlici, ne simplicitas eorum praedae ac pabulo sit hominibus astutis: itaque se suscepisse hoc munus philosophia dignum, ut praeferret non videntibus lumen sapientiae, non modo ut susceptis deorum cultibus resanescant, sed etiam ut pertinaci obstinatione deposita corporis cruciamenta devitent neu saevas membrorum lacerationes frustra perpeti velint.’

¹⁰⁸ cf. most recently Averil Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse (1991), esp. ch. 1; Ando, C., ‘Pagan apologetics and Christian intolerance in the ages of Themistius and Augustine’, JECS 4 (1996), 17–207Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Lane Fox, op. cit. (n. 52), 671–2; Digeser, op. cit. (n. 94), ch. 7, eadem, op. cit. (n. 96), ch. 5.

¹¹⁰ Digeser, op. cit. (n. 94), ch. 7.

¹¹¹ Ando, op. cit. (n. 108).