« Eusebius’ Polemic Against Porphyry : a Reasses sment », dans Reconsidering Eusebius : Collected Papers on Literary, Historical, and Theol ogical Issues , éd. S. Inowlocki – C. Zamagni, Leiden – Boston, 2011, p. 119-150

EUSEBIUS’ POLEMIC AGAINST PORPHYRY: A REASSESSMENT Sébastien Morlet* Eusebius is oten considered as the ‘Anti-Porphyry’.1 Two reasons may account for this reputation: irst, the fact that Eusebius wrote a Contra Porphyrium, now lost; second, and above all, the fact that his master work, composed of the Praeparatio euangelica (= PE) and the Demonstratio euangelica (= DE), is oten considered as an answer to Porphyry’s Contra Christianos.2 his way of reading the whole apology is prior to A. von Harnack. Lenain de Tillemont, in the 18th century, already stated that in his apology, Eusebius “refutes Porphyry almost everywhere, oten without mentioning him.”3 his was also the opinion of J.B. Lighfoot,4 J. Gefcken,5 J. Bidez6 and so many scholars till today.7 Harnack’s decision to include among the fragments of the * I am very grateful to Aaron Johnson whose precious remarks helped me to enrich this paper. 1 We owe this phrase to J. Gefcken, Zwei griechische Apologeten (Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner, 1907), p. 309. 2 Many problems have recently been raised concerning the date of this work, its content and its relationship with other works of Porphyry. In this paper, I consider and diferent from any that Porphyry wrote a work probably entitled Κ of Porphyry’s other works. I do not accept P.F. Beatrice’s hypothesis that this work is to be identiied with the Philosophy from oracles (see “On the Title of Porphyry’s ἐ . Studi storico-religiosi in onore di Ugo Treatise against the Christians”, in Ἀ Bianchi, ed. G. Sfameni Gasparro (Roma: L’“Erma” di Bretschneider, 1994), 221–235), nor R.M. Berchman’s hypercritical view that Porphyry never wrote an independent work against Christianity (Porphyry Against the Christians (Leiden: Brill, 2005), pp. 2–3), and I agree with R. Goulet’s more reasonable conclusions (“Hypothèses récentes sur le traité de Porphyre, Contre les chrétiens”, in Hellénisme et Christianisme, ed. M. Narcy – É. Rébillard (Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2004), 61–109). 3 “[Eusèbe] y refute Porphyre presque partout, souvent sans le nommer” (Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, VII (Paris: C. Robustel, 1700), p. 53). 4 “Eusebius”, DCB, II, London 1880, p. 329. 5 Zwei griechische Apologeten, cit., p. 309. 6 “V. Christian Apologetics: Eusebius”, CAH, XII, Cambridge 1939 (repr. 1961), p. 642. 7 To mention only the most recent scholars: D. Rokeah, Pagans and Christians in Conlict [Leiden – Jerusalem: Brill – Magnes Press, 1982], p. 76; H. Schreckenberg, 120 sébastien morlet Contra Christianos no less than six extracts from Eusebius,8 three of which are from the PE9 and three from the DE,10 had a heavy consequence on subsequent research: it solidiied the idea that Eusebius’ apology was an answer to Porphyry’s work. Using Harnack’s edition uncritically, almost every scholar, from that date, has taken this hypothesis as an indisputable truth. However, only two fragments from Eusebius’ apology, taken from the PE, are explicitly presented by the bishop of Caesarea as quoted from Porphyry’s work.11 In the DE, there is no such explicit fragment. Despite this lack of direct evidence, many scholars still consider, paradoxically, that Porphyry is “everywhere” in the PE and the DE. Two reasons may explain this conviction: – First, though Eusebius’ work contains only two explicit allusions to Porphyry’s treatise, the bishop of Caesarea quotes many texts from other works of Porphyry (Philosophy from oracles, On abstinence, On Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.) (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1982), p. 263; M. Frede, “Eusebius’ Apologetic Writings”, in Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians, ed. M. Edwards – M. Goodman – S. Price (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 242; E.V. Gallagher, “Eusebius the Apologist: the Evidence of the Preparation and the Proof ”, StPatr 26, Leuven 1993, p. 259; J.G. Cook, he Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), p. 134; M. Fiedrowicz, Apologie im frühen Christentum. Die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten, 2e ed. (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 2001), p. 73; C. Kannengiesser et alii, A Handbook of Patristic Exegesis, II (Boston – Leiden: Brill, 2004), p. 675. 8 See Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, 15 Bücher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaten, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Berlin, 1916. 9 PE, I.2.1–5 (fr. 1 Harnack); I.9.21 (fr. 41 Harnack); V.1.10 (fr. 80 Harnack). 10 DE, I.1.12 (fr. 73 Harnack); III.5.95–100 (fr. 7 Harnack); VI.18.11 (fr. 47 Harnack). 11 See PE, I.9.21 (= X.9.12); V.1.10. I am aware that P. Nautin attributed to Porphyry three fragments taken from Philo of Byblos’ De Iudaeis quoted in PE, I (“Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre Contre les chrétiens”, RB 57 (1950), 409–416). However, this hypothesis seems doubtful and a few studies have argued that Eusebius quotes these texts directly from Philo of Byblos, and not from Porphyry (T.D. Barnes, “Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments”, JhS 24 (1973), p. 426; A.[J.] Carriker, he Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (SVigChr 67; Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2003), p. 150). To reject P. Nautin’s hypothesis would not automatically contradict the Porphyrian origin of the texts quoted from Philo of Byblos, if one considers, as some scholars did, that Eusebius draws his quotations of Philo’s Historia Phoenicia from Porphyry’s Contra Christianos, and that the De Iudaeis was a section of the Historia Phoenicia (see the status quaestionis in Carriker, ibid., pp. 149–150). But the irst hypothesis cannot be demonstrated. Moreover, there seems to be some evidence that Eusebius knew irst hand the Historia Phoenicia (Carriker, ibid., p. 149). eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 121 the soul, On the divine statues, Letter to Anebo, Philological lesson, and perhaps Philosophical history).12 Certainly, Eusebius was a good connoisseur of Porphyry. But that does not entail that his apology is an answer to the Contra Christianos or to any of Porphyry’s works. In his recent analysis, A. Kofsky showed that Eusebius does not use Porphyry to answer his objections, but either as an “auxiliary witness”, or as a “self-contradictory author”.13 Yet, the same scholar agrees with the traditional idea that Eusebius’ apology, though not an answer to the Contra Christianos, was at least raised by Porphyry’s attack against Christianity.14 Kofsky went as far as to consider the dual composition of the apology as a relection of Porphyry’s accusation against the Christians.15 – A more modern reason why Eusebius’ apology was considered as an answer to the Contra Christianos, despite the lack of evidence, is related to Harnack’s edition. Two fragments from Harnack’s collection seem to have had a strong inluence on modern interpretation of Eusebius’ apologetic. 1) Fragment 1 is taken from the irst pages of the PE, where Eusebius is reproducing pagan accusations against Christianity. Pagans accuse Christians for supporting an irrational faith and for being apostates from Hellenism and from Judaism. he accusation of being apostates from Judaism is then reproduced again, but this time in the mouth of Jewish opponents to Christianity.16 Harnack, following Wilamowitz’ analysis,17 was convinced that the pagan accusations were taken from the prologue of the Contra Christianos, though, once again, no external argument may support that attribution.18 A.P. Johnson19 and See Carriker, ibid., pp. 115–123. Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism (Leiden: Brill, 2002), p. 273. his analysis is, of course, not contradictory with the idea that there is a real polemical intention in Eusebius’ debate with Porphyry. Eusebius’ ironical remarks show that he also aims at ridiculing the philosopher. he question is to know whether Eusebius also seeks to answer his objections against Christianity. 14 Ibid., p. 275. 15 Ibid., p. 250ss. 16 See PE, I.2.1–5. 17 “Ein Bruchstück aus der Schrit des Porphyrius gegen die Christen”, ZNW 1 (1900), pp. 101–105. 18 See Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, cit., p. 45. 19 “Rethinking the Authenticity of Porphyry, c.Christ. fr. 1”, in StPatr 46, Leuven 2010, 53–58. 12 13 122 sébastien morlet myself 20 have recently, though on diferent grounds, demonstrated that Wilamowitz’ assumption was very disputable; Eusebius is reproducing common accusations against Christianity, primarily taken from Origen’s Contra Celsum.21 Harnack’s decision had two consequences on subsequent research: irst, many scholars took for granted that irrational faith and double apostasy were key concepts of Porphyry’s polemic against Christianity;22 second, the twofold plan of Eusebius’ apology was sometimes considered as responding to the accusation of double apostasy.23 I personally tried to show that the plan of the apology has its logic in itself. Eusebius’ aim is to ofer a complete defense of Christianity. he plan of the work is not a relection of a true and precise pagan accusation. More probably, the pagan accusation has been constructed by Eusebius so as to announce his argument.24 2) In the very irst pages of the PE, Eusebius reproduces a pagan accusation that Christians cannot prove their faith.25 his accusation appears at least three times in PE, I,26 and recurrs at the beginning of the DE.27 It is obvious that Eusebius considers it as a major criticism against Christianity. Since Harnack, who thought that Eusebius was quoting exact words from Porphyry,28 this accusation has generally been considered as Porphyrian.29 his hypothesis immediately gives an anti-Porphyrian turn to Eusebius’ entire apologetic work. Yet, the accusation of irrational faith has nothing distinctively Porphyrian in 20 L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin. La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne, 2006), pp. 43–50; see now La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 2009). 21 One could also compare PE, I.2.1–4 and Diogn., 1. 22 T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981), p. 178; Frede, “Eusebius’ Apologetic Writings”, cit., p. 249. 23 Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, cit., p. 178; Frede, “Eusebius’ Apologetic Writings”, cit., p. 242; Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism, cit., p. 250ss. 24 L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., p. 51ss. 25 PE, I.1.11. 26 Ibid., I.2.4; I.3.5; I.5.2. 27 DE, I.1.12; I.1.15. 28 See Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, cit., p. 91. 29 Harnack’s hypothesis is implicitly accepted by recent translators of the supposed fragments of Contra Christianos; see R.M. Berchman, Porphyry Against the Christians, cit.; E.A. Ramos Jurado et alii, Contra los Cristianos: recopilación de fragmentos, traducción, introducción y notas (Cádiz: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz, 2006). eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 123 itself. We can ind echoes of it in Lucian,30 Epictetus,31 Galen32 and above all, Celsus.33 In a paper read in August 2008 at the International Conference of Patristic Studies, I have shown that the wording of Harnack’s fr. 73 echoes Celsus’ style.34 As a consequence, it is much more reasonable to think that Eusebius draws his pagan material here from Celsus, not from Porphyry. his conclusion is related to my analysis of Eusebius’ argumentation in the DE. A precise study of the work shows that Eusebius’ dependence on Origen’s Contra Celsum is important and that most of the anti-Christian criticisms in the DE stem from Celsus, not from Porphyry. hese are the main reasons why, nowadays, the PE and the DE are considered as a direct answer to Porphyry. It encouraged scholars to consider any critique against Christianity in that work as belonging to Porphyry’s argumentation, and to analyse any demonstration of Eusebius in terms of anti-Porphyrian polemic. his double approach of modern research opened the way to uncritical and ill-founded conclusions. It recently culminated in M.B. Simmons’ repeated attempt to analyse almost every page of Eusebius as an answer to Porphyry.35 Some scholars, including Simmons himself, have also tried to ind traces of anti-Porphyrian polemic in other works of Eusebius, such as the Panegyric for the Tyre Basilica,36 or the Praises of Constantine.37 My aim is not to demonstrate that there is no polemic against Porphyry in the double apology, but to show that this polemic has been exaggerated and has led scholars in wrong directions. I will concentrate primarily on the DE. I will irst deal with the plan and content of the Peregr., 13. Diatr., IV.7.6. 32 Cf. P. Krauss – R. Walzer, Plato Arabus, I (London: Warburg Institute, 1951), fr. 1, pp. 99–100. 33 Cels., I.9; I.42; I.67; III.27. 34 See preceding note and Cels., I.61; II.31; III.39; V.61; VI.7; VI.10–11; VI.74. 35 See M.B. Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca. Religious Conlict in the Age of Diocletian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). For an analysis of the universalism theme in the work of Eusebius as a reaction to Porphyry, see Id., “Via universalis animae liberandae: he Pagan-Christian Debate on Universalism in the Later Roman Empire (A.D. 260–325)”, StPatr 42, Leuven 2006, 245–251; Id., “Universalism in the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea”, StPatr 46, Leuven 2010, 319–324. 36 M.B. Simmons, “Eusebius’ Panegyric at the Dedication of the Church at Tyre AD 315: Anti-Porphyrian hemes in Christian Rhetoric of the Later Roman Empire”, in StPatr 37, Leuven 2001, 597–607. 37 M. Amerise, Elogio di Costantino: Discorso per il trentennale, Discorso regale (Milano: Paoline, 2005), pp. 83–84. 30 31 124 sébastien morlet work, so as to show that the general intention of Eusebius has nothing (or very little) to do with Porphyry. hen, a critical examination should show which passages of that work have been held or are held as ‘antiPorphyrian’, and what we should think about that interpretation. General Remarks he DE contained originally twenty books, from which only the irst ten have survived, to which one must add some fragments from Book XV, and a testimony of Jerome about Book XVIII.38 Ater explaining in the PE why the Christians have abandoned Paganism and turned to the traditions of the Hebrews, Eusebius aims at showing why the Christians have abandoned Judaism and adopted a new way of understanding God’s Revelation. If we accept, as many scholars do, that Harnack’s fr. 1 contains Porphyry’s key argument against Christianity, then we could analyse the plan of PE-DE as a reaction against that argument. But if, as it appears, fr. 1 has nothing, or very little, to do with Porphyry, then we have to turn to another analysis. Here is a brief sketch of the content of the work: PE DE I–VI VII–IX X–XV I II III–X Refutation of Paganism Defense of the Hebrew-Jewish tradition Attack against Greek philosophy he Law and the Gospel he call of the Nations / he rejection of Israel Jesus-Christ It is easy to observe that the PE deals with the general topics of antipagan polemic: condemnation of the oracles, the gods and the demons (I–VI); praise of the pious and ‘philosophical’ character of the Jewish tradition (VII–IX); demonstration of the dependence of philosophy towards the Bible (X–XIII) and of the contradictions within the philosophical schools (XIV–XV). Likewise, the plan of the DE is based on the main topics of anti-Jewish polemic: the Law (I), the promises of Scripture (II) and Christ (III–X).39 Consequently, it is obvious that In Os., Prol., p. 5.128–129. I suggested that the last books of the DE (XVI–XX) may have contained a second discussion about the rejection of the Jews, the call of the nations, and the birth of the Church (L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 157–158). 38 39 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 125 Eusebius deals with the most traditional topics of Christian apologetic. he PE/DE is not innovative in that respect. Rather, it appears as a kind of ‘apologetic summa’,40 drawing freely on previous apologetic. It is essentially a work of scholarship, not a reaction to a particular book written against Christianity. In the irst pages of the PE, Eusebius explains that he wants to show “what Christianity is to those who are ignorant of it.”41 hen he justiies the twofold plan of the work by deining the PE as an “introduction”, adressed to the beginners, and the DE as a “more complete teaching”, intended for the more advanced readers.42 Eusebius’ irst aim is not polemical, but didactical, and this is one of the most original aspects of his apologetic project. hat does not mean that PE/DE is not a real polemical work. In the prologue of the DE, Eusebius mentions three virtual opponents: irst, the Jews; second, the Pagans; third, the heretics.43 Once again, the apology stands as a summa: Eusebius does not only want to answer one kind of opponent, but every opponent of Christianity. Some scholars tended to minimize the anti-Jewish character of the work, considering that Eusebius’ real target was actually pagan.44 But this view is contradicted by the evidence, and must be dismissed as hypercritical.45 By showing why Christianity has abandoned Judaism, it is true that Eusebius not only answers Jewish criticisms, but also pagan criticisms against the Christians. It is also true that the anti-pagan polemic reappears more explicitly in Books III and IV. But that is not enough to contradict the fact that Eusebius is mainly dealing with Judaism. he heretics seem to be less present in Eusebius’ mind, but some observations prove that there is a real anti-heretical polemic in the DE.46 We should not forget that point in our inquiry. Let us summarize some preliminary results: at irst sight, the PEDE cannot be considered as a general answer to Porphyry’s Contra Christianos because 1) the content of the work is traditional; it is not 40 See J. Ulrich, “Wie verteidigte Euseb das Christentum?”, in hree Greek Apologists. Origen, Eusebius and Athanasius, ed. A.-C. Jacobsen – J. Ulrich (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2007), p. 61. 41 PE, I.1.1. 42 Ibid., I.1.12. 43 DE, I.1.11–13. 44 Cf. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, cit., p. 178; Rokeah, Pagans and Christians in Conlict, cit., p. 76; Frede, “Eusebius’ Apologetic Writings”, cit., p. 241ss. 45 Eusebius constantly refers to the Jews in his demonstration and is eager to refute Jewish interpretations of the Bible (see Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 470–471; 476–478; 502–506). 46 See Morlet, ibid., pp. 39–41. 126 sébastien morlet dictated by Porphyry’s arguments; 2) the work stands as a didactical summa, not a reaction to any speciic opponent; 3) Eusebius targets at least three kinds of adversaries, of which the Pagans are only one. However, that does not mean that Eusebius may not polemize against Porphyry on a smaller scale. Book I In the irst book of the DE, Eusebius tries to show why Christianity has abandoned the Jewish Law. his is a typical anti-Jewish discussion, but some passages of the book have been thought as being antiPorphyrian. DE, I.1.12; I.1.15. hese passages reproduce a pagan accusation that the Christians cannot prove their faith. hey correspond to Harnack fr. 73. As I have shown in the introduction, one can no longer speak plainly of a ‘Porphyrian accusation’: 1) that accusation has nothing Porphyrian in itself; 2) the two passages from the DE seem to stem from Celsus, not Porphyry; 3) as a consequence, though Porphyry may have used the same argument against Christianity, there is no particular reason to think that Eusebius had also Porphyry in mind. his is of course possible, but must remain an open question. DE, I.2; I.6. Simmons considers these two chapters, where Eusebius is supposed to emphasize the rapid spreading of Christianity throughout the world,47 as an answer to what he calls “Porphyry’s quest to ind [a universal way of salvation]”.48 It is well known that Augustine, in the tenth book of the De ciuitate Dei, presented Christianity, against Porphyry, as “the universal way of freeing the soul” (uniuersalis animae liberandae uia).49 Simmons, without really justifying his view, considers that Eusebius aimed at the same kind of demonstration. But nothing can support this hypothesis. Simmons tries to give the impression that the theme of the uia salutis was as important in Eusebius’ mind as in Augustine’s by refering to some Porphyrian texts It is diicult to know which passages Simmons has precisely in mind. Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 280. In more recent contributions, Simmons tried to sustain his hypothesis that the universalism theme in Eusebius is a reaction to Porphyry (see n. 35). 49 Ciu., X.32. 47 48 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 127 quoted by Eusebius. But those texts are taken out of their context;50 they are interpreted in an erroneous (and tendentious) way;51 and they are artiicially put together so as to serve Simmons’ purpose. Nowhere does Eusebius explicitly polemize against Porphyry’s view of salvation as Augustine would do ater him.52 he Porphyrian text extracted by Augustine from the De regressu animae is never quoted by Eusebius and nothing can prove that the bishop of Caesarea even knew that text.53 Moreover, G. Clark has recently argued that the idea of a Porphyrian quest for a universal way of salvation depends entirely on Augustine’s paraphrase of De regressu animae.54 She tried to show that the theme of universalism is an augustinian addition to Porphyry relecting Augustine’s own concerns about salvation. In any case, reading Eusebius from Augustine is certainly a historical and philological error: Augustine’s readings and concerns are not necessarily the same as Eusebius’, and Augustine does not necessarily inform us about Porphyry’s actual doctrine. DE, I.9–10. At the end of book I, Eusebius discusses two problems which may undermine his defense of Christianity: if the Christians are the real heirs of the Hebrews,55 why do they not indulge in polygamy, 50 When quoting the oracle of Apollo cited in PE, XIV.10.4–5 (but also in PE, IX.10.2–4 and DE, III.3.6), Simmons could have explained that Eusebius refers to the text only to demonstrate that the Pagans aknowledge their dependence on the barbarian wisdom (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 280). 51 Contrary to Simmons’ opinion, the text from the Phil. ex orac. quoted in PE, IV.10 does not entail that “traditional polytheism was the true way of salvation” (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 279). Porphyry simply says that the sacriice of animals is not convenient to the gods. 52 If there is an Eusebian polemic against a Porphyrian conception of salvation, it is more clearly attested in Eusebius’ attacks against the pagan oracles, considered by Porphyry as full of “hopes of salvation” (see PE, IV.7.1). Simmons knows that text (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 26, n. 235). 53 J.J. O’ Meara tried to show that the De regressu animae was part of the Philosophy from oracles: Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1959). hough accepted by some scholars, that hypothesis has been rejected by the best specialists of Porphyry (P. Hadot, “Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin [À propos d’un ouvrage récent]”, REAug 6 (1969), 205–244). Simmons supposes that the text from the De regressu animae relects a search for a way of salvation which culminates in the Phil. ex orac. (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 26, n. 235), because he dates the Phil. ex orac. to a later period of Porphyry’s life (ibid., p. 26, n. 235). But this chronology is disputable. 54 “Augustine’s Porphyry and the Universal Way of Salvation”, in Studies on Porphyry, ed. G. Karamanolis – A. Sheppard (London: University of London, 2007), 127–140. 55 he reader must keep in mind that Eusebius distinguishes between the old ‘Hebrews’, who lived before Moses, and the ‘Jews’, who followed the Law. 128 sébastien morlet like their ancestors (DE, I.9)? Why do they not sacriice animals like the Hebrews (DE, I.10)? Since Porphyry is oten supposed to have stressed the contradictions within Scriptures or Christian doctrine, do we have any reason here to think that Eusebius is discussing Porphyrian criticisms?56 hose who try to detect an important pagan background behind the Christian quaestiones literature57 will probably be tempted to recognize Porphyrian ἀ behind Eusebius’ demonstration. But the question is diicult, and no decisive conclusion can be drawn here. he irst problem is not attested among the pagan attacks against Christianity; a polemical use of the argument is irst attested, as it seems, among the Manicheans, at least from Augustine’s time.58 his polemical use of the argument may stem from a (probably) Marcionite collection of ἀ .59 On the other hand, the problem of the polygamy of the patriarchs had been an exegetical commonplace 56 he Porphyrian origin of the problem raised in DE, I.10 is taken for granted by X. Levieils, Le regard des nations. La critique sociale et religieuse du Christianisme des origines au concile de Nicée (45–325) (thèse de doctorat, dir. P. Maraval, Université de Paris IV – Sorbonne, 2003), p. 171; see now Contra Christianos. La critique sociale et religieuse du Christianisme des origines au concile de Nicée (45–325) (Berlin – New York: de Gruyter, 2007). See also Cook, he Interpretation of the Old Testament, cit., p. 269 n. 135. 57 See for instance G. Bardy, “La littérature patristique des ‘Quaestiones et responsiones’ sur l’Écriture sainte”, RB 41 (1932), p. 353; P. Courcelle, “Critiques exégétiques et arguments antichrétiens rapportés par Ambrosiaster”, VigChr 13 (1959), 133–169; G. Rinaldi, “Tracce di controversie tra pagani e cristiani nella letteratura patristica delle ‘quaestiones et responsiones’ ”, ASEs 6 (1989), 99–124. 58 See Conf., III.7.13; Faust., XXII.47; Sec., 22. 59 Jerome, who discusses the same problem in the course of a demonstration against the Marcionites, may give an argument in favour of this hypothesis (Ep., CXXIII.2). We know that Manicheans drew some arguments from Marcion’s Antitheses (see M. Tardieu in A. von Harnack, Marcion, l’Évangile du Dieu étranger, french translation of Marcion. Das Evangelium from fremden Gott, Leipzig, 1921 (Paris: Cerf, 2003), p. 183). here is no evidence that Eusebius knew that collection, though Origen (see ibid., p. 100) seems to have used it (Carriker, he Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, cit., does not raise the problem). On the other hand, Eusebius had a knowledge of Apelles’ Syllogisms, which aimed at showing the absurdity of the Old Testament (see HE, V.13). One may assume that Apelles’ work was available to Eusebius at Caesarea, since Origen appears to have known it during his Caesarean period (see Cels., V.54; Hom. in Gn., II.2). For other opinions, see Carriker, ibid., p. 256 (Eusebius did probably know Apelles’ work thanks to Rhodon’s refutation, quoted in HE, V.13) and É. Junod, “Les attitudes d’Apelles, disciple de Marcion, à l’égard de l’Ancien Testament”, Aug. 22 (1982), 113–133 (the few passages in Origen would not be suicient to assume that the book was available to him). It is less probable that Eusebius depends on Tatian’s Problemata, since he does not appear to have had a direct knowledge of that work (see Carriker, he Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, cit., pp. 260–261). eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 129 from Philo to the Fathers.60 Consequently, it is impossible to know if Eusebius is here answering to a criticism against Christianity or if he simply discusses an exegetical problem for the sake of it. Eusebius does not mention any adversary and simply presents the question as one that somebody may ask ( ἄ ἰ ).61 he second problem is of a diferent kind. It is also attested among the Manichean criticisms against Christianity.62 One may suppose once again that these criticisms were dependent on Marcionite collections of ἀ . But this time, the argument is also well attested among pagan criticisms against the Christians.63 Harnack thought it had been used by Porphyry.64 On the other hand, there is no evidence, to my knowledge, that this problem could have been raised within the ‘oicial’ Church before Eusebius.65 However, it remains diicult to agree with Harnack’s hypothesis: 1) the Porphyrian origin of the argument remains uncertain;66 2) even if it had been used by Porphyry, nothing proves that Eusebius has Porphyry in mind,67 since he may be trying 60 See Philo, Virt., 207; Justin, Dial., 134; 141.4; Tertullian, Cast., 6–7; Clement, Str., II.19.99.1; Origen, Hom. in Gn., X.5; XI.1–2; Ambrose, Abr., IV.22–30; Augustine, Conj., 15; Faust., XXII.47; Sec., 22; Jerome, Ep., CXXIII.2. 61 DE, I.9.1. 62 Augustine, Faust., XXII.17. 63 See Julian, Gal., fr. 83 Masaracchia; Augustine, Ep., CII.16ss.; CXXXVIII.1.2. In Faust., XXII.17, Augustin mentions the argument as one a Pagan may object (obiceret). 64 See Christ., fr. 79 Harnack (= Augustine, Ep., CII16ss.). 65 he quaestio recurrs in the Dialogue of Athanasius and Zacchaeus, 128–129 and in Ps.-Justin, Quaest. ad orth., 83 (PG 6.1324C–D). hose two works are posterior to Eusebius and may be drawing on the DE. I showed that the former certainly depends on Eusebius (see Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., p. 532). he same conclusion may be drawn concerning Ps.-Justin, who explains, like Eusebius, that the primitive sacriices were prophecies of the future events: he may thus depend, directly or indirectly, on the DE. 66 Augustine himself seems sceptical about the Porphyrian origin of the quaestiones discussed in Ep., CII, saying that the Pagans which used these quaestiones “say they are taken from Porphyry’s arguments against the Christians, so as to make them more strong” (item alia proposuerunt, quae dicerent de Porphyrio Contra Christianos tamquam ualidiora decerpta, Ep., CII.8, p. 551, 5–6). he irst direct evidence of a pagan use of the quaestio reproduced in DE, I.1.10 is found among Julian’s critics (see note 63). 67 he fact that Eusebius quotes Porphyry (without giving his name) before his demonstration (Abst., II.5; I.19) cannot be considered as a clue of an anti-Porphyrian polemic, since Porphyry is not quoted here as the adversary, but as a source about the Greek conception of primitive sacriice. Eusebius includes his testimony in an ‘ethnographical’ discussion opposing Greek and biblical views on sacriice. Contrary to Simmons’ opinion, he is not at all quoting Porphyry “to justify the Christians’ rejection of it” (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 309). Porphyry’s statement is given by Eusebius as 130 sébastien morlet to answer a heterodoxical use of the argument,68 or simply discussing it for the sake of exegetical speculation. As a conclusion, three hypotheses may be suggested in both cases: 1) Eusebius is analysing exegetical problems which he raises himself for the sake of his demonstration; 2) Eusebius is answering Marcionite (?) ἀ ;69 3) Eusebius is answering pagan criticisms, possibly from Porphyry. hese three hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.70 On the basis of the available evidence, the irst one is the most reasonable, and the question of a polemical intention in DE, I.9–10 must remain an open question. My analysis would agree with C. Zamagni’s study on the Questions on the Gospels (probably contemporaneous with the DE) which showed that Eusebius’ work was not intended against Porphyry, and that even if Eusebius had Porphyry in mind here and there, the kernel of his quaestiones does not stem from the Contra Christianos. a document on the Greek conception of primitive sacriice. He does not try to prove that “men of Old Testament time did not consider sacriice to be sinful because they had not been taught that the souls of men and beasts are alike, that is to say, rational and intelligent” (loc. cit.). his is an erroneous (and absurd) translation of DE, I.10.7, which should rather be translated that way: “they had been taught that the soul of the irrational beings is in no way analogous to the rational and intelligent power ῇ ἀ ώ ῇ ᾷ μ ἶ of men” (μ ἀ ἐ ύ ). Porphyry’s view, in the passages quoted by Eusebius, is that there is no diference between the souls of beasts and the souls of men (DE, I.10.2). Consequently, far from using Porphyry’s statement to support his demonstration, Eusebius quotes it in order to stress the discrepancy between two conceptions of sacriice. 68 It is interesting to note that some elements of Eusebius’ demonstration may be derived from Ireneaus (Haer., IV.17–19), who stresses, against the heterodox, the continuity of both sacriicial practices. 69 Another possibility would be that Eusebius had heard of Gnostic or Manichean criticisms against the Old Testament: the objections dealt with in DE, I.9–10 are well attested among the Manicheans at least in Augustine’s time (see notes 58 and 62), and some Gnostics, like the Marcionites, criticized the diiculties of the Old Testament; see G. Filoramo – C. Gianotto, “L’interpretazione gnostica dell’Antico Testamento. Posizioni ermeneutiche e tecniche esegetiche”, Aug. 22 (1982), 53–74. 70 Eusebius may be raising two problems he considers as important for his demonstration, and at the same time answering critics against the Bible. Concerning hypothesis 2 and 3, one must keep in mind that some of Porphyry’s arguments echo Marcionite critics (see for instance G. Rinaldi, La Bibbia dei pagani, II (Bologna: EDB, 1998), p. 89, who suggests a parallel between fr. 42 Harnack and an objection used by Apelles concerning Gn 2.17). It thus remains possible that Porphyry had acquired some knowledge of the heterodoxical argumentation, either directly or indirectly. R.M. Grant suggested that Porphyry may have drawn some of his objections from Origen’s Stromateis, probably dealing in part with heretical arguments against Scripture (“he Stromateis of Origen”, in Epektasis. Mélanges Daniélou (Paris: Beauchesne, 1972), 285–292). eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 131 Book II he second book of the DE is certainly not among those which would incline scholars to detect an anti-Porphyrian polemic in Eusebius’ work. Eusebius states explicitly that this book will be devoted to refuting the Jews who criticize Christians for using the Scriptures though they do not belong to the chosen people.71 he book contains primarily four collections of testimonies which are traditional in the anti-Jewish tradition.72 Yet, that has not prevented scholars from seeing antiPorphyrian passages in that book. DE, II.Prol.1. he Jews accuse the Christians of using the Scriptures, though they are not intended for them. H. Schreckenberg thinks that Eusebius knew this Jewish accusation from Porphyry.73 But this hypothesis is unfounded, and very probably erroneous. DE, II.2. Simmons inds in this chapter another trace of a Porphyrian polemic against the irrational faith of the Christians and another demonstration of the rapid spreading of Christianity,74 which he considers as an answer to Porphyry’s view of salvation.75 I refer the reader to my previous analysis. Book III he third book of the DE is a defence of Jesus’ teaching and action during his human life. It is oten considered as the anti-Porphyrian kernel of the work. In his introduction to his translation, W.J. Ferrar wrote: he great mass of the Demonstratio is an elaborate réchaufée [sic] of past apologetics, but in this book we feel the touch of something fresh, free, original, something that springs from keen, personal interest, warm perception, and ardent conviction [. . .]. Its inish, completeness in itself, and contrast with the Demonstratio as a whole might suggest that it was a separate essay, written in actual controversy with an opponent who DE, II.Prol.1. About those collections, see Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 396–400. 73 Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte, cit., p. 264. 74 Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 280, n. 58. 75 Ibid., p. 280, n. 77. 71 72 132 sébastien morlet drew out Eusebius’ keenest logic and dialectical skill, and that this essay was eventually incorporated in the greater but more academic work.76 he same scholar was convinced that the Eusebian allusion, in that book, to “the sons of our modern philosophers” ( ῖ ) was an allusion to the “followers of Porphyry”.77 J. Stevenson went as far as to suggest that many parts of Book III were derived from Eusebius’ Contra Porphyrium78 though we do not even know when that work was written.79 Harnack also thought that the main part of DE, III.4–5 was intended against Porphyry.80 Recent scholars, such as T.D. Barnes81 or M.B. Simmons,82 took for granted that DE, III as a whole is mainly directed against Porphyrian accusations. However, a precise study of this book seriously undermines that hypothesis. First, we should not be misled as was W.J. Ferrar by the “fresh style” of Book III. A stylistic observation is not suicient to reconstruct the genesis of a work. It is obvious in the whole book that Eusebius adapted his style to the speciic (essentially anti-pagan) polemic of Book III.83 Besides, we should not overestimate the stylistic 76 Eusebius. he Proof of the Gospel (London: Society for promoting Christian knowledge – New York: he Macmillan Company, 1920 [repr. 2001]), p. xviii. 77 Ibid., p. 119, n. 3. It is diicult to know if the phrase refers to the Neoplatonists, since the same phrase is used elsewhere to refer to the philosophers who introduced the physical interpretation of the myths, and who are not the Neoplatonists (PE, II.6.16; III.1). Consequently, I would tend to think that “the sons of the new philosophers” (or simply “the new philosophers”) are not strictly speaking contemporaneous to Eusebius. In my doctoral thesis, I suggested that the phrase may refer to the philosophers in general; the word “new” could be understood as opposed to the antiquity of the Revelation (see Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 296–297, n. 179). A similar problem has been raised by Arnobius’ allusion to the uiri noui (Adu. nat., II.15.2ss.). Some scholars think that Arnobius alludes to Neoplatonists, especially Porphyry, but other interpretations have been put forward (see the state of research in M.B. Simmons, Arnobius of Sicca, cit., pp. 216–217). 78 Studies in Eusebius (Cambridge: Cambridgte University Press, 1929), p. 63. he same scholar also thought that the matter of Book III could correspond to the irst books of the General Elementary Introduction, also probably derived, he thought, from the Contra Porphyrium (ibid.). 79 See infra. 80 Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, cit., p. 48. 81 Constantine and Eusebius, cit., p. 184. 82 See infra. 83 He sometimes adresses an anonymous adversary (see DE, III.6.31; 6.34) behind whom we do not need to recognize any speciic igure. his kind of address is obviously a literary device. he subject of Book III naturally led Eusebius to adopt the polemical tone of his previous controversy with Hierocles. Such a similarity between the style of the DE, III, and the Contra Hieroclem ofers a new argument against eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 133 discrepancy between Book III and the other books of the work.84 Moreover, the analysis of Book III must take as a starting point Eusebius’ explicit statement that he intends to answer three pagan accusa85 and a deceiver;86 2) Christ’s miracles never tions: 1) Christ is a happened;87 3) if they happened, they were not performed by a god, but by a sorcerer.88 I have shown that these three accusations may be found in Celsus, and that Eusebius’ argumentation in Book III is oten derived from Origen’s Contra Celsum.89 he fact that Book III oten appears as a rewriting of the Contra Celsum contradicts the hypothesis that it could be at the same time a rewriting of the Contra Porphyrium. Eusebius may be responding here and there to Porphyry90 (as he also seems to be responding to Hierocles91 and probably other sources),92 but one should not forget that Celsus lies behind most of Eusebius’ demonstrations, and that his polemic is mainly a repetition of Origen’s controversy with Celsus. DE, III.1. According to Simmons, this chapter contains another text against “Porphyry’s accusation that Christians cannot prove their beliefs.”93 T. Hägg’s hypothesis that Eusebius could not be the author of the Contra Hieroclem (“Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist”, SO 67 (1992), 138–150 = Parthenope: Studies in Ancient Greek Fiction (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2004), 405–416). he fresh style of that work appears to be a rhetorical choice and it would be absurd to think that Eusebius, as a writer, could not make rhetorical choices. In that respect, I agree with C.P. Jones, Philostratus. Apollonius of Tyana. Letters of Apollonius. Ancient Testimonia. Eusebius’ reply to Hierocles [LCL; Cambridge, Mass. – London: Harvard University Press, 2006], p. 152. 84 I tried to show that Eusebius was actually as ‘scholastical’ in Book III as in the other books (L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., p. 217). 85 his term is diicult to translate. It means at the same time ‘sorcerer’ and ‘charlatan’. 86 DE, III.2.78. 87 Ibid., III.4.31. 88 Loc. cit. 89 L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 298–303. 90 Ibid., pp. 303–304. 91 Ibid., pp. 305–306. 92 Ibid., pp. 306–307. 93 Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 275, n. 58. 134 sébastien morlet DE, III.2. Simmons detects in this chapter another echo to a Porphyrian criticism against irrational faith,94 and a new trace of an answer to Porphyry’s conception of salvation.95 DE, III.3. his chapter is a defence of Jesus’ doctrine. According to Simmons, it is an answer to an Hecatean oracle and its commentary by Porphyry, which presented Jesus as a mere man, thus negating his divinity.96 he proof of this is, according to Simmons, that Eusebius quotes the oracle four chapters ater this one (!).97 But Simmons clearly exaggerates the importance of the Hecatean oracle in Eusebius’ defense of Christ’s divinity (reading Eusebius, once again, from Augustine).98 First, Eusebius does not quote the oracle in chapter 7 to refute it, but on the contrary to serve his purpose (the oracle attesting that Christ was a superior man). Second, it would be erroneous to think that the Hecatean oracle is responsible for Eusebius’ attempt to demonstrate Christ’s divinity. Simmons does not pay attention to the context of chapter 3. Eusebius explicitly states that he will defend Jesus’ teaching against “most of the unbelievers”, who think that Jesus is “a and a deceiver”.99 One could assume that Porphyry used that accusation,100 but Eusebius more probably has Celsus in mind.101 In another passage from the same chapter (DE, III.3.18), Simmons thinks that the exposition of Jesus’ doctrine on the angels is 94 Ibid. he Porphyrian passage is extracted from the Philosophy from oracles (fr. 345 Smith). About the Hecatean oracle, see A. Busine, Paroles d’Apollon. Pratiques et traditions oraculaires dans l’Antiquité tardive (IIe–IVe siècles) (Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2005), 280–281. 95 Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 280, n. 77. 96 Ibid., p. 234. 97 Ibid., p. 235 (see DE, III.7.1–2). Simmons erroneously refers to PE, IV.7, but the Hecatean oracle does not appear to be quoted in any part of PE. 98 See the discussion of Augustine against the Hecatean oracle in Ciu., XIX.23.2 and F. Culdaut’s commentary (“Un oracle d’Hécate dans la Cité de Dieu de saint Augustin: ‘Les dieux ont proclamé que le Christ fut un homme très pieux’ (XIX, 23, 2)”, REAug 38 (1992), 271–289). 99 DE, III.2.78. 100 Aaron Johnson convincingly explained to me that such an assumption would contradict some fragments from the Phil. ex orac. where Porphyry seems to praise Christ as a wise man (fr. 345–346 Smith). Unless of course one supposes that Porphyry has changed his mind in the Contra Christianos. 101 he association of the words and does not occur in Porphyry’s work. It is only attested in Celsus (see Cels., IV.33; VII.36). Note that almost all the ‘Porphyrian’ fragments which attack Jesus’ teaching are derived from Macarius Magnes (see fr. 52; 54; 58; 61; 62; 69; 70; 72). he accusation also occurs in Jerome, but the latter does not refer to any pagan author (see fr. 56). eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 135 a response to another oracle and its Porphyrian commentary.102 But Eusebius does not refer to this oracle, and he never quotes it in any of his works. Besides, the connection between Porphyry’s commentary and Eusebius’ text is not apparent. Unlike Porphyry, Eusebius does not distinguish between three orders of angels. His description of the angelic powers has nothing original in itself, and expresses the common Christian view on the subject. Besides, I have shown elsewhere that Eusebius’ chapter on Jesus’ teaching was in part inspired by Origen’s On Principles.103 his is particularly true of his passage dealing with Jesus’ teaching about the angels and the demons.104 Porphyry’s presence in this chapter (one text from the Phil. ex orac.105 and one text from Abst.)106 must not lead us to misunderstand Eusebius’ polemic here. Each time, Porphyry is quoted as an ‘auxiliary witness’, to illustrate the pagan dependence on the Hebrew wisdom.107 In no way does he appear as an adversary. DE, III.4–7.108 Simmons considers this section as being a retorsion against the (supposedly Porphyrian) accusation that there is “a wedge between Christ and his followers”.109 In opposition to that accusation, Eusebius is supposed to have insisted on the continuity between Christ and his disciples. But once again, Simmons does not understand the context of Eusebius’ argumentation. he theme of a continuity between Christ and his followers is dealt with in two sections of DE, III: 1) In DE, III.4.39–41, Eusebius states that the disciples continued to consider Jesus as God even ater his slanderous death. 2) In DE, III.6.1–2, Eusebius argues that the disciples never abandoned Jesus; in DE, III.6.7–8 and 11–25, he says that the disciples, like Jesus, were not . Arnobius of Sicca, cit., pp. 233–234. Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., p. 275, n. 69. 104 Compare DE, III.3.18 and PE, VII.16.7 with Princ., I.5.5. 105 Fr. 324 Smith (DE, III.3.6). 106 Abst., II, 34 (DE, III.3.10). 107 Simmons admits himself that in DE, III.3, Abst., II.34 is quoted “to justify the Christian’s rejection [of sacriice]” (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 309). 108 Simmons refers once to DE, III.4–8 (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 30, n. 284), but this is an error, since there is no chapter 8 in Book III. 109 Ibid., p. 30. See also p. 20, n. 180; p. 232; p. 239. 102 103 136 sébastien morlet In context 1, the idea of a continuity between Christ and the disciples is clearly an answer to the accusation that the disciples were liars (the argument being: why would they have lied, if they had been convinced that Jesus was truly God?). In context 2, this continuity enables Euse: if the disciples bius to defend Jesus from the accusation of never abandoned Jesus, it is because they considered his teaching as being true; if they were not , it is because they had not been taught to become so. Consequently, Eusebius does not aim at responding to the accusation that there is a wedge between Christ and his followers. In the one case, he wants to show that the disciples were not liars; in the second one, he wants to demonstrate that they were not charlatans. DE, III.5.95–100. In this passage, Eusebius alludes once again to the accusation that the disciples were liars. Harnack considered this text as a ‘fragment’ of Porphyry’s Contra Christianos,110 though it is not, strictly speaking, a fragment.111 he problem is not whether Porphyry did or did not accuse the disciples of being liars, since other evidence demonstrates that he did.112 he question is whether Eusebius has Porphyry in mind and whether DE, III.5.95–100 can be considered as a Porphyrian fragment. A stylistic analysis would probably shed some light on that problem. But two observations need to be made here: 1) the accusation is not speciic to Porphyry, since it may be found in Celsus113 and Hierocles;114 2) when answering this accusation, Eusebius, as he does throughout Book III, appears to be drawing his inspiration from Origen’s Contra Celsum.115 Consequently, it seems that Eusebius, once again, had primarily Celsus in mind,116 not Porphyry.117 In any See Christ., fr. 7 Harnack. Fr. 7 does not only include the accusation against the disciples, but also Eusebius’ refutation of it. 112 Christ., fr. 2, 6, 11, 55 Harnack. 113 Cels., I.38; 31; 40; II.48. 114 See Eusebius, Hier., 2. 115 See my discussion, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 284–290. 116 Note that the way Eusebius reproduces the two pagan objections in DE, III.4.31 (Christ’s miracles did not happen; or if they happened, they were the work of a sorcerer) exactly relects Celsus’ objections according to the Contra Celsum (Cels., I.38; 68). 117 It remains to explain why Eusebius insists on the disciples’ μ throughout Book III: is this a clue that he did not know the argument of the discrepancy of the evangelists (supposedly Porphyrian, but possibly also used by Hierocles, according to Lactantius, Inst., V.2.13), or on the contrary that he aims at answering that argument 110 111 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 137 case, we cannot conclude with Simmons that Eusebius is responding to Porphyry when he defends the evangelists.118 DE, III.6–7. he inal demonstration of Book III is a defense of Jesus’ miracles. Simmons thinks that Porphyry “undoubtedly is the enemy behind [. . .] DE 3.5 f.”119 (in fact, Simmons refers to DE III.6–7). he accusation that Christ performed no real miracle is attested in Porphyry,120 but one can also ind it in Celsus121 and Hierocles.122 here are some clues that Eusebius has, once again, Celsus in mind: when reproducing the pagan accusation, he alludes to the couple — ,123 to be found only in Celsus;124 in the course of this demonstration, he echoes many times Origen’s Contra Celsum, as Heikel already observed (but surprisingly, Simmons ignores Heikel’s edition, and quotes from the PG).125 Once again, the presence of a Porphyrian by stressing the harmony of the disciples (see my discussion, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 300–301)? In any case, this discussion on the concord of the disciples appears to be the counterpart of PE, XIV–XV, where Eusebius stresses the discord of the Greek philosophers. I am grateful to Aaron Johnson for reminding me this parallel and I refer to his book Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 142–149. 118 Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 240 (and note 133). Among the passages concerned, Simmons quotes DE, III.6 (p. 29), but the reference is erroneous. DE, III.6 is an answer to the third accusation examined by Eusebius, that Christ is not a divine being. Simmons should rather have quoted DE, III.4.32–5.109, where Eusebius does answer the accusation that the disciples have forged Jesus’ story. In DE, III.5, Simmons thinks Eusebius defends the evangelists from using magic (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 275), apparently against a Porphyrian accusation (see p. 240, note 132). But the term , as employed by Eusebius, does not denote here a magical deception. he only passage where Eusebius does defend the disciples against the charge of using magic is DE, III.6.–11, a passage probably inspired by Origen, Cels., I.6. he idea of an antiPorphyrian intention is here unnecessary (see Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 237, where Simmons seems to detect an anti-Chaldean polemic behind Eusebius’ text). For other undemonstrated statements about Eusebius’ defense of the disciples, see Simmons, ibid., p. 282 and 283 (about a Porphyrian accusation against Peter). 119 Ibid., p. 238. See also p. 28, n. 262. 120 See fr. 49, 60, 63 (primarily from Macarius Magnes). 121 Cels., I.38; VI.42. 122 See Lactantius, Inst., V.3.9. 123 ᾳ ἄ ἐ ῃ (III.4.31). 124 See n. 101. 125 Heikel detected the following parallels: DE, III.6.1ss. = Cels., II.7; II.50; DE, III.6.26 (in fact 26–27) = Cels., I.29; DE, III.6.35 = Cels., III.36; DE, III.6.37 = Cels., I.68; DE, III.7.9 = Cels., I.29; DE, III.7.22 = Cels. I.62. One could mention a passage where Eusebius defends Jesus against having Egyptian masters (DE, III.6.29). Simmons thinks he may have in mind the same enemy as Arnobius (Adu. nat., I.43.1–5), namely Porphyry (Arnobius of Sicca, cit., pp. 237–238). But Eusebius certainly has Celsus in mind, since his text is clearly a rewriting of Cels., I.38. 138 sébastien morlet text in Eusebius’ argumentation (the Hecatean oracle, quoted from the Phil. ex orac.) cannot induce us to agree with Simmons, since the oracle is quoted to support Eusebius’ view, not to be refuted by him.126 Book IV he fourth book of the DE is devoted to Christ as a divine being. It falls into three parts: 1) demonstration of the ‘theology’ of Christ (1–6); 2) answer to the question ‘why did he not come before?’ (7–9); 3) demonstration concerning his Incarnation (10–14). In each part of the book one might be tempted to detect new answers against Porphyry . . . But a careful analysis, once again, leads to the conclusion that Eusebius depends heavily on Origen (On principles and Contra Celsum).127 his undermines the hypothesis of a strong antiPorphyrian intention in Book IV. Each of its three parts have been thought, however, as being anti-Porphyrian. DE, IV.1–6. In chapter 2, Eusebius seeks to demonstrate the unicity of Christ. A.A. Garcia considers the corresponding section of the heophany as an answer to the Neoplatonic conception of the revelation of the One in the universe, and thinks that Eusebius has Porphyry in mind.128 But this interpretation is unfounded and probably erroneous. C.T.H.R. Ehrhardt more convincingly suggested that in the corresponding part of the Laudes Constantini, Eusebius was answering Celsus.129 When Eusebius refers to the pagan belief of several gods attached to each part of the body,130 he may have in mind the Egyptian belief praised by Celsus against Christian monotheism.131 In any case, the demonstration of the unicity of Christ is a common place of early apologetic.132 We do not need to assume that Eusebius has Porphyry 126 Simmons agrees that Eusebius quotes this oracle to support his demonstration (ibid., p. 224). 127 See Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., p. 316ss. hat conclusion agrees with Ehrhardt’s analysis of the corresponding part of the Laudes Constantini (see n. 129). 128 “Eusebius’ heophany: a Christian Neoplatonist Response”, PBR 6 (1987), 230– 237. 129 “Eusebius and Celsus”, JAC 22 (1979), 40–49. 130 DE, IV.5.4. 131 Cels., VIII.58. See also VIII.55. 132 See Justin, Apol., II.6.3; Athenagoras, Leg., 8. See also Tripartite Tractate, 51. eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 139 in mind here. In the same chapter, one could notice that Eusebius also seeks to explain the phrase ‘son of God’ attached to Christ.133 We may be tempted to suggest that Porphyry hides behind Eusebius’ demonstration, since he probably objected to the Christians that God cannot have a son.134 But that objection is also (and better)135 attested among Celsus’ accusations.136 DE, IV.7–10. In the second part of Book IV, Eusebius aims at answering the following question: “Why has he made his appearance to all men now, and not before and what is the reason why he began the call of the nations, not in days long past, but now ater the length of ages?”137 Do we have to assume that Eusebius is here responding to Porphyry? he philosopher appears to have mentioned the delay of the Incarnation in his anti-Christian polemic.138 But so did Celsus before him.139 he words used by Eusebius clearly recall Celsus’ way of posing the question.140 And once again, Eusebius’ answer is, at least in part, inspired by Origen’s Contra Celsum.141 Consequently, there is no necessary reason to see an anti-Porphyrian polemic in that section of the DE. DE, IV.10–15. In these chapters, Eusebius deals with several problems concerning the Incarnation. Simmons thinks he is again answering Porphyry. In chapter 10, he thinks Eusebius stresses both the humanity and the divinity of the incarnate Christ, to answer Porphyry’s commentary on the Hecatean oracle saying that Christ was See the of DE, IV.2. See fr. 85. About that fragment, taken from Augustine’s Letter CII, see P. Courcelle, “Critiques exégétiques et arguments antichrétiens rapportés par Ambrosiaster”, VigChr 13 (1959), p. 163 (“l’origine porphyrienne est stipulée”). 135 Fr. 85 is extracted from Augustine’s Letter CII, the content of which seems to me problematical (see note 66). In the fragment, the accusation is not clearly and directly attributed to Porphyry. Moreover, Aaron Johnson tells me that the idea of a son of God seems to be implicitly accepted in some Porphyrian fragments (284; 297; 376 Smith). 136 Cels., II.31; VIII.14. One could also think that Eusebius is answering Jewish objections against the Christian conception of Christ as ‘son of God’ (see Aphr., Dem., XVIII, 12; Dialogue of Philo and Papiscus, 2). 137 he question occurs at the end of Book II (II.3.178). 138 See fr. 81–82. 139 Cels., IV.7; VI.78. 140 Compare the phrase μ μ ἰ (DE, II.3.178) with μ ῦ ἰ (Cels., IV.7) and ἐ ῦμ ῦὕ (ibid., VI.78). 141 Cf. Cels., IV.3–4; 8–9; V.31. See also Com. Rm., V.1, PG 14.1017C, 7–15 (Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 326–329). 133 134 140 sébastien morlet only a mortal.142 It is actually much more probable that he is answering Celsus’ criticism of the Incarnation. Celsus objected against the Christians that the Logos could not become man without changing his nature.143 Origen answered that the Incarnation does not imply any change of the divine nature, because 1) the descent of the Logos was an act of condescension ( ) which did not imply in itself any change of nature;144 2) the physician, to which the Logos may be compared, is not afected by the suferings of his patient.145 Now, Eusebius makes it very clear that he is answering such objections.146 And his argumentation is, once again, obviously derived from the Contra Celsum.147 Book V Book V contains a collection of testimonies about the divinity of Christ. Two texts from this book have been thought as being directly related to Porphyry. DE, V.Prol.3–5. At the beginning of his prophetical collection, Eusebius gives the opinion of the Pagans concerning divination. I give the text in Berchman’s translation: 142 Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 224. he passage in the DE is the following (DE, IV.10.19): ἡμῖ μ , μ μ ῦ ἶ ὃ ἦ ἐ μ , ὁμ ῦ ’ ἐ ἀ ώ ῳ (“And he led the life which we lead, in no way forsaking the being that he had before, and at the same time retaining the God in the man”). 143 See Cels., IV.14. 144 Ibid., IV.15; VI.77. 145 Ibid., IV.15. 146 he passage of DE, IV.10.19 is already explicit. Eusebius deals again with the same problem in chapter 13, which is entitled: ὡ ἀ ἀ ἀ ώμ μ ’ὃ ἐ ώ (“He remained impassive, unharmed and incorporeal, even when he was made man” as W.J. Ferrar suggests). At the beginning of chapter 13, he makes very clear that he has in mind such objections as that of Celsus (DE, ύ ἐ ῖ ῦ , μ IV.13.1): ὕ ἄ ἀ ώμ ῦ ῦ ἀ ύ (“And since this is so, one must not be disturbed on hearing of birth, body, passions and death as regards the immaterial and incorporeal word of God”). 147 he Logos sufered no change (DE, IV.10.19; IV.13.6). he Incarnation was only an act of condescension (ibid., IV.10.18; 13.6). Eusebius also compares the Logos to a physician (IV.13.4). But he insists on three other examples: when a lyre is struck, the musician is not afected (IV.13.7); when a wise man is punished, his soul is not afected by the punishment of his body (loc. cit.); the rays of the sun are not deiled by touching the material world (IV.13.8). his last example is traditional (see Tertullian, Apol., XXI.12–14), but Eusebius may owe it to Origen (Cels., VI.73). eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 141 Greeks and barbarians alike testify to the existence of oracles and oracular responses in all parts of the earth and they state they were revealed by the creator’s providence for the use and beneit of men. hus there is no need for an essential diference between Hebrew prophecy and the other nations’ oracles since the supreme God gave oracles to the Hebrews through their prophets, and suggested that which was to their advantage. So also he gave them to other nations through their local oracles. For he was not only the God of the Jews, but also of the rest of humanity. He cared no more for these than those, but his providence was over all similarly just as he has given the sun ungrudgingly to everyone, and not for the Hebrews only, and the supply of needs according to the seasons, and a similar bodily make-up for everyone, and one mode of birth, and one type of rational soul. And thus, they say, he provided to all men the science of foretelling the future ungrudgingly, to some by prophets, to some by oracles, to some by the light of birds, or by examining entrails, or by dreams, or by omens contained in word or sound, or some other sound. For these they say were given to all men by God’s providence, so that the Hebrew prophets should not seem to have an advantage over the rest of the world. R.M. Berchman made this text fr. 18 of his collection of Porphyry’s anti-Christian fragments, thus adding a new text to Harnack’s collection. It is worth noting, irst, that it is diicult to know what the opinion of the Greeks and barbarians exactly is in this text. According to Eusebius, they say that God has given divination to all mankind, so that there is no diference between the Jews and the other men. If one thinks that the consecutive clause is an extrapolation by Eusebius, one should limit the Greek and barbarian statement to the idea that the gits of God are universal. But it remains possible that the statement about the Hebrews does belong to the Greek and barbarian . In any case, the question of the Porphyrian origin of this text must be examined. hree facts may support Berchman’s hypothesis: – here is a parallel between the discussion on divination in DE, V.Prol. and the discussion on sacriices in DE, I.10. In each case, Eusebius reproduces an anonymous pagan opinion on the subject, before giving his own conception. Now, we can check that in DE, I.10, the Greek is derived from Porphyry.148 It is thus probable that the Greek and barbarian opinion in DE, V.Prol. is also derived from Porphyry. 148 See Abst., II.5; I.19. 142 sébastien morlet – Porphyry is Eusebius’ main source in the PE when dealing with divination. – Some passages in the text may indicate a Porphyrian source. 1) First, the text admits the reality of a Hebrew prophecy. his cannot be a reproduction of Celsus’ view,149 but may correspond to Porphyry’s supposedly positive attitude to Jewish tradition.150 2) he allusion to God’s providence ( ) may indicate a neoplatonic background.151 3) he text refers to a conception of divination which echoes some parallels in the Letter to Anebo.152 On the other hand, it is clear that this text cannot be considered as a Porphyrian ‘fragment’. he irst words of the text (μ ῖ 153 ) are directly taken from the Contra Celsum. he list of the divinatory practices, though inding echoes in Porphyry, more probably stems from the same work.154 In the Prophetical Extracts, Eusebius had tried to defend the Hebrew prophets from the accusations of the Pagans.155 His demonstration was almost entirely derived from the Contra Celsum.156 In DE, V, Eusebius has reworked his previous text, and his polemic has changed. He still wants to prove the superiority of the prophets, but his demonstration is not intended to those who think the Hebrew prophets are inferior to the pagan prophets (as Celsus thought), but to those who consider there is no diference between both prophetical trditions. If Porphyry hides behind Eusebius’ text, two possibilities may be suggested: either the Contra Christianos, or the Philosophy from oracles. If the statement about the Jewish prophets belongs to the pagan , then the Contra Christianos may be a possible source. But if this statement is a Eusebian extrapolation, then the Philosophy from oracles would appear to me as a more probable source (if one admits, of course, that the On Celsus’ negative conception of Hebrew prophecy, see Cels., VII.3; 9. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, II ( Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980), p. 427. 151 See Porphyry, fr. 277–282F Smith. he example of the sun as a sign of divine providence also recalls Porphyry, fr. 477F–478F Smith; In Tim., II.51,63. 152 he idea that divination has been given to men by the Gods echoes Aneb., 2, 2d. he list of divinatory practices in Eusebius’ text may recall Aneb., 2, 2f. 153 Cels., I.36. 154 Loc. cit. 155 See Ecl. proph., IV.Prol. (hereater EP). 156 See my discussion, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 365–369. 149 150 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 143 Contra Christianos and the Philosophy from oracles are diferent works and that the latter was not an anti-Christian work). As a ‘conirmation’ of this hypothesis, one should note that in the demonstration following the text, Eusebius alludes to his previous attack against the pagan oracles in PE, IV–VI,157 where the Philosophy from oracles was extensively quoted. he idea that divination was given to all men may have been put forward by Porphyry in the prologue of the work.158 DE, V.22. his text is a Eusebian commentary on Hos 11.9–10. Simmons inds in it a new answer to the Hecatean oracle about Christ, because Eusebius attacks “those who confess he was a holy man, not God”.159 But Simmons’ interpretation is unfounded. Eusebius aims at showing Christ’s divinity not only in this passage, but throughout Book V. Why detect an anti-Porphyrian polemic here and not elsewhere in the same book? More probably, Eusebius is defending Christ’s divinity against any adversary, either Pagan, Jewish or Christian, who might be inclined to negate it.160 Besides, Hos 11.9–10 is a famous testimony about Christ’s divinity. It was quoted for that purpose by the Christians before Porphyry.161 Book VI DE, VI.18.11. Ater commenting on Zec 14.1–10 as a messianic prophecy, Eusebius seeks to refute another exegesis of the text, which applies the passage to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Following See DE, V.Prol.6; 9; 19. See PE, IV.7.2. 159 Arnobius of Sicca, cit., p. 224, n. 55. 160 In the DE, Eusebius uses the text against “those who confess he was a holy man, but not God” (V.22.1). In the EP, where Eusebius already commented on the same ἄ ), like one text, he accuses those who think that “he was a mere man ( of the just and holy men of old” (III.12). he phrase ἀ is a clear allusion to the adoptianist heresy: in another chapter of the EP, Eusebius links it to the names of the Ebionites, Artemon and Paul of Samosata (IV.22). here is no particular reason to think that Eusebius’ adversaries have changed in the DE. 161 See Cyprianus, Quir., II.6. We may add the Letter of the six bishops against Paul of Samosata (§ 3), if one admits that the letter is authentic (see P. de Navascues, Pablo de Samosata y sus adversarios. Estudio histórico-teológico del cristianismo antioqueno en el s. III (SEAug 87; Roma: Institutum Patristicum “Augustinianum”, 2004), pp. 29–32). 157 158 144 sébastien morlet J. Gefcken,162 A. von Harnack thought this was an allusion to a Porphyrian commentary.163 Some scholars have held that hypothesis as probable.164 It apparently relies on the fact that Porphyry applied some of Daniel’s prophecies to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. But no evidence indicates that he made the same kind of exegesis in a commentary on Zechariah. Eusebius’ adversary remains anonymous ( ἰ . . .). P. Carrara suggested that he may have had in mind a Jewish exegesis of the text.165 But we may also think of a Christian interpretation, such as those of the heretics who did not accept the harmony ( μ ) of the two Testaments.166 Book VIII In this book, Eusebius collects the prophecies concerning the time of Christ’s coming. In the prologue of the book, he once again deals with the question, “why has he come so late?”.167 I will not come back to the question whether Eusebius has here Porphyry in mind. As far as I know, only one passage of Book VIII has been thought as being antiPorphyrian: the Eusebian commentary on Dn 9. DE, VIII.2. his chapter contains an important commentary on the famous prophecy of the Seventy weeks (Dn 9.20–27). It has been supposed that if Eusebius spends so much time on that passage, it is because he has in mind Porphyry’s criticism of the Book of Daniel.168 What should we think about that interpretation? he only passage from Dn 9.20–27 which appears to have been criticized by Porphyry is the passage concerning the ‘abomination of Zwei griechische Apologeten, cit., p. 309, n. 1. See Porphyry, Christ., fr. 47 Harnack. 164 A. Benoît, “Le Contra Christianos de Porphyre: où en est la collecte des fragments?” in Paganisme, judaïsme et christianisme: inluences et afrontements dans le monde antique. Mélanges oferts à M. Simon, ed. A. Benoît (Paris: De Boccard, 1978), 261–275, p. 272; Rinaldi, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, cit., nο 289. 165 Eusebio di Caesarea. Dimostrazione evangelica (Milano: Paoline, 2000), pp. 515–516 n. 29. 166 See DE, I.1.13. Eusebius more explicitly attacks those heretics in some pages of the EP (I.3; III.19). 167 DE, VIII.Prol.5–12. 168 See M.J. Hollerich, “Myth and History in Eusebius’ ‘De vita Constantini’: ‘Vit. Const. 1. 12’ in Its Contemporary Setting”, HhR 82 (1989), 421–445, p. 438. 162 163 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 145 desolation’ (Dn 9.27).169 Porphyry may have commented on other parts of that section, but we cannot speculate on what we do not know.170 On the other hand, Dn 9.20–27 had been used by the Christians, long before Eusebius, as a famous testimonium about the time of Jesus’ coming.171 By quoting that text in a collection about the time of the Incarnation, Eusebius is simply the heir of an apologetic tradition. Moreover, the commentary contains no allusion either to Porphyry or to the Pagans. he only adversaries mentioned by Eusebius are the Jews, who refuse to consider that the prophecy is accomplished.172 Finally, we should stress the fact the Eusebius’ commentary is not always polemical. he apologist admits that the interpretation of the Seventy weeks is diicult, and he refuses to draw any deinite conclusion, letting the reader ind the best interpretation.173 He himself puts forward three exegeses of the passage, of which the irst one is taken from Africanus.174 It is clear that Eusebius primarily aims at commenting on a diicult text, not answering any criticism against its Christian readings. Porphyry’s exegesis of the ‘abomination of desolation’ has not survived. Jerome tells that the Pagan devoted a copious discussion on that passage, and that Eusebius responded to him in three books of his Contra Porphyrium (books XVIII, XIX and XX).175 J.G. Cook assumes that “Porphyry almost certainly interpreted the desolation to be the actions taken against the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus. Consequently he would have criticized the NT use of this igure to refer to an event in the future”176 (J.G. Cook has Mt 24.15 and Mk 13.14 in mind, See Cook, he Interpretation of the Old Testament, cit., pp. 217–218. I am aware of A. Magny’s hypothesis that the Contra Christianos contained a throrough commentary on Daniel, but that hypothesis, even if it is possibly true, seems impossible to demonstrate (Porphyre et le livre de Daniel: réaction à la tradition exégétique chrétienne du IIIe siècle, Mémoire de maîtrise ès Arts, dir. E. De Palma Digeser, Université McGill, Montréal, 2004). 171 See F. Fraidl, Die Exegese der siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alten und mittleren Zeit (Graz: Leuschner und Lubensky, 1883); R. Bodenmann, Naissance d’une exégèse. Daniel dans l’Église ancienne des trois premiers siècles (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986); W. Adler, “he Apocalyptic Survey of History Adapted by Christians: Daniel’s Prophecy of 70 Weeks,” in he Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity, ed. J.C. Vanderkam – W. Adler (Assen – Maastricht – Minneapolis: Van Gorcum – Fortress Press, 1996), 201–238. 172 DE, VIII.2.127. 173 Ibid., VIII.2.58. 174 Ibid., VIII.2.46–54. 175 See Cook, he Interpretation of the Old Testament, cit., p. 218. 176 Ibid., p. 218. 169 170 146 sébastien morlet where Jesus foretells the coming of the abomination of the desolation predicted by Daniel ). It is diicult to know if Porphyry’s exegesis of the text was part of his criticism against Daniel, or rather part of his objections against the NT. According to the DE, the ‘abomination of desolation’ is an allusion to several events ater Jesus’ Passion: the time when the veil of the temple tore and God’s power departed from the temple;177 Pilate’s decision to introduce Caesar’s images in the temple;178 inally, the destruction of the temple and the desolation which followed.179 It is diicult to consider this commentary as an answer to Porphyry. he fact that Eusebius cites the text as a messianic prophecy is not original in itself. he quotation of Jesus’ prophecies, in Eusebius’ commentary, is more original,180 but does not necessarily relect an anti-Porphyrian polemic.181 We may even wonder whether Eusebius knew Porphyry’s criticism against Daniel at that date, since when he accuses the Jews of not being able to show any accomplishment of the prophecy before his own time,182 one may reasonably assume that he would have mentioned Porphyry’s view that the greater part of the prophecy was accomplished in Antiochus’ time if he had known it. his is of course a mere hypothesis, and one may also consider this omission as deliberate. Whether he knew of Porphyry’s criticism against Daniel or not, it seems clear that Eusebius did not intend to answer Porphyry in his commentary on Dn 9.183 Book IX–X Book IX deals with the prophecies of Jesus’ deeds during his lifetime. Eusebius raises several diiculties concerning the gospels’ narrative. For instance, he seeks to show the reason why Scripture mentions the DE, VIII.2.111–121. Ibid., VIII.2.122–123. 179 Ibid., VIII.2.124. 180 Ibid., VIII.2.126–127. 181 Eusebius was particularly interested in Jesus’ prophecies. He quotes them many times in the DE and devoted a special work to them (see Kofsky, Eusebius of Caesarea Against Paganism, cit., p. 151 n. 63). he link between this interest in Jesus’ prophecies and Porphyry’s criticisms against them must remain an open question. 182 DE, VIII.2.127. 183 Likewise, the corresponding commentary in the EP (III.45–46) does not relect any clear polemic against Porphyry. 177 178 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 147 appearance of a star at the birth of Christ184 or why the Savior led to Egypt to escape Herod’s plot.185 In these two instances, one can easily notice that Eusebius draws on Origen’s Contra Celsum.186 He also deals with other passages of the gospels which do not appear to have been attacked by Celsus. In some cases, one may be tempted to assume that Eusebius is answering Porphyrian objections. But the question of an anti-Porphyrian polemic in DE, IX must remain open: the Porphyrian origin of the objections is also not certain, and it is oten diicult to know if Eusebius is actually seeking to answer objections.187 hree times in books IX–X, Eusebius tries to explain a few discrepancies between some Septuagint texts and their quotation in the New Testament.188 Porphyry is known to have criticized similar discrepancies.189 But do we have to think that Eusebius is reacting to Porphyrian objections? he answer is probably no. he discrepancies mentioned by Eusebius do not appear to have been used by Porphyry or any Pagan against Christianity. On the other hand, they are already dealt with by Christian writers before Eusebius.190 Moreover, there are some clues that Eusebius is here drawing on Origen.191 Book XV he fragments of book XV contain interpretations on two passages from the book of Daniel commented on by Porphyry: the vision of the statue composed of gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay (Dn 2); the vision of the four beasts and of the son of man (Dn 7). In Dn 2.35, the stone which destroys the statue was read by Porphyry as an allusion to the Jewish people.192 As he dated the book of Daniel to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, he must have considered this passage as a (false) prophecy about the supposed everlasting triumph of the Jews DE, IX.1. Ibid., IX.4. 186 Ibid., IX.1.13 = Cels., I.58–59; DE, IX.4.3–5 = Cels., I.66. 187 See Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 527–528. 188 See DE, IX.15 (Is 42.1 quoted in Mt 12.18); DE, IX.18.14 (Ps 117.25 quoted in Mt 21.9); DE, X.4.13 (Zech 11.12ss. quoted in Mt 27.9). 189 See Christ., fr. 9–10 Harnack. 190 See Morlet, L’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin, cit., pp. 528–530. 191 Compare DE, IX.18.4 and Orig., Com. Mt., XVI.9; DE, IX.15.4–6 and Jerome, In Is., XII.42.1/4 (probably from Origen); DE, X.4.13 and Orig., Ser. in Mt., 117. 192 Christ., fr. 43d Harnack (= Jerome, In Dan., 2.35). 184 185 148 sébastien morlet in the future.193 As to Dn 7, Porphyry interpreted the last two beasts as an allusion to the realm of the Macedonians (the leopard being Alexander, and the other beast being Alexander’s successors).194 He may have interpreted the irst two beasts as allusions to the Babylonians on the one hand, and the Medes and the Persians on the other hand.195 Eusebius’ commentaries on both passages are lacunose, but the available evidence does not relect any polemic against Porphyry.196 First, no pagan adversary is mentioned in the commentaries. Second, Eusebius does not seek to refute any other interpretation of the texts. He gives his own exegesis without contrasting it to other ones. he stone mentioned in Dn 2.35 would be the kingdom of God.197 he four beasts would refer to the Assyrians, the Persians, the Macedonians and the Romans.198 Finally, the Son of Man would be Christ who will come back at the end of time.199 Unsurprisingly, Eusebius comments on both texts as eschatological prophecies. his way of reading Daniel is of course contrary to that of Porphyry, but has nothing anti-Porphyrian in itself: it corresponds to the common Christian reading of Daniel, well attested before and ater Porphyry.200 Concluding Remarks he preceding analysis leads us to reassess Eusebius’ polemic against Porphyry. he PE and the DE cannot be considered as an answer to the Contra Christianos. Eusebius does not aim at responding to the most innovative objections of the Pagans. he kernel of the pagan arguments he answers stems from Origen’s Contra Celsum. Interpreting Eusebius’ demonstration as a reaction against Porphyry leads to obvious misinterpretations. It remains possible that Porphyry’s work See Cook, he Interpretation of the Old Testament, cit., p. 208. Christ., fr. 43m Harnack (= Jerome, In Dan., 7.8.14). 195 See Cook, he Interpretation of the Old Testament, cit., pp. 211–212. 196 One could draw the same conclusion about the corresponding commentaries in the EP (III.42; 44). 197 DE, XV, fr. 1. 198 Loc. cit. 199 Ibid., XV, fr. 3. 200 Eusebius’ exegesis of the four beasts reappears later in Jerome and heodoretus (see. Cook, he Interpretation of the Old Testament, cit., p. 211, n. 341). For eschatological exegeses of Dn 2 before Porphyry, see Cyprianus, Quir., II.17; Hippolytus, Dan., II.13. About Dn 7, see Justin, I Apol., 51.9; Tertullian, Marc., IV.10.9; Hippolytus, Dan., IV.2–5. 193 194 eusebius’ polemic against porphyry: a reassessment 149 encouraged Eusebius to write a thorough apology of Christianity, and even that Eusebius has Porphyry in mind here and there, but his apology can in no way be considered as a direct answer to Porphyry. Likewise, Eusebius’ polemic against the Philosophy from oracles, though important, must not be exaggerated. It is reasonable to think that, apart from the explicit passages where Eusebius mentions Porphyry’s work (that is to say, essentially in the PE),201 the polemical intention in the PE—DE reduces itself to opposing the pagan prophecy praised by Porphyry. As a consequence, one must admit that the Porphyrian material in the apology is much less important than it is oten thought to be. Only two texts from the PE are explicitly extracted from Porphyry’s anti-Christian work. In both cases, Eusebius does not quote Porphyry to refute him, but on the contrary to use him as an auxiliary witness.202 hese concluding remarks imply that we can no longer be sure that Eusebius knew Porphyry’s whole pamphlet when he wrote the PE—DE, nor can we use the PE—DE to reconstruct the overall argument of the Contra Christianos.203 Most scholars take for granted that Eusebius had written the Contra Porphyrium long before the PE—DE.204 201 he only exception in DE is DE, III.6.39, to which one may add DE, V.Prol., where Eusebius refers to his polemic against Porphyry’s work in PE. 202 In PE, I.9.21, he uses Porphyry as a source for Phoenician history. In PE, V.1.10 he uses Porphyry’s testimony to support the idea that the demons have disappeared since Jesus’ arrival. 203 In works supposedly written before PE—DE, one inds only one allusion to the fourth book in the Chronicle (II.4 Schoene) and one fragment of the third book in the HE (VI.19.2). It is interesting to note that from the PE, one fragment is taken from the fourth book (PE, I.9.21; X.9.12); Eusebius does not mention the book from which he quotes the second one (V.1.10). Consequently, at the time when Eusebius wrote PE—DE, the only certainty is that he knew books III and IV of the Contra Christianos. he fact that at the beginning of the Contra Hieroclem, Eusebius says that almost every objection of his adversary is taken from other polemists does not necessarily entail that Eusebius has Porphyry in mind, and that he had a good knowledge of Porphyry’s anti-Christian work at that time. he interpretation of Eusebius’ polemic against Porphyry must also take into account the Questions on the Gospels, and the possible (but marginal?) presence of Porphyry in that work. 204 According to Harnack, such a work could not have been written ater the triumph of the Church. Eusebius may have considered it an unsatisfying book, since he never refers to it, and the book may date before 300 (Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. Teil I [Leipzig: Hinrich, 1893], pp. 118–119). Schwartz thought the work could not have been written ater Constantine had become the only master of the Roman empire (“Eusebios von Caesarea”, RE, VI/1, München 1907, col. 1395). F. Winkelmann supposed that the Contra Porphyrium was written before Pamphilus’ death (310) and that Eusebius was the polemist of the group (Euseb von Kaisareia. Der Vater der Kirchengeschichte (Berlin: Verlags – Anstalt Union, 1991), p. 33). J. Moreau 150 sébastien morlet But the date of that work is actually totally unknown.205 In any case, Eusebius does not seem liable to have used that work in the PE—DE. Nothing prevents from dating the Contra Porphyrium to a late period of Eusebius’ life. We do not even know if the bishop of Caesarea had direct access to Porphyry’s work before writing the Contra Porphyrium.206 his remark raises several questions: was the Contra Christianos kept in Eusebius’ library? If that is so, was it part of a ‘Porphyrian corpus’? When, why and by whom would this Porphyrian corpus have been acquired?207 thinks that the work could not have been written ater Constantine’s supposed order to destroy the copies of the Contra Christianos (DHGE, XV, Paris 1963, col. 1149). 205 he arguments put forward to support the idea that the Contra Porphyrium is one of the irst works of Eusebius are very disputable (see preceding note). he fact that Christians did write works against Porphyry ater Constantine’s supposed edict proves that Eusebius may have written his Contra Porphyrium towards the end of his life. he idea that Eusebius’ answer to Porphyry was related to his defense of Origen, as Harnack suggests, may imply that the Contra Porphyrium was written before Pamphilus’ death, but this idea, though attractive, is not certain. 206 It remains possible that the few fragments which lie in Eusebius’ work stem, at least in part, from intermediary sources, such as Methodius’ refutation of Porphyry. 207 Some years ago, R.M. Grant assumed that all the Porphyrian works known to Eusebius (except Contra Christianos, De Abstinentia and Chronicle) had been brought to Caesarea around 279 by an Anatolius mentioned in the HE (VII.32.20) (“Porphyry among the Early Christians”, in Romanitas et Christianitas. Studia I.H. Waszink a. d. VI kal. Nov. a. MCMLXXIII XIII lustra complenti oblata, ed. W. den Boer – P.G. van der Nat – C.M.J. Sicking – J.C.M. van Winden (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1973), 181–188). More recently, A.J. Carriker defended another view: because of the allusion to Porphyry in the Chronicle, he supposed that Eusebius had acquired the whole work (with the History of philosophy) by 306. He thinks Eusebius acquired the rest of Porphyry’s works around 315 (when he was working on the PE—DE) and that Plotinus’ tractates were acquired on that occasion. He admits that Porphyry’s works may have been acquired at Caesarea before 300, but considers that it is an unlikely hypothesis. Finally, he supposes that the persecution prompted Eusebius (and Pamphilus) to make a suitable response to Porphyry (he Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, cit., p. 123). A recent analysis of Eusebius’ quotations of Plotinus’ tractates led M.-O. Goulet-Cazé to the conclusion that, despite the traditional view, Eusebius knew them through Porphyry’s edition (“Deux traités plotiniens chez Eusèbe de Césarée”, in he Libraries of the Neoplatonists, ed. C. D’Ancona (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 63–97; see also M. Zambon, “Edizione e prima circolazione degli scritti di Plotino: Poririo ed Eusebio di Cesarea”, in Plotino e l’ontologia. Sostanza, assimilazione, bellezza, ed. M. Bianchetti (Milano: Albo versorio, 2006), pp. 55–78). his conclusion, if true, would suggest a strong link between the acquisition of Plotinus’ tractates and the possible ‘Porphyrian corpus’ at Caesarea. Another way of linking the two groups of works would be to accept P. Kalligas’ hypothesis that Eusebius knew Plotinus’ tractates and most of Porphyry’s works from Longinus’ library (“Traces of Longinus’ Library in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica”, CQ 51 (2001), 584–598).