THEOLOGIE HISTORIQUE 53 EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE AND THE CLASSICAL INTELLECTUAL TRADITION IN HONOREM ROBERT M. GRANT edited by WILLIAM R. SCHOEDEL ROBERT L. WILKEN116 MARCEL SIMON ‘Clementines. But his more characteristic position is that heresies come later, ie. they are historically posterior tothe tuth, “Our doctrine isnot posterior; what is more it has priority overall the others, This is proof of the truth, that it always comes first” (Praes. haeret. 35.3). The state- ‘ment of a brief symbol of faith furnishes a touchstone of the truth (Praes. haeret. 36.4-5): “Here is the doctrine, I do not say that it announced the future arrival of heresies, but Ido say that from it heresies ‘were bom... They come from our lineage but they do not belong to our family. ‘They come from the seed of truth, but lies have made them wild” (Praes. haeret, 36.6-8). This is the same theory expressed in other terms by Ignatius of Antioch. Tertullian confronts those who would argue from the priority, ‘oreven the contemporaneity which he himself occasionally admitted, of certaiti heresies versus original orthodoxy, with one decisive objection; they may be as ancient, even more ancient, than orthodoxy, but they are not apostolic. Indeed they have been condemned by the apostles (Praes, ‘haeret. 35.). Inthe end its apostolicty that i the infallible criterion of the truth as it wes conceived by the whole ancient church as well as by Tertullian. Apostolicty joined to the idea of an ecclesiastical magiste- rium marks the difference between the hairesis of Greek philosophy, ‘which to some offered a Praeparatio Evangelica, and that heresy which the church took pleasure in combatting. ROBERT L. WILKEN PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY : GREEK RELIGION AND CHRISTIAN FAITH To the modem lover of classical antiquity, it is puzzling that the arguments of Greek intellectuals against the early Christian movement were not simply philosophical but also religious. The most noteworthy critics, Celsus, the second century philosopher, Porphyry, the third century scholar, and Julian, the fourth century emperor, were all com- mitted, in varying degrees, to the traditional religion of Greece and Rome. To understand them one must enter not only the world of ancient philosophy, but also the world of Greco-Roman religion, a vocation ‘which has marked the work of Robert Grant Each of the three critics of Christianity, Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian {re known to us almost entirely through the books of Christians wsitten to refute them, Celsus’ True Word can be reconstructed with some ‘confidence from Origen’s Contra Celsum and Julian's work Agains the Galilaeans can be pieced together (with much less confidence) from Cyril of Alexandria's Contra Julianum. But Porphyry's work, though the most brilliant ofthe three, and the one most feared by Christians, can be reconstructed only with difficulty (and much conjecture) from nume- rous fourth & fifth century Christian writers. This is all the more unfortunate not only because of Porphyry’s vast camingand acute mind but also because he wrote atthe time when the Christian movement was oon the verge of establishing a new relationship with the Roman sate Porphyry was one of the most articulate public voices raised against ‘accommodation by the state to Christianity, and it may be that he was 1, See most eceuy “The Religion of Emperor Maximan Dain Jacob Newner, ed, Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cats Leiden, 1718), 4 13-1,11s ROBERT L. WILKEN asked by the emperorto prepare a defense ofthe traditional religion and to provide a philosophical hess for the repression of Christianity. How seriously such speculation should be taken rests finally on how one answers the complex and puzzling questions associated with Porphyry's work Against the Christians. That he wrote against Christianity is evident from citations of his books by erties; but what he wrote, and ‘Whether he wrote one book or several, is stil disputed. Most study of Porphyry as critic of Christianity has focused on his work Against the Christians (Ad Christ), but every attempt to recons- truct this work founders on our fragmentary and largery second hand knowledge of it Fully half ofthe fragments which allegedly make up the book come from the Apocritus of Macarius Magnes with no sure evidence that they actually drive from Porphyry. A recent article by. “Bares? has raised anew the question of the authenticity of the Macarian fragments. This question has been discussed off and on since the discovery ofthe Apocritus fragments in the nineteenth century, and itis evident that they canbe used only with great reservation. Without them, however, any reconstruction ofthe Against the Christians is out ofthe question. ‘Some ofthe citations of Porphyry by Christian authors come not fom the Ad Chris, but from the Philosophy from Oracles (Phil. rac). This work, an elaborate defense and interpretation of traditional religion based on an appeal to the authority of oracles, is usually considered a Youthful work of Porphyry prior to the time he becomes interested in ‘Christianity. Yet Christians who cite it consider it a work hostile to Christianity. Because of the vagaries of scholarship the Phil. orac. is usually studied by specialists on Porphyry and itis ignored by those interested in his elation to Christianity. Almost all work on Porphyry as a critic of Christianity concentrates on the presumed work inthe fifteen books entitled Against he Christians. 1 wish then to ask what place, if any, the Philosophy from Oracles played in Porphyry’s ertcism of Cristianity and whether some of the material usually assigned to Ad Christ, belongs rather to Phil. orac’, In this way it may be possible to 2.7. D, BARES, “Porphyry Aguns the Christian: Date and the Atibution of raginents™, JTS, ns. 24 (1973) 24-49. 3 Tam ideo the work of). 1, MARA Prphyy's Philosophy fom Oracesin ‘Augustine (Pris, 1959), forcling atetion otis aspect ofthe Phi ora. and showing 1 Ad PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY Lio reassess the unique contribution of Porphyry to the dialogue between the Greek intellectual tradition and easly Chaistinity Against the Christians and Philosophy from Oracles In the edition of Porphyry's Ad Christ. published by Adolf von Hamack in 1916 the first fragment, assigned to the preface, is a long passage from Eusebius’ Preparatio Evangelica (PE), identified as be- longing 10 Porphyry by the great classical scholar Wilamowitz- Moellendorf*, treads part: Our opponents say we agree neither with the opinions of the Greeks nor the customs of the Barbarians... What is the strange- ness among us ard the newness of our life? How can men not be in every way impicus and atheistic who have apostasized from the customs of our fathers, through which every nation and city is sustained? What good can reasonably be hoped for from those who stand as enemies and warriors against their benefactors? What else are they than fighters against God? What types of pardon will they be worthy of who have turned away from those recognized as Gods from the earliest times among all Greeks and Barbarians, both in cites and in the country, with all types of sacrifices, and mysteries and initiations by all, kings and lawsi- vers and philosophers, and have rather chosen what is impious and atheistic among men...? They have not adhered to the God who is honored among the Jews... but cut out for themselves a new way... (PE 1.2.14), ‘The book from which this fragment is taken, the PE, was a massive apologetic work written against paganism at the beginning of the fourth century. In contrast to earlier apologetic works which cited pagan authors only sparingly, Eusebius states that he will allow pagan authors to speak for themselves. "I will not present my own words to set forth the imponanc of Augustin ia weonsruting the work: ut am not conned by his uments on the elon ef he Pi. oa to Party's De rere ange For eghichm of O'Meara see P tar, "Caos de Pry che Aug Re es ‘Etudes Augusninnes (198) 20524, Foran ampietion {0 Means vi sos "Pores Philosophy from Oracles in Ean PracaraEvonglce and Asta tes Dialogues of Cassa’ in echerchesAupuriicnds 6 (190) 10319. “tA. ton Hatwace Pars, “Cegen die Cvusten 15 Buecker, Zegne Fragment und Referate (AShndngen hon. pews, Akane Winraca Phils. Klas erin 116). U. vos Wismowie-Mocleador, “Ein Bchsoeck aus der Schrift des Porphyispgen de Christen ZW 1 (190) 1M120 ROBERT L_ WILKEN what I wish ‘0 exhibit, but the words of those who are especially well ‘known for their zealous devotion to those whom they consider gods in coder that my book will be free of any suspicion that it has been fabricated” (PE 1.5.14). Eusebius carried out this intention, The PE isa remarkable compila- tion of opinions from antiquity and to this day itis the only source fora number of lost works. He cites writers on ancient Phoenician and Egyptian religion as well as on Greek religion, Among the Greek writers the most frequently cited author, after Plato, is Porphyry whom he cites ninety-six times. It is apparent that Eusebius had some of Porphyry's works before him as he wrote the PE and among these works was the Phil. orac. Unfortunately Eusebius’ method of citation is sometimes vague and imprecise. In some places he gives the title of the work he cites; in others he does not. And like all ancient authors he was not adverse to cing from other works without acknowledging his sources. Plagiarism did not offend ancient scholars. The question then arises: does the long passage cited or “paraphrased” by Eusebius at the beginning ofthe PE belong tothe Ad Christ. of Porphyry or does itcome from another work, possible his Phil. orac? To answer this Guestion 1 shall first consider some other testimonies about Porphyry's anti- CCharstian works and then return to Eusebius, our most important source. AUGUSTINE AAs Tate as the fifth century Porphyry was stil being attacked by Christian writers. His writings which were considered “against true religion”, composed by an “enemy of piety" (Socrates, Historia cecclesiasica 1.9), were finally destroyed in the middle of the fifth century. Before that time his ideas and books were discussed by Chris- tian apologists such as Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus and Augustine, Fora reconstruction of his anti-Christian works Augustine's City of God, isthe most important work from this period, InDecivtate dei 19.23 Augustine remarks that Christians and philosophers such as Porphyry worship one and the same supreme God. We agree, says ‘Augustine, that adoration belongs t the “God whom Porphyry, the ‘most learned of philosophers, though the most biter enemy of Chris- tians, acknowledges as a great god, even through the oracles of those ‘whom he considers gods, Forin his books called éx Rovian @dooogi- | | PAGAN CRITICISM OF CARISTIANITY 121 ‘ag in which he sets forth and discusses the divine oracles on maters ‘concemed with philosophy, he says... Augustine then cites an oracle from Phil. orac, critical of Christians for not acknowledging the one high God anda second oracle praising the Jews for worshipping this God. According to Augustine, Porphyry said. that the oracle from Apollo “exposed the incurable corruption ofthe Christians, saying that the Jews, rather than the Christians, recogrized God" (Civ. dei 19.23), After this introduction to the Phil. orac. Augustine goes on to cite ‘other passages from Porphyry as well as several oracles quoted in the work. Porphyry introduces these oracles as follows: ‘“What we are going to say will certainly be contrary to one's expectation. For the gods have declared that Christ is very pious (pissimum) and has become immortal, and that they remember him with high praise (cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt); that the Christians, however, are pollu- ted, contaminated, and involved in eror. And many other such things do the gods say against the Christians". An oracle from Hecate follows ‘which says thatthe soul of Jesus was that of very pious man" and that Christians “‘worship it (his soul) because they mistake the truth” Finally, another oracle says that Jesus was @ “good!” man, and like other good men, be had access to heaven, “You are not to blaspheme hhim, but have pty onthe folly of men,."{Civ, dei 19,23), All ofthese oracles together with Porptyry’s comments indicate that ‘Augustine know the Phil. orac. as a work directed against Christianity, ‘but which also praised Jesus as a good and pious man, It didnot atack Jesus, but the apostles whose ‘folly led them to worship Jesus as God. Porphyry praised Jesusas a piows man, a sage, heroliike Pytagors, whose life Porphyry bad written; but the Christians he accused of ignorance and foolishness for tuning their backs on the one supreme God and worshipping Jesus. The oracles in Porphyry’s book, says Augustine, “praise Christ” and ‘vituperate the Chrstans®". The wise men of the Hebrews, the prophets and the sages, among whom Jesus should be included, taught men to fle evil demons apd “to honor the heavenly gods, and especially to worship God the Father”, but his ignorant followers did not heed his words and “‘tumed away from all Swot ony Jo Ho es gat anf Cay ‘5. Forsinilarcomments f Porphyry onthe folihnes ofthe Cristian, se Civ. det 2038,122 ROBERT L, WILKEN it eads men away from the worship of the gods and clevates Jesus tothe place of the gods In another work De consenst evangelistaram (Cons. evang.) AUgUS- tine again cites pagan erties of Christianity and mentions Porphyry by name, Some pagans, says Augustine, ertcie Jesus because he wrote 1 books and because his fame was spread abroad by his disciples, through the use of magic. The pagans attsbute “excellentisimam Sapientiam’ 10 Jesus, but “only a8 a man" (sed tamen tamquam hhomin). Hs disciples, however mistakenly considered him the son of God and the one throwgh whom al things were made (John 1:1). The pagans, continues Augustine, believe that Jesus shouldbe “honored as very wise man, but they deny that be shouldbe worshipped as god" Such men honor Christ but attack the Christan religion. The reason for thisistht“some of theirpilosophers, as Porphyry of Sicily as related in his books, consulted their gods to discover what they would respond about Crist and were compelled by their own oracles to pais him” (Cans. evang. 1.15.23) From Augustine's description ofthis work it seems that he has in mind the Phil. orac. ‘Augustine then goes onto say these same pagan philosopherscriticize the disciples of Jesus because they apostasized from the tational worship, i.e. advocated the “destruction of temples, the ceasing of animal sacrifice, and the shattering of idols”* (Cons. evang. 1.15.23). Christ id not teach such things nor did he encourage the disciples to worship him, The argument her is siilarto that in Civ, dei 19.23 with the addition ofthe remarks about the disciples using magic to spread their belit in Jesus, This in itself is significant, because Porphyry, in contrast to other pagan cits (e.g. Hietoces), dd not consider Jesus a magician or sorcerer, Jesus was a wise man who accomplished his ends, by teaching, not by wonders or by trickery. This would suggest Por- phyry wished to present an interpretation of Jesus acceptable to Chis- tians and pagans alike, Jesus was a good man who taught men to worship the one high God, He is not a magician as some thought but ‘vise man wito could take his place alongsige other Greek sages. Por- phys strategy is to interpret Jesus within the framework of Greek religion and to reject the excesses which the disciples projected on him by calling him god ‘These two passages, one from Civ. dei and the other from Cons cang., suggest that Porphyry’s Phil. orac, included the following: 1) Praise for Jesus asa good and pious man, in the syle of other Greek PAGAN CRITICISM OF CHRISTIANITY 123 “heroes”? or “divine men’’ who were venerated by the Greeks and Romans, 2) Criticism of Jesus’ followers for misunderstanding his teaching and apostasizing from the worship of the gods. 3) Defense of the worship of the gods, especially the one supreme God as the proper object of worship and adoration. 4) Praise of the Hebrews for worship- ping this one God. In sum, Augustine's cltatlons of the Phil. orac: ‘suggest that it was a book directed against Christianity, but it took the form not of an attack on Christianity as such but a positive statement of| the traditional Greek religion, modified by Porphyry’s neo-Platonism, By praising Christ as a wise man rather than by attacking him as a deceiver Porphyry sought to give Jesus a place within his religious scheme, The fault of Christianity lies not with Jesus but with the disciples who mislead people and led them away from the true religion. ARNOBIUS AND LACTANTIUS At approximately the same time as Eusebius, a century before Augus- tine, two other writers, Amobius and Lactantius, also wrote apologetic ‘works, Amobius’ Adversus nationes (Ad. nat.) written in 311 A.D., presents a defense of Christanty and an attack on traditional pagan ‘worship, the sacrifices, temples, and the myths and legends about the ‘gods®. Some have charged, says Amobius in the preface, that since the ‘coming of Christianity men have abandoned the traditional worship and, as a consequence, mankind has been afflicted with many ills (Ad. rnat. 1.1). We cannot understand, says Amobius, why the pagans attack tus and the gods are hostile to us because we have “one common religion with you"(una religio est nobis vobisque communis) and join with you in worshipping the one true god. To which the pagans reply: “The gods are not hostile to you because you worship the omnipotent God but because you maintain that a man, bor ofa human being... was God and you believe that he still exits and you worship him in daily prayers" (Ad. nat. 1.36). ‘Amobius does not mentionPorphyry by name, but the views to which the responds are similarto what Augustine reponedatoat the Phil, orac. 6. That Armobius had Porphyry ia ming when wating Ad matones can be seen in, Fortin’ inlligen atl "The Vit Novi of Arb" n The Heritage ofthe Early (Church (Orientals Chistians Analets 195; Rome, 1973) 197-236,