An alternative theory of the history of Antiquity
Porphyry and Celsus
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

Editorial Comments

The Possibility that Celsus and Porphyry
did not write against christianity

To state the matter briefly, an author called Celsus did not write or publish in the second century, despite the assertion of Eusebius (via Origen) to the contrary. In short Celsus is simply a fourth century Eusebian forgery.

In the case of Porphyry however, the author Porphyry actually existed, and was considered perhaps the greatest of intellectuals in the Roman empire at the beginning of the fourth century. Porphyry wrote voluminously in his life, but unless he lived to see the rise of Constantine from Rome between the years of 312 and 324 CE, then he did not write anything against the christians, because they did not then exist.

Instead, desiring to become supreme not only of the military and the civilian activities, Constantine had malevolent and despotic designs in the realm of fourth century literature. He therefore instructed Eusebius to forge in the name of Porphyry additional writings which he would then use in a political sense.

Constantine commanded Eusebius to forge a scathing polemic against his own newly invented religion (christianity). With this document in his possession, the despot was then free to express justifiable anger and thus edict for the destruction of all Porphyry's literature, which he did in no uncertain terms (It is preserved, see below)

There are a number of citations which may be called in support of this hypothesis with respect to the forgery of Porphyry by Eusebius, for the reasons provided above. These are:

• The Letter of Constantine about Porphyry.
• Eunapius' Fragment on Porphyry's "conflicting speculations"

Additionally, there is the related issue of the writings of Hierocles, quoted by Eusebius in his unmitigated attack on the writings of Philostratus, and the historical neopythagorean sage and author, Apollonius of Tyana. Perhaps Hierocles wrote against the new God of Constantine, but perhaps he did not. Perhaps it was simply another case of fabricating a document by which Constantine might destroy the works of Apollonius of Tyana, and Philostratus, as we know he intended for the works of both Porphyry and Arius.

Constantine on Porphyry ...

It should be clearly noted in this letter that:

(1) According to Constantine, Porphyry "found the reward which befitted him"
Yet we know of any ancient source that tells us when and how Porphyry died.

(2) The writings of Porphyry were "righteously destroyed"
(3) "The writings of Arius .. shall be delivered to be burned with fire"
(4) "The penalty for secreting Arius' writings shall be death"
(5) "The capital punishment [is to be] by beheading without delay"

It was the ultimatum of a supreme imperial mafia thug dictator,
known to historians circa 325 CE as "a brigand";
and to become known in future years as "a ward irresponsible for his own actions".

Here is the Letter of King Con.

Constantine the King
to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked, 
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected. 

As therefore Porphyry, 
who was an enemy of the fear of God, 
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings 
against the religion of Christians, 
found the reward which befitted him, 
that he might be a reproach to all generations after, 
because he fully and insatiably used base fame; 
so that on this account his writings 
were righteously destroyed; 

thus also now it seems good that Arius 
and the holders of his opinion 
should all be called Porphyrians, 
that he may be named by the name 
of those whose evil ways he imitates: 

And not only this, but also 
that all the writings of Arius, 
wherever they be found, 
shall be delivered to be burned with fire, 
in order that not only 
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed, 
but also that the memory of himself 
and of his doctrine may be blotted out, 
that there may not by any means 
remain to him remembrance in the world. 

Now this also I ordain, 
that if any one shall be found secreting 
any writing composed by Arius, 
and shall not forthwith deliver up 
and burn it with fire, 
his punishment shall be death; 
for as soon as he is caught in this 
he shall suffer capital punishment 
by beheading without delay.
 

(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9. 
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501, 
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies, 
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528 
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

Eunapius' Fragment on Porphyry

Further information for anyone interested in the life and the (unknown and unmentioned) death of the fourth century academic Porphyry. This is quoted from Eunapius:

It seems that he entered the married state, and a book of his is extant addressed to his wife Marcella; he says that he married her, although she was already the mother of five children, and this was not that he might have children by her, but that those she had might be educated; for the father of his wife's children had been a friend of his own.

It seems that he attained to an advanced old age.

At any rate he left behind him many speculations
that conflict with the books that he had previously published;
with regard to which we can only suppose
that he changed his opinions as he grew older.

He is said to have departed this life in Rome.


Here it appears that Eunapius provides us with information related to two issues:

1) The Death of Porphyry

At an advanced age, in Rome. Born c.233, he would have to have been almost 80 years old to see Constantine take Rome. So I am still wondering why Constantine would have said "Porphyry found the reward which befitted him", unless this was in reference on to the writings of Porphyry. No other ancient source is aware of the details of the death of Porphyry. No other author of antiquity seems to have this knowledge. Of course it is notable that there were no political historians to have written a history in the times of Constantine. I wonder why. At any rate, Constantine may be alluding to an event that others would not have reported.

2) Did Porphyry write "Against the Christians"?

Above I have suggested that he did not write this work, or rather fragment of work. Rather, it was written at Constantine's sponsorship (probably by Eusebius), so that the rest of the writings of Porphyry could be then "targetted in revenge". This conjecture is not without a certain amount of support in Eunapius above, when he writes:
At any rate he left behind him many speculations
that conflict with the books that he had previously published;
with regard to which we can only suppose
that he changed his opinions as he grew older.


As an addendum to this conjecture, the following quote
has been taken from WIKI on Porphyry:
Early Christians tampered with his writings after issuing an edict to destroy his writings. Philosophy of the Oracles was created in which the author is made to write as a Christian. The name of Porphyry was signed to it as the author. St. Augustine was one of the first to reject is as a forgery. The fraudulent work was designed to be serviceable to Christianity; it was accepted by Eusebius and appealed to by apologists like Theodoret. It was allowed to pass unchallenged by hosts of orthodox scholars in succeeding centuries, its character as a vulgar forgery was finally established by the laborious criticism of Lardner.

Thus it is likely that Eusebius himself wrote both Philosophy of the Oracles and those only very few remaining fragments of Against the Christians, and by rank forgery, and with the backing of "Bullneck", passed off these works in the name of Porphyry.

Porphyry

The following summary of Porphyry is sourced from a Stanford University article on pythagoreanism:

The extant Life of Pythagoras by Plotinus' pupil and editor, Porphyry (234-ca. 305), shows that Porphyry gave some prominence to Pythagoras in his now lost Philosophical History, but it is impossible to be sure how the life fit into the larger work. Although it does not contain much critical evaluation of sources, Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras is particularly valuable, because he often clearly identifies his sources. This same penchant for identifying and seeking out important Pythagorean sources can be seen in his commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonics (2nd c. AD), in which he preserves several genuine fragments of the early Pythagorean Archytas, along with some pseudo-Pythagorean material. This commentary shows that Porphyry was conversant with some of the most sophisticated mathematics in the Pythagorean tradition, but his picture of the ideal philosopher, as revealed in his Life of Plotinus, does not place particular emphasis on mathematics.

Since so many of his works survive only in fragments, it is hard to be sure precisely how Porphyry presented Pythagoras. It would appear, however, that Pythagoras was not made the source of all Greek philosophy, as he was in the Neopythagorean writings, but was rather presented one of a number of sages both Greek and non-Greek (e.g. Indians, Egyptians and Hebrews), who promulgated a divinely revealed philosophy. This philosophy is, in fact, Platonic in origin as it relies on the Platonic distinction between the intelligible and sensible realms; Porphyry unhistorically assigns it back to these earlier thinkers, including Pythagoras. Pythagoras' philosophy is thus said to aim at freeing the mind from the fetters of the body so that it can attain a vision of the intelligible and eternal beings (Life of Pythagoras 46-47). O'Meara thus seems correct to conclude that Porphyry was “…not a Pythagoreanizing Platonist … but rather a universalizing Platonist: he finds his Platonism both in Pythagoras and in very many other quarters” (1989, 25-29).

Index | Author Index | Julian | Apollonius Resources | Mountain Man Graphics