(John Granger Cook) The Interpretation of The Old (BookFi) PDF

JOHN GRANGER COOK
The Interpretation
of the Old Testament
in Greco-Roman
Paganism
Studien und Texte zu

Antike und Christen tum
23
Mohr Siebeck
Studien u n d Texte zu A n t i k e u n d Christentum
Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity
H e r a u s g e b e r / E d i t o r : CHRISTOPH MARKSCHIES (Berlin)
Beirat/Advisory Board
H U B E R T CANCIK ( B e r l i n ) · GIOVANNI C A S A D I O ( S a l e r n o )
SUSANNA E L M (Berkeley) · JOHANNES H A H N (Munster)
JORG R U P K E (Erfurt)
23
John Granger Cook
The Interpretation
of the Old Testament
in Greco-Roman Paganism
Mohr Siebeck
JOHN GRANGER COOK, b o r n 1 9 5 5 ; 1 9 7 6 B.A. in Philosophy, D a v i d s o n College; 1 9 7 9 M . Div.,
U n i o n Theological Seminary ( V A ) ; 1 9 8 2 - 8 3 D o c t o r a l research at the University of G o t t i n -
gen; 1 9 8 5 P h . D . at E m o r y University; 1 9 8 5 - 9 1 Pastor at R e e m s C r e e k Presbyterian Parish in
Weaverville, N C / U S A ; 1 9 9 1 - 9 4 post doctoral studies at E m o r y University; since 1 9 9 4
Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy at L a G r a n g e College, G A / U S A .
ISBN 3-16-148474-6
ISSN 1 4 3 6 - 3 0 0 3 (Studien und Texte zu A n t i k e und Christentum)
D i e D e u t s c h e B i b l i o t h e k lists this p u b l i c a t i o n in t h e D e u t s c h e N a t i o n a l b i b l i o g r a p h i e ;
d e t a i l e d b i b l i o g r a p h i c d a t a is a v a i l a b l e in t h e I n t e r n e t at http://dnb.ddb.de.
© 2004 by M o h r S i e b e c k , T u b i n g e n , G e r m a n y .
This b o o k m a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d , in w h o l e o r in p a r t , in a n y f o r m ( b e y o n d t h a t p e r m i t t e d
by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to
r e p r o d u c t i o n s , t r a n s l a t i o n s , m i c r o f i l m s a n d s t o r a g e a n d p r o c e s s i n g in e l e c t r o n i c s y s t e m s .
T h e b o o k w a s p r i n t e d by G u l d e - D r u c k in T u b i n g e n o n n o n - a g i n g p a p e r a n d b o u n d b y
B u c h b i n d e r e i H e l d in R o t t e n b u r g .
P r i n t e d in G e r m a n y .
For my doctoral fathers,
Prof. David Hellholm and the late Prof. William Beardslee,
with heartfelt gratitude
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
0.1 H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a (ca 300 B.C.E.) 4
0.2 M a n e t h o (III B.C.E.) 6
0.3 Ocellus Lucanus (II B.C.E.) 8
0.4 Lysimachus 9
0.5 A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n (I B.C.E.) 11
0.6 A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor (ca 105-35 B.C.E.) 13
0.7 D i o d o r u s Siculus (I B.C.E.) 16
0.8 Nicolaus of D a m a s c u s 19
0.9 Strabo (ca 64 B.C.E. to I C E . ) 21
0.10 P o m p e i u s Trogus (I B.C.E. to I C E . ) 23
0.11 Tacitus (ca 56-11 C E . ) 26
0.12 Chaeremon ( I C E . ) 29
0.13 A p i o n (I C E . ) 30
0.14 Ps. Longinus (I C E . ) 32
0.15 Ps. Ecphantus (I - II C.E.?) 34
0.16 N u m e n i u s (II C E . ) 36
0.17 Historians 41
0.18 The L X X in Magical Texts 42
0.19 Pompey: Inscriptions and Art 48
0.20 Hermetica 49
0.21 Conclusion 52
1. Celsus 55
1.1 Celsus o n the A l l e g o r y of the Old Testament 59
1.1.1 Character of the H e b r e w Scriptures 59
1.1.2 Allegorists: A Higher Class of Jews and Christians 61
1.1.3 O T Texts A b s e n t of Allegorical Meaning 62
1.2 Creation 64
1.2.1 The Mosaic A c c o u n t as N o n s e n s e 64
1.2.2 The S e v e n D a y s of G e n 1 65
1.2.3 Time and the D a y s of Creation 66
1.2.4 Light 67
1.2.5 The Sabbath 69
1.2.6 G o d ' s M o u t h , Voice, and Image 71
VIII Table of Contents
1.2.7 A d a m , E v e , and the Snake 71

1.2.8 The Creator G o d and the Serpent 74
1.2.9 The Tree of Life 77
1.2.10 The G a r d e n of E d e n as C o m e d y 80
1.2.11 T h e Spirit, the Highest G o d , the Creator G o d , and the
Strangers 80
1.2.12 Celsus Against an Anthropocentric Creation 82
1.2.13 All is M a d e for H u m a n s ? 84
1.2.14 Weather and Plants: For P e o p l e or A n i m a l s ? 85
1.2.15 C e l s u s ' V i e w of the Created Order 86
1.2.16 The World is G o d ' s Child 88
1.2.17 A n i m a l s and H u m a n s 88
1.2.18 Celsus' Conclusions A b o u t the Created Order 90
1.3 Seventy Punished A n g e l s 91
1.4 The Flood 92
1.5 F l o o d s and Conflagrations 94
1.6 T h e Misunderstood Plato 95
1.7 A n U n c r e a t e d U n i v e r s e and Floods/Conflagrations 96
1.8 T h e F l o o d , G o d ' s Inability to Persuade,
and his R e p e n t a n c e 97
1.9 T h e Existence of Evil and God's Correction
of the World 99
1.10 T h e Tower of B a b e l 100
1.11 A b r a h a m ' s Circumcision 102
1.12 T h e Destruction of S o d o m and G o m o r r a h 103
1.13 Lot and his D a u g h t e r s 104
1.14 A b r a h a m and Sarah, R e b e c c a h , Jacob and E s a u ,
Cain and A b e l 106
1.15 Wells, Marriages, Brides, and Slaves (Sarah and Hagar) 107
1.16 T h e G e n e a l o g y of the Progenitors 108
1.17 Esau's Hatred 109
1.18 T h e R a p e of D i n a h and S i m e o n and Levi's R e v e n g e 110
1.19 Joseph, His Brothers, and Jacob 110
1.20 M o s e s and A n c i e n t W i s d o m 112
1.21 T h e Jews' Worship of A n g e l s , and M o s e s as their
E x e g e t e of Magic 115
1.22 M o s e s and G o d 116
1.23 T h e H e r d e r s ' N a m e s for G o d 117
1.24 T h e Egyptian Origin of the Jews 120
1.25 T h e Jews as Fugitive Slaves 121
1.26 M o s e s and the A n g e l 123
1.27 The Flight from Egypt 124
1.28 Laws 125
1.28.1 The C u s t o m s of Different Nations 125
1.28.2 Celsus o n F o o d C u s t o m s 127
1.28.3 Circumcision and Pork 127
1.28.4 Israel and the N a t i o n s 129
Table of Contents IX
1.29 D o c t r i n e s 130
1.29.1 Purity, H e a v e n , and E l e c t i o n 131
1.29.2 The Worship of H e a v e n and A n g e l s 132
1.29.3 G o d Higher than H e a v e n 134
1.29.4 S e v e n H e a v e n s 135
1.29.5 Promises to the Jews: Population and Resurrection 136
1.30 Prophets and Prophecy 137
1.30.1 Jonah and D a n i e l 138
1.30.2 The Prophets as Inspired 138
1.30.3 Prophecy is not U n i q u e to Judaism 139
1.30.4 Celsus' Jewish Persona o n O l d Testament Prophecy
of a S o n of G o d 140
1.30.5 Celsus' Charges Against the Jews and Christians'
Belief in a Savior 141
1.31 Versus the Wrath of G o d 143
1.32 A Person's A n g e r with the Jews and God's A n g e r 145
1.33 Celsus o n the Jews' Current Status 146
1.34 G e n t i l e Proselytes to Judaism 147
1.35 Conclusion 148
2. Porphyry 150
2.1 R e m a r k s o n Judaism from Porphyry's Philosophy Drawn from
Oracles 151
2.1.1 T h e R o a d to the G o d s 152
2.1.2 S e v e n h e a v e n s 154
2.1.3 The Creator G o d of the H e b r e w s 155
2.1.4 The Transcendent S e c o n d G o d 157
2.2 Porphyry's Contra Christianos and Other Texts 159
2.2.1 Ε 1 of Porphyry's Against the Christians:
O n the M y t h o l o g i e s of the Jews 160
2.2.2 Against Allegorical Interpretation of the L X X 163
2.2.3 G e n 1:2 and Souls 167
2.2.4 G e n 2:7 and the Soul 169
2.2.5 E d e n 170
2.2.6 G e n 3:21: Garments of Skin 172
2.2.7 D r e a m s : Pythagoras and the H e b r e w s 173
2.2.8 T h e Chronology of M o s e s 174
2.2.9 M o s e s and the Egyptian Magicians 177
2.2.10 Ecclesiastes 4:8: D o e s G o d have a Son? 179
2.2.11 The Prophets Against Sacrifice? 180
2.2.12 Porphyry's Excerpt from Theophrastus o n Sacrifice 181
2.2.13 H o s e a ' s Marriage to a Prostitute 183
2.2.14 Jonah 185
2.2.15 Zechariah and A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s 187
2.2.16 D a n i e l 187
χ Table of Contents
2.2.16.1 Porphyry's Eastern Sources? 188

2.2.16.2 Porphyry's Cultural Identity and Language . . 191
2.2.16.3 The Western Sources 193
2.2.16.4 Jerome's K n o w l e d g e of Porphyry 196
2.2.16.5 The Twelfth V o l u m e of Porphyry's
Contra Christianos: A F o r e s e e n Future
is Impossible 197
2.2.16.6 S u s a n n a , T h e Language of D a n i e l ,
and Its Authenticity 200
2.2.16.7 Porphyry's and Jerome's Sources 203
2.2.16.8 D a n 2:35 205
2.2.16.9 D a n 2:46 208
2.2.16.10 D a n 2:48 209
2.2.16.11 D a n 3:98 209
2.2.16.12 D a n 5:10 210
2.2.16.13 D a n 7:7 and the Four Beasts 211
2.2.16.14 D a n 7:8,14. The Little H o r n and the S o n
of M a n 213
2.2.16.15 D a n 7:18 and the H o l y O n e s 216
2.2.16.16 The King in D a n 9:1 216
2.2.16.17 The A b o m i n a t i o n of the D e s o l a t i o n in
D a n 9:27 217
2.2.16.18 Jerome's U s e of Porphyry in D a n 11 219
2.2.16.19 The Kings of D a n 11:20 219
2.2.16.20 D a n 11:21: A n t i o c h u s or Antichrist? 221
2.2.16.21 D a n 11:25 and the Invasion of Egypt 224
2.2.16.22 D a n l l : 2 7 - 2 8 a and A n t i o c h u s 224
2.2.16.23 D a n l l : 2 8 b - 3 0 a : the Failure of A n t i o c h u s
or the Antichrist? 225
2.2.16.24 A n t i o c h u s Against Jerusalem and D a n 11:30b 226
2.2.16.25 D a n 11:31 and the A b o m i n a t i o n
of the D e s o l a t i o n 227
2.2.16.26 D a n 11:32 and the R e n e g a d e s 229
2.2.16.27 D a n 11:33 and the Sufferings of the Jews . . . . 229
2.2.16.28 T h e M a c c a b e e s and D a n 11:34-35 230
2.2.16.29 D a n 11:36: A n t i o c h u s or Antichrist
in the Temple? 231
2.2.16.30 D a n 11:37-39: The D e s i r e of W o m e n
and the G o d of M a o z i m 232
2.2.16.31 D a n l l : 4 0 - 4 1 a and an A l l e g e d Late Invasion
of Egypt by A n t i o c h u s 234
2.2.16.32 D a n 11:41b and a R e p r i e v e for Three N a t i o n s 235
2.2.16.33 D a n 11:42-43 o n Libya and Ethiopia 236
2.2.16.34 D a n 11:44-45: "Apedno," the Persians,
and Jerome's Summary of the A r g u m e n t . . . . 236
2.2.16.35 The Resurrection, the M a c c a b e e s and
D a n 12:1-3 240
Table of Contents XI
2.2.16.36 Dan 12:5-6 and the Time of the E n d 242

2.2.16.37 Dan 12:7a and Chronology 243
2.2.16.38 Dan 12:7b and the Scattering of God's P e o p l e 244
2.2.16.39 Dan 12:11 and the 1290 D a y s 245
2.2.16.40 Dan 12:12 and the Forty-Five days 245
2.2.16.41 Dan 12:13 and the Resurrection 246
2.3 Conclusion 247
3. Julian 248
3.1 The Language of the O T 251
3.2 The Incomplete Creation A c c o u n t 252
3.3 Genesis 1 254
3.4 Plato o n Creation of the Universe and of H u m a n s 256
3.5 T h e K n o w l e d g e of G o o d and Evil 258
3.6 A d a m and E v e 259
3.7 The Serpent's Language 260
3.8 Garments of Skins 262
3.9 Julian's Conclusion about the S e c o n d Creation Narrative 263
3.10 Myth and A l l e g o r y 264
3.11 Cain and A b e l 267
3.12 The Sons of G o d and the Daughters of H u m a n s 269
3.13 The Tower of Babel 271
3.14 B a b e l and the Difference in Customs of Nations 272
3.15 W h o H e l p e d G o d Confuse the Languages? 275
3.16 The G o d of A b r a h a m 275
3.17 A b r a h a m and Eleazar as Diviners 276
3.18 The Faith of A b r a h a m 278
3.19 The Covenant with A b r a h a m , Circumcision, and the Christians 279
3.20 G e n e s i s 49:10 and the Messiah 282
3.21 Israel and God's C h o s e n People, M o s e s and Pharaoh 283
3.22 Israel as God's Firstborn S o n 285
3.23 Slavery and the Jews 286
3.24 The Passover and the Christians 288
3.25 The D e c a l o g u e 289
3.26 God's Jealousy and Theological Language 291
3.27 God's V e n g e a n c e of the Fathers' Sins o n Children 293
3.28 Lev 7:20 and Christian Practice 294
3.29 Fire from H e a v e n ( L e v 9:24 and 1 Kgs 18:38) 295
3.30 Lev 11:3 and Christian D i e t 296
3.31 The A t o n e m e n t 298
3.32 Sin: D i d M o s e s and Jesus Take it Away? 300
3.33 N u m 24:17 and Jesus 301
3.34 P h i n e h a s ( N u m 25:1-11) 302
3.35 Phinehas or Greek Lawgivers and Philosophers? 305
3.36 M o s e s ' Cruelty 307
3.37 M o s e s and the P e r m a n e n c e of the Law 307
XII Table of Contents
3.38 M o s e s and M o n o t h e i s m in D e u t e r o n o m y 309

3.39 D e u t 6:13 Against Matt 28:19 310
3.40 A Prophet Like M o s e s 311
3.41 D e u t 32:9, E x o d 22:28, and the Christians' R e l a t i o n to Judaism
and H e l l e n i s m 312
3.42 D a v i d and S a m s o n 314
3.43 Solomon's Wisdom 315
3.44 Elijah's Sacrifice outside Jerusalem 317
3.45 T h e Fast of M o s e s , Elijah, and Jesus 318
3.46 Esdras (Ezra) and the Writings of M o s e s 319
3.47 A C o m m e n t o n Prophecy in The Letter to a Priest 320
3.48 Isaiah, Mary, and Johannine Christology 323
3.49 Mary, the Word of G o d , Isa 7:14, and D e u t 32:39 325
3.50 Incubation and Isa 65:4 326
3.51 H o s e a 11:1 and the U s e of Prophecy in the N T 327
3.52 Sacrifice and Jerusalem 327
3.53 Sacrifice in H e l l e n i s m , Judaism, and Christianity 329
3.54 Julian's Identification of the G o d of Israel 330
3.54.1 Julian's N e o - P l a t o n i c Triad 330
3.54.2 H e l i o s in the Contra Galilaeos 331
3.54.3 B e i n g s Superior to the G o d of Israel? 332
3.54.4 The H e b r e w s ' G o d is Confined 333
3.54.5 Creator G o d or Guardian? 334
3.54.6 The H e b r e w s ' G o d in the Pyramid Structure of
Polytheism 335
3.54.7 G o d and his Other N a m e s 336
3.54.8 G o d and Julian's R e i g n 337
3.54.9 Conclusion 338
3.55 The Gifts of the Jews: Prophets, Law, Manna, A n o i n t i n g Oil,
and Teachers 339
3.56 G o d ' s Care for Israel, Israel's Blessings, and the Blessings
of the G r e e k s 341
3.57 G r e e k s D e s e r t i n g to the Jews 343
3.58 Conclusion 344
Conclusion 345
Bibliography 351
A n c i e n t Sources 351
Scholarship 356
Indexes 368
G r e e k and Latin Literature 368
Old Testament 375
N e w Testament 382
A n c i e n t Jewish Literature 383
Table of Contents XIII
A n c i e n t Christian Literature 386

A n c i e n t Individuals 394
M o d e r n Authors 396
Subjects 397
Acknowledgements
For his e n c o u r a g e m e n t and frequent advice o n this project I thank Prof. Martin
H e n g e l . For accepting the work in his series Studien und Texte zu A n t i k e und
Christentum I thank Prof. Christoph Markschies. It has b e e n a pleasure to
k n o w and work with him. I am grateful to Mr. G e o r g Siebeck for publishing the
manuscript. Dr. H e n n i n g Ziebritzki and Mr. Matthias Spitzner of M o h r
Siebeck have m a d e the production of this work possible. M a n y have offered
m e helpful and critical comments. Prof. Giancarlo Rinaldi's work has b e e n an
inspiration. Dr. Richard Goulet's continual willingness to help has m a d e this
project m u c h easier. Others w h o have assisted include Prof. Timothy Barnes,
Prof. H a n s D i e t e r Betz, Prof. John J. Collins, Prof. John Finamore, Prof. John
Hayes, Prof. K a t h l e e n McVey, and Prof. Steven Strange. Their suggestions have
b e e n invaluable. I thank Prof. Vernon R o b b i n s for his bibliographical help -
without which this b o o k , like its c o m p a n i o n , would not have b e e n possible. I
thank L a G r a n g e C o l l e g e for awarding m e a Sabbatical L e a v e in 2001 to pursue
the project. I am grateful to President Stuart Gulley and D e a n Jay S i m m o n s
( L a G r a n g e C o l l e g e ) for providing m e with the opportunity to d o this work. Dr.
Arthur R o b i n s o n , longsuffering librarian at the college, has b e e n invaluable in
procuring sources for me. I thank the librarians of the Special Collection at
S e w a n e e for making the A s s e m a n i edition of E p h r a e m available to me. M y
students offer continuing inspiration in understanding the Bible's interaction
with ancient culture. They have also h e l p e d with numerous clerical tasks. Prof.
Sam H o r n s b y has b e e n an endless font of editorial wisdom. The errors are m y
own.
The G r e e k font used (Graeca) is from Linguist's Software, P O B o x 580, E d

monds, W A 98020, U S A . 425-775-1130. www.linguistsoftware.com
Introduction
The Septuagint's Reception in the Greco-Roman World
W h i l e writing The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman

Paganism it b e c a m e apparent that the pagan authors w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h the
Christians' e x t e n s i v e u s e o f the O l d T e s t a m e n t to support and understand
1
their faith . I also realized that I could not include m u c h o f the O T material in
the book. There w i l l inevitably b e s o m e overlap b e t w e e n the t w o b o o k s , but I
w i l l n o t repeat all o f the introductory material c o n c e r n i n g t h e authors
t h e m s e l v e s and their w o r k s . T h i s monograph will survey the r e s p o n s e s to the
2
O T literature in C e l s u s (II C.E.), Porphyry (III C.E.), and Julian (IV C E . ) .
I h a v e intentionally adopted the term "Old T e s t a m e n t " in the title e v e n
3
though that is a specifically Christian n a m e for the scriptures o f Israel . M o r e
4
academically neutral terms such as "First Testament" or "Hebrew B i b l e " are
not as relevant to m y project b e c a u s e it w a s the advent o f Christianity that
s e e m s to h a v e finally generated a c l o s e reading o f the O T o n the part o f pagan
5
intellectuals . S u c h a j u d g m e n t can only b e based on the extant sources. It is
1
J. G. COOK, The Interpretation of the N e w Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, S T A C
3, ed. C. MARKSCHIES, Tubingen 2000.
2
Still of importance is the survey of E. STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik in der
spathellenistischen Bibelkritik, L w o w 1935 (offprint of the article that originally appeared in
Collectanea Theologica Societatis Theologorum Polonorum 1 6 , 1 9 3 5 , 38-83).
3
See, for example, Melito of Sardis (II C E . ) apud Eus., H.E. 4.26.14 (the books of the
Old Testament; τ ά τ η ς π α λ α ι ά ς διαθήκης βιβλία), Origen, D e Princ. 3.1.16 (Origenis de
principiis libri IV, Texte zur Forschung 2 4 , ed. and trans. H. GORGEMANNS/H. KARPP,
Darmstadt 1976, 224,11 [p. 5 2 0 , the editors use KOETSCHAU'S page and line numbers in the
margins, and I will include their o w n page numbers in brackets]), Clement Alex., Strom.
3.6.54.4, 4.21.134.2 (GCS Clemens Alex. II, 221,15; 307,32 STAHLIN/FROCHTEL). 2 Cor
3:14 has similar language.
4
E v e n this term is too c l o s e to Heb 9:15 to be "neutral" b e t w e e n Judaism and
Christianity.
5
J. FREUDENTHAL, Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judaischer und
samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, Hellenistische Studien 1-2, Breslau, 1875, 180 remarks
with regard to Celsus and Julian that it was Christianity's struggle against paganism that led
all e y e s to look at the B i b l e which was Christianity's foundation. W. NESTLE, Die
Haupteinwande des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum, A R W 37, 1941 ( 5 1 - 1 0 0 ) 59
makes the important point that Christians like Justin derived the entire life of Jesus from the
2 Introduction
p o s s i b l e that the G r e e k translation o f the O T ( S e p t u a g i n t , L X X ) w a s read

e x t e n s i v e l y b e f o r e Christianity, but the e v i d e n c e is not a v a i l a b l e at this time.
A r g u m e n t s f r o m s i l e n c e are n o t o r i o u s l y d a n g e r o u s . The evidence may have
6
b e e n l o s t d u e to any n u m b e r o f r e a s o n s .
V i c t o r T c h e r i k o v e r t o o k this p o s i t i o n h a l f a c e n t u r y a g o : "The fact,
h o w e v e r , i s that the translation o f the H o l y Scriptures i n t o G r e e k m a d e n o
impression w h a t e v e r in t h e G r e e k w o r l d , s i n c e i n t h e w h o l e of Greek
literature there i s n o i n d i c a t i o n that the G r e e k s read the B i b l e b e f o r e the
7
Christian p e r i o d . " T h e r e are s o m e e x c e p t i o n s to the rule as L o u i s F e l d m a n
8
has p o i n t e d o u t . I w i l l briefly survey t h o s e e x c e p t i o n s in this introduction.
T o round o u t the picture I w i l l a l s o c o n s i d e r the q u e s t i o n o f O T traditions in
9
m a g i c a l t e x t s and in the H e r m e t i c literature . T h e f a s c i n a t i n g r e f e r e n c e s in
rabbinic literature to certain C y n i c p h i l o s o p h e r s ( w h o are a w a r e o f biblical
10
traditions) w i l l not appear in the f o l l o w i n g s u r v e y .
OT. S e e Justin, Apol. 1.30.1 (PTS 3 8 , 76,1-7 MARCOVICH) and the entire Dialogue with
Trypho including Dial. 2 9 . 2 , 4 0 . 1 - 4 1 . 4 (PTS 4 7 , 116,10-2; 1 3 6 , 1 - 1 3 8 , 2 6 MARCOVICH).
Consequently the critics had to read the OT.
6
Could the texts (left by pre-Christian readers of the L X X ) have been destroyed due to
the revolt o f 115-17 in Egypt (a conjecture of Prof. HENGEL in a personal letter)? Most of the
(pagan) Greek literature concerning the Jews written between IV B.C.E. to II C.E. has been
lost, as a glance at F. JACOBY'S FGrH will show.
7
V. TCHERIKOVER, Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered, E o s 4 8 , 1956, (169-93)
177. H e refers to previous authors such as W. BOUSSET, D i e Religion des Judentums, H N T
3
2 1 , ed. H. GRESSMANN, Tubingen, 1926 , 4 3 7 (the L X X was not read in literate circles, but
was possibly used for propaganda among people visiting synagogues) / Η. B. SWETE, A n
2
Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914 , 2 2 . A. D . NOCK has a similar
view also (Conversion: The Old and the N e w in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo, Oxford 1933, 7 9 ) . NOCK'S judgement is shared by A. M. A. HOSPERS-
JANSEN, Tacitus over de Joden, Groningen 1949, 6 8 - 9 . L. FELDMAN discusses the issue in
Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World. Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to
Justinian, Princeton 1993, 311-12. M. STERN, The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature, in:
The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. S. S A F R A I / M . S T E R N , CRINT, V o l . II,
Philadelphia 1976, (1101-59) 1139 argues that the L X X had "little effect on Greek literature."
A general discussion can be found in G. DORIVAL, La Bible des Septante chez les auteurs
pai'ens (jusqu'au Pseudo-Longin), in: Lectures anciennes de la Bible, Cahiers de la Biblia
patristica 1, Strasbourg 1987, 9-26 / C. AziZA, L'utilisation polemique du recit de l'Exode
chez des ecrivains alexandrins, A N R W 11.20.1, 1 9 9 7 , 4 1 - 6 5 .
8
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 311-14.
9
In his discussion o f the ancient world's knowledge o f the L X X , H. J. C A D B U R Y
mentions the case of Ps. Longinus, On the Sublime 9.9 (to be discussed below) as the "single
exception that 'proves the rule'." He concludes: "The influence of the L X X is probably first
manifest in less literary circles, as in the Corpus Hermeticum and in the magical papyri"
2
(Septuagint, O C D , 978-79).
1 0
For A b n i m o s ( w h o is probably Oenomaus o f Gadara) s e e M. L u z , Oenomaus and
Talmudic Anecdote, JSJ 2 3 , 1992, 4 2 - 8 0 / Idem, A Description o f the Greek Cynic in the
Jerusalem Talmud, JSJ 2 0 , 1989, 49-60 / Idem, Abnimos, Nimos, and Oenomaus: A Note,
The Septuagint's Reception in the Greco-Roman World 3
Patristic writers c a m e to c a l l the G r e e k translation o f the O T the

"Septuagint" since according to the Letter ofAristeas s e v e n t y - t w o translators
had p r o d u c e d a G r e e k v e r s i o n o f the first f i v e b o o k s under P r o l e m y II
11
Philadelphus ( 2 8 2 - 2 4 6 B . C . E . ) . M o d e r n scholars h a v e j u d g e d the letter to
be largely a matter o f l e g e n d , but h a v e retained the date o f P t o l e m y II for the
translation o f the Pentateuch. H e n g e l notes that a Christian author first u s e d
"Septuagint" for the s e v e n t y (-two) translators in reference to this c o l l e c t i o n
12
of writings . O n e c a n c o n c l u d e f r o m the Letter of Aristeas that the
Pentateuch w a s translated at s o m e t i m e during P t o l e m y I P s reign, perhaps
towards the m i d d l e o f the third century ( B . C . E . ) . T h e rest o f the d o c u m e n t s
1 3
w e r e probably translated b y the end o f the first century ( C E . ) . T h e letter
itself contains an interesting if legendary explanation o f the si l en ce o f Greek
literature c o n c e r n i n g the L X X . T h e librarian o f A l e x a n d r i a , D e m e t r i u s ,
answers P t o l e m y I P s question concerning w h y the Greek historians and poets
d o not m e n t i o n the L X X : " B e c a u s e the legislation w a s h o l y and had c o m e
from G o d , and i n d e e d , s o m e o f those w h o m a d e the attempt w e r e smitten by
14
G o d , and refrained f r o m their d e s i g n . " T w o e x a m p l e s o f unfortunate
G r e e k s are the historian T h e o p o m p u s and the p o e t T h e o d e c t e s (both I V
15
B . C . E . ) . W h i l e o n e cannot attribute m u c h historical value to this statement
it d o e s s h o w the author's o w n understanding of the lack o f awareness o f the
L X X o n the part o f the ancient world.
JQR 77, 1986-7, 191-5. I thank RICHARD GOULET for the reference to Abnimos. Whatever
the historical value o f the Rabbinic anecdotes, they show how the "Cynic-type was
conceived" during the period. See LUZ, Oenomaus, 52.
1 1
Ep. Arist. 10, 309. See the edition: Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate (SC 89, 104, 2 3 2
PELLETIER).
12
J o s e p h u s , Antiq. 12.56, 57 mentions seventy-two translators and then reduces the
number to seventy. Cf. M . HENGEL/with the assistance of R. DEINES, Die Septuaginta als
„christliche Schriftensammlung", ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons, in: Die
Septuaginta zwischen Judentum und Christentum, ed. M . HENGEL/A. M . SCHWEMER, W U N T
72, Tubingen 1994, (182-284) 187-8. See Justin, Dial. 68.7, 124,3 ( 1 8 8 , 5 0 - 5 1 ; 285,14-5
MARC.).
1 3
HENGEL, D i e Septuaginta, 183-4. A. RAHLFS argues that most of the OT was translated
towards the end of the second century B.C.E. Cf. History of the Septuagint Text, in:
Septuaginta, Stuttgart 1935, (LVI-LXV) LVI. He appeals to Sirach, Prologue, in support of
this position. Cp. the similar position in HENGEL, Idem, 244-51.
1 4
Ep. ad Arist. 312-13 (234 PELL.). ET from OTP II, 33. Demetrius was not actually the
librarian of Ptolemy II with whom he had had a falling out. See PELLETIER, Lettre, 66-70 / C.
R. HOLLADAY, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume III. Aristobulus, SBLTT
39, Pseudepigrapha Series 13, Atlanta 1995, III, 213 n.70.
1 5
Ep. ad Arist. 314-16 (234-36 PELL.).
4 Introduction
0.1 Hecataeus ofAbdera (ca 300 B.C.E.)
Exceptions can certainly be found to Tcherikover's generalization in

1 6
M e n a h e m S t e r n ' s c o l l e c t i o n o f G r e c o - R o m a n authors w h o refer t o the J e w s .
O n e o f t h e first authors t o w r i t e an a c c o u n t o f the J e w s w a s H e c a t a e u s o f
1 7
A b d e r a w h o l i v e d during the t i m e o f A l e x a n d e r t h e Great a n d P t o l e m y I .
Stern c a l l s attention t o o n e o f H e c a t a e u s ' statements d e s c r i b i n g the practices
o f the J e w s : " A t the e n d o f the l a w s (τοις νόμοις em TeXexrrfjs) is a d d e d
the s t a t e m e n t that ' M o s e s w h e n h e heard t h e s e t h i n g s f r o m G o d told t h e m to
1 8
the J e w s ' " ( Μ ω σ ή ς άκουσας* τ ο υ 0eou τάδε Xeyei τοις Ίουδαίοις) .
A l t h o u g h this is n o t a direct q u o t e f r o m the L X X — w h i c h probably d i d n o t
e x i s t y e t — it is c l o s e e n o u g h to texts s u c h as L e v 2 6 : 4 6 , 2 7 : 3 4 , N u m 3 6 : 1 3
and D e u t 3 2 : 4 4 that o n e w o n d e r s i f t h e author w a s a w a r e o f the b i b l i c a l
19
tradition . John G a g e r n o t e s that the A l e x a n d r i a n J e w s m i g h t h a v e h a d s o m e
informal Greek translations that Hecataeus heard orally from Jewish
20
acquaintances . It s e e m s i m p o s s i b l e t o demonstrate here that H e c a t a e u s had
1 6
M. STERN, ed., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. I, From Herodotus
to Plutarch, Jerusalem 1974; Vol. II, From Tacitus to Simplicius, Jerusalem 1980; Vol. Ill,
Appendixes and Indexes, Jerusalem 1984. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 3 1 2 lists several of
the most important exceptions.
1 7
On Hecataeus see G. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani. I. Quadro storico, La Bibbia nella
storia 19, Bologna 1998. La Bibbia dei pagani. II. Testi e Documenti, La Bibbia nella storia
20, B o l o g n a 1 9 9 8 , I, 7 1 n.126 / STERN I, 20-5 / J. G. GAGER, M o s e s in Greco-Roman
Paganism, N a s h v i l l e / N e w York 1 9 7 3 , 26-37 / J. C. D A R O C A / P P. F. GONZALEZ, Hecatee
d'Abdere, Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, ed. R. GOULET, Vol. 3 , Paris 1989, 505-25.
1 8
STERN I, § 11 = Diod. Sic. 40.3.6. Cf. DAROCA/GONZALEZ, Hecatee, 512-3, 5 t 8 - 2 0
w h o argue for an interpretation which recognizes the ambivalent attitude o f Hecataeus
towards the Jews.
1 9
S T E R N , T h e Jews, 1106 believes that Hecataeus' comment is "an almost direct
quotation from the Bible."
2 0
GAGER, Moses, 32. Some (admittedly questionable) support for this hypothesis can be
found in Ep. Arist. 3 0 (118-20, PELL.) which may imply the existence o f some Greek versions
that were in competition with the LXX. On the question (with much bibliography) see R. J.
H. SHUTT'S note in OTP I, 14. G. ZUNTZ shows that the text in no way proves the existence
of pre-LXX translations. See Idem, Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas o n the Translation of the
Torah, in: Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, ed. S.
JELLICOE, N e w York 1974, 2 0 8 - 2 2 5 (= JSS 4 , 1959). PELLETIER (Lettre, 118 n.3) in his
comment on the text, is in agreement with ZUNTZ. H e calls attention, however, to another
(probably legendary) statement by Aristobulus that there existed translations of the exodus,
the conquest, and the laws before the translation in Demetrius' time. A . implies that Plato
and Pythagoras used such a translation. Cf. Aristobulus F. 3a = Clem. Alex., Strom.
1.22.150.1-3 (HOLLADAY, Fragments, III, 150,1-154,43; see also HOLLADAY's remarks in III,
67-8, 215). Ε. Τ ο ν argues that one can accept the existence o f a translation of most texts in
the O T prior to the L X X translation in: D i e griechischen Bibelubersetzungen, ANRW
I I . 2 0 . 1 , 1 9 9 7 , ( 1 2 1 - 8 9 ) 132-33.
a direct k n o w l e d g e o f an O T text, although he clearly had a g o o d source. H i s

reference to "the e n d o f the l a w s " is the first appearance in extant Greek
literature of a reference to the B i b l e and probably is a kind o f title — like the
later m e n t i o n o f the l a w and the prophets that appears in texts s u c h as the
21
Prologue to S i r a c h . It w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e in the ancient w o r l d that certain
l a w g i v e r s r e c e i v e d their l a w s from a divinity, and Hecataeus m a y be m e r e l y
22
v i e w i n g M o s e s in that p e r s p e c t i v e . H e c a t a e u s w a s aware o f an e x o d u s
tradition through his informants although it is again not p o s s i b l e to s h o w that
h e had a Greek version o f the b o o k — if such e v e n existed before that o f the
L X X . In brief, a c c o r d i n g to his version, there w a s a p l a g u e in E g y p t and
foreigners are b l a m e d . A m o n g the foreigners e x p e l l e d f r o m E g y p t w e r e
certain individuals sent to Judaea w h o s e leader w a s M o s e s . B e c a u s e o f their
expulsion from Egypt, M o s e s introduced a misanthropic and inhospitable w a y
o f life. H e f o u n d e d the t e m p l e , established the d i v i s i o n o f the p e o p l e into
t w e l v e tribes, and appointed priests to j u d g e the p e o p l e ( D e u t 19:17, 2 1 : 5 ) .
H e a l l o w e d n o i m a g e s o f the g o d s and b e l i e v e d that H e a v e n is g o d . Moses
a l s o d i v i d e d the land into equal shares for c o m m o n p e o p l e and g a v e the
23
priests a greater a l l o c a t i o n . T h e c o m m o n e r s cannot sell their land ( L e v
24
2 5 : 1 3 ) . H e c a t a e u s ' a c c o u n t probably reflects the situation in p o s t e x i l i c
25
Israel w h e r e land o w n e r s h i p w a s a great c o n c e r n . T h e p e o p l e a l s o must
26
raise their children ( i m p l y i n g n o infanticide) . There are inaccuracies in his
account of Israelite origins from the perspective o f the biblical tradition (e.g.
M o s e s g i v e s the legislation in Judaea w h i c h he never set foot in according to
the B i b l e ) . H o w e v e r , w h a t is undeniable is the fact that H e c a t a e u s had a
2 7
Jewish source — o n e that w a s ultimately based o n the O T .
2 1
Sir, Prol. 24-5: "the law and the prophets and the other scrolls."
2 2
See § 1.28.3. See also Diodorus and Strabo below (§ 0 . 7 , 0 . 9 ) .
2 3
See Num 35, Josh 21 for priestly cities. They (priests and Levites) have no land
according to Deut 10:9, 12:12, 18:1 and Num 18:24. GAGER, Moses, 33 calls attention to
Ezek 48:8-14 where priests receive allotments of land.
2 4
STERN I, § 11 = Diod. Sic. 40.3.1-7. Diodorus also writes that the Egyptians colonized
the nation of the Jews (with voluntary colonists) in 1.28.2 = STERN I, § 55. GAGER, Moses
28-29 notes that one can attribute the earlier version to Hecataeus also.
2 5
STERN 1,32 / GAGER, Moses, 33.
2 6
See Tacitus b e l o w ( § 0 . 1 1 ) and S T E R N II, 41 on the practice in antiquity and its
rejection by the Christian apologists such as Tert., Apol. 9.8 (CChr.SL 1, 103,31-6 DEKKERS)
and Min. Felix, Oct. 30.2 (BiTeu 29,5-8 KYTZLER).
2 7
This is also the conclusion of DORIVAL, La Bible, 12 who hypothesizes a Jewish
informant that summarized Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers for Hecataeus. Cp. DAROCA/
GONZALEZ, Hecatee, 5 1 9 - 2 0 who note that Hecataeus' text does not imply the existence of a
translation of Jewish texts prior to the LXX, but it is nevertheless a response to Jewish texts.
6 Introduction
0.2 Manetho (III B.C.E.)
A figure w h o p r e s e n t s n u m e r o u s literary d i f f i c u l t i e s i s the E g y p t i a n author

M a n e t h o w h o l i v e d as a priest in H i e r a p o l i s during the era o f P t o l e m y I and
28
I I . T h e t w o m a i n e x c e r p t s o f his w o r k that deal w i t h the J e w s are s o m e t i m e s
2 9
s e p a r a t e d i n t o v a r i o u s strands o f a M a n e t h o and P s . M a n e t h o . F o r the
p u r p o s e s o f this introduction I w i l l p r o v i s i o n a l l y a c c e p t S t e r n ' s and C l a u d e
3 0
A z i z a ' s j u d g m e n t that b o t h f r a g m e n t s are g e n u i n e . In t h e first f r a g m e n t
M a n e t h o d e s c r i b e s an i n v a s i o n o f E g y p t b y the S h e p h e r d s ( H y k s o s ) w h o m
J o s e p h u s e q u a t e s w i t h the Israelites ( C . A p . 1.91) — an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n that
Manetho probably also made. In t h e s e c o n d t e x t , J o s e p h u s w r i t e s that
M a n e t h o , b y h i s o w n a d m i s s i o n , records m y t h s and talk c o n c e r n i n g the J e w s
3 1
(τά μυθευόμενα και λεγόμενα περί των Ιουδαίων) . A pharaoh,
3 2
A m e n o p h i s , w a n t s to s e e the g o d s . A seer tells h i m that h e c a n o n l y d o that
if E g y p t is c l e a n s e d o f lepers and other polluted p e o p l e . T h e E g y p t i a n lepers
are put in s t o n e quarries. T h e y are later a l l o w e d to m o v e t o an o l d S h e p h e r d
33
c i t y ( A v a r i s ) and a p p o i n t a priest o f H i e r a p o l i s ( O s a r s i p h ) as their l e a d e r .
H e c o m m a n d s t h e m n o t t o w o r s h i p the g o d s or to abstain f r o m eating any o f
2 8
AziZA, L'utilisation, 48 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 7 0 n.127.
2 9
STERN I, § 19 = Jos., C. Ap. 1.73-91; STERN I, § 21 = C. A p . 1.228-52. Manetho
becomes a legendary magician in the magical papyri. S e e P G M III, 4 4 0 ; XIII, 2 3 and H. D .
BETZ, T h e Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, including the D e m o t i c Spells,
Chicago/London 1986, 30 n . 9 2 , 1 7 2 n.8.
3 0
STERN I, 6 3 - 4 / AziZA, L'utilisation, 5 3 - 5 . Cf. also E. SCHURER, The History of the
Jewish People in the A g e of Jesus Christ (175 B . C . — A . D . 135), ed. and rev. G. VERMES/F.
MILLAR/M. GOODMAN, Vols. 1-3, Edinburgh 1986, III/l, 5 9 6 . P. SCHAFER argues that the
equation o f Osarsiph and Moses is secondary (Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the
Ancient World, Cambridge, Mass./London 1997, 19).
3 1
J o s . , C . A p . 1.229.
3 2
It is an interesting coincidence that the Oracle of the Potter is addressed to Pharaoh
Amenophis. In it hated foreigners (the belt-wearers), w h o have oppressed Egypt, are finally
punished. When a messianic king comes from the Sun (or east) those w h o have died ask to
rise to take part in the blessings. The sun which has been darkened during the time of the evil
doers (probably the Greeks) will shine again when it brings punishment to the evil. S e e P.
Oxy. XXII, 2 3 3 2 / L. ΚΟΕΝΕΝ, D i e Prophezeihungen des Topfers, Z P E 2, 1968, 178-209.
References are to P (Oxy.) col. 3, 6 3 - 7 1 , P (Rainer), col. 2, 47-55 (207-8 KOENEN). On the
3 2
text cf. M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine in the
Hellenistic Period, Vols. 1-2, Philadelphia 1 9 7 4 , 1 , 1 8 4 - 5 .
3 3
Other authors w h o identify Moses as a priest are: Pompeius Trogus (STERN I, § 137 =
Justinus, Hist. Philip. 36, Epit. 2.16); Strabo 16.2.35 (STERN I, § 115); Chaeremon apud Jos.,
C. A p . 1.290 ( S T E R N I, § 178). H e is closely associated with Egyptian priests in the
Hellenistic Jewish author Artapanus, F. 3 = Eus, P. E. 9.27.4, 6 (C. R. HOLLADAY, Fragments
from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume I. Historians, SBLTT 2 0 , Pseudepigrapha Series
10, Chico, C A 1 9 8 3 , 1 , 210,3-5.10-13). Cp. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 5 2 2 n.67.
the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d a n i m a l s ( E x o d 2 0 : 3 - 6 ; c p . L e v 11, 18:3). He also

d e m a n d s that t h e y o n l y a s s o c i a t e w i t h their o w n kind. W i t h the h e l p o f the
S h e p h e r d s t h e y c o n q u e r E g y p t , burn t e m p l e s , and roast the s a c r e d a n i m a l s .
T h e y are later e x p e l l e d t o Syria. M a n e t h o (or P s . M a n e t h o ) e q u a t e s O s a r s i p h
w i t h M o s e s , but q u a l i f i e s the statement in the f o l l o w i n g w a y : "it i s s a i d that
the priest w h o s e t d o w n their p o l i t y and l a w s w a s O s a r s i p h o f H i e r a p o l i s . . .
3 4
w h o later c h a n g e d h i s n a m e to M o s e s . " D . M e n d e l s a r g u e s that M a n e t h o
" . . . attempts to refute the J e w i s h v e r s i o n o f the E x o d u s w h i c h w a s p r o b a b l y
35
p u b l i s h e d at the t i m e in G r e e k . " W h i l e this c o n c l u s i o n i s t o o strong, it is
difficult n o t to b e l i e v e that M a n e t h o h a d a J e w i s h informant — p r o b a b l y an
oral a n d n o t a w r i t t e n s o u r c e . T h e L X X w a s a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y later than
M a n e t h o (but n o t later than the p r o p o s e d P s . M a n e t h o ) . A z i z a a l s o finds it
l i k e l y that in M a n e t h o ' s t i m e a n d b e f o r e there w a s an a n c i e n t Egyptian
36
v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s that w a s a r e s p o n s e t o the J e w i s h f o r m o f the s t o r y .
T h e E g y p t i a n s suffer the p l a g u e o f a skin d i s e a s e in E x o d 9 : 8 - 1 2 , and in the
3 4
Jos., C. A p . 1.250. According to AziZA (L'utilisation, 53-4) an interpolator would not
have written "it is said" to identify Osarsiph and M o s e s , but w o u l d have made the
identification without any qualifications. The full account is in STERN I, § 21 = C. Ap. 1.228-
52. HENGEL identifies Osarsiph with Joseph (Judaism, II, 176-77). Cp. STERN I, 85 w h o
notes that possibly Io (the Jewish God) was removed from Joseph's name and replaced with
Osiris.
3 5
D . M E N D E L S , T h e Polemical Character o f Manetho's Aegyptiaca, in: Purposes of
t h n d
History. Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4 to the 2 Centuries B.C. Proceedings
of the International Colloquium Leuven, 24-26 May 1988, ed. H. VERDIN/G. SCHEPENS/E. DE
KEYSER, Studia Hellenistica 3 0 , Louvain 1990 (91-110) 108-09. H e refers to a study by A.
KASHER, The Propaganda Purposes of Manetho's Libellous Story about the Base Origin of
the Jews, in: Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel, Vol. 3 , ed. B.
ODED et al., Haifa 1974, 69-84 (in Hebrew). KASHER argues that Manetho sought to counter
the Ptolemaic interest in Israel's Law (and the likely tarnishing of the image of Egypt in the
exodus tradition) by attacking the Jews with a set of calumnies (in 7 2 - 3 he argues for the
authenticity of Manetho's text in Josephus). GAGER is probably correct in holding that there
were ancient Egyptian stories in which invaders (Hyksos, Syrians, etc.) devastated Egypt and
were later driven out by hero-kings. This account then later was given Jewish features. Cf.
GAGER, M o s e s , 116 / P. W . VAN DER H O R S T , Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic
Philosopher, Leiden 1 9 8 4 , 4 9 n . l . Nevertheless the Egyptian writers had to have Jewish
informants or sources to be able to reformulate the stories in accord with Exodus. Cp.
GAGER, M o s e s , 116 n.6 on the argument that Hecataeus fused "Egyptian and Jewish
elements."
3 6
AziZA, L'utilisation, 4 6 , 53-4. He also calls attention to C. A p . 1.251 where Josephus
mentions after Manetho's account that "the Egyptians tell these things about the Jews."
STERN, The Jews, 1114 is willing to argue that the Jewish version of the exodus could "have
been circulated in s o m e form or other earlier" than the L X X in Egypt. HOSPERS-JANSEN,
Tacitus over de Joden, 35-6, 119 appears to approve Josephus' claim that Manetho responded
to the Jewish version o f the exodus with his o w n account. Manetho did not make the
identification of Osarsiph with Moses, however, according to HOSPERS-JANSEN.
8 Introduction
Egyptian v e r s i o n the J e w s t h e m s e l v e s suffer from leprosy. A z i z a thinks that

the E g y p t i a n s h a v e reversed the story. In E x o d u s M o s e s is a H e b r e w w h o
b e c o m e s an Egyptian prince, w h i l e in the Egyptian tradition h e is an Egyptian
w h o b e c o m e s leader o f the H e b r e w s ( E x o d 2 : 5 - 1 0 ) . T h e l a w s o f M o s e s
37
(Osarsiph) are reminiscent o f the D e c a l o g u e . M a n e t h o probably felt s o m e
38
je alousy towards the favors e n j o y e d b y the J e w s under P t o l e m y I and I I .
03 Ocellus Lucanus (II B.C.E.)
Philo k n o w s the Pythagorean O c e l l u s o f Lucania in Southern Italy and refers

to h i m in his discourse o n the eternity o f the universe ( D e aetern. 12) for the
v i e w that the w o r l d is uncreated and indestructible. In the fourth chapter of
O c e l l u s ' o w n w o r k On the Nature of the Universe, h e includes a d i s c u s s i o n o f
the o r i g i n o f h u m a n k i n d . T h e date o f the treatise m a y b e II B . C . E . or I
39
B . C . E . . T h e p u r p o s e o f h u m a n s e x u a l i t y is n o t for p l e a s u r e but for
generation:
Reflecting on these things first, it is not necessary to approach sexual pleasures like
irrational animals, but to accept as necessary and g o o d what g o o d people think is
necessary and g o o d — namely that houses will not only be filled with inhabitants and
40
most of earth's area will be filled (τον π λ ε ί ο ν α τχ\ς γης· τ ό π ο ν πληρουσθοα ), (for
the human is the most civilized and best living being of all) but what is the greatest thing,
41
that they will abound in good p e o p l e .
G e n 1:28 has "increase and g r o w in number and fill the earth" ( α ύ ξ ά ν β σ θ ε

και ττληθύνεσθέ και π λ η ρ ώ σ α τ ε τ η ν γ ή ν ) . Harder and Sterij argue that
42
there is a reference to G e n 1:28 in O c e l l u s . It w o u l d not b e astonishing for a
G r e c o - R o m a n researcher to find a Pentateuch in a nearby ghetto, according to
3 7
AZIZA, L'utilisation, 54.
3 8
AziZA, L'utilisation, 55. GAGER, Moses, 118 dates Ps. Manetho to 4 0 C.E. - the era of
Apion and Chaeremon's version of the exodus. That was also a time of conflict between
Jews and Gentiles.
3 9
STERN I, 131-32 / R. HARDER, Ocellus Lucanus — Text und Kommentar, Berlin 1926,
31, 149 / H. DORRIE, Pythagoreismus, PRE X X I V , 1963 (268-77) 2 7 2 / FELDMAN, Jew and
2
Gentile, 2 0 4 , 3 1 2 / W. D . R O S S , Ocellus, O C D , 745 / H. DORRIE, Okellus, KP IV, 1972,
270.
4 0
The verb stands only in the Marcianus 263 M S . HARDER, Ocellus, 128 defends the
reading as likely given the context.
4 1
Ocellus Lucanus, D e universi natura 4 6 (22,14-20 HARDER) = STERN, I § 40 = H.
THESLEFF, The Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period, Abo 136,4-9 / RINALDI, La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, 78. Author's ET.
4 2
HARDER, Ocellus, 128- 32 / STERN I, 131 / R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians,
Oxford 1949, 2 2 / Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 204, 312.
4 3
Harder — g i v e n their o w n interest in barbarian l a w s . T h e c o n t e x t s in
G e n e s i s and in O c e l l u s are similar since both are referring to the call o f G o d
44
to humanity to procreate. O n the other hand this c o u l d all b e c o i n c i d e n c e .
It i s , h o w e v e r , p o s s i b l e that O c e l l u s w a s aware o f J e w i s h tradition. Other
philosophers w e r e aware o f Judaism. S o m e Peripatetic philosophers such as
Theophrastus ( I V B . C . E . ) and Clearchus w e r e very s y m p a t h e t i c t o w a r d s
Judaism. After a d i s c u s s i o n o f the differences b e t w e e n J e w i s h and Greek
sacrifice (the J e w s burn the sacrifices and s o d o not c o n s u m e t h e m like the
G r e e k s ) , T h e o p h r a s t u s c a l l s the J e w s "a p e o p l e w h o are p h i l o s o p h e r s
(φιλόσοφοι τ ό γένος ovres)." T h e y speak with each other about the divine
45
and at night o b s e r v e the s t a r s . Clearchus (IV B.C.E.) creates an account in
w h i c h Aristotle m e e t s a J e w w h o not o n l y speaks Greek but " w h o has the
p s y c h e (or spirit, s o u l ψ υ χ ή ) o f a Greek." Aristotle also admires the J e w s '
"amazing perseverance" ( θ α υ μ ά σ ι ο ν κ α ρ τ ε ρ ί α ν ) and prudence
( σ ω φ ρ ο σ ύ ν η ν ) . T h e ancestors o f the J e w s are Indian philosophers according
46
to C l e a r c h u s ' A r i s t o t l e . H e r m i p p u s ( 2 0 0 B . C . E . ) traces the o r i g i n s o f
47
Pythagoras' p h i l o s o p h y to the J e w s . T h e s e o p i n i o n s o n the relationships
b e t w e e n the J e w s and the philosophers such as Aristotle and Pythagoras s h o w
that O c e l l u s c o u l d h a v e b e e n drawn to G e n e s i s . Proof is lacking s i n c e the
e v i d e n c e is s o slender, but o n e c a n assert that O c e l l u s m a y h a v e k n o w n
G e n e s i s in its L X X version.
0.4 Lysimachus
A v i r u l e n t l y a n t i - J e w i s h v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s appears in the writer

L y s i m a c h u s w h o m a y h a v e l i v e d in the s e c o n d or first century B . C . E . and
4 3
HARDER, Ocellus, 131.
4 4
DORIVAL, La Bible, 17-9 argues against Ocellus' use of Genesis.
4 5
STERN I, § 4 = Porphyry, D e abst. 2.26.
4 6
STERN I, § 15 = Jos., C. Ap. 1.176-83. On the Jews as a nation of philosophers see the
comments in J. GAGER, The Origins of Anti-Semitism. Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan
and Christian Antiquity, N e w York/Oxford 1983, 39, 69, 74, 76. SCHURER, History, III/l, 17
accepts the authenticity of the reported meeting between Aristotle and the Jew. Megasthenes
(ca 300 B.C.E.) also compares the Brahman philosophers of India with the Jews, both being
philosophers outside of Greece (STERN I, § 14 = Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.15.72.5). Numenius
also includes the Jews along with his reference to Brahmans, Magi, and Egyptians as a source
of Pythagoras (STERN II, §364a = F. l a DES PLACES).
4 7
STERN, I § 25 = Jos., C. Ap. 1.162-65; § 26 = Origen, C. Cels. 1.15. See also § 2.2.7.
Aristobulus (F. 3a = Clem. Alex., Strom. 1.22.150.1-3 [III, 150,1-154,43 HOLLADAY]) and
Josephus believe Pythagoras was dependent on Moses' understanding of God (C. Ap. 2.167-
68).
10 Introduction
48
w h o w a s p r o b a b l y from E g y p t . A c c o r d i n g to h i m , during the r e i g n o f
Pharaoh B o c c h o r i s , the J e w s w h o had leprosy, s c a b i e s , and other d i s e a s e s
b e g g e d in t e m p l e s . W h e n the crops began to fail, the oracle o f A m m o n told
the k i n g to d r o w n the lepers and t h o s e with scabies and to drive the others
49
into the w i l d e r n e s s . In the w i l d e r n e s s at night they light fires and torches,
fast, and ask the g o d s to save them. T h e next day "a certain" M o s e s c o u n s e l s
t h e m to m a k e for inhabited land, s h o w k i n d n e s s ( ε ύ ν ο ή σ ε ι ν ) to n o o n e , to
g i v e o n l y the worst counsel to outsiders, and to destroy the temples and altars
o f the g o d s . T h e y mistreat the people they c o m e upon and finally build a city
called H i e r o s y l a ("temple robberies"). T h e y later call it H i e r o s o l y m a because
5 0 51
o f the disgraceful n a m e . L y s i m a c h u s numbers the f u g i t i v e s as 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 .
A z i z a thinks the o c c a s i o n o f the text c o u l d b e P t o l e m y V I Philometor's grant
of a t e m p l e site in L e o n t o p o l i s (ca 160) to the priest Onias I V — a refugee
52
from P a l e s t i n e . Stern m e n t i o n s the r e l i g i o u s p o l i c y o f the H a s m o n e a n
conquerors o f Palestine as another possible context (to mirror the destruction
53
o f t e m p l e s in L y s i m a c h u s ' s t o r y ) . L y s i m a c h u s m a y refer to the J e w i s h
54
practice o f Sabbath lights, but this is u n c l e a r . F e l d m a n a l s o notes that the
d e p i c t i o n s o f the J e w s as b e g g a r s and as guilty o f e x c l u s i v e n e s s w e r e
55
c o m m o n p l a c e s in antiquity . O n e can agree with A z i z a that L y s i m a c h u s uses
an anti-Jewish v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s that is probably different from the o n e
4 8
H E N G E L , Judaism, II, 172 dates Lysimachus to I B.C.E. See also A. G U D E M A N ,
Lysimachus (20), PRE XIV, 1928, 32-9 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 7 0 n.128 / STERN
I, 382.
4 9
Pompeius Trogus also mentions the exiles as the ones afflicted with leprosy and scabies
(STERN I, § 137 = Justinus, Hist. Philip. 36, Epit. 2.12).
5 0
STERN I, § 158 = Jos., C. Ap. 1.304-11. Tacitus probably made use of Lysimachus for
one of his versions of Israelite origins. See § 0.11 below (FELDMAN, 192-94).
5 1
STERN I, § 160 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.20.
5 2
AZIZA, L'utilisation, 57. Onias founded a temple on the site of an old ruined temple.
See SCHURER, History, III/l, 47-48, 145-46 / HENGEL, Judaism, II, 186. Cf. Jos., Antiq.
12.387,13.70. AziZA does not explain how this context would explain the temple robberies.
5 3
STERN I, 385. Hyrcanus destroyed the temple on Gerizim (Jos., Antiq. 13.255-56;
SCHURER, History, I, 207; II, 18-9). The Maccabees tore down altars and sacred precincts (2
Mace 10:2).
5 4
STERN I, 386 / FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 .
5 5
Beggars: Martial 12.57.13 (= STERN, I § 246); Juvenal 3.10-6; 6.542-47 (= STERN, II
§ 296, 299). Jewish exclusiveness or misanthropy: Hecataeus apud Diod. Sic. 40.3.4 (=
STERN, I § 11); Apollonius Molon apud Jos., C. Ap. 2.148 (= STERN, I § 49); Diod. Sic. also
has a statement that one of the laws was to show good will to no other nation (μηδ' evvoeiv)
34-5.1.2 (= STERN, I § 63); Apion mentions an oath to show good will to no foreigner
(μηδ€ΐ/ι evvor\oeiv άλλοφύλω) and his verb is the same that Lysimachus uses apud Jos., C.
Ap. 2.121 (= STERN, I § 173]); cp. also Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1 (= STERN, II § 281) and Juvenal
14.103-06 (= S T E R N , II § 301). On this issue see FELDMAN 1 2 5 - 3 1 , 143-44, 171-72 /
HENGEL, Judaism, 1,172 n.26.
56
that w a s M a n e t h o ' s s o u r c e . T h e boils o f E x o d 9 : 8 - 1 2 b e c o m e leprosy and
scabies ( e v e n though these unfortunates were drowned in L y s i m a c h u s ' story).
T h e d r o w n i n g s mirror the fate o f Pharaoh's army in E x o d 1 4 : 2 8 . The
6 0 0 , 0 0 0 fugitives in E x o d 12:37 b e c o m e 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 . It is unnecessary to k n o w
w h o m a d e s u c h c h a n g e s in the e x o d u s narrative, but it is probable that a
Jewish informant p l a y e d a role in providing L y s i m a c h u s ' source with e n o u g h
material from the original narrative. Certainly L y s i m a c h u s did not h a v e a
L X X in front o f him.
0.5 Apollonius Molon (I B.C.E.)
T h e orator A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n distinguished himself as a teacher o f Cicero and

Caesar. H e w a s from Caria in A s i a Minor and besides his work o n rhetoric he
wrote what E u s e b i u s c a l l e d a "propaganda-piece against the J e w s " ( τ η ν
57
σ υ σ κ ε υ ή ν τ η ν κ α τ ά Ι ο υ δ α ί ω ν ) . In E u s e b i u s ' fragment (originally from
A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor), A p o l l o n i u s s h o w s an interest in the g e n e a l o g y o f the
patriarchs. T h e i n d i v i d u a l ( G e n 9) left after the f l o o d is e x p e l l e d f r o m
A r m e n i a by the inhabitants. H e c o m e s to Syria, and after three generations
5 8
Abraham the w i s e is born ( G e n l l : 1 0 - 2 7 ) . O n e of Abraham's w i v e s is from
his p l a c e and is a relative o f his ( G e n 2 0 : 1 2 ) , and the other is an E g y p t i a n
slave (Gen 16:1-2). T h e Egyptian bears h i m t w e l v e sons ( G e n 2 5 : 1 2 - 1 8 ) w h o
59 6 0
b e c o m e kings in A r a b i a . F r o m his w i f e ( γ α μ έ τ η ν ) h e has a child w h o is
61
called G e l o s (laughter) in Greek ( G e n 1 7 : 1 9 ) . A b r a h a m d i e s in o l d a g e
5 6
AZIZA, L'utilisation, 57 / STERN 1,382 / GAGER, Moses, 118.
5 7
SCHURER, History, III/l, 5 9 8 - 9 9 with reference to Quint. 3.1.16, 12.6.7 and Suet.,
Caesar 4 among other texts. Eus., P.E. 9.19.1 = STERN I, § 46. SCHURER translates the term
as "attack" or "polemic." See, however, the remarks on the word in Eusebe de Cesaree. La
Preparation Evangelique, ed. JEAN SIRINELLI/EDOUARD DES PLACES, s.j., SC 206, 228, 262,
266, 369, Paris 1974-91, SC 206, 301-302 (SIRINELLI); SC 369, 417 n.26 (DES PLACES). R.
GOULET, (Hypotheses recentes sur le traite de Porphyre Contre les Chretiens, in: Hellenisme
et christianisme, Mythes, Imaginaires, Religions, ed. M. NARCY/E. REBILLARD, Villeneuve
d'Ascq 2004, [61-109] 7 2 ) suggests "complot" or "pamphlet discriminatoire" (plot;
discriminatory pamphlet) as good translations. On Molon see also RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
pagani, I, 7 2 n.136 / STERN I, 148-9 / M. WEISSENBERGER, Molon (2), Der Neue Pauly VIII,
2000, 347 / Schafter, Judeophobia, 2 1 .
5 8
See STERN I, 151. There are nine generations (ancestors) between Noah and Abraham
in Genesis.
5 9
Ishmael (Hagar's son) is the father of twelve sons in Genesis.
6 0
The Greek term is opposed to "concubine."
6 1
Isaac's name is connected to laughter in Hebrew. STERN I, 151 refers to Philo, D e mut.
nom. 2 6 1 ; De Abrah. 2 0 1 ; D e praem. et poem. 3 1 . He also notes that the name (Gelos) was
used by Greeks.
12 Introduction
( G e n 2 5 : 8 ) . G e l o s and his o w n local w i f e have t w e l v e s o n s o f w h i c h the last

6 2
is J o s e p h ( G e n 4 6 : 8 - 2 7 ) , and the third (grandson) from J o s e p h is M o s e s
63
(Exod 6:16-20) .
T h e fragments preserved in Josephus are far more anti-Jewish. A p o l l o n i u s
d i s c u s s e d the e x o d u s , but Josephus o n l y says that h e dates it according to his
64
"own opinion." A p o l l o n i u s and P o s i d o n i u s a c c u s e t h e J e w s o f not
worshipping the s a m e g o d s that other p e o p l e do. P o s i d o n i u s and A p o l l o n i u s
M o l o n w e r e A p i o n ' s sources for the charges c o n c e r n i n g the a s s ' s head and
65
the G r e e k c a p t i v e in the t e m p l e according to J o s e p h u s . A p o l l o n i u s and
L y s i m a c h u s b e l i e v e that M o s e s is a m a g i c i a n and i m p o s t o r ( γ ό η τ α και
6 6
α π α τ ε ώ ν α ) and that his l a w s contain t e a c h i n g s o f v i c e and not virtue.
M o l o n calls the J e w s atheists and misanthropes. A t o n e t i m e h e calls t h e m
c o w a r d s and at another h e a c c u s e s t h e m o f reckless c o u r a g e ( τ ό λ μ α ν ) and
67
madness (άπόνοιαν) . W i t h o u t culture ( ά φ υ ε σ τ α τ ο υ ^ ) the J e w s h a v e
contributed n o useful invention ( ε ύ ρ η μ α ) to civilization, and are atheists and
68
m i s a n t h r o p e s . M o l o n also criticized the J e w s for not w e l c o m i n g others w h o
h a v e different " p r e c o n c e i v e d o p i n i o n s " about the g o d s . T h e y also d o not
69
h a v e f e l l o w s h i p w i t h t h o s e w h o c h o o s e to l i v e d i f f e r e n t l y . *In this text
Josephus a l s o includes a reference to A p i o n as o n e o f the s e n s e l e s s o n e s (των
α ν ό η τ ω ν ) — presumably with reference to his v i e w s o n the g o d s . Josephus
then asserts that real Greek p h i l o s o p h e r s reject the c o l d pretenses o f the
70
allegorists. P o s s i b l y M o l o n indulged in s o m e a l l e g o r y .
M o l o n had a c c e s s to s o m e reasonably s o u n d biblical traditions, but it is
clear that h e did not h a v e a L X X , g i v e n all his mistakes in the description o f
his g e n e a l o g i c a l research a c c o r d i n g to E u s e b i u s . H i s j u d g m e n t that the
M o s a i c t e a c h i n g s are e v i l and not virtuous is s o m e w h a t ironic g i v e n
6 2
Apollonius confused Joseph and Jacob.
6 3
STERN I, § 46 = Eus., P.E. 9.19.1. There are three generations between Moses and Levi
who is the half brother of Joseph in Exodus.
6 4
STERN I, § 47 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.16.
6 5
STERN I, § 48 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.79-80, 8 9 , 9 1 - 9 6 . See Apion below (§ 0.13).
6 6
On Moses as a magician see § 1.20. The word can, however, mean "impostor."
6 7
See FELDMAN's discussion of pagan views of Jews' courage (Jew and Gentile, 220).
6 8
STERN I, § 49 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.145, 148. On this important issue in antiquity (inventors)
see K . THRAEDE, Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich), R A C V , 1962, 1191-1278. On the
accusation of atheism and contempt of the gods see SCHURER, History, III/1, 612 / COOK,
Interpretation 3 8 3 s.v. "atheism." Pliny, N.H. 13.4.46 speaks of a nation scornful of the
divinities. See Tacitus below (§ 0.11).
6 9
STERN I, § 50 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.236, 2 5 5 , 2 5 8 , 295.
7 0
Jos., C. Ap. 2.255. On allegory see § 1.1.2-3, 2.2.2, 3.10 and COOK, Interpretation, 12-
13.
Josephus' charge that M o l o n w a s guilty o f raping the w i v e s o f neighbors and

71
castrating their c h i l d r e n .
0.6 Alexander Polyhistor (ca 105-35 B.C.E.)
Alexander Polyhistor or L. Cornelius Alexander w a s born in M i l e t u s , but w a s

e n s l a v e d during S u l l a ' s wars against Mithridates V I . H e w a s captured b y a
Cornelius Lentulius, b e c a m e his instructor ( π α ι δ α γ ω γ ό ς ) , w a s freed b y Sulla,
and l i v e d in R o m e around 8 0 - 4 0 B . C . E . where he taught, a m o n g others, Julius
72
H y g i n u s . H e is responsible for the transmission o f m a n y H e l l e n i s t i c - J e w i s h
w r i t i n g s that o t h e r w i s e w o u l d h a v e b e e n lost. H i s w o r k On the Jews
preserves m a n y f r a g m e n t s o f authors s u c h as D e m e t r i u s , E u p o l e m u s , and
Artapanus w h o w r o t e o n biblical tradition and Jewish origins. H e a l s o wrote
o n C h a l d e a n h i s t o r y a n d i n that w o r k f o l l o w s the B a b y l o n i a n author
73
B e r o s s u s . H e n g e l observes that Alexander Polyhistor is an "exception to the
74
rule" b e c a u s e o f h i s great interest in H e l l e n i s t i c - J e w i s h a u t h o r s . M a i n l y
important for this introduction is Polyhistor's awareness o f the e x i s t e n c e o f
O T texts.
In E u s e b i u s ' excerpts from Alexander Polyhistor there are three references
7 5
to the sacred b o o k s . In a reference to Philo the Epic Poet, Polyhistor writes,
7 6
"Philo bears w i t n e s s to the sacred b o o k s (ταΐς· ίεραΐς· β ί β λ ο ι ^ ) in h i s
77
fourteenth b o o k ' C o n c e r n i n g J e r u s a l e m . ' " Polyhistor a l s o takes material
from D e m e t r i u s the Chronographer (end o f III B . C . E . ) in w h i c h h e refers to
7 1
Jos., C. Ap. 2.270 accepted without comment by SCHURER, History, III/l, 600.
7 2
FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 16-35 / HOLLADAy, Fragments I, 8 / SCHURER, History,
III/l, 510 / STERN I, 157 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 72 n.138 / FGrH III, A 2 7 3 , T l
(= Suda s.v. Α λ έ ξ α ν δ ρ ο ς ό Μιλήσιος); T2 (= Serv. Dan., Vergil A 10.388).
7 3
On Berossus s e e STERN I, 55 / P. S C H N A B E L , Berossos und die babylonisch-
hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig-Berlin 1923,134-68.
7 4
HENGEL, Judaism, 1,70.
7 5
N . WALTER argues that Eusebius did not k n o w Polyhistor directly in: Zur
Uberlieferung einiger Reste friiher jiidisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei Josephus, Clemens
und Euseb, StPatr VII, ed. F. L. CROSS, Berlin 1966, 314-20.
7 6
This expression can be found in OGIS 56.70 ( U p a s βύβλους) and in Jos., Vita 4 1 8
(βιβλίων ιερών). Ep. Arist. 316 (236 PELL.) is apparently the first reference to the Bible as
the Book (βίβλος); cp. PELLETIER (236 n.2). 1QS 6.7 uses "book" (nao) to refer to the
Torah.
7 7
STERN I, § 51a = Eus., P.E. 9.24.1 = Philo the Epic Poet F. 3 (C. R. HOLLADAY,
Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume II: Poets. The Epic Poets Theodotus and
Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian, SBLTT 30, Pseudepigrapha Series 12, Atlanta 1989, II,
238,2-3). The fragments from Philo (along with discussion) are in HOLLADAY, Fragments, II,
205-99. He may be dated to ca 100 B.C.E. (HOLLADAY, Ibid, 208-9).
14 Introduction
from D e m e t r i u s the Chronographer (end o f III B . C . E . ) in w h i c h h e refers to

7 8
the sacred literature o f the J e w s . Concerning the life o f M o s e s , he writes,
"With respect to his slaying o f the Egyptian and his d i s a g r e e m e n t w i t h the
informant about the dead m a n ( E x o d 2 : 1 1 - 1 4 ) , D e m e t r i u s ' account agrees
w i t h that o f the writer o f the S a c r e d B o o k (τά) τ η ν iepav βίβλον
7 9
γράψανα)." A g a i n with reference t o M o s e s ' life, Polyhistor writes, "From
there they traveled three d a y s ( E x o d 1 5 : 2 2 - 2 7 ) , as D e m e t r i u s h i m s e l f says
— a n d the S a c r e d B o o k ( σ υ μ φ ώ ν ω ν τ ο ύ τ ω ή ιερά βίβλος-) agrees w i t h
80
t h i s . " T h e s e c o m m e n t s about Philo and Demetrius are an e x a m p l e o f a rare
occurrence in Polyhistor — something that l o o k s like an actual evaluation o f
81
an a u t h o r . In the introduction to an excerpt from E u p o l e m u s (II B . C . E . ) ,
82
E u s e b i u s remarks that Polyhistor k n e w o f J e r e m i a h . E u s e b i u s writes, "In
addition t o t h e s e t h i n g s , P o l y h i s t o r has a l s o m e n t i o n e d the p r o p h e c y o f
8 3
Jeremiah . . . " A l t h o u g h h e m a y not h a v e m a d e an overt reference to the
B o o k o f Jeremiah, it is apparent that h e k n e w the content o f the b o o k through
E u p o l e m u s and probably k n e w o f its e x i s t e n c e as a separate entity o f the O T .
T h e three references to "Holy B o o k " or " B o o k s " are certainly dependent o n
84
Polyhistor's written sources, according to S t e r n . T h e references d o not say
8 5
m u c h about his attitude concerning h o w h o l y h e felt the b o o k s to b e . It is
more o f an ethnographic reference than a c o n f e s s i o n o f faith. H e d o e s not
86
m a k e j u d g m e n t s o f h i s o w n in h i s w o r k s a c c o r d i n g t o F r e u d e n t h a l .
7 8
On Demetrius see HOLLADAY, Fragments, I, 51-92 / FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 35-82,
205-207 / cf. also COOK, Interpretation, 2.
7 9
STERN I, § 51a = Eus., P.E. 9.29.1 = Demetrius, F. 3 (I, 74,7-10 HOLLADAY). The ET
is HOLLADAY's. Cp. FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 40-1 on Demetrius' awareness of Genesis
and Exodus which FREUDENTHAL believes argues for the existence of this portion of the L X X
in the middle of III B.C.E. With regard to the fragments from Eupolemus, he argues that by
the middle of II B.C.E. the L X X version of Josh, Kgs, Chr, Job existed (Alexander, 119).
8 0
STERN I, § 51a = Eus., P.E. 9.29.15 = F. 4 (1,76,9-10 HOLLADAY). ET is HOLLADAY's.
8 1
FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 179. FREUDENTHAL also notes, however, that Polyhistor
makes a similar evaluation concerning Cleodemus Malchus F. la,b (I, 254,8-13 HOLLADAY)
= Eus., P.E. 9.20.3 = Jos., Antiq. 1.240. Cleodemus conflates the genealogy of Abraham's
sons by Keturah. See HOLLADAY, I, 258 n.13. Polyhistor's statement is: "Cleodemus the
prophet, also called Malchus, reported concerning the Jews, just as M o s e s their own lawgiver
has reported, that numerous children were bora to Abraham by Kettourah ..." (ET by
HOLLADAY).
8 2
On Eupolemus see HOLLADAY, Fragments, 1,93-156.
8 3
STERN I, § 51a = Eus., P.E. 9.39.1 = Eupolemus, F. 4 (1,132,6-9 HOLLADAY).
8 4
STERN 1,158. Cp. FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 174-84 / SCHURER, History, III/l, 511.
8 5
Cp. Eusebius' similar "objective" remark about the Sacred Books of the Greeks in P.E.
9.1.4 (GCS Eusebius VIII/1, 485,17 M R A S ) and see the extremely skeptical reference to the
"Sacred Books" of the Jews in § 1.10.
8 6
FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 31.
The Septuagint*s Reception in the Greco-Roman World 15
H o w e v e r , what is quite interesting is that Polyhistor w o u l d h a v e had a great

deal o f difficulty in comparing the slaying o f the Egyptian and the three day
journey in D e m e t r i u s ' account with the B i b l e if h e did not h a v e s o m e w a y o f
verifying the data. Perhaps h e had another intermediate source, but h e m a y
h a v e had a c c e s s to a L X X through contact with J e w s in R o m e . H e d o e s not
n e e d to h a v e had a great deal o f k n o w l e d g e about the L X X , h o w e v e r , since
m o s t o f h i s k n o w l e d g e o f J e w i s h traditions c l e a r l y c o m e s f r o m the
87
Hellenistic-Jewish authors t h e m s e l v e s .
In an unusual text, the B y z a n t i n e E n c y c l o p e d i a (the Suda) i n c l u d e s this
description o f Polyhistor: "And about R o m e , five books. In these he s a y s , Ά
H e b r e w w o m a n M o s o ( Μ ω σ ώ ) e x i s t e d w h o s e c o m p o s i t i o n is the l a w s o f the
88
H e b r e w s ' ( σ ύ γ γ ρ α μ α ό π α ρ ' Έβροάοις* ν ό μ ο ι ς ) . " W h y Polyhistor w o u l d
rename M o s e s as M o s o has still not b e e n adequately explained, but is not the
89
central issue h e r e . Probably h e just wanted to pass along a strange tradition
about M o s e s . T h e title o f the Torah/Pentateuch ("Laws" in his formulation),
h o w e v e r , is significant and s h o w s that Polyhistor (like H e c a t a e u s , D i o d o r u s ,
and N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s ) had a clear c o n c e p t i o n o f that part o f the B i b l e .
Freudenthal c o n c l u d e s that P o l y h i s t o r p o s s i b l y had read the B i b l e , w h i c h
w o u l d h a v e b e e n difficult Greek for h i m , but put Hellenistic tales before the
L X X . H e w a s u n c o n c e r n e d with historical truth, and wanted m o s t to present
90
his audience with piquant tales about the J e w s .
8 7
GAGER, M o s e s , 2 0 , 23 believes that he had a close familiarity with the L X X . Cp.
FELDMAN'S more reserved judgment in: Jews, 312. FELDMAN does include Polyhistor in his
discussion of authors who knew the LXX.
8 8
STERN I, § 52 = Suda s.v. Α λ έ ξ α ν δ ρ ο ς ό Μιλήσιο^ (Alexander the Milesian).
8 9
For bibliography on the question see GAGER, Moses, 20 / STERN I, 163-64 / FELDMAN,
Jews, 238 (who compares Polyhistor's name with the Doric form of Muse [Μώσα Mosa] and
the normal form [Μούσα Mousa]). Artapanus (F. 3 = Eus., P.E. 9.27.3 [I, 208,19-20
HOLLADAY]) and Numenius (§ 0.16) call Moses "Mousaios" (the mythic poet). The source
could have confused all of this. But this still does not explain why Polyhistor would deliver
such an unqualified statement given his knowledge of Jewish tradition. FREUDENTHAL argues
that Polyhistor is entirely uncritical in his work and merely passes along traditions
(Alexander, 2 9 - 3 1 , 181 ["leichtglaubige kritiklose gedankenarme Vielschreiber"]). Two
scholars who do not believe that the text about M o s o comes from Polyhistor's pen are J. G .
HULLEMAN, Commentatio de Corn. Alexandra Polyhistoro, Utrecht, 1849, 106 (F. gives the
title as Miscelleanea philologica et paedagoga I) and J. K. R A U C H , Commentatio de
Alexandri Polyhistoris vita atque scriptis, Heidelberg, 1843, 5, 20. They believe that
Polyhistor had read the Bible and so reject the fragment (referred to in FREUDENTHAL,
Alexander, 29). According to FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 179, however, RAUCH concluded
that Polyhistor was Jewish. Prof. HENGEL (in a letter) conjectures that the tradition was a
joke designed to denigrate the law.
9 0
FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 31. FREUDENTHAL also believes that the Concerning the
Jews of Alexander could be part of Concerning Syria (Idem, 34).
16 Introduction
0.7 Diodorus Siculus (IB.CE.)
T h e S i c i l i a n h i s t o r i a n D i o d o r u s p r e s e r v e s s e v e r a l traditions a b o u t J e w i s h
9 1
o r i g i n s , s o m e o f w h i c h h e attributes t o H e c a t a e u s . One version of Jewish
history a c c o r d i n g t o D i o d o r u s d e p i c t s the J e w s as c o l o n i s t s f r o m E g y p t w h o
v o l u n t a r i l y s e t t l e i n the area b e t w e e n A r a b i a a n d S y r i a a n d w h o p r a c t i c e
9 2
c i r c u m c i s i o n as the E g y p t i a n s d o . In an a c c o u n t o f A n t i o c h u s V I I S i d e t e s '
s i e g e o f J e r u s a l e m ( c a 1 3 5 / 4 B . C . E . ) D i o d o r u s d e s c r i b e s the a d v i c e o f s o m e
93
of the k i n g ' s friends who want Jerusalem and the J e w s annihilated .
A c c o r d i n g to t h e s e p e o p l e , the ancestors o f the J e w s w e r e c h a s e d out o f E g y p t
b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e i m p i o u s and h a t e d b y the g o d s . T h o s e w i t h dull w h i t e
9 4
(άλφούς a l p h o u s ) or l e p r o u s i n d i c a t i o n s o n their b o d i e s w e r e gathered
together a n d c a s t b e y o n d the borders for the s a k e o f purification — as if the
people were cursed. T h o s e w h o were banished take the places around
J e r u s a l e m for t h e J e w i s h n a t i o n a n d e s t a b l i s h as a tradition the hatred o f
9 1
Hecataeus' account is discussed in § 0.1 (STERN I, § 65 = Diod. Sic. 4 0 . 3 = STERN I,
§11).
9 2
STERN I, § 5 5 , 57 = Diod. Sic. 1.28.1-3; 1.55.5. On the Greco-Roman traditions about
circumcision see § 1.11, 1.28.3.
9 3
SCHURER, History, I, 2 0 2 n.5 discusses the problem of the date. Jos., Ant. 13.236-44
shares part of the account with Diodorus although Josephus does not include the advice of the
anti-Jewish counselors.
9 4
This word for dull-white leprous marks may have given rise to the tradition of Moses as
Alpha. Nicarchus, possibly in I C.E., says that Moses was called alpha because of his dull
white (leprous) spots (alphous; STERN I, § 2 4 8 = Photius, L e x i c o n s.v. άλφα [alpha]).
Ptolemy Chennus o f Alexandria (II C.E.), the mythographer, has the same tradition (STERN
II, § 3 3 1 = Photius, Bibl., Cod. 190, p. 151b). Helladius of Antinoupolis (IV C.E.), a
collector o f texts, preserves the tradition on the authority of Philo (probably Philo Byblos and
not Philo of Alexandria as AZIZA, L'utilisation, 6 4 claims with reference to Philo, Vita Mos.
1.79 where Philo only mentions a white hand and not leprosy; STERN II, § 4 7 2 = Photius,
Bibl., Cod. 2 7 9 , p. 529b). S e e GAGER, Moses 129-32 / J. GAGER, Moses and Alpha, JThS 2 0 ,
1969, 245-48 / AZIZA, L'utilisation, 63-5 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 7 3 n.143 (relates
Nicarchus' work to the anti-Roman revolts o f the Jews under Nero, Trajan, and Hadrian) /
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 240-41, 535 n.30. The derivation may be more grammatical than
anti-Jewish according to GAGER (Moses, 131-2) w h o calls it an onomastic-etymological pun.
He calls attention to another of Helladius' puns (Photius, Bibl., Cod. 2 7 9 , p. 531b). The
mother of the king o f Corinth (Cypselus) was called Labda because she limped due to one
foot being shorter than the other (κολοβωτέρω σκά£ουσα τω έτέρω ποδί, Λάβδα
e καλεΐτο). The pun is based on the fact that one leg of the archaic letter Lambda is shorter
than the other. Nevertheless the tradition is based on the anti-Jewish Alexandrian tradition of
the exodus, and Photius evaluates the statements so: Nicarchus speaks nonsense (φλυαρεί);
Ptolemy utters nonsense; Helladius utters nonsense and a lie. Helladius is, consequently, the
last representative of this tradition (AZIZA, L'utilisation, 64).
people. Consequently they invent c o m p l e t e l y extraordinary c u s t o m s ( ν ό μ ι μ α

π α ν τ ε λ ώ ς έ ξ η λ λ α γ μ έ ν α ) — not to share the table o f any other p e o p l e nor to
95
s h o w any g o o d w i l l ( ε ύ ν ο ε ΐ ν ) w h a t s o e v e r .
D i o d o r u s i n c l u d e s in the account o f these counselors a reference to what
Antiochus I V d i s c o v e r e d in the innermost sanctuary o f G o d ( τ ο ν α δ υ τ ο ν τ ο υ
96
θεοϋ σ η κ ό ν ) w h i c h o n l y the priest can lawfully enter ( L e v 1 6 : 2 ) . There h e
finds a marble i m a g e o f a long-bearded m a n mounted o n an ass with a scroll
97
in his h a n d . A n t i o c h u s identifies h i m as M o s e s w h o had created Jerusalem,
e s t a b l i s h e d the n a t i o n , and l e g i s l a t e d misanthropic and i l l e g a l p r a c t i c e s
( μ ι σ ά ν θ ρ ω π α και π α ρ ά ν ο μ α εθη). H e then decides to destroy their c u s t o m s
because o f this hatred o f all nations. H e orders that their sacred scrolls/books
(τάς ι ε ρ ά ς α υ τ ώ ν β ί β λ ο υ ς ) , w h i c h contain x e n o p h o b i c l a w s ( μ ι σ ό ξ ε ν α
ν ό μ ι μ α ) , b e sprinkled with pig-broth after he sacrifices a pig before the statue
and altar o f the g o d . T h e continually burning lamp is also e x t i n g u i s h e d and
98
all, including the h i g h priest, are forced to eat p o r k . T h e source for this
99
passage could b e P o s i d o n i u s , but this is far from o b v i o u s . D i o d o r u s (or his
source) c o n c l u d e s that A n t i o c h u s VII, being o f a gentle nature, rejected the
charges against the J e w s . If the source is Posidonius, then h e w o u l d probably
have b e e n against destruction o f J e w s , but m a y h a v e criticized t h e m for other
reasons. T h e friends o f A n t i o c h u s " k n o w that the J e w s w e r e driven from
E g y p t and settled around Jerusalem." T h e reference to impiety and leprosy
and the purification o f the country are c l o s e to L y s i m a c h u s ' version and are
100
different f r o m that o f H e c a t a e u s . L y s i m a c h u s a l s o refers to M o s e s '
instructions to s h o w g o o d w i l l to n o one. In L y s i m a c h u s ' version, h o w e v e r ,
the lepers are d r o w n e d . D i o d o r u s c o n s e q u e n t l y has a source that k n e w a
G r e c o - E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s different from that o f H e c a t a e u s .
U l t i m a t e l y it w a s a transformation o f E x o d u s — probably not b a s e d o n
9 5
See § 0.4 on misanthropy. Cp. the "extraordinary sacrifices" (θυσίας έξηλλαγμένας)
in Hecataeus (STERN I, § 11 = Diod. Sic. 40.3.4).
9 6
The high priest. STERN I, 184 notes that this was lawful only on the day of the
atonement.
9 7
On the alleged Jewish worship of an ass see § 0.13.
9 8
STERN I, § 63 = Diod. Sic. 34-35.1.1-5.
" S e e the discussion in G A G E R , Moses 126 / STERN I, 142-44, 184. E. NORDEN, for
example, is clear that the source is Posidonius (Jahwe und M o s e s in hellenistischer
Theologie, in: Festgabe fur Adolf von Harnack, Tubingen 1921, [ 2 9 2 - 3 0 1 ] , 2 9 7 ) . For
Josephus, C. Ap. 2.79 (worship of an ass in the temple = STERN I, § 44), Posidonius is anti-
Jewish. Posidonius also accuses the Jews of being magicians who use incantations (STERN I,
§ 45 = Strabo 16.2.43). Neither of these texts are encouraging for those who want to find
Posidonius to be a friend of the Jews.
1 0 0
See § 0.4. SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 23 compares Diodorus to Lysimachus, Manetho,
and Molon.
18 Introduction
reading but o n oral encounters w i t h J e w s . D i o d o r u s i n c l u d e s an important

reference to the J e w i s h h o l y scrolls/books. O n e cannot, h o w e v e r , a s s u m e that
this is a reference to the L X X . H e d o e s k n o w that the scrolls contain l a w s .
H e c a t a e u s ' m e n t i o n o f "the e n d o f the l a w s " ( p r e s e r v e d b y D i o d o r u s ) ,
P o l y h i s t o r ' s references to the "Sacred B o o k ( s ) , " and the text in D i o d o r u s
c o n c e r n i n g A n t i o c h u s I V c o m p r i s e the earliest references to the O T u s i n g
101
something like a "title" o n the part o f G r e c o - R o m a n a u t h o r s .
D i o d o r u s includes a reference to the alleged d i v i n e origins o f the J e w i s h
1 0 2
l a w s . T h e rhetoric o f p e r s u a s i o n t i n g e s his d e p i c t i o n o f the e v e n t s .
M n e v e s o f E g y p t w a s able to persuade ( π ε ι σ α ι ) p e o p l e to o b e y written l a w s
and c l a i m e d H e r m e s as his source. A m o n g the Greeks, M i n o s c l a i m e d Z e u s
and L y c u r g u s c l a i m e d A p o l l o as the source o f their l a w s . T h e slightly
skeptical c o m m e n t o f Diodorus is: " A m o n g m a n y other nations this form o f
understanding has b e e n handed d o w n and is the c a u s e o f m a n y g o o d things to
t h o s e w h o h a v e b e e n p e r s u a d e d " (τοις π ε ι σ θ ε ί σ ι ) . H e then i n c l u d e s
Zathraustes (Zarathustra) o f the Arians w h o said that the G o o d D e m o n w a s
the inspiration for his l a w s . A m o n g the Getae, Z a m o l x i s points to Hestia as
his source, and a m o n g the J e w s M o s e s asserts that the g o d w h o is i n v o k e d as
Iao w a s source o f the l a w s . D i o d o r u s includes a pragmatic conclusion. T h e
lawgivers did these things either b e c a u s e they b e l i e v e d that such a conception
w a s d i v i n e and w o u l d help p e o p l e , or they b e l i e v e d that p e o p l e w o u l d more
1 0 3
probably o b e y the l a w s if they b e l i e v e d t h e m to b e d i v i n e . If Hecataeus
w a s D i o d o r u s ' source here, o n e has to a s s u m e that Iao w a s available to that
author as a n a m e o f the J e w i s h G o d . Its u s e in a L X X v e r s i o n found at
Qumran, and the u s e o f a similar n a m e for G o d in A r a m a i c texts probably
104
constitutes a r e a s o n a b l e argument that H e c a t a e u s c o u l d h a v e heard i t .
Diodorus shared s o m e skepticism about the divine nature o f l a w s with Strabo,
105
but d o e s not want to entirely reject the tradition .
1 0 1
Titles are important in text-linguistics because they describe the nature of a
communication, and as such stand on a "higher" narrative level than the text that they
describe. See J. G. COOK, The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark, Semeia Studies,
Atlanta 1995, 116-7, 128-9 / P. HELLWIG, TITULUS oder UBER D E N ZUSAMMENHANG
V O N TITELN U N D TEXTEN. Titel sind ein Schlussel zur Textkonstitution, Zeitschrift fur
Germanistische Linguistik 12,1984,1-20.
1 0 2
See COOK, The Interpretation, 384 s.v. "persuasion."
1 0 3
STERN I, § 58 = Diod. Sic. 1.94.1-2. GAGER, Moses 30-31 and STERN I, 172 discuss
the issue of Diodorus' source in this text. Hecataeus and Posidonius are two possibilities.
Diodorus claimed Hecataeus as his source for one account of Jewish origins. See his version
of Hecataeus above (§ 0.1).
1 0 4
On Iao see § 1.23.
1 0 5
See § 0.9.
0.8 Nicolaus of Damascus
N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s (ca 6 4 B . C . E . to I C.E.), the Peripatetic philosopher,

106
historian, and friend o f Herod, w a s a pagan w h o k n e w the J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n .
In a s p e e c h in d e f e n s e o f the J e w s o f Ionia before Marcus Agrippa, Josephus
has N i c o l a u s say: "Nor d o w e m a k e a secret o f the precepts that w e u s e as
guides in religion and h u m a n relations . . . N o w our c u s t o m s are e x c e l l e n t in
1 0 7
t h e m s e l v e s , if o n e e x a m i n e s t h e m carefully, and they are also ancient . . , "
Feldman argues that the w o r d s imply that the J e w s a l l o w e d Gentiles to read
1 0 8
the L X X . A l t h o u g h o n e cannot assume that these are N i c o l a u s ' w o r d s , it is
apparent that J o s e p h u s b e l i e v e d n o n - J e w s c o u l d investigate J e w i s h tradition
first hand if they s o desired. N i c o l a u s h i m s e l f did that. T h e material that
Josephus preserves f r o m N i c o l a u s ' 1 4 4 v o l u m e history, h o w e v e r , d o e s not
include m u c h from the biblical tradition.
th
Josephus records a text o f N i c o l a u s from the 9 6 b o o k o f his Histories. He
109
d e s c r i b e s a m o u n t a i n c a l l e d Baris in A r m e n i a ( G e n 8 : 4 ? ) . T h e story,
a c c o r d i n g to N i c o l a u s , is that during the f l o o d m a n y f l e d there t o b e
preserved. A certain individual, carried in an ark, ran aground o n the summit.
Bits o f the w o o d w e r e l o n g saved. N i c o l a u s c o n c l u d e s , "This is perhaps the
110
person about w h o m M o s e s the Jewish legislator w r o t e . " Josephus includes
a reference to B e r o s s u s , the priest from B a b y l o n (ca 3 3 0 - 2 5 0 B . C . E . ) w h o
111
also located the ark in A r m e n i a . B e r o s s u s ' n a m e for the survivor w a s
112
X i s u t h r u s . W h a t is m o s t important for the purposes o f this introduction is
1 0 6
SCHURER, History, I, 28-32 / STERN I, 227-32 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 73
n.142.
1 0 7
Jos., Ant. 16.43-44. ET from R. MARCUS' LCL edition.
1 0 8
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 313.
109 STERN I, 236 argues that the Jews in Armenia may have identified Baris with Ararat.
Nicolaus says that Armenia was above "Minyas" which is probably the Minni of Jer 51:27 (=
Jer 28:27 LXX).
1 1 0
STERN I, § 85 = Jos., Ant. 1.93-5.
1 1 1
Jos., Ant. 1.93. Cp. SCHNABEL, Berossos, 180-2,264-6.
1 1 2
See Alexander Polyhistor's version of Berossus in STERN III, § 560a = FGrH III, C
680, F3. Cyril preserves a version of Polyhistor's account in which Cronos tells Xisuthrus to
construct an ark to carry himself and animals in C. Jul. 1.8 (PG 76, 513d-516a = SC 322,
120,1-7 BURGIERE/ EviEUX; and see 122 n.l on the tradition). Cyril also refers to a version
of the story in Abydenos, a historian apparently dependent on Polyhistor. In Abydenos'
version Xisuthrus sails to Armenia and sends out birds three times before they find mud; C.
Jul. 1.8-9 (PG 76, 516a-b = SC 3 2 2 , 120,8-122,22 BURG./ E v . ) . In Eusebius' parallel version
of Abydenos, the w o o d of the ship's ruins in Armenia provides amulets to people for the
treatment of poison; Eus., P.E. 9.12.1-5 (VIII/1, 498,2-16 MRAS). For other Greco-Roman
references to the flood see § 1.4.
20 Introduction
that N i c o l a u s clearly k n e w the L X X — although he preserves other traditions

in the texts a b o v e . H i s reference to " M o s e s wrote" is o n e o f the first overt
references to the L X X (or h o l y Jewish texts) in Greek literature besides those
113
o f Hecataeus, Polyhistor, and D i o d o r u s .
In his fourth b o o k , N i c o l a u s writes that A b r a m e s w a s a k i n g in D a m a s c u s
w h o had c o m e from B a b y l o n o f the Chaldees with an army ( G e n 11:28, 3 1 ) .
1 1 4
H e left D a m a s c u s and m o v e d to Judaea with his p e o p l e . In the s a m e book,
N i c o l a u s m e n t i o n s A d a d o s o f Syria w h o w a g e s war against k i n g D a v i d o f
Judaea and after m a n y battles is finally b e a t e n at the Euphrates river.
115
A d a d o s ' third descendant o v e r c a m e the land c a l l e d S a m a r i t i s . N i c o l a u s
s e e m s to b e aware o f the f o l l o w i n g e p i s o d e s . In the B i b l e Hadadezer wars
with D a v i d in the trans-Jordan ( 2 K g d m s 10:6-19; 1 Chr 19:6-19) and in Syria
( 2 K g d m s 8 : 3 - 1 2 ; 1 Chr 1 8 : 3 - 1 1 ) w h e n H a d a d e z e r w a s o n the w a y to the
Euphrates. If the "third" k i n g is B e n Hadad II o f the B i b l e o n e can find
r e a s o n a b l e parallels: B e n H a d a d w a s defeated b y A h a b at Samaria in 3
K g d m s 2 0 : 1 - 3 4 , but the king o f A r a m (presumably B e n Hadad) defeats A h a b
1 1 6
at R a m o t h Gilead in 3 K g d m s 2 2 .
N i c o l a u s undoubtedly had a c c e s s to a L X X e v e n if h e did not k n o w it well.
His c l o s e relationship with Herod provided h i m with a c c e s s to a c o p y . It is o f
c o u r s e p o s s i b l e that h e o n l y k n e w o f G e n e s i s through d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h
Jewish informants. But he clearly k n o w s that " M o s e s " has written a book and
he k n o w s s o m e o f the contents o f that book. B e n Z i o n W a c h o l d e r b e l i e v e s
1 1 3
In text linguistics titles such as "Book I," "Genesis," and narrative remarks such as
"she said" or "he wrote" are called "meta-communicative markers." Although the formalism
is not particularly important here, what is so unusual is that a Greek author finally makes use
of the words of the L X X and consciously refers to what he is doing. See COOK, Structure,
116-7,128-9.
1 1 4
S T E R N I, § 83 = Jos., Ant. 1.159-60. A s STERN I, 2 3 4 notes, the Bible does not
mention a sojourn of Abraham in Damascus. However, the road from Harran to Canaan goes
through Damascus. Prof. HENGEL, in a letter, notes that the tradition might go back to Jews
in Damascus. See also M. HENGEL/A.M. SCHWEMER, Paul Between Damascus and Antioch.
The Unknown Years, trans. J. BOWDEN, Louisville 1997, 55. Pompeius Trogus locates the
origins of the Jews in Damascus and depicts Abraham as one of the kings there (STERN I,
§ 137 = Just., Hist. Phil. 36, Epit. 2.1-3). The first extant reference to Abraham in (pagan)
Greco-Roman literature is Apollonius Molon (§ 0.5). See also Alexander Polyhistor (§ 0.6),
Celsus (§ 1.11), Julian (§ 3.16) and F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 5 3 0 n . l . Cleodemus-
Malchus identifies one of Abraham's son by Keturah as Sures after whom Assyria is named
(Jos., Ant. 1.240-1 = F . la, [I, 252,5-12 HOLLADAY]).
1 1 5
STERN I, § 84 = Jos., Ant. 7.101-103.
1 1 6
Β. Z. WACHOLDER, Nicolaus of Damascus, Berkeley/Los A n g e l e s 1962, 57 argues
that Adados III could not have been Ben Hadad II since there are more than 100 years
between the death of David and Ahab.
that N i c o l a u s ' biblical history w a s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c s and

117
"Hellenistic e m b e l l i s h m e n t s . "
0.9 Strabo (ca 64 B.C.E. to I CE.)
Strabo o f A m a s e i a in A s i a M i n o r w a s a geographer and historian w h o had a

great deal o f admiration for the J e w i s h tradition of M o s e s . H e b e l i e v e d that
M o s e s w a s a priest o f E g y p t . M o s e s b e c a m e d i s g u s t e d w i t h the current
circumstances and w e n t to Judaea with a number o f p e o p l e w h o h o n o r e d the
divine (TO θ ε ί ο ν ) . H e b e l i e v e d the E g y p t i a n s and L i b y a n s w e r e w r o n g to
compare the d i v i n e to w i l d animals and cattle. T h e Greeks w e r e a l s o w r o n g
1 1 8
in creating anthropomorphic m o d e l s o f the d i v i n e . Strabo w r i t e s , " O n e
thing o n l y is G o d : it surrounds ( π ε ρ ι έ χ ο ν ) us all, both earth and sea, it w h i c h
119
w e call h e a v e n and c o s m o s and the nature o f all existent t h i n g s . " Moses
asks that p e o p l e l e a v e off the making o f w o o d e n i m a g e s . W h e n they h a v e set
up a sacred e n c l o s u r e ( t e m e n o s ) and a sanctuary they should w o r s h i p without
i m a g e . In the e n c l o s u r e p e o p l e w h o h a v e g o o d dreams s h o u l d s l e e p for the
120
sake o f t h e m s e l v e s and o t h e r s . T h o s e w h o l i v e w i s e l y w i t h righteousness
can e x p e c t s o m e t h i n g g o o d f r o m G o d . M o s e s and his f o l l o w e r s capture
Jerusalem easily, and he p r o m i s e s a form o f worship that d o e s not burden the
people. Individuals from all around flock to this attractive g o v e r n m e n t and
1 1 7
WACHOLDER, Nicolaus of Damascus, 56 / HENGEL, Judaism, II, 69 n.332.
1 1 8
Cp. Celsus' discussion of images in § 1.1.15. STERN I , 306 notes that many Greco-
Roman authors noted the Jews' rejection of image worship including: Hecataeus (above);
Varro (STERN I , § 72a = Aug., D e civ. Dei 4.31); Livy (STERN I , § 133 = Scholia in Lucanum
2.593); Tacitus (STERN I I , § 281 = T a c , Hist. 5.5.4); and D i o Cassius (STERN II, § 4 0 6 = Hist.
Rom. 3 7 . 1 7 . 2 ) . Cf. SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 36-40.
1 1 9
STERN I , 3 0 6 argues that this cannot be a formula of Posidonius given Strabo's
concept of G o d ' s "encompassing" the universe. Posidonius believed that "God is an
intelligible spirit that permeates (διήκων) all being" according to the Scholia in Lucanum,
Pharsalia 9.578 = F. 100 ( 1 0 4 , 4 - 5 EDELSTEIN). Cp. C i c , D e div. 2 . 1 5 . 3 5 where for
Chrysippus, Antipater, and Posidonius there is a sentient and divine force which is diffused in
the whole universe (vim quandam sentientem atque divinam, quae toto confusa mundo sit).
Posidonius holds that Zeus dwells (τον π ά ν τ α διοικούντα) in all things according to Lydus,
De mens. 4.71.48 = F. 102 (105,3 EDELSTEIN). According to Diog. Laert. 7.148 the being of
God is the whole c o s m o s and heaven. Cp. 7.137-8. See also § 1.2.16, 1.23, 1.29.2 and
GAGER, M o s e s 41 n.46. Herodotus 1.131 (quoted in by Celsus in C. Celsum 5.41 [355,29-
356,1 MARCOVICH]) notes that the Persians call the circle of heaven Zeus.
1 2 0
Strabo 14.1.44, 17.1.17 mentions this practice elsewhere. Posidonius speaks of
divination from dreams in C i c „ D e div. 1.30.64, but not incubation in a temple. Julian
accused the Christians of incubation around tombs. See § 3.50 and STERN I , 264.
22 Introduction
1 2 1
situation. Later superstitious p e o p l e b e c a m e priests w h o encouraged
abstinence from m e a t s , c i r c u m c i s i o n , f e m a l e e x c i s i o n , and similar
122
p r a c t i c e s . H e c o n c l u d e s his treatment o f M o s e s w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f the
t w o p o s s i b i l i t i e s o f the origin o f l a w s : they are either h u m a n or from the
g o d s . M o s e s , a c c o r d i n g to Strabo, is a prophet (μ,άντις) like Teiresias,
Trophonius, Orpheus and others w h o g a v e oracles w h i l e alive and after death.
M o s e s w a s o n e o f the l a w g i v e r s w h o r e c e i v e d l a w s from the g o d s , but those
w h o f o l l o w e d h i m (in leadership) b e c a m e w o r s e . Strabo, h o w e v e r , d o e s
preface t h e s e remarks about the d i v i n e origin or l a w s w i t h a cautionary
123
qualification: "whatever b e the truth in these t h i n g s . "
W h i l e the Stoic philosopher P o s i d o n i u s has often b e e n c l a i m e d as Strabo's
source, the q u e s t i o n is controversial, and perhaps S t e r n ' s p o s i t i o n is best:
P o s i d o n i u s c a n neither b e p r o v e d nor disproved to b e Strabo's source in the
1 2 4
a b o v e p a s s a g e . Schurer a s s u m e s that the s o u r c e is J e w i s h , and G a g e r
argues that a J e w in A l e x a n d r i a w h o k n e w S t o i c p h i l o s o p h y m i g h t h a v e
125
encountered S t r a b o . Whether a H e l l e n i z e d J e w or P o s i d o n i u s w a s Strabo's
i m m e d i a t e s o u r c e o n e c a n still s e e t r a c e s o f t h e e x o d u s and the
c o m m a n d m e n t s against making i m a g e s and worshipping t h e m ( E x o d 2 0 : 3 - 6 ) .
1 2 1
Superstition was a frequent charge against the Jews. See HENGEL, Judaism, II, 173 n.
30. Cf. Agatharcides of Cnidos (II B.C.E., STERN I, § 30a = Jos., C. Ap. 1.205-11); Cicero,
(a "barbaric superstition" STERN I, § 68 = Pro Flacco 28:67); Quintilian (STERN I, § 230 =
Inst. 3.7.21); Tacitus (STERN II, § 2 7 6 = Hist. 2.4.3). See also Plutarch's discourse on the
topic with its references to Jews (STERN I, § 2 5 5 , 2 5 6 = D e superstitione 3, 8).
1 2 2
G A G E R , M o s e s , 47 refers to Philo, D e migr. 89 (where some Jews like to find the
symbolic meaning in the Torah but reject its literal meaning) and to the Hellenizing Jews of
the Maccabean period (1 Mace 1:11-15, 2 Mace 4:7-20). FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 533
n.18 also calls attention to Exod 4:24-26 where Moses has forgotten to circumcise his own
sons. This could have encouraged some to assume that circumcision was later than Moses.
See also § 1.11, 1.28.3. FELDMAN, Ibid., 503 n.40 argues that Strabo is trying to defend the
Jews against the charge of misanthropy. On excision of females compare Strabo 16.4.9 =
STERN I, § 118 (the Creophagi) and 17.2.5 (the Egyptians).
1 2 3
STERN I, § 115 = 16.2.34-39. On the seers see GAGER, M o s e s , 45 who notes that
Amphiaraus, Teiresias, the Tyrrhenians (Etrurians), the Chaldeans, and the Magi are also in
Cicero's list in D e div. 1.40.88-41.92.
1 2 4
STERN I, 264-65 / GAGER, M o s e s , 47. NORDEN, Jahwe, 2 9 4 argues that a Jew who
would say that M o s e s came from Egypt is impossible. The fact that apparently no extant
Jewish sources identify Moses as an Egyptian is important, but a Jew Strabo encountered
might have been confused slightly or Strabo could have gotten a detail wrong. In any case
GAGER's arguments (idem, 44-47) show why FELDMAN's arguments for Posidonius as the
source d o not have to be accepted (Jew and Gentile, 4 9 8 n . l l ) . The very arguments
FELDMAN uses are the ones GAGER has already shown to be lacking in probative force.
H E N G E L , Judaism I, 2 5 8 - 6 0 argues for a derivation from Posidonius. Cf. also SCHAFER,
Judeophobia, 2 4 (we do not have Posidonius' version of the exodus).
1 2 5
SCHURER, History, III/l, 154-55.
M o s t o f the material in a s e n s e c o u l d b e derived from what Strabo or his oral

sources could "see": n a m e l y , t h e t e m p l e and the l a c k o f i m a g e s ,
circumcision, and the practice o f f o o d l a w s . Ultimately, h o w e v e r , the source
for the e x o d u s story has to b e the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y and its scriptures u n l e s s
o n e w a n t s to p o s i t an i n d e p e n d e n t E g y p t i a n s o u r c e o f the e x o d u s w h i c h
includes an e x p l i c i t m e n t i o n o f M o s e s . S u c h a source is not extant in the
k n o w l e d g e o f contemporary scholarship.
0.10 Pompeius Trogus (I B.C.E. to I CE.)
P o m p e i u s Trogus w a s a Celt (Vocontian) from Gallia Narbonensis w h o wrote

during the era o f Caesar A u g u s t u s . O n e o f his works w a s a universal History
(Historia Phillipicae) that c o n t a i n s an a c c o u n t o f J e w i s h o r i g i n s as a
d i g r e s s i o n f r o m T r o g u s ' d i s c u s s i o n o f A n t i o c h u s V I I ' s c o n f l i c t w i t h John
126
H y r c a n u s . P o m p e i u s T r o g u s s h o w s s o m e awareness o f biblical traditions
in his narrative. T h e J e w s ' origin is D a m a s c u s from w h i c h the A s s y r i a n
1 2 7
rulers i n c l u d i n g S e m i r a m i s c a m e . A b r a h a m and Israhel w e r e k i n g s o f
D a m a s c u s . Israhel b e c o m e s w e l l k n o w n b e c a u s e o f his ten s o n s ( G e n 4 6 : 8 -
2 7 ) . H e called his d e s c e n d a n t s J e w s after his s o n Juda and d i v i d e d his rule
into ten k i n g d o m s for his s o n s . Trogus continues:
Joseph was the youngest of the brothers. Being afraid of his excellent ability (excellens
ingenium) his brothers took him secretly and sold him to some merchants (Gen 37:27-
28)128 Taken to Egypt, Joseph learns the magical arts with skillful talent (sollerti
1 2 9
ingenio) and becomes loved by the k i n g . He was extremely shrewd in understanding
portents (prodigiorum sagacissimus) and founded the first s c i e n c e of interpreting
130
dreams . N o t h i n g of divine or human law appeared to be u n k n o w n to him.
1 2 6 2
STERN I, 3 3 2 - 3 3 / A. H. M C D O N A L D , Trogus, Pompeius, O C D , 1096-97 / GAGER,
Moses, 4 9 . The history of Pompeius appears in the work of Justin (II-III C.E.). One of
Trogus' primary sources was Timagenes (STERN I, 222 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 71
n.129). Trogus h i m s e l f w a s one of Jerome's sources in his commentary on Daniel
(§ 2.2.16.7). For the conflict with Hyrcanus see Diodorus above (§ 0.7). Trogus' prologue
that mentions Jewish origins (origo ludeorum) is STERN I, § 136 = Hist. Phil., X X X V I prol.
1 2 7
See FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 182, 190 / STERN I, 164. Alexander Polyhistor claims
that Juda and Idoumea are among the children of Semiramis (STERN I, § 53 = Steph. Byz.,
s.v. Ι ο υ δ α ί α [Judea]). Nicolaus of Damascus locates Jewish origins in Assyria as does one
of Tacitus' traditions (STERN II, § 281 = Hist. 5.2.3). Cp. § 2.2.8 where Semiramis is merely
a chronological anchor for dating Moses.
1 2 8
Benjamin was the youngest (Gen 42:32), and Trogus mistakes the number of tribes.
There were ten northern tribes (Israel as opposed to Judah).
1 2 9
STERN I, 339 calls this a rationalistic account of Joseph's rise to power, however the
reference to "magical arts" implies more than mere rationalism.
1 3 0
Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 205, 285 and § 2.2.7.
24 Introduction
Consequently he was even able to foresee the sterility of the cultivated lands many years
in advance (Gen 41:1-36). If the king, warned by him, had not commanded in an edict
that the fruits of the earth be stored for many years, all Egypt would have perished
because of hunger (Gen 41:34-36). Such were the demonstrations of his ability, so that
131 1 3 2
his utterances (responsa) seemed to be given not from a human but from a g o d .
Trogus then turns to the topic o f M o y s e s w h o m h e describes as Joseph's son

133 134
( E x o d 6 : 1 6 - 2 0 ) . M o y s e s inherits his father's k n o w l e d g e and is b e a u t i f u l .
T h e E g y p t i a n s w e r e suffering from scabies and leprosy, and warned by an
oracular r e s p o n s e (responso) they drove M o y s e s w i t h the other sick p e o p l e
1 3 5
b e y o n d the boundaries o f E g y p t s o that the plague (pestis) might not crawl
a m o n g the majority. M o y s e s b e c o m e s the leader and furtively ( E x o d 3 : 2 1 -
136
2 2 , 11:2, 1 2 : 3 5 - 3 6 ) carries off the sacred objects o f the E g y p t i a n s . S e e k i n g
their t h i n g s b y m e a n s o f w e a p o n s the Egyptians are f o r c e d back h o m e by
131
tempests (tempestatibus) . G o i n g back to D a m a s c u s , M o y s e s o c c u p i e s Mt.
Sinai ( E x o d 19:1). T o get there they h a v e to fast s e v e n d a y s in the Arabian
desert, and s o arrive very tired. M o y s e s therefore dedicates for all time the
seventh day (called "Sabbath" b y his nation) as a fast day b e c a u s e that day
w a s the e n d o f their hunger and uncertain travel (errorem; E x o d 16:3, E x o d
14 - J o s h 4 ) . S i n c e they w e r e e x p e l l e d from E g y p t b e c a u s e o f the fear o f
c o n t a g i o n , t h e y d e c i d e n o t t o l i v e w i t h f o r e i g n e r s (cum peregrinis
conviverunt) — lest they b e c o m e hated by the surrounding p e o p l e s for the
s a m e reason. T h e n M o y s e s ' s o n A r m a s (Aaron, E x o d 6:20) b e c o m e s priest
138
over the Egyptian rites .
P o m p e i u s Trogus confuses the celebration o f the Sabbath with a fast day as
did other G r e c o - R o m a n authors, but h e d o e s not s e e m to scorn the Sabbath
1 3 1
On this term for oracular responses see Lucretius 1.736, C i c , D e or. 1.7.26, and 2 Tim
3:16 Vulgate.
1 3 2
STERN I, § 137 = Hist. Phil. 36, Ep. 2.6-10. Author's ET. Part of this passage can be
found also in RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 110a.
1 3 3
Cp. Molon's account (§ 0.5).
1 3 4
On this topic see FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 239, 250 / GAGER, Moses, 50. Cf. Exod
2:2 L X X , Philo, Vita Mos. 1.9. In the rhetoric of praise (encomium), beauty and wisdom are
important elements. S e e H. L A U S B E R G , Handbuch der Literarischen Rhetorik. Eine
3
Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, Stuttgart 1990 , § 376 (p. 206), § 1129 with reference
to Prise. 7.
1 3 5
Cp. Diodorus above (§ 0.7) where they are driven beyond the "borders."
1 3 6
In Exodus some things are freely given to the Hebrews, but they also plunder Egypt.
Philo, D e vita Mos. 1.140-42 defends the act as fair wages for slavery.
1 3 7
STERN I, 340 calls this "rationalistic," but see Exod 14:21.
1 3 8
GAGER, Moses, 123 argues that Apion also depicts Moses' following Egyptian rites in
Jerusalem. Cf. STERN I, § 165 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.10-11.
1 3 9
c u s t o m as they d i d . H e c o n c l u d e s this part o f his a c c o u n t w i t h admiration.
For the J e w s the s a m e p e o p l e are k i n g s and priests, and " . . . b e c a u s e o f their
j u s t i c e c o m b i n e d w i t h r e l i g i o n they g r e w a m a z i n g l y strong" (iustitia religione
140
permixta incredibile quantum coaluere) . J u s t i c e w a s an e l e m e n t i n the
1 4 1
ancient rhetoric o f p r a i s e , a n d it is apparent that T r o g u s h a s this in m i n d .
T r o g u s m a y n o t h a v e had a L X X in front o f h i m , but o n e o f h i s s o u r c e s k n e w
biblical tradition f r o m the L X X or f r o m a J e w i s h informant. T h e r e are m a n y
c l o s e c o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n T r o g u s ' J o s e p h narrative and the L X X . O n the
o t h e r h a n d h e m a d e u s e o f t h e E g y p t i a n tradition a b o u t t h e e x o d u s that
M a n e t h o and his s u c c e s s o r s handed down. T h e origin o f the J e w s in
Damascus i s a third strand o f tradition that T r o g u s u s e s — somewhat
142
inconsistently .
1 3 9
Strabo (STERN I, § 115 = 16.2.40) probably believed the Sabbath w a s a fast day.
Augustus thinks it is a fast day and is observed for an hour into the evening (STERN II, § 3 0 3
= Suet., Aug., 76.2). FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 163 compares the extension to b. Shabb
118b. Juvenal speaks o f the Sabbath contemptuously (kings g o around with bare feet; STERN,
II § 2 9 8 = 6.159); Petronius, (STERN, I § 195 = Frag. 37) has scorn for the Sabbath fast; so
also Martial (STERN, I § 2 3 9 = Epigr. 4.4). Agatharcides of Cnidos appeals to Sabbath
observance as an example o f superstition (STERN I, § 30a = Jos., C. Ap. 1.205-11). Tacitus
probably regards it as a fast day (STERN II, 281 = Hist. 5.4.3). Ovid recognizes it as a feast
day, but seems to deride it ( S T E R N , I § 142 = Ars 1.416). Cp. his notice o f the travel
restrictions on the Sabbath (STERN, I § 143 = Remedia 217-20). A s an example o f an
enslaving superstition (STERN I, 4 3 6 ) , Perseus alludes to the Sabbath with its lamps and
consumption o f fish (STERN I § 190 = Sat. 5.176-84). Seneca felt that the custom w a s
idleness (STERN, I § 186 = D e superstitione apud Aug., D e civ. Dei 6.11). H e also censured
the practice of lighting lamps on the Sabbath, which the gods don't need (STERN, I § 188 =
Ep. mor. 95.47). Synesius, during his pre-Christian period, was shocked at the behavior of a
Jewish sea captain w h o refused to guide the ship during a life-threatening storm and persisted
in reading his scroll/book (βιβλιον). H e finally relents when death is near (STERN III § 5 6 9 =
Ep. 5 ) . Philo must have known o f the charge o f idleness given his arguments against that
understanding o f the Sabbath (Hypothetica 7.12-4; D e spec. leg. 2.60). Cf. also § 1.2.5,
§ 3.19, 25 / FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 158-67 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 15
SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 82-92.
1 4 0
STERN I, § 137 = Hist. Phil. 36, Ep. 2.1-16. STERN I, 341 notes that this reflects
conditions during the Hasmonean age. Cp. Tacitus (STERN II, § 281 = Hist. 5.8.3). On pagan
discussions of Jewish power see FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 1 7 4 , 2 2 6 - 2 7 .
1 4 1
LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 376.
1 4 2
On his possible use o f the L X X see FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 3 1 2 / STERN I, 3 3 2 /
GAGER, Moses, 56.
26 Introduction
0.11 Tacitus (ca 56-11 CE.)
O n e o f the l o n g e s t accounts o f the origins o f the J e w s appears in the work o f

143
Cornelius T a c i t u s . In his Histories, w h i c h roughly c o v e r the years b e t w e e n
6 9 and the death o f Domitian, h e introduces a passage o n the J e w i s h war with
a narrative o f the b e g i n n i n g s (primordia) o f Jerusalem. H e i n c l u d e s six
p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s that e x p l a i n the J e w s ' e m e r g e n c e in history. T h e last
c o m p r i s e s the a n t i - J e w i s h v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s that e m e r g e d in G r e c o -
144
E g y p t i a n c i r c l e s . T h e others, h o w e v e r , c o n t a i n s o m e c o m p l i m e n t a r y
material. In o n e version the J e w s c o m e from Crete and are called "Idaei" and
then "Iudaei" b e c a u s e o f Mt. Ida. Another states that they w e r e from Egypt
during the rule o f Isis. H i e r o s o l y m a and Juda led the e x c e s s population to
145
lands in the r e g i o n . In another tradition they were Ethiopians w h o migrated
b e c a u s e o f fear and odium. T h e narrative c l o s e s t to the O T is that they were
poor strangers (convenas) from A s s y r i a w h o w e n t to E g y p t , took part o f it,
146
and then w e n t to the H e b r e w lands and S y r i a . Still others identify H o m e r ' s
1 4 7
S o l y m i (II 6 . 1 8 5 , Od. 5 . 2 8 3 ) , a celebrated people, with the J e w s .
T h e version w h i c h Tacitus s e e m s to favor is that a p l a g u e in E g y p t caused
K i n g B o c c h o r i s to consult the oracle at A m m o n w h o tells h i m to purify his
148
land b y s e n d i n g the race ( J e w s ) , w h o w e r e hated b y g o d s , to other p l a c e s .
In the desert, w e e p i n g , they are told b y M o s e s not to l o o k for aid from the
g o d s or f r o m p e o p l e , but to trust in t h e m s e l v e s and in the o n e w h o as a
1 4 3 2
M. P. CHARLESWORTH/G. B. TOWNEND, Tacitus, O C D , 1034-5 / STERN II, 1-6 /
HOSPERS-JANSEN, Tacitus over de Joden / H. LEWY, Tacitus on the Origins and Manners of
the Jews, Zion 8, 1943, 1-26 (Hebrew) / GAGER, Moses, 82-6, 127-28 / FELDMAN, Jew and
Gentile, 184-96 / SCHURER, History, III/l, 150-53, 612.
1 4 4
HOSPERS-JANSEN, Tacitus over de Joden, 122 believes that Tacitus took this account
from the Alexandrians, Lysimachus and Apion in particular.
1 4 5
Cp. Plutarch (STERN I, § 259 = D e Is. et Os. 31) where these two rulers are the sons of
Typhon. FELDMAN , Jew and Gentile, 195 notes that Typhon was the god of evil. See Isis'
negative role in Chaeremon's version ( § 0 . 1 2 ) . In Diodorus 1.29.5, Egypt establishes
colonies because of overpopulation (STERN II, 33). Cp. Philo, D e spec. leg. 1.2.
1 4 6
Gen 11:26-12. Tactitus' tradition is also close to that of Nicolaus of Damascus (§ 0.8).
HOSPERS-JANSEN, Tacitus over de Joden, 116-7 also compares the account to that of
Pompeius Trogus (§ 0.10). He argues that Tacitus' sources may be alluding to OT tradition
(the origin of the Jews in Mesopotamia). FELDMAN , Jew and Gentile, 190, 520 n.52 agrees
that the account is close to the Bible.
1 4 7
On the five theories see STERN'S notes (II, 32-5) and the comments of FELDMAN, Jew
and Gentile, 184-96. Cf. also HOSPERS-JANSEN, Tacitus over de Joden, 110-9.
1 4 8
Tacitus' version is closest to Lysimachus who also mentions Bocchoris and Ammon.
He does, however, leave out a number of Lysimachus' extremely anti-Jewish comments. See
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 192-3 (nine different elements of Lysimachus' version that are
not included).
1 4 9
h e a v e n l y leader (duce caelesti) is able to h e l p t h e m . Thirst f a t i g u e s t h e m ,
and M o s e s f o l l o w s a herd o f w i l d a s s e s to water. After a s i x - d a y m a r c h , they
1 5 0
obtain lands and consecrate a t e m p l e . T o e s t a b l i s h h i s p o s i t i o n for all
p o s t e r i t y , M o s e s c r e a t e s n e w rituals contrary t o all o t h e r h u m a n s . In an
i n n e r m o s t shrine (penetrali) t h e y c o n s e c r a t e a statue (effigiem) o f the animal
1 5 1
that e n d e d their j o u r n e y i n g a n d thirst — in apparent s c o r n o f Ammon .
T h e y d o n o t eat p o r k b e c a u s e o f the s c a b i e s that troubled t h e m in E g y p t and
1 5 2
to w h i c h the p i g i s a l s o l i a b l e . Their fasts bear w i t n e s s to their l o n g hunger.
T h e bread w i t h o u t l e a v e n i s eaten b e c a u s e o f the fruits o f the earth that t h e y
153
plundered (or "ate h a s t i l y " raptarum frugum argumentum) . T h e y s a y that
1 5 4
they rest o n the s e v e n t h d a y b e c a u s e it e n d e d their l a b o r s . T h e s e v e n t h year
1 5 5
is a year o f n o w o r k w h a t s o e v e r ( L e v 2 5 : 1 - 7 ) .
A f t e r this s o m e w h a t a p p r e c i a t i v e s u r v e y o f J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s , Tacitus
makes a severe evaluation: T h e s e rituals, h o w e v e r they w e r e introduced, are
156
d e f e n d e d b y their a n t i q u i t y . T h e rest o f their c u s t o m s are s i n i s t e r a n d
filthy. H e attacks t h o s e w h o a b a n d o n their ancestral traditions to b e c o m e
1 4 9
Thus in Tacitus' version they do actually receive help from the gods in the form o f a
leader. In Lysimachus' version (C. A p . 1.309) M o s e s tells them to "hazard themselves to
danger" ( π α ρ α β α λ λ ο μ ε ν ο υ ς ) . Η. S T . J. THACKERAY (LCL) translates "take their courage in
their own hands."
1 5 0
Apion also has a seven day march ( § 0 . 1 3 ) . Cf. also Pompeius Trogus ( § 0 . 1 0 ) .
STERN II, 36, however, points out that this may be coincidence since the time needed for the
walk from Egypt to Palestine is seven days.
1 5 1
STERN II, 3 7 calls attention to Pausanius 10.18.4 where the Ambrakiots dedicate a
copper effigy of an ass in honor of their victory over the Molossians (due to the braying o f an
ass). Cf. also FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 146. Manetho claims that the Jews violated
Egyptian sanctuaries. S e e § 0.2 above on Manetho and § 0.13 on the worship of an ass.
1 5 2
Scabies also appears in Lysimachus and Pompeius Trogus. GAGER, M o s e s , 8 4 notes
that Tacitus, like Hecataeus and Pompeius Trogus, relates certain laws of the Jews to the
exodus tradition.
1 5 3
S e e Exod 12:39. In Hist. 5.13.3, Tacitus mentions 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 besieged people in
Jerusalem during the Jewish war. This is another possible connection to Exod 12:37-39. S e e
STERN II, 37.
1 5 4
Tacitus also mentions a theory that the Sabbath is in honor of Saturn. S e e STERN'S
comment in II, 38. Tibullus calls the Sabbath the day of Saturn (STERN II, § 281 = Carm.
1.3.18)
1 5 5
For Julian's remarks o n unleavened bread s e e § 3 . 1 9 , 2 4 . T h e mention o f the
sabbatical year is apparently unique in Greco-Roman literature. There may be an oblique
reference to it in STERN II, § 305 = Suet., Tib. 32.2.
1 5 6
On the issue o f antiquity in debates between paganism, Judaism, and Christianity see
STERN, I, 39 / COOK, Interpretation, 3 8 3 s.v. "ancestral traditions." Cicero, in a comment on
the Jews in the era before Pompey took Jerusalem, remarks that " . . . the religion o f their
sacred rituals is opposed to the splendor of this empire, the gravity o f our name, and the
institutions of the ancestors" (STERN I, § 68 = Pro Flacco 28:6).
28 Introduction
1 5 7
J e w s . T h e y get circumcised, abandon the g o d s and country, d e s p i s e their
o w n f a m i l i e s , and send tribute to Jerusalem. T h e J e w s s h o w m e r c y to e a c h
158
other but hatred to all o t h e r s . T h e y h a v e n o s e x w i t h foreign w o m e n and
159
differentiate t h e m s e l v e s from others b y m e a n s o f c i r c u m c i s i o n . T h e y d o
not practice table f e l l o w s h i p with n o n - J e w s . T h e souls o f t h o s e w h o die in
battle are immortal. T h e y b e l i e v e in o n e g o d and reject i m a g e - m a k e r s as
profane b e c a u s e the i m a g e s represent g o d w i t h mortal materials in the
l i k e n e s s o f h u m a n s (qui deum imagines mortalibus materiis in species
160
hominum effingant) . J e w s put n o statues in cities or t e m p l e s and so do not
honor the Caesars. S o m e relate the priests' singing and garlands o f i v y with
161
the cult o f Liber, but Tacitus rejects that t h e o r y .
Perhaps Tacitus wrote his ethnographic account to e x p l a i n the rebellious
162
character o f the J e w s during the J e w i s h W a r . Whatever his reasons, he w a s
able to gather the m o s t traditions about the J e w s o f any G r e c o - R o m a n writer.
H i s A s s y r i a n tradition is identical with the account in G e n e s i s e x c e p t for the
statement that they "gained the mastery o f part o f Egypt. That is not present
in G e n e s i s or E x o d u s . Tacitus, consequently, must h a v e gotten this tradition
from a source that had a Jewish connection and thus a k n o w l e d g e o f the L X X .
T h e s a m e applies to his transformed v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s narrative. T h e
plague in Egypt, the flight from the king, the leadership o f M o s e s , the thirst in
the w i l d e r n e s s , and the, M o s a i c legislation are all e l e m e n t s o f the original
story in E x o d u s . That they h a v e b e e n obscured a l m o s t b e y o n d recognition
d o e s not c h a n g e the fact that they had their ultimate origin in a Jewish contact
— e v e n if the contact w a s o n l y oral o n the part o f s o m e G r e c o - E g y p t i a n
author like M a n e t h o . T h e J e w i s h source itself k n e w the biblical tradition or
part o f it.
1 5 7
See comparable attacks in § 1 . 3 4 , 3 . 5 6 .
1 5 8
On misanthropy see § 0 . 4 .
1 5 9
Cp. Celsus' account of the Jews in § 1 . 2 9 . 1 .
1 6 0
Is Tacitus' account inconsistent since he includes a reference to the effigy of the ass in
the temple shrine? Tacitus does not say they worshipped the ass. Tertullian, Apol. 1 6 . 1 - 4
( 1 1 5 , 1 - 2 1 D E K . ) thought Tacitus had contradicted himself since he also writes that Pompey
found no image in the temple and "empty secret places" (inania arcana) in Hist. 5 . 9 . 1 ( 6 3
B.C.E.).
1 6 1
STERN II, § 2 8 1 = Hist. 5 . 2 . 1 - 5 . 5 . See the reference to Liber in § 1 . 2 3 .
1 6 2
GAGER, Moses, 1 2 8 with reference to LEWY, Tacitus, 9 . FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile
1 9 2 - 9 3 shows that it was usual for Tacitus to give some ethnographic account of nations he
was concerned with. See Agricola 1 0 - 2 on the Britons and Germania 2 on the Germans.
The Septuagint*s Reception in the Greco-Roman World 29
0.12 Chaeremon(IC.E.)
In the first c e n t u r y ( C . E . ) , an A l e x a n d r i a n p r i e s t ( s a c r e d s c r i b e -
hierogrammateus) n a m e d C h a e r e m o n wrote a history o f E g y p t that contains
an anti-Jewish version o f the e x o d u s narrative that has similarities with that o f
Manetho. H e m a y b e the s a m e Chaeremon w h o w a s o n e o f the Alexandrian
e n v o y s to C l a u d i u s c o n c e r n i n g s o m e riots b e t w e e n the J e w s and other
163
A l e x a n d r i a n s . H e w a s a S t o i c w h o wrote allegories o f Egyptian religious
tradition (e.g. the E g y p t i a n g o d s are the planets), and according to Porphyry
he w a s o n e o f O r i g e n ' s inspirations for his o w n allegorical interpretations o f
1 6 4
the O T . L i k e , M a n e t h o , C h a e r e m o n p l a c e s the e v e n t s in the r e i g n o f
Pharaoh A m e n o p h i s . Isis appears to h i m in a dream and c o m p l a i n s about the
165
destruction o f her t e m p l e in w a r t i m e . A sacred scribe (hierogrammateus)
a d v i s e s h i m to c l e a n s e E g y p t o f its p o l l u t e d p e o p l e ( τ ο υ ς μ ο λ υ σ μ ο ύ ς
ε χ ό ν τ ω ν ) . T w o sacred scribes, M o s e s and Joseph ( w h o m h e identifies as
166
Tisithen and P e t e s e p h ) , lead 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 e x i l e s to the border at P e l u s i u m where
they m e e t 3 8 0 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e w h o had b e e n abandoned by the king. T h e y all
attack Egypt. T h e k i n g ' s s o n , R a m e s s e s , later drives the J e w s ( 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 n o w )
167 168
to S y r i a . T h e m e n t i o n o f Joseph is a rarity in G r e c o - R o m a n literature .
T h e e x i l e s and border p e o p l e together number 6 3 0 , 0 0 0 — w h i c h is c l o s e to
the figure o f 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 in E x o d 12:37. C h a e r e m o n also s e e m s to k n o w w h o
1 6 9
M o s e s is in contrast with L y s i m a c h u s w h o mentions "a certain" M o s e s . A s
w i t h the other A l e x a n d r i a n authors the story is a reversal o f the e x o d u s
narrative if o n e identifies C h a e r e m o n ' s J e w s with the p o l l u t e d p e o p l e o f
Egypt. A z i z a n o t e s that C h a e r e m o n d o e s not refer to any i n h u m a n e J e w i s h
l a w s — s o m e t h i n g that w o u l d h a v e b e e n e a s y to refute in first century
1 6 3
SCHURER, History, III/l, 601-3 / AziZA, L'utilisation, 5 9 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
pagani, I, 71 n.131 / H. DORRIE, Chaeremon 2, KP I, 1964, 1121. Cf. CPJ 2, 153.
1 6 4
Porphyry, Ep. ad Anebonem 12b (23,7-24,2 SODANO). Porphyry, Contra Christianos
F. 39 = Eus. H.E. 6.19.8 (A. VON HARNACK, Porphyrius "Gegen die Christen," 15 Bucher.
Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, APAW.PH 1, Berlin 1916). Cf. A . BARZANO,
Cheremone di Alessandria, A N R W II.32.3,1985,1981-2001 / VAN DER HORST, Chaeremon.
1 6 5
STERN I, 4 2 0 refers to an incomplete text (CPJ 3, 520) in which the wrath of Isis is
mentioned in line 9. Line 8 refers to lawless ones who are driven from Egypt. Line 4
contains a word (fragment) that may be "Jews." Cf. also HENGEL, Judaism, II, 125 n.519.
1 6 6
H.-R. SCHWYZER, Chaeremon, Leipzig 1932, 57 sees here an indication of an earlier
Egyptian tradition that did not have the names of Moses and Joseph. Cf. STERN I, 421 and
SCHURER, History, III/l, 601 / VAN DER HORST, Chaeremon, 4 9 n.l, 50 n.8.
1 6 7
STERN I, § 178 = Jos., C. Ap. 1.288-92.
1 6 8
Pompeius Trogus (STERN I, § 137 = Justinus, Hist. Philip. 36, Epit. 2.6-10) and
Apollonius Molon (STERN I, § 4 6 = Eus., P.E. 9.19.3).
1 6 9
AziZA, L'utilisation, 6 1 .
30 Introduction
170
Alexandria . O n the other h a n d h e s h o w s n o firsthand k n o w l e d g e o f the
LXX.
0.13 Apion (ICE.)
T h e H o m e r i c grammarian A p i o n taught i n R o m e during the r e i g n o f Tiberius

and C l a u d i u s . H e r e c e i v e d c i t i z e n s h i p f r o m A l e x a n d r i a , and after a riot
1 7 1
b e t w e e n J e w s and G r e e k s there, h e slandered the J e w s b e f o r e C a l i g u l a . He
wrote a history of Egypt of w h i c h Josephus includes several fragments.
1 7 2
A p i o n i d e n t i f i e s h i s s o u r c e as certain "elders o f E g y p t . " Consequently, he
d o e s n o t k n o w t h e L X X directly, but r e l i e s o n oral E g y p t i a n traditions that
t h e m s e l v e s are a r e s p o n s e to E x o d u s . M o s e s , in A p i o n ' s a c c o u n t , c o m e s from
1 7 3
H i e r a p o l i s and f o l l o w s his ancestral c u s t o m s ( π α τ ρ ί ο ι ς εθεσι) . H e erects
o p e n - a i r e d h o u s e s o f prayer (that f a c e east) in the c i t y and pillars w i t h b o a t
1 7 4
models beneath (sun d i a l s ) . Later i n h i s t e x t J o s e p h u s refers to A p i o n ' s
v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s . In 7 5 2 B . C . E . M o s e s l e a d s 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 l e p e r s , blind, and
1 7 5
l a m e p e o p l e forth f r o m E g y p t . T h e y march s i x d a y s , g e t s w o l l e n g l a n d s in
1 7 6
their g r o i n s , reach Judaea, and rest o n the s e v e n t h d a y . S i n c e the E g y p t i a n
w o r d for this g r o i n i l l n e s s is sabbatosis they call the s e v e n t h d a y "Sabbaton"
1 7 0
AZIZA, L'utilisation, 6 1 .
1 7 1
Jos., Antiq. 18.257-9, SCHURER, History, III/l, 604-7 / H. GARTNER, Apion, K P I,
1994, 4 3 2 / F. MONTANARI/T. HlDBER, Apion, Der neue Pauly I, 1997, 845-7. FELDMAN,
Jew and Gentile, 5 3 1 n.3 notes that some of Apion's comments o n Homer have been found
(P. Rylands 1.26) in a text from the first century. S e e also Literary Papryi, London 3 0 ;
British M u s e u m inv. 271 for a mention of Apion among some o f the commentators on the
Odyssey. Cf. also RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 71 n.130 / Idem, I cristiani c o m e
hesterni. U n a riflessione sulle origini del comparativismo storiografico, in: Rivedendo
antichi pregiudizi. Stereotipi sull'alltro nell'eta classica e contemporanea, ed. G. A .
LUCHETTA, Chieti 2 0 0 2 , (49-61) 5 1 . Apion's life and work are succinctly reviewed by S.
NEITZEL, Apions Γλώσσοα Όμηρι,καί, SGLG 3 , Berlin/New York 1977, 188-9.
1 7 2
STERN I, § 164 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.10.
1 7 3
For Manetho, M o s e s also c o m e s from Hierapolis. S e e § 0 . 2 . STERN I, 395 also
mentions the temple o f Onias IV which was in the nome of Hierapolis as a reason why Jews
were associated with the city. For the issue of "ancestral customs" in the debate between
pagans, Jews, and Christians see § 1.28.1.
1 7 4
STERN I, § 164 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.1-11. The shadow cast by the structure follows the
course o f the sun. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 2 4 0 argues that this is an implied compliment
of M o s e s ' scientific ability. GAGER, Moses, 123 thinks that this text refers to Moses' actions
in Jerusalem. Since Apion does not mention the exodus in this passage, o n e can probably
assume that Egypt is still meant.
1 7 5
The date is roughly the same as that of Lysimachus' King Bocchoris (STERN 1,397).
1 7 6
Ironically, Apion died from gangrene that set in after a therapeutically necessary
circumcision due to an ulcer (Jos., C. Ap. 2.143).
(cp. E x o d 2 0 : 8 - 1 1 ) . In a n o t h e r a c c o u n t A p i o n s a y s that M o s e s w e n t u p t o
M o u n t Sinai w h i c h h e l o c a t e s b e t w e e n E g y p t and Arabia. T h e r e h e is h i d d e n
for forty d a y s , a n d w h e n h e c o m e s d o w n h e g i v e s l a w s t o the J e w s ( E x o d
1 7 7
24:16-8) .
J o s e p h u s , in another text, m e n t i o n s P o s i d o n i u s and A p o l l o n i u s as A p i o n ' s
s o u r c e s for the f o l l o w i n g tradition: the J e w s w o r s h i p p e d a g o l d e n a s s ' s h e a d
1 7 8
i n the t e m p l e that A n t i o c h u s I V d i s c o v e r e d . Apion also includes an
a c c o u n t o f A n t i o c h u s I V s " d i s c o v e r y " in the t e m p l e o f a G r e e k prisoner w h o
had b e e n fattened up by his Jewish captors for ritual slaughter and
1 7 9
consumption. W h i l e sacrificing h i m they s w e a r e n m i t y to the G r e e k s . It is
o b v i o u s to h i m that the J e w i s h l a w s are unjust and that t h e y d o n o t w o r s h i p
1 8 0
(evoefieiv) G o d as t h e y s h o u l d s i n c e the J e w s are s l a v e s o f the n a t i o n s . A
c l o s e l y related a r g u m e n t i s A p i o n ' s c l a i m that the J e w s h a v e n o t p r o d u c e d
a m a z i n g i n d i v i d u a l s w h o are i n v e n t o r s i n t e c h n i c a l arts or w h o e x c e l in
wisdom. E x a m p l e s h e g i v e s are S o c r a t e s , Z e n o , and C l e a n t h e s . H e adds his
1 7 7
STERN I, § 165 = Jos., C. A p . 2.15-7, 2 0 - 1 , 2 5 , 28. STERN I, 3 9 7 argues that Apion
may have asserted that M o s e s attempted to get the Jews to accept his laws as having a divine
origin. Cp. also FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 5 3 4 n.22. He compares this to Strabo's apparent
skepticism about the divine origin of laws in 16.2.38-39 (= STERN I, § 115). SCHAFER,
Judeophobia, 2 9 remarks that for Apion Moses transferred religious customs from Egypt to
Judea.
1 7 8
STERN I, § 165 = Jos., C. A p . 2.79-80. This was a commonplace. Mnaseas o f Patara
(ca 2 0 0 B.C.E.), according to Apion, is the earliest account (STERN I, § 28 = Jos., C. Ap.
2.112-4); Damocritus (I C.E.?) holds that the Jews used to worship the golden head of an ass
and every seven years used to offer a foreigner sacrificially (STERN I, § 2 4 7 = Suda, s.v.
Δ α μ ό κ ρ ι τ ο ς ) ; Diod. Sic. (I B.C.E.) wrote that Antiochus IV found a statue of an ass with a
bearded man (Moses?) sitting on it holding a scroll (STERN I, § 6 3 = Diod. Sic. 34-35.1.3);
Tacitus has the Jews dedicate a shrine to an ass since wild asses had led them to water in the
wilderness (STERN II, § 281 = Tacitus, Hist. 5.4.2). Plutarch has a similar reference (to T a c ;
STERN I, § 258 = Quaest. conv. 4.5.2). The charge continued against Christians: Tert. Apol.
16.1-3 (115,1-16 D E K . ) ; Minucius Felix, Octavius 9.3 (7,18-9 KYTZLER). A pagan drew a
mural on the Palatine hill with a person worshipping a crucified man with an ass's head, and
the subtext is "Alexander worships god" (RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 7 5 , 122-24). Cp.
COOK, Interpretation, 4-5 / SCHURER, History, ΙΠ/1, 152 / L. ALEXANDER, Gospels.
1 7 9
STERN I, § 171 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.89-90. Josephus, in another context, also includes a
reference to Apion's charge that the Jews take an oath to show good will to no foreigner
(μηδειΛ εύνοήσειν άλλοφύλω) — especially Greeks. S e e STERN I, § 173 = Jos., C. Ap.
2.121. Apion also quotes Mnaseas for an account of the discovery of the golden head o f an
ass in the temple (STERN I, § 172 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.112-14). Cp. Fronto's charges that the
Christians are guilty o f Thyestean feasts in Min. Felix Oct. 9.5 (7,26-32 KYT.) and see COOK,
Interpretation 5-6 / SCHURER, History, III/l, 153. On the ass's head and cannibalism see the
review in W. SCHAFKE, Fruhchristlicher Widerstand, A N R W II.23.1, 1979, ( 4 6 0 - 7 2 3 ) 5 7 9 -
99. Cp. also GAGER, M o s e s 125 n.28.
1 8 0
STERN I, § 1 7 4 = Jos., C. A p . 2.125. On this argument s e e FELDMAN, Jew and
Gentile, 230. Celsus used a similar argument (§ 1.33); see also § 3.56.
32 Introduction
o w n n a m e t o that list and c a l l s A l e x a n d r i a b l e s s e d for h a v i n g s u c h a

181
citizen ! J o s e p h u s briefly m e n t i o n s c h a r g e s o f A p i o n ' s that i n c l u d e
criticism o f the J e w s for sacrificing domestic animals, for not eating pork, and
182
for practicing c i r c u m c i s i o n .
A p i o n m u s t h a v e k n o w n s o m e biblical traditions from his sources. Stern
b e l i e v e s that h e a d d e d t h e s e traditions to the o l d E g y p t i a n v e r s i o n o f the
1 8 3
e x o d u s . Gager is w i l l i n g to consider the possibility that A p i o n might h a v e
read E x o d u s s i n c e h e w a s o s t e n s i b l y an o f f i c i a l o f t h e A l e x a n d r i a n
1 8 4
M u s e u m . G i v e n A p i o n ' s o w n t e s t i m o n y , h o w e v e r , this s e e m s unlikely.
His sources are probably for the m o s t part oral.
0.14 Ps. Longinus (I CE.)
O n e o f the m o s t f a m o u s texts o n literary criticism to survive from the ancient

1 5
world is P s . L o n g i n u s ' On the Sublime * . H e argues that greatness o f mind is
necessary for e x c e l l e n c e in literary art. H e admires H o m e r ' s battles o f the
g o d s in II 2 1 . 3 8 8 and 2 0 . 6 1 - 5 , but if they cannot b e allegorically interpreted
they are c o m p l e t e l y atheistic and d o not preserve what is fitting (el μή κ α τ '
ά λ λ η γ ο ρ ί α ν λ α μ β ά ν ο ι τ ο , π α ν τ ά π α σ ι ν ά θ ε α και ο ύ σ ώ ζ ο ν τ α τό
1 8 6
π ρ έ π ο ν ) . T e x t s he lauds for presenting the divine (τό δ α ι μ ό ν ι ο ν ) truly as
unalloyed, majestic, and pure ( ά χ ρ α ν τ ό ν τ ι καΐ μ έ γ α ... καΐ ά κ ρ α τ ο ν ) are
187
the portrayal o f P o s e i d o n in H o m e r II. 13.18; 2 0 . 6 0 , 13.19 and 1 3 . 2 7 - 2 9 .
1 8 1
STERN I, § 175 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.135.
1 8 2
STERN I, § 176 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.137. Josephus replies that Egyptian priests did not eat
pork (C. Ap. 2 . 1 3 7 , 1 4 1 ) . Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 224. See § 1.28.3.
1 8 3
STERN 1,397.
1 8 4
GAGER, M o s e s , 124. Gager identifies Apion as an official of the Museum based on
the testimony in the Suda that "Apion succeeded Theon the grammarian" (s.v. Ά π ί ω ν § 3215
ADLER). FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 534 n.22 thinks that the mention of forty days on Sinai
indicates that Apion knew a Septuagint or had oral contact with a Jew. On Theon see C.
WENDEL, Theon 9, PRE 2. Reihe V , 1 9 3 4 , 2 0 5 4 - 9 .
1 8 5
For the immense bibliography on the Genesis quotation in Ps. Longinus see STERN, I,
361-3 / GAGER, Moses, 56-63 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 30. The edition used
here is 'Longinus' On the Sublime, ed. and comm. D. A. RUSSELL, Oxford 1964. On the
Jewish specialist in rhetoric, Caecilius of Calacte, whom Ps. Longinus writes against (De
Subl. 1.1; 4.2; 8.1, 4; 31.1; 3 2 . 1 , 8 [1,1.9; 5,12; 8,27; 9,16; 3 7 , 1 0 . 2 2 ; 40,13 R U S S . ] ) see
SCHURER, History, III/l, 701-4 / STERN, I, 566 / RUSSELL, Longinus, 58-9. Caecilius lived
during the time of Augustus.
1 8 6
Longinus, De subl. 9.6-7 (10,25-11,11 R U S S . )
1 8 7
Longinus, D e subl. 9.8 (11,17-25 Russ.). See also GAGER, Moses, 57.
1 8 8
In the same way the lawmaker (ό θ ε σ μ ο θ έ τ η ς ) of the Jews, not an average man ( ο ύ χ
ό τυχών άνήρ), since he grasped and revealed the power o f the divine in a worthy
manner ( τ η ν τ ο υ θείου δύναμιν κατά την άξίαν έχώρησε κ ά ξ έ φ η ν ε ν ) , writing
immediately in the beginning of the laws says: "God said" — what? "Let there be light
1 8 9
(γενέσθω) A n d there was (Gen 1:3). Let there be earth (γενέσθω γ η ) . A n d there
190
was (Gen 1 : 9 - 1 0 ) . "
T h e r e are s o m a n y c o n t a c t s b e t w e e n the "pagan" author a n d " H e l l e n i s t i c "

J u d a i s m that E . N o r d e n c o n j e c t u r e d an actual e n c o u n t e r b e t w e e n P h i l o and
1 9 1
the a n o n y m o u s a u t h o r . H e a l s o c a l l s attention t o an e x t r e m e l y close
1 9 2
parallel b e t w e e n the t h o u g h t o f P s . L o n g i n u s and J o s e p h u s . J o s e p h u s asks
h i s a u d i e n c e if M o s e s h a s u n d e r s t o o d G o d ' s nature i n a w o r t h y f a s h i o n (el
την τε φύσιν άξίως αύτοϋ κ α τ ε ν ό η σ ε ) and to e x a m i n e w h e t h e r M o s e s
has always attributed acts to G o d that b e f i t his p o w e r (τή δυνάμει
πρέπουσας αεί τάς πράξεις ά ν α τ έ θ ε ι κ ε ) — k e e p i n g h i s a c c o u n t pure
from the s h a m e f u l m y t h o l o g y present in other authors ( π ά σ η ς καθαρόν τον
περί αύτοϋ φυλάξας λόγον της παρ* άλλοις άσχή μονός
1 8 8
GAGER, Moses, 5 9 notes that this is the first time this word is used for Moses. STERN,
Moses, I, 3 6 4 refers to t w o uses in Philo: D e migr. Abr. 23 "the lawgiving word"; and God
as legislator of the ten commandments in Quis rerum divinarum heres 167.
1 8 9
The L X X has the form γενηθήτω. Aquila has the same form as Ps. Longinus, as does
Eus., P.E. 13.13.12 (VIII/2, 2 0 1 , 2 0 M R A S ) . S e e Genesis, ed. J. W . W E V E R S , Septuaginta.
Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, I,
Gottingen, 1 9 7 4 , 7 5 - 6 , app. crit.
1 9 0
Ps. Longinus, D e sublimitate 9.9 ( S T E R N , I § 148 = 11,26-12,3 R U S S . ; s e e also
RUSSELL'S commentary on 92-4). Author's ET.
1 9 1
E. N O R D E N , D a s Genesiszitat in der Schrift v o m Erhabenen, in: Idem, Kleine
Schriften zum klassischen Altertum, ed. B. KYTZLER, Berlin 1966, (286-313) 3 0 7 - 1 3 . Cp.
also H. D . BETZ, Eduard Norden und die friihchristliche Literatur, in: Idem, Antike und
Christentum. Gesammelte Aufsatze IV, Tubingen 1998, (78-99) 9 7 - 8 . BETZ notes that for
NORDEN the meeting (of Philo and the author) would be an ideal example of the encounter
between Judaism and Hellenism. "Hellenism" has b e c o m e a problematic category in
scholarship. S e e the review of HENGEL's Judaism and Hellenism by J. K. AlTKEN (JBL 123,
2004, 331-41). Porphyry and Julian tend to use "Hellene" to describe a person w h o is not a
Christian or Jew (cf. § 2 . 1 . 2 [Eus., H.E. 6.19.5-8], § 2.2.1 [combined with "barbarians"],
§ 3.7, 10, 17). Celsus used "Romans" to describe non-Christians and non-Jews (cf. the
reference to C. Cels. 8.69 [585,18-23 M A R C ] in § 1.22). Cp. G. W. BOWERSOCK, Hellenism
in Late Antiquity, Jerome Lectures 18, Ann Arbor 1 9 9 0 , 1-14 ("Hellenism" can mean
"paganism" in late antiquity, but it can also mean "Greek culture"). Gregory of Nazianzus
argues that it (he uses the verb form έ λ λ η ν ί ζ ε ι ν ) can mean "the Greek nation and language"
or "religion" in Or. 4 . 1 0 3 ( S C 3 0 9 , 252,1-10 BERNARDI). Gregory is protesting Julian's law
against Christian teachers. S e e also Ps. Justin's text in n. 15 in the concluding chapter.
1 9 2
NORDEN, Das Genesiszitat, 290.
34 Introduction
1 9 3
μυθολογίας) . T h e r e is little a g r e e m e n t w h e t h e r the author is a H e l l e n i z e d
1 9 4
J e w or a H e l l e n e w i t h strong J e w i s h s y m p a t h i e s . In G a g e r ' s j u d g m e n t it
1 9 5
really m a k e s n o d i f f e r e n c e w h i c h alternative is t r u e . F e l d m a n points out
that the author regards M o s e s as sufficiently w e l l k n o w n n o t t o n e e d a n a m e ,
196
and that the author a s s u m e s the a u d i e n c e w o u l d b e a w a r e o f the q u o t a t i o n .
P s . L o n g i n u s k n o w s t h e L X X , p o s s i b l y t h r o u g h an i n t e r m e d i a r y , but h i s
paraphrase i s o n e o f the c l e a r e s t r e f e r e n c e s to G e n e s i s b y a p a g a n author in
antiquity b e f o r e Christianity spread and attracted the r e s p o n s e s o f C e l s u s ,
197
Porphyry and J u l i a n . T h o s e latter authors k n e w parts o f the L X X w e l l .
0.15 Ps. Ecphantus (I - II CE. ?)
A n o b s c u r e P y t h a g o r e a n author ( P s . E c p h a n t u s ) m a y b e d e p e n d e n t o n the
account o f G e n e s i s and describes h u m a n s s o :
On earth the human is a being settled in a far land, falling short of his purer nature and
weighted down by the great earth. He would be scarcely lifted up from the mother if
some kind o f inspiration o f divine nature (θεοιμοίρης* ... έμττνοίτ\σις) did not join him
(συνάψεν) to the eternal living being, showing to his better part the sacred appearance
198
(ττότοψις) of the B e g e t t e r .
1 9 3
Jos., Antiq. 1.15. S e e , for other Jewish connections (with Philo specifically),
RUSSELL, Longinus, xxix, x x x , xl, 7 2 , 9 4 , 188. For example, D e subl. 3.4 has parallels with
Philo, D e plant. 156-8; cp. D e subl. 44.3 with D e ebriet. 198.
1 9 4
RUSSELL (Longinus, x x x ) points to the expression "By Zeus" (ι/ή Δ ί α ; μά Δ ί α ) used
by the author as evidence against the author's being a Hellenized Jew. S e e D e subl. 11.2,
33.1, 3 5 . 4 , 4 3 . 1 , 4 4 . 2 (17,11; 40,25; 44,10; 51,5; 5 3 , 1 5 RUSS.). Josephus uses it rarely (C.
Ap. 1.255 and possibly 2.263). Philo does not use it. The Hellenistic Jewish authors
excerpted by Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria also do not use the expression.
1 9 5
GAGER, Moses, 63 followed by FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 5 3 3 n.21.
1 9 6
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 2 3 9 , 312. Quintilian refers to M o s e s as the author of the
Jewish superstition (STERN, I § 230 = Inst. 3.7.21).
1 9 7
DORIVAL, La Bible, 21 calls the text the first citation of the L X X in pagan literature.
1 9 8
STERN, III § 564a = Ps. Ecphantus, D e regno apud Stobaeus 4.6.22. Author's ET. On
the date and author s e e STERN III, 33-5 / H. THESLEFF, A n Introduction to the Pythagorean
Writings o f the Hellenistic Period, Acta Academiae Aboensis Humaniora 2 4 / 3 , Abo 1 9 6 1 ,
38-9, 6 5 - 7 1 , 100-1 (Southern Italy in III B.C.E.) / L. DELATTE, Les Traites de la Royaute
d'Ecphante, Diotogene et Sthenidas, Liege 1 9 4 2 , 108 / W. B U R K E R T , Zur
geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica, in: Pseudepigrapha, Vol I.,
ed. K. VON FRITZ, Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique 18, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1972, 23-55
/ FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 204, 312, 5 2 6 n.25. For a completely skeptical view of the date
2
of Ps. Ecphantus' treatise see G. T. GRIFFITH, Ecphantus, O C D , 3 6 9 . The Pythagorean
Ecphantus appears in Iamblichus, Vita Pyth. 267. On both see B. CENTRONE, Ecphante de
Crotone, Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, ed. R. GOULET, Vol. 3 , Paris 1989, 55 and
T h e context o f "inspiration" s e e m s to imply that he is thinking o f humans as a

combination o f earth and inspiration from G o d . In support o f the thesis that
Ecphantus m a y b e alluding to G e n 2:7 is Philo w h o holds that the soul w o u l d
not b e able to understand G o d , if G o d had not inspired ( ε ν έ π ν ε υ σ ε ) it and
1 9 9
p o w e r f u l l y grasped ( ή ψ α τ ο ) i t . For an alternative v i e w o f h u m a n s s e e
P h i l o ' s treatise D e aetern. 5 5 - 7 , where Critolaus the Peripatetic philosopher
argues that p e o p l e are uncreated and the race has a l w a y s e x i s t e d o n an earth
that has a l w a y s existed. P e o p l e are not generated from mother earth, but h a v e
always been generated sexually.
A g a i n , Ps. E c p h a n t u s , in his treatise o n k i n g s h i p , argues that the k i n g ' s
nature is superior to that o f other humans. His body ( σ κ ά ν ο ς ) is the s a m e as
that of other h u m a n s , " . . . but h e is m a d e b y the best Artificer ( τ ε χ ν ί τ α ) w h o
crafted h i m using h i m s e l f as archetype ( ά ρ χ ε τ ύ π ω ) . " Consequently the king
is the o n l y creature ( κ α τ α σ κ ε ύ α σ μ α ) w h o is a type ( τ ύ π ο ς ) o f the H i g h e r
2 0 0
King. Here the author clearly d o e s not assert that all people are m a d e in the
i m a g e o f G o d , but h e m a y b e indebted to G e n 1:26-27 for his c o n c e p t w h i c h
201
is s o unusual in G r e c o - R o m a n l i t e r a t u r e . A n o t h e r P y t h a g o r e a n author,
E u r y s u s , h o l d s that "the d e m i u r g e u s i n g h i m s e l f as t h e p a r a d i g m
( π α ρ α δ ε ί γ μ α τ ι ) m a d e the human." Eurysus then continues with a phrase that
Ps. Ecphantus o n l y a p p l i e s to the king: "The b o d y is like t h o s e o f other
b e i n g s w h i c h e x i s t s f r o m the s a m e matter, h a v i n g b e e n m a d e b y the best
202
Artificer w h o m a d e it u s i n g h i m s e l f as the a r c h e t y p e . " A s with Ocellus
Lucanus it is p o s s i b l e that Ps. Ecphantus had s o m e kind o f a c c e s s to a L X X
g i v e n the linguistic e v i d e n c e , or it m a y be a coincidental agreement.
B. CENTRONE, Pseudo-Ecphante in Ibid., 55-6. CENTRONE's bibliography shows that the

question of dating is unresolved. M . FREDE argues for a date in II or III C E . in Ekphantos
(2), Der neue Pauly III, 1 9 9 7 , 9 4 2 .
1 9 9
Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.38.
2 0 0
STERN III § 564b = Ps. Ecphantus, D e regno apud Stobaeus 4.7.64. Author's ET.
2 0 1
STERN III, 37 notes that Diog. Laert. 6.51 (Diogenes held that good men are the
images of the gods [θεών ε ι κ ό ν α ς ] ) is not the same as the concept found in Genesis. In
Cicero's De nat. deor. 1.34.96, humans are nearer to the image of the gods in virtue than in
form. For this tradition see Plato, Theaet. 176b / cf. also H. MERKI, Ό μ ο ί ω σ ι ς θεώ. Von der
Platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottahnlichkeit bei Gregor von Nyssa, Paradosis 7,
Freiburg 1 9 5 1 , 6 5 - 7 1 (humans as the "image" of God/gods in Greco-Roman tradition).
2 0 2
Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.5.29.1-2 (II, 3 4 4 , 1 8 - 2 3 ST./FR.).
36 Introduction
0.16 Numenius (IICE.)
N u m e n i u s , a Pythagorean or M i d d l e Platonist philosopher, l i v e d in the s e c o n d

203
century and w a s from A p a m e a in S y r i a . L i k e P s . L o n g i n u s h e s h o w e d
great s y m p a t h y for M o s e s and the L X X . H i s f a m o u s statement summarizes
204
this attitude: "What is Plato but M o s e s Atticizing (speaking Attic G r e e k ) ? "
T h i s statement c o u l d serve as the title for E u s e b i u s ' Preparation for the
Gospel, B o o k s X I and XII, in w h i c h h e finds m u c h o f Plato in the O T . In
C l e m e n t ' s version o f the saying, h e prefaces his quotation o f N u m e n i u s with a
reference to A r i s t o b u l u s ' v i e w that Plato f o l l o w e d the J e w i s h l a w and that
there w a s a translation o f the O T into Greek before that o f D e m e t r i u s (the
2 0 5
L X X ) . Pythagoras also learned from the J e w s according t o Aristobulus.
Clement then includes his reference to N u m e n i u s w h i c h h e describes with this
endorsement: " N u m e n i u s the P y t h a g o r e a n p h i l o s o p h e r w r i t e s o p e n l y
2 0 6
(άντικρυς γράφει)."
N u m e n i u s m a y h a v e u s e d P h i l o in his writings, but h e clearly k n e w the
L X X according to Origen w h o says that N u m e n i u s puts m a n y texts o f M o s e s
and the prophets in his writings and g i v e s them a not unpersuasive allegorical
2 0 7
interpretation (και ουκ άττιθάνως α υ τ ά τ ρ ο π ο λ ο γ ο ϋ ν τ α ) . Such
interpretations appeared in N u m e n i u s ' Hoopoe, Concerning Numbers, and
Concerning Place. In his book On the Good, he allegorizes a narrative about
2 0 8
Jesus w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g his n a m e . Origen, in another p a s s a g e , again
refers to N u m e n i u s ' book On the Good where he includes the J e w s a m o n g the
^Porphyry, Vita Plot. 17,18 (OCT, Plotini Opera, I, 20 HENRY/SCHWYZER) and the
Suda, s.v. Νουμήνιος § 517 ADLER = STERN II, § 363e. Cf. also GAGER, Moses, 63 / STERN
II, 206-8 / E. DES PLACES, Numenius Fragments, CUFr, Paris 1 9 7 3 , 7 .
2 0 4
STERN II, § 363a-e = Numenius, F. 8 (51,13 DES PLACES). S e e FELDMAN, Jew and
Gentile, 241-2 who views the saying as a tremendous compliment.
2 0 5
Aristobulus F. 3a = Clem. Alex. Strom 1.22.150.1-3 (III, 150,1-154,43 HOLLADAY).
See the discussion of Hecataeus above (§ 0.1).
2 0 6
STERN II, § 363a = Clem. Alex., Strom 1.22.150.4. STERN I, 2 0 9 argues that doubts
concerning the authenticity of the statement are unfounded. Cp. GAGER, M o s e s , 67-8.
GAGER discusses how the Christian tradition modified this statement of Numenius to imply
that Plato "stole" his material from Moses. See Theodoret (STERN II, § 363d = Graec. Affect.
Curatio 2.114), Hesychius of Miletus in FHG 4, 171 MULLER, and Suda, s.v. Νουμήνιος
§ 5 1 7 ADLER). Eusebius has doubts about the attribution of the statement to Numenius,
according to M. J. E D W A R D S , Atticizing M o s e s ? Numenius, the Fathers and the Jews,
VigChr 4 4 , 1990, (64-75) 67. See Eus., P.E. 11.10.14 (VIII/2, 28,8-11 MRAS). Eusebius,
however, does not express any open doubts about the attribution.
2 0 7
STERN II, § 366 = Origen, C. Cels. 4.51 = Numenius, F. l c , 10a (43,1-5; 52 DES
PLACES) = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 12. EDWARDS, Atticizing Moses?, 6 8 , 6 9 , 7 2 -
3 suggests that Numenius may only have known the LXX through Christian apologists.
2 0 8
See also COOK, Interpretation, 164.
nations that b e l i e v e G o d h a s n o b o d y ( α σ ω μ ά τ ο υ ) . H e a l s o u s e s w o r d s o f the

2 0 9
prophets in h i s b o o k s and a l l e g o r i z e s t h e m . T h i s c o r r e s p o n d s to N u m e n i u s '
2 1 0
v i e w that b e i n g is incorporeal ( τ ό ov ... άσώματον) .
T h e J e w s appear i n N u m e n i u s ' r e v i e w o f the forerunners o f P l a t o and
Pythagoras:
[Also from the Pythagorean philosopher himself, I mean Numenius, I will quote as
follows from his first book On the Good.] But when one has spoken upon this point and
sealed it by the testimonies o f Plato, it will be necessary to g o back and connect it with the
precepts of Pythagoras, and to appeal to the nations of good repute, bringing forward their
rites and doctrines, and their institutions (τάς τελετάς και τ α δ ό γ μ α τ α τ ά ς τε
ι δ ρ ύ σ ε ι ς ) which are formed in agreement with those of Plato, all that the Brahmans, and
211
the Jews, and Magi and Egyptians arranged.
H i s r e f e r e n c e t o r e l i g i o u s rituals, d o g m a s , and institutions p r o b a b l y i m p l i e s

that h e h a d m a d e a s t u d y o f J e w i s h traditions a l o n g w i t h h i s study o f the
LXX. H i s a p p r o a c h t o the J e w s as a r e s p e c t a b l e and w i s e p e o p l e stands i n
2 1 2
contrast w i t h that o f C e l s u s . N u m e n i u s surely b e l i e v e d that t h e s e p e o p l e s
p o s s e s s e d an a n c i e n t w i s d o m that w a s e i t h e r the s o u r c e o f or c o u l d be
2 1 3
c o m p a r e d to the later t e a c h i n g o f Pythagoras and P l a t o .
N u m e n i u s p r o b a b l y referred to G e n 1:2 in h i s m e n t i o n o f the spirit o f G o d
2 1 4
being borne u p o n the w a t e r . H e also probably c o m b i n e s G o d ' s self-
identification in E x o d 3 : 1 4 (I a m the o n e w h o is ε γ ώ είμι ό ώ ν ) w i t h the
Platonic c o n c e p t i o n o f a b s o l u t e b e i n g ( τ ό ov):
And as again there is a relation between the husbandman and him that plants, exactly in
the same w a y is the First God related to the Demiurge. The one w h o is sews the seed of
all soul (ό μ ε ν γ ε ών σ π έ ρ μ α πάσης ψυχής σ π ε ί ρ ε ι ) in all things that partake of
Himself. But the Lawgiver plants, and distributes and transplants into each of us the
215
germs which have been previously deposited from the higher s o u r c e .
2 0 9
STERN II, § 364b = Origen, C. Cels. 1.15 = Numenius, F. l b (42,1-43,7 DES PLACES).
Cf. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 217.
2 1 0
Numenius, F. 7 (50,1 DES PLACES) = Eus., P.E. 11.10.9.
2 1 1
STERN II, § 364a = Eus., P.E. 9.7.1 = Numenius, F. l a (42,1-9 DES PLACES). E T from
E. HAMILTON GIFFORD, Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel, Part 1. B o o k s 1-9, Part 2.
Books 10-15, Oxford 1 9 0 3 , 1 , 4 4 3 .
2 1 2
S e e § 1.20. S e e also § 0.3 and 2.2.7.
2 1 3
Cf. E. DES PLACES, Numenius et la Bible, in: Idem, Iitudes Platoniciennes 1929-1979,
EPRO 9 0 , Leiden 1 9 8 1 , ( 3 0 9 - 1 5 ) 3 1 3 - 4 (originally published in Homenaje a Juan Prado,
Madrid 1975, 4 9 7 - 5 0 2 ) w h o discusses Numenius' theory of the chain of thought that goes
back into antiquity (άναχώρησις).
2 1 4
This text is discussed in § 2.2.3.
2 1 5
STERN II, § 3 6 9 = Eus., P.E. 11.18.14 = Numenius, F. 13 (55,1-7 DES PLACES). ET
modified from GlFFORD, Eusebius II, 581 w h o translates the phrase in question as "the former
being the seed of all soul." I follow the translation of STERN and DES PLACES there, given the
38 Introduction
N u m e n i u s quotes Plato's reference to absolute being ( τ ό δ ν ) in Tim. 21 ά-

2 1 6
28a . J o h n W h i t t a k e r n o t e s that P h i l o r e l a t e s t h e b i b l i c a l e x p r e s s i o n in
2 1 7
E x o d u s (ό ώ ν ) t o P l a t o n i c thought in several p a s s a g e s . In h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f
the E x i s t e n t , P h i l o m e n t i o n s that n o n a m e c a n b e g i v e n t o the O n e w h o is and
2 1 8
then h e q u o t e s E x o d 3 : 1 4 . P h i l o a l s o q u o t e s the s a m e text f r o m E x o d u s in
a p a s s a g e w h e r e h e contrasts G o d ' s b e i n g w i t h that o f o t h e r s w h o e x i s t in
a p p e a r a n c e o n l y , j u s t as P l a t o ( a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y N u m e n i u s ) d o e s i n h i s
219
Timaeus . P s . Justin c o n t i n u e s the d e v e l o p m e n t o f this p o s i t i o n and links
P l a t o ' s t h o u g h t i n Tim. 2 7 d - 2 8 a w i t h that o f M o s e s . The being w h o m Moses
2 2 0
c a l l s "the o n e w h o i s (ό ώ ν ) " i s the s a m e as P l a t o ' s "the E x i s t e n t " ( τ ό δν) .
It is a l s o important to r e c o g n i z e h e r e that N u m e n i u s apparently identifies the
G o d o f the J e w s w i t h the s u p r e m e b e i n g o f P l a t o n i s m — u n l i k e Porphyry and
221
Julian .
N u m e n i u s m a y a l s o refer to texts s u c h as E x o d 2 0 : 3 , 3 4 : 1 4 , and D e u t 4 : 2 4
w h e n h e m e n t i o n s the nature o f the G o d o f the J e w i s h t e m p l e :
2 2 2
Following this o n e [Livy], L u c a n says that the temple o f Jerusalem belongs to an
obscure g o d (άδηλου θεοϋ), whereas Numenius says that he is not shared (άκοινώνητον),
argument that "the o n e w h o is" (ό ών) is a technical term in Hellenistic Judaism. S e e J.

WHITTAKER, M o s e s Atticizing, Phoenix 2 1 , 1967, 196-201 and A . J. FESTUGIERE, La
revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste, I-IV, Paris 1944-1954, III, 4 4 n.2 w h o notes that it is
Numenius* normal usage to put a noun before a participle that modifies it. This is against E.
R. DODDS' emendation ("the one w h o is first" ό μ ε ν ye d ών). S e e DODDS, Numenius and
Ammonius, in: Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique 5, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1960, (3-32) 15.
His emendation has been rejected by several other scholars (J.-H. WASZINK, Porphyrios und
Numenios, in: Porphyre, Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique 12, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1965,
(33-78) 5 0 n . 4 / STERN II, 216). D E S PLACES argues that "the most natural construction" of
the phrase is the one in the translation adopted above. See DES PLACES, Numenius et la Bible,
311-12. EDWARDS, Atticizing Moses?, 6 5 - 6 argues for the translation, "the one w h o is the
seed." Cf. also RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 118.
2 1 6
Numenius, F . 7 (50,1-15 DES PLACES) = Eus., P.E. 11.10.9-11.
2 1 7
WHITTAKER, Moses, 197-98.
2 1 8
Philo, D e mut. nom. 7 , 1 1 .
2 1 9
Philo, Quoddet. 160.
2 2 0
Ps. Justin, Cohortatio 22.1-2 (PTS 3 2 , 53,1-15 MARCOVICH). WHITTAKER, M o s e s ,
198 also points out that Eusebius "derives the Platonic conception of Being from Exodus 3.14
and quotes the same passage of the Timaeus to prove his point." S e e Eus., P.E. 11.9.1-10.16
(VIII/2 2 4 , 1 - 2 8 , 2 2 M R AS). Many of the fragments of Numenius appear in 11.10. One of
Eusebius' conclusions is that Numenius clearly interprets Plato's teachings and the much
earlier ones o f Moses; P.E. 11.10.14 (VIII/2, 28,8-11 MRAS). In that context he quotes the
statement about "Moses Atticizing."
2 2 1
S e e § 2.1.4 and 3 . 5 3 . Cp. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 169 n.228 / WASZINK,
Porphyrios und Numenios, 57.
2 2 2
STERN I, § 191 = Lucan, Pharsalia 2.592-95 "Judaea o f an uncertain god" (incerti
Iudaea dei).
and that he is father o f all the gods and judges and that no other is worthy o f sharing in his
2 2 3
honor (or "worship" άπαξιουντα κοινωνεΐν αύτω τ η ς τ ι μ ή ς τ ι ν α ) .
D e s P l a c e s n o t e s that N u m e n i u s ' w o r d "not shared" appears o n l y o n c e in the

L X X w h e r e it refers t o the i n c o m m u n i c a b l e n a m e o f G o d ( W i s 1 4 : 2 1 ) in a
224
p a s s a g e against i d o l a t r y . T h e c o n t e x t in N u m e n i u s i s s i m i l a r a l t h o u g h it
d o e s not appear l i n k e d w i t h G o d ' s n a m e . C a l c i d i u s m a y b e translating the
s a m e w o r d for G o d w h e n h e writes that the d i v i n e i s "in n e e d o f n o s o c i e t y "
215
(nullius societatis indiguus) . H i s translation d o e s n o t a p p l y v e r y w e l l to
N u m e n i u s ' text, h o w e v e r , g i v e n the f o l l o w i n g l i n e (in N . ) w h i c h e x p l a i n s
2 2 6
w h a t "not shared" m e a n s . T h e picture o f a G o d w h o d o e s n o t share h i s
h o n o r i s v i e w e d p o s i t i v e l y b y N u m e n i u s , but Julian t a k e s a completely
2 2 7
different o u t l o o k and finds G o d ' s j e a l o u s y to b e a reprehensible i d e a .
N u m e n i u s a l s o k n e w an e x t r a - b i b l i c a l tradition a b o u t the e n c o u n t e r o f
M o s e s and the E g y p t i a n m a g i c i a n s :
[Also in his third book the same author makes mention of Moses speaking as follows:]
And next in order came Jannes and Jambres, Egyptian sacred scribes ( ί ε ρ ο γ ρ α μ μ α τ ε ΐ ς ) ,
men judged to have no superiors in the practice of magic at the time when the Jews were
being driven out of Egypt. S o then these were the ones chosen by the people of Egypt as
2 2 8
fit to stand beside Musaios (Exod 7:11, 2 2 ; 8 : 3 ) , w h o led forth the Jews, a man w h o
was most powerful in prayer (βϋξασθαι δυνατωτάτω) to God; and of the plagues which
2 2 3
STERN II, § 3 6 7 = Lydus, D e mens. 4.53 = Numenius, F. 5 6 (100,1-4 DES PLACES).
Author's ET. On the epithets for God see DES PLACES, Numenius et la Bible, 2 9 7 / E.
NORDEN, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede, Stuttgart
1971, 59-61 (rep. of 1913 original). NORDEN also comments on Livy's text: "To which one
of the gods the temple in Jerusalem belongs they do not name, nor is there any likeness
(simulacrum) there, nor even do they attribute any form to god (dei figuram)" S e e STERN I,
§ 133 = Scholia in Lucanum 2.593. Cp. also Varro in STERN I, § 72a = A u g . , D e civ. D e i
4.31 and § 0.9 above. Cf. SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 38.
2 2 4
E. DES PLACES, L e «Dieu incertain» des Juifs, in: Etudes Platoniciennes, (294-9) 2 9 7 -
8 (first published in Journal des savants 1973, 289-93). He also refers to a couch that is not
shared with a man in Euripides, Androm. 469-70. Cp. also idem, Numenius et la Bible, 3 1 4 -
5 / SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 4 2 .
2 2 5
J. H. W A S Z I N K , Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus,
London/Leyden 1962, 2 2 6 (204,8-9 WASZINK). Cf. also E. DES PLACES, U n terme biblique
et Platonicien: Akoinonetos, in: Etudes Platoniciennes, 300-4 (first published in Forma
Futuri . . . Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, Turin 1975,154-8).
2 2 6
DES PLACES, U n terme, 3 0 3 .
2 2 7
See § 3.26.
2 2 8
Exod 8:14-15 L X X (8:18-9 ET) is apparently left out of Numenius' account.
40 Introduction
2 2 9
Musaios brought upon Egypt, these individuals showed themselves powerful enough
230
(δυνατοί) to disperse the most v e h e m e n t .
Origen refers to the s a m e text but o n l y says that N u m e n i u s told the story o f
231
M o s e s , Jannes, and J a m b r e s . That m a y i m p l y that N u m e n i u s told m o r e o f
232
the story than E u s e b i u s i n c l u d e s . 2 T i m 3:8 m e n t i o n s b o t h n a m e s as
magicians w h o resisted M o s e s . N u m e n i u s m a y h a v e k n o w n a text called The
Book ofJamnes and Mambres that Origen k n e w and m e n t i o n s as a source o f 2
2 3 3
T i m 3 : 8 . A papyrus text has " A n d in the p r e s e n c e o f the k i n g , Jannes
234
o p p o s e d M o s e s and his brother Aaron by doing everything they had d o n e . "
The Testament of Solomon (I-III C E . ) e x p l a i n s the m a g i c i a n s ' p o w e r . A
d e m o n f r o m the R e d S e a n a m e d A b e z e t h i b o u says: "I a m the o n e w h o m
Jannes and Jambres, t h o s e w h o o p p o s e d M o s e s in E g y p t , c a l l e d to their
235
aid." T h e n a m e s w e r e k n o w n to Pliny the Elder and A p u l e i u s (II C.E.).
P l i n y i d e n t i f i e s a faction o f m a g i c i a n s that d e r i v e s f r o m M o s e s , Jannes,
2 3 6
L o t a p e s and the J e w s . H e apparently b e l i e v e s that Jannes w a s a J e w i s h
237
m a g i c i a n . A p u l e i u s m e n t i o n s a number o f m a g i c i a n s and includes M o s e s
238
and J o h a n n e s . W h i l e N u m e n i u s c o m m e n t s o n M o s e s as a person powerful
in prayer, h e o n l y refers to the m a g i c i a n s ' power. H e nevertheless s e e s them
as equal to M o s e s in their abilities to create and resist destructive events.
2 2 9
Artapanus uses this name for M o s e s ( F . 3 = Eus., P.E. 9 . 2 7 . 3 [I, 208,19-20
HOLLADAY]). See § 0 . 6 .
2 3 0
STERN II, § 365 = Eus., P.E. 9.8.1-2 = Numenius, F . 9 (51,1-9 DES P L A C E S ) =
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 125. ET from GlFFORD, Eusebius, 1,443.
2 3 1
STERN II, § 366 = Origen, C. Cels. 4.51 = Numenius, F . 10a (52,1-5 DES PLACES).
2 3 2
A. PiETERSMA/R. T. LUTZ, Jannes and Jambres, OTP 1,428.
2 3 3
Origen, In Matt. 23:37 Comment. Ser. 28; 27:9 Comment. Ser. 117 (GCS Origenes XI,
51,2-5; 250,6-9 KLOSTERMANN). He contrasts the "public books" with the "secret book" of
Jamnes and Mambres. See GAGER, Moses, 139 / PIETERSMA/LUTZ, Jannes and Jambres, OTP
II, 4 2 7 - 3 6 (introduction) and 4 3 7 - 4 4 2 (text of P. Chester Beatty X V I and P. Vindob. G 29
4 5 6 \ The Book of Jannes and Jambres).
2 3 4 r v
Jannes and Jambres, P. Chester Beatty 26a and P. Vindob. G 2 9 4 5 6 ( F . B) (OTP II,
438). In C D 5:18-19 Jannes (mrr) and "his brother" are sons of Belial.
2 3 5
T. Sol. 25:4 (OTP I, 985). D . C. DULING, Testament of Solomon, OTP I, (935-59)
941-2 discusses the question of date.
2 3 6
STERN I, § 221 = Pliny, N.H. 30.1.11.
2 3 7
S T E R N I, 4 9 9 . Cp. G A G E R , M o s e s , 137-9 w h o also notes that six of the eight
magicians that Apuleius mentions are also found in Pliny, H.N. 30.2.8-11.
238 STERN II, § 361 = Apuleius, Apologia 90. Names corresponding to the Greek forms
Johannes and Jannes appear in the rabbinic and midrashic tradition (e.g. b. Menah. 85a wrrr
Yochana). On the names see also SCHURER, History, III/2,781 / Str-B III, 660-4.
It is difficult, but not i m p o s s i b l e , to argue that N u m e n i u s did not k n o w

239
s o m e biblical t e x t s .
0.17 Historians
Various authors wrote histories w h o s e subject w a s the J e w s or w h i c h included

references to the J e w s . Posidonius ( 1 3 5 - 5 1 B.C.E.?) certainly wrote about the
J e w s , but the contents o f his texts are unknown. P o s s i b l y D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s '
2 4 0
and Strabo's c o m m e n t s about the J e w s are indebted to h i m . That is not
proven, h o w e v e r , and the n o m i n a l fragments o f P o s i d o n i u s that m e n t i o n the
2 4 1
J e w s are f e w . T e u c e r o f C y z i c u s in A s i a Minor, for e x a m p l e , wrote s i x
b o o k s o f a Jewish History. S i n c e the Suda o n l y preserves the n u m b e r o f
242
b o o k s in the history, nothing is k n o w n o f its c o n t e n t s . Philo o f B y b l o s (I-II
243
C E . ) wrote o n Phoenician History and a history o f the time o f H a d r i a n .
Origen writes that P h i l o B y b l o s doubted the g e n u i n e n e s s o f the b o o k about
the J e w s that is attributed to Hecataeus o f Abdera. Philo ( B y b l o s ) c o n c l u d e s
that if H e c a t a e u s really did write the b o o k that h e had b e e n " s e i z e d b y the
persuasiveness o f the J e w s and converted b y their teaching" ( σ υ ν η ρ π ά σ θ α ι
α π ό τ η ς π α ρ ά Ι ο υ δ α ί ο ι ^ π ι θ α ν ό τ η τ ο ς καΐ σ υ γ κ α τ α τ β θ β ΐ σ θ α ι α υ τ ώ ν
2 4 4
τ ω λ ό γ ω ) . P h i l o B y b l o s ' references in his Phoenician History to the J e w s
in the w o r k o f S a n c h u n i a t h o n are d i s c u s s e d in the chapter o n Porphyry
245
(§ 2 . 2 . 8 ) . E u s e b i u s refers to a work by Philo B y b l o s On the Jews . The
2 3 9
See, however, EDWARDS, Atticizing Moses?, 64-75. Against this view RINALDI notes
that Apamea had a Jewish community (La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 53-4). Cf. also STERN II,
407 / FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 215, 313.
2 4 0
See § 0.7, 9.
2 4 1
STERN I, § 4 4 = Jos., C. Ap. 2.79-80, 89, 91-96 (see Apollonius Molon above); I, § 45
= Strabo, Geog., 16.2.43 (the people [Jews] are magicians and simulate the use of spells to
extract asphalt). On the issue of attribution of fragments see S T E R N I, 141-44, 184
(Diodorus), 264-67 (Strabo). HENGEL (Judaism, I, 258-61 and see the index s.v. Posidonius)
is not nearly as skeptical as STERN. In any case Posidonius cannot be "proved" to be the
author of the fragments in Diodorus and Strabo, nor can he be "disproved" to be the author.
The question has little bearing on this introduction.
2 4 2
STERN I, § 5 4 = Suda, s.v. TeOicepos ό Κυζικψός = FGrH III, A 2 7 4 T l .
2 4 3
See the testimonies of the Suda, s.v. φίλων βύβλιο^ (Philo Byblios) and Porphyry, D e
abst. 2.56.1 (H. W. ATTRIDGE/R. A. ODEN Jr., Philo of Byblos, The Phoenician History.
Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes, C B Q M S 9, Washington, D.C., 1981, 17,1-
9.23-5).
2 4 4
STERN I, § 325 = Origen, C. Cels. 1.15. See Hecataeus above (§ 0.1).
2 4 5
STERN I, § 326 = Eus., P.E. 1.10.42. Since Eus. mentions "the same person in the
compilation concerning the Jews" (ev τω περί Ιουδαίων σ υ γ γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ι ) , P. NAUTIN (Trois
autres fragments du livre de Porphyre «Contre les Chretiens», RB 57, 1950, 4 0 9 - 4 1 6 ) has
42 Introduction
s u r v i v i n g texts o f P h i l o B y b l o s d o not indicate any particular a w a r e n e s s o f the

LXX. It i s difficult t o a c c e p t u n q u e s t i o n i n g l y F e l d m a n ' s t h e s i s that T e u c e r
2 4 6
and P h i l o B y b l o s u s e d the L X X in their w o r k s , but it is certainly p o s s i b l e .
0.18 The LXX in Magical Texts
It is i n t r i g u i n g that Stern d i d n o t c h o o s e to i n c l u d e a n y material f r o m the

Greek Magical Papyri ( P G M ) in h i s c o l l e c t i o n — a l t h o u g h h e m a k e s several
2 4 7
r e f e r e n c e s to the papyri in his f o o t n o t e s . O n e o f the c h i e f p r o b l e m s p o s e d
b y L X X ( a n d J e w i s h ) e l e m e n t s i n the m a g i c a l t e x t s i s w h e t h e r the t e x t s in
t h e m s e l v e s are p a g a n , J e w i s h , or Christian. T h e texts are s o syncretistic that
it i s u n l i k e l y that o n e c a n a n s w e r s u c h a q u e s t i o n w i t h a n y confidence.
Marvin M e y e r ' s c o l l e c t i o n o f Coptic (and s o m e Greek) texts is probably
2 4 8
Christian in o r i g i n . Shaul S h a k e d and J o s e p h N a v e h ' s collection of
249
A r a m a i c t e x t s m a y c o m e f r o m a predominantly J e w i s h e n v i r o n m e n t . In his
tried to identify the writer as Porphyry and not Philo Byblos. His thesis has been generally
rejected. S e e STERN, II, 143 / COOK, Interpretation, 150 / ATTRIDGE/ODEN, Philo of Byblos,
93 n.147. FREUDENTHAL, Alexander, 3 4 believes that Philo's work on the Jews was part of a
larger work (the one on the Phoenicians).
2 4 6
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 312.
2 4 7
Cf. STERN III, 9 9 s.v. Papyri Graecae Magicae. The evidence used below can be
verified in H. D . BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri. PGM L X X X I I - C X X X (in BETZ) are not
in the edition o f K. PREISENDANZ (Papyri Graecae Magicae. D i e Griechischen Zauberpapyri.
2 vols., ed. E. HEITSCH/A. HENRICHS, Stuttgart 1973/1974) which includes the Greek texts
and a German translation. U s e below will also be made of proof-photographs of vol. 3 (1941)
which w a s destroyed in an Allied bombing raid during W W II. The photos are available on
microfiche in the U.S. The TLG C D also includes the PGM (Thesaurus Linguae Graecae C D
ROM # E , U. Cal. Irvine 1999). The authors on the disk are listed by L. BERKOWITZ/K. A.
SQUITIER, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Canon o f Greek Authors and Works, N e w
3
York/Oxford 1990 ). I will also use the collection o f Greek inscriptions and papyri on the
Packard Humanities Institute C D ROM # 7 , 1991-96 (Cornell Epigraphy Project and the Duke
Documentary Papyri).
2 4 8
M. MEYER, Ancient Christian Magic. Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, San Francisco
1994.
2 4 9
J. N A V E H / S . SHAKED, Amulets and Magic B o w l s . Aramaic Incantations of Late
Antiquity, Jerusalem 1987. On Jewish magic see L. B L A U , D a s altjudische Zauberwesen,
2
Strassburg 1898, 1 9 1 4 / J . TRACHTENBERG, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in
Folk-Religion, N e w York 1939 / G. G. SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism,
2
and Talmudic Tradition, N e w York 1 9 6 5 / GAGER, M o s e s , 134-61 / D . SPERBER, Some
Rabbinic Themes in Magical Papyri, JSJ 16, 1985, 9 3 - 1 0 3 / P. SCHAFER, Jewish Magic
Literature in Late Antiquity and Early M e d i e v a l A g e s , JJS 4 1 , 1 9 9 0 , 7 5 - 9 1 / W.
WISCHMEYER, M a g i s c h e Texte. Voruberlegungen und Materialien z u m Verstandnis
christlicher spatantiker Texte, in: Heiden und Christen im 5. Jahrhundert, ed. J. VAN OORT/
D. W Y R W A , Leeuven 1998, (88-122) 9 6 - 7 / BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, lii n.47
(bibliography) / P. S. ALEXANDER, Jewish elements in Gnosticism and Magic c. C E 7 0 - c.
introduction t o the E n g l i s h translation o f the P G M , H a n s D i e t e r B e t z n o t e s

that
... the origin and nature o f the section representing Jewish magic in the Greek magical
papyri is far from clear. Did this material actually originate with Jewish magicians? H o w
did it get into the hands o f the magicians w h o wrote the Greek magical papyri? What
kind of transformation took place in the material itself? If the texts in question c o m e from
250
Judaism, what type o f Judaism do they r e p r e s e n t ?
T h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e P G M , h o w e v e r , is E g y p t i a n m a g i c a c c o r d i n g t o Janet
2 5 1
K. J o h n s o n . M o s t o f the g o d s in the P G M are G r e e k or E g y p t i a n e v e n if
2 5 2
I a o is u s e d n u m e r i c a l l y m o r e than any other n a m e . But the presence o f
J e w i s h and Christian n a m e s for G o d , the a n g e l s , and Christ m a k e it l i k e l y that
the authors o f the m a g i c a l texts u s e d material that i t s e l f w a s i n d e b t e d t o the
L X X and o t h e r J e w i s h traditions. I w i l l refrain f r o m j u d g m e n t s a b o u t the
final textual p r o d u c t s . M y interest is in the e l e m e n t s in the m a g i c a l r e c i p e s
that u l t i m a t e l y d e r i v e f r o m t h e L X X — h o w e v e r m a n y i n t e r m e d i a t e s t a g e s
there are b e t w e e n the B i b l e and the syncretistic w r i t e r - m a g i c i a n ' s reed p e n .
T h e m a g i c a l w o r d s (voces magicae) in the papyri i n c l u d e numerous
2 5 3
e x a m p l e s o f n a m e s f o r the G o d o f the O T : Adonai (Lord), Iao, I e o u ,
2 5 4
S a b a o t h ( H o s t s ) , E l o e , and e v e n I a w e h . T h e texts a l s o a b o u n d in J e w i s h
d e s i g n a t i o n s and n a m e s o f a n g e l s i n c l u d i n g the c h e r u b i m ( 3 K g d m s 6 : 2 3 - 3 5 ,
CE 2 7 0 , in: The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3 . The Early Roman Period, ed. W.
HORBURY/W. D . DAVIES,/J. STURDY, Cambridge 1 9 9 9 , 1 0 5 2 - 7 8 .
250 BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, xlv. Cf. also H. D . BETZ, Jewish Magic in the
Greek Magical Papyri ( P G M VII.260-71), in: Idem, Antike und Christentum. Gesammelte
Aufsatze IV, Tubingen 1998 (187-205), 187-88. GAGER, Moses, 135-6 notes that this issue
(distinguishing pagan and Jewish magic) is an old dispute. He is willing only to speak of a
general syncretism and thinks the distinction between pagan and Jewish is a false dichotomy.
The charms have been collected and kept by pagans.
2 5 1
J. H. JOHNSON in BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, lv.
2 5 2
BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, xlvii. According to a TLG search, Iao (Ιαω) appears
about 128 times. In the PHI C D # 7 Iao appears 139 times - mostly in magical contexts. That
includes appearances in the N a g Hammadi texts.
2 5 3
S e e § 1.23 and 2.2.8.
2 5 4
These will b e easily found in the index being prepared for BETZ'S edition. For those
with access to the TLG C D they can be easily constructed. PGM Vol. Ill, 2 1 1 - 3 4 is a sort of
cross between an index and concordance of the gods, demons, and mythological figures
named. For the various names see: "I call on you . . . according to the Jews Adonai Sabaoth"
(Lord of Hosts; PGM XII, 263-4); Ieou (PGM XIII, 810); Iaweh (Ίαα PGM XXIII, 31 BETZ
= 11, 151,6 PREIS.). For Eloe see the references in BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 3 3 4 s.v.
Eloaios. Mara (Aramaic for Lord) may appear in a Demotic text in BETZ (PDM 14, 1120-25)
which contains M A R A R A A N T O N E . JOHNSON assumes a possible reference to Adonai
(BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 2 4 8 n.600). One might also assume the Aramaic word
also at the beginning o f the magical phrase. BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 331 notes that
Adonaios in the papyri is the name of a god and not an epithet meaning "Lord."
44 Introduction
Ps 7 9 : 2 , E z e k 1 0 : 1 - 2 0 , D a n 3:55 L X X ) , the seraphim (Isa 6:2), Raphael (Tob

3 : 1 7 ) , Gabriel ( D a n 8 : 1 6 , 9 : 2 1 ) , M i c h a e l ( D a n 10:13 L X X ) , E m a n u e l (Isa
255
7:14) and U r i e l . O n l y the last n a m e d o e s not appear in the L X X . A d a m
m a k e s an appearance as d o the n a m e s o f the patriarchs i n c l u d i n g Abraham,
2 5 6
Isaac, and J a c o b . T h e m a g i c i a n s appeal frequently to M o s e s and to his
257
magical w r i t i n g s . S o l o m o n and his p o w e r are not forgotten in a text that
mentions his seal placed o n Jeremiah's tongue with the result that the prophet
2 5 8
s p o k e . Satan is there. There are references to the "Hebrew" language, and
2 5 5
A magician mentions the one who sits over the cherubim w h o bear the throne in PGM
VII, 2 6 4 - 5 . In another text (PGM X X X V , 11-2) the lord of the "whole host which is under
heaven" is surrounded by two cherubim and seraphim. PGM III, 148-9 (Michael, Souriel,
Gabriel, Raphael); IV, 16-7 (Michael the . . . angel with God); X C , 1-5 ( 3 0 2 BETZ, not in
PREIS.; Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Ouriel, Emanouel, Sabaoth, Iao and other magical words).
On Uriel see 1 Enoch 19:1 (Uriel), 20:1-2 (Suru'el; OTP I, 23) where he is an archangel. On
Suriel see SCHOLEM, Jewish Gnosticism, 46.
2 5 6
Adam: PGM III, 146 where Adam is called "forebearer" and the magician says "my
name is Adam;" and a possible occurrence in a sequence of magical words in Hebrew
("Adam w a s the source of secrets") in PGM XIII, 9 7 2 - 3 (see BETZ, The Greek Magical
Papyri, 194 n.136). Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: PGM IV, 1231-2 (in Old Coptic); XII, 287;
XIII, 815-6 (the magician has received "the power of A. I., and J."); X X X V , 14. A magician
calls "Abraham" a "famous name" in PGM VII, 314-5. See M. RIST, The God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob: A Liturgical and Magical Formula, JBL 57, 1939, 2 8 9 - 3 0 3 / L. GINZBERG,
The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., Philadelphia 1909-38,1, 349-58 / BETZ, The Greek Magical
Papyri, 336.
257 writings associated with M o s e s ' name include: PGM VII, 619-27 has an excerpt from
The Diadem of Moses (see GAGER, M o s e s , 151-2); PGM XIII, 1, 3 4 4 , 731 mentions in
varying forms The Monad or Eighth Book of Moses; PGM ΧΠΙ, 21 names The Key of Moses
written by the compiler of the entire text (see XIII, 229); XIII, 1077-8 probably mentions The
Tenth Book of Moses although the reading is uncertain. On the Eighth Book see M. SMITH'S
note in BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 181 / GAGER, Moses, 146-8. On the Tenth Book
see BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 195 / GAGER, Moses, 148 (who argues that "tenth" is
not the correct reading). The material in XIII, 731-1078 is quite different from the material in
lines 1-730 (three versions of Moses' eighth book). GAGER, Moses, 149 discusses the Key as
does BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 172 n.8. The Archangelic (book?) of Moses appears
in PGM XIII, 9 7 0 - 1 . On that text see GAGER, Moses, 150 / BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri,
193 n.136. P G M XIII, 1059 refers to a Secret Moon Prayer of Moses (Μοϋσέως απόκρυφος
Σ ε λ η ν ι α κ ή ) which GAGER (Moses, 151) believes was a book that contained more than this
prayer.
2 5 8
P G M IV, 3 0 3 9 - 4 1 . S o l o m o n ' s seal was famous in the ancient world. BETZ, The
Greek Magical Papyri, 9 6 n.394. The haggadic tradition has been lost however. See
SPERBER, S o m e Rabbinic themes, 9 5 - 9 . Could Jeremiah have been confused for Ezekiel
(3:26-27)? S e e also PGM XCII,5-10 (303 BETZ) which mentions S o l o m o n ' s eyes. Cp.
Julian's remarks on Solomon in § 3.43. There is a reference to the "prophets of Israel" who
pass down the correct name of God in PGM V, 116-17.
2 5 9
H e b r e w words s u c h as A n o c h i (I), A m e n , and Hallelujah e x i s t in the t e x t s .
T h e m a g i c i a n s i n c l u d e Jerusalem in their recipes. T h e r e are a n u m b e r o f
references to biblical texts including: the creation a c c o u n t in G e n e s i s , the
giants o f G e n e s i s , the babble o f languages, S o d o m and Gomorrah, the e x o d u s
tradition w i t h its r e v e l a t i o n o n a m o u n t a i n , and the p r o p h e t B a l a a m in
Numbers.
The creator o f G e n e s i s 1 (e.g. 1 : 1 , 4 , 14, 18) almost certainly appears in an
invocation in P G M V , 4 5 9 - 6 1 : "I i n v o k e y o u w h o created earth and b o n e s
and all flesh and e v e r y spirit and w h o set in place the sea and ? the h e a v e n ,
2 6 0
w h o distinguished light from darkness . . . " Another text with m a n y J e w i s h
e l e m e n t s e n d s w i t h , "I adjure y o u w h o in the b e g i n n i n g m a d e h e a v e n and
2 6 1 2 6 2
earth and all things in it ( G e n l : l - 2 ) . Halleluiah, A m e n . " The L X X
263
reference functions in a text w h i c h is a recipe for the ascent o f a u t e r u s .
P G M IV, 3 0 5 9 - 6 0 depicts a magician w h o says, "I conjure y o u w h o burned
up the stiff-necked giants with lightning storms" in an apparent reference to
2 6 4
G e n 6 : 4 . T h e s a m e m a g i c i a n also mentions the o n e w h o "revealed the 140
2 6 5
l a n g u a g e s and d i v i d e d t h e m b y his o w n c o m m a n d . " A reference to the
destruction o f S o d o m appears in P G M X X X V I , 2 9 8 - 3 0 4 :
The heavens of the heavens opened and the angels of god descended and overthrew the
2 6 6
pentapolis of S o d o m , and Gomora, Adama, Sebouie and Segor (Deut 2 9 : 2 3 ) A
woman who heard the voice became a salt pillar (Gen 19:26). You are the sulphur, which
2 5 9
PGM IV, 1239 (Satan). Lucian's false prophet, Alexander, used some meaningless
Hebrew or Phoenician words also (Alex. 13 = STERN, II, § 373). A Jewish magician appears
in Lucian's Tragodopodagra 173 (= STERN, II, § 374). See "I adjure you in the Hebrew
sound" in PGM III, 119; "in Hebrew Anoch" (I) in PGM XIII, 82; P G M IV, 3 0 8 4 - 8 5
identifies a recipe ( λ ό γ ο ς ) as being in Hebrew; Amen is in PGM XII, 86 and see BETZ, The
Greek Magical Papyri, 156 n.22; Hallelujah and Amen in VII, 2 7 1 . On PGM VII, 260-71
see BETZ, Jewish Magic, 187-205. The "Law" in Hebrew is mentioned in PGM XIII, 975-6
in a passage that lists Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob followed by a set of magical words that
include Iao.
2 6 0
Author's ET. For comment on the textual corruption (the "?") see BETZ, The Greek
Magical Papyri, 109 n.59.
2 6 1
BETZ, Jewish Magic, 195 n.38 also refers to Gen 2:4, Exod 20:11, Ps 145:6, Isa 42:5,
Acts 4:24 and Rev 10:6.
2 6 2
PGM VII, 269-70.
2 6 3
On this text see BETZ, Jewish Magic, 187-205.
2 6 4
See § 1.3, 3.12.
2 6 5
PGM IV, 3056-7. On the number of languages see BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri,
97 n.400.
2 6 6
Segor is the L X X term for Zoah (Gen 19:23). Deut 29:23 L X X has Seboim instead of
the Sebouie of the magical text. Zoar survives the blast according to Gen 19:22.
46 Introduction
God rained down in the midst of Sodom and Gomora, Adama and Sebouie and Segor, you
2 6 7
are the sulphur which served G o d .
Other than a f e w minor mistakes (Lot's w i f e l o o k e d b a c k ) , the m a g i c i a n has

s o m e g o o d L X X tradition. W e are a l o n g w a y f r o m the L X X , h o w e v e r ,
because the story from G e n e s i s n o w appears in a l o v e potion.
E x o d u s traditions (along with that o f Joshua) appears in a reference to the
R e d Sea:
I adjure (or conjure ορκίζω) you by the one who appeared to Osrael in a bright pillar and
in a cloud by day (Exod 13:21-22), who delivered his people from the Pharaoh and who
inflicted the ten plagues upon Pharaoh because he disobeyed (Exod 7:14-12:31) ... I
adjure y o u by the mighty god Sabaoth, through w h o m the Jordan River retreated
backwards (Josh 3:13-17, Ps 113:3 L X X ) and the Red Sea, which Israel went through,
2 6 8
was made uncrossable (Exod 14:27) . . .
A d o l f D e i s s m a n calls this text Jewish, but it appears in a m a g i c a l papyrus that

269
is o v e r w h e l m i n g l y G r e c o - E g y p t i a n . Consequently one cannot conclude
that it is a "Jewish text" and ignore the rest o f P G M IV. A pagan m a g i c i a n
270
made u s e o f E x o d u s traditions in his magical w o r k . It is quite p o s s i b l e that
a J e w i s h author wrote the smaller magical recipe, but another author adapted
it, and eventually it w a s put into quite a large text. W h a t is important here is
that the L X X has b e e n u s e d in a fourth century (C.E.) p a g a n text. Another
reference n a m e s M o s e s (in a D e m o t i c text) as the object o f the l o n g i n g that
"the g o d , the s o n o f Sirius, felt for M o s e s w h i l e h e w a s g o i n g to the hill o f
271
N I N A R E T O S to offer water to his g o d , his lord, his I A H O s a b a h o . " The
tradition o f the e x o d u s has b e e n contorted, but it is o b v i o u s l y present. A
m a g i c i a n t e l l s a m i g h t y creator ( o f earth, h e a v e n , night, d a y , light and
d a r k n e s s ) in a r e c i p e d i r e c t e d to O s i r i s ( O s o r o n n o p h r i s — O s i r i s the
beautiful): "I a m M o s e s y o u r prophet, to w h o m y o u h a n d e d o v e r y o u r
272
mysteries that are enacted ( σ υ ν τ ε λ ο ύ μ ε ν α ) b y I s t r a e l . " T h e celebrant d o e s
not m e n t i o n Mt. Sinai, but m a y k n o w the narrative. A n o t h e r m a g i c i a n
2 6 7
Author's ET done with reference to BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 276.
2 6 8
PGM IV, 3033-7; 3052-5. Author's ET. Cp. BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 96.
2 6 9 st
A. DEISSMAN, Light from the Ancient East, Grand Rapids 1978 ( 1 ed. 1922), 256-4
identifies what is now PGM IV, 3007-3086 as Jewish.
2 7 0
Text linguistics has attempted to analyze entire texts into "functional text sequences"
that are governed by ever-larger text sequences. S e e D . HELLHOLM, The Problem of
Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John, in: S B L 1982 Seminar Papers, ed. K.
RICHARDS, Chico, C A 1982, (157-198) 171 / COOK, Structure, 119.
2 7 1
P D M xiv, 1030ff. ET in BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 245. Cp. PDM xiv, 130ff.
which is a request for a revelation "in the manner of the form of revealing yourself to Moses
which you made upon the mountain, before which you had already created darkness and
light." ET in BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 202.
2 7 2
PGM V, 98-101.108-110. On this text see GAGER, Moses, 142-3.
m e n t i o n s the mountain, but not M o s e s : "I a m the o n e w h o m y o u m e t under

the h o l y mountain and to w h o m y o u g a v e the k n o w l e d g e o f the great n a m e
( E x o d 3 : 1 3 - 1 4 ) w h i c h I will k e e p pure not transmitting it to a n y o n e e x c e p t to
273
your o w n w h o h a v e b e e n initiated into your holy m y s t e r i e s . " A l t h o u g h the
magician is in error c o n c e r n i n g L X X tradition, he is aware that M o s e s k n e w
274
something extremely s p e c i a l .
B a l a a m the p r o p h e t ( o f N u m 2 2 : 5 - 2 4 , 2 4 : 1 - 2 4 , 3 1 : 8 , 16, D e u t 2 3 : 5 )
probably appears in P G M X X X V , 3 3 - 4 0 : " I adjure y o u (or conjure y o u )
according to the g o d o f Sarachael, or Biliam, and o f the o n e w h o m a d e h e a v e n
275
and earth and all in i t . "
Jerusalem and its t e m p l e are elements o f the m a g i c recipes. T h e m a g i c i a n
or narrator o f P G M XIII, w i t h reference to the Monad ( o f M o s e s ) , tells an
apprentice that h e had m a d e h i m s w e a r in the t e m p l e o f Jerusalem that h e
276
w o u l d k e e p the b o o k s e c r e t . T h o u g h the t e m p l e w a s p r o b a b l y l o n g
destroyed by the t i m e o f the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the magical recipe, the multiple
authors (recipe, and P G M XIII itself) are aware o f its ancient e x i s t e n c e . T h e
s a m e narrator m e n t i o n s the "great n a m e that is in Jerusalem" (Ps 4 7 : 3 L X X ,
2 7 7
Matt 5:35) in XIII, 9 9 7 .
H y m n i c l a n g u a g e o f the L X X resounds in a m a g i c i a n ' s reference to the
sand that bounds the s e a and the abyss w h i c h o b e y e d ( P G M I V , 3 0 6 0 - 4 ; Job
3 8 : 1 0 - 1 1 , 3 0 , 3 4 , Jer 5:22). A spell, w h i c h conjures (or adjures) M i c h a e l and
Sabaoth against fever, quotes (very roughly) several biblical texts (Ps 9 0 : 1 - 2 ,
2 7 3
PGM XII, 92-4. Author's ET. Cp. GAGER, Moses, 144.
2 7 4
On the power of the divine name (YHWH) see G A G E R , Moses, 142. The Greek letters
PIPI ( Π Ι Π Ι ) may be an attempt at expressing the Hebrew for the name of God (mrr) and can
be found in P G M III, 5 7 5 , IV, 595 and see B E T Z , The Greek Magical Papyri, 4 9 n.85.
Josephus says he is forbidden to speak the name (Antiq. 2.276), and Philo (Vita Mos. 2.114)
notes that only those purified in ears and tongue can hear and speak it in holy places (temple).
Cp. Philo, Legatio 3 5 3 . A scoffing Pharaoh wants to hear the divine name. Moses whispers
it in his ear, and the king falls dead, but is raised by Moses according to Artapanus. A priest
who shows contempt for the name that Moses wrote on a tablet dies of convulsions. See F. 3
= Eus. P.E. 9.27.24-6 (I, 218,19-29; 220,1-4 H O L L A D A Y ) .
2 7 5
See the note in B E T Z , The Greek Magical Papyri, 268 n.5 for bibliography on the
prophet and his reputation in magic.
2 7 6
PGM XIII, 2 3 0 - 3 3 . BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 179 n.56 calls the oath
"pretentious hokum." What is interesting is that this sort of thing continues. The Sixth and
Seventh Book(s) of Moses are still available "under the table" in Jerusalem markets and on
various Internet web sites.
2 7 7
Cp. PGM IV, 3 0 6 9 - 3 0 7 0 which mentions the one in Jerusalem and the unquenchable
fire there — a probable reference to the menorah in the temple according to B E T Z , The Greek
Magical Papyri, 97 n.407. The reference is quite clear in IV, 1219. The undying flame of the
menorah appears also in Diod. 34-35.1.4 (= S T E R N I, § 63) and Ps. Hecataeus apud Jos., C.
Ap. 1.199 = F. 1 (I, 312,3-4 H O L L A D A Y ) . On the renowned altar fire see 2 Mace 1:19-2:1.
48 Introduction
278
Is 6:3 L X X , Matt 6 : 9 - 1 1 ) . T h e spell m a y originate from a Christian, but it
is s y n c r e t i s t i c w i t h several m a g i c a l w o r d s . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s not very
important here, s i n c e it functions in a culture ( o f m a g i c ) that w a s not t o o
279
concerned with religious d i s t i n c t i o n s .
A w e l l - k n o w n inscription from E u b o e a that w a s (II C E . ?) d e s i g n e d to
k e e p p e o p l e from defiling a grave includes a list o f ills (such as fever) that is
repeated f r o m D e u t 2 8 : 2 2 , 2 8 , but the divinities m e n t i o n e d are G o d , the
2 8 2 8 1
furies, Grace, and H y g e i a ° . D e i s s m a n argues that the text is syncretistic.
282
T h e rich material in amulets and inscriptions w i l l not b e d i s c u s s e d h e r e .
Clearly there is an opportunity for a monograph o n the place o f the B i b l e in
the m a g i c a l ( a n d n o n - m a g i c a l ) p a p y r i , a m u l e t s , a n d i n s c r i p t i o n s o f
283
antiquity .
0.19 Pompey: Inscriptions and Art
In P o m p e y there is an inscription that o n l y comprises the w o r d s " S O D O M f A ]

2 8 4
and G O M O R ( r ) A . " A l t h o u g h the words were probably written by a J e w or
perhaps a Christian as s o m e kind o f curse, Rinaldi argues that they reflect the
circulation o f biblical t h e m e s in pagan environments. A n e x a m p l e from the
magical papyri has already b e e n g i v e n above. Gager i n c l u d e s a Jewish spell
in his c o l l e c t i o n o f curse tablets that w a s found in the Cairo G e n i z a that also
285
refers to the angel Abrasax w h o overthrew the t w o c i t i e s . A n individual
2 7 8
PGM LXXXIII, 1-20 (300 B E T Z - not in P R E I S E N D A N Z ) .
2 7 9
See the note in BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 300.
2 8 0 3
W. DITTENBERGER, Syll 1240 = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 169. Cf. J. G.
COOK, In Defense of Ambiguity: Is There a Hidden Demon in Mark 1.29-31? NTS 4 3 , 1997,
(184-208) 194. A n ET of the text may be found in J. G A G E R , Curse Tablets and Binding
Spells from the Ancient World, N e w York/Oxford 1 9 9 2 , 1 8 4 - 5 .
2 8 1
D E I S S M A N , Light, 23 n.4 argues that the inscription was not composed by a proselyte.
On the Bible in inscriptions see D. FEISSEL, La Bible dans les inscription grecques, in: Le
monde grec ancien et la Bible, ed. C . M O N D E S E R T , Paris 1984 (223-31) 225 (non-Christian
inscriptions).
2 8 2
S e e , for e x a m p l e , R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 7 9 - 8 3 , II, 169-71 / L.
M A L U N O W I C Z , Citations bibliques dans l'epigraphie grecque, in: Studia Evangelica VII, T U
126, ed. E. LIVINGSTONE, Berlin 1982, 333-37 (the Bible in Christian inscriptions).
2 8 3
Examples are the reference to Gen 1:5-9 (God's separation of heaven from earth, day
from night) in RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 3 1 A (PSI 10, 1162) and the possible
reference to Job 19:25 in La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 189b (CIL VIII, Supp. 4, § 23245).
2 8 4
CIL IV, 4 9 7 6 from Regio IX, ins. 1, n. 26 published in RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani,
II, § 9 1 A with bibliography.
2 8 5
G A G E R , Curse Tablets, 108. The original text and bibliography is in N A V E H / SHAKED,
Amulets, 230-6.
from Carthage in III C E . a l s o wrote a curse tablet against a charioteer and

286
m e n t i o n e d the i n f a m o u s cities as part o f his r e c i p e . A f r e s c o f o u n d in
P o m p e y depicts a w o m a n b e n d i n g before the throne ( b e m a ) o f a j u d g e w i t h
t w o other l e s s e r j u d g e s sitting o n e a c h side. A child is o n a table w i t h a
soldier h o l d i n g a s w o r d o v e r it. T h e story's inspiration is l i k e l y 3 K g d m s
2 8 7
3 : 1 6 - 2 8 , the j u d g m e n t o f S o l o m o n . A g a i n , e v e n if a J e w had the f r e s c o
created, the a m b i a n c e is pagan. L e s s likely to b e inspired b y the L X X is a
f r e s c o that s h o w s a s m a l l p e r s o n ( p y g m y ? ) b e i n g d e v o u r e d b y a
288
hippopotamus o n the e d g e o f a river . T h e i m a g e is t o o distant f r o m the
2 8 9
b o o k o f Jonah to b e a g o o d parody, but the question is o p e n . Jonah w a s
popular as an i m a g e for sarcophagi and it is p o s s i b l e that they are not all
290
C h r i s t i a n . T h e s e e x a m p l e s s h o w the presence o f biblical t h e m e s in G r e c o -
R o m a n culture, e v e n if they c o m e from Jewish or Christian sources.
0.20 Hermetica
T h e literature ascribed to "thrice great Hermes" e m e r g e d in late antiquity and

has attracted the attention o f m a n y generations o f a p o l o g i s t s and later o f
scholars. Lactantius i n c l u d e s a tradition in w h i c h H e r m e s T r i s m e g i s t u s
asserts that G o d has n o name: the o n e w h o is cannot b e n a m e d ( ε σ τ ί ν γ α ρ ό
2 9 1
ών α ν ώ ν υ μ ο ς ) . H e a l s o asserts in another p a s s a g e that the H e r m e t i c
2 8 6
D . R. J O R D A N , N e w Defixiones from Carthage, in: The Circus and a Byzantine
Cemetery at Carthage, apud 1, ed. J. H. H U M P H R E Y , Ann Arbor 1988, (117-34) § 1, 121,9-10
(the text) 123 (comment). Cf. G A G E R , Curse Tablets, 108 n.96.
2 8 7
See the image in RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, § 182 with bibliography. The
fresco is from Regio VIII, ins. 6, n. 6. In addition to the research mentioned by RINALDI, see
also P. P R I G E N T , Le Judaisme et l'image, TSAJ 24, Tubingen 1990, 106-8 (who notes that
some doubt the reference to Solomon). RlNALDl also points out that P. Oxy. XLI, 2944,5-13
(I/II C E . ) has a judgment story which is similar to 3 Kgdms 3:16-28. Philiscus of Miletus
who studied with Isocrates quotes the tale. The text is as follows: "For example, Philiscus of
Miletus has written on the subject of the child, which the two women claimed was theirs, that
when both of them were pretending to be its mother, he gave orders to cut it in two, and to
give a half to each of them" (ET from P. Oxy. XLI, 7).
2 8 8
For an image see also R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, I, § 283 with bibliography. The
fresco is also from Regio VIII, ins. 6, n. 6.
2 8 9
R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 2 4 4 argues against the position taken by H.
LECLERQ, Manuel d'Archeologie chretienne, Paris 1907, II, 651 who believed that the fresco
was a parody of the biblical account.
2 9 0
A point made by Prof. H E N G E L to me in a letter. For the sarcophagi see PRIGENT, Le
Judaisme, passim.
2 9 1
Corpus Hermeticum, Fragmenta varia 3a (CUFr, IV, 105,1-8 N O C K / F E S T U G I E R E ) =
Lact., Div. inst. 1.6.4. See WHITTAKER, Moses, 199.
50 Introduction
2 9 2
literature agrees w i t h the prophets in substance and in w o r d . Cyril a l s o
293
m a d e u s e o f the Hermetic writings i n h i s reply to J u l i a n . M i c h a e l Psellus
(XI C E . ) c o m m e n t e d o n the treatise called Poimandres (1.18):
This magician ( γ ό η ς ) appears to have had more than a cursory acquaintance with the
divine scripture. Beginning with it, he attempts a creation of the cosmos, not hesitating at
times to put down the ordinary ( φ ι λ ά ς ) Mosaic words, as in the entire aforementioned
294
speech. For the "And God said, increase and multiply (Αυξάνεσθε καΐ π λ η θ ύ ν ε σ θ ε ) "
2 9 5
is clearly from the Mosaic creation of the c o s m o s .
C. H. D o d d built o n P s e l l u s ' p o s i t i o n in an investigation first published in

I935296 i first treatise entitled Poimandres,
n m e D o d d finds a number o f
linguistic similarities with G e n e s i s that h e relates to G e n 1-2: "the spiritual
297 2 9 8
w o r d w a s c a r r i e d " ; "having s e e n the beautiful c o s m o s " ; "they w e r e
299 300
separated f r o m o n e a n o t h e r " ; "the earth brought f o r t h " ; "four-footed
301
a n i m a l s , serpents, w i l d a n d d o m e s t i c b e a s t s " ; [the h u m a n ] "having the
302 303
i m a g e o f the f a t h e r " ; "the h u m a n . . . b e c a m e a soul and a m i n d " ; "God
304
said w i t h a h o l y word, 'Increase in an increase, and multiply i n m u l t i t u d e ' " ;
305
"they multiplied according t o k i n d " . H i s work has b e e n criticized b y Ernst
H a e n c h e n , b u t t h e l i n g u i s t i c similarities D o d d n o t i c e d ( a n d c o n c e p t u a l
2 9 2
Lact., Div. inst. 6.25.10 (= W. SCOTT/A. S . F E R G U S O N , Hermetica. The Ancient Greek
and Latin Writings Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes
Trismegistus, IV, London 1968, 22,2-3).
2 9 3
See, for example, § 3 . 3 , 4 .
2 9 4
Cp. Gen 1:22,28; 8:17,9:7.
2 9 5
S C O T T / F E R G U S O N , Hermetica, IV, 244,16-245,3. The comment from Psellus appears
in M S S Β and M. The text from C. H. 1.18 (I, 13,7-8 N . / F . ) actually reads: "And God said
with a holy word, 'Increase in an increase, and multiply in multitude' ( α υ ξ ά ν ε σ θ ε εν
αυξήσει και πληθύνεσθε ε ν πλήθει)." Psellus argues that the Hellenic conception of God
comes from the East. On this point s e e A . G O N Z A L E Z B L A N C O , Hermetism, A
Bibliographical Approach, A N R W II.17.4, 1984, (2240-81) 2258-59. R. REITZENSTEIN is in
agreement with Psellus (Poimandres. Studien zur griechisch-agyptischen und fruhchristlichen
Literatur, Leipzig 1904, 51).
2 9 6
C. H. D O D D , The Bible and the Greeks, London 1935.
2 9 7
D O D D , The Bible, 101. C. H. 1.5 (I, 8,13 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:2.
2 9 8
C. H. 1.8 (I, 9,14 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:4, 8, 12, 1 8 , 2 1 , 2 5 , 3 1 .
2 9 9
C. H. 1.11 ( 1 , 1 0 , 1 1 - 2 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:4, 6, 7 , 1 4 , 18.
3 0 0
C. H. 1.11 (I, 10,13 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:12.
3 0 1
C. H. 1.11 ( 1 , 1 0 , 1 4 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:24.
3 0 2
C. H. 1.12 ( 1 , 1 0 , 1 6 - 7 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:27.
3 0 3
C. H. 1.17 (I, 12,20-1 N . / F . ) = Gen 2:7.
3 0 4
C. H. 1.18 (I, 13,7-8 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:22, 28.
3 0 5
C. H. 1.19 (I, 13,14 N . / F . ) = Gen 1:11, 12, 2 1 , 2 4 , 25.
s i m i l a r i t i e s ) h a v e e n c o u r a g e d other s c h o l a r s to c o n t i n u e this l i n e o f
306
investigation o f the Hermetic literature .
H. L u d i n J a n s e n n o t e s several pecularities in the P o i m a n d r e s that h e
307
b e l i e v e s s h o w it to b e by a J e w i s h a u t h o r . T h e b o d y g o e s through s e v e n
308
spheres in a j o u r n e y o f p u r i f i c a t i o n . After the d i s s o l u t i o n o f the mortal
b o d y , the p e r s o n g i v e s the b o d y o v e r to a transformation and b e c o m e s
invisible ( π α ρ α δ ί δ ω ^ α υ τ ό τ ό σ ώ μ α εις άλλοίωσι,ν καΐ τ ό β ΐ δ ο ς δ
3 0 9
ε ΐ χ € 9 α φ α ν έ ς γ ί ν ε τ α ι ) . Jansen b e l i e v e s that an O T w o r l d v i e w is present
in Poimandres w i t h its creator G o d w h o is behind earthly events. T h e h y m n
at the e n d w h i c h u s e s the w o r d "holy" eight times ( w i t h an e c h o but not
310
quotation o f Isa 6:3) to describe G o d is another i n d i c a t i o n . In a curious
311
twist, the h y m n w a s adapted by a later Christian author for u s e in a p r a y e r .
In a variation o n J a n s e n ' s p o s i t i o n , B i r g e r P e a r s o n r e v i e w s the J e w i s h
elements in Poimandres and c o n c l u d e s that the author w a s a J e w (perhaps a
312
proselyte or "god-fearer") w h o left Judaism and founded a n e w c u l t . A n
alternative to t h e s e v i e w s is that o f Jorg B u c h l i w h o s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f
Poimandres r e s u l t e d in h i s c o n c l u s i o n that the H e r m e t i c literature is a
reaction o f p a g a n i s m to Christianity. S i n c e the L X X b e c a m e the b o o k o f the
church (and w a s rejected b y ancient Judaism), B u c h l i argues that the e c h o e s
o f the L X X in texts s u c h as the o n e quoted b y Psellus c o m e from a Christian
3 1 3
b o o k — the B i b l e o f the c h u r c h ( L X X ) . It w o u l d b e a s e r i o u s
3 0 6
E. H A E N C H E N , Aufbau und Theologie des „Poimandres", ZThK 5 3 , 1956, (149-91)
150-1, 177 (C. H. 1.18 is not a blessing of the creation but a curse of transitoriness). See M.
P H I L O N E N K O , Le Poimandres et la liturgie juive, Les syncretismes dans les religions de
l'antiquite: Colloque de Besancon (22-23 Oktober 1973), ed. F. D U N A N D / P . LiVEQUE,
EPRO 4 6 , Leiden 1975, 2 0 4 - 1 1 / J. H O L Z H A U S E N , Der «Mythos v o m Menschen» im
hellenistischen Agypten. Eine Studie zum "Poimandres" (= CH I), zu Valentin und dem
gnostischen Mythos, Athenaums Monografien Theophaneia 33, Hain 1994, 5 2 , 54 (examples
of LXX influence).
3 0 7
H. L. JANSEN, D i e Frage nach Tendenz und Verfasserschaft im Poimandres, in:
Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism. Stockholm August 20-25 1973,
ed. G. WlDENGREN/D. HELLHOLM, Stockholm 1977, (157-63) 162-3.
3 0 8
C. H. 1.24-26 (CUFr I, 15,7-16,15 N./F.).
3 0 9
C. H. 1.24 (I, 15,9-11 N./F.). J A N S E N ' S point is apparently that bodily survival after
death is quite Jewish.
3 1 0
C. H. 1.31 (1,17,23-18,10 N./F.) = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 222a.
3 1 1
P. Berol 9 7 9 4 in the apparatus to C. H. 1.31 (1,18 N./F.).
3 1 2
B. A. P E A R S O N , Jewish Elements in Corpus Hermeticum I (Poimandres), in: Studies
in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to GILLES Q U I S P E L on the Occasion of his
th
6 5 Birthday, ed. R. V A N D E N B R O E K / M . J. V E R M A S E R E N , EPRO 9 1 , Leiden 1981, (336-48)
347.
3 1 3
J. B U C H L I , Der Poimandres. Ein paganisiertes Evangelium, W U N T 2/27, Tubingen
1987, 104-5, 174-5, 209-10. He refers to the fact that the MSS of the L X X in the second and
third centuries were Christian using K. A L A N D , Repertorium der griechischen christlichen
52 Introduction
misrepresentation o f scholarship o n the Hermetica not t o m e n t i o n the fact that

many researchers h a v e not f o c u s e d o n the L X X in their work o n texts such as
214
the Poimandres .
0.21 Conclusion
Hecataeus, Ocellus Lucanus, Alexander Polyhistor, Diodorus Siculus,

N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , and Ps. L o n g i n u s are pagan authors w h o are aware o f
the L X X (or the Jewish b o o k s o f l a w s ) although extant quotations are sparse.
Hecataeus s e e m s to paraphrase texts from the Pentateuch in o n e instance, but
he l i v e d before t h e L X X translation w a s made. O c e l l u s m a y u s e o n e o f the
phrases in G e n e s i s , and Ps. L o n g i n u s quotes the L X X (in I C.E. or later). T h e
other authors s e e m t o b e aware o f the e x i s t e n c e o f the L X X (or O T ) and in
s o m e instances s u c h as that o f A l e x a n d e r Polyhistor m a y k n o w a f e w g i v e n
passages. Historians such as Posidonius, Teucer, and Philo B y b l o s m a y h a v e
m a d e u s e o f t h e L X X , but this i s o n l y a h y p o t h e s i s that h a s n o t b e e n
demonstrated. T h e Greco-Alexandrian tradition o f the e x o d u s responded t o a
J e w i s h oral o r written version. It i s proof that the B i b l e or a part o f it w a s
k n o w n i n s o m e f o r m t o o n e o f t h e E g y p t i a n writers ( s u c h as M a n e t h o or
s o m e o n e before h i m ) w h o felt it necessary to respond with a counter-version.
Ps. Ecphantus m a y h a v e used the L X X in his conception o f the creation o f the
k i n g . N u m e n i u s probably k n e w s o m e texts in t h e B i b l e . T h e m a g i c a l
literature s h o w s that the L X X m a d e its w a y into that side o f the ancient world.
J e w s a n d Christians w e r e probably t h e s o u r c e s for that j o u r n e y , but the
p a g a n s e a g e r l y a d o p t e d their contributions. W h i l e Poimandres in the
Hermetic literature remains something o f a mystery, it i s difficult to deny that
Jewish influences, specifically G e n e s i s , are present. T h e presence o f biblical
Papyri I, Berlin 1976 / J. V A N H A E L S T , Catalogue des papyri litteraires juifs et Chretiens, Paris
1976. H E N G E L extensively analyzes the problem o f the adoption o f the L X X by the church
and its consequent rejection by ancient Judaism in: D i e Septuaginta. B U C H L I , Der
Poimandres, 207 dates the tractate to the period after 200. A . CAMPLANI, Riferimenti biblici
nella letteratura ermetica, A S E 10, 1993, (375-425) 386 n.46 finds B U C H L I ' S arguments for
the date unconvincing. C A M P L A N I finds many echoes of the L X X in the Hermetica —
probably t o o many. Cf. R I N A L D I , La Bibbia de pagani, II, § 23a (= C. H. F. 23.10 [IV, 4
N./F.]), § 26a (C. H. Asclepius 14 [II, 313,3-7 N./F.]), § 35a (= C. H. Asclepius 8 [II, 304,20-
306,7 N./F.]) for several other possible uses of Genesis.
3 1 4
S e e the r e v i e w o f literature in, for e x a m p l e , H. J. S H E P P A R D / A . K E H L / R M c L .
W I L S O N , Hermetik, R A C XIV, 1988, 780-808. H. D . B E T Z , Hermetism and Gnosticism: The
Question of the Poimandres, in: Antike und Christentum. Gesammelte Aufsatze IV, 206-21
analyzes the text from the point o f v i e w o f its anthropology. T h e quest for self-
understanding, theodicy, and cosmology all appear in B E T Z ' interpretation of the text.
t h e m e s at P o m p e y is an architectural form o f e v i d e n c e that the L X X had

seeped into the R o m a n world.
Can o n e c o n c l u d e that the J e w s s i m p l y did not want p a g a n s to obtain
c o p i e s o f t h e L X X , p e r h a p s in fear that t h e y w o u l d m i s u s e t h e
3 1 5
T e t r a g r a m m a t o n ( Y H W H ) , the H o l y n a m e o f G o d ? D i d J e w i s h
c o m m u n i t i e s d e n y their G e n t i l e n e i g h b o r s a c c e s s to the L X X b e f o r e the
316
advent o f C h r i s t i a n i t y ? This seems unlikely given s o m e of Philo's
statements. After the Christians' adoption o f the L X X , the Jewish c o m m u n i t y
gradually rejected it, and o n e text e v e n v i e w e d the day o f its translation as o n e
317
o f d a r k n e s s . T h e L X X w a s probably esoteric literature in the e y e s o f a
cultured pagan. H e or she s i m p l y m a y not h a v e b e e n very interested. T h e y
d o not s e e m to h a v e p e r c e i v e d ancient Judaism as a "threat" — despite the
318
occasional anti-Jewish e x p r e s s i o n s and v i o l e n c e . T h e rise and spread o f
Christianity in the s e c o n d century provided the impetus for "outsiders" to
finally take a c l o s e l o o k at the L X X . O n e can a s s u m e that C e l s u s and others
obtained their c o p i e s o f the O T (and N T ) from Christians w h o w i l l i n g l y
shared their faith. C e l s u s objected to O T and N T texts w i t h equal v e r v e .
Porphyry and Julian r e s e r v e d their greatest scorn not for L X X t e x t s in
t h e m s e l v e s , but for the u s e that Christians m a d e o f t h o s e texts to p r o v i d e a
basis for their r e l i g i o n . In m y v o l u m e o n the interpretation o f the N T in
p a g a n i s m I argued that the p a g a n authors realized that Christianity w a s
threatening the roots o f G r e c o - R o m a n culture, and s o they felt it necessary to
315 p f H E N G E L makes this hypothesis in a letter. The tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters

r o
appears in pre-Christian copies of the LXX. See O. ElSSFELDT, The Old Testament. An
Introduction, trans. P. R. ACKROYD, Oxford 1965 (first German ed. 1934), 706-7.
3 1 6
F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 313 refers to texts such as Philo, D e vita M o s . 2.26
(before the L X X the laws' beauty had not been revealed to the rest of humankind who did not
know the Chaldean language), 2.27, 2.36 (the Alexandrian Jews' pray that the philosophical
and beautiful laws might help the entire race of humanity). In D e vita M o s . 2.40, Philo
pictures Chaldeans and Greeks who have learned each other's languages and who approve of
the L X X translation. In D e vita Mos. 2.41 there is a festival on Pharos where Jews and a
"multitude" c o m e to celebrate the translation. Jos., Antiq. 20.44-6 depicts the king of
Adiabene, Izates, who converts after reading the L X X version of the law.
3 1 7
H E N G E L , D i e Septuaginta, 205 refers to Sepher Tora 1.6, and Sopherim 1.7 which
claim that the day of translation was as bad as that of the day in which they made the golden
calf. MegTaan 13 (a late addition) says that when the Torah was translated into Greek that
three days of darkness came upon the earth. The Rabbis' analysis of the L X X (and other
Greek translations) was not completely negative. See Ε. Τ ο ν , The Rabbinic Tradition
Concerning the "Alterations" Inserted into the Greek Pentateuch and Their Relation to the
Original Text of the L X X , JSJ 15, 1984, 65-89.
3 1 8
See, for example, the many positive portrayals of Judaism in G A G E R , The Origins of
Anti-Semitism / F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile. T o o often scholars summarize the ancient
attitude to Jews as one of overwhelming negativity. The translations of Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion were clear rejections of the LXX.
54 Introduction
attack the sources. T h e persuasive p o w e r o f N T texts w a s apparent to them.

In this v o l u m e it will b e c o m e clear that the pagan authors thought that if they
could refute o n e o f the primary foundations o f Christianity, n a m e l y its u s e or
interpretation o f the L X X , then the n e w religion w o u l d perhaps crumble. T h e
p a g a n s ' v o i c e is important, s i n c e it s h o w s h o w L X X texts appeared in the
e y e s o f G r e c o - R o m a n intellectuals. It w a s not an abstract interest, h o w e v e r ,
b e c a u s e they k n e w that Christianity p o s e d a grave danger to s o m e o f their
dearest beliefs, self-understanding, and w a y o f life.
1. Celsus
Celsus' Critique of the Old Testament
C e l s u s w a s a Platonist p h i l o s o p h e r w h o probably wrote his True Discourse

1
( Α λ η θ ή ς Λ ό γ ο ς True L o g o s ) during the reign o f Marcus A u r e l i u s . Origen
2
r e s p o n d e d to his b o o k b e t w e e n 2 4 6 and 2 4 8 . A l t h o u g h O r i g e n a c c u s e s
C e l s u s o f b e i n g an Epicurean, C e l s u s ' o p e n admiration for Plato and other
3
e v i d e n c e s h o w that Origen is almost certainly w r o n g . C e l s u s felt driven to
1
Cf. C O O K , Interpretation, 17-24 (I will not repeat those introductory comments here) / G .
RlNALDl, Biblia Gentium: primo contributo per un indice delle citazioni, dei riferimenti e
delle allusioni alia bibbia negli autori pagani, greci e latini, di eta imperiale, Rome 1989, 121-
9. Cf. also Idem, La Bibbia dei pagani, I, 107-18 / P . D E L A B R I O L L E , La reaction paienne.
e r e
Etude sur la polemique antichretienne du I au V I Siecle, Paris 1948, 111-70 / R. WlLKEN,
The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, N e w Haven/London 1984, 9 5 - 1 2 5 . The original
text used is from Origenes Werke, Vols. I-II, ed. P . K O E T S C H A U , GCS 2, 3, Leipzig 1899 /
M . B O R R E T s.j., Origene Contre Celse. Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes,
Vols. I-V, SC 132, 136, 147, 150, 227, Paris 1967-1976 (referred to below as " B O R R E T " with
volume and page) / M . M A R C O V I C H , Origenes Contra Celsum libri VIII, Texts and Studies of
Early Christian Life and Language, Supp. VigChr 5 4 , Brill 2 0 0 1 . A l s o useful has been the
reconstruction of R. B A D E R , Der ΑΛΗΘΗΣ ΛΟΓΟΣ des Kelsos, T B A W 3 3 , Stuttgart/Berlin
1940 (referred to below as " B A D E R " ) . Of immense use has been H. C H A D W I C K , Origen:
Contra Celsum. Translated with an Introduction & Notes, Cambridge 1953, (referred to
below as "CHADWICK, Origen").
2
COOK, Interpretation, 22-3 with reference to Eus., H . E . 6.36.2.
3
C O O K , Interpretation, 18-22 with particular reference to M . F R E D E , Celsus' Attack on
the Christians, in: Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, ed. J. B A R N E S / M .
GRIFFIN, Oxford 1997, ( 2 1 8 - 4 0 ) 2 2 3 - 2 8 / Idem, Celsus Philosophus Platonicus, A N R W
II.36.7, 1994, 5 1 8 3 - 5 2 1 3 / Idem, Origen's Treatise Against Celsus, in: Apologetics in the
Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews, and Christians, ed. M . E D W A R D S / M . G O O D M A N / S . PRICE,
Oxford 1999, 131-55. S.-P. B E R G J A N has recently argued that Origen identifies Celsus as an
Epicurean because of his (Celsus') views on providence, making much use of the second
century discussion of providence among the Stoic, Platonist, and Peripatetic schools. See
Celsus the Epicurean? The Intepretation of an Argument in Origen, Contra Celsum, HTR 94,
2001, 149-204. She particuarly refers to C. Cels. 5.3 (321,1-7 M A R C ) where Origen seems
to identify Epicureans with those w h o reject providence for individuals (Celsus, 194, 198).
C. M A R K S C H I E S , (Epikureismus bei Origenes und in der origenistischen Tradition, in: M .
E R L E R / R . B E E S , Epikureismus in der spaten Republik und der Kaiserzeit : Akten der 2.
Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung v o m 30. September - 3. Oktober 1998 in
56 1. Celsus
read t h e s y n a g o g u e ' s a n d c h u r c h ' s B i b l e d u e t o t h e o n g o i n g spread o f

4
Christianity . H e also describes the persecution o f the church and apparently
5
approves o f it . H e w a s appalled at a v i s i o n h e had o f the emperor converting
6
to Christianity . S h o u l d the R o m a n s convert, C e l s u s d o e s not b e l i e v e that the
Christians' G o d w o u l d c o m e d o w n and d e f e n d the empire. T h e miserable
situation o f the J e w s a n d Christians ( n o h o m e for t h e former, and death-
7
bringing persecution for the latter) clinches this argument for C e l s u s . C e l s u s
w o u l d h a v e probably b e e n infuriated b y Constantine's c o n v e r s i o n and texts
such as A u g u s t i n e ' s City of God (in w h i c h A u g u s t i n e , in part, d e f e n d s the
thesis that the sack o f R o m e in 4 1 0 w a s not due to the p r e s e n c e o f Christians
8
in the c i t y ) .
In this c o n t e x t C e l s u s c o m p o s e d h i s True Discourse o r True Doctrine
( l o g o s ) w i t h the implication that Judaism and Christianity w e r e false teaching.
H e h a s m u c h scorn for O T texts, but reserves h i s greatest disdain for N T
narratives. H i s concern for O T traditions is based o n his b e l i e f in the dangers
9
that Christianity p o s e s for the R o m a n social order . H e d o e s n o t i n c l u d e
similar c o m m e n t s about the J e w s , although h e d o e s n o t e their unimpressive
current circumstances ( s e e § 1.33 b e l o w ) . H e k n o w s that the L X X b e l o n g s to
the s y n a g o g u e a n d church. Jeffery Hargis writes that " . . . e v e n a cursory
reading o f C e l s u s , Porphyry and Julian reveals that J u d a i s m d o m i n a t e s the
1 0
discourse t o an o v e r w h e l m i n g degree . . . " C e l s u s d e v o t e s m u c h energy to
his attempt t o s h o w that Jewish texts are highly problematic.
Wurzburg, Philosophie der Antike 11, Stuttgart 2 0 0 0 , 190-217) also rejects the thesis that
Celsus was an Epicurean.
4
C O O K , Interpretation, 82-8.
5
C O O K , Interpretation, 89.
6
He refers to the conversion of "those w h o n o w reign over us" in C. Cels. 8.71 (587,24-
26 M A R C ) . Cf. C O O K , Interpretation, 9 1 .
7
C. Cels. 8.69 (585,19-586,6 M A R C ) . Cf. C O O K , Interpretation, 9 0 .
8
Aug., D e civ. D e i 1.1 (CChr.SL 4 7 , 2,19-21 DOMBART/KALB). Cf. also Aug., Retract.
2.43.2 (CChrSL 5 7 , 124,1-8 M U T Z E N B E C H E R ) . RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 90a
(Serm. 3 9 7 D e urbis excidio 2.2 [CChr.SL 4 6 , 2 5 1 , 5 7 - 6 6 O'REILLY]) includes an excerpt
from one o f Augustine's sermons in which he argues against pagans w h o assert, using Gen
18:22-6, that in the midst of a city of so many monks and other faithful there must not have
even been ten righteous people. S e e also COOK, Interpretation, 123-5 on A . V O N H A R N A C K ,
Porphyrius "Gegen die Christen," 15 Bticher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, APAW.PH
1, Berlin 1916, F. 8 0 .
9
C . Cels. 8.68 (584,10-15 M A R C ) . Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 9 0 / E. P E L A G A U D , U n
conservateur au second siecle. Celse et les premieres luttes entre la philosopie antique et le
christianisme naissant, Paris 1879, 453-61.
1 0
J. W . H A R G I S , Against the Christians. The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic,
Patristic Studies 1, N e w York et al. 1999, 30.
Celsus* Critique of the Septuagint 57
W h a t sources C e l s u s had, other than a L X X , are unclear. H e o n l y quotes

11
the L X X o n c e , and that text is very brief . H i s k n o w l e d g e o f the L X X is
very spotty since h e concentrates o n G e n e s i s and a f e w v a g u e traditions from
12
E x o d u s that h e m i g h t h a v e found e l s e w h e r e . H e probably k n o w s s o m e texts
from N u m b e r s and D e u t e r o n o m y , but again it is difficult to say w h i c h texts,
1 3
in particular, h e k n o w s . H e mentions the Spirit (of G e n 1), the serpent, the
m a n and w o m a n created b y G o d , M o s e s , Jonah, D a n i e l , the s e v e n t y a n g e l s
that w e r e p u n i s h e d , the ark, the t o w e r , S o d o m and G o m o r r a h , and L o t ' s
daughters. H e i n c l u d e s a n u m b e r o f a n o n y m o u s v e r s i o n s o f patriarchal
narratives such as o n e about procreation b e y o n d the normal a g e , stories about
w e l l s , e n m i t y (Esau?), the trickeries o f a mother ( R e b e c c a h ) , a rape ( D i n a h )
and the c o n s e q u e n t v e n g e a n c e , and the plots o f brothers versus e a c h other
14
(Joseph and his b r o t h e r s ) . H e includes stories about herders and the e s c a p e
15
o f slaves from E g y p t w h i c h is C e l s u s ' version o f E x o d u s . T h e k i n g s o f the
J e w s appear in a brief m e n t i o n (§ 1.32). H e k n o w s o f the e x i s t e n c e o f the
prophets, but n e v e r actually quotes o n e although h e k n o w s that they refer to
16
the c o m i n g o f s o m e kind o f future ruler . N a m e s for G o d that h e includes are
Adonai, Sabaoth and Highest.
1 1
"Let this be" from Gen 1:3-31 in C. Cels. 6.60 (437,12-20 M A R C ) . See § 1.2.3.
1 2
F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 313 notes that Celsus knew certain narratives well such as
the flood, the tower of Babel, and the story of Joseph. Cf. also D E L A B R I O L L E , La reaction,
125 / P. M E R L A N , Celsus, R A C II, 1954, (954-65) 958 / G. T. B U R K E , Celsus and the Old
Testament, V T 36, 1986, 241-5 (Celsus may have used a Marcionite source for his references
to Gen 1-3 in C. Cels. 6.49-63, but is directly dependent on Genesis in 4.20-53). Even if
Celsus is dependent on a Marcionite source, he does mention the "writing" ( γ ρ α φ ή v )
concerning the creation of humankind (C. Cels. 6.49 [427,26-7 M A R C ] . H. CHADWICK,
Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, Oxford 1984 (1st edition 1966), 23-30
summarizes Celsus' attack on the OT (and Christianity). W. V O L K E R , D a s Bild v o m
nichtgnostischen Christentum bei Celsus, Halle 1 9 2 8 , 8 0 : C. only knows Genesis.
1 3
See § 1.28.4. There is a possible reference to the Psalms in that text.
1 4
For a summary of these accounts see M. B O R R E T , L'ficriture d'apres le pai'en Celse, in:
MONDESERT, Le m o n d e grec, ( 1 7 1 - 9 3 ) 187. P E L A G A U D , U n conservateur, 2 7 9 - 3 8 2
summarizes the entire text of Celsus.
1 5
B U R K E , Celsus, 244-5 notes that this material may not come direcctly from Exodus, but
from conversations with Jews (taking a position from P E L A G A U D , Un conservateur, 4 0 6 , n.73;
however it must be noted that P E L A G A U D believed Celsus knew Genesis and Exodus).
1 6
Origen argues that Celsus knew little (or nothing) of the prophets in C. Cels. 1.49
(50,25-51,3 M A R C ) . PiLAGAUD, U n conservateur, 407 believed Celsus had read the prophets
(with reference to C. Cels. 4.71; see § 1.31 below). This is doubtful since Celsus' allusions to
the prophets are so vague. Cp. B U R K E , Celsus, 244. B U R K E mentions the passage in C. Cels.
6.50 (428,22-3 M A R C ) where Celsus mentions that "Moses and the prophets left writings."
58 1. Celsus
O n e can ask whether C e l s u s had a c c e s s to written J e w i s h sources other

17
m a n the B i b l e . A n e x a m p l e is C e l s u s ' d i s c u s s i o n o f s e v e n t y angels w h o
w e r e p u n i s h e d and w h o s e tears create hot springs. C e l s u s did not find that
story in the L X X , although h e probably k n e w the account in G e n 6. E v e n if
he did not h a v e a c o p y o f E n o c h , h e must have had an acquaintance, perhaps a
Jewish informant, w h o g a v e h i m the information. C e l s u s also had to find his
1 8
v i e w that the J e w s worship angels s o m e w h e r e other than in the L X X . H e
also k n o w s the text entitled the Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason.
In that text a Christian s h o w s a J e w , in a dispute, that the O T p r o p h e c i e s
19
apply to J e s u s . A g a i n , C e l s u s m a y h a v e o n l y k n o w n that d o c u m e n t by
hearsay, s i n c e he d o e s not actually use it. H e m a y have read s o m e o f the texts
o f J e w i s h allegorists such as P h i l o and Aristobulus, or h e m a y h a v e o n l y
20
k n o w n that such writers e x i s t e d . It is probably not p o s s i b l e to determine the
limits o f C e l s u s ' library w i t h p r e c i s i o n . W h a t is clear is that h e k n o w s
e n o u g h O T to b e l i e v e that it deserved serious reading and refutation. H e w a s
21
able to get his hands o n the texts he n e e d e d .
A f t e r s u r v e y i n g C e l s u s ' a c c o u n t o f G e n e s i s , E x o d u s , and h i s brief
reference to Jonah and Daniel I will e x a m i n e his critique o f J e w i s h l a w s and
doctrines including his approach to O T prophecy. Finally I will survey his
v i e w s o n the J e w s ' current status and the practice o f proselytism.
1 7
K. PlCHLER, Streit um das Christentum. Der Angriff des Kelsos und die Antwort des
Origenes, Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 2 3 , Frankfurt am Main/Bern 1980, 4 3 - 5 2
surveys the sources Celsus might have used and ends on a skeptical note. From COOK,
Interpretation, 27 n.51: D. R O K E A H is skeptical of Celsus' use of written Jewish sources, but
provides no alternative hypothesis (Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, StPB 3 3 ,
Jerusalem-Leiden 1982, 58). M. L O D S , Etude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse
contre les Chretiens, RHPhR 2 1 , 1941, (1-33) 31 is more open to Celsus' use of Jewish
traditions and to Justin's Dialogue with Trypho. M. F E D O U also believes Celsus used written
Jewish sources (Christianisme et religions pai'ennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origene, ThH 8 1 ,
Paris 1988, 4 2 n.29). P E L A G A U D ' s remarks on Celsus' sources are still useful (Un
conservateur, 385-425).
1 8
See § 1.21.
1 9
4.52 (269,5-9 M A R C ) . On this document see COOK, Interpretation, 64.
2 0
S e e § 1.1.2-3. Cf. S T E I N , Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 12, 23 with reference to C.
Cels. 4.51 where Origen argues that Celsus had not read Philo. S T E I N believes Origen to be
wrong. Instead, Celsus adopted Philo's critique of the literal sense, but rejected his
allegorical intepretations.
2 1
From C O O K , Interpretation, 102 n.272: Tert., Apol. 31.1 (142,5-6 D E K . ) says that
Christians do not hide their books which "many occasions transfer to outsiders." A. V O N
H A R N A C K describes the sale of Bibles in the fourth century (Uber den privaten Gebrauch der
heiligen Schriften in der alten Kirche, Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig
1912, 68-69). He argues that Celsus had no trouble obtaining a copy of the gospels (Uber den
privaten Gebrauch, 31).
Celsus' Critique of the Septuagint 59
1.1 Celsus on the Allegory of the Old Testament
C e l s u s ' approach to the allegory o f the O T w a s twofold. T h e texts t h e m s e l v e s

w e r e s o clear that t h e y d i d not n e e d a l l e g o r y , and in fact c o u l d not b e
allegorized at all. H e also admits a higher class o f J e w s and Christians w h o
are ashamed o f their texts (the O T ) and w h o consequently e n g a g e in allegory.
A l t h o u g h h e s h o w s a kind o f grudging admiration for the allegorists, h e d o e s
not c o n c e d e that they are correct in submitting their texts to allegory.
1.1.1 Character of the Hebrew Scriptures

A c c o r d i n g to Origen, C e l s u s preferred Egyptian narratives to those o f M o s e s :
[If the Egyptians mythologize, they are believed to philosophize through enigmas and
unspeakable mysteries (δι' α ι ν ι γ μ ά τ ω ν καΐ απορρήτων), but if Moses writes narratives
for a whole nation and leaves them laws, they are thought to be empty myths (μύθοι
κενοί), and his words cannot admit allegory (μηδ' άλληγορίαν ε π ι δ ε χ ό μ ε ν ο ι ) . This is
22
the opinion of Celsus and the Epicureans].
T h e Epicureans did reject allegory, and Epicurus thought poetry w a s a pit o f

23
m y t h s . C e l s u s did not reject allegory c o m p l e t e l y since h e approves o f the
24
E g y p t i a n interpretation o f their o w n animal w o r s h i p as e n i g m a t i c t r u t h s .
T h e topic c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h texts or c o n c e p t s w e r e o p e n to allegory w a s a
constant e l e m e n t in the debate b e t w e e n Judaism, Christianity, and H e l l e n i s m
25
in the ancient world. J o s e p h u s rejected allegory o f pagan t e x t s . A m o n g
C h r i s t i a n a p o l o g i s t s A t h e n a g o r a s , for e x a m p l e , r e j e c t e d t h e p a g a n s '
2 6
allegorical interpretation o f their o w n m y t h s about the g o d s . Another
2 2
C. Cels. 1.20 (22,9-13 M A R C ) .
2 3
See Velleius (an Epicurean) in Cicero, D e nat. deorum 1.14.36. He rejects Stoic
allegory of Hesiod. For Epicurus' opinions on poetry see Heraclitus, Quaest. Horn. 4.2
(CUFr, 4 B U F F I E R E ) = U S E N E R , Epicurea, Leipzig 1887, F. 229. Cp. C O O K , Interpretation,
12,71.
2 4
C. Cels. 3.19 (165,13-8 M A R C ) . See also his elaborate quotation of myths of divine
conflict in 6.42 (417,21-420,11 M A R C ) although he rejects the Christian belief about the
struggle between Satan and God. Cp. J. PEPIN, Mythe et allegorie. Les origines grecques et
les contestations judeo-chr&iennes, Paris 1958, 449-52 / COOK, Interpretation, 39-40. STEIN,
Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 14 notes the inconsistency of Celsus' position: admitting
allegory of Egyptian traditions, but denying its validity in the case of the OT. See also D E
LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 162.
2 5
C. Ap. 2.255-57. See R O K E A H , Jews, 97-107.
2 6
L e g a t i o 22.1-12 (OECT, 4 8 - 5 2 S C H O E D E L . ) . Marcion may have rejected any allegory
of the scriptures. See A. V O N H A R N A C K , Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott. Eine
Monographie zur Geschichte der Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche, T U 4 5 , Leipzig
2
1 9 2 4 , 2 6 0 * . Cp. Tert, Adv. Marc. 5.18.1 (CChr.SL 1,717,5-6 K R O Y M A N N ) .
60 1. Celsus
27
Christian a p o l o g i s t , A r n o b i u s o f S i c c a , attacked G r e c o - R o m a n allegory .
A m o n g the p a g a n s N u m e n i u s (II C E . ) w a s apparently w i l l i n g to allegorically
interpret M o s e s , the prophets, and a story about J e s u s i n w h i c h J e s u s i s n o t
2 8
mentioned by n a m e . Porphyry attacked O r i g e n ' s a l l e g o r i c a l interpretation
2 9
of OT texts . M a c a r i u s ' a n o n y m o u s p a g a n c r i t i c i z e d J o h n 6 : 5 4 w i t h the
30
argument that e v e n allegory c o u l d not h e l p that o b j e c t i o n a b l e s a y i n g . Julian
b e l i e v e d that i n c o n g r u i t y i n G r e e k t e x t s i n d i c a t e d a h i d d e n allegorical
31
m e a n i n g , b u t h e c o u n s e l e d ( G r e e k ) priests n o t to read s u c h literature . For
Julian, N T texts are n o t d i v i n e , i.e. inspired ( θ ε ΐ ο ν ) , and t h e y appeal t o the
32
part o f the s o u l that l o v e s m y t h s (τω φ ι Λ ο μ ύ θ ω ) . H e f o u n d n o allegorical
m e a n i n g in the N T . C e l s u s w a s h i s precursor in that v i e w . Julian did b e l i e v e
that s o m e O T t e x t s s h o u l d b e a l l e g o r i z e d (§ 3 . 1 0 ) . A n a n o n y m o u s Christian
a s k e d w h y , s i n c e the b o d i l y terms u s e d b y the p o e t s t o d e s c r i b e the G r e e k
g o d s are to b e understood allegorically and similarly the b o d i l y terms u s e d b y
the prophets about G o d are a l s o t o b e a l l e g o r i z e d , are n o t b o t h s h o w n to b e
3 3
myth ?
2 7
Adv. nat. 5.38-45 (297,8-305,6 MARCHESI). Cp. Adv. nat. 5 . 3 2 (290,1-10 M A R C H . )
where Arnobius quotes a pagan's defense o f allegorical interpretation. Cf. COOK,
Interpretation, 129.
2 8
Numenius F. l c , 10a ( 4 3 , 5 2 D E S P L A C E S ) from C. Cels. 4.51 (51,16-25 M A R C ) .
R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 51 notes that Numenius certainly had some knowledge of
the LXX. S e e § 0 . 1 6 .
2 9
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 39 = Eus., H . E . 6.19.4-8.
3 0
Macarius M a g n e s , M o n o g e n e s 3.15.1-6 (Macarios de M a g n e s i e , Le M o n o g e n e s .
Edition critique et traduction francaise, T o m e I Introduction generate. T o m e II Edition
critique, traduction et commentaire, ed. and trans. R. G O U L E T , Textes et traditions 7, Paris
2 0 0 3 , II, 1 4 0 , 8 - 1 4 2 , 2 1 = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 6 9 ) . G O U L E T has altered B L O N D E L ' s
numeration in certain texts.
3 1
Or. 7.17, 222c (CUFr I I / l , 68 ROCHEFORT = II, 119 W R I G H T ) . Frag. Ep. 89b, 301a,b
(CUFr 1/2,169,1-9 BlDEZ = II, 326-27 W R . ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 287.
3 2
C. Gal. 39a,b ( 8 7 , 1 - 6 M A S A R A C C H I A = III, 3 1 8 W R I G H T ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation
287.
3 3
Ps. Justin, Quaestiones et responsiones ad orthodoxos, Quaest. 10, 397c (Corpus
Apologetarum Christianorum V , 16 O T T O ) = Quaest. 15 (θεοδωρήτου ε π ι σ κ ό π ο υ πόλεως
Κύρρου π ρ ο ς τ ά ς έ π ε ν ε χ θ ε ί σ α ς αύτω ε π ε ρ ω τ ή σ ε ι ς παρά τ ί ν ο ς τ ω ν έ ξ Α ι γ ύ π τ ο υ
ε π ι σ κ ό π ω ν α π ο κ ρ ί σ ε ι ς , ed. P A P A D O P O U L O S - K E R A M E U S , Zapiski Istoriko-filologicheskago
fakulteta Imperatorskago s.-peterburgskago universiteta 3 6 , St. Petersburg 1895, 36,15-7 [a
better M S of Ps. Justin than the one O T T O had with 15 additional questions; rep. Leipzig
1975, ed. G. H A N S E N ] ) . Cf. CPG III, § 6285. G. B A R D Y compares the text of Ps. Justin and
Celsus in his La litterature patristique des quaestiones et responsiones sur l'Ecriture Sainte,
RB 4 1 , 1 9 3 2 , 2 1 0 - 3 6 , 3 4 1 - 6 9 , 5 1 5 - 3 7 ; 4 2 , 1933 (14-30, 2 1 1 - 2 9 , 3 2 8 - 3 5 2 ) 2 1 7 . When
referring to this text I will use O T T O ' S numbering for the questions (Paris M S ) and include
P A P A D O P O U L O S - K E R A M E U S ' numbering (Constantinople M S ) in parentheses. On Ps. Justin
1.1.2 Allegorists: A Higher Class of Jews and Christians
O r i g e n m e n t i o n s C e l s u s ' e n m i t y toward biblical texts after a brief d i s c u s s i o n

34
o f C e l s u s ' v i e w o f the J o s e p h narrative :
[Then, as if he had given himself over to only hating and being at enmity with the doctrine
3 5
(λόγω) of the Jews and Christians, he says:] The more rational ( ε π ι ε ι κ έ σ τ ε ρ ο ι ) Jews
and Christians allegorize these. [And he claims that] the ones w h o are ashamed of these
36
texts flee to allegory ( ά λ λ η γ ο ρ ί α ν ) .
O r i g e n r e s p o n d s that m a n y e l e m e n t s o f p a g a n m y t h s are s h a m e f u l in their

literal m e a n i n g s u c h as d i v i n e s o n s castrating d i v i n e fathers ( K r o n o s castrated
37
U r a n u s ) . In an earlier text C e l s u s had already criticized Christians as b e i n g
in the majority i g n o r a n t and countrified (οί ίδιώτοα καΐ άγροικότερου).
Origen notes that for C e l s u s , Christian l o v e o n l y attracts the ignorant b e c a u s e
it i s i g n o r a n t a n d h a s n o p o w e r b a s e d o n cultural t r a d i t i o n s ( δ ι α τό
Ιδιωτικόν και ουδαμώς έν λόγοις δυνατόν). Y e t C e l s u s c o n s e n t s that:
"Among them are some moderate, rational and u n d e r s t a n d i n g people
(μετρίους και επιεικείς και σ υ ν ε τ ο ύ ς ) w h o are r e a d y t o understand
38
allegory." A n o t h e r variation o f a similar text o f C e l s u s f o l l o w s h i s critique
o f the creation o f A d a m and E v e ( G e n 2 : 2 1 - 2 2 ; s e e § 1.2.7 b e l o w ) . Origen
writes:
[He did not want to seem to admit that such things were allegories (και ουκ ηθέλησε γ ε
προσποιήσασθαι άλληγορεΐσθαι τ ά τοιαύτα) even though in what follows he says that]
the more rational of the Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things and try somehow
39
to allegorize t h e m .
see also G. R I N A L D I , Tracce di controversie tra pagani e cristiani nella letteratura patristica
delle "quaestiones et responsiones", A S E 6 , 1 9 8 9 , (99-124) 116-20.
3 4
C. Cels. 4.47. S e e § 1.19 below.
3 5
This meaning of the word can be found in Plato's dialogues (e.g. Tim. 67d in which he
refers to a rational theory of colors as έπιεικεΐ λόγω or Apol. 34d where rational statements
are expressed with επιεική ... λ έ γ ε ι ν ) .
3 6
C. Cels. 4.48 (264,21-4 M A R C ) . S e e F E D O U , Christianisme, 125-8 for a discussion of
Celsus' position on allegory / BORRET, L'Ecriture, 187-88.
3 7
C. Cels. 4.48 (264,25-265,21 M A R C ) . The text can be found in Hesiod, Opera et Dies
164-82 and cf. CHADWICK, Origen, 223 n.3. Origen also argues that it is pagan myths that are
extremely stupid and impious. Biblical texts, on the other hand, are written for the simple
minded majority — something the pagan authors did not do. See 4.50 (267,27-268,4 M A R C ) .
Origen clearly agrees with Celsus on one thing: the more intelligent will know that texts need
allegory (4.50 [267,20-2 M A R C ] with reference to Hos 14:10 LXX). On Origen's respect for
the letter of Christian texts (and his attack on the literal meaning of pagan texts) see F E D O U ,
Christianisme, 132-5.
3 8
C. Cels. 1.27 (29,11-20 M A R C ) .
3 9
C. Cels. 4.38 (252,23-6 M A R C . ) = R I N A L D I , Biblia Gentium § 5 1 . Cf. also Idem, La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 5 2 .
62 1. Celsus
Origen a n s w e r s that criticism b y quoting H e s i o d ' s story o f the creation o f

40
P a n d o r a . H e asks C e l s u s w h y the inspired H e s i o d ' s m y t h has an allegorical
meaning w h i l e the account o f the trance and rib from A d a m has n o reason (or
41
doctrine) and hidden significance ( π α ν τ ό ς λ ό γ ο υ καί τ ί ν ο ς έ π ι κ ρ ύ ψ ε ω ς ) .
W h a t o n e c a n c o n c l u d e f r o m t h e s e three forms o f C e l s u s ' v i e w s o n the
interpretation o f O T texts is that there are t w o tiers o f J e w s and Christians —
those w h o read o n l y the literal s e n s e and those w i t h d e e p e r understanding
42
w h o are ready to allegorize t e x t s . S h a m e drives t h e m to their allegories.
A l t h o u g h C e l s u s b e l i e v e d that O T texts w e r e not subject to allegory, h e did
approve o f the group o f p e o p l e w h o attempted to allegorize them. Plato and
Epicurus did not approve o f the p o e t s ' depictions o f the g o d s , and Plato did
43
not want poets in his state e v e n if the poetic texts c o u l d b e a l l e g o r i z e d .
1.1.3 OT Texts Absent of Allegorical Meaning

E v e n t h o u g h C e l s u s w a s w i l l i n g to c o n c e d e that a higher rank o f J e w s and
Christians w e r e w i l l i n g to allegorize the scriptures, h e still did not b e l i e v e that
they c o n t a i n e d any allegorical m e a n i n g : "[If C e l s u s had read the scripture
w i t h o u t partiality, h e w o u l d not h a v e said that our scriptures are not]
4 4
susceptible to allegory (ούχ οΐα ά λ λ η γ ο ρ ί α ν έ π ι δ έ χ ε σ θ α ι ) . " Origen
responds that C e l s u s m i g h t b e correct if o n l y J e w s and Christians o f "our"
o w n t i m e interpreted the texts w i t h allegory. H o w e v e r , the biblical authors
t h e m s e l v e s o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e a l l e g o r y (or similar t e c h n i q u e s ) , and Origen
mentions A s a p h (Ps 7 7 : 1 - 3 — problems and parables) and Paul (1 Cor 9:9-10,
45
10:1-4, E p h 5 : 3 1 - 3 2 ) . C e l s u s has already c o n c e d e d that the scriptures h a v e
b e e n interpreted a l l e g o r i c a l l y , but i s arguing that the a l l e g o r i e s are not
coherent.
C e l s u s s u m m a r i z e s his position: "The m o r e rational J e w s and Christians
try to allegorize them, but they are not susceptible to allegory and are clearly
S. B E N K O , Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First T w o Centuries A.D., A N R W

II.23.2, 1980, ( 1 0 5 5 - 1 1 1 8 ) 1101 summarizes Celsus' attack on the Christian attempt at
allegory.
4 0
C. Cels. 4.38 (252,26-255,4 M A R C ) . Celsus does not quote Gen 2:21-22 according to
Origen, but mocks at it. Hesiod, Opera 5 3 - 8 2 , 9 0 - 8 .
4 1
C. Cels. 4.38 (252,29-253,3 M A R C ) .
4 2
Christians do not, for example, offer any better interpretations of their tales about Jesus
than Egyptians do about their own worship of animals. C. Cels. 3.19 (165,13-8 M A R C ) . See
C o o k , Interpretation, 7 1 .
4 3
Plato, Resp. 378d (cf. J. T A T E , Plato and Allegorical Interpretation, CQ 2 3 , 1929, (142-
54) 1 4 6 - 4 7 ; U S E N E R , Epicurea, F. 228 from Plutarch, Moralia 1086. S e e C O O K ,
Interpretation 1 1 - 1 2 / PEPIN, Mythe, 112-21,134-38.
4 4
C. Cels. 4.49 (265,21-2 M A R C ) .
4 5
C. Cels. 4.49 (266,3-267,2 M A R C ) .
4 6
very foolish myths (άλλ' άντικρυς εύηθεστατα μεμυθολόγητοα)."
O r i g e n p r e f a c e s t h i s remark b y a p p e a l i n g t o t e x t s s u c h as E z e k 2 9 : 3 (the
dragon in the river) a n d 3 2 : 6 ( P h a r a o h ' s d u n g spread o n the m o u n t a i n s o f
47
E g y p t ) t o argue that certain t e x t s d e m a n d s o m e k i n d o f a l l e g o r y . It w a s a
c o m m o n p l a c e for p a g a n s and Christians to attack e a c h other's " m y t h s " and t o
reject the a l l e g o r i c a l d e f e n s e o f t h o s e m y t h s . Origen reminds Celsus of
P l a t o ' s b a n i s h m e n t o f the p o e t s ( a n d their m y t h s ) f r o m h i s p h i l o s o p h e r ' s
48
state .
C e l s u s ' r e a s o n s for rejecting the J e w i s h and Christian a l l e g o r i e s appear in
a text that is frustratingly brief. T h i s probably c o m p r i s e s the c o r e o f C e l s u s '
argument:
[It seems to me that he has heard that there are writings which contain allegories of the
law — indeed if he had read them he would not have said,] The allegories, then, which
have apparently been written about them are far more disgraceful and absurd than the
myths (των μύθων αίσχίους καΐ άτοπώτεραι) because they connect things — by some
amazing and completely stupid foolishness — that can in n o w a y be put together
49
(άρμοσθηναι).
T h e p r o b l e m C e l s u s f i n d s i s that J e w i s h and Christian a l l e g o r i e s d o n o t

h a r m o n i z e w i t h the texts t h e y purport t o e x p l a i n and c o n s e q u e n t l y are m o r e
5 0
absurd than the t e x t s t h e m s e l v e s . O r i g e n a s s u m e s C e l s u s is referring to
f i g u r e s s u c h as A r i s t o b u l u s and P h i l o . H e i n c l u d e s N u m e n i u s (a p a g a n
thinker) a m o n g t h o s e w h o a l l e g o r i z e O T and N T texts. O r i g e n s u r m i s e s that
5 1
C e l s u s h a d n o t r e a d their b o o k s . A c c o r d i n g to E d o u a r d d e s Places,
4 6
C. Cels. 4 . 5 0 ( 2 6 7 , 2 3 - 7 M A R C ) = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 13. G.
LOESCHE, (Haben die spateren Neuplatonischen Polemiker gegen das Christenthum das Werk
des Celsus benutzt? ZWTh 2 7 , 1884, [257-302] 2 7 1 ) compares this passage to Porphyry's
charge that Origen introduced Greek ideas into foreign myths (Eus., H.E. 6.19.7 = H A R N A C K ,
Porphyrius, F. 39.). Cf. P E L A G A U D , Un conservateur, 325.
4 7
C. Cels. 4.50 (267,3-268,4 M A R C ) .
4 8
Plato, Resp. 349c,d. Cf. COOK, Interpretation 5, 8 , 1 1 - 1 2 .
4 9
C. Cels. 4.51 (268,5-10 M A R C ) .
5 0
Celsus w a s n o more impressed by Gnostic Christians' allegories of M o s e s ' creation
account and laws (C. Cels. 6.29 (406,5-10 M A R C ) . Cf. also G A G E R , M o s e s , 9 8 - 1 0 0 w h o
summarizes Celsus' position: M o s e s and the Jews abandoned the ancient tradition (archaios
logos); consequently there can be no allegorical interpretation of Mosaic texts; and M o s e s
represents God in a philosophically objectionable way (e.g. claiming that God "rested" — see
§ 1.2.5 below).
5 1
C. Cels. 4.51 (268,10-28 M A R C ) . On Aristobulus see H O L L A D A Y , Fragments, Π Ι (the
text, comments and bibliography). Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 5. The fragments from
Numenius that Origen uses are edited as Numenius F. l c , 10a (43, 5 2 DES PLACES). Origen's
brief reference to Numenius' treatment of Jannes and Jambres (in Exod 7:11) is found in Eus.
P.E. 9.8.1-2 (= F. 9 [51 D E S P L A C E S ] ) . On Numenius' treatment of the Bible see DES PLACES,
Numenius et la Bible, 310-15. Cf. also § 0.16.
64 1. Celsus
52
N u m e n i u s w a s t h e first Greek (pagan) t o interpret t h e O T a l l e g o r i c a l l y .
Porphyry attacked O r i g e n ' s o w n e x e g e s i s o f O T texts u s i n g terms similar to
those C e l s u s did. H e accuses Origen o f an "absurd" form o f allegory ( τ ρ ό π ο ς
ττ\ς ά τ ο π ί α ς ) . H i s interpretations d o n o t c o h e r e w i t h or h a r m o n i z e with
what h a s b e e n written ( ά σ υ ν γ κ λ ώ σ τ ο υ ς και ανάρμοστους· τοις
5 3
γεγραμμένοις) .
1.2 Creation
O f all t h e texts in t h e Old Testament, the creation narrative draws the m o s t

scorn from C e l s u s . H e refers to specific texts in G e n e s i s often and m a k e s a
more general attack o n the concept that the world w a s created for the sake o f
humanity. In t h e c o u r s e o f h i s critique, C e l s u s a l s o finds fault w i t h t h e
concept o f a G o d w h o has a v o i c e and rests. C e l s u s m a y h a v e b e e n aware o f
Justin's attempt t o argue that Plato w a s dependent o n O T teachers, i.e. the
L o g o s (word, reason) speaking through them, in his account o f the creation o f
54
the u n i v e r s e . F o r Justin, Plato took t e a c h i n g s f r o m t h e O T , and C e l s u s
55
argued that Christ w a s dependent o n P l a t o . C l e m e n t o f Alexandria pursued
this line o f argument, and found e v i d e n c e o f Greek p l a g i a r i s m o f creation
from "the barbarian" p h i l o s o p h y o f the H e b r e w s , including the creation o f
56
humans from the earth .
1.2.1 The Mosaic Account as Nonsense

C e l s u s h e l d a l o w v i e w o f t h e creation t h e o l o g y f o u n d i n M o s e s and the
57
prophets. After a discussion o f the garden o f Eden h e w r i t e s :
[Then after these he collects in simple affirmations (ψιλαΐς ά π ο φ ά σ ε σ ι ) ] the different

theories expressed by the ancients concerning the origin ( γ ε ν έ σ ε ω ς ) of the cosmos and of
5 2
D E S P L A C E S , Numenius et la Bible, 313.
5 3
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 3 9 = E u s . , H.E. 6 . 1 9 . 4 - 8 . Cp. § 2 . 2 . 2 and C O O K ,
5 4
Justin, Apol. 1.59.1-5 (115,1-13 M A R C ) . Cp. Plato, Tim. 51a, 69b,c, and Alcinoos,
Didask. 8 - 1 3 1 6 2 , 2 4 - 1 6 9 , 1 5 (CUFr, A l c i n o o s , 19-31 W H I T T A K E R / L O U I S ) . S e e also
M A R C O V I C H ' S apparatus ad loc.
5 5
Justin, Apol. 1.59.1-60.11 (PTS 3 8 , 115,1-117,30 MARCOVICH). Origen, C. Cels. 7.58
(508,24-509,17 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 7.
5 6
Clem. A l e x . , Strom. 5.14.92.1-4; 5.14.99.1-100.3 (GCS Clemens Alex. II, 3 8 6 , 2 1 -
387,4; 392,7-22 STAHLIN/FRUCHTEL).
5 7
C. Cels. 6.49 (427,13.26-7; 428,2-6.9-12 M A R C ) . For a discussion of Celsus' creation
account see D . B R I Q U E L , Creation d'Adam et mythe d'autochtonie, Helmantica 50, 1999, 85-
96.
humans [and he says that] those w h o left our writings did not know what the nature
58
(φύσις) of the cosmos and humans was and composed total nonsense (λήρον β α θ ύ ν ) .
O r i g e n ' s criticism o f C e l s u s ' bare or s i m p l e statements has the c o n n o t a t i o n o f

59
"unargued" . M a r c u s A u r e l i u s a c c u s e d the Christians o f bare o b s t i n a n c y
60
(ψιλήν π α ρ ά τ α ξ ι ν ) in their b e l i e f s . T h e various o p i n i o n s o f the ancients d o
n o t appear in t h i s t e x t , but C e l s u s d o e s m e n t i o n a t h e o r y in a f o l l o w i n g
fragment c o n c e r n i n g the q u e s t i o n o f the creation and destructibility o f the
61
universe . O r i g e n r e s p o n d s p l a y f u l l y in k i n d t o C e l s u s and l a b e l s C e l s u s '
62
o w n c o m p o s i t i o n , the True Discourse, as total n o n s e n s e .
1.2.2 The Seven Days of Gen 1
T h e creation a c c o u n t in G e n 1 w a s full o f i n c o h e r e n c e a c c o r d i n g to C e l s u s .
63
Shortly before a list o f various G n o s t i c g r o u p s , C e l s u s m a k e s a general point
about the b e l i e f s o f J e w s and Christians:
Then Celsus says next:] Surely then it is the same God that both the Jews and these
people have, [plainly meaning the Christians. And as if drawing a conclusion that would
not be conceded he says this:] Clearly those from the Great Church confess this and
believe that the things are true in the creation story ( κ ο σ μ ο γ ο ν ί α ς ) that was produced by
the Jews — for example, in the six days (Gen 1:3-31) and the seventh in which [as the
scripture says] God [ceased from his works (Gen 2:2-3), departing into contemplation of
64
himself. Celsus, not keeping to what is written and not understanding it, says] "rested"
(αναπαύσαμενος) [which is not written].
Origen g o e s o n t o refer to H e b 4:9 and 5:11 in his allusion to the m y s t e r i e s o f

6 5
creation and the sabbatical rest for G o d ' s p e o p l e . C e l s u s then m a k e s w h a t
Origen thinks is a p o i n t l e s s reference t o the first human: " . . . the first p e r s o n
( G e n 1:26), w h o m w e i n d e e d say is the s a m e as the o n e the J e w s n a m e , and
5 8
C, Cels. 6.50 (428,20-4 M A R C ) . Cf. P E L A G A U D , U n conservateur, 3 5 3 . The apostles
labeled the women's affirmation of Christ's resurrection with the same term in Lk 24:11.
5 9
S e e LSJ s.v. IV. 1 for a connotation of "unargued" or "unproven" for this word.
Aristotle, Rhet. ad A l e x . 1438b uses it for the "bare facts" presented in the narratio of a
speech. Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 273.
6 0
M a r c u s Aur., In semet ipsum 11.3.2 ( S C H E N K L ) in W. D E N B O E R , Scriptorum
paganorum I-IV saec. de Christianis testimonia, Textus Minores II, Leiden 1 9 4 8 , 9 .
6 1
C. Cels. 6.52 (430,7-10 M A R C ) discussed in § 1.2.11 below.
6 2
C. Cels. 6.50 (428,27-30 M A R C ) ,
6 3
C. Cels. 5.62 ( 3 7 3 , 3 - 2 0 M A R C . ) with reference to the Simonians and followers of
Helena or Helenus, Marcellina, Salome, Mariamne, Martha, and Marcion. Patristic
references to these groups can be found in CHADWICK, Origen, 3 1 2 , B O R R E T 3.168-69, and
BADER 138,139.
6 4
This phrase is almost identical with Plato, Pol. 272e and is probably not from Celsus.
Cf. B O R R E T 3.163 n . l . On the difference between "cease" and "rest" see § 1.2.5 below.
6 5
C. Cels. 5.59 (370,24-371,4 M A R C ) .
66 1. Celsus
6 6
w e trace t h e s a m e g e n e a l o g y from h i s d e s c e n d a n t s as t h e y d o . " Celsus
subsequently m e n t i o n s s o m e other incidents in G e n e s i s that w i l l b e discussed
b e l o w . O r i g e n c o n c e d e s that J e w s a n d Christians share t h e s a m e inspired
b o o k s , but n o t the s a m e interpretation with a reference to 2 Cor 3 : 1 5 - 1 8 and
6 7
the J e w s ' i n a b i l i t y t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g the d e e p e r m e a n i n g o f t h e l a w .
Origen's c o m m e n t a b o v e about a c o n c l u s i o n that w o u l d not b e c o n c e d e d (i.e.
the s a m e G o d and creation story for J e w s and Christians) is unnecessary g i v e n
C e l s u s ' n e x t point that s o m e Christians b e l i e v e in the s a m e G o d as the J e w s
while others b e l i e v e in another G o d to w h o m the first is o p p o s e d . Celsus then
68
continues with a discussion o f Gnostic and Jewish Christian g r o u p s .
123 Time and the Days of Creation

Origen d i d n o t i n c l u d e C e l s u s ' criticism o f the creation account in the text
g i v e n a b o v e ( C . C e l s . 5 . 5 9 ) , but h e d o e s indicate s o m e o f his problems with
the narrative i n later texts. In the midst o f a d i s c u s s i o n o f creation, Origen
writes after c o m m e n t i n g o n C e l s u s ' verbosity:
69
... he says in other similar words things like those examined a little a b o v e : ] B y far the
70
most stupid ( ε ύ η θ έ σ τ ε ρ ο ν ) thing is to divide the creation o f the world ( κ ο σ μ ο γ ο ν ί α )
into several days, before there were days; for heaven (ουρανού) was not yet made, nor was
the earth yet made firm, nor was the sun being revolved around it — h o w could days
exist? [For h o w do these words differ from:] Again referring to the matter discussed
71
above let us examine how it would not be absurd ( ά τ ο π ο ς ) for the first and greatest God
to command, "let this be (γενέσθω [LXX has Γενηθήτω]), and this other, or that," and to
make ( τ ε κ τ α ι ν ό μ ε ν ο ς ) just s o much o n the first day, and again o n the second day
72
something more, and on the third and fourth and fifth and sixth [Gen 1:3-31]?
Origen rejects a literal or superficial interpretation ( π ρ ο χ α ρ ο τ ε ρ α ν εκδοχή ν )

o f the s i x d a y s and appeals to G e n 2:4 in what s e e m s t o b e an argument for
6 6
C. Cels. 5.59 (371,5-8 M A R C ) .
6 7
C. Cels. 5.60 (371,20-372,2 M A R C ) .
6 8
C. Cels. 5.61 (372,3-5.17-32 M A R C ) . The Ebionites reject Paul's letters according to
Origen in C. Cels. 5.65 (375,12-4 M A R C ) . On Valentinus and the Valentianians s e e C.
MARKSCHIES, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinischen Gnosis mit einem
Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins, W U N T 65, Tubingen 1992.
6 9
C. Cels. 6.50-1 (428,20-430,2 M A R C ) .
7 0
Philo, L e g . alleg. 1.2 uses the same word (εύηθε'ς) to argue against the literal
interpretation o f the days of creation. Cp. STEIN, Alttestamendiche Bibelkritik, 16.
7 1
Celsus used this concept (absurdity) in the fragments of C. Cels. 2.20 (97,9-18 M A R C ) ,
2.44 ( 1 1 5 , 9 - 1 3 M A R C ) , 4.51 (268,6-10 M A R C ) , 5.14 (331,1-24 M A R C ) , and 8.49 (564,2
M A R C ) . Porphyry used the same concept against Christian e x e g e s i s in H A R N A C K ,
Porphyrius, F. 3 9 (cf. § 2.2.2). Cp. also the anonymous philosopher in Macarius Magnes,
Monog. 3.19.4 (II, 146,33 G O U L E T = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 2 3 ) . See COOK,
Interpretation, 4 7 , 5 9 , 7 1 , 1 2 9 , 1 8 6 .
7 2
C. Cels. 6.60 (437,10-20 M A R C ) .
73
the simultaneity o f the act o f c r e a t i o n . Q u i n t i n o Cataudella p o i n t s out that
C e l s u s ' o b j e c t i o n t o creation in s i x d a y s and G o d ' s fatigue are similar t o an
E p i c u r e a n a r g u m e n t in C i c e r o , De nat. deor. (On the Nature of the Gods),
w h e r e V e l l e i u s argues against S t o i c creation t h e o l o g y . H e c o n t e n d s that d a y s
and n i g h t s c o u l d n o t e x i s t w i t h o u t the circular m o t i o n o f the u n i v e r s e . He
then w o n d e r s w h y P r o v i d e n c e s u d d e n l y after " a g e s " s t o p p e d b e i n g idle. Was
74
it t o a v o i d f a t i g u e ? G o d cannot be fatigued. A n a n o n y m o u s p a g a n (or
75
Christian) f o u n d it i n c r e d i b l e that d a y s c o u l d e x i s t b e f o r e the stars e x i s t e d .
Julian also had p r o b l e m s w i t h the creation account ( s e e § 3 . 3 ) .
C e l s u s ' o b j e c t i o n s against creation as the result o f G o d ' s c o m m a n d s w e r e
apparently not shared b y the a n o n y m o u s author o f On the Sublime.
In the same way the lawmaker (ό θεσμοθέτης) of the Jews, not an average man (ούχ ό
τυχών άνήρ), since he grasped and revealed the power of the divine in a worthy manner,
writing immediately in the beginning of the laws says: "God said" — what? "Let there be
light. And there w a s (Gen 1:3). Let there be earth (γενέσθω γ ή ) . And there w a s (Gen
76
1:9-10)."
A s s u m i n g that this author w a s n o t J e w i s h , o n e finds h e r e o n e o f the m o s t

s y m p a t h e t i c r e s p o n s e s t o the L X X in H e l l e n i s m . Certainly C e l s u s d o e s not
share that s y m p a t h y .
1.2.4 Light
C e l s u s f o u n d a p r o b l e m w i t h G e n 1:3, "Let there b e light." O r i g e n d o e s not

specify w h a t k i n d o f s o u r c e C e l s u s m a y h a v e had:
7 3
C. Cels. 6.60 (438,4-7 M A R C ) . In D e prin. 4.3.1 (323,3-6 [730] G./K.), Origen argues
against the literal sense of the days of creation in a section entitled the "Impossibility and
Irrationality of the Literal Sense" (του κατά τ ό ρητόν ε ν τ ι σ ι ν αδυνάτου ή αλόγου).
He notes that the first three days could not exist without sun, moon, or stars. Cp. Origen,
Comm. In Matt. 14.9 (GCS Origenes X , 296,24-298,3 K L O S T E R M A N N ) where he says that
God does not need time to make the world (discussed in CHADWICK, Origen, 376 n . l ) . Philo,
Leg. alleg. 1.2 also rejected the idea of creation in six days in favor of the belief that it was
not created in time. Time is created by means of the existence of the world and its motion. In
D e opif. mundi 13, Philo argues that God created the world simultaneously, and the six days
show that there was a need for order for things coming into existence. In D e aetern. mundi 4
Philo accepts the Stoic definition of time as the interval of cosmic motion. Cp. STEIN,
Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 15-6. For a similar position see Ambrosiaster's answer to an
anonymous objector w h o wonders why Genesis does not say God created all in one moment.
See Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 106.18 (CSEL 50, 244,3-6 S O U T E R = R I N A L D I , La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 24).
7 4
Q. C A T A U D E L L A , Celso e l'Epicureismo, A S N S P 12, 1943, (1-23) 11-12. S e e B O R R E T ,
3.328 n.l with reference to C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.9.21-22.
7 5
Ps. Just., Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 6 2 (76), 427c (88 OTTO = 73,19-23 P.-K./H.).
7 6
Author's ET. Ps. Longinus, D e Sublimitate 9.9 = STERN I, § 148. Cf. § 0.14.
68 1. Celsus
[He did not understand, I think, some wretched heresy (μοχθηρά^ αιρέσεων) which
badly explains the "let there be light" as said prayerfully (εύκτικώς) by the creator. He
said,] For the creator (δημιουργός) did not use light from above like those w h o light their
lamps from those of neighbors. [And misunderstanding another impious heresy he said,]
77
If there is an a c c u r s e d God, the enemy of the great God, w h o made these things against
78
that God's will, why did he lend him l i g h t ?
O r i g e n a g r e e s that s u c h i d e a s s h o u l d b e attacked, but n o t e s that C e l s u s has

79
little k n o w l e d g e o f the sects h e is d e s c r i b i n g . Paul K o e t s c h a u calls attention
80
to s e v e r a l f r a g m e n t s f r o m Tatian that i l l u m i n a t e C e l s u s ' c r i t i q u e . In h i s
treatise On Prayer, O r i g e n i n c l u d e s a v i e w o f Tatian that s o u n d s like the o n e
C e l s u s i s a w a r e of:
Tatian did not understand that the "let there be" does not always signify an act of prayer
(τό ε ύ κ τ ι κ ό ν ) , but can also sometimes be an act of command. H e most impiously
supposed that the God who said, "let there be light" did it as one praying and not as one
commanding light to be, since as he [Tatian] said with atheistic understanding, "God was
81
in darkness."
In another f r a g m e n t f r o m Tatian, C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a w r i t e s : "Against

Tatian w h o s a y s that the w o r d s , 'let there b e light' are a prayer: if then h e
w h o uttered the prayer w a s aware o f a G o d higher than h i m s e l f , w h y d o e s h e
8 2
s a y , Ί a m G o d and there i s n o other but Γ (Isa 4 5 : 5 , 4 6 : 9 ) . " T h e primary
7 7
S e e also C. Cels. 6.27 (404,14-8 M A R C ) where Origen writes: "[For this reason w e
also share the anger of those w h o complain against such people — if there are any — ] who
say that the God of the Jews is cursed w h o rains and thunders and is the demiurge of this
cosmos, the God of Moses and of the creation of the cosmos described by him." Cp. C. Cels.
6.29 (406,3-5 M A R C ) . The expression "accursed" is probably not Marcionite. S e e the
Marcionite criticisms of the creator God in H A R N A C K , Marcion, 97-118 including the list of
the creator's sins from P s . C l e m e n t , Horn. 2 . 4 3 . 1 - 4 4 . 5 , 3 . 3 8 . 2 - 4 0 . 1 ( G C S D i e
Pseudoklementinen I, 52,26-53,22; 70,23-71,2 B. R E H M / J . IRMSCHER = H A R N A C K , Marcion,
278-79*).
7 8
C. Cels. 6.51 (429,25-430,2 M A R C ) . Cf. PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 353.
7 9
C. Cels. 6.51 (430,2-6 M A R C ) .
8 0
C. Cels. 6.51 (II, 122, app. crit. K O E T . ) .
8 1
Origen, D e orat. 24.5 (GCS Origenes II, 356,6-10 K O E T . ) . One of the criticisms of the
creator in the Ps. Clementine literature is that he exists in gloom, darkness, and storm (γνόφω,
σκότω και θυελλη) a reference to theophanies like Deut 4:11; Ps. Clem., Horn. 2.44.3
(53,13-14 R E H M = H A R N A C K , Marcion, 278*).
8 2
C l e m . A l e x . , Eel. Proph. 3 8 . 1 ( G C S C l e m e n s A l e x . I l l , 1 4 8 , 1 7 - 9
S T A H L I N / F R U C H T E L / T R E U ) , ET by C H A D W I C K , Origen, 368 n . l . Texts similar to Isa 45:5,
46:9 exist in Gnostic texts also as a boast of the creator God. S e e K. R U D O L P H , Gnosis. The
Nature and History o f Gnosticism, trans. R . M. W I L S O N , San Francisco 1987, 7 9 with
reference to Pap. Ber. 8502 44,10-18 and Ap. John N H C II, 1, 11,15-22 (The Coptic Gnostic
Library. A Complete Edition of the N a g Hammadi Codices, Vol. 2, ed. J. ROBINSON, Leiden
2 0 0 0 , 6 9 - 7 1 , 7 8 ) . Cp. Irenaeus, A d v . Haer. 2 . 9 . 2 ( S C 2 9 4 , 8 4 , 3 1 - 6 R O U S S E A U /
83
argument here is the nature o f the speech act o f G o d ' s statement in G e n 1 : 3 .
Tatian's v i e w that it is a prayer is a heterodox interpretation according to
Origen. C e l s u s is aware o f heterodox Christian groups, but h e o c c a s i o n a l l y
8 4
s e e m s to a s s u m e that all Christians share their v i e w s . C e l s u s w a s certainly
able to d i s t i n g u i s h the v i e w s o f the "Great Church" f r o m t h o s e o f n o n -
85
Orthodox Christian g r o u p s .
7.2.5 The Sabbath

C e l s u s o b j e c t e d to the c o n c e p t o f G o d ' s resting. O r i g e n d e s c r i b e s the
criticism:
He thinks that "he stopped ( κ α τ έ π α υ σ ε ) on the seventh day" (Gen 2:2-3) is the same as
"He rested ( ά ν ε π α ύ σ α τ ο ) , " and he says,] After this, truly, just like a bad handworker
86
( χ ε ι ρ ο τ έ χ ν η ς ) he was worn out (έκκαμών) and needed leisure time for relaxation (προς
άνάπαυσιν α ρ γ ί α ς δεηθείς) [... Then as if the scripture spoke this way or w e ourselves
describe God as having rested] when he was worn out [he says,] It is not right that the
87
First God should become weary or work with his hands or give c o m m a n d s .
C e l s u s m a y b e indirectly indebted to a H e l l e n i s t i c J e w i s h author s u c h as

Aristobulus w h o argued that G o d ' s resting did not imply "as s o m e s u p p o s e "
that G o d d i d n o t h i n g (ού τ ο ί ν υ ν , ώ σ π ε ρ τινές ύπολαμβάνουσι την
8 8
ά ν ά π α υ σ ι ν τ ο υ θβου, π έ π α υ τ α ι π ο ι ώ ν ό 0 € 0 s ) . O n c e G o d c e a s e d
( κ α τ α π ε π α υ κ έ ν α ι ) , the arrangement o f all created things w a s preserved for all
time. Aristobulus is l e s s concerned than Origen with the particular w o r d i n g
in the L X X . If C e l s u s k n e w Aristobulus, then he clearly did not accept his
point o f v i e w . P h i l o , h o w e v e r , w a s c o n c e r n e d with a linguistic distinction
similar to the o n e that Origen noted. H e distinguishes "he rested" from "he
c e a s e d " ( κ α τ έ π α υ σ ε ν ... έ π α ύ σ α τ ο ) s i n c e G o d n e v e r c e a s e s w o r k i n g (ού
D O U T R E L E A U ) where the creator does not know the power above him as he says the words in
Isa 46:9. Irenaeus says the Gnostics attribute lies and wickedness to this creator.
8 3
On speech acts see C O O K , Structure, 106-10.
8 4
Cf. Origen's complaint in C. Cels. 6.27 (404,18-22 M A R C ) .
8 5
C. Cels. 5.59 (370,24-9 M A R C ) .
8 6
Philo, Leg alleg. 1.18 denies that God is a mere "craftsman" ( τ ε χ ν ί τ η ς ) or "artificer"
who ceases from his creation.
8 7
C. Cels. 6.61 (438,12-6.22-4 M A R C . ) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 4 0 w h o
refers to Aug., D e civ. Dei 11.8. Augustine interprets the passage to mean the rest of those
who rest in God and not a reference to God's toil (327,1-328,25 D O M B A R T / K A L B ) . See also
CHADWICK, Origen, 376 n.3. S T E R N II, 305 refers to Rutilius Namatianus ( S T E R N II, § 542)
who notes of the Sabbath: "each seventh day is condemned to ignoble sloth, as 'twere an
effeminate picture of the god fatigued" (ET from J. W. D U F F / A . M . D U F F ' S LCL edition). Cf.
also F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 163, 166 / R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 85 / § 0.10,
11. On the second God see § 2.1.4.
8 8
Aristobulus F . 5, 5b = Eus., P.E. 13.12.11, Clement Alex., Strom. 6.16.141.7b (III,
182,54-70 H O L L A D A Y ) .
70 1. Celsus
89
π α ύ ε τ α ι 8e π ο ι ώ ν αυτός) . S t o i c s and Epicureans u s e d the c o n c e p t o f
God's "labor" to attack o n e another. C i c e r o ' s Epicurean friend, V e l l e i u s ,
asked the Stoic w h y Providence remained idle or at rest (cur Pronoea vestra
90
cessaverit) during the a g e s before c r e a t i o n . Fatigue or w o r k (labor) cannot
touch G o d . C i c e r o ' s B a l b u s (the S t o i c ) , o n the other hand, argued that the
g o d s ( h e a v e n l y b o d i e s ) h a v e n o b o n e s or s i n e w s and are neither idle nor
91
burdened b y toil (cum labore operoso) . H e c r i t i c i z e d Epicurus for his
c o n c e p t o f d o - n o t h i n g g o d s (nihil agentes). Epicurus had to invent such a
c o n c e p t o f the g o d s b e c a u s e he v i e w e d t h e m as h a v i n g h u m a n forms — the
9 2
semblance of bodies . The concept of G o d ' s "handwork" was also
objectionable to C e l s u s . V e l l e i u s the Epicurean objects to the philosopher
(Plato) w h o d e p i c t e d the w o r l d as h a v i n g b e e n born and "almost m a d e by
93
hand" e v e n t h o u g h it is eternal . Origen explains e x p r e s s i o n s s u c h as the
"hands" o f G o d as b e i n g figurative w i t h reference to texts such as Ps 18:2
9 4
L X X . Aristobulus had earlier argued that expressions referring to the hands
9 5
of G o d w e r e metaphors for the p o w e r o f G o d . It is apparent that C e l s u s '
c o n c e r n s about t h e s e e l e m e n t s in the creation story are part o f the o n g o i n g
p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s in antiquity. T h e n e x t fragment a l s o contains his
objections to the u s e o f body language to describe G o d .
8 9
Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.6, 18. An objector asks how, if God rested on the seventh day, is
his activity not temporally limited — like fire which is extinguished? Ps. Justin, Quaest. et
resp. ad Orthod. § 147 (136,22-9 P.-K./H.).
9 0
C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.9.22.
9 1
C i c , D e nat. deor. 2.23.59. See Plato, Tim. 33a,b. Cp. Augustine's reference to the
childish view of God as laboring with toil (laborauerit operando) in D e civ. Dei 11.8 (327,3
D./K.).
9 2
C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.18.46-49 (Velleius argues for gods with the semblance of human
form), 1.25.71 (Cotta the Academic criticizes the Epicureans who believe the gods have only
a semblance of a body because otherwise they could perish). The gods' semblance to mortals
did not, however, cause the Epicureans to assert creation in the image of god. The primordial
principles of things (atoms) of Lucretius c o m e together and create humans (Lucretius 5.181-
91) by chance. Lactantius summarized Epicurean doctrine: "Providential reason has done
nothing in creating animals" (Nihil in procreandis animalibus providentiae ratio molita est;
Div. inst. 3.17.8 = U S E N E R , Epicurea, F . 370). Cp. Lucretius' attack on the idea that members
of our bodies (such as eyes) have been created for human use (4.823-57). Cicero, in his
defense of the skepticism of the Academy, asks in another dialogue where, when, and how
did providence fabricate a human (Academica 2.27.87).
9 3
C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.18.49.
9 4
C. Cels. 6.61 (II, 439,1-10 M A R C ) .
9 5
Aristobulus, F . 2, Eusebius, P.E. 8.10.8 (III, 138,43-53 HOLLADAY) and cp. COOK,
Interpretation, 3.
1.2.6 God's Mouth, Voice, and Image

C e l s u s continues his attack o n the c o n c e p t s u s e d to picture G o d in G e n e s i s .
Origen charges that C e l s u s m i g h t h a v e heard simplistic interpreters o f texts
such as Isa 1:20 (a reference to the mouth o f the Lord):
[...Celsus did not understand the reasons why what is said by way of the names of bodily
members refer to the powers of God. He said,] He has neither mouth nor voice. [Truly
96
God has no voice if voice is air that has been struck ... He adds,] There is nothing else
97
characteristic of God that w e know, [but what things we know he does not make c l e a r ] .
Origen agrees that G o d d o e s not have bodily m e m b e r s , but argues that w e d o

98
k n o w s o m e characteristics o f G o d such as virtue and d i v i n i t y . Philo earlier
argued that G o d w a s not anthropomorphic and that humans are not similar to
99
G o d in their o w n b o d i l y f o r m . H e also g a v e a metaphorical interpretation o f
100
G o d ' s s p e e c h . C e l s u s ' o w n c o n c e p t o f G o d is thoroughly Platonic. True
101
b e i n g is w i t h o u t any k i n d o f f o r m or q u a l i t y . T h e S t o i c s w e r e a l s o
102
unwilling to say that G o d r e s e m b l e d any human f o r m . C e l s u s ' c o n c l u s i o n
from such premises is logical: "He did not make man in his o w n i m a g e (ούδ'
άνθρωττον έ π ο ί η σ ε ν ε ι κ ό ν α α ύ τ ο ϋ ) , for G o d is not o f this sort ( τ ο ι ό σ δ ε ) ,
1 0 3
nor is h e like any f o r m (άλλω ε ϊ δ ε ι ούδενΐ ό μ ο ι ο ς ) . " Origen responds
that it is p o s s i b l e to read the story as inferring that the i m a g e is the h u m a n
body, but that n o o n e b e l i e v e s that. Instead it is the inward part or soul o f the
1 0 4
human being that is the i m a g e .
1.2.7 Adam, Eve, and the Snake

Origen notes that C e l s u s refers to matters from a narrative that is outside o f
scripture:
9 6
KOETSCHAU gives references to such ancient theories of sound in his note to C. Cels.
6.62 (II, 132, app. crit. KOET.); e.g. Plato, Tim. 67b.
9 7
C. Cels. 6.62 (439,13-6.21-2 M A R C ) .
9 8
C. Cels. 6.62 (439,22-5 MARC).
9 9
Philo, D e opif. mundi 69 with reference to Gen 1:26. Cp. Leg. alleg. 1.31-2.
1 0 0
Philo, D e sacrif. Abelis et Caini 65-6.
1 0 1
C. C e l s . 6.19 ( 3 9 6 , 3 0 - 2 ; 3 9 7 , 1 0 - 5 M A R C ) , and see the references in C O O K ,
Interpretation, 100-01.
1 0 2
J. VON A R N I M , Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta = SVF 2.1021.
1 0 3
C. Cels. 6.63 (440,15-6 MARC). See RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 3 4 who
refers to a discussion of the problem of God's image in Philo, D e opific. 69-71 (the image
does not refer to the body, but is the intellect).
1 0 4
C. Cels. 6.63 (440,17-441,10 M A R C ) .
72 1. Celsus
... matters concerning those people w h o claim antiquity — Athenians, Egyptians,

105
Arcadians, Phrygians — who say that some of them were born from the e a r t h and who
106
each furnish proofs ( τ ε κ μ ή ρ ι α ) for these things. He then adds: The Jews, bowed down
1 0 7
in s o m e corner of Palestine, completely without education ( α π α ί δ ε υ τ ο ι ) and not
having previously heard that these things have been sung of old by Hesiod and many
108
thousands o f other inspired i n d i v i d u a l s , constructed the most unpersuasive and
unrefined ( ά π ί θ α ν ω τ α τ α και ά μ ο υ σ ό τ α τ α [without the Muses]) accounts — some
person formed by the hands of God and breathed into ( π λ α σ σ ό μ ε ν ό ν τε και
109
έμφυσώμενον) (Gen 2:7), a woman from his rib (Gen 2:21-22), commandments from
God (Gen 2:16-17), a serpent who acted against these (Gen 3:1-5), and the serpent who
prevailed over God's ordinances. A myth like they tell to old women, depicting God in a
1 1 0
most unholy way, who at once from the start is weak and unable to persuade ( π ε ΐ σ α ι )
111
the one person whom he himself f o r m e d .
Origen r e s p o n d s that Plato m u s t not h a v e thought p o e t s l i k e H e s i o d to b e

inspired s i n c e h e e x p e l l e d t h e m from his Republic. M o s e s w a s earlier than
1 1 2
H e s i o d s i n c e h e l i v e d l o n g before the Trojan w a r . H e n o t e s that G e n 2:7
1 1 3
d o e s not m e n t i o n G o d ' s hands although Job 10:8 and P s 1 1 8 : 7 3 L X X d o .
H e s i o d ' s o w n account o f the creation o f the w o m a n Pandora is not superior to
114
the o n e in G e n e s i s , according to O r i g e n . If H e s i o d is to b e interpreted
1 0 5
For this Stoic view see S V F 2.739 = C. Cels. 1.37 (39,7-10 M A R C ) and Philo, D e
aetern. mundi 55-69 (e.g. the Peripatetic Critolaus who believed the world and man were
uncreated, and w h o described the story of the Spartoi w h o sprang fully armed from the
ground as a mythical fiction μύθου πλάσμα in Ibid. 58). Cp. BORRET 2.275 n.l / CHADWICK,
Origen, 36 n.4 /BRIQUEL, Creation, 85-9. CHADWICK, Origen, 211 n.l refers to various texts
in which the groups mentioned by Celsus claim to be the oldest humans on earth.
106 p j
o r m rhetoric and the debate against Christianity see COOK, Interpretation,
s t e r m m
318, and for the question of proof in general see 385 s.v. "proofs."
1 0 7
For the charge that Christians are ignorant and rustic see COOK, Interpretation, 383.
1 0 8
On inspired individuals in Celsus see COOK, Interpretation, 4 2 and the discussion of
Greco-Roman and Christian prophecy in 77-82.
1 0 9
These terms are clearly derived from the L X X of Gen 2:7.
1 1 0
A basic rhetorical text is Plato, Gorgias 453a that is quoted by Origen in the plural
(creators of persuasion) in C. Cels. 6.57 (435,10-1 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 9.
Celsus also refers to God's inability to persuade in a reference to anti-Marcionite diatribe in
6.53, 57 (431,21; 434,24 M A R C ) .
1 1 1
Origen, C. Cels. 4.36 (250,14-28 MARC.) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 41
with bibliography. Cf. also ROKEAH, Jews, 108 / PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 324.
1 1 2
Origen, C. Cels. 4.36 (251,1-18 M A R C ) . Philo, D e aetern. 18-19 appeals to Hesiod for
the view that the world is created, and argues that Moses preceded him by a long time. Cf.
Plato, Resp. 387c,d.
1 1 3
C. Cels. 4.37 (251,19-22 M A R C ) .
1 1 4
C. Cels. 4.38 (252,26-254,13 M A R C . ) with reference to Hesiod, Op. 53-82. Cp.
Theophilus' attack on Hesiod's creation story in A d Autolycum 2.5, 6, 12, 13 (OECT 28, 30,
4 6 G R A N T ) . He argues, for example, that Hesiod will call the world created ( γ ε ν η τ ό ν ) , but
will not say by whom.
a l l e g o r i c a l l y , O r i g e n a s k s , then w h y d o e s C e l s u s think that J e w i s h texts

115
should not b e a l l e g o r i z e d ? O n e o f the k e y c o n c e p t s in C e l s u s ' critique is
G o d ' s inability to persuade his creature — an argument that C e l s u s a l s o u s e d
1 1 6
against J e s u s . T h e g o a l o f p e r s u a s i o n w a s o n e o f the c h i e f c o n c e r n s o f
ancient rhetoric. C e l s u s ' reference to the proofs that ancient p e o p l e u s e d is
a l s o important in rhetoric. T h e q u e s t i o n o f u n h o l i n e s s or i m p i e t y in the
d e p i c t i o n o f G o d w a s a f r e q u e n t e l e m e n t in t h e p a g a n c r i t i q u e o f
117
Christianity . T h e serpent w i l l reappear in C e l s u s ' c o m m e n t s b e l o w .
C e l s u s ' general v i e w that the account is a m y t h is reminiscent o f the remark
of P h i l o , w h o after describing the story o f E v e and the serpent, d e n i e s that
such stories are m y t h i c a l fictions (μύθου π λ ά σ μ α τ α ) . P h i l o s a y s that s u c h
stories call us to allegorical interpretation — a m o v e that C e l s u s w o u l d h a v e
118
d e n i e d . O n the other hand P h i l o d o e s say that the creation o f E v e from
1 1 9
A d a m ' s side is m y t h i c a l ( μ υ θ ώ δ ε ς ) in its literal s e n s e . H e a l s o d e n i e s that
1 2 0
God p h y s i c a l l y breathed into A d a m . P h i l o rejects the idea that G o d has
121
physical characteristics such as h a n d s .
C e l s u s ' negativity toward the concept o f G o d ' s "breathing into" the h u m a n
being m a y not h a v e b e e n universal a m o n g G r e c o - R o m a n readers o f the L X X
or Hellenistic J e w i s h texts. A n obscure Pythagorean author (Ps. Ecphantus)
may b e dependent o n the account o f G e n e s i s and describes humans so:
On earth the human is a being settled in a far land, falling short of his purer nature and
weighted down by the great earth. He would be scarcely lifted up from the mother if
1 1 5
C. Cels. 4.38 (252,26-253,3 M A R C ) . In 4.39 (255,5-13 M A R C ) Origen writes that
besides his attempt to find comedy in the story of the serpent, Celsus did not include anything
about the paradise of plants, the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge in it (Gen 2:8-9). The
friendly reader will see that such things can be interpreted allegorically. Cf. R I N A L D I , La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 56 / P E P I N , Mythe, 4 5 8 - 9 who notes that Origen argues forcefully
against Celsus that to be consistent he would have to admit that if Greek texts should be
interpreted allegorically, so should L X X texts. Origen included Plato's Symposium 203b-e
with its myth of the garden of Zeus and the birth of Eros in 4.39 (255,14-256,15 M A R C ) as an
example of a text that a reader like Celsus would be forced to rail at if he or she rejected
allegory of any myth. Cf. Plato, Protagoras 320d-321d and Menexenus 237a-b for examples
of creation and autochthony.
1 1 6
C. Cels. 2.39 (112,25-6 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 50.
1 1 7
C O O K , Interpretation, 45 (Jesus' unholy actions in C. Cels. 2.7 [82,14 M A R C . ] ) , 133
n.152, 385 s.v. "piety/impiety".
1 1 8
Philo, D e opif. mundi 157. Cp. STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 18.
1 1 9
Philo, Leg alleg. 2.19. Cp. STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 17.
1 2 0
Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.36. See § 2.2.4.
1 2 1
Philo, Quod D e u s sit imm. 57-9 and D e conf. ling. 98. See also § 1.2.5. BRIQUEL,
Creation, 90-4 argues that Celsus finds the view of God as a worker in clay to be pitiful — an
example of the devaluation of hand-work as opposed to agriculture (i.e. autochthony).
74 1. Celsus
some kind of inspiration of divine nature (θεοί μούρης ... έ μ π ν ο ί η σ ι ς ) did not join him
(σύναψεν) to the eternal living being, showing to his better part the sacred appearance
122
(πότοψις) of the B e g e t t e r .
T h e context o f "inspiration" s e e m s to imply that he is thinking o f humans as a

c o m b i n a t i o n o f earth and inspiration from G o d . In support o f the thesis that
Ecphantus m a y b e alluding to G e n 2:7 is Philo w h o holds that the soul w o u l d
not b e able to understand G o d , if G o d had not inspired (ενέπνευσε) it and
1 2 3
powerfully grasped ( ή ψ α τ ο ) i t .
1.2.8 The Creator God and the Serpent

Origen charges C e l s u s with passing o n m a l i c i o u s rumors and trying to prove
that Christians are the m o s t i m p i o u s o f p e o p l e b e c a u s e they call the creator
g o d "cursed":
[He m i x e s up matters and expounds on the reason why the God of the Mosaic creation
story is called] cursed (κατηραμένον) [saying that] He is of such a kind and is worthy of a
curse (άρας άξιος) according to those who think these things about him, since he cursed
( κ α τ η ρ α σ ά τ ο ) the serpent who brought the knowledge of good and of evil to the first
1 2 4
humans [Gen 2:17, 3 : 1 4 ] .
Origen responds that the Ophites d o not let anyone into their m e e t i n g s unless
they first curse Jesus. H e denies that the v i e w s o f the Ophites reflect those o f
125
Christians in g e n e r a l . Koetschau and Chadwick note that Ps. Tertullian and
Epiphanius d i s c u s s Gnostic groups with v i e w s o f the serpent similar to those
in C e l s u s ' text a b o v e , because the serpent imparted k n o w l e d g e to people. T h e
126
Gnostics c o n s e q u e n t l y prefer the serpent to C h r i s t . A n ancient b o w l s h o w s
what m a y b e a n u d e group o f Ophites in a circle w o r s h i p i n g a w i n g e d snake
127
in its c e n t e r . T h e Peratae, w h o w e r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h a w o r l d serpent,
1 2 2
Stobaeus 4.6.22 = S T E R N III, § 564a. In Philo's treatise D e aetern. 55-7 Critolaus the
Peripatetic philosopher argues that people are uncreated and that the race has always existed
on an earth that has always existed. People are not generated from mother earth, but have
always been generated sexually. See § 0.15.
1 2 3
Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.38.
1 2 4
C. Cels. 6.28 (405,8-13 MARC.) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 62.
1 2 5
C. Cels. 6.28 (405,14-22 M A R C ) . Cp. Origen, Catena F. 4 7 in I Cor 12:3 (C. F.
J E N K I N S , Origen on 1 Corinthians, JThS 10, 1909 [29-51] 30,30-34) / C H A D W I C K , Origen,
344 n.2. On the diagram of the Ophites known through C. Cels. 6.24-38 see A. J. W E L B U R N ,
Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram, N o v T 2 3 , 1 9 8 1 , 261-87.
1 2 6
C. Cels. 6.28 (II, 98, app. crit. K O E T . ) , CHADWICK, Origen, 3 4 4 n . l . Cf. Ps. Tert.,
Adv. omn. haer. 2.1 (CChr.SL 2, 1403,3-5 K R O Y M A N N ) , Epiphan., Panarion 37.3.1 (GCS
Epiphanius II, 53,13-7 H O L L / D U M M E R ) . See also RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 4 9 for
bibliography on Christians who venerated the snake / N. B R O X , Gnostische Argumente bei
Julianus Apostata, JAC 10, 1967, (181-6) 183-4.
1 2 7
S e e R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 2 3 , Table 8, 247. Cp. the snake-worshiping ceremony in
Epiphan., Panarion 37.5.6-8 (57,12-58,5 H./D.).
128
described the creator o f the w o r l d as a "murderer from the b e g i n n i n g " . The
Testimony of Truth f r o m N a g H a m m a d i contains admiration for the role o f the
serpent in the G e n e s i s story and c r i t i c i s m o f G o d ' s j e a l o u s y . Elaine Pagels
w r i t e s that the author o f the text tells the G e n e s i s story f r o m the s e r p e n t ' s
1 2 9
point o f v i e w . A f t e r a s u m m a r y o f the narrative in G e n 2 : 1 6 - 3 : 2 3 , the text
has:
And he cursed the serpent (Gen 3:14), and he called him "devil"... But of what sort is this
God? First [he] envied Adam that he should eat from the tree o f knowledge. And
secondly he said, "Adam, where are y o u ? " (Gen 3:9) A n d G o d d o e s not have
foreknowledge, that is, since he did not know this from the beginning. [And] afterwards
he said, "Let us cast him [out] of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live for
1 3 0 131
ever. Surely he has shown himself to be a malicious e n v i e r .
T h e author has m a n y c r i t i c i s m s o f the Creator o f G e n e s i s i n c l u d i n g h i s e n v y

o f A d a m ' s k n o w l e d g e and h i s apparently unjust c o n d e m n a t i o n o f the serpent.
A n o t h e r text f r o m N a g H a m m a d i , the Hypostasis of the Archons (Reality of
the Rulers) g i v e s a d i f f e r e n t picture o f the s e r p e n t that i s temporarily
p o s s e s s e d b y the spirit o f E v e :
And the Snake, the Instructor, said, "With death you (pi.) shall not die; for it was out of
jealousy that he said this to you (pi.). Rather your (pi.) eyes shall open and you (pi.) shall
c o m e to be like g o d s , recognizing evil and good (Gen 2:4-5)." A n d the Female
Instructing Principle was taken away from the Snake, and she left it behind merely a thing
132
of the e a r t h .
T h e author c o n t i n u e s w i t h the narrative and after G o d ' s q u e s t i o n i n g o f A d a m

( G e n 3 : 1 2 - 1 3 ) h e w r i t e s that "the arrogant R u l e r c u r s e d the W o m a n (Gen
1 3 3 1 3 4
3:16)." T h e A u t h o r i t i e s t h e n c u r s e the s n a k e . These texts from N a g
H a m m a d i d o not actually call the Creator "cursed," but they are h i g h l y critical
1 2 8
R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 87 with reference to Hippolytus, Ref. 5.17.7 (PTS 2 5 , 186,33-35
MARCOVICH). Origen mentions a Euphrates as the founder of the Ophites in C. Cels. 6.28
(406,1-2 M A R C ) . C H A D W I C K , Origen, 3 4 4 n.5 observes that Hippolytus names Euphrates as
the founder of the Peratics (Ref. 4 . 2 . 1 , 5 . 1 3 . 9 , 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 [92,1; 176,42-3; 385,1 M A R C ] ) .
1 2 9
E. PAGELS, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, N e w York 1988, 6 9 and Idem, Exegesis and
Exposition of the Genesis Creation Accounts in Selected Texs from N a g Hammadi, in: N a g
Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity, ed. C. HEDRICK/R. H O D G S O N , Peabody, Mass.
1986, 257-86.
1 3 0
This is a version of Gen 3:22-23.
1 3 1
Testim. Truth N H C IX, 3 , 4 7 , 5 - 2 9 ( N H S 15, 162-4 P E A R S O N ) . ET from J. M.
R O B I N S O N , ed., The N a g Hammadi Library in English, trans, by members of the Coptic
Gnostic Library Project o f the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, San Francisco 1977,
412.
1 3 2
Hyp. Arch. N H C II, 4 , 9 0 , 7 - 1 2 (NHS 2 0 , 2 4 2 L A Y T O N ) . Cp. PAGELS, Adam, 66-67.
1 3 3
Hyp. Arch. N H C II, 4, 90,29-30 (NHS 2 0 , 2 4 4 L A Y T O N ) .
1 3 4
Hyp. Arch. N H C II, 4 , 9 0 , 3 1 - 9 1 , 3 (NHS 2 0 , 2 4 4 L A Y T O N ) .
76 1. Celsus
n o n e t h e l e s s o f his e n v y , lack o f f o r e k n o w l e d g e , and j e a l o u s y . Simon Magus,

in the P s e u d o - C l e m e n t i n e s , makes s i m i l a r c r i t i c i s m s that are probably
Marcionite: G o d d o e s not k n o w if A d a m w i l l actually eat o f the tree o f life or
not ( G e n 3 : 2 2 ) ; in the critic's r e v i s i o n o f G e n 3 : 2 2 , "Let us cast h i m out lest
perhaps ( μ ή π ω ς ) h e eat o f the t r e e . . . , " G o d is a l s o e n v i o u s o f the p o s s i b i l i t y
135
that A d a m m i g h t l i v e f o r e v e r .
A p e l l e s , the f o l l o w e r o f M a r c i o n , had this c r i t i c i s m o f G o d ' s c o m m a n d in
G e n 2:17:
If the human had not tasted death, he could not have known this death that he had not
tasted. Therefore if he had not tasted it, he did not know it. If he did not know it he could
not fear it. Therefore it is in vain that God threatened with the warning of death those
1 3 6
humans who did not fear i t .
A p e l l e s d o e s n o t c a l l G o d e n v i o u s or unjust, but s i m p l y v i e w s h i m as
irrational. H e a l s o apparently argued that it w a s not g o o d o f G o d to forbid the
1 3 7
k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d and e v i l , s i n c e it i s g o o d to h a v e s u c h k n o w l e d g e . In
this r e g a r d A m b r o s e s u m m a r i z e s an o p i n i o n o f A p e l l e s or like-minded
interpreters:
It is not always evil to disobey a commandment. If indeed the commandment is good,

obedience is virtuous (honesta); whereas if the commandment is perverse (improbum),
obedience is not beneficial (utile). Therefore it is not always an evil not to obey a
commandment, but not to obey a good commandment is perverse. However, the tree
producing (operatorium) the knowledge of good and evil is good, because God even knew
good and evil. Finally he said: Behold Adam has been made like one of us (Gen 3:22).
If then it is good to have the knowledge of good and evil, and moreover it is good to have
what even G o d has, it seems that the one w h o forbade it to humans did not correctly
1 3 8
forbid i t .
H e w a s w i l l i n g t o a c c u s e G o d o f cruelty w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the death A d a m

w a s p u n i s h e d with: "If w e say that G o d is the creator o f death, w e a c c u s e h i m
1 3 5
Ps. Clement, Horn. 3.39.3 (71,8-12 REHM = H A R N A C K , Marcion, 278*).
1 3 6
From Ambrose, D e paradiso 5.28 (CSEL 3 2 . 1 , 2 8 5 , 2 - 5 S C H E N K L ) = H A R N A C K ,
Marcion, 4 1 3 - 4 * ; discussed in E. JUNOD, L e s attitudes d'Apelles, disciple de Marcion, a
l'ogard de l'Ancien Testament, A u g 2 2 , 1982, (113-33) 121. Hippolytus, Ref. 7.38.1-2
(320,1-321,9 M A R C = H A R N A C K , Marcion, 411*) mentions four beings in Apelles' system
(God, the righteous angelic demiurge, the angel of fire w h o spoke to M o s e s , and the angel
who creates evil). These do not correspond exactly to JUNOD's reconstruction (126-127). An
anonymous person asks Ps. Justin how Adam (rational or irrational) could have feared death
since he had never seen it. The Christian's answer is that Adam knew the meanings of words
(τάς ε ν ν ο ί α ς ) , w a s consequently rational, and thus knew what death w a s . Cf. Ps. Just.,
Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 91 (102), 447d-448a (136-38 O T T O = 94,5-17 P.-K./H.).
1 3 7
From Ambrose, D e paradiso 6.30 (286,23-287,9 S C H E N K L ) = H A R N A C K , Marcion,
414-5*. Cp. JUNOD, Attitudes, 126.
1 3 8
Ambrose, D e paradiso 6.30 (286,23-287,9 SCHENKL) = HARNACK, Marcion, 414-5*.
See JUNOD, Attitudes, 126 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 89.
doubly — to either b e cruel (immitis) because h e didn't want to pardon w h e n

139
h e c o u l d , or if h e c o u l d n o t pardon, t o appear w e a k (infirmus)" Apelles
also found ground t o attack G o d ' s o w n k n o w l e d g e with regard t o G e n 2:17:
Did God know that Adam would transgress his commandments or did he not? If he did
not know, that is not an affirmation o f divine power. If he knew it and if, knowing it, he
ordained things that were going to be neglected, this is not an act o f God to command
something that is useless (superfluum). But he commanded something useless to Adam
the first formed because he knew that he would not serve him. God has, however, done
1 4 0
nothing useless, consequently the Scripture is not from G o d .
Pagan critics, b e s i d e s the Gnostic Christians, also found m a n y problems with

the account i n G e n e s i s . Porphyry criticized the O T G o d for n o t g i v i n g the
first humans k n o w l e d g e . Julian criticized the Creator for not a l l o w i n g p e o p l e
to h a v e k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d and e v i l , and argued that the serpent w a s a
b e n e f a c t o r rather than a d e s t r o y e r o f the h u m a n race ( ε ύ ε ρ γ έ τ η ν ...
1 4 1
λ υ μ ε ώ ν α ) . H e c o n s e q u e n t l y d e s c r i b e d G o d as "jealous" ( β α σ κ α ν ο ς ) .
Theophilus argued against the thesis that G o d w a s e n v i o u s o f A d a m b y noting
that a n e w b o r n c h i l d b e g i n s with milk and not solid food: "Therefore G o d
w a s n o t j e a l o u s ( φ θ ό ν ω ν ) as s o m e s u p p o s e , in ordering h i m n o t t o e a t o f
142
knowledge." C e l s u s d e s p i s e d the Christian c o n c e p t o f Satan, and thought
143
that the very c o n c e p t w a s b l a s p h e m o u s . H e d o e s , h o w e v e r , n o t m a k e a n y
link b e t w e e n the serpent o f G e n e s i s and the devil.
1.2.9 The Tree of Life

C e l s u s m a k e s several references t o the tree o f life (Gen. 3 : 9 ) that are drawn
from c o n t e x t s other than the narrative in G e n e s i s . H e m e n t i o n s a G n o s t i c
Christian t e a c h i n g about "the S e a l " ( σ φ ρ α γ ΐ δ ο ς ) w h i c h i s p r o b a b l y a
d e v e l o p m e n t o f the ancient Christian practice o f anointing the n e w l y baptized
1 3 9
Ambrose, D e paradiso 7.35 (292,9-13 SCHENKL). See JUNOD, Attitudes, 125.
1 4 0
From Ambrose, D e paradiso 8.38 (294,9-15 S C H E N K L ) = H A R N A C K , Marcion, 415-6*;
discussed in Junod, Attitudes, 121. Objections similar to those of Apelles to the narrative of
the temptation and fall can be found in a text of Ps. Marius Victorinus, D e physicis 9 (PL 8,
1300) = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 55. Objectors ask, for example, why God gave a
commandment that h e knew would be disobeyed. If God could not keep humans from
sinning he was weak. Why did God let the tempter come near, they ask.
1 4 1
Porphyry's text is in: S T E R N II, § 463 = F. 4 2 H A R N A C K (who notes that it is not
certain that this text is from the C. Chr. although it is probably from that work). S e e § 2.2.5.
Julian, C. Gal. 89a-b, 93d-94a (94,2-12; 105,1-106,17 M A S . = III, 324-28 W R . ) . Cf. R I N A L D I ,
La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 4 8 with comments on 8 9 . Cp. § 3.5, 3.9 and L O E S C H E , D i e
Neuplatonischen, 273.
1 4 2
Theophilus, A d Autolycum 2.25 (66 G R A N T ) . ET by G R A N T .
1 4 3
C. Cels. 6 . 4 2 (417,20-418,7 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 39-40 / P E L A G A U D ,
Un conservateur, 350-1.
78 1. Celsus
1 4 4
with o i l : "He w h o applies the seal is called Father; the o n e w h o is b e i n g
sealed is called y o u n g person and son, and h e responds, Ί h a v e b e e n anointed
with the w h i t e unction ( κ έ χ ρ ι σ μ α ι χ ρ ί σ μ α τ ι ) o f the tree o f l i f e . ' " Origen
145
has not heard o f s u c h a c e r e m o n y e v e n a m o n g the h e r e s i e s . H e f o l l o w s
with another q u o t e from C e l s u s c o n c e r n i n g the a n g e l s w h o a c c o m p a n y the
146
soul during its ascent after d e a t h . Chadwick refers to a Gnostic narrative o f
Jesus' baptism in the P s e u d o - C l e m e n t i n e literature that is very similar to the
text o f C e l s u s : " . . . h i m first the Father anointed with oil that w a s taken from
147
the tree o f l i f e . " A n o i n t i n g with oil played a role in G n o s t i c ritual and is
1 4 8
probably the "seal" in C e l s u s ' text a b o v e . T h e G o s p e l o f Philip has: "But
the tree o f life is in the midst o f paradise (paradeisos) and the o l i v e tree from
w h i c h the o i l o f a n o i n t i n g (chreisma) c o m e s ; t h r o u g h it [ c a m e ] the
149
resurrection." T h e s a m e g o s p e l continues with:
The anointing (chreismd) is superior to baptism. For from the anointing we were called
"anointed ones" (Christians), not because of the baptism. And Christ also was (so) named
because of the anointing, for the Father anointed the son, and the son anointed the
apostles, and the apostles anointed us. He (therefore) who has been anointed has the All.
1 5 0
He has the resurrection, the light, the cross, the Holy Spirit.. ,
There is a c o n n e c t i o n for Christ and for Christians b e t w e e n the anointing with

the oil o f the tree o f life and the resurrection in the G o s p e l o f Philip. C e l s u s
i n c l u d e s a n o t h e r G n o s t i c text w i t h a similar c o n c e p t u a l structure. He
c o m p l a i n s , in the m i d s t o f a l o n g d e s c r i p t i o n o f G n o s t i c Christianity:
151
"Everywhere there the q u e s t i o n c o m e s u p o f the tree o f life and the
resurrection o f the flesh from the tree, b e c a u s e — I think — their teacher w a s
1 4 4
Cf. G. W. H. L A M P E , The Seal of the Spirit, A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and
Confirmation in the N e w Testament and the Fathers, London 1951. S e e Ibid, 125 on oil
coming from the tree of life, and 162-70 on Origen's use of "seal." Cp. C H A D W I C K , Origen,
342 n.2 and the oil from the tree of life in Apoc. Mos. 9 , 1 3 (5, 6 TlSCH.).
1 4 5
C. Cels. 6.27 (404,1-7 M A R C ) .
1 4 6
C. Cels. 6.27 404,7-12 M A R C ) . R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 229 gives Gnostic parallels for the
protective function of anointing (a kind of extreme unction) during the soul's ascent after
death.
1 4 7
C H A D W I C K , Origen, 342 n.2; Ps. Clem., Recog. 1.45.4 (GCS D i e Pseudoklementinen
II, 3 4 , 2 3 - 2 4 R E H M / P A S C H K E ) .
1 4 8
R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 227-28.
1 4 9
R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 2 2 9 from the Gos. Phil. N H C II, 3 , 7 3 , 1 6 - 1 9 (NHS 20, 188
L A Y T O N ) . Another ET can be found in ROBINSON, The Nag Hammadi Library, 144.
1 5 0
R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 229 from the Gos. Phil. N H C II, 3 , 7 4 , 12-21 (NHS 20, 190
LAYTON).
1 5 1
In the Gnostic text that Celsus is using.
152
nailed to the c r o s s and w a s a carpenter b y t r a d e . " O r i g e n takes u p the
reference to the tree o f life:
One will discuss the tree of life at a more opportune time while explaining what is written
in Genesis about the garden of God which he planted. Often Celsus has scoffed at the
resurrection which he did not understand. N o w , not satisfied with what he has said, he
adds that] it is a matter of the resurrection of the flesh from the tree [not hearing correctly
what has been said symbolically that through the tree comes death and through the tree of
153
life comes death in Adam and life in C h r i s t .
T h e relation b e t w e e n C h r i s t ' s a n o i n t i n g f r o m the tree o f l i f e a n d h i s

resurrection is clear in the text from the G o s p e l o f Philip quoted a b o v e , and
C e l s u s must b e d r a w i n g from such a tradition. Origen refers to C e l s u s ' text
concerning the tree o f life again:
He thinks that w e are giving a figurative explanation ( τ ρ ο π ο λ ο γ ο ΰ ν τ α ς ) of the cross by
creating the fiction ( ά ν α π β π λ α κ ε ν α ι ) of the tree of life and inferring from his mistake
about this he says that] if he had happened to be thrown from a cliff, or thrust into an
abyss, or strangled by hanging, w e would have created the fiction of a cliff of life above
154
the heavens, or an abyss of resurrection, or a rope of immortality.
C e l s u s r e j e c t e d the resurrection o f Christ o n c o n c e p t u a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l

155
grounds . H e m a d e m a n y c h a r g e s a b o u t the f i c t i o n s o f C h r i s t i a n
156 1 5 7
d i s c o u r s e . H e o b j e c t e d to any form o f Christian allegory o f O T t e x t s .
1 5 8
"Orthodox" Christians performed allegories o n the tree o f l i f e . Justin, for
e x a m p l e , s a w the tree o f life as a general s y m b o l o f Christ and his future
1 5 9
c o m i n g in g l o r y . T h e G n o s t i c branch o f Christianity m a d e e q u a l l y
v i g o r o u s u s e o f the tree as a s y m b o l . A s Origen p o i n t s out, C e l s u s o n l y
d i s c u s s e d the tree in the c o n t e x t o f G n o s t i c discourse and apparently did not
analyze its u s e in the G e n e s i s narrative.
1 5 2
C. Cels. 6.34 410,23-5 M A R C ) .
1 5 3
C. Cels. 6.36 (412,25-413,2 M A R C ) .
1 5 4
1 5 5
See COOK, Interpretation, 55-61.
1 5 6
For example, s e e C. C e l s . 2.26 (104,20-1 M A R C . ) and s.v. "fiction" in C O O K ,
1 5 7
C. Cels. 1.20 (22,9-13 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 70-71.
1 5 8
See B O R R E T 3.262 n.l for many references to patristic figures.
159 τ „ ^ ί « r*;«i Q& 1 /rrrc ΑΠ O O I ι i x i A D r n v i ^
80 1. Celsus
1.2.10 The Garden of Eden as Comedy
Celsus makes the global judgment that "the Mosaic creation story
160
( κ ο σ μ ο γ έ ν β ι α ) i s stupid ( β ύ η θ ι κ ή ) . " O r i g e n r e s p o n d s that C e l s u s d o e s not
e x p l a i n h i s r e a s o n s for thinking s o . H e continues:
[He plainly declares that] the scripture concerning the creation of people is extremely
stupid (εύηθι,κήν) [without including the words or even arguing with them. I think that he
did not have arguments able to refute "the human was made in the image of God" (Gen
1:27). But he does not understand either] the garden planted by G o d , the life that the
human first led there, and what happened as a result of the crisis when he was cast out
because o f his sin and made to dwell opposite the garden of delight [(του παραδείσου
της· τρυφή^) Gen 3 : 2 4 ] . . . Or then Moses understanding nothing wrote these things, but
did something like the poets of the old comedy w h o playfully wrote: Proteus married
1 6 1 162
(εγημε) Bellerophon, and Pegasus was from A r c a d i a .
T h e t e x t i s an e l e m e n t o f t h o s e s t o r i e s that C e l s u s b e l i e v e s are s i m p l y
163
ridiculous . G a g e r s u r m i s e s that C e l s u s m a y b e thinking o f Justin's charge
1 6 4
that the G r e e k s read the p r o p h e t s , but d i d n o t understand t h e m . Justin
argues that the p o e t s (and d e m o n s ) did not understand the b i n d i n g o f the foal
to the v i n e in G e n 4 9 : 1 0 and c o n s e q u e n t l y said that B e l l e r o p h o n a s c e n d e d
1 6 5
into h e a v e n o n a h o r s e . C e l s u s m a y then b e turning Justin's argument o n
its h e a d b y a s s u m i n g that M o s e s b o r r o w e d f r o m the G r e e k s . S e e § 1.20
b e l o w for further d i s c u s s i o n o f the i s s u e o f cultural plagiarism.
1.2.11 The Spirit, the Highest God, the Creator God, and the Strangers
C e l s u s attacks the c r e a t i o n story o n a n u m b e r o f fronts w i t h o u t specific

reference t o the texts in G e n e s i s . Origen includes this text after his d i s c u s s i o n
o f C e l s u s ' critique o f G e n 1:3:
1 6 0
C. Cels. 6.49 (427,11-6 M A R C ) . Herodotus employs similar terms to criticize a myth
( ε ύ ή θ η ς ) in 2 . 4 5 and the use of a woman to depict a fake Athena in 1.60 ( π ρ ή γ μ α
εύηθεστατον).
1 6 1
B O R R E T 3.303 translates this as Proteus gave his daughter to Bellerophon. That
probably misses the joke, however, since Proteus' wife conceived an adulterous desire for
Bellerophon (Homer, II. 6.153-197). S e e also Pausanius 2 . 4 . 1 , 2.31.9; 9.31.3. Origen's
fragment is edited as Adespota F. 4 2 in J. M. E D M O N D S , Fragments of Attic Comedy, Leiden
1 9 5 7 , 1 , 9 6 5 . Justin, Apol. 1.21.2, 1.54.7 (64,12-13; 109,30-31 M A R C . ) mentions an attempt
by the d e m o n s to imitate prophecies o f Christ's coming ( G e n 4 9 : 1 0 - 1 1 ) by creating
Bellerophon's ascent into heaven on a horse.
1 6 2
C. Cels. 6.49 (427,26-428,6.9-12 M A R C ) . Cp. B O R R E T , L'Ecriture, 188.
1 6 3
This is Celsus' approach to many of the narratives concerning Jesus' life. See COOK,
Interpretation, § 1.2.
1 6 4
G A G E R , Moses, 98 with reference to Justin, Apol. 1.54.5-7 (108,16-109,31 M A R C ) .
1 6 5
Justin, Apol. 1.54.4 (108,12-4 M A R C ) .
[After these things Celsus says:] I will say nothing for the moment about the question of
the creation and destruction of the cosmos — whether it is uncreated and indestructible or
166
the c o n t r a r y . [Consequently w e also will not speak about these matters now. For the
composition before us does not demand it. But w e do not say] that the Spirit o f [the
supreme] G o d existed ( γ ε γ ο ν έ ν α ι ) here as among strangers [as in "The Spirit of God
rushed ( έ π ε φ ε ρ ε τ ο ) over the water" (Gen 1:2); nor do w e say that] some things were
maliciously engineered (κακώς· μ η χ α ν ώ μ ε ν α ) by another creator ( δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ο ύ ) —
different from the great God — against his Spirit; things that the higher God endured and
that needed to be destroyed . . . [We have never heard that] after the great God gave the
Spirit to the creator, he demanded it back (Gen 6:3?). [Then he next foolishly charges
with these impious words,] What God gives anything that he is going to demand back?
For one w h o needs demands back, but God needs nothing. [And he adds to these words
this wise remark against certain individuals,] Why when he lent did he not know that he
was lending to an evil being. [He also says,] Why did he overlook the evil creator w h o
1 6 7
was working against h i m ?
R e c e n t editors and translators h a v e not included the q u o t e d text f r o m G e n 1:2

1 6 8
as C e l s u s ' w o r d s . H o w e v e r the p r e v i o u s text in the C . C e l s . clearly m a k e s
169
a reference to G e n 1 : 3 . S o the larger c o n t e x t o f C. C e l s . 6 . 5 2 indicates that
C e l s u s m a y b e attacking the text about G o d ' s Spirit in G e n 1:2 — w h e t h e r h e
q u o t e d it or not. T h i s i s c o n f i r m e d b y all the r e f e r e n c e s t o the Spirit in
C e l s u s ' a c c o u n t o f the h e t e r o d o x e x e g e s i s o f the creation story. A c c o r d i n g t o
Porphyry, N u m e n i u s m a d e a brief reference to G e n 1:2 to support the v i e w
that s o u l s e x i s t around water, w h i c h is animated b y a d i v i n e spirit, during the
1 7 0
process of generation . T h e r e f e r e n c e t o the h i g h e r G o d d e m a n d i n g h i s
Spirit b a c k c o u l d b e an i n d i r e c t u s e o f G e n 6:3 b y s o m e o f the G n o s t i c
interpreters. C e l s u s had s o m e o f h i s o w n v i e w s about the nature o f the Spirit
of god. H e o b j e c t s t o the i d e a o f G o d s e n d i n g his Spirit into the b o d y o f a
1 6 6
B O R R E T , 3.308 n.l notes the three hypotheses of interpretation of Plato's Timaeus: the
world is uncreated and indestructible; created and indestructible; or created and destructible.
Celsus opts for uncreated and indestructible in C. Cels. 4 . 7 9 (293,12-5 M A R C ) . Cf. C.
A N D R E S E N , L o g o s und N o m o s . D i e Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum, A K G 3 0 ,
Berlin 1955, 2 9 5 / C O O K , Interpretation 9 9 , 2 2 1 . Modern cosmologists still struggle with
10
these issues (cf. S. H A W K I N G , A Brief History of Time, N e w York et al., 1 9 9 8 , 7 - 1 4 ) .
1 6 7
C. Cels. 6.52 (430,7-26 M A R C ) .
1 6 8
B A D E R 167 n.4 argues that this text explains Celsus' attack on scripture in the previous
comment. CHADWICK, Origen, 368 n.5 does not agree, but does not offer an argument for his
position. K O E T S C H A U (II, 123,9), B O R R E T 3.308 n.4, and M A R C O V I C H ( 4 3 0 , 1 2 - 3 ) d o not
identify the text as Celsus', but also offer no arguments.
1 6 9
C. Cels. 6.51 (429,25-8 M A R C ) .
1 7 0
S T E R N II, § 4 5 6 b from Porph., D e antro 10 = Numenius, F. 3 0 (CUFr, 80-81 D E S
PLACES). See § 2 . 2 . 3 .
82 1. Celsus
1 7 1
w o m a n . W i t h regard to the risen Jesus, C e l s u s also argued that G o d w o u l d
1 7 2
not take his Spirit back with Jesus' b o d y .
173
There are m a n y Gnostic and Marcionite e c h o e s i n C e l s u s ' t e x t . Marcion
could refer to the supreme G o d as "the Stranger." T h e Marcionites also could
call t h e m s e l v e s "strangers" and they proclaimed a strange or foreign g n o s i s
(ξένη ν γ ν ώ σ ι ν ) — a term that r e v e a l s s o m e o f their p h i l o s o p h y o f
174
e x i s t e n c e . Irenaeus p o s e d this question to Marcion: "In what w a y will h e
be g o o d w h o draws the strangers a w a y from h i m w h o created t h e m and calls
175
them to his k i n g d o m ? " Plotinus objected to the G n o s t i c propensity to find
176
fault w i t h t h e u n i v e r s e and its c a u s e ( t h e c r e a t o r ) . P o r p h y r y ' s title for
Plotinus' tractate against the G n o s t i c s is: "Against t h o s e w h o s a y that the
177
demiurge o f the universe and the universe are e v i l . " A text that is probably
M a r c i o n i t e f r o m t h e P s e u d o C l e m e n t i n e s a c c u s e s t h e G o d o f the O T o f
creating e v i l s , b e i n g unmerciful, n o t b e i n g g o o d , and b e i n g subject to harsh
178
passions .
1.2.12 Celsus Against an Anthropocentric Creation

Celsus rejected the c o n c e p t that the world w a s created for the sake o f human
beings:
After this, he laughs, as is his custom, at the race of Jews and Christians and compares all
to a chain o f bats, or ants c o m i n g out o f their hole, or frogs sitting in council
1 7 1
C. Cels. 6 . 7 3 ( 4 4 9 , 1 7 - 2 2 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation 2 9 .
1 7 2
C. Cels. 6 . 7 2 ( 4 4 8 , 2 7 - 4 4 9 , 1 3 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation 6 1 .
1 7 3
Cf. CHADWICK, Early Christian Thought, 2 6 for Celsus' use o f Marcion.
1 7 4
S e e Adamantius, Dial 2 . 1 8 (GCS, 9 8 , 1 - 2 B A K H U Y Z E N : ό ξένος και ά γ ν ω σ τ ο ς
θεός the strange God and unknown one) and C. Cels. 6 . 5 3 ( 4 3 1 , 1 8 - 9 M A R C ) ; and H A R N A C K ,
Marcion, 2 6 7 * with reference to Clem. Alex., Strom. 3 . 3 . 1 2 . 3 (II, 2 0 1 , 9 - 1 0 S T . / F R . — the
strange gnosis). On the Marcionites as strangers s e e Iren., A d v . Haer. 4 . 3 3 . 2 (alienos
homines; S C 1 0 0 , 8 0 6 , 3 4 R O U S S E A U / H E M M E R D I N G E R / D O U T R E L E A U / M E R C I E R ) ; 3 . 1 1 . 2 (SC
3 4 , 1 8 2 , 2 2 - 3 S A G N A R D ; Christ did not come to his own but to aliens). Mani also referred to
himself as "the stranger." See B O R R E T , 3 . 3 0 8 n . 3 .
1 7 5
Iren., Adv. Haer. 4 . 3 3 . 2 (SC 1 0 0 , 8 0 6 , 3 3 - 5 R./H./D./M.). Cp. CHADWICK, Origen 3 6 9
n.4.
1 7 6
Plot., Ennead. 2 . 9 . 1 3 , 2 . 9 . 1 5 , 3 . 2 . 3 (OCT, Plotini Opera, I, 2 2 1 , 1 - 2 ; 2 2 5 , 1 0 - 1 7 ; 2 4 9 , 1 -
5 H E N R Y / S C H W Y Z E R ) . In the anonymous tractate from Nag Hammadi (On the Origin of the
World), Pistis (faith) sees the "godlessness" o f the demiurge whom she calls "Samael" — a
blind god whose deficient works will finally be dissolved (NHC II 5 , 1 0 3 , 3 - 3 2 [NHS 2 1 / 2 ,
4 0 - 2 L A Y T O N ] ) . Cf. R U D O L P H , Gnosis, 6 1 , 7 5 .
1 7 7
Porphyry, Vita Plot. 2 4 , 5 6 - 7 (I, 3 4 H . / S C H . ) for Plot., Ennead 2 . 9 titulus (I, 2 0 3
H./SCH.).
1 7 8
Ps. Clement, Horn. 2 . 4 3 . 4 , 2 . 4 4 . 4 , 3 . 3 8 . 2 ( 5 3 , 7 . 1 7 - 8 ; 7 0 , 2 5 - 6 R E H M = H A R N A C K ,
Marcion, 2 7 8 * ) where Simon Magus is speaking against Peter.
179
(συνεδρεύουσιν) around their pond or worms holding an assembly ( έ κ κ λ η σ ι ά σ ο υ σ ι ) in
a muddy corner arguing with each other about which of them is most sinful and saying:
God reveals and predicts all things beforehand to us and neglects the whole universe, the
heavenly movement, and overlooking the vast earth he governs for us alone and to us
alone he communicates by heralds — not ceasing to send them and to seek that w e might
be united with him forever. [He continues his fiction describing us to be] similar to
worms w h o say that God exists and immediately after him w e w h o have been created by
him entirely like God (Gen 1:26), and all things have been subordinated (ύττοβέβληται) to
us (Gen 1:28): the earth, water, and stars; all things exist for our sake and have been
ordained (τέτακτοα) to serve us.
C e l s u s c o n t i n u e s w i t h a r e f e r e n c e t o the c o m i n g o f G o d ' s s o n t o b r i n g
1 8 0
j u d g m e n t or e v e r l a s t i n g l i f e . H e w a s h i g h l y critical o f the C h r i s t i a n s '
1 8 1
attempt to u s e O T p r o p h e c i e s t o p r o v e their b e l i e f s a b o u t C h r i s t . The
w o r m s o f C e l s u s m a k e s o m e rather obscure allusions to t h e m e s in the creation
story i n c l u d i n g G e n 1:26 and 1:28. Perhaps C e l s u s a l s o had texts s u c h as P s
8:7 L X X in m i n d w i t h its reference to "you h a v e put all ( υ π έ τ α ξ α ^ ) under his
feet." Origen simply denies most of Celsus' charges. Christians, for
e x a m p l e , d o not c l a i m that they are like G o d in e v e r y t h i n g , nor d o they c l a i m
1 8 2
that the stars are under t h e m .
A n o t h e r o f P l a t o ' s d i s c i p l e s , P l o t i n u s , a l s o b e l i e v e d that the p l a c e o f
183
h u m a n b e i n g s i n the u n i v e r s e w a s rather i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Celsus may be
a w a r e o f the t h e m e o f subordination in Christian a p o l o g e t i c s . Theophilus,
during the t i m e o f M a r c u s A u r e l i u s , said that G o d subordinated all things to
1 8 4
h u m a n s as their subjects and s l a v e s . Aristides, probably during the t i m e o f
1 8 5
Hadrian, a l s o c l a i m e d that G o d m a d e all for p e o p l e .
1 7 9
The verbs here s e e m too close to "Sanhedrin/council" ( σ υ ν ε δ ρ ι ο ν ) and "church"
(εκκλησία) to be coincidental. The bats come from Homer, Od. 24.6-8, where they are an
image of Penelope's suitors. Plato quotes that text in Resp. 387a. The ants and frogs are in
Plato, Phaedo 109a-b where their dwelling is compared to that of humans (quoted by Celsus
in C. Cels. 7.28 [482,13-6 M A R C . ] ) . See B O R R E T 2.238 n.l.
1 8 0
C. Cels. 4.23 (236,14-237,4 M A R C ) . On this text see also COOK, Interpretation, 67.
1 8 1
COOK, Interpretation, 70-76.
1 8 2
C. Cels. 4.30 (243,1-14 M A R C ) .
1 8 3
Plotinus, Ennead. 3.2.8 (I, 256,4-257,16 H./SCH.) and compare Marcus Aurel. 4.3.3.
Plotinus believed that in the universe all things exist for each other (Ennead. 6.7.3 [III, 187,19
H./SCH..]). Similar views were held by Plato, Leges 903c.
1 8 4
Theophilus, A d Autolycum 2.18 (56 G R A N T ) . Cp. Ad Autolycum 1.6 (8 G R A N T ) , 2.36
(from the Sibyllines, 9 0 G R A N T ) . S e e also R. G R A N T , Greek Apologists o f the Second
Century, Philadelphia 1988, 132-35 w h o is somewhat skeptical of V E R M A N D E R ' s claims with
regard to Theophilus' use of Celsus (J.-M. V E R M A N D E R , Theophile d'Antioche contre Celsus:
A Autolycos III, REAug 17, 1971, 203-25). Cp. Justin, Apol. 1.10.2, Apol. 2.5.2 (45,6-7;
143,3-6 M A R C ) . On Celsus' possible use of the apologists see Cook, Interpretation, 6-8.
1 8 5
Aristides, Apol. 1.2 (C. V O N A , L'apologia de Aristide. Introduzione versione dal
siriaco e commento, Lateranum, N . S . 16, Rome 1950, 72). This edition includes an Italian
84 1. Celsus
1.2.13 All is Made for Humans?

Origen and C e l s u s h a v e a l o n g "discussion" c o n c e r n i n g the anthropocentric
v i e w o f creation:
He next accuses us at length of] saying that God made all for the human. [He wants to
1 8 6
prove, on the basis of a description of animals and their shrewdness ( ά γ χ ι ν ο ί α ς ) that]
all things have c o m e into existence not any less for the sake of people than for animals
187
who do not have human reason ( ά λ ο γ ω ν ) .
1 8 8
Origen r e s p o n d s that C e l s u s thereby attacks the S t o a . C h a d w i c k remarks
that w h e n C e l s u s s h o w s an affinity with the A c a d e m y in its arguments against
189
the S t o i c s that O r i g e n w i l l take the o p p o s i t e s i d e (or v i c e v e r s a ) . T h e
190
Stoics b e l i e v e d in an anthropocentric c r e a t i o n . C i c e r o describes the Stoic
v i e w o f creation: "The world itself in the first place w a s m a d e for the sake o f
g o d s and p e o p l e , and the things in it w e r e p r o v i d e d and i n v e n t e d for the
191
enjoyment of people." Plato, o n the other hand, b e l i e v e d that all things
were created for e a c h other and that humans are a little fragment in the w h o l e .
1 9 2
T h e w o r l d is n o t m a d e for p e o p l e , but p e o p l e are m a d e for the w o r l d .
C i c e r o ' s A c a d e m i c , Cotta, spends a great deal o f t i m e trying to destroy the
193
Stoic v i e w o f p r o v i d e n c e . Cotta is w i l l i n g to c o n c e d e , for e x a m p l e , that
194
h u m a n s a l o n e p o s s e s s reason, but n o t e s that they m i s u s e it t e r r i b l y . H e
195
faults the g o d s for the h u m a n abuse o f r e a s o n . O r i g e n , w i t h the Stoa,
translation of the Syriac text and the Greek fragments. The text referred to above is from the
Syriac tradition. Cp. Aristides, Apol. 16.1 (110 V O N A ) where he claims that the beautiful
things in the world are for human beings. V O N A refers to similar thoughts in Hernias, Mand.
12.4.2 (world created for humans and all creation subordinated to them), Vis. 1.1.6 (all things
created for the church) and other patristic sources.
186 philo uses this word to describe the serpent in Gen 3:1 in a fragment of his Quaest. in
Gen., F. 31 ( R . M A R C U S , Philo. Supplement II. Questions and Answers on Exodus, LCL,
London/Cambridge 1 9 5 3 , 1 8 3 ) .
1 8 7
C. Cels. 4.74 (287,12-6 M A R C ) . Porphyry uses this word to discuss Stoic views of
animals in D e abst. 3.2.2 (CUFr, Porphyre de l'abstinence, II, 153, B O U F F A R T I G U E /
PATILLON). Porphyry uses the word in a general sense for animals in D e abst. 1.4.1 and
3.13.1 (I, 4 4 ; II, 168 B . / P . ) . See C O O K , Interpretation, 2 0 4 . On C e l s u s ' attack on
anthropocentrism see PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 328.
1 8 8
C. Cels. 4.74 (287,19-21 M A R C ) .
1 8 9
C H A D W I C K , Origen, x.
1 9 0
H. C H A D W I C K , Origen, Celsus, and the Stoa, JThS 48, 1947, 36-8 / B O R R E T 2.367 n.3
/ M. POHLENZ, Die Stoa, Vol. I, Gottingen 1948, 81-93.
1 9 1
C i c , D e nat. deor. 2.62.154. Cp. S V F 2.1152-67. Animals are made for humans
according to D e nat. deor. 2.14.37.
1 9 2
Plato, Leges 903c. See also Seneca, Ep. 73.6-7.
1 9 3
C i c , D e nat. deor. 3.26.66-40.95.
1 9 4
C i c , D e nat. deor. 3.26.67-31.76.
1 9 5
C i c , D e nat. deor. 3.31.77-78.
affirms the b e l i e f that all t h i n g s e x i s t principally for the b e n e f i t o f rational

196
creatures . T h e entire d i s c u s s i o n is part o f a d e b a t e about the o r i g i n s o f
1 9 7
h u m a n culture that h a s b e e n e x p l o r e d b y Arthur D r o g e .
1.2.14 Weather and Plants: For People or Animals?
C e l s u s e x t e n d s the d i s c u s s i o n to the world o f weather and plants:
... Celsus and those that think the same things he does commit an even greater impiety
(άσεβοΰσιν) against the God w h o watches over (προνοοϋντα) rational beings by saying:]
Why should these things have been made for the nourishment of people rather than for
that of plants, trees, herbs, and thorns? [For he thinks in the first place that] thunders,
1 9 8
lightnings, and rains are not works of G o d , [already quite clearly Epicureanizing. Then
in the second place he says,] If some should concede that these are works of God, they
have not been made for the nourishment of people any more than for plants, trees, herbs,
and thorns [conceding that these things happen by chance and not by providence
(πρόνοιαν) like a true Epicurean ... Then he says,] Even if you should say that these grow
for people [clearly meaning plants, trees, herbs, and thorns] why would you say that they
199
grow more for people than for irrational (άλόγοις) and wild a n i m a l s ?
A s in the p r e v i o u s f r a g m e n t , O r i g e n and C e l s u s are d e b a t i n g i s s u e s o f the

philosophical schools: S t o i c i s m , the A c a d e m y o f P l a t o , and E p i c u r e a n i s m .
O r i g e n ' s thesis that C e l s u s w a s an Epicurean has m e t w i t h great resistance in
2 0 0
the m o d e r n e r a . W h a t is important in this c a s e is that C e l s u s is m a k i n g u s e
o f arguments f r o m a n y s c h o o l o f ancient p h i l o s o p h y t o attack the c o n c e p t o f
creation in the O T . H i s v i e w s are m o s t l y Platonist, but that d o e s not stop h i m
(or Origen either) f r o m b o r r o w i n g from other traditions w h e n h e felt the n e e d
to d o s o . T h e S t o i c s in C i c e r o ' s d i a l o g u e o n the nature o f the g o d s b e l i e v e
that the u n i v e r s e is ruled b y the m i n d and reason o f the g o d s : "Fruits o f the
earth ( a n d o t h e r s t h i n g s that the earth p r o v i d e s ) , s t o r m s , c h a n g e s in the
s e a s o n s , and alterations in the h e a v e n s , b y w h i c h all the t h i n g s that earth
1 9 6
C. Cels. 4 . 7 4 (287,20-288,1 M A R C ) . Cp. Origen, Sel. in Psalmos (Ps 1:3; PG 12,
1089) = SVF 2.1156.
1 9 7
A. D R O G E , Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History o f Culture,
HUTh 26, Tubingen 1 9 8 9 , 1 5 3 - 5 4 and passim.
1 9 8
S e e C. Cels. 6.27 (404,15-8 M A R C . ) and its reference to God raining and thundering.
Cp. § 1.2.4.
1 9 9
C. Cels. 4.74-75 (288,10-20; 289,3-6 M A R C ) .
2 0 0
Cf. the discussion and bibliography in COOK, Interpretation, 18-22, including
C A T A U D E L L A , Celso e l'Epicureismo, 1-23 which is one of the few contributions in recent
years to defend Origen's thesis. M. F R E D E defends Celsus' identity as a Platonist in: Celsus
Philosophus Platonicus, 5 1 8 3 - 5 2 1 3 , and Idem, Celsus' Attack, 218-40. Cp. MARKSCHIES,
Epikureismus, 195-203 (Origen knew little about Epicureanism).
86 1. Celsus
201
creates g r o w and mature, are g i v e n b y the immortal g o d s t o h u m a n k i n d . "
C i c e r o then remarks that the A c a d e m i c p h i l o s o p h e r Carneades argued w i t h
202
this p o s i t i o n , a s Cotta the A c a d e m i c d o e s later in the d i a l o g u e . Epicurus'
t h e o r y i s that t h e w e a t h e r i s a matter o f c h a n c e a n d n o t p r o v i d e n c e .
Lactantius asks him: "If there is n o providence, w h y d o the rains fall, grains
rise, trees f l o w e r ? H e says that those are n o t for t h e sake o f living things,
since they are o f n o profit to providence, but all things m u s t happen o f their
203
own accord." Lucretius, t h e R o m a n f o l l o w e r o f E p i c u r u s , h a s l e n g t h y
descriptions o f the Epicurean v i e w o f these matters. T h e p o e t b e l i e v e d that
2 0 4 205
"the u n i v e r s e w a s n o t created for u s b y d i v i n e p o w e r . " Lightning,
206 207 208
s t o r m s , t h u n d e r s , and r a i n are all natural p h e n o m e n a and are not due to
actions o f the g o d s .
C e l s u s w i l l try an E p i c u r e a n p o s i t i o n b y h o l d i n g that m e t e o r o l o g i c a l
p h e n o m e n a are n o t t h e w o r k s o f G o d . T h e n h e ventures a m o r e skeptical
position from t h e A c a d e m y (e.g. Carneades) b y noting that e v e n if they are
works o f G o d , they are not created for humans any m o r e than any others that
d w e l l o n the earth.
7.2.75 Celsus' View of the Created Order

After an attack o n allegory o f the O T , C e l s u s g i v e s a Platonist account o f
creation m u c h different from that o f Genesis:
But I rather choose to teach this according to nature ( φ ύ σ ι ν ) : G o d has made nothing
mortal. But all the immortals are the works of God, while mortals are their works. The
209
soul is the work o f God, but the nature (φύσις) o f the body is distinct. And indeed
with regard to this there will be no difference between the body of a bat, maggot, frog, or
2 0 1
C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.2.4. The Epicurean response is that storms etc. can destroy
human works as much as help them, so they are not evidence of providence (Lucretius 5.195-
221).
2 0 2
Cotta's criticisms of Stoic providence have been lost for the most part (see C i c , D e
nat. deor 3.25.65).
2 0 3
Lactantius, D i v . inst. 3.17 (= U S E N E R , Epicurea, F. 3 7 0 fin). E T by M A R Y F .
M C D O N A L D , O.P., Lactantius. The Divine Institutes Books I-VII, FC 4 9 , Washington 1964.
For natural explanations o f celestial and atmospheric phenomena s e e the summary o f
Epicurus' thought in Diog. Laert. 10.76-82. On Epicurus' theories about natural phenomena
see C A T A U D E L L A , Celso e l'Epicureismo, 14.
2 0 4
Lucretius 5.195-99, and see the section in 5.156-99.
2 0 5
Lucretius 6.160-218. Cp. Diog. Laert. 10.101 (from Epicurus' letter to Pythocles).
2 0 6
Lucretius 6.83-85.
2 0 7
Lucretius 6.96-159. Cp. Diog. Laert. 10.100.
2 0 8
Lucretius 6.495-526. Cp. Diog. Laert. 10.100.
2 0 9
Celsus states that he is teaching about the whole of nature (πβρί τ η ς όλης φύσεως)
in several of Origen's fragments: 4.73, 8 4 (287,5; 299,9 M A R C ) .
person: the matter is the same, and their principle of perishibility (τό φθαρτόν) is also
210
similar.
211
O r i g e n r e s p o n d s that C e l s u s is paraphrasing P l a t o ' s Timaeus . He
admittedly must cast doubt o n his o w n thesis that C e l s u s is an Epicurean and
advances the h y p o t h e s i s that C e l s u s converted t o Platonism or o n l y shared a
212
n a m e with Celsus the Epicurean p h i l o s o p h e r . Origen also notes that C e l s u s
2 1 3
is not o n l y attacking Christians but Stoics a l s o . H e reaffirms the creation
t h e o l o g y o f the scriptures with the Stoics in his support. C e l s u s u s e s Plato in
this text to attack a fundamental i m a g e in G e n e s i s : that o f G o d ' s creation o f
humans. C e l s u s rejects the G e n e s i s account o f creation, but h e is w i l l i n g to
use it in a later attack o n the Christians' rejections o f i m a g e s . In a d i s c u s s i o n
o f their dishonoring o f statues o f the g o d s , C e l s u s argues that Christians also
b e l i e v e G o d r e s e m b l e s h u m a n form. If they deny that the statues o f the g o d s
r e s e m b l e the g o d s , t h e y contradict t h e m s e l v e s w h e n they affirm G e n e s i s :
"For forgetting they prove they are w r o n g w h e n e v e r they say ' G o d m a d e the
human in h i s o w n i m a g e (eiKOva)' ( G e n 1:26-27) — the form (€1809) b e i n g
214
like h i m s e l f . " A l t h o u g h C e l s u s rejected the G e n e s i s account o f creation, h e
215
found it useful in the d e f e n s e o f i m a g e s . Another pagan author m a y h a v e
found the G e n e s i s account useful. This Pythagorean author (Ps. Ecphantus),
in a treatise o n k i n g s h i p , argues that the k i n g ' s nature is superior to that o f
other humans. H i s b o d y ( σ κ ά ν ο $ ) is the s a m e as that o f other h u m a n s , " . . .
but h e is m a d e b y the best Artificer ( τ ε χ ν ί τ α ... λ ω σ τ ω ) w h o crafted h i m
using h i m s e l f as archetype ( ά ρ χ ε τ ύ π ω ) . " Consequently the k i n g is the o n l y
2 1 0
C. Cels. 4 . 5 2 (269,9-15 M A R C ) / P E L A G A U D , U n conservateur, 3 2 6 . Cp. COOK,
Interpretation, 65 for Celsus' reference (in 4.52) to the Controversy Between Jason and
Papiscus concerning the messianic prophecies in the OT.
2 1 1
C. Cels. 4 . 5 4 (270,19-271,9 M A R C ) . See Plato, Tim. 42d, 69c-d. Similar views are in
Alcin., Didask. 16, 171,38-42 (36 W./L.) and Ps. Sallustius, D e diis 6 (10,28-29 N O C K ) where
gods inside the universe create the universe. Gods outside the universe have other functions.
2 1 2
This issue is treated in COOK, Interpretation, 18-22.
2 1 3
Cf. Chadwick, Origen 228 n.2 and B O R R E T 2.322 n . l . For Stoic views of creation of
animals for the sake of humans s e e S V F 2.1152-67 / § 1.2.13 above. Chrysippus, e.g.,
includes humans in his general account of creation. They are not made by a different order of
gods as in Plato ( C i c , D e nat. deor. 2.14.37). Cf. MERKI, Όμοίωσις, 65-71.
2 1 4
C. Cels. 7.62 (513,11-5 M A R C ) . Cp. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 35 with a
discussion of the issue of images in antiquity. S e e C O O K , Interpretation, 9 2 , 235-37 for a
discussion of Celsus' text and the defense of images by Macarius Magnes' pagan philosopher
in Monog. 4 . 2 1 b . l - 4 (II, 310,15-312,18 G O U L E T ) . LOESCHE, D i e neuplatonischen Polemiker,
278 called attention to the parallel. STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 21 notes that this is
the only place that Celsus attempts to find a contradiction in the OT.
2 1 5
The pagans were well aware of the Jews' rejection of images. See STERN I, 306.
88 1. Celsus
2 1 6
creature ( κ α τ α σ κ ε ύ α σ μ α ) w h o is a type ( τ ύ π ο ς ) o f the H i g h e r K i n g . Here
the author clearly d o e s not assert that all p e o p l e are m a d e in the i m a g e o f
G o d , but h e m a y b e indebted to G e n e s i s for his c o n c e p t w h i c h is s o unusual in
G r e c o - R o m a n literature. T h e Pythagorean author E u r y s u s h o l d s that "the
d e m i u r g e u s i n g h i m s e l f as the paradigm ( π α ρ α δ ε ί γ μ α τ ι ) m a d e the human"
and "the b o d y is like those o f other b e i n g s w h i c h exists from the s a m e matter,
h a v i n g b e e n m a d e b y the best Artificer w h o m a d e it u s i n g h i m s e l f as the
217
archetype."
1.2.16 The World is God's Child

In the c o n t e x t o f an explanation for the Christians' u s e o f the term " S o n o f
G o d " to describe Jesus, C e l s u s d o e s s e e m to approve o f the general c o n c e p t
that the w o r l d is G o d ' s child and a d e m i g o d : "Ancient m e n u s e d to n a m e this
2 1 8
c o s m o s — as it e x i s t s from G o d — his child and a d e m i g o d ( ή μ ί θ ε ο ν ) . "
219
Plato c o u l d picture the w o r l d as divine in s o m e s e n s e in the Timaeus . It
2 2 0
was, for e x a m p l e , a "happy g o d " (εύδαίμοι>α θ ε ό ν ) . P h i l o , in discussing
2 2 1
G r e e k t h o u g h t , c o u l d call the w o r l d a " v i s i b l e g o d " ( ό ρ α τ ό ν θ ε ό ν ) .
C i c e r o ' s Epicurean ( V e l l e i u s ) s e v e r e l y q u e s t i o n s the doctrine as found in
222
various philosophical s e c t s .
1.2.17 Animals and Humans

C e l s u s w a s not o n l y a philosopher but also a natural philosopher. H e creates
an intriguing argument against G e n e s i s using the contemporary k n o w l e d g e of
animal history that w a s available to h i m . A s C e l s u s stated in the a b o v e
d i s c u s s i o n (§ 1.2.12), h e had doubts about the subordination o f the animal
k i n g d o m to that o f human b e i n g s ( G e n 1:28). T h e rich parallels g i v e n in the
notes o f the editors and translators o f the C. Celsum indicate that Greek and
R o m a n authors w e r e fascinated b y the e v i d e n c e o f "rational" and other forms
2 1 6
Ps. Ecphantus, D e regno apud Stobaeus 4.7.64 = S T E R N III, § 564b with bibliography
on the author and his obscure date. See § 0.15.
2 1 7
Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.5.29.1-2 (II, 3 4 4 , 1 8 - 2 3 S T ./FR.). See § 0.15.
2 1 8
C. Cels. 6.47 (425,21-3 M A R C ) . Vaticanus 386 has "unmarried youth" (ήίθεον), but
as K O E T S C H A U notes ( I I , 118 app. crit.) Origen's repetition (C. Cels. 6.47 [ I I 118,23-24
K O E T . = 4 2 5 , 2 6 M A R C ] ) of Celsus' statement has "of God" (9eou) in the place of Celsus'
second descriptive category (translated "demigod" above). Consequently "demigod" or some
such concept must have been Celsus' term. M A R C O V I C H emends Origen's repetition to "of a
demigod" (<ήμι>θ€ου).
2 1 9
Plato, Tim. 30b, 34a-b, 92c.
2 2 0
Plato, Tim. 34b.
2 2 1
Philo, D e aetern. 1 0 , 2 0 .
2 2 2
C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.10.24 (si mundus est deus - if the world is a god), 1.11.28,
1.13.34. See also § 0.9 and 1.29.2.
223
o f activity a m o n g a n i m a l s . H u m a n s d o not rule animals s i n c e animals c a n
2 2 4
hunt humans w i t h their natural p o w e r s . Instead o f the subjection o f G e n
1:28, C e l s u s b e l i e v e s that G o d subjected ( ύ π έ β α λ ε ν ) p e o p l e t o t h e w i l d
225
animals since before civilization animals captured and ate h u m a n s . B e e s
and ants h a v e c i v i l i z a t i o n s s i n c e they h a v e leaders, c i t i e s , a n d p u n i s h the
226
w a y w a r d . C e l s u s praises the forethought o f ants w h o plan for the winter,
227
create graveyards, h a v e discussions, and are r a t i o n a l . Snakes k n o w sorcery
2 2 8
— including the p o w e r o f certain stones to protect their y o u n g . Birds k n o w
the future and are w i s e r and more l o v e d b y G o d than humans. Elephants k e e p
2 2 9
their p r o m i s e s and are m o r e faithful to G o d w h o m they k n o w . A n i m a l s
without reason ( ά λ ο γ α ζώα) are m o r e l o v e d b y G o d ( θ ε ο φ ι λ έ σ τ ε ρ α ) and
h a v e a purer understanding o f the divine ( τ ο υ θ ε ί ο υ τ η ν έ ν ν ο ι α ν έ χ ε ι ν
2 3 0
κ α θ α ρ ω τ έ ρ α ν ) than p e o p l e d o . There i s n o essential difference b e t w e e n
2 3 1
w h a t is d o n e b y h u m a n s a n d ants and b e e s . O r i g e n d e n i e s C e l s u s '
arguments at e v e r y point b y usually appealing to the rationality o f h u m a n
232
action and the natural instinct that is at the root o f animal b e h a v i o r . D r o g e
argues that C e l s u s is using s o m e kind o f handbook o f A c a d e m i c p h i l o s o p h y in
w h i c h the s k e p t i c s argued against the S t o i c rejection o f the rationality o f
233
a n i m a l s . There w a s a Christian apologist w h o had s o m e "sympathy for the
animals." A r n o b i u s s h o w s m a n y similarities b e t w e e n animals and h u m a n s ,
2 2 3
The discussion in this section will not include the many parallels from ancient
literature that could be given to the arguments Celsus uses concerning the indications o f
rational behavior in the animal kingdom. Cf. the editions of B A D E R , B O R R E T , K O E T S C H A U ,
M A R C O V I C H and the E T o f CHADWICK. Cf. in particular the defense o f the rationality o f
animals by Philo's nephew Alexander in De animalibus (A. T E R I A N , Philonis Alexandri de
animalibus: The Armenian Text with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Studies
in Hellenistic Judaism 1 , Chico, C A 1 9 8 1 ) . Alexander's defense o f animals' rationality is in
D e animal. 1 0 - 7 1 (Armenian text = 2 1 6 - 5 1 T E R I A N ) , while Philo's attack on the rationality o f
animals is D e animal. 7 7 - 1 0 0 (AT = 2 5 3 - 6 2 T E R I A N ) . See T E R I A N ' S discussion of the Stoic
and Academic (skeptical) positions with regard to animals' rationality in Idem, Philonis, 3 5 -
5 3 . See also D R O G E , Homer, 1 5 5 .
2 2 4
C. Cels. 4 . 7 8 ( 2 9 2 , 2 - 9 M A R C ) .
2 2 5
C. Cels. 4 . 7 9 , 8 0 ( 2 9 3 , 2 - 7 M A R C ) .
2 2 6
C. Cels. 4 . 8 1 ( 2 9 4 , 2 3 - 2 9 5 , 6 M A R C ) . Cp. B E R G J A N , Celsus, 1 8 9 for many parallels to
this argument.
2 2 7
C. Cels. 4 . 8 3 , 8 4 ( 2 9 7 , 5 - 8 . 1 2 - 1 3 ; 2 9 8 , 4 - 6 ; 2 9 9 , 1 - 3 . 9 . 1 1 - 1 5 M A R C ) .
2 2 8
C. Cels. 4 . 8 6 , ( 3 0 1 , 1 - 6 M A R C ) .
2 2 9
C. Cels. 4 . 8 8 ( 3 0 3 , 1 2 - 3 0 4 , 7 M A R C ) .
2 3 0
C. Cels. 4 . 5 8 ( 2 7 4 , 2 8 - 9 M A R C ) .
2 3 1
C. Cels. 4 . 8 5 ( 2 9 9 , 2 1 - 3 0 0 , 1 M A R C ) .
2 3 2
C. Cels. 4 . 8 5 ( 3 0 0 , 1 - 6 M A R C ) .
2 3 3
D R O G E , Homer, 1 5 7 .
90 1. Celsus
2 3 4
and has t h e m c o m p l a i n about their o w n use as sacrifices to the g o d s . H e i s
c l o s e i n s o m e o f h i s v i e w s w i t h Porphyry in h i s treatise On Abstinence.
235
Porphyry w a s concerned with issues such as the rationality o f a n i m a l s .
1.2.18 Celsus' Conclusions About the Created Order

After m a n y arguments c o n c e r n i n g the p l a c e o f animals i n t h e created order
Celsus c o n c l u d e s :
Therefore all things have not been created ( π ε π ο ί η τ α ι ) for the human, nor likewise for
the lion, nor the eagle, nor for the dolphin, but s o that this c o s m o s might be made
2 3 6
complete and perfect (όλόκληρον και τ έ λ ε ι ο ν ) in all things as the work of G o d . For
this reason all things have been made commensurate ( μ ε μ έ τ ρ η τ α ι ) not with one another
— except incidentally — but with the whole (όλου). A n d G o d is concerned with the
237
whole, and p r o v i d e n c e never abandons this whole, nor does it become more evil, nor
does — after a time — God turn it back to himself (ουδέ δ ι α χρόνου π ρ ο ς ε α υ τ ό ν ό
2 3 8
θεός· ε π ι σ τ ρ έ φ ε ι ) , nor does he become wrathful ( ο ρ γ ί ζ ε τ α ι ) because of humans — or
2 3 4
Arnobius, Adv. nat. 2 . 1 6 , 7 . 9 ( 8 3 , 1 6 - 8 5 , 2 0 ; 3 5 1 , 1 - 3 5 2 , 2 6 M A R C H . ) . H e is willing to
argue that animals often show the appearance of reason and wisdom in their activities in Adv.
nat. 2 . 1 7 ( 8 6 , 1 5 - 2 0 M A R C H . ) . He apparently would not have much patience for Theophilus'
view that the sin of humans made animals evil (Ad Autolycum 2 . 1 7 [ 5 4 G R A N T ] ) .
2 3 5
Cp., for example, Porphyry, D e abst. 3 . 2 . 1 - 4 where he argues for the rationality of
animals against the Stoics and asserts that they have some kind of language (II, 1 5 3 - 5 4
B./P.). In D e abst. 2 . 4 2 . 3 (II, 1 0 9 B . / P . ) , Porphyry argues that demons enjoy animal sacrifice.
2 3 6
This formulation is close to a Stoic view of the universe as "fully equipped and
complete and perfect in all its details and parts" (aptum atque perfectum expletumque) in C i c ,
D e nat. deor. 2 . 1 3 . 3 7 .
2 3 7
Epicurus believes the greatest harms happen to the evil and the greatest benefits
( ώ φ έ λ ε ι α ι ) to the good "from the gods" (έκ θεών) in Diog. Laert. 1 0 . 1 2 4 . He does not,
however, believe that the immortals feel special benevolence toward anyone (Diog. Laert.
1 0 . 7 7 ) . The many summaries and testimonies in U S E N E R ' S collection show that later authors
(pagan and Christian) believed Epicurus denied providence. For a Christian see U S E N E R ,
Epicurea, F. 3 5 9 = Hippolytus, Refutatio 1 . 2 2 . 3 ( 8 4 , 9 - 1 4 M A R C . ) and for a Hellenist s e e
U S E N E R , Epicurea, F. 3 6 8 = Plotinus, Ennead. 2 . 9 . 1 5 (I, 2 2 4 , 8 H . / S C H . ) . CATAUDELLA
argues that "providence" for C e l s u s refers to immutable physical laws ( C e l s o e
l'Epicureismo, 1 7 with reference to C. Cels. 4 . 9 9 [ 3 1 6 , 7 - 1 6 M A R C . ] ) . T h e entire issue of
providence in Celsus' thought has been thoroughly explored in B E R G J A N , Celsus, 1 7 9 - 2 0 4 .
See also the discussion of the wrath of God in Celsus* thought (§ 1 . 3 1 ) .
238 A (Vaticanus 3 8 6 ) and the Philocalia tradition have αυτό (it) here. K O E T S C H A U reads
ε α υ τ ό ν since Origen repeats the phrase later as δια χρόνου έ π ι σ τ ρ έ φ ε ι ν τ ό όλον π ρ ο ς
ε α υ τ ό ν (I, 3 7 2 , 1 7 ; 3 7 3 , 1 2 - 1 3 Κ Ο Ε Τ . = 3 1 6 , 1 3 ; 3 1 7 , 8 M A R C ) . B O R R E T 2 . 4 3 3 translates the
phrase as "God does not call it back to himself after a time" and C H A D W I C K , Origen, 2 6 2 has
"nor does God turn it back to himself after a time." C A T A U D E L L A , Celso e l'Epicureismo, 1 7
translates: "nor after a determined time does G o d turn to himself." T w o manuscripts
(Patmius 2 7 0 , Venetus Marcianus 4 7 ) of the Philocalia have the future tense επιστρέψει (will
turn). C A T A U D E L L A (Ibid. 1 9 , followed by B O R R E T 2 . 4 3 3 in his note) conjectures that if both
readings are correct (present and future tense of the verb with "or" in between), then there is a
because of apes or rats. Nor does he make threats against these, each of which in its own
239
turn (έν τ φ μέρει.) has received its fate ( μ ο ΐ ρ α ν ) .
T h e S t o i c s , in contrast to C e l s u s , b e l i e v e d that things w e r e created for o n e

another: for e x a m p l e , plants w e r e m a d e for a n i m a l s , and a n i m a l s for
240
h u m a n s . Cataudella calls attention to C e l s u s ' opposition to o n e o f Plato's
241
m y t h s . Plato, in a m y t h in the Statesman, depicts various a g e s ( C r o n o s ,
Z e u s ) o f the c o s m o s . In o n e the supreme G o d g u i d e s the c o s m o s in its
rotation, and in the other era G o d releases his control and the c o s m o s b e g i n s
242
to rotate in the o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n . D e s t i n y ( ε ι μ α ρ μ έ ν η ) controls the world
then, and m a n y things are destroyed. A t the end o f this era o f destiny e v e n
the g o o d things are corrupted with evil, and c h a o s e m e r g e s . G o d then takes
2 4 3
control again and heals the c o s m o s .
1.3 Seventy Punished Angels
In a passage in w h i c h C e l s u s c o n c e d e s the opinion that Jesus w a s an angel, he

m e n t i o n s the a n g e l s in G e n 6 : 1 - 6 . H e d o e s not m a k e a p o i n t o f the
expression ( s o n s o f G o d ) in G e n 6:2, but categorizes the b e i n g s c o n c e r n e d as
"angels". If Christians w e r e to d e n y the e x i s t e n c e o f a n g e l s (other than
J e s u s ) , they w o u l d l i e w h i l e contradicting t h e m s e l v e s ( έ λ έ γ χ ο ι ν τ ο dv
ε ν α ν τ ί α σφίσι ψευδόμενοι):
very close correspondence to a statement of Epicurus who argued that celestial phenomena
such as eclipses are not due to one who commands or who will command ( δ ι α τ ά τ τ ο ν τ ο ς ή
δ ι α τ ά ξ ο ν τ ο ς ) and who is also a being who enjoys perfect happiness and immortality (Diog.
Laert. 10.76-77). The same being is not touched by anxieties or outbursts of wrath (όργαί) or
deeds of kindness ( χ ά ρ ι τ ε ς ) . Cf. anger/wrath in the subject index.
2 3 9
C. Cels. 4.99 (316,7-16 M A R C ) . Epicurus has a phrase in which all things are ruled
by fate (ειμαρμένης ... π ά ν τ α κρατούσης in G. ARRIGHETTI, Epicuro Opere, Biblioteca de
cultura filosofica 4 1 , Torino, 1973, F . 212 [= F . 395 U S E N E R ] ) . That is not his complete
view, however, since he believes that chance and freedom (for human actions) also exist in
the universe (Diog. Laert. 10.133-34). Cotta the skeptic ( C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.25.69) attacks
Epicurus' doctrine of the "swerve" of the atoms as absurd.
2 4 0
C i c , D e nat. deor. 2.14.37.
2 4 1
CATAUDELLA, Celso e l'Epicureismo, 18-19.
2 4 2
Plato, Polit. 269c, 270a.
2 4 3
Plato, Polit. 2 7 2 e , 273d. Celsus' word for God's turning is similar to some used in
Plato. In 272e destiny reverses the revolution of the cosmos (τον δέ δη κόσμον π ά λ ι ν
άνέστρεφεν ε ι μ α ρ μ έ ν η ) , and when God heals the disorder, he turns (στρέψας) the diseased
and destroyed parts back into their former state (273d-e). Cp. C A T A U D E L L A , Celso e
l'Epicureismo, 18.
92 1. Celsus
For they say that others have often come, and even sixty or seventy together; and indeed
they became evil and were punished with chains and cast under the earth; for this reason
244
hot springs are their t e a r s .
O r i g e n a r g u e s that C e l s u s m i s u n d e r s t o o d E n o c h , w h i c h is not g e n e r a l l y
2 4 5
a c c e p t e d as inspired b y the c h u r c h e s a n y w a y . E n o c h ' s v i e w s o n hot
246
springs are s e e n b y C e l s u s as s o m e k i n d o f Christian b e l i e f . The
apocalypticist m e n t i o n s hot springs that w i l l punish the a n g e l s ( 6 7 : 1 1 ) , but
d o e s not say that the hot springs are the a n g e l s ' tears. C e l s u s d o e s not
actually m e n t i o n that this tradition c o m e s from the b o o k o f E n o c h , but o n l y
affirms that "they say" — referring to the Christians. O r i g e n d e n i e s that
247
a n g e l s ' tears form hot s p r i n g s . It s e e m s unlikely that C e l s u s had E n o c h at
hand - a l t h o u g h Jude ( 1 4 ) q u o t e s E n o c h ( 6 0 : 8 ) and refers to the s a m e
rebellious angels that C e l s u s d o e s w h o are punished with eternal chains (Jude
2 4 8
6 ) . S e c o n d Peter refers to the s a m e angels (2:4, 9) and has t h e m punished
in Tartarus ( 2 : 4 ) . In more general terms, C e l s u s , as Origen n o t e s , did not
l o o k carefully at G e n 6:2 w i t h its reference to the "sons o f G o d . " Origen
2 4 9
g i v e s an a l l e g o r i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f the p a s s a g e as d o e s P h i l o . Julian
offered his o w n interpretation o f the text in defense o f p o l y t h e i s m (§ 3.12).
1.4 The Flood
C e l s u s w a s aware o f the story o f the flood ( G e n 6 : 1 4 - 9 : 1 4 ) in G e n e s i s and

a t t a c k e d it f r o m the p o i n t o f v i e w that the w o r l d i s u n c r e a t e d and
indestructible:
250
Then — counterfeiting and making a fraud ( π α ρ α χ α ρ ο ί τ τ ο υ ν τ ε ς και
ρ ά δ ι ο υ ρ γ ο υ ν τ ε ^ ) of the story of Deukalion — they speak of some flood (κατακλυσμοί/)
2 4 4
C. Cels. 5.52 (365,4-9 M A R C ) .
2 4 5
C. Cels. 5.54 (366,24-367,9 M A R C ) . In the course of this passage, Origen notes
another of Celsus' references to the Marcionites and Apelles in particular.
2 4 6
S e e Enoch 6-10, 66-69. Cp. C H A D W I C K , Origen, 305 n.l and B O R R E T , 3.147 n.2.
Chadwick's reference to Enoch 89:59 for the number seventy does not seem relevant since it
takes place after the construction of the temple in Jerusalem. Enoch 6:6 mentions 200 as the
number of angels involved in the account in Gen 6. The text used is E. I S A A C , 1 Enoch, in:
OTP, ed. J. H. C H A R L E S W O R T H , I, 13-89. S T R - B 3.48-9 discusses rabbinic traditions about
the seventy angels of the nations.
2 4 7
C. Cels. 5.55 (367,25-368,2 M A R C ) .
2 4 8
Jude uses the same word for chains (δεσμοΐς) that Celsus does.
2 4 9
C. Cels. 5.55 (367,10-6 M A R C ) . Philo, D e gigant. 6-18.
2 5 0
D R O G E , Homer, 77 discusses Celsus' views on Christian "counterfeiting." See also
COOK, Interpretation, 26-7. Tatian uses the same verb to accuse the Greek sophists of
counterfeiting what they had learned from Moses in Oratio 40.2 (PTS 4 3 , 7 2 , 7 MARCOVICH).
1
Celsus Critique of the Septuagint 93
and a strange ark (κιβωτόν) holding all things inside of it with a dove ( π ε ρ ι σ τ ε ρ ά ν ) and a
251
crow as messengers (Gen 8 : 7 - 8 ) . For I do not think that they believed that these things
2 5 2
would come to light, but simply told the myths (έμυθολόγησαν) to little b a b e s .
C e l s u s d o e s not attack the m e a s u r e m e n t s o f the ark, w h i c h O r i g e n is at pains

to d e f e n d , but o n l y c l a i m s that the a c c o u n t is a fraudulent v e r s i o n o f the
2 5 3
Greek a c c o u n t o f D e u k a l i o n . O r i g e n a l s o argues that C e l s u s c a n n o t p r o v e
that the story o f the d o v e is a fiction ( π λ α σ μ α τ ώ δ ε ς ) and that h e tries to m a k e
2 5 4
the story m o r e l a u g h a b l e b y c h a n g i n g the r a v e n into a c r o w . A s in his
attacks o n the N T s t o r i e s , C e l s u s w a n t s t o s h o w that certain t e a c h i n g s in
G e n e s i s are b o r r o w e d and d e b a s e d v e r s i o n s o f Greek a c c o u n t s and h a v e b e e n
" m y t h o l o g i z e d " i n the h a n d s o f the L X X authors. Christian apologists
i n c l u d i n g Justin and T h e o p h i l u s had e q u a t e d N o a h w i t h D e u c a l i o n as h a d
2 5 5 2 5 6
P h i l o before t h e m . C e l s u s c o u l d a l s o call N T stories m y t h s or f i c t i o n s .
In the c a s e o f the f l o o d , h e apparently a c c e p t s the identification o f N o a h and
D e u k a l i o n , but o b j e c t s t o the d e b a s i n g or counterfeiting o f the story that takes
p l a c e in the L X X . H e is far m o r e n e g a t i v e c o n c e r n i n g the L X X a c c o u n t o f
the f l o o d than N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s w h o wrote:
... many refugees found safety at the time of the flood, and one person, transported upon
an ark (λάρνακος), grounded upon the summit, and relics of the timber were for long
2 5 1
The Greek words for ark, flood, and dove are from the L X X of Gen 6:14, 17, and 8:8.
2 5 2
C. Cels. 4.41 ( 2 5 8 , 2 - 6 MARC.) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 7 6 with
bibliography. S e e also the discussion in FEDOU, Christianisme, 4 8 7 / PELAGAUD, Un
conservateur, 324.
2 5 3
C. Cels. 4.41 (258,7-259,4 M A R C ) . Plato includes the flood of Deukalion in his works
(Critias 112a and Tim. 22a with κατακλυσμό ν for "flood"). The Stoics used that term also
(SVF 2.186,26). Origen squares the measurements (e.g. 3 0 0 cubits becomes 9 0 , 0 0 0 ) and
b,s
creates a small ark-city. Cp. Orig., Horn, in Gen. 2.2 (Rufinus' Latin text is in S C 7 , 86,19-
8 8 , 3 2 DOUTRELEAU) which CHADWICK, Origen, 2 1 7 n.3 quotes). Apelles (in Origen's
comment on Genesis) noted the problem of the measurements (84,6-86,18 D o u r . ) . S e e
JUNOD, Attitudes, 120 and B A R D Y , La litterature, 220. JUNOD notes that Apelles did not
believe the ark could hold even four elephants (in Rufinus' version of the text of Origen).
Apelles concludes that the account is a lie and a myth. It is not, therefore, inspired by God
(ψευδής άρα ό μύθος. Ουκ άρα έκ θεου ή γραφή Horn, in Gen. 2.2 [GCS Origenes VI,
28,14 BAEHRENS]). For the texts see HARNACK, Marcion, 413*.
2 5 4
C. Cels. 4.42 (I, 315,6-11 K O E T . ) .
2 5 5
Justin, Apol. 2.7.2 (147,7-9 M A R C ) , Theophilus, A d Autolycum 2.30, 3.19 ( 7 6 , 124
G R A N T ) , Philo, D e praemiis et poenis 2 3 . Cf. A l s o Hippolytus, Ref. 10.30.6 (406,23-27
MARC).
2 5 6
C. Cels. 2.26, 5.57 (104,20-1; 368,26 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 14, 2 6 , 141
and see the index s.v. "fiction" and "myth." Celsus accuses Jews and Christians of writing
stupid myths (εύηθέστατα μεμυθολόγηται) in 4.50 (267,26-7 M A R C ) .
94 1. Celsus
preserved; this might well be the same person of w h o m M o s e s , the Jewish legislator
257
(νομοθέτης), w r o t e .
N i c o l a u s probably k n e w the L X X and l i v e d before the o n s e t o f Christianity

(§0.8).
1.5 Floods and Conflagrations
A n idea that Christians (and presumably J e w s ) have plagiarized is the c y c l e o f

floods and burnings that has b e e n underway for ages:
[After these matters he wants to prove that w e have nothing remarkable (παράδοξον) or
new to say about] a flood or burning, [but that w e have] misunderstood what has been said
by the Greeks or barbarians about these events [and have believed what has been said
about these in our scriptures. He continues:] When they misunderstood (παρακούσασιν)
2 5 8 2 5 9
these ideas of those p e o p l e , it came to them that after cycles of long t i m e s and
risings and conjunctions of stars, that burnings and floods take place and that after the last
deluge in the time of Deukalion the periodic return (ή περίοδος) requires a conflagration
according to the cyclic alternation (άμοιβήν) of all things. These beliefs have made them
260
— in an erring opinion — say that God will come down like a torturer bringing f i r e .
Plato in his Timaeus has a great fire that recurs due to the m o t i o n o f heavenly
261
b o d i e s . A c c o r d i n g to Plato the g o d s a l s o purify the earth with recurring
2 5 7
Nicolaus of Dam. apud Jos., Antiq. 1.95 = S T E R N I, § 85. ET from H. T H A C K E R A Y ' S
LCL edition of Josephus. Josephus also finds witnesses to the flood tradition in Berossus the
Chaldean (III-II B.C.E.), Mnaseas (III B.C.E.), and Hieronymus the Egyptian (Antiq. 1.93-
94), but they do not refer to Noah. Berossus mentions the ship on the mountain in Armenia.
Cp. Jos., C. A p . 1.130 (reference to Berossus on the flood). Apollonius Molon (1 B.C.E.)
also was aware of the biblical account of the flood and mentions "the one who was left after
the flood" in D e Iudaeis, apud Eus., P.E. 9.19.1 (VIII/1, 505,5-8 M R A S ) = S T E R N I, § 46.
Eusebius found that tradition in Alexander Polyhistor. Polyhistor also refers to Berossus'
account o f the flood and then the later author (or possibly Eusebius w h o records this text in
his Chronicle) identifies it with the one mentioned by M o s e s . S e e S T E R N III, § 560a =
Jacoby, FGrH III, C680, F3 and the commentary in S T E R N III, 17. Cp. § 0.8 / RlNALDl, La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, 106-7. On Berossus' flood narrative see S C H N A B E L , Berossos, 180-2,
264-6. For the possible existence of pagan coins that picture Noah's ark in Phrygian Apamea
see RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, Π § 77.
2 5 8
That is: Greeks and barbarians.
2 5 9
Celsus has μακρών χρόνων here as does Plato in Tim. 22d in his own explanation of
recurring conflagrations on earth.
2 6 0
C. Cels. 4.11 (225,11-21 M A R C ) . On fire in Julian see § 3.26, 2 9 , 4 7 .
2 6 1
Plato (Tim. 22d) has a great destruction on earth due to fire which takes place after
long times (same Greek expression as Celsus) due to a parallax of the celestial bodies that
travel around the earth (των περί γ ή ν κατ' ούρανόν ι ό ν τ ω ν π α ρ ά λ λ α ξ ι ς και δια
μακρών χρόνων γ ι γ ν ο μ έ ν η των ε π ί γ η ς πυρί πολλφ φθορά. Not all are destroyed by
262
floods . C e l s u s ' attack o n Christian e s c h a t o l o g y attracts a g o o d deal o f
263
attention from O r i g e n . B e l o w I will d i s c u s s his attack o n the narrative
concerning S o d o m (§ 1.12). Origen responds that C e l s u s did not k n o w h o w
264
ancient M o s e s w a s and u s e s Inachus as his ( O . ' s ) c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n c h o r .
Porphyry w a s w i l l i n g t o c o n c e d e the great antiquity o f M o s e s , u n l i k e
265
C e l s u s . O r i g e n , a c c o r d i n g t o D r o g e , is not c o n c e r n e d to d e m o n s t r a t e
266
M o s e s ' antiquity s i n c e p r e v i o u s apologists had already d o n e t h a t . C e l s u s
d o e s not question the identification o f the L X X flood with that o f D e u k a l i o n ,
but h e attacks Christian e s c h a t o l o g y and probably the destruction o f S o d o m .
Philo also argued that it w a s an impiety to a s s u m e that G o d acually c o m e s
267
d o w n to e a r t h .
1.6 The Misunderstood Plato
In B o o k Four C e l s u s argues that the Christians and J e w s m i s u n d e r s t o o d the

Greeks w i t h regard to their doctrine o f f l o o d s and conflagrations. O r i g e n
writes in B o o k Six:
[Many things may be found in Moses and the prophets who are older not only than Plato
but also than H o m e r and the invention of their alphabet by the Greeks, things
corresponding to their gift from God and full of great understanding. They did not, as
268
Celsus thinks] misunderstanding (παρακούσαντες) Plato [say such t h i n g s ] .
C e l s u s ' statement m u s t h a v e b e e n slightly ambiguous since Origen is not sure

if it m e a n s the O T authors or the Christians. Celsus attributed the story o f the
flood and S o d o m to J e w i s h misunderstanding (or downright plagiarism) o f
Greek texts. B u t i m m e d i a t e l y after this text, Origen admits that C e l s u s m a y
fire or flood in Plato's view. COOK, Interpretation, 98 has a discussion of the cycle of fires
and floods in Celsus' philosophy.
2 6 2
Plato, Tim. 22d.
2 6 3
2 6 4
C. Cels. 4.11 (225,22-5 M A R C ) . On Inachus see also § 2.1.8.
2 6 5
See § 2.2.8.
2 6 6
D R O G E , Homer, 159. For the reference to M o s e s and Inachus, D R O G E refers to
Ptolemy of Mendes w h o m Origen may have known through Tatian, Or. 38.1 (= S T E R N I,
§ 157a) or Clement of Alex, Strom. 1.21.101.5 (65,9-13 S T . / F R . = S T E R N I, § 157b). Apion's
similar opinions may have come to Origen the same way from Tatian, Or. 38.2-3 (= S T E R N I,
§ 163a) and Clement of A l e x , Strom. 1.21.101.3-4 (65,1-9 S T . / F R . = S T E R N I, § 163b).
B O R R E T 2.232 n.3 has an extensive comment on the issue of the priority of Moses or Homer.
2 6 7
Philo, D e confus. ling. 134. He interprets the descent allegorically in Quaest. in Exod
2.45.
2 6 8
C. Cels. 6.7 (383,23-7 M A R C ) . Cp. the statement in 6.1 (377,4-7 M A R C . ) = RlNALDl,
La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 3 where Origen notes that Celsus compared certain passages of
Plato with those of the scriptures.
96 1. Celsus
b e thinking o f the apostles. H e argues that Paul the tentmaker and Peter and
269
John the fishermen w o u l d not h a v e b e e n students o f P l a t o . This m a y be the
correct interpretation s i n c e C e l s u s c o u l d a l s o argue that Jesus corrupted
270
Plato's t e a c h i n g s . Either w a y C e l s u s m a y have b e e n responding to o n e o f
the stock arguments o f Christian a p o l o g e t i c w h i c h h e l d that Greek w i s d o m
2 7 1
derived from H e b r e w w i s d o m .
7.7 An Uncreated Universe and Floods/Conflagrations
T h e root b e l i e f C e l s u s p o s i t s is the c o n t i n u i n g recurrence o f f l o o d s and

conflagrations. Origen later includes this statement o f C e l s u s : "The c o s m o s is
uncreated and incorruptible and o n l y those o n earth suffer f l o o d s and burnings
272
and not all fall into these t o g e t h e r . " Plato only c l a i m s that there h a v e b e e n
many destructions o f humans due to floods and burnings {Tim. 2 2 c ) . C e l s u s
273
w a s c o n v i n c e d , h o w e v e r , that the u n i v e r s e w a s e t e r n a l . Lucretius w a s
willing to c o n c e d e that fire and water c o u l d bring destruction to the earth and
274
sky (but not to individual atoms w h i c h cannot be d e s t r o y e d ) .
C e l s u s b e l i e v e d these events (floods and burnings) h a v e b e e n taking place
forever: " M a n y conflagrations and m a n y d e l u g e s h a v e taken p l a c e in every
age (έκ παντός αιώνος) and the latest is the flood that took place recently in
275
the time o f D e u k a l i o n . " H e also includes a reference to the fire during the
276
time o f Phaethon w h i c h will be d i s c u s s e d b e l o w (§ 1 . 1 2 ) . Origen responds
that if C e l s u s u s e s Plato to establish this belief, then Christians must b e l i e v e
277
M o s e s to h a v e m o r e authority than P l a t o . B o t h authors are at a sort o f
i m p a s s e : w h i c h B i b l e (Plato or the L X X ) is a c c e p t a b l e to the culture o f
antiquity? Origen d o e s m a k e a reference to a p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w that if the
2 6 9
C. Cels. 6.7 (383,27-384,4 M A R C ) .
2 7 0
S e e C O O K , Interpretation, 42-3 with reference to C. Cels. 6.16, 7.58 (393,13-8;
508,24-509,17 M A R C . ) and other texts.
2 7 1
See the references in § 1.2 (introductory paragraph), 1.20, and 3.43.
2 7 2
C. Cels. 4.79 (293,12-5 M A R C ) .
2 7 3
Cp. the views of Macarius' anonymous philosopher concerning the indestructibility of
the universe in C O O K , Interpretation, 220-2, 231-34. See in particular Monog. 4.1.1-5, 4.7.1-
4 (II, 240,6-242,13; 248,8-29 G O U L E T = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 34, 90a). The Bible could
even be used in the debate. Simplicius, Comm. in Arist. de c o e l o 1.3 (VII, 141,26-142,3
H E I B E R G ) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 193 used Ps 18:5 and 103:5 L X X to argue
for the eternity of the world. Cf/ § 1 . 2 . 1 1 .
2 7 4
Lucretius 5.338-44, 351-55.
2 7 5
C. Cels. 1.19 (21,7-9 M A R C ) .
2 7 6
C. Cels. 1.19 (21,14 M A R C ) .
2 7 7
C. Cels. 1.19 (21,14-9 M A R C ) .
w o r l d is indestructible t h e n p r o v i d e n c e w i l l not a l l o w an e l e m e n t to d e s t r o y
278
all the o t h e r s .
1.8 The Flood, God's Inability to Persuade, and his Repentance
In a p a s s a g e i n w h i c h C e l s u s i n c l u d e s m a n y r e f e r e n c e s t o Marcionite
doctrines, h e asks:
How can he be unable to persuade (πείθειν) and rebuke (νουθετεΐν)? H o w can he, when
they became ungrateful and evil (Gen 6:6-7), repent ( μ ε τ α μ ε λ ε ι ) , find fault, hate his
creation, threaten and annihilate his children ( ε κ γ ο ν α ) ? Or where can he possibly take
2 7 9
them out of this world which he m a d e ?
C e l s u s k n e w that s o m e Christians b e l i e v e d the w o r l d to b e the creation o f a

"strange" G o d ( s e e § 1.2.11). H e found m a n y p h i l o s o p h i c a l and t h e o l o g i c a l
p r o b l e m s in the a c c o u n t o f the f l o o d . If G o d m a d e the w o r l d , then h e a l s o
m a d e the e v i l p e o p l e in it that h e d e s t r o y e d b y the f l o o d . C e l s u s apparently
wants to draw the c o n s e q u e n c e that G o d therefore m a d e e v i l . O r i g e n b e l i e v e s
that C e l s u s w i l l a l s o h a v e t o a n s w e r the question o f e v i l ' s origin s i n c e C e l s u s
h o l d s that G o d c r e a t e d the u n i v e r s e . In other w o r d s C e l s u s i s o p e n t o the
s a m e objection that the L X X texts are.
Origen mentions t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n e v i l as G o d ' s w o r k o r the
2 8 0
consequence of God's w o r k . One can find a theory of evil as a
c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i n g s g o o d in t h e m s e l v e s in o n e o f C h r y s i p p u s ' texts. The
S t o i c s a l s o a r g u e d that the g o d s w e r e n o m o r e the c a u s e o f u n r i g h t e o u s
2 7 8
C. Cels. 4 . 6 3 ( 2 7 8 , 7 - 1 2 M A R C ) . Theophrastus (apud Philo, D e aetern. 144-45)
mentions floods and fires which destroy many people. The same author (Theophrastus apud
Philo, D e aetern. 117, 143-44) rejects, however, the future destruction of the entire cosmos.
CHADWICK, Origen, 2 3 5 n.2 refers to authors such as Philo, D e aetern. 107-12, 116, Seneca,
N.Q. 3.10.3, 3.29.5 (the destruction of all things followed by a new beginning), Cicero, D e
nat. deor. 2.33.84-5 (Balbus' Stoic v i e w ) , and Plotinus, Ennead. 2.1.1 (I, 131,1-132,40
H . / S C H . ) . These authors see the four elements as being continually transformed into one
another to maintain equilibrium. Cp. CHADWICK, Origen, 2 7 9 n.6 for later Stoic v i e w s that
reject the idea of a universal destruction and a restoration of everything as it was before (e.g.
Panaetius in Arius Didymus, Epit. F. 3 6 [469,7-10, DiELS, Doxographi Graeci] and C i c , D e
nat. deor. 2.46.118).
2 7 9
C. Cels. 6.53 (431,21-5 M A R C ) .
2 8 0
C. Cels. 6.53 ( 4 3 1 , 2 5 - 4 3 2 , 1 0 M A R C ) . Cp. also Origen's position in C. Cels. 7.68,
8.68 (517,21-518,8; 585,3-5 M A R C ) . For Origen's approach to evil see also B O R R R E T 3.312
n.l with bibliography. In C. Cels. 5.24 (339,20-2 M A R C ) , Celsus argues that God is not the
source of "wrongful appetite (πλημμελούς ορέξεως) or erroneous disorder but of right and
just nature."
98 1. Celsus
2 8 1
actions than the l a w w a s the c a u s e o f illegal d e e d s . Origen also responds
that G o d d i d not m a k e e v i l s — m e a n i n g m o r a l e v i l s c o m m i t t e d by
282
i n d i v i d u a l s . T h e distinction b e t w e e n different kinds o f evil m a y g o back to
Aristotle. H e identifies three kinds o f good: those o f the soul such as courage
and justice; t h o s e o f the b o d y such as strength and beauty; and exterior g o o d s
s u c h as g l o r y and friendship. T o t h e s e g o o d s c o r r e s p o n d three k i n d s o f
2 8 3
e v i l . Origen w a s w i l l i n g to c o n c e d e that G o d created physical and external
2 8 4
e v i l s t o bring p e o p l e back to h i m and to purify h u m a n b e i n g s . T h i s is
similar to P l a t o ' s v i e w that external g o o d s (and g o o d s o f the b o d y ) are not
properly s p e a k i n g g o o d s and s o external e v i l s are not properly speaking
2 8 5
evils .
W i t h regard to persuasion w h i c h is the object o f the ancient rhetor, Origen
notes that G o d grants p e o p l e the freedom to accept his w o r d s or not (Gal 5:8,
2 8 6
Isa l : 1 9 - 2 0 ) . C e l s u s w a s intensely concerned with the ability o f Christian
287
language (and presumably Jewish texts) to persuade h e a r e r s . In response to
C e l s u s ' criticism o f G o d ' s repentance, Origen quotes G e n 6:5-7 and writes
288
that G o d ' s repentance is s i m p l y not m e n t i o n e d in the t e x t . L i k e w i s e the
author o f G e n e s i s d o e s not say that G o d hated his work. S i n c e human souls
are immortal, G o d is not annihilating h u m a n b e i n g s but trying to convert
them. T h e floodwaters purify the earth. P h i l o l i k e w i s e w a s aware o f s o m e
interpreters (probably Jewish) w h o thought that the creator perhaps repented
( μ β τ β γ ν ω ) w h e n h e s a w the impiety o f humankind. H e also argues that G o d
289
d o e s not repent or get a n g r y .
2 8 1
For Chrysippus see S V F 2.1170 where disease exists as an effect of nature and not by
nature. On the comparison of gods and laws see S V F 2.1125. Texts on evil and providence
in general can be found in S V F 2.1160-86.
2 8 2
C. Cels. 6.55 (433,13-8 M A R C ) . See also the "evil of the soul" in 6.54 (432,21-4
MARC).
2 8 3
D I E L S , D o x o g r . gr. 5 7 0 , 2 6 - 8 = Hippolytus, Refutatio 1.20.5 (82,20-7 MARC).
M A R C O V I C H gives many references for this distinction in his apparatus.
2 8 4
C. Cels. 6.56 (434,4-23 M A R C ) .
2 8 5
D I E L S , Doxogr. gr. 568,29-569,3 = Hippolytus, Refutatio 1.19.15 (79,57-9 M A R C ) .
Plato, Leges 697b ranks goods of the soul, body, and externals (such as wealth) in that order.
2 8 6
C. Cels. 6.57 (435,1-25 M A R C ) . Origen's reference is probably to Plato's Gorgias
453a (discussion in COOK, Interpretation, 9, 85).
2 8 7
See, for example, C. Cels. 2.46 (117,19-21 M A R C ) . Cf. C O O K , Interpretation, 40, 84,
85, 88 and see the index under "persuasion."
2 8 8
C. Cels. 6.58 (435,29-436,17 M A R C ) .
2 8 9
Philo, Quod deus sit imm. 21-33. See Idem, 51-52 (with reference to Gen 6:7) for
Philo's position that God does not get angry. Cf. Philo, Quaest. in Gen. 1.95 for a similar
statement. See also § 1.2.18,1.31,3.26, 3.34 on God's anger.
L9 The Existence of Evil and God's Correction of the World
O n e other conceptual objection C e l s u s brings to the flood narrative is that the

quantity o f g o o d a n d e v i l i n the universe d o e s n o t c h a n g e . H e u s e d this
290
argument a l s o against the Christian c o n c e p t o f the incarnation o f C h r i s t .
H e writes, "There w o u l d never b e an increase or decrease o f evils in the world
in the past, present, or in the future: for the nature o f all things (ή τ ω ν όλων
291
φ ύ σ ι ς ) is o n e and the s a m e , and the generation o f evils is a l w a y s the s a m e . "
B e s i d e s arguing that C e l s u s h a s n o t u n d e r s t o o d P l a t o ' s Theatetus 1 7 6 a
292
c o r r e c t l y , Origen also quotes Timaeus 2 2 d in w h i c h the g o d s purify ( ϋ δ α σ ι ν
καθαίροντες κ α τ α κ λ ύ £ ω σ ι ν ) t h e earth b y water. U s i n g Plato, O r i g e n
293
concludes that e v i l s are l e s s in such a c a s e (the g o d s ' flooding the e a r t h ) .
After repeating o n e o f C e l s u s ' v i e w s against an anthropocentric creation,
O r i g e n a l s o repeats C e l s u s ' principle that "Neither g o o d s n o r e v i l s e v e r
b e c o m e l e s s or m o r e a m o n g mortals." Origen then includes another strong
attack o n stories such as the flood in Genesis:
God does not need to make a new correction (διορθώσεως). [But] it is also not like a
person who has made something deficiently and formed it in an uncraftsmanlike way that
God brings correction to the cosmos by purifying it (καθαίρων αυτόν κατακλυσμω) with
294
a flood or b u r n i n g .
Although C e l s u s d o e s not m a k e this clear, it s e e m s probable that h e rejects the

principle in the O T account o f the flood in G e n 6:5-8: n a m e l y , that h u m a n
e v i l s o n earth i n c r e a s e d s o m u c h that G o d d e s t r o y e d all but the righteous
N o a h . C e l s u s b r o u g h t a similar o b j e c t i o n t o t h e b e l i e f i n G o d ' s final
j u d g m e n t e v e n t h o u g h h e a c c e p t s t h e b e l i e f i n s o m e k i n d o f final
295
p u n i s h m e n t . F o r C e l s u s , p e o p l e m a y suffer j u d g m e n t , b u t t h e entire
universe will not perish in a fire o f G o d ' s wrath.
2 9 0
S e e C O O K , Interpretation, 6 5 - 6 .
2 9 1
C. Cels. 4 . 6 2 (277,18-21 M A R C . ) / P E L A G A U D , Un conservateur, 326.
2 9 2
See COOK, Interpretation, 65 for a discussion of this text.
2 9 3
C. Cels. 4 . 6 2 (277,26-278,3 M A R C ) . Origen also believed that Plato, Theaet. 176a
implies that evils are less at times.
2 9 4
C. Cels. 4.69 (282,24-7 M A R C ) .
2 9 5
See C O O K , Interpretation, 97-99. Cp. a text against apocalyptic judgment such as C.
Cels. 5.14 (331,1-5 M A R C ) . His view of final punishments may be found in C. Cels. 8.48
(562,28-563,8 M A R C ) .
100 1. Celsus
1.9 The Tower of Babel
C e l s u s ' thinking c o n c e r n i n g the purification o f the w o r l d b y m e a n s o f the

flood is similar to his v i e w s c o n c e r n i n g the story o f the t o w e r o f B a b e l in
Genesis (11:1-9):
[I do not know h o w ] the flood which purified the earth, [as the teaching ( λ ό γ ο ς ) of the
296
church claims] is comparable to the casting down of the tower ( π ύ ρ γ ο υ ) . For if the
story of the tower [contained in Genesis] does not hint darkly at anything ( μ η δ έ ν
α ι ν ί σ σ η τ α ι ) , [but as Celsus thinks] happens to be clear ( σ α φ ή ς ) , [it does not in this way
appear to have taken place for the purification of the earth ... And he thinks that] Moses,
who wrote d o w n the matters concerning the tower [and the confusion of languages]
297 2 9 8
counterfeits ( π α ρ α φ θ ε ί ρ α ν τ α ) the things told about the A l o e i d s and wrote them
299
concerning the t o w e r .
2 9 6
L X X G e n 11:5 uses this word for tower but mentions no destruction o f it.
M A R C O V I C H adds "for the purification of the earth" (καθαροίφ τ η ς γ η ς ) here (234,8
M A R C . ) due to Origen's use of the same phrase below (234,11-2 M A R C ) .
2 9 7
Philostratus, Vita Ap. 2.29 uses this term for counterfeiting coinage and places it in
parallel with those who pretend to be philosophers but are not.
2 9 8
Homer, II. 5.384-87 has Otus and Ephialtes (reputed sons of Aloeus) bind Ares for
thirteen months. In Od. 11.305-14 they attempt to pile Mt. Pelion on Mt. Ossa, and the latter
on Mt. Olympus to reach heaven. Apollo killed them. Atticus describes the presumption
( φ ρ ό ν η μ α ) of the Aloeids in their attempt to reach heaven in Fr. 2 (CUFr, 42,52-5 D E S
PLACES = Eus., P.E. 15.4.7). See J. PEPIN, Le challenge Homere-Moise aux premiers siecles
Chretiens, RevScRel 29, 1955, (105-22) 109 n.2 / Idem, Mythe, 2 2 8 - 3 1 . Polyhistor has a
version of the L X X story (God destroyed the tower with winds) which he derives from the
"Sibyl." After the flood Titan and Prometheus come into existence, and then there is war
between Titan and Cronos (STERN, III, § 560 b l , 560 b2) and cp. Oracula Sibyllina 3.97-104.
Cp. also the version of Polyhistor in Cyril, C. Jul. 1.9 (PG 76, 516d = SC 3 2 2 , 122,16-124,6
B U R G . / E V . ) . Cronos, Titan, and Iapetus, the children of Gaia and Ouranos, are not clearly
identified as the builders of the tower in the Sibyllines (3.110, contra PEPIN, Mythe, 228). An
interpreter o f Plato probably knew the Babel narrative from the Sibylline literature. See
Scholia Platonica, In Phaedrum 244b = S T E R N III, § 5 7 1 . In Abydenus' version, men of great
strength think they are better than the gods and build a tower where Babylon is. A s the tower
gets near heaven, winds help the gods and destroy the tower. People, after being of one
language, receive confused languages from the gods. Then follows a war between Cronos
and Titan; Eus., P.E. 9.14.1-2 (VIII/1, 499,20-500,8 M R A S ) . In Cyril's version of Abydenus'
account the ruins of the tower become Babylon; C. Jul. 1.9 (PG 76, 516d = SC 322, 124,7-13
B U R G . / Ον.). Ps. Justin, sees the account as another example of Homer's indebtedness to
Moses in Cohortatio 28.5 (PTS 32, 64,51-9 M A R C O V I C H ) . Ps. Aristot., D e mundo 1, 391a
(CUFr, 4 8 , 1 0 - 1 L O R I M E R ) uses Homer's story as an example of a foolish attempt to see
heaven physically.
2 9 9
C. Cels. 4.21 (234,6-11.15-8 M A R C . ) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 81 with
bibliography. S e e , for example, D E L A B R I O L L E , La reaction, 119 / PiLAGAUD, U n
conservateur, 21
N o t all authors in antiquity agreed that the sons o f A l o e u s w e r e identical with

the builders o f the tower. P s . E u p o l e m u s identifies the builders w i t h giants
3 0 0
w h o survived the f l o o d and n a m e s o n e as B e l u s . Philo, o n the other hand,
is w i l l i n g to say that story r e s e m b l e s that o f the A l o e i d s . H e a l s o m e n t i o n s
t h o s e w h o c r i t i c i z e the J e w i s h ancestral p o l i t y ( π α τ ρ ί ω π ο λ ι τ ε ί α ) b y
d e n o u n c i n g M o s a i c l a w s . O n e o f the critics' arguments is that the s o called
h o l y b o o k s contain m y t h s (αί iepai λ ε γ ό μ ε ν α ι β ί β λ ι ο ι π α ρ ' ύ μ ΐ ν και
μύθους· τ τ ε ρ ι έ χ ο υ σ ι ν ) . T h e y point out that the J e w s deride similar m y t h s
w h e n others tell t h e m . P h i l o g i v e s his o w n allegorical interpretation o f the
301
Genesis account .
Origen c o n c e d e s that the c o n f u s i o n o f languages m i g h t b e understood b y
302
C e l s u s to m e a n a purification o f the e a r t h . H e , h o w e v e r , g i v e s his o w n
anagogical (or m y s t i c a l ) interpretation o f the text later in the C. Celsum —
o n e that undoubtedly C e l s u s w o u l d have rejected since he did not b e l i e v e O T
303
texts needed to b e a l l e g o r i z e d . Celsus could c o n c e d e that s o m e o f the more
rational J e w s and Christians w e r e w i l l i n g to allegorize their t e x t s , but the
stories w e r e s u c h stupid m y t h s that they c o u l d not b e interpreted in s u c h a
3 0 4
w a y . O n the other hand, C e l s u s criticized Christians for not s e e i n g the dark
s a y i n g s or e n i g m a s ( α ι ν ί γ μ α τ α ) c o n t a i n e d in the E g y p t i a n w o r s h i p o f
305
a n i m a l s . Porphyry faulted Christians for finding e n i g m a s ( α ι ν ί γ μ α τ α )
3 0 0
Ps. Eupolemus, F. 1, F. 2 (= Eus, P.E. 9 . 1 7 . 1 , 9.18.2 in I, 1 7 1 , 9 - 1 5 , 177,1-7
HOLLADAY).
3 0 1
Philo, D e conf. 2-4. The critics sound like pagans, but R. G O U L E T notes that the
critics are devoted to a great deal of criticism of Jewish texts and may be Jews themselves (La
philosophie de Moi'se. Essai de reconstitution d'un commentaire philosophique prephilonien
du Pentateuque, H D A C 11, Paris 1987, 229 with reference to P E P I N , Mythe, 229 w h o also
believes the critics are Jews). S T E I N , Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 6 believes the critics are
Jewish apostates. The expression "so called holy books" inclines one to believe that the
critics may be pagan. Julian critiqued the story of Babel in C. Gal. 134d-135d (116,4-117,37
M A S . ) and called the story a mythical explanation ( α ί τ ί α ν ... κομιδή μυθώδη) of the
difference in languages (§ 3.13-5). He also compared the text to Homer's myth of the
Aleoeids. The critics in Philo ( D e conf. 9 and see also 4) use the same word (mythical
μυθώδης) to describe the story of Babel.
3 0 2
C. Cels. 4.21 (I, 290,11-12 K O E T . = 234,10-1 M A R C ) . K O E T S C H A U thinks these words
are those of Celsus ("for the purification of the earth").
3 0 3
Origen's o w n v i e w s are in C. Cels. 5.29-32 ( 3 4 3 , 2 3 - 3 4 7 , 1 2 M A R C ) . S e e COOK,
Interpretation, 70-2 for Celsus' critique of the allegory of OT texts and § 1.1 above. F E D O U ,
Christianisme, 519-21 discusses Origen's interpretation of the tower of Babel.
3 0 4
C. Cels. 4.50 (267,24-27 M A R C ) .
3 0 5
C. Cels. 3.19 ( 1 6 5 , 1 3 - 8 M A R C ) . F E L D M A N (Jew and Gentile 144-45) discusses
negative attitudes on the part of the Greeks to animal worship. Celsus apparently chose to
ignore those critiques. See, for example, C i c , D e nat. deor. 1.36.101 and Juvenal 15.1-12.
The apologists such as Aristides ( 1 2 . 1 , 6 , 7 [96-99 V O N A ] ) and Justin adopted the
philosopher's criticisms (Apol. 1.24.1-3 [67,1-10 M A R C . ] ) . Cf. also H O L L A D A Y , Fragments I,
102 1. Celsus
3 0 6
a m o n g the w r i t i n g s o f M o s e s in texts w h i c h w e r e written c l e a r l y . Celsus
clearly s e e s M o s e s as s u b s e q u e n t in t i m e to H o m e r as in h i s similar c h a r g e
3 0 7
c o n c e r n i n g the narratives o f f l o o d s and burnings in G e n e s i s . J e w i s h and
Christian a p o l o g i s t s w e r e e m p h a t i c in their denial o f the p o s i t i o n C e l s u s took
( H o m e r i s prior t o M o s e s ) i n c l u d i n g f i g u r e s s u c h as A r i s t o b u l u s , P h i l o ,
308
J o s e p h u s , and J u s t i n .
1.11 Abraham's Circumcision
After a d i s c u s s i o n o f M o s e s ' w i s d o m ( s e e § 1.20), C e l s u s m e n t i o n s the origin

of Jewish circumcision:
[After these things Celsus, who does not criticize the circumcision of private parts carried
out by the Jews, says:] It came from the Egyptians [believing the Egyptians rather than
309
Moses w h o says that of all humans Abraham was first circumcised (Gen 1 7 : 2 4 ) ] .
In a n o t h e r t e x t i n w h i c h C e l s u s a t t a c k s t h o s e w h o a b a n d o n their own
traditions t o b e c o m e J e w s , h e m e n t i o n s that c i r c u m c i s i o n d i d not originate in
Israel: " N e i t h e r w o u l d t h e y b e m o r e h o l y than t h e s e b e c a u s e t h e y are
3 1 0
c i r c u m c i s e d — for the E g y p t i a n s and C o l c h i a n s w e r e first to d o t h i s . " As
an argument for the relationship o f A b r a h a m to G o d , O r i g e n m e n t i o n s the u s e
o f the e x p r e s s i o n " G o d o f A b r a h a m " in m a g i c a l t e x t s , e v e n t h o u g h the
234 n.51 w h o also includes Jewish attacks on the practice such as Jos., C. Ap. 1.224-25, 2 5 4 ;
2 . 6 6 , 8 1 , 8 6 , 139.
3 0 6
E u s . , H . E . 6 . 1 9 . 4 = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 3 9 . S e e § 2 . 2 . 2 . Cp. COOK,
Interpretation 1 2 8 - 3 3 , 182. Macarius* anonymous philosopher attacks the unclarity of
Christian texts ( C O O K , Interpretation, 181-84 with reference to Monog. 4 . 8 [ 9 ] . l - 6 , [II, 250,1-
23 G O U L E T = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 5 4 , 5 2 ] ) .
3 0 7
See § 1.5 above on floods and conflagrations.
3 0 8
References can be found in COOK, Interpretation, 3-7 / D R O G E , Homer, passim /
B O R R E T 2.232 n.3 with particular reference to Tatian. Cf. § 1.5,2.28.
3 0 9
C. Cels. 1.22 (23,5-6 M A R C ) . For references to Abraham in Greco-Roman literature
see F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 5 3 0 n . l . S e e also § 1.28.3 for Celsus' attitude toward
circumcision.
3 1 0
C. Cels. 5.41 (356,3-5 M A R C ) . See Herodotus 2.104 = S T E R N I, § 1 for the question
of the origin of circumcision. Herodotus uses the Egyptian origin of the practice to argue that
the Colchians (in Pontus) are Egyptians. Artapanus claims Moses taught it to the Ethiopians
and perhaps also to the Egyptian priests. See Artapanus, F. 3 (Eus., P.E. 9.27.10 = I, 2 1 2 ,
H O L L A D A Y ) . H O L L A D A Y , Fragments, I, 2 3 6 n.63 gives many classical parallels to Celsus'
views as does S T E R N I, 2-3 (comment on § 1). See, for example, Diodorus 1.28.2-3 = S T E R N
I, § 55 and 1.55.5 = S T E R N I, § 57. The last text mentions Jews and Colchians. Barnabas 9:6
notes that Arabs, Syrians, Egyptians, and pagan priests practiced circumcision. Origen
mentions that circumcision was illegal for the Sicarii and only legal for Jews (2.13 [91,13-20
M A R C ] ) . Cp. Justin., Digest. 48.8.8.11 where it is considered castration for anyone but Jews
(quoted in Borret 1.320 n.2).
magicians do not k n o w w h o Abraham is. The magicians include Egyptian

311
practitioners . T h e y a l s o u s e the e x p r e s s i o n " G o d o f I s a a c and G o d o f
3 1 2
Jacob." C e l s u s h a d great d i s d a i n for m a g i c , but a c c e p t e d its reality.
Nevertheless he w o u l d probably not accept Origen's argument since no
313
c h r o n o l o g i c a l a n c h o r s are p r e s e n t . T h e argument i s an e x a m p l e o f o n e o f
the "culture w a r s " o f the a n c i e n t w o r l d : w h o s e culture i s o l d e s t ? Droge
s u r v e y s H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a ' s attempted d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f the antiquity and
3 1 4
superiority o f E g y p t i a n culture o v e r that o f G r e e c e . Jewish apologists such
as Artapanus turned the a r g u m e n t o n its h e a d and attempted t o d e m o n s t r a t e
315
that E g y p t i a n culture o w e d m u c h to H e b r e w c u l t u r e .
7.72 The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
After h i s c o m p a r i s o n o f the narratives o f the f l o o d and T o w e r o f B a b e l w i t h

their G r e e k c o u n t e r p a r t s , C e l s u s c o n t i n u e s w i t h a s i m i l a r c r i t i q u e o f the
account o f S o d o m and G o m o r r a h ' s fall [ G e n 1 9 : 1 - 2 9 ] :
And the matters concerning Sodom and Gomorrah — obliterated on account o f their sin
316
— as narrated [by Moses in G e n e s i s , . . . Celsus compares to] the narrative of P h a e t h o n .
Earlier in h i s text O r i g e n had d i s c u s s e d C e l s u s ' v i e w s o n f l o o d s and burnings:
3 1 1
C. Cels. 1.22 (23,8-14 M A R C ) .
3 1 2
C. Cels. 1.22 (23,14-6 M A R C ) . Cf. also C. Cels. 4.33 (247,30-248,4 M A R C . ) where
Origen mentions the use o f "God o f Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" in Jewish exorcism and
pagan magic; s e e C. Cels. 4 . 3 4 (248,9-13 M A R C ) which contains a question of Origen to
those w h o use the powerful names concerning the source of their effectiveness. Practitioners
of magic like to use names in their original language to confer their effectiveness, and those
w h o practice exorcism also use the Hebrew names (C. Cels. 5.45 [ 3 5 8 , 2 5 - 3 5 9 , 9 . 1 4 - 2 0
M A R C . ] ) . S e e also Justin, Dialog. 85.3 (216,16-217,22 M A R C . ) for Jewish exorcists using the
formula and Iren. 2.6.2 (62,37-9 R O U S S . / D O U T R . ; Jewish exorcists use the Name). Magical
texts that mention the patriarchs include an exorcism recipe in P G M IV, 1230-32 (with the
names of the patriarchs transliterated into Coptic letters), and various recipes for power in
PGM XII, 2 8 7 , XIII, 8 1 6 - 1 7 , 9 7 6 . Cp. B O R R E T 1.130 n.l / C H A D W I C K , Origen, 3 0 0 n.l / J.
D I L L O N , The Magical Power o f Names in Origen and Later Platonism, in: Origeniana Tertia.
The Third International Colloquium for Origen Studies, ed. R. H A N S O N / H . C R O U Z E L , Rome
1985,203-16.
3 1 3
S e e F R E D E , Celsus' Attack, 2 2 4 with reference to C. Cels. 1.68 and 4 . 8 6 (71,3-18;
301,1-3 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 22.
3 1 4
D R O G E , Homer, 4-8. Diodorus 1.10-98 contains a great amount of Hecataeus' work.
3 1 5
D R O G E , Homer, 25-35. Texts of Artapanus can be conveniently found inHOLLADAY,
Fragments, 1,189-245 (texts, translations, and commentary).
3 1 6
C. Cels. 4.21 (235,1-3 M A R C ) .
104 L Celsus
Many conflagrations and many deluges have taken place in every age and the latest is the
flood that took place recently in the time of Deukalion and the burning during the time of
317
Phaethon.
318
Origen argues that the account o f M o s e s is older than that o f P h a e t h o n .
Pepin o b s e r v e s that C e l s u s ' b e l i e f that M o s e s plagiarized H o m e r and other
Greek writers is part o f his general v i e w that M o s e s g o t his "divine n a m e "
319
from studying the w i s e a n c i e n t s . Plato has an Egyptian priest narrate to the
"young" S o l o n the fiery destruction o f humankind w h e n Phaethon y o k e d the
320
horses to h i s father's ( H e l i o s ' ) chariot and drove t o o near the e a r t h . T h e
Egyptian then interprets the myth to m e a n that the burning o f things o n earth
321
is due to the position o f heavenly b o d i e s . Celsus b e l i e v e d in the alternation
o f floods and burnings. T h e s e h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s e d a b o v e w i t h reference to
his v i e w s o n the flood (§ 1.4). U n d o u b t e d l y his reference to G o d as torturer
( s e e § 1.5) i m p l i e s that Celsus did not think m u c h o f Christian e s c h a t o l o g y or
that the story o f S o d o m w a s very impressive from a moral point o f v i e w . This
is also probably related to C e l s u s ' v i e w s that evils n e v e r increase or decrease
on earth. H e d o e s not attack the story as S i m o n M a g u s (Marcion?) d o e s
3 2 2
w h e n h e criticizes G o d ' s lack o f k n o w l e d g e in G e n 1 8 : 2 1 . C e l s u s w a s not
as interested in exegetical details as, for e x a m p l e , Porphyry w a s .
1.13 Lot and his Daughters
With regard to the story o f the incest o f Lot and his daughters, Origen thinks
that C e l s u s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n impressed with the honesty ( τ ό φ ι λ α λ ή θ η ) o f
the writings and not h a v e v i e w e d the m o r e astonishing stories as fictions (και
π α ρ α δ ο ξ ο τ έ ρ ω ν ώς ού π ε π λ α σ μ έ ν ω ν ) :
[He did the opposite and said that the matters concerning Lot and his] daughters were
more wicked than Thyestean evils [ — without examining either the literal or the
323
anagogical m e a n i n g .
O n e o f the c o m m o n p l a c e accusations against ancient Christians w a s that they

324
w e r e guilty o f Thyestean feasts (cannibalism) and O e d i p o d e a n i n t e r c o u r s e .
3 1 7
C. Cels. 1.19 (21,12-4 M A R C ) .
3 1 8
C. Cels. 4.21 (235,3-6 M A R C ) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 92.
3 1 9
PEPIN, Le challenge, 115 with reference to C. Cels. 1.21 (22,14-6 M A R C ) . See § 1.20
below.
3 2 0
Plato, Tim. 22c. Euripides, Hippolytus 735-41 and Apollon., Argon. 4.595-99 include
the story of Phaethon.
3 2 1
Plato, Tim. 22d, and see § 1.5 above.
3 2 2
H A R N A C K , Marcion, 278-9* with ref. to Ps. Clem., Horn. 3.38.2-3 (70,25-71,1 R E H M ) .
3 2 3
C. Cels. 4.45 (261,20-5 M A R C ) .
C e l s u s d o e s not, i n fact, u s e such accusations against Christianity, but h e i s

aware o f the incest i n G e n 1 9 : 3 0 - 3 5 . Origen d o e s not explain the mystical or
anagogical m e a n i n g o f the p a s s a g e , but attempts a sort o f d e f e n s e o f L o t ' s
daughters b a s e d o n the S t o i c distinction b e t w e e n g o o d , bad, and indifferent
325
( α δ ι ά φ ο ρ α ) a c t i o n s . Indifferent actions are n o t b a s e d o n a n y c h o i c e , and
Origen claims that o n these terms Stoics w o u l d say intercourse with daughters
is an "indifferent" action. A n action i s n o t g o o d or e v i l if there i s n o t an
3 2 6
element o f c h o i c e . Indifferent actions are done without a c h o i c e or m o t i v e .
H e then c l a i m s that S t o i c s pictured a w i s e m a n left a l o n e w i t h h i s daughter
after all other h u m a n s w e r e destroyed. T h e S t o i c s a d v o c a t e d that s e x u a l
intercourse w a s justified i n that c a s e . Origen c o u l d b e correct e v e n though
this illustration has not b e e n found elsewhere. Sextus Empiricus b e l i e v e d that
327
the S t o i c s o c c a s i o n a l l y v i e w e d incest as a morally indifferent a c t . P h i l o
g i v e s the s a m e "soft d e f e n s e " o f the daughters' actions. T h e y have an e x c u s e
328
since they b e l i e v e that the w o r l d ' s inhabitants are d e s t r o y e d . Irenaeus also
i n c l u d e s a tradition o f a "presbyter" w h o n o t e s that t h e scriptures d o n o t
c o n d e m n the daughters' actions. H e then continues b y g i v i n g an allegorical
329
interpretation o f both daughters as the t w o s y n a g o g u e s or c o n g r e g a t i o n s .
C h a d w i c k n o t e s that O r i g e n t a k e s u p t h e p r e s b y t e r ' s a l l e g o r i c a l
330
e x p l a n a t i o n . O r i g e n finally admits that the inspired scripture neither
approves nor c o n d e m n s the actions o f L o t ' s daughters w h i c h c a n b e g i v e n a
331
certain defense and an allegorical m e a n i n g .
3 2 4
Cf. W. S C H A F K E , Fruhchristlicher Widerstand, A N R W 11.23.1, 1979, (460-723) 5 7 9 -
96. S e e also S. B E N K O , Pagan R o m e and the Early Christians, Bloomington/Indianapolis
1986, 5 4 - 7 4 / C O O K , Interpretation, 6. R I N A L D I discusses Celsus' text and the charge of
incest against Christians in La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 123-4 / cf. P E L A G A U D , U n conservateur,
325.
3 2 5
C. Cels. 4.45 (262,4-17 M A R C . = S V F 3.743).
326
E p i c t e t u s 3.10.18 argues that outside of purpose (προαιρέσεως) there are no good or
bad actions. S e e Chadwick, Origen, 2 2 0 n.3. On the Stoics' views of good and evil s e e S V F
3.68-116. S e e also S V F 3.117-123 for their views o f indifferent actions. S V F 3.517 is a text
in which the correctness o f an action depends on choice. Sextus Empiricus (Pyrr. 3.22.177-
78) discusses the concept. H e registers his shock that the Stoics held homosexual intercourse
to be an άδιάφορον (Pyrr. 3.24.200; cp. COOK, Intepretation, 225).
3 2 7
Sext. Emp., A d v . math. 11.192 = S V F 3.745 and cp. Idem, Pyrr. 3.246 in the same
excerpt in S V F 3.745 (referring to Chrysippus). Diogenes Laertius 7 . 1 8 8 gives the same
view in Chrysippus' Republic (= S V F 3.744). Chrysippus mentions in another treatise that
such marriages are not to be chosen for their own sake, i.e. they are not a "good."
3 2 8
Philo, Quaest. in Gen. 4 . 5 6 (LCL). He allegorizes the text in D e post. Caini 175-77
and D e ebrietate 164-205.
3 2 9
Iren. 4.31.1-2 (SC 100, 786,1-794,63 R./H./D./M.).
3 3 0
Chadwick, Origen 221 n.l with reference to Origen, Horn, in Gen. 5.4-5 (170,1-180,65
D O U T R . ) . Cf. F E D O U , Christianisme, 132.
3 3 1
C. Cels. 4.45 (262,26-263,2 M A R C ) .
106 1. Celsus
LI4 Abraham and Sarah, Rebeccah, Jacob and Esau, Cain and Abel
O n e o f O r i g e n ' s t e x t s s u m m a r i z e s C e l s u s ' a p p r o a c h t o the patriarchal

narratives i n c l u d i n g Sarah's c o n c e p t i o n o f Isaac in her o l d a g e and the plots
o f brothers against e a c h other. Origen writes:
[He says,] Procreation beyond the age (έ'ξωρον π α ι δ ο π ο ί α ν ) is extremely absurd

( ά τ ο π ω τ ά τ η ν ) [and even if he did not give the names, it is clear that he is speaking about
Abraham and Sarah (Gen 2 1 : 1 - 7 ) . He also throws about] the schemes of brothers [either
speaking of Cain's plot against Abel (Gen 4 : 8 ) or in addition to that one, the plot of Esau
3 3 2
against Jacob (Gen 2 4 : 4 1 ) . ] The sorrow of a father [is perhaps that of Isaac over
Jacob's departure and perhaps that of Jacob over Joseph sold into Egypt. I think that
when he writes of] the trickeries (ενέδρας) of a mother [he means Rebeccah's arranging
that the blessing of Jacob would not come upon Esau but upon Jacob (Gen 2 7 : 5 - 1 7 ) . If
w e say:] G o d w a s extremely c l o s e to all these ( ό ί γ χ ι σ τ α δέ τ ο ύ τ ο ι ς · πάσι
σ υ μ π ο λ ι τ ε υ ό μ ε ν ο ν ) [what are w e doing that is] absurd [being persuaded that his divinity
is never separated from those w h o are dedicated to living well and healthily. He mocked
at the property acquired by Jacob from Laban not understanding the meaning of "the
unmarked were Laban's and the marked belong to Jacob (Gen 3 0 : 4 2 ) , " and he says,] God
333
gave his sons donkeys and sheep and c a m e l s .
Origen continues by quoting 1 Cor 10:11 and gives an allegorical

interpretation o f the marked a n i m a l s as m e a n i n g the n a t i o n s w h o b e l i e v e d in
334
Christ . W h a t s e e m s to c o n v i n c e C e l s u s m o s t o f the absurdity o f the
patriarchal narratives is the c l o s e relationship b e t w e e n G o d and all the e v e n t s
and p e o p l e c o n c e r n e d . T h e w o r d for this relationship is often translated "be a
335
f e l l o w c i t i z e n " and i m p l i e s an intimate a s s o c i a t i o n . G i v e n Celsus' exalted
c o n c e p t o f the s u p r e m e G o d , s u c h narratives as those o f C a i n and A b e l , Jacob
and E s a u , and Sarah and A b r a h a m are patently absurd s i n c e the supreme G o d
3 3 6
is not s o i n t i m a t e l y i n v o l v e d i n h u m a n l i f e . Later in h i s b o o k , O r i g e n
3 3 2
Celsus may also have in view the schemes of Jacob against Esau in Gen 2 5 : 2 9 - 3 4 and
27:18-29.
3 3 3
C. Cels. 4 . 4 3 ( 2 5 9 , 2 3 - 2 6 0 , 1 1 M A R C ) .
3 3 4
C. Cels. 4 . 4 3 ( 2 6 0 , 1 1 - 6 M A R C ) . With regard to the animals of Jacob and Laban, Philo
says that M o s e s is not concerned with the differences between animals, but with the way that
leads to goodness (De somniis 1 . 2 0 9 ) .
3 3 5
Origen uses the word (συμπολιτεύεται) for this kind of close relation in his Exhort, ad
martyrium 2 7 (I, 2 4 , 2 K O E T . ) . LPGL s.v. offers the sense "associate" in texts such as
Hippolytus, Ref. 5 . 1 9 . 2 2 ( 1 7 0 , 1 2 7 M A R C ) where Saul associates (συμττολιετυόμένος) with
the evil demon.
3 3 6
S e e C O O K , Interpretation 1 0 0 - 0 1 for a summary of Celsus' views of the highest God.
M. F E D O U , Christianisme, 2 3 5 - 4 1 discusses Celsus' concept of God as does A N D R E S E N ,
Logos, 9 3 - 9 6 .
criticizes C e l s u s ' e x p r e s s i o n ("the s c h e m e s o f brothers") s i n c e Cain plotted

against A b e l , and Jacob plotted against Esau and not A b e l against Cain and
3 3 7
Esau against J a c o b . C e l s u s ' recourse to the c o n c e p t o f absurdity w a s a
338
c o m m o n p l a c e in the pagan critique o f Christianity .
7.75 Wells, Marriages, Brides, and Slaves (Sarah and Hagar)
Celsus apparently groups various patriarchal narratives in a text w h i c h Origen

introduces as f o l l o w s : "[He is far from the intention o f the scriptures w h e n he
3 3 9
s a y s , ] G o d g a v e w e l l s to righteous p e o p l e ( G e n 1 6 : 1 4 , 2 1 : 1 9 , 2 6 : 2 2 ) . "
C e l s u s ' objection to the w e l l s is unclear, but he m a y h a v e k n o w n o f P h i l o ' s
3 4 0
allegorical e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e m and s i m p l y rejected i t . O r i g e n r e s p o n d s
3 4 1
that C e l s u s m i s s e d the deeper m e a n i n g o f the w e l l s . C h a d w i c k m e n t i o n s
Eustathius o f A n t i o c h w h o criticized Origen for allegorizing the w e l l s s i n c e
342
they can be s e e n "to this d a y . " Origen is, h o w e v e r , aware o f w e l l s s u c h as
that o f A s c a l o n that are still to b e s e e n , and b e l i e v e s they m a y b e the w e l l s
3 4 3
referred to b y G e n e s i s . In his Homilies on Genesis and other texts, Origen
did g i v e allegorical explanations o f the w e l l s such as: the w e l l s refer to souls
studying the scriptures and understanding them in their spiritual or allegorical
344
s e n s e . Origen c o n t i n u e s his summary o f C e l s u s ' critique: "Such are the
texts concerning] w e l l s [and those concerning] marriages [and various] sexual
345
unions o f the righteous." C e l s u s m a y b e thinking o f A b r a h a m ' s relations
3 3 7
C. Cels. 5.59 (371,9 [a repetition of Celsus' phrase]; 371,9-11 [Origen's response]
M A R C ) . In this text Celsus is commenting on the fact that Christians accept these Jewish
stories. See also RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 72.
3 3 8
Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 129 with reference to Celsus' views that Christian allegories
of OT texts are more absurd than the myths themselves (C. Cels. 4.51 [268,6-10 M A R C ] ) .
Cf. § 1.1.3. Porphyry takes a similar view of Christian allegory of OT texts (§ 2.2.2 =
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 39 = Eus., H.E. 6.19.4-8). C. Cels. 2.20 (97,14-6 M A R C . ) refers to
the absurdity of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas (see C O O K , Interpretation, 47). See also
§ 1.2.3.
3 3 9
C. Cels. 4.44 (260,17-8 M A R C ) .
^ P h i l i o , D e somniis 1.39. STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 19. It seems unlikely
that Celsus knew Philo that well.
3 4 1
C. Cels. 4.44 (260,18-26 M A R C ) .
3 4 2
Chadwick, Origen, 219 n.8 with reference to Eustathius, D e Engastrim. 21 (Origenes
Eustathius von Antiochien und Gregor von Nyssa tiber die Hexe von Endor, Kleine Texte 83,
48,22-6 K L O S T E R M A N N ) .
3 4 3
C. Cels. 4.44 (261,1-5 M A R C ) .
3 4 4
See B O R R E T 2.297 n.2. Cp. Horn, in Gen. 7.5, 10.2, 11.3, 12.5, 13.1-4 (206,1-207,22;
258,1-260,19; 286,18-290,82; 306,59-308,82; 310,1-332,92 D O U T R . )
3 4 5
C. Cels. 4.44 (260,27-8 M A R C ) .
108 1. Celsus
with Hagar and Sarah in G e n 16:1-6 and 2 1 : 1 - 7 g i v e n O r i g e n ' s c o m m e n t s o n

3 4 6
the n e x t brief reference to brides and f e m a l e s l a v e s . F o r O r i g e n t h e s e
accounts are like those about the w e l l s — it is easier to interpret t h e m in the
347
proper c o m m e n t a r y . C e l s u s (according to O r i g e n ' s interpretation) m a d e
s o m e kind o f reference to Sarah and Hagar. Origen briefly summarizes: [ W e
d o not t e a c h that the] brides and f e m a l e s l a v e s [are t o b e interpreted
figuratively ( ά ν ά γ ε σ θ α ι επί τ ρ ο π ο λ ο γ ί α ν ) , but w e h a v e r e c e i v e d it from
3 4 8
w i s e p e o p l e before u s . " H e continues, "And w h o e v e r wants to take up the
letter to the Galatians w i l l understand h o w the a c c o u n t s o f ] the marriages
[and] the sexual unions with the slave w o m e n [are to b e a l l e g o r i z e d ] . " T h e
w i s e p e o p l e before Origen include Paul, and Origen quotes Paul's allegory o f
3 4 9
the account o f Sarah and Hagar in Galatians 4 : 2 1 - 2 4 , 2 6 . C e l s u s ' objection
to these stories is probably that G o d d o e s not associate s o c l o s e l y with human
b e i n g s ( s e e § 1.14). H e o c c a s i o n a l l y criticizes the allegorical interpretation
o f O T t e x t s , but O r i g e n d o e s not m e n t i o n that o b j e c t i o n in this c o n t e x t
(§ 1.1.2-3).
1.16 The Genealogy of the Progenitors
Celsus had an objection to the g e n e a l o g y o f the patriarchs in Genesis. Origen

writes:
[After these matters, Celsus runs over things from the first book of Moses, which is
350
inscribed "Genesis" and says,] They s h a m e l e s s l y attempted to establish their
genealogical ties with the first seed of people who were magicians and wanderers
( γ ο ή τ ω ν και π λ ά ν ω ν ) , by calling as witness dim and ambiguous words, hidden in
darkness, and by explaining them to unlearned and senseless people; and this is the case
even though such a claim has never been argued (αμφισβητηθεί/το^) in the lengthy period
351
that p r e c e d e d .
Origen i n c l u d e d another text that clarifies the final phrase o f C e l s u s in a

f o l l o w i n g section:
3 4 6
Philo, D e congressu 180 interprets the women to be minds. S T E I N , Alttestamentliche
Bibelkritik 19 thinks Celsus could have been aware of that interpretation and rejected it.
3 4 7
C. Cels. 4.44 (260,28-261,1 M A R C ) .
3 4 8
C. Cels. 4.44 (261,6-7 M A R C ) .
3 4 9
C. Cels. 4.44 (261,7-19 M A R C ) .
3 5 0
Chadwick, Origen, 209 n.l conjectures ά ν α ι σ χ ύ ν τ ω ς (shamelessly) for ώς (as) based
on the appearance of similar words in the identical context of the phrase found in C. Cels.
4.34, 35 (249,34; 249,18 M A R C ) . M A R C O V I C H (247,17) includes the word in brackets. Cp.
C. Cels. 4.33 ( I , 303 app. K O E T . ) .
3 5 1
C. Cels. 4.33 (247,16-22 M A R C ) . Cf. F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 199, 529 n.56 /
RlNALDi, I cristiani, 5 2 / PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 323.
[He notes quickly that in these matters concerning names from which the Jews trace their
genealogy] that there has never been a claim made in the lengthy period that preceded
concerning such names, but now Jews make claims about these to certain other people
3 5 2
[whom he does not n a m e ] .
Origen responds that C e l s u s ' o w n c l a i m is rather obscure. O r i g e n ' s reference

to those w h o use the words "God o f Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" in m a g i c has
353
b e e n m e n t i o n e d (§ 1 . 1 1 ) . T h e magical use o f the patriarchs' n a m e s c o u l d
b e the reason for C e l s u s ' u s e o f the w o r d s "magicians and wanderers" (or
"deceivers"). H e a l s o v i e w e d M o s e s as a m a g i c i a n ( s e e § 1.20). O r i g e n ' s
arguments o n the p o w e r o f the n a m e s in m a g i c w o u l d o n l y b e s u c c e s s f u l for
pagan m a g i c i a n s and perhaps for C e l s u s h i m s e l f if h e b e l i e v e d in the actual
354
effectiveness o f the patriarchs' n a m e s in m a g i c f o r m u l a s . In his attack o n
3 5 5
J e s u s ' m i r a c l e s C e l s u s d o e s appear to b e l i e v e in the p o w e r o f m a g i c .
Origen a l s o argues that the progenitors' H e b r e w n a m e s link t h e m to the
356
H e b r e w s . Finally, Origen argues that Celsus cannot m a k e a counter-claim
3 5 7
to the g e n e a l o g y o f G e n e s i s . C e l s u s did m a k e such a counter-claim to the
358
g e n e a l o g y o f Jesus b y s i m p l y d e n y i n g its t r u t h . H i s v i e w o f the stupid
p e o p l e w h o listen to the J e w i s h c l a i m s about their g e n e a l o g i e s parallels his
359
v i e w o f the Christians' deception o f the uneducated and s e n s e l e s s . Origen
s e e m s to a s s u m e that others h a v e established the antiquity o f the ancestors as
h e d o e s in the c a s e o f M o s e s and his temporal r e l a t i o n s h i p to H o m e r
360
(§ 1 . 5 ) .
7 . 7 7 Esau's Hatred
C e l s u s objected to the relationships o f Israel's ancestors — in particular that

o f Esau and Jacob in G e n 2 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 . H i s d i s c u s s i o n o f the plots o f brothers
against e a c h other has b e e n treated a b o v e (§ 1.14). O r i g e n d e s c r i b e s his
objection: "[Celsus casts about the] enmity [I think o f Esau, a m a n w h o m the
3 5 2
C. Cels. 4.35 (250,3-6 M A R C ) .
3 5 3
C. Cels. 4.33 (247,22-248,4 M A R C ) .
3 5 4
C. Cels. 4.34 (248,9-26 M A R C ) .
3 5 5
3 5 6
C. Cels. 4.34 (249,4-9 M A R C ) .
3 5 7
C. Cels. 4.35 (249,17-26; 250,6-13 M A R C ) .
3 5 8
3 5 9
See COOK, Interpretation, 82-88. Celsus uses the same word ("senseless" ανόητους)
in C. Cels. 3.18 (165,11 M A R C ) .
3 6 0
GAGER, M o s e s , 93 n.30 believes that Celsus (in 4.33) is trying to invalidate the
argument that the patriarchs lived before the Trojan war (with reference to Jos., Antiq. 1.69-
218).
110 1. Celsus
361
scripture r e c o g n i z e s to b e bad, towards J a c o b ] . " Gen 27:45 mentions
E s a u ' s anger ( ό ρ γ ή ν ) . T h e S t o i c s l o o k e d d o w n o n hatred ( μ ΐ σ ο ^ ) and anger
( ο ρ γ ή ) as irrational desire. Hatred for e x a m p l e , is a desire that it will g o evil
3 6 2
w i t h s o m e o n e . A rhetorician s u c h as Quintilian d i d not v i e w hatred
(odium) as an a c c e p t a b l e part o f the orator's ethos (character). Hatred,
h o w e v e r , is a part o f the pathos or e m o t i o n that an orator m i g h t try to create
363
in an audience with regard to a person or a person's a c t i o n s .
1.18 The Rape of Dinah and Simeon and Levi's Revenge
C e l s u s objected to the v e n g e a n c e that S i m e o n and L e v i , t w o o f Jacob's s o n s ,

took w h e n their sister D i n a h w a s raped ( G e n 3 4 : 2 , 2 5 - 3 1 ) : " [ A n d without
clearly setting forth the account o f S i m e o n and L e v i ] w h o set out b e c a u s e o f
the rape o f their sister [after s h e w a s v i o l a t e d b y the s o n o f the k i n g o f
3 6 4
S h e c h e m — h e brings charges against both o f t h e m . ] " S i m e o n and L e v i ' s
act o f u n m e a s u r e d v e n g e a n c e m u s t h a v e i n c e n s e d C e l s u s , w h o probably
w o n d e r e d w h y they n e e d e d to kill all the m a l e s in the t o w n o f S h e c h e m . In a
h o m i l y , Origen m a k e s an offhand reference to the violation o f Dinah, but d o e s
365
not c o m m e n t o n the act o f r e v e n g e .
1.19 Joseph, His Brothers, and Jacob
Celsus found points for criticism in the narrative o f Joseph and his brothers:
[He speaks of] brothers selling [meaning the sons of Jacob and] a brother sold [meaning
Joseph, and] a father w h o was beguiled [meaning Jacob, since he did not have any
suspicion concerning the brothers who showed him "the many-colored coat" of Joseph,
but believed them and "mourned" over Joseph, who was a slave in Egypt, as if he were
366
dead] (Gen 3 7 : 2 6 - 3 6 ) .
O r i g e n c o m p l a i n s that C e l s u s c r i t i c i z e s the narrative w h e n h e finds

b l a m e w o r t h y characteristics ( κ α τ η γ ο ρ ί α ν ιιεριέχειν ή ι σ τ ο ρ ί α ) , but d o e s
3 6 1
C. Cels. 4.46 (263,3-4 M A R C ) .
3 6 2
S V F 3.396 = Diog. Laert. 7.113.
3 6 3
Quintilian 6.2.14; 6.2.10-21. Cp. LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 257.2a, 257.3 and Cook,
3 6 4
C. Cels. 4.46 (263,4-6 M A R C ) . MARCOVICH does not identify any words in this text
as those of Celsus in contrast with CHADWICK, Origen, 2 2 1 . Clearly Celsus found the text in
Genesis to be objectionable.
3 6 5
Origen, Horn, in Gen. 15.4 (360,20-22 DOUTR.). The Jewish poet Theodotus also
describes the scene in F. 8 (II, 124,1-126,21 HOLLADAY = Eus., P.E. 9.22.10-1).
3 6 6
C. Cels. 4.46 (263,7-11 M A R C ) .
not c o m m e n t on J o s e p h ' s noteworthy self-control when Potiphar's wife

367
t e m p t e d h i m to a d u l t e r y . C e l s u s ' p r o b l e m s w i t h t h e s e t e x t s are c l e a r l y
moral. O n e o f A r i s t o t l e ' s e l e m e n t s o f literary c r i t i c i s m w a s the q u e s t i o n o f
3 6 8
the moral g o o d n e s s or e v i l o f the actions o f actors in a s t o r y . T h e brothers'
actions are probably e v i l in C e l s u s ' sight, and h e d o e s not understand w h y the
biblical narrative w o u l d i n c l u d e s u c h objectionable stories.
C e l s u s c o n t i n u e s h i s attack o n the J o s e p h narratives:
[After these things, Celsus, for form's sake, mentions with extreme unclarity the] dreams
[of the chief cup-bearer and the chief baker of Pharaoh] and their interpretation [because
of which Joseph w a s taken out o f prison to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the second
throne of Egypt (Gen 40-41). What absurdity (άτοπον), therefore, did the account o f this
369
narrative have in its o w n t e r m s , so that Celsus made of it part of his accusation — he
w h o wrote the True Discourse and w h o does not set forth doctrines, but accuses
Christians and Jews?] And the one w h o was sold was kind to the brothers w h o sold him
when they were famished and were sent with the asses to trade; [but the things he did
Celsus did not include. He mentions] the recognition (άναγνωρισμόν), [but I do not know
what he meant to say and what he wanted to show to b e ] absurd ( ά τ ο π ο ν ) in the
3 7 0
recognition (Gen 42:1-45:5). [For not even, as the expression goes, M o m u s himself
would be able to reasonably accuse these accounts that without any figurative explanation
are too attractive ( ά γ ω γ ό ν ) . He mentions also Joseph] w h o was sold as a slave and set
free and w h o came with a grand procession ( π ο μ π ή ς ) to the tomb o f his father (Gen 50:4-
14); [and he thinks that the account deserves criticism (κατηγορίαν) which says:] B y him
[clearly Joseph] the glorious and divine (λαμπρόν και θ ε σ π ε σ ι ο ν ) race o f the Jews,
spread out in a multitude in Egypt, was ordered to live somewhere else and to shepherd
3 7 1
their flock in inglorious places (Gen 4 7 : l - 5 ) .
O r i g e n ' s r e s p o n s e i s that C e l s u s h a s n o t s h o w n a n y t h i n g to b e w o r t h y o f
372
criticism in the n a r r a t i v e s . T h e c o n c e p t o f absurdity (§ 1.2.3, 1.14) w a s o n e
o f C e l s u s ' t o o l s o f literary and p h i l o s o p h i c a l criticism as has b e e n m e n t i o n e d
3 7 3
above. In other c o n t e x t s , C e l s u s c o u l d argue that d r e a m s w e r e d e c e i t f u l .
H e m a y h a v e l o o k e d u p o n the prisoners' dreams in the s a m e light and f o u n d
the s t o r y t o b e i n h e r e n t l y absurd. Joseph became associated with the
3 7 4
interpretation o f d r e a m s a c c o r d i n g t o P o m p e i u s T r o g u s . Taken by his
3 6 7
C. Cels. 4.46 (263,12-7 M A R C ) .
3 6 8
Aristot., Poet. 25.15 and cp. COOK, Interpretation 10-11.
3 6 9
That is, "in its literal sense."
3 7 0
In Plato, Resp. 487a, Momus is the chief o f critics. He is the personification o f fault
finding.
3 7 1
C. Cels. 4.47 (263,22-264,12 M A R C ) .
3 7 2
C. Cels. 4.47 (264,17-20 M A R C ) .
3 7 3
C. Cels. 2 . 5 5 , 6 0 ( 1 2 7 , 7 - 1 2 8 , 2 ; 131,24-6 M A R C ) . These texts refer to visions or
"dreams" of the risen Jesus. Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 2 1 , 5 5 .
3 7 4
STERN I, § 137 = Iustinus, Historiae Philippicae, Libri X X X V I Epitoma, 2.7-8. S e e
also § 0.10 and 2.2.7 for the text of Pompeius.
112 1. Celsus
brothers to E g y p t , according to P o m p e i u s , Joseph learned m a g i c and b e c a m e

w i s e in the area o f p r o d i g i e s and dream interpretation. J o s e p h w a s s o
successful in his predictions concerning the famine that P o m p e i u s concludes:
"Such w e r e the demonstrations o f his k n o w l e d g e that they appeared to b e
oracular r e s p o n s e s g i v e n not by a person but by a g o d " (tantaque experimenta
315
eius fuerunt, ut non ab homine, sed a deo responsa dari viderentur) .
Celsus s a w n o such virtue in Joseph and found the entire story ridiculous.
T h o u g h h e apparently did not "unpack" his argument, C e l s u s m a y h a v e
thought that it w a s ridiculous that the brothers did not r e c o g n i z e J o s e p h
immediately. I m p o s s i b l e or irrational events were o n e o f the topics o f literary
376
criticism a c c o r d i n g to A r i s t o t l e . In a tragedy, the author should s e e k to
377
portray the " p r o b a b l e " . A r i s t o t l e ' s term for the d i s c o v e r y or recognition
( α ν α γ ν ώ ρ ι σ η ) that is an e l e m e n t o f tragedy is quite similar to that u s e d b y
378
Celsus in his brief reference to this part of the Joseph n a r r a t i v e .
120 Moses and Ancient Wisdom
Celsus has a l o w v i e w o f M o s e s : " M o s e s , therefore, p o s s e s s e d a divine n a m e

( ό ν ο μ α δ α ι μ ό ν ι ο ν ) b e c a u s e h e heard o f this doctrine ( λ ό γ ο υ ) w h i c h exists
379
a m o n g w i s e nations and m e n o f high r e p u t a t i o n . " C e l s u s , in another text,
includes the Egyptians, A s s y r i a n s , Indians, Persians, Odrysians,
Samothracians, and Eleusinians a m o n g the w i s e p e o p l e w h o h e l d the ancient
3 8 0
doctrine ( α ρ χ α ί ο ς λ ό γ ο ς ) . O r i g e n s e e m s to paraphrase a p o s i t i o n o f
3 7 5
STERN I, § 137 = Iustinus, Hist. Phil. 36.2.10. STERN refers to a tradition in which
Joseph was later worshiped under the name Sarapis (II, 340) in Tert., A d nat. 2.8.10
(CChr.SL 1, 5 3 , 2 5 - 5 4 , 1 BORLEFFS), Firmicus Maternus, D e errore 13.1.2 (CUFr 105
TURCAN) and Suda, s.v. Sarapis ( § 1 1 7 ADLER).
3 7 6
Aristot., Poet. 25.32 and cp. COOK, Interpretation 10.
3 7 7
Aristot., Poet. 15.10
3 7 8
Aristot., Poet. 11.4-8.
3 7 9
C. Cels. 1.21 (22,14-6 M A R C ) . ANDRESEN, Logos 11-2 adds the following to the
fragment from 1.21 (22,19-21 M A R C ) : "[But if, as you say], he agreed with wise and true
teachings (δόγμασι σοφοί s και άληθεσι) and taught his o w n people by means of them,
[what did he do worthy of accusation?]" MARCOVICH identifies the text as Celsus' also. The
text may only be a paraphrase of the earlier lines. Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 2 4 1 , 286 /
PICHLER, Streit, 121-3 / PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 284.
3 8 0
C. Cels. 1.14 (18,2-7 M A R C ) . S. SWAIM notes that Diogenes Laertius 1.1-11 also
leaves the Jews out of his lists of peoples who were "competitors to the Greeks." See Idem,
Defending Hellenism. Philostratus, In Honour of Apollonius, in: Apologetics in the Roman
Empire, ed. EDWARDS/GOODMAN/PRICE, (157-96) 183. Diog. Laert. 1.8 does mention the
Jews as possible descendants of the Magi. See Clearchus in § 0.3. H. CHADWICK, Early
Christian Thought, 134 n.66 refers to a similar passage in Lucian where philosophy first
C e l s u s w i t h regard t o the b i a s o f M o s e s and the prophets i n the c a s e o f their

o w n people:
If, obligingly for the sake o f their o w n doctrine (κεχαρισμενως ... τ φ εαυτών λόγψ),
M o s e s and the prophets wrote much about matters pertaining to their o w n people, w h y
381
can w e not say something similar concerning the historians of other n a t i o n s ?
Apparently, C e l s u s felt that the historians o f other n a t i o n s w e r e u n b i a s e d . In

another c o n t e x t h e a l s o i n c l u d e s the H y p e r b o r e a n s , H o m e r ' s Galactophagi
("milk d r i n k e r s " II. 1 3 . 6 ) , t h e D r u i d s o f G a u l , a n d t h e G e t a e s i n c e t h e y
b e l i e v e d o c t r i n e s a k i n t o t h o s e o f the J e w s ( π ε ρ ι των συγγενών τοις
3 8 2
ιουδαϊκοί^ λόγοις διαλαμβάνοντας) . Celsus' class of wise men
c o m p r i s e s L i n u s , M u s a e u s , O r p h e u s , P h e r e c y d e s , Zoroaster the P e r s i a n , and
383
P y t h a g o r a s w h o s e o p i n i o n s are written and still in c i r c u l a t i o n . He leaves
M o s e s and the H e b r e w s out o f his lists although h e m a k e s a grudging
c o n c e s s i o n i n the c a s e o f the G a l a c t o p h a g i , D r u i d s and G e t a e . Numenius'
f a m o u s q u e s t i o n , " W h a t i s P l a t o but M o s e s s p e a k i n g A t t i c G r e e k ? , " i s the
3 8 4
o p p o s i t e o f C e l s u s ' n e g a t i v i t y w i t h regard t o M o s e s ' w i s d o m . Gager
o b s e r v e s that C e l s u s ' refusal to c l a s s M o s e s in the group o f the w i s e stands in
contrast to the p o s i t i o n o f Hecataeus o f Abdera, Strabo, and Diodorus
3 8 5
Siculus . C e l s u s m a y a l s o b e reacting t o the J e w i s h and Christian v i e w that
3 8 6
the G r e e k s d e r i v e d m a n y o f their t e a c h i n g s from M o s e s .
comes to the Brahmans, then o n to the Indians (Oxydracae), the Ethiopians, the Chaldeans
and Magi, the Scythians, the Thracians, and then on to Greece where it is soon corrupted by
the Sophists (Fugivi 6-10). The Jews do not appear in Lucian's list.
3 8 1
C. Cels. 1.14 (17,23-5 M A R C ) . BORRET 1.114 n.2 does not include this text as a
verbal quotation o f Celsus, nor does MARCOVICH (17,23-5). It is, if anything, a paraphrase.
CHADWICK, Origen, 16 b e l i e v e s it expresses C e l s u s ' thought as d o e s B A D E R 4 4 . Cf.
PELAGAUD, U n conservateur, 283.
3 8 2
C. Cels. 1.16 (18,22-4; 19,6-9 M A R C ) . Numenius the Pythagorean included as Plato's
predecessors the Brahmans, Jews, Magi, and Egyptians (F. 1 [42 DES PLACES]). Origen
refers to the text in C. Cels. 1.15 (I, 67,21-7 KOET.). See FEDOU, Christianisme, 4 9 9 - 5 0 3 on
Origen's response to Celsus' argument concerning ancient tradition.
3 8 3
C. Cels. 1.16 (19,18-21 M A R C ) .
3 8 4
Numenius F. 8 (51 DES PLACES) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 18 = STERN Π,
§ 3 6 3 a - e . Cf. § 0 . 1 6 .
3 8 5
GAGER, M o s e s , 2 6 - 4 7 , 9 6 . S e e Hecataeus apud Diod. Sic. 40.3.3 = STERN I, § 11;
Strabo 16.2.39 = STERN I, § 115 (who includes Amphiaraus, Trophonius, Orpheus, Musaeaus,
Zamolxis, groups such as the Magi, and concludes that Moses was an individual like those);
and Diodorus 1.94.1-2 = STERN I, § 58. Cf. § 0 . 1 , 7 , 9 .
3 8 6
GAGER, M o s e s , 2 6 with reference to Josephus, C. A p . 2.257, Tatian, Oratio 40.1-3
( 7 2 , 1 - 1 4 M A R C ) , and Justin, Apol. 1.44.8-10, 1.59.1-60.11 ( 9 4 , 1 9 - 9 5 , 2 6 ; 115,1-117,30
M A R C ) . For many other ancient Christian texts that make the same claim s e e MARCOVICH'S
apparatus on 9 4 . Cp. also COOK, Interpretation, 4 - 5 , 7. Aristobulus, e.g., makes similar
claims for Plato and Pythagoras in F. 3 , Eus. P.E. 13.12.1 (III, 1 5 2 , 1 7 - 2 2 ; 154,39-43
HOLLADAY). S e e also Aristobulus F. 4 , Eus. P.E. 13.12.4 (III, 162,7-17 HOLLADAY) where
114 1. Celsus
A t e v e r y p o i n t O r i g e n o b j e c t s that C e l s u s has n o t i n c l u d e d M o s e s and the

H e b r e w s in his lists. H e a p p e a l s , for e x a m p l e , t o J o s e p h u s ' C. Apionem
{Against Apion) and Tatian and t o an argument f r o m c o n s e q u e n c e : A whole
3 8 7
nation that i s spread throughout the w o r l d h a s the l a w s o f M o s e s . In other
words, M o s e s ' l a w s have had a lasting influence o n humanity. Origen
d e v e l o p s the argument further b y c h a l l e n g i n g C e l s u s :
... arrange the poems o f Linus, Musaeus, and the writings o f Pherecydes against the laws
of M o s e s — comparing histories with histories, and ethical statements with laws and
commandments — and see which can immediately convert ( έ π ι σ τ ρ έ ψ α ι ) the hearers and
388
which o f them hurt the h e a r e r s .
Julian u s e d a s i m i l a r a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t Christian w r i t i n g s m u c h later, and

3 8 9
O r i g e n m a k e s frequent u s e o f it against C e l s u s ' attack o n the N T .
What d o e s C e l s u s mean by a "divine name"? S i n c e h e u s e s " d i v i n e " or
" d e m o n i c " t o refer to a d i v i n e quality, h e probably refers t o M o s e s ' abilities
3 9 0
in m a g i c o f w h i c h h e w a s c o n v i n c e d . O r i g e n , w i t h reference to the charges
about M o s e s ' d i v i n e n a m e (in C . C e l s . 1.21 q u o t e d a b o v e ) , lists intellectual
Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato follow Moses. Philo sees a dependent relationship between
Heraclitus and M o s e s in Quaest. in Gen. 3.5, 4.152. Clement o f Alexandria calls the Greeks
thieves o f the barbarian philosophy and gives many examples o f Greek plagiarism from
Hebrew texts in Strom. 2.1.1.1, 2.5.20.1-24.5 ( 1 1 3 , 3-5; 123,7-126,7 S T . / F R . ) . Cp. § 1.6
above.
3 8 7
C. Cels. 1.16 ( 1 8 , 2 4 - 1 9 , 3 . 1 5 - 6 M A R C ) . On the argument from consequence s e e
COOK, Interpretation, 38-9, 316-18 and § 1.33 below.
3 8 8
C. Cels. 1.18 (20,12-5 M A R C ) .
3 8 9
Julian, C. Gal. 2 2 9 d - 2 3 0 a ( 1 5 0 , 2 2 - 2 9 M A S . = III, 3 8 4 - 8 7 , W R . ) . Cp. C O O K ,
Interpretation, 316-18. On Origen's use of the argument against Celsus s e e , for example, C.
Cels. 1.26 (28,25-30 M A R C ) and COOK, Interpretation, 4 4 .
3 9 0
C. Cels. 1.26. 5.41 (27,21-2; 356,13-6 MARC). Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 2 8 6 /
PlCHLER, Streit, 150. T w o of Celsus' uses o f the adjective "divine" (or "demonic") follow.
In 6.39 ( 4 1 6 , 3 MARC.) "divine shapes" ( δ α ι μ ό ν ι ο υ ς σ χ η μ α τ ι σ μ ο ύ ς ) is a reference to the
shapes that magicians can create. In 8.63 (579,25 MARC.) the emperor has "divine power" to
rule ( δ α ι μ ό ν ι α ς ισχύος). ΡέΡΙΝ, L e challenge, 115, however, refers to C. Cels. 4 . 3 6
(250,20-1 M A R C . ) where Origen mentions other "divine m e n " such as Hesiod w h o were
inspired by God. H e consequently refers to M o s e s ' identity as a "divine man" and not as a
magician. Origen d o e s use another word there for "inspired m e n " (άνδράσιν ένθέοις).
CHADWICK, Origen, 21 n.2 believes the term refers to M o s e s ' divine power and mentions
texts that refer to his magical power such as Pliny, Nat. Hist. 30.11 (= STERN I, § 2 2 1 ) and
Apuleius, Apol. 9 0 (= STERN II, § 361). Philo may have been aware of the tradition since he
mentions people in the wilderness w h o called M o s e s a magician or impostor (γόητα
Apologia 6.2, 3). On this text cf. ROKEAH, Jews, 173. Apollonius Molon, Lysimachus, and
others use the same word to describe Moses (along with "deceiver" ( α π α τ ε ώ ν α ) in Jos., C.
Ap. 2.145 (= STERN I, § 49). Cp. a similar accusation against M o s e s in Jos., Antiq. 2.284
where Pharaoh asserts that Moses is using deeds of wonder and magic ( τ ε ρ α τ ο υ ρ γ ί α ι ς και
μ α γ ε ί α ι ς ) against him. On this charge of Celsus against Moses s e e also GAGER, Moses 9 5 ,
and 140-52 on the traditions in the magical papyri that appeal to Moses.
p r o b l e m s in G r e e k tradition (in his v i e w ) and d o e s not deal w i t h the i s s u e o f

magic. H e m e n t i o n s the p r o b l e m s i n E p i c u r e a n a n d A r i s t o t e l i a n t h o u g h t
c o n c e r n i n g p r o v i d e n c e a n d a l s o p o i n t s to the S t o i c v i e w o f G o d ' s material
391
nature . Borret n o t e s that i n O r i g e n ' s e y e s , the doctrine o f the H e b r e w s i s
superior to that o f all three s c h o o l s o f Greek thought. Aristotle's providence,
for e x a m p l e , w a s u n d e r s t o o d t o b e e x t e n d e d f r o m the h e a v e n s t o the m o o n
3 9 2
and o n l y o n a m i n i m a l l e v e l to h u m a n s . A t this point, O r i g e n ' s c o n c e r n is
not to deal w i t h the c h a r g e o f m a g i c , but to s h o w that M o s e s ' grasp o f ancient
tradition w a s in n o w a y i n f e r i o r t o that o f v a r i o u s ancient schools of
philosophy. T h e e n t i r e attack o n M o s e s and h i s tradition i s , a c c o r d i n g t o
O r i g e n , an attack o n the o r i g i n or f o u n d a t i o n ( α ρ χ ή ς ) o f Christianity w h i c h
3 9 3
itself d e p e n d s o n J u d a i s m .
121 The Jews' Worship of Angels, and Moses as their Exegete of Magic
C e l s u s ' characterization o f M o s e s ' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s is n o t laudatory. In his

v i e w the J e w s learned m a g i c through the g u i d a n c e o f M o s e s :
[Let us see in what w a y Celsus, w h o announces ( έ π α γ γ έ λ λ ο μ έ ν ο ς ) that he knows all,

accuses the Jews w h e n h e says that] they worship angels and are devoted to magic
394
(γοητεία) o f which M o s e s was their interpreter ( ε ξ η γ η τ ή ς · ) . [The one w h o announces
that he knows the things o f the Christians and Jews, let him say where he found in the
writings o f M o s e s that the legislator commanded the worship o f angels. A n d h o w is
magic possible among those w h o received the law o f M o s e s , w h o read "you shall not
attach yourselves to charmers (έπαοι,δοΐς) and be defiled by them" (Lev 19:31). H e then
3 9 1
C. Cels. 1.21 (22,21-23,4 M A R C ) . Cf. also BERGJAN, Celsus, 179-204. In particular
see Nemesius, Nat. horn. 4 3 , (BiTeu, 125,20-1,127,12-16 MORANI).
3 9 2
BORRET 1.128-29 n.2. This summary can be found in Ps. Plut., D e placitis 2.3 =
330,5-12 DlELS, Doxogr. gr. Cp. also C. Cels. 3.75 (211,17-31 M A R C ) . S V F 2.1028-48
presents the Stoic belief in God as corporeal (often in Christian sources). S V F 2.1049-56 has
Stoic sources in w h i c h G o d is mutable. For God as a fiery spirit ( π ν ε ύ μ α ν ο ε ρ ό ν και
πυρώδες) see Aetius, Plac. 1.6.1 ( S V F 2.1009 = 292,23-4 DlELS, Doxogr. gr.). On Epicurus'
providence see Diog. Laert. 10.124 in § 1.2.18 above. Cp. C o o k , Interpretation 19 n.6.
3 9 3
C. Cels. 1.16 (19,3-6 M A R C ) .
394 Tfjjg w o r ( j means something like "interpreter" in Celsus' attack. Cf. the use in 8.48
( 5 6 3 , 1 - 2 M A R C . ) "the interpreters, priests, and initiators o f those sacred things" (οί των
ιερών εκείνων έ ξ η γ η τ α ΐ τελεσταί τ ε και μυσταγωγοί). PELAGAUD, U n conservateur,
285, n.16 notes that the word could refer to an interpreter of oracles (see LSJ s.v. ε ξ η γ η τ ή ς ,
Πυθόχρηστος). For other texts supporting the charge that Moses w a s a magician s e e § 1.20.
GAGER, M o s e s , 9 5 points out that Origen asked some Jews about the charges made by
Egyptians w h o claim that M o s e s did his miracles by magic in C. Cels. 1.45 (45,7-17 M A R C ) .
Cp. also the same charge made by Egyptians in C. Cels. 3.5 (156,20-3 MARC).
116 1. Celsus
announces that he will] teach how the Jews erred being led astray by lack of learning
395
(άμαθία<?).
Origen, in a later text, notes that C e l s u s often a c c u s e s J e w s and Christians of

3 9 6
lack o f learning and e d u c a t i o n ( ά μ α θ ί α ν ε γ κ α λ ώ ν καΐ ά π ο α δ ε υ σ ί α ν ) .
397
Origen a l s o d e n i e s that what C e l s u s thinks are errors are really errors at a l l .
C e l s u s ' general v i e w o f Christians w a s that they w e r e s i m p l e t o n s , and he took
the s a m e v i e w o f J e w s with the apparent e x c e p t i o n o f those w h o w e r e o p e n to
allegorical interpretations o f their crude w r i t i n g s ( s e e § 1.1.2). O r i g e n is
u n w i l l i n g to deal w i t h the possibility that s o m e J e w s practiced angel w o r s h i p
3 9 8
and m a g i c . C e l s u s ' c h a r g e s o f J e w i s h a n g e l w o r s h i p are treated m o r e
e x t e n s i v e l y in a text b e l o w (§ 1.29.2).
7.22 Moses and God
Celsus d o e s not admire Jewish m o n o t h e i s m :

[After these, Celsus says that] following their leader M o s e s , the herders of goats and
sheep were beguiled by rustic deceits (άγροίκοις· άπάταις ψ υ χ α γ ω γ η θ ε ί τ ε ^ ) into
believing that God is one. [Let him accordingly show if] the herders of goats and sheep
3 9 9
irrationally ( α λ ό γ ω ν ) [as he thinks] turned away from worshiping the gods [how he is
able to establish the multitude o f the g o d s of the Greeks or o f the other barbarian
4 0 0
peoples].
O r i g e n c o n t i n u e s b y c h a l l e n g i n g C e l s u s to p r o v e the e x i s t e n c e o f various
Greek g o d s s u c h as M n e m o s u n e and T h e m i s . H e appeals to a w e l l k n o w n
c o m m o n p l a c e in G r e c o - R o m a n thought: inspection o f the v i s i b l e world leads
401
to the c o n c l u s i o n that it has a c r e a t o r . Celsus w a s very c o n c e r n e d about the
3 9 5
C. Cels. 1.26 (27,20-8 M A R C ) .
3 9 6
C. Cels. 4.36 (251,2 M A R C ) . Celsus accused the Christians of all kinds of stupidity.
Cf. COOK, Interpretation 84-9.
3 9 7
C. Cels. 1.26 (27,28-28,2 M A R C ) .
3 9 8
For some of the evidence for Jewish magic see NAVEH/SHAKED, Amulets. Cf. § 0.18.
3 9 9
ANDRESEN, Logos 210 translates this "in their unhistorical thought." This improbable
translation is unjustified by Greek use. It is not necessary to completely identify logos
(reason, word) and nomos (law, tradition) in Celsus' thought. Cp. BORRET 5.167 and COOK,
Interpretation 19-20, 82-8. Celsus believed Christianity (and Judaism in the text in question)
was simply irrational. Cp. (for the his view of Christians) C. Cels. 1.9 (12,9-21 M A R C ) .
4 0 0
C. Cels. 1.23 (23,23-8 M A R C ) . Cp. BORRET, L'Ecriture, 183. For a discussion of
Celsus' and Origen's v i e w s on monotheism see C. W. HOVLAND, The Dialogue Between
Origen and Celsus, in: Pagan and Christian Anxiety. A Response to E. R. DODDS, ed. R. C.
SMITH/J. LOUNIBOS, Lanham, MD/London 1984, (191-216) 193-4.
4 0 1
Cp. Ps. A r i s t o t , D e mundo 6, 399b (89,14-90,22 LORIMER) / COOK, The Logic and
Language of Romans 1,20, Bib. 7 5 , 1 9 9 4 , (494-517) 498-500.
402
cultural c o n s e q u e n c e s o f m o n o t h e i s m . If the R o m a n s w e r e persuaded to
b e c o m e Christians, for e x a m p l e , C e l s u s b e l i e v e d that the Christian G o d w o u l d
403
not d e f e n d the e m p i r e . A s C e l s u s charged the H e b r e w s w i t h b e i n g rustic
404
and irrational, s o h e charged the C h r i s t i a n s .
1.23 The Herders' Names for God
C e l s u s c o n t i n u e s h i s c r i t i c i s m o f the H e b r e w s ' b e l i e f in o n e G o d w i t h an
argument about G o d ' s m a n y names:
[After these he says that] the herders of goats and sheep believed in one God — either the
405 406
Highest or Adonai or the Heavenly one or S a b a o t h — or whatever and however
they are glad to call the cosmos. And they know nothing more. [And in what follows he
4 0 7
says,] It makes no difference whether one calls the one w h o is God of all, Z e u s (the
name in use among the Greeks) or "so and so" (the name in use among the Indians), or
408
"so and so" (the name in use among the E g y p t i a n s ) .
4 0 2
See COOK, Interpretation 8 9 - 9 0 , 9 4 - 7 .
4 0 3
C. Cels. 8.69 (585,18-23 M A R C ) .
4 0 4
C. Cels. 1.9, 6.1 (12,9-21; 377,12 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation 82-8 and see the
index on 383 s.v. "Christians as rustic and ignorant."
4 0 5
S e e STERN'S comment on "Highest" in II, 2 9 4 . It was a popular title for G o d in
Hellenistic Jewish literature. Melchisedek served the "Highest God" in Gen 14:18. It is a
name for the God of Paul (in the mouth of the pagans) in Acts 16:17. S e e also HENGEL/
SCHWEMER, Paul, 122, 163 for various inscriptions to the Highest God emanating from pagan
and Jewish circles / A. D . NOCK, The Guild of Zeus Hypsistos, in: Idem, Essays on Religion
and the ancient World, Cambridge, 1,414-43.
4 0 6
Sabaoth (Armies, hosts) and Adonai (Lord) are names that appear in the L X X
primarily in the prophetic texts, which Celsus does not concentrate on. "Jupiter-Sabazius" is
the name for God that Valerius Maximus (Facta 1.3.3) attributes to the Jews w h o are exiled
from R o m e in 139 or 142 B . C . Sabazius may be identified with Sabaoth. S e e the text in
STERN I, § 147b and commentary on I, 359 where STERN notes that Sabaoth can be found in
Sib. Or. 1.304, 316; 2.239 (Sabaoth and Adonai). Cp. PGM IV, 9 8 1 , 1 4 8 5 , 3 0 5 2 - 3 ; V, 352.
^ C h a d w i c k , Origen, 2 3 omits Δ ί α (Zeus). BORRET 1.136 n.l notes that this is not
necessary since Origen in 5.45 (II, 48,5-10 KOET.) seems to repeat what is already here in
1.24. BADER 49,5 does not omit the word either.
4 0 8
C. Cels. 1.24 (24,19-25 M A R C ) . GAGER, Moses, 94 describes Celsus' position as a
monotheism in the tradition of theological syncretism. Matters are not quite this simple since
Celsus also recognizes the existence of gods other than the supreme deity. See, for example,
C. Cels. 8.2 ( 5 2 1 , 1 5 - 5 2 2 , 1 7 M A R C . ) and the discussion in COOK, Interpretation, 94-7. The
image is one of a supreme God with many gods, demons, and heroes below. S e e also FEDOU,
Christianisme, 2 4 2 - 3 , 2 8 8 - 9 1 . FEDOU calls Celsus' position "henotheism." He also notes
that for Celsus God has all names, but in another sense in which God is beyond description,
God has no name.
118 L Celsus
A s B o r r e t n o t e s , the t h e s i s o f the s u p r e m e G o d ' s m a n y n a m e s w a s w i d e l y

4 0 9
h e l d in H e l l e n i s m . Plato, the Stoics, followers of Isis influenced by
S t o i c i s m , f o l l o w e r s o f O r p h e u s , P h i l o , and H e r m e t i c texts bear w i t n e s s to the
belief. P l a t o , for e x a m p l e , c a l l s this b e i n g C o s m o s ( w o r l d ) , O l y m p u s , or
4 1 0
Uranus ( h e a v e n ) . G o d is r e a s o n , fate, and Z e u s for the Stoics. H e is a l s o
4 1 1
the c o s m o s and the creator of the cosmos as orderly arrangement .
M a c r o b i u s p r e s e r v e s a tradition o f C o r n e l i u s L a b e o i n w h i c h a t e x t of
O r p h e u s a n d an o r a c l e o f the Clarian A p o l l o i d e n t i f y I a o (the J e w i s h G o d )
4 1 2
w i t h L i b e r ( D i o n y s u s ) , Z e u s , H e l i o s , and H a d e s . Ps. Aristotle calls G o d
"many n a m e d " ( π ο λ υ ώ ν υ μ ο ς ) i n c l u d i n g Z e n and Z e u s , and later Varro argued
413
that Jupiter and the G o d o f the J e w s w e r e i d e n t i c a l . C e l s u s h a s a similar
text: "I d o n o t t h i n k that t h e r e i s a n y advantage (ουδέν ούν οΐμαι
4 0 9
BORRET 1.135 n.3 refers to (among many) Philo, D e decal. 9 4 , P l u t , D e Is. et Os. 67
(barbarian and Greek gods are identical), and Corpus Hermeticum 5.10, Asclepius 20 (64,7-8;
3 2 0 , 9 - 3 2 1 , 1 7 N./F.). FEDOU, Christianisme, 2 3 2 discusses Greco-Roman syncretism with
reference to Celsus.
4 1 0
Plato, Epinomis 977b. See also his Tim. 28b.
4 1 1
D i o g . Laert. 7.135-7, 147 (many names). Cp. S V F 2.1070. Other texts calling the
world or c o s m o s "God" can be found in Seneca, N.Q. 2.45.3, Cicero, D e nat. deor. 2.17.45.
Cp. § 0.9, 1.2.16, 1.29.2. Strabo attributed the belief to the Jews that their God was "heaven"
or "cosmos" (16.2.35 = STERN I, § 115). Hecateus shares the same v i e w (apud Diod. Sic.
40.3.4 = STERN I, § 11). Cp. STERN'S comment on 1,305.
4 1 2
Labeo apud Macrobius, Saturn. 1.18.18-21 = STERN II, § 4 4 5 . Plutarch (Quaest.
Conv. 4.6.1-2, 671c-d = STERN I, § 2 5 8 ) and Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.5= STERN II, § 2 8 1 ) indicate
that the G o d o f the Jews has been identified with Dionysus (FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 151).
Cf. SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 52-3.
4 1 3
Ps. Aristotle, D e mundo 7, 4 0 1 a (98,12-99,27 LORIMER). Varro argues that names are
unimportant and identifies Jupiter with the G o d of the Jews in Aug., D e cons. ev. 1.22.30 =
STERN I, § 72b. H e also identifies the God of the Jews with the divinity called Iao in the
Chaldean mystical texts. S e e STERN I, § 7 5 = Lydus, D e mens. 4 . 5 3 . HENGEL, Judaism, I,
2 6 0 notes that those texts are as syncretistic as Jewish magical literature. Diodorus Siculus
writes that the Jews called god Iao in Diod. 1.55.5 = STERN I, § 5 8 . S e e § 0.7. STERN I, 172
in his commentary o n the text notes that the word does not appear in the L X X , but appears in
Jewish papyri in Egypt in the Aramaic form Y H W (liT) in P. 1,2; 2 , 2 ; 12,2 (Yahu the god
who dwells in Yeb); E. G. KRAELING, The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri, N e w Haven
1953, 132; 142; 2 7 0 ) and in the magical papyri. Cp. also FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 6 9 for
use o f the word in magical texts. HENGEL, Judaism, I, 171 n.22 remarks that L X X fragments
from a M S o f Leviticus were found in cave 4 of Qumran with the name I A O (IΑΩ) for God.
Lev. 4:27 has ε ν τ ο λ ώ ν Ιαω ("commandments of Iao") in a Qumran M S that probably comes
b
from the first century B.C.E. S e e 4 Q 1 2 0 (4QLXXLev ) F. 2 0 (DJD XII, 174,4, and Plate X L
SKEHAN/ULRICH/SANDERSON). It may also appear in 4 Q 1 2 0 F.6 (DJD XII, 170,12) in Lev
3:12 (a reconstruction based on Ι]αω). Porphyry transmits the name o f a Phoenician God as
Ieuo. S e e § 2.2.8. Iao is the fundamental name o f god used in the magical texts (cf. § 0.18).
One magician appeals to "Zeus Iao Zen Helios" in PGM C V , 5-7 (BETZ, The Greek Magical
Papyri, 310). Caligula may know this name of God in Philo, Legatio 353.
δ ι α φ έ ρ ε ι ν ) in calling Z e u s H i g h e s t or Z e n or A d o n a i or Sabaoth or A m m o n
414
l i k e the E g y p t i a n s or P a p a i o s l i k e the S c y t h i a n s . " The anonymous
philosopher o f M a c a r i u s M a g n e s argued that it m a d e n o difference w h e t h e r
4 1 5
o n e called divinities " g o d s " or "angels" in his argument w i t h the N T . A
Hellenistic-Jewish author w a s w i l l i n g to identify the G o d o f Israel w i t h Z e u s
4 1 6
or D i s .
Origen answers b y arguing that n a m e s are important and remarks that it is
417
an o n g o i n g debate in p h i l o s o p h y . Aristotle b e l i e v e d that n a m e s w e r e
418
conventional ( θ έ σ ε ι , ) . T h e Stoics, according to Origen, asserted that n a m e s
4 1 9
were g i v e n b y nature ( φ ύ σ ε ι ) and are imitations o f what they refer t o . A s
M a x P o h l e n z points out, O r i g e n ' s position is an oversimplification s i n c e the
S t o i c s apparently c o m b i n e d s o m e o f e a c h ( c o n v e n t i o n and nature) in
420
explaining the origin o f l a n g u a g e . T h e Epicureans took a slightly different
position and argued that p e o p l e g i v e n a m e s by nature, but that n a m i n g is not
an "epistemic" activity. It is more like a n a m e g i v e n by a naturally i n d u c e d
4 2 1
m o a n , for e x a m p l e . Plato includes e l e m e n t s o f both positions ( c o n v e n t i o n
and nature) in his Cratylus 4 3 5 a - c . H i s c o n c l u s i o n is apparently that it is not
from w o r d s that o n e m u s t b e g i n ; but to learn and investigate the real, it is
4 2 2
from the real itself that o n e must b e g i n . H e c e d e s the issue o f divine n a m e s
to tradition and a r g u e s that o n e s h o u l d u s e t h o s e n a m e s that p l e a s e the
423
d i v i n i t i e s . For O r i g e n n a m e s such as A d o n a i and Sabaoth are g i v e n b y a
424
mysterious divine s c i e n c e attributable only to the C r e a t o r .
4 1 4
C. Cels. 5.41 (356,1-3 M A R C ) .
4 1 5
Macarius Magnes, Monog. 4 . 2 1 b . l - 4 (II, 3 1 0 , 1 5 - 3 1 2 , 1 8 G O U L E T = HARNACK,
Porphyrius F. 76) discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 235-36.
4 1 6
Ep. ad Arist. 16 ( 1 1 0 , PELL.). "Dis" is another linguistic form of "Zeus." See
FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 6 6 , 1 5 1 .
4 1 7
C. Cels. 1.24 ( 2 4 , 2 5 - 2 5 , 5 M A R C ) . A similar discussion appears in 5.45 (358,23-
360,10 M A R C ) .
4 1 8
Aristot, D e interp. 2 (16a, 27).
4 1 9
S e e the references in CHADWICK, Origen 23 n.5-7, B O R R E T 1.136 n.2 and M.
POHLENZ, D i e Stoa. Geschichte einer geistigen B e w e g u n g . 2. Band. Erlauterungen.
4
GSttingen 1972 ,24.
4 2 0
POHLENZ, D i e Stoa, 2.34 with reference to Ammonius, In Aristot. de interp. 35.16
among other texts. Origen's discussion is included in S V F 2.146. Cf. also DILLON, Magical
Power, 207-9.
4 2 1
Cf. Diog. Laert. 10.75, USENER, Epicurea, F. 335,12-20, Lucretius 5.1028-90.
4 2 2
Plato, Cratylus 4 3 9 b in BORRET's note 1.136 n.2.
4 2 3
Plato, Cratylus 400e.
4 2 4
C. Cels. 1.24 (25,12-6 M A R C ) .
120 1. Celsus
1.24 The Egyptian Origin of the Jews
C e l s u s , f o l l o w i n g a n u m b e r o f G r e c o - R o m a n w r i t e r s , h y p o t h e s i z e d an
Egyptian origin for the J e w s .
[After these matters, Celsus thinks that] the Jews, happening to be Egyptians by race,
abandoned Egypt after forming a sedition against the state of the Egyptians and scorning
what is customary in the religious rites of Egypt (τό έ ν Α ί γ ύ π τ ω σ ύ ν η θ ε ς περί τάς
θρησκείας ύ π ε ρ φ ρ ο ν ο ΰ ν τ α ς ) [and he says that] they suffered what they did to the
Egyptians from those w h o associated with Jesus and w h o believed in him as Christ. In
425
each instance sedition against the state was the cause of i n n o v a t i o n (της καινοτομίας
426
τ ό σ τ α σ ι ά £ ε ιν π ρ ο ς τ ό K O L V O V ) .
Origen r e s p o n d s b y insisting that C e l s u s departs from the text o f G e n e s i s and

4 2 7
E x o d u s in w h i c h the J e w s are clearly not Egyptians ( G e n 4 6 - 4 7 , E x o d l ) .
C e l s u s c o u l d h a v e f o u n d his v i e w o f J e w i s h d e s c e n t in a n u m b e r o f sources
including Strabo, M a n e t h o , C h a e r e m o n , and Plutarch — a w i d e l y
4 2 8
disseminated Hellenistic v i e w . S t r a b o b e l i e v e d that t h e J e w s w e r e
Egyptians and that M o s e s w a s an Egyptian priest w h o m e r e l y persuaded s o m e
429
to f o l l o w h i m to P a l e s t i n e . A c c o r d i n g to M a n e t h o (III B . C . E . ) the J e w s
r e v o l t e d w h i l e l i v i n g in a c i t y o f A v a r i s that b e l o n g e d to the a n c i e n t
"shepherds" — a g r o u p w h o troubled the E g y p t i a n s . T h e J e w s ' leader w a s
430
Osarsiph ( M o s e s ? ) w h o w a s a p r i e s t . C h a e r e m o n depicts the L X X M o s e s
as an E g y p t i a n n a m e d Tisithen, and although h e d o e s not s a y that the J e w s
w e r e E g y p t i a n s , h e g i v e s the i m p r e s s i o n that they w e r e . T h e y are banished
431
from the country b e c a u s e o f their d i s e a s e s , but attack the E g y p t i a n s f i r s t .
Plutarch d o e s not d i s c u s s J e w i s h ancestry but d o e s m e n t i o n t w o s o n s o f the
432
god T y p h o n : H i e r o s o l y m u s and J u d a e u s .
4 2 5
Julian also called Christianity an "innovation" in C. Gal. F. 107 (191 MAS.).
4 2 6
C. Cels. 3.5 (156,4-11 M A R C ) . MERLAN, Celsus, 9 6 0 emphasizes that Celsus fully
rejected the biblical narratives about the origin of the Jews. BURKE, Celsus, 243-4 is sceptical
that Celsus k n e w Exodus and notes that he could have gotten his information from
conversation with Jews.
4 2 7
C. Cels. 3.5 (156,11-26 M A R C ) .
4 2 8
S e e the commentary on C. Cels. 3.5 in STERN II, 299.
4 2 9
Strabo 16.2.34-35 = STERN I, § 115. Cf. § 0.9.
4 3 0
Manetho apud Jos., C. Apion. 1.238-242 = STERN I, § 2 1 . He uses ά π ό σ τ α σ ι ν (revolt)
for the Jews' actions against the Egyptians. See § 0.2 for the literary problem of Manetho and
Ps. Manetho. MENDELS, The Polemical Character, 108-09 believes that Manetho attempted
to refute the Jewish version of the exodus (in Exodus) that had already been published in a
Greek translation. Cf. also AziZA, L'utilisation, 41-65.
4 3 1
Chaeremon apud Jos., C. Apion. 1.288-92 = STERN I, § 178. S e e STERN'S comment
on 1,421. Cf. § 0 . 1 2 .
4 3 2
Plut. D e Is. et Os. 31 = STERN I, § 259.
C e l s u s ' attack o n Judaism as sedition is clearly paralleled b y his attack o n

4 3 3
Christianity as a sedition against Judaism and R o m e . A n d r e s e n d e n i e s the
political side o f C e l s u s ' critique, but probably g o e s t o o far in d i s m i s s i n g the
political in the interest o f supporting his o w n thesis about the identity o f l o g o s
and n o m o s ( c u s t o m , l a w ) in C e l s u s ' thought. In A n d r e s e n ' s v i e w the sedition
434
is o n l y against the r e l i g i o u s order including p o l y t h e i s m . T h i s p o i n t o f
v i e w , h o w e v e r , i s in contrast to that o f C e l s u s ' G r e c o - R o m a n s o u r c e s
d i s c u s s e d a b o v e ( e . g . M a n e t h o ) and the texts o f the L X X that C e l s u s a l s o
k n e w where the J e w s d o , in s o m e s e n s e , rise against the Egyptians. For this
reason a w o r d like "state" ( τ ό κοινόν) cannot b e translated, as A n d r e s e n
435
d o e s , with "society" as united in tradition by the c u l t .
O r i g e n a l s o r e s p o n d s to C e l s u s ' b e l i e f in an E g y p t i a n o r i g i n o f the
H e b r e w s b y u s i n g a l i n g u i s t i c argument: H o w c o u l d they h a v e i n v e n t e d
H e b r e w i m m e d i a t e l y after they left E g y p t ? W h y w o u l d they not h a v e u s e d
4 3 6
S y r i a c or P h o e n e c i a n ? H e continues: "[This argument proves m y
c o n c l u s i o n that it is a lie that] s o m e p e o p l e , being Egyptian b y race, revolted
against the Egyptians, abandoned Egypt, c a m e to Palestine, and inhabited the
437
region n o w called J u d e a . " C h a d w i c k mentions a text b y Gregory o f N y s s a
in w h i c h certain scholars c l a i m that H e b r e w w a s a m i r a c u l o u s gift to the
438
Israelites w h i c h t h e y r e c e i v e d after l e a v i n g E g y p t . C e l s u s k n e w little o f
H e b r e w , a l t h o u g h g i v e n his o c c a s i o n a l u s e o f terms s u c h as S a b a o t h and
Adonai he m a y h a v e b e e n aware o f its existence.
1.25 The Jews as Fugitive Slaves
C e l s u s appears to h a v e little k n o w l e d g e o f E x o d u s , or if h e did, h e did not

accept its v e r s i o n o f e v e n t s . H e disparages J e w s with this c o m m e n t w h i c h
s e e m s to s h o w a m i n i m u m o f k n o w l e d g e o f E x o d 1: "The J e w s w e r e fugitive
slaves ( δ ρ α π έ τ α ς ) from Egypt, w h o never did anything remarkable
439
( ά ξ ι ό λ ο γ ο ν ) and w e r e n e v e r o f any value or n u m b e r ( ο ΰ τ ' ev λ ό γ ω ο ΰ τ '
4 3 3
S e e COOK, Interpretation, 89-90. Cp. C. Cels 3.14; 5.33; 8.49 [ σ τ ά σ ε ι ] (162,11;
347,15-9; 564,8 MARC.])
4 3 4
ANDRESEN, Logos, 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 .
4 3 5
ANDRESEN, Logos, 215-17. Cp. COOK, Interpretation 19-20, BORRET 2.22 n.l and his
extensive discussion in 5.153-82.
4 3 6
C. Cels. 3.6 (156,27-157,5 M A R C ) .
4 3 7
C. Cels. 3.6 (157,5-8 M A R C ) .
4 3 8
CHADWICK, Origen 132 n.l. Gregory of Nyssa, C. Eunomium 2.256 ( G N O I, 301,7-
12 JAEGER).
4 3 9
This is an expression derived from the oracle's response to the Megarians (CHADWICK,
Origen 207 n.l; BORRET, 2.260 n.2). Cp. Theocritus 14.48 and Callimachus, Epigr. 25.
122 1. Celsus
440
έν α ρ ι θ μ ώ ) . " Origen responds w i t h a rejection o f C e l s u s ' b e l i e f that the
4 4 1
J e w s w e r e runaway s l a v e s . It is interesting that n o n e o f C e l s u s ' k n o w n
p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s for the b e l i e f that the J e w s w e r e E g y p t i a n s c l a i m that they
w e r e s l a v e s . M a n e t h o , h o w e v e r , d o e s depict the rebels as p e o p l e w h o w e r e
put to w o r k in stone quarries b e c a u s e o f the Pharaoh's fear o f their diseases.
442
Pharaoh A m e n o p h i s let them travel to Avaris later, s o they w e r e not s l a v e s .
443
In C h a e r e m o n the e x i l e s are diseased and not s l a v e s . Consequently C e l s u s
m a y h a v e a d o p t e d the o n e characteristic o f E x o d 1 that attracted h i m —
n a m e l y , the fact that the J e w s had b e e n e n s l a v e d during their sojourn in
E g y p t . It c o n t r i b u t e d to h i s t h e s i s that the J e w s had d o n e n o t h i n g o f
c o n s e q u e n c e . This argument b e c a m e a c o m m o n p l a c e in the pagan critique o f
J u d a i s m and Christianity. A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n in the first century B . C . E .
4 4 4
argued that the J e w s invented nothing useful for life ( μ η δ έ ν ... ε ύ ρ η μ α ) .
A p i o n (the first part o f the first century C.E.) also argues that the J e w s had
produced n o inventors (evperas) or w i s e p e o p l e such as Socrates, Z e n o and
445
Cleanthes .
Julian later u s e d the s a m e o b j e c t i o n against b o t h the J e w s and the
Christians — arguing that the J e w s produced n o great generals like Alexander
or Caesar and n o decent law c o d e or medical tradition. In addition h e pointed
446
out that the J e w s had b e e n e n s l a v e d during m o s t o f their h i s t o r y . H i s
4 4 0
C. Cels. 4.31 (245,2-5 M A R C ) . Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 217 / PELAGAUD, Un
conservateur, 323.
4 4 1
See § 1.24.
4 4 2
Manetho apud Jos., C. Apion. 1.233-35 = STERN I, § 21. Cf. § 0.2.
4 4 3
Chaeremon apud Jos., C. Apion. 1.290 = STERN I , § 178. Cf. § 0.12.
4 4 4
Apollonius M o l o n apud Jos., C. Apion. 2.148 = STERN I , § 4 9 . See also STERN'S
comments on lists of inventions in antiquity in I , 155. Cp. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 7.191. On these
arguments against the Jews see FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 2 4 3 , 317. Hellenistic Jewish
authors such as Eupolemus (ca. 150 B.C.E.) argued that Moses was the first wise man and the
inventor of the alphabet which the Jews gave to the Phoenicians. He was also the first to
write down laws ( F . l a , l b [ I , 112 HOLLADAY = Clem. Alex., Strom 1.23.153.4; Eus., P.E.
9.25.4-26.1]). Ps. Eupolemus attributes the invention of astrology to Abraham (and originally
to Enoch) w h o excelled all in wisdom. He also taught the Phoenecians about the movements
of sun and moon. See Ps. Eupolemus, F . 1 (1,170-72; 174 HOLLADAY = Eus., P.E. 9.17.3-4,
8). Artapanus g o e s much further. Abraham teaches the Egyptians astrology. Joseph
improves Egyptian agriculture. M o s e s invents ships, Egyptian weapons, hieroglyphics,
machines for war, philosophy, divides Egypt into thirty-six nomes (and assigns a god to be
worshipped in each), and taught the Egyptians circumcision. See F . 1, 2, 3 ( I , 2 0 4 - 2 1 2
H O L L A D A Y = Eus., P.E. 9.18.1; 9.23.1-4; 9.27.1-10). H O L L A D A Y remarks that these
inventions were attributed to many other figures in Greek literature ( I , 232-33 with numerous
references). Cp. K . THRAEDE, Erfmder, 1191-1278 / DROGE, Homer, 15-35.
4 4 5
Apion apud Jos., C. Apion. 2.135 = STERN I , § 175. On this topos used against the
Jews see also STERN I I , 300 (comment on C. Cels. 4.31).
4 4 6
Jul, C. Gal. 218b-c, 222a = also STERN Π, § 4 8 1 . Cf. § 3.23.
argument e x p a n d s to include Jesus' ministry and the work o f the Christians.

Jesus conferred n o benefit o n his p e o p l e , and Christianity d o e s n o g o o d
447
w h a t s o e v e r for s o c i e t y . T h e ultimate c o n c l u s i o n o f these arguments from
c o n s e q u e n c e is this: s i n c e the J e w s produced nothing o f any c o n s e q u e n c e ,
Judaism itself is not worthy o f belief.
Origen responds to C e l s u s b y e x p r e s s i n g admiration for the l a w c o d e o f
448
M o s e s and the s o c i e t y it h e l p e d c r e a t e . H e conjectures that C e l s u s m i g h t
try to s h o w that the J e w s had d o n e nothing worthy o f admiration s i n c e they
449
are not m e n t i o n e d in the Greek h i s t o r i a n s . S u c h a c l a i m w o u l d b e false, o f
course, and it d o e s not s e e m likely that Celsus actually m a d e it.
126 Moses and the Angel
C e l s u s w a s aware o f the appearance o f angels to M o s e s and other figures in

the L X X . In the c o n t e x t o f his larger argument that Jesus w a s an angel, h e
writes that an angel appeared to M o s e s and others: "And w h y is it necessary
to carefully investigate all things and enumerate the angels said to h a v e b e e n
4 5 0
sent to M o s e s and to others o f their o w n ? " H e w a s probably thinking o f
texts such as E x o d 3:2-5 where the angel o f the Lord ( L X X ά γ γ ε λ ο ς κυρίου)
appears to M o s e s . T h e c o n c e p t o f an angel o f G o d (and not G o d h i m s e l f )
g i v i n g the l a w to M o s e s w a s influential in later Hellenistic Judaism as in the
4 5 1
c a s e o f S t e p h e n ' s s p e e c h in A c t s ( A c t s 7:30, 3 5 , 3 8 , 5 3 ) . C e l s u s m a y also
h a v e b e e n aware o f the t w o angels w h o appear to Abraham ( G e n 18:2, 19:1),
and the angel o f the Lord ( ά γ γ ε λ ο ς κυρίου) w h o appears to G i d e o n (Judg
6:12).
4 4 7
Jul., C. Gal. 213b,c; 218b-224c = 144,6-147,6 M A S . Cp. COOK, Interpretation 299,
316-18. See also Julian's remarks on Judaism in § 3.23, 56.
4 4 8
C. Cels. 4.31 (245,5-246,8 M A R C ) .
4 4 9
C. Cels. 4.31 (245,7-9 M A R C ) . Julian similarly claimed that Jesus was not mentioned
in Greek historians in C. Gal. 206a,b (142,10-14 MAS.) discussed in COOK, Interpretation
288.
4 5 0
C. Cels. 5.52 (365,15-6 M A R C ) . See also § 1.3, 1.28.2 and COOK, Interpretation, 69-
70.
4 5 1
S e e Deut 33:2 L X X . Jos., Antiq. 15.136 may refer to divine messengers (or earthly)
through whom the laws were given. Philo, D e somnis 1.143 depicts Exod 20:19 as a request
for a heavenly angel to speak to the people. Some rabbinic texts (Str-B 2.354) depict angels
as being present with God when the Torah was given including Pesiq. R. 21 (103b). A n angel
reveals things to M o s e s in Jub. 1.24,29; 2.1; 6.22; 30.12, 2 1 ; 50,1-2, 6, 13. Michael reveals
the law in Apoc. Mos. Inscriptio (1 TlSCHENDORFF) and cp. Herm. Sim. 8.3.3. For the N T
see also the commentaries on Heb 2:2 and Gal 3:19.
1. Celsus
1.27 The Flight from Egypt
Origen depicts C e l s u s ' distillation o f the narrative o f E x o d u s : "To the e x o d u s

o f the p e o p l e ] from E g y p t [he g i v e s the n a m e ] "flight" ( φ υ γ ή ν ) [without the
least recollection o f the things written in the b o o k o f E x o d u s about the e x o d u s
452
o f the H e b r e w s from the land o f E g y p t ] . " A l t h o u g h C e l s u s d o e s not s h o w a
c l o s e k n o w l e d g e o f the narrative o f E x o d u s , his m e n t i o n o f m a n y e l e m e n t s in
the Joseph narrative s h o w s that h e probably k n e w the outlines o f the biblical
account e v e n if it did not interest h i m . Origen notes that C e l s u s did not say
m u c h against the stories e v e n in their literal s e n s e , s i n c e C e l s u s g i v e s n o
argument ( λ ό γ ω ) against w h a t h e thought w a s w r e t c h e d ( μ ο χ θ η ρ ό ν ) in the
453
texts .
In a later text C e l s u s c o m p a r e s the beliefs h e l d in c o m m o n b y J e w s and
Christians and includes the emigration to Egypt and the flight from there:
[Let us concede that] they and w e speak of the same migration ( ά π ο δ η μ ί α ν ) to Egypt
(Gen 4 6 - 4 7 ) and the [return] from there [and not] a flight [as Celsus believes. Why,
therefore, do these statements support an accusation against us or the Jews? When he
thought to mock us concerning the story of the Hebrews he called it a "flight." But when
4 5 4
the issue at hand (τό π ρ α γ μ α τ ι κ ό ν ) was to examine what was written of the plagues
4 5 5
that came upon Egypt from God, he willingly kept s i l e n t ]
C e l s u s p rob ab ly c o u l d h a v e attacked the p l a g u e s h a d h e c h o s e n to d o s o .

R i n a l d i refers to a text in E u s e b i u s in w h i c h the historian d e s c r i b e s the
d e s t r u c t i o n o f M a x e n t i u s and h i s army in a river. H e c o m p a r e s the
destruction w i t h that o f Pharaoh in E x o d u s and describes the O T narratives as:
" . . . t h o s e things w h i c h w e r e inscribed o f o l d in the sacred writings against
g o d l e s s p e o p l e that w e r e d i s b e l i e v e d as a m y t h i c a l story (ώς έν μύθου
4 5 6
λ ό γ ω ) by m o s t , but w e r e trustworthy for the faithful , . . " In a similar v e i n ,
C e l s u s m i g h t h a v e argued that the p l a g u e s w e r e m y t h i c a l , or h e (in the
tradition o f N u m e n i u s ) might h a v e compared M o s e s ' m i g h t y d e e d s with the
Egyptian m a g i c i a n s . N u m e n i u s argues that the Egyptian m a g i c i a n s w e r e able
4 5 2
C. Cels. 4.47 (264,14-7 M A R C ) .
4 5 3
C. Cels. 4.47 (264,17-20 M A R C ) .
4 5 4
This is a term of the rhetoricians used for proofs concerning matters of fact. See
LAUSBERG, Handbuch § 3 5 5 , 3 5 7 .
4 5 5
C. Cels. 5.59 (371,13-9 M A R C ) .
4 5 6
Eusebius, H.E. 9.9.4-7 = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, I I , § 127a who refers to
AZIZA, L'utilisation polemique, 41-65 (AZIZA reviews the authors who wrote before Celsus).
Josephus, Antiq. 2.347-8 defends the exodus narrative with the remark that it could have
happened by the will of God or "automatically" (κατά τ α ύ τ ό μ α τ ο ν ) and refers to a similar
event that happened to Alexander the Great when the Sea of Pamphylia withdrew and let him
pass.
4 5 7
t o d i s p e r s e the w o r s t c a l a m i t i e s that M o s e s brought o n E g y p t . Celsus'
approach to the story o f the e x o d u s is that o f the G r e c o - R o m a n historians w h o
s a w the J e w s ' a c t i o n s as a rebellion. U n l i k e t h o s e historians, h o w e v e r , C e l s u s
refers t o the e x o d u s as an e s c a p e or flight — a w o r d that i s actually u s e d in
E x o d 14:5 L X X w h e r e the E g y p t i a n o f f i c i a l s tell P h a r a o h that the " p e o p l e
h a v e fled" ( π ε φ ε υ γ ε ν ) . T h e e l e m e n t o f flight and pursuit w h i c h d o e s appear
in E x o d 14 is c o n d e n s e d b y C e l s u s into o n e c o n c e p t — e s c a p e .
1.28 Laws
C e l s u s m a k e s a n u m b e r o f r e f e r e n c e s to J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s that s h o w some
familiarity w i t h b i b l i c a l texts. It i s difficult to identify w h i c h texts h e has in
m i n d , but it i s c l e a r that h e i s a w a r e o f m a n y o f t h e P e n t a t e u c h a l legal
traditions. Consequently the references t o scripture in p a r e n t h e s e s are
guesses.
1.28.1 The Customs of Different Nations
J e w i s h c u s t o m s or l a w s are not objectionable to C e l s u s :
The Jews, then, became a distinct nation and established laws according to c o m m o n
practice in their country (τό έπιχώριοι/). They keep these until the present and preserve a
religion that, whatever it is like, is traditional ( π ά τ ρ ι ο ι ) — acting in this manner like
other people because each honors the traditional practices (τά π α τ ρ ί α ) , whatever kind
458
have happened to be created. It seems to me that this is useful ( σ υ μ φ έ ρ ε ι ν ) not only
because it came into the mind o f different peoples to make laws differently and that it is
necessary to keep those that have been decided for the public interest ( τ ά ές κοινόν
κ€κυρωμένα), but also because most probably the different parts of the earth were from
4 5 9
the beginning distributed to different tutelary divinities ( έ π ό π τ α ι ς ) and were divided
up among different d o m i n i o n s ( κ α τ ά τινας ε π ι κ ρ α τ ε ί α ς ) and in this w a y are
administered. And s o the practices in each nation are done correctly if they are loved by
4 5 7
Numenius F. 9 (51,1-9 DES PLACES) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 125. S e e
§0.16.
4 5 8
ANDRESEN, Logos, 196 n.22 translates "happen" with usages such as Herodotus 3.129.
It can also mean "to be useful" or "beneficial" as in Aristot., Rhet. 1.3.5 and is part o f the
arguments considered in deliberative rhetoric. CHADWICK, Origen, 2 8 3 and BORRET 3.75
translate with "act" (they act this way) but have to add "like the rest o f mankind" — a phrase
not in Celsus. Celsus is arguing in favor o f this course o f events, s o the usage from
deliberative rhetoric fits the context.
4 5 9
ANDRESEN, L o g o s , 198 n.24 discusses examples of these divinities. S e e C. Cels. 7.68
(517,9-20 M A R C ) / Cook, Interpretation, 9 4 - 6 / FEDOU, Christianisme, 516-8. Cp. Julian in
§ 3.22.
126 1. Celsus
those beings (οπη έκείνοις· φίλον). It would not be holy to destroy laws established (τά
460
... ν ε ν ο μ ι σ μ έ ν α ) from the beginning in each r e g i o n .
Origen asks Celsus who d i s t r i b u t e d t h e earth t o d i f f e r e n t powers and

c o n j e c t u r e s that h e m i g h t a n s w e r " Z e u s . " H e a l s o w o n d e r s if Z e u s a g r e e d
w i t h the l a w s m a d e for the J e w s . H o w e v e r , in his interpretation o f the B a b e l
narrative, O r i g e n c o n c e d e s that different n a t i o n s are a p p o i n t e d t o different
4 6 1
angelic r u l e r s . O r i g e n a l s o p o i n t s o u t the d i f f e r e n c e o f c u s t o m s s u c h as
parricide and i n c e s t in different nations and asks if it is i m p i o u s to break s u c h
4 6 2
ancestral l a w s . C l e a r l y C e l s u s is w i l l i n g to admit that d e s p i t e the E g y p t i a n
o r i g i n o f t h e J e w s , t h e y are a n a t i o n w i t h c u s t o m s a n d traditions that are
4 6 3
w o r t h y o f a certain r e s p e c t . H i s e m p h a s i s is o n the c o n c e p t o f ancestral
traditions ( τ ά π ά τ ρ ι α ) , and in this r e s p e c t h e argues a t h e m e that w a s Used
464
frequently against the e m e r g i n g Christian tradition . Celsus was also
w i l l i n g t o a r g u e that s i n c e J e s u s o b s e r v e d J e w i s h p r a c t i c e s i n c l u d i n g their
4 6 5
sacrifices, h e should not be w o r s h i p p e d . Philo defended abstention from
pork i n front o f R o m a n o f f i c i a l s b y a r g u i n g that e a c h n a t i o n h a s its o w n
4 6 6
different c u s t o m s ( ν ό μ ι μ α ... έ τ ε ρ α ) .
4 6 0
C. Cels. 5.25 (340,10-23 M A R C ) . For similar texts see COOK, Interpretation, 96. Cf.
PICHLER, Streit, 149 / PELAGAUD, U n conservateur, 3 3 4 / H. REMUS, Outside/Inside: Celsus
on Jewish and Christian Nomoi, in: Religon, Literature, and Society in Ancient Israel,
Formative Christianity and Judaism, N e w Perspectives o n Ancient Judaism V o l . 2 , ed. J.
NEUSNER et al., Lanham/New York/London 1 9 8 7 , 1 3 3 - 5 0 .
4 6 1
C. Cels. 5 . 2 6 ( 3 4 1 , 1 3 - 9 M A R C ) . A . MEREDITH, Porphyry and Julian Against the
Christians, A N R W II.23.2, 1980, (1120-49) 1144 points out that Origen seems to believe that
nations were divided between angels. S e e Origen, C. Cels. 5.29 (with reference to Deut 32:8-
9), 3 0 (as the consequence o f the building o f the tower of Babel people and nations are
handed over to different angels), 31 (Israel, at first God's portion, is then abandoned to other
national beings) (343,18-23; 345,10-20; 345,21-346,17 M A R C ) .
4 6 2
C. Cels. 5.27 (341,27-342,2 M A R C ) . S e e CHADWICK, Origen, Celsus, and the Stoa, 35
for development o f the theme in other authors including Tertullian, Apol. 9.2-18 (102,4-
105,87 D E K . ) , Aenesidemus in Diog. Laert. 9.83-4, Eusebius, P.E. 6.10.15-6 (VIII/1, 337,20-
338,5 MRAS), P S . Sallustius, D e diis 9 (19,16-18 NOCK). DELABRIOLLE, La reaction, 134 n.4
notes that Cicero, D e leg. 1.15.42 thought it ridiculous to equally value the laws o f all
countries.
4 6 3
S e e § 1.24. Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 130.
4 6 4
S e e the index o f COOK, Interpretation, 3 8 3 s.v. "Ancestral traditions".
4 6 5
In C. Cels. 2.6 (81,12-4 M A R C . ) Celsus' Jew argues: "Jesus observed all the Jewish
customs including their sacrifices ( τ ά κατά Ιουδαίους εθη μέχρι και των π α ρ ' αύτοΐς
θυσιών). [Why does he conclude this:] one should not have faith in him as the son of God?"
See COOK, Interpretation, 4 5 .
4 6 6
Philo, Legatio 362.
1.282 Celsus on Food Customs

C e l s u s quotes an a c c o u n t o f Herodotus ( 2 . 1 8 ) that describes a question to the
oracle o f A m m o n f r o m the cities o f Marea and A p i s w h o d o not w a n t to b e
considered E g y p t i a n and w h o c o n s e q u e n t l y want to b e a l l o w e d to eat any
f o o d and in particular the flesh o f c o w s . T h e g o d did not a l l o w t h e m to d o
that since the N i l e watered their lands. C e l s u s then writes:
A m m o n is in no w a y worse than the angels of the Jews in sending divine messages
(διαπρεσβεΟσαι τ ά δ α ι μ ό ν ι α ) . Therefore there is no injustice if each country observes
4 6 7
their own religious practices (εκάστους τ ά σφέτερα νόμιμα θρησκεύειν)
C e l s u s c o n t i n u e s w i t h q u o t e s from Herodotus c o n c e r n i n g different n a t i o n s '

practices w i t h regard to the c o n s u m p t i o n o f animals. O r i g e n u s e s several
arguments to a n s w e r C e l s u s . T h e u s e o f c o w s is morally neutral ( ά δ ι ά φ ο ρ ο ν ) ,
and A m m o n g i v e s n o r e a s o n for the prohibition o f their c o n s u m p t i o n . O T
regulations c o n c e r n i n g a n i m a l s ( s e e 1 C o r 9:9) actually contain a "natural
4 6 8
truth" ( φ υ σ ι ο λ ο γ ί α ν ) for the sake o f h u m a n k i n d . H e then resists C e l s u s '
entire argument b y a p p e a l i n g to natural l a w w h i c h c o m e s f r o m G o d and
469
w h i c h is different from the l a w s o f c i t i e s .
128.3 Circumcision and Pork

In an e x t e n d e d c o m p a r i s o n o f the J e w s w i t h other ancient p e o p l e s , C e l s u s
writes:
Neither would they be more holy ( ά γ ι ώ τ ε ρ ο ι ) than these because they are circumcised
(Gen 17:9-14) — for the Egyptians and Colchians were first to do this. Neither are they
more holy because they abstain from pigs (Lev 11:7, Deut 14:8, 1 Mace 1:42), for the
470
Egyptians d o this and also abstain from sheep, c o w s , and fish; P y t h a g o r a s and his
4 7 1
followers abstain from beans and all living beings ( ε μ ψ ύ χ ω ν )
C e l s u s d o e s not object to the practice o f c i r c u m c i s i o n or o f abstention from

certain f o o d s s i n c e h e respects l o n g established c u s t o m s o f different cultures.
4 6 7
C. Cels. 5.34 (349,5-7 M A R C ) . Cf. PICHLER, Streit, 150 and § 1.26. On Celsus' (and
Origen's) use of citations see E. BAMMEL, Die Zitate in Origenes' Schrift wider Celsus, in:
Origeniana Quarta. D i e Referate des 4. Internationalen Origeneskongresses (Innsbruck, 2.-6.
September 1985) ed. L. LIES, Innsbruck/Vienna 1 9 8 7 , 2 - 6 .
4 6 8
C. Cels. 5.36 (351,16-23.28-352,2 M A R C ) .
4 6 9
Cp. C. Cels. 5.37, 8.26 (352,13-6; 5 4 2 , 1 9 - 2 0 M A R C ) . On natural law see BORRET
3.104 n . l , 111 n.l / CHADWICK, Origen, 293 n.l / W. A. BANNER, Origen and the Tradition
of Natural Law Concepts, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 8, Cambridge 1954, 4 9 - 8 2 . Cf. S V F
3.314-26.
4 7 0
Cf. DffiLS, Doxogr. gr. 557,20-30; 590,10-11, Diog. Laert. 8.33-34.
4 7 1
C. Cels. 5.41 (356,3-8 M A R C ) . Celsus also briefly refers to the abstention of Jews
from the flesh of certain sacrificial victims in 8.28 (543,23-5 M A R C ) . Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and
Gentile, 224 / PJELAGAUD, U n conservateur, 337.
128 1. Celsus
H e did n o t h a v e the vegetarian scruples o f Porphyry w h o k n e w that J e w s , for

4 7 2
e x a m p l e , d o not eat p i g s . A p i o n , o n the o t h e r h a n d , d e r i d e d J e w s for
4 7 3
practicing c i r c u m c i s i o n and for n o t eating p o r k . Caligula asked Philo w h y
4 7 4
the J e w s a b s t a i n e d f r o m p i g s — as if it w a s a b a s i c mark o f b e i n g a J e w .
G r e c o - R o m a n c o m m e n t s o n the J e w s ' a b s t e n t i o n f r o m pork are g e n e r a l l y
d e r i s i v e , and at o n e p o i n t Plutarch records a c o m m e n t in w h i c h the J e w s ' o w n
a c c o u n t o f their c u s t o m is c a l l e d " m y t h s . " O n e h a s t o a s s u m e the L X X i s
4 7 5
meant . G a l e n a l s o regarded M o s e s ' m e t h o d o f e s t a b l i s h i n g his t e a c h i n g as
inadequate: " . . . it is his m e t h o d in his b o o k s to write w i t h o u t offering p r o o f s ,
4 7 6
saying, 'God commanded, G o d s p o k e . ' " Gager compares Galen's view
4 7 7
w i t h that o f H e c a t a e u s o f A b d e r a . After r e v i e w i n g the story o f the J e w s ,
H e c a t a e u s states o f M o s e s that, "At the e n d o f the l a w s is a d d e d the statement
that ' M o s e s w h e n h e heard t h e s e t h i n g s f r o m G o d t o l d t h e m t o the J e w s . ' "
478
H e calls the J e w s "easily persuaded" or "obedient" ( ε ύ τ τ ι θ ε ΐ ς ) . Clement of
A l e x a n d r i a c o m p l a i n e d that the G r e e k s w o u l d n o t a c c e p t t h e truth o f the
4 7 2
Porphyry, D e abst. 4.11.1 (CUFr m, 17 PATILLON/ SEGONDS/BRISSON).
4 7 3
Apion apud Jos., C. Ap. 1.137 = STERN I, § 176. Cf. § 0.13.
4 7 4
Philo, Legatio 361.
4 7 5
Plutarch, Mor. (Quaest. conv.) 6 6 9 e - 6 7 1 c = STERN I, § 2 5 8 . T h e remark about the
"myths" is by Callistratus in 669f. In C. Cels. 1.4 (9,6-15 M A R C ) , in a reference to Exod
31:18, Origen observes that the episode in which G o d writes the commandments with his
own finger is v i e w e d as a myth (μύθω) by Hellenes. Origen applies the text to show that
everyone is without defense ( α ν α π ο λ ό γ η τ ο ς cp. R o m 1:20) in the day o f judgment. This is
because G o d has implanted certain common conceptions (κουνάς ε ν ν ο ί α ς ) in human beings.
On the c o m m o n conceptions see CHADWICK, Origen 8 n.6. Other comments on Jewish
abstention from pork include: Diod. Sic. 34-35.1.4 = STERN I, § 6 3 ; Petronius, Frag. 37 =
STERN I , § 195; Erotianus in STERN I, § 196; Epictetus apud Arrian, Diss. 1.22.4 = STERN I,
§ 2 5 3 ; Tacitus, Hist. 5.4.2 = STERN II, § 2 8 1 ; Juvenal 6.160; 14.98 = STERN II, § 2 9 8 , 3 0 1 ;
Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyp. 3.222-3 = STERN II, § 334; Macrobius, Saturn. 2.4.11 = STERN II,
§ 543. A magician also forbids the consumption of pork as part of a recipe in PGM IV, 3078-
80 (see BETZ, The Greek Magical Papyri, 97 n.410). Cf. SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 66-81.
4 7 6
R. WALZER, Galen on Jews and Christians, London, 1949, 1 1 , 18-23 from a version
that exists only in Arabic o f Galen's On Hippocrates' Anatomy.
4 7 7
GAGER, Moses, 88.
4 7 8
Hecataeus apud Diod. Sic. 40.3.6 = STERN I, § 11. STERN (I, 32) notes that Jewish
credulity became a Greco-Roman theme from Hecataeus onwards. Diod. Sic. 1.94.1-2 =
STERN I, § 5 8 writes that the first to persuade ( π ε ι σ α ι ) the multitudes to follow written laws
was Mneves in Egypt who claimed Hermes as their source. He lists similar states of affairs (a
lawgiver and a revealing god) among many peoples and writes of Moses, " . . . among the Jews
M o s e s called on Iao." STERN I, 172 refers to literature o n that name o f God (see § 1.23
above). Strabo (16.2.37-8 = STERN I, § 115) also says that many ancient peoples trace their
law c o d e s t o divine revelation including M o s e s : "Like s o m e others, M o s e s and his
successors had beginnings that were not bad, but had a turn for the worse." Herodotus 1.60.3
saw credulity as a characteristic o f barbarians. On Christian credulity s e e C O O K ,
Interpretation, 3 8 3 s.v. "Christian credulity." S e e § 0 . 1 , 7 , 9 .
belief that G o d g a v e the l a w t o M o s e s e v e n though they ( u n k n o w i n g l y ) honor

479
M o s e s in their o w n w r i t e r s . H e g i v e s several e x a m p l e s o f Greeks ( s u c h as
M i n o s ) w h o r e c e i v e d l a w s from the g o d s .
Celsus k n e w the account o f Abraham's circumcision, but argued
480
p r e v i o u s l y that h e w a s n o t t h e f i r s t . G r e c o - R o m a n writers h a d an
ambivalent attitude towards the J e w i s h practice o f circumcision. Strabo, for
e x a m p l e , c o m p a r e d it t o the Egyptian practice, but also v i e w e d it (as w e l l as
481
abstention from f o o d ) as a d e c l i n e in J e w i s h r e l i g i o n . D i o d o r u s regarded
circumcision as a practice o f the Colchians and J e w s w h o had derived it from
482
Egypt . M o s t o f t h e p a g a n authors v i e w e d c i r c u m c i s i o n n e g a t i v e l y
483
including poets s u c h as Horace, Persius, Martial and J u v e n a l , Later writers
such as Tacitus and Suetonius are aware o f the practice, but d o not deride it as
4 8 4
m u c h as the p o e t s d o . O r i g e n responds that the J e w s w o u l d distinguish
their circumcision from that o f neighboring p e o p l e s , and notes that abstention
from pigs is based o n the distinction b e t w e e n clean and unclean. H e also uses
Gal 5:2, Matt 1 5 : 1 1 , 17 and A c t s 11:8-9 t o g i v e N T v i e w s o n c i r c u m c i s i o n
4 8 5
and f o o d .
128A Israel and the Nations

In the context o f an argument in w h i c h C e l s u s c l a i m s that Jesus contradicts
M o s e s ' t e a c h i n g , C e l s u s s u m m a r i z e s s o m e o f that t e a c h i n g c o n c e r n i n g
Israel's relationship t o other nations:
If the prophets o f the God o f the Jews predicted this person to be the child of God, h o w is
it that G o d through M o s e s ordains by law that they should be rich and have dominion
(Gen 1 : 2 8 , Deut 1 5 : 6 , 2 8 : 1 1 - 1 2 ) and fill the earth (Gen 1 : 2 8 , 8 : 1 7 , 9 : 1 - 7 ) and slaughter
their enemies from the youth up and kill the entire race (Exod 1 7 : 1 3 - 1 6 , N u m 2 1 : 3 4 - 3 5 ,
Deut 2 5 : 1 9 , Ps 1 3 6 : 8 - 9 ) — which he does before the eyes o f the Jews (Exod 3 4 : 1 1 , Deut
4 7 9
Clem. Α Ι . , Strom. 1 . 2 6 . 1 7 0 . 2 - 4 (II, 1 0 5 , 2 9 - 1 0 6 , 1 1 ST./FR.),
4 8 0
See § 1 . 1 1 .
4 8 1
Strabo, Geog. 1 6 . 2 . 3 7 (food and circumcision), 1 6 . 4 . 9 , 1 8 . 2 . 5 (Egyptians and Jews) =
STERN I, § 1 1 5 ; 1 1 8 ; 1 2 4 . Cf. § 0 . 9 .
4 8 2
Diod. Sic. 1 . 2 8 . 2 - 3 = STERN I, § 5 5 .
^Horace, Serm. 1 . 9 . 7 0 = STERN I, § 1 2 9 ; Persius, Saturae 5 . 1 8 4 = STERN, I, § 1 9 0 ;
Petronius, Satyricon 1 0 2 . 1 4 = STERN I, § 1 9 4 ; Martial, Epigr. 7 . 3 0 , 7 . 8 2 , 9 . 9 4 = STERN I,
§ 2 4 0 , 2 4 3 , 2 4 5 ; Juvenal 1 4 . 9 9 = STERN II, § 3 0 1 . Cf. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II,
1 1 8 - 9 / SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 9 3 - 1 0 5 .
4 8 4
Tacitus, Hist. 5 . 5 . 2 = STERN II, § 2 8 1 ; Suetonius, Domitianus 1 2 . 2 = STERN II, § 3 2 0 ;
Ps. Sallustius, D e diis 9 . 5 = STERN II, § 4 8 8 ; S H A Hadrianus 1 4 . 1 - 2 = STERN II, § 5 1 1 (with
comment on 6 2 0 - 2 1 concerning the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in Cyrene and the question
of circumcision); P s . Aero, Scholia in Hor. serm. 1 . 9 . 7 0 = STERN, II, § 5 3 9 ; Rutilius
Namatianus, D e reditu suo 1 . 3 8 8 = STERN II, § 5 4 2 .
4 8 5
C. Cels. 5 . 4 8 , 4 9 ( 3 6 1 , 2 1 - 3 6 2 , 2 0 ; 3 6 2 , 2 1 - 3 6 3 , 1 M A R C ) . Josephus, Antiq. 1 . 2 1 4 notes
that the Arabs circumcise their sons during the thirteenth year (as in the case of Ishmael).
130 1. Celsus
2 9 : 2 - 3 ) , as Moses says. In addition to these, if they do not obey he explicitly threatens to

4 8 6
do to them what he does to the enemies (Deut 1 : 2 6 - 4 5 , 7 : 4 , 9 : 1 4 , 2 8 : 1 5 - 6 8 ) .
Origen is u n w i l l i n g to accept the "literal" (προς· ρ η τ ό ν ) interpretation o f the

texts C e l s u s u s e s and argues that they m u s t b e interpreted in the "spiritual
1 487
sense" (προς δι,άνοιαν), as s o m e "before h i m " t a u g h t . H e appeals to E z e k
2 0 : 2 5 and 2 Cor 3:7-8 to argue for the t w o s e n s e s o f the scriptures. Origen
thinks it probable that C e l s u s draws o n a source that s e e s a contradiction
4 8 8
b e t w e e n the G o d o f the l a w and the G o d o f the g o s p e l . A c c o r d i n g to o n e
Marcionite d i s c i p l e , M o s e s destroys b y raising his hands ( s e e E x o d 17:8-16)
489
and Jesus s a v e s b y extending his h a n d s . W h i l e C e l s u s d o e s not quote any
L X X t e x t s e x p l i c i t l y , it is clear that h e k n o w s m a n y traditions from the
Pentateuch and perhaps traditions o f h o l y war from Joshua (Josh 6 : 1 7 - 2 1 , 8:1-
2, 1 0 : 3 8 - 4 2 ) . C e l s u s ' text also e c h o e s G e n 1:28 (have d o m i n i o n , and fill the
earth). A p a g a n author w h o m a y h a v e found that text acceptable is O c e l l u s
Lucanus w h o , in a d i s c u s s i o n o f the purpose o f human sexuality, argues that
it is not for pleasure but for generation s o "most o f the earth's area w i l l b e
4 9 0
filled" ( τ ο ν π λ ε ί ο ν α ττ\ς γ η ς τ ό π ο ν π λ η ρ ο ϋ σ θ α ι ) . W h i l e it is not
certain that O c e l l u s k n o w s G e n e s i s , it is quite p o s s i b l e g i v e n the linguistic
similarities o f both texts.
7.29 Doctrines
C e l s u s attacks m a n y individual doctrines o f the J e w i s h r e l i g i o n w i t h o u t

m e n t i o n i n g particular t e x t s in the L X X . N o n e o f their t e a c h i n g s are
particularly original according to C e l s u s , and the J e w s are not l o v e d any more
by the divine than any other nation o n earth.
4 8 6
C. Cels. 7 . 1 8 ( 4 7 3 , 5 - 1 1 M A R C ) . On Celsus' use of these texts against the teachings of
Jesus see COOK, Interpretation, 4 0 - 4 1 / NESTLE, D i e Haupteinwande, 9 4 - 5 / PELAGAUD, Un
conservateur, 3 6 1 . Cf. FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 1 1 2 for other references to Jewish wealth
in antiquity.
4 8 7
C. Cels. 7 . 2 0 ( 4 7 5 , 1 6 - 2 5 M A R C ) . Presumably the predecessors Origen is thinking of
include Philo ( D e spec. leg. 1 . 2 8 7 ) who distinguishes the literal meaning (τά μεν ρητά)
from an inner or spiritual sense (τά δε προς- διάνοι αν) that one sees using the rules of
allegory.
4 8 8
C. Cels. 7 . 2 5 ( 4 7 9 , 2 6 - 4 8 0 , 4 M A R C ) .
4 8 9
Megethius apud Adamantius, Dial. 1 . 1 1 ( 2 4 , 2 4 - 9 B A K . ) mentioned by HARNACK,
Marcion, 2 8 1 * .
4 9 0
STERN I, § 4 0 = Ocellus Lucanus, D e universi natura 4 6 . S e e § 0 . 3 . Gen 1 : 2 8 has
πληρώσατε τ η ν γ ή ν (fill the earth).
1.29.1 Purity, Heaven, and Election
C e l s u s traces the J e w i s h d o c t r i n e o f h e a v e n t o the P e r s i a n s — m u c h as h e

related their c i r c u m c i s i o n to an E g y p t i a n origin:
If, as though they k n o w something wiser, they exalt themselves and turn away from
fellowship (κοινωνίαν) with others as not being of equal purity (ουκ έζ Ισου καθαρών),
they have already heard that even their doctrine about heaven that they call their o w n , but
— that I may omit all other examples — has been taught long by the Persians as
Herodotus (1.131) somewhere indicates: "They have the custom o f ascending to the
highest places o f mountains to make sacrifices to Zeus — calling the entire circle o f
heaven Zeus." Therefore I think that to call Zeus Highest, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth,
491
or Amon (as the Egyptians do), or Papaeus (as the Scythians do) makes no d i f f e r e n c e .
C e l s u s c o n t i n u e s w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f c i r c u m c i s i o n and f o o d l a w s that h a s
been mentioned a b o v e (§ 1.28.3). H e t h e n d e n i e s that G o d s h o w s any
particular favor t o the J e w s :
4 9 2
It is not probable either that these enjoy God's good w i l l (ούδ' ευδοκιμεί ν παρά τψ
θεψ καΐ σ τ έ ρ γ ε σ θ α ι ) and are loved any differently from the others or that angels were
sent from there to them alone — as if they received by lot s o m e land o f the blessed
(μακάρων χώραν). For w e see them and their land and the things that both have merited.
Therefore, let this chorus leave after suffering the punishment for its boasting — not
knowing the great God, but being misled and deceived by M o s e s ' magic (or "imposture"
4 9 3
γ ο η τ ε ί α ς ) of which it became a disciple (μαθητής) for no good end
O r i g e n a n s w e r s C e l s u s ' c h a r g e against J e w i s h arrogance b y n o t i n g that it is

actually a c h a r g e a g a i n s t t h e J e w s ' b e l i e f in t h e m s e l v e s as a c h o s e n g r o u p
(e.g. Deut 32:9). H e t h e n o u t l i n e s s o m e o f the marks o f J e w i s h s o c i e t y s u c h
as the t e m p l e , the a b s e n c e o f theatres, and the a b s e n c e o f prostitutes. From
4 9 4
birth J e w s are taught about the t h i n g s o f G o d . Jewish doctrine is unlike
that o f the P e r s i a n s b e c a u s e the J e w s o n l y h a v e o n e h o u s e o f prayer and d o
4 9 5
n o t call h e a v e n Z e u s or G o d . T h e J e w s are right t o a v o i d f e l l o w s h i p w i t h
o t h e r s ( i n c l u d i n g p h i l o s o p h e r s ) w h o w o r s h i p i d o l s and are p o l l u t e d and
4 9 6
impious (εναγών καΐ άσεβων) .
4 9 1
On the names o f G o d see § 1.23. Papaeus can be found in Herodotus 4 . 5 9 . Origen
responds that Zeus is not Sabaoth but a demon. He holds the same opinion of A m o n and
Papaeus in C. Cels. 5.46 (360,16-27 M A R C ) . On this text see SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 43-4.
4 9 2
Compare the frequent use o f this word in the Greco-Roman writers' criticisms of
alleged Jewish misanthropy. S e e § 0.4.
4 9 3
C. Cels. 5.41 (355,24-356,3.8-16 M A R C ) . CHADWICK (Early Christian Thought, 2 6 )
notes that for Celsus "the Jews' belief that they are God's elect is a mere reflection o f inflated
national pride." For the question of Moses' magic see also § 1.20-1.
4 9 4
C. Cels. 5.42 (356,17-357,6 M A R C ) .
4 9 5
C. Cels. 5.44 (358,1-15 M A R C ) .
4 9 6
C. Cels. 5.43 (357,20-6 M A R C ) .
132 1. Celsus
C e l s u s ' references to J e w i s h concerns for purity, h e a v e n , and G o d ' s l o v e

for t h e m s h o w a k n o w l e d g e o f L X X t h e m e s e v e n though h e d o e s not specify
their origin. Levitical and priestly purity ( N u m 8:7, 2 Esdr 6:20 L X X = Ezra
6:20) and the distinction b e t w e e n the pure and foreigners w h o h a v e n o share
in the t e m p l e ( 2 Esdr 12:20 L X X = N e h 2:20) might b e traditions that Celsus
has in m i n d . Ezra's d e m a n d that the J e w s divorce their foreign w i v e s (10:11
= 2 Esdr 10:11 L X X ) c o u l d a l s o h a v e inspired h i m . It is a l s o likely that
C e l s u s w a s s i m p l y adopting a tradition o f pagans w h o a c c u s e d the J e w s o f
misanthropy. A n e x a m p l e is D i o d o r u s Siculus according to w h o m Antiochus
I V b e l i e v e d that M o s e s o r d a i n e d m i s a n t h r o p i c and l a w l e s s c u s t o m s
4 9 7
( ν ο μ ο θ β τ ή σ α ν τ ο ς τ ά μ ι σ ά ν θ ρ ω π α και π α ρ ά ν ο μ α € θ η ) . Although
S o l o m o n ' s prayer toward h e a v e n and his description o f G o d b e i n g a b o v e the
highest h e a v e n are s o m e w h a t relevant (3 K g d m s 8:22, 2 7 L X X = 1 K g s ) , it is
difficult to s e e h o w C e l s u s c o u l d glean from them his v i e w s expressed above.
It is m o r e probable that h e found such ideas in earlier writers such as Strabo
w h o n o t e s that for the J e w s G o d is h e a v e n and u n i v e r s e ( ο υ ρ α ν ό ν και
4 9 8
κ ό σ μ ο ν ) . L X X texts s u c h as t h o s e f o u n d in D e u t 4 : 3 7 and H o s 11:1
indicate h o w C e l s u s c o u l d h a v e d e v e l o p e d the tradition that the J e w s b e l i e v e d
G o d l o v e d t h e m in a special w a y . Celsus could h a v e derived his attack o n the
miserable c o n d i t i o n o f the J e w s from writers such as C i c e r o w h o traced the
4 9 9
l o w state o f the J e w s to their resistance towards R o m e .
7.29.2 The Worship of Heaven and Angels

Celsus b e l i e v e s the J e w s not o n l y identify G o d with h e a v e n , but also worship
it.
First among Jewish characteristics that is worthy of marvel: If they worship the heaven
and the angels in it, its most respectable (τά σ ε μ ν ό τ α τ α ) and most powerful parts — the
sun, the moon, and other stars, both the fixed stars and the planets — these they omit
(παραπεμπουσιν). A s if it were acceptable for the whole to be God, but its parts not to be
4 9 7
Diod. Sic. 34-35.1.3 = STERN I, § 6 3 . Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1 = STERN II, § 281 (he
accuses the Jews of hatred for others), and Philostratus, Vita A p . 5.33 = STERN II, § 403
(Euphrates accuses the Jews of a revolt against humanity). Cf. also § 0.4, 0.10 / PELAGAUD,
U n conservateur, 283.
4 9 8
Strabo 16.2.35 = STERN I, § 115. Cp. Hecataeus of Abdera apud Diod Sic. 40.3.4 =
STERN I, § 11 (heaven is God, and M o s e s introduced a misanthropic way of life). Arrian,
Anabasis notes that the Arabs also worship heaven (7.20.1). Cp. HENGEL/SCHWEMER, Paul,
397 n.655 w h o refer to various inscriptions including one to a Heavenly Arabian God (Theos
Uranios Arabikos). Cp. § 1.23,1.29.1.
4 9 9
Cicero, Pro Flacco 28:69 = STERN I, § 68. Cp. Apion's charge that the Jews' laws are
unjust because they have been slaves of many empires (Jos., C. Ap. 2.125 = STERN I, § 174).
Caecilius in Minucius Felix' dialogue claims that the Jewish god is in captivity to Rome
(Octavius 10.4 [BiTeu, 8,20-23 KYTZLER]). The argument continued through Julian who
used it against Jews and Christians (see § 1.25 above).
divine; or that it is well to offer special worship to beings said to approach those w h o are
blinded in some darkness because o f a false magic (έκ γ ο η τ ε ί α ς ουκ ορθής) or w h o
dream o f faint apparitions, but the beings w h o prophesy clearly and brightly to all,
through w h o m rains, heat spells, clouds, and thunders (which they worship), lightnings,
fruits, and all products are regulated, through whom God is revealed to them, the heralds
the most manifest o f those above, the truly heavenly angels, these are thought to be
500
nothing.
O r i g e n s i m p l y d e n i e s that the J e w s w o r s h i p h e a v e n or the a n g e l s in it, u s i n g

Exod 20:3-5. Neither d o they worship any h e a v e n l y b o d i e s g i v e n Deut
5 0 1 5 0 2
4:19 . O r i g e n h i m s e l f d i d b e l i e v e t h e stars w e r e rational b e i n g s . For
C e l s u s , o n the other h a n d , the J e w i s h (and Christian) a n g e l s are n o t g o d s but
5 0 3
demons . H e t a k e s it as a g i v e n that the J e w s w o r s h i p a n g e l s . In another
text C e l s u s n o t e s that a n a n g e l appeared t o M o s e s : " A n d w h y is it n e c e s s a r y
t o carefully i n v e s t i g a t e all t h i n g s and e n u m e r a t e the a n g e l s s a i d to h a v e b e e n
5 0 4
sent t o M o s e s a n d t o o t h e r s o f their o w n ? " Christians c h a r g e d J e w s and
o n e another w i t h a n g e l w o r s h i p o c c a s i o n a l l y , and a rabbinic text warns
5 0 5
against m a k i n g a sacrifice w i t h a n g e l s in m i n d . C e l s u s rejects the b e l i e f in
a n g e l s that c o m e t o h u m a n b e i n g s in f a v o r o f a faith i n the h e a v e n l y a n g e l s
5 0 6
w h i c h are t h e stars a n d p l a n e t s that c o n t r o l w e a t h e r a n d c r o p s . It is
difficult, w i t h Cataudella, to d e n y that C e l s u s shares the ancient cultural b e l i e f
5 0 0
C. Cels. 5.6 (323,1-15 M A R C ) . Cf. PICHLER, Streit, 159 / MERLAN, Celsus, 9 5 2 / G.
RlNALDl, Sognatori e visionari 'biblici' nei polemisti anticristiani, Augustinianum 2 9 , 1989,
(7-30) 8. With regard to the worship of heaven cp. § 1.23,1.29.1.
5 0 1
C. Cels. 5.6 (323,16-32 M A R C ) .
5 0 2
C. Cels. 5.10 (327,26-30 M A R C ) . Cp. Plato, Tim. 40b, Alcin., Didask. 14.6 171.13-4
(35 W./L.), (and for the Stoics) S V F 2.685-88, Aristotle, D e caelo 2 . 1 2 (292a). BORRET 3.38
n.l includes many references to Origen's writings such as D e princ, 2.9.7 ( 1 7 1 , 1 0 - 1 2 [ 4 1 4 -
16] G./K.). Cf. also ANDRESEN, Logos, 9 9 n.32 and CHADWICK, Origen, 271 n.8. A. SCOTT
surveys the entire issue in antiquity including Origen's views in: Origen and the Life o f the
Stars. A History of an Idea, Oxford 1991.
5 0 3
5 0 4
C. Cels. 5.52 365,15-6 M A R C ) . Cf. also § 1.26.
5 0 5
Col 2:18, Praedicatio Petri apud Clem. ΑΙ., Strom. 6.5.41.2 (II, 4 5 2 , 7 - 1 0 ST./FR.),
Aristides, Apol. 14.4 ( 1 0 4 V O N A ) , Origen (a reference to the Praed. Petri), In Jo. 13.17.104
(GCS Origenes I V , 2 4 1 , 2 1 P R E U S C H E N ) , t. Hul. 2:18 ( 5 0 3 Z U C K E R M A N D E L ) . J. B .
LlGHTFOOT, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians and Philemon, London 1892, 6 5 notes
that Canon 35 of the Council o f Laodicea forbids Christians to invoke angels ( α γ γ έ λ ο υ ς
όνομά£ειν). Theodoret, In Col. 2:18 (PG 8 2 , 613b) claims Christians in the region o f Phrygia
and Pisidia worshipped angels to his day. H e also mentions the council o f Laodicea (CPG
IV, § 8607). Cf. PELAGAUD, U n conservateur, 285.
5 0 6
CHADWICK, Origen 2 6 7 n.5 mentions Varro, apud Tert., Ad nat. 2.5.2 (48,5-8 BOR.) as
evidence for this belief in antiquity.
134 1. Celsus
5 0 7
in the divinity o f the h e a v e n l y b e i n g s . H e also objects in a similar w a y to
5 0 8
the Christian b e l i e f in Jesus as the incarnation o f G o d . H e d o e s s e e m to be
w i l l i n g to c o n s i d e r the w h o l e as G o d , although e l s e w h e r e h e writes that the
5 0 9
ancients c a l l e d the c o s m o s the offspring o f G o d . O r i g e n refers to the
general Greek b e l i e f in the divinity o f the c o s m o s , but notes that e v e n then the
510
parts are n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d i v i n e — s u c h as the plants and a n i m a l s . H e
includes the S t o i c s (the world is the first G o d ) , Platonists ( s e c o n d G o d ) , and
5 1 1
those w h o call the c o s m o s the third G o d .
1.29.3 God Higher than Heaven

Christians s e e m to b e l i e v e in a G o d higher than the h e a v e n o f the J e w s
according to C e l s u s : "[After these things C e l s u s s a y s , ] Certain Christians
m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g Platonic s a y i n g s exalt the G o d a b o v e the h e a v e n s ( τ ο ν
ύ π ε ρ ο υ ρ ά ν ι ο ν θ ε ό ν ) and rise a b o v e ( ύ π ε ρ α ν α β α ί ν ο ν τ α ς ) the h e a v e n o f the
5 1 2
Jews." Origen questions whether C e l s u s m e a n s Christians w h o b e l i e v e that
5 1 3
they rise higher than the G o d o f the J e w s or o n l y the h e a v e n o f the J e w s .
Caecilius in M i n u c i u s F e l i x ' dialogue also thinks that it is a strange folly for a
person to w a n t to "step b e y o n d the limits o f our mortal c o n d i t i o n " {ultra
humilitatis nostrae terminos evagamur) and to "transcend h e a v e n and the
stars t h e m s e l v e s in our audacious desire" {caelum ipsum et ipsa sidera audaci
514
cupiditate transcendimus) . C e l s u s ' point is probably that Christians b e l i e v e
in a G o d a b o v e the h e a v e n s and hope to o n e day ascend t h e m s e l v e s a b o v e the
h e a v e n s . H e m a k e s this clear in several texts i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g the o n e
just quoted. O n e passage describes true being a b o v e the h e a v e n s with a quote
from Plato, and the other describes those w h o c o m e to the h i g h e s t h e a v e n s
5 1 5
after the troubles b e l o w and c o n t e m p l a t e b e i n g . T h e s e P l a t o n i c texts
5 0 7
CATAUDELLA, Celso e l'Epicureismo, 4-6. Cp. BORRET 3.26 n.2 and ANDRESEN,
Logos, 96-8.
5 0 8
C O O K , Interpretation 62-68.
5 0 9
C. Cels. 6.47 (425,21-3 M A R C ) . See § 1.2.16 and 1.23.
5 1 0
C. Cels. 5.7 (324,10-6 M A R C ) . Cp. CHADWICK, Origen, 268 n.3-5, BORRET 3.29 n.l-
3.
5 1 1
For the Stoics see Diog. Laert. 7.137-40, DlELS, D o x o g . Gr. 4 6 4 , and C i c , D e nat.
deor. 2.17.45. For the Platonists see DlELS, D o x o g . Gr. 305b, 6-8. Numenius calls the
cosmos the third God in F. 2 1 , 2 2 (60,3; 61,1-6 DES PLACES).
5 1 2
C. Cels. 6.19 (396,20-2 M A R C ) . CHADWICK, Origen, 331 translates with "place Him
higher" instead of "rise above." The fact that the object of the verb in the Greek text is
"heaven" (no "him" in the text) argues against this translation as do the meanings of the verb
found in LSJ s.v. (cross, rise above, transcend, but not "place"). Cf. PlCHLER, Streit, 157.
5 1 3
C. Cels. 6.19 (396,22-4 M A R C ) .
5 1 4
Minucius Felix, Octavius 5.6 (3,31-4 KYT.).
5 1 5
C. Cels. 6.19 (397,8-15 M A R C ) from Plato, Phaedrus 247c where ultimate being is in
the place above the heaven — τον ύπερουράνιον τόπον. C. Cels. 6.20 (398,5-6.10-1
i n d i c a t e C e l s u s ' p r e f e r e n c e for p h i l o s o p h y o v e r J u d a i s m or C h r i s t i a n i t y .
W h e n h e f i n d s s o m e t h i n g w o r t h w h i l e i n the t e x t s , h e o f t e n s e e s it as a
516
plagiarism f r o m G r e e k traditions or Plato in p a r t i c u l a r .
7 . 2 9 . 4 Seven Heavens
C e l s u s a p p a r e n t l y a r g u e d that J e w s and (or) C h r i s t i a n s b e l i e v e d i n s e v e n

heavens. Origen writes,
[The scriptures used in the churches d o not report] seven heavens [or any clearly
determined number o f them, but the texts appear to teach that there are heavens which are
517
either the spheres which the Greeks call planets or something else more m y s t e r i o u s ] .
O r i g e n finds a w i t n e s s t o the s e v e n w o r l d s or h e a v e n s (mundis vel caelis) in

5 1 8
the A p o c a l y p s e o f B a r u c h . G r e e k s s u c h as Porphyry a l s o f o u n d e v i d e n c e
5 1 9
for the b e l i e f in s e v e n h e a v e n s a m o n g the H e b r e w s . Celsus, following
P l a t o a c c o r d i n g t o O r i g e n , g o e s o n to m e n t i o n the w a y for s o u l s t o the earth
5 2 0
and a w a y f r o m t h e e a r t h . H e g i v e s an e x t e n s i v e illustration o f h i s o w n
b e l i e f s b y referring t o t h e M i t h r a i c m y s t e r i e s and their v i s i o n o f t h e s o u l s '
5 2 1
p a s s a g e through the p l a n e t s v i a a ladder w i t h s e v e n g a t e s . A t t h e t o p i s an
MARC.) using Plato, Phaedrus 247b-c. Justin describes God as always remaining in regions
above the heavens (του ev Τ0Ϊ9 ύπερουρανοΐς d e l μ,ένουντος) in Dial. 56.1 (161,3-4
M A R C ) . On contemplation in Origen see BORRET 3.230 n.3.
5 1 6
S e e C O O K , Interpretation, 4 1 - 3 for Celsus' approach to Jesus' teaching as a corruption
of Plato's.
5 1 7
C. Cels. 6.21 (398,16-9 M A R C ) . Cp. C. H. 1.24-26 (I, 15,7-16,15 N./F.) / § 0 . 2 0 and
§ 2.1.2. Cp. also the magicians' vision of seven immortal gods, gates, and seven virgins in
PGM IV, 619-29, 6 6 1 - 2 , 673-5. S e e also the notes (and bibliography) in BETZ, The Greek
Magical Papyri, 50-1 that relate the texts to the Mithraic mysteries with their seven gates,
seven grades o f initiation, and planetary gods. H e refers to, among many others, J.
BERGMAN, Per omnia vectus elementa remeavi. Reflections sur l'arriere-plan ^gyptien du
voyage de salut d'un myste isiaque, in: La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' impero
romano, EPRO 9 2 , e d . U . BlANCHl/M. J. VERMASEREN, Leiden 1 9 8 2 , 6 7 1 - 7 0 8 . Cf.
PELAGAUD, U n conservateur, 345.
5 1 8
Origen, D e princ. 2.3.6 (122,25-123,1 [318-20] G./K.). The current text o f 3 Baruch
2-11 (OTP I, 6 6 5 - 7 5 ) has only five heavens. The apocalypticist v o y a g e s through seven
heavens in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch 3 - 2 0 (OTP I, 111-35). S e e also Clem. A l e x . , Strom.
4.25.159.2 (II, 318,28-31 S T . / F R . ) w h o describes those w h o believe in seven heavens. Cf.
Str-B 3.532. BORRET 3 . 2 3 1 n.4 gives bibliography on the ascent of the soul through the
seven heavens in the history o f religions.
5 1 9
Porphyry, D e philosophia e x oraculis hauerienda 324F (372,15-8 SMITH) = § 2.1.2.
5 2 0
C. Cels. 6.21 (398,19-21 M A R C ) . S e e Plato, Phaedrus 248c-e, Tim. 41d-42e, Origen,
D e princ. 2.11.6 ( 1 8 9 , 9 - 1 9 1 , 4 [450-54] G./K.) and Timaeus Locri 99d,e (Timaeus o f Locri.
On the Nature o f the World and the Soul, ed. and trans. Τ. Η. TOBIN, SBLTT 2 6 , Chico, C A
1 9 8 5 , 5 5 ) . BORRET 3.238 n.4 discusses this doctrine in late antiquity.
5 2 1
C. Cels. 6.22 (399,3-20 M A R C ) . CHADWICK, Origen, 3 3 4 n.2 has an extensive note on
this concept. S o m e o f the more recent literature on Mithraic astrology can b e found in
SCOTT, Origen, 81. S e e also the discussion in FEDOU, Christianisme, 164-76.
136 7. Celsus
eighth g a t e that l e a d s to the f i x e d stars. Origen prefers the i m a g e in G e n

1 8 : 1 2 - 1 3 o f J a c o b ' s ladder o f a n g e l s and m e n t i o n ' s P h i l o ' s treatise o n the
522
subject (De somniis) . H e q u e s t i o n s C e l s u s ' c h o i c e o f Persian m y s t e r i e s
o v e r others that are m o r e popular in G r e e c e (such as E l e u s i s ) . If the other
m y s t e r i e s are o f n o u s e in the criticism o f J e w s or Christians, w h y u s e the
Mithraic? H e also r e c o m m e n d s that a n y o n e w h o w i s h e s to learn deeper truths
about h o w s o u l s enter the d i v i n e realm s h o u l d read J e w i s h and Christian
5 2 3
b o o k s s u c h as E z e k i e l and the A p o c a l y p s e o f J o h n . O n e o f C e l s u s '
c o n c l u s i o n s about the J e w i s h and Christian t e a c h i n g s c o n c e r n i n g h e a v e n
(presumably including E z e k i e l and R e v e l a t i o n ) is that they are "speculations
524
( θ ε ω ρ ή μ α τ α ) requiring for hearers those w h o are fools and s l a v e s . "
1.29.5 Promises to the Jews: Population and Resurrection

In an attack o n G n o s t i c Christians w h o v i e w the creator G o d o f M o s e s as
accursed, C e l s u s describes several J e w i s h doctrines:
What is more stupid or crazy than this senseless wisdom? For h o w did the lawgiver
(νομοθέτης) of the Jews err? And how do you adopt for yourself his cosmogony or the
law of the Jews through some, as you say, general allegory (τυπώδους αλληγορίας) and
unwillingly you praise, Ο unholy person, the creator ( δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ό ν ) o f the cosmos who
promised all things to them, announcing that their offspring (γένος) would multiply to the
ends of the earth (Gen 8:17, 9:1, 7, 12:2-3, 15:5 etc.), would rise from the dead with the
same flesh and blood (Dan 12:1-3), and who inspired the prophets (τοις προφήταις
ε μ π ν έ ο ν τ α ) — and again you revile this being? But when you are forced by these
[Jews], you confess that you worship the same God, But when your teacher Jesus and
Moses of the Jews legislate contradictory things, you look for a god other than this one —
525
the F a t h e r .
Origen s i m p l y d e n i e s C e l s u s ' charges. Christians a c k n o w l e d g e o n e and the

s a m e G o d , and d o not b e l i e v e that the resurrection b o d y is the natural b o d y
5 2 6
that d i e s . O r i g e n i n other texts, h o w e v e r , admits that there are G n o s t i c
527
Christians w h o h o l d such b e l i e f s (against the C r e a t o r ) . C e l s u s h a s an
e x t e n s i v e critique o f the doctrine o f the resurrection and is c o n v i n c e d that the
528
c o n c e p t is incoherent since resurrection is i m p o s s i b l e . H e w a s a l s o aware
that there w e r e J e w s and C h r i s t i a n s w h o did n o t a c c e p t the t e a c h i n g
concerning the resurrection o f the body: "Since this teaching is not shared by
5 2 2
C. Cels. 6.21 (398,21-8 MARC).
5 2 3
C. Cels. 6.22, 23 (399,25-400,15.16-24 MARC).
5 2 4
C. Cels. 6.23 (401,3-5 MARC). What would he have thought of b. Chag.?
5 2 5
C. Cels. 6.29 (406,5-17 MARC). Cf. PiLAGAUD, Un conservateur, 347-8.
5 2 6
C. Cels. 6.29 (406,18-28 MARC).
5 2 7
See § 1.2.8 above.
5 2 8
Cf. C O O K , Interpretation 55-61 for Celsus' views of Jesus' resurrection and of the
concept of resurrection itself. See C. Cels. 5.14 (331,1-24 M A R C ) .
s o m e o f y o u ( J e w s ) and s o m e o f the Christians, its e x t r e m e impurity, its

529
abominable character, and its impossibility ( α δ ύ ν α τ ο ν ) are a p p a r e n t . " He,
through his J e w i s h persona, argues that the prophets b e l i e v e d in a M e s s i a h as
530
the initiator o f the r e s u r r e c t i o n .
T h o u g h C e l s u s d o e s not q u o t e the particular p r o m i s e s to A b r a h a m and
other patriarchs in G e n e s i s , h e is aware o f the general b e l i e f that the J e w s
w o u l d populate the entire earth. E l s e w h e r e he e x p r e s s e s h i s scorn for the
present situation o f the J e w s . H i s earlier statement that the J e w s are o f n o
value or number is an e x a m p l e o f his denial o f the reality o f the p r o m i s e to the
531
patriarchs . C e l s u s ' rejection o f the J e w i s h creation story and certain J e w i s h
l a w s has b e e n d i s c u s s e d a b o v e (§ 1 . 2 , 1 . 2 8 . 3 ) .
1.30 Prophets and Prophecy
C e l s u s ' references to the L X X are f o c u s e d o n traditions in the Pentateuch —

w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f a brief reference to Jonah and D a n i e l . H e is aware that
532
there are m a n y prophets in J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n . H e d o e s not attack the b e l i e f
that the prophets w e r e inspired b y the creator (τοΪ9 π ρ ο φ ή τ α ι ς ε μ π ν έ ο ν τ α )
5 3 3
in the text q u o t e d a b o v e . C e l s u s m u c h preferred, h o w e v e r , the inspired
oracles, poets and philosophers o f H e l l e n i s m .
5 2 9
C. Cels. 5 . 1 4 ( 3 3 1 , 7 - 9 M A R C ) . On the larger context see COOK, Interpretation, 5 9 - 6 0 .
The Sadducees rejected the resurrection (Acts 2 3 : 8 ) . Cf. J. LEMOYNE, Les Sadduceens, Paris
1 9 7 2 , 1 6 7 - 7 5 / G. STEMBERGER, The Sadduccees — Their History and Doctrines, in: The
Cambridge History o f Judaism. Vol. 3 . The Early Roman Period, ed. W . HORBURY/W. D .
DAVIES,/J. STURDY, Cambridge 1 9 9 9 , ( 4 2 8 - 4 3 ) 4 4 0 - 1 . For Christians w h o rejected the
resurrection of the body or w h o believed it was already past see 1 Cor 1 5 : 1 2 , 2 T i m 2 : 1 8 ,
Iren. 5 . 1 3 . 2 - 3 (SC 1 5 3 , 1 6 8 , 3 7 - 1 7 0 , 4 8 ROUSSEAU/DOUTRELEAU/MERCIER), Tertullian, D e
carnis res. 4 8 . 1 - 4 9 . 1 3 (CChr.SL 2 , 9 8 7 , 1 - 9 9 2 , 6 8 BORLEFFS), Epiphanius, Panarion 4 0 . 2 . 5
( 8 2 , 2 6 - 7 H./D.; the Archontics believe only in a resurrection of the soul and not of the flesh).
For the N a g Hammadi literature see RUDOLPH, Gnosis, 1 8 9 - 9 4 . The Treatise on the
Resurrection s e e m s to depict the event as already happened, but also believes that living
members (not bodily members) will rise after death (NHC I, 4 , 4 9 , 2 2 - 2 5 ; 4 7 , 3 6 - 4 8 , 3 [NHS
2 2 , 1 5 2 - 5 4 ATTRIDGE]).
5 3 0
C. Cels. 2 . 7 7 ( 1 4 8 , 1 0 - 3 M A R C ) discussed below in § 1 . 3 0 . 4 .
5 3 1
See § 1 . 2 5 above with reference to C. Cels. 4 . 3 1 ( 2 4 5 , 2 - 5 M A R C ) .
5 3 2
Cf. C. Cels. 6 . 2 9 , 7 . 1 8 ( 4 0 6 , 5 - 1 7 ; 4 7 3 , 4 - 2 0 M A R C ) . Several general studies of
prophecy in Origen are: G. A. HALLSTROM, Charismatic Succession. A Study on Origen's
Concept of Prophecy, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 4 2 , Helsinki 1 9 8 5 / R. J.
HAUCK, The More D i v i n e Proof. Prophecy and Inspiration in Celsus and Origen, A A R
Academy Series 6 9 , Atlanta 1 9 8 9 / L. S. NASRALLAH, An Ecstasy of Folly. Prophecy and
Authority in Early Christianity, Harvard Theological Studies 5 2 , Cambridge, Mass., 2 0 0 3 .
5 3 3
C. Cels. 6 . 2 9 ( 4 0 6 , 1 3 M A R C ) . Cf. § 1 . 2 9 . 5 .
138 1. Celsus
130.1 Jonah and Daniel

W h i l e arguing against the Christians' admiration o f the p a s s i o n o f Jesus,
C e l s u s m e n t i o n s a number o f Greek figures w h o suffered v i o l e n c e such as
534
E p i c t e t u s w h o w e r e able to offer admirable teachings simultaneously. T h e
last statement o f C e l s u s in Origen's quote is: "Jonah b e s i d e the gourd (Jonah
4:6), or D a n i e l delivered from the beasts ( D a n 6 : 1 6 - 2 3 ) , or others with e v e n
m o r e a m a z i n g actions ( τ β ρ α τ ω δ ε σ τ έ ρ ο ι ) w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e suitable for
535
y o u than J e s u s . " C e l s u s ' w o r d for an amazing action probably implies that
he d o e s not accept its veracity as in an earlier passage in w h i c h h e attacks the
536
resurrection o f J e s u s . Porphyry (or other pagans w h o m A u g u s t i n e k n e w )
found the story o f Jonah to b e incredible and k n e w o f the gourd. T h e pagans
asked what the purpose w a s o f the gourd that grew o v e r Jonah. T h e y laughed
a great deal o v e r the account, and n o allegorical interpretation s e e m e d likely
537
to t h e m . Christian authors report m u c h s k e p t i c i s m regarding the s t o r y .
538
C e l s u s m a y k n o w that Jonah and D a n i e l appear in Christian i c o n o g r a p h y .
Gary Burke doubts that Celsus actually k n e w the 138 b o o k o f Jonah, although
the r e f e r e n c e to the gourd i m p l i e s that C e l s u s had a s o u r c e other than
539
Christian art a l o n e .
1302 The Prophets as Inspired

H e noted that the Christians rejected the Greek oracles, but w e r e c o n v i n c e d o f
the truth o f the oracles o f Judea:
But the things predicted by the inhabitants of Judea, made in their manner — whether
really said or not and following the usage still in force in Phoenicia and Palestine — these
540
are considered to be amazing and unalterable (θαυμαστά καΐ απαράλλακτα).
G r e c o - R o m a n m e n and w o m e n h a v e predicted all sorts o f things in inspired

5 4 1
v o i c e s (ένΟέίύ φ ω ν ή π ρ ο ε ΐ π ο ν ) according to C e l s u s . C e l s u s a l s o m u s t
5 3 4
On the reliability of this testimony of Celsus, see CHADWICK, Origen, 4 4 0 n.l.
5 3 5
C. Cels. 7 . 5 3 ( 5 0 5 , 2 - 2 3 MARC.) = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 2 8 6 . RINALDI
doubts that Celsus had actually read Jonah. Cf. PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 3 6 7 .
5 3 6
C. Cels. 2 . 5 5 ( 1 2 7 , 7 - 1 2 8 , 2 M A R C ) . See "tell amazing stories" (Greek stories of after-
death appearances that he recounts; τ ε ρ α τ ε ύ ο ν τ α ι ) and "amazing story" (Jesus' resurrection
τ ε ρ α τ ε ί α ) in lines 1 2 7 , 8 and 1 2 8 , 1 .
5 3 7
See §2.2.14.
5 3 8
RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 2 5 3 (note on p. 2 1 8 ) , § 2 8 6 (p. 2 4 7 ) .
5 3 9
B U R K E , Celsus, 2 4 4 - 5 . He notes that to a pagan the story of Jonah and the whale
would have been far more impressive than the gourd (i.e. Celsus would have mentioned it had
he known it).
5 4 0
C. Cels. 7 . 3 ( 4 6 0 , 1 0 - 3 M A R C ) . See the discussion of Celsus' views on Greco-Roman
prophecy in FEDOU, Christianisme, 4 2 6 - 3 2 . Cp. also COOK, Interpretation, 7 9 - 8 2 for a survey
of Celsus' references to the oracles and their accomplishments and ibid. 7 7 - 8 for Celsus'
views on the question of contemporary Christian prophets.
h a v e b e e n aware o f s o m e o f the Jewish and Christian theories concerning the

542
inspiration o f s c r i p t u r e . Philo b e l i e v e s that the mind o f the prophet departs
543
w h e n the d i v i n e Spirit a r r i v e s . T h e N T has s e v e r a l s t a t e m e n t s o n
inspiration that C e l s u s m i g h t h a v e k n o w n such as A c t s 3 : 2 1 , 2 T i m 3 : 1 6 , and
2 Pet 1:21. H e m i g h t also b e aware o f the tradition shared b y apologists such
544
as Justin and A t h e n a g o r a s c o n c e r n i n g i n s p i r a t i o n . T h e debate b e t w e e n
Celsus and Origen here is as usual deeply rooted in the cultural differences o f
both m e n , e a c h preferring the revered figures o f H e l l e n i s m or J u d a i s m
respectively. O n e of Origen's methods of criticism of Greco-Roman
p r o p h e c y is to ask w h e t h e r it has m a d e p e o p l e ' s l i v e s better, e f f e c t i n g the
5 4 5
moral and religious reformation o f p e o p l e . It is likely that C e l s u s w o u l d
not h a v e b e e n w o n o v e r b y s u c h an argument s i n c e h e h i m s e l f lists m a n y
546
useful a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f the oracles in human s o c i e t y .
1.30.3 Prophecy is not Unique to Judaism

In the c o n t e x t o f a larger argument in w h i c h C e l s u s attacks the Christian
b e l i e f in the advent o f G o d ' s s o n to burn the unrighteous, h e c o m p a r e s the
debates b e t w e e n J e w s and Christians to those o f bats, ants, frogs or w o r m s :
... holding an assembly in a muddy comer arguing with each other about which of them
are most sinful and saying: God reveals and predicts all things beforehand to us and
neglects the whole universe, the heavenly movement, and overlooking the vast earth he
governs for us alone and to us alone he communicates by heralds (προς ημάς μόνους
έπικηρυκεύεται) — not ceasing to send them and to seek that w e might be united with
5 4 7
him forever (όπως άεί συνώμεν αύτψ).
C e l s u s ' main argument at this point is that the J e w s and Christians c l a i m that
prophets or heralds h a v e b e e n sent to them alone from G o d . T h i s contradicts
H e l l e n i s m ' s fundamental b e l i e f in oracular utterances and s o w a s repellent to
his sensibilities. T h e c o n c e p t o f eternal life is not objectionable to h i m , but
the idea that o n l y J e w s or Christians w o u l d experience it w a s unacceptable.
5 4 1
C. Cels. 8.45 (559,23-5 M A R C ) .
5 4 2
C. Cels. 6.29 (406,13 M A R C ) . For the text see § 1.29.5.
5 4 3
Philo, Quis rer. div. 2 6 3 - 6 6 , D e spec. leg. 1.65, 4.49. In C. Ap. 1.37, Josephus
describes the inspiration of the prophets using the term ε π ί π ν ο ι α ν which is similar to the one
used by Celsus in C. C e l s . 6.29 ( 4 0 6 , 1 3 M A R C ) . For rabbinic statements about the
inspiration of the prophets through the Holy Spirit see Str-B 4/2.435-51.
5 4 4
Justin, Apol. 1.36.1-2 (84,1-9 M A R C ) . Justin uses the same verb as Celsus to describe
prophetic inspiration (έμπεπνευσμένων) as does Theophilus (εμπνευσθε'ντες) in A d
Autolycum 2.9 (OECT 38, GRANT). Cp. Athenagoras, Legatio 9.1 (18-20 SCHOEDEL).
5 4 5
C. Cels. 7.6 (463,8-10.24-5 M A R C ) . See COOK, Interpretation, 80 on this argument
from consequence.
5 4 6
C. Cels. 8.45 (559,23-560,15 M A R C ) .
5 4 7
C. Cels. 4.23 (236,14-24 M A R C ) .
140 1. Celsus
Celsus b e l i e v e d in eternal life (for s o m e souls) and reincarnation (for as m a n y

548
as 3 0 , 0 0 0 periods) that led up to eternal l i f e .
1.30.4 Celsus* Jewish Persona on Old Testament Prophecy of a Son of God

In his attack o n Christianity he argues against Jesus b e i n g a fulfillment o f O T
prophecies about s o m e kind o f savior figure or child o f G o d . H e d o e s this b y
creating the persona o f a J e w w h o is skeptical o f J e s u s ' identity as the figure
549
o f O T p r o p h e c y . C e l s u s , through the J e w i s h antagonist, m a k e s o n l y the
v a g u e s t o f references to prophetic texts. There are n o q u o t e s o f prophetic
b o o k s and n o specific allusions to prophetic traditions. B e l o w I will catalog
s o m e o f his statements m a d e through his Jew concerning the "prophet." In a
curious reference to Jerusalem, h e states: " M y prophet said in Jerusalem o n c e
that the s o n o f G o d w i l l c o m e — a j u d g e o f the h o l y and punisher o f the
550
unrighteous." Probably h e is m e r e l y trying to create a prophetic persona
( w i t h an oracular l o c u s l i k e D e l p h i ) in order to illustrate the k i n d s or
a r g u m e n t s that h e e n v i s a g e s b e t w e e n J e w s and Christians. C e l s u s ' J e w
continues: "If a n y o n e predicted to y o u that i n d e e d the c h i l d ( π α ι ς ) o f G o d
551
w o u l d c o m e to p e o p l e it w a s our prophet and our G o d ' s p r o p h e t . " In an
explanation for the Jewish unbelief in Jesus, the Jew says:
But how, after w e have made known to all people that from God will come one to punish
the unrighteous, would we have dishonored him when he came? ... Why would w e have
dishonored the one w e publicly predicted (προ€κηρύσσομ€ν)? In order to be punished
552
more than the o t h e r s ?
T h e J e w i s h p e r s o n a is quite clear that the figure p r o p h e s i e d is not the

Christians' savior: "It is a great ruler ( δ υ ν ά σ τ η ν ) , lord (κύριον) o f all the
earth and o f all nations and armies w h o the prophets say w i l l c o m e ( τ ο ν
553
έ τ τ ι δ η μ ή σ ο ν τ α ) ... B u t they h a v e not a n n o u n c e d this p l a g u e ( δ λ ε θ ρ ο ν ) . "
C e l s u s ' J e w d o e s b e l i e v e in a c o m i n g ruler w h o w i l l b e an initiator o f the
resurrection o f the dead: "Doubtless w e h o p e to rise in our b o d y and h a v e
everlasting life and that the o n e w h o is sent to u s w i l l b e the m o d e l and
5 4 8
C. C e l s . 7.28, 8.49, 8.53 (482,4-6; 564,8-16; 568,11-16 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK,
5 4 9
On this imaginary Jew and his argument against Jesus as a fulfillment of OT prophecy
see COOK, Interpretation, 27, 7 2 - 7 5 . Celsus gives his o w n argument against Jesus as
fulfillment o f O T prophecy in 7.14 (469,24-470,4 MARC). Cf. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II, 194-5.
5 5 0
C. Cels. 1.49 (50,24-5 MARC.)
5 5 1
C. Cels. 2.4 (80,14-7 M A R C ) .
5 5 2
C. Cels. 2.8 (83,4-6.28-9 M A R C ) .
5 5 3
C. Cels. 2.29 (106,8-10.12 M A R C ) .
initiator ( ά ρ χ η γ ε τ η ν ) o f that, s h o w i n g it is not i m p o s s i b l e ( α δ ύ ν α τ ο ν ) for

554
G o d to raise s o m e o n e with the b o d y . "
It is difficult t o d e t e r m i n e the s o u r c e o f C e l s u s ' k n o w l e d g e for t h e s e
beliefs. T e x t s from Isa 9 : 5 - 6 , 11:1-9 and D a n 7 : 1 3 - 1 4 m i g h t h a v e b e e n o f
help. Justin's J e w i s h o p p o n e n t , T r y p h o , w a s w i l l i n g to interpret the texts
555
from Isa 11:1-3 and D a n i e l as the M e s s i a h . Trypho contrasts the p o w e r o f
D a n i e l ' s figure w i t h the l a c k o f h o n o r o f J e s u s and the c u r s e o f h i s
crucifixion. It is clear that s o m e Jewish apocalyptic texts from the time prior
to C e l s u s did picture the M e s s i a n i c era f o l l o w e d by the resurrection o f the
556
d e a d . C e l s u s , Porphyry, and Julian objected to the Christian u s e o f L X X
texts to establish b e l i e f in Jesus. T h e y strenuously o p p o s e d the thesis that
557
Jesus w a s e n v i s i o n e d in the ancient t e x t s . T h e i s s u e o f the christological
interpretation o f the L X X c o n t i n u e d as a point o f c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n
Christians and p a g a n s . In the fifth century Isidore o f P e l u s i u m criticized
Christians w h o f o r c e d the entire O T to refer to Christ. H e n o t e s that s u c h
interpretation strengthens the hand o f pagans and heretics w h o reject the
5 5 8
O T . Isidore argues that such "pan-Christological" interpretation is invalid
and that it calls into q u e s t i o n the validity o f p a s s a g e s that really d o refer to
Christ.
7.50.5 Celsus' Charges Against the Jews and Christians' Belief in a Savior
W h e n not speaking through his personified Jew, Celsus describes part o f the
debate b e t w e e n J e w s and Christians in the f o l l o w i n g terms:
5 5 4
C. Cels. 2.77 (148,10-3 M A R C ) .
5 5 5
Justin, Dial. 3 2 . 1 , 87.1-2 (121,1-6; 221,4-11 M A R C ) . Trypho is also willing to admit
that the Messiah will suffer given Isa 53:7 in Dial. 90.1 (225,1-2 M A R C ) . It is difficult to
identify Rabbi Tarphon with this Trypho (if he is not a literary creation of Justin), since a
tradition of R. Tarphon in b. Ber. 116a (ET in ROKEAH, Jews 76-7) sharply discourages Jews
from associating with Christians in any way: "...if a man pursue a man in order to kill him
and a snake chase him in order to bite him, he should enter a house of idolatry and not enter
the houses of these people, because the latter know and deny [God] and the former do not
4
know and deny [Him], and of them Scripture says: And behind the doors and the posts thou
hast set up the symbol' (Isa 57:8)." On the identification of Trypho and Tarphon see J.
QUASTEN, Patrology. Vol. I. The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Westminster, M D 1992,
202. Against the identification see SCHURER, History, II, 379 / T. RAJAK, Talking at Trypho.
Christian Apologetic as Anti-Judaism in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, in:
Apologetics in the Roman Empire, ed. EDWARDS/GOODMAN/PRICE, (59-80) 64.
5 5 6
See, for example, 1 Enoch 61:5 and 2 Bar. 30:1-5. Cp. Str-B 4/2.1066.
5 5 7
S e e § 2 . 2 . 1 6 (Porphyry's attack on the apocalyptic interpretation of Daniel) and
§ 3 . 4 8 , 3 . 4 9 , 3.51.
5 5 8
Isidore, Ep. 195 (PG 78, 641). Cp. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 4 6 / CPG III,
§ 5557.
142 1. Celsus
[And h e thinks that] there is nothing serious ( σ ε μ ν ό ν ) in the debate between certain
Christians and the Jews — since both believe that it has been prophesied by a divine spirit
that a certain savior would come to live (έτηδημήσων) among the human race, but they no
5 5 9
longer agree concerning the fact that the one prophesied has already come or n o t .
Tertullian a l s o describes the d i s a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n J e w s a n d Christians in

similar terms ( A p o l . 2 1 . 1 5 [ 1 2 5 , 7 2 - 5 D e k . ] ) : "The J e w s a l s o k n o w that the
Christ w i l l c o m e , for the prophets certainly spoke to them. For e v e n n o w they
await his c o m i n g . N o r is there any greater conflict b e t w e e n t h e m and us than
the fact that they d o n o t b e l i e v e h e h a s already c o m e . " C e l s u s repeats a
similar statement in another text:
With regard to this fact about some o f the Christians and the Jews: some say that a certain
god or son o f God has c o m e down, or (as others say) will c o m e down to earth as a judge
of all here — this is a shameful claim, and the refutation does not require a long
560
argument.
O r i g e n n o t e s that n o t all Christians b e l i e v e d J e s u s Christ w a s t h e o n e

prophesied. For Marcion the Christ w h o appeared during the time o f Tiberius
5 6 1
w a s n o t t h e Christ d e s t i n e d still t o c o m e a n d restore t h e J e w s . A g a i n
C e l s u s is u n c o n c e r n e d about the L X X source o f these affirmations. H e also
found t h e very concept o f an incarnation repulsive to his Platonist
562
s e n s i b i l i t i e s . In h i s o w n person (and n o t that o f t h e J e w ) C e l s u s writes:
"[According to h i m ] the J e w s s a y that life, being full o f e v e r y evil, n e e d s o n e
to b e sent from G o d , s o that the unrighteous might b e punished and all things
563
b e purified ( κ α θ α ρ θ ή ) a n a l o g o u s l y t o what h a p p e n e d i n the first flood."
C e l s u s ' o p i n i o n s o n the G e n e s i s account o f the f l o o d h a v e b e e n s u r v e y e d
a b o v e — w h a t h e finds objectionable i s that G o d or a s o n o f G o d d o e s the
purifying in h i s o w n person. Origen, with regard to the flood, quotes Plato's
Timaeus ( 2 2 d ) w h i c h describes the g o d s ' purifying the earth with floods. H e
asks C e l s u s w h y it should b e absurd to b e l i e v e that t h e o n e w h o c o m e s t o
purify t h e earth b e c a u s e o f e v i l w i l l a l s o treat e a c h a c c o r d i n g t o h i s or her
564
w o r t h . C e l s u s ' attack o n m e s s i a n i c h o p e e n v i s a g e s J e w s and Christians
together, s o t h e J e w i s h persona n o l o n g e r serves h i s p u r p o s e s . Later h e
appears w i l l i n g t o consider the possibility that an angel or d e m o n might c o m e
565 5 6 6
to e a r t h . H e i s m o r e o p e n t o the transformation o f a hero into a g o d .
5 5 9
C. Cels. 3 . 1 ( 1 5 3 , 1 3 - 7 M A R C ) .
5 6 0
C. Cels. 4 . 2 ( 2 1 8 , 9 - 1 2 M A R C ) .
5 6 1
Tert., A d v . Marc. 4 . 6 . 3 , cp. 3 . 1 5 . 1 - 7 ( 5 5 2 , 2 5 - 9 ; 5 2 7 , 1 7 - 5 2 8 , 6 KROY.). S e e HARNACK,
Marcion, 1 1 7 , 2 8 3 * , 2 9 0 * and BORRET 2 . 1 8 8 n . l .
5 6 2
Among the many discussions of this point is COOK, Interpretation, 6 2 - 7 .
5 6 3
C. Cels. 4 . 2 0 ( 2 3 3 , 1 7 - 2 0 M A R C ) .
5 6 4
C. Cels. 4 . 2 0 ( 2 3 3 , 2 1 - 7 M A R C ) . S e e § 1 . 5 above.
5 6 5
C. Cels. 5 . 2 ( 3 2 0 , 8 - 1 2 M A R C ) .
Here the conflict b e t w e e n C e l s u s and Jewish prophecy is deeply rooted in the

culture. C e l s u s f o u n d s o m e characteristics o f the c o n c e p t o f G o d in the
scriptures to b e h i g h l y objectionable.
1.31 Versus the Wrath of God
Celsus w a s offended b y the concept o f G o d ' s anger. Origen writes:

Then after these things, not understanding texts in the scriptures, which portray God as
subject to human feeling, (τάς περί θεοϋ ώς άνθρωποπαθοΰς· εν ταίς γραφάις
Χέζεις) Celsus attacks them — texts in which words of wrath ( ο ρ γ ή ς ) are spoken
567
concerning the impious and threats against those who have s i n n e d .
Origen, quoting D e u t 1:31, argues that G o d u s e s the form o f s p e e c h w h i c h

m o s t benefits t h o s e w h o are hearing. H e also creates a distinction b e t w e e n
5 6 8
the w e a k and those w h o are more intelligent using 1 Cor 2 : 1 3 . T h e W o r d
(or l o g o s ) a s s u m e s h u m a n qualities for the sake o f h u m a n g o o d . P h i l o
b e l i e v e d that to represent G o d as having human p a s s i o n s w a s an e x a m p l e o f
569
the "mythical f i c t i o n s o f the i m p i o u s . " For C e l s u s G o d is b e y o n d all
qualities such as anger. T h i s is also the kind o f supreme G o d o n e finds in a
m i d d l e Platonist s u c h as A l c i n o o s w h o w a s u n w i l l i n g to s a y that G o d
participates in qualities s u c h as g o o d or evil. G o d is g o o d o n l y in the s e n s e
570
that he brings g o o d to a l l . A l c i n o o s s e e s punishment as h e a l i n g for the
5 7 1
soul, and the S t o i c s w e r e w i l l i n g to say that providence p u n i s h e s the e v i l .
Epicurus also stated in reference to the g o d s that the greatest e v i l s happen to
5 7 2
the g o o d and the greatest harms to the e v i l . C e l s u s b e l i e v e d in final
5 6 6
In general see C. Cels. 3.22 and 2 4 (167,2-7; 169,3-6 M A R C ) . BORRET 2.50 n.3 refers
to parallel references in the Christian apologists. Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 62-3.
5 6 7
C. Cels. 4.71 ( 2 8 4 , 1 6 - 8 MARC). On the larger context see BORRET 2 . 3 5 8 n.l /
PELAGAUD, U n conservateur, 327. In 4.22 (235,14-8 MARC.) Celsus rejects the Christians'
concept of G o d ' s wrath against the Jews due their crucifixion of Jesus. Cp. COOK,
Interpretation, 51 / BORRET, L'Ecriture, 188. PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 4 0 7 believed that
this text indicated that Celsus had read the principal prophets - a position rightly rejected by
BURKE, Celsus, 244. PELAGAUD himself admitted that when speaking of the prophets Celsus
is vague as if speaking from hearsay.
5 6 8
C. Cels. 4.71 (284,18-285,7 M A R C ) .
5 6 9
Philo, Quod Deus sit imm. 59. Philo gives a metaphorical sense of "wrath" in idem,
52,70-3.
5 7 0
On Celsus' concept of God see C O O K , Interpretation, 100-01. Alcin., Didask. 10,
164,36; 165,6-15 (23-4 W./L.)
5 7 1
Alcin., Didask. 3 1 , 1 8 5 , 2 3 (64 W./L.). S V F 2.1176.
5 7 2
Diog. Laert. 10.124. Cf. § 1.2.18. See also COOK, Interpretation, 101.
144 1. Celsus
p u n i s h m e n t , but h e w a s n o t w i l l i n g t o d e p i c t an angry G o d t o m a k e that

5 7 3
point .
C e l s u s is r e p e l l e d b y the ascription t o G o d o f any k i n d o f h u m a n p a s s i o n ,
just as earlier P l a t o w a s put o f f b y the p o e t s ' description o f the g o d s as subject
5 7 4
to f e e l i n g s o f s o r r o w or s e x u a l p a s s i o n . Epicurus b e l i e v e d that anger w a s
5 7 5
n o t c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e b l e s s e d state o f the g o d s . L u c r e t i u s shares this
576
perspective . C i c e r o regarded it as a c o m m o n doctrine o f t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s
5 7 7
that G o d d o e s n o t g e t angry or h a r m . Porphyry affirms that it is n o t the
anger o f the g o d s that hurts u s , but our i g n o r a n c e o f t h e m . A n g e r is f o r e i g n to
them because it c o m e s in involuntary circumstances, and nothing is
5 7 8
i n v o l u n t a r y for t h e g o d s . G a l e n rejects the u s e o f the g o d s ' wrath to
5 7 9
explain d i s e a s e . Julian w a s quite o f f e n d e d b y the story in N u m b e r s ( 2 5 : 1 1 )
5 8 0
c o n c e r n i n g G o d ' s wrath and P h i n e h a s ' v i o l e n c e . N o t all Greco-Roman
writers c l o s e to the era o f C e l s u s felt that strongly. Arrian w a s w i l l i n g t o u s e
5 8 1
a term for d i v i n e anger ( θ ε ο μ η ν ί α ) to e x p l a i n historical e v e n t s .
5 7 3
C. Cels. 3 . 1 6 and 4 . 1 0 (163,25-7; 224,30-3 M A R C ) . S e e COOK, Interpretation, 9 7 - 9 .
Cf. G. M A Y , K e l s o s und Origenes uber die e w i g e n Strafen, in: M o u s o p o l o s Stephanos.
Festschrift fur HERWIG G O R G E M A N N S , ed. M. B A U M B A C H / H . K O H L E R / A . M. RITTER,
Bibliothek der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften. Reihe 2. N e u e Folge 102, Heidelberg
1998,346-51.
5 7 4
Plato, Resp. 388b, 390b-c. Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 11-2.
5 7 5
Diog. Laert. 1 0 . 7 7 , 1 3 9 and the texts in USENER, Epicurea, F. 3 6 3 .
5 7 6
Lucretius 2.651.
5 7 7
Cicero, D e offic. 3.102.
5 7 8
Porphyry, A d Marcellam 18 (24,2-4 POTSCHER = ARRIGHETI, Epicuro F. 180 with
bibliography o n 5 3 8 ) . N e m e s i u s , D e nat. horn. 4 3 ( 1 2 7 , 5 - 6 MOR.) refers the belief to
Epicurus that anger is foreign to the gods because it is involuntary (όργή θεών άλλότριον.
em γ α ρ άβουλήτψ γίνεται- θεφ δε ουδέν άβούλητον). T h e text is omitted in the
Armenian translation. CHADWICK, Origen, 241 n.6 refers to Iamblichus, D e myst. 1.13 ( 4 3 , 1 -
8 DES PLACES) where the wrath of the gods means humans' turning away from them and the
darkness that consequently results. A similar understanding can be found in Hermias' (V
C E . ) comment o n Plato's Phaedrus (In Platonis Phaedr. [207,24-5 COUVREUR]), " . . . the
anger o f the gods is turning away from them; the gods do not b e c o m e angry" (όργή θεών
έ σ τ ι ν ή ά π ό σ τ α σ ι ς ή ά π ' α υ τ ώ ν ουδέ γ α ρ οργίζονται οί θεοί).
5 7 9
Galen, In Hippocrat. prognosticum comm. (vol. 18.2,17,12-18,4 KUHN).
5 8 0
C. Gal. 160c-d, 171c-172a ( 1 2 8 , 3 - 1 2 9 , 2 6 ; 131,1-18 MAS.). Julian refers to the
philosophical imitation o f God in the second o f these texts and then contrasts that with
Hebrews' anger and wrath (as their form of imitation). But he does not use the term "wrath
of God" (όργή θεου). That term seems largely restricted to Jewish and Christian texts
(around 2 6 6 on the TLG Ε C D ROM).
5 8 1
Arrian, Bithynicorum Fragmenta, FGrH II, Β 156, F 8 0 . Cp. Cassius D i o , Historiae,
7.30.1, version 2 (BiTeu, I, 87,5-6 BOISSEVAIN). This word w a s used primarily by late
Christian writers. Cp. Titus' appeal to "God manifesting his wrath" (through Titus' arms) to
explain his capture of the Jerusalem temple in Philostratus, Vita A p . 6.29 (θεφ δε όργήν
1.32 A Person's Anger with the Jews and God's Anger
C e l s u s m a k e s a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n the vast anger o f an e n e m y o f the J e w s

and that o f G o d :
Or is it not laughable that a person who became enraged with the Jews destroyed all of
5 8 2
them from their youths up and set fires (to cities; e π υ ρ π ό λ η σ ε v ) so that they became
nothing, but when the greatest God, as they say, is enraged, angry, and threatens, he sends
583
his son, and he (Jesus) suffers such t h i n g s ?
The identity o f the person w h o b e c a m e enraged with the J e w s c o u l d b e Titus

5 8 4
as Borret and B a d e r h y p o t h e s i z e . O r i g e n a l s o m e n t i o n s the R o m a n
5 8 5
destruction o f the J e w s — due to their treatment o f J e s u s . B u t since C e l s u s
m e n t i o n s the e x a m p l e o f a "person" getting angry w i t h the J e w s first w h o
destroyed t h e m all (a past t e n s e ) and then m e n t i o n s the e x a m p l e o f J e s u s '
suffering (in the present t e n s e ) , it also s e e m s p o s s i b l e that h e is thinking o f a
k i n g such as N e b u c h a d n e z z a r w h o burned the t e m p l e and m u c h o f Jerusalem
5 8 6
(4 K g d m s 2 5 : 9 = 2 K g s ) . In that c a s e h e is l o o k i n g back into the history o f
the J e w s (the B a b y l o n i a n destruction o f Jerusalem) and c o m p a r i n g it w i t h the
inability o f G o d to a c c o m p l i s h anything through the ministry o f Jesus. H e
was a w a r e o f the e x i s t e n c e o f the k i n g s o f Judah and m a y h a v e k n o w n
5 8 7
s o m e t h i n g o f the B a b y l o n i a n e x i l e . C e l s u s s i m p l y finds it i n c o n c e i v a b l e
that the s u p r e m e G o d c o u l d b e enraged at all. H e is u n i m p r e s s e d b y the
588
threats used b y the G o d o f the B i b l e , b y Jesus, or b y Christian p r o p h e t s .
φ ή ν α ν τ ι ) = STERN II, § 404a. Apollonius approves of Titus' understanding of human and

divine matters.
5 8 2
CHADWICK's translation here (Origen, 242: "burnt down their city") is probably too
specific. The verb needs an object in normal Greek usage. The same grammatical form
appears on Jos. Antiq. 2 0 . 2 5 0 where Titus burned the city and temple of Jerusalem. In Eus.,
Comm. in Isaiam 45 (Isa 7:18-9) (GCS Eusebius IX, 51,19 ZlEGLER) the same verb form is
used for Nebuchadnezzar's burning of the Jerusalem temple. In Homer, Od. 10.30 another
grammatical form of the verb (with no object) means "setting a fire."
5 8 3
C. Cels. 4.73 (286,22-6 M A R C ) . Cf. PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 327.
5 8 4
BORRET 2.365 / BADER 119.
5 8 5
C. Cels. 4.73 ( 2 8 6 , 2 6 - 9 MARC). Celsus' treatment of Jesus' passion is reviewed in
COOK, Interpretation, 5 0 - 3 .
5 8 6
Berossus knew of Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jewish prisoners. See STERN I, § 17 =
Jos., C. Ap. 1.137 / SCHNABEL, Berossos, 271-2.
5 8 7
He mentions that Christians trace Jesus' genealogy to the "first born person" and the
"kings of the Jews" in C. Cels. 2.32 (108,11-3 M A R C ) .
5 8 8
C. C e l s . 2 . 7 6 , 6 . 4 2 , 7 . 1 8 (145,24-7; 420,7-11; 473,10-1 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K ,
Interpretation, 1 0 4 , 4 0 , 4 1 , 84.
146 1. Celsus
1.33 Celsus on the Jews' Current Status
Several texts o f C e l s u s indicate h i s l o w v i e w o f the J e w s ' a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s

and prestige. In a text that refers to the e x o d u s (discussed a b o v e ) , h e indicates
that the J e w s h a v e never d o n e anything memorable: "The J e w s w e r e fugitive
slaves ( δ ρ α π ε τ α ς ) from Egypt, w h o never did anything remarkable
( ά ξ ι ό λ ο γ ο ν ) and w e r e never o f any value or number ( ο υ τ ' έν λ ό γ ω ο ύ τ ' ev
589
άριθμφ)." T h i s w a s a frequent point o f attack against t h e J e w s found in
590
G r e c o - R o m a n texts and w a s later u s e d against the C h r i s t i a n s .
C e l s u s m a k e s a similar point later in h i s work w h e r e h e describes several
o f the m o s t inspired p e o p l e s ( έ ν θ ε ώ τ α τ α ) i n c l u d i n g t h e C h a l d e a n s , M a g i ,
E g y p t i a n s , Persians, and Indians. A c c o r d i n g to Origen, C e l s u s d o e s not call
J e w s "most inspired" (in contrast to his j u d g m e n t o f other nations) and e v e n
5 9 1
affirmed that they are "now perishing" ( ά υ τ ί κ α ά π ο λ ο υ μ έ ν ο υ ^ ) . Origen
n o t e s that C e l s u s i s h i m s e l f acting as a prophet w h o d o e s n o t s e e G o d ' s
e c o n o m y (or d i v i n e plan, ο ί κ ο ν ο μ ί α ν ) for the J e w s . H e then refers t o R o m
1 1 : 1 1 - 1 2 , 2 5 - 2 6 ) t o argue that there is a place for the J e w s i n the Christians'
592
understanding o f the f u t u r e .
In the c o n t e x t o f an argument in w h i c h C e l s u s speculates that Christians
surely w o u l d not s a y that if all R o m a n s w e r e persuaded to b e c o m e Christians,
then t h e G o d o f t h e Christians w o u l d d e s c e n d a n d d e f e n d t h e m , and they
w o u l d never n e e d any other defense ( ά λ κ η ς ) . H e describes the J e w s thus:
For earlier the same God promised these things to those w h o adhere to him — things even
greater than these — as y o u claim; observe h o w much he helped these and also y o u .
Instead o f their being masters ( δ έ σ π ο τ α ς ) o f the whole there is no clod of ground nor any
hearth left to them, and if any o f you should be wandering around unobserved, he or she is
5 9 3
searched out to be condemned to d i e .
C e l s u s i s n o t d e n y i n g the o m n i p o t e n c e or b e n e v o l e n c e o f G o d , as Epicurus
did w i t h h i s argument from e v i l , but s i m p l y d e n i e s that G o d exhibits a n y
594
special concern for the J e w s or C h r i s t i a n s . T h e particular promises Celsus
595
is thinking o f are probably those h e m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r . O r i g e n responds
that G o d has not broken his promises, but since the J e w s did not keeps the law
5 8 9
C. Cels. 4.31 (245,2-5 M A R C ) . Cf. R O K E A H , Jews, 177.
5 9 0
S e e the references and discussion in § 1.25 above.
5 9 1
C. Cels. 6.80 (457,13-28 M A R C ) . For a similar list s e e § 1.20. S e e also the discussion
of C. Cels. 5.41 concerning the miserable land the Jews inherited in § 1.29.1.
5 9 2
C. Cels. 6.80 (457,28-458,5 M A R C ) .
5 9 3
C. Cels. 8.69 (585,18-586,6 M A R C ) . Cf. R O K E A H , Jews, 179 / M E R L A N , Celsus, 9 6 1 .
5 9 4
USENER, Epicurea, F. 374 from Lactantius, D e ira 13.19.
5 9 5
S e e C. Cels. 6.19 in § 1.29.5 and § 1.28.4 on C. Cels. 7.18.
596
(and c o m m i t t e d a c r i m e against Jesus) they h a v e n o ground or hearth l e f t .
T h e rabbis had various solutions to the problem o f R o m a n domination o f the
5 9 7
J e w s including J e w i s h s i n s .
Other Christian authors struggled against the relationship b e t w e e n want,
persecution and providence. Caecilius (the pagan in Minucius Felix'
d i a l o g u e ) noted that Christians w e r e suffering c o l d and hunger without G o d
d o i n g anything. G o d i s either p o w e r l e s s or unjust ( a s i n t h e argument o f
598
E p i c u r u s ) . C l e m e n t o f Alexandria responds t o a similar objection ( i f G o d
cares for y o u w h y are y o u persecuted and killed) b y arguing that such e v e n t s
w e r e prophesied and appeals t o Plato's Apology ("If A n y t u s and M e l e t u s kill
m e t h e y w i l l n o t hurt m e i n t h e l e a s t " 3 0 c , d ) t o d e s c r i b e S o c r a t e s '
steadfastness i n t h e f a c e o f death. Christians share a similar attitude t o
599
d e a t h . T h e entire group o f texts o f C e l s u s rests o n the argument from
600
c o n s e q u e n c e identified b y Aristotle (Rhet. 2 . 2 3 . 1 4 ) . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
an action c a n s e r v e either t o exhort or dissuade. S i n c e the J e w i s h religion
(and Christian) h a s brought such miserable c o n s e q u e n c e s , then they s h o u l d
both b e abandoned for C e l s u s . Origen, o f course, s e e s matters i n a different
light.
134 Gentile Proselytes to Judaism
6 0 1
C e l s u s a c c e p t e d t h e right o f e a c h nation t o o b s e r v e its o w n l a w s . H e ,
according to Origen, continues: "If then, according to these c u s t o m s the J e w s
should k e e p their o w n l a w s , o n e w o u l d not h a v e to b l a m e t h e m , but rather
those w h o h a v e left their o w n traditions behind and h a v e adopted those o f the
6 0 2
Jews." Tacitus shared C e l s u s ' aversion to proselytes w h e n h e writes that
those " w h o cross o v e r t o J e w i s h w a y s adopt them and are instructed first t o
s c o r n t h e g o d s , t h r o w o f f c o u n t r y a n d d e s p i s e parents, c h i l d r e n , a n d
603
brothers." P h i l o n o t e s that proselytes from t h e nobility h a v e this mark:
604
they h a v e left country, kin, and friends for the sake o f virtue and h o l i n e s s .
Stern b e l i e v e s that J e w i s h proselytism reached its zenith at the end o f the first
5 9 6
C. Cels. 8 . 6 9 ( 5 8 6 , 2 0 - 5 M A R C ) .
5 9 7
S e e ROKEAH, Jews, 2 0 6 - 0 7 .
5 9 8
Minucius Felix, Octavius 1 2 . 2 ( 1 0 , 1 - 3 KYT.).
5 9 9
Clem. Alex., Strom. 4 . 1 1 . 7 8 . 1 - 8 0 . 5 (II, 2 8 3 , 1 - 2 8 4 , 4 ST./FR.).
6 0 0
On this argument in Julian s e e Cook, Interpretation 3 1 6 - 1 8 and the use above in
§ 1.20.
6 0 1
C. Cels. 5 . 3 4 ( 3 4 8 , 2 0 - 3 5 0 , 1 2 M A R C ) . And see in particular § 1 . 2 8 . 2 .
6 0 2
C. Cels. 5 . 4 1 ( 3 5 5 , 2 2 - 4 M A R C ) .
6 0 3
Tacitus, Hist. 5 . 5 . 2 . Cf. § 0 . 1 1 . Cp. Juvenal 1 4 . 9 6 - 1 0 6 = STERN II, § 3 0 1 .
6 0 4
Philo, D e spec, leg 1 . 5 2 .
148 1. Celsus
century and the b e g i n n i n g o f the s e c o n d and included t h o s e from senatorial

605
circles . P o r p h y r y and Julian a l s o o b j e c t e d t o G r e e k s l e a v i n g their
6 0 6
traditions for those o f the J e w s .
7.55 Conclusion
Celsus s h o w s n o admiration for any part o f the O T . It c o m p r i s e s a number o f

myths that h a v e n o allegorical meaning. H e d e v o t e s a great deal o f attention
to the creation a c c o u n t o f G e n e s i s , w h i c h h e b e l i e v e s is n o n s e n s e . T h e
mention o f s e v e n days, the portrayal o f the serpent, the b e l i e f that all is m a d e
for h u m a n b e i n g s , and m a n y other e l e m e n t s o f the story are subject to his
critique. T h e narrative o f the flood is a counterfeit o f the Greek tradition as is
the story o f the t o w e r o f B a b e l . C i r c u m c i s i o n i s i t s e l f not e s p e c i a l l y
a d m i r a b l e , s i n c e it w a s taken f r o m E g y p t i a n practice. T h e patriarchal
narratives contain m a n y ridiculous c o m p o n e n t s . M o s e s ' w i s d o m is derived,
and he is the J e w s ' e x e g e t e o f m a g i c . C e l s u s reduces the e x o d u s tradition to
the belief that the J e w s are o f Egyptian origin and that they are fugitive slaves
f r o m that c o u n t r y . Their laws contain no particularly admirable
characteristics, but the J e w s at least k e e p their traditional l a w s as other
nations d o . A l t h o u g h C e l s u s d o e s not reject the inspiration o f the H e b r e w
prophets, h e d o e s not accept that G o d o n l y sent his m e s s e n g e r s to the J e w s
since m a n y inspired oracles exist in H e l l e n i s m . H e d o e s not accept the truth
o f the p r o p h e c y o f a savior (to c o m e in the c a s e o f the J e w s , and h a v i n g
already c o m e in the c a s e o f the Christians). T h e depiction o f G o d in the O T
as h a v i n g h u m a n feelings such as wrath w a s particularly o f f e n s i v e to C e l s u s .
T h e J e w s n o w e x i s t in m i s e r a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w h i c h contradicts the
m a g n i f i c e n t p r o m i s e s g i v e n to t h e m in the O T . C e l s u s ' primary form o f
a r g u m e n t a t i o n s e e m s to h a v e b e e n : G r e c o - R o m a n culture offers better
6 0 5
If one accepts D i o Cassius at his word (and does not v i e w Flavius Clemens as a
Christian), converts (or sympathizers) came from high ranks (Dio Cass. 64.14.1-3 = STERN II,
§ 435). M. HENGEL, Der alte und der neue 'SCHURER', JSS 35, 1990, (19-64) 39-40 makes
the important point that the question of Flavius' religion is unresolved since D i o Cassius
surely knew o f Christians given his official capacities, but never mentions them in his work.
STERN discusses proselytism in II, 4 1 , 382-84. While many proselytes were from the lower
class (e.g. Tacitus, Annales 2.85 = STERN II, § 284, the slaves evicted from Rome in 19 C.E.),
others were almost certainly aristocratic. Pomponia Graecina (Tacitus, Annales 13.32.2 =
STERN II, § 293) was probably attracted to Judaism (or Christianity) if that is the reference of
"external superstition." Jos., Antiq. 18.81 discusses Fulvia, wife of a friend of Tiberius, who
became a proselyte. FELDMAN, (Jew and Gentile, 344-8) discusses the pagan authors'
references to Jewish proselytism and those w h o sympathize with Judaism. Cf. Also
SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 106-18.
6 0 6
§ 2 . 2 . 1 , 3.57.
alternatives to O T narratives and beliefs. This includes C e l s u s ' c o n c e p t o f

G o d ( w h o d o e s not d i v i d e creation into d a y s , n e e d rest, or g e t angry, for
example).
Origen m a k e s an important c o m m e n t w h e n h e notes that C e l s u s ' attack o n
607
the J e w s ' w i s d o m is really an attack o n the foundation o f C h r i s t i a n i t y .
C e l s u s ' w o r k is not primarily an attack o n Judaism and its b e l i e f s , but an
attempt to undercut the basis o f Christian belief. T h e evangelistic s u c c e s s o f
Christianity d r e w C e l s u s t o attack the J e w i s h scriptures w i t h a v i g o r
apparently unmatched b y any o f his G r e c o - R o m a n predecessors. T h e authors
in pre-Christian t i m e s w h o did k n o w something o f the L X X w e r e not drawn
to read it as c l o s e l y as C e l s u s w a s . H e felt that Christianity w a s a great
danger to R o m a n s o c i e t y , and o n e s h o u l d not n e g l e c t this p o l i t i c a l and
608
cultural context o f C e l s u s ' w o r k . G e n e s i s s e e m s to h a v e attracted C e l s u s '
attention most. Perhaps h e felt that if h e could overturn that text, then the rest
o f the O T w o u l d fall w i t h it. T h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f that w o u l d h a v e b e e n
disastrous for Christianity. Origen d o e s not s e e m overly taxed in responding
to C e l s u s ' critique o f O T texts and traditions. T h e arguments b e t w e e n pagans
and Christians o v e r t h o s e texts did, h o w e v e r , last w e l l into late antiquity.
6 0 7
C. Cels. 1.16 (19,4-6 MARC) mentioned in § 1.20 above.
6 0 8
Cf. the perceptive comments in PELAGAUD, Un conservateur, 453-61.
2. Porphyry
Porphyry's Critique of the OT and Jewish Tradition
P o r p h y r y ' s (ca 2 0 4 - 3 0 5 ) attack o n the Christians {Against the Christians or

1
Contra Christianos = C. Chr.) is f a m o u s . H i s critique o f Christianity also
i n c l u d e d w h a t w a s probably a substantial analysis o f J e w i s h traditions. B y
chance, for e x a m p l e , a g o o d deal o f his interpretation o f D a n i e l has survived.
Porphyry w a s interested in Judaism in its o w n right (e.g. the E s s e n e s in his De
abstinentia [On Abstinence]), but h e o b j e c t e d to the u s e o f O T tradition
2
( e s p e c i a l l y D a n i e l ) to support Christianity . A l t h o u g h h e e x p r e s s e d s o m e
admiration for J e w i s h tradition and the G o d o f G e n e s i s , it w a s a limited
admiration and did not distract h i m from his unrelenting criticism o f ancient
Christianity.
T h e s o u r c e s Porphyry u s e d included a L X X and s o m e o f the writings o f
allegorists like Origen ( s e e § 2.2.2). H e m a y have b e e n aware o f an "Eastern"
tradition o f Christian interpretation o f D a n i e l a l t h o u g h this is d i s p u t e d
(§2.2.16.1). In h i s w o r k On Philosophy Drawn from Oracles {De
philosophia ex oraculis haurienda = De phil.) h e s h o w e d awareness o f Jewish
traditions, but his source there m a y h a v e b e e n oracles and not J e w i s h texts
(see § 2 . 1 ) .
T o create a reasonably accurate picture o f P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s o n Judaism
and O T tradition I a m g o i n g to o m i t the fragments from Macarius M a g n e s '
3
Monogenes . T h o s e texts are probably based o n Porphyry's work, but h a v e
1
A brief summary of his life may be found in COOK, Interpretation, 103-6. Of
fundamental value is still J. BlDEZ, V i e de Porphyre, le philosophe neo-platonicien,
Hildesheim 1964 (lsted. 1913).
2
For Porphyry's views of the Essenes see STERN II, § 4 5 5 = De. abst. 4.11.1-14.4 (III, 17-
23 P./S./B.). Fragments from Porphyry will be given according to HARNACK'S numeration in
HARNACK, Porphyrius. Much use will be made of the edition of RINALDI, Biblia Gentium
and his Italian version in La Bibbia dei pagani, II. Cf. also idem, L'Antico testamento nella
polemica anti-cristiana di Porfirio di Tiro, Aug 22, 1982, 9 8 - 1 1 1 . Many fragmentary texts of
Porphyry can be found in A. SMITH, Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta, BiTeu, Stuttgart/Leipzig
1993.
3
See the editions of ADOLF VON HARNACK, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem
griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts [Die im Apocriticus des Macarius Magnes
enthaltene Streitschrift], T U 3 7 . 4 , Leipzig 1911 / G O U L E T , Macarios, I-II (a great
Porphyry on Jewish Tradition and the Septuagint 151
b e c o m e controversial in recent years and deserve to b e treated separately in

their o w n right.
T h e social and political background o f Porphyry's C. Chr. is important for
understanding Porphyry's attack. H i s work drew p e o p l e a w a y from the faith
4
according to Severian o f Gabala ( s e e § 2 . 2 . 5 ) . It created such a disturbance
in the church that Christian emperors had c o p i e s burned several t i m e s in
5
antiquity . O n e p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n for their b o o k - b u r n i n g fury is that
Porphyry had written his C. Chr. in service o f o n e o f the persecutions o f the
6
Christians . A u g u s t i n e noted that Porphyry w a s a witness o f the persecutions,
but d o e s not say w h i c h o n e and d o e s not say that h e wrote his w o r k against
7
the Christians during o n e o f t h e m . E v e n if Porphyry did not write in direct
support o f o n e o f the persecutions, his remark that O r i g e n ' s life w a s l a w l e s s
(§ 2.2.2) c o u l d not but help in the c a u s e o f the emperors against Christianity.
T h e larger purpose o f his w o r k ( C . Chr.) w a s to draw p e o p l e a w a y from the
n e w religion, and o n e n e e d s to read his texts o n the O T in that light.
B e l o w I w i l l first survey s o m e o f the oracles in De phil. that refer to J e w s
and J e w i s h beliefs. T h e n I w i l l discuss various texts that h a v e survived from
the C. Chr. and other writings that treat O T themes. T h e greater part o f that
d i s c u s s i o n w i l l b e d e v o t e d to Porphyry's work o n D a n i e l that has s u r v i v e d
due to Jerome's patient attempt to carefully refute Porphyry's v i e w s .
2.1 Remarks on Judaism from Porphyry's Philosophy D r a w n from Oracles
A l t h o u g h critical o f the J e w i s h scriptures in his Contra Christianos, Porphyry

s h o w e d a certain admiration for J e w i s h culture in his De philosophia ex
improvement over H A R N A C K ) . On the issue of the use of Macarius Magnes for the
reconstruction of Porphyry's thought see GOULET, Macarios, I, 112-49 / COOK, Interpretation,
126-27,171-75.
4
Cf. also COOK, Interpretation, 125.
5
The testimonies are discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 125. For Constantine see
Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 1.9.30 ( 3 3 , 1 9 - 3 4 , 1 0 H A N S E N = SMITH, Porphyrii, 38T). Compare
Athanasius, D e decret. N i c . synod. 39.1-2 (37,33-38,10 OPITZ). For Theodosius II and
Valentinian (Feb. 1 7 , 4 4 8 ) see Cod. Just. 1.1.3 = SMITH, Porphyrii, 40T.
6
S e e C O O K , Interpretation, 119-23 with reference to Eus., Η. E. 6 . 1 9 . 2 for help in
determining the date. The persecutions could be either the one that Christians believed
Aurelian was planning or the Great Persecution in 303. See T. D. BARNES, Scholarship or
Propaganda? Porphyry Against the Christians and its Historical Setting, BICS 39, 1994, ( 5 3 -
65) 65. MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1137 argues, on the other hand, that there is no trace of a
political philosophy in Porphyry's work. He does not attempt to refute BARNES' evidence.
7
D e civ. D. 10.32 (310,52-311,57 D./K.).
152 2. Porphyry
8
oraculis haurienda. T h i s w o r k w a s p r o b a b l y e a r l i e r than the C. CAr. .
E u n a p i u s d e s c r i b e s the w o r k s o :
He [Porphyry] himself says (but perhaps as seems likely he wrote this while he was still
young), that he w a s granted an oracle different from the vulgar sort; and in the same book
he wrote it down, and then went on to expound at considerable length h o w men ought to
9
pay attention to these oracles.
In that w o r k h e e x p r e s s e s m u c h a d m i r a t i o n for t h e G o d o f the J e w s , but

10
scorns the C h r i s t i a n s .
2.1.1 The Road to the Gods
E u s e b i u s i n c l u d e s e x c e r p t s f r o m P o r p h y r y that e x p r e s s a p p r o v a l o f J e w i s h
tradition:
But Porphyry, in the first book of his Philosophy from Oracles, introduces his o w n god as
himself bearing witness to the wisdom ( σ ο φ ί α ν ) of the Hebrew race as well as o f other
nations renowned for intelligence. It is his Apollo w h o speaks as follows in an oracle
which he is uttering; and while still explaining the subject of sacrifices, he adds words
which are well worthy of attention, as being full of all divine knowledge (θεοσοφίας):
Steep is the road and rough that leads to the blessed ones (οδός μακάρων).
Entered at first through portals bound with brass
Within are found vast paths,
Which for the endless good of all mankind
They first revealed w h o Nile's sweet waters drink.
The Phoenicians also learned paths of the blessed,
Assyrians, Lydians, and the race of Hebrew men.
1 1
Porphyry interprets the road o f the b l e s s e d as the road t o the g o d s :
For the road to the gods is bound with brass, and both steep and rough; the barbarians
discovered many paths thereof, but the Greeks went astray and those w h o already held it
even perverted it. The discovery w a s ascribed by the g o d to Egyptians, Phoenicians,
Chaldeans (for these are Assyrians), Lydians and Hebrews.
H e a l s o a d d s this remark o f A p o l l o : "Only Chaldees and Hebrews w i s d o m

1 2
f o u n d / In the pure w o r s h i p o f a self-born ( α ύ τ ο γ έ ν ε θ λ ο ν ) G o d . "
8
S e e COOK, Interpretation, 106.
9
Eunapius, Vitae Soph. 4.1 (457) (8,11-9,2 GIANGRANDE = [ET] 3 5 8 - 5 9 WRIGHT). On
the text and its date see BlDEZ, V i e de Porphyre, 14-16.
1 0
The texts on Christians are reviewed in COOK, Interpretation, 106-18.
1 1
Immediately before the words that follow, Eusebius, in a later text, includes these
words as Porphyry's: "Have y o u heard h o w much pains have been taken that a man may
offer the sacrifices o f purification for the body, to say nothing of finding the salvation o f the
soul? For the road . . . " Eus., P.E. 14.10.5 (VIII/2, 28714-5 M R A S ) = SMITH, Porphyrii, 324F.
ET is b y GlFFORD, Eusebius, II, 7 9 9 . S e e G. RlNALDl, Giudei e pagani alia vigilia della
persecuzione di Diocleziano: Porfirio e il popolo d'Israele, Vetera Christianorum 2 9 , 1992,
(113-36) 120.
T h e Egyptians are the source o f k n o w l e d g e about G o d for Porphyry. Plato

recounts a story in the Timaeus in w h i c h the great l a w g i v e r S o l o n d i s c o v e r s
that h e d o e s not k n o w (and n o Greek k n o w s ) anything that is o l d . T h e
Egyptian priests then speak to h i m about the many destructions o f humankind
due to fire and water ( T i m . 2 2 a - d ) . Hecataeus o f Abdera a l s o b e l i e v e d that
13
E g y p t i a n culture p r e c e d e d that o f the G r e e k s . N u m e n i u s i n c l u d e s the
Brahmans, J e w s , M a g i , and the Egyptians in his list o f those w h o agree w i t h
14
P l a t o . In an oracle w i t h s o m e similarities to that o f Porphyry, a questioner
asks A p o l l o if o n e can get c l o s e to G o d through attention. T h e answer is that
it is unattainable. T h e o n l y o n e s w h o h a v e s u c c e e d e d are H e r m e s o f E g y p t ,
M o s e s o f the H e b r e w s , and the w i s e m a n o f the M a z a k e n e s ( A p o l l o n i u s o f
15
T y a n a ) . Just what this G o d o f Porphyry's is b e c o m e s a little unclear w h e n
c o m p a r e d w i t h s o m e o f Porphyry's other texts. A t this point h e s e e m s to
identify the G o d o f the H e b r e w s with the supreme G o d o f the pantheon. J. H.
W a s z i n k notes that in his treatise o n oracles, Porphyry finds n o difficulties in
identifying the G o d o f the H e b r e w s with the G o d o f Creation w h o is a l s o the
1 6
H i g h e s t G o d . T h i s is not the c a s e in his c o m m e n t a r y o n the C h a l d e a n
o r a c l e s , h o w e v e r (§ 2 . 1 . 4 ) . It is probably n o accident that an a m b i g u i t y
concerning the identity o f the G o d o f the H e b r e w s appeared in Julian w h o
o c c a s i o n a l l y w o n d e r e d if the G o d o f the H e b r e w s w a s a universal G o d or a
1 7
j e a l o u s , narrow, and sectional G o d . Porphyry's text a l s o reminds o n e o f
S y m m a c h u s ' f a m o u s question to the Christians in the Senate: "Is it p o s s i b l e
18
to reach s o great a m y s t e r y b y o n e p a t h ? " . O n e i m a g i n e s that Porphyry's
1 2
S T E R N II, § 4 5 0 = Eus., P.E. 9 . 1 0 . 2 - 4 (VIII/1, 4 9 5 , 1 8 - 4 9 6 , 1 5 M R A S ) = SMITH,
Porphyrii, 323-4F. ET is slightly modified from GlFFORD, Eusebius, II, 444-45. In the D.E.
3.3.6-7 (GCS Eusebius VI, 110,8-11 HEIKEL), Eusebius argues that the writer of the oracle
(the last phrase of Apollo) mentions "Chaldees" because Abraham was by race a Chaldean.
On the oracle of Apollo quoted above ("Only Chaldees ...") see N. ZEEGERS-VANDER VORST,
Les citations des poetes grecs chez les apologistes Chretiens du l i e siecle, Louvain 1972, 216-
23 who argues that the oracle was not a product of Jewish or Christian circles. Patristic
figures such as Ps. Justin, Cohortatio 1 1 , 2 4 (37,14-5; 56,28-9 MARC.) quoted the text.
1 3
DROGE, Homer, 4-8. S e e for example, Diod. Sic. 1.96-8 where Hecataeus discusses
Greek visitors to Egypt (such as Solon) who obtained their wisdom there. Celsus also revered
the Egyptians. Cf. § 1.20, 1.33.
1 4
STERN II, § 364a = Eus., P.E. 9.7.1 = Numenius, F. l a (42,1-9 DES PLACES). See
§0.16.
1 5
Textus Theosophiae Tubingensis 4 4 (BiTeu, Theosophorum Graecorum Fragmenta,
29,368-74 E R B S E ) . The text can also be found in STERN III, 66. Mazaka was a city in
Cappadocia (like Tyana). Cp. ROBIN LANE F O X , Pagans and Christians, Cambridge et al.
1 9 8 8 , 1 9 1 who argues that the oracle is not a Christian forgery.
1 6
WASZINK, Porphyrios und Numenios, 57 and see § 0.16.
1 7
See § 3 . 2 1 , 3.54.
1 8
Vno itinere non potest perueniri ad tarn grande secretum, Symmachus, Relatio 10
(CUFr Prudence, 110 LAVARENNE) / COOK, Interpretation 152-53.
154 2. Porphyry
answer w o u l d b e that there are m a n y paths to the great m y s t e r y and that the
H e b r e w s k n e w s o m e o f them. H e w o u l d h a v e b e e n far m o r e n e g a t i v e about
Christianity, and m a y b e referring to Christians w h e n h e speaks o f those w h o
1 9
p e r v e r t e d t h e w a y to G o d . T h e e p i t h e t " s e l f - b o r n " is rare in G r e e k
20
literature . T h e Chaldean Oracles u s e it to describe the paternal intellect that
21
is "born f r o m itself." T h e w o r d is u s e d a f e w t i m e s in Christian texts to
22
describe G o d or C h r i s t . T h e fact that Porphyry is w i l l i n g to ascribe w i s d o m
to the H e b r e w s is a fundamental step b e y o n d C e l s u s , w h o w a s u n w i l l i n g to
include the H e b r e w s in his list o f nations w h o p o s s e s s the "ancient tradition."
C e l s u s d o e s include the Egyptians and the A s s y r i a n s a l o n g w i t h a number of
2 3
other nations that p o s s e s s o l d w i s d o m .
2.1.2 Seven heavens

Porphyry w a s a l s o interested in the c o n c e p t o f s e v e n different h e a v e n s .
A p o l l o has this to say about the topic in Porphyry's rendition:
And being asked again, for what reason men speak of so many heavens, he gave the
following response:
One circle (κύκλος) girds the world on every side,
With seven spheres (συν ε π τ ά ζώναισιν) rising to the starlit paths:
These, in their sevenfold orbits as they roll,
24
Chaldees, and far-famed Hebrews "heavens" surnamed.
C e l s u s a l s o apparently thought that the J e w s and Christians b e l i e v e d in s e v e n

25
h e a v e n s . W h i l e C e l s u s argued that J e w i s h and Christian t e a c h i n g about
1 9
G. SCHROEDER and E. DES PLACES note that Christians may be in mind here in Eusebe
de C£saree. La Preparation Evangelique, ed. and trans. G. SCHROEDER/E. DES PLACES, SC
369, Paris 1 9 9 1 , 2 1 9 n.2.
2 0
On the TLG C D # Ε there are only 37 occurrences, some of which are doublets of the
same text in different authors. A similar term for God, "self-born" ( α υ τ ο φ υ ή ) , appears in
Euripides apud Clem. Alex., Strom. 5.14.114.2 (I, 403,15 S T . / F R . ) and Textus Theosophiae
Tubingensis 13 (8,106 ERBSE), Cf. F o x , Pagans and Christians, 1 7 0 , 7 1 1 n.7.
2 1
Orac. Chald. 39 (CUFr 77,1 DES PLACES). D E S PLACES notes (Oracles Chaldaiques,
avec un choix de commentaires ancients, texte etabli et traduit par E. DES PLACES, CUFr,
Paris 1971, 77 n.2) that there is an identification of the Father and paternal intellect in this
2
text as does H. L E W Y , Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, Cairo 1956 (Paris 1 9 7 8 ed. M.
TARDIEU), 3 2 2 n.36. PGM IV, 1989 has "father of the world, self-born" (κόσμου πάτερ
αύτογένεθλε). Cp. PGM I, 342; IV, 943.
2 2
Ps. Johannes Damascenus, Homilia in nativitatem Mariae, PG 9 6 , 653 uses it of Christ
born of the theotokos (God bearing) Mary. Const. Apost. 6.11 criticizes the use of the word
for God. Ps. Didymus Caecus, De trin. 3 (PG 3 9 , 7 8 8 ) uses it to describe God.
2 3
S e e § 1.20.
2 4
STERN II, § 4 5 0 = Eus., P.E. 9.10.5 (VIII/2, 4 9 6 , 1 6 - 2 0 M R A S ) = SMITH, Porphyrii
324F. ET is slightly modified from GlFFORD, Eusebius, II, 445.
2 5
S e e § 1.29.4.
h e a v e n w a s s p e c u l a t i o n fit for f o o l s and s l a v e s , Porphyry e x p r e s s e s h i s

acceptance o f the c o n c e p t o f s e v e n h e a v e n s interpreted in an astronomical
sense. H e is silent about any doctrine o f souls a s c e n d i n g through different
26
spheres in this text. H e m a k e s n o references to the apocalyptic tradition .
Porphyry m a y b e thinking o f C e l s u s ' i m a g e o f s e v e n spheres that lead to the
fixed stars (the star paths o f A p o l l o ' s oracle) although C e l s u s inserted the
astronomical doctrine into his philosophical theories about the ascent o f the
soul. In the Poimandres, the individual w h o has put off the material b o d y
(and w h o s e b o d y h a s b e e n transformed and rendered i n v i s i b l e ) a s c e n d s
through s e v e n planetary spheres (first sphere, etc. τ η π ρ ώ τ η ζώντ\ κ τ λ )
27
before reaching a state o f c o m p l e t e purification . A l t h o u g h Porphyry d o e s
not carry this i m a g e through the w a y the H e r m e t i c text d o e s , the fact that
E u s e b i u s i n c l u d e s this oracle i m m e d i a t e l y after the o n e s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e
encourages a reader to think o f the paths o f the b l e s s e d o n e s (the g o d s ) and
the difficult road that leads to them.
2.13 The Creator God of the Hebrews

In another text from h i s w o r k o n oracles, Porphyry attacks Christianity, but
supports Judaism. H e i n c l u d e s an oracle that c o n c l u d e s it is i m p o s s i b l e to
28
recall from her faith a Christian w i f e w h o w e e p s for a deluded g o d ( C h r i s t ) .
29
Augustine is the source for this text. H e quotes Porphyry :
For in the books which he calls On Philosophy Drawn from Oracles, in which he seeks
after and writes about supposedly inspired oracular responses iyelut divina responsa),
concerning things that relate to philosophy, — I put down his o w n words as they have
been translated from Greek into Latin:
To one w h o inquired what god he should propitiate in order to recall his wife from
Christianity, Apollo said these words in verses.
Then those words are given as words of Apollo:
You will probably find it easier to write imprinted letters on water or to fill light
wings with air and fly like a bird than to recall a polluted unfaithful (pollutae ...
impiae) w o m a n to sense. Let her g o on as she pleases persevering in her foolish
illusions (fallaciis) and lament singing to the god dead in his illusions w h o was
destroyed by right-minded judges, and in specious circumstances the worst death
— bound by iron — killed him.
Then after these verses of Apollo (which w e have given in a Latin version that does not
preserve the metrical form), he goes on to say:
2 6
Some references to that tradition may be found in § 1.29.4.
2 7
C . H . 1.25 (I, 15,15-16,4 N./F.). See also § 0.20. Vettius Valens has an astrological
passage in Anthol. 9.4 (BiTeu 323,19 PlNGREE) that uses Porphyry's terms for circle and
heavenly sphere.
2 8
The oracle is discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 113-14.
2 9
Here I will use indentations to help indicate Augustine's narration, Porphyry's
commentary, and the oracles of Apollo.
156 2. Porphyry
In these verses A p o l l o e x p o s e d the incurability of their thinking (inremediabile

30
sententiae eorum), saying that the Jews r e c e i v e God rather than those people (ludaei
suscipiunt Deum magis quam isti).
A u g u s t i n e then c o m m e n t s :
See how he stains Christ and gives the Jews preference to the Christians, confessing that
Jews receive (suscipiant) God. This was his explanation of Apollo's verses, in which he
says that Christ was put to death by judges who sentenced properly — as though he was
punished justly and deservedly by the judges. They will bear responsibility for what the
lying prophet of Apollo said concerning Christ along with him [Porphyry] who believed
it, or possibly he himself feigned that the prophet said something that he did not say. As
to the extent to which Porphyry is consistent with himself or rather is able to make those
oracles be consistent with each other, w e will see to that later. In this passage, however,
31
he says that the Jews as God's helpers (susceptores) judged Christ correctly when they
decided that he should be tortured with the worst death . . . But let us c o m e to still plainer
expressions, and hear how great a God Porphyry thinks the God of the Jews is.
Apollo, [he says,] when asked whether word, i.e., reason, or law (verbum sive ratio an
lex) is the better thing, replied in the following verses.
Then he gives the verses of Apollo, from which I select the following as sufficient:
Truly in God, the Generator and ruler prior to all things, before w h o m heaven and
earth, and the sea, and the hidden places of the infernal regions tremble, and the
divinities (numina) themselves shudder with fear before him, for their law is the
Father w h o m the holy Hebrews honor.
In this oracle o f his god Apollo, Porphyry avowed that the God of the Hebrews is so great
3 2
that the deities themselves shudder in fear before h i m .
In this text the H e b r e w G o d is very clearly at the top o f the p y r a m i d o f

divinities. A s a p r o b a b l e w o r k o f P o r p h y r y ' s y o u t h ( a c c o r d i n g to
33
E u n a p i u s ) , the Philosophy from Oracles d o e s not h a v e s o m e o f the precision
that o n e c a n find in Porphyry's later texts. T h i n g s probably c h a n g e d after
3 0
For this use of the verb see Mark 4:20 in the Vulgate.
3 1
This word appears in the Vulgate as "helper" or "protector" (Ps 3:4, 17:2). One could
translate "interpreter" here.
3 2
STERN II, § 451 = SMITH, Porphyrii, 343F, 344F = Aug., D e civ. Dei 19.23 (CChr.SL
4 8 , 690,1-691,27.29-36 DOMBART/KALB). ET by the author done with reference to that of M.
D O D S , St. Augustin's City of God and Christian Doctrine, N P N F Series 1, Vol. 2, Buffalo
1887, 4 1 5 - 1 6 . Lactantius has part of this oracle in Greek (De ira 23.12 = SMITH, Porphyrii,
344F app. crit.): The Milesian Apollo, consulted about the Jewish religion, introduced these
words into his response (responso): In God, king and begetter of all things, before w h o m
earth and heaven and sea tremble, and at w h o m the innermost Tartarean regions and the
divine (or demonic) beings shudder (Apollo Milesius de Iudaeorum religione consultus
responso haec introducit: ές δε θεόν βασιΛήα και ές γενετήρα προ πάντων, / δν
τρομέει και γαία καΐ ουρανός ήδέ θάλασσα /ταρτάρει,οί τε μυχοί και δαίμονες
ερρίγασιν). S e e RINALDI, Giudei, 120 / HARGIS, Against the Christians, 87 / SCHAFER,
Judeophobia, 2 2 9 n.79.
3 3
Eunapius, Vitae Soph. 4.1 (457) (8,11-9,2 GIANGRANDE = 358 WRIGHT). See COOK,
Porphyry m e t Plotinus. T h e text that f o l l o w s s h o w s that Porphyry altered his

position w h e n h e b e g a n thinking in the terms o f the Chaldean Oracles. But
quite clearly in the w o r k o f his youth o n oracular p h i l o s o p h y h e had c o m e to
the c o n c l u s i o n that the J e w i s h c o n c e p t o f G o d is far superior to that o f the
Christians. T h e H e b r e w s honor the highest G o d , w h i l e the Christians lament
for a g o d w h o died in his illusions o n a cross. T h e text s h o w s the larger social
context o f the e x a m i n a t i o n o f the faith o f the H e b r e w s that w a s carried out in
the G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d after the advent the Christianity. In the years before
Christ, pagan intellectuals o c c a s i o n a l l y took the trouble to criticize Judaism,
or they f o u n d p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s in it. B u t they apparently did not find it
n e c e s s a r y to s p e n d any t i m e reading the L X X c l o s e l y . After Christianity
b e g a n to spread, h o w e v e r , scholars like Porphyry w h o w e r e d e d i c a t e d to
refuting the n e w and dangerous religion felt it necessary to read the O T quite
carefully. Porphyry has n o w o r d s o f criticism for Jewish rituals or stories in
this passage. Rather h e is concerned with the foolish credulity o f Christians,
their stubbornness, and the fact that it s e e m s i m p o s s i b l e to c o n v i n c e t h e m o f
their intellectual error. O n e o f the Christians' apparent errors is to b e l i e v e
that G o d w a s in Christ. T h e J e w s , o n the other hand, d o not b e l i e v e that and
s o receive or c o n c e i v e o f G o d better than the Christians do. T h e "god dead in
his i l l u s i o n s " is an important c o m m e n t , g i v e n Porphyry's criticism o f the
34
c o n c e p t s i n v o l v e d in the resurrection o f L a z a r u s . It i m p l i e s that Porphyry
did not accept the resurrection o f Jesus, e v e n though this is not c o m p l e t e l y
clear in the surviving fragments o f his Contra Christianos.
2.1.4 The Transcendent Second God

In a text that is o n l y identified as a commentary o n the oracles ( ύ π ο μ ν ή μ α τ ι
τ ω ν λ ο γ ί ω ν ) , h e is m o r e precise about the nature o f the J e w s ' G o d . Stern
identifies the text as Porphyry's Commentary on the Chaldean Oracles, and
35
A n d r e w Smith identifies it as from Porphyry's text o n Julian the C h a l d e a n .
T h e text is as f o l l o w s :
But Porphyry in his Commentary on the Oracles thinks that the "transcendent second"
(δις έ π ε κ ε ι ν α ) , i.e. the demiurge of all things, is the One honored by the Jews w h o m the
36
Chaldean in his theology says is second from the *transcendent first' (άπαξ έπεκει,να) .
3 4
See COOK, Interpretation, 1 5 3 - 4 with reference to HARNACK, Porphyrius, F . 9 2 .
3 5
STERN II, § 4 5 2 = S M I T H , Porphyrii, 3 6 5 F = Lydus, D e mens. 4 . 5 3 . R. BEUTLER
discusses whether these two texts were one (as BlDEZ thought) or separate (Porphyrios 2 1 ,
PRE, XXII 1 9 5 4 , 2 9 6 - 9 7 ) .
3 6
W . THEILER conjectures that Julian may have coined these terms in his prose
commentary on the oracles (in: J. H . WASZINK, Porphyrios und Numenios. Discussion,
Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique XII, Vandoeuvres-Geneve 1 9 6 6 , ( 7 9 - 8 3 ) 8 0 . LEW Υ
believes that the text c o m e s from the De phil. and rejects the thesis that the two terms are
158 2. Porphyry
Stern d e s c r i b e s t h i s G o d as t h e w o r l d s h a p i n g I n t e l l e c t o f t h e Chaldean
oracles. N u m e n i u s a l s o i d e n t i f i e s the s e c o n d G o d as t h e d e m i u r g e who
3 7
creates his o w n "idea" and the universe ( α ύ τ ο π ο ι β ΐ την τβ ίδεαν).
A u g u s t i n e d e s c r i b e s P o r p h y r y ' s p o s i t i o n that there e x i s t s a G o d the father and
G o d t h e s o n w h o i s t h e paternal i n t e l l e c t or m i n d a l o n g w i t h a b e i n g i n
3 8
between these t w o . A u g u s t i n e a l s o refers to De regressu {On the Return of
Soul) with these words: " y o u assert the Father and h i s S o n , w h o m y o u call
the Intellect or M i n d o f the Father and y o u a l s o s p e a k o f a b e i n g b e t w e e n the
t w o , a n d w e i m a g i n e that y o u are referring to the H o l y Spirit. A n d it is y o u r
3 9
habit t o c a l l t h e m three g o d s . " T h i s is n o t P l o t i n u s ' o r d e r ( α γ α θ ό ν or
πατήρ [the g o o d or t h e f a t h e r ] , δημιουργός ... ό νους [the m i n d as
40 41
demiurge], ψ υ χ η [ s o u l ] ) . Porphyry d e s c r i b e s three g o d s i n his Hist. phil. .
from another writing o f Julian the Theurgist (i.e. other than the Oracles) since Porphyry only
included oracles (some o f them being Chaldean) in his De phil. (Chaldean Oracles, 7 7 n.43).
D E S PLACES, in his edition o f the oracles, argues that both expressions (first and second
transcendent) could end hexameters if Si ς is subject to metrical expansion (Oracles
Chaldaiques, 147) with reference to F. 169 ά π α ξ έπέκεινα {δις έπέκεινα) ( 1 0 7 DES
PLACES). H A D O T translates the expressions in the text above as "transcendent in a monadic
mode" and "transcendent in a dyadic mode" (Le metaphysique de Porphyre, Entretiens sur
l'antiquite classique XII, Vandoeuvres-Geneve, 1966 ( 1 2 7 - 1 5 7 ) 1 3 3 ) . Cp. P. H A D O T ,
Porphyre et Victorinus, V o l . I, Paris 1968, 2 6 2 n.3. S e e also RlNALDl, Giudei, 124-6 /
SCHAFER, Judeophobia, 4 6 .
3 7
Numenius F. 16 (57,10-12 DES PLACES).
3 8
From De regressu animae in A u g . , D e c i v . D e i 10.23 (CChr.SL 4 7 , 2 9 6 , 1 0 - 1 3
D O M B A R T / K A L B = SMITH, Porphyrii, 284F). Smith refers to Orac. Chald. F. 4 ή μ ε ν γ ά ρ
δύναμις σ υ ν έκείνψ, νους δ' ά π ' εκείνου (67 DES PLACES) and F. 109 πατρικός νόος
(paternal intellect; 9 3 DES PLACES). There appears to be this trio in the Chaldean oracles:
πατήρ, δ ύ ν α μ ι ς , ν ο υ ς (father, power, mind). S e e M. Psellus' comment o n the oracles in
PG 122, 1 1 4 9 c ( = Oracles Chaldaiques, 189,9, DES PLACES,). S e e also W. THEILER, D i e
chaldaischen Orakel und die Hymnen des Synesius, in: Forschungen z u m Neuplatonismus,
Berlin 1966, (252-301) 258-59 / E. R. DODDS, Proclus, the Elements o f Theology, a revised
text with Translation, Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1 9 6 3 , 2 5 2 - 5 3 / HADOT,
Porphyre et Victorinus, I, 260-267. HADOT notes that the intermediary is the principle of life
— Hecate. H e also distinguishes a horizontal and vertical dimension with three principles in
each (thus creating a Porphyrian ennead). One vertical column contains the paternal intellect
(on the level o f being), an intellect (on the second level of life), and a demiurgic intellect (on
the level o f intellect). H e refers to Porphyry's In Parm. 9.4-5 (ed. H A D O T , Porphyre et
Victorinus, II, 9 0 - 9 2 ) / cf. LEWY, Chaldaean Oracles, 7 7 n . 4 3 , 3 1 8 , 3 9 5 . DES PLACES
discusses the text o f Porphyry in its larger context in Lydus in: Le «Dieu Incertain» des Juifs,
Journal des Savants 1 9 7 3 , 291 n.4. Cp. P. H A D O T , Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin,
REAug 6, 1960, (205-44) 236-37. FESTUGIERE notes that Hecate (world soul) stands between
the first and second gods (or intellects) in the Chaldean oracles in: La revelation, III, 57. On
this point compare DES PLACES, Oracles, 13 w h o refers to F. 6 and 3 2 . Psellus supports this
thesis in his commentary (PG 1 2 2 , 1 1 5 2 a = DES PLACES 189,3-5).
3 9
D e civ. D e i 10.29 (304,1-3 D./K. = SMITH, Porphyrii, 284aF).
4 0
Plotinus, Ennead. 5.1.8 (II, 197,1-9 H . / S C H . ) .
A c c o r d i n g to Cyril, Porphyry identifies three hypostases o f G o d in Plato: the

42
g o o d , the demiurge, and the World S o u l .
I i m a g i n e that instead o f holding to any o n e expression o f the divine triad,
Porphyry adopted different expressions o f it as it suited his purposes. W h a t is
clear is that b y the t i m e h e w a s c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e C h a l d e a n o r a c l e s ,
Porphyry had d e c i d e d that the J e w i s h G o d w a s not the supreme G o d o f the
43
Platonic s y s t e m . O n the other hand h e d o e s not subject the J e w i s h G o d to
the s a m e critique that Julian usually did.
2.2 Porphyry's Contra Christianos and Other Texts
Porphyry is m o r e n e g a t i v e about Judaism and the L X X in his w o r k Against

the Christians. T h e reason is almost certainly the fact that his main target is
the Christians and to g e t at that target h e n e e d e d t o attack o n e o f the
fundamental b a s e s o f Christianity — the L X X . B e l o w I w i l l r e v i e w the
f r a g m e n t s that h a v e s u r v i v e d o f P o r p h y r y ' s c o m m e n t s o n the J e w i s h
scriptures in g e n e r a l , v a r i o u s texts in t h o s e scriptures s u c h as the E d e n
narrative and Jonah, and in particular his sustained attack o n the apocalyptic
interpretation o f D a n i e l . S o m e o f the fragments are not "nominal" — that is,
they d o not h a v e Porphyry's n a m e attached to them. I h a v e tried to b e sparing
in the u s e o f s u c h fragments, but s o m e are almost unavoidable in a w o r k o f
this kind. It is better, in m y judgment, to err on the side o f including s o m e o f
the m o s t likely Porphyrian fragments than to l e a v e them out. S o m e o f the
fragments b e l o w c o m e f r o m other writings o f Porphyry, and t h o s e w i l l b e
noted. P o r p h y r y ' s interpretations are not profound. A n t h o n y M e r e d i t h
44
d e s c r i b e s h i s interpretations as " s o m e w h a t p e d a n t i c and l i t e r a l i s t i c . "
N e v e t h e l e s s , h e r e m a i n s a f o r c e to b e r e c k o n e d w i t h d u e t o h i s g o o d
k n o w l e d g e o f O T texts. O n e o f his primary reasons for attacking L X X texts
w a s h i s a w a r e n e s s that Christians u s e d t h e m to p e r s u a d e their hearers.
Jerome refers to o n e o f Porphyry's charges b y responding that the apostles
"strengthened [their orations] with testimonies (testimoniis) from another time
not that they m i g h t a b u s e the s i m p l i c i t y and i g n o r a n c e (simplicitate et
45
imperitia) o f the a u d i e n c e . . . " . Presumably Porphyry is referring to texts
4 1
SMITH, Porphyrii, 2 2 2 F = Cyril, C. Jul. 1.34 (PG 76, 553c-d) = S C 322, 200,19-202,25
B./E.
4 2
SMITH, Porphyrii, 2 2 I F = C. Jul. 8.271 (PG 76, 916b). Cp. part of the same excerpt in
C. Jul. 1.34 ( P G 7 6 , 553b).
4 3
On this point see HADOT, Le metaphysique de Porphyre, 133.
4 4
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1129.
4 5
HARNACK, Porphyrius F. 5 = Jer., Comm. in Joel 2:28 (CChr.SL 7 6 , 194,663-67
ADRIAEN). Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 156 for a discussion of this fragment.
160 2. Porphyry
s u c h as p r o p h e c i e s here. Perhaps it is n o t c o i n c i d e n c e that m o s t o f the

surviving critique o f the O T from Porphyry's hand is o f a prophetic b o o k —
Daniel.
2.2.1 F. 1 of Porphyry's A g a i n s t the Christians: On the Mythologies of the

Jews
In the first fragment o f the C. Chr. (Contra Christianos) w h i c h is a n o n y m o u s
46
but u s u a l l y h e l d to b e f r o m P o r p h y r y , a H e l l e n i c critic c o m p l a i n s that
Christians are neither Greeks nor barbarians (in E u s e b i u s ' summary):
First one could reasonably wonder, w h o w e are that have c o m e to write — whether
Hellenes or barbarians — or if there is something in the middle of them; and w h o w e say
47
ourselves that w e are, not the name, because it is apparent to a l l , but the manner
(τρόπον) and choice of life (την προαίρεσιν του βίου). For one does not see us keeping
Hellenic tradition or practicing those of the barbarians. What then is strange ( ξ έ ν ο ν )
about us, and what is the revolution of our form of life (ό νεωτερισμός του βίου)?
N o w in all points would they not be impious and atheists (δυσεβεΐς dv καΐ άθεοι) who
abandon the ancestral gods (πατρψων θεών) — from w h o m every nation and every city
subsists? Or what good thing can they reasonably hope for w h o establish themselves as
e n e m i e s and opponents of what is salutary ( τ ω ν σ ω τ η ρ ί ω ν ) and w h o reject the
benefactors, and what else is this than fighting against the gods? Of what kind of pardon
would they be worthy of who turn away from those considered gods ( θ ε ο λ ο γ ο ύ μ ε ν ο υ ς )
from of old (έξ αιώνος) among all Hellenes and barbarians in cities and in country in all
kinds o f sacred rites, initiations, and mysteries, likewise among kings, lawgivers, and
philosophers; and w h o then have chosen what is impious and atheistic (τά άσεβη και
ά θ ε α ) among people. And to what kind of punishments w o u l d they not justly be
subjected, w h o deserting the ancestral customs (πατρίων φ υ γ ά δ ε ς ) have become zealots
for the foreign mythologies of the Jews, which are of evil report among all people (τών δ'
όθνείων και παρά πάσι διαβεβλημένων Ιουδαϊκών μυθολογημάτων)? And must it
not be a proof of extreme wickedness and levity (μοχθηρίας ... ε υ χ έ ρ ε ι α ς ) lightly to put
aside the customs of their own kindred (τών οικείων), and choose with unreasoning and
unquestioning faith (άλόγω δε και ά ν ε ξ ε τ ά σ τ ω π ί σ τ ε ι ) the doctrines of the impious
enemies of all nations? Nay, not even to adhere to the God, w h o is honored among the
Jews according to their customary rites (νόμιμα), but to cut out for themselves a new kind
4 6
U. VON WlLAMOWiTz-MOELLENDORFF, Ein Bruchstuck aus der Schrift des Porphyrius
g e g e n die Christen, Z N W 1 , 1 9 0 0 , 1 0 4 . J. SIRINELLI accepts WlLAMOwrrz' arguments
(Eusebe [SC 2 0 6 ] , 2 2 4 - 2 2 9 ) but notes that the identification is uncertain (Eusebe [SC 2 0 6 ] ,
3 1 n . 3 ) . Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 1 3 4 - 5 .
4 7
On hatred o f the Christian name see Tertullian, Apol. 1 . 4 ( 8 5 , 2 1 - 6 D E K . ) . For
bibliography on Christianity as a "third way" see SIRINELLI/DES PLACES, Eusebe [SC 2 0 6 ] ,
227.
of deserted road-that-is-no-road (ερήμην ά ν ο δ ί α ν ) , that keeps neither the ways of the

4 8
Greeks nor those of the J e w s ?
E u s e b i u s then c o n c l u d e s that t h e s e are the q u e s t i o n s that a p h i l o s o p h i c a l

49
Greek might p o s e for the Christians . Whether these are the ipsissima verba
o f Porphyry or not is not s o important as the fact that they are the kinds o f
a c c u s a t i o n s that P o r p h y r y p r o b a b l y m a d e . Eusebius may have taken
P o r p h y r y ' s and o t h e r s ' c r i t i c i s m s and created a sort o f general attack o n
Christianity that h e then a n s w e r e d with his Preparation for the Gospel. Of
interest for our purposes is the H e l l e n e ' s attack o n Judaism in the text, and his
u s e o f that to undermine Christianity. Turning a w a y from the H e l l e n i c (and
barbarian) divinities for the sake o f all that is i m p i o u s and atheistic a m o n g
50
h u m a n b e i n g s is p r o b a b l y a reference to J e w i s h a t h e i s m . T h e c h a r g e
51
b e c a m e a c o m m o n p l a c e against the Christians a l s o . D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s
preserves a tradition in w h i c h the J e w s are charged w i t h impiety (and b e i n g
5 2
hated b y the g o d s ) . T h e J e w s w e r e often a c c u s e d o f m i s a n t h r o p y , and
Porphyry (or the a n o n y m o u s H e l l e n e ) here adopts this c o m m o n p l a c e w h e n he
53
calls t h e m the " e n e m i e s o f all n a t i o n s " . T h e "foreign m y t h o l o g i e s " are
undoubtedly the biblical traditions — as is made clear from a fragment o f the
C. Chr. that I w i l l d i s c u s s b e l o w . If the H e l l e n e is not u s i n g the rhetoric o f
vituperation, but describing an actual state o f affairs, then o n e can a s s u m e that
the "Jewish m y t h o l o g i e s " h a v e s e e p e d into G r e c o - R o m a n culture in a w a y
that had not happened before the c o m i n g o f Christ. T h e L X X w a s apparently
54
available to H e l l e n e s w h o cared to l o o k into i t . T h e critic also a s s u m e s that
the b i b l i c a l traditions are u n i v e r s a l l y "slandered" or " s p o k e n a g a i n s t "
( δ ι α β ε β λ η μ έ ν ω ν ) . Cultured despisers o f Judaism must h a v e b e e n numerous
w h o k n e w s o m e o f the biblical narratives and w h o thought t h e m ridiculous.
T h e "impious e n e m i e s o f all nations" are the J e w s in this H e l l e n e ' s e y e s . It is
difficult to s e e f r o m this fragment that Porphyry has m u c h admiration for
J e w i s h culture. H e d o e s , h o w e v e r , a c c u s e Christians o f refusal to o b e y
J e w i s h c u s t o m s — s o e f f e c t i v e l y the Christians h a v e a p o s t a s i z e d f r o m
4 8
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 1 = STERN II, § 458 = Eus., P.E. 1.2.1-4 (VIII/1, 8,20-9,15
MRAS). ET slightly revised of GiFFORD, Eusebius, I, 6. There are many admirable notes to
this text in SiRlNELLl/DES PLACES, Eusebe (SC 206), 224-30.
4 9
Eus., P.E. 1.2.5 (VIII/1,9,16-8 MRAS).
5 0
On atheism see Apollonius Molon in § 0.5. The reference of the phrase becomes
clearer when the Hellene says that Christians chose the beliefs of those "impious enemies of
all nations."
5 1
COOK, Interpretation, 383 s.v. atheism.
5 2
See § 0.7.
5 3
See § 0.4.
5 4
S e e the claim made by Nicolaus of Damascus (in Josephus* words) w h o seems to
assume that people can look at Jewish traditions if they choose to. Cf. § 0.8.
162 2. Porphyry
5 5
H e l l e n i s m and J u d a i s m . B u t u n d o u b t e d l y h i s v i e w s o f J u d a i s m in this text
are c o l o r e d b y t h e v i r u l e n c e o f h i s attack o n Christianity (if Porphyry i s the
author). In De abst., w h i c h m a y b e a s o m e w h a t later text, h e s e e m s to h a v e a
great d e a l o f admiration for the E s s e n e s , and there is little o n the Christians in
56
that t e x t . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d in the C. Chr. h e s e e m s t o retain a certain
r e s p e c t f o r the G o d o f the J e w s and for their ancestral l a w s . R e s p e c t for
57
ancestral c u s t o m s w a s a t o p o s in a n t i q u i t y .
T h e c h a r g e that C h r i s t i a n s h a v e an irrational and u n e x a m i n e d faith
reappears in E u s e b i u s ' Demonstration of the Gospel in w h i c h he wanted to
s h o w t h e truth o f Christianity b a s e d o n L X X p r o p h e c i e s . In h i s introduction
h e writes:
A s w e have such a m o b o f slanderers flooding us with the accusation that w e are unable
58
with proofs (δι/ α π ο δ ε ί ξ ε ω ν ) to present a clear demonstration of the truth w e hold, and
think it enough to retain those w h o come to us by faith alone, and that w e only persuade
( π ε ί θ ε ι ν ) our followers like irrational animals to shut their eyes and staunchly obey what
w e say without examining ( α ν ε ξ έ τ α σ τ ω ν ) it at all, and call them therefore "the faithful"
because of their irrational faith (ττ\ς άλογου χ ά ρ ι ν π ί σ τ ε ω ν ) , I made a natural division
of the calumnies of our position in my Preparation of the subject as a whole. On the one
side I placed the attacks o f the polytheistic Gentiles, w h o accuse us o f being apostates
( ά π ο σ τ ά τ α ι κ α τ ε σ τ η μ ε ν ) from our ancestral gods (πατρίων θεών), and make a great
point o f the implication, that in recognizing the Hebrew oracles w e honor the traditions of
barbarians ( τ ά βάρβαρα τ ω ν Ε λ λ ή ν ω ν π ρ ο τ ε τ ι μ ή κ α μ ε ν ) more than those o f the
Hellenes. And on the other side I set the accusation o f the Jews, in which they claim to be
justly incensed against us, because w e do not embrace their manner o f life (του βίου
59
τρόπον), though w e make use o f their sacred writings.
There i s e n o u g h shared v o c a b u l a r y b e t w e e n both texts that it i s apparent that

60
E u s e b i u s v i e w s t h e s e c h a r g e s as a sort o f g i v e n in the attack o n C h r i s t i a n i t y .
Porphyry m a y b e the primary s o u r c e for both. T h e c h a r g e that Christians are
guilty of levity ( e u x e p e i a g ) b e c a u s e t h e y put a s i d e their o w n ancestral
5 5
S e e o n this point M. FREDE, Eusebius' Apologetic Writings, in: Apologetics in the
Roman Empire, ed. EDWARDS/GOODMAN/PRICE, ( 2 2 3 - 5 0 ) 2 4 1 - 2 . Celsus had also made the
same accusation (cf. § 1 . 2 4 ) . Ironically an oracle of Apollo accuses s o m e Jewish questioners
of abandoning the law of their ancestor in Textus Theosophiae Tubingensis 5 2 ( 3 4 , 4 3 2 - 3 7
ERBSE).
5 6
STERN II, § 4 5 4 = D e . abst. 4 . 1 1 . 1 - 1 4 . 4 (III, 1 7 - 2 3 P./S./B.). The treatise on abstinence
would only be later if the late date for the C. Chr. ( 3 0 0 ) is wrong.
5 7
C o o k , Interpretation, 3 8 3 s.v. "ancestral traditions."
5 8
This is a term o f the rhetoricians. S e e LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 3 5 7 with reference to
Quintilian 5 . 1 0 . 7 and other texts.
5 9
Eus., D . E . 1 . 1 . 1 5 - 6 ( 6 , 2 4 - 7 , 2 HEIKEL). ET slightly modified from W. J. FERRAR, The
Proof o f the Gospel. Eusebius, 2 vols., London/New York 1 9 2 0 , I, 6 - 7 . D.E. 1 . 1 . 1 5 is
HARNACK, Porphyrins, F. 7 3 .
6 0
Way o f life, unexamined faith, irrational faith, ancestral gods.
61
c u s t o m s is o n e that H i e r o c l e s u s e d against the credulity o f Christian b e l i e f .
In his s u m m a r i e s o f H i e r o c l e s ' attack E u s e b i u s i n c l u d e s ε ύ χ β ρ β ι α ν ( e a s e ,
recklessness) and κ ο υ φ ό τ η τ α (credulity, legerete) to picture the irrationality
62
o f Christians . In the text from the Demonstration of the Gospel the critic
only c o m p l a i n s that Christians honor the barbarian ( H e b r e w ) traditions m o r e
than those o f the G r e e k s . E u s e b i u s must consequently h a v e toned d o w n the
virulence o f the attack o n Judaism and Christianity that is i m p l i c i t in the
words in the Preparation. W h e n he notes that Christians are accused o f being
apostates from the ancestral g o d s , by implication ("impious") the J e w s m a y
b e included in that charge. T h e accusation that Christians had abandoned
63
ancestral traditions w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e in antiquity . B o t h texts q u o t e d
a b o v e h a v e a political and rhetorical context. In the first text, Porphyry or
s o m e a n o n y m o u s H e l l e n e insists that Christians are worthy o f punishments.
In the second, the H e l l e n e refers to the persuasive p o w e r o f the faith that h e or
she v i e w s as fundamentally irrational. This p o w e r is o n e o f the c o n c e r n s o f
d e l i b e r a t i v e rhetoric. F o r a G r e c o - R o m a n intellectual, a b a n d o n i n g the
ancestral g o d s had direct s o c i a l and political c o n s e q u e n c e s . In a n o m i n a l
fragment o f P o r p h y r y ' s C. Chr. he c l a i m s that since Jesus has b e e n h o n o r e d
plague has not left the city: "And n o w they marvel if for s o m a n y years the
p l a g u e has o v e r c o m e the city, s i n c e A s c l e p i u s and the other g o d s are n o
l o n g e r there. F o r s i n c e Jesus has b e e n h o n o r e d ( τ ι μ ω μ έ ν ο υ ) n o o n e has
64
p e r c e i v e d public aid from the g o d s . " Honoring the traditions o f the J e w s
over those o f the G r e e k s has had actual effects o n the health o f the R o m a n s ,
according to Porphyry. T h e texts quoted a b o v e indicate h o w intertwined the
pagan attack o n the L X X and Christianity w a s .
2.2.2 Against Allegorical Interpretation of the LXX

Porphyry's v i e w s o f the O T are generally negative in the C. Chr. Porphyry
attacked Origen for his allegorical interpretation o f O T texts:
Listen therefore to what he expressly says: Given the depravity ( μ ο χ θ η ρ ί α ς ) of the

Jewish scriptures, some who are zealous to discover not a lapse [of their use] but an
explanation (ουκ απόστασα, λύσιν δέ Tives evpelv προθυμηθβντες) have been
driven to interpretations that do not cohere with or harmonize with what has been written
6 1
Eus., Contra Hier. 4.2, 4.44, 17.7, 20.3 (Eusebe de Cesaree Contre Hierocles, SC 3 3 3 ,
intro. and trans. M . FORRAT, ed. έ . DES PLACES, Paris 1986, 104, 108, 138, 144). For similar
charges see s.v. "Christian credulity" in COOK, Interpretation, 383.
6 2
See COOK, Interpretation, 2 7 1 - 4 , 288 (with regard to C. Cels. 1.9 ([12,14-7 MARC]
among other texts).
6 3
For references see C O O K , Interpretation, 133 n.149.
6 4
Porphyrius, F. 80 = Eus, P.E. 5.1.9-10. Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 123-4.
164 2. Porphyry
6 5
(άσυνγκλώστουν και ανάρμοστους τ ό ί ν γ ε γ ρ α μ μ έ ν ο ι ν ) — not rather producing an
apology for the foreign texts (ουκ άπολογίαν μάλλον υπέρ των ό θ ν ε ί ω ν ) but
acceptance and praise for their o w n personal writings. For they boast that the things that
are said clearly by M o s e s are enigmas ( α ι ν ί γ μ α τ α γάρ τά φανερών παρά Μωυσεΐ
λεγόμενα ε ΐ ν α ι ) , and they ascribe inspiration to them as if they were oracles full of
hidden mysteries ( έ π ι θ ε ι ά σ α ν τ ε ν ών θεσπίσματα πλήρη κρύφιων μυστηρίων).
B e w i t c h i n g the m i n d ' s critical faculty through nonsense (διά τε του τύφου τό
66
κριτικόν τ η ν ψ υ χ ή ν κ α τ α γ ο η τ ε ύ σ α ν τ ε ν ) , they bring forward interpretations.
In h i s treatise On Abstinence, Porphyry h a s a d i s c u s s i o n o f the s o u l ' s

intellectual nature and its unhappy d e s c e n t into the w o r l d o f the s e n s e s . H e
writes, " . . . through a certain perversity ( μ ο χ θ η ρ ί α ν ) o f soul, w h i c h d o e s not
d e s t r o y its o w n e s s e n c e b y b e g e t t i n g irrationality (TTJ TX\S ά λ ο γ ί α ς ·
γ ε ν ν ή σ ε ι ) , but through it (irrationality) b e c o m e s a t t a c h e d to the mortal
6 7 68
e l e m e n t , . . " H e c a n also u s e the w o r d (perversity) to describe moral e v i l .
T h e s e t w o u s e s s h o w that the perversity o f the scriptures that Porphyry refers
to m a y i n c l u d e a reference to their irrationality or e v e n immorality. H e d o e s
not m a k e the point entirely clear. Origen is the guilty party here w h o defends
the outlandish texts and e n g a g e s in an absurd form o f interpretation ( τ ρ ό π ο ς
6 9
τ η ς ά τ ο τ ά α ς ) . In Porphyry's Letter to Anebo, there is a text in w h i c h h e
d i s c u s s e s H e l l e n i s t i c prophecy (or divination). S o m e o f the seers are inspired
according to their i m a g i n a t i v e faculty (κατά τ ό φανταστικό ν
70
θ ε ι , ά ί ο υ σ ι ν ) . T h e letter d i s c u s s e s the question o f prophecy and divination at
length, and Porphyry defends the practice. Clearly h e finds m a n y p l a c e s in
G r e c o - R o m a n culture w h e r e inspiration m a y b e f o u n d . B u t there i s n o
inspiration, for h i m , in the M o s a i c t e x t s . Christians and J e w s "ascribe
inspiration ( έ π ι θ ε ι ά σ α ν τ ε ς ) " to their texts. O n e is at a cultural i m p a s s e here.
6 5
Compare Porphyry's use of the word ά σ υ ν γ κ λ ώ σ τ ο ν to describe the incompatibility
between plants and reason (De abst. 3.18.2 [II, 172 B./P.]). PEPIN interprets the reference to
mean interpretations that are not "internally coherent" in Mythe, 4 6 3 . PEPIN has an extended
discussion of Porphyry's allegorical techniques of interpreting Homer in: Porphyre, exegete
d'Homere, Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique 12, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1965, 231-72 (from
COOK, Interpretation 130 n.134).
6 6
STERN II, § 465b = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 39 = Eus., Η. E. 6.19.4. Author's ET.
6 7
Porphyry, D e abst. 1.30.7 (1,65-66 B./P.).
6 8
The word describes those who are given to harming others in Porphyry, D e abst. 2.22.2
(II, 89 B../P.) and 3.26.2 (II, 187 B.P.).
6 9
Eus., H.E. 6.19.5.
7 0
Porphyry, Ep. ad Aneb. 2.2f (10,13 SODANO). Cp. Iamblichus, D e myst. 3.14 (132,4-5
DES PLACES). One can contrast Porphyry's reference to the "imaginative" faculty here with
his reference to the "critical" faculty of the soul in the fragment from Eusebius quoted above.
Similar usages (the soul/mind imagines [ή ψ υ χ ή ... φ α ν τ ά ζ ε τ α ι ] ; the mind begets an
imaginative power [of knowing] the future [ή ψυχή ... γ έ ν ν α δύναμιν φ α ν τ α σ τ ι κ ή ν του
μέλλοντον]) appear in Ep. ad Aneb. 2.4a,c (12,2-3.8-9 SODANO).
Porphyry ascribes inspiration to the seers o f his o w n culture, and the J e w s and
Christians ascribe inspiration to the prophets o f their culture. T h e references
to " e n i g m a s " and "mysteries" are terms that Porphyry u s e d in his allegorical
7 1
e x p o s i t i o n s o f H o m e r . R o b e r t L a m b e r t o n translates a p a s s a g e f r o m
Porphyry's discourse On the Styx so:
The poet's thought is not, as one might think, easily grasped, for all the ancients expressed
matters concerning the gods and daimones through enigmas ( ά ι ν ι γ μ ώ ν ) , but Homer went
to even greater length to keep the things hidden (άπέκρυφέ) and refrained from speaking
of them directly ( π ρ ο η γ ο υ μ έ ν ω ς ) but rather used those things he did say to reveal other
things beyond their obvious meaning. Of those w h o have undertaken to develop and
expound those things he expressed through secondary meanings ( υ π ό ν ο ι α ς ) , the
Pythagorean Cronius seems to have accomplished the task most ably, but on the whole he
fits extraneous material (άλλα τ ε ε φ α ρ μ ό ζ ε ι ) to the texts in question since he is unable
to apply Homer's o w n , and he has not endeavored to accommodate his ideas ( τ ά ς δόξας)
72
to the poet's words but rather to accommodate the poet to his own i d e a s .
A l t h o u g h critical o f C r o n i u s , P o r p h y r y r e c o g n i z e d t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e
allegorical m e t h o d w h e n applied to H o m e r . In another e x p o s i t i o n o f H o m e r ,
Porphyry a n a l y z e s a p a s s a g e in w h i c h C i r c e turns s o m e o f O d y s s e u s '
unfortunate m e n into s w i n e (with human minds). T h e text, for Porphyry, is a
m y t h ( μ ϋ θ ο ς ) that is an e n i g m a ( α ί ν ι γ μ α ) concerning the things o f the soul
73
— n a m e l y its immortality and d e s t i n y . Porphyry's o w n work On the Cave
of the Nymphs is an e x a m p l e o f interpretation that he d o e s approve of. In an
early part o f that treatise, Porphyry describes Cronius' e x p o s i t i o n o f a text o f
H o m e r (Od. 1 3 . 1 0 2 - 1 2 ) in w h i c h it is clear ( ε κ δ η λ ο ν ) to the w i s e and to the
laity (σοφοί 9 ... ί δ ι ώ τ α ι ς ) that the poet is allegorizing and hinting at other
t h i n g s ( α λ λ η γ ο ρ ε ί ν ... α ι ν ί τ τ ε σ θ α ι ) . T h e narrative c o n t a i n s o b s c u r e
features ( α σ α φ έ ς ... α σ α φ ε ι ώ ν ) that indicate it is not a c h a n c e p i e c e o f
fiction ( π λ ά σ μ α ) , but o n e in w h i c h H o m e r allegorizes and speaks m y s t i c a l l y
74
(μυστικών). Porphyry, if h e is consistent here, m u s t h a v e c o n c l u d e d that
7 5
the writings o f M o s e s c o n t a i n e d n o s u c h obscurities as t h o s e o f H o m e r .
Unclarity, fiction, and indirect s p e e c h are s o m e o f the e l e m e n t s that encourage
7 1
SMITH, Porphyrii, 372F from Porphyry's περί Σ τ υ γ ό ς .
7 2
ET slightly modified from R. LAMBERTON, Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist
Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition, Berkeley et al. 1 9 8 9 , 1 1 3 .
7 3
SMITH, Porphyrii, 3 8 2 F with lines from Homer, Od. 10.239-40. Porphyry continues
with a discussion of reincarnation, which he accepted. For other references see COOK,
Interpretation, 130 n. 138.
7 4
D e antro nymph. 3 , 4 (Porphyry, The Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey, [text and
trans.], Seminar Classics 6 0 9 , State University of N Y at Buffalo, Buffalo 1969, 4,1-3.13.27-
31). Compare Porphyry's reference to mystical symbols (συμβόλων μ υ σ τ ι κ ώ ν ) in the
ancients' consecrations of sanctuaries in D e antro 4 (6,14-15 Sem.Cl. 609).
7 5
D E LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 263-5 concludes that Porphyry is inconsistent in his attack
on Christian allegory while using it himself.
166 2. Porphyry
a reader t o l o o k for a l l e g o r y in H o m e r . B u t is it n e c e s s a r y to d e f e n d
Porphyry? H e m a y b e s i m p l y i n v o l v i n g h i m s e l f in an i n c o n s i s t e n c y : the
"canon" o f G r e c o - R o m a n culture w h i c h at least c o m p r i s e s the writings o f
H o m e r can b e allegorized, but the c a n o n o f the J e w s and Christians cannot b e
allegorized. T h i s is particularly true since they are "clear." E u s e b i u s m a y not
h a v e i n c l u d e d e n o u g h o f Porphyry's text to tell whether h e w a s c o n s c i o u s o f
the l o g i c a l p r o b l e m h e w a s facing in his e x t r e m e rejection o f all allegory o f
the L X X . In fact it is quite clear b e l o w ( s e e § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 3 5 ) that Porphyry
h i m s e l f allegorized a text in Daniel. T h e problem o f allegory (or its rejection)
of the r e s p e c t i v e c a n o n s o f H e l l e n i s m and the J e w s and Christians w a s an old
one in any c a s e , and Porphyry probably k n e w it w a s a t w o - e d g e d s w o r d that
76
c o u l d b e u s e d b y e a c h s i d e against the o t h e r . P o r p h y r y , in the s a m e
fragment from E u s e b i u s , describes Origen in this w a y :
But Origen, a Hellene brought up in Hellenic doctrines ( έ ν "Ελλησιν παιδευθείς

λ ό γ ο ι ς ) , ran aground on the Barbarian temerity (τόλμημα); and taking himself toward it
he retailed himself and his ability in doctrines, living like a Christian and in a lawless way
in his life, but in opinions about things and the divine ( π ρ α γ μ ά τ ω ν και του θειου
δ ό ξ α ς ) he acted as a Hellene and suborned (υποβαλλόμενος) the traditions of the Hellenes
for foreign myths (όθνείοις ... μύθοις). For he was always with Plato and consorted
with the writings of both Numenius and Cronius, both Apollophanes and Longinus, also
Moderatus and Nicomachus, and men held in regard among the Pythagoreans; he also
77
used both Chaeremon the Stoic and Cornutus in his b o o k s , from w h o m he learned the
7 8
figurative method ( μ ε τ α λ η π τ ι κ ό ν ... τρόπον) of the mysteries found among the
79
Hellenes and used it on the Jewish scriptures.
T h e l a n g u a g e o f rhetoric pervades the text o f Porphyry. " A p o l o g y " c o m e s

f r o m the rhetoric o f the l a w courts ( f o r e n s i c ) , w h i l e "praise" is part o f
epideictic rhetoric. T h e e n c o u r a g e m e n t to g i v e the texts up or to accept and
interpret t h e m is a matter of deliberative rhetoric that s e e k s to persuade p e o p l e
to take a c o u r s e o f action. H i s reference to O r i g e n ' s Christian and l a w l e s s
w a y o f life betrays another larger context: the p e r s e c u t i o n s . If B a r n e s is
correct in his v i e w that the C. Chr. w a s written (around 3 0 0 ) in service o f the
7 6
See § 1.1.
7 7
SMITH'S index (SMITH, Porphyrii) refers to Porphyry's discussions of these figures in
the fragments: Apollophanes (408F.50 = Eus., P.E. 10.3.1-15); Moderatus ( 2 7 6 F . 3 J 3 ;
435F.5); Chaeremon (353F.10). For Chaeremon see also D e abst. 4.6.1 (CUFr III, 9 P./S./B.;
cf. the notes in xx-xxv on Chaeremon in their introduction). See also § 0.12. Chaeremon's
allegory of the Egyptian gods is discussed by Porphyry in Ep. ad Aneb. 2.12b (23,7-24,6
SODANO). Numenius and Cronius: Vita Plot. 14.11-12, 21.7 (I, 17; 27 H./S.); SMITH,
Porphyrii, 433F, 444F.
7 8
L A U S B E R G , Handbuch, § 571 discusses metalepsis — the use of synonyms that are
inappropriate to the context. For more analysis of this method see COOK, Interpretation, 130
n.135.
7 9
Eus., H.E. 6.19.5-8. Author's ET.
Great P e r s e c u t i o n ( 3 0 3 ) , o n e can readily understand the c o m m e n t about

80
l a w l e s s b e h a v i o r . If there w a s an intended persecution during the reign o f
81
Aurelian that w o u l d provide another cultural c o n t e x t . T h e larger c o n t e x t is
Porphyry's attempt to persuade p e o p l e to abandon the Christian faith, and
w h i l e he is d o i n g that h e finds it necessary to attack the integrity o f the Jewish
82
scriptures . H e is not rejecting the allegorical m e t h o d in general, but d o e s
not s e e it to b e o f any u s e for the H e b r e w scriptures. C e l s u s and Julian share
8 3
this s a m e g e n e r a l p o i n t o f v i e w . Porphyry certainly a p p r o v e d o f the
allegorical m e t h o d w h e n applied to Greek texts such as those o f H o m e r , but
M o s e s ' writings c o n t a i n n o m y s t e r i e s . In M e r e d i t h ' s interpretatation o f
Porphyry, learned Christians are apostates in a double sense: first from their
84
Jewish roots and s e c o n d from Hellenic culture .
There are unfortunately not m a n y n o m i n a l fragments left o f P o r p h y r y ' s
w o r k o n the O T other than t h o s e in D a n i e l w h i c h appear in J e r o m e ' s
commentary o n that text. T h e f e w texts that remain o f his w o r k o n G e n e s i s
are not all negative h o w e v e r .
2.2.3 Gen 1:2 and Souls

O n e o f his c o m m e n t s in De antro (On the Cave of the Nymphs) is a reference
85
to N u m e n i u s . That w o r k is an allegorical e x p o s i t i o n o f H o m e r ' s Odyssey
1 3 . 1 0 2 - 1 2 in w h i c h a c a v e o n Ithaca is said to h a v e t w o entrances — o n e in
the south for immortals and o n e in the north for p e o p l e . Porphyry d e v e l o p s
an allegorical e x p o s i t i o n o f the text using the prior work o f N u m e n i u s and his
86
pupil Cronius the P y t h a g o r e a n . N u m e n i u s and Cronius interpret the c a v e
( H o m e r ' s e n i g m a α ί ' ν ι γ μ α ) t o b e "an i m a g e and s y m b o l ( ε ι κ ό ν α και
8 7
σ ύ μ β ο λ ο ν ) o f the c o s m o s . " South and north refer to the tropics o f Capricorn
88
and Cancer r e s p e c t i v e l y o n the celestial s p h e r e . T h e y a l s o say that s o u l s
d e s c e n d t h r o u g h t h e g a t e o f C a n c e r and a s c e n d t h r o u g h the g a t e o f
89
Capricorn . N u m e n i u s takes O d y s s e u s as o n e w h o bears a s y m b o l o f a
8 0
BARNES, Scholarship or Propaganda, 65 discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 120-3,133.
8 1
COOK, Interpretation, 122-3. See "lawless" in the index — a term used in persecution.
8 2
The text may have included other fragments on Origen's attempt to convert a village.
See COOK, A Possible Fragment of Porphyry's Contra Christianos from Michael the Syrian,
ZAC 2 , 1 9 9 8 , 1 1 3 - 2 2 / Idem, Interpretation, 128.
8 3
See § 1.1,3.10.
8 4
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1131. They are apostates from Judaism because they claim to
understand the hidden meanings of Moses' sayings due to their Christian faith.
8 5
STERN II, § 456b from D e antro 10 = Numenius, F. 30 (CUFr, 80-81 DES PLACES).
8 6
COOK, Interpretation 130-31 / A. MEREDITH, Allegory in Porphyry (see bibliography).
8 7
D e antro 21 (22,2-6 Sem.Cl. 609).
8 8
D e antro 22 (22,17-8 Sem.Cl. 609).
8 9
D e antro 2 2 (22,16-17 Sem.Cl. 609).
168 2. Porphyry
person p a s s i n g s u c c e s s i v e l y through g e n e s i s ( ε ι κ ό ν α φ έ ρ ε ι ν ... τ ο υ δ ι α

9 0
της εφεξής γενέσεως διερχομένου) .
In a stricter sense it is the powers presiding over waters that w e call naiad nymphs, but the
91
ancients also give this name to all the souls in general descending into g e n e s i s . For they
thought that the souls settle by water, which is divinely inspired (θεοπνόψ ό ν τ ι ) , as
Numenius says; in support of this he cites the words of the prophet, "the spirit of God was
92
borne upon the w a t e r s . "
T h i s brief r e f e r e n c e to M o s e s "the prophet" s e r v e s m e r e l y as a c o g in his

argument, but it is a clear reference to the text in G e n 1:2 L X X . T h e spirit of
G o d h o v e r s o v e r the waters. G a g e r interprets N u m e n i u s t o m e a n that the
water is " d i v i n e l y b l o w n " d u e to "the e f f e c t o f the d i v i n e breath o n the
93
water's s u r f a c e . " A l l s o u l s that d e s c e n d into b e i n g ( g e n e s i s ) settle b y the
water according to Porphyry. N u m e n i u s , according to Porphyry, also appeals
to Heraclitus in support o f his interpretation o f the text: "It is pleasure and
not death for s o u l s to b e c o m e w e t " — w h i c h m e a n s for h i m that the descent
9 4
into g e n e s i s is pleasure for the s o u l s . T h e c a v e o f the n y m p h s c o n t a i n s
95
water that f l o w s f o r e v e r . Beutler dates De antro to the t i m e after Porphyry
m e t P l o t i n u s , but it is not i n v o l v e d in the s t r u g g l e w i t h Christianity, s o
9 6
Porphyry is free w i t h his admiration o f M o s e s . Porphyry is far m o r e w i l l i n g
to grant H o m e r a d e g r e e o f admiration than h e is to grant it to the biblical
literature h o w e v e r . H i s c o n c l u s i o n is:
When the wisdom of antiquity (την π ά λ α ι α ν σοφίαν), all the intelligence of Homer, and
his perfection in every virtue are taken into account, one should not reject the possibility
that in the fiction of a myth (μυθαρίου π λ ά σ μ α τ ι ) that poet was intimating images of
97
more divine things (εικόνας τών θειοτερων ή ν ί σ σ ε τ ο ) .
O n e s h o u l d c o m p a r e this e x p a n s i v e statement with his attitude to the H e b r e w

98
scriptures .
9 0
D e antro 3 4 (32,13-5 Sem.Cl. 609).
9 1
For this understanding of the naiads see also D e antro 12 (14,14-5 Sem.Cl. 609).
9 2
STERN II, § 4 5 6 b from D e antro 10 = Numenius, F. 30 (80-81 DES PLACES). ET by
Sem.Cl. 6 0 9 , 13. There is a possible reference to the same text (Gen 1:2) in C.H. Asclepius
14 [II, 313,3-7 N./F.) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 26a.
9 3
GAGER, Moses, 66.
9 4
D e antro 11 (12,20-1 Sem.Cl. 6 0 9 ) = Heraclitus, F Β 77 DlELS-KRANZ. Cf. DES
PLACES, Numenius et la Bible, 313.
9 5
Homer, Od. 13.109, D e antro 10 (12,8 Sem.Cl. 609).
9 6
BEUTLER, Porphyrios, 279.
9 7
D e antro 36 (34,9-11 Sem.Cl. 609). Revised ET of Sem.Cl. 609.
9 8
See § 2.2.2.
2.2.4 Gen 2:7 and the Soul
G a g e r and B e u t l e r h a v e q u e s t i o n e d w h e t h e r Ad Gaurum (a t e x t o n h o w the

fetus is e n s o u l e d that i s o s t e n s i b l y b y G a l e n ) is actually b y P o r p h y r y or not.
S i n c e the text i s s o u n l i k e G a l e n ' s p o s i t i o n it m a y b e p o s s i b l e that Porphyry is
its s o u r c e ( B e u t l e r ) or that h e actually w r o t e i t " . It c o n t a i n s a r e f e r e n c e to
Genesis:
100
When n a t u r e c o m e s forth to the light with its work (προελθούσης· τ η ς φύσεως μετά
του έ ρ γ ο υ ) , the pilot c o m e s in without being forced. Just as I have seen in theatres —
when those w h o play Prometheus, as the figure lies (κειμένου τ ο υ π λ ά σ μ α τ ο ς ) , are
forced to make the soul g o into the body. Perhaps the old ones, by means o f the myth, did
not wish to show the necessity of the entrance, but wanted to show only that ensoulment
happens after the conception and fabrication o f the body ( μ ε τ ά τ η ν κύησιν και
π λ α σ θ έ ν τ ο ς τ ο υ σ ώ μ α τ ο ς ή έ μ φ ύ χ ω σ ι ς ) . This is what the theologian o f the Hebrews
appears to mean when after the formation of the human body and when it has received its
bodily structure, he says (Gen 2:7) that God breathed the spirit into it so that it becomes a
1 0 1
living soul (έμφυσήσαι τ ο ν θεόν αύτφ ε ι ς φυχήν ζώσαν λ έ γ η τ ό π ν ε ύ μ α ) .
Earlier the author ( A d G a u r u m 1 0 . 3 ) s p e a k s o f the s p e r m or s e e d o f a plant

that h a s the p o w e r t o create a m e m b r a n e around i t s e l f (ευθύς* [ή] βμπηξι,ν
βξωθβν ύμενώδη (της ev) τω σπέρματι δυνάμεως περιβαλλούσης). He
a l s o a r g u e s that there is a " v e g e t a t i v e (or natural) s o u l " ( τ η ν φυτική ν ...
ψ υ χ ή ν ) that the p r o v i d e n c e o f the ordaining C a u s e o f the u n i v e r s e d o e s n o t
leave without a pilot ( A d Gaurum 10.6). T h e s o u l that c o m e s i n t o t h e
"vegetative s o u l " g u i d e s it. O n e can then interpret the author t o m e a n that the
v e g e t a t i v e s o u l p r o d u c e s its fruit or w o r k (the b o d y ) as a s e e d p r o d u c e s a
1 0 2
plant. Stern refers t o T e r t u l l i a n ' s treatise o n the s o u l . Tertullian asserts
that the s o u l is c o n c e i v e d i n the w o m b (De anima 25.2 [34,29-32 Waszink]).
G o d b r e a t h e s t h e s o u l i n t o the b o d y , and the s o u l i s c o r p o r e a l ( 9 . 7 , 22.2
9 9
GAGER, M o s e s , 7 3 - 7 6 / BEUTLER, Porphyrios, 2 9 0 . In m y view GAGER is not willing
enough to give enough emphasis to the evidence of Michael Psellus (SMITH, Porphyrii 267F)
who distinguishes the opinions o f Hippocrates and Galen (the embryo is alive) from that of
Porphyry (the embryo is not alive or ensouled, but is like a plant not moved by the soul but by
nature). SMITH in his app. gives many parallels between the views of Porphyry catalogued by
Psellus and those o f the author o f A d Gaurum, Recent literature is willing to accept the text
as Porphyrian. S e e the bibliography in S M I T H , Porphyrii, 2 9 3 app. In particular cf.
FESTUGlfcRE, Revelation, III, 2 6 5 - 3 0 2 (a translation) / H. DORRIE, Porphyrios* Symmikta
Zetemata. Ihre Stellung in S y s t e m und Geschichte d e s Neuplatonismus nebst e i n e m
Kommentar zu den Fragmenten, Zetemata 2 0 , Munchen 1 9 5 9 , 161-65 / K. LlMBURG,
Porphyrios, D i e Beseelung der Embryonen. Text, Ubersetzung u. Erlauterungen, Diss. Koln
1975. More bibliography may be found in RlNALDi, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 4 2 .
100 FESTUGlfeRE, Revelation, III, 2 8 5 translates this as "vegetative soul with the fruit" -
presumably the embryo and see 2 8 4 n . l .
1 0 1
STERN II, § 4 6 6 = A d Gaurum 11. Author's ET.
1 0 2
STERN II, 4 8 3 .
170 2. Porphyry
[ 1 2 , 7 - 9 ; 3 1 , 7 W a s z i n k ] ) . Tertullian denies that the soul is inserted into the

b o d y w h e n it c o m e s forth from the w o m b in a lifeless state ( 2 5 . 2 [ 3 4 , 2 9 - 3 5 , 1
W a s z i n k ] ) . Plato s e e m s to b e l i e v e that souls enter b o d i e s at birth ( P h a e d o
113a souls are "sent forth again to the births o f living creatures" and Phaedrus
2 4 8 d the "soul enters the human babe"). J. H. W a s z i n k n o t e s , h o w e v e r , that
103
Plato did not m a k e a definite statement o n the s u b j e c t . P h i l o interprets the
text to m e a n that G o d inspired or "ensouled" (evinvevoev ή έψύχωσβ τά
ά ψ υ χ α ) b e i n g s without soul. H e says that it w o u l d b e absurdity ( ά τ ο τ ά α ^ ) to
104
b e l i e v e that G o d had a mouth or n o s t r i l s . If Porphyry wrote Ad Gaurum, he
is making u s e o f G e n e s i s to establish a Platonic v i e w o f the soul. T h e author
finds M o s e s the theologian to b e in support o f his philosophical v i e w s o n the
e n s o u l m e n t o f the b o d y . T h e u s e o f the word "theologian" to describe M o s e s
is unique in the G r e c o - R o m a n literature although P h i l o u s e s that term for
1 0 5 1 0 6
M o s e s . G a g e r argues that s i n c e (in an undisputed t e x t ) Porphyry o n l y
uses l a w g i v e r ( ν ο μ ο θ έ τ η ν ) for M o s e s , the author o f the treatise o n the fetus
m a y b e another Neo-Platonist. This argument is not o v e r p o w e r i n g , and the
statement b y M i c h a e l P s e l l u s that Porphyry wrote a treatise o n the e m b r y o
107
m a y not b e m e r e l y a c o i n c i d e n c e .
2.2.5 Eden
Porphyry m a y h a v e attacked an aspect o f the story o f E d e n . Severian of
Gabala writes:
Many say, and particularly those who follow the God-hated Porphyry who wrote Against
the Christians and w h o drew many away from the divine dogma (και του θείου
δόγματος πολλούς άποστήσαντι). They say accordingly: Why did God forbid the
knowledge of good and evil? Let it be the case that he forbade the evil. Why then also
the good? For when he said, "From the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall
1 0 8
not eat" he says that he keeps him from the knowledge of evil; why then also the g o o d ?
1 0 3
J. H. WASZINK, Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani de anima, Amsterdam 1947, 322.
WASZINK notes that Plato was quoted in support of both conflicting views. Alcinous read
Plato as believing that souls entered embryos in Didask. 25 178,33-35 (50
WHITTAKER/LOUIS).
1 0 4
Philo, Leg. alleg. 1.36. His remarks may indicate that some Alexandrians criticized
the anthropomorphisms in the text. See STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 17.
105 philo, Vita Mosis 2.115 and D e praemiis et poenis 53. See GAGER, Moses, 75.
1 0 6
P o r p h . , D e abst. 4.13.6 (III, 2 2 P./S./B.). The editors (75 n.202) note that this is
ordinarily the title for Moses in Hellenistic Judaism.
1 0 7
GAGER, Moses, 76.
1 0 8
STERN II, § 4 6 3 = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 2 (who notes that it is not certain that
this text is from the C. Chr. although it is probably from that work) = Sev., D e mundi
creatione orat. 6 (PG 56, 4 8 7 ) . On the text see RINALDI, L'Antico, 106 w h o notes
Porphyry's literalistic reading of the text.
Celsus attacked the story in G e n e s i s from a different angle:

... [They] constructed the most unpersuasive and unrefined accounts — some person
formed by the hands of God and breathed into (Gen 2:7), a woman from his rib (Gen
2:21-22), commandments from God (Gen 2:16-17), a serpent w h o acted against these
(Gen 3:1-5), and the serpent who prevailed over God's ordinances. A myth like they tell
to old women, depicting God in a most unholy way, who at once from the start is weak
109
and unable to persuade the one person whom he himself f o r m e d .
C e l s u s found the story, crude, m y t h o l o g i c a l , and d e m e a n i n g to G o d . Julian,

o n the other h a n d , attacked it probably m a k i n g s o m e u s e o f P o r p h y r y ' s
material. H e asked,
Is it not excessively strange that God should deny to the human beings w h o m he had
fashioned the power to distinguish between good and evil? What could be more foolish
than a being unable to distinguish good from bad? For it is evident that he would not
avoid the latter, I mean things evil, nor would he strive after the former, I mean things
good. And, in short, God refused to let man taste of wisdom, than which there could be
1 1 0
nothing of more value for h i m .
Julian's attack o n the account is quite extensive, and that m a y b e an indication

that Porphyry's attack w a s a l s o rather lengthy. H e u s e s an argument from
c o n s e q u e n c e : a b e i n g w h o cannot distinguish b e t w e e n g o o d and evil w i l l not
111
b e able to a v o i d d o i n g e v i l t h i n g s . U n l i k e C e l s u s , Porphyry and Julian d o
not s o l e l y m a k e u s e o f the rhetoric o f vituperation, but they s e e l o g i c a l
problems in the E d e n narrative.
C e l s u s d o e s not h i m s e l f express approval for the serpent, but he k n o w s o f
its e x i s t e n c e a m o n g s o m e Christian readers o f G e n e s i s (§ 1.2.8). Admiration
for the serpent in the story o f paradise w a s current a m o n g Christian
112
G n o s t i c s . T h e N a g H a m m a d i texts, for e x a m p l e , o c c a s i o n a l l y e x a l t the
113
s e r p e n t . A l t h o u g h Porphyry d o e s not admire the serpent in the text that
S e v e r i a n p r e s e r v e s , his a s s u m p t i o n is that G o d is w r o n g in r e f u s i n g the
k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d to the first h u m a n s . It is not difficult to b e l i e v e that
Porphyry m a y h a v e felt s o m e s y m p a t h y for the serpent's v i e w s . R i n a l d i
1 1 4
c o m p a r e s P o r p h y r y ' s critique to that o f the Marcionites against the O T .
A p e l l e s (or a similar e x e g e t e ) argues that it w a s incorrect for G o d to forbid
109 origen, C. Cels. 4.36 (250,21-8 M A R C ) = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 41 =

S T E R N II, § 375 (p. 280). See § 1.2.7.
1 1 0
C. Gal. 89a-b (94,2-12 M A S . ) = S T E R N II, § 481a (p. 529) = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei
pagani, Π § 48 with comments on 213. See § 3.5.
1 1 1
On the argument from consequence see § 1.33.
1 1 2
See § 1.2.8.
1 1 3
Testim. Truth N H C I X , 3 , 4 7 , 5 - 2 9 (NHS 1 5 , 1 6 2 - 4 PEARSON).
1 1 4
RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 89.
172 2. Porphyry
1 1 5
the k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d and e v i l to h u m a n b e i n g s . S e v e r i a n responds that
A d a m already had the k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d before h e ate o f the tree. G o d o n l y
forbade h i m the k n o w l e d g e o f evil. Severian quotes G e n 2:23 in e v i d e n c e o f
A d a m ' s k n o w l e d g e o f the nature o f the w o m a n and q u o t e s G e n 2 : 2 4 as
116
e v i d e n c e o f his ability to prophesy the f u t u r e .
2.2.6 Gen 3:21: Garments of Skin

Porphyry has a text in his work On Abstinence in w h i c h h e refers to garments
made from skin:
W e must take off many tunics (χιτώνας), both this visible and fleshly tunic (σάρκινον)
and those that w e are clothed with inside which are next to our tunics of skin (τοις
δερμάτινοι^). Naked (Γυμνοί), and without tunics, let us go up to the stadium to compete
in the Olympics of the soul. For taking off clothing is the beginning, and without it one
117
cannot c o m p e t e .
This text appears in a passage in w h i c h Porphyry d i s c u s s e s h o w the soul can

return to its original state by detaching itself from sensation, imagination, and
118
irrationality . E x a m p l e s o f garments h e is speaking o f include exterior o n e s
119
such as eating and interior o n e s such as d e s i r e . In another text Porphyry
e x p r e s s e s similar thoughts i m m e d i a t e l y after a p a s s a g e in w h i c h he has b e e n
120
discussing interior and exterior p u r i t y :
Is it not true that in the sanctuaries set apart by people for the gods that what one wears on
the feet must be pure, even the sandals should be spotless; and in the temple of the Father,
that is in this c o s m o s , is it not necessary to keep our last and exterior tunic of skin
121
(χιτώνα τ ο ν δερμάτινον) pure and to live with purity in the temple of the F a t h e r ?
1 2 2
T h e imagery o f garments o f the soul is o l d . Porphyry preserves a fragment
o f E m p e d o c l e s in w h i c h nature clothes (the soul) with the strange garment o f
1 2 3
the flesh (σαρκών ά λ λ ο γ ν ώ τ ι π ε ρ ι σ τ έ λ λ ο υ σ α χ ι τ ώ ν ι ) . Plato, if o n e can
accept an indirect tradition o f Athenaeus, said that in death w e put off the last
1 1 5
Ambrose, D e paradiso 6.30 (286,23-287,9 S C H E N K L ) = H A R N A C K , Marcion, 414-5*.
See the text in § 1.2.8 above.
1 1 6
Sev., D e mundi creatione orat. 6 (PG 5 6 , 4 8 7 - 8 ) .
1 1 7
Porphyry, D e abst. 1.31.3 (1,66 B./P.) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 63.
1 1 8
Porphyry, D e abst. 1.31.1 (1,66 B./P.).
1 1 9
Porphyry, D e abst. 1.31.4 (I, 66 B./P.).
1 2 0
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.45.4 (II, 111-12 B./P.).
1 2 1
Porphyry, De abst. 2.46.1 (II, 112 B./P.) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 64.
1 2 2
Porphyry, D e antro 14 (16,11 Sem.Cl. 609) speaks of the body as the garment (χιτών)
of the soul. See BOUFFARTIGUE/PATILLON, Porphyrye de Γ abstinence, I, 37-41.
1 2 3
SMITH, Porphyrii 382F = Stobaeus 1.49.60 (Empedocles 31 Β 1 2 6 D I E L S / K R A N Z ) .
1 2 4
garment o f l o v e o f f a m e ( ε σ χ α τ ο ν τ ο ν τ η ς φ ι λ ο δ ο ξ ί α ς χ ι τ ώ ν α ) . Philo,
in an interpretation o f L e v 16:4 (in w h i c h the H i g h Priest takes off his usual
garment and puts o n a linen robe), writes that the priest takes off the garment
o f the s o u l ' s o p i n i o n and faculty o f i m a g i n a t i o n ( τ ό ν τ η ς δόξης· και
1 2 5
φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς ψ υ χ ή ς χ ι τ ώ ν α ) . Plotinus u s e s s o m e imagery that is c l o s e to
that o f Porphyry in his d i s c u s s i o n o f the ascent to the G o o d : t h o s e that w i l l
a s c e n d a b o v e m u s t take o f f the things that w e w e r e c l o t h e d w i t h w h i l e
d e s c e n d i n g — as there are purifications for t h o s e w h o a s c e n d to the h o l y
celebrations o f the m y s t e r i e s ( e m τ ά ά γ ι α τ ώ ν ι ε ρ ώ ν ) and taking off o f
1 2 6
robes worn before and an ascent nude ( τ ό γ υ μ ν ο ί ς ά ν ι έ ν α ι ) . Gregory o f
N y s s a a l s o u s e s the i m a g e r y o f garments o f the soul (other than that o f the
b o d y ) . In his Dialogue Concerning the Soul and Resurrection garments can
1 2 7
refer to the irrational nature o f a h u m a n b e i n g . T h e interpretation o f the
1 2 8
phrase in G e n 3:21 to m e a n the b o d y can b e traced back to P h i l o . T h e
129
Gnostic Cassianus adopted it, as did T h e o d o t u s . It is nearly certain that the
term "tunic o f skin" in Porphyry is part o f this interpretive tradition. W h a t is
not clear is w h e r e h e g o t it. It m a y h a v e simply b e c o m e part o f the lingua
130
franca o f H e l l e n i s t i c r e l i g i o u s p h i l o s o p h y . It a l s o b e c a m e part o f the
131
Christian e x e g e t i c a l tradition .
2.2.7 Dreams: Pythagoras and the Hebrews

Porphyry m a y h a v e b e e n aware o f the story o f J o s e p h ' s interpretation o f
Pharaoh's dreams s i n c e h e c l a i m s that Pythagoras learned the interpretation o f
dreams from the H e b r e w s . In a text from his life o f Pythagoras, Porphyry
wrote: "Pythagoras, h e [ D i o g e n e s ] s a y s , c a m e a l s o to the E g y p t i a n s , the
A r a b s , C h a l d e a n s , and the H e b r e w s , from w h o m h e o b t a i n e d an accurate
1 2 4
Athenaeus 11, 507d w h o bases his tradition on a Dioscorides. Another M S reading
has "fame" (δόξης) instead of "love of fame."
1 2 5
Philo, Leg alleg. 2.56.
1 2 6
Plotinus, Ennead. 1.6.7 (1,100,4-7 H . / S C H . ) .
1 2 7
Gregory of N y s s a , D e anima et resur. PG 46, 148c-149a. See also D e mort. (the
garment of skin as body) (GNO 9, 55,14-9 HEIL). Other references to Gregory may be found
in BOUFFARTIGUE/PATILLON, Porphyrye de l'abstinence, I, 38.
1 2 8
Philo, Quaest. in Gen 1.53.
1 2 9
See Clem. Alex., Strom. 3.14.95.2 (I, 239,26-240,3 S T . / F R . ) and Idem, Excerpta ex
Theodoto 55.1 (GCS C l e m e n s Alexandrinus III, 125,8-9 S T A H L I N / F R U C H T E L / T R E U ) .
Disciples of Valentinus teach that the tunic of skin of Gen 3:21 is the body perceptible by
sense in Iren. 1.5.5 (SC 264, 86,97-88,99 ROUSSEAU/DOUTRELEAU).
1 3 0
BOUFFARTIGUE/PATILLON, Porphyrye de l'abstinence, 1,40-1.
1 3 1
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 97 refers to many articles on the garments of the
text in Genesis including P. F . BEATRICE, Le tuniche de Pelle. Antiche letture di Gen 3,21,
in: La tradizione dell'Enkrateia. Atti del Colloquio di Milano, Aprile 1982, Roma 1985,
433-84 (468-70 on Porphyry's views).
174 2. Porphyry
132
knowledge of dreams." Porphyry's source, Antonius D i o g e n e s , m a y o n the
other hand h a v e k n o w n o n l y a general tradition. T h e story o f Joseph, for
e x a m p l e , w a s k n o w n to P o m p e i u s Trogus (beginning o f the first century C.E.)
w h o wrote that Joseph "was eminently skilled in prodigies and w a s the first to
establish the s c i e n c e o f interpreting dreams; and nothing i n d e e d o f divine or
133
human l a w s e e m e d to h a v e b e e n u n k n o w n to h i m . . . " T h i s tradition w o u l d
m a k e J o s e p h the b e g i n n i n g o f the venerable tradition o f dream interpreters
134
such as Artemiodorus w h o wrote an Onirokritikon ( D r e a m Interpretation) .
T h i s t e c h n i q u e o f tracing bits and p i e c e s o f culture to o l d e r cultures in
1 3 5
antiquity w a s a t o p o s in the G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d . A r i s t o b u l u s , for
e x a m p l e , a r g u e s that P y t h a g o r a s t o o k o v e r m a n y t h i n g s f r o m J e w i s h
136
t r a d i t i o n s . H e r m i p p u s o f S m y r n a ( c a 2 0 0 B . C . E . ) a l s o b e l i e v e d that
1 3 7
Pythagoras had taken certain o f his teachings from the J e w s . Porphyry, in
his letter to the priest A n e b o , investigates the question o f the k n o w l e d g e o f
138
future e v e n t s through d r e a m s . It is nearly certain that h e w o u l d disagree
1 3 9
with Aristotle's belief that dreams are not sent from G o d .
2.2.8 The Chronology of Moses

H i s interest in ancient culture l e d Porphyry to e x a m i n e the c h r o n o l o g y o f
M o s e s . Richard Goulet has e x a m i n e d these accounts carefully and has argued
that they all g o back to the s a m e text o f Porphyry (Harnack separated the texts
1 4 0
into F. 4 0 and 4 1 ) . Eusebius summarized thus:
In fact, using pagan authorities, that unfaithful Porphyry in the fourth book of his work
that he w o v e together against us with hollow labor, affirms that Semiramis existed after
141
Moses. A m o n g the Assyrians she ruled for one hundred and fifty years before I n a c h u s .
1 3 2
S T E R N II, § 4 5 6 a = Vita Pyth. 11 (CUFr, 4 1 , 6 - 9 D E S P L A C E S ) . Author's ET.
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1123-25 approves of the thesis that Porphyry's Life of Pythagoras was
an anti-Christian tract (even though Christ is never mentioned). See RINALDI, Giudei, 116-8.
1 3 3
S T E R N I, § 4 6 3 = Iustinus, Historiae Philippicae, Libri X X X X V I Epitoma, 2.8. Cf.
§0.10.
1 3 4
On this text see F o x , Pagans and Christians, 155-58. F E L D M A N , Jew and Gentile, 526
n.26 also discusses dreams in antiquity.
1 3 5
See T H R A E D E , Erfinder, 1241-46.
1 3 6
Aristobulus F. 3a = Clem. Alex. Strom 1.22.150.3 (III, 154,39-43 H O L L A D A Y ) . Cp.
Jos., C. Ap. 2.167-68 and see § 0 . 3 , 0 . 1 6 .
1 3 7
S T E R N I, § 25 = Jos., C. Ap. 1.162-65; § 26 = Origen, C. Cels.1.15.
1 3 8
Porphyry, Ep. ad Aneb. 2.2a (9,2-5 S O D A N O ) . Cp. Iamblichus, D e myst. 3.2 (102,15-
103,2 DES PLACES).
1 3 9
Aristotle, D e divinatione per somnum 2 (463b).
1 4 0
R. G O U L E T , Porphyre et la datation de Mo'ise, RHR 4, 1977, 137-164 and see C o o k ,
Interpretation, 1 2 2 , 2 0 2 .
1 4 1
Inachus was a frequent anchor in discussions of the antiquity of Moses. See Origen,
C. Cels. 4.11 (225,22-5 M A R C . ) who notes that some Greek writers date Moses to the time of
Therefore according to h i m M o s e s is found to be nearly eight hundred and fifty years

1 4 2
older than the Trojan W a r .
It is quite clear that E u s e b i u s created these numbers using h i s o w n Chronicle,

s i n c e i n other p a s s a g e s h e q u o t e s P o r p h y r y w i t h o u t t h e c h r o n o l o g i c a l
indications. After m e n t i o n i n g Sanchuniathon, the P h o e n i c i a n historian, and
the translation o f his work b y Philo B y b l o s , Eusebius refers t o Porphyry:
143
The author in our o w n day o f the propaganda-piece [ σ υ σ κ ε υ ή ν ] against us mentions
these things in the fourth book o f his treatise against us, where he bears the following
testimony for the man [Philo] word for word:
Of the affairs of the Jews the truest history, because the most in accordance with their
144
places and names, is that o f Sanchuniathon of B e r y t u s , who received the records
1 4 5
from Hierombalus the priest o f the god Ieuo ( Ί ε υ ώ ) ; he dedicated his history to
Abibalus king o f Berytus, and was approved by him and by the investigators o f truth
1 4 6
in his time. N o w the times of these people fall even before the date of the Trojan
war, and approach nearly to the times of Moses, as is shown by the successions o f the
kings of Phoenecia. And Sanchuniathon, who made a complete collection of ancient
history from the records in the various cities and from the registers in the temples, and
wrote in the Phoenician language with a love of truth, lived in the reign of Semiramis,
the queen of the Assyrians, w h o is recorded to have lived before the Trojan war or in
Inachus. These writers include: Ptolemy o f Mendes apud Tatian, Oratio 38 ( S T E R N I,

§ 157a); idem apud C l e m e n t o f A l e x . , Strom. 1.21.101.5 ( S T E R N I, § 157b); Apion
(dependent on Ptolemy) apud Eus., P.E. 10.10.16 ( S T E R N I, § 163c); Tert., Apol. 19.3 (57-9
D E K . ) ; and Ps. Justin., Cohort. 9.2 (34,11-18 M A R C ) . Cp. C H A D W I C K , Origen, 190 n.4. See
also STERN'S note on I, 380. Cp. § 1.5.
1 4 2
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 4 0 = S T E R N II, § 461 = Eus., Chronica, praef. apud Jerome,
Chronica (GCS Eusebius XVII, 7,18-8,7 HELM). Author's ET.
1 4 3
This word is what Eus. uses to refer to Porphyry's C. Chr. S e e SlRlNELLl's note in
Eusebe ( S C 2 0 6 , 3 0 1 - 0 2 ) . Cp. Eus., P.E. 5.1.9, 10.9.12 (VIII/1, 2 2 1 , 1 1 ; 5 8 7 , 2 4 M R A S ) .
SIRINELLI believes that the word refers to a sort of "montage" that Porphyry prepared and
includes a reference to the artifices used by Porphyry to attack the Christians. Cp. L A M P E ,
PGL, s.v. R. GOULET, H y p o t h e s e s recentes, 7 2 suggests "complot" or "pamphlet
discriminatoire" (plot; discriminatory pamphlet) as good translations. S e e also the usage in
§0.5.
1 4 4
For an argument in favor of the historicity o f this person see M. J. E D W A R D S , Philo or
Sanchuniathon? A Phoenicean Cosmogony, CQ 4 1 , 1991, (213-220) 214. See also Philo of
Byblos, The Phoenician History. Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes, ed. H. W .
ATTRIDGE/R. A . O D E N , Jr., C B Q M S 9, Washington, D.C., 1981, 3-9. Against his existence
see P. N A U T I N , Sanchuniathon chez Philon de Byblos et chez Porphyre, R B 5 6 , 1949, (259-
73) 272-73. For the abundant bibliography on S. see SIRINELLI, Eusebe (SC 206, 303).
1 4 5
On the name o f the god s e e S T E R N II, § 323, 140-41. It is probably identical with the
biblical Iao. See § 0 . 1 8 , 1 . 2 3 .
1 4 6
The priest and king are discussed in A T T R I D G E / O D E N , Philo, 2 4 / E D W A R D S , Philo,
215-16.
176 2. Porphyry
those very times. And the works of Sanchuniathon were translated into the Greek
1 4 7
tongue by Philo of B y b l o s .
In this text Porphyry dates S e m i r a m i s to the time o f the Trojan war, s o the
temporal references in E u s e b i u s ' summary a b o v e are his o w n work and not
148
that o f P o r p h y r y . E u s e b i u s ' repetition o f this p a s s a g e later in the P.E. also
m a k e s it apparent that the c h r o n o l o g i c a l calculations are h i s w o r k and not
those o f Porphyry s i n c e he g i v e s the a b o v e text (up to " Q u e e n o f Assyria")
and then e x p l a i n s his method o f calculation. H i s introduction to the fragment
g i v e s an interesting summary o f the C. Chr.:
At this point in addition to the preceding testimonies concerning the antiquity of Moses, I
will use the individual of all people that is most adverse and hostile to the Hebrews and to
us (τφ π ά ν τ ω ν δ υ σ μ ε ν ε σ τ ά τ ω καΐ πολεμιωτάτω Εβραίων τ ε και ημών) — I mean
the contemporary philosopher who wrote the propaganda-piece against us in an excess of
hatred, attacking not only us but also the Hebrews and M o s e s himself and the prophets
who came after him with the same calumnies. For thus through the agreement of enemies
149
I think that I can irrefutably keep to my p r o m i s e . . .
Eusebius s e e s the C. Chr. as being as m u c h against the J e w s as the Christians.

O n e o f E u s e b i u s ' c o m m e n t s after his quotation o f Porphyry indicates that
P o r p h y r y o n l y m a d e a r e f e r e n c e to M o s e s as a near c o n t e m p o r a r y o f
Sanchuniathon and Semiramis:
But our calculation has Abraham born during this woman's [Semiramis'] reign, while that
of the philosopher establishes Moses as much older; it is proven that Semiramis preceded
the Trojan wars by eight hundred years. And Moses then precedes the Trojan wars by that
150
many years according to the philosopher.
Eusebius then proceeds to date Inachus 150 years after S e m i r a m i s . 3 0 0 years

after Inachos c o m e s Cecrops, the first king o f A t h e n s , and 4 0 0 years separates
1 5 1
C e c r o p s f r o m the fall o f T r o y . U s i n g this e v i d e n c e G o u l e t s h o w s that
Eusebius probably misconstrued Porphyry's thesis about M o s e s to m e a n that
M o s e s p r e c e d e d the Trojan war b y 8 5 0 years. M o r e than likely Porphyry put
1 5 2
M o s e s 4 0 0 - 6 0 0 years before that w a r . T h e a n o n y m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r o f
1 4 7
E T is slightly modified from GIFFORD, Eusebius, I , 35. Cf. also ATTRIDGE/ODEN,
Philo, 19-21. The text is H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 41 = S T E R N II, § 4 6 2 (in part) = Eus., P.E.
1.9.20-21 (VIII/1, 39,14-40,9 M R A S ) .
1 4 8
G O U L E T , Porphyre et la datation, 150 and see Table D on 164. In his Chronicle, Eus.
th st
puts Semiramis in the 1 0 year of Abraham, Inachus at the 1 6 1 year of Abraham, the birth of
t h th
M o s e s in the 4 2 5 year of Abraham, and the fall of Troy in the 8 3 5 year of Abraham
(20a,18-20; 27b,14; 39a,18; 61a,8-9 H E L M ) .
1 4 9
Author's ET. Eus., P.E. 10.9.11-12 (VIII/1, 5 8 7 , 1 7 - 5 8 8 , 1 0 M R A S ) = HARNACK,
Porphyrius, F. 4 1 .
1 5 0
Author's ET. Eus., P.E. 10.9.17 (VIII/1, 589,5-9 M R A S ) .
1 5 1
Eus., P.E. 10.9.18-21 (VIII/1, 589,9-25 M R A S ) .
1 5 2
G O U L E T , Porphyre et la datation, 153-62.
M a c a r i u s M a g n e s d a t e s Ezra t o 1 1 8 0 years after M o s e s . S i n c e Porphyry is

probably the s o u r c e o f m o s t o f the p h i l o s o p h e r ' s o b j e c t i o n s to Christianity,
that n u m b e r p r o b a b l y g i v e s a better indication o f P o r p h y r y ' s c h r o n o l o g i c a l
thoughts about M o s e s . H e c o u l d h a v e created that figure u s i n g n u m b e r s in
153
the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria . In terms o f c h r o n o l o g y , all that
can b e c o n c l u d e d i s that E u s e b i u s related S e m i r a m i s t o the t i m e o f A b r a h a m ,
w h i l e Porphyry related her t o the t i m e o f M o s e s . S h e apparently w a s a rather
l o o s e historical anchor. T h e p o w e r o f antiquity is e v i d e n t in C e l s u s ' critique
1 5 4
o f Christianity as a " n e w " r e l i g i o n w i t h n o real historical r o o t s .
2.2.9 Moses and the Egyptian Magicians
Porphyry m a d e an e x t r e m e l y brief reference to the e x o d u s narrative. Jerome

155
i n c l u d e s it in the m i d s t o f Porphyry's devaluation o f apostolic m i r a c l e s :
[Paul] subdued the whole world from the Ocean to the Red Sea. Let someone say, "They
156
did all this for the sake of wealth." Porphyry said this: " R u s t i c and poor people, since
they had nothing, did certain signs (signa) by magic arts. T o do signs, however, is
1 5 7
nothing great, because the magicians also did signs in Egypt against M o s e s .
Apollonius also did signs as did Apuleius, and they did innumerable signs." I concede to
you, Porphyry, that they did signs by magic arts so that "they accepted riches from rich
little w o m e n (divitibus mulierculis) whom they persuaded" — this also you say. W h y
158
then did they die? Why were they c r u c i f i e d ?
T h i s text g i v e s another illustration o f the c o n t e x t o f P o r p h y r y ' s attack o n the

LXX. The spread of Christianity was threatening to Greco-Roman
1 5 3
For the text from Macarius Magnes, Monog. 3.3.1-2 (II, 74,10-9; 391 (commentary)
GOULET) see COOK, Interpretation, 2 0 1 - 0 2 . Clement of Alex., Strom. 1.21.141.4-5 =
Eupolemus, F. 5 (I, 134, 14-21, and 155 n.120 [on the textual problem of 2 5 8 0 or 1580 years
between the exodus and the fifth year of the reign of Demetrius — 158-57 B.C.] H O L L A D A Y ) .
Cf. GOULET, Porphyre et le datation, 159-60. If the M S reading (2580) is correct in
E u p o l e m u s , then G o U L E T ' s argument about Porphyry's dependence o n Clement is
unsuccessful, but his major point still stands.
1 5 4
See, for example, Celsus' comment that Jesus appeared only a few years ago (C. Cels.
1.26, 2 . 4 , 8.12 [28,6; 7 9 , 2 0 ; 5 2 9 , 8 - 9 MARC). MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1 1 3 2 believes that
Porphyry suggests that Hebrew religion derives from Phoenician religion. This is not clear,
but is possible given the similarities of the name IEUO and YHWH.
1 5 5
Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 156-8.
1 5 6
Julian also accused the Christians of irrationality and rusticity (άλογία ... αγροικία)
in contrast to "us" w h o have letters and Hellenism (Greg. Naz., Or. 4 . 1 0 2 [SC 3 0 9 , 2 5 0
BERNARD!]).
1 5 7
Other pagan philosophers were interested in the case of the Egyptian magicians. S e e
Numenius, F. 9 (51 D E S PLACES) / § 0.16. A n anonymous individual asks if Moses could not
have done some other sign (signum) than turn a staff into a serpent, which he/she regards as
something objectionable. Cf. Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones de Vet. Test. 4 0 (423,1-3 SOUTER).
1 5 8
HARNACK, Porphyrius F. 4 , Tract, de Psalmo 81 (89,224-34 MORIN). = RlNALDl, La
Bibbia dei pagani, II § 123.
178 2. Porphyry
intellectuals a n d their v i e w o f the foundations o f their culture. Porphyry

k n o w s h o w s u c c e s s f u l Christian e v a n g e l i s m h a s b e e n , a n d C e l s u s w a s
b e g i n n i n g t o s e e it a l t h o u g h h e b e l i e v e d it w a s c o n f i n e d t o t h e l o w e r
159
classes . P o r p h y r y n o m o r e q u e s t i o n s t h e reality o f m a g i c than d i d
N u m e n i u s in h i s o w n reference t o the great m a g i c a l p o w e r s o f the Egyptian
1 6 0
m a g i c i a n s w h o m h e s a w as able t o withstand the miracles d o n e b y M o s e s .
W h i l e N u m e n i u s s e e m s to ascribe M o s e s ' abilities t o his p o w e r s i n prayer, h e
1 6 1
s i m p l y c a l l s Jannes and Jambres the best m a g i c i a n s i n E g y p t . T h e n a m e s
1 6 2
o f the Egyptians w e r e k n o w n in the G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d . C e l s u s b e l i e v e d
1 6 3
that M o s e s had magical p o w e r s . H e also accepted the reality o f m a g i c and
b e l i e v e d that Jesus w a s a m a g i c i a n and that other Christians c o u l d w o r k
1 6 4
m a g i c a l w o n d e r s . T h e references t o A p u l e i u s a n d A p o l l o n i u s are stock
165
arguments from the pagan critique o f Christianity . Porphyry's twist o n the
stock arguments is interesting h o w e v e r . H e calls miracles "signs" w h i c h is a
166
term f r o m a n c i e n t r h e t o r i c . O n e o f Q u i n t i l i a n ' s d e f i n i t i o n s o f a s i g n
(signum) i s s o m e t h i n g through w h i c h another thing i s understood t o b e the
1 6 7
c a s e . S o m e signs are inarguable, for Quintilian, and s o m e are dubious and
168
can b e a r g u e d . A n e x a m p l e i s a w o m a n w h o g i v e s birth. Undoubtedly, s h e
1 6 9
has had sexual intercourse with a m a n . Presumably, the i s s u e for Porphyry
is that the E g y p t i a n s c a n d o miracles b y m a g i c . A p o l l o n i u s and A p u l e i u s d o
miracles b y m a g i c . T h e apostles d o miracles b y m a g i c . C o n s e q u e n t l y the
apostolic d e e d s d o n e b y m a g i c prove nothing. T h e fact that they w e r e able to
persuade rich w o m e n i s then an indication o f the logical problems o f wealthy
w o m e n and not the logical certainty or respectability o f the Christian faith. In
the fourth century, the ability o f bishops and spiritual directors to persuade
1 5 9
On Celsus' views see COOK, Interpretation, 8 2 - 8 .
1 6 0
Cf. § 0 . 1 6 .
1 6 1
S T E R N II, § 3 6 5 = Eus., P . E . 9 . 8 . 1 - 2 = Numenius, F. 9 ( 5 1 , 1 - 9 D E S P L A C E S ) .
1 6 2
See § 0 . 1 6 .
1 6 3
C f . § 1.20-21.
1 6 4
S e e his comments in Origen, C. Cels. 1 . 6 (Christians and Jesus), 1 . 3 8 (Jesus learned
magic in Egypt), 1 . 6 8 (Jesus and magicians who are taught by Egyptians) ( 1 0 , 8 - 9 . 2 1 - 8 ; 4 0 , 8 -
11; 7 1 , 3 - 1 8 M A R C ) .
1 6 5
C O O K , Interpretation, 1 5 7 with reference to Aug., Ep. 1 3 6 . 1 , 1 3 7 . 1 3 , 1 3 8 . 1 8 (CSEL
4 4 , 9 4 , 1 0 - 1 4 ; 1 1 5 , 1 - 3 ; 1 4 5 , 5 - 8 GOLDBACHER). And see Lactantius, D i v . inst. 5 . 3 . 7 and 2 1 .
Hierocles wrote a book that included the comparison of Jesus and Apollonius. S e e COOK,
Interpretation, 2 6 6 - 8 and Eus., C. Hierocl. 2 . 8 - 1 8 ( 1 0 0 - 2 F O R R A T / D E S P L A C E S ) . For a
succinct summary o f the rich bibliography available o n Apollonius and Apuleius s e e
RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 1 4 1 - 4 3 .
1 6 6
L A U S B E R G , Handbuch, § 3 5 8 - 6 5 .
1 6 7
Quint. 5 . 9 . 9 . Cp. LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 3 5 9 .
1 6 8
Quint. 5 . 9 . 2 .
1 6 9
Quint. 5 . 9 . 5 .
170
wealthy w o m e n t o g i v e t h e m m o n e y b e c a m e an issue i n the c h u r c h . L i k e
N u m e n i u s b e f o r e h i m , Porphyry i g n o r e s t h e fact that s o o n e r o r later t h e
m a g i c i a n s i n E g y p t can n o longer imitate M o s e s ( E x o d 8 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) . T h e fact,
h o w e v e r , that the m a g i c i a n s w e r e able to perform s o m e d e e d s (such as turning
171
water into b l o o d ) did trouble s o m e C h r i s t i a n s .
2.2.10 Ecclesiastes 4:8: Does God have a Son?

Porphyry s h o w s i n o n e text that h e had g i v e n the L X X an e x t r e m e l y c l o s e
r e a d i n g u n l e s s h e f o u n d t h e p a s s a g e i n a prior critic o f t h e c h u r c h ' s
172
C h r i s t o l o g y . H e appealed to " S o l o m o n " t o question the e x i s t e n c e o f a "Son
o f G o d . " It i s probable that h e meant E c c l 4:8 ( L X X ) . A u g u s t i n e writes after
173
discussing an objection to the Christian belief in eternal p u n i s h m e n t :
After this question, the one who proposed them from Porphyry added:
Will you hold m e worthy to instruct me if Solomon said truly
1 7 4
God has no s o n ?
A u g u s t i n e d e n i e d —apparently unaware o f Eccl 4:8 ( L X X ) — that S o l o m o n

said this and affirms that Proverbs 8:25 and 3 0 : 3 - 4 ( L X X ) speak o f Christ as
1 7 5
the w i s d o m o f G o d . If Porphyry w a s referring t o E c c l 4 : 8 , A u g u s t i n e
w o u l d certainly h a v e a n s w e r e d that the text i s not referring t o G o d , but to a
human being w h o i s alone i n the world. T h e text o f Porphyry (or an objector
w h o f o l l o w s Porphyry) s h o w s a p r o b l e m i n r e c o n c i l i n g t h e L X X w i t h t h e
doctrine o f t h e c h u r c h . T h e attempt t o find c o n t r a d i c t i o n s w a s o n e o f
176
Porphyry's techniques that h e used in the C. Chr. against N T t e x t s . Julian
continued this tradition b y d e n y i n g that the O T foresees a divine S o n o f G o d
1 7 7
or l o g o s . R i n a l d i c a l l s attention t o a text i n A m b r o s i a s t e r i n w h i c h a
questioner asks: " G o d i s perfection and n e e d s nothing, what work then w a s
1 7 0
R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 143 refers to Ammianus Marcellinus 27.3.14
(bishops and matrons' wealth) and Codex Theod. 16.2.20 (a law of July 3 0 , 3 7 0 intended to
stem the practice o f spiritual directors who persuade wealthy women to name them heirs).
1 7 1
S e e the question in Ps. Justin, Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 2 6 (36), 406d (38-40 O T T O
= 45,1-7 P.-K./H.). T h e individual mentions Exod 7:22, and concludes with the same
question about the rest of the miracles that the Egyptians could perform.
1 7 2
This paragraph is based on COOK, Interpretation, 160.
1 7 3
Aug., Ep. 1 0 2 . 2 2 ( 5 6 3 , 2 4 - 5 6 4 , 6 G O L D . ) = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 9 1 . Cp. C O O K ,
1 7 4
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 85; Aug., Ep. 102.28 (569,2-4 G O L D . ) = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia
dei pagani, II § 213. The L X X does not have "God" in this text but the pronoun "he."
1 7 5
Aug., Ep. 102.29 (569,5-18 G O L D . ) . Aug. mistakenly reads "son" for "children" in
Prov. 30:4.
1 7 6
See COOK, Interpretation, 383 s.v. "contradiction."
1 7 7
Julian, C. Gal. 2 9 0 e (163,24-25 M A S . ) . Cf. § 3.12. Cf. § 3.38 for a reference to a
rabbinic text that makes use of Eccl 4:8 to attack Christology.
180 2. Porphyry
there for Christ the S a v i o r s o that h e i s born from G o d and s o that G o d m i g h t

1 7 8
h a v e a s o n through w h o m h e m a d e all t h i n g s ? " M e r e d i t h calls P o r p h y r y ' s
q u e s t i o n a " n i g g l i n g c r i t i c i s m o f t h e p e r s o n o f Christ a n d h i s supposed
179
relation t o the F a t h e r " . H o w e v e r , o n e c a n a s s u m e that P o r p h y r y v i e w e d
his attack in this w a y : If h e c a n show that t h e r e i s a fundamental
contradiction b e t w e e n the L X X and N T C h r i s t o l o g y , then Christians w i l l h a v e
to a b a n d o n their r e l i g i o n . In this p a s s a g e h i s critique is not against the L X X ,
but rather a s s u m e s its truth for the sake o f an argument.
22.11 The Prophets Against Sacrifice?
Little i s left o f P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s o n the p r o p h e t i c tradition o f the O T .

T h e o d o r e t d o e s h a v e this c o m m e n t against sacrifice:
Porphyry, reading these [the prophets] accurately, (for he dwelt especially on them while
cunningly mixing up his writing against us), declares that to sacrifice is contrary to piety
(άλλότριον ε υ σ έ β ε ι α ς ) himself acting and being in a state of mind (δρών καΐ π ά σ χ ω ν )
almost like apes. For as those mimic, on the one hand, the habits o f people — on the
other hand, they are not transformed into the nature of people but remain apes. S o this
individual, having stolen the divine oracles and put some o f their thought into his o w n
writings, did not want to learn different truth (μεταμαθεΐν ουκ ηθέλησε ττψ άλήθειαν)
1 8 0
but remained an a p e .
P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s o f sacrifice w e r e n u a n c e d , and o n e w o n d e r s if T h e o d o r e t

has described them accurately. A u g u s t i n e records a remark in which
Porphyry criticizes the Christians for abandoning sacrificial tradition:
They [the Christians] find fault with the sacred ceremonies, the sacrificial victims, the
burning o f incense and all other parts of worship in our temples; and yet the same kind of
worship had its origin in antiquity with themselves, or from the God w h o m they worship,
181
for he is represented by them as having been in need of first fruits (primitiis) (Dt 1 8 : 4 ) .
A s a v e g e t a r i a n Porphyry w a s naturally h o s t i l e to animal sacrifice and argued

that the original sacrifices w e r e crops. D e m o n s take p l e a s u r e in sacrifices o f
m e a t , a n d e v e n if o n e h a s t o offer s u c h sacrifices o n e d o e s n o t h a v e to eat
1 7 8
Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Vet. et N . Test. 4 8 (94,16-9 S O U T E R ) / R I N A L D I , La Bibbia
dei pagani, II, 192 / Idem, Tracce, 109-12. S e e also the pagan objections to God having a son
in Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 114.18 (311,18-20 S O U T E R ) . The Arians object to
God's generation (of a son) in Quaest. Vet. et N . Test. 97.12 (179,22-5 S O U T E R ) .
1 7 9
M E R E D I T H , Porphyry, 1135.
1 8 0
S T E R N II, § 4 6 0 = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 7 9 = Theod., Graec. Affect. Curatio 7.36-
37. Author's ET. Cp. MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1 1 3 1 . H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 8 2 ; from
Jerome, Ep. 133.9 (CSEL 5 6 , 255,15-23 HlLBERG) is a text in which Porphyry mentions that
Britain and the Scottish peoples did not know "Moses and the prophets." S e e C O O K ,
1 8 1
COOK, Interpretation, 165 from H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 7 9 = Aug., Ep. 102.16 =
STERN II, § 465L Author's ET. See the references to Porphyry's views in § 3.11.
1 8 2
t h e m ! W h i c h prophets Porphyry might b e thinking o f i s uncertain — but
o n e thinks o f texts s u c h as that o f H o s 6:6 "I desire steadfast l o v e a n d n o t
183
sacrifice." T h e o d o r e t m a y n o t h a v e included P o r p h y r y ' s full statements
about t h e sacrificial s y s t e m . In a n y c a s e , the s u r v i v i n g fragment l e a v e s
something t o b e desired — i n o n e text Porphyry criticizes sacrifice, using the
prophets, and in another h e d e f e n d s the sacrifices o f the H e l l e n e s (and the
J e w s ) and censures Christians for abandoning them. Porphyry w a s probably
ambivalent about the entire sacrificial s y s t e m , but w a s w i l l i n g t o d e f e n d it
against Christian attack. Christians were confused about the issue t h e m s e l v e s .
A m b r o s i a s t e r r e c o r d s a q u e s t i o n i n w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l a s k s w h y G o d
c o m m a n d e d the offering o f sacrifices (e.g. L e v 3:3) and then quotes Jer 7 : 2 1 -
184
2 2 in w h i c h G o d says that h e did not c o m m a n d them to b e o f f e r e d . Clearly
the questioner found a contradiction b e t w e e n the prophetic and pentateuchal
tradition. P o r p h y r y m a y h a v e h a d similar v i e w s . A n o t h e r a n o n y m o u s
Christian (or pagan) asks Ps. Justin w h y sacrifices have b e e n abolished i f they
were practiced before the l a w b y N o a h ( G e n 8:20-21) and G o d w a s p l e a s e d
1 8 5
with them at that t i m e ? V o l u s i a n u s the senator p o s e d a similar question to
A u g u s t i n e w h e n h e ( V o l u s i a n u s ) w a s still a pagan: W h y i s G o d , w h o i s also
G o d o f the O l d Testament, scornful o f the o l d sacrifices and p l e a s e d with the
186
n e w s a c r i f i c e s ? P r e s u m a b l y h e is referring t o the Eucharistic sacrifice o f
the church. That q u e s t i o n s about the sacrifices o f the O T ( a n d their later
abrogation) c a m e u p a m o n g both pagans and Christians is an indication that
both felt difficulties o v e r the i s s u e o n into late antiquity. Julian raised the
187
issue o f t e n .
2.2.12 Porphyry's Excerpt from Theophrastus on Sacrifice

Porphyry includes a text from Theophrastus' On Piety in h i s o w n b o o k about
abstinence from meat:
1 8 2
See the references in COOK, Interpretation, 165 and the fragment from Theophrastus
below.
1 8 3
Porphyry takes a position somewhat similar to Hosea when he asserts that the divine is
more interested in purity o f heart than in sacrifice in Ad Marcellam 2 3 (CUFr 119,13-23 DES
P L A C E S ) . S e e R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 197.
1 8 4
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N . Test. 103 (225,1-11 S O U T E R ) . Cp. RINALDI, Tracce,
109 (on sacrifice), 113 (on Volusianus).
1 8 5
Ps. Justin, Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 83 (95), 442a (122 OTTO = 88,10-5 P.-K./H.).
Another questioner asks w h y , if G o d has done away with the old form o f worship as
unpleasing to him, is not the fact that so many (Jews and Greeks) practice the old form not a
proof o f his weakness? See Quaest. § 1 (15), 391b (2 OTTO = 29,10-7 P.-K./H.).
1 8 6
Aug., Ep. 136.2 (94,21-95,1 G O L D . ) . This is a letter of Marcellinus to Augustine.
1 8 7
See § 3 . 1 1 , 3.52, 3.53.
182 2. Porphyry
And yet, says Theophrastus, though the Jews among the Syrians, because of their original
mode o f sacrifice, continue to offer animal sacrifices at the present time, if anyone were to
bid us sacrifice in the same way, w e should revolt from the practice. For instead of
feasting upon what had b e e n sacrificed, they made a whole burnt-offering
( ό λ ο κ α υ τ ο υ ν τ ε ς ) o f it by night (Lev 6:1-6, N u m 28:3-8), and by pouring much honey
1 8 8 1 8 9
(Lev 2 : 1 1 ) and wine over it they consumed ( ά ν η λ ί σ κ ο ν ) the sacrifice more quickly,
1 9 0
in order that even the all-seeing o n e ( π α ν ό π τ η ς ) might not b e a spectator o f the
dreadful deed. A n d while doing this they fast throughout the intermediate days; and all
this time, as being a nation of philosophers, they converse with o n e another about the
divine, and at night they contemplate the stars, looking up to them, and calling upon God
in prayers. For these were the first to sacrifice both the other living beings and themselves
191
— doing this from necessity and not from any d e s i r e .
T h e f a s t i n g m e n t i o n e d b y Theophrastus m a y b e similar to that o f the M i s h n a

in w h i c h individuals may fast f o r s e v e r a l days while reading Genesis
192
together . Stern n o t e s that the d a i l y h o l o c a u s t w a s the " c h i e f part o f the
1 9 3
Jewish public c u l t . " W h a t i s clear is that T h e o p h r a s t u s v i e w s the J e w s as
p h i l o s o p h e r s i n the s a m e w a y as M e g a s t h e n e s and C l e a r c h u s d i d after h i m .
M e g a s t h e n e s b e l i e v e d that the p h i l o s o p h e r s ( o u t s i d e G r e e c e ) i n c l u d e d the
1 9 4
B r a h m a n s a m o n g t h e I n d i a n s a n d t h o s e w h o are c a l l e d J e w s in S y r i a .
C l e a r c h u s b e l i e v e d that the J e w s w e r e d e s c e n d e d f r o m I n d i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s
1 8 8
This is against the express prohibition o f Leviticus. Plutarch knows that the Jews do
not offer honey in STERN II, § 258 = Plut., Quaest. conv. 4.6.2, 672b. Plutarch does note that
the Jews drink w i n e in their celebrations and used honey as a libation before wine was
discovered.
1 8 9
The L X X has κατανάλωση (consume) in Lev 6:3.
190 p o b a b l y a reference to the sun as in Aeschylus, Prometheus 9 1 . It refers to a detector
r
of crimes. S e e BOUFFARTIGUE/PATILLON, Porphyre de l'abstinence, II, 6 2 . They note that a

similar word in Hellenistic Judaism, "overseer/protector" ( ε π ό π τ η ς ) , in some contexts does
not refer to G o d as a detector of crimes (as it does in Theophrastus and Aeschylus). S e e Ep.
ad Arist. 16 ( 1 1 0 PELL.), 2 Mace 3:39, Esth 5:1a. Ε π ό π τ η ς (overseer), however, approaches
the meaning o f Theophrastus' word in 2 Mace. 7:35 and 3 Mace 2:21 where God punishes
crimes.
1 9 1
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.26.1-4 (II, 9 2 - 3 B./P.) = E u s . , P.E. 9.2.1 (VIII/1, 4 8 6 , 1 - 1 1
MRAS). ET modified from GlFFORD, Eusebius, I, 4 3 5 . The textual problems (variations
between Eusebius and Porphyry that could possibly indicate that "Jews" is an ancient gloss)
are discussed at length in BOUFFARTIGUE/PATILLON, Porphyrye de l'abstinence, II, 58-67.
N o M S S leave the word out, and it is wise to keep it in that case. See also STERN I, § 4.
1 9 2
S e e m. Ta'an. 4 . 1 - 3 referred to by J. B E R N A Y S , Theophrastos' Schrift uber
Frommigkeit, Berlin 1866, 114. The individuals in question are part o f the twenty-four lay
courses that correspond to the priestly courses. Cp. B O U F F A R T I G U E / P A T I L L O N , Porphyrye de
l'abstinence, II, 6 3 / S T E R N I, 11 w h o is quite skeptical that Theophrastus knew o f such a
custom. On fasting s e e S C H U R E R , History, II, 483-4. Did. 8:1 depicts fasting o n Mondays
and Thursdays. Cp. Luke 18:12 and b. Ta'an. 12a (second and fifth day fasting).
1 9 3
S T E R N 1 , 1 1 . Cp. S C H U R E R , History, II, 2 9 9 - 3 0 1 .
1 9 4
S T E R N I, § 14 = Clem. Alex. 1.15.72.5.
c a l l e d Calani, but w h o s e n a m e a m o n g the Syrians is J e w s b e c a u s e o f the

place. Observing the m o t i o n o f the stars is respectable a m o n g philosophers.
S e x t u s Empiricus preserves a tradition from o n e o f A r i s t o t l e ' s d i a l o g u e s in
w h i c h Aristotle o b s e r v e s that p e o p l e s e e i n g the orderly m o t i o n o f the stars
1 9 5
c o m e to b e l i e v e that there is a certain g o d w h o is the c a u s e o f the m o t i o n .
Porphyry has a tradition from Chaeremon in w h i c h he notes that the Egyptian
priests ( w h o are p h i l o s o p h e r s ) p a s s the night in the o b s e r v a t i o n o f the
1 9 6
h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . Theophrastus c o u l d p o s s i b l y b e aware o f the "sacrifice"
o f Isaac ( G e n 2 2 : 1 - 1 4 ) or the practice o f h u m a n sacrifice a m o n g Israelites
w h o w e r e unconcerned with the Torah ( 4 K g d m s 17:17, 2 1 : 6 ) . Immediately
after this text Theophrastus notes that sacrifices began with the "fruits" o f the
earth (κάρπων), and then the human race lost the sense o f h o l i n e s s and b e g a n
s a c r i f i c i n g o t h e r t h i n g s , i n c l u d i n g h u m a n b e i n g s (as in A r c a d i a and
197
C a r t h a g e ) . T h e b e s t sacrifices w h i c h bring the m o s t h e l p from the g o d s
198
(according to Theophrastus) are still those o f fruits o f the e a r t h . Porphyry
shares Theophrastus' p o s i t i o n and c o n c l u d e s the s e c o n d b o o k o f his treatise
o n abstinence with the remark that the ancient tradition o f sacrifice ( κ α τ ά τ ά
199
π ά τ ρ ι α ) w a s c a k e s and f r u i t s . O n the other hand Porphyry n o t e s that h e
2 0 0
has not c o m e to destroy the l a w s o f nations ( ν ό μ ι μ α λύσων ούκ έ ρ χ ο μ α ι ) .
B l o o d y sacrifices are offered to the d e m o n s and not the g o d s , and o n e d o e s
2 0 1
not h a v e to eat t h e m . G i v e n the n u a n c e d p o s i t i o n Porphyry a d o p t e d
concerning sacrifice, the text o f Theodoret quoted above probably implies that
in the C. Chr. he w a s highly critical o f the Jewish s y s t e m o f animal sacrifices.
H e w a s not w i l l i n g to g i v e it the sympathetic analysis that h e did to the
sacrifices o f his o w n tradition.
2.2.13 Rosea's Marriage to a Prostitute

Porphyry m a y h a v e appreciated H o s e a ' s v i e w s o n sacrifice, but h e apparently
m o c k e d the prophet's marital problems. Jerome records a little o f o n e critic's
c o m m e n t s o n that issue:
1 9 5
For Clearchus see § 0.3. Aristotle apud Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 9.20-23 = Adv.
dogm. 3.20-23 = F. 10 ROSE.
1 9 6
Porphyry, D e abst. 4.8.1 (III, 92-3 P./S./B.).
1 9 7
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.27.1-2, 2.29.1, 2.32.1 (II, 9 3 , 95, 99 B./P.). S e e the note in
BOUFFARTIGUE/PATILLON, Porphyrye de Γ abstinence, II, 209 on human sacrifice in Greece.
The most ancient sacrifices (the Egyptians) offered only first fruits ( ά π α ρ χ ά ς ) . See D e abst.
2.5.1,2.6.1 (II, 7 4 , 7 6 B./P.).
1 9 8
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.32.1 (II, 99 B./P.).
1 9 9
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.59 (II, 121 B./P.).
2 0 0
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.33.1 (II, 100 B./P.).
2 0 1
Porphyry, D e abst. 2.58.1 (II, 120 B./P.). Cf. also COOK, Interpretation, 165.
184 2. Porphyry
If some quarrelsome individual, and most o f all o n e o f the pagans (gentilium), will not
wish to accept what was said in a figurative sense, and will reject that which w e have said
and will laugh at the prophet having intercourse with a prostitute (Hos 1:2), w e object to
him that which Greece customarily praises and the schools of philosophers agree about.
Jerome m e n t i o n s several e x a m p l e s . X e n o c r a t e s m a d e t h e y o u n g P o l e m o n
o b e y w i s d o m w h e n o n c e h e had consorted with l e w d w o m e n and b e e n g i v e n
202
to d r u n k e n n e s s . Socrates brought Phaedo from a brothel to the
2 0 3
A c a d e m y . J e r o m e i n c l u d e s another reference t o t h e p a g a n critic w i t h
reference t o H o s 1:8-9 after h e h a s g i v e n a figurative interpretation t o that
child o f H o s e a (i.e. "Not m y p e o p l e " is Israel in e x i l e in B a b y l o n ) :
If h o w e v e r some quarrelsome interpreter will not wish to receive the things which w e
have said, but will understand that a prostitute by the name o f Gomer, the daughter of
Debelaim, bore two male children — the first and the third — and one female, who was
the middle child, claiming this: that Scripture means what it says (hoc uolens scripturam
sonare quod legitur), let him respond how he explains that passage in Ezekiel (Ezek 4:4-
5) where he is judged by the Lord to bear the iniquities of the house o f Israel, that is the
2 0 4
ten tribes, for three hundred and ninety days and to sleep continually on his left side . . .
205
Harnack m e r e l y argues that t h e text probably g o e s b a c k t o P o r p h y r y .
G i v e n J e r o m e ' s frequent quotation o f Porphyry this m a y w e l l b e true, but
there i s n o guarantee ( a s t h e h u g e c o l l e c t i o n o f a n o n y m o u s fragments i n
2 0 6
authors like Ambrosiaster s h o w s ) . H o s e a ' s marital w o e s w e r e legendary,
and Porphyry c o u l d h a v e attacked the J e w i s h scriptures b y pointing t h o s e
w o e s o u t . H e a l s o m a d e m u c h o f e m b a r r a s s i n g situations s u c h as t h e
207
argument b e t w e e n Peter and P a u l . It is e a s y t o b e l i e v e that h e c o u l d h a v e
attacked H o s e a o n t h e s e grounds. H i s attitude that t h e O T c o u l d n o t b e
a l l e g o r i z e d w o u l d h a v e h e l p e d h i m (cf. § 2 . 2 . 2 ) . A u g u s t i n e d i s c u s s e s the
p r o b l e m s that t h e e p i s o d e s s u c h as H o s e a and h i s prostitute c a u s e d a m o n g
i n e x p e r i e n c e d Christian readers o f scripture: " K e e p i n g c o m p a n y w i t h a
harlot, for e x a m p l e , is o n e thing w h e n it i s the result o f abandoned manners,
another t h i n g w h e n d o n e i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s p r o p h e c y b y t h e prophet
2 0 2
Cp. Diog. Laert. 4.16.
2 0 3
Diog. Laert. 2.105.
2 0 4
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 w = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius F. 4 5 = Jer., In Osee 1.1.2; 1.1.8-9
(CChr.SL 76, 9,118-129; 14,302-10 A D R I A E N ) .
2 0 5
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 4 5 .
2 0 6
See, for example, the collection in R I N A L D I , Biblia Gentium; P. COURCELLE, Critiques
exeg&iques et arguments antichretiens rapportes par Ambrosiaster, VigChr 13, 1959, 133-69;
and see the index in Cook, Interpretation, 378.
2 0 7
See H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 2 0 and 2 1 ; also Cook, Interpretation, 158-59.
208
Hosea." Cyril notes that s o m e refuse to take the text in its literal s e n s e , and
h e includes the figurative interpretation o f o n e e x e g e t e ( G o m e r is a soul that
209
lives s h a m e f u l l y ) .
2.2.14 Jonah
T h e story o f Jonah w a s s i m p l y ridiculous to Porphyry. A u g u s t i n e s a y s that
the text he quotes is not derived from Porphyry, but includes it in a series o f
objections that are derived from Porphyry:
The last question proposed is concerning Jonah, and it is put as if it were not gotten from
Porphyry, but as being a standing subject of ridicule among the pagans; for his words are:
In the next place, what are w e to believe concerning Jonah, w h o is said to have been
three days in a sea creature's belly (Jonah 2:1 LXX)? The thing is quite unpersuasive
( d m θ α ν ό ν ) and incredible that a man swallowed with his clothes on should have
existed in the inside of a fish. If, however, the story is figurative, be pleased to
explain it. Again, what is meant by the story that a gourd sprang up above the head of
Jonah after he was vomited by the fish? What was the cause of this gourd's growth
(Jonah 4:6)?
Questions such as these I have seen discussed by pagans amidst loud laughter, and with
210
great s c o r n .
Porphyry w a s skeptical o f the allegorical interpretation o f the O T as w e h a v e

remarked a b o v e (§ 2 . 2 . 2 ) , s o it m a k e s s e n s e that he w o u l d attack the story o f
Jonah o n such a basis. If Porphyry is ultimately responsible for this attack, he
m a y h a v e c h o s e n J o n a h b e c a u s e the early Christians f o u n d the story
c o m p e l l i n g and c o u l d appeal to it as an i m a g e o f resurrection (Matt 12:40). It
211
a l s o appears in m o s a i c s and sarcophagus a r t . C e l s u s u s e d the story to
denigrate Jesus w i t h a biting c o m m e n t : "Jonah b e s i d e the gourd, or D a n i e l
delivered from the beasts ( D a n 6 : 1 6 - 2 3 ) , or others with e v e n m o r e a m a z i n g
212
actions w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o r e suitable for y o u than J e s u s . " Augustine
responded that either all divine miracles can be b e l i e v e d or rejected. H e notes
that "our friend" (Porphyry in that c a s e ) did not ask if the resurrection o f
Lazarus or o f Christ w a s to b e doubted o n the s a m e ground. T h i s c o m m e n t
2 0 8
Augustine, D e doctr. Christ. 3.12.18 (OECT, 152,44 GREEN): Alia est quippe in
perditis moribus, alia in Oseae prophetae vaticinatione coniunctio meretricis. ET from
N P N F 1 / 2 , 5 6 2 . Cf. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 242.
2 0 9
Cyril, Commentarius in Hos. 1:3 (15,12-24; 17,11-3 P U S E Y ) . P U S E Y (15 n . l ) includes
a text from Origen in a Catena in which Origen only accepts an allegorical interpretation of
Gomer.
2 1 0
STERN II, § 4 6 5 a = HARNACK, Porphyrius F. 4 6 = Rinaldi, La Bibbia dei pagani, II,
§ 285 = Aug., Ep. 102.30 (CSEL 34.2, 570,9-18 GOLDBACHER). ET from that of N P N F 1,
422-23.
2 1 1
G. S N Y D E R , A n t e P a c e m . Archaeological E v i d e n c e of Church Life Before
Constantine, Macon 1 9 8 5 , 3 4 , 4 2 - 3 , 4 5 - 9 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, Π, 245-6.
2 1 2
C. Cels. 7.53 (505,20-4 M A R C ) . Cf. § 1.30.1.
186 2. Porphyry
implies that A u g u s t i n e b e l i e v e d Porphyry w a s ultimately responsible for both

213
o b j e c t i o n s . H e a l s o calls attention to s o m e gigantic ribs in Carthage that
2 1 4
w o u l d contain any number o f p e o p l e . In the s a m e letter h e c o m p l a i n s that
if such stories w e r e told o f A p u l e i u s or A p o l l o n i u s o f T y a n a ( w h o m they call
215
magicians and philosophers) that n o o n e w o u l d laugh but feel p r i d e . A s to
the q u e s t i o n about what the figurative m e a n i n g o f the story w a s , A u g u s t i n e
216
answers that it is the death o f Christ (Matt 1 2 : 3 9 - 4 0 ) . H e a l s o interprets the
gourd's s h a d o w to b e the promises o f the O T and the privileges e n j o y e d in it
— the s h a d o w o f future things ( C o l 2:17, H e b 10:1). Christ is the w o r m
2 1 7
w h o s e g o s p e l c a u s e s the things o f the past to wither a w a y . In another text
A u g u s t i n e remarks that critics ridicule the story o f Jonah, but b e l i e v e the
a c c o u n t o f A r i o n o f M e t h y m n a w h o after b e i n g t h r o w n f r o m a ship w a s
carried to the shore b y a dolphin. H e admits that the story o f Jonah is harder
218
to b e l i e v e b e c a u s e it is more miraculous and m o r e p o w e r f u l . Jerome also
notes that there w i l l b e s o m e , believers and non-believers alike, w h o will find
it incredible that a h u m a n being c o u l d survive in the belly o f a beast for three
219
days and n i g h t s . H e responds that the unbelievers accept the stories in the
Metamorphoses o f N a s o , and Greek and Latin history. T h e y defend such
immoral stories by arguing that for G o d all is possible, but d o not attribute the
220
s a m e e x c e l l e n c e to honest stories (such as J o n a h ) . Ambrosiaster records an
a n o n y m o u s o b j e c t i o n to the story: "If the order o f b o d y (ratio carnis) is
221
respected . . . Jonah did not live in the belly o f the b e a s t . "
2 1 3
On his objection to Lazarus see H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 9 2 (from Aug., Ep. 102.2
[545,17-546,12 G O L D . ] ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 153.
2 1 4
Aug., Ep. 102.31 (570,19-571,12 G O L D . ) .
2 1 5
Aug. Ep. 102.32 (572,9-16 G O L D . ) .
2 1 6
Aug. Ep. 102.34 (573,13-574,7 G O L D . ) .
2 1 7
Aug. Ep. 102.35 (574,14-575,8 G O L D . ) .
2 1 8
Aug. D e civ. Dei 1.14.7 (15,6-16,14 D O M B A R T / K A L B ) = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei
pagani, II, § 285a.
2 1 9
Jerome, In Ion. 2.3 ( 3 9 4 , 4 6 - 3 9 5 , 6 6 A D R I A E N ) = R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani,
II, § 284.
2 2 0
Origen also defended the account with the argument that God is able to answer prayers
in D e orat. 13.2 (GCS Origenes II, 3 2 6 , 2 8 - 3 2 7 , 3 KOET.). Cp. Clem. Alex., Strom.
2.20.103.1-104.1 (II, 169,24-170,11 S T . / F R . ) who also mentions Daniel and Jonah in a similar
context.
2 2 1
Ambrosiaster, Quaestiones Vet. et N . Test. 9 7 . 1 2 (180,7-8 S O U T E R ) . The entire
question 97 is from the Arians (see 171, S O U T E R ) . See also the objections against the story
posed by "unbelievers" in Cyril, In Ion. 2:1 (577,19-29 P U S E Y ) .
2.2.15 Zechariah and Antiochus Epiphanes

Porphyry m a y h a v e c o m m e n t e d o n the b o o k o f Zechariah (although E u s e b i u s
d o e s not m e n t i o n h i m b y n a m e ) . T h e c o m m e n t is c l o s e to P o r p h y r y ' s
opinions o n the b o o k o f Daniel. Eusebius writes:
If one should say that these things were fulfilled in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, let
him observe if he is able to refer all the rest of the prophecy to the time of Antiochus —
for example, did the people suffer (Zech 14:2) captivity and did the feet of the Lord stand
on the Mt. of Olives (Zech 14:3), and did the Lord become king over all the earth in that
day and did the name of the Lord surround earth and wilderness (Zech 14:10) during the
222
time when Antiochus ruled over S y r i a ?
A s will be seen b e l o w from Porphyry's comments on Daniel, Antiochus

Epiphanes w a s o n e o f his anchors for interpreting the b o o k o f D a n i e l and
thereby divesting that b o o k o f any apocalyptic power. It is probable that h e
c o u l d h a v e m a d e the s a m e m o v e with reference to Zechariah's apocalyptic
prophecies.
2.2.16 Daniel
M a n y fragments o f P o r p h y r y ' s c o m m e n t a r y o n D a n i e l survive in J e r o m e ' s
2 2 3
commentary o n that b o o k w h i c h w a s itself written around 4 0 7 . Porphyry's
work created s u c h a furor in the church (as part o f the twelfth b o o k o f the C.
Chr.) that E u s e b i u s d e d i c a t e d three v o l u m e s ( b o o k s ) o f h i s 2 5 - v o l u m e
r e s p o n s e to the C. Chr. against Porphyry's v i e w s o n D a n i e l . Apollinarius
dedicated a h u g e v o l u m e ( 2 6 ) o f his 3 0 - v o l u m e w o r k against Porphyry to
refute Porphyry's attack o n Daniel, and Methodius wrote 1 0 , 0 0 0 lines against
the C. Chr. — h o w m a n y o f those w e r e o n Porphyry's v i e w s o n D a n i e l is
224
u n c l e a r . It is probably n o accident that these replies to Porphyry h a v e all
disappeared g i v e n the Christian p o l i t i c i a n s ' d e c i s i o n t o burn the C. Chr.
several t i m e s in antiquity. T h e r e are s o m e rumors that E u s e b i u s ' w o r k
2 2 5
against Porphyry has survived into modern times at Mt. A t h o s . Porphyry's
2 2 2
HARNACk, Porphyrius F. 4 7 = Eus., D.E. 6.18.11 (276,9-15 H E I K E L ) = RlNALDl, La
Bibbia dei Pagani II § 289.
2 2 3
F. GLORlE's preface in his edition (CChr.SL 75a, 7 5 1 ) with reference to F.
C A V A L L E R A , S. Jerome, I, 2, Louvain 1922, 52. See J. B R A V E R M A N , Jerome's Commentary
on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish-Christian Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible,
C B Q M S 7, Washington, D . C . , 1978. On Porphyry's commentary see R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei
Pagani II, 211-42. Cf. also the succinct summary of the issues in P. F. BEATRICE, Pagans and
Christians on the Book of Daniel, in: StPatr X X V , ed. E. A. LIVINGSTONE, Leuven 1993, 27-
45.
2 2 4
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius F. 43a, Τ. XVII (Jerome's statements about these three
Christian responses to Porphyry). On the Christian authors see COOK, Interpretation, 125-27.
2 2 5
See Cook, A Possible Fragment, ZAC 2 , 1 9 9 8 , 1 1 3 - 2 2 .
188 2. Porphyry
interpetation o f the b o o k w a s anti-apocalyptic, and this reading undercut the

226
use that the Christians m a d e o f it in their o w n a p o l o g e t i c .
2.2.16.1 Porphyry's Eastern Sources?

The s o u r c e s u s e d b y Porphyry in c o m p o s i n g his c o m m e n t a r y h a v e b e c o m e a
minor but interesting and controversial i s s u e in m o d e r n scholarship. P. M .
C a s e y has attempted to demonstrate that Porphyry u s e d a Syriac tradition o f
interpretation w i t h s o m e w e s t e r n "by-forms" to create his v i e w s o n D a n i e l .
The four k i n g d o m s in D a n 2 and 7, the little horn o f D a n 7:8, the h u m a n
figure in D a n i e l 7 : 1 3 , and the interpretation o f D a n 12:2 are the f o c u s o f
C a s e y ' s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Arthur J. Ferch has responded to C a s e y b y arguing
2 2 7
that C a s e y ' s eastern tradition is not as pure as h e w a n t s it to b e . In a
number o f S y r i a c - s p e a k i n g writers (and a f e w G r e e k s ) C a s e y finds e v i d e n c e
of the f o l l o w i n g "pure" tradition w h i c h he admits is constructed from sources
that contain "western" influence: the four beasts are B a b y l o n , M e d i a , Persia,
228
and G r e e c e (with ten kings/horns) r e s p e c t i v e l y ; the little horn is A n t i o c h u s ,
the m a n - l i k e figure in 7:13 is a s y m b o l o f the saints o f the M o s t H i g h ; the
saints are the M a c c a b e a n J e w s ( D a n 7 : 1 8 , 2 2 , 2 7 and 2 1 , 2 5 ) ; and D a n 12:2
229
refers to the M a c c a b e a n v i c t o r y and not an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l r e s u r r e c t i o n .
2 2 6
M E R E D I T H , Porphyry, 1133.
2 2 7
P. M. C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel, JThS 27, 1976, 15-33 /
Idem, Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, London 1979, 51-70 / A. J.
F E R C H , Porphyry: A n Heir to Christian E x e g e s i s ? , Z N W 7 3 , 1 9 8 3 , 141-47. CASEY
responded with: Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis of the Book of Daniel, Z N W 8 1 , 1990, 139-
42. C A S E Y uses the term "pure" in Son of Man, 58, 69 and cp. 5 9 and 65. BEATRICE, Pagans,
39 believes that C A S E Y ' S thesis fails since there "is no supporting evidence and C A S E Y must
therefore be satisfied with generically presuming that there were s o m e contacts between
Porphyry and his Syrian environment, without indicating any precise and unquestionable
texts." The problem is that one cannot find Greek or Syriac commentators in the "eastern"
tradition before Porphyry. BEATRICE (40-5) argues that Josephus is probably Porphyry's
source.
2 2 8
S e e also J. W. S W A I N , The Theory of the Four Monarchies, C P 3 5 , 1940, 1-21.
A e m i l i u s Sura, for example, in the second century B.C.E. lists the world rule of the
Assyrians, M e d e s , Persians, Macedonians, and Romans (Velleius Paterculus 1.6.6 [BiTeu
4,19-25 W A T T ] ) . Tacitus, Hist. 5.8.2 ( S T E R N II, § 281) mentions Assyrians, Medes, Persians,
Macedonians as rulers of the east. Cp. J. J. C O L L I N S , Daniel. A commentary on the book of
Daniel, with an essay "The influence of Daniel on the N e w Testament," by A. Y A R B R O
COLLINS, ed. by F. M. C R O S S , Hermeneia, Minneapolis 1993, 166-70. Julian mentions the
Jews' enslavement to the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and Romans in C. Gal. 210a (144,17-
19 M A S . =111, 378 W R . ) .
2 2 9
C A S E Y , Son of Man, 52-53 and Porphyry and the Origin, 19-30. Authors C A S E Y
includes are: Aphrahat, Ephraem Syrus, Polychronius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, the glosses to
the Peshitta, Theodore bar Koni, Isho bar Nun, Ishodad of Merw, Theodoret, and Rabi
Hayyim Galipapa.
Ferch points out the e l e m e n t s o f the Syrian tradition w h i c h d o not agree in full
with the "pure" tradition C a s e y claims existed beginning w i t h the author's (of
2 3 0
D a n i e l ) o w n interpretation o f the b o o k . T h e explanation Ferch finds for
Porphyry's w o r k o n D a n i e l is rooted in J e w i s h anti-messianic reactions, the
M a c c a b e a n literature, and arguments h e might h a v e in c o m m o n with C e l s u s .
H e also argues that Ephraem might h a v e offered interpretations similar in part
231
to those o f Porphyry due to his (E.'s) interest in the literal s e n s e .
Details in the interpretation o f D a n i e l will b e discussed in the texts b e l o w .
C a s e y is quite fair in his survey o f the Syriac authors and w i l l i n g l y admits that
they incorporated Christological interpretations into their c o m m e n t a r i e s o n
Daniel. A n e x a m p l e w i l l m a k e this point clearer. Ephraem, in c o m m e n t s o n
232
D a n i e l 7:13 attributed to h i m , argued that "While the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f this
w a s prefigured in the s o n s o f the p e o p l e in that they subdued the Greeks and
all the s u r r o u n d i n g k i n g d o m s , its c o n s u m m a t i o n w a s p e r f e c t e d in our
233
L o r d " . O n D a n 7 : 2 2 Ephraem argues "That is, to the saints o f the h o u s e o f
234
the M a c c a b e e s " . C a s e y confined his research to the Syriac c o m m e n t a r i e s .
235
But E p h r a e m in another text refers to Z e c h 9:9 and D a n 7:13 w i t h this
c o m m e n t : "... about w h i c h Zechariah says, ' L o ! thy K i n g c o m e s unto thee,'
2 3 0
C A S E Y , Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis, 139-43.
2 3 1
Ferch, Porphyry, 145-47.
2 3 2
c D i r ^ » razh.
2 3 3
ET in C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 26. Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 7:13
(V.215e-f; J. S. A S S E M A N I / S . E. A S S E M A N I / P . BENEDETTI, Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Opera
Omnia quae exstant graece, syriace, latine, in sex tomos distributa ad M S S . codices Vaticanos
Vol. I-VI, Rome, 1732-46 [1740. Tomus II. Syriace et latine = Vol. V in the series of
publication]). Cp. FERCH, Porphyry 142 n.7. The word "significance" is translated explicatio
allegorica (allegorical explication) by K. BROCKELMANN (Lexicon Syriacum, Hildesheim
nd
1966 [ 2 ed. 1928], 7 2 2 s.v.). It is usually translated "mystery". I will assume Ephraem to
be the author of this commentary, but it does not appear in reviews of his work such as that of
E. BECK, Ephraem Syrus, R A C V, 1 9 6 2 , 5 2 0 - 3 1 .
2 3 4
ET in C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 26; Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 7:22 (V.216c
A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) . On Ephraem's typological exegesis see R. M U R R A Y , Ephraem
Syrus, TRE IX, 1982, (755-62) 758-59. M U R R A Y claims that E.'s exegesis is an inheritance
from Jewish and Jewish-Christian tradition. S. B R O C K briefly reviews Aphrahat's and
Ephraem's adoption of Jewish traditions in their commentaries in: Jewish Traditions in
Syriac Sources, JJS 3 0 , 1 9 7 9 , (212-32) 225-26 (with earlier bibliography).
2 3 5
C. W. MlTCHELL/A. A. B E V A N / F . C. BURKITT, S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of
Mani, Marcion, and Bardaisan Vols. I-II, London/Oxford 1921, II, 103,5-20 (ST); xlvii
(ET of Against Marcion II). See below for the question of whether or not Porphyry had a
corporate interpretation of the Son of Man text in Dan 7:13.
190 2. Porphyry
in order t o s h o w u s (?) that h e is a k i n g . A n d that o t h e r ( p a s s a g e ) w h i c h

D a n i e l uttered [ 7 : 1 3 ] , O n e l i k e a s o n o f m e n c a m e , and t o h i m H e g a v e the
kingdom.' A n d o n e ( c o m i n g ) w a s in h u m i l i t y , as all the P r o p h e t s bear
w i t n e s s a b o u t [ i t ] , a n d the o t h e r in [ e x a l t ] a t i o n , a s t h e S c r i p t u r e s bear
witness." Clearly here Ephraem is not concerned with any corporate
interpretation of "Son of Man" but adheres to the Christological
interpretation.
D i d E p h r a e m k n o w G r e e k , and c o u l d h e h a v e b e e n i n f l u e n c e d t h e n b y
Porphyry? F. C . Burkitt n o t e s that a story in the Life o f E p h r a e m c l a i m s h e
learned G r e e k late in life b y a miracle. In o n e o f h i s writings Ephraem refers
to Plato, the S t o i c s , and A l b i n u s , but d o e s not quote G r e e k texts and s o s h o w s
2 3 6
little facility w i t h the l a n g u a g e . John J. C o l l i n s has c l a i m e d , h o w e v e r , that
"Aphrahat w a s probably familiar with Porphyry's work, and Ephraem
2 3 7
certainly w a s " . E p h r a e m w a s n o t as anti-Greek as C a s e y w a n t s to portray
238
h i m , but h e w a s n o p h i l o l o g i s t o f the Greek l a n g u a g e and l i t e r a t u r e . H e did
k n o w e n o u g h G r e e k t o m a k e a p o i n t about g r a m m a r ( " e y e " and "sun" are
236 M I T C H E L L , S. Ephraim's Prose, II, cxxvi. For a reference to these philosophers see II,
7,6-9 (ST), iii (ET).
2 3 7
C O L L I N S , Daniel, 116. C A S E Y responds to this position with t w o arguments: If the
Syrian writers knew the "western" tradition (Jerome and Hippolytus) it is improbable that
they would adopt such a different exegetical tradition from an anti-Christian writer such as
Porphyry; and it seems impossible to explain h o w Porphyry could have originated this
tradition of exegesis and how he could have discovered Daniel is a Maccabean text (Porphyry
and the Origin, 2 8 ) . In my judgment the first argument is stronger than the second, since
Porphyry could have created his interpretation from Josephus and other writers. In one detail
C A S E Y (Porphyry and the Origin, 29-30 and Son of Man, 55-59) argues that Porphyry and
Aphrahat (Demonstration 5.17-19, [Patrologia Syriaca, V o l s . 1.1, 1.2, ed. and trans. J.
PARISOT, Paris 1894, 1907,1.1, 217-19 (ST); ET in N P N F Series 2 , Vol. 13, 358]) adopted a
western view: in the west the second and third kingdoms of D a n 2 were respectively the
Medo-Persian and Greek; Porphyry and Aphrahat (in part) identify the second kingdom as
Medo-Persian and the third as Alexander. Aphrahat also identified the fourth kingdom as
Rome (and confusingly enough with Greece). In the "eastern" tradition the second kingdom
is Median, the third Persian, and the fourth Greek. C A S E Y argues that if the east did not have
an interpretive tradition separate from that o f Porphyry, it is impossible to show h o w the
eastern interpreters found the "correct" interpretation of the four kingdoms. The fact that the
two traditions are s o mixed in Aphrahat is indicative that there w a s no "pure" form (that
scholars have been able to find — other than the author of Daniel's alleged interpretation of
his own text!). S e e COLLINS, Daniel, 115-16.
2 3 8
C A S E Y , Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis, 141. He refers to a hymnic text in which E.
writes, "Blessed is he w h o has not tasted the venom of the wisdom of the Greeks," (Hymn, de
fide II, 2 4 ) . Ephraem may have had no Latin and less Greek, but he knew something of the
wisdom o f the Greeks if mainly through intermediaries. On this point s e e MITCHELL, S.
Ephraim's Prose, II, cxxvii and B E C K , Ephraem Syrus, 525 w h o argues that Ephraem knew
some Greek. Cf. also U. P O S S E K E L , Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the
Writings of Ephrem the Syrian, CSCO 580, Leuven 1999.
m a s c u l i n e i n G r e e k ) a g a i n s t B a r d e s a n , and h e a l s o k n e w e n o u g h p h i l o s o p h y
239
t o n o t e that B a r d e s a n c a l l e d s o m e ideas Platonic that Plato h i m s e l f r e j e c t e d .
If E p h r a e m knew Porphyry, it w a s p r o b a b l y through some kind of
intermediary. S e b a s t i a n B r o c k h a s n o t e d that Aphrahat and E p h r a e m are the
l e a s t " H e l l e n i z e d " o f all t h e S y r i a c writers a n d that A p h r a h a t w a s " . . .
u n t o u c h e d b y G r e e k culture, and o n e c a n safely a s s u m e that h e k n e w little, i f
2 4 0
any, G r e e k . " Later S y r i a c s p e a k i n g writers w e r e a w a r e o f P o r p h y r y ' s C .
2 4 1
Chr., but it i s u n l i k e l y that Aphrahat and Ephraem w e r e .
2.2.16.2 Porphyry's Cultural Identity and Language
E q u a l l y crucial i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f P o r p h y r y ' s s o u r c e s i s t h e q u e s t i o n o f h i s
o w n cultural identity. O n the b a s i s o f a slender text i n t h e Life of Plotinus,
C a s e y is w i l l i n g to m a k e Porphyry into a scholar o f an a l l e g e d Syriac
tradition. P o r p h y r y s t a t e s that h e w a s c a l l e d " M a l c h u s " i n h i s a n c e s t r a l
242
language (πάτριον StdXeKTov) . Later he was given the nickname
2 3 9
B E C K , Ephraem Syrus, 5 2 6 with reference to MITCHELL, S. Ephraim's Prose, II, 7 , 4 9 -
8,11 and 49,15-30 (ST), iii, iv, xxii (ET).
2 4 0
S. B R O C K , Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek, in: Syriac Perspectives on Late
Antiquity, London 1984, (1-17) 1; Idem, Some Aspects o f Greek Words in Syriac, in: Syriac
Perspectives, (80-108) 81 (of the sixty or s o Greek words in his Demonstrations most are
from the Syriac Bible). Cf. also idem, From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to
Greek Learning, in: Syriac Perspectives, (17-34) 17-19 where B R O C K writes that A . and E.
are both relatively "unhellenized," and that Ephraem's disparagement of the "wisdom" o f the
Greeks is not an opposition t o Greek culture as a whole but to the application o f logic to
certain areas of theology.
2 4 1
Michael the Syrian, Barhebraeus, and Ishodad are some examples (Cook, A Possible
Fragment, and idem, Interpretation, 136, 154). Porphyry's Eisagoge became a standard text
in Syriac, and one o f the translators named Athanasius (Syrian patriarch in 680-86) describes
Porphyry thus: "He had the audacity to confect a refutation of the holy Gospel but this was
torn to shreds by Gregory the Wonderworker" (from Vat. Syr. 158, fol. l b referred to by
B R O C K , Syriac Attitudes 3 2 n.81). B R O C K quotes an eighth century monk, David bar Paulos,
who rhapsodized; "Above all the Greeks is the wise Porphyry held in honor, the master of all
sciences, after the likeness of the godhead" (Syriac Attitudes, 25).
2 4 2
Vita Plotini 17.7 (I, 2 0 H . / S C H . ) . It was a Semitic name and not specifically "Syriac"
(cf. John 18:10). G. W O L F F refers to other occurrences of the name "Malchus" (Porphyrii de
philosophia e x oraculis haurienda. librorum reliquiae, Hildesheim 1962, 7 n.2 [1st ed. 1856])
including an Arab with the name (Jos., Antiq. 13.131). A search o f the PHI VII C D
( P A C K A R D Humanities Institute Greek Documentary Texts. C D ROM # 7 [Greek inscriptions
and papyri]) for the name (and variations such as Malchion) revealed instances o f the name
from Italy to Egypt: e.g. IG 14.2328,1 (ca 4 0 0 A.D., a Syrian from the Apamea region buried
in Venice named Aurelius Malchus; many Christians from Syria in IGLSyrie [e.g. 4.1480,1
from 4 1 7 A . D J ; and a Jewish merchant from Palestine in F R E Y , CIJ II 881 b,2. F. M I L L A R ,
The Roman Near East 31 B C - A D 3 3 7 , Cambridge, MA/London 1993, 321-23 gives some
first century inscriptions from Palmyra with the Semitic form of Malichos. B R O C K , (Aspects
of Translation Technique in Antiquity, in: Syriac Perspectives, [70-87] 7 3 ) discusses a
192 2. Porphyry
243
Porphyry . F e r g u s M i l l a r h a s d o n e the m o s t e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h o n the
l i n g u i s t i c b a c k g r o u n d o f P o r p h y r y a n d n o t e s that h i s f o r m a l n a m e w a s
probably "Malchus Porphyrius". T h e ancestral l a n g u a g e o f Tyre was
2 4 4
P h o e n i c i a n (and n o t S y r i a c ) . D u r i n g P o r p h y r y ' s era "Syriac" w a s a dialect
and script o f A r a m a i c u s e d in p u b l i c d o c u m e n t s o n the Euphrates and e a s t o f
2 4 5
it . A s a l a n g u a g e o f p u b l i c t e x t s it spread w e s t w a r d s after the fourth
century. In P o r p h y r y ' s t i m e there is n o e v i d e n c e that P h o e n i c i a n w a s u s e d o n
p u b l i c d o c u m e n t s ( e . g . letters, contracts) i n the third century and p r e c e d i n g
years. O f c o u r s e it i s p o s s i b l e that s o m e d i a l e c t o f A r a m a i c a l o n g w i t h
P h o e n i c i a n w a s s p o k e n in P h o e n i c i a i n P o r p h y r y ' s t i m e , and h e m a y h a v e
2 4 6
b e e n a b l e t o read a n d write i t . T o this d a y i n s o m e o f t h e v i l l a g e s o f the
2 4 7
a n t i - L e b a n o n there are s p o k e n varieties o f A r a m a i c . T h e r e i s a text i n
Porphyry's discourse On Abstinence in w h i c h h e quite clearly d o e s not
identify h i m s e l f as bi-cultural or b i - l i n g u a l , and s e e m s t o indicate little or n o
2 4 8
knowledge of Syriac . In a d i s c u s s i o n o f the l i n g u i s t i c c a p a c i t y o f a n i m a l s
Porphyry writes:
Greeks d o not understand the language o f Indians, nor d o those brought up in the Attic
tongue understand that o f Scythians or Thracians or Syrians. But the sound made by the
one group falls on the ears of the other like the shriekings o f cranes. And yet for each
[read έ κ α σ τ ο ς for έ τ έ ρ ο ι ς ] group their language can be expressed in letters and can be
articulated ( ε γ γ ρ ά μ μ α τ ο ς ... έναρθρος), as ours can be for us. But, for example, the
bilingual inscription in Greek and Palmyrene of a statue for a Malichos ( Μ ά λ ι χ ο ς = malkw)

from J. C A N T I N E A U , Inventaire des inscriptions de Palmyre, Beirut 1 9 3 3 , IX, no. 3 1 .
2 4 3
Eunapius, Vitae Soph. 4 . 4 ( 4 5 6 ) ( 6 , 1 9 - 2 1 GlANGRANDE). In Vita Plot. 2 1 . 1 4 (I, 2 8
H . / S C H . ) , Porphyry notes that Longinus called h i m "Basileus o f Tyre." Cf. COOK,
Interpretation, 1 0 4 .
2 4 4
F . M I L L A R , Porphyry: Ethnicity, Language, and Alien W i s d o m , in: Philosophia
Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at Rome, ed. J. B A R N E S / M . G R I F F I N , Oxford 1 9 9 7 , ( 2 4 1 - 2 6 2 )
248-50.
2 4 5
Much o f this research was done earlier in M I L L A R , T h e Roman Near East, 2 4 1 - 4 2 .
M I L L A R does not try to prove that Syriac could not have been spoken in this region (west of
the Euphrates).
2 4 6
Ulpian the Tyrian (active in the first part of the third century) mentions oral contracts
in a sermo "Poenum fort vel Assyrium" (Dig. 4 5 . 1 . 6 [Corpus Iuris Civilis, Vol. 1 , ed. P.
K R U E G E R / T . M O M M S E N , Berlin 1 9 1 1 , 7 6 9 ] , ref. in M I L L A R , Porphyry, 2 4 6 - 4 7 ) . An "Assyrius
sermo" w a s in some variety o f Aramaic (possibly Syriac) and the "Poenus sermo" may be
Phoenician.
2 4 7
F . ROSENTHAL, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, PLO V, Wiesbaden 1 9 6 1 , 5 .
2 4 8
This judgment is shared by GILLIAN C L A R K , Porphyry of Tyre on the N e w Barbarians,
in: Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity, ed. R. M I L E S , London/New York 1 9 9 9 , 1 1 8 - 2 1 .
She argues: "His perspective throughout is that o f a Greek writer dependent on Greek
sources for an account o f non-Greek cultures . . . But Porphyry's argument about animal
language depends on the experience of hearing a language which y o u cannot translate, or
even hear as language rather than noise, whereas other people can [with regard to the text
from De abst. presented b e l o w ] . . . "
language of the Syrians or the Persians is incapable of being articulated or expressed in

249
letters [by us], just as is for all people the language of a n i m a l s .
W h i l e Porphyry d o e s n o t say that h e c a n n o t read or write S y r i a c , the

implication is there that h e d o e s not represent h i m s e l f as c o m p e t e n t in both
Greek and s o m e variety o f Aramaic. H e openly identifies h i m s e l f w i t h Greek
culture. W h i l e h e w a s quite interested in Oriental w i s d o m , h e d o e s not ever
u s e any S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e in his writings other than the reference to his o w n
2 5 0
n a m e . M i l l a r ' s c o n c l u s i o n that Porphyry cannot b e p r o v e d to h a v e read
251
texts in any non-Greek language is nearly i n e s c a p a b l e .
2.2.16.3 The Western Sources

There is o n e statement in Jerome's commentary o n D a n i e l in w h i c h h e d o e s
reveal s o m e o f the sources that Porphyry said he used in interpreting the later
parts o f D a n i e l . It is important that n o n e o f t h e m are authors writing in
S e m i t i c languages: they include Callinicus Sutorius, D i o d o r u s , H i e r o n y m u s
[of Cardia], P o l y b i u s , P o s i d o n i u s , Claudius T h e o n and Andronicus surnamed
252
Alypius . Jerome then mentions several historians he h i m s e l f used
including Josephus. T h o u g h h e d o e s not say that Porphyry c l a i m e d to h a v e
used Josephus, it is quite clear that Porphyry k n e w o f J o s e p h u s ' work. In his
work o n abstinence, Porphyry mentions the persecution under A n t i o c h u s and
then includes a description o f the E s s e n e s . H e m e n t i o n s three o f J o s e p h u s '
253
major w o r k s : the Jewish War, Against Apion, and the Antiquities . The
importance o f Josephus for Porphyry's interpretation o f D a n i e l should not be
254
underrated . W i t h regard to the little horn o f D a n 8 : 9 - 1 2 , J o s e p h u s notes
2 4 9
D e abst. 3.3.4 (II, 154-55 B./P.). ET in M I L L A R , Porphyry, 254. M I L L A R adds "by us"
in the last line. The larger context shows that his conjecture (the brackets in the last line) is
correct in conveying Porphyry's sense.
2 5 0
See MILLAR, Porphyry, 255-61 for Porphyry's love of oriental traditions.
2 5 1
M I L L A R , Porphyry, 259. For Porphyry's probable lack of knowledge of Hebrew see
the section below on the pun in the episode about Susanna and the elders (§ 2.2.16.6). The
Arabs and Syrians did, however, appreciate Porphyry's work. See R. W A L Z E R , Porphyry and
the Arabic Tradition, in: Porphyre, Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique 12, Vandoeuvres-
Geneva 1966, 2 7 5 - 9 9 / C O O K , A Possible Fragment, 113-22 (the survival of the C. Chr. in
several Syriac fragments) / C O O K , Interpretation, 136 n.171, 154. S M I T H (Porphyrii 194aT,
194bT, 194cT) has several Arabic texts that attest to the existence (in Syriac) of Porphyry's
Phil. hist. (In 194bT "Chronicle" should be "The History" (ta'rikh); cf. B A R N E S , Scholarship
or Propaganda, 56).
2 5 2
Jerome, In Dan. prol. (775,86-91 G.). On this text see § 2.2.16.7 below.
2 5 3
D e abst. 4 . 1 1 . 2 (III, 17 P./S./B. = S T E R N II, § 4 5 5 ) . S T E R N discusses Porphyry's
sources for this text in II, 442.
2 5 4
Although C A S E Y refers to Josephus in Son of Man, 120-21, he does not consider his
influence on Porphyry since Josephus does not treat Dan 7. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani,
II, 212-4 gives extensive bibliography. See P. F R A S S I N E T T I , Porfirio esegeta del profeta
194 2. Porphyry
that the e v e n t s m e n t i o n e d in that text t o o k p l a c e during the r e i g n o f A n t i o c h u s

2 5 5 2 5 6
Epiphanes . Hippolytus m a d e the s a m e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . Enough of
P o r p h y r y ' s interpretation o f D a n i e l i s different f r o m " w e s t e r n " Christian
writers, h o w e v e r , that o n e cannot reject out o f hand the thesis that there w a s a
separate s c h o o l o f interpretation that w a s w i l l i n g to find m a n y m o r e historical
references in D a n i e l than w a s usual in writers s u c h as H i p p o l y t u s .
P o l y c h r o n i u s , the brother o f T h e o d o r e o f M o p s u e s t i a , w a s a Greek writer
257
w h o a d h e r e d t o w h a t C a s e y c a l l s the "eastern" t r a d i t i o n . Polychronius
i n t e r p r e t e d D a n 7:8 t o refer t o A n t i o c h u s and criticized Apollinarius'
interpretation o f D a n 7:8 b e c a u s e the latter said it referred t o the Antichrist.
E u d o x u s t h e p h i l o s o p h e r (in a s c r i b e ' s w o r d s ) attributed Polychronius'
interpretation t o the " w e a k - m i n d e d " Porphyry: 'Αλλά Εύδόξιο^ την υπό
σου ρητεΐσαν έρμηνείαν, Πολυχρόνιε, Πορφυρίου εφησεν εΐναι του
2 5 8
ματαιόφρονος . He a l s o interprets D a n 11:30 onwards t o refer to
Daniele, RIL 8 6 , 1953, (194-210) 209-10. FRASSINETTI argues that Porphyry was inspired by
Julius Africanus for the idea that the book w a s spurious. H e also refers to Apelles for the
view that the prophecies were fictitious and to Josephus for the reference to Antiochus IV.
Apelles (Eus., H.E. 5.13.6) claimed that the "prophecies" were inconsistent, false and
contradictory (άσύμφωνοι γ α ρ ύπάρχουσι και ψευδείς καΐ έ α υ τ α ΐ ς ά ν τ ι κ ε ί μ ε ν α ι ) . On
Apelles and his works, including other similar statements about the falsity of the prophets see
Junod, Attitudes, 119 n.25. Apelles called the OT a "myth" (μυθον η γ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς εΐναι τ ά
Ιουδαίων γ ρ ά μ μ α τ α Origen, C. Cels. 5.54 [366,24-7 MARC.]). On Josepus as a source of
Porphyry's views on Daniel see also BEATRICE, Pagan, 40-5.
2 5 5
Jos., Ant. 10.276. Josephus also finds fulfillment of the prophecy in the time o f the
Romans.
2 5 6
Hippolytus, In Dan. 4.26.6-8 ( G C S Hippolyt 1/1, 2 5 4 , 1 8 - 2 5 7 , 1 7 B O N W E T S C H /
R I C H A R D ) . S e e COLLINS, Daniel, 115-16 (whose results are similar to those of S H E A ) . A
helpful survey of the interpretation of Daniel (including Josephus, Hippolytus, Porphyry and
the Syrian fathers) can be found in W. S H E A , Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes
Interpretation, in: Symposium on Daniel, ed. F. H O L B R O O K , Washington, D . C . 1986, 2 5 6 -
328. S H E A does not believe Porphyry got his interpretation from the Syrian fathers (they got
it from Porphyry), but from Hippolytus w h o wrote in Rome in the first half of the third
century (302). Theodoret also interpreted Dan 8:9 to refer to Antiochus IV (In Dan. 8:9 [PG
81, 1444]). Cf. CPG III, § 6207. Hippolytus also understood much o f Dan 11 to refer to
historical events, and Porphyry could have profited from this perspective. S e e the quotation
of In Dan.4.48.1 (306,6-8 B./R.) in § 2.2.16.20 (with reference to Dan 11:36 where H. sees a
transition to the last times).
2 5 7
His work and that of others survive in catenae on Daniel. S e e CPG IV, § C 75 (Catena
Iohannis Drungarii, in: A. M A I , Scriptorum ueterum noua collectio, V o l . 1.3, Rome 1837,
n d
27-56 [ 2 ed., title page of 1.1 has 1825/1831]), CPG II, § 3878 (Polychronius, Commentarii
in Danielem [fragmenta] in catenis, in: M A I , Scriptorum, Vol. 1.3, 1-27). S e e R. D E V R E E S S E ,
Chaines exeg&iques grecques, D B S I, 1928, (1084-1233) 1156-58 / R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei
Pagani, II, 2 1 9 / P. B R U N S , Polychronius von Apamea — Der Exeget und Theologe, in:
StPatr XXXVII, ed. Μ. F. WlLES/E. J. Y A R N O L D , Leuven 2 0 0 1 , 4 0 4 - 1 2 .
2 5 8
Polychr., In Dan. 7:8 (1.3, 11 M A I ) . See FERCH, Porphyry, 142 and CASEY, Porphyry
and the Origin, 28. On Eudoxus' o w n exegesis see DEVREESSE, Chaines, 1158 / HARNACK,
Antiochus and M a c c a b e a n history, and h e g i v e s a metaphorical interpretation

259
o f D a n 1 2 : 1 - 2 ( e v e n t s o f the M a c c a b e a n era and not the r e s u r r e c t i o n ) .
A s s u m e E u d o x u s is at least partly w r o n g , and that Polychronius inherited an
"eastern" tradition that m a y g o back to that o f J e w i s h interpreters around
2 6 0
E d e s s a or s o m e other Syrian c i t y . P o l y c h r o n i u s c o u l d h a v e had s o m e
G r e e k - s p e a k i n g writers at h i s fingertips w h o also adhered to the "eastern"
tradition. A d m i t t e d l y w e k n o w nothing o f these writers w h o m i g h t h a v e
e x i s t e d b e f o r e P o r p h y r y . B u t if o n e grants the e x i s t e n c e o f a separate
interpretive tradition, then there s e e m s to b e n o g o o d reason w h y Porphyry
s h o u l d not h a v e h a d s o m e G r e e k Christian texts that w e r e m o r e in the
"eastern" s c h o o l o f thought. H e k n e w s o m e o f Origen's works and m a y h a v e
261
k n o w n those o f others w h o h e l d thoughts similar to P o l y c h r o n i u s . One
must also admit the possibility that the "eastern" authors h a v e b e e n influenced
b y Porphyry. D o g m a t i s m in t h e s e matters is s i m p l y not justified b y the
e v i d e n c e . J e r o m e , after all, accepted m u c h o f Porphyry's e x e g e s i s , and the
Syriac and Greek writers o f the East m a y have done the same.
T h e frustrating l a c k o f s o u r c e s prior to Porphyry that adhere to the
"eastern" tradition m e a n s that o n e cannot a v o i d a g o o d deal o f s k e p t i c i s m
about the alleged tradition. B u t the survival in the Christian east (Syriac and
Greek speaking) o f s u c h a tradition is e v i d e n c e that Porphyry m a y h a v e found
s o m e Greek s o u r c e s that inspired h i m . H i s k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k history
writers and J o s e p h u s w o u l d a l s o h a v e served h i m w e l l in d e v e l o p i n g h i s
v i e w s . H i s d i s c o v e r y that D a n i e l is a Maccabean text is e v i d e n c e o f his great
creativity.
Porphyrius, 34. Jerome knows of Christians who adopted Porphyry's interpretations (in
part?). See In Dan. 12:1 (936,488-90 G.) where Jerome mentions the "ignorant" Christians
and "badly educated" Hellenists who have followed Porphyry's views up until Dan 12 (et tarn
nostrorum imperitus quam suorum male eruditis imposuit). Other references to those who
think like Porphyry ("they") are In D a n . l l : 3 1 (921,170) and In D a n . l l : 3 6 ( 9 2 5 , 2 5 3 - 5 4 )
where Jerome speaks of "Porphyry and those w h o follow him" with regard to Antiochus.
About the same time as that of Jerome's commentary, Severian of Gabala (ca 400) referred to
those whom Porphyry had drawn away from the faith ( H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 4 2 [from D e
mundi creatione orat. 6]). See COOK, Interpretation, 125 / § 2.2.5.
2 5 9
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 27.
2 6 0
Cp. C A S E Y ' S speculation about the sources of Aphrahat in Son of Man, 58. Jerome
refers to the interpretation of Porphyry and the Jews with regard to the "great mountain" in
Dan 2:35 (795,411-14 G.). He does not actually say that Porphyry used Jewish sources. It is
interesting that C A S E Y has to classify ancient rabbinic interpretation of Daniel as "western"
despite its origins in the geographical east (Son of Man, 71-98). Theodoret directs his
polemic against Jewish interpreters of Daniel (and doesn't name Porphyry) according to
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius Τ. XIII = PG 8 1 , 1269, 1436, 1485, 1524-36. He does, however,
according to H A R N A C K argue against positions Porphyry might have taken.
2 6 1
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 39 and COOK, Interpretation, 128.
196 2. Porphyry
2.2.16.4 Jerome's Knowledge of Porphyry
Jean L a t a i x ( A l f r e d L o i s y ) p r o p o s e d m a n y y e a r s a g o that J e r o m e d i d n o t
262 2 6 3
know Porphyry's work directly . Harnack a g r e e d w i t h h i s j u d g m e n t .
2 6 4
Jerome hardly e v e r g i v e s verbal citations o f P o r p h y r y . He sometimes
m e n t i o n s t h o s e w h o w r o t e against Porphyry in the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t o f h i s
s u m m a r i e s o f P o r p h y r y ' s o b j e c t i o n s t o Christianity. O n e i s left w i t h the
i m p r e s s i o n that A p o l l i n a r i u s , M e t h o d i u s , or E u s e b i u s are t h e s o u r c e s for h i s
k n o w l e d g e o f P o r p h y r y ' s o b j e c t i o n s t o D a n i e l . Harnack e x a g g e r a t e s w h e n h e
w r i t e s that " o f t e n w h e n h e c i t e s P o r p h y r y h e r e f e r s i m m e d i a t e l y t o t h e
265
refutations o f M e t h o d i u s , E u s e b i u s , and A p o l l i n a r i u s " A s a matter o f fact,
2 6 6
J e r o m e o n l y refers t o t h e s e three authors b y n a m e a f e w t i m e s in h i s w o r k .
H e mentions t h e m in the prologue as having made e x t e n s i v e responses to
Porphyry. H e then refers to P o r p h y r y ' s attack o n the e p i s o d e o f S u s a n n a and
the elders and m e n t i o n s the r e s p o n s e s in the three Christian writers. In a l o n g
2 6 2
Under the name o f J. L A T A I X , Le commentaire de Saint Jerome sur Daniel, RHLR 2,
1 8 9 7 , ( 1 6 4 - 7 3 , 268-77) 165.
2 6 3
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, 7. B A R N E S surely goes beyond the evidence when he claims
that Jerome only knew Porphyry's work (C. Chr.) through Apollinarius o f Laodicea (in his
important article Scholarship or Propaganda, 54). L A T A I X , Le commentaire, 165 conjectures
that Eusebius w a s Jerome's primary source since he dedicated three books to Porphyry's
views o n Daniel. R. G O U L E T is more careful with the evidence in his judgment that Jerome
only knows Porphyry through the Christian refutations — in particular that o f Apollinarius
whose treatise w a s apparently the most appreciated in that epoch (Porphyre et Macaire de
Magnesie, in: Idem, Etudes sur les vies de philosophes dans l'antiquite tardive. Diogene
Laerce, Porphyre de Tyr, Eunape de Sardes, Textes et Traditions 1, Paris 2 0 0 1 , (295-9) 2 9 9 ,
397 [a correction with regard to Macarius and Apollinarius] (originally published in StPatr
X V , 1984, 448-52). H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, Τ. XIX quotes a text o f Philostorgius (H.E. 8.14
[GCS Philostorgius, 115,7-9 BlDEZ]) in which he remarks that Apollinarius' work against
Porphyry was stronger than those o f Eusebius and Methodius. Jerome ( H A R N A C K , F . 4 4 , see
COOK, Interpretation, 145) remarked that A. wrote very fully (plenissime) against Porphyry
(with reference to C. Chr. Book XIII). Cp. H. L I E T Z M A N N , Apollinaris von Laodicea und
seine Schule, T U 1, Tubingen 1 9 0 4 , 1 5 0 , 265-67 (rep. Hildesheim 1970). S e e also G.
RlNALDl, Studi porfiriani. I. Porphyrius Bataneotes, Koinonia, 4 , 1 9 8 0 , (25-37) 3 3 .
2 6 4
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, 7 n.4 mentions fragments 4 and 8 2 as possible exceptions
( C O O K , Interpretation, 152, 156). In those fragments there are several lines of quotations
from Porphyry. In Τ. XVII, H A R N A C K quotes Jer., D e vir. inl. 81 (on Eus.) w h o wrote
Eusebius Caesar ... Contra Porphyrium — qui eodem tempore scribebat in Sicilia utquidam
putant — libri XXV "Eusebius of Caesaria wrote Against Porphyry — w h o as many judge
[which presumably does not refer to the number X X V ] was writing at the same time in Sicily
— 2 5 books." The "as many judge" suggested to H A R N A C K that Jerome may not have had
the book in hand, since in it Porphyry probably indicated Sicily as the place of authorship.
There are a lot of "ifs" in that argument!
2 6 5
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, 7.
2 6 6
S e e GLORlE's index (CChr.SL 75a, 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 2 0 ) .
series o f quotations o f Christian scholars concerning the s e v e n t y w e e k s in

Daniel 9, Jerome w i t h great skepticism quotes Apollinarius' theory in w h i c h
( a m o n g other things) h e predicted the rebuilding o f the t e m p l e in Jerusalem
for around 4 8 2 A . D . w i t h the subsequent arrival o f Elijah and the Antichrist.
Later w i t h reference t o a p l a c e c a l l e d " A p e d n o " (cf. § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 3 4 ) , J e r o m e
notes that Apollinarius left out m e n t i o n o f A p e d n o in his interpretation, and
then Jerome m e n t i o n s his o w n exposure o f Porphyry's mistake. A t the e n d o f
his e x p o s i t i o n o f D a n 12, Jerome notes that the three writers h a v e responded
at length to P o r p h y r y ' s attempt to refer all texts s p o k e n " c o n c e r n i n g the
267
Antichrist under the type o f A n t i o c h u s " to Antiochus a l o n e . T h e s e are the
o n l y nominal references to their attacks o n Porphyry. Jerome probably refers
to them in other c a s e s w h e n he speaks o f Porphyry's v i e w s and those o f "our"
p e o p l e w h o refer the prophecies in Daniel to the Antichrist. F r o m D a n 11:1
to 11:21 he says that there are n o major disagreements b e t w e e n Porphyry and
268
" u s " . T h e lack o f verbal quotations o f Porphyry and his clear d e p e n d e n c e
o n his predecessors is g o o d e v i d e n c e that Jerome k n e w Porphyry secondhand.
A n interpreter should b e careful in assuming that Jerome presents Porphyry's
v i e w s from firsthand k n o w l e d g e .
2.2.16.5 The Twelfth Volume of Porphyry's Contra Christianos: A Foreseen

Future is Impossible
Jerome introduces this section o f the C. Chr. as f o l l o w s :
Porphyry wrote his twelfth book against the prophecy of Daniel, denying that it was
composed by the person to w h o m it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual
living in Judea at the time of the Antiochus w h o was surnamed Epiphanes. He
furthermore alleged that "Daniel" did not foretell the future so much as he related the past,
and lastly that whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic
history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was fabricated,
inasmuch as he would not have foreseen the future («' quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quae
2 6 7
Jer., In Dan. Prol., 9:24, 11:44-5, 12:13 ( 7 7 1 , 8 - 7 7 2 , 1 1 ; 7 7 3 , 5 2 - 7 7 4 , 6 6 ; 8 7 8 , 4 2 2 -
880,463; 935,462-65; 944,689-96 G.). Hippolytus, In Dan. 4.23.3-4 reckons 5500 years from
Adam to the birth of Christ. 6000 years must be completed and then comes the "holy day"
(244,8-246,6 B./R.). Cp. 4.24.4 (248,10-11 B./R.) where he says the end will be after the
500-year period after Christ's birth. S o he is close to Apollinarius in his reckoning of the end
of the world. Other reckonings of 6000 years for the world can be found in Bardesanes in W.
CURETON, Spicilegium Syriacum, London 1855, 4 0 (ET), ^ (ST) — a tradition preserved
th
by Georgios ( 8 cent.), see H. J. W. DRIJVERS, Bardaisan of Edessa, Studia Semitica
Neerlandica 6, A s s e n 1966, 17. Cp. Aphrahat, Demonstration 2.14 (1.1, 7 7 , 6 - 1 9 PAR.;
PARISOT refers to other examples of this tradition in the east in 1.1, LVIII-LIX).
2 6 8
Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (914,4-10 G.) and cp. another reference to the Antichrist, In Dan.
8:14 (856,890-91 G.). Against the Antiochus interpretation see also In Dan.7:8 (844,593 G.).
The "many" and "all" in the last two passages probably include Apollinarius, Eusebius, and
Methodius.
198 2. Porphyry
futura nescierit esse mentitum). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, made a most skillful reply
to him in three volumes, that is, the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Apollinarius
did likewise in a single large book, namely his twenty-sixth. Prior to these authors
269
Methodius made a partial r e p l y .
O n e s h o u l d remark that P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s h a v e w o n t h e d a y in m o d e r n

270
biblical s c h o l a r s h i p . Only the conservative branch o f scholarship has
m a i n t a i n e d the v i e w that the entire b o o k o f D a n i e l w a s written in the s i x t h
2 7 1
century B . C . E . . Frassinetti c o m p a r e s P o r p h y r y ' s p r o o f that the Apocalypse
of Zoroaster w a s a forgery w i t h h i s e q u a l l y stringent m e t h o d u s e d against
2 7 2
Daniel . In the text a b o v e w e g e t a g l i m p s e o f Porphyry the historian — a
2 7 3
n e g l e c t e d a s p e c t o f P o r p h y r y ' s w o r k that W . d e n B o e r h a s p o i n t e d o u t .
U s u a l l y Porphyry i s s e e n as a p h i l o s o p h e r , but h e actually e n j o y e d history as
o n e c a n g l e a n f r o m the m a n y hours h e spent o n the historical texts o f D a n i e l .
C a s e y n o t e s that Porphyry b e l i e v e d the b o o k o f D a n i e l t o b e c o m p o s e d after
the death o f A n t i o c h u s I V . T h i s b e c o m e s clear in P o r p h y r y ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f
2 7 4
the last chapters in D a n i e l . In E u s e b i u s ' Chronicle, a text that m a y b e from
Porphyry dates the ruler's death to Ol. 154,1 ( s u m m e r 1 6 4 - s u m m e r 1 6 3 ) . A
2 6 9
S T E R N II, § 464a = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43a = Jerome, In Dan. prol. (771,1-8
G L O R I E ) . E T in G. L. A R C H E R , Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, Grand Rapids 1958. On
this fragment see D E LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 266.
2 7 0
See, for example, C O L L I N S , Daniel. E. BlCKERMANN, Four Strange B o o k s of the
Bible, Jonah / Daniel / Koheleth / Esther, N e w York 1967, 131-35 discusses the modern fate
of Porphyry's v i e w s on Daniel. F R A S S I N E T T I , Porfirio, 2 0 4 (with regard to H A R N A C K ,
Porphyrius, F. 4 3 ν — "Apedno") argues that Porphyry used Theodotion's version of Daniel.
2 7 1
It is interesting that J. G O L D I N G A Y (Daniel, W B C 3 0 , Dallas 1989) in an avowedly
"evangelical" commentary series accepts the "critical" position (noted in COLLINS, Daniel, 2 6
n.256).
2 7 2
F R A S S I N E T T I , Porfirio esegeta, 196. Porphyry lists apocalypses of Zoroaster,
Zostrianos and others in Vita Plot. 16.5-7 and then lists the results o f his investigations
against the book of Zoroaster in 16.15-20 (I, 19-20 H . / S C H . ) . The N a g Hammadi tractate
named Zostrianos (NHC VIII 1-132 [NHS 3 1 , 30-225, SlEBER]) has the further Greek title:
The Teaching of the Truth of Zostrianos, God of Truth; the Teaching of Zoroaster. It
describes a heavenly journey of Zostrianos. J. H. SlEBER ( N H S 3 1 , 19, 2 8 ) notes that
Porphyry separates Christians from the others w h o had abandoned the ancient philosophy in
the passage from Vita Plot. 16 and concludes: "Though the author o f Zostrianos certainly
believed himself a true and faithful interpreter of Plato, modern readers will undoubtedly find
themselves sympathetic to Porphyry's complaint that he had in fact abandoned the ancient
philosophy." Cf. also RUDOLPH, Gnosis, 47.
2 7 3
W. D E N B O E R , A Pagan Historian and his Enemies: Porphyry Against the Christians,
CP 6 9 , 1 9 7 4 , 198-208.
2 7 4
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 17. Antiochus' death is mentioned by Porphyry in
Jerome, In D a n . 11:36, 11:44 ( 9 2 6 , 2 6 6 - 6 7 ; 9 3 2 , 4 0 3 - 0 4 G.). Porphyry mentions the
Maccabean triumph later in the text (In Dan. 12:12 [944,677-84 G.] = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius,
F. 43w).
c u n e i f o r m text, h o w e v e r , dates the arrival in B a b y l o n o f the n e w s o f h i s death

to N o v . 2 0 - D e c . 1 8 , 1 6 4 . T h e rededication o f the t e m p l e w a s p r o b a b l y o n
D e c . 25 of 164. Porphyry ( a c c o r d i n g t o C a s e y ) m a y h a v e f o l l o w e d 1 M a c e ,
( e . g . 6 : 6 - 8 ) and d a t e d t h e r e d e d i c a t i o n o f the t e m p l e b e f o r e Antiochus'
2 7 5
death . S i n c e P o r p h y r y interprets nearly e v e r y t h i n g in D a n i e l as e v e n t s i n
the M a c c a b e a n era it i s difficult to k n o w w h a t h e m e a n s b y e v e n t s b e y o n d
Antiochus.
O n e e v e n t h e w i l l a l l o w t o b e e s c h a t o l o g i c a l i s the s t o n e o f D a n 2 : 3 5
2 7 6
w h i c h h e interprets t o m e a n an e n d o f t i m e triumph o f the J e w s . It i s clear
that m o d e r n s c h o l a r s h i p ' s v i e w o f the break in historical a c c u r a c y at D a n
1 1 : 4 0 - 4 5 (not fulfilled during the t i m e o f the M a c c a b e e s ) w a s not P o r p h y r y ' s
277
break. H e s a w that text as b e i n g historically a c c u r a t e . A n y real p r o p h e c i e s
in D a n i e l are l i e s for Porphyry w h o c o u l d a l s o a c c u s e the g o s p e l writers o f
2 7 8
lying . H e b e l i e v e d that the Christian u s e o f ancient p r o p h e c y w a s an a b u s e
2 7 9
of simple hearers . P o r p h y r y , h o w e v e r , a l s o b e l i e v e d that Hellenistic
prophets c o u l d h a v e a g e n u i n e k n o w l e d g e o f the future. T h e r e i s a p r o g n o s i s
o f the future ( τ ο υ μέλλοντος π ρ ο γ ν ώ σ ε ι ) , and the seers ascribe it t o g o d s or
2 7 5
The first date (in the Armenian Chronicle of Eus.) can be found in J A C O B Y , FGrH II,
2 6 0 F. 3 2 . 1 2 ( 1 2 1 6 , 3 8 - 4 0 ) . B . C R O K E presents arguments against the existence o f a
Porphyrian Chronicle (Porphyry's Anti-Christian Chronology, JThS 3 4 , 1983, 168-185). See
Cook, Interpretation, 1 2 1 . The chronological texts may actually be from the C. Chr. of
Porphyry. Eusebius himself dates the death in 0 1 . 153,4 (summer 165-summer 164) in his
Chronicle (139,1-140,168, H E L M ) . For the cuneiform text and discussion of the entire issue
see S C H U R E R , History, I, 127, 163. For a diary that mentions Antiochus' funeral escort, see
D. G E R A , Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical
Diaries, JAOS 1 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 , 2 4 0 - 2 5 2 .
2 7 6
In Dan. 2:35 ( 7 9 5 , 4 1 0 - 1 4 G.) = S T E R N II, § 464d. S e e C A S E Y , Porphyry and the
Origin, 18 and C O L L I N S , Daniel, 25 n.250. C O L L I N S notes that Porphyry may simply be
denying that anything after Antiochus' time is accurate.
2 7 7
See § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 3 1 - 4 below.
2 7 8
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 6, Jer., Comm. in Matth. 9:9 = C O O K , Interpretation 139 and
cp. 135 (HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 2). In Augustine's time pagans objected to the Christian
argument from prophecy (concerning Jesus) by arguing that the Christians themselves had
composed the prophecies after the fact. See RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 218a = Aug.,
Tract, in Ioh. 35.7.1 (CChr.SL 3 6 , 321,1-17 WiLLEMS). In a sermon Augustine mentions a
similar objection in which the pagans also refer to one of their o w n poets w h o did something
similar (Virgil, Aeneid 6.752-887). Cf. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 218b = Aug.,
Serm. 374.15 (F. D O L B E A U , Le sermon 3 7 4 de saint Augustin sur l'fipiphanie. lidition du
texte original, in: Philologia sacra. Biblische und patristische Studien fur H E R M A N J. F R E D E
und W A L T E R T H I E L E ZU ihrem siebzigsten Geburtstag, Vol. II, Vetus Latina 2 4 / 2 , ed. R.
G R Y S O N , Freiburg 1 9 9 3 , ( 5 2 2 - 5 9 ) 549,311-550,1 = PL 3 9 , 1667). Cf. CPL § 2 8 5 which
identifies the sermon as "doubtful."
2 7 9
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 5 = COOK, Interpretation, 156.
200 2. Porphyry
2 8 0
d e m o n s . In h i s Life of Pythagoras h e a p p r o v e s o f t h e c o n c e p t that
P y t h a g o r a s c o u l d " d i v i n e " the future u s i n g i n c e n s e and other m e a n s . H e
c l a i m s that Pythagoras w a s the first to practice divination u s i n g i n c e n s e (δια
λ ι β α ν ω τ ο ϋ μ α ν τ ε ί α πρώτος* ε χ ρ ή σ α τ ο ) . Pythagoras in o n e story is able to
281
foretell the n u m b e r o f fish s o m e fishers h a v e pulled out o f the w a t e r . T h e
cultural i s s u e troubled an a n o n y m o u s Christian w h o a s k e d w h a t s h o w s the
superiority o f O T and apostolic prophecy o v e r that o f the G r e e k s , s i n c e the
2 8 2
predictions o f e a c h take p l a c e .
2.2.16.6 Susanna, The Language of Daniel, and Its Authenticity

J e r o m e i n c l u d e d P o r p h y r y ' s remarks o n the l a n g u a g e o f D a n i e l in h i s
p r o l o g u e , e v e n t h o u g h h e treats the e p i s o d e o f Susanna at length later in the
commentary:
But among other things w e should recognize that Porphyry makes this objection to us
2 8 3
concerning the b o o k s of Daniel, that it is clearly a forgery and it is not possessed by the
Hebrews, but was composed in Greek (Porphyrium in Danielis nobis libros obicere,
idcirco ilium apparere confictum nec haberi apud Hebraeos sed graeci sermonis esse
commentum). This he deduces from the fact that in the story of Susanna, where Daniel is
speaking to the elders w e find the expressions α π ό του σ χ ί ν ο υ σ χ ί σ ε ι σε ό θεό$ και
άπό του πρίνου πρίσει o e , (from the mastic tree God will split you and from the
evergreen oak God will saw you) a word-play appropriate to Greek rather than to Hebrew
(quam etymologiam magis Graeco sermoni conuenire quam Hebreaeo)?^
S i n c e J e r o m e ' s k n o w l e d g e o f Porphyry is probably through intermediaries

( w h o m h e n e x t refers to), it is difficult to m a k e j u d g m e n t s about Porphyry's
e x a c t argument in this text (as in m a n y b e l o w ) . T h e Greek text ( w h i c h is in
disarray in the m a n u s c r i p t tradition o f J e r o m e ) s e e m s t o i n d i c a t e that
Porphyry c o m b i n e d several phrases in the text o f D a n 55, 59 according to
285
Theodotion . W h a t is unclear is if Porphyry had a n y facility w i t h the
2 8 0
S e e Porphyry, Ep. ad Aneb. 2 . 1 , 2.3a (8,16-7; 11,5-8 S O D A N O ) . Cp. Iamblichus, D e
myst. 3.1, 3.17 (99,11-2; 139,7-11 DES PLACES).
2 8 1
Vita Pyth. 12, 25 (41,6-9; 47,10-22 D E S P L A C E S ) . In a fragment from his Philological
Lecture, Porphyry quotes the Tripod of Andronos w h o tells the story of Pythagoras'
prediction, three days in advance, of an earthquake in Metapontum ( S M I T H , Porphyrii, 4 0 8 F =
Eus., P.E. 10.3.6 [VIII/1, 5 6 2 , 9 - 1 2 M R A S ] ) . Andronos described the predictions of
Pythagoras.
2 8 2
Ps. Justin, Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 2 (17), 392c (4 OTTO = 30,21-5 P.-K./H.).
2 8 3
G L O R I E adopts the more difficult reading libros (books) instead of libro (book).
2 8 4
S T E R N II, § 464b = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43b = Jerome, In Dan. prol. (773, 45-50
G.). My ET departs from that of ARCHER.
2 8 5
See the many variants in G L O R I E ' s apparatus ad loc. (773). M S R does not include
"God" in the text. On the Greek version of Daniel (Old Greek and Theodotion) see COLLINS,
Daniel, 4-11 and R. B O D E N M A N N , Naissance d'une Ex6gese. Daniel dans l'6glise ancienne
H e b r e w (or A r a m a i c ) text o f t h e existent parts o f D a n i e l . D i d h i s J e w i s h

sources (if h e had any) tell h i m that the text w a s not contained i n the H e b r e w
and Aramaic version o f D a n i e l ? M o d e r n scholarship r e c o g n i z e s that the fact
that the w o r d p l a y i s i n G r e e k d o e s n o t i m p l y that the text i s n e c e s s a r i l y
c o m p o s e d i n G r e e k . Translators often r e m a k e w o r d p l a y s i n t h e target
286
l a n g u a g e . Porphyry m a y h a v e had Julius Africanus' objection t o t h e s a m e
text before him: "It i s the c a s e that these words can render the s a m e sound in
Greek — f r o m t h e o a k (prinos) to cut (prisai) a n d f r o m t h e m a s t i c tree
(schinos) t o c l e a v e (schisai) — but in H e b r e w the w o r d s are c o m p l e t e l y
287
different." A m o n g other o b j e c t i o n s t o the e p i s o d e , Africanus a l s o notes
that both S u s a n n a a n d B e l a n d the D r a g o n are n o t f o u n d i n t h e scriptures
2 8 8 289
accepted b y the J e w s . H i s c o n c l u s i o n i s that t h e e p i s o d e w a s a d d e d .
Eusebius describes Africanus as "wondering whether the story o f Susanna in
290
D a n i e l i s spurious a n d f i c t i o n a l . " P a o l o Frassinetti b e l i e v e s that Julius
Africanus c o u l d h a v e b e e n o n e o f the sources w h o inspired Porphyry's v i e w
291
that the entire b o o k w a s a f o r g e r y .
Rinaldi g i v e s Porphyry a clearer v i s i o n than h e probably h a d w h e n h e
c o m m e n t s that Porphyry b e l i e v e d that the story o f S u s a n n a c o u l d n o t h a v e
des trois premiers siecles, B G B E 2 8 , Tubingen 1 9 8 6 , 1 1 - 3 3 . In the O G version the t w o

miscreants are thrown into a pit, and Theodotion does not specify the mode of execution.
2 8 6
See C O L L I N S , Daniel, 4 2 7 - 4 8 with various proposals for puns in Hebrew. Origen's
Jewish informants (Ep. ad Afric. 1 0 [SC 3 0 2 , 5 3 6 , 9 - 5 3 8 , 3 0 D E L A N G E ] ) were unable to come
up with any possibilities, and Origen is unsure whether the pun could exist in Hebrew or not.
They are unable to give him the Hebrew words for the trees since he cannot show them the
trees, and they admit that even great Hebrew scholars might not know a particular term for an
object that is not found in the Hebrew scriptures. H e also later suggests that the translators
could have done a literal translation or could have used an analogy for the Hebrew derivatives
("paronyms") s o that Greeks could follow it (Ep. ad Afric. 1 8 [ 5 6 0 , 2 2 - 2 5 , D E L A N G E ] ; ήτοι
κυρίως έκδεδωκέναι τ ά τ η ς λέξεως, ή εύρηκέναι. τ ό ά ν ά λ ο γ ο ν τοις κατά τ ό
έβραϊκόν π α ρ ω ν ύ μ ο υ . . . ) .
2 8 7
Ep. Afric. ad Orig. 5 ( 5 1 6 , 2 1 - 2 4 D E L A N G E ) . Cp. M E R E D I T H , Porphyry, 1 1 3 2 .
2 8 8
Ep. Afric. ad Orig. 7 ( 5 1 9 , 3 6 - 8 D E L A N G E )
2 8 9
Ep. Afric. ad Orig. 9 ( 5 2 0 , 4 4 - 5 D E L A N G E ) .
2 9 0
Eus, H.E. 6 . 3 1 . 1 (άττοροϋντος ώς νόθου καΐ π ε π λ α σ μ έ ν η ς ο ύ σ η ς τ η ς έν τ φ
Δανιήλ κατά Σουσάνναν ιστορίας·). On the charge of "fiction" made by pagans against
Christian texts see that term in the index to C o o k , Interpretation, 3 8 3 . Porphyry's charges
against the inauthenticity o f the Apocalypse of Zoroaster use some of the same language as
Africanus ("showing the book to be spurious and recent and made up ...," νόθον τ ε και
νέον τ ό βιβλίον παραδεικνύς π ε π λ α σ μ έ ν ο ν τ ε in Vita Plot. 1 6 , 1 6 - 7 ( 1 , 1 9 H./SCH.).
2 9 1
F R A S S I N E T T I , Porfirio esegeta, 1 9 8 , 2 0 8 - 0 9 . Africanus was well known in Edessa
(Abgar IX), R o m e (charged by the emperor to organize the library o f the Pantheon), and
Alexandria ( D E L A N G E in S C 3 0 2 , 4 7 4 ) .
202 2. Porphyry
2 9 2
b e e n c o m p o s e d originally i n H e b r e w (because o f the p u n ) . C a s e y i s m o r e
w i l l i n g to take Porphyry at J e r o m e ' s word: "Porphyry, h o w e v e r if Jerome i s
t o b e b e l i e v e d , a r g u e d that o r i g i n a l l y it [all o f D a n i e l ] w a s written i n
293
G r e e k " . J e r o m e certainly c o u l d h a v e m a d e a m i s t a k e i n interpreting
P o r p h y r y . H o w e v e r t h e r e s p o n s e s t o Porphyry that J e r o m e c a t a l o g u e s
p r o b a b l y i n d i c a t e that h e g o t it right. E u s e b i u s a n d A p o l l i n a r i u s b o t h
countered Porphyry w i t h t h e statement that the e p i s o d e s o f Susanna and o f
B e l a n d t h e D r a g o n are n o t i n H e b r e w but are a part o f t h e "prophecy o f
H a b a k k u k , t h e s o n o f Jesus o f t h e tribe o f L e v i . " J e r o m e n o t e s that h e
i n c l u d e d t h e s e stories w i t h critical s y m b o l s in h i s translation b e c a u s e they
w e r e n o t i n H e b r e w and c o n c l u d e s h i s argument w i t h : "After a l l , both
O r i g e n , E u s e b i u s a n d A p o l l i n a r i u s , a n d other outstanding c h u r c h m e n and
teachers o f G r e e c e a c k n o w l e d g e that, as I h a v e said, t h e s e v i s i o n s are n o t
found a m o n g the H e b r e w s , and that therefore they are not o b l i g e d to answer
to P o r p h y r y f o r t h e s e p o r t i o n s w h i c h e x h i b i t n o a u t h o r i t y a s H o l y
294
Scripture" .
Later i n h i s c o m m e n t o n D a n 13 ( w h e r e Jerome i n c l u d e d Susanna i n the
V u l g a t e ) , h e notes that the H e b r e w s reject the story o f S u s a n n a claiming it is
295
not in t h e B o o k o f D a n i e l . Jerome i s w i l l i n g t o l i v e w i t h uncertainty b y
c o n c l u d i n g that i f a n y o n e is able to s h o w that the pun c o u l d exist in H e b r e w ,
296
then " w e c a n a c c e p t this s c r i p t u r e . " T h e s t o r y ' s popularity in fourth
century Christian art and literature i s indication e n o u g h that the larger church
2 9 2
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 2 8 0 (comment on p. 2 4 1 ) . This fact was another
argument for Porphyry that Daniel w a s not genuine prophecy. RlNALDl gives many
bibliographical references.
2 9 3
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 1 8 . M E R E D I T H , Porphyry, 1 1 3 2 goes further and
interprets Porphyry to mean that "...Daniel could not have been by a Jew or written in
Hebrew, because the pun ..."
2 9 4
Jer., In Dan.prol. ( 7 7 3 , 5 2 - 5 5 ; 7 7 4 , 6 2 - 6 6 G.). Cf. Bel 1 : 1 .
2 9 5
Hippolytus, In Dan. 1 . 1 4 . 2 ( 3 4 , 1 5 - 1 8 B./R.), remarks that the leaders o f the Jews want
to cut the Susanna episode out of the Bible because the events did not take place in Babylon
and because they are ashamed over the behavior of the elders.
2 9 6
Jer., In Dan. 1 3 : 5 4 - 5 9 ( 9 4 8 , 8 0 6 - 0 8 ; 9 4 9 , 8 1 6 - 1 8 G.). H e is dependent on Origen's
Stromateis X in this section. B R A V E R M A N notes that the story of Susanna does not appear in
rabbinic tradition until the middle ages. Origen, however, identifies the two elders in the
story as Ahab and Zedekiah (Jer 2 9 : 2 2 ) , and there are rabbinic traditions about those t w o
men. Origen bases the identification o n conversations with two "Hebrews," o n e of whom
identifies the elders with the names in Jer 2 9 : 2 2 . The other source describes their deeds, but
may not relate them to Susanna (Jerome's Commentary, 1 2 6 - 3 1 with ref. to Origen, Ep. ad
Afric. 1 1 , 1 2 [ 5 3 8 , 1 - 5 4 2 , 1 8 D E L A N G E ] and Jer., In Jer. 2 9 : 2 1 - 2 3 [CChr.SL 7 4 , 2 8 4 , 1 3 - 2 8 5 , 1 5
A D R I A E N ] ) . B R A V E R M A N concludes that Origen m a y b e correct with regard to a
contemporary Jewish tradition that links the elders in Susanna to those o f Jeremiah. The Old
Greek version includes the story after the canonical Daniel.
2 9 7
w a s u n c o n c e r n e d w i t h A f r i c a n u s ' or P o r p h y r y ' s o b j e c t i o n s . Eusebius,
A p o l l i n a r i u s , a n d J e r o m e are satisfied w i t h this a n s w e r t o P o r p h y r y : his
argument h a s n o f o r c e b e c a u s e S u s a n n a is not in the H e b r e w text o f D a n i e l .
C o n s e q u e n t l y Porphyry c a n n o t s h o w , b a s e d o n a linguistic argument, that the
entire b o o k o f D a n i e l is a Greek forgery ( w r i t t e n after t h e e v e n t s of
Maccabean history). If the Christian o p p o n e n t s are correct in their d e p i c t i o n
o f Porphyry's argument, then Porphyry c a n h a v e had little or n o k n o w l e d g e o f
2 9 8
H e b r e w and A r a m a i c . T h e " H e b r e w s " w h o m J e r o m e refers to certainly
k n e w that (in their t i m e at least) Susanna w a s in the G r e e k v e r s i o n and not in
the H e b r e w v e r s i o n . P o r p h y r y apparently h a s n o s u c h k n o w l e d g e , but i s
astute e n o u g h t o r e c o g n i z e that a p u n in Greek is not a p u n in H e b r e w . The
great c o n f i d e n c e w i t h w h i c h h i s c r i t i c s a n s w e r P o r p h y r y i s p r o b a b l y an
i n d i c a t i o n that h e w a s unfamiliar w i t h the S e m i t i c l a n g u a g e s s i n c e h e w a s
unable to d i s t i n g u i s h S u s a n n a f r o m the H e b r e w / A r a m a i c text o f the rest o f the
2 9 9
book .
2.2.16.7 Porphyry's and Jerome's Sources
T h e s o u r c e s o f P o r p h y r y ' s and J e r o m e ' s c o m m e n t s o n D a n i e l are the n e x t

i s s u e that J e r o m e d e a l s w i t h in his p r o l o g u e .
300
And yet to understand the final portions of Daniel the multiplex h i s t o r y of the Greeks
is necessary — Sutorius Callinicus, Diodorus, Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius,
301
Claudius Theon, and Andronicus surnamed A l y p i u s , w h o m Porphyry said that he
2 9 7
S e e J, HUSKINSON, W o m e n and Learning. Gender and Identity in S c e n e s o f
Intellectual Life on Late Roman Sarcophagi, in: MILES, Constructing Identities, (190-213)
205. She notes that Susanna is shown carrying a scroll on a sarcophagus (able to read and
live according to the precepts of her faith). Cf. H. SCHLOSSER, D i e Daniel-Susanna-
Erzahlung in Bild und Literatur der christlichen Friihzeit, in: Tortulae: Studien zu
altchristlichen und byzantinischen Monumenten, ed. W . N . SCHUMACHER, Romische
Quartalschrift 30, Supplementheft, 1966,243-49.
2 9 8
E, BiCKERMANN, Four Strange Books, 131 writes that Porphyry did not know Hebrew
(Aramaic) and only studied Daniel in an imperfect Greek version.
2 9 9
L. VAGANAY, Porphyre, D T C XII, 1935, (2555-90) 2584 states that the "wise doctor"
triumphs easily over Porphyry by distinguishing the Hebrew text from the deuterocanonical
section (Dan 13-14). S T E I N , Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 30 agrees that this text shows
Porphyry did not read Hebrew.
3 0 0
Β . CROKE, Porphyry's Anti-Christian, 177 points out that multiplex historia was a
phrase used by Isidore to describe Jerome's [and Eusebius'] o w n Chronicle (Isidore, Chron.
praef. [MGHAA XI, 424,3-4 MOMMSEN]).
3 0 1
Claudius and Andronicus are unknown at this time (BARNES, Scholarship, 5 7 , and
idem, Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments, JThS 2 4 ,
1973, ( 4 2 4 - 4 4 2 ) 4 3 4 . In the last article Barnes refers to an Andronicus mentioned by
Barhebraeus for chronological matters from Joshua to Jesus' crucifixion (E. A. Wallis Budge,
The Chronography of Gregory Abu'l Faraj, 1 , 1 9 3 2 , 1 5 , 1 6 , 2 7 , 3 4 , 4 0 , 4 9 ) .
204 2. Porphyry
followed, Josephus also and those w h o m he cites, and especially our o w n historian, Livy,
and Pompeius Trogus, and Justinus w h o narrate all the history of the last vision and, after
Alexander up to the days of Caesar Augustus, describe the wars of Syria and Egypt, that is
302
those of Seleucus and A n t i o c h u s .
J e r o m e later m e n t i o n s C a l l i n i c u s as a historian w h o m P o r p h y r y in h i s
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f D a n i e l 11 f o l l o w e d at e x t r e m e l e n g t h (sermone
m
laciniosissimo) . T h i s historian f r o m Petra d e d i c a t e d h i s b o o k o n the
304
history o f A l e x a n d r i a to "Cleopatra" i.e. Q u e e n Z e n o b i a o f P a l m y r a and
must h a v e d e s c r i b e d the history o f P t o l e m a i c rule. Brian C r o k e s u m m a r i z e s
the w o r k o f Porphyry's historians nicely:
Hieronymus of Cardia (fl. 300 B.C.) wrote a history of the wars of Alexander's successors
in the period from 323 to 2 7 2 B.C. Polybius of Megalopolis wrote a comprehensive
history of the Mediterranean from 2 2 0 to 145 B.C. and this history was continued by the
Stoic Posidonius. The history of Posidonius must also have contained material covering
the period of Polybius' history since the one fragment pertinent for present purposes,
disinterred from Josephus, related the account of the setting up of an ass's head in the
305
temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus E p i p h a n e s . Diodorus Siculus (fl. 5 0 - 4 0 B.C.) in his
forty-volume Library of History covered the whole of known history to his own time in
3 0 2
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 c = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43c = Jerome, In Dan. prol. (775,86-95
G). R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 2 4 2 gives bibliography. See P. C O U R C E L L E , Late
Latin Writers and Their Greek Sources, trans. Η. E. W E D E C K , Cambridge 1969, 75 who
believes that Jerome only knew the Greek historians through Porphyry. S e e also H.
H A G E N D A H L , Latin Fathers and the Classics, Goteborg 1958, 2 2 5 - 6 / i d e m , V o n Tertullian zu
Cassiodor. D i e profane literarische Tradition in d e m lateinischen christlichen Schrifttum,
Studia graeca et latina Gothoburgensia 4 4 , Goteborg n.d., 9 0 , 146 n.296, 297. HAGENDAHL
calls Jerome's technique "plagiarism."
3 0 3
Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (916,71-917,72 G.).
3 0 4
B A R N E S , Scholarship, 57 with reference to "Callinicus 1," PLRE I, 1971, 173-74 and
other scholarly texts. For a debate concerning the dating the C. Chr. using the date of
Callinicus see A L A N C A M E R O N , The Date of Porphyry's Κ Α Τ Α Χ Ρ Ι Σ Τ Ι Α Ν Ω Ν , CQ 17,
1967, 3 8 2 - 3 8 4 and the reply in B A R N E S , Scholarship, 58 n.22 who dates Palmyrene control of
Egypt (when C. probably dedicated his book to Zenobia) to the time after Aug 2 3 , 270 until
272. For the chronology of Aurelian see J. R. R E A , The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Vol X L ,
London: 1972, 2 3 - 2 6 . P. Oxy. X L , 2 9 0 2 refers to a soldier w h o may have served with
Aurelian against the Palmyrenes. Cf. also T. D . B A R N E S , The Chronology of Plotinus's Life,
G R B S 17, 1976, (65-70) 66-67.
3 0 5
This text can be found in S T E R N I, § 4 4 from Jos., C. Apionem 2.80. C R O K E also
makes the important point that C. Chr. XII probably contained chronological tables and
calculations necessary for the analysis of Daniel (Porphyry's Anti-Christian, 177-79).
Apparently he reviewed the chronology from Troy to the reign of Claudius. The text, at the
end of a section on Oriental and Greek history, is: "Porphyry, our contemporary philosopher
from the fall of Troy to the reign of Claudius" ( C R O K E , 181 = Eus., Chron. [JACOBY, FGrH II,
2 6 0 T. 2 ( 1 1 9 7 ) ] ) . It is unclear why Porphyry would include material up to Claudius
Gothicus ( 2 6 8 - 7 0 ) in his C. Chr., but perhaps Eusebius means the first Claudius (41-54)
whom Porphyry might well have used in his attack on Christianity.
which he employed an elaborate chronological framework using Olympiads, Athenian

archons, and Roman consuls. Hence Hieronymus, Polybius, Posidonius, and Diodorus
would have enabled Porphyry to reconstruct a precise chronology of Hellenistic monarchs
to the mid second century B.C., which he would supplement for Alexandria by using the
306
work of S u t o r i u s .
T h e other historians that J e r o m e m e n t i o n s are o n e s that h e h i m s e l f m a d e u s e

o f — both Greek and R o m a n . Porphyry certainly k n e w Josephus and
3 0 7
p r o b a b l y u s e d h i m in c o n s t r u c t i n g h i s interpretation o f D a n i e l . The
e m p h a s i s o n G r e c o - R o m a n writers that P o r p h y r y a p p a r e n t l y h a d i n h i s
c o m m e n t s e n c o u r a g e s o n e not to put t o o m u c h e m p h a s i s o n Syriac-Christian
s o u r c e s for h i s w o r k o n D a n i e l . If there w e r e s u c h s o u r c e s neither Porphyry
nor Jerome e m p h a s i z e s their importance. Porphyry w a s n o t a l w a y s correct in
h i s historical c o m m e n t s ( h e t o o k 1 1 : 4 0 - 4 5 t o b e historical for e x a m p l e ) , but
3 0 8
h e w a s s k i l l e d in the u s e o f historical s o u r c e s . O n c e Porphyry f o u n d h i s
important c l u e (the little horn i s A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s ) for interpreting D a n i e l
in J o s e p h u s , H i p p o l y t u s , or s o m e ancient J e w i s h or Christian s o u r c e , h e w a s
able t o u s e h i s historical k n o w l e d g e t o create a coherent interpretation o f the
text.
2.2.16.8 Dan 2:35
The next c o m m e n t Jerome includes is fundamental for understanding

Porphyry's a w a r e n e s s o f apocalyptic:
3 0 9
It became a great mountain and filled the whole earth [Dan 2:35]: This last the J e w s
and the impious Porphyry wrongly apply to the people of Israel, w h o they insist will be
the strongest power at the end of the ages and will crush all realms and will rule forever
(quod Iudaei et impius Porphyrius male ad populum referunt Israel, quern in fine
0
saeculorum volunt esse fortissimum et omnia regna conterere et regnare in aeternum)^ .
3 0 6
CROKE, Porphyry's Anti-Christian, 177-8.
3 0 7
See § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 3 .
3 0 8
L A T A I X (LoiSY) emphasizes this point in his article (Le commentaire, 166) and see
RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 213.
3 0 9
Some Jews could interpret the text messianically (COLLINS, Daniel, 171). Jos., Antiq.
10.209-10, w h o interprets the third king to be "from the west" (Greece?) does not interpret
the identity o f the iron kingdom, nor does he think it proper to interpret the stone (which
concerns "what is to be"). H e probably interpreted it to mean the Jews or even a messianic
kingdom. R O K E A H , Jews, 2 0 7 includes several rabbinic texts that refer to the future downfall
of Rome. Cp. also B R A V E R M A N , Jerome's Commentary, 9 0 - 9 4 , 109-10 / B O D E N M A N N ,
Naissance, 3 0 9 n.889.
3 1 0
S T E R N II, § 464d = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43d = Jerome, In Dan. 2:35 (795,410-14
G.). Cf. R I N A L D I , Giudei, 129 (who believes that Porphyry interprets the rock as a reference
to the Maccabees).
206 2. Porphyry
L. V a g a n a y c r i t i c i z e d P o r p h y r y for n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s c o p e o f the
3 1 1
apocalyptic g e n r e . W h i l e this m a y b e an astute c o m m e n t w i t h reference to
P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s o f D a n 1 2 , it i s apparent in this p a s s a g e that Porphyry w a s
3 1 2
w i l l i n g t o find s o m e e s c h a t o l o g i c a l force in parts o f the text o f D a n i e l . In
a text that d i s c u s s e s D a n 1 1 : 4 4 - 4 5 w i t h reference to P o r p h y r y ' s interpretation
that f o c u s e s o n A n t i o c h u s , Jerome writes:
Let him leave behind doubtful things and stick to those that are manifest (Dimittat atque
dubia et manifestis haereat). W h o is that rock which w a s hewn from the mountain
without hands, and which grew to be a great mountain and filled the earth, and which
smashed to pieces the fourfold image? Who is that Son of man w h o is going to come with
clouds and stand before the Ancient of Days and have bestowed upon him a kingdom
which shall never come to an end, and w h o is going to be served by all nations, tribes, and
language-groups? H e passed by these things which are s o very clear and maintains that
they were prophesied of the Jews (Haec quae manifesta sunt praeterit, et de Iudaeis
asserit prophetari quos usque hodie seruire cognoscimus), although w e are well aware
that they are to this very day in a state of bondage. And he claims that the person w h o
composed the book under the name of Daniel lied in order to revive the hope of his people
(et dicit eum, qui sub nomine Danielis scriptsit librum, ad refocillandam spem suorum
fuisse mentitum). N o t that he was able to foreknow all of future history, but rather he
313
records events that had already taken p l a c e .
F r o m t h e first p a s s a g e it is quite clear that Porphyry interpreted the m o u n t a i n

3 1 4
to b e the J e w s w h o w o u l d g a i n s o m e kind o f e s c h a t o l o g i c a l v i c t o r y . Casey
argues that J e r o m e ' s o b j e c t i o n t o Porphyry in the s e c o n d p a s s a g e (the J e w s
3 1 1
V A G A N A Y , Porphyre, 2 5 8 3 - 8 4 . He objects to Porphyry's interpretation because
Daniel says the last kingdom will not be administered by any people (2:44). Daniel does not
say "administered" but "it shall not be left to another people." Christian interpreters could
also give a corporate interpretation of the text as in the case of Hippolytus w h o identifies the
rock with Christ (Dan 2:45) w h o will create the kingdom of the saints (Dan 2:44). Christ is
the mountain and the city of the saints (In Dan. 2.13.2-3 [88,13-90,2 B./R.]). Polychr., In
Dan. 2:44 (1.3,41 M A I ) , identified the kingdom of God with that o f Christ by quoting Matt
16:18. Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 2:44 (V.206d-e A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) notes that the
text does not refer to the Jews, but is a mystery (τ<\τ<Λ raza) that w a s foreshadowed by the
Maccabees w h o were victorious over the Greeks and whose completion is in the ultimate
reign of the Lord (Jesus). Theodoret argues that no human kingdom is everlasting and that
the reference is consequently to the return of Christ (In Dan. 2:44 [PG 8 1 , 1 3 0 8 - 9 ] ) .
3 1 2
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 2 3 , remarks that "the stone probably symbolized the
Jewish triumph at the eschaton" in Porphyry's thought. C p . S T E I N , Alttestamentliche
Bibelkritik, 3 5 w h o notes that here Porphyry w a s w i l l i n g interpret the text in an
"unhistorical" sense.
3 1 3
Jerome, In Dan. 11:44-45 (932, 4 1 1 - 2 2 G.). C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 20-21
has called attention to this text which H A R N A C K omits in his fragments.
3 1 4
S H E A takes Porphyry to mean that the Jews will triumph in s o m e kind o f kingdom
subsequent to that o f Antiochus — i.e. a false prophecy that w a s unfulfilled (Early
Development, 293). This is not what Jerome says, although Porphyry could have held that
view.
are in slavery) i m p l i e s that Porphyry had a corporate interpretation o f the S o n

315
o f M a n as h e did o f the s t o n e . I w i l l discuss Porphyry's v i e w o f the S o n o f
M a n in m o r e detail b e l o w . It is l i k e l y that J e r o m e has to ask Porphyry
q u e s t i o n s about the S o n o f M a n , b e c a u s e Porphyry did n o t g i v e a clear
interpretation o f that figure. Is the present servitude o f the J e w s really an
objection (as Jerome thinks) to Porphyry's interpretation o f the rock? C e l s u s
and Julian b o t h t h o u g h t that it w a s a g o o d objection against Judaism and
Christianity r e s p e c t i v e l y . Their u s e o f references to J e w i s h slavery (at the
hands o f the R o m a n s and others) w a s a powerful argument in their o w n e y e s
3 1 6
— a general argument against the practice and beliefs o f the J e w s . It is
quite l i k e l y that J e r o m e w o u l d h a v e c o n s i d e r e d it an a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t
Porphyry's interpretation o f the b o o k o f Daniel. In other w o r d s Jerome m a y
b e asking: w h y b e l i e v e that the J e w s w i l l triumph at the e n d o f the w o r l d
3 1 7
w h e n they are in s u c h m i s e r a b l e straits n o w ? If Porphyry m e a n t the
mountain to signify the triumph o f the J e w s at s o m e time in the past, then
J e r o m e ' s o b j e c t i o n is certainly v a l i d . Their present s l a v e r y is n o t the
everlasting triumph p r o m i s e d in D a n 2 : 3 5 - 4 5 . A t n o point in his c o m m e n t s
o n Daniel d o e s Porphyry criticize the author o f the b o o k by saying that h e g o t
a major historical p o i n t (in the M a c c a b e a n era) w r o n g . That is the m a i n
s u p p o r t in h i s e y e s o f h i s a r g u m e n t that D a n i e l i s a M a c c a b e a n
pseudepigraph.
S i n c e Porphyry k n e w the history o f the J e w s , and since he interpreted the
s t o n e in 2 : 3 5 to b e the J e w s , h e w a s f o r c e d into interpreting the text
318
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l l y . Porphyry k n e w the M a c c a b e a n triumph w a s short-lived,
3 1 5
3 1 6
R O K E A H (Jews, 199) points out that Julian was far more interested in attacking
Christianity than Judaism.
3 1 7
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 21 is incorrect when he asserts that present slavery
cannot be an objection to an eschatological text. See COOK, Interpretation 317 for Julian's
reference to the Jews as slaves in his attack on the truth of Christianity (Julian, C. Gal. 209d-
218b = S T E R N II, § 481a). Cp. Celsus in Origen, C. Cels. 5.41, 8.69 (= S T E R N II, § 375).
Celsus and Julian (§ 1.33, 3.23) both make use of an argument from consequence in which
the miserable consequences of being a Jew (or Christian) are used against Judaism (or
Christianity). R O K E A H (Jews, 168-208, esp. 169, 198) has an extensive discussion of this
argument (slavery equals falsehood of the religion) and the Jewish response to the pagan
critique of their political situation. Caecilius the pagan argues against Jewish monotheism
based on their servitude to the Romans in Min. Fel., Oct. 10.4 ( 8 , 2 0 - 2 3 K Y T . ) S e e
§ 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 1 4 below.
3 1 8
Ishodad also interpreted the text in Dan 2:34 to refer to the "victory of the Maccabees
which spread to the end of creation." After quoting some of the words in 2:35 (it filled the
earth), he writes, "the truth of the words appears in our Lord Messiah." Ishodad,
Commentaire d'Isodad de Merw sur l'Ancien Testament, v. Jeremie, Ez£chiel, Daniel, In
208 2. Porphyry
and s o w a s left h a n g i n g at D a n 2:35. W h e n h e s a y s that D a n i e l c l a i m s the

J e w s w o u l d h a v e an e n d - t i m e triumph h e surely d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h t h e
M a c c a b e a n author. A n y t h i n g after all, according to Porphyry, that the author
3 1 9
conjectured t o h a p p e n after A n t i o c h u s w a s a fabrication o r l i e . P a g a n
authors w h o k n e w other apocalyptic texts from the O l d or N e w Testament
320
considered t h e m t o b e f a l s e . Porphyry's reference t o the effect o f the text
o n the hearers (it restores h o p e ) prompts V a g a n a y t o c o m m e n t that Porphyry
321
is n o t h i n g l e s s than a p s y c h o l o g i s t . T h i s function o f a p o c a l y p t i c texts,
h o w e v e r , h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d b y m o d e r n s c h o l a r s a n d i s a n astute
322
observation b y P o r p h y r y .
2 . 2 . 7 6 . 9 Dan 2:46
Porphyry i s unable to accept the detail in D a n 2 : 4 6 where King
N e b u c h a d n e z z a r prostrates h i m s e l f before the dream-interpreter: "Porphyry
finds fault w i t h this p a s s a g e , b e c a u s e an extremely proud k i n g never w o u l d
w o r s h i p a c a p t i v e " (Hunc locum calumniatur Porphyrius, quod numquam
323
superbissimus rex captivum adoraverit) . J e r o m e d e f e n d s t h e text b y
arguing that the L y c a o n i a n s w e r e willing to worship Paul and Barnabas (Acts
1 4 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) . H e u s e s 2:47 to argue that Nebuchadnezzar w a s really worshiping
the G o d o f D a n i e l . H e appeals to a similar e p i s o d e i n J o s e p h u s i n w h i c h
A l e x a n d e r prostrated h i m s e l f before the N a m e o f G o d o n the H i g h Priest's
324
t u r b a n . T h e officials surrounding Alexander thought h e w a s deranged, and
o n e o f A l e x a n d e r ' s generals h a d asked h i m t o e x p l a i n w h y h e prostrated
h i m s e l f before the H i g h Priest. Here Porphyry is not rejecting the historicity
o f the d r e a m o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r and D a n i e l ' s interpretation. B u t h e d o e s
325
h a v e trouble with o n e detail in the e p i s o d e .
Dan. 2:34 ( C S C O 3 2 8 = C S C O . S S 146, 104,7-11 VAN DEN E Y N D E ) . V A N DEN E Y N D E ' S

French translation is CSCO 329 = CSCO.SS 147,119-20).
3 1 9
See § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 5 above.
3 2 0
See C O O K , Interpretation, 383 s.v. "apocalyptic".
3 2 1
V A G A N A Y , Porphyre, 2584.
3 2 2
C O L L I N S , Daniel, 6 1 , 343 refers to the reassurance and hope that the apocalyptic text
of Daniel creates.
3 2 3
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 e = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43e = Jerome, In Dan. 2:46 (795,421-23
G.).
3 2 4
Jer., In Dan. 2:46-47 (795,423-796,435 G.); Jos., Antiq. 11.331-33. Josephus had no
trouble with the text in Dan 2:46 (Antiq. 10.211-12), but other Jewish interpreters denied that
Daniel accepted the king's honors (COLLINS, Daniel, 171). Hippolytus appeals to Exod 7:1 in
which God makes M o s e s like God to Pharaoh (In Dan. 2.8.3 [82,13-16 B./R.]). Ammonius
and an anonymous interpreter defend Daniel's actions also in Catena Ioh. Drung. in Dan. 2:46
(1.3,35-36 M A I ) .
3 2 5
Celsus feared the possibility that the Roman emperors might become Christian (COOK,
Interpretation, 91 with reference to Origen, C. Cels. 8.71 [587,24-7 M A R C ] ) .
22.16.10 Dan 2:48

Porphyry s e e m s to accept at least s o m e o f the historicity o f the narrative about
the honors g i v e n to D a n i e l . Jerome writes, "In this matter the slanderous
critic o f the Church strives to castigate the prophet b e c a u s e h e did not reject
326
the gifts and b e c a u s e h e w i l l i n g l y accepted honor from the B a b y l o n i a n s " .
Jerome s e e s a providential event: D a n i e l w a s called t o interpret the k i n g ' s
dream in order that h e m i g h t b e c o m e a ruler o v e r all the Chaldeans in order
that the p o w e r o f G o d m i g h t b e m a d e k n o w n . H e c a l l s attention to the
parallels in G e n 4 1 (Joseph in Pharaoh's court) and M o r d e c a i ' s rise in the
3 2 7
court o f A h a s u e r u s (Esther 8 ) . A g a i n Porphyry d o e s not q u e s t i o n the
historicity o f the basic narrative, but has trouble with the details. In this c a s e
h e s i m p l y criticizes D a n i e l for accepting m o n e y and p o w e r . Patrizia Pirioni
connects Porphyry's C. Chr. to the purge o f Christians from the R o m a n army,
3 2 8
w h i c h she dates to 2 9 7 . E v e n after this purge s o m e Christians continued to
o p e n l y participate in the public life o f the state. Porphyry then, in the a b o v e
text o n D a n i e l , is indirectly attacking these Christians for c o n t i n u i n g their
i n v o l v e m e n t in political life. Pirioni has m a d e an important point about the
political side o f the C. Chr., but scholars are d i v i d e d o n the dating o f the
329
treatise ( w h i c h m a y h a v e b e e n written during the t i m e o f A u r e l i a n ) .
Whether Porphyry w o u l d u s e such an indirect m e t h o d o f attack is o p e n to
q u e s t i o n , s i n c e h e u s u a l l y m a d e frontal assaults o n Christian b e l i e f s and
330
practices .
2.2.16.11 Dan 3:98

Jerome u s e s the e p i s t l e o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r to argue for the identity o f the
author o f Daniel:
The epistle of Nabuchodonosor was inserted in the volume of the prophet, in order that
the book might not afterwards be thought to have been fabricated by some other author, as
the accuser lies, but the product of Daniel himself (Epistola Nabuchodonosor in
3 2 6
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 f = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43f = Jerome, In Dan. 2:48 (796,443-45
G.).
3 2 7
Jer., In Dan. 2:46-47 (796,445-797,453 G.). Cp. Hippolytus, In Dan. 2.9.3-4 (84,3-9
B./R.) w h o also compares the story with Joseph's rise to power. For other parallels see
COLLINS, Daniel, 173 including the Oracle ofHytaspes in which a boy dreams about the fall
of Rome according to the account of an ancient Median king (Lact, Div. Inst. 7.15).
328 ρ PIRIONI, II soggiorno siciliano di Porfirio e la composizione del Κατά Χριστιανών,
RSCI 39, 1985, 502-508. Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 120 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani, II,
217.
3 2 9
COOK, Interpretation, 119-25. In particular her identification of Porphyry with the
anonymous philosopher of Lactantius (Div. inst. 5.2.3) is problematic (COOK, 120 n.3).
3 3 0
Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 91 on Celsus' views on Christian participation in public life
(he believed that they should take part).
210 2. Porphyry
prophetae uolumine ponitur, ut nonfictus ab alio postea liber —sicut sycophanta mentitur
331
—, sed ipsius Danielis esse credatur) .
Porphyry apparently did n o t q u e s t i o n the entire s u b s e q u e n t e p i s o d e . Jerome

f i n d s t h e d e c r e e o f t h e k i n g t o b e e v i d e n c e o f the b o o k ' s authenticity.
Interestingly e n o u g h the real attack o n the e p i s o d e o f N e b u c h a d n e z z a r ' s life
as an a n i m a l c a m e not f r o m Porphyry but from Christian writers w h o argued
332
that the k i n g w a s a s y m b o l for the d e v i l s i n c e the e p i s o d e w a s u n h i s t o r i c a l .
T h e y m e n t i o n the l a c k o f B a b y l o n i a n records, the inherent i m p l a u s i b i l i t y o f
3 3 3
the e p i s o d e , a n d o t h e r r e a s o n s for their p o s i t i o n . J e r o m e r e j e c t s their
p o s i t i o n b e c a u s e all scripture m i g h t then appear to b e s h a d o w s and fables.
2.2.16.12 Dan 5:10
P o r p h y r y f o u n d the situation in D a n 5 : 1 0 r i d i c u l o u s s i n c e the k i n g ' s w i f e

k n o w s m o r e than the king.
Queen: Josephus says that she was Belshazzar's grandmother, whereas Origen says that
she w a s his mother. She therefore knew about previous events of which the king was
ignorant. Therefore let Porphyry wake up, w h o dreamed that she w a s Belshazzar's wife
and mocked the fact that she knew more than her husband (euigilet ergo Porphyrius qui
334
earn Baldasaris somniauit uxorem, et illudit plus scire quam maritum) .
3 3 1
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 g = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 4 3 g = Jerome, In Dan. 3:98 (809,765-67
G . ) . 3:98 in the Vulgate is Dan 4:1 in the Aramaic text.
3 3 2
G L O R I E notes that Origen's Stromateis might be o n e source Jerome used here
(CChr.SL 75a, 8 0 9 ) . Origen, D e princ. 1.6.3, 3.6.5 (83,9-84,16; 286,10-287,5 [p. 226-28;
6 5 6 ] G . / K . ) discusses the possible restoration of evil beings in the future; in 4.3.9 (336,4-8
[756] G . / K . ) he remarks that Nebuchadnezzar w h o is said to have fallen from heaven is not a
man (Isa 14). Cp. the similar opinion Jer. mentions later, In Dan. 6:25 (836,405-09 G . ) / see
CHADWICK, Early Christian Thought, 158 n. 15. On the Stromateis as a possible source for
Porphyry's work against the Christians s e e R. M. G R A N T , The Stromateis of Origen, in:
Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean Danielou, ed. J. F O N T A I N E / C .
K A N N E N G I E S S E R , Paris 1972, (285-92) 2 8 6 and C O O K , Interpretation, 132. L A T A I X , Le
commentaire, 269-70, 2 7 3 notes that Jerome refers to Strom. IX with reference to Dan 4:6-9
(in Theodotion, absent in the L X X ; In Dan. 4:5 [ 8 1 1 , 8 1 9 - 8 2 9 G . ] ) and Strom. X with
reference to Origen's commentary on Susanna (In Dan. 13 ( 9 4 5 , 6 9 7 - 6 9 9 G . ) . LATAIX
believes that Origen concentrated on difficulties and not resolutions in the Strom, and that
Porphyry might have used the Strom, in composing his work o n Daniel — something that
would explain the loss of Origen's work (Le commentaire, 2 7 1 , 2 7 3 ) .
3 3 3
Jer., In Dan. 4:1 (809,775-810,794 G . ) .
3 3 4
S T E R N II, § 464h = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 43j = Jerome, In Dan. 5:10 (824,105-09
G . ) . Jos., Antiq. 10.237. G L O R I E (827 app.) conjectures that the text from Origen may be
Strom. IX.
V a g a n a y i d e n t i f i e s this as o n e o f P o r p h y r y ' s m a n y m i s t a k e s w i t h regard to

3 3 5
Daniel . H u m o r and ridicule w e r e a frequent w e a p o n in the p a g a n s ' critique
336
of Christianity . S i n c e the q u e e n ' s m e m o r y r e a c h e s farther b a c k i n t o the
past than the k i n g ' s , a n c i e n t and m o d e r n scholars h a v e a s s u m e d that s h e is
3 3 7
Belshazzar's m o t h e r or g r a n d m o t h e r . The wife of Nebuchadnezzar,
N i t o c r i s , w a s f a m o u s for her w i s d o m , and H e r o d o t u s c l a i m s s h e w a s w i s e r
3 3 8
than S e m i r a m i s .
22.16.13 Dan 7:7 and the Four Beasts
G i v e n P o r p h y r y ' s historical skills, h e w a s quite interested in the interpretation

o f the four beasts in D a n i e l . Jerome writes:
Porphyry assigned the last two beasts, that of the Macedonians and that of the Romans, to
the realm o f the Macedonians and divided them up as follows. H e claimed that the
leopard was Alexander himself, and that the beast which was dissimilar to the others
represented the four successors of Alexander, and then he enumerates ten kings up to the
time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, w h o were very cruel. And he did not assign the
kings themselves to separate kingdoms, for example Macedon, Syria, A s i a o r Egypt, but v
rather he made out of the various kingdoms a single realm consisting of a series. This he
did of course in order that the words that were written: "a mouth uttering haughty things"
339
might be considered as spoken about Antiochus instead of about the Antichrist .
J e r o m e interprets the first b e a s t t o b e B a b y l o n and the s e c o n d to b e Persia.

T h e three r o w s o f teeth in the s e c o n d beast are a c o m b i n a t i o n o f B a b y l o n i a n s ,
3 4 0
M e d e s , and Persians r e d u c e d to a s i n g l e r e a l m . H e then identified the third
3 4 1
b e a s t as the M a c e d o n i a n s and the fourth as the R o m a n s . It i s u s u a l l y
3 3 5
V A G A N A Y , Porphyry, 2 5 8 3 . Hippolytus does not identify the "queen" (In Dan. 3.16.1
[166,10 B./R.]). Porphyry may well have used his commentary.
3 3 6
COOK, Interpretation, 3 8 4 s.v. "laughter."
3 3 7
COLLINS, D a n i e l , 2 4 8 opts for "queen mother" and i d e n t i f i e s her with
Nebuchadnezzar's wife. S e e ibid., 3 2 for discussion of the issue of Belshazzar's unproven
relationship to Nebuchadnezzar. His father Nabonidus was not Nebuchadnezzar's son.
3 3 8
Herodotus 1.185-87.
3 3 9
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 i = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 431 = Jerome, In Dan. 7:7 (843,569-79
G.). Hippolytus also identifies the little horn with the Antichrist (In Dan.4.12.4 [222,17-18
B./R.]).
3 4 0
Jerome, In Dan. 7 : 4 , 5 (838,464-839,466; 840,495; 841,522-24 G.).
3 4 1
Jerome, In Dan. 7:6, 7 (841,535; 842,550 G.). Cp. the similar views in Hippolytus, In
Dan. 4.2.4, 4 . 3 . 1 - 2 , lion = Babylonians, bear = Persians with the three ribs as M e d e s ,
Assyrians, and Babylonians, 4.3.6 leopard = Greeks, 4.5.1 the fourth beast is the kingdom
that now rules (the Romans), and a summary in 4.8.4-7 (196,8-10; 200,4-7; 202,4; 204,18-20;
2 1 2 , 8 - 1 7 B./R.). Theodoret also thinks the fourth beast is the Romans and not the
Macedonians as he notes some Christians believe (In Dan.7:27 [PG 8 1 , 1436-37]). Cp. S H E A ,
Early Interpretation, 301 (who thinks Hippolytus is one of Porphyry's sources). For rabbinic
interpretations o f the fourth beast as the Romans see B R A V E R M A N , Jerome's Commentary,
90-4. Jos., Antiq. 10.276.
212 2. Porphyry
a s s u m e d that Porphyry a l s o interpreted the l i o n to b e the B a b y l o n i a n s and the

3 4 2
bear t o b e the M e d e s and P e r s i a n s . Aphrahat i d e n t i f i e d the first b e a s t as
B a b y l o n i a n s , the s e c o n d as the M e d e s and P e r s i a n s , the third as A l e x a n d e r ,
3 4 3
and the fourth as b o t h Greece- and R o m e . H e a l s o i d e n t i f i e d the ten k i n g s
as t e n S e l e u c i d ( G r e e k ) rulers w h o p r e c e d e d A n t i o c h u s , w h i l e Porphyry
identified them with a group of ten savage rulers who came before
3 4 4
Antiochus . H i s crucial identification is that o f the little horn ( D a n 7 : 8 , 2 0 )
with Antiochus. J o s e p h u s had earlier m a d e the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h regard to
3 4 2
S e e , for example, R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei Pagani, II, 2 1 9 / C A S E Y , Porphyry and the
Origin, 2 3 . RlNALDl refers to Popoli e spazio romano tra diritto e profezia, Atti del III
Seminario Interaazionali di Studi Storici: « D a Roma alia terza Roma», R o m a 21-23 aprile
1983, Documenti e studi III, Naples 1986 where a number of scholars discuss the exegesis of
Dan 2, 7 with reference to Rome. S e e M. SIMONETTI, L'esegesi patristica di Daniele 2el
nel II e III secolo, in: Popoli, 37-47 (41-5 is a discussion of Hippolytus' views) / Μ. P A ν A N ,
Le profezie di Daniele e il destino di Roma negli scrittori latini cristiani dopo Costantino, in:
Popoli, 2 9 1 - 3 0 8 / G. P O D S K A L S K Y S.I., La profezia di Daniele (cc. 2 e 7 ) negli scrittori
dell'Impero romano d'Oriente, in: Popoli, 309-320 ( 3 1 4 is a discussion o f Polychronius' and
Eudoxus' interpretation of Daniel).
3 4 3
Aphrahat, Demonstration 5.16-19, (1.1, 213-20, P A R . ; E T in N P N F Series 2, Vol. 13,
358); see § 2.2.16.1 above for the discussion of Porphyry's sources. C A S E Y (Porphyry and
the Origin, 2 9 - 3 0 and S o n of Man, 55-59) attempts to sort through Aphrahat's confusion —
caused by his unwillingness to give up the "eastern" view that the little horn is Antiochus and
the "western" view that the fourth kingdom if the Romans. B O D E N M A N N , Naissance, 261
n.720 argues that the author of Daniel may have conceived the second beast to be the Medes
and Persians since Daniel often associates the two (5:28, 6:8, 12, 15, 8:20). Consequently he
rejects C A S E Y ' S reconstruction ( s e e § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 1 ) . Modern interpreters tend to follow
Aphrahat's v i e w o f the little horn, although the identity of some of the Seleucid rulers in
Daniel's enumeration is uncertain (COLLINS, Daniel, 320). Some identify the ten as a mixture
of Ptolemies and Seleucids (see Η. H. R O W L E Y , Darius the M e d e and the Four World
Empires in the Book of Daniel. A Historical Study of Comparative Theories, Cardiff 1964,
101-03). Aphrahat calls the Romans children of Esau (Dem. 5.22 [1.1, 230,26-231,2 P A R . ] ) .
On this Jewish tradition (and on the fourth beast as Rome) s e e B R A V E R M A N , Jerome's
Commentary, 90-94.
^ A p h r a h a t , Demonstration 5 . 2 0 (1.1, 2 2 0 , 2 0 - 2 2 1 , 1 P A R . ) . Cf. SHEA, Early
Interpretation, 3 0 5 . Polychronius identified the four kingdoms as the Babylonians, Medes,
Persians, and Macedonians respectively; In Dan. 7:2-4, 6, 23 (1.3, 10-12 M A I ) , but in Dan 2
he identified the second kingdom as Cyrus, the third kingdom as Alexander (Macedonians),
and the fourth kingdom as the Macedonians w h o succeeded A . (In Dan. 2:39-43 [1.3, 3-4
M A I ] ) . Ephraem identifies the third kingdom as Cyrus and the fourth as Alexander in his
comments on Dan 2 , and in his comments o n Dan 7 he makes the following identifications:
first kingdom = Babylonian; second kingdom is the rule o f Darius the M e d e , the third
kingdom = the Persians; and the fourth kingdom = Alexander; the ten kings are Macedonians
and the little horn is Antiochus IV w h o is one of the ten kings (In Dan. prophetam 2:39-40,
7:4-7 (V.206b; 214a-215b A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) . A n anonymous interpreter also believes
the ten kings to be the Seleucid predecessors o f Antiochus in Catena Ioh. Drung. in Dan. 7:7
(1.3,47 M A I ) .
s 4 5
D a n 8 . It w o u l d not h a v e b e e n a difficult inference for Porphyry to take
J o s e p h u s ' interpretation (and m a y b e that o f H i p p o l y t u s and other Christian
writers) and apply it to D a n 7.
22.16.14 Dan 7:8,14. The Little Horn and the Son of Man
Jerome continues:
Porphyry vainly surmises that the little horn [Dan 7:8] which rose after ten horns is
Antiochus Epiphanes, and that the three uprooted horns out of the ten are Ptolemy VI
surnamed Philometor, Ptolemy VII Euergetes, and Artarxias, king of Armenia. The first
(priores) of these kings died long before Antiochus was born ... [Dan 7:14] Let Porphyry
answer (respondeat) the query of whom out of all humans this language might apply to, or
who this person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the little
horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies (respondent) that the princes of
Antiochus were defeated by Judas Maccabeus, then he must explain how Judas could be
3 4 6
said to come with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of M a n .
Polychronius agrees w i t h Porphyry's line o f thought and attacks the v i e w o f

Apollinarius that the little horn is the Antichrist: "Consequently I a m a m a z e d
that Apollinarius has stood up against such a clear account to force it to apply
to the c o m i n g o f the Antichrist" (pQev έ γ ώ γ € θαυμά£ω, ό π ω ς π ρ ο ς ο ϋ τ ω
σαφή ίστορίαν άνθιστάμβνος ό Άπολινάριος, eis την του
3 4 7
Α ν τ ί χ ρ ι σ τ ο υ π α ρ ο υ σ ί α ν ε λ κ β ι ν β ι ά ζ ε τ α ι τ ά ρ ή μ α τ α ) . E u d o x u s the
philosopher's opinion has been quoted above ( § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 3 ) . H e blamed
Porphyry for P o l y c h r o n i u s ' v i e w s . D e s p i t e h i s rejection o f P o r p h y r y ' s
p o s i t i o n , J e r o m e d o e s not f o l l o w the o p i n i o n o f s o m e c o m m e n t a t o r s w h o
identify the horn w i t h the devil or a d e m o n , but instead says that h e is o n e o f
the human race, "in w h o m Satan w i l l w h o l l y take up his residence in b o d i l y
348
f o r m " . Jerome is incorrect about the c h r o n o l o g y o f P t o l e m y V I (ca 1 8 6 -
145) and the ruler historians often call P t o l e m y VIII Euergetes II (ca 1 8 2 / 1 -
3 4 5
Jos., Antiq. 10.276, 1 2 . 3 2 2 (the desolation of the temple under Antiochus was
prophesied by Daniel) see F R A S S I N E T T I , Porfirio, 210. Hippolytus found Antiochus in Dan
8:9-12 and many places in Dan 11 (from verse 3 to 39), but did not make use of him in his
interpretation of Dan 7 (In Dan. 4.26.6-8, 4.42.2, 4.53.1 [254,18-257,17; 2 9 0 , 1 8 - 2 9 2 , 1 ;
318,17-20 B./R.]).
3 4 6
S T E R N II, § 464j = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 4 3 m = Jer., In Dan. 7:8, 14 (843,585-
844,590, 848,700-705 G.).
^ P o l y c h r . , In Dan. 7:8 (1.3, 11 M A I ) with reference to the book of the Maccabees.
Polychronius does not mention the three kings Porphyry does. Rather he says that after ruling
Asia, he "took" the Persians, Egyptians and Jews. Consequently it is not clear that
Polychronius had Porphyry before him. Ephraem interpreted the little horn to be the
Antichrist; Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 7:8 (V.215b A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
3 4 8
Jer., In Dan.7:8 (844,601-04 G.).
214 2. Porphyry
3 4 9
1 1 6 ) . P o r p h y r y s e e m s to u s e the criterion that the three k i n g s w e r e
350
defeated in battle b y A n t i o c h u s . C a s e y argues that Jerome c o n f u s e d both
351
Ptolemies w i t h earlier r u l e r s .
T h e m o r e difficult question is whether Jerome k n e w that Porphyry held a
3 5 2
"corporate" interpretation o f the S o n o f M a n figure in D a n i e l . T h i s is
unlikely, s i n c e if Jerome k n e w what Porphyry's interpretation w a s h e w o u l d
353
not h a v e h a d t o ask his q u e s t i o n s . Porphyry certainly m a y not h a v e
identified the S o n o f M a n with Judas M a c c a b e u s , but this d o e s not imply that
h e identified the figure with the M a c c a b e e s . T h e text quoted a b o v e ( 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 8 )
in w h i c h Porphyry identified the rock o f D a n 2 w i t h the J e w s clearly refers
the p r o p h e c y to the eschaton (fine saeculorwri). Jerome's comment on Dan
11:44 ( s e e § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 8 ) should b e repeated again here. H e asks w h o the rock o f
D a n 2 is and then asks Porphyry:
Who is that Son of man who is going to come with clouds and stand before the Ancient of
Days and have bestowed upon him a kingdom which shall never come to an end, and who
is going to be served by all nations, tribes, and language-groups? He passed by these
things that are so very clear and maintains that they were prophesied of the Jews, although
354
w e are well aware that they are to this very day in a state of b o n d a g e .
Collins is incorrect w h e n he states that Porphyry "referred all the prophecies

355
o f D a n i e l to the triumph o f the J e w s in the M a c c a b e a n e r a " . T h e rock is a
clear e x c e p t i o n . Jerome considered his objection (the J e w s are slaves today)
to b e valid against Porphyry's eschatological interpretation o f the rock. Later
critics ( 2 Pet 3 : 3 - 4 ) u s e d similar o b j e c t i o n s against Christian h o p e . W i t h
regard to Matt 2 4 : 4 - 5 a philosopher stated that 3 0 0 years h a v e p a s s e d b y and
3 4 9
The dates are from F. M. HEICHELHEIM/P. M. FRASER, Ptolemy (1), O C D , 896. On
the latter ruler see M. C H A U V E A U , Egypt in the A g e of Cleopatra. History and Society under
the Ptolemies, trans. D . L O R T O N , Ithaca/London 2000, 15-16. Eusebius calls him Ptolemy
VII Euergetes (Chron. 144,2-5 H E L M ) .
3 5 0
For the expedition against Artaxias see O. M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV of Syria,
Classica et Mediaevalia Diss. VIII, Copenhagen 1966, 166-67; for the war against Ptolemy
VI, ibid., 67-87, 91-96. Both Ptolemies and their sister Cleopatra II shared the rule from 170
to 164 (ibid., 69; C H A U V E A U , Egypt, 13).
3 5 1
3 5 2
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 20-23. Cp. MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1133. COLLINS,
Daniel, 304-10 argues persuasively that there was not an original "corporate" interpretation of
the "one like a human being" which is not clearly attested (against C A S E Y ) until the Middle
A g e s . S T E I N , Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 36 argues that it is unclear how Porphyry
interpreted the Son o f Man. Cp. also RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani, II, 220-1 / Idem,
Giudei, 133 (Porphyry held a corporate interpretation).
3 5 3
COLLINS, Daniel, 1 1 4 , 3 0 8 .
3 5 4
Jer., In Dan. 11:44-45 ( 9 3 2 , 4 1 4 - 1 9 G.).
3 5 5
C O L L I N S , Daniel, 308.
356
nothing like that has h a p p e n e d . T h e s a m e critic m a d e a similar objection to
3 5 7
the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l prediction o f Matt 2 4 : 1 4 . T h e a n o n y m o u s philosopher
considered J e s u s ' apocalyptic predictions to be falsified b y history as d o the
m o c k e r s o f 2 Pet 3 : 3 - 4 . J e r o m e c o n s i d e r s the J e w i s h (and Porphyrian)
interpretation o f the stone in D a n 2 to be falsified by history.
Porphyry c o u l d h a v e g i v e n a v a g u e eschatological interpretation o f the S o n
o f M a n as a figure or as a group. It is also quite p o s s i b l e that h e did not offer
358
any interpretation o f that t e x t . Ephraem appears to b e the first Christian
commentator to offer a c o l l e c t i v e interpretation o f the S o n o f M a n : " W h i l e
the significance o f this w a s prefigured in the s o n s o f the p e o p l e in that they
subdued the Greeks and all the surrounding k i n g d o m s , its c o n s u m m a t i o n w a s
359
perfected in our L o r d " . In a p o l e m i c a l text Ephraem s i m p l y identifies the
360
figure with C h r i s t . O n D a n 7 : 2 2 Ephraem c o m m e n t e d : "That i s , to the
361
saints o f the h o u s e o f the M a c c a b e e s " . Aphrahat (earlier in the fourth
century) rejected this sort o f interpretation and wrote ( o n D a n 7 : 2 7 ) , " H a v e
the children o f Israel r e c e i v e d the k i n g d o m o f the M o s t H i g h ? G o d forbid!
3 6 2
Or has the p e o p l e c o m e o n the c l o u d s o f h e a v e n ? " H e c o n t i n u e s the
argument o n 7:27 w i t h a statement about the J e w s ' continual servitude and
quotes 7:27 s a y i n g it refers to the saints: "But if h e had said it about t h e m
[the J e w s ] , w h y are they toiling in service a m o n g the G e n t i l e s ? A n d if they
say that it has not taken p l a c e yet; then is the k i n g d o m that shall be g i v e n to
363
the S o n o f h u m a n s t o b e h e a v e n l y or e a r t h l y ? " Jerome, as did Aphrahat
before h i m , o b j e c t e d to e s c h a t o l o g i c a l interpretations o f the "saints o f the
m o s t high" with reference to a triumph o f the Jews.
3 5 6
The anonymous philosopher of Macarius Magnes in Monog. 4.5.1-2 (II, 2 4 6 , 1 3 - 2 0
G0ULET = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius F. 60). Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 191.
3 5 7
Monog. 4.3.1 (II, 244,25-31 G O U L E T = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius F. 13). Cf. C O O K ,
3 5 8
This is the conjecture of COLLINS, Daniel, 308.
3 5 9
Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 7:13 (V.215e-f; A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ; and see the
discussion of Ephraem above in § 2.2.16.1). Ishodad has a similar view. After quoting Dan
7:13 he notes that the words are said "manifestly of the Maccabees but in truth of Christ." Cf.
Ishodad, In Dan.7:13 (CSCO 328 [CSCO.SS 146]. 113,23-24 V A N D E N E Y N D E ) . FT in CSCO
329 (CSCO.SS 147) 130 V A N D E N E Y N D E .
3 6 0
Quoted above in § 2.2.16.1.
3 6 1
Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 7:22 (V.216c A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
3 6 2
Aphrahat, D e m . 5.21 (1.1, 224,25-225,2; 225,13-15 P A R . ; N P N F Series 2, Vol. 13,
359). C O L L I N S , Daniel, 308 n.271 notes that Aphrahat does not reject a view of the Son of
Man as the Jews. He only knows of a view that interpreted the holy ones as the Jews. In the
same passage he interprets the Son of humans to be Christ. Theodoret similarly argues that
the Maccabees did not receive an eternal kingdom (In Dan.7:27 [PG 8 1 , 1 4 3 6 - 3 7 ] ) .
3 6 3
Aphrahat, D e m . 5.23 (1.1. 232,10-17 P A R . ; N P N F Series 2, Vol. 13, 361 slightly
modified).
216 2. Porphyry
22.16.15 Dan 7:18 and the Holy Ones

If Porphyry k n e w o f traditions like the o n e discussed a b o v e , then h e m a y have
identified the saints o f the M o s t H i g h as J e w s — whether in a historical sense
or in an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l s e n s e . In J e r o m e ' s c o m m e n t o n D a n 7:18b h e asks
this question: "If this b e taken t o refer to the M a c c a b e e s , the advocate o f this
p o s i t i o n (doceat qui ista contendit) should e x p l a i n h o w t h e k i n g d o m o f the
364
M a c c a b e e s i s o f a perpetual c h a r a c t e r . " Jerome apparently h a s n o g o o d
i n f o r m a t i o n about P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s o n this point. T h e result o f t h e s e
arguments i s that Porphyry probably did not h a v e a clear interpretation o f the
S o n o f M a n . If h e had g i v e n a straightforward e x e g e s i s , then Jerome w o u l d
not h a v e h a d t o a s k h i s q u e s t i o n s and surmise an a n s w e r f r o m Porphyry.
Polychronius interprets the h o l y o n e s to b e those w h o b e l i e v e i n Christ, and s o
365
leaves his interpretation o f the little horn as Antiochus b e h i n d .
2.2.16.16 The King in Dan 9:1

Porphyry h a d s o m e kind o f p r o b l e m w i t h the Darius o f D a n 9 : 1 . Jerome
comments:
This is the Darius w h o in cooperation with Cyrus conquered the Chaldeans and the
Babylonians. W e are not to think o f that other Darius in the second year of whose reign
the Temple was built (as Porphyry supposes in making out a late date for Daniel [quod
Porphyrius suspicatur, ut annos Danielis extendat]); nor are w e to think o f the Darius
366
who was vanquished by Alexander, the king of the M a c e d o n i a n s .
T h e Persian k i n g w i t h w h o m Porphyry identifies the k i n g o f D a n 9:1 ruled

circa 5 2 1 - 4 8 6 B . C . E . w h i l e Darius III, vanquished b y A l e x a n d e r , lived circa
3 6 7
3 8 0 - 3 3 0 B . C . E . . J e r o m e e l s e w h e r e identifies D a r i u s t h e M e d e a s t h e
maternal u n c l e o f Cyrus k i n g o f Persia, and n o t e s that s o m e think that the
368
king m i g h t b e A s t y a g e s or the s o n o f A s t y a g e s . Porphyry k n o w s that the
3 6 4
Jer., In Dan. 7:18b (849,716-18 G.). C A S E Y discounts the importance o f a lack o f
reference to Porphyry here (Porphyry and the Origin, 2 1 ) . If Jerome knew Porphyry's
position with regard to these matters he would not have had to use so many subjunctives and
questions.
3 6 5
It is thus clear that his reference to the Son o f Man in 7:28 is to Christ. Polychr., In
Dan. 7 : 1 8 , 2 8 ( 1 . 3 , 1 2 , 1 3 M A I ) .
3 6 6
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 k = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43n = Jer., In Dan. 9:1 (860,2-7 G.).
3 6 7 2
M . S. D R O W E R / R . N . F R Y E , Darius I, O C D , 3 1 3 ; D . E. W . W O R M E L L , Darius III,
2
O C D , 314. Jerome refers to these kings later (In Dan. 11:2 [898,836-44]) in a passage which
R I N A L D I thinks may come from Porphyry (La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 258 = J A C O B Y , FGrH
II, 2 6 0 F. 4 0 ) . Hippolytus, interpreting Dan 11:2 (In Dan. 4.41.4 [290,7-10 B . / R . ] ) also
mentions Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, and Xerxes. H e does not attempt to identify Darius the
Mede (In Dan. 3.19.1 [170,24-25 B . / R . ] ) .
3 6 8
Jer., In Dan. 5:1 (820,15-16; 821,21-22 G.). Astyages lived ca. 5 8 5 - 5 4 9 B.C.E. and
2
"was defeated by his vassal Cyrus" (M. S. D R O W E R , Media, O C D , 660). H e was also the
B a b y l o n i a n e m p i r e w a s d e s t r o y e d b y C y r u s , but d o e s n o t q u e s t i o n the
3 6 9
e x i s t e n c e o f D a r i u s the M e d e as m o d e r n s c h o l a r s h a v e . Lataix ( L o i s y )
argues that Porphyry m a d e h i s h y p o t h e s i s b e c a u s e h e c o u l d find n o D a r i u s the
M e d e in the G r e e k historians. S i n c e A s t y a g e s w a s the last k i n g o f the M e d e s ,
370
there i s n o r o o m for the c o n j e c t u r e s o f the other a u t h o r i t i e s . Frassinetti
b e l i e v e s that P o r p h y r y s u s p e c t s that the u n k n o w n w r i t e r o f D a n i e l has
3 7 1
c o n f u s e d D a r i u s I or III w i t h s o m e o n e w h o l i v e d in the t i m e o f C y r u s . It
s e e m s l i k e l y that Porphyry b e l i e v e d the author o f D a n i e l h a s m a d e a historical
mistake w i t h regard to the p e r s o n Darius the M e d e .
2.2.16.17 The Abomination of the Desolation in Dan 9:27
Porphyry probably spent a g o o d deal o f t i m e d i s c u s s i n g the " a b o m i n a t i o n o f

the d e s o l a t i o n " i n D a n i e l 9 : 2 7 , but unfortunately h i s c o m m e n t s h a v e n o t
survived. In J e r o m e ' s c o m m e n t a r y o n M a t t h 2 4 h e refers t o a t e x t o f
Porphyry in B o o k X I I I o f t h e C. Chr. w h i c h attacked the p a s s a g e ( 2 4 : 1 5 )
c o n c e r n i n g the a b o m i n a t i o n o f the d e s o l a t i o n standing in a h o l y p l a c e .
Concerning this passage, that is the abomination of the desolation standing in the holy
3 7 2
place, of which Daniel the Prophet spoke, Porphyry, in the thirteenth v o l u m e o f his
work, copiously slandered us. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea responded to him in three
volumes: the eighteenth, the nineteenth, and the twentieth. Apollinarius also wrote a great
deal. It is superfluous in one small chapter to discuss what has been disputed in thousands
of lines (Apollinaris quoque scripsit plenissime; superfluusque conatus est uno capitulo
13
uelle disserere de quo tantis uersuum milibus disputatum est)?
father-in-law of Cyrus ( C O L L I N S , Daniel, 3 4 8 ) . Jos., Antiq. 10.248-49 says Darius w a s the

son of Astyages, but had another name among the Greeks. S e e R O W L E Y , Darius the Mede,
30-6.
3 6 9
See COLLINS, Daniel, 30-31 who refers to the attempt to identify Darius with Gobryas,
the general of Cyrus w h o defeated Babylon and apparently governed the city until Cyrus
became king of Babylon. Cambyses held the title "king of Babylon" in Cyrus' first year.
3 7 0
L A T A I X , L e commentaire, 169. C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 3 0 claims of Syrian
exegetes that "like Porphyry, they simply swallowed Darius the Mede." Porphyry seems to
have seen a problem with Darius the Mede.
3 7 1
FRASSINETTI, Porfirio 200-01.
3 7 2
If this is not a scribal mistake for XII, then it is likely that in B o o k XIII Porphyry
attacked certain N T apocalyptic texts — while Bk. XII was devoted to Daniel. E. B O N N A R D ,
(Saint Jerome. Commentaire sur S. Matthieu, Vol. 2, SC 2 5 9 , Paris 1979, 192 n.21) thinks
there is an error somewhere. This is possible, but the C. Chr. was large, and Porphyry likely
attacked N T passages in a separate chapter (such as Bk. XIII) if Jerome or a scribe is not
mistaken. There apparently is no textual variation in the M S tradition. S e e also H A R N A C K ,
Porphyrius, 73-74.
3 7 3
Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 145-46. The text is in H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 4 4 = Jer.,
Comm. in Matth. 24:16-8 (SC 2 5 9 , 192,105-194,109 B O N N A R D ) . L A T A I X interprets Jerome
to mean that Apollinarius tried to write in a small chapter about what others have written
many thousands o f lines. H e then has to emend plenissime (most fully) to vicesimo sexto
218 2. Porphyry
Robert W i l k e n argues that J e r o m e probably suppressed this part o f Porphyry's

work, s i n c e the relevant s e c t i o n o f D a n i e l had b e c o m e part o f a heated debate
i n the fourth century after J u l i a n ' s attempt to rebuild the t e m p l e in
374
Jerusalem . Jerome argues, in his c o m m e n t a r y o n D a n i e l , that after
Hadrian's destruction o f Jerusalem "sacrifice and offering h a v e c e a s e d — and
'the d e s o l a t i o n w i l l r e m a i n until the c o m p l e t i o n o f the w o r l d and the e n d '
3 7 5
[9:27]" . In h i s c o m m e n t a r y on Matthew, Jerome is unsure what the
" a b o m i n a t i o n " refers t o and m e n t i o n s the Antichrist or the statues p l a c e d b y
376
Pilate and Hadrian in the t e m p l e as p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Porphyry a l m o s t certainly
interpreted t h e d e s o l a t i o n t o b e the a c t i o n s t a k e n a g a i n s t the t e m p l e in
Jerusalem b y A n t i o c h u s . C o n s e q u e n t l y h e w o u l d h a v e criticized the N T u s e
o f this figure t o refer t o an e v e n t in the future. A n t i o c h u s ' a c t i o n s against
J e r u s a l e m are d i s c u s s e d b y Porphyry at l e n g t h in h i s c o m m e n t s o n D a n 1 1 .
A m m o n i u s and H i p p o l y t u s w e r e both w i l l i n g to find a partial fulfillment o f
the p r o p h e c y about the a b o m i n a t i o n in the t i m e o f A n t i o c h u s although both
377
found the final c o m p l e t i o n in the A n t i c h r i s t .
(26th) in Le commentaire, 165 n.3. This is unnecessary since Jerome is probably referring to
his o w n efforts in the final phrase. W e must amend superflueque in the manuscripts however
to get this meaning (with CChr.SL 77, 227,472 H U R S T / A D R I A E N ) . In addition, other texts of
Jerome point to Apollinarius' great efforts to answer Porphyry. Cp. HARNACK, Porphyrius,
Τ. XVII (in particular Jer., Ep. 49.13.4 ad Pammach. [CSEL 5 4 , 369,9-11 HlLBERG] in which
Jerome m e n t i o n s thousands o f lines written by Origen, M e t h o d i u s , Eusebius, and
Apollinarius against Celsus and Porphyry (Origenes, Methodius, Eusebius, Apollinaris multis
versuum millibus scribunt adversus Celsum et Porphyrium) and Ep. 84.2.2 ad Pammach. et
Oceanum [CSEL 5 5 , 122,13-14 H.] in which Jer. says that Apollinarius wrote very strong
books against Porphyry (Fortissimos libros contra Porphyrium scripsit Apollinaris) and see
the text from the prologue above (§ 2.2.16.5) which also mentions the texts written by the
three figures against Porphyry. See also RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani, II § 257.
3 7 4
On Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem see C O O K , Interpretation, 3 2 3 -
24 n . 3 1 1 / c f . § 3.44 below.
3 7 5
WILKEN, Christians, 142-43. S e e Jer. In Dan.9:24, ( 8 8 8 , 5 9 0 - 9 2 G.). Ephraem
referred to Julian's attempt to rebuild the temple in Hymns against Julian 4.18-23. In 4.22-23
Ephraem writes of a statement about Julian made concerning Jerusalem: '"Behold there
comes o n e possessed w h o will build you. He will enter to offer sacrifice in you, to pour
libations to his demons in you.' But Daniel passed judgment on Jerusalem and determined
that it would not be rebuilt, and Zion believed him." ET in K. M C V E Y , Ephrem the Syrian.
Hymns, N e w York 1989, 256. Ephraem, Hymn, contra Julianum (CSCO 175 = CSCO.SS 7 9 ,
89,25-90,8 B E C K ) . Cf. S. B R O C K , A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding
of the Temple, B S O A S 4 0 , 1977, 267-86 (also in: Syriac Perspectives, 267-86). Aphrahat
takes a similar view in D e m . 2 1 . 4 with regard to Dan 9:27 (1.1, 9 4 1 , 2 6 - 9 4 4 , 1 , PAR.; ET in
NPNF Series 2 , Vol. 1 3 , 3 9 4 ) .
3 7 6
Comm. in Matth. 24:15 (192,83-87 B O N N . ) and see COOK, Interpretation, 145-46.
3 7 7
The Alexandrian presbyter Ammonius (CPG III, § 5501) saw a "partial abomination"
in Antiochus with the universal abomination referring to the Antichrist (καθολικόν βδέλυγμα
TX\S ερημώσεων ό α ν τ ί χ ρ ι σ τ ο ς , μερικόν δε ό Ά ν τ ί ο χ ο ς ) from Catena Ioh. Drung. in
2.2.16.18 Jerome's Use of Porphyry in Dan 11

B e l o w w e w i l l p r e s e n t the f r a g m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g D a n 11 that J e r o m e
e x p r e s s l y attributes to Porphyry, though perhaps nearly all o f the historical
w o r k in that part o f J e r o m e ' s c o m m e n t a r y is d u e to h i s k n o w l e d g e o f
378
P o r p h y r y . Jerome d o e s m e n t i o n "Greek and R o m a n historians," the b o o k s
3 7 9
o f the M a c c a b e e s , P o l y b i u s , and D i o d o r u s as s o u r c e s for his w o r k . F.
Glorie, w h o i n c l u d e s m a n y references to Greek and R o m a n historians in his
apparatus for J e r o m e ' s c o m m e n t s o n D a n 1 1 , notes that s o m e o f the things
w h i c h Jerome narrates are not in the surviving texts. C o n s e q u e n t l y G l o r i e
380
notes that h e suspects Jerome took m o s t o f it from P o r p h y r y . B u t o n e m a y
b e l i e v e that Jerome u s e d other sources b e s i d e s those o f Porphyry, as h e said
h e did in the p r o l o g u e ( s e e § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 7 ) . In particular in the p r o l o g u e Jerome
mentions R o m a n historians as o n e o f his o w n sources, and clearly i m p l i e s that
they at least w e r e n o t P o r p h y r y ' s m a i n s o u r c e s . S u r e l y h e did not take
e v e r y t h i n g f r o m Porphyry as can b e s e e n in the fragment o n D a n 1 1 : 2 0
discussed b e l o w .
2.2.16.19 The Kings of Dan 11:20

Jerome b e l i e v e s that the k i n g o f D a n 11:20 is S e l e u c u s Philopator, the s o n o f
Antiochus the Great (III):
Dan. 12:11 (1.3, 56 M A I ) . Cp. Hipp., In Dan. 4.53.1 (318,17-20 B./R.). Severus of Antioch
referred the prophecy to the statue Hadrian put in the temple and to the Antichrist (a "better"
view) in Catena Ioh. Drung. in Dan. 9:27 (1.3, 52 M A I ) . Ephraem interprets the abomination
as the Eagle (Roman standard) and the statue of Caesar that were placed in the temple
(Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 9:27, and identifies the covenant as that of the king messiah
(Christ) [V.222d-e A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ] ) .
3 7 8
S T E R N II, § 4641 (Dan 11:13-19 = parts of RINALDI § 263-265), 464p (Dan l l : 2 7 - 2 8 a
= RINALDI § 2 7 0 = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, 43s), 464q (Dan l l : 2 8 b - 3 0 = R I N A L D I § 271 =
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, 43t; most of which S T E R N omits) are texts that are not nominally
Porphyrian. R I N A L D I adds other fragments: § 258 on Dan 11:2 (JACOBY, FGrH II, 260 F. 40),
§ 259 on Dan 11:3-4 ( J A C O B Y , FGrH II, 260 F. 41), § 260 on Dan 11:5 (= JACOBY, FGrH II,
260 F. 42), § 261 on Dan 11:6-9 (= J A C O B Y , FGrH II, 260 F. 43), § 262 on Dan 11:10-12 (=
JACOBY, FGrH II, 2 6 0 F. 4 4 ) , § 263 on Dan 11:13-14 (= J A C O B Y , FGrH II, 260 F. 4 5 ) , § 264
on Dan 11:15-16 (= J A C O B Y , FGrH II, 260 F. 46), § 265 on Dan 11:17-19 (= J A C O B Y , FGrH
II, 2 6 0 F. 4 7 ) . R I N A L D I does not sufficiently clarify the fact that J A C O B Y includes the
nominal fragments from Porphyry in large type and sets the rest in small type (see J.'s
commentary in FGrH II, D , 877-78 where he remarks that the above fragments from Dan
11:1-20 are probably from Porphyry given Jerome's remark at Dan 11:21). He also notes that
in his F. 4 0 (Dan 11:2) Porphyry is "unrecognizable." Cp. Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (914,3-5 G.).
3 7 9
Jer., In Dan. 11:15-16, 28b-30a, 11:30b, 11:34-35, 11:36 ( 9 1 0 , 1 1 0 0 - 0 1 ; 9 1 9 , 1 2 4 - 2 5 ;
921,157; 923,219-20; 925,260 G.).
3 8 0
Jer. In Dan. 11.2 (898 app. crit. G.).
220 2. Porphyry
"And there shall stand up in his place one most vile and unworthy o f kingly honor, and in
381
a few days he shall be destroyed, not in rage nor in a b a t t l e . " The reference is to the
Seleucus surnamed Philopator, the s o n o f Antiochus the Great, w h o during his reign
performed n o deeds worthy o f Syria or o f his father, but perished ingloriously without
fighting a single battle. Porphyry, however, claims that it w a s not this Seleucus w h o is
referred to, but rather Ptolemy Epiphanes, w h o contrived a plot against Seleucus and
prepared an army to fight against him, with the result that he was poisoned by his o w n
generals (Porro Porphyrius hunc non uult esse Seleucum, sed Ptolomaeum Epiphanen qui
Seleuco sit molitus insidias et aduersum eum exercitum praeparit, et idcirco ueneno sit
3 2
interfectus a ducibus suis) * . They did this because when someone asked him where he
was going to get the financial resources for the great enterprises he w a s planning, he
answered that his financial resources consisted in his friends ... The Hebrews claim that it
is Trypho w h o was intended by the man w h o was most vile and unworthy o f kingly honor,
383
for as the boy-king's guardian he seized the throne for h i m s e l f .
L a t a i x n o t e s that J e r o m e i s correct a g a i n s t P o r p h y r y i n t h i s c a s e , since

S e l e u c u s I V t o o k A n t i o c h u s I l l ' s p l a c e and s i n c e P t o l e m y V E p i p h a n e s d i d
3 8 4
not . H o w e v e r , P t o l e m y V w a s murdered in 1 8 0 , p o s s i b l y b e c a u s e o f the
3 8 5
fear o f h i s e c o n o m i c d e m a n d s n e c e s s a r y for a w a r a g a i n s t S y r i a . The
"tribute c o l l e c t o r " m e n t i o n e d b y D a n i e l i s p r o b a b l y n o t T r y p h o as J e r o m e
c l a i m s i s t h e o p i n i o n o f the J e w s , but H e l i o d o r u s w h o murdered S e l e u c u s o n
3 8 6
Sept. 3 , 1 7 5 . T h e J e w i s h c o m m e n t a t o r s apparently m e a n t h e T r y p h o w h o
3 8 7
w a s the S e l e u c i d c o m m a n d e r that k i l l e d Jonathan M a c c a b e u s . M0rkholm
d e s c r i b e s H e l i o d o r u s ' short-lived s u b s e q u e n t career w h e n a v e r y y o u n g ( 4 - 5
years o l d ) s o n o f S e l e u c u s I V n a m e d A n t i o c h u s w a s p l a c e d o n the throne with
his mother Q u e e n Laodice as guardian. This child w a s k i l l e d b y an
3 8 1
L A T A I X , L e commentaire, 169 notes that the Vulgate i s quite different from the
Hebrew text. Hippolytus tied the events in Dan 11:15-20 to Antiochus IV and the mother of
Philometor and his brother "Ptolemy" (Euergetes II; In Dan. 4.45.1-2 [296,18-298,4 B . / R . ] ) .
3 8 2
A R C H E R , in his ET, assumes that Seleucus is the one poisoned in the text (Jerome's
Commentary, 129).
3 8 3
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 m = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 4 3 o = Jer., In Dan. 11:20 (913,1154-
1163 G.).
3 8 4
L A T A I X , Le commentaire, 169.
3 8 5
M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 66.
3 8 6
Cf. L A T A I X , Le commentaire, 169 with reference to 2 Mace 3 (Heliodorus), and 277
where he summarizes Jerome's references to Jewish interpretation in his commentary. S e e
also COLLINS, Daniel 381-82, and B R A V E R M A N , Jerome's Commentary, 113-14 w h o notes
that Jerome's reference to the Jewish identification o f the figure as Trypho cannot be
confirmed. The date is in M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 36.
3 8 7
Jos., Antiq. 13.209. 1 M a c c l 2 : 4 9 - 5 3 . Cf. H E N G E L , Judaism, I, 2 2 6 . Polychr. also
makes use o f Trypho in his exegesis o f Dan 11; see In Dan. 11:10, 25-30, (1.3, 2 1 , 2 3 , M A I ) .
Ephraem uses Trypho in his interpretation o f Dan 11 also: Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam
1 1 : 2 5 , 2 7 , 3 0 (V.229b-f A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
3 8 8
Andronicus, probably at the behest o f Antiochus I V . T h e R o m a n terms o f
p e a c e that w e r e i m p r e s s e d u p o n the S e l e u c i d s after the battle o f M a g n e s i a
( 1 9 0 ) w e r e hard, and H e l i o d o r u s had b e e n sent (in vain) b y S e l e u c u s to the
389
temple in Jerusalem to confiscate the t r e a s u r y . In any c a s e it is apparent
that J e r o m e d i s a g r e e d w i t h Porphyry o n the identification o f the ruler in
D a n i e l , and h e s h o w s e v i d e n c e o f h a v i n g d o n e s o m e o f h i s o w n historical
research.
22.1620 Dan 11:21: Antiochus or Antichrist?

J e r o m e ' s disagreements with Porphyry up until D a n 11:21 are minor. After
that point Porphyry s e e s A n t i o c h u s I V e v e r y w h e r e and J e r o m e s e e s the
Antichrist:
U p to this point the historical order has been followed, and there has been no point of
controversy between Porphyry and those of our side. But the rest of the text from here on
to the end of the book he interprets as applying to the person of the Antiochus w h o was
surnamed Epiphanes, the brother of Seleucus and the son of Antiochus the Great. He
reigned in Syria for eleven years after Seleucus, and he seized Judea, and it is under his
390
reign that the persecution of God's law is related, and also the wars of the M a c c a b e e s .
Jerome's response to Porphyry here is worth quoting since it sets up the terms
o f the subsequent debate:
But those of our persuasion believe all these things are spoken prophetically of the
Antichrist who is to arise in the end time. But this factor appears to them as a difficulty
for our view, namely the question as to why the prophetic discourse should abruptly cease
391
mention of these great kings and shift from Seleucus to the end of the w o r l d .
Jerome then appeals to a similar p h e n o m e n o n in D a n 11:2 w h e r e the writer

s k i p s f r o m four P e r s i a n k i n g s ( C a m b y s e s , S m e r d i s , D a r i u s , X e r x e s ) t o
3 9 2
A l e x a n d e r the Great ( D a n 11:3) and thereby omits nine Persian k i n g s . H e
is not c o m p l e t e l y c o n v i n c e d that Porphyry is w r o n g , h o w e v e r , and c o n c e d e s
this point:
3 8 8
M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 36-45 with reference to a gold coin of the boy and his
mother.
3 8 9
M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 22-28.
3 9 0
STERN II, § 464n = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43p = Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (914,3-10 G.).
3 9 1
Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (914,10-14 G.).
3 9 2
Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (914,14-19 G.) with reference to In Dan. 11:2b (898,832-899,852
G.). Hippolytus mentions Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, Xerxes and then the Darius w h o m
Alexander conquered (In Dan. 4.41.4-6 [290,7-15 B . / R . ] ) . M . LEFEVRE notes that Hippolytus
only mentions the Persian kings with the longest reigns. He knows of fourteen (if one counts
the king whom Cyrus succeeded) in his Chronicle (Hippolyte, Commentaire sur Daniel, texte
&abli et traduit par M . L E F E V R E , SC 14, Paris 1947, 347 n. a.). See Hippol., Chron. § 701-15
(GCS Hippolytus IV, 118-23 B A U E R - H E L M ) .
222 2. Porphyry
Those of our school insist also that since many of the details which w e are subsequently to
read and explain are appropriate to the person of Antiochus, he is to be regarded as a type
of the Antichrist (typum eum uolunt fuisse Antichristi), and those things which happened
to him in a preliminary way are to be completely fulfilled in the case o f the Antichrist.
W e hold that it is the habit of Holy Scripture to set forth by means of types the reality of
3 9 3
things to come . . .
By and large Jerome has c o n c e d e d Porphyry's c a s e that m u c h o f the

3 9 4
s u b s e q u e n t text o f D a n 11 refers t o A n t i o c h u s . H e i s u n w i l l i n g to g i v e up
the reference to the Antichrist h o w e v e r . In t h i s r e g a r d J e r o m e follows
Hippolytus. H i p p o l y t u s u n d e r s t o o d D a n 11 to c o n c e r n historical e v e n t s . At
395
1 1 : 3 6 h e m a k e s the j u m p to the A n t i c h r i s t . H e i s w i l l i n g , h o w e v e r , t o let
the "abomination o f the d e s o l a t i o n " refer to e v e n t s under A n t i o c h u s and under
396
the A n t i c h r i s t .
J e r o m e c o n t i n u e s w i t h a s u m m a r y o f P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s in w h i c h h e n o t e s
that h e w i l l lay out the c o m p e t i n g interpretations o f "the adversaries" and o f
"us" (quid aduersariis, quid nostris uideatur, breuiter annotemus):
They [the opponents] say that the one w h o was to "stand up in the place" of Seleucus was
his brother, Antiochus Epiphanes. The party in Syria w h o favored Ptolemy would not at
first grant him the kingly honor, but he later secured the rule of Syria by a pretence of
397
c l e m e n c y . And as Ptolemy fought and laid everything waste, his arms were overcome
and broken before the face o f Antiochus. N o w the word "arms" implies the idea of
strength, and therefore also the host of any army is known as a "hand." And not only does
the text say that he conquered Ptolemy by fraud, but also the prince of the covenant he
overcame by treachery, that is, Judas Maccabeus. Or else this is what is referred to, that
after he had secured peace with Ptolemy and he had become the prince of the covenant, he
afterwards devised a plot against him. N o w the Ptolemy meant here was not Epiphanes,
w h o w a s the fifth Ptolemy to reign in Egypt, but Ptolemy Philometor, the son of
3 9 3
Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (915,20-24 G.).
3 9 4
Polychronius sees the reference in 11:21 to be Ptolemy (VI) and Alexander (Balas), In
Dan. 11:21 (1.3, 2 3 M A I ) . Ephraem refers to Demetrius (II), Alexander (Balas), and Ptolemy
(VI); Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 11:21 (V.228e A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) . Cf. 1 Mace 11.
3 9 5
Hipp., In Dan. 4.48.2-49.1 (306,8-308,10 B./R.). Hippolytus makes an interesting
statement about time here that Porphyry could have made fine use of (4.48.1 [306,6-8 B./R.]):
After the prophet narrated things that had already happened and that were completed in his
own times, he announced another mystery for us and points to the last times ( Δ ι η γ η σ ά μ ε ν ο ς
οΰν ό π ρ ο φ ή τ η ς τ ά ήδη σ υ μ β ά ν τ α καΐ χ ρ ό ν ο ι ς ι δ ί ο ι ς τ ε λ ε σ θ έ ν τ α , έ τ ε ρ ο ν ήμΐν
μ υ σ τ ή ρ ι ο ν κ α τ α γ γ έ λ λ ε ι , έ σ χ α τ ω ν καιρών έ ν δ ε ι ξ ι ν π ο ι ο ύ μ ε ν ο ς ) . It would not be
difficult for Porphyry to then make the jump to a theory that the prophet lived during the
Maccabean era.
3 9 6
Hipp., In Dan. 4.53.1 (318,17-20 B./R.). There are t w o abominations for Hippolytus:
one of destruction applies to Antiochus, and the other of desolation applies to the Antichrist.
3 9 7
M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 47 remarks that Porphyry should say Coele-Syria (the old
Egyptian province) here. Josephus also mentions a pro-Egyptian party among the Jewish
enemies of Antiochus ( D e bello Jud. 1.32, cf. M 0 R K H O L M , 143).
Antiochus' sister Cleopatra; and s o Antiochus w a s his maternal uncle. A n d after

Cleopatra's death Egypt was ruled by Eulaeus, the eunuch w h o w a s Philometor's tutor,
3 9 8
and by L e n e u s , and they were attempting to regain Syria, which Antiochus had
fraudulently seized, when warfare broke out between the boy Ptolemy and his uncle. And
when they joined battle between Pelusium and Mount Casius, Ptolemy's generals were
399
d e f e a t e d . But then Antiochus showed leniency towards the boy, and making a pretence
of friendship, he went up to Memphis and there received the crown after the Egyptian
manner. Declaring that he was looking out for the lad's interests, he subjected all Egypt
to himself with only a small force of men, and entered into rich and prosperous cities.
And so he did things which his father had never done, nor his father's fathers. For none
of the kings of Syria had ever laid Egypt waste after this fashion and scattered all their
wealth. Moreover he was so shrewd that he even overcame by deceit the well-laid plans
of those w h o were the boy-king's generals. This is the line of interpretation which
Porphyry followed, pursuing the lead of Sutorius with much redundancy, discoursing of
400
matters which w e have summarized within a brief c o m p a s s .
J e r o m e r e s p o n d s that the d e e d s are t o b e performed b y the Antichrist at the

e n d o f the world. H e w i l l rise from the J e w i s h p e o p l e , w i l l destroy R o m e , and
4 0 1
w i l l rule the entire w o r l d for as l o n g as G o d ' s w i l l a l l o w s . H e d o e s not
argue w i t h P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s b y trying to s h o w that the e v e n t s m e n t i o n e d b y
Porphyry d o not fit the text. B a r n e s n o t e s that Porphyry probably g o t m o s t o f
402
h i s k n o w l e d g e o f H e l l e n i s t i c history from S u t o r i u s . Porphyry d o e s s e e m t o
h a v e m a d e a m i s t a k e w i t h regard t o A n t i o c h u s ' a s s u m p t i o n o f the E g y p t i a n
4 0 3
crown . N e v e r t h e l e s s f e w m o d e r n scholars q u e s t i o n P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s o n
4 0 4
D a n 1 1 : 2 1 - 3 9 , as V a g a n a y c l a i m s . It is important that J e r o m e r e c o g n i z e s
398 M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 67: Leneus was probably the secretary of finance. Cp. O.
M0RKHOLM, Eulaios and Lenaios, Class, et Med. 2 2 , 1 9 6 1 , 3 2 - 4 3 .
3 9 9
Cf. M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 73-74 for a discussion for Antiochus' first invasion of
Egypt.
4 0 0
STERN II, § 464n = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43q = Jer., In Dan. 11:21 (915,39-917,73
G.). S T E R N also includes bibliography on the historical situation in Syria at Antiochus'
succession.
4 0 1
Jer., In Dan. 11:21 ( 9 1 7 , 7 3 - 8 6 G.). Hippolytus refers the figure in Dan 11:21 to
Alexander who, he claims, was the son of Phillip, the friend of Antiochus IV w h o took over
his kingdom in 1 Mace 6:14-15. This Alexander was beheaded and received no glory (In
Dan. 4 . 4 7 . 2 , 1 0 [3023,11-12; 306,3-5 B./R.]). Cp. 1 Mace 11:17.
4 0 2
B A R N E S , Scholarship 57 / M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 8 2 and see the section above on
Porphyry's sources.
4 0 3
M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 80-83 argues that the Greek historians d o not mention
Antiochus' coronation in Egypt (with reference to Polybius 28.23.4 [BiTeu, Polybii Historiae
IV, 238,12-16, B U E T T N E R - W O B S T ] , Diod. Sic. 3 1 . 1 , and Livy 4 4 . 1 9 . 8 , 4 5 . 1 1 . 1 and 8).
Antiochus did apparently have some of his own coins struck in Egypt.
4 0 4
V A G A N A Y , Porphyre 2 5 8 1 . On 2583, V A G A N A Y catalogs some of Porphyry's errors.
See S H E A , Early Interpretation, 259.
224 2. Porphyry
the e x i s t e n c e o f others w h o h o l d P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s — b e they J e w i s h or

405
Christian interpreters .
2.2.16.21 Dan 11:25 and the Invasion of Egypt

Porphyry continues his interpretation o f D a n i e l ( 1 1 : 2 5 ) w i t h a description o f
A n t i o c h u s ' first invasion o f Egypt:
Porphyry interprets this as applying to Antiochus, who set forth with a great army on a
campaign against his sister's son. But the king of the South, that is the generals of
Ptolemy, will also be roused to war with many and very powerful auxiliary forces, but
they will not be able to stand against the fraudulent schemes of Antiochus. For he will
pretend to be at peace with his sister's son and will eat bread with him, and afterwards
406
will take possession of E g y p t .
Cleopatra I P s son, P t o l e m y Philometor VI, is the king in question. M o r k h o l m

writes that A n t i o c h u s a b u s e d the y o u t h ' s i n e x p e r i e n c e to further his o w n
intentions. T h e E g y p t i a n papyri o f 169 continue to u s e the regnal years o f
4 0 7
P h i l o m e t o r s o it is unlikely that A n t i o c h u s unseated his n e p h e w . Jerome
responds that "those o f our v i e w " interpret the text to m e a n that the Antichrist
w h o is to b e Jewish will c o m e from B a b y l o n and is g o i n g to defeat the king o f
m
E g y p t w h o is o n e o f the three horns o f D a n 7:S . A g a i n , Jerome d o e s not
q u e s t i o n P o r p h y r y ' s c o m m a n d o f historical d e t a i l s , but j u s t f o l l o w s the
m e t h o d h e o u t l i n e d at the b e g i n n i n g o f his c o m m e n t s o n 11:21 o f m e r e l y
409
setting side b y side the opposing s c h o o l s o f interpretation .
2.2.16.22 Dan 11:27-28a and Antiochus

A n t i o c h u s is finally driven out o f Egypt, according to Jerome and Porphyry,
w h o interpret D a n 11:27 as f o l l o w s :
There is no doubt but that Antiochus did conclude a peace with Ptolemy and ate at the
same table with him and devised plots against him, and yet without attaining any success
thereby, since he did not obtain his kingdom, but was driven out by Ptolemy's soldiers.
But it cannot be proved from this set of facts that the statement of this scripture was ever
fulfilled by past history, namely that there were two kings whose hearts were deceitful and
who inflicted evil upon each other. Actually, Ptolemy was a mere child of tender years
and was taken in by Antiochus' fraud; how then could he have plotted evil against him?
4 0 5
C A S E Y , Porphyry and the Origin, 21 emphasizes this point.
4 0 6
S T E R N II, § 464o = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 43r = Jer., In Dan. 11:25 (918,93-99 G . ) .
4 0 7
M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 80, 83.
4 0 8
Jer., In Dan. 11:25 (918,99-104 G . ) .
4 0 9
Polychr., In Dan. 11:25 (1.3, 23 M A I ) , takes the reference to be the war of Trypho and
Antiochus VI against Demetrius II (cf. 1 Mace 11:54-55). Ephraem mentions Trypho,
Demetrius and Antiochus; In Dan. prophetam 11:25 (V.229b A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
And so our party insists that all these things refer to the Antichrist and to the king of
410
Egypt... .
H e r e J e r o m e d o e s attempt t o u s e a detail in the text t o o b j e c t t o P o r p h y r y ' s

views. P o r p h y r y p r o b a b l y w o u l d h a v e i n s i s t e d that P h i l o m e t o r w a s old
e n o u g h t o plot. A s a matter o f fact after P h i l o m e t o r w a s left in M e m p h i s b y
A n t i o c h u s ( c a w i n t e r 1 6 9 / 6 8 ) , h e b e g a n w o r k i n g against A n t i o c h u s ' interests
411
and w a s r e c o n c i l e d w i t h h i s brother ( E u e r g e t e s ) . H i p p o l y t u s a p p l i e d the
4 1 2
texts to e v e n t s s u b s e q u e n t to the death o f A n t i o c h u s I V . Polychronius saw
the r e f e r e n c e o f D a n 1 1 : 2 7 t o b e T r y p h o ' s murder o f A n t i o c h u s V I and
4 1 3
T r y p h o ' s o w n death at the hands o f A n t i o c h u s (VII) s o n o f D e m e t r i u s ( I ) .
2.2.16.23 Dan 11:28b-30a: the Failure of Antiochus or the Antichrist?
After A n t i o c h u s ' s e c o n d invasion of Egypt he w a s repulsed, according to

Jerome o n D a n l l : 2 8 b - 3 0 a :
Both the Greek and Roman historians relate that after Antiochus had been expelled from
Egypt and had gone back once more, he came to Judea, that is, against the holy covenant,
and that he despoiled the Temple and removed a huge amount of gold; and then, having
414
stationed a Macedonian garrison in the citadel, he returned to his o w n l a n d . And then
two years later he gathered an army against Ptolemy and came to the South. And while he
was besieging his t w o nephews, the brothers of Ptolemy and sons of Cleopatra (duo
15
fratres Ptolomaei Cleopatrae filii)* at Alexandria, some Roman envoys arrived on the
scene, one of w h o m was Marcus Popilius Laenas. And when he had found Antiochus
standing on the shore and had conveyed the senatorial decree to him by which he was
4 1 0
S T E R N II, § 4 6 4 p = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 4 3 s = Jer., In Dan. l l : 2 7 - 2 8 a (918,109-
919,118 G.).
4 1 1
M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 88-89.
4 1 2
Hippolytus mentions the death of Antiochus and in a later text applies Dan 11:27 to
events that happened afterward (In Dan. 4.46.9; 4.47.6, 9 [300,19-21; 304,1-5; 304,19-20
B./R.]). He refers the text to the conflicts between Alexander Balas (1 Mace 11:15-18) and
Ptolemy VI.
4 1 3
Polychr., In Dan. 11:27 (1.3, 23 M A I ) . Cf. 1 Mace 13:31, 15:37-39, Jos. Antiq.
13.224. Ephraem referred the verse to Antiochus' (VI) conflict with Trypho; In Dan.
prophetam 11:27 (V.229d A S S E M . / A S S E M V B E N E D . ) .
4 1 4
1 Mace1:20-24. S e e E. BlCKERMANN, Der Gott der Makkabaer. Untersuchungen iiber
Sinn und Ursprung der makkabaischen Erhebung, Berlin 1937, 11. 2 Mace 5:11-21 places
the robbery after the second Egyptian campaign. Cp. COLLINS, Daniel, 384. Jos., C. A p . 2.84
gives a motive (need for money).
4 1 5
There is a confusion here somewhere, since Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy
Euergetes II (Physcon) were the sons of Cleopatra Syra, Antiochus' sister, and Ptolemy V
Epiphanes. Possibly Jerome means: "two brothers who were sons of Cleopatra and Ptolemy"
or "two brothers, Ptolemaeans, w h o were sons of Cleopatra." S e e the genealogy in C A H
VIII, Genealogical Table I. Jos., Antiq. 10.242 mentions Antiochus' contempt for the "sons
of Ptolemy" and in 10.235 he mentions the two sons of Ptolemy Epiphanes (V): Philometor
and Physcon ("the fat", Euergetes II).
226 2. Porphyry
ordered to withdraw from those w h o were friends of the Roman people and to content
himself with his o w n domain, then Antiochus delayed his reply in order to consult with
his friends. But Laenas is said to have made a circle in the sand with the staff which he
held in his hand, and to have drawn it around the king, saying, "The senate and people of
Rome give order for you to make answer in this very spot as to what your decision is." At
these words Antiochus was greatly alarmed and said, "If this is the good pleasure of the
senate and people of Rome, then I must withdraw." And so he immediately set his army
in motion. But he is said to have been dealt a heavy blow, not that he w a s killed but that
he lost all of his proud prestige. A s for the Antichrist, there is no question but that he is
going to fight against the holy covenant, and that when he first makes war against the king
of Egypt, h e shall straightway be frightened off by the assistance o f the Romans. But
these events were typically prefigured (in imaginem praecesserunt) under Antiochus
Epiphanes, s o that this abominable king w h o persecuted G o d ' s people foreshadows
(praefiguref) the Antichrist, w h o is to persecute the people o f Christ. And so there are
many o f our viewpoint w h o think that Domitius Nero was the Antichrist because of his
416
outstanding savagery and depravity .
J e r o m e ' s r e m a r k s at the e n d o f this q u o t e i n d i c a t e that m o s t o f it probably

c o m e s f r o m Porphyry. H e h a s m a d e it quite clear that P o r p h y r y interpreted
m u c h o f D a n i e l t o refer to the e v e n t s under A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s . Hippolytus
w a s a l s o w i l l i n g t o s e e A n t i o c h u s in D a n 11 a n d 8 , s o it i s l i k e l y that
4 1 7
Porphyry c o u l d h a v e m a d e s o m e u s e o f h i s w o r k . P o l y c h r o n i u s interpreted
1 1 : 2 8 - 2 9 t o refer t o T r y p h o ' s murder o f Jonathan and s u b s e q u e n t struggles
4 1 8
with S i m o n . J e r o m e ' s reference to G r e e k and R o m a n historians indicates
that h e p r o b a b l y h a d d o n e s o m e o f h i s o w n r e a d i n g , u n l e s s h e i s m e r e l y
quoting P o r p h y r y ' s texts without the references.
2.2.16.24 Antiochus Against Jerusalem and Dan 11:30b
W i t h r e g a r d t o D a n 1 1 : 3 0 b J e r o m e s h o w s that the s a m e d i s a g r e e m e n t i s
present there:
W e read of these matters at greater length in the exploits of the Maccabees [1 Mace 1:41-
4 1 9
64, 2 Mace 5 : 1 5 - 2 1 ] where w e learn that after the Romans expelled him from Egypt,
4 1 6
S T E R N II, § 464q = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 43t = Jer., In Dan. 1 l:28b-30a (919,124-
920,153 G.). S T E R N only includes part of this text. On the events see Polyb. 29.27.1-13 (IV,
268,5-270,7 B . - W . ) , Diod. Sic 31.2.1-2, Livy 4 5 . 1 2 , Jos., Antiq. 12.242-247, Justin 34.2.7
(from Pomp. Trogus), 1 Mace 1, 2 Mace 5. M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 9 4 gives many other
ancient sources for the famous story of the circle in the sand.
4 1 7
Hipp., In Dan. 4.26.6-8, 4 . 4 2 . 2 , 4.53.1 ( 2 5 4 , 1 8 - 2 5 7 , 1 7 ; 2 9 0 , 1 8 - 2 9 2 , 1 ; 3 1 8 , 1 7 - 2 0
B . / R . ) . H e quotes Dan 11:28 and 11:33 in context of the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus
(In Dan. 4.43.4 [294,21-296,3. B . / R . ] ) . See the discussion above in § 2.2.16.3, 13.
4 1 8
Polychr., In Dan. 11:28-29 (1.3, 23 M A I ) . Cf. 1 Mace 13:23, 34. Ephraem mentions
Antiochus (VII) son o f Demetrius, Jonathan and Simon (the Maccabees); In Dan. prophetam
11:28-29 (V.229e A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
4 1 9
2 Mace 5:15-21 may have confused the temple robbery (after the first invasion of
Egypt in 169) with a later incident (the coup of Jason). COLLINS, Daniel, 384.
he came in anger against the covenant of the sanctuary and w a s invited (inuitatus) by
those who had forsaken the law of God and taken part in the religious rites of the Gentiles.
But this is to be more amply fulfilled under the Antichrist (Quod plenius complendum),
for he shall become angered at the covenant of God and devise plans against those whom
4 2 0
he wishes to forsake the law of G o d .
A g a i n it is r e a s o n a b l y clear w h e r e Porphyry stops and J e r o m e b e g i n s . O n e o f

the interesting facts h e r e is that Porphyry s e e m s to b e a w a r e o f the b o o k s o f
4 2 1
the M a c c a b e e s . T h o u g h J e r o m e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n that s o u r c e i n h i s
p r o l o g u e as o n e u s e d b y P o r p h y r y , it s e e m s l i k e l y that Porphyry a l s o u s e d
t h e s e texts. P o r p h y r y p r e s e n t s the interesting theory that the p e r s e c u t i o n o f
A n t i o c h u s m a y h a v e b e e n at least in part the result o f s o m e H e l l e n i z e d J e w s .
4 2 2
T h e c a u s e s o f A n t i o c h u s ' p e r s e c u t i o n are still d e b a t e d . J e r o m e d o e s not
c o m p l e t e l y reject P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s , but s u p p l e m e n t s t h e m w i t h a "fuller"
interpretation that refers to the Antichrist.
2.2.1625 Dan 11:31 and the Abomination of the Desolation
Porphyry continues his account o f Antiochus' exploits. W i t h regard t o

"arms" in D a n 11:31 J e r o m e writes:
But those of the other viewpoint claim that the persons mentioned are those w h o were sent
by Antiochus two years after he had plundered the Temple in order to exact tribute from
the Jews, and also to eliminate the worship o f God, setting up an image o f Jupiter
Olympius in the Temple at Jerusalem, and also statues of Antiochus himself. These are
described as the "abomination of the desolation," having been set up when the burnt
4 2 3
offering and continual sacrifice were taken away But w e on our side contend that all
these things took place in a preliminary way as a mere type of the Antichrist, w h o is
4 2 0
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 43t = Jer., In Dan. l l : 2 8 b - 3 0 a (921,157-63 G.). STERN
omits this text.
4 2 1
P o l y c h r . , In D a n . 11:30 (1.3, 2 3 M A I ) refers the text to t w o events: Trypho's
destruction at the hands o f Antiochus VII and his army (the Kittim); and Antiochus IV, his
return to Palestine after his defeat of the Egyptians, and his appointment o f Jason as high
priest (the last part o f the verse that refers to those w h o abandoned the holy covenant).
Apollinarius believes the text's comment, "he will be angry against the covenant" cannot
refer to Antiochus since he never forsook the covenant and was always against it. H e thinks
the reference is the Antichrist (Catena Ioh. Drung. in Dan. 11:30 [1.3, 55 M A I ] ) .
4 2 2
C O L L I N S , Daniel, 62-65. Jos., Antiq. 12.384 blames Menelaus the Hellenized high
priest as "the cause o f all the mischief." BlCKERMANN, Der Gott, 75 also refers to Antiq.
12.240 for a similar remark about Menelaus.
4 2 3
The expression is equivalent to baal shamem (lord of heaven) according to COLLINS,
Daniel, 3 5 7 . This in turn is equivalent to Zeus (Philo Byblos in Eus., Praep. Ev. 1.10.7
[40,12-13, ATTRIDGE/ODEN]). Philo also describes betyls (sacred stones endowed with life)
in 1.10.23 (52,5 A T . / . O D . ) .
228 2. Porphyry
destined to seat himself in the Temple of God [2 Thess 2:3-4], and make himself out to be
4 2 4
as God
Jerome a l s o m e n t i o n s "Jews" w h o interpret the text to refer to the R o m a n s

( 1 1 : 3 0 ) w h o w i l l h u m b l e A n t i o c h u s , and in 11:31 the individual is V e s p a s i a n
425
and his s o n Titus w h o will defile the t e m p l e . T h e s e J e w i s h interpreters
reject both the Christian (Antichrist) and Porphyrian interpretations. Ephraem
4 2 6
referred the e v e n t s o f D a n 11:31 to the M a c c a b e a n e r a . Stern notes that
Porphyry is the only writer to mention statues of h i m s e l f that A n t i o c h u s put in
427
the T e m p l e , but accepts the account as based o n a probable s o u r c e . H e n g e l
is u n w i l l i n g to accept the report o f a statue o f Z e u s O l y m p i u s , but b e l i e v e s
428
that Porphyry is correct about a statue o f A n t i o c h u s in the t e m p l e . H e n g e l
is probably correct that the "abomination o f the desolation" is a reference to
429
the stone set up o n the original a l t a r . T h e cult w a s directed towards the
n e w altar, (and not statues), but that in itself d o e s not s h o w that Porphyry's
430
account o f statues in the T e m p l e is i n c o r r e c t . T h e y w e r e , if they existed,
dedicatory offerings o f s o m e sort. A n t i o c h u s l o v e d statues o f the g o d s as h e
s h o w e d in h i s magnificent u s e o f t h e m in the festival h e created at D a p h n e
4 3 1
near A n t i o c h . T h e tradition about the statues i s inherently doubtful,
432
h o w e v e r , g i v e n its late p r o v e n a n c e .
4 2 4
STERN II, § 464r = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 u = Jer., In Dan. 11:31 (921,170-
922,178 G.). See also COOK, Interpretation, 145-146 and § 2.2.16.17 above for Porphyry's
attack on Matt 24:15.
4 2 5
Jer., In Dan. 11:31 (922,178-88 G.). B R A V E R M A N (Jerome's Commentary, 115-18)
notes that this interpretation of Dan 11:30-31 cannot be found in extant rabbinic literature,
4 2 6
Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 11:31 (V.230b A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
4 2 7
S T E R N II, § 464r (p. 470). M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 147 accepts the report by
Porphyry.
4 2 8
H E N G E L , Judaism, I, 294-5, II, 196. Cp. B I C K E R M A N N , Der Gott, 102, 105 n.l who
believes that there were statues of Zeus and Antiochus in the temple, but that the cult was
directed towards the imageless altar. The king's birthday was celebrated monthly (2 Mace
6:2-7).
4 2 9
HENGEL, Judaism, 1,295.
4 3 0
Jos., Antiq 12.253 mentions the altar as does 1 Mace 1:59. Images in Israel are
mentioned in 1 Mace 1:47, 5:68. The Megillat Ta'anit scroll (possibly a first century text in
part) mentions images being removed on the third of Kislev and the Feast of Dedication on
the twenty-fifth of the same month (§ 159.9, J. A. FlTZMEYER/D. J. HARRINGTON, A Manual
of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, BibOrient 34, Rome 1978, 187). Another somewhat cryptic
reference is in m. Taanit 4.6.
4 3 1
P o l y b i u s 3 0 . 2 5 . 1 3 (IV, 3 0 2 , 1 2 - 1 7 B.-W.; statues of g o d s , d e m o n s , and heroes
accompanied by representations of the myths related to them).
4 3 2
Cf. C O L L I N S , Daniel 358.
22.16.26 Dan 11:32 and the Renegades

Jerome (and probably Porphyry) w i t h regard to D a n 1 1 : 3 2 m e n t i o n e d the
existence o f the H e l l e n i z e d J e w s w h o sided with Antiochus:
And in Maccabees w e read that there were some who, to be sure, pretended that they were
custodians of God's law, and later they came to terms with the Gentiles; yet the others
adhered to their religion. But in my opinion this will take place in the time o f the
4 3 3
Antichrist, when the love of many shall wax cold [Matt 2 4 : 1 2 ] .
Jerome also refers to L u k e 18:8 in support o f his position. It is not difficult to

separate P o r p h y r y ' s p o s i t i o n (and t h o s e w h o f o l l o w h i m ) f r o m that o f
434
J e r o m e . O n e c a n w o n d e r , h o w e v e r , if Jerome has not b e c a m e c o n v i n c e d
b y P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s t o the p o i n t that h e g e n e r a t e d s o m e o f t h e s e
4 3 5
interpretations o n his o w n . H i s reference to the M a c c a b e e s is v a g u e . As
in the c o m m e n t a b o v e o n 1 1 : 3 0 b , Porphyry s e e m s inclined to the v i e w that
A n t i o c h u s ' program m a y h a v e b e e n the result o f s o m e H e l l e n i z e d J e w s w h o
preferred to work w i t h Antiochus.
22.1627 Dan 11:33 and the Sufferings of the Jews

With regard to D a n 11:33 Jerome and Porphyry discuss the terrible sufferings
o f the J e w s at the hand o f Antiochus:
The books of Maccabees [2 Mace 6:18-7:42] relate the great sufferings the Jews endured
at the hands of Antiochus, and they stand as a testimony of their triumph; for they endured
fire and sword, slavery and rapine, and even the ultimate penalty of death itself for the
sake of guarding the law of God. But let no one doubt that these things are going to
436
happen under the A n t i c h r i s t . .
Hippolytus, P o l y c h r o n i u s , and Ephraem also applied the e v e n t s o f D a n 11:33

4 3 7
to the time o f A n t i o c h u s and the M a c c a b e a n struggle against h i m . Jerome
continues with the note that the H e b r e w s refer these things to the destruction
438
o f the T e m p l e under V e s p a s i a n and T i t u s . Porphyry admired the J e w s '
4 3 3
H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 43u = Jer., In Dan. 11:32 (922,191-95 G.).
434 Polychr., In Dan. 11:32 (1.3, 24 M A I ) , understood the reference of those loyal to God
to be the Maccabees. Ephraem mentions the time of Antiochus IV in his interpretation of the
text; In Dan. prophetam 11:32 (V.230b A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
4 3 5
Glorie (922 app. crit.) is unsure of the passage Jerome is referring to. See, however, 1
Mace 1:11-15 and 2 Mace 4-5 with its stories of the Hellenized high priests Jason and
Menelaus. Cp. COLLINS, Daniel, 384.
4 3 6
H A R N A C K , ΡοφΙινίΊ^, F. 43u = Jer., In Dan. 11:33 (923,200-204 G.)
4 3 7
Hippolytus, In Dan. 4.43.4 (296,2-3 B . / R . ) . Polychr., In Dan. 11:33 (1.3, 2 4 M A I ) .
Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 11:33 (V.230b-c A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ) .
4 3 8
Jer., In Dan. 11:33 (923,205-08 G.).
230 2. Porphyry
abstention f r o m pork in his treatise On Abstinence w h e r e h e m e n t i o n s the

4 3 9
suffering o f the J e w s under A n t i o c h u s I V .
2.2.16.28 The Maccabees and Dan 11:34-35

In his c o m m e n t o n D a n 1 1 : 3 4 - 3 5 Porphyry s h o w s a k n o w l e d g e o f the family
of the M a c c a b e e s , as w o u l d b e natural from a careful study o f those texts:
Porphyry thinks that the "little help" was Mattathias of the village of Modin, for he
rebelled against the generals of Antiochus and attempted to preserve the worship of the
true God. He says he is called "a little help" because Mattathias was slain in battle; and
later on his son Judas, who was called Maccabeus, also fell in the struggle; and the rest of
his brothers were likewise taken in by the deceit of their adversaries. Consult the books of
440
Maccabees for the d e t a i l s . And all these events took place, he asserts, for the purpose
of testing and choosing out the saints, that they might be made white until the time
appointed, inasmuch as victory was deferred until another time. Our writers (nostri),
however, would have it understood that the small help shall arise under the reign of the
4 4 1
Antichrist , . .
Jerome a l s o includes the v i e w s o f s o m e o f the H e b r e w s w h o apply these texts

4 4 2
to e v e n t s under S e v e r u s and A n t o n i n u s w h o e s t e e m e d the J e w s . Other
J e w i s h interpreters think the reference is to Julian w h o l o v e d ("pretended"
443
according to Jerome) the J e w s and p r o m i s e d to sacrifice in their t e m p l e . It
is clear w h e r e (i.e. at "our writers") the v i e w s o f Porphyry d i v e r g e from those
of Jerome. In this text it is nearly certain that Porphyry h a s perused the texts
of the M a c c a b e e s and Josephus, s i n c e his other sources s u c h as P o l y b i u s and
D i o d o r u s w o u l d h a v e offered h i m little h e l p w i t h the details o f the f a m i l y
444
history o f the Judas and his b r o t h e r s . H e m a y h a v e n o t read c l o s e l y
445
e n o u g h in this c a s e b e c a u s e 1 M a c e 2:70 has Mattathias die a natural d e a t h .
Hippolytus a l s o b e l i e v e d that the reference to the "little h e l p " w a s Mattathias
4 4 6
and J u d a s . P o l y c h r o n i u s a l s o s a w allusions to Mattathias, Judas and his
4 3 9
D e abst. 4.11.1 (ΠΙ, 17 P./S./B. = STERN II, § 455). Cf. RlNALDl, Giudei, 126.
4 4 0
1 Mace 2:1-70,9:17-18,12:24-13:53, Jos. Antiq. 12.265-13.230.
4 4 1
S T E R N II, § 464r = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F . 43u = Jer., In Dan. 11:34-35 (923,213-
924,224 G.).
^ B R A V E R M A N (Jerome's Commentary, 120-23) notes that this interpretation does not
exist in extant rabbinic sources. He identifies the emperor as Alexander Severus (ca 222-35)
w h o was sympathetic to the Jews, but notes that the identification of Antoninus is far more
difficult.
4 4 3
Jer., In Dan. 11:34-35 (924,227-231 G.)
4 4 4
The surviving fragments of Polybius do not discuss the Maccabees.
4 4 5
S T E R N II, 4 7 0 (note to § 464r).
4 4 6
Hippolytus, In Dan. 4.44.3-4 (296,13-17 B./R.)
defeat o f A p o l l o n i u s , and the martyrdom o f Eleazar and the s e v e n brothers in

4 4 7
l l ^ ^ .
2.2.16.29 Dan 11:36: Antiochus or Antichrist in the Temple?
J e r o m e n o t e s that s o m e H e b r e w interpreters b e l i e v e that D a n 1 1 : 3 6 refers t o

an Antichrist w h o w i l l arise after Julian and w h o w i l l sit in the T e m p l e o f
4 4 8
God . J e r o m e a g r e e s that it refers to s o m e kind o f Antichrist. Porphyry has
a different v i e w :
But Porphyry and the others w h o follow his lead (ceteri qui sequuntur eum) suppose the
reference to be to Antiochus Epiphanes, pointing out that he did raise himself up against
the worship of God, and pushed his arrogance so far as to command his o w n statue to be
set up in the Temple o f Jerusalem. And as for the subsequent statement, "And he shall
manage successfully until the wrath be accomplished, for the consummation shall be in
him," they understand it to mean that his power will endure until such time as G o d
becomes angry at him and orders him to be killed. For indeed Polybius and Diodorus,
who composed the histories of the Bibliothecae, relate that Antiochus not only took
measures against the God of Judea, but also was impelled by an all-consuming avarice to
449
attempt the plunder of the temple of Diana in Elymais, because it was so w e a l t h y . But
he was so beset by the temple guard and the neighboring populace, and also by certain
fearful apparitions that he became demented and finally died of illness. And the historians
record that this befell him because he had attempted to plunder the temple of Diana. But
we for our part maintain that even though this thing befell him, it did so because he had
450
perpetrated great cruelty upon the saints of God and had defiled his T e m p l e .
P o l y c h r o n i u s and E p h r a e m r e s e m b l e t h o s e w h o " f o l l o w " Porphyry b e c a u s e

they a l s o s e e the r e f e r e n c e in 11:36 to b e A n t i o c h u s ' attack o n the t e m p l e in
4 4 7
Polychr., In Dan. 11:34-35 (1.3, 2 4 M A I ) . Cp. 1 Mace 3:1-11, 2 Mace 6:18-7:42.
Ephraem also refers the events to the Maccabean era; In Dan. prophetam 11:34-35 (V.230c-d
ASSEMVASSEM./BENED.).
4 4 8
B R A V E R M A N (Jerome's Commentary, 124-25) remarks that there are n o extant
rabbinic sources which identify the figure in this text with the Antichrist. "Belial" and
"Armillus" are rabbinic names for the opponent of the Messiah. Hippolytus interprets Dan
11:36-39 to refer to the Antichrist; In Dan. 4.48.2,4.49.1 (306,9-17; 308,5-10 B./R.).
4 4 9
Cf. Polybius 31.9.1-4 (IV, 323,20-324,8 B.-W.), Jos. Antiq. 12.354-358. Antiochus III
died in 187 trying to rob the temple of Bel in Elymais, and Seleucus IV tried to rob the temple
in Jerusalem (Diod Sic. 28.3.1, 29.15.1, 2 Mace 3). Cp. M 0 R K H O L M , Antiochus IV, 31 w h o
discusses the temple o f Nanaia (Artemis or Aphrodite) in Elymais (Ibid., 170). On
Antiochus' death see M. H O L L E A U X , Etudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, T o m e III
Lagides et Seleucides, Paris 1 9 4 2 , 255-79. H O L L E A U X comments on the agreement of
Porphyry and Polybius (Ibid., 265) and remarks that Polybius does not speak of an attack on
the temple. H e attributes to Jerome the remarks on Antiochus' fearful death (that are not
found in Polybius) and carefully distinguishes the similar reports about Antiochus III and
Antiochus IV.
4 5 0
S T E R N II, § 464r = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 4 3 u = Jer., In Dan. 11:36 (925,246-
926,270 G.).
232 2. Porphyry
451
J e r u s a l e m . P o l y b i u s i m p l i e s that A n t i o c h u s withdrew from the temple o f
4 5 2
D i a n a b e f o r e any fighting actually took p l a c e . M 0 r k h o l m notes that the
s a m e fierce mountaineers killed his father twenty-three years earlier. T h e son
4 5 3
died late in 1 6 4 . Porphyry s e e m s to h a v e n o p r o b l e m with the theory that
s o m e kind o f d i v i n e v e n g e a n c e struck him. Polybius m e n t i o n s as the opinion
o f "certain i n d i v i d u a l s " the theory o f d i v i n e retribution i n the c a s e o f
454
A n t i o c h u s ' d e a t h . T h e narratives in the b o o k s o f the M a c c a b e e s about his
455
death are c o l o r f u l . T h e y are part o f the literary g e n r e (the deaths o f
4 5 6
persecutors) that Lactantius continued w i t h such z e s t . J e r o m e ' s c o m m e n t
about the ultimate reason for his death is comparable to that o f Josephus w h o
thinks that A n t i o c h u s lost his life not b e c a u s e he w a n t e d to rob the temple o f
457
Artemis, but b e c a u s e h e actually did rob the temple in J e r u s a l e m .
22.16.30 Dan 11:37-39: The Desire of Women and the God ofMaozim
Jerome and Porphyry h a v e s o m e difficulties w i t h s e v e r a l phrases in D a n
1 1 : 3 7 - 3 9 i n c l u d i n g the "desire o f w o m e n " in 1 1 : 3 7 and the " g o d o f
fortresses" (Deum Maozim) in D a n 11:38. Jerome's translation o f D a n 11:37
in the v e r s i o n o f Aquila reads: "And concerning the g o d o f his fathers h e will
not understand, and concerning the desire o f w o m e n and concerning any g o d
he will not understand." T h e question is h o w to interpret the s e c o n d clause:
If w e read and interpret in common ["understand" in the first t w o clauses of 11:37] "And
concerning the desire of women he will not understand"— then it is more easily applied to
the Antichrist; i.e., that he will assume a pretense of chastity in order to deceive many.
But if w e read it in this fashion: "And occupied with lust for women," understanding
"...he shall be," then it is more appropriate to the character of Antiochus. For he is said to
have been an egregious voluptuary, and to have become such a disgrace to the dignity of
kingship through his lewdness and seductions, that he publicly had intercourse with
actresses and harlots, and satisfied his sexual passions in the presence of the people. A s
4 5 8
for the g o d M a o z i m , Porphyry has offered an absurd explanation, asserting that
Antiochus' generals set up a statue of Jupiter in the village of Modin, from which came
Mattathias and his sons; moreover they compelled the Jews to offer blood-sacrifices to it,
4 5 1
P o l y c h r . , In Dan. 11:36 (1.3, 2 4 M A I ) . In Dan. prophetam 11:36 ( V . 2 3 0 d
ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.).
4 5 2
Polybius 31.9.1-4 (IV, 323,20-324,8 B.-W.). Cp. M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 170.
Only Appian, Syr. 6 6 . 3 5 2 (BiTeu, 4 1 5 , 1 3 - 4 VlERECK/Roos) says Antiochus actually
succeeded in robbing the temple.
4 5 3
M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 171.
4 5 4
Polybius 31.9.4 (IV, 324,5-8 B.-W.). Cp. Jos. Antiq. 12.358-59 w h o blames the death
on Antiochus' actions in Jerusalem. M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 171.
4 5 5
1 Mace 6 : 1 - 1 7 , 2 Mace 1:13-17,9:1-29 (divergent accounts).
4 5 6
Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, ed. and trans. J. L. CREED, OECT, Oxford 1984.
4 5 7
Jos., Antiq. 12.359.
4 5 8
Hippolytus also takes "Maozim" as a proper noun; In Dan. 4.48.2 (306,14 B./R.).
that is to the god of Modin ... Symmachus renders it "refuges" instead of "garrisons."
Porphyry explains this as meaning that the man is going to fortify the citadel in Jerusalem
and will station garrisons in the rest of the cities, and will instruct the Jews to worship a
459
strange god, which doubtless means J u p i t e r . And displaying him to them, he will
persuade them that they should worship him. Then he will bestow upon the deluded both
honor and very great glory, and he shall make them rule over the rest in Judea, and
4 6 0
apportion estates unto them in return for their falsehood, and shall distribute g i f t s .
Polychronius and E p h r a e m agree with the Porphyrians and apply 1 1 : 3 7 - 3 8 to

461
A n t i o c h u s . T h e o d o r e t c o n c e d e s that 11:37 applies in part to A n t i o c h u s
w h o is the i m a g e and t y p e o f the Antichrist, w h o is the "archetype." T h i s is
the c a s e in T h e o d o r e t ' s v i e w b e c a u s e A n t i o c h u s w o r s h i p p e d the g o d s o f his
4 6 2
a n c e s t o r s , u n l i k e t h e A n t i c h r i s t figure pictured in t h e t e x t . Jerome
interprets the last t e x t (about fortresses) to a l s o a p p l y t o the Antichrist.
Whether A n t i o c h u s w a s a voluptuary is difficult to say, particularly s i n c e it is
not clear if J e r o m e is referring to Porphyry's v i e w s or his o w n in the a b o v e
text. J a c o b y b e l i e v e s that the remarks describe A n t i o c h u s ' character, but
n o t e s that the r e f e r e n c e to actors and harlots g o e s b e y o n d the historical
4 6 3
e v i d e n c e that P o l y b i u s p r o v i d e s . M o d e r n interpreters u n d e r s t a n d the
4 6 4
"desire o f w o m e n " to b e a reference to a g o d s u c h as T a m m u z - A d o n i s .
A n o t h e r r e f e r e n c e to the g o d o f fortresses in J e r o m e m a k e s P o r p h y r y ' s
o p i n i o n clearer. J e r o m e remarks: "That w e noted in order that w e s h o u l d
understand w h a t w e read in the final v i s i o n o f D a n i e l , n a m e l y that g o d
M a o z i m , not the g o d o f the v i l l a g e M o d i m , as Porphyry dreams, but a strong
4 6 5
and brave g o d . " T h o u g h Jerome translates the phrase as a proper n a m e , h e
is aware o f its root m e a n i n g in H e b r e w ("strong"), but s e e m s unaware that it
4 5 9
L i v y mentions Antiochus' installation of a statue of Jupiter at Antioch ( 4 1 . 2 0 , see
COLLINS, Daniel, 387).
4 6 0
STERN II, § 464r = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 43u = Jer., In Dan. 11:37-39 (927,290-
307; 928,317-25 G.).
4 6 1
Polychr., In Dan. 11:37-38 (1.3, 24 M A I ) . Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 11:37-38
(V.230d-f ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.). Ephraem uses 2 Mace 9:8.
4 6 2
Theodoret, In Dan. 11:36 (PG 8 1 , 1 5 2 8 ) .
4 6 3
JACOBY, FGrH II D , 883 (commentary to F. 54 = F 43u HARNACK) with reference to
Polybius 30.25.1-26.9 (IV, 300,18-306,10 B.-W.). See in particular Antiochus' naked dance
with the mimes at the festival in Daphne (Polybius 30.26.7-8 (IV, 305,9-25 B.-W.), Diod. Sic.
31.16.2-3), m 0 r k h o l m , Antiochus IV, 182. Being a man who liked his bath, Antiochus once
poured a huge jar of the precious ointment stacte on the head of a man jealous of the king's
fine smell (Polybius 26.1.13-14 [IV, 184,15-24 B.-W.]).
4 6 4
COLLINS, Daniel, 387. Theodoret (In Dan. 11:37 [PG 8 1 , 1528]) used 2 Mace 4:30
(Antiochus' concubine) to argue that the text's reference is not to Antiochus but to a person
who has no desire for women.
4 6 5
STERN II, § 4 6 4 v = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 43x = Jer., In Esaiam 30:1-5 (CChr.SL
7 3 , 3 8 3 , 7 1 - 7 4 ADRIAEN).
234 2. Porphyry
4 6 6
c a n m e a n a "fortress" as in D a n 11:7 and other t e x t s . Porphyry is clearly
not at h o m e in H e b r e w . H e is aware o f the incident in M o d i n , h o w e v e r , s o h e
m u s t h a v e read h i s M a c c a b e e s or J o s e p h u s and m a y h a v e o t h e r s o u r c e s to
4 6 7
supplement t h o s e . Porphyry s e e m s to i g n o r e D a n i e l ' s s t a t e m e n t that the
g o d w a s u n k n o w n t o the k i n g ' s o w n ancestors. Instead Porphyry interprets it
4 6 8
t o m e a n a g o d that the J e w s d i d n o t k n o w . Porphyry k n o w s of the
4 6 9
e x i s t e n c e o f the A k r a w h i c h the M a c c a b e a n J e w s f o u n d intolerable. The
n e w c i t y w h i c h M 0 r k h o l m c a l l s " A n t i o c h i a in J e r u s a l e m , " b e c a m e a f o r e i g n
country to others outside of the city, and some of the orthodox left
470
altogether .
2.2.16.31 Dan 11:40-4la and an Alleged Late Invasion of Egypt by

Antiochus
A t this p o i n t Porphyry l e a v e s h i s s o b e r historical w o r k b e h i n d , and s e e m s to

m o v e o f f i n t o a s p e c u l a t i v e interpretation o f the v e r s e s in 1 1 : 4 0 - 4 5 . It i s
nearly certain that h e created a n u m b e r o f e v e n t s out o f the v e r s e s in D a n i e l .
W i t h regard t o 1 1 : 4 0 - 4 l a Jerome writes:
This too is referred by Porphyry to Antiochus, on the ground that in the eleventh year of
4 7 1
his r e i g n he warred for a second time against his nephew, Ptolemy Philometor. For
when the latter heard that Antiochus had come, he gathered many thousands of soldiery.
But Antiochus invaded many lands like a mighty tempest, with his chariots and horsemen
4 6 6
The Vulgate does not use "fortress" to translate the word which appears in the singular
in Dan 1 1 : 7 , 1 0 , 1 9 , and 3 1 . Polychr., In Dan. 1 1 : 3 8 ( 1 . 3 , 2 4 M A I ) , argues that the expression
means "strong" and s o indicates some knowledge of Hebrew.
4 6 7
1 Mace 2 : 1 - 2 6 , Jos., Antiq. 1 2 . 2 6 8 . Mattathias burns an altar (no mention is made o f a
statue). STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 3 2 believes that Porphyry altered M a o z i m
(Μαωζείμ ζ = σ δ ) to Modim (Μωδείμ(ν)) based on sound and o n context — one o f his
frequent exegetical techniques.
4 6 8
COLLINS, Interpretation, 3 8 8 points out that neither Zeus Olympius or Baal Shamem
would have been unknown to the Seleucids.
4 6 9
1 Mace 1 : 3 2 (establishment in 1 6 7 ) and 1 Mace 1 3 : 4 9 - 5 3 (fall under Simon in 1 4 1 ) .
See HENGEL, Judaism, I, 2 9 1 / BICKERMANN, Der Gott, 7 1 - 8 0 . HENGEL identifies the god o f
strongholds as "Zeus Akraios, the Zeus o f the summit o f the mountain o f the Acra" I, 2 8 4 ,
and II, 1 8 8 n . l 6 9 (the inscription to Zeus Akraios from Scythopolis). COLLINS, Daniel, 3 8 7
points out that Antiochus is only reputed to have established worship o f Zeus Olympius in
Jerusalem ( 2 Mace 6 : 2 — the temple is renamed in his honor).
4 7 0
M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 1 4 5 with reference to 1 Mace 1 : 3 8 - 4 0 . S e e COLLINS,
Daniel, 3 8 8 and in particular B. BAR-KOCHVA, Judas Maccabaeus. The Jewish Struggle
against the Seleucids, Cambridge 1 9 8 9 , 4 3 8 - 4 4 w h o rejects the idea o f a Syrian colony in
Jerusalem and believes the land was sold to the Hellenized Jews.
4 7 1
That is, from the late fall of 1 6 4 ; M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 4 2 - 4 3 (accession), 1 6 1
(on the date o f his death). The cuneiform text dates his accession to the period immediately
before Sept. 2 2 , 1 7 5 — probably a bit too soon given the distances he had to travel from
Athens to Syria.
and large navy, and laid everything waste as he passed through. A n d he came to the
glorious land, that is Judea ... A n d Antiochus used the ruins o f the walls o f the city to
fortify the citadel and thus he continued on his way to Egypt. But those o f our viewpoint
(nostri) refer these details also to the Antichrist, asserting that he shall first fight against
472
the king of the South, or Egypt, and shall afterwards conquer Libya and E t h i o p i a .
T h e three c o u n t r i e s are the three b r o k e n h o r n s o f D a n 7:8 in Jerome's

interpretation. A t this t i m e there is n o e v i d e n c e (other than P o r p h y r y ) that
t h e s e e v e n t s t o o k p l a c e d u r i n g the l i f e o f A n t i o c h u s . P o r p h y r y ( a n d later
4 7 3
Polychronius) probably u s e d D a n i e l to create t h e m . Porphyry's own
m e t h o d trapped h i m here. H e w a s w i l l i n g to s e e o n l y a f e w texts in D a n i e l as
e s c h a t o l o g i c a l ( e . g . D a n 2 : 3 5 w i t h its r o c k ) , and probably felt n o r e a s o n here
t o g u e s s that the author had j u m p e d f r o m history to the e s c h a t o n .
2.2.1632 Dan 11:41b and a Reprieve for Three Nations
Porphyry a l s o referred D a n 1 1 : 4 1 b to conjectural e v e n t s i n the c a m p a i g n o f

A n t i o c h u s against E g y p t :
They say that in his haste to fight Ptolemy, the king of the south, Antiochus left untouched
the Idumaeans, Moabites, and Ammonites, w h o dwelt to the side of Judea, lest he should
make Ptolemy the stronger by engaging in some other campaign. The Antichrist is going
to leave Idumaea, Moab, and the children o f A m m o n (i.e., Arabia) untouched, for the
4 7 4
saints are to flee thither to the deserts
A g a i n t h e G r e e k a n d J e w i s h h i s t o r i a n s h a v e left n o trace o f s u c h e v e n t s .
Porphyry is s p i n n i n g a w e b . J e r o m e h a s n o trouble g i v i n g an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l
4 7 5
interpretation o f the t e x t .
4 7 2
STERN II, § 464r = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 43u = Jer., In Dan. l l : 4 0 - 4 1 a (929,336-
350; G.).
4 7 3
LATAIX, Le commentaire, 171 / M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 1 9 , 1 2 3 - 2 4 / FRASSINETTI,
Porfirio, 204. JACOBY (FGrH II D , 8 8 3 ) argues that it is easier to apply the verses to the wars
of 169 and 168. He admits that there are chronological difficulties with such an interpretation
(the "immediately" [confestim] in STERN II, § 4 6 4 s = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 v [F. 5 6
JACOBY] implies A . immediately went to Persia after the war in Egypt). Cf. § 2.2.16.34.
Ephraem referred the kings o f 11:40 to Ptolemy and Antiochus and at 11:41 referred to
Antiochus with a paraphrase o f 1 Mace 1:20-21 (Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 11:40; 11:41
[V.231a-b A S S E M . / A S S E M . / B E N E D . ] ) . S e e C A S E Y , Porphyry and Syrian E x e g e s i s , 140.
Polychr., In Dan. 11:40-41 (1.3, 24-25 M A I ) , mentions a war o f Antiochus against Ptolemy
and the subsequent return of A. against Judea.
4 7 4
STERN II, § 464r = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 u = Jer., In Dan. 11:41b (930,355-60;
G.).
4 7 5
Hippolytus also interprets 11:41-43 to mean the Antichrist; In Dan. 4.48.2-49.1
(306,17-308,6 B . / R . ) .
236 2. Porphyry
22.16.33 Dan 11:42-43 on Libya and Ethiopia

Jerome d o e s not mention Porphyry in reference to D a n 1 1 : 4 2 - 4 3 , and Harnack
w a s content to p a s s o v e r it. H e m a k e s an interesting c o n c e s s i o n in the first
part o f h i s c o m m e n t h o w e v e r that is worth q u o t i n g : " W e c o n t e n d that
A n t i o c h u s did t h e s e t h i n g s in part" (Haec Antiochum fecisse ex parte
legimus). H e then g o e s o n argue that A n t i o c h u s never p a s s e d through L i b y a
and E t h i o p i a , u n l e s s h e harassed the E g y p t i a n p r o v i n c e s that w e r e near
Ethiopia w h e n h e captured Egypt. T h e s e events apply better to the Antichrist
476
according to Jerome and those o f his s c h o o l o f thought (nostri) . Jerome has
d o n e s o m e o f h i s o w n historical h o m e w o r k and c a t c h e s Porphyry in a
difficulty. P o l y c h r o n i u s is a l s o w i l l i n g to apply 1 1 : 4 2 to A n t i o c h u s w h o
477
robbed the n a t i o n s .
2.2.16.34 Dan 11:44-45: "Apedno," the Persians, and Jerome*s Summary

of the Argument
D a n 1 1 : 4 4 - 4 5 g a v e Porphyry great difficulties according to Jerome w h o raises
many questions for his intellectual antagonist. Jerome translates 11:45 as "He
shall pitch his tent in A p e d n o b e t w e e n the t w o seas, upon the f a m o u s and h o l y
mountain; and h e shall c o m e e v e n unto its summit, and n o n e shall help him."
Jerome in a rather sly c o m m e n t later compares Porphyry to those w h o try to
interpret s c r i p t u r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s w h o are s t u p i d or l a c k e x p e r i e n c e
(imperitissimi) and d o not h a v e the grace o f G o d or the teachings o f the m a n y
to help them. H e contends that Porphyry's calumny is due either to ignorance
478
or pretended i g n o r a n c e .
Even for this passage, Porphyry has some nebulous application to Antiochus, asserting
that in his conflict with the Egyptians, Libyans, and Ethiopians, passing through them he
was to hear of wars that had been stirred up against him in the north and the east. Thence
he was to turn back and overcome the resistance of the Aradians, and lay waste the entire
province along the coastline of Phoenicia. And then he was to proceed immediately
(confestimque) against Artaxias, the king of Armenia, w h o was moving down from the
regions of the East, and having slain a large number of his troops, he would pitch his tent
in the place called Apedno, which is located between the two broadest rivers, the Tigris
and the Euphrates. But it is impossible to state upon what famous and holy mountain he
took his seat, after he had proceeded to that point. After all, it cannot be shown that he
took up his seat between two seas, and it would be foolish to interpret the two seas as
being the two rivers of Mesopotamia. But Porphyry gets around this famous mountain by
following the rendering of Theodotion, who said: "... upon the sacred Mount Saba
between the t w o seas." And even though he supposes that Saba was the name of a
4 7 6
Jer., In Dan. 11:42-43 (930,364-72; G.).
4 7 7
Polychr., In Dan. 11:42 (1.3, 25 MAI). Cf. also Ephraem w h o applies the text to
A n t i o c h u s ' war w i t h P t o l e m y in E g y p t , In D a n . p r o p h e t a m 1 1 : 4 2 ( V . 2 3 1 c
ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.).
4 7 8
Jer., In Dan. 11:44-45 (935,464-68; G.)
mountain in Armenia or Mesopotamia, he can't explain why it w a s holy. T o be sure, if

w e assume the right o f making things up, w e can add the detail that Porphyry fails to
mention, that the "mountain," forsooth, was called "holy" because it was consecrated to
idols in conformity with the superstition of the Armenians. The account then says: "And
he shall come even unto the summit of that same mountain" — supposedly in the province
of Elymais which is the easternmost Persian area. And there, when he purposed to
479
plunder the temple o f D i a n a , which contained countless sums of money, he was routed
by the barbarians, for they honored that shrine with a remarkable veneration. A n d
4 8 0 481
Antiochus, being overcome by grief, died in T a b e s , a town of P e r s i a .
J e r o m e ' s s o l u t i o n t o t h e s e difficulties is to take " A p e d n o " t o b e a p l a c e near

4 8 2
N i c o p o l i s ( E m m a u s ) o n the border o f m o u n t a i n o u s J u d e a . F r o m there the
A n t i c h r i s t w i l l g o t h e M o u n t o f O l i v e s and w i l l p e r i s h w h e r e the L o r d
483
a s c e n d e d to h e a v e n . H e a l s o interprets " A p e d n o " to m e a n "his t h r o n e " .
Jerome clearly i s unsure h o w to interpret the w o r d h i m s e l f — a difficulty that
is e a s y t o f o r g i v e s i n c e it o n l y appears o n e t i m e in the H e b r e w B i b l e . Origen
earlier realized that e v e n experts in H e b r e w had difficulties w i t h rare w o r d s o f
4 8 4
their o w n l a n g u a g e . P o r p h y r y ' s c o n j e c t u r e about a battle o f A n t i o c h u s
a g a i n s t the c o a s t l a n d o f A r a d u s i s p r o b a b l y w r o n g s i n c e the n u m i s m a t i c
e v i d e n c e f r o m that c i t y d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e a n y s i g n i f i c a n t b r e a k during
4 8 5
Antiochus' t i m e . O n the other hand his b e l i e f that A n t i o c h u s had a battle in
P e r s i a b e f o r e h e d i e d m a y b e correct. T a c i t u s , i n a s t a t e m e n t that m a y
4 7 9
Her local name was Nanaia (2 Mace 1:13), and Strabo mentions her temple (16.1.18).
Cf. M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 170-72. Josephus mentions the dedicatory offerings, arms,
and breastplates in her extremely rich temple (Antiq., 13.354). Cp. Jer., In Dan. 8:14
(856,899-904; G.) where Jerome mentions the expensive dedicatory offerings.
4 8 0
Polybius also names the place Tabae (31.9.3 [IV, 324,5 B.-W.]) in the district between
Persis and Media named Paraetacene. Cp. Quintus Curtius 5.13.2 and s e e M0RKHOLM,
Antiochus IV, 171 on the practice of locating his death in Gabae/Aspadana/Ispahan. It is a
curious coincidence that "Apedno" is linguistically close to "Aspadana".
4 8 1
STERN II, § 4 6 4 s = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 v = Jer., In Dan. 11:44-45 (931,378-
932,403; G.).
4 8 2
Jer., In Dan. 11:44-45 (933,431-934,449; G.). Hippolytus, In Dan. 4.48.2 (308,3
B./R.), also takes the word to refer to a place. Polychr., In Dan. 11:44-45 (1.3, 25 MAI), refers
11:44 to Antiochus' discovery of the conflict between Jason and Menelaus (2 Mace 5:5-11).
The "north" refers to Persia. "Apedno" is a place and "sea" is a metaphor (μεταφορικών) for
"crowd" — which includes those in Jerusalem w h o were Antiochus' supporters. Ephraem
also refers the p a s s a g e to A n t i o c h u s (In D a n . prophetam 1 1 : 4 4 - 4 5 [ V . 2 3 1 c - d
ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.]).
4 8 3
Contemporary scholars tend to relate the Hebrew word (translated as "pavilion") to a
Persian word for palace, treasury, or armoury (COLLINS, Daniel, 18, 3 8 9 ) . For several
pictures of the Persian "Apadana" (audience hall) of Darius and Xerxes see J. B . PRITCHARD,
2
The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton 1969 , § 766-67.
4 8 4
Origen, Ep. ad Afric. 10 (536,18-22, DE LANGE). The difficulty is actually finding the
Hebrew word for objects not named in the scriptures.
4 8 5
M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 123-24.
238 2. Porphyry
c o n f u s e A n t i o c h u s I V and V I I ( d e f e a t e d c a 1 2 9 ) w r i t e s : "King Antiochus

e n d e a v o r e d t o a b o l i s h J e w i s h superstition and to introduce G r e e k c i v i l i z a t i o n ;
the w a r w i t h the Parthians, h o w e v e r , p r e v e n t e d his i m p r o v i n g this b a s e s t o f
p e o p l e s ; for it w a s e x a c t l y at that t i m e that A r s a c e s h a d r e v o l t e d . " Much of
4 8 6
that s t a t e m e n t fits A n t i o c h u s I V quite w e l l . A l t h o u g h Antiochus did not
s u c c e e d i n r o b b i n g the t e m p l e in E l y m a i s ( § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 2 9 ) , h e d i d rob m a n y o f
4 8 7
the t e m p l e s i n E g y p t a c c o r d i n g to P o l y b i u s . H e h a d m o r e r e s p e c t for the
t e m p l e o f Z e u s O l y m p u s in A t h e n s . P o l y b i u s earlier d e s c r i b e s h i m : "But in
the sacrifices h e furnished to c i t i e s and in the honors h e paid t o the g o d s h e far
s u r p a s s e d all h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s , as w e c a n tell f r o m t h e t e m p l e o f O l y m p i a n
4 8 8
Z e u s at A t h e n s and the statues r o u n d the altar at D e l o s . " A s I have noted
a b o v e , o n l y A p p i a n s a y s A n t i o c h u s actually s u c c e e d e d in r o b b i n g the t e m p l e
at E l y m a i s ( § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 2 9 ) . C o n s e q u e n t l y h e d i e d w i t h little satisfaction.
J e r o m e c o n t i n u e s this t e x t w i t h a v e r y u s e f u l s u m m a r y o f the e n t i r e
a r g u m e n t b e t w e e n Porphyry and himself, and i n c l u d e s the remark about the
interpretation t o the r o c k o f D a n 2 : 3 5 and the S o n o f M a n figure i n D a n 7
(referred t o in § 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 8 and 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 1 4 ) :
B y use o f a most artificial line o f argument he [Porphyry] has concocted these details as
an affront to u s , but even though he were able to prove that these statements applied to
Antiochus instead o f the Antichrist, what does that matter to us? For d o w e not on the
basis o f all the passages o f Scripture prove the coming o f Christ and the falsehood o f the
Antichrist? For assume that these things did refer to Antiochus, what injury does that
inflict upon our religion? Is it not true that in the earlier vision also, which contained a
489
prophecy fulfilled in Antiochus, there is some reference to the A n t i c h r i s t ? And s o let
him [Porphyry] leave doubtful things behind and stick to manifest facts (Dimittat itaque
dubia, et manifestis haereat). Let him explain the meaning o f that rock which was hewn
from the mountain without hands, and which grew to be a great mountain and filled the
earth, and which smashed to pieces the fourfold image. And let him say w h o that Son of
man is w h o is going to come and stand before the Ancient o f Days and have bestowed
upon h i m a kingdom which shall never come to an end, and w h o is going to be served by
all nations, tribes, and language-groups. H e [Porphyry] passed these things by which are
so very clear (Haec quae manifesta sunt praeterit) and maintains that the prophecy refers
to the Jews, although w e are well aware that they are to this very day in a state o f
bondage. A n d he claims that the person w h o composed the book under the name o f
4 8 6
M0RKHOLM, Antiochus IV, 176 ( w h o is not c o n v i n c e d that Α . IV fought the
Parthians), STERN II, § 281 (with commentary on p. 4 8 ) = T a c , Hist., 5.8.2 . There was an
Arsaces (VI = Mithridates I) contemporary with Antiochus IV. S e e M0RKHOLM, 166-67 for
Antiochus' earlier wars against Artaxias. JACOBY accepts the reference to a Parthian war
(FGrH I I D , 883). Cp. 2 Mace 9:1.
4 8 7
Polybius 30.26.9 (IV, 306,1-11 B.-W.; during his first invasion o f Egypt).
4 8 8
Polybius 26.1.10-11 (IV, 184,8-12 B.-W.).
4 8 9
In regard to Dan 8:14 Jerome notes that "most o f our people" refer the text to the
Antichrist, but also believe that it happened during Antiochus' time as a "type" o f the future
(In Dan. 8:14 [856,890-93 G.).
Daniel lied (fuissse mentitum) in order to revive the hopes of his countrymen — not that
he was able to foreknow all of future history, but rather he records events that had already
taken place (non quo omnem historiam futuram nosse potuerit, sed quo iam facta
memoraret). Thus he [Porphyry] confines himself to false claims in regard to the final
vision, substituting rivers for the sea, and positing a famous and holy mountain, Apedno,
4 9 0
even though he is unable to furnish any historical source in which he has read about i t .
C a s e y b e l i e v e s that J e r o m e ' s reference to "doubtful things" indicates that h e

491
m a y b e a d m i t t i n g h i s e x e g e s i s o f D a n i e l 1 1 - 1 2 is doubtful (dubia)
H o w e v e r , J e r o m e ' s a d m i s s i o n s throughout his interpretation o f D a n i e l that
A n t i o c h u s w a s a t y p e o f the c o m i n g A n t i c h r i s t s e e m t o p r e c l u d e the
possibility that h e w o u l d hand the argument o v e r to Porphyry c o m p l e t e l y .
H i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o set P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w s side by s i d e w i t h t h o s e o f "our
p e o p l e " (nostri) indicates his acceptance o f at least part o f Porphyry's thesis.
H i s various c o m m e n t s throughout chapter 11 s h o w that h e did not a l w a y s
agree with Porphyry's historical j u d g m e n t s w h i c h he k n e w (as in the c a s e o f
A p e d n o ) w e r e o c c a s i o n a l l y incorrect. That is probably w h y he is w i l l i n g to
u s e the w o r d "dubia" (doubtful t h i n g s ) , for s o m u c h o f the a r g u m e n t
c o n c e r n i n g D a n 1 1 . A s I h a v e argued a b o v e , Porphyry probably did not
interpret s o m e o f the things that Jerome calls clear or manifest (manifestis).
W h a t is clear is that Porphyry p a s s e d by (praeterit) certain e x e g e t i c a l
difficulties with regard to D a n i e l . It is probable that the S o n o f M a n is o n e o f
those difficulties. Porphyry referred the rock in D a n 2 to the end o f the a g e s
and understood it to b e the J e w s . H e likely did the s a m e with the S o n o f M a n
if h e g a v e any v i e w o n that figure at all. H e m a y h a v e interpreted it to b e a
future J e w i s h i n d i v i d u a l or the J e w s as a group. In either c a s e , J e r o m e
i n d i c a t e s that P o r p h y r y left s o m e t h i n g s in D a n i e l t o the future ( s e e
§ 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 8 ) . S c h o l a r s ' continued disagreement concerning the S o n o f M a n in
D a n 7 and the N T is an indication that the debate w i l l probably c o n t i n u e
492
i n d e f i n i t e l y . Perhaps Porphyry b e l i e v e d that D a n i e l continued to g i v e h o p e
to the J e w s b e c a u s e it did present s o m e kind o f ultimate (as in D a n 2 and 7 )
triumph for the e n d o f the a g e s . Jerome is c o n v i n c e d that Porphyry b e l i e v e d
that the rock represents a triumph o f the J e w s in the "end o f the a g e s " (fine
saeculorum). H e thinks that the continued servitude o f the J e w s m a k e s such a
b e l i e f unlikely. In P o r p h y r y ' s v i e w , the prophecies written after the e v e n t s
and the g e n u i n e p r o p h e c i e s such as the o n e about the rock (in D a n 2) revived
Jewish hope.
4 9 0
STERN II, § 4 6 4 s = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 43v = Jer., In Dan. 11:44-45 (932,403-
933,425; G.).
4 9 1
CASEY, Porphyry and the Origin, 20.
4 9 2
See, for example, COLLINS, Daniel, 304-317 who finally concludes that the "holy
ones" are angels and the one like a human being is Michael.
240 2. Porphyry
2.2.16.35 The Resurrection, the Maccabees and Dan 12:1-3
J e r o m e i s w i l l i n g t o f o l l o w Porphyry (through the l e n s o f h i s o w n theory o f

A n t i o c h u s as a t y p e o f the Antichrist) through the e n d o f D a n 1 1 . A t that
point ( D a n 1 2 : 1 - 3 ) h e thinks Porphyry lost his bearings c o m p l e t e l y :
U p to this point Porphyry somehow managed to maintain his position and impose upon
the credulity of the naive among our adherents as well as the poorly educated among his
93
own (tarn nostrorum imperitis quam suorum male eruditis imposuit)* . But what can he
say of this chapter, in which is described the resurrection o f the dead? ... But what will
pigheadedness not resort to? ... This too, he declares, w a s written with reference to
4 9 4
Antiochus, for after he had invaded Persia, he left his army with L y s i a s , w h o w a s in
charge o f Antioch and Phoenicia, for the purpose of warring against the Jews and
destroying their city of Jerusalem. All these details are related by Josephus, the author of
the history of the Hebrews. Porphyry contends that the tribulation was such as had never
previously occurred, and that a time came along as had never been, from the time that
races began to exist even to that time. But when victory was bestowed upon them, and the
generals o f Antiochus had been slain, and Antiochus himself had died in Persia, the
people of Israel experienced salvation, even all those w h o had been written down in the
book of God, that is, those w h o defended the law with great bravery. Contrasted with
them were those w h o proved to be transgressors of the law and sided with the party of
Antiochus. Then it was, he asserts, that these guardians of the law, w h o had been, as it
were, slumbering in the dust of the earth and were cumbered with a load of afflictions,
and hidden away, as it were, in the tombs of wretchedness, rose up once more from the
dust of the earth to a victory unhoped for, and lifted up their heads, rising up to everlasting
life, even as the transgressors rose up to everlasting disgrace. But those masters and
teachers w h o possessed a knowledge of the law shall shine like the heaven, and those who
have exhorted the more backward peoples to observe the rites o f G o d shall blaze forth
after the fashion o f the stars for all eternity. He also adduces the historical account
concerning the Maccabees, in which it is said that many Jews under the leadership of
Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus fled to the desert and hid in caves and holes in the rocks,
and came forth again after the victory. These things, then, were foretold in metaphorical
4 9 5
language (μεταφορικών) as if it concerned a resurrection of the dead
4 9 6
J e r o m e thinks the e v e n t referred to i s the resurrection o f the d e a d . It is
interesting that h e is w i l l i n g t o admit that Porphyry has h e l d t o h i s p o s i t i o n up
t o this p o i n t w i t h o u t t o o m u c h trouble. In D a n 12 P o r p h y r y ' s m e t h o d o f
referring m o s t e v e n t s in D a n i e l to the M a c c a b e a n era f a i l e d h i m . H e had
spent t i m e s t u d y i n g the b o o k s o f the M a c c a b e e s . T h e e x e g e t i c a l tradition that
Porphyry initiated (or continued) continues with P o l y c h r o n i u s w h o interpreted
4 9 3
The M S S have imperitus.
4 9 4
Antiochus heard of Lysias' defeat when he came to Elymais to rob the temple (1 Mace
6:5-6 with a parallel in Jos., Antiq. 12.356).
4 9 5
STERN II, § 464t = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:1-3 (936,487-
937,523; G.).
4 9 6
Hippolytus, In Dan. 4.55.1-2 (322,10-20 B./R.), also believes the text refers to the
resurrection.
497
the e v e n t s f r o m D a n 1 1 : 3 0 o n to apply to A n t i o c h u s . O n D a n 12:1 h e
argues that M i c h a e l h e l p e d in the wars o f Judas M a c c a b e u s against the
generals o f A n t i o c h u s . H e is aware that m a n y interpret the verses in D a n 12
to refer to the resurrection, but argues that o n e should not adhere to what is
e a s y , but to what is the truth (δεΐ δέ μή τ ω πρόχειρα) π ρ ο σ ε χ ε ι ν , ά λ λ α
ττ\ς α λ η θ ε ί α ς π α ν τ α χ ο ύ φ ρ ο ν τ ί ί ε ι ν ) . H e appeals to Isa 2 6 : 1 9 for the v i e w
498
that scripture calls t h o s e in captivity " d e a d " . Theodoret w a s aware o f this
interpretation and argued against it. If those w h o c o m e from the c a v e s during
the M a c c a b e a n t i m e s are the o n e s w h o rise to everlasting life or everlasting
s h a m e , then the s a m e p e o p l e are both g o o d and e v i l or s o m e are g o o d and
s o m e are evil. T h i s h o w e v e r is not p o s s i b l e since their group w a s reverent,
4 9 9
and eternal life d o e s not correspond to the life that the M a c c a b e a n s h a d .
Ephraem a l s o dates the tribulation o f 12:1 to the time before A n t i o c h u s w a s
defeated, and o n 12:2 h e writes, " B e c a u s e after the redemption, that is to say,
revival under Zerubabel, e v i l o v e r c a m e t h e m again like the s l e e p o f death.
500
A n d w h e n it p a s s e d a w a y they arose from it as it from the d u s t " . Ishodad
agrees with Porphyry: "Those w h o lie prostrate with misfortunes, laid l o w by
adversities — that i s , the M a c c a b e e s ... B e c a u s e o f their e n d u r a n c e and
501
r i g h t e o u s n e s s t h e y w i l l e n j o y life in b o t h w o r l d s . . . " Casey questions
whether Porphyry originated this tradition. S i n c e it is unlikely that Ephraem
u s e d Porphyry it is quite p o s s i b l e that s o m e Syriac and Greek writers had
d e v e l o p e d several i d e a s that w e r e similar to those o f Porphyry. J e r o m e is
clearly aware that Porphyry has persuaded s o m e Christians to interpret Daniel
u s i n g his m e t h o d , s o writers w h o m Ephraem u s e d m i g h t h a v e gotten their
v i e w s from Porphyry. It has b e e n n o t e d a b o v e that E u d o x u s (§ 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 3 )
thought that P o l y c h r o n i u s w a s dependent o n Porphyry. T h e fact that Greek
and S y r i a c s p e a k i n g writers had s u c h v i e w s is an i n d i c a t i o n that the
502
distinction "east" and "west" is not very useful in this r e g a r d .
Porphyry w a s h i g h l y critical o f O r i g e n ' s attempts to a l l e g o r i z e the O l d
Testament, but h e apparently did not b e l i e v e that finding a historical m e a n i n g
4 9 7
Polychr., In Dan. 11:30 (1.3, 23 M A I ) . Polychronius moves from the Antiochus, "son
of Demetrius," (Α. VII, brother of Demetrius II and son of Demetrius I) who pursued Trypho
to Antiochus Epiphanes and his appointment of Jason as high priest in his interpretation of
this text.
498 polychr., In Dan. 12:1-2 (1.3,25 MAI). CASEY, Porphyry and the Origin, 27.
4 9 9
CASEY, Porphyry and the Origin, 27. Theodoret, In Dan. 12:2 (PG 8 1 , 1 5 3 6 ) .
5 0 0
Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam 12:1-2 (V.231f-232b ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.). ET in
CASEY, Porphyry and the Origin, 27. CASEY, Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis, 140 notes that
Ephraem quotes 1 Mace 1:27-28 to illustrate the distress before Antiochus was defeated.
5 0 1
CASEY, Porphyry and the Origin, 28. Ishodad, In Dan. 12:2 (CSCO 328 [CSCO.SS
146], 151,11-13 VAN DEN EYNDE). FT in CSCO 329 (CSCO.SS 147), 151 VAN DEN EYNDE.
5 0 2
On this point see FERCH, Porphyry, 141-7.
242 2. Porphyry
through " m e t a p h o r i c a l " interpretation w a s a contradiction to h i s original

position. Presumably the Greek word is from the C. Chr., and Porphyry used
it s o that h e w o u l d not b e a c c u s e d o f "allegorizing" the H e b r e w Scriptures.
Origen w a s g i v e n to finding philosophical or theological m e a n i n g s in ancient
503
stories in Porphyry's e y e s . Porphyry did similar things with H o m e r i c t e x t s .
In his literary criticism o f H o m e r , h o w e v e r , h e u s e d the term to describe the
metaphorical u s e o f a w o r d (ίωή) in H o m e r ' s Iliad ( 1 6 . 1 2 7 ) w h i c h usually
504
m e a n s "blast" for the "rush" o f a raging f i r e . Finding metaphors in the O T
w a s a legitimate activity according to Porphyry. Is it o n l y a c o i n c i d e n c e that
P o l y c h r o n i u s u s e s the s a m e w o r d ("metaphorical") to interpret "sea" in D a n
505
11:45 to m e a n " c r o w d " ? If it is not, then P o l y c h r o n i u s m i g h t h a v e u s e d
Porphyry's w o r k to create his o w n interpretation.
2.2.16.36 Dan 12:5-6 and the Time of the End

J e r o m e , in his translation o f D a n 1 2 : 5 - 6 , has D a n i e l ask the m a n [ a n g el ]
c l o t h e d in l i n e n , " H o w l o n g shall it b e t o the e n d o f t h e s e w o n d e r s ? " H e
identifies the m a n in linen with the angel o f D a n 10:5 and writes,
5 0 6
And he [ D a n i e l ] was asking him about these wonders spoken of in the present vision,
as to the time when they should be accomplished. Porphyry, of course, assigns this time
to the period of Antiochus, after his usual fashion, whereas w e assign it to the time of the
507
Antichrist (quod Porphyrius more suo de Antiocho, nos de Antichristo interpretamur).
H e r e J e r o m e d o e s n o t indicate that m a n y Christians f o l l o w e d Porphyry.

Apparently h e did not k n o w o f Christian interpreters w h o v i e w e d D a n 12 as
referring to the e v e n t s under A n t i o c h u s . It w o u l d i l l u m i n a t e part o f the
p r o b l e m c o n c e r n i n g the sources Porphyry u s e d if Jerome had indicated that
s o m e Christian interpreters w e r e willing to s e e a metaphorical m e a n i n g in the
5 0 3
See COOK, Interpretation, 128-33 (e.g. Porphyry's work On the Cave of the Nymphs)
and § 2.2.2 above.
5 0 4
"I see the rush of a ravaging fire" (λεύσσω δή -πυρός δηΐοιο ίωήι/) in Quaest. Horn,
lib. 1.19 (Porphyry, The Homeric Questions, ed. and trans. R. R. SCHLUNK, Lang Classical
Studies 2, N e w York et al. 1993, 90). Three uses of the noun (metaphor) can be found in
Quaest., Horn. lib. 1.6 ( 1 8 - 2 0 , SCHLUNK). In his catechism-commentary on Aristotle's
categories he defines metaphor so: "Metaphor occurs whenever a thing has a name of its
own, but someone also uses of it another name, which he transfers to the thing and uses of it
as if it were its name" (In Aristot. cat. expos, per interrog. et resp. [CAG IV. 1, 67,4-7 BUSSE];
ET in Porphyry, On Aristotle Categories, trans. S. K. STRANGE, Duckworth 1 9 9 2 , 4 7 ) .
5 0 5
Polychr., In Dan. 11:45 (1.3,25 MAI),
5 0 6
The Vulgate has Daniel ask the question ("I said"), whereas the M T has "one asks"
which presumably refers to one of the angels on either bank o f the river. The OG has "I
said". S e e COLLINS, Daniel, 399 who appeals to Dan 8:13-14 to argue that the conversation
is initially between angels.
5 0 7
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:5-6 (940,591-94 G.).
resurrection of Dan 12 and the subsequent events of the chapter.

5 0 8
P o l y c h r o n i u s a p p l i e d all the e v e n t s in D a n 12 to the t i m e o f A n t i o c h u s .
22.1637 Dan 12:7a and Chronology
T h e temporal e x p r e s s i o n i n D a n 12:7a is clear to Porphyry:
Porphyry interprets "a time and times and half a time" to mean three and a half years; and
w e for our part d o not deny that this accords with the idiom ( ι δ ί ω μ α ) o f sacred
509
scripture.
J e r o m e then g i v e s s o m e e x a m p l e s i n c l u d i n g the text in D a n 7 : 2 4 - 2 6 which

c o n t a i n s the e x p r e s s i o n " t i m e , t i m e s and half a t i m e " w h i c h h e refers t o the
Antichrist. H e t h e n q u o t e s D a n 7 : 2 7 w h i c h h e i n t r o d u c e s s a y i n g it c l e a r l y
5 1 0
refers to the c o m i n g o f Christ and the saints and c o n t i n u e s :
If therefore the earlier references which were plainly written concerning the Antichrist are
assigned by Porphyry to Antiochus and to the three and a half years during which he
asserts the Temple w a s deserted, then he is under obligation to prove that the next
statement, "His kingdom is eternal, and all kings shall serve and obey him" [Dan 7:27],
likewise pertain to Antiochus, or else (as he himself conjectures [ut ipse putat]) to the
511
people o f the Jews. But it is perfectly apparent that such an argument will never s t a n d .
J e r o m e t h e n n o t e s that J o s e p h u s and the b o o k s o f the M a c c a b e e s c o n c u r in

a s s i g n i n g t h e p e r i o d o f t h e d e s o l a t i o n o f the t e m p l e f r o m C h i s l e v 145
5 1 2
( S e l e u c i d era) to C h i s l e v 1 4 8 — the e q u i v a l e n c e o f three y e a r s . This is not
e q u i v a l e n t t o three and a half years ( 1 2 9 0 d a y s ) . Jerome, h o w e v e r , apparently
s u p p r e s s e s J o s e p h u s ' v i e w that the d e s o l a t i o n o f the t e m p l e u n d e r A n t i o c h u s
w a s the r e f e r e n c e o f t h e p r o p h e c y o f D a n i e l . Presumably Josephus is
5 0 8
Polychr., In Dan. 12:1-4 (1.3,25 MAI),
5 0 9
STERN II, § 4 6 4 u = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F . 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:7a (940,600-02;
G.).
5 1 0
Jer., In Dan. 12:7a (940,606-941,616; G.).
5 1 1
STERN II, § 4 6 4 u = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F . 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:7a ( 9 4 1 , 6 1 6 - 2 3 ;
G.).
5 1 2
1 Mace 1:54, 4 : 5 2 . Jos., Antiq. 12.248, 319-21 ( w h o dates the desolation o n 2 5
Chislev as in 1 Mace 4:54). On the problem o f the dates in the Maccabean literature s e e
COLLINS, Daniel, 6 1 - 2 . The Macedonian era began in autumn of 312, which would give 168-
165 B.C.E. for 145-148 o f the Greek era. The usual interpretation o f the dates is, however,
167-164 based on a Babylonian system that began in spring of 311 (BiCKERMANN, Der Gott,
155-58). LESTER L. GRABBE, Maccabean Chronology: 167-164 or 168-165 B.C.E.?, JBL
110, 1991, 5 9 - 7 4 argues for 168-165 B.C.E based on a system unique to the Maccabees in
which the reckoning begins in spring 3 1 2 (e.g. 1 Mace 6:20 dates an event in 150 Greek Era
which took place the following spring or summer after Antiochus' death in 164 B.C.E.;
neither fall 3 1 2 or spring 311 works to give a date of 150).
244 2. Porphyry
5 1 3
referring to either D a n 7:25 or 1 1 : 3 1 . S i n c e Porphyry k n e w Josephus, it is
likely that s u c h a reference c o u l d h a v e h e l p e d h i m create his theory o f the
5 1 4
M a c c a b e a n dating for the b o o k . Josephus appears u n c o n c e r n e d about the
extra half year. H e also applied the prophecy to the empire o f the R o m a n s
515
and their destruction o f Jerusalem and the t e m p l e . Aphrahat interpreted
7:25 to refer to the e v e n t s under A n t i o c h u s , but c a m e up w i t h a figure o f ten
516
years as the r e f e r e n c e .
B i c k e r m a n n argues that the dates in Daniel for the desolation o f the temple
517
d o not c o h e r e w i t h e a c h other or with h i s t o r y . For J e r o m e , h o w e v e r , not
w i l l i n g to q u e s t i o n D a n i e l ' s p o i n t o f v i e w , it is s i m p l y a p r o o f that the
reference is not to A n t i o c h u s but to the Antichrist. G i v e n Porphyry's interests
in c h r o n o l o g y , o n e w o n d e r s w h y h e did not worry m o r e about this problem.
W i t h reference to the p r o b l e m o f the S o n o f M a n and the saints o f the m o s t
h i g h i n D a n 7 , J e r o m e is a g a i n frustratingly v a g u e a b o u t P o r p h y r y ' s
interpretation. S i n c e Porphyry referred the rock in D a n 2 to the future, h e
m a y h a v e d o n e the s a m e w i t h the e v e r l a s t i n g k i n g d o m o f D a n 7 ( s e e
§ 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 8 , 2 . 2 . 1 6 . 1 4 - 1 5 above).
2.2.16.38 Dan 12:7b and the Scattering of God's People

Jerome g i v e s a brief c o m m e n t o n D a n 12:7b that i n c l u d e s a reference to
Porphyry:
When it is stated that the "people of God shall have been scattered" — under the
persecution of Antiochus as Porphyry claims, or of the Antichrist as w e more truly
demonstrate (uel Antiocho persequente, ut uult Porphyrins, uel Antichristo, ut nostri
518
uerius probant) — then all these things shall be f u l f i l l e d .
Jerome is confident that h e has proved his c a s e g i v e n the p r o b l e m o f the three

and o n e half years in Porphyry's chronology. Polychronius a l s o referred this
519
text to the e v e n t s the p e o p l e suffered during the time o f A n t i o c h u s .
5 1 3
Jos., Antiq. 12.319-21. In Antiq. 12.272 with reference to Dan 8, Josephus says the
temple service would be disrupted for 1296 days. He then gives the figure of "three years"
for the desolation (12.276) which happened under Antiochus. He is unconcerned about extra
days!
5 1 4
See FRASSINETTI above in § 2.2.16.3.
5 1 5
Jos., Antiq. 10.276 (cp. COLLINS, Daniel, 4 0 1 ) . In Antiq. 10.79, Josephus has
Jeremiah also prophecy the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.
5 1 6
Aphrahat, Demonstration 5.20, (1.1, 221,3-5, PAR.; ET in N P N F Series 2, Vol. 13,
359).
5 1 7
BICKERMANN, Der Gott, 143 n.4: Dan 7:25, 8:14, 9:27, 12:7 and 12:11 have various
periods ( 1 2 9 0 , 1 3 3 5 , 1 1 5 0 days, and 3 1/2 years).
5 1 8
STERN II, § 464u = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:7b (942,634-37;
G.).
5 1 9
Polychr., In Dan. 12:7 (1.3,25 MAI).
22.1639 Dan 12:11 and the 1290 Days

T h e p r o b l e m c o n t i n u e s in D a n 12:11 w h e n the desolation o f the t e m p l e is set
for 1 2 9 0 days:
Porphyry asserts that these one thousand two hundred and ninety days were fulfilled in the
desolation of the Temple in the time of Antiochus, and yet both Josephus and the Book of
Maccabees, as w e have said before, record that it lasted for only three years. From this
circumstance it is apparent that the three and a half years are spoken of in connection with
520
the time of the A n t i c h r i s t . . .
T h e Antichrist w i l l persecute the saints for three and a half years, forbid the
w o r s h i p o f G o d , and then d i e o n the h o l y mountain a c c o r d i n g to J e r o m e ' s
5 2 1
v i e w . A p o l l i n a r i u s , l i k e J e r o m e , a r g u e s a g a i n s t referring the t e x t to
5 2 2
A n t i o c h u s s i n c e the d e s o l a t i o n o f the T e m p l e o n l y lasted three y e a r s .
A g a i n , Jerome forgets to m e n t i o n that Josephus interpreted the d e s o l a t i o n to
m e a n the e v e n t s during the t i m e o f A n t i o c h u s , e v e n t h o u g h h e dated the
duration o f t h o s e e v e n t s in the T e m p l e to three y e a r s o n l y . A l t h o u g h
Polychronius refers D a n 12:10 to a prophecy o f N T e v e n t s concerning Christ,
h e returns to A n t i o c h u s in D a n 12:11 and applies the n u m b e r o f d a y s to the
523
suffering o f the faithful under A n t i o c h u s .
2.2.16.40 Dan 12:12 and the Forty-Five days

T h e extra forty f i v e days that appear in D a n 12:12 refer to a time b e t w e e n the
death o f the A n t i c h r i s t and the c o m i n g o f Christ, a c c o r d i n g to J e r o m e .
Porphyry has different ideas:
Porphyry explains this passage in the following way, that the forty-five days beyond the
one thousand t w o hundred and ninety signify the interval of victory over the generals of
Antiochus, or the period when Judas Maccabeus fought with bravery and cleansed the
Temple and broke the idol to pieces, offering blood-sacrifices in the Temple of God. He
might have been correct in this statement if the Book of Maccabees had recorded that the
5 2 4
Temple was polluted over a period of three and a half years instead of just three y e a r s .
T h e r e v i s e d d a t e s f o r the e n d troubled Porphyry and J e r o m e little. F o r

Porphyry the extra forty-five days refers to the time o f the M a c c a b e a n wars,
5 2 0
STERN II, § 4 6 4 u = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:11 ( 9 4 2 , 6 5 7 -
943,665; G.).
5 2 1
Hippolytus also refers the three and a half years and 1290 days to the Antichrist, In
Dan. 4.56.8 (328,1-5 B . / R . ) .
5 2 2
Catena Ioh. Drung. in Dan. 12:11 (1.3,56 M A I ) .
5 2 3
Polychr., In Dan. 12:10, 11 (1.3, 2 6 M A I ) . Ephraem also refers the text to the time of
Antiochus (In Dan. prophetam 12:11 [V.233c-d ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.]).
5 2 4
STERN II, § 4 6 4 u = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:12 (944,677-84;
G.).
246 2. Porphyry
525
and for J e r o m e it i s a p e r i o d o f w a i t i n g b e f o r e the return o f C h r i s t . For
P o l y c h r o n i u s the forty-five d a y s w e r e the period after A n t i o c h u s ' defeat w h e n
526
G o d ' s h e l p for the righteous b e c a m e a p p a r e n t .
2.2.16.41 Dan 12:13 and the Resurrection
T h e entire c o n t e x t o f the p r o p h e c y in D a n 1 2 has to d o w i t h the resurrection

o f the d e a d , a c c o r d i n g t o J e r o m e , w h i c h w i l l take p l a c e w h e n D a n i e l a l s o is to
527
arise . This he concludes from Dan 12:13:
And it is vain for Porphyry to claim that all these things which were spoken concerning
the Antichrist under the type o f Antiochus actually refer to Antiochus alone (frustra
Porphyrium quae in typo Antiochi de Antichristo dicta sunt uelle omnia referre ad
Antiochum). A s w e have already mentioned, these false claims have been answered at
greater length by Eusebius o f Caesarea, Apollinarius o f Laodicea, and partially also by
that very able writer, the martyr Methodius; and anyone w h o knows o f these things can
528
look them up in their w r i t i n g s .
J e r o m e u l t i m a t e l y a d m i t s again, o n the v e r y last p a g e o f the c o m m e n t a r y o n

the H e b r e w t e x t o f D a n i e l , that P o r p h y r y ' s interpretation i s v a l i d in m a n y
respects. T h e t y p o l o g i c a l interpretation w h i c h h e h a s referred t o several t i m e s
(see also § 2.2.16.20, 25) enables him to keep many of Porphyry's
interpretations and yet continue t o interpret t h e t e x t eschatologically.
Probably Jerome got this approach from some of his predecessors.
A m m o n i u s and H i p p o l y t u s w e r e b o t h w i l l i n g to find a partial fulfillment o f
the p r o p h e c i e s in the time o f A n t i o c h u s although both found the final
529
c o m p l e t i o n in the A n t i c h r i s t . S t e i n aptly s u m s u p P o r p h y r y ' s m e t h o d w i t h
5 2 5
COLLINS, Daniel 401 discusses the problem of failed expectations among apocalyptic
groups and their continual reinterpretation of the calculations.
526 Polychr., In Dan. 12:12 (1.3, 2 6 M A I ) . Ephraem also interprets 12:12 to refer to the
time of Antiochus and the calamities suffered by the Jews (In Dan. prophetam 12:12 [V.233c-
d ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.]).
5 2 7
Ephraem interprets the passage in question to mean that Daniel will rise at the last day
(In Dan. prophetam 12:13 [V.233e-f ASSEM./ASSEM./BENED.]).
5 2 8
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 4 3 w = Jer., In Dan. 12:13 (944,689-96; G.).
5 2 9
The Alexandrian presbyter Ammonius (CPG III, § 5501) saw a "partial abomination"
in Antiochus with the universal abomination referring to the Antichrist (καθολικόν βδέλυγμα
τ η ς ερημώσεων ό α ν τ ί χ ρ ι σ τ ο ς , μερικόν δε ό Ά ν τ ί ο χ ο ς ) in Catena Ioh. Drung. in Dan.
12:11 (1.3, 5 6 M A I ) . Cp. Hipp., In Dan. 4.53.1 ( 3 1 8 , 1 7 - 2 0 B . / R . ) referred to above in
§ 2.2.16.13, 17, 2 0 . Theodoret uses the language o f transition from the image (Antiochus) to
the archetype (the Antichrist) (μεταβαίνει λοιπόν α π ό τ η ς ε ι κ ό ν ο ς έ π ι τ ό ά ρ χ ε τ υ π ο ν
In Dan. 11:35 [PG 8 1 , 1524]). Polychr., In Dan. 12:12 (1.3, 2 6 M A I ) , w a s willing to refer Dan
12:13 to the general resurrection.
regard to Daniel: Porphyry tries to decrease as m u c h as p o s s i b l e the n o n -

530
historical (or apocalyptic) part o f the b o o k .
23 Conclusion
Porphyry h a d s o m e s y m p a t h i e s for J u d a i s m that h e did n o t e x t e n d t o

Christianity. F r o m the w o r k o f h i s y o u t h (the Philosophy Drawn from
Oracles) until his mature work (the Contra Christianos) h e exhibits a respect
531
toward the G o d o f the J e w s w h i c h h e did not h a v e for C h r i s t i a n s . H e
clearly rejected the divinity o f Christ. Perhaps he found the G o d o f the J e w s
e a s i e r to r e c o n c i l e w i t h s o m e o f h i s Platonic b e l i e f s . H e , u n l i k e m a n y
patristic f i g u r e s , c h o s e not t o interpret Jesus w i t h t h o s e s a m e P l a t o n i s t
categories. There m a y b e s o m e m o r e s o c i o l o g i c a l roots o f this r e s p o n s e o f
Porphyry. Christianity w a s probably perceived in his time as more o f a threat
to G r e c o - R o m a n core b e l i e f s than Judaism w a s . If Porphyry did participate
in the last Great P e r s e c u t i o n as an advisor and propagandist, then Judaism
m a y h a v e s e r v e d as a c o n v e n i e n t r e f e r e n c e p o i n t for h i s attack o n
C h r i s t e n d o m . T h e Christians not o n l y had turned against G r e c o - R o m a n
culture, but they had abandoned Judaism. Judaism w a s ancient and thus in
Porphyry's v i e w it w a s worthy o f a certain amount o f respect. Christianity
w a s n e w and repellent. H i s admiration for the traditional nature o f Judaism
did not include O T narratives w h i c h h e called " m y t h o l o g i e s " that s h o u l d not
b e a l l e g o r i z e d s i n c e they are clear. H e found D a n i e l intriguing d u e to his
interest in history, but h e also did not b e l i e v e it to b e apocalyptic since it did,
for the m o s t part, not predict the future. T h e reader n e e d s to c o n s i d e r the
probable political c o n t e x t o f Porphyry's Contra Christianos to understand the
lack o f appreciation for L X X texts in it w h e n compared to writings such as Ad
Gaurum (To Gaurus), De antro (On the Cave of the Nymphs), and De
abstinentia (On Abstinence) that probably contain positive references to L X X
passages. If he w a s writing the C. Chr. in service of o n e o f the persecutions,
then h e w o u l d not likely c h o o s e to express m u c h respect for J e w i s h texts. In
fact there is little admiration for L X X texts in the C. Chr., and o n e c a n
therefore c o n c l u d e that s o m e t h i n g w a s quite different about that w o r k ' s
setting in Porphyry's life. That setting is likely o n e o f the persecutions.
5 3 0
STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 4 0 - 1 . STEIN also puts it this way: A s much
historical material as possible, prophetic when necessary.
5 3 1
Porphyry d o e s s h o w s o m e admiration for Jesus in his earlier work. See COOK,
Interpretation, 1 0 6 - 1 8 .
3. Julian
Julian Against the Galilaeans
Julian ( 3 3 1 / 3 2 - 3 6 3 ) the "Apostate" r e c e i v e d his n i c k n a m e f r o m subsequent

Christian generations b e c a u s e o f his f a m o u s c o n v e r s i o n from Christianity to
1
the g o d s o f the H e l l e n e s . H e e x p e r i e n c e d this c h a n g e o f heart w h e n h e w a s
2
about t w e n t y . H i s rule w a s difficult for the church, but h e did not b e l i e v e in
or p r a c t i c e v i o l e n t p e r s e c u t i o n s . P e o p l e in h i s e m p i r e w h o r e m a i n e d
3
staunchly p a g a n v i e w e d h i m as the restorer o f liberty and R o m a n r e l i g i o n .
T h e Christians breathed a s i g h o f relief w h e n h e d i e d prematurely in his
c a m p a i g n against Persia.
D u r i n g the w i n t e r n i g h t s b e f o r e the c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t P e r s i a ( 3 6 2 - 6 3 )
4
Julian w r o t e his Against the Galilaeans (Contra Galilaeos = C. Gal.) . His
5
work is h e a v i l y indebted to that o f C e l s u s and P o r p h y r y . Julian's l o v e for
J e w i s h l a w is u n i q u e , h o w e v e r , and h e s e e m s to h a v e r e l i s h e d perusing the
L X X — u n l i k e C e l s u s w h o c o n f i n e d h i s attention primarily to G e n e s i s .
Julian a d m i r e d J u d a i s m ( w i t h the e x c e p t i o n o f its refusal to w o r s h i p g o d s
other than that o f Israel), but b e l i e v e d Christianity had turned a w a y f r o m
1
2
E p . I l l , 4 3 4 d (CUFr 1/2,191,1-3 BlDEZ=III, 148 WRIGHT).
3
I L S 7 5 2 . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 2 8 2 n.28.
4
B e l o w the C. Gal. will be cited using the edition of E. M A S A R A C C H I A , Giuliano
Imperator Contra Galilaeos, Testi e Commenti 9, Roma 1990. U s e will also be made of C. J.
NEUMANN, Iuliani Imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt, Leipzig 1880.
The ET of the C. Gal and other texts from Julian below is by W. CAVE WRIGHT, The Works
of the Emperor Julian, V o l s . I-III, LCL, L o n d o n / N e w York, 1 9 1 3 - 2 3 . J. BlDEZ, G.
ROCHEFORT, and C. LACOMBRADE's edition will also be cited below: L'Empereur Julien.
Oeuvres completes, Vol. 1/1, 1/2, Π/1, II/2, CUFr, Paris 1 9 3 2 - 1 9 7 2 . I will use the CUFr
edition's numbers for the Orations and for the Epistles. Iuliani imperatoris epistulae leges
poematia fragmenta, ed. J. BIDEZ/F. CUMONT, Paris 1922 will be cited as ELF. On the winter
composition see Lib., Oration 18.178 (I, 396 NORMAN) quoted in COOK, Interpretation, 286.
Cyril remarks that the C. Gal comprised three books in C. Jul., Proem.3 (PG 76, 508b = SC
3 2 2 , 106,16 B./E.). S e e § 3.51 below. Julian mentions another book in C. Gal. 218a and
261e (145,3; 159,6 MAS.). MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 12 refers to other manuscript evidence.
5
J. GEFFCKEN, Zwei Griechische Apologeten, Leipzig 1907, 3 0 4 - 3 0 6 / DELABRIOLLE, La
f a c t i o n , 4 2 1 . S e e COOK, Interpretation, 284-6. Lib., Oration. 18.178 (LCL I, 396 NORMAN)
thinks that Julian has much improved on Porphyry's work.
Contra Galilaeos 249
6
J e w i s h and H e l l e n i c v a l u e s . H i s reading o f O T texts s h o u l d b e v i e w e d in
that light. F o r h i m , Judaism w i t h its sacrificial w o r s h i p is actually c l o s e r to
7
H e l l e n i s m than to Christianity . H i s w e l l - k n o w n desire to rebuild the t e m p l e
8
in Jerusalem fit into his program as a restorer o f ancient r e l i g i o n . That d o e s
not m e a n that h e a d m i r e d all the O T narratives. H e f o u n d the creation
9
account to b e i n c o m p l e t e , and h e found e l e m e n t s in it that w e r e absurd . H e
w a s not i m p r e s s e d b y the historical a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s o f the J e w s nor w i t h
10
their miserable contemporary c i r c u m s t a n c e s . But his greatest ire is reserved
for the Christians' u s e o f the L X X and their refusal to f o l l o w J e w i s h ritual
practices. H i s argument is with the interpretive trajectory from L X X to N T to
ancient Christian church and not with the trajectory that g o e s from the O T to
11
ancient J u d a i s m . H e d o e s s e e the O T as a d o c u m e n t separate from the N T ,
12
a l t h o u g h h e c a n c o m b i n e both in the general term, " s c r i p t u r e s . " Jean
Bouffartigue p o i n t s t o s o m e interesting numbers characteristic o f Julian's
w o r k s . B o u f f a r t i g u e c o u n t s fifty-three references to M o s e s — w i t h Plato
13
mentioned an equal number o f t i m e s . In n o s e n s e d o e s Julian v i e w M o s e s ,
1 4
h o w e v e r , as a prophet o f G o d . Julian e v o k e s or cites ninety-nine p a s s a g e s
o f the B i b l e — a n u m b e r s e c o n d o n l y to H o m e r and far h i g h e r than the
15
quotations o f P l a t o . H e clearly had s o m e training in the scriptures and
16
apparently had b e e n a l e c t o r .
6
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1142 argues that Julian detested most of the Jewish beliefs and
practices. Cf., however, § 3.52 below for a more positive evaluation of Judaism on Julian's
part / and C. AziZA, Julien et le Judaisme, in: BRAUN/RICHER, L'Empereur Julien, 141-58.
7
See Abraham's sacrifice below ( § 3 . 1 7 ) .
8
See Elijah's sacrifice below (§ 3.44).
9
§ 3.2-7.
1 0
§ 3.23,56.
1 1
Cf. J. BOUFFARTIGUE, (L'empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, Collection des
fitudes Augustiniennes. S. Antiquitee 133, Paris 1992, 160-1) w h o states that Julian's
hostility towards Judaism was nuanced. See § 3.16 below.
1 2
BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur Julien, 114, 156. He uses the singular (γραφή scripture)
to refer to the OT in C. Gal. 49a, 210a, 253d (91,9; 143,15; 157,26 M A S . ) . The plural
includes the N T in Jul., Ep. 1 1 1 , 4 3 5 b (1/2,193,13 BIDEZ= ΙΠ, 150 WRIGHT).
1 3
BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur Julien, 115.
1 4
BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur Julien, 116. BOUFFARTIGUE sees Julian as "refuting"
Moses as he would refute a philosopher.
1 5
BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur Julien, 158. In his count 57 texts are from the OT and 4 2
from the NT. Since the second volume of the Contra Galilaeos probably dealt with the N T
(an inference made from the few fragments that remain) BOUFFARTIGUE argues that Julian
likely made more references to the N T than to the OT in that work (L'empereur Julien, 158).
1 6
S o z o m e n , H.E. 5.2.10 (GCS Sozomenus, 192,3-7 BlDEZ/HANSEN), Gregory Naz., Or.
4.23 (SC 309, 116-8 BERNARDI). Eunapius writes that Julian knew the Christian books "by
heart" in Eunapius, Vitae Soph. 7.7 (473) (41,20-4 GlANGRANDE = 428 WRIGHT).
250 3. Julian
J u l i a n ' s w o r k h a s l a r g e l y s u r v i v e d i n the r e s p o n s e C y r i l o f A l e x a n d r i a
1 7
c o m p o s e d in the 4 3 0 ' s . C y r i l stated that J u l i a n ' s t e x t " s h o o k u p m a n y
p e o p l e , a n d h e d i d n o little d a m a g e . L i g h t - m i n d e d and c r e d u l o u s p e o p l e fell
1 8
e a s i l y into his w a y o f thinking and b e c a m e a s w e e t prey for d e m o n s . "
Various fragments have also survived in the w r i t i n g s of Theodore of
19
Mopsuestia and o t h e r s . Julian's friendly attitude t o w a r d the J e w s stands in
ironic contrast w i t h C y r i l ' s "pastoral" d e c i s i o n t o b a n J e w s from h i s c i t y —
20
d u e t o w h a t S o c r a t e s c a l l s a J e w i s h attack o n the C h r i s t i a n s . Cyril w a s n o t
tolerant o f p a g a n i s m , and p r o b a b l y bears r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the a t m o s p h e r e
that l e d to the lynching of the philosopher-mathematician Hypatia of
21
Alexandria . Julian, o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , b a n n e d C h r i s t i a n s f r o m t e a c h i n g
1 7
D E LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 3 9 6 dates it between 4 3 1 and 4 4 1 . NEUMANN, Iuliani, 3 6 -
37 dates the work (at least the first ten books) between 4 2 9 and 4 4 1 . P. BuRGlfeRE/P. έ ν ι ε υ χ ,
Cyrille d'Alexandrie, Contre Julien, S C 322, Paris 1985, 10-5 date the text between 434-37 or
4 3 9 - 4 4 1 . Cp. COOK, Interpretation 2 8 5 . On the setting o f the work in fifth century debates
between Christians and pagans s e e W . KlNZlG, Zur Notwendigkeit einer Neuedition v o n
Kyrill v o n Alexandrien, Contra Iulianum, in: StPatr X X I X , ed. E. A. LIVINGSTONE, Leuven
1997, (484-94) 488-89 / G. H U B E R / M . CHRONZ, Cyrill v o n Alexandrien. Ein
Forschungsvorhaben, in: VAN OORT/WYRWA, Heiden, (66-87) 6 7 - 7 3 (they mention the
murder o f Hypatia and the possible consequences for sympathy for the pagan cause in
Alexandria). Cyril's work survives in ten books with fragments that continue up till book 19.
MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 20-39 has a discussion o f the M S tradition o f Cyril's work as do
BURGlfcRE/EviEUX, Cyrille, 78-94.
1 8
C. Iul., Proem. 3 (PG 7 6 , 508c = S C 3 2 2 , 106,17-20 B./E). Chrysostom claims that no
one (wise or unwise) w a s persuaded by such writings in: D e B a b y l o contra Julianum et
gentiles 11,26-30 ( S C 3 6 2 , 1 0 6 SCHATKIN/BLANC/GRILLET). A S a matter o f fact he notes that
the writings only survive in Christian libraries. Cyril dedicated his work against Julian to
Theodosius II w h o in turn had consigned Porphyry's C. Chr. to the flames. Theodosius
seems to have felt no such need to burn Julian's text. Perhaps the association o f Porphyry's
text with actual persecutions w a s part o f the reason, or perhaps Porphyry's text was actually
more instrumental in drawing people away from the faith than Julian's was. Below I will use
M i g n e ' s edition o f the C. Iul. and its numeration since the edition o f BURGlisRE/EviEUX,
Cyrille is incomplete (first two books only).
1 9
S e e the fragments in MASARACCHIA's edition, Giuliano Imperator, 180-191 and see her
comments o n 2 2 . Cf. also A. GUIDA, Frammenti inediti del "Contra i Galilei" di Giuliano e
della replica di Teodora di Mopsuestia, Prometheus 9, 1 9 8 3 , 139-63 / idem, Teodoro di
Mopsuestia, Replica a Giuliano Imperatore. Adversus criminationes in Christianos Iuliani
Imperatoris. In appendice Testimonianze sulla polemica antigiulianea in altre opere di
Teodoro, c o n nuovi frammenti del «Contro i Galilei» di Giuliano, Biblioteca Patristica,
Florence 1994. Responses to Julian's work are discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 284.
^ S o c r a t e s , H.E. 7.13.1-21 (GCS, 357,19-359,22 HANSEN). R. L. WlLKEN, Judaism and
the Early Christian Mind. A Study o f Cyril o f Alexandria's Exegesis and Theology, N e w
Haven/London 1 9 7 1 , 5 4 - 6 8 questions the accuracy o f Socrates' report.
2 1
Socrates, H.E. 7.15.1-7 (360,19-361,11 HANSEN). On Hypatia's life and death s e e M.
DZIELSKA, Hypatia o f Alexandria, trans. F. LYRA, Cambridge, MA/London 1 9 9 5 , 6 6 - 1 0 0 .
Greek literature u n l e s s they w o u l d affirm that the poets such as H o m e r and

2 2
H e s i o d are correct about the g o d s .
23
B e l o w I w i l l r e v i e w Julian's e x t e n s i v e response to the P e n t a t e u c h . H e
has a f e w scattered c o m m e n t s o n the historical b o o k s . T h e n I will analyze his
approach to O T p r o p h e c y and his criticism o f the Christians' u s e o f it. I w i l l
take up the question o f Julian's v i e w o f sacrifice. H i s understanding o f the
identity o f the G o d o f Israel will comprise a section. A final section will treat
the question o f the b l e s s i n g s o f the Greeks compared with those o f the J e w s .
3.1 The Language of the OT
Cyril preserves a brief reference o f Julian's to the H e b r e w l a n g u a g e o f the

scripture:
[Pressing on after this and mocking the holy scripture, since it has been composed in
Hebrew, someone I think will say to him: D o you then, Ο excellent one, condemn with it
all other languages which are far from that of the Greeks and will you by all means
number with it your o w n which you have done so much about — I mean that language of
24
the Italians?]
Cyril continues b y d e f e n d i n g the virtue that exists in the H e b r e w scriptures

and affirms that it is available to those w h o are trained in the texts. H e admits
that Christians also u s e Greek b o o k s that contain an elementary version o f the
25
truth . Cyril u s e s a similar argument in another text that appears in his
response to Julian's charge that the liberal arts are in a miserable state a m o n g
2 6
the H e b r e w s . A s t h e G r e e k l a n g u a g e p o s s e s s e s a certain e l o q u e n c e
2 7
( ε ύ γ λ ω τ τ ί α ) s o d o e s H e b r e w and the language o f the R o m a n s . Pagans often
attacked Christian scriptures for their m e a n style and c o m m o n l a n g u a g e . It
28
w a s a problem for Christians such as Augustine and Jerome a l s o . Arnobius
2 2
Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 3 1 8 - 2 0 with reference to Jul., Ep. 61c, 423a-d (1/2, 7 4 , 1 0 -
75,11 BIDEZ = III, 118-20 WRIGHT) and other texts.
2 3
A summary of Julian's work on the OT may be found in NESTLE, Die Haupteinwande,
60-1.
2 4
C. Jul. 7.233-34 (PG 7 6 , 8 5 7 a = 150,1-5 MAS.).
2 5
C. Jul. 7.234-35 (PG 76, 857c-859a).
2 6
C. Gal. 221e-222a (146,3-147,11 MAS. = III, 382 W R . ) in § 3.56 below.
2 7
C. Jul. 7.222-23 (PG 76, 840c-d).
2 8
Origen notes that Celsus and others complain of the cheap style ( λ έ ξ ε σ ι ν ευτέλειας)
of the scriptures in C. Cels. 6.2 (378,3-5 M A R C ) . Cp. Aug., Conf. 3.5.9 (CChr.SL 27, 30,38-
31,10 VERHEUEN) and Jerome, Ep. 22.30 (CSEL 54, 189,11-191,15 HlLBERG). Lact., Div.
Inst. 5.1.15-16 (SC 2 0 4 , 130 MONAT). See also COOK, Protreptic, 121, 133 and RINALDI, La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 2 , 4 - 7 .
252 3. Julian
p r e s e r v e s w h a t m a y b e an e x a m p l e o f a debate b e t w e e n Christians and p a g a n s

about the relative merit o f each other's texts. E a c h a c c u s e the other o f
d e v i s i n g f a l s e h o o d s in their writings. T h e p a g a n s tell the Christians that their
t e x t s w e r e written b y " u n e d u c a t e d and crude p e o p l e " (indoctis hominibus et
rudibus) and that they are "full o f barbarisms and s o l e c i s m s " and "polluted b y
29
a deformed mass of mistakes." T h e fact that u n e d u c a t e d p e o p l e w r o t e the
t e x t s i s a n i n d i c a t i o n for A r n o b i u s that t h e y are true a n d h a v e n o t b e e n
adulterated. A r n o b i u s concedes that the l a n g u a g e is trivial and shabby
30
(trivialis et sordidus sermo) .
3.2 The Incomplete Creation Account
Julian w a s h i g h l y c r i t i c a l o f c e r t a i n parts o f t h e c r e a t i o n narrative —

particularly in G e n e s i s 2 and 3 (§ 3 . 5 - 7 ) . H e then changes course by
c o m p a r i n g M o s e s ' c r e a t i o n narrative w i t h that o f P l a t o . H i s approach to
G e n e s i s 1 is m o r e favorable:
Next to consider the v i e w s that are correctly held by the Jews, and also those that our
fathers handed down to us from the beginning. Our account has in it the immediate
creator o f this universe ( τ ο ν π ρ ο σ ε χ ή τ ο υ κόσμου τούτου δημιουργοί/) as the
3 1
following s h o w s . M o s e s indeed has said nothing whatsoever about beings w h o are
3 2
superior to this o n e (υπέρ γ ά ρ τών ανωτέρω τούτου Μωυσής· μ ε ν εϊρηκεν ουδέν
2 9
Arnobius, A d v . nat. 1.57, 5 8 , 5 9 (52,6-8; 5 3 , 7 - 8 . 2 2 - 3 M A R C H . ) . S e e RlNALDl, La
Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 6.
3 0
Arnobius, Adv. nat. 1.58 (53,7-11 MARCH.).
3 1
There may be a lacuna in the text here as WRIGHT assumes, but Plato's account (C. Gal.
49a-e) does follow after this paragraph in NEUMANN'S edition which she follows (III, 328
WR.). MASARACCHlA's edition shows no lacuna (107,4 MAS. = 170,12-172,2 NEUMANN).
3 2
NEUMANN, Iuliani, 169,15 inserts "gods" (θεών) before the article. The translation in
that case w o u l d be (as in WRIGHT'S version) "about gods w h o are superior to this one."
MASARACCHIA emends the article to the singular ( τ ο υ ) and translates with "about a being
higher than this o n e " ( 1 0 7 , 5 ; 2 5 3 M A S . ) . She appeals to Cyril's interpretation in the
following response where he has t w o references to Julian's statement: "nothing is said, he
1
claims, about the highest G o d (περί τ ο υ , καθά φησιν αυτός , άνωτάτω θεου); and
"[Julian] claims that nothing is said at all about the first and the highest God" (ουδέν τ ό
π α ρ ά π α ν λ έ γ ω ν άποφηνασθαι περί τ ο υ πρώτου τ ε και άνωτάτω θεου). The relevant
texts are: C. Jul. 3.97, 98 (PG 7 6 , 648c, 649c). Cyril's response is not enough to emend the
text. Julian may have thought several beings were superior to the Creator mentioned by
Moses. S e e § 3.54.3 below. But Cyril answers as a monotheist, and is only concerned with
the Supreme G o d w h o for him can be none other than the G o d o f Israel. More recently
MASARACCHIA has revised her translation in favor of: "nothing about this higher (or highest)
being." S e e E. MASARACCHIA, Aspetti della cultura di Giuliano nel Contra Galilaeos, in:
Giuliano Imperatore. L e sue idee, i suoi amici, i suoi avversari. Atti de c o n v e g n o
internazionale di studi Lecce 10-12 Dicembre 1998, Rudiae. Ricerche sul mondo classico 10,
33
όλως), nay, he has not even ventured to say anything about the nature o f the a n g e l s . But
that they serve ( λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ο υ σ ι ) God he has asserted in many ways and often; but whether
they were generated or ungenerated ( ά γ έ ν η τ ο ι ) , or whether they were generated by o n e
god and appointed to serve another, or in some other way, he has nowhere said definitely.
But he describes fully in what manner the heavens and the earth and all that therein is
34
were set in o r d e r . In part, he says, God commanded them to be, such as light and the
firmament, and in part, he says, G o d made them, such as the heavens and the earth, the
sun and moon, and that all things which already existed but were hidden away for the time
being, he separated, such as water, I mean and dry land. But apart from these he did not
venture to say a word about the generation or the making of the Spirit, but only this, "And
the Spirit o f God m o v e d upon the face o f the waters" (Gen 1:2). But whether that spirit
35
was ungenerated or had been generated he does not make at all c l e a r .
C y r i l ' s n e x t e x c e r p t from Julian b e g i n s w i t h t h e s e w o r d s :
Accordingly, since M o s e s , as it seems, has failed also to give a complete account o f the
immediate creator o f this universe (περί του προσεχούς του κόσμου τούτου
δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ο ύ ) , let us g o o n and set o n e against another the opinions o f the Hebrews and
36
that of our fathers about these n a t i o n s .
Julian at t i m e s q u e s t i o n s w h e t h e r the G o d o f the O T i s the creator o f the

u n i v e r s e , a l t h o u g h h e o c c a s i o n a l l y i d e n t i f i e s the t w o ( s e e § 3 . 5 4 ) . T h i s is
b e c a u s e the O T G o d s e e m s t o h i m t o b e c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h the p e o p l e o f
Israel. H i s v i e w o f G e n e s i s as a f u n d a m e n t a l l y incomplete account of
creation contrasts w i t h h i s appeal to P l a t o ' s account. M o s e s is w i l l i n g to s a y
3 7
that a n g e l s s e r v e G o d , but n o t w h e t h e r they are created or n o t . Julian d o e s
n o t c o m p a r e the a n g e l s t o t h e g o d s o f H e l l e n i s m as M a c a r i u s ' p h i l o s o p h e r
Lecce 1998, (91-111) 97-8. Her translation is certainly possible if the emendation is correct,
but I will argue b e l o w (§ 3.54.3) that Julian does not here identify Israel's (and Plato's)
Demiurge/Creator with the Highest Being of Neo-Platonism.
3 3
Julian does not hesitate to identify the source of the angels' existence. Helios calls into
existence the "sun angels" in Or. 11.17,18 141b, 142a (II/2, 115-16 LAC. = I, 3 8 4 - 8 6 W R . ) .
In his Letter to the Athenians, Julian speaks o f his o w n guardian angels; Ep. ad Athen. 5.5,
275b (1/1, 221,51-3 BlDEZ = II, 2 4 8 W R . ) . For other Neo-Platonists' references to angels see
LACOMBRADE's note ( I I / 2 , 1 1 5 n . l ) .
3 4
Without giving Julian's interpretation, Cyril notes that J. w a s aware o f the opinion of
the Hebrews that heaven is God's throne and the earth is his footstool. Cyril notes that the
belief appears in Isa 6 6 : 1 . S e e C. Jul. 2 . 7 2 (PG 7 6 , 612b = 101,1-2 M A S . = 314,27-8 Β . / έ . ) .
Cf. C. RlEDWEG, Mit Stoa und Platon gegen die Christen: Philosophische Argumentations-
strukturen in Julians Contra Galilaeos, in: Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie in
der Spatantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung v o m 2 2 . — 2 5 .
September 1997 in Trier, ed. T. FUHRER/M. ERLER, Philosophie der Antike 9, Stuttgart 1999,
(55-81)66.
3 5
Julian, C. Gal. 96c-e (107,2-108,3 MAS. = ΠΙ, 328 WR.).
3 6
Julian, C. Gal. 99d-e (109,11-14 M A S . = III, 338-40 W R . ) . For the rest of this excerpt
see § 3 . 2 1 .
3 7
A Jewish magician (and then the pagan magicians w h o put the text into a larger
collection) is quite clear about the fact the God created the angels in PGM VII, 262.
254 3. Julian
38
d i d . H i s similar query about the H o l y Spirit m a y reflect, according t o
W i l k e n , fourth c e n t u r y d e b a t e s about t h e d i v i n i t y o f t h e Spirit. T h e
P n e u m a t o m a c h i d e n i e d the Spirit's d i v i n i t y and w e r e c o n d e m n e d at the
council o f Constantinople ( 3 8 1 ) — not t o o many years after Julian's death in
3 9
3 6 3 . C e l s u s m a y h a v e attacked the concept o f the Spirit in G e n 1:2, but it is
40
not c l e a r . Julian also finds fault with M o s e s ' inability to identify the precise
41
nature o f G o d ' s creative a c t i v i t y .
Cyril censures Julian for not understanding that the G o d o f G e n e s i s i s the
supreme G o d , b e c a u s e M o s e s describes h i m as the creator o f everything. For
Cyril the G o d o f M o s e s is clearly the Creator ( D e m i u r g e ) o f all things, the
O n e and t h e H i g h e s t , and the G o d b e y o n d everything (Δημιουργόν ... των
όλων ... τ ο ν έ ν α και άνωτάτω, και παντός έπβΚΕΐνα θ€Ον). H e
c o n t i n u e s b y q u o t i n g R o m 1:20 and a text f r o m N u m e n i u s ( w h i c h h e
mistakenly attributed to Plato) in the course o f his argument in w h i c h h e tries
to s h o w that M o s e s did indeed describe the creator o f the universe (through
the S o n i n the Spirit). W i t h regard t o the angels Cyril notes that if they are
ministers (λειτουργούς), they are created (γβνητοι), and quotes P s 1 0 3 : 4 in
support. Cyril notes that since G e n 1:2 describes the Spirit as divine (Spirit
42
of G o d ) , it is not created (γ€νητόν) .
3.3 Genesis 1
Julian i n c l u d e s a lengthy quote from G e n 1 in the c o n t e x t o f a comparison

b e t w e e n M o s e s ' c o s m o g o n y and that o f Plato.
N o w , if you please, w e will compare the utterance of Plato. Observe then what he says
about the creator, and what words he makes him speak at the time of the generation o f the
3 8
Macarius, M o n o g . 4 . 2 1 b . l - 4 (II, 310,15-312,18 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius F.
76) discussed in COOK, Interpretation 235-37. A similar comparison of the angels to the gods
of the Greeks appears in Ps. Justin, Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 142 (158), 490a (236 OTTO
= 145,16-8 P.-K./H.).
3 9
WILKEN, Christians, 183-84. For a brief discussion of the issue see: Pneumatomachi,
2
ODCC , 1104-05. D i d y m u s , Trin. 2.3 (PG 3 9 , 477a) describes the Spirit as uncreated
(άγένητον). Cf. also W . NESTLE, Die Haupteinwande, 60.
4 0
S e e § 1.2.11.
4 1
On this point see GAGER, Moses, 107.
4 2
The references in order are: Cyril, C. Jul. 3.96-7, 9 7 - 8 , 9 8 - 9 (PG 7 6 , 648c, 650a-c,
651a-b). The text from Numenius is F. 15 (56 DES PLACES = Eus., P.E. 11.18.20-21) and
contains a reference to the First and Second God. Alcinoos discusses the First God in Didask.
10, 164,22; ( 2 2 W . / L . ) and see the note with many other textual references on 102 n.181. On
this see also § 2.1.4.
4 3
universe, in order that w e may compare ( ά ν τ ι π α ρ α β ά λ ω μ ε ν ) Plato's account o f that
generation with that o f Moses. For in this way it will appear w h o was the nobler and w h o
was more worthy o f intercourse with God, Plato w h o paid homage to images, or he o f
whom the scripture says that God spoke with him mouth to mouth (Num 12:8).
H e then q u o t e s m u c h o f G e n 1:1-18 ( 1 : 1 - 6 , 9 [in part], 11 [in part], 1 4 [in

part], 1 7 , 1 8 a ) . H e c o n t i n u e s :
In all this, y o u observe, M o s e s does not say that the deep w a s created by God, or the
darkness or the waters. A n d yet, after saying concerning light that God ordered it to be,
and it was, surely he ought to have gone on to speak o f night also, and the deep and the
waters. But o f them he says not a word to imply that they were not already existing at all,
though he often mentions them. Furthermore, he does not mention the birth or creation of
the angels or in what manner they were brought into being, but deals only with the
heavenly and earthly bodies. It follows that, according to M o s e s , G o d is the creator of
nothing that is incorporeal, but is only the disposer of matter that already existed (ϋλης· δε
υ π ο κ ε ί μ ε ν η ς κ ο σ μ ή τ ο ρ α ) . For the words, "And the earth w a s invisible and without
form" can only mean that he regards the wet and dry substance as the original matter and
44
that he then introduces God as the disposer of this matter.
A s in the p r e v i o u s f r a g m e n t h e attacks the i n c o m p l e t e n e s s o f t h e M o s a i c

c o s m o g o n y w h i l e i m p l y i n g that P l a t o ' s w a s far superior. H e u s e s a set o f
a r g u m e n t s f r o m s i l e n c e t o q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r night, the d e e p and t h e w a t e r s
w e r e created or w e r e p r e - e x i s t i n g . S i l e n c e w i t h regard t o the a n g e l s i m p l i e s
that G o d d i d n o t c r e a t e spiritual b e i n g s . R. A s m u s c o m p a r e s this d e n i a l t o
J u l i a n ' s a s s e r t i o n that H e l i o s i s r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e i m m a t e r i a l f o r m s of
45
Plato . A n d f i n a l l y t h e s t a t e m e n t in Gen 1:2 a b o u t t h e earth (silence
c o n c e r n i n g the c r e a t i o n o f matter) i m p l i e s that G o d "arranged" matter o n l y .
Julian apparently c o n c l u d e s that for M o s e s matter w a s u n c r e a t e d — as h e
o p e n l y d o e s in h i s q u e s t i o n a b o u t n i g h t , the d e e p , and t h e w a t e r . For a
H e l l e n i s t this is not an i m p o s s i b l e p o s i t i o n s i n c e other p h i l o s o p h e r s b e l i e v e d
46
matter w a s e t e r n a l . S o m e Christian thinkers w e r e n o t a v e r s e t o the i d e a .
P r o c o p i u s o f G a z a w a s w i l l i n g to grant darkness a certain "uncreated" status
47
s i n c e G o d did not s a y "let there b e d a r k n e s s " .
4 3
C. RlEDWEG, Mit Stoa, 6 2 notes that this term is from the rhetoricians. Cf. Aristot.,
Rhet. ad. Alex. 1426a, 28; Aristot., Rhet. 1.3.9.
4 4
Julian, C. Gal. 49a-e (91,3-92,37 MAS. = III, 328-32 W R . ) . S e e the discussion o f this
text in RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 71-2.
4 5
R. ASMUS, Julians Galilaerschrift im Zusammenhang mit seinen ubrigen Werken. Ein
Beitrag zur Erklarung und Kritik der julianischen Schriften, Beilage zum Jahresbericht des
Grossherzoglichen Gymnasiums zu Freiburg i Br., Freiburg i. Br. 1904, 9. ASMUS' important
work is now, unfortunately, almost impossible to use without the edition (HERTLEIN) that he
referred to. One example o f the immaterial forms (άσωματοΐς ε ϊ δ ε σ ι ) in Julian's work is
Or. 1 1 . 2 4 , 1 4 5 a ( I I / 2 , 1 2 0 LACOMBRADE = 1,394 W R . ) .
4 6
S e e § 1.2.11.
4 7
Procopius o f Gaza, In Gen 1:5 (PG 8 7 , 5 7 b ) .
256 3. Julian
Cyril g i v e s a lengthy reply ( s i x c o l u m n s in M i g n e ' s edition) w h i c h s h o w s

that h e w a s troubled b y Julian's objections. H e argues that M o s e s describes,
according to nature ( κ α τ ά φ ύ σ ι ν ) , the o n e creator o f all things. M o s e s l e a v e s
out other t h i n g s created b y G o d . H e asks w h y it s h o u l d b e n e c e s s a r y to
explain the nature o f water and the abyss (deep) — things that are difficult to
48
understand and b e y o n d the intellect o f t h o s e in M o s e s ' e r a . Q u o t i n g R o m
1 : 2 0 - 2 1 , h e d e s c r i b e s ' M o s e s ' a u d i e n c e and a p p e a l s t o t w o texts from
4 9
Plutarch to d e s c r i b e p e o p l e ' s groping after the nature o f G o d . G e n 1:1,
5 0
Cyril a r g u e s , p r e c l u d e s the idea that matter is coeternal w i t h G o d . T h e
5 1
reference to the Spirit in G e n 1:2 s h o w s that water is the work o f G o d . H e
refers to Plato and a number o f Hermetic texts to argue that n o o n e doubts that
5 2
all things are created b y G o d .
3.4 Plato on Creation of the Universe and of Humans
Julian quotes Plato's T i m a e u s (28b,c, 3 0 b ) in part:

N o w on the other hand hear what Plato says about the universe: " . . . It follows, therefore,
according to the reasonable theory, that w e ought to affirm that this universe came into
being as a living creature possessing soul and intelligence in very truth ( ζ φ ο ν ε μ ψ υ χ ο ν
evvow), by the providence of God." Let us but compare them, point by point. What and
what sort of speech does the god make in the account of M o s e s , and what the god in the
account of Plato?
Cyril is not troubled b y this text o f Plato w h o supports the (Christian) v i e w

5 3
that the u n i v e r s e is created ( γ ε ν η τ ό ν ) . Meredith p o i n t s out that the gulf
Julian attempted to establish b e t w e e n the creation story o f the B i b l e and that
54
o f H e l l e n i s m w a s not as great as Julian wanted his audience to b e l i e v e .
Julian finds Plato's account o f the creation o f h u m a n s to b e superior to that
o f G e n 1 : 2 6 - 2 8 . H e i n c l u d e s the text o f G e n 1 : 2 6 - 2 8 ( w i t h s o m e small
4 8
C. Jul. 2.50-51 (PG 7 6 , 5 7 7 b - c ) .
4 9
C . Jul. 2.51 (PG 76, 577d-580b) with reference to Ps. Plutarch, D e placitis 1.6 (292,22-
293,6; 294,21-295,6 DlELS, Doxogr. gr.).
5 0
C. Jul. 2.54 (PG 7 6 , 5 8 4 a - b ) .
5 1
C. Jul. 2.55 (PG 76, 584d-585a).
5 2
C. Jul. 2.56 (PG 7 6 , 585d-588a) with reference to Plato, Tim. 41a and C. H., Fragmenta
varia 32a (IV, 138 N./F.) - a text similar to Gen 1:6, 10: "Let the earth be and let the
firmament appear, and immediately in the beginning of creation the earth came into
existence."
5 3
C . Gal. 57b-d (94,1-9 M A S . = ΙΠ, 332 WR.). C. Jul. 2.57 (PG 7 6 , 5 8 9 a ) .
5 4
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1144. He refers to Philo, D e opif. 7 2 (and see also 73-5) and
Origen, C. Cels. 4.61 among other texts. C H A D W I C K , Origen, 2 3 4 n.l discusses the
interpretation of the Timaeus' account of creation in middle Platonism.
o m i s s i o n s in 2 8 ) and t h e n m u c h o f the text o f P l a t o ' s Timaeus 41a-c including

t h e s e w o r d s o f P l a t o ' s Creator:
Three kinds o f mortal beings still remain unborn, and unless these have birth the heaven
will be incomplete. For it will not have within itself all the kinds o f living things. Y e t if
these should c o m e into being and receive a share of life at my hands they would become
equal to gods. Therefore in order that they may be mortal, and that this All may be All in
very truth, turn y e according to your nature to the contriving o f living things, imitating m y
power even as I showed it in generating you. And such part of them as is fitted to receive
the same name as the immortals, which is called divine and the power in them that
governs all w h o are willing ever to follow justice and you, this part I, having sowed it and
originated the same, will deliver to you. For the rest, do you, weaving the mortal with the
immortal, contrive living beings and bring them to birth; then by giving them sustenance
55
increase them, and when they perish receive them back a g a i n .
C e l s u s p r e c e d e d Julian in the v i e w that s o u l s are the w o r k o f G o d but h u m a n

5 6
b o d i e s are the w o r k o f the g o d s . T h o u g h Julian offers little c o m m e n t a r y in
this p a s s a g e it i s apparent that h e f i n d s the P l a t o n i c a c c o u n t t o b e m o r e
57
c o m p l e t e and a c c e p t a b l e . Cyril finds fault w i t h Julian and Plato here s i n c e it
i s i m p o s s i b l e for h i m t o a c c e p t P l a t o ' s v e r s i o n o f a p o l y t h e i s t i c c r e a t i o n o f
human beings. H e a s k s w h a t c o u l d b e better than t o b e i m p r e s s e d w i t h the
image of God. H e c r i t i c i z e s P l a t o ' s c r e a t i o n o f a s p e e c h in t h e c r e a t o r ' s
character (rhetorical e t h o p o i e a or characterization) t o f a l s e l y n a m e d gods
5 8
s i n c e it i s the k i n d o f t h i n g p o e t s d o . Cyril d e n i e s that h e a v e n is a l i v i n g
59
b e i n g and a p p e a l s t o A r i s t o t l e in s u p p o r t . Since Plato's demiurge, Cyril
argues, tells the g o d s t h e y are n o t immortal by nature, t h o s e w h o s a y that the
60
s u p r e m e G o d c o u l d n o t create mortal b e i n g s are s t u p i d . Cyril c o n c l u d e s
w i t h a l o n g f r a g m e n t f r o m a H e r m e t i c text that affirms G o d created all t h i n g s
6 1
including h u m a n s .
5 5
C. Gal. 57e-58e (95,4-96,34 MAS. = III, 334-36 W R . ) . RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani,
II, 7 8 , in his comment on this text, refers to Ocellus' possible reference to the same text in
Genesis. S e e § 0 . 3 .
5 6
§ 1.2.15.
5 7
According to MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1144 Julian is criticizing the Christians for not
providing an inferior demiurge to deal with the physical universe.
5 8
On this tool o f rhetoric s e e COOK, Interpretation, 27 n.50 including LAUSBERG,
Handbuch, § 826-29. C. Jul. 2 . 5 7 , 5 9 (PG 7 6 , 5 8 9 a , 592a-c).
5 9
C. Jul. 2.60 (PG 7 6 , 593a) with reference to his o w n discussion o f Aristotle and other
philosophers in 2 . 4 6 (PG 7 6 , 572b). S e e Ps. Plutarch, D e placit. 2.3 ( 3 3 0 , 5 - 1 2 DlELS,
Doxogr. gr.).
6 0
C. Jul. 2.63 (PG 7 6 , 597b-c). Cp. Plato, Tim. 41a-b.
6 1
C. Jul. 2.63-64 (PG 7 6 , 597d-600b) quoting C. H. 14, Άσκληττιφ ε ύ φρονεΐν 6-10
(selections) (II, 224,9-226,8 N./F.).
258 3. Julian
3.5 The Knowledge of Good and Evil
Julian c r i t i c i z e s t h e E d e n narrative b y a s k i n g hard q u e s t i o n s about the

prohibition against eating o f the tree o f k n o w l e d g e :
Moreover, is it not excessively absurd (υπερβολής ά τ ο π ι α ς ) that God should deny to the
human beings w h o m he had fashioned the power to distinguish between good and evil
(Gen 2:17)? What could be more foolish (ήλιθιώτερον) than a being unable to distinguish
good from bad? For it is evident that he would not avoid the latter, I mean things evil, nor
would he strive after the former, I mean things good. And, in short, God refused to let the
human taste of wisdom, than which there could be nothing of more value for the human.
For that the power to distinguish between good and less good is the property of wisdom is
62
evident surely even to the w i t l e s s .
E m a n u e l a M a s a r a c c h i a m a k e s the point that Plato b e l i e v e d that the s o u l ' s

63
e d u c a t i o n and virtues w e r e o f primary importance in l i f e . Julian b e l i e v e d
that k n o w l e d g e m a d e a human like G o d and that the pursuit o f truth w a s the
64
goal o f all p h i l o s o p h e r s . W . J. M a l l e y notes that Julian thought that Athena
6 5
g a v e p e o p l e w i s d o m . T h e S t o i c s w e r e a l s o c o n c e r n e d w i t h the k n o w l e d g e
66
o f g o o d and e v i l t h i n g s . T h e charge o f absurdity u s e d against O T (and N T )
texts w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e in H e l l e n i s m and C e l s u s u s e d it often. H e a l s o
6 7
c l a i m e d that the entire narrative o f E d e n w a s c o m i c a l . L i k e Porphyry,
Julian found it unacceptable that G o d w o u l d refuse the k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d to
68
the first h u m a n s . M a r c i o n ' s f o l l o w e r A p e l l e s attacked G e n 2:17 o n several
counts. H e argued that A d a m w o u l d not k n o w w h a t the k n o w l e d g e o f g o o d
and e v i l w a s and that G o d w o u l d not c o m m a n d s o m e t h i n g that w o u l d b e
69
d i s o b e y e d . In another text Julian n o t e d that G o d prohibited o n e kind o f
food: "But if there w a s n o precise l a w and c o m m a n d m e n t , there w o u l d h a v e
70
b e e n n o sin. B e i n g g o o d , w h y did he p u n i s h ? "
6 2
C. Gal. 89a-b (94,2-12 MAS. = III, 324-26 W R . ) .
6 3
MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 2 0 4 on F. 16 with reference to Plato, Phaedr. 241c, Leg.
697b.
6 4
Or. 9.4, 8 , 1 8 4 a , 188b (II/l, 1 4 7 , 1 5 4 ROCHE. = II, 1 2 , 2 4 W R . ) .
6 5
W . J. M A L L E Y , Hellenism and Christianity. The Conflict B e t w e e n Hellenic and
Christian W i s d o m in the Contra Galilaeos of Julian the Apostate and the Contra Julianum of
St. Cyril of Alexandria, Analecta Gregoriana 2 1 0 , Rome 1978, 5 0 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II § 4 9 . Julian states that Athena gave people blessings ( α γ α θ ά ) including wisdom
(σοφίαν) and the creative arts (δημιουργικά^ τ έ χ ν α ? ) in Or. 11.32, 150a (II/2, 127 LAC. = I,
410 W R . ) .
6 6
See S V F 3.172.
6 7
§ 1.2.10.
6 8
§ 2.2.5.
6 9
§ 1.2.8.
7 0
C. Jul. 3.80 (PG 7 6 , 624a) = 103,3-7 MAS. See RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, §
46a.
Cyril r e s p o n d s that Julian did not understand the biblical author's u s e o f

" k n o w l e d g e " w h i c h i s n o t j u s t a s i m p l e k n o w l e d g e o f r e a l i t i e s but a
71
k n o w l e d g e in actual e x p e r i e n c e . H e calls attention to " A d a m k n e w E v e his
72
w i f e " in G e n 4:1 to m a k e this p o i n t . G o d created t h e m rational s o they w e r e
73
not intellectually ignorant o f g o o d and e v i l . Cyril appeals to m a n y texts o f
Paul to s h o w the d e v a s t a t i n g e f f e c t o f the experiential k n o w l e d g e o f e v i l
7 4
(Rom 7:4-15, 18-20, 2 1 - 2 3 ) .
3.6 Adam and Eve
After m e n t i o n i n g m y t h s about Kronos s w a l l o w i n g his o w n children and Z e u s

h a v i n g intercourse w i t h h i s mother, Julian refers to the d i s m e m b e r m e n t o f
7 5
D i o n y s u s and then b e g i n s an attack o n the account in G e n 2 - 3 . H e writes:
Compare with them [the Greek myths] the Jewish doctrine, how the garden was planted
by God and Adam was fashioned by Him, and next, for Adam, woman came to be. For
God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. Let us make him a help meet like
him" (Gen 2:18). Yet so far was she from helping him at all that she deceived him, and
was in part the cause of his and her own fall from their life of ease in the garden. These
are wholly mythical (μυθώδη). For is it probable (evXoyov) that God did not know that
the being he was creating as a help meet (προς βοήθειαν) would prove to be not so much
76
a blessing as a misfortune to him who received h e r ?
P h i l o is w i l l i n g to a g r e e that the story o f E v e created from A d a m ' s rib w a s

77
mythical ( μ υ θ ώ δ ε ς ) in its literal s e n s e and n e e d e d interpretation . In general
Julian w a s w i l l i n g t o a d m i t that G r e e k stories and O T s t o r i e s n e e d e d
78
a l l e g o r i z i n g . J u l i a n ' s u s e o f probability or rationality to c r i t i c i z e an O T
79
account is a t o o l in the literary criticism d e s c r i b e d b y A r i s t o t l e . C e l s u s
7 1
C. Jul. 3.89 (PG 7 6 , 6 3 6 d ) .
7 2
C. Jul. 3.92 (PG 7 6 , 6 3 9 c - d ) .
7 3
C. Jul. 3.92 (PG 7 6 , 6 4 1 b ) .
7 4
C. Jul. 3.90-91 (PG 7 6 , 6 3 7 d - 6 4 0 a ) .
7 5
C. Gal. 44a-b (89,2-90,6 MAS. = III, 324 WR.).
7 6
C. Gal. 75a-b (101,5-102,14 MAS. = III, 324 WR.). Cf. RlEDWEG, Mit Stoa, 7 1 .
7 7
Philo, Leg. alleg. 2.19 discussed by ROKEAH, Jews, 95.
7 8
S e e § 3.10, PEPIN, Mythe, 2 6 6 - 6 7 . Cf. STERN II, 545-46. In response to Julian's
denigration of the creation account, Cyril includes a lengthy discussion of the contradictions
of the philosophers concerning the universe that draws on a text of Ps. Plutarch in C. Jul.
2.46-47 (PG 7 6 , 569d-572c = S C 3 2 2 , 232,1-236,25 B./E.); cf. Ps. Plutarch, D e placit. 2.1-4
(327,8-332,5 DlELS, Doxogr. gr.). He also continues Julian's point by including a catalog of
the gods' many sins in C. Jul. 3.45 (PG 7 6 , 5 6 9 , b ) .
7 9
Aristotle (Poet. 2 4 . 1 5 , 2 2 , 2 5 . 3 2 ) describes the use of terms like irrationality (τό
ά λ ο γ ο ν ) and absurdity ( ά τ ο π ο ν ) to criticize poetry. See LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 1180 and
COOK, Interpretation, 10.
260 3. Julian
b e l i e v e d the a c c o u n t o f the garden o f E d e n to b e c o m i c a l , but unlike Julian

80
w a s u n w i l l i n g to a l l o w any a l l e g o r y o f O T t e x t s . T h e G n o s t i c s a l s o
81
c r i t i c i z e d t h e Creator o f the O T narrative for b e i n g i g n o r a n t . Julian's
alternative for the Christians is stark: either G o d is g u i l t y o f a l a c k o f
82
k n o w l e d g e , or the story is a m y t h .
Cyril e m p h a s i z e s E v e ' s function as a c h i l d bearer w h o thus h e l p s fulfill
83
G o d ' s b l e s s i n g to "be fruitful and multiply" ( G e n 1 : 2 8 ) . H e a l s o c o m p a r e s
the texts o f H e s i o d about the creation o f the w o r l d u n f a v o r a b l y w i t h the
M o s a i c account and asks whether " w e should accept H e s i o d ' s Pandora" or the
8 4 85
w o m a n f o r m e d b y G o d . O r i g e n u s e d a similar argument against C e l s u s .
Cyril n o t e s that G o d k n e w all things that w o u l d h a p p e n , but granted p e o p l e
the w i l l to m a k e free c h o i c e s . H e quotes a text o f Porphyry and m a n y from
86
A l e x a n d e r o f Aphrodisias in support o f free w i l l .
3.7 The Serpent's Language
Julian attacks the notion o f a snake's ability to speak to E v e :

For what sort of language are w e to say that the serpent used when he talked with Eve
(Gen 3:1-5)? Was it the language of human beings? And in what do such tales as these
differ from the myths that were invented (τών παρά τοις· Έ λ λ η σ ι πεπλασμενων
87
μύθων) by the H e l l e n e s ?
8 0
§ 1.2.10 (Eden), 1.1 (on allegory).
8 1
BROX, Gnostische Argumente, 183. BROX does not refer to a text in which the Creator
is criticized specifically for being ignorant of E v e ' s future action. Cp. Iren. 1.5.3 (Sophia
makes the Demiurge ignorant), 1.5.4 (the ignorant Demiurge utters Isa 4 6 : 9 ) , 1.5.6 (the
Demiurge does not perceive the Savior who is spiritual or the spiritual man that is sowed in
the created being of Gen 2:7), 1.17.1 (the Mother keeps the Demiurge ignorant of the image
of invisible things during the act of creation) (SC 2 6 4 , 80,44-82,54; 82,66-84,69; 88,100-11;
2 6 4 , 1 1 - 2 6 6 , 1 ROUSSEAU/DOUTRELEAU). The Demiurge k n o w s nothing, and Sophia does
everything using H i m in the creation of the world in Hippolytus, Ref. 6.33.1 (245,5-11
MARC). The serpent is admired and the Creator is criticized for his envy and lack of
foreknowledge (about where Adam is — quoted in § 1.2.8) in a text in Testim. Truth N H C
IX, 3 , 4 7 , 5 - 2 9 (NHS 15, 162-4 PEARSON).
8 2
Cp. HUBER/CHRONZ, Cyrill, 83-4.
8 3
C. Jul. 3.77 (PG 7 6 , 6 1 7 d - 6 2 0 a ) .
8 4
C. Jul. 3.75-77 (PG 7 6 , 6 1 6 a - 6 1 7 c ) .
8 5
§ 1.1.2.
8 6
C. Jul. 3.79 (PG 7 6 , 620d-621a). Porphyry, A d Nemertium (SMITH, Porphyrii, 276F).
The fragments from Alexander appear in the course of Cyril's discussion in 3.79-84 (PG 76,
621c-629a).
8 7
C. Gal. 86a (103,2-4 M A S . = III, 324 WR.).
Julian regarded the N T g o s p e l s as fictions and admitted that the H e l l e n e s

t h e m s e l v e s c o m p o s e d f i c t i o n a l m y t h s s u c h as t h e s t o r i e s o f K r o n o s
8 8
s w a l l o w i n g his children (§ 3 . 1 0 b e l o w ) . H e at least is w i l l i n g to include his
o w n culture's narratives under the general category o f m y t h . C e l s u s c a l l e d
89
the narrative o f E v e and the serpent a m y t h that w a s u n p e r s u a s i v e .
A m b r o s i a s t e r p r e s e r v e s an a n o n y m o u s o b j e c t i o n to the G e n e s i s narrative:
" W i t h w h a t l a n g u a g e (lingua) d o y o u think the serpent s p o k e t o the
90
woman?" P. C o u r c e l l e n o t e s that s u c h o b j e c t i o n s in A m b r o s i a s t e r are
91
probably from p a g a n c r i t i c s . P h i l o m a y h a v e b e e n o f aware o f similar
c h a r g e s against the narrative o f E v e and the serpent. H e r e c o u n t s the
narrative with, "It is said o f o l d that the p o i s o n o u s earthborn snake c o u l d emit
a h u m a n v o i c e . . . T h e s e are n o mythical fictions (μύθου π λ ά σ μ α τ α ) w h i c h
the poetic and sophistic kind finds j o y in . . . " H e c o n c l u d e s that the stories
92
d e m a n d allegory w i t h the serpent b e i n g a s y m b o l o f p l e a s u r e . In another
text Philo defends the narrative b y asserting that animals c o u l d speak in s o m e
limited s e n s e in the garden and that G o d c o u l d also h a v e provided o n e w i t h
93
miraculous s p e e c h .
Cyril denied that there are any myths at all in the B i b l e , but quite w i l l i n g l y
agrees with Julian that H e l l e n i s m abounds with them. H e attributes the v o i c e
o f the serpent to the p o w e r o f the ancient evil d e m o n . E x a m p l e s h e finds o f
such actions o f u n c l e a n spirits are: A c h i l l e s ' horse p r o p h e s i e s his death to
him; Pythagoras is greeted b y the river Caucasus; and an Egyptian s a g e m a k e s
94
a tree greet A p o l l o n i u s o f T y a n a . T h e t w o antagonists are at an i m p a s s e
here since each regards the other's narratives as fiction.
8 8
C. Gal. 39a, C. Gal. 44a-b (87,1-6; 89,2-90,6 M A S . = III, 3 1 8 - 1 9 , 3 2 4 W R . ) . Cp.
COOK, Interpretation 1 4 , 2 8 6 - 8 7 .
8 9
Origen, C. Cels. 4.36 (250,15-28 M A R C ) . And see § 1.2.7.
9 0
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N . Test. 31.3 (60,1-2 SOUTER = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II, § 60). Cp. RINALDI, Tracce, 108.
9 1
COURCELLE, Critiques exegetiques, 1 3 4 , 1 4 0 .
9 2
Philo, D e o p i f . 156-57.
9 3
Philo, Quaest in Gen. 1.32.
9 4
C . Jul. 3.86-88 (PG 7 6 , 632a-635b). Cyril refers to the following texts: Homer, Iliad
19,407, 420; Porphyry, Vita Pyth. 27 (48,21-4 DES PLACES); and Philostratus, Vita Ap. 6.10.
Cyril calls Porphyry Julian's "companion and father of the loquacity directed against us" in
3.87 (PG 7 6 , 6 3 3 a ) .
262 3. Julian
3.8 Garments of Skins
95
In a fragmentary letter, written to a p r i e s t , Julian m a k e s a c o m m e n t about
G e n 3:21 in the c o n t e x t o f his description o f the g o o d things that the g o d s
have g i v e n h u m a n beings:
And since w e were born naked they covered us with the hair of animals, and with things
that grow in the ground and on trees. Nor were they content to do this simply or off-hand
(ουκ ή ρ κ ε σ ε ν απλώς ουδέ α υ τ ο σ χ ε δ ί ω ν ) , as M o s e s tells us people took coats of skins
(Gen 3:21; χ ι τ ώ ν α ς ... δ ε ρ μ ά τ ι ν ο υ ς ) , but you see how numerous are the gifts of Athena
96
the Craftswoman.
J u l i a n ' s r e f e r e n c e to M o s e s in n o w a y c o m p r o m i s e s h i s a d h e r e n c e to
H e l l e n i s m . T h e account in G e n e s i s is "offhand" and t o o " s i m p l e . " T h e gifts
o f A t h e n a are far m o r e important than anything M o s e s c o u l d say about G o d ' s
gifts to A d a m and E v e . Julian b e l i e v e s that A t h e n a g a v e p e o p l e b l e s s i n g s
( α γ α θ ά ) i n c l u d i n g w i s d o m ( σ ο φ ί α ν ) and the c r e a t i v e arts ( δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ι κ ό ς
91
τέχνας) . W h a t this amounts to is really an alternative explanation to that of
M o s e s that i n v o l v e s J u l i a n ' s p o l y t h e i s t i c w o r l d v i e w . E v e n t h o u g h h e
b e l i e v e d i n a s u p r e m e creator G o d h e t h o u g h t J e w s and Christians w e r e
f o o l i s h t o a b a n d o n the rest o f the g o d s w h o p r o v i d e d s u c h b l e s s i n g s .
Porphyry k n e w o f the tradition o f "leather g a r m e n t s " as a s y m b o l o f the
human b o d y (skin) that the philosophical soul learns to abandon. H e t o o m a y
9 8
h a v e g o t t e n the phrase from G e n e s i s . Julian is not interested in any such
99
allegorical interpretation o f the text in G e n e s i s .
9 5
This is clear from Frag. Ep. 89b, 298b (1/2, 166,3-7 BlDEZ = II, 3 2 0 W R . ) . BlDEZ (1/2,
102 BlDEZ) assumes that the priest is Theodoras (for w h o m see § 3.54.7), but WRIGHT has
strong doubts (III, lxii-iii W R . ) as does STERN II, 557. STERN makes the careful judgment
that the addressee remains unknown.
9 6
Frag. Ep. 89b, 289c-d (1/2,157,3-6 BlDEZ = II, 298-300 W R . ) .
9 7
Or. 11.32, 150a (II/2, 127 L A C = 1 , 4 1 0 W R . ) . See also C. Gal. 235b-c (151,4-5 M A S .
= III, 3 8 6 W R . ) where Hephaistus administers the crafts and Athena presides over him and
other similar divinities. MASARACCHIA includes many references to Athena in her notes to
the latter text (Giuliano, 231). See also MALLEY, Hellenism, 5 0 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II, 98-99.
9 8
Porphyry, D e abst. 1.31.3, 2.46.1 (I, 66; II, 112 B./P.). Cf. also the notes (39-41 B./P.)
for comments on the possible transmission of the expression into the Greco-Roman world.
Philo, Quaest. in Gen 1.53 interprets the expression to mean the human body. See § 2.2.6
above.
9 9
For such interpretations in Gnostic and patristic writers see the rich bibliography in
R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 9 7 - 8 / B O U F F A R T I G U E / P A T I L L O N , Porphyrye de
l'Abstinence, I, 37-8.
3.9 Julian's Conclusion about the Second Creation Narrative
Cyril writes that Julian c o n c l u d e s h i s w o r d s c o n c e r n i n g the creation story in

G e n 2 - 3 in this w a y :
[For Julian the philosopher makes a conclusion o f his statements in this w a y saying that]
the serpent was a benefactor ( ε ύ ε ρ γ έ τ η ν ) rather than a destroyer o f the human race. [And
not only this, but in addition to these he says,] Furthermore, their G o d must be called
100
envious ( β ά σ κ α ν ο ς ) . For when he saw that the human had attained a share o f wisdom,
that he might not, G o d said, taste o f the tree o f life, he cast him out o f the garden, saying
in s o many words, "Behold, Adam has become as one of us, because he knows good from
bad; and n o w let h i m not put forth his hand and take also of the tree o f life and eat and
thus live forever ( G e n 3:22)." Accordingly, unless every one o f these is a myth that
involves some secret interpretation (θεωρίαν απόρρητον), as I indeed believe, they are
1 0 1
filled with many blasphemous sayings about G o d . For in the first place to be ignorant
that she w h o w a s created as a help meet would be the cause of the fall; secondly to refuse
the knowledge o f good and bad, which knowledge alone seems to give coherence to the
human mind; and lastly to be jealous lest a human should take hold of the tree o f life and
from mortal become immortal, — this is to be grudging and envious overmuch (φθονερού
102
καΐ β α σ κ ά ν ο υ ) .
T w o o f J u l i a n ' s three c o n c l u s i o n s h a v e b e e n d i s c u s s e d a b o v e : n a m e l y , that

G o d w a s ignorant about the harm E v e w o u l d bring A d a m ; and the injustice in
G o d ' s refusal t o a l l o w the first h u m a n s t o k n o w the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n g o o d
and e v i l (§ 3 . 5 - 6 ) . H i s third c h a r g e i s that G o d i s g u i l t y o f e n v y o f t h e
1 0 3
h u m a n s l e s t t h e y partake o f the tree o f life and b e c o m e i m m o r t a l . This
1 0 0
This word w a s used by patristic writers to describe the devil and demons. Cf. G. J. M.
BARTELINK, Β Α Σ Κ Α Ν Ο Σ designation de Satan et des demons chez les auteurs Chretiens,
OrChrP49,1983,390-406.
1 0 1
Socrates, H.E. 3.23.31-5 (222,6-17 HANSEN) remarks that Julian made this judgment
in book three of his work concerning anthropomorphic language about God (that according to
the historian w a s used for the sake of the "dispensation" ό σ α χ ρ ε ί α ς έ ν ε κ ε ν οικονομικώς
έ π ι τ ο υ θ ε ο υ άνθρωπικώτερον τ ε τ α κ τ α ι ) . Socrates notes that Julian himself saw the need
for myths in his discourse to the cynic Heracleios. Socrates quotes Julian's statement about
nature loving to hide itself and not revealing the hidden truth about the nature o f the gods in
naked words to unclean ears in Or. 7 . 1 1 , 2 1 6 c (II/1, 59 ROCHE = II, 103 W R . ) . S e e also
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 57. BURGIERE a n d f i v i E U X , Cyrille, 2 6 believe that
Socrates has confused the third book o f Cyril's refutation (the C. Jul. in which Julian's text
appears) with the third book o f the C. Gal.
1 0 2
C . Gal. 9 3 d - 9 4 a ( 1 0 5 , 1 - 1 0 6 , 1 7 MAS. =111, 3 2 6 - 2 8 W R . ) . On this text s e e D E
LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 4 0 0 .
1 0 3
On this charge s e e NESTLE, D i e Haupteinwande, 60. Cf. also the important article of
N . BROX, Gnostische Argumente, 181-6 w h o shows that the three motifs functioned in
Gnostic argumentation. It is too much of a coincidence, he claims, that Julian adopted the
same three motifs that the Gnostics used without some kind of dependence. It is possible that
the pagans adopted s o m e o f the Gnostic criticisms without the larger context o f Gnostic
264 3. Julian
objection is a little o d d s i n c e Julian (§ 3 . 4 ) approved o f P l a t o ' s Creator w h o

did not w a n t to create the b o d i e s o f h u m a n s lest they b e c o m e equal to g o d s .
H i s respect for the serpent is reminiscent o f C e l s u s ' a w a r e n e s s o f Christian
g r o u p s w h o v e n e r a t e t h e s e r p e n t b e c a u s e it h e l p e d b r i n g k n o w l e d g e
104
(§ 1 . 2 . 8 ) . H e is c o n v i n c e d that the stories m u s t b e interpreted allegorically
as h e w a s c o n c e r n i n g m a n y G r e e k narratives ( s e e § 3 . 1 0 b e l o w ) . Julian
b e l i e v e d that the creation narrative o f G e n e s i s w a s f a l s e , a c c o r d i n g to a
s u m m a r y o f Cyril. M o s e s s i m p l y put t o g e t h e r "old n o n s e n s e (ϋθλους ...
1 0 5
γεγηρακότα^)" .
Cyril argues that G o d did not act in e n v y . H e did not let the first humans
1 0 6
l i v e f o r e v e r s i n c e they w e r e m i r e d in s i n . H e a l s o a p p e a l s to a text o f
Porphyry w h o c l a i m e d that G o d m a k e s s o m e die y o u n g b e c a u s e o f their piety
and others h e takes f r o m life b e c a u s e o f the harm t h e y w i l l c a u s e , and still
107
others b e c a u s e o f the unbearable disasters they w i l l s u f f e r .
3.10 Myth and Allegory
It is apparent that Julian b e l i e v e d the entire creation narrative cried out for
allegorical interpretation. H e m a k e s his c o n c e p t i o n o f "myth" quite clear in
this c o n t e x t in a short text that attacks Greek tales with equal vigor:
N o w it is true that the Hellenes invented their myths (μύθους έ π λ α σ α ν ) about the gods,
incredible and monstrous stories ( ά π ι σ τ ο υ ς καΐ τ ε ρ α τ ώ δ ε ι ς ) . For they said that Kronos
108
swallowed his children and then vomited them f o r t h ; and they e v e n told of lawless
unions, h o w Zeus had intercourse with his mother and having a child by her, married his
own daughter, or rather did not even marry her, but simply had intercourse with her and
myths, according to BROX. See § 1.2.8 for the motifs of God's envy and the veneration of
the serpent.
1 0 4
For an extensive bibliography on veneration of the serpent in ancient Christian groups
see RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 49.
1 0 5
C. Jul. 2.45 (PG 76, 569c = 90,1-8 M A S . = 232,15-24 B./E.). Cf. RINALDI, La Bibbia
dei pagani, II § 23b.
1 0 6
C. Jul. 3.94 (PG 76, 644c-d). MASARACCHIA quotes a similar text from Methodius,
D e resurr. 1.39.7 w h o defends God from the charges of ignorance about the future and
malicious actions. God did not want a human dead in sin to live forever, but wanted the
human free from sin to rise from the dead and taste of the tree of life.
1 0 7
C. Jul. 3.95 (PG 7 6 , 6 4 5 b ) . Cf. Porphyry, Ad Nemertium (SMITH, Porphyrii 280F).
1 0 8
H e s i o d , Theog. 4 5 9 - 6 0 . Ps. Sallustius g i v e s theological, physical, psychical, and
material interpretations of this myth in D e diis 4 (4,24-6,5 NOCK). Theologically Kronos is
intellectual and "swallowing his children" signifies that intellect is directed towards itself.
Physically since Kronos is Chronos (time) the father swallows the children (parts of time). In
the psychological interpretation the thoughts of our soul (even if they are transmitted to
others) still remain in their originator. The material interpretation is that Kronos is water (an
Egyptian form of exegesis).
109
then handed her over to a n o t h e r . Then too there is the legend that Dionysus was rent
110
asunder and his limbs joined together a g a i n . This is the sort of thing described in the
111
myths of the H e l l e n e s .
T h e s e kinds o f stories are not historically true for Julian. H o w e v e r , h e is

willing to find allegorical m e a n i n g in them. H e k n o w s that allegorists can g o
t o o far and force their o w n plausible doctrines ( λ ό γ ο υ ς π ι θ α ν ο ύ ς ) o n the
112
p o e t s . Julian m a k e s a distinction b e t w e e n history, fiction, and m y t h . H e
a d m o n i s h e s a priest to read o n l y narratives ( ί σ τ ο ρ ί α ι ς ) c o m p o s e d about
actual d e e d s and to a v o i d fictions ( π λ ά σ μ α τ α ) that are in the f o r m o f
1 1 3
h i s t o r i c a l narrative ( ι σ τ ο ρ ί α ς e i 8 e i ) . Julian recounts his o w n
" d e m y t h o l o g i z e d " v e r s i o n o f the story o f D i o n y s u s . S e m e l e foresees that his
visible manifestation w i l l bring p e o p l e to a more c i v i l i z e d form o f life (with
w i n e m a k i n g p e o p l e m o r e g e n t l e ) . S h e is c a l l e d the m o t h e r o f D i o n y s u s
because she prophesied his c o m i n g . H e concludes:
N o w since this is the historical truth (ούσης ... ττ\ς Ιστορίας τ ο ι α ύ τ η ς ) of these events
if they are accurately considered and examined, those who sought to discover what sort of
god Dionysus is worked into a myth ( ε ι ς μύθον διεσκβύασαν) the truth which is as I
said, and expressed in an allegory ( α ί ν ι τ τ ό μ β ν ο ι ) both the essential nature of the god and
1 1 4
his conception in his father Zeus . . .
Presumably Julian w o u l d b e w i l l i n g to g i v e s o m e such interpretation o f the

narratives in G e n e s i s . Julian has s o m e criteria that h e u s e d to identify the
e x i s t e n c e o f h i d d e n m e a n i n g s in m y t h s . T h e uninstructed ( ί δ ι ώ τ α ι ς ) c a n
learn s o m e t h i n g f r o m the s y m b o l s o f an irrational ( α λ ό γ ο υ ) m y t h w i t h o u t
understanding its h i d d e n meaning. In Julian's v i e w the ancients searched out
the c a u s e s o f eternal b e i n g s ( τ ω ν ό ν τ ω ν a e i τ ά ς α ι τ ί α ς ) . W h e n they
found them, they c o v e r e d t h e m in paradoxical m y t h s ( μ ύ θ ο ι ς π α ρ α δ ό ξ ο ι ς ) .
H e writes, "This w a s in order that, b y m e a n s o f the paradox and the absurdity
1 0 9
PEPIN, Mythe, 4 6 7 calls this form of the myth Orphic. See Tatian, Oratio 8.6-7, 10.1
(21,35-37; 24,2-3 M A R C ) , Athenagoras, Legatio 20.3 (42 SCH.), Arnobius, Adv. nat. 5.21
(275,8-276,7 MARCH.).
1 1 0
Julian describes the myth of Dionysus at length in an oration devoted to the concept of
myth and its correct interpretation. He calls the story of Dionysus nonsense (λήρον) in Or.
7.15, 220b-d (II/l, 64-5 ROCHE = II, 110-12 W R . ) . Many examples of these stories can be
found in MASARACCHlA's notes (Giuliano, 196-97).
1 1 1
C. Gal. 4 4 a - b (89,2-90,9 MAS. = III, 3 2 4 WR.). On allegory in Julian see
BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur Julien, 574-6.
1 1 2
Or. 3.20, 74d-75a (1/1, 174,5-175,9 BIDEZ = I, 198-200 W R . ) . See PEPIN, Mythe, 2 0 9 -
10.
1 1 3
Frag. Ep. 89b, 301b (1/2, 169,6-9 BlDEZ = II, 326 WR.). Cp. also COOK, Interpretation,
287-88.
1 1 4
Or. 7 . 1 6 , 2 2 1 b - c (II/l, 6 6 ROCHE = II, 114 WR.).
266 3. Julian
1 1 5
(άπεμφαίνοντο^) the fiction ( π λ ά σ μ α ) might b e detected and w e might b e
116
induced to search out the t r u t h . " T h e s e truths are left for the w i s e to search
out w i t h the h e l p o f the g o d s . Julian tells the C y n i c H e r a c l e i o s , w h o m a d e a
disrespectful m y t h about the g o d s , that:
Whenever myths (μύθοι) on sacred subjects are inconsistent (or absurd) in thought (κατά
μ ε ν τ η ν διάνοιαν ά π β μ φ α ί ν ο ν τ ε ς ) , by that very fact they cry aloud, as it were, and
summon us not to believe them literally but to study and track d o w n their hidden
117
meaning."
Julian d o e s not m a k e an absolute distinction b e t w e e n m y t h and history as in

the c a s e o f his v i e w o f the D i o n y s i u s account. Consequently, o n e need not g o
s o far as P e p i n d o e s in arguing that Julian d e n i e s any historical v a l u e
118
w h a t s o e v e r to the creation a c c o u n t .
J u l i a n ' s v i e w about the n e e d for a l l e g o r y o f the c r e a t i o n narrative in
G e n e s i s is clear: " A c c o r d i n g l y , u n l e s s e v e r y o n e o f t h e s e is a m y t h that
i n v o l v e s s o m e secret interpretation (θεωρίαν α π ό ρ ρ η τ ο ν ) , as I indeed b el i ev e,
1 1 9
t h e y are f i l l e d w i t h m a n y b l a s p h e m o u s s a y i n g s a b o u t G o d . " After
describing the l a n g u a g e o f the serpent Julian asks, "And in what d o such tales
120
as these differ from the m y t hs that w e r e invented by the H e l l e n e s ? " What
is m i s s i n g is Julian's actual interpretation o f these texts. Probably h e w a s not
interested e n o u g h to attempt o n e , e v e n though h e w a s c o n v i n c e d that o n e w a s
p o s s i b l e . P e p i n m a k e s the important p o i n t that G r e g o r y o f N a z i a n z u s
criticized the p a g a n s ' u s e o f allegory to defend their o w n m y t h s . This m a y
i m p l y that Julian d e v o t e d more o f his text to the i s s u e o f allegory than Cyril
121
includes .
T h e argument b e t w e e n H e l l e n i s m and Christianity o v e r m y t h and allegory
w a s a t w o e d g e d s w o r d . Christians d e n i e d the validity o f p a g a n allegory.
P a g a n s s u c h as C e l s u s and Porphyry d e n i e d that J e w i s h and Christian texts
1 1 5
One could translate with "contradiction."
1 1 6
Or. 8 . 1 0 , 1 7 0 a , b ( I I / l , 117-18 ROCHE. = 1,474 W R . ) .
1 1 7
Or. 7.17, 2 2 2 c ( I I / l , 68 ROCHE. = I I , 118 W R . ) . P S . Sallustius argues that the soul
learns through the apparent absurdity ( ά τ ο π ί α ) of the myth that the words are veils for hidden
truth (αληθές α π ό ρ ρ η τ ο ν ) in D e diis 3 (4,17-18 NOCK). He states the reason for myths:
"Furthermore, to wish to teach all people the truth about the gods causes the foolish to
despise, because they cannot learn, and the good to be slothful, whereas to conceal the truth
by myths prevents the former from despising philosophy and compels the latter to study it"
(De diis 3 [4,11-15 NOCK; NOCK'S E T ] ) . Julian also believed that myths were invented for
childish souls in Or. 7.2, 206d ( I I / l , 4 6 ROCHE. = I I , 78 W R . ) . On this issue see STEIN,
Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 45.
118
Ρ έ Ρ ΐ Ν , Mythe, 467.
1 1 9
Cp. § 3.9 above.
1 2 0
C. Gal. 86a (103,2-4 M A S . = I I I , 324 W R . ) in § 3.7.
1 2 1
Greg. Naz., Or. 4.116 (SC 3 0 9 , 2 7 6 , 1 - 2 8 0 , 3 4 BERNARDI). ΡέΡΙΝ, Mythe, 470-74.
c o u l d b e a l l e g o r i z e d at all. In their critique o f the p a g a n s ' a l l e g o r y o f then-

o w n t e x t s , the Christians apparently d i d n o t realize that the s a m e a r g u m e n t s
could be turned against Christian allegorical interpretations of the
122
scriptures . G r e g o r y d o e s contrast the Christian p r a c t i c e o f a l l e g o r y w i t h
that o f the p a g a n s h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e h e n o t e s that Christian t e x t s are n o t
u n s e e m l y ( α π ρ ε π ε ί ς ) and d o not h a v e the facade o f i n d e c e n c y (that the p a g a n
1 2 3
texts often h a v e ) .
3.11 Cain and Abel
A s a support o f h i s c r i t i q u e o f t h e C h r i s t i a n s ' refusal t o s a c r i f i c e , Julian

1 2 4
appeals to the narrative o f C a i n and A b e l :
1 2 5
And t h i s is not the only instance, but when the sons of Adam also offered first fruits to
God, the scripture says, "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offerings; but
unto Cain and to his offerings he had not respect. And Cain w a s very angry, and his
countenance fell. A n d the Lord said to Cain, W h y are y o u angry? A n d w h y is your
countenance fallen? Is it not s o — if you offer rightly, but do not cut in pieces (SieXrjg)
rightly, you have sinned (Gen 4:4-7)?" D o y o u then desire to hear also what were their
offerings? "And at the end of days it came to pass that Cain brought o f the fruits o f the
ground an offering to the Lord. And Abel, he also brought o f the firstlings o f his flock
and o f the fat thereof (Gen 4:3-4)." Y o u see, say the Galilaeans, it was not the sacrifice
but the division thereof that God disapproved when he said to Cain, "If you offer rightly,
but do not cut in pieces rightly, have you not sinned?" This is what o n e of your most
1 2 6
learned b i s h o p s told m e . But in the first place he w a s deceiving himself and then
others also. For when I asked him in what way the division was blameworthy he did not
know how to get out o f it, or h o w to make me even a frigid explanation. A n d when I saw
that he was greatly embarrassed, I said, "God rightly disapproved the thing y o u speak of.
For the zeal of the t w o m e n w a s equal, in that they both thought that they ought to offer
up gifts and sacrifices to God. But in the matter of their division one o f them hit the mark
and the other fell short o f it. H o w , and in what manner? W h y , since o f the things o n the
earth some have life and others are lifeless, and those that have life are more precious than
those that are lifeless to the living God w h o is also the cause o f life, inasmuch as they also
1 2 2
Cp. PEPIN, Mythe, 4 7 3 and COOK, Interpretation, 13.
1 2 3
Greg. Naz., Or. 4 . 1 1 8 (282,15-284,26 BERNARDI). Origen makes this same argument.
See § 1.1.2.
1 2 4
C . Gal. 3 4 3 c ( 1 7 7 , 1 - 4 M A S . = III, 4 1 6 W R . ) . Cp. ROKEAH, Jews, 3 1 - 4 / COOK,
Interpretation, 3 2 3 . A n anonymous individual asks Ps. Justin why the practice o f sacrifice
has stopped in Ps. J u s t , Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 83 (95), 442a ( 1 2 2 OTTO = 88,10-5 P.-
K./H.).
1 2 5
S e e also § 3 . 2 8 , 4 4 .
1 2 6
The bishop's identity is unclear although WRIGHT'S guess, Aetius, does not seem
unreasonable. He w a s o n e o f Julian's teachers. S e e Ep. 4 6 , 404b-c (1/2, 65,17-66,5 BlDEZ =
III, 34-6 WRIGHT).
268 3. Julian
have a share of life and have a soul more akin to his — for this reason God was more
127
graciously inclined to him who offered a perfect s a c r i f i c e .
Julian's criticism o f the hapless b i s h o p w h o opts for the L X X reading (cut in

p i e c e s ) o f G e n 4:7 is based o n his b e l i e f that animal sacrifice is o f m o r e value
than the sacrifices o f grain. H e c o u l d h a v e found a strong support for s u c h
sacrifice (animals) in P s . Sallustius w h o b e l i e v e d that these sacrifices w e r e an
1 2 8
intermediary b e t w e e n the life o f the g o d s and h u m a n l i f e . Julian b e l i e v e d
1 2 9
animals h a d a s o u l , but not a rational s o u l . C e l s u s criticized the plots o f
brothers (perhaps i n c l u d i n g Cain and A b e l ) , but has little to say about the
130
narrative in particular .
Cyril attacked Julian o n several fronts. H e argues that Julian rejects his
131
o w n teachers, Pythagoras and Porphyry, w h o w e r e against animal s a c r i f i c e .
H e d e f e n d e d the b i s h o p ' s v i e w s o n the text o f G e n e s i s b y noting that G o d did
accept the sacrifice o f grain according to L e v 2 : 1 , 2 3 : 1 0 - 1 1 , and D e u t 2 6 : 1 - 4 .
H e a l s o argues that Cain did not "divide" properly b e c a u s e h e did not bring
the best o f his fruits o f the earth to G o d . Consequently C a i n ' s fault w a s in his
132
intention, not in the fact that he did not sacrifice an a n i m a l . A n a n o n y m o u s
objector (Christian or pagan) a l s o asked w h y C a i n ' s sacrifice w a s rejected,
but a s s u m e d that p e o p l e before the f l o o d neither ate animals nor the fruits o f
trees. T h e Christian responds b y d i s m i s s i n g the theory o f the ante-diluvian
diet u s i n g 1 C o r 9:7, and argues that Cain offered inferior fruits o f the earth
133
— m u c h as Cyril a r g u e d . E u s e b i u s , in his Demonstration of the Gospel,
has a s e c t i o n that a n s w e r s the q u e s t i o n w h y Christians d o n o t sacrifice
1 2 7
C. Gal. 346e-347c (178,2-179,26 MAS. = III, 4 1 8 - 2 0 WR.). Cf. G. RlNALDl, Diodori
di Tarso, Antiochia e le ragioni della polemica antiallegorista, Aug 3 3 , 1 9 9 3 , (407-30) 4 1 2 .
1 2 8
Ps. Sallust., D e diis 16 (28,20-29,5 NOCK). NOCK (Sallustius, lxxxv) writes that
Iamblichus believed that the "mediation between life and life must be life" with reference to
Iamblichus, D e myst. 6.3 (243,14-244,1 DES PLACES). RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 69
also refers to D e myst. 5.14-15 (217,3-220,18 DES PLACES).
1 2 9
Or. 9 . 3 , 1 8 2 d ( I I / 2 , 1 4 6 ROCHE. = II, 8-10 WR.).
1 3 0
§1.14.
1 3 1
C. Jul. 10.348 (PG 76, 1036d-1037a). He refers to Porphyry, D e abst. 2.9.1 (Π, 78-80
B./P.), a text in which Porphyry asserts that animal sacrifice is later than the sacrifice of
plants. Porphyry was against animal sacrifice in general (De abst. 2.12.1-4 [II, 81 B./P.]) as
Cyril notes. D i o g . Laert. 8.22 writes that Pythagoras objected to animal sacrifice. Cp.
§2.2.11-2.
1 3 2
C. Jul. 10.348-50 (PG 76,1037a-1040d).
1 3 3
Ps. Just., Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 119 (150), 472a-b ( 1 9 4 - 9 6 OTTO = 121,11-
122,6 P.-K./H.). S e e BARDY, La litterature, 217. Ambrosiaster records an objection to the
story in Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 5 (26,10-11 SOUTER = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, §
70). He argues that Cain reserved the best for himself in 5.3 (27,10-11 SOUTER). Philo has
similar responses to the question. Cain offered fruits and not the first fruits (De sacr. 52). In
Quaest. in Gen. 1.60, he argues that Cain offered second fruits to God after a delay.
1 3 4
a n i m a l s t o G o d as t h e a n c i e n t s d i d . H e a r g u e s that the G r e e k tradition
c l a i m s that the a n c i e n t s o n l y sacrificed fruits o f the earth, d r a w i n g h i s v i e w s
135
from Porphyry . T h i s tradition d i v e r g e s f r o m that o f the H e b r e w s w h e r e
animal sacrifice i s m o r e a c c e p t a b l e to G o d than fruits o f the earth. T h e y had
n o t h i n g m o r e v a l u a b l e than their l i v e s to offer as r a n s o m for their l i v e s , and
1 3 6
they offered a n i m a l s i n s t e a d o f their o w n l i v e s . H e quotes Lev 1 7 : 1 1 - 1 2 .
E v e n t u a l l y E u s e b i u s e x p l a i n s that Christ i s the s u p r e m e s a c r i f i c e ( u s i n g Isa
1 3 7
53:4-5,6,7,9) .
3.12 The Sons of God and the Daughters of Humans
Julian u s e s the story in G e n 6 : 2 , 4 to attack N T Christology:
And that M o s e s calls the angels gods y o u may hear from his o w n words, "The sons o f
God saw that the daughters of humans were fair; and they took for themselves wives o f all
that they chose (Gen 6:2)." A n d a little further on: "And also after that, when the sons o f
God came in to the daughters of humans, and they bare children to them, the same became
the giants which were o f old, the men o f renown (Gen 6:2)." N o w that he means the
angels is evident, and this has not been foisted on him from without, but is clear also from
his saying that not humans but angels were born from them. For it is clear that if he had
thought that humans and not beings of some higher and more powerful nature were their
fathers, he would not have said that the giants were their offspring. For it seems to m e
that he declared that the race o f giants arose from the mixture o f mortal and immortal.
Again, when M o s e s speaks o f many sons of God and calls them not humans but angels,
1 3 4
Eus., D.E. 1.10.1 (43,10-11 HEIKEL). Cf. the discussion in ROKEAH, Jews, 31-32.
1 3 5
Without attribution (Eus., D . E . 1.10.1 [43,10-11 HEIKEL]) he quotes a phrase from
Porphyry, D e abst. 2 . 5 . 2 ("herbage which they lifted up in their hands as the bloom o f the
productive power o f nature") (II, 75 BOUFF./PAT.). In D e abst. 1.19.1 (I, 5 6 BOUFF./PAT.)
Porphyry argues that the souls o f animals are o f like nature ( ο μ ο ο ύ σ ι ο ι ) with those o f
humans. This is very similar to Eus., D.E. 1.10.2 ("there is no difference between humans
and irrational beings in their rational soul" 43,21-2 HEIKEL). ET of D.E. 1.10.1 by FERRAR,
The Proof of the Gospel, I, 5 4 . FERRAR (I, 5 4 n . l ) argues that Porphyry w a s Eusebius' chief
opponent in the D.E. In his P.E., Eusebius also approvingly quotes passages from Porphyry's
D e abst. that discuss the earliest sacrifices (P.E. 1.9.7-10 [VIII/1, 36,10-37,6 M R A S ] = D e
abst. 2.5.1-4; P.E. 1.9.11, 4.14.1 (VIII/1, 37,8-11; 185,15-24 MRAS] = D e abst. 2.7.2-3 (first
fruits were sacrificed, then humans took a wrong turn and sacrificed animals). P.E. 4 . 1 4 is a
chapter against animal sacrifice. Eus., D.E. 3.3.10 (111,7-16 HEIKEL) quotes Porphyry, D e
abst. 2.34.2 (II, 101 BOUFF./PAT.) to argue that no sacrifice of sensible beings is acceptable to
God. Pure thought is acceptable. Cyril uses the same text in another part o f his work (C. Jul.
2.61 [PG 7 6 , 5 9 3 c - d = 280,15-24 Β . / έ . ] ) .
1 3 6
Eus., D.E. 1.10.3-9 (43,25-44,26 HEIKEL).
1 3 7
Eus., D.E. 1.10.15-6 (45,24-35 HEIKEL).
270 3. Julian
would he not then have revealed to humankind, if he had known thereof, God "the only
1 3 8
begotten Word," or a son of God, or however you call h i m .
Here Julian is not concerned to criticize the narrative as a m y t h although Philo

139
had already had to contend with such a p o s s i b l e (or actual) c r i t i c i s m . H i s
c o n c e r n is l e s s w i t h the O T narrative than an attempt to p r o v e that M o s e s
k n o w s o f a n g e l s as g o d s or s o n s o f G o d , but not o f any figure called "the o n l y
b e g o t t e n S o n o f G o d . " C e l s u s k n e w o f s i x t y (or s e v e n t y ) a n g e l s w h o
d e s c e n d e d to earth and w e r e punished, but apparently did not c o n n e c t them to
1 4 0
G e n 6 : 2 - 4 . Julian b e l i e v e d that the O T itself established p o l y t h e i s m and
1 4 1
that it contradicted the Christians' desire to w o r s h i p Jesus as S o n o f G o d .
H i s interest here i s not to a n a l y z e and refute the L X X but to refute the
G a l i l a e a n s . M a c a r i u s ' p h i l o s o p h e r a l s o u s e d O T t e x t s to e s t a b l i s h the
142
principle o f p o l y t h e i s m . A n o n y m o u s objectors in (or out) o f the Christian
c o m m u n i t y a l s o had this question for the O T : "If an a n g e l is greater than a
h u m a n and scripture calls humans g o d s , w h y is it not correct for us to calls
1 4 3
angels g o d s ? "
Cyril is o f f e n d e d b y Julian's literal reading o f the text. H e b e l i e v e s that
M o s e s k n o w s o f G o d ' s S o n — w h o is, for e x a m p l e , the i m a g e o f G o d in G e n
144
1:27 (quoting "Paul" in H e b 1 : 3 ) . Cyril interprets the text o f G e n 6:2 to
m e a n the d e s c e n d a n t s o f E n o s h ( G e n 4 : 2 6 ) w h o "wanted to b e called b y the
n a m e o f the Lord G o d " in C y r i l ' s understanding o f the L X X translation.
E n o s h w a s s o honored b e c a u s e o f his virtues b y those o f his a g e according to
Cyril. Unfortunately his later descendants m i x e d w i t h the daughters o f m e n
w h o w e r e C a i n ' s descendants and they produced the giants w h o are ruthless
1 3 8
C. Gal. 290b-e (162,5-20 M A S . = III, 418-20 W R . ) . On Julian's attack on Christology
see COOK, Interpretation, 329. Cyril summarizes Julian's reference to Gen 6 again in C. Jul.
9.295-6 (PG 7 6 , 9 5 3 , c = 163,1-4 MAS.). Cp. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 73a.
1 3 9
Philo, D e gig. 7, 58 ("perhaps one will think of those things mythologized about the
giants by the poets"), 60.
1 4 0
§ 1.3. Origen, C. Cels. 5.52 (365,5-9 M A R C ) .
1 4 1
Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 328-30.
1 4 2
COOK, Interpretation, 234-37, 240-41 with reference to: Monog. 4 . 2 1 b . l - 4 ; 4.23.1-3
(II, 310,15-312,18; 314,1-17 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius F. 76, 78).
1 4 3
Ps. Just., Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 142 (158), 490a-c ( 2 3 6 - 3 8 OTTO = 145,15-
146,3 P.-K./H.). See BARDY, La litterature, 217 / RINALDI, Tracce, 120 / RINALDI, La Bibbia
dei pagani, Π, 104. The answer of Ps. Justin refers to Ps 81:6 and notes that angels are called
gods when they are commissioned for a purpose by God, and similarly human beings receive
the name "gods" temporarily for a purpose. Alexander of Lycopolis was also aware of the
story in Gen 6 and interpreted it allegorically. See C. Manich. opin. disp. 25 (BiTeu, 37,17-
21 BRINKMANN).
1 4 4
C. Jul. 9.291-92 (PG 76, 948,b-c).
145
i n d i v i d u a l s (as in I s a 1 3 : 3 ) and n o t h u g e c r e a t u r e s . P h i l o and O r i g e n a l s o
1 4 6
c h o s e to a l l e g o r i z e the p a s s a g e .
3.13 The Tower of Babel
Julian w a s u n c o n v i n c e d b y M o s e s ' e x p l a n a t i o n for the d i v e r s i t y o f h u m a n

languages — w h i c h h e b e l i e v e d needed to be included in a more general
explanation for the d i f f e r e n c e s o f the characters and c u s t o m s o f nations.
N o w o f the dissimilarity o f languages Moses has given a wholly mythical explanation

(κωμιδή μυθώδη). For he said that the sons o f humans came together intending to build a
city, and a great tower therein, but that God said that he must g o down and confound their
languages. A n d that no one may think I am falsely accusing him o f this, I will read from
the book of Moses what follows.
Julian then q u o t e s G e n 1 1 : 4 - 8 and c o n t i n u e s :
And then y o u demand that w e should believe this account, w h i l e y o u yourselves

disbelieve H o m e r ' s narrative o f the Aloadae, namely that they planned to set three
mountains on another "that s o the heavens might be scaled (Od. 11.316)." For m y part I
say that this tale is almost as mythical as the other. But if you accept the former, w h y in
the name o f the gods d o y o u discredit Homer's fable? For I suppose that to m e n s o
ignorant as y o u I must say nothing about the fact that, even if all people throughout the
inhabited world ever employ one speech and one language, they will not be able to build a
tower that will reach to the heavens, even though they should turn the whole earth into
bricks. For such a tower will need countless bricks each one as large as the whole earth, if
they are to succeed in reaching to the orbit of the moon. For let us assume that all humans
met together, employing but one language and speech, and that they made the whole earth
into bricks and h e w e d out stones, when would it reach as high as the heavens, even
though they spun it out and stretched it till it w a s finer than a thread? Then do y o u , w h o
believe that this s o obvious myth is true, and moreover think that G o d w a s afraid o f the
brutal violence o f humans, and for this reason came down to earth to confound their
1 4 7
languages, do you, I say, still venture to boast of your knowledge of G o d ?
Julian i s r e a d y t o a d m i t t h e m y t h i c a l nature o f H o m e r ' s a c c o u n t o f the

A l o a d a e , but h e d e m a n d s similar fair p l a y f r o m the Christians — n a m e l y , an
a d m i s s i o n that the narrative o f the t o w e r o f B a b e l is a m y t h . Julian a d m i r e d
1 4 5
C. Jul. 9.296-97 (PG 7 6 , 9 5 6 a - 9 5 7 b ) .
1 4 6
Philo, D e gig. 17-8 claims that the angels include demons w h o are inclined to sensual
pleasures. The giants are earthborn souls w h o seek sensual pleasures (60). In Quaest. in Gen.
1.92 Philo seems more willing to accept a literal interpretation, but concludes that sometimes
Moses calls good men "sons of God." Origen believes that "the sons o f God" are souls that
were burdened with a desire for human bodies (the "daughters or men"). Cf. § 1.3 / C. Cels.
5.55 (367,13-6 M A R C ) .
1 4 7
C . Gal. 134d-135d ( 1 1 6 , 4 - 1 1 7 , 3 7 M A S . = III, 3 4 8 - 5 0 W R . ) . On the text s e e D E
LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 4 0 2 .
272 3. Julian
H o m e r , h o w e v e r , and s o forbade Christian teachers to teach H o m e r w h i l e

148
c l a i m i n g that his v i e w s o f the g o d s w e r e guilty o f impiety, f o l l y , and e r r o r .
1 4 9
Julian k n e w that s o m e H e l l e n e s v i e w e d H o m e r i c narratives as m y t h s . H e
also a c c u s e s the Christians o f ignorance o f the fact that n o h u m a n s could e v e r
b u i l d a t o w e r to the s k y . P h i l o k n e w that s u c h an u n d e r t a k i n g w a s
150
i m p o s s i b l e . For Julian the story is clearly mythical, and the G o d o f G e n e s i s
is n a i v e l y portrayed as b e i n g afraid o f the tower. C e l s u s t o o k a different
approach and m a d e the point that M o s e s corrupted the story o f H o m e r . H e
s e e m e d m o r e w i l l i n g than Julian to accept a "literal" reading o f both H o m e r
1 5 1
and G e n e s i s .
152
Cyril attempts to " d e m y t h o l o g i z e " the narrative o f B a b e l b y arguing:
G o d is all powerful; it is o b v i o u s l y not p o s s i b l e for p e o p l e to g e t to the m o o n ;
G o d did not, in a state o f fear, multiply human languages or destroy the tower,
but did it to h e l p p e o p l e and stop t h e m from vain labor; and "to the h e a v e n "
m e a n s "high" as in Ps 1 0 6 : 2 3 - 2 6 ( L X X ) . Cyril a l s o tries to d e m y t h o l o g i z e
H o m e r ' s narrative b y c l a i m i n g that the s o n s o f A l o e u s w e r e powerful m e n
w h o r a i s e d their s c o r n ( ό φ ρ ύ ν ) to h e a v e n . H e is u n c o n c e r n e d if h i s
interpretation o f H o m e r is correct. If H o m e r ' s story is an actual m y t h or if
153
another interpretation is correct, h e d o e s not c a r e .
3.14 Babel and the Difference in Customs of Nations
Julian finds philosophical problems with the narrative:

But I will g o back again to the question how God confounded their languages. The reason
why he did so M o s e s has declared: namely, that God was afraid that if they should have
one language and were of one mind, they would first construct for themselves a path to
the heavens and then do some mischief against him. But how he carried this out Moses
1 4 8
E p . 6 1 c , 4 2 3 b (1/2, 7 4 , 1 8 - 2 1 BlDEZ = III, 120-21 W R . ) . Cf. BOUFFARTIGUE,
L'empereur Julien, 6 0 0 - 3 / R. GOULET, Proheresius le paien et quelques remarques sur la
chronologie d'Eunape de Sardes, in: Etudes, ( 3 2 3 - 4 7 ) 3 2 6 - 3 5 (on Julian's law and
Prohaeresius).
1 4 9
Ep. 8 8 , 4 5 0 d (1/2, 150,15-16 BlDEZ = III, 4 6 W R . ) . The Cynic calls Homer a
"mythologist". S e e Or. 7.5, 210a (II/l, 51 ROCHE = II, 86 W R . ) . Cf. A S M U S , Julians
Galilaerschrift, 18-9. Philo, De conf. 2-4 describes some (Jews or pagans) w h o label the story
of Babel a myth.
1 5 0
Philo, D e conf. 5. He gives a completely figurative interpretation of God's descent in
D e conf. 134-6. For the relationship of Celsus, Julian, and Philo see STEIN, Alttestamentliche
Bibelkritik, 46.
1 5 1
§ 1.10. See also PEPIN, Mythe, 268-69.
1 5 2
A n interesting use of the word by MALLEY, Hellenism, 315 (and see 313-17 for a fine
summary of the entire argument).
1 5 3
C. Jul. 4.136-37 (PG 76,709a-712b).
does not say at all, but only that he first came down from heaven, — because he could not,
as it seems, d o it from o n high, without coming down to earth. But with respect to the
existing differences in characters and customs ( τ ά ήθη καΐ τ ά ν ό μ ι μ α ) , neither M o s e s
nor anyone else has enlightened us. And yet among humankind the difference between
the customs and the political constitutions of the nations is in every way greater than the
154
difference in their l a n g u a g e .
1 5 5
Julian c o n t i n u e s this a r g u m e n t at l e n g t h , but d e v e l o p s t w o primary c l a i m s .
First, the d i f f e r e n c e s o f character and political constitutions b e t w e e n n a t i o n s
1 5 6
are g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e o f l a n g u a g e and exist b e c a u s e o f providence .
O t h e r w i s e there w o u l d b e n o point in w o r s h i p p i n g a G o d w h o t o o k n o care for
1 5 7
humans . J u l i a n ' s s e c o n d c l a i m , w h i c h s u p p o r t s t h e first, i s that God
appointed g o d s for e v e r y nation and a n g e l s , d e m o n s , and h e r o e s under t h o s e
1 5 8
gods . T h e national g o d s established the differences in c h a r a c t e r and
customs. H e c o n f i r m s that b e l i e f w i t h this statement: " M o r e o v e r , it i s n o t
sufficient t o s a y , ' G o d s p o k e and it w a s s o ' [ G e n 1:6, 9 , 1 1 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 2 0 , 2 4 ] .
F o r t h e n a t u r e s o f t h i n g s that are c r e a t e d o u g h t t o h a r m o n i z e w i t h the
1 5 9
commands of G o d . " F o r e x a m p l e , fire r i s e s and earth s i n k s d o w n . The
different natures ( δ ι α φ ό ρ ο υ ς · ... φ ύ σ ε ι ς ) o f the p e o p l e s in t h e different
1 5 4
C. Gal. 137e-138a ( 1 1 8 , 3 - 1 2 M A S . = I I I , 3 5 0 - 5 2 W R . ) . RIEDWEG, Mit Stoa, 7 2 - 3
discusses the concept o f providence in Julian's objection.
1 5 5
Some o f the arguments will be quoted below (cf. § 3.56).
1 5 6
Cp. Ps. Sallustius' phrase that providence and fate exist for nations and cities and
individuals ( D e diis 9 [18,27-20,1 N O C K ] ) . S e e MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 2 1 2 for many
parallels.
1 5 7
C. Gal. 138b-d (118,18-119,29 M A S . = I I I , 352-54 W R . ) .
1 5 8
Cp. Origen's position (C. Cels. 5.29-31) referred to in § 1.28.1.
1 5 9
This is reminiscent o f Galen's argument against Moses* account of creation in D e usu
part. 14 (11.904-905 KuHN = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, I I , § 2 1 ; cf. R . WALZER, Galen
on Jews and Christians, Oxford 1 9 4 9 , 1 1 - 2 , 2 3 - 3 7 ; ET by author):
Then did our demiurge command only these hairs [eyelashes] to always maintain their
length, which either fear the command o f the lord or are in a w e o f the G o d w h o gave the
order or which themselves are persuaded that it is better to observe what they were
commanded? D i d not M o s e s thus discourse on nature ( ε φ υ σ ι ο λ ό γ ε ι . ) and is this w a y
better or that of Epicurus? Neither way, indeed — rather it is best to keep the principle of
creation from the demiurge in all created things, like M o s e s , but to improve it with the
principle o f matter ( τ η ν εκ τ η ς υλη?) . . . For to him [Moses] it is sufficient for G o d to
will to set matter in order, and it is immediately set in order (κεκόσμηται). For he thinks
that all things are possible to God, even if he should wish to make ashes into a horse or an
ox, but w e do not think this way, for w e say that some things are impossible by nature and
that G o d would not try to d o these things at all, but chooses the best to c o m e into
existence from things that are possible.
Even if Galen's demiurge, for example, willed that the eyelashes should exist erect o n soft
skin they would not d o s o . On this text see GAGER, Moses, 102-03 and the bibliography in
RINALDI. See also § 3 . 2 2 , 3 . 5 4 . 4 with reference to national gods.
274 3. Julian
nations e x i s t e d before all the differences w e r e established ( s u c h as c u s t o m s ,

160
e t c . ) . T h e G e r m a n s are different from Ethiopians in their b o d i e s not just
b e c a u s e o f a bare decree (ψιλόν έ π ί τ α γ μ α ) but b e c a u s e o f the climate o f the
1 6 1
country in w h i c h they l i v e . Julian's d e m y t h o l o g i z e d v e r s i o n o f the t o w e r
o f B a b e l and the H o m e r i c account o f the sons o f A l o e u s m i g h t perhaps b e this
statement o f his:
Therefore, if he did ordain ( π ρ ο σ ε τ α ξ ε ν ) that even as our languages are confounded and
do not harmonize with one another, so too should it be with the political constitutions of
the nations, then it was not by a special, isolated decree that he gave these constitutions
162
their essential characteristics, or framed us also to match this lack of a g r e e m e n t .
N o t c o n t e n t to brand the story a m y t h , Julian g i v e s h i s r e a s o n s for a m o r e

p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e picture o f the o r i g i n o f different l a n g u a g e s ,
characters, and c u s t o m s .
Cyril d e n i e s G o d acted out o f fear or n e e d e d to d e s c e n d to earth since he
fills all things ( u s i n g P s 138:7-8 and Jer 2 3 : 2 4 ) . A s for the l a n g u a g e about
G o d ' s d e s c e n t to earth, Julian ignored the fact that M o s e s had to u s e h u m a n
wor ds w h i c h fit the measure o f h u m a n nature. H e had n o w o r d s that c o u l d
163
approach the d i v i n e g l o r y . Cyril also responds that G o d is not the cause o f
the shameful d e e d s o f the different nations. H u m a n s did not c h o o s e to k e e p a
b l a m e l e s s life. Consequently Christians are not rejecting p r o v i d e n c e as Julian
c l a i m s in their explanation o f the differences b e t w e e n national c u s t o m s . If
e v e r y o n e agreed to f o l l o w G o d ' s w a y , then there w o u l d b e o n e w a y o f life
1 6 4
and o n e constitution and l a w . T h e l a w o f M o s e s w a s g i v e n for the nations
( s e e a l s o § 3 . 5 6 b e l o w ) . Cyril i n c l u d e s e x a m p l e s s u c h as the g e n t i l e
Abraham, the idolaters in E g y p t w h o m M o s e s saved, and Jonah's deliverance
165
o f the N i n e v i t e s .
1 6 0
Posidonius, F. 169 (161,88-93 EDELSTEIN) believes that nature determines certain
characteristics such as cowardice and courage, although environment does have an affect.
Cp. Plato, Tim. 24c and see MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 215.
1 6 1
C. Gal. 141c-e; 143a-e (120,5-14; 121,3-122,7 MAS. = I I I , 354-56 W R . ) . Cf.
RlEDWEG, Mit Stoa, 7 2 on Julian's interest in ethnography.
1 6 2
C. Gal. 143d (121,18-122,2 M A S . = III, 356 W R . ) .
1 6 3
C. Jul. 4.138-39 (PG 76, 713,a-c).
1 6 4
C. Jul. 4 . 1 3 9 - 4 0 (PG 7 6 , 713d-716b). Cf. also ROKEAH, Jews, 159 (who does not
analyze enough of Cyril's argument) / MALLEY, Hellenism, 317.
1 6 5
C. Jul. 4.141 (PG 76,716d-717a). Jonah 3-4.
3.15 Who Helped God Confuse the Languages?
Julian finds e v i d e n c e o f p o l y t h e i s m in the narrative o f the tower:
Furthermore, M o s e s also consciously drew a veil over this sort of enquiry and did not
assign the confusion o f dialects to God alone. For he says (Gen 11:7) that G o d did not
descend alone, but that there descended with him not one but several, and he did not say
who these were. But it is evident that he assumed that the beings w h o descended with
God resembled him. If, therefore, it was not the Lord alone but his associates with him
who descended for the purpose of confounding the dialects, it is very evident that for the
confusion o f human characters (ηθών), also, not the Lord alone but also those w h o
together with him confounded the dialects would reasonably be considered responsible for
166
this d i v i s i o n .
Julian u s e s the t e x t t o d e f e n d p o l y t h e i s m . Cyril asks h o w M o s e s c o u l d h a v e

affirmed p o l y t h e i s m , g i v e n L X X texts s u c h as D e u t 6:13 and E x o d 2 8 : 1 3 . He
r e s p o n d s w i t h a Trinitarian e x e g e s i s o f the text o f G e n 11:7. T h e " u s " refers
t o the Trinity. H e finds i n d i c a t i o n s o f Trinitarian t h o u g h t in o n e o f Julian's
teachers — P l a t o , w h o h a d the triad o f G o o d , M i n d , and S o u l . P h i l o takes a
similar route b y a s s u m i n g that the other " f e l l o w w o r k e r s ( σ υ ν β ρ γ ο ΐ ς ) " are
1 6 7
h e a v e n l y P o w e r s w h o m the a n g e l s s e r v e . F i n a l l y Cyril i s s h o c k e d that
Julian w o u l d n o t b e a s h a m e d t o attribute the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o G o d (and h i s
c o m p a n i o n s ) for t h e p e r v e r s i o n o f h u m a n characters and for their u n h o l y
1 6 8
deeds .
3.16 The God of Abraham
In the c o n t e x t o f h i s i n d i c t m e n t o f the Christians for their refusal t o practice

c i r c u m c i s i o n a n d o b s e r v e the P a s s o v e r ( § 3 . 1 9 b e l o w ) , Julian a p p e a l s t o the
e x a m p l e o f A b r a h a m in G e n e s i s .
And yet, I call the gods to witness, I am one of those w h o avoid keeping their festivals
with the Jews; but nevertheless I revere always the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;
who being themselves Chaldeans, of a sacred race, skilled in theurgy, had learned the
practice of circumcision while they sojourned as strangers with the Egyptians. And they
revered a G o d w h o w a s ever gracious to m e and to those w h o worshipped h i m as
Abraham did, for he is a very great and powerful God, but he has nothing to d o with you.
For y o u do not imitate Abraham by erecting altars to him, or building altars of sacrifice
169
and worshipping him as Abraham did, with sacrificial offerings (Gen 1 5 : 7 - 2 0 ) .
1 6 6
C. Gal. 146a-b (123,3-12 M A S . = III, 356-58 W R . ) .
1 6 7
Philo, D e conf. ling. 168-74.
1 6 8
C. Jul. 4.146-47 (PG 76,725a-728a).
1 6 9
C. Gal. 354a-c (181,7-15 MAS. = ΠΙ, 4 2 2 W R . ) .
276 3. Julian
Julian c l a i m s t o w o r s h i p the G o d o f Israel, but i s slightly a m b i v a l e n t about the

status o f that G o d ( § 3 . 5 4 b e l o w ) . Is Israel's G o d s u p r e m e o r m e r e l y a l o c a l
1 7 0
divinity? H i s o w n admiration o f theurgy is mirrored b y h i s admiration for
1 7 1
the C h a l d e a n s ' o w n theurgical s k i l l s . What he considers to be Abraham's
theurgy w i l l b e c o m e clearer in the e x c e r p t s b e l o w . C e l s u s c o n s i d e r e d the
C h a l d e a n s t o b e a m o n g the m o s t inspired o f p e o p l e s , and Porphyry admires
t h e m a l s o (cf. § 1.33, 2 . 1 . 1 ) .
Cyril a c c u s e s Julian o f b e i n g e x t r e m e l y crafty ( π α ν ο υ ρ γ ό τ α τ α ) in c l a i m i n g
t o w o r s h i p the J e w i s h G o d , but n o t b e l i e v i n g that their G o d i s s u p r e m e .
Julian, in C y r i l ' s v i e w , understands I s r a e l ' s G o d t o b e m e r e l y o n e o f the
national protective deities. C l e a r l y Julian h a d a m b i g u o u s v i e w s o n the
subject. Cyril a l s o argues that Christians d o imitate A b r a h a m b e c a u s e w h i l e
b e i n g u n c i r c u m c i s e d t h e y w o r s h i p G o d and are j u s t i f i e d ( u s i n g G e n 1 5 : 6 ) .
S i n c e the truth h a s b e e n r e v e a l e d Christians w o r s h i p better than the ancient
1 7 2
Hebrews d i d .
3.17 Abraham and Eleazar as Diviners
Julian c o n t i n u e s h i s references to A b r a h a m ' s faith:
For Abraham used to sacrifice even as w e Hellenes do, always and continually. And he
used the method of divination ( μ α ν τ ι κ ή ) from shooting stars. Probably this also is an
Hellenic custom. But for higher things he augured (οίωνίζετο) from the flight of birds.
And he possessed also a steward of his house w h o set signs ( σ υ μ β ο λ ι κ ό ν ) for himself
(Gen 2 4 : 1 4 and passim). And if o n e of y o u doubts this, the very words which were
uttered by M o s e s concerning it will show him clearly: "After these sayings the word of
the Lord came unto Abraham in a vision of the night, saying, Fear not, Abraham: I am
your shield. Your reward shall be exceeding great. And Abraham said, Lord God what
will y o u give m e ? For I g o childless, and the son of Masek the slave woman will be my
heir. And straightway the word of the Lord came to him saying, This one will not be your
heir: but he that shall come forth from you will be your heir. And he brought him forth
and said to him, Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if you are able to number
them: and he said to him, S o shall your seed be. And Abraham believed in the Lord: and
it w a s reckoned to him for righteousness (Gen 15:1-6, slightly altered)." Tell m e n o w
why he w h o dealt with him, whether angel or God, brought him forth and showed him the
stars? For while still within the house did he not know h o w great is the multitude of the
stars that at night are always visible and shining? But I think it was because he wished to
show him the shooting stars, so that as a visible pledge (εναργή π ί σ τ ι ν ) of his words he
1 7 0
Cp. his statement in Ep. 89a 453d-454a (1/2, 154,15-155,2 BlDEZ= III, 6 0 W R . ) where
he seems to regard the Jewish God as supreme.
1 7 1
Theurgy played a major role in Julian's life. Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 278-79.
1 7 2
C. Jul. 10.355-56 (PG 76,1048c-1049a).
might offer to Abraham the decision of the heavens that fulfills and sanctions all
173
things.
M a l l e y notes that Julian h i m s e l f did not accept the imperial p o w e r until h e

1 7 4
had b e e n granted a miracle and s i g n s ( τ έ ρ α ς . . . σ η μ ε ί ω ν ) from the g o d s .
Cyril k n o w s this tradition t o o and writes that Julian says that h e w a s g i v e n the
v o i c e s o f birds w h i c h taught h i m that h e w o u l d sit o n the thrones o f the
175
e m p i r e . T h e f r a g m e n t b e l o w m a k e s clear Julian's b e l i e f that prophetic
words n e e d signs in order to b e reliable.
Cyril's r e s p o n s e indicates the i s s u e s that are stake in the debate b e t w e e n
H e l l e n i s m and Christianity. In his v i e w divination is an e x a m p l e o f H e l l e n i c
m a d n e s s , a childish plaything, and e m p t y quackery. H e d o e s not m a k e u s e o f
the p h i l o s o p h e r s ' c r i t i q u e o f d i v i n a t i o n as in C i c e r o ' s d i s c o u r s e On
Divination. In G e n e s i s n o m e n t i o n is m a d e o f A b r a h a m ' s v i s i o n o f s h o o t i n g
stars or o f their confirmation o f the promise. Their m o v e m e n t d o e s not reveal
the hidden things o f G o d . H e then g i v e s a description o f divination that must
b e contemp orary: Little w o r k s h o p s and fraudulent stores carry o n s u c h
activities. For a f e w o b o l s they speak m y s t e r i e s c o n c e r n i n g things in the
h e a v e n s . T h e y s e i z e little w o m e n and subdue other c o m m o n folk with spells
176
to ripen their purses. For Cyril the stars are just signs o f the s e a s o n s .
A n a n o n y m o u s fragment from a chain commentary o n the Octateuch m a y
b e from T h e o d o r e o f M o p s u e s t i a ' s treatise against Julian. In it the author
d e n i e s that o n e w h o s e t s s i g n s or augurs ( σ υ μ β ο λ ι κ ό ς ή σ ι ω ν ι σ τ ι κ ή
χ ρ ώ μ ε ν ο ς ) d i v i n e s f r o m things that h e h i m s e l f creates. A b r a h a m b e l i e v e d
177
through w h a t G o d said and not b e c a u s e o f his v i s i o n . W i t h regard to G e n
24:14, Theodoret m a y also have been aware of Julian's criticism of
A b r a h a m ' s faith b e c a u s e h e u s e s the s a m e word as Julian (settings o f s i g n s
σ υ μ β ο λ ι κ ά ) : T h e earnestness o f his prayer teaches first that these things w e r e
1 7 3
C. Gal. 356c-357a (182,1-183,1 M A S . = III, 422-24 W R . ) .
1 7 4
Jul., Ep. ad Athen. 5.11, 284c-285a (1/1, 232,13-27 BlDEZ = II, 2 8 2 W R . ) . Ammianus
20.5.10 writes that the genius of the empire appeared to Julian in a dream to persuade him to
accept the crown. See MALLEY, Hellenism, 98.
1 7 5
C. Jul. 10.361 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 5 7 a ) .
1 7 6
C. Jul. 10.357-58 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 4 9 d - 5 2 c ) . See MALLEY, Hellenism, 336-37.
1 7 7
Theodore of Mops., Adversus Iul. Fr. 2.6, 8 (Teodoro, 78,9-22 GuiDA). Cp. Procopius
of Gaza, In Gen 24:63, PG 87, 404b. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 115 discusses this
exegetical tradition in the Syro-Antiochene school.
278 3. Julian
1 7 8
not s i g n - s e t t i n g s , but w e r e indications o f faith and g o d l i n e s s . Cyril has a
179
similar r e s p o n s e to those o f T h e o d o r e and T h e o d o r e t .
3.18 The Faith of Abraham
Julian c o n t i n u e s his e x e g e s i s o f A b r a h a m ' s faith:

And lest anyone should think that such an interpretation is forced, I will convince him by
adding what c o m e s next to the above passage. For it is written next, "And he said to him,
I am the Lord that brought you out of the land of the Chaldees, to give you this land to
inherit it. And he said, Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? And he
said to him, Take m e an heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a
ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove and a pigeon. And he took for himself all these,
and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another; but the birds he
did not divide. And the fowls came down upon the divided carcasses, and Abraham sat
down among them (Gen 15:7-11)." You see how the announcement of the angel or god
w h o had appeared was strengthened by means of the augury from birds, and how the
prophecy was completed (τής μ α ν τ ε ί α ς ε π ι τ ε λ ο ύ μ ε ν η ς ) , not at haphazard as happens
with you, but with the accompaniment of sacrifices? <For the divided parts have the
180
value of sacrifice in the ways of d i v i n a t i o n . > [He says that] by the flocking together of
the birds he showed that his message was true. [He recognizes the faith of Abraham
1 8 1
( π ί σ τ ι ν του Α β ρ α ά μ ) , adding t h a t ] a pledge ( π ί σ τ ι ς ) that lacked truth seemed to be
mere folly and imbecility. But it is not possible to behold the truth from speech alone
(ψιλού ρ ή μ α τ ο ς ) , but some clear sign ( ε ν α ρ γ έ ς σημεΐον) must follow on what has been
said, a sign that by its appearance shall guarantee the prophecy that has been made
182
concerning the f u t u r e .
Julian m a y h a v e b e e n aware o f the H e l l e n i s t i c - J e w i s h tradition that Abraham

183
w a s an astrologer or had b e e n trained in its a r t s . Greek writers including
1 7 8
T h e o d o r e t , Quaest. in G e n . 7 4 ( 2 4 : 1 4 ) (Theodoreti C y r e n s i s quaestiones in
Octateuchum, Textos y Estudios «Cardenal Cisneros» 17, ed. N . FERNANDEZ MARCOS/A.
S A E N Z - B A D I L L O S , Madrid 1979, 70,23-25 δτι δε ού συμβολικά ταύτα ην, άλλα
π ί σ τ ε ω ς και ε υ σ έ β ε ι α ς δηλωτικά, πρώτον διδάσκει τ ό σπουδαΐον τ η ς προσευχής.
1 7 9
C. Jul. 10.360-61 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 5 6 b - d ) .
1 8 0
MASARACCHIA, Giuliano 184,18-19 adds this text from Cyril, C. Jul. 10.360 (PG 76,
1056a) since Cyril notes that it is Julian's own words: W e [the Christians] are confident that
for the sake of the oath the divided parts were taken and not, as he says, that they have the
value of sacrifice in the ways of divination τ ά δ ι χ ο τ ο μ ή μ α τ α , καΐ ού, καθά φησιν αυτός,
τ ο ι ς τ ή ς μ α ν τ ε ί α ς τ ρ ό π ο ι ς έ ν τ ά ξ ε ι γενόνασι θυσιών.
181 Cyril describes Julian's attitude to Abraham with this phrase although NEUMANN,
Iuliani, 232,17 puts the article (of) in brackets, thereby creating something like: "Abraham
accepted the pledge." This is unnecessary and against the evidence of the M S S .
1 8 2
C. Gal. 358c-e (183,4-184,23 MAS. = III, 424-26 WR.).
1 8 3
Ps. Eupolemus has Abraham teach the priests of Heliopolis astrology. Abraham also
taught the Phoenecians the same art. See F. 1, F. 2 ( = Eus, P.E. 9.17.8, 9.18.2 in I, 174,3-6;
184
Vettius V a l e n s and F i r m i c u s Maternus w e r e a l s o aware o f the t r a d i t i o n .
Philo b e l i e v e s that A b r a h a m w a s trained in astrology, but that h e w a s taught
185
by divine insight to l e a v e the s c i e n c e b e h i n d . G i v e n Julian's taste for s i g n s ,
it is clear w h y h e w o u l d h a v e read G e n e s i s the w a y that h e did. Rhetorical
186
theory (and l o g i c ) a l s o c o n s i d e r e d s i g n s u s e f u l . Julian w a s aware o f this
u s a g e w h e n h e n o t e s that the paradoxical e l e m e n t s in the stories o f R o m u l u s
187
w e r e b e l i e v e d b e c a u s e o f the s i g n s that f o l l o w e d . W i t h regard to faith and
prophecy, I a m b l i c h u s (a student o f Porphyry) also b e l i e v e d that s i g n s w e r e
188
important .
Cyril argues that the d i v i d e d parts o f the animals w e r e for the sake o f the
oath, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h C h a l d e a n c u s t o m s . W h i l e Julian f o l l o w s the L X X
reading in G e n 1 5 : 1 1 ("sat"), Cyril has A b r a h a m scare the birds a w a y (a
reading c l o s e r to the M T ) . For Cyril what is r e c e i v e d b y faith m u s t not b e
189
e x a m i n e d , otherwise it is not f a i t h .
3.19 The Covenant with Abraham, Circumcision, and the Christians
The c o v e n a n t w i t h A b r a h a m w a s v a l i d forever in J u l i a n ' s e y e s , and that

190
included its prescription o f physical c i r c u m c i s i o n :
N o w I must take up this other point and ask them, Why, pray, do y o u not practice
circumcision? Paul, one says, claimed that circumcision of the heart but not of the flesh
was granted, and this given to Abraham [Rom 2:29 and 4:11-12 may be the reference].
He [Paul] said that one should no longer believe in the things of the flesh, but in the
191
impious words that were proclaimed by him [Paul] and by P e t e r . On the other hand
176,8-10 H O L L A D A Y ) . Artapanus believes that Abraham taught Pharethotes o f Egypt

astrology in F. 1 (= Eus., P.E. 9.18.1 in I, 204,7-9 HOLLADAY). RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II, 115 has much bibliography on the issue.
1 8 4
Vettius V a l e n s ' v i e w s may be found in STERN II, § 3 3 9 - 4 0 . Firmicus Maternus'
beliefs are in STERN II, § 473-76.
1 8 5
Philo, D e Abr. 69-71 and cp. 77, 82. ROKEAH, Jews, 131-32 refers to a similar text in
b. Shabb. 156a in which God rebukes Abraham because of his respect for astrology.
1 8 6
Aristotle speaks of a necessary sign ( σ η μ ε ΐ ο ν . , . ά ν α γ κ α ΐ ο ν ) such as "fever" which
shows that a man is ill (Rhet 1.2.16-18). Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 318.
1 8 7
Or. 1 1 . 4 0 , 5 4 a ( I I / 2 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 LAC. = 1,420 W R . ) .
1 8 8
Iamblichus, D e myst. 3.18 (143,11-12 DES PLACES) speaks of the signs of prophecy
(τά σ η μ ε ί α ττ\ς μαντικής). S e e also 3.15, 3.16, 3.17 (signs worthy of faith) (135,8-10;
137,20-139,5; 142,10-11 DES PLACES).
1 8 9
C. Jul. 10.360-61 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 5 6 a - b ) . Cf. MALLEY, Hellenism, 337.
1 9 0
This treatment is also found in part in C O O K , Interpretation, 2 9 2 , 3 1 2 - 1 3 .
1 9 1
The translation is according to the text of MASARACCHIA w h o does not adopt
NEUMANN'S (Iuliani, 2 2 8 , 2 2 ; 229,2-3) emendations including "they say" ( φ α σ ί ν ) for "one
says" (φησίν), "it is necessary" [before "believe"] (δει), and ουκ ά σ ε β έ σ ι ν (not impious) for
ουκ ε ύ σ ε β έ σ ι ν (not pious 179,6-180,9 MAS.). S e e MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 69-71 where
280 3. Julian
hear again that God is said to have given circumcision of the flesh to Abraham for a
covenant and a sign: This is my covenant which you shall keep, between m e and you and
your seed after you in their generations. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin,
and it shall be in token of a covenant between me and you and between m e and your seed
(Gen 17:10-11 with some alterations)." [He adds to these] And Christ himself said that it
is necessary to keep the law, at one point saying, "I have not c o m e to destroy the law and
the prophets but to fulfill them (Matt 5:17)" and at another time again, "Whoever looses
one of the least of these commandments and teaches people so will be called least in the
kingdom of heaven (Matt 5:19)." Therefore when he has undoubtedly taught that it is
proper to observe the law, and threatened with punishment those w h o transgress one
commandment, what manner of defending yourselves ( τ η ς α π ο λ ο γ ί α ς τ ο ν τρόπον) will
you devise, y o u w h o have transgressed them all without exception? For either Jesus will
be found to speak falsely, or rather you will be found in all respects and in every way to
have failed to preserve the law. [In addition to these charges he accuses ( α ι τ ι ά τ α ι ) them
of not keeping the Sabbath, of not sacrificing the lamb as the Jews do, and of not eating
with it unleavened bread. And he says that] One pretext remains for your indolence
( ρ α σ τ ώ ν η ς ) in this matter — the impossibility of sacrificing for those outside of
192
Jerusalem (Deut 1 2 : 1 - 1 4 ) .
Julian's reference to forensic rhetoric ("defending y o u r s e l v e s " ) indicates that

his arguments about c i r c u m c i s i o n are directed at the Christians and not the
1 9 3
J e w s . H e did not, at least for the sake o f his argument, share the disdain
1 9 4
toward the practice felt b y m a n y Greeks and R o m a n s . Other pagans (or
195
e v e n Christians) w o n d e r e d w h y circumcision w a s n o l o n g e r p r a c t i c e d . H i s
she discusses impersonal uses of "one says" in Julian, and on the same expression see
B D F § 130.3. Cp. C. Gal. 213b (144,7 M A S . = III, 3 8 0 W R . ) . With his emendation,
NEUMANN translates: "He speaks not of fleshly circumcision and one must believe the pious
words that he and Peter proclaim" (Giuliano, 7 0 n.164). The more difficult reading of
MASARACCHIA is coherent enough to use.
1 9 2
C. Gal. 351a-d (179,5-180,27 M A S . = III, 4 2 0 - 2 2 W R . ) . WRIGHT leaves out some of
this material (from Cyril in brackets).
1 9 3
On forensic rhetoric (including accusation and defense) see LAUSBERG, Handbuch,
§61.
1 9 4
C p . § 1.11,1.28.3.
1 9 5
Ps. Just., Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 102 (113), 457b-c ( 1 6 0 OTTO = 105,5-11 P.-
K./H.). Ps. Just, preserves a question about the usefulness of the foreskin (God makes
nothing superfluous) if it has to be cut off. If circumcision was a useful practice in the past,
why is it so no longer? See COURCELLE, Anti-Christian Arguments, 159 with reference to
Ambrose, D e Abraham 1.4.29 (CSEL 3 2 . 1 , 524,3-5 SCHENKL), Epist. ad Constantium 69.1
and 3 (CSEL 8 2 . 2 , 178,1-11; 179,19-180,2 ZELZER) and in particular Ep. ad Irenaeum 64.1
(149,13-14 ZELZER) where some object that circumcision was formerly believed to be piety
or faithfulness (pietas) and now is judged to be impiety (impietas). RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II, 118-9 includes much bibliography on the issue of Jewish circumcision in the
Greco-Roman world. Origen discusses objections to circumcision by Marcion and pagans in
Comm. in Rom. 2.13 (PG 14, 910). Cf. CPG I, § 1457/1 and HARNACK, Marcion 3 0 9 - 1 0 * ,
417*. Ambrosiaster records a question concerning why Abraham received circumcision as a
sign o f his faith in Quaest. Vet. et N . Test. 12 (36,22-3 SOUTER). Pope Damasus also
includes this question in his remarks to Jerome in Jerome, Ep. 35.5 (267,10-1 HlLBERG).
d i l e m m a (either Jesus speaks falsely [Matt 5:17, 19]), or the Christians fail to
k e e p the l a w ) is similar but not identical to a charge C e l s u s m a d e against
Jesus. For C e l s u s either Jesus lied or M o s e s did, b e c a u s e their teaching w a s
196
contrad ictory . C e l s u s finds J e s u s ' and M o s e s ' teaching to b e in conflict.
Julian finds c o n t i n u i t y in their t e a c h i n g , but it is i n s t e a d the Christian
followers o f Jesus w h o refuse to maintain the continuity b e t w e e n the O T and
Jesus. Meredith notes that Julian points out an "apparent contrast b e t w e e n the
teaching o f Christ in the S e r m o n o n the M o u n t and that o f St. P a u l ' s ' g o s p e l
197
of grace.'" A c t s 15 and Galatians contain an e x c e l l e n t picture o f the kind
o f debate within Christianity that Julian forces o n it from outside.
Cyril repeats P a u l ' s texts from R o m 2 : 2 8 - 2 9 concerning the c i r c u m c i s i o n
o f the heart. H e tries to argue that e v e n the O T m e a n i n g o f the practice w a s
198
s y m b o l i c for the r e m o v a l o f l a w l e s s d e s i r e s . T h e H o l y Spirit b r i n g s
spiritual circumcision.
Julian b e l i e v e s that Christians are in s u c h full c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h the
practices o f the O T that t h e y are w h o l l y w i t h o u t d e f e n s e and are e v e n
1 9 9
d i s o b e y i n g J e s u s ' e x p r e s s c o m m a n d to k e e p the l a w . In addition to the text
above h e m a k e s another reference to G e n 17:
"The circumcision shall be of your flesh, (Gen 17:13)" says Moses. But the Galilaeans do
not heed him, and they say: "We circumcise our hearts." B y all means. For there is
among you no evildoer, no sinner; so thoroughly do you circumcise your hearts. They
say: "We cannot observe the rule of unleavened bread or keep the Passover; for on our
behalf Christ was sacrificed once and for all (άπαξ Heb 9:28, 1 Cor 5:7)." Very well!
200
Then did he forbid you to eat unleavened b r e a d ?
W r i g h t rejects J u l i a n ' s remarks about Christian e v i l d o e r s as a sneer, but

G r e c o - R o m a n o p p o n e n t s o f Christianity such as Fronto w e r e often s u s p i c i o u s
2 0 1
o f Christian b e h a v i o r . M a c a r i u s ' a n o n y m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r f o u n d it
i n c r e d i b l e that Christian b a p t i s m c o u l d w a s h a w a y or r e m o v e s i n s l i k e
202
adultery and t h e f t . Julian k n e w the text in w h i c h the P a s s o v e r is t o b e
celebrated in all g e n e r a t i o n s (§ 3 . 2 4 ) , and w a s probably thinking o f it here
1 9 6
Origen, C. Cels. 7.18 (473,4-20 M A R C ) . Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 41-2.
1 9 7
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1147. He goes on further to remark that Julian may have picked
his argument up from Porphyry.
1 9 8
C. Jul. 10.351-53 (PG 7 6 , 1042d, 1044c,d). Cf. M A L L E Y , Hellenism, 3 5 7 , 4 1 6 .
Barnabas 9:1-9 s e e m s to deny any literal significance to the exhortations concerning
circumcision and notes that Arabs, Syrians, pagan priests, and Egyptians all practice it. He
asks if they are in the Abrahamic covenant (9:6).
1 9 9
COOK, Interpretation, 2 9 2 - 9 3 , 3 1 2 .
2 0 0
C. Gal. 354a (181,2-7 M A S . = III, 4 2 2 W R . ) . Cf. also COOK, Interpretation, 324.
2 0 1
Fronto is discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 5-7.
2 0 2
Macarius, M o n o g . 4 . 1 9 . 1 - 4 (II, 3 0 6 , 1 3 - 3 0 8 , 1 8 = HARNACk, Porphyrius, F. 88)
discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 218-20.
282 3. Julian
( E x o d 1 2 : 1 4 - 1 5 ) . A s in the text a b o v e circumcision is not an i s s u e for Julian.

H e accepts its validity and d o e s not treat it with the disdain that G r e c o - R o m a n
authors u s u a l l y shared. H a d h e d o n e s o it w o u l d h a v e u n d e r m i n e d h i s
argument considerably.
C y r i l i s w i l l i n g t o a d m i t that there are s o m e w i t h i n the Christian
c o m m u n i t y w h o d o not w a l k in the w a y o f the spiritual c i r c u m c i s i o n . H e
c o m p a r e s t h e m to p e o p l e w h o reject a p h y s i c i a n ' s m e d i c i n e . W i t h regard to
the P a s s o v e r h e argues that Jesus is the true paschal sacrifice. C o n s e q u e n t l y
Christians c o n s u m e the purest f o o d , n o u r i s h e d w i t h g o s p e l precepts and
avoiding all l e a v e n w h i c h h e interprets to m e a n diabolical evil. H e u s e s R o m
10:4 (Christ is the e n d [or g o a l ] o f the l a w ) to interpret the w o r d s o f Matt
2 0 3
5 : 1 7 - 1 8 . Christ brings the s h a d o w s o f the l a w into clearer v i s i o n .
3.20 Genesis 49:10 and the Messiah
Julian e n j o y e d attacking the Christian u s e o f O T p r o p h e c i e s to p r o v e that

Jesus w a s the M e s s i a h or G o d . G e n 4 9 : 1 0 appears in this attack:
And the words "The ruler shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins (Gen
49:10)," were most certainly not said of the son of Mary, but of the royal house of David,
which, you observe, came to an end with King Zedekiah (4 Kgdms 25:1-7). And certainly
the scripture can be interpreted in two ways when it says "until there c o m e s what is
2 0 4
reserved for h i m (τά ά π ο κ ε ί μ ε ν α αυτω)"; but you have wrongly interpreted it "until
205
he c o m e s for w h o m it is r e s e r v e d (ω απόκειται,)." But it is very clear that not one of
these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. H o w could he be when
206
according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy S p i r i t ?
Julian w a s w e l l aware o f the Christian a p o l o g i s t s ' l o v e for the text in G e n

4 9 : 1 0 . Justin Martyr m a d e u s e o f it, and w a s able to d e f e n d Christian b e l i e f
using b o t h v e r s i o n s o f the text — the latter o f w h i c h Julian thinks is d u e to
2 0 3
C. Jul. 10.354-55 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 4 5 d - 1 0 4 8 , c ) . Cf. MALLEY, Hellenism, 359.
2 0 4
The reading of Theodotion and the L X X . STERN I I , 569 compares this text with one
of Gregory o f Nazianzus (Or. 5.3 = STERN I I , § 486c) w h o writes that Julian believed that it
was an inspired statement (from the books and hidden beliefs) that the Jews were appointed to
return to their land (ώς νυν αύτοΐς άποκείμενον εϊη κατέλθει ν ε i s τ η ν εαυτών).
2 0 5
The reading of Aquila and Symmachus. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, I I § 115 notes
the irony of the fact that Julian accuses the Christians of using a text of the OT (Aquila and
S y m m a c h u s ) which the Jews actually preferred to the L X X (which was preferred by
Christians).
2 0 6
C. Gal. 253d-e (157,22-29 MAS. = I I I , 3 9 4 W R . ) . On Julian's text of Gen 49:10 see
M . A D L E R , Kaiser Julian und die Juden, in: Julian Apostata, ed. R. KLEIN, W e g e der
Forschung 5 0 9 , Darmstadt 1978 (48-111), 60-1 (original ET in JQR, 5 , 1 8 9 3 , 5 9 1 - 6 5 1 ) .
2 0 7
Christian m a l f e a s a n c e . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the particular
t e x t s that c a m e i n t o q u e s t i o n , h e traces o n e o f the o r i g i n a l c a u s e s o f t h e
J e w i s h w a r a g a i n s t R o m e t o a b e l i e f that an a m b i g u o u s o r a c l e f o u n d i n the
2 0 8
sacred writings stated that o n e from their country w o u l d rule the w o r l d .
Cyril d e n i e s J u l i a n ' s interpretation o n historical g r o u n d s . After Zedekiah,
Zerubbabel c o n t i n u e d the l i n e o f rulers w h i c h lasted until the t i m e o f H e r o d
whose father was a foreigner and whose mother was from Judea.
C o n s e q u e n t l y the rulers f r o m J u d e a d i e d o u t in the t i m e w h e n Christ w a s
born. A l t h o u g h the g e n e a l o g i e s c a u s e d ancient Christians e n d l e s s p r o b l e m s ,
209
Cyril is c o n t e n t w i t h the statement that M a r y w a s o f J o s e p h ' s t r i b e .
321 Israel and God's Chosen People, Moses and Pharaoh
In the c o n t e x t o f h i s attack o n e l e c t i o n , Julian m e n t i o n s s o m e traditions f r o m

the b o o k o f E x o d u s :
Accordingly, since M o s e s , as it seems, has failed also to give a complete account o f the
immediate creator o f this universe (περί του προσεχούς του κόσμου τούτου
210
δημιουργού), let us g o on and set o n e against another the opinions of the Hebrews and
2 0 7
Justin, Dial. 5 1 . 1 - 4 ; 120.3-5 (155,1-156,36; 277,16-34 M A R C ) , 1 Apol. 32.1-4; 54.5
(78,1-18; 108,14-19 M A R C ) . In Dial 120.3-5, Justin uses both versions o f G e n 4 9 : 1 0 and
argues that the following text (the expectation of the Gentiles) justifies a Christian exegesis of
the text. Cf. also Iren. Demonstratio 57 (SC 4 0 6 , 166 ROUSSEAU). Origen, D e princ. 4.1.3
( 2 9 6 , 6 - 2 9 8 , 3 [ 6 7 6 - 8 0 ] G . / K . ) uses H o s 3:4 and the fact that the temple is no longer in
existence to argue against the Jewish belief that the continued existence of the patriarchate in
Palestine implies (according to the Jews) that Jesus is not the Messiah (using G e n 49:10).
Eusebius (see HEIKEL'S index) uses Gen 49:10 more than forty times in the D . E . S e e , for
example, D . E . 8.1.70-71 (364,34-365,11 HEIKEL). Procopius o f Gaza, w h o used Eusebius,
has an extensive commentary on Gen 49:10. See In Gen 49:8ff (GCS Eusebius VI, 4 9 8 , 3 5 -
500,9 KLOSTERMANN). Procopius traces a direct line from Zedekiah to Jesus w h o fulfills the
prophecy o f Genesis. Eusebius, H.E. 1.6.1-8 describes Herod as a foreigner and notes that
Jewish rulers existed until his time, when Jesus fulfilled the prophecy o f the one expected by
the Gentiles. For Diodore o f Tarsus' messianic interpretation of the text s e e J. DECONINCK,
Essai sur la c M i n e d e l'Octateuqe avec une odition des Commentaires de Diodore de Tarse
qui s'y trouvent contenus, Bibl. de l'Ecole des Hautes 6tudes 195, Paris 1 9 1 2 , 130,23-42.
Cp. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 131 who has an excellent bibliography.
2 0 8
Jos., B.J. 6.312. The tradition appears also in Tacitus, Hist. 5.13.2 (STERN II, § 2 8 1 )
and Suetonius, Vesp. 4 . 5 (STERN II, § 312). STERN II, 61 notes that the particular text on
which the prophecy is based is unknown. R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 132 is
overconfident in his view that Josephus' reference is to Gen 49:10.
2 0 9
C. Jul. 8.259-60, 261 (PG 7 6 , 898a-d, 900c). S e e MALLEY, Hellenism, 3 5 1 - 5 2 . On
the genealogical problems see COOK, Interpretation, 289-90.
2 1 0
Cp. Julian's description o f Attis as the immediate creator of the material world in Or.
8 . 1 5 , 1 7 5 a (II/l, 124 ROCHE. = 1,489 W R . ) . S e e § 3.54.1 below.
284 3. Julian
that o f our fathers about these nations. Moses says that the creator o f the universe chose
out the Hebrew nation, that to that nation alone did he pay heed ( π ρ ο σ ε χ ε ι ν έκείνψ
μ ό ν ψ ) and care for (εκείνου φ ρ ο ν τ ί σ α ι ) , and he gives him charge o f it alone ( δ ί δ ω σ ι ν
αύτω τ η ν έ π ι μ έ λ ε ι α ν α ύ τ ο υ μόνου). But h o w and by what sort o f gods the other
nations are governed he has said not a word, — unless indeed one should concede that he
2 1 1
did assign to them the sun and moon (Deut 4 : 1 9 ? ) . However o f this I shall speak a
little later. N o w I will only point out that Moses himself and the prophets w h o came after
him and Jesus the Nazarene, y e s and Paul also, w h o surpassed all the magicians and
charlatans o f every place and every time, assert that he is the G o d o f Israel alone and o f
Judea, and that the Jews are his chosen people. Listen to their o w n words, and first to the
words o f M o s e s : "And y o u will say to Pharaoh, Israel is m y son, m y firstborn. And I
have said to y o u , Let my people g o that they may serve m e (Exod 4:22-23a). But you
refused to let them g o (Exod 7:16b in paraphrase).*' A n d a little later, "And they say to
him, The God o f Hebrews has summoned us; w e will g o therefore three days' journey into
the desert, that w e may sacrifice to the Lord our God (Exod 5:3 in part)." And soon he
speaks again in the same w a y , "The Lord the God of the Hebrews has sent m e to you,
saying, Let my people g o that they may serve m e in the wilderness (Exod 7:16a). [He
adds to these also other sayings chosen from the holy scriptures trying to prove that God
is called only the G o d of Israel and that the nation from Abraham has been allotted to Him
as His proper inheritance. Then Julian makes a conclusion to his statements:] It is natural
to think that the G o d o f the Hebrews w a s not the begetter o f the w h o l e universe with
lordship over the whole, but rather, as I said before, that he is confined within limits, and
that since his empire has bounds w e must conceive o f him as one o f the crowd o f other
2 1 2
gods.
Julian d o e s n o t adopt the r e v i s i o n i s t p o s i t i o n o f the G r e c o - R o m a n historians

2 1 3
w i t h regard to the e x o d u s tradition that G a g e r and o t h e r s h a v e s u r v e y e d .
T h i s i s p r o b a b l y b e c a u s e Julian w a s m o r e interested in attacking Christianity
than J u d a i s m . T h e f o c u s o f his attack o n E x o d u s i s , h o w e v e r , anti-Jewish a l s o
b e c a u s e h e f i n d s t h e d o c t r i n e o f the e l e c t i o n o f Israel t o b e r e p u g n a n t to
Hellenism. Julian surely f o u n d the n e g a t i v e portrayal o f E g y p t in the b o o k o f
E x o d u s to b e o b j e c t i o n a b l e . H i s a m b i v a l e n t attitude t o w a r d the G o d o f Israel
c o m e s t o t h e f o r e i n this f r a g m e n t w h e r e h e at o n e a n d t h e s a m e time
recognizes the H e b r e w s ' God as t h e c r e a t o r o f t h e u n i v e r s e and also
d e n i g r a t e s h i m a s a narrow and s e c t i o n a l g o d w h o i s u n c o n c e r n e d w i t h the
2 1 1
This may be Julian's reference since Cyril uses that text in his argument against Julian
in C. Jul. 3.102 (PG 7 6 , 6 5 6 d ) .
2 1 2
Julian, C. Gal. 99d-100c (109,11-110,32 M A S . = III, 3 4 0 W R . ) . The words in brackets
from Cyril at the end o f the quotation are from C. Jul. 3.100 (PG 7 6 , 653b = 110,32-7 MAS. =
III, 3 4 4 W R . ) . WRIGHT notes that Julian does not include the views o f Jesus and the prophets
about G o d ' s election o f Israel. On Paul as a magician s e e COOK, Interpretation, 3 1 0 /
RlNALDl, La Bibbia de Pagani II, 138 / M. SMITH, Pauline Worship as Seen by Pagans, HTR
73,1980,241-49.
2 1 3
GAGER, M o s e s , 113-33. S e e the Introduction above and § 1.24 / RINALDI, La Bibbia
de Pagani II, 133-37.
214
other n a t i o n s . R o w l a n d S m i t h remarks that Julian's p o s i t i o n is b a s e d o n
the ambiguity inherent in the M o s a i c notion o f a G o d w h o is supreme and yet
2 1 5
c h o s e a certain p e o p l e . Julian's c o n c e r n is paralleled b y that o f C e l s u s ,
Porphyry, and M a c a r i u s ' a n o n y m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r w h o w o n d e r e d w h y G o d
waited s o l o n g to s e n d Jesus. T h e y w o n d e r e d if G o d did not care for all the
216
previous g e n e r a t i o n s .
Cyril a c c u s e s Julian o f h a v i n g a f e e b l e understanding b e c a u s e o f his b e l i e f
that the G o d o f Israel has o n l y a limited rule (i.e. Israel). T h e k n o w l e d g e o f
G o d has b e e n built i n t o h u m a n nature. F r o m the b e i n g , order, beauty and
2 1 7
c o n s t a n c y o f the u n i v e r s e o n e c a n s e e w h a t the Creator is l i k e . H e u s e s
218
G e n 1:1 to m a k e the point that G o d is u n i v e r s a l . Cyril d o e s not d e n y that
G o d , for e x a m p l e , c a l l e d Abraham, but h e d o e s mention G o d ' s call o f Cyrus
(Isa 4 5 : 4 - 7 L X X ) , G o d ' s universality, and the nations' awareness o f h i m (Isa
4 0 : 2 6 , 4 1 : 4 - 5 L X X ) . Israel is the first born o f G o d , and this i m p l i e s that G o d
219
has other c h i l d r e n .
3.22 Israel as God's Firstborn Son
Julian a l s o m a k e s u s e o f E x o d 4 : 2 2 to attack N T Christology in the midst o f a

larger d e f e n s e o f p o l y t h e i s m . After h i s argument c o n c e r n i n g G e n 6 : 2 , 4
(§ 3 . 1 2 ) , h e continues:
Again, when M o s e s speaks of many sons of God and calls them not humans but angels,
would he not then have revealed to humankind if he had known thereof, God the "only
begotten Word (John 1:1, 14)," or a son of God, or however you call him? But is it
because he did not think this of great importance that he says concerning Israel, "Israel is
my firstborn son (Exod 4:22)?" Why did not Moses say this about Jesus also? He taught
that there was only one God, but that he had many sons w h o divided the nations among
themselves. But the firstborn Son or God the Word (πρωτότοκον δέ υιόν ή θεόν
2 1 4
These issues are also discussed in § 3.54.4-5,3.56.
2 1 5
R. SMITH, Julian's Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of
Julian the Apostate, London/New York 1 9 9 5 , 1 9 5 .
2 1 6
Origen, C. C e l s . 4.7 ( 2 2 3 , 9 - 1 1 M A R C ) , HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 8 1 , Macarius
Magnes, Monog. 4.10 (II, 250,24-252,8 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 87). Cf. COOK,
Interpretation, 1 5 0 - 5 3 , 1 7 9 .
2 1 7
C. Jul 3.101 (PG 7 6 , 6 5 3 c - d ) .
2 1 8
With regard to this part of Cyril's response, MALLEY (Julian, 3 1 8 ) describes the
following "rational" proof that Cyril uses: "If God created, he certainly would not then
become so weak that he could not provide for the universe." See C. Jul 3.101 (PG 7 6 , 653c-
656a).
2 1 9
C. Jul. 3 . 1 0 4 - 1 0 5 (PG 7 6 , 660b-662c). MALLEY, Julian, 3 1 8 - 2 0 has an extensive
summary of Cyril's position.
286 3. Julian
2 2 0
λόγον), or any of those fictions which have been invented by you later, he neither knew
221
at all nor taught openly thereof.
Julian b e l i e v e s that M o s e s supports his o w n b e l i e f in a s u p r e m e G o d w h o

governs subordinate deities w h o in turn rule o v e r their o w n nations. H e calls
t h e m ethnarchs ( έ θ ν ά ρ χ α ς ) , and they r e s e m b l e v i c e r o y s o f a k i n g ( ύ π α ρ χ ο ι
2 2 2
β α σ ι λ έ ω ς ) · H o w Julian derives his o w n polytheistic c o n c e p t i o n o f national
g o d s f r o m M o s e s , h e d o e s not e x p l a i n . H e certainly n o t i c e d that m a n y
nations in the O T worship their o w n g o d s (e.g. D e u t 2 9 : 1 7 ) and mentions that
223
M o s e s r e c o g n i z e d the e x i s t e n c e o f other d i v i n i t i e s . H i s v i e w w a s the
general G r e c o - R o m a n c o n c e p t o f p o l y t h e i s m that anti-Christian writers from
224
C e l s u s o n h a d a d o p t e d . M a c a r i u s ' a n o n y m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r offers an
225
extensive defense of polytheism .
2 2 6
Cyril is able to find the consubstantial trinity in the O T . In N u m 11:23
and D e u t 3 2 : 4 0 h e interprets the "hand o f the Lord" to b e the W o r d ( L o g o s )
2 2 7
and s o is able in m a n y texts to find the divine S o n o f G o d . It is precisely
this kind o f interpretation that Julian finds s o u n c o n v i n c i n g . O f course the
debate i s deeper than o n e o v e r the interpretation of the O T . It is the conflict
b e t w e e n p o l y t h e i s m and m o n o t h e i s m that drives Julian.
3.23 Slavery and the Jews
Israelite history p r o v e d that the J e w s w e r e far inferior to the R o m a n s and the

b l e s s i n g s g i v e n to t h e m b y the g o d s , according to Julian. T h e Christians are
f o o l i s h t o h a v e abandoned the R o m a n g o d s w h o g a v e R o m e such absolute
p o w e r in distinction to the misery that the J e w s n o w experience.
2 2 0
NEUMANN, Iuliani, 216,6 reads "son of God (υίόν [θεού)" instead of "son."
2 2 1
Julian, C. Gal. 290d-e (162,17-163,25 MAS. = III, 4 0 0 - 0 2 W R . ) . Cf. also COOK,
Interpretation, 295, 304-06.
2 2 2
S e e Julian, C. Gal. 115d, 143a-b, 148b-c (113,7-10; 121,2-6; 124,1-7 M A S . = III, 344,
354,358 WR.).
2 2 3
C. Gal. 253b-c (156,11-4 M A S . = III, 394 W R . ) .
2 2 4
Origen, C. Cels. 5.25 (340,15-23 MARC.) portrays Celsus' view that each nation has its
own overseers ( ε π ό π τ α ι ς ) . Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 94-7. The entire structure is contained
in Ps. Aristotle, D e mundo 6 , 3 9 8 a , 1-398b, 10 (82-85 LORIMER).
2 2 5
Macarius Magnes, Monog. 4.20-21a (308,19-310,14 G O U L E T = HARNACK,
Ροφηντηιβ, F. 75) discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 234-36.
2 2 6
C. Jul. 9.294 (PG 7 6 , 9 5 2 d ) .
2 2 7
C. Jul. 9 . 2 9 2 - 9 3 (PG 7 6 , 949a-b). MALLEY, Hellenism, 3 4 8 - 4 9 is unwilling to
question any of Cyril's forced exegesis of these OT texts. Cyril was following a venerable
tradition. Justin was able to find the only begotten Son of God in Ps 21:21 (LXX) since it
uses "only begotten" (μονογενή). See Dial. 105.1 (250,1-9 M A R C ) .
... "Why were y o u s o ungrateful to our gods as to desert them for the Jews?" W a s it
because the gods granted the sovereign power to Rome, permitting the Jews to be free for
a short time only, and then forever to be enslaved and aliens (δουλεϋσαι 6e d e l και
παροικήσαι)? Look at Abraham: was he not an alien in a strange land (Gen 12:10-20)?
And Jacob: w a s h e not a slave ( έ δ ο ύ λ ε υ σ ε ν ) , first in Syria (Gen 28:5, 29:18, 3 0 ) , then
after that in Palestine (Gen 33:18), and in his old age in Egypt (Gen 46:28)? D o e s not
M o s e s say that he led them forth from the house o f bondage out o f Egypt "with a
stretched out arm (Exod 6:6)"? A n d after their sojourn in Palestine did they not change
their fortunes more frequently than observers say the chameleon changes it color, n o w
subject to the judges (Judg 2:16), n o w enslaved to foreign races? A n d when they began to
be governed by kings, — but let m e for the present postpone asking h o w they were
governed: for as the scripture tells us (1 Kgdms [Sam] 8:7), God did not willingly allow
them to have kings, but only when constrained by them, and after protesting to them
beforehand that they would thus be governed ill, — still they did at any rate inhabit then-
o w n country and tilled it for a little over three hundred years. After that they were
enslaved first to the Assyrians, then to the Medes, later to the Persians, and n o w at last to
228
ourselves.
Jacob did "serve" his father-in-law L a b a n in M e s o p o t a m i a , but Julian

overstates the c a s e w h e n h e m a k e s Jacob a s l a v e in P a l e s t i n e and E g y p t . But
g i v e n t h e H e b r e w s ' later e x p e r i e n c e i n E g y p t , o n e c a n f o r g i v e h i m the
exaggeration. J u l i a n ' s critique o f Israel's historical e x p e r i e n c e i s s i m i l a r to
h i s m o c k e r y o f t h e rule o f S a m s o n and D a v i d ( § 3 . 4 2 ) . A s with most o f his
c r i t i c i s m o f J u d a i s m , this p a s s a g e is directed toward the Christians w h o h a v e
f o r s a k e n G r e e k c u l t u r e for t h e s a k e o f u n i m p r e s s i v e J e w i s h traditions that
speak o f patriarchs and a nation w h o w e r e m o r e often s l a v e s than free. From
a rhetorical p o i n t o f v i e w h i s a r g u m e n t i s a persona (based on personal
characteristics) and naturally a s s u m e s that to b e free i s far superior than b e i n g
a s l a v e , the b a s i c characteristic o f the J e w i s h p e o p l e i n h i s t o r y a c c o r d i n g t o
229
Julian's p o r t r a y a l . Julian m e n t i o n s several t i m e s i n h i s orations that R o m e
rules all. O n e o f h i s hard q u e s t i o n s i s : "Is it better t o b e free c o n t i n u o u s l y
and during t w o t h o u s a n d w h o l e years to rule o v e r the greater part o f the earth
a n d t h e s e a , or t o b e e n s l a v e d a n d t o l i v e in o b e d i e n c e t o t h e w i l l of
230
others?" S o , f o r h i m , it i s s e l f e v i d e n t that o n e s h o u l d c h o o s e t o b e a
H e l l e n e and not a J e w or a Christian. Porphyry also criticized people
2 2 8
C . Gal. 209d-210a (143,2-144,19 MAS. = III, 3 7 9 W R . ) . Cp. Julian, Ep. I l l , 433a-b
(1/2, 188,20-189,5 BlDEZ = III, 145 W R . ) where he censures the Alexandrians for becoming
enslaved to those w h o "have set at naught the teachings of their ancestors."
2 2 9
S e e LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 376.9 from Quint. 5.10.26. On Jewish slavery in ancient
argument see D . ROKEAH, The Enslavement Motif in Pagan-Christian Polemic of the Roman
Empire, Studies in the History o f the Jewish People in the Land o f Israel, V o l . 5, ed. B .
ODED, Haifa 1 9 8 0 , 1 3 0 - 4 4 (in Hebrew).
2 3 0
Julian, C. Gal. 218a-b (145,5-8 M A S . = III, 3 8 0 W R . ) . Cp. also Or. 1.4, 5b-c (1/1,
15,4-5 BlDEZ = 1 , 1 2 W R . ) and Or. 10.20 (Caesars), 320a (II/2, 5 0 LACOMBRADE = II, 374-76
WR.).
288 3. Julian
(Christians) for abandoning their ancestral traditions to b e c o m e z e a l o u s for

231
J e w i s h m y t h o l o g i e s . C e l s u s b e l i e v e d the J e w s w e r e f u g i t i v e s l a v e s from
E g y p t , and Julian in a letter to the A l e x a n d r i a n s recalls the J e w s ' former
slavery t o the E g y p t i a n s as a fact that s h o u l d h a v e d i s c o u r a g e d t h e m (the
232
Alexandrians) from b e c o m i n g C h r i s t i a n s .
Q u o t i n g 1 C o r 2:9 Cyril m e n t i o n s the i m m e n s e b l e s s i n g s o f a spiritual
nature a v a i l a b l e to C h r i s t i a n s and w o n d e r s w h y t h e y w o u l d c o n s i d e r
abandoning t h e m for H e l l e n i c delights. H e compares the H e l l e n i c g o d s to the
d i s o b e d i e n t a n g e l s w h o are p u n i s h e d in Tartarus a c c o r d i n g to 2 Pet 2:4.
A b r a h a m and the others w h o w e r e sojourners are n o t t o b e c o n d e m n e d
b e c a u s e they l i v e d under the rule o f others. T h e y l e d b l a m e l e s s l i v e s . A n d
the R o m a n s did not o n l y rule the J e w s but all nations, and Julian d o e s not
233
negate all their a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s . T h e reason the J e w s served other nations
2 3 4
w a s that t h e y a b a n d o n e d G o d ' s w o r s h i p for that o f f a l s e g o d s . O r i g e n
m a d e a similar response to a criticism o f C e l s u s w h o noted that the J e w s had
235
n o more h o m e l a n d . Cyril c o n c e d e s Julian's reading o f 1 S a m 8:7.
3.24 The Passover and the Christians
Julian w a s h i g h l y critical o f the Christians' refusal to o b s e r v e the Jewish l a w

— i n c l u d i n g the feast o f the Passover. After his attack o n Peter's v i s i o n in
A c t s 10 and the Christian refusal to f o l l o w O T dietary l a w s ( s e e § 3 . 3 0 ) , h e
writes:
But why do I discuss at length these teachings of theirs, when w e may easily see whether
they have any force? For they assert that God, after the earlier law, appointed the second.
For, say they, the former arose with a view to a certain occasion and was circumscribed
by definite periods of time, but this later law was revealed because the law of Moses was
circumscribed by time and place. That they say this falsely I will clearly show by quoting
from the books of Moses not merely ten but ten thousand passages as evidence, where he
says that the law is for all time. N o w listen to a passage from Exodus: "And this day
shall be unto you for a memorial; and you shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your
236
generations ; you shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever; seven days you shall eat
unleavened bread; the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses (Exod 12:14-
2 3 1
HARNACK, Porphyrius F. 1 = Eus., P.E. 1.2.1-4. See § 3.41 below and 2.2.1.
2 3 2
O r i g e n , C. Cels. 4.31 (245,2-5 MARC.) / § 1.24 / Julian, Ep. I l l , 433a-b (1/2, 188,20-
189,5 BlDEZ = III, 145 W R . ) . Cf. § 3.57.
2 3 3
C. Jul. 6.210-212 (PG 76, 821b-824c).
2 3 4
C. Jul. 6.212 (PG 76, 824d).
2 3 5
Origen, C. Cels. 8.69 (586,20-5 M A R C ) . See § 1.33 and § 3.56 below.
2 3 6
A D L E R observes that Julian here follows the Hebrew text. The L X X has "all your
generations." See Kaiser Julian, 97. The other OT passages Julian used are not included in
Cyril's text.
15)." [He accumulated many other passages showing that the law was called eternal — I
think it is necessary to remove a long digression from the account; he continues:] Many
passages to the same effect are still left, but on account of their number I refrain from
2 3 7
citing them to prove that the law of Moses was to last for all t i m e .
2 3 8
Julian c o n t i n u e s b y attacking R o m 1 0 : 4 . H e also probably s h o w s h i m s e l f
aware o f the t y p o l o g i c a l interpretation o f Christ as the p a s c h a l l a m b in
another text ( s e e § 3 . 1 9 ) . G i v e n E x o d 1 2 : 1 4 - 1 5 and despite Christ's paschal
s a c r i f i c e , J u l i a n s e e s n o g o o d r e a s o n w h y C h r i s t i a n s s h o u l d n o t eat
2 3 9
u n l e a v e n e d bread d u r i n g P a s s o v e r . Ambrose knew of pagans w h o
w o n d e r e d similarly w h y c i r c u m c i s i o n , Sabbath, and m o s t o f the precepts o f
240
the J e w i s h law w e n t u n o b s e r v e d b y C h r i s t i a n s .
Cyril responded w i t h a t y p o l o g i c a l e x e g e s i s o f the law. H e first notes that
G o d hates J e w i s h f e s t i v a l s i n c l u d i n g the Sabbath and other feasts u s i n g a
paraphrase o f Isa 1 : 1 3 - 1 4 . H e c o n c e d e s that the f e s t i v a l s are eternal in a
typological sense. Christians still observe the l a w in this sense. W h a t w a s in
s h a d o w s e m e r g e s into the beauty o f truth. T h e feast o f the u n l e a v e n e d bread
is fulfilled a m o n g t h o s e w h o are justified b y faith, m a d e h o l y in the Spirit, and
w h o celebrate an intellectual liturgy. Christ is the u n b l e m i s h e d paschal l a m b
241
w h o has b e e n sacrificed for h u m a n i t y .
3.25 The Decalogue
Julian a p p r o v e d o f m o s t o f the D e c a l o g u e , a l t h o u g h s o m e p o i n t s w e r e
objectionable in h i s e y e s . H e thought it rather c o m m o n to b e g i n with:
That is a surprising law of M o s e s , I mean the famous Decalogue! "You shall not steal
(Exod 20:14)." "You shall not kill (Exod 20:15)." "You shall not bear false witness
(Exod 20:16)." But let m e write out word for word every one of the commandments
which he says were written by God himself. "I am the Lord your God, w h o brought you
2 3 7
C. Gal. 319d-320a (169,2-17 M A S . = III, 408-10 WR.).
2 3 8
C. Gal. 320b (169,15-20 M A S . = ΠΙ, 4 1 0 WR.). See COOK, Interpretation, 313.
2 3 9
ROKEAH, Jews, 121, 163 notes that Julian is attempting to undermine the foundations
of Christianity by attacking their use of OT texts. Cp. NESTLE, D i e Haupteinwande, 9 5 .
GAGER, Moses, 109 notes that Julian sounds very much like a spokesman for the Jewish side
in the Christian Adversus Judaeos (Against the Jews) literature with reference to A. B.
HULEN, The 'Dialogues with the Jews' as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument Against
Christianity, JBL 5 1 , 1 9 3 2 , 5 8 - 7 0 among other scholars.
^ A m b r o s e , Ep. ad Irenaeum 64.1 (CSEL 8 2 . 2 , 149,6-150,20 ZELZER) / COURCELLE,
Anti-Christian Arguments, 159. Marcion also believed that the Creator ordained the sabbath
and Christ ended it. See Tert., Adv. Marc. 4.12.1-15 (568,22-572,2 KROY.) and other texts in
HARNACK, Marcion, 2 9 3 * .
2 4 1
C. Jul. 9.321, 3 2 2 ; 10.355 (PG 76, 993d-996a; 1048a). See MALLEY, Hellenism, 354-
55,358-59.
290 3. Julian
out o f the land of Egypt (Exod 20:2)." Then follows the second: "You shall have no
other gods but m e (Exod 20:3)." "You shall not make for yourself an image (Exod
20:4)." And then he adds the reason: "For I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third generation (Exod 20:5b)."
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain (Exod 20:7)." "Honor you
father and your mother (Exod 20:8)." "You shall not commit adultery (Exod 20:13)."
"You shall not kill (Exod 20:15)." "You shall not steal (Exod 20:14)." "You shall not
bear false witness (Exod 20:16)." "You shall not covet anything that is your neighbor's
(Exod 20:17)." N o w except for the command "You shall not worship other gods (Exod
20:5a)," and "Remember the Sabbath day," what nation is there, I ask in the name of the
gods, which does not think that it ought to keep the other commandments? S o much so
that penalties have been ordained against those w h o transgress them, sometimes more
severe, and sometimes similar to those enacted by M o s e s , though they are sometimes
2 4 2
more h u m a n e .
Rinaldi p o i n t s out that C e l s u s a l s o o b j e c t e d to Christian ethical teaching as

" c o m m o n ( κ ο ι ν ό ν ) and in relation to that o f other p h i l o s o p h e r s it w a s not
2 4 3
anything s e r i o u s or n e w (ού σ β μ ν ό ν τ ι καΐ κ α ι ν ό ν μ ά θ η μ α ) . " Julian
d o e s not object to the institution o f the Sabbath as S e n e c a did w h o thought it
244
encouraged i d l e n e s s .
Cyril finds it surprising that Julian w o u l d think o f criticizing in any w a y
the J e w i s h l a w s i n c e h e b e l i e v e s that e a c h nation has ruling g o d s that provide
the g i v e n c o u n t r y their w a y o f life and l a w s . H e a r g u e s that Julian has
245
forgotten h i s o w n p o s i t i o n . M a l l e y o b s e r v e s that Cyril a c c u s e s Julian o f
246
c o m p l e t e moral and legal r e l a t i v i t y . This charge s e e m s reflected in Julian's
neutral statement earlier that for H e l l e n e s m e n should not marry their sisters,
2 4 7
daughters, or mothers, w h i l e the Persians think that s u c h actions are g o o d .
Cyril a l s o argues that Julian should not criticize the M o s a i c l a w b e c a u s e all
nations o b s e r v e it. T h e l a w w i l l be admirable whether e a c h nation learned it
from M o s e s , or whether natural l a w has inserted it into h u m a n nature. M o s e s
2 4 8
is older than the Greek lawgivers Lycurgus and S o l o n .
T h e r e are s e v e r a l c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h C e l s u s that c a n b e m a d e . H e a l s o
b e l i e v e d that e a c h nation r e c e i v e d its l a w s or c u s t o m s f r o m its individual
2 4 2
C. Gal. 152b-d (125,4-126,3 MAS. = III, 358-60 W R . ) .
^ O r i g e n , C. Cels. 1.4 (9,3-6 M A R C ) . Cf. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani I I , 149.
CHADWICK, Origen, 8 refers to Tertullian's complaint that pagans believe Christians are a
philosophical school that teaches the same thing philosophers do including innocence, justice,
patience, sobriety, and chastity (Apol. 4 6 . 2 [160,9-14 DEK.]).
2 4 4
Seneca, D e superstitione apud Aug., D e civ. Dei 6.11 = STERN I , § 186. Cf. § 0.10.
2 4 5
See § 3 . 1 4 above.
2 4 6
C. Jul. 5.152-53 (PG 7 6 , 7 3 3 b - c ) . See MALLEY, Hellenism, 3 2 1 .
2 4 7
C. Gal. 138b (118,12-14 MAS. = III, 352 W R . ) .
2 4 8
C. Jul. 5.153-54 (PG 76, 736,b-d) and see Clem. Alex. 1.21.107.5 ( I I , 69,9-15 ST./FR.)
who argues that Solon and Lycurgus along with Pherecydes and Pythagoras are all younger
than Moses. Cf. § 3 . 1 4 , 3 . 2 2 , 3 . 5 4 . 4 .
2 4 9
guardian d i v i n i t y . L i k e C y r i l , O r i g e n o b j e c t e d t o the ethical r e l a t i v i s m that
s e e m e d to f o l l o w from such a position. C e l s u s a l s o n o t e d that w i s e p e o p l e
f o u n d Christianity o b j e c t i o n a b l e b e c a u s e s o m a n y p e o p l e f o l l o w e d it. Origen
r e s p o n d e d that e v e n t h o u g h the c o m m o n p e o p l e o b e y e d the l a w s that d i d n o t
2 5 0
m e a n that L y c u r g u s a n d S o l o n s h o u l d n o t b e h o n o r e d .
326 God's Jealousy and Theological Language
Julian w a s o f f e n d e d b y the c o n c e p t o f the H e b r e w s ' j e a l o u s G o d :
But as for the commandment "You shall not worship other g o d s / ' to this surely he adds a
terrible libel (διαβολής) upon God. "For I am a jealous God (Exod 20:5)," he says, and in
251
another place again, "Our God is a consuming fire (Deut 4:24, Heb 1 2 : 2 9 ) . " Then if a
person is jealous or envious ( β ά σ κ α ν ο ς ) y o u think him blameworthy, whereas if God is
called jealous y o u think it a divine quality? And how is it reasonable to make an obvious
lying fiction (φανερόν π λ ά σ μ α τ ο υ θεου καταψεύδεσθαι) about God in a matter that is
so evident? For if he indeed is jealous, then against his will are all other gods worshipped,
and against his will d o all the remaining nations worship their gods. Then h o w is it that
he did not himself restrain them, if he is s o jealous and does not wish that the others
should be worshipped, but only himself? Can it be that he was not able to do so, or did he
not wish even from the beginning to prevent the other gods also from being worshipped?
However, the first explanation is impious ( ά σ ε β ε ς ) , to say, I mean, that he w a s unable;
and the second is in accordance with what w e d o ourselves. Lay aside this nonsense
252
(λήρον) and do not draw down on yourselves such terrible b l a s p h e m y .
2 5 3
C e l s u s w a s a l s o put o f f b y the b i b l i c a l i m a g e r y o f the wrath o f G o d . He,
like Julian, b e l i e v e d that s u c h p a s s i o n s were not compatible with the
philosophers' God. O n the o t h e r hand, h e w a s w i l l i n g to d e s c r i b e n e g l e c t e d
divinities i n this f a s h i o n :
The satrap, prefect, general, or procurator of the king of Persia or emperor o f Rome, those
indeed w h o have inferior offices, charges, and services would have the power to d o great
harm if they are neglected, whereas the satraps and ministers of the air and earth would
254
only cause slight harms if they were treated d e s p i t e f u l l y ?
2 4 9
S e e § 1.28.1 and MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1144 w h o also calls attention to Origen, C.
Cels. 5.25 ( 3 4 0 , 1 5 - 2 3 M A R C ) and Iamblichus, D e myst. 5.24 (234,15-8 DES PLACES) w h o
argues that different regions are appointed to different rulers. Julian may have taken the
doctrine from Iamblichus.
2 5 0
Origen, C. Cels. 3.73 (209,24-210,1 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 8 4 .
2 5 1
Deut 4 : 2 4 continues with "a jealous God." Julian cites the text as it appears in
Hebrews (RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 162).
2 5 2
C. Gal. 155c-e (126,2-127,16 M A S . = III, 360-62 W R . ) .
2 5 3
Cf. § 1.31 / COOK, Interpretation, 101.
2 5 4
C. Cels. 8.35 (550,14-9 M A R C ) . S e e COOK, Interpretation, 96.
292 3. Julian
Macarius' p h i l o s o p h e r also thinks it unreasonable to a s s u m e that G o d w o u l d

b e c o m e angry if others shared the n a m e ( g o d ) with h i m s i n c e a ruler and his
2 5 5
subjects are both h u m a n s . T h e metaphor o f fire for G o d w a s a l s o not
acceptable for Julian w h o associated it w i t h harmful i m a g e s . In o n e o f his
letters h e argues that the prophets d o not s e e G o d as a pure light, but as a fire
and cry out, "Tremble, be afraid, fire, flame, death, a dagger, a broad-sword!"
256
T h e y cannot b e h o l d the light c l e a r l y . In a M i s h n a i c text a pagan asks w h y
G o d d o e s not destroy the w o r s h i p o f idols if he d o e s not desire it. T h e rabbis'
answer i s that s i n c e the sun, m o o n , and s o forth are w o r s h i p p e d and s i n c e
2 5 7
humans n e e d them, G o d d o e s not destroy false g o d s .
Cyril c o n c e d e s the point to Julian that G o d is b e y o n d p a s s i o n ( π ά θ ο υ ς
ά π ε ί ρ α τ ο ν ) . It d o e s not trouble h i m that this is a Greek c o n c e p t o f G o d that
d o e s not s e e m to reflect the w i l l i n g n e s s o f the L X X to ascribe m a n y passions
to the deity. H e w a s certainly f o l l o w i n g the Christian a p o l o g i s t s w h o in turn
258
w e r e probably indebted to Greek t h o u g h t . P h i l o , for e x a m p l e , h e l d that
t h o s e w h o b e l i e v e d G o d e x p e r i e n c e d rages w e r e in error s i n c e G o d w a s
2 5 9
without p a s s i o n . H e admits that j e a l o u s y and a n g e r are indications o f
h u m a n w e a k n e s s . For Cyril, if terms like j e a l o u s y are applied to G o d they
must b e d o n e appropriately and carefully. G o d ' s j e a l o u s y actually refers to
2 6 0
his rejection o f h u m a n i t y ' s predilection to turn to shameful d e e d s . G o d ' s
261
ultimate purpose is to save, and Cyril appeals to 2 T i m 2:4 for this p o s i t i o n .
2 5 5
Macarius Magnes, Monog. 4.23.3 (II, 314,13-7 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F.
78).
2 5 6
Frag. Ep. 89b, 296a (1/2, 163,17-23 BIDEZ = II, 3 1 4 W R . ) . MASARACCHIA calls
attention to this text (Giuliano, 216). See § 3.47 below.
2 5 7
m. 'Abod. Zar. 4.7. Cf. ROKEAH, Jews 127-30. ROKEAH indicates that the rabbis were
also troubled by the concept of God's jealousy. Cf. also RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II,
162.
2 5 8
S e e the comments on God's being without passion (απαθής) in Athenagoras, Leg. 8.3,
10.1 (16, 2 0 SCHOEDEL) and in Justin, Apol. 1.25.2 (68,7 M A R C ) . For Plato heavenly beings
experience no jealousy (Phaedrus 247a). The creator is not jealous (φθόνος Tim. 29e). Cp.
the later Platonist position in Ps. Sallust, D e diis 1 (2,6 NOCK) and Maximus of Tyre, Diss.
9.4 (73,86-7 TRAPP). Plotinus holds that the gods are without passion in contrast with the
demons in Ennead. 3.5.6 (I, 298,9-13 H . / S C H . ) . Iamblichus, D e myst. 1.13 interprets the
concept of divine anger in this way: the wrath of the gods refers to humans' rejection of their
benevolence towards us (43,1-8 DES PLACES). C. H. 6.1 (I, 72,11 N./F.) holds that God does
not get angry or jealous. Cp. MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1142 who refers to Origen, C. Cels. 8.21
(538,18-9 M A R C ) where Celsus argues that God needs nothing and is not jealous (εξω
φθόνου) / RlEDWEG, Mit Stoa,74-5.
2 5 9
Philo, Quod Deus sit imm. 51-52 (with reference to Gen 6:7). S e e the references to
divine anger below in § 3.34-5. Cp. also § 1.31.
2 6 0
C. Jul. 5.156 (PG 76,740a-b).
2 6 1
C. Jul. 5.158 (PG76,741b).
H e asks Julian if the Greek divinities are angered w h e n Christians turn from
pagan error to Christian truth or if they d o not care. If they are not c o n c e r n e d
then Julian should not criticize those w h o l e a v e p a g a n i s m for Christianity. If
Julian h i m s e l f thinks correctly and is angry about this c h a n g e , then w h y is h e
not better than his m o s t w i s e g o d s ? But they are angered by the c o n v e r s i o n s ,
and this is j e a l o u s y . C o n s e q u e n t l y , Cyril asks, w h y should not G o d b e angry
2 6 2
w h e n p e o p l e abandon the k n o w l e d g e o f G o d ?
3.27 God's Vengeance of the Fathers' Sins on Children
In the context o f his b e l i e f that the H e b r e w G o d cares o n l y for Israel, Julian

criticizes G o d ' s punishment o f children for their fathers' actions:
Then are w e to pay further heed to you because you or one of your stock imagined the
God of the universe, though in any case you attained only to a bare conception (ψιλής ...
έννοιας) of Him? Is not all this partiality (ού μερικά π ά ν τ α τ α υ τ α ) ? God, you say, is
a jealous God. But why is he so jealous, even avenging the sins of the fathers on the
2 6 3
children (Exod 2 0 : 5 ) ?
G o d ' s j e a l o u s y and v e n g e a n c e are unacceptable to Julian. Mered i t h writes

that the G o d portrayed in the O T in Julian's e y e s is "unintelligible to the
264
Platonist s p i r i t . " Plato found the principle self-evident that children should
not b e punished for their parents' sins. If a father r e c e i v e s a capital s e n t e n c e
children can still l i v e honorable l i v e s : "For children and f a m i l y , if they flee
their ancestral w a y s ( τ ά π α τ ρ ώ α ή θ η ) , shall h a v e f a m e and b e s p o k e n o f
h o n o r a b l y as t h o s e w h o h a v e w e l l and c o u r a g e o u s l y a b a n d o n e d e v i l for
265
g o o d . " . T h e s e e m i n g w i l l i n g n e s s o f the O T G o d to punish the innocent for
the sins o f others w a s a constant point o f criticism o f the O T that pagans (and
probably Christians) raised. Ambrosiaster records a similar objection to the
2 6 2
C. Jul. 5.159 (PG 7 6 , 744b-c). MALLEY, Hellenism, 323-26 has an extensive analysis
of Cyril's response to Julian.
2 6 3
C. Gal. 106e (112,23-7 MAS. = III, 344 WR.).
2 6 4
265 p i t o , Leg. 855a.
a Cp. also 856c-d. He did allow an exception: in the case when a
father, grandfather, and great grandfather had received a capital sentence, then the children
should be deported. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 150 discusses a possible reference to
this discussion (of Julian's) in Themistius, Or. 21.258a in which the author notes that it is
false to hold that Plato believed that children to the fourth generation should be punished (ότι
Πλάτων e l s τ ε τ ά ρ τ η ν γ ε ν ε ά ν διαβιβάζει τάς τιμωρίας). See G. DOWNEY, Themistius
and the Defence of Hellenism in the Fourth Century, HTR 50, 1957, (259-74) 2 6 2 / RINALDI,
Tracce, 120. The reference is tenuous at best.
294 3. Julian
2 6 6
principle in E x o d 2 0 : 5 . Q u e s t i o n e r s a l s o ask w h y the i n n o c e n t w e r e
2 6 7
destroyed w i t h their parents in S o d o m . A n o t h e r questioner m e n t i o n s the
counter-principle in E z e k 18:4 (a soul w h i c h sins w i l l h i m s e l f die) and then
2 6 8
asks w h y after the sin o f A c h a n (Josh 7 ) did 3 6 p e o p l e h a v e to d i e . Ps.
Justin m e n t i o n s an objection in w h i c h an individual asks w h y G o d punished
Israel in e p i s o d e s w h e n Jonathan (1 K g d m s 1 4 : 2 4 - 4 5 ) and D a v i d o n l y ( 2
2 6 9
K g d m s 2 4 : 1 - 2 5 ) sinned. T h e critic then q u o t e s E z e k 1 8 : 4 . Clearly the
principle o f punishing p e o p l e for other p e o p l e ' s sins w a s repellent to pagans
and s o m e Christians alike.
Cyril r e s p o n d s to Julian w i t h a reaffirmation o f the principle that G o d is
without p a s s i o n . B e i n g j e a l o u s m e a n s that G o d cannot a l l o w those w h o o n c e
k n e w his glory to turn to shameful d e e d s . In nature G o d is g o o d and wants all
p e o p l e to b e s a v e d and c o m e to the k n o w l e d g e o f the truth ( 2 T i m 2:4). H e
notes that Julian omitted the phrase "of those w h o hate h i m . " If generations
o f sinners s a w that they w e r e never punished they w o u l d b e c o m e e v e n worse.
Q u o t i n g E z e k 1 8 : 2 0 , C y r i l o b s e r v e s that G o d o n l y p u n i s h e s further
2 7 0
generations if they d o not abandon their sinful w i l l .
328 Lev 7:20 and Christian Practice
After a d i s c u s s i o n o f the atonement sacrifice in L e v 16 ( s e e § 3 . 3 1 ) , Julian

c o n c l u d e s w i t h a general statement that c o n d e m n s Christian abstention from
sacrificing:
Accordingly, it is evident from what has been said, that Moses knew the various methods
of sacrifice. And to show that he did not think them impure as you do, listen again to his
o w n words. "But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that
pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his
people (Lev 7:20)." S o cautious is Moses himself with regard to the eating of the flesh of
271
sacrificial o f f e r i n g s .
2 6 6
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 14 (39,4-6 SOUTER) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
Pagani Π § 132.
2 6 7
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N . Test. 13 (37,21-2 SOUTER). See Courcelle, Critiques
exegetiques, 141-42 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 150.
2 6 8
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 36 (64,1-3 SOUTER) / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
Pagani Π § 240.
2 6 9
Ps. Just., Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 138 (155), 487a-b (230 OTTO = 143,1-10 P.-
K./H.).
2 7 0
C. Jul. 3.112-13 (PG 76, 672b-643c). Ambrosiaster also makes use of Ezek 18:20 in
his answer to the objection concerning Exod 20:5. See Quaest. Vet. et N. Test. 14 (40,15-20
SOUTER). Cp. RlNALDl, Tracce, 108.
2 7 1
C. Gal. 305b (166,1-7 MAS. = III, 4 0 4 W R . ) .
Julian's high regard for animal sacrifice probably had its roots in I a m b l i c h u s '
272
p h i l o s o p h i c a l and practical r e l i g i o n . Iamblichus had d e d i c a t e d an entire
273
chapter o f his De myst. to d e f e n d sacrificial o f f e r i n g s . In his Letter to a
Priest, Julian d e f e n d e d the entire w o r s h i p structure o f H e l l e n i s m : "It is our
duty to adore not o n l y the i m a g e s o f the g o d s , but a l s o their t e m p l e s and
274
sacred p r e c i n c t s and a l t a r s . " In i n s c r i p t i o n s Julian is h o n o r e d as the
275
restorer o f R o m a n r e l i g i o n . Consequently he found the b o o k o f Leviticus to
276
be to his liking w i t h its m a n y sacrificial g u i d e l i n e s .
Cyril refused to c o n c e d e that Christians abstain f r o m the l a w ' s required
sacrifices as if they w e r e unclean. Instead Christians h a v e p a s s e d from t y p e s
to the truth. O n c e t h e truth (Christ) h a s b e e n s e e n , t h e t y p e s b e c o m e
2 7 7
superficial and u s e l e s s .
5.29 Fire from Heaven (Lev 9:24 and 1 Kgs 18:38)
Julian b e l i e v e s that Christians appeal to several texts in the O T in w h i c h

h e a v e n l y fire c o n s u m e d sacrifices and then argue that they d o n o t sacrifice
b e c a u s e s u c h supernatural f l a m e n o l o n g e r c o m e s . T h e y m a k e this refusal
despite their participation in practices that are abominable in the O T s u c h as
2 7 8
seeking night v i s i o n s a m o n g t o m b s .
But you, though y o u practice that which God from the first abhorred, as he showed
through M o s e s and the prophets, have refused nevertheless to offer victims at the altar,
and to sacrifice. "Yes," say that Galilaeans, "because fire will not descend to consume the
sacrifices as in the case of Moses." Only once, I answer, did this happen in the case of
Moses (Lev 9:24); and again after many years in the case of Elijah the Tishbite (3 Kgdms
[1 Kgs] 18:38). For I will prove in a few words that Moses himself thought that it was
necessary to bring fire from outside of the sacrifice, and even before him, Abraham the
patriarch as well.
2 7 2
B U R G I E R E / E V I E U X , Cyrille, 5 0 refer approvingly to the v i e w of B. D . LARSEN
(Jamblique de Chalcis. Exegete et philosophe, Aarhus 1972, 24) w h o believes that Julian's
thought is not a servile copy of that of Iamblichus.
2 7 3
Iamblichus, D e myst. 5.1-26 (199,6-240,18 DES PLACES). Cp. Porphyry's defense of
sacrifice of fruits of the earth in D e abst. 2.27.1 (II, 93 B./P.). See COOK, Interpretation, 165-
66 for other Greco-Roman attacks on the Christian refusal to offer sacrifices.
2 7 4
Frag. Ep. 89b, 296b (1/2,163,26-164,1 BlDEZ = II, 314 W R . ) .
2 7 5
I L S 7 5 2 (restitutori libertatis et R[omanae] religionis). See SMITH, Julian's Gods,
280-281 n.133 and COOK, Interpretation, 282 for other examples.
2 7 6
See also ROKEAH, Jews, 34. NESTLE, Die Haupteinwande, 9 4 discusses Julian's attack
on the Christians' refusal to practice sacrifice as does SMITH, Julian's Gods, 2 0 4 , 2 0 8 .
2 7 7
C. Jul. 9.305 (PG 7 6 , 9 6 9 b - c ) . See also MALLEY, Hellenism, 354.
2 7 8
See C. Gal. 339e-340a (176,2-11 MAS. = III, 4 1 6 W R . ) and COOK, Interpretation, 309.
296 3. Julian
A c c o r d i n g to Cyril, Julian continues with a reference to the stories o f Isaac

( G e n 2 2 : 6 ) and Cain and A b e l ( G e n 4:1-8) and argues that in neither c a s e w a s
the sacrificial fire from h e a v e n . Cyril c o n c l u d e s his presentation o f Julian's
position w i t h these words: "He says that to G o d , a living b e i n g , a sacrifice o f
279
living animals is more w e l l pleasing than o n e o f the ripe fruits o f the e a r t h . "
Julian d o e s not attack the O T miracles as fictions — unlike his v i e w s o n the
2 8 0
g o s p e l s — but a c c e p t s t h e m at f a c e v a l u e . Julian t h e n c o n t i n u e s his
d i s c u s s i o n w i t h an e x t e n s i v e e x e g e s i s o f C a i n ' s and A b e l ' s sacrifices ( s e e
§ 3 . 1 1 ) . Porphyry preferred sacrifices o f fruits o f the earth, unlike Julian, but
also resented the Christians' refusal to participate in the sacrificial rituals o f
281
H e l l e n i s m . M a s a r a c c h i a n o t e s that Julian's reference to a l i v i n g G o d ' s
preferring l i v i n g sacrifices is a principle h e c o u l d h a v e f o u n d in Iamblichus
282
and Ps. S a l l u s t i u s .
Cyril d e n i e s Julian's premise that Christians refuse to sacrifice b e c a u s e o f
the a b s e n c e o f h e a v e n l y fire. T h e reason they d o not sacrifice is that what has
b e e n in types and s h a d o w s has m o v e d into truth, and Christians offer spiritual
2 8 3
and b l a m e l e s s sacrifices to G o d . Fire is a s y m b o l o f G o d in the scriptures.
N o t visible fire, but the H o l y Spirit c o m e s d o w n from h e a v e n to illuminate the
2 8 4
C h r i s t i a n s ' spiritual s a c r i f i c e s s u c h as faith, h o p e , l o v e , and j u s t i c e .
Christians' b o d i e s are to be a living sacrifice ( R o m 12:1), and Christ said that
they w o u l d b e baptized in the H o l y Spirit and in fire ( L u k e 3:16). T h e ram
285
Abraham sacrificed instead o f Isaac w a s a type o f C h r i s t .
330 Lev 11:3 and Christian Diet
Julian f o u n d contradictions b e t w e e n Christian diet and the clear l a w s o f

M o s e s . In particular h e attacked the e p i s o d e in A c t s 10 w h e r e Peter has a
vision o f G o d ' s acceptance o f the Gentiles.
2 7 9
C . Gal. 3 4 3 c - e ( 1 7 7 , 2 - 1 6 MAS. = III, 4 1 6 - 1 8 W R . ) . See RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II § 70a.
2 8 0
Cp. C . Gal. 39a (87,1-6 M A S . = III, 318 W R . ) and COOK, Interpretation, 286-89.
2 8 1
S e e HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 7 9 = STERN II, § 465i. See § 2.2.11, 12 and COOK,
2 8 2
Iamblichus, D e myst. 5.21 (229,2-7 DES PLACES). Ps. Sallust., D e diis 16.1-2 (28,23-
30,4 NOCK). MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 239. See § 3.11 above.
2 8 3
C . Jul. 10.344 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 2 9 d ) .
2 8 4
C . Jul. 10.344-45 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 3 2 a - c ) .
2 8 5
C . Jul. 10.345-46 (PG 76,1033a-b).
Why in your diet are y o u not as pure as the Jews, and why do y o u say that w e ought to eat
286
everything "even as the green herb (Gen 9 : 3 ) , " putting your faith in Peter, because, as
the Galilaeans, say, he declared, "What G o d has cleansed, do not make c o m m o n (Acts
287
10:15)"? What proof ( τ β κ μ ή ρ ι ο ν ) is there o f this, that of old G o d held certain things
abominable, but n o w has made them pure? For Moses, when he is laying down the law
concerning four-footed things, says that whatsoever parts the hoof and c h e w s the cud is
pure (Lev 11:3), but that which is not o f this sort is impure. N o w if, after the vision
( φ α ν τ α σ ί α ς ) o f Peter, the pig has now taken to chewing the cud, then let us obey Peter;
for it is in very truth a miracle if, after the vision of Peter, it has taken to that habit. But if
he spoke falsely when he said that he saw this revelation, — to use your o w n w a y o f
speaking, — in the house o f the tanner, w h y are w e so ready to believe him in such
important matters? W a s it s o hard a thing that Moses enjoined on y o u when, besides the
flesh o f swine (Lev 11:7, Deut 14:8), he forbade you to eat winged things (Lev 11:13-19,
2 8 8
Deut 14:12-18) and things that dwell in the sea (Lev 11:10, Deut 1 4 : 9 - 1 0 ) , and
declared to y o u that besides the flesh of swine these also had been cast out by G o d and
289
shown to be i m p u r e ?
U n l i k e m o s t p a g a n s , Julian d o e s not h o l d the J e w i s h dietary l a w s in d e r i s i o n .

In a letter h e n o t e s that J e w s w o u l d rather d i e or starve than c o n s u m e pork or
290
s o m e t h i n g that has b e e n s t r a n g l e d . G r e e k s and R o m a n s k n e w o f the J e w i s h
a b s t e n t i o n f r o m p o r k as a d i s t i n g u i s h i n g characteristic o f their faith and
u s u a l l y h e l d it in d e e p s c o r n (cf. § 1.28.3). L i k e Julian, C e l s u s r e s p e c t e d the
J e w i s h a b s t e n t i o n f r o m pork and their practice o f c i r c u m c i s i o n a l t h o u g h h e
did not regard it as original. Christians sometime questioned the
a b a n d o n m e n t o f t h e J e w i s h f o o d l a w s as a letter f r o m P o p e D a m a s u s to
J e r o m e illustrates. D a m a s u s a s k s Jerome: "If G o d has m a d e all t h i n g s g o o d ,
h o w c o m e s it that H e g i v e s c h a r g e to N o a h c o n c e r n i n g u n c l e a n a n i m a l s , and
2 9 1
s a y s t o Peter, ' W h a t G o d h a s c l e a n s e d , d o not call c o m m o n ' ( A c t s 1 0 : 1 5 ) " ?
2 8 6
S e e also § 3 . 4 1 . In Or. 9 . 1 2 , 192d (II/l, 160 ROCHE. = II, 3 6 W R . ) , Julian calls
Christians π α μ φ ά γ ω ν (eaters o f all things) and also refers to Gen 9:3. On that text see
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II § 7 9 .
2 8 7
This is a rhetorical term which Julian also uses in another context in C. Gal. 229d-
230a (150,22-29 M A S . = III, 3 8 4 - 8 7 W R . ) . S e e LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 361 and COOK,
2 8 8
Julian neglects to mention the distinguishing mark o f fins and scales that divides clean
from unclean sea creatures.
2 8 9
C. Gal. 3 1 4 c - e (168,2-17 M A S . = III, 4 0 6 - 0 8 W R . ) . S e e also COOK, Interpretation,
307-08.
2 9 0
Ep. 89a, 453d (1/2,154,9-12 BlDEZ= III, 58 W R . ) .
2 9 1
Jerome, Ep. 3 5 . 3 ( 2 6 6 , 1 7 - 2 6 7 , 4 HlLBERG). ET from N P N F , Series 2 , 6 . 4 7 . A n
anonymous objector asks w h y God told Noah to take impure animals in the ark if God made
all things good. A n impure animal cannot be good. S e e Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. Test. 9
(33,3-6 SOUTER) = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II § 7 7 . A n individual asks the same
question (if God made all animals, why are some pure and impure) in Ps. Justin, Quaest. et
resp. ad Orthod. § 35 (46), 412b ( 5 2 OTTO = 52,10-7 P.-K./H.).
298 3. Julian
A n a n o n y m o u s Christian in P s . Justin a s k s a q u e s t i o n a b o u t c o n t e m p o r a r y
Christian dietary practice g i v e n the l a w ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s o f a b s t e n t i o n f r o m
unclean food. T h e author r e s p o n d s w i t h r e f e r e n c e s t o M a r k 7 : 1 4 - 2 3 and 1
2 9 2
Tim4:4 .
Cyril a n s w e r e d w i t h h i s frequent argument that the l a w s o f M o s e s w e r e
t y p e s o f N T truths. V u l t u r e s are s y m b o l s o f g r e e d . O w l s are s y m b o l s o f
those who live in ignorance, night, and darkness. Mice depict the
2 9 3
cowardly . Julian p r o b a b l y w o u l d n o t b e i m p r e s s e d b y s u c h i m a g i n a t i v e
interpretations g i v e n his rejection o f Peter's visionary e x p e r i e n c e . His
c o n c e r n is a factual o n e .
3.31 The Atonement
Julian b e l i e v e d that M o s e s c o n t r a d i c t e d h i m s e l f b y a f f i r m i n g the n e e d for

sacrifice t o g o d s that avert e v i l w h i l e forbidding the w o r s h i p o f other g o d s .
H e finds e v i d e n c e o f this form o f sacrifice in L e v 16.
294
[And indeed he thought that the h i e r o p h a n t Moses commands sacrifices to defiled and
evil-averting demons (αποτρόπαιους δαίμοσι), and what is even more intolerable than
this, he said that the lawgiver himself allowed himself to do this s o that he might be
caught by us legislating contradictory things (τάναντία) against himself. For he said,
"He w h o sacrifices to other gods — except to the Lord only —shall be destroyed (Exod
22:19)." If, as he says, he appears to have commanded sacrifice o f customary offerings
(τά ν ε ν ο μ ι σ μ έ ν α ) to evil-averting demons, how does he lead us away from evil...?] And
now observe again h o w much M o s e s says about the deities that avert evil ( Υ π έ ρ δέ
α π ο τ ρ ό π α ι ω ν ) : "And he shall take t w o he-goats of the goats for a sin-offering, and one
ram for a burnt offering. And Aaron shall bring also his bullock of the sin-offering, which
is for himself, and make an atonement for himself and for his house. And he shall take
the t w o goats and present them before the Lord at the door o f the tabernacle of the
covenant. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord and the other
lot for the scape-goat ( τ φ ά π ο π ο μ π α ί ω ) (Lev 16:5-8)" so as to send him forth, says
Moses, as a scape-goat, and let him loose into the wilderness. Thus then is sent forth the
goat that is sent for a scape-goat. And of the second goat Moses says: "Then shall he kill
the goat o f the sin-offering that is for the people before the Lord, and bring his blood
within the veil, and shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar-step, and shall make an
atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and
because o f their transgressions in all their sins ( L e v 16:15)." [The scapegoat
2 9 2
Ps. Justin, Quaest. et Resp. ad Orthod. § 4 7 (53,11-54,3 P.-K./H.).
2 9 3
C. Jul. 9.315-19 (PG 7 6 , 9 8 4 - 9 2 ) .
2 9 4
A n interpreter of sacred mysteries.
(άποπομπαΐον) he calls evil-averting (άποτρόποαον) making a new word that is unknown

2 9 5
in the sacred scriptures, but perhaps familiar to h i m ] .
Julian m a y h a v e k n o w n s o m e t h i n g o f the c o n c e p t o f the g o a t sent to the

d e m o n i c spirit k n o w n as A z a z e l in the H e b r e w text o f L e v 16:8, 10, but Cyril
d o e s not clarify this. In any c a s e , Julian s e e s the text in L e v i t i c u s as an
e x a m p l e o f sacrifice to apotropaic g o d s . T h e text is a l s o a clear e x a m p l e o f
296
contradiction to h i m , s i n c e M o s e s e l s e w h e r e forbids s u c h s a c r i f i c e s . T h e
m e t h o d o f s e a r c h i n g for c o n t r a d i c t i o n s in the scriptures is g e n e r a l l y
considered to b e Porphyrian although h e is not necessarily the o n l y H e l l e n i s t
2 9 7
to have u s e d i t .
Cyril a l l e g o r i z e d the entire e p i s o d e in L e v i t i c u s to refer to Christ s i n c e
2 9 8
( H e b 10:4) earthly sacrifices cannot really purify p e o p l e from their s i n s .
H e w i l l i n g l y appeals to P y t h a g o r a s ' e x a m p l e (in P o r p h y r y ' s Vita Pyth.) to
299
support his m e t h o d o f s e e i n g O T i m a g e s as s y m b o l s o f d e e p e r r e a l i t i e s .
T h e g o a t w h o is n o t sacrificed is not sent to an apotropaic d e m o n , but is
instead "the o n e sent forth" ( ά π ο μ π α ΐ ο ^ ) , and the "lord" is the goat that is
slaughtered. B o t h goats s y m b o l i z e Christ w h o dies according to the flesh and
is s h o w n to b e greater than death according to the nature o f divinity. Truth
shines through the s y m b o l s . Christ d i e s for u s according to the flesh (the
g o a t o f the s i n - o f f e r i n g ) , and Christians b e c o m e t h e o n e s s e n t forth
300
( ά π ο μ π α ΐ ο ι ) . O r i g e n , w i t h his k n o w l e d g e o f H e b r e w , had a far different
approach to the text. In r e s p o n s e to C e l s u s ' attack o n the c o n c e p t o f Satan,
301
Origen writes that A z a z e l in L e v 16:8, 10 is to b e identified with the d e v i l .
It is not b e y o n d the realm o f possibility that Julian c o u l d h a v e b e e n aware o f
A z a z e l ( w h o m h e w o u l d h a v e interpreted to b e an apotropaic g o d ) through
Origen's treatise against C e l s u s or from s o m e other Christian source.
2 9 5
C. Gal. 298e-299d (164,1-165,26 M A S . = III, 402-404 WR.) = C. Jul. 9.298-99 (PG 76,
960a-c).
2 9 6
On the contradiction see STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 44-5 w h o notes that it
was Porphyry's method.
2 9 7
See, for example, the index in COOK, Interpretation under "contradiction."
2 9 8
C. Jul. 9 . 3 0 4 (PG 7 6 , 9 6 8 b - c) . On Cyril's views concerning the usefulness and
limitations of allegory see J. D . CASSEL, Key Principles in Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis in:
StPatr XXXVII, ed. M . F. WlLES/E. J. YARNOLD, Leuven 2 0 0 1 , (413-20) 4 1 8 - 2 0 . It should
not exceed the bounds of common sense and certain grammatical rules.
2 9 9
C. Jul. 9.300 (PG 7 6 , 9 6 1 a - b ) . Cp. Porphyry, Vita Pyth. 4 2 (55,11-56,5 DES PLACES).
3 0 0
C. Jul. 9 . 3 0 2 , 3 0 4 (PG 7 6 , 9 6 4 b - c , 968d). See also MALLEY, Hellenism, 359-60.
3 0 1
Origen, C. Cels. 6.43 (420,23-7 M A R C ) . Irenaeus knows of Azazel as an evil and
powerful angel. See 1.15.6 (252,153 ROUSSEAU/DOUTRELEAU).
300 3. Julian
332 Sin: Did Moses and Jesus Take it Away?
In a g r o u p o f f r a g m e n t s f o u n d i n a w o r k against Julian b y B i s h o p A r e t h a s o f
C a e s a r e a (tenth century C . E . ) , Julian raises the i s s u e o f s i n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o
M o s e s a n d Jesus:
First o f all h o w did the Word o f God take away sin (John 1 : 2 9 ) , when it caused many to
commit the sin o f killing their fathers, and many their children (Matt 1 0 : 2 1 ) during the
3 0 2
time w h e n people were compelled either to uphold the ancestral ( τ ο ι ς πατρίοις)
customs and to cling to the pious traditions ( ε υ σ έ β ε ι α ς ) that they had inherited from the
ages or to accept this innovation ( κ α ι ν ο τ ο μ ί α ν ) ... [If y o u (Julian) will say that Moses
brings people to a better life through the promise of good things], and w h y do y o u [the
Christians] not consider him [Moses] able to take away sin ( ά ν α ι ρ έ τ η ν ήγεΐσθε της
ά μ α ρ τ ί α ς ) ? [You say something, but do not even think i t ] . . . [Therefore, Moses is not on
a par with our Savior and is not near the promises of something better (άλλ' ούδ' ε γ γ ύ ς
3 0 3 3 0 4
τάς περί τ ό κρεΐττον επαγγελίας) . It is not the case, as y o u say, that] J e s u s
came to take away sin and is discovered to have multiplied it ( ά ν α ι ρ έ τ η ς ... έλθω ν
3 0 5
Ίησους α μ α ρ τ ί α ς π λ ε ι σ τ η ρ ι ά σ α ς ταύτην κατείληπται).
P o r p h y r y a c c u s e d Christianity o f b e i n g an i n n o v a t i o n ( a n e w and d e s e r t e d
road that i s n o t a r o a d ) c o m p r i s e d o f p e o p l e w h o a b a n d o n their ancestral
traditions. M a c a r i u s ' p h i l o s o p h e r c r i t i c i z e d certain C h r i s t i a n t e a c h i n g s for
3 0 6
b e i n g absurd i n n o v a t i o n s . T h e critique o f Christianity o n the b a s i s o f its
307
departure from ancestral traditions w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e i n p a g a n a n t i q u i t y .
Julian's p o s i t i o n h a s an interesting parallel to M a c a r i u s ' p h i l o s o p h e r w h o w a s
h i m s e l f s h o c k e d at the v i o l e n c e that h a d b e e n practiced a g a i n s t the Christians
and w h o a l s o m a d e s o m e k i n d o f o b s c u r e reference to the text in Matt 1 0 : 3 4 -
302 WRIGHT (III, 4 3 3 ) breaks the connection between these phrases by inserting a period
here. MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 2 8 6 keeps the important syntactic binding in her translation.
3 0 3
RINALDI, Biblia Gentium § 6 3 7 paraphrases these words with: "he has not understood
even vaguely the announcements regarding divinity." Cp. Idem, La Bibbia dei pagani,
Π, § 6 3 7 .
3 0 4
R I N A L D I , La Bibbia dei pagani, II, § 6 3 7 adopts H A R N A C K ' S (Porphyrius, F . 6 6 )
textual emendation "Moses." (The M S S have "Jesus"). In that case the fragment might be a
reference to R o m 5 : 2 0 . RINALDI also adopts the reading "Jesus" in his version of the text
given above (RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, § 4 9 1 ) . One has finally to choose.
3 0 5
C. G a l . F . 1 0 7 ( 1 9 1 , 1 - 1 3 MAS.). T h e E T in the L C L is from NEUMANN'S
reconstruction (III, 4 2 3 W R . ) and is slightly altered above in favor o f MASARACCHIA's
quotation o f the text in Arethas, Scripta minora 2 4 (BiTeu I, 2 2 1 , 4 - 9 ; 2 2 4 , 2 8 - 3 1 ; 2 2 5 , 1 1 - 1 4
WESTERINK). S e e also COOK, Interpretation, 3 0 6 .
3 0 6
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F . 1 (cf. § 2 . 2 . 1 above) and Macarius Magnes, Monog. 3 . 1 5 . 1
(II, 1 4 0 - 8 - 1 6 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F . 6 9 ) discussed in COOK, Interpretation,
133-34,202-205.
3 0 7
S e e § 3 . 4 1 above and the index in COOK, Interpretation, 3 8 3 s.v. ancestral traditions.
308
3 8 and its i m a g e r y o f the s w o r d that Jesus b r i n g s . W h i l e Julian m a d e life
difficult for the church h e w a s not in favor o f violent persecutions. B u t h e
probably w a s able t o s e e the persecutions from the other s i d e o f the c o i n :
p e o p l e either had to h o l d o n t o their ancestral traditions (i.e. G r e c o - R o m a n
religion) during the persecutions or g i v e t h e m up. T h o s e w h o h e l d o n m a y
h a v e c a u s e d the death o f their parents or children. Julian a l s o k n e w that
Christians h a d put t o death p a g a n s ("those w h o r e m a i n e d true t o their
309
ancestral traditions") and h e r e t i c s .
Arethas n o t e s that Julian m a y say that M o s e s is able to take a w a y sin, but
d o e s n ' t really think it. That m a y b e t o o hard o n Julian, s i n c e h e w a s
c o n v i n c e d o f the p o w e r o f sacrifices and w a n t e d the J e w s to sacrifice. H e
s e e m s quite w i l l i n g to accept that possibility that M o s e s c a n h e l p p e o p l e b e
freed from their sins. Arethas did s e e that Julian w a s attempting to find a
contradiction in Christian teaching. T h e Jesus w h o c a m e to take a w a y sin
actually increased it b y c a u s i n g p e o p l e to hand o v e r their families during the
times o f persecutions. H e responds to Julian b y using the i m a g e o f a skillful
p h y s i c i a n w h o tells p e o p l e the inevitable things that w i l l h a p p e n to t h e m
during their illness. W h y should such a physician b e attacked for that, or b e
310
held responsible for those w h o c h o o s e to l i v e in a w a y that brings d i s e a s e ?
P s . Justin has a c l a i m that is a l m o s t the direct o p p o s i t e o f Julian's general
principle: T h e W o r d o f G o d , created a human in the i m a g e and l i k e n e s s o f
G o d , restored to p e o p l e the r e l i g i o n o f their ancient ancestors ( τ η ς τ ώ ν
α ρ χ α ί ω ν η μ ά ς π ρ ο γ ό ν ω ν ά ν ε μ ν η σ ε θ ε ο σ έ β ε ι α ς ) w h i c h later p e o p l e had
311
abandoned for the w o r s h i p o f g o d s that d o not e x i s t .
333 Num 24:17 and Jesus
Julian apparently finds f e w M e s s i a n i c prophecies in the O T , and the o n e s that

h e d o e s find d o not, in his v i e w , refer to Jesus:
But granted that he really is a "ruler from Judah" (Gen 49:10), then he is not "God born of
God," as you are in the habit of saying, nor is it true that "All things were made by him;
3 0 8
See Macarius Magnes, Monog. 2.18.1-12 (II, 12,1-18,15 GOULET) and its heading
(titulus) in COOK, Interpretation, 181, 246. The philosopher is disturbed by the persecutions.
See Monog. 2.25.3, 4.4 (II, 38,2-6; 246,1-12 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 64, 36) in
COOK, Interpretation, 198-200,212-13.
3 0 9
C. Gal. 206a (142,4-7 MAS. = III, 377 W R . ) . One might think of the mob who, with
Cyril's consent or not, brutally murdered the philosopher and mathematician Hypatia.
3 1 0
Arethas, Scripta minora 2 4 (1,225,12-9 WEST.) = C. Gal. F. 107 (191,13-17 MAS.).
3 1 1
Ps. Justin, Cohortatio 31.1 (77,6-10 M A R C ) . Cp. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II,
369 who refers to A. CHIAPPELLI, Nuovi pagine sul cristianesimo antico, Florence 1902, 315-
29.
302 3. Julian
and without him was not anything made (John 1:3)." But, say you, w e are all told in the
Book of Numbers also: "There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a person out of Israel
(Num 24:17)." It is certainly clear that this relates to David and to his descendants; for
3 1 2
David was a son of J e s s e .
It w o u l d h a v e b e e n e a s y for Julian to find Christians m a k i n g u s e o f the text in

313
N u m b e r s for apologetic purposes. Justin Martyr appealed to it three t i m e s .
314
Irenaeus and E u s e b i u s also b e l i e v e d that the text w a s M e s s i a n i c . Origen
used it to explain h o w the magi k n e w to g o to Judaea w h e n their p o w e r w a n e d
315
after the star a p p e a r e d . For Julian any o f the D a v i d i c descendants w o u l d
satisfy the p r o p h e c y . H i s approach is similar to that o f C e l s u s w h o writes,
"Christians cite the prophets w h o predicted the things concerning Jesus ... the
p r o p h e c i e s c a n b e applied to m i l l i o n s (μυριοι,ς έ φ α ρ μ ο σ θ ή ν ο α ) o f others
316
m o r e p e r s u a s i v e l y ( τ α θ α ν ώ τ ε ρ ο ν ) than to J e s u s . " Another element of
Julian's critique is that the N i c e n e like formula ("God born o f God") is not in
3 1 7
theOT .
Cyril m a k e s an interesting e x e g e t i c a l m o v e b y q u o t i n g the rest o f N u m
2 4 : 1 7 - 1 8 w h i c h speaks o f the leader's domination o f M o a b , E d o m , and the
s o n s o f Seth. H e notes that the kings o f Israel n e v e r permanently dominated
these nations and p e o p l e s . In addition if the prophecy w a s m e a n t to apply to
D a v i d and subsequent kings it w o u l d h a v e said "stars out o f Jacob." T h e star
that w i l l rise is spectacular. Jesus descended from Jacob (or Israel) according
318
to the f l e s h .
334 Phinehas(Num25:l-ll)
Julian f o u n d the narrative o f P h i n e h a s ' z e a l to b e utterly repellent and

contrary to the Greek concept o f the divine.
3 1 9
Nowhere is God shown as angry, or resentful, or wrathful, or taking an oath, or
inclining first to this side, then suddenly to that, or as turned from his purpose, as Moses
3 1 2
C . Gal. 2 6 1 e - 2 6 2 a (159,7-12 M A S . = III, 396 W R . ) . On this text see also G A G E R ,
Moses, 109.
3 1 3
Justin, Dial. 106.24-25, 126.4 (253,23-2; 287,4-5 M A R C ) , Apol. 1.32.12 (79,40-44
MARC).
3 1 4
Iren. 3.9.2 (SC 34, 156,5-13 SAGNARD), Demonstratio 58 (SC 4 0 6 , 168 ROUSSEAU).
Eus., D.E. 9.1.6 (405,2-3 HEIKEL)
3 1 5
Origen, C. Cels. 1.60 (61,8-14 M A R C ) .
3 1 6
Origen, C. Cels. 2.28 (105,13-4.20-1 M A R C ) . See COOK, Interpretation, 72-5.
3 1 7
See Symbol. Nic. 5 4 (30,3 DENZINGER) and COOK, Interpretation, 290, 302.
3 1 8
C. Jul. 9.263 (PG 7 6 , 9 0 4 a ) .
3 1 9
WRIGHT notes that Julian's probable reference to Plato may have been dropped here
( Ι Π , 363 W R . ) .
tells us happened in the case of Phinehas. If any of you has read the Book of Numbers he
knows what I mean. For when Phinehas had seized with his own hand and slain the man
w h o had dedicated himself to Baal-peor, and with him the woman w h o had persuaded
him, striking her with a shameful and most painful wound through the belly, as M o s e s
tells us, then God is made to say: "Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the
priest, has turned m y wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was jealous with
my jealousy among them; and I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy (Num
25:11)." What could be more trivial (κουφότεροι/) than the reason for which God was
falsely represented as angry by the writer of this passage? What could be more irrational
( ά λ ο γ ώ τ ε ρ ο ν ) , even if ten or fifteen persons, or even, let us suppose, a hundred, for they
certainly will not say that there were a thousand, — however, let us assume that even as
many persons as that ventured to transgress some one of the laws laid down by God; was
it right that on account of this one thousand, six hundred thousand should be utterly
destroyed? For my part I think it would be better in every way to preserve one bad person
along with a thousand virtuous men than to destroy the thousand together with that one.
[Then to these he w e a v e s long discourses saying that the Creator of heaven and earth
should not be subject to wild rages so that he wants to destroy the entire race of the Jews.]
For if the anger o f e v e n one hero or unimportant demon is hard to bear for w h o l e
countries and cities, w h o could have endured the wrath of so mighty a God, whether it
320
were directed against demons or angels or h u m a n k i n d ?
This attack o n the a c c o u n t in N u m b e r s f o l l o w s Julian's c r i t i c i s m o f G o d ' s

j e a l o u s y in E x o d 2 0 : 5 and D e u t 4 : 2 4 (§ 3 . 2 6 , 2 7 ) . H e is w i l l i n g to predicate
3 2 1
anger to d e m o n s and h e r o e s , but not to G o d . Cyril s u m m a r i z e d Julian's
fundamental o b j e c t i o n as Christians' h a v i n g a b a n d o n e d the correct G r e e k
doctrines about G o d :
Everywhere fighting at the side of Plato and placing his rhapsodies in better position than
the sacred scriptures he again writes concerning us. Why, he says, after abandoning
Hellenic eloquence have w e approached the discourses of truth and have known the one
w h o is God in nature and in truth even though Moses has hymned in an inferior way
concerning the things of God. For he calls him jealous and angry, even though he is very
kind and is the g o o d in itself (ζηλωτήν γ ά ρ αυτόν και δύσοργον ο ν ο μ ά ζ ε ι , καίτοι
3 2 2
πραότατον ό ν τ α καΐ αυτόχρημα τ ό α γ α θ ό ν ) .
3 2 3
Celsus had frequently attacked the c o n c e p t o f an angry G o d . H i s G o d d o e s
324 3 2 5
not c h a n g e and c a n n o t r e p e n t . G o d cannot b e e n v i o u s . H i s G o d w a s
3 2 0
C. Gal. 160d-161a (128,3-129,24 M A S . = III, 362-64 W R . ) . Cf. RlEDWEG, Mit Stoa,
76 for the philosophical objection to God's passions.
3 2 1
For Porphyry's belief in demons, heroes, and undefiled souls see Ep. ad Aneb. 1.1b
(3,2-3; SODANO). Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 110-11.
3 2 2
C . Jul. 5 . 1 6 0 (PG 7 6 , 745a-b = 128,1-6 M A S . ) . On the issue in Julian see G.
CASTELLI, LO θ ε ό ς ζ η λ ω τ ή ς ebraico nel «Contra Galileos» di Giuliano, in: II «Giuliano
l'Apostata» di AUGUSTO ROSTAGNI. Atti dell'incontro di studio di Muzzano del 18 ottobre
1981, Suppl. AAT11/116, ed. I. LANA, Turin 1983, 85-91.
3 2 3
Origen, C. Cels. 4 . 7 1 , 4.73 (284,16-8; 2 8 6 , 2 2 - 6 M A R C ) . Cf. § 1.31 and the next
section below.
304 3. Julian
326
a b o v e all s u c h c a t e g o r i e s . C e l s u s ' g u i d e P l a t o b e l i e v e d that h e a v e n l y
327
b e i n g s e x p e r i e n c e n o j e a l o u s y . M a n y other G r e c o - R o m a n authors adopted
328
the position that G o d and the g o d s experience n o p a s s i o n s including a n g e r .
A b o v e I remarked that the Christian a p o l o g i s t s w e r e in a g r e e m e n t w i t h the
3 2 9
G r e c o - R o m a n authors that G o d e x p e r i e n c e s n o p a s s i o n s . Julian i s
c o n s e q u e n t l y w r i t i n g f r o m a l o n g tradition that c r e a t e s p r o b l e m s for
interpreting both Greek and biblical texts. W h o g o t to c l a i m the h i g h ground
w a s a difficult q u e s t i o n s i n c e both sides w a n t e d it. A r n o b i u s , for e x a m p l e ,
argued that if the g o d s b e c a m e angry and e x p e r i e n c e d p a s s i o n s that they
w o u l d b e subject to death. For h i m the "true g o d s " did not get angry. H e also
argued that J o v e w a s not G o d s i n c e wrath w a s an attribute o f the G r e c o -
3 3 0
R o m a n g o d s . Cyril, for e x a m p l e , reminds Julian that in H o m e r the g o d s are
331
c h a n g e a b l e . In that context H o m e r remarks that p e o p l e avert the anger o f
the g o d s w i t h sacrifices ( π α ρ α τ ρ ω π ώ σ ' ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ι ) , and it is likely that Cyril
332
knew that .
Cyril a g a i n takes the p o s i t i o n that G o d d o e s not e x p e r i e n c e e m o t i o n s as
humans d o . W h e n Christians say, using h u m a n s i g n s , that G o d is "jealous"
b e c a u s e p e o p l e turn a w a y from h i m , that is an e x p r e s s i o n for the p o w e r o f
3 3 3
G o d ' s l o v e that cannot b e said any other w a y . Instead o f criticizing G o d ' s
w i l l i n g n e s s to c h a n g e from anger or gentleness, Cyril calls Julian's attention
to principles such as G o d ' s s l o w n e s s to anger and w i l l i n g n e s s to s h o w m e r c y
3 3 4
(as in E x o d 3 4 : 6 ) . P h i n e h a s ' prayer (that o f o n e righteous person) w a s
335
e n o u g h to h e l p all w h o w i s h e d to r e p e n t . For the sake o f o n e righteous
person G o d w i l l h a v e m e r c y o n a multitude o f sinners ( w i t h reference to Jer
3 2 4
Origen, C. Cels. 4.14, 6.53 (228,2-12; 431,21-4 M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 63,
100.
3 2 5
Origen, C. Cels. 8.21 (538,18-21 M A R C ) .
3 2 6
Origen, C. Cels. 6.20 (quoting Plato's Phaedrus 2 4 7 c ) , 6.64 ( 3 9 7 , 1 2 - 5 ; 441,13-4
M A R C ) . Cp. C O O K , Interpretation, 100-101.
3 2 7
Plato, Phaedrus 247a.
3 2 8
See § 1 . 3 1 .
3 2 9
See § 3 . 2 6 .
3 3 0
Arnobius, Adv. nat. 1.18; 1.23; 1.35 (16,12-23; 19,1-4; 2 9 , 2 3 - 2 5 MARCH.). Cp.
Lactantius, D e ira dei 17.1 (CSEL 2 4 , 110,1-5 BRANDT) who discusses Epicurus' position
that the gods do not care about human affairs (Epicurus F. 360 USENER). S e e E. F. MlCKA,
The Problem of Divine Anger in Arnobius and Lactantius, Studies in Christian Antiquity 4,
Washington 1943. Cf. CASTELLI, LO 6eos, 88.
3 3 1
C. Jul. 5 . 1 6 3 (PG 7 6 , 7 4 9 c ) with reference to Homer, II. 9 . 4 9 7 . See MALLEY,
Hellenism, 326-30 for an extensive summary of Cyril's position.
3 3 2
Homer II. 9.500.
3 3 3
C. Jul. 5 . 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 (PG 76,748a-d).
3 3 4
C. Jul. 5.162-63 (PG 76,749,a).
3 3 5
C. Jul. 5.163-64; 167 (PG 76,749d-751a; 756d).
5:1). Cyril a l s o c r i t i c i z e s J u l i a n ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o q u e s t i o n G o d ' s j u s t i c e b y

m a k i n g an a p p e a l t o a text P o r p h y r y , w h o h e k n o w s w a s an a r c h e n e m y o f
Christianity. P o r p h y r y c o m p a r e s the p r o v i d e n c e o f G o d w h o s e e s all t o the
a c t i o n s o f p h y s i c i a n s w h o m u s t take s o m e t i m e s painful a c t i o n s t o h e l p their
336
patients . W i t h regard to o a t h s , Cyril n o t e s that G o d u s e s t h e m t o strengthen
3 3 7
the faith o f s o m e h o l y o n e s and that G o d swears b y h i s o w n g l o r y .
335 Phinehas or Greek Lawgivers and Philosophers?
Julian c o n t i n u e s h i s attack o n the P h i n e h a s e p i s o d e w i t h a r e f e r e n c e t o the

g e n t l e n e s s o f G r e e k and R o m a n l a w and the i m p o s s i b i l i t y o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y
respectable imitation o f the G o d o f the H e b r e w s .
It is worth while to compare his behavior with the mildness ( π ρ α ό τ η τ ι ) o f Lycurgus and
the forbearance ( α ν ε ξ ι κ α κ ί α ) , or the kindness and benevolence o f the Romans towards
transgressors. But observe also from what follows h o w far superior are our teachings to
theirs. The philosophers bid us imitate the gods s o far as w e can, and they teach us that
this imitation consists in the contemplation o f realities. And that this sort o f study is
remote from passion and is indeed based o n freedom from passion ( α π ά θ ε ι α ) , is, I
suppose, evident, e v e n without m y saying it. In proportion then as w e , having been
assigned to the contemplation o f realities, attain to freedom from passion, in s o far do w e
become like God. But what sort o f imitation o f God is praised among the Hebrews?
Anger and wrath and fierce jealousy. For God says: "Phinehas has turned away m y wrath
from the children o f Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them ( N u m
25:11)." For God, o n finding one w h o shared his resentment and his grief, thereupon, as
it appears, laid aside his resentment. These words and others like them about God Moses
338
is frequently made to utter in the scripture.
Plutarch emphasizes, as does Julian, the gentleness and mildness of

3 3 9
Lycurgus . M a x i m u s the C o n f e s s o r i n c l u d e s an a c c o u n t in w h i c h S o l o n
3 4 0
s h o w e d forbearance w h e n s o m e o n e spat o n h i m . Cyril r e s p o n d s t o Julian
w i t h t h e p o i n t that b o t h S o l o n a n d L y c u r g u s i n c l u d e d p u n i s h m e n t s for
3 3 6
C. Jul. 5 . 1 6 6 (PG 7 6 , 7 5 3 c - 7 5 6 a ) . The text is Porphyry, A d Nemertium (SMITH,
Porphyrii, 279F).
3 3 7
C. Jul. 5.162 (PG 7 6 , 7 4 8 d - 7 4 9 a ) .
3 3 8
C. Gal. 168b-c; 171d-172a (130,2-4; 131,5-16 M A S . = III, 3 6 4 - 6 6 WR.). RlEDWEG,
Mit Stoa, 78 discusses h o w Julian combines the Stoic concept o f a passionless God (απάθεια)
with the Platonic concept o f likeness to God (όμοίωσις θεψ). Cf. Theaet. 176b.
3 3 9
Plutarch, Lycurgus 11.3-4 (ήμερος και πράος e o n τ ο ι ς άλλοις). In another text
he mentions s h o w i n g mildness and forbearance to enemies (Mor. [ D e capienda] 9 0 e ) :
π ρ α ό τ η τ α μ ε ν ούν και άνεξικακίαν οϋτως έ σ τ ι ν ένεπιδείξασθαι ταΐς εχθραις. See
also § 3.25. Cf. also MERKI, Ό μ ο ί ω σ ι ς , 3 3 .
3 4 0
Max. conf., Serm. 4 2 , 6 3 8 (PG 9 1 , 9 2 4 a ) .
306 3. Julian
breaking their l a w s . S o a l s o the person w h o breaks G o d ' s l a w s w i l l suffer

341
punishment .
For Julian the philosophers w h o attained f r e e d o m from p a s s i o n ( α π ά θ ε ι α )
3 4 2
w e r e the true C y m e s . T h e g e n i u s (or d e m o n ) in a h u m a n is without passion
3 4 3
and is b y nature related to G o d . M i n d , w i s d o m , and the g o d w i t h i n a
344
h u m a n are that p e r s o n ' s real s e l f . A t Julian's Saturnalia o f the g o d s ,
Marcus A u r e l i u s s a y s that the goal o f life is to imitate the g o d s b y h a v i n g the
345
f e w e s t p o s s i b l e n e e d s and d o i n g the best for the greatest p o s s i b l e n u m b e r .
Julian's position w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e in G r e c o - R o m a n culture as Masaracchia
m a k e s clear. Plato speaks o f b e c o m i n g like G o d b y l i v i n g a righteous and
3 4 6
h o l y l i f e . C i c e r o adopted the s a m e principle: virtue is the l i k e n e s s o f a
3 4 7 3 4 8
h u m a n w i t h G o d . For A l c i n o o s the g o a l o f life is the imitation o f G o d .
Plotinus describes the s o u l ' s courage as impassivity ( α π ά θ ε ι α ) in likeness o f
349
the i m p a s s i v e nature toward w h i c h it g a z e s (the I n t e l l e c t ) . N o n e o f these
p h i l o s o p h i c a l descriptions o f the imitation o f the d i v i n e is like that w h i c h
Julian finds in the story o f Phinehas and his angry G o d .
350
Cyril a g a i n w i l l i n g l y c o n c e d e s that G o d is not angry or u n g e n t l e .
Scripture u s e s w o r d s that are a c c o m m o d a t e d to our understanding — not
w o r d s that describe G o d ' s nature in itself. For e x a m p l e , scriptural language
about G o d ' s " e y e " refers to G o d ' s universal v i s i o n . W h e n p e o p l e d o things
that are w r o n g , those acts incur G o d ' s "anger." W h e n those wrongful actions
351
bring punitive c o n s e q u e n c e s , G o d is said to b e a n g r y . Cyril then asks what
it w o u l d b e like to imitate H e l l e n i c g o d s . A r e s , for e x a m p l e , is said to b e "a
p l a g u e o f h u m a n s , murderous, a stormer o f w a l l s " ( β ρ ο τ ο λ ο ι γ έ , μ ι α ι φ ό ν ε ,
3 4 1
C. Jul. 5.170 (PG 76, 760d).
3 4 2
Or. 9.12, 192a (II/l, 159,1-2 ROCHE. = II, 34 W R . ) . On Julian's position see MALLEY,
Hellenism, 81-5. On the entire issue see H. FROHNHOFEN, Apatheia tou theou: Uber die
Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der griechischen Antike und bei den griechischsprachigen
Kirchenvatern bis zu Gregorios Thaumaturgos, Bern 1987.
3 4 3
Or. 3 . 1 6 , 7 0 b (1/1,142,3-4 BlDEZ = 1,186 WR.).
3 4 4
Or. 3 . 1 5 , 6 8 d (1/1,140,14-15 BlDEZ = 1,182 W R . ) .
3 4 5
Or. 10.34 (Caesars), 333c-334a (II/2,67 LACOMBRADE = II, 406-408 WR.).
3 4 6
Plato, Theaet. 176b. MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 218-19.
3 4 7
Cicero, D e leg. 1.8.25 (similitudo) and cp. D e nat. deor. 1.34.96 (humans are nearer to
the image of the gods in virtue than in form).
3 4 8
Alcin., Didask. 28, 171.6-7 (56 W./L.). The text is a commentary on Plato's Theaet.
146a-b.
^ P l o t i n u s , Ennead. 1.2.6 (I, 62,25-6 H./SCH.). Cp. also COOK, Interpretation, 206 for
other references to Plotinus w h o argues that intelligible realities are without passions;
Ennead. 3.6.6 (1,306; 314,1-2 H./S.).
3 5 0
C. Jul. 5.172 (PG 7 6 , 7 6 4 c - d ) .
3 5 1
C. Jul. 5.173 (PG 7 6 , 7 6 4 d - 7 6 5 c ) .
3 5 2
τ ε ι χ β σ ι π λ ή τ α ) . H e queries Julian about A t h e n a ' s anger with the G r e e k s
o v e r A j a x ' rape o f Cassandra. T h e y did not punish h i m , and the g o d d e s s
wanted to destroy their entire army. W h y then should Julian find fault w i t h
Phinehas if b y his o n e righteous act h e restrained the divine anger against all
353
the H e b r e w s . Cyril c o n c l u d e s that if o n e were to imitate the H e l l e n i c g o d s ,
354
o n e w o u l d not b e gentle and m i l d but angry and w r a t h f u l . B o t h antagonists
c h o o s e the worst stories they can find to criticize the other's g o d s or G o d .
336 Moses' Cruelty
Cyril b e l i e v e s that Julian refers to the incident o f B a a l p e o r ( N u m 2 5 : 1 - 1 1 )

w h e n h e m a k e s an u n f a v o r a b l e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n R o m a n leaders and
M o s e s s o o n after the text quoted above: "For it w i l l b e found that e v e n the
m o s t w i c k e d a n d m o s t brutal o f g e n e r a l s b e h a v e d m o r e m i l d l y
( έ π ι β ι κ έ σ τ β ρ ο ν ) to the greatest offenders than M o s e s did to t h o s e w h o had
355
done no wrong." A l t h o u g h Julian d o e s not specify the incidents in M o s e s '
life h e is thinking of, h e probably i n c l u d e s the e p i s o d e o f B a a l p e o r . H e
b e l i e v e d P h i n e h a s ' behavior toward wrongdoers compared unfavorably w i t h
Greek l a w g i v e r s , and the c o n c l u s i o n naturally f o l l o w s that M o s e s ' b e h a v i o r
356
w a s not any better than that o f P h i n e h a s . Cyril c o m m e n t s that Julian d o e s
not b e l i e v e that the H e b r e w s c o m m i t t e d any sin and that M o s e s is cruel, hard
(ώμόν και α π η ν ή ) and ruthless ( ά τ ε γ κ ο ν ) . In conclusion, Cyril b e l i e v e s that
3 5 7
Julian s h o u l d h a v e praised M o s e s for his piety and l o v e o f G o d . Their
contradictory interpretations o f the s a m e incident indicate h o w important their
cultural and p h i l o s o p h i c a l presuppositions were. For Julian the H e b r e w G o d
is entirely t o o capricious and g i v e n to anger to be the G o d o f the philosophers.
In addition, h e s e e s n o t h i n g w r o n g with p o l y t h e i s m . Cyril b e l i e v e s Julian
misinterprets the O T at every step and cannot recognize the true G o d .
337 Moses and the Permanence of the Law
Julian u s e s D e u t e r o n o m y to attack Paul's p r o n o u n c e m e n t in R o m 10:4 that

"Christ is the e n d ( τ έ λ ο ς ) o f the l a w " — w h i c h Julian clearly interprets to
3 5 2
Homer, II. 5.31.
3 5 3
C. Jul. 5.174-75 (PG 7 6 , 7 6 5 d - 7 6 8 c ) . The reference is to Euripides, Troades 6 5 - 7 1 .
3 5 4
C. Jul. 5.175 (PG 7 6 , 7 6 8 d ) .
3 5 5
C. Gal. 184b-c (134,6-8 MAS. = Ι Π , 368 W R . ) .
3 5 6
C f . § 3.34-5 above.
3 5 7
C. Jul. 6 . 1 8 4 , 1 9 0 (PG 7 6 , 7 8 1 a - b , 789c). Cp. MALLEY, Hellenism, 3 3 1 .
308 3. Julian
m e a n a temporal e n d o f the l a w and not the g o a l or p u r p o s e o f the l a w .

A b o v e I h a v e q u o t e d J u l i a n ' s d e f e n s e o f h i s critique o f this a s p e c t o f
Christianity using E x o d 12:14-15 (§ 3.24). Julian continues:
Many passsages to the same effect are still left, but on account of their number I refrain
from citing them to prove that the law of Moses was to last for all time. But do you point
out to m e where there is any statement by Moses of what was later on rashly uttered by
Paul, I mean that "Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4)." Where does God announce
to the Hebrews a second law besides that which was established? Nowhere does it occur,
not even a revision of the established law. For listen again to the words of Moses: "You
shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from
it. Keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day (Deut
4:2)." And "Cursed be every person who does not abide by them all (Deut 27:26, Gal
3:10)." But you have thought it a slight thing to diminish and to add to the things which
were written in the law; and to transgress it completely you have thought to be in every
way more courageous and more high-spirited, because you do not look to the truth but to
3 5 8
that which will persuade all people (άλλ' εις τ ό πάσι πιθανόν β λ έ π ο ν τ ε ς ) .
Julian's general position that the l a w is not limited in t i m e contradicts the

359
practice o f the Christian church w h i c h abandoned the J e w i s h r i t u a l s . H i s
c o n c e r n w i t h p e r s u a s i o n , the g o a l o f ancient rhetoric, i n d i c a t e d that h e
s u s p e c t e d Christianity w o u l d n e v e r h a v e spread as it did if it had kept the
3 6 0
o b s e r v a n c e o f the entire J e w i s h l a w . It is not difficult for h i m to s e e
c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e O T and N T a s in t h e a b o v e c a s e w i t h
D e u t e r o n o m y and R o m a n s . H e is also able to s e e contradictions b e t w e e n the
N T itself and Christian practice. A c c o r d i n g to Cyril h e continued the a b o v e
361
attack with a criticism o f Christian practice based o n A c t s 1 5 : 2 8 - 2 9 .
Cyril c o n c e d e s that the l a w is eternal, but what w a s formerly in e n i g m a s is
n o w r e v e a l e d i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and spiritually a c c o r d i n g t o t h e truth. T h e
s h a d o w y l a w w a s g i v e n to the Israelites b y m e a n s o f a t y p e , and the truth
3 6 2
(Christian) is far superior to the e n i g m a s o f the l a w . H e u s e s Jer 3 1 : 3 1 - 3 3
( L X X 3 8 : 3 1 - 3 3 ) and 2 Cor 3 : 2 - 3 to argue for his p o s i t i o n . T h e l a w is an
u n p r o f i t a b l e s h a d o w (άι>όνητο9 σ κ ι ά ) w h i c h is n o t s u p p l e m e n t e d or
363
destroyed, but is fulfilled intellectually and spiritually b y the C h r i s t i a n s .
Cyril fails t o s e e that t h e s e are the p r e c i s e a r g u m e n t s that Julian finds
unpersuasive, e v e n though h e k n o w s that they have b e e n persuasive to m a n y
3 5 8
C. Gal. 320a-c (169,15-170,27 M A S . = ΠΙ, 4 1 0 WR.).
3 5 9
S e e also NESTLE, Die Haupteinwande, 6 1 .
3 6 0
Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 3 1 3 , 317. Plato, Gorgias 4 5 3 a expresses this fundamental
definition of the goal of the rhetor's art.
3 6 1
C. Gal. 324e, 325a (171,1-7 MAS.) and cp. COOK, Interpretation, 309.
3 6 2
C. Jul. 9.322, 323 (PG 7 6 , 9 9 6 c , 998a-c).
3 6 3
C. Jul. 9.344 (PG 76,998d-1000a). See further MALLEY, Hellenism, 353-54.
p e o p l e in the G r e c o - R o m a n world. M i c h a e l Adler notes that m a n y o f Julian's

3 6 4
arguments are appealing still to contemporary J e w s .
3.38 Moses and Monotheism in Deuteronomy
Julian b e l i e v e s that Christians h a v e rejected M o s e s ' m o n o t h e i s m b e c a u s e o f

their belief in Jesus as the W o r d o f G o d :
If therefore you try to prove anything from these writings, show me a single saying that
you have drawn from that source whence I have drawn very many. But that M o s e s
believed in one God, the God of Israel, he says in Deuteronomy: "So that you may know
that the Lord your God, he is one God; and there is none else beside him (Deut 4:35)."
And moreover he says besides, "and lay it to your heart that this the Lord your God is God
in the heaven above and upon the earth beneath, and there is none else (Deut 4:39)." And
again, "Hear, Ο Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord (Deut 6:4)." And again, "See that I
am and there is no God save me (Deut 32:39)." These then are the words of M o s e s when
he insists that there is only one God. But perhaps the Galilaeans will reply: "But w e do
365
not assert that there are two gods or t h r e e . "
H e then c o n t i n u e s w i t h an attack o n Johannine Christology (John 1:1) and its

3 6 6
v i e w that there e x i s t s a W o r d with G o d . R o k e a h notes that Julian's u s e o f
O T texts to attack N T Christology is similar to the u s e o f E c c l 4:8 L X X ( H e
367
has n o s o n or brother) in a rabbinic t e x t . Porphyry m a d e u s e o f the s a m e
368
text to attack C h r i s t o l o g y . It is apparent that Julian w o u l d h a v e f o u n d
Cyril's r e s p o n s e ( b e l o w ) quite incredible. In Julian's v i e w , the O T contains
no clear indication that M o s e s b e l i e v e d in a Trinitarian t h e o l o g y or a d i v i n e
Son o f G o d . H i s m e t h o d is to find l o g i c a l contradictions b e t w e e n O T texts
and a n c i e n t C h r i s t i a n ( i n c l u d i n g the N T ) v i e w s o f Christ. Finding
contradictions w a s Porphyry's favorite method for attacking Christianity.
Cyril responds to Julian's attack o n Christology at length ( t w e l v e c o l u m n s
of M i g n e ' s text). B e f o r e taking up the texts from D e u t e r o n o m y , h e n o t e s that
369
Plutarch supported a f o r m o f m o n o t h e i s m . After quoting D e u t 3 2 : 3 9 and
3 6 4
ADLER, Kaiser Julian, 59.
3 6 5
C. Gal. 262a-b ( 1 5 9 , 1 2 - 1 6 0 , 2 3 M A S . = III, 3 9 6 W R . ) . BOUFFARTIGUE, L'empereur,
163 surmises that Julian may have drawn these texts from an anti-Christian compendium.
See also RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 163 / idem, Diodoro, 414.
3 6 6
See COOK, Interpretation, 3 0 1 , NESTLE, Die Haupteinwande, 77.
3 6 7
R O K E A H , Jews, 122-23 with reference to Midr. Rabbah Deut 2 (end). R O K E A H points
out that the Amora is a contemporary of Julian (Rabbi Acha).
3 6 8
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 85 / cp. COOK, Interpretation, 160 / § 2.2.10 above.
3 6 9
P l u t a r c h , D e Ε apud D e l p h o s 393a-b. Eus., P.E. 11.11.1-15 (VIII/2, 2 9 , 1 - 3 1 , 2 0
MRAS) quoted more of that text. Cyril also quotes a part of Plato, Tim. 31a, but adds a non-
Platonic text that asserts that the one Logos knows one God. See C. Jul. 8.266 (PG 76, 908b-
d). MALLEY, Hellenism, 2 6 0 n.70 notes that Cyril knows most of his Plato through Eus., P.E.
310 3. Julian
6:4 h e affirms that M o s e s a l s o b e l i e v e d in the Trinity, and h e u s e s B a r u c h

3 : 3 6 - 3 8 a n d G e n 1:26 (let u s . . . a c c o r d i n g t o o u r i m a g e ) t o e s t a b l i s h h i s
3 7 0
Trinitarian O T t h e o l o g y . Cyril c o n s e q u e n t l y d e n i e s that Christians b e l i e v e
3 7 1
in three g o d s .
3.39 Deut 6:13 Against Matt 28:19
After J u l i a n ' s e x e g e s i s o f E x o d 4 : 2 2 ( w h i c h h e t o o k i n an a n t i - C h r i s t o l o g i c a l
s e n s e ) , h e u s e s D e u t 6 : 1 3 to e s t a b l i s h a contradiction w i t h o n e o f the s a y i n g s
o f the risen Lord:
You have n o w heard Moses himself and the other prophets. M o s e s , therefore, utters many
sayings to the following effect and in many places: y o u shall fear the Lord your God and
372
him only shall y o u serve (Deut 6:13, 1 0 : 2 0 ) . " H o w then has it been handed down in
the Gospels that Jesus commanded: "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in
the name o f the Father, and o f the Son, and o f the Holy Spirit (Matt 28:19)," if they were
not intended to serve him also? A n d your beliefs also are in harmony with these
3 7 3
commands, when along with the Father you pay divine honors to the s o n .
Again Julian finds a contradiction between OT monotheism and NT

3 7 4
Christology . If Christ i s o t h e r than G o d , t h e n c l e a r l y t h e Christians are
guilty o f breaking M o s e s ' prescription. Julian is aware o f Trinitarian
t h e o l o g y , b u t d o e s n o t find a n y e v i d e n c e o f it i n the O T that the patristic
writers l i k e C y r i l d i d . Celsus also considered J e w i s h m o n o t h e i s m to be
inconsistent with the Christians' worship o f Jesus. Like Cyril, Origen
375
r e s p o n d e d t o C e l s u s w i t h a Trinitarian f o r m u l a t i o n . Cyril i s c o n v i n c e d that
Eusebius does not include this non-Platonic text in his quote from Plato, Tim. 31a to prove
that Plato believed in one God in P.E. 11.13.2 (VIII/2,32,13-16 MRAS).
3 7 0
C. Jul. 8.267 (PG 7 6 , 9 0 9 a - c ) .
3 7 1
C. Jul. 8.264 (PG 7 6 , 9 0 4 c ) . See also MALLEY, Hellenism, 3 4 7 , 4 0 4 - 4 0 5 .
3 7 2
ADLER, Kaiser Julian, 98 notes that "only" is an addition to the M T . It is in M S A o f
the L X X tradition. Matt 4:10 and Luke 4:8 make use o f the text with a slightly different
wording.
3 7 3
C. Gal. 2 9 0 e - 2 9 1 a (163,25-33 MAS. = III, 4 0 2 WR.). On this text cp. also COOK,
Interpretation, 2 9 5 .
3 7 4
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1146 / MALLEY, Hellenism, 347.
3 7 5
O r i g e n , C. C e l s u m 8 . 1 2 ( 5 2 9 , 6 - 1 1 ; 5 2 9 , 1 1 - 5 3 0 , 3 MARC). S e e also COOK,
Interpretation, 9 5 , 3 2 8 and C. Jul. 9.294-95 (PG 7 6 , 952c-953c). For the use o f Deut 6:13,
10:20 in patristic literature see A. HlLHORST, Deuteronomy's monotheism and the Christians.
The c a s e o f Deut 6:13 and 10:10, in: Studies in D e u t e r o n o m y in Honour o f C. J.
th
LABUSCHANGE o n the Occasion o f his 6 5 Birthday, ed. F. GARCIA MARTINEZ/A.
HlLHORST/J. T. A . G. M. VAN RuiTEN/A. S. VAN DER W O U D E , Leiden 1 9 9 4 , 8 3 - 9 1 .
HILHORST (Ibid, 9 0 - 1 ) notes that Julian was aware that Christians used Matt 28:19 to argue
for the teaching about the Trinity. Epiphanius, for example, uses Deut 6:13 in his argument
against the Arians in Panarion 69.36.2-3 (GCS Epiphanius III, 184,19-22 HOLL/DUMMER).
M o s e s b e l i e v e s i n a c o n s u b s t a n t i a l Trinity, a l t h o u g h h e w a s w i l l i n g t o a d m i t
that M o s e s d i d n o t k n o w h o w the incarnation w o u l d h a p p e n . Cyril d o e s n o t
s e e the t e x t s Julian q u o t e s t o b e contradictory. O n e p i e c e of e v i d e n c e Cyril
f i n d s i s the a c c o u n t o f J a c o b ' s w r e s t l i n g m a t c h i n G e n 3 2 : 2 4 - 2 5 , 30-31.
J a c o b w r e s t l e d w i t h the L o g o s . It i s u n l i k e l y that Julian w o u l d h a v e f o u n d
Cyril's e x e g e s i s persuasive.
3.40 A Prophet Like Moses
Julian w a s u n a b l e t o find a p r o p h e c y o f Jesus in M o s e s ' w o r d s that h e s p o k e

to the children o f Israel i n D e u t 18:15:
N o w since the Galilaeans say that, though they are different from the Jews, they are still,
precisely speaking, Israelites in accordance with their prophets, and that they obey M o s e s
above all and the prophets w h o in Judea succeeded him, let us s e e in what respect they
chiefly agree with those prophets. And let us begin with the teaching o f M o s e s , w h o
himself also, as they claim, foretold the birth o f Jesus that w a s to be. M o s e s , then, not
once or twice or thrice but very many times says that people should honor one G o d only,
and in fact names him the Highest; but that they ought to honor any other god he nowhere
says. H e speaks o f angels and lords and moreover o f several gods, but from these he
chooses out the first and does not assume any god as second, either like or unlike him
(δμοιον ούτε ά ν ό μ ο ι ο ν ) , such as you have invented. And if among y o u perchance you
possess a single utterance o f Moses with respect to this, you are bound to produce it. For
the words "A prophet shall the Lord your G o d raise up unto y o u o f your brethren, like
unto me; to him y o u shall listen (Deut 18:15)," were certainly not said o f the son o f Mary.
And even though, to please y o u , o n e should concede that they were said o f him, M o s e s
says that the prophet will be like him and not like God, a prophet like himself and born o f
3 7 6
people, not o f a g o d .
Julian k n e w A e t i u s o f A n t i o c h a n d m a y h a v e b e e n a w a r e o f h i s party o f
3 7 7
" A n o m o e a n s " w h o asserted that the S o n w a s unlike the Father in all t h i n g s .
W i l k e n n o t e s that Julian w a s certainly a w a r e that Christians m a d e frequent
u s e o f the t e x t f r o m D e u t e r o n o m y as is clear already i n the N T ( A c t s 3 : 2 2 ,
Perhaps the Arians used the same text Epiphanius appealed to. S e e RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
Pagani Π, 164-65.
3 7 6
C. Gal. 2 5 3 a - d ( 1 5 6 , 6 - 1 5 7 , 2 2 MAS. = III, 3 9 2 - 9 4 W R . ) . On this text s e e D E
LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 408.
3 7 7
S e e § 3.11 above. For Aetius and Anomoeans s e e Socrates, Hist. 2.45.11 ( 1 8 4 , 2 - 4
HANSEN). Socrates also mentions some "Anomoeans" w h o changed their w a y s and were
willing to confess that the Son w a s like (δμοιον) the Father in all things (Hist. 4.12.6 [238,22-
5 HANSEN]). MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 2 3 4 calls attention to a text o f Basil in which he
criticizes those w h o assert that the S o n is unlike the Father in substance; Basil, Horn, in illud:
In principio erat verbum (PG 3 1 , 4 8 0 c ) . S e e also J. M . DEMAROLLE, L e Contre Galieens.
Continuity et rupture dans la demarche polemique de l'empereur Julien, Ktema 11, 1986 ( 3 9 -
47) 42-3 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 168.
312 3. Julian
3 7 8
7:37) . J u l i a n t h i n k s it s e l f e v i d e n t that i f a p r o p h e t i s t o b e e x a c t l y l i k e
M o s e s (a h u m a n ) , then the prophet c a n n o t b e d i v i n e . Peter in A c t s 3:22 does
u s e D e u t 1 8 : 1 5 t o argue that J e s u s i s the M e s s i a h , but d o e s n o t u s e it t o argue
for the d i v i n i t y o f Christ. F o r Julian, neither P e t e r ' s u s e o f the text nor the
argument Cyril presents b e l o w w o u l d likely be e n o u g h to o v e r c o m e the
a m b i g u i t y o f the reference in D e u t 18:15.
Cyril c h a l l e n g e s Julian t o find a better candidate for the figure p r o p h e s i e d
by Moses. H e i s w i l l i n g t o c o n c e d e that m a n y p r o p h e t s h a v e succeeded
Moses. H e a r g u e s that as M o s e s d e l i v e r e d t h e I s r a e l i t e s f r o m s l a v e r y i n
3 7 9
E g y p t , s o Christ d e l i v e r s p e o p l e f r o m b o n d a g e to Satan and s i n . Jesus g a v e
l a w s w i t h authority. T h e p r o p h e t s s p o k e in the n a m e o f the L o r d , but J e s u s
3 8 0
h e a l e d in h i s o w n n a m e (as in Matt 8 : 3 , L u k e 7 : 1 4 , John 1 1 : 4 3 ) .
3.41 Deut 32:9, Exod 22:28, and the Christians' Relation to Judaism and
Hellenism
Julian a c c u s e d t h e Christians o f a b a n d o n i n g all that w a s b e s t i n G r e e k and

J e w i s h tradition. T o support h i s p o i n t h e u s e s D e u t 3 2 : 9 a n d E x o d 2 2 : 2 8 t o
argue a g a i n s t the Christian n e g l e c t o f G r e e k w o r s h i p a n d their b l a s p h e m y o f
Greek g o d s :
And w h y is it that y o u do not abide even by the traditions o f the Hebrews or accept the
law which G o d has given to them? Nay, you have forsaken their teaching even more than
ours, abandoning your ancestral traditions ( τ ά π ά τ ρ ι α ) and giving yourselves over to the
predictions o f the prophets? For if anyone should w i s h to e x a m i n e into the truth
concerning you, he will find that your impiety is compounded o f the rashness o f the Jews
and the indifference and vulgarity (αδιαφορίας και χ υ δ α ί ο τ η τ ο ς ) o f the Gentiles. From
both sides y o u have drawn what is by no means their best but their inferior teaching, and
so have made for yourselves a border of wickedness. For the Hebrews have precise laws
( ν ό μ ι μ α ) concerning religious worship, and countless sacred things and observances
which demand the priestly life and profession. But though their lawgiver forbade them to
serve all the gods save only that one, whose "portion is Jacob, and Israel an allotment of
his inheritance (Deut 32:9)"; though he did not say this only, but methinks added also
"You shall not revile the gods (Exod 22:27 LXX)"; yet the shamelessness and audacity of
later generations, desiring to root out all reverence from the mass o f the people, has
thought that blasphemy accompanies the neglect o f worship. This, in fact, is the only
thing that y o u have drawn from this source; for in all other respects y o u and the Jews have
nothing in c o m m o n . N a y it is from the new-fangled teaching ( κ α ι ν ο τ ο μ ί α ς ) o f the
3 7 8
Eus., D . E . makes much use o f it, for example. See D.E. 9.11.9-10 (429,12-17
HEIKEL). HEIKEL'S index has many other instances. Cf. WlLKEN, Christians 190-91.
3 7 9
C. Jul. 8.257-58 (PG 76, 893b-896a).
3 8 0
C. Jul. 8.258-59 (PG 7 6 , 896b-d). For an analysis o f Cyril's arguments see MALLEY,
Hellenism, 3 4 9 - 5 1 .
Hebrews that you have seized upon this blasphemy of the gods w h o are honored among
us; but the reverence for every higher nature, characteristic of our religious worship,
combined with the love of our ancestral traditions (των πατρίων), you have cast off, and
381
have acquired only the habit of eating all things, "even as the green herb (Gen 9 : 3 ) . "
But to tell the truth, you have taken pride in outdoing our vulgarity, (this, I think is a thing
that happens to all nations, and very naturally) and you thought that you must adapt your
3 8 2
ways to the lives of other p e o p l e , shopkeepers (καπήλων), tax-gatherers, and dancers
383
ready for any change ( έ τ ε ρ ο τ ρ ό π ω ν ) . "
Julian's respect for ancestral traditions and his critique o f the Christians for
abandoning t h e m w a s a c o m m o n argument a m o n g the G r e c o - R o m a n
384
c r i t i c s . Julian m a y b e indebted to a text that itself c o u l d h a v e served as the
p r o e m to Porphyry's Contra Christianos. T h e Greek p h i l o s o p h e r in that text
is a n o n y m o u s but s h a r e s e n o u g h traits w i t h P o r p h y r y that P o r p h y r i a n
385
authorship is usually a c c e p t e d . For the critic, Christians h a v e a b a n d o n e d
ancestral traditions, b e c o m e z e a l o u s for J e w i s h m y t h o l o g i e s , d o not e v e n p a y
h e e d to the G o d h o n o r e d a m o n g the J e w s according to the J e w i s h c u s t o m s
( ν ό μ ι μ α ) , "but h e w o u t a n e w and deserted road-that-is-no-road ( ε ρ ή μ η ν
ά ν ο δ ί α ν ) . " T h e y neither k e e p Greek nor J e w i s h traditions and are atheists.
U n l i k e E u s e b i u s ' a n o n y m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r , Julian is w i l l i n g to admit to the
386
crudity or v u l g a r i t y o f m a n y H e l l e n i c p r a c t i c e s . S i m o n M a g u s , in h i s
debate with Peter about the e x i s t e n c e o f other g o d s , u s e s E x o d 2 2 : 2 7 L X X to
3 8 7
establish the e x i s t e n c e o f m a n y g o d s . M a c a r i u s ' a n o n y m o u s p h i l o s o p h e r
a l s o m a k e s u s e o f a series o f O T texts including E x o d 2 2 : 2 7 L X X to argue
3 8 8
that p o l y t h e i s m is a correct v i e w o f the w o r l d . H e a l s o notes texts similar
to D e u t 3 2 : 9 that forbid w o r s h i p o f other g o d s i n c l u d i n g D e u t 1 2 : 2 8 , Josh
3 8 1
On this text see § 3.10 above.
382
M A S A R A C C H I A adopts the reading of the M S S , έ τ ε ρ ω ν , and not the conjecture
ευτελών (153,25-26 MAS.).
3 8 3
NEUMANN conjectures έταιροτρόφων (208,18 NEUMANN). C. Gal. 238a-e (152,1-153,
MAS. = III, 3 9 2 - 9 4 W R . ) . Compare 191d (136,6-7 M A S . ) where Jesus gathers the worst
people.
3 8 4
See, for example, COOK, Interpretation, 133.
3 8 5
HARNACK, Porphyrius F. 1 = Eus., P.E. 1.2.1-4 (VIII/1, 8,20-9,15 MRAS.) discussed in
COOK, Interpretation, 133-34 and § 2.2.1 above.
3 8 6
He also earlier charges Christians with being neither Hellenes nor Jews. They took
atheism from the Jews and a sordid and slovenly lifestyle from Hellenic vulgarity. S e e C.
Gal. 43a (88,4-89,14 M A S . = III, 3 2 0 W R . ) . Cf. also Julian's lament over the vulgar luxury
(χυδαίας τρυφής) of Hellenes w h o ignore the ancestral traditions concerning the gods in
Ep. 89a, 453b-c (1/2,153,18-154,7 BlDEZ = III, 58 WRIGHT).
3 8 7
Ps. Clem., Horn. 16.6.4, 16.8.1-3 (220,20-2; 222,3-11 REHM). See RlNALDl, La Bibbia
dei Pagani II, 153.
3 8 8
Macarius, M o n o g . 4 . 2 3 . 1 - 3 (II, 3 1 4 , 1 - 1 7 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius 7 8 )
discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 240.
314 3. Julian
2 4 : 4 , and Jer 7:6. L i k e Julian and Porphyry, the a n o n y m o u s pagan b e l i e v e s

the g o d s should b e honored.
Cyril i s u n w i l l i n g to accept the historical s e n s e o f E x o d 2 2 : 2 7 L X X and
applies it to the leaders a l s o m e n t i o n e d in E x o d 2 2 : 2 7 w h o c a n b e c a l l e d
"god" s i n c e they are m a d e in G o d ' s i m a g e . Cyril feels this m o v e is necessary
g i v e n D e u t 12:1-3 and its prescription to tear d o w n p a g a n h o l y p l a c e s and
burn the g o d s in t h e m . T h e s e scriptures w o u l d b e i n c o n s i s t e n t , in Cyril's
v i e w , if the g o d s o f E x o d 2 2 : 2 7 did not refer to h u m a n leaders — and in
389
particular to cultic p r i e s t s . After defending Christian dietary practice, Cyril
finds it ironic that s o m e H e l l e n e s forbid certain f o o d s w h i l e practicing m a g i c ,
390
h o m o s e x u a l i t y , and a d u l t e r y .
3.42 David and Samson
Julian f o u n d fault w i t h the gifts G o d g a v e the H e b r e w s . H e found Hebraic

w i s d o m inferior to that g i v e n other nations. T h e y also had n o great generals.
Cyril s u m m a r i z e s Julian's criticism o f H e b r e w military p r o w e s s :
3 9 1
Then he mocks the blessed D a v i d (1 Kgdms 16 — 4 Kgdms 2) and Samson (Judg Π
Ι 6) and says that they were not especially brave in battles, but were inferior to the strength
of the Greeks and Egyptians by far and that the limit of their kingdoms hardly reached the
392
boundaries of J u d e a .
In another text Julian asserts that the H e b r e w s had n o general like A l e x a n d e r

393
or C a e s a r . A l e x a n d e r is unlike the H e b r e w s w h o are t h e m s e l v e s superior to
394
the G a l i l a e a n s according to Julian in his letter to the A l e x a n d r i a n s . T h i s
c r i t i c i s m is similar to C e l s u s ' b e l i e f that the J e w s had d o n e n o t h i n g o f
3 8 9
C. Jul. 7.240-41 (PG 76, 865d-868c). On this argument see MALLEY, Hellenism, 343-
44.
3 9 0
See MALLEY, Hellenism, 361-63. Cyril's discussion of the ironies is in C. Jul. 7.244-
45 (PG 7 6 , 873a-c), and he devotes much effort to responding to Julian's charge about diet in
7.241-244 (PG 7 6 , 8 6 8 c - 8 7 3 c ) .
3 9 1
S T E R N ( I , 2 3 6 ) remarks that Nicolaus o f Damascus ( I § 84 = Jos., Antiq. 7.101)
preserves the only reference to king David in Greco-Roman literature before the advent of
Christianity. Alexander Polyhistor does, however, in a passage from Eupolemus refer to the
tribe of David (STERN I , § 51 = Clem. Alex., Strom 1.21.130.3 = Eupolemus, F . 2 [ I , 114,1-10
HOLL.]). See FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 531 n.l.
3 9 2
C. Jul. 5.176 (PG 76, 769b = 132,14-17 MAS.). GAGER, M o s e s , 103 discusses these
kinds of objections that Julian brings against Judaism.
3 9 3
C. Gal. 218b (145,10-12 MAS. = III, 380 W R . ) .
3 9 4
Ep. 1 1 1 , 4 3 3 c (1/2,189,10-13 BIDEZ = III, 144 W R . ) .
s i g n i f i c a n c e and that t h e y h a d n o l a n d t o c a l l their h o m e d e s p i t e all t h e

3 9 5
p r o m i s e s o f their G o d .
Cyril is a m a z e d b y J u l i a n ' s critique and asserts that Julian i g n o r e s the fact
that G o d g a v e the H e b r e w s a v i s i o n o f h i s greatness and m a n i f e s t g l o r y a l o n g
w i t h l a w s m o r e a n c i e n t than t h o s e o f the H e l l e n e s . H e r e v i e w s the v a r i o u s
o b j e c t i o n a b l e m o r a l p r a c t i c e s o f the n a t i o n s and attributes t h e m ( o n J u l i a n ' s
o w n p r i n c i p l e s ) t o c o n t r a d i c t i o n s b e t w e e n their v a r i o u s n a t i o n a l g o d s . The
3 9 6
a c t i o n s h e refers t o i n c l u d e murder, i n c e s t and t h e f t . Cyril ignores the
charge that the H e b r e w s l a c k e d the military p r o w e s s o f the H e l l e n e s .
3 A3 Solomon's Wisdom
Julian b e l i e v e d that S o l o m o n ' s w i s d o m w a s inferior t o that o f t h e G r e e k

writers and that h i s w i s d o m w a s problematic g i v e n his later a c t i o n s in life.
Is their "wisest" man Solomon at all comparable with Phocylides or Theognis or Isocrates
397
among the H e l l e n e s ? Certainly not. At least, if one were to compare the exhortations
of Isocrates with S o l o m o n ' s proverbs, y o u would, I am very sure, find that the son o f
3 9 8
Theodorus is superior to their "wisest" king. "But," o n e s a y s , "that o n e w a s also
proficient in theurgy." What then? Did not this Solomon serve our gods also, deluded by
his wife, as they assert (3 Kgdms 11:4)? W^hat great virtue! What wealth o f wisdom! H e
could not rise superior to pleasure, and the arguments of a woman led him astray! Then if
he was deluded by a woman, d o not call this man wise. But if you are convinced that he
was wise, do not believe that he was deluded by a woman, but that, trusting to his o w n
judgment and intelligence and the teaching that he received from the G o d w h o had been
revealed to him, he served the other gods also. For envy and jealousy do not c o m e even
near the most virtuous people, much more are they remote from angels and gods. But you
3 9 5
Origen, C. Cels. 4 . 3 1 , 5.41, 8.69 (245,2-6; 356,8-12; 586,1-6 M A R C ) . S e e also § 1.25,
34 / RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 175.
3 9 6
C. Jul. 5.176-77 (PG 7 6 , 7 6 9 c - 7 7 1 b ) . Cp. MALLEY, Hellenism, 321.
3 9 7
Isocr. 2 . 4 3 and D i o Chrys. Or. 2.5 speak of the exhortations o f Phocylides and
Theognis. S e e MASARACCHIA, Giuliano 228. Julian's argument is, in a sense, a reversal o f
the old Jewish and Christian apologetic v i e w that Hebrew culture ( M o s e s ' w i s d o m in
particular) preceded and is the source of Hellenic culture. Cp. his remarks in § 3.56. S e e
HOLLADAY, Fragments, I, 137 n.5. Cp. Artapanus, F. 3 = Eus., P.E. 9.27.4 (I, 208,20-210,5
HOLL.); Aristobulus, F. 3 = Eus., P.E. 13.12.1 (III, 152,17-22 HOLL.); Jos., C. A p . 2.168,
Philo, Vita M o s . 2 . 1 2 - 2 5 ( M o s e s superior to all legislators); Clem. A l e x . 1.21.101.1-
1.29.182.3 (II, 6 4 , 1 8 - 1 1 2 . 6 S T . / F R . ) ; and Eus., P.E. 10.1.1-14.19 (VIII/1, 5 5 7 , 2 - 6 1 3 , 1 5
MRAS; this book traces what is true in Greek thought to the Hebrews and s h o w s that the
Hebrews are more ancient than the Greeks; cp. in particular 10.4.33 [573,24-27 M R A S ]
where Eusebius attributed Greek philosophy and all c o m m o n and helpful inventions
[ευρέσεις] to the Barbarians). On this issue see DROGE, Homer or M o s e s , passim / cp. § 1.6
above.
3 9 8
316 3. Julian
concern yourselves with incomplete and partial powers (περί τ ά μέρη των δυνάμεων),
399
which if anyone call d a e m o n i c he does not err. For in them are pride and vanity, but in
400
the gods there is nothing of the s o r t .
Julian's q u e s t i o n is similar to that o f an a n o n y m o u s p a g a n (or Christian) in

Ambrosiaster w h o w a n t s to k n o w w h y S o l o m o n had the spirit o f w i s d o m but
not a pure life. In fact S o l o m o n delighted h i m s e l f with m a n y w o m e n and s o
401
s i n n e d . Julian b e l i e v e s that w h e n comparing the w i s d o m o f S o l o m o n and
the G r e e k s , Christians w o u l d r e s p o n d that S o l o m o n w a s a l s o s k i l l e d in
402
theurgy (or the secret cult o f G o d as Wright t r a n s l a t e s ) . H e m a y derive
s u c h a b e l i e f f r o m a text s u c h as 3 K g d m s 8 w h e r e S o l o m o n instructs the
p e o p l e in prayer, or p o s s i b l y h e k n o w s the vast a m o u n t o f m a g i c a l and
403
alchemical literature attributed to S o l o m o n in a n t i q u i t y . Julian presents the
Christians with an interesting d i l e m m a based o n the fact that S o l o m o n served
other g o d s . If h e w a s deluded b y a w i f e to serve other g o d s , h e w a s not w i s e .
If h e w a s not deluded by a w i f e , then he served other g o d s b e c a u s e o f a G o d -
g i v e n revelation and his o w n w i s e judgment. Either w a y the Christians l o s e
according to Julian. H e has already attacked the H e b r e w s ' G o d because o f his
attribute o f j e a l o u s y and then s e e m s to attack the Christian veneration o f the
404
saints, a l t h o u g h this is not c l e a r . H e m a y actually c h o o s e to classify the
G o d o f the H e b r e w s a m o n g the d e m o n s , but that s e e m s u n l i k e l y s i n c e it
w o u l d b e a unique charge o n his part. S o m e o f Porphyry's oracles probably
c l a s s i f i e d the w o r s h i p o f Jesus as w o r s h i p o f a d e m o n , and Julian m a y b e
405
doing s o m e t h i n g s i m i l a r .
Cyril has a straightforward a n s w e r to the d i l e m m a . S o l o m o n b e g a n w i s e ,
but slipped a w a y . H e wrote during the time o f H o m e r ( 1 6 0 years after the fall
o f Troy) w h e n Greek poets w e r e c o m p o s i n g simple w o r k s — like those m a d e
3 9 9
Julian believed that evil people and demons inhabited the wilderness. See Frag. Ep.
89b, 288a (1/2, 155,16-9 BlDEZ= II, 296 W R . ) . For Porphyry evil demons can deceive by
means of miracles in D e abst. (2.42.1 [II, 109 B./P.]). See MASARACCHIA, Giuliano 229 who
gives many references to concepts about evil demons in antiquity. The issue of the demonic
came up often in the critique of the NT. Cp. COOK, Interpretation, index s.v. "demons."
4 0 0
C . Gal. 224c-e (147,5-148,31 M A S . = III, 382-84 W R . ) .
4 0 1
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. Test. 4 9 (428,7-9 SOUTER) = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II § 181.
4 0 2
RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani II, 179 takes the reference to be Isocrates, but offers no
independent evidence that Isocrates was considered to be skilled in such arts.
4 0 3
S e e H E N G E L , Judaism, I, 130 and GAGER, M o s e s , 152. For pagan references to
Solomon see FELDMAN, Jew and Gentile, 531 n.l. Many references such as that of Laetus
were not to Solomon's abilities in magic (STERN I, § 39 = Tatian, Oratio 37).
4 0 4
§ 3.26. WRIGHT, III, 383 takes the reference of "incomplete powers" to be the saints.
4 0 5
Porphyry apud Aug., D e civ. D. 19.23 (693,113-127 D./K. = SMITH, Porphyrii, 346F).
b y nurses for children. P h o c y l i d e s and T h e o g n i s wrote m u c h later during the

fifty-eighth Olympiad. I s o c r a t e s w a s a cultured s o p h i s t and g o o d for
e d u c a t i n g y o u t h , but S o l o m o n instructed y o u n g and o l d alike in o b e y i n g
G o d ' s l a w s . If s o m e o n e (like S o l o m o n ) slips a w a y f r o m w h a t s h o u l d b e
d o n e , Julian has n o right to deride Christians w h o d o not include h i m a m o n g
G o d ' s prophets, e v a n g e l i s t s , or apostles. T h o u g h S o l o m o n w a s w i s e , h e had
4 0 6
great w e a l t h , and w e a l t h is the servant o f e v i l . Cyril notes that the w i s e
Socrates w a s l e d astray b y p o l l u t e d sexual p a s s i o n s and the H e l l e n i c g o d s
407
b e h a v e d l i k e w i s e . Cyril takes Julian's final remarks to b e an attack o n
G o d , and h e responds b y arguing that G o d is not e n v i o u s . T o turn a w a y from
G o d is an action that deserves to b e punished. It is life-giving to w o r s h i p the
G o d o f all (John 17:3). Cyril is a m a z e d that Julian a c c u s e s the Christians o f
408
turning to d e m o n s w h e n h e h i m s e l f worships t h e m .
3A4 Elijah's Sacrifice outside Jerusalem
T h e f o l l o w i n g c o m m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g J e w i s h i n d o l e n c e towards c o n t i n u i n g
sacrificial practice appear in Cyril's response to Julian's charge that the l a w
409
has permanent v a l u e and should not b e revised by the C h r i s t i a n s . C y r i l ' s
words are:
[He, suffering I know not what kind of ailment, accepts the traditions of the Jews, but
censures them again as separating themselves from all others, but in a most irrational way
being too lazy to sacrifice, even though as he says,] Elijah sacrificed on Mt. Carmel and
not in the holy city (3 K g d m s 18:19-38). [I would say Jerusalem. I would add the
inspired David w h o sacrificed in the threshing floor which had the name of Orna (2
410
Kgdms 2 4 : 1 8 - 2 5 ) . ]
Cyril g o e s o n to q u o t e a portion o f L e v 17:3-4 and notes that s o m e w i l l say

the temple e x i s t e d during Elijah's time, but not during D a v i d ' s . H e asks what
w a s the obstacle to f o l l o w i n g the law by sacrificing in the tabernacle. H e then
concludes that e v e n the saints did not f o l l o w the law with extreme exactitude.
N e u m a n n takes J u l i a n ' s statement a b o v e and p r e c e d e s it w i t h another o f
Julian's c o m m e n t s that actually b e l o n g s to a text in w h i c h Julian argued for
the p e r m a n e n c e o f the l a w o f c i r c u m c i s i o n and censures the Christians for
abandoning it: " O n e pretext remains for your i n d o l e n c e ( ρ α σ τ ώ ν η ς ) in this
4 0 6
Cyril quotes a text of Isocrates, "The love of pleasure follows luxuries closely." Cp.
the same text in John Damascenus, Sacra Par. (PG 9 5 , 1 3 4 0 ) .
4 0 7
C. Jul. 7.225-226 (PG 76,844b-845b).
4 0 8
C. Jul. 7.228-229 (PG 76, 848d-849b). Cf. also MALLEY, Hellenism, 338-40.
4 0 9
§ 3.24 above.
4 1 0
C. Jul. 9.324e (PG 76, lOOOa-c) = 170,1-7 M A S .
318 3. Julian
matter — the impossibility o f sacrificing for those outside o f Jerusalem (Deut

An
\2\\A4): Julian's reference to Elijah in C y r i l ' s r e s p o n s e is not an overt
attack o n the Christians but o n the J e w s . H i s plans t o restore the t e m p l e , o n
the other h a n d , indicate h i s w i l l i n g n e s s to h e l p t h e m o b e y the sacrificial
412
provisions o f the T o r a h .
345 The Fast of Moses, Elijah, and Jesus
T h e o d o r e o f M o p s u e s t i a , in his c o m m e n t a r y o n L u k e (part o f w h i c h m a y b e
based o n h i s reply to Julian), includes s o m e w o r d s o f Julian that refer to the
temptation o f Jesus. H e summarizes an argument o f Julian without producing
it verbatim: H o w did the devil not k n o w that Jesus w a s the S o n o f G o d if the
d e m o n s d i d ( M a r k 1:24)? T h e o d o r e w r i t e s , "There is n o t h i n g u n u s u a l
( κ α ι ν ό ν ) , g o d l e s s Julian, if h e w a s k n o w n b y the d e m o n s and w a s r e c o g n i z e d
to be G o d , and w a s tempted b y the ruler o f the d e m o n s w h o did not r e c o g n i z e
4 1 3
his k i n g d o m . " H e then argues that the t w o e v e n t s ( r e c o g n i t i o n b y the
d e m o n s and the temptation) did not take p l a c e at the s a m e t i m e . First, not
r e c o g n i z i n g h i m , the d e m o n tempts Jesus, and after b e i n g defeated the d e m o n
r e c o g n i z e s h i s reign (Mark 1:24, L u k e 4 : 3 4 ) . T h e devil tempts h i m according
414
to the flesh after the b a p t i s m . Theodore continues:
[Knowing God the Word, he would not have tempted him, for to all God is unknown in
his essence, but it was according to the flesh that he was truly hungry and tempted.] But
Moses, [he says,] after fasting forty days received the law (Exod 24:18, 31:18, 34:28), and
Elijah, after fasting for the same period, was granted to see G o d face to face (3 Kgdms
19:9). But what did Jesus receive, after a fast of the same length? [To receive the law and
4 1 1
NEUMANN, Iuliani, 233,5-8 = III, 4 2 6 W R . See § 3.19 above. C. Gal. 351d (180,5-28
MAS. = 111,426 W R . ) .
4 1 2
S e e COOK, Interpretation 323 from which most of the following references are taken:
C. Gal. 306a (167,11-12 M A S . = III, 4 0 6 W R . ) indicates that Julian knew the Jews could not
sacrifice without the temple. He expresses his desire to rebuild it in (a doubtful letter) Ep.
204, 398a (ELF, 281,18-282,2 BlDEZ/CUMONT. = ΠΙ, 180 W R . ) ; and Ep. 134 (1/2, 197,10-11
BlDEZ, from Lydus, D e mens. 4 [110,4 WUNSCH]) "I will raise with all zeal the temple of the
Highest God." Lydus notes that Julian wrote the letter when he was fighting the Persians.
S e e also Theodoret, H.E. 3.19.1-20.8 (GCS, 198,15-200,5 PARMENTIER/SCHEIDWEILER.),
S o z o m e n , H.E. 5.22.4-8 (230,4-231,6 B./H.) and Socrates, H.E. 3.20.1-15 ( 2 1 5 , 3 - 2 1 6 , 1 2
HANSEN) where Julian learns from the Jews why they cannot sacrifice and then determines to
rebuild the temple. Cf. also ADLER, Kaiser, 7 1 - 7 2 and Y. LEWY, Julian the Apostate and the
Building of the Temple, in: The Jerusalem Cathedra. Studies in the History, Archaeology,
Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, ed. L. I. LEVINE, Jerusalem-Detroit 1983,
70-96 / G. W . BOWERSOCK, Julian the Apostate, Cambridge 1 9 7 8 , 1 2 0 - 2 2 .
4 1 3
Theodore of Mops., Adversus Iul. Fr. 3.1 (Teodoro, 80,5-8 GUIDA).
4 1 4
Theodore of Mops., Adversus Iul. Fr. 3.2 (Teodoro, 80,8-14 GUIDA).
to be considered worthy of a vision of God is not equal to receiving the gospel and
415
proclaiming the kingdom of heaven (Mark 1:14-15, Matt 4:17, 23 p a r ) . ]
Clearly Julian is n o t attacking the account in E x o d u s or 1 K i n g s . H e r e his

c o n c e r n is to d i s c o u n t the narrative o f the temptation o f Jesus b y finding a
fundamental contradiction i n it (the k n o w l e d g e o f J e s u s p o s s e s s e d b y the
devil and the d e m o n s ) . Julian is also unable to s e e anything a c c o m p l i s h e d b y
the temptation o f Jesus. T h e o d o r e , in an interesting narrative m o v e , traces
J e s u s ' p o s s e s s i o n o f the g o s p e l to h i s t e m p t a t i o n . Y o u n g rh et o ri ci a n s
416
practiced e x e r c i s e s in c o m p a r i s o n . In Julian's v i e w , the c o m p a r i s o n y i e l d s
an intensely n e g a t i v e v i e w o f Jesus' experience o f fasting. N o t h i n g admirable
c a m e o f it.
3.46 Esdras (Ezra) and the Writings of Moses
Cyril d e s c r i b e s a t h e s i s o f Julian in w h i c h h e asserts that Ezra adds s o m e

things to the scriptures:
For lying everywhere against the divinely inspired scripture, at one time he says that the
hierophant M o s e s spoke as a demagogue and not in truth when he made doctrines [or
"statements"] about God that are neither right nor befit him (ποιήσασθαι λόγους ούτε
έχοντας ορθώς ούτε μην εοικότως αύτφ γ ε γ ο ν ό τ α ς ) . At another point he maintains
417
that Esdras added certain things based on his own o p i n i o n .
T h e tradition Julian alludes to is from 4 Ezra 1 4 : 2 1 - 2 6 . In that text Ezra

r e c e i v e s , b y revelation, all the texts o f Israel that had b e e n burned w h e n the
temple w a s destroyed. Macarius' a n o n y m o u s philosopher also k n e w that text.
H e c l a i m s , " B u t all t h e s a m e , n o t h i n g w h i c h M o s e s w r o t e h a s b e e n
preserved. For all h i s writings are said to h a v e b e e n burnt a l o n g w i t h the
temple. A l l that bears the n a m e o f M o s e s w a s written 1 1 8 0 years afterwards,
418
b y Ezra and his e n t o u r a g e . " Stein and Goulet both argue that Macarius and
4 1 5
C. Gal. F. 93 (185,1-7 MAS. = III, 4 2 8 WR. = Theodore of Mops., Adversus Iul. Fr.
3 . 2 - 4 (Teodoro, 8 0 , 1 4 - 2 2 G U I D A ) . Cf. also COOK, Interpretation, 2 9 1 and GuiDA's
commentary in idem, 130-32.
4 1 6
S e e Theon, Progymnasmata 9 Περί Συγκρίσεως ( 1 1 2 SPENGEL). For further
references see LAUSBERG, Handbuch, § 1130 and cp. Hierocles' use of this in COOK,
4 1 7
C. Jul. 5.168 (PG 7 6 , 757a) = 130,1-5 M A S . = RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II
§189.
4 1 8
Macarius Magnes, Monog. 3.3.1-2 (II, 74,10-9 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F.
68). Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 201-2.
320 3. Julian
4 1 9
J u l i a n m a y h a v e g o t t e n t h e c r i t i c i s m o f t h e scripture f r o m Porphyry .
4 2 0
Cyril's brief response is that Julian is guilty of extreme impiety .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y Julian d o e s not c o n t i n u e h i s foray into text c r i t i c i s m b y n o t i n g
w h i c h t e x t s h e thinks Ezra added.
3.47 A Comment on Prophecy in The tetter to a Priest
Julian w a s a w a r e o f prophetic texts and k n e w Israelite history w e l l e n o u g h t o

m a k e g o o d i l l u s t r a t i v e u s e o f it. H e d e s c r i b e s s k e p t i c a l attacks o n d i v i n e
p r o v i d e n c e g i v e n i n c i d e n t s s u c h as the profanation o f the i m a g e s and t e m p l e s
o f the g o d s and t h e death o f g o o d p e o p l e s u c h as S o c r a t e s , but affirms that
v e n g e a n c e w i l l c o m e o n the offenders. Julian then writes:
Therefore let n o o n e deceive us with his sayings or trouble our faith in a divine
providence. For as for those w h o make such profanation a reproach against us, I mean the
prophets o f the J e w s , what have they to say about their o w n temple, which w a s
overthrown three times and even now is not being raised up again? This I mention not as
a reproach against them, for I myself, after s o great a lapse to time, intended to restore it
(άναστήσασθαι διενοήθην), in honor of the god whose name has been associated with it.
But in the present case I have used this instance because I wish to prove that nothing made
by humans can be indestructible, and that those prophets w h o wrote such statements were
uttering nonsense (έλη ρουν), due to their gossiping with silly old women. In my opinion
there is no reason why their god should not be a mighty god ( μ έ γ α ν ) , even though he does
421
not happen to have excellent σπουδαίων) prophets or interpreters ( ε ξ η γ η τ ώ ν ) . But the
real reason w h y they are not excellent is that they have not submitted their souls to be
cleansed by the regular course o f study (έγκυκλίοις· μαθήμασιν), nor have they allowed
those studies to open their tightly closed eyes, and to clear away the mist that hangs over
them. But since these people see as it were a great light through a fog, not plainly or
clearly, and since they think that what they see is not a pure light but a fire, and they fail
to discern all that surrounds it, they cry with a loud vice: "Tremble, be afraid, fire, flame,
death, a dagger, a broad-sword!" thus describing under many names the harmful might of
fire. But o n this subject it will be better to demonstrate separately h o w much inferior to
our o w n poets are these teachers o f doctrines about the g o d (οί τ ω ν υ π έ ρ τ ο υ θεου
422
λόγων δ ι δ ά σ κ α λ ο ι ) .
Julian m a y b e t h i n k i n g o f p r o p h e t s s u c h as I s a i a h 4 4 : 9 - 2 0 w h o m o c k the
builders o f i m a g e s . C e l s u s w a s a l s o o f f e n d e d b y Christians w h o m o c k e d and
4 1 9
STEIN, Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik, 4 3 / GOULET, Porphyre et le datation, 161.
S T E I N , h o w e v e r , f o l l o w i n g H A R N A C K , d o e s not distinguish Macarius' anonymous
philosopher from Porphyry. See COOK, Interpretation, 172-3. On the chronology see § 2.2.8.
4 2 0
C. Jul. 5.168 (PG 76,757a-b).
4 2 1
Using the same word Celsus calls Moses the Jews' interpreter o f magic (§ 1.21).
4 2 2
Frag. Ep. 89b, 295a-296b (1/2,162,19-163,25 BlDEZ = II, 312-14 W R . ) . Cp. § 3.26.
423
beat s t a t u e s . A r n o b i u s attacked the w o r s h i p o f i m a g e s b y d e s c r i b i n g
424
various c a s e s in w h i c h those w h o defiled statues w e r e not p u n i s h e d .
Rinaldi c o m m e n t s that Julian alludes to t w o o f his projects in this text: his
i n t e n t i o n t o r e c o n s t r u c t the t e m p l e and to write a treatise a g a i n s t the
425
C h r i s t i a n s . Stern remarks that there is n o n e e d to take Julian's w o r d s to
4 2 6
i m p l y that Julian had g i v e n u p his intention to rebuild the t e m p l e . T h e
427
aorist tense d o e s not h a v e to bear that m e a n i n g . It is a little unclear w h y
Julian refers to three destructions o f the temple. H e probably counts o n e for
Nebuchadnezzar ( 4 K g d m s 2 5 : 9 ) and o n e for Titus, but the other m a y b e that
428
o f Antiochus (more a desecration than a destruction) or o f H e r o d . T h e texts
are a l s o unclear that Julian is thinking o f w h e n h e asserts that the prophets
taught that the t e m p l e w a s indestructible. Possibly he m e a n s e p i s o d e s s u c h as
that in 4 K g d m s 18:30 w h e r e the Assyrians m o c k the Israelites' faith in G o d ' s
protection o f their city (affirmed in 4 K g d m s 19:34). Julian's reading o f the
L X X (and N T ) w a s rather superficial at times since h e d o e s not indicate h e is
aware that prophets (including Jesus) offered explanations for the destruction
o f the t e m p l e (Jer 2 6 [ 3 3 L X X ] ; L u k e 19:44). T h e i m a g e r y o f G o d as a
devouring fire ( D e u t 4 : 2 4 ) appears in the C. Gal. along w i t h the i m a g e r y o f
4 2 9
G o d ' s wrath as a topic o f Julian's criticism o f the L X X . O n the other hand,
Julian must h a v e read a great deal in the prophetic literature s i n c e h e k n e w o f
their m a n y i m a g e s o f destruction in the oracles o f j u d g m e n t . Jer 15:2 and
15:14 (death, s w o r d , f a m i n e , captivity, and fire) are typical. C e l s u s w a s also
aware o f Christian prophets w h o delighted in such imagery. Julian's critical
remarks about the e d u c a t i o n o f the prophets t h e m s e l v e s are similar to his
430
e x t e n s i v e argument from c o n s e q u e n c e that h e addressed to the C h r i s t i a n s .
In that argument h e c h a l l e n g e d the Christians to educate children in Christian
4 2 3
C. Cels. 8.38 (553,2-5 M A R C ) . Apollo's priests let it be known that vengeance will
come in C. Cels. 8.40 (554,11-3 M A R C ) . See COOK, Interpretation, 9 3 .
4 2 4
Arnobius, Adv. nat. 6.21-22 (including one benighted soul w h o had sex with a statue
of Venus) (334,1-336,11 MARCH.). Arnobius found many of his examples in C i c , D e nat.
deor. 3.34.83-3.35.85. One great temple plunderer, Dionysius of Syracuse, is not punished by
Jupiter or Asclepius, but dies peacefully.
4 2 5
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 197.
4 2 6
STERN II, 5 5 7 (with reference to the introduction to Ep. 8 9 b in E L F , 127
BlDEZ/CUMONT).
4 2 7
One could translate: "I have intended" or "I have decided*' (an action v i e w e d as a
whole, i.e., a complexive aorist in B D F § 332 or some other type). On the temple project see
§ 3.44 above.
4 2 8
The first possibility is accepted by STERN II, 557. BlDEZ opts for the destruction (and
reconstruction) by Herod in Frag. Ep. 89b (1/2, 163 n.2 BlDEZ). Neither can be affirmed with
much certainty.
4 2 9
See § 3 . 2 6 , 3 4 , 35.
4 3 0
On this argument see Aristotle Rhet. 2.23.14 and § 1.33.
322 3. Julian
scriptures. T h e y w i l l h a v e the qualities o f s l a v e s , in h i s v i e w . W h e n a person

4 3 1
r e c e i v e s a H e l l e n i c e d u c a t i o n h e b e c o m e s a gift to h u m a n k i n d . F o r Julian
the p r o p h e t s m a y s e e light through a mist, but the G r e e k p o e t s d o a far better
j o b o f s e e i n g the truth.
A l l p o e t s are n o t a c c e p t a b l e t o Julian. S o m e s u c h as the o l d c o m i c p o e t
H i p p o n a x s h o u l d not b e read b y priests. Julian actually prefers p h i l o s o p h i c a l
authors t o b e the subject o f priestly reading. A m o n g the c l a s s o f p h i l o s o p h e r s
only those
... w h o make people god-fearing ( ε υ σ έ β ε ι α ς ... ποιητικά), and teach concerning the
gods, first that they exist, secondly that they concern themselves with the things o f this
4 3 2
world , and further that they do n o injury at all either to human beings or to one another,
out of jealousy or envy or enmity (φθονοϋντες και βασκαίι/οντες και πολεμουι/τες). I
mean that sort o f thing our poets in the first place have brought themselves into disrepute
by writing, and in the second place such tales as the prophets of the Jews take pains to
invent, and are admired for s o doing by those miserable people w h o have attached
433
themselves to the G a l i l a e a n s .
4 3 4
A s B i d e z n o t e s t h e s e t h e m e s reappear i n t h e C. Gal. frequently . With
regard t o t h e c r e a t i o n narrative, for e x a m p l e , Julian u s e s s o m e o f the s a m e
l a n g u a g e t o d e s c r i b e G o d as j e a l o u s and e n v i o u s ( φ θ ο ν β ρ ο ΰ καΐ βασκάνου)
since h e d o e s not want h u m a n s to k n o w g o o d and e v i l and be able to
4 3 5 4 3 6
c o n t i n u a l l y eat f r o m the tree o f l i f e . Plato taught that G o d d o e s n o h a r m .
Julian s e e s n o s u c h picture o f G o d in the scriptures o f the J e w s and Christians.
Certainly Julian i s a w a r e o f H e l l e n i s m ' s vulnerability. Christian a p o l o g i s t s
4 3 7
frequently attacked the G r e e k p o e t s ' v i e w s o f the g o d s . Julian w i l l c o n c e d e
4 3 1
C. Gal. 229c-230a (149,2-150,29 MAS. = III, 384-86 W R . ) . S e e COOK, Interpretation,
316-17.
4 3 2
Julian is willing to include Aristotle among his list o f acceptable figures, but that
philosopher's v i e w s on providence were not acceptable to Platonists such as Atticus w h o
classified Aristotle and Epicurus together (with regard to their rejection o f a terrestrial
providence). S e e Frag. Ep. 89b, 300d (1/2, 168,20 BlDEZ = II, 3 2 4 WR.). Atticus discusses
the subject in Fr. 3 (46,1-50,106 DES PLACES = Eus., P.E. 15.5.1-14). S e e also § 1.20.
4 3 3
Frag. Ep. 89b, 301a-b (1/2,168,23-169,5 BlDEZ = II, 324-26 WR.).
4 3 4
Frag. Ep. 89b (1/2,168 n.4 BlDEZ).
4 3 5
Cf. § 3.9.
436 p i t o , Resp. 379a-380b (God is not responsible for evil and does no evil to people);
a
391c-e (the gods do not beget evil).

4 3 7
O n e early example is the Apology of Aristides 8.1-11.7 (86-96; 120-23 V O N A ) w h o
enumerates at length the sins o f the gods. V O N A ' s extensive notes (of the parallels in
apologetic literature) show that the Greek poets' stories o f the gods were extraordinarily easy
prey for the Christians. What they did not expect was the response of authors such as Julian
to their o w n literature. Tatian, Oratio 8.2-10 gives another catalog o f the gods' sins and
begins it by noting that Zeus and the demons are the subject o f fate and human passions (PTS
4 3 , 1 9 , 1 0 - 2 1 , 4 6 MARCOVICH).
the errors o f the p o e t s , but h e finds the s a m e k i n d s o f errors i n the a n c i e n t

4 3 8
writings o f the J e w s and in the N T .
439
3 AS Isaiah, Mary, and Johannine Christology
After p r o d u c i n g a s e t o f t e x t s f r o m D e u t e r o n o m y t o p r o v e that John 1:1 is a

4 4 0
wrongheaded v i e w , Julian attacks the Christians' u s e o f Isaiah t o buttress
their understanding o f J e s u s as d i v i n e .
"But," say the Galilaeans, "it (John 1:1) agrees with the teachings o f Isaiah. For Isaiah
says, 'Behold the virgin ( π α ρ θ έ ν ο ς ) shall conceive and bear a son (Isa 7:14).'" N o w
4 4 1
granted that this is said about a g o d ( θ ε ο ύ ) though it is by no means s o stated; for a
married woman w h o before her conception had lain with her husband was no virgin, —
4 4 2
but let us admit that it is said about h i m , — does Isaiah anywhere say that a g o d will be
born o f the virgin? But w h y do y o u not cease to call Mary the mother o f God, if Isaiah
nowhere says that h e that is born o f the virgin is the "only begotten Son o f G o d (John
1:18)" and "the firstborn o f all creation (Col 1:15)"? But as for the saying o f John, "All
things were made by him; and without him w a s not any thing made that was made (John
1:3)," can anyone point this out among the utterances of the prophets? But n o w listen to
the sayings that I point out to y o u from those same prophets, one after another. "O Lord
our God, make us yours; w e know none other besides y o u (Isa 26:13)." And Hezekiah the
king has been represented by them as praying as follows: "O Lord God o f Israel, that sits
upon the Cherubim, y o u are G o d even you alone (Isa 37:16)." D o e s he leave any place
4 4 3
for the second g o d ?
Julian appears t o grant that the text m i g h t refer to a g o d a l t h o u g h this i s n o t

4 4 4
the clear s e n s e o f the text in I s a i a h . H e then q u e s t i o n s M a r y ' s virginity and
4 3 8
Some of these issues are discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 8-14.
4 3 9
S e e Origen, C. Cels. 7.9 (466,3-24 M A R C ) / COOK, Interpretation, 77-8.
4 4 0
§ 3.38.
4 4 1
MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 160, 3 2 reads "Jesus" (Ιησού) here. RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei
pagani, II § 2 2 5 agrees with the correction. "A god" is more difficult and hence left in the
text above in accordance with the M S S . Julian believed that Heracles w a s the offspring o f
Zeus and Athena w h o m he calls a virgin in Or. 7.14, 220a (II/l, 6 4 ROCHE. = II, 110 W R . ) .
On Athena the motherless virgin s e e Or. 7.22, 230a (II/l, 78 ROCHE. = II, 136 W R . ) . On the
possible connection to the N T virgin birth story see RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei pagani, II, 172.
Celsus lists a number o f Greco-Roman stories o f virgin births but apparently s h o w s n o
confidence in any of them in C. Cels. 1.37 (39,24-5 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation 3 0 - 3 1 .
4 4 2
NEUMANN, Iuliani, 214,9 emends the text to "her" (ταύτης).
4 4 3
C. Gal. 262c-e (160,29-43 M A S . = III, 398-400 W R . ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 3 0 2 /
D E LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 .
4 4 4
A linguist might say that the "sense" o f "son o f a virgin" is not "a god," but the
"reference" might b e . A simpler example would be Mark 1:2 in which the s e n s e o f
"messenger" is not "John the Baptist," although he is clearly the reference. S e e COOK,
324 3. Julian
argues that s h e w a s a married w o m a n w h o had lain w i t h her husband. T h i s is

e n o u g h to destroy his original c o n c e s s i o n , b e c a u s e in that c a s e the offspring
w o u l d not b e a g o d . T h e n h e appears w i l l i n g to grant another assumption:
the virgin m e n t i o n e d in the text is Mary and her offspring is Jesus. But
nothing is g a i n e d for the Christians because Isaiah d o e s not say that the s o n o f
a virgin is a g o d . In particular, Isaiah d o e s not u s e terms s u c h as t h o s e u s e d
by John 1:18 and C o l 1:15 to describe the offspring o f the virgin. In the next
fragment, Julian d e n i e s that a h u m a n b e i n g can g i v e birth to a g o d : " H o w
c o u l d s h e b e a r a g o d s i n c e s h e i s , a c c o r d i n g to y o u , a h u m a n b e i n g
445
(άνθρωπο9)?" T h i s s h o w s that Julian's original c o n c e s s i o n that Isa 7 : 1 4
might refer to a g o d is not e v e n a real possibility for him. Meredith c o n c l u d e s
that for Julian Isaiah "nowhere identifies the child to b e born with a g o d or
4 4 6
with G o d . " In Julian's reading, the texts from Isa 2 6 : 1 3 and 3 7 : 1 6 simply
shore up his position. N e s t l e points out that in Julian's v i e w , the O T passages
447
are in stark contradiction to the Christology o f John or C o l o s s i a n s . For
Julian, h i s u s e o f O T texts w a s a i m e d at "undermining the base o n w h i c h
448
Christian t h e o l o g y rests, that i s , the B i b l e . " Julian is unaware o f J e w i s h
attacks o n the C h r i s t i a n s ' u s e o f Isa 7 : 1 4 . J u s t i n ' s T r y p h o (and other
teachers) objects to the L X X translation (virgin) o f the H e b r e w text and notes
that the text should read, "Behold a y o u n g w o m a n (νεάνις) will conceive ..."
449
It actually refers to H e z e k i a h . G r e c o - R o m a n p h i l o s o p h e r s such as C e l s u s
and the p a g a n o p p o n e n t o f Macarius M a g n e s had trouble w i t h the Christians'
4 5 0
c o n c e p t o f a virgin birth o f Christ and often attacked i t .
Structure, 89-97 for the use of the concepts of sense and reference in ancient and modern
semantics.
4 4 5
C. Gal. 276e (161,3-4 MAS. = III, 4 0 0 W R . ) .
4 4 6
4 4 7
NESTLE, D i e Haupteinwande, 77.
4 4 8
ROKEAH, Jews, 163.
4 4 9
Justin, Dial. 4 3 . 8 , 67.1 ( 1 4 1 , 4 1 - 4 5 ; 184,1-3 M A R C ) . "Young w o m a n " is the
translation o f Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. S e e Iren., 3.21.1 (348,18-350,2
SAGNARD; Theodotion, Aquila, and the Ebionites translate as "young woman"). Origen
struggles with the same argument in C. Cels. 1.34 (36,1-14 M A R C ) and tries to defend the
L X X translation of Isa 7:14 (virgin) based on the erroneous argument that the Hebrew text of
Deut 22:22-26 contains the word Alma (άαλμά no^n). The Hebrew text of Isa 7:14 has
"Alma" — the crux of the argument between Christians and Jews. Unfortunately the
Christians had little knowledge of Hebrew. On the debate see also A. KAMESAR, The Virgin
of Isaiah 7,14: The Philological Argument from the Second to the Fifth Century, JThS 4 1 ,
1 9 9 0 , 5 1 - 7 5 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei pagani II, 203 / HENGEL, Septuagint, 23-31.
4 5 0
S e e COOK, Interpretation, 28-30, 238-39, 338 (on Celsus and the pagan of Macarius)
with reference to C. Cels. 1.28 (29,27-30,2 MARC) and Macarius Magnes, Monog. 4.22.1
(312,19-24 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 77). RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 2 0 4
4 5 1
Cyril a n s w e r s w i t h his Trinitarian e x e g e s i s o f the O T . H e d o e s not
immediately respond to Julian's e x e g e s i s o f Isa 7:14. H e d o e s , h o w e v e r , offer
an e x t e n s i v e d e f e n s e o f the c o n c e p t o f incarnation in his r e s p o n s e to the
f o l l o w i n g fragment f r o m Julian, w h i c h is i n c l u d e d b e l o w for the s a k e o f
clarity.
3.49 Mary, the Word of God, Isa 7:14, and Deut 32:39
Julian f o l l o w s his critique o f the Christians' use o f Isa 7:14 with an argument
that n o o n e born o f a h u m a n c o u l d b e God:
4 5 2
But if, as you believe, the Word ( λ ό γ ο ς ) is God born of G o d and proceeded from the
substance of the Father, why do you say that the virgin is mother of God? For how could
she bear a god since she is, according to you, a human being? And moreover, when God
declares plainly Ί am he, and there is none that can deliver beside me, (Deut 32:39)' do
453
you dare to call her son S a v i o r ?
Cyril defends the c o n c e p t o f the incarnation o f the word in the flesh, although
454
h e admits that it is b e y o n d h u m a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g . H e d o e s not e n g a g e
Julian in argument concerning Isa 7 : 1 4 , but h e d o e s c l a i m that Isaiah told the
4 5 5
g o o d n e w s about h i s a m a z i n g birth a c c o r d i n g to the f l e s h . H e g i v e s
e v i d e n c e that s o m e o f the H e l l e n e s admired the teaching o f the incarnation
4 5 6
and q u o t e s the p a s s a g e o f A m e l i u s that E u s e b i u s k n e w . In that text
A m e l i u s s h o w s admiration for the p r o l o g u e o f John. Cyril a l s o m a k e s the
interesting observation that e v e n though the followers o f Porphyry and Julian
laugh at Christian b e l i e f s , Porphyry b e l i e v e d in a race o f g o d s that c a n
transform t h e m s e l v e s into h u m a n b e i n g s for a time and Julian b e l i e v e d that
457
A s c l e p i u s appeared o n earth in human f o r m .
discusses other objections to the virgin birth (and incarnation) in antiquity such as those of
one of Volusianus'company in Aug., Ep. 135.2 (CSEL 4 4 , 9 1 , 1 1 - 9 GOLDBACHER).
4 5 1
See the summary above in § 3.38.
4 5 2
See § 3.33 above for the Nicene like formula.
4 5 3
C. Gal. 276e (161,1-6 M A S . = III, 4 0 0 W R . ) . The scripture quotation is similar to Deut
32:39. This text is also discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 302.
4 5 4
C. Jul. 8.280 (PG 7 6 , 9 2 9 a - c ) .
4 5 5
C. Jul. 8.282 (PG 76, 933b).
4 5 6
Eus., P. E., 11.18.26-11.19.1 (44,17-45,10 MRAS) cited in C. Jul. 8.283 (PG 7 6 , 936a-
b). One version of the text is in COOK, Interpretation, 149.
4 5 7
C. Jul. 8.288 (PG 7 6 , 941a-c). His reference to Julian is from C. Gal. 200a-b (140,2-
10 M A S . = III, 3 7 4 W R . ) . Cyril may be thinking of Porphyry's demons who can take bodily
forms in Porphyry, D e abst. 2.39.1-2 (II, 105 B./P.). See also Porphyry, Ep. ad Aneb. 2.3a,
2.6a, 2.7 (11,5-11; 15,3-9; 16,1-17,8 SODANO) discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 118.
326 3. Julian
3.50 Incubation and Isa 65:4
Julian u s e s the L X X version o f Isa 6 5 : 4 to attack the practice o f "incubation"

a m o n g the Christians, w h i c h h e apparently regards as o b j e c t i o n a b l e in any
c o n t e x t . After criticizing the Christians for c a l l i n g o n G o d around t o m b s
4 5 8
using Matt 2 3 : 3 7 and 8 : 2 1 , 2 2 , Julian writes:
Therefore, since this is so, why do you grovel among tombs? D o y o u wish to hear the
reason? It is not I w h o will tell you, but the prophet Isaiah: "They lodge among tombs
and in caves for the sake of dream visions (Isa 65:4)" ( ε ν ύ π ν ι α ) . Y o u observe, then, how
ancient among the Jews was this work of witchcraft ( μ α γ γ α ν ε ί α ς ) , namely, sleeping
among tombs for the sake of dream visions. And indeed it is likely that your apostles,
after their teacher's death, practiced this and handed it down to you from the beginning, I
mean to those w h o first adopted your faith, and that they themselves performed their
spells ( μ α γ γ α ν ε υ σ α ι ) more skillfully than you do, and displayed openly to those w h o
459
came after them the places in which they performed this witchcraft and a b o m i n a t i o n .
Julian a l s o criticized the A l e x a n d r i a n s for the practice o f w o r s h i p p i n g and

4 6 0
s l e e p i n g near the apex o f a fallen obelisk in the c i t y . H e d o e s not m a k e it
4 6 1
clear w h e t h e r the individuals are Christians or p a g a n s . C h r y s o s t o m tells o f
Christians w h o s l e e p near a p o o l in the s y n a g o g u e at D a p h n e , and although he
d o e s n o t say w h y , it is likely that they w e r e l o o k i n g for h e a l i n g (as in John
4 6 2
5 : l - 9 ) . Incubation w a s a practice usually intended for h e a l i n g as the m a n y
4 6 3
testimonies to A s c l e p i u s ' gifts o f dream v i s i o n s s h o w . Cyril d o e s not h a v e
C h r y s o s t o m ' s k n o w l e d g e o f the Christian a d o p t i o n o f s o m e o f the p a g a n
464
practices and d e n i e s that Christians u s e i n c u b a t i o n . H e a l s o s h o w s that
m a n y G r e e k s p r a c t i c e d d r e a m d i v i n a t i o n and that t o m b s w e r e l o c a t e d in
4 6 5
Greek t e m p l e s .
4 5 8
C . Gal. 335c (175,13-17 M A S . = III, 414-16 W R . ) . See COOK, Interpretation, 294.
4 5 9
C. Gal. 339e-340a (176,2-11 M A S . = Ι Π , 416-17 W R . ) .
4 6 0
Ep. 5 9 , 4 4 3 b (1/2, 67,16-68,13 BlDEZ= III, 152-54 W R . ) .
4 6 1
RlNALDl, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, 208 takes the reference to be pagans, but WRIGHT
( Ι Π , 154) mentions the possibility that Julian refers to Christian or Jewish ascetics.
4 6 2
Chrysostom, Adv. Iud. 1.6 (PG 4 8 , 852).
4 6 3
Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, ed. and trans. EMMA J.
EDELSTEIN/LUDWIG EDELSTEIN, Vol. 1-2, N e w York 1975 (rep. of 1945 ed). On the practice
in general see L. DEUBNER, D e incubatione capita quattuor, Leipzig 1900 / M . HAMILTON,
Incubation, o f the Cure of Disease in Pagan and Christian Churches, London 1906 / T. A.
2
BRADY/J. E. FONTENROSE, Incubation, O C D , 5 4 3 - 4 4 / F o x , Pagans and Christians, 150-53 /
§0.9.
4 6 4
C. Jul. 10.341 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 2 6 c , d ) .
4 6 5
C. Jul. 10.342-43 (PG 7 6 , 1 0 2 8 a - d ) . Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 294.
5.57 Rosea 11:1 and the Use of Prophecy in the NT
Julian w a s n o t i m p r e s s e d b y M a t t h e w ' s u s e o f p r o p h e c y t o m a k e s t a t e m e n t s
about the l i f e o f Christ. Jerome describes Julian's objection in this w a y :
" T h e w o r d s that w e r e w r i t t e n c o n c e r n i n g Israel, M a t t h e w t h e E v a n g e l i s t
( 2 : 1 5 ) transferred t o Christ, that h e m i g h t m o c k the s i m p l i c i t y (simplicitati...
4 6 6
illuderet) o f t h o s e o f the G e n t i l e s w h o b e l i e v e d . " T h e L X X h a s "I c a l l e d
h i s c h i l d r e n f r o m E g y p t , " but Julian apparently m a d e n o m e n t i o n o f its
d i v e r g e n c e from the H e b r e w text. Jerome, w h o records this fragment,
r e s p o n d s w i t h a t y p o l o g i c a l argument. H e first m e n t i o n s that M a t t h e w d i d not
m o c k the Gentiles, b e c a u s e he wrote his Gospel in H e b r e w for those w h o
c o u l d read it. T h e t h i n g s that are said in a t y p o l o g i c a l m a n n e r ( τ υ π ι κ ώ ς ) in
the scriptures refer i n truth and c o m p l e t i o n t o Christ. H e appeals to Paul's
467
allegory in G a l 4 : 2 2 - 2 6 in support o f his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
3.52 Sacrifice and Jerusalem
Julian w a s a w a r e that the J e w s c o u l d n o l o n g e r sacrifice in the t e m p l e , but h e

still w a s able to u s e that fact t o attack the Christians' for their departure f r o m
Jewish customs:
468
But now I had better remind y o u of what I said e a r l i e r , since on account of that I have
said this also. W h y is it, I repeat, that after deserting us you do not accept the law o f the
Jews or abide by the sayings of Moses? N o doubt some sharp-sighted person will answer,
"The Jews too d o not sacrifice." But I will convict him of being terribly dull-sighted, for
in the first place I reply that neither d o you also observe any one of the other customs
observed by the Jews (των παρά τ ο ι ς Ίουδαίοις νενομι,σμενων); and, secondly, that
the Jews do sacrifice in their o w n houses, and even to this day everything that they eat is
4 6 6
C. Gal. F . 101 ( 1 8 9 M A S . = III, 432-33 W R . ) = F . 15 (237 NEUMANN) from Jerome's
In Osee 3.11.1 (CChr.SL 7 6 , 121,57-61 ADRIAEN). Jerome identifies this fragment as coming
from book seven of the C. Gal. Probably he was mistaken since that work apparently only
had three books. Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 326. Cyril, in his dedication to Theodosius II,
writes that Julian's work comprises three books. S e e C. Jul., Proem.3 (PG 7 6 , 5 0 8 c = S C
3 2 2 , 1 0 6 , 1 5 - 1 6 B . / E . ) . The "three" in the text tradition is not certain. M S Monacensis 65 has
the number in the margin in a second scribal hand. Oecolampadius in his translation (based
on a lost M S of Capnio) has "three." Michael Glycas, Annales, IV (470, BEKKER) also has
"three" in his citation of Cyril. On the text evidence see BuRGlERE/6viEUX, Cyrille, 2 7 . Cp.
HARNACK, Porphyrius F . 5, a text in which Porphyry complains that the apostles misused
ancient testimonies to abuse simple and ignorant hearers. See the first paragraph o f § 2.2
above.
4 6 7
Jerome, In Osee III.xi.1 ( 1 2 1 , 6 1 - 1 2 2 , 8 1 ADRIAEN).
4 6 8
S e e C. Gal. 4 3 a (88,4-89,14 M A S . = ΙΠ, 3 2 0 W R . ) where Julian charges the Christians
with being neither Jews nor Greeks.
328 3. Julian
consecrated; and they pray before sacrificing (κατεύχονται προ τ ο υ θϋσαι), and give
the right shoulder to the priests as the first fruits (Deut 13:3-4); but since they have been
deprived of their temple, or, as they are accustomed to call it, their holy place, they are
prevented from offering the first fruits of the sacrifice to God. But why do you not
sacrifice, since you have invented your new kind of sacrifice and do not need Jerusalem at
all? And yet it was superfluous to ask you this question, since I said the same thing at the
beginning, when I wished to show that the Jews agree with the Gentiles, except that they
believe in only one God. That is indeed peculiar to them and strange to us; since all the
rest w e h a v e in a manner in c o m m o n with them — temples, sanctuaries, altars,
purifications ( ά γ ν β ΐ α ι ) , and certain precepts. For as to these w e differ from one another
469
either not at all or in trivial m a t t e r s .
P o s s i b l y Julian w a s aware o f J e w i s h k o s h e r practices. H e h a s m a d e m a n y

references a b o v e to J e w i s h sacrificial practices and the Christians' refusal to
4 7 0
take part in t h e m . H i s intention to rebuild the t e m p l e w a s w e l l k n o w n in
471
a n t i q u i t y . H e also criticized the Christian u n w i l l i n g n e s s to celebrate Jewish
feasts like P a s s o v e r in w h i c h t e m pl e sacrifice w a s not i n v o l v e d . E v e n if they
w o u l d n o t eat o f the P a s s o v e r l a m b they c o u l d h a v e e a t e n the u n l e a v e n e d
472
b r e a d . That k i n d o f feast is probably what h e intends b y the c o n t i n u e d
J e w i s h practice o f "sacrifice" in the h o m e . Julian is aware o f the rich variety
in J e w i s h ritual and m a y h a v e e v e n k n o w n o f practices such as the mikvaot —
i m m e r s i o n p o o l s . T e x t s s u c h as L e v 15 w i t h their elaborate purification
c e r e m o n i e s w e r e probably available to h i m — e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e h e k n e w L e v
4 7 3
16 .
Cyril d e n i e s that G o d still w a n t s the sacrifice o f flesh and b l o o d and
affirms that Christians bring pleasant sacrifices to G o d . B e f o r e m a k i n g his
usual t y p o l o g i c a l d e f e n s e o f his position, h e appeals to Porphyry to argue that
474
e v e n the H e l l e n i c g o d s w e r e not p l e a s e d w i t h b l o o d y s a c r i f i c e s . H e a l s o
475
calls o n texts critical o f sacrifice such as P s 3 9 : 7 - 9 , Jer 6 : 2 0 , and H o s 6 : 6 .
4 7 6
W h i c h is better, h e asks, animal sacrifice, or the virtues o f the s o u l . T h e
477
Christians h a v e m o v e d from the types to the truth, from s h a d o w to b e a u t y .
4 6 9
C. Gal. 305d-306b (166,2-167,21 MAS. = III, 406-408 W R . ) .
4 7 0
See for example § 3 . 1 1 , 1 6 .
4 7 1
§ 3.44.
4 7 2
4 7 3
§ 3.31.
4 7 4
C. Jul. 9.306-307 (PG 7 6 , 972b-d). Cyril uses Porphyry, D e abst. 2.27.6-7, 2.58.1,
2.58.4 (11,94,120-21 B./P.)
4 7 5
C. Jul. 9.309 (PG 76, 976b-c).
4 7 6
C. Jul. 9.310 (PG 76, 977a). He also calls on Porphyry (who argues that it is wrong to
sacrifice with an impure soul) in D e abst. 2.19.4-5 (Π, 87 B./P.).
4 7 7
C. Jul. 9.313 (PG 7 6 , 9 8 1 c - 9 8 4 a ) . See also MALLEY, Hellenism, 353-57.
3.53 Sacrifice in Hellenism, Judaism, and Christianity
Cyril s u m m a r i z e s J u l i a n ' s p o s i t i o n w i t h regard t o the C h r i s t i a n s ' r e j e c t i o n o f

sacrificial practices in Judaism and H e l l e n i s m . A l t h o u g h the words are
probably n o t a quotation they e x p r e s s Julian's thoughts o n the matter:
... H e says that the behavior o f the Christians ( τ ά Χριστιανών) does not agree with the
laws o f M o s e s nor d o they consider it suitable to live according to the customs o f the Jews
(τοις Ιουδαίων ε θ ε σ ι ) , and indeed the customs of the Greeks are in accord with theirs.
He says that these [the Jews] and the others do not live under different customs and laws
— but rather the same, except in t w o or scarcely three cases — namely not recognizing
4 7 8
other gods and t h e i r practice o f what is called hepatoscopic sacrifice; while for the rest
he maintains that both have the other things indistinguishably in common. A m o n g the
Jews circumcision is most honored (άριστον). A l s o the most holy ones o f the Egyptian
temples and in addition to these the Chaldeans and the Saracenes d o not consider it
unacceptable. H e says that certain forms o f sacrifice are honored equally such as: first
479
fruits ( ά π α ρ χ ά ς ) ; holocausts ( ό λ ο κ α υ τ ι σ μ ο ύ ς ) ; peace o f f e r i n g s ( ο μ ο λ ο γ ί α ς ) ; thank
4 8 0
offerings; and as it seems to him, sacrifices to give honor ( τ ι μ η τ ή ρ ι α ) , purifications
481 4 8 2
(καθαρισμούς); and sacrifices for i g n o r a n c e (αγνοίας)
T h e c h a r g e that Christians are neither J e w s nor G r e e k s i s o l d and appears in

4 8 3
P o r p h y r y ' s w o r k a g a i n s t the Christians. Julian a l s o m a d e u s e o f i t . Celsus'
J e w i s h a n t a g o n i s t o f Christianity a l s o a c c u s e s Christians o f a b a n d o n i n g their
4 8 4
J e w i s h ancestral l a w . C e l s u s s e e s the Christians as r e b e l s a g a i n s t J e w i s h
4 8 5
and G r e e k tradition a n d s o c i e t y . P o r p h y r y c r i t i c i z e d t h e C h r i s t i a n s for
attacking G r e c o - R o m a n sacrificial traditions ( t e m p l e s , altars, i n c e n s e ) e v e n
t h o u g h t h e y k n e w that t h e first fruits w e r e an o l d J e w i s h tradition (Deut
4 7 8
I.e. the Greeks.
4 7 9
MASARACCHIA refers to Thuc. 4.65.2 and translates "for pacts" (Giuliano, 2 3 6 , 2 7 4 ) .
In that text the Athenians and Sicilians make offerings for peace or drink offerings ( σ π ο ν δ α ί )
and also a treaty or peace agreement (όμολογίαν).
4 8 0
Julian, Or. 8.17, 176d, 177a (II/l, 126 ROCHE. = I, 4 9 2 , 4 9 4 W R . ) . ROCHEFORT notes
that the use o f the word for sacrifices o f honor is unique to Julian (II/1, 1 8 4 ROCHE.).
WRIGHT translates with "sacrifices w e honor."
4 8 1
MASARACCHIA ( 1 6 4 , 1 3 ) reads "purifications" ( ά γ ν ε ί α ς ) here (with NEUMANN) and
translates the preceding expression as "expiations." The fact that Levitical sacrifices are for
sins done unwillingly or in ignorance does not support her position (Lev 4:2, 23). Julian may
well have been aware o f this text. The M S S support the reading above. Julian does use the
word "purification" ( ά γ ν ε ί α ς ) for a ritual in Or. 8 . 1 7 , 1 7 7 a (II/l, 126 ROCHE. = 1,494 W R . ) .
4 8 2
C. Gal, F . 6 9 = C. Jul. 9.298 (164,3-14 M A S . = PG 7 6 , 9 5 7 b - c ) .
4 8 3
S e e § 3.41 above for the reference to Porphyry. Cp. C. Gal. 4 3 a (88,4-89,14 M A S . =
III, 320 W R . ) for another charge that Christians are neither Jews nor Greeks.
484 origen, C. Cels. 2.4 (79,20-1.23-5 M A R C ) . Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 7 3 .
^ O r i g e n , C. Cels. 3 . 5 , 14; 5 . 3 3 ; 8.49 ( 1 5 6 , 8 - 1 1 ; 162,11; 3 4 7 , 1 5 - 9 ; 5 6 4 , 7 - 8 M A R C ) .
Cp. COOK, Interpretation, 89.
330 3. Julian
486
1 8 : 4 ) . Julian k n e w that first fruits, h o l o c a u s t s or burnt offerings ( E x o d
2 9 : 2 5 , L e v 6 : 2 ) , offerings at the day o f a t o n e m e n t or purification ( E x o d
2 9 : 3 6 , TTJ ήμερα τ ο υ κ α θ α ρ ι σ μ ο ύ ) , and purification offerings ( e . g . L e v
12:1-8) w e r e an integral part o f Israelite tradition and had b e e n thoroughly
a b a n d o n e d b y the Christians. Julian regards c i r c u m c i s i o n as o f E g y p t i a n
4 8 7
origin and c e n s u r e s the Christians for a b a n d o n i n g i t . H e k n e w that
e x a m i n a t i o n o f the liver or h e p a t o s c o p i c sacrifice w a s not a c c e p t e d in either
488
J e w i s h or Christian t r a d i t i o n . Cyril d e n i e s that Julian has understood the
489
s c r i p t u r e s . In another c o n t e x t h e argued that Christians fulfill the l a w
490
intellectually and spiritually .
3.54 Julian's Identification of the God of Israel
It is not entirely clear h o w Julian fit the G o d o f Israel into his pantheon.
M e r e d i t h a r g u e s that Julian i d e n t i f i e d the J e w i s h G o d as s u p r e m e and
4 9 1
sectional at the s a m e t i m e . Hargis argues that Julian b e l i e v e d the b a s i c
contradiction in Judaism and Christianity w a s that G o d w a s both "universal
492
and particular." B e l o w I will r e v i e w a number o f texts that are relevant to
the question. T h e y w i l l s h o w the ambiguity o f Julian's thinking o n the topic.
3.54.1 Julian's Neo-Platonic Triad

First, to establish Julian's probable classification o f the H e b r e w s ' G o d , it will
be useful to briefly sketch his picture o f divine reality in his Hymn to King
Helios. Julian b e l i e v e s in three "suns." T h e h i g h e s t b e i n g is K i n g o f the
c o s m o s , the idea o f being, the O n e , and Plato's G o o d . B e i n g is the intelligible
or noetic ( ν ο η τ ό ν ) region. S e c o n d is H e l i o s w h o proceeds from the O n e and
w h o has d o m i n i o n a m o n g the intellectual or noeric g o d s ( v o e p o t s θ ε ο ΐ ς ) .
T h e v i s i b l e sun is third and g i v e s b l e s s i n g s to the v i s i b l e g o d s (the stars).
H e l i o s e x i s t s in the noeric or intellectual region. T h e O n e is in the noetic
4 8 6
§2.2.11.
4 8 7
§3.19.
4 8 8
Ezek 21:26 L X X (ET 21:21) and Eus., D.E. 5.Proem.29 (208,21 HEIKEL).
4 8 9
C. Jul. 9.298 (PG 7 6 , 9 5 7 c - d ) .
4 9 0
§ 3.37.
4 9 1
MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1143. BOUFFARTIGUE (L'empereur Julien, 160) argues that for
Julian, the Hebrews confuse their national god with the God of the universe. SCHAFER,
Judeophobia, 4 7 - 9 thinks that for Julian the demiurge [the Jewish God] is not the supreme
being of Neoplatonism.
4 9 2
HARGIS, Against the Christians, 119.
493
r e g i o n . John F i n a m o r e writes: "The O n e is, in short, the ruler o f the noetic
r e a l m , j u s t as H e l i o s is o f the n o e r i c and the v i s i b l e s u n o f the v i s i b l e
494 495
realm." H e l i o s (in the noeric realm) is the D e m i u r g e or C r e a t o r . H e
496
generates the w o r l d o f s e n s e p e r c e p t i o n . In his Hymn to the Mother of the
Gods, Julian introduces C y b e l e (the Great Mother) w h o brings forth and is
497
also the s p o u s e o f Z e u s ( H e l i o s ) , the great D e m i u r g e . Finamore c o n c e i v e s
o f C y b e l e in Julian's s y s t e m as an emanation from the noetic realm to H e l i o s '
498
r e a l m . Attis i s , h o w e v e r , the i m m e d i a t e creator o f the material w o r l d (o
4 9 9
π ρ ο σ ε χ ώ ς δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ώ ν τ ο ν evvkov κ ό σ μ ο ν ) . S i n c e A t t i s is a n o e r i c
(intellectual) g o d , h e is under the rule o f H e l i o s . H e is thus H e l i o s ' creative
500
activity .
3.542 Helios in the Contra Galilaeos

What c o m p l i c a t e s matters is that Julian d o e s not clearly distinguish the noeric
(intellectual) and n o e t i c (intelligible) g o d s in the C. Gal. Masaracchia argues
that Julian directed h i s tractate against the Christians to the p e r s o n in the
street w h o w o u l d not b e interested in the metaphysical s y s t e m o f the Hymn to
King Helios. Julian c o n s e q u e n t l y w a n t e d to u s e ideas that w o u l d s e r v e his
501
purposes and b e a c c e p t e d as p r o o f s . In o n e p a s s a g e in the C. Gal, Julian
mentions the v i s i b l e sun, m o o n , and stars and continues:
The sun which is visible to our e y e s is the likeness of the intelligible and invisible sun
(του νοητού και μή φαινομένου), and again the moon which is visible to our e y e s and
every one of the stars are likenesses of the intelligible (των νοητών). Accordingly Plato
knows of those intelligible and invisible gods which are immanent in and coexist with the
creator himself and were begotten and proceeded from him. Naturally, therefore the
creator in Plato's account says "gods" when he is addressing the invisible beings and "of
gods," meaning by this, evidently, the visible gods. And the c o m m o n creator of both
4 9 3
Or. 11.5-6, 132c-133c (II/2, 103-04 LAC. = I, 358-62 W R . ) . Julian appeals to Plato,
Resp. 508b to support his imagery.
4 9 4
J. F I N A M O R E , Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul, American
Philological Association. American Classical Studies 14, Chico, C A 1 9 8 5 , 1 3 5 .
4 9 5
Or. 11.26,146b-c (II/2,121-22 LAC. = I, 398 WR.).
4 9 6
Or. 11.17,141b-c (II/2,115 LAC. = I, 384 W R . ) .
4 9 7
Julian, Or. 8 . 6 , 1 6 6 a (II/l, 112 ROCHE. = 1,462 W R . ) .
4 9 8
FINAMORE, Iamblichus, 141.
4 9 9
Julian, Or. 8 . 1 5 , 1 7 5 a (II/l, 124 ROCHE. = 1,489 WR.).
5 0 0
Julian, Or. 8.5, 165d (II/l, 112 ROCHE. = I, 4 6 2 W R . ) . Cf. FINAMORE, Iamblichus,
141.
5 0 1
MASARACCHIA, Aspetti, 97. WRIGHT also notes that Julian does not distinguish the
two (noeric and noetic) in the C. Gal (III, 336 n.3 W R . ) .
332 3. Julian
these is he who fashioned the heavens and the earth and the sea and the stars, and begat in
502
the intelligible world the archetypes of t h e s e .
Julian has quoted large excerpts o f Plato's Timaeus to g i v e his o w n picture o f

503
c r e a t i o n . It is difficult to argue (with Masaracchia) that the text is directed
only, therefore, to the "man o n the street" w h o w o u l d not b e interested in the
t h e o l o g i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e s o f Julian's s y s t e m . S i n c e Julian w a s s o w i l l i n g to
m a k e u s e o f Platonic texts, surely h e c o u l d e x p e c t his a u d i e n c e to k n o w that
the D e m i u r g e w a s not equivalent to the G o o d — the ultimate transcendent
504
reality o f N e o - P l a t o n i s m . C e l s u s w a s a l s o u n w i l l i n g to c o n c e d e that the
Platonic G o d w a s anything like the G o d o f the Christians, and his G o d is
505
b e y o n d all d e s c r i p t i o n . Julian is not primarily c o n c e r n e d w i t h identifying
the H e b r e w s ' G o d , but h e d o e s h a v e great concerns w i t h the w a y s that the
H e b r e w s c o n c e i v e d o f G o d , as the a b o v e texts s h o w .
3.543 Beings Superior to the God of Israel?

A g o o d e x a m p l e o f the ambiguity is a text quoted a b o v e (§ 3.2) w h e r e Julian
writes: " M o s e s i n d e e d has said nothing w h a t s o e v e r about b e i n g s w h o are
superior to this o n e (υπέρ γάρ τ ω ν α ν ω τ έ ρ ω τ ο ύ τ ο υ ) , nay, h e has not e v e n
5 0 6
ventured t o say anything about the nature o f the a n g e l s . " N o w , if o n e
a s s u m e s that the manuscripts are w r o n g then the t e x t c o u l d read either:
M o s e s has said nothing about a b e i n g w h o is superior to this o n e ; or, M o s e s
has said nothing about the higher (or highest) being. Masaracchia argues that
the first o p t i o n w o u l d contradict the s i m p l e , p r o p a g a n d i s t s a i m o f Julian's
work. T h e "person o n the street" w o u l d k n o w n o t h i n g o f s u c h a B e i n g .
A l t h o u g h M o s e s describes the creative activity o f his G o d , h e says absolutely
5 0 7
nothing about his nature and p o w e r s . Masaracchia's argument in this c a s e
is w e a k s i n c e a reader w h o can deal w i t h the p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o m p l e x i t i e s o f
Julian's l a n g u a g e in the C. Gal. w o u l d h a v e little difficulty interpreting the
phrase as "a b e i n g higher than this creator o f M o s e s . " T h e fact that Cyril also
interprets Julian this w a y s h o w s that o n either reading o f the article (singular
5 0 8
or plural), Julian is probably referring to a G o d higher than that o f M o s e s .
Last there is n o c o m p e l l i n g reason to e m e n d the text as M a s a r a c c h i a did.
Cyril is not interested in any other b e i n g s w h o m i g h t b e higher than M o s e s '
creator ( s u c h as C y b e l e ) , but in the first and h i g h e s t G o d . Julian's point is
5 0 2
C . Gal. 65b-c (97,6-15 M A S . = III, 336-38 W R . ) .
5 0 3
see § 3.4.
5 0 4
S e e also the Neo-Platonic trinity in § 2.1.4.
5 0 5
COOK, Interpretation, 100-101.
5 0 6
Julian, C. Gal. 96c (107,5-7 M A S . = ΠΙ, 328 W R . ) .
5 0 7
MASARACCHIA, Aspetti, 97-8.
5 0 8
See the reference above in § 3.2 from C . Iul. 3 . 9 7 , 9 8 (PG 7 6 , 6 4 8 c , 649c).
that M o s e s has n o t said o n e thing about the S u p r e m e B e i n g and any other

principle superior to the H e b r e w Creator.
3.54.4 The Hebrews' God is Confined

Julian can b e e x t r e m e l y critical about the narrowness o f the G o d o f Israel. In
a text quoted a b o v e (§ 3 . 2 1 ) h e stated:
It is natural to think that the God of the Hebrews was not the begetter of the whole
universe with lordship over the whole, but rather, as I said before, that he is confined
within limits, and that since his empire has bounds w e must conceive of him as one of the
5 0 9
crowd of other g o d s .
It is important n o t to d i s c o u n t this p a s s a g e , e v e n t h o u g h in the c o r p u s o f

Julian's w r i t i n g s h e is u s u a l l y w i l l i n g to identify I s r a e l ' s G o d w i t h the
Creator/Demiurge of Neo-Platonism. The comment just quoted f o l l o w s
5 1 0
Julian's critical a n a l y s i s o f the e l e c t i o n o f Israel in E x o d u s . S u c h a
historically active G o d w a s questionable in his e y e s , and s o h e finds it correct
to surmise that the H e b r e w s ' G o d is a narrow g o d restricted to a geographical
s p a c e — like o n e o f the national g o d s ( ε θ ν ά ρ χ η ς τ ι ς θ ε ό ς ) o f individual
511
nations that h e o c c a s i o n a l l y m e n t i o n s . N e u m a n n puts the text in question
i m m e d i a t e l y after this c o m m e n t o f Julian: "For if h e is the G o d o f all o f us
5 1 2
alike and the creator o f all ( π ά ν τ ω ν δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ό ς ) , w h y did h e n e g l e c t u s ? "
H e then f o l l o w s the q u o t e with: "Then are w e to pay further h e e d to y o u
b e c a u s e y o u or o n e o f your stock i m a g i n e d the G o d o f the universe, though in
any c a s e y o u attained o n l y to a bare c o n c e p t i o n ( ψ ι λ ή ς ... έ ν ν ο ι α ς ) o f
5 1 3
Him?" Julian grudgingly admits that the Hebrews have the bare c o n c e p t i o n
o f G o d that i s c o m m o n to all humans by nature. This " c o m m o n c o n c e p t i o n "
(κοινή ... έ ν ν ο ι α ) o f G o d is a c l a i m h e had m a d e at the b e g i n n i n g o f the
514
t r e a t i s e . It b y n o m e a n s w o u l d set the H e b r e w s apart f r o m any other
culture s i n c e all p e o p l e h a v e a b a s i c untaught c o n c e p t i o n o f the d e i t y .
Julian's w i l l i n g n e s s to call the G o d o f Israel the " D e m i u r g e " or creator is not
5 0 9
Julian, C. Gal. 100c (110,34-7 MAS. = III, 344 WR.).
5 1 0
See § 3.21 above.
5 1 1
C. Gal. 143a-e (121,3-122,7 MAS. = III, 354-56 W R . ) . See § 3.14 above.
5 1 2
NEUMANN, Iuliani, 178,12-3 = 112,22-3 MAS. = III, 3 4 4 W R . See § 3.55 for the
context.
5 1 3
C. Gal. 106e (112,23-7 MAS. = III, 344 W R . ) . See § 3.27 above for the context.
5 1 4
C. Gal. 52b (93,3-15 M A S . = III, 320 W R . ) . The language is probably Stoic. See S V F
2.1009 (299,10; 300,5) for a conception of God based on nature; and 2.473 (154,29-30) for
"common conceptions" (κοινών ε ν ν ο ι ώ ν ) that are criteria of truth. They also help
distinguish good and evil in S V F 3.218 = Origen, C. Cels. 8.52 (II, 5 6 7 , 1 7 - 9 M A R C ) . See
CHADWICK, Origen, 8 n.6 and § 1.28.3 / RIEDWEG, Mit Stoa, 64-6. Julian's thesis is also
universal in Greek culture. Cf. MASARACCHIA, Giuliano, 199 / COOK, Logic, 498-500.
334 3. Julian
n e w in N e o - P l a t o n i c tradition. Porphyry and Julian's teacher Iamblichus also

5 1 5
did .
3.54.5 Creator God or Guardian?

In Julian's e y e s the G o d o f Israel is an a m b i g u o u s b e i n g — either like o n e o f
the kindly guardians w h o w a t c h e s over a nation or the creator o f the c o s m o s :
But consider whether God has not given to us also gods and kindly guardians (προστάτας
α γ α θ ο ύ ς ) of whom you have no knowledge, gods in no way inferior to him who from the
beginning has been held in honor among the Hebrews of Judea, the only land that he
chose to take thought for, as M o s e s declared and those w h o came after him, down to our
own time. But even if he who is honored among the Hebrews really was the immediate
creator of the universe (ό π ρ ο σ ε χ ή ς ε ϊ η του κόσμου δ η μ ι ο υ ρ γ ό ς ) , our beliefs about
him are higher than theirs, and he has bestowed on us greater blessings than on them, with
respect both to the soul and to externals. Of these, however, I shall speak a little later.
Moreover, he sent to us also lawgivers not inferior to Moses, if indeed many of them were
516
not far s u p e r i o r .
Julian is clearly w i l l i n g to c o n c e d e that the H e b r e w G o d is universal. O n the

other h a n d h e m i g h t b e the purely national divinity that h e s e e s in e l e c t i o n
texts s u c h as D e u t 4 : 2 0 . H e is apparently u n w i l l i n g t o confront texts such as
E x o d 1 9 : 4 - 6 w h e r e all the earth is G o d ' s and w h e r e G o d a l s o c h o o s e s Israel
as a s p e c i a l p o s s e s s i o n . H i s argument that the b e n e f i t s the R o m a n s and
G r e e k s h a v e r e c e i v e d from G o d are greater than t h o s e o f the H e b r e w s is
5 1 7
e x t e n s i v e and will o n l y b e summarized b e l o w .
C y r i l ' s r e s p o n s e is quite important here b e c a u s e it g i v e s a N e o - P l a t o n i c
reading o f Julian. H e d e a l s w i t h the i s s u e o f the guardians b y a s k i n g a
question about w h y Scythians are s o inhumane and w h y Persians marry their
mothers if Julian's theory is true. S u c h guardians c o u l d not b e "kind." M o r e
crucially, Cyril interprets Julian's phrase "immediate creator" to i m p l y that
Julian and others b e l i e v e d in a higher principle — P l a t o ' s G o o d that is
u n m o v e d and b e y o n d any concern for the daily l i v e s o f h u m a n s . Julian, for
Cyril,
... therefore places the immediate creator of the cosmos in a second order and nature from
the first. They put the Good before him (the creator), and say that it does not move
(άτρεμεΐν); and keeping away any care ( τ η ς έν ήμιν φ ρ ο ν τ ι δ ο ς ) for us [from the
5 1 5
See § 2.1.3 and Iamblichus apud Lydus, D e mensibus 4.53 = STERN II, § 467: "Those
who follow Iamblichus, Syrianus, and Proclus believe him [the God honored by the Jews] to
be the Demiurge and call him the 'four element* God." Cp. also STERN II, 567.
5 1 6
C. Gal. 141c-d (120,5-14 MAS. = III, 354 WR.).
5 1 7
Mentioned below in § 3.56.
Good], they conceive of a second God whom they call "immediate" with relation to the
518
created b e i n g s .
Cyril reads Julian f r o m his k n o w l e d g e o f the N e o - P l a t o n i c triad: the O n e , the

5 1 9
D e m i u r g e , and the W o r l d S o u l . H e also is aware of Porphyry's
5 2 0
interpretation o f P l a t o ' s G o o d as a self existent b e i n g . It is not difficult to
a s s u m e that Julian e x p e c t e d that an intelligent reader o f the C. Gal. w o u l d b e
aware that the D e m i u r g e w a s not identical with the ultimate reality o f Plato.
N o t o n l y d o e s h e not identify the G o d o f Israel with this ultimate reality, but
h e a l s o calls into q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r o n e should e v e n identify H i m w i t h the
Creator o f H e l l e n i s m . Linguistically and culturally, Julian's u s e o f the w o r d
"immediate" i m p l i e s that there is a higher b e i n g (in C y r i l ' s interpretation).
Cyril is probably correct. Julian's description (quoted a b o v e ) o f Attis as an
521
" i m m e d i a t e creator" c l i n c h e s C y r i l ' s a r g u m e n t . T h e r e are c e r t a i n l y
principles a b o v e A t t i s in Julian's s y s t e m , and e v e n though all readers o f his
text w o u l d not catch the implication, a philosophically m i n d e d reader w o u l d .
Cyril is proof o f that.
3.54.6 The Hebrews' God in the Pyramid Structure of Polytheism

Julian a s s u m e s that e v e n if h e c o n c e d e s that M o s e s ' G o d is the D e m i u r g e , the
Hellenic beliefs about G o d are far superior to those o f the H e b r e w s :
If the immediate creator of the universe be he who is proclaimed by Moses, then w e hold
nobler beliefs concerning him, inasmuch as w e consider him to be the master of all things
in general, but that there are besides national gods (έθνάρχας) who are subordinate to him
and are like viceroys of a king (ύπαρχοι βασιλέως), each administering separately his
own province; and, moreover, w e do not make him the sectional rival of the gods whose
station is subordinate to his. But if Moses first pays honor to a sectional god ( μ ε ρ ι κ ό ν
τ ι ν α ) and then makes the lordship of the whole universe contrast with his power, then it is
better to believe as w e do, and to recognize the God of the All, though not without
apprehending also the God of Moses; this is better, I say, than to honor one who has been
522
assigned the lordship over a very small portion, instead of the creator of all t h i n g s .
Earlier I quoted a text in w h i c h Julian claims that M o s e s taught there w a s only

o n e G o d , but that h e h a s m a n y s o n s w h o d i v i d e d the n a t i o n s a m o n g
t h e m s e l v e s (§ 3 . 2 2 ) . That pyramid structure is characteristic o f G r e c o - R o m a n
culture's v i e w o f the pantheon. Figures as diverse as Ps. Aristotle, M a x i m u s
5 1 8
C. Jul. 4.141-42 (PG 76, 717b-720b). On Cyril's response to Julian's thesis about the
guardians and the "immediate" creator see also MALLEY, Hellenism, 292-93.
5 1 9
See also § 2 . 1 . 4
5 2 0
SMITH, Porphyrii, 223F = C. Jul. 1.32 (PG 7 6 , 5 5 2 b - c = SC 3 2 2 , 1 9 6 , 1 0 - 2 7 B./E.).
5 2 1
§3.54.1.
5 2 2
C. Gal. 148b-c (124,1-12 MAS. = III, 358 W R . ) . On polytheism see also § 3.22 above.
336 3. Julian
5 2 3
o f T y r e , and Plotinus adhered to i t . Pagan intellectuals s u c h as Macarius'
p h i l o s o p h e r f o u n d their p a n t h e o n very c l o s e to the Christian c o n c e p t o f a
supreme G o d with subordinate angels and s a w n o difference other than o n e o f
w o r d s ("gods" as o p p o s e d to "angels"). In addition M a c a r i u s ' pagan n o t e d
524
that the L X X u s e d the w o r d " g o d s " with great f r e q u e n c y . Julian probably
is aware that M o s e s c o n c e i v e s o f G o d as the d e m i u r g e ( s i n c e h e creates the
u n i v e r s e in G e n 1; § 3 . 3 ) , but Julian's abhorrence for the c o n c e p t i o n o f the
e l e c t i o n o f Israel b y the G o d o f the universe renders h i m unable to d e c i d e
w h i c h is true: Is the H e b r e w G o d universal, the creator o f all, or is h e o n e
a m o n g m a n y sectional divinities? Julian w o u l d n o t say that the p r o b l e m is
with his o w n thinking. For h i m the problem is built into the structure o f the
5 2 5
LXX .
For Cyril there is n o such conceptual problem, and h e s i m p l y affirms that
M o s e s ' G o d is the G o d o f the universe. H e quotes part o f E x o d 3 3 : 1 - 6 , 12-7
to m a k e the point that G o d h i m s e l f guided the children to Israel to the land o f
526
p r o m i s e . In a s e n s e Cyril d o e s m a k e a c o n c e s s i o n to Julian. M a l l e y writes
that for Cyril, "The p u r p o s e o f the incarnation w a s to free m e n f r o m the
527
b o n d a g e o f the d e m o n s w h o had distributed m e n a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s . " Such
a c o n c e s s i o n ( p e o p l e are under d e m o n i c d o m i n a t i o n ) w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o l d
comfort to Julian.
3.54.7 God and his Other Names

Julian a b a n d o n s w h a t h e s e e s at the L X X ' s a m b i g u i t y about G o d ' s identity
528
w h e n h e writes a letter to the "high priest" T h e o d o r u s :
But these Jews are in part god-fearing, seeing that they revere a god w h o is truly most
5 2 9
powerful and most good (δυνατώτατον και ά γ α θ ώ τ α τ ο ν ) and governs this world of
sense, and, as I well know, is worshipped by us also under other names. They act as is
right and seemly, in my opinion, if they do not transgress the laws; but in this one thing
they err in that, while reserving their deepest devotion for their o w n god, they do not
5 2 3
Ps. Aristotle, D e mundo 6, 398a,l-398b,10 (82-85 LORIMER); Maximus of Tyre, Diss.
11.5 ( 9 1 , 7 6 - 7 9 T R . ) ; Plotinus, Ennead. 2.9.9 (I, 2 1 6 , 3 0 - 2 1 7 , 5 9 H./S.). Cp. COOK,
Interpretation, 96-7. MASARACCHIA gives many more examples (Giuliano, 213).
5 2 4
Macarius, Magnes, Monog. 4 . 2 0 ( - 2 1 a ) . l - 5 . 4 . 2 1 b . l - 5 , 4.23.1-3 (II, 308,19-310,14;
3 1 0 , 1 5 - 3 1 2 , 1 8 ; 3 1 4 , 1 - 1 7 GOULET = H A R N A C K , Porphyrius, F. 7 5 , 7 6 , 7 8 ) discussed in
COOK, Interpretation, 234-41. See also § 3 . 1 2 , 2 2 , 2 6 , 4 1 .
5 2 5
On this issue see also MEREDITH, Porphyry, 1143.
5 2 6
C. Jul. 4 . 1 4 8 - 4 9 (PG 7 6 , 728c-729a). On Cyril's response see further MALLEY,
Hellenism, 3 2 0 - 2 1 ;
5 2 7
MALLEY, Hellenism, 407. See C. Jul. 4.150 (PG 7 6 , 7 2 9 c ) .
528 WRIGHT notes that this office was often given to rich laymen, so that Theodorus may
not have been a priest (III, lxi W R . ) .
5 2 9
WRIGHT notes a similar phrase (great and powerful) in C. Gal. 354b (181,8-13 M A S . =
III, 358 W R . ) where Julian writes that he worships the God of Abraham. See § 3.16 above.
conciliate the other g o d s also; but the other g o d s they think have been allotted
(άποκβκληρώσθαι) to us Gentiles only, to such a pitch of folly have they been brought by
530
their barbaric c o n c e i t .
Julian's critique of the first t w o c o m m a n d m e n t s is consistent w i t h his v i e w s

here (§ 3 . 2 5 ) . Varro argued that n a m e s w e r e unimportant and identified
m
Israel's G o d w i t h Jupiter (Iovem) . P s . Aristotle a l s o argues that G o d has
5 3 2
m a n y n a m e s . C e l s u s accepted it as a g i v e n . H e s e e s n o difference whether
o n e calls the G o d o f all " Z e u s " or an Indian n a m e , or an Egyptian n a m e , or
533
" Z e n " . In this letter to a friend Julian is not c o n c e r n e d w i t h p r o b l e m s in
O T interpretation. H e i g n o r e s the i s s u e o f whether the G o d o f Israel is a
narrow, s e c t i o n a l d i v i n i t y or not. O n e c a n probably a s s u m e that this is
Julian's fundamental p o s i t i o n — n a m e l y , that Israel's G o d is the ruler o f all
sensible reality. D e s p i t e his anger with the e x c l u s i v e religion o f the J e w s , h e
534
d o e s not attempt to rank Israel's G o d with a lesser national d i v i n i t y .
y
3.54.8 God and Julian s Reign
535
In a letter w h o s e authenticity is still d e b a t e d , Julian m a k e s a reference to
the G o d o f Israel. H e w a n t s the s e l f - i m p o s e d tax to b e a b o l i s h e d that
5 3 6
supported the patriarch o f the J e w s . H e wants this,
... so that everywhere, during my reign, you may have security of mind, and in the
enjoyment of peace may offer more fervid prayers for my reign to the Most High God the
Creator (τψ πάντων κρείττονι καΐ δημιουργφ θεφ), w h o has deigned to crown m e
5 3 7
with his o w n immaculate right hand
A s s u m i n g the authenticity o f the text, Stern explains the ambivalent attitude

o f Julian towards the G o d o f the J e w s b y pointing out that in the C. Gal.,
Julian w a s writing a p o l e m i c a l text against the Christians. B u t in his letter to
T h e o d o r u s , a p a g a n , (§ 3 . 5 4 . 7 a b o v e ) h e is w i l l i n g to call G o d the m o s t
powerful and m o s t g o o d . H e n c e it is understandable that in a letter to the
5 3 0
Ep. 89a, 4 5 4 a (1/2, 154,14-155,8 BlDEZ = III, 60 W R . ) . BlDEZ speculates that the
letter was written around January of 363 before the C. Gal (1/2,102 BlDEZ).
5 3 1
Varro apud Aug., D e cons. ev. 1.22.30 (CSEL 4 3 , 28,16-20 WEIHRICH) = STERN I,
§ 72b. Macarius' philosopher sees no difference between "Athena" or "Minerva" and "gods"
or "angels" in Monog. 4.21a.3-4 (II, 310,1-8 GOULET = HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 76). For
the equation of Iao with the supreme God see § 1.23.
5 3 2
Ps. Aristotle, D e mundo 7, 4 0 l a , 1-27 (98-99 LORIMER). See COOK, Interpretation
236.
5 3 3
Origen, C. Cels. 1.24,5.41 (24,22-5; 356,1-3 MARC.) and see § 1.23.
5 3 4
For accusations of Jewish misanthropy see § 0.4.
5 3 5
STERN II, 508-10 defends the letter as does WRIGHT (III, 2 2 W R . ) .
5 3 6
On this tax and its abolition by the Christians see STERN II, 565-66 (with reference to
Codex Theodosianus 16.8.14 (399 C.E.).
5 3 7
Ep. 2 0 4 , 3 9 7 c (ELF, 281,6-10 BIDEZ/CUMONT = ΙΠ, 178 W R . = STERN Π, § 486a).
338 3. Julian
5 3 8
J e w s h e identifies their G o d with the creator o f the c o s m o s . In the letters
Julian is n o t c o n c e r n e d with interpreting biblical texts. H e i s w i l l i n g to g i v e
G o d an historical role ( c r o w n i n g h i m ) , but in the C. Gal. h e i s u n w i l l i n g to
5 3 9
accept that G o d c o u l d elect a p e o p l e . H e ends the letter w i t h an expression
o f h i s intention t o rebuild the sacred city o f Jerusalem s o that the J e w s c a n
540
"glorify G o d " after h i s Persian c a m p a i g n .
A similar statement appears in a quotation from a letter that appears in
L y d u s : " A n d Julian the K i n g , w h e n h e w a s fighting against the Persians
wrote t o the J e w s and said, Ί will raise with all zeal the t e m p l e o f the Highest
541
God (του Ύψιστου eeou).'" C e l s u s w a s aware o f the u s e in Judaism o f
5 4 2
the t e r m " H i g h e s t " f o r G o d . Z e u s w a s w o r s h i p p e d t h r o u g h o u t the
Mediterranean w o r l d as "the Highest." Stern includes a text o f D a m a s c i u s in
w h i c h a Samaritan, Marinus, w h o converts to H e l l e n i s m , argues that o n Mt.
Argarizon ( G e r i z i m ) " . . . there is a m o s t h o l y t e m p l e o f Z e u s the m o s t H i g h
543
to w h o m t h e ancestor o f the ancient H e b r e w s , d e v o t e d h i m s e l f . " In this
syncretistic text Marinus, the successor o f Proclus as h e a d o f Plato's academy
in A t h e n s , c o m b i n e s H e l l e n i s m and Judaism in the w o r s h i p o f the H i g h e s t
G o d . Julian again feels n o qualms w i t h identifying the G o d o f the J e w s with
the H i g h e s t G o d . A s I r e m a r k e d i n t h e s e c t i o n a b o v e h e w o u l d h a v e
544
identified this H i g h e s t G o d with Z e u s / H e l i o s .
3.54.9 Conclusion
M a l l e y h a s s o m e p e r c e p t i v e c o m m e n t s about t h e w h o l e i s s u e o f Julian's
response to the G o d o f the Hebrews:
When Julian read the Mosaic writings, he filtered them through his o w n categories. The
God o f M o s e s , therefore, seems to him really to be a confused composite of several
Hellenic divine emanations: the supreme deity, the immediate creator of the material
5 3 8
STERN II, 567. H e refers to C. Gal. 99e. See § 3.21 above.
5 3 9
In Ammianus 20.5.10, the genius of the empire persuades Julian to accept the crown.
Cf.§3.17.
5 4 0
Ep. 2 0 4 , 3 9 7 d - 3 9 8 a (ELF, 281,17-282,2 BlDEZ/CUMONT = III, 180 W R . ) .
5 4 1
Ep. 134 (1/2, 197,10-11 BlDEZ, from Lydus, de mens. 4 [110,4 W U N S C H ] ) = STERN II,
§ 4 8 6 b ) . Author's ET.
5 4 2
§ 1.23.
5 4 3
On Zeus in the ancient world see A. B. COOK, Zeus, II/2, Cambridge 1925, 876-89.
The text from Damascius, Vita Isidori can be found in STERN II, § 5 4 8 = Photius, Bibliotheca,
Cod. 2 4 2 , 339a,b. Author's ET. The diverse religious use of the word can easily be seen
from the article in B A G D s.v.
5 4 4
This b e c o m e s quite clear in comments he makes about the blessings of the Greeks
below (§ 3.56).
universe, and a particular guardian god. And Moses has violated the sacrosanct canons o f
545
attributing mutability and passions to the d i v i n i t y .
A l t h o u g h Julian w i l l s p e a k o f G o d as " H i g h e s t " it is u n l i k e l y that M a l l e y i s

correct i n h i s r e m a r k that Julian w a s o c c a s i o n a l l y w i l l i n g t o i d e n t i f y the
H e b r e w s ' G o d w i t h the s u p r e m e d e i t y o f N e o - P l a t o n i s m . It i s p r o b a b l e that
in Julian's e y e s that b e i n g e x i s t s in a transcendent splendor that the H e b r e w s '
G o d could never approach. T h i s is clear from Cyril's response to Julian
a b o v e (§ 3.54.5). O t h e r w i s e M a l l e y ' s p o s i t i o n i s quite strong. O n e n e e d o n l y
add that the Highest God Julian refers to in his epistles is the
D e m i u r g e / C r e a t o r that h e m e n t i o n s in h i s tractate against the G a l i l a e a n s . For
Julian t h e L X X i t s e l f i s c o n f u s e d about w h e t h e r G o d i s t h e H i g h e s t (the
Creator) or a guardian, national divinity c o n f i n e d t o a g e o g r a p h i c r e g i o n .
3.55 The Gifts of the Jews: Prophets, Law, Manna, Anointing Oil, and
Teachers
Julian f o u n d the c o n c e p t that G o d cared o n l y for the J e w s q u i t e o f f e n s i v e .

H i s denial o f the e l e c t i o n o f Israel w a s at the root o f h i s criticism:
But that from the beginning G o d cared only for the Jews and that He chose them out as
his portion, has been clearly asserted not only by Moses and Jesus but by Paul as well,
though in Paul's case this is strange. For according to circumstances he keeps changing
his views about G o d , as the polypus changes its colors to match the rocks, and n o w he
insists that the Jews alone are God's portion (κληρονομίαν), and then again, when he is
trying to persuade ( ά ν α π ε ί θ ω ν ) the Hellenes to take sides with h i m , he says: " D o not
think that he is the G o d o f Jews only, but also of Gentiles; y e a o f Gentiles also ( R o m
3:29)." Therefore, it is fair to ask of Paul why God, if he w a s not the G o d o f the Jews
only but also o f the Gentiles, sent the blessed gift of prophecy to the Jews in abundance
and gave them M o s e s and the oil o f anointing, and the prophets and law and the incredible
and monstrous elements in their myths (τά παράδοξα και τ ά τ ε ρ ά σ τ ι α τών μύθων)?
For y o u hear them crying aloud: "Man did eat angels' food" (Ps 77:25 L X X = 78:25
5 4 6
ET). A n d finally G o d sent unto them Jesus also, but unto us no prophet, no oil o f
anointing ( E x o d 3 0 : 2 2 - 2 5 ) , n o teacher, n o herald to announce his l o v e for people
(φιλανθρωπίας) which should one day, though late, reach even us also. N a y h e e v e n
looked on for myriads, or if y o u prefer, for thousands o f years, while people in extreme
ignorance served idols, as y o u call them, from where the sun rises to where he sets, y e s
and from North to South, save only that little tribe which less than t w o thousand years
before had settled in o n e part o f Palestine. For if he is the God o f all of us alike and the
5 4 7
creator o f all (πάντων δημιουργός), why did he neglect u s ?
5 4 5
MALLEY, Hellenism, 332.
5 4 6
The M T has "bread o f mighty ones" here (Ps 78:25).
5 4 7
C . Gal. 106a-d ( 1 1 1 , 2 - 1 1 2 , 2 3 M A S . = I I I , 342-44, W R . ) . Lines 111,11-112,5 MAS.
correspond to Theodore o f Mops., Adversus Iul. Fr. l a (Teodoro, 7 0 , 1 3 - 8 G u i D A ) . S e e
340 3. Julian
Julian f o u n d the text from P s a l m s absurd, p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e a n g e l s are

spiritual b e i n g s w h o did not n e e d to eat f o o d . A n a n o n y m o u s critic in
A m b r o s i a s t e r p o s e s a similar question: " W h y is it that it s a y s , ' M a n ate
a n g e l s ' f o o d ' w h e n a n g e l s d o not n e e d f o o d s i n c e they are b y nature s i m p l e
548
and l i v e b y spiritual f o r c e ? " Julian had already criticized M o s e s for an
i n c o m p l e t e creation account in w h i c h h e did not include any m e n t i o n o f the
origin o f the a n g e l s . Julian certainly regarded t h e m as spiritual b e i n g s w h o
did not n e e d to eat. T h e text in Psalms is just another m y t h like the account o f
549
A d a m , E v e , and the serpent a l o n g w i t h the t o w e r o f B a b e l n a r r a t i v e .
Julian's argument that G o d , if h e is truly a supreme G o d , s h o u l d not h a v e
n e g l e c t e d the entire human race for s o m a n y years w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e in the
5 5 0
pagan critique o f the N T .
Cyril g i v e s Julian an e x t e n s i v e reply. H e points o u t that A b r a h a m is the
551
first fruit o f G o d ' s call to the G e n t i l e s . H e u s e s 1 T i m 2:4 to argue that
552
G o d w a n t s all p e o p l e to b e s a v e d . H e s e e s a shift in G o d ' s blessings: the
J e w s are under the l a w and under punishment, but the G e n t i l e s are under
553
grace and f o r g i v e n e s s . Julian s i m p l y d o e s not understand the mysteries o f
G o d ' s p r o v i d e n c e , according to Cyril, w h o quotes Isa 4 0 : 1 2 - 1 3 in favor o f
554
that a r g u m e n t .
ROKEAH, Jews, 7 9 , 163 / RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II, § 2 0 0 / RIEDWEG, Mit Stoa, 7 1 .
The Pauline text is discussed in COOK, Interpretation, 310-11.
5 4 8
Ambrosiaster, Quaest. Vet. et N . Test. 2 0 (46,14-7 SOUTER = RINALDI, La Bibbia dei
Pagani II, § 129). RINALDI notes that the rabbis debated whether angels really ate manna
also. References are in Str-B 2 , 4 8 2 (e.g. b. Yoma 75b bar.).
5 4 9
§ 3 . 6 , 9 , 1 3 above.
5 5 0
References to Celsus, Porphyry, and Macarius' philosopher may be found in COOK,
Interpretation, 311 including: C. Cels. 4.7 (223,9-11 M A R C ) ; and Porphyrius, F. 8 1 , 82. A
lost part of Macarius' work includes this question: Why did Christ not c o m e in the beginning
but in the end o f time (Macarius, Monog. 1.5 titulus [II, 2 , 1 5 - 6 G O U L E T ] / COOK,
Interpretation, 247)? Christians were not unaware of the issue. Ps. Just., Quaest. Christ, ad
gent. § 1, 159e (246 OTTO) argues that the greatest good is to know God and the greatest evil
is to be ignorant of God. He then asks if it is not better to change the state of this present life
and liberate people from the greatest evil as Christian doctrine teaches, instead of letting the
world remain in its condition where people are oppressed by the greatest evil. See BARDY,
La litt£rature, 1 9 3 3 , 2 1 8 / DE LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 4 0 1 .
5 5 1
C. Jul. 3.110-111 (PG 76,670b-d).
5 5 2
C.Jul. 3.112 (PG 7 6 , 6 7 2 d ) .
5 5 3
C. Jul. 3.109 (PG 76, 668b).
5 5 4
C. Jul. 3.108 (PG 7 6 , 6 6 5 c ) . Cf. MALLEY, Hellenism, 376-78 on Cyril's reply.
3.56 God's Care for Israel, Israel's Blessings, and the Blessings of the
Greeks
Julian w a s t r o u b l e d b y t h e L X X ' s c l a i m s c o n c e r n i n g G o d ' s u n i q u e

relationship to Israel. A n u m b e r o f texts s h o w his intense desire to destroy
that c l a i m . W i t h regard to the E x o d u s tradition (§ 3 . 2 1 a b o v e ) h e wrote:
" M o s e s says that the creator o f the universe c h o s e out the H e b r e w nation, that
to that nation alone did h e pay h e e d and care for, and h e g i v e s h i m charge o f it
555
alone." H e c o n t i n u e s this t h e m e with, "But that from the b e g i n n i n g G o d
cared o n l y for the J e w s and that H e c h o s e t h e m out as his portion, has b e e n
clearly asserted not o n l y b y M o s e s and Jesus but b y Paul as w e l l , t h o u g h in
556
Paul's c a s e this is s t r a n g e . " That statement is in the c o n t e x t o f Julian's
question to Paul: If G o d g a v e Israel prophets, teachers and s o forth, w h y did
557
h e g i v e the G r e e k s n o s u c h g i f t s ? In the m i d s t o f h i s critique o f the
narrative about the t o w e r o f B a b e l , Julian constructs an argument about the
558
origin o f the differences b e t w e e n different n a t i o n s :
N o w if these differences that are greater and more important came about without the aid
559
of a greater and more divine providence (άνευ προνοίας μείζονος και θειοτερας") ,
why do w e vainly trouble ourselves about and worship one who takes no thought for us?
For is it fitting that he w h o cared nothing for our lives, our characters, our manners, our
good government, our political constitution, should still claim to receive honor at our
5 6 0
hands? Certainly not. You see to what an absurdity ( ά τ ο π ί α ν ) your doctrine ( λ ό γ ο ς )
comes. For of all the blessings (αγαθών) that we behold in the life of human beings, those
that relate to the soul c o m e first, and those that relate to the body are secondary. If,
therefore, he paid no heed to our spiritual blessings, neither took thought for our physical
conditions, and moreover, did not send to us teachers or lawgivers as he did for the
Hebrews, such as M o s e s and the prophets who followed him, for what shall w e properly
5 6 1
feel gratitude to h i m ?
Julian's answer to his o w n question is quite extensive. G o d g a v e the H e l l e n e s

g o d s and k i n d guardians w h o b l e s s t h e m far m o r e than the G o d o f Judea
5 6 2
b l e s s e d the H e b r e w s . H e writes e x t e n s i v e l y o f all the g o o d s that the
H e l l e n e s h a v e r e c e i v e d that are far superior to t h o s e o f the H e b r e w s . H i s
5 5 5
Julian, C. Gal. 9 9 e (109,14-6 M A S . = III, 340 W R . ) .
5 5 6
C. Gal. 106a-b (111,2-4 M A S . = III, 342, W R . ) .
5 5 7
§ 3.55.
5 5 8
§3.14.
5 5 9
On this preposition ("without") in similar contexts see COOK, "The Sparrow's Fall in
Mt 10:29b," Z N W 7 9 , 1 9 8 8 , 1 3 8 - 4 4 .
5 6 0
On the use o f "absurdity" in the pagan criticism of Christian texts see Celsus and
Porphyry in § 1 . 1 . 3 , 1 . 2 . 3 , 2 . 2 . 2 .
5 6 1
C. Gal. 138c-d (118,18-119,29 M A S . = III, 352-54 W R . ) .
5 6 2
C. Gal. 141c-d (120,5-14 MAS. = III, 354 W R . ) . The text is quoted above in § 3.54.5.
342 3. Julian
basic principle is this: "Furthermore observe from what f o l l o w s that G o d did

not take thought for the H e b r e w s alone, but though h e cared for all nations, h e
b e s t o w e d o n the H e b r e w s nothing o f considerable or o f great value, whereas
o n us h e b e s t o w e d gifts far higher and surpassing theirs." After mentioning a
set o f w i s e teachers such as H e r m e s o f the Egyptians and Cheiron (the centaur
w h o taught A c h i l l e s ) o f the H e l l e n e s , Julian then c o n c l u d e s : "For thenceforth
all H e l l e n e s w e r e born w i t h an aptitude for the m y s t e r i e s and t h e o l o g i a n s
( τ β λ ε σ τ ι κ ο ι φ ύ σ ε ι καΐ θ ε ο λ ο γ ι κ ο ί ) , in the very w a y , y o u o b s e r v e w h i c h the
563
H e b r e w s c l a i m as their o w n peculiar b o a s t . " T h e a n s w e r is simple: Our
gifts are better than yours. T h e H e l l e n e s (and not the H e b r e w s ) can boast o f
5 6 4
s c i e n c e , p h i l o s o p h y , g e o m e t r y , and m u s i c . He can speak of Greek
p h i l o s o p h e r s , .'generals, creators, and l a w g i v e r s s u c h as Plato, Socrates, and
565
A g e s i l a u s . Z e u s g a v e R o m e the great philosopher (king) N u m a and other
b l e s s i n g s s u c h as a shield that w a s a sign that h e w o u l d forever protect the
566
c i t y . Z e u s a l s o g a v e through the sacred arts ( ι ε ρ ώ ν τ ε χ ν ώ ν ) m e a n s o f
e n q u i r i n g t o o b t a i n w h a t h u m a n s n e e d . Julian i s p r o b a b l y t h i n k i n g o f
567
divination and theurgy h e r e . H e calls A s c l e p i u s the greatest o f the gifts o f
568
H e l i o s / Z e u s . T h e historical e x p e r i e n c e o f the J e w s ( s l a v e r y ) h a s b e e n
miserable c o m p a r e d to the t w o thousand years o f w o r l d rule that the R o m a n s
569
have experienced .
T h e J e w s h a v e n o tradition o f l o g i c and the liberal arts according to Julian.
H e m a k e s a number o f charges in this excerpt:
Further, as regards the constitution of the state and the fashion of the law courts, the
administration of cities and the excellence of the laws, progress in learning and the
cultivation o f the liberal arts ( έ λ ε υ θ ε ρ ί ο ι ς τέχναις), were not all these things in a
570
rustic and barbarous state among the Hebrews? And yet the wretched Eusebius will
have it that poems in hexameter are to be found even among them, and sets up a claim that
the study of logic (λογικήι/ ... π ρ α γ μ α τ ε ί α ν ) exists among the Hebrews, since he has
5 6 3
C. Gal. 176a-c (132,4-13 MAS. = III, 366 W R . ) .
5 6 4
C. Gal. 178a-c (133,3-15 M A S . = III, 368 W R . ) .
5 6 5
C. Gal. 184b (134,1-5 MAS. = III, 368 WR.).
5 6 6
C. Gal. 193c-d, 194b-d (137,6-12; 137,2-138,11 M A S . = III, 3 7 0 - 7 2 W R . ) . WRIGHT
points to Livy 1.20 and Vergil, Aeneid 8.664 for evidence of the shield. Julian's text is
quoted in COOK, Interpretation, 3 2 4 in the context of his attack on the Christians' reverence
of the cross. Cp. RINALDI, La Bibbia dei Pagani II § 85.
5 6 7
C. Gal. 198c-d (139,8-11 M A S . = III, 372 W R . ) . MASARACCHIA (Giuliano, 224) refers
to the sacred and theurgical (ιερατική και θεουργική) art that leads to God the Creator in
Iamblichus, D e myst. 10.5 (291,13 D E S PLACES).
5 6 8
C. Gal. 200a-b (140,2-15 M A S . = III, 3 7 4 W R . ) quoted in COOK, Interpretation, 332.
See also DE LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 404.
5 6 9
C. Gal. 218a-b (145,5-8 M A S . = III, 380 W R . ) . See § 3.23.
5 7 0
Oecolampadius has rustica (rustic), and Cyril in his response has "wild" or "rustic"
(άγρίαν) in C. Jul. 7.222 (PG 76, 840c). MSS Φ and Μ have "miserable" (αθλία).
heard among the Hellenes the word they use for logic. What kind of healing art has ever
appeared among the Hebrews, like that of Hippocrates among the Hellenes, and of certain
5 7 1
other schools that came after h i m ?
Julian here s h o w s an i m p r e s s i v e k n o w l e d g e o f E u s e b i u s ' h u g e Preparation

512
for the Gospel . C y r i l ' s r e s p o n s e to this kind o f criticism is h i s frequent
argument that the w r i t i n g s o f M o s e s are older than t h o s e o f the G r e e k s .
M o s e s forgot n o t h i n g o f importance in either d i v i n e or h u m a n matters. H e
asks Julian if the H e b r e w s did not a l s o h a v e physicians. S u c h an o p i n i o n is
foolish. H e n o t e s that G o d m a d e m e d i c i n e s out o f the earth and that h e a l s o
g a v e the Christians p h y s i c i a n s w h o n e e d e d n o such m e d i c i n e s , but w h o b y a
d i v i n e gift c o u l d heal. H e m e n t i o n s h e a l i n g s s u c h as that o f A e n e a s ( A c t s
573
9 : 3 3 - 3 4 ) . Hippocrates c o u l d d o n o s u c h t h i n g s ! A n a n o n y m o u s Christian
(or pagan) asks w h y , if m e d i c i n e is useful and necessary, w a s it not i n v e n t e d
574
b y the p i o u s , but b y the a d v e r s a r i e s ? Julian c o n t i n u e s w i t h his attack o n
S o l o m o n ' s w i s d o m and h i s praise for G r e e k w i s e m e n ( q u o t e d a b o v e in
§ 3.43).
3.57 Greeks Deserting to the Jews
Several texts already q u o t e d a b o v e s h o w Julian's scorn for t h o s e w h o h a v e

left Greek tradition b e h i n d for t h o s e o f the J e w s . After praising the benefits
o f A s c l e p i u s , Julian writes:
But what great gift of this sort do the Hebrews boast of as bestowed on them by God,
since being persuaded (άφ' ημών α ύ τ ο μ ο λ ή σ α ν τ ε ς π ε ί θ ε σ θ ε ) you desert us for them?
If you had at any rate paid heed to their teachings ( λ ό γ ο ι ς ) , you would not have fared
altogether ill, and though worse than you did before, when you were with us, still your
575
condition would have been bearable and supportable.
A g a i n Julian asks:
5 7 1
C. Gal. 221e-222a (146,3-147,11 MAS. = III, 382 WR.).
5 7 2
Eus., P.E. 11.5.7 (hexameters) (VIII/2, 12,7-12 MRAS). P.E. 11.5 has this heading in
four M S S : "Concerning Logical Study among the Hebrews," and Eus. notes the existence of
premises and conclusions ( π ρ ο τ ά σ ε ι ς και τούτων τ ά ς ε π ι λ ύ σ ε ι ς ) in prophetic literature
as evidence for logical study (VIII/2,11,1; 11,23-12,4 MRAS).
5 7 3
C. Jul. 7.223-24 (PG 7 6 , 840a-b; 841b-c).
5 7 4
Ps. Justin, Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 55 (68), 423d (80 OTTO = 67,17-20 P.-K./H.).
5 7 5
C. Gal. 2 0 1 e (141,2-7 M A S . = III, 374 W R . ) . Julian praises the blessings of Asclepius
in C. Gal. 200a-b ( 1 4 0 , M A S . = III, 375 W R . ) . On Asclepius see § 3.49 and COOK,
Interpretation 3 3 2 - 3 3 and index s.v. The law Christians would be following is "harsh and
stern and contains much that is savage and barbarous" according to Julian. See C. Gal. 202a
(141,8-9 MAS. = III, 3 7 4 W R . ) . Cp. DE LABRIOLLE, La reaction, 404-5.
344 3. Julian
Why were you so ungrateful to our gods as to desert ( η ύ τ ο μ ο λ ή σ α τ ε ) them for the Jews?
Was it because the gods granted the sovereign power to Rome, permitting the Jews to be
576
free for a short time only, and then forever to be enslaved and a l i e n s ?
C e l s u s a n d P o r p h y r y w e r e b o t h critical o f H e l l e n e s w h o d e s e r t e d their
5 7 7
ancestral t e a c h i n g s for the s a k e o f t h o s e o f the J e w s . Julian (as did
Porphyry before h i m ) finds it o b v i o u s that the Christians d o not adhere to the
J e w i s h t e a c h i n g s t h e m s e l v e s , after deserting w h a t w a s b e s t for t h e m . T h e
rhetorical ("persuaded) c o n t e x t for the debate is apparent. U n l i k e several
a n t i - J e w i s h writers s u c h as T a c i t u s and Juvenal (§ 1.34), Julian d o e s not
object to c o n v e r s i o n to Judaism in itself. What h e is c o n c e r n e d about are the
p e o p l e w h o d e s e r t H e l l e n i s m for J e w i s h m o n o t h e i s m and the Christian
578
trajectory o f the O T tradition .
3.58 Conclusion
Julian's critique o f the O T w a s nuanced. A l t h o u g h the creation account w a s

inferior to that o f Plato, it w a s still worthy. W h a t w a s not worthy w e r e the
"mythical" e l e m e n t s — e l e m e n t s that cried out for allegory. Otherwise those
unworthy parts o f the accounts w e r e simple b l a s p h e m i e s against G o d . H e has
great admiration for the sacrifices, l a w s , and other similar a s p e c t s o f the
Jewish religion. In his v i e w the Christians h a v e abandoned all o f those. T h e
u s e o f p r o p h e t i c texts to establish Christian c l a i m s is an utter failure in
Julian's e y e s . T h e identity o f the G o d o f Israel is a m b i g u o u s in Julian's
treatment. For Julian, M o s e s and the other writers are at fault — they cannot
decide if their G o d is merely a narrow, jealous, and angry national deity or the
d e m i u r g e o f the c o s m o s . Finally, the b l e s s i n g s e x p e r i e n c e d b y the H e l l e n e s
far o u t w e i g h t h o s e e x p e r i e n c e d b y the J e w s and, for Julian, it is e a s y to s e e
w h i c h culture has contributed more to civilization.
C y r i l ' s l e n g t h y response is e v i d e n c e that these i s s u e s w e r e unresolved in
his time — m o r e than seventy years after Julian wrote his treatise. H i s careful
treatment o f Julian's criticisms is perhaps e v i d e n c e that pagans contemporary
with Cyril w e r e using the objections o f Julian to great advantage. H e appears
to b e u n a w a r e that h i s t y p o l o g i c a l r e a d i n g o f the O T t e x t s w o u l d b e
thoroughly unpersuasive in the pagans' e y e s . S e e m i n g l y Julian's text still had
persuasive p o w e r in Cyril's a g e since h e complains that it w a s drawing people
a w a y from the Christian faith. T o d o that Julian did not usually attack the O T
in itself, but the Christians' u s e o f the OT.
5 7 6
C. Gal. 209d (143,2-6 MAS. = Ill, 379 WR.). See § 3.23.
5 7 7
§ 1.34, 2.2.1.
5 7 8
Cp. his views in § 3.41.
Conclusion
The Septuagint in the Greco-Roman World
T c h e r i k o v e r ' s p o s i t i o n that the Greek translation o f the H e b r e w scriptures

m a d e n o i m p r e s s i o n o n the Greek w o r l d until the advent o f Christianity still
1
h o l d s in g e n e r a l . H e c a t a e u s ' s u m m a r y o f a p a s s a g e in the O T is o n l y a
2
paraphrase — not an e x a c t q u o t e . P s . L o n g i n u s probably w r o t e after the
3
advent o f Christianity . B u t there are authors such as H e c a t a e u s , A l e x a n d e r
Polyhistor, and D i o d o r u s S i c u l u s w h o w e r e clearly aware o f the e x i s t e n c e o f
4
the h o l y b o o k o f the J e w s . S o it is incorrect to say that the L X X (or O T in
H e c a t a e u s ' c a s e ) m a d e n o i m p r e s s i o n whatever o n the Greek w o r l d before
Christianity. W h a t remains unexplained is w h y it attracted s o little attention
from G r e c o - R o m a n intellectuals. T h o s e f e w w h o l o o k e d at it m a y not h a v e
felt it to b e a threat to the core values o f their civilization. T h e y m a y not h a v e
cared o n e w a y or the other. It m a y h a v e b e e n s o difficult for a n o n - J e w to
read that they found it e a s y to ignore. P o s s i b l y the e v i d e n c e o f pre-Christian
Hellenistic reading o f the L X X has simply been lost.
This situation, w h a t e v e r e x p l a i n s it, changed dramatically after the advent
o f Christianity. C e l s u s m a k e s it quite clear that h e i s disturbed b y the
5
Christians' s u c c e s s at recruitment . A s part o f h i s attack o n the N e w
Testament, Christian b e l i e f s , and Christian practices, h e m a k e s a sustained
attack o n G e n e s i s and parts o f other O T traditions including E x o d u s . That the
attack e v e n s u r v i v e s is d u e to the Christian m o n a s t i c s ' c o n t i n u e d interest in
O r i g e n ' s m a s s i v e reply to C e l s u s . It d o e s not appear that O r i g e n f o u n d it
difficult to a n s w e r m a n y o f C e l s u s ' arguments. T h i s is probably b e c a u s e
Celsus w a s not a profound interpreter o f the Bible. It is likely that his s u c c e s s
lay in his ability to c o n v i n c e his f e l l o w Hellenes that the B i b l e w a s a b o o k full
o f incredible m y t h s . It is difficult to doubt Origen's v i e w that C e l s u s ' attack
1
TCHERIKOVER, Jewish Apologetic Literature, 1 7 7 . Cp. the opening paragraphs o f the
Introduction above.
2
See § 0 . 1 .
3
See § 0 . 1 4 .
4
§0.6,7.
5
346 Conclusion
6
o n the L X X w a s an attack o n the foundation o f Christianity . H e f o u n d
nothing to praise in his reading o f L X X texts and s e e m s to h a v e limited that
reading primarily to G e n e s i s . H e k n e w a little about the traditions o f E x o d u s
and s o m e t h i n g a b o u t the p r o p h e t s , but d o e s n o t s e e m t o h a v e shared
Porphyry's interest in prophetic texts such as D a n i e l . H e d o e s want to s h o w
that the prophets d o not depict a figure such as Jesus (§ 1.30.4). Jewish l a w s
and doctrines did not particularly impress h i m (§ 1.28-9). W h a t e v e r strength
C e l s u s ' attack had in the e y e s o f the ancient church, Origen felt it worthy o f a
7
lengthy r e p l y .
P o r p h y r y ' s b o o k (Contra Christianos) suffered the greatest fury o f the
8
Christian rulers . It is p o s s i b l e that h e wrote it near the t i m e o f o n e o f the
p e r s e c u t i o n s — w h e t h e r that c o n t e m p l a t e d b y A u r e l i a n or t h e Great
P e r s e c u t i o n . T h e Christian writers r e s p o n d e d to it w i t h z e a l , and w h a t
survives o f Porphyry's work is probably due to their continuing concern for
its e f f e c t i v e n e s s in drawing p e o p l e a w a y from Christianity. Porphyry w a s
also troubled b y the ability (irrational and deceitful in his v i e w ) o f Jesus and
9
the a p o s t l e s to persuade p e o p l e to b e c o m e f o l l o w e r s . H e k n e w that the
apostles "strengthened their [orations] with testimonies from another time" —
1 0
p r e s u m a b l y m e a n i n g prophetic texts f r o m the L X X . T o undercut this
support for Christianity, h e undertook a s u s t a i n e d attack o n L X X t e x t s
including e s p e c i a l l y the b o o k o f Daniel. In the C. Chr. his v i e w s o f the L X X
are o v e r w h e l m i n g l y n e g a t i v e , a l t h o u g h h e did a p p r o v e o f the p r o p h e t s '
c o n d e m n a t i o n o f sacrifice (§ 2 . 2 . 1 1 ) . H e is m o r e p o s i t i v e , h o w e v e r , in
several references to the L X X and Jewish traditions that appear in s o m e o f his
11
other w o r k s w h e r e h e w a s not interested in attacking C h r i s t i a n i t y . O n e
w o n d e r s w h a t his interpretation o f the L X X w o u l d h a v e l o o k e d like had he
not b e e n s o intent o n refuting the Christian faith.
Julian w a s a far better reader o f the scriptures than C e l s u s , and his
a r g u m e n t s certainly resonated w i t h p a g a n intellectuals l i k e Libanius w h o
6
C. Cels. 1.16 (19,4-6 MARC.) mentioned in § 1.20,35 above.
7
Origen did not feel that Celsus' book would shake the faith of a strong Christian, so he
wrote for those with no faith or with only a weak faith (in order to restore it). See C. Cels.
Proem. 3 , 4 , 6 (2,26-9; 3,24-4,7.28-33 M A R C ) .
8
Cf. the opening paragraphs of the chapter above on Porphyry and COOK, Interpretation,
125-7.
9
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 6 (Jesus' call to his disciples), F. 4 (see § 2.2.9 above), F. 5
(the apostles' use of testimonies to persuade their audience; cf. § 2.2.16.5). Cf. COOK,
Interpretation, 138-9,156-8.
1 0
HARNACK, Porphyrius, F. 5.
1 1
See § 2 . 1 , 2 . 2 . 3 , 2.2.4, 2 . 2 . 6 , 2 . 2 . 7 , 2 . 2 . 1 2 .
The Septuagint in the Greco-Roman World 347
12
must h a v e thanked the g o d s for this critic o f Christianity . A l t h o u g h Julian
o c c a s i o n a l l y h o l d s J e w i s h texts in scorn h e attacks the L X X b e c a u s e it w a s
the scripture o f the Christians. O n e o f his c o m m e n t s is telling: " W h y w e r e
1 3
y o u s o ungrateful to our g o d s to desert t h e m for the J e w s ? " H e has no
p r o b l e m w i t h J e w s r e m a i n i n g J e w s , but h e objects to H e l l e n e s b e c o m i n g
Christians and in the process adopting the Jewish scriptures as their o w n . D i d
h e s e e the beginning o f the e n d o f Hellenic religion? H e dedicated m u c h time
to restoring R o m a n religion. C e l s u s certainly notes the Christians' desire to
unite the world under "one law", and C e l s u s e v e n — in a horrified c o m m e n t
— hypothesized the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f the conversion o f the R o m a n emperor to
14
Christianity . Julian k n e w the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f such an event. T h e fact that
Cyril felt c o m p e l l e d to write a h u g e r e s p o n s e to Julian in the fifth century
probably s h o w s that p a g a n i s m w a s still a l i v e and w e l l in s o m e c i r c l e s o f
Alexandria and that Julian's w o r k w a s still able to disturb Christians w i t h its
astute a r g u m e n t s . T h e c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n H e l l e n i s m and Christianity
continued to trouble s o m e Christians. Ps. Justin preserves a question in w h i c h
an individual states that if H e l l e n i s m ( τ ο ν έ λ λ η ν ι σ μ ό ν ) w a s v a n q u i s h e d b y
Christianity and has n o h o p e o f revival, w h y w a s the true w o r s h i p o f G o d (as
15
practiced by A d a m and others) vanquished by H e l l e n i s m and then r e s t o r e d ?
C e l s u s , P o r p h y r y and Julian are i n d i c a t i v e o f the threat that p a g a n
intellectuals must h a v e felt in response to the success o f Christian recruitment.
That is surely o n e o f the major reasons w h y the H e l l e n e s finally c h o s e to
d e l v e into the m y s t e r i e s o f the scriptures o f Israel. W h e n they finally b e g a n
to read those scriptures c l o s e l y they found m a n y e l e m e n t s in the L X X texts
that were in tension with G r e c o - R o m a n culture.
T h e m e s that reappear in their criticisms o f the L X X are n u m e r o u s . It is
clear that they objected to the e x c l u s i v e n e s s o f the G o d o f the J e w s . C e l s u s
w a s troubled by the H e b r e w s ' rejection o f other deities (§ 1.22-3). Porphyry,
in the surviving fragments, d o e s not s e e m to have b e e n as disturbed b y J e w i s h
m o n o t h e i s m — although h e d o e s s h o w s o m e ambiguity about h o w to locate
the Jewish G o d in his philosophical s y s t e m (§ 2.1.3.-4). For Julian the L X X ' s
c o n c e p t i o n o f G o d i s threatened b y a fundamental i n c o n s i s t e n c y : the
e x c l u s i v e national G o d o f the H e b r e w s versus the universal deity (§ 3 . 5 4 ) .
1 2
Lib., Oration 18.178 (I, 396 NORMAN). He believes that Julian outdid Porphyry. Cp.
COOK, Interpretation, 286.
1 3
See § 3 . 2 3 , 5 7 .
1 4
C. Cels. 8 . 7 1 , 7 2 (587,24-588,3; 588,12-6 M A R C ) . Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 9 0 - 1 .
1 5
Ps. Justin, Quaest. et resp. ad Orthod. § 7 4 (86), 435d (108 OTTO = 81,4-10 P.-K./H.).
BOWERSOCK, Hellenism, 1-4 refers to texts that show paganism survived well into the sixth
century.
348 Conclusion
L i k e C e l s u s , Julian criticized the L X X ' s rejection o f other divinities (§ 3 . 2 5 - 6 ,

3.54.6).
A l l three authors h a v e m u c h to say about the allegory o f the L X X with its
stories that t h e y o c c a s i o n a l l y p e r c e i v e d to b e crude m y t h s . C e l s u s and
Porphyry o p p o s e d any allegory — c l a i m i n g the stories w e r e t o o clear (§ 1.1,
2.2.2). Julian, o n the other hand, c l a i m e d that s o m e L X X narratives had to be
allegorized to a v o i d b l a s p h e m o u s assertions about G o d (§ 3 . 1 0 ) .
T h e authors objected to various characteristics o f the depiction o f G o d in
the L X X . T h e s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s o f C e l s u s s h o w that h e s t r e n u o u s l y
o p p o s e d the L X X ' s depiction o f a wrathful G o d (§ 1.31-2). Porphyry likely
o b j e c t e d to s u c h i m a g e s a l s o , but his objections h a v e n o t survived. Julian
argued in a similar w a y against the concept o f G o d ' s j e a l o u s y (§ 3 . 2 6 , 3 4 , 35).
G o d ' s actions in the narrative concerning the garden o f E d e n attracted m u c h
critical attention f r o m C e l s u s and Julian (§ 1.2.7-9, 3 . 5 - 8 ) . Porphyry and
Julian did not b e l i e v e that it w a s rational for G o d to forbid the k n o w l e d g e o f
g o o d and e v i l (§ 2 . 2 . 5 , 3.5). T h e critics denied that the L X X depicted a figure
l i k e J e s u s ( C e l s u s , Julian) or that the L X X i m p l i e d that G o d had a s o n
16
(Porphyry, J u l i a n ) .
T h e y criticized H e l l e n e s w h o left their ancestral traditions for those o f the
J e w s and Christians (§ 1.34, 2 . 2 . 1 - 2 , 3 . 2 3 , 4 1 , 5 7 ) . C e l s u s and Julian both
u s e d an argument from c o n s e q u e n c e against Judaism: the J e w s ' miserable
contemporary c i r c u m s t a n c e s (§ 1.33, 3 . 5 6 ) and lack o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s in
the liberal arts (§ 3 . 5 6 and c p . § 1.25) s h o w that the r e l i g i o n i t s e l f is
17
u n w o r t h y . T h e s e arguments s h o w that the p a g a n s k n e w that their o w n
cultural traditions w e r e in grave danger — e s p e c i a l l y g i v e n the spread o f
Christianity. T h e y not only object to the e l e m e n t s in the L X X that g o against
their o w n cultural and phi l o s o phi c a l presuppositions, but a l s o object to the
18
Christians' adoption o f Hellenistic philosophical ideas and t e x t s .
1 6
§ 1.30.4 and cp. 1.30.5,2.2.10,3.20, 3.22,3.33,3.48-9.
1 7
They made a similar objection against Christianity. Cf. COOK, Interpretation, 383 s.v.
"argument from consequence."
1 8
§ 1.6, 2.2.2. Cp. § 1.20 on Celsus* ambivalent attitude toward M o s e s ' adoption of
ancient wisdom. Julian was against Christian teachers who used texts such as Homer, but did
not believe in the gods. See COOK, Interpretation, 318-19. HARGIS, Against the Christians,
129-38 (and passim) argues that the pagans attempted to assimilate elements of Christian
belief into their o w n systems (e.g. Julian integrating the Jewish God into his own pantheon)
— as part of their larger case against Christianity. Many years before, A N N A MlURA-STANGE
(Celsus und Origenes. Das Gemeinsame ihrer Weltanschauung nach den acht Biichern des
Origenes g e g e n Celsus. Eine Studie zur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte des 2. und 3.
Jahrhunderts, B Z N W 4, GieBen 1926, passim) had argued that Celsus and Origen share many
points of view.
The Septuagint in the Greco-Roman World 349
P h i l o s o p h y w a s o n e o f their primary w e a p o n s in the critique o f the

L X X . C e l s u s u s e d it to argue against an anthropocentric creation and the
v i e w that G o d created h u m a n b e i n g s (§ 1.2.12-16). For C e l s u s the narrative
o f the f l o o d is a misunderstanding o f the Greek doctrine o f periodic c y c l e s
(§ 1.5). Origen m i s u s e s Greek ideas in his allegories according to Porphyry
(§ 2.2.2). Porphyry, h o w e v e r , in texts other than the C. Chr. w a s w i l l i n g to
s e e p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y a c c e p t a b l e e l e m e n t s in the L X X (§ 2 . 2 . 3 , 2 . 2 . 4 , 2 . 2 . 6 ) .
Julian f o u n d P l a t o ' s a c c o u n t o f creation far superior t o that o f the L X X
(§ 3.4). H i s H e l l e n i s t i c c o n c e p t o f G o d explains his objections to the i m a g e
o f G o d ' s j e a l o u s y in the L X X (§ 3 . 2 6 ) . H e e x p e n d e d a great deal o f e n e r g y
locating the L X X ' s G o d in his o w n philosophical s y s t e m (§ 3 . 5 4 ) .
Other a r g u m e n t a t i v e w e a p o n s a b o u n d e d . C e l s u s u s e d a f o r m o f
c o m p a r a t i v e e t h n o l o g y to denigrate the v a l u e o f J e w i s h c u s t o m s s u c h as
19
c i r c u m c i s i o n and the l a w s c o n c e r n i n g f o o d . H e u s e d a similar argument
against the b e l i e f in the uniqueness o f Jewish prophecy (§ 1.30.3). H e m a k e s
liberal u s e o f the rhetoric o f vituperation as in his criticism o f G o d for b e i n g
unable to persuade A d a m to o b s e r v e his c o m m a n d s (§ 1.2.7). Porphyry u s e d
l o g i c (§ 2 . 2 . 5 ) i n c l u d i n g h i s o w n f a v o r i t e m e t h o d o f s e a r c h i n g for
20
contradiction (§ 2 . 2 . 1 0 ) . H e w a s also a critical historian in his approach to
D a n i e l and d e n i e d that the author c o u l d h a v e predicted future historical
21
e v e n t s . W i t h regard to H e l l e n i s t i c prophets, h o w e v e r , h e w a s w i l l i n g to
22
accept the position that they c o u l d predict the future . Julian m a d e m u c h u s e
o f the l o g i c o f contradiction. In his reading o f the L X X , the texts contradicted
Christian practices such as their refusal to f o l l o w the f o o d l a w s , celebrate the
Passover, and to offer sacrifice (§ 3 . 2 4 , 2 8 - 3 0 , 4 4 , 5 1 , 5 2 ) .
T h e overarching argument in the work o f C e l s u s , Porphyry, and Julian is
against Christianity and not Judaism in itself — although n o n e o f the writers
wanted Greeks to b e c o m e J e w s either. T h e y began to understand (including
C e l s u s in O r i g e n ' s v i e w ) that the L X X w a s o n e o f the c h i e f foundations o f
Christianity. Porphyry's interpretation o f Daniel, for e x a m p l e , undercut any
23
u s e o f it in Christian a p o l o g e t i c . Celsus and Julian both attacked the u s e o f
24
p r o p h e c y in the L X X to support b e l i e f in Jesus C h r i s t . T o put their
argument in a general form:
1. Christians b a s e their faith on the L X X .
1 9
§ 1.28 and cp. 1.29.1 where he traces the Jewish doctrine of heaven to the Persians.
2 0
For many other e x a m p l e s o f this method see COOK, Interpretation, 3 8 3 s.v.
"contradiction."
2 1
§2.2.16.5.
2 2
§2.2.16.5.
2 3
See the opening paragraph of § 2.2.16.
2 4
S e e also Porphyry's attack on the apostles' use of ancient testimonies (HARNACK,
Porphyrius F. 5) discussed in the opening paragraph of § 2.2 and cp. 2.2.16.5.
350 Conclusion
2. T h e L X X d o e s not support Christian b e l i e f and practice and is itself

riddled with problems.
3. Therefore, Christianity has n o foundation and should b e rejected.
O r i g e n , patristic writers s u c h as J e r o m e (in P o r p h y r y ' s c a s e ) , and Cyril
f o r c e f u l l y and e f f e c t i v e l y r e s i s t e d the s e c o n d p r e m i s e . J u d a i s m and
Christianity survived the p a g a n s ' critique o f the O l d Testament, and paganism
itself withered. It is not difficult to s h o w , h o w e v e r , that m a n y o f the p a g a n s '
criticisms and observations h a v e survived w e l l into the m o d e r n era. S o m e o f
these i s s u e s continue to b e o f importance in Christianity's d i a l o g u e with the
world r e l i g i o n s (including Judaism): the relationship o f Christianity to the
l a w ; the c l a i m s for e x c l u s i v i t y o f s a l v a t i o n ; and perhaps m o s t crucially
25
Christology and m o n o t h e i s m .
2 5
1 o w e much of this formulation to a review of my book on the N T in paganism by H.
RAISANEN (who was kind of enough to provide me with a synopsis in English), rev. of COOK,
Interpretation, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 107,2002,162-4.
Bibliography
Ancient Sources
Many editions from which I have made (or taken) translations are included below. S o m e of
the other texts are also included. Normally the Loeb Classical Library, Oxford Classical
Texts, or Teubner editions were used for classical authors. The Corpus scriptorum
ecclesiasticorum latinorum (CSEL), Corpus Christianorum series latina (CChr.SL), Sources
chrotiennes (SC), D i e griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (GCS),
and Migne Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina (PG and PL) series were used for patristic
sources. Abbreviations are from S. Schwertner, Internationales Abkurzungsverzeichnis fur
2
Theologie und Grenzgebiete, Berlin/New York 1 9 9 3 supplemented by the Journal of Biblical
Literature guidelines, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and Liddell Scott Jones (LSJ). Much
other material on the pagan authors can be found in the bibliography of G. Rinaldi, La Bibbia
dei Pagani I, II and Cook, The Interpretation of the N e w Testament in Greco-Roman
Paganism.
Adamantius, D e recta in Deum fide, GCS, ed. W. H. van de Sande Bakhuyzen, Leipzig 1901.
Albinus, Didaskalikos = A l c i n o o s , Enseignement des Doctrines de Platon, ed. John
Whittaker/Pierre Louis, CUFr, Paris 1990.
Ambrose, D e paradiso, CSEL 32.1, ed. K. Schenkl, Vienna 1897.
Ambrosiaster, Pseudo-Augustini quaestiones veteris et novi testamenti CXXVII, C S E L 5 0 ,
ed. A. Souter, Vienna 1908.
Aphrahat, Demonstration, Patrologia Syriaca, Vols. 1.1, 1.2, ed. and trans. J. Parisot, Paris
1 8 9 4 , 1 9 0 7 ; ET in N P N F Series 2, Vol. 13.
Arethas, Scripta minora, BiTeu, Vol. I, ed. L. G. Westerink, Leipzig 1968.
Aristeas, Lettre d'Aristee a Philocrate, SC 89, ed. A. Pelletier, Paris 1962.
Aristides, L'apologia de Aristide. Introduzione versione dal siriaco e commento, Lateranum,
N.S. 16, ed. C. Vona, Rome.
Aristobulus, see C. R. Holladay in the section on modern scholarship.
Ps. Aristotle, Aristotelis qui fertus libellus de mundo, ed. W. L. Lorimer, CUFr, Paris, 1933.
Arnobius, Adversus nationes, ed. C. Marchesi, Corpus Paravianum, Turin 1953.
Asclepius Texts, Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, ed. and trans.
E. J. Edelstein/L. Edelstein, Vol. 1-2, N e w York 1975 (rep. of 1945 ed).
Athanasius, Athanasius Werke: Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites 3 1 8 - 3 2 8 ,
ed. H. G. Opitz, Vol. 3.1, Berlin 1935.
Athenagoras, Legatio and D e resurrectione, ed. W. R. Schoedel, Oxford, 1972.
Atticus, Atticus Fragments, ed. 6. des Places, CUFr, Paris, 1977.
Augustine, Sancti Aurelii Augustini de civitate Dei, ed. B. Dombart/A. Kalb, CChr.SL 4 7 - 4 8 ,
Turnholt 1950-55.
Biblia Gentium, see G. Rinaldi in the section on modern scholarship.
352 Bibliography
Catena Iohannis Drungarii, in: A. Mai, Scriptorum ueterum noua collectio, Vol. 1.3, Rome
n d
1837, 27-56 ( 2 ed., title page of 1.1 has 1825/1831).
Celsus, Der Α Λ Η Θ Η Σ ΛΟΓΟΣ des Kelsos, ed. Robert Bader, T B A W 3 3 , Stuttgart/Berlin
1940.
, E T by R. J. Hoffmann, Celsus. On the True Doctrine. A Discourse Against the
Christians, N e w York/Oxford 1987.
Chaeremon, P. W. van der Horst, Chaeremon: Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher, Leiden
1984.
Chaldean Oracles, see H. Lewy in the section on modern scholarship.
, Oracles chaldai'ques. Avec un choix de commentaires anciens, CUFr, ed. έ des Places,
Paris 1971.
Cyril of Alexandria, Cyrille d'Alexandrie, Contre Julien, ed. P. Burgiere/P. Evieux, SC 322,
Paris 1985.
Diodore of Tarsus, J. Deconinck, Essai sur la ch£ine de l O c t a t e u q e avec une edition des
Commentaires de Diodore de Tarse qui s'y trouvent contenus, Bibl. de l'Ecole des Hautes
fitudes 195, Paris 1912.
th
Doxographi Graeci, ed. H. Diels, Berlin 1929 ( 4 ed. 1965).
Ephraem, In Dan. prophetam, J. S. Assemani/S. E. Assemani/P. Benedetti, Sancti patris nostri
Ephraem Opera Omnia quae exstant graece, syriace, latine, in sex tomos distributa ad
M S S . codices Vaticanos Vol. I-VI, Rome, 1732-46 (1740. Tomus II. Syriace et latine =
Vol. V in the series of publication).
, C. W. Mitchell/A. A. Bevan/F. C. Burkitt, S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani,
Marcion, and B a r d a i s a n V o l s . Ι-Π, London/Oxford 1921.
, K. M c V e y , Ephraem the Syrian. Hymns, N e w York 1989.
Epicurus, Epicurea, ed. H. Usener, Leipzig 1887.
, Epicure Opere, Biblioteca de cultura filosofica 4 1 , ed. G. Arrighetti, Torino, 1973.
Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum, Philostratus and Eunapius, The Lives of the Sophists, ed. and
trans. W. C. Wright, LCL, London 1922.
, Eunapii vitae sophistarum, ed. G. Giangrande, Rome 1956.
Eusebius, Eusebe de C^saree Contre Hierocles, SC 3 3 3 , intro. and trans. M. Forrat, ed. έ . des
Places, Paris 1986.
, Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. K. Lake/J. E. L. Oulton, 2 vols., LCL,
Cambridge 1980.
, Eusebe de Cesaree Histoire Ecclesiastique, ed. G. Bardy, Livres V-VII, SC 4 1 , Paris
1955.
, Praeparatio evangelica, ed. K. Mras, GCS Eusebius VIII/1-2, Berlin 1954-6.
, Eusebe de Cesaree. La Preparation i v a n g e l i q u e , ed. Jean Sirinelli/fidouard des Places
et al., SC 2 0 6 , 2 2 8 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 6 , 3 6 9 , Paris 1974-91.
, E. Hamilton Gifford, Eusebius. Preparation for the Gospel, Part 1. Books 1-9, Part 2.
Books 10-15, Oxford 1903.
, Demonstratio Evangelica, GCS Eusebius VI, ed. Ivar Heikel, Leipzig 1913.
, Ferrar, W. J., The Proof of the Gospel. Eusebius, 2 vols., London/New York 1920.
Genesis, ed. J. W. Wevers, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae
Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, Vol. I, Gottingen, 1974.
Heraclitus, Heraclite. Allegories d'Homere, ed. Felix Buffiere, CUFr, Paris 1989.
Hellenistic Jewish Authors, see C. R. Holladay in the section on modern scholarship.
Hermetica, W. Scott/A. S. Ferguson, Hermetica. The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings
Which Contain Religious or Philosophic Teachings Ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, IV,
London 1968.
, Corpus Hermeticum, ed. A. D. Nock/A.-J. Festugiere, Vols. I-IV, CUFr, Paris 1945-54.
Ancient Sources 353
Hippolytus, Kommentar zu Daniel, GCS Hippolyt 1/1, ed. G. N . Bonwetsch/M. Richard,

n d
Berlin 2000 ( 2 edition).
Iamblichus, Jamblique, Les Mysteres d'ligypte, ed. and trans. 6. des Places, CUFr, Paris
1966.
, Iamblichus. On the Pythagorean Way of Life: Text, Translation, and Notes, ed. J. M.
Dillon/J. Hershbell, Atlanta 1991.
Inscriptions: Packard Humanities Institute C D ROM #7, 1991-96 (Cornell Epigraphy Project
and the Duke Documentary Papyri).
Ishodad, Commentaire d'Isodad de Merw sur TAncien Testament, v. J£r6mie, 6 z 6 c h i e l ,
Daniel, C S C O 3 2 8 = C S C O . S S 146, ed. C. van den Eynde, Louvain 1972. Van den
Eynde's French translation is CSCO 329 = CSCO.SS 147, Louvain 1972.
Jerome, Hieronymus, C o m m . in Danielem, CChr.SL 75a, ed. F. Glorie, Turnholt 1964, with
ET by G. L. Archer, Jerome's Commentary on Daniel, Grand Rapids 1958.
, Saint Jerome. Commentaire sur S. Matthieu, Vol. 2, SC 2 5 9 , ed. E. Bonnard, Paris
1979.
Julian, The Works of the Emperor Julian, ed. and trans. W. C. Wright, V o l s . 1-3, LCL,
Cambridge, MA/London 1923.
, L'Empereur Julien. Oeuvres completes, Vol. 1/1, 1/2, I I / l , II/2, ed. J. Bidez/G.
Rochefort/C. Lacombrade, CUFr, Paris 1932-1972.
, Iuliani imperatoris epistulae leges poematia fragmenta, ed. J. Bidez/F. Cumont/C.
Lacombrade, Paris 1922.
, Iuliani imperatoris librorum contra Christianos quae supersunt, ed. C. J. Neumann,
Leipzig 1880.
, Giuliano imperator contra Galilaeos, ed. E. Masaracchia, Testi e Commenti 9, Roma
1990.
, A. Guida, Frammenti inediti del "Contra i Galilei" di Giuliano e della replica di
Teodora di Mopsuestia, Prometheus 9 , 1 9 8 3 , 1 3 6 - 1 6 3 .
, Teodoro di Mopsuestia, Replica a Giuliano Imperatore. Adversus criminationes in
Christianos Iuliani Imperatoris. In appendice Testimonianze sulla polemica antigiulianea
in altre opere di Teodoro, con nuovi frammenti del «Contro i Galilei» di Giuliano, ed. A.
Guida, Biblioteca Patristica, Florence 1994.
Justin, Justini Martyris apologiae pro Christianis, ed. M. Marcovich, PTS 3 8 , Berlin/New
York 1994.
, Justini Martyris dialogus cum Tryphone, ed. M. Marcovich, PTS 4 7 , Berlin/New York
1997.
, Iustini Philosophi et Martyris Opera, Corpus Apologetarum Christianorum V, ed. J. C.
T. Otto, Wiesbaden 1969 (Ps. Justin, Quaest. et Resp. ad Orth.; rep. of 1881 ed.).
, Θεοδωρήτου ε π ι σ κ ό π ο υ π ό λ ε ω ς Κύρρου π ρ ο ς τ ά ς έ π ε ν ε χ θ ε ί σ α ς αύτφ
ε π ε ρ ω τ ή σ ε ι ς π α ρ ά τ ί ν ο ς τ ώ ν ε ξ Α ι γ ύ π τ ο υ ε π ι σ κ ό π ω ν α π ο κ ρ ί σ ε ι ς , ed. Α .
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Zapiski Istoriko-filologicheskago fakulteta Imperatorskago s.-
peterburgskago universiteta 36, St. Petersburg 1895 (the above text of Ps. Justin with 15
additional questions; rep. Leipzig 1975, ed. G. Hansen).
, Pseudo-Iustinus Cohortatio ad Graecos, D e Monarchia, Oratio ad Graecos, PTS 3 2 , ed.
M. Marcovich, Berlin/New York, 1990 (Ps. Justin).
Lactantius, Lactance. Institutions divines, livre V, ed. Pierre Monat, Vols. 1-2, SC 2 0 4 / 2 0 5 ,
Paris 1973.
, Lactantius. The Divine Institutes Books I-VII, Trans. M. F. McDonald, O.P., FC 4 9 ,
Washington 1964.
, Lactantius de mortibus persecutorum, ed. and trans. J. L. Creed, OECT, Oxford 1984.
354 Bibliography
Libanius, Libanius. S e l e c t e d W o r k s , ed. and trans. A . F. N o r m a n , V o l . 1, LCL,

Cambridge/London 1987.
Ps. Longinus, 'Longinus* On the Sublime, ed. and comm. D . A. Russell, Oxford 1964.
Macarius Magnes, ΜΑΚΑΡΙΟΥ ΜΑΓΝΗΤΟΣ ΑΠΟΚΡΙΤΙΚΟΣ Η ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ Macarii
Magnetis quae supersunt ex inedito codice, ed. C. Blondel, Paris 1876.
, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts
[Die im Apocriticus des Macarius Magnes enthaltene Streitschrift], ed. A. von Harnack,
T U 3 7 . 4 , Leipzig 1911.
, Macarios de Magnesie, Le Monogones. 6dition critique et traduction fransaise, Tome I
Introduction generate. Tome II fidition critique, traduction et commentaire, ed. and trans.
R. Goulet, Textes et traditions 7, Paris 2003. Goulet has altered Blondel's numeration in
certain texts.
, An ET is T. W. Crafer, The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes, N e w York/London 1919.
, The pagan's material (and not the nominal Porphyrian texts) only is translated in:
Joseph Hoffmann, Porphyry's Against the Christians, Amherst 1994.
Maximus of Tyre, Dissertationes, ed. Μ. B. Trapp, BiTeu, Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1994.
, Maximus of Tyre. The Philosophical Orations, trans, with notes Μ. B. Trapp, Oxford
1997.
Nag Hammadi Codices, The Coptic Gnostic Library. A Complete Edition of the Nag
Hammadi Codices, Vol. 2, ed. J. M. Robinson, Leiden 2000.
, J. M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English, trans, by members of the
Coptic Gnostic Library Project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, San
Francisco 1977.
Numenius, Numenius. Fragments, ed. Iidouard des Places, CUFr, Paris 1973.
Ocellus, R. Harder, Ocellus Lucanus — Text und Kommentar, Berlin 1926.
Origen, Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated with an Introduction & Notes, ed. and trans. H.
Chadwick, Cambridge 1953.
, Die Schrift v o m Martyrium, Buch I-IV gegen Celsus (I). Buch V-VIII gegen Celsus,
Die Schrift vom Gebet (II), GCS Origenes I-II, ed. P. Koetschau, Leipzig 1899.
, Origenes Contra Celsum libri VIII, Texts and Studies of Early Christian Life and
Language, Supp. VigChr 54, ed. M. Marcovich, Brill 2 0 0 1 .
, Origene Contre Celse. Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes, ed. M.
Borret, s.j. Vols. 1-5, SC 1 3 2 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 7 , 1 5 0 , 2 2 7 , Paris 1967-1976.
, Origenes Matthauserklarung II. D i e lateinische Ubersetzung der commentariorum
series, GCS Origenes XI, ed. E. Klostermann, Berlin 1976.
, O r i g e n i s de principiis libri IV, T e x t e zur Forschung 2 4 , ed. and trans. Η .
Gorgemanns/H. Karpp, Darmstadt 1976.
Papyri Graecae M a g i c a e , K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae. D i e Griechischen
Zauberpapyri. 2 vols., ed. E. Heitsch/A. Henrichs, Stuttgart 1973/1974.
, H. D . Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, including the Demotic Spells,
Chicago/London 1986.
Philo, On Animals, A. Terian, Philonis Alexandri de animalibus: The Armenian Text with an
Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism 1, Chico, CA
1981.
Philo B y b l o s , H. W. Attridge/R. A. OdenJr., Philo of B y b l o s , The Phoenician History.
Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes, CBQMS 9, Washington, D.C., 1981.
Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. R. Henry, CBy, Paris 1959.
Plato, Platonis opera, ed. J. Burnet, Vols. 1-5, OCT, Oxford 1900-1907.
, The Collected Dialogues of Plato, ed. E. Hamilton/H. Cairnes, Bollingen Series 7 1 ,
Princeton 1961.
Ancient Sources 355
Plotinus, Plotini Opera, Vols. 1-3, OCT, Oxford 1954-1982.

Polychronius, Commentarii in Danielem [fragmenta] in catenis, in: Mai, Scriptorum, Vol.
1.3,1-27 (see Catena Iohannis Drungarii above).
Porphyry, Porphyrii philosophi platonici opuscula selecta, ed. A. Nauck, BiTeu, Leipzig
1886.
, Porphyrii de philosophia e x oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae, ed. G. Wolff,
Hildesheim 1962 (1st ed. 1856).
, Ροφηντπιβ "Gegen die Christen," 15 Bucher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate, ed.
Adolf von Harnack, APAW.PH 1, Berlin 1916.
, M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. From Tacitus to Simplicius,
Vol. 2, Jerusalem 1 9 8 0 , 4 2 3 - 8 3 (many texts of Porphyry concerning the Jews).
, P. Nautin, Trois autres fragments du livre de Porphyre «Contre les Chretiens», R B 57,
1950,409-416.
, J. G. Cook, A Possible Fragment of Porphyry's Contra Christianos from Michael the
Syrian, ZAC 2 , 1 9 9 8 , 1 1 3 - 2 2 .
, R. M. Berchman has made a translation of many of the fragments of the Contra
Christianos in: Porphyry Against the Christians. Introduction, Fragments, Translation,
Notes, [forthcoming from Brill].
, Porphyre. La vie de Plotin, ed. Luc Brisson/Marie-Odile Goulet-Caze/R. Goulet/D.
O'Brien et al., V o l s . 1-2, Histoire des doctrines de l'antiquite classique 6, Paris
1982/1992.
, Porphyre. D e l'abstinence, ed., trans., with notes by J. Bouffartigue/M. Patillon/A.
Segonds/L. Brisson, Vols. I-III, CUFr, Paris 1977-1995.
, Porphyry, The Homeric Questions, ed. and trans. R. R. Schlunk, Lang Classical Studies
2 , N e w Y o r k e t a l . 1993.
, Porphyry, The Cave of the Nymphs in the Odyssey, (text and trans.) Seminar Classics
609, State University of N Y at Buffalo, Buffalo 1969.
, Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta, ed. Andrew Smith, BiTeu, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1993.
, Porphyre. V i e de Pythagore. Lettre a Marcella, ed. Edouard des Places, CUFr, Paris
1982.
, Porphyrios ΠΡΟΣ Μ Α Ρ Κ Ε Λ Λ Α Ν , ed., trans., and comm. W. Potscher, Philosophia
Antiqua 15, Leiden 1969.
, H. Dorrie, Porphyrios' Symmikta Zetemata. Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte
des Neuplatonismus nebst einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten, Zetemata 20, Munchen
1959.
, A. R. Sodano, Porfirio. Lettera ad Anebo, Naples 1958.
Posidonius. I. The Fragments, ed. L. Edelstein/I. G. Kidd, Cambridge Classical Texts and
Commentaries 13, Cambridge 1972.
Proclus, E. R. Dodds, Proclus, the Elements of Theology, a revised text with Translation,
Introduction and Commentary, Oxford 1963.
Ps. Sallustius, D e diis, Sallustius Concerning the Gods and the Universe, ed. A. D . Nock,
Hildesheim 1966 (rep. of 1926 ed.).
Stoic Fragments, Stoicorum veterum fragmenta I-IV, ed. Johannes von Arnim, Leipzig 1903
(SVF).
Symmachus, Relatio, in: Prudence, ed. M. Lavarenne, CUFr, Paris 1963, 85-113.
Tertullian, Tertulliani Opera, CChr.SL 1-2, ed. E. Dekkers et al., Turnholt 1954.
, J. H. Waszink, Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani de anima, Amsterdam 1947.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, see Julian.
Theodoret, Theodoreti Cyrensis quaestiones in Octateuchum, Textos y Estudios «Cardenal
Cisneros» 17, ed. N . Fernandez Marcos/A. Saenz-Badillos, Madrid 1979.
356 Bibliography
Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), Thesaurus Linguae Graecae C D R O M #E, U. Cal. Irvine
1999. The authors on the disk are listed by: L. Berkowitz/K. A.Squitier, Thesaurus
3
Linguae Graecae. Canon of Greek Authors and Works, N e w York/Oxford 1990 .
Timaeus of Locri, Τ. H. Tobin, ed. and trans., Timaeus of Locri. On the Nature of the World
and the Soul, SBLTT 26, Chico, C A 1985.
Tubingen T h e o s o p h y (Textus T h e o s o p h i a e Tubingensis), T h e o s o p h o r u m Graecorum
Fragmenta, BiTeu, ed. H. Erbse, Stuttgart 1995.
Scholarship
Adler, M., Kaiser Julian und die Juden, in: Julian Apostata, ed. R. Klein, W e g e der
Forschung 509, Darmstadt 1978,48-111 (original ET in JQR 5 , 1 8 9 3 , 5 9 1 - 6 5 1 ) .
Aitken, J. K., Review of M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, JBL 1 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 , 331-41.
Aland, K., Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri I, Berlin 1976.
Alexander, L., The Gospels among Pagans, in: The Written Gospel, ed. M. Bockmuehl/D.
Hagner, Cambridge 2005 (forthcoming).
Alexander, P. S., Jewish elements in Gnosticism and Magic c. C E 70-c. C E 2 7 0 , in: The
Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 3. The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury/W. D .
Davies,/J. Sturdy, Cambridge 1 9 9 9 , 1 0 5 2 - 7 8 .
Andresen, C , Logos and Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum, A K G 30,
Berlin 1955.
A s m u s , R., Julians Galilaerschrift im Zusammenhang mit seinen ubrigen Werken. Ein
Beitrag zur Erklarung und Kritik der julianischen Schriften, Beilage zum Jahresbericht des
Grossherzoglichen Gymnasiums zu Freiburg i Br., Freiburg i. Br. 1904.
Aziza, C , Julien et le Judaisme, in: Braun/Richer, L'Empereur Julien, 141-58.
, L'utilisation polemique du recit de l'Exode chez des ocrivains alexandrins, A N R W
Π.20.1,1997,41-65
Bammel, E., D i e Zitate in Origenes' Schrift wider Celsus, in: Origeniana Quarta. Die
Referate des 4. Internationalen Origeneskongresses (Innsbruck, 2.-6. September 1985) ed.
L. Lies, Innsbruck/Vienna 1987,2-6.
Bardy, G., La litterature patristique des quaestiones et responsiones sur l'Ocriture Sainte, RB
4 1 , 1 9 3 2 , 2 1 0 - 3 6 , 341-69, 515-37; 4 2 , 1 9 3 3 , 1 4 - 3 0 , 211-29, 328-352.
Bar-Kochva, B., Judas Maccabaeus. The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids, Cambridge
1989
Barnes, T. D . , Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments, JThS
24,1973,424-442.
, The Chronology of Plotinus' Life, GRBS 1 7 , 1 9 7 6 , 6 5 - 7 0 .
, Scholarship or Propaganda? Porphyry Against the Christians and its Historical Setting,
BICS 3 9 , 1 9 9 4 , 5 3 - 6 5 .
Bartelink, G. J. Μ., ΒΑΣΚΑΝΟΣ designation de Satan et des demons chez les auteurs
chr&iens, OrChrP 4 9 , 1 9 8 3 , 390-406.
Barzano, Α., Cheremone di Alessandria, A N R W I I . 3 2 . 3 , 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 8 1 - 2 0 0 1 .
Beatrice, P. F., Le tuniche de Pelle. Antiche letture di Gen 3 , 2 1 , in: La tradizione
dell'Enkrateia. Atti del Colloquio di Milano, Aprile 1982, Roma 1 9 8 5 , 4 3 3 - 8 4 .
, Pagans and Christians on the Book of Daniel, in: StPatr X X V , ed. E. A. Livingstone,
Leuven 1 9 9 3 , 2 7 - 4 5 .
Beck, E., Ephraem Syrus, R A C V, 1 9 6 2 , 5 2 0 - 3 1 .
Scholarship 357
Benko, S., Pagan Criticism of Christianity During the First T w o Centuries A . D . , A N R W

II.23.2,1980, 1055-1118.
, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians, Bloomington/Indianapolis 1986.
Berchman. R. M., In the Shadow of Origen: Porphyry and the Patristic Origins of N e w
Testament Criticism, in: Origeniana Sexta. Origene et la Bible / Origen and the Bible, ed.
Gilles Dorival/Alain le Boulluec et al., BEThL 118, Leuven 1 9 9 5 , 6 5 7 - 6 7 3 .
Bergjan, S.-P., Celsus the Epicurean? The Intepretation of an Argument in Origen, Contra
Celsum, HTR 9 4 , 2 0 0 1 , 1 4 9 - 2 0 4 .
Bergman, J., Per omnia vectus elementa remeavi. Reflections sur l'arriere-plan egyptien du
voyage de salut d'un myste isiaque, in: La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' impero
romano, EPRO 9 2 , ed. U. Bianchi/M. J. Vermaseren, Leiden 1 9 8 2 , 6 7 1 - 7 0 8 .
Bernays, J., Theophrastos' Schrift uber Frornmigkeit, Berlin 1866.
Betz, H. D . , Eduard Norden und die friihchristliche Literatur, in: Antike und Christentum.
Gesammelte Aufsatze IV, Tubingen 1 9 9 8 , 7 8 - 9 9 .
, Jewish Magic in the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM V I I . 2 6 0 - 7 1 ) , in: Antike und
Christentum, IV, 187-205.
, Hermetism and Gnosticism: The Question of the Poimandres, in: Antike und
Christentum, IV, 2 0 6 - 2 1 .
Beutler, R., Porphyrios 2 , PRE XXII, 1 9 5 4 , 2 7 5 - 3 1 3 .
Bickermann, E., Der Gott der Makkabaer. Untersuchungen uber Sinn und Ursprung der
makkabaischen Erhebung, Berlin 1937.
, Four Strange Books of the Bible, Jonah / Daniel / Koheleth / Esther, N e w York 1967.
Bidez, J., Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe neo-platonicien, Hildesheim 1964 (1st ed. 1913).
, La vie de l'empereur Julien, Paris 1965.
2
Blau, L., Das altjudische Zauberwesen, Strassburg 1 8 9 8 , 1 9 1 4 .
Bodenmann, R., Naissance d'une Exegese. Daniel dans l'figlise ancienne des trois premiers
siecles, B G B E 28, Tubingen 1986.
Boer, W. den, Scriptorum paganorum I-IV saec. de Christianis testimonia, Textus Minores II,
Leiden 1948.
, A Pagan Historian and his Enemies: Porphyry Against the Christians, CP 6 9 , 1974,
198-208.
Borret, M., L'feriture d'apres le pai'en Celse, in: Mondesert, Le monde grec, 171- 9 3 .
Bouffartigue, J., L'empereur Julien et la culture de son temps, Collection des Etudes
Augustiniennes. S. Antiquitee 133, Paris 1992.
3
Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums, H N T 2 1 , ed. H. Gressmann, Tubingen, 1926 .
Bowersock, G. W., Julian the Apostate, Cambridge 1978.
, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, Jerome Lectures 18, Ann Arbor 1990.
2
Brady, T. A./ Fontenrose, J. E., Incubation, O C D , 5 4 3 - 4 4 .
Braverman, J., Jerome's Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish-Christian
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, CBQMS 7, Washington, D.C., 1978.
Braun, R., Julien et le christianisme, L'Empereur Julien. D e l'histoire a la legende, ed. Reno
Braun/Jean Richer, Paris 1 9 7 8 , 1 5 7 - 8 7 .
Briquel, D . , Creation d'Adam et mythe d'autochtonie, Helmantica 5 0 , 1 9 9 9 , 85-96.
Brock S., Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources, JJS 3 0 , 1 9 7 9 , 2 1 2 - 3 2 .
, Greek into Syriac and Syriac into Greek, in: Idem, Syriac Perspectives on Late
Antiquity, London 1 9 8 4 , 1 - 1 7 .
, Some Aspects of Greek Words in Syriac, in: Syriac Perspectives, 80-108.
, From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning, in: Syriac
Perspectives, 17-34.
358 Bibliography
, A Letter Attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem on the Rebuilding of the Temple, B S O A S 4 0 ,

1977, 267-86 (also in: Syriac Perspectives, 267-86).
nd
Brockelmann K., Lexicon Syriacum, Hildesheim 1966 ( 2 ed. 1928).
Brox, N., Gnostische Argumente bei Julianus Apostata, JAC 1 0 , 1 9 6 7 , 1 8 1 - 6 .
Brans, P., Polychronius von Apamea — Der Exeget und Theologe, in: StPatr X X X V I I , ed.
M. F. Wiles/E. J. Yarnold, Leuven 2 0 0 1 , 4 0 4 - 1 2 .
Buchli, J., Der Poimandres. Ein paganisiertes Evangelium, W U N T 2/27, Tubingen 1987.
Burke, G. T., Celsus and the Qld Testament, V T 3 6 , 1 9 8 6 , 241-5.
Burkert, W., Greek Religioni Archaic and Classical, trans. John Raffan, Cambridge 1985 (1st
ed. 1977).
, Zur geistesgeschichtlichen Einordnung einiger Pseudopythagorica, in: Pseudepigrapha,
V o l I., ed. K. von Fritz, Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique 18, Vandoeuvres-Geneva
1972, 23-55.
2
Cadbury, H. J., Septuagint, O C D , 978-79.
Cameron, Α., The Date of Porphyry's Κ Α Τ Α ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΩΝ, CQ 1 7 , 1 9 6 7 , 382-384.
Camplani, Α., Riferimenti biblici nella letteratura ermetica, A S E 1 0 , 1 9 9 3 , 3 7 5 - 4 2 5 .
Casey, P. M., Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel, JThS 2 7 , 1 9 7 6 , 1 5 - 3 3 .
, Son of Man. The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7, London 1979.
, Porphyry and Syrian Exegesis of the Book of Daniel, Z N W 8 1 , 1 9 9 0 , 1 3 9 - 4 2 .
Cassel, J. D . , Key Principles in Cyril of Alexandria's Exegesis, in: StPatr XXXVII, ed. M. F.
Wiles/E J . Yarnold, Leuven 2 0 0 1 , 4 1 3 - 2 0 .
Castelli, G., L o θ ε ό ς ζηλωτής ebraico nel «Contra Galileos» di Giuliano, in: Π «Giuliano
l'Apostata» di Augusto Rostagni. Atti dell'incontro di studio di Muzzano del 18 ottobre
1981, Suppl. AAT11/116, ed. I. Lana, Turin 1983, 85-91.
Cataudella, Quintino, Celso e l'Epicureismo, A S N S P 1 2 , 1 9 4 3 , 1 - 2 3 .
, Celso e gli Apologeti Cristiani, NDid 1 , 1 9 4 7 , 2 8 - 3 4 .
Cavallera, F., Saint Jerome. Sa vie et son oeuvre, 1,2, Louvain 1922.
Centrone, B., Ecphante de Crotone, Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, ed. R. Goulet,
Vol. 3 , Paris 1 9 8 9 , 5 5 and Idem, Pseudo-Ecphante in Ibid., 55-6,
Chadwick, H., See also under Origen in Ancient Sources.
, Origen, Celsus, and the Stoa, JThS 4 8 , 1 9 4 7 , 34-49.
, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition, Oxford 1984 (1st edition 1966).
2
Charlesworth, M. P./G. B. Townend, Tacitus, O C D , 1 0 3 4 - 5 .
Chauveau, M., Egypt in the A g e of Cleopatra. History and Society under the Ptolemies,
trans. D . Lorton, Ithaca/London 2000.
Clark, G., Porphyry o f Tyre on the N e w Barbarians, in: Constructing Identities in Late
Antiquity, ed. R. Miles, London/New York 1 9 9 9 , 1 1 2 - 3 2 .
Collins, J. J., Daniel. A commentary on the book of Daniel, with an essay "The influence of
Daniel on the N e w Testament," by A. Yarbro Collins, ed. by F. M. Cross, Hermeneia,
Minneapolis 1993.
Cook, J. G., S o m e Hellenistic Responses to the Gospels and Gospel Traditions, Z N W 84,
1993, 233-54.
, The Protreptic Power of Early Christian Language: From John to Augustine, VigChr
48,1994,105-134.
, The Logic and Language of Romans 1,20, Bib. 7 5 , 1 9 9 4 , 4 9 4 - 5 1 7 .
, The Structure and Persuasive Power of Mark, Semeia Studies, Atlanta 1995.
, The Interpretation of the N e w Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism, S T A C 3 , ed. C.
Markschies, Tubingen 2000.
Courcelle, P., Critiques exeg&iques et arguments antichretiens rapportes par Ambrosiaster,
VigChr 1 3 , 1 9 5 9 , 1 3 3 - 6 9 .
Scholarship 359
, Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius to St. Ambrose, in:
The Conflict B e t w e e n Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. Arnaldo
Momigliano, Oxford 1 9 6 3 , 1 5 1 - 9 2 .
, Late Latin Writers and Their Greek Sources, trans. Η. E. Wedeck, Cambridge 1969.
Croke, B., The Era of Porphyry's Anti-Christian Polemic, JRH 1 4 , 1 9 8 3 , 1 - 1 4 .
, Porphyry's Anti-Christian Chronology, JThS 3 4 , 1 9 8 3 , 1 6 8 - 1 8 5 .
Cureton, W., Spicilegium Syriacum, London 1855.
st
Deissman, Α., Light from the Ancient East, Grand Rapids 1978 ( 1 ed. 1922).
Delatte, L., Les Traites de la Royaute* d'Ecphante, Diotogene et Sthenidas, Liege 1942.
Demarolle, J. M., Le Contre Gali6ens. Continuite et rupture dans la demarche polemique de
l'empereur Julien, Ktema 1 1 , 1 9 8 6 , 3 9 - 4 7 .
Deubner, L., D e incubatione capita quattuor, Leipzig 1900.
Devreesse, R., Chaines exegotiques grecques, D B S I, 1928, 1084-1233.
Dillon, J., The Magical Power of N a m e s in Origen and Later Platonism, in: Origeniana
Tertia. The Third International Colloquium for Origen Studies, ed. R. Hanson/H. Crouzel,
Rome 1 9 8 5 , 2 0 3 - 1 6 .
Dodd, C. H., The Bible and the Greeks, London 1935.
D o d d s , E. R., N u m e n i u s and A m m o n i u s , in: Entretiens sur l'Antiquito Classique 5,
Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1 9 6 0 , 3 - 3 2 .
D o m e , H., Pythagoreismus, PRE X X I V , 1963,268-77.
, Chaeremon 2, KP 1 , 1 9 6 4 , 1 1 2 1 .
, Okellus, KP IV, 1 9 7 2 , 2 7 0 .
Dorival, G., La Bible des Septante chez les auteurs paiens (jusqu'au Pseudo-Longin), in:
Lectures anciennes de la Bible, Cahiers de la Biblia patristica 1, Strasbourg 1 9 8 7 , 9 - 2 6 .
Downey, G., Themistius and the Defence of Hellenism in the Fourth Century, HTR 50, 1957,
259-74.
Drijvers, H. J. W., Bardaisan of Edessa, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 6, Assen 1966.
Droge, A/, Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture, HUTh
26, Tubingen 1989.
2
Drawer M. SVFrye, R. N., Darius I, O C D , 3 1 3 .
Duling, D . C , Testament of Solomon, OTP 1,935-59.
Dzielska, M., Hypatia of Alexandria, trans. F. Lyra, Cambridge, MA/London 1995.
Edwards, M. J., Atticizing Moss? Numenius, the Fathers and the Jews, VigChr 4 4 , 1990, 64-
75.
, Philo or Sanchuniathon? A Phoenicean Cosmogony, CQ 4 1 , 1 9 9 1 , 213-220.
Edwards, M./Goodman, M./Price, S., ed., Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews,
and Christians, Oxford 1999.
Fedou, M., Christianisme et religions pai'ennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origene, ThH 8 1 , Paris
1988.
Feissel, D . , La Bible dans les inscription grecques, in: Mondesert, Le monde grec ancien,
223-31.
Feldman, L., Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World, Attitudes and Interactions from
Alexander to Justinian, Princeton 1993.
Ferch, Arthur J., Porphyry: A n Heir to Christian Exegesis?, ZNW 7 3 , 1 9 8 3 , 1 4 1 - 4 7 .
Festugiere, A. J., La r e f l a t i o n d'Hermes Trism£giste, I-IV, Paris 1944-1954.
Finamore, J., Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul, American Philological
Association. American Classical Studies 14, Chico, CA 1985.
Fitzmeyer, J. A./Harrington, D. J., A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, BibOrient 34,
Rome 1978.
360 Bibliography
Fox, R. L., Pagans and Christians, Cambridge et al. 1988.

Frassinetti, P., Porfirio esegeta del profeta Daniele, RIL 8 6 , 1 9 5 3 , 1 9 4 - 2 1 0 .
Frohnhofen, H., Apatheia tou theou: Uber die Affektlosigkeit Gottes in der griechischen
Antike und bei den griechischsprachigen Kirchenvatern bis zu Gregorios Thaumaturgos,
Bern 1987.
Frede, M., Celsus Philosophus Platonicus, A N R W Π . 3 6 . 7 , 1 9 9 4 , 5 1 8 3 - 5 2 1 3 .
, C e l s u s ' Attack on the Christians, in: Philosophia Togata II. Plato and Aristotle at
Rome, ed. Jonathan Barnes/Miriam Griffin, Oxford 1 9 9 7 , 2 1 8 - 4 0 .
, Ekphantos (2), Der neue Pauly m , 1 9 9 7 , 9 4 2 .
, Origen's Treatise Against Celsus, in: Edwards/Goodman/Price, Apologetics, 131-55.
, Eusebius' Apologetic Writings, in: Edwards/Goodman/Price, Apologetics, 223-50.
Freudenthal, J., Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judaischer und
samaritanischer Geschichtswerke, Hellenistische Studien 1-2, Breslau, 1875.
Gager, J. G., Moses and Alpha, JThS 2 0 , 1 9 6 9 , 2 4 5 - 4 8 .
, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism, Nashville/New York 1973.
, T h e Origins o f Anti-Semitism. Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian
Antiquity, N e w York/Oxford 1983.
, Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from the Ancient World, N e w York/Oxford 1992.
Geffcken, J., Zwei Griechische Apologeten, Leipzig 1907.
Gera, D . , Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical
Diaries, JAOS 1 1 7 , 1 9 9 7 , 2 4 0 - 2 5 2 .
Ginzberg, L., The Legends of the Jews, 7 vols., Philadelphia 1909-38.
Girgenti, G., Porfirio negli ultimi cinquant'anni. Bibliografia sistematica e ragionata della
letteratura primaria e secundaria riguardante il pensiero porfiriano e i suoi influssi storici,
Centro di Ricerche di Metafisica. Temi metafisici e problemi del pensiero antico. Studi e
testi 3 5 , Milano 1994.
Goldingay, J., Daniel, W B C 30, Dallas 1989.
Gonzalez Blanco, Α., Hermetism, A Bibliographical Approach, A N R W II. 17.4, 1984, 2240-
81.
Goulet, R., Porphyre et la datation de Moise, RHR 4 , 1 9 7 7 , 1 3 7 - 1 6 4 .
, Porphyre, Ammonius, les deux Origene et les autres, RHPhR 5 7 , 1 9 7 7 , 4 7 1 - 9 6 .
, Porphyre et Macaire de Magnesie, in: Idem, Etudes sur les vies de philosophes dans
l'antiquite tardive. D i o g e n e Laerce, Porphyre de Tyr, Eunape de Sardes, Textes et
Traditions 1, Paris 2 0 0 1 , 2 9 5 - 9 , 3 9 7 (originally published in StPatr X V , 1984,448-52).
, Prohoresius le paien et quelques remarques sur la chronologie d'Eunape de Sardes, in:
Idem, Iitudes, 323-47.
, La philosophie de Moise. Essai de reconstitution d'un commentaire philosophique
prephilonien du Pentateuque, H D A C 11, Paris 1987.
, Hypotheses recentes sur le traite de Porphyre Contre les Chretiens, in: Hellenisme et
christianisme, Mythes, Imaginaires, Religions, ed. M. Narcy/έ. Rebillard, Villeneuve
d'Ascq 2 0 0 4 , 61-109.
Grabbe, L. L., Maccabean Chronology: 167-164 or 168-165 B.C.E.?, JBL 1 1 0 , 1 9 9 1 , 5 9 - 7 4 .
Grant, R. M., The Earliest Lives of Jesus, N e w York 1961.
, The Stromateis of Origen, in: Epektasis. Melanges patristiques offerts au Cardinal Jean
Danielou, ed. Jacques Fontaine/Charles Kannengiesser, Paris 1 9 7 2 , 2 8 5 - 9 2 .
, Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Philadelphia 1988.
2
Griffith, G. T., Ecphantus, O C D , 3 6 9 .
Gudeman, Α . , Lysimachus (20), PRE XIV, 1 9 2 8 , 3 2 - 9 .
Hadot, P., Citations de Porphyre chez Augustin, REAug 6 , 1 9 6 0 , 2 0 5 - 4 4 .
Scholarship 361
, Le m£taphysique de Porphyre, Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique XII, Vandoeuvres-

Geneve 1 9 6 6 , 1 2 7 - 5 7 .
, Porphyre et Victorinus, Vol. I, II, Paris 1968.
Hallstrom, G. Α., Charismatic Succession. A Study on Origen's Concept of Prophecy,
Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 4 2 , Helsinki 1985.
Haelst, J. van, Catalogue des papyri litteraires juifs et Chretiens, Paris 1976.
Haenchen, E., Aufbau und Theologie des ,,Poimandres", ZThK 5 3 , 1 9 5 6 , 1 4 9 - 9 1 .
Hagendahl, H., Latin Fathers and the Classics, Goteborg 1958.
, V o n Tertullian zu Cassiodor. D i e profane literarische Tradition in dem lateinischen
christlichen Schrifttum, Studia graeca et latina Gothoburgensia 4 4 , Goteborg n.d.
Hamilton, M., Incubation, of the Cure of Disease in Pagan and Christian Churches, London
1906.
Hargis, J. W., Against the Christians. The Rise of Early Anti-Christian Polemic, Patristic
Studies 1, N e w York et al. 1999.
Harnack, A. von, Uber den privaten Gebrauch der heiligen Schriften in der alten Kirche,
Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 1912.
, Marcion: Das Evangelium v o m fremden Gott. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte der
2
Grundlegung der katholischen Kirche, T U 4 5 , Leipzig 1924 .
Hauck, R. J., The More Divine Proof. Prophecy and Inspiration in Celsus and Origen, A A R
Academy Series 69, Atlanta 1989.
2
Heichelheim, F.M./ Fraser, P. M., Ptolemy (1), O C D , 8 9 6 .
Hellholm, D . , The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John, in: S B L 1982
Seminar Papers, ed. K. Richards, Chico, C A 1982,157-198.
H e l l w i g , P., T I T U L U S oder U B E R D E N Z U S A M M E N H A N G V O N TITELN U N D
TEXTEN. Titel sind ein Schlussel zur Textkonstitution, Zeitschrift fur Germanistische
Linguistik 1 2 , 1 9 8 4 , 1-20.
Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine in the Hellenistic
Period, Vols. 1-2, Philadelphia 1974 (German ed. 1973).
, Der alte und der neue 'Schurer', JSS 3 5 , 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 - 6 4 .
, with the assistance of R. Deines, Die Septuaginta als „christliche Schriftensammlung",
ihre Vorgeschichte und das Problem ihres Kanons, in: D i e Septuaginta z w i s c h e n
Judentum und Christentum, ed. M. Hengel/A. M. Schwemer, W U N T 7 2 , Tubingen 1994,
182-284.
Hengel, M./Schwemer, A . M., Paul Between Damascus and Antioch. The Unknown Years,
trans. J. Bowden, Louisville 1997.
Hilhorst, Α., Deuteronomy's monotheism and the Christians. The case of Deut 6:13 and
10:10, in: Studies in Deuteronomy in Honour of C. J. Labuschange on the Occasion of his
th
6 5 Birthday, ed. F. Garcia Martinez/A. Hilhorst/J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten/A.S. van der
Woude, Leiden 1994, 83-91.
Holladay, C. R., ed., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. V o l u m e I. Historians,
SBLTT 20, Pseudepigrapha Series 10, Chico, C A 1983.
, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. V o l u m e II. Poets. The Epic Poets
Theodotus and Philo and Ezekiel the Tragedian, SBLTT 30, Pseudepigrapha Series 12,
Atlanta 1989.
, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. Volume III. Aristobulus, S B L T T 3 9 ,
Pseudepigrapha Series 13, Atlanta 1995.
Holleaux, M., 6tudes d'epigraphie et d'histoire grecques, Tome III Lagides et Seleucides,
Paris 1942.
362 Bibliography
Holzhausen, J., Der «Mythos v o m Menschen» im hellenistischen Agypten. Eine Studie zum
"Poimandres" (= CH I), zu Valentin und dem g n o s t i s c h e n M y t h o s , Athenaums
Monografien Theophaneia 33, Hain 1994.
Horst, P. W. van der, see Chaeremon in the section on ancient authors.
Hospers-Jansen, Α. Μ. Α., Tacitus over de Joden, Groningen 1949.
Hovland, C. W., The Dialogue Between Origen and Celsus, in: Pagan and Christian Anxiety.
A Response to E. R. Dodds, ed. R, C. Smith/J. Lounibos, Lanham, MD/London 1984,
191-216.
Huber, G./Chronz, M., Cyrill v o n Alexandrien. Ein Forschungsvorhaben, in: van
Oort/Wyrwa, Heiden, 66-87.
Hulen, A. B., The 'Dialogues with the Jews' as Sources for the Early Jewish Argument
Against Christianity, JBL 5 1 , 1 9 3 2 , 58-70.
Huskinson, J., W o m e n and Learning. Gender and Identity in Scenes of Intellectual Life on
Late Roman Sarcophagi, in: Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity, ed. R. Miles,
London/New York 1 9 9 9 , 1 9 0 - 2 1 3 .
Jansen, H. L., Die Frage nach Tendenz und Verfasserschaft im Poimandres, in: Proceedings
of the International Colloquium on Gnosticism. Stockholm August 20-25 1973, ed. G.
Widengren/D. Hellholm, Stockholm 1 9 7 7 , 1 5 7 - 6 3 .
Jenkins, C. F., Origen on 1 Corinthians, JThS 1 0 , 1 9 0 9 , 2 9 - 5 1 .
Jordan, D . R., N e w Defixiones from Carthage, in: The Circus and a Byzantine Cemetery at
Carthage, Vol. 1, ed. J. H. Humphrey, Ann Arbor 1 9 8 8 , 1 1 7 - 3 4 .
Junod, έ . , Les attitudes d'Apelles, disciple de Marcion, a 1'egard de l'Ancien Testament, Aug
22,1982,113-33.
Kasher, Α., The Propaganda Purposes of Manetho's Libellous Story about the Base Origin of
the Jews, in: Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel, Vol. Ill,
ed. B. Oded et al., Haifa 1 9 7 4 , 6 9 - 8 4 (in Hebrew).
Kinzig, Wolfram, Zur Notwendigkeit einer Neuedition von Kyrill von Alexandrien, Contra
Iulianum, in: StPatr XXIX, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Leuven 1 9 9 7 , 4 8 4 - 9 4 .
Klein, R., ed., Julian Apostata, Wege der Forschung 509, Darmstadt 1978.
Koenen, L., D i e Prophezeihungen des Topfers, ZPE 2 , 1 9 6 8 , 1 7 8 - 2 0 9 .
r
de Labriolle, P., La reaction paienne. Etude sur la polemique antichr&ienne du F au V P
Siecle, Paris 1948.
Lamberton, R., Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of
the Epic Tradition, Berkeley et al. 1989.
Lampe, G. W. H., The Seal of the Spirit, A Study in the Doctrine o f Baptism and
Confirmation in the N e w Testament and the Fathers, London 1951.
Larsen, B. D . , Jamblique de Chalcis. Exegete et philosophe, Aarhus 1972.
Lataix, J. (= A. Loisy), Le commentaire de Saint Jerome sur Daniel, RHLR 2, 1897, 164-73,
268-77.
Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literatur-
3
wissenschaft, Stuttgart 1990 .
LeMoyne, J., Les Sadduceens, Paris 1972.
Lewy, H., Tacitus on the Origins and Manners of the Jews, Zion 8 , 1 9 4 3 , 1 - 2 6 (Hebrew).
, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy. Mysticism, Magic and Platonism in the Later Roman
Empire, reedited by M. Tardieu, Paris 1978.
, Julian the Apostate and the Building of the Temple, in: The Jerusalem Cathedra.
Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel,
ed. L. I. Levine, Jerusalem-Detroit 1983,70-96.
Lietzmann, H., Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule, T U 1, Tubingen 1904 (rep.
Hildesheim 1970).
Scholarship 363
Lightfoot, J. Β., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Colossians and Philemon, London 1892.
Limburg, K., P o r p h y r i o s , D i e B e s e e l u n g der Embryonen. T e x t , U b e r s e t z u n g u.
Erlauterungen, Diss. Koln 1975.
Lods, Marc, £tude sur les sources juives de la polemique de Celse contre les Chretiens,
RHPhR 2 1 , 1 9 4 1 , 1 - 3 3 .
Loesche, G., Haben die spateren Neuplatonischen Polemiker gegen das Christenthum das
Werk des Celsus benutzt? ZWTh 2 7 , 1 8 8 4 , 2 5 7 - 3 0 2 .
Malley, W. J., Hellenism and Christianity. The Conflict Between Hellenic and Christian
Wisdom in the Contra Galilaeos of Julian the Apostate and the Contra Julianum of St.
Cyril of Alexandria, Analecta Gregoriana 210, Rome 1978.
Malunowicz, L., Citations bibliques dans l'epigraphie grecque, in: Studia Evangelica VII, T U
126, ed. E. Livingstone, Berlin 1982,333-37.
Markschies, C , Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinischen Gnosis mit
einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins, W U N T 65, Tubingen 1992.
, Epikureismus bei Origenes und in der origenistischen Tradition, in: M. Erler/R. B e e s ,
Epikureismus in der spaten Republik und der Kaiserzeit: Akten der 2. Tagung der Karl-
und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung v o m 3 0 . September - 3. Oktober 1998 in Wurzburg,
Philosophie der Antike 11, Stuttgart 2 0 0 0 , 1 9 0 - 2 1 7 .
Masaracchia, E., Aspetti della cultura di Giuliano nel Contra Galilaeos, in: Giuliano
Imperatore. Le sue idee, i suoi amici, i suoi avversari. Atti de convegno internazionale di
studi Lecce 10-12 Dicembre 1998, Rudiae. Ricerche sul mondo classico 10, Lecce 1998,
91-111.
May, G. K e l s o s und Origenes iiber die e w i g e n Strafen, in: M o u s o p o l o s Stephanos.
Festschrift fur Herwig Gorgemanns, ed. M. Baumbach/H. Kohler/A. M. Ritter, Bibliothek
der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaften. Reihe 2. Neue Folge 102, Heidelberg 1998,
346-51.
2
McDonald, A. H., Trogus, Pompeius, O C D , 1 0 9 6 - 9 7 .
Mendels, D . , The Polemical Character of Manetho's Aegyptiaca, in: Purposes of History.
t h n d
Studies in Greek Historiography from the 4 to the 2 Centuries B.C. Proceedings of the
International Colloquium Leuven, 2 4 - 2 6 May 1988, ed. H. Verdin/G. Schepens/E. de
Keyser, Studia Hellenistica 30, Louvain 1990,91-110.
Meredith, Α., Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians, A N R W I I . 2 3 . 2 , 1 9 8 0 , 1 1 1 4 - 4 9 .
, Allegory in Porphyry and Gregory of Nyssa, StPatr XVI, ed. E. A. Livingstone, Berlin
1985,423-27.
Merki, Η., Ό μ ο ι ω σ ι ς θεφ. V o n der Platonischen Angleichung an Gott zur Gottahnlichkeit
bei Gregor von Nyssa, Paradosis 7, Freiburg 1951.
Merlan, P., Celsus, R A C I I , 1 9 5 4 , 9 5 4 - 6 5 .
Meyer, M., Ancient Christian Magic. Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, San Francisco 1994.
Micka, E. F., The Problem of Divine Anger in Arnobius and Lactantius, Studies in Christian
Antiquity 4, Washington 1943.
Millar, Fergus, The Roman Near East 31 B C - A D 337, Cambridge, MA/London 1993.
, Porphyry: Ethnicity, Language, and Alien Wisdom, in: Philosophia Togata II. Plato
and Aristotle at Rome, ed. Jonathan Barnes/Miriam Griffin, Oxford 1 9 9 7 , 2 4 1 - 2 6 2 .
Miura-Stange, Α., Celsus und Origenes. Das Gemeinsame ihrer Weltanschauung nach den
acht Buchern d e s O r i g e n e s g e g e n C e l s u s . Eine Studie zur R e l i g i o n s - und
Geistesgeschichte des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts, B Z N W 4, GieBen 1926.
Mondesert, C , ed., Le monde grec ancien et la Bible, Paris 1984.
M0rkholm, O., Antiochus IV of Syria, Classica et Mediaevalia Diss. VIII, Copenhagen 1966.
Montanari, F./T. Hidber, Apion, Der neue Pauly 1 , 1 9 9 7 , 8 4 5 - 7 .
Murray, R., Ephraem Syrus, T R E I X , 1 9 8 2 , 7 5 5 - 6 2 .
364 Bibliography
Nasrallah, L. S., A n Ecstasy of Folly. Prophecy and Authority in Early Christianity, Harvard
Theological Studies 52, Cambridge, Mass., 2003.
Nautin, P., Sanchuniathon chez Philon de Byblos et chez Porphyre, RB 56, 1949, 259-73.
Naveh, J./Shaked, S., Amulets and Magic B o w l s . Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity,
Jerusalem 1987.
Neitzel, S., Apions Γλώσσαι Όμηρικαί, SGLG 3, Berlin/New York 1977.
Nestle, W., D i e Haupteinwande des antiken Denkens gegen das Christentum, A R W 37, 1941,
51-100.
Nock, A. D . , Conversion: The Old and the N e w in Religion from Alexander the Great to
Augustine of Hippo, Oxford 1933.
Norden, N . , A g n o s t o s T h e o s . Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede,
Stuttgart 1971 (rep. of 1913 original).
, Jahwe und M o s e s in hellenistischer Theologie, in: Festgabe fur Adolf von Harnack,
Tubingen 1 9 2 1 , 2 9 2 - 3 0 1 .
, D a s Genesiszitat in der Schrift v o m Erhabenen, in: Idem, Kleine Schriften zum
klassischen Altertum, ed B. Kytzler, Berlin 1966, 286-313 (first published posthumously
in 1955).
van Oort, J./Wyrwa, D., ed., Heiden und Christen im 5. Jahrhundert, Leeuven 1998.
Pagels, E., Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, N e w York 1988.
, Exegesis and Exposition of the Genesis Creation Accounts in Selected Texs from Nag
H a m m a d i , in: N a g H a m m a d i , G n o s t i c i s m , and Early C h r i s t i a n i t y , ed. C.
Hedrick/R.Hodgson, Peabody, M A 1986,257-86.
Pavan, M., Le profezie di Daniele e il destino di Roma negli scrittori latini cristiani dopo
Costantino, in: Popoli, 291-308.
Pearson, Β . Α . , Jewish Elements in Corpus Hermeticum I (Poimandres), in: Studies in
Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of his
th
6 5 Birthday, ed. R. van den Broek/M. J. Vermaseren, EPRO 9 1 , Leiden 1 9 8 1 , 3 3 6 - 4 8 .
Pelagaud, έ . , U n conservateur au second siecle. Celse et les premieres luttes entre la
philosopie antique et le christianisme naissant, Paris 1879.
Pepin, J., Le challenge Homere-Moise aux premiers siecles Chretiens, RevScRel 29, 1955,
105-22.
, Mythe et allegorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judeo-chr£tiennes, Paris
1958.
, Porphyre, exegete d'Homere, in: Porphyre, Entretiens sur I'Antiquite Classique 12,
Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1 9 6 5 , 2 3 1 - 7 2 .
Philonenko, M., Le Poimandres et la liturgie juive, Les syncretismes dans les religions de
l'antiquit£: Colloque de Besancon (22-23 Oktober 1973), ed. F. Dunand/P. Leveque,
EPRO 4 6 , Leiden 1 9 7 5 , 2 0 4 - 1 1 .
Pichler, K., Streit um das Christentum. Der Angriff des Kelsos und die Antwort des Origenes,
Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 23, Frankfurt am Main/Bern 1980.
Pietersma, AM. T. Lutz, Jannes and Jambres, OTP 1,427-42.
Pirioni, P., II soggiorno siciliano di Porfirio e la composizione del Κατά Χριστιανών, RSCI
39,1985,502-508.
des Places, έ . , Numenius et la Bible, in: Idem, Etudes Platoniciennes 1929-1979, EPRO 90,
Leiden 1981, 309-15 (originally published in Homenaje a Juan Prado, Madrid 1975, 497-
502).
, Le «Dieu incertain» des Juifs, in: Etudes Platoniciennes, 2 9 4 - 9 (first published in
Journal des savants 1973,289-93).
Scholarship 365
, U n terme biblique et Platonicien: Akoinonetos, in: i t u d e s Platoniciennes, 300-4 (first

published in Forma Futuri ... Cardinal Michele Pellegrino, Turin 1 9 7 5 , 1 5 4 - 8 ) .
Podskalsky, G., La profezia di Daniele (cc. 2 e 7) negli scrittori d e i r i m p e r o romano
dOriente, in: Popoli, 309-320.
Pohlenz, M., Die Stoa, Vol. I, Gottingen 1948.
Popoli e spazio romano tra diritto e profezia, Atti del III Seminario Internazionali di Studi
Storici: «Da Roma alia terza Roma», Roma 21-23 aprile 1983, Documenti e studi III,
Naples 1986.
Possekel, U., Evidence of Greek Philosophical Concepts in the Writings of Ephrem the
Syrian, CSCO 580, Leuven 1999.
Prigent, P., Le Judaisme et l'image, TSAJ 24, Tubingen 1990.
Quasten, J., Patrology. Vol. I. The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Westminster, M D
1992.
Rahlfs, Α., History of the Septuagint Text, in: Septuaginta, Stuttgart 1935, LVI-LXV.
Raisanen, H., rev. of J. G. Cook, The Interpretation of the N e w Testament in Greco-Roman
Paganism, Teologinen Aikakauskirja 1 0 7 , 2 0 0 2 , 1 6 2 - 4
Rajak, T., Talking at Trypho. Christian Apologetic as Anti-Judaism in Justin's Dialogue with
Trypho the Jew, in: Edwards/Goodman/Price, Apologetics, 59-80.
Reitzenstein, R., Poimandres. Studien zur griechisch-agyptischen und fruhchristlichen
Literatur, Leipzig 1904.
Remus, H., Outside/Inside: Celsus on Jewish and Christian Nomoi, in: Religon, Literature,
and Society in Ancient Israel, Formative Christianity and Judaism, N e w Perspectives on
Ancient Judaism Vol. 2, ed. J. Neusner et al., Lanham/New York/London, 1 9 8 7 , 1 3 3 - 5 0 .
Riedweg, C , Mit Stoa und Platon gegen die Christen: Philosophische Argumentations-
strukturen in Julians Contra Galilaeos, in: Zur Rezeption der hellenistischen Philosophie
in der Spatantike. Akten der 1. Tagung der Karl-und-Gertrud-Abel-Stiftung v o m 2 2 . —
25. September 1997 in Trier, ed. T. Fuhrer/M. Erler, Philosophie der Antike 9, Stuttgart
1999,55-81.
Rinaldi, G., Studi porfiriani. I. Porphyrius Bataneotes, Koinonia, 4 , 1 9 8 0 , 2 5 - 3 7 .
, L'Antico testamento nella polemica anti-cristiana di Porfirio di Tiro, Aug 2 2 , 1982, 9 8 -
111.
, Biblia Gentium: primo contributo per un indice delle citazioni, dei riferimenti e delle
allusioni alia bibbia negli autori pagani, greci e latini, di eta imperiale, Rome 1989.
, Tracce di controversie tra pagani e cristiani nella letteratura patristica delle
"quaestiones et responsiones", A S E 6 , 1 9 8 9 , 9 9 - 1 2 4 .
, Sognatori e visionari 'biblici' nei polemisti anticristiani, Aug 2 9 , 1 9 8 9 , 7 - 3 0 .
, La Bibbia dei pagani. I. Quadro storico, La Bibbia nella storia 19, Bologna 1998.
, La Bibbia dei pagani. II. Testi e Documenti, La Bibbia nella storia 20, Bologna 1998.
, Giudei e pagani alia vigilia della persecuzione di Diocleziano: Porfirio e il popolo
d'Israele, Vetera Christianorum 2 9 , 1 9 9 2 , 1 1 3 - 3 6 .
, Diodori di Tarso, Antiochia e le ragioni della polemica antiallegorista, Aug 3 3 , 1993,
407-30.
, I cristiani c o m e hesterni. Una riflessione sulle origini del comparativismo
storiografico, in: Rivedendo antichi pregiudizi. Stereotipi suH'alltro nell'eta classica e
contemporanea, ed. G. A. Luchetta, Chieti 2 0 0 2 , 4 9 - 6 1 .
Rist, M., The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: A Liturgical and Magical Formula, JBL 57,
1939,289-303.
Rokeah, D . , The Enslavement Motif in Pagan-Christian Polemic of the Roman Empire,
Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel, Vol. 5, ed. B. Oded,
Haifa 1 9 8 0 , 1 3 0 - 4 4 (in Hebrew).
366 Bibliography
, Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict, StPB 33, Jerusalem-Leiden 1982.

Rosenthal, F., A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, PLO V, Wiesbaden 1961.
2
Ross, W. D., Ocellus, O C D , 745.
R o w l e y , Η. H., Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the B o o k of Daniel. A
Historical Study of Comparative Theories, Cardiff 1964.
Rudolph, K., Gnosis. The Nature and History of Gnosticism, trans. R. M. Wilson, San
Francisco 1987.
Schafer, P. Jewish Magic Literature in Late Antiquity and Early Medieval A g e s , JJS 4 1 ,
1990, 7 5 - 9 1 .
, Judeophobia. Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World, Cambridge,
Mass./London 1997.
Schafke, Werner, Friihchristlicher Widerstand, A N R W I I . 2 3 . 1 , 1 9 7 9 , 4 6 0 - 7 2 3 .
Schlosser, H., D i e Daniel-Susanna-Erzahlung in Bild und Literatur der christlichen Friihzeit,
in: Tortulae: Studien zu altchristlichen und byzantinischen Monumenten, ed. W. N.
Schumacher, Romische Quartalschrift 30, Supplementheft, 1966, 243-49.
Schnabel, P., Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur, Leipzig-Berlin 1923.
S c h o l e m , G. G., Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, N e w
2
York 1965 .
Scott, Α., Origen and the Life of the Stars. A History of an Idea, Oxford 1991.
Schurer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the A g e of Jesus Christ (175 B . C . — A . D .
135), ed. and rev. G. Vermes/F. Millar/M. Goodman, Vols. 1-3, Edinburgh 1973-87.
Schwyzer, H. -R., Chaeremon, Leipzig 1932.
Shea, W., Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes Interpretation, in: Symposium on
Daniel, ed. F. Holbrook, Washington, D.C. 1986,256-328.
Sheppard, H. J./Kehl, A./Wilson, R. McL., Hermetik, R A C XIV, 1 9 8 8 , 7 8 0 - 8 0 8 .
Simonetti, M., L'esegesi patristica di Daniele 2 e 7 nel II e III secolo, in: Popoli, 37-47.
Simmons, Μ. B., The Function of Oracles in the Pagan-Christian Conflict during the A g e of
Diocletian: The Case of Arnobius and Porphyry, StPatr X X X I , ed. E. A. Livingstone,
Leuven 1997, 349-56.
Smith, M., Pauline Worship as Seen by Pagans, HTR 7 3 , 1 9 8 0 , 2 4 1 - 4 9 .
Smith, R., Julian's Gods. Religion and Philosophy in the Thought and Action of Julian the
Apostate, London/New York 1995.
Snyder, G., Ante Pacem. Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine,
Macon 1985.
Sperber, D . , S o m e Rabbinic Themes in Magical Papyri, JSJ 1 6 , 1 9 8 5 , 9 3 - 1 0 3 .
Stein, E., Alttestamentliche Bibelkritik in der spathellenistischen Bibelkritik, L w o w 1935
(offprint o f the article that originally appeared in Collectanea Theologica Societatis
Theologorum Polonorum 1 6 , 1 9 3 5 , 38-83).
Stemberger, G., The Sadduccees — Their History and Doctrines, in: The Cambridge History
of Judaism. Vol. 3. The Early Roman Period, ed. W. Horbury/W. D . Davies,/J. Sturdy,
Cambridge 1 9 9 9 , 4 2 8 - 4 3 .
Stern, M., The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature, in: The Jewish People in the First
Century, ed. S. Safrai/M. Stern, CRINT, Vol. II, Philadelphia 1976.
, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. Vol. I, From Herodotus to Plutarch,
Jerusalem 1 9 7 4 ; Vol. II, From Tacitus to Simplicius, Jerusalem 1980; Vol. Ill,
Appendixes and Indexes, Jerusalem 1984.
Swain, J. W., The Theory of the Four Monarchies, CP 3 5 , 1 9 4 0 , 1 - 2 1 .
S w a i m , S., D e f e n d i n g H e l l e n i s m . Philostratus, In Honour of Apollonius, in:
Edwards/Goodman/Price, Apologetics, 157-96.
2
Swete, Η. B., A n Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1914 .
Scholarship 367
Tate, J., Plato and Allegorical Interpretation, CQ 2 3 , 1 9 2 9 , 1 4 2 - 5 4 .

Tcherikover, V., Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered, Eos 4 8 , 1 9 5 6 , 1 6 9 - 9 3 .
Theiler, W „ D i e chaldaischen Orakel und die Hymnen des Synesius, in: Idem, Forschungen
zum Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1 9 6 6 , 2 5 2 - 3 0 1 .
Thesleff, H., A n Introduction to the Pythagorean Writings of the Hellenistic Period, Acta
Academiae Aboensis Humaniora 24/3, Abo 1961.
Thraede, K., Erfinder II (geistesgeschichtlich), R A C V, 1962,1191-1278.
Τ ο ν , Ε . , The Rabbinic Tradition Concerning the "Alterations" Inserted into the Greek
Pentateuch and Their Relation to the Original Text of the LXX, JSJ 1 5 , 1 9 8 4 , 6 5 - 8 9 .
, D i e griechischen Bibelubersetzungen, A N R W I I . 2 0 . 1 , 1 9 9 7 , 1 2 1 - 8 9 .
Trachtenberg, J., Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk-Religion, N e w York 1939.
Vaganay, L., Porphyre, D T C ΧΠ, 1 9 3 5 , 2 5 5 5 - 9 0 .
Vermander, J.-M., Thoophile d'Antioche contre Celsus: A Autolycos III, REAug 17, 1 9 7 1 ,
203-25.
Volker, W., Das Bild v o m nichtgnostischen Christentum bei Celsus, Halle 1928.
Wacholder, Β. Z., Nicolaus of Damascus, Berkeley / Los Angeles 1962.
Walter, N . , Zur Uberlieferung einiger Reste friiher judisch-hellenistischer Literatur bei
Josephus, Clemens und Euseb, StPatr VII, ed. F. L. Cross, Berlin 1966, 314-20.
Walzer, R., Galen on Jews and Christians, London 1949.
, Porphyry and the Arabic Tradition, in: Porphyre, Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique
12, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1 9 6 6 , 2 7 5 - 9 9 .
Waszink, J.-H., Porphyrios und Numenios, in: Porphyre, Entretiens sur Γ Antiquite* Classique
12, Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1965, 33-78.
, Porphyrios und N u m e n i o s . Discussion, Entretiens sur l'antiquite classique XII,
Vandoeuvres-Geneve 1 9 6 6 , 7 9 - 8 3 .
, Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus, London/Leyden 1962.
Weissenberger, M., Molon (2), Der Neue Pauly VIII, 2000, 347.
Welburn, A. J., Reconstructing the Ophite Diagram, N o v T 2 3 , 1 9 8 1 , 2 6 1 - 8 7 .
Whittaker, J., Moses Atticizing, Phoenix 2 1 , 1 9 6 7 , 1 9 6 - 2 0 1 .
Wifstrand, Α., D i e wahre Lehre des Kelsos, Bulletin de la Societe royale des Lettres de Lund
1941-42, 5, 1942, 3 9 1 - 4 3 1 .
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U . von, Ein Bruchstuck aus der Schrift des Porphyrius gegen die
Christen, Z N W 1 , 1 9 0 0 , 1 0 1 - 5 .
Wilken, R. L., Judaism and the Early Christian Mind. A Study o f Cyril o f Alexandria's
Exegesis and Theology, N e w Haven/London 1971.
, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them, N e w Haven/London 1984.
Wischmeyer, W . , M a g i s c h e Texte. Voruberlegungen und Materialien z u m Verstandnis
christlicher spatantiker Texte, in: van Oort/Wyrwa, Heiden und Christen, 88-122.
2
Wormell, D . E. W., Darius ΠΙ, O C D , 314.
Zeegers-vander Vorst, N . , Les citations des poetes grecs chez les apologistes chr&iens du He
siecle, Louvain 1972.
Zuntz, G., Aristeas Studies II: Aristeas on the Translation of the Torah, in: Studies in the
Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations, ed. S. Jellicoe, N e w York 1974,
208-225 ( = J S S 4 , 1959).
Indexes
Greek and Latin Literature
Alcinoos Ps. Aristotle

Didask. De mundo
8-13 64 1 100
10 143,254 6 116,286,336
14.6 133 7 118,337
16 87
25 170 Cicero
28 306 De not. deorum
31 143 1.2.4 86
1.9.21-22 67
Aristotle 1.9.22 70
Rhet. ad Alex. 1.10.24 88
1426a 255 1.11.28 88
1438b 65 1.13.34 88
1.14.36 59
De caelo 1.18.46-9 70
2.12 133 1.18.49 70
1.25.69 91
De div. per somnum 1.25.71 70
2 174 1.34.96 35,306
1.36.101 101
F. 10 (Rose) 183 2.13.37 90
2.14.37 84,87,91
Poetica 2.17.45 118,134
11.4-8 112 2.23.59 70
15.10 112 2.23.84-5 97
24.15 259 2.46.118 97
24.22 259 2.62.154 84
25.15 111 3.25.65 86
25.32 112,259 3.26.66-40.95 84
3.26.67-31.76 84
Rhet. 3.31.77-78 84
1.3.5 125 3.34.83-3.35.85 321
1.3.9 255
1.2.16-8 279 Academica
2.23.14 321 2.27.87 70
De interp. De divinatione
2 119 1.30.64 21
Greek and Latin Literature 369
1.40.88-41.92 22 29.15.1 231

2.15.35 21 31.1 223
31.2.1-2 226
Pro Flacco 31.16.2-3 233
28:67 22 34-35.1.1-5 17
28:6 27 34-35.1.2 10
28:69 132 34-35.1.3 3 1 , 132
34-35.1.4 47, 128
De or. 40.3 16
40.3.1-7 5
1.7.26 24 40.3.3 113
40.3.4. 10, 17, 118, 132
De leg. 40.3.6 4, 128
1.15.42 126
1.8.25 306 Diogenes Laertius
De offic. 1.1-11 112
3.102 144 1.8 112
2.105 184
Corpus Hermeticum 4.16 184
1.5 50 6.51 35
1.8 50 7.113 110
1.11 50 7.135-7 118
1.12 50 7.137-40 134
1.17 50 7.147 118
1.18 50,51 7.148 21
1.19 50 7.188 105
1.24 51 8.22 268
1.24-6 5 1 , 135 8.33-4 127
1.31 51 9.83-4 126
6.1 292 10.75 119
14.6-10 257 10.76 91
10.76-82 86
Asclepius 10.77 90,91,144
8 52 10.100 86
14 52 10.101 86
10.124 90,115,143
Frag. 23.10 52 10.133-4 91
10.139 144
Frag, varia 32a 256
Epicurea
Diodorus Siculus (Arrighetti)
1.28.1-3 16 F. 180 144
1.28.2-3 102, 129 F.212 91
1.29.5 26
1.55.5 16 (Usener)
1.55.5 118 F. 229 59
1.94.1-2 18 F.315 119
1.94.1-2 113,128 F. 359 90
1.96-8 153 F. 360 304
28.3.1 231 F. 363 144
370 Indexes
F. 368 90 134d-135d 101,271

F. 370 fin 86 137e-138a 273
F.374 146 138b 290
138b-d 273
Iamblichus 138c-d 341
De mysteriis 141c-d 334,341
1.13 144,292 141c-e 274
3.1 200 143a-b 286
3.2 174 143a-e 274,333
3.14 164 143d 274
3.15-7 279 146a-b 275
3.17 200 148b-c 286,335
3.18 279 152b-d 290
5.1-26 295 155c-e 291
5.14-5 268 160c-d 144
5.21 296 160d-161a 303
5.24 291 168b-c 305
6.3 268 171c-172a 144
10.5 342 171d-172a 305
176a-c 342
Vita Pyth. 178a-c 342
184b 342
267 34 184b-c 307
191d 3Ϊ3
Julian 193c-d, 342
Contra Galilaeos 194b-d 342
(Masarrachia) 198c-d 342
39a 261,296 200a-b 325, 342, 343
39a-b 60 201e 343
43a 313,327,329 202a 343
44a-b 259,261,265 206a 301
49a 249 209d 344
49a-e 252,255 209d-210a 287
52b 333 209d-218b 207
57b-d 256 210a 188,249
57e-58e 257 213b 280
65b-c 332 213b-c 123
75a-b 259 218a 248
86a 260,266 218a-b 287,342
89a-b 77,171,258 218b 314
93d-94a 77,263 218b-224c 123
96c 332 218b-c 122
96c-e 253 221e-222a 251,343
99d-100c 284 222a 122
99d-e 253 224c-e 316
99e 338,341 229c-230a 322
100c 333 229d-230a 114,297
106a-b 341 235b-c 262
106a-d 339 238a-e 313
106e 293,333 253a-d 311
115d 286
253b-c 286 7.22 323

253d 249 8.5 331
253d-e 282 8.6 331
261e 248 8.10 266
261e-262a 302 8.15 283,331
262a-b 309 8.17 329
262c-e 323 9.3 268
276e 324,325 9.4,8 258
290b-e 270 9.12 297,306
290d-e 286 10.20 287
290e 179 10.34 306
290e-291a 310 11.5-6 331
298e-299d 299 11.17 253,331
305b 294 1118 253
305d-306b 328 11.24 255
306a 318 11.26 331
314c-e 297 11.32 258,262
319d-320a 289 11.40 279
320a-c 308
320b 289 Epistulae
324e-325a 308 46 267
335c 326 59 326
339e-340a 295,326 61c 251,272
343c 267 88 272
343c-e 296 89a 276,297,313,337
346e-347c 268 Frag. Ep. 89b 262, 265, 2 9 2 , 2 9 5 ,
351a-d 280 316, 320, 3 2 1 , 3 2 2
351d 318 111 249,287,288,314
354a 281 134 318
354a-c 275 204 318,337,338
354b 336 Ep. ad Athen. 5.5 253
356c-357a 277 Ep.adAthen.5M 211
358c-e 278
F.69 329 Libanius
F.93 319 Orationes
F. 101 327 18.178 248
F. 107 120,300
Nemesius
Orationes (CUFr) Nat. horn.
1.4 287
3.15 306 43 115,144
3.16 306
3.20 265 Numenius
7.2 266 F. 1 113
7.5 272 F. la 9, 37, 153
7.11 263 F. lc 36, 60, 63
7.14 323 F. 7 37, 38
7.15 265 F. 8 36,113
7.16 265 F. 9 40, 6 3 , 1 2 5 , 1 7 7 , 1 7 8
7.17 60,266 F. 10a 3 6 , 4 0 , 60, 63
F. 13 37
372 Indexes
F. 15 254 388b 144

F. 16 158 390b-c 144
F. 21 134 487a 111
F. 22 134 508b 323
F.30 81,167,168
F. 56 39 Pol
269c 91
Plato 270a 91
Theaetetus 272e 65,91
146a-b 306 273d 91
176a 99
176b 35, 305, 306 Gorgias
Timaeus 453a 72, 98, 308

22a 93
22a-d 153 Symposium
22c 104
22d 94,95,104 203b-e 73
24c 274
28b 118 Protagoras
29e 292
30b, 88 320d-321d 73
31a 309,310
33a,b 70,88 Menexenus
40b 133
41a 256 237a-b 73
41d-42e 135
42d 87 Phaedo
51a 64
67b 71 109a-b 83
67d 61
69b,c 64 Leges
69c-d 87 697b 98,258
92c 88 855a 293
856c-d 293
Apologia 903c 83,84
Critias
34d 61
112a 93
Resp.
Epinomis
349c,d 63
378d 62
977b 118
379a-380b 322
387a 83
Cratylus
387c,d 72
388b 144 400e 119
390b-c 144 439b 119
Phaedrus
487a 111
241c 258
508b 323
247a 292,304
Pol
247b-c 135
269c 91
247c 134,304
270a 91
248c-e 135
Plotinus
Ennead.
1.2.6 306
1.6.7 173 3.2.2 84

2.1.1 97 3.3.4 193
2.9 titulus 82 3.13.1 84
2.9.9 336 3.18.2 164
2.9.13 82 3.26.2 164
2.9.15 82,90 4.6.1 166
3.2.3 82 4.8.11 183
3.2.8 83 4.11.1 128,230
3.5.6 292 4.11.2 193
5.1.8 158 4.13.6 170
6.7.3 83
De antro
Ps. Plutarch 3 165
De placit. 4 165
2.3 115,257 10 81,167,168
1.6 256 11 168
2.1-4 259 12 168
14 172
Porphyry 21 167
De abstinentia 22 167
1.4.1 84 34 168
1.19.1 269 36 168
1.30.7 164
1.31.1 172 Fragmenta (Smith)
1.31.3 172,262 221F = Hist. phil. 159
1.31.4 172 222F = Hist. phil. 159
2.5.1-4 269 223F = Hist. phil. 335
2.5.2 269 267F 169
2.7.2-3 269 276F 260
2.9.1 268 279F 305
2.12.1-4 268 280F 264
2.19.4-5 268 284aF = De regressu 158
2.22.2 164 284F = De regressu 158
2.26 9 323F = De phil. 153
2.26.1-4 182 324F = De phil. 135, 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 , 154
2.27.1 295 343F = De phil. 156
2.27.1-2 183 344F = De phil. 156
2.27.6-7 328 346F = De phil. 316
2.29.1 183 365F 157
2.32.1 183 372F 165
2.33.1 183 382F 165,172
2.34.2 269 408F 200
2.39.1-2 325
2.42.1 316 Testimonia (Smith)
2.42.3 90 38T
2.45.4 172 40T
2.46.1 172,262
2.56.1 41 Ad Anebonem
2.58.1 183,328 1.1b 303
2.58.4 328 2.3a, 2.6a, 2.7 325
2.59 183 12b 29
3.2.1-4 90
374 Indexes
In Aristot. cat. expos. 242 F.43u 228,229,230,231,

per interrog. et resp. 2 3 3 , 235
F.43v 198, 235, 237, 239
Ad Gaurum F. 4 3 w 198, 240, 242, 2 4 3 ,
10.3 169 244, 245, 246
11 169 F. 43x 233
F. 4 4 196, 217
Ad Marcellam F.45 184
18 144 F.46 185
23 181 F.47 187
F. 66 300
Quaest. Horn. F. 73 162
1.6 242 F.79 180,296
1.19 242 F. 80 56, 163
F. 81 285,340
Contra Christianos F. 82 180,340
(Harnack) no F. 85 179, 309
Macarius fragments F. 91 179
included here F. 92 157, 186
Τ. XIII 195
Τ. XVII 196, 218 Vita Pyth.
Τ. XIX 196 11 174
F. 1 161,288,300,313 12 200
F. 2 199 25 200
F. 4 177, 346 27 261
F. 5 1 5 9 , 1 9 9 , 327, 346, 42 299
349
F. 6 199, 346 Vita Plot.
F. 20 184 14.11-12 166
F. 21 184 16 198
F. 39 29, 6 0 , 6 3 , 6 4 , 6 6 , 16.5-7 198
102,107, 164,195 16.16-7 201
F. 4 0 175 17 36
F. 41 176 17.7 191
F. 4 2 170,195 18 36
F. 43a 187,198 21.7 166
F. 43b 200 21.14 192
F. 43c 204
F. 43d 205 Ps. Sallustius
F. 43e 208 De diis
F. 43f 209 1 292
F. 43g 210 3 266
F. 43j 210 4 264
F.431 211 6 87
F. 4 3 m 213 9 126,273
F. 43n 216 9.5 129
F. 4 3 o 220 16 268
F. 43p 221 16.1-2 296
F. 43q 223
F. 43r 224 Strabo
F.43s 219,225 14.1.44 21
F. 43t 219, 226, 227 16.1.18 237
16.2.35 6 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 0 , 132 5.2.3. 23

16.2.37 128,129 5.4.2 31,128
16.2.38 31,128 5.4.3 25
16.2.39 31,113 5.5.1 10,132
16.2.40 25 5.5.2 129,147
16.2.43 17,41 5.5.4 21
16.4.9 22,129 5.5.5 118
17.1.17 21 5.8.3 25
18.2.5 129 5.9.1 28
5.13.2 283
Suetonius 5.13.3 27
Caesar
4 11 Annales
2.85 148
Aug. 13.32.2 148
76.2 25
Themistius
Vesp. Orationes
4.5 283 21.258a 293
Tacitus Timaeus Locri

Hist. 99d,e 135
2.4.3 22
Old Testament (LXX)
Genesis 1:28 cont. 130

1 4 5 , 57, 6 5 , 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 , 1:31 50
336 2:2-3 65,69
1-2 50 2:4 45,66
1-3 57 2:4-5 75
1:1 285 2:7 35,50, 72,74,169,
1:1,4,14,18 45 171,260
1:1-2 45 2:8-9 73
1:2 37,50,81,167,168 2:16-17 72,171
1:3 33,67,69,80,81 2:16-3:23 75
1:3-31 57,65,66 2:17 74,76,77
1:4,6,7,14,18 50 2:21-22 61,62,72,171
1:4,8,12,18,21,25 50 2:23 172
1:5 225 2:24 172
1:5-9 48 3:1 84
1:6,10 256 3:1-5 72,171
1:9-10 33,67 3:9 75
1:11,12,21,24,25 50 3:12-13 75
1:12 50 3:14 74,75
1:21 50 3:16 75
1:22,28 50 3:21 172,173
1:24 50 3:22 76
1:26 35,65,71,83,310 3:22-23 75
1:27 50,80,87 3:24 80
1:28 8,83,88,89,129, 4:1-8 296
376 Indexes
4:8 106 19:26 45

6 58, 92, 270 19:30-35 105
6:1-6 91 20:12 11
6:2 91,92,270,285 21:1-7 106, 108
6:3 81,270 21:19 107
6:4-9:14 92 22:1-14 183
6:4 4 5 , 270, 285 22:6 296
6:5-7 98 24:14 276,277
6:5-8 99 24:41 106
6:6-7 97 24:63 277
6:7 98,292 25:8 12
6:14 93 25:12-18 11
6:17 93 25:29-34 106
8:4 19 26:22 107
8:7-8 93 27:5-17 106
8:8 93 27:18-29 106
8:17 50, 129, 136 27:41-45 109
8:20-21 181 27:45 110
9 11 28:5,29:18,30 287
9:1 136 30:42 106
9:1-7 128 32:24-25,30-31 311
9:3 297,313 33:18 287
9:7 50,136 34:2,25-31 110
11:1-9 100 37:26-36 110
11:5 100 37:27-28 23
11:10-27 11 40-41 111
11:26-12 26 41 209
11:28,31 20 41:1-36 24
12:2-3 136 41:34-36 24
12:10-20 287 42:1-45:5 111
14:18 117 42:32 23
15:1-6 276 46:8-27 12
15:5 136 46:8-27 23
15:6 276 46:28 287
15:7-11 278 46-47 111,124
15:7-20 275 47:1-5 111
15:11 279 49:10 80,282,283,301
16:1-2 11 49:10-11 80
16:1-6 108
16:14 107 Exodus
17:9-14 127 1 120, 121, 122
17:10-11 280 2:2 (LXX) 24
17:13 281 2:5-10 8
17:19 11 2:11-14 14
17:24 102 3:2-5 123
18:2 123 3:13-14 47
18:21 104 3:14 37,38
18:22-26 56 3:21-22 24
19:1-29 103 4:22 285,310
19:1 123 4:22-23a 284
19:22 45 4:24-26 22
19:23 45 5:3 284
Old Testament 377
6:6 287 33:1-6,12-17 336

6:16-20 12,24 34:6 304
6:20 24 34:11 129
7:1 208 34:14 38
7:11 39,63 34:28 318
7:14-12:31 46
7:16a 284 Leviticus
7:22 39,179 2:1 268
8:3 39 2:11 182
8:14-15(8:18-19 39, 179 3:3 181
ET) 3:12 118
9:8-12 7,11 4:2,23 329
11:2 24 4:27 118
12:14-15 282,288,289,308 6:1-6 182
12:35-36 24 6:2 330
12:37 11,29 7:20 294
12:37-39 27 9:24 295
13:21-22 46 11 7
14 125 11:3 296,297
14-Josh 4 24 11:7 127,297
14:5 125 11:10 297
14:21 24 11:13-19 297
14:27 46 12:1-8 330
14:28 11 15 328
15:22-27 14 16 294,298
16:3 24 16:2 17
17:8-16 130 16:4 173
17:13-16 129 16:5-8 298
19:1 24 16:8,10 299
19:4-6 334 16:15 298
20:2-4 290 17:3-4 317
20:3 38 17:11-12 269
20:3-5 135 18:3 7
20:3-6 7,22 19:31 115
20:5 290,291,293,294, 23:10-11 268
303 25:1-7 27
20:7 290 25:13 5
20:8 290 26:46 4
20:8-11 31 27:34 4
20:11 45
20:13-17 290 Numbers
20:14-16 289 8:7 132
20:19 123 11:23 286
22:19 298 12:8 255
22:27 (22:28 ET) 312, 3 1 3 , 314 18:24 5
24:16-18 31 21:34-35 129
24:18 318 22:5-24 47
28:13 275 24:1-24 47
29:25 330 24:17 301,302
29:36 330 24:17-18 302
30:22-25 339 25:1-11 302,307
31:18 128,318 25:11 144,303,305
378 Indexes
28:3-8 182 21 5
31:8,16 47 24:4 312,313
35 5
36:13 4 Judges
2:16 287
Deuteronomy 6:12 123
4:2 308 13-16 314
4:3 309
4:11 68 1 Samuel
4:19 284 8:7 287,288
4:20 334 14:24-45 294
4:24 38,291,303,321 1 Sam 1 6 - 2 K g s 2 314
4:39 309 2 Samuel

6:4 309 8:3-12 20
6:13 275,310 10:6-19 20
10:9 5 24:1-25 294
10:10 310 24:18-25 317
10:20 310
12:1-14 280,318 1 Kings
12:1-3 314 3:16-28 49
12:12 5 6:23-35 43
12:28 313 8 316
13:3-4 328 8:22,27 132
14:8 297 11:4 315
14:9-10 297 18:38 295
14:12-18 297 18:19-38 317
18:1 5 19:9 318
18:4 330 20:1-34 20
18:15 311,312 22 20
19:17 5
21:5 5 2 Kings
22:22-26 324 17:17 183
23:5 47 18:30 321
26:1-4 268 19:34 321
27:26 308 21:6 183
28:22,28 48 25:1-7 282
29:17 286 25:9 145,321
29:23 L X X 45
32:8-9 126 Isaiah
32:9 312,313 1:13-14 289
32:39 309,325 1:19-20 98
32:40 286 1:20 71
32:44 4 6:2 44
33:2 123 6:3 48
7:14 44,323,324,325
Joshua 7:18-19 145
3:13-17 46 11:1-3 141
6:17-21 130 13:3 271
7 294 14 210
8:1-2 130 26:13 323,324
10:38-42 130 26:19 241
Old Testament 379
37:16 323,324 Jonah

40:12-13 340 2 49
40:26 285 2:1(1:17ET) 185
41:4-5 285 3-4 274
44:9-20 320 4:6 138, 185
45:4-7 285
45:5 68 Zechariah
46:9 6 8 , 6 9 , 260 9:9 189
53:4-5, 6, 7 , 9 269 14:2 187
53:7 141 14:3 187
65:4 326 14:10 187
66:1 253
Psalms
Jeremiah 3:4 Vulg. (3:3 ET) 156
5:1 304,305 8:7 (8:6 ET) 83
5:22 47 17:2 Vulg. (18:2 ET) 156
6:20 328 18:2 (19:1 ET) 70
7:6 314 18:5 (19:4 ET) 96
7:21-22 181 21:21 (22:20 ET) 286
15:2,14 321 39:7-9 (40:6-8 ET) 328
23:24 274 47:3 (48:2 ET) 47
28:27 (51:27 ET) 19 77:3 (78:1-3 ET) 62
29:22 202 77:25 (78:25 ET) 339
33 (26 ET) 321 79:2 (80:1 ET) 44
38:31-33(31:31-33 308 81:6 (82:6 ET) 270
ET) 90:1-2 (91:1-2 ET) 47
103:4 (104:4 ET) 254
Ezekiel 103:5 (104:5 ET) 96
3:26-27 44 106:23-26(107:23- 272
4:4-5 184 26 ET)
10:1-20 44 113:3(114:3 ET) 46
18:4 294 118:73(119:73 ET) 72
18:20 294 136:8-9(135:8-9 129
20:25 130 ET)
21:26 (21:21 ET) 330 138:7-8 (139:7-8 274
29:3 63 ET)
32:6 63
48:8-14 5 145:6 (146:6 ET) 45
Hosea Job
1:2 184 10:8 72
1:3 185 19:25 48
1:8-9 184 38:10-11,30,34 47
3:4 283 Proverbs
6:6 181,328 8:25 170
11:1 132,327 30:3-4 170
14:10 (9 ET) 61
Ecclesiastes
Joel 4:8 179,309
2:28 159
380 Indexes
Esther 9 197
5:1a L X X 189 9:1 216
8 209 9:24 197,218
9:27 217,218,219,244
Daniel 10:5 242
2 188,190,212 10:13 44
2:34 207 11 194,204,213,218,
2:35 195, 199, 205, 207, 219, 222, 239
214, 215, 235, 238, 11:1-21 197
244 11:2 216,219,221
2:39-40 212 11:3 219,221
2:44 206 11:3-4 219
2:45 206 11:5 219
2:46 208 11:6-9 219
2:47 208 11:7 234
2:48 209 11:10 220
3:55 (Prayer of 44 11:10-12 219
Azariah 32) 11:13-14 219
3:98(4:1 ET) 209,210 11:13-19 219
4:6-9 (8-10 ET) 210 11:15-16 219
5:1 216 11:15-20 220
5:10 210 11:17-19 219
5:28 212 11:20 219,220
6:8,12,15 212 11:21 197,204,221-224
6:16-23 138, 185 11:21-39 223
6:25 210 11:25 220,224
7 188,193,212,213, 11:25-30 220
238, 244 11:27 219,220,224,225
7:2-4 212 11:28 219,224,226
7:4 211,212 11:28-29 219,226
7:5 211,212 11:28b-11:30a 225,226
7:6 211,212 11:30 194,219,220,227,
7:7 211,212 241
7:8 188,194,197,212, 11:30b 226
213, 224, 235 11:31 195,227,228,244
7:13 188,189,190,215 11:32 229
7:13-14 141 11:33 226,229
7:14 213 11:34-35 219,230,231
7:18 188,216 11:35 246
7:20 212 11:36 194,195,198,219,
7:21 188,212 222, 2 3 1 , 2 3 3
7:22 188,189,215 11:36-39 231
7:24-26 243 11:37 232,233
7:25 188,244 11:38 232,233,234
7:27 188,215,243 11:39 232,233
7:28 216 ll:40-41a 234,235
8 213,244 11:40-45 199,205,234
8:9 294 11:41b 235
8:9-12 193,213 11:42-43 235,236
8:13-14 242 11:44 198
8:14 197,237,238,244 11:44-45 197,206,214,236,
8:20 212 237, 239
Old Testament 381
11:45 236,242 1:42 127

12 195, 197, 239, 243 1:47 228
12:1 195,241 1:54 243
12:1-2 195,241 1:59 228
12:1-3 136,240,243 2 226
12:2 188,241 2:1-26 234
12:4 243 2:1-70 230
12:5-6 242 2:70 230
12:7a 243 3:1-11 231
12:7b 244 4:30 233
12:10 245 4:52 243
12:11 219,244,245,246 4:54 243
12:12 198,245,246 5:68 228
12:13 197,246 6:1-17 232
6:5-6 240
Susanna (Dan 13) 2 0 3 , 210 6:6-8 199
55 200 6:14-15 223
59 200 6:20 243
54-59 202 9:1-29 232
9:8 233
Bel and the Dragon 203 9:17-18 230
(Dan 14) 11 222
11:15-18 225
1:1 202 11:17 223
11:54-55 224
Ezra 12:24-13:53 230
6:20(2Esdr6:20) 13:23,34 226
10:11 (2Esdr 10:11) 13:31 225
Nehemiah 13:49-53 234
2:20 (2 Esdr 12:20) 15:37-39 225
1 Chronicles 2 Maccabees
18:3-11 20 1:13 235,237
19:6-19 20 1:19-21 47
3 231
4 Ezra 4 229
4:7-20 22
14:21-26 319 5 226,229
5:5-11 237
Baruch 5:11-21 225
5:15-21 226
3:36-38 310 6:18-7:42 229,231
6:2 234
1 Maccabees 6:2-7 228
1 226 9:1 238
1:11-15 22,229 10:2 10
1:13-17 232
1:20-21 235 Sirach
1:27-28 241 Prol. 3
1:32 234 Prol. 24-5 5
1:38-40 234
1:41-64 226
382 Indexes
Tobit Wisdom
3:17 44 14:21 39
New Testament
Matthew 11:8-9 129

2:15 327 14:10-12 208
4:10 310 15 281
4:17,23 319 15:28-29 308
5:17 280,281 16:17 117
5:17-18 282
5:19 280,281 Romans
5:35 47 5:20 300
6:9-11 48 10:4 307
8:3 312
8:21,22 326 1 Corinthians
10:21 300 2:9 288
10:34-38 300-301 2:13 143
12:39-40 186 5:7 281
12:40 185 9:7 268
15:11,17 129 9:9 127
16:18 206 9:9-10 62
23:27 326 10:1-4 62
24:4-5 214 10:11 106
24:12 229 12:3 74
24:14 215 15:12 137
24:15 217,218
28:19 310 2 Corinthians
3:2-3 308
Mark 3:7-8 130
1:14-15 319 3:14 1
1:24 318 3:15-18 66
7:14-23 298
Galatians 281
John 96,324 3:10 308
1:1 285,323 3:19 123
1:3 323 4:22-26 327
1:14 285 5:2 129
1:18 323,324 5:8 98
5:1-9 326
6:54 60 Ephesians
18:10 191
5:31-32 62
Acts
3:21 139 Colossians
3:22 311,312 1:15 323,324
4:24 45 2:18 133
7:30, 35, 38, 53 123 2:17 186
9:33-34 343 1 Timothy
10 288,296 4:4 298
10:15 297
Ancient Jewish (Greek) Literature 383
2 Timothy 9:15 1
2:4 2 9 2 , 294, 340 9:28 281
2:18 137 10:1 186
3:8 40 10:4 299
3:16 139 12:29 291
Hebrews 2 Peter
1:3 270 1:21 189
2:2 123 2:4 288
4:9 65 3:3-4 214,215
5:11 65
Ancient Jewish (Greek) Literature
Aristobulus 1.159-60 20
F.2 70 1.205-11 22
F.3 113,315 1.214 129
F.4 113 1.240 14
F. 3a 4 , 9 , 36, 174 1.240-1 20
F.5 69 2.276 47
F. 5b 69 2.284 114
2.347-8 124
Artapanus 103 7.101-103 20
F. 1 122, 279 7.101 314
F. 2 122 10.79 244
F. 3 6,15,40,47,102, 10.209-10 205
122, 315 10.237 210
10.242 225
Cleodemus Malchus 10.248-49 217
F. l a 14, 20 10.276 194,211,213,244
F. l b 14 11.331-33 208
12.56-7 3
Demetrius 12.242-247 226
F.3 14 12.248 243
F.4 14 12.253 228
12.265-13.230 230
Eupolemus 12.268 234
F. l a 122 12.272 244
F. l b 122 12.319-21 243,244
F.4 14 12.322 213
12.354-358 231
Ps. Eupolemus 12.356 240
F. 1 122 12.358 232
12.384 227
Josephus 12.387 10
Antiquitates 13.70 10
1.15 34 13.131 191
1.69-218 109 13.209 220
1.93-4 94 13.224 225
1.93-5 19 13.236-44 16
1.95 94 13.255-6 10
384 Indexes
13.354 237 2.168 315

15.136 123 2.236, 255, 258, 295 12
16.43-44 19 2.257 113
18.81 148 2.263 34
18.257-9 30 2.270 13
20.44-6 53
20.250 145 De bello
1.32 222
C. Apionem 6.312 283
1.37 139
1.73-91 6 Vita
1.130 94 418 13
1.137 128,145
1.162-65 9,174 Philo the Epic Poet
1.176-83 9 F.3 13
1.199 47
1.205-11 25 Philo Judaeus
1.224-25 102 Hypothetica
1.228-252 6
1.229 6 7.12-4 25
1.233-35 122
1.238-242 120 Apologia
1.250 7 6.2-3 114
1.251 7 De migr. Abr.
1.254 102 23 33
1.255 34 89 22
1.288-92 29,120
1.290 6, 122 Leg. alleg.
1.304-11 10 1.2 66,67
2.1-11 30 1.6 70
2.10 30 1.18 69,70
2.10-11 24 1.31-2 71
2.15-7,20-1,25,28 31 1.36 73,170
2.16 12 1.38 35,74
2.20 10 2.19 73,259
2 . 6 6 , 8 1 , 8 6 , 139 102 2.56 173
2.79 12,17,31
2.80 12,31,204 De spec. leg.
2.84 225 1.2 26
2.89,91-96 12,41 1.52 147
2.89-90 31 1.65 139
2.112-4 31 1.287 130
2.121 10,31 2.60 25
2.125 3 1 , 132 4.49 139
2.135 32,122
2.137 32 De mut. nom.
2.141 32 7,11 38
2.143 30 261 11
2.145 12,114
2.148 10,12,122 Quod det.
2.167-8 9. 174 160 38
Ancient Jewish (Greek) Literature 385
Vita Mos. Quod Deus sit imm.

1.9 24 21-33 98
1.79 16 51 98,292
1.140-42 24 52 9 8 , 1 4 3 , 292
2.12-25 315 57-9 73
2.26 53 59 143
2.27 53 70-3 143
2.36 53
2.40 53 Quaest. in Gen.
2.41 53 1.32 261
2.114 47 1.53 262
2.115 170 1.60 268
1.92 271
De Abrah. 1.95 98
69-1 h 7 7 , 8 2 279 3.5 114
201 11 4.56 105
4.152 114
De praem. et poem. I,F.31 84
23 93
31 11 De aetern.
53 170 10,20 88
107-112 97
De plant. 116 97
117 97
156-58 34 143 97
144-45 97
De ebriet.
164-205 105 De animalibus
198 34 10-71 89
Legatio 77-100 89
353 47,118
361 128 De gigant. 92
362 126 6-18 270
7 271
De opif. mundi 17-8 270
69 71 58 270,271
72 256 60
156-7 261
De post. Caini
De sacrif. Abelis et 175-77 105
Caini
52 268 De somniis
65-6 71 1.39 107
1.143 123
De conf. ling. 1.209 106
2-4 101,272
5 272 De congressu
9 101
98 73 180 108
134 95
168-74 275 De decal.
94 118
386 Indexes
Quis rer. div.

263-66 139
Ancient Christian Literature
Africanus 12.1,6-7 101

Ep. Afric. ad Orig. 14.4 133
5,7,9 201 16.1 84
Ambrose Arnobius
De Abraham Adversus nationes
1.4.29 280 1.18 304
1.23 304
Ep. ad Constantium 1.35 304
69,3 1.57,58,59 252
2.16 90
Ep. ad Irenaeum 5.21 265
64.1 5.32 60
5.38-45 60
De paradiso 6.21-2 321
5.28 76 7.9 90
6.30 76,172
7.35 77 Athenagoras
8.38 77 Legatio
8.3 292
Ambrosiaster 9.1 139
Quaest. Vet. et N. 10.1 292
Test. 20.3 265
5 268 22.1-12 59
9 297
12 280 Augustine
13 294 De civ. Dei
14 294 1.1 56
20 340 1.14.7 186
31.3 261 4.31 21,39
36 294 6.11 25,290
40 177 10.23 158
48 179-80 10.32 151
49 316 11.8 69,70
97.12 186 19.23 155-56,316
103 181
106.18 67 Retr.
114.18 180
2.43.2 56
Aristides
Apologia Serm.
1.2 83 374.15 199
8.1-11.7 322 397 56
Ancient Christian Literature 387
De cons. ev. 1.8-9 19

1.9 100
1.22.30 118,337 1.32 335
1.34 159
Ep.
2.45 264
102.2 186 2.46-47 259
102.16 180 2.50-51 256
102.22 179 2.51 256
102.28 179 2.54 256
102.29 179 2.55 256
102.30 185 2.56 256
102.31-5 186 2.57 256,257
135.2 324 2.59 257
136.1 178 2.60 257
136.2 181 2.61 269
137.13 178 2.63 257
138.18 178 2.63-64 257
De doctr. Christ. 2.72 253
3.12.18 184-85 3.45 259
3.75-77 260
Tract, in loh. 3.77 260
3.79 260
35.7.1 199 3.79-84 260
3.80 258
Conf. 3.86-88 261
3.5.9 251 3.87 261
Clement of 3.89 259
Alexandria 3.90-91 259
Stromata 3.92 259
1.21.101.3-4 95 3.94 264
1.21.101.5 9 5 , 175 3.95 264
1.21.141.4-5 177 3.96-97 254
2.1.1.1 114 3.97-98 254
2.5.20.1-24.5 114 3.98-99 254
3.6.54.4 1 3.100 284
4.21.134.2 1 3.102 284
6.16.141.7b 69 3.104-105 285
3.108 340
Ps. Clement 3.109 340
Homiliae 3.110-111 340
2.43.1-44.5 68 3.112 340
2.43.4 82 3.112-113 294
2.44.3 68 4.136-137 272
2.44.4 82 4.138-139 274
3.38.2 82 4.139-140 274
3.38.2-40.1 68 4.141 274
3.93.3 76 4.142-142 335
4.146-147 275
Cyril of Alexandria 4.148-149 336
Contra Julianum 4.150 336
Proem. 3 248, 250, 327 5.152-153 290
1.8 19 5.153-154 290
388 Indexes
5.156 292 9.300 299

5.158 292 9.302 299
5.159 293 9.304 299
5.160 303 9.305 295
5.161 304 9.306-307 328
5.162 304,305 9.309 328
5.162-163 304 9.310 328
5.163 304 9.313 328
5.163-164 304 9.315-319 298
5.166 305 9.321 289
5.168 319,320 9.322 289,308
5.170 306 9.323 308
5.172 306 9.324e 317
5.173 306 9.344 308
5.174-175 307 10.341 326
5.175 307 10.342-343 326
5.176 314 10.344 296
5.176-177 315 10.344-345 296
6.184 307 10.345-346 296
6.190 307 10.348 268
6.210-212 288 10.348-350 268
6.212 288 10.351-353 281
7.222 342 10.354-355 282
7.222-23 251 10.355 289
7.223-224 343 10.355-356 276
7.225-226 317 10.357-358 277
7.228-229 317 10.360 278
7.233-34 251 10.360-361 278,279
7.234-35 251 10.361 277
7.240-41 314
7.244-45 314 Eusebius
8.257-258 312 C. Hieroclem
8.258-259 312 2.8-18 178
8.259-260 283 4.2 163
8.261 283 4.44 163
8.264 310 17.7 163
8.266 309 20.3 163
8.267 310
8.271 159 Praeparatio
8.280 325 evangelica
8.282 325 1.2.1-4 161
8.283 325 1.2.5 161
8.288 325 1.9.20-21 176
9.263 302 1.10.7 227
9.291-292 270 1.10.23 227
9.292-93 286 1.10.42 41
9.294 286 5.1.9 175
9.294-295 310 5.1.9-10 163
9.295-296 270 6.10.15-6 126
9.296-297 271 8.10.8 70
9.298 329,330 9.1.4 14
9.298-299 299 9.2.1 182
9.7.1 37 6.19.4 102,164

9.8.1-2 40,63 6.19.4-8 60,64,107
9.10.2-4 153 6.19.5 164
9.12.1-5 19 6.19.5-8 33,166
9.14.1-2 100 6.19.7 64
9.17.1 101 6.19.8 29
9.18.2 101 6.31.1 201
9.19.1 11,12,94 6.36.2 55
9.19.3 29 9.9.4-7 124
9.20.3 14
9.22.10-1 110 Comm. in Isaiam
9.24.1 13 45
9.27.3 15,40
9.27.4,6 6 Eustathius
9.27.10 102 DeEngastrim. 21 117
9.27.24-6 47
9.29.1 14 Gregory of Naz.
9.29.15 14 Or.
9.39.1 14 4.23 249
10.3.6 200 4.102 177
10.9.11-12 176 4.103 33
10.9.12 175 4.116 266
10.9.17 176 4.118 267
10.9.18-21 176 5.3 282
10.10.16 175
11.9.1-10.16 38 Hippolytus
11.10.9 37 Refutatio
11.10.9-11 38 1.19.15 98
11.10.14 36,38 1.20.5 98
11.18.14 37 1.22.3 90
13.12.11 69 4.2.1 75
13.13.12 23 5.13.9 75
14.10.5 152 5.17.7 75
15.4.7 100 5.19.22 106
6.33.1 260
Dem. evang. 7.38.1-2 76
1.1.15-6 162 10.10.1 75
1.10.1-2 269 10.30.6 90
1.10.3-9 269
1.10.15-6 269 Isidore of Pelusium
3.3.6-7 153 Ep. 195 141
3.3.10 269
5.Proem.29 330 Justin
6.18.11 187 Dialogus cum
8.1.70-1 283 Tryphone
9.1.6 302 29.2 2
9.11.9-10 312 32.1 141
40.1-41.4 2
Hist. eccl. 43.8 324
4.26.14 1 51.1-4 283
5.13.6 194 56.1 135
6.19.2 151 67.1 324
390 Indexes
85.3 103 Cohortatio

86.1 79 9.2 175
87.1-2 141 11 153
105.1 286 22.1-2 38
106.24-25 302 24 153
120.3-5 283 28.5 100
126.4 302 31.1 301
Apologia Lactantius
1.10.2 83 Div. inst.
1.21.2 80 1.6.4 49
1.24-1-3 101 3.17 86
1.25.2 292 3.19.4 66
1.30.1 2 5.1.15-6 251
1.32.12 302 5.2.3 209
1.36.1-2 139 5.3.7,21 178
1.44.8-10 113 6.25.10 50
1.54.4 80 7.15 209
1.54.5-7 80
1.54.7 80 De ira Dei
1.59.1-5 64 3.17.8 70
1.59.1-60.11 113 13.19 146
17.1 304
Apologia secunda 23.12 156
2.5.2 83
2.7.2 93 Macarius Magnes
Monogenes (Goulet)
Ps. Justin 1.5 titulus 340
Quaest. et resp. ad 2.18.1-12 301
Orthod. 2.25.3 301
Otto (P.-K./H.) 3.3.1-2 177,319
2(17) 200 3.15.1 300
10 (15) 60 3.15.1-6 60
26 (36) 179 3.19.4 66
35 (46) 297 4.1.1-5 96
55 (68) 343 4.3.1 215
62 (76) 67 4.4 301
74 (86) 347 4.5.1-2 215
83(95) 181,267 4.7.1-4 96
91(102) 76 4.8[9].l-6 102
102(113) 280 4.10 285
119(150) 268 4.19.1-4 281
138 (155) 294 4.20-21a 286
142 (158) 254,270 4.20(-21a).l-5 336
(47) 298 4.21a.3-4 337
(147) 70 4.21b.l-4 87, 1 1 9 , 2 5 4 , 2 7 0
4.21b.l-5 336
Quaest. Christ, ad 4.22.1 324
Gent. 4.23.1-3 313,336
1 340 4.23.3 292
Minucius Felix 2.76 145

Octavius 2.77 137,141
5.6 134 3.1 142
9.3 31 3.5 115,120,329
9.5 31 3.6 121
10.4 132 3.14 121,329
12.2 147 3.16 144
30.2 5 3.18 109
3.19 59,62,101
Origen 3.22 143
C. Celsum 3.24 143
Proem. 3 , 4 , 6 346 3.73 291
1.4 128,290 3.75 115
1.9 163 4.2 142
1.14 112,113 4.7 285,340
1.15 9,37,41,113,174 4.10 144
1.16 113,114,115,149, 4.11 94,95,174
346 4.14 304
1.18 114 4.20-53 57
1.19 96,104 4.20 142
1.20 59 4.21 100,101,103,104
1.20 79 4.22 143
1.21 104,112,114-5 4.23 83,139
1.22 102,103 4.30 83
1.23 116 4.31 122, 1 2 3 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 6 ,
1.24 119 288,315
1.24 1.17 4.33 103, 1 0 8 , 1 0 9
1.26 114,116,177 4.34 103,108,109
1.27 61 4.35 108, 109
1.28 324 4.36 72,114,116,171,
1.34 324 261
1.37 72,323 4.37 72
1.45 115 4.38 61,62,72,73
1.49 57,140 4.39 73
1.60 302 4.41 93,104
1.68 103,109 4.42 93
1.9 116,117 4.43 106
2.4 140, 177, 329 4.44 107,108
2.6 126 4.45 104,105
2.7 73 4.46 110,111
2.8 140 4.47 61,111,124
2.13 102 4.48 61
2.20 66,107 4.49 62
2.26 79,93 4.50 61,63,101
2.28 302 4.51 36,40,58,60,63,
2.29 140 107
2.32 109,145 4.52 87
2.39 73 4.54 87
2.44 66 4.58 89
2.46 98 4.61 256
2.55 111,138 4.62 99
2.60 111 4.63 97
392 Indexes
4.69 99 6.19 71, 134,146

4.71 57,143,303 6.20 134,304
4.73 145,303 6.21 135,136
4.74 84,85 6.22 135,136
4.75 85 6.23 136
4.78 89 6.24-38 74
4.79 81,89,96 6.27 68, 69, 78, 85
4.81 89 6.28 74,75
4.83 89 6.29 63, 68,136, 137,139
4.85 89 6.34 79
4.86 89,103 6.36 79
4.88 89 6.37 79
4.99 90,91 6.39 114
5.2 133, 142 6.42 59, 77, 145
5.3 55 6.43 299
5.6 133 6.47 88,134
5.7 134 6.49 57, 64, 80
5.10 133 6.49-63 57
5.14 66,99,136,137 6.50 5 7 , 6 5 , 66
5.24 97 6.51 66,68,81
5.25 126, 2 8 6 , 2 9 1 6.52 81,65,81
5.26 126 6.53 7 2 , 8 2 , 9 7 , 304
5.27 126 6.54 98
5.29 101,126,273 6.55 98
5.30 101,126,273 6.56 98
5.31 101,126,273 6.57 72,98
5.33 121,329 6.58 98
5.34 127,147 6.60 57, 66, 67
5.36 127 6.61 69,70
5.37 127 6.62 71
5.41 21,102,114,119, 6.63 71
127,131, 146,147, 6.64 304
207, 315 6.72 82
5.42 131 6.73 82
5.43 131 6.80 146
5.44 131 7.3 138
5.45 103,119 7.6 139
5.46 131 7.9 323
5.48 129 7.18 130,137,145,146,
5.49 129 281
5.52 92, 123, 1 3 3 , 2 7 0 7.20 130
5.54 92, 194 7.25 130
5.55 92,271 7.28 8 3 , 140
5.59 6 5 , 6 6 . 69, 107, 124 7.53 138, 185
5.60 66 7.58 64,96
5.61 66 7.62 87
5.62 65 7.68 97,125
5.65 66 8.2 1.17
6.1 95,117 8.12 177,310
6.2 251 8.21 292,304
6.7 95,96 8.28 127
6.16 96 8.35 291
8.38 321 Tatian

8.40 321 Oratio
8.45 139 8.2-10 322
8.48 99 8.6-7 265
8.49 66,121,140,329 37 316
8.52 333 38 175
8.53 140 38.1 95
8.63 114 38.2-3 95
8.68 56,97 40.1-3 113
8.69 3 3 , 5 6 , 1 1 7 , 146, 40.2 92
147,207, 288,315
8.71 5 6 , 2 0 8 , 347 Tertullian
8.72 347 Apologia
1.4 160
De principiis 9.2-18 126
1.6.3 210 16.1-3 31
2.3.6 135 16.1-4 28
2.9.7 133 19.3 175
2.11.6 135 31.1 58
3.1.16 1 46.2 290
3.6.5 210
4.1.3 283 De carnis res.
4.3.1 67
4.3.9 210 48.1-49.13 137
Comm. in Rom. 2.13 280 Adv. Marc.

3.15.1-7 142
In Matt. 23:37 40 4.6.3 142
Comment. Ser. 28 4.12.1-15 289
In Matt. 27:9 40 5.18.1 59
Comment. Ser. 117 De anima
9.7 169
Horn, in Gen. 22.2 169
2.2 93 25.2 169-70
5.4-5 105
7.5,10.2,11.3,12.5, 107 Ad. nat.
13.1-4 2.5.2 133
15.4 110 2.8.10 112
Catena F. 41 in I 74 Ps. Tert.

Cor Adv. Omn. Haer.
12:3 2.1 74
De orat. Theodore of Mops.

13.2 186 Adversus lul.
24.5 68 (Guida)
F. l a 339
Ep. ad Afric. F. 2.6, 8 277
10 201,237 F.3.1 318
11,12 202 F. 3.2 318
18 201 F. 3.2-4 319
394 Indexes
Ancient Individuals
Abel 1 0 6 - 7 , 2 6 7 - 8 , 2 9 6 177
Abraham 1 1 , 2 3 , 4 4 , 1 0 2 - 3 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 1 0 9 , 1 2 3 , Cleodemus Malchus 14
1 2 9 , 1 3 7 , 1 7 6 - 7 , 274-80, 284-5, 287-8, Cornutus 166
295-6, 340 Cyrus 2 1 6 - 7 , 2 8 5
Achan 2 9 4 Darius the Mede 216-7
Alcinoos 143, 306 David 20, 282, 287, 294, 302, 314, 317
Alexander Polyhistor 1 3 - 1 5 , 1 8 , 2 0 , 5 2 , 9 4 , Demetrius 13-4
100,314 Dinah 57, 110
Aloeids 1 0 0 - 1 , 2 7 1 - 2 , 2 7 4 Diodorus Siculus 15-18, 2 0 , 4 1 , 52, 93-4,
Ambrose 76, 289 1 1 3 , 1 2 9 , 132
Amelius 325 Dionysus 118, 259, 265
Ammon 1 0 , 2 6 - 7 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 7 Druids 113
Ammonius 2 1 8 , 2 4 6 Egyptians 7 - 8 , 1 6 , 24, 37, 59, 7 2 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 2 ,
Antichrist 1 9 4 , 1 9 7 , 211, 213, 218, 221-2, 117, 1 1 9 - 2 2 , 1 2 7 , 131, 146, 152-4, 173,
224-46 178, 2 3 6 , 2 7 5 , 2 8 1
Antiochus IV 17, 3 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 - 2 4 6 , Elijah 1 9 7 , 2 9 5 , 3 1 7 - 8
321 Ephraem 1 8 9 - 9 1 , 2 1 5 , 2 2 9 , 2 3 1 , 2 3 3 , 2 4 1
Apelles 7 6 - 7 , 1 7 1 , 2 5 8 , Epicurus 59, 6 2 , 7 0 , 8 6 , 1 4 3 - 4 , 1 4 6 - 7 , 2 7 3 ,
Apion 12, 3 0 - 3 2 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 8 304, 322
Apollinarius 1 8 7 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 6 - 8 , 2 0 2 - 3 , 2 1 3 , Eudoxus 1 9 4 - 5 , 2 1 3 , 2 4 1
217, 245-6 Eupolemus 13 ,14
Apollo 18, 1 0 0 , 1 1 8 , 1 5 2 - 6 , 1 6 2 Eusebius 1 1 - 4 , 4 0 - 1 , 1 2 4 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 , 1 6 0 - 3 ,
Apollonius Molon 11-13, 114, 122 166, 174-7, 187, 196, 1 9 8 , 2 0 1 - 3 , 2 1 7 ,
Apolloniusof Tyana 1 4 4 - 5 , 1 5 3 , 1 7 7 , 1 7 8 , 2 4 6 , 2 6 8 - 9 , 302, 3 1 3 , 325, 342-3
186,261 Eve 6 1 , 71-73, 171-2, 2 5 9 - 6 1 , 263
Apuleius 4 0 , 1 7 7 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 6 Firmicus Maternus 279
Arabs 1 0 2 , 1 2 9 , 132, 1 7 3 , 1 9 3 , 2 8 1 Fronto 281
Ares 100, 306 Galen 1 2 8 , 1 4 4 , 1 6 9 , 273
Aristobulus 3 6 , 5 8 , 6 3 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 7 4 Gelos (Isaac) 11-2
Aristotle 9, 9 8 , 1 1 1 - 2 , 115, 1 1 9 , 1 4 7 , 174, Hagar 1 1 , 1 0 7 - 8
183,257,259 Hecataeus 4 - 5 , 1 0 3 , 1 1 3 , 1 2 8
Arnobius 60, 89, 251-2, 304, 321 Helios 1 0 4 , 1 1 8 , 2 5 5 , 330-1, 338, 342
Artapanus 1 3 , 1 5 , 4 0 , 4 7 , 102-3, 122, 279, Hellenes 33, 1 2 8 , 1 6 0 - 3 , 1 6 6 , 1 8 1 , 248, 260-
315 1, 264-6, 272, 276, 287, 290, 314-5, 325,
Asclepius 163, 3 2 5 , 3 2 6 , 3 4 2 - 3 339, 341-4
Assyrians 1 1 2 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 4 , 1 7 4 - 5 , 1 8 8 , 2 1 1 , Hermippus 9 , 1 7 4
287,321 Herod the Great 1 9 - 2 0 , 2 8 3 , 321
Athena 8 0 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 2 Hierocles 1 6 3 , 1 7 8 , 3 1 9
Athenagoras 139 Hippolytus 194, 2 0 5 , 2 1 3 , 218, 2 2 2 , 2 2 5 ,
Augustine 5 6 , 1 3 8 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 5 - 6 , 1 5 8 , 1 7 9 - 8 1 , 226,229,230,246
184-6, 251 Homer 2 6 , 3 2 , 9 5 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 4 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 3 , 1 6 5 -
Babylonians 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 - 2 , 2 1 6 8 , 2 4 2 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 1 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 4 , 304, 316
Berossus 1 3 , 1 9 , 9 4 , 1 4 5 Hosea 183-5
Brahmans 9, 3 7 , 1 1 3 , 1 5 3 , 1 8 2 Hypatia 2 5 0 , 3 0 1
Cain 1 0 6 - 7 , 2 6 7 - 8 , 2 7 0 , 2 9 6 Inachus 9 5 , 1 7 4 , 1 7 6
Chaeremon 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 , 1 6 6 , 1 8 3 Indians 9 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 , 1 4 6 , 1 8 2 , 1 9 2 , 3 3 7
Chaldeans 2 2 , 5 3 , 1 1 3 , 1 4 6 , 1 5 2 , 1 7 3 , 2 0 9 , Isaac 4 4 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 , 1 0 9 , 1 8 3 , 2 7 5 , 2 9 6
2 1 6 , 2 7 5 - 6 , 329 Isidore of Pelusium 141
Clearchus 9 , 1 1 2 , 1 8 2 - 3 Isis 2 6 , 2 9 , 1 1 8
Clement of Alexandria 36, 6 4 , 6 8 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 7 , Israhel 23
Ancient Individuals 395
Jacob 4 4 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 3 6 , 2 7 5 , 287, 1 5 3 , 1 5 8 , 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 - 8 , 1 7 8 - 9 , 254

302,311-2 Ocellus Lucanus 8-9, 3 5 , 5 2 , 1 3 0 , 2 5 7
Jannes and Jambres 3 9 - 4 0 , 6 3 , 1 7 8 Orpheus 2 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 8
Jeremiah 1 4 , 4 4 , 2 0 2 , 2 4 4 Paul 6 2 , 9 6 , 1 0 8 , 1 7 7 , 1 8 4 , 2 0 8 , 259, 279,
Jerome 1 5 1 , 1 5 9 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 7 , 1 8 3 - 4 , 1 8 6 , 1 8 7 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 4 , 307-8, 327, 339, 341
193-246, 2 5 1 , 2 9 7 , 327 Persians 2 1 , 1 1 2 , 1 3 1 , 1 4 6 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 1 - 2 ,
Jesse 302 2 3 6 , 2 8 7 , 2 9 0 , 334, 338
John 9 6 Persius 129
Jonah 4 7 , 4 7 - 9 , 1 3 7 - 8 , 1 5 9 , 1 8 5 - 6 , 2 7 4 Peter 8 2 , 9 6 , 1 8 4 , 2 7 9 , 2 9 6 - 7 , 3 1 2 , 3 1 3 , 3 2 3 -
Jonathan 294 5
Jonathan Maccabeus 2 2 0 , 2 2 6 Phaethon 9 6 , 1 0 3 - 4
Joseph (Mary's) 282-3 Pharaoh (of Exodus) 1 1 , 4 6 , 6 3 , 111, 124-5,
Joseph 12, 23, 25, 29, 57, 6 1 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 0 - 2 , 283-4
124,174,209 Pharaoh (of Joseph) 1 7 3 , 2 0 9
Josephus 6 , 1 2 - 3 , 1 9 , 3 0 - 3 , 5 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 1 4 , 1 9 3 , Pharaoh Amenophis 6 , 2 9 , 1 2 2
195, 204-5, 2 0 8 , 2 1 0 , 2 1 2 - 3 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 2 , Pharaoh Bocchoris 10
234,240,243-5,283 Pharaoh Ramesses 29
Joshua 4 6 , 1 3 0 Philo 8, 33, 35, 36, 38, 58, 6 3 , 6 9 , 7 1 , 7 3 ,
Judas Maccabeus 2 1 3 - 4 , 2 2 2 , 2 3 0 , 2 4 0 , 2 4 1 , 74, 8 8 , 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 5 , 9 8 , 1 0 1 - 2 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 7 ,
245 118,126,128,136,139,143,147,170,
Justin Martyr 1 , 6 4 , 7 9 - 8 0 , 9 3 , 1 0 2 , 1 3 9 , 1 4 1 , 259,261, 270-2,275, 279,292
282, 302, 324 Philo Byblos 41-42, 5 2 , 1 7 5 - 6
Juvenal 129 Philo the Epic Poet 13
Levi 1 1 0 , 2 0 2 Phinehas 1 4 4 , 3 0 2 - 7
Lot 104 Plato 3 6 - 8 , 5 5 , 6 2 , 6 4 , 7 2 , 8 7 - 8 , 9 4 - 6 , 1 0 4 ,
Lot's daughters 5 7 , 1 0 4 - 5 113,119,135,144,153,166,170,191,
Lot's wife 45 2 4 9 , 2 5 5 - 8 , 293, 303-4, 306, 322, 331
Lucian45,112-3 Plotinus 8 2 - 3 , 1 5 7 - 3 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 3 , 306, 336
Lycurgus 2 9 0 - 1 , 3 0 5 Polychronius 1 9 4 - 5 , 2 1 3 , 2 1 6 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 6 , 229,
Lysimachus 9 - 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 7 , 2 9 , 1 1 4 230,231,233,235-6,240-6
Macarius' philosopher 6 0 , 1 1 9 , 1 7 7 - 8 , 2 5 3 , Pompeius Trogus 2 3 - 2 5 , 1 1 1 - 1 2 , 174, 2 0 4
2 7 0 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 5 - 6 , 2 9 2 , 300, 313, 319, 324, Pope Damasus 297
336 Posidonius 1 2 , 1 7 , 2 2 , 3 1 , 4 1 , 5 2 , 1 9 3 , 203-5,
Magi 2 2 , 3 7 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 , 1 5 3 274
Manetho 6 - 8 , 2 0 , 1 2 0 - 2 2 Ps. Ecphantus 3 4 - 3 5 , 5 2 , 73-4, 87
Marcion 7 6 , 8 2 , 9 7 , 1 0 4 , 1 4 2 , 1 7 1 , 2 5 8 Ps. Eupolemus 101
Martial 1 0 , 2 5 , 1 2 9 Ps. Justin 3 8 , 1 8 1 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 , 3 0 1
Mary 2 8 2 - 3 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 3 - 5 Ps. Longinus 3 2 - 3 4 , 3 6 , 5 2 , 6 7
Maxentius 124 Pseudo Clement 7 6 , 7 8 , 82
Medes 1 8 8 , 2 1 1 - 2 , 2 1 7 , 2 8 7 Ptolemy of Mendes 9 5 , 7 5
Megethius 130 Pythagoras 9 , 3 6 - 7 , 1 1 3 , 1 2 7 , 1 7 4 - 4 , 200,
Methodius 1 8 7 , 1 9 6 , 1 9 8 , 2 4 6 , 2 6 4 261,268,299
Moses 4, 5 , 7 - 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 , 1 4 - 5 , 1 7 - 2 3 , 2 6 - 3 1 , Rebeccah 5 7 , 1 0 6
33-4,36,38-40,44,46-7,57,59-60,64, Romans 3 3 , 5 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 4 6 , 1 6 3 , 2 0 7 , 2 1 1 , 2 2 6 ,
72, 8 0 , 9 4 - 6 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 - 4 , 1 0 8 - 9 , 1 1 2 - 6 , 2 2 8 , 2 4 4 , 2 5 1 , 2 8 0 , 286, 288, 297, 305,
120, 1 2 3 - 5 , 1 2 8 - 3 3 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 3 , 1 6 4 - 5 , 334,342
167-8,170,174-9,249,252-6,262,264, Samson 2 8 7 , 3 1 4
269-76,281,283-6,288-90,294-303, Sarah 106-8,
305, 3 0 7 - 3 1 2 , 3 1 8 , 3 1 9 , 3 2 7 Scythians 1 1 9 , 1 3 1 , 1 9 2 , 334
Nebuchadnezzar 1 4 5 , 2 0 8 - 1 1 , 3 2 1 Second God 1 3 4 , 1 5 7 - 8 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 3 , 3 3 5
Nicolaus of Damascus 1 5 , 1 9 - 2 1 , 5 2 Semiramis 2 3 , 1 7 4 - 7 , 2 1 1
Numenius 3 6 - 4 1 , 5 2 , 6 0 , 6 3 - 4 , 8 1 , 1 1 3 , 1 2 4 , Simeon 110
396 Indexes
Simon Magus 7 6 , 1 0 4 , 3 1 3 Trophonius 2 2 , 1 1 3

Solomon 4 4 , 4 9 , 1 3 2 , 1 7 9 , 315-7, 343 Trypho (Justin's) 141, 3 2 4
Solon 1 0 4 , 1 5 3 , 2 9 0 - 1 , 3 0 5 Trypho 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 - 6
Strabo 18, 2 1 - 2 3 , 4 1 , 113, 120, 129, 132 V a r r o 2 1 , 3 9 , 118, 1 3 3 , 3 3 7
Susanna 1 9 6 , 2 0 0 - 3 Vettius Valens 2 7 9
Syrians 7 , 1 0 2 , 1 8 2 - 3 , 1 9 2 - 3 , 2 8 1 Volusianus 181, 324
Tacitus 2 6 - 2 8 , 1 2 9 , 1 4 7 , 2 3 7 , 344 Zamolxis 1 8 , 1 1 3
Tatian 6 8 - 9 , 1 1 4 Zedekiah 282-3
Tertullian 142, 290 Zen 118-9,131
Teucer of Cyzicus 4 1 - 2 , 5 2 Zerubbabel 2 4 1 , 283
Theophrastus 9 , 9 7 , 1 8 1 - 3 Zeus 18, 9 1 , 1 1 7 - 8 9 , 1 2 6 , 1 3 1 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 8 , 2 5 9 ,
Titus 1 4 5 , 2 2 8 - 9 , 321 2 6 4 , 2 6 5 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 8 , 342
Modern Authors
Adler, M. 2 8 2 , 288, 3 0 9 - 1 0 , 3 1 8 Hargis, Jeffery 5 6 , 1 5 6 , 3 3 0 , 348

Andresen, Carl 8 1 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 , 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 , Harnack, A. von 2 9 , 5 8 - 9 , 7 7 , 1 7 4 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 6 ,
134 2 3 6 , 3 0 0 , 320 and passim
Barnes, Timothy D . 1 5 1 , 1 6 6 - 7 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 , Hengel, Martin 3 , 1 3 , 228 and passim
203-4, 2 2 3 Holladay, Carl 3 , 4 , 6 , 1 3
Benko, Stephen 6 2 , 1 0 5 Kinzig, W. 250
Betz, Hans Dieter 6 , 3 3 , 4 3 , 5 2 Koetschau, P. 5 5 , 6 8 , 7 4
Bidez, J. 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 , 1 5 7 , 2 4 8 , 321-2 Labriolle, Pierre de 5 5 , 5 7 , 5 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 2 6 , 1 6 5 ,
Boer, W. den 198 198, 248, 250, 2 6 3 , 2 7 1 , 3 1 1 , 323, 340,
Borret, Marcel 5 5 , 5 7 , 6 1 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 , 1 4 5 and 342-3
passim Lods, M. 58
Bowersock, G. W. 33, 318 Loesche, G. 6 3 , 7 7 , 87,
Brock, Sebastian 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 , 2 1 8 Malley, W. J. 2 5 8 , 2 7 7 , 2 9 0 , 3 3 6 , 3 3 8 - 9 and
Cameron, Alan 2 0 4 passim
Casey, M. 1 8 8 - 9 1 , 1 9 4 , 1 9 8 - 9 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 6 , 2 1 4 , Markschies, Christoph 1 , 5 5 , 6 6 , 85
239,241 Masaracchia, Emanuela 248, 2 5 0 , 2 5 2 , 2 5 8 ,
Cataudella, Quintino 67, 8 5 - 6 , 9 0 - 9 1 , 1 3 3 - 4 2 6 2 , 2 9 6 , 3 0 6 , 331-2 and passim
Chadwick, Henry 7 4 , 7 8 , 8 4 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 7 , 1 2 1 Meredith, A. 126, 1 5 9 , 1 6 7 , 180, 2 5 6 , 2 8 1 ,
Clark, Gillian 192 2 9 3 , 3 2 4 , 330
Croke, B. 1 9 9 , 2 0 3 - 5 Millar, Fergus 191-3
Demarolle, J. M. 311 Miura-Stange, Anna 348
Dodd, C. H. 5 0 M0rkholm O. 2 1 4 , 2 2 0 - 6 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 1 - 5 , 2 3 7 - 8
Dodds, E. R. 38 Nestle, W. 1 , 1 3 0 , 2 5 1 , 254, 2 6 3 , 2 8 9 , 2 9 5 ,
Droge, Arthur 85, 8 9 , 9 5 , 1 0 3 , 1 5 3 , 3 1 5 308-9,324
Dzielska, M. 250 Neumann, C. J. 2 4 8 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 2 , 2 7 8 , 3 1 7 , 3 3 3
F&lou, M. 5 8 , 6 1 , 9 3 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 5 - 6 , 1 1 3 , 1 1 7 - Pagels, Elaine 75
8,125,135,138 Pelagaud, E. 5 6 - 8 , 6 3 , 6 5 , 6 8 , 7 2 , 7 7 , 84, 87,
Finamore, John 331 9 3 , 9 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 5 , 1 0 8 and passim
Fox, Robin Lane 1 5 3 - 4 , 1 7 4 , 3 2 6 Places, έ . des 3 7 - 9 , 6 3 - 4 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 , 1 6 8
Frassinetti, P. 1 9 3 - 4 , 1 9 8 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 3 2 1 7 , 2 3 5 Rinaldi, Giancarlo 4 , 4 8 , 1 2 4 , 1 7 2 , 1 7 9 , 2 0 1 ,
Frede, M. 5 5 , 8 5 , 1 0 3 290, 321 and passim
Gager, John 4 , 2 2 , 32, 3 4 , 4 8 , 8 0 , 1 1 3 , 1 2 8 , Rokeah, D . 5 8 - 9 , 7 2 , 1 1 4 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 6 - 7 , 2 0 5 ,
168-70, 2 8 4 207,259,267,269,274,279,287,289,
Geffcken, J. 248 309
Goulet, Richard 3 - 4 , 1 1 , 6 0 , 1 0 1 , 1 5 0 - 1 , 1 7 4 - Schafke, W. 105
7, 1 9 6 , 2 7 2 , 3 1 9 - 2 0 Smith, R. 2 8 5 , 2 9 5
Subjects 397
Stein, Ε. 1 , 5 8 - 9 , 6 6 - 7 , 7 3 , 8 7 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 7 - 8 , Tcherikover, V. 2 , 4 , 345

170, 203, 2 0 6 , 2 1 4 , 2 3 4 , 246, 2 6 6 , 2 7 2 , Wacholder, Β. Z. 20-1
299,319-20 Waszink, J. H. 3 8 - 9 , 1 5 3 , 1 7 0
Stern, Μ. 4 , 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 4 , 22, 3 2 , 4 2 , 1 4 7 , Wilken, R. 55, 218, 250, 254, 311-2
3 2 1 , 3 3 7 - 8 and passim Willamowitz-Moellendorf, U. von 160
Wolff, G. 191
Subjects
Abandon (tradition/faith) 2 7 - 3 , 1 0 2 , 1 2 0 - 1 , 1 2 7 - 9 , 1 3 1 , 148, 275-6, 279-82, 289, 297,

147-8,160,163,167,180-1,247,286-8, 317,329-30
293, 2 9 7 , 3 0 0 - 1 , 3 0 3 , 308, 312-3, 317, Contradiction 28, 8 7 , 9 1 , 1 2 9 - 3 0 , 1 3 6 , 1 7 9 -
327, 329-30, 343-4 81, 2 7 0 , 2 8 1 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 - 9 , 3 0 1 , 3 0 8 - 1 1 ,
Abomination of the Desolation 3 1 5 , 3 1 9 , 324, 330
2 1 7 - 8 , 2 2 2 , 227-8 Conversion 4 1 , 5 6 , 8 7 , 9 8 , 1 1 4 , 1 6 7 , 2 8 8 ,
Absurdity 63-4, 6 6 , 1 0 6 - 7 , 111, 142. 164, 338,343-4
1 7 0 , 2 3 2 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 5 - 6 , 300, 341 Cosmos (as divine) 5 , 2 1 , 8 8 , 1 1 7 - 8 , 1 3 1 ,
Adonai 4 3 , 5 7 , 1 1 7 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 1 134
Allegory 1 2 , 2 9 , 3 2 , 3 6 - 7 , 5 8 - 6 4 , 7 3 , 7 9 , Covenant 2 2 2 , 2 2 5 - 7 , 2 7 9 - 8 0 , 2 9 8
86,92,101,104-8,116,130,136,138, Decalogue 8 , 3 3 , 2 8 9
1 4 8 , 1 5 0 , 1 6 3 - 7 , 1 8 4 - 5 , 241-2, 247, 259- Divination 9 , 1 6 4 , 2 0 0 , 2 7 6 - 9 , 3 2 6 , 342
62, 264-7, 2 7 1 , 2 8 1 - 2 , 299, 327, 344 Eden 6 4 , 7 8 - 8 0 , 1 5 9 , 1 7 0 - 1 , 2 5 9 - 6 1 , 263
Ancestral traditions 27, 3 0 , 1 0 1 , 1 2 6 , 1 6 0 , Education/culture (or lack thereof) 12, 5 3 ,
1 6 2 - 3 , 1 9 1 , 288, 2 9 3 , 300-1, 312-3, 329, 7 2 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 6 , 1 5 9 , 240, 252, 258-9, 317,
344 321-2
Angels 4 3 , 4 5 , 4 8 , 5 7 - 8 , 7 8 , 9 1 - 2 , 1 1 5 - 6 , Election (of Israel) 1 3 1 , 2 8 3 - 5 , 3 3 3 - 4 , 3 3 6 ,
119,123,126-7,131-3,136,142,242, 339,341
253-5,269-70,273,275-6,278,285, Exodus tradition 5 , 7 , 9 - 1 2 , 1 7 , 2 2 - 3 , 2 5 - 6 ,
288, 3 0 3 , 3 1 1 , 3 1 5 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 6 , 339-40 28-30, 3 2 , 4 5 - 6 , 52, 1 2 4 - 5 , 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 , 1 7 7 ,
Anger (human) 1 1 0 , 1 4 5 , 2 2 7 , 2 9 2 284
Anger/wrath (divine) 2 9 , 9 0 - 1 , 1 4 3 - 5 , 1 4 8 , Fasting 1 0 , 2 4 , 2 7 , 1 8 2 , 3 1 8 - 9
2 3 1 , 2 9 1 - 3 , 302-5, 307, 321 Fiction 7 3 , 7 9 , 8 3 , 9 3 , 1 0 4 , 1 4 3 , 1 6 5 , 1 6 8 ,
Animals 7 - 8 , 2 1 , 2 7 , 3 2 , 5 0 , 5 9 , 84-5, 88- 201,261, 265-6,286, 291,296
9 1 , 1 0 1 , 1 0 6 , 1 2 7 , 1 3 4 , 1 6 2 , 180,182-3, Fire 1 0 , 4 7 , 9 4 , 9 6 , 9 9 , 1 4 5 , 1 5 3 , 2 2 9 , 2 4 2 ,
192-3 2 7 3 , 2 9 1 - 2 , 295-6, 320-1
Argument from consequence 1 1 4 , 1 2 3 , 1 4 7 , Flood 1 1 , 1 9 , 5 7 , 9 2 - 1 0 4 , 1 4 2 , 1 4 8 , 2 6 8
171,321 Food 6, 2 2 - 3 , 7 7 , 1 2 7 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 1 , 1 7 2 , 1 8 0 - 1 ,
Ass (effigy) 17, 2 7 - 8 , 3 1 1 8 3 , 2 2 4 , 2 6 8 , 280-1, 288-9, 294, 296-8,
Atonement 1 7 , 2 9 4 , 2 9 8 - 9 , 330 313-4, 327-8, 339-40
Babel, Tower of 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 , 1 2 6 , 1 4 8 , 2 7 1 - 5 , Garments of skin 1 7 2 - 3 , 2 6 2
340-1 Good, The 3 6 - 7 , 1 5 8 - 9 , 1 7 3 , 2 7 5 , 3 0 3 , 330,
Babel, Tower of 1 0 0 , 1 0 3 , 1 2 6 , 1 4 8 , 2 7 1 - 5 , 332,334-5
340-1 Hate 1 6 , 2 4 , 2 6 , 9 7 - 8 , 1 0 9 - 1 0 , 1 6 1 , 1 7 0 ,
Body 3 5 , 3 7 , 5 1 , 6 0 , 7 0 - 1 , 8 1 - 2 , 8 6 - 8 , 9 8 , 289,294
136,140-1,155,169-70,173,186,213, Hebrew (language) 1 , 4 4 - 5 , 4 7 , 5 3 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 9 ,
262,325,341 1 2 1 , 1 6 2 , 2 0 0 - 3 , 2 3 3 - 4 , 237, 246, 2 5 1 ,
Christ 7 8 , 1 4 2 , 1 5 6 , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 1 8 5 , 1 8 6 , 2 3 8 , 2 8 8 , 2 9 9 , 324, 327
2 4 3 , 2 6 9 , 2 8 0 - 1 , 2 8 9 , 308 Iao 1 8 , 4 3 , 1 1 8 , 1 2 8 , 1 7 5
Circumcision 1 6 , 2 2 - 3 , 2 8 , 30, 3 2 , 1 0 2 , 1 2 2 , Iaweh 43
398 Indexes
Ieou 4 3 Magician (Moses) 1 2 , 4 0 , 4 4 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 4 - 5 ,

Ieuo 175 131, 1 4 8 , 1 7 8
Ignorance 6 1 , 1 4 4 , 1 5 9 , 2 1 0 , 2 3 6 , 2 5 9 , 2 7 1 - Misanthropy 10, 17, 22, 2 8 , 1 3 2 , 1 6 1 , 337
2, 298, 329, 339 Monotheism 116-7, 207, 286, 309-10, 344
Ignorant (Christians) 6 1 , 1 5 9 , 2 7 1 - 2 Myth 6, 33, 59-63, 72-3, 9 1 , 9 3 , 101, 104,
Ignorant (God) 2 6 0 , 2 6 3 124, 1 2 8 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 8 , 1 6 0 - 1 , 1 6 5 - 6 , 1 6 8 - 9 ,
Ignorant (Pagans) 339 1 7 1 , 2 4 7 , 259-61, 263-66, 270-72, 274,
Ignorant/lacking in foreknowledge (God) 75- 2 8 8 , 3 1 3 , 339-40, 3 4 4
6,259-260,263 Oil (anointing) 78, 339
Image 5, 17, 2 1 - 3 , 2 8 , 35, 5 0 , 7 1 , 80, 87-8, Paschal sacrifice 282, 289
2 0 6 , 2 5 5 , 2 5 7 , 2 7 0 , 2 9 0 , 2 9 5 , 3 0 1 , 310, Passover 275, 281-2, 288-9, 328
314, 320-1 Persecution (and see Antiochus IV) 5 6 , 1 4 7 ,
Jealous (God/gods) 3 9 , 7 5 - 7 , 1 5 3 , 2 6 3 , 290- 1 5 1 , 1 6 6 - 7 , 1 9 3 , 2 2 1 , 226-7, 2 3 2 , 2 4 4 ,
4, 3 0 3 - 5 , 3 1 5 - 6 , 322, 344 248, 301
Jerusalem 1 3 , 1 6 - 7 , 2 1 , 2 6 , 2 8 , 3 8 , 4 5 , 4 7 , Persuasion (God's lack of ability) 7 2 , 9 7 , 1 7 1
1 4 0 , 1 4 5 , 1 9 7 , 2 0 4 , 2 1 8 , 2 2 1 , 2 2 6 , 227, Persuasion 18, 3 6 , 4 1 , 5 4 , 7 2 - 3 , 9 8 , 1 0 6 ,
231-4, 240, 244, 249, 280, 317-8, 327-8, 117, 120, 128, 146, 159, 162-3,166-7,
338 171,177-8,185, 221, 2 3 3 , 2 4 1 , 2 6 1 , 3 0 2 -
Jesus 3 6 , 5 8 , 6 0 , 7 3 - 4 , 7 8 , 82, 8 8 , 9 1 , 9 6 , 3, 308, 3 3 9 , 3 4 3 - 4
1 0 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 9 - 1 3 0 , 134, 136, Plagiarism 9 2 - 3 , 9 5 , 1 0 0 , 1 4 8 , 2 0 4 , 272,
1 3 8 , 1 4 0 - 2 , 1 4 5 , 1 4 7 , 157, 177-8, 185, 315
2 1 5 , 2 4 7 , 2 7 0 , 2 8 0 - 2 , 284-5, 300-2, 310- Polytheism 9 2 , 1 2 1 , 1 6 2 , 2 5 7 , 2 6 2 , 2 7 0 ,
2, 316, 318-9, 321-24, 339, 341 2 7 5 , 2 8 5 - 6 , 307, 335
Land (Palestine) 5, 7 , 1 0 - 1 , 1 6 , 20, 26-7, Pork 17, 27, 32, 126-9, 230, 297
29,72, 120-1,125,131,138,146-7,191, Prayer 3 0 , 3 9 - 4 0 , 5 1 , 6 8 - 9 , 1 3 1 - 2 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 ,
197, 2 2 1 , 225, 227, 2 3 1 , 2 3 3 , 235, 237, 277, 3 0 4 , 3 1 6 , 3 2 3 , 3 2 8 , 337
278, 283-5, 287-8, 3 1 1 , 314-5, 334, 336, Prophets/prophecy 5 , 1 4 , 22, 3 6 - 7 , 4 4 - 7 , 5 0 ,
339, 341 57-8, 60, 64, 80, 83, 95, 1 1 3 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 3 ,
Law 4 - 5 , 7 - 9 , 1 2 , 1 5 , 17-8, 22-3, 29, 3 1 , 33, 136-43,145-8, 1 5 6 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 4 - 5 , 1 6 8 ,
36-7,52,59,63,66-7,98,101,114-5, 172,176,180-1,183-4,187,190,197,
121-3, 1 2 5 - 3 2 , 1 3 6 - 7 , 1 4 6 - 8 , 1 5 1 , 1 5 3 , 199-200, 202, 206, 209-10, 214, 217-8,
1 5 6 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 2 , 166-7, 1 7 0 , 1 7 4 , 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 , 2 2 1 , 2 3 8 - 9 , 243-6, 2 4 9 , 2 5 1 , 2 6 1 , 2 6 5 ,
221, 227, 2 2 9 , 240, 248, 2 5 8 , 2 6 4 , 274, 277- 80, 2 8 2 , 2 8 4 , 292, 295, 301-2, 310-
280- 2 , 2 8 8 - 9 1 , 2 9 5 - 9 8 , 3 0 3 , 305-8, 312, 12, 317, 320-3, 326-7, 339, 341, 344
315, 3 1 7 - 8 , 3 2 7 , 3 2 9 - 3 0 , 3 3 4 , 336, 339- Proselyte 2 7 - 8 , 4 8 , 5 1 , 1 4 7 - 8 , 1 6 0
42, 344 (potential), 343-4 (Christians)
Lawlessness 1 7 , 2 9 , 1 3 2 , 1 5 1 , 1 6 6 - 7 , 2 6 4 , Providence 6 7 , 7 0 , 8 4 - 6 , 9 0 , 9 7 , 1 1 5 , 1 4 3 ,
281 1 4 7 , 1 6 9 , 256, 273-4, 305, 320, 340-1
Light 10, 3 3 , 4 5 - 6 , 6 7 - 8 , 7 8 , 9 3 , 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 , Rape 1 3 , 5 7 , 1 1 0 , 3 0 7
292, 320, 3 2 2 Relativism (ethical) 290-1
Literal/historical sense 22, 6 1 - 2 , 6 6 , 7 3 , 1 0 4 , Resurrection 5 1 , 78-9, 8 2 , 1 3 6 - 8 , 140-1,157,
1 2 4 , 1 3 0 , 1 5 9 , 1 8 5 , 189, 259, 265-6, 270, 1 7 3 , 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 , 1 9 5 , 2 4 0 - 1 , 2 4 3 , 246
272,314 Rome 1 3 , 1 5 , 3 0 , 5 6 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 1 , 1 3 2 , 1 4 8 ,
Love (divine) 8 9 , 1 2 5 , 1 3 0 - 2 , 3 0 4 , 3 3 9 212, 2 2 3 , 226, 2 8 3 , 286-7, 291, 342, 344
Love (human) 2 3 , 4 6 , 6 0 - 1 , 1 7 3 , 1 7 5 , 1 8 1 , Rustic (Christians) 117, 177
229-30, 2 9 6 , 3 0 7 , 3 1 3 Rustic (Jews) 116-7, 342
Magic/magicians 3 9 - 4 0 , 4 2 - 8 , 5 0 , 5 2 , 1 0 2 - 3 , Sabaoth43-4,46-7,57,117,119,121,131
103,109,115-6,124,133,177-9,186, Sabbath 1 0 , 2 4 - 5 , 2 7 , 6 9 , 2 8 0 , 2 8 9 - 9 0
284,314,316 Sacrificed 17,90,126, 131,133,152,180-
Magician (Joseph) 2 3 , 1 1 2 3, 2 1 8 , 2 2 7 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 2 , 238, 245, 267-9,
Subjects 399
2 7 5 - 6 , 2 7 8 , 2 8 1 - 2 , 284, 289, 294-6, 298- Soul 9, 28, 35, 37, 50, 6 0 , 7 1 , 7 4 , 78, 8 1 ,
9, 3 0 1 , 3 0 4 , 3 1 7 , 327-30 86,98,107,135-6,140,143,155,158-9,
Satan 4 4 , 7 7 , 2 1 3 , 2 9 9 , 3 1 2 1 6 4 - 5 , 1 6 7 - 7 0 , 1 7 2 - 3 , 1 8 5 , 256-8, 2 6 2 ,
Serpent/s 5 0 , 5 7 , 7 1 - 5 , 7 7 , 8 9 , 1 4 8 , 1 7 1 , 2 6 8 , 2 7 5 , 2 9 4 , 306, 320, 328, 334-5, 341
2 6 0 - 1 , 2 6 3 - 4 , 2 6 6 , 340 Statue 17, 27-8, 87, 218, 227-8, 231-2, 238,
Seven heavens 5 1 , 1 3 5 , 1 5 4 - 5 321
Sin 80, 8 3 , 1 0 3 , 2 5 8 , 2 9 4 , 300-1, 307 Temple (of Jerusalem) 5 , 1 2 , 2 3 , 2 7 , 3 1 , 3 8 ,
Slaves/slavery 1 1 , 1 3 , 3 1 , 5 7 , 8 3 , 1 0 7 - 8 , 4 7 , 1 3 1 - 2 , 145, 1 9 7 , 1 9 9 , 204, 216, 218,
110- 1 , 1 2 1 - 2 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 6 , 1 4 8 , 1 5 5 , 207, 2 2 1 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 - 3 2 , 243-5, 249, 317-21,
2 1 4 , 2 2 9 , 2 7 6 , 2 8 6 - 8 , 3 1 2 , 3 2 2 , 342, 344 327-8, 338
Sodom 4 5 - 6 , 4 8 , 57, 95, 1 0 3 - 4 , 2 9 4 Theurgy 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 , 275-6, 315-6, 342
Son (of God) 78, 8 3 , 1 3 9 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 2 , 145, Unleavened bread 2 7 , 2 8 0 - 1 , 2 8 8 - 9 , 3 2 8
1 5 8 , 1 7 9 - 8 0 , 254, 270, 285-6, 309-11, Wisdom 11, 2 1 , 3 1 , 37, 89, 9 6 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 4 - 5 ,
318,323 108,112-3,122,136,148-9,152-4,165,
Son of God (Israel) 284-5 1 6 8 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 9 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 3 , 2 1 1 , 258, 262-3,
Son of Man 190, 206-7, 213-6, 238-9, 244 3 0 6 , 3 1 4 - 6 , 343
Sons of God 269-70, 285 Word 143, 270, 285-6, 300-1, 309, 318, 325
According to the available evidence
not many pagans knew the Greek Bible (Septuagint)
before the advent of Christianity. The pagans who reacted
to biblical texts include Celsus (II C.E.), Porphyry (III C.E.),
and Julian the Apostate (IV C.E.). John Granger Cook analyzes
these pagans' voice and elaborates on its importance,
since it shows how Septuagint texts appeared
in the eyes of Greco-Roman intellectuals.
ISBN 3 - 1 6 - 1 4 8 4 7 4 - 6
Mohr Siebeck

(John Granger Cook) The Interpretation of The Old (BookFi) PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

(John Granger Cook) The Interpretation of The Old (BookFi) PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

JOHN GRANGER COOK

Studien und Texte zu

H e r a u s g e b e r / E d i t o r : CHRISTOPH MARKSCHIES (Berlin)

1.2.7 A d a m , E v e , and the Snake 71

2.2.16.1 Porphyry's Eastern Sources? 188

2.2.16.36 Dan 12:5-6 and the Time of the E n d 242

3.38 M o s e s and M o n o t h e i s m in D e u t e r o n o m y 309

A n c i e n t Christian Literature 386

The G r e e k font used (Graeca) is from Linguist's Software, P O B o x 580, E d ­

The Septuagint's Reception in the Greco-Roman World

W h i l e writing The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman

p o s s i b l e that the G r e e k translation o f the O T ( S e p t u a g i n t , L X X ) w a s read

Patristic writers c a m e to c a l l the G r e e k translation o f the O T the

0.1 Hecataeus ofAbdera (ca 300 B.C.E.)

Exceptions can certainly be found to Tcherikover's generalization in

a direct k n o w l e d g e o f an O T text, although he clearly had a g o o d source. H i s

0.2 Manetho (III B.C.E.)

A figure w h o p r e s e n t s n u m e r o u s literary d i f f i c u l t i e s i s the E g y p t i a n author

the E g y p t i a n s a c r e d a n i m a l s ( E x o d 2 0 : 3 - 6 ; c p . L e v 11, 18:3). He also

Egyptian v e r s i o n the J e w s t h e m s e l v e s suffer from leprosy. A z i z a thinks that

03 Ocellus Lucanus (II B.C.E.)

Philo k n o w s the Pythagorean O c e l l u s o f Lucania in Southern Italy and refers

G e n 1:28 has "increase and g r o w in number and fill the earth" ( α ύ ξ ά ν β σ θ ε

A v i r u l e n t l y a n t i - J e w i s h v e r s i o n o f the e x o d u s appears in the writer

0.5 Apollonius Molon (I B.C.E.)

T h e orator A p o l l o n i u s M o l o n distinguished himself as a teacher o f Cicero and

( G e n 2 5 : 8 ) . G e l o s and his o w n local w i f e have t w e l v e s o n s o f w h i c h the last

Josephus' charge that M o l o n w a s guilty o f raping the w i v e s o f neighbors and

0.6 Alexander Polyhistor (ca 105-35 B.C.E.)

Alexander Polyhistor or L. Cornelius Alexander w a s born in M i l e t u s , but w a s

from D e m e t r i u s the Chronographer (end o f III B . C . E . ) in w h i c h h e refers to

H o w e v e r , what is quite interesting is that Polyhistor w o u l d h a v e had a great

0.7 Diodorus Siculus (IB.CE.)

people. Consequently they invent c o m p l e t e l y extraordinary c u s t o m s ( ν ό μ ι μ α

reading but o n oral encounters w i t h J e w s . D i o d o r u s i n c l u d e s an important

0.8 Nicolaus of Damascus

N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s (ca 6 4 B . C . E . to I C.E.), the Peripatetic philosopher,

that N i c o l a u s clearly k n e w the L X X — although he preserves other traditions

that N i c o l a u s ' biblical history w a s a c o m b i n a t i o n o f J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c s and

0.9 Strabo (ca 64 B.C.E. to I CE.)

Strabo o f A m a s e i a in A s i a M i n o r w a s a geographer and historian w h o had a

M o s t o f the material in a s e n s e c o u l d b e derived from what Strabo or his oral

0.10 Pompeius Trogus (I B.C.E. to I CE.)

P o m p e i u s Trogus w a s a Celt (Vocontian) from Gallia Narbonensis w h o wrote

Trogus then turns to the topic o f M o y s e s w h o m h e describes as Joseph's son

0.11 Tacitus (ca 56-11 CE.)

O n e o f the l o n g e s t accounts o f the origins o f the J e w s appears in the work o f

0.13 Apion (ICE.)

T h e H o m e r i c grammarian A p i o n taught i n R o m e during the r e i g n o f Tiberius

o w n n a m e t o that list and c a l l s A l e x a n d r i a b l e s s e d for h a v i n g s u c h a

0.14 Ps. Longinus (I CE.)

O n e o f the m o s t f a m o u s texts o n literary criticism to survive from the ancient

T h e r e are s o m a n y c o n t a c t s b e t w e e n the "pagan" author a n d " H e l l e n i s t i c "

0.15 Ps. Ecphantus (I - II CE. ?)

T h e context o f "inspiration" s e e m s to imply that he is thinking o f humans as a

B. CENTRONE, Pseudo-Ecphante in Ibid., 55-6. CENTRONE's bibliography shows that the

0.16 Numenius (IICE.)

N u m e n i u s , a Pythagorean or M i d d l e Platonist philosopher, l i v e d in the s e c o n d

nations that b e l i e v e G o d h a s n o b o d y ( α σ ω μ ά τ ο υ ) . H e a l s o u s e s w o r d s o f the

H i s r e f e r e n c e t o r e l i g i o u s rituals, d o g m a s , and institutions p r o b a b l y i m p l i e s

N u m e n i u s quotes Plato's reference to absolute being ( τ ό δ ν ) in Tim. 21 ά-

argument that "the o n e w h o is" (ό ών) is a technical term in Hellenistic Judaism. S e e J.

D e s P l a c e s n o t e s that N u m e n i u s ' w o r d "not shared" appears o n l y o n c e in the

The G r e e k font used (Graeca) is from Linguist's Software, P O B o x 580, E d