Julian and Porphyry on the Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels

In: The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition

Julian, in a Syriac fragment of his Contra Galilaeos, attacked the resurrection narratives in Matthew and Mark, because they were inconsistent with each other concerning the time of the arrival of the women to the tomb, the nature of the being they met in the tomb, and the women’s subsequent actions. Other texts in Syriac and Latin indicate the probability that Julian took over the substance of his argument from Porphyry.

Abstract

Julian, in a Syriac fragment of his Contra Galilaeos, attacked the resurrection narratives in Matthew and Mark, because they were inconsistent with each other concerning the time of the arrival of the women to the tomb, the nature of the being they met in the tomb, and the women’s subsequent actions. Other texts in Syriac and Latin indicate the probability that Julian took over the substance of his argument from Porphyry.

* I am indebted to Professors Tjitze Baarda, Hubert Kaufhold, Sébastien Morlet, and Doctor Richard Goulet for comments about the paper. Professors Marie-Odile Boulnois and Wolfram Kinzig graciously answered several queries. Any mistakes are my own. This paper is a continuation of another paper on the same text of Julian, which examined his critique and Cyril’s response from the perspective of New Testament textual criticism. Abbreviations are from S. Schwertner (1993), pgl, and A. Blaise (1954).

Julian and Porphyry both attacked the Christian concept of resurrection of the dead and in particular the resurrection of Jesus from various perspectives.1 Several texts preserved in Syriac show that Julian may have been indebted to Porphyry for his acute critique of the Gospels’ accounts of the resurrection of Jesus. Julian’s objections were from his Contra Galilaeos, which attracted the ire of Cyril, the powerful bishop of Alexandria.

1 Julian’s Contra Galilaeos

According to Cyril, Julian’s Contra Galilaeos shook the faith of the weaker sort of Christian:

What is more, he [Julian] wrote three books against the holy Gospels and the revered religion of the Christians and by means of them shook up many people, and he did no little damage. Light-minded and credulous people fell easily into his way of thinking and became a sweet prey for demons.

καὶ δὴ καὶ τρία συγγέγραφε βιβλία κατὰ τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελίων καὶ κατὰ τῆς εὐαγοῦς τῶν Χριστιανῶν θρησκείας, κατασείει δὲ δι’ αὐτῶν πολλούς, καὶ ἠδίκηκεν οὐ µετρίως. Οἱ µὲν ἐλαφροί τε καὶ εὐπάροιστοι πίπτουσι ῥᾳδίως εἰς τὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ γλυκὺ τοῖς δαιµονίοις γίνονται θήραµα.2

Although Cyril’s rhetoric might seem strong to modern readers, earlier defenders of the Christian faith such as Origen3 and Severian of Gabala4 showed a similar concern about the attacks on Christianity (and especially the Gospels) of Celsus and Porphyry.

During the winter nights of 362/363 in Antioch, Julian wrote his treatise against the Galileans. Libanius thought Julian did a better job than Porphyry:

When the winter lengthened the nights, besides many other fine discourses, he was shown to be wiser than the Tyrian old man—with reference to the same subjects—by attacking the books which make the person from Palestine a god and a child of god, both refuting them in a long fight and with force and demonstrating that what is revered [by the Christians] is an occasion for laughter and is nonsense.

τοῦ χειµῶνος δὲ τὰς νύκτας ἐκτείνοντος ἄνευ πολλῶν καὶ καλῶν ἑτέρων λόγων ἐπιθέµενος ταῖς βίβλοις αἳ τὸν ἐκ Παλαιστίνης ἄνθρωπον θεόν τε καὶ θεοῦ παῖδα ποιοῦσι, µάχῃ τε µακρᾷ καὶ ἐλέγχων ἰσχύι γέλωτα ἀποφήνας καὶ φλήναφον τὰ τιµώµενα σοφώτερος ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς δέδεικτο τοῦ Τυρίου γέροντος.5

Libanius does not say that Julian had Porphyry’s Contra Christianos in hand, and Julian may have only known certain texts from Porphyry’s work.

2 Julian’s Critique of the Resurrection Narratives

An excerpt of the lost book xiv of Cyril’s Contra Iulianum, which includes a text from Julian’s Contra Galilaeos, exists in a manuscript in the British Museum.6 In Julian’s eyes, the Gospel narratives of the resurrection of Jesus were riddled with contradictions:7

He wrote against the holy Evangelists that they contradict each other in these (cases): For—said they—Mary Magdalene and the other Mary—(so) in Matthew—came to the tomb, in the evening on the Sabbath, when the first of the week began to dawn. However, in Mark,8 they <came> after it dawned and the sun had risen. And—in Matthew9—they saw an angel, but in Mark10 a young man. And in Matthew they went away and reported to the disciples about the resurrection of the Messiah;11 in Mark, however, they kept silence and did not tell anything to anyone.12 By means of these <differences> he brings charges against the Scriptures of the Saints, and says that they oppose each other.

ܡܟܬܒ ܠܗܘܢ ܠܐܘܢܓܠܝܣ̈ܛܐ ܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ܆ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ ܚܕܕ̈ܐ ܒܗܠܝܢ ܐܡܪܘ ܡܪܝܡ ܠܡ ܓܝܪ13 ܡܓܕܠܝܬܐ ܘܡܪܝܡ ܐܚܪܬܐ ܒܡܬܝ. ܒܪܡܫܐ ܒܫܒܬܐ ܟܕ ܢܓܗ ܚܕ ܒܫܒܐ ܐܬܝ ܠܩܒܪܐ. ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܠܘܬ ܡܪܩܘܤ܆ ܡܢ ܕܢܓܗܬ ܘܣܠܼܩ ܫܡܫܐ. ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܘܬ ܡܬܝܼ ܡܠܐܟܐ ܚܙܝ. ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܠܘܬ ܡܪܩܘܤ ܥܠܝܡܐ. ܘܗܠܝܢ ܕܠܘܬ ܡܬܝ܆ ܐܙܠܝܢ ܘܣܒܪܝܢ ܠܬܠܡ̈ܝܕܐ ܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ. ܗܠܝܢ ܕܝܢ ܕܠܘܬ ܡܪܩܘܤ܆ ܫܬܩܝܢ ܕܠܐܢܫ ܡܕܡ ܠܐ ܐܡܪܝܢ. ܒܗܠܝܢ ܡܝܬܐ ܥܕܠܝܐ ܥܠ ܟܬܒ̈ܝܗܘܢ ܕܩܕܝܫ̈ܐ ܘܐܡܿܪ܆ ܕܠܘܩܒܠ ܚܕܕܐ ܩܝܡܝܢ‫.

Julian clearly did not know the Longer Ending (16:9-20) of Mark, in which Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene (16:9-11).14

François Combefis in 1648 published a homily of John of Thessalonica (archbishop 610-649),15 which was a harmony of the evangelists with regard to the women’s visit to the tomb and the resurrection of the Lord. The homily includes a fragmentary text of Julian, that may belong to the text printed above or one close to it in the lost sections of the Contra Galilaeos. John was driven to the desperate measure of asserting that there were four arrivals of the women to the tomb. After quoting Mark 16:6-8, John continues:

And not, as the atheists and polytheists who were despots and apostates said, that there was one arrival of the women to the tomb, and that the evangelists disagreed about the history.

καὶ οὐχ ὥς φασιν ἄθεοι καὶ πολύθεοι γενόµενοι τύραννοι καὶ παραβάται µία γέγονεν ἄφιξις τῶν γυναικῶν ἐπὶ τὸ µνηµεῖον, καὶ περί τὴν ἱστορίαν οἱ εὐαγγελισταὶ διεφώνησαν.16

Already Combefis realized that John was referring to Julian.17 Cyril’s and John’s texts indicate that Julian was attacking the apparent inconsistency of the resurrection narratives.

Julian, however, did not believe that the resurrection of the dead was even possible. Cyril refers to Julian’s thoughts:

For the grace of adoption is set before them as a promise, but they also look forward to obtaining the resurrection of the dead in Christ. Of course, the enemy of truth especially ridicules this [belief] in addition to all the rest, as if it is not possible for the God, who is able to do all things, to even make one [a human] greater than death, who according to his/her own nature is subjected to the principle of corruption . . .

πρόκειται γὰρ αὐτοῖς εἰς ὑπόσχεσιν τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἡ χάρις, τεύξεσθαι δὲ προσδοκῶσι καὶ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως ἐν Χριστῷ. ὃ δὴ µάλιστα διαγελᾷ πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρός, ὥσπερ οὐκ ἐνὸν τῷ πάντα ἰσχύοντι θεῷ καὶ θανάτου κρείττονα ἀποφῆναι τὸν λόγῳ φθορᾶς ὑποκείµενον κατὰ ἰδίαν φύσιν . . .18

Consequently, it is apparent that even if the Gospels’ narratives of the women’s arrival to the tomb and the resurrection appearances of Jesus were absolutely consistent, Julian would have rejected the concept of resurrection on philosophical grounds.

2 Possible Sources of Julian’s Critique

Although Julian’s criticisms of the resurrection narratives resemble problems noted in Eusebius’s Quaestiones euangelicae, it seems unlikely that he was aware of that somewhat obscure text of Eusebius.19 It is more probable that Julian’s objection ultimately derives from one of Porphyry. Ishoʿdad of Merw (ix ce) claims that Porphyry and Julian shared the same objection:20

Julianus and Porphyrius, the impious, here accuse the Evangelists of disagreement, that is to say, about the times as well as the hours in regard to the Resurrection of our Lord. Matthew says, In the evening of the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, came Mary and Mary [Matt 28:1]. But Mark [16:2], In the morning of the first day of the week, at the rising of the sun, they came; but Luke [24:1], On the first day of the week, while it was yet dark, they came; and John [20:1], On the first day of the week, came the Magdalene while it was yet dark.

ܝܘܠܝܢܘܣ ܘܦܘܪܦܘܪܝܘܣ ܪ̈ܫܝܥܐ ܡܩܛܪܓܥܢ ܗܪܟܐ ܠܐܘܢܓܠܣܬ̈ܐ ܒܠܐ ܫܠܡܘܬܐ ܟܐܡܬ ܕܥܕ̈ܢܐ ܟܝܬ ܘܕܫܥ̈ܐ܆ ܕܥܠ ܩܝܡܬܗ ܕܡܪܢ܀ ܡܬܝ ܠܡ ܐܡ̇ܪ܆ ܕܒܪܡܫܐ ܠܡ ܕܫܒܬܐ ܕܢܓܗ ܚܕܒܫܒܐ܆ ܐܬܬ ܡܪܝܡ ܘܡܪܝܡ܆ ܡܪܩܘܣ ܕܝܢ ܕܒܫܦܪܐ ܠܡ ܕܚܕܒܫܒܐ ܘܟܕ ܕܢܚ ܫܡܫܐ ܐܬܝ̈܆ ܠܘܩܐ ܕܝܢ ܕܒܚܕܒܫܒܐ ܥܕ ܚܫܘܟ ܐܬܝ̈܆ ܘܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܒܚܕܒܫܒܐ ܠܡ ܐܬܬ ܡܓܕܠܝܬܐ ܥܕ ܚܫܘܟ‫.

Both Julian and Porphyry noticed the seeming inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, according to Ishoʿdad. Theodore bar Koni (viii ce) has a very similar tradition, although he attributes the attack on the time of the resurrection to Julian (and not to both Julian and Porphyry). The text is part of a Mimrā (discourse) of bar Koni that comprises a question concerning places where the Evangelists appear to disagree with one another. One of them is about the times of the resurrection.

For Julian the impious, as in everything so also in these, accuses the evangelists and says that their words do not agree with each other concerning times and hours.21

ܝܘܠܝܢܘܣ ܓܝܪ ܪܫܝܥܐ. ܐܝܟ ܕܒܟܠܗܝܢ. ܐܦ ܒܗܠܝܢ ܡܩܛܪܓ ܠܐܘܢܓ̈ܠܣܛܐ ܘܐܡ̇ܪ. ܕܠܐ ܫܠܡ̈ܢ ܡܠܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܠܚ̈ܕܕܐ ܒܥ̈ܕܢܐ ܘܒܫ̈ܥܐ‫.

bar Koni then quotes Matt 28:1, Luke 24:1-2, John 20:1 and Mark 16:2, which presumably were the focus of Julian’s critique and which were probably part of his original text (as in the excerpt from Cyril above). Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his Commentary on John, refers to “dissenters” or “those not persuaded” (ܕܠܐ ܡܦܣ̇ܝܢ), who argue that the Evangelists do not agree with each other (ܠܐ ܫ̈ܠܡܢ ܡܠܝ̈ܗܘܢ ܕܐܘܢܓܠܣ̈ܛܐ ܠܚ̈ܕܕܐ). He then proceeds to quote John 20:1, Matt 28:1, Luke 24:1-2 and Mark 16:2-4.22

Sébastien Morlet23 has identified a medieval author, Petrus Comestor (Peter the Eater), who in his Historia scholastica (ca 1173) has a quaestio that begins: De hora quidem resurrectionis quaeri solet, de qua varie loquuntur auctores (Admittedly it is customary to ask about the hour of resurrection, concerning which the authors speak in sundry different ways). Petrus then quotes part of Jerome’s response to a Gallic woman named Hedybia in Ep. 120.3, who had posed a question about the apparent inconsistency between Matt 28:1 and Mark 16:2.24 He also includes an objection that he attributes to Porphyry:

With regard to the difference concerning the arrival of the women to the tomb, which apparently exists in the Gospels—in consequence of which, also (or even) Porphyry ridicules them—and with regard to the appearances and to the number of angels, the gloss of Augustine on Matthew has completely explained [everything].

De diuersitate aduentus mulierum ad monumentum, quae uidetur in euangelistis esse, unde et Porphyrius irridet eos, et de apparitionibus, et de numero angelorum, Glossa Augustini super Matthaeum plene diffinit.25

As Morlet argues, the transmission of this text is obscure, if it is a genuine objection of Porphyry.26 But the existence of an objection about the resurrection narratives attributed to Porphyry by both Ishoʿdad and Petrus implies that both Christian authors may have been correct. It is also important that Petrus was aware, with regard to the same narratives, of a Christian’s question and a pagan philosopher’s critique. Probably Porphyry was the inspiration behind Julian’s attack on the resurrection narratives.27

The attribution of Julian’s text to Porphyry, however, is not unproblematic. A text in Macarius’s Monogenes includes the anonymous Hellenic philosopher’s attack, which is itself probably from Porphyry, on Mark 16:16-17 . The philosopher argues, using those verses from Mark’s Longer (and spurious) Ending, that it was necessary to set fatal poison before those chosen for the priesthood or bishopric to test their faith.28 If the identification is correct, then Porphyry knew the Longer Ending of Mark (16:9-20), but did not use it in the text that was the source for Julian’s attack. Julian, however, did not know the Longer Ending—assuming that the Syriac excerpt above is accurate. The Greek and Syriac parallel texts above confirm the accuracy of the excerpt.

Both Julian and Porphyry29 zealously looked for contradictions in Chris tian texts. One of Cyril’s answers to Julian’s objections30 about the contradictory geneaologies in Matthew and Luke is that Mary is from the tribe of Joseph—a response he based on Numbers 36:6-9. Eusebius referred to the same text of Numbers in his Quaestiones.31 Julian asserted that there was a contradiction between Mark 6:40 and Luke 9:14-15 (τοῦ γὰρ Παραβατοῦ διαφωνίαν ἐγκαλέσαντος).32 The problems in the resurrection narratives were the focus of philosophical critique and Christian questioning.33

The objection (in the case of the critics) or question (in the case of the Christians) appears so many times in the literature of antiquity, however, that it is thoroughly unclear where the origin lies—the ultimate source could be Christians or Hellenes, or both, and it is also possible that Hellenes such as Julian took objections from Christian texts such as Origen’s Contra Celsum.34 Celsus, according to the existent evidence, however, is not responsible for this particular attack of Julian (i.e., the one concerning the resurrection narratives). Cyril apparently does not know where Julian got his objection against the resurrection from.

Cyril knew of the existence of Porphyry’s Contra Christianos, but gives no indication of having read it: Πορφύριος µὲν οὖν, ὁ πικροὺς ἡµῶν καταχέας λόγους, καὶ τῆς Χριστιανῶν θρησκείας µονονουχὶ κατορχούµενος (Porphyry, therefore, who poured down bitter words against as, and all but danced in triumph over the Christian religion . . .).35 He calls Porphyry “Julian’s companion and the father of the impudent loquacity against us” (Πορφύριος τοίνυν ὁ αὐτοῦ κοινωνὸς, καὶ τῆς καθ᾽ ἡµῶν ἀθυροστοµίας πατὴρ . . .), in one of his references to Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae.36 He gives no indication, however, of having seen the Contra Christianos. His silence, consequently, about the source of Julian’s objection is unremarkable, if Porphyry was Julian’s source. Cyril used Eusebius’s Praeparatio and Chronicon in his response to Julian.37

The objections and questions about the resurrection, however, probably existed long before Porphyry’s Contra Christianos and Eusebius’s Quaestiones.38

Dionysius of Alexandria (death in 264-265), for example, wrote a letter to Basilides, who was presumably identical with the homonymic bishop of the Pentapolis, that mentions the discrepancies in the Gospels about the times of the resurrection.39 Dionysius’s conclusions are: “. . . according to St Matthew and St John the women who visited the tomb arrived at a late hour in the night and found Him risen, while according to St Luke and St Mark those who came with spices arrived somewhat later and also found Him risen . . .”40 His fundamental exegetical principle is: “Let us not assume that the evangelists disagree with or contradict each other” (καὶ µηδὲ διαφωνεῖν µηδὲ ἐναντιοῦσθαι τοὺς εὐαγγελιστὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλλους ὑπολάβωµεν).41 This principle is explicitly rejected by Julian, and almost certainly by Porphyry, with regard to the resurrection narratives.

3 Conclusion

Julian’s objection to the differences in the resurrection narratives is probably inspired by one of Porphyry’s arguments. Pagans such as Julian and Porphyry attacked the resurrection narratives, and ancient Christians posed similar questions. It is intriguing that the issue of the resurrection of Jesus and the concept of resurrection are still subjects of discussion by philosophers. Even logical empiricists such as A. J. Ayer ([1988a] 40; [1988b] 13) could not resist the siren call.

1 For a pagan objection attributed to Porphyry against the resurrection, see idem, C. Christ. F. 92 Harnack (from Aug., Ep. 102.2 [csel 34.2, 545,17-546,12 Goldbacher]). The argument of Macarius’s anonymous philosopher against the resurrection of Jesus may be found in Macarius, Monogenes 2.25.1-3 (2:36-38 Goulet [on 1:112-149, Goulet argues that the philosopher’s arguments are probably those of Porphyry]). S. Borzì (2013) has (improbably, in my view) argued that the philosopher is an anonymous Neo-Platonist close to Porphyry, who left no trace whatsoever in the historical record. Cf. G. Rinaldi (1998) 383-389 (Porphyry); 429-30 (Macarius’s philosopher), 437-438 (Julian), and J. G. Cook (2000) 153-154 (Porphyry), 198-200 (Macarius’s philosopher) 300-301 (Julian). Porphyry, curiously enough, gave an allegorical interpretation of Dan 12:1-3 (the ot’s clearest statement of a future resurrection) according to Jerome: et haec µεταφορικῶς quasi de resurrectione mortuorum esse praedicta “and these [the Maccabean revolutionaries emerging from caves for victory] were metaphorically predicted, as if of a resurrection of the dead” (Hier., Dan. 12.1-3 [CChr.SL 75a, 937,522-523 Glorie] = Porphyrius, C. Christ. frag. 43w Harnack). See J. G. Cook (2004) 240-242.
2 Cyril, C. Iul. prol. 4 (sc 322:106,15-20 Burguière/Évieux). Hier., Os. 3.11 (CChr.SL 76:121,57-58 Adriaen) mentions a “seventh volume” (. . . hunc locum in septimo uolumine Iulianus Augustus quod aduersum nos, id est Christianos, euomuit [. . . Julian Augustus vomited this passage in the seventh volume, which was against us]). Cp. Hier., Ep. 70.3.2 (csel 54:703,18-704,1 Hilberg): Iulianus Augustus septem libros in expeditione Parthica aduersum Christum euomuit [Julian Augustus vomited seven books against Christ during his Parthian expedition]. Although E. Masaracchia thinks the problem cannot be resolved ([1990] 12), Jerome’s number is probably an error (P. Burguière and P. Évieux [1985] 26-27 [the manuscript evidence for τρία]). Cyril’s evidence is more reliable, since he devoted twenty books to his refutation of the imperator. W. Kinzig and M. Chronz (2004) 31-38 argue at length, using manuscript evidence not referred to by Burguière and Évieux, for a three-volume Contra Galilaeos.
3 Origen, C. Cels. proem. 4 (SVigChr 54:3-4 Marcovich). Ὅµως δ’ ἐπεὶ ἐν τῷ πλήθει τῶν πιστεύειν νοµιζοµένων εὑρεθεῖεν ἄν τινες τοιοῦτοι, ὡς σαλεύεσθαι µὲν καὶ ἀνατρέπεσθαι ὑπὸ τῶν Κέλσου γραµµάτων . . . (But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are deemed to believe, some might be found such that they would be shaken and overthrown by the treatise of Celsus . . .).
4 Severian of Gabala (fl. ca 400), Creat. 6.3 (pg 56:487) made a similar claim (τοῦ θείου δόγµατος πολλοὺς ἀποστήσαντι [causing many to apostatize from the divine religion]) about Porphyry’s Contra Christianos, which was burned by imperial decree on 17 Feb. 448 (the two variant sources are: Codex Iustinianus 1.1.3.1; and [the more accurate and complete version] Collectio Vaticana § 138 [aco 1.1.4:66 Schwartz]).
5 Libanius, Or. 18.178 (Opera 2:313,9-314,5 Foerster).
6 British Museum Add. 17214, fol. 65a-65b. I thank the museum for making the folio available to me.
7 Cyril, C. Iul., Text 18 (54 Neumann and Nestle), trans. of Professor Tjitze Baarda (personal communication of 12 Dec. 2014), slightly modified.
8 Mark 16:2.
9 Matt. 28:2.
10 Mark 16:5.
11 Matt. 28:8.
12 Mark 16:8.
13 This is a correction of Nestle’s ܓܪ since the manuscript clearly shows a Yod.
14 The brief comments on the text have concentrated on the nature of Julian’s critique, his sources, and relationships with Eusebius’s Quaestiones euangelicae and other Christian writers (see, e.g., P. de Labriolle [19482] 414-415 and P. Regazzoni [1928] 82 who both summarize the text of Julian). For a good review of scholarship, cf. Rinaldi (1998) 2:437-438. See also Cook (2000) 154, 300-301, Zamagni (2008) 196-197, and Morlet (2011a) 42-43, 49.
15 M. Jugie (1922) 293.
16 cpg 7922 [cod. Paris gr. 724, fol. 321-335], Jo. Thess., Mul. ung. 4 (a scribal title in several manuscripts, according to M. Jugie: εἰς τὰς µυροφόρους γυναῖκας· καὶ ὅτι οὐδεµία διαφωνία οὐδὲ ἐναντίωσις ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς εὑρίσκετα περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τοῦ Κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [About the women who brought unguents: And that no disagreement or contradiction in the Gospels is found concerning the resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ]). Text in F. Combefis (1648) 813E-816A (cp. 812C-813E for mention of the four arrivals, etc.) = pg 59:641, A. Brinkmann (1905) 632 (who thinks it is a verbal citation from Julian’s C. Gal., with ref. to the text from Cyril’s C. Iul. xiv), and Guida (1994) 206-207. On the homily, cf. M. Jugie (1924) 822 and idem (1922) 295-296.
17 Iulianum apostatam notat “he indicates Julian the apostate” (Combefis [1648] 814E marg.).
18 Julian, C. Gal. F. 61 (156 Mas.) from Cyril, C. Iul. 7.250B (pg 76.881B). Macarius’s Hellene also did not believe a general resurrection of the dead was possible for God to perform. Cf. Macarius, Monogenes 4.24.1-8 (2:314,18-318,3 Goulet). Celsus also argued that such an action was impossible to God (for Celsus, resurrection is “the hope of worms” [σκωλήκων ἡ ἐλπίς]). Cf. Origen, Cels. 5.14 (331,1-24 Marcovich). For Celsus’s attack on the resurrection, cf. Cook (2000) 55-58 and Mitchell (2007) 215-216, 220, 222, etc.
19 Cp. Eusebius, E.Mar. [Eklogē ad Marinum] 1 (sc 523, 194 Zamagni): Πῶς παρὰ µὲν τῷ Ματθαίῳ ὀψὲ Σαββάτων [Matt 28:1] φαίνεται ἐγηγερµένος ὁ Σωτὴρ, παρὰ δὲ τῷ Μάρκῳ πρωῒ τῇ µιᾷ τῶν Σαββάτων [Mark 16:2]; “How is it that in Matthew the savior appeared risen late on the Sabbath, but in Mark it was early on the first day of the week?” On the origin of the questions in Eusebius, see L. Perrone (1990) 433-435 (the questions are from Christians) and his more general article (1991) 485-505. Cf. also C. Zamagni (2004) 7-24 (the text was directed to a Christian audience and is not fundamentally apologetic in nature) and G. Rinaldi (2012) 32-34 (more inclined to see a pagan origin for the questions), etc. H. Merkel (1971) 146 remarks (with regard to the Quaestiones): “Vor dem kritischen Auge eines Porphyrius oder Julian hätte Euseb sicher keine Gnade gefunden.” Julian did know of Eusebius’s Praeparatio (cf. Julian, C. Gal. F. 53 [146-147 Mas.] and Cook, 2004, 342-343).
20 Ishoʿdad of Merv, Comm. in Ioh. 20.1 (1:278-279 Gibson [trans. slightly modified above], 3:211 Gibson [Syriac text]). Cf. A. Baumstark (1922) 234-235, I. Ortiz de Urbina (1958) 203-204.
21 Theodorus bar Koni, Liber scholiorum Mimrā 7.33.proem (csco.s 69/26, 90 ed. A. Scher) (the question) and 7.33.10 (93-94 Scher) (the text of Julian), idem, Livre des scolies 7.33.10 (csco.s 432/188, 64, 67-68, trans. R. Hesperl and R. Draguet), and Guida (1994) 207. Cf. Ortiz de Urbina (1958) 202 and Baumstark (1922) 218-219 (“11 Mēmrē mit einer zetematischen Behandlung der ganzen Bibel”).
22 cpg 3843. Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis Apostoli ad Ioh. 20 (csco.s 115/62, 340 Vosté) and the trans. in ibid. csco.s 116/63, 243,31-32. Cf. Ortiz de Urbina (1958) 226-227, and Baumstark (1922) 102-104. The commentary was dedicated to bishop Porphyry of Antioch, and so must have been written after 404 (csco.s 115/62, 3, 28 [Syriac] = csco.s 116/63, 1,9; 19,3 [trans.]). N. Russell (2007) 34: “Porphyrius . . . succeeded Flavian at Antioch in September 404 . . .” For further comments about problems in the resurrection narratives by both Theodores, see Guida (1994) 206-223.
23 S. Morlet (2011b) 48-49.
24 Petrus Comestor, Historia scholastica, quaest. 185 (pl 198:1636D), freely quoting Hier., Ep. 120.3.2 (csel 55:481,12-19 Hilberg). On the date, cf. M. C. Sherwood-Smith (2000) 2.
25 Petrus Comestor, Historia Scholastica, Quaest. 185 (pl 198, 1637C). Morlet (2011b) 48-49, mentions Aug., Cons. 3.24.16-3.25.86 (csel 43, 351,10-393,18 Weihrich) as the denotation of Glossa (which can easily be verified by comparing Petrus’s reference in 1637B to Cons. 3.24.66). Augustine wrote his book ca 400, in part, to counter the critics who charged that the evangelists contradicted each other (ipsi euangelistae inter se ipsos dissentiant). Cf. ibid. 1.7.10 (11,14-15 Weih.). On the date, see M. Schanz, C. Hosius, and G. Krüger (1920) 451.
26 Morlet (2011b) 48-49.
27 Here I thank Professor Morlet for his comments. Cf., on the general issue, J. Bouffartigue (2011) 407-426 (Bouffartigue does not examine F. 96 Mas.).
28 Macarius, Monogenes 3.16.1-3 (2:142,23-144,10 Goulet) and see, on the Porphyrian origin of the critique, R. Goulet (2011) 225-227.
29 A review of the material from (or attributed to) Porphyry may be found in Cook (2000) 134-167.
30 F. 62 (158 Mas.).
31 Cyril, C. Iul. 8.261 (pg 76:900A-B) and cp. Eusebius, E.Steph. [Eklogē ad Stephanum] 1.10 (94-96 Zamagni). I thank Professor Boulnois for this point (personal communication of 19 Dec. 2014). Cyril quotes the entire text (with several variations from the modern editions of the lxx), but Eusebius summarizes the verses. Julian asserts that Matthew and Luke are demonstrably in disagreement concerning the genealogies (ἐλέγχονται γὰρ Ματθαῖος καὶ Λουκᾶς περὶ τῆς γενεαλογίας αὐτοῦ διαφωνοῦντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους). Cf. C. Gal. F. 62 (158 Mas.) and Cook, New Testament, 289-290 (Christians also asked a similar question). Cp. F. 90 where Julian finds a discrepancy between Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23 (Hier., Matt. 1.3 on 1:16 = 184 Mas.): Jerome calls it an accusation of dissonantia (discord, difference). F. 90 corresponds closely with an objection in Ishoʿdad, which he attributes to Julian and Porphyry (Comm. in Matt. 1:15-16 [Gibson, Commentaries, 1:12 (trans.), 2:20 (the Syriac)]), who “contradict” (ܡܬܕܠܩܒܝܢ) the evangelists. bar Koni notes that Julian wanted to show that the evangelists disagreed with each other (with regard to Jesus’s genealogy) and that Luke does not speak of the “legal” (i.e., Levirate) ancestry of Joseph, since Boaz is mentioned as the father of Obed and not Mahlon (who would be the Levirate father, since as Ruth’s dead husband, he should be named as Obed’s father [according to the law of Levirate marriage; cf. Deut 25:5-6]), thus establishing a contradiction between Luke 3:24 and Matt 1:16. See Liber schol. Mimrā 7.12 (csco.s 69/26:66-67 Scher [Syriac], csco.s 432/188:47 Hesperl/Draguet [trans.]) and Guida (1994) 199-200. Cf. also Cook (2000) 289-290.
32 Julian, C. Gal. F. 105 (190 Mas. = Theod. Mops., Lc. 9:14-15).
33 The second part of Eusebius’s Quaestiones euangelicae (the so-called ad Marinum) is one example among many.
34 On this last point, cf. M.-O. Boulnois (2014) 128.
35 Cyril, C. Iul. 1.38 (180,1-2 Burguière/Évieux) = Porphyrius, Phil. hist. 203F. Smith. Smith (1993) 618-619 (the index s.v. Cyrillus Alex.) lists twenty one fragments of Porphyry in Cyril, but did not include Cyril’s quotations from Porphyry’s Vita Pythagorae (which was part of the Historia philosopha), De abstinentia and Ep. ad Anebonem. R. M. Grant (1964) 273 counts thirteen quotations from De abst., eight quotations from eleven chapters of the Vita Pyth., and two from Aneb.
36 Cyril, C. Iul. 3.87 (pg 633A) = Porphyry, Vita Pyth. 27.
37 Grant, (1964) 269-270 counts eleven quotations from the p.e. and one from the Chronicon (gcs Eusebius Werke v, 10 Karst). Others from Eusebius include Cyril’s quotations of Plato and Plotinus. Both Eusebius’s p.e. and Chronicon contain excerpts from (or allusions to) Porphyr’s C. Christ., but neither includes an objection to the resurrection by Porphyry. See the convenient edition of Ramos Jurado et al. (2006).
38 The terminus post quem is probably 270/272, because of Porphyry’s reference to Callinicus Sutorius (who apparently dedicated his histories of Alexandria to a “Cleopatra,” Zenobia of Palmyra [Suda Κ § 231; Adler separates these works with a comma: Πρὸς Κλεοπάτραν, Περὶ τῶν κατ’ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἱστοριῶν βιβλία δέκα]). For details, see S. Morlet, (2010) 4 (cf. Hier., Dan. prol.: Sutorii uidelicet Callinici . . . quos et Porphyrius secutum esse se dicit [Sutorius, namely Callinicus, . . . whom also Porphyry said that he followed] and 4.11 Porphyrius sequens Sutorium [Porphyry, following Sutorius] [775,88-91; 916,71 Glorie]). See also A. Stein (1923) 448-456, FGrH 3A:§281, T1-4, and pir2 C 229. U. Hartmann (2001) 305-306 argues that the work to “Cleopatra” was an encomium that had nothing to do with the histories. But the treatise to Cleopatra probably is a reference to Zenobia, in any case, since Zenobia invaded Egypt. Hartmann’s ref. to Nicagoras’s Περὶ Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἐν Τρῳάδι (Suda Ν § 373) is not relevant, since that Cleopatra was the mythological daughter of Tros, King of Troy, and of Callirhoe (E. Stähelin [1921] 733). I thank Dr. Goulet for comments on this problem.
39 cpg 1569. C. L. Feltoe (1904) 94-105 (with the intro. in 91-94). See Eusebius, h.e. 7.26.3, Hier., Ill. 69, and W. A. Bienert (1978) 108 (the dating of the letter must remain open), 121-123, 134 (Dionysus’s death, with ref. to h.e. 7.28.3). Feltoe, ibid., 92 dates the letter to 262 or earlier.
40 The summary by Feltoe (1904) 93 and Dionsyius, Ep. ad Basilidem 1 (96 Feltoe), with ref. to Matt 28:1, John 20:1, Luke 24:1, and Mark 16:2. Dionysius proceeds to harmonize Matt 28:1-6, John 20:1, Luke 23:56-24:2, and Mark 16:1-2 (ibid., 96-99 Feltoe).
41 Dionsyius, Ep. ad Basilidem 1 (96 Feltoe).

Bibliography

Ancient Sources

  • aco SchwartzE. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. T. I 1928 Berlin de Gruyter

  • Augustinus GoldbacherA. S. Augustini epistulae. Pars II. Ep. XXXI-CXXIII csel 1898 34 2 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Augustinus WeihrichF. De consensu euangelistarum libri quattuor csel 1904 43 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Cyril of Alexandria BurguièreP.ÉvieuxP. Cyrille d’Alexandrie Contre Julien: Tome I. Livres I-II 1985 SC 322 Paris Cerf

  • Dionysius of Alexandria FeltoeC. L. The Letters and other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria. 1904 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eusebius LawlorH. J. OultonJ. E. L. The Ecclesiastical History lcl 1932 vol. 2 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press

  • Eusebius KarstJ. Die Chronik. Aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischen Commentar gcs Eusebius Werke 1911 5 Leipzig Hinrichs

  • de CésaréeEusèbe ZamagniC. Questions évangéliques sc 2008 523 Paris Cerf (the abridgement [Eklogē] often called the ad Stephanum and ad Marinum).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hieronymus AdriaenM. Commentarii in prophetas minores CChr.SL 1969 76 Turnholt Brepols

  • Hieronymus HilbergI. Epistulae. P. 1. I-LXX csel 1910 54 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Hieronymus HilbergI. Epistulae. P. 2. LXXI-CXX csel 1912 55 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Hieronymus GlorieF. Commentariorum in Danielem libri III (IV) CChr.SL 1964 75a Turnholt Brepols

  • Ishoʿdad of Merv GibsonM. D. The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) 1911-1916 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 5 vols. Horae Semiticae 5 6 7 10 11

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Julian MasaracchiaE. Giuliano imperator contra Galilaeos Testi e Commenti 1990 9 Roma Edizioni dell’Ateneo

  • Libanius FoersterR. Opera 1903-1927 Leipzig Teubner 12 vols. BiTeu

  • de MagnésieMacarios GouletR. Le Monogénès: Édition critique et traduction française, Tome I Introduction générale. Tome II Édition critique, traduction et commentaire Textes et traditions 2003 7 Paris Vrin

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Origen MarcovichM. Contra Celsum SVigChr 2001 54 Leiden Brill

  • Porphyrius von HarnackA. ‘Gegen die Christen’, 15 Bücher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate apaw.ph 1916 1 Berlin Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmithA. Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta BiTeu 1993 Stuttgart/Leipzig Teubner

  • Ramos JuradoE. A.Ritoré PonceJ.Carmona VázquezA.Rodríguez MorenoI.Ortolá SalasF. J.Zamora CalvoJ. M. Porfirio de Tiro. Contra los Cristianos. Recopilación de fragmentos traducción introducción y notas 2006 Cádiz Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suda AdlerA. Suidae Lexicon Lexicographi graeci 1928-1935 1.1-1.4 Leipzig Teubner 4 vols

  • di MopsuestiaTeodoro GuidaA. Replica a Giuliano Imperatore: Adversus criminationes in Christianos Iuliani imperatoris BPat 1994 24 Florence Nardini

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MopsuestenusTheodorus VostéJ.-M. Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis Apostoli csco.s 1940 115/62 Paris E typographeo reipublicae

  • MopsuestenusTheodorus VostéJ.-M. Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis Apostoli csco.s 1940 116/63 Louvain Ex officina orientali

  • bar KōnīTheodorus ScherA. Liber scholiorum csco.s 1954 69/26 Louvain Durbecq

  • bar KoniThéodore HesperlR.DraguetR. Livre des scolies csco.s 1982 432/188 Louvain Peeters (recension de Séert)

Modern Sources

  • AyerA. J. ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ Sunday Telegraph 1988a October 14 38 40 28 August 1988; reprinted in National Review

  • AyerA. J. ‘Postscript to a Postmortem’ The Spectator 1988v October 14 13 14 (http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/15th-october-1988/13/postscript-to-a-postmortem).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BaumstarkA. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte 1922 Bonn Marcus und Weber

  • BienertW. A. Dionysius von Alexandrien: Zur Frage d. Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert pts 1978 21 Berlin de Gruyter

  • BlaiseA. Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. 1954 Turnhout Brepols

  • BorzìS. ‘Il Filaletes di Ierocle e l’Apocriticus di Macario Magnes’ Aug 2013 53 393 426

  • BouffartigueJ. ‘Porphyre et Julien contra les chrétiens: intentions, motifs et méthodes de leurs écrits’ Morlet 2011a 407 426

  • BoulnoisM.-O. AmatoE. ‘Le Contre les Galiléens de l’empereur Julien répond-il au Contre Celse d’Origène?’ ΕΝ ΚΑΛΟΙΣ ΚΟΙΝΟΠΡΑΓΙΑ: Hommages à la mémoire de Pierre-Louis Malosse et Jean Bouffartigue. 2014 103 128 Revue des Études Tardo-Antiques Sup. 3. [n.p.]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BrinkmannA. ‘Klassische Reminiszen’ rmp 1905 60 630 635

  • CombefisF. S. patris nostri Asterii Amaseae episcopi aliorumque plurium dissertissimorum ecclesiæ Græcæ patrum . . . 1648 Paris Bertier

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CookJ. G. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism stac 2000 3 Tübingen Mohr Siebeck

  • CookJ. G. The Intepretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism stac 2004 23 Tübingen Mohr Siebeck

  • de LabriolleP. La réaction païenne 1948 Paris L’artisan du livre 2

  • GouletR. “Porphyrye et Macarios sur la toute-puissance de Dieu” Morlet 2011 205 230 2011a

  • GrantR. M. ‘Greek literature in the treatise De trinitate and Cyril Contra Julianum’ JThS 1964 15 265 279

  • HartmannU. . Das palmyrenische Teilreich. 2001 Stuttgart Steiner

  • JugieM. ‘La vie et les oeuvres de Jean de Thessalonique’ EOr 1922 21 293 307

  • JugieM. ‘Jean de Thessalonique’ DThC 1924 8 819 825

  • KinzigW.ChronzM. RitterA. M.WischmeyerW.KinzigW. ‘Beobachtungen zur Bucheinteilung und zum ursprünglichen Umfang von Kyrills Contra Iulianum sowie von Julians Contra Galilaeos’ . . zur Zeit oder Unzeit: Studien zur spätantiken Theologie- Geistes- und Kunstgeschichte und ihrer Nachwirkung. Hans Georg Thümmel zu Ehren 2004 Texts and Studies in the History of Theology 9 Mandelbachtal/Cambridge Edition Cicero 29 62

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MerkelH. Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien wunt 1971 13 Tübingen Mohr Siebeck

  • MitchellM. M. AuneD. E.YoungR. D. ‘Origen, Celsus and Lucian on the “Dénoument of the Drama” of the Gospels’ Reading Religions in the Ancient World. Essays Presented to Robert McQueen Grant on his 90th Birthday 2007 NovTSup 125 Leiden Brill 215 236

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorletS. ‘La datation du Contra Christianos de Porphyre. À propos d’un passage problématique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (Histoire ecclésiastique, vi, 19, 2)’ REAug 2010 56 1 18

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorletS. Le traité de Porphyre contre les chrétiens: Un siècle de recherches, nouvelles questions. Actes du colloque international organisé les 8 et 9 septembre 2009 à l’Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne CEAug.A 2011a 190 Paris Institut d’Études Augustiniennes

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorletS. ‘Comment le problème du Contra Christianos peut-il se poser aujourd’hui?’ Morlet 2011b 1 49 2011a

  • Ortiz de UrbinaI. Patrologia syriaca 1958 Rome Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum

  • PerroneL. ‘Le Quaestiones evangelicae di Eusebio di Cesarea. Alle origini di un genere letterario’ ASEs 1990 7 417 435

  • PerroneL. ‘Sulla preistoria della “quaestiones” nella letteratura patristica. Presupposti e sviluppi del genere letterario fino al IV sec’ ASEs 1991 8 485 505

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RinaldiG. La Bibbia dei pagani. II. Testi e Documenti 1998 Bologna Edizioni Dehoniane

  • RinaldiG. CaponeA. Contumeliae communes, Circolazione di testi e argomenti nelle controversie religiose di età romana imperiale’ Lessico argomentazioni e strutture retoriche nella polemica di età cristiana (III-V sec.) 2012 Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 16 Turnhout Brepols 3 66

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RegazzoniP. ‘Il “Contra Galilaeos” dell’imperatore Giuliano e il “Contra Iulianum” di San Cirillo Alessandrino’ Did. 1928 1 114 N.S. 6 fasc. 3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RussellN. Theophilus of Alexandria 2007 New York Routledge

  • SchanzM.HosiusC.KrügerG. Geschichte der römischen Litteratur haw 1920 vol. 4.2 8 München Beck

  • SchwertnerS. Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete 1993 2nd ed. Berlin/New York de Gruyter

  • Sherwood-SmithM. C. Studies in the Reception of the Historia Scholastica of Peter Comestor . . . 2000 Oxford Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StähelinE. ‘Kleopatra (4)’ pre 1921 11 733

  • SteinA. ‘Kallinikos von Petrai’ Hermes 1923 58 448 456

  • ZamagniC. VolgersA.ZamagniC. ‘Une introduction méthodologique à la littérature patristique des questions et réponses: Le cas d’Eusèbe de Césarée’ Erotapokriseis: Early Christian question-and-answer literature in context. Proceedings of the Utrecht Colloquium 13-14 October 2003 2004 Leuven Peeters 7 24

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Severian of Gabala (fl. ca 400)Creat. 6.3 (pg 56:487) made a similar claim (τοῦ θείου δόγµατος πολλοὺς ἀποστήσαντι [causing many to apostatize from the divine religion]) about Porphyry’s Contra Christianos which was burned by imperial decree on 17 Feb. 448 (the two variant sources are: Codex Iustinianus 1.1.3.1; and [the more accurate and complete version] Collectio Vaticana § 138 [aco 1.1.4:66 Schwartz]).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    LibaniusOr. 18.178 (Opera 2:3139-3145 Foerster).

  • 15

    M. Jugie (1922) 293.

  • 23

    S. Morlet (2011b) 48-49.

  • 26

    Morlet (2011b) 48-49.

  • 28

    MacariusMonogenes 3.16.1-3 (2:14223-14410 Goulet) and see on the Porphyrian origin of the critique R. Goulet (2011) 225-227.

  • 31

    CyrilC. Iul. 8.261 (pg 76:900A-B) and cp. Eusebius E.Steph. [Eklogē ad Stephanum] 1.10 (94-96 Zamagni). I thank Professor Boulnois for this point (personal communication of 19 Dec. 2014). Cyril quotes the entire text (with several variations from the modern editions of the lxx) but Eusebius summarizes the verses. Julian asserts that Matthew and Luke are demonstrably in disagreement concerning the genealogies (ἐλέγχονται γὰρ Ματθαῖος καὶ Λουκᾶς περὶ τῆς γενεαλογίας αὐτοῦ διαφωνοῦντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους). Cf. C. Gal. F. 62 (158 Mas.) and Cook New Testament 289-290 (Christians also asked a similar question). Cp. F. 90 where Julian finds a discrepancy between Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23 (Hier. Matt. 1.3 on 1:16 = 184 Mas.): Jerome calls it an accusation of dissonantia (discord difference). F. 90 corresponds closely with an objection in Ishoʿdad which he attributes to Julian and Porphyry (Comm. in Matt. 1:15-16 [Gibson Commentaries 1:12 (trans.) 2:20 (the Syriac)]) who “contradict” (ܡܬܕܠܩܒܝܢ) the evangelists. bar Koni notes that Julian wanted to show that the evangelists disagreed with each other (with regard to Jesus’s genealogy) and that Luke does not speak of the “legal” (i.e. Levirate) ancestry of Joseph since Boaz is mentioned as the father of Obed and not Mahlon (who would be the Levirate father since as Ruth’s dead husband he should be named as Obed’s father [according to the law of Levirate marriage; cf. Deut 25:5-6]) thus establishing a contradiction between Luke 3:24 and Matt 1:16. See Liber schol. Mimrā 7.12 (csco.s 69/26:66-67 Scher [Syriac] csco.s 432/188:47 Hesperl/Draguet [trans.]) and Guida (1994) 199-200. Cf. also Cook (2000) 289-290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    On this last point cf. M.-O. Boulnois (2014) 128.

  • 36

    CyrilC. Iul. 3.87 (pg 633A) = Porphyry Vita Pyth. 27.

  • 37

    Grant (1964) 269-270 counts eleven quotations from the p.e. and one from the Chronicon (gcs Eusebius Werke v 10 Karst). Others from Eusebius include Cyril’s quotations of Plato and Plotinus. Both Eusebius’s p.e. and Chronicon contain excerpts from (or allusions to) Porphyr’s C. Christ. but neither includes an objection to the resurrection by Porphyry. See the convenient edition of Ramos Jurado et al. (2006).

  • 40

    The summary by Feltoe (1904) 93 and Dionsyius Ep. ad Basilidem 1 (96 Feltoe) with ref. to Matt 28:1 John 20:1 Luke 24:1 and Mark 16:2. Dionysius proceeds to harmonize Matt 28:1-6 John 20:1 Luke 23:56-24:2 and Mark 16:1-2 (ibid. 96-99 Feltoe).

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • aco SchwartzE. Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum. T. I 1928 Berlin de Gruyter

  • Augustinus GoldbacherA. S. Augustini epistulae. Pars II. Ep. XXXI-CXXIII csel 1898 34 2 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Augustinus WeihrichF. De consensu euangelistarum libri quattuor csel 1904 43 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Cyril of Alexandria BurguièreP.ÉvieuxP. Cyrille d’Alexandrie Contre Julien: Tome I. Livres I-II 1985 SC 322 Paris Cerf

  • Dionysius of Alexandria FeltoeC. L. The Letters and other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria. 1904 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Eusebius LawlorH. J. OultonJ. E. L. The Ecclesiastical History lcl 1932 vol. 2 Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press

  • Eusebius KarstJ. Die Chronik. Aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischen Commentar gcs Eusebius Werke 1911 5 Leipzig Hinrichs

  • de CésaréeEusèbe ZamagniC. Questions évangéliques sc 2008 523 Paris Cerf (the abridgement [Eklogē] often called the ad Stephanum and ad Marinum).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hieronymus AdriaenM. Commentarii in prophetas minores CChr.SL 1969 76 Turnholt Brepols

  • Hieronymus HilbergI. Epistulae. P. 1. I-LXX csel 1910 54 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Hieronymus HilbergI. Epistulae. P. 2. LXXI-CXX csel 1912 55 Vienna et al. Tempsky

  • Hieronymus GlorieF. Commentariorum in Danielem libri III (IV) CChr.SL 1964 75a Turnholt Brepols

  • Ishoʿdad of Merv GibsonM. D. The Commentaries of Ishoʿdad of Merv bishop of Hadatha (c. 850 A.D.) 1911-1916 Cambridge Cambridge University Press 5 vols. Horae Semiticae 5 6 7 10 11

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Julian MasaracchiaE. Giuliano imperator contra Galilaeos Testi e Commenti 1990 9 Roma Edizioni dell’Ateneo

  • Libanius FoersterR. Opera 1903-1927 Leipzig Teubner 12 vols. BiTeu

  • de MagnésieMacarios GouletR. Le Monogénès: Édition critique et traduction française, Tome I Introduction générale. Tome II Édition critique, traduction et commentaire Textes et traditions 2003 7 Paris Vrin

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Origen MarcovichM. Contra Celsum SVigChr 2001 54 Leiden Brill

  • Porphyrius von HarnackA. ‘Gegen die Christen’, 15 Bücher. Zeugnisse, Fragmente und Referate apaw.ph 1916 1 Berlin Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmithA. Porphyrii philosophi fragmenta BiTeu 1993 Stuttgart/Leipzig Teubner

  • Ramos JuradoE. A.Ritoré PonceJ.Carmona VázquezA.Rodríguez MorenoI.Ortolá SalasF. J.Zamora CalvoJ. M. Porfirio de Tiro. Contra los Cristianos. Recopilación de fragmentos traducción introducción y notas 2006 Cádiz Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Cádiz

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suda AdlerA. Suidae Lexicon Lexicographi graeci 1928-1935 1.1-1.4 Leipzig Teubner 4 vols

  • di MopsuestiaTeodoro GuidaA. Replica a Giuliano Imperatore: Adversus criminationes in Christianos Iuliani imperatoris BPat 1994 24 Florence Nardini

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MopsuestenusTheodorus VostéJ.-M. Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis Apostoli csco.s 1940 115/62 Paris E typographeo reipublicae

  • MopsuestenusTheodorus VostéJ.-M. Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis Apostoli csco.s 1940 116/63 Louvain Ex officina orientali

  • bar KōnīTheodorus ScherA. Liber scholiorum csco.s 1954 69/26 Louvain Durbecq

  • bar KoniThéodore HesperlR.DraguetR. Livre des scolies csco.s 1982 432/188 Louvain Peeters (recension de Séert)

  • AyerA. J. ‘What I Saw When I Was Dead’ Sunday Telegraph 1988a October 14 38 40 28 August 1988; reprinted in National Review

  • AyerA. J. ‘Postscript to a Postmortem’ The Spectator 1988v October 14 13 14 (http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/15th-october-1988/13/postscript-to-a-postmortem).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BaumstarkA. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluß der christlich-palästinensischen Texte 1922 Bonn Marcus und Weber

  • BienertW. A. Dionysius von Alexandrien: Zur Frage d. Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert pts 1978 21 Berlin de Gruyter

  • BlaiseA. Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens. 1954 Turnhout Brepols

  • BorzìS. ‘Il Filaletes di Ierocle e l’Apocriticus di Macario Magnes’ Aug 2013 53 393 426

  • BouffartigueJ. ‘Porphyre et Julien contra les chrétiens: intentions, motifs et méthodes de leurs écrits’ Morlet 2011a 407 426

  • BoulnoisM.-O. AmatoE. ‘Le Contre les Galiléens de l’empereur Julien répond-il au Contre Celse d’Origène?’ ΕΝ ΚΑΛΟΙΣ ΚΟΙΝΟΠΡΑΓΙΑ: Hommages à la mémoire de Pierre-Louis Malosse et Jean Bouffartigue. 2014 103 128 Revue des Études Tardo-Antiques Sup. 3. [n.p.]

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BrinkmannA. ‘Klassische Reminiszen’ rmp 1905 60 630 635

  • CombefisF. S. patris nostri Asterii Amaseae episcopi aliorumque plurium dissertissimorum ecclesiæ Græcæ patrum . . . 1648 Paris Bertier

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CookJ. G. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism stac 2000 3 Tübingen Mohr Siebeck

  • CookJ. G. The Intepretation of the Old Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism stac 2004 23 Tübingen Mohr Siebeck

  • de LabriolleP. La réaction païenne 1948 Paris L’artisan du livre 2

  • GouletR. “Porphyrye et Macarios sur la toute-puissance de Dieu” Morlet 2011 205 230 2011a

  • GrantR. M. ‘Greek literature in the treatise De trinitate and Cyril Contra Julianum’ JThS 1964 15 265 279

  • HartmannU. . Das palmyrenische Teilreich. 2001 Stuttgart Steiner

  • JugieM. ‘La vie et les oeuvres de Jean de Thessalonique’ EOr 1922 21 293 307

  • JugieM. ‘Jean de Thessalonique’ DThC 1924 8 819 825

  • KinzigW.ChronzM. RitterA. M.WischmeyerW.KinzigW. ‘Beobachtungen zur Bucheinteilung und zum ursprünglichen Umfang von Kyrills Contra Iulianum sowie von Julians Contra Galilaeos’ . . zur Zeit oder Unzeit: Studien zur spätantiken Theologie- Geistes- und Kunstgeschichte und ihrer Nachwirkung. Hans Georg Thümmel zu Ehren 2004 Texts and Studies in the History of Theology 9 Mandelbachtal/Cambridge Edition Cicero 29 62

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MerkelH. Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien wunt 1971 13 Tübingen Mohr Siebeck

  • MitchellM. M. AuneD. E.YoungR. D. ‘Origen, Celsus and Lucian on the “Dénoument of the Drama” of the Gospels’ Reading Religions in the Ancient World. Essays Presented to Robert McQueen Grant on his 90th Birthday 2007 NovTSup 125 Leiden Brill 215 236

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorletS. ‘La datation du Contra Christianos de Porphyre. À propos d’un passage problématique d’Eusèbe de Césarée (Histoire ecclésiastique, vi, 19, 2)’ REAug 2010 56 1 18

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorletS. Le traité de Porphyre contre les chrétiens: Un siècle de recherches, nouvelles questions. Actes du colloque international organisé les 8 et 9 septembre 2009 à l’Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne CEAug.A 2011a 190 Paris Institut d’Études Augustiniennes

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MorletS. ‘Comment le problème du Contra Christianos peut-il se poser aujourd’hui?’ Morlet 2011b 1 49 2011a

  • Ortiz de UrbinaI. Patrologia syriaca 1958 Rome Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum

  • PerroneL. ‘Le Quaestiones evangelicae di Eusebio di Cesarea. Alle origini di un genere letterario’ ASEs 1990 7 417 435

  • PerroneL. ‘Sulla preistoria della “quaestiones” nella letteratura patristica. Presupposti e sviluppi del genere letterario fino al IV sec’ ASEs 1991 8 485 505

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RinaldiG. La Bibbia dei pagani. II. Testi e Documenti 1998 Bologna Edizioni Dehoniane

  • RinaldiG. CaponeA. Contumeliae communes, Circolazione di testi e argomenti nelle controversie religiose di età romana imperiale’ Lessico argomentazioni e strutture retoriche nella polemica di età cristiana (III-V sec.) 2012 Recherches sur les rhétoriques religieuses 16 Turnhout Brepols 3 66

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RegazzoniP. ‘Il “Contra Galilaeos” dell’imperatore Giuliano e il “Contra Iulianum” di San Cirillo Alessandrino’ Did. 1928 1 114 N.S. 6 fasc. 3.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RussellN. Theophilus of Alexandria 2007 New York Routledge

  • SchanzM.HosiusC.KrügerG. Geschichte der römischen Litteratur haw 1920 vol. 4.2 8 München Beck

  • SchwertnerS. Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete 1993 2nd ed. Berlin/New York de Gruyter

  • Sherwood-SmithM. C. Studies in the Reception of the Historia Scholastica of Peter Comestor . . . 2000 Oxford Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StähelinE. ‘Kleopatra (4)’ pre 1921 11 733

  • SteinA. ‘Kallinikos von Petrai’ Hermes 1923 58 448 456

  • ZamagniC. VolgersA.ZamagniC. ‘Une introduction méthodologique à la littérature patristique des questions et réponses: Le cas d’Eusèbe de Césarée’ Erotapokriseis: Early Christian question-and-answer literature in context. Proceedings of the Utrecht Colloquium 13-14 October 2003 2004 Leuven Peeters 7 24

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Severian of Gabala (fl. ca 400)Creat. 6.3 (pg 56:487) made a similar claim (τοῦ θείου δόγµατος πολλοὺς ἀποστήσαντι [causing many to apostatize from the divine religion]) about Porphyry’s Contra Christianos which was burned by imperial decree on 17 Feb. 448 (the two variant sources are: Codex Iustinianus 1.1.3.1; and [the more accurate and complete version] Collectio Vaticana § 138 [aco 1.1.4:66 Schwartz]).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    LibaniusOr. 18.178 (Opera 2:3139-3145 Foerster).

  • 15

    M. Jugie (1922) 293.

  • 23

    S. Morlet (2011b) 48-49.

  • 26

    Morlet (2011b) 48-49.

  • 28

    MacariusMonogenes 3.16.1-3 (2:14223-14410 Goulet) and see on the Porphyrian origin of the critique R. Goulet (2011) 225-227.

  • 31

    CyrilC. Iul. 8.261 (pg 76:900A-B) and cp. Eusebius E.Steph. [Eklogē ad Stephanum] 1.10 (94-96 Zamagni). I thank Professor Boulnois for this point (personal communication of 19 Dec. 2014). Cyril quotes the entire text (with several variations from the modern editions of the lxx) but Eusebius summarizes the verses. Julian asserts that Matthew and Luke are demonstrably in disagreement concerning the genealogies (ἐλέγχονται γὰρ Ματθαῖος καὶ Λουκᾶς περὶ τῆς γενεαλογίας αὐτοῦ διαφωνοῦντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους). Cf. C. Gal. F. 62 (158 Mas.) and Cook New Testament 289-290 (Christians also asked a similar question). Cp. F. 90 where Julian finds a discrepancy between Matt 1:16 and Luke 3:23 (Hier. Matt. 1.3 on 1:16 = 184 Mas.): Jerome calls it an accusation of dissonantia (discord difference). F. 90 corresponds closely with an objection in Ishoʿdad which he attributes to Julian and Porphyry (Comm. in Matt. 1:15-16 [Gibson Commentaries 1:12 (trans.) 2:20 (the Syriac)]) who “contradict” (ܡܬܕܠܩܒܝܢ) the evangelists. bar Koni notes that Julian wanted to show that the evangelists disagreed with each other (with regard to Jesus’s genealogy) and that Luke does not speak of the “legal” (i.e. Levirate) ancestry of Joseph since Boaz is mentioned as the father of Obed and not Mahlon (who would be the Levirate father since as Ruth’s dead husband he should be named as Obed’s father [according to the law of Levirate marriage; cf. Deut 25:5-6]) thus establishing a contradiction between Luke 3:24 and Matt 1:16. See Liber schol. Mimrā 7.12 (csco.s 69/26:66-67 Scher [Syriac] csco.s 432/188:47 Hesperl/Draguet [trans.]) and Guida (1994) 199-200. Cf. also Cook (2000) 289-290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    On this last point cf. M.-O. Boulnois (2014) 128.

  • 36

    CyrilC. Iul. 3.87 (pg 633A) = Porphyry Vita Pyth. 27.

  • 37

    Grant (1964) 269-270 counts eleven quotations from the p.e. and one from the Chronicon (gcs Eusebius Werke v 10 Karst). Others from Eusebius include Cyril’s quotations of Plato and Plotinus. Both Eusebius’s p.e. and Chronicon contain excerpts from (or allusions to) Porphyr’s C. Christ. but neither includes an objection to the resurrection by Porphyry. See the convenient edition of Ramos Jurado et al. (2006).

  • 40

    The summary by Feltoe (1904) 93 and Dionsyius Ep. ad Basilidem 1 (96 Feltoe) with ref. to Matt 28:1 John 20:1 Luke 24:1 and Mark 16:2. Dionysius proceeds to harmonize Matt 28:1-6 John 20:1 Luke 23:56-24:2 and Mark 16:1-2 (ibid. 96-99 Feltoe).

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 19 0 0
Full Text Views 386 360 9
PDF Downloads 35 33 2