What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition #1
Porphyry's Against the Christians
Throughout its first three centuries, the growing Christian religion was subjected not only to official persecution but to the attacks of pagan intellectuals, who looked upon the new sect as a band of fanatics bent on worldwide domination even as they professed to despise the things of this world. Prominent among these pagan critics was Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 232-ca. 305 C.E.), scholar, philosopher, and student of religions. His book Against the Christians (Kata Christianon), was condemned to be burned by the imperial Church in 448. It survives only in fragments preserved by the cleric and teacher Macarius Magnes.This new translation of the remains of Against the Christians, by renowned biblical scholar R. Joseph Hoffmann, reveals a work of deft historical and literary criticism. Porphyry's trenchant comments extend to key figures, beliefs, and doctrines of Christianity as he roundly attacks the divinity of Jesus, the integrity of the apostles, the Christian concept of God, and the Resurrection. Porphyry dismisses the gospels as the work of charlatans and Jesus himself as a criminal and failure. In short, the gospels, as a collective account of the life and deeds of Jesus, are hardly worth the reverence with which an increasing number of Christian converts of Porphyry's own day have begun treating them.Critical notes by the translator provide a running commentary to the text. A lively introduction and comprehensive epilogue describe the "buildup" to the pagan critique of Christianity, and help put Porphyry's work in historical perspective.Accessible to the general reader, and a valuable scholarly tool as well, this new translation of Against the Christians proves a worthy addition to both classical and patristic studies.
180 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 300
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
December 30, 2018
Couple of decades before Christianity got popular enough that Constantine made it legal, Porphyry was diligently taking the piss out of the New Testament.
Naturally, copies of the books were burned, so what we are left with in the end are quotes, preserved in some of his adversaries’ rebuttals.
Let’s savour that irony for a moment.
Basically, what we have are the thorniest quotes, selected by a tribunal of his critics, a ‘best of’ compilation - remember there were many other heretics and blasphemers to address - a judiciously irreverent collection...
And a great airplane read.
Naturally, copies of the books were burned, so what we are left with in the end are quotes, preserved in some of his adversaries’ rebuttals.
Let’s savour that irony for a moment.
Basically, what we have are the thorniest quotes, selected by a tribunal of his critics, a ‘best of’ compilation - remember there were many other heretics and blasphemers to address - a judiciously irreverent collection...
And a great airplane read.
August 15, 2022
Only fragments survive. For to Porphyry’s complaints, we can add: an anti-intellectual intolerance that leads Christians to destroy books.
July 26, 2022
Porphyry (3rd c. A.D.) occupied an important place in the lineage of Neoplatonism; as student, editor and biographer of Plotinus and then a prolific philosopher in his own right, he did much to bring Neoplatonic ideas and beliefs into pagan religion. You'd think his most famous work, Against The Christians, would be a serious appraisal of one system vs. another. You would be wrong. ATC survives only in fragments, but what remains shows a Porphyry mostly arguing on the basis of mostly petty inconsistencies among the Gospels narratives. It's a low-grade style of debate that suggests to me that on the philosophy of religion level where he should have excelled he was largely ignorant of what he was attacking.
Somewhat reminiscent of Internet trolls today.
Somewhat reminiscent of Internet trolls today.
June 9, 2020
"The only true priests are the wise of the world, not the "fools praying and offering sacrifice""
"It is easier to write words on water than try to use argument on a Christian. They simply cannot understand the folly of worshipping as a god a man who had died as a criminal"
- Porphyry.
As it was, so it is.
"It is easier to write words on water than try to use argument on a Christian. They simply cannot understand the folly of worshipping as a god a man who had died as a criminal"
- Porphyry.
As it was, so it is.
July 23, 2026
Both Porphyry (the anti-Christian) and Marcarius (the Christian) are incompetent compared to the elevated and sophisticated nuance of Origen's Contra Celsum. Porphyry and Marcarius both focus on so many peripheral, superficial, and often outright opaque issues that it's boggles the mind that this was ever deemed important enough to preserve for posterity. Porphyry obstinately read Christian texts from a Greek philosophical perspective (which the Christian texts were often intended to subvert), and Marcarius fared even worse in his defense of the faith, time and again pleading allegorical readings and hiding in tangents.
Really the only interesting thing here is the general historical context and some of the worst arguments on both sides of the issue. As it turns out, shitty online "debates" where two smoothbrains duel it out are nothing new.
For example, most of Porphyry's starting arguments merely insult Christ (as not doing what he, Porphyry, wanted) and insult the first witnesses (for being women and peasants). This is little more than a statement of his own bigotry, and Marcarius scores an easy win on that account.
Next, Porphyry pokes holes in the coherence of the gospel message, saying it was hastily written and contradictory. Marcarius, rather than taking Augustine's standard multi-pronged approach to disarming such objections (either they're different details of the same event or two completely different events) makes probably the weakest apologetic response I've ever heard. He simultaneously argues that the simple writing is truer than flowery argument (holding anti-form over content?) and then says that they were scared by all the stuff happening and got jumbled in their "zeal to preserve the truth." I'm sorry but somehow he fumbles so bad that Porphyry wins that point despite having an awful argument to start with.
For the majority of the text, Porphyry takes things overly literally (reminiscent of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and other non-literary readers of the text), with Marcarius weakly falling back to the defense of allegory almost every time. One very interesting moment happened when Porphyry made the same argument as contemporary textual scholars who say that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (but rather it was "really written eleven hundred years later by Ezra and his contemporaries"); once again Marcarius fumbled hard, claiming that maybe the Holy Spirit gave the law to both Moses and Ezra.
Porphyry spends a while expressing his disgust at John 6 and Christ's demand for his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but the way the editor of this text worded it, it sounded as if Marcarius used a 'mystical' (Reformed) defense rather than the traditional claim of the Church ("'is' is 'is'"), so I'm unsure what to take from that.
In a more effective effort, Porphyry poked at the long ending of Mark and said that an easy way to decide Church leadership would be to let people drink poison and only choose those who survive; this is one of the few points that actually landed, since he wrote it at "a transitional phase in the teaching of the church, when faith-healing and magical arts, as accoutrements of the eucharistic celebration, were being eliminated" (per the editor's notes). Marcarius, as expected, again retreats to his indomitable refuge of "allegorical" reading and distances himself from people who take up serpents.
Porphyry also slightly lands a blow when complaining about Paul's confusing Law/Gospel language, because unless you have some framework to place atop his texts, the theology is admittedly a bit confusing; this all is very interesting, since even in the Greek originals (in a time when that language was still spoken and more widely studied), it was seen as confusing.
Continuing on, most of Porphyry's objections center on his abject inability to understand paradoxes and the wisdom that can arise from holding two ideas in tension. For example, Christ's use of parables is interesting because the language and examples may be "low" but the content is deceptively complex and pregnant with divergent meanings. There's something odd in both the repeated and pig-headed attacks by Porphyry and the cowardly side-steps by Marcarius, and it seems like both of them lacked any wisdom of their own or even any interpretive competence in general.
The last interesting thing to remark on is Porphyry's complaint that you could live an awful life and then repent on your deathbed and go to heaven; this is super interesting because the claim is often seen as a uniquely Protestant problem, if not merely a superficial understanding of salvation and repentance. The possible historical explanation was that certain Christians of Marcarius's era would postpone Baptism until near their death, which seems to be a misunderstanding of the sacrament (possibly explaining the shift to infant baptism around that time?).
Ultimately though, treating religions and worldviews as if there's a boxing match with points (as is implied by most of these "debates", and which I toyed with during my review) shows that so many people utterly miss the point of true discourse. Porphyry went into the text assuming he already knew better and could not learn anything from the Christians, while Marcarius deafly played the same note over and over. The excerpts from the Celsum/Origen debate are longer and thus allow more depth, which gives more bite to Celsum's complaints and reeks less of strawmanning. Origen also is a deft thinker and writer, and often uses a subtle reframing to disarm his opponent, unlike more common thinkers. The average person, when faced with a challenge, approaches it head-on. However, if you've ever read the Art of War (or the Gospels), you'd know that taking a small step aside allows the bull to rush right past you, and you can strike the killing blow as it near-misses.
But really, an awful showing by everyone involved. The editor of this text obviously has his own axe to grind, as his biases are left straightforwardly open for anyone to read. I feel slightly stupider having read this. Oh well.
Really the only interesting thing here is the general historical context and some of the worst arguments on both sides of the issue. As it turns out, shitty online "debates" where two smoothbrains duel it out are nothing new.
For example, most of Porphyry's starting arguments merely insult Christ (as not doing what he, Porphyry, wanted) and insult the first witnesses (for being women and peasants). This is little more than a statement of his own bigotry, and Marcarius scores an easy win on that account.
Next, Porphyry pokes holes in the coherence of the gospel message, saying it was hastily written and contradictory. Marcarius, rather than taking Augustine's standard multi-pronged approach to disarming such objections (either they're different details of the same event or two completely different events) makes probably the weakest apologetic response I've ever heard. He simultaneously argues that the simple writing is truer than flowery argument (holding anti-form over content?) and then says that they were scared by all the stuff happening and got jumbled in their "zeal to preserve the truth." I'm sorry but somehow he fumbles so bad that Porphyry wins that point despite having an awful argument to start with.
For the majority of the text, Porphyry takes things overly literally (reminiscent of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and other non-literary readers of the text), with Marcarius weakly falling back to the defense of allegory almost every time. One very interesting moment happened when Porphyry made the same argument as contemporary textual scholars who say that Moses didn't write the Pentateuch (but rather it was "really written eleven hundred years later by Ezra and his contemporaries"); once again Marcarius fumbled hard, claiming that maybe the Holy Spirit gave the law to both Moses and Ezra.
Porphyry spends a while expressing his disgust at John 6 and Christ's demand for his followers to eat his flesh and drink his blood, but the way the editor of this text worded it, it sounded as if Marcarius used a 'mystical' (Reformed) defense rather than the traditional claim of the Church ("'is' is 'is'"), so I'm unsure what to take from that.
In a more effective effort, Porphyry poked at the long ending of Mark and said that an easy way to decide Church leadership would be to let people drink poison and only choose those who survive; this is one of the few points that actually landed, since he wrote it at "a transitional phase in the teaching of the church, when faith-healing and magical arts, as accoutrements of the eucharistic celebration, were being eliminated" (per the editor's notes). Marcarius, as expected, again retreats to his indomitable refuge of "allegorical" reading and distances himself from people who take up serpents.
Porphyry also slightly lands a blow when complaining about Paul's confusing Law/Gospel language, because unless you have some framework to place atop his texts, the theology is admittedly a bit confusing; this all is very interesting, since even in the Greek originals (in a time when that language was still spoken and more widely studied), it was seen as confusing.
Continuing on, most of Porphyry's objections center on his abject inability to understand paradoxes and the wisdom that can arise from holding two ideas in tension. For example, Christ's use of parables is interesting because the language and examples may be "low" but the content is deceptively complex and pregnant with divergent meanings. There's something odd in both the repeated and pig-headed attacks by Porphyry and the cowardly side-steps by Marcarius, and it seems like both of them lacked any wisdom of their own or even any interpretive competence in general.
The last interesting thing to remark on is Porphyry's complaint that you could live an awful life and then repent on your deathbed and go to heaven; this is super interesting because the claim is often seen as a uniquely Protestant problem, if not merely a superficial understanding of salvation and repentance. The possible historical explanation was that certain Christians of Marcarius's era would postpone Baptism until near their death, which seems to be a misunderstanding of the sacrament (possibly explaining the shift to infant baptism around that time?).
Ultimately though, treating religions and worldviews as if there's a boxing match with points (as is implied by most of these "debates", and which I toyed with during my review) shows that so many people utterly miss the point of true discourse. Porphyry went into the text assuming he already knew better and could not learn anything from the Christians, while Marcarius deafly played the same note over and over. The excerpts from the Celsum/Origen debate are longer and thus allow more depth, which gives more bite to Celsum's complaints and reeks less of strawmanning. Origen also is a deft thinker and writer, and often uses a subtle reframing to disarm his opponent, unlike more common thinkers. The average person, when faced with a challenge, approaches it head-on. However, if you've ever read the Art of War (or the Gospels), you'd know that taking a small step aside allows the bull to rush right past you, and you can strike the killing blow as it near-misses.
But really, an awful showing by everyone involved. The editor of this text obviously has his own axe to grind, as his biases are left straightforwardly open for anyone to read. I feel slightly stupider having read this. Oh well.
May 14, 2024
Porphyry was a prominent Neoplatonist philosopher whose critique of Christianity had such an impact that not only were his own works banned, but even the writings of Christian apologists who quoted him to dispute his views were later ordered to be burned, just in case. His original critique comprised fifteen books, purportedly constituting the most erudite and systematic work on the subject. Only small fragments attributed to him have survived in the writings of Christian authors. Less than half of this book actually contains Porphyry’s text; the remainder consists of the editor’s commentary, including a lengthy essay discussing the general relationships between the Roman Empire, Judaism, and Christianity.
The fragments provide a fairly clear outline of his critique. There is nothing too unusual about them. Even if they don’t actually belong to him, they are consistent with what is known about his intellectual positions and representative of the opinions held by conservative pagans and Platonist philosophers. Overall, he portrays Christianity as a superstitious, enthusiastic religion for uneducated and corrupted masses. He criticizes Jesus’ moral doctrine and the behavior of Christians, including the Apostles. He highlights numerous illogical aspects of the Gospels, the dubious nature of biblical prophecies, and, as a Platonist, he is appalled by Christian concepts of God and bodily resurrection. Some of his criticisms are based on misconceptions, while others remain relevant today. At times, he appears nitpicky and resorts to cheap mockery; since Christianity was considered a religion for the rabble, its philosophical critics often employed a lowbrow approach as an effective propagandistic tool.
It is an informative read, but nothing particularly remarkable. Celsus’ work, of which around seventy percent has been preserved, is notably more coherent, and his jokes are funnier. Porphyry’s fragments also offer valuable insight into the attitudes of educated pagans toward the emerging religion. If you're interested in that period of history, it is worth reading.
The fragments provide a fairly clear outline of his critique. There is nothing too unusual about them. Even if they don’t actually belong to him, they are consistent with what is known about his intellectual positions and representative of the opinions held by conservative pagans and Platonist philosophers. Overall, he portrays Christianity as a superstitious, enthusiastic religion for uneducated and corrupted masses. He criticizes Jesus’ moral doctrine and the behavior of Christians, including the Apostles. He highlights numerous illogical aspects of the Gospels, the dubious nature of biblical prophecies, and, as a Platonist, he is appalled by Christian concepts of God and bodily resurrection. Some of his criticisms are based on misconceptions, while others remain relevant today. At times, he appears nitpicky and resorts to cheap mockery; since Christianity was considered a religion for the rabble, its philosophical critics often employed a lowbrow approach as an effective propagandistic tool.
It is an informative read, but nothing particularly remarkable. Celsus’ work, of which around seventy percent has been preserved, is notably more coherent, and his jokes are funnier. Porphyry’s fragments also offer valuable insight into the attitudes of educated pagans toward the emerging religion. If you're interested in that period of history, it is worth reading.
August 3, 2018
Indeterminately Porphyry
Based on what is presented there is no definate proof that the arguments presented actually come from Porphyry's work. Nevertheless a picture is painted of the disdain pagan philosophers held for the new religion. The epilogue makes the text a better read than it otherwise would be. Well written.
Based on what is presented there is no definate proof that the arguments presented actually come from Porphyry's work. Nevertheless a picture is painted of the disdain pagan philosophers held for the new religion. The epilogue makes the text a better read than it otherwise would be. Well written.
April 26, 2024
8/10.
An interesting read for one who wants to understand a traditional Roman pagan’s viewpoint on the “new” religion of the times. Porphyry is a good writer and there are lots of humorous observations regarding Christian doctrine.
He takes objection against noblewomen giving away all of their wealth and becoming completely debased and pitiful; of the resurrection of the flesh, if that flesh has been devoured by fish, then by fishermen, then by a ravenous wolf, who then got burned to death in a forest fire; of Peter being called “Satan” and a near buffoon, then afterwards being given the keys to heaven; that someone could choose to be wicked their whole lives, then one day become “saved” with a snap of a finger; and of the absurdity that dunking someone in water could cure a lifetime of bad habits.
He makes these observations in good humor and with a strong wit. There are only fragments of his writings remaining, but they are very valuable. I would certainly rather get an ancient Roman’s view on Christianity than some “new atheist” charlatan propped up by forces unseen.
An interesting read for one who wants to understand a traditional Roman pagan’s viewpoint on the “new” religion of the times. Porphyry is a good writer and there are lots of humorous observations regarding Christian doctrine.
He takes objection against noblewomen giving away all of their wealth and becoming completely debased and pitiful; of the resurrection of the flesh, if that flesh has been devoured by fish, then by fishermen, then by a ravenous wolf, who then got burned to death in a forest fire; of Peter being called “Satan” and a near buffoon, then afterwards being given the keys to heaven; that someone could choose to be wicked their whole lives, then one day become “saved” with a snap of a finger; and of the absurdity that dunking someone in water could cure a lifetime of bad habits.
He makes these observations in good humor and with a strong wit. There are only fragments of his writings remaining, but they are very valuable. I would certainly rather get an ancient Roman’s view on Christianity than some “new atheist” charlatan propped up by forces unseen.
May 26, 2021
Early attacks on christianity
I chose this rating for I thought the writer raised arguments against christianity which seemed honest.i thought at times he was harsh.i felt.at times he was
looking for reasons to disbelieve.i recommend this book to those who want to know what ancient unbelievers thought of the faith.
I chose this rating for I thought the writer raised arguments against christianity which seemed honest.i thought at times he was harsh.i felt.at times he was
looking for reasons to disbelieve.i recommend this book to those who want to know what ancient unbelievers thought of the faith.
May 13, 2019
After reading Hans Lewy's Text on the Chaldean Oracles, I broke down and read this. The Epilouge was amazing. I really never thought about St. Peter killing that guy before.
August 1, 2024
Lucretius this is not. Up and away the worst work of anti-Christian biblical analysis I’ve ever read.
September 25, 2017
Old argument.
September 18, 2022
Reconstructed from fragments, gets some Biblical stories really out of context. Like why not just focus on how Christianity never knew what it wanted about boundaries and then blamed it on whatever the hell they mean by “modern”? I bet a Stoic would have a lot to say about that.
December 28, 2016
From the 15 books that Porphyry has written in the 3rd century a.C. in order to examine the teachings of students of Christ under the lens of logic and philosophy, nothing has been survived until some fragments from references of other writers, Professor Adolf von Harnack in 1916 collected all those fragments and reconstructed one book with quotes that most of them are attributed to Porphyry.
The main prism of the book is that Porphyry is not accepting any metaphorical explanation of the Holy Bible, he is taking it as a text and he notices some of the illogical parts who contradict each other or contradict with reality or contradict with logic. From the fragments we have he is attacking to Peter and Paulos, to some parts of the evangels, to some prophets and lastly to some parts of the apocalypse. He writes in a clear way, using logic and valid arguments. Other christian writers have wrote books to respond to his objections bu nothing has been survived because king Theodosius and the others ordered the burning of all books who had quotes or teaching of Porphyry. Anyway, the book is very useful for a christian and a non christian because the way he thinks is well structured, he has written some very subtle teachings like the commonality of christian angels and hellenes gods, like the need of creation of statues, how statues and gods are created. Moreover, the Holy Bible remains the same book but the teachings that christianity provides today are more profound that the teaching of the 3rd century, due to all this valid criticism. For example, Porphyri is making fun of how easily a christian can be forgiven from his falses, because christians believed that baptism was enough, though all schools of hellenic philosophy could not accept this teaching... A long practice of virtues will lead to salvation of the soul, so it is up to the person, not up to the deity.
The main prism of the book is that Porphyry is not accepting any metaphorical explanation of the Holy Bible, he is taking it as a text and he notices some of the illogical parts who contradict each other or contradict with reality or contradict with logic. From the fragments we have he is attacking to Peter and Paulos, to some parts of the evangels, to some prophets and lastly to some parts of the apocalypse. He writes in a clear way, using logic and valid arguments. Other christian writers have wrote books to respond to his objections bu nothing has been survived because king Theodosius and the others ordered the burning of all books who had quotes or teaching of Porphyry. Anyway, the book is very useful for a christian and a non christian because the way he thinks is well structured, he has written some very subtle teachings like the commonality of christian angels and hellenes gods, like the need of creation of statues, how statues and gods are created. Moreover, the Holy Bible remains the same book but the teachings that christianity provides today are more profound that the teaching of the 3rd century, due to all this valid criticism. For example, Porphyri is making fun of how easily a christian can be forgiven from his falses, because christians believed that baptism was enough, though all schools of hellenic philosophy could not accept this teaching... A long practice of virtues will lead to salvation of the soul, so it is up to the person, not up to the deity.
October 5, 2008
As the subtitle indicates, this is not a complete ancient text. In the decades after the Roman Empire became officially Christian, Porphyry's text was ordered to be destroyed. Hoffman has translated and assembled quotations which survive in a Christian book rebutting Porphyry's arguments. Most of the text here is actually Hoffman's commentary and background, which are generally quite good. This (and Hoffman's similar work on Celsus) offer modern readers a great chance to see into the ancient world and especially into Christianity at a time when "orthodoxy" was still being debated. It also reveals philosophical objections to Christianity which have nothing to do with the currently much-discussed issue of 'historicity' and even the social assumptions of the time, which are based in a world remarkably unlike ours.
May 3, 2015
Interesting how so much yet so little changes in anti-Christian literature in 2000 years. Uses a lot of appeal to ridicule like some of its more recent counterparts, but also brought up some interesting issues that I hadn't seen before, whereas the more recent stuff usually dismisses Christian claims without reading the material close enough to be able to make the kind of arguments Porphyry does here. From my 21st century perspective it seems like he just doesn't get the point, but I am reading this through a certain lens, and when the text is constantly taken at literalistic face value some of his concerns might make sense.
October 26, 2020
“Tanrılar bana gelmeli, ben onlara değil...” platondan daha platoncu biri olmakla meşhur plotinus. ‘God is all in all’ dan yola çıkıp, tanrının içkinliği fikrini bu kadar uçlara taşımasında Mısır’da doğmuş olmasının etkisi büyük olsa gerek.
July 26, 2014
I love these curt, classical dismissals of Christian lunacy. A few pages is all they deserve.
November 15, 2014
Das Buch ist religionskritisch und deckt Widersprüche in der Religion
und in der Bibel auf. Durch den Gebrauch der Vernunft wird die Bibel, und damit auch die christliche Offenbarung zum Problem.
und in der Bibel auf. Durch den Gebrauch der Vernunft wird die Bibel, und damit auch die christliche Offenbarung zum Problem.
May 8, 2015
This was an interesting read. It is a shame that all we have of this multi volume work are fragments, since all known copies were ordered to be burned.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews