No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2020
The days, not so far back, in which Arabic philosophical works were skimmed essentially with a view of ‘uncovering’ lost gems of Greek philosophy are fortunately behind us. Today these works are studied on their own, as essential building blocks of the history of philosophy. None the less, medieval philosophic works in Arabic continue to allow significant new discoveries concerning the history of Greek philosophy. The same holds, naturally enough, of medieval Hebrew works written by Jewish scholars who lived under the Crescent and accessed Arabic sources.
1 For a comprehensive overview, see U. Rudolph, with the assistance of Würsch, R. (edd.), rev. by Holzhey, H. (ed.), Philosophie in der islamischen Welt, Band 1, 8.–10. Jahrhundert (Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie) (Basel, 2012)Google Scholar. English version: Rudolph, U., Hansberger, R. and Adamson, P. (edd.), Philosophy in the Islamic World, Volume 1: 8th–10th Centuries (Leiden, 2017)Google Scholar.
2 For a recent overview, see C. D'Ancona, ‘Greek sources in Arabic and Islamic philosophy’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/arabic-islamic-greek/>.
3 Still unsurpassed in this area of study is Steinschneider, M., Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893)Google Scholar (hereafter HÜ). An English translation, which incorporates important updates, is under way: Manekin, C.H., Langermann, Y.T. and Biesterfeldt, H.H. (edd. and transl.), The Hebrew Translations of the Middle Ages and the Jews as Transmitters (Dordrecht, 2013–)Google Scholar.
4 For an overview, see Jospe, R., Torah and Sophia: The Life and Thought of Shem Tov Ibn Falaqera (Cincinnati, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Zonta, M., ‘Mineralogy, botany and zoology in medieval Hebrew encyclopaedias’, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 6 (1996), 262–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 275.
6 Plessner, M., ‘חשיבותו של ר‘ שם טוב אבן פלקירא לחקר תולדות הפילוסופיה’ (= ‘The significance of R. Shem-Tov ibn Falaqera for the study of the history of philosophy’), in Homenaje a Millás-Vallicrosa, 2 vols. (Barcelona, 1954–6), 2.161–86 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.
7 Zonta, M., ‘Shem Tob ibn Falaqera e la sua opera’, Henoch 12 (1990), 207–26Google Scholar; idem, Un dizionario filosofico ebraico del XIII secolo: L'introduzione al ‘Sefer De‘ot ha- Filosofim’ di Shem Tob ibn Falaqera (Torino, 1992); idem, ‘Shem Tob ibn Falaqera e la filología ebraica medievale’, Sefarad 52 (1993), 321–43; idem, Un interprete ebreo della filosofia di Galeno: Gli scritti filosofici di Galeno nell’ opera di Shem Tob ibn Falaqera (Torino, 1995).
8 The extant parts of De‘ot ha-pilosofim and their localization in the manuscripts are indicated in Jospe, R., ‘Appendix: Shem-Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaqera's De‘ot ha-Filosofim—an outline’, in Harvey, S. (ed.), Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Dordrecht, 2000), 238–47Google Scholar.
9 The film numbers in the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the National Library of Israel are, respectively, F 13897 and F 17368.
10 Guide 1:71 in Samuel Ibn Tibbon's translation. English translation adapted from: Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, transl. by S. Pines (Chicago, 1963), 183. See Falaqera's Moreh ha-moreh 1:71, ed. by Y. Schiffman (Jerusalem, 2001), 173:54–9.
11 Arist. Metaph. 2.1, 993a31–b14; Soph. el. ch. 34.
12 Falaqera here paraphrases a well-known statement by Maimonides, e.g. in his Foreword to The Eight Chapters (Shemonah Peraqim).
13 Maimonides, Laws of the Sanctification of the Moon 17:24.
14 Falaqera here directly draws on Maimonides, Guide 1:31.
15 The principles are qualified as muskalim, sing. muskal, corresponding to the Arabic ‘aqli. The qualification of these principles as muskalim does not conflict with the statement that they are ‘accessible to the senses’—see the discussion below.
16 Maimonides discusses this topic in Guide 1:31, but when Falaqera comments on the passage in Moreh ha-moreh he draws on Aristotle with no mention of Porphyry (see Shiffman [n. 10], 131 with the corresponding note). Steinschneider's reference to Moreh ha-moreh (HÜ, 6 n. 41b) is mistaken.
17 This statement of authorship appears in both manuscripts. However, it has been conclusively established that the author is Shem Tov Ibn Falaqera (HÜ §2); the ascription to Samuel Ibn Tibbon is a scribal error, possibly due to the similar acronyms of the two names.
18 Shelemut yesirit, a term that is frequent in Falaqera's writings.
19 This is a loose paraphrase of al-Fârâbî's Kitâb al-Khatâbah (Book of Rhetoric), in J. Langhade and M. Grignaschi (edd.), Al-Farabi: Deux ouvrages inédits sur la rhétorique (Beyrouth, 1971), 55. For an English translation, see Ezzaher, L.E., ‘Alfarabi's Book of Rhetoric: an Arabic-English translation of Alfarabi's Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric’, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 26 (2008), 347–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 369; summarized in Fakhry, M., Al-Fârâbi, Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism. His Life, Works and Influence (Oxford, 2002), 61–2Google Scholar. My translation, of course, follows Falaqera's Hebrew text.
20 This is possibly a paraphrase of a well-known sentence in Averroes's Proemium to his Long Commentary on the Physics: ‘As for Aristotle's having completed them [logic, natural science, and divine science], no one who has come after him to this our time—and this is close to fifteen-hundred years later—has been able to add a word worthy of attention to what he said.’ Quoted from Harvey, S., ‘The Hebrew translation of Averroes’ Prooemium to his “Long Commentary on Aristotle's Physics”’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 52 (1985), 55–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 83.
21 The entire passage appears also in Falaqera's Moreh ha-moreh 2:22, ed. Schiffman (n. 10), 278:177–90. For Falaqera's source Schiffman refers to Averroes's preface to his Long Commentary on the Physics as reproduced by S. Munk in his Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe (Paris, 1859), 361. An independent Hebrew translation is published in Harvey (n. 20), 70 (English translation at 83). Both texts deviate from Falaqera's. See also Renan, E., Averroès et l'Averroïsme: essai historique (Paris, 1882), 55Google Scholar.
22 As last note.
23 Maimonides, Guide 2:22 (where the received text of Ibn Tibbon's translation is a little different); English translation adapted from Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, transl. by Pines (n. 10), 319–20.
24 The sentence also appears in Falaqera's Moreh ha-moreh 2:22, ed. Schiffman (n. 10), 273:91–2. Schiffman found the source of this statement in Maimonides's letter to his translator, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, published in Marx, A., ‘Texts by and about Maimonides’, JQR 25 (1935), 371–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 380.
25 A similar sentence appears in Falaqera's Moreh ha-moreh 2:22, ed. Schiffman (n. 10), 278:193–4. Schiffman found the source of this statement in Maimonides, Guide 2:3, where he gives its source as Alexander's On the Principles of the All; similarly, also in Guide 2:22.
26 D'Ancona, C., ‘Porphyry, Arabic’, in Lagerlund, H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy: Philosophy between 500 and 1500 (Dordrecht, 2011), 1056–62Google Scholar.
27 Smith, A., Porphyrius: Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1993)Google Scholar; Sodano, A.R. (ed.), In Platonis Timaeum commentariorum fragmenta (Naples, 1964)Google Scholar; Saffrey, H.D. and Segonds, A.–P. (edd.), Porphyre. Lettre à Anébon l’Égyptien (Paris, 2012)Google Scholar; Becker, M., Porphyrios: Gegen die Christen (Contra Christianos). Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen (Berlin, 2016)Google Scholar; Morlet, S., ‘Un nouveau témoignage sur le Contra Christianos de Porphyre?’ Semitica et Classica 1 (2008), 149–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goulet, R., ‘Cinq nouveaux fragments nominaux du traité de Porphyre Contre Chrétiens’, VC 64 (2010), 140–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Callanan, C.K., ‘A rediscovered text of Porphyry on mystic formulae’, CQ 45 (1995), 215–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ballériaux, O., ‘Porphyre et Aristote. Quelques fragments à ajouter aux Porphyrii philosophi Fragmenta d'Andrew Smith’, in Motte, A. and Dnooz, J. (edd.), Aristotelica Secunda (Liège, 1996), 221–31Google Scholar; Chiaradonna, R., Rashed, M. and Sedley, D., with Tchernetska, N., ‘A rediscovered Categories commentary’, OSAPh 44 (2013), 129–94Google Scholar.
28 In Categ. per Interrog. et Resp. 55.8–12 (transl. Strange): ὅτι ἡ μὲν συνήθεια τῶν προχείρων οὖσα πραγμάτων παραστατική, περὶ τούτων καὶ τὰς δηλωτικὰς λέξεις ἐν τῇ πολλῇ χρήσει παρέλαβεν, οἱ δὲ φιλόσοφοι τῶν τοῖς πολλοῖς ἀγνώστων πραγμάτων ἐξηγηταὶ ὄντες καινοτέρων δεηθέντες ὀνομάτων εἰς παράστασιν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἐξευρεθέντων πραγμάτων….
29 He is speaking about homonyms, synonyms and paronyms here.
30 Namely the notions of simultaneity, priority and motion that had been raised in Aristotle's discussion of the ten categories but were then given additional clarification in the final section of the Categories.
31 In Categ. ad Gedal. fr. 49.4–6 Smith (= Simplic. In Categ. 19.26): τί οὖν μὴ καὶ ταῦτα προὔταξεν τοῦ περὶ τῶν κατηγοριῶν λόγου ἢ διὰ τί μὴ κἀκεῖνα μετὰ τὰς κατηγορίας ἐπήγαγεν ἀπορήσας ὁ Πορφύριος λύει καλῶς τὴν ἀπορίαν⋅ ὅτι ἐκεῖνα μὲν ἄγνωστα παντελῶς ἦν ἀπὸ τῆς συνηθείας, τούτων δὲ ἐννοίας μὲν ἔχομέν τινας, οὐ μὴν ἀκριβῆ διάκρισιν οὐδὲ αὐτῶν. Similarly, see the remarks on those who are put off by new things as being inadequate students at In Plat. Sophist. fr. 169.17–28 Smith (= Boethius, Liber de divisione), although this passage may not derive from Porphyry (even though Boethius claims that he will draw on Porphyry, this particular passage refers to ‘our people’, most likely Latin speakers, and seems thus to be Boethius’ own statement); see Magee, J., Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii De divisione liber (Leiden, 1998), LV–LVICrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 The reliability of Cyril's quotations withstands close scrutiny; see M.–O. Boulnois, ‘Cyril of Alexandria reading Porphyry’, forthcoming; Riedweg, C., ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias, De providentia: Greek fragments and Arabic versions’, in Obbink, D. and Rutherford, R. (edd.), Culture in Pieces (Oxford, 2011), 277–301Google Scholar. An English translation of the Adv. Jul. is currently under way by M. Crawford and A. Johnson, Cyril of Alexandria: Against Julian the Emperor (Cambridge, forthcoming).
33 On paranomōs in Porphyry's thought, see Johnson, A.P., ‘Philosophy, Hellenicity, law: Porphyry and Origen, again’, JHS 132 (2012), 55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 Pros Nemert. 281 Smith (= Cyril. Adv. Jul. 3.19.2–13): ἔφη γὰρ ὁ Πορφύριος οὕτω πάλιν⋅ ‘(...) νοῦ—γὰρ ὄντος θείου τοῦ τῶν ὅλων προεστῶτος καὶ σοφίας ὑπερβάλλοντι μεγέθει δυνάμεώς τε ἀπαραβλήτῳ ἰδιότητι διατάξαντος τὸ πᾶν καὶ διοικοῦντος, λανθάνειν μὲν τὰς πολλὰς αἰτίας μικρὸν ὄντα τὸν ἀνθρώπινον νοῦν, κἂν σοφὸς εἶναι δοκῇ καὶ ἐρευνητὴς τῆς ἀληθείας. εὐσεβὲς δὲ εἶναι μεθεῖσι τῶν ἀπορουμένων τὸ δυσερεύνητον βλασφημεῖν μὲν μὴ τολμᾶν, καλῶς δὲ ἔχειν ὡς ἔχει καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι καὶ λέγειν, καὶ ὅτι διὰ τὸ καλῶς ἔχειν ἂν οὕτως γέγονεν ὡς γέγονε. τί γὰρ ἂν νοῦς τοσοῦτος καὶ τοιοῦτος παρανόμως ἔδρασε; ποιεῖσθαι δὲ μὴ χρῆναι θεμιτὸν εἶναι τὴν ἡμετέραν σύνεσιν τοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντος ἐξεταστικὴν καὶ τὸ ἡμῖν ἀσύνετον τοῦ κακῶς.’ There seems little reason to question (as Smith does [n. 27 above]) the attribution of this fragment to the Pros Nemert.; see Johnson, A.P., Religion and Identity in Porphyry of Tyre (Cambridge, 2013), 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 Phil. Hist. fr. 223 Smith (= Cyril. Adv. Jul. 1.45.9).
36 Ep. Aneb. 1 Sodano, page 3.8: adiereunēta; Ep. Aneb. 2 Sodano, page 28.12–14; Regr. anim. fr. 302 Smith. On the limits of a student's knowledge, see In Categ. Quaest. et Resp. 75.27; cf. Isag. 1.9–14. On interpretative pluralism, see Pépin, J., ‘Porphyre, exégète d'Homère’, in Reverdin, O. (ed.), Porphyre (Geneva, 1966), 229–66Google Scholar.
37 See n. 15 above on the relevant Hebrew terms.
38 We thank C. D'Ancona for alerting us to this problem.
39 Sent. 44.6–7: … τὸ νοητὸν τῷ νῷ αἰσθήσει οὐδαμῶς ἐστιν ὑπόπτωτον … .
40 Comm. Ptol. Harm. 13.21–3 Düring; transl. Barker. The entire section summarized in this paragraph is as follows: τῆς γὰρ ὕλης εἰδοπεποιημένης ὑπὸ τοῦ ῥηθέντος λόγου τὴν ψυχὴν συμβέβηκε τοῖς οὖσιν ἐφισταμένην καὶ οἷον ἀποσπῶσαν αὖθις ἀπὸ τῆς ὕλης τὰ εἴδη καὶ δεχομένην εἰς ἑαυτὴν καὶ τρόπον τινὰ ἀποκαθιστᾶσαν εἰς τὸ ἄυλον γίνεσθαι τὴν κρίσιν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἡ ἀντίληψις, οἷον ἐπαφωμένη τοῦ ὄντος ἀναλαμβάνειν αὐτὰ πειρᾶται καὶ οἷον εἰσαγγέλλειν τε καὶ εἰσάγειν εἰς τὴν ψυχὴν ὥσπερ ὁδηγός τις καὶ εἰσαγωγεύς. μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἡ δοξαστικὴ ὑπόληψις ὑποδέχεται τὸ εἰσαχθὲν προσαγορεύουσα αὐτὸ καὶ ἀναγράφουσα διὰ λόγου τῇ ψυχῇ, οἷον εἴς τι γραμμάτιον ἐνυπάρχον αὐτῇ. τρίτη δ’ ἐστὶ μετὰ ταῦτα δύναμις εἰκονιστὴ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων καὶ ὄντως ζωγραφική τις ἢ πλαστικὴ ἢ φαντασία οὐκ ἀρκουμένη τῷ τῆς προσαγορεύσεως εἴδει καὶ τῷ τῆς ἀναγραφῆς, ἀλλ’ ὅνπερ τρόπον οἱ τοὺς καταπλέοντας εἰκονίζοντες ἢ κατὰ τοὺς τοῖς συμβόλοις παρακολουθοῦντας τὴν ἀκρίβειαν τῆς ὁμοιότητος ἐκλογίζονται⋅ οὕτω καὶ αὕτη τοῦ πράγματος ἅπασαν τὴν μορφὴν ἐκλογιζομένη, ὁπόταν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον ἀκριβώσῃ, τότε ἀπέθετο ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ τὸ εἶδος. καὶ τοῦτο ἦν ἡ ἔννοια, ἧς ἐγγενομένης τε καὶ βεβαιωθείσης ἡ τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἐγγίνεται διάθεσις, ἀφ’ ἧς ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πυρὸς πηδήσαντος ἐξαφθὲν φῶς ὁ νοῦς ἀναφαίνεται οἷόν περ ὄψις ἀκριβὴς εἰς τὴν προσβολὴν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ὄντως ὄν. καὶ διὰ μὲν τῆς ἀντιλήψεως ἀρξαμένης τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ μαθούσης τὸ ἐν τῇ ὕλῃ ἐνυπάρχον εἶδος, διὰ δὲ τῆς ὑπολήψεως, ὅτι τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ταὐτὸ τῷ δείξαντι τὸ δειχθὲν παραδεξαμένης⋅ διὰ δὲ τῆς φαντασίας ὅτι καὶ τοιόνδε προσεξειργασμένης κατὰ τὸν εἰκονισμόν, ὁποῖον ἦν τὸ ἐκτός⋅ διὰ δὲ τῆς ἐννοίας ἐπὶ τὸ καθόλου μετελθούσης εἰς τὴν ἄυλον ἀπόθεσιν τοῦ εἴδους, μεθ’ ἣν ἐκ τῆς ἐπιβολῆς τὸ βέβαιον προσλαβοῦσα ἡ ἐπιστήμη καθαρὸν τὸν ἔπειτα καθόλου νοῦν ἐπιβλητικὸν λαμβάνει (Comm. Ptol. Harm. 13.21–14.13 Düring).
41 Cf. Sent. 43.21–5; In Interp. fr. 78.94 Smith (= Boethius, In Interp. 2.25.15) on imaginatio as link between the sensus and the intellectus. For general discussion, see Sheppard, A., ‘Porphyry's views on phantasia’, in Karamanolis, G. and Sheppard, A. (edd.), Studies on Porphyry (London, 2007), 71–6Google Scholar.
42 Comm. Ptol. Harm. 13.24–14.4 Düring; for useful analysis of this passage, see Chase, M., ‘Porphyry on the cognitive process’, AncPhil 30 (2010), 383–405Google Scholar; Barker, A., Porphyry's Commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonics. A Greek Text and Annotated Translation (Cambridge, 2015), 16–22Google Scholar; Lautner, P., ‘Perception and self-knowledge: interpreting fr. 264 Smith’, in Karamanolis, G. and Sheppard, A. (edd.), Studies on Porphyry (London, 2007), 77–90Google Scholar.
43 Comm. Ptol. Harm. 16.15–19 Düring (transl. Barker): ἐκ δ’ ἀμφοῖν γίνεται ἡ τελεία τῶν αἰσθητῶν κρίσις τῆς μὲν αἰσθήσεως παρεχούσης τῷ λόγῳ τὴν ὁλοσχερεστέραν ἐπίγνωσιν καὶ οἷον αἴθυγμα καὶ ἀρχὴν τοῦ κρινομένου ἐνδιδούσης, τοῦ δὲ λόγου τὴν κρίσιν τελεοῦντος καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν πρὸς ἀκρίβειαν πλείστην ὠφέλειαν παρέχοντος … . Cf. De simulac. fr. 351.15–18 Smith: ‘(…) the thoughts of a theological wisdom, by which men revealed God and the powers of God to physical perception through kindred images, delineating invisible things in visible forms’.
44 For a different articulation of his ontological position, see Sent. 3–4, 28, 33 (and passim).
45 Comm. Ptol. Harm. 17.9–11 Düring (transl. Barker): χρεία γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν κριτηρίου, εἰ καὶ ὁλοσχερέστερον τοῦτό γε, ἀλλ’ ἐπί γε τῶν δι’ αἰσθήσεως νοητῶν.
46 Ptol. Harm. 3.13 apud Comm. Ptol. Harm. 16 Düring.
47 It is in this strict sense that Porphyry says in Sent. 44.6–7 that the intelligible is not subordinate to sense-perception (quoted above).
48 Comm. Ptol. Harm. 17.17 Düring (transl. Barker): οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἔσται νοητὸν καὶ ἅπαν γε.
49 Comm. Ptol. Harm. 17.30–1 Düring.
50 Chase (n. 42), 397; cf. Porph. Sent. 16, with J. Pépin's commentary in Brisson, L. (ed.), Porphyre. Sentences (Paris, 2005), 2.447–9Google Scholar; see also Sent. 43, with the discussion of Brisson, L., ‘Physique et éthique’, in idem (ed.), Porphyre. Sentences, 2 vols. (Paris, 2005), 1.126–30Google Scholar.
51 Comm. Ptol. Harmon. 18.7–8 Düring (transl. Barker): ὁ μὲν ἄρα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συγγενής, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ψεύδους μέτοχος. Cf. Sent. 35.31–4.
52 Comm. Ptol. Harmon. 19.12–19 Düring.
53 See Becker (n. 27), 94–100; Johnson, A.P., ‘The implications of a minimalist approach to Porphyry's fragments’, in Männlein-Robert, I. (ed.), Die Christen als Bedrohung: Text, Kontext, und Wirkung von Porphyrios’ Contra Christianos (Stuttgart, 2017), 41–58Google Scholar; Morlet, S., ‘Comment le problem du Contra Christianos peut-il se poser aujourd'hui?’, in idem (ed.), Le traité de Porphyre contre les chrétiens (Paris, 2011), 11–49Google Scholar.
54 Smith's Teubner collection of the fragments (n. 27 above) contains the following headings in the section Testimonia et Fragmenta Incertae Sedis: Logica, De Vno et deo, De intellectu, De anima, De caelo et mundi, De materia, De prouidentia et libero arbitrio, De daemonibus, Theurgica et mythica, Mathematica and Miscellanea.
55 As, for instance, in the case of the passages quoted above from Porphyry's two commentaries on the Categories, where a reader's unfamiliarity with terms or concepts, owing to their usual habits of speaking and thinking, was the target of Porphyry's investigations (In Categ. ad Gedal. fr. 49.4–6 Smith; In Categ. per Interrog. et Resp. 55.8–12). Cf. In Interp. fr. 105 Smith (= Boethius, De Interp. 2.293.27–294.4), where the usual interpretations of Aristotle were claimed to lead to a breakdown in exegesis (dicit autem Porphyrius fuisse quosdam sui temporis, qui hunc exponerent librum, et quoniam ab Hermino uel Aspasio uel Alexandro expositiones singulas proferentes multa contraria et expositionibus male ab illis editis dissidentia reperirent, arbitratos fuisse librum hunc Aristotelis, ut dignum esset, exponi non posse multosque illius temporis uiros totam huius libri praeterisse doctrinam, quod inexplicabilem putarent esse caliginem).
56 On the other hand, Sent. 33.31–8 contains a parallel passage of an ontological rather than textual import: everyone is familiar with bodily things but ‘arrives at a knowledge of incorporeals with difficulty’ (τῶν μὲν γὰρ σωμάτων ἐν συνηθείᾳ πᾶς, ἐκείνων δὲ μόλις ἐν γνώσει γίνεται …); cf. Sent. 38.
57 Van Der Horst, P., ‘Porphyry on Judaism: some observations’, in Weiss, Z., Irshai, O., Magness, J. and Schwartz, S. (edd.), Follow the Wise. Studies in Jewish History and Culture in Honor of Lee I. Levine (Winona Lake, 2010), 71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson (n. 34), 273–82.
58 Menn, S., ‘On the title of Porphyry's Categories Commentary Πρὸς Γεδάλειον’, Phronesis 62 (2017), 355–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
59 Tüb. Theos. 85, page 55.1 Erbse.
60 We would like to thank Cristina D'Ancona for critical feedback about this fragment at a preliminary stage of writing the present article.