Porphyry, Chaldaism, Judaism

Abstract

The article seeks to explain the issue of why Porphyry of Tire, the first thinker introducing the discourses of the «Chaldean oracles» into Platonism, did not integrate Chaldaism and Judaism in his ideas on the nature of barbarian "theologies". For example, Julian the Apostate had accomplished such integration in his “political theology”. In the authors' opinion the reason for Porphyry's caution was his assessment of theurgy and its role in the genuine piety. The well-known discussion on the efficacy of theurgy in Porphyry's «Letter to Anebon» and «On the Egyptian Mysteries» of Iamblichus shows us two different modes of understanding of the Chaldean wisdom. Meantime, focusing on Iamblichus' approaches, Julian achieved this integration.