 In the Platonic tradition before Porphyry, Plutarch and Plotinus already interpreted classical Greek mythology as philosophical allegories (the Stoics were first to establish this practice). Porphyry, however, takes this much further than his Platonic predecessors and does it more systematically. This is revealed, e.g., in his attitude towards Homer, whose texts he takes to have a hidden, philosophical meaning behind the literal one (see The Cave of the Nymphs). He wrote a work entitled Philosophy from Oracles, which survives only in a few fragments (F343–F350 [Smith 1993]). We have only a vague idea about its contents but presumably it presented some kind of synthesis of pagan oracles and cults with Platonic philosophy. It is a characteristic of post-Iamblichean Neoplatonism (330 AD onwards) that religion, religious rites and even magic (theurgy) were taken to be an alternative way to the soul’s salvation, beside philosophy. Porphyry did not share this view and was scolded for his skeptical attitude towards theurgy by Iamblichus, his presumably former student, in the latter’s Reply to Porphyry. Iamblichus’ censure was actually not limited to Porphyry’s attitude towards theurgy, it concerned fundamental ontological issues as well (see article on  Iamblichus  5.3.). Porphyry did not reject magic outright, however, but he seems to have restricted its efficacy to the sphere of nature and not to have regarded it as a means to establish contact with the intelligible realm as philosophy could do (see Smith 2011b). His interpretation and concerns with religious matters, however, opened for the developments undertaken by Iamblichus and the subsequent tradition of pagan Neoplatonism. Somewhat disappointingly, perhaps, the fragments from Against the Christians do not exhibit deep metaphysical disagreements; they are mostly concerned with particular, non-philosophical claims made in the Bible and by Christians that Porphyry finds incredible and objectionable.