The main purpose of the book is to reopen the dossier about the authorship of a translation from Greek into Latin entitled Hegesippus sive De bello Iudaico that appeared sometime in the fourth or the fifth century. The work, in five books, is a miscellaneous collection of texts taken from different parts of Josephus' Wars and Antiquities. According to Somenzi this material needs to be reassessed: the author was probably be the young Ambrose of Milan (p. 189) and the text should be dated to the reign of Julian (331–63; p. 10). Even if some linguistic studies tend to reject this attribution, the text is assigned in several manuscripts of the eighth and ninth centuries to Ambrose. Somenzi suggests another argument for confirming Ambrosian authorship. Her investigation is about what is expressed in the subtitle: the scholastic and biblical education of the author. The book aims to answer the three questions (p. 15): what were the tools of the author's educational training? Who are their auctores? What was his citation method? The table of contents does not, however, exactly follow this threefold division, for there are in fact six parts to the book.

After the first section (‘La questione dell'Egesippo’, pp. 3–10), a short introduction on the status quaestionis, the first topic to be considered is the author's education (‘La cultura scolastica di Egesippo’, pp. 11–59). Here Somenzi focuses on the style of translation, the influence of Vergilian poetry and rhetorical expressions, and the echoes of some classical authors (Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Terentius). The aim is to show that Hegesippus resembles Ambrose in the use of these techniques (p. 46) and, consequently, that they were at the same schools, in Rome, in the second half of the fourth century (p. 57). A close reading of Hegesippus' text discloses a literary personality. He turns out to be a writer of skill and versatility, aware, but not a slavish imitator, of classical models, exactly like Ambrose.

Chapter iii (‘La cultura biblica di Egesippo’, pp. 61–127) demonstrates the pervasive strength of the author's biblical commitment. The verses taken from Kings show variations in the Greek and Latin versions and indicate a careful reading of the Old Testament (pp. 77–8). According to Somenzi these are other important parallels with Ambrose, but more interesting is the use of Philo. Ambrose is the Christian author who made the most extensive borrowings from Philo; Hegesippus demonstrates knowledge of further passages from Philo's work (p. 91).

Two case studies are the subject of the following chapters: suicide (‘Gli argomenti di Egesippo contro il suicidio’, pp. 129–35) and the use of the Apocryphal Acts of Peter (‘Il rapporto di Egesippo con gli Atti apocrifi di Pietro’, pp. 137–49). On the latter, Hegesippus uses an early Latin version of this apochryphal text, and Somenzi states, against R. A. Lipisius (the first, and last, scholar who produced a comprehensive study of the trasmission history of the Petrine stories), that Hegesippus' use of this work is independent of Ps.-Linus ‘Gnostic’ Passio Petri (p. 148). This implies that Hegesippus-Ambrose made a new translations from the Greek or knew another Latin version.

The final chapter, on anti-Judaism (‘La polemica antigiudaica’, pp. 151–82), is undoubtedly the most interesting, because it involves an important question of historical method. Since M. Simon's seminal Verus Israel, conflict theory as a central theme in Christian-Jewish rivalry has been an important corrective to a long tradition of theologically predetermined studies. Scholars have theorised about the religious, social, political and environmental dimensions of what is conceived of as a complex phenomenon rooted in conflict. Somenzi goes beyond this and describes the stage upon which Hegesippus and other Roman authors perform: the issue is the ‘symbolic anti-Judaism’ described by M. S. Taylor, where the Judaism opposed by Christian authors is not a living Judaism linked to Jewish contemporaries, but a symbolic one which has a vital function in the formation of Christian identity. In Rome, the theological implications of this tension is genealogical, that is the possibility of defining a Christian historiography where Christ the King may be placed at the end of Jewish patriarchal and prophetic lists (p. 188).

In a work which tries to envision the literary attribution of a text, Somenzi's methodology and technique are adequate. Just a couple of questions seem not to be treated. The first is the absence of any reference to prose rhythms. According to S. M. Oberhleman (American Classical Studies xxvi), the analysis of the cursus mixtus in the Ambrosian corpus may afford some help in solving the puzzle of authorship. His conclusions are that the rhythms in Hegesippus' translation are alien to those of Ambrose. These linguistic arguments verify Mras's linguistic and Vogel's historical statements. It is impossible to say who is right, but Somenzi does not refer to this important counter-argument. Antique scholarship was essentially concerned with rhetoric, even when the content shifted from paganism to Christianity.

The second is the role of Philo of Alexandria. He seems to be the most interesting tool with which to investigate Hegesippus-Ambrose. Somenzi prefers to focus her attention on the completeness of Hegesippus' knowledge of the Bible, but the peculiar relationship between Ambrose and Philo suggests a more intriguing question: Why does Hegesippus-Ambrose make such a clear and decisive choice for Philonic exegesis? Augustine and other fourth-century authors were not so confident with the Jew of Alexandria: Hegesippus, like Ambrose, follows another path. Reference to the work of D. T. Runia on this topic would have been useful. Then, anti-Judaism suggests a further line of inquiry. The anti-heretical and anti-Jewish atmosphere of the post-Nicaean Church should have meant rejection of Philo's exegesis, but authors like Hegesippus and Ambrose quote from his text. Philo is under suspicion but he is still useful. Was that a text that was more accessible in Rome? Or are other explanations more plausible?

I would like to conclude with a general point. A clear structure and coherence are elementary virtues in any argument and are certainly present in this book. There are guiding ideas, conveyed in a variety of ways. Any text should be studied as a whole, for its own sake: language and style, structure, literary genre. This Somenzi has achieved. However, no author can be rendered fully intelligible unless he is set in his proper historical and cultural context: Christian texts need always to be dealt with as products of a particular milieu. To neglect these elements precludes a true understanding of Hegesippus' – and anybody else's – life, work and, most of all, relationships. This is not to take away from the wider importance of the work, because the learning and attention to detail is outstanding. However, literary criticism alone is inadequate and tends to raise more questions than it answers.