With this volume Marie-Odile Boulnois continues her brilliant introduction, translation and commentary on the Contra Iulianum of Cyril. The volumes in the Sources Chrétiennes series devoted to Cyril’s refutation of Julian comprise the first modern translation and readers now have the opportunity to use them in combination with the two volumes recently published (2023) by Hiersemann of the entire Gegen Julian – the first translation of the text into modern German. An English version is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. The new translations are based on the masterful new edition in the GCS series (NF xx, xxi). Boulnois, who has spent her scholarly career studying Cyril of Alexandria, devotes 245 pages of the volume to the introduction to books viii and ix of Cyril’s response to Julian’s attack on Christianity (with a very useful bibliography of all the key primary texts and a selection of the secondary literature). Following her edition and translation of books viii and ix are thirty-two pages of complementary notes, an appendix on Contra Iulianum viii and Cyril’s Festal Letter 15, followed by sixty-nine pages of essential indices (including every ancient author cited in Cyril’s and Julian’s texts). At the bottom of each page of the edition and translation are a set of detailed learned notes, and Boulnois carefully identifies those texts where she departs from the GCS edition.

In the first section of her introduction on the structure and argumentation of books viii and ix, Boulnois notes that they are the most dogmatic sections of Cyril’s work. Although most of his books cite between ‘seven and twelve fragments’ (p. 12) of Julian, book viii only cites three (Contra Iulianum viii.1–2, 885b–888b [C. Gal., frag. 62 Masaracchia]; 8.15, 900d–901c [frag. 64 Masaracchia]; viii.34, 924d–925a [frag. 65 Masaracchia]). Boulnois writes that one of Julian’s fundamental objections against Christianity was that it departed from both paganism and Judaism (10; C.Iul. ii2.9; 565b–c [frag. 3 Masaracchia]). The three objections in book viii supply Cyril with the impetus to write long expositions of the Trinity and incarnation, and his defence includes the claim – presumably somewhat shocking to modern readers – that preliminary indications of the Trinity and incarnation can be found in the philosophical literature of antiquity. In the first fragment Julian argues that neither Deuteronomy xviii.15 nor Genesis xlix.10 spoke of another God or of Jesus (pp. 250–5). With regard to Gen. xlix.10, Jesus did not arise from Judah (pp. 254–5). In the second fragment Julian cites Numbers xxiv.17, Deut. iv.35, 39, and vi.4 (among others) to prove that Jesus is not God from God (θεὸς ἐκ θεοῦ). Neither does Isaiah vii.14, even if it should apply to Jesus, indicate that he is the θεοτοκός – an objection that, remarkably, Cyril does not address. The third fragment, which comprises only two sentences (and which may have been compiled by Cyril), takes up two of the Nicene formulas (the ‘Word’ as ‘God from God’ and ‘issued from the same substance as the father’ [τῆς οὐσίας ἐξέφυ τοῦ πατρός]) along with a verse Julian creates from Deut. xxxii.39 and Isa. xliii.11. Julian’s fundamental query is how a virgin can give birth to a God – a frontal assault on the incarnation.

In book ix Cyril cites nine fragments of Julian and includes four of the imperator’s testimonia. In an objection based on Gen. vi.2–4, Julian argues that Moses speaks of many sons of God (angels), but not a unique only begotten God the Word (Contra Iulianum ix.2, 945a–d [frag. 67 Masaracchia]). In another intriguing objection (p. 26), Julian (Contra Iulianum ix.14, 960a–b [frag. 70 Masaracchia]) cites Leviticus xvi.5–8, 10, 15–16, where he apparently refers to apotropaic sacrifices (ἀποτροπαίων) to show how far Christianity has departed from Judaism. Julian mentions Romans x.4, Deut. iv.2 and Galatians iii.10 (Deut. xxvii, 26) in an objection (Contra Iulianum ix.39, 992d–993a [frag. 75 Masaracchia]) to show that the Christians have fundamentally departed from the Jewish law and ‘transgressed it completely’ (p. 559).

Cyril ably defends the faith, though one wonders how impressed Julian would have been with his arguments. Cyril’s purpose was pastoral, however. In his address to Theodosius (Contra Iulianum prosph. 3. 508C = SC cccxxii. 106–7 Burguiére / Évieux; their trans.) he writes, ‘Indeed, those who are light-minded and easily seduced fall prey to his schemes and are sweet prey for powerful demons’ (Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐλαφροί τε καὶ εὐπάροιστοι πίπτουσι ῥᾳδίως εἰς τὰ αὐτοῦ καὶ γλυκὺ τοῖς δαιμονίοις γίνονται θήραμα). Boulnois ably catalogues (and analyses) the likely sources Julian used and the philosophers to whom Cyril appealed for his forceful response to Julian. Given the nature of Julian’s objections in book viii, Boulnois devotes many pages of her introduction to Cyril’s defence of the Trinity, deity of Christ and incarnation. For example, in Contra Iulianum viii.31, 920c, he argues that the Trinity (τριάς) is also known by the Greeks. He then refers to Plotinus’ Ennead 5.1.67.50–3, and earlier in 8.30, 917d–920a, he mentions Ennead 5.1.6.39–49 where Plotinus enumerates his triad of Good, Intellect and Soul. Boulnois justifiably translates τριάς in pagan texts as ‘trinity’, although it is clear the Platonist philosophers had a variant concept (see her comments on her translation method on p. 220 where she notes that she translates the same Greek technical terms in Cyril with the same French words). In support of the incarnation Cyril quotes (Contra Iulianum 8.44, 936a–b) a well-known fragment of Amelius (frag. 1) in which Amelius mentions John i.1, 3, 4, 14 and compares the λόγος of John to that of Heraclitus (frag. B1 Diels/Kranz).

The book is a wealth of information and should be in the hands of all scholarly libraries and students of Cyril and Julian.