With his critical edition and English translation Patrick Gray has made accessible to a wider readership two anti-Monophysite writings by the Chalcedonian theologian Leontius of Jerusalem: a series of sixty Aporiae concerning various aspects of Monophysite Christology, and the treatise Testimonies of the saints, which contains not only a Dyophysite florilegium but also Leontius' refutation of several Monophysite objections to the validity of the Council of Chalcedon. The edition and translation is preceded by a brief introduction, which offers an interpretation of the edited texts (chapters iv-ix). Gray does an admirable job on the syllogisms and the florilegium, not only unravelling the structure of these difficult and highly technical texts but also explaining their role in the late patristic discourse. However, his main focus is on Leontius' defence of the validity of Chalcedon. Through analysis of the individual arguments he can show that Leontius takes a remarkably conciliatory stance in this debate. At this point the discussion would have benefitted from a comparison with other texts of the same type, in particular the treatise De sectis (PG, 86), which tackles the same accusations as Leontius, namely that the participants in Chalcedon changed their minds (1233C. 140–2) and that Dioscorus was not deposed because of his faith (1233D-1236C. 142–4). Such comparison would have revealed that Leontius participated in an existing discourse, which would in turn have permitted a better understanding of his particular agenda.

Apart from the interpretation of the texts, the most important sections of the introduction are the discussions of their date and of their relation to each other. The issue of dating is first broached in the discussion of the second part of the Testimonies where Gray explains Leontius' conciliatory attitude by associating him with the efforts made during the early reign of Justinian to bring about a reconciliation between Chalcedonians and Monophysites. At this point he takes this connection for granted, postponing a proper discussion to a later section of his introduction (chapter xi). There he agrees with Richard's dating of Leontius' writings to 538–44 (or possibly even to 536–44) and rejects the later date proposed by Loofs. Unfortunately Gray's brief remarks do not make sufficiently clear that Richard's position is largely based on two arguments from silence, which do not carry much weight, namely that when Leontius refers to John of Scythopolis (c. 536–50) he does not explicitly state that John is already dead, and that when speaking about Theodoret and Ibas Leontius makes no reference to the controversy about the Three Chapters. Moreover, Gray fails to do justice to the counterarguments: he dismisses as inconclusive two arguments put forward by this reviewer in 2001 in order to establish a seventh-century date for Leontius but he does not mention that they are only a coda to a detailed refutation of Richard's arguments and a vindication of Loofs's position (p. 39). The way in which the issue of dating is dealt with suggests that Gray's case for an early date is determined by his conviction that Leontius is linked to the Conversations of 533. Thus he comes dangerously close to presenting a circular argument, especially since he fails to consider other possible contexts for Leontius' conciliatory stance in his Testimonies. Similar methodological concerns arise from Gray's discussion of the relationship of the edited texts with each other. He first discusses the content of the Testimonies and the Aporiae and only much later turns to the question of their relation to each other (chapter xii). There he accepts Richard's hypothesis that the two surviving treatises were originally preceded by a lost third treatise in which Leontius refuted aporetic syllogisms put forward by the Monophysites (p. 42). However, he then questions Richard's conclusion that the two surviving texts formed part of an anti-Monophysite corpus and instead considers them to be originally unrelated. In order to support this claim he points out that they are of a completely different character: the Aporiae are more polemical whereas the second half of the Testimonies is more irenic. It is evident that this falls well short of being conclusive since we are clearly dealing with different types of texts, which follow different sets of conventions.

Gray's hypothesis has wide-ranging consequences for his edition of the texts since it leads him to reverse the sequence in which they are found in the manuscript. This step is problematic since the prologues to Leontius' surviving texts show clearly that they were not intended to be free-standing but formed a sequence. Moreover, evidence found within one of the texts makes it unlikely that this arrangement was secondary. In the transition between the florilegium and the defence of Chalcedon that forms the two parts of the Testimonies (p. 134) Leontius complains that in their attacks of the Chalcedonian position the Monophysites start with syllogisms, then shift to scriptural and patristic proofs and finally attack the validity of Chalcedon. Such a strategy evidently mirrors the sequence of Leontius' texts in the manuscript, which strongly suggests that it was intended at the time of their composition. This interpretation can be corroborated through comparison with De sectis whose anonymous author announces that he will first discuss the ‘historical’ arguments of the Monophysites against the validity of Chalcedon, then their syllogisms and lastly their patristic proof texts (1233BC). Although the sequence of the topics differs slightly, it is evident that De sectis has the same tripartite structure as Leontius' anti-Monophysite corpus, which leaves no doubt that we are in the presence of a highly formalised debate.

These observations should, however, not detract from Gray's main achievement, the critical edition and English translation of the texts, which will be of crucial importance for future research on Leontius of Jerusalem and the late patristic theological discourse in general. Gray has provided scholars with a secure text that is based directly on the codex unicus and offered a translation that largely succeeds in tackling Leontius' complex and often convoluted syntax.