"This passage—which, in [his] seventh book, Julian Augustus has
vomited forth against us, that is, [us] Christians—he calumniates, and says: ‘What is written of Israel, the Evangelist
Matthew has transferred to Christ, in order that he might make a laughing stock
of the simplicity of those who, from among the gentiles [(de gentibus)], had
believed.’ To him we shall respond
briefly [as follows]: First, that the
Gospel [of] Matthew was brought forth in Hebrew [(Hebræis litteris)], for which
reason [(quod) none] were able to read [it] except those who were from among the
Hebrews [(ex Hebraeis)]. Therefore he [(i.e. Matthew?)]
has not done [this] in order that [(propterea . . . ut)] he might make a
laughing stock of gentile [converts (ethnicis)]. But if he [(i.e. Julian?)] did not wish to make a
laughing stock of the Hebrews, he was either foolish or ignorant: foolish, if he has concocted a patent
falsehood; ignorant, if he has not understood about whom these things were
being said. That book absolves of
[(excusat)] folly which is composed circumspectly and in order; we are not able
to call [him (i.e. Matthew?)] ignorant whom from other testimonies of the
Scriptures we know to have possessed a knowledge of the Law. It remains that we say this, that [(illud . .
. , quod)] those things that precede in others τυπικῶς [(typologically)] are according
to truth and fulfillment referred to Christ:
which [referral] we know [(cognovimus, have learned)] the Apostle
effected in the two mountains Sinai and Zion, and in Sarah and Hagar. For not only is [Mount Sinai] not Mount
Sinai, but [Zion] is also not Zion:
[Sarah] was [(PAi3S)] not Sarah, and [Hagar] was [(PAi3S)] not Hagar;
because these the Apostle Paul has referred to the two Covenants [(Gal 4:22-26)]. So therefore this [is] what is written: ‘A child [was] Israel, and I have loved him,
and out of Egypt I have called my son’ is assuredly said of the people of
Israel, which is called out of Egypt, which is loved, which, after the
wandering of idolatry, was, at that time, as if an infant and a child, called
[(PAi3S)]: but is referred in full
[(perfecte)] to Christ. Thus [(Nam)] Isaac
was in type of Christ because the latter was himself [(ipse)] to have carried
[(portaverit, FpAi3S, will have carried; or PAS3S)] for himself [(sibi)] the
wood of future death [(Gen 22:6)], and also Jacob, because [the latter, namely
Christ] was to have had [(habuerit, FpAi3S, will have had; or PAS3S) both] Leah
afflicted in [(dolentem, grieving)] the eyes, and Rachel the beautiful wife [(Gen
29:17, 23-28)]. In Leah, who was older, we
understand the blindness of the Synagogue:
in Rachel, the beauty of the Church; and yet[, with respect to those]
who are [(PAi3S)] in part types of [our] Lord [and] Savior, not all things that
are said to have happened [to them] must be believed to have happened in type
of him [(et tamen qui ex parte typi fuerunt Domini Salvatoris, non Omnia quæ
fecisse narrantur, in typo ejus fecisse credenda sunt)]. For the type indicates a
part: because if the whole precedes in
the type, then [it] is not in a type, but must be considered a truth of
history."
Jerome,
In Osee III.xi.1-2 (CCSL 76, 121 l.
57-122 l. 90), translation mine. Marc Adriaen, in CCSL 76, glosses the reference to Julian's "seventh book" rather straightforwardly as follows: Julian the Apostate, Contra Galilaeos VII. Karl Johannes Neumann, in his reconstruction of the Contra Christianos on the basis of the many fragments quoted by (mostly) Cyril of Alexandria (Ivliani Imperatoris librorvm contra Christianos qvae svpersvnt, Scriptorum Graecorum qui Christianam impugnaverunt religionem quae supersunt 3 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1880)), treats the question of the position of this fragment in the original on pp. 100, 237, and 240. Hos 11:1 in the Septuagint: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ; Hos 11:1 at Mt 2:15: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.
"Hunc
locum in septimo uolumine Iulianus Augustus quod aduersum nos, id est Christianos,
euomuit, calumniatur, et dicit quod de Israel scriptum est, Matthaeus
euangelista ad Christum transtulit, ut simplicitati eorum, qui de gentibus
crediderant, illuderet. Cui nos breuiter
respondebimus: Primum Matthaeum
euangelium Hebraeis litteris edidisse, quod non poterant legere nisi hi qui ex
Hebraeis errant. Ergo non propterea
fecit, ut illuderet ethnicis. Sin autem
Hebraeis illudere uoluit, aut stultus, aut imperitus fuit; stultus, si apertum
finxit mendacium; imperitus, si non intellexit de quo haec dicerentur. Stultitiam ipsum uolumen excusat, quod
prudenter ordinatimque compositum est; imperitum non possumus dicere, quem ex
aliis testimoniis scripturarum scientiam
legis habuisse cognoscimus.
Superest ut illud dicamus quod ea quae τυπικῶς praecedunt in aliis,
iuxta ueritatem et adimpletionem referantur ad Christum; quod apostolum in
duobus montibus Sina et Sion, et in Sara et Agar fecisse cognouimus. Neque enim non est Sina mons et non est Sion;
non fuit Sara et non fuit Agar; quia haec apostolus Paulus ad duo rettulit
testamenta. Sic igitur hoc quod scriptum
est: Paruulus
Israel et dilexi eum, et ex Aegypto uocaui filium meum; dicitur quidem de
populo Israel, qui uocatur ex Aegypto, qui diligitur, qui eo tempore post
errorem idololatriae quasi infans et paruulus est uocatus; sed perfecte
refertur ad Christum. Nam et Isaac in
typo Christi fuit quod future mortis ligna sibi ipse portauerit; et Iacob quia
Liam dolentem oculos, et Rachel pulchram habuerit uxorem. In Lia quae maior erat, caecitatem
intellegimus Synagogae, in Rachel pulchritudinem Ecclesiae; et tamen qui ex
parte typi fuerunt Domini Saluatoris, non omnia quae fecisse narrantur, in typo
eius fecisse credendi sunt. Typus enim
partem indicat, quod si totum praecedat in typo, iam non est typus, sed
historiae ueritas appellanda est."
Marilynne Robinson, "Wondrous love," Christianity and literature 59, no. 2 (Winter 2010): 212 (202-215), and When I was a child I read books: essays (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012), 136 (125-141).
