structural:expansion, quality:correction, information:classification
Cyril's involvement

Although Socrates Scholasticus never explicitly identifies Hypatia's murderers, they are commonly assumed to have been members of the parabalani. Christopher Haas disputes this identification, arguing that the murderers were more likely "a crowd of Alexandrian laymen". Socrates Scholasticus unequivocally condemns the actions of the mob, declaring, "Surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort."

Neoplatonist historian Damascius (c. 458 – c. 538) was "anxious to exploit the scandal of Hypatia's death", and attributed responsibility for her murder to Bishop Cyril and his Christian followers. Damascius's account of the Christian murder of Hypatia is the sole historical source naming Bishop Cyril. Some modern studies, as well as the 2009 Hypatia biopic Agora represent Hypatia as falling casualty to a conflict between two Christian factions, one peaceful and moderate and led by Orestes, with the support of Hypatia, and fundamentalist faction enforced by Parabalani and led by Patriarch Cyril. According to lexicographer William Smith, "She was accused of too much familiarity with Orestes, prefect of Alexandria, and the charge spread among the clergy, who took up the notion that she interrupted the friendship of Orestes with their archbishop, Cyril." Scholasticus, alleges that Hypatia fell "victim to the political jealousy which at the time prevailed" and that news of Hypatia's murder, "brought no small disgrace", not only to Patriarch Cyril but to the whole Christian Church in Alexandria, "for murder and slaughter and all such things are altogether opposed to the Christian religion."

After the murder, a deputation of citizens went to Constantinople to petition the Emperor for an investigation so as to prevent such horrors in the future and to put down the disorderly Parabalani, however they urged for the Patriarch to be allowed to remain in the city (Orestes wanted him banished). One could deduce from this that there were some who didn't think Cyril responsible for this or that even his own followers thought he went too far. However, according to Damascius, Cyril himself allegedly only managed to escape even more serious punishment by bribing one of Theodosius's officials. Indeed, the investigation resulted in the emperors Honorius and Theodosius II issuing an edict in autumn of 416, which attempted to remove the parabalani from Cyril's power and instead place them under the authority of Orestes. The edict restricted the parabalani from attending "any public spectacle whatever" or entering "the meeting place of a municipal council or a courtroom." It also severely restricted their recruitment by limiting the total number of parabalani to no more than five hundred.