Chapter XIV.

Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many nations a general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations which gave rise to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown to me, he casts a slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the others, as having either laboured along with them, and arrived at the same conclusions, or as having entertained similar opinions on many subjects.  It is proper, therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to the histories of Barbarians and Greeks respecting the antiquity of those nations of whom he speaks, but stamps the histories of this nation alone as false.  For if the respective writers related the events which are found in these works in the spirit of truth, why should we distrust the prophets of the Jews alone?  And if Moses and the prophets have recorded many things in their history from a desire to favour their own system, why should we not say the same of the historians of other countries?  Or, when the Egyptians or their histories speak evil of the Jews, are they to be believed on that point; but the Jews, when saying the same things of the Egyptians, and declaring that they had suffered great injustice at their hands, and that on this account they had been punished by God, are to be charged with falsehood?  And this applies not to the Egyptians alone, but to others; for we shall find that there was a connection between the Assyrians and the Jews, and that this is recorded in the ancient histories of the Assyrians.  And so also the Jewish historians (I avoid using the word “prophets,” that I may not appear to prejudge the case) have related that the Assyrians were enemies of the Jews.  Observe at once, then, the arbitrary procedure of this individual, who believes the histories of these nations on the ground of their being learned, and condemns others as being wholly ignorant.  For listen to the statement of Celsus:  “There is,” he says, “an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and cities, and men.”  And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians.

Συγγένειαν παρὰ πολλοῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν νομίζων εἶναι ὁ Κέλσος τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου πάντα μὲν ὀνομάζει τὰ ἔθνη ὡς ἀρξάμενα τοῦ τοιοῦδε δόγματος· οὐκ οἶδα δ' ὅπως μόνους Ἰουδαίους συκοφαντεῖ, οὐ συγκαταλέγων αὐτῶν τὸ ἔθνος τοῖς λοιποῖς, ὡς εἴτε συμφιλοπονῆσαν ἐκείνοις καὶ ὁμοφρο νῆσαν εἴτε παραπλήσια ἐν πολλοῖς δογματίσαν. Ἄξιον οὖν αὐτὸν ἐρέσθαι, τί δήποτε ἱστορίαις μὲν βαρβάρων καὶ Ἑλλήνων πεπίστευκε περὶ τῆς ἀρχαιότητος ὧν ὠνόμασε, μόνου δὲ τοῦ ἔθνους τὰς ἱστορίας τούτου ψευδοποιεῖ. Εἰ γὰρ ἕκαστοι τὰ παρ' αὐτοῖς ἐξέθεντο φιλαλήθως, τί τοῖς Ἰουδαίων ἀπιστοῦμεν μόνοις προφήταις; Εἰ δὲ κεχαρισμένως Μωϋσῆς καὶ οἱ προφῆται τῷ ἑαυτῶν λόγῳ πολλὰ ἀνέγραψαν περὶ τῶν παρὰ σφίσιν αὐτοῖς, διὰ τί τὸ παραπλήσιον οὐκ ἐροῦμεν καὶ περὶ τῶν ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσι συγγραφέων; Ἢ Αἰγύπτιοι μὲν ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ἱστορίαις Ἰουδαίους κακολογοῦντες πιστοί εἰσι περὶ Ἰουδαίων· ταὐτὰ δὲ λέγοντες Ἰουδαῖοι περὶ Αἰγυπτίων, πολλὰ ἀδίκως πεπονθέναι ἀνα γράφοντες ἑαυτοὺς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λέγοντες αὐτοὺς κεκολάσθαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ, ψεύδονται; Καὶ οὐ περὶ Αἰγυπτίων γε μόνων τοῦτο λεκτέον· εὑρήσομεν γὰρ ἐπιπλοκὴν Ἀσσυρίων πρὸς Ἰουδαίους, καὶ ταῦτα ἱστορούμενα ἐν ταῖς Ἀσσυρίων ἀρχαιο λογίαις. Οὕτω δὲ καὶ Ἀσσυρίους ἀνέγραψαν ἑαυτοῖς πολεμίους οἱ Ἰουδαίων συγγραφεῖς, ἵνα μὴ δόξω προλαμ βάνειν λέγων τὸ οἱ προφῆται. Ὅρα οὖν εὐθέως τὸ φίλαυτον τοῦ τοῖσδε μέν τισι πιστεύοντος ὡς σοφοῖς ἔθνεσι τῶνδε δὲ καταγινώσκοντος ὡς πάντῃ ἀνοήτων. Ἄκουε γὰρ λέγοντος τοῦ Κέλσου ὅτι ἔστιν ἀρχαῖος ἄνωθεν λόγος, περὶ ὃν δὴ ἀεὶ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ σοφώτατα καὶ πόλεις καὶ ἄνδρες σοφοὶ κατεγένοντο. Καὶ οὐκ ἐβουλήθη ἔθνος σοφώτατον εἰπεῖν κἂν παραπλησίως Αἰγυπτίοις καὶ Ἀσσυρίοις καὶ Ἰνδοῖς καὶ Πέρσαις καὶ Ὀδρύσαις καὶ Σαμόθρᾳξι καὶ Ἐλευσινίοις τοὺς Ἰουδαίους.