Chapter XXI

Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a statement of Celsus, when he asserts “that he who was partaker of a man’s table would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a man, much less would he plot against a God after banqueting with him.” For who does not know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on the table,[97] have entered into a conspiracy against their entertainers? The whole of Greek and barbarian history is full of such instances. And the Iambic poet of Paros,[98] when upbraiding Lycambes with having violated covenants confirmed by the salt of the table, says to him:

“But thou hast broken a mighty oath—that, viz., by the salt of the
table.”

And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge more necessary for the conduct of life,[99] can quote numerous instances, showing that they who shared in the hospitality of others entered into conspiracies against them.

Footnote 97:

ἁλῶν καὶ τραπέζης.

Footnote 98:

Archilochus.

Footnote 99:

Guietus would expunge these words as “inept.”

Chapter XXII.

He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: “And, which is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men.” But how Jesus could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.