Celsus, moreover, sneers at the “hatred” of Esau (to which, I suppose,
he refers) against Jacob, although he was a man who, according to the
Scriptures, is acknowledged to have been wicked; and not clearly stating
the story of Simeon and Levi, who sallied out [on the Shechemites] on
account of the insult offered to their sister, who had been violated by
the son of the Shechemite king, he inveighs against their conduct. And
passing on, he speaks of “brothers selling [one another],” alluding to
the sons of Jacob; and of “a brother sold,” Joseph to wit; and of “a
father deceived,” viz. Jacob, because he entertained no suspicion of his
sons when they showed him Joseph’s coat of many colours, but believed
their statement, and mourned for his son, who was a slave in Egypt, as
if he were dead. And observe in what a spirit of hatred and falsehood
Celsus collects together the statements of the sacred history; so that
wherever it appeared to him to contain a ground of accusation he
produces the passage, but wherever there is any exhibition of virtue
worthy of mention—as when Joseph would not gratify the lust of his
mistress, refusing alike her allurements and her threats—he does not
even mention the circumstance! He should see, indeed, that the conduct
of Joseph was far superior to what is related of Bellerophon,[686] since
the former chose rather to be shut up in prison than do violence to his
virtue. For although he might have offered a just defence against his
accuser, he magnanimously remained silent, entrusting his cause to God.
Footnote 686:
Cf. Homer, _Iliad_, vi. 160.