Celsus parades the mysteries of Mithras
After this, Celsus, wishing to display his wide learning in his treatise against us, also sets out certain Persian mysteries, where he says: “These things are hinted at also by the teaching of the Persians and by the rite of Mithras that is among them. For in it there is a symbol of the two revolutions in heaven, that of the fixed stars and that assigned in turn to the planets, and of the soul’s passage through them. The symbol is this: a ladder with seven gates, and on top of it an eighth gate. The first of the gates is of lead, the second of tin, the third of bronze, the fourth of iron, the fifth of alloyed coin-metal, the sixth of silver, and the seventh of gold. The first they assign to Kronos, taking the lead as a sign of the slowness of that star; the second to Aphrodite, likening to her the brightness and softness of tin; the third to Zeus, the bronze-floored and solid one; the fourth to Hermes, for iron and Hermes alike endure every kind of work, make money, and toil hard; the fifth to Ares, the gate of mixed metal, uneven and varied; the sixth, the silver one, to the Moon; the seventh, the golden one, to the Sun, imitating their colours.”
Next he examines the reason for the stars being listed in this order, which is shown by symbols in the names of the rest of the materials, and he attaches musical ratios to the Persian theology he sets out. Not content with this, he takes pains to set out a second explanation as well, again bound up with musical theory.
But it seemed to me absurd to set out Celsus’s words on these matters. It would be like what he himself has done: in his accusation against Christians and Jews he brought in, out of season, not only the teachings of Plato, when he might have been content with those, but also what he calls the Persian mysteries of Mithras and their explanation. For however these things stand for those who honour the rites of Mithras and for the Persians, whether falsely or truly, why did he set out these rather than one of the other mysteries along with its explanation? For among the Greeks the mysteries of Mithras are not thought to be anything special compared with the Eleusinian mysteries, or with the rites of Hecate handed down to those initiated in Aegina.
And if he wanted to set out barbarian mysteries with their explanation, why not rather those of the Egyptians, in which many take pride, or those of the Cappadocians about the Artemis at Comana, or those of the Thracians, or even those of the Romans themselves, who initiate the noblest members of the Senate? But if he thought it out of place to bring in any of those, as contributing nothing to his accusation of Jews or Christians, how did the same thing not seem out of place to him when he set out the Mithraic rites?
Greek
Ἑξῆς δὲ τούτοις βουλόμενος ὁ Κέλσος πολυμάθειαν ἑαυτοῦ ἐπιδείξασθαι ἐν τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμῶν λόγῳ ἐκτίθεταί τινα καὶ Περσικὰ μυστήρια ἐν οἷς φησιν· αἰνίττεται ταῦτα καὶ ὁ Περσῶν λόγος, καὶ ἡ τοῦ Μίθρου τελετὴ, (ἣ) παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς ἐστιν. ἔστι γάρ τι ἐν αὐτῇ σύμβολον τῶν δύο τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ περιόδων, τῆς τε ἀπλανοῦς καὶ τῆς εἰς τοὺς πλανήτας αὖ νενεμημένης, καὶ τῆς δι᾿ αὐτῶν τῆς ψυχῆς διεξόδου. τοιόνδε τὸ σύμβολον· κλῖμαξ ἑπτάπυλος, ἐπὶ δ᾿ αὐτῇ πύλη ὀγδόη. ἡ πρώτη τῶν πυλῶν μολίβδου, ἡ δευτέρα κασσιτέρου, ἡ τρίτη χαλκοῦ, ἡ τετάρτη σιδήρου, ἡ πέμπτη κεραστοῦ νομίσματος, ἡ ἕκτη ἀργύρου, χρυσοῦ δὲ ἡ ἑβδόμη. τὴν πρώτην τίθενται Κρόνου, τῷ μολίβδῳ τεκμηριούμενοι τὴν βραδυτῆτα τοῦ ἀστέρος, τὴν δευτέραν Ἀφροδίτης, παραβάλλοντες αὐτῇ τὸ φαιδρόν τε καὶ μαλακὸν τοῦ κασσιτέρου, τὴν τρίτην τοὺ Διὸς, τὴν χαλκοβατῆ καὶ στεῤῥὰν, τὴν τετάρτην Ἑρμοῦ, τλήμονα γὰρ ἔργων ἁπάντων καὶ χρηματιστὴν καὶ πολύκμητον εἶναι τόν τε σίδηρον καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν, τὴν πέμπτην Ἄρεος, τὴν ἐκ τοῦ κράματος ἀνώμαλόν τε καὶ ποικίλην, ἕκτην Σελήνης τὴν ἀργυρᾶν, ἑβδόμην Ἡλίου τὴν χρυσῆν, μιμούμενοι τὰς χρόας αὐτῶν. ἑξῆς ἐξετάζει τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς οὕτω κατειλεγμένης τάξεως τῶν ἀστέρων, δηλουμένης διὰ συμβόλων ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι τῆς λοιπῆς ὕλης, καὶ μουσικοὺς λόγους προσάπτει ᾗ ἐκτίθεται Περσῶν θεολογίᾳ· προσφιλοτιμεῖται δὲ τούτοις καὶ δευτέραν ἐκθέσθαι διήγησιν, πάλιν ἐχομένην μουσικῶν θεωρημάτων. ἔδοξε δέ μοι τὸ ἐκθέσθαι τὴν λέξιν ἐν τούτοις τοῦ Κέλσου ἄτοπον εἶναι καὶ ὅμοιον ᾧ αὐτὸς πεποίηκεν, εἰς τὴν περὶ Χριστιανῶν καὶ Ἰουδαίων κατηγορίαν ἀκαίρως παραλαβὼν οὐ μόνον τὰ Πλάτωνος, ὡς ἐκείνοις ἀρκεῖσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ, ὥς φησι, Περσῶν τοῦ Μίθρου μυστήρια καὶ τὴν διήγησιν αὐτῶν. ὅπως ποτὲ γὰρ ἐχέτω ταῦτα, εἴτε ψευδῶς εἴτ᾿ ἀληθῶς, τοῖς τὰ τοῦ Μίθρου πρεσβεύουσι καὶ Πέρσαις· τί δὴ οὖν μᾶλλον ταῦτ᾿ ἐξέθετο ἤ τι τῶν λοιπῶν μυστηρίων μετὰ τῆς διηγήσεως αὐτῶν; οὐ γὰρ δοκεῖ παρ᾿ Ἕλλησιν εἶναι ἐξαίρετα τὰ τοῦ Μίθρου παρὰ τὰ Ἐλευσίνια ἢ τὰ παραδιδόμενα τοῖς ἐν Αἰγίνῃ μυουμένοις τὰ τῆς Ἑκάτης. τί δὲ μᾶλλον εἴπερ βαρβαρικὰ ἐβούλετο μυστήρια ἐκτίθεσθαι μετὰ τῆς διηγήσεως αὐτῶν, οὐ μᾶλλον τὰ Αἰγυπτίων, ἐν οἷς πολλοὶ σεμνύνονται, ἢ τὰ Καππαδοκῶν περὶ τῆς ἐν Κομάνοις Ἀρτέμιδος ἢ τὰ Θρᾳκῶν ἢ καὶ τὰ Ῥωμαίων αὐτῶν, τελούντων τοὺς εὐγενεστάτους τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς; ἀλλ᾿ εἰ ἄκαιρον αὐτῷ ἔδοξεν ἐκείνων τι παραβαλεῖν ὡς μηδαμῶς συμβαλλόμενον εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίων ἢ Χριστιανῶν κατηγορίαν, πῶς οὐχὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἄκαιρον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐκθέσεως τῶν Μιθραϊκῶν αὐτῷ ἐφαίνετο;