Hoffmann’s translation of Celsus’ “Alethes Logos”, recovered from quotations in Origen’s “Contra Celsum” is at once excellent yet severely deficient. The body of the text should speak for itself, and to review something written eighteen centuries ago would be presumptuous. Suffice it to say that Celsus’ arguments and ripstes are both enlightening, witty and also surprisingly modern (as Phillip Schaff, the Church historian also notes, as is mentioned in Hoffmann’s introduction).
Hoffmann’s introduction, however, I find deficient. He writes at length on the state of Christianity at the time yet does not cover but briefly the rest of the religious milieu which Christianity found itself in at the time- save a brief excursus on Celsus’ own supposed philosophy.
He also presents his own views on Celsus’ work, a practice I find arogant in translators- in my opinion it is better to let the work speak for itself. Would a modern English translation of the Iliad critique the style of Homer? While I am unaware of Hoffmann’s own religious beliefs, he does seem rather contemptuous of Celsus, a current of tacit support for Christianity runs through the introduction and notes, albeit subtly, which to me is rather distasteful. Rather than labelling Celsus as “repetititve” and “facile”, a better practice would have been to let the reader draw their own conclusions.
On the whole, Hoffmann presents a good reconstruction and translation of Celsus'work, but would have been better to keep his opinions to himself.