Since the early eighteenth century it has been established that Celsus was not an Epicurean despite the arguments in Origen's Contra Celsum. Rather, Celsus has been recognized as a Middle Platonist. Against the long scholarly tradition based on Origen's writings,Johann Lorenz von Mosheim mentions: Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, tom. 2 (Rome: Congregations Oratorij apud S. Mariam in Vallicella, 1594), ad A.D. 132, § XVI–XIX, 89; Gulielmus Spencerus, Annotationes ad Origenis octo libros contra Celsum (Cambridge: J. Hayes/G. Morden, 1677) 2–3; Henric Dodwell, Dissertationes in Irenaeum: Accedit fragmentum Philippi Sidetae hactenus ineditum de Catechistarum Alexandrinorum successione cum notis (Oxford: E. Theatro Scheldoniano, 1689) 499–501; Joannes Jonsius; De scriptoribus Historiae Philososophicae lib. IV (Frankfurt: Th. M. Götzius, 1659) 332; Samuel Basnagius, Annales Politico-Ecclesiastici, tom. II (Rotterdam: R. Leers, 1706), ad A.D. 137, 80; Henricus Valesius, Annotationes in Historiam Ecclesiasticam Eusebii Caesariensis, attached to Historiae Ecclesiasticae scriptores Graecae (Amsterdam: H. Wetstenius, 1695) 115; Jo. Albertus Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graecae (Hamburg: Chr. Liebezeit/Th. Chr. Felginer, 1718), lib. III, cap. 33, 809 (Celsus appears in his Catalogus Epicureorum); Jo. Franciscus Buddeus, Isagoge Historico-Theologica ad Theologiam Universam (Leipzig: B. Thom. Fritschius, 1730), with further references. which identified Celsus as an Epicurean, Johann Lorenz von Mosheim stands out as an exception.Earlier than von Mosheim a similar argument is found in detail in Petrus Wesseling, Probabilium: Liber singularis in quo praeter alia insunt vindiciae verborum Joannis et deus erat verbum (Franecker: W. Bleck, 1735) cap. 23, 187–95. Identified as a Stoic, Celsus is mentioned by Georg Horn, Historiae philosophicae libri septem: De origine, successione, sectis & vita Philosophorum ab orbe condita ad nostram aetatem agitur (Leiden: J. Elsevires, 1655) 271.