The Hebrew language disproves the revolt

Celsus, then, did not act as a fair examiner of the story as the Egyptians tell it one way and the Hebrews another. Prejudiced beforehand in favour of the Egyptians, as though they were dearer to him, he accepted as true the account of those who wronged the strangers, and said that the Hebrews, who had been wronged, left Egypt in revolt. He did not see that so great a rebellious multitude of Egyptians, whose beginning was revolt, could not, at the very moment of revolting, have become a nation and changed its language as well, so that those who until then had used the Egyptian tongue should suddenly have full command of the Hebrew language.

But suppose, for argument’s sake, that when they left Egypt they also came to hate the language they had grown up with. Why then did they not afterwards use the language of the Syrians or of the Phoenicians, rather than establish Hebrew, a language different from both? What my argument means to show is this: it is false that certain people who were Egyptians by race revolted against the Egyptians, left Egypt, came to Palestine and settled in what is now called Judaea. For the Hebrews had an ancestral language before they went down into Egypt, and there were Hebrew letters, different from those of the Egyptians, which Moses used to write the five books that the Jews believe to be sacred.