Celsus names no shameful passage
He also thinks that those who use the prophets to defend what concerns Christ can say nothing to the point whenever something wicked, shameful, unclean or foul appears to be said about the Deity. So, as though no defence existed, he strings together countless arguments for himself on points that are not granted.
But it must be understood that those who wish to live by the divine Scriptures, who know that “the knowledge of the senseless is unexamined words” (Sirach 21:18), and who have read the words “always ready to make a defence to everyone who asks us for an account of the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15), do not take refuge only in the fact that these things were foretold. They also try to resolve the apparent incongruities, and to show that there is nothing wicked, shameful, unclean or foul in the words, but that they become so for those who do not understand the divine Scripture as it ought to be interpreted.
He ought to have set out from the prophets what appears wicked in them, or what seemed shameful to him, or what he thought unclean, or what he took to be foul, if he really saw such things said in the prophets; for his argument would then have struck harder and done more to achieve what he wanted. As it is, he set nothing out, but with a threatening flourish he declares that such things appear in the Scriptures, and in this he lies about them. No reason, then, requires a defence against mere empty noises of words, to show that there is nothing wicked, shameful, unclean or foul in the words of the prophets.
Greek
Οἴεται δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν ἀπολογουμένους περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Χριστὸν μηδὲν μὲν δύνασθαι πρὸς ἔπος λέγειν, ἐπὰν φαίνηταί τι πονηρὸν ἢ αἰσχρὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λεγόμενον περὶ τοῦ θείου ἢ μιαρόν. διὸ καὶ ὡς μηδεμιᾶς οὔσης ἀπολογίας συνείρει ἑαυτῷ μυρία περὶ τῶν μὴ διδομένων. εἰδέναι (δὲ) χρὴ ὅτι καὶ οἱ βουλόμενοι κατὰ τὰς θείας ζῆς γραφὰς καὶ ἐπιστάμενοι ὅτι „γνῶσις ἀσυνέτου ἀδιεξέταστοι λόγοι“ καὶ ἀναγνόντες τὸ „ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ἡμᾶς λόγου περὶ τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐλπίδος“ οὐκ ἐπὶ μόνον τὸ προειρῆσθαι τάδε τινὰ καταφεύγουσιν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὰς δοκούσας ἀπεμφάσεις λύειν πειρῶνται καὶ δεικνύναι οὐδὲν εἶναι πονηρὸν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις οὐδ᾿ αἰσχρὸν οὐδ᾿ ἀκάθαρτον οὐδὲ μιαρὸν ἀλλὰ τοιοῦτον γίνεσθαι, ὡς χρὴ ἐκδέχεσθαι τοῖς μὴ συνιεῖσι τῆν θείαν γραφήν. ἐχρῆν δ᾿ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν προφητῶν τὸ φαινόμενον ἐν αὐτοῖς πονηρὸν ἢ τὸ δοκοῦν αὐτῷ αἰσχρὸν ἢ τὸ νομιζόμενον αὐτῷ ἀκάθαρτον ἢ ὃ ὑπελάμβανεν εἶναι μιαρὸν παραθέσθαι, εἴπερ τοιαῦτα ἔβλεπεν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις εἰρημένα· πληκτικώτερος γὰρ ἂν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ ἦν καὶ πρὸς ὃ ἐβούλετο ἀνυτικώτερος· νυνὶ δὲ οὐ παρέθετο, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπανατεινάμενος ἀπειλεῖ τοιαῦτα φαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς, καταψευδόμενος αὐτῶν. πρὸς οὖν κενοὺς ψόφους ὀνομάτων οὐδεὶς λόγος αἱρεῖ ἀπολογήσασθαι ὑπὲρ τοῦ δεῖξαι ὅτι οὐδὲν πονηρὸν ἢ αἰσχρὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον ἢ μιαρόν ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς τῶν προφητῶν λόγοις.