Abuse without proof
Next, I do not know why he wanted us to proclaim the Sibyl a child of God rather than Jesus, asserting that we had slipped many blasphemous things into her writings without even proving what we slipped in. He could have proved it if he had shown that the older copies were purer and did not contain what he thinks has been inserted. And without even proving that these things are blasphemous, he then again, not twice or three times but many times, called the life of Jesus “most infamous”, without stopping to deal with each of the deeds done in his life that are supposed to be most infamous; so that in saying this he seems not only to make assertions without proof, but also to revile one he does not know. For if he had set out the specific forms of a most infamous life that he saw in Jesus’ actions, we would have contended against each of the things that seemed to him most infamous.
As for Jesus having met “a most pitiable death”, the same could be said of Socrates too, and of Anaxarchus, whom he mentioned a little earlier, and of countless others. Or is the death of Jesus most pitiable, but not theirs as well? Or is theirs not most pitiable, while that of Jesus is most pitiable? You see, then, here too that Celsus’s aim was to heap abuse on Jesus. He was moved, I think, by some spirit that Jesus had overthrown and brought down, so that it no longer has the reek of sacrifices and the blood on which it fed while it deceived those who seek God in images on earth and do not look up to the One who is truly God over all.
Greek
Εἶτ᾿ οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως ἐβούλετο ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον Σίβυλλαν ἀναγορεῦσαι παῖδα θεοῦ ἢ Ἰησοῦν, ἀποφηνάμενος ὅτι παρενεγράψαμεν εἰς τὰ ἐκείνης πολλὰ καὶ βλάσφημα καὶ μὴ ἀποδείξας μηδ᾿ ὅ τι παρενεγράψαμεν. ἀπέδειξε δ᾿ ἂν, εἰ τὰ ἀρχαιότερα καθαρώτερα ἐδείκνυε καὶ οὐκ ἔχοντα ἅπερ οἴεται παρεγγεγράφθαι· μὴ ἀποδείξας δὲ μηδ᾿ ὅτι βλάσφημά ἐστι ταῦτα, εἶτα πάλιν οὐ δὶς οὐδὲ τρὶς ἀλλὰ δὴ πολλάκις ἐπιῤῥητότατον εἶπε τὸν Ἰησοῦ βίον, οὐ στὰς καθ᾿ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ αὐτοῦ πεπραγμένων καὶ νομιζομένων εἶναι ἐπιῤῥητοτάτων, ἵνα τοῦτ᾿ εἰπὼν δόξῃ μὴ μόνον ἀναποδείκτως ἀποφαίνεσθαι (ἀλλὰ) καὶ λοιδορεῖν ὃν οὐκ ἐπίσταται. εἰ γὰρ τὰ εἴδη τοῦ ἐπιῤῥητοτάτου βίου ἐν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ φαινόμενα αὐτῷ ἐκτιθέμενος ἦν, κἂν ἠγωνισάμεθα πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν δοκούντων εἶναι αὐτῷ ἐπιῤῥητοτάτων. τὸ δὲ καὶ θανάτῳ οἰκτίστῳ κεχρῆσθαι τὸν Ἰησοῦν δύναιτ᾿ ἂν λέγεσθαι καὶ περὶ Σωκράτους καὶ περὶ Ἀναξάρχου, οὗ πρὸ βραχέος ἐμνημόνευσε, καὶ περὶ ἄλλων μυρίων. ἢ οἴκτιστος μέν ἐστιν ὁ Ἰησοῦ θάνατος, οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ὁ ἐκείνων; ἢ ὁ ἐκείνων μὲν οὐκ οἴκτιστος, ὁ δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ οἴκτιστος; ὁρᾷς οὖν καὶ ἐνταῦθα ὅτι σκοπὸς ἦν τῷ Κέλσῳ τὸ διαλοιδορεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, κινουμένῳ οἶμαι ὑπό τινος πνεύματος, καταλυθέντος ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ καθαιρεθέντος. ἵνα μηκέτι ἔχῃ κνίσσας καὶ αἵματα, οἷς τρεφόμενον ἠπάτα τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς ἀγάλμασι ζητοῦντας θεὸν καὶ μὴ ἀναβλέποντας εἰς τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἀληθῶς θεόν.