Celsus the Epicurean contradicts himself
With some cleverness he seems in a way to speak up for those who bear witness to Christianity even to death, when he says: “And I do not say that a man who holds to a good doctrine ought, if he is going to be in danger among men because of it, to abandon the doctrine, or pretend that he has abandoned it, or deny it.” And he condemns those who hold the beliefs of Christianity but pretend not to hold them, or deny them, saying that one who holds the doctrine ought not to pretend that he has abandoned it, or deny it.
We must show, then, that Celsus contradicts himself. From other writings of his he is found to be an Epicurean. But here, so that his accusation of our teaching may seem more reasonable, he does not admit to the views of Epicurus. Instead he pretends that there is in man something better than the earthly, akin to God, and he says that in those in whom this is in good health (that is, the soul), “it reaches out in every way toward what is akin to it” (he means God), “and they long always to hear something about him and to be reminded of him.”
See, then, how counterfeit his soul is. Having said beforehand that a man who holds to a good doctrine, even if he is going to be in danger among men because of it, must not abandon the doctrine, nor pretend that he has abandoned it, nor deny it, he himself falls into every one of the opposite faults. For he knew that if he admitted he was an Epicurean, he would have no credibility in accusing those who, in whatever way, teach a providence and set God over all that exists. We have learned that there were two Epicureans named Celsus: the earlier under Nero, and this one under Hadrian and later.
Greek
Ἔοικε δὲ μετὰ δεινότητος συναγορεύειν πως τοῖς μαρτυροῦσι τῷ χριστιανισμῷ μέχρι θανάτου λέγων· καὶ οὐ τοῦτο λέγω, ὡς χρὴ τὸν ἀγαθοῦ δόγματος περιεχόμενον, εἰ μέλλει δι᾿ αὐτὸ κινδυνεύειν παρ᾿ ἀνθρώποις, ἀποστῆναι τοῦ δόγματος ἢ πλάσασθαι ὡς ἀφέστηκεν ἢ ἔξαρνον γενέσθαι. καὶ καταγινώσκει γε τῶν φρονούντων μὲν τὰ χριστιανισμοῦ προσποιουμένων δὲ μὴ φρονεῖν ἢ ἀρνουμένων, λέγων μὴ δεῖν τὸν ἐν τῷ δόγματι πλάσασθαι ὡς ἀφέστηκεν ἢ ἔξαρνον αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι. ἐλεγκτέον δὴ ὡς τὰ ἐναντία ἑαυτῷ λέγοντα τὸν Κέλσον. εὑρίσκεται μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἄλλων συγγραμμάτων Ἐπικούρειος ὤν· ἐνταῦθα δὲ διὰ τὸ δοκεῖν εὐλογώτερον κατηγορεῖν τοῦ λόγου μὴ ὁμολογῶν τὰ Ἐπικούρου προσποιεῖται κρεῖττόν τι τοῦ γηΐνου εἶναι ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ συγγενὲς θεοῦ καί φησιν ὅτι οἷς τοῦτο εὖ ἔχει, τουτέστιν ἡ ψυχὴ, πάντη ἐφίεται τοῦ συγγενοῦς, λέγει δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ἀκούειν ἀεί τι (καὶ) ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι περὶ ἐκείνου ποθοῦσιν. ὅρα οὖν τὸ νόθον αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς, ὅτι προειπὼν, ὡς χρὴ τὸν ἀγαθοῦ δόγματος περιεχόμενον, καὶ εἰ μέλλει δι᾿ αὐτὸ κινδυνεύειν παρ᾿ ἀνθρώποις, μὴ ἀφίστασθαι τοῦ δόγματος μηδὲ πλάσασθαι ὡς ἀφέστηκε μηδ᾿ ἔξαρνον γενέσθαι, αὐτὸς τοῖς ἐναντίοις πᾶσι περιπίπτει. ᾔδει γὰρ ὅτι ὁμολογῶν Ἐπικούρειος εἶναι οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τὸ ἀξιόπιστον ἐν τῷ κατηγορεῖν τῶν ὅπως ποτὲ πρόνοιαν εἰσαγόντων καὶ θεὸν ἐφιστάντων τοῖς οὖσι. δύο δὲ παρειλήφαμεν Κέλσους γεγονέναι Ἐπικουρείους, τὸν μὲν πρότερον κατὰ Νέρωνα τοῦτον δὲ κατὰ Ἀδριανὸν καὶ κατωτέρω.