Against Celsus 7.12

He also thinks that those who make their defence about Christ from the prophets can say nothing to the point when anything evil or shameful or unclean or abominable seems to be said about the divine. That is why, as though there were no defence, he strings together for himself countless things about matters that are not granted. But one should know that those who wish to live according to the divine Scriptures, who know that “the knowledge of the senseless is words not examined,” and who have read “always ready to give a defence to everyone who asks us for a reason for the hope that is in us,” do not take refuge merely in the fact that these things were foretold, but also try to resolve the apparent absurdities and to show that there is nothing evil in the words, or shameful, or unclean, or abominable, but that they become so only for those who do not understand the divine Scripture as it ought to be understood. He ought to have cited from the prophets what appears evil in them, or seemed shameful to him, or was considered unclean by him, or what he supposed abominable, if he saw such things said in the prophets; for his argument would have been more striking and more effective for his purpose. But as it is, he has cited nothing, but threatens with a boast that such things appear in the Scriptures, telling lies about them. Reason, then, does not require us to make a defence against empty noises of words, to show that there is nothing evil or shameful or unclean or abominable in the words of the prophets.