Should we go to the birds for teachers?
Celsus, then, since by these arguments he wished to prove the irrational animals more divine and wiser than men, ought to have established at greater length that such divination exists. After that he ought to have set out its defence more clearly, rejecting with proof the arguments of those who do away with such divinations, and overturning with proof as well the arguments of those who said that the animals’ movements for prophesying come from demons or gods. And after that he ought to have established that the soul of the irrational animals is more divine. Had he done so, and shown a philosopher’s habit of mind on matters so great, we would have opposed his plausible arguments as far as we were able: overturning the claim that the irrational animals are wiser than men, and proving false the claims that they have holier notions of the divine than ours and that they hold some holy converse with one another.
As it is, the man who reproaches us for believing in the God who is over all expects us to believe that the souls of birds have more divine and clearer notions than men. If this is true, birds have clearer notions about God than Celsus has; and it is no wonder that they surpass Celsus, who belittles man to such a degree. But indeed, so far as Celsus is concerned, birds have greater and more divine notions, I do not say than we Christians, or than the Jews who use the same Scriptures as we do, but even than the theologians among the Greeks; for they were men. According to Celsus, then, the race of supposedly prophetic birds has grasped the nature of the divine better than Pherecydes and Pythagoras and Socrates and Plato. Then we ought indeed to go to the birds as our teachers, so that, just as on Celsus’s view they teach us by divination what is to come, so too they may free men from doubting about the divine, by handing on the clear notion of it they have grasped. It follows, then, for Celsus, who thinks birds superior to men, that he should use birds as his teachers, and none of those who have pursued philosophy among the Greeks.
Greek
Ἐχρῆν οὖν τὸν Κέλσον, διὰ τῶν προκειμένων βουλόμενον θειότερα καὶ σοφώτερα ἀποδεῖξαι τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα τῶν ἀνθρώπων, κατασκευάσαι διὰ πλειόνων ὡς ὑπάρχουσαν τὴν τοιάνδε μαντικὴν καὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν μετὰ τοῦτ᾿ ἐναργεστέρως ἀποδεῖξαι καὶ ἀποδεικτικῶς ἀποδοκιμάσαι μὲν τοὺς λόγους τῶν ἀναιρούντων τὰς τοιασδὶ μαντείας ἀποδεικτικῶς δ᾿ ἀνατρέψαι καὶ τοὺς λόγους τῶν εἰπόντων ἀπὸ δαιμόνων ἢ θεῶν γίνεσθαι τὰς κινήσεις τοῖς ζῴοις πρὸς τὸ μαντεύσασθαι καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα κατασκευάσαι περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ψυχῆς ὡς θειοτέρας. οὕτω γὰρ ἂν πρὸς τὰ πιθανὰ αὐτοῦ, ἐπιδειξαμένου φιλόσοφον περὶ τῶν τηλικούτων ἕξιν, κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν ἐνέστημεν· ἀνατρέποντες μὲν τὸ ὅτι σοφώτερα τὰ ἄλογα ζῷα τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ψευδοποιοῦντες δὲ καὶ ὅτι ἐννοίας ἔχει τοῦ θείου ἱερωτέρας ἡμῶν καὶ ὅτι ὁμιλίας ἔχει πρὸς ἄλληλα ἱεράς τινας. νυνὶ δ᾿ ὁ ἐγκαλῶν ἡμῖν ὅτι πιστεύομεν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι θεῷ ἀξιοῖ ἡμᾶς πιστεύειν ὅτι αἱ ψυχαὶ τῶν ὀρνίθων θειοτέρας ἔχουσιν ἐννοίας καὶ τρανοτέρας ἀνθρώπων. ὅπερ εἰ ἀληθές ἐστιν. ὄρνιθες μᾶλλον τρανοτέρας Κέλσου ἔχουσι περὶ θεοῦ ἐννοίας· καὶ οὐ θαυμαστὸν εἰ Κέλσου. τοῦ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξευτελίζοντος. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ὅσον ἐπὶ Κέλσῳ οἱ ὄρνιθες μείζονας καὶ θειοτέρας ἔχουσιν ἐννοίας οὐ λέγω ἡμῶν Χριστιανῶν ἢ τῶν ταῖς αὐταῖς ἡμῖν γραφαῖς χρωμένων Ἰουδαίων ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τῶν παρ᾿ Ἕλλησι θεολόγων· ἄνθρωποι γὰρ ἦσαν. μᾶλλον οὖν κατὰ Κέλσον κατείληφε τὴν τοῦ θείου φύσιν τὸ τῶν δῆθεν μαντικῶν ὀρνίθων γένος ἢ Φερεκύδης καὶ Πυθαγόρας καὶ Σωκράτης καὶ Πλάτων. καὶ ἐχρῆν γε ἡμᾶς πρὸς τοὺς ὄρνιθας φοιτᾶν διδασκάλους· ἵν᾿. ὥσπερ κατὰ τὴν Κέλσου ὑπόληψιν διδάσκουσιν ἡμᾶς μαντικῶς τὰ ἐσόμενα. οὕτω καὶ [περὶ] τοῦ ἀμφιβάλλειν περὶ τοῦ θείου ἀπαλλάξωσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. ἣν κατειλήφασι τρανὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἔννοιαν παραδιδόντες. Κέλσῳ μὲν οὖν ἀκολουθεῖ, τῷ διαφέρειν ἡγουμένῳ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς ὄρνιθας, διδασκάλοις αὐτὸν χρᾶσθαι ὄρνισι καὶ μηδενὶ οὕτως τῶν φιλοσοφησάντων παρ᾿ Ἕλλησιν·