Jesus the Bastard Son: Part 2

[michaelsherlock]

In Chapter 28 of Book I of Contra Celsus, Origen gets all huffy because Celsus states:

Chap. 28

...[Celsus] accuses [Jesus] of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."...

Now, what is particularly interesting about this is the dating. Celsus wrote in the late 2d century. Origen "answered" in the 3d. But the Talmud, which contains some stories about various jesus-type characters was not more or less completed until around 500. So it would appear that these stories were in circulation - and being ripped by Greco-Roman writers - long before the Jews got their act together.

Ohhh! Dude!!! That was going to be in about the 4th post, where I show that the traditions in the Talmud (Jerusalem & Babylonian), Tosefta and Toledoth, go back to at least the 2nd century and one particular tradition found in these works, even goes back to the first century, as it appears in the Gospel of "Matthew". That's cool. Good going anyway.

Celsus and Porphyry are two of my favorite early anti-Christians, although Porphyry is my number one, but with wit like the following, who can blame me:

“In another passage Jesus says: These signs shall witness to those who believe: they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover. And if they drink any deadly drug, it will hurt them in no way." Well then: the proper thing to do would be to use this process as a test for those aspiring to be priests, bishops or church officers. A deadly drug should be put in front of them and [only] those who survive drinking it should be elevated in the ranks [of the church]. If there are those who refuse to submit to such a test, they may as well admit that they do not believe in the things that Jesus said. For if it is a doctrine of [Christian] faith that men can survive being poisoned or heal the sick at will, then the believer who does not do such things either does not believe them, or else believes them so feebly that he may as well not believe them.” "

R. Joseph Hoffman, Porphyry's Against the Christians: The Literary Remains. Oxford University Press (1994). Pg. 50.