I find it rather difficult to believe that Origen invented this when the Celsus' Jewish source repeatedly shows up throughout Contra Celsum (1.6, 1.32, 1.34, 1.35, 1.37, 1.41, 1.44, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48, 1.49, 1.50, 1.51, 1.56, 1.57, 1.58, 1.61, 1.65, 1.66, 1.67, 1.71 and that is just from book 1!). Between all the books Origen claims Celsus used this Jewish source nearly 100 times (give or take), which seems pretty remarkable to make up and to be that consistent in making it up, especially across the first two books. This includes quotations of source material, paraphrases, etc. I'll add that the few decades removed between Origen and Celsus is not really that noteworthy. Far more distance is between Plutarch and the biographies of Alexander the Great he uses and quotes, but classicists are fairly content to think Plutarch is quoting them well. Sure there is a genre difference, but even in similarly polemical works from antiquity, it is pretty rare for them to just fabricate not only an opponent but also that opponent's book and a tertirary source within the book that they are fabricating. And then consistently refer back to that tertiary source within the fabricated quotes of the book. Do you have any similar example to this? The other works you cited as comparative examples are not comparative in that they are not (A) faking quotes of a real author within which they embed (B) doubly faked quotes of a (C) faked tertiary Jewish interlocutor whom they (D) then consistently cite, interact with, and quote throughout. They just invent fictional characters for their novels. They are also vastly different genres. Lastly with the Rabbinic sources, your review seems rather incomplete without discussing the Toledoth Yeshu given that some manuscripts very explicitly say Jesus was the son of Panthera, and without any ambiguity, and that pretty much makes it rock solid that the "Yeshu ben Panthera" in the Bavli is almost certainly referring to Jesus too. You would have to argue enormous coincidences for it not to be, imo. I also find this difference to be one without distinction: "Though this figure’s identity is murky, it is certainly conceivable that this was the rabbis’ way of referring to the Christ whom Christians invoked in their own prayers. That is to say, it is not the historical Jesus, but the heavenly figure whom Christians worshipped." There was no diffierence in Christian tradition, and by the time any such reference would be made in the Rabbinic literature. I realize this is of course basically an abstract for your book, so I recognize my complaints are probably already addressed, but nevertheless, I have them lol. I am of course looking forward to the book and hope you just take this as the friendly poking that it is.
I find it rather difficult to believe that Origen invented this when the Celsus' Jewish source repeatedly shows up throughout Contra Celsum (1.6, 1.32, 1.34, 1.35, 1.37, 1.41, 1.44, 1.46, 1.47, 1.48, 1.49, 1.50, 1.51, 1.56, 1.57, 1.58, 1.61, 1.65, 1.66, 1.67, 1.71 and that is just from book 1!). Between all the books Origen claims Celsus used this Jewish source nearly 100 times (give or take), which seems pretty remarkable to make up and to be that consistent in making it up, especially across the first two books. This includes quotations of source material, paraphrases, etc. I'll add that the few decades removed between Origen and Celsus is not really that noteworthy. Far more distance is between Plutarch and the biographies of Alexander the Great he uses and quotes, but classicists are fairly content to think Plutarch is quoting them well. Sure there is a genre difference, but even in similarly polemical works from antiquity, it is pretty rare for them to just fabricate not only an opponent but also that opponent's book and a tertirary source within the book that they are fabricating. And then consistently refer back to that tertiary source within the fabricated quotes of the book. Do you have any similar example to this? The other works you cited as comparative examples are not comparative in that they are not (A) faking quotes of a real author within which they embed (B) doubly faked quotes of a (C) faked tertiary Jewish interlocutor whom they (D) then consistently cite, interact with, and quote throughout. They just invent fictional characters for their novels. They are also vastly different genres. Lastly with the Rabbinic sources, your review seems rather incomplete without discussing the Toledoth Yeshu given that some manuscripts very explicitly say Jesus was the son of Panthera, and without any ambiguity, and that pretty much makes it rock solid that the "Yeshu ben Panthera" in the Bavli is almost certainly referring to Jesus too. You would have to argue enormous coincidences for it not to be, imo. I also find this difference to be one without distinction: "Though this figure’s identity is murky, it is certainly conceivable that this was the rabbis’ way of referring to the Christ whom Christians invoked in their own prayers. That is to say, it is not the historical Jesus, but the heavenly figure whom Christians worshipped." There was no diffierence in Christian tradition, and by the time any such reference would be made in the Rabbinic literature. I realize this is of course basically an abstract for your book, so I recognize my complaints are probably already addressed, but nevertheless, I have them lol. I am of course looking forward to the book and hope you just take this as the friendly poking that it is.