Was the Gospel according to the Hebrews (GHeb) composed during a famine?

[Lev]

I would welcome critical feedback on my proposal that the Gospel according to the Hebrews (herein: GHeb) was composed during a historical famine. Before I present my argument, I provide some important background information.

Overview of GHeb

GHeb is a lost work that exists only in patristic fragments and marginal notes on ancient and medieval manuscripts of Matthew's gospel. It was authentically quoted from Papias to Jerome and cited in the margins of MSS until the 11th C. Two other lost gospels, according to the Ebionites (herein: GEbion) and the Nazarenes (herein: GNaz) are thought to relate to GHeb. Jerome is our most important witness as most extant quotes are found in his works and he translated GHeb from Aramaic into Latin and Greek in the late 4th C.

The difficulty of GHeb/GEbion/GNaz

Scholarly views on the identity and relationships of GHeb, GEbion and GNaz differ. Some favour identifying GHeb and GNaz as the same gospel (Gregory2017) and accept GEbion is a separate work. Others (Klijn1992) favour all three as separate works. The consensus is that GEbion is an independent work, while the relationship between GHeb and GNaz is contested. My own view is that GNaz is almost identical with GHeb, with the only difference being that it contains an infancy narrative similar to that found in Matthew's gospel. I follow the consensus over GEbion.

The relationship between GHeb and Matthew's gospel

In antiquity, GHeb was often mistaken for an Aramaic or Hebrew version of Matthew's gospel that was used by the Ebionites. Ireneaus (Against Heresies 3.11.7) was the first, followed by Pantaenus (Eusebius, Church History 5.10.3) and then Jerome at first (Jerome, Epistle to Damasus, 20:5, Illustrious Men, 3) although he later corrects himself after he had obtained a copy and translated it (Jerome, Against the Pelagians 3.2). As Jerome makes clear, this misattribution is due to the contents of each text being remarkably similar, with only 16 minor differences identified by patristric authors, and 13 minor differences identified in marginal notes of copies of Matthew's gospel. GHeb probably did not contain an infancy narrative and followed Matthew's gospel from chapter 3, as the Ebionites rejected the virgin birth of Jesus. The Nazarenes used a copy of GHeb that did contain the Matthean infancy narrative (Jerome Illustrious Men, 3) and accepted the virgin birth (Jerome, Epistle to Augustine, 4:13). Jerome describes the gospel used by the Nazarenes as GHeb, but as it differs in contents due to the addition of the infancy narrative, I describe it as GNaz - nevertheless, it should be thought of as an adapted version of GHeb rather than an independent work.

The famine argument

In a Latin translation of Origen's commentary on Matthew, we have an interesting GHeb quote. Before I supply it, I wish to give notice that this is pseudo Origen, and not the great man himself as the quote does not appear in earlier Greek copies - it is only in later Latin (5th-9thC estimate) copy that we find it. Nevertheless, Gregory believes it to be authentic as it is introduced in a “very diffident way” and “the potentially relatively early date of his translation, all favour the conclusion that he [the translator] had good reason to attribute this tradition to the [GHeb].” (Gregory2017:132) Klijn agrees (1992:24) the passage is an authentic extract from a Jewish-Christian gospel, but he favours GNaz over GHeb, as does Ehrman-Plese (2011:204-5). I agree with Gregory. Not only is it explicitly attributed to GHeb, but as GHeb was still being referenced in marginal notes in the early 11C it was still circulating when the Latin translator composed his work. The text is as follows:

“Scriptum est in euangelio quodam, quod dicitur secundum Hebraeos (si tamen placet alicui suscipere illud, non ad auctoritatem sed ad manifestationem propositae quaestionis): Dixit, inquit ad eum alter diuitum: Magister, quid bonum faciens uiuam? Dixit ei: Homo, legem et prophetas fac. Respondit ad eum: Feci. Dixit ei: Vade, uende omnia quae possides et diuide pauperibus, et ueni, sequere me. Coepit autem diues scalpere caput suum et non placuit ei. Et dicit ad eum dominus: Quomodo dicis: Feci legem et prophetas? Quoniam scriptum est in lege: Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum, et ecce multi fratres tui filii Abrahae amicti sunt stercore, morientes prae fame, et domus tua plena est multis bonis, et non egreditur omnino aliquid ex ea ad eos. Et conuersus dixit Simoni discipulo suo sedenti apud se: Simon, fili Ionae, facilius est camelum intrare per foramen acus quam diuitem in regnum coelorum.”

“It is written in a certain Gospel that is called “according to the Hebrews” (if in any event anyone is inclined to accept it, not as an authority but to shed some light on the question we have posed) that another rich man asked [Jesus], “Master, what good thing must I do to have life?” He replied to him, “O man, you should keep the law and the prophets.” He responded, “I have already done that.” Jesus said to him, “Go, sell all that you have and distribute the proceeds to the poor; then come, follow me.” But the rich man began to scratch his head, for he was not pleased. And the Lord said to him, “How can you say, ‘I have kept the law and the prophets?’ For it is written in the law, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ And look, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are clothed in excrement and dying of hunger while your house is filled with many good things, not one of which goes forth to these others.” He turned and said to his disciple Simon, who sat beside him, “Simon, son of Jonah, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven.”

(Ps. Origen, Commentary on Matthew 15.14)

The key text is as follows:

"And look, many of your brothers, sons of Abraham, are clothed in excrement and dying of hunger while your house is filled with many good things, not one of which goes forth to these others.”

This saying is original and not found in parallels in the synoptic gospels. I propose that the reason we do not find this in any other gospel is that the composers were living through a crisis where they were witnessing fellow Jews dying of hunger in appalling conditions which were not present at the time the canonical gospels were composed. Due to the acute nature of the crisis and the outrage felt by the composers of GHeb towards wealthy Jews who were not helping their dying kin, this saying was placed on the lips of Jesus when he meets a wealthy Jew. The saying, therefore, finds an entirely appropriate context in this Markan episode.

A counter-argument to this theory is that the saying "dying of hunger" was a commonly used turn of phrase to reflect lived conditions of general poverty, and cannot be used to identify it with an actual famine. To test this theory I conducted a search of the phrase in Hebrew scriptures and Greek works prior to the 3rd C AD. In the Hebrew bible where hunger is associated with death I found three examples:

1. Exodus16:3 where the Israelites complain they will die of hunger in the wilderness.
2. Isaiah5:13 where it is predicted that unjust nobles will die from hunger.
3. Jeremiah38:9 where Jeremiah is said to have been thrown into a cistern to die of hunger.

However, in none of these examples is the expression used to depict general poverty conditions.

I have detected nine occurrences in the fictional plays of Aristophanes during the 5th C BC, however as they are works of fiction they do not help us much, as they cannot be argued to reflect lived conditions. Three non-fiction occurrences occur in Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Book 1 chapter 126 section 10-11, 5th C BC, Plato, Meno, Stephanus page 91 section d-e, 5th-4th C BC, and Epictetus, Enchiridion, Chapter 12 section 1 line 4. 1st-2nd C AD.

The first of these examples is important as it is found in a history, but it describes those who have died from famine, rather than general poverty conditions. The remaining two examples demonstrate that 'dying of/from hunger' was an expression associated with poverty conditions, but as only two examples can be found, we can see it was rarely used. It is therefore possible that the authors of GHeb employed a rarely used expression to describe general poverty conditions, but it is when we look at the whole saying that we run into another difficulty – of the three Hebrew examples and the 12 Greek examples, including the two associated with poverty, none of them mention being clothed in excrement.

On the saying “amicti sunt stercore” (‘clothed in excrement’ or ‘covered/clad in dung’), we know that during famines people would resort to desperate measures to consume food. Josephus provides us with a vivid description of those trapped and starving during the Jerusalem siege rummaging through sewage and consuming animal dung:

“As also that a medimnus of wheat, was sold for a talent: and that when, a while afterward, it was not possible to gather herbs, by reason the city was all walled about, some persons were driven to that terrible distress, as to search the common sewers, and old dunghills of cattle, and to eat the dung which they got there: and what they of old could not endure so much as to see, they now used for food.”

(Josephus, War, 5.13.7)

This practice is found in modern famines also, as seen during a 19th C Ethiopian famine starving people would rummage through animal dung for undigested seeds to consume:

“Desperate for food, people first boiled and ate the skins of decomposed cattle, then abandoned their farms and villages to forage, consuming leaves and roots, picking through animal dung for undigested seeds, and eating the rotting corpses of horses, dogs, hyenas, jackals, and vultures. Some turned to cannibalism.”

(Morens, Holmes, Davis, Taubenberger, 2011:204)

The same practice was observed during a famine in China in 1943:

"Famine victims in the country ate peanut shells, wheat chaff, wood, and picked through goose droppings to find undigested grain and seeds."

(Muscolino2015:136)

These examples are found in histories rather than prophetic scriptures, fictional plays, or philosophical works. They draw from eyewitness accounts that show those dying from hunger are capable of such shocking and desperate actions to remain alive - even rummage through sewage and animal dung for sustenance.

Summary

So we see that when ‘dying of hunger’ (or words to that effect) is used as a turn of phrase rather than describing someone who is, we do not find any mention of being clothed in excrement. However, where we do find descriptions of people rummaging through excrement (and thus getting covered in it) we always find it connected with historical instances where people were dying of hunger. The GHeb description of people who are dying of hunger being “clothed in excrement” therefore provides us with a credible instance of those dying in such conditions and should not be disregarded as hyperbole. Starving people really were clothed in excrement.

[ABuddhist]

But why assume that the text was written during a famine rather than by a person who knew what people did during famines?

And which famine would you link this text to?

[StephenGoranson]

Maybe worth consulting:

Origen : new fragments from the commentary on Matthew : Codices Sabaiticus 232 & Holy Cross 104, Jerusalem
Panayiotis Tzamalikos.
Paderborn : Ferdinand Schöningh, an imprint of the Brill Group, [2020]

[ is pseudo-Origen the way to see the Latin trans., or was there interpolation, or differing mss?}

and
OXFORD HANDBOOK OF ORIGEN. OXFORD UNIV PRESS UK 2022. ed. R. E. Heine and K. J. Torjesen. ISBN: 9780191506963

minor typos
Klin-->Klijn
Origin-->Origen*

(*a typo I often make, as coauthor of Origin of Kibosh: Routledge Studies in Etymology)

[Lev]

But why assume that the text was written during a famine rather than by a person who knew what people did during famines?

And which famine would you link this text to?

The main basis for this is that we don't find the same saying (or an equivalent) in the canonical gospels, which are typically thought to have been composed in times outside of famines. If the other gospel authors did not feel moved to include this saying outside of famines, then why would the composer of GHeb unless it was during a famine (or shortly after)?

Furthermore, the heightened stinging emotional rhetoric sounds very much like the cry of those who have witnessed the emotional distress of people starving to death while the wealthy sit on their treasure, unmoved by the suffering of their kin. We wouldn't expect that language from someone who did not witness the event or someone several decades later. I accept it could have been made by someone a year or two after the event when memories and emotions still ring true, but it decreases every year from it.

As for the possible dates, we have four from the time of Jesus to c150, when GHeb is thought to have been composed:

1. The Claudian famine from c45-48
2. The Jerusalem Seige in 70
3. A hypothetical famine following the first Jewish revolt c70-72
4. A historical famine following the second Jewish revolt 135

Of the four the least likely is the Jerusalem siege as the food markets were empty and the wealthy couldn't help even if they wished to. Moreover, it is unlikely a gospel would have been composed in such conditions.

The famine following the revolt in 135 runs into problems as Papias quotes from GHeb and as he conducted his research whilst two of Jesus' disciples were still ministering, we can't allow this research to be conducted into the 2nd C when any disciples of Jesus would either be dead or too old to minister (even if they were born in 10 AD, they would be in their 90s in the 100s). Only if we suppose Papias waited several decades (40+ years!) between his research and composing his work would this be possible, and that requires special pleading in my view.

The two most likely candidates are the Claudian famine and the hypothetical one following the first revolt. The Claudian famine has the strongest support due to its historicity but runs into difficulty if you don't accept Mark or Q (the sources for GHeb) were composed that early.

The early 70s is still possible, even if it is hypothetical (famines usually follow wars), and doesn't have the same problems the Claudian famine does.

[Lev]

Maybe worth consulting:

Origen : new fragments from the commentary on Matthew : Codices Sabaiticus 232 & Holy Cross 104, Jerusalem
Panayiotis Tzamalikos.
Paderborn : Ferdinand Schöningh, an imprint of the Brill Group, [2020]

[ is pseudo-Origen the way to see the Latin trans., or was there interpolation, or differing mss?}

and
OXFORD HANDBOOK OF ORIGEN. OXFORD UNIV PRESS UK 2022. ed. R. E. Heine and K. J. Torjesen. ISBN: 9780191506963

minor typos
Klin-->Klijn
Origin-->Origen*

(*a typo I often make, as coauthor of Origin of Kibosh: Routledge Studies in Etymology)

Thanks for correcting the typos and the tips on the secondary sources. On ps-Origen, is there much difference between ps-Origen and interpolation? Are they not essentially the same?

PS: I'm honored an Origen specialist has engaged in this post - you have my gratitude and I will check those sources you mention.

[John2]

The two most likely candidates are the Claudian famine and the hypothetical one following the first revolt. The Claudian famine has the strongest support due to its historicity but runs into difficulty if you don't accept Mark or Q (the sources for GHeb) were composed that early.

I don't accept the existence of a Q source and I don't think the gospel of the Hebrews used Mark, so for me I suppose the Claudian famine could work. But the words are ascribed to Jesus, so in context they would have to fit his time. I don't recall offhand when (or even if) Jesus is said to died in the citations we have of the gospel of the Hebrews, but I assume it was before the Claudian famine.

I'm more inclined these days to be open to the idea that the gospel of Matthew was written first, like early church writers say, though not in the form of the NT Matthew. I think the original Hebrew version of Matthew mentioned by Papias is what church writers called the gospel of the Hebrews, and this Hebrew Matthew/gospel of the Hebrews was the gospel used by Nazarenes (so it presumably included an infancy narrative). I suppose this could be called "Q," but it appears to have been a full gospel, one more or less like the NT Matthew (sans Mark).

Then what I think happened is that Ebionites (who are said to have emerged after the Nazarenes and after the fall of Jerusalem) used one of the translations that were made of the original Hebrew Matthew/gospel of the Hebrews (or perhaps they made a translation of it for themselves) to create their own version of Matthew, with no infancy narrative and such. This is why their Matthew appeared to be "mutilated," as Epiphanius described it.

Then at some point (I assume after 70 CE) one of the translations of the Hebrew Matthew, along with the gospel of Mark, were used to create the NT version of Matthew. So all these gospels are (and were called) "Matthews," but for me only the original Hebrew version could have been written as early as the Claudian famine in the 40's.

So in that sense I would say that the original Hebrew Matthew/the gospel of the Hebrews could have been written before Mark, and that while church writers took Papias' account to be referring to the NT Matthew (which I think is incorrect), they may have been right about Matthew being written first in the sense that I understand it.

A counter-argument to this theory is that the saying "dying of hunger" was a commonly used turn of phrase to reflect lived conditions of general poverty, and cannot be used to identify it with an actual famine.

That's how I'm seeing it though, as an extreme example to contrast the rich man's house being "filled with many good things." Look how horrible things are for some people and look how much you have. But if it has to refer to a famine, then in context it presumably would have to be one that happened before the Claudian famine. But if the words are not Jesus' but are that of the author of the gospel of the Hebrews and they supposedly reflect a later time, then I suppose the Claudian famine could work. (I'm not sure if I would subscribe to that idea, but I wouldn't object to it.)

[Secret Alias]

Another point. Again from memory. Celsus's Jew says something like "the prophets didn't predict this pestilence." I will look it up. But (a) I think the work Celsus cites was a Jewish work and (b) it likely knew Christians who used an early Christian gospel. Let me look up the quote.

UPDATE:

And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ's life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as he says, and to expound the prophecies themselves, and after admitting the probability of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how the use which they make of them may be overturned. For in this way he would not appear hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds, and particularly when he asserts that the prophecies agree with ten thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus. And he ought to have carefully met this powerful argument of the Christians, as being the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive that this was a plausible argument to be advanced against the Christians only by one who was an opponent of the prophetic writings; but Celsus has here put in the mouth of a Jew an objection which a Jew would not have made. For a Jew will not admit that the prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus; but he will endeavour, after giving what appears to him the meaning of each, to oppose the Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means adducing convincing reasons, but only attempting to do so.

In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz., the prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection, supposed to be urged by a Jew, that the prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies. But it is in the spirit of a Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter animosity, and baseless and even improbable calumnies against Jesus, that he adds: Nor did the prophets predict such a pestilence (ὅτι οὐχὶ <δὲ> τοιοῦτον ὄλεθρον κατήγγειλαν). For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any argument to prove that a pestilence converts men from the practice of evil (ὅτι ὄλεθρος τοσούτους ἀνθρώπους ἐπιστρέφει ἀπὸ τῆς χύσεως τῶν κακῶν) to a life which is according to nature, and distinguished by temperance and other virtues. (2.28 - 29)

Certainly ὄλεθρος can be used metaphorically. But notice earlier in the text Origen quotes Celsus's Jewish text:

And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples--if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity--were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus, without profound belief which He had wrought in their minds of its truth, not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him ( ὀλέθρου τῷ τολμῶντι πανταχοῦ) who ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to the former opinions and usages. For did not the disciples of Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their prophetic Scriptures that this is He who was spoken of by the prophets, but also to the other heathen nations, that He who was crucified yesterday or the day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of the human race,--that this was analogous to the case of those who have died for their country in order to remove pestilence (ἐπὶ τῷ σβέσαι λοιμικὰ), or barrenness (ἀφορίας), or tempests (δυσπλοΐας)? For it is probable that there is in the nature of things, for certain mysterious reasons (ἀποῤῥήτους) which are difficult to be understood by the multitude, such a virtue that one just man, dying a voluntary death for the common good, might be the means of removing wicked spirits (ἀποτροπιασμοὺς ἐμποιεῖν φαύλων δαιμονίων), which are the cause of plagues (ἐνεργούντων λοιμοὺς), or barrenness, or tempests, or similar calamities. Let those, therefore, who would disbelieve the statement that Jesus died on the cross on behalf of men, say whether they also refuse to accept the many accounts current both among Greeks and Barbarians, of persons who have laid down their lives for the public advantage, in order to remove those evils which had fallen upon cities and countries? (1.31)

[Lev]

Thanks for this. I'll need to read Contra Celsus to be sure, but it looks like the objection being made by the Jew is that the Messiah was predicted to be a mighty warrior:

the prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies

And the ὄλεθρον spoken of here is not pestilence, but the alternative meaning "ruin, destruction, death, bane" - that is, the death of Jesus. So the objection here would be why would the predicted mighty warrior of Israel die at the hands of Israel's enemies? If that meaning is followed, then the proceeding passage aligns more naturally with Christian thought:

For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any argument to prove that a death converts men from the practice of evil to a life which is according to nature, and distinguished by temperance and other virtues.

The second extract you provide is much more promising in my view - and yes, if the Jew in question had read GHeb, he may very well have supposed Jesus witnessed famine conditions.

[StephenGoranson]

*If* it is about famine, and if you wish to check a different famine question, maybe see
David Flusser, "Qumran and the Famine During the Reign of Herod," Israel Museum Journal 6 (1987) 7-16-- 25-24 bce proposed.
Others--Amussin? and Tal Ilan? iirc--thought spring 65 bce was more relevant.

[Secret Alias]

I also want to note that even though the statements appear in two different sections of Against Celsus (Book 1 and Book 2) there is some verbal agreement between what Origen says in Book 1 and what Origen records Celsus as saying in Book 2. In Book 2 Origen cites Celsus:

Our present object, however, is to expose the ignorance of Celsus, who makes this Jew of his address his fellow-citizen and the Israelitish converts in the following manner: What induced you to abandon the law of your fathers? etc. Now, how should they have abandoned the law of their fathers, who are in the habit of rebuking those who do not listen to its commands, saying, Tell me, you who read the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; and so on, down to the place, which things are an allegory, etc.? And how have they abandoned the law of their fathers, who are ever speaking of the usages of their fathers in such words as these: Or does not the law say these things also? For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the grain. Does God care for oxen? Or says He it altogether for our sakes? For for our sakes it was written, and so on? Now, how confused is the reasoning of the Jew in regard to these matters (although he had it in his power to speak with greater effect) when he says: Certain among you have abandoned the usages of our fathers under a pretence of explanations and allegories; and some of you, although, as you pretend, interpreting them in a spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the customs of our fathers; and some of you, without any such interpretation, are willing to accept Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses according to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind of the Spirit. Now how was Celsus able to see these things so clearly in this place, when in the subsequent parts of his work he makes mention of certain godless heresies altogether alien from the doctrine of Jesus, and even of others which leave the Creator out of account altogether, and does not appear to know that there are Israelites who are converts to Christianity, and who have not abandoned the law of their fathers? It was not his object to investigate everything here in the spirit of truth, and to accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he composed these statements in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire to overthrow everything as soon as he heard it. The Jew, then, continues his address to converts from his own nation thus: Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with punishment the man who deluded you, you became apostates from the law of your fathers (ὅτι χθὲς καὶ πρώην καὶ ὁπηνίκα τοῦτον ἐκολάζομεν βουκολοῦντα ὑμᾶς, ἀπέστητε τοῦ πατρίου νόμου, οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς εἰδὼς ἐν οἷς ἔλεγεν, ὡς ἐδείξαμεν); showing by such statements (as we have just demonstrated) anything but an exact knowledge of the truth. But what he advances afterwards seems to have some force, when he says: How is it that you take the beginning of your system from our worship, and when you have made some progress you treat it with disrespect, although you have no other foundation to show for your doctrines than our law?

Celsus says there are Jews and non-Jews. Note Origen's statement in Book One again:

For did not the disciples of Jesus see, when they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their prophetic Scriptures that this is He who was spoken of by the prophets, but also to the other heathen nations, that He who was crucified yesterday or the day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of the human race,--that this was analogous to the case of those who have died for their country in order to remove pestilence (ἐπὶ τῷ σβέσαι λοιμικὰ), or barrenness (ἀφορίας), or tempests (δυσπλοΐας)? For it is probable that there is in the nature of things, for certain mysterious reasons (ἀποῤῥήτους) which are difficult to be understood by the multitude, such a virtue that one just man, dying a voluntary death for the common good, might be the means of removing wicked spirits (ἀποτροπιασμοὺς ἐμποιεῖν φαύλων δαιμονίων), which are the cause of plagues (ἐνεργούντων λοιμοὺς), or barrenness, or tempests, or similar calamities.

Celsus's original statement:

ὅτι χθὲς καὶ πρώην καὶ ὁπηνίκα τοῦτον ἐκολάζομεν βουκολοῦντα ὑμᾶς, ἀπέστητε τοῦ πατρίου νόμου, οὐδὲν ἀκριβὲς εἰδὼς ἐν οἷς ἔλεγεν, ὡς ἐδείξαμεν

Origen's loose paraphrase:

ὅτι ὁ χθὲς καὶ πρώην σταυρωθεὶς ἑκὼν τοῦτον τὸν θάνατον ὑπὲρ τοῦ γένους τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀνεδέξατο, ἀνάλογον τοῖς ἀποθανοῦσιν ὑπὲρ τῶν πατρίδων ἐπὶ τῷ σβέσαι λοιμικὰ κρατήσαντα καταστήματα ἢ ἀφορίας ἢ δυσπλοΐας

I also find the use of the term βουκολοῦντα to describe Jesus is likely indicative of the time the treatise was written i.e. 170 CE connecting Jesus to the Alexandrian rebels, the Bucolici, from the "Cow Pasture" who Avidius put down c. 175 CE. Many scholars have suspicions the group were Christians.

At the end of Book 2 there is another reference from Origen worth citing:

The conclusion of all these arguments regarding Jesus is thus stated by the Jew: He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the truth itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be. I do not know, however, whether a man who had the courage to spread throughout the entire world his doctrine of religious worship and teaching, could accomplish what he wished without the divine assistance, and could rise superior to all who withstood the progress of his doctrine — kings and rulers, and the Roman senate, and governors in all places, and the common people. And how could the nature of a man possessed of no inherent excellence convert so vast a multitude? For it would not be wonderful if it were only the wise who were so convened; but it is the most irrational of men, and those devoted to their passions, and who, by reason of their irrationality, change with the greater difficulty so as to adopt a more temperate course of life. And yet it is because Christ was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father that He accomplished, and still accomplishes, such results, although neither the Jews nor Greeks who disbelieve His word will so admit. And therefore we shall not cease to believe in God, according to the precepts of Jesus Christ, and to seek to convert those who are blind on the subject of religion, although it is they who are truly blind themselves that charge us with blindness: and they, whether Jews or Greeks, who lead astray those that follow them, accuse us of seducing men — a good seduction, truly!— that they may become temperate instead of dissolute [κἂν οἱ ἀληθῶς τυφλώτ τοντες λοιδορῶνται ἡμῖν ὡς τυφλώττουσι καὶ οἱ βουκολοῦντες, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες, τοὺς συγκατατιθεμένους αὐτοῖς ἡμῖν ἐγκαλῶσιν ὡς βουκολοῦσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· καλήν γε βουκόλησιν] or at least may make advances to temperance; may become just instead of unjust, or at least may tend to become so; prudent instead of foolish, or be on the way to become such; and instead of cowardice, meanness, and timidity, may exhibit the virtues of fortitude and courage, especially displayed in the struggles undergone for the sake of their religion towards God, the Creator of all things. Jesus Christ therefore came announced beforehand, not by one prophet, but by all; and it was a proof of the ignorance of Celsus, to represent a Jew as saying that one prophet only had predicted the advent of Christ. But as this Jew of Celsus, after being thus introduced, asserting that these things were indeed in conformity with his own law, has somewhere here ended his discourse, with a mention of other matters not worthy of remembrance, I too shall here terminate this second book of my answer to his treatise. But if God permit, and the power of Christ abide in my soul, I shall endeavour in the third book to deal with the subsequent statements of Celsus.

For this discovery alone it was worth participating in this thread. Thank you.