The birth by woman only in Aristides precedes Marcion

[Giuseppe]

Talking about Aristides's distinction of three 'races' (Christians, Jews and Barbarians) under Hadrian's hard anti-Jewish policy (prohibition of Jews's presence in Aelia Capitolina, ban of circumcision, etc), prof Vinzent makes a good remark:

Jesus' birth by a Jewish virgin is their only tie to the Jews.

(Resetting..., p. 331)

Isn't it the simplest solution for the introduction of a "birth from woman" (under the assumption that this "birth from woman" was mentioned before Marcion)?

In a world where:

• Romans are against the Jews (see Hadrian);

• Anti-demiurgists there out are increasing in number (see Marcion);

• Jewish rebels as Bar-Kokhba persecute Christians

...the "birth from woman" is introduced to minimize to very minimal terms the Jewish origin of the cult, out of embarrassment before Hadrianic anti-judaism.

Something as:

• To be Jews is more and more embarrassing.

• Therefore the Judaic origins are minimized by reducing them to the mere, abstract "birth by woman".

(Obviously in the hypothesis that the sect had really Jewish origins. Under the mlinssen's scenario of an original Chrestianity, the thing is not more true).

It is curious that even the Jewishness of the woman is embarrassing:

• In the Pauline interpolation of Galatians 4:4, the Jewishness of the woman is not mentioned, but implicit in virtue of "born under the Law";

• In Aristides, the woman is said to be Jewish, but her first attribute is to be a "virgin": how if her virginity should mask the embarassing fact that the woman in question is a Jewish woman.

Hence Galatians 4:4 "born by woman, born under the law" is really a post-Hadrianic interpolation (unless all Galatians is a forgery), since only under Hadrian a Christian writer would have interest to reveal only criptically and allusively (for fear of the authority) that Jesus was a Jew (i.e. that the Origins of the sect were Jewish).

[Giuseppe]

The expression "born by woman", or "born by a Jewish virgin", remembers very much closely the evasive way a person alludes to his ethnic origin, in a context where he/she is embarrassed to mention them explicitly.

Marcion resolved the problem at the root. The descent from heaven had to be on the earth, not more in lower heavens, since in whiletime a birth from woman has been introduced, and a such birth had to be denied by a descent of Jesus from heaven already adult.

In technical terms, Aristides euhemerized Jesus the first time, by adding the abstract "birth by woman".

[Giuseppe]

This reveals also why the hypothesis of a Jesus allegory of an ideal Israel is not very persuasive: if Jesus was really allegory of an ideal Israel, then the Christians as Aristides would have no reason at all of being seriously embarrassed for their Jewish origins (until to the point of reducing their Jewish origins to the mere, abstract mention of a "birth by woman" for Jesus).

[Giuseppe]

I am not denying that in anti-Marcionite gospels a particular Jewish pride is in action (see Matthew), but a such pride was provoked indirectly by the Marcionite invasion (just as the NATO gains new life thanks to Putin's invasion of Ukraine) and was not original to the cult: already before Marcion we see in Aristides the exact opposite of a Jewish pride, i.e. a serious embarrassment for the Jewish origins of the cult.

[Leucius Charinus]

In a world where:

• Jewish rebels as Bar-Kokhba persecute Christians

What is the source for this persecution of Christians? Eusebius?

[Giuseppe]

In a world where:

• Jewish rebels as Bar-Kokhba persecute Christians

What is the source for this persecution of Christians? Eusebius?

Justin. Prof Vinzent thinks so. At any case, the emphasis is rightly on the Second Jewish Revolt (135 CE).

[Leucius Charinus]

In a world where:

• Jewish rebels as Bar-Kokhba persecute Christians

What is the source for this persecution of Christians? Eusebius?

Justin.

That's a real worry. There are numerous recognised forgeries attached to his 1st Apology.

* Epistle of Adrian on behalf of the Christians
* Epistle of Antoninus to the common assembly of Asia
* Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the senate, in which he testifies that the Christians were the cause of his victory
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Prof Vinzent thinks so.

He may think so. Others have their doubts:

Did Bar Kochba torture and murder Christians?
viewtopic.php?t=3019

At any case, the emphasis is rightly on the Second Jewish Revolt (135 CE).

Did such an identifiable entity as a Christian exist in 135 CE?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3022

[Giuseppe]

Did such an identifiable entity as a Christian exist in 135 CE?

Aristides talks already about Christians as a 'race' opposed to Barbarians and Jews.

[rgprice]

I don't believe teh dating of Aristides's work is accurate, nor that what we have is a unity. What comes down to us is a very problematic and untrustworthy text.

[MrMacSon]

I don't believe the dating of Aristides's work is accurate, nor that what we have is a unity. What comes down to us is a very problematic and untrustworthy text.

• Markus Vinzent says the same in his 2019 book, Writing the History of Early Christianity: From Reception to Retrospection, chapter 4
  See viewtopic.php?p=149175#p149175