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 Chr
estianity, 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).