Legal case for the virgin birth (so that ELF will see this)
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 11:23:23 -0600 (00918257003, 4.1.19990205111742.00a2b4d0@pop.truman.edu)
At 11:44 PM 2/4/99 -0500, Achilles wrote:
>On 4 Feb 99, at 22:51, Brian Dean wrote:
>> TOM:
>> The legal/historical method of evidence is a method of formulating
>> proof, not a Clintonian play on definitions. It deals with presenting
>> historical information in a legal fashion and building a case on
>> preponderance of evidence.
>>
>> BRIDEAN
>> In that case, since there is a law student on board, please present
>> your "legal" case for the "virgin birth". I will change the topic so
>> that our resident "legal expert" can see it and judge the relative
>> legal merit of it. Since you have no eyewitnesses though, it seems
>> your "legal" approach is going to fall short.
>>
>> As far as "historical" the only thing you can verify historically is
>> that Christians believed the "virgin" birth from the beginning.
>
>Achilles
>
>I seriously doubt even that can be proven. The earliest mention I can
think of
>would be in the Gospels, which *might* have been written as early as 70 ce.
>
>I seem to recall also reading that Ignatius around the turn of the century
>wrote arguments to *pursuade* other Christians that Mary was the mother of
>Jesus, if that's correct it would good evidence that not all Christians
>believed that at the time. Anyone know the reference I am thinking of, or
>maybe
>a site where I could find it?
>
Ed
That would be his Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 19, vv 1-3; it seems
more anti-docetic than persuasive, though. That is, it's more about the
nature of the virgin birth than arguing it as a historical fact.
However, I'd have to disagree with Brian that it was believed "from the
beginning" because there's no hint of such nonsense in Q or Mark. Also,
John omits it entirely and certainly if John had known or believed such a
legend he'd have included it, because his is the most mythic of the gospels.