Legal case for the virgin birth (so that ELF will see this)
Ed Tyler etyler@truman.edu
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 13:20:56 -0600 (00918264056, 4.1.19990205131720.00afecc0@pop.truman.edu)
At 01:56 PM 2/5/99 -0500, Achilles wrote:
>On 5 Feb 99, at 11:23, Ed Tyler wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Achilles
>Crea was kind enough to provide three references from Ignatius on this
>subject, which you should have also received by now.
>
>Add to your list above Paul, and most (if not all) of the other Epistle
>writers. Also, I must disagree with your assessment in the case of John. It
>seems far more likely, IMHOP, that the writer of John was familiar with the
>synoptics, and left out the virgin birth story (among other things) not
>from ignorance but from a conscious rejection of them. It is a blatantly
>pagan story, without OT precedence.
>
Ed
I see no evidence that John was at all familiar with the synoptics. There
is in the entire gospel of John only one phrase that can be traced directly
to the synoptics, and that is a bit of proverbial wisdom that was no doubt
circulating independently: "A prophet is without honor in his own
country." Aside from that there are a very few parallels with Q and Mark
but no sign of direct influence.