Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-24-2005, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

How so?

IF Luke is independent of Matthew then the Virgin Birth goes back to some common source or tradition used by both Matthew and Luke.

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard · 04-24-2005, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IF Luke is independent of Matthew then the Virgin Birth goes back to some common source or tradition used by both Matthew and Luke.

Andrew Criddle

I don't follow this. Why couldn't the Virgin Birth myth have been an interpolation in the very last copy of Matthew that we have now available. I believe that would be a 4th century document. And if not the last copy, why not an earlier one?

andrewcriddle · 04-24-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

I don't follow this. Why couldn't the Virgin Birth myth have been an interpolation in the very last copy of Matthew that we have now available. I believe that would be a 4th century document. And if not the last copy, why not an earlier one?

Matthew's account of the Virgin Birth was paraphrased, quoted, translated etc from early times.

The earliest reference is probably Ignatius of Antioch 'To the Ephesians' probably c 117 CE.

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard · 04-24-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The earliest reference is probably Ignatius of Antioch 'To the Ephesians' probably c 117 CE.

Could you let me know where to look for this? I've depended on the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I know is not official) and they list nothing earlier than Eusebius and his near contemporaries. No mention there of Ignatius.

Thanks,

andrewcriddle · 04-24-2005, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Could you let me know where to look for this? I've depended on the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I know is not official) and they list nothing earlier than Eusebius and his near contemporaries. No mention there of Ignatius.

Thanks,

Ignatius-Ephesians

Quote:

Let my spirit be counted as nothing for the sake of the cross, which is a stumbling-block to those that do not believe, but to us salvation and life eternal. "Where is the wise man? where the disputer?" Where is the boasting of those who are styled prudent? For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Now the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world, as was also her offspring, and the death of the Lord; three mysteries of renown, which were wrought in silence by God. How, then, was He manifested to the world? A star shone forth in heaven above all the other stars, the light of Which was inexpressible, while its novelty struck men with astonishment. And all the rest of the stars, with the sun and moon, formed a chorus to this star, and its light was exceedingly great above them all. And there was agitation felt as to whence this new spectacle came, so unlike to everything else [in the heavens]. Hence every kind of magic was destroyed, and every bond of wickedness disappeared; ignorance was removed, and the old kingdom abolished, God Himself being manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life. And now that took a beginning which had been prepared by God. Henceforth all things were in a state of tumult, because He meditated the abolition of death.

This is an allusion to the Matthean account of the Virgin Birth not a quotation. (Some scholars regrd this passage and Matthew as based on a common source but this is IMO unlikely. )

Andrew Criddle

John A. Broussard · 04-24-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This is an allusion to the Matthean account of the Virgin Birth not a quotation. (Some scholars regrd this passage and Matthew as based on a common source but this is IMO unlikely. )

Unfortunately, this is from Eusebius. I'm back to the 4th century again. Can you give me a source of extant documents prior to the 4th century which deal with the Virgin Birth?

Thanks again. I appreciate your help.

andrewcriddle · 04-24-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Unfortunately, this is from Eusebius. I'm back to the 4th century again. Can you give me a source of extant documents prior to the 4th century which deal with the Virgin Birth?

Thanks again. I appreciate your help.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the quote from Ignatius is from Eusebius. Please could you explain ?

If you are asking for physical documents from before the fourth century referring to Matthew's account of the Virgin Birth then the only such document is Papyrus 1 (P1) from the 3rd (third) century CE which is a fragment containing Matthew 1:1-9, 12, 14-20, 23.

However various works quoting, referring to or translating the Virgin Birth account of Matthew were composed in the 2nd century CE, and although the earliest surviving physical documents containing these works are often rather late it is unlikely that the parallels to the Matthean Virgin Birth in these documents are all or even mostly later interpolations by copyists.

Andrew Criddle

Toto · 04-24-2005, 02:54 PM

There is an argument that this letter is a forgery from the 3rd century.

From here (I recognize this source may have its own biases.)

Quote:

We take the view that all 15 of Ignatius's letters are forgeries. The fact that neither Eusebius (300 AD) nor Jerome (495 AD) make reference to the first 8 Ignatian letters (Tarsians, Antiochians, Hero, Philippians, Maria to Ignatius, Mary, 1st. St. John, 2nd St. John, Virgin Mary) makes it likely that they were composed as late as 300-500 AD. It is this reason that all scholars reject these first 8 letters as forgeries. Some scholars, however accept that the "7 Ignatian letters" are genuine. These 7 Ignatian letters are: Polycarp, Ephesians, Magnesians, Philadelphians, Romans, Smyrnaeans, Trallians. We feel these scholars are in error and that even the 7 Ignatian letters are forgeries. . . .

"The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation. We have three different versions of the Ignatian Epistles, but only one of them can be genuine; either the smaller Greek version, or the lately discovered Syriac. In the latter, which contains only three epistles, most of the passages on the episcopate are wanting, indeed; yet the leading features of the institution appear even here" (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4)

"Already, in the infancy of the episcopate, began the second stage of development, that of express emphasis upon its importance. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to represent this stage. Again and again, in his epistles, he urges obedience to the bishop, warns against doing any thing without the bishop, represents the bishop as standing to the congregation as the vicegerent of Christ. At the same time, he regarded each bishop as limited to his own congregation, and recognized no essential distinctions within the episcopal body. Ignatius, however, appears to have been an exception to his age, in the degree of emphasis which he put upon the episcopal dignity. He stands so nearly alone in this respect, that some have been disposed to question the genuineness of the epistles attributed to him. Baur declares it impossible that any writer of so early an age could have uttered such high episcopal notions as appear in the so-called Ignatian Epistles." (Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church, Vol 1, p 147)

Chili · 04-24-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

It's so important, in fact, that virgin birth may not even involve women, as in the case of Athena springing full-armed from Zeus' brow.

You mean that the virgin birth does not involve females, correct? You are right, there is no virgin birth for females but that is not what you are interested in at this time.

The woman here is the 'all' woman and 'not' human wherefore Mary was sinless and perpetual virgin as well. More so, even, Mary was the Immaculate Conception because you can't be sinless with a stained soul. It also means that Mary was not Jewish or she would not be sinless, and so on, and so on. The Virgin birth is a reality, therefore, and it doesn't matter who wrote about it, or wrote about it first.

John A. Broussard · 04-24-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the quote from Ignatius is from Eusebius. Please could you explain ?

My error. I was just referring to the fact that Eusebius seems to be the chief source for information on Ignatius. Now, based on what Toto reports above, it seems as though even that is a weak reed.

The lack of original documents is a serious gap no matter what materials are being studied--secular or religious. So the main difference between us is that you feel we have an authentic copy of significance from the 3rd century. I hold for the 4th.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.