CAN WE THEN BELIEVE ?
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sin,—With reference to " A Plain Man's " letter in your issue of August 28th, I should like to point out that St. Luke's language does not necessarily imply the Virgin Birth of Our Lord. Luke i. 85 may mean no more than that the union of Joseph and Mary should be so hallowed by the Holy Ghost that that holy thing which should be born of Mary should be called the Son of God. St. Luke in the following chapters calls Joseph and Mary " the parents " of Jesus. St. Matthew's gospel, as we have it, is undoubtedly a com- pilation. It seems probable that a record of the parables and speeches of Our Lord recorded by St. Matthew was incor- porated with material drawn from St. Mark and other sources. We are quite in ignorance of the source of the first two chapters which contain the only definite statement in Holy Scripture of the Virgin birth of Our Lord.—I am, Sir, &c., DECANUS.
Previous page
