Despite the tradition common to Matthew and Luke, nothing compels us to suppose that the Holy Spirit was a progenerative agent for Jesus' conception in the earliest form of the birth narratives. This is reflected in the earliest formal mentions of Jesus' birth, which were made by Paul in his letters to the Galatians and Romans. . . . Instead of being related to the birth, the Spirit is associated with the claim that Jesus was resurrected after his death; whereas Jesus' birth betrayed an ancestry that "according to the flesh" goes back to David, his status as Son of God is linked to the resurrection event in which the Spirit of holiness functioned as the divine agent.
~Loren Stuckenbruck (The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts)
So we can ignore Matt and Luke, including Luke 1:35? Is that really what he's saying?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so, Steve. I believe that Loren is writing that the association between Jesus' birth and the Spirit is only found in later texts like Matthew and Luke.
DeleteSure looks like that is what he is saying. It is the natural reading of his words above otherwise, what is the point of the statement? I will have to read the book now to see if that is what he actually means. The above achieved its goal😎
DeleteTim