As regards the Virgin Birth, it is almost certain that Q did not contain the tradition. Harnack thinks that Q’s narrative of the Baptism, with its use of Ps. ii. 7, “excludes all ideas of pre‐existence and miraculous birth” (_Sayings of Jesus_, p. 235), and J. M. Thompson, who quotes this opinion, finds in the Baptist’s question, “Art thou he that cometh?”,(6) a passage which it is “hard to reconcile ... with Lk.’s story of the Birth, as generally interpreted” (_Miracles_, p. 140). What is more important than either of these arguments, is the fact that neither the First nor the Third Evangelist drew a Virgin Birth tradition from Q. The presumption is that Q was silent as regards the Virgin Birth,(7) but in view of the fact that it probably contained only a small element of narrative, we ought not to say more.(8) III. St. Mark’s Gospel In treating ST. MARK’S GOSPEL, our first task is to ask if its silence is complete. This leads at once to a discussion of Mk. vi. 3: “_Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary...?_” Parentage among the Jews was traced on the father’s side. The passage may therefore imply that Joseph was already dead. Archdeacon Allen thinks that “son of Mary” is “more naturally an allusion to the supernatural circumstances of the birth of Jesus” (ICC., St. Mt., p. 156).(9) Without going so far as this, Canon Box thinks that there is something “decidedly remarkable and unusual” in the phrase, and suggests that it is probably contemptuous (op. cit., p. 139). However we explain the phrase, we ought not to interpret Mk. vi. 3 as implying a knowledge of the Virgin Birth on the part of the people of Nazareth. Mt. xiii. 55 and Lk. iv. 22 directly exclude this view.(10) “Who would allude to the miraculous birth of somebody _as a reason for not believing in him_?” (Thompson, ib., p. 138 n.).