(1) In answer to the first question, our view is that _each Gospel, in a different way, is a witness to the same tradition_. Too much has frequently been made of the theory that in Mt. and Lk. we have two independent accounts of the Virgin Birth tradition. It may seriously be questioned if this theory is true. Mt. i. 18‐25 is misunderstood if it is explained as a Virgin Birth tradition. Like the rest of cc. i, ii, its character is Midrashic, and it is written from an apologetic standpoint. It would therefore be much truer to say that it _implies_ the existence of a Virgin Birth tradition as known to the readers of the Gospel. What form that tradition took we are of course unable to say. It is possible that it was similar to the tradition as it appears in Lk. On the other hand, it may be that even in Lk. the form in which the tradition is presented owes something to the Evangelist’s craftsmanship. If this is so, it would seem that the narratives of both writers point back to a simpler tradition or belief, from which, in different ways, they came to assume their present form. What is of chief importance is the view that in both Gospels we have, not so much two independent narratives of the Virgin Birth, as rather two independent witnesses to what originally was one and the same tradition. It cannot escape our notice that, in spite of their obvious differences, Lk. i. 34 f. and Mt. i. 18‐25 contain what is substantially the same statement, a statement which in each passage is central. In Mt. i. 20 we read: “_That which is conceived_ (τὸ ... γεννηθέν) _in her is of the Holy Spirit_”; and in Lk. i. 35, after the reference to the Holy Spirit, we read: “_That which is to be born_ (τὸ γεννώμενον) _shall be called holy, the Son of God_”. There is much to be said for the view that both expressions point back to a common original, to a primitive belief that Jesus was “born of the Holy Spirit” (cf. Harnack, _Date of Acts_, &c., pp. 142 ff.). If then we are unable to accept the view that in Mt. and Lk. we have two independent accounts of the Virgin Birth, we may well ask if the loss is a real one. It is probably nothing of the kind. There was indeed a certain advantage in feeling able to point to two diverse traditions which converged upon one fact. Nevertheless, the argument always had a certain weakness. We had to account for the two different traditions, and the explanation was a theory we could never prove. It may be that St. Luke’s story goes back for its authority to Mary; it is very doubtful if St. “Matthew’s” has any historical connexion with Joseph; but in either case neither assumption is justifiable in an historical inquiry. It must be allowed, we think, that our view has sounder advantages. Instead of claiming validity for two diverse traditions, we can point to two very different narratives, which arise out of the same belief and are independent witnesses to its existence in the primitive Christian community.