Attention has frequently been called to the inability of those who reject the Virgin Birth to agree upon an alternative theory. The failure is patent. Harnack and Lobstein, on the one side, plead for a Jewish‐ Christian origin for the doctrine, in which the influence of Isa. vii. 14 played a decisive part; on the other side, Soltau, Schmiedel, Usener, and others, trace the tradition to the effect of non‐Christian myths. Not only so; the advocates of each theory specifically reject the other. Lobstein, for example, thinks that “it would be rash to see direct imitations or positive influences” in the analogies “between the Biblical myth and legends of Greek or Eastern origin”. While there was mutual action between the worship or doctrine of paganism and advancing Christianity, “nothing warrants historical criticism in considering the tradition of the miraculous birth of Christ as merely the outcome of elements foreign to the religion of Biblical revelation” (_The Virgin Birth of Christ_, p. 76). Schmiedel, on the other hand, rejects the Jewish‐Christian origin of the tradition, “Nor would Isa. vii. 14 have been sufficient to account for the origin of such a doctrine unless the doctrine had commended itself on its own merits. The passage was adduced only as an afterthought, in confirmation.... Thus the origin of the idea of a virgin birth is to be sought in Gentile‐Christian circles” (EB., col. 2963 f.).(106) It is not strange, perhaps, that some writers have pressed these contradictions into the service of Apologetics. Thus, for example, Dr. Orr does not scruple to say: “As in the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrim, ‘neither so did their witness agree together’ ” (op. cit., p. 152). He even presents the remarkable argument that Dr. Cheyne’s theory “gives the death‐stroke to all the theories that have gone before it”, and yet is itself “absolutely baseless” (ib., p. 178). Sweet’s argument is more cautiously introduced. He recognizes that the contention has its limits. He instances Bossuet’s argument against the Reformation drawn from the Variations of Protestantism and G. H. Lewes’s inference from the History of Philosophy that philosophy is impossible (op. cit., p. 299). But, having said this, Sweet argues that the critics agree in nothing “save dislike and depreciation of the documents”, and that “their theories are mutually destructive”. It appears to us that this line of argument is open to serious objection; it is unfair, and it is unwise.