31 In this connexion it should be observed that the same note of wonder appears in ii. 18 in the case of all those who hear the shepherds’ words. But according to the terms of ii. 17, what _they_ are told is the angelic message of ii. 10‐12, in which the Virgin Birth is not mentioned. The presumption is that ii. 33 stands upon the same plane. 32 So among others Schmiedel, Usener, Häcker, and Blass, who writes (op. cit., p. 171 n.): “ ‘The espoused wife’ of the ordinary text is a very clear corruption, due to an assimilation to i. 27 (where the case is quite different) and to dogmatic prejudices ...” “That we have here a case of real contamination is seen very plainly in the old Freising MS., in which the ancient variants τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ and τῇ ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ still stand together in immediate juxtaposition” (Usener, EB., col. 3350). 33 On the agreement of the Old Syriac and Old Latin against the great uncials, cf. Kirsopp Lake (_The Text of the NT._, p. 90 f.), “Perhaps the general result is to make it probable that W. H. (largely from lack of evidence) underestimated the possibility that a consensus of the Old Latin and Old Syriac may give us a really primitive text even when opposed to the great uncials”. To similar effect Burkitt writes, “It is, however, in the direction here indicated—viz., the preservation of the true text in a considerable number of cases by ‘Western’ documents alone—that criticism may ultimately be able to advance beyond the point reached by Hort” (EB., col. 4990 f.). “I am unable to assume that the edition of Westcott and Hort gives us a final text in either Gospel [Mt. and Mk.]. In particular, I am inclined to believe that the second century readings, attested by the ecclesiastical writers of that century, and by the Syriac and Latin versions, are often deserving of preference” (W. C. Allen, ICC., St Mt., p. lxxxvii). 34 “And Joseph ... took unto him his wife.” 35 While we are unable to acquiesce in Schmiedel’s view that “Mary takes the words of the angel as referring to a fulfilment in the way of nature”, we may fairly say that, if the passage Lk. i. 30‐8 is a unity, Mary ought to have been represented as taking the angel’s words in this way, and that this would be the plain natural sense in which to take them. 36 The claim, therefore, that the suggested translation is supported by the words “with haste” in verse 39 (Box) cannot be sustained. Moreover, these words are easily satisfied on the usual view of a promised conception. See further an article by the present writer in the _Expository Times_ (May, 1919), _Is the Lukan Narrative of the Birth of Christ a Prophecy?_ In l. 16 in the second column read: “It could _not_ be anything else”.