64 As in all these enumerations. See note on p. 58. 65 Cf. Th‐Gr., p. 152 a, and for papyri, &c., Moulton and Milligan, op. cit., p. 163 b. 66 Sir John C. Hawkins’s record of πρός (used of speaking to) is as follows (HS., 2nd Ed., p. 21): Mt. 0, Mk. 5, Lk. 99, Ac. 52, Paul 2, Jn. 19, rest of NT. 4. Thus for the Lukan writings the percentage is 83.4. 67 Moffatt’s remark (“The style of 34‐5 is fairly Lucan, though διό occurs only once in the third gospel and ἐπεί never”, INT., 269) is surely an understatement. As we have seen διό occurs eight times in Acts. 68 See, however, p. 57 n. 69 A good illustration of this point is found in the spurious ending to St. Mark’s Gospel. As Prof. E. P. Gould shows (ICC., St. Mk., pp. 301‐4) out of 163 words 19 (or more than 11 per cent.) are not found elsewhere in the Gospel. They include such words as ἐκεῖνος (5 times), πορεύομαι (3 times), θεάομαι (twice). There are also two unfamiliar expressions: τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ γενομένοις (verse 10) and μετα (δὲ) ταῦτα. 70 If we could accept the view that “seeing I know not a man” in verse 34 is St. Luke’s only insertion, and that he wrote verse 35 from the first without thought of the Virgin Birth, his point of view would then be somewhat different. On this theory his thought would be that while born of Joseph and Mary the promised child was none the less supernaturally conceived. See p. 69 f. 71 See later pp. 78‐84. 72 Cf. V. H. Stanton (GHD., ii, p. 226 f.). 73 As regards the remaining details of Zimmermann’s hypothesis, none of them is really necessary to our theory. We believe that what St. Luke actually wrote in ii. 5 was “with Mary his wife” (see pp. 32 ff.). But his new information did not compel him to alter this to “with Mary who was betrothed to him”, though later readers thought the change was necessary. Nor was it required to alter i. 27. Even in the original narrative (i.e. on our theory, before i. 34 f. was added) the passage may have read as we have it now, the prophecy being regarded as uttered previous to marriage. There is no real need to regard “to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph” as an interpolation in the interests of the Virgin Birth, either (with Harnack) on the part of a redactor, or (with Zimmermann) on the part of St. Luke himself. 74 Cf. _Ox. Studies in the Syn. Prob._, pp. 417, 420, where the Rev. N. P. Williams, M.A., suggests that certain passages in Mk. may be later insertions, made “possibly by St. Mark himself”.