Having regard to all the facts of the case, the probability is that St. Mark’s silence must be explained on the ground that the Evangelist had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth tradition. The further implication is that it formed no part of Apostolic preaching, and was unknown in the circles in which St. Mark moved. These conclusions cannot, of course, be hardened into certainties; they move in the realms of what is probable. Instead of being capable of refuting other considerations which might arise, they themselves require further confirmation. IV. Acts There is no reference to the Virgin Birth, either direct of indirect, in THE ACTS. The presumption is that the doctrine had no place in Apostolic preaching.(16) This view is suggested, not only by the silence of Acts, but also by the character of its Christology. Christ is spoken of as Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by mighty works and wonders and signs (ii. 22), and as one who was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit, and with power, who went about doing good (x. 38). He is the Holy and Righteous One (iii. 14), the Prince of Life (iii. 15), whom God made both Lord and Christ (ii. 36). He is exalted to the right hand of God, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins (v. 31). In all this, the main ground of appeal is to the Resurrection (ii. 24, 32, iii. 15, iv. 10).(17) The reference to the miracles of Jesus (ii. 22, x. 38) is “the only direct and concrete allusion to the events of His earthly life”.(18) Even where the Davidic descent is mentioned (ii. 25 f., xiii. 23, 33), there is no suggestion other than that of direct physical lineage (“Of this man’s seed hath God according to promise brought unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus”, xiii. 23).