from the seventh decade of the first century, or, more probably, from about the year 80 A.D., in which no reference of any kind is made to the Miraculous Conception. This fact, however it is explained, cannot be ignored, and the later we date the Epistle the more important it becomes. VI. The Fourth Gospel The silence of THE FOURTH GOSPEL regarding the Virgin Birth is now generally admitted;(22) the only question being whether there is not a passing reference to the doctrine in Jn. i. 13.(23) What the writer’s silence means is one of the most difficult problems in the question of the Virgin Birth. The case is different from any we have yet considered. For the doctrine of the Virgin Birth must have been perfectly well known to the Fourth Evangelist. He was well acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels,(24) and there can be little doubt but that he read Lk. i, ii, and Mt. i, ii, in the form in which we have them to‐day. That he knew of the tradition is further confirmed by the fact that, so early probably as _c._ 110 A.D., the Epistles of Ignatius contain several references to the doctrine (Eph. xviii. 2; xix. 1; Magn. 11; Tr. ix). The difficulty is further increased by the freedom with which the Evangelist treats the Synoptics. “On the one hand their contents are very largely assumed; and on the other hand the author does not hesitate, where he thinks it necessary, to correct them.... The author evidently felt himself at liberty to select just those incidents which suited his purpose” (Sanday, _The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_, p. 71). As the problem is usually treated, the silence of the Fourth Gospel is said to mean either “tacit rejection” or “tacit acceptance” of the tradition. It may be questioned, however, if these alternatives sufficiently cover the possibilities of the case. “Tacit rejection” under any circumstances means repudiation of the doctrine. But “tacit acceptance” may mean anything from comparative indifference to whole‐ hearted assent. As containing the sharper issue, the case for “tacit rejection” may be considered first. Among the arguments in favour of this view, we may note the following:—