In the two remaining stories, that of the meeting with Simeon, and that of the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem, there is a common element which provokes reflection in _the surprise of Joseph and Mary_. In reference to the prophecy of Simeon concerning Jesus, we are told that they “_were marvelling at_” the things that were said (ii. 33). We can readily account for this remark, if St. Luke had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth at the time of writing, for the prophecy of Simeon transcends that of the angelic announcement of i. 31‐3. Whereas the latter does not leave the soil of Israel, the former speaks of a revelation to the Gentiles. We could say, then, that the wider scope of the prophecy of Simeon provides room for wonder. But can we say this if St. Luke believed Mary to have received the announcement of a virgin birth, which, moreover, had been fulfilled? Would he have thought any prophecy called for wonder after such facts as these? The same difficulty arises in the story of the visit to the Temple. After St. Luke has recorded the pregnant words of Jesus, “Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?”, he writes: “_And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them_” (ii. 50). If, in this case, as distinguished from ii. 33, the Evangelist had said that they marvelled, the difficulty would be less great. It might then have been argued that, inasmuch as the facts of His birth had not been made known to the boy Jesus, there was room for wonder that already He should have attained to such a consciousness of filial relationship to God. But to say that they did not understand His words is an astonishing statement on the part of a writer who believes the Virgin Birth. On the other hand, it is a perfectly natural remark, if we can presume the Evangelist to have written in the absence of such a belief.(31) Speaking of the narratives of Lk. ii, as a whole, we may say that, apart from the references to “the parents”, which remain to be considered, distinct difficulties are raised if we must believe that St. Luke knew of the Virgin Birth at the time when he first wrote the chapter, and that greater justice can be done to the narratives if we can presume him to have written them without that knowledge. How far this view is supported by the five passages which speak of Joseph and Mary, we have now to consider. (d) The References to Joseph and Mary in Lk. ii These passages are as follows: ii. 27, “_the parents_”; ii. 41 and 43, “_his parents_”; ii. 33, “_his father and his mother_”; and ii. 48, “_thy father and I_”. The point to be considered is whether we can suppose St. Luke to have known of the Virgin Birth at the time when he used these expressions.