should probably conclude that in this instance the “Western” reading, supported by transcriptional probability, must outweigh the evidence of even the great uncials, and that what St. Luke wrote was “with Mary his wife”. If this view is sound, the verse in itself is not necessarily inconsistent with the Virgin Birth, since it may reasonably be urged that it carries us no further than Mt. i. 24, where the marriage is implied.(34) If this fact is put forward in a narrative which expressly teaches the Virgin Birth, it could be so here. The phrase “with Mary his wife” is certainly congruous with the view that the doctrine is a later element in the Third Gospel, but it would be improper to employ it in support of that view. (The case is like those of ii. 48, iv. 22.) But even if we must leave the question open, at any rate we have no longer to reckon with the words, “with Mary, who was betrothed to him”. There is nothing, therefore, in the verse which is in conflict with the view that St. Luke had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth when he first wrote his Gospel. Before leaving this part of the subject it may be well to recall the nature of the argument. The several points treated are not regarded as contentions which inexorably demand a certain conclusion, but as distinct difficulties, greater or less, which arise, on the view that St. Luke knew of the Virgin Birth from the first. We may fairly say that the facts examined thus far would be best satisfied by considering the Virgin Birth as a later element in the Gospel; but, until we have investigated the important passage Lk. i. 34 f., it would be precarious to say more. II. The Passage Lk. i. 34 f In the Revised Version Lk. i. 34f. reads as follows: “_And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: wherefore also that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God._” As regards the last clause, the margin gives the alternative rendering: “the holy thing which is to be born shall be called the Son of God”. The difference rests upon a question of punctuation in the Greek, and does not affect our immediate problem. Our purpose in this section is to inquire how far the view, which is widely held, that Lk. i. 34 f. is a later insertion is justified. But two important questions must detain us first. (_a_) Is the assumption we have made thus far, that Lk. i. 34 f. implies the Virgin Birth, tenable? What is the true interpretation of the passage? (_b_) What is the purport of the angelic announcement in Lk. i. 30‐3? Is Dr. Plummer’s language justified, when, in reference to this message, he speaks of “the strange declaration that she [Mary] is to have a son before she is married” (op. cit., p. 24)? Is there any suggestion of a virgin birth? (a) The Interpretation of Lk. i. 34 f