SH. Sanday and Headlam’s Commentary on _The Epistle to the Romans_ (ICC., 1895). Th‐Gr. Thayer‐Grimm’s _Greek‐English Lexicon of the New Testament_ (1905). VGT. Moulton and Milligan’s _The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament_, Parts I to III (1914‐18). CHAPTER I. THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND THE NEW TESTAMENT OUTSIDE THE FIRST AND THIRD GOSPELS Outside the First and Third Gospels there is no direct reference to the Virgin Birth in the New Testament. There are passages which have been said to imply a knowledge of the doctrine, but, for particularity of statement, none of them can be compared with Mt. i. 18‐25 and Lk. i. 34 f. This fact must be our justification in the present chapter for treating together the New Testament Books outside these two Gospels. The inquiry is mainly a study in silence; it is for that reason both difficult and complicated. Dr. Sanday has expressed considerable distrust in the argument from silence (cf. _The Criticism, of the Fourth Gospel_, pp. 33‐41). He quotes a striking passage from Dr. Drummond’s _Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (p. 157 f.), in which reference is made to Theophilus of Antioch, who, in a defence of Christianity, relates nothing about Christ Himself, and maintains a remarkable silence concerning the Gospels. The quotation ends with the words: “We may learn from these curious facts that it is not correct to say that a writer knows nothing of certain things, simply because he had not occasion to refer to them in his only extant writing: or even because he does not mention them when his subject would seem naturally to lead him to do so.” Dr. Sanday has two main objections to the way in which the argument from silence is often handled. “(1) The critic does not ask himself _what_ is silent—what extent of material.... And (2) experience shows that the argument is often most fallacious” (op. cit., p. 35). Nothing can be lost in considering this opinion at the outset of our inquiry. In the connexion in which it is urged, it has very great justification. Dr. Sanday is referring to the paucity of references to the Gospels in the second century previous to 170 A.D. The real question is, he says, “What is the relation which the extant evidence bears to the whole body of that which once existed, and how far can we trust the inferences drawn from it?” The available literature is confessedly small. “If we take the whole extant Christian literature between the years 130 and 170 A.D., it would not fill more than a thin octavo volume, and by far the greater part of that is taken up with external controversy” (ib., p. 39). The caution suggested by these words is distinctly healthy. It may be questioned, however, whether Dr. Sanday’s point of view would apply quite so well as regards the alleged silence of so many New Testament Books with reference to the Virgin Birth. There are good reasons for this opinion.