But can we believe that the linguistic features of Lk. i. 34 f. have been _purposely_ introduced? Such a question is its own answer. No one, assuredly, would resort to the desperate expedient of supposing a redactor, who laboriously amasses Lukan characteristics, with the intention of passing off the very phraseology of his insertion as genuine. A modern interpolator might work along these lines, but not an ancient redactor. Interpolations are not forgeries. The thought of consciously reproducing stylistic features in an insertion would probably never have occurred to a redactor of the Gospels.(69) So far then as linguistic considerations go, we must conclude that our unknown interpolator is a mythical personage. We do not forget the difficulty of ἐπεί, but if Lk. i. 34 f. is a non‐Lukan interpolation, we must have more support than this. Warp and woof are Lukan; only a single thread gives cause for hesitation. Must not this hesitation give way when we look at the facts as a whole? Can we strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel? Assuredly on linguistic grounds the most reasonable conclusion we can frame is that _Lk. i. 34 f. comes from the hand of St. Luke himself_. III. Summary and Conclusion We have now to co‐ordinate our results. However strong a linguistic argument may be, there is perhaps always room for the view that it is confirmatory rather than demonstrative. In the present case also, the shortness of the passage can be pleaded. In noticing this objection we urged that the character of the passage is the relevant consideration, and we think Lk. i. 34 f. meets this demand. But we have no need to press the linguistic argument to the extent we ourselves believe to be legitimate, when we find that both this argument and the textual argument point steadily in the same direction. It is this fact, that both arguments converge on the same point, which is the ultimate ground for our conclusion. Short of supplying a rigid demonstration, which should not be sought, it is sufficient to establish for us the Lukan authorship of Lk. i. 34 f. This view carries with it at once the further conclusion that at some time or other St. Luke taught and believed in the Virgin Birth. But before we can rest satisfied with this result, we need to look more closely at _an alternative form of the interpolation‐hypothesis_, to which reference has already been made (p. 36). This is the view of Kattenbusch, Merx, Weinel, and J. M. Thompson (_Miracles in the New Testament_, p. 149).