If the Virgin Birth is a later element in the Third Gospel introduced by St. Luke himself, the Evangelist’s revision of cc. i, ii might reasonably have been expected to be much more thorough than it is. Why, for example, does he leave untouched the references to Joseph and Mary as “the parents” of Jesus? Why does he not qualify his ambiguous reference to “their” purification? Why is he still untroubled by their astonishment, and by their failure to understand the words of Jesus at Jerusalem? Why does he not insert some clearer reference to the Davidic descent of Mary, or at least give us reason to believe that he looked upon Jesus as the adopted, and therefore legal, son of Joseph? Why does he leave the Sonship mentioned in the first part of the angel’s speech (i. 31‐3) apparently of a purely Messianic character? Why does he not provide occasion in the Annunciation for the terms of Mary’s question in i. 34? In short, are we not back again face to face with the same difficulties with which our investigation opened? These are some of the difficulties which our theory raises. In reply to this objection there are two preliminary considerations to be borne in mind. They are not arguments in the sense of things which can be proved; they are rather possibilities which ought seriously to be taken into account. (1) In the first place it should be recognized that _we may not have all the details of St. Luke’s actual reconstruction before us_. Something may have been altered or excised; we have the result; we may not have all the stages. Usener (EB., col. 3350) has asserted that statements of fact have actually been omitted from the original narrative; he is even able to tell us what they are! He thinks that we can “infer with certainty” that in the original form of the narrative after i. 38 stood the further statement that Mary was then taken to wife by Joseph and that she conceived by him. Usener suggests that this statement was “judged inadmissible” by the redactor who interpolated i. 34 f., and that in consequence it was expunged. There can be little doubt that reasoning such as this requires omniscience as well as intuition! And the same criticism would be just in reply to any one who should elect to tell us exactly what St. Luke himself has altered or omitted. These are things which we do not know, and which we cannot know; we cannot even “infer with certainty” that St. Luke has omitted anything at all. But the broad possibility that he may have effected transformations and modifications in cc. i, ii, which we cannot now trace, is quite another matter, and, indeed, is by no means improbable. And if this is so, must it not affect the judgement we pass upon the skill or lack of skill which, on the theory proposed, St. Luke has shown? We may not know all. Obviously, we cannot prove this, but it is a consideration which we ought to have in mind.