(2) A further fact to be noticed is that _St. Luke’s witness marks a very early stage in the spread of the Virgin Birth tradition_. In this respect there is a contrast between the Third and First Gospels. In the Third Gospel the tradition is stated, but its problems are scarcely felt. There is a foreshadowing of this in the words “as was supposed” in the Genealogy, but not more. St. Luke has not really felt the problem of the Davidic descent. He has not envisaged that very striking treatment of the problem which we shall have occasion to point out in the Matthaean Genealogy (see pp. 89 ff.). St. Luke’s narrative is neither didactic nor apologetic. It is almost, but not quite, a simple narrative of what is implicitly accepted as fact. In making this qualification we are thinking of the artistic form which the earlier narrative embodied in Lk. i, ii has imposed upon St. Luke’s account of the Virgin Birth; but this is a matter which will come up again a little later. The fact that is of outstanding interest is that St. Luke could sit down to write a Gospel, with a desire to trace out all things accurately from the first, and yet know nothing of the Virgin Birth, until after the greater part, if not the whole, of his work was completed. (3) _It is the fact just noted which helps us to date the first appearance of the Virgin Birth tradition; its date is bound up with the question of the date of the Third Gospel._ This is a question which will receive further treatment in our final chapter (pp. 117 ff.). (4) _Our hypothesis postulates an earlier narrative of the Birth of Jesus which knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. The relation of this narrative to the later tradition needs carefully to be considered._