It is held by writers of the Higher Criticism that the account of the
Virgin Birth was either injected in Luke's narrative, by some later
writer, or else that Luke in his old age adopted this view which was
beginning to gain credence among the converted Christians of pagan
origin, Luke himself being of this class. It is pointed out that as
Paul, who was Luke's close friend and teacher, made no mention of the
Virgin Birth, and taught nothing of the kind, Luke must have acquired
the legend later, if, indeed, the narrative was written by him at all
in his Gospel.

It is likewise noted that Luke also gives a genealogy of Jesus, from
Adam, through Abraham, and David, and Joseph. The words in parenthesis
"as was supposed," in Luke 3:23, are supposed to have been inserted in
the text by a later writer, as there would be no sense or reason in
tracing the genealogy of Jesus through a "supposed" father. The verse
in question reads thusly: "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty
years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the
son of Heli," etc. Students, of course, notice that the line of
descent given by Luke differs very materially from that given by
Matthew, showing a lack of knowledge on the part of one or the other
writer.

On the whole, scholars consider it most remarkable that this account
of the Virgin Birth should be given by Luke, who was a most ardent
Pauline student and follower, in view of the fact that Paul ignored
the whole legend, if, indeed, he had ever heard of it. Surely a man
like Paul would have laid great stress upon this wonderful event had
he believed in it, or had it formed a part of the Christian Doctrine
of his time. That Luke should have written this account is a great