mystery--and many feel that it is much easier to accept the theory of
the later interpolation of the story into Luke's Gospel, particularly
in view of the corroborative indications.

Summing up the views of the Higher Criticism, we may say that the
general position taken by the opponents and deniers of the Virgin
Birth of Jesus is about as follows:

1. The story of the Virgin Birth is found only in the
introductory portion of two of the four Gospels--Matthew and
Luke--and even in these the story bears the appearance of
having been "fitted in" by later writers.

2. Even Matthew and Luke are silent about the matter after
the statements in the introductory part of their Gospels,
which could scarcely occur had the story been written by and
believed in by the writers, such action on their part being
contrary to human custom and probability.

3. The Gospels of Mark and John are absolutely silent on the
subject; the oldest of the Gospels--that of Mark--bears no
trace of the legend; and the latest Gospel--that of
John--being equally free from its mention.

4. The rest of the New Testament breathes not a word of the
story or doctrine. _The Book of Acts, generally accepted as
having also been written by Luke, ignores the subject
completely_. Paul, the teacher of Luke, and the great writer
of the Early Church, seems to know nothing whatever about
the Virgin Birth, or else purposely ignores it entirely, the