II.

(1) Conybeare's claim, mentioned above, has failed to win general acceptance. It is rejected by Schmiedel,99 who justly asks, “How can we suppose that an evangelist deliberately added the second half to the first?” (col. 2961). Schmiedel's view is that in the passage cited from the Dialogue “it is precisely the youngest text and the oldest which have found a place peaceably side by side in one and the same line”. F. C. Burkitt's theory probably gives the best explanation. He does not think that “And Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ” is meant to be a part of the quotation of Mt. i. 16, but is simply the inference of the Jew. “The Jew quotes the Genealogy and then draws his inference, which is of course repudiated by the Christian disputant” (p. 265). Accepting this view we may leave the supposed quotation outside our discussion. We may note, however, that, according to Burkitt, the second of two other quotations of Mt. i. 16 in the Dialogue is interesting “as affording an actual proof that the phrase ‘husband of Mary’ was liable to change”. (p. 265).

(2) G. H. Box regards the Curetonian Syriac as “an interpretation rather than a translation of the Greek text given us by the ‘Ferrar’ Group” (p. 216). Burkitt thinks it is “like an attempt to rewrite the text of S” (p. 263), but as he derives the Syr.-Sin. from the same Group,100 his opinion leads to the same result. Directly or indirectly Syr.-Cur. is a witness for the text (B). As such its general character in Mt. i, ii needs to be taken into account. In i. 20 it has “thy betrothed” instead of “thy wife”. It omits “her husband” in i. 19. In i. 24 it substitutes “Mary” for “thy wife”. In i. 25 it shares with the Diatessaron the reading “purely dwelling with her”, and it renders ????ese? by “she called”. It is clear that its text is dominated by a desire to assert unmistakably the historic fact of the Virgin Birth.

(3) W. C. Allen takes the Greek text implied in the Syr.-Sin. to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. Burkitt, as we have seen, derives it from (B). For the present it is important to consider the [pg 107]character of the Syr.-Sin. in relation to the Virgin Birth. In i. 21, with the Curetonian, it adds the words, “to thee”. In i. 25 it omits “knew her not until”, and, as in the English versions, it renders ????ese? by the masculine; in the same verse it also has the reading, “she bore him a son”. At first sight it would appear as if the tendency of the MS. is in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth; it is, however, very questionable if this is the case. It is not improbable that “he knew her not until” (omitted also by the Old Lat. k) is an interpolation in the First Gospel. Burkitt thinks that “to thee” in i. 21 appeared in the Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, and that “him” is a “mere stylistic addition” in the Syr.-Sin. When we add that this MS. includes Mt. i. 18-25, and the parenthesis, “to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin”, in Mt. i. 16, it becomes impossible to suppose that its text is of “Ebionite origin”. Nor is it any more likely that it represents “the slip of a scribe”. It is too much of a piece with the entire representation of the MS., of which the most we can say is that it hardens the unique point of view which is characteristic of the Evangelist himself. Whether it represents the original ending of the Genealogy, in a form independent of, and earlier than, the First Gospel, is a point which may be left open, though the view is not one which otherwise finds support from the Genealogy, as it now appears in the Gospel.101 In any case, we ought very probably to reject the view that the Syr.-Sin. in Mt. i. 16 asserts, or implies, the physical paternity of Joseph. It clearly takes ? to “refer to ??????se? as well as ??ste??e?sa” (Burkitt, p. 263), but, having regard to its character as a whole, the strong probability is that it interprets ??????se? in the same sense which it bears throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy, viz. of legal parentage (Allen, p. 8). In this case the scribe who produced the Syr.-Sin. has remained truer to the mind and spirit of the First Evangelist than any other early Christian writer we know. Whether he has preserved the letter is more open to question.

(4) As regards the rendering (B), it is sufficient to say that the “Ferrar” Group and the Old Lat. MSS., while representing a text [pg 108] which differs from (A), agree in affirming the Virgin Birth. Some of them do so with emphasis (e.g. c and b). All of them (except q) contain the word “Virgin”, but, with the exception of c and b, the connexion between ? (cui) and ??ste??e?sa (desponsata) is left ambiguous.

III.

We are left, then, with three readings, for each of which priority may be claimed (those we have indicated by (A) and (B), and that of the Syr.-Sin. (C)). It is highly probable that (C) is derived from (B); but it may be well to leave this an open question, so as to have all the possibilities before us.

(1) Can we, then, explain the textual facts already noticed, if we presume the originality of (A)?

It is certainly remarkable that, after using ??????se? in a legal sense throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy (Moffatt, Burkitt, Westcott, Box, Allen, Barnard, A. J. Maclean), the compiler should desert this practice, and use the verb of physical parentage (??e?????) in the last link of the chain. The compiler, if we may say so, does not strike us as the kind of man who would have felt the need of this. It seems much more likely that, together with some qualifying clause in reference to Mary, he would have continued to employ ??????se? in the same sense to the end. This is conjecture; but (on the present theory) it is a conjecture supported by the procedure of the scribes who have produced (B). Their object (on the present supposition) will have been to remove the ambiguities of (A) in Mt. i. 16, so as to state the doctrine more clearly. We could understand, then, their objection to t?? ??d?a ?a??a?, and the change to ? ??ste??e?sa p. ?. What is less easy to understand is the change from ??e????? to ??????se?. It is true that ?? ?? ??e????? is not without ambiguity, as the comment of the Jew in the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila shows.102 But, if this was a ground of objection, why should the ambiguity be replaced by one that is much greater? As we have seen, the construction of (B) is singularly loose. It is this fact which has clearly invited the modifications represented in the Syr.-Cur. and the Old Lat. MSS., and [pg 109] perhaps the Syr.-Sin. itself. The reading (B) certainly does not commend itself as a doctrinal modification of (A). Further, the priority of (A) does not help us to account for (C). If, as we believe, (C) is derived from (B), it is needless to discuss the point. But apart from that theory of the origin of (C), our conclusion remains the same. We have seen how near in spirit the scribe of the Syr.-Sin. was to the First Evangelist. Can we suppose, then, that he would have demurred to the words, t?? ??d?a ?a??a?? It is very difficult to think so. For these reasons, in spite of its strong attestation, we find it impossible to presume the originality of (A).

(2) We reach a similar conclusion, if we assume (B) to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. Its singular construction does not readily suggest the craftsmanship of the compiler of the Genealogy. It is true that we can give a very good account of (C) on the present assumption. We can adopt Burkitt's suggestion, and regard it as a paraphrase of (B). But can we derive (A) from (B)? It would be reasonable to explain ?? ?? ??e????? as a correction of ??????se? by a believer who failed to understand the Evangelist's point of view, and who desired a clearer reference to the Virgin Birth. But can we imagine a scribe, or an editor, motived in this way, replacing “to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary” by the words “the husband of Mary”? The question answers itself, and forbids the assumption of the priority of (B).

(3) Can we, then, accept Archdeacon Willoughby C. Allen's view, and find the true text in (C)?103 It is quite possible, on this theory, to give a reasonable explanation of (B), but, as in the last case, the difficulty is to account for (A). We can follow the change from ??????se? to ?? ?? ??e?????, but the substitution of t?? ??d?a ?a??a? for the parenthesis found in (C) remains as before an insuperable objection. At the same time Archdeacon Allen has laid down a true and a valuable principle when he writes: “The earliest Greek form was gradually altered from a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the [pg 110] writer they expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be misunderstood by thoughtless readers” (p. 8).

Our results thus far are negative, but they are not barren. We have frankly to admit that no extant reading, as a whole, commends itself as the original text of Mt. i. 16. On the other hand, we can form a reasonably good idea of what that text was like. If we are to make any further advance, we must have recourse to conjecture. It is not at all impossible that future discoveries may enable us to travel upon firmer ground. Such a discovery as that of the Syr.-Sin. MS. by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in 1902 shows that this hope is not unreasonable. But meantime, unless we are content to acquiesce in a negative conclusion, we have no choice but to resort to conjecture. This does not mean a leap in the dark. It is in every way likely that parts of the true text are embedded in the extant readings, and it is by no means impossible that, taken together, these readings may contain the whole. It may be, that is to say, that the true text of Mt. i. 16 has found its grave in the readings we possess. Whether its resurrection can be accomplished is another question. But, in view of the general character of the true text, as indicated above, the attempt need not be foreclosed. Obviously, our results will be tentative, but they should be something more than dubious and uncertain in the extreme.

IV.

In attempting to reconstruct the true text of Mt. i. 16, we may venture the following suggestions:

(1) We have very good ground for regarding t??. ?. ?. as part of the true text (though whether we read the nom. or the acc. depends upon whether we prefer ??e????? or ??????se?). Not only does this expression occur both in (A) and (B), but it is also one which we should naturally expect the Genealogy to contain. A Genealogy constructed to show the Messiahship of Jesus ends fittingly with the words “who is called Christ”.

(2) It is very probable indeed that the original text included ??????se? and not ??e?????. (i) On this view, we can readily understand the misconceptions that would arise, and give a reasonable explanation of the textual variants which exist. (ii) As [pg 111] indicating legal parentage, the expression is not one from which we think the compiler would be likely to shrink. (iii) It is not easy to suppose that those who have employed ??????se? in the reading (B) would have used this form if they had not found it already in the text.

(3) It is probable that Mt. i. 16 contained a reference to Mary. This view is supported by the earlier references to women in the Genealogy. “It is inconceivable that the Evangelist, who thought it served the purpose that he had in hand to mention Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah's wife, should leave the step containing Joseph bare” (Burkitt, p. 264).

(4) Of the two qualifying clauses open to us, t?? ??d?a ?a??a? is more likely to be the older. (i) It is an expression such as we can easily suppose the First Evangelist would use (cf. Mt. i. 19). (ii) It safeguards the Virgin Birth; there would be no point in describing Joseph as “the husband of Mary” unless that expression bore some special meaning. (iii) In the Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila we possess “actual proof” that the phrase was “liable to change” (Burkitt, quoted above, p. 106). (iv) The expression could easily be misunderstood at a time when the interest in the Davidic Sonship was no longer paramount. (v) In that case the phrase ? ??st. p. ?. would commend itself as a doctrinal modification. (vi) It would be altogether less easy to say this of t?? ??d?a ?a??a?.

(5) It is probable that Joseph was mentioned twice. (i) This conclusion follows of necessity, if, as we have argued, ??????se? and not ??e????? is original. (ii) It is implied in the earlier steps of the Genealogy. (iii) It is attested by the Syr.-Sin., and the omission of the second ??s?f in (A) and (B) is not difficult to explain (see later).

(6) It is on the whole more probable that t?? ??d?a ?. followed the first ??s?f and not the second. (i) This view is supported by the compiler's method. “The practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb ??????se?” (Burkitt, p. 263). (ii) This order enables us to give an explanation of the fact that both (A) and (B) omit the second ??s?f (see below).

Gathering together these several results, we obtain the following as the reconstructed text of Mt. i. 16: