But there is a distinct group of emendations which vividly illustrates our contention, that the Curetonian form of Syriac text is pervaded by views of Gospel history which belong rather to the Church than to the sacred records. While fully accepting the Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin, we must grant that it is in the nature of a pious opinion, which Christian sentiment recognized as true, but which is not explicitly stated in the New Testament. Hence we view with grave suspicion a class of emendations which are obviously framed to confute the heresy of the Helvidians. Such a class is found in St. Matt. i. In ver. 16, Pesh., “Joseph _the husband of Mary_;” Cur., “Joseph _to whom was espoused Mary the Virgin_.” Ver. 19, Pesh., “Joseph _her husband_, being a just man;” Cur., “Joseph, because he was a righteous man.” Ver. 20, Pesh., “Fear not to take unto thee Mary _thy wife_;” Cur., “Mary _thy espoused_.” Ver. 24, Pesh., “Joseph ... took unto him _his wife_;” Cur., “took _Mary_.” The Curetonian translator, for dogmatic purposes, makes four distinct and separate omissions, in three of which he stands unsupported—of the word _husband_ in two places, of the word _wife_ in two others. These are emendations of a deliberate and peculiar kind. We cannot account for all these vagaries by remarking that the Curetonian has often the support of the so-called _Western_ family of text(29). We must face the question whether the MS. of an ancient version, which exhibits such singular phenomena on its first page, is worthy to be set above that version, which is the common heritage of the whole Syriac Church, and which appears to be the basis of the Curetonian itself. To determine the place of a document in our Apparatus Criticus, we must know something of its history. Of the history of the Curetonian version we know nothing. Its internal character inspires grave doubts of its trustworthiness. We note its peculiarities with interest; but we do not yet see our way to yield much deference to its authority. The Peshitto bears witness to that form of text, which was received in very ancient times in the Syriac Church. The Curetonian, like the Palestinian, is interesting as showing what readings were accepted locally, or by individual editors(30). 3. The Harkleian or Philoxenian Syriac.