The arguments used in the preceding section are sufficient to show that cc. i, ii, as a whole, come from the Evangelist’s hand. But this conclusion does not exclude the possibility that certain parts may be of later date. In particular, it could be said, and has in fact been claimed that the Genealogy, the passage i. 18‐25, or both, are interpolations; and that originally the First Gospel knew nothing of the Virgin Birth. These questions must now be treated. There is not the same need for us to examine the section describing the visit of the Wise Men and its sequel (c. ii). This section is of great importance in a discussion of the Nativity narratives, but in relation to the Virgin Birth it is secondary as compared with the Genealogy and the passage i. 18‐25. The section is treated by Canon Box in _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, pp. 19‐33. 1. The Genealogy We are not concerned to ask at this point whether the Genealogy ever existed independently of the Gospel, and is thus a source which the Evangelist has worked up and incorporated in his own work. The question we have to consider is whether Mt. i. 1‐17 is a genuine part of the Gospel. The case in favour of this view is overwhelmingly strong. Its weight lies in the fact that the peculiar characteristics of the Genealogy (p. 89 f.) are the peculiar characteristics of the rest of the Gospel. (1) This is manifest in the strong interest taken in the Davidic Sonship. “The Gospel according to Matthew may be called _The Book of Jesus Christ, the Son of David_ ... The special aim of Matthew, in one word, is to represent our Lord as the legitimate Heir of the royal house of David” (Burkitt, _Evan. Da‐Meph._, ii, p. 259). We may partially illustrate this claim by the New Testament record of the term “Son of David”. There are 8 instances in Mt. other than i. 1, and 6 in the rest of the New Testament (3 in Mk. and 3 in Lk.). The regal aspect of Christ’s Sonship is also illustrated in Mt. xix. 28, xxv. 34 (cf. Allen, op. cit., p. lxiv). (2) As regards the artificial structure of the Genealogy, we may note that this too is characteristic of the First Evangelist’s manner. He is fond of arranging his material in groups of threes. Allen enumerates twenty‐three instances outside cc. i, ii (ib., p. lxv). Similarly the double seven reflects “the author’s penchant for that sacred number” (Moffatt, INT., p. 250, who notes four other examples (p. 257)). (3) We are unable to illustrate from the rest of the Gospel the legal use of γεννάω, but where else save in the Genealogy could we expect to find it? It is the unique character of the Genealogy which requires that usage. On the other hand, the point of view which determines the usage is the point of view of cc. i, ii as a whole. As in i. 1‐17, so in i. 18‐ii. 23, the standpoint is that of a writer who desires to combine two diverse beliefs, the Virgin Birth and the Messiahship of Jesus.