(4) The apologetic motive manifest in the Genealogy is also characteristic of the First Gospel. Not only is the same motive present in every section of cc. i, ii, but in other connexions and in every part of the Gospel, the desire to defend and to interpret is evident; notably this is the case in the story of the Baptism, the account of the Guard at the Tomb and the Resurrection narratives.(90) (5) The nature of the Genealogy leaves little room for the linguistic test. “Yet even here we have the characteristic λεγόμενος in _v._ 16, and the objective way that the writer speaks of ‘the Christ’ in _v._ 17 is quite in the manner of Mt. xi. 2” (Burkitt, op. cit., p. 259). Taken together these arguments justify us in concluding that Mt. i. 1‐17 comes from the Evangelist’s pen. 2. The Passage Mt. i. 18‐25 It is this passage which leads us to the heart of the whole question, for here, in the angelic message to Joseph, the Virgin Birth is asserted unmistakably. We should be justified in making use of the results we have already obtained. If the Genealogy comes from the hand of the Evangelist, and if it is of the character we have alleged, there can be no question but that Mt. i. 18‐25 is also a genuine part of the Gospel. In view, however, of the importance of the section, it may be well not to avail ourselves of this argument. Schmiedel’s objections to the passage (EB., col. 2959 f.) may not unfairly be summarized as follows: (i) Mt. xiii. 55 (“Is not this the carpenter’s son?”) “directly contradicts the theory of the Virgin Birth”, (ii) Mt. ii can be understood without presupposing the story, (iii) Bethlehem is not mentioned until ii. 1, (iv) Mt. i. 18‐25 is not from the same hand as the Genealogy, which “could never have been drawn up after Joseph had ceased to be regarded as the real father of Jesus”. Of these arguments the last arises out of Schmiedel’s view of the Genealogy, which is, that in its original form in the Gospel it asserted the physical paternity of Joseph (the Virgin Birth being a later insertion). Needless to say, on this view, Mt. i. 18‐25 must be rejected. We have already discussed the nature of the Genealogy, and have seen reason to take a totally different view of it. The Genealogy, as we understand it, furnishes no ground of objection to i. 18‐25, but rather the contrary. Nor do Schmiedel’s remaining objections carry the weight claimed. (1) As we have observed on p. 31, Mt. xiii. 55 simply reflects the opinions of our Lord’s contemporaries. Unless we make the gratuitous assumption that the Evangelist would never have reflected a view which he did not himself share, we are not justified in raising an objection to i. 18‐25 from this particular passage.