(a) As in the case of Lk. i. 34 f. there is _no textual authority for the omission of these verses_. While we recognize the free handling which the text of the Gospels may have received during the first half of the second century, it does not appear likely on general grounds that Mt. i. 18‐25 is an interpolation. The addition to the text of a saying of Christ, or of a comment, or even of an incident drawn from floating Christian tradition, we can understand, as well as a certain amount of stylistic alteration. “Doctrinal modifications”, however, of such a wholesale character as the present instance would be, if the passage is a later insertion of unknown origin, are quite another matter. That Mt. i. 18‐25 should have been inserted in a Gospel, which, on this theory, taught the physical paternity of Joseph, and should have been inserted without leaving traces in the literature of the early Christian centuries, is most improbable. The sole support from early Christian literature is the statement of Epiphanius that the text used by Cerinthus lacked the passage. Had we more information of this kind, there would be ground for the theory of interpolation; as it is, the basis is too slender and uncertain.(91) (b) _The standpoint and mode of treatment in Mt. i. 18‐25 is that of cc. i, ii, and of the Evangelist._ As in the rest of cc. i, ii, it is the didactic and apologetic interest that is uppermost. Joseph is the central figure, and there is the same use of “the machinery of dreams” as in c. ii, and in the story of Pilate’s wife (xxvii. 19). (c) _The same may be said of the vocabulary and the style._ Six words appear which are not found elsewhere in the Gospel,(92) but with the exception of one (μεθερμηνεύομαι), they are sufficiently explained by the peculiar subject‐matter. On the other hand, there are at least five “characteristic Matthaean words”,(93) while other features distinctive of the First Evangelist appear in the opening words of verse 20, the reference to Joseph as the “son of David”, the phrase “Behold, an angel of the Lord”, and especially the quotation of verse 23 with its introductory formula. In view of these arguments, it is not too much to apply to Mt. i. 18‐25 what Burkitt says of Mt. i. 18‐ii. 23. If the passage “be not an integral part of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of literary adaptations, a verdict that is not likely to be passed on it by a sane criticism” (op. cit., ii. 259). IV. Implications, Sources, and Results