(C) Thirdly, we have the _Sinaitic Syriac_. _Syr.‐Sin._ reads: “Jacob begat Joseph; Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus, who is called Christ,” and implies Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγ. τὸν Ἰωσήφ· Ἰωσὴφ [δὲ] ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα [ἦν] π. Μ. ἐγέννησεν Ἰ. τὸν λεγ. Χ. (Burkitt, p. 263). [The reading of the _Syr.‐Cur._ is: “Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, _she_ who bare Jesus the Messiah”.] We may also mention here the passage from the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ which Conybeare claims to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. The alleged quotation includes the text as given under (A) together with the words, “And Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ”. 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 ἐκάλεσεν by “she called”. It is clear that its text is _dominated by a desire to assert unmistakably the historic fact of the Virgin Birth_.