(3) W. C. Allen takes the Greek text implied in the _Syr.‐Sin._ to be the true text of Mt. i. 16. Burkitt, as we have seen, derives it from (B). For the present it is important to consider _the __ character of the Syr.‐Sin. in relation to the Virgin Birth_. In i. 21, with the _Curetonian_, it adds the words, “to thee”. In i. 25 it omits “knew her not until”, and, as in the English versions, it renders ἐκάλεσεν by the masculine; in the same verse it also has the reading, “she bore him a son”. At first sight it would appear as if the tendency of the MS. is in direct opposition to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth; it is, however, very questionable if this is the case. It is not improbable that “he knew her not until” (omitted also by the Old Lat. _k_) is an interpolation in the First Gospel. Burkitt thinks that “to thee” in i. 21 appeared in the _Evangelion Da‐ Mepharreshe_, and that “him” is a “mere stylistic addition” in the _Syr.‐Sin._ When we add that this MS. includes Mt. i. 18‐25, and the parenthesis, “to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin”, in Mt. i. 16, it becomes impossible to suppose that its text is of “Ebionite origin”. Nor is it any more likely that it represents “the slip of a scribe”. It is too much of a piece with the entire representation of the MS., of which the most we can say is that it hardens the unique point of view which is characteristic of the Evangelist himself. Whether it represents the original ending of the Genealogy, in a form independent of, and earlier than, the First Gospel, is a point which may be left open, though the view is not one which otherwise finds support from the Genealogy, as it now appears in the Gospel.(101) In any case, _we ought very probably to reject the view that the Syr.‐Sin. in Mt. i. 16 asserts, or implies, the physical paternity of Joseph_. It clearly takes ᾧ to “refer to ἐγέννησεν as well as μνηστευθεῖσα” (Burkitt, p. 263), but, having regard to its character as a whole, the strong probability is that it interprets ἐγέννησεν in the same sense which it bears throughout the earlier links of the Genealogy, viz. of legal parentage (Allen, p. 8). _In this case the scribe who produced the Syr.‐Sin. has remained truer to the mind and spirit of the First Evangelist than any other early Christian writer we know._ Whether he has preserved the letter is more open to question. (4) As regards the rendering (B), it is sufficient to say that the “Ferrar” Group and the Old Lat. MSS., while representing a text which differs from (A), _agree in affirming the Virgin Birth_. Some of them do so with emphasis (e.g. _c_ and _b_). All of them (except _q_) contain the word “Virgin”, but, with the exception of _c_ and _b_, the connexion between ᾧ (_cui_) and μνηστευθεῖσα (_desponsata_) is left ambiguous. III.