(2) _We reach a similar conclusion, if we assume_ (B) _to be the true text of Mt. i. 16._ Its singular construction does not readily suggest the craftsmanship of the compiler of the Genealogy. It is true that we can give a very good account of (C) on the present assumption. We can adopt Burkitt’s suggestion, and regard it as a paraphrase of (B). But can we derive (A) from (B)? It would be reasonable to explain ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη as a correction of ἐγέννησεν by a believer who failed to understand the Evangelist’s point of view, and who desired a clearer reference to the Virgin Birth. But can we imagine a scribe, or an editor, motived in this way, replacing “to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary” by the words “the husband of Mary”? The question answers itself, and forbids the assumption of the priority of (B). (3) _Can we, then_, accept Archdeacon Willoughby C. Allen’s view, and _find the true text in_ (C)?(103) It is quite possible, on this theory, to give a reasonable explanation of (B), but, as in the last case, the difficulty is to account for (A). We can follow the change from ἐγέννησεν to ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη, but the substitution of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας for the parenthesis found in (C) remains as before an insuperable objection. At the same time Archdeacon Allen has laid down a true and a valuable principle when he writes: “The earliest Greek form was gradually altered from a desire to avoid words which, though in the intention of the writer they expressed legal parentage, not paternity, in fact, might be misunderstood by thoughtless readers” (p. 8). Our results thus far are negative, but they are not barren. We have frankly to admit that _no extant reading, as a whole, commends itself as the original text of Mt. i. 16_. On the other hand, _we can form a reasonably good idea of what that text was like_. If we are to make any further advance, we must have recourse to _conjecture_. It is not at all impossible that future discoveries may enable us to travel upon firmer ground. Such a discovery as that of the _Syr.‐Sin._ MS. by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in 1902 shows that this hope is not unreasonable. But meantime, unless we are content to acquiesce in a negative conclusion, we have no choice but to resort to conjecture. This does not mean a leap in the dark. It is in every way likely that parts of the true text are embedded in the extant readings, and it is by no means impossible that, taken together, these readings may contain the whole. _It may be, that is to say, that the true text of Mt. i. 16 has found its grave in the readings we possess._ Whether its resurrection can be accomplished is another question. But, in view of the general character of the true text, as indicated above, the attempt need not be foreclosed. Obviously, our results will be tentative, but they should be something more than dubious and uncertain in the extreme. IV. In attempting to reconstruct the true text of Mt. i. 16, we may venture the following suggestions: