(1) _We have very good ground for regarding_ τὸν. λ. Χ. _as part of the true text_ (though whether we read the nom. or the acc. depends upon whether we prefer ἐγεννήθη or ἐγέννησεν). Not only does this expression occur both in (A) and (B), but it is also one which we should naturally expect the Genealogy to contain. A Genealogy constructed to show the Messiahship of Jesus ends fittingly with the words “who is called Christ”. (2) _It is very probable indeed that the original text included_ ἐγέννησεν and not ἐγεννήθη. (i) On this view, we can readily understand the misconceptions that would arise, and give a reasonable explanation of the textual variants which exist. (ii) As indicating legal parentage, the expression is not one from which we think the compiler would be likely to shrink. (iii) It is not easy to suppose that those who have employed ἐγέννησεν in the reading (B) would have used this form if they had not found it already in the text. (3) _It is probable that Mt. i. 16 contained a reference to Mary._ This view is supported by the earlier references to women in the Genealogy. “It is inconceivable that the Evangelist, who thought it served the purpose that he had in hand to mention Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Uriah’s wife, should leave the step containing Joseph bare” (Burkitt, p. 264). (4) _Of the two qualifying clauses open to us_, τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας _is more likely to be the older_. (i) It is an expression such as we can easily suppose the First Evangelist would use (cf. Mt. i. 19). (ii) It safeguards the Virgin Birth; there would be no point in describing Joseph as “_the husband of Mary_” unless that expression bore some special meaning. (iii) In the _Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila_ we possess “actual proof” that the phrase was “liable to change” (Burkitt, quoted above, p. 106). (iv) The expression could easily be misunderstood at a time when the interest in the Davidic Sonship was no longer paramount. (v) In that case the phrase ᾧ μνηστ. π. Μ. would commend itself as a doctrinal modification. (vi) It would be altogether less easy to say this of τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας. (5) _It is probable that Joseph was mentioned twice._ (i) This conclusion follows of necessity, if, as we have argued, ἐγέννησεν and not ἐγεννήθη is original. (ii) It is implied in the earlier steps of the Genealogy. (iii) It is attested by the _Syr.‐Sin._, and the omission of the second Ἰωσήφ in (A) and (B) is not difficult to explain (see later). (6) _It is on the whole more probable that_ τὸν ἄνδρα Μ. _followed the first_ Ἰωσήφ _and not the second_. (i) This view is supported by the compiler’s method. “The practice of the writer is to interpose no words between the name and the verb ἐγέννησεν” (Burkitt, p. 263). (ii) This order enables us to give an explanation of the fact that both (A) and (B) omit the second Ἰωσήφ (see below). Gathering together these several results, we obtain the following as the reconstructed text of Mt. i. 16: