Matthew 1:18

Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γέννησις οὕτως ἦν·  μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ· πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they had cohabited, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Matt 1:18 [Textus Receptus (Elzevir) (1624)]
Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γέννησις οὕτως ἠν. Μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτούς, εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου.

MSS: E, M (f22rc1), Ω, 3, 7, 8, 10 (f8r-v), 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 46, 127, 157 (f22v), 185, 473, 556, 699, 892 (21r-v), 901 (f9v), 1152 (f6r-v), 1203, 2603?, 3000 (f6r),

Matt 1:18 [Peshitta]
ܝܰܠܕ݁ܶܗ ܕ݁ܶܝܢ ܕ݁ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ ܗܳܟ݂ܰܢܳܐ ܗܘܳܐ ܟ݁ܰܕ݂ ܡܟ݂ܺܝܪܳܐ ܗ݈ܘܳܬ݂ ܡܰܪܝܰܡ ܐܶܡܶܗ ܠܝܰܘܣܶܦ݂ ܥܰܕ݂ܠܳܐ ܢܶܫܬ݁ܰܘܬ݁ܦ݂ܽܘܢ ܐܶܫܬ݁ܰܟ݂ܚܰܬ݂ ܒ݁ܰܛܢܳܐ ܡܶܢ ܪܽܘܚܳܐ ܕ݁ܩܽܘܕ݂ܫܳܐ܂

Matt 1:18 [Old Syriac Curetonian (Codex Curetonianus Syriacus sy^c)]
ܝܠܕܗ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܗܘܐ܂ ܟܕ ܡܟܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܗ ܠܝܘܣܦ܂ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܢܬܩܪܒܘܢ ܚܕ ܠܘܬ ܚܕ܂ ܐܫܬܟܚܬ ܒܛܢܐ ܡܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ܂

Matt 1:18 [Old Syriac Sinaitic (Codex Sinaiticus Syriacus sy^s)]
ܝܠܕܗ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܟܕ ܡܟܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܗ ܠܝܘܣܦ ܟܕ ܠܐ ܢܬܩܪܒܘܢ ܚܕ ܠܘܬ ܚܕ ܐܫܬܟܚܬ ܒܛܢܐ ܡܢ ܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ

Matt 1:18 [Philoxenian (syr^ph)]
ܕܝܫܘܥ ܕܝܢ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܘܝܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ. ܟܕ ܡܟܝܪܐ ܗܘܬ ܡܐܪܝܐܣ ܐܡܐ ܕܝܠܗ ܠܝܘܣܦ: ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܕܠܐ ܢܫܬܘܬܦܘܢ: ܐܫܬܟܚܬ ܕܐܬ ܠܗ ܟܒܪܣܐ ܡܢ ܕܘܚܐ ܡܪܝܫܐ܀

Matt 1:18 [Old Latin (Codex Vercellensis)]
Christi autem generatio sic erat. Cum desponsata esset mater eius Maria Ioseph, priusquam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto.

Matt 1:18 [Vulgate]
Christi autem generatio sic erat cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph antequam convenirent inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto

Critical Apparatus :

(1) δε : Ƿ1, א, B, C, E, K, L, M, S, Δ, Θ, Σ, Ω, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 72, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 422, 438, 439, 449, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 1582, 2561, 2603, 3000, Majority
(2) OMIT δε : ℓ1086

(3) ιησου χριστου : Ƿ1, א, E, K, L, M, S, Z, Θ, Σ, Ω, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 72, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 365, 422, 439, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 1582, 2561, 2603, 3000, ℓ1086, Majority, Peshitta (ܕ݁ܝܶܫܽܘܥ ܡܫܺܝܚܳܐ), Sahidic (ΝΙΗСΟΥС ΠΕΧΡΙСΤΟС), Bohairic (ΝΙΗС ΠΧС), Eusebius of Caesarea
(4) χριστου ιησου : B
(5) OMIT ιησου : Vulgate (Christi)
(6) OMIT χριστου : W

(7) γεννησις : E, K, L, M, Ω, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 46, 57, 65, 72, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157?, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 272, 276, 365, 439, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652*, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 2561, 2603, 3000, ℓ1086, Majority, Peshitta (ܝܠܕܗ), Syriac Curetonian (ܝܠܕܗ), Syriac Sinaitic (ܝܠܕܗ), Irenaeus, Origen,
(8) γεννησης : 230
(9) γενεσις : Ƿ1, א, B, P, S, Z, Δ, Θ, Σ, 1, 1582, Bohairic (ϫΙΝΜΙCΙ), Eusebius of Caesarea
(10) γεννησσις : 83
(11) γενεσεις : W
(12) γενησεις : C
(13) γενησις : 2, 44, 449, 652^c
(14) γενησης : 422

(15) ην : Ƿ1, א, B, C, E, K, L, M, S, Z, Δ, Σ, Ω, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 72, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 422, 438, 439, 449, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 1582, 2561, 2603, 3000, ℓ1086, Majority, Eusebius of Caesarea
(16) ιν : Θ

(17) μνηστευθεισης : Ƿ1?, B, E, K, M, S, W, Z, Δ, Σ, Ω, 1, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 72, 83, 109, 113,  116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 272, 276, 365, 422, 438, 439, 449, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1582, 2561, 2603, 3000, Majority
(18) μνηστευθισης : C
(19) μνησστευθισης : א
(20) μνηστευθησης : Θ, 2, 4, 1424
(21) μνηστευθησεις : 501^supp
(22) μηστευθησεις : 230
(23) μνητευθησις : L*
(24) μνηστευθησις : L¹, ℓ1086

(25) γαρ : E, K, L, M, S, W, Δ, Σ, Ω, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 72, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 365, 422, 473, 439, 449, 476, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 2561, 2603, 3000, Majority, Eusebius of Caesarea
(26) OMIT γαρ : Ƿ1, א, B, C, Z, 700, 1582, Peshitta, Vulgate

(27) η : Ƿ1, א, B, C, E, M, S, Δ, Σ, Ω, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 422, 439, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 1582, 2561, 2603, 3000
(28) ι : K, L, ℓ1086
(29) OMIT η : Z?

(30) συνελθειν : Ƿ1, B, C, E, K, L, M, S, Z,  Σ, Ω, 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 422, 439, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 1582, 2561, 2603?, 3000, ℓ1086, Majority, Eusebius of Caesarea
(31) συνελθιν : א
(32) συνελθην : 2
(33) συλθειν : Δ
(34) σελθειν : 501^supp

(35) ευρεθη : Ƿ1?, א, B, C, E, K, L, M, S, Z, Δ, Σ, Ω, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18, 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 44, 46, 57, 65, 72, 83, 109, 113, 116, 127, 157, 182, 185, 186, 198, 200, 201, 230, 272, 276, 422, 438, 439, 449, 473, 476, 478, 490, 491, 500, 501^supp, 504, 543, 556, 560, 652, 688, 699, 700, 892, 901, 1152, 1203, 1424, 2561, 2603, 3000, ℓ1086, Majority, Eusebius of Caesarea
(36) ηυρεθη : 1, 1582

 

 

Γ / Ε :

3, 8 (f19rc1), 10 (f8r-v), 12 (f43r), 34 (f13r), 35 (f1v), 36 (f13v), 43 (f13r), 109 (f27r), 116 (f16r), 198 (f8b), 230 (f16vc2), 276 (f15r), 473 (f1v), 476 (f8v-9r), 478 (f9r), 504 (f12r-v), 560 (f30v), 699 (f1v), 1203 (f8r), 1582 (f6v)

 

 

Tischendorf 1:18

 

 

Early Church Fathers

(1) Eusebius of Caesarea  (Demonstratio Evangelica, p3o8, 7, Eusebius Werke, Ivar A. Heikel)
τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης γὰρ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς, εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.

 

 

A Textual Commentary On Matthew 1:18

(a) Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ – The Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic versions, Eusebius of Caesarea and majority of the MSS read Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Codex Vaticanus and Origen read Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. But Irenaeus, 191, 204, and a,b, c, d Vulgate read only Χριστοῦ, which Tregelles prefers. The omission of the word arose from the variation of the position in the words Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, which must have existed at a very early period, as we learn from Codex Vaticanus, which has Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, a reading probably occasioned by the Ἰησοῦ being first omitted, and then brought in at a wrong place.

The Latin Version,the Curetonian-Syriac, and Irenaeus,are quoted for the omission. Giving these their fullweight, the authority both of Versions and Fathers is in excess for Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

(b) Γένεσις or γέννησις? Γένεσις, as the most Hebraizing reading (= תּוֹלְדוֹת) is preferred by some scholars. Γένεσις comes from γίνομαι. It is a generic term which is said absolutely of production or origin of any kind. It is said by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. IV) to be twofold, διττὴ γὰρ ἡ γένεσις ; (1), of reproduction (γεννωμένων), and(2), of mere results (γινομένων). Γένεσις, then, is a generic term for “coming into being” and includes all special modes of production, reproduction, or origin, without defining the process of any.

As γέννησις comes from γεννάω, it is said of the actual procreation of children, as being (1) begotten by the father, and (2) borne and brought forth by the mother.

Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer prefers γένεσις, because γέννησις might very easily arise from the frequently preceding ἐγέννησε and ἐγεννηθη, and might also appear more appropriate to the connection (partus modas). Compare Matt 2:1 and Luke 1:14. The version of the LXX frequently uses γένεσις in the sense of quicquid evenit, quicquid ad illum pertinuit, as in Gen 2:4, Gen 5:1, Gen 37:2, Num 3:1, Judith 12:18. To which may be added James 3:6, where τροχὸν τῆς γενέσεως seems to signify the course of events (W.Bowyer). In defense of γέννησις against γένεσις, see Solomon Caesar Malan’s A Plea for the Received Greek Text and for the Authorized Version of the New Testament (pp 1-25).

For γέννησις six of the most ancient uncial, and about six cursive MSS. have γένεσις, found also in Euseb. Athan. (I add Cels. ap. Origen. c. Cels. i. 28 and 58) and edited by L. and T. ; while Sch. retains γέννησις, rightly, for though internal evidence might seem to favour γένεσις, yet that were a matter of doubtful disputation, and draws two ways, since it may have arisen from the temerity of critics, and the carelessness of scribes. See Matth. Besides it were vain to contend against so overwhelming a preponderance of external authority, confirmed by, I believe, all the ancient versions. And the testimony of Fathers has in matter of this sort very little weight. That of Celsus none, since he would be likely to use γένεσις in the sense of descent, origin, as the more Classical term. The γὰρ after μνηστευθείσης has an inchoative and an epexegetic force ; as often in the N. T., Joseph., and the Class. writers. See my Lex. N. T. – For want of perceiving this, the ancient critics cancelled the word, and Lachm. followed their example.
(S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament : With English Notes, vol. 1, p. 6)

(c) μνηστευθείσης γὰρ – Peshitta and Vulgate omit γὰρ. According to William Bowyer, it should be omitted in the Greek. Nothing is more common with the best Greek writers than to begin a narration with γὰρ, as we do with the word Now. The particle γὰρ in the beginning of a narration gives it force and elegance; but is particularly used, as in this place, when the writer goes on to explain farther what he had before intimated.

The particle γαρ is introductory to a circumstantial detail, due to an antecedent expression;2 the expression being in this place the word ουτως. This use of the particle being a strict Greek idiom, and its force not immediately obvious, it is not surprising that copyists have here passed it over, and versions do not represent it. (Thomas Sheldon Green)

(d) πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν means before they came together in one home as husband and wife, it being implied that that would not take place before marriage. συνελθεῖν might refer to sexual intercourse, so far as the meaning of the word is concerned (Josephus, Antiq. vii 9,5), but the evangelist would  not think it is necessary to state that no such intercourse had take place between the betrothed. Grammarians (vide Fritzsche) say that πρὶν ἢ is not found in ancient Attic, though often in middle Attic. (see The Expositor’s Greek New Testament, p 66)

(e)  εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα Rosenmuller and Kuinoel, after Olearius, take ε. ε. for ἦν ἔχουσα, i.e. εἶχε, accounting it an Hebraism, which, however, Kypke denies, alleging Joseph. Antiq. 7,7. μη βοηθεια των φίλων ευρίσκοιτο του κινδύνου διαφυγων ; also a passage of Hierocles, which, however, is not to the purpose, because there is no participle. The Hebraism, however, is questionable ; nay, the opinion of Harenburg ap. Koecher is not devoid of probability, who understands the word to denote or allude to that inspection by midwives or matrons, which, in such a case, was usual among the Jews.
(S. T. Bloomfield, Recensio 1, p. 4)

(f) In ver. 18. the common text has Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ; but ‘Ἰησοῦ is expressly stated by Irenæus (in the passage cited) not to belong to this place. And yet this word is found in every Greek MS. which is here extant. There is, however, this variation, that in B. it stands after ‘χριστοῦ instead of before ; and this weakens the supposed una nimity very considerably. It may seem as though an endeavour to investigate the genuineness of a reading not extant in Greek copies were a procedure analogous to that of determining by calculation the place and orbit of a planet, the existence of which had never been ascertained by actual observation ; and yet in each case a certain result may be obtained. The statement of Irenaeus is such as to prove the fact as to some copies, at least, in the second century. This is confirmed by the Latin copies, revised or unrevised, which agree in omitting ‘Ἰησοῦ, and also by the Curetonian Syriac, which proves that the same reading was current in the East. And though this reading cannot be shown in any Greek MS., yet it may be re garded as certain that this was in D., for it is in the Latin version of this passage in this MS. where the Latin only is extant. Nothing can be more natural than the addition of ‘Ἰησοῦ, by copyists in such a place ; but this insertion could not have been made until ‘Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ had become a kind of compound proper name (which in the New Testament it is not), as the introduction of ‘Ἰησοῦ between the article and the adjective would otherwise be wholly anomalous. Indeed, with that collocation it would be difficult to give a gramma tical or theological exposition of the verse ; for then “the adjective does not distinguish the substantive from any other but from itself in other circumstances.” And thus with the common reading, we might be led to inquire, How was Jesus born except as the Christ?
Thus the express testimony of Irenæus to the reading τοῦ δὲ χριστοῦ is confirmed in various ways, and is amply vindicated as that which was in widely extended use in the second century. That found in B. looks like an unconscious correction from some copyist who knew intuitively that the common reading is not really Greek or true Christian doctrine. This passage affords a curious proof of the manner in which patristic readings were moulded from time to time. The quotation from Irenæus has come down to us in the old Latin version ; but Germanus of Constantinople cites it in Greek, and there Irenseus is made to quote St. Matthew in a form which he expressly repudiates.

Ver. 18. γέννησις of the common text is altogether outweighed by γένεσις, on the ground of evidence; the versions here give but little aid. γένεσις being here the true reading, we see that the application of βίβλος γενέσεως in ver. 1. cannot be limited to the genealogy.
(S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 346-347)

(g) The Codex Ebnerianus, a manuscript written at the close of the fourteenth century, was once surposed to begin with Matt. i. 18. Του δε Ιησού Χριστού και γέννησις ούτως ήν, Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise. But since no buok can well begin with the particle δε, now, it was concluded that in the more ancient Greek manuscripts whence the Codex Ebnerianus was copied, something preceded, viz. the genealogy, as in other Greek manuscripts. Bishop Marsh’s Michaelis, vol. iii. part ii. p. 136. And such was the fact, for this Codex itself is not defective . See above, p 220. ; also Griesbach’s Eriuerpov to his Commentarius Criticus in Græcum Matthæi Textum, 4to. Jena, 1801.
(Thomas Hartwell Horne, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 422)

(h) The search after ancient evidence may lead us very far back ; so far indeed that hardly any existing MS. goes to such antiquity in its text ; the last referred to is a passage in which only two of the MSS. contain the demonstrated ancient reading. Now, in Matt. i. 18, we know how it was read in the second century from Irenæus, who (after having previously cited the words “Christi autem generatio sic erat“) continues, “Ceterum potuerat dicere Matthæus, Jesu vero generatio sic erat ; sed prævidens Spiritus Sanctus depravatores, et præmuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthæum ait : Christi autem generatio sic erat.” (C. H. lib. iij. 16. 2.) This is given in proof that Jesus and Christ are one and the same person, and that Jesus cannot be said to be the receptacle that afterwards received Christ ; for the Christ was born.
In all such cases it may be supposed that Irenæus or any other writer only testifies to what was in his own copy, and therefore the evidence may go no farther than as relates to that single exemplar ; we may always then inquire whether an express statement has such confirmation as to show that the reading was widely diffused. Let it be remembered that in this place the common reading is τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, while Ireneus maintains that Ἰησοῦ is not in the sentence. The Old Latin and the Vulgate support Irenæus’s reading, and thus we have full proof that it was common in the west ; and further, the same reading is found in the Curetonian Syriac, ܝܠܕܗ ܕܝܢ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܗܟܢܐ ܗܘܐ  Thus, then, we have full proof that this reading was also eastern . But how does the case stand as to MS. authority? Not a single known MS. supports it.* But while this is owned, it can be proved that this was once the reading of one of our oldest Greek MSS., now defective in this passage. The first leaf of the Codex Bezæ (D) is gone, but the Latin text on the opposite page preserves the readings ; so that it does not admit of reasonable doubt that that MS. omitted Ἰησοῦ. Thus, then, the statement of Irenæus is confirmed by a variety of independent testimony. Lachmann marks the Irenæan reading =, as being equal to the common which stands in his text : it is thus that he distinguishes those readings which are (in his judgment) as well attested as what he admits into his text, but which he does not introduce either into the context or the inner margin, because he considers that they have no ancient Greek authority for the actual words.
There is one important exception to the general consent of MSS. in favour of the common form of the text ; for the Vatican MS. reads (as cited by Birch), τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ :±  this subtracts greatly from any supposed common agreement of MSS. on the passage. It must be remembered that transcribers continually added Ιησους to Χριστος, and vice versa, from the mere habit of associating the names ; hence it is not remarkable that it should have been added here : the position, too, of Ἰησοῦ here between the article and the adjective Χριστοῦ, seems to belong to the time when this had become a sort of united proper name : in the New Testament this collocation is only found in passages certainly erroneous in reading, or else suspicious in the extreme.
If we were arguing on grounds of internal evidence it might well be asked, How would the phrase be understood, with Ἰησοῦ between the art. and the adj., giving the collocation its full force and meaning ? for then “the adjective does not distinguish the substantive from any other, but from itself in other circumstances ;” so that the adjunct Christ would not distinguish the Jesus here spoken of from the many others who bore it, but it would indicate that our blessed Lord had been born in some other manner, and that now the Evangelist said “the birth of Jesus as the Christ was thus.”
In another place (C. H. iij. 11, 8) Irenæus cites the same text, and then in the Old Latin version it stands of course in the same form. It is, however, a curious illustration of the manner in which transcribers have moulded citations in the writings of the fathers into the form of reading with which they were themselves familiar, that we find in the Greek text of this passage of Irenæus, as preserved in the citation of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople, the words given as read in the common Greek copies, —a reading which Irenæus repudiates as expressly as any one can a reading of which he never had heard.

* Tischendorf indeed cites Cod. 71 in its favour ; this seemed to be a mistake from the silence of all others who had examined this MS. ; and now that Mr. Scrivener has included this copy (Cod. Ephesius at Lambeth) in his “Collation of the Gospels,” we may be sure that this reading is not there.

± Lachmann refers to Origen iü. 965^d as an authority for the same reading as is found in the Vatican MS. The passage occurs in Jerome’s Latin translation of Origen’s 28th Homily on St. Luke, where the words are, “Christi autem Jesu generatio sic erat.” This is rather doubtful ground for citing Origen’s authority, especially as in the Greek fragments of this very homily we find the common reading.

(S.P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 188-190)

(i) ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου. These words are regarded by Beza and Markland as a marginal note. Perhaps Matthew speaks per prolepsin, by anticipation. Wetstein observes, that all miracles are in Scripture re ferred to the Holy Spirit.
(S. T. Bloomfield, Recensio 1, p. 4)