MRS. A. S. LEWIS, ON THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD. 1 7 



word by which she is described is r^it^^ "betrothed." Both 

 MSS. of the Old Syriac fail us in Luke ii, 5 ; because they are 

 defective, through the loss of a leaf; the Peshitta, however, 

 uses the same epithet. In Luke i, 56, it will be observed that 

 Mary, after her visit to Elizabeth, returned to her own house, 

 which she would surely not have done had she been then 

 married. When she travelled to Bethlehem she is distinctly 

 called by our Syriac witnesses the wife of Joseph. ISTot 

 " espoused wife," nor any ambiguous title of that kind : such 

 as we have in the Authorised Version, and in the Greek MSS. 

 which underlie it. And here I must enter an emphatic protest 

 against the rendering of the Kevised Version. In spite of the 

 great debt which we owe to the distinguished scholars who have 

 given it to us, I think that here they have displayed a great 

 lack of imagination by rejecting the word yvvatKi, " wife," and 

 keeping only efivrjo-revfjuivr], " betrothed." I cannot help 

 wondering if any one of that learned company was familiar 

 with the ways and ideas of Eastern people at the present day ? 

 If such an one had been amongst them, he would surely have 

 pointed out the absurdity, nay, the impossibility, of such a 

 circumstance. 



I am aware that the oldest of the Greek MSS. (b^ and B) sup- 

 port the word " betrothed " without " wife," and Tischendorf has 

 lent to this reading the weight of his authority. But the oldest of 

 the Latin MSS. support the Syriac " wife," and as the Syriac is 

 racy of the soil, and was our Lord's mother tongue in its 

 Palestinian or Galilean form, I think that on a point like this, 

 where it has some strong corroboration from other sources, it 

 ought to command attention. 



And in weighing the evidence of these MSS., would it not 

 be well to take into account the balance of probability ? The 

 late Dr. Frederick Blass would certainly have agreed with me, 

 for he thought that any reading which takes no account of 

 literary style must be doubtful. 



The Sinai Palimpsest also tells us that Joseph and Mary 

 went to Bethlehem to be enrolled there, because they were both 

 of the house and lineage of David. 



This statement appears also in the Armenian version of the 

 Biatessamn, edited in its Latin translation by Moesinger, in the 

 Commentary of Ephraim and in Aphraates. 



The chief interest, I might rather say " value," of the Sinai 

 text lies in its uncommon and often suggestive variants, 

 variants such as " We are servants," in Luke xvii, 10, the 

 word " unprofitable " appearing to be in itself an unprofitable 



c 



