years before the elaboration of the present "Gospel." The more radical
critics take an even less respectful view. This being the fact, it may
be readily seen how easy it would have been for the latter-day
"elaborator" to introduce the then current legend of the Virgin Birth,
borrowed from pagan sources.

As a further internal evidence of such interpolation of outside
matter, the critics point to the fact that while the Gospel of Matthew
is made to claim that Joseph was merely the _reputed father_ of the
child of Mary, the same Gospel, in its very first chapter (_Matt. 1_)
_gives the genealogy of Jesus from David to Joseph_ the husband of
Mary, _in order to prove that Jesus came from the "House of David_,"
in accordance with the Messianic tradition. The chapter begins with
the words, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham" (_Matt. 1_), and then goes on to name
fourteen generations from Abraham to David; fourteen generations from
David to the days of the carrying away into Babylon; and fourteen
generations from the Babylonian days until the birth of Jesus. The
critics call attention to this _recital of Jesus's descent, through
Joseph, from the House of David_, which is but one of the many
indications that the original Matthew inclined quite strongly to the
view that Jesus was the Hebrew Messiah, come to reign upon the throne
of David, rather than a Divine Avatar or Incarnation.

The critics point to the fact that _if Joseph were not the real father
of Jesus, where would be the sense and purpose of proving his descent
from David through Joseph?_ It is pertinently asked, _"Why the
necessity or purpose of the recital of Joseph's genealogy, as applied
to Jesus, if indeed Jesus were not truly the son of Joseph_?" The
explanation of the critics is that the earlier writings of Matthew