doulos] ([Greek:  oikonomos], Luke), [Greek:  [ho kurios] autou, taen trophaen] ([Greek:  tas trophas], Clem.; Luke, characteristically, [Greek:  to sitometrion]), the order of [Greek:  en kairo, tous sundolous autou] ([Greek:  tous paidas kai tas paidiskas], Luke), [Greek:  meta ... methuonton], and [Greek:  hupokriton] for [Greek:  apiston].  Of the peculiarities of the third Synoptic the Clementines reproduce the future [Greek:  katastaesei], the present [Greek:  didonai], the insertion of [Greek:  elthein] ([Greek:  erchesthai], Luke) after [Greek:  chronizei], the order of the words in this clause, and a trace of the word [Greek:  apiston] in [Greek:  to apistoun autou meros].  The two Gospels support each other in most of the places where the Clementines depart from them, and especially in the two verses, one of which is paraphrased and the other omitted.

Now the question arises, What is the origin of this phenomenon of double resemblance?  It may be caused in three ways:  either it may proceed from alternate quoting of our two present Gospels; or it may proceed from the quoting of a later harmony of those Gospels; or, lastly, it may proceed from the quotation of a document earlier than our two Synoptics, and containing both classes of peculiarities, those which have been dropped in the first Gospel as well as those which have been dropped in the third, as we find to be frequently the case with St. Mark.

Either of the first two of these hypotheses will clearly suit the phenomena; but they will hardly admit of the third.  It does indeed derive a very slight countenance from the repetition of the language of the last quotation:  this repetition, however, occurs at too short an interval to be of importance.  But the theory that the Clementine writer is quoting from a document older than the two Synoptics, and indeed their common original, is excluded by the amount of matter that is common to the two Synoptics and either not found at all or found variantly in the Clementines.  The coincidence between the Synoptics, we may assume, is derived from the fact that they both drew from a common original.  The phraseology in which they agree is in all probability that of the original document itself.  If therefore this phraseology is wanting in the Clementine quotations they are not likely to have been drawn directly from the document which underlies the Synoptics.  This conclusion too is confirmed by particulars.  In the first quotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine expansion of [Greek:  tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though it most probably is so.  But the strange and fantastic phrase in the last quotation, [Greek:  to apistoun auton meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the [Greek:  hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the [Greek:  apiston] of Luke.