The first that meets us is in c. ii, ’Remembering what the Lord said teaching, judge not that ye be not judged; forgive and it shall be forgiven unto you; pity that ye may be pitied; with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you again; and that blessed are the poor and those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God’ [Endnote 85:1].  This passage (if taken from our Gospels) is not a continuous quotation, but is made up from Luke vi. 36-38, 20, Matt. v. 10, or of still more disjecta membra of St. Matthew.  It will be seen that it covers very similar ground with the quotation in Clement, and there is also a somewhat striking point of similarity with that writer in the phrase [Greek:  eleeite hina eleaetheate].  There is moreover a closer resemblance than to our Gospels in the clause [Greek:  aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin].  But the order of the clauses is entirely different from that in Clement, and the first clause [Greek:  mae krinete hina mae krithaete] is identical with St. Matthew and more nearly resembles the parallel in St. Luke than in Clement.  These are perplexing phenomena, and seem to forbid a positive judgment.  It would be natural to suppose, and all that we know of the type of doctrine in the early Church would lead us to believe, that the Sermon on the Mount would be one of the most familiar parts of Christian teaching, that it would be largely committed to memory and quoted from memory.  There would be no difficulty in employing that hypothesis here if the passage stood alone.  The breaking up of the order too would not surprise us when we compare the way in which the same discourse appears in St. Luke and in St. Matthew.  But then comes in the strange coincidence in the single clause with Clement; and there is also another curious phenomenon, the phrase [Greek:  aphiete kai aphethaesetai humin] compared with Luke’s [Greek:  apoluete kai apoluthaesesthe] has very much the appearance of a parallel translation from the same Aramaic original, which may perhaps be the famous ‘Spruch-sammlung.’  This might however be explained as the substitution of synonymous terms by the memory.  There is I believe nothing in the shape of direct evidence to show the presence of a different version of the Sermon on the Mount in any of the lost Gospels, and, on the other hand, there are considerable traces of disturbance in the Canonical text (compare e.g. the various readings on Matt. v. 44).  It seems on the whole difficult to construct a theory that shall meet all the facts.  Perhaps a mixed hypothesis would be best.  It is probable that memory has been to some extent at work (the form of the quotation naturally suggests this) and is to account for some of Polycarp’s variations; at the same time I cannot but think that there has been somewhere a written version different from our Gospels to which he and Clement have had access.