to all three Evangelists, twenty-three are common only to Mark and Luke, ten to Mark and Matthew, and eight to Matthew and Luke.  In the next section, the healing of the withered hand, twenty points are found alike in all three Gospels, twenty-seven in Mark and Luke, twenty-one in Mark and Matthew, and five in Matthew and Luke.  Many of these coincidences between the first and third Synoptics are insignificant in the extreme.  Thus, in the last section referred to (Mark iii. 1-6=Matt. xii. 9-14=Luke vi. 6-11), one is the insertion of the article [Greek:  taen] ([Greek:  sunagogaen]), one the insertion of [Greek:  sou] ([Greek:  taen cheira sou]), two the use of [Greek:  de] for [Greek:  kai], and one that of [Greek:  eipen] for [Greek:  legei].  In the paragraph before, the eight points of coincidence between Matthew and Luke are made up thus, two [Greek:  kai aesthion] (=[Greek kai esthiein]), [Greek:  eipon] (=[Greek:  eipan]), [Greek:  poiein, eipen, met’ autou] (=[Greek:  sun auto]), [Greek:  monous] (=[Greek:  monois]).  But though such points as these, if they had been few in number, might have been passed without notice, still, on the whole, they reach a considerable aggregate and all are not equally unimportant.  Thus, in the account of the healing of the paralytic, such phrases is [Greek epi klinaes, apaelthen eis ton oikon autou], can hardly have come into the first and third Gospels and be absent from the second by accident; so again the clause [Greek:  alla ballousin (blaeteon) oinon neon eis askous kainous].  In the account of the healing of the bloody flux the important word [Greek:  tou kraspedou] is inserted in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark; in that of the mission of the twelve Apostles, the two Evangelists have, and the single one has not, the phrase [Greek:  kai therapeuein noson (nosous]), and the still more important clause [Greek:  lego humin anektoteron estai (gae) Sodomon ... en haemera ... ae tae polei ekeinae]:  in Luke ix. 7 (= Matt. xiv. 1) Herod’s title is [Greek:  tetrarchaes], in Mark vi. 14 [Greek:  basileus]; in the succeeding paragraph [Greek:  hoi ochloi aekolouthaesan] and the important [Greek:  to perisseuon (-san)] are wanting in the intermediate Gospel; in the first prophecy of the Passion it has [Greek:  apo] where the other two have [Greek:  hupo], and [Greek:  meta treis haemeras] where they have [Greek:  tae tritae haemera]:  in the healing of the lunatic boy it omits the noticeable [Greek:  kai diestrammenae]:  in the second prophecy of the Passion it omits [Greek:  mellei], in the paragraph about offences, [Greek:  elthein ta skandala ...ouai...di hou erchetai].  These points might be easily multiplied as we go on; suffice it to say that in the aggregate they seem to prove that the second Gospel, in spite of its superior originality and adhesion to the normal type, still does not entirely adhere to it or maintain its primary character throughout.  The theory that we have in the second Gospel one of the primitive Synoptic documents is not tenable.