the question as to the way in which our
Synoptic Gospels were composed. We may indeed remark in passing
that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once
this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic
Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown;
for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations
from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences
which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing
that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents
to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent
misquotation. But putting aside for the present this _argumentum
ad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made,
there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the
present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his
ground document. There is one element in the question which the
author has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage in
St. Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St. Matthew as
to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original;
it also wants the reflective comment altogether. Accordingly, if
the author will turn to p. 275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] he
will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage
as it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel,' yet in
reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that
of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two.
All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I
am aware, have done the same. Holtzmann [Endnote 120:2] follows
Ewald, and Weiss [Endnote 120:3] accepts Mark's as more nearly the
original text.

The very extent of the divergence in St. Mark throws out into striking
relief the close agreement of Justin's quotation with St. Matthew.
Here we have three verses word for word the same, even to the finest
shades of expression. To the single exception [Greek: eleusetai]
for [Greek: erchetai] I cannot, as Credner does [Endnote 120:4],
attach any importance. The present tense in the Gospel has undoubtedly
a future signification [Endnote 120:5], and Justin was very naturally
led to give it also a future form by [Greek: apokatastaesei] which
follows. For the rest, the order, particles, tenses are so absolutely
identical, where the text of St. Mark shows how inevitably they must
have differed in