idas kai tas paidiskas, esthiein te
kai pinein kai methuskesthai; haexei ho kurios tou doulou ekeinou
en haemera hae ou prosdoka, kai en hora hae ou ginoskei, kai
dichotomaesei auton kai to meros autou meta ton apiston thaesei.]

I have given this passage in full, in spite of its length,
because it is interesting and characteristic; it might indeed
almost be said to be typical of the passages, not only in the
Clementine Homilies, but also in other writers like Justin, which
present this relation of double similarity to two of the
Synoptics. It should be noticed that the passage in the Homilies
is not introduced strictly as a quotation but is interwoven with
the text. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the
opening clause, [Greek: Makarios ... sundolous autou], recurs
identically about thirty lines lower down. We observe that of the
peculiarities of the first Synoptic the Clementines have [Greek:
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 d