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.