In the first quotation we cannot set down quite positively the Clementine expansion of [Greek: tois aitousin auton] as a later form, though it most probably is so.

But the strange and fantastic phrase in the last quotation, [Greek: to apistoun auton meros meta ton hupokriton thaesei], is almost certainly a combination of the [Greek: hupokriton] of Matthew with a distorted reminiscence of the [Greek: apiston] of Luke.
We have then the same kind of choice set before us as in the case of Justin.

Either the Clementine writer quotes our present Gospels, or else he quotes some other composition later than them, and which implies them.

In other words, if he does not bear witness to our Gospels at first hand, he does so at second hand, and by the interposition of a further intermediate stage.

It is quite possible that he may have had access to such a tertiary document, and that it may be the same which is the source of his apocryphal quotations: that he did draw from apocryphal sources, partly perhaps oral, but probably in the main written, there can, I think, be little doubt.