ikodomas tautas; amaen
humin lego] (as Matt.) [Greek: lithos epi lithon ou mae aphethae
ode, hos ou mae] (as Mark) [Greek: kathairethae] ([Greek:
kataluthae], Mark; other Gospels, future). Instead of [Greek: tas
oikodomas toutas] the other Gospels have [Greek: tauta--tauta
panta].

But there are two stronger cases than these. The Clementines and
Mark alone have the opening clause of the quotation from Deut. vi.
4, [Greek: Akoue, Israael, Kurios ho Theos haemon kurios eis
estin]. In the synopsis of the first Gospel this is omitted (Matt.
xxii. 37). There is a variation in the Clementine text, which for
[Greek: haemon] has, according to Dressel, [Greek: sou], and,
according to Cotelier, [Greek: humon]. Both these readings however
are represented among the authorities for the canonical text:
[Greek: sou] is found in c (Codex Colbertinus, one of the best
copies of the Old Latin), in the Memphitic and Aethiopic versions,
and in the Latin Fathers Cyprian and Hilary; [Greek: humon]
(vester) has the authority of the Viennese fragment i, another
representative of the primitive African form of the Old Latin
[Endnote 178:1].

The objection to the inference that the quotation is made from St.
Mark, derived from the context in which it appears in the
Clementines, is really quite nugatory. It is true that the
quotation is addressed to those 'who were beguiled to imagine many
gods,' and that 'there is no hint of the assertion of many gods in
the Gospel' [Endnote 178:2]; but just as little hint is there of
the assertion 'that God is evil' in the quotation [Greek: mae me
legete agathon] just before. There is not the slightest reason to
suppose that the Gospel from which the Clementines quote would
contain any such assertion. In this particular case the mode of
quotation cannot be said to be very unscrupulous; but even if it
were more so we need not go back to antiquity for parallels: they
are to be found in abundance in any ordinary collection of proof
texts of the Church Catechism or of the Thirty-nine Articles, or
in most works of popular controversy. I must confess to my
surprise that such an objection could be made by an experienced
critic.

Credner [Endnote 179:1] gives the last as the one decided
approximation to our second Gospel, apparently overlooking the
minor points mentioned above; but, at the time when he wrote, the
concluding portion of the Homilies, which contains the other most
striking instance, had not yet been