[Greek: oiketês], which, it would no doubt be argued, is an evident
and very natural amplification of the simple [Greek: oudeis] of the
first Gospel. Yet this passage, only differing by the single word
from Matthew, is a literal quotation from the Gospel according to
Luke xvi. 13. Or, to take another instance, supposing the third
Gospel to be lost, and the following passage quoted, from an unnamed
source, by one of the Fathers: 'Beware ([Greek: prosechete]) of the
Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love ([Greek:
philountôn]) greetings in the markets, and chief seats in the
synagogues, and chief places at feasts; which devour widows' houses,
and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater
damnation.' This would, without hesitation, be declared a quotation
from memory of Mark xii. 38-40, from which it only differs in a
couple of words. It is, however, a literal quotation of Luke xx.
46-47, yet probably it would be in vain to submit to apologetic
critics that possibly, not to say probably, the passage was not
derived from Mark, but from a lost Gospel. To quote one more
instance, let us suppose the 'Gospel according to Mark' no longer
extant, and that in some early work there existed the following
passage: 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye ([Greek:
trumalias]) of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the
kingdom of God.' This of course would be claimed as a quotation from
memory of Matt. xix. 24, with which it agrees with the exception of
the substitution of [Greek: trupêmatos] for [Greek: trumalias]. It
would not the less have been an exact quotation from Mark x. 25."
[134:1]

Illustrations of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, and to
anyone who has studied the three synoptics, with their similarities and
variations, and considered the probable mode of their compilation, it