We may indeed remark in passing that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, when once this principle of a common written basis or bases for the Synoptic Gospels is accepted, nine-tenths of his own argument is overthrown; for there are no divergences in the text of the patristic quotations from the Gospels that may not be amply paralleled by the differences which exist in the text of the several Gospels themselves, showing that the Evangelists took liberties with their ground documents to an extent that is really greater than that of any subsequent misquotation.

But putting aside for the present this _argumentum ad hominem_ which seems to follow from the admission here made, there is, I think, the strongest reason to conclude that in the present case the first Evangelist is not merely reproducing his ground document.

There is one element in the question which the author has omitted to notice; that is, the _parallel passage in St.Mark._ This differs so widely from the text of St.Matthew as to show that that text cannot accurately represent the original; it also wants the reflective comment altogether.

Accordingly, if the author will turn to p.

275 of Ewald's book [Endnote 120:1] he will find that that writer, though roughly assigning the passage as it appears in both Synoptics to the 'oldest Gospel,' yet in reconstructing the text of this Gospel does so, not by taking that of either of the Synoptics pure and simple, but by mixing the two.
All the other critics who have dealt with this point, so far as I am aware, have done the same.