Although we cannot rely on the exact words of the quotations from the Gospel in the “Recognitions,” there are references to the history of our Lord which give indications of narratives contained in the Gospel used by the pseudo‐Clement, therefore by the Ebionite Christians whose views he represents. We will go through all such passages in the order in which they occur in the “Recognitions.” The first allusion to a text parallel to one in the Canonical Gospels is this: “Not only did they not believe, but they added blasphemy to unbelief, saying he was a gluttonous man and slave of his belly, and that he was influenced by a demon.”(305) The parallel passage is in St. Matthew xi. 18, 19. It is curious to notice that in the Recognitions the order is inverted. In St. Matthew, “they say, He hath a devil.... They say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine‐bibber;” and that the term “wine‐bibber” is changed into “slave of his belly.” Probably therefore in this instance the author of the Clementines borrowed from a different text from St. Matthew. In the very next chapter the Recognitions approaches St. Matthew closer than the lost Gospel. For in the account of the crucifixion it is said that “the veil of the Temple was rent,” whereas the Gospel of the Hebrews stated that the lintel of the Temple had fallen. But here I suspect we have the hand of Rufinus the translator. We can understand how, finding in the text an inaccuracy of quotation, as he supposed, he altered it. The next passage relates to the resurrection. “For some of them, watching the place with all care, when they could not prevent his rising again, _said that he was a magician_; others pretended that he was stolen away.”(306) The Canonical Gospels say nothing about this difference of opinion among the Jews, but St. Matthew states that it was commonly reported among them that his disciples had stolen his body away. Not a word about any suspicion that he had exercised witchcraft, a charge which we know from Celsus was brought against Christ later. The next passage is especially curious. It relates to the unction of Christ. “He was the Son of God, and the beginning of all things; he became man; _him God anointed with oil that was taken from the wood of the Tree of Life_; and from this anointing he is called Christ.”(307) Then St. Peter goes on to argue: “In the present life, Aaron, the first high‐ priest, was anointed with a composition of chrism, which was made after the pattern of that spiritual ointment of which we have spoken before.... But if any one else was anointed with the same ointment, as deriving virtue from it, he became either king, or prophet, or priest. If, then, this temporal grace, compounded by men, had such efficacy, _consider __ how potent was that ointment extracted by God from a branch of the Tree of Life_, when that which was made by men could confer so excellent dignities among men.”