Is Clement's Reference to the Carpocratian Gospel of 'Mixture' an Allusion to the Diatessaron also called ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' (Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê) the 'Gospel of Mixture'?

Let's begin with an observation from Trobisch. The heading kata Markan etc. rather than Euangelion kata Markan etc. implies what I have already said it implies, but then he argues for the originality of the full form. In my opinion, the ms. evidence points the other way. After arguing for the originality of the full form, he goes on to reach the same conclusions that I reached from the short form, but without seeing the next step. What is important here is that he then says, rightly, that Euangelion kata Markan doesn’t mean the Gospel by Mark, but instead the Gospel according to Mark. This is not the formula for authorship of a new book, which is to put the author’s name in the genitive without a preposition. The only way this can make sense, says he, is if it is the totality of the four that is called the Gospel. His conclusion is that the group of four must have been published together. He doesn’t take what I think ought to have been the next step. For this reason, he is unable to account for the official and universal use of the Diatessaron by the Syrian Church.

He adds elsewhere that he thinks the last verse of John to be the editor’s note at the end of the totality, not the note to mark the end of John. He says, rightly in my opinion, that the verse before this is the editor’s note to the end of John. He raises the question of whether the last chapter, which is all from the hand of an editor, might be from the editor of the group of four.

I know from personal conversations with Trobisch that he is not against identifying Irenaeus as the editor in question (he has made some efforts to make Polycarp that figure but that won't work). If we ignore my theories about the longer gospel texts existing prior to Irenaeus' editorial efforts and just focus on what Trobisch's observation says about canonical Mark, there can be no doubt that this infers that canonical Mark cannot be EITHER of the two texts mentioned in to Theodore.

I think a case can be developed from Trobisch's work that the canonical text is the Carpocratian 'false' gospel of Mark, the one referenced in the line saying that "he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians."

The word 'mixture' is key because there is a well known 'gospel of mixture' which I have already noted resembled the Secret/Mystic gospel in many posts here.

I will mention all of this to Trobisch the next time I speak to him that To Theodore references the Alexandrian text as kata Markon euaggeliou. This would be Trobisch's own inference imply the 'true gospel of Mark.' My best guess is that there is some connection between Clement's reference to the Carpocratian gospel as a 'mixture' and the traditional Syriac term for the Diatessaron 'the gospel of the mixed' which I believe was originally established by Polycarp.

My theory about the development of the Diatessaron will follow in subsequent posts but I think that it was established by Polycarp 'according to John.' Tradition however identifies the author also as Mark (see the acrostic in the Borgian text and the first line of the Diatessaron is Mark 1:1). I am starting to suspect that To Theodore was written against the Diatessaron, the gospel of the mixture ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' (Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê).

One might begin to see that the kind of Alexandrian attack against the 'Gospel of the Mixture' represents the historical impetus for Irenaeus breaking up Polycarp's original gospel into four.

I have already noted that LGM 2 (the second addition to Alexandrian Mark mentioned in the letter) exactly resembles the Diatessaron citation of Jesus' entry into Jericho. I have begun to demonstrate that Clement's Gospel of Mark HAD TO HAVE resembled the Diatessaron insofar as the Zacchaeus narrative followed the cited story of the rich youth (otherwise the whole argument of Quis Dives Salvetur doesn't make sense).

I am beginning to think that To Theodore and Alexandrian attacks like it caused the separation of original gospel of Polycarp (notice that Polycarp doesn't use our gospel in the Letter to the Philippians). Irenaeus decided to break apart the one long gospel into four imitating the twofold structure of the contemporary Alexandrian canon mentioned in the Mar Saba text (i.e. the gospel/kerygma of Peter as the exoteric gospel and the gospel of Mark reserved as the esoteric text). Irenaeus' multiform canon however was made up of four texts of equal weight.