Did Clement Ever Accept Our Canonical Gospel of Mark as Authentically Markan?

I know the nature of human beings all too well. What is familiar is 'right' and what is alien is 'evil.' As such we - as a species - have both a tendency to think along predictable lines and an inherent knack to avoid asking questions which might challenge our established beliefs and presuppositions.

In my last post I noted that Clement's Letter to Theodore references the familiar story of Mark as the hermeneutês of Peter. We have learned to translate hermeneutês as 'interpreter' thanks to the influence of Irenaeus. Yet Mark's relationship might originally been meant to be that of a translator which makes sense given the importance of Peter in the church.

To understand 'the gospel of Mark' to be the text for which Mark acted as Peter's hermeneutês obviously sets up the question - why didn't Peter write a gospel? If one realizes that indeed there was a 'gospel of Peter' in antiquity and which happened to have a great influence over the Alexandrian liturgy it becomes impossible NOT to think that the text Clement references Mark establishing for Peter as the 'Gospel of Peter.'

But that's the point isn't it? We always want to reference the Christianity WE KNOW. We always want to turn away from the Christian traditions that require too much work for us to figure out.

So let me restart my last post by emphasizing the most important argument presented there - the Alexandrian community at the time of Clement certainly celebrated a liturgy based on the Gospel of Peter.

Here's how I introduced that argument.

In 1886, the Gospel of Peter was first recovered by a French archaeologist, Urbain Bouriant, from an 8th or 9th-century manuscript that had been respectfully buried with an Egyptian monk, the fragmentary Gospel of Peter (now in the Cairo Museum) was the first non-canonical gospel to have been rediscovered, preserved in the dry sand of Egypt. Publication, delayed by Bouriant until 1892, occasioned intense interest.

There is a clear docetic character to the text which reflects the original heretical beliefs of the Alexandrian community. F F Bruce also notes that "Pilate is here well on the way to the goal of canonisation which he was to attain in the Coptic Church." I can't help but think that this text is one and the same with the one mentioned in Serapion of Antioch's treatise cited by Eusebius and attributed to Marcion. Origen apparently cites the text with approval likely representing the current Alexandrian attitude to the work.

I also take exception to those who read what Origen says in a simple-minded way. Clement's successor says that:

(They of Nazareth thought that Jesus) was the son of Joseph and Mary: but the brothers of Jesus some (founding on a tradition of the Gospel entitled according to Peter or of the Book of James) say were sons of Joseph by a former wife who had lived with him before Mary. [Origen on Matthew, x. 17]

Whenever the Orthodox tradition references the idea of a 'wife of Joseph before Mary' the wife's name is Salome. This is important of course for the connecting the Gospel of Peter to the Markan tradition as Mark is the only canonical gospel to mention Salome by name.

Is Clement then referring to Secret/Mystic Mark whenever mentioning 'the Gospel of the Egyptians'? Scott Brown's translation frees us from assuming that the text was 'hidden' in Alexandria. Yet why didn't Clement then explicit say that the Gospel of the Egyptians was Mystic Mark? As I noted before, we should consider the possibility that the text was DELIBERATELY ambiguous because both meanings were intended, one the 'exterior' meaning, the other the 'interior' meaning as Pagel's has suggested about the gnostic hermeneutic generally.

The important thing to consider our new wrinkle - that Origen is actually saying that Salome appeared in the Gospel of Peter - opens the possibility that the text as a whole might have appeared more 'Markan' than what we see in the surviving portion. All though we should compare the ending of the earliest texts of Mark:

Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they [i.e. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. [Mark 16:2 - 8]

With what appears in the Gospel of Peter:

Now at the dawn of the Lord's Day Mary Magdalene, a female disciple of the Lord (who, afraid because of the Jews since they were inflamed with anger, had not done at the tomb of the Lord what women were accustomed to do for the dead beloved by them), having taken with her women friends, came to the tomb where he had been placed ... [and they said amongst themselves] "But who will roll away for us even the stone placed against the door of the tomb in order that, having entered, we may sit beside him and do the expected things? For the stone was large, and we were afraid lest anyone see us. And if we are unable, let is throw against the door what we bring in memory of him; let us weep and beat ourselves until we come to our homes."

And having gone off, they found the sepulcher opened. And having come forward, they bent down there and saw there a certain young man seated in the middle of the sepulcher, comely and clothed with a splendid robe, who said to them: 'Why have you come? Whom do you seek? Not that one who was crucified? He is risen and gone away. But if you do not believe, bend down and see the place where he lay, because he is not here. For he is risen and gone away to there whence he was sent.' Then the women fled frightened. [Gospel of Peter 50, 53 - 57]

I am sorry, I don't care what objections people want to throw up against this thesis there certainly IS a relationship between the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of Mark with regards to the discovery of the empty tomb on Sunday.

The fact that even Irenaeus contends with a heretical group that contends with a heretical tradition associated with the Gospel of Mark that (a) thought that Christ and Jesus were two separate figures [AH iii.11.7] and (b) that there was variant ending of Mark which the heretics thought proved "from [the Law]and] prophets that Christ came to "announce another God ... the Father." [AH iii.10.5]

If our analogy holds the Gospel of Peter's preservation of some significant event when the disciples were standing on water on the eighth day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread has to be that 'event' that Irenaeus is attacking. It must have been present not only in the Gospel of Peter but also the text Alexandrians identified as the true gospel of Mark - i.e. Secret/Mystic Mark.

The Ogdoad is always connected with the Father above the god of the Jews because tradition identified the menorah with the seven heavens. The 'eighth' was one above the Jewish godhead.

I have already argued that the Gospel of Peter confirms the Alexandrian practice that we hear confirmed in the Liber Pontificalis and the writings of Origen - i.e. the baptizing of the catechumen on the day after the end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. So we read:

Now it was the last day of unleavened bread, and many were coming forth of the city and returning unto their own homes because the feast was at an end. But we, the twelve disciples of the Lord, were weeping and were in sorrow, and each one being grieved for that which had befallen departed unto his own house. But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother, took our nets and went unto the sea: and there was with us Levi the son of Alphaeus, whom the Lord [Gospel of Peter]

The writings of Origen are filled with the idea that Christians in Alexandrian continued to venerate a 'Christian Feast of Unleavened Bread.' Yet as Buchlinger (2005) notes "Origen interprets the bitter herb allegorically as an attitude of grief and sorrow (2 Cor 2:9f)." What hasn't been recognized yet is that the source for this view must clearly be the description of the disciples in the Gospel of Peter during the eight days of the feast:

Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful ...

It seems to me to be absolutely impossible to believe that the Gospel of Peter IS NOT the context which provides the basis for Origen's understanding that 'grief and sorrow' is appropriate on the Alexandrian Christian celebration of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Notice also that the disciples happen to be on water for the eighth day of the Chag HaMatzot.

The point of course is that it is at least possible to read Irenaeus alluding to a variant ending which was interpreted as supporting the idea that Jesus was superior to the god of the Jews. Having the disciples witness the enthronement in heaven on the eighth day (the ogdoad) would do exactly that.

In any event the real question which now stands before us is why it makes more sense to assume that our inherited idea that "Mark wrote a gospel for Peter that was called the 'Gospel of Mark" makes more sense than the idea that the Alexandrian tradition put forward the idea that Mark acted as hermeneutês for the Gospel of Peter - undoubtedly taking the original Aramaic composition of the Galilean disciple and preserving it in Greek.

In my mind it is only our inherited MIS-understanding of the existing tradition that stands in the way.

Let's go back to the idea that Eusebius must have received a corrupt text of Papias through the school of Irenaeus. Irenaeus as I have noted many times before is the ultimate conduit for all the early texts of Christianity. The simple idea that Mark acted as hermeneutês for Peter's gospel became augmented by Irenaeus into the idea that 'the gospel of Mark' was Peter's gospel 'interpreted' by Mark.

It is Irenaeus - and not Papias - who is the first to explicitly identify the text that Mark 'interpreted' for Peter as the canonical gospel of Mark. In the context of giving the pedigree of the four canonical gospels, Irenaeus writes that "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." What immediately precedes this statement makes clear that composition was done at Rome. Irenaeus' claims were recycled by Tertullian and many later Church Fathers word for word "while that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was." (Adv. Marc. 4.5).

The idea of "Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter" and author of the Gospel of Mark which is at once 'Peter's gospel' resurfaces in his discussion of the opening words of the text - "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Now if you ask me the opening lines of the Gospel of Mark make absolutely clear that this is NOT a gospel of Peter or any other person. They argue instead for the idea that what follows is a divine revelation - the Gospel of Jesus - made to a human vessel who wants to disappear in the profundity of his experience.

So in Judaism there is always a debate about how much of the Torah is God's and how much Moses'. Not only are the opening words of Mark NOT exclusive to the canonical gospel of Mark (they happen to be the opening words of the Diatessaron too and clearly from Tertullian's testimony - the Gospel of the Marcionites (a term which as I have noted many times at this site means 'those of Mark' in Aramaic).

Not only does this explain Hippolytus' perplexing statement about who the Marcionites claim is the author of their gospel:

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger, announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives.[Hippolytus Ref. Heresies vii.18]

The last I checked Sicily was part of Italy, which makes the variation of what is preserved in Hippolytus in the so-called anti-Marcionite prologue to the Gospel of Mark all the more intriguing:

Mark declared, who is called 'stump-fingered,' because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.

There is clearly some kind of overlap between (a) a radical group who says that the Marcionite 'gospel of the Lord' is by Mark and (b) another group who say no, it is really a Gospel of Peter written by Mark in Italy.

These two traditions come to a head in Adamantius' Dialogue when the statement by Peter, “you are the Christ” is raised. Eutropius the pagan arbitrator asks whether Peter wrote the gospel. The Marcionite Marcus replies “Christ, not Peter, wrote the gospel.”

Pretty: “What right has Marcus to say that Christ wrote the gospel. The Gospel writer did not refer to himself; he refers to him who he is proclaiming – Jesus Christ.”

Rufinus: “Deinde quomodo dicit Christum scripsisse euangelium? Non enim tanquam de se scribens loquitur scriptor euangelii, sed tanquam alium et qui extra se sit praedicans Christum.”

Greek: “πῶς δὲ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν γεγραφηκέναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον? οὐ γὰρ ὡς περὶ αὑτοῦ ὁ γράψας τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἐσήμανε, σημαίνει ὃν κηρύσσει Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν,…”

An attempt from Greek: “But how does he say that the Christ has written the gospel? For he who wrote the gospel did not indicate himself, he indicates the one he is proclaiming – Christ Jesus.”

The question of course is clearly raised in the context of the debate over the identity of the Gospel of Mark that we have been raising here. The Marcionites - in a manner that seems uncannily similar to Morton Smith's translation of To Theodore - deny that Mark or any human is the author of the text. The text is properly identified as 'the Gospel of the Lord.'

Nevertheless it must be acknowledged on some level Marcionites also acknowledged that the Apostle (whose title was 'Paul' and real name was something else) acted as the vessel for that revelation from Jesus.

I have to believe that the Alexandrian community must have safeguarded the 'true text' of Mark and had another shorter text which it identified as 'Peter's gospel' with Mark as the text's hermeneutês. How was it that two texts were created of differing lengths out of the same narrative is anyone's guess. The traditional defenders of the authenticity of To Theodore can't explain how to versions of a 'gospel of Mark' were established in two different locations. Why should I be able to do likewise with an idea I just got 48 hours ago?

I can't deny that there is the near universal reading of the material where Clement is supposed to be witnessing one Gospel of Mark of two differing lengths. The idea that Clement might be arguing AGAINST Irenaeus' Roman tradition or that Irenaeus was railing against the 'Mark' of the Alexandrian Church.

Yet I have already demonstrated that Irenaeus was indeed a 'Marcosian' and supported that assertion with over fifty proofs. Irenaeus speaks of the Marcosians "adducing an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men." I have noted on more than one occasion that these Marcosians identify a gnostic baptism ritual with what appears to be a parallel gospel text to Mark chapter 10.

Does anyone believe that the gospel text of the Marcosians was 'canonical Mark' or 'Secret/Mystic Mark? Of course not. People are willing to just let it stand as 'just some apocryphal gospel.'

Similarly when Athansius, writing from Alexandria a century and half later makes reference to the continued existence of these apocryphal texts in his thirty ninth Festal Letter borrowing almost word for word what appears in Irenaeus:

some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtilty of certain men, and should henceforth read other books—those called apocryphal—led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books

no one jumps up and says that Athanasius is referencing the Gospel of Mark or Secret/Mystic Mark.

Why then is it when Clement seems to allude to three gospel - (a) Secret/Mystic Mark (b) a false Carpocratian gospel claimed to be 'according to Mark' and (c) a 'carnal' text said by tradition to have been 'Peter's gospel' written for Peter by Mark that canonical Mark has to be (c) rather than (b)?

The answer is simple of course scholars chose Eusebius' identification of the Hypotyposes as a genuine work of Clement over Photius denial that it was falsely ascribed to the same author. I have provided irrefutable proof that the Hypotyposeis were not written by Clement - the real Clement thought Peter and Cephas were one and the same person; the author of the Hypotyposeis thinks they are two different disciples. This when combined with Photius' testimony makes it utterly irrelevant what the author of this text thinks about Jesus baptizing only Peter or the Gospel of Mark being the 'Gospel of Peter.' It was by another Alexandrian writer - and undoubtedly Theognostus who wrote a work of the same name.

We can also dismiss the sixth century Italian monk Cassiodorus' bringing forward a commentary on the various scriptures supposedly in Clement's name as Cassiodorus always emphasizes that the same person was also the author of the Hypotyposeis. There are a number of reasons for rejecting these commentaries ranging from the style of the writing to the fact that Eusebius never mentions these works.

At the end of the day we have now demonstrated that there is absolutely NO REASON from the Patristic sources themselves to assume that Clement of Alexandria has to be favorably disposed toward the canonical Mark which Irenaeus promoted as 'orthodox.' One can argue that it is likely that Clement accepted canonical Mark.

The only place that the 'Gospel of Mark' is referenced in Clement's writings OUTSIDE of To Theodore is in Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved and it seems to suggest (to me at least) that Clement believed in Markan primacy:

These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning. But well knowing that the Saviour teaches nothing in a merely human way, but teaches all things to His own with divine and mystic wisdom, we must not listen to His utterances carnally; but with due investigation and intelligence must search out and learn the meaning hidden in them [v]

The use of the concept 'mystic wisdom' here along with the explicit reference to the Gospel of Mark seems to imply to me at least that the two translations of Brown and Smith can be reconciled with the idea that Clement referenced the idea that Alexandrians used a version of Mark but never made explicit how its narrative deviated from Roman Mark.

My guess however is that to Theodore is doing exactly that. In other words, Clement is aware that the 'Carpocratians' of Rome (i.e. those of the circle of Marcia the concubine of Commodus) are promoting what they claim is the 'only true' version of Mark. They were undoubtedly also blaspheming all other 'apocryphal' texts which claimed to be 'according to Mark.'

At some point 'the Carpocratians' - i.e. those associated with Irenaeus - were claiming the Alexandrian text had a reference to Jesus engaged in sodomy with his beloved neaniskos. Clement eventually writes back and before addressing how Alexandrian Mark differed from Roman Mark explained how the Roman text was 'sort of like' the Alexandrian original except with lies mixed in with truth.

Notice how when Clement decided to compare Secret/Mystic Mark with the known version of Mark (which Clement has just denied is actually by Mark but is instead truth mixed with lies) it immediately follows a discussion of the Carpocratian gospel:

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which 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.

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men". For this reason the Wisdom of God, through Solomon, advises, "Answer the fool from his folly", teaching that the light of the truth should be hidden from those who are mentally blind. Again it says, "From him who has not shall be taken away", and "Let the fool walk in darkness". But we are "children of Light", having been illuminated by "the dayspring" of the spirit of the Lord "from on high", and "Where the Spirit of the Lord is", it says, "there is liberty", for "All things are pure to the pure".

To you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after "And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem" and what follows, until "After three days he shall arise", the secret Gospel brings the following material word for word:

"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan."

After these words follows the text, "And James and John come to him", and all that section. But "naked man with naked man," and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.

And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.

Some things about this material which stand out - (a) the text which Clement compares Secret/Mystic Mark is never identified as canonical Mark. Also (b) notice contrasts how Clement will act toward the Carpocratians - i.e. "to them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel." But then to a friend like Theodore Clement can indeed speak about the canonical text AS IF it were 'Markan' - i.e. for the point of making his illustration viz. "to you, therefore, I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked, refuting the falsifications by the very words of the Gospel. For example, after ..."

The point then is that Clement must have been confronting a growing challenge on the Alexandrian tradition associated with St. Mark. He must have publicly denied the authority of Roman Mark (could this have led to his flight from Alexandria?) but has just received a question from Theodore about how the accepted 'Roman' canonical Mark differs from the Alexandrian Secret/Mystic Mark. For the sake of illustration he will demonstrate how what has been added. However it should be noted that the same illustration would have applied to Ephrem's Diatessaron and I believe the Gospel of Peter.

As I have noted time and time again - everything comes down to context. If Theodore asked him 'how does canonical Mark differ from Secret/Mystic Mark' (i) Clement's opening statement about Mark penning ONLY a Gospel of Peter could have been a refutation of the Roman claims about a shorter Gospel of Mark and (ii) he would have had no choice but to frame his question in such a way that referenced canonical Mark because of the original question. It does not mean that Clement endorsed the Roman text.

As a way of closing this rather long discussion here is a list of ALL EXPLICIT mentions of 'Markos' in To Theodore making explicit reference to the translator. It is meant to underscore that it is only intellectual laziness or 'habit' which makes us think that Clement accepted our shorter canonical Gospel of Mark:

1) To Theodore 1:11 - 13

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. [tr. Morton Smith]

Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. [tr. Scott Brown]

2) To Theodore 1:15 - 17

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. [tr. Morton Smith]

As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the mystic ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. [tr. Scott Brown]

3) To Theodore 1:18 - 26

But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [tr. Morton Smith]

Then, when Peter was martyred, Mark went to Alexandria, bringing both his knowledge and the things he remembered hearing from Peter. From what he brought, he supplemented his first book with the appropriate items about knowledge for those who are making progress. He arranged a more spiritual gospel for the use of those being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not reveal the things which are not to be discussed. He did not write out the hierophantic instruction of the Lord, but added other deeds to the ones he had already written. Then, he added certain sayings, the interpretation of which he knew would initiate the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of the truth which has been hidden seven times. [tr. Andrew Bernhard]

But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book, the things suitable to those studies which make for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teachings of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and moreover, brought in certain traditions of which he knew the interpretation, would, as a mystagogue lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [tr. Scott Brown]

4) To Theodore II:10 - 12

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that the secret Gospel is by Mark, but should even deny it on oath. [tr. Morton Smith]

To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way; nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark's mystic gospel, but should even deny it on oath. For, "Not all true things are to be said to all men [tr. Scott Brown]

As I already noted the assumption here is the "account of the Lord's doing" written "during Peter's stay in Rome" by Mark was identified by Clement as "the gospel of Mark" is not at all proven. There is no way to actually know whether the name of the historical text that Mark purported wrote or translated in Rome was called the 'Gospel of Peter' or the canonical 'Gospel of Mark.'

Indeed it is impossible to prove that Clement ever accepted our familiar version of the Gospel of Mark. His acceptance was likely only assumed because the issue was never questioned.

While we cannot prove that Clement ever DENIED the authenticity of Irenaeus' Gospel of Mark it is worth noting that when Hippolytus closes his discussion of the followers of 'Marcus' of Egypt he makes clear that they did indeed 'deny' other aspects of Irenaeus report. After copying almost verbatim the report first written by Irenaeus against members of Clement's tradition, Hippolytus adds at the very end this cryptic statement:

For also the blessed presbyter Irenaeus, having approached the subject of a refutation in a more unconstrained spirit, has explained such washings and redemptions, stating more in the way of a rough digest what are their practices. (And it appears that some of the Marcosians,) on meeting with (Irenaeus' work), deny that they have so received (the secret word just alluded to), but they have learned that always they should deny. Wherefore our anxiety has been more accurately to investigate, and to discover minutely what are the (instructions) which they deliver in the case of the first bath, styling it by some such name; and in the case of the second, which they denominate Redemption. But not even has this secret of theirs escaped (our scrutiny). [Hippolytus Ref. Heresies vi.37]

I think it is enough to tip the scales in favor of my proposition but of course I am biased ...