Clement's Variant Gospel of Mark As Witnessed by Quis Dives Salvetur [Part Two]

I already started this discussion over a month ago, but owing to the pressing demands of my day job I wasn't able to complete the study. My observation is very simple - Clement's argument in 'Who is the Rich Man Who Will be Saved' is based on the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark, the same Gospel According to Mark that is cited in To Theodore. While the citation of the section a section of that gospel (Mark 10:17 - 31) superficially resembles our surviving canonical text, Clement's understanding of what follows thereafter demonstrates with absolutely certainty that the Alexandrian text resembled a 'Diatessaron.'

Even a superficial reading of the material demonstrates that his whole argument depends on the idea that the Zacchaeus narrative comes after Jesus' appeal to the rich youth. I don't know why scholars haven't noticed this before. My suspicion is that they don't think that the early writers of the Church have to make sense.

In our first post in this new series on Quis Dives Salvetur we examined Chapter One of the homily, which amounts to being some general introductory notes. Now we move on to chapter two where Clement prepares us for his first citation of the Gospel according to Mark saying:

Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing more difficult to the rich than to poor men, is not single but manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God. But others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. And I affirm both of these things of the rich who have learned both the Saviour's power and His glorious salvation. With those who are ignorant of the truth I have little concern. [Quis Dives 2]

I will argue that at its simplest the first part of this citation - i.e. 'some hearing ... the utterance of the Saviour "that it is easier for a camel etc ...' - is the part of 'according to Mark' that was shared by both the Roman and Alexandrian gospels. Indeed that which follows - i.e. the reference to 'the works which tend to salvation' is the Zacchaeus narrative which clearly concluded the 'riches' section in Clement's gospel (and the Diatessaron for that matter).

Of course our inherited 'gospels' from the Roman tradition of Irenaeus DO NOT understand the Zacchaeus narrative to be a part of 'according to Mark.' It only appears in a separate text - viz. 'according to Luke' which Irenaeus says was directed against 'the Marcionites.'

In other words, 'the final editor' of our New Testament canon must have removed this story as part of a general pattern of reformulating 'the Gospel' into 'gospels'. It is my belief that the motivation to get away from 'single, long gospel narratives' had everything to do with attacking the 'gospel secret' within the original text. In other words, that there was a hidden figure in the gospel originally written by Mark, who I believe was Mark himself.

I have written about this before, usually only to be ridiculed by 'serious academics.' Yet let's put this one section under the microscope for a moment.

When Phillips studied parallel references to this part of the gospel narrative among traditions that employed 'Diatessaron-like' text (i.e. a non-canonical single, longer gospel) there "followed the Parable of the Rich Fool with the Story of the Young Ruler which was then followed by the Parable of Dives and Lazarus." Petersen even noted that underlying themes emerge within all the sections of the text. It always seems to be framed as the witness of 'two paths' that humanity can take with regards to riches which only get resolved in the example of Zacchaeus, who as Clement will note in this present Homily, discovers the 'works which tend to salvation.'

Instead of following the teachings of the pagan philosophers (who think money is evil and throw away their wealth in the hopes of saving their soul) the lesson that Clement sees in Mark's gospel is that Zacchaeus learns to "give half of his money to the poor" and if he discovers he has cheated anyone "he restores it to them fourfold." Clement's interpretation of the Gospel is entirely dependent on Zacchaeus following Mark 10:17 - 31.

It isn't as if he is vaguely speaking about 'the word of God' in such a way that he can make any passage follow any other. As we shall see he goes out of his way to develop a homily of the Gospel according to Mark IN SPECIFIC and as such it makes absolutely no sense that his argument should depend on Zacchaeus' example, unless of course as I suggest, the Alexandrian version of the Gospel according to Mark had Zacchaeus follow Mark 10:17 - 31 as it does in McCarthy's reconstruction of Ephrem's Syriac Diatessaron:

XV 1 - 11 The Rich Man
XV 12 - 13 The Rich Man and Lazarus
XV 14 - 17 The Parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard
XV 18 - 19 The Request of James and John
XV 20 - 21 Zacchaeus

I actually see the exact same thing at work in Clement's citation of the Alexandrian 'Gospel according to Mark' in to Thedoore. The citation is absolutely 'Diatessaronic.' The only difference is that Clement is countering a 'mixed gospel' in the possession of a certain heretical group which I have identified previously as the Diatessaron called 'ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܕܡܚܠܛܐ' (Ewangeliyôn Damhalltê) meaning 'Gospel of the Mixed' within the Syrian tradition from the very beginning.

I am not one of those people who simply regurgitates the party line about 'the Diatessaron' simply being a 'blend' of the four gospels. I know that the original gospel can't have been in four and that the existing four 'parts' of the 'gospel of four' must have been modified by the 'final editor' of the canon.

That's why I spend three whole days citing the work of David Trobisch for you.

The point is that the Arabic Diatessaron is not the text of Ephrem, nor is it the text which tradition identifies as Tatian's 'Diatessaron.' As I have started to show in these last few posts, whenever a Patristic witnesses came across an ancient single, long gospel they just labeled it 'a Diatessaron' or 'Tatian's Diatessaron' in the way that a bunch of punks on a street corner talk identify each woman that walks past them in the night as 'hoes,' 'bitches' or 'pussies.'

The Church Fathers had no real interest in 'getting to the bottom' of the origin of the single, gospel tradition. All that is clear from the surviving testimonies is that - while there were certainly a plurality of texts in the first and second century period - by the fourth century onward we hear of two principle 'types' - a Syriac 'Diatessaron' which is called 'the Gospel of the Mixed' and an Alexandrian 'Diatessaron' for some reason associated with Ammonius (who is often later connected with Ammonius Saccas the contemporary of Clement and Origen).

It is very difficult to say anything definitive about these two textual traditions other than to note that they are clearly distinguished from one another. My little observation is to note that Clement repeatedly identifies the heretical gospel which claims to be the 'true gospel according to Mark' as the 'mixed gospel.' I also think that while it is possible to see in what concludes the surviving material from to Theodore as a comparison of Theodore's Gospel of Mark with the Alexandrian 'secret' Gospel according to Mark, it is also possible to see it in terms of a two Diatessaron-like texts which basically resembled Ephrem's text or even THREE gospel narratives where Theodore used the 'shorter' canonical Mark, Clement used an original Diatessaron-like Alexandrian gospel according to Mark and the Carpocratians possessed a text which resembled Ephrem's Diatessaron.

I am afraid that we will just have to leave this last point an open question for now ...

I sometimes worry that Patristic and New Testament scholarship always forces us to posit the familiar at the expense of what is more likely on the basis of a well rounded appreciation of the subtleties associated with a given writer. In the case of Clement, BECAUSE he argues in Quis Dives Salvetur that Zacchaeus 'completes' our understanding of what appears in the discussion of the rich youth narrative, it is highly likely that the Alexandrian Gospel of Mark resembled a Diatessaron. The idea is present also - as I noted in my last post - when the second 'addition' to 'Secret Mark' appears just before the spot where that the Diatessaron 'adds' the Zacchaeus to the natural order of Mark chapter 10.

Indeed if we look again at what is said here in the second chapter of Clement's homily on the Gospel of Mark, one can almost begin to see other references to things related to the discussion in To Theodore leap off the page. For instance if we look at the first sentence again:

Perhaps the reason of salvation appearing more difficult to the rich than to poor men, is not single but manifold. For some, merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God.

I know that almost no one has noticed this before but it is quite easy to see that when Clement speaks of 'some hearing' ONLY from copies of the Gospel according to Mark that only have Mark 10:17 - 31 WITHOUT the narrative being concluded with the example of Zacchaeus 'despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them ...'

Again, the problem is that WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT CLEMENT IS SAYING because we believe we know that Jesus' teaching was for us to just abandon all of our wealth. Yet as I have noted Clement will use the example of Zacchaeus to prove that the Gospel of Mark teaches that rather than just surrendering all our wealth and living like communists we are supposed to use our money to make people's live better.

To this end, when we search for those whom Clement designates as 'some who ... despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them' there really can be only one community that Clement is referencing here - the Carpocratians.

Scholars have lost all sense of perspective in these matters related to this sect.

We have to keep in mind that Clement is in fact warning against 'surrendering all to the world' like the pagan philosophers. So it should not be surprising that when we look at the discussion of the Carpocratians in Book Three of the Stromateis (the one that is almost never translated from Latin in old editions) we see that it is the Carpocratians again who are condemned for being communists who - owing to their 'share everything' attitude - end up falling victims to licentiousness in effect because they "cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them."

Indeed it gets so frustrating when you read Jeffrey's take on why he sees as 'contradictions' in the referencing of the Carpocratians in To Theodore. I think he just gets sidetracked by all the talk about sex.

The Carpocratians are explicitly and consistently connected to Mark chapter 10 by Clement precisely because they based their communism on Mark 10:17 - 31. There can be no question about this, nor the fact that Zacchaeus did not quickly follow this section so as to prove that Jesus did not just want people to abandon their wealth as they claimed. We must remember what Clement actually says in to Theodore which explains why the Carpocratians are so 'carnal.'

Unlike the true Alexandrian Church who carefully preserve and guard the unadulterated gospel according to Mark we hear that

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.

Again, because scholars are so easily distracted by sex and talk of sexual deviance (undoubtedly because they so rarely 'get it') they don't see that Clement is actually quite consistent about WHY THE CARPOCRATIANS ARE IDENTIFIED AS CARNAL. It is because they have added so many things to the gospel (or 'mixed' pollution with the true words of the gospel) that they interpret Mark 10:17 - 31 in a vaccuum (i.e. without seeing it 'concluded' with the example of Zacchaeus) and so become communists, share all their property in common and then ultimately start wife swapping.

This is exactly what is written in the first few chapters of Book Three of the Stromateis WITHOUT reference to Mark chapter 10 but then it is important to note that a little later in the same book, this formula is exactly spelled out WITH reference to Mark chapter 10 which - I think - takes us full circle back to the consistency of the arguments in To Theodore (which we just cited) with the accepted writings of Clement.

Clement concludes his discussion of the Carpocratians 'surrendering all things to the world' he reinforces the ideas in Quis Dives Salvetur - namely that Jesus DID NOT TEACH complete abandonment of wealth but selective donations to the poor:

The "righteousness" of Carpocrates, however, and those like him who pursue immoral "communion" is to be refuted by an argument along the following lines. Immediately after the words "Give to him that asks you," he continues: " And do not turn away from him who wishes to borrow ."Thus it is this kind of communion which he is teaching, not the immoral kind. How can there be one who asks and receives and borrows unless there is someone who possesses and gives and lends? What, then, is the position when the Lord says, "I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, naked and you clothed me," after which he adds "inasmuch as you did it to one of these little ones, you did it to me"? [Stromata iii.6.54]

I know that people here the word 'immoral' and the 'Carpocratians' in the same sentence and they think 'orgy' but this simply isn't true. Clement is attacking the example of Christians like Polycarp, who in his mind, looked more like pagan philosophers than followers of Jesus.

After citing numerous examples from the Old Testament it is important to note that Clement immediately goes to admonish the Carpocratian interpretation of Mark chapter 10 which I have noted he was doing secretly in Quis Dives Salvetur under the cryptic reference to how 'some' Christians interpret this passage. We read in the Stromata:

Just as the world is composed of opposites, of heat and cold, dry and wet, so also is it made up of givers and receivers. Again when he says, "If you would be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor," he convicts the man who boasts that he has kept all the commandments~ from his youth up. For he had not fulfilled "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Only then was he taught by the Lord who wished to make him perfect, to give for love's sake.

Accordingly he has not forbidden us to be rich in the right way, but only a wrongful and insatiable grasping of money. For "property gained unlawfully is diminished." "There are some who sow much and gain the more, and those who hoard become impoverished." Of them it is written: "He distributed, he gave to the poor, his righteousness endures for ever." For he who sows and gathers more is the man who by giving away his earthly and temporal goods has obtained a heavenly and eternal prize; the other is he who gives to no one, but vainly "lays up treasure on earth where moth and rust corrupt"; of him it is written: "In gathering motley, he has gathered it into a condemned cell." Of his land the Lord says in the gospel that it produced plentifully; then wishing to store the fruits he built larger store-houses, saying to himself in the words dramatically put into his mouth "You have many good things laid up for many years to come, eat, drink, and be merry. You fool," says the Lord, "this night your soul shall be required of you. Whose then shall be the things you have prepared?" [ibid]

Of course if the fifty or so regular readers of this blog have being paying attention to my post they know now WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that To Theodore is an authentic document. There can be no doubt.

For we now have THREE witnesses from Clement's own hand about a contemporary controversy with the so-called Carpocratians over the proper reading and interpretation of the material known to us as 'Mark chapter 10' (what numbered chapter in the Alexandrian gospel this material falls is anyone's guess).

Don't you see? I have already told my readers that the argument in Quis Dives Salvetur HAD TO HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED from a text which resembled the pattern shown in Ephrem's citation of the Diatessaron. In other words, Clement is saying that the Gospel according to Mark begins with a question of how do we live with riches. He says that some interpret Mark 10:17 - 31 as if it means that we have to give up our wealth and share all things in common. But then he says that those same people were led to sin because of their beliefs, falling away from the path to eternal life which is embodied in the teaching of Zacchaeus which in their gospels in not connected directly to this narrative (as it is not in our canonical texts).

Then in the Stromateis as we have just shown, the Carpocratians are EXPLICITLY referenced and their communism is EXPLICITLY identified as developing from a gospel which only has Mark 10:17 - 31. While Zacchaeus is not explicitly referenced here, it is interesting to note that Clement does cite from an unnamed 'Diatessaron-like' gospel which was known to Origen and which Phillips says "followed the Parable of the Rich Fool with the Story of the Young Ruler which was then followed by the Parable of Dives and Lazarus."

According to my way of thinking, Clement is citing from what appears in the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark JUST BEFORE LGM 1 (i.e. the first addition to 'Secret Mark' mentioned in To Theodore).

I suspect that the reason why the Carpocratians and Clement are engaged in a debate about whose gospel is the real 'Gospel according to Mark' as reflected in To Theodore is because Clement has pounded this drum about the Carpocratians 'missing' important stories in the gospel that the Carpocratians started saying deliberately slandering what was present in the Alexandrian gospel.

Remember when Clement says in Quis Dives Salvetur that there are those who:

merely hearing, and that in an off-hand way, the utterance of the Saviour, "that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven," despair of themselves as not destined to live, surrender all to the world, cling to the present life as if it alone was left to them, and so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God.

'Merely' clearly means those who interpret what they say is 'according to Mark' but which doesn't have the critical Zacchaeus' narrative to modify the teachings of Mark 10:17 - 31.

Indeed, if I am allowed some room for some speculation I would like to tackle the two statements at the end of the section cited above - viz. that the Carpocratians who only have Mark 10:17 - 31 "so diverge more from the way to the life to come, no longer inquiring either whom the Lord and Master calls rich, or how that which is impossible to man becomes possible to God."

First Clement complains that the Carpocratians do not inquire apparently the one "whom the Lord and Master calls rich." This may well be a reference to the fact that Clement sees the same youth who is here turned away eventually becomes identified as 'Zacchaeus' (Aramaic zakkai = 'pure') because he has underwent the purification initiation of LGM 1 (Epiphanius mentions a sect called the 'Zacchaeans' who are otherwise disparaged as the Borborites 'the filthy' owing to their claims of having underwent some ritual purification obviously).

Second the statement that 'that which is impossible becomes possible to God' seems also to refer to the same redemption baptism where we must suppose the mortal 'took on immortality' viz. divine power. As such, one may argue that Clement's interpretation of those who base their teachings 'merely' on Mark 10:17 - 31 remain merely 'carnal' owing to the fact that they have not accepted the 'spiritual baptism' represent in the additional material of the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark AND moreover do not have the example of this 'purified' individual (i.e. the one called zakkai) discovering the secret of the kingdom of heaven (viz. that if acts as a father or a patron to a community of Christians he is capable of reconciling his wealth with eternal life).

Indeed Clement clearly is referencing this idea of a 'preparation ritual' lying in between Mark 10:17 - 31 when he goes on to say in Quis Dives Salvetur:

others rightly and adequately comprehend this, but attaching slight importance to the works which tend to salvation, do not make the requisite preparation for attaining to the objects of their hope. And I affirm both of these things of the rich who have learned both the Saviour's power and His glorious salvation. With those who are ignorant of the truth I have little concern.

Of course we must imagine that the Carpocratians upon hearing that the whole Alexandrian argument leaned so heavily on the presence of a 'secret baptism' of some sort that they turned around and maligned the tradition as claiming that Jesus had sex with this beloved neaniskos.

Does anyone recall how the Bogomils became associated with 'buggery'?