Only a Conspiracy Theory Can FULLY Explain the Context of To Theodore

I was just driving down the Oregon coast with my family when a familiar question hit me - how is it possible that Clement doesn't reference 'canonical Mark' (or some such equivalent) in the Letter to Theodore?

Now I know most scholars have great 'difficulties' with the Mar Saba Letter.  Even if you can't get them to acknowledge it is a forgery, many are worried that their reputations 'might suffer' if they develop theories about the material before it is 'proved' to be a forgery.

As I have said many times before, all of this gives us a great opportunity to get a head start on the rest of the pack.

Regular readers of my blog know that I don't believe that the reference to 'the account of the Lord's doings' that Mark wrote for Peter in Clement's Letter to Theodore is our canonical gospel of Mark.  Now I want to say HOW COULD IT BE?

Just think about it for a second.  While the references in the material are very nebulous, Clement says QUITE EXPLICITLY that the 'true' Gospel according to Mark, the one used by the Alexandrian Church for some time, is the basis for the mysteries of the community.

I happen to think that this shows that the Alexandrians 'preferred' a fuller gospel according to Mark in the way that Irenaeus points to an unnamed heretical community in the Refutation.

Yet I have said all of this before and don't need feel the need to repeat myself again.  All we need to say is that Clement is acknowledging that the Alexandrian community was MOST attached to its mystic/secret Gospel according to Mark (which it may or may not have been in the habit of denying was actually 'according to Mark' i.e. depending on whether you accept Smith's or Brown's translation of the letter).

What I am interested in noting in this post is the idea that scholars can imagine that Clement could have pointed to a rival 'Gospel according to Mark' in the hands of the Carpocratians and say 'this a counterfeit Gospel according to Mark' or if you will - a 'mixed' gospel where 'true' things were mingled with lies AND YET never addresses the status of canonical Mark.

Again, I know that the intellectually lazy scholars before me who accept the authencity of the Mar Saba document casually point to the 'account of the Lord's doing' that Mark wrote for Peter as our canonical gospel according to Mark.  Yet he never once identifies it as a 'gospel' per se.  At best it sounds like a kerygma.

I know I have touched upon this before but I think it important to narrow the focus even further.

Let's suppose that Scott Brown and virtually everyone academic who ever studied the Mar Saba document is right and Clement IS identifying canonical Mark as the 'account of the Lord's doing' that Mark wrote for Peter at Rome and that the superficial similiarity with things said about 'the Gospel of Mark' being written in Italy or at Rome by Mark for Peter all follow one another as some kind of living tradition.  And let's suppose again that our canonical Mark is the text that Clement is referencing when illustrating where 'additional' material is found in the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark (a point again assumed but proven in the text).

How do these same scholars rationalize in their own minds why Clement doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY 'there are two gospels of Mark, one longer and one shorter, and here is why Mark left stuff our of the one text that is known to everyone but kept them in the other?'

I know that some are now ready to jump in and say 'but Clement does say exactly this when he speaks about adding sayings which lead initiates to perfect knowledge etc.'  But the issue again is that you have the Carpocratians with this 'false gospel according to Mark.'  This, and their attack against the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark, which the 'heretics' say had a story about 'naked man with naked man' are the underlying context of the whole letter.

Wouldn't you expect Clement to identify WHICH 'GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK(S)' are authentic IN THE MOST EXPLICIT AND EXACT MANNER POSSIBLE?  After all he has already identified one 'false' Gospel accordingt o Mark.  It would help clarify to the reader whether the gospel he was reading was 'acceptable' or not.

I know that my readers are likely saying that this is why he says that Mark wrote 'two gospels,' but again I have to counter that Clement does not say this.  He says that Clement wrote two texts one an 'account of the Lord's doing' for Peter and the other 'the Gospel according to Mark' in the hands of the Alexandrian community.

Again, you would expect Clement to say there were two gospels of Mark if such a thing was true given the fact that there was at least one 'false Gospel according to Mark' which opens his discussion.

Indeed Morton Smith's take on the material is that the Alexandrians are 'hiding' the true gospel according to Mark from the outside world.  As such Clement and Theodore are necessarily 'accepting' the idea that 'another Gospel of Mark' which was not 'secret' was out in the general population.

Yet even here there is no reason for assuming that the 'accordng of the Lord's doings' that Mark wrote for Peter is our canonical gospel according to Mark.  The word 'gospel' is still never employed anywhere in the section.

The difficulty as Scott Brown with this scenario is that everyone involved seems to know something about this 'Secret Gospel according to Mark.'  How can Clement then turn around and deny the existence of a text that is well known to the contemporary world?

Scott Brown's translation of the material avoids these difficulties but we have to ask ourselves (a) if the Alexandrian version of the Gospel according to Mark isn't secret, why does Clement think that Alexandrians will have to deny the existence of the Carpocratian Gospel according to Mark and (b) in this scenario where Alexandrian Christians will have their ancestral faith challenged with 'oaths' related to ANOTHER GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK, how is it that the issue of the authenticity of OUR GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK isn't at all referenced in the text?

Clearly Clement knows whch 'Gospel according to Mark' Theodore is using when he demonstrates two 'additions' in the Alexandrian text.  Let us presume that it is our familiar canonical Gospel of Mark for arguments sake.  Does this in itself mean that Clement acknowledges the sanctity of that text which he compares against the Alexandrian 'true' text?

No, certainly not.  He compares the Carpocratian text with the Alexandrian text of Mark and admts that it contains 'some true elements.'  Perhaps he might have said the same thing about the canonical Gospel according to Mark used by the rest of the world.

Indeed Clement again only says that Mark wrote two texts which make direct reference to Jesus - the kerygma that he wrote for Peter and the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark.  There is nothing in our canonical text of Mark which would assist in its identification as a 'kerygma Petrou.'

One could argue perhaps that Theodore 'already knew' that the canonical Gospel according to Mark was in effect Peter's gospel as tradition know suggests. Yet Clement's other writings suggest that he never knew of a 'second Gospel of Mark.'

Just look at the way Clement identifies the 'Gospel of Mark' as readily identifiable concept in Quis Dives Salvetur.  He cites material from HIS Gospel according to Mark in Alexandria as if it were the ONLY Gospel of Mark.  He doesn't qualify what this text represents in any way.

Now Scott Brown has already rejected Morton Smith's understanding of the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark as 'another Gospel according to Mark' which was previously kept 'secret' from the rest of the world.  As such he can't possibly explain why Clement acts as if there is only one Gospel accrording to Mark in Quis Dives Salvetur.

Only my explanation can do this.  Not only does Clement of Alexandria intimate here in that text that the Gospel of Mark of Alexandria INCLUDED the story of Zacchaeus as concluding the story started at Mark 10:17 - 31 (i.e. that it appeared to resemble what others identified as 'an Alexandrian Diatessaron')   But in the Letter to Clement IS NOT referencing two gospel of Mark (i.e. our canonical gospel of Mark and the Alexandrian text) but rather the idea that Mark was responsible for FIRST writing the kerygma Petrou before completing the Evangelium.

As I know that the Alexandrian tradition TO THIS DAY identifies their Evangelist Mark with John Mark of Acts it would be only natural that as Mark first spent time with Peter he would have completed a text of some sort developing from his association with the apostle.

'I know it is likely to be an impossible leap for most scholars to admit that Clement was secretly intimating that our canonical gospel of Mark developed from the false gospel according to Mark of the Carpocratians, but what other choice is there?  The hoaxers are not just a bunch of idiots. They have a very good and detailed knowledge of the writings of the Church Fathers and can corner both Smith and Brown's interpretations of the material

In Smith's reading again, the Alexandrian gospel of Mark is supposedly secret but the contents of the letter suggest that it is really known to almost everyone in the period.  Brown on the other hand wants to claim that the Alexandrian Gospel according to Mark ISN'T secret but then Clement's identification of 'the Gospel according to Mark' in Quis Dives Salvetur WITHOUT referencing 'Mark's other gospel' is implausible too.

The only solution my friends, and it will be a bitter pill for those who want to promote the authenticity of the Mar Saba document to take, is that they MUST accept my theories about a conscious and deliberate conspiracy AGAINST the Alexandrian tradition and its gospel by the Roman Church and its Imperial underwriters.  Yes, such a 'conspiracy theory' may be unpalatable to most but the texts themselves leave little room for any other workable interpretation.