Drawing a Line in the Sand With Regards to the Authenticity of Secret Mark

As the regular readers of my blog already know I have developed a number of arguments in favor of the authenticity of the Mar Saba document.  Yet it remains a difficult task to prove the authenticity of something that is no longer with us, especially when that something cast doubts on the cherished assumptions of scholars. I propose that the question of whether there ever was a 'secret gospel' in Alexandria which resembles the 'mystikon evangelion' of to Theodore comes down to whether it can be acknowledged that there are in actuality an ongoing battle between Clement and the 'Carpocratians' over the proper interpretation of Mark chapter 10.  In other words, that the Letter to Theodore fits within a pre-existent pattern in Clement's writings where the sectarian group is accused of having a 'carnal' interpretation of this material. 

I have very few gifts as a thinker but one of my strengths is certainly that I certainly envision problems in new and original ways.  It is certainly true that Clement never makes explicit mention of the 'Lazarus narrative' in Secret Mark (or 'LGM 1' = i.e. 'the first additional of the Longer Gospel of Mark) in any of his writings.  Yet it is equally true that Clement has a habit of attacking the Carpocratians for their 'heretical' interpretation of the material which immediately precedes this narrative. 

I have made brief mention of the material in Stromata Book Three in my most recent posts.  The Carpocratians clearly took an interest in Mark 10:17 - 30 (the 'rich youth' narrative) in order to justify their belief that Jesus wanted to establish a form of 'religious communism' on earth.  Clement's arguments in Stromata Book Three only make sense if the two traditions are in fact arguing over the correct interpretation of this periscope.  Yet there are a number of other references in his writings which show a similar pattern.

The point of all of this is that I think it is too restrictive to limit the discussion down to the question of whether Clement actually explicitly references the existence of a 'secret gospel of Mark' and what is known of its contents from to Theodore.  I think it suits our purposes much better if we ask whether Clement and Carpocratians were battling over the proper interpretation of Mark chapter 10 which included LGM 1 and then see where this path leads us.  I suspect it will ultimately lead to the confirmation of the authenticity of the Mar Saba document but I have the benefit of knowing the contents of the next few articles I will post online over the next few days.