Clement's Can the Rich Man Be Saved (Quis Dives Salvetur) is basically a homily on the 'rich youth' narrative. Clement goes so far as to quote entire passage verbatim to make his point that it is wrong to interpret the material as supporting 'religious communism.' While no specific group is named which espouses such a 'radical' interpretation of Mark's narrative we learn from the Book Three of the Stromata that the group in question is the 'Carpocratians.'
Why doesn't Clement say that he is arguing against the 'Carpocratians' in Quis Dives Salvetur? My guess is that he brought out the boogeyman 'Carpocrates' whenever someone argued that the Alexandrian tradition of St. Mark was inherently heretical. Yet more interestingly why does Clement cite the material from the public gospel of Mark 10:17 - 30 rather than the 'secret gospel' if such a text actually existed? Many reading this post may wonder why it is that I am so sure that Clement is not citing from the 'secret' gospel. The answer comes from what appears in Stromata Book Three.
Here we see yet another argument against the 'Carpocratians' and as always it is their alleged 'carnal' interpretation of Mark chapter 10 - this time it is the story of the rich youth (fifteen lines before the maerial cited in to Theodore). As always is always the case, Clement is citing from the 'secret' gospel of Mark.
Who are these Carpocratians? Clearly they are members of the Alexandrian tradition who claim to witness the true beliefs of St. Mark. If Irenaeus or some other Church Father had encountered these heretics they would undoubtedly identify them as 'Marcosians' or Marcionites. Clement wants to avoid those terms because they are directly related to the name Mark (i.e. St. Mark) so the report in Hegesippus's hypomnemata about 'Carpocratians' turned out to be quite useful for him (there is no real difference between a 'Marcosian' and a 'Carpocratian' as the descriptions appear in Irenaeus's Against Heresies Book One).
The material that appeared in the 'secret gospel' of Mark chapter 10 seems to have served as the basis for the most fundamental Christian concepts in Alexandria. If the Mar Saba document is to be believed the story about the resurrected neaniskos (Mark 10:34.1 - 13) must have been the basis to its baptismal rites The story of the rich neaniskos which precedes it (Mark 10:17 - 30) was clearly the basis to its underlying conception of ἐκκλησία or 'church.'
It can't be stressed often enough how utterly fundamental Mark chapter 10 must have been to Alexandrian Christianity. We can see that clearly from the consistent attack that Clement develops against what he claims to be rival interpretation of the material. It is only in Stromata Book Three that this rival interpretation is explicitly referenced as 'Carpocratian.' We must remember that this book begins with an attack against the Carpocratians and their claims that Jesus wanted Christians to share all their property in common. For some reason Clement refuses to initially cite the passage in question but instead keeps quoting a single line from the passage over and over again in different forms - most often as 'But I say, Thou shalt not lust' but on one occasion the full sentence is cited 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.'
As I have noted previously this is not a variant of Matthew 5:28. We know this because Clement actually cites Matthew 5:28 alongside this strange agrapha. It is in fact a variant of Mark 10:18 as we see a little later in Chapter Six of the same work. Clement begins Book Three with a citation of a work called Concerning Righteousness written by an Alexandrian named Epiphanes who is said to be a follower of Carpocrates. The Carpocratian argues there that when the Creator said 'Thou shalt not lust' it was only said to forbid coveting one's neighbors property and thus to encourage and even sanction the encouragement of private property. The Carpocratian argues that Jesus came to abolish private property and to establish a divine communism on earth. The only narrative in all of the gospels which could be used to support this argument is Mark 10:17 - 30 or its equivalent in other gospels.
Yet the focus of the tug of war between Clement and the Carpocratians is focused on a single line which does not appear in our canonical gospels - 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.' As I have already noted the closest surviving match to this material is Aphraates the Persian sage's citation of the 'rich youth' narrative. Yet I would go one step further and argue that the ultimate context was Marcionite. This must have been Jesus's response to the statement which Epiphanius preserves of the request of the rich youth ""Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? I know the commandments - Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. All these have I have observed from my youth up."
The Carpocratians apparently understood Jesus's subsequent command that the rich youth “go sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" as nothing short of a blueprint for a communist utopia - or perhaps more correctly the monastic communal ideal. As I noted earlier I am not even certain that Epiphanes really was a Carpocratian. I tend to think of him as a contemporary Alexandrian Christian who gained some notoriety explaining core concepts of the tradition of St. Mark. It is Clement - or perhaps critics of this 'communist propaganda' - who have chosen to exaggerate the effects of this new vision of social order to include ritual orgies. So Clement closes Chapter Two with the claim that "they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous "righteousness" is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will."
I needn't tell readers that the same claims are made in To Theodore about another group of Carpocratians or individuals who Clement claims again are followers of Carpocrates. One may even consider the possibility that Epiphanes is the source of Theodore's information. Whatever the case may be it is in Chapter Six of the same book that we see context of the agrapha - 'But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust' - is certainly the rich youth narrative.
Clement begins by again referencing the "the 'righteousness' of Carpocrates" referring to it again as an "immoral communion" and then he writes:
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?" [Clement Strom 3:6,7]
Clement then closes the discussion by going back to the words of the agrapha - "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust.' - by stressing that "the human ideal of continence, I mean that which is set forth by Greek philosophers, teaches that one should fight lust and not be subservient to it so as to bring it to practical effect. But our ideal is not to experience lust at all."
It is very difficult for most people reading this post I think to accept what I am about to tell them but I will say it anyway. With this passage we are standing on holy ground. These are not just some random selection of passages that Clement has strung together to make some 'theological point.' What we are really watching is something akin to a married couple having a public spat. Most of the outsiders who don't know the details of their private life can't possibly make sense of the accusations and references that are literally flying through the air in rapid succession. However the participants - and a few close friends certainly - undoubtedly do know the context of many if not all of the references.
The first thing that we have to accept is that Clement and the Carpocratians are certainly arguing over a non-canonical version of Mark Chapter 10. Not only does the agrapha necessarily fit in the middle of the 'rich youth' narrative but look at what else is cited here to close the discussion - Luke 12:16 20:
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?"
Now for most of us who are used to think in terms of passages being divided among four different gospels there is no great significance to having a narrative from Luke Chapter 12 close a discussion from Mark Chapter 10. However for those of us who have acquainted ourselves with gospels from other traditions the appearance of these two passages in a section which condemns the Carpocratian interpretation of a non-canonical gospel couldn't be more significant.
For in Christian communities across Syria, Egypt and the Middle East there was a single, long gospel referenced by outsiders as 'the Diatessaron' which happened to have this narrative of the 'Rich Fool' (Luke 12:13 - 21) immediately precede the narrative of the 'Rich Youth' (Mark 10:17 - 30). C A Phillips was the first person to notice the reference in the writings of Clement's student Origen for which William Petersen provides us with a useful summary of his original observation that:
that the harmonies 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. Elements of this combination as well as specific variants from the harmonies, are found in the Gospel 'secundum Hebraeos' as quoted by Origen, Comm in Matt XV.14 (on Matt 19.16ff). Origen's quotation begins "The other of the two rich men said to him ..." implying Origen knew a text which joined the stories of the two rich men. Also in Origen Jesus tells him to "do the Law" a variant found in Ephrem's Commentary, Aphrahat, Syr [c], the Georgian, and at Mark 10.20 in Greek MSSf1 565 1542.[Petersen Diatessaron p. 257]
However Phillips only scratched the surface of the number of references to this phenomenon. Phillips did not see the reference in Stromata Book Three that we just cited and there are a great many more.
I do not want to get too distracted from our original purpose but I thought it might be useful to cite just a sampling of the references to this 'extra canonical gospel' tradition starting with the reference in Origen Commentary on Matthew which Phillips first noted:
The other of the two rich men said to him: Master, what good thing must I do that I may live? He said to him: Man, fulfil the law and the prophets. He answered him: That have I done. He said to him: Go and sell all that thou possessest and distribute it among the poor, and then come and follow me. But hte rich man then began to scratch his head and it (the saying) pleased him not. And the Lord said to him: How canst though say, I have fulfilled the law and the prophets? For it stands written in the law: Love thy neighbor as thyself; and behold, many of the brethren, sons of Abraham, are begrimed with dirt and die of hunger - and thy house is full of many good things and nothing at all comes forth from it to them! And he turned and said to Simon, his disciple, who was sitting by him: Simon, son of Jona, 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. [Origen Comm. Matt. 15.4]
But now we must endeavor to ascertain what he says, "you are storing up a treasure of wrath for yourself." It is called a "treasure" where wealth and riches of various kinds are collected. We read of three meanings of this term in the Scriptures. In the Gospel it is said that there is a certain treasure on earth where the Lord forbids treasures to be stored up; there is another treasure in heaven where he commands all the faithful to lay up their wealth,' and now here the Apostle speaks of treasures of wrath. Therefore all men collect into one treasure out of these three through the things they do in this world. For it is the unbeliever who, being wicked and by the hardness of his heart and his impenitent heart, lays up his own deeds in the treasure of wrath. Or he may be earthly and think of the earth and speak of the earth. And when his field has brought forth an abundant yield for him, he tears down his barns and builds bigger ones and stores up treasure on earth.(Luke 12:16 - 18) The first man is designated as hard, but here the second as foolish. For it is said to him, "You fool! This very night they will demand your soul from you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?" (Luke 12:20) There is also the person who is wise and rich in relation to God, and who, though he lives on earth, has his citizenship in heaven. Everything he does is worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Such a person lays up the treasures of his riches in heaven. (Mark 10:21) The possessor and compiler of each treasure can be designated first as someone fleshly, but the second as a soul- ish man, and the third as spiritual. (1 Cor 2.14, 15; 3.1) [Origen Commentary on Romans Book 2, Chapter 4]
Hence God declared guilty the rich fool as he was regarding his worldly hoard and rejoicing in the richness of his abundant harvests. "You fool, your soul will be demanded of you tonight. Whose then will be the things you have provided? (Luke 12.20) The fool, rejoicing in his harvests, was to die that night and was thinking of his plentiful provisions even as his life was running out. By contrast, the Lord teaches us that the one who is perfect and complete sells all he has and gives it up for the poor," so providing himself with a treasury in heaven (Mark 10.21). He says that the one who is unencumbered and tightly girt and not ensnared by the traps of property is able to follow him and imitate the glory of the Lord's passion. Released and set free he accompanies his own possessions that he had on to the Lord. [Cyprian of Carthage On the Lord's Prayer 20]
Now there is no doubt that it is entirely possible that none of these references actually proves the existence of 'Secret Mark.' One might even argue that Clement and the 'Carpocratians' are arguing over another extra-canonical gospel which has some relation to the Diatessaron. Nevertheless it is important to note that THE IDEA of an extra-canonical gospel which Clement says was known to him and certain 'Carpocratians' is now all but confirmed. This is an important first step.
Now I happen to think that Phillips suggestion that the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative originally followed the 'Rich Youth' passage is extremely helpful to provide a context for Clement's introduction of a resurrected youth in Mark 10:38.1 - 13. Philipps emphasizes that the extra-canonical gospel(s) blended what now appear as three separate narratives into a continuous story. In other words, the two wealthy individuals eventually end up in the underworld. In such a scenario the eventual appearance of a 'resurrected youth' in 'Secret Mark' would seem utterly natural. It is only our habit of thinking of 'Secret Mark' as just canonical Mark with some additions which has stood in our way.
It is important to note that I didn't want to get too carried too far away from our original discussion of the passage in Stromata 3.6. It is important for us to have found a citation where Clement argues with the Carpocratian over the correct interpretation of a non-canonical gospels development of material from Mark 10:17 - 30. This at least establishes the context for the basic framework of what appears in the Letter to Theodore. Yet if we look carefully at the argument which Clement develops from this extra-canonical interpretation of Mark 10:17 - 30, it cannot be denied that it is exactly the same thesis that is developed in much greater detail in Can the Rich Man be Saved (Quis Dives Salvetur). The only difference being that the Carpocratians are explicitly referenced only in Stromata 3.6.
I don't want to overwhelm my readers with too much information so I will stop here. We have certainly established an important framework for understanding the historical context out of which 'Secret Mark' must have developed. In our next post we will take matters one step further by bringing forward Clement's argument in Quis Dives Salvetur - an core argument which only makes sense if Clement was again employing a Diatessaron-like gospel which resembled Secret Mark. Every which way you look at it, it will become impossible to deny that the 'secret gospel of Mark' mentioned in the Letter to Theodore 'fits' the contemporary Alexandrian milieu in ways that Morton Smith could not possibly have imagined.
It is why I firmly believe the document is authentic and is in fact an astonishing key to make sense of the beliefs, practices and traditions of earliest Christianity - a Christianity that just so happens to have been established first in Alexandria.
