I have noted that the closest existing parallel is actually found in Aphraates Demonstrations XX where he quotes the following from the opening words of the same section in his Diatessaron "And again, regarding that rich [man] who came before our Lord, and said to him, 'What shall I do that I may inherit life eternal?'. Our Lord says to him, 'You shall not commit adultery.'" Yet the passage certainly seems to perfectly fit Epiphanius's description of the Marcionite gospel:
And a certain youth asked him, saying, "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." But Jesus said "You have heard that the law commanded, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say, Thou shalt not lust. If you will be perfect, sell all your possessions, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." And when he heard these things, he became exceeding sorrowful: for he was very rich.
What is so exciting about the fragment is that we can learn from Book Three of the Stromata how Clement and the Carpocratians want to interpret the text in different ways. The Carpocratian wants to emphasize the meaning of the command 'don't lust' (non concupisces) to mean don't desire money. Clement wants to shame the sect by saying that they avoid the obvious meaning of the term - viz. 'don't long for sexual intercourse.' Both interpretations work but the Carpocratian exegesis fits the context of the material better.
Given the fact that passage so closely resembles the gospels of Marcion and Aphrahat it is very tempting to identify the non-canonical gospel shared by Clement and the Carpocratians as a 'Diatessaron.' We noted that C A Phillips showed that many ancient writers witness an ancient gospel related to the Diatessaron which actually blend together three or four seemingly separate narratives in our four canonical gospels into a tightly woven 'secret' narrative. When we reconcile the order of narratives in this section of the Diatessaron (i.e. from Ephrem's Commentary on the Diatessaron) with Epiphanius's report that the Marcionite omitted the Parable of the Vineyard (Panarion Scholia 55; Tertullian fails to reference the saying in Against Marcion 4.38), we end up with the following:
- The Rich Fool
- The Rich Youth
- The Rich Man's Discussion with Abraham in the Underworld
- The Resurrection of the Rich Youth (Secret Mark)
- Salome's Request for the Enthronement of her Children
- Zacchaeus
- Blind Man of Jericho
It would seem that after all our previous demonstrations that the Lazarus and Dives narrative sets up not only a rejection of wealth but more importantly the baptism by which one is 'redeemed' from lust through the receipt of a 'new soul' from Lazarus - i.e. the angelic hypostasis Eliezer (Gen 14.4, 15.2) who figures prominently in the earliest Alexandrian Christian (and Jewish) speculation.
I cannot help but look at this gospel narrative - a section of the original and now lost Alexandrian Diatessaron which I identify with Secret Mark and not see that this is setting up the very same youth who dies and is ritually 'resurrected' in the material of being the real messiah of the Christian tradition. According to my speculation, the youth must be St. Mark himself. His mother Mary Salome (cf. Severus of Al'Ashmunein Homilies on St. Mark) immediately requests his enthronement upon his resurrection at least according to our reconstruction of the Alexandrian gospel shared by Clement and the Carpocratians. Yet notice too that Irenaeus has to attack those who continued to promulgate this understanding after his 'final editing' of the gospel.
In one of the surviving fragments which have come down to us Irenaeus is forced to answer the question - why if there was no resurrection immediately preceding the reference would Salome bring up the issue of immortality? This is how Irenaeus answers the question:
For when was it that she drew near to the Redeemer? Not after the resurrection, nor after the preaching of His name, nor after the establishment of His kingdom; but it was when the Lord said, "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of man shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall kill Him, and on the third day He shall rise again." These things the Saviour told in reference to His sufferings and cross; to these persons He predicted His passion. Nor did He conceal the fact that it should be of a most ignominious kind, at the hands of the chief priests. This woman, however, had attached another meaning to the dispensation of His sufferings. The Saviour was foretelling death; and she asked for the glory of immortality [Iren. Frag]
Why does Irenaeus emphasize Mark 10:32 - 34 here? Why does he say that this immediately preceded the request from Salome for 'immortality' rather than a resurrection narrative? Because as Clement notes there were clearly versions of the text circulating in antiquity which definitely had a resurrection narrative in between
"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. [Clement to Theodore]
The truth is that nothing in Irenaeus explanation of the passage makes any sense. We still never get a clear answer why it is that Salome would ask for her sons to receive eternal life immediately after Jesus says the 'Son of Man' with be treated badly and be crucified (the Diatessaron reads 'crucified' without mention of death in this section after Matthew). It would seem that Irenaeus is trying to avoid an answer as much as develop an explanation for us.
Indeed if we look at Irenaeus's statement in the fragment, he notes that the request for immortality did not come "after the resurrection, nor after the preaching of His name, nor after the establishment of His kingdom." Yet in Secret Mark instead of having Jesus's resurrection we have a clear reference to a 'resurrection' of someone else (i.e. the rich youth emerges from the tomb), instead of the 'preaching of Jesus's name' from Jerusalem (cf. Luke 24.47) we have what is clearly someone else besides Jesus being established as the real Christ and finally instead of waiting for "the establishment of His kingdom" on the earth in the here and now Secret Mark thinks in terms of Jesus coming to establish sacraments which are 'the mystery of the kingdom of God.'
The point is that Irenaeus and Clement are really referencing two very different understanding of the context of this passage. It is hard not to think that Irenaeus is developing his doctrine against the backdrop a pre-existent 'heretical faith.' Notice also how Irenaeus similarly shuts out the heretical understanding that Lazarus of Luke 16.19 - 31 was part of some doctrine related to metempsychosis or the going of a new soul into the body of a living person. Once again we will see 'the orthodox' and 'the heretics' promoting two different conceptions of the same terminology.
The 'heretics' understood the term 'eternal life' to mean 'aeonic life' - i.e. the life of angels. To this end baptism prepared the individual to receive the soul of the angel Eliezer (Lazarus) as hinited in the resurrection (of Christ) narrative in Secret Mark. Irenaeus on the other hand denies that baptism is done 'on behalf of the dead' so that they can enter into the souls of the living saying:
But, as each one of us receives his body through the skilful working of God, so does he also possess his soul. For God is not so poor or destitute in resources, that He cannot confer its own proper soul on each individual body, even as He gives it also its special character. And therefore, when the number [fixed upon] is completed, [that number] which He had predetermined in His own counsel, all those who have been enrolled for life [eternal] shah rise again, having their own bodies, and having also their own souls, and their own spirits, in which they had pleased God. Those, on the other hand, who are worthy of punishment, shall go away into it, they too having their own souls and their own bodies, in which they stood apart from the grace of God. Both classes shall then cease from any longer begetting and being begotten, from marrying and being given in marriage; so that the number of mankind, corresponding to the fore-ordination of God, being completed, may fully realize the scheme formed by the Father.
The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same for [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,--in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him--[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who will rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.
But if any persons at this point maintain that those souls, which only began a little while ago to exist, cannot endure for any length of time; but that they must, on the one hand, either be unborn, in order that they may be immortal, or if they have had a beginning in the way of generation, that they should die with the body itself--let them learn that God alone, who is Lord of all, is without beginning and without end, being truly and for ever the same, and always remaining the same unchangeable Being. But all things which proceed from Him, whatsoever have been made, and are made, do indeed receive their own beginning of generation, and on this account are inferior to Him who formed them, inasmuch as they are not unbegotten. Nevertheless they endure, and extend their existence into a long series of ages in accordance with the will of God their Creator; so that He grants them that they should be thus formed at the beginning, and that they should so exist afterwards. [Irenaeus AH 2.23.5 - 25.1]
It is very important to note that Irenaeus is clearly referencing a heretical sect which identifies the Rich Man and Lazarus narrative as being connected with to a resurrection narrative but moreover - the idea that it is ultimately meant to prove the existence of the transfer of a new soul into an old body. This is the very purpose of baptism.
It is worth pointing out in fact that the Carpocratians are identified as promoting a doctrine where they assert:
that they possess souls from the same sphere as Jesus, and that they are like to Him, sometimes even maintaining that they are superior; while produced, like Him, for the performance of works tending to the benefit and establishment of mankind, they are found doing nothing of the same or a like kind, nor what can in any respect be brought into comparison with them. And if they have in truth accomplished anything by means of magic, they strive deceitfully to lead foolish people astray, since they confer no real benefit or blessing on those over whom they declare that they exert power; but, bringing forward pureos investes [i.e. young boys], and deceiving their sight of those who believe in them, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly cease, and do not endure even a moment of time, they are proved to be like, not Jesus our Lord, but Simon the magician. It is certain, too, from the fact that the Lord rose from the dead on the third day, and manifested Himself to His disciples, and was in their sight received up into heaven, that, inasmuch as these men die, and do not rise again, nor manifest themselves to any, they are proved as possessing souls in no respect similar to that of Jesus. [ibid AH 2.22.1]
Irenaeus wants to read all of these passages in question as if they do not reference a youth being resurrected and moreover he wants to reinforce that the rituals central to Christianity are not based on the experiences of this youth but on those of Jesus at the end of the gospel narrative. Clement of Alexandria provides good enough reason for us to believe that this was not true in Alexandrian Christianity. The rituals of that Church were certainly based on the experiences of the youth (i.e. Christ).
dating back to conversations with his grandfather, Gaston Frank. "He said we represent one of the last descendants of the Frankist Jewish faith in the world," he muses. "I grew up thinking that our family was something like the Last of the Mohicans."