Secret Mark and the Marcionite Gospel Revisted

We have been demonstrating to our readership that Clement can be clearly and unmistakably demonstrated to favor a 'secret non-canonical gospel' related to the Diatessaron.  This certainly makes the ideas in the Letter to Theodore have some precedence in the writings of Clement.  As we have noted many times here, Clement even uses the canonical gospel of Mark to 'explain' the secret gospel in Quis Dives Salvetur. 

Now I would like to take things one step further.  I want to show that 'secret Mark' was certainly the Marcionite gospel.  I won't get into all the other arguments I have developed for this assertion - i.e. that Marcionites seem to acknowledge that (a) the gospel of Mark is the 'gospel of Marcion' and (b) 'Marcion' like Mark in to Theodore is understood to have 'cut' the original gospel and thus also to have manufactured a 'curtailed' text.  What I would like to do for this post is just demonstrate that we can piece together what the Clementine 'secret gospel' looked like at the equivalent of Mark 10:17 - 31 in its narrative. 

The place to start - as always is Origen's citation of the Gospel According to the Hebrews - not only because Clement and Origen are related as heirs to the so-called 'catechetical school' (I quicker believe that they were viewed by natives as the true heads of the Church with Demetrius being someone pointed from without).  I want to hold off on citing this material again from Origen's Commentary on Matthew Book 15 so I will provide a link here to Klijn's Jewish Christian Gospel Tradition for those who want a jump on studying the particulars of the text.

As I want to make the case that Clement is consistently citing the material from 'Secret Mark' (and thus cannot name the text as witnessed by what he says in to Theod. II.12).  This is not the Gospel According to the Hebrews but a text related to it.  The place to begin is to identify the material which connects us to the Carpocratians - and thus 'Secret Mark' - in Stromata Book Three.

In the first reference to the 'new commandment' of Jesus - i.e. 'thou shalt not lust' - in the Third Book of the Stromateis Clement makes clear that the saying comes from a non-canonical gospel shared by the Carpocratians and his Alexandrian Church.  So we read in the course of his rejection of the Carpocratians interpretation of this saying (i.e. that Jesus introduced something hostile the Law):

If the adulteress and her paramour are both punished with death, it is surely clear that the commandment "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife" applies to the gentiles, so that anyone who follows the Law in keeping his hands off his neighbor’s wife and his sister may hear directly from the Lord: "But I say to you, you shall not lust." The addition of the pronoun "I" shows that the application of the commandment is more rigidly binding, and that Carpocrates and Epiphanes are battling against God. [Stromata 3.1,2]

Once again, let us note that the Carpocratians hold that this new commandment is out of character with the commandments of the Law, Clement argues the other way - i.e. the ideas here are already a part of the Law given to Moses. 

The same idea is reworked in two subsequent references to this same saying (indeed the whole of Book Three of the Stromateis develops from the dispute between Clement and the Carpocratian interpretation of the passage from the 'secret' or unknown gospel.  We read in what follows that Clement asks:

How can the man who has given himself over to every lust be a citizen according to the Law of God when the Lord has declared, "I say, you shall not lust"? Is a person to take a decision to sin deliberately, and to lay it down as a principle to commit adultery, to waste his substance in high living, and to break up other people’s marriages [as the Carpocratians encouraged], when we actually pity the rest who fall involuntarily into sin?  Even if they have arrived in an alien world, if they prove unfaithful in what belongs to another, they will have no hold on the truth.[Stromata 3.33.1 - 3]

And then a fuller citation of the same passage a little later again:

The person of understanding will think out the passage of Scripture that is appropriate to challenge each of the heresies and use it at the apposite moment to refute those who set their dogmas against the commandments. From the very beginning, as I have already said, the Law laid down the injunction "You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife" in anticipation of the Lord’s closely connected dictum in accordance with the New Covenant with the same meaning from his own lips: "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’" The Law wished males to have responsible sexual relations with their marriage partners, solely for the production of children. [Stromata 3.71.2 - 4]

Clement's point is clearly that (a) the Law tolerates 'lust' as a means to material fruitfulness but not in terms of sensual pleasure and (b) Jesus's 'new commandment' was in keeping with the old which he - as the Logos - helped introduce to Moses. 

I happen to think that Clement designated the Carpocratians as the 'lusty heretics' as a means of distancing its members from the Alexandrian Church.  The gospel in question is clearly the Marcionite gospel.  There are several signs that point to it, none more so that the Marcionite paradigm of the Apostle already having the gospel in his possession when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans:

At this point, I think that I ought not to leave on one side without comment the fact that the Apostle preaches the same God whether through the Law, the prophets, or the gospel. For in his letter to the Romans he attributes to the Law the words "You shall not lust" which in fact appear in the text of the gospel. He does so in the knowledge that it is one single person who makes his decrees through the Law and the prophets, and is the subject of the gospel’s proclamation. He says, "What shall we say? Is the Law sin? Of course not. But I did not know sin except through the Law. I did not know lust, except that the Law said, ‘You shall not lust.' [Stromata 3.76.1,2]

I have long argued that the Alexandrian Church of the late second/early third century was really only a 'reformed Marcionite tradition' - i.e. a church desparately trying to hide its associations with 'heresy' and figuring out some way to be reconciled with the Roman establishment. 

The Marcionite connection helps explain the scriptural reference which Clement claims a group called 'the Carpocratians' misinterprets.  For if we look at the saying once again:

Jesus said "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

It is obvious that most of the scholars who try to pass this off as a variant reading of Matthew 5:28 are ignoring the fact that Clement cites the familiar version of Matthew as a compliment to this otherwise unknown saying:

The former (i.e. the Law) says, "You shall not commit adultery," the latter (i.e. the gospel), "Everyone who looks with lust has already committed adultery."  The words found in the Law, "You shall not lust," show that it is one single God who makes his proclamations through the Law, prophets and Gospels. He says, "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife." [Stromata 3.8.4 - 6]

The saying clearly belongs as part of the heretical narrative of the Question of the Rich Youth and a number of clues in the writings of Clement will actually help us reconstruct the Marcionite narrative.

Let's start with something that anyone who has studied the Marcionite tradition must have noticed a number of times - the Marcionite text seems to have integrated Luke 10:24 - 37 (the Question about the Greatest Commandment) with Luke 18:18 - 29 (the Question of the Rich Youth).  In the Marcionite gospel the first question is 'what must I do to inherit life?' and the second question 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?'  The two seem to naturally follow one another and then we see in Clement that in fact the two questions were connected with the same individual:

Again when he says, "If you want to be perfect, sell your property and give the proceeds to the poor," he is showing up the man who boasts of "having kept all the commandments from his youth." He had not fulfilled "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." [Strom 3.55.2]

It is utterly amazing that no scholars before me has ever noticed this parallel.  Matthew certainly cites Lev 19:18:

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself. “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

But it is only in the non-canonical gospel traditions that Jesus actually demonstrates that the youth 'had not fulfilled' this commandment.  The Gospel According to the Hebrews cited by Origen says again:

The second of the rich men (it saith) said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and live? He said unto him: O man, fulfil (do) the law and the prophets. He answered him: I have kept them. He said unto him: Go, sell al that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him: How sayest though: I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law: Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying for hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and nought at all goeth out of it unto them.

So here in the Gospel According to the Hebrews we have both the confirmation of the original question by the rich man (i.e. how do I inherit life? as in the Marcionite gospel) and Clement's witness that the person who is asking the questions is reproved for not fulfilling the commandment about love thy neighbor.

The point then is that we have what appears to be three non-canonical gospels at first glance (a) an Alexandrian text shared by the Carpocratians and the Alexandrian Church (b) the Marcionite gospel and (c) the Gospel According to the Hebrews.  All these texts are related to one another.  I happen to think that (a) and (b) are one and the same and that they in turn are related to (c).  Yet let's look at another manner in which they are all related.

Indeed before we return to the new commandment that Jesus introduced - viz. 'thou shalt not lust' - let's look at another agreement between all of the texts - the specific phrasing of Jesus to sell everything that the youth owns.  Aphrahat's citation of the earliest Diatessaron is particularly useful.  We read:

The Lord said unto him : Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, and honour thy father and thy mother and love thy neighbour as thyself : The young man said unto him : Thus have I done, since I was a boy. But what lack I? Then Jesus looked upon him lovingly and said, One other thing is lacking to thee: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and take up thy cross and follow me. And that man, when he heard, became very sorrowful and went away gloomy to his house, because he was very rich in possessions. And Jesus said : See how hard it is for those who trust in their possessions to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

All of these early non-canonical texts drop the 'treasure in heaven' phrase in the highlighted sentence.  While Aphrahat's gospel has 'go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and take up your cross and follow me.'  Clement twice cites the passage as:

Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me [Strom. 4.6, Quis Dives 13]

Πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα καὶ δὸς πτωχοῖς, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι

While the Latin translation of Origen's Commentary on Matthew has the text as vade, vende omnia quae possides et divide pauperibus, et veni, sequere me.

The contents of the Marcionite gospel are a little more difficult to piece together as our only source for this section is Tertullian's polemical attack against the Marcionite text.  Most scholars mistake Tertullian's initial citation of his own 'gospel of truth' (i.e. the canonical gospel of the Catholic Church) against the Marcionite text for the contents of the Marcionite gospel which immediately follow.  We read:

So then when he is asked by that certain man, Good Teacher, what shall I do to obtain possession of eternal life?, he inquired whether he knew—which means, was keeping—the Creator's commandments, in such form as to testify that by the Creator's commandments eternal life is obtained: and when that man replied, in respect of the chief of them, that he had kept them from his youth up, he got the answer, One thing thou lackest; sell all that thou hast and give to the poor, and thou wilt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. Come now, Marcion, and all your companions in the misery and sharers in the offensiveness of that heretic, what will you be bold enough to say?  Did Christ here rescind those former commandments, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to love father and mother? Or is it that he both retained these and added what was lacking? And yet, even this commandment of distributing to the poor is spread about everywhere in the law and the prophets, so that that boastful keeper of the commandments was convicted of having money in much higher esteem.  So then this also in the gospel remains valid, I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil. At the same time also he relieved of doubt those other questions, by making it clear that the name of God, and of supremely good, belongs to one only, and that eternal life and treasure in heaven, and himself besides, pertain to that one, whose commandments, by adding what was lacking, he both conserved and enriched. So he is to be recognized as in agreement with Micah, in this passage where he says, Hath he then shewed thee, O man, what is good? Or what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justice, to love mercy, and to be prepared to follow the Lord thy God? For Christ is that Man, declaring what is good: the knowledge of the law, Thou knowest the commandments: to do justice, Sell the things thou hast: to love mercy, and give to the poor: to be prepared to go with the Lord, and come, follow me.

It is sometimes difficult to tell whether Tertullian is actually citing the Marcionite text or his own text against them.  We can be very confident that the second citation of the material - the one without 'you will have a treasure in heaven' - is the original Marcionite reading which is in agreement with the citations from (a) Clement of Alexandria's 'secret gospel' (b) the Diatessaron and the Gospel According to the Hebrews. 

Once this is out of the way we can finally address the reference in the text to the Marcionites thinking that Jesus introduced a new commandment in the passage:

Did Christ here rescind those former commandments, not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to bear false witness, to love father and mother?  Or is it that he both retained these and added what was lacking? And yet, even this commandment of distributing to the poor is spread about everywhere in the law and the prophets, so that that boastful keeper of the commandments was convicted of having money in much higher esteem

Yet the Marcionites could not have held that "sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me" is the 'new commandment' of Jesus.  It doesn't sound at all like a general rule and indeed we see Clement see it as an application of the new commandment - 'thou shalt not lust.' (Οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις) This certainly sounds like a Marcionite precept and we should remember in fact that ἐπιθυμήσεις applies as much to the desire for material things as it does for sexual relations.

The point then is that Clement's lost gospel passage - "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’" - perfectly fits the rest of what we know about the Marcionite gospel with the rich youth declaring:

"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.

Indeed the fact that Matthew 5:28 so resembles the passage cited by Clement actually helps confirm that the passage originally formed a part of the Marcionite gospel. 

Irenaeus interestingly reports that something resembling Matthew 5:28 appeared in the Marcionite gospel in Book Four of Against Heresies:

And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay." And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them ... He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command--namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them--is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

For the law, since it was laid down for those in bondage, used to instruct the soul by means of those corporeal objects which were of an external nature, drawing it, as by a bond, to obey its commandments, that man might learn to serve God. But the Word set free the soul, and taught that through it the body should be willingly purified. Which having been accomplished, it followed as of course, that the bonds of slavery should be removed, to which man had now become accustomed, and that he should follow God without fetters: moreover, that the laws of liberty should be extended, and subjection to the king increased, so that no one who is convened should appear unworthy to Him who set him free, but that the piety and obedience due to the Master of the household should be equally rendered both by servants and children; while the children possess greater confidence [than the servants], inasmuch as the working of liberty is greater and more glorious than that obedience which is rendered in [a state of] slavery.

And for this reason did the Lord, instead of that commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," forbid even lust; and instead of that which runs thus, "Thou shalt not kill," He prohibited anger; and instead of the law enjoining the giving of tithes, [He told us] to share all our possessions with the poor; and not to love our neighbours only, but even our enemies; and not merely to be liberal givers and bestowers, but even that we should present a gratuitous gift to those who take away our goods.[Irenaeus AH 4.13.1 - 3]

I strongly suspect that the antitheses in Matthew chapter 5 actually appeared in the Question of the Rich Youth section.  The manner in which the various statements 'line up' with the commandments that the youth claims he 'knows' is simply uncanny. 

All of this again would argue for the authenticity of 'secret Mark' because the initiation ultimately follows a long section which confirmed - without question - that Jesus replaced his one commandment 'thou shalt not lust' with all the old commandments of the Law.  The redemption baptism of LGM 1 is clearly a 'purchasing from the Law,' and an end to the enslavement to the old system of righteousness.

Here's the Reason Why I Don't Believe Clement's Identification of the Carpocratians as a Bunch of 'Horny Heretics'

I have already demonstrated that Clement and the Carpocratians shared a gospel which had Jesus introduce a new commandment which went beyond what was given in the Law:

Jesus said "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

The reference appeared in the 'secret gospel' shared by the Alexandrian Church, the Carpocratians and the Marcionites (assuming that the three groups were separate traditions which I am not sure I really believe).  Here are the references again in Clement's Stromata 3 which make reference to this saying:

• If the adulteress and her paramour are both punished with death, it is surely clear that the commandment "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife" applies to the gentiles, so that anyone who follows the Law in keeping his hands off his neighbor’s wife and his sister may hear directly from the Lord: "But I say to you, you shall not lust." The addition of the pronoun "I" shows that the application of the commandment is more rigidly binding, and that Carpocrates and Epiphanes are battling against God. [Stromata 3.1,2]
• How can the man who has given himself over to every lust be a citizen according to the Law of God when the Lord has declared, "I say, you shall not lust"? Is a person to take a decision to sin deliberately, and to lay it down as a principle to commit adultery, to waste his substance in high living, and to break up other people’s marriages [as the Carpocratians encouraged], when we actually pity the rest who fall involuntarily into sin? Even if they have arrived in an alien world, if they prove unfaithful in what belongs to another, they will have no hold on the truth.[Stromata 3.33.1 - 3]
• The person of understanding will think out the passage of Scripture that is appropriate to challenge each of the heresies and use it at the apposite moment to refute those who set their dogmas against the commandments. From the very beginning, as I have already said, the Law laid down the injunction "You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife" in anticipation of the Lord’s closely connected dictum in accordance with the New Covenant with the same meaning from his own lips: "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’" The Law wished males to have responsible sexual relations with their marriage partners, solely for the production of children. [Stromata 3.71.2 - 4]
• At this point, I think that I ought not to leave on one side without comment the fact that the Apostle preaches the same God whether through the Law, the prophets, or the gospel. For in his letter to the Romans he attributes to the Law the words "You shall not lust" which in fact appear in the text of the gospel. He does so in the knowledge that it is one single person who makes his decrees through the Law and the prophets, and is the subject of the gospel’s proclamation. He says, "What shall we say? Is the Law sin? Of course not. But I did not know sin except through the Law. I did not know lust, except that the Law said, ‘You shall not lust.' [Stromata 3.76.1,2]

 
Now it is apparent from Stromata 3 that the heretics used this saying of Jesus to prove that the Christian God - the Father - wasn't the Creator.  After all, the god who gave the Law to Moses actively encouraged 'sexual lust' in order to make the human race 'be fruitful and multiply' (Gen. 1.28).  Now Clement can be seen taking apart the heretical argument by misrepresenting their motives.  It is now argued that the Carpocratians argument was just a veil to allow the sect to indulge in 'sexual passions' of their own.  Yet there is so little evidence for the chain of logic which leads to the Carpocratians being characterized as dissolute sodomists that most scholars accept the slanderous accusations. 
 
I thought it might be useful to cite a parallel argument developed years later by Augustine against the Manichaeans to the same effect.  I thought it might be useful to help dispell the claim that there really were Christians rejecting the Law of the Creator in order to participate in orgies.  Here is the reference in Augustine:
 

Now here at once I question thee, thou Manichee, I question thee, answer me. Is the Law evil which says, Thou shalt not lust? Not even any dissipated and licentious man would make me this answer. For even the impure are put to shame,  when they are reproved ; and when they are among the chaste, they dare not shew their wantonness. If then thou sayest that the Law is evil, which says, Thou shalt not lust; it is that thou wouldest lust with impunity, thou accusest the Law, because it strikes at your lust. My brethren, if we did not hear the Apostle saying, Is the Law sin? God forbid: but merely quoting the words of the Law, where it is said, Thou shalt not lust: even though he did not praise the Law, yet we ought nevertheless to praise to accuse ourselves [Augustine Sermon CIII]

 
The language and the citations which Augustine develops here seem to be taken directly from Clement's attack against the Carpocratians in Stromata 3 - even down to the citation of the Letter to the Romans.  However the real question that is before us is whether the Manichaeans were really attacking the Law in order to justify their own lusts?  No, certainly not.  Nor is there any reason to believe that the Carpocratians were doing the same in Clement's day.
 
Patristic scholars really have to learn to separate (a) what the Church Fathers are saying about heresies from (b) what was really going on in history.  The Church Fathers were hardly objective witnesses of the phenomena they were studying.  Indeed they were mostly religious partisans actively trying to accuse their rivals of being agents of Satan!  When are religious people going to stop being scandalized at the accusation of sexual impropriety among the rivals of the Catholic Church in antiquity?  It's all such absolute bullshit.  When will they realize that the reports in antiquity that 'Secret Mark' is a 'gay gospel' (cf. the Letter to Theodore) derive from the same propagandist effort?

Probably never, I imagine, so limited is their imagination and critical reasoning abilities ...

The Secret Gospel of Mark Was Probably the Uncut Marcionite 'Gospel of Christ'

You know I would really like to spend what remains of my life writing on the subject of the historical context of the Letter to Theodore. I imagine however that there is very little money in doing that 'full time' (unless of course you are get a job in a university somewhere of course but that would be out of the question for me). In any event, we have demonstrated beyond any doubt that Clement begins Can the Rich Man be Saved (Quis Dives Salvetur) with a citation from a gospel related to the Gospel According to the Hebrews referenced in the Commentary on Matthew of his successor Origen. We have used this discovery to demonstrate the likelihood that something 'Secret Mark' was already known to Clement in his 'accepted' writings.

Some might argue however that Clement might be citing from a text other than 'Secret Mark' in Quis Dives Salvetur. I don't see that possibility given the fact that - as with the Letter to Theodore - Clement goes on to cite the parallel section in canonical Mark line by line. Why would Clement cite canonical Mark against the Gospel of the Hebrews if - as Irenaeus tells us - canonical Matthew is related to this text? This is the argument we used in our last post. However in this post I want to demonstrate how Clement - despite an apparent 'choice' of canonical Mark alone from among the quarternion in Quis Dives Salvetur - holds yet another non-canonical text closer to to his heart.

All we need to do is to remember the citation of his Alexandrian 'canonical Mark' in Quis Dives Salvetur and notice that in all his other works he displays a preference for a text shared by heretics with readings not witnessed in this Alexandrian 'canonical Mark.' What is this text? It is difficult to prove that it was 'Secret Mark' per se, but it appears to be related to Origen's Gospel According to the Hebrews and the Diatessaronic tradition most certainly.

Here is a long citation from Stromata Book 4 which demonstrates Clement preferring another tradition to the text of canonical Mark cited in Quis Dives Salvetur:

And abstinence from vicious acts is found, somehow, [to result in] the diminution and extinction of vicious propensities, their energy being destroyed by inaction. And this is the import of “Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” — that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what “you have” He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say. For God dispenses to all according to desert, His distribution being righteous. Despising, therefore, the possessions which God apportions to you in your magnificence, comply with what is spoken by me; haste to the ascent of the Spirit, being not only justified by abstinence from what is evil, but in addition also perfected, by Christlike beneficence. In this instance He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbour; and it is by beneficence that the love which, according to the gnostic ascending scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself. We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the good itself. Such, as do so, stand on the right hand of the sanctuary; but those who think that by the gift of what is perishable they shall receive in exchange what belongs to immortality are in the parable of the two brothers called “hirelings.” And is there not some light thrown here on the expression “in the likeness and image,” in the fact that some live according to the likeness of Christ, while those who stand on the left hand live according to their image? There are then two things proceeding from the truth, one root lying beneath both—the choice being, however, not equal, or rather the difference that is in the choice not being equal. To choose by way of imitation differs, as appears to me, from the choice of him who chooses according to knowledge, as that which is set on fire differs from that which is illuminated. Israel, then, is the light of the likeness which is according to the Scripture. But the image is another thing. What means the parable of Lazarus, by showing the image of the rich and poor? And what the saying, “No man can serve two masters, God and Mammon?”— the Lord so terming the love of money. For instance, the covetous, who were invited, responded not to the invitation to the supper, not because of their possessing property, but of their inordinate affection to what they possessed. “The foxes,” then, have holes. He called those evil and earthly men who are occupied about the wealth which is mined and dug from the ground, foxes. Thus also, in reference to Herod: “Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” For He applied the name “fowls of the air” to those who were distinct from the other birds— those really pure, those that have the power of flying to the knowledge of the heavenly Word. For not riches only, but also honour, and marriage, and poverty, have ten thousand cares for him who is unfit for them. And those cares He indicated in the parable of the fourfold seed, when He said that “the seed of the word which fell unto the thorns” and hedges was choked by them, and could not bring forth fruit. It is therefore necessary to learn how to make use of every occurrence, so as by a good life, according to knowledge, to be trained for the state of eternal life. For it said, “I saw the wicked exalted and towering as the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed,” says the Scripture, “and, lo, he was not; and I sought him, and his place was not found. Keep innocence, and look on uprightness: for there is a remnant to the man of peace.” Such will he be who believes unfeignedly with his whole heart, and is tranquil in his whole soul. “For the different people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from the Lord.” “They bless with their mouth, but they curse in their heart.” “They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, and they were not faithful to His covenant.” Wherefore “let the false lips become speechless, and let the Lord destroy the boastful tongue: those who say, We shall magnify our tongue, and our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? For the affliction of the poor and the groaning of the needy now will I arise, says the Lord; I will set him in safety; I will speak out in his case.” For it is to the humble that Christ belongs, who do not exalt themselves against His flock. “Lay not up for yourselves, therefore, treasures on the earth, where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break through and steal,” says the Lord, in reproach perchance of the covetous, and perchance also of those who are simply anxious and full of cares, and those too who indulge their bodies. For amours, and diseases, and evil thoughts “break through” the mind and the whole man. But our true “treasure” is where what is allied to our mind is, since it bestows the communicative power of righteousness, showing that we must assign to the habit of our old conversation what we have acquired by it, and have recourse to God, beseeching mercy. He is, in truth, “the bag that waxes not old,” the provisions of eternal life, “the treasure that fails not in heaven.” “For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,”  says the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake. For they have heard in the commandment that “the broad and wide way leads to destruction, and many there are who go in by it.”  It is not of anything else that the assertion is made, but of profligacy, and love of women, and love of glory, and ambition, and similar passions. For so He says, “Fool, this night shall your soul be required of you; and whose shall those things be which you have prepared?” And the commandment is expressed in these very words, “Take heed, therefore, of covetousness. For a man's life does not consist in the abundance of those things which he possesses. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” “Wherefore I say, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither for your body, what you shall put on. For your life is more than meat, and your body than raiment.”  And again, “For your Father knows that you have need of all these things.” “But seek first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness,” for these are the great things, and the things which are small and appertain to this life “shall be added to you.” Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the gnostic life, and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed? Therefore Christ, who trains the soul, reckons one rich, not by his gifts, but by his choice. It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, “Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;” on which the Saviour said, “The Son of man, on coming today, has found that which was lost.” [Stromata 4.6]

Let us first note that the line “Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” only finds agreement in Origen's citation from the Gospel According to the Hebrews - "Go, sell all that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the poor, and come, follow me."  The reading here represents a suitable match because Origen's treatise survives only in a Latin translation. The only other place these words are repeated is in Clement's Instructor Book Two which demonstrates that Clement was consistent in his citations of the non-canonical gospel in his possession. 

I have noted many times that the Rev. C W Phillips noticed that Origen's citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews witnessed a pattern in texts related to the Diatessaron with regards to the ordering of three passages back to back - viz. (1) the parable of the Rich Fool and related material in Luke 12 (2) the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10) (3) the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16). Clement repeatedly tells us in Quis Dives Salvetur that this so-called 'Phillips narrative' ultimately concludes with the story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1 - 10). Clement uses the Zacchaeus in Quis Dives Salvetur to demonstrate that 'the kingdom of God' has different demands and expectations than that of the 'kingdom of heaven.'

Now in this passage from the Stromata Book Four - indeed a passage which can be argued to be a microcosm of Quis Dives Salvetur in many ways - Clement connecting Jesus's answer to the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10) to the example of Zacchaeus (Luke 19):

And abstinence from vicious acts is found, somehow, [to result in] the diminution and extinction of vicious propensities, their energy being destroyed by inaction. And this is the import of “Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” — that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what “you have” He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say. For God dispenses to all according to desert, His distribution being righteous. Despising, therefore, the possessions which God apportions to you in your magnificence, comply with what is spoken by me; haste to the ascent of the Spirit, being not only justified by abstinence from what is evil, but in addition also perfected, by Christlike beneficence. In this instance He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbour; and it is by beneficence that the love which, according to the gnostic ascending scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself. We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the good itself. Such, as do so, stand on the right hand of the sanctuary; but those who think that by the gift of what is perishable they shall receive in exchange what belongs to immortality are in the parable of the two brothers called “hirelings.” And is there not some light thrown here on the expression “in the likeness and image,” in the fact that some live according to the likeness of Christ, while those who stand on the left hand live according to their image? There are then two things proceeding from the truth, one root lying beneath both—the choice being, however, not equal, or rather the difference that is in the choice not being equal. To choose by way of imitation differs, as appears to me, from the choice of him who chooses according to knowledge, as that which is set on fire differs from that which is illuminated. Israel, then, is the light of the likeness which is according to the Scripture. But the image is another thing. What means the parable of Lazarus, by showing the image of the rich and poor? And what the saying, “No man can serve two masters, God and Mammon?”— the Lord so terming the love of money. For instance, the covetous, who were invited, responded not to the invitation to the supper, not because of their possessing property, but of their inordinate affection to what they possessed. “The foxes,” then, have holes. He called those evil and earthly men who are occupied about the wealth which is mined and dug from the ground, foxes. Thus also, in reference to Herod: “Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.”  For He applied the name “fowls of the air” to those who were distinct from the other birds— those really pure, those that have the power of flying to the knowledge of the heavenly Word. For not riches only, but also honour, and marriage, and poverty, have ten thousand cares for him who is unfit for them. And those cares He indicated in the parable of the fourfold seed, when He said that “the seed of the word which fell unto the thorns” and hedges was choked by them, and could not bring forth fruit. It is therefore necessary to learn how to make use of every occurrence, so as by a good life, according to knowledge, to be trained for the state of eternal life. For it said, “I saw the wicked exalted and towering as the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed,” says the Scripture, “and, lo, he was not; and I sought him, and his place was not found. Keep innocence, and look on uprightness: for there is a remnant to the man of peace.” Such will he be who believes unfeignedly with his whole heart, and is tranquil in his whole soul. “For the different people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from the Lord.” “They bless with their mouth, but they curse in their heart.” “They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, and they were not faithful to His covenant.” Wherefore “let the false lips become speechless, and let the Lord destroy the boastful tongue: those who say, We shall magnify our tongue, and our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? For the affliction of the poor and the groaning of the needy now will I arise, says the Lord; I will set him in safety; I will speak out in his case.” For it is to the humble that Christ belongs, who do not exalt themselves against His flock. “Lay not up for yourselves, therefore, treasures on the earth, where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break through and steal,” says the Lord, in reproach perchance of the covetous, and perchance also of those who are simply anxious and full of cares, and those too who indulge their bodies. For amours, and diseases, and evil thoughts “break through” the mind and the whole man. But our true “treasure” is where what is allied to our mind is, since it bestows the communicative power of righteousness, showing that we must assign to the habit of our old conversation what we have acquired by it, and have recourse to God, beseeching mercy. He is, in truth, “the bag that waxes not old,” the provisions of eternal life, “the treasure that fails not in heaven.” “For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” says the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake. For they have heard in the commandment that “the broad and wide way leads to destruction, and many there are who go in by it"; It is not of anything else that the assertion is made, but of profligacy, and love of women, and love of glory, and ambition, and similar passions. For so He says, “Fool, this night shall your soul be required of you; and whose shall those things be which you have prepared?”  And the commandment is expressed in these very words, “Take heed, therefore, of covetousness. For a man's life does not consist in the abundance of those things which he possesses. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”  “Wherefore I say, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither for your body, what you shall put on. For your life is more than meat, and your body than raiment.”  And again, “For your Father knows that you have need of all these things.” “But seek first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness,” for these are the great things, and the things which are small and appertain to this life “shall be added to you.”  Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the gnostic life, and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed? Therefore Christ, who trains the soul, reckons one rich, not by his gifts, but by his choice. It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, “Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;” on which the Saviour said, “The Son of man, on coming today, has found that which was lost.” [Stromata 4.6]

But notice again that he connects the Question of the Rich Man to Zacchaeus by way of (1) the material in Luke 12 related to the Rich Fool, (3) the Rich Man and Lazarus and (4) the Great Supper narratives (all originally found together in one section in the earliest Diatessaronic witnesses):

And abstinence from vicious acts is found, somehow, [to result in] the diminution and extinction of vicious propensities, their energy being destroyed by inaction. And this is the import of “Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” — that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what “you have” He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say. For God dispenses to all according to desert, His distribution being righteous. Despising, therefore, the possessions which God apportions to you in your magnificence, comply with what is spoken by me; haste to the ascent of the Spirit, being not only justified by abstinence from what is evil, but in addition also perfected, by Christlike beneficence. In this instance He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbour; and it is by beneficence that the love which, according to the gnostic ascending scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself. We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the good itself. Such, as do so, stand on the right hand of the sanctuary; but those who think that by the gift of what is perishable they shall receive in exchange what belongs to immortality are in the parable of the two brothers called “hirelings.” And is there not some light thrown here on the expression “in the likeness and image,” in the fact that some live according to the likeness of Christ, while those who stand on the left hand live according to their image? There are then two things proceeding from the truth, one root lying beneath both—the choice being, however, not equal, or rather the difference that is in the choice not being equal. To choose by way of imitation differs, as appears to me, from the choice of him who chooses according to knowledge, as that which is set on fire differs from that which is illuminated. Israel, then, is the light of the likeness which is according to the Scripture. But the image is another thing. What means the parable of Lazarus, by showing the image of the rich and poor? And what the saying, “No man can serve two masters, God and Mammon?”— the Lord so terming the love of money. For instance, the covetous, who were invited, responded not to the invitation to the supper, not because of their possessing property, but of their inordinate affection to what they possessed. “The foxes,” then, have holes. He called those evil and earthly men who are occupied about the wealth which is mined and dug from the ground, foxes. Thus also, in reference to Herod: “Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.”  For He applied the name “fowls of the air” to those who were distinct from the other birds— those really pure, those that have the power of flying to the knowledge of the heavenly Word. For not riches only, but also honour, and marriage, and poverty, have ten thousand cares for him who is unfit for them. And those cares He indicated in the parable of the fourfold seed, when He said that “the seed of the word which fell unto the thorns” and hedges was choked by them, and could not bring forth fruit. It is therefore necessary to learn how to make use of every occurrence, so as by a good life, according to knowledge, to be trained for the state of eternal life. For it said, “I saw the wicked exalted and towering as the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed,” says the Scripture, “and, lo, he was not; and I sought him, and his place was not found. Keep innocence, and look on uprightness: for there is a remnant to the man of peace.” Such will he be who believes unfeignedly with his whole heart, and is tranquil in his whole soul. “For the different people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from the Lord.” “They bless with their mouth, but they curse in their heart.” “They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, and they were not faithful to His covenant.” Wherefore “let the false lips become speechless, and let the Lord destroy the boastful tongue: those who say, We shall magnify our tongue, and our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? For the affliction of the poor and the groaning of the needy now will I arise, says the Lord; I will set him in safety; I will speak out in his case.” For it is to the humble that Christ belongs, who do not exalt themselves against His flock. “Lay not up for yourselves, therefore, treasures on the earth, where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break through and steal,” says the Lord, in reproach perchance of the covetous, and perchance also of those who are simply anxious and full of cares, and those too who indulge their bodies. For amours, and diseases, and evil thoughts “break through” the mind and the whole man. But our true “treasure” is where what is allied to our mind is, since it bestows the communicative power of righteousness, showing that we must assign to the habit of our old conversation what we have acquired by it, and have recourse to God, beseeching mercy. He is, in truth, “the bag that waxes not old,” the provisions of eternal life, “the treasure that fails not in heaven.” “For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” says the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake. For they have heard in the commandment that “the broad and wide way leads to destruction, and many there are who go in by it"; It is not of anything else that the assertion is made, but of profligacy, and love of women, and love of glory, and ambition, and similar passions. For so He says, “Fool, this night shall your soul be required of you; and whose shall those things be which you have prepared?”  And the commandment is expressed in these very words, “Take heed, therefore, of covetousness. For a man's life does not consist in the abundance of those things which he possesses. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”  “Wherefore I say, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither for your body, what you shall put on. For your life is more than meat, and your body than raiment.”  And again, “For your Father knows that you have need of all these things.” “But seek first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness,” for these are the great things, and the things which are small and appertain to this life “shall be added to you.”  Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the gnostic life, and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed? Therefore Christ, who trains the soul, reckons one rich, not by his gifts, but by his choice. It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, “Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;” on which the Saviour said, “The Son of man, on coming today, has found that which was lost.” [Stromata 4.6]

So now we can begin to see how this section of text in the Stromata Book Four clearly resembled other passages in Clement which used a non-canonical gospel which 'integrated' (1) the Rich Fool and related material (Luke 12), (2) the Question of the Rich Youth (Mark 10), (3) the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) and (4) the Great Supper before the Announcement of his Death in Jerusalem (Mark 10:32 - 34).

We have brought forward many witnesses to this use of a non-canonical gospel here; the most recent example being the Instructor 2:10 - 13:

The Lord Himself, therefore, dividing His precepts into what relates to the body, the soul, and thirdly, external things, counsels us to provide external things on account of the body; and manages the body by the soul (yukh), and disciplines the soul, saying, "Take no thought for your life (yukh) what ye shall eat; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on; for the life is more than meat, and the body more than raiment." And He adds a plain example of instruction: "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap, which have neither storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them." "Are ye not better than the fowls?" Thus far as to food. Similarly He enjoins with respect to clothing, which belongs to the third division, that of things external, saying, "Consider the lilies, how they spin not, nor weave. But I say unto you, that not even Solomon was arrayed as one of these." And Solomon the king plumed himself exceedingly on his riches.


What, I ask, more graceful, more gay-coloured, than flowers? What, I say, more delightful than lilies or roses? "And if God so clothe the grass, which is to-day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O ye of little faith!" Here the particle what (ti) banishes variety in food. For this is shown from the Scripture, "Take no thought what things ye shall eat, or what things ye shall drink." For to take thought of these things argues greed and luxury. Now eating, considered merely by itself, is the sign of necessity; repletion, as we have said, of want. Whatever is beyond that, is the sign of superfluity. And what is superfluous, Scripture declares to be of the devil. The subjoined expression makes the meaning plain. For having said, "Seek not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink," He added, "Neither be ye of doubtful (or lofty) mind." Now pride and luxury make men waverers (or raise them aloft) from the truth; and the voluptuousness, which indulges in superfluities, leads away from the truth. Wherefore He says very beautifully, "And all these things do the nations of the world seek after." The nations are the dissolute and the foolish. And what are these things which He specifies? Luxury, voluptuousness, rich cooking, dainty feeding, gluttony. These are the "What?"


And of bare sustenance, dry and moist, as being necessaries He says, "Your Father knoweth that ye need these." And if, in a word, we are naturally given to seeking, let us not destroy the faculty of seeking by directing it to luxury, but let us excite it to the discovery of truth. For He says, "Seek ye the kingdom of God, and the materials of sustenance shall be added to you."


If, then, He takes away anxious care for clothes and food, and superfluities in general, as unnecessary; what are we to imagine ought to be said of love of ornament, and dyeing of wool, and variety of colours, and fastidiousness about gems, and exquisite working of gold, and still more, of artificial hair and wreathed curls; and furthermore, of staining the eyes, and plucking out hairs, and painting with rouge and white lead, and dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such deceptions? May we not very well suspect, that what was quoted a little above respecting the grass, has been said of those unornamental lovers of ornaments? For the field is the world, and we who are bedewed by the grace of God are the grass; and though cut down, we spring up again, as will be shown at greater length in the book On the Resurrection. But hay figuratively designates the vulgar rabble, attached to ephemeral pleasure, flourishing for a little, loving ornament, loving praise, and being everything but truth-loving, good for nothing but to be burned with fire. "There was a certain man," said the Lord, narrating, "very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day." This was the hay. "And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man's gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table." This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made par-taker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father's bosom.

And again in what follows after a slight digression:

But you also oppose Scripture, seeing it expressly cries “Seek first the kingdom of heaven, and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Luke 12.30) But if all things have been conferred on you, and all things allowed you, and “if all things are lawful, yet all things are not expedient,”(1 Cor 10:23) says the apostle. God brought our race into communion by first imparting what was His own, when He gave His own Word, common to all, and made all things for all. All things therefore are common, and not for the rich to appropriate an undue share. That expression, therefore, “I possess, and possess in abundance: why then should I not enjoy?” is suitable neither to the man, nor to society. But more worthy of love is that: “I have: why should I not give to those who need?” For such an one—one who fulfils the command, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”—is perfect.  For this is the true luxury—the treasured wealth. But that which is squandered on foolish lusts is to be reckoned waste, not expenditure. For God has given to us, I know well, the liberty of use, but only so far as necessary; and He has determined that the use should be common. And it is monstrous for one to live in luxury, while many are in want. How much more glorious is it to do good to many, than to live sumptuously! How much wiser to spend money on human being, than on jewels and gold!

And again after yet another digression on Clement's part in the same section:

O foolish trouble! O silly craze for display! They squander meretriciously wealth on what is disgraceful; and in their love for ostentation disfigure God’s gifts, emulating the art of the evil one. The rich man hoarding up in his barns, and saying to himself, “Thou hast much goods laid up for many years; eat, drink, be merry,” the Lord in the Gospel plainly called “fool.” “For this night they shall take of thee thy soul; whose then shall those things which thou hast prepared be?” (Luke 12.19, 20)  Apelles, the painter, seeing one of his pupils painting a figure loaded with gold colour to represent Helen, said to him, “Boy, being incapable of painting her beautiful, you have made her rich.”  Such Helens are the ladies of the present day, not truly beautiful, but richly got up. To these the Spirit prophesies by Zephaniah: “And their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s anger.” ( Zeph. 1.18) But for those women who have been trained under Christ, it is suitable to adorn themselves not with gold, but with the Word, through whom alone the gold comes to light [Instructor 2:10 - 13]

My point now is that if we go back to all three of these passages which cite what C W Phillips first noted was an integrated ordering of narratives in gospels related to the Diatessaron, it becomes plain that both Clement's unnamed non-canonical gospel and Origen's Gospel According to the Hebrews actually incorporated Luke 10:25 - 37 within the Question of the Rich Youth.

The evidence here is quite unshakable when you really look at it all together.  We just highlighted the reference to Luke chapter 10 in red within the citations of material from the 'Phillips narrative' from the Instructor Book 2.  Now let's do the same for our original citation from Stromata Book 4:

And abstinence from vicious acts is found, somehow, [to result in] the diminution and extinction of vicious propensities, their energy being destroyed by inaction. And this is the import of “Sell what you have, and give to the poor, and come, follow Me” — that is, follow what is said by the Lord. Some say that by what “you have” He designated the things in the soul, of a nature not akin to it, though how these are bestowed on the poor they are not able to say. For God dispenses to all according to desert, His distribution being righteous. Despising, therefore, the possessions which God apportions to you in your magnificence, comply with what is spoken by me; haste to the ascent of the Spirit, being not only justified by abstinence from what is evil, but in addition also perfected, by Christlike beneficence. In this instance He convicted the man, who boasted that he had fulfilled the injunctions of the law, of not loving his neighbour; and it is by beneficence that the love which, according to the gnostic ascending scale, is Lord of the Sabbath, proclaims itself. We must then, according to my view, have recourse to the word of salvation neither from fear of punishment nor promise of a gift, but on account of the good itself. Such, as do so, stand on the right hand of the sanctuary; but those who think that by the gift of what is perishable they shall receive in exchange what belongs to immortality are in the parable of the two brothers called “hirelings.” And is there not some light thrown here on the expression “in the likeness and image,” in the fact that some live according to the likeness of Christ, while those who stand on the left hand live according to their image? There are then two things proceeding from the truth, one root lying beneath both—the choice being, however, not equal, or rather the difference that is in the choice not being equal. To choose by way of imitation differs, as appears to me, from the choice of him who chooses according to knowledge, as that which is set on fire differs from that which is illuminated. Israel, then, is the light of the likeness which is according to the Scripture. But the image is another thing. What means the parable of Lazarus, by showing the image of the rich and poor? And what the saying, “No man can serve two masters, God and Mammon?”— the Lord so terming the love of money. For instance, the covetous, who were invited, responded not to the invitation to the supper, not because of their possessing property, but of their inordinate affection to what they possessed. “The foxes,” then, have holes. He called those evil and earthly men who are occupied about the wealth which is mined and dug from the ground, foxes. Thus also, in reference to Herod: “Go, tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.”  For He applied the name “fowls of the air” to those who were distinct from the other birds— those really pure, those that have the power of flying to the knowledge of the heavenly Word. For not riches only, but also honour, and marriage, and poverty, have ten thousand cares for him who is unfit for them. And those cares He indicated in the parable of the fourfold seed, when He said that “the seed of the word which fell unto the thorns” and hedges was choked by them, and could not bring forth fruit. It is therefore necessary to learn how to make use of every occurrence, so as by a good life, according to knowledge, to be trained for the state of eternal life. For it said, “I saw the wicked exalted and towering as the cedars of Lebanon; and I passed,” says the Scripture, “and, lo, he was not; and I sought him, and his place was not found. Keep innocence, and look on uprightness: for there is a remnant to the man of peace.” Such will he be who believes unfeignedly with his whole heart, and is tranquil in his whole soul. “For the different people honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from the Lord.” “They bless with their mouth, but they curse in their heart.” “They loved Him with their mouth, and lied to Him with their tongue; but their heart was not right with Him, and they were not faithful to His covenant.” Wherefore “let the false lips become speechless, and let the Lord destroy the boastful tongue: those who say, We shall magnify our tongue, and our lips are our own; who is Lord over us? For the affliction of the poor and the groaning of the needy now will I arise, says the Lord; I will set him in safety; I will speak out in his case.” For it is to the humble that Christ belongs, who do not exalt themselves against His flock. “Lay not up for yourselves, therefore, treasures on the earth, where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break through and steal,” says the Lord, in reproach perchance of the covetous, and perchance also of those who are simply anxious and full of cares, and those too who indulge their bodies. For amours, and diseases, and evil thoughts “break through” the mind and the whole man. But our true “treasure” is where what is allied to our mind is, since it bestows the communicative power of righteousness, showing that we must assign to the habit of our old conversation what we have acquired by it, and have recourse to God, beseeching mercy. He is, in truth, “the bag that waxes not old,” the provisions of eternal life, “the treasure that fails not in heaven.” “For I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,” says the Lord. And they say those things to those who wish to be poor for righteousness' sake. For they have heard in the commandment that “the broad and wide way leads to destruction, and many there are who go in by it"; It is not of anything else that the assertion is made, but of profligacy, and love of women, and love of glory, and ambition, and similar passions. For so He says, “Fool, this night shall your soul be required of you; and whose shall those things be which you have prepared?”  And the commandment is expressed in these very words, “Take heed, therefore, of covetousness. For a man's life does not consist in the abundance of those things which he possesses. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”  “Wherefore I say, Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat; neither for your body, what you shall put on. For your life is more than meat, and your body than raiment.”  And again, “For your Father knows that you have need of all these things.” “But seek first the kingdom of heaven, and its righteousness,” for these are the great things, and the things which are small and appertain to this life “shall be added to you.”  Does He not plainly then exhort us to follow the gnostic life, and enjoin us to seek the truth in word and deed? Therefore Christ, who trains the soul, reckons one rich, not by his gifts, but by his choice. It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, “Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;” on which the Saviour said, “The Son of man, on coming today, has found that which was lost.” [Stromata 4.6]

In our last post we noted that Clement cites and makes a detailed commentary on Luke 10:24 - 37 in the middle of Quis Dives Salvetur as a means of explaining that 'the kingdom of God' as a duty to love one's neighbor, while 'the kingdom of heaven' was something loftier and reserved for the spiritual elite.

It is enough for us now to bring back Origen's citation of the Gospel According to the Hebrews to see it too integrates at least part of Luke 10:24 - 37 in the middle of the Question of the Rich Youth.  We read:

the second of the rich men (it saith) said unto him: Master, what good thing can I do and live? He said unto him: O man, fulfil (do) the law and the prophets. He answered him: I have kept them. He said unto him: Go, sell al that thou ownest, and distribute it unto the poor, and come, follow me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him not. And the Lord said unto him: How sayest though: I have kept the law and the prophets? For it is written in the law: Though shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and lo, many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, are clad in filth, dying for hunger, and thine house is full of many good things, and nought at all goeth out of it unto them (Commentary on Matthew 15:14)

The point of this exercise is that despite the fact that 'the kingdom of heaven' was found in the equivalent of Mark 10:24 in the Gospel According to the Hebrews and this citation opens Quis Dives Salvetur the weight of the evidence clearly rejects the possibility that this text was Clement's preferred gospel, the one he cites without mention throughout his writings.  We must look for something else instead - indeed for a text like 'Secret Mark' which can be argued to be related to but is not identical with the Gospel According to the Hebrews. 

Not only were Clement's citations from Luke 10:24 - 37 closer to the canonical gospels than what appears in the Gospel According to the Hebrews, another line from this section appears in a very different form throughout the writings of Clement - indeed very different from any known canonical gospel.  I have also long argued that Tertullian's and Epiphanius citation of bits and pieces of the Marcionite gospel reveals the same 'harmonization' (I think by now it should be apparent that the reality was that our canonical gospels represent nothing short of a 'breaking apart' of this original 'harmony' of textual material. 

In any event I have noted in previous posts that Stromata Book Three represents Clement fighting with the Carpocratians not only over this same gospel but in fact this same pericope (a narrative which sits only a few lines from the material cited in the Letter to Theodore).  We noticed that Clement seems to have taken the Carpocratians to task for their interpretation of a single line from that Alexandrian gospel which derives from a variant of the Question of the Rich Youth albeit one which incorporated Luke 10:24 - 37 within it.  The text is first cited in Strom 3.1 as 'But I say, Thou shalt not lust' and 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.'

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.

We are once again back to the idea that the 'uncut' Marcionite gospel was 'Secret Mark.'  But that is more than enough information for one reading ...

The Gospel According to the Hebrews and Secret Mark

Life is all about possibilities.  I find it difficult to believe that prominent religious scholars can accuse one of their own of actually inventing a lost letter of a prominent Church Father he claims he found in a Greek orthodox monastery near Bethlehem when there is so little evidence to support such a charge.  One should expect that such distinguished men would only allow themselves to reach such a conclusion because the facts demanded that they 'assume the unthinkable.'  In other words, that forgery was the only possibility.  The reality however is far different. 

One particularly wicked individual - on his way to becoming a religious scholar but not quite there - went out of his way to martial a case against the authenticity of the discovery developed mostly from innuendo and what can only be described as a willful misrepresentation of the physical evidence.  He even constructed a bizarre 'motivation' for this crime - a wonton libido so embittered against the 'true beliefs' of the Church that it helped forge this false letter of Clement of Alexandria. 

The reason that Stephen Carlson ultimately succeeded at winning over so many converts to the ridiculous claims of his 2005 book the Gospel Hoax was that very same religious scholars won over to his theory for the most part embodied the very tortured personna of Morton Smith the forger developed in the book.  Ugly, both in the face and in the soul, they essentially made a career for themselves stealing and reworking the ideas of others into ever new works of obfuscation.  Indeed the Gospel Hoax is in many ways little more than a confessional exercise at how corrupt and falsified two hundred years of Biblical scholarship had become. 

The discovery of the Mar Saba letter challenged ten generations of efforts to avoid challenging our inherited notions about the sacredness of the fourfold gospel.  This is the real 'crime' that has led to Morton Smith's condemnation by contemporary religious scholarship.  In the minds of most conservative scholars the field is divided into those who edify the sacred clams of our religious inheritance and those who attempt to subvert them.  Because Morton Smith actively promoted a thesis aligned with the cause of subverting Christianity (viz. 'the Jesus the magician' argument) and used his discovery, the Mar Saba docment to further that agenda, the Letter to Theodore is condemned as a product of Morton Smith's 'Satanic' agenda. 

Yet any one who has ever bothered to read Smith's 1973 book can see how implausible his attempts to connect Clement's letter with his thesis really are.  The text makes no explicit reference to any 'magic' being practiced by Jesus.  It is of course true that Irenaeus accuses the Carpocratians of practising "also magical arts and incantations; philters, also, and love-potions; and have recourse to familiar spirits, dream-sending demons, and other abominations" (AH 1.25.3) and the Letter to Theodore does acknowledge that Carpocrates used magic to ensnare a presbyter in Alexandria into revealing the contents of its 'secret gospel.'  However the real focus of the document is discussing the shared gospel of the Carpocratian and Alexandrian communities. 

Irenaeus gives us no information whatsoever about which gospel the Carpocratians employed.  The closest that he comes to saying anything about this is what is found in the description of the Ebionites which follows "Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only" (AH 1.26.2)  Does the 'they' here include the Carpocratians?  Epiphanius certainly seems to think so.  Lawlor demonstrates quite effectively that Epiphanius did not use Irenaeus as his source for the Carpocratians but in fact Irenaeus's ultimate source of information - a text identified by Eusebius as 'the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus' a history of the Church which focused on Jerusalem and Rome and written in the year 147 CE and which was subsequently revised in a later period. 

Whether or not Hegesippus was Epiphanius's source for the idea that the Ebionites and the Carpocratains used an older form of the canonical gospel of Matthew - the so-called Gospel according to the Hebews - is anyone's guess.  Epiphanius in his Panarion makes reference to the Ebionites (ch. 30) and goes on to discuss their relation with the Cerinthians (ch. 29).40 Epiphanius writes that the Ebionites used the Gospel according to Matthew and he continues: "For they use only this like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus"41 (30 3 7). Later he even writes that the Ebionites, Cerinthians and Carpocratians used the same Gospel (30 14 2). The statement might well be taken to represent little more than a reworking of Irenaeus if it were not for Lawlor's conclusive research to indicate that Epiphanius used an earlier source. 

I find it particularly interesting the statement in the description of the Ebionites in Epiphanius where he says:

See how their utterly false teaching is all lame, crooked, and not right anywhere! For by supposedly using their same Cerinthus and Carpocrates want to prove from the beginning of of Matthew, by the genealogy, that Christ is the product of Joseph's seed and Mary. They falsify the genealogical tables in Matthew's Gospel and make its opening, as I said, “It came to pass in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, in the high-priesthood of Caiaphas, that a certain man, John by name, came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan” and so on.  This is because they maintain that Jesus is really a man, as I said, but that Christ, who descended in the form of a dove, has entered him—as we have found already in other sects— and been united with him. [Panarion 30.14.2]

The reason this testimony is so valuable is because Irenaeus also reports much the same thing about the Carpocratians and Cerinthians using the same gospel - i.e. the one said to be 'the original Matthew' albeit with one important distinction.  The Ebionites and the Cerinthians apparently emphasize that Christianity is supposed to continue at least some of the rituals of Judaism.  The Carpocratians want to utterly abandon all the old commandments.

Indeed it has to be noted that it is only Irenaeus who conditions all those who follow him to identify this Gospel according to the Hebrews as 'Matthew.'  A careful examination of the rest of Epiphanius's testimony makes clear that he is correct in also reporting it as the precursor to the Diatessaron: 

Now in what they call a Gospel according to Matthew, though it is not the entire Gospel but is corrupt and mutilated—and they call this thing “Hebrew”!—the following passage is found: “There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about thirty years of age, who chose us. And coming to Capernaum he entered into the house of Simon surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said, Passing beside the Sea of Tiberias I chose John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus and Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot. Thee too, Matthew, seated at the receipt of custom, did I call,  I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles for a testimony to Israel.” [ibid 30.13]

It should be noted that only our canonical Luke has the reference to Jesus being 'about thirty,' that John heads the list of apostles and that Matthew concludes it.  The point is that whoever developed this gospel did so with Matthew having a special place in its narrative.  I think there are numerous signs that Clement knew of this gospel and associated with his heretical opponents, the Carpocratians.

Let's start with the fact that on top of the fact that Clement identifies the Zacchaeus narrative as 'completing' or explaining the original question brought up by the rich youth (Mark 10:17 - 31) Clement repeatedly intimates that in some gospels Zacchaeus is named 'Matthew':

It is said, therefore, that Zaccheus, or, according to some, Matthew, the chief of the publicans, on hearing that the Lord had deigned to come to him, said, "Lord, and if I have taken anything by false accusation, I restore him fourfold;" on which the Saviour said, "The Son of man, on coming to-day, has found that which was lost." [Stromata 4.6]

Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." [Quis Dives Salvetur 13]

The point then is that this is undoubtedly the same gospel as that associated with the Ebionites, Cerinthians and perhaps the Carpocratians given that Matthew is given such prominence and that the text is always connected with the Diatessaron. 

It is also worth noting that the tradition just cited has been noted to have some connection to the Preaching of Peter.  Compare the conclusion of Epiphanius's opening citation:

 I will, then, that ye be twelve apostles for a testimony to Israel.”

with what appears in Clement's Stromata Book Six

Accordingly, in the Preaching of Peter, the Lord says to the disciples after the resurrection, "I have chosen you twelve disciples, judging you worthy of me," whom the Lord wished to be apostles, having judged them faithful, sending them into the world to the men on the earth [Strom 6.6]

There is also an Epistle to the Apostles which dates from the mid-second century which survivies in Coptic and Ethiopian and which may well also be related to the same gospel tradition.  Note the similarities again between one of its passages and what appears in the writings of Clement.  In the Ethiopic version another writing, a prophecy of our Lord concerning the signs of the end, is prefixed to the Epistle. Parts of the this recur in the Syriac Testament of the Lord and part is repeated in the Epistle itself. It is noteworthy that this prophecy ends with a passage which is identical with one quoted by Clement of Alexandria from a source he does not name he does not name - only calling it 'the Scripture':

And the righteous, that have walked in the way of righteousness, shall inherit the glory of God; and the power shall be given to them which no eye hath seen and no ear heard; and they shall rejoice in my kingdom. [Protrept. 103]

But the saints of the Lord shall inherit the glory of God, and his power. Tell me what glory, O blessed one. That which eye hath not seen nor ear heard, neither hath it come upon the heart of man; and they shall rejoice at the kingdom of their Lord for ever. Amen. [Testament 11]

The point of course is that it cannot be at all doubted that Clement of Alexandria had in his possession one or all of the various texts related to the Gospel according to the Hebrews.  It would also seem highly likely that Clement was reacting to a group in the possession of one of these texts in Quis Dives Salvetur.

I have already noted that Quis Dives Salvetur is framed by a citation of Mark 10:24/Matt 9:24 that first appears in the Gospel according to the Hebrews cited by his successor and student Origen.  This is very significant for our attempt to understand whether to Theodore is a forgery as there is very good reason to believe that Clement's opponents in Quis Dives Salvetur are the Carpocratians given the similarity of arguments with Stromata 3:1 - 12 where the heretics promoting these views are so identified.  The Carpocratians are identified as Clement's adversaries in to Theodore and he cites 'the gospel according to Mark' against their views - a method Clement employs against the Carpocratians in Quis Dives Salvetur.  Moreover takes pains to note that in some gospels the Zacchaeus narrative is attributed to Matthew; giving Matthew a heightened profile is a feature apparently of the 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' in the hands of the heretics.

With all of this said, I want to again emphasize that it is only Irenaeus argues that canonical Matthew is the 'successor' to this 'Gospel according to the Hebrews' of the heretics.  The fact that the figure of Matthew appeared prominently in at least some of these manuscripts should not prejudice us against the view that in fact that the Gospel according to the Hebrews might have actually been related to another canonical gospel - possibly even Mark.  The question has to be asked - why would Clement cite canonical Mark to clarify the points raised by the heretics about the Question of the Rich Man pericope if canonical Matthew was the true ancestor of the text?

In the Letter to Theodore for instance, the claim is made that Mark wrote both a public and private gospel so it was only natural to compare the two texts in order to refute the point made by the Carpocratians that canonical Mark was not divinely inspired.  In Quis Dives Salvetur and related sections of the Instructor and the Stromateis the heretical argument seems to have been that it is impossible for a rich man to get into kingdom of heaven.  Clement's point is ultimately that the story atributed to a certain Zacchaeus - and in the gospel of the heretics 'Matthew' - makes clear that Christianity does not demand an abandonment of riches for its members but rather works of charity:

How could one give food to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, and shelter the houseless, for not doing which He threatens with fire and the outer darkness, if each man first divested himself of all these things? Nay, He bids Zaccheus and Matthew, the rich tax-gathers, entertain Him hospitably. And He does not bid them part with their property, but, applying the just and removing the unjust judgment, He subjoins, "To-day salvation has come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." He so praises the use of property as to enjoin, along with this addition, the giving a share of it, to give drink to the thirsty, bread to the hungry, to take the houseless in, and clothe the naked. But if it is not possible to supply those needs without substance, and He bids people abandon their substance, what else would the Lord be doing than exhorting to give and not to give the same things, to feed and not to feed, to take in and to shut out, to share and not to share? which were the most irrational of all things ... we must hear the Saviour speaking thus, "Come, follow Me." For to the pure in heart He now becomes the way. But into the impure soul the grace of God finds no entrance. And that (soul) is unclean which is rich in lusts, and is in the throes of many worldly affections. For he who holds possessions, and gold, and silver, and houses, as the gifts of God; and ministers from them to the God who gives them for the salvation of men; and knows that he possesses them more for the sake of the brethren than his own; and is superior to the possession of them, not the slave of the things he possesses; and does not carry them about in his soul, nor bind and circumscribe his life within them, but is ever labouring at some good and divine work, even should he be necessarily some time or other deprived of them, is able with cheerful mind to bear their removal equally with their abundance. This is he who is blessed by the Lord, and cared poor in spirit, a meet heir of the kingdom of heaven, not one who could not live rich.  [Quis Dives Salvetur 13,16]

Notice again how Clement not only cites gospel narratives which conclude this section with a figure named alternative 'Zacchaeus' or 'Matthew' but moreover one which originally reference 'the kingdom of heaven' in Mark 10:24/Matt 9:24.

It is worth following Clement's use of the terms 'kingdom of heaven' and 'heaven' in what follows in order to gain some insight into the original heretical argument he was answering.  In no uncertain terms we learn near the end that the heretics were concerned about what leads to entrance into heaven:

For let not this be left to despondency and despair by you, if you learn who the rich man is that has not a place in heaven, and what way he uses his property. [ibid 38]

Clearly then 'kingdom of heaven' is interpreted as meaning 'the next world.'  What then is the point of Clement's original citation of the public gospel of Mark which has the reading 'kingdom of God' in its place in Mark 10:24/Matthew 9:24?  Clearly Clement - like all gnostics - understands that there are different places assigned to different natures.  To the psychics there is the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ which is improperly rendered by the term 'kingdom of God.' A translation with “kingship,” "kingly rule," “reign”, “queen”, or “sovereignty” should be preferred (a point even recognized by the Catholic Church).

This is why Clement cites the Gospel according to Mark. It is only in canonical gospels that we get any context for this distinction between the place of 'the kingdom of God' and the 'kingdom of heaven.' Let us not forget that in 'secret Mark' the neaniskos who asks Jesus the question about riches, dies and returns from the underworld to receive the 'mystery of the kingdom of God.' This is established in practice a few lines later by the example of 'Zacchaeus' (the righteous) or Matthew (the gift of God) both clandestine titles for the same rich youth.

How then can Clement explain that the distinction in the 'mystic gospel' held in common with the heretics without revealing its secrets? Well, the reference to Zacchaeus is clearly made to the heretics themselves (i.e. those who had the original formulation of the Diatessaron-like gospel). However he explains the meaning of 'kingdom of God' without referencing LGM 1 by bringing forward another passage from the canonical gospels:

But if one is able in the midst of wealth to turn from its power, and to entertain moderate sentiments, and to exercise self-command, and to seek God alone, and to breathe God and walk with God, such a poor man submits to the commandments, being free, unsubdued, free of disease, unwounded by wealth. But if not, "sooner shall a camel enter through a needle's eye, than such a rich man reach the kingdom of God."

Let then the camel, going through a narrow and strait way before the rich man, signify something loftier; which mystery of the Saviour is to be learned in the "Exposition of first Principles and of Theology."

Well, first let the point of the parable, which is evident, and the reason why it is spoken, be presented. Let it teach the prosperous that they are not to neglect their own salvation, as if they had been already fore-doomed, nor, on the other hand, to cast wealth into the sea, or condemn it as a traitor and an enemy to life, but learn in what way and how to use wealth and obtain life. For since neither does one perish by any means by fearing because he is rich, nor is by any means saved by trusting and believing that he shall be saved, come let them look what hope the Saviour assigns them, and how what is unexpected may become ratified, and what is hoped for may come into possession.

The Master accordingly, when asked, "Which is the greatest of the commandments?" says, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy strength;" that no commandment is greater than this (He says), and with exceeding good reason; for it gives command respecting the First and the Greatest, God Himself, our Father, by whom all things were brought into being, and exist, and to whom what is saved returns again. By Him, then, being loved beforehand, and having received existence, it is impious for us to regard ought else older or more excellent; rendering only this small tribute of gratitude for the greatest benefits; and being unable to imagine anything else whatever by way of recompense to God, who needs nothing and is perfect; and gaining immortality by the very exercise of loving the Father to the extent of one's might and power. For the more one loves God, the more he enters within God.

The second in order, and not any less than this, He says, is, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," consequently God above thyself. And on His interlocutor inquiring, "Who is my neighbour?" He did not, in the same way with the Jews, specify the blood-relation, or the fellow-citizen, or the proselyte, or him that had been similarly circumcised, or the man who uses one and the same law. But He introduces one on his way down from the upland region from Jerusalem to Jericho, and represents him stabbed by robbers, cast half-dead on the way, passed by the priest, looked sideways at by the Levite, but pitied by the vili-fied and excommunicated Samaritan; who did not, like those, pass casually, but came provided with such things as the man in danger required, such as oil, bandages, a beast of burden, money for the inn-keeper, part given now, and part promised. "Which," said He, "of them was neighbour to him that suffered these things?" and on his answering, "He that showed mercy to him," (replied), Go thou also, therefore, and do likewise, since love buds into well-doing.

In both the commandments, then, He introduces love; but in order distinguishes it. And in the one He assigns to God the first part of love, and allots the second to our neighbour. Who else can it be but the Saviour Himself? or who more than He has pitied us, who by the rulers of darkness were all but put to death with many wounds, fears, lusts, passions, pains, deceits, pleasures?. Of these wounds the only physician is Jesus, who cuts out the passions thoroughly by the root, -- not as the law does the bare effects, the fruits of evil plants, but applies His axe to the roots of wickedness. He it is that poured wine on our wounded souls (the blood of David's vine), that brought the oil which flows from the compassions of the Father? and bestowed it copiously. He it is that produced the ligatures of health and of salvation that cannot be undone, -- Love, Faith, Hope. He it is that subjected angels, and principalities, and powers, for a great reward to serve us. For they also shall be delivered from the vanity of the world through the revelation of the glory of the sons of God. We are therefore to love Him equally with God. And he loves Christ Jesus who does His will and keeps His commandments. "For not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father." And "Why call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" "And blessed are ye who see and hear what neither righteous men nor prophets" (have seen or heard), if ye do what I say.

He then is first who loves Christ; and second, he who loves and cares for those who have believed on Him. For whatever is done to a disciple, the Lord accepts as done to Himself, and reckons the whole as His. "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungered, and ye gave Me to eat: I was thirsty, and ye gave Me to drink: and I was a stranger, and ye took Me in: I was naked and ye clothed Me: I was sick, and ye visited Me: I was in prison, and ye came to Me. Then shall the righteous answer, saying, Lord, when saw we Thee hungry, and fed Thee? or thirsty, and gave Thee drink? And when saw we Thee a stranger, and took Thee in? or naked, and clothed Thee? Or when saw we Thee sick, and visited Thee? or in prison, and came to Thee? And the King answering, shall say to them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me." [Quis Dives Salvetur 26 - 30]

Oh these wicked imbeciles pretending to be men of learning! It is insufferable to hear them talk about 'forgery' when it is clear they do not even know how distinguish the truth in the existing writings of Clement.

I have always argued that when the rich youth receives his initiation after being resurrected in the passage from secret Mark, 'the mysteries of the kingdom of God' should be taken as the mysteries of his messianic rule. After all Irenaeus already tells us of a group of heretics who 'prefer' what is called 'the Gospel according to Mark' and separate Chrsit from Jesus saying that the latter suffered and the former watched impassably. With Secret Mark we finally know why Jesus isn't identified as the Christ. These heretics, aligned more closely to the traditional beliefs of Judaism knew that Jesus wasn't the messiah. He was instead God establishing another into the mysteries of the kingship of God.

But that is another story completely, and one which I will have to explain at another time ...