As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings (praxeis), not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord, but to the stories already written he added yet others and, moreover, brought in certain sayings (logia) of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veils. [To Theodore 1.15 - 26]I think this has been overlooked by all other commentaries on the Letter to Theodore and it is highlighted in our last post - i.e. that Clement actually cites two different forms of logia 2 from the Gospel of Thomas in the Stromateis and applies LGM 1 to that saying. In other words, in Strom 2.4 he openly acknowledges he is citing from the 'Gospel to the Hebrews' and cites one version of the story and integrates hints of the first addition to Secret Mark as referenced in the Letter to Theodore (= LGM 1). Then in Strom 5.3 he cryptically alludes to the form of the saying as it appears in the Gospel of Thomas Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 654 (i.e. with the doubling appearing in the first line viz. ζητῶν του ζητειν which does not appear in the Gospel to the Hebrews citation) and clearly and unmistakbly applies LGM 1 to that saying (i.e. that the initiate is 'amazed' by the sight of Jesus in the initiation).
This is so critical to our understanding of the development of 'Secret Mark.' The story of the resurrection of the rich youth in LGM 1 is understood by Clement to be paralleled by the Gospel of Thomas logia 2. This would suggest to me at least that when Clement says that Mark, in addition to writing secret praxeis of Jesus 'brought in certain logia of which he knew the interpretation would, as a mystagogue, lead the hearers into the innermost sanctuary of that truth hidden by seven veil' he is talking about the incorporation of 'secret' material from the Gospel of Thomas.
The second important thing which comes from study is the possibility that Clement and Origen consistently hold up 'the Gospel to the Hebrews' as an acceptable alternative to 'Secret Mark.' In other words, just as Morton Smith seems to have suggested, 'Secret Mark' is somehow related to an Aramaic gospel text. I don't think it was the same as 'the Gospel to the Hebrews.' It was similar but ultimately different in some way and the Roman tradition seems to have emphasized that the Gospel to the Hebrews was behind 'according to Matthew.' Yet is this necessarily true? For instance the Diatessaron is said by Epiphanius to have also been related to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, but many of the surviving copies of the Arabic Diatessaron begin with an acrostic which suggests a relationship with Mark.
Big discovery today. I will have to do some research to see if anyone else has suggested a connection between 'Secret Mark' and the Gospel of Thomas. In any case, the reader should hopefully see that the debate is effectively over (except for idle scholars who don't want to admit the truth). There really was a secret Gospel of Mark. This secret 'praxis' of the Lord is witnessed in both Strom 2.4 and Strom 5.3 in conjunction with a secret 'logion' of the Lord which ultimately derived from the Gospel of Thomas (but was clearly incorporated into both 'the Gospel of the Hebrews' and Secret Mark.
If only we could get rid of so many scholarly windbags we could actually get some work done on the greatest discovery of the twentieth century ...
