More Proof that Clement References Secret Mark in his Acknowledged Writings

Those who promote the hoax hypothesis with respect to the Letter to Theodore like to claim that they see 'inconsistencies' between what the Church Father wrote and what is reflected in the manuscript discovered by Morton Smith.  I have never figured out exactly what they mean by this, beyond the fact that Clement nowhere specifically makes mention of a 'secret gospel' that was originally written by St. Mark in Alexandria.  Of course, if Clement did make mention of such a gospel, it wouldn't be 'secret' and so - what we are really denying is the possibility that Clement could have used a gospel which he never referenced by name (for anyone who has ever read Clement's writings knows that he frequently cites from a variant non-canonical text). 

To this end, we can by contrast be absolutely certain that Clement probably used a text like Secret Mark - yet this does not in itself mean that the Letter to Theodore is authentic.  Someone could have tried to imitiate what they thought Clement's unmentioned gospel text looked like.  But there is one problem here.  I have found a passage in his acknowledged writings that indicates Clement knew of the pericope in Secret Mark.  In other words, that this:

a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him (ἠγάπησεν) and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave charge to him, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God.[to Theod. 1.16 - 25]

is the passage referenced in this:

The knowledge of ignorance is, then, the first lesson in walking according to the Word (τῷ κατὰ λόγον βαδίζοντι). An ignorant man has sought and having sought, he finds the teacher; and finding has believed, and believing has hoped; and henceforward having loved (ἀγαπήσας), is assimilated (ἐξομοιοῦται) to what was loved (τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ)-- endeavouring (σπεύδων) to be what he first loved (ἠγάπησεν).[Strom 5.3]

Indeed I have had some personal contact with one scholar who promotes the hoax hypothesis, Andrew Criddle, and he has argued that this reference isn't close enough to LGM 1 to prove a relationship.  It could be a reference to anything, I was told.

Yet that's the problem here.  Clement's criticism of the Carpocratians at the end of the Stromateis makes absolutely certain that they are to be condemned for developing their exegesis without scriptural support. This isn't an argument that Clement makes in passing here or elsewhere. It is repeated over and over again - you can't develop ideas without scriptural support. Here are only a few examples from that one chapter:

the truth is not found by changing the meaning for so people subvert all true teaching but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and is in harmony with the Lord and the All-Powerful God, and in establishing each one of the points demonstrated in the Scriptures again from similar Scriptures Neither, then, do they want to turn to the truth, being ashamed to abandon the claims of selfishness; nor are they able to establish their opinions, from acting in opposition to the Scriptures. But having first developed false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them.

and again:

they stitch together a multitude of lies and inventions, that they may appear acting in accordance with reason in not admitting the Scriptures

and again:

their dogmas originating with themselves, with the exception of such truths as they could not, by reason of their evidence, discard and conceal

and again:

those, who know, making affirmations about what they know, and the others respecting what they hold on the strength of opinion, as far as respects affirmation without proof

I could keep going on and on - and the references do go on and on - but they culminate in this important reference:

those, who know, making affirmations about what they know and the others respecting what they hold on the strength of opinion, as far as respects affirmation without proof. They accordingly despise and laugh at one another. And it happens that the same thought is held in the highest estimation by some, and by others condemned for insanity. And, indeed, we have learned that voluptuousness, which is to be attributed to the Gentiles, is one thing; and wrangling, which is preferred among the heretical sects, is another; and joy, which is to be appropriated to the Church, another; and delight, which is to be assigned to the true Gnostic, another ... [list of pagan philosophers follows] ... so he who listens to the Lord, and follows (κατακολουθήσας) the prophecy (προφητείᾳ) given by Him, will be formed perfectly (τελέως ἐκτελεῖται) in the likeness (εἰκόνα) of the teacher (τοῦ διδασκάλου) -- made a god going about in flesh (ἐν σαρκὶ περιπολῶν θεός).

Accordingly, those fall from this eminence who follow not God whither He leads. And He leads us in the divinely-inspired Scriptures (θεοπνεύστους γραφάς).

Now let's just think of the absurdity of this reference for a moment. Clement attacks the heretics for departing from gospel - but where the hell does Clement get the idea for that narrative referenced in the text - i.e. "he who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher - made a god going about in flesh"? And it is not even as if it is an isolated allusion to this narrative that sounds like LGM 1. Let's go back to the reference in Strom 5.3 that uses the same words as are found in LGM 1:

the first lesson in walking according to the Word. An ignorant man has sought and having sought, he finds the teacher; and finding has believed, and believing has hoped; and henceforward having loved, is assimilated (ἐξομοιοῦται) to what was loved - endeavouring to be what he first loved (ἠγάπησεν).

It cannot be denied that this is the very same 'unknown gospel passage' as alluded to at the end of the Stromateis. It can't be something Clement made up because Clement says time and time and again in this section that what separates him from the heresies is that all his teachings are rooted in the gospel.  This narrative must also be rooted in a gospel - but which gospel?

The answer is obvious Clement is referencing LGM 1 and if we look at another of the many, many allusions to the 'disciple-who-follows-Jesus-and-loves-him-and-is-transformed-into-Jesus' narratives we notice similar words again appear:

It is then, as appears, the greatest of all lessons to know one's self. For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God (ἐξομοιωθήσεται θεῷ), not by wearing gold or long robes, but by well-doing, and by requiring as few things as possible. Now, God alone is in need of nothing, and rejoices most when He sees us pure (καθαρεύοντας) in the adornments of our mind (διανοίας = cf. Mark 12:30); and then, too, rejoices in him who is arrayed in chastity, the sacred garment (ἁγνὴν στολήν) of the body ... [T]hat man with whom the Word dwells ... has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself: his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills.

Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God. And the Mediator executes the Father's will; for the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both--the Son of God, the Saviour of men; His Servant, our Teacher. And the flesh being a slave, as Paul testifies, how can one with any reason adorn the handmaid like a pimp? For that which is of flesh has the form of a servant. Paul says, speaking of the Lord, "Because He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant," calling the outward man servant, previous to the Lord becoming a servant and wearing flesh.

But the compassionate God (συμπαθὴς θεὸς) Himself set the flesh free (ἠλευθέρωσεν τὴν σάρκα), and releasing it from death (φθορᾶς), and from bitter and deadly bondage, endowed it with incorruptibility, arraying the flesh in this, the holy embellishment of eternity--immortality (τὴν ἀθανασίαν). There is, too, another beauty of men--love (ἀγάπη). "And love," according to the apostle, "suffers long, and is kind; envieth not; vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up." For the decking of one's self out--carrying, as it does, the look of superfluity and uselessness--is vaunting one's self. Wherefore he adds, "doth not behave itself unseemly:" for a figure which is not one's own, and is against nature, is unseemly; but what is artificial is not one's own, as is clearly explained: "seeketh not," it is said, "what is not her own." For truth calls that its own which belongs to it; but the love of finery seeks what is not its own, being apart from God, and the Word, from love.

And that the Lord Himself was uncomely in aspect, the Spirit testifies by Esaias: "And we saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness but His form was mean, inferior to men." Yet who was more admirable than the Lord? But it was not the beauty of the flesh visible to the eye, but the true beauty of both soul and body, which He exhibited, which in the former is beneficence (εὐεργετικόν); in the latter--that is, the flesh-immortality (τὸ δὲ ἀθάνατον τῆςσαρκός).

My God, what will it take for these people to see what is going on here?  Even if Clement of Alexandria were brought back from the dead they wouldn't believe him if the words came straight from his mouth ...