In the same way, we shouldn't expect Clement to come out and say 'hey guys, there's the secret gospel which I can't tell you about and this pericope where a rich youth is resurrected by Jesus.' It's like finding out your spouse is cheating on you. You look for tangential evidence like text messages, phone calls, dressing habits etc (or video surveillance after a call to Joey Greco of 'Cheaters').
I have always noticed that Clement of Alexandria pays more attention to the Question of the Rich Man narrative (Mark 10:17 - 31) than any other pericope in his writings. It not only forms the basis to Quis Dives Salvetur but large sections of the Instructor and the Stromateis. In every reference there is an unmistakable sense that he is aware of the 'public version' of the narrative (cited as 'what the gospel according to Mark says' at the beginning of Quis Dives Salvetur) and then another version of the story found in a non-canonical gospel that he shared with the Carpocratians and other heretics which resembled the early Diatessaronic narratives of such texts as the Gospel According to the Hebrews.
As I have noted many times here the Rev. C W Phillips noticed that the Gospel According to the Hebrews was only one of many Diatessaronic gospels which seemed to have integrated the section around Mark 10:17 - 31 with stories found principally in Luke (i.e. the Rich Fool, Dives and Lazarus). Clement always connects the Question of the Rich Youth to stories in Luke. In Quis Dives Salvetur for instance he proves that Jesus did not want us to simply become religious communists by arguing that the Zacchaeus narrative 'completed' the ideas which were introduced in Mark 10:17 - 31. He is plainly aware of another version of the Zacchaeus narrative from a non-canonical gospel for he makes passing reference to a version of the story where Zacchaeus is actually identified as 'Matthew.'
Yet all the Diatessaronic gospels have the Zacchaeus narrative follow the Question of the Rich Youth. Indeed the story is actually 'inserted' into Mark 10:46 in the very same place as the second addition to Secret Mark (= LGM 2). Mark 10:46 now reads:
Then they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples, together with a large crowd, were leaving the city
It plainly seemst that something has been cut out of the text. Why mentioned Jesus and his disciples coming and then suddenly leaving Jericho? The Letter to Theodore tells us only what 'extra-canonical material' was added in Secret Mark (i.e. stuff that no one else knew about):
And after the words, "And he comes into Jericho," the secret Gospel adds only, "And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them." But the many other things about which you wrote both seem to be, and are, falsifications.
Now most people just assume that Clement's public gospel of Mark resembled our own so when he says 'that's all there is' the rest of Mark 10:46 must have followed the material cited. Yet it is important to note that Clement doesn't ever say that. In the case of the first addition he tells us what came before and after the citation. In this case, just what appeared before the additional material.
I happen to think that Clement's secret gospel of Mark had the Zacchaeus narrative immediately follow LGM 2 because this is what appears in every Diatessaronic gospel and I have demonstrated over and over again how Clement used a non-canonical gospel related to the earliest Diatessaronic witnesses. Here is how the Diatessaron reads in this section:
And when Jesus entered and passed through Jericho, there was a man named Zacchaeus, rich, and chief of the publicans. And he desired to see Jesus who he was; and he was not able for the pressure of the crowd, because Zacchaeus was little of stature. And he hastened, and went before Jesus, and went up into an unripe fig tree to see Jesus: for he was to pass thus. And when Jesus came to that place, he saw him, and said unto him, Make haste, and come down, Zacchaeus: to-day I must be in thy house. And he hastened, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they all saw, they murmured, and said, He hath gone in and lodged with a man that is a sinner. So Zacchaeus stood, and said unto Jesus, My Lord, now half of my possessions I give to the poor, and what I have unjustly taken from every man I give him fourfold. Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, because this man also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and save the thing that was lost. And when Jesus went out of Jericho, he and his disciples, there came after him a great multitude. [Arabic Diatessaron 25:15 - 25]Now I have written about Clement's use of Zacchaeus in Quis Dives Salvetur in many other posts so now I would like to demonstrate something else completely.
Clement's non-canonical gospel which resembled the Diatessaron always seems to touch upon material related to the so-called 'Phillips Gospel Narrative' - i.e. where (a) the Rich Fool (b) the Question of the Rich Fool and (c) the Rich Man and Lazarus were integrated in a highly synthesized narrative. Yet Clement also always seems to imply that the rich youth was a paradigmatic example of salvation. It was for this reason that he and the Carpocratians were locked in a bitter struggle over the meaning of the pericope. The Carpocratians saying you have to live as religious communists if you want to attain 'the kingdom of heaven' (interesting phrasal substitution); Clement, that Mark apparently used Zacchaeus to demonstrate the importance of charity and that this rich man - i.e. the rich youth - did indeed attain the 'kingdom of God.'
It is interesting to observe that at the very conclusion of Quis Dives Salvetur - just before the strange addition from the Acts of John or some such apocryphal narrative - Clement actually lets it slip out that the Question of the Rich Youth was followed by a baptism narrative called 'the apolutrosis' (ἀπολύτρωσις). Clement makes reference to the narrative as following Mark 10:17 - 31 and Irenaeus interestingly in the conclusion of his attack against 'those of Mark' (AH 1.21.1 - 2) says that this sect pointed to the ἀπολύτρωσις baptism immediately preceding Mark 10:35 - 45 i.e. the Request to Sit at the Right and the Left of Jesus.
I am not very good at math of course but if Clement says that the ἀπολύτρωσις follows line 31 and Irenaeus that it preceded line 35 that leaves one of two possibilities - i.e. that it came immediately after 31 and before Jesus's announcement that he was going to undergo his Passion in Jerusalem or immediately after this announcement and before the request of the mother of the brothers Zebedee which is where the Letter to Theodore places the baptism narrative.
In any event, let's take a look at the conclusion of Quis Dives Salvetur and let us notice (a) that there a presumption that the rich youth does indeed attain the perfection alluded to in Mark 10:21 QDS (b) that he underwent the heretical form of baptism (ἀπολύτρωσις) (c) that he died or observed 'death' before this initiation and that (d) like Secret Mark his emergence out of a death-like state is accompanied by an 'opening of doors' (αἱ θύραι καὶ δέχεται) comp. to Theod. 3.1,2 "and going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb (της θυρας του μνημειου). And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand." I also think that the 'festival' which is connected with this purifying ἀπολύτρωσις baptism is the Alexandria Agape.
Here then is the reference which I think puts the final nail in the coffin of the 'hoax hypothesis.' Of course, I have about 100 more of these posts from the writings of Clement if you don't agree just yet ...
But Love comes to completion, and grows more when that which is perfect has been bestowed (ἀγάπη δὲ εἰς πλήρωμα συνέρχεται καὶ μᾶλλον αὔξεται τῶν τελείων παραδοθέντων). If one introduces it (ἀγάπη) into his soul (τῇ ψυχῇ), although he be born in sins, and has done many forbidden things, he is able, by increasing love (αὐξήσας τὴν ἀγάπην), and adopting a pure repentance (καὶ μετάνοιαν καθαρὰν), to make good a loss that made him stumble. 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.
If one should escape the superfluity of riches, and the difficulty they interpose in the way of life, and be able to have a share in the eternal good things (τῶν αἰωνίων τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐπαύρασθαι); but should happen, either from ignorance or involuntary circumstances, after the seal (τὴν σφραγῖδα) and redemption (τὴν λύτρωσιν), to fall into sins or transgressions so as to be quite carried away (ὡς ὑπενηνέχθαι τέλεον); such a man is entirely rejected by God. For to every one who has turned to God in truth, and with his whole heart (τῷ μετ' ἀληθείας ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας ἐπιστρέψαντι πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀνεῴγασιν), the doors are open (αἱ θύραι καὶ δέχεται), and the thrice-glad Father receives His truly repentant son (υἱὸν ἀληθῶς μετανοοῦντα). And true repentance (ἀληθινὴ μετάνοια) is to be no longer guilty of (ἔνοχον) the same sins but to utterly uprooted them from the soul (ἀλλὰ ἄρδην ἐκριζῶσαι τῆς ψυχῆς) having himself discovered death (ἐφ' οἷς ἑαυτοῦ κατέγνω θάνατον). For on their extirpation God takes up His abode again in thee (θεὸς εἰσοικισθήσεται). For it is said there is great and exceeding joy (χαρὰν) and festival (ἑορτὴν) in the heavens with the Father and the angels when one sinner turns and repents. Wherefore also He cries, "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." "I desire not the death, but the repentance of the sinner." "Though your sins be as scarlet wool, I will make them white as snow; though they be blacker than darkness, I will wash and make them like white wool." For it is in the power of God alone to grant the forgiveness of sins, and not to impute transgressions; since also the Lord commands us each day to forgive the repenting brethren. "And if we, being evil, know to give good gifts," much more is it the nature of the Father of mercies, the good Father of all consolation, much pitying, very merciful, to be long-suffering, to wait for those who have turned. And to turn is really to cease from our sins, and to look no longer behind.
Forgiveness of past sins, then, God gives; but of future, each one gives to himself. And this is to repent, to condemn the past deeds, and beg oblivion of them from the Father, who only of all is able to undo what is done, by mercy proceeding from Him, and to blot out former sins by the dew of the Spirit. "For by the state in which I find you will I judge," also, is what in each case the end of all cries aloud. So that even in the case of one who has done the greatest good deeds in his life, but at the end has run headlong into wickedness, all his former pains are profitless to him, since at the catastrophe of the drama he has given up his part; while it is possible for the man who formerly led a bad and dissolute life, on afterwards repenting, to overcome in the time after repentance the evil conduct of a long time. But it needs great carefulness, just as bodies that have suffered by protracted disease need regimen and special attention. Thief, dost thou wish to get forgiveness? steal no more. Adulterer, burn no more. Fornicator, live for the future chastely. Thou who hast robbed, give back, and give back more than [thou tookest]. False witness, practise truth. Perjurer, swear no more, and extirpate the rest of the passions, wrath, lust, grief, fear; that thou mayest be found at the end to have previously in this world been reconciled to the adversary. It is then probably impossible all at once to eradicate inbred passions; but by God's power and human intercession, and the help of brethren, and sincere repentance, and constant care, they are corrected.
Wherefore it is by all means necessary for thee, who art pompous, and powerful, and rich, to set over (ἐπιστήσασθαι) thyself some man of God (τινα ἄνθρωπον θεοῦ) as an anointer (ἀλείπτησ) and governor (κυβερνήτην). [QDS 38 - 40]
Of course the 'anointer' ἀλείπτησ was also a 'teacher' at the gymnasium. Nevertheless I think the reference is significant because it recalls the anointing which must have accompanied the 'mystery of the kingdom of God' in Secret Mark. But that is a whole different argument ...
