Did Clement of Alexandria Have an Account of John Baptizing Jesus in His Gospel?

You'd think it would be an open and shut case.  Yet when you look through the writings of Clement there is only one allusion to Jesus being baptized by John in all his writings and I think one can make a fair case that it might be suspect.  Let's start with the obvious - the Instructor is not a pristine text.  Already a few scholars have noted that it begins by incorporating a Stoic treatise into a pre-existent work by Clement.  Did Clement do the editing?  I don't think so.

Then we move down in Book One until Clement starts to discuss baptism in Alexandria and we come across the lone allusion to anything resembling a gospel narrative.  Clement begins talking about his experience with ritual immersion or some mystical sacrament where he came into contact with God:

We have ample means of encountering those who are given to carping. For we are not termed children and infants with reference to the childish and contemptible character of our education, as those who are inflated on account of knowledge have calumniously alleged. Straightway, on our regeneration, we attained that perfection after which we aspired. For we were illuminated, which is to know God. He is not then imperfect who knows what is perfect. And do not reprehend me when I profess to know God; for so it was deemed right to speak to the Word, and He is free.

It is at this very point that the narrative suddenly changes and the baptism of Jesus narrative is introduced.  The gospel material resembles the gospel of Luke found in the Codex Bezae:

For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, "Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee." Let us then ask the wise, Is Christ, begotten to-day, already perfect, or--what were most monstrous--imperfect? If the latter, there is some addition He requires yet to make. But for Him to make any addition to His knowledge is absurd, since He is God. For none can be superior to the Word, or the teacher of the only Teacher. Will they not then own, though reluctant, that the perfect Word born of the perfect Father was begotten in perfection, according to oeconomic fore-ordination? And if He was perfect, why was He, the perfect one, baptized? It was necessary, they say, to fulfil the profession that pertained to humanity. Most excellent. Well, I assert, simultaneously with His baptism by John, He becomes perfect? Manifestly. He did not then learn anything more from him? Certainly not. But He is perfected by the washing--of baptism--alone, and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit? Such is the case. The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became.

After this lacuna the something very similar to the original narrative continues:

Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. "I," says He, "have said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest." This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly. Now we call that perfect which wants nothing. For what is yet wanting to him who knows God? For it were truly monstrous that that which is not complete should be called a gift (or act) of God's grace. Being perfect, He consequently bestows perfect gifts. As at His command all things were made, so on His bare wishing to bestow grace, ensues the perfecting of His grace. For the future of time is anticipated by the power of His volition.

My difficulty is that the Bezae narrative interrupts the original discussion.  Notice at once that Clement begins by citing the opinion of a group of pagans (Celsus?) who think that Christians are called children because they are childish but in the Bezae citation 'they' are transformed into a rival group of Christians.

Can someone tell me why on earth Clement cites Bezae Luke to explain the original discussion of why Christians are called children? The passage has nothing to do with the original discussion especially the "Thou art my beloved son ..." business. Indeed one might expect to have had Clement say that Jesus was made the 'son of God' at his baptism but he never says that.

The style of the Bezae section is odd. Clement is usually quite a sophisticated writer. In this section he seems to be engaging in a debate with himself which is very atypical:

For at the moment of the Lord's baptism there sounded a voice from heaven, as a testimony to the Beloved, "Thou art My beloved Son, to-day have I begotten Thee."

Let us then ask the wise (Πυθώμεθα οὖν τῶν σοφῶν). Is Christ, begotten to-day, already perfect, or--what were most monstrous--imperfect?

If the latter, there is some addition He requires yet to make. But for Him to make any addition to His knowledge is absurd, since He is God. For none can be superior to the Word, or the teacher of the only Teacher.

Will they not then own, though reluctant, that the perfect Word born of the perfect Father was begotten in perfection, according to oeconomic fore-ordination? And if He was perfect, why was He, the perfect one, baptized?

It was necessary, they say, to fulfil the profession that pertained to humanity.

Most excellent (Παγκάλως).

Well, I assert (Φημὶ γάρ).

Simultaneously with His baptism by John, He becomes perfect?

Manifestly (δῆλον ὅτι).

He did not then learn anything more from him?

Certainly not (οὐ γάρ).

But He is perfected by the washing--of baptism--alone, and is sanctified by the descent of the Spirit?

Such is the case (οὕτως ἔχει)

The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar the Lord became.

I am quite certain that this not only represents an interruption of the original argument (which certainly fits knowledge of 'Secret Mark') but also demonstrates someone else's hand.  This is not Clement's writing style. It is very choppy. I am going to look for these words and phrases in the rest of Clement's books just now.