1 Corinthians Chapter 15 is Strange

There is something strange about 1 Corinthians chapter 15. It's not just that large chunks of this chapter are missing from Tertullian's Against Marcion. I've been going through Clement's references to the Pauline letters all week and whereas the Stromata preserves allusions to more of the Pauline material than any other Clementine text the exact opposite occurs with respect to chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians. Stählin preserves the following allusions to the material:

1 Corinthians 15, 8 Excerpta e Theodoto 68
1 Corinthians 15, 10 Excerpta e Theodoto 31 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 12 Excerpta e Theodoto 23 § 2
1 Corinthians 15, 29 Excerpta e Theodoto 22 § 1
1 Corinthians 15, 29 Excerpta e Theodoto 22 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 29 Excerpta e Theodoto 22 § 4
1 Corinthians 15, 32 Paedagogus 3 81 § 1
1 Corinthians 15, 32 Stromata 1 59 § 4
1 Corinthians 15, 33 Stromata 1 59 § 4
1 Corinthians 15, 34 Stromata 3 101 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 40 Excerpta e Theodoto 11 § 2
1 Corinthians 15, 40 Excerpta e Theodoto 11 § 2
1 Corinthians 15, 44 Excerpta e Theodoto 14 § 2
1 Corinthians 15, 44 Stromata 7 88 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 45 Excerpta e Theodoto 50 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 47 Excerpta e Theodoto 56 § 1
1 Corinthians 15, 49 Excerpta e Theodoto 15 § 1
1 Corinthians 15, 49 Excerpta e Theodoto 80 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 50 Stromata 2 125 § 6
1 Corinthians 15, 50 Stromata 3 104 § 5
1 Corinthians 15, 52 Quis dives salvetur 3 § 6
1 Corinthians 15, 53 Paedagogus 1 84 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 53 Paedagogus 2 100 § 2
1 Corinthians 15, 53 Paedagogus 2 109 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 54 Paedagogus 2 109 § 3
1 Corinthians 15, 57 Excerpta e Theodoto 23 § 2

The only two allusions that ever appear in the Stromata are (a) a certainly fake addition (1 Cor 15:32 - 34) which contains autobiographical information (i.e. fighting the beasts at Ephesus and things that the Marcionite Apostolikon never retained) and (b) 1 Cor 15:50 allusion to 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God' which was certainly authentic - but was it part of this chapter of some other context?  The evidence from Clement would suggest the latter.

Indeed given the manner in which Tertullian consistently argues against the natural interpretation of the sentence (i.e. there is no bodily resurrection) it is hard to account for the silence regarding the rest of the chapter.  Was the entire of chapter 15 a later Catholic addition or is this another close parallel to Secret Mark - i.e. a section of the Alexandrian New Testament that Clement deliberately avoided referencing?