In my opinion however, since the starting point of our investigation is off to such a bad start (i.e. Irenaeus's testimony is inherently flawed and the documents he produces are corrupt) all else that follows is hoplessly inaccurate.
Nothing makes sense with Irenaeus. There is no logical explanation for the origins of Christianity in the accepted model. We can't even explain the most basic terminology. What is a 'gospel'? Why is it called a New Testament 'canon'? Yet the standard explanations to things are so superficial, that their widespread acceptance only demonstrates that most scholars think that the fundamentals in the field of New Testament origins have been settled a long time ago. All that is left it straigtening out the finer details.
Along comes Clement of Alexandria's Letter to Theodore and that complacency is suddenly challenged. We are forced to chose between inherited assumptions about the gospel and the development of the New Testament canon or ... accuse Morton Smith of forging the document. Religious minds crave certainty. The document discovered at Mar Saba necessarily creates uncertainty about all our cherished assumptions. No wonder so many conservative scholars buy into the forgery premise (after all a 'gay subplot' is thrown in for good measure; after all what's more Christian than homophobia?).
Yet the reality is that the more I think about the idea that Alexandrian Christianity was developed around two gospel narratives (undoubtedly rooted in what is said in 1 Cor 2.1 - 9; 3.10,11) the more it makes sense. Already we have noted that there was a gospel in the late second century whose harmony with the rest of the scriptures was likened to a 'diatassaron.' This metaphor was likely misrepresented by Eusebius to mean 'of four gospels' rather than its unquestionable original meaning - of 'two.'
The more we look at the writings of Clement the clearer we see that for him the 'canon' of ecclesiastical writings in Alexandria were understood to denote a similar Pythagorean harmony. Clement clearly distinguished between the 'old' and 'new' by means of lumping all that came before the establishment of the 'mystic' gospel completed around the time of the Jewish revolt (cf. to Theodore 1.18 - 19) as 'prophetic literature' - even, I would argue the canonical gospels would full under this category.
I know this is a difficult concept to accept but it is clear that Papias, Clement and Eusebius identify the canonical gospel of Mark as a υπομνημα. I have already noted that the Marcionite representative in the Dialogues of Adamantius (c. 220 CE) seems to say the same thing about Matthew and John (i.e. they are not 'gospels' per se but mere 'reflections' on the ministry of Jesus). 'The gospel' referenced in the Apostolikon (a.k.a. 'the writings of Paul') was necessarily something more than an unfinished 'memoir.' It was a mystic reflection of the 'deep things of God' layered on top of the original narrative of Jesus's ministry.
This idea that the canonical gospels of the Roman Church were mere υπομνηματα is a heretical opinion witnessed as early as Irenaeus. He notes that his heretical (Alexandrian) opponents:
have discovered the unadulterated truth [and] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery (AH 3.2.2)
While Irenaeus clearly denies the other 'hidden mystery' gospel of the heretics (cf. Tert. Praescript. 24), Clement's position is slightly different. Clement argues that the heretics want to strip the 'secret gospel' from its original (and proper) moorings in one 'canon' with the prophetic writings - a body of work, as noted above, which would necessarily have included the canonical gospels.
Once the reader comes to this understanding the Letter to Theodore can be understood to say the exact same thing as the concluding words of the final book of Clement's Stromateis. In the Letter to Theodore, Clement speaks of a 'completed' mystic gospel developed from previous hypomnemata:
Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his and Peter's from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable those studies which make for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel for those being perfected (to Theodore I.18 - 22)
In Stromata Book Seven he speaks instead in terms of an allegory of Mary's virginity:
Now, it is a very great thing to abandon opinion (τὴν οἴησιν ἀποθέσθαι), by taking one's stand between accurate knowledge and the rash wisdom of opinion (ἀκριβοῦς ἐπιστήμης καὶ προπετοῦς δοξοσοφίας), and to know that he who hopes for everlasting rest (τὴν αἰώνιον ἐλπίζων) knows also that the entrance to it is toilsome "and strait." And let him who has once received the Gospel, even in the very hour in which he has come to the knowledge of salvation (τὸ σωτήριόν), "not turn back, like Lot's wife," as is said; and let him not go back either to his former life, which adheres to the things of sense, or to heresies (τὰς αἱρέσεις παλινδρομείτω). For they form the character, not knowing the true God (τὸν ὄντα μὴ γινώσκουσαι θεόν).
"For he that loveth father or mother more than Me," the Father and Teacher of the truth (τὸν ὄντως πατέρα καὶ διδάσκαλον τῆς ἀληθείας), who regenerates and creates anew, and nourishes the elect soul (τὸν ἀναγεννῶντα καὶ ἀνακτίζοντα καὶ τιθηνούμενον τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν ἐξειλεγμένην), "is not worthy of Me" -- He means, to be a son of God and a disciple of God, and at the same time also to be a friend, and of kindred nature (λέγει τοῦ εἶναι υἱὸς θεοῦ καὶ μαθητὴς θεοῦ ὁμοῦ καὶ φίλος καὶ συγγενής). "For no man who looks back, and puts his hand to the plough, is fit for the kingdom of God."
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin.
Now such to us are the Scriptures of the Lord (κυριακαὶ γραφαί), which gave birth to the truth and continue virgin, in the concealment of the mysteries of the truth (τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἀποτίκτουσαι καὶ μένουσαι παρθένοι μετὰ τῆς ἐπικρύψεως τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας μυστηρίων). "And she brought forth, and yet brought not forth," Says the Scripture; as having conceived of herself (ὡς ἂν ἐξ αὑτῆς), and not from conjunction (οὐκ ἐκ συνδυασμοῦ συλλαβοῦσα). Wherefore the Scriptures have conceived to Gnostics (Διόπερ τοῖς γνωστικοῖς κεκυήκασιν αἱ γραφαί); but the heresies, not having learned them, dismissed them as not having conceived (αἱ δὲ αἱρέσεις οὐκ ἐκμαθοῦσαι ὡς μὴ κεκυηκυίας παραπέμπονται).
I will argue that the gospel paradigm in the Letter to Theodore is the ultimate context here. When the Carpocratians are said to be "boasting that they are free (to Theodore 1.7) what Clement is really upset about is their claim to have 'liberated' the mystic gospel from its intended mooring in a 'canon' alongside the 'prophetic' writings which included the original hypomnemata.
This becomes much clearer as we continue with what immediately follows the last citation from Book Seven of the Stromateis:
Now all men, having the same judgment, some, following the Word speaking, frame for themselves proofs (τῷ αἱροῦντι λόγῳ ποιοῦνται τὰς πίστεις); while others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts (οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὴν γραφήν).
And the lover of truth, as I think, needs force of soul (ψυχικῆς εὐτονίας). For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας). But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path (ἅτε ἀποπεσόντες τῆς ὀρθῆς ὁδοῦ), err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures (ταῖς θείαις ἐπείθοντο ἂν γραφαῖς).
There can be no doubt now that this section in particular reflects the exact same terminology as to Theodore's description of the 'Carpocratians.' Just as Clement references heretics who "giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture, in accordance with their lusts (οἱ δὲ ἡδοναῖς σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐκδεδωκότες βιάζονται πρὸς τὰς ἐπιθυμίας τὴν γραφήν), to Theodore's heretics are identified as "boasting that they are free (of the canon of truth), have become slaves of servile desires (ἐπιθυμίῷν)."
Moreover just as the section cited from the end of the Stromateis portrays the 'lover of truth' (τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστῇ) receiving from the truth itself the rule of the truth (τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας), they cleave to the truth (ἔχωσι τῆς ἀληθείας) we see the exact same language in to Theodore condemning the Carpocratians again for ripping the 'secret gospel' from its harmony with the prophetic writings in the canon of truth:
For, even if they should say something true, the lover of truth (ό τῆς ἀληθείας ἐραστἡς) should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the truth, nor should that truth which merely seems true according to human opinions be preferred to the true truth, that according to the faith. (to Theod. 1.8 - 11)
All kinds of stupid conjectures about what Clement means by the use of this terminology. The parallel section in the Stromateis makes clear the context is the 'canon of truth' - i.e. 'harmonizing' the secret gospel alongside the public gospel of Mark and the related 'prophetic' writings.
The point of the Letter to Theodore is correct the Carpocratians for turning their back on the canonical gospel of Mark and deeming it as less inspired version of the original. It is for this reason then that Clement immediately emphasizes that the 'Gospel according to Mark' is still 'divinely inspired':
Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel according to Mark, some are altogether falsifications, and others, even if they do contain some true elements, nevertheless are not reported truly. For the true things being mixed with inventions, are falsified, so that, as the saying goes, even the salt loses its savor. (to Theod. 1.11 - 14)
All scholarship hitherto has failed to see the immediate context. The Carpocratians are rejecting the public Gospel according to Mark arguing that it is not 'from God' - or as Irenaeus writes "the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery."
We have to remember that the Marcionites for instance deliberately shunned identifying their 'true gospel' as having a human author and went so far as to reject the canonical gospel of Mark (cf. Dialogues of Adamantius 1), this in spite of the fact that some still identified their gospel as being that 'of Mark.' Clement's point then in what immediately follows the last citation is to explain how it was that the 'mystic' gospel developed from the lowly hypomnemata. Clearly, Theodore has become confused with regards to the origins of this text and its relation to the gospel of Mark. The specific understandign that Mark "neither grudgingly nor incautiously" (to Theod. 1.27) wrote the gospel, must necessarily be a reflection of what the Carpocratians were saying about his publicly acknowledged text.
Indeed when Clement finally gets around to talking about how Carpocrates allegedly got "a copy of the mystic Gospel" (to Thedoore 2.7) we again here of the inevitable consequences of his rupturing of the original 'harmony' of the Alexandrian canon. It was owing to the fact that Carpocrates rejected the 'public' gospel of Mark and the 'prophetic Scriptures' that:
he both interpreted [the mystic Gospel] according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.(to Theod. 2.8 - 9)
As I have noted many times here, the ultimate context for the heretical opinion is what we see associated with the Marcionites - i.e. a steadfast refusal to connect the text to a human author. It owing to an 'unspeakable' revelation (cf. 2 Cor 12.4) that the text was said to have been generated, and so the Letter to Theodore itself begins with a reference to the "the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians." (to Theod. 1.2)
When Clement finally says that "to them (i.e. the Carpocratians), therefore, as I said above, one must never give way nor, when they put forward their falsifications, should one concede that it is Mark’s
mystic Gospel, but should even deny it on oath" (to Theod. 2.10 - 12) what is really being reflected in the text is the idea that the Carpocratians DID NOT identify their text as being from Mark's hand and Clement seeing no reason to break the ritual silence surrounding the real origins of the text held in common between the two communities (cf. Strom. 3.1 - 11).
I am going to call it a night, but for those who are interested I will cite the remainder of the section in Strom. 7.15 from the point we last cited. I think it is very important that the readers get a sense that Clement is clearly confirming that what separated the heretics from the official tradition of Alexandria is that Clement's Church 'harmonized' the commonly held 'mystic gospel' with 'prophetic writings' which included the hypomnemata of the apostles (called 'canonical gospels' in Rome):
As, then, if a man should, similarly to those drugged by Circe, become a beast; so he, who has spurned the ecclesiastical tradition, and darted off to the opinions of heretical men, has ceased to be a man of God and to remain faithful to the Lord. But he who has returned from this deception, on hearing the Scriptures, and turned his life to the truth, is, as it were, from being a man made a god.
For we have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, both by the prophets, the Gospel, and the blessed apostles, "in divers manners and at sundry times," leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. But if one should suppose that another origin was required, then no longer truly could an origin be preserved.
He, then, who of himself believes the Scripture and voice of the Lord, which by the Lord acts to the benefiting of men, is rightly [regarded] faithful. Certainly we use it as a criterion in the discovery of things. What is subjected to criticism is not believed till it is so subjected; so that what needs criticism cannot be a first principle. Therefore, as is reasonable, grasping by faith the indemonstrable first principle, and receiving in abundance, from the first principle itself, demonstrations in reference to the first principle, we are by the voice of the Lord trained up to the knowledge of the truth.
For we may not give our adhesion to men on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. But if it is not enough merely to state the opinion, but if what is stated must be confirmed, we do not wait for the testimony of men, but we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations, or rather is the only demonstration; in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers; while those who, having advanced further, and become correct expounders of the truth, are Gnostics. Since also, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people, and model what is beyond common notions; so, consequently, we also, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, from faith persuade by demonstration.
And if those also who follow heresies venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; in the first place they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and then they will not quote them entire, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. But, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there; not looking to the sense, but making use of the mere words. For in almost all the quotations they make, you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings; neither knowing, as they affirm, nor using the quotations they adduce, according to their true nature.
But the truth is not found by changing the meanings (for so people subvert all true teaching), but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the Sovereign 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 self-love; nor are they able to manage their opinions, by doing violence to the Scriptures. But having first promulgated false dogmas to men; plainly fighting against almost the whole Scriptures, and constantly confuted by us who contradict them; for the rest, even now partly they hold out against admitting the prophetic Scriptures, and partly disparage us as of a different nature, and incapable of understanding what is peculiar to them. And sometimes even they deny their own dogmas, when these are confuted, being ashamed openly to own what in private they glory in teaching. For this may be seen in all the heresies, when you examine the iniquities of their dogmas. For when they are overturned by our clearly showing that they are opposed to the Scriptures, one of two things may be seen to have been done by those who defend the dogma. For they either despise the consistency of their own dogmas, or despise the prophecy itself, or rather their own hope. And they invariably prefer what seems to them to be more evident to what has been spoken by the Lord through the prophets and by the Gospel, and, besides, attested and confirmed by the apostles.
Seeing, therefore, the danger that they are in (not in respect of one dogma, but in reference to the maintenance of the heresies) of not discovering the truth; for while reading the books we have ready at hand, they despise them as useless, but in their eagerness to surpass common faith, they have diverged from the truth. For, in consequence of not learning the mysteries of ecclesiastical knowledge, and not having capacity for the grandeur of the truth, too indolent to descend to the bottom of things, reading superficially, they have dismissed the Scriptures. Elated, then, by vain opinion, they are incessantly wrangling, and plainly care more to seem than to be philosophers.
Not laying as foundations the necessary first principles of things; and influenced by human opinions, then making the end to suit them, by compulsion; on account of being confuted, they spar with those who are engaged in the prosecution of the true philosophy, and undergo everything, and, as they say, ply every oar, even going the length of impiety, by disbelieving the Scriptures, rather than be removed from the honours of the heresy and the boasted first seat in their churches; on account of which also they eagerly embrace that convivial couch of honour in the Agape, falsely so called.
