stephan huller

Well I am by the pool on vacation but Clement's argument is based on Mark's telling of the narrative. He takes great care to cite Mark implying that the if the story of the rich youth is read in context the reader would learn that Jesus teaches that unlike the pagan philosophers who say money has to be surrendered or given up a Christian's duty is to use money to help the poor.

Clement never makes the transitional argument to Luke as you suggest. If all the gospels were lost to us the natural inference would be that Zacchaeus is in Mark

There are also other anomalies in Clement's Mark. He identifies Zacchaeus as Matthew which is supported by no existing MS of any gospel. It is very reminiscent of Origen and his citations of other MSS of Mark listing Levi among the twelve

Petersen also points to strange harmonization narratives known to Clement and Origen with this chapter in Mark.

Taken together I think it argues for some variant of Mark known to Clement and the Alexandrian tradition

Got to swim