Marcionism was a left over from (1). Our canon was a left over from (2). To that end the religion that was based on the ur-gospel which survives in various references to Marcionism and the Diatessaron - viz. a heavenly being 'Jesus' or 'man' (cf. Justin 1 Apology 32) descended to Jerusalem or Judea to announce 'good tidings' to the Jewish population viz. the destruction of the demon-filled idolatrous temple of Jerusalem - and all the literature associated with it (i.e. the epistles of Paul) became modified in (2) as if Jesus came to announce the transfer of the 'promise' (Gen 26) from Isaac and his seed to the Gentiles by means of the 'Holy Spirit' at baptism. The literature was falsified accordingly to reflect this understanding and various doctrinal issues that emerged as a result of this transformation (i.e. Gentile converts relationship with their fellow Gentiles). Issues that did not exist in period (1).1. from its beginnings to the time of Justin the Christian community struggled with Judaism (and other Israelite religions) over which was the 'true faith' of Israel
2. that after Justin until the end of the second century texts were being forged and falsified to assist in a new identity for the community - as an appeal to Gentile converts to a new religion which was somehow unrelated or less related to tradition Israelite religions
And people will ask - how do we know this falsification occurred? There are many ways we can see it. But I would argue that food preparation is one of the strongest arguments. If Christianity was based on contemporary Judaism we have to go beyond modern Judaism back to the eating practices of the last generations of the Second Commonwealth period and acknowledge that contemporary Samaritan practices are undoubtedly reflective of ancient habits. To that end, there was no such thing as 'secular meat.' All meat was consecrated in effect. The slaughter of any animal was accompanied by a portion of that animal being offered to the priesthood and thus God - the god of the temple religion which governed that community. To that end, Paul lived and wrote in a time where meat consumption necessarily was ONLY connected with the temple religion. Paul, as Clement confirms, was really interested in vegetarianism. This was the preferred way. He's saying for those who can't stop eating meat - meat that is taken for granted to be consecrated - the fact that it was consecrated to idols (= the demons of the temple religion established by Solomon) is of no consequence because presumably the partaker in the agape meal is going to ascend past the seven watchers of the Jewish religion to the highest heaven. These beings have no power over the individual Christian so neither should the meat.
The reason why these passages had to be changed of course is that there is a laissez faire attitude toward 'believers.' Paul, according to Clement, knows that only those who are vegetarians (i.e. who abstain from meat) are going to be 'spiritual' rather than sarkic and only they are going to be saved. This sounds remarkably similar to the rewrite in chapter 5 where Paul allows incest to continue:
The libertinism is plain. Anything goes in this community. No judgement. The fleshly believers will not be saved at the end of time. But judgement is from another god, not the Father of the Christian community. So if people want to eat meat or indulge in the flesh sexually, let them do it. No salvation will come to them but there are no 'thou shalts' in the original libertine Christian community.It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you - A man is sleeping with his father’s wife ... when you are assembled ... hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh
And there is this consistent laissez faire attitude in the ur-Corinthians letter:
chapter 5: incest should go unpunished (not our job to punish perverts)
chapter 7: better not to be married but if they can't stop fucking better to be married than to burn
chapter 8 - 10: need to be a vegetarian to go to heaven but if they can't stop eating meat so be it
To that end it is tempting to see the ur-Corinthians as an important letter which defined Christianity as essentially libertine and may help explain Clement's conflict with the so-called Carpocratians (in QDS and elsewhere). Christianity was this hippy shared-love community up until the reforms of the late second century. It was a positive religion (i.e. to be saved you need to be a celibate, vegetarian monk) but it's okay to just hang around the saints and give money to sustain their supernatural escape from the world (a la Manichaeanism). It is tempting to suppose that only the priests of the new Israel were celibate, vegetarian and consecrated. The laissez-faire attitude meant that they would likely have accepted Charles Manson's money which explains some of the 'upsetness' of Celsus.