| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 10.1 | «Εἰ θέλεις τέλειος γενέσθαι» | Matt 19:21 (cf. Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22) | Inside corridor (Mark 10) | Matthean diction grafted onto Markan pericope | Moderately supportive (harmonized Markan frame) |
In Stromateis 9.1–2 Clement gives an explicit interpretive gloss on the rich man pericope, and his language unmistakably tracks the Markan form of the episode. The decisive indicator is the emphasis on Jesus’ affective response: Clement states that Jesus “loved him” (ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν) and defended the sincerity of his obedience. This detail is unique to Mark 10:21 and is absent from Matthew and Luke. Clement’s interpretation therefore presupposes Mark’s wording rather than a generic synoptic conflation.
Clement further reproduces the internal logic of the Markan narrative. Jesus does not rebuke the man for failing to keep the Law; on the contrary, he affirms him as a genuine “worker of the Law” (νόμου μὲν ἐργάτην). The deficiency lies elsewhere: the man is declared “incomplete with respect to eternal life,” not because of legal failure, but because he has not fulfilled the deeper demand of discipleship. This distinction mirrors Mark’s narrative tension between commandment-keeping and radical renunciation, which is the theological spine of the discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52).
Importantly, Clement’s formulation sharpens rather than harmonizes the pericope. He does not introduce Matthean moralizing expansions, nor does he soften the existential verdict by reframing it as a general ethical exhortation. Instead, he intensifies the Markan contrast: the man is obedient, beloved, and sincere—and still “idle with respect to true life” (ἀργὸν δὲ ζωῆς ἀληθινῆς). That conclusion depends on the Markan presentation of the encounter as a tragic failure of discipleship rather than a didactic moral lesson.
From the perspective of the Secret Mark and Eusebian Canon thesis, this passage is strongly supportive. Clement is not merely compatible with Mark here; he is demonstrably dependent on Mark’s distinctive wording and narrative psychology. Moreover, this interpretive stance aligns precisely with Clement’s sustained engagement with the same pericope in Quis Dives Salvetur, where Mark’s version functions as a coherent theological unit. Stromateis 9.1–2 therefore reinforces the claim that Clement possessed and worked from a Mark-shaped gospel tradition that preserved features not reducible to later Matthean dominance.
Accordingly, Stromateis 9.1–2 counts as positive evidence for Markan priority in Clement’s gospel usage and strengthens the cumulative case that Clement’s handling of discipleship material reflects a stable Markan axis rather than a late, harmonized synoptic abstraction.
Here it is, same formula and structure, aligned exactly with the previous entries.
| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 10.1 | «Εἰ θέλεις τέλειος γενέσθαι» | Matt 19:21 (cf. Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22) | Inside corridor (Mark 10) | Matthean diction grafted onto Markan pericope | Moderately supportive (harmonized Markan frame) |
In Stromateis 10.1 Clement focuses on the dominical phrase «Εἰ θέλεις τέλειος γενέσθαι», a formulation that is verbally Matthean, since the adjective τέλειος appears explicitly only in Matthew 19:21. Mark 10:21 lacks the term “perfect,” while preserving the narrative core of the encounter. Clement is therefore not reproducing a purely Markan wording at the lexical level.
Nevertheless, Clement’s interpretation presupposes the same narrative and psychological framework found in Mark. The saying is not treated as a generalized moral exhortation toward ethical perfection, but as a disclosure of the man’s existential incompleteness in relation to eternal life. Clement explicitly states that the man was “not yet perfect” (οὐκ ἄρα πω τέλειος ἦν), reinforcing the Markan tension between commandment-keeping and the higher demand of discipleship. The Matthean vocabulary is thus functioning within a Markan conceptual structure.
Crucially, Clement’s theological emphasis falls on the voluntative clause «εἰ θέλεις», which he interprets as a divine affirmation of human freedom (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον). This emphasis aligns more closely with Mark’s portrayal of the encounter as a moment of decision—marked by Jesus’ loving gaze and the man’s tragic refusal—than with Matthew’s more didactic framing. Clement’s interest lies in the inner disposition of the soul confronted with the call, not in a Matthean scheme of graded righteousness.
From the standpoint of the Secret Mark and Canon thesis, this passage is moderately supportive. While the diction betrays Matthean influence, the pericope is clearly anchored in the Markan discipleship corridor, and Clement’s exegesis assumes the same narrative logic operative in Mark 10:21–22. The passage therefore illustrates Clement’s characteristic practice in Stromateis: drawing on Matthean phrasing while interpreting it through a Mark-shaped understanding of discipleship, freedom, and existential response.
Accordingly, Stromateis 10.1 does not weaken the claim of a Markan narrative axis underlying Clement’s gospel usage. Instead, it exemplifies a controlled harmonization in which Matthean language is subordinated to a fundamentally Markan theological and narrative framework, consistent with the broader pattern observed across Clement’s treatment of the rich man tradition.
