| Clement passage | Greek cited by Clement | Synoptic / NT locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ecl. proph. 15.1–15.2 | τὰ τοιαῦτα εὐχῇ κατορθοῦται | Mark 9:29 (// Matt 17:21, secondary) | Inside corridor (Mark 9) | Markan core saying, later Matthean expansion | Mildly supportive (Markan compatibility) |
In Eclogae propheticae 15.1–15.2 Clement appeals to the dominical explanation given after the disciples’ failed exorcism: “τὰ τοιαῦτα εὐχῇ κατορθοῦται.” The saying corresponds most securely to Mark 9:29, where Jesus attributes the disciples’ failure not to lack of authority but to insufficient recourse to prayer. The Matthean parallel (Matt 17:21) is textually insecure and is widely recognized as a secondary interpolation derived from Mark, reinforcing Markan priority for the logion.
The Markan locus of the saying lies squarely within the discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52), immediately following the Transfiguration and the unsuccessful healing attempt. In Mark’s narrative, the episode functions as a critique of the disciples’ present incapacity and as instruction concerning dependence on divine agency rather than technique or status.
Clement, however, does not preserve the narrative frame. Instead, he redeploys the saying within a sapiential and ethical schema distinguishing stages of spiritual progress. The πιστεύσας receives remission of sins from the Lord, whereas the one who has advanced into γνῶσις acquires stability by no longer sinning. The dominical saying thus becomes a maxim supporting Clement’s graduated anthropology rather than a component of gospel narration.
Nevertheless, the wording Clement presupposes aligns more closely with Mark than with Matthew. He does not reproduce Matthean emphases such as faith quantified as a “mustard seed,” nor does he situate the saying within Matthew’s didactic framework. The form and conceptual thrust of the logion correspond most naturally to the Markan version circulating independently of Matthew’s redaction.
With respect to the Secret Mark and Canon thesis, this passage is mildly supportive but not determinative. It confirms Clement’s access to a dominical saying whose stable textual home is within Mark’s discipleship corridor. At the same time, the Eclogae propheticae—like Stromateis—do not operate under narrative constraints. The passage therefore demonstrates compatibility with a Mark-based gospel tradition without providing direct evidence that Clement is here following a continuous Markan narrative axis comparable to that presupposed in Quis Dives Salvetur or reflected later in Eusebius’s Gospel Canons.
