| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 10.3–10.5 | «ἕν σοι λείπει»; «ἐκ νεότητος»; δυσχεράνας ἀπῆλθεν | Mark 10:21–22 (cf. Matt 19:20–22; Luke 18:21–23) | Inside corridor (Mark 10) | Markan narrative core with Matthean/Lukan lexical overlays | Strongly supportive (Markan axis operative) |
In Stromateis 10.3–10.5 Clement explicitly anchors his exposition in the rich man pericope, centering on the dominical diagnosis «ἕν σοι λείπει», a phrase shared by all three Synoptics but narratively decisive in Mark 10:21. Clement’s entire argument unfolds from this Markan hinge: the identification of the one thing lacking as something qualitatively beyond the Law and inaccessible through legal observance alone.
Although Clement incorporates Matthean–Lukan phrasing such as “ἐκ νεότητος,” his interpretation follows Mark’s narrative psychology with precision. The subject is not juridical deficiency but existential incapacity. The man has fulfilled the Law yet cannot “add the one thing” (τὸ ἕν) that belongs properly to the living and exceeds the Law’s capacity to give. Clement’s repeated insistence that the Law “does not give” and “does not contain” this one thing aligns squarely with Mark’s presentation of discipleship as a radical rupture rather than an ethical supplement.
The decisive Markan feature is Clement’s attention to the man’s reaction: «δυσχεράνας ἀπῆλθεν». This emotional and volitional failure is a distinctly Markan narrative marker (Mark 10:22) and is essential to Clement’s theological point. The rich man is not ignorant, nor disobedient, but unwilling—precisely the tragic tension Mark foregrounds. Clement interprets the command as “the commandment of life” (τῆς ζωῆς), toward which the man had been pleading, yet from which he recoils when confronted with its full demand.
Theologically, Clement radicalizes the Markan logic by identifying the “one thing” as “τὸ ἐμόν, τὸ ἀγαθόν,” that which belongs uniquely to the Savior and stands “ὑπὲρ νόμον.” This is not a Matthean perfectionism schema but a Markan soteriology of encounter and refusal. The Law prepares; it does not consummate. What is lacking is participation in the living good disclosed in the person of Jesus.
From the standpoint of the Secret Mark / Canon thesis, this passage is strongly supportive. Clement’s exegesis presupposes the Markan narrative as the governing framework, with Matthean and Lukan diction functioning only as secondary coloration. The psychological sequence—fulfillment, invitation, resistance, departure—mirrors Mark with striking fidelity. This is precisely the kind of Mark-centered theological reasoning that later becomes structurally embedded in Eusebius’s Canon system, where Mark often functions as the narrative spine against which the other Gospels are aligned.
Accordingly, Stromateis 10.3–10.5 provides clear evidence that Clement is not merely citing isolated dominical sayings but is thinking through a Markan discipleship narrative. The passage reinforces the claim that Clement’s gospel logic—especially in texts concerned with renunciation, perfection, and eternal life—is fundamentally Mark-shaped, even when expressed through harmonized or Mattheanized language.
