| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 6.4 | κληθεὶς δὲ ἀγαθός … ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀγαθὸν καὶ πρῶτον | Mark 10:18; Matt 19:17; Luke 18:19 | Inside corridor (Mark 10) | Markan core with Matthean smoothing | Mildly supportive (conceptual alignment) |
In Stromateis 6.4 Clement reflects on the dominical response to being addressed as “good,” explicitly grounding his interpretation in the opening exchange of the rich man pericope. The phrase κληθεὶς δὲ ἀγαθός unmistakably recalls Jesus’ corrective question, “Why do you call me good?” which in Mark 10:18 is formulated with maximal sharpness: “οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός.” Clement’s emphasis on redirecting the μαθητής “ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τὸν ἀγαθὸν καὶ πρῶτον” coheres most naturally with the Markan version, where the negation of intrinsic goodness in Jesus functions as a theological shock rather than a clarification.
While Matthew 19:17 softens the formulation by rephrasing the question (“Why do you ask me about what is good?”), Clement’s wording preserves the logic of Mark: the address “good” becomes the pedagogical starting point (ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ πρώτου τοῦ ῥήματος) for redirecting attention away from the interlocutor and toward God as the sole source and “ταμίας” of eternal life. This redirection corresponds to the Markan theological structure of the episode, in which discipleship begins with disorientation and reorientation rather than moral instruction.
At the same time, Clement does not reproduce the saying verbatim nor does he sustain the narrative tension of the pericope. Instead, he integrates the logion into a doctrinal exposition in which the Son mediates eternal life received from the Father. This theological framing smooths Mark’s stark formulation into a more developed Alexandrian Christology, one that can coexist with Matthew’s softened phrasing without reproducing it exactly.
From the standpoint of the Markan discipleship corridor, the citation is significant insofar as it is anchored in Mark 10, precisely at the entrance to the rich man sequence that Clement elsewhere treats at length in Quis Dives Salvetur. The conceptual movement—from misaddressing Jesus to recognition of God as the sole good—fits squarely within the corridor’s logic of renunciation and redefinition of value.
Nevertheless, the passage does not advance the stronger Secret Mark or Eusebian Canon thesis on its own. Clement does not sequence the saying within a continuous Markan narrative, nor does he draw on adjacent Markan material to construct a harmonized discourse. The usage demonstrates compatibility with a Mark-shaped gospel tradition, but it remains evidentially light: supportive at the level of theological orientation, not decisive at the level of gospel structure.
Accordingly, Stromateis 6.4 should be classified as mildly supportive but non-probative. It confirms Clement’s familiarity with, and conceptual reliance on, a Markan formulation within the discipleship corridor, while stopping short of demonstrating dependence on a continuous or harmonized Markan gospel of the sort posited by the Secret Mark hypothesis.
