| Clement passage | Greek cited by Clement | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 4.9.70.2–71.1 | ὁ ἀρνησάμενόν με… ἐπαισχυνθῇ με… ὁμολογήσω κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ | Matt 10:32–33; Mark 8:38; Luke 12:8–9, 11–12 | Corridor threshold (Mark 8:38) | Explicitly harmonized Synoptic complex | Moderately supportive (structural alignment) |
In Stromateis 4.9.70.2–71.1, Clement explicitly juxtaposes and fuses multiple Synoptic formulations of the confession/denial saying. He cites (a) the Matthean–Lukan judicial formulation (“I will deny him before the angels / confess before the Father”), (b) the distinctively Markan shame formulation (“whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation”), and (c) the persecution discourse promise that the Holy Spirit will supply speech before authorities (Luke 12:11–12; Mark 13:11).
This is not a loose allusion but a deliberate harmonization, and the Markan element is unmistakable. The phrase ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ is uniquely Markan (Mark 8:38) and occurs precisely at the formal gateway into the Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52). Clement therefore demonstrates conscious awareness of a Markan phrasing that is neither Matthean nor Lukan and that functions structurally as a hinge between proclamation and the call to suffer.
At the same time, Clement refuses to preserve evangelist separation. He places the Markan shame-saying alongside Matthew’s courtroom imagery and Luke’s persecution-apology instruction, creating a synthetic dominical dossier rather than reproducing any single gospel’s narrative order. This compositional behavior is characteristic of Stromateis: Clement is not writing a gospel commentary but assembling authoritative dominical material for ethical and polemical use.
The subsequent discussion of Heracleon (4.9.71.1–2) confirms this function. Clement treats the harmonized saying as a test case for defining true confession—not merely verbal confession before rulers, but confession enacted in faith and way of life. This interpretive move mirrors Mark’s existential framing of discipleship (shame, loss, fidelity under pressure) rather than Matthew’s ecclesial-judicial logic alone.
From the standpoint of the Secret Mark / Canon thesis, this passage is significantly more probative than many Stromateis citations. Clement not only knows the Markan formulation, but positions it as structurally equivalent to—and in dialogue with—Matthew and Luke. The Markan saying is not marginal; it supplies the conceptual axis of shame versus authentic discipleship. That axis is precisely what defines the Markan corridor.
Nevertheless, Clement does not allow Mark to govern sequence or narrative development. The Markan logion is deployed as one authoritative voice among several, not as the backbone of a reconstructed gospel narrative as in Quis Dives Salvetur. Accordingly, the passage supports compatibility with a Mark-shaped dominical tradition, including awareness of Mark’s distinctive phrasing at a critical structural juncture, but stops short of demonstrating Markan narrative primacy within Stromateis itself.
In sum, Stromateis 4.9.70.2–71.1 should be classified as moderately supportive of the Markan corridor thesis. It shows that Clement recognizes and preserves Mark’s unique formulation at the very threshold of the discipleship corridor, even while freely harmonizing it with parallel Synoptic material. This strengthens the case that Clement’s Mark-awareness is not accidental or secondary, while remaining consistent with the genre and method of Stromateis.
