| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 9.1–2 | ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν … ἀτελῆ εἶναι πρὸς τὴν αἰώνιον ζωήν | Mark 10:21–22; Matt 19:21; Luke 18:22 | Inside corridor (Mark 10) | Distinctively Markan (ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν) | Strongly supportive |
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.
