| Clement locus | Greek citation in Clement | Closest canonical Greek | Synoptic comparison | Effect on the “Secret Mark / harmonized Mark” hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paed. 3.11.70.1 | εἰ σκανδαλίζει σε ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου, ἔκκοψον αὐτόν | Mark 9:47: καὶ ἐὰν ὁ ὀφθαλμός σου σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκβαλε αὐτόν | Matt 18:9; 5:29 expand with ἔξελε… καὶ βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ, qualifiers (ὁ δεξιός) | Supports but does not advance the hypothesis. It confirms Clement’s consistent preference for Markan form (compression, severity) over Matthean expansion, but it does not show narrative fusion or corridor reconstruction. |
At the level of Greek form, Clement’s citation aligns with Mark’s recension, not Matthew’s. Both Clement and Mark employ a single conditional clause followed by a single act of violent removal. Matthew consistently expands the saying into a doubled command (“remove and throw away”), adds explanatory qualifiers, and embeds it in broader didactic structures. Clement’s substitution of ἔκκοψον for ἔκβαλε does not reflect Matthean influence; it sharpens the Markan logic by casting the act as surgical excision, which Clement immediately interprets therapeutically (“ἐκ βάθρων ἀνασπῶν τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν”).
The result is not a verbatim quotation of Mark, but a harmonized Markan form: Mark’s austere structure preserved, Alexandrian ascetic interpretation supplied, Matthean elaboration excluded. This is consistent with Clement’s broader practice of subordinating Matthean diction and expansions to a Mark-shaped discipleship logic, especially within the discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52).
This passage does not advance the “Secret Mark” hypothesis in the strong sense (i.e., it does not provide new evidence for a hidden Markan narrative or a harmonized corridor text). What it does do—cleanly and unambiguously—is confirm the underlying claim that Clement habitually works with Markan recensional forms even when Matthean alternatives are available.
So its value is confirmatory, not probative. It strengthens the internal coherence of our argument by showing that Clement’s Markan preference operates even at the micro-level of Greek phrasing, but it does not, by itself, move the argument forward.
