| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic / NT locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exc. Theod. 1.4.1–3 | “ἐν δόξῃ ὤφθη… ἐπὶ τοῦ Ὄρους”; “εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων…”; “Υἱὸς τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου ἐν δόξῃ” | Mark 9:1–8 (Transfiguration + saying); Matt 16:28–17:8; Luke 9:27–36 | Transition from discipleship corridor to glory | Markan transfiguration complex, theophanic but non-angelic | Strongly supportive: Mark supplies the narrative and logion frame; others are subsumed |
In Excerpta ex Theodoto 1.4 Clement (again reporting Valentinian teaching) treats the Transfiguration and the associated eschatological saying as a single, fulfilled complex. The key is the explicit citation of the logion: “Εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων… ἕως ἂν ἴδωσι τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου ἐν δόξῃ.” This saying, in precisely this form and position, belongs most naturally to Mark 9:1, immediately followed by the mountain epiphany (Mark 9:2–8). Matthew and Luke preserve the saying, but neither binds fulfillment to the Transfiguration as tightly or as programmatically as Mark does.
Several features mark this as not strictly Matthean. There is no Matthean emphasis on προσωποποιημένη δόξα as a reward schema, no eschatological bookkeeping, no didactic expansion. Nor is it Lukan: Luke’s stress on prayer, sleep as weakness, and prophetic continuity is absent. Instead, Clement focuses on visibility of glory, the Son of Man, and the three witnesses—Peter, James, and John—exactly Mark’s configuration.
The theological elaboration—Christ as πανταχῇ Ὂν, simultaneously “ἄνω Φῶς” and “ἐπιφανὲν ἐν σαρκί”—does not reframe the gospel narrative but presupposes it. The Transfiguration is treated as a pedagogical concession “διὰ τὴν Ἐκκλησίαν,” not as a change in Christ’s state. That move is metaphysical, not redactional. The gospel event remains intact and unchallenged.
Most telling is the fulfillment claim: “Εἶδον οὖν καὶ ἐκοιμήθησαν ὅ τε Πέτρος καὶ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάννης.” The saying is closed by the Transfiguration itself, exactly as Mark’s narrative logic invites. This is the Markan solution to the “some standing here” saying; Matthew and Luke leave the fulfillment more diffuse.
For the Secret Mark / Canon thesis, this passage is decisive. Even within Valentinianized reflection, Clement treats Mark’s sequence and pairing of saying + vision as normative. The Markan structure governs interpretation; metaphysics is layered on top, not used to displace or harmonize competing gospel orders. Once again, Matthew and Luke are present only implicitly as secondary witnesses, while Mark functions as the narrative axis around which theological meaning is organized.
