| Clement locus | Gospel material engaged (Greek) | Synoptic location | Relation to Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52) | Effect on Secret Mark / Eusebius Canon hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stromateis 2.23.145.3–146.3 | οὐκ ἀπολύσεις γυναῖκα πλὴν εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ λόγῳ πορνείας … ὁ ἀπολελυμένην λαμβάνων γυναῖκα μοιχᾶται | Matt 5:32; Matt 19:9; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18 | Corridor material is present (divorce teaching in Mark 10), but Matthean exception-clause governs the citation | Does not advance the hypothesis; Matthean redaction controls the form, Markan elements remain secondary |
This citation is not purely Matthean, but it is Matthean-controlled, with identifiable Markan elements operating beneath the surface. The decisive indicator of Matthean control is the presence of the exception clause, πλὴν εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ λόγῳ πορνείας, which is exclusive to Matthew and absent from Mark. Its inclusion shows that Clement is not reproducing a Markan textual form, nor relying on a harmonized Markan gospel at the level of wording.
At the same time, Clement’s handling of culpability reflects Markan severity rather than Matthean narrowing. He assigns moral responsibility not only to the one who divorces but also to the one who receives the divorced woman, a symmetry that aligns closely with Mark 10:11–12, where both parties are implicated without qualification. Matthew’s version tends toward legal specification; Mark’s toward radical ethical consequence. Clement’s synthesis preserves Matthew’s language while allowing Mark’s ethical logic to shape the conclusion.
Crucially for the Secret Mark argument, Clement does not exploit the Markan corridor placement of this teaching. In Mark, the divorce saying functions as part of the broader discipleship confrontation with wealth, status, and renunciation. Clement, by contrast, deploys the saying parenetically, as a norm of marital conduct within an ethical discourse on decorum and continence. There is no attempt to integrate the saying into a Mark-shaped sequence of following, cross-bearing, or κρίσις.
Accordingly, this passage confirms Clement’s mixed synoptic usage and shows that Markan rigor can inform his interpretation even when Matthean redaction governs the text. It does not, however, provide evidence for a harmonized or “Secret” Markan gospel functioning as a structural spine behind his reading practice or behind Eusebius’s Gospel Canons. Mark is present here as influence, not as organizing principle.
