| Clement passage | Greek cited / alluded to | Synoptic locus | Markan corridor location | Gospel profile | Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom. 24.1–24.2 | κἂν ὁ δέξιός σου ὀφθαλμὸς σκανδαλίζῃ σε, ἔκκοψον αὐτόν · κἂν χεὶρ κἂν ποὺς | Mark 9:43–47; Matt 5:29–30; Matt 18:8–9 | Inside corridor (Mark 8–10, esp. Mark 9) | Shared tradition, Mark-dominant in severity and sequence | Supportive (corridor logic preserved) |
In Stromateis 24.1–24.2 Clement exhorts the reader to radical detachment from wealth and passions, culminating in the dominical warning about the offending eye, hand, or foot. While the saying is attested in both Matthew and Mark, Clement’s form and application align more closely with the Markan version (Mark 9:43–47), where the logion belongs to the heart of the discipleship corridor and is framed by warnings about stumbling, loss, and Gehenna.
Clement’s wording is not a verbatim reproduction of any single synoptic text. Instead, it is a compressed, intensified citation, typical of his Alexandrian style, in which the logion functions as a maxim for existential decision rather than as part of a narrative exchange. The emphasis falls not on legal hyperbole (as in Matthew’s Sermon contexts) but on irreversible choice and salvific loss, a distinctly Markan thematic pressure.
Significantly, Clement expands the logic of the saying beyond bodily members to include the soul itself (“κἂν… ἡ ψυχή, μίσησον αὐτήν”), thereby making explicit what Mark implies: that discipleship may require the abandonment of anything—external or internal—that obstructs following Christ. This move does not dilute the Markan thrust; it radicalizes it.
From the perspective of the Secret Mark / Canon thesis, this passage is positively aligned with a Mark-shaped gospel logic. Clement treats the logion as part of a coherent discipleship ethic centered on loss-for-life, not as an isolated Matthean aphorism. Although harmonized in diction, the saying is deployed exactly where Mark places it conceptually: within the corridor of renunciation, stumbling, and entry into the kingdom “maimed” rather than excluded.
Accordingly, Stromateis 24.1–24.2 strengthens the cumulative case that Clement’s ethical exegesis is repeatedly governed by a Markan narrative axis, even when his citations are abbreviated or conflated. It does not prove dependence on Secret Mark in isolation, but it is fully consistent with—and supportive of—the claim that Clement’s gospel horizon is fundamentally Mark-based rather than Matthean-led.
