stephan huller's observations: References in Stromateis of the Markan Discipleship Corridor that Don't Advance the "Secret Mark" Argument (At Least Insofar as a One Minute Think About Them)

Clement locus	Greek citation	Closest gospel parallels	Gospel profile	Does it advance the harmonized-Mark hypothesis?
Paed. 1.1.9.3	ἀποδώσειν τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς ἐργάταις κατ’ ἀξίαν	Matt 16:27; Matt 20:1–16; Luke 10:7; Luke 19:15	Synoptic, non-Markan dominant	No

The phrase ἀποδώσειν τὸν μισθὸν τοῖς ἐργάταις κατ’ ἀξίαν reflects a generalized dominical maxim concerning recompense, widely diffused across the Synoptic tradition and already absorbed into early Christian moral discourse. While Mark 8:38 alludes to recompense at the coming of the Son of Man, the explicit εργαται / μισθός framing is characteristically Matthean and Lukan, especially as developed in parabolic and ethical contexts.

Crucially, Clement does not deploy the saying as part of a narrative sequence, nor does he embed it within a discipleship progression or a corridor structure. It functions instead as a normative ethical axiom governing authorial intent and moral motivation. There is no attempt to fuse scattered gospel elements, no reconstruction of Markan order, and no implicit appeal to a harmonized gospel spine.

Accordingly, this reference does not advance the claim that Clement is operating with a harmonized Markan gospel or that such a gospel underlies Eusebius’s Canon Tables. It belongs to the shared, catechetical stratum of gospel reception rather than to the structural logic that supports our Secret Mark / Alexandrian Mark thesis.

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 2.20.114.3–6	εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός … μακάριος ὁ ἔχων τὴν τοιαύτην καρδίαν, ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν θεόν	Mark 10:18 // Matt 5:8; Matt 19:17; Luke 18:19	Draws on a saying located within the Markan corridor (“no one is good but God alone”) but resolves the argument through a Beatitude that belongs to Matthew’s Sermon tradition, not Mark’s corridor	Does not advance the hypothesis; combines Markan and Matthean sayings thematically without Markan sequencing or corridor logic

Clement engages two distinct dominical traditions in this passage. The claim “εἷς ἐστιν ἀγαθός” echoes the saying of Jesus in the rich man episode (Mark 10:18), which lies squarely within the Markan discipleship corridor. However, Clement does not treat that saying in its narrative role of confronting wealth, renunciation, or following. Instead, he redirects the discussion toward interior purification of the heart and concludes with the Beatitude “μακάριος … ὅτι ὄψεται τὸν θεόν,” a Matthean formulation (Matt 5:8) entirely outside the Markan corridor.

The result is a thematic synthesis, not a structural one. Clement freely blends a Markan saying with Matthean Beatitude material to make a moral–spiritual point about purity of heart. There is no attempt to preserve Markan order, no reconstruction of corridor sequence, and no harmonized narrative logic. Consequently, while the passage confirms Clement’s knowledge of Markan material, it does not support the existence of a harmonized or “Secret” Markan gospel functioning as the hidden spine of Eusebius’s Gospel Canons.

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 3.1.1.1–2	οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον … εἰσὶ γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι, οἳ μὲν ἐκ γενετῆς, οἳ δὲ ἐξ ἀνάγκης	Matt 19:11–12 (no Markan parallel)	Material lies outside the Markan discipleship corridor; Mark has no eunuch saying	Does not advance the hypothesis; citation is purely Matthean and structurally unrelated to Mark

This passage is governed entirely by Matthean material, specifically Matthew 19:11–12, where Jesus responds to the disciples’ reaction to the divorce teaching by stating that not everyone can accept the saying about celibacy and then distinguishing different kinds of “eunuchs.” Mark contains no parallel saying and no conceptual equivalent within the discipleship corridor. As a result, there is no Markan spine to reconstruct, harmonize, or presuppose.

Clement’s interest here is not in discipleship progression but in ascetical interpretation and heresiological polemic. He frames the saying as something debated among Valentinian and Basilidean circles and then reports how different groups allegorize or rationalize the categories of eunuchs. The dominical saying functions as a contested proof-text within debates about marriage, continence, and voluntary renunciation, not as part of a narrative or instructional sequence.

Because the saying lacks any Markan analogue, it cannot participate in a harmonized Markan gospel, “Secret” or otherwise. Nor does Clement attempt to relocate it into a Mark-shaped framework. The passage therefore provides negative control evidence: it shows how Clement cites dominical material when no Markan corridor exists to govern alignment. In such cases, Matthew controls both wording and structure without interference.

Accordingly, Stromateis 3.1.1.1–2 is irrelevant to the Secret Mark hypothesis. It neither supports nor weakens the claim directly, but it demonstrates that Clement is perfectly willing to operate in a purely Matthean register when Mark offers no competing structural logic.

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 3.5.43.2–3	μόνος καλὸς … μόνον ἀγαθὸν τὸν θεόν	Mark 10:18 (par. Matt 19:17; Luke 18:19)	Saying belongs within the Markan discipleship corridor, specifically the rich man pericope	Compatible with Mark, but functions as an abstracted maxim; does not advance the Secret Mark hypothesis

This passage clearly alludes to the dominical saying traditionally rendered “no one is good except God alone,” whose Markan form appears at Mark 10:18 within the rich man pericope (Mark 10:17–31). Clement’s phrasing—μόνον καλὸν τὸν κύριον καὶ μόνον ἀγαθὸν τὸν θεόν—tracks the theological core of the saying rather than reproducing any one Synoptic text verbatim. The emphasis on divine goodness as exclusive and absolute is recognizably Markan in origin, even though Clement reframes it philosophically.

Crucially, however, Clement does not situate the saying within its narrative environment. There is no reference to the rich man, the disciples, renunciation, following Jesus, or the forward movement that characterizes the Markan discipleship corridor. Instead, the saying is deployed polemically against hedonism and against the claim that pleasure could be identified with the good. The dominical logion functions here as a theological axiom, not as a narrative hinge.

Because the citation is decontextualized, it does not provide evidence for Clement’s use of a harmonized or expanded Markan gospel. There is no sign of narrative stitching, no integration with adjacent Markan material, and no indication of a Mark-shaped sequence governing Clement’s use of the saying. The passage therefore confirms Clement’s familiarity with a Markan saying located in the corridor, but it does not demonstrate dependence on a continuous Markan gospel form, secret or otherwise.

In short, Stromateis 3.5.43.2–3 is Mark-compatible but evidentially neutral. It fits comfortably within the Markan corridor at the level of origin, yet it does not advance the hypothesis that Clement is working from a harmonized or “Secret” Mark underlying Eusebius’s canon system.

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 3.6.46.4–47.3	μοιχεία ἐξ ἐνθυμήσεως; ὃ συνέζευξεν ὁ θεός; σκληροκαρδία; οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν	Matt 5:28; Mark 10:2–12; Matt 19:3–9; Luke 16:18	Touches the divorce–marriage complex that lies within the Markan corridor but incorporates distinctly Matthean material	Indicates harmonization toward Matthew, not Markan priority; does not advance Secret Mark hypothesis

This passage is a composite citation, not a single-gospel witness. Clement explicitly combines several dominical traditions: the internalization of adultery (“μοιχεία ἐξ ἐνθυμήσεως”) reflects Matthew 5:28; the prohibition against dissolving what God has joined (“ὃ συνέζευξεν ὁ θεός”) belongs to the divorce controversy shared by Mark 10:2–12 and Matthew 19:3–9; the appeal to Mosaic concession due to “σκληροκαρδία” again aligns with both Mark and Matthew; but the decisive clause—χωρὶς λόγου πορνείας—comes only from Matthew.

Although the divorce pericope itself is part of the Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 10), Clement does not preserve Mark’s sharper, absolutist formulation. Instead, he reproduces the Matthean exception clause, which Mark explicitly lacks. This decisively shifts the center of gravity of the citation away from Mark and toward Matthew.

The structure of Clement’s argument confirms this. He is not tracing a Markan narrative progression or exploiting the corridor’s forward momentum toward Jerusalem; rather, he is assembling dominical sayings to rebut encratite and libertine positions on marriage. The sayings are treated as authoritative proof-texts, not as steps in a Markan discipleship sequence.

As a result, this passage does not support the idea that Clement is operating from a continuous Markan gospel form—secret or otherwise. On the contrary, it demonstrates Clement’s willingness to harmonize Mark with Matthew and to prefer Matthean redaction when it serves his ethical argument.

In short, Stromateis 3.6.46.4–47.3 shows explicit harmonization away from Mark, confirming Clement’s eclectic use of Synoptic material and standing as negative evidence for the Secret Mark / Markan-priority corridor hypothesis.

Clement passage	Greek cited by Clement	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location (Mark 8:34–10:52)	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 3.49.4	ὃ ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω	Mark 10:9; Matt 19:6	Inside corridor (Mark 10)	Shared tradition; Markan position primary	Neutral–compatible
Strom. 3.50.1	οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον… εὐνοῦχοι… διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν	Matt 19:10–12	Outside Mark (no Markan parallel)	Distinctively Matthean	Negative (local)

In Stromateis 3.49.4 Clement explicitly cites the dominical saying ὃ ὁ θεὸς συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ χωριζέτω, a logion attested in both Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9. From the standpoint of narrative location, the Markan attestation is decisive for the present argument: in Mark this saying belongs squarely within chapter 10, a core segment of the Markan discipleship corridor. Clement’s use of the saying is fully compatible with Mark’s wording and shows no Matthean redactional features. Nevertheless, Clement treats the logion aphoristically, without reconstructing or presupposing the surrounding Markan narrative sequence. As such, the citation confirms Clement’s knowledge and use of Markan corridor material, but it does not by itself demonstrate reliance on a harmonized or sequential Markan gospel.

The subsequent citation in Stromateis 3.50.1, however, shifts register. The saying οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον… εὐνοῦχοι… διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν derives exclusively from Matthew 19:10–12 and has no parallel in Mark. Its conceptual vocabulary and thematic concern belong to Matthean redaction, not to the Markan corridor. Clement introduces this material as a continuation of the discussion, but in doing so he demonstrably leaves the Markan framework and draws directly on Matthew’s expanded discourse on continence and marriage.

Taken together, these two citations show that Clement is not here operating within a single Mark-governed narrative spine. The first saying is Mark-compatible and corridor-located, but the second depends on material absent from Mark altogether. The juxtaposition therefore reflects selective synoptic usage, not a harmonized Markan gospel of the type presupposed in Quis Dives Salvetur.

Crucially, this does not falsify the Secret Mark or Eusebian canon thesis. It shows only that Stromateis is not uniformly Markan in method. Clement is capable, in other contexts, of sustained Markan sequential reading (as in Quis Dives Salvetur), while here he allows Matthean supplementation to stand independently. The passage is thus locally negative but globally neutral: it neither advances nor dismantles the claim that Clement elsewhere relies on a Mark-centered Alexandrian gospel tradition that later informs the structural logic of Eusebius’s Canon Tables.

Clement passage	Greek cited by Clement	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 3.7.59.4–60.1	καλὸν γὰρ διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν εὐνουχίζειν ἑαυτόν	Matt 19:12 (cf. Mt 11:19; Mk 2:16–19 background)	Outside corridor proper	Predominantly Matthean	Neutral / slightly negative

In Stromateis 3.7.59.4–60.1 Clement reflects on Jesus’ bodily discipline, asserting that Jesus ate and drank without corruption because he himself was incorruptible, and then moves from Christological example to ethical exhortation. The explicitly dominical element appears in the statement that it is “good, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, to make oneself a eunuch of every desire,” which corresponds directly to Matthew 19:12 (“εἰσὶν εὐνοῦχοι… διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν”).

This citation is decisively Matthean in diction and conceptual framing. The phrase “διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν” is a Matthean hallmark, and the eunuch saying itself has no Markan parallel. Mark lacks both the saying and the ascetic framing Clement draws from it. Although Clement embeds the saying within a broader discourse on ἐγκράτεια and purity that resonates with Markan discipleship themes in general, the gospel material he cites here is not drawn from the Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52), nor is it reshaped to follow Markan narrative sequencing.

Crucially, Clement does not fuse this saying with adjacent Markan pericopes, nor does he reconstruct a Mark-shaped instructional sequence around it. The saying functions as an isolated ethical maxim, deployed allegorically and philosophically rather than narratively. Unlike the child sayings or the rich man pericope, Clement does not treat this material as part of a continuous dominical lesson unfolding through successive scenes. There is no Markan spine organizing the citation.

For that reason, this passage does not advance the Secret Mark hypothesis. It neither contradicts it nor undermines it in any decisive way, but it demonstrates that Clement is perfectly willing, in Stromateis, to cite purely Matthean material when it suits his ethical argument. That fact is already expected and does not weaken the stronger evidence drawn from Quis Dives Salvetur and from those Stromateis passages where Clement actively recombines scattered Matthean material into a Markan-shaped sequence.

In short, Stromateis 3.7.59.4–60.1 confirms Clement’s familiarity with Matthew and his readiness to deploy Matthean ascetic sayings independently. It is evidentially neutral with respect to the claim that Clement also possessed and used a harmonized Markan gospel in other contexts. It neither supports nor refutes the thesis; it simply lies outside the evidentiary zone where the Markan discipleship corridor is operative.

Clement passage	Greek cited by Clement	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 3.10.68.1–69.1	οἱ δύο καὶ τρεῖς… ἐν ὀνόματί μου συναγόμενοι, ἐκεῖ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν	Matt 18:20 (with 1 Cor 7 echoes)	Outside corridor	Exclusively Matthean	Neutral / negative

In Stromateis 3.10.68.1–69.1 Clement explicitly cites and allegorically interprets the Matthean saying, “where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst” (Matthew 18:20). The wording and conceptual framework are unmistakably Matthean. The saying has no Markan parallel, nor does it belong to the Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52), which is defined by its narrative sequence of suffering, renunciation, misunderstanding, and instruction on discipleship.

Clement’s interest here is not narrative continuity but symbolic exegesis. He offers multiple interpretations of the “two or three”: husband, wife, and child; the unmarried ascetic remaining as Paul remained unmarried; the psychological triad of impulse, desire, and reason; or flesh, soul, and spirit. The dominical saying functions as a hermeneutical anchor for philosophical and ethical reflection rather than as a node within a gospel storyline. Clement does not embed the saying in any reconstructed dominical discourse, nor does he connect it to surrounding gospel episodes.

From the standpoint of the Secret Mark hypothesis, this passage is evidentially non-contributory. It neither reflects nor presupposes a Markan narrative axis, harmonized or otherwise. Nor does Clement attempt to re-sequence the saying in a way that aligns Matthew with Mark. Instead, he treats the saying as a free-standing logion, detached from narrative context and pressed into service for doctrinal clarification against Valentinian and other dualistic interpretations.

Importantly, this passage does not undermine the hypothesis that Clement possessed or used a Mark-based gospel elsewhere. It simply demonstrates that Stromateis, as a genre, regularly incorporates isolated Matthean sayings when Clement’s polemical or ethical aims require them. This is entirely consistent with the broader pattern observed throughout Stromateis: the work is not governed by gospel narrative order, whether Markan or otherwise.

Accordingly, Stromateis 3.10.68.1–69.1 should be classified as irrelevant to the Markan discipleship corridor argument. It confirms Clement’s use of Matthew, but it provides no leverage either for or against the claim that Clement elsewhere relied on a Mark-shaped gospel tradition—whether canonical or “Secret”—that later influenced Eusebius’s construction of the Gospel Canons.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 3.12.83.4	ὃ συνέζευξεν ὁ θεός, διαλύσειέν ποτε ἄνθρωπος	Matt 19:6; Mark 10:9	Inside corridor (Mark 10)	Shared Mark–Matthew tradition	Neutral (non-advancing)

In Stromateis 3.12.83.4, Clement cites the dominical saying “ὃ συνέζευξεν ὁ θεός, διαλύσειέν ποτε ἄνθρωπος,” a formulation attested in both Matthew 19:6 and Mark 10:9. In Mark, the saying occurs within the central discipleship corridor (Mark 10), embedded in Jesus’ instruction concerning marriage, renunciation, and the reordering of life under divine authority. From a purely locational standpoint, the citation is therefore compatible with a Markan framework.

Nevertheless, Clement does not employ the saying as part of a Mark-governed narrative sequence. The dominical logion is extracted from its dialogical and episodic setting and redeployed as a juridical–theological maxim, serving Clement’s argument that the same God who legislates in the Law also legislates in the Gospel. This is made explicit in his conclusion that the one who is νομοθέτης is also εὐαγγελιστής, and therefore cannot be in conflict with himself.

Crucially, Clement neither reproduces Mark’s narrative logic nor draws on adjacent Markan material (such as the private instruction to the disciples or the escalation of the prohibition). Nor does he display any Markan priority in diction or sequencing over Matthew. The saying functions independently of gospel structure, as a proof-text within a broader Alexandrian synthesis of law, gospel, and divine unity.

Accordingly, Stromateis 3.12.83.4 confirms Clement’s knowledge and use of a dominical saying that, in Mark, belongs squarely within the discipleship corridor. However, it does not advance the Secret Mark hypothesis or the claim that Mark functions here as a narrative axis comparable to what is observed in Quis Dives Salvetur. The passage supports compatibility with Mark, but remains evidentially neutral with respect to a Mark-shaped or harmonized gospel underlying Clement’s Stromateis usage.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic / biblical locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 3.13.91.2	ἐμακάρισεν τοὺς εὐνούχους	Matt 19:12	Outside corridor	Distinctively Matthean	Negative / non-supportive

The eunuch saying cited at the opening of Stromateis Book 3 cannot be treated as a verbatim reproduction of Matthew 19:11–12. Although the Matthean incipit οὐ πάντες χωροῦσι τὸν λόγον τοῦτον is preserved and the logion’s thematic core is unmistakably Matthean, the internal structure of the saying has been reworked. The canonical threefold Matthean taxonomy of eunuchs is compressed and reorganized into a simplified classification, with categories framed in terms of “from birth” and “by necessity,” rather than Matthew’s precise sequence of natural condition, human action, and voluntary ascetic renunciation.

This alteration is best understood not as evidence of a different gospel source, but as a sectarian reshaping of a Matthean dominical saying. The logion is presented in a form already adapted to doctrinal use, rather than as a narrative quotation embedded in its original evangelic context. Clement’s interest here is not to preserve Matthean redactional detail, but to expose how the saying is being deployed within heretical ascetic discourse.

Crucially, the passage does not introduce any Markan elements. Mark lacks a eunuch saying altogether, and nothing in the structure or vocabulary of this citation suggests derivation from a Markan narrative corridor or a Mark-shaped harmonization. The deviation from Matthew lies in compression and reinterpretation, not in source substitution.

Accordingly, this passage confirms Clement’s awareness of non-verbatim, doctrinally mediated gospel citations circulating in Alexandrian and heterodox contexts, but it does not advance the case for a Mark-based composite gospel at this point. The saying remains Matthean in origin, heterodox in form, and neutral with respect to the “Secret Mark” hypothesis.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic / NT locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 3.15.99.4	οἱ μὲν εὐνουχίσαντες ἑαυτοὺς… διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν	Matt 19:12	Inside corridor (Mark 10 context)	Matthean formulation (no Markan wording)	Neutral / weakly negative

This saying is structurally tied to the Mark 10 discipleship corridor (the marriage–renunciation sequence), but the verbal form is distinctly Matthean (“εὐνουχίσαντες ἑαυτούς… διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν”), with no Markan equivalent. As a result, it aligns topically with the corridor but does not advance the case for a Mark-based harmonized or Secret Mark gospel.

Clement passage	Greek cited by Clement	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 4.6.36.5–37.1	ἴσος μισθὸς… τὸ δηνάριον… τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἀκαταλλήλους ὥρας ἐργασαμένων	Matt 20:1–16	Outside corridor	Exclusively Matthean parable	Neutral / non-contributory

In Stromateis 4.6.36.5–37.1 Clement explicitly alludes to the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, with its distinctive motifs of unequal working hours and equal pay symbolized by the denarius. The imagery—workers hired at different “hours,” all receiving the same wage—unambiguously identifies Matthew 20:1–16. The parable has no Markan or Lukan parallel and belongs solely to Matthew’s kingdom-parable material.

Clement’s treatment is thoroughly allegorical. The “equal wage” is glossed as salvation itself, and the denarius is explicitly decoded as a symbolic unit rather than narrated as part of a story. Clement’s concern is to demonstrate the justice and generosity of divine recompense, especially the paradox that unequal labor can result in equal reward when measured by divine rather than human standards. The parable thus functions as an ethical and theological illustration, not as a narrative anchor.

There is no Markan diction, sequencing, or conceptual scaffolding present in this passage. The themes Clement draws out—merit, justice, equality of salvation—do not correspond to the core dynamics of the Markan discipleship corridor (misunderstanding, suffering, renunciation, reversal through loss). Nor does Clement attempt to relocate or harmonize the parable within a Markan framework. It stands as a self-contained Matthean unit.

From the standpoint of the Secret Mark / Canon thesis, this passage is evidentially inert. It neither supports nor challenges the hypothesis that Clement elsewhere relies on a Mark-shaped gospel tradition. Instead, it confirms what is already well established: Stromateis freely incorporates uniquely Matthean material when Clement’s doctrinal argument requires it, without regard to narrative continuity or gospel prioritization.

Crucially, this Matthean exclusivity does not weaken the broader argument that Clement possesses and deploys Markan corridor material in other contexts (most notably Quis Dives Salvetur). Rather, it reinforces the methodological distinction: Stromateis is not governed by a gospel narrative axis at all, whether Markan or otherwise. Its use of Matthew here is therefore fully compatible with the claim that Clement’s Markan usage—where it appears—is deliberate, structurally meaningful, and contextually confined to particular theological aims rather than universally operative across his corpus.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 5.5.30.3–4	ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου… χρηστός ἐστι καὶ ἀβαρής; ὡς τὰ παιδία… γενέσθαι δεῖν	Matt 11:29–30; Matt 18:3	Outside corridor	Predominantly Matthean, composite	Neutral / non-advancing

In Stromateis 5.5.30.3–4 Clement combines two distinct Matthean dominical motifs: the invitation to take up Jesus’ “easy” and “light” yoke (“ἄρατε τὸν ζυγόν μου… χρηστός ἐστι καὶ ἀβαρής,” Matthew 11:29–30) and the injunction to “become like children” (Matthew 18:3). Both elements are unmistakably Matthean in diction and theological tone. Neither saying has a close Markan verbal parallel, and neither belongs to the Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52).

Clement does not present these sayings in their Matthean narrative settings. Instead, he fuses them into a moral exhortation directed against φιλονικία περὶ πρωτείων—contention for precedence. The sayings function as ethical correctives: the “yoke” underscores gentleness and moral lightness, while becoming “like children” signals simplicity and the renunciation of competitive ambition. This compositional freedom is characteristic of Stromateis, where dominical material is routinely abstracted from narrative and redeployed within philosophical argumentation.

Importantly, the fusion does not constitute gospel harmonization in the strict sense. Clement is not aligning Matthew with Mark or Luke, nor is he subordinating one gospel’s sequence to another. Rather, he is juxtaposing two Matthean sayings to reinforce a single ethical point. There is no evidence of Markan narrative logic, corridor sequencing, or Markan priority at work in this passage.

From the standpoint of the Secret Mark / Eusebian Canon thesis, this entry is evidentially neutral. It neither supports nor challenges the claim that Clement elsewhere relied on a Mark-shaped gospel tradition. It simply illustrates that Clement freely incorporates Matthean logia when they suit his moral or pedagogical aims. As with other purely Matthean citations in Stromateis, its presence does not undermine the thesis; it confirms only that Stromateis is not governed by any single gospel’s narrative axis.

Accordingly, Stromateis 5.5.30.3–4 should be classified as outside the Markan corridor and irrelevant to corridor-based arguments. It confirms Clement’s use of Matthew but offers no leverage for reconstructing a Mark-based or “Secret Mark” gospel underlying his exegetical practice.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 5.14.91.3–4	τῶν μικρῶν… τοὺς ἀγγέλους τοὺς ὁρῶντας τὸν θεόν	Matt 18:10	Outside corridor	Exclusively Matthean logion	Neutral / negative

In Stromateis 5.14.91.3–4 Clement contrasts Platonic eschatological imagery—Tartarus, Gehenna, rivers of fire, and postmortem guardians—with the scriptural teaching concerning “the little ones,” whose angels continually behold God. The dominical reference here is unmistakable: “ὁρᾶτε μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων· λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτῶν ἐν οὐρανοῖς διὰ παντὸς βλέπουσι τὸ πρόσωπον τοῦ πατρός μου” (Matthew 18:10). There is no Markan parallel to this saying, nor any Lucan equivalent preserving the angelic motif.

Clement’s deployment of the logion is theological and comparative rather than narrative. He uses Matthew’s angelic anthropology to demonstrate that divine pedagogy and moral supervision are already present within scriptural revelation, rendering pagan philosophical myth both derivative and inferior. The reference functions as a proof-text in a broader apologetic argument concerning providence, angelic mediation, and moral responsibility, rather than as part of any gospel sequence.

Structurally, the passage lies entirely outside the Markan discipleship corridor (Mark 8:34–10:52). Clement neither situates the saying within a Markan narrative framework nor aligns it with adjacent Markan teaching material. The Matthean provenance of the saying is clear, and Clement shows no interest in harmonizing it with Mark or Luke. Instead, the logion is treated as an authoritative Matthean utterance suitable for philosophical-theological synthesis.

From the perspective of the Secret Mark and Eusebian Canon thesis, this passage is evidentially neutral to negative. It confirms Clement’s unproblematic use of distinctively Matthean material in Stromateis, reinforcing the point that this work does not operate under a Markan narrative constraint. At the same time, it does not undermine the claim that Clement elsewhere—most notably in Quis Dives Salvetur—relies on a Mark-shaped gospel tradition. Rather, it illustrates the genre-specific flexibility of Stromateis, where isolated dominical sayings from multiple gospel traditions are freely appropriated without narrative sequencing.

Accordingly, Stromateis 5.14.91.3–4 should be classified as Matthean, non-corridor, and non-contributory to the Secret Mark hypothesis. It neither advances nor refutes the thesis, but simply confirms that Clement’s Alexandrian synthesis comfortably incorporates Matthean logia alongside philosophical material when his polemical aims require it.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic / NT locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 6.13.107.3	οἱ τέσσαρες καὶ εἴκοσι… κριταί τε καὶ διοικηταί	Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30 (with Rev 4–5 imagery)	Adjacent / peripheral to corridor	Matthean–Lucan judicial tradition, apocalyptic elaboration	Neutral (non-advancing)

In Stromateis 6.13.107.3 Clement speaks of the “twenty-four” who are pre-eminently elect, judges and governors drawn equally from Jews and Greeks, and connects their exalted status with perfected knowledge and participation in divine glory. The immediate conceptual background is not a narrative gospel episode but the judicial promise tradition found in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30, where Jesus declares that the apostles will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Clement’s reference to the number twenty-four transparently reflects apocalyptic development of this tradition, especially the imagery of the twenty-four elders in Revelation 4–5, rather than any Markan formulation.

Mark is conspicuously absent at the level of wording. Although Mark 10:28–31 belongs to the discipleship corridor and includes promises of recompense and eschatological reversal, Mark does not contain a throne-judging saying or any explicit numerical schema corresponding to Clement’s formulation. Clement is therefore not reproducing or extending a Markan logion, nor is he harmonizing Mark with Matthew here. Instead, he presupposes a Matthean–Lucan judicial saying that has already been absorbed into a broader ecclesiological and apocalyptic framework.

Clement’s interest is hierarchical and ecclesial. He explicitly maps the heavenly order (judges, administrators, angelic economy) onto the earthly structure of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, treating church offices as anticipatory images of eschatological glory. The gospel reference functions typologically, not narratively, and is pressed into service to legitimate graded perfection within the Church rather than to reconstruct a gospel sequence.

From the standpoint of the Secret Mark and Eusebian Canon thesis, this passage is evidentially neutral. It neither supports nor challenges the claim that Clement elsewhere relies on a Mark-shaped gospel tradition. It confirms, instead, that Clement freely draws on non-Markan dominical traditions—especially Matthean and Lucan eschatological sayings—when developing ecclesiology and angelology. As with other Stromateis passages, the absence of narrative control is decisive: Clement is not operating with a governing gospel axis here, Markan or otherwise.

Accordingly, Stromateis 6.13.107.3 should be classified as non-corridor, non-Markan, and non-probative. It illustrates Clement’s theological synthesis and his comfort with Matthean–Lucan judicial traditions, but it provides no leverage for advancing the Secret Mark hypothesis or the claim that Mark underlies the structural logic of this section of Stromateis.

Clement passage	Greek cited / alluded to	Synoptic / NT locus	Markan corridor location	Gospel profile	Effect on Secret Mark / Canon thesis
Strom. 6.15.132.5	υἱὲ Δαβίδ, ἐλέησόν με · σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψε…	Mark 10:47–48; Matt 16:16–17	Inside corridor (Mark 10) but conflated with Matt 16	Explicit harmonization (Markan miracle + Matthean confession)	Neutral / weakly negative (harmonizing use)

In Stromateis 6.15.132.5 Clement juxtaposes two distinct gospel moments: the cry “υἱὲ Δαβίδ, ἐλέησόν με,” associated above all with the blind man at Jericho (Mark 10:47–48), and Peter’s confession, “σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψε… ἀλλ’ ὁ πατὴρ,” which is explicitly Matthean in form (Matthew 16:16–17). The Markan element belongs squarely to the discipleship corridor at its climax, while the revelatory saying concerning Peter’s confession has no Markan parallel and reflects Matthew’s theological redaction.

Clement does not preserve either episode in narrative integrity. Instead, he fuses them into a single epistemological contrast: the many who recognize Jesus only as “Son of David” versus the few—exemplified by Peter—who know him as Son of God through divine revelation rather than “flesh and blood.” The gospel material is subordinated to Clement’s gnostic anthropology, in which true knowledge of Christ is mediated by divine δύναμις rather than sensory or historical encounter.

Crucially, this is not a case of Mark governing Matthew or of Matthew being aligned to a Markan narrative axis. Rather, Clement performs an overt harmonization, freely combining a Markan miracle-title with a Matthean revelation-logion without regard to narrative sequence, setting, or genre. The Markan corridor is present only as a source of vocabulary and exemplum, not as a structuring framework.

From the perspective of the Secret Mark and Eusebian Canon thesis, this passage is non-advancing and mildly problematic. While it confirms Clement’s familiarity with corridor material from Mark 10, it simultaneously demonstrates his readiness to detach that material from its Markan narrative logic and merge it with distinctly Matthean theology. This is the opposite of what is observed in Quis Dives Salvetur, where Markan narrative continuity is preserved and exploited.

Accordingly, Stromateis 6.15.132.5 should be classified as harmonized, non-structural, and evidentially neutral to weakly negative. It shows that Clement can blend Mark and Matthew at will in Stromateis, reinforcing the conclusion that this work is not governed by a Markan gospel axis—even though Clement demonstrably uses such an axis elsewhere.