Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν); women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! horrible conduct! (Paed 3.3)
The question that still lies before us is - how certain can we be that all the polluted agape references (Paed 2.1, Strom 3.2 and Strom 7.16) are all referencing the same Carpocratian sect?
Let's begin by explicitly referencing the three 'polluted agape' rituals and then tackling their contents:
- For "meats are for the belly," for on them depends this truly carnal and destructive life; whence some, speaking with unbridled tongue, dare to apply the name agape, to pitiful suppers, redolent of savour and sauces. Dishonouring the good and saving work of the Word, the consecrated agape, with pots and pouring of sauce; and by drink and delicacies and smoke desecrating that name, they are deceived in their idea, having expected that the promise of God might be bought with suppers. Gatherings for the sake of mirth, and such entertainments as are called by ourselves, we name rightly suppers, dinners, and banquets, after the example of the Lord. But such entertainments the Lord has not called agape. He says accordingly somewhere, "When thou art called to a wedding, recline not on the highest couch; but when thou art called, fall into the lowest place." (Paed 2.1)
- These then are the doctrines of the excellent Carpocratians. These, so they say, and certain other enthusiasts for the same wickednesses, gather together for feasts (I would not call their meeting an Agape), men and women together. After they have sated their appetites ("on repletion Cypris, the goddess of love, enters," as it is said), then they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous "righteousness" is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will. After they have practiced community of use in this love-feast, they demand by daylight of whatever women they wish that they will be obedient to the law of Carpocrates-it would not be right to say the law of God. (Strom 3.2)
- [the heretics] ply every oar, even going the length of impiety (ἀσεβεῖν) by disbelieving the Scriptures (τὸ ἀπιστεῖν ταῖς γραφαῖς μέλλωσιν) rather than give up the reputation they have in their sect and the boasted first seat (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in their churches; on account of which also they eagerly embrace that convivial (συμποτικὴν) couch of honour in the falsely so called Agape (ψευδωνύμου ἀγάπης πρωτοκλισίαν ἀσπάζονται). The knowledge of the truth (τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσις) among us from what is already believed, produces faith in what is not yet believed ( τῶν ἤδη πιστῶν τοῖς οὔπω πιστοῖς ἐκπορίζεται τὴν πίστιν); which faith is, so to speak, the essence of demonstration (εἰπεῖν ἀποδείξεως καθίσταται). But, as appears, no heresy has at all ears to hear what is harmonious (τὸ σύμφορον), but opened (ἀρχὴν) only to what leads to pleasure (ἡδονὴν). Since also, if one of them would be persuaded (πείθεσθαι), he would only obey the truth (τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μόνον ἠβουλήθη). Now the cure of self-conceit (as of every ailment) is threefold: the ascertaining of the cause, and the mode of its removal; and thirdly, the training of the soul, and the accustoming it to assume a right attitude to the judgments come to. For, just like a disordered eye, so also the soul that has been darkened by unnatural dogmas (τοῖς παρὰ φύσιν θολωθεῖσα δόγμασιν) cannot perceive distinctly the light of truth, but even overlooks what is before it. (Strom 7.16)
The first thing that has to be acknowledged is that the Carpocratians are the only heretical group Clement ever explicitly connects to the agape celebration (2). It cannot be denied that (3) explicitly references the polluted agape in reference to a heretical group. There are furthermore no other licentious heretical groups ever mentioned by Clement by name. Isn't that enough to assume that (3) is a reference to the Carpocratians? Certainly the similarities between Strom 7.16 as a whole and the Letter to Theodore strengthen the likelihood of that association.
So let's start with (2) and it is only when we look closely that we realize that the whole discussion here is about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural' with regards to sexual relations (which is why the text was not translated into English originally). The discussion begins with a citation from the heretic Isidore's Ethics about this very subject:
Sometimes, however, we say with our mouth 'I wish not to sin' while our mind is really inclined towards sin. Such a man does not do what he wishes for fear lest any punishment should be in store for him. Human nature has some wants which are necessary and natural, and others which are only natural. To be clothed is necessary and natural; sexual intercourse (τῶν ἀφροδισίων) is natural but not necessary [Strom 3.1]
The reference to the Carpocratian agape immediately follows this citation obviously representing one extreme of Christian attitudes towards sexuality. The Marcionites being the other extreme (i.e. extreme asceticism).
Clement begins his discussion of the Carpocratians by saying:
For continence is not merely a matter of abstinence from ἀφροδίσια, but applies also to the other things for which the soul has an evil desire because it is not satisfied with the necessities of life
The long discussion of the Carpocratians which follows interesting focuses on the question of their interpretation of a commandment from Jesus from a non-ganonical gospel shared by the Carpocratians and the Alexandrian where he says 'do not lust.' Clement's argument is that because the Carpocratians do not admit the Law and the prophets into their interpretation they misunderstand what lust means and thus fall into lust themselves allow for sexual relations in the agape.
The Carpocratians clearly allow for sexual desire (ἀφροδίσια) in their agape and Aphrodite is thus deliberately referenced to tie their practices to what was just cited:
These then are the doctrines of the excellent Carpocratians. These, so they say, and certain other enthusiasts for the same wickednesses, gather together for feasts (I would not call their meeting an Agape), men and women together. After they have sated their appetites ("on repletion Cypris, the goddess of love, enters," as it is said), then they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous "righteousness" is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will. After they have practiced community of use in this love-feast, they demand by daylight of whatever women they wish that they will be obedient to the law of Carpocrates-it would not be right to say the law of God. (Strom 3.2)
Clearly then Clement's point isn't just that the Carpocratians engage in ἀφροδίσια but that what is natural (clearly ἀφροδίσια is 'natural') leads to things and practices which are unnatural like the sharing of wives and greater sexual abominations (copulations with animals). This becomes clear a little later where Aphrodite is again referenced with respect to the Carpocratians.
After bringing forward the Carpocratians as one end of the spectrum of Christian attitudes toward sexuality, the Marcionites are brought forward in Strom 3.3 as arguing that all sex is natural but evil. Clement goes back to the Carpocratians in Strom 3.4 and emphasizes that they derive their doctrines from an apocryphal text and distinguishes them as much worse that the Nicolatians (whose immorality was quite limited). After mentioning the Carpocratians by name he says:
There are some who call Aphrodite Pandemos [i.e., physical love] a mystical communion. This is an insult to the name of communion. To do something wrong is called an action, just as also to do right is likewise called an action. Similarly communion is good when the word refers to sharing of money and food and clothing. But they have impiously called by the name of communion any common sexual intercourse (ἀφροδισίων συμπλοκὴν κοινωνίαν ἀσεβῶς κεκλήκασιν).
The story goes that one of them came to a virgin of our church who had a lovely face and said to her: "Scripture says, 'Give to everyone that asks you.' " She, however, not understanding the lascivious intention of the man gave the dignified reply: "On the subject of marriage, talk to my mother." What godlessness! Even the words of the Lord are perverted by these immoral fellows, the brethren of lust, a shame not only to philosophy but to all human life, who corrupt the truth, or rather destroy it; as far as they can. These thrice wretched men treat carnal and sexual intercourse as a sacred religious mystery, and think that it will bring them to the kingdom of God.
It is to the brothels that this "communion" leads. They can have pigs and goats as their associates. Those who have most to hope from them are the public harlots who shamelessly receive all who want to come to them. "But you have not so learned Christ, if you have heard him and have been taught by him as the truth is in Christ Jesus; put off with the ways of your former life your old man which is corrupted by the deceitful lusts. Be renewed in the spirit of your mind and put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness," so as to be made like unto God. "Be therefore imitators of God, as dear children, and walk in love as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor. But fornication and all impurity and covetousness and shamefulness and foolish talk, let them not be mentioned among you as is fitting for saints." Moreover, the apostle teaches us to be chaste in speech when he writes, "Know this well that no fornicator. .." and so on as far as the words "but rather expose them."
They derived their doctrines from an apocryphal work. I will quote the text which is the mother of their licentiousness. And whether they themselves, I mean the authors of the book, bare responsible (see their madness, for by their licence they do grievous wrong to God) or whether they derived their ideas from some others whom they fell in with, they have taken a sound doctrine and perversely misapplied it. The passage reads as follows: "All things were one; but as it seemed good to its if unity not to be alone, an idea came forth from it, and it had intercourse with it and made the beloved. In consequence of this there came forth from him an idea with which he had intercourse and made powers which cannot be seen or heard. .." ; down to the words "each by her own name." If these people spoke of acts of spiritual union like the Valentinians, perhaps one could accept their view. But to suppose that the holy prophets spoke of carnal and wanton intercourse is the way of a man who has renounced salvation (Strom 3.4)
My point is clearly that while the original conversation about the agape seems only to deal with the topic of the sharing of women on a macroscopic level, the example of the Carpocratian agape is situated in a greater discussion of what is natural and unnatural with respect to sexual relations.
Interesting the word 'unnatural' comes up once in this discussion when the example of the Indian gymnopsophists who view sex itself as unnatural:
Neither the Gymnosophists nor the so-called Holy Men have wives. They think sexual relations are unnatural and contrary to law (παρὰ φύσιν γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ παράνομον δοκοῦσι). For this cause they keep themselves chaste. The Holy Women are also virgins. They observe, it seems, the heavenly bodies and from what they indicate foretell future events. (Strom 3.7)
The point then is that if we are to put the discussion of the Carpocratian agape and their emphasis that 'all things should be shared in common' (based on a reading of Mark 10.17 - 31 that becomes the basis for a second discussion in Quis Dives Salvetur) which includes wives, clearly Clement and the Carpocratians agree that sex is 'natural.'
When the Carpocratian agape is again referenced in Strom 7.16 and is immediately followed by a reference to the 'unnaturalness' that infects their souls it clearly can only be interpreted as being a result of their agape being an ἀφροδίσια (a term which does not limit itself to sexual licentiousness but literally means 'like the festival of Aphrodite' where drinking, eating and licentiousness abounded). In other words, ALL the references to 'corrupt agapes' in Clement - Paed 1.1 where overeating abounds, Strom 3.2 where sex abounds, and Strom 7.16 where too much drinking abounds - all make the point that what starts as 'natural' becomes perverted into something excessive and the original nature of the festival is now corrupted.
The bottom line is that I don't think you can subtract the 'παρὰ φύσιν' reference in (3) from the agape reference which precedes it. In other words, that the drinking which leads to a convival atmosphere in the Carpocratian agape leads directly to the 'disordered eyes' of the corrupt souls which have become 'παρὰ φύσιν.'
So are all the 'corrupt agapes' referencing the same event? It can be argued that (1) seems to be referring to a more or less orthodox gathering which Clement condemns for the over indulgence involved. (2) is clearly referring to a Carpocratian gathering. One could argue that (3) more resembles (1) rather than (2) (i.e. gluttony rather than sex). If so, it could be argued that the Carpocratians may not be the heretics Clement is concerned with in this passage.
The reality however is that the Greek terminology in (2) nececssarily also applies to (1) and (3). The key to solving everything is to acknowledge that the term ἀφροδίσια is incorrectly translated as mere 'sexual pleasure' and is broad enough to encompass (a) and (c). Foucault defines aphrodisia are “the acts, gestures, and contacts that produce a certain form of pleasure.” Aphrodisia are bodily pleasures that are related with specific actions like eating, drinking, and having sex.
For Foucault, aphrodisia are considered both positive and negative. They are positive since they are natural and necessary, i.e. everyone must eat, drink, and reproduce—nature encourages animals to eat, drink, and procreate by making these activities immensely pleasurable. Nonetheless, bodily pleasures also had a negative quality, which required for their delimitation. The main reason for this was that the Greeks deemed aphrodisia as possessing an “inferior character” for they “were common to animals and men,” “mixed with privation and suffering,” and “depended on the body and its necessities.”
However, it was more than the inferior quality of aphrodisia that rendered them the point of ethical concern. Two major problems emerge: the predicament of excessiveness, and the horror of passivity. According to Foucault, excessiveness and passivity in the Greek épistémè are “[f]or a man…the two main forms of immorality.” Because these two problems were the major forms of immorality, and because both were linked to and associated with bodily pleasures, aphrodisia is the ethical substance of Greek ethics. Excessiveness is a “lack of self-restraint with regard to pleasure.” Considering that pleasures obtained in aphrodisiac activity are high, one begins to pursue pleasure beyond one’s natural needs that cause the desire for the activity to begin with. This is the problem of intemperance, which is characterized by gluttony, drunkenness, and nymphomania, all of which are excessive performances of otherwise natural and necessary bodily processes. Foucault asserts that “the primary dividing line laid down by moral judgment in the area of sexual behavior was not prescribed by the nature of the act…but by the activity and its quantitative gradations.”
With that said the connection of the Carpocratians to ἀφροδίσια in (2) makes it certain that they are the group in (1) and (3). In other words, when we look at Clement's original language and the line by line analysis I provided of the argument in (2) there can be no doubt that Clement is accusing the Carpocratians of something very specific which carries over into the Letter to Theodore.
Now let's go back to that unmistakable similarity between (1) and (3) insofar as the description of the ritual goes. In (1) we see an apparent scriptural reference to the Agape:
He says accordingly somewhere, "When thou art called to a wedding, recline not on the highest couch; but when thou art called, fall into the lowest place."
Whenever Clement is obscure about a scriptural reference you already know it is going to have major differences with the canonical gospels. The citation most closely resembles Luke 14.8 but notice the variation:
Ὅταν κληθῇς εἰς γάμους, μὴ κατάκεισο εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν, ἀλλ´ ὅταν κληθῇς, εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον ἀνάπιπτε (Paed 2.1)
When thou art called to a wedding, recline not on the highest couch; but when thou art called, fall into the lowest place
ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάμους, μὴ κατακλιθῇς εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν, μήποτε ἐντιμότερος σου ᾖ κεκλημένος ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας ἐρεῖ σοι· δὸς τούτῳ τόπον, καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ μετὰ αἰσχύνης τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον κατέχειν. ἀλλ’ ὅταν κληθῇς πορευθεὶς ἀνάπεσε εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον, ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ κεκληκώς σε ἐρεῖ σοι· φίλε, προσανάβηθι ἀνώτερον· τότε ἔσται σοι δόξα ἐνώπιον πάντων τῶν συνανακειμένων σοι. ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. (Luke 14.8 - 11)
When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the highest couch, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
While there is minor variation in the first half of the citation, the second half is completely different. What makes this all the more interesting is that a very similar citation is used against the heretics of (3):
rather than give up the reputation they have in their sect and the boasted first seat (πρωτοκαθεδρίας) in their churches; on account of which also they eagerly embrace that convivial couch of honour in the falsely so called Agape (δι´ ἣν κἀκείνην τὴν συμποτικὴν [διὰ] τῆς ψευδωνύμου ἀγάπης πρωτοκλισίαν ἀσπάζονται).
While this might seem at first glance to be a reformulation of Matthew 23.6 "... and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others" it seems impossible to believe that two of the three references to the agape in the writings of Clement happen to reinforce the idea of the feast is improperly associated with "a couch of honour." But what is the connection?
The place to start obviously is the fact that Clement's citation in (1) comes from a variant gospel. Clement never says he is citing from Luke (as is his habit) but clearly what follows the variant reading is otherwise identical to what we know. The citation of the material in Paed 2.1 in full reads:
But such entertainments the Lord has not called agapæ. He says accordingly somewhere, “When thou art called to a wedding, recline not on the highest couch; but when thou art called, fall into the lowest place;" [Luke 14.8, 10] and elsewhere, “When thou makest a dinner or a supper;” and again, “But when thou makest an entertainment, call the poor,” [Luke 14.12, 13]. for whose sake chiefly a supper ought to be made. And further, “A certain man made a great supper, and called many.” [Luke 14. 16]. But I perceive whence the specious appellation of suppers flowed: “from the gullets and furious love for suppers”—according to the comic poet. For, in truth, “to many, many things are on account of the supper.” For they have not yet learned that God has provided for His creature (man I mean) food and drink, for sustenance, not for pleasure; since the body derives no advantage from extravagance in viands. For, quite the contrary, those who use the most frugal fare are the strongest and the healthiest, and the noblest; as domestics are healthier and stronger than their masters, and husbandmen than the proprietors; and not only more robust, but wiser, as philosophers are wiser than rich men. For they have not buried the mind beneath food, nor deceived it with pleasures. But love (agape) is in truth celestial food, the banquet of reason. “It beareth all things, endureth all things, hopeth all things. Love never faileth.” [1 Cor. 13. 7, 8]. “Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.” [Luke 14. 15]. But the hardest of all cases is for charity, which faileth not, to be cast from heaven above to the ground into the midst of sauces. And do you imagine that I am thinking of a supper that is to be done away with? “For if,” it is said, “I bestow all my goods, and have not love, I am nothing.” [1 Cor. 13.3]. On this love alone depend the law and the Word; and if “thou shalt love the Lord thy God and thy neighbour,” this is the celestial festival in the heavens. But the earthly is called a supper, as has been shown from Scripture. For the supper is made for love, but the supper is not love (agape); only a proof of mutual and reciprocal kindly feeling.
It is worth noting that Clement's use of 1 Corinthians 13 is implicitly Marcionite (i.e. he seems to infer that the material from the Evangelium and the Apostolikon were referencing the same agape ritual).
It is also interesting to note that a passage from Tertullian implies that the Marcionites interpreted the same gospel passage in the same way as Clement does - i.e. as a 'bare bones' agape, water, bread perhaps salt with little else to the 'meal' component - "you [Marcionites] who interpret the call to this supper as meaning the heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and joyfulness, must remember that even earthly promises of wine and oil and corn and even of citizenship, are no less employed by the Creator as figures of things spiritual." (Against Marcion 4.31)
Yet by far the most intriguing - and undoubtedly controversial - possibility related to this citation is the proximity of the saying to the material cited in the Letter to Theodore in the Diatessaron tradition. I have already noted elsewhere that the second citation from to Theodore (LGM 2) bears an uncanny resemblance to what appears with respect to the story of Zacchaeus in the Diatessaron. Now we should notice the proximity of this saying to the story that introduces LGM 1.
The earliest and most striking reference to this saying is found in Ephrem's Commentary on the Gospel of Concord (Diatessaron) where Ephrem cites supper narrative (Luke 14) as if it immediately preceded Mark 10:32 - 34. The same pattern is still seen in all Diatessaronic text albeit with the subsequent addition of the healing of the ten lepers in Samaria (Luke 17.11 - 19) between what appears to be the two narratives that earliest stood side by side one another. First the Codex Fuldensis:
And he spake a parable unto those which were bidden there, because he saw them choose the places that were in the highest part of the sitting room: When a man invites thee to a feast, do not go and sit at the head of the room; lest there be there a man more honourable than thou, and he that invited you come and say unto thee, Give the place to this man: and thou be ashamed when thou risest and takest another place. But when thou art invited, go and sit last; so that when he that invited thee cometh, he may say unto thee, My friend, go up higher: and thou shalt have praise before all that were invited with thee. For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and every one that abaseth himself shall be exalted.
And he spoke a parable also to them that were invited, marking how they chose the highest seats at the table, saying to them: when thou art invited to a wedding, sit not down in the highest place, lest perhaps one more honourable than thou be invited by him: and he that invited thee and him, come and say to thee: Give this man place. And then thou begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when thou art invited, go, sit down in the lowest place; that when he who invited thee cometh, he may say to thee: Friend, go up higher. Then shalt thou have glory before them that sit at table with thee, because every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted
And he said to him also that had invited him: When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends nor thy brethren nor thy kinsmen nor thy neighbours who are rich; lest perhaps they also invite thee back, and a recompense be made to thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind. And thou shalt be blessed, because they have not wherewith to make thee recompense: for recompense shall be made thee at the resurrection of the just. When one of them that sat at table with him had heard these things, he said to him: Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.
After these things, it was just before the pasch, the festival day of the Jews. And it came to pass, as he was going to Jerusalem, he was passing through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered into a certain town, there met him ten men that were lepers, who stood afar off. And lifted up their voice, saying: Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. When he saw them, he said: Go, shew yourselves to the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were made clean. And one of them, when he saw that he was made clean, went back, with a loud voice glorifying God. And he fell on his face before his feet, giving thanks. And this was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering, said: Were not ten made clean? And where are the nine? There is no one found to return and give glory to God, but this stranger. And he said to him: Arise, go thy way; for thy faith hath made thee whole.
Then taking again the twelve, he said to them: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and all things shall be accomplished which were written by the prophets concerning the Son of man. He shall even be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they shall deliver him to the Gentiles and he shall be mocked and scourged and spit upon and crucified, and the third day shall rise again ...
And the parallel section in the Arabic Diatessaron:
And he said also to him that had invited him, When thou makest a feast a or a banquet, do not invite thy friends, nor even thy brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest haply they also invite thee, and thou have this reward. But when thou makest a feast, invite the poor, and those with withered hand, and the lame, and the blind: and blessed art thou, since they have not the means to reward thee; that thy reward may be at the rising of the righteous. And when one of them that were invited heard that, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.
Jesus answered again in parables, and said, The kingdom of heaven hath been likened to a certain king, which made a feast for his son, and prepared a great banquet, and invited many: and he sent his servants at the time of the feast to inform them that were invited, Everything is made ready for you; come. And they would not come, but began all of them with one voice to make excuse. And the first said unto them, Say to him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go out to see it: I pray thee to release me, for I ask to be excused. And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going to examine them: I pray thee to release me, for I ask to be excused. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. And the king sent also other servants, and said, Say to those that were invited, that my feast is ready, and my oxen and my fatlings are slain, and everything is ready: come to the feast. But they made light of it, and went, one to his field, and another to his merchandise: and the rest took his servants, and entreated them shamefully, and killed them. And one of the servants came, and informed his lord of what had happened. And when the king heard, he became angry, and sent his armies; and they destroyed those murderers, and burned their cities. Then he said to his servants, The feast is prepared, but those that were invited were not worthy. Go out quickly into the markets and into the partings of the ways of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and those with pains, and the lame, and the blind. And the servants did as the king commanded them. And they came, and said unto him, Our lord, we have done all that thou commandedst us, and there is here still room. So the lord said unto his servants, Go out into the roads, and the ways, and the paths, and every one that ye find, invite Arabic, to the feast, and constrain them to enter, till my house is filled. I say unto you, that no one of those people that were invited shall taste of my feast. And those servants went out into the roads, and gathered all that they found, good and bad: and the banquet-house was filled with guests. And the king entered to see those who were seated, and he saw there a man not wearing a festive garment: and he said unto him, My friend, how didst thou come in here not having on festive garments? And he was silent. Then the king said to the servants, Bind his hands and his feet, and put him forth into the outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The called are many; and the chosen, few.
And after that, the time of the feast of unleavened bread of the Jews arrived, and Jesus went out to go to Jerusalem. And as he went in the way, there met him ten persons who were lepers, and stood afar off: and they lifted up their voice, and said, Our Master, Jesus, have mercy upon us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go and shew yourselves unto the priests. And when they went, they were cleansed. And one of them, when he saw himself cleansed, returned, and was praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face before the feet of Jesus, giving him thanks: and this man was a Samaritan. Jesus answered and said, Were not those that were cleansed ten? where then are the nine? Not one of them turned aside to come and praise God, but this man who is of a strange people. He said unto him, Arise, and go thy way; for thy faith hath given thee life.
And while they were going up in the way to Jerusalem, Jesus went in front of them; and they wondered, and followed him fearing. And he took his twelve disciples apart, and began to tell them privately what was about to befall him. And he said unto Arabic, them, We are going up to Jerusalem, and all the things shall be fulfilled that are written in the prophets concerning the Son of man. He shall be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and deliver him to the peoples; and they shall treat him shamefully, and scourge him, and spit in his face, and humble him, and crucify him, and slay him: and on the third day he shall rise. But they understood not one thing of this; but this word was hidden from them, and they did not perceive these things that were addressed to them.
Without getting all the particulars of why I think this, it should be obvious - once we have the Letter to Theodore before us, and given at least its 'superficial' similarity to things said in other 'authentic' Clementine writings - LGM 1 (the initiation of the youth) in Secret Mark was the liturgical basis to the agape ('the wedding') and Luke 14 was likely originally its forshadowing (see the Marcionite interpretation again cited in Tertullian).
And they were in the road going up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.
And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan
I am not saying that either Diatessaronic gospel faithfully preserves the exact original wording of the narrative here but the positioning of Luke 14 relative to LGM 1 is significant. I have already started tthe explanation of why I think this 'LGM 1' is the basis to the agape ritual. As it stands there has to be a reason why Clement cites something like Luke 14 twice in relation to the agape, especially when it has already been established the Carpocratians are meant in all three references.
