Was Marcion Really a 'Ship-Master' or was Irenaeus Taking Over a Platonic Metaphor?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Was Marcion Really a 'Ship-Master' or was Irenaeus Taking Over a Platonic Metaphor?

Post by Secret Alias »

Marcion we know for a ship-master, not a king or an emperor. [Against Marcion 1.18]
Picture a shipmaster ( in height and strength surpassing all others on the ship, [488b] but who is slightly deaf6 and of similarly impaired vision, and whose knowledge of navigation is on a par with7 his sight and hearing. Conceive the sailors to be wrangling with one another for control of the helm, each claiming that it is his right to steer though he has never learned the art and cannot point out his teacher8 or any time when he studied it. And what is more, they affirm that it cannot be taught at all,9 but they are ready to make mincemeat of anyone10 who says that it can be taught, [488c] and meanwhile they are always clustered about11 the shipmaster importuning him and sticking at nothing12 to induce him to turn over the helm to them. And sometimes, if they fail and others get his ear, they put the others to death or cast them out13 from the ship, and then, after binding14 and stupefying the worthy shipmaster15 with mandragora or intoxication or otherwise, they take command of the ship, consume its stores and, drinking and feasting, make such a voyage16 of it as is to be expected17 from such, and as if that were not enough, they praise and celebrate as a navigator, [488d] a pilot, a master of shipcraft, the man who is most cunning to lend a hand18 in persuading or constraining the shipmaster to let them rule,19 while the man who lacks this craft20 they censure as useless. They have no suspicions21 that the true pilot must give his attention22 to the time of the year, the seasons, the sky, the winds, the stars, and all that pertains to his art if he is to be a true ruler of a ship, and that he does not believe that there is any art or science of seizing the helm23 [488e] with or without the consent of others, or any possibility of mastering this alleged art24 and the practice of it at the same time with the science of navigation. With such goings-on aboard ship do you not think that the real pilot would in very deed25 be called a star-gazer, an idle babbler, [489a] a useless fellow, by the sailors in ships managed after this fashion?” “Quite so,” said Adeimantus. “You take my meaning, I presume, and do not require us to put the comparison to the proof1 and show that the condition2 we have described is the exact counterpart of the relation of the state to the true philosophers.” “It is indeed,” he said. “To begin with, then, teach this parable3 to the man who is surprised that philosophers are not honored in our cities, and try to convince him that it would be far more surprising [489b] if they were honored.” “I will teach him,”4 he said. “And say to him further: You are right in affirming that the finest spirit among the philosophers are of no service to the multitude. But bid him blame for this uselessness,5 not the finer spirits, but those who do not know how to make use of them. For it is not the natural6 course of things that the pilot should beg the sailors to be ruled by him or that wise men should go to the doors of the rich.7 The author of that epigram8 was a liar. But the true nature of things is that whether the sick man be rich or poor he must needs go to the door of the physician, [489c] and everyone who needs to be governed9 to the door of the man who knows how to govern, not that the ruler should implore his natural subjects to let themselves be ruled, if he is really good for anything.10 But you will make no mistake in likening our present political rulers to the sort of sailors we are just describing, and those whom these call useless and star-gazing ideologists to the true pilots.” “Just so,” he said. “Hence, and under these conditions, we cannot expect that the noblest pursuit should be highly esteemed by those whose way of life is quite the contrary. [489d] But far the greatest and chief disparagement of philosophy is brought upon it by the pretenders11 to that way of life, those whom you had in mind when you affirmed that the accuser of philosophy says that the majority of her followers12 are rascals and the better sort useless, while I admitted13 that what you said was true. Is not that so?” “Yes.”Republic, 488 - 489, translated by G. Ferrari.
Given that only philosophers can have knowledge, they are clearly the ones best able to grasp what is good for the city, and so are in the best position to know how to run and govern the city. If we only knew that they were virtuous—or at least not inferior to others in virtue—then, Socrates’s friends agree, we could be sure that they are the ones most fit to rule. Luckily, we do know that philosophers are superior in virtue to everyone else. A philosopher loves truth more than anything else (“philosopher” means “lover of truth or wisdom”); his entire soul strives after truth. This means that the rational part of his soul must rule, which means that his soul is just.


Adeimantus remains unconvinced. None of the philosophers he has ever known have been like Socrates is describing. Most philosophers are useless, and those that are not useless tend to be vicious. Socrates, surprisingly, agrees with Adeimantus’s condemnation of the contemporary philosopher, but he argues that the current crop of philosophers have not been raised in the right way. Men born with the philosophical nature—courageous, high-minded, quick learners, with faculties of memory—are quickly preyed upon by family and friends, who hope to benefit from their natural gifts. They are encouraged to enter politics in order to win money and power by their parasitic family and friends. So they are inevitably led away from the philosophical life. In place of the natural philosophers who are diverted away from philosophy and corrupted, other people who lack the right philosophical nature, rush in to fill the gap and become philosophers when they have no right to be. These people are vicious.

The few who are good philosophers (those whose natures were somehow not corrupted, either because they were in exile, lived in a small city, were in bad health, or by some other circumstance) are considered useless because society has become antithetical to correct ideals. He compares the situation to a ship on which the ship owner is hard of hearing, has poor vision, and lacks sea-faring skills. All of the sailors on the ship quarrel over who should be captain, though they know nothing about navigation. In lieu of any skill, they make use of brute force and clever tricks to get the ship owner to choose them as captain. Whoever is successful at persuading the ship owner to choose him is called a “navigator,” a “captain,” and “one who knows ships.” Anyone else is called “useless.” These sailors have no idea that there is a craft of navigation, or any knowledge to master in order to steer ships. In this scenario, Socrates points out, the true captain—the man who knows the craft of navigation—would be called a useless stargazer. The current situation in Athens is analogous: no one has any idea that there is real knowledge to be had, a craft to living. Instead, everyone tries to get ahead by clever, often unjust, tricks. Those few good philosophers who turn their sights toward the Forms and truly know things are deemed useless.

All that we need to make our city possible, Socrates concludes, is one such philosopher-king—one person with the right nature who is educated in the right way and comes to grasp the Forms. This, he believes, is not all that impossible.
Is
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Was Marcion Really a 'Ship-Master' or was Irenaeus Taking Over a Platonic Metaphor?

Post by Stuart »

Serious questions, want your briefest reply (a couple sentences on why, possibly a source name to reference ... I have the ability to look it up myself). I don't plan to respond to your answers, just want to understand why you assign different monikers to works, and why it matters.

1) Why do you say Irenaeuas wrote AM?

2) What is special about him? or put another way, Why does it matter what name we assign the work?

3) Do you assign any truth to the legend of this church father? If so why? or put another way, why is it more reliable than other legend stories?
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Marcion Really a 'Ship-Master' or was Irenaeus Taking Over a Platonic Metaphor?

Post by Secret Alias »

very tired. will get to these tonight and tomorrow

1. a Irenaeus says he wrote something like AM
b AM has a Greek "underbelly" (terminology etc)
c T(ertullian) stole and passed off other people's works
d T stole and passed off I(renaeus)
e AM begins by saying stolen and passed off
f I stole and passed off J(Justin Martyr) [AH = syntagma]
g the anomalies in AM 4 are best explained as going back to a gospel harmony
h if anomalies in AM 4 are best explained as going back to a gospel harmony the Lukan corruption hypothesis (LCH) is a later addition
i if the Lukan corruption hypothesis (LCH) in AM is a later addition it was probably added between the time of early editions of AH used by the Philosophumena which identify Irenaeus authorship of AH but no chapter 27 (the Marcion section where the LCH now appears)
j if the Philosophumena could use AH but attribute Mark as the gospel of Marcion then the LCH is a late addition to AH
k if the LCH is a late addition to AH then the LCH is a late addition to Irenaeus's worldview. He likely invented L(uke) for a specifically anti-Marcionite purpose
l if LCH is late and M(arcion) is early it is reasonable to suppose that Justin's harmony based proto-AM text wasn't an isolated phenomenon. Rhodo the student of Tatian likely argued against M from a H(armony)G(ospel). So too Theophilus and we know Ephrem did.
m if AM 4 is a reworked version of J's HG-based commentary to reflect an LCH-based it was clearly written in Greek by I and translated into Latin by T
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Was Marcion Really a 'Ship-Master' or was Irenaeus Taking Over a Platonic Metaphor?

Post by Secret Alias »

2 I think the AM betrays knowledge of a (condemned) POV probably Marcionite which held that Marcion wrote the gospel which was identified by Marcionites as (the) Apostolic or part of a canon called (the) Apostolic which included a gospel and Antitheses which really = an early form of the Pauline letters. The reason AM retains the name "Antitheses" for them was because J wrote ur-AM 4 and did not accept the Pauline corpus even in this early form. He presumed that Marcion had authored the heretical gospel and what we call "the letters of Paul" and rejected both accordingly.

I think a critical examination of AM and other Irenaean texts can tell us about the formation of orthodox Christianity. I don't think these were surviving remnants of some isolated N African community. These are Roman documents arguing to support a nascent form of our orthodox community. They are properly defined as late second not early third century texts albeit now largely and loosely translated in another language, another place and at another time.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was Marcion Really a 'Ship-Master' or was Irenaeus Taking Over a Platonic Metaphor?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

If I may briefly interject. I think the reason for calling Marcion a ship master was to...

1) Connect him to Odysseus and Noah
2) Underly his use of astrology

So the ship master claim from Rhodo is only a misremembering of these earlier accusations. The Against Heresies editor wasn't aware of the source of the tradition and took it as literal.
Post Reply