Homeric Allusions in Against Marcion

[Secret Alias]

And it is important to read the reference to the Homeric 'golden rope' in the context of the Platonic interpretation of the same material - viz. harmony. This allegorical reading must have been very prevalent in antiquity it was still influential in the 16th century in the reading of this passage. Basically what Plato argued is that the rope wasn't 'strife' but a 'harmony.' Let's read the passage in Plato:

Socrates: Need I speak further of such things as stagnation in air and water, where stillness causes corruption and decay, when motion would keep things fresh, or to complete the argument, press into service that 'golden rope' in Homer, proving that he means by it nothing more nor less than the sun, and signifies that so long as the heavens and the sun continue to move round, all things in heaven and earth are kept going, whereas if they were bound down and brought to a standstill, all things would be destroyed and the world, as they say, turned upside down?

Remember there was considerable controversy over the exact meaning of the Homeric term πεῖραρ. 'Rope' seemed a natural reading but exegetes puzzled over the range of meanings which included 'boundary' or 'end.'

To this end it is interesting that just as Plato argued that 'the golden rope' was really a harmony the same line of reasoning is developed in Against Marcion 4. The book opens:

Besides that, to work up credence for it [gospel] he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites, a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one instrument (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses.

The puzzling use of 'instrumentum' in Tertullian has never been explained. But interestingly one of the meanings of πεῖραρ is 'instrument':

πεῖραρ (also πεῖρας , v. infr. 1.5), α^τος, τό, Ep., Ion., and Lyr. form of πέρας,
A.end, limit, “οὐδ᾽ εἴ κε τὰ νείατα πείραθ᾽ ἵκηαι γαίης καὶ πόντοιο” Il. 8.478, cf. Od. 5.463, 11.13.
2. completion, οὐ γάρ πω πάντων ἐπὶ πείρατ᾽ ἀέλων ἤλθομεν the end of our labours, 23.248.
3. achievement, execution, mode or means of execution, “ᾧ παιδὶ ἑκάστου πείρατ᾽ ἔειπε” Il.23.350 ; “πείρατ᾽ ἀέθλων δείκνυεν” Pi. P.4.220 ; εἰ δέ τις ἀνδρῶν ἡμετέρης τέχνης πείρατά φησιν ἔχειν says he possesses the secret ( = power of execution) of my art, Zeuxisin PLG2.318, cf. IG 3.399 ; νίκης πείρατ᾽ ἔχονται ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖσι the achievement of victory is dependent on the gods, Il. 7.102 ; “νίκης ἐν θεοῖσι πείρατα” Archil. 55.
4. final decision, verdict, “ἐπὶ ἴστορι πεῖραρ ἑλέσθαι” Il.18.501.
5. doom, “ἐκφυγέειν μέγα π. ὀϊζύος” Od.5.289 ; “ὥς κεν θᾶσσον ὀλέθρου πείραθ᾽ ἵκηαι” Il.6.143 ; “πεῖρας θανάτου” Pi.O.2.31.
II. instrument, tool, “ἦλθε δὲ χαλκεὺς ὅπλ᾽ ἐν χερσὶν ἔχων χαλκήϊα, πείρατα τέχνης, ἄκμονά τε σφῦράν τ᾽ εὐποίητόν τε πυράγρην” Od.3.433, cf. Sch. Dad loc.
2. esp. tackle, rope, “δησάντων σ᾽. . ὀρθὸν ἐν ἱστοπέδῃ, ἐκ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ πείρατ᾽ ἀνήφθω” Od.12.51 ; “οὐδ᾽ ἔτι δεσμά σ᾽ ἔρυκε, λύοντο δὲ πείρατα πάντα” h.Ap. 129 : metaph., “πτολέμοιο πεῖραρ . . τάνυσσαν” Il.13.359 : “Τρώεσσιν ὀλέθρου πείρατ᾽ ἐφῆπται” 7.402 ; “πᾶσιν ὀλέθρου πείρατ᾽ ἐφῆπτο” Od. 22.33 ; “καιρὸν εἰ φθέγξαιο, πολλῶν πείρατα συντανύσαις ἐν βραχεῖ” Pi.P.1.81. (περ-Fṛ-, περ-Fṇ-τ-, cogn. with πείρω, πόρος.)

Could this be the clue to solve the mystery of the over-arching point of the book? Namely that Marcion is arguing for two πείρατα - one for the gospel and another for the law - whereas the correct understanding according to the author is that there is one πεῖραρ which 'harmonizes' between the tensions in the two texts.

[Secret Alias]

As such the 'rope of contention' might originally have been referenced by the Greek Platonist author the 'instrument of contention' and translated as 'rope.' Notice in the Odyssey πείρατα τέχνης, the instruments of his art, i. e, the tools with which he wrought. πείρατα is in apposition with όπλα. Note this discussion:

τοὶ δ’ ἔριδος κρατερῆς καὶ ὁμοιΐου πτολέμοιο
πεῖραρ ἐπαλλάξαντες ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροισι τάνυσσαν
ἄρρηκτόν τ’ ἄλυτόν τε, τὸ πολλῶν γούνατ’ ἔλυσεν.
Ν 358–360

The end of strong strife and leveling war
alternating it over both [camps] they tensed,
unbreakable, impossible to undo, which undid the knees of many.

This passage was already a crux in ancient times and the attempts to solve it are numerous.[286] Space prevents me from entering into a detailed exegesis here. I will only make the interpretive choices necessary for my present argument, which focuses on the word ἐπαλλάσσω. Homeric parallels and context show that the subject τοί must be Zeus and Poseidon (the plural can stand for the expected dual τώ).[287] This identification is confirmed by ἀμφοτέροισι; had τοί stood for the warring camps (Krates’ reading), this would privilege the alternative ἀλλήλοισι, apparently reported as a variant by Aristarkhos.[288] πεῖραρ is used metaphorically for the instrument that applies ‘strife’ and ‘war’ to both camps[289] and it is effectively a synonym of τέλος (Υ 101; cf. Β 121–122 Γ 291 Π 630). That it is conceived as a rope that effects conflict is clear from the adjectives ἄρρηκτον and ἄλυτον at Ν 360. The main verb τάνυσσαν conveys the tension of war and strife as it is wielded by the rival gods. It suggests the tensing of a bowstring (Δ 124) and is eminently suitable for a rope pulled in opposite directions. τείνω and τανύω are even used directly with ἔρις (Ξ 389 Π 662), πτόλεμος (Μ 436 Ο 413), μάχη (Μ 436 Λ 336 Ο 413), and πόνος (Ρ 400–401).

To this end, I am beginning to suspect that we are uncovering a much greater context for the strange phrase in Tertullian. It reaches down into the even more unusual use of 'instrumentum' in Latin. The author was a Platonist and likely writing for a Platonic audience which makes sense given the prevalence of philosophy in early Christianity of the time.

[Secret Alias]

One more example. Book 22.41, Odysseus tells the suitors that they're done for:

νῦν ὑμῖν καὶ πᾶσιν ὀλέθρου πείρατ᾽ ἐφῆπται.

πεῖραρ: "end/limit/ boundary", "instrument", "rope/ tackle": the tying up of the the suitors' story, & death as the end of their rope. Plus it alliterates.

Lattimore:

"Now upon all of you the terms of destruction are fastened".

Has tying/ fastening metaphor; makes it sound political, like a treaty. Doesn't seem scary enough.

Fagles:

"Now all your necks are in the noose -- your doom is sealed!"

Fagles adds the "necks", and then adds a totally different metaphor ("sealed"). As usual, he likes to expand. This would be a great line for The Hooded Claw or other cartoon super-villain.

Wilson:

"Now you are trapped inside the snares of death".

I liked "snares" because it interweaves the suitors's slaughter with the rope that kills the bird-like slave girls later in 22. Literal and metaphorical snares & traps. Plus alliteration (inside/ snares)

Fitzgerald:

"Your last hour has come. You die in blood".

A totally different metaphor; you might wonder whether this is really a translation as opposed to imitation. The last hour and the blood are nowhere in the Greek.

Tertullian might have translated it:

"Now upon all of you the instruments of destruction are fastened".

[Secret Alias]

When we go back to Against Marcion and substitute 'instrumentum' the Homeric sense of the passage shines through:

Besides that, to work up credence for it he has contrived a sort of dowry, a work entitled Antitheses because of its juxtaposition of opposites,
a work strained into making such a division between the Law and the Gospel as thereby to make two separate gods, opposite to each other, one belonging to one πεῖραρ (or, as it is more usual to say, testament), one to the other, and thus lend its patronage to faith in another gospel, that according to the Antitheses. Now I might have demolished those antitheses by a specially directed hand-to-hand attack, taking each of the statements of the man of Pontus one by one, except that it was much more convenient to refute them both in and along with that gospel which they serve

Notice the 'hand to hand' combat reference which always seemed out of place. Then again later:

Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non Iudaici sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur. Constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso domino sit impositum.

You have there my short and sharp answer to the Antitheses. I pass on next to show how his gospel—certainly not Judaic but Pontic—is in places adulterated: and this shall form the basis of my order of approach. I lay it down to begin with that the πείρατα of the gospel have the apostles for their authors, and that this task of promulgating the gospel was imposed upon them by our Lord himself.

ut et si sub ipsius Pauli nomine evangelium Marcion intulisset, non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum.

so that even if Marcion had introduced his gospel under the name of Paul in person, that one single πεῖραρ would not be adequate for our faith, if destitute of the support of his predecessors.

Si vero apostoli quidem integrum evangelium contulerunt, de sola convictus inaequalitate reprehensi, pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt, et inde sunt nostra digesta, quod erit germanum illud apostolorum instrumentum quod adulteros passum est,1 quod Paulum
illuminavit et ab eo Lucam? Aut si tam funditus deletum est, ut cataclysmo quodam, ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratumiam ergo nec Marcion habet verum. [

If however the gospel which the apostles compared with Paul's was beyond reproach, and they were rebuked only for inconsistency of conduct, and yet false apostles have falsified the truth of their gospels, and from them our copies are derived, what can have become of that genuine apostles' πεῖραρ which has suffered from adulterators—that which gave light to Paul, and from him to Luke? Or if it has been completely destroyed, so wiped out by a flood of falsifiers as though by some deluge, then not even Marcion has a true one.

What I am moving toward is the idea that the fourfold gospel hung on a notion of 'harmony' related to these instrumenti

[davidmartin]

whats the relationship between Marcion's antithesis, and Simon Magus's supposed work the Sermons of the refuter?
BTW Some of those Sermons may, I stress may, be extant according to Mead who quotes some
"God willed that Adam should not eat of that tree; but he did eat; he, therefore, did not remain as God willed him to remain: it results, therefore, that the maker of Adam was impotent."

If the Magus had written a work, almost identical to Marcion's, why wouldn't the church fathers have mentioned it, excellent ammunition against Marcion - huh? I doubt Simon Magus ever wrote such a work

what also of the source of Simonian theology in the Clementine Recognitions?
Wouldn't that be better understood as Marcionite as well?