Is 'Karinus' a Greek Name or Latin Name?

[Stephan Huller]

[Stephan Huller]

Then if you look at that map you see the island of Cephalonia was just south of Leukas and interestingly a similar transposition of demi-god and early Christian figure seems to have taken place there. From Clement's Third Book of the Stromata:

5(1) The followers of Carpocrates and Epiphanes think that wives should be held in common. 16 It is through them that the greatest ill-repute has accrued to the name of Christ. (2) This Epiphanes, whose writings I actually possess, was Carpocrates’ son. His mother’s name was Alexandria. On his father’s side he was an Alexandrian, on his mother’s he was from Cephallenia. His life lasted only seventeen years. At Same in Cephallenia he has been honored as a god. A shrine of quarried blocks of stone was built and dedicated to him there, together with altars, sacred precincts, and a university. The inhabitants of Cephallenia gather at the shrine at the time of the new moon, and offer sacrifice to Epiphanes to celebrate his apotheosis as if it were his birthday. There are libations, feasts and the singing 17 of hymns. (3) He was educated by his father in the general curriculum and in Platonic philosophy, and taught the knowledge of the Monad, l8 the source of the heresy of the Carpocratians.

6(1) In his work On Righteousness 19 he says, "God’s righteousness is a kind of social equity. 20 There is equity in the way the sky is stretched out in all directions and embraces the whole earth in a circle. The night is equitable in displaying all the stars. From above, God pours out the light of the sun, which is responsible for the day and father of the light, over the earth equally for all those with the power of sight. The gift of sight is common to all. (2) There is no distinction between rich and poor, ruler and ruled, 21 fools and wise, female and male, slave and free. 22 He treats even the irrational animals no differently; on all the beasts he pours out his sunlight equally from above; he ratifies his righteousness to good and bad, so that none can have more than their share or deprive their neighbors so as to have twice as much light as they. 23 (3) The sun draws up 24 from the ground food for all animals alike; his righteousness is shared by all and given to all equally. In this respect it is exactly the same for individual cows and cattle as a whole, individual pigs and pigs as a whole, individual sheep and sheep as a whole, and so on. (4) It is this common shared quality which is revealed as righteousness among them. The same principle of commonality applies to all the species of plants alike in their seeding. Food is available in common to all animals that pasture on the land, and to all equally. It is not regulated by any law, but is there for all, as it were, in unison, by the generous provision of the giver, the 25 one who has authorized it so. This, is his righteousness. 26

7(1) "Matters concerning the production of offspring do not involve any written law either (or it would have been handed down in writing). All beings sow their seeds and produce their offspring on equal terms, possessing an innate common disposition from the hands of righteousness. The author and Father of all gave to all alike on equal terms an eye to enable them to see. He made this dispensation out of his righteousness. He made no distinction between male and female, rational and irrational, no distinction of any kind. He dispensed sight by his grace to all alike by a single ordinance in accordance with the principle of equal sharing. (2) The laws," he goes on, "by their incapacity to punish human ignorance, actually taught illegal behavior. The individualism allowed by the laws cut damagingly at the roots of the universalism of God’s Law." He does not understand the Apostle’s dictum in the words: "It was through the Law that I knew sin." 27 (3) He suggests that "mine" and "yours" came into existence through the laws, so that the earth and possessions were no longer put to common use. 28 The same applies to marriage. (4) "For God has made vines for all in common; they do not deny the sparrow or the thief. So too with corn and the other fruits of the earth. It is transgression of the principle of common sharing and equality which has produced the thief of fruits and domestic animals.

8(1) "So God created everything for humanity in common. He brings the female to the male in common, 29 and joined all animals together in a similar way. In this he showed that righteousness is a combination of community and equity. (2) But those who have been born in this way have denied the commonality that unites births, and say, 30 ‘A man 3l should marry a single wife and stick to her.’ Everyone can share her as the rest of the animals show." (3) After these words, which I quote precisely, he goes on in the same vein to add, in these very words: "With a view to the maintenance of the race he has implanted in the male strong and energetic sexual desire. Law cannot make this disappear, nor can social mores or anything else. It is God’s decree." (4) How can this fellow still be listed in our church members’ register when he openly does away with the Law and the Gospels alike by these words? The former says, "You shall not commit adultery," the latter, "Everyone who looks with lust has already committed adultery." 32 (5) The words found in the Law, "You shall not lust," show that it is one single God who makes his proclamations 33 through the Law, prophets and Gospels. He says, "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife." 34 (6) The Jew’s neighbor is not the Jew, who is a brother of the same spirit. The alternative is that the neighbor is one of another race. How can a person who shares in the same spirit fail to be a neighbor? Abraham is father of Hebrews and gentiles alike. 35

9(1) If the adulteress and her paramour are both punished with death, it is surely clear that the commandment "You shall not lust for your neighbor’s wife" applies to the gentiles, so that anyone who follows the Law in keeping his hands off his neighbor’s wife and his sister may hear directly from the Lord: "But I say to you, you shall not lust." The addition of the pronoun "I" shows that the application of the commandment is more rigidly binding, (2) and that Carpocrates and Epiphanes are battling against God. Epiphanes 36 in that notorious book, I mean 37 On Righteousness, goes on like this, and I quote: (3) "So you must hear the words ‘You shall not lust’ as a joke of the Lawgiver, to which he added the even more ludicrous words ‘for your neighbor’s property.’ The very one who endows human beings with desire to sustain the processes of birth gives orders that it is to be suppressed, though he suppresses it in no other living creature! The words ‘for your neighbor’s wife’ are even more ridiculous since he is forcing public property to become private property."

10(1) These are the doctrines of our noble Carpocratians. They say that these people and some other zealots for the same vicious practices gather for dinner (I could never call their congregation a Christian love-feast), men and women together, and after they have stuffed themselves ("The Cyprian goddess is there when you are full," they say. 38), they knock over the lamps, put out the light that would expose their fornicating righteousness," and couple as they will with any woman they fancy. 39 So in this love-feast they practice commonality. Then by daylight they demand any woman they want in obedience – it would be wrong to say to the Law of God – to the law of Carpocrates. I guess that is the sort of legislation Carpocrates must have established for the copulation of dogs, pigs, and goats. (2) I fancy he has, in fact, misunderstood Plato’s dictum in the Republic that wives are to be held in common by everyone. Plato really meant that before marriage they are to be available to any who intend to ask them to marry, just as the theatre is open to all spectators; but that once a woman has married she belongs to the particular man who secured her first and is no longer held in common by everyone. 40

11(1) Xanthus in his book entitled the Works of the Magi says, "The Magi think 4l it right to have sexual union with their mothers, daughters and sisters. The women are held in common by mutual agreement, not forcibly or secretively, when one man wants to marry another’s wife." 42 (2) I fancy Jude was speaking prophetically of these and similar sects in his letter when he wrote: "So too with these people caught up in their dreams" who do not set upon the truth with their eyes fully open, down to "pompous phrases pour from their mouth." 43

9. 2 Cor 11.13-15.

10. The Stoics believed in a life in accordance with nature – homologia was a technical term for this (see SVF 3.11, Cicero, On the Highest Goods 3.6.21); Clement uses the word in relation to God.

11. See Aristotle, Nichomachaean Ethics 7.4.1146 B 9 ff.

12. See Wis 8.21.

13. Galen 6.2.

14. 1 Cor 10.12.

15. 1 Cor 7.9.

16. This whole account is packed with difficulty: Celsus (C. 170 A.D.), a pagan philosopher attacking Christianity, wrote of "Harpocratians who follow Salome" (see Origen, Against Celsus 5.62-4); Carpocratians are mentioned in Hegesippus, Memoirs (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.22.5); Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.25) gives a summary of Carpocrates’ doctrine: The world was created by lower angels. Jesus through "recollection" of the divine was able to evade their power and others can do the same by revealed knowledge. Once they are saved they can live as they will, morality being a human convention (Irenaeus includes details of initiation, including branding on the ear, and mentions a woman leader named Marcellina). Harpocrates was the Egyptian god Horus; Epiphanes means ‘god incarnate’; the festival on Cephallenia, one of the Ionian islands to the west of Greece, sounds like a new moon festival; Alexandria in Cephallenia could well be a divine figure named after the city, but Clement does seem to know of an Epiphanes who wrote a book and died at seventeen, although perhaps he has wrongly identified this lad with a divine figure in Same; the Greeks believed, as is found in Cynic and Stoic utopias, that community of wives was practiced by primitive peoples.

17. Reading š*@<J"4 for 8X(@<J"4 after Epiphanius.

18. The Monad alone existed but was lonely; an Idea emanated from it, and from their intercourse emerged the universe.

19. Henry Chadwick (Alexandrian Christianity, LCC 2.25) writes, "The work merely consists of the scribblings of an intelligent but nasty-minded adolescent of somewhat pornographic tendencies."

20. See Plato, Definitions 411 E.

21. Reading *­:@< ³ with Stählin.

22. Note that these are divisions said by Paul to be done away within Christ (see Gal 3.28; Col. 3.11).

23. Compare Matt 5.45.

24. Reading •<"JX88"4 with Sylburg.

25. Adding P"4 with Hiller.

26. Some editors treat this as a gloss, perhaps rightly.

27. Rom 7.7.

28. Omitting P@4<V J, (?D which is out of place.

29. Epiphanes passes from the meaning "universal" to "as a common possession."

30. Reading nVF4< with Hilgenfeld.

31. Reading Ó with Sylburg for ,Æ.

32. Exod 20.13; Matt 5.28.

33. I take this to be middle.

34. Exod 20.17.

35. Gen 17.5; Rom 4.16.

36. Adding ÓH with Wilaniowitz.

37. Reading 8X(T with Sylburg for 8X(T<.

38. From Euripides, fr. 895 N (see Athenaeus, 6.270 C), reading accordingly J@4 5bBD4H Á; the Cyprian goddess is Aphrodite, the goddess of sexual love.

39. This was a charge brought against ordinary Christians (e.g., Origen, Against Celsus 6.40) who practiced remarkable fellowship between men and women, meeting together behind closed doors.

[DCHindley]

Stephen,

Is this all just a parody of "Leucius Charinus"?

DCH

[Stephan Huller]

It certainly started as parody, now I am not so sure. Did the Catholic portrait of 'Paul' via 'Luke' develop from some mythical association with the apostle as a second Odysseus. Probably not, but I find the question at least deserving of further inquiry:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... &aid=23545

Acts 27–28 frequently points to the shipwrecks of Odysseus in Odyssey Books 5 and 12, the second of which the hero narrates in the first person. The shipwrecks of Odysseus and Paul share nautical images and vocabulary, the appearance of a goddess or angel assuring safety, the riding of planks, the arrival of the hero on an island among hospitable strangers, the mistaking of the hero as a god, and the sending of him on his way. Luke's intention in relating Paul's shipwreck to those of Odysseus was to exalt Paul and his God by comparison.

Unlike Pete and some here at the forum I think there was something historical at the bottom of early Christianity. The only question for me is whether 'mythicism' was layered over something far more dangerous.

[Stephan Huller]

I've always been fascinated by the strangeness of the name Λουκάς. Is it a shortened form of Lucius? Is it Latin? Is it Greek? I don't know. But a name so distinctive as this becoming the dividing line between the Marcionites and the Catholics is extremely interesting. I mean, basically the situation was like this. The situation is akin to the Catholics saying to the Marcionites 'you know very well that your anonymous gospel was really written by someone named Pogba' (sorry for the soccer reference, I hope it wasn't distracting for a mostly American audience). In other words, the idea is that a man with an extremely distinctive name is alleged to have written the text which the Marcionites said was the original gospel but oddly which the Catholic tradition lays out as a clearly secondary text (cf. Luke 1:1). So not only were the Marcionites accused of being deliberately deceptive about their knowledge of the 'real author' (i.e. the man with the extremely distinctive name Λουκάς) but on top of that the text associated with this man with a clearly distinctive name was not as they claimed - i.e. a primary source for the gospel - but an overtly secondary or even tertiary text.

This is incredible and I think we could spend our lives banging our heads against a rock trying to bridge the chasm that exists between the two sides on this question. Of course the correct answer is that the Catholics were lying and the Marcionites were telling the truth. Why would someone pretend that a secondary or tertiary text was the original gospel and (a) remove the text's original association with Acts (b) cover up the 'real author' the man with the distinctive name and (c) delete a whole bunch of things from that text to make it align with their supposedly 'secondary' or 'tertiary' theological beliefs? You could just make up a fucking text and call it the gospel of Marcion. You or I could do that right now.

The more likely scenario as I have said many times here is that the Catholics took an anonymous or secret private gospel added and deleted material to make this heretical composition accorded with a secondary or tertiary theological belief system only recently invented and ultimately added the reference to Λουκάς as its author. This far many of us have gotten. This is kind of the acknowledged assumption of many smart people (a group with which I clearly don't belong). But now, if that much is conceded then how did the name Λουκάς get developed? I don't know that. I can't answer that. But it is intriguing at least that if Λουκάς (a name we now use as a kind of pseudonym for the real author) somehow fused Acts and this adulterated Marcionite canon together (the former to somehow 'explain' the shadowy person of 'Paul') that Paul emerges as something of an Odysseus.

So if we return to the manner in which this Λουκάς was introduced to the world it is not surprising to see that he becomes something of a doppelganger of the very apostle he testifies for:

Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself [Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit a Paulo, et co- operarius ejus in Evangelio, ipse facit manifestum, non glorians, sed ab ipsa productus veritate] ... [series of citations from Acts follow and then] As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles ... [citation] ... But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?

But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest ... [series of citations from Luke's writings] ... Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word." Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel ... [series of citations from Luke's writings] ... There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread.

It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth. And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].

But again, we allege the same against those who do not recognise Paul as an apostle: that they should either reject the other words of the Gospel which we have come to know through Luke alone, and not make use of them; or else, if they do receive all these, they must necessarily admit also that testimony concerning Paul, when he (Luke) tells us that the Lord spoke at first to him from heaven ... [citation from Luke's writing] ... Those, therefore, who do not accept of him [as a teacher], who was chosen by God for this purpose, that he might boldly bear His name, as being sent to the forementioned nations, do despise the election of God, and separate themselves from the company of the apostles. For neither can they contend that Paul was no apostle, when he was chosen for this purpose; nor can they prove Luke guilty of falsehood, when he proclaims the truth to us with all diligence. It may be, indeed, that it was with this view that God set forth very many Gospel truths, through Luke's instrumentality, which all should esteem it necessary to use, in order that all persons, following his subsequent testimony, which treats upon the acts and the doctrine of the apostles, and holding the unadulterated rule of truth, may be saved. His testimony, therefore, is true, and the doctrine of the apostles is open and stedfast, holding nothing in reserve; nor did they teach one set of doctrines in private, and another in public.

It is almost as if there is was an apostle - all Christians in the second century agreed with that - but who or what he was the subject of much dispute. The Catholics put forward Luke as a kind of 'second apostle' (although never explicitly so called) who knew the identity of the first apostle better than anyone because he was almost something like his twin. But notice also that things associated with the first apostle - i.e. gospel writing - are now deliberately stripped away and associated with the latter. Could it be that our Catholic portrait of the 'first apostle' has been completely shaped by his false association with Λουκάς? In other words he takes this Odysseus like quality traveling across the world madly trying to 'get home' to heaven etc? I don't know.

But "quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit a Paulo" is a very powerful statement. Irenaeus speaks of the Son and the Father as being similarly inseparabilis. His monarchian tendencies argue in fact that when Moses spoke with the Son in the burning bush, the Father was there with him at the very same time. Later Church Fathers consistently speak about the inseparable and identical nature "naturae inseparabilis adque indissirnilis unitatem]”of the Father and the Son" (Hilary 7.31). I don't think the reference here is accidental. Some figure called Lukas helped clarify the person of Paul in the way that the Son did for the Father. Of that I am absolutely sure - i.e. that this invented figure helped dislodge the Marcionite understanding of who Paul was. The only question is that whether Odysseus was originally represented by Λουκάς by way of Λευκάς. Still seems a bit of stretch. But what else do we have to explain the sudden invention of a figure named Λουκάς who helps us understand the mysterious repose and silence surrounding the man who invented Christianity and its first sacred books?

I wonder how Λευκάς was rendered into Latin ...

[Stephan Huller]

Actually I just noticed that I removed a critical passage from Irenaeus's bold statement about the relationship of Luke and Paul:

Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself [Quoniam autem is Lucas inseparabilis fuit a Paulo, et co- operarius ejus in Evangelio, ipse facit manifestum, non glorians, sed ab ipsa productus veritate] For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;" and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;" and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, "But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days." And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there, how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. [Unde ostendit quod semper junctus ei et inseparabilis fuerit ab eo] And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you." But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul [nunquam Paulo adjuncti fuerunt], boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?

In other words, it is not just that Luke is described as being 'inseparable' from the Father, Paul (cf. 1 Cor 4:15) but that he is also 'always joined' to him. This sounds increasingly like Luke and Paul's relationship as reflective of the divine Father and Son.

[MrMacSon]

In other words, it is not just that Luke is described as being 'inseparable' from the Father, Paul (cf. 1 Cor 4:15) but that he is also 'always joined' to him. This sounds increasingly like Luke and Paul's relationship as reflective of the divine Father and Son.

that seems to follow the theme of brothers-in-arms - a common catch-cry of the times(?)

[Stephan Huller]

No, the way I see it - at least for today - is that the Catholics needed some way to justify the introduction of Luke as more authoritative than the Marcionite gospel. But how do you do this? No one mentions 'Luke' or 'the gospel of Luke' before Irenaeus at the end of the second century. But we have to imagine that Irenaeus is holding the text in his hand saying 'this is a truer representation of the beliefs of Paul than THAT other text.'

How did he lay out his argument?

Clearly Luke was not original (for the reasons outlined above). But the question comes down to - who was the audience he was appealing his message to? I see signs in his writings that many of the arguments have a kind of 'Valentinian-like' sensibility about them. Why are there 'four' gospels? Irenaeus uses Valentinian-like arguments about the correctness of the number 4. There are other examples. But the idea that SINCE the Logos was 'always joined to' the Father and was 'inseperable' from him we can imagine that the argument was laid out that it was a mirror of what was happening in the heavens. In other words, Luke and Paul were like the Son and the Hidden Father. We already know Paul identified himself as 'the Father' of his group (1 Cor 4:15). Tertullian tells us that the identity of Paul was hidden in the Marcionite community. So now we have the idea that the original author of 'the Gospel' - viz. Luke - also wrote Acts and that (this is the most important) kept it from the Church until Irenaeus liberated it.

Where did he liberate it from? I suspect a church vault in Rome (or so he claimed) but the details are hazy.

[Stephan Huller]

This summary of Irenaeus's thinking about the inseparable nature of the Father and Son is useful for readers at the forum:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rVCVly ... CCkQ6AEwBQ

[Stephan Huller]

There is something to this Lefkas/Odysseus connection. It is worth noting that he leads the Cephalonians into battle in Book Two:

Ulysses led the brave Cephallenians, who held Ithaca, Neritum with its forests, Crocylea, rugged Aegilips, Samos and Zacynthus, with the mainland also that was over against the islands. These were led by Ulysses, peer of Jove in counsel, and with him there came twelve ships.

And again in Book Three:

Agamemnon went his way rejoicing, and presently found Menestheus, son of Peteos, tarrying in his place, and with him were the Athenians loud of tongue in battle. Near him also tarried cunning Ulysses, with his sturdy Cephallenians round him; they had not yet heard the battle-cry, for the ranks of Trojans and Achaeans had only just begun to move, so they were standing still, waiting for some other columns of the Achaeans to attack the Trojans and begin the fighting.

And then in Book Four the first display of valor on the battlefield for Odysseus occurs when he becomes enraged when his companion Leucius falls in battle:

Thereon Antiphus of the gleaming corslet, son of Priam, hurled a spear at Ajax from amid the crowd and missed him, but he hit Leucus, the brave comrade of Ulysses, in the groin, as he was dragging the body of Simoeisius over to the other side; so he fell upon the body and loosed his hold upon it. Ulysses was furious when he saw Leucus slain, and strode in full armour through the front ranks till he was quite close; then he glared round about him and took aim, and the Trojans fell back as he did so. His dart was not sped in vain, for it struck Democoon, the bastard son of Priam, who had come to him from Abydos, where he had charge of his father's mares. Ulysses, infuriated by the death of his comrade, hit him with his spear on one temple, and the bronze point came through on the other side of his forehead. Thereon darkness veiled his eyes, and his armour rang rattling round him as he fell heavily to the ground. Hector, and they that were in front, then gave round while the Argives raised a shout and drew off the dead, pressing further forward as they did so. But Apollo looked down from Pergamus and called aloud to the Trojans, for he was displeased. "Trojans," he cried, "rush on the foe, and do not let yourselves be thus beaten by the Argives. Their skins are not stone nor iron that when hit them you do them no harm. Moreover, Achilles, the son of lovely Thetis, is not fighting, but is nursing his anger at the ships."

This is how we are introduced to Odysseus in the Iliad.