gstafleu

We have discussed the following passage before:
As Earl Doherty has pointed out, this can be read as the whole Jesus episode including the crucifixion taking place "before time began" (well, actually that is simply what it says), which of course means that said Jesus was not toddling around Galilee around the time of Pilate.

Here I want to strengthen that point, using a passage from Apuleius' (c. AD 123/125-c. AD 180) Golden Ass (or Metamorphoses, as it is also called). I will use the translation Apuleius The Golden Ass by P.G. Walsh.

Apuleius has just described the performance of a play depicting the scene where Paris hands the golden apple to Venus (which is what started the Trojan war). Apuleius describes the moment as follows:
Apuleius then takes the opportunity to address his readers with some barbed remarks about the Roman judicial system (he had at one point to defend himself in court against a set of spurious charges (of "sorcery" of all things), perhaps that is behind this):
I have bolded the interesting bit: Apuleius places the myth "when the world began," in other words way way back in time. We can take this as an indication that in the time of Apuleius (second Century CE) it was not unusual to place myths as having happened at the beginning of the world/time.

This means we now have reinforcement for the idea, gained from 2 Timothy 1, that at least some epistle writers pictured the Jesus episode as mythical occurrence at the beginning of time, a la Paris and Venus/Aphrodite, and not as a recent historical event. That, in turn, reinforces the idea that the idea of Jesus started as a myth, any "historical" aspects being attached later.

(For Latinists, you can look up the Latin Golden Ass here, the "when the world began" bit being, I think, "rerum exordio". The Greek for "before time began" in 2 Timothy 1 is "προ χρονων αιωνιων".)

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

Would you be so kind, please, as to tell us not only which of these Greek words represents the verb "began", but what (and whose) action the phrase προ χρονων αιωνιων modifies?

Further, how do you square your reading of 2 Tim 1:9 with the assertin in vs. 10 that φανερωθεῖσαν δὲ νῦν διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ?

I'd also be interested to see why you believe the Latin expression which you think (or indeed actually) stands behind the English phrase "when the world began" which we find in the translation of The Golden Ass that you appeal to is the Latin equivalent to προ χρονων αιωνιων.

Is this how the Vulgate renders it?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

I'm going here by the NKJV translation. Which of course could be wrong. Then so would have to be the NRSV: "before the ages began." If you have a better translation, then please do not withold it from us.

Still, I'll give it my amateur shot. The NKJV has:
Scrivener has:
So, the word "began" is not in there, rather it is implied by "προ χρονων αιωνιων," something like "before the times of the ages." This modifies the giving of grace, δοθεισαν (I hope, you're much better at this than I, no doubt).

Good question. Let's start with observing that even if this is a contradiction, my points still stands--we then just have another pov as well. But is it a contradiction? NRSV:
This "appearing" (ἐπιφανείας) can well be the appearing of Christ (through revelation, through personal experience, through study of the scriptures) to the believers. If so, there is no contradiction.
I'm going by Walsh's translation, my impression is that he knows his business. Again, if you have a better suggestion, please let us know. BTW, the translation from project Gutenberg is similar ("in the beginning of the world"). Using translations is not a totally objectionable activity. If e.g. I want to read up on Sumerian mythology, I usually don't try to decipher the cuneiform.

The vulgate version:
Seems pretty close to me

Gerard Stafleu

Clouseau

That's rather convenient logic, is it not? Can be read, to will be read?

gstafleu

Your argument being...? You may have noticed, but conveniently omitted, that I strengthened my point by adding "actually that is simply what it says." And even if only some epistle writers, as opposed to every last one of them, thought this way, that is still of interest. So, barbs about perceived convenience aside, do you have anything to counter the actual argument I'm making?

Gerard Stafleu

Clouseau

That's utterly frivolous, as it does nothing at all. Of course it says what it says. Doherty says 'may', you say, 'no doubt about it, Paul believed in MJ'. With that sort of 'logic', contradicting the words of someone cited allegedly in support, one can believe anything at all.

gstafleu

I repeat, do you have anything to counter the actual argument I made (and never mind if Paul believed in an MJ, that is not the point here). For example, do you think the passage in 2 Tim means something else than that Jesus appeared a long long time ago? If so, what and why? Do you think I'm misrepresenting the sense of Apuleius? If so, how?

Gerard Stafleu

Clouseau

Countless thousands, if not millions, have supposed that Paul knew well that a real Jesus had died on the cross, but also that the event of the cross, and the saints who would react to it were/are known to God outside time. It's not either/or, it's both/and. Then some 'scholar' comes along with a clever new idea.

Jeffrey Gibson

The problem here is that you haven't actually made any argument. You asserted a few things. But there's been no actually demonstration or adducing of the necessary linguistic evidence to show that what you assert is correct. let alone grammatically possible.

Actually, in the light of (1) the meaning with which the author of the pastorals actually uses φανερωθεῖσαν; (2) what the sense of δὲ νῦν of vs. 10 is and how it qualifies φανερωθεῖσαν in such a way that the particular "manifestation" that is spoken of (i.e., of God's πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν) as διὰ τῆς ἐπιφανείας τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ can only be regarded as a recent event; (3) who it is who is the subject of the verbs δοθεῖσαν and φανερωθεῖσαν, and (4) the fact that the expression in Apuleius that you think is a formal and functional equivalent to πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων is not so, it's your job to show not only that 2 Tim 1:8-10 has any possibility at all of meaning that Jesus appeared a long time ago, not "Clouseau's " to show that it doesn't.

And since you are using Apuleius to "make" your case, it's also your job to show through an analysis of the actual text of Apuleius, not an English translation of it, that the Latin phrase that underlies what you think is a parallel to πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων is actually what you claim it is and that it has the particular referential force that you claim it does.

I'd be pleased to see this.

Jeffrey

gstafleu

This is a discussion group, not a scholarly article. Sure, if I was writing a scholarly article I would have to come up with much more reasoning than I have presented. But that's not what I'm after, I'm after some discussion on the subject.

So what discussion have we so far? First, I have raised the point that the προ χρονων αιωνιων (before the times of the ages) in vs 9 indicates that Jesus did his thing a long time ago. You have not countered this per se, I think, and neither has Clouseau. You have pointed out that the recent "appearing" in vs 10 might indicate a point contra. Fine, this still does not address προ χρονων αιωνιων in vs 9 itself. Plus, I have pointed out that the recent appearing in vs 10 could well refer to the visions etc of the believers, thus leaving the time of Jesus doing his thing untouched, a point you so far didn't address: there is a difference between when Jesus did his thing and when revelation of this appeared to the believers.

BTW, I don't think that saying I just "assert" a few things is correct. If I say that, in Inanna's descent to the nether world she has to remove her clothing, am I "just asserting" this, given that this is what the text says?

So in the case of 2 Tim and Apuleius I'm not just "asserting" either. Now it may be that the translations I use do not faithfully represent the sense of the originals. If so, that is a point for discussion.

Finally, I'm not sure to what extend it is useful to say that I'm saying that "rerum exordio" ("in the beginning of things") in Apuleius is "formal and functional equivalent to πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων" ("before the times of the ages"). I'm just saying that one means at the beginning of the world and the other at or near the beginning of time, two very similar concepts. To back this up I adduce two translations for each that say so. Just as with Inanna's descent and clothing, I'm assuming here that the translators know their business. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Again, do you think these translations are wrong, and if so how (in the Tim case particularly vs 9, leaving vs 10 for a later discussion)?

Gerard Stafleu