gstafleu

Now I think of it, perhaps it is more fruitful to try and nail down (or un-nail, as the case may be) the passage from Apuleius, as that started me thinking about this. So here is the question:

Q: Is it reasonable to translate the passage from Apuleius in question such that he places the Paris myth "when the world began."

If that translation materially misrepresents the sense of the original, then the whole argument is irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't add anything about 2 Tim that hasn't been said already, and we can then stop right there.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

Even if it is reasonable, saying something happened "when the world began" is not the same as (and not anywhere close to) saying something was planned or purposed (by God) "from eternity" which is what's being said in 2 Tim 1:9.

Jeffrey

gstafleu

OK, so I take it we don't disagree that Apuleius placed the Paris myth "when the world began." By extension then, we can conclude that the concept of placing the time when myths happened at the beginning of the world was a familiar one in those days.

So, moving on to 2 Tim 1:9, do I understand that your interpretation of the text is that what happened before the times of the ages is not so much Jesus' sacrifice but rather god planning the sacrifice?

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah but we do. Most definitely.

Your claim that in 10:32 Apuleius is speaking of a myth, let alone that he placed the myth he is allegedly speaking about "'when the world began,' or "in other words way way back in time" is a wholesale misreading of the what Apuleius is describing here. The text you cite is part of a larger tale of "The Jealous Wife" and at this point Apuleius is speaking of his enjoyment of witnessing a "play" that depicted the judgment of Paris (an event that he knows was the one that precipitated the Trojan war and which therefore he also knew did not happen at the creation of the world). His reference in 10:33 to "the beginning of things" most certainly does not have the story of Paris as its referent. You'd see this if you actually did your "exegesis" on the basis of the Latin text and not an English translation of it.

I'll be hornswaggled if I can find any talk of a sacrifice, of Jesus or of anything, in this text. And I'll be horsewhipped if I can find anything about an event that took place “before times eternal" ="from all eternity". But yes the text is speaking of the eternity of the divine purpose which was fully manifested only in the recent past.

May I suggest before you go any further that you first consult a few critical commentaries on the text?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

I'm not sure what you are getting at. In his peregrinations, Lucius in Ass form has arrived in Corinth. There (10.19, 10.20) he meets a woman who falls in love/lust with him and wants to have sexual intercourse with him. This happens in 10.22. After doing this, Lucius owner wants to set him up as an Ass-copulates-with-woman side-show, and to that purpose acquires (10.23) "a woman of low repute who by decree of the governor had been condemned to be thrown to the beasts." Apuleius then proceeds to describe, in his typical "story within a story" manner, exactly how morally depraved the woman is, (misplaced) jealousy indeed being part of it. The cataloging of her crimes ends with 10.28, where she is apprehended and convicted.

In 10.29 Lucius then bewails that he has to copulate with this woman, but can't think of a way to escape. In 10.30 he then starts describing the play with Paris, it being a preliminary in the show in which Lucius is to copulate with the woman. Once the play is finished (10.34) a bed is put in place on the stage for this purpose. But then in 10.35 "I [Lucius] was granted free scope for my deliberations, for no one considered that a tame ass like me needed very much watching. I edged unobtrusively forward until I reached the nearest gate; Then I took off at full gallop." Thus Lucius escapes this evil fate.

The play is thus not really part of the tale of the evil woman, it is an intermediary scene that sets the stage for Lucius escape.

All this being as it may, how does this affect the issue that Apuleius seems to set the judgment of Paris at the beginning of the world? Saying:
only works if we assume that Apuleius thought of the Trojan war as presented by Homer as a historic event rather than myth--and in the context of our discussion that would be begging the question.
Then what does it point to? The beginning of Homer's story? Could be, but the various translators, who know more Latin then I do, must have had reason to think that "rerum exordio" referred to the beginning of the whole world, rather than just the story. Maybe because an unspecific and generalized "res" is known to refer to life, the universe and everything (I don't know, I'm asking)?

You said "Even if it is reasonable, saying something happened "when the world began" is not the same as (and not anywhere close to) saying something was planned or purposed (by God) "from eternity" which is what's being said in 2 Tim 1:9." I was just trying to find out what you meant.
So we agree that something happened a long time ago. You say it is the formulating of the divine purpose (OK, you can say it didn't "happen," it was just in place--I'm not sure how that makes a material difference). Now the text certainly speaks about God's purpose: we are saved "according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began." To me this sounds, both in English and in the Greek (κατ ιδιαν προθεσιν και χαριν την δοθεισαν ημιν εν χριστω ιησου προ χρονων αιωνιων) as if that grace was given by God through Jesus, and the time at which this giving was done was before the times of the ages. Did I get that wrong? And what else can that grace through Christ be than his sacrifice and resurrection?

Gerard Stafleu

Boro Nut

Although not mentioned per se, it's implicit in any nationally recognised technical specifications that nails of any length or diameter intrinsically require space-time.

Boro Nut

gstafleu

True enough, but Jeffrey seems to think that while Jesus was crucified rather recently relative to 2 Tim, the nails spanned a section of space time bordering on the infinite, which is generally not found in said specifications.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Back to "when the world begain" (rerum exordio) in Apluleius. In the following I'll be quoting from my venerable "Latijns woordenboek door D. J. van Wageningen Jr, J.B. Wolters, Groningen, 1900." ("Latin dictionary by...") The colophon mentions this was printed in the "Stoomdrukkerij van J.B. Wolters," the "steam print shop of J.B. Wolters." I'm just mentioning this to lend these proceedings an air of the ancient.

"Exordium" is the word used for "beginning", "exordio" being the dative with an implicit "in." The dictionary mentions the following (I'll translate the Dutch):
So, little doubt that "exordium" is "beginning." Plus, we see it explicitly mentioned with rerum as the beginning of the universe. We now move to "res," "thing" of which "rerum" is the plural genitive ("of things"):
So, I think I'm pretty safe in saying that the translations I adduced, which state that the Paris scene took place "when the world began," are correct.

Plus, if "of things" were to refer to something specific like the Trojan war, one would expect mention of such, which is absent. The text does mention that Paris "sold that first verdict for lustful gain, and thereby destroyed his whole race." This is a passing reference to the Trojan war, true, so it opens an escape door the size of an extended mouse hole. But before one does a belly flop and tries to slither though it on ones way to salvation, please consider "first verdict" (my italics, "originalem sententiam"). Unfortunately my venerable dictionary does not have an entry for "originalis", but given "origo : originis : origin, start, source, beginning / ancestor" (from an on-line dictionary), does anyone want to argue that "originalem sententiam" means something different than "the very first verdict"?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

So, now that the Apuleius question seems pretty much settled, let us move on to 2 Tim 1:9. I'll do it in point form.

1. Something was given (δοθεῖσαν), the entity doing the giving being god.
2. What was given was his (god's) "purpose" and grace (ἰδίαν πρόθεσιν καὶ χάριν)
3. The entities to which this was given is us people (ἡμῖν)
4. The manner in which is was given is in/by Christ Jesus (ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ)
5. The time at with it was given is "before the times of the ages" (πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων)

Any problems so far?

So now a tremendous leap of faith: that the grace was given to us in/by Christ Jesus refers to his crucifixion and resurrection. And even if you don't take that leap, the text still places whatever it was that Jesus did to bring about the grace "before the times of the ages." That is still a long long time ago.

Gerard Stafleu