Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by MrMacSon »



Early on (3.47 in):

... there isn't any [significant] body of literature on this. There's very few commentaries on this. Very, very few people notice or comment on it.

Louis Feldman and Van Vorst are mentioned, but where their commentaries are is not. Van Vorst is likely to be Robert Van Vorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.15 [search for Justin: a snippet of p. 15 is provided but the whole of the page is not. p.51 is (for me; on a first attempt)].

From 6.00:


... Dialogue with Trypho is a rhetorical text.

It’s organized according to the principles of ancient rhetoric. It has a structure. And, in fact, it has the first section that includes the part that we're talking about. Sets up the whole structure for the entire rest of the book. Which is massive. It's a huge, long tirade. But what it does: it sets up the structure. And then the rest of the book addresses; basically, what you have is: you have Trypho: makes a bunch of accusations and then Justin addresses each of those accusations in turn in sections of the book later on.

and, and Justin does it backwards. He stops at the last accusation, which is also the first, because [Dialogue with] Trypho has organized it in a chiasma. See, Trypho starts with one accusation, builds a few others, and then ends with the same accusation that you started with.

So, that's the main accusation. And, so, Justin starts with that one and, then, Justin works his way through the other accusations, So, ah, one of those is Elijah has to anoint the, the: Elijah has to grant the power to the Messiah, and so on.

7:02
That's just one argument. that's not the argument. That's one argument.

And you can see that, when you look at the structure of the rest of the Dialogue with Trypho.

Because there's a whole section just on Elijah and it's deep, deep, deep in the book, right? You have to go through a lot of the book to get there.

So, you have to really look at the first section: the first part of the argument after this, which is setting the foundations.

Because Justin relies on the foundations that he establishes in each subsequent section.

So, he 'proves'' one thing; and then he counts on that having been 'proved' in the rest of the sections, right?

So, this is how rhetoric works, right? This is how you build an argument ...

And, what happens is in the first section, ah, Trypho – this is this made-up Jew – probably meant to be a typical Jewish arguer with Christians – ah, Trypho comes up to Justin and says, ah, ‘prove me your religion is true, I, I don't, I'm, explain to me what your religion is. I don't know why you believe it.’

7:57
And, then, Justin tells this little story about how he met this anonymous random old man who convinced him to be a Christian: um, how the old man convinced him to be a Christian is wackadoo. So, Justin is not an evidence-based reasoner: you prove, you see that right away. um, But one of the things he says, it's, like, you know, ‘oh, well, these Christians have these power; these words are emotionally powerful. They have to be true because it's affecting me in this emotional way.' And, 'oh, and the Christians can perform miracles: well, they couldn't perform miracles unless Jesus was real and all the stories were true,' right?

This is the, This argument, by the way, is repeated by Justin multiple times in the text ... This is rhetoric and this is very emotional fallacious religious reasoning, right?

8:44
So, anyway, so this, So Trypho says, 'explain to me your religion.'

Justin says, ‘well, this old man convinced me.’ And then this is, and then this is where we get to, Trypho says, ‘hold on, like, you just told me this wackadoo story, ah, and, and it relates to the gospel.' It says the gospels affected him and so, 'they must be true’ kind of thing. References that. And, so, what Trypho says is hold on, ‘you should not be deceived’ - and this is word for word – ‘you should not be deceived by false words nor follow the opinions of men of no reputation.’

Ah, and he says, so basically saying, so you, you've been conned, like, you've been sold a bill of goods; ah, you should just be Jewish; and he goes on; he says, you castrate, err, not castrate yourself, you should circumcise yourself, follow the dietary [laws], you should follow the rules and so on and be a Jewish. That's how you get saved.

ah, And then aft, so, when he starts with accusing him of believing false things, that he's been tricked by a false story. And then he says, ‘you should be Jewish instead,’ and then he says, after that, then he says, 'but Christ' – now, now he's talking about the Jewish belief, ‘our Christ, if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere, is unknown; and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him manifest to all.’

9:54
So, that's the Jewish belief. He ends with that. And then, what does he do? His immediate next sentence recapitulates his first sentence, the whole chiasmus of this argument, ‘but you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves’ and for his sake; or inconsiderably perishing, so, ‘you've, you've bought a false story,’ right?

So, that's what he's saying. He's this, so this, this last sentence is not talking about Elijah, that's a previous sentence making a separate argument, right?

um, So, these are different arguments. These are not the same argument.

And, you can see this in the rest of the Justin's defence against Trypho is he takes each of these separate accusations, treats them as separate accusations, and deals with them that way.

And the first accusation he deals with is this, ‘you've been sold a bill of goods. These are false stories. None of this is true,’ right?

10:38
ah,
and Justin says, ‘well, I'm gonna prove to you, as I stand here, that we have not believed empty fables.’ The word is actually myth, right?

So he's, ‘we've not believed empty myth, vain myths or words without any foundation,’ meaning ‘with no evidence to back them up as being true.’

So, ‘we have not believed empty fables or words without any foundation, but words filled with the spirit of God and big with power and flourishing with Grace.’

Now, notice his response is not, ‘oh, we got all this great historical evidence.’

No, his response is, ‘they're so powerful they have to be true.’

11:12
And he actually makes this argument. He actually points out several times to, he repeats this argument over and over.

He says, ‘our people can perform miracles. Your people can't. Therefore our guy must be true, otherwise our things wouldn't work.’

And he says, like, ah, ‘we can cast out demons in the name of Jesus’ and not just the name of Jesus but ‘in the name of Jesus who was crucified by Pilate, whereas your guys can't expel demons except maybe sometimes you can, if you invoke Yahweh.’

And, you know, it says ‘but you can't invoke David,’ ‘Like, ‘that doesn't work, the demons don't respond to David but they respond to Jesus crucified by Pilate,’ right?

And so this is literally his [Justin’s] argument that Jesus was crucified by Pilate: that this is a real story because the demons* respond to it, right?

11:50


* [the initial theology may have been about daemones ie. a message about and to other lower-level rulers]


12.30
Now that he's established that it's ‘true’ - that the gospels are true and you should believe them - then he moves into the other accusations that Trypho made. Like, there has to be an Elijah; there has, has to be known to everybody. um We, we think he's unknown, and so on.

So, he goes through all of those. And then, of course, they, they go back and forth about, ‘do the scriptures actually predict any of this,’ ah, and so on.

So there's a lot of theological argument. There's a lot of scriptural argument.

But they never go back to, ah, the evidence for any of these stories even being true in the first place. Except, whenever Justin does go back to that, he always goes back to, ‘we perform miracles now; we can expel demons; therefore it's true.’

ah, that's the only, that's his foundation for the whole rest of the book.

But the point is that this shows that, yes, Justin understood Trypho to be accusing him of believing completely false stories. So, Justin has to defend himself against that accusation before he can get to arguing about, ‘oh yeah, and we believe that John the Baptist was Elijah; oh yeah, and also we believe that, ah, he will be made known to everyone in the second coming,’ right?

And so he has all these responses to Trypho’s other arguments.




14.15
And there's a point like way, way, way, way later in the argument, deep in the book, where, when, ah, Justin says, ‘oh, and John the Baptist was Elijah so that fulfils the scriptures, so that satisfies your requirement,’ right?

ah, and, and Trypho says, ‘yeah, but you know’ - I'm paraphrasing here – but, he says, ‘yeah, but how do we know your Jesus ever interacted with John the Baptist?’ Right? ‘I don't even know. How do we know that?’

Do you know what Justin's response is? ‘Scripture!’


Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by GakuseiDon »

Thanks once again for the transcript, McMacSon! Always good to have that written out, rather than needing to go through videos.

For context, it's probably worth pointing out that Dr Carrier is responding to our own Chrissy H's point at the start of the video on "You invent a Christ for yourself!" by Trypho in Justin Martyr's Dialogue. (Good to finally put a face to the name! I'm thinking of having my own podcast and one of the dilemmas is whether to show my face or not!)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 1:43 pm ... Van Vorst is likely to be Robert Van Vorst in Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.15 [search for Justin: a snippet of p. 15 is provided but the whole of the page is not. p.51 is (for me; on a first attempt)].
I opened p.51 and, when I clicked on 'Next' at the top of the google books view/preview, thus

.Results 2 of 9 for Justin in this book - <Previous Next> - View All

it let me see pp.13-17.

On p. 15, Van Vorst says (the footnote expanded here though still word-for-word):


Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus historicity or even questioned it.35


35 The only possible attempt at this argument known to me is in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, written in the middle of the second century. At the end of chapter 8, Trypho, Justin's Jewish interlocutor, states,


"But [the] Christ - if indeed he had been born and exists anywhere - is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all. Accepting a groundless report, you have invented a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are unknowingly perishing."


This may be a faint statement of a non-existent hypothesis, but it is not developed or even mentioned again in the rest of the Dialogue, in which Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus.


Robert Van Vorst (2000) Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, W.B. Erdmans; p.15.
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by davidlau17 »

It's interesting that Justin's immediate response in the Dialogue indicates that Trypho was accusing him of believing fables.

"[...]But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," I said. "For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak, like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him,--although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him,--I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 1:43 pm

... so, when he starts with accusing him of believing false things, that he's been tricked by a false story. And then he says, ‘you should be Jewish instead,’ and then he says, after that, then he says, 'but Christ' – now, now he's talking about the Jewish belief, ‘our Christ, if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere, is unknown; and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him manifest to all.’

9:54
So, that's the Jewish belief. He ends with that. And then, what does he do? His immediate next sentence recapitulates his first sentence, the whole chiasmus of this argument, ‘but you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves’ and for his sake; or inconsiderably perishing, so, ‘you've, you've bought a false story,’ right?

So, that's what he's saying. He's this, so this, this last sentence is not talking about Elijah, that's a previous sentence making a separate argument, right?

um, So, these are different arguments. These are not the same argument.

And, you can see this in the rest of the Justin's defence against Trypho is he takes each of these separate accusations, treats them as separate accusations, and deals with them that way.



Re Chiasmus:
  • a rhetorical or literary figure in which words, grammatical constructions, or concepts are repeated in reverse order

From wikipedia:


In rhetoric, chiasmus or, less commonly, chiasm,* is a "reversal of grammatical structures in successive phrases or clauses – but no repetition of words".

  • Chiastic.svg.png
    Chiastic.svg.png (2.62 KiB) Viewed 695 times

    Chiasmus represented as an "X" structure.
    When read left to right, top to bottom,
    the first topic (A) is reiterated as the last,
    and the middle concept (B) appears twice in succession.



* (Latin term from Greek χίασμα, "crossing", from the Greek χιάζω, chiázō, "to shape like the letter Χ"),


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus



Examples


. where Chiasmus balances words or phrases with similar, though not identical, meanings:

.... But O, what damned minutes tells he o'er
.... Who dotes, yet doubts;
.... suspects, yet strongly loves.

...... — Shakespeare, Othello 3.3

. "Dotes" and "strongly loves" share the same meaning and bracket, as do "doubts" and "suspects".



Aeschylus, 5th Century B.C.:
“It is not the oath that makes us believe the man,
but the man the oath.”



Socrates, 5th Century B.C.:
“Bad men live that they may eat and drink,
whereas good men eat and drink that they may live.”




And, what I thought was a chiasm or chiasmus, the A-B-B-A configuration, involving a repetition of words, is an antimetabole:


A similar device, antimetabole, also involves a reversal of grammatical structures in successive phrases or clauses in an A-B-B-A configuration, but unlike chiasmus, presents a repetition of words


Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Mar 12, 2023 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by MrMacSon »

davidlau17 wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:26 pm
It's interesting that Justin's immediate response in the Dialogue indicates that Trypho was accusing him of believing fables.


"[...]But Christ - if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere - is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," I said. "For you know not what you say, but have been persuaded by teachers who do not understand the Scriptures; and you speak like a diviner whatever comes into your mind. But, if you are willing to listen to an account of Him, how we have not been deceived, and shall not cease to confess Him - although men's reproaches be heaped upon us, although the most terrible tyrant compel us to deny Him - I shall prove to you as you stand here that we have not believed empty fables, or words without any foundation but words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power, and flourishing with grace."


Carrier says the actual word for fables is mythoi

M David Litwa discusses the various and relative perceptions of fables - fabulae - and mythoi - and how they changed - in and around the first century ad/ce in his 2018 book, How the Gospels Became History.

And note there's so much rhetoric in that second paragraph in the excerpt you quote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 1:43 pm Louis Feldman and Van Vorst are mentioned, but where their commentaries are is not

In talking about the 'Testimonium Flavianum' - Josephus' Antiquities 18.3.3/63-4 - Louis Feldman noted:


... such a passage would have had in establishing the credentials of Jesus in the church’s missionary activities ... Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century (Dialogue with Trypho 8) attempted to answer the charge that Jesus had never lived and was a mere figment of Christian imagination. Nothing could have been a stronger argument to disprove such a charge than a citation from Josephus, a Jew, who was born only a few years after Jesus’ death.



Feldman (1982) 'The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question,' in Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur; p.182


And


... no ante-Nicene Christian is known to have used Josephus’s works in apologies directed to Jews is certainly surprising in view of the charge, as seen in The Dialogue with Trypho, that Jesus never lived and in view of the eagerness of Christians to convert Jews. To be sure, this is an argumentum ex silentio; but when the number of writers is so great and when these are writers who are very much involved with theological questions, especially questions regarding the nature of Jesus, the omission is striking.



Feldman, Louis H (2012) “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus,” in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations, edited by Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schacter. Leiden: Brill, p.15.


User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by GakuseiDon »

I'll start by noting that I read ancient literature for fun. I read them in English translation, because I have no idea of the ancient languages involved and I've never studied the subject of history and ancient literature. But I read the English translations like one would read "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter". They are fascinating! And when you read something for fun you tend to pick out things more than when it's for work or for when you want to use the literature to make a single point.

There is so much more in Justin Martyr's Dialogue of Trypho than just this topic. Justin talks about Plato's view of God and whether man can apprehend God. He and Trypho discuss whether Jerusalem will ever be rebuilt. Great stuff! Well worth a read.

I'll start with Van Vorst's quote:
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 4:04 pmOn p. 15, Van Vorst says (the footnote expanded here though still word-for-word):


Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus historicity or even questioned it.35


35 The only possible attempt at this argument known to me is in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, written in the middle of the second century. At the end of chapter 8, Trypho, Justin's Jewish interlocutor, states,


"But [the] Christ - if indeed he had been born and exists anywhere - is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all. Accepting a groundless report, you have invented a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are unknowingly perishing."

This may be a faint statement of a non-existent hypothesis, but it is not developed or even mentioned again in the rest of the Dialogue, in which Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus.

Robert Van Vorst (2000) Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, W.B. Erdmans; p.15.
If that's the only possible example, then if that can be shown to not be an example, we can put the subject to rest. No-one in antiquity questioned the existence of Jesus, for what it's worth. With regards to historicity, that isn't worth much. Justin Martyr is way too late to be evidence for historicity. My argument below has nothing to do with historicity. Just wanted to make that clear!

Trypho is a character in Justin Martyr's Dialogue. There is speculation that he is based on a real person and the Dialogue is based on a real conversation, but there is no evidence for that. There's speculation that the old man at the start is Christ, but again no real evidence for that. All we know about Trypho is what Justin tells us. All quotes from here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... rypho.html

First the famous quote:

Chapter 8:

But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

So, did Trypho mean Christians have invented a Jesus for themselves (so no Jesus at all), or did he mean that Christians have invented a Christ for themselves (so there was a Jesus but he wasn't Christ). It is so obvious that the latter (Jesus but no Christ) is the case that it is unbelievable that this even gets questioned. Apologises for yelling!

I've given quotes from the text itself below. The best counter-example is the quote from Chapter 49 below, so you might want to skip to that one if the topic doesn't interest you.

Chapter 10

"This is what we are amazed at," said Trypho, "but those things about which the multitude speak are not worthy of belief; for they are most repugnant to human nature. Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them.

Trypho has read the Gospels. He is obviously aware of the Gospel Jesus, since they discuss things like the virgin birth.

Chapter 32

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Trypho recognises that Christians believe in a crucified man called Jesus who was the "so-called Christ". For Trypho, Christians believed that the man existed but they were wrong that he was the Christ!

Chapter 36

Then he replied, "Let these things be so as you say--namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."

Might Trypho simply be granting the existence of a man for sake of argument? It simply doesn't sound like it. Trypho has read the Gospels, he doesn't believe that the man shown in the Gospels was the Christ. He plainly separates "Christ" from "this man".

Chapter 39

And Trypho replied, "Now, then, render us the proof that this man who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by means of the Scriptures previously quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, every kingdom being made subject to Him: now show us that this man is He."

Again, Trypho is separating out "Jesus" from "Christ". He is asking Justin to show that Jesus was Christ. He isn't asking Justin to show that Jesus existed!

Chapter 47

And Trypho again inquired, "But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognises that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved?"
...
But if, Trypho," I continued, "some of your race, who say they believe in this Christ, compel those Gentiles who believe in this Christ to live in all respects according to the law given by Moses, or choose not to associate so intimately with them, I in like manner do not approve of them. But I believe that even those, who have been persuaded by them to observe the legal dispensation along with their confession of God in Christ, shall probably be saved. And I hold, further, that such as have confessed and known this man to be Christ, yet who have gone back from some cause to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this man is Christ, and have repented not before death, shall by no means be saved.

Again, the question is whether "this man" is the Christ, not "did this man" exist. Justin Martyr even points to "Jews for Jesus" without needing to highlight that there is any question about the existence of that Jesus. Throughout the assumption is that Jesus existed.

Chapter 49

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man[born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ]."

This is the closest passage to the one under investigation. Jesus can't be Christ because Elijah hasn't come. Not "Jesus didn't exist because Elijah hasn't come." The identities of "this man" and "Christ" are clearly separated out.

Chapter 67

And Trypho answered, "The Scripture has not, 'Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,' but, 'Behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son,' and so on, as you quoted. But the whole prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather[should] say that this Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks."
...
And Trypho said, "You admitted to us that He was both circumcised, and observed the other legal ceremonies ordained by Moses."

The only argument might be that Trypho is simply granting the existence of "this man" for sake of argument. But even if that's the case, Trypho is clearly separating out "this man" from "Christ" in a number of times. Even if he is granting the existence of "this man", he certainly doesn't on "Christ". It definitely reflects on how the key passage should be viewed.

I'll end by repeating that this doesn't prove historicity. It doesn't even add weight to historicity. There is a further point to be made based on Carrier's criticism but I'll make that in a separate post.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun Mar 12, 2023 6:38 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by Leucius Charinus »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:03 pm Thanks once again for the transcript, McMacSon! Always good to have that written out, rather than needing to go through videos.
I will second that !! Thanks Mac. BTW do you use some sort of audio to text software?

In any event how fabricated is "Justin's" rhetorical dialogue? And to what extent is this further evidence that Justin is nothing but a fabricated rhetor? One does not need to postulate Justin as a 2nd century historical figure at all.

The real rhetorical question becomes what if these "early Christian literary sources" such as Saint Justin -- and all of our fabulous falsifying fathers -- have zero historical integrity and that these literary works were much later pseudo-historical inventions of the victorious political elites of the immensely powerful Nicene church?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

Post by GakuseiDon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:57 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:03 pm Thanks once again for the transcript, McMacSon! Always good to have that written out, rather than needing to go through videos.
I will second that !! Thanks Mac. BTW do you use some sort of audio to text software?
If you click on the 3 dots under a Youtube video, you can display the transcript if one is available. But it is then a real pain to edit out the timing indicators and edit the sentences together. It's a lot of work which I appreciate McMacSon putting in. (If he has an automated way of doing that, please share!)
Post Reply