Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue of Trypho' as Rhetoric

[MrMacSon]

Maren R. Niehoff (2019)
'A Jew for Roman Tastes: The Parting of the Ways in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho from a Post-Colonial Perspective'
Journal of Early Christian Studies 27:4, pp.549–578

https://www.academia.edu/43324393/Justi ... erspective

This article outlines some interesting perspectives on Dialogue with Trypho and discusses chapter 8 in two separate places,* but not wrt to

• "Christ - if indeed he had been born and exists anywhere - is unknown ... you have invented a Christ for yourselves"

* pp.556-8/9 and p.570.


From the outline:

While generations of scholars have debated whether Trypho was a historical Jew, who engaged in a real dialogue with Justin, or rather a literary construct invented by the author for Christian readers, I apply post-colonial theory and argue that Justin constructed Trypho for a Roman audience, whether “pagan” or Christian ... Trypho the Jew emerges as deviant and rather more Greek than Roman

From five pages in:

Trypho plays the role of a non-Roman mirror image of Justin’s vision of Christianity. It is through this figure that Justin positions himself in relative proximity to Roman discourses and aligns Christianity with Roman values [p.554].

And, surprisingly, from the conclusion:

Trypho is in many respects an inverted mirror image of [ ], who arrived in Rome and quickly immersed himself into its culture

WRT the notion of the Dialogue as rhetoric:

Trypho’s address “Hello, philosopher” identifies Justin as an intellectually superior teacher, who wears, as the reader subsequently learns, the philosopher’s cloak (Dial. 1.1–2). Justin’s individuality is conspicuous in view of Trypho’s company of “friends,” who always act together and initially highlight Justin’s importance by joining him on his walk. Trypho then provides some autobiographical details:

“I was taught in Argos by Corinthos, a Socratic, that I ought not to despise or treat with indifference those who wear this cloak, but to show them all kindness and associate with them, as perhaps some advantage may spring from the conversation either to some such man or to myself” (Dial. 1.2).

Trypho is caricatured as a philosophy student, who has travelled to Argos—no known center of learning ...

the name of the city Argos is intriguing. While the city played a role in the Iliad, it is no longer signifcant in the Hellenistic period.

The word ἀργός means “idle” and may convey a double entendre. Does Justin, who elsewhere uses the verb ἀργέω to mock Jewish Shabbat observance (Dial. 23.3), imply that Trypho travelled to a place of idleness and learnt useless ideas?

Furthermore, the name of the philosopher, “Corinthos,” is the name of another city or its eponymous founder—not a name suitable to a philosopher.

Trypho’s personal itinerary locates him in the Greek East, but also conveys a sense of displacement, every aspect of his narrative imitating, but ultimately missing standard motifs. The Jew is a fragmented and marginal figure aspiring to paideia, but not quite attaining it.

Referring to Dialogue 112.4, Niehoff notes:

Justin uses here the standard scholarly term ζήτησις (“inquiry”), which is known from Alexandrian scholarship, to distinguish Christian from Jewish Bible exegesis

[MrMacSon]

... Van Vorst's quote:

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!
.

Not so fast. Christ and Jesus are likely part of the chiasmus structure to the rhetoric. As in (1/2) the Othello example I gave above:

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".
.

(2/2) As per

.In rhetoric,
..chiasmus or, less commonly, chiasm,
...is a "reversal of grammatical structures in successive phrases or clauses"

• 

  Chiastic.svg.png (2.62 KiB) Viewed 594 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.

ie. as with Othello's "dotes" and "strongly loves", 'Christ' and 'Jesus' share the same meaning and bracket ie. (A)

.the first topic (A) is reiterated as the last

Trypho is merely a tool - a sockpuppet - of Justin ie. a rhetorical device : as are the use of 'Christ' and 'Jesus'

Early Doherty made the same point in a post on vridar (when addressing Van Vorst):

Trypho
Finally, there is the question of what is meant by Trypho’s remark in Justin’s Dialogue (ch.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/Elijah come to anoint him, and make him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves . . .

As I discuss at length in Appendix 12 of Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, the typical historicist argument over this passage is that Trypho “is arguing that Christians invented a false conception of Christ and applied it to Jesus” (so Eddy and Boyd in The Jesus Legend, p.170). But the language is far from this specific. And it is not Trypho who is assuming Jesus existed, but Justin who [created] the dialogue and [put] into Trypho’s mouth what he himself believe[d] and to further the argument he is constructing.

But it does suggest that Justin is countering something that contemporary Jews are claiming, and the quotation is sufficiently ambiguous to suggest even to a committed historicist scholar like Robert Van Voorst (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.15, n.35) that “This may be a faint statement of a non-existence hypothesis, but it is not developed . . . ” (It is not developed because that is not part of Justin’s purpose.) The “groundless report” may allude to an accusation that the entire Gospel story with its central character was indeed fiction.

https://vridar.org/2012/05/11/10-earl-d ... f-silence/

All of the subsequent references to Christ and Jesus, whether by Trypho or Justin, are designed to affirm both as One eg.

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!

"he was crucified" is an affirmation, even if framed negatively.


Whether Trypho conveyed that Christians or even anyone else "were wrong that [Jesus] was the Christ" is probably neither here nor there.

[GakuseiDon]

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!
.

Not so fast. Christ and Jesus are likely part of the chiasmus structure to the rhetoric

Yes, I found that comment by Dr Carrier interesting. I wasn't aware of Justin using a chiastic structure. But it does explain why the main 'rebuttal' to the comment in Chapter 8 comes from Chapter 49:

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."

vs

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]."

Trypho is merely a tool - a sockpuppet - of Justin ie. a rhetorical device : as are the use of 'Christ' and 'Jesus'

True. The takeaway above was: the Jews were wrong to believe that Christ had not come because Elijah had not come. Justin puts this argument up the top in Chapter 8. Justin argues that Elijah had come in John the Baptist so "the man" in the Gospels was indeed the Christ. He then cycles through a lot of Scripture to show Christ and John the Baptist conforming to Scriptures, and ends in Chapter 49 showing that Trypho's point in Chapter 8 is wrong: Elijah had in fact come and anointed Christ.

[ABuddhist]

What I find notable is that regardless of which meaning one assigns to the word Christ in this argument, Justin did not defend his religion's claims about Christ/Jesus through appeals to how allegedly reliable the accounts by Christians about Jesus were, but rather used miracles and the Jews' scriptures. And that is a problem, I think, for the mainstream historicists' consensus in which Christians preserved, trusted, and taught traditions about Jesus upon the Earth.

[StephenGoranson]

Or, possibly, he hoped his choices for his audience were rhetorically effective.

[Ulan]

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

I always found this argument incredibly stupid. What kind of historians would ask such a question, if we look at the historical situation they are looking at?

That's what a listener around the year 100 would hear: "Some nobody from a tiny, nondescript village in Galilee had a short career as preacher, healer and exorcist, attracted some followers, got killed by Pilate, and the followers claimed he got resurrected and started worshiping him as a god." Why would you question whether this nobody actually existed, in a situation where people like this were a dime a dozen? Wouldn't you rather question the miracle claim? I don't think anyone would have been foolish enough to claim it was possible to prove that such a nobody didn't exist as a person, unless you find some written confession.

That's, by the way, why it's easy to dismiss the Tacitus mention as a proof for the historical existence of Jesus. Why would he even check such a thing? The followers of this person admitted to worshiping some executed criminal. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about these people, go on that fool's errand yourself - strictly spoken from a Roman perspective here.

And no, I don't see "Trypho's" question as a valid example of someone doing this here.

[GakuseiDon]

What I find notable is that regardless of which meaning one assigns to the word Christ in this argument, Justin did not defend his religion's claims about Christ/Jesus through appeals to how allegedly reliable the accounts by Christians about Jesus were, but rather used miracles and the Jews' scriptures.

YES! That was the other point I wanted to bring up. Proving that Jesus was Christ through the Scriptures was the pre-eminent issue for the first hundred years. Justin Martyr certainly had access to the Gospels and stories of eye-witnesses, but that whole long dialogue with Trypho was over Scriptures. Surely it's time to put an end to the idea of "the newspaper reporter's Jesus", the idea that just Jesus walking around was what started the religion.

And that is a problem, I think, for the mainstream historicists' consensus in which Christians preserved, trusted, and taught traditions about Jesus upon the Earth.

Why? We have an actual example of a 'historicist' Justin Martyr -- someone who thought that Christians preserved, trusted and taught traditions about Jesus upon the Earth -- actually demonstrating the importance of Scriptures in arguments over Christ! So why would you think it's a problem?

[ABuddhist]

Justin Martyr certainly had access to the Gospels and stories of eye-witnesses

That Justin had access to any of our gospels is an open question. He did not claim to, and the biographical details about Jesus which he mentioned came from mtultiple sources and from unidentified souerces - if any: http://vridar.info/xorigins/justinnarr.htm

And that is a problem, I think, for the mainstream historicists' consensus in which Christians preserved, trusted, and taught traditions about Jesus upon the Earth.

Why? We have an actual example of a 'historicist' Justin Martyr -- someone who thought that Christians preserved, trusted and taught traditions about Jesus upon the Earth -- actually demonstrating the importance of Scriptures in arguments over Christ! So why would you think it's a problem?

Because according to the standard Historicists' views, early Christianity preserved, treasured, and used allegedly accurate narratives about Jesus in order to gain converts. Hence the claims that Paul and his audience, for example, knew about Jesus's deeds so that Paul never mentioned them.

[GakuseiDon]

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

I always found this argument incredibly stupid. What kind of historians would ask such a question, if we look at the historical situation they are looking at?

Yes, I agree. "Local person is killed, thought to be god" would have just caused eye-balls to roll back then. No reason to doubt the first part, but no reason to believe the next part. "What? Another one?" would have been the response.

Telling someone in Rome that you had actual eye-witness accounts to it all would have been as effective back then as today, from what I can tell. What was needed was some emotional hook, like we see Justin Martyr describe. (Dr Carrier scoffs at the idea in the Godless Engineer video, which made me shake my head.) Something like a revelation -- which Paul and other early apostles invoked in their travelling miracle shows -- or proving it through Scriptures or by appealing to Greek philosophy, which we see both in Justin Martyr. Those things are personal and hard to deny. But simply citing someone else's eye-witness accounts? Nope. It doesn't work today, so why expect it to have worked back then?

Conversely, no-one would have doubted the reports of the existence of such a person who was proclaimed to have supernatural powers. They certainly wouldn't have cared to check up on it, unless they thought there was validity on the supernatural side. All the more reason to suppose that this was the concern of Justin's Trypho: person existed? Don't care. Christ existed? Important!

[GakuseiDon]

Justin Martyr certainly had access to the Gospels and stories of eye-witnesses

That Justin had access to any of our gospels is an open question.

Well, granted it is an open question on whether he had access to "our" gospels. He had access to stories of eye-witness account in something like our Gospels. It doesn't change my point at all.

Because according to the standard Historicists' views, early Christianity preserved, treasured, and used allegedly accurate narratives about Jesus in order to gain converts. Hence the claims that Paul and his audience, for example, knew about Jesus's deeds so that Paul never mentioned them.

Leaving aside the views of standard Historicists for the moment: how does Justin Martyr factor into this, in your view? Does his Dialogue reset your expectations about early Christians preserving, treasuring, and using allegedly accurate narratives about Jesus in order to gain converts?