Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by dbz »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:19 am [A]ll of the Hebrew TOV (טוֹבָה) gets translated with Xrhstos
  • Is it correct that there are no autograph MSS available?
  • What would be the logical spelling choice in the autograph MSS—given the example of Χριστὸς usage by Euripides?
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by GakuseiDon »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:27 amThe answer allegedly is in CHAPTER IX -- THE CHRISTIANS HAVE NOT BELIEVED GROUNDLESS STORIES.

viewtopic.php?p=41232#p41232

And that chapter starts with

"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."

and ends with

And when we were come to that place, where there are stone seats on both sides, those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judaea.

And Justin doesn't do anything, as usual he makes empty promises and then distracts, deflects, and never returns to it again unless it is to reiterate his empty promises. He does the same thing with the virgin birth being predicted, literally, in the Tanakh. It's all plain rhetoric and mere bullshit bingo, it's so genuinely Christian
What on earth do you mean? Justin then spends the rest of the Dialogue 'proving' that Christians haven't believed groundless stories. He does that by showing Trypho that the Scriptures predict that Christ will suffer, be crucified, be born of a virgin, be raised after three days -- everything that Christians claim. Justin's Trypho claims that Christians have made this all up about Christ, "invented a Christ for themselves". Justin shows that the Scriptures -- "words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power" -- validates everything that Christians claim about Christ. Everything he promised to do!

What in your view is Justin actually lacking? What doesn't he do?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by Secret Alias »

[A]ll of the Hebrew TOV (טוֹבָה) gets translated with Xrhstos
I would have expected ἀγαθός as the standard equivalent for ‫טוב

Apparently it is καλός. Don't know where you are getting your information.

Chrestos means "useful" or maybe "right."
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by dbz »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:01 pm
[A]ll of the Hebrew TOV (טוֹבָה) gets translated with Xrhstos
I would have expected ἀγαθός as the standard equivalent for ‫טוב

Apparently it is καλός. Don't know where you are getting your information.

Chrestos means "useful" or maybe "right."
When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”


--Novenson, Matthew V. ( 2012). Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • So the scholarly consensus is that for Paul—Christ==Good ?
After all the autograph MSS are not extant and may of originally made it explicit.
Paul never calls second-god the christ/messiah of the Jews. Perhaps Jesus evolved from the "Good Redeemer" of middle-platonism.

Contra this viewpoint, Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see: If canonical gMark is a redaction of prior text, then any references to Yesus being the christ/messiah of the Jews is explicable as being contra Marcion.
dbz
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by dbz »

  • Greek Equivalent Words:
Strong #: 2909 ‑ κρείττων (krite'‑tohn); 19 ‑ ἀγαθωσύνη (ag‑ath‑o‑soo'‑nay); 39 ‑ ἅγιον (hag'‑ee‑on); 227 ‑ ἀληθής (al‑ay‑thace'); 228 ‑ ἀληθινός (al‑ay‑thee‑nos'); 701 ‑ ἀρεστός (ar‑es‑tos'); 791 ‑ ἀστεῖος (as‑ti'‑os); 957 ‑ βελτίων (bel‑tee'‑on); 1343 ‑ δικαιοσύνη (dik‑ah‑yos‑oo'‑nay); 1588 ‑ ἐκλεκτός (ek‑lek‑tos'); 4096 ‑ πιότης (pee‑ot'‑ace); 5485 ‑ χάρις (khar'‑ece); 5543 ‑ χρηστός (khrase‑tos'); 5544 ‑ χρηστότης (khray‑stot'‑ace); 5611 ‑ ὡραῖος (ho‑rah'‑yos); 2234 ‑ ἡδέως (hay‑deh'‑oce); 18 ‑ ἀγαθός (ag‑ath‑os'); 19 ‑ ἀγαθωσύνη (ag‑ath‑o‑soo'‑nay); 2570 ‑ καλός (kal‑os');
Frequency Lists
Verse Results


"Strong's #2896 - טוֹב - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary". StudyLight.org.
Nah 1:7
(BSB)
The LORD is good, a stronghold in the day of distress; He cares for those who trust in Him.
(THGNT) (THOT)
ט֣וֹב יְהוָ֔ה לְמָע֖וֹז בְּי֣וֹם צָרָ֑ה וְיֹדֵ֖עַ חֹ֥סֵי בֽוֹ׃
(LXX)
χρηστὸς κύριος τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτὸν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ θλίψεως καὶ γινώσκων τοὺς εὐλαβουμένους αὐτόν·


"χρηστ* in STEP Bible, study tools, 280 languages | BSB". www.stepbible.org.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by mlinssen »

GakuseiDon wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:59 pm
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 7:27 amThe answer allegedly is in CHAPTER IX -- THE CHRISTIANS HAVE NOT BELIEVED GROUNDLESS STORIES.

viewtopic.php?p=41232#p41232

And that chapter starts with

"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."

and ends with

And when we were come to that place, where there are stone seats on both sides, those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judaea.

And Justin doesn't do anything, as usual he makes empty promises and then distracts, deflects, and never returns to it again unless it is to reiterate his empty promises. He does the same thing with the virgin birth being predicted, literally, in the Tanakh. It's all plain rhetoric and mere bullshit bingo, it's so genuinely Christian
What on earth do you mean? Justin then spends the rest of the Dialogue 'proving' that Christians haven't believed groundless stories. He does that by showing Trypho that the Scriptures predict that Christ will suffer, be crucified, be born of a virgin, be raised after three days -- everything that Christians claim. Justin's Trypho claims that Christians have made this all up about Christ, "invented a Christ for themselves". Justin shows that the Scriptures -- "words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power" -- validates everything that Christians claim about Christ. Everything he promised to do!

What in your view is Justin actually lacking? What doesn't he do?
Precisely. He alleges that Christ was predicted to exist, via false and fabricated "prophecies" that are no prophecies at all and mostly depend on mistranslation and interpretation in order to be twisted and turned into the Churchian way.
But does Justin demonstrate that Christ exists? Does he provide eye witness accounts, newspaper reports, great and grand statues erected in his name, to his honour, a basilicum perhaps, a small temple, or even a baptism place?
None of that, absolutely no evidence is produced of the existence of Christ

You prove Carrier's point Don: all that Justin does is to provide (false and feeble) examples of text that predicts the existence of a Christ - and he naturally skips the parts of the real Messianic predictions where the Messiah would unite all of Israel, smite its enemeies, restore world peace, and so on
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by mlinssen »

Secret Alias wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:01 pm
[A]ll of the Hebrew TOV (טוֹבָה) gets translated with Xrhstos
I would have expected ἀγαθός as the standard equivalent for ‫טוב

Apparently it is καλός. Don't know where you are getting your information.

Chrestos means "useful" or maybe "right."
I provided a link - as usual - to that very post]

THOT 2019 - don't tell me that isn't kosher (although nothing can come to a surprise)

I also would have expected ἀγαθός
Last edited by mlinssen on Wed Mar 29, 2023 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by mlinssen »

dbz wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:30 pm
Secret Alias wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 2:01 pm
[A]ll of the Hebrew TOV (טוֹבָה) gets translated with Xrhstos
I would have expected ἀγαθός as the standard equivalent for ‫טוב

Apparently it is καλός. Don't know where you are getting your information.

Chrestos means "useful" or maybe "right."
When scholars of early Judaism, who have cast about for any instances of the word “messiah” in Hellenistic— and Roman—period literature, find an unparalleled cache of such instances in the letters of Paul, New Testament scholars reply that Paul says it but does not mean it, that for him χριστός means “Christ,” not “messiah.”


--Novenson, Matthew V. ( 2012). Christ among the Messiahs: Christ Language in Paul and Messiah Language in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • So the scholarly consensus is that for Paul—Christ==Good ?
After all the autograph MSS are not extant and may of originally made it explicit.
Paul never calls second-god the christ/messiah of the Jews. Perhaps Jesus evolved from the "Good Redeemer" of middle-platonism.

Contra this viewpoint, Novenson argues that Paul does use messiah language, see: If canonical gMark is a redaction of prior text, then any references to Yesus being the christ/messiah of the Jews is explicable as being contra Marcion.
There is no such thing as "autograph MSS": all this consists of made up stories whose redaction was limited not by something factual or historical, but merely by what had been produced of that story prior to its new version. Think of Harry potter: you can't rewrite that story and place its scenerey on the moon or in Nazi Germany, but what you can do is continue the story with what allegedly happened after Harry defeated Voldemort (which is precisely what Mark did with inventing the resurrection)

The texts abundantly testify to the change from Xrhstos to Xristos: The original word is Xrhst, briefly gets confused with Xreist, then turned into Xrist but Xrhst keeps popping up until well into the Middle Ages

And Paul is very Chrestian indeed, although he surely is selling Christianity to his Judaic audience in Romans - make no mistake, Paul was meant to do the exact same what Mark did: convincingly turn Chrestianity into Christianity. Yet where Mark deals with the living IS, Paul deals with the dead one, XS. And likewise, never does he expand that abbreviation

"Similarly, Udo Schnelle accepts the name-versus-title rubric but is unable to conclude on one side or the other: “For Paul, Χριστός Ἰησοῦς is a titular name, both title and name. . . . When combined with Ἰησοῦς, Χριστός is thus to be understood as a cognomen (surname) that also always has the overtones of its original titular significance.” (p. 67, my emphasis)" is a falsification, whether intentional or out of ignorance and incompetence. Here's Berean Literal adjusted for the original MSS:

BOOK OF 1 Corinthians
Chapter 1 Greetings from Paul
1 Paul, a called apostle of ΧΣ ΙΣ by the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother,
2 To the church of God being in Corinth, having been sanctified in ΧΣ ΙΣ, called holy, together with all those in every place calling on the name of our Lord ΙΣ ΧΣ, both theirs and ours:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord ΙΣ ΧΣ.
4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God having been given you in ΧΣ ΙΣ,
5 that in everything you have been enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge,
6 as the testimony about ΧΣ was confirmed in you,
7 so as for you not to be lacking in any gift as you eagerly await the revelation of our Lord ΙΣ ΧΣ,
8 who also will sustain you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord ΙΣ ΧΣ.
9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into fellowship with His Son ΙΣ ΧΣ our Lord.

You can see that it starts with ΧΣ ΙΣ and that Paul tries to change that into ΙΣ ΧΣ: he tries to move the ΧΣ from adjective or label to title.
The book by Matthew Novenson is trash, and Neil's posts on it a complete waste: if you discuss matters like these and appear to be unaware of what they are spelled like, then you make yourself infinitely ridiculous for all times. The greatest disqualification is "Paul’s χριστός", as if that exists in any text: the word χριστός doesn't appear in any text at all whatsoever, ever, period. There is a handful of exceptions in the Greek tradition, in papyri, and the NHL abundantly speaks of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ, and even of Jesus the "Chrestos".
But Paul, or any Greek manuscript ever?
Never

A bird's eye view on the beginning of Mark throughout the centuries for good measure
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by davidmartin »

he naturally skips the parts of the real Messianic predictions where the Messiah would unite all of Israel, smite its enemeies, restore world peace, and so on
Paul never calls second-god the christ/messiah of the Jews. Perhaps Jesus evolved from the "Good Redeemer" of middle-platonism.
Certainly true of AP's gospel. If one refers to the Odes' gospel they are one covenant not two, the Messiah of Isreal connection is therefor implicit 'BUT'
The 'BUT' is the Messianic predictions are spiritualised into a feature of the messianic age, and the Messiah is a spiritual one (as might be expected from a mystical sect). I say AP evolved his theology from here, then split it into 2 covenants, whatever, to buttress his gospel. AP is a theologian not an apostle any more than his Christ is the Jewish Messiah. A historicist reading is the founding group before him is unlikely to have sent out apostles to be theologians to change stuff and oppose them as AP does if the Odes are the preceding gospel he is working from.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by GakuseiDon »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:36 pm
GakuseiDon wrote:What on earth do you mean? Justin then spends the rest of the Dialogue 'proving' that Christians haven't believed groundless stories. He does that by showing Trypho that the Scriptures predict that Christ will suffer, be crucified, be born of a virgin, be raised after three days -- everything that Christians claim. Justin's Trypho claims that Christians have made this all up about Christ, "invented a Christ for themselves". Justin shows that the Scriptures -- "words filled with the Spirit of God, and big with power" -- validates everything that Christians claim about Christ. Everything he promised to do!

What in your view is Justin actually lacking? What doesn't he do?
Precisely. He alleges that Christ was predicted to exist, via false and fabricated "prophecies" that are no prophecies at all and mostly depend on mistranslation and interpretation in order to be twisted and turned into the Churchian way.
But does Justin demonstrate that Christ exists? Does he provide eye witness accounts, newspaper reports, great and grand statues erected in his name, to his honour, a basilicum perhaps, a small temple, or even a baptism place?
None of that, absolutely no evidence is produced of the existence of Christ
That is literally the "newspaper reporter's Jesus" fallacy that I've been pointing out here for the last few years.

Think of it from a First Century or Second Century CE Jew's perspective. What made Jesus the Christ? His wise sayings? No. His miracles? No. When Jesus performs miracles in the Gospels, the Pharisees don't say "Wow, you must be the Christ!" No, they say "Hey, you can't do that on the Sabbath!" His virgin birth, suffering, crucifixion and resurrection? Most definitely not! None of those things were predicted for the Messiah.

So how to PROVE that Jesus was the Christ? From the Scriptures. That's the only way. No eye-witness account, no newspaper report, no great and grand statue erected in his name, no small temple. None of those things would prove that Jesus was Christ. Only the Scriptures.

And that is exactly what Justin used in his argument. Because that was the only way. You see it also in Paul, in Acts, in Ignatius, in Justin Martyr. Arguments were made and won (or claimed to have been won) by using the Scriptures.

So: what eye witness accounts and newspaper reports would have confirmed that Jesus was the Christ predicted in the Old Testament FOR YOU PERSONALLY? Make sure you don't reference the Scriptures. Just eye witness accounts and newspaper reports. You can throw in a statue or two if you want.
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 11:36 pmYou prove Carrier's point Don: all that Justin does is to provide (false and feeble) examples of text that predicts the existence of a Christ - and he naturally skips the parts of the real Messianic predictions where the Messiah would unite all of Israel, smite its enemeies, restore world peace, and so on
I one million percent agree. Why do YOU think that Justin skipped the parts of the real Messianic predictions where the Messiah would unite all of Israel, smite its enemeies, restore world peace, and so on?
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Wed Mar 29, 2023 1:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply