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.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

Post by Giuseppe »


It is important to note that Trypho is not being made to deny Jesus existed. He is not arguing that Jesus didn’t exist. Rather, he is arguing that Justin can’t prove he did exist—and thus did or said any of the things Christians claim. Not being able to tell the difference between those two arguments is very common among historicity apologists (Hansen commits this fallacy all over her paper on Trypho). So I need to spend a moment forestalling this mistake

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23326
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Here Richard Carrier overcomes himself:

It is simply saying, “You can’t even prove your guy existed, so why should I believe anything else you have to say about him?” It’s a burden-shifting argument. It is not an argument against historicity. But it does reflect the fact that, indeed, Justin had no credible evidence Jesus even existed, much less was a superhero. It was totally possible to doubt the historicity of Jesus. And Justin knew it.

:cheers:
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:43 am Here Richard Carrier overcomes himself:

It is simply saying, “You can’t even prove your guy existed, so why should I believe anything else you have to say about him?” It’s a burden-shifting argument. It is not an argument against historicity. But it does reflect the fact that, indeed, Justin had no credible evidence Jesus even existed, much less was a superhero. It was totally possible to doubt the historicity of Jesus. And Justin knew it.

:cheers:
Yep, no evidence that the gospel Jesus was a historical figure. However, there is also no evidence to support a cosmic christ figure shape-shifting into the gospel JC.

”If ‘Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity’ is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction,”. (OHJ)

That's where Carrier should have gone - history - not taking some magic carpet ride with his interpretation of the Pauline writings.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:41 am
It is important to note that Trypho is not being made to deny Jesus existed. He is not arguing that Jesus didn’t exist. Rather, he is arguing that Justin can’t prove he did exist—and thus did or said any of the things Christians claim. Not being able to tell the difference between those two arguments is very common among historicity apologists (Hansen commits this fallacy all over her paper on Trypho). So I need to spend a moment forestalling this mistake

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23326
Trypho didn't say that Jesus never existed. He said that Christ never existed. Christ won't exist until Elijah comes to anoint him. Men do not pop into existence when they are anointed, but roles/titles do.

As Trypho says in Chapter 49:

"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 man" is Jesus. For Trypho, Jesus couldn't be the Christ because he wasn't anointed by Elijah. So: (1) Jesus existed, (2) Christ does not exist.

Case closed.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:43 am Here Richard Carrier overcomes himself:

It is simply saying, “You can’t even prove your guy existed, so why should I believe anything else you have to say about him?” It’s a burden-shifting argument. It is not an argument against historicity. But it does reflect the fact that, indeed, Justin had no credible evidence Jesus even existed, much less was a superhero. It was totally possible to doubt the historicity of Jesus. And Justin knew it.

:cheers:
Hi Giuseppe. Could you do me a favour please? Could you summarise Carrier's argument that's in his blog post?

Hahahahahahaha!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes, I'm being mean. But at some point surely even you have to acknowledge Carrier is just throwing out a string of paragraphs only tangentially connected to his argument. How many more blog posts are you going to suffer yourself to read through before you realise that?

I mean, holy ravioli, Carrier can't even get it straight that Trypho never says that Jesus didn't exist. Surely that's an important consideration?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:20 amSurely that's an important consideration?
no, it isn't. Justin was not an Ebionite, he didn't consider Jesus a mere man, but a Man-God. Therefore he didn't distinguish between Jesus and Christ, when he put on the mouth of the his fictional Trypho the word "Christ". Since he didn't distinguish, so also we shouldn't, if our goal is to interpret correctly Justin.

Really, there is even more than that, since Carrier remarks:

Justin understood Trypho’s doubts to be total, requiring a totalizing response.

Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:56 am because he wasn't anointed by Elijah.
Carrier uses the chiastic structure as evidence that your (and Hansen's) reading is wrong:

Because of this structure, in no way is Hansen correct that Justin meant Trypho to be saying “you believe in baseless myths, because Elijah hasn’t come.” Or anything else other than straight-up doubting whether his Jesus even existed at all.

This post by Carrier is important because all the mythicists can raise his Trypho's argument against historicity, not only the mythicists who believe that the Pauline epistles are genuine.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2296
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

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

Post by GakuseiDon »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:33 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:20 amSurely that's an important consideration?
no, it isn't. Justin was not an Ebionite, he didn't consider Jesus a mere man, but a Man-God. Therefore he didn't distinguish between Jesus and Christ, when he put on the mouth of the his fictional Trypho the word "Christ". Since he didn't distinguish, so also we shouldn't, if our goal is to interpret correctly Justin.
But that's simply not true. At various points Justin separates Jesus from Christ. I actually quoted Justin to that effect in the post just up above:

As Trypho says in Chapter 49:

"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]."
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:33 amReally, there is even more than that, since Carrier remarks:

Justin understood Trypho’s doubts to be total, requiring a totalizing response.

I honestly don't want to descend into sarcasm because I know you are presenting this in good faith. But seriously, can you quote the parts of Carrier's argument that make his point? Not the word salad that accompanies nearly all of his blog posts and in his book. Just sketch it out, quoting the relevant parts. Surely that's fair?
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:39 am
GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:56 am because he wasn't anointed by Elijah.
Carrier uses the chiastic structure as evidence that your (and Hansen's) reading is wrong:

Because of this structure, in no way is Hansen correct that Justin meant Trypho to be saying “you believe in baseless myths, because Elijah hasn’t come.” Or anything else other than straight-up doubting whether his Jesus even existed at all.

Given Carrier's track record, the first thing I'd recommend is to check to see what she actually wrote. I simply don't trust Carrier to represent others accurately.

But leaving that aside: So you say "in no way... Justin meant Trypho to be saying “you believe in baseless myths, because Elijah hasn’t come"? Yes and no.

"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]."

Justin and Trypho spend much of the Dialogue arguing over whether "this man" was the Christ, never whether Jesus existed at all. "Jesus was not the Christ because Elijah hasn't come" is part of a long tussle over whether Christ would suffer, or be crucified, or be born of a virgin. Those are all part of the "baseless" myths. But the crowning argument is the lack of an Elijah, as above.

Examples of that tussle:

Chapter 36:

Then he [Trypho] 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."

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: "Show us this man is Christ" NOT "show us this man 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?"
...
And I [Justin] 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.


Here is Trypho's reaction to the claim of Jesus being born of a virgin:

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."

That's all part of the accusation that Christians tell empty fables. The defining argument is that Jesus can't have been Christ because Elijah hasn't come.

I'm happy to argue this out with you Giuseppe, but PLEASE don't just give me some conclusion by Carrier. Use his own words. Quote his actual points that establish his conclusion.
Last edited by GakuseiDon on Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

The problem is that Christians since antiquity have taken "Christ" to be Jesus last name or part of his name. The anointed (one).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8046
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

GakuseiDon wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:56 am As Trypho says in Chapter 49:

"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 man" is Jesus. For Trypho, Jesus couldn't be the Christ because he wasn't anointed by Elijah. So: (1) Jesus existed, (2) Christ does not exist.

Case closed.
I'm sorry, because this would be a nice way to secure the argument, but I believe this is basically a mistranslation (when used with the emphasis that you've given it, as a secure declaration by Trypho that Jesus existed and was not the Christ).

The Greek is here:
viewtopic.php?t=1874&start=10
https://archive.org/details/sjustiniphi ... 8/mode/2up

The key phrase is this:

οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἀποφαίνομαι εἶναι

i.e., οὐδὲ (and neither) τοῦτον (he) ἀποφαίνομαι (I conclude) εἶναι (has come)

i.e., "I conclude that neither has he come."

Instead of declaring that a specific man is not the Christ, it says that the Christ has not come.

So a translation that avoids the interpretive trap set here is:

"but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that neither has he [the Christ] come."
Post Reply