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.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 7:46 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 6:22 am The Simonian claim from Irenaeus is
and he [Simon] taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him.
i.e. the historical Simon was an avatar of a divine being, the historical Jesus being another avatar. This is a weird claim but I doubt whether it really denies the existence of a historical Jesus.
Well, doubt is what I propose to be warranted as to the claim that no ancient taught that the historical Jesus didn't exist. I didn't quite see where Irenaeus claimed that Simon taught that Jesus was (1) historical and (2) another avatar of a divine being.

Some further thoughts on the matter are found here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... dnt-exist/

Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD

I should have included the following passage from Irenaeus
For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he [Simon] had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered
Sorry, still don't see where Irenaeus claimed that Simon taught that Jesus was (1) historical and (2) another avatar of a divine being.
Well, the reference to Simon's Jesus's appearing among the Jews and to his appearing among men to be a man who had suffered in Judaea strongly suggest that Irenaeus was claiming that Simon had taught that Jesus was historical. Whether these teachings were accurately represented by Iranaeus is another issue.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

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

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Where is the reference to "Simon's Jesus?" The report (consistent with others given in the Uncertaintist article whose link appears in what you quoted) was that Simonians were taught that Simon appeared among the Jews.

I have no problem with the modern analyst amending their claim to state "Despite Christian witness to the contrary, no ancient taught, etc." Or one can hedge it with the preface "Depending on how statements reportedly made by counterapologists are interpreted, it may be the case that, etc." Or both. But the claim before us is categorical and universally quantified. It is unwarranted unless amended. The amended version will be much less interesting than the original and neither version bears on whether or not Jesus was a real person who actually lived.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 10:00 am Where is the reference to "Simon's Jesus?" The report (consistent with others given in the Uncertaintist article whose link appears in what you quoted) was that Simonians were taught that Simon appeared among the Jews.

I have no problem with the modern analyst amending their claim to state "Despite Christian witness to the contrary, no ancient taught, etc." Or one can hedge it with the preface "Depending on how statements reportedly made by counterapologists are interpreted, it may be the case that, etc." Or both. But the claim before us is categorical and universally quantified. It is unwarranted unless amended. The amended version will be much less interesting than the original and neither version bears on whether or not Jesus was a real person who actually lived.
Well, Iranaeus thought that Siman was claiming to have been Jesus Christ, and I see no problem with believing that such a thing was either taught by Simon or was claimed by Simonians later. Charismatic founders of religious movements regularly claim to be other religions' key figures (notoriously, L. Ron Hubbard claimed to be Metteya Buddha and Sattya Sai Baba claimed to be Shiva, Shakti, and Jesus Christ). Such a claim, either by Simon or by his followers, is not direct proof that Jesus was historical figure.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

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

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

ABuddhist wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 12:30 pm
Well, Iranaeus thought that Siman was claiming to have been Jesus Christ, and I see no problem with believing that such a thing was either taught by Simon or was claimed by Simonians later.
So far, so good. We're in agreement.
Such a claim, either by Simon or by his followers, is not direct proof that Jesus was historical figure.
I agree, but I don't think anybody has claimed that. The issue would be that according to patristic and late ancient Christian sources, one of whom is Irenaeus, there was some teaching current in ancient times that the signature religiously significant deeds which Christians typically attribute to the historical Jesus and which figure in typical contemporary definitions of the term historical Jesus were either the deeds or the appearance of deeds performed by a different person, not by a historical Jesus.

The canon depicts an ancient Christian belief that both Simon and Jesus were historical persons, but two distinct individuals. "Simon did it" therefore contradicts any conception of "historical Jesus" plausibly held by ancient followers of Jesus. Some ancient followers of Jesus report that Simonians (whose ancient existence has some historical foundation, as described in the blog article mentioned in earlier posts) taught "Simon did it."

Conclude: There exist useful definitions of the term historical Jesus for which there is evidence that there existed ancient teachings that there was no historical Jesus.
Post Reply