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.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

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

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

To ABuddhist: That is only if you can establish Y is better suited to Z over X. That's the problem. Carrier has not produced any argumentation which makes his conclusions and speculations more likely than mine given Y. And given we have no explicit case anywhere of any person ever saying in the ancient world that "Jesus did not exist" his case is even worse just by sheer prior probability. Why should I even entertain this is what "Trypho" thought, when (A) Justin never rebuts it and Justin invented the narrative, why invent something he doesn't retort to; and (B) there is no evidence anywhere that ancient mythicism was actually a thing? Like, sorry to Giuseppe and others, but I've never found any of their elaborations on these texts convincing. The search for mythicists is often just a game of "reading between the lines" that would never pass most respected academic spheres.

Also, Giuseppe, Bermejo-Rubio was originally writing in Spanish... not Italian. The original Spanish has "puede" which basically just means "possible" or "may" or "could have".

You also conveniently left out the part where he said: "la tesis se deteca con claridad primeramente en Francia en el siglo XVIII en las obtras de Charles-Francois Dupius." I.e., he thinks the first time there is any clear indication of mythicism was in the eighteenth century when Dupuis wrote his work.
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 »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:05 amIn any case, what I find to be truly fascinating about the dialogue between Trypho and Justin is that Justin, in defending the Christians' claims about Jesus/Christ, does not try to emphasize that the Christians' accounts about Jesus were by trustworthy people who had experienced actual events, but instead appeals to miracles and the Jews' scriptures.
I'm sorry, but how would eye witness accounts prove that Scriptures prophecised that Christ would be born of a virgin and crucified? That's one of the many things involving Scriptures that are being argued over in Dialogue. For example:

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."

This thread is dominated by the idea that for Justin to prove that Jesus was the Christ, he needed to refer to eye witness accounts (which I call "the newspaper reporter's Jesus fallacy"). But the battle over whether Jesus was Christ, at least with Jews, was over whether Scriptures prophecised the Christian Christ. Jews were expecting a different one, at least according to Justin's Trypho.

Christians are accused of pulling things out of Scriptures in order to "invent a Christ for themselves". It gets said on this board often enough by historicists and mythicists alike.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8021
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 »

Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:50 amThe fact that they believed in an empty fable that Jesus was "the Christ"
This is a much thornier problem than implied, because it also doesn't explicitly say here that the groundless report and empty fables mentioned are specifically just "that Jesus was 'the Christ'." There's more to this question than you're allowing.
Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:50 ampoint to an explicit example of Trypho saying Jesus never existed
This would sure be nice, but taking this stance implies a certain unwillingness to consider the text as it stands and wrestle with all of its nuances. The text gets reduced to a source for being mined for proof texts, and a clear "explicit" one is being required. It's not necessarily a way to arrive at the most likely truth here, but it is typical of disputes where someone comes in unwilling to be persuaded by further discussion.
Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:50 amI will remain completely unconvinced
Not really the goal of anyone here, is it? You're free to be unconvinced.
Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:50 amno matter how many chiastic structures he conjures up.
I agree that this is not at all a point of evidence in favor, and Giuseppe is not helping his case to emphasize it so much as a point of argument.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

GakuseiDon wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:44 pm
ABuddhist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:05 amIn any case, what I find to be truly fascinating about the dialogue between Trypho and Justin is that Justin, in defending the Christians' claims about Jesus/Christ, does not try to emphasize that the Christians' accounts about Jesus were by trustworthy people who had experienced actual events, but instead appeals to miracles and the Jews' scriptures.
I'm sorry, but how would eye witness accounts prove that Scriptures prophecised that Christ would be born of a virgin and crucified?
Such accounts would not do that, but they would at least confirm that Jeus was more than, for example, a crucified criminal, a carpenter, or a slightly heterodox rabbi.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:50 pm
Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:50 amThe fact that they believed in an empty fable that Jesus was "the Christ"
This is a much thornier problem than implied, because it also doesn't explicitly say here that the groundless report and empty fables mentioned are specifically just "that Jesus was 'the Christ'." There's more to this question than you're allowing.
Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:50 ampoint to an explicit example of Trypho saying Jesus never existed
This would sure be nice, but taking this stance implies a certain unwillingness to consider the text as it stands and wrestle with all of its nuances. The text gets reduced to a source for being mined for proof texts, and a clear "explicit" one is being required. It's not necessarily a way to arrive at the most likely truth here, but it is typical of disputes where someone comes in unwilling to be persuaded by further discussion.
I entirely agree with these words. And I am one who thinks that if Trypho was portrayed as alleging that Jesus had been invented by Christians, he was portrayed as making an assertion which I do not agree with.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:34 pm The search for mythicists is often just a game of "reading between the lines" that would never pass most respected academic spheres.
Does the fact that Feldman, a non-mythicist himself, engaged in such reading between the lines and got published serve as further proof that most acedemic study of the Christians' scriptures is not really a respected academic sphere, or at least not a typical respected academic sphere?
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

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

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:50 pm
This would sure be nice, but taking this stance implies a certain unwillingness to consider the text as it stands and wrestle with all of its nuances. The text gets reduced to a source for being mined for proof texts, and a clear "explicit" one is being required. It's not necessarily a way to arrive at the most likely truth here, but it is typical of disputes where someone comes in unwilling to be persuaded by further discussion.
The problem is that the text is just pretty explicit elsewhere about what this bit is discussing:
“It appears to me,” said Trypho, “that they who assert that
He was of human origin, and was anointed as the Christ
only by choice, propose a doctrine much more credible than
yours. We Jews all expect that Christ will be a man of
merely human origin, and that Elias40 will come to anoint
Him. If this man appears to be the Christ, He must be
considered to be a man of solely human birth, yet,
from the fact that Elias has not yet come,
I must declare that this man is not the Christ.”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 49

Like... that is pretty obvious they are talking about Jesus not being the Messiah. Not that he never existed. And this is why I remain completely unconvinced.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:16 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:50 pm
This would sure be nice, but taking this stance implies a certain unwillingness to consider the text as it stands and wrestle with all of its nuances. The text gets reduced to a source for being mined for proof texts, and a clear "explicit" one is being required. It's not necessarily a way to arrive at the most likely truth here, but it is typical of disputes where someone comes in unwilling to be persuaded by further discussion.
The problem is that the text is just pretty explicit elsewhere about what this bit is discussing:
“It appears to me,” said Trypho, “that they who assert that
He was of human origin, and was anointed as the Christ
only by choice, propose a doctrine much more credible than
yours. We Jews all expect that Christ will be a man of
merely human origin, and that Elias40 will come to anoint
Him. If this man appears to be the Christ, He must be
considered to be a man of solely human birth, yet,
from the fact that Elias has not yet come,
I must declare that this man is not the Christ.”
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 49

Like... that is pretty obvious they are talking about Jesus not being the Messiah. Not that he never existed. And this is why I remain completely unconvinced.
But Trypho does not explicitly endorse the claim that Jesus was a real human, even though as a non-Christian character arguing against Christianity, it would have been perfectly natural for him to be portrayed as saying, “I must declare that this man is not the Christ but was only a crucified criminal [or some other more explicit historical role]."

It is ironic that even as you seek explicit statrements from Trypho about 1 thing, you cite non-explicit statements from Trypho as refutation.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

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

Post by ABuddhist »

Chrissy Hansen wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:34 pm To ABuddhist: That is only if you can establish Y is better suited to Z over X. That's the problem. Carrier has not produced any argumentation which makes his conclusions and speculations more likely than mine given Y. And given we have no explicit case anywhere of any person ever saying in the ancient world that "Jesus did not exist" his case is even worse just by sheer prior probability. Why should I even entertain this is what "Trypho" thought, when (A) Justin never rebuts it
Whether the arguments are better or worse is the heart of the debate between mythicists and historicists.



And Justin does refute it - by appealing to miracles. Not a conventional refutation, but a refutation nonetheless.
Chrissy Hansen
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:46 pm

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

Post by Chrissy Hansen »

ABuddhist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 3:10 pm Does the fact that Feldman, a non-mythicist himself, engaged in such reading between the lines and got published serve as further proof that most acedemic study of the Christians' scriptures is not really a respected academic sphere, or at least not a typical respected academic sphere?
No, it is just evidence that peer reviewers (in all fields, no matter what) have better things to do than scrutinze every little tidbit that people include in their books and articles. But I would agree there is a lot in the study of Christian scriptures that is really lacking... a heck of a lot. This field is definitely rife with things practiced in no other field of historical inquiry.

This rampant search for chiastic structures to validate one's bad claim about "mythicist Trypho" is definitely one of those things you don't see in other fields.

But as for Feldman, he is fairly exceptional, as discussed. On the contrary, of course, I could bring up Archibald Robertson (who dealt with this issue), Boyd and Eddy (the latter of whom is a respected NT scholar who even published one of Price's articles on mythicism in an edited volume), Alice Whealey, and Ehrman have all rebutted this view. Van Voorst also seems skeptical of this idea of Feldman's and others. I can also note that my interpretation is what is accepted by Brian J. Arnold (who discusses the passage in his volume: Justification in the Second Century, De Gruyter), Justin Hayes (in Justin Against Marcion), Jorg Ulrich (in the anthology: The Discursive Fight Over Religious Texts in Antiquity). I could go on and on and on.

This view is entirely exceptional and in my view more just an indicator that people want to see specific things in these texts, or simply haven't really engaged with the text in its entirety. In my view, nothing in this dialogue is meant to infer any statements about whether or not Jesus existed as a human being. As Van Voorst notes, Trypho assumes historicity throughout the entire dialogue... but the consistent issue that constantly comes up is that Jesus was not the messiah because he was not known to Elijah and announced to the world, and a crucified man could not possibly be the messiah. Those are not the words of a man who doubts Jesus existed.
Post Reply