Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

[Giuseppe]

Prof Bermejo-Rubio writes so:

The suspicion that Jesus didn't exist can be arisen already in the Antiquity, [2]

(my bold)
(The invention of Jesus of Nazareth, p. 51)

Note 2 reads, after the quote of the Trypho's words:

Le espressioni sono generiche, e non è chiaro se si riferiscano alla costruzione arbitraria di Gesù come messia o se presuppongano la negazione della sua esistenza; cfr. Doherty 2009, pp. 696-98.

I interpret these words as confirming what Carrier says: it was possible to doubt the historicity of Jesus.

[Chrissy Hansen]

No they don't. Bermejo-Rubio is literally saying that it isn't clear what is being referred to here. You can take it as confirmation if you wish, but that is a misconstrual at best. He is simply saying it is possible that people may have these doubts, but he provides no evidence and his once citation he says is vague and we don't know.

[Giuseppe]

Okay, Carrier's interpretation is *groundless* speculation.

"the real Messiah is somewhere else"
"we have no evidence your guy was ever the messiah"
"you invent a messiah for yourselves"

Until you can provide clear, explicit, and concise evidence that Carrier's interpretation is anything more than wild speculation, I will have no reason to agree with it.

The evidence is the crescendo of the gravity of the accusations:

"the REAL Messiah, IF HE EXISTS, is somewhere else"
WHILE, AT CONTRARY: NOT ONLY "we have no evidence your guy existed"
BUT EVEN ASSUMING HIS EXISTENCE, "you invent a messiah for yourselves"

Hence:

The Messiah for Trypho	The Messiah of the Christians, for Trypho
may not exist (for the moment)	may not exist
assuming he existed: he is somewhere else.	assuming he existed, his messianic status is entirely invented

Hence Trypho's Messiah wins Christian Messiah 2 - 1.

[Giuseppe]

No they don't. Bermejo-Rubio is literally saying that it isn't clear what is being referred to here. You can take it as confirmation if you wish, but that is a misconstrual at best. He is simply saying it is possible that people may have these doubts, but he provides no evidence and his once citation he says is vague and we don't know.

Bermejo-Rubio's view marks already a progress in comparison to your view, since he concedes that Trypho may be doubting the storicity of Jesus, whereas you deny absolutely a such possibility.

[Giuseppe]

I see that Bermejo-Rubio agrees totally with Earl Doherty about Trypho:

If the phrase is taken by Justin from Jewish parlance of the day and referred to Jesus (Eddy and Boyd suggest that Trypho "is simply denying that Jesus is the Christ") one wonders why he could not have said that, why it would not have been more specific such as: "You have taken a (crucified) man and turned him into the Messiah."

The issue, of course, cannot be resolved conclusively.

(Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p. 698, my bold)

I lean slightly towards the Carrier's interpretation insofar Trypho concedes that his same (true) Messiah may not exist (still for the moment), accordingly, logically, he can't accept that the man Jesus has a little advantage in comparison to the TRUE Messiah: the mere fact of the his (=of Jesus) existence.

[dbz]

Trypho's words	Carrier's interpretation of them
“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”	“the real guy is somewhere else”
“after receiving groundless hearsay,”	“we have no evidence your guy even existed”
“you invent a Christ for yourselves,”	“much less is the guy.”

So... per the historicity advocates, some Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora claimed that Justin's triumphant second-god (i.e. Lord X) was a myth.
But.... the historicity of the historical personage that the Lord X myth was built upon is never denied by said Jews. And we know touts-sure there was a historical personage (i.e. Yesus) that the Lord X myth was built upon.

What did Yesus teach?

• The end is nigh, REPENT!

Per the historical personage Jesus b. Joseph/Pantera, whom I have given the moniker Yesus. Bart Ehrman holds the viewpoint that Yesus was a Jewish preacher and teacher—crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate. Ehrman indicates that he believes that Yesus was born into poverty and was either a carpenter or a carpenter’s son. He began his public ministry while trapped in a poverty-stricken lower-class life. He was an “The end is nigh! Repent!” type of preacher. He was baptized by John the Baptist. He “raised the ire of Pharisees,” causing a ruckus in the Temple but not at the scale depicted by the Gospels. Pilate personally ordered his crucifixion after a brief trial at the beginning of Pesach, the holiest holiday of them all. Roman soldiers flogged Yesus on his way to the Cross, and he was dead within six hours.

What did second-god teach?

• I will be to you a redeemer GOD!

Cf. Godfrey, Neil (2 December 2010). “The Second God among Ancient Jewish Philosophers and Commoners”. Vridar.

[ABuddhist]

Until Carrier can point to an explicit example of Trypho saying Jesus never existed (not claims that the Christ does not exist, which is a separate issue), I will remain completely unconvinced, no matter how many chiastic structures he conjures up.

Why do you insist so strongly upon the need for explicit proof in this area? People regularly derive valid truths from things which, although not explicitly stated within a text, are unavoidably inferred. Mythicists say that Trypho was being presented as denying that Jesus was a historical person, and at least one historicist, as you concede, made the same argument. So the possbility remains, in my opinion, that the original Christian perspective was the same. After all, many Christians to this day regard the terms Jesus and Christ as interchangeable, and organizing arguments chiastically is a reasonable way to do such a thing.

In 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.

[ABuddhist]

No they don't. Bermejo-Rubio is literally saying that it isn't clear what is being referred to here. You can take it as confirmation if you wish

And why should we not? When position A is asserted by the majority to be the true position, and a minority argues that in fact position B is the true position, then surely a concession that the evidence which both sides cite in fact cannot decisively support either position greatly strengthens the arguments advocated by supporters of position B, even unto perhaps confirming that position B is correct when advocates for position B rely upon evidence which position B's supporters do not consider.

[mlinssen]

In the light of all this apparent confusion obstinacy about names, it is worth considering that Trypho in this very same text confuses himself with names, by naming Joshua Ihsous as well as IS, multiple times

viewtopic.php?p=152352#p152352

But the bottom line is, of course, that Justin can demonstrate nothing at all whatsoever: Christ, Jesus, Chrest, Geewsus - all fables

[dbz]

But the bottom line is, of course, that Justin can demonstrate nothing at all whatsoever: Christ, Jesus, Chrest, Geewsus - all fables

It is clear who is touching the elephant here and who is touching something entirely different. I guess de Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

softandmushy.jpeg (31.65 KiB) Viewed 388 times