Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

[Secret Alias]

I haven't been following this debate but ...

1. it is known that Justin Martyr's writings were reused by Irenaeus and Tertullian
2. in Against the Jews and Against Marcion Book Three especially (and elsewhere in Irenaeus) a similar argument is advanced
3. in that context the argument does not seem to have anything to do with whether or not Jesus was a historical figure

The sense seems to be (in the case of the Jews) whether or not their expectation of the messiah was fulfilled by the coming of Jesus and (in the case of Marcion) whether the Marcionite denial of Jesus being the expected messiah of the Jews is proof that Marcion was influenced by Judaism.

These sorts of argument continued down through the ages between Christians and Jews. Nachmanides is one of many later examples. Throughout the history of the debate the question is not whether or not Jesus existed but whether the Pentateuch and the prophetic writings heralded his coming.

The Marcionites seem to have denied at least some of the prophesies used by Jews to predict their messiah. My own research suggests that both Justin and the Marcionites held that a heavenly being descended in some way (in Justin's into the womb of Mary, Marcion differently). There is some evidence that this figure was named "Man." He appeared in a meek form only to die and descend into the underworld as a/the "Man of War" and empty Hades of the souls who died without the Law.

While I agree that Justin may have held "Jesus" to be a heavenly figure the matter is more complicated and nuanced than either side is prepared to admit.

[Giuseppe]

3. in that context the argument does not seem to have anything to do with whether or not Jesus was a historical figure

which is exactly what is denied by the chiastic structure examined by Carrier:

Trypho's accusations (in order)	Justin's replies (in order)
“the messiah is hidden”;	“not made-up myths, but stories with too much present power to be made-up”
“besides, Elijah”;	“second coming”
“and regardless, he should not be this obscure but far more obvious”;	“Elijah did come and announce it”
“so you are just believing in made-up myths”	“our guy is not hidden; and in any event, won’t be when he comes again”

Hence Justin's first reply (in blue) is the correct key to interpret the last accusation by Trypho (in blue).

[Peter Kirby]

3. in that context the argument does not seem to have anything to do with whether or not Jesus was a historical figure

which is exactly what is denied by the chiastic structure examined by Carrier:

Trypho's accusations (in order)	Justin's replies (in order)
“the messiah is hidden”;	“not made-up myths, but stories with too much present power to be made-up”
“besides, Elijah”;	“second coming”
“and regardless, he should not be this obscure but far more obvious”;	“Elijah did come and announce it”
“so you are just believing in made-up myths”	“our guy is not hidden; and in any event, won’t be when he comes again”

Hence Justin's first reply (in blue) is the correct key to interpret the last accusation by Trypho (in blue).

I wonder if we could instead fill out this table with the real quotes.

[Peter Kirby]

As far as fact checking Carrier's translation of Greek, I'm not going to waste my time but trust Roberts-Donaldson translation as provided by: Early Christian Writings.

You'd have to fact check my translation of the Greek because I was the one who supplied it, not Carrier.

I don't blindly trust the translation on my website. Why would you?

[Giuseppe]

I am able to fill the entire first column by quoting from here.

Trypho's accusations (in order)	Justin's replies (in order)
“But Christ — if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere — is unknown, and does not even know Himself”;	“I excuse and forgive you, my friend, 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 has no power until Elias come to anoint Him”;	“second coming”
“, and make Him manifest to all”;	“Elijah did come and announce it”
“And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.”	“our guy is not hidden; and in any event, won’t be when he comes again”

[Secret Alias]

I am telling you. It's like a sports franchise looking for the "next Tom Brady."

The next Tom Brady (substitute "Christ") if he exists ... etc.

[Secret Alias]

The perplexing thing about Justin is that he appears, at least to my sensibilities, to be mostly in agreement with the Marcionites except that he thought Christ was born of a virgin. How this could be taken to mean that he thought Jesus didn't exist is beyond me. It's one of the faults of the term "mythicism." If you follow World Football Messi is called "God" and "the GOAT" and said to be "otherworldly" and an "alien" and "heaven sent" and there are occasion play on his name "Messi" to mean "Messiah" (even though his team mate Angel DiMaria's name in Hebrew adds up to the Messiah). But does any of this presuppose that Messi didn't exist? Or that 2000 years ago a discussion group of mythicism might argue that he didn't? Probably. The curse of the eternal return.

[Giuseppe]

But we are examining here if in Justin's time it was possible or not to doubt the historicity of Jesus.

Not that a Jew named Trypho was mythicist.

[Secret Alias]

Justin thought that a cosmic being called "Man" was born through a Virgin named Mary. How could he be possibly understood (or manipulated to be saying) that this figure did not exist in a particular historical period of time? Or didn't have "reality"?

[Secret Alias]

The Jew and Justin are arguing over whether the prophesies uttered by Moses, Isaiah et al about "the Christ" applied to this historical figure. How else can the passage be read? It's the same situation as that work Celsus knew (and Irenaeus quotes). And all the Church Fathers debated with Jews and the Catholic Church various Jewish figures in the Medieval period.