Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

[Chrissy Hansen]

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.

He literally claims that Jesus was crucified as a human man and therefore was not the messiah. Yes he does.

[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

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.

He does not refute any claim that Jesus didn't exist. He refutes claims that Jesus was not the Messiah and that Jesus had miraculous elements of his life.

[ABuddhist]

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.

He literally claims that Jesus was crucified as a human man and therefore was not the messiah. Yes he does.

But that was not in the passage which you quoted.

[StephenGoranson]

Louis Feldman was/is an academic scholar respected by academic scholars.

[Chrissy Hansen]

A list of quotes where Trypho assumes Jesus existed and makes it pretty dang clear:

Dialogue with Trypho 10

and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified

Chapter 32

But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified.

Chapter 39

Now, then, render us the proof that this man who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God.

Note in chapter 39 he makes it explicit he is talking of Jesus being the Messiah, not his existence.

Chapter 46

But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognising Him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to Him to be absolute Judge of all, and that His is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved?

Chapter 89

But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law.

Having a hard time finding here anything about Jesus not existing. Definitely a lot assuming that he was crucified and therefore not the Messiah, because the Messiah wasn't supposed to be crucified, though.

[ABuddhist]

A list of quotes where Trypho assumes Jesus existed and makes it pretty dang clear:

Dialogue with Trypho 10

and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified

Chapter 32

But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified.

Chapter 39

Now, then, render us the proof that this man who you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God.

Note in chapter 39 he makes it explicit he is talking of Jesus being the Messiah, not his existence.

Chapter 46

But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognising Him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to Him to be absolute Judge of all, and that His is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved?

Chapter 89

But whether Christ should be so shamefully crucified, this we are in doubt about. For whosoever is crucified is said in the law to be accursed, so that I am exceedingly incredulous on this point. It is quite clear, indeed, that the Scriptures announce that Christ had to suffer; but we wish to learn if you can prove it to us whether it was by the suffering cursed in the law.

Having a hard time finding here anything about Jesus not existing. Definitely a lot assuming that he was crucified and therefore not the Messiah, because the Messiah wasn't supposed to be crucified, though.

Many thanks for providing to us the quotations. I know that this whole discussion is filled with bad feelings and with accusations of dishonesty, but your quotations were asked for in good faith by me and they have for me proven that Trypho was indeed portrayed as assuming that Jesus existed - although others might disagree.

[Chrissy Hansen]

I know, that is no problem. I'm sorry for getting a little uppity (the combination of Carrier and Martijn put me on edge and I apologize if was rude to you and others here, it was not my intention).

[dbz]

Trypho was indeed portrayed as assuming that Jesus existed - although others might disagree.

• Rather Trypho is indifferent, as would anyone trained in rhetoric of the time, to try and disprove the existence of a nobody failure from 100 years or more past.

[15:19]...it's a more indifferent agnostic position that Trypho is advancing which makes sense for the late second century. Because there would be no possible way for someone in that period at that time to know that Jesus did or didn't exist. Because there are 100 years—more than 100 years—after the events. There'll be no way to check or find out basically or else be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. But it still means that Trypho knows all you got are your gospels like why do we believe that stuff. [15:47]

---

---

---

"Does Justin Martyr's Dialogue With Trypho Mention Mythicsts??? ft. Dr. Richard Carrier". YouTube.

[Secret Alias]

It is important to note. THE MANUSCRIPT of the Dialogue doesn't support viewing Justin as putting forward a supernatural Jesus. What Justin really believed isn't clear. Justin likely believed Jesus could fly and pass through people. It's a lot like the Muller Report. Couldn't prove Trump was owned by the Russians.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

Sure, if that's something that's the topic of conversation. But in the Dialogue though, it's all about whether the Scriptures prophecised the Christian's Christ rather than the Jewish one, or whether Christians had in fact invented a Christ for themselves.