Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

[Peter Kirby]

The idea that the Dialogue has lacunae and interpolations is standard in the discussion of Justin Martyr.

Speaking of which, Carrier seems to understate this a little:

Some of the set-up might be missing (in §141 Justin assumes this has all been a story he is relating to a certain Marcus Pompeius, which must have originally been set up in or before §1, but that’s now missing). But so far as we know there are no other major corruptions of the text (though minor ones are inevitable).

But there does seem to be at least one other "major" lacuna in Dialogue 74.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/33564632.pdf

As mentioned above, the text of the Dialogue comes to us in Paris 450, a medieval manuscript dated 1I September 1363. Unfortunately, the state of the text of Dialogue leaves something to be desired. Some have suggested that because there is no introductory dedication preceding the Dialogue that this has been lost from the original. 16' But there is more definite evidence of mutilation of the text. There appears to be a lacuna in Dial. 74.3 which Chadwick believes extended for several pages. There is a further lacuna in Dial. 73 where the exposition of Ps 96 is suddenly interrupted, never to be resumed again. There is also internal evidence that suggests the discussion between Justin and Trypho lasted two separate days. But the Dialogue, as we have it, shows no trace of either the end of the first day or the beginning of the second. In light of this, perhaps the words of Schneider are appropriate, "Solutions in this field are difficult and must be left to the technical experts. While it would be of immeasurable gain if the mutilations of the text could be resolved, they are fortunately not of such an extent as to make any attempt at evaluation and interpretation useless or grossly inaccurate."

On the other hand, the discussion of lacunae is not balanced by an equal discussion of interpolations, which are generally discussed as "minor ones" that are "inevitable," as Carrier puts it.

[Secret Alias]

I know that when I was looking for my "Man" figure in Justin when you dig a little through the commentary there is like universal agreement the manuscript is corrupt or very corrupted.

[GakuseiDon]

If we use your translation (which I've highlighted below), then we still have Trypho acknowledging there are two people in the equation: a man and Christ:

And Trypho said, "Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man[born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that neither has Christ come."

There are the other examples that I gave earlier: Christ is something that a man becomes, according to Justin's Trypho. So even if Trypho is accepting the existence of a man for sake of argument as per your second post's quote from Carrier, he is still separating out the title of Christ from the man Jesus, as far as I can see. In that case, a man can exist without Christ existing.

You're the one who took this quote and said "case closed."

Now you're saying "a man can exist without Christ existing."

Which says so little. It sounds like you're left with saying your interpretation (versus Carrier) is merely possible.

If you're saying more than that... on what grounds?

My logic:

1. Based on what Justin's Trypho says about "this man" (quite a few times) and "Jesus" (once), he is separating out the role of Christ from the man.
2. Justin's Trypho never says that Jesus didn't exist, only that Christ didn't exist.
3. Justin's Trypho, who knows the Gospel, seems to accept that Christians believed that a man Jesus existed.

Possible counter-arguments:

1. Justin's Trypho doesn't believe that Jesus existed but is granting it for the sake of argument
-- I'm not aware of any passages in Dialogue that supports that

2. Justin's Trypho doesn't know whether Jesus existed or not but is granting it for the sake of argument
-- I'm not aware of any passages in Dialogue that supports that, but even if there are I can't see how agnosticism on the question lends support to the idea that Jesus didn't exist.

3. Carrier's argument from his blog: "It is important to note that Trypho is not being made to deny Jesus existed. He is not arguing that Jesus didn’t exist. Rather, he is arguing that Justin can’t prove he did exist—and thus did or said any of the things Christians claim."
-- I'd like to see Carrier quoting Justin's Trypho to the effect that Justin can't prove that Jesus existed. I simply don't trust Carrier when it comes to what he claims about his sources say, so I always look for the direct quote from his source. He doesn't quote the Dialogue here.

So:
1. Justin's Trypho says Christ doesn't exist because Elijah hasn't come to anoint him
2. Justin's Trypho seems to accept that there was a man Jesus whom Christians viewed as the Christ.
3. As Carrier writes (quoted above): Justin's Trypho "is not arguing that Jesus didn’t exist."

From this I conclude: Justin's Trypho is represented as believing Christ hasn't come, while seemingly accepting that a man Jesus existed.

[GakuseiDon]

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.

Of course it's possible. Why wouldn't it be possible? Is there an argument floating around that it is impossible for a Jew living in 150 CE to doubt the existence of a man who died around 30 CE? What does that argument look like?

It's possible, but the question is whether Justin's Trypho is making that claim. Here is Carrier's view from that blog post you linked to in your OP:

It is important to note that Trypho is not being made to deny Jesus existed. He is not arguing that Jesus didn’t exist.

So Justin's Trypho isn't making that claim. Carrier goes on with:

Rather, he [Trypho] is arguing that Justin can’t prove he did exist... This is an agnostic, noncommittal position. It is simply saying, “You can’t even prove your guy existed, so why should I believe anything else you have to say about him?” It’s a burden-shifting argument. It is not an argument against historicity. But it does reflect the fact that, indeed, Justin had no credible evidence Jesus even existed, much less was a superhero. It was totally possible to doubt the historicity of Jesus. And Justin knew it.

Some quotes from Justin's Trypho showing he is arguing that Justin can't prove that Jesus didn't exist would be useful here. I just don't trust Carrier's citations anymore.

[Peter Kirby]

Why wouldn't it be possible? Is there an argument floating around that it is impossible for a Jew living in 150 CE to doubt the existence of a man who died around 30 CE? What does that argument look like?

It usually goes, "We don't have examples of this, so nobody actually was doing it, so Jesus existed."

Trypho (as a character or real person) goes to the question of whether "we don't have examples of this."

[Peter Kirby]

Some quotes from Justin's Trypho showing he is arguing that Justin can't prove that Jesus didn't [sic] exist would be useful here. I just don't trust Carrier's citations anymore.

Maybe Carrier is conflating two different things:

(1) Trypho expresses skepticism about... (leaving this blank deliberately, because it requires careful interpretation)

(2) Justin's replies to Trypho's skepticism aren't what we would consider historical evidence (talking about the stories having power, about prophecy, about contemporary miracles)

I can find a couple places where Trypho qualifies his statements in a skeptical way, to the point where it's a credible view that he's not really bought into the story of Jesus at all.

I can't find anything so specific as "arguing that Justin can't prove that Jesus did exist."

No, I don't know why Carrier does things like this.

[Secret Alias]

I don't know why Carrier does things like this.

Poontang.

[Giuseppe]

Possibly a comparison with Celsus may be useful.

We have Celsus's claims that the Gospel story is fiction but we don't derive from this the implication that Celsus is doubting the same historicity of Jesus.

In the case of Trypho, we have a direct quote "you invented a Christ for yourselves", and the Justin's interpretation of it as the accusation that the Gospel story are "empty fables".

Is this sufficient to consider Trypho a guy who is going even to doubt about EVERYTHING of the Gospel story, without nothing being saved?

For me, the answer is yes.

The modest merit of Carrier is only to have pointed out how the chiastic structure reveals the precise way Justin is going to interpret precisely that otherwise enigmatic assertion "You invented a Christ for yourselves". In short, Justin interpreted it as a mythicist claim. And so also we should.

[John T]

I can find a couple places where Trypho qualifies his statements in a skeptical way, to the point where it's a credible view that he's not really bought into the story of Jesus at all.

I can't find anything so specific as "arguing that Justin can't prove that Jesus did exist."

No, I don't know why Carrier does things like this.

Why does Carrier continue do things like this?..Because if he can convince you that Jesus was a myth then, Christianity is based on a myth. Therefore, God is a myth.

Circular reasoning via begging the question (petitio principii).


Chap. XXX. For we call Him Helper and Redeemer, the power of whose name even the demons do fear; and at this day, when they are exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, governor of Judæa, they are overcome.

Chap. XXXII. And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. 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."

Clearly, throughout the dialogue, the main question is not about if Jesus existed (that is a given) but rather how this Jesus can be the Christ (logos) of God?

You don't have to agree with Justin or Trypho or even Plato for that matter but you got to keep the main thing, the main thing. They are trying to explain how they can know there is a Christ (logos) from God. Conflating a word here or there or charges of interpolation is a deliberate diversion from the original intent of the dialogue.

[mlinssen]

I can find a couple places where Trypho qualifies his statements in a skeptical way, to the point where it's a credible view that he's not really bought into the story of Jesus at all.

I can't find anything so specific as "arguing that Justin can't prove that Jesus did exist."

No, I don't know why Carrier does things like this.

Why does Carrier continue do things like this?..Because if he can convince you that Jesus was a myth then, Christianity is based on a myth. Therefore, God is a myth.

Circular reasoning via begging the question (petitio principii).


Chap. XXX. For we call Him Helper and Redeemer, the power of whose name even the demons do fear; and at this day, when they are exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, governor of Judæa, they are overcome.

Chap. XXXII. And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. 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."

Clearly, throughout the dialogue, the main question is not about if Jesus existed (that is a given) but rather how this Jesus can be the Christ (logos) of God?

You don't have to agree with Justin or Trypho or even Plato for that matter but you got to keep the main thing, the main thing. They are trying to explain how they can know there is a Christ (logos) from God. Conflating a word here or there or charges of interpolation is a deliberate diversion from the original intent of the dialogue.

For those interested in the real MS: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.asp ... 2951_f061v

Trypho is neatly indicated in the margins, chapter 32 starts right there, with Diplomatic stating:

Καὶ ὁ Τρύ
φων παυσαμένου μου εἶπεν· Ὦ ἄνθρωπε, αὗται ἡμᾶς αἱ γρα
φαὶ καὶ τοιαῦται ἔνδοξον καὶ μέγαν ἀναμένειν τὸν
παρὰ τοῦ παλαιοῦ τῶν ἡμερῶν ὡς υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου παραλα
μβάνοντα τὴν αἰώνιον βασιλείαν ἀναγκάζουσιν· οὗ
τος δὲ ὁ ὑμέτερος λεγόμενος Χ(ριστὸ)ς ἄτιμος καὶ ἄδο
ξος γέγονεν, ὡς καὶ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ κατάρᾳ τῇ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ θεοῦ περιπεσεῖν·ἐσταυρώθη γάρ. 2 Κἀγὼ

Etc; see viewtopic.php?p=41235#p41235

The orange is added from the margins