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.
Post Reply
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:59 pm
GakuseiDon wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 5:20 pm :goodmorning: 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.
Carrier actually does his due diligence right from the start:

In Dialogue with Trypho 8.4 Justin depicts his imagined Jewish opponent Trypho saying (emphasis mine), “after receiving groundless hearsay,” ματαίαν ἀκοὴν, “you invent a Christ for yourselves,” ἀναπλάσσετε, “and because of him you’re heading to a pointless destruction.” To which Justin responds, “we have not believed empty fables,” and the word here is indeed myths (κενοῖς μύθοις), “or stories without any proof,” ἀναποδείκτοις λόγοις, “but stories filled with the Spirit of God, and bursting with power, and flourishing with grace!” (Dialogue 9.1).

Justin of course offers no evidence any of that is true, or even epistemically relevant. How does a story being “powerful” and “full of grace” evince any of it is actually true? This indicates Justin actually has no relevant evidence (and indeed, across the entire Dialogue, he will never present any); so he has to fall back on a mere Affective Fallacy. But our concern is with the charge Justin is trying to rebut, and what Justin’s reply tells us that was: Justin responds to what Trypho said by insisting his beliefs are not based on myths but true stories. Which tells us Justin did indeed mean Trypho’s remark to be accusing Christians of believing untrue myths. Which proves Justin knew there were some who suspected Jesus was mythical, that the Gospels are just made-up stories—and he was keen to “rebut” that accusation by simply forcefully gainsaying it. He doesn’t try to cite Tacitus or Josephus or Paul or any other source but the Gospels for evidence Jesus existed. Indeed, his only attempt to defend even the Gospels as historical is wildly fallacious, as we’ll see shortly. So Justin had no evidence Jesus existed either.

The answer allegedly is in CHAPTER IX -- THE CHRISTIANS HAVE NOT BELIEVED GROUNDLESS STORIES.

viewtopic.php?p=41232#p41232

And that chapter starts with

"I excuse and forgive you, my friend," I said. "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 ends with

And when we were come to that place, where there are stone seats on both sides, those with Trypho, having seated themselves on the one side, conversed with each other, some one of them having thrown in a remark about the war waged in Judaea.

And Justin doesn't do anything, as usual he makes empty promises and then distracts, deflects, and never returns to it again unless it is to reiterate his empty promises. He does the same thing with the virgin birth being predicted, literally, in the Tanakh. It's all plain rhetoric and mere bullshit bingo, it's so genuinely Christian
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

And the whole force of Carrier's point is in the following, end of chapter 8

Χριστὸς δέ, εἰ καὶ γεγένηται καὶ ἔστι που, ἄγνωστός ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲ αὐτός πω ἑαυτὸν ἐπίσταται οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμίν τινα, μέχρις ἂν ἐλθὼν Ἠλίας χρίσῃ αὐτὸν καὶ φανερὸν πᾶσι ποιήσῃ· ὑμεῖς δέ, ματαίαν ἀκοὴν παραδεξάμενοι, Χριστὸν ἑαυτοῖς τινα ἀναπλάσσετε καὶ αὐτοῦ χάριν τὰ νῦν ἀσκόπως ἀπόλλυσθε.

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. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

We can safely put aside the word myth, that is the framework that Carrier shoves it in via one single word in the response by Justin in the next chapter. And we should forget about the nonsense definition of mythicist in itself anyway because again biblical academic breaks all the rules here and shifts the burden of proof to those who state that Jesus didn't exist
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:58 am
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
Using the same logic as Carrier: mlinssen, you are wrong because that is not the original MS but a copy of a copy and you know it. Besides, your translation is based on interpolations by mytichists of the past. :cheeky:

Childish reasoning, yes?
dbz
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:02 am
Χριστὸς . . . χρίσῃ αὐτὸν

Christ . . . anoint Him

  • Is it correct that the oldest example of Χριστὸς usage is by Euripides?
Musgrave gives μυρόχριστος (myróchristos) in the sense of "anointed" ca. 450BCE
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

John T wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:12 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:58 am
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
Using the same logic as Carrier: mlinssen, you are wrong because that is not the original MS but a copy of a copy and you know it. Besides, your translation is based on interpolations by mytichists of the past. :cheeky:

Childish reasoning, yes?
Yes, but also plain wrong. This is the original MS underlying the text that we have, and there's nothing in between.
I'm intrigued by the margins though, can't really come up with an excuse why that would have been missed - and the English is not such a little extra
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

dbz wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:25 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:02 am
Χριστὸς . . . χρίσῃ αὐτὸν

Christ . . . anoint Him

  • Is it correct that the oldest example of Χριστὸς usage is by Euripides?
Musgrave gives μυρόχριστος (myróchristos) in the sense of "anointed" ca. 450BCE
Xristos is just a regular word, and it is the perfect tense of

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... %3Dxri%2Fw

χρίω

I.to touch on the surface: to rub or anoint with scented unguents, Hom.; λόεον καὶ χρῖον ἐλαίωι Od.; πέπλον χρ. to infect with poison, Soph.; metaph., ἱμέρωι χρίσασ᾽ οἰστόν Eur.:—Mid. to anoint oneself, Od., Hes.: c. acc. rei, χρίεσθαι ἰούς to anoint (i. e. poison) one's arrows, Od.:—Pass., χρίεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου, of a dead body left exposed to the sun, Hdt.
II.to rub over with colour: Pass. to be coloured, id=Hdt.:—Mid., χρίεσθαι τὰ σώματα to smear their bodies, Xen.
III.to wound on the surface, prick, sting, Aesch.:—Pass., ὀξυστόμωι μύωπι χρισθεῖσ᾽ id=Xen

Rubbed or smeared would be just as well a translation, this word is neither a name nor a title but just a normal form of a normal word. Likewise for Xrhstos:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... xrhsto%2Fs

χρηστός 1 verb. adj. of χράομαι like χρήσιμος

I.useful, good of its kind, serviceable, τινι Hdt., Eur.; of victims and omens, boding good, auspicious, Hdt.; τελευτὴ χρηστή a happy end or issue, id=Hdt.:— τὰ χρηστά, as Subst., good services, benefits, kindnesses, id=Hdt.; χρηστὰ συμβουλεύειν Ar.
2.in moral sense, good, opp. to μοχθηρός, Plat.; τὸ χρηστόν, opp. to τὸ αἰσχρόν, Soph.
II.of men, good, a good man and true; generally, good, honest, worthy, trusty, Hdt., Soph., etc.;—also like χρήσιμος, of good citizens, useful, deserving, Ar., Thuc., etc.
2.οἱ χρηστοί, like οἱ ἀγαθοί, Lat. optimates, Xen.
3.of the gods, kind, propitious, Hdt.
4.good, mild, kind, kindly, NTest.:—in bad sense, simple, silly, like εὐήθης, Ar., Plat.; ὦ χρηστέ Dem.
III.adv. -τῶς, well, properly, Hdt

There can never have been any confusion about these two words because they were perfectly regular words
dbz
Posts: 512
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

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

Post by dbz »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:38 am There can never have been any confusion about these two words because they were perfectly regular words
Is the LORD (and second-god) of Justin:
  • I. to touch on the surface: to rub or anoint with scented unguents...
OR
  • I. useful, good of its kind, serviceable...
dbz wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 7:07 pm
  • Plutarch imparts "Negative Demiurgy" to third-god.
Marcion, perhaps aware of Plutarch, held that third-god (identified with the Hebrew God) manifested "Negative Demiurgy" and the Jews were ignorant of first-god and second-god.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

dbz wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:06 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:38 am There can never have been any confusion about these two words because they were perfectly regular words
Is the LORD (and second-god) of Justin:
  • I. to touch on the surface: to rub or anoint with scented unguents...
OR
  • I. useful, good of its kind, serviceable...
dbz wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 7:07 pm
  • Plutarch imparts "Negative Demiurgy" to third-god.
Marcion, perhaps aware of Plutarch, held that third-god (identified with the Hebrew God) manifested "Negative Demiurgy" and the Jews were ignorant of first-god and second-god.
Marcion allegedly spoke of a Xrhstos god, but then again so does the LXX (and the MT); almost all of the Hebrew TOV (טוֹבָה) gets translated with Xrhstos

If you click the English word you'll highlight the Hebrew:

https://www.stepbible.org/?q=version=BS ... NTERLEAVED
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:27 am
John T wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 8:12 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 6:58 am
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
Using the same logic as Carrier: mlinssen, you are wrong because that is not the original MS but a copy of a copy and you know it. Besides, your translation is based on interpolations by mytichists of the past. :cheeky:

Childish reasoning, yes?


Yes, but also plain wrong. This is the original MS underlying the text that we have, and there's nothing in between.
I'm intrigued by the margins though, can't really come up with an excuse why that would have been missed - and the English is not such a little extra
Nothing in between?

Are you saying the MS created in 1541 by the mythicist George Kokolos is a verbatim translation of the original copy of Justin Martyr? That is, the scribe (whoever it really was) of your cited manuscript held the original manuscript from over a thousand years earlier?

If so, provide the proof. If not, admit you are plain wrong in your assertion that is the original MS. I won't even bother with your mistranslated version of Kololos' (or whoever is the real scribe) who mistranslated, a mistranslation of an interpolation by a mythicist. etc...

Do you now see how foolish this childish game of Carrier is playing and why real Biblical scholars dismiss him as a crack pot?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

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

Post by mlinssen »

John T wrote: Tue Mar 28, 2023 9:36 am
Nothing in between?

Are you saying the MS created in 1541 by the mythicist George Kokolos is a verbatim translation of the original copy of Justin Martyr? That is, the scribe (whoever it really was) of your cited manuscript held the original manuscript from over a thousand years earlier?

If so, provide the proof. If not, admit you are plain wrong in your assertion that is the original MS. I won't even bother with your mistranslated version of Kololos' (or whoever is the real scribe) who mistranslated, a mistranslation of an interpolation by a mythicist. etc...

Do you now see how foolish this childish game of Carrier is playing and why real Biblical scholars dismiss him as a crack pot?
There's nothing in between the manuscript provided and the text we're reading from - that can't be so hard to understand, I would think.
Undoubtedly, as with all translations of texts pertaining to xtianity at large, there is Christian bias behind the translation, if not outright falsification

Carrier has a valid point that Justin doesn't demonstrate the claim by Trypho to be unjustified. That he then uses that in order to claim a point towards mythicism is in turn not justified by Carrier himself

I don't like Carrier's style, there's too much polemic in relation to sensible content - but I find this particular piece to be an exception to that rule.
Let's be honest: everyone needs to do something new in order to gain traction, and attraction. Carrier here offers a solid amount of material for his claim that Justin doesn't refute the accusation by Trypho, and while that most certainly is not the only claim in the text to walk that way, on both sides, this particular part of his piece is fine really. And then he tickles the imagination and provocation by linking that to mythicism, yet he doesn't put in real effort to turn that into a considerable work on its own - which doesn't need motivation, I hope.
So he gets the attention via a slight rhetoric on words, which is an agreeable play on what gets exchanged.
Hardly anyone will take the mythicism allegation seriously, I hope, although there will be plenty who do. Mischief managed, I'd say!

You may not like it, but in this round full points go to Carrier
Post Reply