Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho

[GakuseiDon]

GDon, I have posted to Carrier the best argument (well, not precisely in your words, but resuming a similar point done by William Wrede) about your point and I have gained the following answer:

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archive ... ment-35915

That's an interesting question, Giuseppe. I hadn't heard of the idea of a Hidden Messiah before. Thanks for the notice.

[Giuseppe]

I think that the chiastic structure, if Carrier is right in its description, reveals that Justin's words:

“we have not believed empty fables (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)

...are addressing precisely the following words of Trypho:

“after receiving groundless hearsay (ματαίαν ἀκοὴν), you invent a Christ for yourselves, (ἀναπλάσσετε) and because of him you’re heading to a pointless destruction.”

...hence revealing that, even if (a GREAT if) Trypho was contesting only the legitimacy of the title "Messiah" for the man Jesus, it is not how Justin interprets the accusation, since his reply proves beyond any doubt that what was going to be questioned was the truth of the entire Gospel story, not only the truth of the parts of it that are merely about the messianic status of Jesus.

Said in other way, if GDon was right that Trypho questioned only the messianic status of Jesus, and not the same historicity of Jesus, then Justin would have not addressed that specific accusation by involving the status of all the Gospel stories as "empty fables" (κενοῖς μύθοις) or "stories without any proof" (ἀναποδείκτοις λόγοις). In particular, the use of κενός, "empty", for a story, is very apt if the goal is to show a totalizing doubt about even the historical content of that story.

When the root of the same κενός is used in the hymn to Philippians to describe the process of kenosis, we don't mean it to assume that Jesus "emptied himself" but preserving his original deity. We mean it to mean that Jesus had given up to all his divine powers. Not only to some of them.

[ABuddhist]

A 28p article from JBL (2020) rather than JBL (2022).
May be revised? IDK.

https://biblicaltheology.com/Research/HansenCM03.pdf

The American Journal of Biblical Theology Vol. 23(4). January 23, 2020
Christopher M. Hansen

You Invent a Trypho for Yourselves: Addressing Radical Reinterpretations of Trypho and Canonical and Non Canonical Scriptures
Christopher M. Hansen

Abstract

In this article, the mythicist (those who deny Jesus’ historicity) claim that there were earliest mythicists is contended with. The arguments put forth that Trypho from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho was a mythicist when he claimed “You invent a Christ” is shown to be faulty and based on cherry-picked evidence which denies the greater context of Trypho’s statements. It is shown that Trypho’s claim was that Jesus was not the “Messiah” but was being contorted into one falsely. Appendices further address misinterpretations of canonical and non-canonical passages misinterpreted by mythicists

But this interpretatation has not only been advanced by mythicists. The historicist Louis Feldman advocated such interpretations in the following 2 publications.

Feldman, Louis H. 1982. “The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question.” In Christological Perspectives: Essays in Honor of Harvey K. McArthur, edited by E. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards, 179–99. New York: Pilgrim Press.

Feldman, Louis H. 2012. “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus.” In New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations, edited by Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schacter. Leiden: Brill.

See https://vridar.org/2020/11/13/bad-histo ... s-existed/ for more details.

[Giuseppe]

Justin had replied, against Trypho's accusation ("You invented a Christ for yourselves"), that the Christians don't believe in "empty stories".

I wonder where I had read a similar description of the gospel story as "empty story". Usually mythicists say tout court: "Jesus never existed", or "the gospels are total fabrications". They don't say: "the gospels are empty stories".

I was wrong. A modern use that approximates very much the expression "empty stories" is found in the words of the prof Philip Davies:

Yet some peculiar literal-minded historicist brand of (largely Protestant) Christianity finds impossible the temptation to replace the icons of Orthodoxy or statues and images of Roman Catholicism with the One True Image of the Lord: the Jesus of History. The result: poor history and, dare I say, even poorer theology.

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/dav368029


Hence the meaning is clear:

Poor history == a history with yet a thiny historical truth

Empty story: a story without not even the thiny historical truth.

[John T]

As Trypho says in Chapter 49:

"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 this man is not He[the Christ]."

"This man" is Jesus. For Trypho, Jesus couldn't be the Christ because he wasn't anointed by Elijah. So: (1) Jesus existed, (2) Christ does not exist.

Case closed.

I'm sorry, because this would be a nice way to secure the argument, but I believe this is basically a mistranslation (when used with the emphasis that you've given it, as a secure declaration by Trypho that Jesus existed and was not the Christ).

The Greek is here:
viewtopic.php?t=1874&start=10
https://archive.org/details/sjustiniphi ... 8/mode/2up

The key phrase is this:

οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἀποφαίνομαι εἶναι

i.e., οὐδὲ (and neither) τοῦτον (he) ἀποφαίνομαι (I conclude) εἶναι (has come)

i.e., "I conclude that neither has he come."

Instead of declaring that a specific man is not the Christ, it says that the Christ has not come.

So a translation that avoids the interpretive trap set here is:

"but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that neither has he [the Christ] come."

Perhaps I missed it but didn't Justin explain to Trypho that John the Baptist was Elijah?

Chapter XLIX: And Trypho said, "This statement also seems to me paradoxical; namely, that the prophetic Spirit of God, who was in Elijah, was also in John."

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.

[Giuseppe]

As Trypho says in Chapter 49:

"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 this man is not He[the Christ]."

"This man" is Jesus. For Trypho, Jesus couldn't be the Christ because he wasn't anointed by Elijah. So: (1) Jesus existed, (2) Christ does not exist.

Case closed.

I'm sorry, because this would be a nice way to secure the argument,

no, it is not at all "a nice way to secure the argument", since Carrier has made it clear that Trypho is historicist there only "for sake of argument", not because Justin has really persuaded him that Jesus existed.

[Giuseppe]

I'm happy to argue this out with you Giuseppe, but PLEASE don't just give me some conclusion by Carrier. Use his own words. Quote his actual points that establish his conclusion.

Hi GDon, I have resumed here what appears to be the Richard Carrier's decisive point on Justin's Trypho.

[John T]

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. Not being able to tell the difference between those two arguments is very common among historicity apologists (Hansen commits this fallacy all over her paper on Trypho). So I need to spend a moment forestalling this mistake

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23326

Not at all. The argument in XLVIII was about the pre-existence of Christ. Not about if Jesus even existed in the 1st century.

Chapter XLVII

And Trypho said, "We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that he submitted to be born and become man, yet that he is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish."

And I replied to this, "I know that the statement does appear to be paradoxical, especially to those of your race, who are ever unwilling to understand or to perform the [requirements] of God, but [ready to perform] those of your teachers, as God Himself declares.[141] Now assuredly, Trypho," I continued, "[the proof] that this man[142] is the Christ of God does not fail, though I be unable to prove that He existed formerly as Son of the Maker of all things, being God, and was born a man by the Virgin. But since I have certainly proved that this man is the Christ of God, whoever He be, even if I do not prove that He pre-existed, and submitted to be born a man of like passions with us, having a body, according to the Father's will; in this last matter alone is it just to say that I have erred, and not to deny that He is the Christ, though it should appear that He was born man of men, and [nothing more] is proved [than this], that He has become Christ by election. For there are some, my friends," I said, "of our race,[143] who admit that He is Christ, while holding Him to be man of men; with whom I do not agree, nor would I,[144] even though most of those who have [now] the same opinions as myself should say so; since we were enjoined by Christ Himself to put no faith in human doctrines, but in those proclaimed by the blessed prophets and taught by Himself."

[Peter Kirby]

As Trypho says in Chapter 49:

"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 this man is not He[the Christ]."

"This man" is Jesus. For Trypho, Jesus couldn't be the Christ because he wasn't anointed by Elijah. So: (1) Jesus existed, (2) Christ does not exist.

Case closed.

I'm sorry, because this would be a nice way to secure the argument,

no, it is not at all "a nice way to secure the argument", since Carrier has made it clear that Trypho is historicist there only "for sake of argument", not because Justin has really persuaded him that Jesus existed.

Fair enough

[Peter Kirby]

The key phrase is this:

οὐδὲ τοῦτον ἀποφαίνομαι εἶναι

i.e., οὐδὲ (and neither) τοῦτον (he) ἀποφαίνομαι (I conclude) εἶναι (has come)

i.e., "I conclude that neither has he come."

Instead of declaring that a specific man is not the Christ, it says that the Christ has not come.

So a translation that avoids the interpretive trap set here is:

"but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that neither has he [the Christ] come."

Thanks Peter. This is why I like to repeat that I know nothing about the ancient languages. I am indeed working from English translations made almost certainly by believing Christians, so that is a potential problem with any argument I make from the text.

But I don't think what you've pointed out makes any difference to my point. 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?