Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:13 pm
The problem is that Christians since antiquity have taken "Christ" to be Jesus last name or part of his name. The anointed (one).
Can you cite any examples?
Jesus Christ is an appellation/title, not his first and last name. I don't ever recall any adult Christian that believes his last name/surname was Christ. Dittos for those who mock Christians as flat earth believers.
GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 4:20 am
Hi Giuseppe. Could you do me a favour please? Could you summarise Carrier's argument that's in his blog post?
This seems like the crux to me:
Some will point here to the closing section in this final Excursus where Justin accuses the Jews of spreading the lie about Christians stealing the body from the tomb (§108), and argue this means Justin understood Trypho to be a historicist. That would not be the case, of course; granting a fact you don’t believe in “for the sake of argument,” and then staging a conditional argument on it, was common in rhetoric then as now. “Even if there was an empty tomb, you could have stolen the body” is an argument that does not entail believing there was an empty tomb. Likewise historicity. Hence the similar arguments Justin assigns to Trypho in §32, §36, §38, etc. But in §39, Justin depicts Trypho’s patience with this pose running out, as he finally breaks down and insists Justin actually “produce for us the reason that this guy, the one you claim was crucified and ascended to heaven, is the Christ of God.” The verb “to claim” here typically relates to suppositions and beliefs; mere assertions. Trypho is thus made to regard even the existence of this crucified man a mere supposition, someone Justin only says existed. We see this again in §49, where Trypho says those Christians “who say” Christ was a mere man are saying something more “plausible” than what Justin is saying, twice exhibiting the same skeptical distance.
“You Invent for Yourselves a Trypho: Addressing Radical Reinterpretations of Trypho and Canonical and Non-Canonical Scriptures” in the Journal of Biblical Theology (2022).
I'd like to read this. Is there any online copy that I can access for free?
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
Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:23 pm
A 28p article from JBL (2020) rather than JBL (2022).
May be revised? IDK.
The AJBT is a weekly on-line journal...
[...]
The JBT is a quarterly paperback journal that draws its resources from the AJBT. Papers that have been approved for publication in the AJBT are further reviewed by the Board of Directors who then recommend publication in the JBT. "AJBT Purpose and Doctrinal Statement". biblicaltheology.com.
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:
. 1. 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. And, indeed, we all expect Christ, man of men, to come into being; and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if he [this man] appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as [a] man [made] of men. But from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that neither has he [the Christ] come".2 .
. 2. Then I inquired of him, "Does not Scripture, in the [logos] of Zechariah, say that Elijah shall come before the great and terrible day of the Lord?"
And he answered, "Certainly."
"If therefore Scripture compels you to admit that two advents of Christ were predicted to take place - one in which He would appear suffering, and dishonoured, and without comeliness; but the other in which He would come glorious. and Judge of all, as has been made manifest in many of the forecited passages - shall we not suppose that the word of God has proclaimed that Elijah shall be the precursor of the great and terrible day, that is, of His second advent?"
. 3. "And, accordingly, our Lord in His teaching," I continued, "proclaimed that this very thing would take place, saying that Elijah would also come. And we know that this shall take place when our Lord Jesus Christ shall come in glory from heaven; whose first manifestation the Spirit of God who was in Elijah preceded as herald in [the person of] John, a prophet among your nation; after whom no other prophet appeared among you. He cried, as he sat by the river Jordan: 'I baptize you with water to repentance; but He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: whose fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge His floor, and will gather the wheat into the barn; but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.' .
. 4. "And this very prophet your king Herod had shut up in prison; and when his birthday was celebrated, and the niece of the same Herod by her dancing had pleased him, he told her to ask whatever she pleased. Then the mother of the maiden instigated her to ask the head of John, who was in prison; and having asked it, [Herod] sent and ordered the head of John to be brought in on a charger. .
. 5. "Wherefore also our Christ said, [when He was] on earth, to those who were affirming that Elijah must come before Christ:
'Elijah shall come, and restore all things; but I say unto you, that Elijah has already come, and they knew him not, but have done to him whatsoever they chose.' And it is written, 'Then the disciples understood that He spake to them about John the Baptist'." .
. 6. 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."
To this I replied,
"Do you not think that the same thing happened in the case of Joshua/Ἰησοῦν/Iesous, the son of Nave (Nun), who succeeded to the command of the people after Moses, when Moses was commanded to lay his hands on Joshua/Ἰησοῦ/Iesous, and God said to him, 'I will take of the spirit which is in thee, and put it on him?' " .
"As therefore," I say, "while Moses was still among men, God took of the spirit which was in Moses and put it on 'Joshua'/Ἰησοῦν/Iesous, even so God was able to cause [the spirit] of Elijah to come upon John; in order that, as Christ at His first coming appeared inglorious, even so the first coming of the spirit, which remained always pure in Elijah is like that of Christ, might be perceived to be inglorious. .
. 8. "For the Lord said He would wage war against Amalek with concealed hand; and you will not deny that Amalek fell. But if it is said that only in the glorious advent of Christ war will be waged with Amalek, how great will the fulfilment of Scripture be which says, 'God will wage war against Amalek with concealed hand!' You can perceive that the concealed power of God was in the crucified Christ, before whom [daimonia] and all the principalities and powers of the earth tremble." .
dbz wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:27 pm
The JBT is a quarterly paperback journal that draws its resources from the AJBT. Papers that have been approved for publication in the AJBT are further reviewed by the Board of Directors who then recommend publication in the JBT.
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.