TRYPHO VIRTUALLY TESTIFIES JESUS NEVER LIVED
Jesus Christ reputedly died and rose again in the thirties of the first century.
A Christian, called Justin Martyr wrote in defence of the Christian religion in
the century after. Justin's writings are used in defence of the Christian claim
that Jesus really existed and lived as the four gospels say.
"Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely marvellous tales, like the things that were said by the poets." Justin Martyr held that the demons made sure the Christ story was around before Jesus came. He was worried people would think it was copied from the pagans so his argument was that the Christ story was copied before it happened for the demons knew the future.
Is it any wonder that what Trypho says about Jesus being
a myth should be taken as true? The important thing in the myth debate is
that we have a man who said there was nothing to support the Jesus story which
amounts to calling him a legend.
DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
About 150 AD, Justin wrote his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Some think that
Trypho never existed but he did for on one occasion when he and Justin were
discussing the interpretation of prophecies about Jesus, Justin wandered from
the subject to discuss the alleged removal by the Jews of material supportive of
Jesus from the Old Testament. The dialogue then was created from an actual
conversation.
Trypho said that nobody from Jesus’ time knew Jesus and that Jesus was invented.
Trypho was an informed and worthy opponent when Justin had to write a book to
challenge him. Justin, like Irenaeus much later, believed that Jesus lived to be
an old man (page 40, St Peter and Rome) which conflicts with the gospels which
we know Justin never knew completely for much of the historical part if not all
of it was top secret. But there is reason to believe that Justin knew nothing
but the bare skeleton of the Jesus story. Justin himself then inadvertently
gives support to Trypho for Justin himself clearly knew nothing about Jesus and
could not demonstrate that he must have lived. Thus we have a valuable witness
to Jesus being a legend. In the Dialogue, Justin was extremely nasty to the Jew.
He accused all Jews of being idolaters, spiritually ruined and depraved and
incapable of honesty or fair play and said that they were the wickedest people
on earth and that they fornicated like harlots (page 161, The Light Shining in
Darkness). How could we trust anything – that was not bad – that Justin said
about his hero Jesus when he was so keen to win the argument with the Jews even
at the cost of heaping vile slander on them? His apologetic was not about real
love for Jesus but winning an argument and since the Jews were blamed for Jesus’
death Jesus was a good weapon to use against them to incite hatred. Justin
cannot be trusted. That the Church preserved his hate-filled writings and prays
to Justin as a saint does not speak well for the Church either.
The Jew, Trypho, stated that there was no evidence for Jesus for nobody who
would have known had heard of him as a real person in Palestine and so he never
existed. This was about or soon after 150 AD. I quote, “if the Messiah has been
born and exists somewhere, he is incognito and does not even recognise himself.
He will have no power until Elijah will come and anoint him and tell all who he
is. You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded rumour and have invented some
kind of a Christ for yourselves” (Chapter VIII, Dialogue With Trypho). The whole
point in his making this statement was to refute the rejection of circumcision
and the feasts and the Sabbath among the Christians. They were using their
doctrine that Jesus was the Messiah and had the authority from God to do away
with these things to justify their disobedience.
Today, Christians say that Trypho was not rejecting the existence of Jesus. He
was rejecting the view that Jesus was the Messiah (page 239, Conspiracies and
the Cross). They say that Trypho complains that Christians were listening to an
unfounded rumour which led them to invent a Messiah for themselves. If so, then
this says that there is no evidence that Jesus was the Christ and that the
Christians have invented that claim for Jesus. If the early Christians lied
about something so big then that diminishes the evidence for the existence of
Jesus. So if the text does not show that people were denying Jesus' existence
back then it certainly shows that the evidence was not impressive.
But it is possible to read the text as denying that Jesus existed. Invented a
Christ for yourselves sounds more like the man Jesus Christ was invented than it
sounds like that his claims that he was Messiah were invented for him.
The Christians hope that Trypho was saying Christians invented the idea that
Jesus was the Christ. Let's pretend we believe that he was. Why does Trypho not
say that Jesus invented his own Messiahship claims? Why does he blame the
Christians for making this claim for Jesus? If the Christians lied about
something so important then we can safely assume they could have lied about
Jesus' existence too. Trypho is implicitly denying that Jesus really rode into
Jerusalem on a donkey to show he intended to fulfil an ancient prophecy that the
Messiah would do that. He is denying an event that the gospels say was better
attested and witnessed than the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus! Even if
you take the Christian interpretation to be correct, even if Trypho is not
saying Jesus never lived he denies that there is much evidence that he ever did!
Christians say that if you take Christ to be a name of Jesus then the text
denies Jesus' existence. They say the proper understanding is that Christ is a
title not a name. When you take that understanding, that it is a title, the text
becomes not a denial of the existence of Jesus but that he was the Messiah. But
many Christians then used Christ like a name and not as a title or used it both
as name and title for Jesus. Some used it as a title one day and as a name the
next. The Jews would have called Jesus Jesus Christ as in name not as title for
they didn't believe he really was the Christ. The Christians are totally unable
to prove that Trypho thought that Jesus existed.
Trypho's words to the Christian Justin, "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."
This is the first time Trypho mentions Jesus or Christ.
The discussions about Jesus afterwards must be seen as being based on Trypho
assuming Jesus is true for the sake of argument. Let us use another
wording. Trypho's words, "You [Christians] have listened to an unfounded
rumour and have invented some kind of a Christ for yourselves". This is
undeniably saying that Jesus was the unfounded rumour for on the basis that he
existed they invented the idea that he was the Christ! This is so
important that we have to shout it! To call Jesus an unfounded rumour is
an admission that there was no proper evidence for him.
Trypho was denying that there was evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ.
Justin made no effort to reply to this charge. He just tried to show that Jesus
was the Messiah. Justin couldn't come up with any evidence that Jesus existed so
he just evaded the problem. His response never improved from, "I excuse
and forgive you, my friend, 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."
Trypho's view then was not a mere one off.
It is interesting that Trypho voices the unbiblical Jewish belief as fact that
the Messiah will not know who he is until Elijah the precursor anoints him and
reveals him. If the Jews had been as antichrist as Justin would like to think
they would have vanquished the legend. Why? Because the Christians were saying
John the Baptist was Elijah and John anointed Jesus with the spirit and revealed
him in the River Jordan. It is a bit disturbing if Christian myths were
following Jewish legends! It shows the Christians were reading back Jewish
legends into the Jesus story as they helped it to incubate.
Trypho seems to surmise that the New Testament authors created the story of
Jesus’ baptism and anointing by the Spirit with the Baptiser John, Elijah, in
the Jordan from Jewish legends. And as well that there is no evidence for the
gospel tales that Jesus had an origin surrounded by miracles and which convinced
many that the baby was the Messiah for Jesus would have known if he was the
Messiah before his Elijah came.
It is one thing for Jesus to fulfil God’s prophecies but there is something
amiss if he manages to fulfil prophecies that God never made! The Old Testament
never says that Elijah will come to prepare the way for Jesus though Jesus and
his Church imagined it did!
Trypho was asserting that even if the Jesus of the Christians existed that
nobody claiming to be Elijah declared him to be a Messiah to open his eyes that
he was the Messiah so he rejects the gospels saying that John did tell Jesus in
the waters of the Jordan that he was the Messiah. Justin did not try to defend
the story on historical grounds because he couldn’t. John never claimed to be
Elijah in any sense – Jesus and his entourage made that claim for him which
smacks of dishonesty. To fulfil the alleged prophecy it would be necessary to
have independent evidence that John claimed to be Elijah. Christians say John
claimed to be Elijah when he claimed to be the precursor of the Messiah as
prophesied by Isaiah but there is no evidence that the passage predicts an
Elijah. Trypho was rejecting the Jesus story as authentic and Justin never tried
to set him straight because the man was right. Any psychologist reading the
Dialogue with Trypho would see that Justin was being canny and evasive and knew
fine well that his idol, Jesus, was a fiction.
We are told that the Christ of the Christians did not fit the criterion for
being a real Christ but was an invention. However, Trypho does not concentrate
on the existence of Jesus. His purpose was to show that the Messiah of the
Christians could not have been a real Messiah and that the Christian view of the
Messiah was not supported by the Old Testament. The reason he did that was
because the Christians believed in the existence of Jesus on the basis of the
prophecies.
Justin replies in Chapter 9 that he forgives Trypho for saying those things for
Trypho has been misled by false scripture teachers and he promises to prove to
Trypho that the stories are not fables. He means by proving the Old Testament
prophesied Jesus. Now Justin never ever tries to prove that Jesus did x, y and z
according to the scriptures or historical data. He looks at Jesus through the
scriptures. This tells us that Justin could not prove the existence of Jesus for
what you have to do is to prove that Jesus did this and that and then that this
was foreseen in the Old Testament criteria for a true Messiah. Justin did it the
other way around.