Layman

Sure. Why not?

Jayhawker Soule

I believe the attribution comes from Justin Martyr's "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" and is, at best, a stylized reconstruction of a long-past discussion.

Layman

Well, as probabilities go, I think it's probable that Typho existed and made some of these points. Justin Martyr and the others were known for publically engaging critics of Christianity. So its not like Martyr has a history of making opponents up.

But honestly it's not something I've looked into a lot. Are you claiming that Martyr just made Typho up?

Jayhawker Soule

No, I'm pretty much taking at face value such things as the Catholic Encyclopedia's entry: The entry goes on to suggest that the "Dialogue" was written after the first "Apology" (153-155 CE) but before 161. This would obviously suggest that he is reprising a discussion held 20 years earlier. If this is anywhere near correct, any specific phrase drawn fom this apologetic and attributed to Tryphon is, I would think, entirely suspect and of no evidentiary value one way or the other.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Layman

Let's put this one to rest. Marcion believed that Jesus walked the earth, interacted with his disciples, and left. The Gospel that Marcion used opens thus:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, [Pontius Pilatus being the Governor of Judaea,] Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city in Galilee, and was teaching on the sabbath days: and they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was in authority.

<a href="http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/marcion.htm" target="_blank">http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/marcion.htm</a>

Peter Kirby

Layman:

Have you considered the possibility that, in Marcion's thought, Jesus did not come down to earth until the fifteenth year of Tiberius?

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Since Marcion ignored Matthew's infancy story and cut out Luke's, I've wondered just how and when he thought Jesus came to earth. From the text its not clear that Marcion means that Jesus appeared in a flash in Capernaum. Indeed, when you compare Marcion's gospel with the Gospel of Luke, it's pretty clear that he is quoting the first part of Luke 3:1 ("Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea...") and deletes everything else until Luke 4:31 ("Then He went down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and was teaching them on the Sabbaths. And they were astonished at His teaching, for His word was with authority.") (NKJV).

Since Marcion is using the same text that Luke uses to describe a physical trip to Capernuam -- and the lack of any introduction or appearance story -- it seems that the text doesn't compel the conclusion that this was Jesus' first appearance on Earth.

However, when we examine his theology, the idea that "came down" means from heaven in this instance becomes more likely. According to Marcion, "Jesus had no real body, but was a phantasma, like the agnels that came to Abraham, and an 'appearance' only as concerns the flesh-sbutance." Robert Smith Wilson, Marcion, A Study of a Second-Century Heretic, at 98. According to Wilson, this was likely believed by Marcionites to be "a sudden appearance in the world." Id. at 99.

The clincher is probably Tertullian's comment on this verse. He clearly believes Marcion intends to claim that this was a descent from heaven: of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own.

It seems, therefore, that Marcion has here cut away the account of Jesus' birth, which he found to be incompatible with his religious belief.

I would also like to point out that Tertullian clearly claims that their version of the Gospel included a birth narrative. Citing Luke (rather than Matthew): These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God;" and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus." Against Marcion 4.7.

This is a quote of Luke 1:31-35: And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son an dyou shall call him Jesus... . therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Taking that this was a sudden appearance does not help the mythicist case. Marcion clearly believes Jesus walked the earth in a substantive (though not human) form, interacted with people, taught, performed miracles, assembled disciples, and underwent the Passion. "He admitted the reality of the Passion and the death and accepted them with gratitude." Wilson, Marcion, at 100.

Iasion

Greetings Radorth et al,

Radorth said:
Hmmm...
You haven't actually even READ Earl's work have you?

Earl's thesis is NOT about a great conspiracy at all - perhaps you should read his arguments before making up strawmen. (AFAI recall Earl does not even use the word "conspiracy" on his web site.)

Earl argues that the original Christian believed in and write about a spiritual Iesous Christos and that later Christians came to believe he was historical.

Your rabid comments about conspiracies show a total lack of understanding of the argument. Of course there are no whistle-blowers to an early conspiracy because there was no conspiracy.

But,
in the later period when Jesus was increasingly believed to be a historical figure, we DO see numerous critics who did blow the whistle that the Jesus stories were false.


An example was Trypho (possibly Rabbi Tarphon). Yes, we only have the words of Justin as to the discussion he had years earlier - but Justin's work is considered a reasonable representation of an argument that actually happened.

Trypho's words from Justin are fairly clear evidence that a Jew from the 130s argued that Jesus did not exist historically - just in the period when the Gospels were arising.

Or are you arguing that Justin made this up? Even then why would Justin make up such a comment unless there WERE Jews claiming that Jesus had not existed historically?

Either way - this shows that in the very period that the Gospel stories were coming to light, there WERE critics who claimed Jesus was not historical.


Minucius Felix was a Christian who argued at length in favour of Christianity, yet explicitly denies that Christians believe in a crucifixion - further evidence that even some Christians did not believe the Gospel stories.


The pagan Lucian called Christians "deceivers" in the period when the Gospels were spreading - again suggesting Christian stories were seens as spurious.


Dionysius of Corinth was a Christian who complained that Christian scriptures were doctored - again suggesting the Gospel stories were doubted even by Christians.


Tertullian also recorded Christians who argued that the crucifixion never happened, and that Jesus was not born of Mary - further evidence, from actual Christians, that the Gospel stories were rejected even by some Christians.


Sure, Celsus may have assumed Jesus did exist historically, but his specific attack on the Gospels as based on myths show that the Gospels were recognised as spurious in the period when they flowered - and its the Gospels which tell of Jesus of Nazareth - before that are only references to the spiritual Iesous Christos.


In other words - in the period when the early Christian view of a spiritual Iesous Christos transmogrified into belief about a historical Jesus of Nazareth, numerous Christians and non-Christians alike argued AGAINST this view, claiming in various ways that the Gospel stories were FALSE.


No amount of hand-waving about alleged "conspiracies" can explain away all this criticism that the Christian stories were FALSE history, dating to the very period when the Gospels arose.


Quentin David Jones

Layman

Typho doesn't make much of an argument beyond implying he hasn't heard about Jesus. Hardly compelling historical evidence.

And I thought Doherty dated the Gospels from 70-100, which is a few generations earlier than the "130s," rather than "just in" the same period. Heck, even Ignatius had already written his letters 30 years before this period.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Iasion writes:

Earl's thesis is NOT about a great conspiracy at all - perhaps you should read his arguments before making up strawmen. (AFAI recall Earl does not even use the word "conspiracy" on his web site.)

This statement is <a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=jesus+puzzle+conspiracy+site%3Apages.ca.inter. net" target="_blank">easily tested with Google</a>.

Most notably, Doherty entitles Part One of his main articles as "A Conspiracy of Silence."

<a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm" target="_blank">http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm</a>

However, Doherty does seem to use the word here in an ironical sense, viz., if there were an earthly Jesus in the minds of these writers, then they must have formed a conspiracy not to talk about him. Like you, I am not aware that Doherty ever describes his own theory in terms of a "conspiracy."

best,
Peter Kirby