It’s often claimed “we have no evidence of any skeptic of Christianity ever doubting Jesus existed.” I’ve long noted this isn’t true; and that it’s moot, because the very texts where we would expect to find this don’t survive for us to check so as to know they didn’t voice such skepticism (I have a whole section on this in On the Historicity of Jesus, Chapter 8.12, “Missing Evidence: Contra Myth”). I’ve addressed this general point elsewhere. But one of the examples I mention is a remark Justin Martyr attributes to his Jewish opponents in Dialogue with Trypho, an apologetic text in which Justin attempts to represent and rebut the best arguments Jews were making against Christianity in the 160s A.D. There it appears Justin acknowledges not everyone was convinced Jesus was historical. This has been challenged with claims that “that’s not what he said.” Addressing those apologetic assertions is most effectively accomplished by walking through the whole context of Justin’s rhetoric. So that is what I will be doing today.

Justin’s Text and Context

The best attempt to argue “that’s not what he said” can be found in Chris Hansen’s “You Invent for Yourselves a Trypho: Addressing Radical Reinterpretations of Trypho and Canonical and Non-Canonical Scriptures” in the Journal of Biblical Theology (2022). Which I already effectively rebutted beforehand (as if I were psychic) in my article “Establishing the Biblical Literalism of Early Christians.” Justin sits at the end of a century-long process toward historicizing Christian claims, building-out elaborate legends to justify their every argument (see How Did Christianity Switch to a Historical Jesus?; for examples of how these processes worked, see The Rain Miracle of Marcus Aurelius: A Case Study in Christian Lies, How To Fabricate History: The Example of Eusebius on Alexandrian Christianity, and Did Polycarp Meet John the Apostle?). And they preserved for us no texts they didn’t like. So accessing the truth is extremely difficult. It’s like if we had to reconstruct the history of the USSR, but only got to see a small random selection of Soviet propaganda—with no access to any objective or third party information. “But there’s no evidence of anyone doubting the heroism of Pavlik Morozov, so clearly it’s true!” is not a sound argument in that context.

A couple decades before Justin composed his Dialogue, Christians were composing anxious texts denouncing fellow Christians doubting the historicity of Jesus (such as 2 Peter and Ignatius); and conspicuously, we don’t get to read anything written by those Christians. It was all destroyed. We only know they existed at all because of the rare survival of a few texts mentioning (and damning) them. By Justin’s time, those Christians appear to have lost the propaganda war. Although Justin avoids discussing Christian sects he doesn’t like; his apologetics is entirely centered on making the case for his own beliefs, with barely a mention of his Christian opponents. But he did feel he needed to write a massive treatise against his Jewish opponents. The result was the Dialogue, a fictional “conversation” (though really, mostly it’s Justin monologuing) between Justin and a Jew he invented for the purpose, whom he names Trypho (possibly an allusion to the recently renowned Rabbi Tarphon; Justin mentions other Jews present for the conversation, but of course these are all fictional people too).

But this is in the late second century, which is a long time after the fact. No one then, Jews included, would have had any way of finding out whether Jesus really existed or not. All witnesses were long dead, Palestine had been conclusively ravaged and depopulated twice, and Jerusalem, which earlier had been an abandoned ruin for sixty years, was by Justin’s day entirely buried under a new pagan city from which Jews were outright banned. Christians were also not particularly honest, so we can’t trust that Justin hasn’t left out some of the best arguments Jews were actually making, or that he hasn’t made a straw man of even the ones he mentions. We don’t get to hear what any real Jews were actually saying about Christianity—at this time or any other (the earliest surviving Jewish text to address Christianity at all comes from the early Middle Ages, and what it says is alarmingly bizarre: see OHJ, Chapter 8.1). So we shouldn’t be too gullible when reading Justin’s account of “Jewish” arguments against his faith.

What we really need are texts written by Jewish critics of Christianity during the late first century—when the Gospels begin promoting what sounds like a historical (and not merely a revelatory) Jesus, and Galileans and Jerusalemites from the 30s A.D. could conceivably have still been alive (albeit quite elderly, despite intervening wars and famines). Those would be the only texts where we could find any plausible questioning of Jesus’s existence. But no such texts survive. Nor any references or responses to them. So we can’t make claims about what they did or didn’t say. Indeed, we’d need Jewish critics who were in Judea in the early half of that century; people hundreds of miles away couldn’t know whether some obscure preacher got himself executed there or not. There would be no way to “check” such a thing (see my discussion of this difficulty, with respect to claims about the resurrection of Jesus, in Not the Impossible Faith, Chapter 7; and cf. Chs. 13 and 17). Of course, what we’d really like to see are the texts by Christians that Ignatius and 2 Peter were written to condemn. Though they would be most likely of the early 2nd century and so not necessarily “in the know,” it would help to know more about early Christians still preaching a merely cosmic and revelatory Jesus. Yet we are denied this as well. (Don’t get me started here on Christians’ Soviet-style doctoring of the Ascension of Isaiah.)

So by the time Justin is imagining Jewish rebuttals to his movement, we aren’t dealing with opponents who actually could know Jesus didn’t exist. The best we can expect is that some might suspect he didn’t. And that is what Justin reveals to be the case. 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.

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. What is significant about this passage is not that we have in it someone trying to prove Jesus didn’t exist or who knew he didn’t exist. That would have been impossible by 160 A.D. Even if Jesus didn’t exist, no one could know by then. Rather, what we have here is someone admitting there is no good evidence that he existed, and so it’s just as likely he didn’t. This is an agnostic, noncommittal position. It is simply saying, “You can’t even prove your guy existed, so why should I believe anything else you have to say about him?” It’s a burden-shifting argument. It is not an argument against historicity. But it does reflect the fact that, indeed, Justin had no credible evidence Jesus even existed, much less was a superhero. It was totally possible to doubt the historicity of Jesus. And Justin knew it.

It thus matters how Justin tries to answer this charge. That’s why examining the rhetorical structure and content of the entire Dialogue is necessary to understand the argument Justin is trying to articulate and rebut. Does Justin at any point answer the accusation that everything he believes about Jesus was totally “made-up,” “groundless hearsay,” “empty myths,” “devoid of evidence”? And how does he answer it? How does he defend the credibility of what the Gospels say about Jesus? How does he establish that they aren’t mere myths, just hearsay backed by nothing, just made-up tales, “invented”?

Structure of the Dialogue

Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho has been divided now into 142 “Chapters,” each of which is closer to “bifolds” (two facing pages of an open book), given that a typical book now sports around 350 words per page. So his Dialogue is a veritable novel, 284 pages of him fictionally explaining to some Jews he met why they should be Christians. The format of this fictional rhetorical device comes from Plato (and that in turn was adapted from stage plays). But unlike Plato, Justin is catastrophically verbose. He also doesn’t maintain a tight rhetorical structure to the end. The book starts more carefully arranged, quite in line with the standards of rhetorical speechmaking of the day, but it starts to dissolve into hodge-podginess toward the end, before suddenly wrapping up with his Jewish conversants being impressed by what they learned and committed to looking into it further after bidding Justin a safe journey. Some of the set-up might be missing (in §141 Justin assumes this has all been a story he is relating to a certain Marcus Pompeius, which must have originally been set up in or before §1, but that’s now missing). But so far as we know there are no other major corruptions of the text (though minor ones are inevitable).

Most of this text’s structure is rhetorically deliberate, and resembles political and court speeches (such as Justin, fluent in literary Greek, would have studied, e.g. the works of Lysias and Demosthenes were commonly studied models). Its principal theme is that the Christians have supplanted the Jews, and that this had always been God’s plan. But its overall structure runs as follows:

• § 1-7 : The Setup. Establishes the scene and pretext for the ensuing argument.
• § 8-9 : The Argument. Trypho states his argument; Justin announces a coming defense.
• § 10-30 : Step One. Scripture predicted Christianity; and its miraculous gifts prove it.
• §31-47 : Step Two. Christ’s “Second Coming” will fulfill any remaining messianic expectations.
• § 48-54 : Step Three. His “First Coming” met the rest, including an announcement by Elijah.
  • § 55-68 : First Excursus. Yes, Jesus is a savior god.
  • § 69–70 : Second Excursus. Satan made up all the other savior gods.
  • § 71-108 : Third Excursus. A crucified savior fits Scripture.
• § 109-124 : Step Four. Christ is not unknown, and will come again.
• § 125-141 : Step Five. Christianity has replaced Judaism.
• § 142 : The Closeout. Trypho is impressed and bids Justin goodbye.

The most important section is therefore the second, where Justin gives us his outline for the rest of the Dialogue. What appears in those expected parts of the Dialogue thus informs us as to what Justin (and by extension his character Trypho) means in that section. So you cannot interpret Justin’s outline without consulting the corresponding build-out, later on, for each part of that outline. Hansen, for example, in her article on this tries to argue that Justin wants Trypho only to mean that Elijah hasn’t announced the messiah yet, not that his existence is not even established. But to do that she ignores the entire actual structure of the Dialogue. If you look at how it actually proceeds, her interpretation is rendered impossible. Ultimately, she failed to understand how ancient rhetoric operates, and didn’t follow its structure corresponding to its prefaced outline.

The Outline

In the Set Up (§1-7), Trypho asks Justin to explain his religion. Justin then explains how he came to be convinced of it (relating a conversation he had with some unnamed old man). He concludes by saying he was ultimately persuaded by a single argument: the fact that prophets could perform miracles means they had to be telling the truth. He advances no evidence the things they predicted actually happened. Merely the fact that they said they would, means to Justin that they must have. Therefore Jesus must exist, because the prophecies said he would, and prophets couldn’t have performed miracles unless they were real prophets and thus telling the truth. Needless to say, this is a whackadoo argument. But it’s his argument nonetheless. That Justin is a nutter is important to understand. It explains a lot as you go through the whole Dialogue. We are not dealing with a modern rationalist or critical thinker here.

Justin then begins the Argument by summarizing what he was convinced of and how, and has Trypho respond with a canned rebuttal (§8). In Justin’s position statement, he references the prophecy argument he just made (that the prophets predicted Christianity, and prophets can’t have lied if they did miracles), and then says the proof that this is indeed the case is that “the words” of Jesus (meaning, in the Gospels) “possess a terrible power in themselves, and are sufficient to inspire those who turn aside from the path of rectitude with awe; while the sweetest rest is afforded those who make a diligent practice of them.” So, Jesus must have existed, because otherwise his teachings would not have this effect on those who believe he did. Notice what is missing here. Justin makes no other argument for anything in the Gospels being true. He is simply convinced they must be historical reports because “how else would they” have such emotional and moral effects on people? And they fit the prophets so well, yet how could such magical men have lied?

Nowhere here is any defense of the assumption that the prophets really did miracles. He is using one baseless legend to ground another. But rhetorically that works against a Jewish audience, who already grant the premise—they aren’t going to deny their own prophets were God’s men. So it makes sense this would be a premise Justin doesn’t waste ink defending here, and would rely upon (most of the Dialogue is a debate over what the prophets said and meant; that that is evidence for anything is simply presumed, given his Jewish audience). But also nowhere here is any defense of the assumption that the Gospels aren’t themselves lying or gullibly bogus—except for one: their present effect on Christians. Remember this. It’s going to come up, crucially, a lot in Justin’s Dialogue. He is not even trying to make a rational argument for the historicity of the Gospels. He actually believes that question is settled by this “Gospels are magic” argument: they must be telling the truth, or else they could not now have these effects on Justin and his peers. We know this is a bullshit argument. But Justin is a nutter. He thinks it’s a good argument. In fact, as we will discover, it’s the only argument Justin ever has for the truth of anything ever said in the Gospels.

So, it is at this point that Trypho states his objections to Justin’s précis, cautioning him not to “be deceived by false words nor follow the opinions of men of no credibility,” meaning don’t just believe whatever random people tell you. So he is concerned that Justin has been lied to (λόγοις ἐξαπατηθῆναι ψευδέσι, “deceived by lying stories,” told by men οὐδενὸς ἀξίοις, “in no way worth” listening to). This is where Trypho then adds (my numeration and emphasis):

1. [You should convert to Judaism to be saved.]
2. “Whereas the Christ—if he has indeed come (γεγένηται), and is anywhere (ἔστι που)—is unknown (ἄγνωστός), and does not yet know himself,
3. and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint Him,
4. and make Him manifest to all.
5. But you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing.”

So, this is The Argument. The entire Dialogue was composed to respond to this argument, and accordingly it has dedicated sections to each enumerated point here. This is Justin’s outline for the entire remaining treatise.

Justin thus responds:

1. “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.
2. 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 —
3. 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.

So Justin rhetorically dismisses everything Trypho said as just something Trypho made up on the spot, based on a poor education in the Jewish Scriptures (with even a shaming pun, contrasting the Jewish prophets with dime-shop “diviners,” in other words false prophets). Then Justin says he will disprove Trypho’s charge that he has been conned by false tales. And throughout he has only two grounding arguments: “The Scriptures Say So” and “Christians Today Receive Miraculous Powers.” Both are whackadoo arguments; even Justin’s Argument from Scripture consists of streams of undefended lunatic assertions like “the prescription that twelve bells be attached to the high priest … was a symbol of the twelve apostles” (§42). This is not a rationalist or an empiricist. But again, what is relevant here is that these are his only arguments.

Justin knows this doesn’t look good. He has Trypho’s friends mock and laugh at his defense, and he’s about to storm off in a huff unless they shut up and listen. So Trypho intervenes to ensure they do.

The Argument Then Proceeds

When we turn and look at the rest of the Dialogue, it becomes clear that it responds to Trypho’s argument, section by section, in reverse.

Taking Trypho’s last point first, Justin argues for several chapters that prophecy predicted Christianity, not just Jesus. So the existence of Christianity itself is evidence Jesus must have been real and not a “false report” based on “no evidence.” He therefore must be historical, not mythical. This repeats the argument he already established in The Setup, creating a chiasmus (miracle-working Jews : rebuttal : miracle-working Christians). In other words, the fact that ancient prophets must be telling the truth because they could perform miracles, means that if Christians today can perform miracles, they too must be telling the truth. This is not a rational argument. But it is Justin’s entire argument. Everything else he argues across the Dialogue is simply “the Scriptures said it, so it must be true.” So he has to ground the repeated premise that the Scriptures and Gospels always tell the truth. But instead of doing that in anything resembling a rational way (like proving events they reported or predicted did historically happen), he proves it in this whackadoodle way: by insisting that if Christians can perform miracles and are in other ways “powerfully affected” by the Gospel, this proves everything the Gospel says is true.

Here Justin is clearly most impressed by the fact that Christians can “expel demons.” He argues that this proves Jesus is real. Otherwise, why would demons respond to invoking his name—and indeed not just his name, but Justin’s specific historicist creed—if it wasn’t true? For example, Justin says invoking not just any Jesus works, but only the one “crucified by Pilate” (§30 and §85). His point is clearly, “How can that be, if Jesus wasn’t actually crucified by Pilate?” That that specific thing needed to be true in Justin’s sect is made clear by the letters of Ignatius, who is very anxious about Christians denying it. Of course we know this is a lunatic argument. “Jesus must have been crucified by Pilate because we can expel demons when we mention it” is bonkers. But it is what Justin is arguing. And more importantly, it is his only argument. Justin presents no other defense against Trypho’s charge that the Gospels are made up.

Trypho’s “groundless report” accusation thus dispatched (Step One), Justin moves up the list to Trypho’s “manifest to all” accusation (Step Two). To dispatch that, Justin argues at length that that requirement will be met at the Second Coming; which is also proved sure to happen by, again, “The Scriptures,” and, again, present Christian miracle-working: §35, “by the mighty deeds even now wrought through His name, by the words He taught, by the prophecies announced concerning Him.” Likewise §39, “daily some [of the Jews] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error, who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ: for one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God”; and §49, “You can perceive that the concealed power of God was in Christ the Crucified, before whom demons, and all the principalities and powers of the earth, [now] tremble.” So he keeps leaning on these same two arguments: the Gospels are historically reliable because ancient Scripture says so and Christians today are receiving miraculous gifts. Then Justin moves up Trypho’s list again, now to the “Elijah” accusation, by arguing that John the Baptist already served that role (Step Three). This occupies §49-51 of the Dialogue, bracketed by a setup (§48) and outro (§52-55).

At this point Justin digresses on an assortment of miscellaneous points (the Three Excurses), but all on the same overarching theme: that Scripture fits everything Christians are teaching about Jesus (and Jesus’s resemblance to pagan saviors is a trick of the Devil). But he centers in this section a reiteration of his point at Step One, in preparation for Step Four to follow: he expands his argument that present Christian powers and gifts prove Christ is real and the Gospels historical by now adding a bold claim that historical facts bolster his case—yet not by bolstering any historical claim in the Gospels (he never touches that), but merely this crazy claim about present-day Christian powers. For now he argues that Jewish prophecy and miracle-working ended at the time of Jesus, while in Christianity it then began, which he offers as proof that Jesus really existed and did the things the Gospels claim (§51-52; §82; §87). He also offers that Scripture predicted this as well. How else can Trypho explain this amazing coincidence? As Justin writes (§87), “It was requisite that such gifts should cease from you” and “should again, as had been predicted, become gifts which” Jesus “imparts to those who believe in Him, according as He deems each man worthy thereof,” hence “I have already said, and do again say, that it had been prophesied that this would be done by Him after His ascension to heaven.” In other words, that Jesus was born, lived, died, and resurrected is all proved by the fact that miraculous powers and gifts transferred from Jews to Christians “precisely” when they claim this all happened, and by the fact that such a strange turn of events was indeed prophesied in the Jews’ own Scriptures.

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.

But unlike every point where Justin tries to justify believing the Gospels are histories and not myths, where he appeals to present miracle working and ancient Scripture, and conspicuously avoids ever making any actual historical argument for the truth of any of it, his one argument about the Jews spreading lies about the empty tomb relies solely on the Gospels—and yet, as a statement about the Jews in his own day, it is even more conspicuous that Justin does not have Trypho say this—or even respond to it (expanding on an argument in §17 that omitted this detail). So all we get is Justin relating an urban legend about the Jews invented in Matthew, and we never get to hear this even from his fictional Jew—nor what that fictional Jew had to say about it. Which suggests Justin knew no actual Jews were saying this; it was a claim only made by his Gospel (which we know to be fabricated anyway: see Proving History, pp. 128, 156-57, 199-204). And indeed, no Jewish source ever repeats it. So there is no evidence here that Justin was settling Trypho as a historicist. Trypho’s doubts are not quashed here; indeed Trypho is in no way engaged here. Justin appears to be leaning on the same argument he always has: that present miracles prove the Gospels are telling the truth (and thus not “baseless myths”); the Gospels say some Jews were doing this; therefore some Jews were doing it. This is not a rational argument. But it’s all he’s got.

In any event, after all that, Justin walks one more rung up the list of Trypho’s arguments, to his insistence that any real Christ “must remain unknown” (§110). As Justin here says:

Now I am aware that your teachers, sirs, admit the whole of the words of this passage [in Micah 4] to refer to Christ. And I am likewise aware that they maintain He has not yet come; or if they say that He has come, they assert that it is not known who He is; but when He shall become manifest and glorious, then it shall be known who He is. And then, they say, the events mentioned in this passage shall happen [but, Justin is arguing, they already have]. 

Hence Justin echoes the words of Trypho’s opening argument, completing Justin’s reverse survey of Trypho’s four arguments. To which he now responds by reminding Trypho of his case at Step Two, that Scripture said there would be a Second Coming, which would fully satisfy this requirement; and reminding Trypho of his case at Steps One and Three (and even the Triple Excursus), that Christ actually is known, through present powers manifest in his name. Just look at how pious and moral Christians are (e.g. §116, §121), even despite persecution, which can only be true (Justin is supposing; cf. §70) if their Christ did indeed already come as they say. Otherwise their belief would not produce such results in fulfillment of prophecy.

Nor could they be exhibiting such supernatural powers. As Justin explains (§121):

But if He so shone forth and was so mighty in His first advent (which was without honour and comeliness, and very contemptible), that in no nation He is unknown, and everywhere men have repented of the old wickedness in each nation’s way of living, so that even demons were subject to His name, and all powers and kingdoms feared His name more than they feared all the dead, shall He not on His glorious return destroy by all means all those who hated Him, and who unrighteously departed from Him, but give rest to His own, rewarding them with all they have looked for?

In other words, in response to Trypho’s penultimate argument, Justin says Jesus is not unknown—look how widely known he is, and how much both kingdoms and demons tremble at his name, and how many people are miraculously driven to repent! This reiterates Justin’s Step One. So Justin has repeated the same sequence he set up in the beginning: first, present miracles prove Christianity is true, and therefore we know Jesus existed and was real and the Gospels aren’t made up; and, second, Scripture says he will come again in glory and topple all earthly powers, so his not having done so yet is not evidence against Justin’s belief. Therefore Christians are the Chosen of God.

Justin then follows with a random hodgepodge of additional Scriptural exegesis proving various points of Christian dogma, but all with a common purpose: to rebut Trypho’s first (and thus final) argument, that Christians should convert to Judaism; Justin rebuts that with the argument that Christianity has already replaced Judaism (Step Five). Then Justin closes his narrative.

Conclusion

Thus it is clear Justin sought to answer each one of Trypho’s accusations, in reverse order:

1. Justin’s messiah is all a “groundless report” (all empty fables, false claims, myths).
2. A real messiah would have been manifest to all, not hidden in secret.
3. Elijah has to precede and empower him.
4. And (for both reasons) the real messiah must remain unknown.
5. Therefore, you have to be Jewish to be saved.

Justin answers these accusations with:

1. Scripture and present miracle-working proves the report can’t be groundless.
2. That established, Justin argues the Second Coming proves his Jesus will be manifest.
3. Justin then argues that John the Baptist was Elijah—and he must have really proclaimed Jesus the messiah, because Scripture and present miracle-working proves that can’t be groundless.
4. Then, all those foundations laid, Justin responds to the “he must yet remain unknown” by appealing again to (a) present miracle-working proves he’s not unknown and (b) in any event Scripture proves he won’t be unknown at the Second Coming.
5. Finally, Justin answers the call to Judaism by arguing Christianity has already replaced it.

When you follow Trypho’s list of five arguments, and the chapter organization of the remaining Dialogue to see how Justin answers each of those arguments, each one separately, and each building on the conclusions of the preceding arguments, it’s clear Justin did not imagine his Trypho was conflating “it’s a groundless report” with “Elijah has to endorse him.” Those are completely distinct arguments. Justin himself recognizes this, as he treats them separately, and in logical order: (4) first “grounding” the allegedly groundless report, (3) then addressing the “he would have to be manifest by now” argument, (2) then answering the “Elijah must come first” argument, (1) and then answering Trypho’s claim that the real Christ remains unknown, by repeating the original sequence: first, that the present power of Jesus (manifest in his flock) proves he is known; and second, that anything still lacking in that respect will be fully supplied at his Second Coming (and Scripture said so). Then he closes by explaining that Trypho’s opening point is also false, because (for all the reasons just surveyed) Judaism has now been supplanted by Christianity.

Because of this structure, in no way is Hansen correct that Justin meant Trypho to be saying “you believe in baseless myths, because Elijah hasn’t come.” Or anything else other than straight-up doubting whether his Jesus even existed at all. Trypho is advancing these as entirely separate arguments; and we know this, because when Justin gets around to responding to them, he does so separately, and nowhere near to each other (he addresses the “baseless myth” accusation in Step One, §10-30; and the “Elijah has to come first” accusation in Step Three, §48-54). And Justin never defends the historicity of anything in the Gospels in any other way than by the same two bizarre, repeated, convoluted arguments that “Scripture said it, and Scripture can’t lie, because its authors performed miracles” and “the Gospels said it, and the Gospels can’t lie, because Christians today are performing miracles.” Which nevertheless proves Justin understood Trypho’s doubts to be total, requiring a totalizing response. Trypho accused Justin of believing lies—myths, made-up tales, stories without evidence—and Justin agreed that’s what he was accusing him of: “believing empty fables…without any proof.” If any such person existed, Trypho says, he’d have known of it by now. Justin sets out to rebut this charge by adducing all the evidence he could that Jesus really existed and did what the Gospels say.

And yet, all Justin could muster were these completely whackadoo claims about “miracle-working” proving “honesty.” If the Prophets could perform miracles, everything they said would happen must have happened. Period. If Christians now can perform miracles, everything their Gospels said happened must have happened. Period. We can recognize Justin has a crap argument, and that contrary to his self-serving fiction, any real Trypho would not have been impressed by it. But what this still tells us is that Justin had no evidence that Jesus existed. If he did, he’d have presented it. And the fact that Justin nevertheless still tried to present evidence that Jesus existed tells us there were clearly Jews (and possibly others) who were skeptical that he did. Exactly as Justin has Trypho say. This doesn’t mean such Jews knew Jesus didn’t exist. They couldn’t have. It only means many needed credible evidence to believe it. Which Justin desperately tries to muster, though to no rational success.