Does Richard Carrier ignore that some "Gnostics" were mythicists?

[hakeem]

Richard Carrier does not know so much about gnostics as he thinks. Gnostic Christianity came before catholic Christianity. Most of their scriptures will be therefore early. If the paper is from the 4th century that only means it was copied. The earliest and most important gnostic is Paul. Then Marcion. The gospel of John. Polycarp. All the communities of Paul. Their god, god the father, is in the universe. The son who was there from the beginning is in the universe (the Logos). The holy Spirit is in the universe. The son and the spirit can move, even down to earth. That is Gnosticism. It is about divine spirits. Is it mythicist enough? Carrier has a big mouth, but he knows not so much as he (and everybody?) thinks.

it is complete nonsense that NT Paul was the earliest and important gnostic when no such person ever existed.

[cora]

Are you sure you exist?

[cora]

All gnostics were mythycists.

[davidmartin]

But as I had noted, all “Gnostic” texts he could possibly mean are in fact late derivations from the canonical Gospels and teachings, and MacDonald quite agreed. So they are on the wrong side of “historical causality” here: they are a product of the historicizing pedigree, not a predecessor to it

This is a fundamental error of judgement and meaningless statement
Where's the proof?

Taking a conservative approach is plenty to dispute this erroneous half baked conclusion:
The church father's themselves show gnostic-like writings in existence in the mid-2nd century
The treatise Eugnostos the Blessed has been suggested as a 1st century BC work by some scholars
Early gnostics works like the Apocryphon of John seem to rely on earlier writings as the sources
Various Semitism's found in gnostic names and so on that show a Hebrew connection
The early date suggested on the gospel of thomas
The histories of the heretics as claimed by the orthodox
The polemics found in the NT itself
The list goes on

The fact is the mid 2nd century is the latest possible date to try to push onto the gnostic corpus as a whole
For some writings and sources a date 50 years earlier is completely possible, if not likely
But this is so close to 100AD it is meaningless. We are in the same timeframe as the known orthodox writings

It would make sense if he claimed the gnostic writings we have are derivative of earlier 'gnostic' writings and still valuable but reflect development and change
But the fact is we know why he is saying what he is saying
Because it is a threat to his theory
If he has to dismiss things he doesn't like from the historical record he doesn't like then maybe he is just wrong?

[perseusomega9]

Try to remove 'Synagogues' from Luke 12:11-12 and you gain a mythicist Logion:

“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

While you correctly identify this as a problem passage, you've jumped a bridge too far. This is a clear anachronism to be a saying of Jesus. We just need to find a suitable date where a Christian would be brought before a local synagogue or Roman court in the empire.

[Giuseppe]

We just need to find a suitable date where a Christian would be brought before a local synagogue or Roman court in the empire.

translated: we just need to read Acts of Apostles about Jewish persecutions of good Christians.

Is this what do you mean?