M. D. Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes, review

[StephenGoranson]

M. David Litwa, Carpocrates, Marcellina, and Epiphanes: three early Christian teachers of Alexandria and Rome. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2022. Pp. 256. ISBN 9781032285351
Review by
Daniel Vaucher, Freiburg, Switzerland. daniel.va@bluewin.ch

https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2023/2023.02.09/

[Leucius Charinus]

The reviewer mentions "the author's apologetic interest" twice, his "apologetic objective" once and his "apologetic reading" once. These references to "apologetics" are likely to be interpreted in a negative sense.

But exactly how do others parse this negative criticism? Does it relate to the reviewer's perception of Litwa's agenda:

It is part of the recent trend to rehabilitate Christians who were branded as heretics and to perceive them as thinkers of their time. Carpocrates and Epiphanes are still condemned in recent research as libertine Gnostics. Litwa attempts to correct this image; he wants to eliminate the unprovable accusations of the heresiologists and to advance to the true doctrine of the Carpocratians. This apologetic objective is visible throughout the book.

[GakuseiDon]

But exactly how do others parse this negative criticism? Does it relate to the reviewer's perception of Litwa's agenda:

An agenda though not necessarily a negative one, with "apology" meaning "a partisan defence". He sees Litwa trying to rehabilitate those early Christians from the charges of the Church Father.

He does conclude:

Reconstructing the characters and their theology and thinking from heresiological treatises written many years after the events is a difficult matter. I would at least argue that various interpretations are possible – Litwa has presented a quite convincing one.[3]
-----
[3] I agree with most of Litwa’s assertions. But when it comes to Marcellina, one can see the many assumptions.

[GakuseiDon]

I have my own "magical" origins theory for Christianity a historical Jesus, which goes a bit like how Vaucher summarises Litwa:

Carpocrates and his followers revered Jesus as a Stoic sage who had overcome his passions. “The Carpocratian Jesus was one of the very few who maintained absolute purity and sinlessness.” (p. 102). On this basis, Litwa rejects the accusations that the Carpocratians committed all sorts of sins – they followed an ideal of Jesus who certainly did not perform “impious or irreligious acts” (p. 118). “Accordingly, it seems unlikely that Carpocratians (…) did either.” (S. 118). One of the accusations against the group was that of magic (artes enim magicas operantur et ipsi incantationes philtra quoque et charitesia et paredros et oniropompos et reliquas malignationes…, Irenaeus, AH 1.25.3, p. 110). Litwa rightly points out that the accusation of magic was standardized and could be directed against any hostile group – it served to delegitimize the others. This simplified accusation of magic, on the other hand, is contrasted by a wide variety of rituals, which Litwa classifies (with S.K. Stowers) as “the religion of everyday social exchange.” These rituals could include incantations, love charms, divination practices, visions, and healing magic. Most literate elites have rejected such religious practices, but the majority of Christians have been less critical of them. Litwa now wants to free the Carpocratians from the accusation that they practiced “malign practices” (p. 112), on the other hand, he asserts that they certainly performed “beneficial” rituals (to support his argumentation, Litwa exceptionally falls back on Michael Syrus (Chronicle 6.4) from the 12th century – how should he still know after almost a thousand years?). Here the argument seems somewhat blurred, and Litwa’s apologetic interest is once more visible. Christians in the 2nd century, like non-Christians, were in contact with numerous rituals now classified as “magical” practices, and the Church deliberately resorted to them in shaping its rituals. But the separation between “malign” and “beneficial” is, as Litwa actually shows, an artificial one that served only to delegitimize the other. Would it not be plausible to assume that the Carpocratians were no more and no less involved in such rituals than other Christian groups of the time?

Many of the early heretics were accused of acts of sorcery: Simon, Menander, Basilides, Carpocrates, So were Jesus, Paul and Peter by various sources. It's a theme that pops up again and again: Jesus was a perfect man, humble, obedient to God unto death, goes to heaven; then the followers get magical powers.

[MrMacSon]

The reviewer mentions "the author's apologetic interest" twice, his "apologetic objective" once and his "apologetic reading" once. These references to "apologetics" are likely to be interpreted in a negative sense.

But exactly how do others parse this negative criticism? Does it relate to the reviewer's perception of Litwa's agenda:

It is part of the recent trend to rehabilitate Christians who were branded as heretics and to perceive them as thinkers of their time. Carpocrates and Epiphanes are still condemned in recent research as libertine Gnostics. Litwa attempts to correct this image; he wants to eliminate the unprovable accusations of the heresiologists and to advance to the true doctrine of the Carpocratians. This apologetic objective is visible throughout the book.

Litwa has posted this review to his Patreon account saying, “Well, if I’m going to be called an apologist for the heretics, I’ll simply say that they deserve at least one.”

[schillingklaus]

Those are not early teachers but patristic fiction.

[Leucius Charinus]

But exactly how do others parse this negative criticism? Does it relate to the reviewer's perception of Litwa's agenda:

An agenda though not necessarily a negative one, with "apology" meaning "a partisan defence". He sees Litwa trying to rehabilitate those early Christians from the charges of the Church Father.

Thanks for observations G'Don. So let's restate the review. Litwa's agenda is perceived as waging a partisan defense on behalf of that class of early Christian which we know to be "heretics".

Our primary knowledge of the "heretics" is derived from the NHL and other manuscripts. Our secondary knowledge of the heretics is derived from the heresiological narratives. From what I understand Litwa's extended scholarship covers and examines both the primary and the secondary evidence.

Which is at least a good start because the political history of the early Christian heretics is being shrouded by the pseudo-historical clouds of heresiological assertions. The primary evidence however must speak first and last. I guess that makes me an apologist for the primary evidence of the "heretics". Interesting.

[Leucius Charinus]

Litwa has posted this review to his Patreon account saying, “Well, if I’m going to be called an apologist for the heretics, I’ll simply say that they deserve at least one.”

I can respect that. They do of course. Nobody is ever going to solve the problems associated with Christian origins unless there is some sort of sensible political history of the heretics. What the Fathers say about the heretics and what the NHL says about the heretics has to be reconciled. I understand (via some of his vids) that Litwa is trying to address this reconciliation. So that's the right direction imo

[mlinssen]

The reviewer mentions "the author's apologetic interest" twice, his "apologetic objective" once and his "apologetic reading" once. These references to "apologetics" are likely to be interpreted in a negative sense.

But exactly how do others parse this negative criticism? Does it relate to the reviewer's perception of Litwa's agenda:

It is part of the recent trend to rehabilitate Christians who were branded as heretics and to perceive them as thinkers of their time. Carpocrates and Epiphanes are still condemned in recent research as libertine Gnostics. Litwa attempts to correct this image; he wants to eliminate the unprovable accusations of the heresiologists and to advance to the true doctrine of the Carpocratians. This apologetic objective is visible throughout the book.

The pot calling the kettle black - and then suddenly being black is meant to be perceived as a bad thing

I really, really like how Litwa is doing his own translation, rejecting the biased ones drawn up by the usual suspects. It is time for real researchers to take the wheel, and I wholeheartedly welcome Litwa at it

[Leucius Charinus]

The pot calling the kettle black - and then suddenly being black is meant to be perceived as a bad thing

Touche!

I really, really like how Litwa is doing his own translation, rejecting the biased ones drawn up by the usual suspects. It is time for real researchers to take the wheel, and I wholeheartedly welcome Litwa at it

Litwa (and others) need to take on board your analysis of the runes of Christ and Jesus and Spirit in the NHL plus the Chrestian/Christian stuff in Philip. He has covered a number of NHL tracts AFAIK. He's made some comments about Thomas here:

“I Will Become Him”: Homology and
Deification in the Gospel of Thomas

This article argues that many of the disparate soteriological themes in the Gospel of Thomas can be united under the category of deification. Strikingly, the Gospel of Thomas presents an early Christian form of deification parallel to the deification of Jesus in the Gospel of John. Like John’s Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas presents a Jesus who is fully divine. Unlike in John, however, Jesus’s distinctively divine traits and predicates are applied also to the elect in the Gospel of Thomas. The homology of Jesus and the Thomasine Christian indicates a soteriology of gemination—a scenario in which the elect realize their identity with Jesus and thus their status as spiritual “twins.” Since Jesus is presented as a divine figure in the Gospel of Thomas, Thomasine gemination is simultaneously a form of deification

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.15699/j ... .2015.2772

He still perceives a "Thomasine Christian Community" from the blueprints distributed by the heresiologists. He thinks (I think) that Thomas is some sort of Christian. So do most Christian scholars from James Robinson onwards.