Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 2:00 amThanks 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".

Yes, that seems to be the impression the reviewer gives. He also seems to believe that "Litwa has presented a quite convincing" interpretation of the evidence. Makes me want to read the book.

Litwa is alright but he creates his own fusion product of Thomas, John, Paul, jumping from one to the other based on a few words

That was 2015 though, I hope he has abandoned that path and turned to much more precise and complete research. And stopped reading and quoting from DeConick and Plisch among others, none of which have even a single clue about the text

mlinssen, do you really think that April D. DeConick (of Rice University) has not "even a single clue about the text"?

Another recent article on Carpocratians:
Michael J. Kok

I have a new journal article that should be available soon entitled “Morton Smith and the Carpocratians” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 97.4 (2021): 623-645. Here is the abstract:

“Before the publication of Morton Smith’s scholarly and popular monographs on the Letter to Theodore ascribed to Clement of Alexandria, scholars generally summarized rather than critically interrogated the heresiological sources about the Carpocratians. Smith’s historical reconstruction of the beliefs and praxis of Carpocrates, Epiphanes, and their followers, therefore, represented a significant advance in the academic study of the Carpocratians. Further, he added the Letter to Theodore to the database on the Carpocratians, though there is no consensus among scholars regarding the authenticity of this document. Nevertheless, Smith’s interpretations of the Patristic and Medieval testimonies about the Carpocratians have become outdated in the light of recent scholarship. More specifically, Smith undervalued the philosophical underpinnings of the Carpocratians’ worldview and overemphasised the antinomian and magical practices that were attributed to the Carpocratians by their Christian opponents.”

more here:
https://jesusmemoirs.wordpress.com/2022 ... ocratians/

Neither Kok nor Litwa appear in the G. Smith & B. Landau book Bibliography, perhaps because they are recent.

Seems to be a drumbeat emerging against a book you haven't even read. "Their bibliography is incomplete." Really? This is the best you can come up with? I think you know these guys are bright ... and are worried.

If you, SA, mean the book by G. Smith and B. Landau,
I have read it, completely.

Well you see you're in the know. I haven't received a copy yet. Still the nitpickiness is petty. Par for the course.

I get that "maybe" something is authentic, or "maybe" something is inauthentic. But the certainty you possess is beyond the pale. I mean, as I said in another thread, we speak about Tertullian's "witness to the Marcionite gospel" and his actual testimony is more nuanced. He's doesn't say "hey I've got a gospel from a Marcionite church." He's not using a Marcionite gospel. He's using Luke. So if we can survive dozens of studies which attest to "Marcion's gospel" as being related to nonsense in Tertullian and Epiphanius we can survive Secret Mark. No one's claiming that Secret Mark is the fountain out of which all gospels sprung.

I referred to two recent publications about Carpocratians.
Probably it is because they are so recent that they aren't in the Smith/Landau Bibliography. As I already mentioned.
I thought they might be of interest to some here.

I have a signed copy of this book.