Note how Litwa feels the moral duty of accusing the Mythicists of anti-Christianity, as if this only fact has to mean something.
I find this quite fascinating, because this early Marcionite mythicism has the opposite purpose as modern atheistic mythicism. Modern mythicism aims, as far as I can tell, to delegitimate and even destroy Christianity—to kill it at the roots, so to speak. But ancient, Marcionite mythicism has the goal of preserving Christianity by purifying it of its own gospel myths, the myths which made Jesus into a Jewish messiah as opposed to a cosmic Christ. For Marcion, the cosmic Christ was the true historical Jesus, and the Jewish messiah was the myth.
I don't like the Litwa's post, frankly. The post seems to have been written by someone who knows only recently about the modern mythicist interest for Marcion (and *Ev's priority) and talks about it as of a modern trend. When really all the past mythicists had assumed already the *Ev's priority over Luke. And sometimes even over Mark.
So I see a lot of human too human vanity in this post. Something of similar to Errorman coming to know only recently about the existence of mythicists (and being even prideful of this his ignorance).
Note then the implicit logical fallacy by Litwa: if the Mythicists want to be intellectually honest, then they have to argue for some form of absolute Marcionite priority (i.e. anti-demiurgist Origins of Christianity).
When all the efforts by Richard Carrier are devoted to show that mythicism is coherent also with Only-Jewish Origins.
All roads lead to the same place. And Litwa is right. The Jews had an ancient god Man. Moses was called "Moses the Man of God" for this reason by the Samaritans. Jesus was Man. Modern mythicism is anti-Christian, anti-religion. A more sophisticated Protocols of Zion which includes Christianity. Ancient reporting on Marcion isn't exactly accurate either. But that's another story. Litwa got it right though.
In order to be a non-atheist mythicist you'd have to believe in a supernatural Man god who is the reason that we humans are anthropomorphic. God created us in his image. The Rastafarians from their proto-Coptic Ethiopic roots said it best, "Almighty God is a living Man." That's the whole idea. It's Jewish. It's Samaritan. It's proto-Christian. We've gone through this before.
I've said this many times before. The name "mythicism" has a negative connotation. It would be like if you set up a study of homosexuality called "faggot studies" and when people questioned you you'd be like "oh no, we don't hate homosexuals." "Then why are you called faggot studies." "Oh faggot means gay." "No, it's not a positive reference." "Oh, you're taking it out of context." No, mythicism is a bad name for the objective study of Jesus as a wholly divine being.
Litwa has a new (2024) article. (I haven't read it yet.)
M. David Litwa, ‘Thomas in Alexandria: Arguments for Locating the Gospel and Book of Thomas in Alexandria,’ Journal of Biblical Literature 143.1 (2024) 163-183.
Abstract: “In this article, I argue that the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas were composed in Alexandria, Egypt. For the Gospel of Thomas, I examine the manuscript attestation and quotations of the gospel from known Alexandrian figures (e.g., Julius Cassianus, Basilideans) and texts (the Gospel according to the Egyptians), and from texts that are arguably Alexandrian (e.g., the Testimony of Truth, Excerpts from Theodotus, and the Naassene discourse). With respect to the Book of Thomas, I examine the treatise’s use of the tradent Matthias, the Philonic paradigm of the spiritual athlete, the use of the Alexandrian Apocalypse of Peter, and distinctive overlaps with other Alexandrian figures and texts. Determining the provenance of anonymous ancient texts is hypothetical, but the most reliable and precise evidence for the Gospel and Book of Thomas supports a composition in Alexandria more so than it does the regions of Edessa, Jerusalem, or Antioch.”
The following judgement by Richard Carrier about David Litwa is confirmed again and again:
Litwa literally doesn’t know anything he is talking about. Yet he arrogantly—and dishonestly—represents himself as a studied expert. This is shameful and immoral—and extremely angering.
Litwa literally doesn’t know anything he is talking about.
"Literally." How can an expert "literally" not know anything about what he is talking about. The word "literally" literally makes the sentence incomprehensible. Typical American overkill "all in" exaggerated bravado. Bravado is a bad trait in a scholar. Hence I always co-write my papers. The world doesn't need Rambo the academic.
