Karl R said:
Apocryphon = secret teaching
Does that word sound familiar to you? It amuses me to hear a roman catholic express such contempt for the concept.
I assume you refer to the so-called "Apocrypha" of the Old Testament? Just so you're aware, "Apocrypha" is typically term applied to those books by Protestants or others who reject them....Catholics do not use that term unless it is in the context of something a Protestant etc has said. Typically, if a Catholic is going to single out that portion of Scripture, they are referred to as the Deuterocanonicals.
More to the point, just like Jesus taught some things to his closest disciples that he did not teach to the masses, the gnostics passed on these "secret teachings" to those who had enough spiritual maturity to understand them.
Sure, except that He generally shared His teachings with ALL His disciples (unless, ironically, you count His unique words and commands to Peter...hmm, I wonder why that could be...). Gnostics often try to claim that He only gave such revelation to one or two disciples/Apostles in particular (e.g. the Gospel of Judas, where only Judas receives special insight ).
Quoting Jesus (from the book of Mark):
"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables,"
That verse is Mark 4:11. This statement was said to "those around Him (Jesus) with the twelve." (verse 10). So again, the "secret" knowledge was given to the Apostolic leadership as a whole. The Apostolic leadership was maintained in the successors that the Apostles appointed in various cities. As this Apostolic succession continued from generation to generation, Christians could not agree on what books were inspired and which were not, and thus the Church, as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) called a Council, as in Acts 15. At this Council, the Canon of Scripture was offically determined. The Gnostic texts were not inspired.
The valentinians within the orthodox church would pass on their teaching to other church members they felt had achieved sufficient spiritual maturity.
As you just noted, the Valentinians were wolves in sheep's clothing, they weren't orthodox; they managed to convert those orthodox believers that they could to their particular brand of Gnosticism.
According to one of Irenaeus' letter, one of the valentinians (Florinus) was an orthodox priest. Apparently a bishop was thoroughly convinced this man was a christian.
An orthodox priest may have BECOME a valentinian; that doesn't mean that Irenaeus approved of it.
I'm surprised you consider Paul to be an apostle. He doesn't meet the criteria that Peter established when Matthias was appointed to be Judas' replacement. Paul wasn't a witness to the physical resurrection. (If you're confused about this, you can find details in Acts ... which is generally considered to be canon.)
Several of Paul's epistles are generally considered to be canon, too
...
"Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ..." Romans 1:1
As for Peter's "criteria", let's examine what you're talking about in the passage where Matthias is elected:
"...one of these must
become a witness with us of His resurrection." Acts 1:22
The replacement of Judas was to BECOME a witness of Christ's resurrection, that doesn't mean he WAS a witness to the resurrection. So just because Paul didn't see the resurrection happen (He did see the resurrected Christ: Acts 9; 1 Cor. 15:8) doesn't mean he was never an Apostle.
I didn't forget anything. I was making a distinction between gospels and letters. I also wasn't bothering to mention multiple books by the same apostle. Even if you count letters, and count Paul as an apostle, that brings the canon up to five apostles. I already named seven apostles authoring gnostic gospels.
And I'll add in The Apocolypse of Paul to make eight. What did you believe you were proving?
I was proving that the name game is irrelevant to the canonicity of individual books.
By the way, there are 52 books in the Nag Hammadi library, do you really think you can win a numbers game?
I wasn't trying to win a numbers game. I fully acknowledge that there were plenty of writings floating around in the early Church. Again, that was the whole point of the Council. Christians couldn't agree, so the Church through divine authority given by Christ established the canon authoritatively.
The accuracy of apostolic succession was clearly debatable by the second century CE. It's even more debatable now.
Debatable by whom? A heretical sect that died out? Catholic Christians certainly didn't debate over it, they clearly considered the Apostolic authority to have been passed on to the various bishops.
There's only one valid adjudicator of apostolic succession, and he departed this world before they did. Obviously he could clear this matter up if it was truly important, but he has chosen not to. To me, that speaks volumes
If you're referring to Jesus, He handed the job of apostolic succession over to His Apostles, and clearly they were aware of its necesity (2 Tim. 2:2; Titus 1:5).
FerventGodSeeker