Here's a response I had from Darrell Bock to John's claims.
Hard to comment without versification on Philip, I will have to look
at this. Of course, the major critique is the lateness of Mary and
the fact most do not take it to show Jesus was really married as a
result. If I do recall and we are discussing the same thing, I am
aware of the context of Philip being appealed to. I never treated it
because it fuses mother-sister-wife, showing that whatever it means
it is a highly figurative description from which a conclusion about a
social social relationship cannot be made. How is one mother and wife
at the same time? What that shows is a highly symbolic use from which
little can be drawn. In such a highly symbolic context it is hard to
know what to make of a description of someone as a "yoke-partner".
As for Intellectuals and Gnostics. That looks like a caricature of my
position or emphasis. It takes a portion of a quote from Mathews-
Green I note (not even the part I was most concerned about) and makes
the word mine. The point was that gnosticism was an elitist religion
of secret knowledge working with a Greek philosophical syncretistic
reaction to Judaism and Christianity. In that sense it was
intellectual and pointed to a claim of "secret" and elitist
knowledge. I think that point is quite correct from the sources we
have. So I stand by the point of a movment rooted in a claim to
"secret" understanding of a philosophically oriented type.
As for Montanism I am not discussing the NT as a whole, but the
gospels (a key distinction). Here my point is that Ireneaus's
reaction against such movements was he rejected the attempt to add to
the four gospels. In addition, we are making the larger point that
the position of the four gospels was fixed by the end of the second
century not by Nicea, a point virtually all working on the
development of the canon accept. I stand by that description as well.
They are not errors.