He sure as shit, did.
In fact, the earliest commentary on the so-called gospel of john comes from the Valentinian school which was later denounced as heretics.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/ptl.htm
Now if it were just one writing perhaps it could be dismissed.....but it isn't.
http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm
It seems that Irenaeus and his ilk decided to reclaim "john's" bullshit in the same way that "paul" was reclaimed from the Marcionites. Let's face it, this shit is all so poorly written that a few minor edits can make it say whatever the fuck you want it to say and who's the wiser?
I'm afraid that our resident xtian pals have falled for the Eusebian version of church history in which they think their shit was the way it always was.
It wasn't. And the early church did its fucking dead-level best to suppress any evidence to the contrary.
And failed. What a wonderful find was made at Nag Hammadi. Without it we might not know what the gnostics were saying as opposed to proto-orthodox horseshit.
In fact, the earliest commentary on the so-called gospel of john comes from the Valentinian school which was later denounced as heretics.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/ptl.htm
Quote:Irenaeus, in his work The Detection and Overthrow of Falsely So-Called Gnosis (written c. 180, also called Adversus Heraeses or "Against Heresies"), recorded a commentary written by the Valentinian teacher Ptolemy (second century) on the Prologue to the Gospel of John (Irenaeus, Adversus Heraeses 1.8.5). In this commentary, Ptolemy interpreted the prologue of John's gospel (John 1:1-14) as it related to the first octet of Aions, the initial "outflow" of divine emanation from the First Source.
Now if it were just one writing perhaps it could be dismissed.....but it isn't.
http://gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm
Quote:The first known Gospel commentary was a commentary on the Gospel of John written around 170 AD. It was authored by a prominent Gnostic Christian and disciple of Valentinus, Heracleon. Heracleon was one of the most important Biblical exegetes of his day. His writings were carefully read by orthodox theologians such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria.
It seems that Irenaeus and his ilk decided to reclaim "john's" bullshit in the same way that "paul" was reclaimed from the Marcionites. Let's face it, this shit is all so poorly written that a few minor edits can make it say whatever the fuck you want it to say and who's the wiser?
I'm afraid that our resident xtian pals have falled for the Eusebian version of church history in which they think their shit was the way it always was.
It wasn't. And the early church did its fucking dead-level best to suppress any evidence to the contrary.
And failed. What a wonderful find was made at Nag Hammadi. Without it we might not know what the gnostics were saying as opposed to proto-orthodox horseshit.
