Tertullian Says Marcion Had Access to All Four Gospels But 'Beat Up' Only Luke

[Secret Alias]

I don't think so. I mean you look at Irenaeus's book. What do you see? A sensationalist compendium of claims about various myths essentially. "Inasmuch as certain men have set the truth aside, and bring in lying words and vain genealogies as the apostle has said ..." So the book isn't about much other than the myth-making the mythopoesis of the sects. The sectarians "falsify the oracles of God, and prove themselves evil interpreters of the good word of revelation. They also overthrow the faith of many, by drawing them away, under a pretence of knowledge, from Him who rounded and adorned the universe."

The work is an outgrowth of an attack against the Valentinians which still exists in an 'independent' form in Tertullian's Against the Valentinians. Then a bunch of other stuff got tacked on to that - mostly from Justin who did not himself oppose the Valentinians. But what was his real 'beef' at the core of Against the False Gnostics? From the same intro: "[t]hey initiate them (their simple adherents) into their blasphemous and impious opinions respecting the Demiurge." Their 'opinions' stray from monarchianism. That's the big beef. Irenaeus thinks we should worship both our heavenly Lord and our earthly Lord (presumed from what is written in Book 4) as mirrors of one another. That there is one Lord and he is both just and good.

But really everything that follows in Against the False Gnostics is a variation on that theme. But if he heard X from this individual which slighted the ruler of the world, and Y from another guy - X and Y become 'things said by distinct heresies' when I am not sure that is always true. He also assumes that heresies don't share ideas or hold to the same tradition linked back to a common ancestor - i.e. Paul. It's not very scientific.

[Secret Alias]

It is worth noting that some sort of connection between John and the Valentinians existed as we see from Irenaeus Book 1:

Further, they (the Valentinians) teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words:

John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,--that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. By him the Word was produced, and in him the whole substance of the AEons, to which the Word himself afterwards imparted form. Since, therefore, he treats of the first origin of things, he rightly proceeds in his teaching from the beginning, that is, from God and the Word. And he expresses himself thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God." Having first of all distinguished these three--God, the Beginning, and the Word--he again unites them, that he may exhibit the production of each of them, that is, of the Son and of the Word, and may at the same time show their union with one another, and with the Father. For "the beginning" is in the Father, and of the Father, while "the Word" is in the beginning, and of the beginning. Very properly, then, did he say, "In the beginning was the Word," for He was in the Son; "and the Word was with God," for He was the beginning; "and the Word was God," of course, for that which is begotten of God is God. "The same was in the beginning with God"--this clause discloses the order of production. "All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made;" for the Word was the author of form and beginning to all the AEons that came into existence after Him. But "what was made in Him," says John, "is life." Here again he indicated conjunction; for all things, he said, were made by Him, but in Him was life. This, then, which is in Him, is more closely connected with Him than those things which were simply made by Him, for it exists along with Him, and is developed by Him. When, again, he adds, "And the life was the light of men," while thus mentioning Anthropos, he indicated also Ecclesia by that one expression, in order that, by using only one name, he might disclose their fellowship with one another, in virtue of their conjunction. For Anthropos and Ecclesia spring from Logos and Zoe. Moreover, he styled life (Zoe) the light of men, because they are enlightened by her, that is, formed and made manifest. This also Paul declares in these words: "For whatsoever doth make manifest is light." Since, therefore, Zoe manifested and begat both Anthropos and Ecclesia, she is termed their light. Thus, then, did John by these words reveal both other things and the second Tetrad, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. And still further, he also indicated the first Tetrad. For, in discoursing of the Saviour and declaring that all things beyond the Pleroma received form from Him, he says that He is the fruit of the entire Pleroma. For he styles Him a "light which shineth in darkness, and which was not comprehended" by it, inasmuch as, when He imparted form to all those things which had their origin from passion, He was not known by it. He also styles Him Son, and Aletheia, and Zoe, and the "Word made flesh, whose glory," he says, "we beheld; and His glory was as that of the Only-begotten (given to Him by the Father), full of grace and truth."

An editorial note is injected into the citation - " But what John really does say is this: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." and then it continues again:

Thus, then, does he [according to them] distinctly set forth the first Tetrad, when he speaks of the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia. In this way, too, does John tell of the first Ogdoad, and that which is the mother of all the AEons. For he mentions the Father, and Charis, and Monogenes, and Aletheia, and Logos, and Zoe, and Anthropos, and Ecclesia.

Such are the views of Ptolemaeus.

So it would stand to reason that there was a gospel of John before Irenaeus and it seems to be connected with the Valentinians who used the Prologue to justify their theory of emanations. It would also be implied from this that Paul as well as John were names known to Christians before Irenaeus.