Even the context isn't clear:
If indeed in the flood all sinful flesh perished, becoming a lesson to them through punishment, first of all, it is to be believed that God's will, educational and active, saves those who turn back. Furthermore, the soul, being more subtle, would never suffer any harm from the denser water, due to its fineness and simplicity by which it is also said to be incorporeal. Whatever is dense from sin and becomes thickened is discarded along with the fleshly spirit that lusts against the soul. And already, Valentinus the chief (ὁ κορυφαῖος Οὐαλεντῖνος) among those advocating for the community (τῶν τὴν κοινότητα πρεσβευόντων), writes verbatim in the discourse Περὶ φίλων: "Many of the things written in the public books are found written in the church of God (πολλὰ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις βίβλοις εὑρίσκεται γεγραμμένα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ); for these common things are the words from the heart, a law written in the heart (τὰ γὰρ κοινὰ ταῦτα ἔστι τὰ ἀπὸ καρδίας ῥήματα, νόμος ὁ γραπτὸς ἐν καρδίᾳ); this is the people of the beloved, loved and loving him (ὁ φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτόν). For he makes the truth common, whether he refers to the Jewish scriptures or the writings of the philosophers ( δημοσίας γὰρ βίβλους εἴτε τὰς Ἰουδαϊκὰς λέγει γραφὰς εἴτε τὰς τῶν φιλοσόφων, κοινοποιεῖ τὴν ἀλήθειαν). And Isidore, the son and disciple of Basilides, in the first of his Explanatory [works] of the prophet Parchor, also writes verbatim; and the Athenians say that a certain demon accompanied Socrates, driving him mad, and Aristotle says that all men use demons, agreeing with them over time since the embodiment, taking this prophetic lesson and placing it into his own books, not admitting where he got this discourse from. And again, in the second of the same composition, he writes somewhat like this: and let no one think that what we say is the own of the elect, this being previously stated by some philosophers.
It all comes down to whether the line δημοσίας γὰρ βίβλους εἴτε τὰς Ἰουδαϊκὰς λέγει γραφὰς εἴτε τὰς τῶν φιλοσόφων, κοινοποιεῖ τὴν ἀλήθειαν is written by Clement talking about Valentinus or whether it is Valentinus talking about Philo. In favor of the possibility that the line is commentary by Clement is Carl Johan Berglund:
Clement attributes the quotation explicitly to Valentinus, locates it within a homily, and introduces it with the phrase κατὰ λέξιν γράφει, indicating a verbatim quotation from a written source. The transition marker γάρ indicates a possible shift from quotation to interpretation, and since the quotation is in the second person plural, the shift to third person with the verb ὑποτίθεται (“he assumes”) confirms that the quotation indeed ended at the close of the previous sentence. The γάρ in itself is not enough to discern the end of the quotation, since this word also can be used by the quoted author. A few lines further down, a second quotation is introduced by the formula γράφων αὐταῖς λέξεσιν (“writing in these very words”), which also purports to give a verbatim quotation from a written source. As he names Valentinus in the preceding reference, he has no need to repeat the name here: Concerning this god, he hints at these things when he writes, in these very words (γράφων αὐταῖς λέξεσιν): “As much as the image is less than the living face, so much inferior is the world to the living eon. What is then (οὖν) the reason for the image? The greatness of the face that was provided to the artist as a model, in order that it should be honored with his name. For the appearance was not found to be authentic, but the name has completed what was lacking in the casting. The invisible [agent] from God also (δὲ καὶ) cooperates in the faith of the one being molded.” For the Maker, called God and Father, he labels (προσεῖπεν) an image and a prophet of the true God. And Wisdom, whose work the image is, to the glory of the invisible, he labels an artist.45
This quotation is written in the third person, and while there is a γάρ followed by a προσεῖπεν (“he labels”) that most probably marks the shift from quotation to interpretation, there are previous conjunctions (οὖν, γάρ, δὲ καί) that could possibly mark the end of the verbatim quotation and the beginning of interpretation, paraphrase, or summary. In the third case, the topic addressed is whether God gave philosophy to the Greeks in order to prepare them to receive the gospel. After presenting his own opinion, Clement supports his view by quoting Valentinus: By this time also the leader of the elders of the community, Valentinus, in the homily about friends writes literally (κατὰ λέξιν γράφει): “Many of the things written in the public books are also found written in the congregation of God – for those shared things are words from the heart, a law written in the heart. This is the people of the Beloved, who are loved and who love him.” Whether the books he calls (λέγει) “public” are the Jewish writings or those of the philosophers, he regards the truth as common property.46
Here, Clement specifies his source to be Valentinus’s homily about friends (ἡ περὶ φίλων ὁμιλία). The quotation is introduced by the phrase κατὰ λέξιν γράφει (“he writes literally”), purporting that the words are taken verbatim from a written source. That the quotation ends at αὐτόν (“him”) is clear from the fact that the main verb of the next sentence, λέγει (“he calls”), is not applicable to the previous grammatical subject, ὁ λαός (“the people”), but describes what Valentinus is doing in the quoted passage. Even though there is no direct tradition of Valentinus’s works against which Clement’s quotations may be checked, van den Hoek’s results and our observations give reason to believe that he presents Valentinus’s words verbatim. If Origen’s quotation practices are similar to Clement’s, we may expect some of the statements he attributes to Heracleon to be verbatim quotations. Van den Hoek’s study has also revealed that certain terms within Clement’s attribution formulas may indicate whether a quotation is presented verbatim or not – an observation that may be extensible, mutatis mutandis, to Origen. V. Quotations in Eusebius of Caesarea Eusebius of Caesarea was a disciple of Origen’s disciple Pamphilus (d. 309 CE). He inherited Origen’s library, including the original manuscripts of his works.47 If Origen’s quotation practices influenced other ancient writers, Eusebius should be a prime example. According to Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius employs a wide array of verbs in his attribution formulas, including γράϕω (“write”), μαρτυρέω (“testify”), ἱστορέω (“examine” or “record”), λέγω (“say”), ϕημί (“say”), ϕάσκω (“think” or “say”), διέξειμι (“go through”), ἑρμηνεύω (“explain” or “describe”), διηγέομαι (“describe”), and μνημονεύω (“mention”). She finds that he often marks the end of a quotation with τοσαῦτα followed by the name of the quoted author, and almost always marks gaps in a quotation with a phrase such as καὶ ἐπιλέγει, καὶ μετὰ βραχέα or πάλιν. Just like Clement, Eusebius regularly indicates that a quotation is verbatim by use of a term such as κατὰ λέξιν (“literally”), πρὸς ῥῆμα (“to the word”), or ὧδέ πως (“in the following way”). Apart from the absence of such terms, Inowlocki identifies the use of indirect speech as another indication that Eusebius is paraphrasing or summarizing rather than quoting verbatim – and she finds these indications to be trustworthy.48 In his Demonstratio evangelica, Eusebius systematically makes more adaptations of his quotations than in other works, but also indicates this freedom by use of indirect speech. Inowlocki is not able to find an instance where Eusebius seems to present a verbatim quotation without actually doing so.49 Inowlocki remarks, however, that Eusebius’s faithfulness to the wording of his sources is not matched by a similar attitude to their sense. On the contrary, he constantly makes both his paraphrases and his verbatim quotations serve his agenda, by cutting them off from their original contexts to give them new meanings, by omitting expressions that do not conform to his own theology, and by changing words to suggest agreements between Josephus and the Gospels. He switches between summaries, paraphrases, and verbatim quotations not only to avoid unnecessary repetition, Inowlocki finds, but also to strengthen his own argument. Inowlocki stresses that Eusebius’s way of changing the quoted text is not a sign of intellectual dishonesty; in the context of ancient literary practices, such adaptations are part of the natural process through which a text is offered a new life after it is written.50 Eusebius’s consistency in indicating verbatim quotations with terms such as κατὰ λέξιν and paraphrases with the use of indirect speech raises the question of whether similar traits may be discerned in Origen’s attribution formulas. If different levels of faithfulness to the original wording are indicated by signs such as indirect speech, or the presence or absence of specific terms, we may be able to discern between different modes of attribution in Origen’s interactions with Heracleon. Eusebius’s habit of placing his quotations in new contexts, which give the quoted words a different meaning than what the quoted author intended, emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between Heracleon’s words on the one hand, and the sense Origen infers from them on the other. Origen may be misrepresenting Heracleon’s views even when he is quoting him verbatim. So far, we have not only identified the quoting author’s view of the quoted author – as a rival, an authority, or a provider of source material – as a critical factor for determining how much adaptation we should expect.
So here is the Greek:
ἤδη δὲ καὶ τῶν τὴν κοινότητα πρεσβευόντων ὁ κορυφαῖος Οὐαλεντῖνος ἐν τῇ Περὶ φίλων ὁμιλίᾳ κατὰ λέξιν γράφει· πολλὰ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐν ταῖς δημοσίαις βίβλοις εὑρίσκεται γεγραμμένα ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ· τὰ γὰρ κοινὰ ταῦτα ἔστι τὰ ἀπὸ καρδίας ῥήματα, νόμος ὁ γραπτὸς ἐν καρδίᾳ· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ λαὸς ὁ τοῦ ἠγαπημένου, ὁ φιλούμενος καὶ φιλῶν αὐτόν. δημοσίας γὰρ βίβλους εἴτε τὰς Ἰουδαϊκὰς λέγει γραφὰς εἴτε τὰς τῶν φιλοσόφων, κοινοποιεῖ τὴν ἀλήθειαν.
I disagree. It is a very short quote from Valentinus. It is possible that Valentinus writes as part of an ongoing commentary on Philo. Carl Johan Berglund hasn't considered the possibility that Philo is the subject.
