4, making 'in Him was life' mean not 'in Him' but 'in spiritual men.' Again, he wrongly attributes John i.
18 not to the Evangelist, but to the Baptist.

And so on.

The allusions are all made in this incidental manner; and the life of Origen, if he was born, as is supposed, about 185 A.D., would overlap that of Heracleon.

What evidence could be more sufficient?
or if such evidence is to be discarded, what evidence are we to accept?
Is it to be of the kind that is relied upon for referring quotations to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, or the Gospel according to Peter, or the [Greek: Genna Marias]?
There are sometimes no doubt reasonable grounds for scepticism as to the patristic statements, but none such are visible here.

On the contrary, that Heracleon should have written a commentary on the fourth Gospel falls in entirely with what Irenaeus says as to the large use that was made of that Gospel by the Valentinians.
* * * * * As we approach the end of the third and beginning of the fourth quarter of the second century the evidence for the fourth Gospel becomes widespread and abundant.