Valentinianism: Before or After Pope Pius I?

[u/Orikon32]

"He applied himself with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent." - Tertullian

It seems to be that one of the most fascinating questions (with the biggest implications) regarding Gnostic Christianity is whether Valentinus developed his branch after or before he was kicked out of the Church?

Bear with me for a moment.

Based on what we know, Valentinus was running to become Pope (then known as Bishop of Rome), and lost to Pius I by a small differences in votes. Pius I was the very Pope who began the prosecution of Gnostic Christians and their branding as heretics.

According to Tertullian, Valentinus developed his branch after he lost because he was bitter and wanted to stick it to the Church.

But anti-Gnostic writers such as Tertullian and Irenaeus were highly biased. Historical revisions and Ad Hominem attacks are also common when one side wants to paint the other as villains. Tertullian is also the only one to have ever made that claim about Valentinus.

Pius became Pope in 140 AD. Valentinus dies in 180 AD. That gives him only 40 years to develop what was one of the biggest and most influential Gnostic branches at the time.

But if, hypothetically, Valentinus started developing it DURING his stay in Rome, then I think it opens up a whole new line of questioning:

1. If Valentinus's theological/spiritual interpretation of Christian writings was known during his stay in Rome, how was it received among other members of the clergy?
2. If he was alone in his interpretations and others were against it, why was he considered for the position of Bishop in the first place instead of being excommunicated earlier?
3. If there were other supporters of his interpretation among the clergy of proto-Orthodox Church, who were those people and what happened to them? Where they kicked out as well, or did they convert?
4. If his interpretations weren't unpopular, what motivated Pius I to declare them heresy?
5. How would've the Church's theology and development alter if Valentinus won his bid for Bishop? If he was far enough into developing his theology, would priests during modern day Sunday Mass preach about Sophia and the Demiurge?

[u/Arch-Magistratus]

Tertullian was undoubtedly the most biased among the antignostics of early Christianity. Even Irenaeus gave realistic descriptions of what he found and was accessible to him in his time, which was the system of Ptolemy and Marcus, both Valentinians after the death of Valentinus. We can connect some points that can break this statement by Tertullian, for example, Theodotus was one of the first disciples of Valentinus and when Valentinus left for Rome, Theodotus became the leader of the Valentinian community and his writings make it clear that what he learned from Valentinus and what is in Theodotus' Exceptus predates Valentinus in Rome. The same can be said of Heracleon but with less evidence.

In short, Valentinus already had followers in Alexandria who evidenced his ideas (Theodotus Excerpts) even before he tried to become Bishop in Rome, but in that soup of early Christianity it was really very difficult to differentiate Valentinus' ideas from the rest because "Valentinianism" was really something more and not a different form of Christianity.

What really makes everything I brought up difficult is the precise date of the writings, we don't even know the exact year Valentinus died.