Moll—The Man with No Name 91
not reveal any personal remembrance of Polycarp’s teachings on Irenaeus’s part, much
less provide a literal quote from them. All in all it must, therefore, be doubted whether
Irenaeus’s recollection of Polycarp’s words was in fact as excellent as he claims and as
excellent as it would have to be in order to identify him with the elder.
- “I recognize thee as first-born of Satan!” This was Polycarp’s reply to Marcion’s
wish for recognition—at least according to the testimony of Irenaeus.^5 Once again,
however, this story does not bear the image of personal remembrance on Irenaeus’s
part; it has rather the character of an anecdote. While that does not necessarily mean
that the meeting between Polycarp and Marcion never took place, we find ourselves—
regarding the question of an anti-Marcionite stance within Polycarp’s teaching—con-
fronted with the same problem as before, the problem of Irenaeus not providing any
literal remains of it. As far as the above mentioned letter to Florinus is concerned, the
information that can be derived from its fragment is very limited.^6 Hill believes that
the theme of this letter “On the Sole Sovereignty of God or That God is not the Author
of Evils” identifies it as an anti-Marcionite writing, as Florinus held the opinion “that
there were two Sovereignties or Gods, not one, and that one of them, the God of the
OT Scriptures, was the author of evils.”^7 However, this last piece of information, the
identification of the author of evils and the Old Testament God, which would indeed
sound very much like Marcionite doctrine, is not to be found in the fragment and thus
constitutes an amendment by Hill. There can hardly be any doubt that Polycarp was
opposed to Marcionite doctrine, but there is no textual evidence that would inform us
about any particular anti-Marcionite writing or discourse.^8
The teachings of the elder in Hae r. IV.27-32, on the other hand, have been handed
down literally and are considered by many scholars to be directed against Marcion.^9
That there is an anti-heretical motive in these chapters is beyond doubt; however, no
heretic or heretical movement is mentioned by name. What is the content of this anti-
heretical teaching? It is basically an apology for the Old Testament with the intention
to demonstrate that the two Testaments speak of one and the same God. Certainly, this
does sound like a treatise against Marcion, and there is no point in denying that these
sections are directed against him, too.^10 However, defending the cruelties described in
the Old Testament was not just an object for those fighting against Marcion. When
Origen explains the allegorical meaning of the battles of Joshua, for instance, he explic-
itly addresses Marcion, Valentinus, and Basilides.^11 Thus, these other heretics could
also be envisaged in the elder’s preaching. In fact, there are certain lines that seem to
indicate a Valentinian opponent: “All those are found to be unlearned, audacious and
also shameless who, because of the transgressions of those who lived in earlier times
and because of the disobedience of a great number (of them), say that one God was the
God of those, the maker of the world, originated from deficiency,^12 but that the other
God was the Father declared by Christ, the one all of them [the heretics] have (alleg-
edly) conceived in spirit” (Hae r. IV.27.4).^13
Three elements in this passage are both typical for (Irenaeus’s portrait of ) the
Valentinians and atypical for the doctrine of Marcion. There is firstly the idea of the
Demiurge originating from deficiency that correlates with the Valentinian myth that
the origin of the Demiurge is the result of a fallen aeon,^14 whereas Marcion never
