92 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacyexpressed any such theory about his origin, nor did he establish a mythological sys-
tem as such. The second element is the idea that the heretics (and only they) have
received the second God in spirit. It is a crucial element of the Valentinian Gnosis that
only a few chosen ones, the Pneumatics, have access to the complete knowledge (Gno-
sis) about God,^15 whereas Marcion does not preach any form of election of a certain
group of people, nor that some higher form of knowledge is required to be saved. The
most important feature, however, which suggests an opponent other than Marcion is
the general theme of this passage, the critique of people who bring forth reproaches
against Old Testament individuals, something Marcion never did. When we compare
Hae r. IV.27-32 with Tertullian’s defense of the Old Testament in opposition to Marcion
(mainly to be found in the second book of Adversus Marcionem), we find parallels for
the story of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart^16 and of the Hebrews’ robbery of gold and
silver from the Egyptians,^17 but not for the rebukes against David, Solomon, or Lot and
his daughters, to which the above quoted passage refers. The latter group consists of
rebukes against the behavior of certain Old Testament individuals, the former presents
accusations against the God of the Old Testament.^18 Concerning the stealing of the
silver and golden vessels for instance, neither Irenaeus/the elder nor Tertullian report
that their opponent would blame the Hebrews for stealing but instead that he blames
their God for ordering them to do so. In fact, there is no passage in all the Fathers
that would ever suggest that Marcion reproached any Old Testament figure for doing
something bad, but always their God. It seems therefore that only chapters 28–30 of
Adversus haereses IV (containing both the justification of the hardening of Pharaoh’s
heart and the robbery of the Egyptians) are directed against the arch-heretic. This view
is confirmed by other elements found in these chapters. When the elder states that the
heretics oppose the things Christ did for the salvation of those who received him to all
the evil that was inflicted by the Old Testament God on those who disobeyed him,^19
not only does this sound very much like a Marcionite antithesis, but the Greek term
ἀντιτιθέντας itself forms an “allusion transparente”^20 to Marcion’s work.
In sum, if, in the case of Polycarp and the elder, we were dealing with two purely
anti-Marcionite teachers with similar arguments, this may be considered in favor of
the identity of the two. The mere fact, however, that they were both opposed to heresy
in general is certainly not enough to substantiate this claim.
- In early Christianity (and beyond), Polycarp of Smyrna is unanimously con-
sidered to be an immediate disciple of the apostle John. Regarding the “status” of the
elder, however, there is an uncertainty as to whether the original Greek text spoke of
an immediate witness of the apostles or of someone who had heard from those who
had seen the apostles.^21 From a purely text-critical point of view, one may lean toward
the immediate disciple. Still, the overall situation indicates a third generation witness.
Irenaeus explicitly states that he heard the teachings he refers to from the elder himself,
and it seems most unlikely that Irenaeus had personal contact with a man of the gen-
eration of the immediate disciples,^22 at least not in a way that would allow for him to
recall his teachings so precisely (see above). This seems to be confirmed by the fact that
in all the other passages in which Irenaeus refers to those elders who were disciples of
the apostles,^23 he never claims to have had any personal contact with them.