Moll—The Man with No Name 93All three alleged similarities between Polycarp of Smyrna and the elder in Hae r.
IV.27-32 have thus proven to be hints at best, which can by no means be considered as
proof of their identity. Apart from all this, there is, of course, still the obvious objec-
tion against Hill’s theory, the question why in the world Irenaeus would fail to men-
tion Polycarp’s name, given that a reference to this authority would so enormously
strengthen his argument. Hill addresses this “conundrum” in his book,^24 and I would
concede that if there was strong evidence for the identity of the elder and Polycarp,
the mere fact that Irenaeus does not mention his name would not be strong enough to
contest that identity. However, with no conclusive evidence in favor of their identity,
the omission of Polycarp’s name makes this hypothesis even less likely.
What’s in a Name?
The wish to fill certain black holes within the history of Church, and thus the wish to
identify anonymous characters within it, is more than understandable. Still, the mere
wish must never be father to the thought. One methodological problem in these cases
seems to be the (unfounded) premise that the person we attempt to identify must be
someone we know from another context.^25 In fact, if this premise was valid, of all char-
acters we know from this particular era, I would consider Polycarp to be the most
likely candidate. As a result we could even, in a manner of speaking, say that the elder
is either Polycarp or someone we simply do not know. I vote for the second option.
Still, even if Irenaeus’s source in Hae r. IV.27-32 is not the bishop of Smyrna, it remains
a very important source for our understanding of second-century heresy, given that
the elder was in all probability a third-generation Christian, and thus a likely contem-
porary of men such as Marcion or Valentinus. Unless new evidence is found, however,
he may remain forever the man without name.