There is a discrepancy between Hae r. IV.27.1, where the Latin translation speaks of an elder who heard
from those who had seen the apostles, and IV.32.1, where the elder is described as discipulus apostolorum. For
a long time there was a scholarly consensus that the first notion was more precise and that the second was to be
understood in a looser sense, until in 1904 a sixth-century Armenian translation was found in which IV.27.1
also described the elder as an immediate disciple of the apostles (cf. Hill, Lost Teaching, 9). The Sources chré-
tiennes (1965) have adapted to the Armenian translation of the passage, whereas the Fontes Christiani version
by N. Brox (Freiburg: Herder, 1995) prefers the Latin version.
Cf. Brox, Offenbarung, 147, n.104.
For a collection of passages see ibid., 152.
Hill, Lost Teaching, 23–24.
In my presentation of this paper at the Edinburgh conference, I compared this situation to a game
of Clue (or Cluedo). At the beginning of each game, the murderer is randomly picked from a selection of six
persons. The players do not know who it is, but (and that is the big difference compared to the historian trying
to identify an anonymous source) they know it must be one out of the six.
The Man Who Needed No Introduction: A Response to Sebastian Moll
I cannot say I am yet convinced by the proposal. This element may not occur in other writers, but all
of them are later than the testimony of Irenaeus’s elder, who was involved with a very early form of Marcion’s
teaching, perhaps even an unpublished form that circulated in Asia Minor before Marcion moved to Rome.
In any event, I have argued that this element of the polemic against the God of the Old Testament did predate
Marcion (see Charles E. Hill, From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, WUNT 186 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006],
29–30, 39, 67).
See Hill, Lost Teaching, 29–30, 39, 67, cf. 88.
The lines quoted by Moll from Hae r. IV.27.4, cited to show that there was some element of polemic
against Valentinianism in the presbyter’s teaching, actually do not come from one of the quotations of the
presbyter but are Irenaeus’s own words. I would have some quibbles with Moll’s translation, which seems to
overplay the possible traces of Valentinianism. But if any reference to Valentinianism does exist there, it prob-
ably came from Irenaeus and not from the presbyter, as there appears to be nothing in the material attributed
to him that is specifically aimed at Valentinianism. But even if there were, this would not defeat the proposal.
For elsewhere Irenaeus says that Polycarp encountered some followers of both Marcion and Valentinus during
his sojourn in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and persuaded them to return to the church (Haer. III.3.4). This
most likely indicates that, at least according to Irenaeus, Polycarp did know something about Valentinianism.
This is one element I believe can help us determine the relative sequence of the Letter to Florinus and
Hae r. IV.27-32. Irenaeus refers to Florinus as serving “in the royal court” and then in the Hae r. IV refers to
Christians who are “in the royal court.” These are the only two times we know of when Irenaeus uses the
phrase. In the latter instance, he seems to playing on the irony of certain Christians who complain about the
supposed immorality of God spoiling the Egyptians while at the same time these Christians, who inhabit the
royal court, live off of what belongs to Caesar. The comment only functions this way, however, if it was written
after the letter to Florinus.
On the text-critical issues, see Hill, Lost Teaching, 8–11.
The passages mentioned by Norbert Brox, Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenäus von
Lyon (Salzburg: Anton Pustet, 1966), 152, are II.22.5; V.5.1; V.33.3; V.36.2; Flor. (Eusebius, HE V.20.4); Proof 3).
In addition, there are two places where he speaks in a more general way about preceding elders, Flor.
(Eusebius, HE V.20.4), and Proof 3, in each of which the group could have included Polycarp.
See, e.g., C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text (London: SPCK, 1965), 88, “On his own showing Irenaeus was young and Polycarp very
old when Irenaeus heard some of Polycarp’s sermons; and while one may admit the truth of Irenaeus’s views
on youthful memory as regards vividness, they may well be questioned as regards accuracy”; Raymond E.
Brown, The Gospel according to John (i–xii), Anchor Bible (Garden City: Doubleday, 1966), xc, “the fact that
Irenaeus would have been very young at the time he claims to have known Polycarp makes confusion at least
a possibility”; George R. Beasely-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Dallas: Word, 1987), lxviii, “There is no reason to
doubt his veracity in recounting to Florinus his memories of Polycarp, but there is ground for questioning his
understanding as a boy of Polycarp’s references to “John.”
It is hard to miss the cynicism when it is said that Irenaeus “boasts that he had sat at the feet of the famous
bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (ca. a.d. 100–167), even though he was still a child at the time”; “Irenaeus... acquainted,
