Irenaeus

95

ChAPtER EIGht

The Man Who Needed No Introduction

A Response to Sebastian Moll

Charles E. hill

F

urther attention to Irenaeus and the anonymous elder he quotes in Against Her-

esies IV.27-32 is much welcomed. The testimony jointly given by these two second-

century figures reflects the earliest response to Marcion that we possess, and provides

information about other related controversies of the day. The material is therefore

worthy of renewed consideration and of any serious attempt at further refinement in

our understanding of it. I am happy, then, for Sebastian Moll’s contribution in this

volume, for it advances the discussion on at least one point. He claims that part, at

least, of the presbyter’s polemics could not have been directed against Marcion, for the

latter’s attack on the God of the Jewish Scriptures did not ever include a denigration of

any of the Old Testament figures like David or Solomon. The proposal merits further

discussion.^1 The thrust of Moll’s essay, however, is to argue against the identification

of Irenaeus’s presbyter and Polycarp. I am grateful to the editors for the opportunity to

offer here a response, to supplement what I said in Lost Teaching and, I hope, to clarify

why, despite Moll’s objections, I am persuaded that the presbyter is indeed Polycarp.

Moll correctly identifies (though also simplifies) three common elements that I

argued united the presbyter and Polycarp: Irenaeus had close personal contact with

each and claims he can repeat from memory, or actually does repeat from memory,

teachings they gave; each delivered anti-Marcionite teaching; each was an immediate

disciples of apostles. Moll then lays out objections to each of these three common ele-

ments, and then adds a fourth objection which he thinks has no independent value

but which supports the other three. I propose to say something about all four, but for

practical and stylistic reasons, not in the same order. Objections two and three may be

treated more briefly, the other two will require more space.

Strictly Anti-Marcion?

Moll’s second objection is that neither the presbyter of Hae r. IV.27-32 nor Polycarp

(as described in the letter to Florinus, or elsewhere) can be shown to have opposed a

purely Marcionite error and with similar arguments, but only heresy in general. There-

fore they cannot be identified. But I do not see how it matters if indeed the presbyter