A STUDY OF EARLY MOUTANISM AND ITS RELATION TO TH3 CHRISTIAN CHURCH A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Theology- University of Birmingham V/illiam Gordon Murdoch, M.A., B.r. September 1946 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGES I. Introduction and related literature .... 1 - 9 II. The Early Writings on Kontanism considered ................ 10-26 III. Conditions in Phrygia favourable to the growth of Montanism ............ 27 - 34 IV. The Oracles of Montanism cited by Epiphanius ................ 35-56 V. The Montanist oracles found in the writings of Eusebius, Didymus and Tertullian .... 57 - ?6 VI. Tertullian as A Montanist ......... 77 - 108 VII. Montanism and the settlement of the New Testairetit Canon ........... .10g - 130 VIII. The Montanist Doctrine of the Paraclete compared with that of the New Testament and early Christian Literature ...... 131 - 152 IX. Some later Doctrines and Practices of the Church compared with the teachings of Montanism ............... 153 - 172 X. Later Reform '"ovements compared with early Montanism ............. 173 - 193 XI, Summary and Conclusion .......... 194 - 200 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ................. 201 - 206 CHAPTER I During the latter half of the second century, A.D., there arose in Asia Minor a religious group known as the Montanists. Because of certain tenets held by them, there has been nuch discussion and controversy among church historians and theologians concerning their actual relation to, and influence on the history and development of the Church. J. Rendel Harris has said: The fact is that neither the history nor the character of Montanism is as yet properly understood, the eyes of even judicious critics having been dimmed through a long heredity of heresy-hunting. But, when we once realise the fundamental spiritual aims of Montanism (instead of merely treating it as an outward division of the Church) however much such aims may be liable to fanatical extravagance, a number of difficulties become clear to us in the history and discipline of the Church. ^ The purpose of this study is to investigate the background of Montanism, to examine its teachings, and to discover to what extent this phenomenon was radically different from the Christianity of the day, also to determine what contributions, if any, Montanism made to the teachings and practices of the Church. Most writers who have attempted to evaluate the aims of this spiritual group have based their judgments on accounts given of later adherents J. Rendel Harris, "Codex Bezae", Texts and Studies, Vol. II, pp. 194-1S5. to the sect. In this study, the origin and character of the primitive movement and its attitude to the Church have received chief consideration. Heretofore very little attention seems to have been given to the background of Montanist teachings. Historians have been so concerned about discovering in what ways the Montanists clashed with second century Christian orthodoxy, that they have neglected to investigate fully the sources of Montanist beliefs. The influence which Montanism has exerted on the Church both directly and indirectly, invites more thorough investigation. Most of the authorities to date have laid the emphasis on the condemnation of Montanism by the Councils of the third and fourth centuries. A review of the related Christian literature suggests the following questions:- 1. tyere there any factors in the natural environment and religious background of the Phrygian people which may have influence their relation to Christianity in some peculiar manner? 2. Have the writers of the early Christian centuries given a fair representation of the character of the Montanist movement? 3. Were the claims of the Montanists concerning spiritual manifestations contrary to accepted practices in the early Christian Church? 4. Were there any peculiarities in the eschatological teachings of the Montanists? 5. Why did so outstanding a Church Father as Tertullian accept Montanism, and what effect did it have on his teachings? 6. Did Montanism have any influence on the closing of the Few Testament Canon? 7. What influence, if any, did Montanism have on the teachings and practices of the Church? It is the purpose of this study to seek to answer these questions in the light of all the available sources of information. BELATED LITERATURE This task is made difficult by the lack of original information on the subject. The investigator is forced to depend largely on the testimony of the opponents of the movement who lived after the Montanists had flourished and disappeared. From ffiasebius down to Baronius the writers on Montanism reveal a bias against the sect and their statements are vagae and of a conflicting character. Not until the seventeenth century did certain historians begin to study the movement from an objective standpoint. The earliest of modern writers to present the Montanists in a favourable light was Gottfried Arnold. 2 No doubt the mysticism of Arnold recognised an antecedent in the spiritual claims of the Montanists. Arnold's treatise is open to the accusation of undue "bias in favour of the sect, and his exam­ ination is too sympathetic. Later Mosheim, dealing with the subject, went back to the traditional treatment and condemned the Montanists as wild fanatics and rank heretics. !Ehe claims of the founders of Montanism came under severe review "by Mosheim and his school, who did not hesitate to treat with contempt the religious enthusiasts. 4 Theophilus Wernsdorf, whose treatise De Montanistis commentatio historica-critica appeared in 1751, was strong in his assertion that the teachings of the Montanists were in complete agreement with the doctrines and practices of the Primitive Church. 5 Apart from the work of Strauch, De Montano discursus 2 Gottfried Arnold, Unpartheyische Kirchen-und Ketzer-Historie (Frankfurt-on-Maine, 1792), pp .79-83. 3 J.L. Mosheim, De rebus christianoram ante Oonstantinum Magnum commentarii (Helmstadt, 1753)» PP» 41&-424. 4 Theoph. Wernsdorf, De Montanistis coramentatio historica- critica (1751). 5 Aegidius Strauch, De Montano discursus theologico-historicus (Danzig, 1680). theologica-historieus. and Buel, De Montano et Montanistis. also a monograph by Longerue, there was little more written on the subject of Montanism uniil the close of the eighteenth century. The nineteenth century, which was so fertile in historical studies, gave due attention to the teachings of the Montanists. Only a brief mention of the more important writers can here be 8 given. Neander wrote of the influence of the Phrygian country and people upon Christianity. He compared the excesses of Cybele worship with the Montanists 1 extreme tenets and deduced all that is characteristic in Montanism from the features of heathenism as modified by the Phrygian nationality. Certain of the oracles of the Montanists were collected and edited by P. Mflnjlter^ in the year 1829, but this collection is incomplete and not fully annotated. 10 Schwegler in his Per Montanismus und die christliche ° John L. Ruel, "De Montano et Montanistis", Ruel and Hartmann, Concilia illustrata (Nuremberg, 1675), pp. 283-300. I I. D. de Longerue, Pisserta11 ones (Lipsiae, 1751). " A. Neander, Allgemeine G-eschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche (Hamburg. 1843). Vol. II. PP. 877-908. 9 F. C. K. H. Munter, Effata et oracula Montanistorum (Copenhagen, 1829). 1° A. Schwegler, Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tftbingen, 1841). 6. Kirche. maintained that the early Montanists were not out of harmony with the Church and that Irenaeus as well as Tertullian was favourably impressed with them. Bitscnl, spoke of Montanism as a reversion to the primitive Church of the Apostles. He was the first modern writer to enunciate clearly the theory that Montanism was a protest against the authority which was "being vested in the "bishops. Tertullian1 s opinion that the true Church was the spiritual Church (ecclesia s-pirifrus) as against the Church of the "bishops (eeclesia episcoporum) was endorsed "by Ritschl. 12 This view of Ritschl's called forth a sharp criticism from Baur. Hilgenfeld, * in his Die Glossolalie in der alten Kirche. generally concurred with the view of Ritschl. Albert Seville, ^ in 1858, wrote an essay on Montanism in ITouvelle revue de theologie. enlarging upon the theories of Schwegler and Ritschl. Reville attributed to Montanism, as expounded by Tertullian, not the promulgation of a new ethical code, but a more serious practical application of the old one as 11 A. Ritschl, Die Efltetehung der altkatholischen Kirche (Bonn, 1857): cf. Tertullian, De Pudicitia. xxi. 12 P. C. Baur, "Das Wesen des Montanisuras", Theologische Jahrbucher. X (1851), pp. 538-594. IjJ' A. Hilgenfeld, Die Glossolalie in der alten Kirche (Leipzig, 1850), pp. 115-136. 14 A. Reville, "Le Montanlsme", Nouvelle revue de theologie (1858), pp. 49ff. found in primitive Christianity. 15 Lipsius, J in the year 1865, published his Qaellenkritik