by Walter Bauer
Translated and supplemented under the direction of Robert
A. Kraft
and Gerhard Kroedel (Philadelphia: Fortress 1971)
from the 2nd German edition edited and supplemented by Georg Strecker
(Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr 1964 [original ed 1934]);
electronic
edition periodically updated by Robert A. Kraft (since 1993)
Translated by David Steinmetz
[[130]] [[*135]]
[Ch. 7] The essential object of our investigation and presentation in the preceding
chapters has been the approximately one hundred years that follow the conclusion
of the apostolic age. In those chapters, the arrangement of the material has,
for the most part, followed geographical lines. There still remains the additional
task of determining what there is in the association between true and false
belief and in its manifestations that is not necessarily bound to one location,
but has a more general validity -- even if, naturally enough, it appears many
times in our sources in connection with definite personalities and places. When,
for example, in the following passage Eusebius describes the effectiveness of
Theophilus of Antioch, as one church leader among others,\1/
one notices no particularly Syrian coloration nor any marked peculiarity characterizing
the bishop who is mentioned by name:
Since the heretics, no less at that time, were like tares despoiling the
pure seed of apostolic teaching, the shepherds of the churches everywhere,
as though frightening away wild beasts from Christ's sheep, sought to hold
them back, so that at one time they would resort to persuasion and exhortations
to the brethren, at another they would oppose them openly and, partly through
oral discussions [[*135]] and refutations, partly
through written efforts, expose their opinions as false by means of the most
solid demonstrations (EH 4.24). ----- ===== To a certain extent we perceive in this quotation the viewpoint of a fourth-century
churchman. For him the churches are folds in which the shepherd guards and protects
the sheep. The heretics roam about outside like wolves, intent on gaining prey.
But the carefully planned measures taken by the "shepherds" have made that very
difficult for the heretics. Nevertheless, according to everything we have ascertained,
the situation in the second century simply was not that way. It was by no means
the rule at that time that heretics were located "outside." It is, however,
completely credible that already at that time the leaders of the orthodox were
using the tactics mentioned by Eusebius, so as to safeguard their own people
against contagion. But we must quickly add that the party opposing the orthodox
worked in the same way and with corresponding goals. That the exhortations and
repeated warnings were directed against the false belief of the opposing party
is too self-evident to require special examples. Already in the second century
we hear of direct discussions between the representatives of ecclesiastical
Christianity and their opponents, and can easily find the bridge to an even
earlier period.\2/ The letter of Ignatius to the
Philadelphians (chapters 5-8) allows us to take a look at the clash of opinions
within the company of Christians at the beginning of the second century, when
there is no clearly defined community boundary between opposing circles, but
when all the baptized still remain, at least externally, bound together as a
unity. There is debate pro and con over the right and wrong of this opinion
and that. The opponents of Ignatius are preaching "Judaism," with reference
to their use of scripture (6.1). Ignatius, who sees in this an apostasy from
the gospel, even if his opponents wish to remain in the Christian community
(7), declares to be impossible every understanding of scripture that finds in
the "charters" [[132]] something other than that
which, according to his view, stands in the "gospel" (8.2) -- a teaching that
rests on such a basis is a delusion. Apparently no agreement was reached on
this issue; each party retained its own point of view.
----- ===== The religious discussion that brought about the split in Rome between Marcion
and orthodoxy was of a special sort. [[*136]] At
least at the outset, it was not thought of as a struggle for the souls of Roman
Christians fought from already well established positions, but as an effort
to ascertain what the true meaning and content of the Christian religion really
is, and to that extent it was somewhat comparable to the apostolic council (Acts
15). After the orthodox and the Marcionites had separated from each other, to
be sure, discussions aimed at persuading others of the truth of one's own faith
also took place. So we hear from the anti-Marcionite, Rhodon (see
above, 108), that the aged disciple of Marcion, Apelles, started up a discussion
with him, but that Apelles was convicted of many errors and crushingly defeated.\3/
Presumably, Apelles considered himself to be the victor. We do not feel called
to act as arbitrator, but we simply have learned to recognize here one of the
ways employed by each combatant to establish and disseminate his own position.
----- ===== The Montanist movement also produced polemical discussions. Indeed, on this
topic we are in a position to gain a colorful picture of the struggle between
different tendencies in Christianity -- even though this struggle is not consummated
in actual debates -- by the fortunate circumstance that Eusebius has preserved
extensive fragments from the works of two anti- Montanists from the ninth decade
of the second century. The first is an anonymous writer (EH 5.16-17) and the
second, Apollonius of Asia Minor (EH 5.18). Of course, each heresy is open to
attack in special areas unique to itself, while it, in turn, finds fault with
a particular feature of the "church" -- thus the Montanists differ from gnosis,
and Marcion is not the same as the Jewish Christians -- with the result that
there are, within certain limits, differences in the respective polemic and
apologetic approaches. And yet there are many aspects that do not resist the
characterization of being generally valid, especially those that concern the
external course of the controversies. But in dealing with this material, the
pattern [[133]] exhibited in polemical literature
must be taken into consideration in order to distinguish correctly between reality
and appearance.\4/
----- ===== The anonymous author begins his writing with the explanation that he had [[*137]]
first argued against the Montanists orally and refuted them (EH 5.16.2), but
in spite of requests directed to him, he decided not to enter into literary
combat with them. Then a visit to Ancyra in Galatia recently induced him to
alter his decision. There he found the church completely deafened by the "new
prophecy," which might more correctly be called false prophecy. He had first
repulsed his opponents in discussions that lasted several days and went into
every particular, and then he confirmed the church in the truth and filled it
with joy. Nevertheless, since he himself had not been completely convinced of
the permanence of his success,\5/ he had promised
to send the presbyters,\6/ at their request, a
written recapitulation of his expositions. The treatise that he composed for
this purpose elaborates upon the origin of the new movement in the unmistakable
style of an ecclesiastical polemic against heretics. Montanus, so we learn,
in his boundless desire for preeminence,\7/ allows
the adversary to enter into him, whereupon he falls into a satanic ecstasy and
begins suddenly to utter peculiar things that are not compatible with the tradition
passed on in the church from the very beginning (EH 5.16.7). Some people are
repelled by him; others are won over -- and he delights the latter with his
great promises and fills them with pride, but occasionally he also reproves
them in order to show that he could also make demands (EH 5.16.8-9).
----- \6/ There is no reference to a bishop (EH 5.16.5).
Is there still no bishop in Ancyra around the year 190, or is he on the
side of the opposition? \7/ <gk>Filoprwteia</gk>;
cf. 3 John 9 concerning Diotrephes, "who loves preeminence" (<gk>o(
filoprwteuwn</gk>). ===== We have no reason to agree with the anonymous ecclesiastical author when he
claims that the moral demands laid down by Montanus were a pretence. Tertullian
shows us how seriously this teaching was taken by the Montanists. And when "the
anonymous" claims that the "new prophecy" led only a few Phrygians astray (EH
5.16.9), we are inclined to believe him just as little -- precisely on the basis
[[134]] of what he himself reports. On the contrary,
one has the impression that the "new prophecy" must have gained a strong hold
in its native land. When "the anonymous," with unmistakable aim and purpose,
continues immediately with an account of how the faithful came together "frequently"
(<gk>pollakis</gk>) and "in many places"
(<gk>pollach</gk>) in order to investigate
the Montanist teaching, which they then [[*138]]
branded as heresy and forbade its adherents to remain in the ecclesiastical
community (EH 5.16.10), he is no longer speaking of Phrygia or of Ancyra in
Galatia, but of Asia, and he shows that even there, where ecclesiastically oriented
orthodoxy had sunk stronger and deeper roots, the danger was not minor (see
also below, 135). Eusebius passes over the detailed refutation of the error,
which the first part of the treatise is supposed to have offered next, in order
to turn his attention to the second part. This second part, in the style of
presentations <lt>de mortibus persecutorum</lt> [on the death
of persecutors], discoursed <lt>de mortibus haeresiarcharum</lt>
[on the death of heretical leaders], and indeed, in a form that clearly betrays
that the particular details have been derived from the gossip of the "right-minded,"
and have no historical value of any kind. A widely disseminated rumor reports
that Montanus and his assistant, Maximilla, driven by a deceiving spirit, had
hanged themselves, each acting independently and under different circumstances
(EH 5.16.13). In the same way, "a frequent report" (<gk>polus
logos</gk>) asserted of Theodotus, another originator of the false
prophecy, that he had wanted to ascend to heaven in reliance on the deceitful
spirit and had thereby perished in a wretched manner (EH 5.16.14). Just as in
the former instance "the anonymous" is reminded of the end of the traitor Judas
(EH 5.16.13), so may we, with respect to Theodotus, think of the legend of the
death of Simon Magus. The author concludes the descriptions of the demise of
the heretics with the words: "At any rate, that is how it is supposed to have
happened. But not having seen it ourselves, we do not claim to know anything
for sure about it. . . . Perhaps Montanus and Theodotus and the above mentioned
woman died in this way, but perhaps they did not" (EH 5.16.14b-15). This section
is important chiefly because it permits us to evaluate correctly a considerable
portion of the ever recurring polemical material, especially to the extent that
this material relates to the person and life of the men who stand in an exposed
place within a religious movement. [[135]] Indeed,
one can scarcely handle the maxim <lt>semper aliquid haeret</lt>
["something always sticks" (when mud is being thrown about)] more cynically
than does this ecclesiastical protagonist, who really does not himself believe
the truth of the rumors that he repeats. As we shall see, Apollonius, his comrade
at arms, is in no way inferior to him in the defamation of opponents.
First of all, however, let us examine further the report
of Eusebius about the work of "the anonymous," which, as we now learn, [[*139]]
also incorporates references to Montanist literature.\8/
Venerable bishops and other approved men -- the names of Zotikos from the village
of Cumana\9/ and Julian of Apamea are dropped in
passing -- try to "refute" the spirit of error in Maximilla, but are "prevented"
by her followers, among whom Themiso especially distinguishes himself.\10/
The account of the incident is not wholly clear. An intellectual exchange with
a woman who pours herself forth in an ecstatic frenzy is, indeed, not really
thinkable, and a "refutation" in that sense hardly possible. It seems that the
Montanists have prevented the representatives of orthodoxy from disturbing the
sacred event at all with their profane words, or perhaps they called a halt
to an attempt from the orthodox side to drive the evil spirit out of the prophetess
(see below, 143). But be that as it may, the defeat of
the churchman is unmistakable, and the scene that takes place in Phrygia (Apollonius
even tells us the name of the place -- Pepuza; EH 5.18.13) shows anew how little
truth there is to the assertion that only a few Phrygians were ensnared in the
false illusion of Montanism (see above, 133 f.).
----- \9/ A Phrygian village -- Harnack, <tm>Mission</tm>\2,
2: 95 (in the expanded German 4th edition, p. 627). \10/ EH 5.16.16-17. The two words <gk>dielegcein</gk>
(refute) and <gk>kwluein</gk> (prevent)
reappear in the abstract by Eusebius from the report of Apollonius concerning
the same matter (EH 5.18.13). See also below, 143 n. 27.
===== After Eusebius has even given an example of how "the anonymous," still in
the second book, unmasked the prophecies of Maximilla as false (EH 5.16.18-19),
he moves quickly to the third book, from which he reproduces the rebuttal of
the attempt to argue from the large number of Montanist martyrs that the divine
power of the living prophetic spirit resides in Montanism (EH 5.16.20-22). He
[[136]] does not contest the initial claim, but
rejects the conclusion which other heretics as welI (as, for example, the Marcionites)
could draw to their own advantage. That an ecclesiastical blood-witness never
recognizes a false believer as a fellow believer is demonstrated by a reference
to a story of martyrdom from the very recent past.\11/
----- ===== Eusebius cites additional material from the work of this
unknown opponent of the Montanists in EH 5.17. "The anonymous" relies here on
the [[*140]] work of his coreligionist, Miltiades,
in which the latter argues that a genuine prophet ought not speak in ecstasy.
To be sure, "the anonymous" seems to know the polemical treatise of Miltiades
only from a Montanist reply to it, from which he made an abridgement of what
concerned him (EH 5.17.1). According to this material, Miltiades -- for obviously
he is the speaker in the passage from "the anonymous" (EH 5.17.2-4) -- objected
against the Montanists that their kind of inspired speech could not possibly
be of divine origin, because in the whole range of the old and of the new covenant,
no prophet can be named whom the spirit seized in a similar way in an ecstatic
frenzy. Old Testament prophets are not adduced. But the figures of Agabus, Judas,
Silas, and the daughters of Philip, familiar from Acts (11.28, 15.32, 21.9 f.),
appear, and this series is continued without a break into a later period\12/
with the names of Ammia in Philadelphia and of Quadratus (EH 5.17.3). The subsequent
section shows that the last two served the Montanists in the capacity of "elders"
(see above,
119) for the purpose of bridging the gap between apostolic times and the
appearance of Montanus (EH 5.17.4). The churchman Miltiades lets that pass,
but he expresses the conviction that the prophetic chain had been decisively
broken for Montanus and his women, the last of whom, Maximilla, had died fourteen
years previously. Since "the Apostle"\13/ guarantees
[[137]] that the charismatic gift of prophecy would
remain in the entire church until the Lord's return, what Montanism exhibits
by way of that sort of phenomena cannot be acknowledged as a genuine gift of
God.
----- \13/ If we take this as refering to Paul (for Eusebius,
use of "the Apostle" to refer to Paul is certain in EH 4.29.6, see
below, 149 and 177 n. 61; indeed, it is already attested in Ptolemy's
letter to Flora 4.5) and to a definite passage in his letters, we are reminded
of Eph. 4.11 ff., and perhaps also of 1 Cor. 1.7 f. In the anti-Montanist
writing of Apollonius (EH 5.18.5) "the Apostle" admittedly is not Paul,
but probably the author of 1 John. Alternatively, "the anonymous" may be
thinking of the apocalypticist John, whose work plays a helpful role in
the refutation of the Montanists (cf. Rev. 22.6 and 9) according to EH 5.18.14. ===== To a still greater degree than "the anonymous," the somewhat younger Apollonius
marshalls everything in order to make his opponents appear contemptible. He
is not only intent on branding their prophecies collectively as lies, but he
also wants to expose the life story of the sect's leaders in [[*141]]
all its wretchedness (EH 5.18.1). "But his works and teachings show who this
recent teacher is," he cries triumphantly. When it is asked what is so detestable
in Montanus' teaching, we hear only the following: (1) He taught the dissolution
of marriage -- thus, if it ever occurred in this exaggerated form, he did something
that the Christian notes with a high degree of edification as long as it confronts
him as a result of the apostolic preaching in the apocryphal <ts>Acts</ts>
literature. Furthermore, (2) Montanus issued laws about fasting and (3) he called
two small Phrygian cities, Pepuza and Tymion, by the name "Jerusalem," in order
thereby to make them the center of his community, which was gathered from every
direction. It relates more to the life of Montanus than to his teachings when
he appoints money collectors who, under the pretense of collecting an offering,
cleverly organize the receipt of gifts and thus procure for Montanus the financial
means to reimburse those who carry the Montanist message, "in order that its
teaching might be established through gluttony" (EH 5.17.2). Thus, like the
matter of the dissolution of marriages mentioned above, something is condemned
with language that can scarcely be surpassed and is exhibited in an ugly caricature,
although when it takes place in the context of orthodoxy, it is worthy of the
highest praise (see
above, 121- 124). For me, the silence of the older anonymous author indicates
that the management of money by Montanus and his adherents cannot have taken
the unedifying forms scorned by Apollonius. Another indication is the fact that
many times it was precisely the most serious minded people who devoted themselves
to the prophetic movement. Obviously, Apollonius' language simply betrays his
annoyance at the fact that men and resources have streamed to the leaders of
Montanism at such a dangerously high rate (EH 5.17.4b). Thus it proves useful
to him that in the forty years since the appearance of Montanus (156/157), [[138]]
the malicious gossip of his enemies has greatly enriched the genuine data that
is remembered.
Indeed, one cannot take such an attack seriously, when it censures Montanus
for issuing laws for fasting, and takes pleasure four lines later in the sarcastic
observation that Montanus endows his messengers with goods gained in an underhanded
manner\14/ so that they serve the gospel through
gluttony; or when it thinks it fraudulent that the Montanists called Priscilla
a virgin, although [[*142]] she really belonged
to those women who under the influence of Montanus had left their husbands (EH
5.18.3). Then does the custom of the church in calling certain virgins "widows"
(Ignatius <ts>Smyr.</ts> 13.1) also rest on insolent mendacity?
Or what should one say about an attempt to offer scriptural proof that has the
presumption to assert that "all scripture" (<gk>pasa
grafh</gk>) forbids a prophet from taking gifts and money (EH 5.18.4)?
Even to get a shaky foundation for this assertion, one would have to go to the
<ts>Didache</ts>(11.12). But Apollonius probably is talking
in vague generalities, unless he already has in mind a definite interpretation
of Matthew 10.9 f. (EH 5.18.7). In any event, <gk>pasa
grafh</gk> is in no way part of the picture. Our author continually
takes pleasure in exaggeration. He offers "innumerable proofs" (<gk>murias
apodeikseis) that the Montanist prophets take gifts (EH 5.18.11; see
below, n. 15).
----- ===== His pronounced inability to admit anything good about the heretics is even
more offensive. "The anonymous" had recognized the fact that there were Montanist
martyrdoms, even if he had contested the idea that death as a martyr demonstrates
that the faith of the heretic is approved. Apollonius knows only of "so- called"
martyrs in the opposing party (see above, n. 14) whom he
makes as ridiculous and contemptible as possible. Themiso, whom we know from
the writings of "the anonymous" as an especially active and effective advocate
of the new trend (see above, 135), appears in Apollonius
in a different light (EH 5.18.5) "he is completely entangled in covetousness,
and purchased his release from chains with a great sum of money, without bearing
the sign of a confessor. Now, instead of being humble, Themiso boasts of himself
as a martyr and [[139]] even carries his impudence
so far that he writes a kind of catholic epistle in imitation of the Apostle
(see above, n. 13), so as to instruct people who have a better
faith than he does, to defend his empty teachings, and to direct his blasphemies
against the Lord, the apostles, and the holy church.
Themiso by no means stands alone as a pseudo-martyr. But rather than treating
the "numerous" others,\15/ Apollonius wishes to
make explicit mention only of the case of Alexander (EH 5.18.6- 9). Alexander
had based his claim to the honored name of a martyr on his condemnation in Ephesus
by Aemilius Frontinus, who had been the proconsul of Asia at the end of the
reign of Marcus Aurelius or at the [[*143]] beginning
of the reign of Commodus.\16/ Apollonius, however,
asserts that Alexander was not condemned on account of his Christianity, but
rather was condemned as a robber. Nevertheless, he succeeded in deceiving the
Ephesian community about the true state of affairs, so that this community procured
the release of the "transgressor" (<gk>parabaths</gk>).
But his own home church, which was better informed, rejected him as a robber.
In order to corroborate this interpretation, Apollonius appeals twice within
the Eusebian excerpt to the public archives of Asia (EH 5.18.6b and 9b), which
supposedly gave indisputable information about the crimes of Alexander. Apollonius
expects his readers to imagine an Ephesian church that regards Alexander as
an honorable man and is willing to make sacrifices for his freedom, in spite
of the fact that the judicial authorities of the city are occupied with Alexander
because of his numerous crimes and even his home congregation has been aware
of the situation for a long time. The sarcastic claim that the prophetess was
unaware of the character of her companion in spite of many years of association
appears equally artificial. How could anyone who is so in the dark really be
a "prophet,"\17/ and know something about the future?
Apollonius' presentation serves to awaken this insight.
----- \16/ Neumann, <tm>Römische Staat</tm>,
p. 68. \17/ It says "the prophet" (male, <gk>o(
profhths</gk> -- EH 5.18.9\b) although the context speaks of
a prophetess; possibly this is because the passage has to do with the concept
"prophet." ===== In any event, the reference to the Asiatic archives will make no [[140]]
impression on anyone who has investigated the situation with respect to similar
appeals.\18/ Furthermore, the older anonymous author
not only admits that martyrdom has taken place even among the Montanists, but
he even knows a martyr by the name of Alexander from Phrygian Eumenia (EH 5.16.22),
whom one may in all probability equate with our Alexander.\19/
It is also sufficiently attested how strong and how genuine the desire of the
Montanists for martyrdom was.\20/ Even though Apollonius
cannot see all this, or has no desire to admit it, he cannot demand that one
believe the injurious stories he circulates about his opponents. At best, a
single case may once have been reported which is now transformed into an inadmissible
generalization. [[*144]] Scornfully he speaks about
the relations between the prophetess Priscilla and Alexander, which even he
does not attempt to extend from the table to the bed. Thereby Apollonius gives
one to understand that Alexander stood in great honor in his circles -- i.e.
among people with a very strict and serious view of life. "Many paid him reverence"
(<gk>proskunousin autw polloi</gk>; EH
5.18.6). To be sure, Apollonius sees in Alexander only the false martyr who
feasts gluttonously with the prophetess, and concerning whose robberies and
other crimes there is no need to speak since the court archives speak loudly
enough. Mockingly, he inquires which of the two dispenses the forgiveness of
sins to the other -- a matter of great importance for Montanism; does the prophetess
remit the robberies of the martyr, or does the martyr forgive the covetousness
of the prophetess (EH 5.18.7a)? And Apollonius believes that he has delivered
a series of deadly blows with the following questions: "Does a prophet use makeup?
Does he dye his eyebrows and eyelids? Does he love ornaments? Does he gamble
and play dice? Does he lend money at interest?" (EH 5.18.11).
----- \19/ Neumann, <tm>Römische Staat</tm>,
p. 68 n. 2, and pp. 283 f. \20/ Neumann, <tm>Römische Staat</tm>,
p. 69. ===== Furthermore, Apollonius calculates that Montanus embarked on his career forty
years earlier with his "feigned" prophecy, without any of it having come true
(EH 5.18.12). Since Apollonius plays off the Revelation of John against Montanus
(EH 5.18.14), although it is a [[141]] book which
also tells what "is about to happen soon" (Rev. 1.1), he appears not to lay
such harsh demands on it concerning fulfillment of prophecies. Rather, he finds
its credibility demonstrated by means of a story, according to which John raised
a dead man in Ephesus "through divine power." Thus John is a bearer of a genuine
divine spirit, while the Phrygian prophets only have such at their disposal
in their imagination. Besides the book of Revelation, Apollonius also appealed
to a gospel story that concerns the risen Christ and reports of him that he
commanded the apostles to remain at least twelve years in Jerusalem. The same
tradition\21/ is found in the "Preaching (<gk>Kerugma</gk>)
of Peter," which is even older than Apollonius' story and perhaps gives us a
hint as to how what was reported by Apollonius could take on an anti-Montanist
thrust. In the <ts>Preaching of Peter</ts>, the risen Christ,
in addition to ordering the disciples not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years
(in Clement of Alexandria <ts>Strom.</ts> 6.[5.]43.3), also
gives them the commission to preach to the world "what is about to happen" (<gk>ta
mellonta) after the designated interval has expired (<ts>Strom.</ts>
6.[6.]48.1 f.). [[*145]] Thus no concept of the
coming things accords with Jesus unless it has its roots in the circle of the
apostles and, at the latest, already had been in existence twelve years after
the resurrection. Unfortunately, neither with respect to "the anonymous" nor
to Apollonius do we hear whether, and if so, how they evaluated the gospel of
John and its sayings concerning the paraclete. Nevertheless, Irenaeus apparently
already had the anti-Montanists in mind who, in order not to be deceived by
this false prophecy, throw the baby out with the bath water by rejecting prophecy
altogether, and thereby expressly reject the gospel of John, in which the Lord
promised the sending of the paraclete.\22/
----- \22/ Irenaeus AH 3.11.9 (= 11.12). In addition, cf.
N. Bonwetsch, <tm>Geschichte des Montanismus</tm> (Erlangen:
Deichert, 1881), pp. 22 ff. ===== Taken as a whole, both of the books with which we have become acquainted here
are hardly anything more than abusive satires. That of Apollonius merits the
title to a higher degree than that of "the anonymous." One must reject as biased
all of the judgments found in these works, even if they are delivered in the
costume of historical narrative, and let the facts speak for themselves. When
such a procedure is followed, what is left over? Primarily this (in many cases
[[142]] as an unintentional confession): the prophetic
movement appears to have caught on strongly, especially in Phrygia, men and
funds flowed into it, and the rigorousness of the view of life prevailing among
the Montanists caused many of them to become martyrs, whose blood insured an
even more magnetic power. The magnitude of the ecclesiastical defense corresponds
to, and attests to, the amount of success realized by the movement. This defense
produces discussions in which, to say the least, the church does not always
emerge victorious. Alongside this there is the literary feud. Its prerequisite
was already filled by the fact that Montanism gave rise to a body of literature.
Just as the <gk>logia</gk> of Jesus once
had been collected, so now one gathered together the sayings and predictions
of the original Montanist prophecy\23/ and equated
them with older revelation (cf. Gaius in EH 6.20.3). Other writings followed:
the "catholic epistle" of Themiso, the defense against Miltiades, to say nothing
of Proclus (in EH 3.31.4) and Tertullian in the third century. The ecclesiastical
perspective found literary representation in the second century through the
persons already known to us -- Miltiades, "the anonymous," and [[*146]]
Apollonius - - and around the year 200 through the above-mentioned Gaius and
through Serapion, who immediately followed him.
----- ===== To the earliest ecclesiastical warriors on the battlefield belongs Claudius
Apollinaris of Hierapolis, who lived in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (EH 4.21).
Eusebius, who enumerated his writings already in EH 4.27, again mentions his
effectiveness against the Montanists immediately after the section on Apollonius
(EH 5.19), which is justified chronologically insofar as Eusebius takes his
point of departure from the letter that Serapion of Antioch (190-210) wrote
to Caricus and Pontius for the refutation of Montanism. What Eusebius extracts
from or tells us about Serapion's letter can be of particular assistance in
our attempt to achieve a suitable attitude toward general statements found in
the polemical literature. Thus a word about that is in order here. To
begin with, Euesbius quotes the following words from the letter of Serapion:
"And in order that you may know that the king of this lying association called
the new prophecy is detested [[143]] in the whole
brotherhood throughout the world, I have sent you the writing\24/
of the most blessed Claudius Apollinaris, the late bishop of Hierapolis in Asia"
(EH 5.19.2). Eusebius further states (EH 5.19.3) that subscriptions by various
bishops are found in this letter of Serapion.\25/
He reproduces two of these subscriptions verbatim, and then continues: "The
autograph subscriptions of many other bishops who agree with these are also
preserved in the abovementioned writing" (EH 5.19.4). It seems that there is
nothing more to be said about them except that they are <gk>autografoi</gk>
-- i.e. that the bishops concerned have placed their names (or marks) at the
bottom of the letter in their own writing. That they were all of the same opinion
is apparently only a conclusion drawn by Eusebius. Since this conclusion could
be the product of an ecclesiastical disposition, it must be tested as to its
justification. We have a fixed point of reference in the two subscriptions that
are reproduced literally, with which, according to Eusebius, the others are
in agreement. Of these two, the second is clearly directed against the Montanists:
"Aelius Publius Julius, Bishop of Debeltum,\26/
a colony of Thrace. As God lives in the heavens, the blessed Sotas of Anchialus
[see n. 26] [[*147]] desired
to exorcise the demon from Priscilla but the hypocrites would not permit it."\27/
The other signature, on the other hand, reads simply: "I, Aurelius Quirinius,
a martyr, pray for your welfare." In this instance, as with the "many others"
(<gk>alloi pleiones</gk>), it is apparently
only from the fact that Serapion (or was it already Apollinaris? see
above, n. 25) permitted them to attach their subscriptions that one [[144]]
can conclude that they agreed with him in a common anti-Montanist outlook. All
but one of them have missed the opportunity for an express confession. And it
is perhaps no accident that a martyr maintains neutrality. Even the martyrs
of Lyons favored the prophetic movement. Yet even in view of the most favorable
interpretation, what weight can a couple of names, which happen to appear in
conjunction, carry in support of the sweeping statement that "the whole brotherhood
throughout the world detests the new prophets"? On the whole, the witnesses
invoked here contradict the above assertion by the paucity of their numbers
and the insufficiency of their statements, even if we limit "the world" around
the time of Apollinaris to Asia Minor and Thrace, leaving aside Gaul, Rome,
and North Africa.
----- \25/ Whether they derived from the treatise of Apollinaris,
I would not presume to decide. \26/ Both Debeltum and Anchialus (mentioned below)
are located on the west bank of the Black Sea. \27/ We recall here what "the anonymous"
had told us of Maximilla and of the attempt made by the church in Phrygia
to refute her (above, 135). It is, of course, quite
possible that clashes of a similar sort often occurred, But it seems to
me just as likely that we are dealing here with a floating ecclesiastical
story that originally referred to an actual incident, but then, with the
names altered, it turns up here and there in order to show why the spirit
of God was not successful in overcoming the spirit of the devil. The blame
is laid on the hypocrisy and brutal use of force by the heretics, not on
any lack of courage or incentive by the ecclesiastical warriors. The fact
that this ecclesiastically oriented story turns up in various regions, appears
to me useful for determining the degree of ecclesiastical success in combatting
the Montanist movement. ===== The statement obviously is not based on real experience, but was prompted
by the apologetic need to offer proof <lt>ex consensu omnium</lt>
[based on common consensus]. Thus we come to a consideration of the basic issues
that fly back and forth, both orally and in written form, in the fight with
Montanism. Once again our sources are more communicative with regard to the
arguments of the church than with reference to the case of its opponents. The
latter probably appealed primarily to the spirit, which has dwelt among favored
Christians since the time of the apostles, as it becomes manifest in the words
of the prophets and enables men [[*148]] to meet
the high requirements laid on them, including martyrdom. That such a spirit
is actually still at work follows from the fact that still other forms of charismatic
gifts have by no means disappeared from Christianity (EH 5.3.4). Furthermore,
the Montanists have appealed to the imminent end of the world and the glory
of the heavenly Jerusalem, and have demanded that one obtain these by means
of a rigorous life in the spirit in conformity with the instructions of the
paraclete. But we know scarcely anything at all about how the Montanists protected
their faith against the attacks of the church and sought in turn to refute its
preaching in the second century. And Tertullian is much too idiosyncratic a
person for us to be able to attribute some sort of general validity to his polemic.
Tertullian is only able to teach us that even "the church" has become the object
of violent and unjust attacks. From an earlier time, we learn that the Montanists
applied to themselves and to their rejection by the church such a saying of
the [[145]] Lord as Matthew 23.34, concerning those
who murder the prophets, and their victims (EH 5.16.12). Also Paul, the pneumatic,
and the paraclete of the fourth gospel are appealed to for assistance.
With respect to this form of false belief, the church first of all had the
desire to show that the spirit at work there is a spirit of error. Neither in
the sphere of the old nor of the new covenant have prophets behaved the way
its servants act (see above, 136). The vessels of this
spirit are completely vessels of dishonor; the life and the death of the heretics
are equally unedifying, and their moral pretensions are only a show (above,
133f., 136-140). The spirit from hell, which has already
seduced Montanus into apostasy (above, 133) could open
neither his eyes nor the eyes of a single one of his disciples. They are blind,
allow themselves to be duped, and make prophecies that never come true (above,
135 f., 140 f.). Experience teaches us this, as does
a comparison with the genuine book of revelation, the Apocalypse, the content
of which is beyond suspicion since the seer has demonstrated his godly connections
by raising someone from the dead (above, 141). The gospel
story also shows that a genuine look into the future is possible only in the
circle of the apostles of Jesus (above, 141); thus there
is no other alternative but to rely on the authorities of the church. [[*149]]
The unbreakable chain of all revelation is forged with the links Lord, apostles,
holy church (above, 141). The way in which "history" came
to be used in the service of orthodoxy is shown not only by the postcanonical
stories about Jesus and the apostles, but also in a rather distressing manner
by the way in which one speaks about the outstanding adherents of the new movement,
about their life and death, without even excepting their martyrs from such treatment.
Defamation of the enemy perhaps plays a greater role in these circles than proof
from scripture. Later, when the New Testament was accepted as a collection of
scriptural writings, when knowledge of the Old Testament was expanded, and when
the anti-heretical use of both was developed to some extent, the situation would
become healthier. Then, with the increased production of Christian literature
and the ever growing distance from the actual events, the controversy will also
become more highly literary. The way is already being paved for that in the
period under consideration. It seems that "the anonymous" knew the work of his
coreligionist Miltiades only from the reply of their common opponents -- i.e.
from [[146]] the literature (see
above, 136). And Serapion relied on the work of the already deceased Claudius
Apollinaris of Hierapolis. Evidently he was not successful in obtaining other
literary works of a similar outlook. Otherwise he certainly would have used
them also, in his ambition to demonstrate that aversion to the false prophecy
permeated all of Christianity. And Eusebius, who is filled with the same desire,
would hardly have withheld that information from his readers.
//End Ch. 7//
\1/ It appears as though Eusebius may have inserted the commonplace presentation
of the consecrated activity of "the shepherds" into an already existing
list of the writings of Theophilus. If the whole context were formed in
this way by Eusebius, he would, indeed, not only regard the book against
Marcion that stands at the end of the list as evidence that Theophilus also
belongs in the category of these church leaders, but he would similarly
regard the writing mentioned at the beginning, against the false belief
of Hermogenes. On Eusebius' method of working, see
also below, chap. 8, esp. 154 n. 14. [[131]]
\2/ Cf. W. Bauer, <tm>Der Wortgottesdienst der ältesten Christen</tm>
(1930), pp. 61 f.
\3/ EH 5.13.5-7. Concerning this discussion, see Harnack, <tm>Marcion</tm>\2,
pp. 180 ff. He places it at the end of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
\4/ On what follows see Zahn <tm>Forschungen</tm> 5:
3-57 (concerning the chronological problem relating to Montanism); Harnack
<tm>Geschichte</tm> 2 (<tm>Chronologie</tm>),
1: 363-371.
\5/ EH 5.16.4 -- he checks the influence of the opposition "for the moment"
(<gk>pros to paron</gk>).
\8/ It mentions the book of an Asterios Orbanos (= Urbanus), in which the
sayings of Montanist prophets have been gathered (EH 5.16.17), and uses,
in addition, a Montanist polemical writing against Miltiades (EH 5.17.1).
See below, 136.
\11/ Cf. Neumann, <tm>Römische Staat</tm>, p. 68.
\12/ On this feature, cf. the open-textured use of the concept "the word
of the new covenant of the gospel" (<gk>o( ths
tou euaggeliou kainhs diaqhkhs logos) by "the anonymous" in EH
5.16.3.
\14/ See also EH 5.18.7 -- the so-called prophets and martyrs fleece not
only the rich, but also the poor, the orphans, and the widows.
\15/ "But not to speak of many (<gk>pleiontes</gk>).
. . . We can show the same in the case of many (<gk>polloi</gk>)..."
-- EH 5.18.6 and 10.
\18/ Cf. the role that archives and public records play, at least since
Justin, in defending the details of the life of Jesus; W. Bauer, <tm>Das
Leben Jesu im Zeitalter der neutestamentlichen Apokryphen</tm>
(Tübingen: Mohr, 1909; reprint Darmstadt, 1967), pp. 26 f., 59, 195
f., 228, 536 f.
\21/ On this, cf. Bauer, <tm>Leben Jesu</tm>, pp. 266
f.
\23/ The claim of Hippolytus that there are "countless books" (<ts>Ref.</ts>
8.19) is more instructive for the language of the polemic than for its factuality.
We do know of the collection of Asterios Orbanos (anonymous in EH 5.16.17;
see above, 135 n. 8).
\24/ The plural <gk>grammata</gk>
refers here, as is often the case, to only one written treatise, as is clearly
evident from EH 5.19.4.