Academic literature on the topic 'Montanismus'

AbstractOver the past decade and a half, William Tabbernee, the world’s leading authority on Montanism or the New Prophecy, has written four major works on the subject. Three of them are reviewed in this article. One looks at Montanism through the eyes of church and state; a second provides documentation for the identification of the headquarters city of the Montanists; and the third puts the two together in a creative narrative. These three volumes are placed within the context of larger issues surrounding the history of this powerful prophetic movement that originated in late second-century Asia Minor and subsequently spread throughout the Roman Empire up until the sixth century. The reactions and responses of various orthodox Christian leaders and secular government officials to the claims of this highly independent prophetic movement, which called for more reliance upon the spontaneity of the Holy Spirit and a more conservative personal ethic, suggest strong parallels between Montanism and what might be found in today’s Charismatic, New Apostolic, and Emerging Church movements.

On his journey, the Church faces many heresies which try to deviate the orthodoxy teaching. One of these heresies was founded by Montanus and his teaching is known as Montanism. Montanus together with Maximilla and Priscilla claimed that they were filled by Holy Spirit and called themselves as a prophet and prophetesses who had to be followed and heard. The main teaching of this heresy is the promise of the second coming of Jesus Christ, and the promise of the end of the world. This theme is always interested by many people. The reason people attracted to the teaching of this heresy is the establishment of the coming of Jesus Christ which was promised by himself. Many of their followers became disappointed, because though the promised date had passed, Jesus Christ did not come yet. The other teaching of Montanism is about prophecy of the future which actually blinded the followers. If the prophecy failed to happen, it was because of the fault of the followers who lived less ascetic life and did many sins. The Prophets of Montanism had enthusiasm given by the Holy Spirit. It made them have to be obeyed and heard. They even claimed that the absolute truth was on their hand. Therefore, the hierarchy of the Church had to submit themselves to their teaching. Maximilla and Priscilla are two false prophetesses who had great influence in the Montanism period. In this heresy time, the Church had to work hard to fight Montanism teaching and prophecy, especially to defend its orthodoxy teaching of the Church from the false prophetesses. Sepanjang perjalanan, Gereja menghadapi banyak eresi yang berusaha mendefiasikan ajaran resmi. Salah satu di antara eresi yang banyak itu dikembangkan oleh Montanus yang alirannya dikenal dengan Montanisme. Ia bersama dengan Maximilla dan Priscilla mengaku kepenuhan Roh Kudus dan menyebut diri mereka sebagai Nabi yang harus diikuti dan didengarkan. Ajaran pokok mereka adalah menjanjikan kedatangan Kristus yang mau tidak mau juga menjanjikan akhir dunia yang biasanya diminati oleh banyak orang. Salah satu alasan ketertarikan orang lebih akan ajaran eresi ini adalah penetapan kedatangan Kristus yang dijanjika-Nya, walau akhirnya banyak orang menjadi kecewa, karena waktu yang ditetapkan tidak kunjung datang. Ajaran mereka lainnya adalah ramalan masa yang akan datang yang berusaha mengelabui pengikutnya. Jika ramalan tidak terpenuhi atau tidak kunjung datang, maka kesalahan berdada di tangan para pemohon karena kurang askese dan disposisi diri tidak baik. Para nabi ini memiliki sikap antusiasme berlebihan yang menekankan peran Roh Kudus yang mereka terima. Dengan alasan ini, mereka harus ditaati dan didengarkan. Bahkan kebenaran absolut berada di tangan mereka, bahkan pemimpin Gereja sendiri harus tunduk pada pengajaran mereka ini. Maximilla dan Priscilla adalah dua nabi perempuan yang sesat. Mereka sangat berpengarauh pada periode Montanisme. Gereja harus berjuang keras pada periode mereka untuk meluruskan ajaran dan ramalan Montanisme, terlebih membela ortodox Gereja dari nabi perempuan yang palsu tersebut.

В статье представлен перевод «Собеседования монтаниста и православного» (CPG 2572), греческого диалога IV в. В этом небольшом тексте доказываются заблуждения раннехристианского раскола монтанистов. Хотя авторство произведения не установлено диалог представляет один из редких памятников, полностью посвящённых опровержению монтанизма. Особого упоминания заслуживает цитируетмое в диалоге изречение Монтана, в котором тот отождествляет себя с Отцом, Сыном и Утешителем. Немалое число последователей лжепророка приняло этот тезис буквально, Бог представлялся одним Лицом. Православные полемисты IV в. опровергали указанные заблуждения словами Спасителя, подтверждающими раздельность Ипостасей. Православный собеседник, обладая хорошим знанием Писания, умело пользуется Библией в разговоре с оппонентом. Эти рассуждения актуальны и сегодня, так как черты монтанизма присущи некоторым современным сектантским движениям, таким, как пятидесятническое. «Собеседование» переводится на русский язык впервые. The article presents a translation of the «Dialogue of a Montanist with an Orthodox» (CPG 2572), a short Greek piece of the 4th century BC. This text proves the fallacies of the early Christian schism of the Montanists. Although the authorship of the work has not been established, the Dialogue is one of the rare monuments entirely dedicated to the refutation of Montanism. Deserves special mention in the Dialogue an Montan's saying, in which he identi es himself with the Father, the Son, and the Comforter. A considerable number of followers of the false prophet took this thesis literally, God was represented by one Person. Orthodox polemicists of the 4th century refuted these misconceptions with the words of the Savior, con rming the separation of Hypostases. An Orthodox interlocutor, having a good knowledge of the Scriptures, skillfully uses the Bible in a conversation with an opponent. These considerations are still relevant today, since the features of Montanism are inherent in some modern sectarian movements, such as Pentecostal. The «Dialogue is translated into Russian for the rst time.

AbstractIn early Christian culture, prophets went into ecstasies while having visions and speaking by means of a spirit (enthusiasm). With the waning of prophetic activity in the second century, enthusiasm was not seen in many communal gatherings. When enthusiasm reemerged in Montanism during the late second century, church leaders claimed that speaking in ecstasy never existed as true prophecy in early Christian culture. They argued that true prophets always prophesied with a sound mind. The ecstasy of Montanism exhibited an unsound mind and looked like demonic possession; thus, Montanist prophecy was rejected as false. This paper theorizes that enthusiasm's absence contributed to the critics of Montanist ecstasy who were not used to enthusiasm and therefore did not recognize it as an early Christian practice.

Thesis (MTh)--Stellenbosch University, 2013.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Through the eyes of the Catholic Church, one usually looks at Montanism as a second-century heretical sect. This prevailed orthodox view has devalued the Catholic Tertullian as a schismatic when he had accepted Montanism as his theological verification. The recent scholarship, however, has challenged that Tertullian’s transition to Montanism had not necessarily resulted from his theological conclusion. Rather this suggests that Tertullian, from the very beginning, was much more sympathetic to the new prophets than to the Catholic priests; the Montanist Tertullian had always taken precedence over the Catholic Tertullian. Given this new perspective, the thesis is developed as follows; Chapter 1, the topic and title are introduced with four critical research questions; (1) Why were the original Montanists condemned? (2) Why did Tertullian become a Montanist? (3) Why does Montanism exclude the present day Pentecostalism as Neo- Montanism? (4) Why does Montanism include the present day Pentecostalism as Neo- Montanism? Here particular interest is Tertullian’s intermediate position; as a point of contact, Tertullian stands not only between the Montanists and the Catholics, but also between the original Montanists and the present day Pentecostals as Neo-Montanism. Chapter 2 seeks to find an answer to the first research question of “Why were the original Montanists condemned?” Then, the researcher focuses on the root cause of the original condemnation of Montanism in three aspects. (1) Montanism was condemned as the victim of the institutionalization of the church, (2) Montanism was condemned as the pagan inspiration including controversial manifestations, such as ecstatic prophecy (and speaking in tongues), fanatical millenarianism, and strict puritanism, and (3) Montanism was condemned as the power struggle between the urban and rural church leadership. The point is that these three reasons are interrelated as a whole and, not as a separate entity. Yet, the conflict in the church regarding church government had taken the lead in the original condemnation of Montanism. The victory of urban church leadership had justified the victimization of the Montanists, the representative of the rural leadership. Chapter 3, the thesis has dealt with the second question; “Why did Tertullian become a Montanist?” The researcher acknowledges of the uneasy connection between the apologist Tertullian and the Montanist Tertullian. Yet, if Montanism was accused of its political conflict, not of its theological deviances, the relationship of Tertullian with Montanism needs to be reconsidered. Then, the researcher tries to vindicate Tertullian’s position through two methodological approaches. First, the researcher reconstructs the new image of Tertullian as the lay leader born into Montanism by deconstructing the conventional portrayal of Tertullian; (1) as the son of an officer of the Roman army, (2) as the professional Jurist, (3) as the Catholic priest at Carthage, and (4) as the schismatic. Second, the researcher also takes into account of Tertullian’s identity in the concept of the transitional correlation. By applying Tertullian’s transitional period as the Pagan-Catholic-Montanist to the concentric circles of concern, the previous view of Tertullian can be transformed into the new formula of Pagan as caterpillar- Catholic as cocoon-Montanist as butterfly. This three-fold structure then opens the way for a newborn image of Tertullian. Chapter 4 is dealing with the relationship between Montanism, the Montanist Tertullian, and the present-day Pentecostalism in order to answer the final question; “Why does Montanism include/exclude the present-day Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism?” Tertullian’s Montanism, like a hinge, closely interconnects the present-day Pentecostalism to the original Montanism in historical, theological and ecclesiological sense of the word. First, the first generation of Pentecostals, regardless of whether they are the proponents of the Azusa Street or Topeka revival, they find their historical identity in the first generation of the apostolic church and this includes the second-century Montanists and the Montanist Tertullian. Second, from the theological point of view, the Montanist distinctive theological fashions, such as ecstatic prophecy, speaking in tongues, and the impending eschatological hope, has clearly re-echoed in the diadem of the current Pentecostal theology.. Third, the original Montanists and the present-day Pentecostals are both ecclesiologically the strong advocates of the pneumatological theocracy. For both, the priority is to return to the apostolic primitive church.. So, the current Pentecostals is convinced that they trace their root from the second-century spirit-filled Montanists. Chapter 5 summarizes the relationship between Montanism, the Montanist Tertullian, and the present day Pentecostalism by answering to the following four research questions; (1) “Why were the original Montanists condemned?” The answer is the ecclesiastical power struggle between the urban and rural leadership made the Montanist crisis a highly politically charged affair rather than a theologically controversial issue. (2) “Why did Tertullian become a Montanist?” The answer is Tertullian, as natural born Montanist, is determined to be a self-sacrificing mediator in order to bring reconciliation between the two rivals, namely, the city-priest and the countryside prophets. (3) “Why does Montanism include/exclude the present-day Pentecostalism as Neo- Montanism?” The answer is Montanism is the antecedent of the present-day Pentecostalism.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die oë van die Rooms Katolieke Kerk is Montanisme niks anders nie as ʼn tweede-eeuse ketterse sekte. Hierdie ortodokse seining het die Katolieke Tertullianus as skismatikus gedevalueer, in besonders toe hy Montanisme as sy teologiese standpuntname aanvaar het. Deesdae is geleerdes van mening dat Tertullianus se oorgang na Montanisme is nie noodwendig die gevolg van sy teologiese stellingname nie. Dit suggereer eerder dat Tertullianus van die begin af, meer simpatiekgesind teenoor die nuwe profete as teenoor die Katolieke priesters was. Dit blyk dat die Montanus Tertullianus altyd voorkeur bo die Katolieke Tertullianus gekry het. Gegewe hierdie perspektief, het die tesis soos volg ontwikkel: Hoofstuk 1, die onderwerp en titel word ingelei met vier kritiese navorsing vrae; (1) Hoekom was die oorspronklike Montanisme veroordeel? (2) Hoekom het Tertullianus 'n Montanus geword? (3) Hoekom sluit Montanisme die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme Neo -Montanisme uit? (4) Hoekom sluit Montanisme die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme Neo-Montanisme in? Hier is veral van belang Tertullianus se intermediêre posisie as 'n punt van kontak. Tertullianus staan nie net tussen die Montanisme en die Katolieke nie, maar staan ook tussen die oorspronklike Montanisme en die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme as Neo-Montanisme. Hoofstuk 2 beoog om 'n antwoord op die eerste navorsingsvraag te vind: “Hoekom is die oorspronklike Montanisme veroordeel?" Die navorser het vervolgens drie aspekte wat betrekking het op die oorsaak van die oorspronklike veroordeling van Montanisme gefokus. (1) Montanisme was veroordeel as die slagoffer van die institusionalisering van die kerk, (2) die Montanisme was veroordeel as ʼn heidense inspirasie, byvoorbeeld die omstrede manifestasies: soos in ekstase, profesie (spreek in tale), fanatiese millennialisme, en streng Puritanisme, en (3) Montanisme was veroordeel as die stryd tussen leierskap in die stedelike en plattelandse kerk. Hierdie drie redes is interafhanklik van mekaar as 'n geheel en is dus nie 'n aparte entiteit nie. Die oorwinning van die stedelike kerk leierskap die veroordeling van die Montanisme, wat die landelike leierskap verteenwoordig het, geregverdig. Hoofstuk 3 handel oor die tweede vraag, "Hoekom het Tertullianus ʼn Montanus geword?" Die navorser erken die ongemaklike verband tussen die apologeet Tertullianus en die Montanus Tertullianus. Tog, as Montanisme daarvan beskuldig word van politieke konflik en nie van teologiese afwykings nie, dan behoort die verhouding van Tertullianus met Montanisme in heroorweging geneem te word. Die navorser het Tertullianus se posisie deur middel van twee metodologiese benaderings probeer verdedig. Eerstens, het die navorser die nuwe beeld van Tertullianus gerekonstrueer as leke leier wat in die tydperk van Montanisme gebore deur die konvensionele uitbeelding van Tertullianus te dekonstrueer; (1) as die seun van die Romeinse offisier, (2) as die professionele regsgeleerde, (3) as die Katolieke priester van Kartago, en (4) as die skismatikus. Tweedens, die navorser het ook Tertullianus se identiteit insake die konsep van die oorgang korrelasie in ag geneem. Deur Tertullianus se oorgang as die Heiden – Katolieke – Montanus in konsentriese sirkels aan te dui, kan die vorige siening van Tertullianus omskep word in die nuwe formule van die ruspe Katoliek – kokon – Montanus na vlinder. Hierdie drieledige struktuur baan die weg vir 'n nuwe beeld van Tertullianus. Hoofstuk 4 hanteer die verhouding tussen die Montanisme, die Montanus Tertullianus en die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme om sodoende die laaste twee vrae te beantwoord: "Hoekom is Montanisme in/uit gesluit in die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme as Neo-Montanisme?" Tertullianus se Montanisme, soos 'n skarnier, verbind die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme aan die oorspronklike Montanisme in historiese, teologiese en ekklesiologiese sin van die woord met mekaar. Eerstens, die eerste generasie van Pentekostalisme, ongeag of hulle voorstanders van die Azusa Straat herlewing of die Topeka herlewing is, vind hulle hul historiese identiteit in die eerste generasie van die apostoliese kerk en dit sluit in die tweede-eeuse Montanisme asook die Montanus Tertullianus. Tweedens, uit ʼn teologiese vertrekpunt, die Montanus se eiesoortige teologiese modes: soos in ekstase, profesie, spreek in tale, en die eskatologiese hoop, eggo duidelik die hedendaagse Pinkster teologie. Derdens, die oorspronklike montanisme en hedendaagse Pentekostalisme is beide ekklesiologies sterk voorstanders van die Pneumatologiese teokrasie. Vir beide van hulle is dit die prioriteit om na die primitiewe apostoliese kerk terug te keer. So, is die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme is daarvan oortuig dat hul, hul ontstaan kan terugspoor van die tweede-eeuse geesvervulde Montaniste. Hoofstuk 5 som die verhouding tussen die Montanisme, die Montanus Tertullianus en die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme op en beantwoord die volgende vier navorsingsvrae; (1) Hoekom was die oorspronklike Montaniste veroordeel? Die antwoord lê daarin opgesluit dat die kerklike magstryd tussen die stedelike en landelike leierskap het Montanisme ʼn hoogs polities gelaaide aangeleentheid gemaak eerder as 'n teologies omstrede kwessie. (2) Hoekom het Tertullianus 'n Montanus geword? Tertullianus, as gebore Montanus, was vasbeslote om 'n selfopofferende bemiddelaar te wees om sodoende versoening te bring tussen die twee opponerende groepe, naamlik, die stedelike – priester en die plattelandse profete. (3) Hoekom sluit Montanisme die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme Neo -Montanisme uit? (4) Hoekom sluit Montanisme die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme Neo -Montanisme in? Montanisme is die voorloper van die hedendaagse Pentekostalisme.

The purpose of this research is to provide an alternative lens to use in the study of Montanism than is offered by the dominant paradigm developed during the last two centuries. Most scholars assume or assert that the earliest Montanists in Phrygia, in ancient Turkey, sprung from within the local, rural Christian community of Pepouza. As such, most modern research has omitted considerations of anything beyond incidental contact with so called âpaganâ cults in the surrounding area. I will argue that Phrygian Montanism can be viewed from its inception as a religion with several parental contributors, embodied as an eclectic amalgam of multiple forms of Christianity, the cult of Cybele and Attis, the cult of Dionysius, the oracle cult of Apollo, and other sources including Judaism. In this sense, it rather resembled not merely a Christian âheresyâ as several Ante and Post Nicene fathers asserted in their polemical tracts, nor an offshoot of a polytheistic cult, but instead a unique mystery religion, neither wholly âpaganâ nor Christian in composition. In other words, Montanism might be viewed alternately, regardless of what its founder(s) believed this âNew Prophecyâ represented, as an independent mystery religion, separately practiced while simultaneously overlapping the various Anatolian Christianities, âpaganâ cults, and state sponsored religions of the eastern Roman Empire. Within this context, arguments about its source, placement, acceptance and religious validity within the âpaganâ or Christian historical worlds become tangential. Seen as an island, a new vision of Montanism arises, one defined more comprehensively by the social, cultural and religious traditions of Anatolia and a Christianity that began with Pauline missionary activity 100 years prior to Montanismâs rise in Phrygia. I intend to argue this thesis by presenting an outline of Anatolian culture and religion as it relates to the emergence of Montanism in rural Phrygia before showing how it represents a uniquely structured hybrid mystery religion with both Christian and âpaganâ elements.

Thesis (M.A.)--Miami University, Dept. of History, 2005.
Title from first page of PDF document. Document formatted into pages; contains [1], iii, 89 p. : ill. Includes bibliographical references (p. 80-89).

Abstract author: See entry 92. translation: ANF 3.181–235. text: See entry 92; also J. H. Waszink, Tertullianus: “De Anima” (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1947). bibliography: There is an extensive bibliography on Montanism (the New Prophecy): Blessings, 157–73; F. Forrester Church, “Sex and Salvation in Tertullian,” HTR 68 (1975): 83–101; Nicola Denzey, “What Did the Montanists Read,” HTR 94, no. 4 (2001): 427–49: Susanna Elm, “Montanist Oracles,” in Searching the Scriptures, 2:131–38; Frederick C. Klawiter, “The Role of Martyrdom and Persecution in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: A Case Study of Montanism,” Church History 49, no. 3 (1980): 251–61; John C. Poirier, “Montanist Pepuza-Jerusalem and the Dwelling Place of Wisdom,” JECS 7, no. 4 (1999): 491– 507; William Tabbernee, “Portals of the Montanist New Jerusalem: The Discovery of Pepouza and Tymion,” JECS 11, no. 1 (2003): 87–94; Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Additional sources for Montanism are collected in Ronald Heine, Montanist Oracles and Testimonia (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1989); and William Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism, North American Patristic Society Patristic Monograph Series 16 (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997).