Saturday, August 07, 2004
Montanism
Montanism (from Montanus, who claimed to be the "mouthpiece of God") is
an enigma to modern historians. Some of the uncertainties about this
movement:
So, what is the key point of contention? Both Epiphanius and Eusebius indicate that the main problem of Montanism is its insistence on ecstatic prophecy.
When Montanism moves to Rome, the issue is no longer prophecy but a new revelation. Hippolytus (170-236) relates the story of a leader of a church in Pontus (probably a Montanist) who, instead of paying careful attention to the Scriptures, began to believe in visions which he himself had seen. His congregation was decimated because he prophesied that the judgment would occur in a year. Many neglected their fields and sold their possessions and, when the end did not occur, were reduced to begging (Dan. 4.19). Hippolytus comments: "These things happen to uneducated and simple people who do not give careful attention to the Scriptures" (Dan. 4.20). Hippolytus stressed the importance of the authority of Scripture against visions and dreams, since he believed that prophecy had ended.
It is in Rome that Montanists started to refer to the Paraclete to support their prophecies; this was necessary because they wanted to emphasize that the revelations of the Paraclete to his prophets superceded what Christ had revealed in the gospel. In other words, Montanists claimed fuller participation in the Holy Spirit than did the apostles. Note that Tertullian as well explicitly supports the possibility of new revelations, and accuses the Catholics of fixing "boundaries for God".
From Tertullian (in his Montanistic phase, i.e. after ca. 206) we learn that the 7 "mortal sins" are unforgivable (not only the sin against the Spirit), and this may be a Montanist thought. Note though that Tertullian should not be used to reconstruct earlier Phrygian Montanism, since he has likely introduced in the doctrine his own modifications.
In the end, Montanism, with its claims to ecstatic prophecy and new revelations, posed to a Church that was developing hierarchical structures, canons and creeds, the important problem of the definition of what constitutes authority. This seems to be the core reason why it was strongly rejected and classified as heresy.
What about Montanism today? Montanist trends can easily be spotted in some more or less modern spirituality:
Categories: Church_History
- is Montanism opposed to Gnosticism, or similar to it?
- did it have a Jewish or Jewish-Christian origin, or was it rooted in Phrygian pagan cults?
- what evolution did Montanism have? (e.g., consider the differences between 2nd century Montanism and its incarnation in Rome or in North Africa.)
- penchant for martyrdom. Here we could have influences from
Anatolian pagan culture. The value of martyrdom and suicide was debated
within Christian circles in Asia Minor in the 2nd century, where
veneration of Christian martyrs was widespread. See the Martyrdom of
Polycarp: there is a reference to some Phrygian Christians who pursued
martyrdom "of their own free will". In the same text, it is then said
that "we do not praise those who surrender themselves [for martyrdom],
since the Gospel does not teach us this". Montanists appealed to the
large number of their martyrs as proof of the power of the Spirit in
their midst. Tertullian shares with Montanists the view that the Spirit
exhorts to martyrdom. Some Phrygian tombal inscriptions with the
cryptic phrase "Christians for Christians" have been attributed by some
to Montanists.
- eschatology. Epiphanius tells us that Montanists expected the
heavenly Jerusalem to descend at Pepuza in Phrygia, not
Jerusalem. Maximilla declared: "After me there will no longer be a
prophet, but the end".
- emphasis upon the Paraclete.
- ecstatic prophecy.
- mandatory sharp discipline. No second marriage after the death of
a spouse (this is also in Tertullian). New and more frequent fasts.
- paid thaumaturgy (engaging in prophecy in exchange for remuneration).
- freedom to ministry for women in the Church. Origen asserted that
the disciples of Priscilla and Maximilla were not obedient to the
biblical command to let the women be silent in the churches (Cat. ad
Cor 14.36).
So, what is the key point of contention? Both Epiphanius and Eusebius indicate that the main problem of Montanism is its insistence on ecstatic prophecy.
When Montanism moves to Rome, the issue is no longer prophecy but a new revelation. Hippolytus (170-236) relates the story of a leader of a church in Pontus (probably a Montanist) who, instead of paying careful attention to the Scriptures, began to believe in visions which he himself had seen. His congregation was decimated because he prophesied that the judgment would occur in a year. Many neglected their fields and sold their possessions and, when the end did not occur, were reduced to begging (Dan. 4.19). Hippolytus comments: "These things happen to uneducated and simple people who do not give careful attention to the Scriptures" (Dan. 4.20). Hippolytus stressed the importance of the authority of Scripture against visions and dreams, since he believed that prophecy had ended.
It is in Rome that Montanists started to refer to the Paraclete to support their prophecies; this was necessary because they wanted to emphasize that the revelations of the Paraclete to his prophets superceded what Christ had revealed in the gospel. In other words, Montanists claimed fuller participation in the Holy Spirit than did the apostles. Note that Tertullian as well explicitly supports the possibility of new revelations, and accuses the Catholics of fixing "boundaries for God".
From Tertullian (in his Montanistic phase, i.e. after ca. 206) we learn that the 7 "mortal sins" are unforgivable (not only the sin against the Spirit), and this may be a Montanist thought. Note though that Tertullian should not be used to reconstruct earlier Phrygian Montanism, since he has likely introduced in the doctrine his own modifications.
In the end, Montanism, with its claims to ecstatic prophecy and new revelations, posed to a Church that was developing hierarchical structures, canons and creeds, the important problem of the definition of what constitutes authority. This seems to be the core reason why it was strongly rejected and classified as heresy.
What about Montanism today? Montanist trends can easily be spotted in some more or less modern spirituality:
- Disregard for serious study of the Scripture.
- Attempts to obtain ecstatic states through which one can "prophesize" (and perhaps become the "mouthpiece of God").
- Prophecy supercedes what has been revealed before. In particular,
the contemporary epoch of the Spirit follows and overrides the epoch of
Christ (modern dispensationalism).
- Requests for remuneration in exchange of prophetic practices.
- Insistence on some form of eschatology.
- Ministry to women.
- The Trinity fused into a single person.
- Rejection of religious authorities and emphasis on individual
revelations.
Categories: Church_History
Marcion
Why was Marcion's heresy popular? What is its heritage today?
Marcion's main point: discontinuity between Christianity and Judaism. His ditheism: the God of Jesus was not the same God of the OT.
Marcion accepted as authoritative only the letters of Paul and part of Luke's Gospel. He was a strong paulinist, and emphasized ascetic tendencies.
It is worth noting that Marcion's canon (in which also his own writing "Antitheses" was put) is the first attested canon of the Church. The later adoption of a closed, "catholic" canon was perhaps partially in reaction to liberties like this one in defining what was to be regarded as authoritative and what not. Some even consider the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles as responses to Marcion's movement: this could be plausible especially if one were able to date Marcion's activity quite early in the second century. The usual date we have for Marcion's activity is of 144, when, according to Tertullian (Against Marcion, I.19), he was expelled from the Catholic church. Justin also says in his First Apology, I.26 (written about 155), that "there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive...". It is interesting to note that Acts (traditionally held to have been composed at the same time of Luke's gospel, i.e. around the 60's or 80's) only came into frequent use after Marcion. J. Knox actually believes that Acts was written ca. 125 just to offset Marcion's emphasis on Paul. At any rate, even if Acts had by his time already been composed, Marcion could not insert it in his canon, because it would have refuted his claim that Paul was the only faithful apostle of Jesus.
His theology is overly simple and full of contradictions (hence he is easily hammered by his critics), but this is actually one of the reasons of his success: he selected scriptural texts that fulfilled his agenda of showing the separation between Jesus and the God of the OT, edited them (e.g. he purged all references to the birth of Jesus, his genealogy and the virginal conception, since Marcion rejected God's incarnation in the flesh: see later; and allegedly removed all "interpolations by the defenders of Judaism"), and left out all the rest. He presented one Gospel, and one Apostle (Paul, the apostle of the gospel); Paul's teaching was simplified to a contrast between:
One could say that Marcion exhibits Gnostic thoughts, but he lacks the complicated cosmology typical of gnosticism. Still, some gnostic influence is undeniable, as it clearly appears e.g. from this passage of Irenaeus:
The overall tendency of the Marcionite church is to be quite loosely organized (no councils, for example, bishops had probably a short term office, and women had significant leadership roles). Remember that his theology was simple and had limited scope, and so did not require lots of superstructures. Still, it is amazing how effective Marcion was in organizing and spreading his teaching. Perhaps Tertullian's information that he was a shipowner (Eusebius speaks of "the sailor Marcion") tells something about his ability as organizer and entrepreneur.
The popularity of Marcion's teaching is well acknowledged, and his heresy continued for several centuries. Cyril of Jerusalem felt it necessary to warn his catechumens not to be misled to a Marcionite church when entering a city in search of a Christian place of worship. It is said that around 160-170 the Marcionites may have even surpassed in number the non-Marcionites. In this case, and assuming that, to the non-Christians, Marcionites and non-Marcionites were not easily distinguishable, one may expect that the charges against Christianity were also directed against Marcionite theology. On the other hand, while studying those charges it was my assumption that they were addressing a uniform "orthodoxy": given the variety of Christian theologies in the second century, this position is clearly anachronistic. It would therefore be interesting to re-read the charges to see what could be traced to unorthodox teachings. Yet again, since many of these charges are second-hand, being reported by "orthodox" Christian theologians, one can think that charges against non-orthodox teachings were deemed irrelevant and therefore generally removed or simply not considered. But there are certainly some that can be applied to Marcionism, for example in Celsus and in this Arabic quotation of a lost work of Galen:
Categories: Church_History
Marcion's main point: discontinuity between Christianity and Judaism. His ditheism: the God of Jesus was not the same God of the OT.
Marcion accepted as authoritative only the letters of Paul and part of Luke's Gospel. He was a strong paulinist, and emphasized ascetic tendencies.
It is worth noting that Marcion's canon (in which also his own writing "Antitheses" was put) is the first attested canon of the Church. The later adoption of a closed, "catholic" canon was perhaps partially in reaction to liberties like this one in defining what was to be regarded as authoritative and what not. Some even consider the Pastoral Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles as responses to Marcion's movement: this could be plausible especially if one were able to date Marcion's activity quite early in the second century. The usual date we have for Marcion's activity is of 144, when, according to Tertullian (Against Marcion, I.19), he was expelled from the Catholic church. Justin also says in his First Apology, I.26 (written about 155), that "there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive...". It is interesting to note that Acts (traditionally held to have been composed at the same time of Luke's gospel, i.e. around the 60's or 80's) only came into frequent use after Marcion. J. Knox actually believes that Acts was written ca. 125 just to offset Marcion's emphasis on Paul. At any rate, even if Acts had by his time already been composed, Marcion could not insert it in his canon, because it would have refuted his claim that Paul was the only faithful apostle of Jesus.
His theology is overly simple and full of contradictions (hence he is easily hammered by his critics), but this is actually one of the reasons of his success: he selected scriptural texts that fulfilled his agenda of showing the separation between Jesus and the God of the OT, edited them (e.g. he purged all references to the birth of Jesus, his genealogy and the virginal conception, since Marcion rejected God's incarnation in the flesh: see later; and allegedly removed all "interpolations by the defenders of Judaism"), and left out all the rest. He presented one Gospel, and one Apostle (Paul, the apostle of the gospel); Paul's teaching was simplified to a contrast between:
- faith and works of the Law. Faith alone is enough: remember
Tertullian's point (in Against Marcion, I.27) that a foundation for
morality besides the Absit, Absit
was deemed unnecessary by the Marcionites: Tertullian can easily prove
a theological weakness of the Marcionites, who believe in a Good God
who is not to be feared, just by asking them,
why in persecutions also do you not, when the censer is presented, at once redeem your life by the denial of your faith? Absit, inquis, absit (God forbid, you keep on repeating). So you do fear sin, and by your fear prove that he is an object of fear who forbids the sin.
- the Gospel and the Law.
- true Christianity and judaizing tendencies.
Abel, and Enoch and Noah, and the patriarchs of the line of Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God [God being the Creator here, i.e. the OT God], did not partake in salvation.It is sometimes said that Marcion was a docetist, but he does not state that explicitly. On the other hand, Tertullian clearly says that he rejected "the bodily substance of Christ", and that
his Christ, in order to avoid all such deceits and fallacies [of the Creator], and the imputation, if possible, of belonging to the Creator, was not what he appeared to be, and gave a false account of what he was - flesh and yet not flesh, man and yet not man - likewise God and yet not God!(Against Marcion, III.8)
One could say that Marcion exhibits Gnostic thoughts, but he lacks the complicated cosmology typical of gnosticism. Still, some gnostic influence is undeniable, as it clearly appears e.g. from this passage of Irenaeus:
Salvation will be the attainment only of those souls which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation.(Irenaeus, First Apology, I.25.2)
The overall tendency of the Marcionite church is to be quite loosely organized (no councils, for example, bishops had probably a short term office, and women had significant leadership roles). Remember that his theology was simple and had limited scope, and so did not require lots of superstructures. Still, it is amazing how effective Marcion was in organizing and spreading his teaching. Perhaps Tertullian's information that he was a shipowner (Eusebius speaks of "the sailor Marcion") tells something about his ability as organizer and entrepreneur.
The popularity of Marcion's teaching is well acknowledged, and his heresy continued for several centuries. Cyril of Jerusalem felt it necessary to warn his catechumens not to be misled to a Marcionite church when entering a city in search of a Christian place of worship. It is said that around 160-170 the Marcionites may have even surpassed in number the non-Marcionites. In this case, and assuming that, to the non-Christians, Marcionites and non-Marcionites were not easily distinguishable, one may expect that the charges against Christianity were also directed against Marcionite theology. On the other hand, while studying those charges it was my assumption that they were addressing a uniform "orthodoxy": given the variety of Christian theologies in the second century, this position is clearly anachronistic. It would therefore be interesting to re-read the charges to see what could be traced to unorthodox teachings. Yet again, since many of these charges are second-hand, being reported by "orthodox" Christian theologians, one can think that charges against non-orthodox teachings were deemed irrelevant and therefore generally removed or simply not considered. But there are certainly some that can be applied to Marcionism, for example in Celsus and in this Arabic quotation of a lost work of Galen:
If I had in mind people who taught their pupils in the same way as the followers of Moses and Christ teach theirs - for they order them to accept everything on faith - I should have not given you a definition.Some points that may characterize contemporary Marcionite thought, within and without the Christian Church:
- Simplification of doctrine to present ready-to-cook theologies
that do not bother too much with details or consistency. Remember here
the Marcionite Apelles who, as reported by Eusebius in HE V.13.2-7,
said, when confronted with the inconsistencies of his thought, that
"one ought not to examine doctrine at all, but everyone should
remain in his own belief." This says also something of the tendency to
relativize everything.
- Selection and editing (think of ad-hoc translations, for example) of scriptural material according to one's wishes and agendas. The worry about troublesome scriptures reminds me of the decision to leave out "difficult" material from the liturgy, e.g. some Psalms (or sections of them) containing curses or violent expressions (in the Catholic Church at least: I do not know about other Churches' liturgies).
- Desire to discover the "true" and original scriptures, removing
all material considered to be spurious additions (i.e., others have really altered the
material, not us). I shall
consider the important problem of the definition and use of the Canon
later on.
- Denial of the Jewish roots of Christianity and ignorance of
historical settings. For example,
sometimes Christ is presented as a salvific or prophetic figure coming
out of the blue, and the OT is perceived just as a necessary evil (when
not altogether ignored).
- Devaluation of the intrinsic value of matter and exhaltation of ascetic tendencies suggesting that matter is only a hindrance to the attainment of "salvation". The doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus, as a consequence, is minimized or ignored. Paul is then labeled as the champion of this teaching. Suspicion toward sex.
- A ditheism separating the process of creation (perhaps labeled "nature"), which is just and [therefore] cruel, from an unknown and transcendent "Good God", who will in the end save everything and everybody from decay.
Categories: Church_History
