If, then, we are commanded to love our enemies (as I have remarked above), whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become just as bad ourselves. Who can suffer injury at our hands? (3.45).
“Lest we become just as bad ourselves.” This is a counterintuitive remark, because conventional wisdom dictates that an injured person has the right to retaliate in kind. According to Tertullian, however, to perpetuate the cycle of violence is just as much a sin as it is to initiate the cycle of violence. For some of us, this is a hard saying.
How often you inflict gross cruelties on Christians. You do this, partly because it is your own inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws.... Yet, banded together as we are, ever so ready to sacrifice our lives, what single case of revenge for injury are you able to point to? (3.45)
Here Tertullian makes his argument to depend upon the reality of Christian conduct. If Christians were not known for their pacifism, his argument fails. Note, also, that Tertullian does not make exceptions out of women and children, who suffered torture and death along with the men. According to Tertullian, all Christians (men, women, and children) are “banded together,” “ready to sacrifice our lives.”
We willingly yield ourselves to the sword. So what wars would we not be both fit and eager to participate in (even against unequal forces), if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay? (3.45)
Here Tertullian makes two very important points. One, a Christian pacifist is at least as courageous as (if not more than) a Roman soldier, for a Christian pacifist clearly does not fear death. Second, the Christians’ commitment to nonviolence in the face of persecution implies the Christians’ commitment to nonviolence in wartime.
The Christian does no harm even to his enemy. (3.51)
If someone attempts to provoke you by physical violence, the admonition of the Lord is at hand. He says, “To him who strikes you on the face, turn the other cheek also.” Let outrageousness be worn out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, joined with pain and scorn, it will receive a heavier one from the Lord. (3.712)
For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order.... The commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil. (3.713)
Christ plainly teaches a new kind of long-suffering, when he actually prohibits the reprisals that the Creator permitted in requiring “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” (3.370)
Tertullian is mistaken here that God “required” reprisals. The purpose of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” was restrictive, not prescriptive. It was meant to limit reprisals, but did not overrule mercy, otherwise God himself would have been unjust. The restrictive nature of the mandate is itself along the trajectory that culminates in Jesus’ prohibition of reprisals.
God puts his prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment: "You shall not kill." (3.80)
This is clearly not a historical/grammatical use of “Thou shall not kill.” Tertullian knows that, as is indicated by the quote just prior. He is sloganeering here. He is fully aware that the renunciation of all violence is an ethic derived from the NT witness. The OT prohibition against murder is re-read in light of the heightened ethic of Jesus.
"Nation will not take up sword against nation, and they will no more learn to fight." Who else, therefore, does this prophecy apply to, other than us? For we are fully taught by the new law, and therefore observe these practices.... The teaching of the new law points to clemency. It changes the primitive ferocity of swords and lances to tranquility. It remodels the primitive execution of war upon the rivals and enemies of the Law into the peaceful actions of plowing and cultivating the land. (3.154)
Tertullian joins the ranks of those who interpret the church age as the fulfillment of the Isaianic prophecy.
The Lord will save them in that day—even his people—like sheep.... No one gives the name of “sheep” to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, or those who are killed when repelling force with force. Rather, it is given only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience—rather than fighting in self-defense. (3.415)
Moreover, the command about the right cheek being struck is most impossible, since everyone who strikes (unless he happens to have some bodily irregularity) strikes the left cheek with his right hand.
Here Tertullian is picking up on the fact that Jesus’ command is actually a method of resistance, not a passive resignation to let evil have its way.
Now inquiry is made about the point of whether a believer may enter into military service. The question is also asked whether those in the military may be admitted into the faith--even the rank and file (or any inferior grade), who are not required to take part in sacrifices or capital punishments.... A man cannot give his allegiance to two masters--God and Caesar.... How will a Christian man participate in war? In fact, how will he serve even in peacetime without a sword? For the Lord has taken the sword away. It is also true that soldiers came to John [the Baptist] and received the instructions for their conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed. Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier. (3.73)
Many have interpreted this passage as representative of a “hard line” pacifism, one that, contrary to Clement of Alexandria’s rule, does not even allow Christians to soldier in peacetime. This is derived from Tertullian’s question, “How will he serve even in peacetime without a sword?” I do not think that Tertullian’s question necessitates the “hard line” interpretation. It could very plausibly simply be a rhetorical flourish to emphasize the absolute commitment of Christians to nonviolence. Whether some leaders allowed Christians to wear the sword provided they did not use it is unclear. What is clear is that, in any case, Christians are not to use the sword and that the objection to Christian participation in the military is not based upon idolatry but upon the aversion to bloodshed. In fact, the fact that some Christians were remaining soldiers after conversion (as this text implies) shows that it was possible—at least at this time—to serve as a soldier in the Roman army without participating in idolatrous ceremonies.
Another interesting point that this text bears out: this is the first instance we see of John’s encounter with the soldiers and Jesus’ encounter with the centurion being brought into the discussion. Apparently, there were some soldier converts to Christianity who were raising these as examples in defense of their desire to remain soldiers. Tertullian rejects such a use of the texts on the grounds that the earlier silence is overruled by the later explicit prohibition. I myself would encourage a more nuanced argument to counter the examples of Luke 3 and 7 (and I have provided one elsewhere), but for Tertullian and for a majority of soldier converts, the appeal to Matthew 26 sufficed. It would not be until Augustine in the fifth century that an ecclesiastical authority would use the soldiers in Luke 3 and 7 as an argument in favor of Christian participation in warfare.
"And they will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears intro pruning hooks." In other words, they will change the dispositions of injurious minds, hostile tongues, blasphemy, and all kinds of evil into pursuits of moderation and peace. "Nation will not lift up sword against nation." That is, they will not stir up conflict. "Neither will they learn war any more"--that is, the provocation of hostilities. So you should learn from this that Christ was not promised to be powerful in war. Rather, he was promised to pursue peace. Now, you must deny either that these things were foretold (although they are plainly seen) or that they have been fulfilled (although you read of them). (3.339-340)
In order for Tertullian’s argument to work, the case must be that despite a few soldier converts remaining in the army, the big picture of the Christian renunciation of warfare is widely understood to be normative.
I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What point is there in discussing the merely incidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it is lawful for a human oath to be added to one that is divine? Is it lawful for a man to come to be pledged to another master after Christ has become his Master? Is it lawful to renounce father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the Law has commanded us to honor and love next to God himself? ... Is it lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? Will he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment? (3.100)
Interestingly, the post-Lutheran logic is the reverse of the logic upon which Tertullian’s last rhetorical question depends. Luther made a distinction between the two kingdoms: the earthly and the spiritual. As a participant in the earthly kingdom it is the Christian’s duty to wield the sword in the name of whatever state he serves. But as a private citizen the Christian is a subject of the spiritual kingdom and violent self-defense is absolutely prohibited. According to Luther, even in defense of one’s wife and children, a private citizen cannot raise a violent hand against an aggressor. Although we do not generally take it to the same extreme as Luther, most evangelicals today share the same logic. Jesus proscribed self-defense, but said nothing negative about defense of the state. Tertullian’s logic, however, is a different one. For Tertullian, if a man is not willing to defend himself against his own personal enemies, how much less will he be willing to defend against someone else’s enemies? Or, if a man refuses to shed a little blood, why would he consent to wade in it up to his knees?
And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? ... And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? (De Corona XI)
Is the [military] laurel of triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it wet with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be made of some [dead] Christians too. For Christ is also believed among the barbarians. (3.101)
Here Tertullian critiques the so-called glory of war, and names it for what it is: grim death. Interestingly, he also points out that Christians who would war on behalf of Rome are potential slayers of their own brothers in Christ, “for Christ is also believed among the barbarians.” (To my Stone-Campbell friends, this was also one of the chief objections of Alexander Campbell to Christian participation in warfare. Such Christians would be dividing in the name of America or Britain, North or South, what God has joined together in the name of Christ. The current war in Iraq, commended by so many churches in the U.S., is responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi Christians, many of whom were killed by U.S. “smart bombs.”)
Our religion commands us to love even our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us. (3.105)
Tertullian does not take the “enemies” of the dominical proscription to refer merely to interpersonal enemies. To him it is obvious that the proscription includes national enemies equally well.
For men were of old wont to require "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" and to repay with usury "evil with evil;" for, as yet, patience was not on earth, because faith was not either. Of course, meantime, impatience used to enjoy the opportunities which the law gave. That was easy, while the Lord and Master of patience was absent. But after he has supervened, and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to assail even with word, nor to say "fool" even, without "danger of the judgment." Anger has been prohibited, our spirits retained, the petulance of the hand checked, the poison of the tongue extracted. The law has found more than it has lost, while Christ says, "Love your enemies, and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors, that ye may be sons of your heavenly Father." Do you see whom patience gains for us as a Father? In this principal precept the universal discipline of patience is succinctly comprised, since evil-doing is not conceded even when it is deserved. ( Of Patience VI)
There are two points of interest here: (1) Tertullian takes Jesus seriously when Jesus connects the love of enemies with our adoption as sons and daughters by God. For Tertullian, it is be loving our enemies that we become children of God. Accordingly, (2) the prescription to love our enemies is the “principal precept” of the faith.
Having been led thus naturally to speak of the Romans, I shall not avoid the controversy which is invited by the groundless assertion of those who maintain, as a reward of their singular homage to religion, the Romans have been raised to such heights of power as to have become masters of the world; and that so certainly divine are the beings they worship, that those prosper beyond all others, who beyond all others honour them. This, forsooth, is the wages the gods have paid the Romans for their devotion.... But how utterly foolish it is to attribute the greatness of the Roman name to religious merits, since it was after Rome became an empire, or call it still a kingdom, that the religion she professes made its chief progress! Is it the case now? Has its religion been the source of the prosperity of Rome? ... Indeed, how could religion make a people great who have owed their greatness to their irreligion? For, if I am not mistaken, kingdoms and empires are acquired by wars, and are extended by victories. More than that, you cannot have wars and victories without the taking, and often the destruction, of cities. That is a thing in which the gods have their share of calamity. Houses and temples suffer alike; there is indiscriminate slaughter of priests and citizens; and on common treasure.... You certainly can never believe that devotion to religion has evidently advanced to greatness a people who, as we have put it, have either grown by injuring religion, or have injured religion by their growth. Those, too, whose kingdoms have become part of the one great whole of the Roman empire, were not without religion when their kingdoms were taken from them. (Apology XXV)
Tertullian joins the ranks of the Old Testament prophets, here undermining the propaganda of empire and calling imperial expansion no less than what it is—irreligious, unjust, and criminal.
Unless I mistake the matter, the prevention of such associations [of illicit societies] is based on a prudential regard to public order, that the state may not be divided into parties, which would naturally lead to disturbance in the electoral assemblies, the councils, the curiae, the special conventions, even in the public shows by the hostile collisions of rival parties; especially when now, in pursuit of gain, men have begun to consider their violence an article to be bought and sold. But as those in whom all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor is there aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. We acknowledge one all-embracing commonwealth--the world. ( Apology XXXVIII)
Here Tertullian gives an explanation for the fact that Christians do not participate in the government of Rome. In context, interestingly, Tertullian is writing to defend Christians against accusations that have incited the Romans to persecute Christians. Yet Tertullian never cites the persecution as the reason for the Christians’ renunciation of public office. Rather, it is the nature of the Roman state itself, with its vainglorious pursuits and timocratic impulses, that causes the Christians to renounce rule (Mark 10:42-45). A second reason Tertullian gives for the fact of the Christians’ renunciation of public office is no less important, and it is simply that their allegiance is not to Rome but to the whole world. Although this has resonances with the cosmopolitanism of the great Greek philosophers (who also renounced public office), it is perfectly befitting and is certainly derivative of the Judeo-Christian belief in the unity of the Creator God and the fact of his universal dominion. As a believer in such a God, the Christian’s interests are simply much broader than the limited, parochial interests of the Roman Empire.
"In view of Romans 13, no Christian could deny that the empire was ordained of God, but the view that it was ordained because of sin and should be left to sinners was the position of Tertullian" (Roland Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace 83). This was also explicitly the view of Origen, as we'll see later. This view is implicit, in fact, in the majority of the early Christians' writing on the subject.
Labels: Early Christians, Nonviolence, Pacifism
4 Comments:
Although Tertullian was a pacifist throughout his Christian life, I would want to make some attempt to date his comments--so one could see a difference in style/tone/emphasis between his pacifism as an orthodox Christian and his pacifism as a Montanist.
According to Bainton and some others, all of Tertullian's major pacifist works are squarely dated before his move to the Montanists. I pointed this out in ECNV29: Refutations.
I just re-read your comment, Michael, and realized that my reply wasn't actually a reply. So I did some further digging around. Below are the Tertullian quotations again, this time organized Pre-Montanist and Montanist. Afterward is an interesting analysis of Montanism I found online.
PRE-MONTANIST WORKS:
Apology:
If, then, we are commanded to love our enemies (as I have remarked above), whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become just as bad ourselves. Who can suffer injury at our hands?
How often you inflict gross cruelties on Christians. You do this, partly because it is your own inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws.... Yet, banded together as we are, ever so ready to sacrifice our lives, what single case of revenge for injury are you able to point to?
We willingly yield ourselves to the sword. So what wars would we not be both fit and eager to participate in (even against unequal forces), if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay?
The Christian does no harm even to his enemy.
Having been led thus naturally to speak of the Romans, I shall not avoid the controversy which is invited by the groundless assertion of those who maintain, as a reward of their singular homage to religion, the Romans have been raised to such heights of power as to have become masters of the world; and that so certainly divine are the beings they worship, that those prosper beyond all others, who beyond all others honour them. This, forsooth, is the wages the gods have paid the Romans for their devotion.... But how utterly foolish it is to attribute the greatness of the Roman name to religious merits, since it was after Rome became an empire, or call it still a kingdom, that the religion she professes made its chief progress! Is it the case now? Has its religion been the source of the prosperity of Rome? ... Indeed, how could religion make a people great who have owed their greatness to their irreligion? For, if I am not mistaken, kingdoms and empires are acquired by wars, and are extended by victories. More than that, you cannot have wars and victories without the taking, and often the destruction, of cities. That is a thing in which the gods have their share of calamity. Houses and temples suffer alike; there is indiscriminate slaughter of priests and citizens; and on common treasure.... You certainly can never believe that devotion to religion has evidently advanced to greatness a people who, as we have put it, have either grown by injuring religion, or have injured religion by their growth. Those, too, whose kingdoms have become part of the one great whole of the Roman empire, were not without religion when their kingdoms were taken from them.
Unless I mistake the matter, the prevention of such associations [of illicit societies] is based on a prudential regard to public order, that the state may not be divided into parties, which would naturally lead to disturbance in the electoral assemblies, the councils, the curiae, the special conventions, even in the public shows by the hostile collisions of rival parties; especially when now, in pursuit of gain, men have begun to consider their violence an article to be bought and sold. But as those in whom all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we have no pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor is there aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. We acknowledge one all-embracing commonwealth--the world.
Of Patience:
If someone attempts to provoke you by physical violence, the admonition of the Lord is at hand. He says, "To him who strikes you on the face, turn the other cheek also." Let outrageousness be worn out by your patience. Whatever that blow may be, joined with pain and scorn, it will receive a heavier one from the Lord.
For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order.... The commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil.
Christ plainly teaches a new kind of long-suffering, when he actually prohibits the reprisals that the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."
God puts his prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment: "You shall not kill."
"Nation will not take up sword against nation, and they will no more learn to fight." Who else, therefore, does this prophecy apply to, other than us? For we are fully taught by the new law, and therefore observe these practices.... The teaching of the new law points to clemency. It changes the primitive ferocity of swords and lances to tranquility. It remodels the primitive execution of war upon the rivals and enemies of the Law into the peaceful actions of plowing and cultivating the land.
For men were of old wont to require "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" and to repay with usury "evil with evil;" for, as yet, patience was not on earth, because faith was not either. Of course, meantime, impatience used to enjoy the opportunities which the law gave. That was easy, while the Lord and Master of patience was absent. But after he has supervened, and has united the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to assail even with word, nor to say "fool" even, without "danger of the judgment." Anger has been prohibited, our spirits retained, the petulance of the hand checked, the poison of the tongue extracted. The law has found more than it has lost, while Christ says, "Love your enemies, and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors, that ye may be sons of your heavenly Father." Do you see whom patience gains for us as a Father? In this principal precept the universal discipline of patience is succinctly comprised, since evil-doing is not conceded even when it is deserved.
MONTANIST WORKS:
De Corona:
And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? ... And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ's side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? (De Corona XI)
Is the [military] laurel of triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it wet with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be made of some [dead] Christians too. For Christ is also believed among the barbarians. ( 3.101)
I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What point is there in discussing the merely incidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it is lawful for a human oath to be added to one that is divine? Is it lawful for a man to come to be pledged to another master after Christ has become his Master? Is it lawful to renounce father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the Law has commanded us to honor and love next to God himself? ... Is it lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? Will he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment?
To Scapula:
Our religion commands us to love even our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us. (3.105)
Against Marcion:
The Lord will save them in that day—even his people—like sheep.... No one gives the name of "sheep" to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, or those who are killed when repelling force with force. Rather, it is given only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience—rather than fighting in self-defense.
"And they will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears intro pruning hooks." In other words, they will change the dispositions of injurious minds, hostile tongues, blasphemy, and all kinds of evil into pursuits of moderation and peace. "Nation will not lift up sword against nation." That is, they will not stir up conflict. "Neither will they learn war any more"--that is, the provocation of hostilities. So you should learn from this that Christ was not promised to be powerful in war. Rather, he was promised to pursue peace. Now, you must deny either that these things were foretold (although they are plainly seen) or that they have been fulfilled (although you read of them).
[Bishop Bull said: "A clear distinction must be made between those works which Tertullian, when already a Montanist, wrote specifically in defence of Montanism against the church, and those which he composed, as a Montanist indeed, yet not in defence of Montanism against the church, but rather, in defence of the common doctrines of the church—and of Montanus, in opposition to other heretics."]
On Idolatry:
Now inquiry is made about the point of whether a believer may enter into military service. The question is also asked whether those in the military may be admitted into the faith--even the rank and file (or any inferior grade), who are not required to take part in sacrifices or capital punishments.... A man cannot give his allegiance to two masters--God and Caesar.... How will a Christian man participate in war? In fact, how will he serve even in peacetime without a sword? For the Lord has taken the sword away. It is also true that soldiers came to John [the Baptist] and received the instructions for their conduct. It is true also that a centurion believed. Nevertheless, the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier.
Here is the interesting analysis I found on Montanism, which is available here.
The Montanist Oracles, Karlfried Froelich
Literature on the Montanist movement is relatively limited. Adequate collections of sources are found in works by Labriolle (1913), Bonwetsch (1881; Kleine Texte 1914), and Faggiotto (1924). In English, the only monograph is by De Soyres (1877, condensed reprint 1965); helpful studies are contained in the works of W. Ramsey (1893ff.) and W.M.Calder, as well as a chapter by Ronald Knox (Enthusiasm, 1950). The most productive studies are in German: A. Schwegler (1841), of the Tubingen school, argued for the Jewish Christian origin of the movement; A. Ritschl (l850), saw Montanism as a gentile Christian reaction to the growing institutionalism of the faith; Bonwetsch's history of Montanism (1881) has already been mentioned; W. Scheperlern (1929) dealt with Montanism and the Phrygian cults; and most recently Kurt Aland has written a long article in Kirchengeschichtliche Entwurfe (1960) as well as an article in ZNW (1955).
Summary of Aland.
Aland has found very few "new" sources not contained in the older collections other than a couple of "new" inscriptions. The most important sources are the oracles themselves. Like most contemporary scholars, Aland prefers the date given by Eusebius for the beginning of the Montanist movement (172 C.E.), rather than that given by Epiphanius (156/157). Since the last prophetess died by 179, this means that the early period of the movement was rather brief. Aland finds a definite break in the movement following the death of Maximilla with later "prophecy" taking a much different and milder form. Thus Tertullian reflects a later stage of Montanism, even in his eschatology. It may be that Tertullian had little knowledge of the original Montanist prophecies. Aland cautions against thinking of Montanism in its totality as an eschatological movement, except perhaps at the very first; its eschatological outlook was not so very dissimilar from that found in the NT writings. In fact, Aland finds some special coincidences with Johannine material (including Revelation) and sees Montanism as basically an inner-Christian phenomenon, nourished from Christian sources but lacking much of early Christian eschatology. It was largely Asiatic, with little strength in the west.
Further Observations.
The roots of Montanism seem to be genuinely Christian. Perhaps it began as a sort of "hold-on" revival while "catholic Christianity" was being formed, rather than as a revival of Phrygian paganism. Recent studies have also revived the idea that Montanism might be a Jewish Christian heresy; e.g. an article in Byzant. Zeitschrift by Scharf (1966) notes that in 721/722, "Hebrews and Montanists" were forced to be baptized by Leo III, which suggests that by the 8th century, Montanism may have become a form of Jewish messianism, or of nationalist dissent within Byzantine Jewry.
Source Materials and Analysis.
A collection of citations from Montanist oracles (reproduced from Bonwetsch, 1881) was sent out with the notice of this seminar meeting. (Requests for additional copies should be addressed to Dr. Froehlich; a similar convenient collection, but in slightly different sequence, is included in Hilgenfeld's Ketzergeschichte 591ff.--it is noted below by the symbol 'H' where its enumeration differs.) It should be noted that Aland considers 15 of these as original, plus another saying (identified subsequent to Bonwetsch's collection) similar to Bonwetsch #5 (=H #1). "Doubtful" quotations are }## 6, 19, and 21 (=H ##6, 15, post-21), while #17 (=H #20) is a 'report' only; ## 14 and 20 (=H ## 14,16) are not included in Aland's list.
Conclusions.
A study of these texts leads us to conclude that the Johannine parallels claimed by Aland are not nearly as significant as they first seem, since better parallels exist for almost all the quotations in other literature. Even #12 (from Eusebius, EH 5.16-17), which mentions the wolf and the sheep, as well as a trinity of word, spirit, and power, does not actually parallel the gospel of John. The "I am" quotations, likewise, are not strictly Johannine, but have been shown by H. Becker (1956) to be a classic form for gnostic revelatory speech. Indeed, there appear to be a number of gnostic elements in the oracles, both in their general outlook and in their form of speech: the awakening of the revealer (# 1, =H , #2) the two classes in the kingdom (#2, =H #3); the characteristic dream story (# 9); etc. This does not mean that the texts are "gnostic," but that they make use of "gnostic" terminology and imagery, often obscured for us because of the seemingly non-gnostic Montanist chiliasm. However, Epiphanius, in describing the 'Alogoi' (Her. 51), raises the possibility of a chiliastic gnosis, or proto-gnosis, which links the Johannine literature and gnosis by the forms of speech found in the world of Cerinthus. This could be a clue to the heritage of Montanism.
* * *
During the discussion that followed the presentation, various alternate possibilities for the background and origins of Montanism were considered:
(1) There appears to be little possibility that Montanist ideas were derived from the NT, at least as far as the oracles themselves are concerned. Much biblical language is attributed to the Montanists, but this appears only during the later stages ( e.g. Tertullian), when Montanists may have been trying to justify their position from the scriptures. The oracles do seem to have a few verbal analogies to Matthew.
(2) The "gnostic" elements cited in the presentation seem to be explained just as satisfactorily by reference to Jewish apocalyptic ideas (see, e.g. the treatment in Bauer, Rechglaubigkeit, and the thesis of R.M.Grant that Gnosticism is an outworking of frustrated Jewish apocalypticism). Eusebius' anti-Montanist sources may hint at a link between Montanism and Judaism where they claim that Montanists were not being persecuted by Judaism. The possible 8th century link with Judaism has already been noted -- if it really has any relevance for 2nd century Montanism!
(3) These allegedly "gnostic" parallels also show great affinity to common Hellenistic ideas and phenomena, especially ecstatic utterances as described by such authors as Plutarch, Porphyry, or Lucian (e.g.. his Alexander).
(4) The whole Montanist movement fits into the anti-cultural phenomenon of the 2nd century empire, where the anti-Roman and anti-imperial feelings of the Christian rural population were expressed by adherence to Gnosticism or Montanism, with their ecstasies, asceticism, and strong eschatology (see, e.g. the presentation by R.M.Grant in the PSCO minutes 4.2, from 8 November 1966). The strictness of the anti-Montanist laws of Justinian would seem to be for political rather than for purely religious reasons. From this viewpoint, Montanism would be basically Christian -- conservative rural faith set over against sophisticated urban Christianity.
Montanism also seems to preserve something of the charismatic nature of early Christianity vs. its later institutionalization (even if we should be wary of its prophecies). Further, it seems to preserve something of the original egalitarianism between the genders at a time when "orthodoxy" was becoming more patriarchal and restricting women's roles in home, church, and society.
Montanism's preservation of early Christian pacifism could be a part of all that. It's basic impulse seems to be--dare I say it?--restorationist.
I doubt we have enough original documents to decide whether mainstream evangelical Protestants today would agree with the ancient church in labelling Montanism a heresy. But we should be cautious and certainly not throw out Tertullian's pacifist witness because of his attraction to Montanism in his old age.
Post a Comment
<< Home