I. Introductory and Methodological Considerations

It will be our intent in this paper to consider the use of charismata1 in the Christian communities of the second century A.D., and to assess the significance of the use (and eventual disuse) of charismata for our understanding of the religious intentionality of Christianity in this period. "Charismata" denoted for early Christian writers a variety of ecstatic phenomena associated with worship, especially prophecy and glossolalia.2 The term could also be used to denote non-ecstatic "gifts of grace" as love (I Cor. 13) and service performed in love (I Pet. 4:10),3 but we wish to take the term in the former sense for the purposes of this paper.4 The term was also used in this (i.e., ecstatic) sense by the writers of the second century with whose works we shall be particularly concerned. The time span we are proposing to cover corresponds roughly to the second century A.D., although some of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (e.g. 1 Clement) may date from late in the first century, and it will be helpful to refer to third and even fourth century writers and historians in our efforts to evaluate events and processes which occurred or began in the second century.

This subject is of particular interest because of the significant implications of the term itself and because of the period in which we are considering it. The word itself is one of the few terms used in a technical sense by early Christian writers to describe a particular set of religious experiences. Thus a consideration of it, and of phenomena related to it, across the spectrum of Christian groups in the second century offers a unique opportunity to study this aspect of the religious intentionality of Christians in this period, i.e., the particular manners in which these Christians expressed ultimate meaning and values.5 Further, the time period with which we shall be concerned is of interest insofar as many persons have seen this as the period in which an earlier, more "charismatic" form of leadership in the Church was replaced by a more monarchical form of ecclesiastical government.6 In this paper, we shall be concerned with a related process, although our focus will be on a shift in religious intentionality, rather than in sociological or ecclesiastical structures. The largest part of this paper will be concerned with a positive inquiry into the precedents for the use of charismata in Hellenistic culture in general and in the New Testament in particular (Section II), the use of charismata in the church at large in the second century (Section III), and the seclusion and decline in the use of charismata illustrated in the rise of Montanism and reflected in various works (Section IV). The concluding part of this paper (Section V) will attempt to interpret these data by reference to categories derived from the comparative/phenomenological study of religion.

II. Context and Precedents

The use of charismata by the Christians of the second century may be seen in the context of Hellenistic religion, in general, and in continuity with preceding Christian uses, in particular. Forms of religious experience similar to those understood by early Christians to be charismata, especially prophecy, were quite well known in the world of late antiquity. This is indicated in the following report of a later classical source, Origen's interlocutor Celus:

Here we have reference not only to the multitude of prophets known in late antiquity, but also an indication of their ecstatic behavior. Further, the reference to unintelligible speech suggests a form of religious experience akin to glossolalia. Additional evidence for the frequency of prophetic figures can be drawn from Suetonius, who reported that Augustus ordered more than two thousand anonymous or pseudonymous prophetic books to be burned.8 The ability to speak in a putatively divine language was attributed to Alexander of Abonutichus, who was said to utter "unintelligible vocables which sounded like Hebrew or Phoenician."9 E. R. Dodds attributes the rise of oracles and "private" prophets (i.e., those not attached to a temple) in late antiquity to the general insecurity of the Roman world and to religious anxiety brought about by the pluralism of religious beliefs in the culture.l0 Due to the division between material and spiritual realms which was characteristic of the world view of late antiquity, religious experiences were often understood to be divine messages conveyed through mediators variously referred to as demons, angels, aions, or spirits (pneumata). Further, it seems to have been characteristic of such experiences that they were interpreted as "invasions" of the human personality:

We shall find much the same types of religious experiences and interpretations of those experiences in the early Christian communities.

As we have noted above, the term charismata in the New Testament can denote ecstatic religious experiences and also non-ecstatic "gifts" believed to derive from divine grace. In three lists, at I Cor. 12:8-10, I Cor. 12:28-29, and Rom. 12:6-8 both sorts of "gifts" appear with no distinctions drawn between them. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the sense of ecstatic experience is primary,13 and, at any rate, the discussion in I Cor. 12 and 14 centers around glossolalia and prophecy.14 Paul's argument in I Cor. 14 presupposes that glossolalia was regarded as most important in the Corinthian congregation, perhaps because of the strength of emotion associated therewith.15 Consistent with the view of inspiration by divine "possession" prevalent in the Hellenistic culture of late antiquity, Paul understood glossolalia to be intelligible to God, though not to humans (I Cor. 14:2).16 The fact that glossolalia was unintelligible to speaker or hearer was the principle differentia which distinguished it from prophecy,17 and so Paul held that glossolalia and interpretation thereof together were as desirable as prophecy (I Cor. 14:5b).

Of the charismata, prophecy is the most frequently mentioned in the New Testament and elsewhere. Prophets appear to have comprised an "estate" in the church, generally reckoned to be below apostles and above teachers (I Cor. 12:28; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; Rev. 18:20; Acts 13:1), whose office was exercised primarily in worship (I Cor. 11:14; 14:23f.; 29f.; cf. Didache 10:7; 11:9).18 The importance of prophets in Palestinian Christianity is also brought to light by form-critical analysis of the text of the Gospels, which suggests that some of the sayings attributed to Jesus were uttered by Christian prophets.19 The Acts of the Apostles suggests that visionary experiences were frequently associated with prophecy (Acts 10:9-16- 16:9- 18:9; 22:17-21; 27:23-24),20 and two passages suggest that Christian prophets spoke in the person of the Spirit (Acts 13:2 and 21:11).21 In I Cor. 12-14 we may perceive a tension between the use of charismata and the church order,22 not only in relation to glossolalia, but also to prophecy, since the particular gift of "discernment" (I Cor.12:10; 14:29-33) seems to have reference to the discovery of false prophets.23 Numerous references throughout the New Testament to false prophets24 point not only to the prominence of prophecy in the religious experience of the earliest Christian communities, but also to the tension which prophecy brought to ecclesiastical discipline. Nevertheless, at this point the only objective criterion which Paul gives for the evaluation of the users of charismata is their faithfulness to the confession of Jesus' lordship (I Cor. 12:3; cf. I John 4:1f.).

The term charisma itself, and its equivalent in I Cor. 12, pneumatikon, render valuable information on the manner in which the Christians of the New Testament period understood the various experiences denoted by them. Hans Conzelmann explains that the term charismata ". . . is suited from the very start to be an equivalent of pneumatika since of course charis also has in Hellenistic Greek the sense of a supernatural power or force, thus is akin to pneuma"25 Thus the very terminology employed by the early Christian authors suggests that the charismata were understood to be divine invasions of the human personality, consistent with what we have seen to be a common understanding in Hellenistic culture. The evidence which we have reviewed above which shows that Christian prophecy was connected with visionary experiences, that Christian prophets spoke in the person of God (or the Spirit), and that glossolalia was believed to be intelligible to God tends also to this conclusion.

III. The Use of Charismata in the Wider Church in the Second Century

It will be our concern in this and the next sections to evaluate the evidence from ancient sources which indicate to us something about the Christian use of charismata in the second century and the ways in which these phenomena were understood by them. In this particular section we shall be concerned with evidences for the use of charismata in the Christian groups which in retrospect are reckoned to have been orthodox, whereas in the next section we shall consider evidence for the seclusion of charismata in heterodox groups and for the eventual decline in the use of charismata. Although the sequence thus portrayed is roughly chronological, insofar as a decline in the use of charismata seems to have followed upon a period of relatively more frequent use, the material we are presenting is divided analytically, and so there may be considerable chronological overlap in the material presented in these two sections.26

There seems to be general agreement that the use of charismata by Christians in the church at large persisted into the second century and beyond, in spite of the development of more institutional forms of ecclesiastical government with which the users of charismata have often seemed at odds:

Although some have expressed doubts as to whether glossolalia continued to be practiced,28 we shall see evidence that it too continued to be used in the wider church. Although the Apostolic Fathers volunteer little information on the use of charismata, two important facts emerge from their writings: (1) First, it is clear that the office of charismatic prophet was of some importance in the church in the early second century, since Hermas and the Didache devote some space to discussions of this office.29 (2) Second, it is clear that the controversy over "false prophets" continued into this period, since Didache 13 is especially concerned with the discernment of true and false prophets.30 In contrast to Paul, who had asserted that the prophets were to be evaluated by their faithfulness to the confession of Christ (I Cor. 12:3) and possibly by the special charisma of "discernment" (I Cor. 12:10; 14:29f.), the Didache suggests that the prophets should be evaluated by their moral behavior, viz., whether they attempt to exact a fee.31 Although some would take Ignatius' prophecy in the person of the Holy Spirit and in defence of the episcopate (Phil. 7:2) to indicate that there was no conflict between the charismatic and episcopal interests32 or that in some areas the bishops had taken over the office of prophet,33 I see no reason why this passage should not be taken as an attempted legitimization of the episcopal office by appeal to the prophets' own source of authority (the Spirit). At any rate, the evidence from Hermas and the Didache leaves no doubt that there was a continuing and widespread concern amongst leaders of the wider church over disreputable and heretical prophets.

The Apologists offer a bit more detail concerning the use of charismata. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Justin Martyr makes much of the claim that whereas prophecy and other charismata were no longer practiced in Judaism, they continued to be practiced by Christian women and men,34 in fulfillment of the scriptures.35 Although in the Dialogue Justin mentions only prophecy in particular, he refers to charismata (in the plural) on three occasions,36 and in his Apology he referred to miraculous healings and exorcisms worked by Christians.37 Further, both Athenagoras and the Cohortatio ad Graecos (attributed by some to Justin) describe the invasion of the human personality by the divine Spirit with an analogy to be used later by Montanus, that of the strings of a musical instrument made to sound by a plectrum.38 This would suggest that Christians of this period understood the human personality to be passive or inactive during the divine invasion, and this understanding is clearly consistent with the prophets' speaking in the person of God (or the Spirit) which we have observed above.

During the period of the Montanist movement, the anti-Montanist author quoted by Eusebius asserted that it was the wider church, not the Montanists, who had preserved the prophetic charisma.39

In several passages Irenaeus indicated that the charismata continued to be used late in the second century, and indicated more particularly what he understood these to be. He asserted, as Justin had done, that men and women exercised the prophetic of fice.40 Expressing a similar concern as the Didache, he asserted that the church used the charismata, "neither practicing deception... nor taking any reward...."41 The wording of this passage suggests a continuation of the concern over "false prophets" which we have noted at every point up to this. In one passage he referred to the use of glossolalia in addition to prophecy:

In another passage he indicated that Christians in his day had performed exorcisims, healings, and even resurrections from the dead.43 Irenaeus may have even reflected Montanist language when he took tois teleiois in I Cor. 2:6 to denote those "who have received the Spirit of God";44 but Irenaeus clearly spoke from the standpoint of the wider church, since part of the same work was directed against the Montanists.45

There are references to charismata among the Christians after the second century, but none so dramatic as previous cases. Cyprian reports on two occasions receiving messages from God, by way of prayer46 or a dream or vision.47 Eusebius refers to charismata in general, but lists only "a word of wisdom," "a word of knowledge," and "faith" (these being clearly derived from I Cor. 12:8-9).48 Athanasius refers to charismata in general,49 to miracles,50 and to "the gift of discernment."51 Cyril of Jerusalem refers to charismata in general52 and asserted that prophecy and exorcism were both exercised in the church in his day.53 These references, however, might rely more on scriptural accounts of charismata utilized in intra-Christian polemics than on the actual practice of the church. Cyril's statement might indicate no more than that the institutionalized offices of "Prophet" and "Exorcist" were recognized in his day. As we shall see, there is evidence that by this time the charismata were not widely practiced in the church. At this point we may observe that charismata of various sorts continued to be practiced by Christians throughout the second and into the third centuries, with some consistency in the manners in which these experiences were interpreted.

IV. The Seclusion and Decline of Charismata

The tension between "false" and (from someone's standpoint) "true" prophets which we have observed to be a continuing phenomenon reveals how charismata were practiced not only by Christians in the communions which in hindsight were regarded as orthodox, but also in more or less independent, heterodox groups. "Orthodox" polemical works of the second and later centuries are rife with references to such works. One document reported by Hippolytus and Epiphanius, but which dates from early in the second century, the "Book of Elchasai," will serve as an example. The extant fragments of this work show that it is purportedly the record of a vision in which an angel revealed hidden truths to the prophet Elchasai. References to "the Christ" and "the Holy Spirit" indicate that it is in some sense a Christian work; and yet its prescription of a second baptism, invocation of "the seven elements" in prayers for healing, and use of astrological speculation indicate its highly unorthodox theology.54 Various reports, some of which we have seen above, indicate that such prophets and prophetic groups must have been extremely common in late antiquity. Hippolytus, early in the third century, gives two examples of contemporary prophetic groups, one of which had been convinced by its leader to wander out into the desert to await the Lord's advent.55

We come, then, to consider Montanism, the most important prophetic movement of the second century. The dialectic between Montanism and the wider Church is crucial to our understanding of the charismata in the second century, and for this reason it will be necessary to examine the origins and distinctive features of the movement, the use of charismata in the movement, and the manner in which the wider church responded to the movement. The date of the rise of Montanism has been much disputed: Pelikan circumspectly suggests ". . . sometime between about 135 and 175."56 Nevertheless, Eusebius suggested that the inception of the movement was in 172 A.D., and most modern scholars are inclined to prefer his date.57 The sources available for the study of Montanism are almost all prejudiced against the movement, and some indicate considerable confusion over it.58 As regards the origin of Montanism, some have tried to show that it had its basis in the pagan Phrygian cult, but this theory has been discarded since there are adequate precedents within Christianity for the movement.59 More likely is the view that the Montanist movement arose as a Christian response to the historical background of Roman defeats, natural disasters, and a renewed persecution of the Christians, all of which occurred in the late 60's of the second century.60

As to the issue of what was distinctive about Montanism, several answers may be considered. First, the dogmatic position of Montanism was admitted to have been orthodox by ancient polemical as well as sympathetic writers,61 and thus its primary distinguishing mark must not have been in this area. Some even suggest that the Montanist emphasis on the Holy Spirit, via Tertullian, may have helped the church in its formulation of its trinitarian dogma; so Timothy Barnes notes the paradox in that "Tertullian helped to rescue the Catholic Church from theological heresy precisely because he was a Montanist."62 Second, the suggestion that the distinguishing characteristic of Montanism was the "suppression of personality" during divine revelations63 must be rejected, since we have seen this (the suppression of the human personality) to be quite consistent with prior Christian and Hellenistic interpretations of such revelations. Third, the claim that Montanus actually held himself to be the Paraclete must be regarded as a distortion of the prophetic use of the first person singular to speak the words of God.64 Nevertheless, Montanism purported to be based upon a unique divine mission, as is evidenced by: 1) the use of the title "the New Prophecy" to describe the movement;65 and 2) the consistent designation of the Spirit as "the Paraclete," suggesting that with the Montanists the prophecies of John 14-16 had been fulfilled, whilst the apostles were held by the Montanists not to have received the Paraclete.66 This last point, i.e., the Montanist claim of the fulfillment of the Johannine Paraclete prophecies, has been noted by many interpreters as the central distinguishing mark of Montanism.67 Some have suggested that the Montanists went so far as to suppress the New Testament writings in favor of their own scriptures,68 but I have as yet not seen evidence for this.

The sectarian character of Montanism is well evidenced by many of the polemical works which supply our knowledge of the movement, but it is possible that its own unusual organization (i.e., as a movement outside of the wider church) may have come later than the first stirrings of the movement. Tertullian's break with the church did not come until 212 A.D. (from which time there was a separate sect of "Tertullianists" which persisted for two centuries).69 The Montanist Church evidently had greater strength in some particular areas: one ancient church historian asserted that the only Christians in Thyatira in 250 were Montanists,70 and Eusebius reported that there were still gome Montanigtg in the fourth century A.D.71 The Montanists evidently developed a unique style of ecclesiastical organization, which involved "patriarchs " at Pepuza, " stewards, " and local priests referred to as "bishops."72 The Montanists evidently committed some of their prophecies to writing, although none of their books have survived.73 The emphasis on the Paraclete prophecies and references to the advent of Christ suggest that the movement had an apocalyptic tone.74 In the Montanism represented by Tertullian there were some different emphases than we find expressed in the Montanism of Montanus, Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla. It is thus difficult to specify the extent to which the emphases of one phase may apply to the other. Harnack held that the phase

*MISSING pp.14,15.*

and perhaps most important, the Montanist prophecy presented a challenge to the form of ecclesiastical authority which was developing in the wider church. In response to Gnosticism, Marcionitism, and various heresies, the church was developing a view of dogmatic authority based on the apostolic canon of scripture, the traditional regula fidei and the monarchical episcopate. However much Montanism's prophetic authority may have had precedents in earlier ages of the church, it was perceived as a challenge to the church's present authority.102 In the words of von Campenhausen, the Montanists'

Evidence for a decline in the use of charismata in the wider church after the time of Montanism is available from several sources. Although some modern interpreters would date this decline to early in the second century 104 or to the middle of the second century,105 the evidence from the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists, Irenaeus, and others for the continuity in the use of charismata argues against such early datings. Clear evidence of such a decline comes in the third century from Origen, who in contention with Celsus stated clearly that signs of the Spirit's presence were less common in his day:

Origen denies the veracity of Celsus' reports of Christian prophecy:

Although Celsus' reports of Christian prophets may have been accurate, Origen's attitude indicates that by this time the exercise of the prophetic charisma was becoming rare in the church.108 Although Eusebius' Anti- Montanist source argued that the gift of prophecy was still in use in his day, Eusebius' own attitude was different, as he indicates in his introductory comments on Montanism. The Montanists, he wrote

This apology for the presence of charismata in the Montanist movement as well as in the wider church in an earlier day must indicate that such phenomena were uncommon in the fourth century when Eusebius wrote. Later still, John Chrysostom recorded the memory that glossolalia once accompanied baptism, but he noted that it no longer did so.110 Thus from the evidence of the Church's reaction to Montanism, and from the evidence of Christian writers from the third and fourth centuries, one concludes that after the end of the second century charismata were increasingly rare phenomena in the church. Reasons for this decline have been given by various interpreters: James L. Ash argues on the basis of Tertullian's objections to the bishops that the rise of the monarchical episcopate and the related emphasis on the authority of the tradition as opposed to immediate revelation led to this decline.111 Von Campenhausen suggests that ". . . the increasing hellenisation of the church with its emphasis on the spirituality and rationality of the faith…"112 may have led to a decline in emphasis on ecstatic experiences, and Pelikan argues that (among other things) the delay of the apocalypse might have eventually eroded the credibility of prophecy.113 It does not seem to me that these reasons are self - contradictory; in fact, all would seem to arise out of the church's actual situation in the latter part of the second century, i.e., that of a growing religious community in the Roman Empire, separated from its original apocalyptic vision by over a hundred years, and striving, on the one hand, to demonstrate the reasonableness of its faith to persons throughout the Empire, and, on the other hand, to establish unity within its own ranks by the tightening of ecclesiastical discipline.

V. Charismata as Indicative of Religious Intentionality

At this point it will be helpful to summarize the conclusions we have reached in our positive inquiry into the Christian use of charismata in the second century A.D. Ecstatic religious experiences, especially prophecy and (to a lesser extent) glossolalia, were seen to have been commonly practiced in the Hellenistic society of late antiquity and in the Christian communities represented by the New Testament writings, where the term charismata was applied to such experiences. Similar experiences were seen to have characterized the life of Christians in general through the second century, as is evidenced by the Apostolic Fathers, the Apologists, and Irenaeus. Throughout the New Testament and the second century writings there was seen to be a continuing dialectic with "false prophets" which indicates a covert conflict over ecclesiastical authority. This conflict was seen to have come to an overt crisis in the Montanist controversy. The Church's reaction to Montanism and the writings of third and fourth century Christians indicate that the use of charismata became increasingly rare after the end of the second century. We have seen how the charismata were consistently interpreted by the ancients as invasions of the human personality by a divine Spirit.

The use of modern language to describe distant historical phenomena itself implies some degree of comparison and interpretation. We now propose to sharpen our consideration of the use of charismata by the Christian groups of the second century by comparing this and interpreting it in the light of categories derived from the historical/phenomenological study of religion. Frederick J. Streng posits four "traditional ways of being religious" which may be discerned in various combinations and degrees in positive traditional religions, and which represent various ways in which religious persons and groups express ultimate values and meanings.114 Two of these four categories will be useful for our consideration: 1) "Personal Apprehension of a Holy Presence," characterized by the positing of a separation between the sacred and the secular which is overcome by a personal and extraordinary experience of the sacred (given its classic phenomenological description in Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy);115 and 2) "Sacred Action: Myth and Symbol," characterized by the positing of a separation between the sacred and the secular which is overcome by the use of symbols and rituals and by the recognition of sacred persons, times, and places.116 These two "modes of ultimate transformation" have in common the positing of a separation between the secular and sacred realms, which was characteristic of the world-view of late antiquity,117 and I would suggest that both may be seen as responses to such a world-view. Further, I see evidence which suggests that both of these types of religious intentionality characterized the earliest Christianity. The use of charismata and especially the widespread use of prophecy in the communities represented by the New Testament are indicative of a religious intentionality in which the sacred is experienced through extraordinary experiences. It is probable that such experiences were characteristic of Jesus himself.118 One important nuance, however, of the religious experience (in the extraordinary or ecstatic sense) of early Christianity is its positing of a mediator (the Spirit) thereby lessening somewhat the directness of the apprehension of the divine. This is, of course, consistent with the general positing of mediators common in the religiosity of late antiquity.119 On the other hand, the use of symbolism, especially in the Johannine literature, but throughout the New Testament, the use of sacramental rites (the eucharist and baptism), and the tradition of a sacred myth (the kerygma) are indicative of a religious intentionality in which the sacred is experienced through myth and symbol. I would repeat at this point that none of Streng's categories are exclusive and thus it is quite possible that both of these modes were present together in early Christianity.

The positive historical evidence presented in this paper, however, suggests that the encounter with the sacred through extraordinary experiences became considerably less important in the Christianity of the wider or normative traditions than it had been previously, and thus that the encounter with the sacred through myth and symbol came to be regarded as normative in Christianity from this time. The widespread use of charismata in the earlier period indicates that Christians considered themselves to be encountering the divine, indeed, considered themselves to have been invaded or possessed by the divine. The negative reaction of the church to this same type of experience in Montanism, and the later absence of this type of experience in the church, indicates an important shift in the religious intentionality of early Christianity which, as I see it, had enormous consequences for subsequent Christian history.

I would like to qualify my conclusion by the following observations: 1) I am not suggesting that there was a transition from the religiosity of extraordinary experience to that of myth and symbol. As I see it, these two were bound together in the religious experience of the early Christians. My

1 suggestion is that after the end of the second century certain elements suggestive of the religious intentionality of extraordinary or ecstatic experience disappear. 2) I have used the term suggests in stating my conclusion to indicate that this paper has considered only a controlled section of the evidence available for the study of the religious intentionality of second century Christianity. Nevertheless, the conclusion bears some importance insofar as the controlled section of the evidence which we have considered (viz., that concerned with the Christian use of charismata in this period) is in itself a significant indicator of religious experience and the Christians' understanding thereof. Finally, 3) I think that it is possible to see this shift in religious intentionality as related to a contemporaneous shift in ecclesiastical structure, from more charismatic (derived from the authority of the prophet's extraordinary experience of the sacred) to more authoritarian (based on the authority of the myths and symbols which were held to convey the sacred); a more sociological transition which has been explored by Adolf Harnack and Hans von Campenhausen.

1 Although this term (which we shall use in its singular and plural forms) would normally be italicized because it is a transliteration (via the Latin) of a Greek term, we shall use it so frequently in this paper that constant italicizing would be cumbersome. We are, nevertheless, using the transliterated form instead of its more usual English translations ("charisms," "spiritual gifts") to underscore the fact that it is the ancient. use of the term with which we shall be concerned.

2 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "charisma," by Hans Conzelmann.

3 Ibid.

4 It can be argued that the term is used of non-ecstatic gifts only in an extended sense, since the context of I Cor. 12 and 14 implies that the Corinthian recipients of this epistle understood the term in its ecstatic sense. The use of the term charisma to describe love (and faith and hope?) in I Cor. 13 would thus represent Paul's attempt to broaden the understanding of the Corinthians by an extension of the reference of the term. The use of the term in I Peter is considerably later. Cf. Hans Conzelmann, I Corinthians, Hermeneia Series (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 204 and n. 7.

5 We are proposing to use the term "religious intentionality" as defined by Frederick J. Streng in Understanding Religious Life (Encino, California: Dickenson Publishing Co., second edition, 1976), pp. 5-9 and passim. A more explicit delineation of our understanding of this concept will be given in section V of this paper.

6 Adolph Harnack, History of Dogma, 5 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1907), 2:1-168.

7 0rigen, Contra Celsum 7:9, given in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; English translation ed. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965), 2:685 and n. 1. Although some have maintained that this is a reference to Christian (Montanist) prophets, the commentator on this passage in Hennecke rejects this view on the authority of Labriole.

8 Suetonius Div August 31; cited in E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (New York: W. W. Norton Co., 1965), p. 56.

9 Lucian Alex 13; cited in Dodds, p. 55, n. 1.

10 Dodds, p. 57.

11 Ibid., p. 38.

12 James L. Ash, Jr., "The Decline of Ecstatic Prophecy in the Early Church," Theological Studies 37 (June 1976): 230. For a specific example of the first person singular in reference to a god, cf. the citation from Contra Celsum above.

13 Vid. n. 4 above.

14 "In 1 C. 12-14 and R. 12 Paul describes as charismata the ecstatic phenomena at worship which are regarded as operations of the Spirit, notably speaking in tongues and prophecy" (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "charisma, " by Hans Conzelmann).

15 Conzelmann. I Corinthians, p. 233.

16 Cf. Dodds, p. 55, n. 1.

l7 Maurice Barnett, The Living Flame (London: Epworth Press, 1953), p. 127.

18 Philip Vielhauer, Introduction to "Apocalypses and Related Subjects" in Hennecke, 2:605.

19 Ibid., p. 606.

20 Cf. Barnett, p. 127.

21 Cf. Ash, p. 130 and n. 24; Dodds, p. 58.

22 Hans Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1976), p. 259.

23 Ash, p. 232; Hans von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1969), pp. 182-184.

24 Matt. 7:15; 24:11; 24:24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; II Pet. 2:1; I John 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; and 20:10. Von Campenhausen takes references in the Acts to Barjesus-Elymas (13:6-12), the Ephesian Jews who attempted to exorcise in Jesus' name (19:13-17), and Simon Magus (8:9-24) to be references to false prophets; von Campenhausen, p. 184.

25 Conzelmann, I Corinthians, pp. 207-208. This would refute the notion of Arthur Carl Piepkorn that pneumatika and charismata were for Paul two separate subjects: Arthur Carl Piepkorn, "Charisma in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers," Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (June 1971), pp. 369-375 passim. Piepkorn's thesis rests on the conviction that there is an abrupt change of subjects at I Cor. 12:4, and that charismata never denoted ecstatic gifts until transliterated into Latin by Tertullian; all of which I find to be refuted by evidence presented in this paper which suggests a common Christian understanding of the meaning of charismata.

26 In a previous draft of this paper an attempt was made to delineate a more specific chronological sequence, showing frequent use of the charismata until the middle of the second century, a decline in the use of charismata around the middle of the second century, a revival of their use in Montanism, and another decline following thereafter. Upon reflection, it seems that such a scheme is not feasible, since: 1) there is no compelling evidence for a decline in the use of the charismata in the middle of the second century except for the polemical assertions of the Montanists; 2) there is in fact evidence for at least a limited use of the charismata during and after the Montanist period; and 3) the sequence thus depicted does not account for the sectarian (i.e., not generalized) character of the Montanist "revival" of the charismata.

27 Von Campenhausen, p. 178; cf. John DeSoyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church A study in the Ecclesiastical History of the Second Century (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., and London: George Bell and Sons, 1878; reprinted Lexington, Kentucky: The American Theological Library Association, 1965), p. 65.

28 Von Campenhausen, p. 189; G. B. Caird, The Apostolic Age London: Gerald Duckworth and Co., 1955), p.61, where it is asserted that glossolalia "died out within a generation" (of I Corinthians).

29 Hermas Mand 11; Didache 13; cf. Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiler, The History of the Primitive Church, 2 vols. (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1946), 2:654.

30 Von Campenhausen, pp. 184-186.

31 Didache 13; cf. Ash, pp. 232-233.

32 Walter C. Klein, "The Church and Its Prophets," Anglican Theological Review 44 (January 1962): 9.

33 Ash, pp. 233-235.

34Justin Dial 82, 87, 88.

35 Justin Dial 39.

36 Justin Dial 39, 87, 88.

37 Justin Apol 2:6.

38 Athenagoras Legat 7; Cohortatio ad Graecos 8; cf. Dodds, p. 64 and n. 2; DeSoyres, pp. 66-68.

39 Eusebius HE 5:17:4- cited in Eusebius A. Stephanou, "The Charismata in the Early Church Fathers," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 21 (Summer 1976): 132. Stephanou dates the Anti-Montanist writer in Eusebiug to the period 160-195 A.D.

40 Irenaeus Haer 3:11; 5:6; Ap Pred 99.

41 Irenaeus Haer 2:32:4; cited in Stephanou, p. 134.

42 Irenaeus Haer 5:6:1; cited in Stephanou, p. 134.

43 Iranaeus Haer 2:32:4; cited in Stephanou, p. 134.

44 Irenaeus Haer 5:6:1; cited in Stephanou, p. 134. The observation that this may reflect Montanist language is my own, not Stephanou's.

45 Cf. the passage cited above, Haer 3:11.

46 Cyprian Ep 11:3-6.

47 Cyprian Ep 66:10.

48 Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms 76:16-17.

49 Athanasius Ep 3:5.

50 deg;Athanasius Ep 49:9.

51 Athanasius Ep 1:4.

52 Cyril of Jerusalem Myst Cat 13:23.

53 Cyril of Jerusalem Myst Cat 16:12.

54 Given in Hennecke, 2:745-750.

55 Hippolytus In Danial 3:18-19; cited in Lebreton and Zeiler, 2:655.

56 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1971 et seqq.), 1:97.

57 Thus Timothy Barnes, "The Chronology of Montanism," Journal of Theological Studies 21 (October 1970): 403-408, who asserts: 1) that Eusebius' and Epiphanius' dates are contradictory; 2) that Epiphanius' evidence is suspect because it is self-contradictory and errs in many other particular dates in this period; and 3) an obscure passage from Tertullian's lost work De Ecstasi (in Jerome De Vir Ill 24, 40, and 53) holds Montanism to have arisen forty years previously, and this would concur with Eusebius' date. With von Campenhausen, p. 181, n. 15; Stephanou, p. 132; and Dodds, p. 63, n. 3; contra DeSoyres, pp. 25-26.

58 Pelikan, 1:97. The primary sources for the study of Montanism are: Eusebius HE 5:16-19; Epiphanius Pan Haer 48-49; Hippolytus Ref 8:12; Firmilian Ep ad Cyprianum (inter opp. Cypiian Ep 75); and valious references in other works, especially in Tertullian's ascetic treatises. Irenaeus indicates considerable confusion over the movement in his assertion that the Montanists "set aside the gift of prophecy from the church" (Irenaeus Haer 3:11:9; cited in Stephanou, p. 132).

59 This negative conclusion on the Phrygian origin of Montanism was the conclusion of Wilhelm Schepelern's decisive study Der Montanismus and die phrygischen Kulte (1929); cited in Pelikan, 1:98; with von Campenhausen, p. 181, n. 16; and Dodds, p. 63, n. 2; contra Barnett, p. 124.

60 Timothy Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1971), pp. 130-131.

61 Epiphanius Pan Haer 48:1; Firmilian Ep ad Cyprianum rinter opp. Cyprian Ep 75); Hippolytus Ref 8: 12; Philaster Liber de Haeresibus 49; Tertullian Ieiun l; Monog 2; cf. von Campenhausen, p. 188; DeSoyres, pp. 68-77: Pelikan. 1:105-106.

62 Barnes, Tertullian, p. 142; cf. Pelikan, 1:105.

63 Barnett, p. 124.

64 Von Campenhausen, p. 182, n. 18; on the authority of Schepelern's study.

65 Eusebius HE 5:16:4; 5:19:2; Clement of Alexandria Strom 4:13:93; Tertullian Monog 14; Ieiun l; Res 63; Marc 3:24; 4:44, Adu Prax 30, Firmilian Ep ad Cyprianum (inter opp. Cyprian Ep 75); cited in Harnack, 2:99, n. 2.

66Hippolytus Ref 8:12; cited in Harnack, 2:99, n. 2.

67Harnack, 2:99; von Campenhausen, p. 187; DeSoyres, pp. 53ff.; Barnett, p. 122.

68J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper and Row, second edition, 1960), pp. 58-59. Kelly's language suggests that at some point the Montanists (may have?) referred to the New Testament writings aspristina instrumenta, but he does not specify this locus, and I have been unable to find it.

69Barnett, p. 117.

70Sozomen HE 2:30; cited in R. A. Knox, Enthusiasm: A Chapter in the History of Religion (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press,1950), p. 34, n. 3.

7'Eusebius HE 5:17; cited in Knox, p. 34, n. 4.

72Jerome Ep 41; cited (by a different number) in Knox, p. 32, n. 1.

73Hippolytus Ref 8:12; cited in Hennecke, 2:685, n. 2; cf. Eusebius HE 6:20:3.

74 Apocalyptic references are in Epiphanius Pan Haer 48:2:4, and 49:1:2-3. These pasgageg, and the Paraclete sayings we have noted before, would seem to refute the view of Schneemelcher, that Montanism represented ". . . a restoration of early Christian prophecy in which the Apocalyptic (sic) world of ideas falls into the background" (Hennecke 2:688).

75 Harnack, 2:96-104.

76 Barnes, Tertullian, pp. 132-141-

77 Tertullian, De Pud l; cited in Harnack, 2:105, n. 2.

78 Tertullian, De Pud 21; Ieiun 11; cited in Klein, pp. 16-17, n. 55. This is Pauline language (I Cor. 2:14-15), but the distinction was used widely in the second century, e.g., in certain Gnostic documents, and in the works of Origen.

79 Epiphaniug Pan Haer 48:1; my translation.

80 Tertullian De Anima 9; translation of Holmes in ANF, 3:188.

81 This passage in Tertullian refutes the assertion of the Anti-Montanist in Eusebius HE 5:17:4, who held that there had been no prophets in the Montanist movement since the death of Maximilla.

82Montanist sayings nos. 1-3, given in Hennecke, 2:686.

83 Montanist sayings nos. 11-12, given in Hennecke, 2:687.

84 Montanist sayings nos. 6-10, given in Hennecke, 2:686-687; cf. Tertullian Virg Vel 17, where a prophetess receives explicit instructions on the necessary length of a woman's veil; cf. Pelikan, 1:100-101.

85 Eusebius HE 5:16:7; cf. Klein, p. 15, n. 52; Barnett, p. 119.

86 Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. "ekstasis."

87 Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. "ekstasis. "

88 Cf. the Anti-Montanist in Eusebius HE 5:16:7; Epiphanius Pan Haer 48:4:1.

89 Cf. the title of Tertullian's lost work, De Ecstasi

90 Montanist sayings nos. 1-6, 13, in Hennecke, 2:686-687.

91 Pelikan, 1:102; cf. Hennecke, 2:688.

92 Epiphanius Pan Haer 48:4:1; cited in Hennecke, 2:686.

93 Von Campenhausen, p. 181.

94 Eusebius HE 5:16:10; translation of Hugh Jackson Lawlor and John Ernest Oulton, Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History and the Martyrs of Palestine, 2 vols. (London: SPCK, 1954), 1:160.

95 Tertullian Adv Prax l; translation of Holmes in ANF, 3:597; cf. Klein, p. 12; Barnes, Tertullian, p. 82.

96 Translation of Lawlor and Oulton, 1:149.

97 Harnack, 2:97; DeSoyres, pp. 38-40, 51.

98 Lawlor and Oulton (commentary), 2:159; cf. Barnett, p. 116.

99 Hippolytus Ref 8:12; translation of MacMahon in ANF, 5:124.

100 Eusebius HE 5:16; Epiphanius Pan Haer 48:2; Hippolytus Ref 8:12; cited in Ash, pp. 237-238; cf. von Campenhausen, pp. 189-190; Barnett, p. 123.

'°'Pelikan, 1:99-100; von Campenhausen, p. 189; Barnett, p. 117. As we have seen before, the charismata were practiced in some quarters of the church during and after the time of Montanism.

'02Pelikan, 1:106-107; Barnett, pp. 123-124; Ash, p. 228 and passim, where it is argued that "the bishops, not the canon, expelled prophecy."

'03Von Campenhausen, p. 191.

104 So Philipp Vielhauer, introduction to "Apocalypses and Related Subjects" in Hennecke, 2:607: "By the end of the first century prophecy has lost its original significance; only in Asia Minor does it still appear to play a

24 part, if the statements in the Revelation correspond to the situation and are not assumptions of the seer." ". . . about the middle of the 2nd century (prophecy) was forced into heresy by an orthodoxy which was in the process of consolidating itself."

'°sSo von Campenhausen, p. 190, n. 90, on the basis of the expression prophetas numero completo in the Muratorian fragment. But in the contest here (the exclusion of Hermas from the canon), "prophets" almost certainly denotes the Old Testament writings, corresponding to "apostles," which would denote the New Testament writings. The distinction of the two testaments as "prophets and apostles" has precedents in other second century literature (Justin Apol 1:67:3).

Origen, Contra Celsum 7:8; translation of Crombie in ANF, 4:614.

'070rigen, Contra Celsum 7:11; translation of Crombie in ANF, 4:615.

'08Cf. Barnett, pp. 114-115.

'09Eusebius HE 5:3:4; translation of Lawlor and Oulton, 1:149.

"°In a locus cited in Paraclete, 1971, p. 17, to which I do not have access; cited in turn by Stephanou, p. 140.

"'Ash, p. 228 and passim; cf. Pelikan, 1:98-99.

"ZVon Campenhausen, p. 191.

"3Pelikan, 1:98-99.

"JStreng, pp. 66-125.

"sIbid., p. 80.

"6Ibid., p. 96.

"7The development of this world-view is traced in Dodds, pp. 1-36.

"8Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Fontana, 1976), esp. chapter 3, "Jesus and Charismatic Judaism," pp. 58-82.

"9Dodds, pp. 37-38.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes , provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.

Edited by Aaron R. Bynum of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.