Early Montanism and Voluntary Martyrdom

EARLY MONTANISM AND VOLUNTARY MARTYRDOM William Tabbernee* Ever since Albert Schwegler published his monumental study of Montanism,7 the movement has been caricatured as consisting of people obsessed by a reckless desire for martyrdom and an uncompromising attitude towards the state. Whilst it is granted by some historians that Montanists merely developed tendencies which also existed in other sections of the church, it is claimed, repeatedly, that Montanists, unlike catholics, made martyrdom a duty binding on all Christians. Ronald Knox, for example, characterized the history of Montanism as that of a 'naked fanaticism, which tried to stampede the church into greater severity, when she had not forgotten how to be severe'.2 He claimed that Montanists flaunted their Christianity in the face of the persecutor so as to show up the cowardice of the catholics. Frederick Klawiter, more recently, not only repeated the traditional view that their extreme emphasis on voluntary martyrdom distinguished Montanists from catholics, but argued that the value they placed on martyrdom explains why women could attain ministerial status within their ranks.·* This view of Montanism has rarely been challenged,4 but did Montanists really value martyrdom more highly than their catholic contemporaries? Did they, consequently, differ from them on the issue of voluntary martyrdom? In order to answer these, and similar, questions it is necessary to analyse the Orthodox' attitude to martyrdom and then to compare it with such evidence as we have concerning Montanist opinion and practice. The Orthodox Position Polycarp, in the mid-second century, upon hearing that he was to be arrested secretly left Smyrna, the city where he was bishop. Only after he had seen a vision, in which he saw his pillow being consumed by fire and which he took as a sign from God that he was to be burnt alive, did he cease to evade the authorities. The letter describing the events praised Polycarp's prudent attitude, stressing that orthodox Christians 'do not approve of those who come forward of themselves: this is not the teaching of the Gospel.' {Mart Pol, 4) Clement of Alexandria, commenting on Matt 10:23: 'When they persecute you in one town flee to the next', which is probably 'the teaching of the Gospel' referred to by the author of The Martyrdom of Polycarp, taught that a voluntary martyr shared responsibility with the persecutor for the crime of his own murder {Strom,, 4.10). Cyprian, similarly, defended his flight during the Decian persecution by claiming that as God had not specifically directed him to be a martyr, he could serve the church better by remaining alive, if in hiding {Ep, 20.1; cf. 16.4). The martyr's crown was 'to be desired and longed for a n d . . . sought in all our prayers' {Ad Fort, praef., 4; cf. Ep., 58.3) but, for Cyprian, there was a vast difference * Dr. W. Tabbernee is Principal of the College of the Bible of Churches of Christ in Australia, Glen Iris, Victoria. 33 between praying to be allowed to become a martyr and answering one's own prayers {De Lapsis, 10). When, some years later, he is summoned before Aspasius Paternus, he echoes the words of the Martyrdom of Polycarp whilst explaining his refusal to supply the proconsul with the names of the Carthaginian clergy. 'Since our discipline forbids anyone to surrender voluntarily and since you strongly disapprove of this as well, they [the presbyters] may not give themselves up. But if they are sought out by you they will be found' {Act procons., 1.5 [my italics]). Neither Cyprian nor his presbyters would surrender voluntarily but they would not resist arrest initiated by the Roman officials. Nor would they flee in order to avoid the authorities once they had been convinced that God had singled them out for martyrdom. Visions appear to have been the supreme means of convincing early Christians that they had been chosen for martyrdom, hence the great emphasis on visions in the contemporary acta martyrum. As with Polycarp, often it is pointed out that martyrs first learnt of their impending arrest and subsequent martyrdom through a vision. At other times, following the arrest, visions serve as confirmatory evidence of the martyrs' divine election. Occasionally visions are reported both before and after the arrest5 In Cyprian's case the conviction that God wanted him to be a martyr also finally came by means of a vision {Act procons., 2.1). Once arrested, most Christians praised God for having been thought worthy to be tested in this way and tried to ensure that the martyr's crown, at this stage, did not elude them through the 'helpfulness' of their friends, their own cowardice, or the timidity of the executing agent Germanicus, for example, dragged the reluctant beast on top of him {Mart Pol, 3.1) and Pionius hastily went to the amphitheatre exclaiming, Ί am hurrying that I may awake all the more quickl/ {Pass. Pionius, 21.4). The line between such boldness, and recklessness must have been difficult to draw. It is clear, however, that, in orthodox theology, the dividing line centred on the arrest Christians, even if personally convinced through a vision that God wanted them to be martyrs, should not hand themselves over. They may, however, from that moment on refrain from avoiding arrest by ceasing to elude the authorities. If, on the other hand, they had been arrested unexpectedly, even without a prior vision, Christians could confidently take this as a sign that God was honouring them and that thenceforth they should be as bold as possible in witnessing for their faith, as hesitation could be interpreted as denial. But any action on the part of individuals before the arrest which drew attention to themselves and which, as a corollary, endangered the whole Christian community was denounced as reckless provocation. In some cases the title 'martyr5 was even denied to the individual concerned (C. Elv., can., 60). Exceptions to the Rule A number of Christians after their arrest, and therefore, after 'God had publicly revealed that he had chosen them for martyrdom', apostatized. Any action on the part of a Christian bystander which encouraged an arrested person not to deny the faith was deemed praiseworthy, even if such action resulted in the arrest and subsequent martyrdom of the one trying to prevent apostasy. For example, Dionysius of Alexandria speaks in glowing terms about four soldiers (Ammon, Zeno, Ptolemy and Ingenes) who, along with an old man (Theophilus), prevented the apostasy of one Christian and encouraged others on trial in his city during the 34 persecution under Decius (in Eus., Hist eccl, 6.41.22). As the action of these men was unselfish, in that it sought the martyr's crown for others, it was not condemned as voluntary martyrdom. It was believed that God, by giving these people the courage to speak up, signified that they, too, were chosen for martyrdom. A similar view was held by some catholics regarding the actions of those bystanders who, whilst not directly attempting to prevent apostasy, nevertheless spoke up on behalf of their fellow Christians. A number of stories about such voluntary martyrs, dating from the middle of the second century, have survived and do not contain any derogatory comments (e.g. Mart Ptolemy, 15-20; Pass. Marianus, 9.2-3). The second, generally accepted, condition under which voluntary martyrdom was permitted by catholics related to actions undertaken by the apostates themselves in reversing their earlier denial of the faith. Apostates, normally, were not readmitted to the church until they had undergone a protracted period of penitential discipline. However, they could shorten this period by voluntary acts of public confession. For example, following the Decían persecution apostates who had received certificates of compliance were exempt from further interference by the authorities. Hence, only by repudiating these libelli could they cancel out their apostasy. If, in so doing, they provoked attention leading to martyrdom, the church did not condemn their action but treated it as a necessary exception (Cypr., Epp., 19.2; 55.4; 58.8).5 A third, although somewhat disputed, exception which allowed voluntary martyrdom in orthodox circles dealt with the special case of military matrtyrs. The soldier was in a completely different situation to the civilian Christian. Unlike the civilian, who could follow his conscience and, when necessary, withdraw in order to escape arrest, the soldier, because of his military service had to display his Christianity under the very eyes of the authorities. Flight (i.e. being 'absent without leave') or unauthorized resignation from the army carried the same penalty as open profession of Christianity {Act Marcellus, 5.1). Hence, as the alternative of withdrawal was unavailable to the soldier, a number of Christians obviously believed that, for soldiers, voluntary martyrdom was permissible in that it was a lesser evil than disobeying one's conscience.7 Others, however, were not so sure that these soldiers acted correctly. At the beginning of the third century the soldier Basilides was visited in prison by Alexandrian clergy who were only convinced that his rash action had been warranted after he explained to them that he had received a vision revealing his impending martyrdom (Eus., Hist eccl, 6.5.6-7) At approximately the same time a bitter controversy raged over the same issue in the Carthaginian church (see below). But by the end of that century, as a number of acta martyrum attest, military martyrs were honoured along with other martyrs and their actions praised rather than questioned.* Exceptions to the Exceptions Fanaticism led some catholics to trangress even the limits delineated by the above exceptions. There are more than a few examples of orthodox Christians who cannot be described as other than volunteers in the worst sense of the word. Despite Cyprian's warning that there must be no reckless provocation at his trial, the Acta proconsularia Sancti Cypriani reports that after Cyprian had been sentenced to death 'the crowd of his fellow Christians said, "Let us also be 35 beheaded with him!" The result was an uproar among the Christians and he was followed along by a great throng.' (5.1). The Christians' request was denied, but their outburst shows that they were at least potentially capable of voluntary martyrdom. Repeated warnings by catholic leaders against voluntary martyrdom show that the fanatical element in their midst was not negligible and that a significant number of catholics recklessly attempted to seize the martyr's crown for themselves, despite the generally accepted orthodox teaching against voluntary martyrdom in circumstances other than under carefully specified exceptions. Montanist Oracles Did Montanists share their opponents' low opinion of voluntary martyrdom or is it true that catholic exceptions or fanaticism was the norm for them? Montanists certainly had great respect for martyrs and used the existence of their own martyrs as proof that Montanist teachings were true and approved of by God (Eus., Hist eccl, 5.16.20; 5.18.5). But did Montanus exhort his followers to rush recklessly to their deaths? Two Montanist oracles are often quoted to indicate that he did.9 The first of these oracles reveals that Montanus did encourage Montanists to desire martyrdom: Do not desire to die in bed, nor in delivery of children, nor in weakening fevers, but in martyrdom, so that he who suffered for you may be glorified. Tertullian, who quotes this oracle in full in his De Fuga in Persecutione (9.4), elsewhere summarized the content of the oracle as part of his explanation of the ultimate destiny of the soul: 'If you die on behalf of God as the Paraclete advises, it should not be in weakening fevers, nor in bed, but in martyrdom. [That is] if you take up your cross and follow the Lord as he commanded. Your blood holds all the keys to paradise' {Anima, 55.5 [my italics]). Unlike some of the orthodox at Carthage who argued that all Christians, upon death, immediately ascended to paradise and that this distinguished them from pagans who went to hades, Tertullian argued that hades was the abode of the dead, including the abode of the majority of the Christian dead, who there awaited the return of Christ when the world would pass away and the gates of paradise be opened for them. The privilege of immediate entry to paradise was limited to those 'first class Christians' who died as martyrs (ibid, 55.1-3). As part of his proof, Tertullian cited a vision reported in the Passion of Perpetua (see below) in which 'the souls of martyrs' were seen in paradise. He concluded by appealing to Montanus' oracle which he took as indicating that the Paraclete, through Montanus, counselled "spiritual Christians' to die as martyrs (ibid, 55.4-5). The accuracy of Tertullian's interpretation of this oracle is by no means certain. The oracle itself is no stronger than statements made by catholics on the desirability of martyrdom. In these cases, it is usually abundantly clear that the writers did not intend their readers to volunteer. Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian are good examples, because we have already noted their strong denunciation of voluntary martyrdom. Whilst comparing the 'false Gnostic' view with the 'true Gnostic' (= orthodox Christian) view of martyrdom, Clement made a number of statements which parallel Montanus' oracle: 'The Lord teaches us that for love of God we must gnostically despise death. . . knowing that every instance of trial is an occasion for 36 testifying' {Strom., 4.6). 'Out of love for the Lord he [the true Gnostic] will most gladly depart from this life . . . with good courage, then, he goes to the Lord, his friend, for whom he voluntarily gave his bod/ (ibid., 4.4). The context, however, reveals that Clement was not advocating voluntary martyrdom by these comments. In the introductory statement he explained that philosophical acceptance of the distinction between body and soul produces Gnostic alacrity in the true Christian 'so that he is easily able to bear natural death, which is the dissolution of the chains which bind the soul to the body. Whence as is reasonable, the Gnostic, when called, obeys easily and gives up his body to him who asks, . . . previously divesting himself of the affections of his carcase' (ibid, 4.3 [my italics]). For Clement, therefore, any 'voluntary' aspect of martyrdom consisted in a willingness to become a martyr should God desire this: it did not mean provoking one's own martyrdom. In the same chapter in which he spoke of the true Christian Gnostic giving his body voluntarily out of love for his Lord, he condemned in the strongest terms possible those who rush to their own death: Now we, too, say that those who have rushed on death (for there are some, not belonging to us, but sharing the name merely, who are in haste to give themselves up, the poor wretches dying through hatred to the creator) - these, we say, banish themselves without being martyrs, even though they are publicly punished. For they do not preserve the characteristic mark of believing martyrdom, inasmuch as they have not known the only true God, but give themselves up to a vain death . . . (ibid., 4.5). Cyprian, like Clement, made a number of statements which are almost identical with the Montanist oracle under discussion. For example, on one occasion Cyprian tried to inspire his flock to a fearless and joyful acceptance of martyrdom by pointing out to them the inevitability of death: 'If indeed it were possible to escape death it might be reasonable to fear it But since we must all die eventually, we should prefer the martyr's death to any other, since it gives us a sure pledge of receiving the heavenly crown' {Ep, 58.3). We are able to place such strong statements in context by comparing Cyprian's other comments on the subject of martyrdom which reveal that he taught that although martyrdom should be desired by all it should not be provoked by reckless action on the part of Christians other than some apostates (see above). Because we possess only one other oracle from Montanus on martyrdom, it is difficult to determine whether he also taught a distinction between desiring and provoking martyrdom, but it is at least consistent with the content of the second oracle to suggest that he did. This oracle encourages Montanists to accept martyrdom patiently when it comes. They are not to be dismayed but should rejoice in the benefits martyrdom bestows: You are publicly exposed; that is good for you, for you are not publicly exposed before men, but before the Lord Don't be perplexed; it is justice which brings you into the midst What perplexes you about winning honour? Your authoritative power [potestas] arises whilst men gaze at you. (in Tert, Fug., 9.4) The one event of martyrdom is viewed here from a double perspective: whilst the martyr is being put to shame at a human level, a supranatural event of a far greater significance is taking place. The martyr is declaring his or her faith before Christ and, consequently, is being invested with spiritual potestas. The earthly prisoner is being elevated to the position of heavenly judge. Montanus presumably subscribed to the view, based on Rev 20:4-6, that martyrs would ultimately judge those who 37 persecuted them. Montanus' theology of persecution, revealed by this oracle, is one of supreme confidence in the providence of God. Even when Christians are persecuted, God, not the earthly persecutor, is in control. Persecution is allowed by God as a means of testing the faith of Christians and it is for their own benefit through persecution Christians gain eternal honours and powers otherwise unavailable to them. Hence they should rejoice, rather than be dismayed, whenever persecution breaks out Tertullian, as with the previous oracle, understood this one as virtually encouraging voluntary martyrdom. He commented, 'It incites all almost to go and offer themselves in martyrdom' (ibid.) and used it to bolster his argument that one ought not to flee from persecution. But, once again, Tertullian's interpretation must be questioned. The oracle itself goes no further than encouraging those who had already been arrested (and by implication preparing others who one day may well be arrested) to endure to the end, by emphasizing the supranatural dimension of martyrdom. Second-Century Montanist Martyrs By the end of the second century a number of Montanists had been martyred but little information about them has survived The Anonymous anti-Montanist quoted by Eusebius seems only to have had personal knowledge of those who, along with orthodox Christians, were executed at Apamea. Orthodox martyrs, such as Gaius and Alexander from Eumeneia who were put to death at the same time, refused to associate with them 'because they did not wish to give assent to the spirit of Montanus and the women' - not because of any reckless action on the part of the Montanists! {Hist eccl, 5.16.22). The Anonymous' slightly younger contemporary, Apollonius, records only 'pseudo-martyrs' among the Montanists. In his opinion they are pseudo-martyrs, not because of their dubious Christianity, but because of their dubious martyrdom. In his discussion of two of them: Themiso and Alexander, he makes them as ridiculous and contemptible as possible and is prepared to level all sorts of charges. He does not, however, charge them with voluntary surrender. In fact, his charge that they obtained 'release by bribery' suggests the opposite (ibid, 5.18). Unfortunately Themiso and Alexander are the only second century 'martyrs' whose names we know and who are clearly identified as Montanists, hence it is difficult to determine how representative they were. The extant acta martyrum record the names of four others who have been claimed as Montanists by some scholars. All but one of these appear definitely to have been voluntary martyrs, but the adherence to Montanism of each is suspect Vettius Epagathus, and Alexander, a Phrygian doctor (not to be confused with the Alexander mentioned by Apollonius), were among those who died during a pogrom at Lyons in 177 A.D. After many of the Christians had been brought before the governor, Vettius Epagathus came forward to intercede on their behalf. The author of the contemporary letter describing the events explained that Epagathus could not endure the unreasonable judgement that was passed against us and he became highly indignant; indeed, he requested a hearing in order to speak in defence of the brethren, to the effect that they were innocent of atheism or impiety... The prefect dismissed the just request that he had put forward and merely asked him if he too were a Christian. When he admitted he was in the clearest tones, he also was accepted into the ranks of the martyrs (Mart Lyons, 1.9-10). 38 It is quite clear that Vettius Epagathus had not been arrested along with the others. By his action, in speaking up, he provoked his own arrest and subsequent execution. This makes Epagathus a voluntary martyr, but does it make him a Montanist? A number of scholars, commencing with the a priori assumption that Montanists rushed recklessly into martyrdom, have been willing to designate voluntary martyrs as Montanists whenever some supporting evidence hinting at Montanism can be found. In the present instance the supporting evidence is claimed to be contained in the description of Epagathus after his courageous act' 0 Called the Christian's paraclete (paraklêtos), he possessed the paraclete with him, the Spirit who filled Zachariah, which he demonstrated by the fullness of his love, consenting as he did to lay down his life in defence of his fellow Christians {Mart Lyons, 1.10). Whilst paraklëtos was a key word in Montanist terminology, in this context it is more likely to have been used in an anti- rather than a pro-Montanist sense. The question of the validity of Montanist prophecy concerned the church at Lyons at this very time, and the pogrom may even have been provoked by the presence of a greater than usual number of Christians at Lyons who had come to a synod in order to settle the issue. The synod declared against Montanism and its decision was supported by the written statements of several of the Lyons martyrs (Eus., Hist eccl, 5.3.4), hence Epagathus himself may even have been an antiMontanist His action in speaking on behalf of those arrested seems to have been portrayed by the catholic author of the Martyrs of Lyons as the action of a true paraclete in contrast to the Montanist teaching about the paraclete which had just been rejected. In any case, as the paragraph which follows the account of Epagathus explains that approximately ten Christians had apostatized, blunting the eagerness of those who had not yet been arrested, Epagathus' action seems to have been motivated by a desire to prevent further apostasy. If so his 'voluntary martyrdom' was one of the exceptions permissible within orthodox circles. The story of Alexander, the other Lyons martyr designated by some as a Montanistn reads as follows: With those who were being questioned was a man named Alexander, a Phrygian by race (Phryx men to genos) and a physician by profession. He had spent many years in various parts of Gaul, and he was known practically to everyone because of his love for God and his boldness of speech for he too was not without the apostolic gift. He stood in front of the tribunal urging them [i.e. Christians who had atfirstapostatized] to confess by gesturing to them. Hence, to those who were standing around the tribunal, he appeared to be as one suffering labour pangs. But the crowd grew annoyed that those who had previously denied the faith were now confessing it once more, and they cried out against Alexander that he was the cause of this. The governor then ordered him to appear before him and asked him who he was. When Alexander said that he was a Christian, he grew into a rage and condemned him to the beasts (Mart Lyons, 1.49-50). The identification of Alexander as a Montanist centres around the author's description of him as a Phrygian (Phryx). Montanism was known to its opponents as 'The Phrygian heresy'.72 Consequently, Hans Lietzmann, in arguing that Montanists met persecution with defiance, claimed that 'The Acts of the Martyrs recount more than one case of voluntary martyrdom on the part of a "Phrygian" ' and wishes the reader to make the obvious deduction.7·* There are, in fact, only two instances to be found of men described as 'Phrygians' who were also voluntary martyrs, viz.: Alexander and a man named Quintus (see below). In neither 39 instance is there sufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion that they were Montanists. There is not one example, in second century literature, where the word Phryx, by itself, is used to denote Montanists as members of the Phrygian heresy, as the word Phryx could not unambiguously designate a Phrygian heretic without the additional word hairesis so soon after the rise of Montanism. Moreover in Alexander's case, the word Phryx is qualified by the phrase men to genos ('by race') which was probably added to provide a literary balance between 'Phrygian by race' and 'doctor by profession' but at least it indicates that the author understood the word Phryx in nationalistic, rather than religious terms. Moreover, the fact that Alexander had lived for many years in Gaul rules out the possibility that Alexander was a recent immigrant who had been converted to the Phrygian heresy before leaving his native land. As the clearly stated aim of Alexander's gesturing was the prevention of further apostasy and as it was perceived by the (orthodox) Christians as the labour pangs which effected the rebirth of the apostates, there can be no doubt that Alexander was not a Montanist but another of those orthodox voluntary martyrs whose action was condoned by the church as an acceptable exception to the rule against voluntary martyrdom. H. Kraft, in the most recent investigation of the relationship between the martyrs of Lyons and Montanism, uses the readiness of Epagathus and Alexander to defend apostates as part of his argument that the martyrs were not Montanists even though they may have had some empathy with Montanist emphases. Alleged indications of Montanism, according to Kraft, may be attributed to features inherited by the Gallic Church from the (pre-Montanist) churches in Asia Minor or to the idiosynchrasies of personal piety.74 Agathonike, a woman who 'threw herself joyfully upon the stake' during a persecution at Pergamum {Mart Carpus [A], 44) has also been considered a Montanist, or, at least, strongly influenced by Montanism.75 Her apparent 'voluntary martyrdom', however, may simply be an illusion due to literary variations. Although the Greek recension has Agathonike leaping to her death without any reference to prior arrest, trial or sentencing, the Latin version declares that she had been arrested along with Carpus and Pamfilus (= Papylus) and that she had been duly tried and sentenced. This probably means that the Greek text had a lacuna, although it is not impossible that the Latin redactor introduced the details concerning Agathonike's arrest, trial and condemnation in order to make her action more acceptable in orthodox circles.76 If the Greek text is accurate in its present form, Le. if a part which recorded her arrest, trial and condemnation is not missing, Agathonike must have been a voluntary martyr - but this on its own is insufficient reason to call her a Montanist or to consider the Greek original 'Montanistic'.77 Agathonike's action can be explained in orthodox terms on the basis of the Greek text alone, as it stresses that Agathonike made her move only after having seen 'the glory of the Lord', as Carpus said he had seen it a few moments earlier {Mart Carpus [A], 42, cf. 39). The text continues: 'Realizing that this was a call from heaven, she raised her voice at once: "Here is a meal that has been prepared for me. I must partake and eat of this glorious repast" ' (ibid, 42). Agathonike, like other orthodox martyrs, became convinced that God had singled her out for martyrdom because she had seen a vision, and, convinced, she ensured that the martyr's crown did not escape her. The fourth person claimed to have been a second century Montanist martyr, was 40 the man named Quintus referred to above. In his case there is no doubt that he was a volunteer. The Martyrdom of Polycarp, which has preserved Quintus' story {Mart Pol., 4) strongly condemned him because 'he had given himself up and had forced others to give themselves up voluntarily'. Quintus, it is pointed out, should have waited to see if he had been singled out by God to be a martyr. His cowardice before the beasts and his subsequent recantation proved that he had not been chosen. His recklessness was ill-informed and must not be copied It is in this context that the author made the statement quoted above: 'We do not approve of those who come forward of themselves: this is not the teaching of the Gospel.' Polycarp, unlike Quintus, was 'a martyr in accordance with the Gospel,' for 'just as the Lord did, he too waited that he might be delivered up'. Polycarp was chosen by God to be the paradigmatic true martyr, whose example should be imitated by all who live according to the word of Jesus Christ and the Gospel (ibid, 1.1-2; 22.1). Quintus is introduced as 'a Phrygian who had only recently arrived from Phrygia' (Phryx, prosphatos elêlythos apo tes Phrygias). This, with Alexander, has led a number of scholars to deduce that Quintus was a Montanist7* Von Campenhausen, one of the leading exponents of this view, argued that no one would doubt the identification {Phryx = Montanist) if the date didn't stand in the way.79 Because the Martyrdom of Polycarp was written at least a decade earlier than the Martyrs of Lyons, even more so than in the case of Alexander it must be stressed that the word Phryx could not have unambiguously designated a Montanist without the word hairesis. It is even possible that Mart. Pol predates the rise of Montanism. Von Campenhausen himself believes this but postulated a late second, or early third century anti-Montanist editor who interpolated the story of Quintus in order to combat growing rigoristic attitudes within the church. But even if Mart Pol, 4 is a later interpolation, the juxtaposition of Phryx and voluntary martyrdom doesn't guarantee Montanism. Hence it seems best to conclude that the word Phryx indicates no more than the race and recent geographical origin of the man20 and that he was one of the orthodox minority which foolishly rushed towards martyrdom. In addition to the four named martyrs discussed above, an anonymous group of volunteers from the second century has occasionally been designated Montanist Their story has been preserved by Tertullian who relates that 'all the Christians of a particular city in Asia', in one united band, presented themselves before Arrius Antoninus {Ad. Scap., 5.1), the proconsul of Asia c. 184/5 A.D. {PIR2 1 (A) 1088). After ordering a few to be executed, the governor dismissed the rest exclaiming, 'You wretches if you wish to die, you have precipices and ropes'. W. H. C. Frend refers to this event in the context of his discussion on the Montanist attitude to martyrdom and comments, 'The spirit of Christian fanaticism was not easily quenched and here was the Montanist equivalent of the Donatisi Circumcellions two centuries later'.27 It is impossible to see what evidence Frend has for this statement, other than the a priori assumption that Montanists were voluntary martyrs, and the fact that it was Tertullian who preserved the story. Neither is sufficient to label these Asian volunteers as Montanists. Montanism and Voluntary Martyrdom at Carthage The first, and in fact only, pre-Decian voluntary martyr whose Montanism 41 leaves little room for doubt is a man named Saturus. He appears to have belonged to a Montanist circle within the Carthaginian catholic church.22 The martyrdom of a number of members of this circle in 203 A.D. is recorded by the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. According to the passio, Saturus was not present when the others, all catechumens, were arrested and, upon hearing of their arrest, he gave himself up (4.5; cf. 2.1). The passio gives no further instances of voluntary martyrdom and, hence, cannot be taken as evidence that Montanists, in general, favoured voluntary martyrdom, but neither does it condemn Saturus' action. The context indicates, however, that even in orthodox circles Saturus' action would have constituted one of the permissible exceptions to the rule against voluntary martyrdom. Perpetua's description of Saturus (4.5) reveals that he was their instructor in the (Montanist?) faith. Hence it is more than likely that Saturus gave himself up voluntarily in order to prevent the possible apostasy of his catechumens. Whilst it is difficult to draw accurate historical conclusions from the contents of visions, Perpetua's first vision, recorded in the passio, certainly suggests that the author wished to convey this interpretation of the event. In the vision, Saturus is portrayed as the strong Christian who helps others to defeat the devil's attempts at getting them to apostatize (4.3-10; cf. 21.2-8). 2i Some years later, when Tertullian had become a leading member of the Carthaginian Montanist circle, disagreement arose between them and the 'orthodox' over the issue of voluntary martyrdom. The Carthaginian catholics at that time did not allow the exception of voluntary martyrdom on the part of soldiers, and condemned the action of a particular soldier who provoked his own death through refusing to wear a laurel wreath at a time of an imperial donative. To them, something as insignificant as a laurel wreath ought not to endanger the peace of all Christians. Tertullian, on the other hand, praised the soldier as the only true Christian among all his fellow (Christian?) soldiers and rebuked his opponents for being cowards who refused to heed the Spirit of God (Tert, Corona, 1). We are not told if the soldier was a Montanist There is no reason to suspect that he was: orthodox soldiers provoked their own death and Tertullian championed the cause of other orthodox martyrs. The significance of the story lies in the fact that Tertullian, as a Montanist, condoned voluntary martyrdom under these circumstances and that he, and, presumably his Carthaginian Montanist friends, differed on this issue from the contemporary Carthaginian catholic view. Leaving aside the question of how representative Tertullian was of Montanists elsewhere,2* it is clear that no case can be made out from this to support the contention that early Montanists, as a whole, were for voluntary martyrdom whereas catholics were against it As we have seen, voluntary martyrdom on the part of soldiers was taken by catholics elsewhere to be a legitimate exception. The Dedan Persecution The acta martyrum give no indication that any genuinely attested Montanist martyr who died during the Decian persecution was a volunteer. The Passion of Pionius records that among Pionius' fellow-prisoners was a man named Eutychian who belonged to the Phrygian heresy {hena ek tes haireseos ton Phrygon onomati Eutychianon [11.2]), but there is no hint whatsoever that he volunteered The Passion's silence is eloquent Voluntary martyrdom was usually noteworthy. At each of his trials, Pionius was questioned regarding the particular branch of 42 Christianity to which he belonged (9.2; 19.4). These questions were not asked out of idle curiosity. The whole procedure was aimed at getting the prisoners to sacrifice. If it could be shown that one of the same sect had sacrificed, this fact could be used to induce others to do the same. When Pionius replied that he was catholic, he was told, 'Look, Euctemon, one of your leaders, offered sacrifice. So should you too be persuaded' (15.2). The Acts of Achatius, on the whole of doubtful quality, contains a passage which, in the light of the approach taken to induce Pionius to sacrifice, may well be based on reliable information. In this passage Achatius, an orthodox bishop, is told by an official named Marcianus: Look at the Cataphrygians. Their religion is ancient and yet they have abandoned their past and come to my sacrifices (4.8). Marcianus used the apostasy of some contemporary Montanists,25 whom he considered (erroneously) to belong to a religion as old as catholic Christianity, to counter Achatius' argument that to sacrifice would be to betray the faith of the Fathers. These 'Cataphrygians' could hardly be thought of as voluntary martyrs. If anything, they were voluntary apostates! Conclusion Whether post-Decian Montanism may legitimately be described as a movement of reckless zealots in contrast to their more reserved and sensible catholic contemporaries remains to be seen.26 It is clear, however, that pre-Decian Montanism cannot be characterised in this way. Such evidence as exists for early Montanism suggests that, apart from Tertullian, the attitudes of Montanists to martyrdom did not differ substantially from those of their orthodox opponents. Notwithstanding Tertullian's interpretation of them, Montanus' oracles on the subject may never have been intended to convey anything other than that Christians should desire martyrdom and accept it with patience and courage when God, through a vision or the circumstance of unprovoked arrest, revealed that martyrdom was his will for a particular individual. There is no reason to suspect that Montanists disagreed with the generally accepted view that the danger of apostasy, the fact of apostasy and, possibly, military service provided the context for the only permissible exceptions to the rule against voluntary martyrdom. Whilst, occasionally, the limits of these 'exceptions' were transgressed by zealous individuals, it is significant that there is no evidence of even one genuinely attested early Montanist having done so. FOOTNOTES 1. F.C.A. Schwegler, Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1841) 65-7. 2. RA. Knox, Enthusiasm : A Chapter in the History of Religion (London: OUP, 1949) 49. 3. F.C. Klawiter, 'The Role of Martyrdom and Persecution in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity : A Case Study of Montanism', ChH 49 (1980) 251-61. 4. H.J. Lawlor, 'The Heresy of the Phrygians', in id, Eusebiana (Oxford OUP, 1912) 108-35 [reprinted from JTS 9 (1908) 481-99], esp. 130-5 is one of the rare exceptions. 5. For example see, in orden Eus., Hist, eccl, 6.5.1-7; Ign., Smyrn., 11; Pass. Marianus, 7.1. 6. G.W. Clarke, 'Double-Trials in the Persecution of Decius', Hist 22 (1973) 650-63. 7. For example see Act Maximilian, 3.1; 2.6; Act Marcellus, 4.2-3; Pass. Julius, 1.4; 2.2. 43 8. See H. Musurillo, lite Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 244-59. 9. Most recently: K. Froehlich, 'Montanism and Gnosis', OrChrA 195 (1973) 103; S. Mitchell, "The Life of Saint Theodotus of Ancyra', AnSt 32 (1982) 102; D.E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983) 313-16. 10. T. Bams, 'The Catholic Epistle of Themiso : A Study in 1 and 2 Peter*, Exp., Ser. 6, 8 (1903) 44; P. Carrington, The Early Christian Church (London: CUP, 1957) Vol 2, 244. 11. For example, C. Bigg, The Origins of Christianity (Oxford Clarendon, 1909) 186. 12. The earliest known example is by the Anonymous anti-Montanist quoted in Eus., Hist eccl, 5.16.22. Eusebius himself uses the term at 5.16.1; 5.18.1; 6.20.3 (cf. 2.25.6). 13. H. Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, 2nd ed (London: Lutterworth, 1961) VoL 2, 199-200. 14. H. Kraft, 'Die Lyoner Märtyrer und der Montanismus', Les Martyrs de Lyon (177). Colloques internationaux du CNRS, no. 575 (Paris Éditions du CNRS, 1978) 233-47. Compare id, 'Die altkirchliche Prophétie und die Entstehung des Montanismus', ThZ 11 (1955) 249-71, esp. 269-70. 15. J. Chapman, 'Montanists', CathEnc, VoL 10, 523; H. Lietzmann, 'Die älteste Gestalt der Passio SS. Carpi, Papylae et Agathonices', TU 67 (1958) 247. 16. T.D. Barnes, 'Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum9, JTS 19 (1968) 514. 17. As does Lietzmann, 'Passio SS. Carpi', 250. 18. For example, W. Belck, Geschichte des Montanismus (Leipzig: Dörffling und Franse, 1883) 35-6; G.B. Maino, 'Montañismo e le tendenze separatiste delle chiese dell 'Asia Minore a fine de 2 secolo', Rinnovamento, 5 (1909) 107; W.M. Calder, 'Philadelphia and Montanism', BJRL 7 (1923) 332-6; id, 'The New Jerusalem of the Montanists', Byz. 6 (1931) 421-2; H. Grégoire and P. Orgels, 'La véritable date du martyre de S. Polycarpe (23 février 177) et le Corpus Polycarpianum9, AnBoll 69 (1951) 1-38; and M. Simonetti 'Alcune osservazioni sul martirio de S. Polycarpo', GIF, 9 (1956) 332-3. 19. H. von Campenhausen, 'Bearbeitungen und Interpolationen des Polykarpmartyriums', SHAW.PH 3(1957)18-20. 20. So H.I. Marrou, 'La date du martyre de saint Polycarpe', AnBoll 71 (1953) 20; T.D. Barnes 'Pre-Decian Acta' 511-2. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. W.H.C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church : A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus (Oxford Blackwell, 1965) 293. See T.D. Barnes, Tertullian : A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford Clarendon, 1971) 79; D. Powell, 'Tertullianists and Cataphrygians', VigChr 29 (1975) 33-54. F.J. Dölger, 'Der Kampf mit dem Ägypter in der Perpetua-Vision : Das martyrium als Kampf mit dem Teufel', Aue 3 (1932) 177-88. On which see Lawlor, op. cit, 108-35. On the use of the term 'Cataphrygians' for 'Montanists' see A. Zisteren, 'Phrygier oder Kataphrygier?' ThQ (1892) 475-82. The relevant evidence is discussed in my article 'Post-Decian Montanism and Voluntary Martyrdom' to be published in a subsequent issue of Colloquium. 44 ^ s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.