Reviewed by: Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy William Tabbernee Christine Trevett. Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pp. xiv + 299. $59.95. For too long, Montanism has been perceived as a Cinderella. Historians have traditionally preferred to pay more attention to Montanism’s second-century stepsister Gnosticism. T.’s monograph (the first in English since 1878!) challenges not only this perception but lays the groundwork for a fresh look at the history and significance of the movement which designated itself “the New Prophecy” but was frequently reviled as “the Phrygian heresy.” Writing “from a woman’s perspective” (xi), T. provides a succinct overview of recent scholarship on Montanism, simultaneously questioning many long-held opinions. Like some other feminist scholars, T. thinks it possible that Maximilla and Priscilla, rather than Montanus, may have been the actual founders of the movement (14), but, unlike Anne Jensen (Gottes selbstbewusste Töchter), considers the evidence inconclusive (159–60). T. does argue, however, that Maximilla was not the last of the original trio to die (13, 30–31), thus challenging the traditional division of early Montanism into pre-179 C.E. and post-179 C.E. phases (13). T.’s theory is based, in part, on the (in my view incorrect) identification of the anonymous prophet/ess referred to by Apollonius (ap. Eus., h.e. 5.18.4.6) with Priscilla (31, 32) or Maximilla (32). Similarly, it appears to me to be for too speculative to suggest that the anonymous prophetess referred to by Firmilian of Caesarea (ap. Cypr., ep. 75.10.1–11.1) may have been the later Montanist prophetess Quintilla (97–98, 171). On the other hand, T.’s suggestion that “Ardabau,” like “Jerusalem,” may have been an alternative metaphorical name for Pepouza and Tymion, the as yet unlocated headquarters of Montanism (21–26), is certainly worthy of consideration. T., however, is surely mistaken in claiming that Montanus had a native Phrygian name (77). T. also confuses Hierapolis with Hieropolis on pp. 16, 21, 49–50, although not on the excellent map on p. 17. This map, however, places Otrous too far S. and gives the incorrect impression that Hyrgaleis was the name of a city rather than the name of the ancient people who inhabited the region. T. dates the beginning of Montanism to the decade of the 160s (32) and uses the term “proto-Montanism” more precisely than earlier historians to apply to “the rigorous, prophetic, women-tolerating” Christianity around Philadelphia and Hierapolis (41), from which she believes Montanism arose (41–42). Johannine apocalyptic and Pauline charismatic emphases, rather than Jewish-Christian or Phrygian paganism, produced, according to T. (129–31, 142–45), Montanism’s self-identity as an authoritative prophetic movement which made rigorous disciplinary demands on its adherents (1–3) in order to renew the church (39). T. utilizes proficiently the extant Montanist oracles as authentic sources for the content of the New Prophecy. She also (unlike most earlier scholars) makes extensive use of the epigraphic evidence. T. rightly doubts that the “Christians for Christians” inscriptions from N. Phrygia are Montanist, concluding that, [End Page 595] even if they were, they would add little new information (208). She (again, in my view, correctly), however, considers a series of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-century epitaphs containing the designation to be Montanist (203–4). T. also discusses the epigraphic evidence for Montanist clergy, including that for a woman presbyter (204, 206, 210–13). CIL VIII, 1 2272 is taken by T. (this time, I believe, incorrectly) as support for Basil the Great’s claim (ep. 188.1) that the Montanist baptismal formula included the name of Montanus (219). In dealing with the literary data, T. distinguishes clearly between early and later Montanism and between Phrygian and non-Phrygian Montanism. She carefully avoids falling into the common trap of either using information about Montanism from one era to fill the gap in our knowledge about Montanism in another era or of taking Tertullian’s data to be representative. T. also makes astute allowances for the biases inherent in information about the New Prophecy conveyed by its opponents. The paucity of first-hand...
Read full abstract
Oct 1, 2024
Gerald O’Collins 
Open Access