William TABBERNEE, Tulsa
 
 
 

Introduction
 

It is clear from Tertullian's early treatises (especially the De paenitentia⁽¹⁾) that, around the beginning of the third century C.E., the Christian church at Carthage had a well-established penitential rite. The purpose of the rite was both to demonstrate the seriousness with which the church viewed post-baptismal sin and to provide a mechanism by which those who, sadly, had fallen into such sin could be reconciled to the church--the latter being indicative also of divine pardon. Called exomologesis ("confession of sin"), the process leading to restoration included public confession, prostration before representatives of the church, wearing sack cloth and ashes, fasting, praying, and petitioning the prayers of others (paen. 9.1-6).

Exegetically grounded in biblical texts which portray God as forgiving as well as holy, Carthaginian penitential theology and praxis during the first decade of the third century maintained a careful balance between grace and justice (paen. 8.1-8). Whereas a person's first penitence leading to the forgiveness of all prior sins at baptism should suffice for life, a "second penitence" (penitentia secunda) leading to forgiveness of sins committed after baptism was possible (7.1-14) but only following appropriate and, if necessary, protracted and strict penance in the church's vestibule (7.10-14; 10.1-12.9) Such forgiveness, however, could (and

would) be granted only once! The "door of forgiveness" (ianua ignocentiae) leading to restoration of pax and communio cum ecclesia stood slightly ajar--but only for one final knock by the penitent (7.10).

It is equally clear from Tertullian's later treatises (especially the De pudicitia⁽²⁾) that, by the second decade of the third century C.E., the earlier balance between grace and justice, on which Carthaginian penitential theology and praxis was based was on the point of being shattered. On the one hand, some, emphasizing grace and forgiveness, argued that pardon could be extended even to very serious post-baptismal sins such as adultery and fornication (pud. 1.6). On the other hand, others, emphasizing holiness and justice, argued that such sins could not (or, at least, should not) be forgiven on earth by the church (1.20-21). Whether or not the sinner received forgiveness from God in the afterlife would be God's prerogative, but God's alone. Tertullian himself, in the De pudicitia, argues passionately for this latter view stressing the difference between "remissible" and "irremissible" sins (2.12) and denouncing those holding the more lenient position (1.6; 21.5).

A great deal of scholarly ink has already been spilt in attempting to understand what caused the polarization on penance in the Christian community in Carthage during the first two decades of the third century.⁽³⁾ Debated (interrelated) issues relevant to the matter include the identity of the bishop whose pronouncement that adultery and fornication committed by baptized Christians could be forgiven (pud. 1.6) provoked Tertullian to write the De pudicitia; the date of the De pudicitia; the presence and organizational structure of Montanism in Carthage during Tertullian's time; Tertullian's own involvement in the Montanist movement; and the extent to which Montanist beliefs and practices influenced Tertullian's shift to greater rigorism in disciplinary matters.

Rather than rehearsing the arguments for or against the various views which have been promoted, let me simply state up front my own position on all five of these issues before proceeding to present a more detailed discussion of the last two. (1) The bishop denounced by Tertullian in the De pudicitia was a Carthaginian bishop, not Callistus, bishop of Rome.⁽⁴⁾ (2) The De pudicitia was written c. 210/11, not c.220.⁽⁵⁾ (3) During the first decade of the third century, if not earlier, some Christians within the Carthaginian church had become familiar with and were favorably disposed toward "The New Prophecy" movement (later to be known as

Montanism⁽⁶⁾), but neither then nor later was there ever a separate Montanist church in Carthage.⁽⁷⁾ Tertullian never left the Catholic church either to join (the non-existent!) Montanist church or to found his own separatist sect. The so-called Tertullianistae referred to by Augustine (haer. 86) were members of, at least, a post-Cyprianic or, more likely, a post-Constantinian sect who esteemed Tertullian and his (especially his later) writings. There was no personal connection between Tertullian and this enigmatic group.⁽⁸⁾ (4) Tertullian, however, while never a schismatic Montanist (or "Tertullianist"), did find in The New Prophecy movement certain emphases consistent with the direction his own, progressively more rigoristic, views on Christian praxis was heading. (5) Although, theoretically speaking, he could have reached conclusions similar to those expressed on penance in the De pudicitia independently,⁽⁹⁾ Tertullian's adoption of certain Montanist presuppositions enabled him both to reach those conclusions more quickly and to have at his disposal additional data to support these conclusions.

From the summary given above, it should be obvious that I believe that the traditional interpretation of the tension over whether to pardon or not to pardon adultery and fornication evident from the De pudicitia is not tenable. No longer, in my opinion, can the De pudicitia be viewed simply as a Montanist work written by a schismatic Montanist who, because of his conversion to Montanism, radically revised the position on penance which he had articulated during his "Catholic period." Nor, on the other hand, should it be assumed that Montanism, or rather The New Prophecy movement, had no effect whatsoever in causing Tertullian to change his mind about the church's capacity to forgive certain sins. A fresh look at the prophetic utterance quoted by Tertullian in De pudicitia 21.7, I believe, will help to provide a more nuanced understanding both of Tertullian's involvement in The New Prophecy movement and the way in which this influenced the debate in Carthage on post-baptismal penitence.
 

Tertullian and "Montanism"

Although not all of the specific references in Tertullian's works, normally taken to be indicators of his knowledge of and interest in Montanism, are as secure as once thought,⁽¹⁰⁾ there is now a general consensus among scholars that clear references to the movement start appearing in Tertullian's treatises sometime after 208.⁽¹¹⁾ These include mention of Priscilla, Maximilla, and Montanus (the founders of the movement⁽¹²⁾) by name (e.g., Prax. 1.5; jejun. 1.3), utilization of "prophetic oracles," including two by Prisc(ill)a (apud res. 11.2; apud cast. 10.5), and references to the movement's self-designation: "The New Prophecy" (e.g., mon. 14.5).⁽¹³⁾

Tertullian's knowledge of The New Prophecy movement was derived, in part (but only in part), from literary sources. His quoting of two oracles by Prisc(ill)a shows that he had access to a work containing at least some of her prophetic utterances--and perhaps (but not certainly!) some of the oracles of Montanus and Maximilla. That by Tertullian's time collections of the prophetic utterances of the Phrygian trio and other "Montanist" books existed is clear from comments made by the earliest anti-Montanist writer whose work is partially preserved by Eusebius (apud Eus., H.E. 5.16.17, 5.17.1; cf. Hipp., Haer. 8.19.1). Apollonius, a slightly later anti-Montanist quoted by Eusebius, charges a second-generation Phrygian Montanist named Themiso with composing a general epistle containing Montanist propaganda (Apollon., apud Eus., H.E. 5.18.5). A number of other early anti-Montanist treatises containing some of the oracles of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, along with extensive exegetical and theological

refutations, were in existence in Tertullian's time (e.g., see Anon., apud Eus., H.E. 5.17.1 and Anon., apud Epiph., haer. 48.1.4-13.8). Whether Tertullian had access to any or all of these during the first decade of the third century is not evident from his own writings.

Perhaps, as Dennis Groh suggests, Tertullian and the unidentified writer whose anti-Montanist treatise is preserved by Epiphanius shared a common source.⁽¹⁴⁾ However, not one of the oracles cited by Tertullian or Epiphanius' source appear in the work(s) of both authors. Similarly, while around 210 Tertullian came into possession both of a copy of Apollonius' anti-Montanist tract⁽¹⁵⁾ and of some specific information about The New Prophecy in Rome (see Prax. 1), he obviously did not derive his early knowledge about the movement from these sources.

The New Prophecy Movement in Carthage

It is important to remember that Tertullian himself did not introduce The New Prophecy movement to Carthage. Prior to his own involvement in the movement, some other North African Christians, among whom was the anonymous editor of the Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis,⁽¹⁶⁾ esteemed and acknowledged "new prophecies" and "new visions" (Pass. Perp. 1.5). This need not be a direct reference to "The New Prophecy"--if, by that term, the Phrygian version of The New Prophecy is envisaged (even if assumed to have reached Carthage via Rome⁽¹⁷⁾). The editor's comment, none-the-less, reveals a high level of openness to the validity and authority of contemporary prophetic utterances. This openness could easily accommodate the prophecies of "new prophets" such as Prisc(ill)a, Maximilla, and Montanus, but it was not limited to these prophecies.

North African Christianity had its own "new prophets," among whom should be counted Perpetua (Pass. Perp. 4.3-10; 7.3-9; 8.1-14) and the catechist Saturus (11.1-13.8). It is a mistake, however, to classify them and their fellow martyrs as "Montanists." The most that can be claimed is that the editor of their passio was favorably disposed toward "new prophecies," presumably including those of the Phrygian new prophets, and that they themselves may have belonged to a circle of Carthaginian Christians who enthusiastically embraced contemporary evidences of the presence of the Holy Spirit.⁽¹⁸⁾

It is important to stress that Tertullian's use of the term nova prophetia (e.g., res. 63.9; Marc. III.24.4, IV.22.4; Prax. 30.5; mon. 14.5) emphasized the contemporary rather than the historic dimensions of the movement. For Tertullian, The New Prophecy was a phenomenon which incorporated, but was not restricted, to the prophecies of the movement's Phrygian founders. In Tertullian's view, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete promised by Christ (John 14, 16-17; 14, 26; 15, 26), having been poured out in a new way, in fulfillment of Joel 2, 28-29, initially, but not exclusively on the founding trio, remained an ever-available source of revelation about disciplinary matters for contemporary Christians in the church's new age of ethical maturity (e.g., see virg. 1.4-7; res. 63.7-9; Prax. 30.5; mon. 3.1).

Carthaginian "new prophets"

As is well known, in Tertullian's day, there were at least two women members of the Carthaginian church who experienced visions, conversed with angels, and "sometimes even with
 

the Lord" (anim. 9.4; virg. 17.3). At least one of these women received her revelations in ecclesia inter dominica sollemnia per ecstasin in spiritu (anim. 9.4), i.e., via ecstacy in the Spirit, while sitting in church during the regular Sunday services. Her revelations were stimulated by components of the liturgy and their authenticity validated through subsequent testing (9.4). In a crucial passage, frequently overlooked or mistranslated, Tertullian describes his own not insignificant role in the testing process. He mentions his role in an aside while relating what happened on a particular Sunday morning when one of the contemporary prophetesses at Carthage had a vision about the corporeal nature of the soul:

Afterwards, the solemn celebration having been completed and the congregation having been dismissed, because she was accustomed to report [renuntiare] to us [nobis] what she had seen (for they [the reports of the visions] are also most carefully set down in proper order [digeruntur] so that they may also be tested [probentur]), she said, among other things: "A soul was shown to me in bodily form . . . ." (9.4).

Nobis is frequently taken to indicate that the prophetess reported to a "pro-Montanist" group which stayed behind after the "Catholic" service.⁽¹⁹⁾ It is better, however, to view nobis here as a literary plural by which Tertullian refers to himself. Anne Jensen assumes that this means that Tertullian "reserved for himself the 'testing' of the prophecies,"⁽²⁰⁾ but this interpretation is not the only possibility nor even the most likely. Perhaps, as suggested by A.J. Guerra, such testing was undertaken "by review boards of 'spiritual elders.'"⁽²¹⁾ The most significant information conveyed by Tertullian's aside, however, is that he recorded and classified in appropriate categories the visions and "divinely communicated speech" reported to him (cf. virg. 17.3) in preparation for subsequent testing.
 

Tertullian's "sophisticated literacy"

That Tertullian should have the role of recording, arranging, safeguarding, and, perhaps, circulating the utterances of Carthage's contemporary prophets is not surprising. Recent studies on literacy among early Christians have confirmed how rare Tertullian's literary skills were.

Keith Hopkins estimates that, empire-wide, in c.200 there were only between 1,000 and 1,200 adult Christian males with fluent literacy, i.e., only about two percent of all Christian adult males. Hopkins, probably correctly, assumes that the fluent literacy percentage for adult Christian females would have been well below two percent. Hopkins also estimates that there were only about 200,000 Christians in total at that time, organized in "house cult-groups" consisting, on average, of no more than seventy members, including children, women, and men. In each house church only two or three possessed some sort of basic literacy and not more than one would normally have been a "sophisticated literate."⁽²²⁾

Applying Hopkins' calculations to the Carthaginian church of Tertullian's time reveals a Christian population of 300-400 members organized in five or six house churches, 100-120 adult males, 20-25 males with basic literacy skills, and only two or three adult males sufficiently skilled to compose sophisticated literary works.⁽²³⁾ No wonder that Tertullian, who was fluent in Greek as well as Latin, was such a significant member both of the house church where he worshipped and to the wider Christian community in Carthage and beyond.
 

Contemporary Mouthpieces of the Paraclete

Tertullian's habit of recording the prophetic utterances of Carthaginian prophetesses (and, presumably prophets; see Marc. IV.22.5), linked with his view that these utterances--like the oracles of the founders of Montanism--were genuine expressions of the mind of the Spirit for the contemporary church, raises the question of the identity of the prophets or prophetesses who were the vehicles for the Paraclete's revelation in a number of oracles quoted by Tertullian.

Traditionally, three of the "unidentified" oracles quoted by Tertullian (apud fug. 9.4⁽²⁴⁾; pud. 21.7) have been attributed by scholars to Montanus. Tertullian, himself, merely attributes these oracles directly to the Paraclete--the Paraclete's human instrument remaining anonymous. There is no reason, however, if these three oracles are indeed genuine but unspecified oracles of the original prophetic trio, why they should not be attributed to Prisc(ill)a or Maximilla. Indeed a better case can be made for these two women, rather than Montanus, having been the primary instruments of the Paraclete's revelation during the first phase of The New Prophecy movement.⁽²⁵⁾

It is much more likely, none-the-less, that these oracles, while genuinely part of The New Prophecy movement, were uttered not by one of the founders of the movement but by second- (or third-?) generation "new prophetesses" or "new prophets" in Carthage. Tertullian's attribution to the Paraclete, for example, of the oracles on martyrdom is no different in kind to the way in which he attributes to the Paraclete the contemporary revelation given by one of the women prophetesses in Carthage regarding wearing (lengthy) veils (virg. 1.7; 17.3).

Elsewhere in writings to be dated after 208, Tertullian summarizes or alludes to six further oracles (Marc. I.29.4, III.24.3-4; ecst. [apud Praedest., haer. 1.26]; Prax. 8.5; anim. 58.8; jejun. 13.5). Not one of these is included in Ronald Heine's listing of "authentic" and "questionable" oracles,⁽²⁶⁾ presumably because he, rightly, does not view them as having been uttered by Montanus, Maximilla, or Priscilla.⁽²⁷⁾ In light of the discussion above, however, the way in which "Montanist oracles" are currently classified needs rethinking. It seems to me that Tertullian (and perhaps some other early writers) have preserved for us some genuine oracles of second- (and third-?) generation prophets and prophetesses belonging to The New Prophecy movement.

The Prophetic Utterance about Ecclesial Forgiveness of Sins

As noted already, the "unidentified" utterance quoted by Tertullian in De pudicitia 21.7 has traditionally been attributed to Montanus,⁽²⁸⁾ or, at least, has been viewed as a genuine oracle of one of the original Phrygian "new prophets."⁽²⁹⁾ If the thesis advanced above is valid, however, there is no reason why this oracle should not be reclassified as a genuine oracle of a Carthaginian "new prophet." This prophet may even have been one of the very same prophetesses whose "divine communications" Tertullian recorded verbatim after these prophetesses had experienced (in Tertullian's own "house church"?) what they and he deemed to be direct revelations from the Paraclete.

In light of the close relationship of the content of the oracle in De pudicitia 21.7 to the point Tertullian wanted to make, Anne Jensen suspects that the oracle came "from Tertullian himself or was 'ordered' by him."⁽³⁰⁾ This judgment is both helpfully suggestive and a little too harsh. There is no need to assume that Tertullian made up oracles to suit his own purposes.⁽³¹⁾ At the same time, however, the possibility that the issue of whether to pardon or not to pardon stimulated one or the other of the "resident prophetesses" in Tertullian's house church to receive a revelation from the Paraclete relevant to the issue should not be ruled out.

Presumably, as in the case of Perpetua, it was taken for granted in Tertullian's circle that certain privileged members of the Christian community could ask for divine communications to answer particular questions (e.g., Pass. Perp. 4.1). Tertullian himself frequently refers to consulting the Paraclete/Spirit (e.g., fug. 9.4; cf. fug. 11.2, 14.3; anim. 55.5, 58.8; cor. 1.4) in a way which indicates that he clearly considered it a contemporary practice (see also virg. 1.7; mon. 3.1). Given the importance of the debated question of whether to pardon or not to pardon serious post-baptismal sins for the church at Carthage at the end of the first decade of the third century C.E., it would not be at all surprising if one of the resident prophetesses had specifically "consulted the Paraclete" on the matter. Alternatively, even if no specific divine communication on the matter was "ordered," the fact that, no doubt, the topic was discussed passionately by Tertullian and others well before he wrote the De pudicitia may have led to a subconscious influence on the mind of the prophetess or prophet who ultimately pronounced the oracle. In either scenario, as in the other instances referred to already, Tertullian would probably have been the person who wrote down the oracle in readiness for testing its authenticity and authority. Because Tertullian quotes this oracle authoritatively as the teaching of the Paraclete, the oracle must have passed whatever scrutiny was imposed on it by those within The New Prophecy movement in Carthage responsible for the testing of the utterances of contemporary new prophets.

The predominantly oral culture of the Carthaginian church in Tertullian's day meant that few of Tertullian's Christian contemporaries could personally read the works he composed. His treatises, consequently, were written in order to be read aloud. This frequently overlooked feature confirms, for me, that the bishop, not referred to by name but frequently addressed sarcastically or at least in a derogatory manner (e.g., pud. 1.6; 13.7; 21.5), was the local bishop. Everyone who heard the De pudicitia read aloud in Tertullian's own house church or in one of the other house churches in Carthage would immediately have recognized the object of Tertullian's scorn.

In De pudicitia 21.7, Tertullian challenges the bishop who, irrespective of his own level of literacy,⁽³²⁾ was certainly intended to hear or hear about Tertullian's scathing attack on the bishop's edict announcing the possibility of forgiveness for adultery and fornication (pud. 1.6). Tertullian invokes the authority of the Paraclete to refute the bishop's ecclesiology:

But, you say, the church has the power of forgiving sins. This I also acknowledge and prescribe to a greater extent for I have the Paraclete himself declaring through new prophets: "The church has power to forgive sins, but I shall not lest they should commit others also" (21.7).

"Charismatic Exegesis"

Dennis Groh, in his seminal article on Montanist oracles, has demonstrated that the original new prophets engaged in "charismatic exegesis of scripture."⁽³³⁾ That is to say, much of the content of the utterances of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla consisted of interpretative citation (and elaboration) of scripture. The same type of "charismatic exegesis" is evident in the oracle quoted in pud. 21.7 which Groh himself does not discuss.

The oracle's acknowledgement of the church's authority to forgive sins is undoubtedly based primarily on Matt. 18, 15-20, perhaps influenced by Matt. 16, 18-19 and certainly influenced by John 21, 22-23 where the risen Christ is portrayed as imparting the Holy Spirit to his disciples with the words: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Most, if not all, of these texts were presumably read (aloud) periodically during Sunday services, or at other times, in the house churches of Carthage. These texts, therefore, could have provided additional subconscious stimuli for the creation of the new prophetic oracle quoted in pud. 21.7. Through "charismatic exegesis," the meaning of these texts may also have been interpreted on the basis of still other texts such as Mark 2, 7 and Mark 2, 10.⁽³⁴⁾

Tertullian himself continued the exegetical process (although not "charismatically") by discussing, in the De pudicitia, some of these same texts as well as others (Acts 2, 22; 15, 7-11; John 15, 23) he deemed relevant to the Paraclete's new revelation. The purpose of Tertullian's additional exegesis was to prove on biblical, as well as oracular, grounds that the church's power to forgive is rooted in an ecclesiology based on demonstrable evidences of the presence of the Spirit such as those inherent in the (true) apostle and the (true) prophet (pud. 21.8-16; cf. 21.5-6). According to Tertullian, not even martyrs have the authority to exercise the church's power of forgiveness (22.1-15) but, at least theoretically, apostles and prophets do. Mere claims to apostolicity on the basis of apostolic succession or episcopal power, however, are meaningless. The church of the Spirit is not the equivalent of a "collective of bishops" (ecclesia numerus episcoporum [21.17]), it is a church which acts through a spiritual person (per spiritalem hominem[21.17]). Paradoxically, the recent oracle from The New Prophecy movement has revealed through such a spiritual person--a new prophetess (prophet?)--the will of the Spirit on the matter. For the sake of discipline, the Paraclete will not and, therefore, the Spirit's human instruments must not pardon serious post-baptismal sins (21.7; cf. 21.17).

Conclusion

If, as I believe, Tertullian did not, in fact, fabricate the oracle he quotes in De pudicitia 21.7 and, as I now also believe, if the oracle did not originate c.170 with Montanus, Maximilla, or Priscilla but with a Carthaginian prophetess or prophet c.210 in a Sitz im Leben at least very much like that described above, ten significant conclusions (or, at least, ten theses for further discussion) may be drawn about Tertullian's involvement in The New Prophecy movement and about the extent to which the movement influenced his thinking on penitential discipline.

1. The house church structure at Carthage was the socio-ecclesial context in which the debate over penitential discipline played itself out.

2. This socio-ecclesial context helps us to nuance the way in which the debating parties viewed each other. This was an internal fight, within the Catholic church, not a battle between "Montanists" and "Catholics." Consequently, the term psychici which Tertullian hurls at his opponents must not be equated with "Catholics"--the members of Tertullian's house church were also "Catholics." The psychici were simply those Catholics who were not prepared to practice the rigoristic discipline of Christian living which the "spiritual persons" of Tertullian's house church (and probably also of some other house churches) practiced.

3. The house church context also helps to make sense of a number of the specific details of the penitential rite as practiced in Carthage. For example, it gives new insight into terminology which refers to the penitents performing their acts of penance in the vestibulum (i.e., the forecourt between the wall which adjoined the street and the entrance to the house itself) and to terminology such as "knocking on the door of forgiveness."

4. The house church of which Tertullian was a member seems to have included one or more of the prophetesses who received "divine communications" and reported them in the form of "new prophecies." She and many of the other members (perhaps the majority) of this house church (and, presumably, some members of other Carthaginian house churches) viewed themselves as belonging to The New Prophecy movement--but not in a way which formally separated them from the rest of the Christian community in Carthage.

5. Tertullian's fluent literary skills and his own obvious interest in the "current outpourings of the Paraclete" combined to make him the principal (or perhaps even the sole) recorder of the content of the visions and divine communications experienced by contemporary Carthaginian "new prophets."

6. The way in which "Montanist oracles" have been classified in the past has obscured the fact that there were "genuine Montanist oracles" from "new prophets" other than the founders of The New Prophecy movement. A new way of classifying all the Montanist oracles is needed.

7. Tertullian, in his treatises, utilized not only first generation Montanist oracles--at least of Prisc(ill)a--but also the oracles of contemporary Carthaginian "new prophets." Believing them to be authentic revelations of the Paraclete, he drew on his growing collection of these prophetic utterances (most, if not all, of which he had himself recorded!) whenever he deemed it appropriate. In doing so, he provided additional support to justify views on topics ranging from the illegitimacy of flight during persecution to the precise required length of women's veils.

8. It was one of these local, Carthaginian oracles of a "new prophet/prophetess" which, combined with his own increasingly rigoristic emphases, led Tertullian to take such a strong stand against forgiveness of serious post-baptismal sins.

9. The way in which these Carthaginian oracles were generated, however, makes it possible that their content may have been influenced by Tertullian's own exegetical teaching on topics such as post-baptismal sin.

10. Tertullian himself seems to have been unaware or unconcerned about any potential symbiotic connection between his own teaching and the content of the oracle he quotes in De pudicitia 21.7. Hearing the Paraclete's voice echoing his own thoughts regarding the need for a stricter penitential discipline gave him the exact answer he needed (and wanted!) to the question: "To pardon or not to pardon?"
 

1. Latest critical edition of Latin text with French translation in C. Munier, Tertullien: La pénitence: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire. SCh 316 (Paris, 1984).

2. Latest critical edition of Latin text with French translation in C. Micaelli and C. Munier, Tertullien: La pudicité (De pudicitia): Introduction, texte critique et traduction (Tome I) and commentaire et index (Tome II). SCh 394, 395 (Paris, 1993). The Latin texts of Tertullian's works other than the De pudicitia and the De paenitentia quoted or cited in this article are those given in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera. Vols. I-II. CCL 1-2 (Turnhout, 1954). All English translations are my own.

3. For example, W.P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity (Westminster, MD., 1959), pp. 4-12, 41-52; F.E. Vokes, "Penitential Discipline in Montanism," SP 14,3 (1976), pp. 62-76; T.D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford 1971; reprint with postscript and supplemental bibliography, 1985), p. 141; Munier, La pénitence, pp. 7, 76-98; R. Braun, "Tertullien et le Montanisme: Église institutionelle et église spirituelle," RSLR 21 (1985), pp. 245-57; Macaelli and Munier, La pudicité, pp. 9-98; M. De Vine, "Two Treatises on Penance: An Inquiry into Tertullian's Exegesis and Montanism," Churchman 109,2 (1995), pp. 143-53; D. Rankin, Tertullian and the Church (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 147, 149-50, 155-57, 165, 170, 181-84; C. Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and The New Prophecy (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 114-19; E. Osborn, Tertullian, First Theologian of the West (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 171-75.

4. Barnes, Tertullian, pp. 30-31, 141, 247, has settled the matter, although for the contrary opinion, see most recently A. Brent, Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century (Leiden, 1995), pp. 503-35; J.E. Merdinger, Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven, CT, 1997), pp. 32-33; Osborn, Tertullian, p. 175 n.31.

5. Barnes, Tertullian, pp. 31, 55; cf. Rankin, Tertullian, p. xvii.

6. See Trevett, Montanism, pp. 1-3; W. Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, Patristic Monograph Series 16 (Macon, GA, 1997), pp. 18-24.

7. W. Tabbernee, "Remnants of the New Prophecy: Literary and Epigraphical Sources of the Montanist Movement," SP 21 (1989), pp. 195-97; Rankin, Tertullian, pp. 27-38; Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions, pp. 54-55, 142, 352-53.

8. Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions, pp. 475-76.

9. See especially De Vine, pp. 150-53.

10. G. Bray, Holiness and the Will of God: Perspectives on the Theology of Tertullian (Atlanta, GA, 1979), pp. 54-63.

11.  Barnes, Tertullian, pp. 42-48, 325.

12. See Anne Jensen, "Prisca-Maximilla-Montanus: Who was the Founder of Montanism?" SP 26 (1993), pp. 147-50, but contrast Trevett, Montanism, pp. 160-62.

13. The terms "Montanism" and "Montanist" are, of course, anachronistic for Tertullian's own time as they were not employed by anyone until the middle of the fourth century (e.g., Cyril H., catech. 16.8).

14. D.E. Groh, "Utterance and Exegesis: Biblical Interpretation in the Montanist Crisis," in D.E. Groh and R. Jewett, eds., The Living Text: Essays in Honor of E.W. Sanders (Lanham, NY, 1985), pp. 73-95.

15. Barnes, Tertullian, pp. 253-54.

16. Latest critical edition of Latin text with French translation in J. Amat, Passion de Perpétue et de Félicité: Suive des Actes. SCh 417 (Paris, 1996).

17. On this issue, see Trevett, Montanism, pp. 71-72.

18. See Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions, pp. 54-59 and 105-17.

19. Tabbernee, "Remnants," p. 196; Trevett, Montanism, p. 173.

20.  A. Jensen, God's Self-confident Daughters: Early Christianity and the Liberation of Women (Louisville, KY, 1996), p. 146.

21. A.J. Guerra, "Polemical Christianity," Second Century 8 (1991), p. 121; see also Trevett, Montanism, p. 173.

22. K. Hopkins, "Christian Number and Its Implications," Journal of Early Christian Studies 6,2 (Summer 1998), pp. 185-226, especially pp. 206-13

23. Tertullian's rhetoric about the large number of Christians in the Roman empire and in Carthage (apol. 37.4-8; Scap. 2) must be seen as just that. Even doubling or tripling the estimates given above still only results in relatively low numbers for both the size of the Christian community and the number of sophisticated literates in Carthage.

24. Two oracles on martyrdom, the latter is also cited in summary form in anim. 55.5.

25.  Jensen, "Prisca-Maximilla-Montanus," pp. 147-50.

26. R.E. Heine, The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia, Patristic Monograph Series 14 (Macon, GA, 1989), pp. 2-9.

27. See Heine's selection criteria at Montanist Oracles, p. xi.

28. E.g., Trevett, Montanism, pp. 80, 117, 192.

29.  E.g., Heine, Montanist Oracles, pp. 6-7; see also p. xi.

30. Jensen, God's Self-confident Daughters, p. 160 and cf. p. 150.

31. See Trevett, Montanism, p. 117.

32. For the connection between "fluent literacy" and the development of episcopacy, see Hopkins, "Christian Number," p. 213.

33. Groh, "Utterance," pp. 73-95.

34. See K. Froehlich, "Montanus and Gnosis," in D. Neiman and M. Schatkin, eds., The Heritage of the Early Church: Essays in Honor of the Very Reverend Georges Vasilievich Florovsky, OCA 195 (Rome, 1973), pp. 97-98 and C.M. Robeck, Jr., Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian (Cleveland, OH, 1992), pp. 117-18.