Looking anew at the new prophecy : Tertullian's montanism and Pentecostalism as neo-montanism

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Through the eyes of the Catholic Church, one usually looks at Montanism as a second-centuryheretical sect. This prevailed orthodox view has devalued the Catholic Tertullian as aschismatic when he had accepted Montanism as his theological verification. The recentscholarship, however, has challenged that Tertullian's transition to Montanism had notnecessarily resulted from his theological conclusion. Rather this suggests that Tertullian, fromthe very beginning, was much more sympathetic to the new prophets than to the Catholic priests;the Montanist Tertullian had always taken precedence over the Catholic Tertullian. Given thisnew perspective, the thesis is developed as follows;Chapter 1, the topic and title are introduced with four critical research questions;(1) Why were the original Montanists condemned?(2) Why did Tertullian become a Montanist?(3) Why does Montanism exclude the present day Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism?(4) Why does Montanism include the present day Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism?Here particular interest is Tertullian's intermediate position; as a point of contact, Tertullianstands not only between the Montanists and the Catholics, but also between the originalMontanists and the present day Pentecostals as Neo-Montanism.Chapter 2 seeks to find an answer to the first research question of 'Why were the originalMontanists condemned? Then, the researcher focuses on the root cause of the originalcondemnation of Montanism in three aspects. (1) Montanism was condemned as the victim ofthe institutionalization of the church, (2) Montanism was condemned as the pagan inspirationincluding controversial manifestations, such as ecstatic prophecy (and speaking in tongues),fanatical millenarianism, and strict puritanism, and (3) Montanism was condemned as thepower struggle between the urban and rural church leadership. The point is that these threereasons are interrelated as a whole and, not as a separate entity. Yet, the conflict in the churchregarding church government had taken the lead in the original condemnation of Montanism.The victory of urban church leadership had justified the victimization of the Montanists, the representative of the rural leadership.Chapter 3, the thesis has dealt with the second question; 'Why did Tertullian become aMontanist? The researcher acknowledges of the uneasy connection between the apologistTertullian and the Montanist Tertullian. Yet, if Montanism was accused of its political conflict,not of its theological deviances, the relationship of Tertullian with Montanism needs to bereconsidered. Then, the researcher tries to vindicate Tertullian's position through twomethodological approaches. First, the researcher reconstructs the new image of Tertullian asthe lay leader born into Montanism by deconstructing the conventional portrayal of Tertullian;(1) as the son of an officer of the Roman army, (2) as the professional Jurist, (3) as the Catholicpriest at Carthage, and (4) as the schismatic. Second, the researcher also takes into account ofTertullian's identity in the concept of the transitional correlation. By applying Tertullian'stransitional period as the Pagan-Catholic-Montanist to the concentric circles of concern, theprevious view of Tertullian can be transformed into the new formula of Pagan as caterpillar-Catholic as cocoon-Montanist as butterfly. This three-fold structure then opens the way for anewborn image of Tertullian.Chapter 4 is dealing with the relationship between Montanism, the Montanist Tertullian, andthe present-day Pentecostalism in order to answer the final question; 'Why does Montanisminclude/exclude the present-day Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism? Tertullian's Montanism,like a hinge, closely interconnects the present-day Pentecostalism to the original Montanism inhistorical, theological and ecclesiological sense of the word. First, the first generation ofPentecostals, regardless of whether they are the proponents of the Azusa Street or Topekarevival, they find their historical identity in the first generation of the apostolic church and thisincludes the second-century Montanists and the Montanist Tertullian. Second, from thetheological point of view, the Montanist distinctive theological fashions, such as ecstaticprophecy, speaking in tongues, and the impending eschatological hope, has clearly re-echoedin the diadem of the current Pentecostal theology.. Third, the original Montanists and thepresent-day Pentecostals are both ecclesiologically the strong advocates of the pneumatologicaltheocracy. For both, the priority is to return to the apostolic primitive church.. So, the currentPentecostals is convinced that they trace their root from the second-century spirit-filledMontanists.Chapter 5 summarizes the relationship between Montanism, the Montanist Tertullian, and thepresent day Pentecostalism by answering to the following four research questions;(1) 'Why were the original Montanists condemned?The answer is the ecclesiastical power struggle between the urban and rural leadershipmade the Montanist crisis a highly politically charged affair rather than a theologicallycontroversial issue.(2) 'Why did Tertullian become a Montanist?The answer is Tertullian, as natural born Montanist, is determined to be a self-sacrificingmediator in order to bring reconciliation between the two rivals, namely, the city-priest and thecountryside prophets.(3) 'Why does Montanism include/exclude the present-day Pentecostalism as Neo-Montanism?The answer is Montanism is the antecedent of the present-day Pentecostalism.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University