Revelatory
Novelties
(i) New scriptures
Tertullian did not deny that
Montanists composed new ‘scriptures,’ that they considered the content of the
writings of the New Prophets to be superior to that in books which were
ultimately to become part of the canon, or that they held that the final and
most complete revelation of the Holy Spirit had come via the prophets and
prophetesses of the New Prophecy. He strongly denied, however, that these
aspects of Montanism constituted novelty. Montanist supplementary revelation
only ‘made clear’ the ethical implications of what had already been revealed
(e.g., Res. 63.1; Mon. 2.1–4; Prax. 13).
Adherents of the New Prophecy
other than Tertullian also replied to accusations of novelty leveled at the
movement. Proclus, for example, in his debate with Gaius, defended the practice
of composing new scriptures (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.20.3).61 The
particular arguments used in such defense, however, are not known as the
contemporary records containing them have not survived. The allusions to
Montanist defenses on the subject of allegedly ‘new scriptures’, by the
opponents of the New Prophecy, nevertheless, strongly suggest that the
Montanist case depended primarily on an appeal to the ultimate authority of the
Paraclete who had spoken through the New Prophets.
(ii) Progressive revelation
Progressive revelation, for
Tertullian, was progressive ethical revelation, not progressive doctrinal
revelation. The Paraclete’s final
revelation was an interpretative, dependent revelation. It revealed how
spiritual Christians were to act in an age of Christian maturity.
Tertullian did not write a
separate treatise about revelation, but he strongly defended his view of
progressive ethical revelation in a number of his later works, claiming each
time that this view was the biblical view of progressive revelation. Tertullian
found his evidence in the ethical progress of humanity, as portrayed in the
scriptures of the old and new covenants. In the beginning God had granted very
great liberty to his creation. Justice was not based on an explicit code, but
on ‘natural law’ (e.g., Virg. 1.5–7). Mosaic legislation brought new ethical
revelation and prepared people for a closer relationship to God through greater
obedience (e.g., Virg. 1.7; Marc. 2.18–19; Jejun. 5.1).
The teaching of Christ and the apostles brought further ethical revelation.
Christian grace did not mean that discipline had been abrogated (e.g., Virg.
1.7; Pud. 6.12.). In fact, the discipline imposed by Christ was
‘harsher’ than that of the Law and Prophets. Moses tolerated divorce; Jesus did
not (Mon. 14.3–7). The Decalogue forbade adultery; Jesus revealed that a
lustful heart was equally sinful. Christ and the apostles, however, had only
been able to lead their followers from ethical infancy into ethical youth. The
people of Jesus’ day were not yet ready for the full burden of discipline;
hence Christ promised further ethical revelation via the Paraclete (Mon.
2.2–4). The Montanist oracles contained the fulfillment of that promise. They
were the means by which the Paraclete revealed the ultimate ethical
implications of Jesus’ own teaching. The age of Christian maturity had arrived
(Virg. 1.7). Just as Jesus was not instituting novelty when he “fulfilled
the Law and the Prophets” (Matt 5:17), the Paraclete was not instituting
novelties when fulfilling the promise of Christ. Consequently, Montanists were
not instituting revelatory novelties when they collected and took seriously the
oracles of the New Prophets, including second- (or later) generation ‘New
Prophets,’ considered them superior to the books ultimately deemed canonical,
and held that they contained the ultimate revelation from the Holy Spirit. (William
Tabbernee, Fake Prophecy and Polluted Sacraments: Ecclesiastical and
Imperial Reactions to Montanism [Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 84;
Leiden: Brill, 2007], 145-46)
