^{page 338 note 1} Some arguments militating against the Gnostic ‘diagnosis’ are: gnosis is only mentioned once (I Tim. vi. 20) and the verb thrice but in a very general sense (I Tim. i. 18; ii. 19; iii. 1); philosophia is completely absent; there is no suggestion of docetism and such words as πλήρωμα (cf. Eph. i. 23; Col. i. 19; ii. 19); αλώνες (cf. Col. i. 26); κοσμοκράτωρ (cf. Eph. vi. 12); άρΧοντες (cf. Eph. ii. 2) are missing, as also the opposition between light and darkness, pneuma and nous, spirit and matter, and life and death.

^{page 338 note 2} Epiphanius, , Haer. XLVIII. 2Google Scholar, but Oehler thinks this is a mistake for A.D. 156. However, if the Cataphrygian heresy preceded Montanus himself a first-century date would be possible.

^{page 338 note 3} A discussion of Western Montanism or Tertullianism is not relevant to this paper.

^{page 338 note 4} Davies, J. G., Tertullian, De Resurrectione Carnis LXIII: a note on the origins of Montanism, J.T.S. VI, n.s. (1955), 90–4Google Scholar, has suggested that to the Montanists it was ‘false and perverse teaching’ which was the occasion of God's gift of the New Prophecy: it was designed to combat that.

^{page 338 note 5} ‘Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian eresy?’ J.E.H. XVII, no. 2 (10 1966), 145–57.Google Scholar Both arose in areas thickly populated with Jews and prominent Jewesses; the fasts and calendar regulations show affinity to sectarian Judaism as does also the Montanist concept of prophecy.

^{page 339 note 1} The writer assumes the destination of Ephesians to be to that city.

^{page 339 note 2} Even if this epistle is a mere literary device it would be difficult to imagine that the author has wholly invented the trouble.

^{page 340 note 1} Epiphanius is a late source but he is worthy of some consideration.

^{page 340 note 2} Eusebius, H.E. V. xviGoogle Scholar; compare also Epiphanius, Haer. XLVIII. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 3} Eusebius, H.E. V. xix.Google Scholar

^{page 340 note 4} Hippolytus, , Refut. Haer. VIII. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 1} Jerome, , Ep. XLIGoogle Scholar, Ad Marcellam.

^{page 341 note 2} Origen, , in Ep. Ad Titum (P.G. XIV. 1306).Google Scholar The translation is the author's.

^{page 341 note 3} The Montanists proper, probably as opposed to Proto-Montanists, believed that the city of Jerusalem would descend at Pepuza (Epiphanius, , Haer. XLIX. 1).Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 4} Eusebius, , H.E. V. xvi.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 5} Cf. Hippolytus, , On Daniel, III, xxGoogle Scholar (number 14 of P. de Labriolle's Les Sources de l'histoire du Montanisme, Paris, 1913). Hippolytus refers to contemporary men, ignorant and fickle, who do not follow Scripture accurately but are led astray by human traditions, by their errors, visions, fabulous stories (μνθολογίαις) and by the words of old women (λόγοις γραῷδεσι) and teachings of the devil. They prescribe new fasts.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 6} Priscillian, , Tractatus I Liber Apologeticus xxviiGoogle Scholar (99 in Labriolle op. cit.).

^{page 341 note 7} Eusebius, H.E. V, xvii. 3, 4Google Scholar and Epiphanius, Haer. XLVIII. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 341 note 8} Eusebius, H.E. V, xviiiGoogle Scholar: his source (Apollonius of Ephesus) speaks disparagingly about a Montanist martyr called Alexander to whom he imputes impurity and robberies. He reports that he was convicted by Aemilius Pompinus, proconsul of Ephesus. One cannot refrain from observing that it is interesting that this great antagonist of Montanism came from Ephesus, perhaps the destination of the Pastorals, and that an Alexander is criticized in I Tim. i. 20. He was delivered to Satan so that he might learn not to blaspheme. We do not know the date of Apollonius of Ephesus.

^{page 342 note 1} Cf. , Eusebius, H.E. V, xiv.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 2} The best article on the subject is by Gundry, R. H., ‘Ecstatic Utterance’, J.T.S. n.s. 17 (10 1966), 299–307.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 3} Eusebius, H.E. V, xvi.Google Scholar Cf. v. xvii. and Epiphanius, Haer. XLVIII. 4 and 13.Google Scholar

^{page 342 note 4} Epiphanius, , Haer. XLVIII. 2, 3Google Scholar but cf. , Eusebius, H.E. v. xviiGoogle Scholar where Miltiades says a false prophet is carried away by vehement ecstasy.

^{page 342 note 5} Martyr, Justin, Coh. ad Graec. 8Google Scholar and see Dial. 7.Google ScholarAthenagoras, , Apology, 7 and 9.Google Scholar See John, de Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church, reprint, Lexington, Kentucky (1965), pp. 62–8Google Scholar and also Selwyn, E. C., The Christian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse (London, 1900), pp. 10–40 but especially pp. 20–5.Google Scholar However, ecstasy certainly need not mean frenzy, rather it is the opposite.

^{page 343 note 1} We may compare the prophets mentioned in Origen, Contra Celsum, VII. 8, 9Google Scholar and 10 who speak ‘gibberish’. They belonged to Phoenicia and Palestine.

^{page 343 note 2} Cf. , EusebiusH.E. V. XVI. 12Google Scholar for chattering (άμετροφωνους) prophets.

^{page 343 note 3} For example, the idea that women must become male’

^{page 343 note 4} Although her ‘report’ is delivered outside the service itself.

^{page 343 note 5} Eusebius, H.E. V. xviiiGoogle Scholar, where Apollonius states that the women left their husbands and received gold, silver, and expensive clothing; contrast I Tim. ii. 9–12. Epiphanius, , Haer. xlix. 2Google Scholar, see also Augustine, , De Haer. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 1} Note the slave girl who had a spirit of divination whom St, Paul exorcized in Acts xvi. 16 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 2} Eusebius, H.E. V. xviii.Google Scholar This was probably in imitation of the non-classical Jewish prophets who abstained from their wives.

^{page 344 note 3} Firmillian, , ad Cyprianum, Ep. lxxv. (lxxiv.) 10Google Scholar refers to a woman who baptized and celebrated the Eucharist. Compare also the prophetess Jezabel, in Rev, . ii. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 4} Cf. Hippolytus, , Phil. VIII. 19Google Scholar and Didymus of Alexandria, , De Trin. III. xli. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 5} Eusebius, H.E. V. xvi. 9.Google Scholar Eusebius uses the word άκαίρως. Cf. , Origen, Catenae ad Cor. V. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 6} Epiphanius, , Haer. xlix. 2 f.Google Scholar; Didymus of Alexandria, , De Trin. III. xli. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 344 note 7} For example, Didache, x.7 τΟīς δέ πρΟφήταιςέπιτρέπετε εύΧαριστεīν δσα θέλΟυσιν may indicate that the prophet was venerated more than or as much as the prebyter or bishops.

^{page 344 note 8} Eusebius,H.E. v.xvi.14.The later Montanists retained the hierarchy but included patriarchs (Jerome, , Ep.XLI.3)Google Scholar.

^{page 345 note 1} Cf. Tertullian, De Pudicitia, xxiGoogle Scholar and Eusebius H.E. Is this also the reason behind the statement concerning είς καί μεσιτης in I Tim. ii. 5?

^{page 345 note 2} Perhaps the reference to μίας γυναικός άνδρα is a plea against celibacy. The είς may be equivalent to the indefinite article and not be a reference to successive polygamy (cf. Funk, Robert, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, translation of Blass, F. and Debrunner, A., Cambridge, 1961, paragraphs 247 (2) 301 (1))Google Scholar, but they do not refer to this text of the Pastorals.

^{page 345 note 3} However, there seems to be no explicit reference to the teaching office of a deacon.

^{page 345 note 4} Eusebius, H.E. XVIII. 5Google Scholar, states that Themiso wrote a Catholic Epistle. The anonymous writer was reluctant to pen a written refutation of Montanism lest anyone should think he was adding to the New Testament (Eusebius, H.E. v. xvi–xvii).Google Scholar