Polluted Sacraments

"POLLUTED SACRAMENTS": AUGUSTINE'S
DENUNCIATION OF MONTANIST
EUCHARISTIC MEALS
William Tabbernee
Phillips Theological Seminary, Tulsa, OK




Introduction


In 428 or 429 C.E., not long before his death in 430, Augustine responded somewhat reluctantly to the persistent requests made of him by Quodvultdeus, then a deacon at Carthage, to provide an up-to-date, succinct Liber de Haeresibus.(1) Augustine had, at first, considered the task unnecessary as, during the previous half century, both Epiphanius of Salamis (315-405) and Filastrius of Brescia (died c.397) had composed catalogues of heresies, the former in Greek and the latter (in part based on that of Epiphanius) in Latin (Aug., Ep. 222). Considering Epiphanius' work to be superior to that of Filastrius, Augustine contemplated sending his copy to Quodvultdeus so that he might have it translated into Latin (ibid.) but was ultimately persuaded to compose his own catalogue. In doing so, he drew heavily on an epitome of Epiphanius' Panavrion (Panarion),(2) called Anakefalaivwsi~ (Anacephalaioses),(3) and on Filastrius' Diversarum Haereseon Liber (e.g., Aug., Haer. 27-8,58),(4) as well as on Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica--probably utilizing Rufinus' Latin translation.(5)


Most of what Augustine recounts about Montanism(6) in Haer. 26, his main chapter on the sect, repeats what he had already said about Montanism in earlier works (e.g., Agon. 28.30; C. Faust. 32.17). He, like his sources, refers to the Montanists as Cataphrygians and explains that their founders were Montanus, assumed to be Paraclete, and his two prophetesses. The province Phrygia gave name to them because they arose there, lived there, and even now have communities in the same districts. They claim that the coming of the Holy Spirit, promised by the Lord, has been granted more completely in them than in the apostles. They regard marriage as fornication.


"Polluted sacraments"


In Haer. 26 Augustine also passes on information which he had not reported earlier:



They are said to have polluted sacraments [sacramenta funesta], for they are said to prepare their supposed Eucharist from the blood of a one-year-old infant which they extort from its entire body through minute puncture wounds, mixing it with flour and hence making bread. If the child should die, it is considered among them as a martyr; but if it lives as a great priest.
Although Augustine himself had not previously reported the alleged practice of mixing the blood of infants with flour in order to make eucharistic bread for Montanist sacraments, rumors about horrific atrocities involving infants being committed during the performance of Montanist sacred rites [mysteria] had been circulating in orthodox circles since the middle of the fourth century. The details of these rumors, however, are by no means consistent and it is important to note carefully exactly what is reported by whom in order to identify the origins of the rumor and to see how it was changed as it was passed along from one source to the next--including the way in which Augustine himself shaped the information which he had received about the matter.

Infanticide and cannibalism


Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem from c.349-386, was the first to call the adherents of the movement traditionally known by its opponents as "the Phrygian heresy," or simply "the Cataphrygians," Montanists (Catech. 16.8). As far as the extant literature enables us to judge, he was also the first to record a charge in connection with Montanism involving little children and sacramental food. He accuses Montanus personally of



slaughtering [sfavttwn] and cutting into pieces [katakovptwn] women's wretched little children for unlawful food on the pretext of their so-called sacred rites [musthrivwn] (ibid.).
Significantly, Cyril's charge is infanticide: ritual murder followed by cannibalism in the performance of sacred rites. The child itself is the sacrificial victim and its flesh is the substance of the "unlawful food" eaten at the sacred meal. The charge is leveled at Montanus himself and placed sufficiently far back in time to be believable.

The charge made by Cyril is preserved in the published version of the Catechetical Lectures which he had begun to deliver at Jerusalem even before he was a bishop. There is no evidence that there were contemporary Montanists in Jerusalem at the time, or previously. His denunciation of Montanism appears to have been included in his curriculum for the sake of providing a relatively complete historical survey of major heresies. He also used the story of the alleged infanticide committed by Montanus and the earliest Montanists to explain to his catechumens how, because Montanists were also, although falsely, called Christians, Catholics had been accused of infanticide and cannibalism during the pre-Constantinian persecutions (ibid.).


It is not clear whether Cyril was the originator of the story of Montanus' alleged infanticide. An anonymous author, commonly referred to as Praedestinatus, writing c.450 in Rome, mistakenly reports that Tertullian defended the charge of infanticide leveled at the early Montanist prophets (Haer. 1.26). Praedestinatus presumably assumed that Tertullian's explanation that Christians did not indulge in such practices (Apol. 9) was an exclusively Montanist rather than Catholic apologetic. Perhaps Cyril, a century earlier, had similarly misread Tertullian. Alternatively, the author of a no longer extant source read by Cyril may have come to some such conclusion.


James Rives has tentatively suggested recently that the work to which Praedestinatus referred was Tertullian's lost De Ecstasi and that this contained a defense of the specifically anti-Montanist charge of infanticide.(7) Rives also speculates that Apolinarius of Hierapolis may really have been the first to level this charge against the Montanists as a means of diverting the impact of such charges leveled at Catholic Christians by adherents of classical polytheism.(8) Rives' suggestions, however, as he himself admits,(9) are impossible to prove as both suggestions are based on the possible, but in my view unlikely, contents of two lost works. If Apolinarius, or some other early opponent of Montanism, had made this charge and if Tertullian had indeed defended it, it seems strange that it was not repeated by any writer (especially Eusebius) before Cyril. Cyril may have used a pre-Constantinian source, but, if so, it is likely to have been a relatively late one.




"Passing over" or "passing on"?


No other writer repeats the specific charge of cannibalistic infanticide as formulated by Cyril. Epiphanius, as we shall see, assumes that the Montanist atrocity leads to the death of infants, and Augustine and one of his sources consider that the death of the infant is a likely, although not an inevitable, outcome of the blood-letting. Other Fathers simply refuse to believe the charge in any of its variations. Jerome, for example, in explaining the main errors of Montanism to his friend Marcella, c.380, states



I pass over polluted sacred rites [scelerata mysteria] which, it is said, involve preparing meals from a suckling child and a victorious martyr. I prefer not to believe such an evil act; everything relating to blood may well be made up (Ep. 41.4).
Praedestinatus obviously realized the incongruity between not believing such atrocities and still passing on the reports of such atrocities even with a disclaimer. In a statement very similar to that made by Jerome, he declares:


I pass over things which are reported as if they are not firmly established. We make known that they [the Montanists] obtain the blood of infants only so that we shall not appear to be ignorant of all that is said of them (Haer. 1.26).
Augustine, on the other hand, had no qualms about passing on (and adding to or at least amending) such potentially libelous information. Repeating the word perhibentur ("they are said") with the appropriate infinitive habere "to have" or conficere "to prepare" absolved him from all responsibility for guaranteeing the veracity of the information he was providing about the Montanists.



Bread and cheese


At least in part, Augustine's readiness to believe the worst about the Montanists' "by-death-polluted sacraments" (sacramenta funesta) may be explained by the fact that he already believed that the Montanists, or at least members of what he considered to be a Montanist subsect, were involved in other sacramental irregularities. In Haer. 28 Augustine explains:

The Artotyrites are those to whom this name is given on account of oblatio. For they offer bread and cheese saying that offerings of the fruits of earth and sheep was customary from the beginning of humankind. Epiphanius connects them with the Pepuzians.
Both the summary made by a subsequent author of the Panarion of Epiphanius and the Panarion itself equate the Artotyrites with the Pepouzians and, in turn, equate the Pepouzians with the Cataphrygians, i.e., the Montanists (Haer. 49.1.1, 49.2.6; cf. Anac. 49). However, only the Panarion itself (Haer. 49.2.6), not the Anacephalaioses contains the explanation, adopted by Augustine, that the Artotyrites (Artoturivta~) received their name from their use of bread (arto~) and cheese (tuvro~) in their sacred rites (musthvria). This shows that Augustine used the Panarion as well as its summary for this section of his own catalogue of heresies. Similarly, in Haer. 27, devoted specifically to the Pepuzians, Augustine reports that Epiphanius says that Pepuza is a deserted city (civitatem desertam), a detail to be found in the Panarion (48.14.1) but omitted in the Anacephalaioses. G. Mueller, therefore, cannot be correct in claiming that Augustine did not use the Panarion but only its recapitulation which he mistakenly considered to be by Epiphanius himself.(10) Augustine utilized both documents, at least for his chapters on Montanism and its various manifestations as set out by Epiphanius.

Epiphanius, in fact, seems to have been mistaken about the alleged connection between the Artotyrites and the Montanists. Jerome, who may have had some personal contact with Montanists c.373 in Ancyra (Gal. 2.2)(11) and possibly in Rome (Ep. 41),(12) clearly considered the Artotyrites and the Montanists (Cataphrygians) to be distinct and unrelated sects (Gal. 2.2). Filastrius separates his discussion of the Cataphrygians (Haer. 49) and that of the Artotyrites (ibid., 74) by treating twenty-four non-related heresies in between. Timothy of Constantinople identifies Artotyrites with Marcionites (Ex Niconis Pandecte [PG 86a.69]).


Irrespective of the accuracy of the supposed link between the Artotyrites and Montanism, Augustine, and those later writers whose accounts are based on his (e.g., Praed., Haer. 1.28; Isid. H., Etym. 8.5.22), obviously believed that Montanist mysteria involved the use of goat (and other type of?) cheese as well as bread. Depending on how one translates some key words in the descriptions of this alleged practice by Epiphanius and, subsequently, by Augustine, it is possible to conclude (as undoubtedly Augustine concluded) that the charge leveled against the Artotyrites = Montanists (sic) was that they consecrated (offerunt) both bread and cheese for use during their eucharistic meals (musthvria, oblationes).


Supporting evidence for the view that Montanists used cheese in their eucharists is frequently alleged to come from the Passio sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis. This edited account of the martyrdom of Perpetua and her companions in Carthage c.203 includes an extract from Perpetua's journal in which she relates a vision she had of a shepherd milking sheep surrounded by thousands of white-robed people (4.8). Perpetua explains that after the shepherd welcomed her (ibid.)

he called me and gave to me, as it were, a small morsel of cheese which he poured out as milk; and I received with folded hands and ate (4.9).

Despite earlier scholarly views to the contrary,(13) Perpetua's vision does not confirm that Montanists used (sheep) cheese (or curds) in their eucharistic or agape meals. While it is likely that the editor of the passio was an adherent of a pro-Montanist group within the Carthaginian church, it is not at all certain that Perpetua herself belonged to this group.(14) If intended sacramentally, the scene in Perpetua's vision depicting thousands of people dressed in white suggests a baptismal rather than a eucharistic context for the use of the liquid cheese--perhaps an allusion to the Carthaginian practice of drinking milk mixed with honey following baptism (cf. Tert., Cor. 3.3). According to Perpetua's diary, she came out of her visionary state "still chewing something strangely sweet" (Pass. Perp. 4.10), indicating that something like honey had been added to the curds. Perpetua's own interpretation of the vision, however, does not have any sacramental overtones. She understood the sweetened curds she was given by the shepherd (presumably representing Christ) to signify her "last meal" before martyrdom (ibid.).




Predisposed to believe the worst


Augustine was very familiar with the Passio sanctarum Perpetua et Felicitatis. He utilized it on more than one occasion to prepare sermons preached on the annual commemoration of the Carthaginian martyrs (e.g., Serm. 280.1, 281a.1). Augustine, however, clearly viewed Perpetua as a Catholic martyr. His opinion that Artotyrites/Montanists (sic) used cheese sacramentally was based solely on the information provided by Epiphanius. This information, nevertheless, was sufficient for him to be predisposed to believing that Montanists corrupted the Eucharist even more completely by baking communion bread out of flour mixed with the blood of an infant.


Significantly, Augustine, unlike Cyril of Jerusalem, does not charge the Montanists with infanticide. There is no evidence that he had read Cyril's Catechetical Lectures, and neither Epiphanius nor Filastrius accuse the Montanists of ritual murder. Both, however, report that a ritual act involving the extraction of blood from an infant was performed by the adherents of Montanism or of a Montanist subsect. Unlike in the case of Cyril, it is clear from their reports that they believed this to be an annual contemporary Montanist practice, not merely an atrocity committed by Montanus in the distant past.


The epitome of Epiphanius' Panarion simply reports that the "Pepuzians, also called Quintillians, to which the Artotyrites also belong . . . are initiated through certain sacred rites during which they pierce a young child" (Anac. 49). As already noted, it is clear that Augustine had in his possession a copy of the Panarion itself and that he had gleaned from it some details not contained in the epitome. As we shall see, Augustine utilized a still different source in order to compose his account of the alleged polluted sacraments of the Montanists, but there is no reason to assume that Augustine had not at least read Epiphanius' own account of the alleged atrocities. Augustine's competence in Greek was sufficient for him to translate the Anacephalaioses. Although, as we have seen, Augustine wanted to have the whole of the Panarion translated into Latin by someone else, this must not be taken to mean that he did make his own "working translations" of certain sections to provide himself with "research material" for some sections of his own De Haeresibus, such as those on the Montanists--even if the final wording of those sections was based more closely on the Latin sources at his disposal which also dealt with the Montanists. As in the case of his reading Epiphanius' account of the Artotyrites, reading Epiphanius' account of Montanist ritual blood-letting predisposed Augustine to believing the veracity of the later Latin accounts, even if the details of those accounts differed somewhat from what Epiphanius had reported.

Drunken orgies


Epiphanius, in an attempt to provide a comprehensive list of Montanist subsects or nicknames given to Montanists or adherents of one of its subsects, claims that the Cataphrygians themselves, or at least the Quintillians (a Montanist subsect named after a later Montanist prophetess called Quintilla(15)) were also called Tascodrougites (Taskodrougivtai) (Haer. 48.14.3-4). According to Epiphanius, they received this designation from their practice of placing their forefinger (drouggo~) against their nose (tasko~(16)) during prayer (ibid.).(17) John of Damascus (c.675-749) linked the Montanists to a sect named the Ascodrougites (ÆAskodrougi`tai) (Haer. 49.1).


Filastrius states that the Ascodrugitae gained their name from placing a full wineskin (askov~) in their church around which they danced intoxicatedly in a practice based on an erroneous exegesis of Christ's statement that it is necessary to pour new wine into wineskins (Haer. 75; cf. Mt 9: 17). Filastrius does not identify the Ascodrougites with the Montanists, nor, apart from John of Damascus, does any other later Father. A mandate of Justinian I issued in 530, however, declares that the Montanists' "wanton common meals and sacriligious and damnable banquets" (impias eorum commessationes et impia damnataque convivia) should be forbidden (cod. I.5.20.5), but this does not prove that Montanists became drunk at their eucharists or agape meals or that they danced around wineskins. It does, nevertheless, confirm the readiness of their catholic opponents to believe such rumors. In reality, any alleged link between Taskodrougivtai, or Askodrougi`tai (most likely simply a corruption of Taskodrougivtai(18)), and Montanism may simply be a figment of Epiphanius' (and John of Damascus') imagination.(19)




Copper needles and initiation


Irrespective of whether Montanists were really "nose peggers"(20) or danced around wineskins, Epiphanius' main charge against the Cataphrygians was that he had heard that


in this sect, or in that of its yoke-fellow called the Quintillians, and subsequently therefore among the Pricillians and the Pepouzians, they say some dreadful and wicked action occurs. For at a certain festival [eJorthvn] they pierce a child, an infant to be precise, throughout the whole of its body with copper needles and procure for themselves its blood, presumably in the performance of a sacred rite [qusiva~] (Haer. 48.14.5).
While qusiva can mean "a sacrifice" or "an offering" as well as a sacred rite, it is clear from Epiphanius' wording in the repetition of this report in a subsequent section in which he attributes the practice specifically to the Quintillians that he assumes the procuring of blood from an infant to be integral to the Montanist rite of initiation. Utilizing the analogy of a particular kind of viper whose bite causes total hemorrhage and death, he explains:


in the same way the sect of the Quintillians also accomplishes this. For it pricks the body of an uncorrupt child and obtains the blood for consumption, presumably in respect of initiation into the mysteries [mustagwgivan] of the name of Christ, having misled those who have been deceived (48.5.7).
In the section devoted especially to the Quintillians which follows, he quotes the well-known Montanist oracle, undoubtedly related by Quintilla rather than the earlier Priscilla,(21) that Christ appeared to her in the form of a woman and revealed Pepouza to be the sacred site where the Jerusalem from above would descent (49.1.1-3). Although Epiphanius had already caricaturized it as a deserted place, he comments here that he had heard that as a result of this oracle men and women continued to be initiated by the Montanists at Pepouza even up to Epiphanius' own time (49.1.4).



From Easter Sunday to Maundy Thursday


The initiatory context presumed by Epiphanius as he related the account he was passing on about the extraction and utilization of the blood of an infant is also apparent from his use of the word eJorthvn in Haer. 48.14.5 which I have simply translated generically as "a festival." By Epiphanius' time, in Christian circles, however, eJorthv almost exclusively designated Easter.(22) It is in this sense that Filastrius understood Epiphanius' use of the word as seen in his dependent version:



They say, in fact, that at Easter [pascha] they mix the blood of an infant in their sacrifice [sacrificium] and that they send it in this manner to their baleful and spurious adherents [satellitibus] (Haer. 49).
Filastrius, like Epiphanius--and before him Cyril of Jerusalem--locates the atrocity at Pepouza but, by his choice of the word pascha, radically alters the context from a baptismal to a eucharistic one. Instead of focusing on Easter as the traditional Christian festival during which catechumens were initiated into the Christian mysteries, Filastrius focuses on Easter as the Christian Passover. An alleged initiatory practice involving the blood of an infant has become, through Filastrius' translation and interpretation, an alleged eucharistic travesty. The sacrificium in Filastrius account is not the infant who, in Cyril's and in Epiphanius' account, is the sacrificial victim in a bizarre initiatory rite, but the communion host polluted by the blood of an infant. According to Filastrius, portions of this sacrificium are sent to Montanist congregations elsewhere, presumably so that they, too, can celebrate the Eucharist with this polluted communion bread.



Augustine's special source


Theoretically, Augustine's own account of the alleged Montanist sacramental abberation could have been constructed on the basis of the Anacephalaioses, Epiphanius' Panarion, and Filastrius' Liber de Haeresibus. Any details not contained in those sources could have been added by Augustine himself in an attempt to make better sense of the particulars of the alleged practice. Augustine's account, for example, explains in more detail exactly how the blood was extracted, how the communion host was prepared, and what happened to the infant after the blood was extracted (Haer. 26).(23)


It used to be assumed that a book circulating under the name of Jerome titled Indiculus de Haeresibus and which devoted two lengthy chapters (19-20) to Montanism is a seventh-century work plagiarizing Augustine's De Haeresibus and Jerome's De Viris Illustribus.(24) More careful investigation, however, has shown that Ps.-Jerome (independently) used Filastrius(25) and that Ps.-Jerome, in fact, was used as a source by Augustine at least for Haer. 81 and 82.(26) Given the extremely close verbal and grammatical similarity between Ps.-Jerome's description of the alleged Montanist practice involving infants and that of Augustine, there is little doubt that Augustine also used Ps.-Jerome for Haer. 26. G. Mueller argues that Augustine may have used a no longer extant source on which Ps.-Jerome also based his account,(27) but such a view is unnecessary and unlikely given the strong evidence that Augustine had utilized Ps.-Jerome for other sections of the De Haeresibus. It is, however, clear that the real Jerome had read a work which not only described the practice of obtaining blood from infants but also referred to a victorious martyr (Ep. 41.4).(28) This work, if it was not Ps.-Jerome's Indiculus, may have been a source common to both Jeromes.


Ps.-Jerome's version of the alleged Montanist sacramental atrocity reads:



The originators of the heresy of the Cataphrygians are Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla. This people-deceiving, most vain deviation esteems Montanus as Paraclete and Prisca and Maximilla as prophetesses. Indeed corrupt [perditionis], unspeakable sacred rites [mysteria] are of this heresy. For annually they sacrifice a one-year old perfect infant and pricking wounds in its little body they catch its blood in flour, thus making bread out of this most polluted meal mixture they partake of a most deadly [feralissimae] Eucharist: a diabolical sacrament. The infant, moreover, if it dies is revered with the esteem accorded a martyr; if it lives it is regarded with the same reverence as a preeminent priest (Haer. 19).
Perhaps the most telling evidence that Augustine employed Ps.-Jerome as the basis of his own account is Ps.-Jerome's use of the name Prisca rather than Priscilla for one of the founding prophetesses of the Montanist movement. Although the earlier North-African Church Father Tertullian also occasionally used Prisca (e.g., Res. 11), Augustine consistently refers to the prophetess as Priscilla in his earlier writings (e.g., Agon. 28.30; Ep., 237). There is no evidence that there were any contemporary Montanists in Carthage or Hippo at the time that Augustine wrote his De Haeresibus(29) from whom Augustine could have received new information about the sect or to cause him to employ Prisca rather than Priscilla. The substitution of Prisca for Priscilla in the process of summarizing an account about Montanism which contained the form Prisca, however, would have been natural.

Ps.-Jerome, like Filaster (and before him Epiphanius) retains the information that the alleged atrocity occurred only annually--although omits any reference to Easter. This enables him to strengthen the case for the atrocity being eucharistic rather than baptismal. If indeed, as argued here, Ps.-Jerome's account preceeds that of Augustine, Ps.-Jerome is the first to use the words "sacrament" (sacramentum) and "eucharist" (eucharistia) to describe that which is allegedly partaken of by the Montanists (cf. Aug., Haer. 26).




Martyr or priest?


Apart from the graphic description of the blood of the infant dripping into the flour from which the communion bread is baked, the most significant new information provided by Ps.-Jerome is that, if the infant dies from this blood-letting, it is cherished as a martyr, but if it lives, it is viewed as a preeminent priest. As I have argued elsewhere,(30) it is possible that the juxtaposition of the term "martyr" and "priest" in this context may provide a clue to an actual Montanist practice based on a particular understanding of the Book of Revelation, most likely by Quintilla.


References to pricking children with copper needles may have had their basis in reports of some kind of initiatory marking or tattooing among the Montanists. If so, this practice need not have been derived from Phrygian cultic practices(31) but may have been introduced by Quintilla on a literalistic exegesis of Rev 13: 16-17a, 14: 1-2, and 20: 4b-6. In these passages, the followers of Christ are marked permanently on their bodies to distinguish them from the followers of "the Beast." Refusal to wear the mark of "the Beast," according to Rev 20: 4b-6, may result in martyrdom, but those who became martyrs would reign with Christ for a thousand years as priests. Perhaps, given the high rate of infant mortality (and unhygienic tattooing practices?), Montanists not only tattooed infants (as well as adults) as part of their baptismal liturgy but, on the basis of Rev 20, declared them "martyrs" if they died and saints if they lived.


Conclusion


The suggestions about Montanist tattooing practices and Quintilla's exegesis of Rev 20 are, of course, highly speculative. The rumors about Montanist infanticide and cannibalism which, as they were passed on were changed from anti-Montanist charges about alleged horrific initiatory practices to eucharistic atrocities, may have been nothing more than libelous slander.(32) Even if there was originally some actual initiatory rites which gave rise to these rumors, they were not only grossly exaggerated but had nothing to do with actual Montanist eucharistic practices. It is not to Augustine's credit (but understandable given his historical, religious, and geographic context) that he believed and recorded for posterity the rumors about the Montanists' alleged "polluted sacraments."


1.

1 CCL 46.286-345. For the correspondence between Quodvultdeus and Augustine on this matter, see Aug., Epp. 221-4.

2.

2 That is, "Medicine Chest," so titled because it was intended to provide antidotes for those stung by the heresies catalogued. This work by Epiphanius is alternatively known simply as Haereses and normally cited as such.

3.

3 See B. Altaner, "Augustinus und Epiphanius von Salamis. Eine quellenkritische Studie," in Melanges Joseph de Ghellinck (Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1951) I: 265-95.

4.

4 See L.G. Mueller, The De Haeresibus of Saint Augustine: A Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1956), 25-6.

5.

5 See ibid., 28-30.

6.

6 The most recent monograph on Montanism is Christine Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). The main literary texts are collected and translated into English by Ronald E. Heine, The Montanist Oracles and Testimonia (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989). All translations in this paper, however, are my own and, at some crucial points, differ significantly from those provided by Heine.

7.

7 James Rives, "The Blood Libel Against the Montanists," VChr 50 (1996): 118-9.

8.

8 Ibid., 120-2.

9.

9 Ibid., 118-9, 121.

10.

10 Mueller, The De Haeresibus of Saint Augustine, 23.

11.

11 See William Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 350-51.

12.

12 See William Tabbernee, "The Opposition to Montanism from Church and State: A Study of the History and Theology of the Montanist Movement as Shown by the Writings and Legislation of the Orthodox Opponents of Montanism" (Ph.D. diss., University of Melbourne, 1978), 389-91.

13.

13 For example, see F.C.A. Schwegler, Der Montanismus und die christliche Kirche des zweiten Jahrhunderts (Tuebingen: L.F. Fues, 1841), 121-2; John De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church: A Study in the Ecclesiastical History of the Second Century (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., 1878), 99; W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 118 n.1.

14.

14 See Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions, 54-9, 105-17.

15.

15 See William Tabbernee, "Revelation 21 and the Montanist 'New Jerusalem'," AusBR 37 (1989): 54-6 and id., Montanist Inscriptions, 34, 51-2, 346-7.

16.

16 Tasko~ and drouggo~ are Phrygian words transliterated into Greek and, hence, are not to be accented.

17.

17 See Tabbernee, "Opposition," 447-9; id., Montanist Inscriptions, 346-7; cf. Christine Trevett, "Fingers up Noses and Pricking with Needles: Possible Reminiscences of Revelation in Later Montanism," VChr 49 (1995): 258-69 and id., Montanism, 199-203.

18.

18 See LPGL, s.v. askodroughvtai.

19.

19 See Tabbernee, "Opposition," 447-51, 481-2. For the view that the nickname Tascodrougitae did actually belong to the Quintillians and accurately described one of their practices, see Trevett, "Fingers up Noses," 260-7.

20.

20 Trevett's striking translation of Tascodrougites, see ibid., passim.

21.

21 See Tabbernee, "Revelation," 53-6; cf. id., "Remnants of the New Prophecy: Literary and Epigraphical Sources of the Montanist Movement," Studia Patristica 21 (1989): 195.

22.

22 LPGL, s.v. eJorthv.

23.

23 See p. 2 above for a translation of the relevant section of Aug., Haer. 26.

24.

24 See Pierre de Labriolle, Les sources de l'histoire du montanisme: Textes grecs, latins, syriaques (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1913), CXXXII-III; cf. R.E. Heine, who omits the relevant text from Ps.-Jerome, included by de Labriolle (no. 206) in his own collection of texts on the basis that it is a late and dependent work containing no new data (Montanist Oracles, xi).

25.

25 See A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973), 15-6.

26.

26 Gustave Bardy, "L' 'Indiculus de Haeresibus' du Pseudo-Jerome," Recherches des Sciences Religieuses 19 (1929): 385-405; cf. id. "Le 'De haeresibus' et ses sources," in Studi Agostiniani: Miscellanea Augustiana, Testi e Studi 2 (Rome: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1931), 397-416.

27.

27 Mueller, The De Haeresibus of Saint Augustine, 28.

28.

28 See p. 3 above.

29.

29 See Kurt Aland, "Augustin und der Montanismus," in id., Kirchengeschichtliche Entwuerfe: Alte Kirche, Reformation und Luthertum, Pietismus und Erweckungsbewegung (Guetersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1960), 149-64, esp. 161-2 and Tabbernee, Montanist Inscriptions, 352-3, 475-6.

30.

30 Tabbernee, "Opposition," 474-9; id., "Revelation," 58-60; cf. Trevett, "Fingers up Noses," 251-68 and Susanne Elm, "Pierced by Bronze Needles": Anti-Montanist Charges of Ritual Stigmatization in Their Fourth-Century Context," JECS 4 (1996): 422-39.

31.

31 As argued by Wilhelm Scheperlern, Der Montanismus und die phrygische Kulte: Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Tuebingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1929), 122-30, 159-60; cf. G.S.P. Freeman-Grenville, "Montanism and the Pagan Cults of Phrygia," Dominican Studies 3 (1950): 297-316 and August Strobel, Das heilige Land der Montanisten: Eine religions-geographische Untersuchung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 263-6.

32.

32 So Rives, "Blood Libel," 121.