Origen on the Montanist Prophetesses

Introduction

Origen of Alexandria (d. 253) was a well-known Christian theologian who ministered in the first half of the third century. In a commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, he minimised the ministries of notable prophetesses who are mentioned in the Bible. He did this because he was concerned about prophetesses in the Montanist movement. In this article, I give an overview of Montanism. In my next article, I discuss what Origen said about the biblical prophetesses.

Montanism AKA The New Prophecy

Montanism began sometime around AD 170 with a man named Montanus and two women named Priscilla (not the New Testament Priscilla) and Maximilla.[1] The two women had left their husbands to join Montanus.  All three prophesied and had visions,[2] and they were highly respected within the Montanist community as the founders of the group.[3]

The Montanists were known by various names including Cataphrygians (the group started in the Roman province of Phrygia), Quintillianists (these were Montanists who followed the teachings of the third-century prophetess Quintilla), and Pepuzians (the headquarters of the Montanists was in the city of Pepuza in Phrygia).[4] There were still more names, but the group preferred to call themselves the New Prophecy.

The New Prophecy spread in Asia Minor and then to North Africa and Europe. Peter Lampe states that, due to its popularity, “For a while it looked as if this charismatic form of Christianity had a chance of becoming the dominant version of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire.”[5]

The Montanists regarded prophecy as the most important form of spoken ministry. The apostle Paul seems to have had a somewhat similar belief. He considered prophecy to be the most desirable of the spiritual gifts (1 Cor 14:1), and he listed “prophets” and “prophecy” before “teachers” and “teaching” in his lists of ministries in Romans 12:6–8, 1 Corinthians 12:28, and Ephesians 4:11.[6]

In first-century churches, including the church at Corinth, male and female prophets provided guidance (Acts 13:3-4; 16:6), instruction (1 Cor. 14:31), strengthening, encouragement and comfort (1 Cor. 14:3). In 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul acknowledged that women prophesied in Corinthian churches, and he did not silence them.[7]

Detractors of Montanist Prophetesses

Montanism “gave the Holy Spirit, which had been ‘tamed’ in the official church, a more important role and even accepted women as leaders.”[8] Origen disapproved of Montanist women speaking and prophesying in church meetings. With them in mind, he alluded to 1 Corinthians 14:34 and stated,

For it is improper for a woman to speak in an assembly, no matter what she says, even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since they come from the mouth of a woman. (Fragments on 1 Corinthians, 74)

Origen was not the only church father who had issues with these female ministers. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 375) also disapproved. He wrote, “They have women bishops, presbyters [i.e. elders], and the rest; they say that none of this makes any difference because ‘In Christ, there is neither male nor female,’” a reference to Galatians 3:28. (Panarion, 49.2.5. p. 22) Epiphanius mentions that the Quintillianists used the example of Miriam and Philip’s daughters as scriptural support for the ordination of women. (Panarion, 49.2.2. p. 22)

Augustine (354-430) stated that the Pepuzians (i.e. Montanists) are heretics who “give such great positions of leadership to women that women even receive the honor of the priesthood among them,” and he named Quintilla, Priscilla, and Maximilla. (Augustine, Heresies, 27)[9]

Furthermore, Origen, Epiphanius, Augustine, and also Eusebius the church historian, found the ecstatic manner of Montanist prophecy hard to take.

Eusebius took a different approach than Origen when he criticised the New Prophecy. Unlike Origen, instead of diminishing the ministry of Philip’s four daughters (and other biblical prophetesses), Eusebius contrasted the ecstatic speech of Montanist prophets with the supposedly orderly speech of the four daughters and other notable first and second-century prophets.

In his Church History, Eusebius included this quotation from an earlier historian, Miltiades, which approved of the prophetic ministries of Philip’s daughters and of the prophetess Ammia.

They [the Montanists] cannot show that one of the old or one of the new prophets was thus carried away in spirit. Neither can they boast of Agabus [Acts 11:27–28; 21:10], or Judas, or Silas [Acts 15:22, 27, 32] or the daughters of Philip [Acts 21:8-9], or Ammia in Philadelphia, or Quadratus, or any others not belonging to them. (Church History, 5.17.3)

Montanism was Regarded as Rebellious

In his article on Montanism, Harnack sketches the condition of the church in the second half of the second century, the backdrop for the emergence of the New Prophecy. He writes that those who opposed the trend of spiritual complacency and secularisation, “protested in the name of the Gospel” and joined the “enthusiastic movement.”  He adds that in Phrygia,” the cry for a strict Christian life was reinforced by the belief in a new and final outpouring of the Spirit …”[10]

Christine Trevett writes that the New Prophecy “saw itself in the vanguard of renewal in the Church.”[11] However, it was regarded by many Christians as a rebellious movement.

The Prophecy/ later Montanism was synonymous with revolt—against emerging catholic authority and catholic pragmatism (‘worldliness’ to some); the Spirit against the letter; the prophet against the bishop or the fanatic against the sober teacher.[12]

Trevett also comments, “… the church ‘marched through the open door into the Roman state’ and Montanism was among the forces (the ‘warning voices’) raised against secularising tendencies. In turn it fell prey to arrogance and legalism.”[13]

Harnack observed,

The burden of the New Prophecy seems to have been a new standard of moral obligations, especially with regard to marriage, fasting and martyrdom. But Montanus had larger schemes in view. He wished to organize a special community of true Christians to wait for the coming of their Lord.[14]

We’ve seen how similar visions of an exclusive community of end-time “true believers” have played out in church history, and they typically didn’t end well.

Montanism was not Theologically Heretical

Apart from having women as leaders, emphasising the role of the Holy Spirit and prophecy, and holding to some ideas which many in the broader church regarded as strange, the Montanists’ basic theological beliefs were not heretical. “They believed in God the Creator and in Christ the Redeemer according to the faith of the church. In this respect, it was fundamentally different from both Gnosticism and Marcionism.”[15] (Gnosticism, in its various expressions, and Marcionism were two other Christian movements that began in the mid-second century and impacted the church.)

Christine Thomas notes,

In all the writings of the heresiologists, no serious accusation of doctrinal heterodoxy managed to attach itself to [Montanism]. Hippolytus of Rome avers that the “Cataphrygians” conceive of the creator correctly, and that they receive the teachings of the gospels about Christ (Haer. 8.19).

In the fourth century, Epiphanius testifies that this is still the case: the Montanists believe in the trinity and the resurrection of the dead in the same way as the “holy catholic church,” and they accept both the Old and New Testaments (Pan. 48.1).[16]

Moreover, the Montanists were not always vilified. Tertullian records that the bishop of Rome, possibly Eleutherus (d. 189), wrote a letter calling for tolerance towards the New Prophecy. This tolerance was short-lived, however, because of the meddling of a man named Praxeas. Tertullian used strong language in his essay Against Praxeas.[17] Tertullian had himself become a Montanist sometime in the first decade of the third century, and he continued in the group until his death in around 240.[18]

In his treatise On Fasting, Tertullian defended the group’s orthodox beliefs. He observed that the Montanists were considered a problem, not because of their theology, but because of their emphasis on fasting and their rejection of marriage.

Harnack writes that, despite the sound theology of Montanists,

Their enthusiasm and their prophesyings were denounced as demoniacal; their expectation of a glorious earthly kingdom of Christ was stigmatized as Jewish, their passion for martyrdom as vainglorious[19] and their whole conduct as hypocritical.[20]

The New Prophecy and their women leaders were denounced and vilified. In his rhetoric against the Montanists and their prophetesses, Origen diminished the ministries of biblical prophetesses. I look at what he said about them in my next article.

Footnotes

[1] Paul McKechnie discusses the date when Montanus began prophesying on pages 100-101 of  “Montanism Part 1: The Origins of the New Prophecy” in his book Christianizing Asia Minor Conversion, Communities, and Social Change in the Pre-Constantinian Era (Cambridge University Press, 2019): 96-122. Here is an excerpt.

Eusebius’ Chronicle gives the twelfth or eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius (172/3 or 171/2), depending on whether the Armenian translation is used or Jerome’s Latin adaptation; Epiphanius writes of the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius (156/7). They cannot both be right, and, as Barnes argues, Epiphanius’ understanding of the chronology of second-century heresies is unsatisfactory at a number of points. (p. 100)

[2] Adolf von Harnack writes, “Montanus claimed to have a prophetic calling in the very same sense as Agabus, Judas, Silas, the daughters of Philip, Quadratus and Ammia [a famous prophetess in Philadelphia], or as Hermas at Rome.” Harnack, “Montanism,” Encyclopedia Brittanica (1911) (Online Source: Wikisource)

[3] Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2.1.16, footnote 1585 (Online source: CCEL)

[4] Using Revelation 3:2 as a reference, which is about Philadelphia in Asia Minor, Montanus believed the New Jerusalem would descend in Pepuza and Timion in Phrygia.

[5] Peter Lampe, Between Ecstasy and Asceticism (2010) in Speigel.de (in German and in English).

[6]  With Paul’s words in mind, Ben Witherington III points out that “one cannot argue that prophesying—whether by women or by men—is less important, less enduring or less official than teaching or preaching.” Witherington, The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus (InterVarsity, 1998), 225.

[7] In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul addressed the appearance of the heads, or the hair, of the men and women who were prophesying and praying in Corinthian congregations, but he did not silence them. I have a basic article on this passage, here.

[8] Peter Lampe, Between Ecstasy and Asceticism.

[9] From, Arianism and Other Heresies, 1.18 of The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, translated by Roland J. Teske (New City Press, 1995), 38. (A PDF of this book can be downloaded here.)

[10] Harnack, “Montanism.”

[11] Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy (Cambridge University Press, 1991), 166.
(Google Books and here.)

[12] Trevett, Montanism, 166.

[13] Trevett, Montanism, 10.

[14] Harnack, “Montanism.”
Eusebius writes about the Montanists in chapters 14-19 of book 5 of his Church History. He, and the sources he quotes, portray the leaders of New Prophesy as deluded, crazed, and ambitious charlatans.

[15] Harry R. Boer, A Short History of the Early Church (Eerdmans, 1976, 1990), 63.

[16] Christine M. Thomas, “The Scripture and the New Prophecy: Montanism as Exegetical Crisis,” in Early Christian Voices: In Texts, Traditions, and Symbols, edited by David H. Warren, Ann Graham Brock, and David W. Pao (Brill, 2003), 155-165, 155. (Google Books)

There is a useful footnote on Montanism in series 2, volume 1, chapter 16 of Philip Schaff’s Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (NPNF). Here is an extract.

Montanism must not be looked upon as a heresy in the ordinary sense of the term. The movement lay in the sphere of life and discipline rather than in that of theology. Its fundamental proposition was the continuance of divine revelation which was begun under the old Dispensation, was carried on in the time of Christ and his apostles, and reached its highest development under the dispensation of the Paraclete, which opened with the activity of Montanus. […] It appealed very powerfully to the sterner moralists, stricter disciplinarians, and more deeply pious minds among the Christian.
(Footnote 1568. Source: CCEL.org)

[17] Tertullian wrote,

For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he [i.e. Praxeas], by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop’s predecessors in the see, compelled him [the bishop] to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 1.

[18] Roger Pearce writes,

In Africa there was a lot of interest in the new prophecy, and Tertullian came to believe that it was genuine, accordingly mentioning it and defending it strongly in his later works.  Unfortunately his work in defence of it, De ecstasi, in 7 books is lost. Tertullian fiercely attacks those who condemned the new prophecy, and in attacking the church authorities as more interested in their own political power in the church than in listening to the Spirit, he foreshadows the protestant reaction to papal claims. (Source: Tertullian.org)

Harnack mentions Tertullian’s departure from the proto-orthodox church.

For nearly five years (202–207) the Carthaginian Montanists strove to remain within the Church, which was as dear to them as it was to their opponents. But at length they quitted it, and formed a congregation of their own. It was at this juncture that Tertullian, the most famous theologian of the West, left the Church whose cause he had so manfully upheld against pagans and heretics. He too had come to the conviction that the Church had forsaken the old paths and entered on a way that must lead to destruction. The writings of Tertullian afford the clearest demonstration that what is called Montanism was, at any rate in Africa, a reaction against secularism in the Church.
Harnack, “Montanism” (Source)

[19] Frederick C. Klawiter discusses the value the New Prophecy placed on martyrdom and how it helped to elevate the status of women who had been imprisoned and persecuted. He writes,

The New Prophecy was rejected because in the new situation in which Christians were openly pursued [by persecutors], it took a position on martyrdom which the church deemed to be suicidal, irrational and destructive to the life of the church.

… the value the New Prophecy placed on martyrdom explains why women could attain ministerial status within its ranks. It is well known that in early Christianity, martyrs awaiting death could exercise and manifest extraordinary power. They even had the power of the keys, that is, the power to forgive the sins of those who had denied the faith and were therefore thought to have lost salvation. …

Since the power of the keys had been traditionally in the hands of the bishop-presbyter, anyone who exercised such power was thereby demonstrating a ministerial power. Strict logic would lead one to conclude that an imprisoned confessor [a person imprisoned for confessing their Christian faith] could have the status of a minister. And, indeed, by 190 a male confessor released from prison automatically had the status of a presbyter in the Roman church. The act of confession followed by imprisonment was one way to acquire ministerial rank.
Klawiter, “The Role of Martyrdom and Persection in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: A Case Study of Montanism,” Church History, 49 (1980): 251-261, 254. (Source: JSTOR)

[20] Harnack, “Montanism.”

© Margaret Mowczko 2025
All Rights Reserved

Thank you to those who support my work. It is greatly appreciated!
You can support my work for as little as $3 USD a month at Patreon.

Image credit

Excerpt of a lithograph of Miriam’s Song of the Sea by artist Marc Chagall (1960).

Explore more

Origen on the Biblical Prophetesses
An Overview of Women Ministers in the Early Church 
Publia and her Plucky Choir of Virgins (AD 360s)
A Female Teacher and Deacon in Antioch (AD 360s)
A Christian Lady Teacher in Egypt in the 300s AD
Remembering Theosebia of Nyssa (300s)
Olympias: Deaconess and Chrysostom’s Friend (died 408)
Melania the Elder’s Powerful Influence on Early Christianity (died 410)
Freebies for Students of Early Christian Women
All my articles on women in the early church are here.

Further (free online) Reading on Montanism

Adolf von Harnack, “Montanism,” written for the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1911). (Source: Wikisource)
Peter Lampe, Between Ecstasy and Asceticism (2010) in Speigel.de (in German and in English).
Douglas Powell, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians” in Vigiliae Christianae, 29 (1975): 33-54. (Source: Tertullian.org)
Frederick C. Klawiter, “The Role of Martyrdom and Persection in Developing the Priestly Authority of Women in Early Christianity: A Case Study of Montanism,” Church History, 49 (1980): 251-261. (Source: JSTOR)
John Chapman, “Montanists” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10. (Robert Appleton Company, 1911) (Source: New Advent)
W. Möller, “Montanism,” in A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Vol. 3, 3rd edition, Philip Schaff, ed. (Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1894),1561-1562. (Source: EarlyChurch.org.uk)