A work refuting the Montanists is quoted by Eusebius, who does not give its author a name.
J. B. Lightfoot writes (The Apostolic Fathers, pt. II, vol. I, pp. 498-499):
When I still supposed, as was then the universal opinion, that the Abercius of the epitaph was bishop of Hierapolis on the Maeander, I ventured to identify him, as others had done, with the Avircius Marcellus to whom an anonymous writer (Eus. H. E. v. 16) addresses a treatise in an early stage of the Montanist controversy (see Colossians p. 56). This identification becomes still more probable now that he has been shown to belong to Hieropolis of Lesser Phrygia; for this anonymous writer mentions one Zoticus of Otrous as his 'fellow-presbyter' (του συμπρεσβυτερου ημων Zωτικου Οτρηνου), and Otrous was only two miles from this Hierapolis. Starting from this identification, Duchesne (p. 30) places the date of this Montanist treatise at about A.D. 211. This date is founded on the statement of the anonymous author, that 'more than thirteen years' had elapsed since the death of Maximilla, during which there had been no war in the world either partial or general (ουτε μερικος ουτε καθολικος κοσμω γεγονε πολεμος), and even the Christians had enjoyed continuous peace (αλλα και ξριστιανοις μαλλον ειρηνη διαμονος). With Bonwetsch (Montanismus p. 146 sq), he calculates these thirteen years from A.D. 198, the year of Severus' Parthian victories, onward. But I do not see how a contemporary could possibly have spoken of A.D. 199-211 as a period of continuous peace either to the world or to the Church. The Eastern war was not ended in A.D. 198. A fierce war too was waged in Britain from A.D. 207-210, which demanded the emperor's own presence, and he died at York early in the next year (A.D. 211). This war could not have been overlooked or ignored. Meanwhile the Christians suffered severely, as the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas show. The alternative is the period which was roughly coextensive with the reign of Commodus (A.D. 180-192); and I agree with Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte p. 565), Keim (Rom. u. das Christenthum p. 638 sq), Volter (Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol. XXVII. 1883, p. 27), and Gorres (Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1884, pp. 234, 424 sq), in regarding this as a far more probable solution. After the first year or two of this reign the Christians had almost continuous quiet. The empire also was at peace. There were indeed insignificant conflicts in A.D. 184, and the struggle in Britain afforded the emperor an excuse for assuming the name Britannicus, but it was wholly incomparable in magnitude or duration with the British war of Severus. The Antimontanist treatise therefore with which we are concerned would be written about the close of the reign of Commodus; and this must be somewhere about the date which Eusebius assigns to it, from the place which it occupies in his narrative. In this treatise the writer addresses Avircius Marcellus as a person of authority, and states that Avircius had urged him a very long time ago (εκ πλειστου οσου και ικανωτατου ξρονου) to write on the subject. The mode of address is quite consistent with his being a bishop, though he is not so styled. Thus Avircius Marcellus would have flourished during the reign of M. Aurelius, and might well have gone to Rome about the time (A.D. 163) mentioned by the legend.
Thus, this anti-Montanist work was written in 193 CE.
Go to the Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers homepage.
Please support this web site by buying the CD with over 250 MB of information and texts!
For convenience, a copy of the table of contents is provided here.
This web page is copyright © 2001-2003 Peter Kirby <kirby@earthlink.net>.
Web development by 76 Web Design: Orange County Web Design.
Hosting provided by Cheap Domain Name Hosting.