¹ The bibliography on the cultural construction of ‘heretical’ groups in Late Antiquity is enormous: see in particular Le Boulluec, A., La notion d'hérésie dans la littérature grecque, IIe–IIIe siècles (1985)Google Scholar; Burrus, V., The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy (1995)Google Scholar; Elm, S., Rebillard, E. and Romano, A. (eds), Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire (2000)Google Scholar; Cameron, A., ‘How to read heresiology’, in Martin, D. B. and Miller, P. C. (eds), The Cultural Turn in Late Antique Studies (2005), 193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Iricinschi, E. and Zellentin, H. M. (eds), Heresy and Identity in Late Antiquity (2008)Google Scholar. For overviews of the epigraphy of the ‘Anatolian heresies’, see Calder, W. M., ‘The epigraphy of the Anatolian heresies’, in Calder, W. M. and Buckler, W. M. (eds), Anatolian Studies presented to Sir W. M. Ramsay (1923), 59–91Google Scholar; Calder, W. M., ‘Leaves from an Anatolian notebook’, BJRL 13 (1929), 254–71Google Scholar; Mitchell, S., Anatolia. Land, Men and Gods in Asia Minor (1993), II, 96–108Google Scholar.

² Tabbernee, W., Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia (1997)Google Scholar; Hirschmann, V.-E., Horrenda Secta. Untersuchungen zum frühchristlichen Montanismus (2005)Google Scholar; Mitchell, S., ‘An apostle to Ankara from the New Jerusalem’, SCI 24 (2005), 207–23Google Scholar; Tabbernee, W. and Lampe, P., Pepouza and Tymion. The Discovery and Archaeological Exploration of a Lost Ancient City and an Imperial Estate (2008)Google Scholar.

³ First published by Ficker, G., Amphilochiana, I. Teil (1906), 21–280Google Scholar, with excellent commentary; standard edition by Datema, C., Amphilochii Iconiensis Opera (1978), 185–214Google Scholar (henceforth cited as Amph., Haer.). Nothing of substance is added to Ficker's treatment by Bonis, C., ‘The heresies combatted in Amphilochios’ “Regarding False Asceticism”’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 9 (1963), 79–96Google Scholar, or Rossin, E., ‘Anfilochio di Iconio e il canone biblico “Contra Haereticos”’, Studia Patavina 43/2 (1996), 131–57Google Scholar. The text has not been much exploited in recent work on late antique asceticism; it is not used by either Calder or Mitchell in their studies of the Anatolian heresies.

⁴ Mitchell, S., ‘Iconium and Ninica’, Historia 28 (1979), 409–38, at 411–25Google Scholar; TIB Galatien 176–8, s.v. Ikonion; Weiss, P., ‘Mythen, Dichter und Münzen von Lykaonien’, Chiron 20 (1990), 221–37Google Scholar.

⁵ Basil, Ep. 138.2. The date of the creation of the province of Lycaonia is not quite certain, but it is likely to have been contemporary with the division of Cappadocia into Prima and Secunda in late a.d. 371 or early a.d. 372: TIB Kappadokien 67; TIB Galatien 55; Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 1), II, 161; Lenski, N., ‘Basil and the Isaurian uprising of A.D. 375’, Phoenix 53 (1999), 308–29, at 318 n. 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ Ep. 81, convincingly interpreted as a letter from Basil to Faustinus, dating to a.d. 371 or 372, by Pouchet, J.-R., ‘L’énigme des lettres 81 et 50 dans la correspondance de saint Basile’, OCP 54 (1988), 9–46, at 18–28Google Scholar.

⁷ Holl, K., Amphilochius von Ikonium in seinem Verhältnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern (1904), 5–42Google Scholar, supplemented by Pouchet, J.-R., Basile le grand et son univers d'amis d'après sa correspondance (1992), 405–38Google Scholar.

⁸ Anth. Pal. 8.134–5; TIB Kappadokien 171, s.v. Diokaisareia.

⁹ Libanius, Ep. 634, 670–1; Petit, P., Les étudiants de Libanius (1956), 125–8Google Scholar; Festugière, A. J., Antioche païenne et chrétienne (1959), 127Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Anth. Pal. 8.121–30.

¹¹ Gregory, Ep. 22–4.

¹² Gregory, Ep. 25–7; N. McLynn, ‘The other Olympias: Gregory of Nazianzen and the family of Vitalianus’, ZAC 2 (1998), 227–46, at 241–2. Cf. Pouchet, op. cit. (n. 6), 28–43, arguing that Basil, Ep. 50 is in fact a letter from Amphilochius to Basil dating to a.d. 372 or early 373.

¹³ Basil, Ep. 161; Gregory, Ep. 63; Holl, op. cit. (n. 7), 14–15; Pouchet, op. cit. (n. 7), 405–9; Rousseau, P., Basil of Caesarea (1994), 258–60Google Scholar. Libanius was delighted at the appointment: Ep. 1543.

¹⁴ Ep. 190 §1, with Pouchet, op. cit. (n. 7), 415–16; Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 1), II, 71–2.

¹⁵ Ep. 188 §10 (early a.d. 375): a rural district transferred from Mistea to Vasada.

¹⁶ Ep. 216; Ep. 200, requesting an update on the situation, dates later the same year; Ep. 232, dating to early a.d. 376, suggests that matters were improving.

¹⁷ Epp. 188 and 199, ed. P. P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique II (1963), 92–139; see further Halleux, A. de, ‘L’économie dans le premier canon de Basile’, EThL 62 (1986), 381–92Google Scholar; Pouchet, op. cit. (n. 7), 410, 416 n. 3, 419–29; Rousseau, op. cit. (n. 13), 260–3; R. Van Dam, Families and Friends in Late Roman Cappadocia (2003), 143–5.

¹⁸ Laodicea, canons 7–8, ed. P. P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique I/2 (1962), 133–4; de Halleux, op. cit. (n. 17), 385–9; Pouchet, op. cit. (n. 7), 420–1.

¹⁹ τὸ δὲ τῶν Ἐγκρατιτῶν κακούργημα νοῆσαι ἡμᾶς δεῖ, ὅτι, ἵν᾿ αὐτοὺς ἀπροσδέκτους ποιήσωσι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐπεχείρησαν λοιπὸν ἰδίῳ προκαταλαμβάνειν βαπτίσματι^. ὅθεν καὶ τὴν συνήθειαν τὴν ἑαυτῶν παρεχάραξαν. The logic of the passage is very compressed; one twelfth-century manuscript reads εὐπροσδέκτους, and a fourteenth-century scholiast speculatively glosses the final clause ‘(because) it was not their custom to baptise their new adherents at all’. See the critical notes at Joannou, P. P., Discipline générale antique II (1963), 97Google Scholar. I see no way of telling in what respect the encratite form of baptism could be represented as breaching ‘even their own customary usage’.

²⁰ The strong implication of Amph., Haer. §17, lines 626–45 is that the Lycaonian ascetics preserved two of the three orthodox mysteries (baptism and the body of Christ) but rejected the third (the blood of Christ).

²¹ Ep. 199 §47: ὥσπερ Mαρκιωνιστῶν ἐστιν ἀποβλάστημα ἡ κατ᾿ αὐτοὺς αἵρεσις, βδελυσσομένων τὸν γάμον καὶ ἀποστρεϕομένων τὸν οἶνον καὶ τὴν κτίσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ μεμιασμένην εἶναι λεγόντων… οἵ γε κακῶν ποιητὴν ὑποτιθέμενοι τὸν Θεόν, ἐϕαμίλλως τῷ Mαρκίωνι καὶ ταῖς λοιπαῖς αἱρέσεσιν. Basil's conception of the encratites as an offshoot of Marcion may ultimately derive from Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.28 (=Eusebius, HE 4.29.2): ‘The so-called Encrateis (Ἐγκρατεῖς), inspired by Saturninus and Marcion, have proclaimed the rejection of marriage (ἀγαμία) … and they have introduced abstinence from what they call animal foodstuffs (ἔμψυχα) … and deny the salvation of the first man. They have recently invented this last argument themselves, a certain Tatian being the first to introduce this blasphemy.’ As has often been remarked, this passage conflates a remarkable range of different theological views into a single, spurious Gnostic tradition: Gasparro, G. Sfameni, Enkrateia e antropologia (1984), 23–31Google Scholar; Hunter, D. G., Marriage, Celibacy and Heresy in Ancient Christianity (2007), 101–5Google Scholar.

²² In his critique of ascetic vegetarianism (Haer. §21, lines 796–8), Amphilochius argues that, in view of Gen. 18:7–8, any attempt to suggest that Christ favoured abstension from meat would itself constitute a kind of dualism, ‘as in the fantasies of the Manichaean and Marcionite heresies’, but this is some way short of accusing the Lycaonian ascetics of dualist beliefs.

²³ Elm, S., ‘The polemical use of genealogies’, Studia Patristica 33 (1997), 311–18Google Scholar; Buell, D. K., Making Christians: Clement of Alexandria and the Rhetoric of Legitimacy (1999), 79–94Google Scholar; Cameron, op. cit. (n. 1), 196–9. For the casuistic systemization of heretical genealogies in heresy law, see C. Humfress, ‘Roman law, forensic argument and the formation of Christian orthodoxy’, in Elm et al., op. cit. (n. 1), 125–47.

²⁴ Rightly emphasized by de Halleux, op. cit. (n. 17), 391.

²⁵ CTh 16.5.7.3 (May a.d. 381): ‘Encratitas, Apotactitas, Hydroparastatas vel Saccoforos’; 16.5.9.1 (March a.d. 382), ‘Encratitas … cum Saccoforis sive Hydroparastatis’; 16.5.11 (July a.d. 383), ‘Encratitae, Apotactitae, Saccofori, Hydroparastatae’. See Holl, op. cit. (n. 7), 34–7; for the association with the Manichaeans, see Humfress, op. cit. (n. 23), 137–8; Hunter, op. cit. (n. 21), 142–6. Amphilochius as guarantor of orthodoxy: CTh 16.1.3. Amphilochius had briefly floated the idea of a doctrinal connection between Manichaeism and the Lycaonian ascetic sects (based on their abstension from meat) in Haer. §19, lines 714–16; cf. §21, lines 796–8, with n. 22 above.

²⁶ Pourkier, A., L'hérésiologie chez Épiphane de Salamine (1992), 343–62Google Scholar. Tatian had already been claimed as the founder of ‘encratism’ by Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.28 = Eusebius, HE 4.29.2 (above, n. 21). As Pourkier notes, Epiphanius’ account of Tatian in the Panarion is itself coloured by his knowledge of (what he believes to be) contemporary ‘encratite’ practices, leading to circularity; see further Kim, Y. R., ‘Reading the Panarion as collective biography’, Vigiliae Christianae 64 (2010), 382–413, at 393–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the wider history of enkrateia in the early Church, see H. Chadwick, RAC V 343–65, s.v. Enkrateia, esp. 353–4; Sfameni Gasparro, op. cit. (n. 21); Bianchi, U., La tradizione dell'enkrateia (1985)Google Scholar; Hunter, op. cit. (n. 21), 87–170. Hunter's work is particularly valuable in refusing to follow the ancient heresiological writers in treating ‘encratism’ as a single category.

²⁷ Encratites: Epiph., Adv. Haer. §46.1 (eds Holl and Dummer, p. 204); §47 (p. 215): πληθύνουσι δὲ οὗτοι καὶ εἰς δεῦρο ἔν τε τῇ Πισιδίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Φρυγίᾳ τῇ κεκαυμένῃ οὕτω καλουμένῃ. Apotactics: Anaceph. 3 (p. 213); §61.2 (p. 382). Basil, Epp. 161 and 216 (cf. Ep. 138) show that in the mid-370s the term ‘Pisidia’ could still be used discursively to refer to the new province of Lycaonia: B. Treucker, Politische und sozialgeschichtliche Studien zu den Basilius-Briefen (1961), 109.

²⁸ Encratites: Anaceph. 3 (p. 211); §47 (p. 216). The vegetarianism of the Lycaonian ascetics is criticized at length in Amph., Haer. §17–28. Apotactics: Anaceph. 3 (p. 213): παραπλησιάζουσι δὲ τοῖς Ἐγκρατίταις, ἄλλα δὲ παρ᾿ αὐτοὺς ϕρονοῦσιν; §61.1 (p. 380). Ficker, op. cit. (n. 3), 216 n. 1 is unnecessarily cautious about identifying Epiphanius’ Apotaktikoi with Amphilochius’ Apotaktitai; see further n. 50 below.

²⁹ See above, n. 3.

³⁰ Amph., Haer. §18, lines 674–6; cf. Acta Pauli et Theclae §1–7 (ed. Lipsius, pp. 235–41), and V.Theclae, ed. Dagron, G., Vie et miracles de sainte Thècle (1978), 172–4Google Scholar; Ficker, op. cit. (n. 3), 111–36.

³¹ Fr. X, ed. Datema, C., Amphilochii Iconiensis Opera (1978), 235–6Google Scholar; Ficker, op. cit. (n. 3), 136–61.

³² For Simon's canonical status as pater omnium haereticorum, see Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.27.4; 2. Pref. 1; 3. Pref.; le Boulluec, op. cit. (n. 1), 80–4; Pourkier, op. cit. (n. 26), 53–61, 80–2.

³³ Amph., Haer. §12, lines 405–17; Ficker, op. cit. (n. 3), 219–21.

³⁴ Haer. §12, lines 426–48. For the ‘Sakkophoroi’, see Ficker, op. cit. (n. 3), 220; they are connected with the ‘Apotactics’ by Epiph., Adv. Haer. Praef. (ed. Holl, p. 160): Ἀποστολικοί, οἱ καὶ Ἀποτακτικοί, οἷς συνάπτονται οἱ καλούμενοι Σακκοϕόροι.

³⁵ Haer. §13 lines 449–53.

³⁶ For an attempt to distinguish the affiliations and practices of the Lycaonian ‘Encratites’, ‘Apotactites’, ‘Sakkophoroi’ and ‘Hydroparastatai’, see Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 1), II, 102–3. As will become clear, I am not convinced that distinctions of this kind are possible.

³⁷ Haer. §1, lines 1–5.

³⁸ Haer. §1, lines 44–7; Haer. §24, lines 928–48, with Ficker, op. cit. (n. 3), 195–6; 273–8; Epiphanius, Adv. Haer. 47.3 (eds Holl and Dummer, p. 218); see further P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (1988), 100–1, and especially Elm, S., ‘Virgins of God’. The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (1994), 184–206Google Scholar.

³⁹ Haer. §3, lines 97–8; cf. §8, lines 266–7; §9, lines 301–5. The two virtues were juxtaposed in Paul's sermon at the house of Onesiphoros at Iconium in the apocryphal Acta Pauli et Theclae, §5 (ed. Lipsius, p. 238): μακάριοι οἱ ἐγκρατεῖς, ὅτι αὐτοῖς λαλήσει ὁ θεός^. μακάριοι οἱ ἀποταξάμενοι τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ, ὅτι αὐτοὶ εὐαρεστήσουσιν τῷ θεῷ.

⁴⁰ Haer. §5, lines 161–3, 178–81.

⁴¹ Haer. §6, lines 213–19; cf. Ex. 21:17; Mt. 15:2–4.

⁴² Haer. §9, lines 305–24.

⁴³ Or. II, ed. Datema, C., Amphilochii Iconiensis Opera (1978), 11–73Google Scholar, §1, lines 1–34.

⁴⁴ Or. II §2–3; for the fourth-century debate over this question, see Hunter, op. cit. (n. 21), 171–204.

⁴⁵ Or. II §3, lines 81–6.

⁴⁶ Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 1), II 96–102. To the inscriptions assembled by Mitchell, add now I.Konya 204 (funerary inscription for Domna, κανονικὴ… τῆς ἐκλησείας τῶν Καθαρῶν). In lines 5–7 of this inscription, the editor's correction τῷ ἀδελϕῷ μου τ <ῷ> διακόνῳ should be rejected; the deacon carried the common Lycaonian name Tας (i.e. Tᾳ διακόνῳ).

⁴⁷ Compare for instance MAMA I 227 (Sarayönü), πρεσβυτέρῳ τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκλησίας with MAMA I 172 (Kadınhanı), πρεσβιθέρῳ θῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἁγίας ἐκλησίας τῶν Nαυατῶν.

⁴⁸ MAMA I 173: πρεσβύτερος τῶν ἀποτακτιτῶν; for the find-spot, see TIB Phrygien 205, s.v. Bardaētta.

⁴⁹ MΑMΑ VII 88: Γάϊος πρε[βύτερος καὶ οἱ] συνπρεσβύ[τεροι τοῦ τῶν] ἀποτακτιτ[ν e.g. εὐαγοῦς μο]ναστηρίου. For the find-spot, see TIB Phrygien 300, s.v. Kestel.

⁵⁰ That is not to say, of course, that the term necessarily carried the sectarian connotations placed on it by orthodox critics. In all three cases, we could simply be dealing with monastic communities internal to mainstream churches. The term ἀποτακτίτης is semantically very close to the doctrinally neutral term ἀποτακτικός, used in Egypt as a synonym for μοναχός, ‘one who renounces (sc. the world)’: E. Wipszycka, ‘Ἀναχωρητής, ἐρημίτης, ἔγκλειστος, ἀποτακτικός. Sur la terminologie monastique en Égypte’, JJP 31 (2001), 147–68. Epiphanius in fact uses the term ἀποτακτικός to refer to the Lycaonian ‘apotactites’: see above, n. 28. Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 1), II, 93 is surely right to argue for the monastic character of Lycaonian apotaxis (although his translation ‘off-register’ is unhelpful).

⁵¹ On the significance of the use of the term ἐνκρατεῖς rather than Ἐγκρατῖται, see below.

⁵² MAMA VII 69b: διακόνισσα τῆς ἐνκρατῶν θρισκίας. The text is inscribed on the right-hand panel of a bi-partite funerary monument; the left-hand panel reads ‘Aur(elius) Antonius, son of Miros, along with his aunt Elaphia, deaconess of the worship of the enkrateis, [set this up for] Men[- -]’. Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 1), II, 103 incorrectly states that the monument ‘reveals a brother and sister serving as priest and deaconness’. For the find-spot, see TIB Phrygien 348, s.v. Nevenne.

⁵³ MAMA VII 96. In line 1 Calder reads Ṃῖρος Ἀεντίνου; the name *Aentinos is unattested elsewhere, and I take this to be a mason's error for <Oὐα>εντίνου (cf. MAMA I 206, line 7). Waelkens, M., Die kleinasiatischen Türsteine (1986), 257–8Google Scholar, no. 666, dates the monument to the late third or early fourth century. For the curse-formula, see L. Robert, Hellenica 11–12 (1960), 399–413 (with earlier bibliography); Feissel, D., ‘Notes d’épigraphie chrétienne (IV)’, BCH 104 (1980), 459–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 463–4; Trebilco, P. R., ‘The Christian and Jewish Eumeneian formula’, Mediterraneo Antico 5/1 (2002), 63–97Google Scholar. For Kindyria, in the highlands south-west of Laodicea, see TIB Phrygien 302, s.v. Kindyria; Thonemann, P., ‘Cistophoric geography: Toriaion and Kormasa’, Numismatic Chronicle (2008), 43–60Google Scholar, at 43.

⁵⁴ Amph., Haer. §5, lines 161–3, 178–81; Epiph., Adv. Haer. Anaceph. 3 (eds Holl and Dummer, p. 211); §47 (p. 216).

⁵⁵ MAMA I 233; MAMA I 175.

⁵⁶ MAMA VIII 132; G. Laminger-Pascher, Die kaiserzeitlichen Inschriften Lykaoniens. Faszikel I: der Süden (1992), no. 306; R. Merkelbach and J. Stauber, Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten, Band 3 (2001), 14/12/01; the study of Wilhelm, A., ‘Griechische Grabinschriften aus Kleinasien’, SBBerl. Phil.-hist. Kl. 27 (1932), 792–865Google Scholar, at 792–809, although based on an obsolete text, remains useful. The restoration [παράκοιτ]ν ἀρίστην in line 14 is impossible: Mammeis is Nestor's sister, not his wife. Both Nestor and Mammeis carry the epithet Tηλεϕίδης: not ‘native of Pergamon’ (the siblings both carry epichoric Isauro-Lycaonian names), but, despite Wilhelm's doubts (op. cit., 800–1), simply ‘son/daughter of Telephos’, a common name in Isauria (e.g. TAM II 1165; Laminger-Pascher, op. cit., nos 41, 46, 295).

⁵⁷ A group of ‘apotactite’ Christians at Ankyra in Galatia can be inferred from the Life of St Theodotus (ed. P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Studi e Testi 6: I Martirii di S. Teodoto e di S. Ariadne (1901), 61–87) §19; Mitchell, S., ‘The life of Saint Theodotus of Ancyra’, AS 32 (1982), 93–113, at 103–4Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ cf. MAMA VIII 320 (Sadaettin Hanı), ζῶν γὰρ ἀνέστησ[εν] ἐπὶ τύνβῳ τ᾿ ὧδ᾿ ἐκάραξεν. On this parallel, I have assumed, with some misgivings, that the letters TΩT in line 11 represent τ᾿ ὧτ(ε), i.e. ὧδ(ε). Funerary monuments in this region frequently record their own inscribing; cf. e.g. SEG 6, 442 (Konya), τίτλον εὐποίη[τον τάϕῳ ἐπεχά]ραξεν. For the juridical significance of such clauses, see Fıratlı, N. and Robert, L., Les stèles funéraires de Byzance gréco-romaine (1964), 143–4Google Scholar; Robert, L., Hellenica 13 (1965), 95Google Scholar; Opera Minora Selecta V 317.

⁵⁹ For this usage of the term γνήσιος, compare I.Smyrna 563: Θεοδώρῳ τῷ ἐμῷ γνησ(ίῳ) ἐκγόνῳ καὶ πνευματικῷ υἱῷ. However, the term is regularly used in the funerary epigraphy of the villages of the Lycaonian and Galatian steppe simply as a synonym for ἴδιος: e.g. MAMA I 358, 361, 365; MAMA VII 427, 565, 585; RECAM II 238, 354.

⁶⁰ ἐχέϕρων: cf. MAMA I 229–30 (Kadınhanı), ἀθάνατος δὲ θεὸς ἐχέϕρονα εἵλατο δοῦλον. ϕοβούμενος = ‘reverent’: Luke 1:50, 18:2; Acts 10:35; ‘God-fearer’: Acts 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26; Reynolds, J. and Tannenbaum, R., Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias (1987), 48–66Google Scholar.

⁶¹ e.g. Mart. Dasii 9.2; Basil, Ep. 139.3, 164.2, 165; MacCoull, L. S. B., ZPE 62 (1986)Google Scholar, 51–3 (Dioscorus of Aphrodito: St Senas); Mango, C. and Ševčenko, I., BZ 65 (1972), 382–4 (St Theodore at Euchaita)Google Scholar. See Calder, W. M., ‘Studies in early Christian epigraphy’, JRS 10 (1920), 42–59, at 52–3, 58–9; Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 57), 100–1Google Scholar.

⁶² ‘One who fights for the faith’: Wilhelm, op. cit. (n. 56), 845–6, discussing the term ἀθλοϕόρος in MAMA I 171. The metaphor is used in a ‘weak’ sense in Gregory, Ep. 238 (after a.d. 360), of a deceased member of a monastic community at Sannabadae in Cappadocia.

⁶³ The term ἀγνός is regularly used of members of the clergy in this region: MAMA VIII 280 (Obruk), Δόμνῳ ἁγνῷ δειάκονι; MAMA I 196 (Kadınhanı), ἁγν π[ρ](ύτερος); Laminger-Pascher, op. cit. (n. 56), 231, no. 410 (Aydoğmuş/Dorla: Isauropolis), ὁ ἁγνότατος… ἐπίσκοπος.

⁶⁴ For the name Ἀσιατικός in northern Lycaonia, cf. Anderson, J. G. C., JHS 19 (1899), 281, no. 164 (Zıvarık/Altınekin)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cronin, H. S., JHS 22 (1902), 354CrossRefGoogle Scholar, no. 100 (Konya: Αὐρ. Ἀσιατική).

⁶⁵ Amph., Haer. §9, lines 310–12: εἰ δεῖ παρθενίαν καὶ ἁγνείαν ϕυλάξαι, ἔξεστί μοι χριστιανῷ ὄντι καὶ ϕυλάσσοντί μοι τὴν πίστιν ἐποικοδομεῖν ταῦτα πάντα.

⁶⁶ MAMA I 233.

⁶⁷ Niewöhner, P., Aizanoi, Dokimion und Anatolien: Stadt und Land, Siedlungs- und Steinmetzwesen vom späteren 4. bis ins 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (2007)Google Scholar, 233, Cat. 227 (Ht. 0.12 m, W. 0.63+ m, Th. 0.77 m; rim, W. 0.070 m, depth 0.025 m).

⁶⁸ Nagel, P., Die Motivierung der Askese in der alten Kirche und der Ursprung des Mönchtums (1966), 34–6Google Scholar; Aune, D. E., The Cultic Setting of Realized Eschatology in Early Christianity (1972), 202–6Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Mark 12:24–5: ὅταν γὰρ ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῶσιν, οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται ἀλλ᾿ εἰσὶν ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐράνῳ; Matthew 22:29–30.

⁷⁰ e.g. Justin, Dial. 81.4, οὔτε γαμήσουσιν οὔτε γαμηθήσονται, ἀλλὰ ἰσάγγελοι ἔσονται; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.39.11, ‘nec morientur in illo (regno) nec nubent, sed erunt sicut angeli’.

⁷¹ Adv. Marc. 4.38.8 (trans. Evans, E., Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem (1972), 479–81Google Scholar): ‘de ipsis nuptiis responsum subvertunt, ut, Filii huius aevi nubunt et nubuntur, de hominibus dictum sit creatoris nuptias permittentis, se autem, quos deus illius aevi, alter scilicet, dignatus sit resurrectione, iam et hic non nubere, quia non sint filii huius aevi; quando de nuptiis illius aevi consultus, non de huius, eas negaverat de quibus consulebatur’; see Aune, op. cit. (n. 68), 202–14; Sfameni Gasparro, op. cit. (n. 21), 142–3.

⁷² Stromata 3.12.87 (ed. Stählin, p. 236): ὁμοίως δὲ κἀκεῖνο κομίζουσι τὸ ῥητόν^. “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται”. ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐρώτημα τοῦτο περὶ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως καὶ τοὺς πυνθανομένους αὐτοὺς ἐὰν ἀναπεμπάσηταί τις, οὐκ ἀποδοκιμάζοντα τὸν γάμον εὑρήσει τὸν κύριον, θεραπεύοντα δὲ τὴν κατὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τῆς σαρκικῆς ἐπιθυμίας προσδοκίαν. τὸ δὲ “οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου” οὐ πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τῶν ἄλλου τινὸς αἰῶνος υἱῶν εἴρηκεν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπ᾿ ἴσης τῷ “οἱ ἐν τούτῳ γενόμενοι τῷ αἰῶνι”; see Nagel, op. cit. (n. 68), 37. It was the Lukan version that Tatian followed in the Diatessaron: Petersen, W. L., Tatian's Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (1994), 79–82Google Scholar.

⁷³ Amph., Haer. §9, lines 319–21: οὐδὲ γάρ σε ἐπανελθόντα εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀναγκάσει τις ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν τὴν σαρκικὴν τροϕήν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ γαμεῖν ἢ ἐκγαμίζεσθαι. The last clause is not marked as a scriptural quotation by Datema.

⁷⁴ The only heresiological text I know of to refer to a heretical group of Ἐγρατεῖς is Eusebius, HE 4.29.2.

⁷⁵ Basil, Ep. 199 §47. I can find no parallels for the phrase τὸ τριπλοκὲς ὄνομα in line 2 of the prayer from Gene Yaylası; indeed, the adjective τριπλοκής seems to be unique. However, the phrase is not self-evidently incompatible with orthodox Trinitarian beliefs.

⁷⁶ We ought to understand the contemptuous description of the orthodox as Oἰνοπόται in MAMA VII 96 (cf. Luke 7:34; Matthew 11:19) as a counter-attempt at sectarian classification. For the concept of the totalizing classificatory grid — a helpful tool for reading heresiology — see Anderson, B., Imagined Communities (revised edn, 1991), 163–86Google Scholar.