Loading...I have been talking about various forms of Gnosticism and that now has led me to move into a broader discussion about early Christian “heresy” in general. I’ve talked a lot about non-canonical books, and various forms of Christian belief and practice, and so on over the years, but to my surprise it’s been a very long time since I addressed one of the most fundamental questions of early Christian history, the relationship of “orthodoxy” and “heresy” in early Christianity.
The understanding of this relationship has long been much debated, and the debate begins with the terms themselves, which, as it turns out, are notoriously tricky.
Part of the issue has to do with their literal or etymological meaning. In terms of etymology, the word “orthodoxy” comes from two Greek terms that mean something like “correct opinion” or “right belief.” The word “heresy” comes from a Greek word that means “choice.” And so someone subscribes to orthodoxy if they hold to the right belief, but they hold to a heresy if they have “chosen” to believe a wrong belief.
Throughout the history of Christian discourse, these terms were taken to be non-problematic. Orthodoxy was the correct view of things and heresies were false views of things. Heretics were the ones who held those false beliefs. And they did so either because they were evil, or inspired by demons, or stupid, or
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Professor, do we know how early on the concept of apostolic connection (ie. Peter, Paul or one of them taught person 1 who taught the next guy until we get to the guy who taught Eusebius) came into play? Whether it was made up?
Well, it was certainly made up. There wa a point in human history when it was not a concept and a point in which it was, and between the two points…. Something like that starts in rough form to appear in 1 Clement around the year 95; it comes to clearer expression in heresiologists like Tertullian about a hundred years later.
Hi Bart,
I have heard the claim that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than any other book in ancient history. But what about the individual books that it contains. Are there any single books that have more manuscripts than Homer ?
Each of the Gospels does.
Concerning heresy, when Jesus is confronted in John 10 about an alleged declaration of divinity in John 8 (before Abraham was, I am), he doesn’t accept the accusation of blasphemy, as many modern Christians have articulated that Jews would have understood, given Jesus’s phraseology. Instead, Jesus clarifies his statements and charges levied against him by referring to the Hebrew cultural and linguistic tradition found in the Hebrew Bible. He says, “The Father is in me,” and he universalizes the statement invoking Psalm 82:6-7, which reads, “6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals and fall like every other ruler.” Now, the implication here of Psalm 82 makes it clear that Jesus is not God himself, nor did Jesus think his life itself was divine or that “everlasting life” meant what his accusers thought it meant. Notice that Jesus says, “Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.” The phrase “works of my Father” directly refers to God’s will or word.
In your opinion, what’s going on here? I think John is largely misquoting Jesus or just misappropriating Hebraic linguistic idioms/constructions.
I think this is the kind of argumentative trick uses on a number of occasions, to point out something from scripture that his opponents can’t provide an answer to so as to show them up, even if it doesn’t actually make sense. In Mark, for example, he asks how the Son of David and be the Lord based on Psalm 110, with the *seeming* conclusion that he can’t be — even though in Mark he is.
So, do we know who invented the terms and concept, did they preexist?
Sorry, I don’t inow what you are asking about (without the context of what ;ou’re referring to. Terms and concept of what?
Was the word for “heresy” used by anyone else prior to Eusebius? Did it mean anything similar? Was it only used for beliefs? Irenaeus wrote “Against Heresies,” but is that title contemporary with the work?
When referring to a group it was originally used to refer to a “sect” without an implication that the views of the group were false or dangerous (people “chose” to belong to one group or another). Christians started to use it to refer to false doctrines and the groups that held them. Irenaeus’s actual title is literally translated “Against Gnosis – So-Called”. (Since he also attacks groups that are not Gnostics, English translators have given it the more common name.)
It’s a non-issue. The etymological fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. It doesn’t matter what a word _meant_, or what it means in the original language, or what morphological components it was assembled from. All that matters is what it means _now_, and whether people can agree on that. The fact that “orthodox” originally meant “right belief” is an interesting piece of trivia, and certainly important in certain historical contexts, but is completely inconsequential for how the word should be used now.
The same is true across all fields of intellectual enquiry. Consider the example of dinosaurs whose names encapsulate assumptions now known to be incorrect. Oviraptor didn’t steal eggs. So what? It doesn’t matter.
And dandelions do not conjure up lions’ teeth. But that has to be explained to people who think that when someone says “this doctrine is orthodox” they mean “it really is correct.”
But the word “orthodox” is not only in academic use but also in colloquial use as meaning something like “traditional”, to the best of my knowledge there do not exist any English-speaking communities in the world where people learn “orthodox = correct” before they learn “orthodox = traditional”. Maybe in bilingual English/Greek communities? Protestants who use the term “orthodox church” aren’t admitting that the latter was right all along.
The issue that we’re addressing is the NOTION conveyed by the word, however it is spelled or however it is used in other contexts; that’s why in a discussin like this we have to define it. By its etymology “orthodox” means “right belief/opinion.” In widespread usage it means somethihning like “customary.” In some forms of Christianity it specificies an easter section of Christianity that split off from the Roman CAtholics in the middle ages to form its own denominations. When historians of early Chrsitianity use it they mean the side that won the debates over Christian beliefs and practices in the fourth and following centuries. You could use most any word for this if you chose, but “orthodoxy” makes the best sense since that is the once the participants of the winning side themselves used.
No points of contention there. It just that the blog post seems to presuppose the existence of people who _need to be reassured_ that there is nothing amiss (morally or otherwise) about using a word to denote something other than its original etymological sense. I’m wondering where on earth you would ever _find_ someone who thinks that when someone says “this doctrine is orthodox” they mean “it really is correct”.
One thing I’d be interested in seeing discussed is how Christians came to place such importance on uniformity of belief on so many matters that seem (to me) both peripheral and unknowable with any real certainty. What distinguished the points it was necessary to have an orthodox view on from those believers could freely speculate and disagree about? Why think it essential to salvation to believe correctly on points Jesus had not even bothered to explicitly teach? Especially in the context of ancient religions that cared so little about belief relative to practice.
Yup, these are big questoins. They are more or less what I deal with in my book Lost Christianities.
Because the desire for power in such situations leave no room for even peripheral release of authority.
Heresy meaning “choice” evokes the modern phrase “Cafeteria Catholic”, wherein the person so-called is accused of only “choosing” those beliefs that are convenient to them (those that do not create cognitive dissonance with their lived behaviors).