Changes

==Gnosticism as Historical Example==

==Gnosticism as Historical Example==

One of the most striking examples of a heresy that had its own [[original]] [[worldview]] but on encountering another [[religion]] ([[Christianity]]) became part of its history, is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism Gnosticism], or Gnosis.  By way of lay [[intellectuals]] it made its way into the Christian community as early as the time of [[Paul]] or, to put it differently, it attached itself to certain Christian [[ideas]]. The result was a development that turned a pre-Christian religious [[movement]] into a Christian heresy or, more exactly, a distinct movement or sect in the church. There can be no [[doubt]] of this in view of the different roles played in Gnostic [[systems]] by the spiritual man who founds a Gnostic sect and by Jesus Christ as authoritative bringer of [[revelation]], and in view, too, of Gnosticism's very different soteriology. But before the point was reached at which Gnosticism became a heresy or sect, it was in many places the church itself, with its own [[scriptural]] [[tradition]] and [[interpretation|exegesis]]. It is known from numerous Gnostic writings that the Gnostics regarded themselves as the real Christians and intended to be the true church. To [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus Celsus], of course, the Gnostics were Christians. There were [[groups]] of Gnostics who formed tightly knit churches, as the letters of [[Paul]], the [[Gospel of John]], and the [[Nag Hammadi]] writings show in their different ways; even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus], a father of the church, admits this. Gnosticism was therefore not natively an anti-Christian or antiecclesial movement. Its entire exegesis of [[scripture]] disproves this [[interpretation]]. It was turned into such by the heresiologists, who, like Paul before them, initiated a process of elimination to which Gnosticism finally fell victim.

One of the most striking examples of a heresy that had its own [[original]] [[worldview]] but on encountering another [[religion]] ([[Christianity]]) became part of its history, is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism Gnosticism], or Gnosis.  By way of lay [[intellectuals]] it made its way into the Christian community as early as the time of [[Paul, the Apostle|Paul]] or, to put it differently, it attached itself to certain Christian [[ideas]]. The result was a development that turned a pre-Christian religious [[movement]] into a Christian heresy or, more exactly, a distinct movement or sect in the church. There can be no [[doubt]] of this in view of the different roles played in Gnostic [[systems]] by the spiritual man who founds a Gnostic sect and by Jesus Christ as authoritative bringer of [[revelation]], and in view, too, of Gnosticism's very different soteriology. But before the point was reached at which Gnosticism became a heresy or sect, it was in many places the church itself, with its own [[scriptural]] [[tradition]] and [[interpretation|exegesis]]. It is known from numerous Gnostic writings that the Gnostics regarded themselves as the real Christians and intended to be the true church. To [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus Celsus], of course, the Gnostics were Christians. There were [[groups]] of Gnostics who formed tightly knit churches, as the letters of [[Paul]], the [[Gospel of John]], and the [[Nag Hammadi]] writings show in their different ways; even [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus Irenaeus], a father of the church, admits this. Gnosticism was therefore not natively an anti-Christian or antiecclesial movement. Its entire exegesis of [[scripture]] disproves this [[interpretation]]. It was turned into such by the heresiologists, who, like Paul before them, initiated a process of elimination to which Gnosticism finally fell victim.

The reaction of Irenaeus provides a good mirror in which to study this development. He equates gnosis with [[paganism]]; in fact, he attacks the Gnostics as worse than the pagans. He sees them as imitators of the pagans and yet not as genuine pagani but rather heretics of the Christian age who disagree with the church on the [[real]] [[origin]] of [[things]] and on true Christian doctrine. Unlike Hegesippus and Hippolytus, Irenaeus knows nothing of an earlier prehistory of gnosticism and is familiar only with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus Simon Magus] as founder and first heretic. To a great extent, Irenaeus's view of the matter determined the course followed by subsequent heresiologists: They knew Gnosticism only as a Christian heresy (a conception that only slowly yielded its place to another during the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century twentieth centuries]).

The reaction of Irenaeus provides a good mirror in which to study this development. He equates gnosis with [[paganism]]; in fact, he attacks the Gnostics as worse than the pagans. He sees them as imitators of the pagans and yet not as genuine pagani but rather heretics of the Christian age who disagree with the church on the [[real]] [[origin]] of [[things]] and on true Christian doctrine. Unlike Hegesippus and Hippolytus, Irenaeus knows nothing of an earlier prehistory of gnosticism and is familiar only with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Magus Simon Magus] as founder and first heretic. To a great extent, Irenaeus's view of the matter determined the course followed by subsequent heresiologists: They knew Gnosticism only as a Christian heresy (a conception that only slowly yielded its place to another during the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century twentieth centuries]).

Similar [[processes]] are to be seen at [[work]] in other sectors of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion history of religions]. Islamic orthodoxy took over to a large extent the [[philosophical]] terminology, though classified as heretical, of the Muʿtazilah who had assimilated the [[Hellenistic]] [[heritage]]. Both Shīʿīs and Sunnīs developed their own sunnah or religio-[[legal]] [[tradition]] and claimed justification for it in [[Muḥammad]] (in the case of the Shīʿah, by way of ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, and their sons as the Prophet's spokesmen). In Zoroastrianism the problems of [[monotheism]] and [[dualism]], which had their basis in the [[theology]] of Zarathushtra, led alternately to [[orthodoxy]] and heresy, a process in which the [[civil]] authorities played a part. Thus the religion of the god of time (Zurwān) was dominant in the later Arsacid and early Sasanid periods as the accepted interpretation of the Zoroastrian tradition. Later on, however, especially once the Zoroastrian religion had been outlawed, this form became a heresy to be bitterly opposed, and modern Parsis even reject as non-Zoroastrian a [[dualist]] [[interpretation]] of the message of [[Zarathushtra]]. Thus it is made repeatedly clear that the [[relation]] between heresy and orthodoxy is one of interplay that does not permit historians of religion to pass any clear [[value]] [[judgment]] on the matter; rather they see in this situation clear [[evidence]] of the [[dynamism]] and [[vitality]] of [[religion]].

Similar [[processes]] are to be seen at [[work]] in other sectors of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion history of religions]. Islamic orthodoxy took over to a large extent the [[philosophical]] terminology, though classified as heretical, of the Muʿtazilah who had assimilated the [[Hellenistic]] [[heritage]]. Both Shīʿīs and Sunnīs developed their own sunnah or religio-[[legal]] [[tradition]] and claimed justification for it in [[Muḥammad]] (in the case of the Shīʿah, by way of ʿAlī, Fāṭimah, and their sons as the Prophet's spokesmen). In Zoroastrianism the problems of [[monotheism]] and [[dualism]], which had their basis in the [[theology]] of Zarathushtra, led alternately to [[orthodoxy]] and heresy, a process in which the [[civil]] authorities played a part. Thus the religion of the god of time (Zurwān) was dominant in the later Arsacid and early Sasanid periods as the accepted interpretation of the Zoroastrian tradition. Later on, however, especially once the Zoroastrian religion had been outlawed, this form became a heresy to be bitterly opposed, and modern Parsis even reject as non-Zoroastrian a [[dualist]] [[interpretation]] of the message of [[Zarathushtra]]. Thus it is made repeatedly clear that the [[relation]] between heresy and orthodoxy is one of interplay that does not permit historians of religion to pass any clear [[value]] [[judgment]] on the matter; rather they see in this situation clear [[evidence]] of the [[dynamism]] and [[vitality]] of [[religion]].

==Bibliography==

==Bibliography==

There is no complete treatment of heresy as a phenomenon in the study of religions. There are, however, countless works on heresy as found in the various traditions. The following list is a selection from these.

There is no complete treatment of heresy as a phenomenon in the study of religions. There are, however, countless works on heresy as found in the various traditions. The following list is a selection from these.