13,094
edits
Changes
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + Line 25:
Line 25: − + Line 31:
Line 31: − + − + − + − + Line 52:
Line 52: − + Line 60:
Line 60: − + Line 67:
Line 67: − + − + − + − + − + Line 131:
Line 131: − +
Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Urizen.jpg|right|frame]]
[[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Urizen.jpg|right|frame]]
The term '''heresy''' derives from the [[Greek]] hairesis. In classical Greek this [[word]] has a variety of [[meanings]], all based on the verb haireo: "seizure" (of a city), "[[choice]]," "election," and "decision or [[purpose|purposive]] effort." This last meaning is the starting point for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_civilization Hellenistic] and [[Christian]] use of the term to mean "[[doctrine]]," "school," or "received opinion," emphasizing the [[idea]] of a [[Free will|free decision]] or free choice of a doctrine or doctrinal [[authority]]. The word thus becomes a technical term for a philosophical school, a party, or a religious doctrinal system and its adherents. The term is applied to [[Stoics]], [[Pythagoreans]], [[Sadducees]], [[Essenes]], [[Pharisees]], and [[Christians]] (see Acts 5:17, 24:5, 24:14, 26:5, 28:22). Neither in Greek nor in Hellenistic Jewish usage does the word have a negative, derogatory sense; it is an entirely [[value]]-free designation.
The term '''heresy''' derives from the [[Greek]] hairesis. In classical Greek this [[word]] has a variety of [[meanings]], all based on the verb haireo: "seizure" (of a city), "[[choice]]," "election," and "decision or [[purpose|purposive]] effort." This last meaning is the starting point for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenistic_civilization Hellenistic] and [[Christian]] use of the term to mean "[[doctrine]]," "school," or "received opinion," emphasizing the [[idea]] of a [[Free will|free decision]] or free choice of a doctrine or doctrinal [[authority]]. The word thus becomes a technical term for a philosophical school, a party, or a religious doctrinal system and its adherents. The term is applied to [[Stoics]], [[Pythagoreans]], [[Sadducees]], [[Essenes]], [[Pharisees]], and [[Christians]] (see Acts 5:17, 24:5, 24:14, 26:5, 28:22). Neither in Greek nor in Hellenistic Jewish usage does the word have a negative, derogatory sense; it is an entirely [[value]]-free designation.
==Sectarian Origins==
==Sectarian Origins==
This situation changes with dramatic suddenness, however, with the rise of [[Christian]] [[literature]]. The [[New Testament]] already uses hairesis in a negative sense (see 1 Cor. 11:19, Gal. 5:20, 2 Pt. 2:1); the word therefore conveys [[suspicion]], according to Heinrich Schlier. The semantic development in the direction of "sect, division, erroneous teaching" that is thus initiated continues in the early church; hairesis becomes a technical term for "heresy" and is applied primarily to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostics gnostics] but also to [[Greek]] and [[Jewish]] "sects." (The older meaning of "doctrinal opinion, received view" is inflected, not completely but in large measure, in the direction of "erroneous teaching, [[Error|false]] [[belief]].") As Schlier says, "Hence the [[concept]] does not owe its meaning to the development of an [[orthodoxy]]. The basis of the [[Christian]] [[concept]] of hairesis is to be found in the new situation created by the introduction of the christian ekklesia. Ekklesia and hairesis are [[material]] opposites" (Schlier, 1964, vol. 1, pp. 182–183).
This situation changes with dramatic suddenness, however, with the rise of [[Christian]] [[literature]]. The [[New Testament]] already uses hairesis in a negative sense (see 1 Cor. 11:19, Gal. 5:20, 2 Pt. 2:1); the word therefore conveys [[suspicion]], according to Heinrich Schlier. The semantic development in the direction of "sect, division, erroneous teaching" that is thus initiated continues in the early church; hairesis becomes a technical term for "heresy" and is applied primarily to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostics gnostics] but also to [[Greek]] and [[Jewish]] "sects." (The older meaning of "doctrinal opinion, received view" is inflected, not completely but in large measure, in the direction of "erroneous teaching, [[Error|false]] [[belief]].") As Schlier says, "Hence the [[concept]] does not owe its meaning to the development of an [[orthodoxy]]. The basis of the [[Christian]] [[concept]] of hairesis is to be found in the new situation created by the introduction of the christian ekklesia. Ekklesia and hairesis are [[material]] opposites" (Schlier, 1964, vol. 1, pp. 182–183).
Despite this, the concept of heresy acquired sharp definition only gradually from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_century second century] on; its distinction from the concept of [[schism]] took even longer. Furthermore, the [[process]] here described was not entirely comparable to the development in [[Judaism]], although there was a strict [[temporal]] parallelism: From the end of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century first century] hairesis and the corresponding [[Hebrew]] word min were used in the derogatory sense of "heresy" and were applied to Christians and Gnostics, among others. One presupposition of this development was the emergence of rabbinical orthodoxy after [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia Jamnia] (c. 100).
Despite this, the concept of heresy acquired sharp definition only gradually from the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_century second century] on; its distinction from the concept of [[schism]] took even longer. Furthermore, the [[process]] here described was not entirely comparable to the development in [[Judaism]], although there was a strict [[temporal]] parallelism: From the end of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century first century] hairesis and the corresponding [[Hebrew]] word min were used in the derogatory sense of "heresy" and were applied to Christians and Gnostics, among others. One presupposition of this development was the emergence of rabbinical orthodoxy after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia Jamnia] (c. 100).
This brief [[history]] of the term, the details of which are fascinating but cannot be presented here, shows in [[archetypal]] [[manner|fashion]] the characteristic elements in the Christian understanding of heresy. This understanding was already present in the [[New Testament]] and did not have to [[Waiting|wait]] for the coming of the later orthodox great church, although because of the "apostolic" [[authority]] the church had acquired in regard to [[doctrine]], [[scripture]], and episcopal office, the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy came to be more clearly drawn as the church developed, thus allowing the opposition to emerge with full [[clarity]].
This brief [[history]] of the term, the details of which are fascinating but cannot be presented here, shows in [[archetypal]] [[manner|fashion]] the characteristic elements in the Christian understanding of heresy. This understanding was already present in the [[New Testament]] and did not have to [[Waiting|wait]] for the coming of the later orthodox great church, although because of the "apostolic" [[authority]] the church had acquired in regard to [[doctrine]], [[scripture]], and episcopal office, the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy came to be more clearly drawn as the church developed, thus allowing the opposition to emerge with full [[clarity]].
==Theories of Heresy==
==Theories of Heresy==
The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_religion science of religions] borrowed the term heresy from Christian usage as fixed in [[canon]] [[law]] and, as a result, has been very much influenced by the [[history]] of the Christian church. The traditional view of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" as equivalent to "true" and "false" was first challenged by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther Martin Luther] in his disputation with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Eck Johannes Eck] at Leipzig (1517), where he let himself be drawn into saying that even councils (of the church) can err, as they did in the case of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus Jan Hus]. Luther and his [[disciples]], though themselves branded as heretics by [[Vatican|Rome]], did not further develop this aspect of their critical revision of church history. As a result, the opposition of orthodoxy and heresy reappeared within [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism Protestantism] itself (the terminology used by the early church in dealing with heretics served as justification). Only after the appalling [[experience]] of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century seventeenth-century religious wars] were [[minds]] ready for another [[perspective|view]] of the matter.
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_religion science of religions] borrowed the term heresy from Christian usage as fixed in [[canon]] [[law]] and, as a result, has been very much influenced by the [[history]] of the Christian church. The traditional view of "orthodoxy" and "heresy" as equivalent to "true" and "false" was first challenged by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther Martin Luther] in his disputation with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Eck Johannes Eck] at Leipzig (1517), where he let himself be drawn into saying that even councils (of the church) can err, as they did in the case of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus Jan Hus]. Luther and his [[disciples]], though themselves branded as heretics by [[Vatican|Rome]], did not further develop this aspect of their critical revision of church history. As a result, the opposition of orthodoxy and heresy reappeared within [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism Protestantism] itself (the terminology used by the early church in dealing with heretics served as justification). Only after the appalling [[experience]] of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_century seventeenth-century religious wars] were [[minds]] ready for another [[perspective|view]] of the matter.
In his Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie von Anfang des Neuen Testaments bis 1688 (''Impartial History of the Church and Heresy from the Beginning of the New Testament to 1688'', published in 1699), Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714), a German [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietist Pietist] [[theologian]], attempted to show that Christian [[truth]] is to be found among heretics, schismatics, and sectarians ([[mystics]]), and not in the great church itself or in orthodoxy. Although Arnold simply offered a kind of inverted church history in which heresy, especially the views of the mystics, and not orthodoxy was given the seal of approval (by "impartial" Arnold meant "nonconfessional"), his book exercised an important and mellowing influence and blazed a trail for the ensuing period. Among his successors were J. L. von Mosheim (Ketzergeschichte, 1746–1748), C. W. F. Walch (Historie der Ketzereien, 1762–1785), F. C. Baur (Die christliche Gnosis, 1835; Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1847, 1858; Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 1853, 1963), Adolf von Harnack (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1886, 1909), and Adolf Hilgenfeld (Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, 1884).
In his Unparteiische Kirchen- und Ketzerhistorie von Anfang des Neuen Testaments bis 1688 (''Impartial History of the Church and Heresy from the Beginning of the New Testament to 1688'', published in 1699), Gottfried Arnold (1666–1714), a German [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietist Pietist] [[theologian]], attempted to show that Christian [[truth]] is to be found among heretics, schismatics, and sectarians ([[mystics]]), and not in the great church itself or in orthodoxy. Although Arnold simply offered a kind of inverted church history in which heresy, especially the views of the mystics, and not orthodoxy was given the seal of approval (by "impartial" Arnold meant "nonconfessional"), his book exercised an important and mellowing influence and blazed a trail for the ensuing period. Among his successors were J. L. von Mosheim (Ketzergeschichte, 1746–1748), C. W. F. Walch (Historie der Ketzereien, 1762–1785), F. C. Baur (Die christliche Gnosis, 1835; Lehrbuch der christlichen Dogmengeschichte, 1847, 1858; Das Christentum und die christliche Kirche der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 1853, 1963), Adolf von Harnack (Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, 1886, 1909), and Adolf Hilgenfeld (Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums, 1884).
Toward the end of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth century], the [[work]] of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule paved the way for a still more penetrating historical view of heresy and orthodoxy, not only because early [[Christianity]] came to be understood and [[interpreted]] in the [[context]] of its [[environment]], but also because the barrier raised by the [[canon]] (considered to be the [[New Testament]]) was dismantled, and the New Testament was increasingly recognized as presenting only some of the many theological [[concepts]] and [[ideas]] of early Christianity. It became increasingly difficult to make a distinction between heresy and orthodoxy. The [[Diversity|multiplicity]] of competing statements of [[faith]] regarding the "[[Salvation|saving]] [[event]]" in [[Jesus]] Christ and its theological explanation showed ever more clearly that at the beginning of the church's history neither heresy nor orthodoxy was sharply defined or patent; both were concepts developed later.
Toward the end of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth century], the [[work]] of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule paved the way for a still more penetrating historical view of heresy and orthodoxy, not only because early [[Christianity]] came to be understood and [[interpreted]] in the [[context]] of its [[environment]], but also because the barrier raised by the [[canon]] (considered to be the [[New Testament]]) was dismantled, and the New Testament was increasingly recognized as presenting only some of the many theological [[concepts]] and [[ideas]] of early Christianity. It became increasingly difficult to make a distinction between heresy and orthodoxy. The [[Diversity|multiplicity]] of competing statements of [[faith]] regarding the "[[Salvation|saving]] [[event]]" in [[Jesus]] Christ and its theological explanation showed ever more clearly that at the beginning of the church's history neither heresy nor orthodoxy was sharply defined or patent; both were concepts developed later.
This view of the matter has been presented most notably by Walter Bauer in his well-known book Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (1934; ''Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity'', Eng. trans. of 2d ed., 1971). A [[critical]] [[study]] of the early sources for the history of Christianity in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece shows that in these ancient Christian centers the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism Gnosticism] later judged to be heresy was evidently regarded as Christianity. An orthodoxy came into being as the result of a lengthy historical and theological [[process]]. From a confrontation with other [[doctrines]] and [[practices]] something emerged that was to be regarded as the orthodox doctrine and practice: a [[canon]], an episcopal office that drew its legitimacy from succession to the [[apostles]] (who were subsequently promoted to be the founders of the principal episcopal sees), baptism, imposition of hands, and eucharist.
This view of the matter has been presented most notably by Walter Bauer in his well-known book Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (1934; ''Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity'', Eng. trans. of 2d ed., 1971). A [[critical]] [[study]] of the early sources for the history of Christianity in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece shows that in these ancient Christian centers the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism Gnosticism] later judged to be heresy was evidently regarded as Christianity. An orthodoxy came into being as the result of a lengthy historical and theological [[process]]. From a confrontation with other [[doctrines]] and [[practices]] something emerged that was to be regarded as the orthodox doctrine and practice: a [[canon]], an episcopal office that drew its legitimacy from succession to the [[apostles]] (who were subsequently promoted to be the founders of the principal episcopal sees), baptism, imposition of hands, and eucharist.
==Morphology of Heresy==
==Morphology of Heresy==
This understanding of the [[origin]] of heresy and orthodoxy derived from the [[history]] of the Christian church is to a great extent valid for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religions history of religions]. Bauer's thesis is therefore important also for the general study of religions. To that extent the unreflective, [[traditional]] concept of heresy is no longer applicable today; it must yield its place to the historical [[insight]] that heresy and orthodoxy are [[relative]] terms for religio-historical [[processes]] of quite different kinds. In any case the history of religions has no room for a theological and [[dogmatic]] [[judgment]] of these processes. It uses the concepts as purely historical categories or, better, as umbrella terms that make it possible to manage, in some degree, the multiplicity of [[contents]] presented by the history of religions. The history of religions cannot indeed bring about a revision of historical writing that would discard concepts that bear the mark of history. It can, however, exert a very [[healthy]] [[influence]] on the [[discussion]] of this subject by giving a critical presentation of historical events and causes that have led to oppositions between heresy and orthodoxy, which, in turn, have so often had [[tragic]] consequences. From the standpoint of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion comparative religion], an understanding of the applicability of the concept of heresy can shed light on the concept itself.
This understanding of the [[origin]] of heresy and orthodoxy derived from the [[history]] of the Christian church is to a great extent valid for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religions history of religions]. Bauer's thesis is therefore important also for the general study of religions. To that extent the unreflective, [[traditional]] concept of heresy is no longer applicable today; it must yield its place to the historical [[insight]] that heresy and orthodoxy are [[relative]] terms for religio-historical [[processes]] of quite different kinds. In any case the history of religions has no room for a theological and [[dogmatic]] [[judgment]] of these processes. It uses the concepts as purely historical categories or, better, as umbrella terms that make it possible to manage, in some degree, the multiplicity of [[contents]] presented by the history of religions. The history of religions cannot indeed bring about a revision of historical writing that would discard concepts that bear the mark of history. It can, however, exert a very [[healthy]] [[influence]] on the [[discussion]] of this subject by giving a critical presentation of historical events and causes that have led to oppositions between heresy and orthodoxy, which, in turn, have so often had [[tragic]] consequences. From the standpoint of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion comparative religion], an understanding of the applicability of the concept of heresy can shed light on the concept itself.
==Religions in which heresy does not appear==
==Religions in which heresy does not appear==
Strictly speaking, it is possible to speak of "heresy," "schism," or "sect" only in connection with a certain [[type]] of religion, namely, religions founded by an [[individual]] or, as this [[author]] prefers to call them, "confessional religions." For in all the ancient popular religions that were not explicitly traced back to a founder or that did not have their own [[Scripture|canonical document]] containing a [[revelation]] (as, for example, do [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism Zoroastrianism] and [[Judaism]]) there was no such thing as a "schism" or a "heresy" in a strict and specifically religious sense. This is to be accounted for by the fact that in these religions the particular [[religion]] or [[cult]] of the gods was coextensive with the [[population|people]] as a whole, that is, religion and [[state|national]] [[community]] were inseparable. An "apostasy" from the official cult binding on all meant a withdrawal from the nation; in other [[words]], apostasy brought exclusion from the [[civic]] community (for the Germanic community this meant "outlawry"). Furthermore, the [[idea]] of a binding confession in the sense of a kind of rule or norm of [[faith]] was wholly [[alien]] to such a national or popular religion. As a result, divergent views on, for example, the nature of the gods or similar subjects did not immediately lead to a break with [[tradition]] and thus to divisions. Popular religions were therefore essentially [[tolerant]] and as long as there was no attack on the [[Ritual|central cultic life]] showed themselves [[liberal]] toward the cults of other gods.
Strictly speaking, it is possible to speak of "heresy," "schism," or "sect" only in connection with a certain [[type]] of religion, namely, religions founded by an [[individual]] or, as this [[author]] prefers to call them, "confessional religions." For in all the ancient popular religions that were not explicitly traced back to a founder or that did not have their own [[Scripture|canonical document]] containing a [[revelation]] (as, for example, do [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism Zoroastrianism] and [[Judaism]]) there was no such thing as a "schism" or a "heresy" in a strict and specifically religious sense. This is to be accounted for by the fact that in these religions the particular [[religion]] or [[cult]] of the gods was coextensive with the [[population|people]] as a whole, that is, religion and [[state|national]] [[community]] were inseparable. An "apostasy" from the official cult binding on all meant a withdrawal from the nation; in other [[words]], apostasy brought exclusion from the [[civic]] community (for the Germanic community this meant "outlawry"). Furthermore, the [[idea]] of a binding confession in the sense of a kind of rule or norm of [[faith]] was wholly [[alien]] to such a national or popular religion. As a result, divergent views on, for example, the nature of the gods or similar subjects did not immediately lead to a break with [[tradition]] and thus to divisions. Popular religions were therefore essentially [[tolerant]] and as long as there was no attack on the [[Ritual|central cultic life]] showed themselves [[liberal]] toward the cults of other gods.
For illustration of this [[spirit]] one need only recall the [[interpretation]] of foreign gods, a tested means of adapting and of establishing equivalences. Communities or associations were of course to be found within popular religions, but they were for the most part simply specific [[manifestations]] of religio-social life, as, for example, the [[mysteries]] based on the ancient cults of the gods. There was no place for "orthodoxy" and "heresy" in the mysteries; indeed, a [[person]] could become an initiate in several mysteries. Nor do the [[groups]] and associations found in the religions of illiterate [[tribes]] form an exception to this rule. When there are no fixed [[standard|norms]] set down in the [[doctrine]] of an exclusive community there is no room for "heresy."
For illustration of this [[spirit]] one need only recall the [[interpretation]] of foreign gods, a tested means of adapting and of establishing equivalences. Communities or associations were of course to be found within popular religions, but they were for the most part simply specific [[manifestations]] of religio-social life, as, for example, the [[mysteries]] based on the ancient cults of the gods. There was no place for "orthodoxy" and "heresy" in the mysteries; indeed, a [[person]] could become an initiate in several mysteries. Nor do the [[groups]] and associations found in the religions of illiterate [[tribes]] form an exception to this rule. When there are no fixed [[standard|norms]] set down in the [[doctrine]] of an exclusive community there is no room for "heresy."
In this world of national and tribal religions there was, however, an area that served as a very sensitive touchstone of orthodoxy in a broad sense of the term: the area of [[cult]] or [[worship]]. Here there was indeed the basis for a parting of the ways. It can be said that in a national or popular religion heresies and schisms in the narrow sense did not arise, because the necessary presupposition was lacking, but that on the other hand an individual could bring about a reordering, restructuring, or reformation, which then led to the founding of an entirely new religion or to a new cult. The occasion for such an innovation was almost always a [[radical]] [[critique]] of the [[traditional]] cult and of the [[sacred]] [[tradition]] closely connected with it. [[Zarathushtra]] (Zoroaster), the [[Buddha]], and [[Muḥammad]] are the outstanding examples of this [[phenomenon]]. In the case of the Buddha, it is true, his community was initially only one philosophico-[[Asceticism|ascetical]] [[group]] among others. Also to be mentioned here is the pharaoh [[Akhenaton]] (Amunhotep IV), who failed in his attempt to introduce [[monolatry]] into Egypt.
In this world of national and tribal religions there was, however, an area that served as a very sensitive touchstone of orthodoxy in a broad sense of the term: the area of [[cult]] or [[worship]]. Here there was indeed the basis for a parting of the ways. It can be said that in a national or popular religion heresies and schisms in the narrow sense did not arise, because the necessary presupposition was lacking, but that on the other hand an individual could bring about a reordering, restructuring, or reformation, which then led to the founding of an entirely new religion or to a new cult. The occasion for such an innovation was almost always a [[radical]] [[critique]] of the [[traditional]] cult and of the [[sacred]] [[tradition]] closely connected with it. [[Zarathushtra]] (Zoroaster), the [[Buddha]], and [[Muḥammad]] are the outstanding examples of this [[phenomenon]]. In the case of the Buddha, it is true, his community was initially only one philosophico-[[Asceticism|ascetical]] [[group]] among others. Also to be mentioned here is the pharaoh [[Akhenaton]] (Amunhotep IV), who failed in his attempt to introduce [[monolatry]] into Egypt.
There was still another area in national or popular religions in which divisions and formations of schools could arise: the area of [[philosophy]], in Greece or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India ancient India], for example. The formation of new philosophical schools represented an "apostasy," or deviation from a [[doctrine]]; in fact, the Greco-Christian [[concepts]] of "heresy," "[[schism]]," and "[[sect]]" were derived precisely from this area of ancient cultural life. The concepts belong primarily to the philosophical and not the religious tradition. It is remarkable how ingenious [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism Hinduism] has been in reincorporating the "heresies" that spring from attitudes toward the Vedas. Hinduism is a popular religion (it may be said to be the only Indo-European one still in existence) that has a religious authority, namely the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas Vedas], as its [[guiding]] principle. As a result, a distinction is made between "orthodox" heretics and radical negators such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain Jains], Buddhists, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh Sikhs]. It is clear from this that the formation of heresies or schisms is connected with an [[authoritative]] [[revelation]], whether this takes the form of a canonical document or a [[person]].
There was still another area in national or popular religions in which divisions and formations of schools could arise: the area of [[philosophy]], in Greece or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India ancient India], for example. The formation of new philosophical schools represented an "apostasy," or deviation from a [[doctrine]]; in fact, the Greco-Christian [[concepts]] of "heresy," "[[schism]]," and "[[sect]]" were derived precisely from this area of ancient cultural life. The concepts belong primarily to the philosophical and not the religious tradition. It is remarkable how ingenious [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism Hinduism] has been in reincorporating the "heresies" that spring from attitudes toward the Vedas. Hinduism is a popular religion (it may be said to be the only Indo-European one still in existence) that has a religious authority, namely the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas Vedas], as its [[guiding]] principle. As a result, a distinction is made between "orthodox" heretics and radical negators such as the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain Jains], Buddhists, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh Sikhs]. It is clear from this that the formation of heresies or schisms is connected with an [[authoritative]] [[revelation]], whether this takes the form of a canonical document or a [[person]].
==Religions that give rise to heresy==
==Religions that give rise to heresy==
Turning to religions that have a founder, one finds a radically different situation. (These "confessional religions" are not, it should be noted, identical with "world religions," and it is better to avoid the unfortunate term ''revealed religions'', because it has too many theological associations.) All of the religions in question—Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Manichaeism, and Islam—lay claim in one way or other to a [[Necessary|normative]] doctrine. This does not from the outset always take the form of a fixed confession of [[faith]], but there is at least a definite conception of faith and [[doctrine]] or, better, a central [[nucleus]] of doctrine that is used to separate "true" from "false" and that has taken written form in a [[Scripture|sacred canon]] (thus "religions of the Book"). Such doctrines are, for example, monotheism or Yahvistic henotheism in Israel; the [[ethical]] [[dualism]] of Zarathushtra; the Buddha's [[knowledge]] and [[practice]] that lead to deliverance; faith in [[Jesus]] of [[Nazareth]] as the Christ; the ontological and anticosmic dualism of Mani; the confession of [[Allāh]] and of [[Muḥammad]] as his messenger.
Turning to religions that have a founder, one finds a radically different situation. (These "confessional religions" are not, it should be noted, identical with "world religions," and it is better to avoid the unfortunate term ''revealed religions'', because it has too many theological associations.) All of the religions in question—Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Manichaeism, and Islam—lay claim in one way or other to a [[Necessary|normative]] doctrine. This does not from the outset always take the form of a fixed confession of [[faith]], but there is at least a definite conception of faith and [[doctrine]] or, better, a central [[nucleus]] of doctrine that is used to separate "true" from "false" and that has taken written form in a [[Scripture|sacred canon]] (thus "religions of the Book"). Such doctrines are, for example, monotheism or Yahvistic henotheism in Israel; the [[ethical]] [[dualism]] of Zarathushtra; the Buddha's [[knowledge]] and [[practice]] that lead to deliverance; faith in [[Jesus]] of [[Nazareth]] as the Christ; the ontological and anticosmic dualism of Mani; the confession of [[Allāh]] and of [[Muḥammad]] as his messenger.
The historian of the "confessional religions" mentioned above is familiar also with their slow [[maturation]] from preliminary stages and their development of a central doctrinal core that then became a distinguishing orthodoxy or [[orthopraxis]]. Orthodoxy is not present from the beginning as a fixed [[quantity]] (Islam is no exception here, though it might seem such at first glance). It is always a secondary development, establishing itself in the confrontation of [[Conflict|divergent]] [[interpretations]] of the founder's "[[original]] teaching." Walter Bauer's thesis regarding the slow development of Christian orthodoxy from a number of divergent but, in the beginning, equally acceptable trends in early Christianity is to a large extent valid for the history of religions in general. Orthodoxy is in every case an [[interpretation]] of the [[doctrine]] or message that the founder has left behind and that frequently shows a lack of internal [[harmony]], to say nothing of the [[fact]] that it is usually [[transmitted]] only in [[Orality|oral]] form. On the one hand, it is this state of the founder's teaching that leads to a struggle among the [[groups]] that subsequently form within the religious [[community]]. Local and social differences also play a part. On the other hand, while the preaching of a founder is indeed open to numerous interpretations in matters of detail, the fact is that once the tradition originating with him has been fixed in [[writing]], his teachings as a whole take on a particular shape and form. The result is a certain [[uniformity]] among all his followers in regard to the basic norms of [[doctrine]], [[belief]], and [[behavior]].
The historian of the "confessional religions" mentioned above is familiar also with their slow [[maturation]] from preliminary stages and their development of a central doctrinal core that then became a distinguishing orthodoxy or [[orthopraxis]]. Orthodoxy is not present from the beginning as a fixed [[quantity]] (Islam is no exception here, though it might seem such at first glance). It is always a secondary development, establishing itself in the confrontation of [[Conflict|divergent]] [[interpretations]] of the founder's "[[original]] teaching." Walter Bauer's thesis regarding the slow development of Christian orthodoxy from a number of divergent but, in the beginning, equally acceptable trends in early Christianity is to a large extent valid for the history of religions in general. Orthodoxy is in every case an [[interpretation]] of the [[doctrine]] or message that the founder has left behind and that frequently shows a lack of internal [[harmony]], to say nothing of the [[fact]] that it is usually [[transmitted]] only in [[Orality|oral]] form. On the one hand, it is this state of the founder's teaching that leads to a struggle among the [[groups]] that subsequently form within the religious [[community]]. Local and social differences also play a part. On the other hand, while the preaching of a founder is indeed open to numerous interpretations in matters of detail, the fact is that once the tradition originating with him has been fixed in [[writing]], his teachings as a whole take on a particular shape and form. The result is a certain [[uniformity]] among all his followers in regard to the basic norms of [[doctrine]], [[belief]], and [[behavior]].
==How heresy develops==
==How heresy develops==
In those religions that give rise to the development of heresy, a number of [[Phase|stages]] mark the [[process]]. Even in the lifetime of a founder there may already be disagreements on matters of doctrine or behavior (e.g., between the Buddha and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta Devadatta] on questions of [[asceticism]]). The many-sidedness and occasional lack of [[clarity]] in the founder's teachings lead, especially after his [[death]], to the formation of groups in the [[original]] [[community]] (groups that initially had more or less equal standing). In the struggle among these groups, one group emerges—often as the result of a compromise—that interprets and [[transmits]] the founder's heritage in an "orthodox" way. As a result, a point is reached at which there can be heresies or the formation of sects in the strict sense of these terms. (It has been seen in the case of the Christian concept of heresy that the [[existence]] of a "church" plays a [[normative]] role even before the rise of an "orthodoxy.")
In those religions that give rise to the development of heresy, a number of [[Phase|stages]] mark the [[process]]. Even in the lifetime of a founder there may already be disagreements on matters of doctrine or behavior (e.g., between the Buddha and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta Devadatta] on questions of [[asceticism]]). The many-sidedness and occasional lack of [[clarity]] in the founder's teachings lead, especially after his [[death]], to the formation of groups in the [[original]] [[community]] (groups that initially had more or less equal standing). In the struggle among these groups, one group emerges—often as the result of a compromise—that interprets and [[transmits]] the founder's heritage in an "orthodox" way. As a result, a point is reached at which there can be heresies or the formation of sects in the strict sense of these terms. (It has been seen in the case of the Christian concept of heresy that the [[existence]] of a "church" plays a [[normative]] role even before the rise of an "orthodoxy.")
It is difficult at times to determine how one particular [[movement]] is able to establish itself as orthodox. In most cases this movement or school preserves the heritage of the founder in a [[balanced]] and fully satisfactory way. In some cases only a rough determination of orthodoxy is reached; the result is the continued existence of groups with equal standing (as in early Indian Buddhism and the later Buddhism of East Asia; also in earlier Zoroastrianism as opposed to the official Zoroastrianism of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanids Sasanids]). [[Islam]] too may be mentioned in this [[context]] because there is no "church" with an attendant [[hierarchy]]. The consensus of [[scholars]] who act as representatives of the community of believers becomes a regulating [[agency]] (the same holds for [[Judaism]]). [[Ideally]], however, it is for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph caliph] as head of the community (ummah) to suppress heretics (kāfirs) and innovators (mubtadiʿ).
It is difficult at times to determine how one particular [[movement]] is able to establish itself as orthodox. In most cases this movement or school preserves the heritage of the founder in a [[balanced]] and fully satisfactory way. In some cases only a rough determination of orthodoxy is reached; the result is the continued existence of groups with equal standing (as in early Indian Buddhism and the later Buddhism of East Asia; also in earlier Zoroastrianism as opposed to the official Zoroastrianism of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanids Sasanids]). [[Islam]] too may be mentioned in this [[context]] because there is no "church" with an attendant [[hierarchy]]. The consensus of [[scholars]] who act as representatives of the community of believers becomes a regulating [[agency]] (the same holds for [[Judaism]]). [[Ideally]], however, it is for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliph caliph] as head of the community (ummah) to suppress heretics (kāfirs) and innovators (mubtadiʿ).
A tense [[Conflict|opposition]] between "orthodoxy" and "heresy," "church" and "sect," marks the entire [[history]] of the founded religions and is also one of their fruitful major themes. Using the history of the Christian church as an example, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Troeltsch Ernst Troeltsch] has very impressively described this [[process]] as one of conflict between the institutional principle and the principle of voluntarism, both of which are contained in the gospel.
A tense [[Conflict|opposition]] between "orthodoxy" and "heresy," "church" and "sect," marks the entire [[history]] of the founded religions and is also one of their fruitful major themes. Using the history of the Christian church as an example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Troeltsch Ernst Troeltsch] has very impressively described this [[process]] as one of conflict between the institutional principle and the principle of voluntarism, both of which are contained in the gospel.
==Causes of the rise of heresy==
==Causes of the rise of heresy==
In parallel [[Manner|fashion]] it is possible to distinguish the following causes that lead to some typical forms of heresy:
In parallel [[Manner|fashion]] it is possible to distinguish the following causes that lead to some typical forms of heresy:
*1. ''Dogmatico-theological questions''
*1. ''Dogmatico-theological questions''
understood as problems of doctrinal [[tradition]] and their [[interpretation]] ([[personal]] factors may at times play a role here, e.g., the apostasy of [[disciples]]). This cause is admittedly seldom found in a pure form (as Troeltsch established in connection with [[Christianity]]), but it is a main factor in almost all confessional religions (think of Jewish Christianity or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism Marcionism]). Doctrinal questions supply the [[ideological]] backbone of almost all heresies and sects (e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdaism Mazdaism] or the Islamic Shīʿah sects); every "heresy" seeks doctrinal justification as an [[expression]] of its immediate self-[[consciousness]].
understood as problems of doctrinal [[tradition]] and their [[interpretation]] ([[personal]] factors may at times play a role here, e.g., the apostasy of [[disciples]]). This cause is admittedly seldom found in a pure form (as Troeltsch established in connection with [[Christianity]]), but it is a main factor in almost all confessional religions (think of Jewish Christianity or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism Marcionism]). Doctrinal questions supply the [[ideological]] backbone of almost all heresies and sects (e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazdaism Mazdaism] or the Islamic Shīʿah sects); every "heresy" seeks doctrinal justification as an [[expression]] of its immediate self-[[consciousness]].
*2. ''Questions of lifestyle''
*2. ''Questions of lifestyle''
*4. ''Social problems''
*4. ''Social problems''
which are closely connected with [[moral]] and [[ethical]] problems. Socio-revolutionary [[movements]] come under this heading. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist Marxist] [[analysis]] and more recent sociological analyses have shed a great deal of [[light]] on this area, showing that a good many heresies have been the [[expression]] of [[Crisis|critical]] situations in [[society]] (e.g., medieval heretical movements in Christianity and Islam, or the recent "religions of imminent [[salvation]]" in nonliterate cultures). Following Troeltsch, English sociologist of religion Bryan R. Wilson has interpreted modern sectary movements within Christianity, especially in the [[English|Anglo-American]] world, as expressions specifically of social protest and has once again shown that periods of social unrest are privileged times for the rise of sects. Social tensions and pressures in a society that is sustained and given its impress by an "established church" lead to movements of religious protest directed against [[state]] and church as a single undivided [[power]]. In the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist Middle Ages] such movements appeared as "[[critical]]" [[manifestations]] within [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism feudalism] and asserted themselves most clearly in "heretical" movements ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomils Bogomils], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensians Albigensians], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians Waldensians], and so on). The important part played by this sort of background should not, however, lead one to [[interpret]] every religious sect or heresy as a crypto-revolutionary movement. There is good reason to reject the old ahistorical underestimation of such causes, but one should not replace it with a one-sided overestimation of them.
which are closely connected with [[moral]] and [[ethical]] problems. Socio-revolutionary [[movements]] come under this heading. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist Marxist] [[analysis]] and more recent sociological analyses have shed a great deal of [[light]] on this area, showing that a good many heresies have been the [[expression]] of [[Crisis|critical]] situations in [[society]] (e.g., medieval heretical movements in Christianity and Islam, or the recent "religions of imminent [[salvation]]" in nonliterate cultures). Following Troeltsch, English sociologist of religion Bryan R. Wilson has interpreted modern sectary movements within Christianity, especially in the [[English|Anglo-American]] world, as expressions specifically of social protest and has once again shown that periods of social unrest are privileged times for the rise of sects. Social tensions and pressures in a society that is sustained and given its impress by an "established church" lead to movements of religious protest directed against [[state]] and church as a single undivided [[power]]. In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist Middle Ages] such movements appeared as "[[critical]]" [[manifestations]] within [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism feudalism] and asserted themselves most clearly in "heretical" movements ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogomils Bogomils], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensians Albigensians], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians Waldensians], and so on). The important part played by this sort of background should not, however, lead one to [[interpret]] every religious sect or heresy as a crypto-revolutionary movement. There is good reason to reject the old ahistorical underestimation of such causes, but one should not replace it with a one-sided overestimation of them.
*5. ''Political causes''
*5. ''Political causes''
*6. ''Cultural, anthropological (racial), and ethnic factors''
*6. ''Cultural, anthropological (racial), and ethnic factors''
that are [[evident]] in Islam, in the history of the Eastern Christian church, and, to some extent, in Buddhism, for example, are factors that do not, of course, operate in [[isolation]]. Also to be mentioned under this heading is the continued influence of past forms of religion, the various forms of "[[paganism]]," for instance, which either give the impulse to emerging heresies and divisions or at least supply them with [[ideological]] [[material]]. Striking examples are Gnosticism, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicheism Manichaeism] in the Iranian world, and the rise of the Nusayriyah and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze Druze] in the Islamic world.
that are [[evident]] in Islam, in the history of the Eastern Christian church, and, to some extent, in Buddhism, for example, are factors that do not, of course, operate in [[isolation]]. Also to be mentioned under this heading is the continued influence of past forms of religion, the various forms of "[[paganism]]," for instance, which either give the impulse to emerging heresies and divisions or at least supply them with [[ideological]] [[material]]. Striking examples are Gnosticism, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manicheism Manichaeism] in the Iranian world, and the rise of the Nusayriyah and the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze Druze] in the Islamic world.
*7. ''The figure of a charismatic leader''
*7. ''The figure of a charismatic leader''
==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, 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.
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 [https://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 [https://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 [https://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 [https://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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century nineteenth] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century twentieth centuries]).
It was in the confrontation with gnosticism (including Marcionism) that ecclesial orthodoxy took form. Scholars have always realized that this [[process]] of distinction and separation was of [[radical]] importance, but they have not always understood what the process meant for both sides. It is more than a simple [[coincidence]] that to a great extent both the church and the Gnostic "heretics" used the same [[arguments]] in their disputes, especially the arguments from [[tradition]] and from the unbroken line of witnesses. Both sides made use of the same [[proofs]], as a study of Irenaeus and the [[texts]] of the Christian Gnostics shows; these proofs were those of [[Apostles|apostolic]] [[authority]], scriptural exegesis, and [[tradition]]. Tradition provided the Gnostics with an impregnable fortress: the secret tradition that is for [[practical]] [[purposes]] identical with liberating [[knowledge]] and that has been entrusted solely to [[spiritual]] [[persons]] or initiates, and is completely kept from the ignorant (see, for instance, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas Gospel of Thomas]). Recent studies have shown that on certain points of his terminology for the church, Irenaeus was dependent on the gnostics; for example, [[diadoche]] and [[paradosis]], used in connection with the principle of succession, were already current terms among the gnostics. This is why Irenaeus was unable to get the better of the Gnostics with [[arguments]] of this kind, even though he repeatedly attempted to do so.
It was in the confrontation with gnosticism (including Marcionism) that ecclesial orthodoxy took form. Scholars have always realized that this [[process]] of distinction and separation was of [[radical]] importance, but they have not always understood what the process meant for both sides. It is more than a simple [[coincidence]] that to a great extent both the church and the Gnostic "heretics" used the same [[arguments]] in their disputes, especially the arguments from [[tradition]] and from the unbroken line of witnesses. Both sides made use of the same [[proofs]], as a study of Irenaeus and the [[texts]] of the Christian Gnostics shows; these proofs were those of [[Apostles|apostolic]] [[authority]], scriptural exegesis, and [[tradition]]. Tradition provided the Gnostics with an impregnable fortress: the secret tradition that is for [[practical]] [[purposes]] identical with liberating [[knowledge]] and that has been entrusted solely to [[spiritual]] [[persons]] or initiates, and is completely kept from the ignorant (see, for instance, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas Gospel of Thomas]). Recent studies have shown that on certain points of his terminology for the church, Irenaeus was dependent on the gnostics; for example, [[diadoche]] and [[paradosis]], used in connection with the principle of succession, were already current terms among the gnostics. This is why Irenaeus was unable to get the better of the Gnostics with [[arguments]] of this kind, even though he repeatedly attempted to do so.
Irenaeus's principal weapon, however, was the [[concept]] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis gnosis] itself: "Irenaeus uses the concept of gnosis to distinguish between Church and heretics by focusing the entire dispute on the [[fundamental]] and always presupposed [[attitude]] of the human person to [[revelation]] and [[God]]" (Norbert Brox, Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenaeus von Lyon, Salzburg, 1966, p. 170). Another and quite different way of attaining true gnosis, a way [[essentially]] different from that of the Gnostics, is available to [[human being]]s: the way of [[humble]] knowledge of the order of [[salvation]] that is attested in [[scripture]], handed on by the [[apostles]], and described in the church's teaching and preaching and that is explained, of course, by Irenaeus himself. True (ecclesiastical) gnosis thus becomes a [[standard]] by which heretical gnosis is shown to be an erroneous figment of the [[imagination]]. This example makes clear the complicated way in which the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy was achieved and how the two could not become distinct without having first fertilized one another.
Irenaeus's principal weapon, however, was the [[concept]] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis gnosis] itself: "Irenaeus uses the concept of gnosis to distinguish between Church and heretics by focusing the entire dispute on the [[fundamental]] and always presupposed [[attitude]] of the human person to [[revelation]] and [[God]]" (Norbert Brox, Offenbarung, Gnosis und gnostischer Mythos bei Irenaeus von Lyon, Salzburg, 1966, p. 170). Another and quite different way of attaining true gnosis, a way [[essentially]] different from that of the Gnostics, is available to [[human being]]s: the way of [[humble]] knowledge of the order of [[salvation]] that is attested in [[scripture]], handed on by the [[apostles]], and described in the church's teaching and preaching and that is explained, of course, by Irenaeus himself. True (ecclesiastical) gnosis thus becomes a [[standard]] by which heretical gnosis is shown to be an erroneous figment of the [[imagination]]. This example makes clear the complicated way in which the distinction between heresy and orthodoxy was achieved and how the two could not become distinct without having first fertilized one another.
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 [https://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==
*Dutt, Nalinaksha. Buddhist Sects in India. Calcutta, 1970.
*Dutt, Nalinaksha. Buddhist Sects in India. Calcutta, 1970.
==Recommended Reading==
==Recommended Reading==
*''The Heretical Imperative'', by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Berger Peter Berger], ISBN 9780385142861 ISBN 0385142862
*''The Heretical Imperative'', by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Berger Peter Berger], ISBN 9780385142861 ISBN 0385142862
==Source Citation==
==Source Citation==