A Fundamental Issue: Heresy and Orthodoxy in Early Christianity

[00:00:01] A fundamental issue heresy and orthodoxy in Early Christianity by Bart D. Ehrman, read by John Paul Middlesworth I've 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. [00:00:35] The understanding of this relationship has 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 nonproblematic. 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 something else equally bad. [00:01:31] So let me provide some reflections on these terms and their traditional meanings. The first thing to stress is that virtually everyone who has been able to think in the history of Christianity has realized that there were different understandings of Christian theology. And so the natural question involves the relationship of orthodoxy and heresy. The traditional answer is one that was set forth most forcefully by the so called Father of Church history, the fourth century Church Father Eusebius, whose ten volume book, Church History, is an account of the history of the Christian movement from the time of Jesus himself up to Eusebius's own day at the beginning of the fourth century. In this book, Eusebius provides an extensive narrative that covers all sorts of topics, the spread of the Christian Church throughout the empire, the persecutions and martyrdoms that took place, the names, views, and writings of key Church leaders, the theological views that were developed over time, and of course, the relationship of Orthodoxy and heresy, or rather, the relationship of Orthodox Christians to heretics. Eusebius's view of this relationship became the standard for many, many centuries. He himself, of course, understood himself to be Orthodox. Those who represented Christian views different from him were heretical. His Orthodox views included such things as the belief that there was only one God. That this God was the creator of all things, that Christ was the Son of God and that he was both human and divine, that Christ's death brought about the salvation of the world, and so on. These, of course, eventually became the standard beliefs of Christians and continue to be so today. [00:03:08] But what of others who taught other things? What of those who said there were two gods? Or twelve? Or 30? What of those who said that the true God did not create this world? Or those who said that Christ was a human being, but not a divine being? Or a divine being, but not a human being? Or that he was two distinct beings, one divine and one human? Or those who said that Jesus'shed blood is not what brought salvation? Or those who said that Jesus did not actually die. And on and on. [00:03:40] Eusebius maintained that Orthodoxy, that is his form of Christian belief, was and always had been the majority view among Christians from the very beginning. In fact, the Orthodox teachings had come from Jesus himself, who delivered them to his apostles, who handed them down to their successors. They were the original views of the faithful, and they had always been the dominant views of the faithful. Heresies were corruptions of those original truths. Heretical teachers took some aspects of the Orthodox truth and altered it, either because they were evil or demon, inspired or stupid, or all of the above. By definition, then, for Eusebius, Orthodox was original and prior. Heresy by definition was secondary and derivative. Orthodoxy was true. Heresy was false. Orthodoxy was good. Heresy was evil. This is the view that just about everyone had of the matter for centuries. Any alternative versions of Christianity were late false and evil. Many modern scholars have a problem with this view. For one thing, it is very hard to define orthodoxy according to its etymology, quote unquote right belief, and at the same time claim that it applies to a certain set of beliefs. There is only one God. Christ is both human and divine, etc. That's for a rather obvious reason. By definition, everyone, whatever they happen to believe, thinks they are Orthodox. That is to say, everyone thinks they are right, no one thinks they are wrong. Anyone who thinks that they believe something that is wrong changes their belief into something that they think is right. And so no one, quote unquote, chooses to believe what is wrong. [00:05:24] For that reason, no one chooses to be a heretic, and everyone thinks they are Orthodox. So what do the terms actually mean? Is someone Orthodox that is right because they agree with me. [00:05:38] Moreover, it is widely acknowledged today that the doctrines that had become Orthodox by the days of Eusebius were simply not the sorts of things that the historical Jesus actually taught his disciples, the followers of Jesus a week after his death, were not reciting the Nicene Creed. [00:05:56] And so in what way are the terms Orthodoxy and heresy useful or even usable for historians today? [00:06:04] I'll pick up on that in my next post.