Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-06-2011, 03:20 AM

Of all the sources for the history of the first four centuries taken to cover the period of "Christian Origins" and including its rise to the Roman State Religion in the 4th century, I dont seem to be able to think of any important sources who are not also perceived to be heresiologists.

For example, Eusebius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, etc, etc are all heresiologists. Even the author of John, with his mention of the "anti-christian deceivers" as those who refuse to confess that Jesus appeared in the flesh, appears as a heresiologist.

Can anyone suggest to me any important Christian source (or even any Christian source at all) from its epoch of origins that is not also regarded as a heresiological source?

mountainman · 03-06-2011, 01:25 PM

Early Christian heresies

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

The New Testament itself speaks of the importance of maintaining orthodox doctrine and refuting heresies, showing the antiquity of the concern.[7] Because of the biblical proscription against false prophets (notably the Gospels of Matthew and Mark) Christianity has always been preoccupied[citation needed] with the "correct", or orthodox, interpretation of the faith.

Indeed one of the main roles of the bishops in the early Church was to determine the correct interpretations and refute contrarian opinions (referred to as heresy).[citation needed] As there were differing opinions among the bishops, defining orthodoxy would consume the Church then and even until this present day, which is why there are many denominations.[citation needed]

In his book Orthodoxy (or via: amazon.co.uk), Christian Apologist and writer G. K. Chesterton asserts that there have been substantial disagreements about faith from the time of the New Testament and Jesus. He pointed out that the Apostles all argued against changing the teachings of Christ as did the earliest church fathers including Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Polycarp (see false prophet, the antichrist, the gnostic Nicolaitanes from the Book of Revelation and Man of Sin).

The development of doctrine, the position of orthodoxy, and the relationship between the various opinions is a matter of continuing academic debate. Since most Christians today subscribe to the doctrines established by the Nicene Creed, modern Christian theologians tend to regard the early debates as a unified orthodox position (see also Proto-orthodox Christianity and Paleo-orthodoxy) against a minority of heretics.

Other scholars, drawing upon, among other things, distinctions between Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians, and other groups such as Gnostics and Marcionites, argue that early Christianity was fragmented, with contemporaneous competing orthodoxies

Doug Shaver · 03-07-2011, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I dont seem to be able to think of any important sources who are not also perceived to be heresiologists.

Perceived by whom? The writings don't all look like heresiology to me.

avi · 03-07-2011, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I dont seem to be able to think of any important sources who are not also perceived to be heresiologists.

How about Arius of Alexandria?

avi

Toto · 03-07-2011, 11:12 AM

I am not sure what the point of this is, but I suspect that Arius is not early enough for its purposes.

Pete treating the NT as one source? There are scattered anti-heresy references throughout, but Mark is hardly anti-heresiological, not to mention Paul or whoever wrote his epistles.

Ignatius is generally regarded as an important source, and is not afaik a heresiologist. Also Clement of Rome, Melito of Sardis. . .

That's just off the top of my head, which is a bit congested now with a cold. You can find more at www.earlychristianwritings.com/

mountainman · 03-07-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I dont seem to be able to think of any important sources who are not also perceived to be heresiologists.

Perceived by whom?

Perceived as such by the academic and scholarly community.

Quote:

The writings don't all look like heresiology to me.

While that may be the case, my question was more about the authors than the texts. Certain early christian authors" (within the first 4 centuries) such as Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Ephrem, Hegemonius, etc are clearly categorised as heresiologists on account of the nature of some of their texts, which deal specifically with classifications of the "heretics".

My question is therefore whether we know of any (first important, and then generally) "Early Christian authors in the 1st 4 centuries) who did not make any heresiological pontifications/comments?

mountainman · 03-07-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I dont seem to be able to think of any important sources who are not also perceived to be heresiologists.

How about Arius of Alexandria?

Hi avi,

Arius was the heretic, and the subject of heresiological discourses by a large number of orthodox christian heresiologists after Nicaea. In fact, I think all the orthodox sources after Nicaea mention Arius as some sort of despicable example of the worst kind of heretic ever born. According to Rowan Williams, Arius was the most villified person in all of Christian history, until recently.

My question is directed at the orthodox authors who talk about the heretics, not about the heretics themselves. My question is trying to gauge exactly how many of these orthodox christian sources are classifiable as heresiologists, and whether in fact there are any orthodox christian sources that cannot be so classified.

AFAIK most or all of these orthodox sources after Nicaea are certainly able to be categroised as heresiologists. That is, their big news and contribution to the planet is that their subject matter, somewhere or other, eventually deals with heresies against the orthodox. In regard to the epoch before Nicaea, I am wondering how many of the "Early Christian authors" are not able to be categorized as heresiological accounts on the basis that these authors never once refer to the heretics.

Toto · 03-07-2011, 03:01 PM

Start with Ignatius.

mountainman · 03-07-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am not sure what the point of this is, but I suspect that Arius is not early enough for its purposes.

Hi Toto,

The OP covers the first 4 centuries. Arius is the subject, not the author, of heresiological statement directed at him by the indignant orthodox. Arius, the heretic, is the subject of heresiogists. The OP is interested in the orthodox heresiologists, and whether we have any orthodox christian author who was not also a heresiologist.

Quote:

Pete treating the NT as one source?

More of the history of the NT and christianity, than the NT.
How many of our important sources are clearly also heresiological?

Quote:

There are scattered anti-heresy references throughout

Precisely. I am trying to get an idea of just how pervasive these are.

Quote:

, but Mark is hardly anti-heresiological, not to mention Paul or whoever wrote his epistles.

What do you mean by anti-heresiological? Writing against the heresiologists? Do you mean that "Mark" and "Paul" are nowhere heresiological?

Quote:

Ignatius is generally regarded as an important source, and is not afaik a heresiologist. Also Clement of Rome, Melito of Sardis. . .

Well I guess these may be the beginnings of a list, so long as none of the authors ever presented themselves, at any stage in their attributed writings, as a commentator on heresies against the orthodox.

Quote:

That's just off the top of my head, which is a bit congested now with a cold. You can find more at www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Thanks.

Toto · 03-07-2011, 03:39 PM

What you find depends on what you look for. Paul warns the Corinthians (who might actually be the heretical Cerinthians) about those who preach another Jesus. Is that anti-heresy or was Paul something of a heretic, and the comment is anti-orthodox?

Luke-Acts does not actually mention heretics, but Joseph Tyson in Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) accounts for much of that narrative as anti-Marcionite propaganda.

I don't recall any mention of heretics in Ignatius, but I haven't actually looked recently.

Justin Martyr mentions the arch-heretic Marcion.

So there are mentions of heretics, and there are early Christians who do not mention heretics directly, and others who might be indirectly attacking the heretics.

I'm still not sure what this is about.

03-06-2011, 03:20 AM	#1
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Which Christian source in antiquity is not seen as heresiological? Of all the sources for the history of the first four centuries taken to cover the period of "Christian Origins" and including its rise to the Roman State Religion in the 4th century, I dont seem to be able to think of any important sources who are not also perceived to be heresiologists. For example, Eusebius, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, etc, etc are all heresiologists. Even the author of John, with his mention of the "anti-christian deceivers" as those who refuse to confess that Jesus appeared in the flesh, appears as a heresiologist. Can anyone suggest to me any important Christian source (or even any Christian source at all) from its epoch of origins that is not also regarded as a heresiological source?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2011, 11:12 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I am not sure what the point of this is, but I suspect that Arius is not early enough for its purposes. Pete treating the NT as one source? There are scattered anti-heresy references throughout, but Mark is hardly anti-heresiological, not to mention Paul or whoever wrote his epistles. Ignatius is generally regarded as an important source, and is not afaik a heresiologist. Also Clement of Rome, Melito of Sardis. . . That's just off the top of my head, which is a bit congested now with a cold. You can find more at www.earlychristianwritings.com/

03-07-2011, 03:01 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Start with Ignatius.

03-07-2011, 03:39 PM	#10
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What you find depends on what you look for. Paul warns the Corinthians (who might actually be the heretical Cerinthians) about those who preach another Jesus. Is that anti-heresy or was Paul something of a heretic, and the comment is anti-orthodox? Luke-Acts does not actually mention heretics, but Joseph Tyson in Marcion and Luke-Acts: A Defining Struggle (or via: amazon.co.uk) accounts for much of that narrative as anti-Marcionite propaganda. I don't recall any mention of heretics in Ignatius, but I haven't actually looked recently. Justin Martyr mentions the arch-heretic Marcion. So there are mentions of heretics, and there are early Christians who do not mention heretics directly, and others who might be indirectly attacking the heretics. I'm still not sure what this is about.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.