THE RHETORIC OF HERESY
Heresiology is a discourse that
negotiates difference within religious communities by seeking ideological
hegemony. It can be expressed in a variety of tropes and figures for political
functions in communities socially connected by religious ideologies. In this
genealogy of heresy in Christianity, I am tracing the development of a cluster
of rhetorical forms.
1 Membership (Salvation)
Depends on Belief or Ideas
The notion of heresy inscribes by
implication an ontology of belief. While religious identity in the ancient
world was shaped primarily through custom and practice, Christian orthodoxy
centered on belief; as Foucault writes, an “obligation to hold as true a set of
propositions which constitutes a dogma.” I will trace the origins of doctrine
or dogma (doxa) as determinative for inclusion in the soteriological
community. The notion of dogmatic salvation has roots in sectarian writings of
the Qumran community, in which halakhic positions define fissures
between Second Temple Jewish groups. We will see how this rhetoric is employed
and ideologically populated in first-century texts.
2 The Eschatological Idea That
Disagreement Was Satanic or Demonic
The origins of religious
difference must be theorized in the notion of heresy. The position on
ideological difference that was systematized by the second century
heresiologists has its origins in the dualistic worldview of Second Temple
Jewish apocalypticism that explained religious difference via satanic tropes.
This is the religious matrix for the Essenes at Qumran, the religious reform
movements of John and Jesus in Galilee, and the formative religious and
theological context for the early Christian communities that produced the
first-century texts. This apocalyptic eschatological worldview drives
confrontations with opponents.
3 The Importance of Received
Tradition
The ideology of orthodoxy relies
on tradition as a warrant. Received tradition, developed from Pharisaic as well
as philosophical discourse, is related to the notion of dogma. As belief proper
becomes the ideological center of first-century Christian orthodoxy, tradition
gains power. Late first-century texts construct “tradition” as an ideological
bulwark against opposing communities that embraced apocalyptic revelation and
philosophical speculation. We will see this rhetorical-ideological move in the
post-Pauline and Gospel texts.
4 The Doxography of Opposing
Beliefs
As Christian orthodoxy centers
increasingly on belief in received dogma to define its identity, classic
heresiology of the second century and following includes a doxography of the
views of the opposing teachers. I will trace this pattern from Qumran to late
first-century texts. For philosophers, doxography functions to record and
analyze different positions in order to transmit philosophical knowledge.
Within early Christian heresiology, however, the function of heresiological
doxography is ideological condemnation of different points of view by means of
sarcasm, reduction, or other figures diminishing the intellectual quality of
the opposing teachers.
5 The Universalized Web of
Opposition
The genealogy of heresy
constructs a historiography of error, from its origins to contemporary opposing
teachers or prophets, united against the true church. The origins of this
familiar rhetoric of “us” and “them” in Christian orthodoxy are inscribed in
theories of difference from Second Temple Jewish literature, most notably
apocalyptic eschatology. The political function of this rhetoric, however,
contextualizes the binary divisions as more than expressions of structuralist
theories of identity. Within orthodox Christian discourse, all other religious
groups and communities, whether Christian, Jewish, or Hellenistic, are elided
within and with the oikoumenē as “other.” And yet domination of this
same oikoumenē is a political goal of orthodox Christians. (Robert M.
Royalty, Jr., The Origin of Heresy: A History of Discourse in Second Temple
Judaism and Early Christianity [Routledge Studies in Religion 18; New York:
Routledge, 2013], 26-27)
<at the end of the book after surveying ‘heresy’ in 2TJ
and EC>
Thus I repeat here as summary and
conclusion, in modified form, the outlines of the rhetoric of heresiology
presented in Chapter 1 and demonstrated in this book:
1 Membership (salvation)
Depends on Belief or Ideas
The notion of heresy inscribes by
implication an ontology of belief. While religious identity in the ancient
world was shaped primarily through custom and practice, Christian orthodoxy
centered on belief or dogma (doxa) as determinative for inclusion in the
soteriological community.
2 The Eschatological Notion
That Disagreement Was Satanic
The origins of religious
difference must be theorized in the notion of heresy. The position on
ideological difference that was systematized by the second-century
heresiologists explained religious difference via eschatological and satanic
tropes. This apocalyptic, eschatological worldview drives ideological
confrontation with opponents, in contrast to other Christianities’ responses to
difference.
3 The Doxography of Opposing
Beliefs
For philosophers, doxography
functions to record and analyze different positions in order to transmit
philosophical knowledge. Within early Christian heresiology the function of
heresiological doxography is ideological condemnation of different points of
view by means of sarcasm, reduction, or other figures diminishing the
intellectual quality of the opposing teachers.
4 The Importance of Received
Tradition
The ideology of orthodoxy relies
on tradition as a warrant. As belief proper becomes the ideological center of
first-century Christian orthodoxy, tradition gains power. Late first-century
texts construct “tradition” as a bulwark against opposing communities that
embraced apocalyptic revelation and philosophical speculation. Orthodox
Christians claim an “original” truth and label difference as deviance rather
than innovation.
5 The Universalized Web of
Opposition
The genealogy of heresy
constructs a historiography of error, from its origins to contemporary opposing
teachers or prophets, united against the true church. Within orthodox Christian
discourse, all other religious groups and communities, whether Christian,
Jewish, or Hellenistic, are elided within and with the oikoumenē as
“other.” (Robert M. Royalty, Jr., The Origin of Heresy: A History of
Discourse in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity [Routledge
Studies in Religion 18; New York: Routledge, 2013], 174-75)
