3 - Depicting the Other in Early Christian Polemic

Summary

The same man [Hegesippus] also sets out the origins of the contemporary heresies as follows: After the martyrdom of James the Just, for the same reason as that of the Lord, his uncle’s son Symeon, son of Clopas, was then made bishop. Everyone chose him next as he was cousin of the Lord. For this reason they called the Church “virgin,” since it had not yet been corrupted by empty rumors. Then Theboutis, because he had not been made bishop, began to corrupt it through the seven sects [haireseis] among the people, out of which he himself came, and from which there came Simon, from whom the Simonians sprang, Cleobius, from whom the Cleobians, Dositheus, from whom the Dosithians, Gorthaius, from whom the Gorathens and Masbotheans. From these came the Menandrianists and Marcianists and Carpocratians and Valentinians and Basileidians and Satornilians, each introducing their own doctrine distinctively and differently, and from them false Christs, false prophets, false apostles, who split the unity of the Church asunder with destructive statements against God and his Christ.¹

This passage from Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, written at the start of the fourth century, is a classic account of the origins of heresy within Christianity.² Drawing on the now lost second-century Memoirs of Hegesippus, it begins in Jerusalem with a “pure,” undivided community of the faithful. Soon, however, dissension arose through the figure of Theboutis, who brought in external ideas from the seven “sects” of Judaism and began the process of corruption: more heresiarchs arose and founded more heresies, which were named after them, and these in turn begat further heresies and dangerous doctrines, together with false figures of authority, as had been foretold in Scripture. From these beginnings, therefore, heresy grew and multiplied in opposition to an unchanging orthodoxy, with every individual and group innovating in such a way that their views differed not only from the true Church but also from each other, while nonetheless forming part of a network of heresy stretching back to a shared origin. In this one example, it is already possible to identify many of the essential features that would go on to characterize heresiological rhetoric, especially in some of the more elaborate forms it would take in the post-Constantinian world: a focus on doctrinal deviation from an established norm; the pernicious influence of inappropriate “external” ideas imported into Christianity; the assigning of blame to named heresiarchs with questionable motives; the organization of opponents into discrete groups, frequently named after their supposed founder and thus separated from the name of “Christians”; and the tracing of genealogical links between heretical sects, allowing each one to be tied to others and thus damned by association, while also contrasting the manifold disagreements of the various groups with the singular, unchanging faith of the Church.³