The meaning of heresy

**The Gnostics Were Not Teaching False Doctrines, but Were Sectarians According to the Original Meaning of αἵρεσις**

---

The word *heresy* in its modern sense—implying false doctrine and moral corruption—bears little resemblance to its original meaning in Greek antiquity. The Greek term **αἵρεσις (*hairesis*)** did not mean “false teaching.” It meant **a choice**, **a chosen course**, or **a school of thought.** The transformation of *hairesis* from a neutral word describing a philosophical or religious faction into a weaponized label of condemnation occurred only after the rise of episcopal authority in the second century. Therefore, when early Christian writers called the Gnostics “heretics,” they were not describing men and women who were necessarily false teachers, but rather those who belonged to **a different sect**—a legitimate *hairesis* in the original Greek sense.

---

### 1. The Original Meaning in Classical Greek

The earliest use of **αἵρεσις** in Greek literature reveals that it denoted an act of **choice** or a **course of action deliberately taken.** Derived from the verb **αἱρέω** or **αἱρέομαι**, meaning “to take,” “to choose,” or “to prefer,” the noun developed naturally to refer to any system or school of thought that one chose to follow.

In **Herodotus (Histories 3.80)**, the word describes a decision or selection:

> “Having made their choice (*hairesis*), they took their course of action.”

Here, the word bears no religious or moral meaning; it simply indicates a deliberate decision. Similarly, **Plato**, in *Republic* 617e, employs *hairesis* in the myth of Er to describe the selection of one’s life path:

> “Each soul was required to make its choice (*hairesin*) of life.”

The philosopher **Aristotle**, in *Topics* 101a37, speaks of “the *hairesis* of philosophy”—that is, a philosophical school or persuasion. The Stoics, Epicureans, and Peripatetics each had their own *hairesis*. In **Polybius (Histories 6.56.6)**, the term appears again, describing political factions in the Roman Republic. In none of these examples is *hairesis* negative or heretical. It refers only to a **chosen path, sect, or party**.

In Classical Greek usage, then, *hairesis* was a neutral term describing one’s **adopted discipline or affiliation**—whether philosophical, political, or professional. A man could belong to the *hairesis* of Epicurus just as another might belong to the *hairesis* of Aristotle.

---

### 2. The Hellenistic and Jewish Usage

As Greek culture spread through the Hellenistic world, Jewish writers adopted *hairesis* to describe divisions or schools within Judaism. In this period, the word was used not to denounce, but to **categorize**.

**Josephus**, the first-century Jewish historian, provides a clear example. In *Antiquities* 13.171 and 293, and *Wars* 2.119, he refers to the **Pharisees**, **Sadducees**, and **Essenes** as the three principal *haireseis* of the Jewish people:

> “The Jews have three *haireseis*, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.”

Josephus does not use the term pejoratively; he treats these sects as legitimate schools within the same religious tradition, much like the philosophical schools among the Greeks. Thus, in Hellenistic Jewish usage, *hairesis* meant **a religious party or sect**, not a deviation from truth.

---

### 3. The Use of αἵρεσις in the New Testament

The New Testament writers inherited this same neutral meaning. In the *Acts of the Apostles*, the term *hairesis* is applied several times to Jewish sects and, later, to the followers of Jesus.

* **Acts 5:17** – “Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with him, which is the *hairesis* of the Sadducees, were filled with indignation.”

* **Acts 15:5** – “There rose up certain of the *hairesis* of the Pharisees which believed…”

* **Acts 24:5** – Tertullus accuses Paul before Felix, saying: “We have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the *hairesis* of the Nazarenes.”

* **Acts 24:14** – Paul responds: “After the way which they call *hairesis*, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

Here, Paul directly acknowledges that his movement—the early Christian community—was being called a *hairesis* by the religious establishment. Yet Paul accepts the label without apology, affirming that his worship of the Deity accords with the Scriptures. This passage is crucial: it shows that the first Christians were themselves considered a *sect* within Judaism. The charge of “heresy,” as later understood, did not exist. They were simply a **school** within a larger tradition, no different in structure from the Pharisees or Sadducees.

Even in **1 Corinthians 11:19**, when Paul says, “There must also be *haireseis* among you,” he refers to divisions or factions, not necessarily false beliefs. The context concerns social and communal disorder, not doctrinal corruption.

Thus, within the New Testament itself, *hairesis* never meant “false doctrine.” It always referred to **sects, parties, or divisions**—whether in Judaism or among the followers of Jesus.

---

### 4. The Transformation of Meaning in Early Christianity

The pejorative sense of *hairesis* as “false doctrine” only appeared after the second century, when institutional Christianity began to define **orthodoxy** (right belief) and **heterodoxy** (other belief). As bishops sought to unify doctrine and authority, rival Christian interpretations—such as those of the Gnostics, Marcionites, and Montanists—were branded *heresies.*

Writers like **Irenaeus** (*Adversus Haereses*), **Tertullian**, and **Hippolytus** used the term to condemn alternative theological schools. Yet the irony is clear: the same word once applied neutrally to the *Pharisees*, *Sadducees*, and *Christians* was now used by Christians to stigmatize one another.

The Valentinian, Sethian, and other Gnostic schools were not inherently false; they were *haireseis* in the classical and biblical sense—distinct **sects** that offered their own interpretations of Scripture and cosmology. Like the Stoics and Epicureans, they had their teachers, their systems, and their chosen ways. Their doctrines differed from those of the episcopal hierarchy, but difference does not equal falsehood. The later Church redefined the term to enforce conformity, turning a neutral word into a label of condemnation.

---

### 5. Paul and the Gnostics: A Shared Accusation

Paul’s own experience, as recorded in Acts 24:14, parallels that of the later Gnostics. Both were accused of belonging to a *hairesis*—a sect contrary to the accepted authority. Yet Paul’s defense is telling: he does not deny being part of a *sect*; he denies that his worship is false. He insists that his beliefs align with “all things written in the law and the prophets.” His faith is true, even if others call it a *hairesis*.

In the same way, Gnostic Christians claimed fidelity to the divine revelation but interpreted it differently. They saw themselves not as corrupters of truth but as seekers of deeper understanding. The bishops, like the Pharisees of Paul’s time, used *hairesis* as a tool of exclusion, but the word itself never implied error.

Thus, to call the Gnostics “heretics” in the modern sense is anachronistic. In the language of the New Testament and the Hellenistic world, they were **sectarians**—people who chose a particular way (*hairesis*) of interpreting divine things.

---

### 6. Conclusion

The historical and linguistic evidence demonstrates that **αἵρεσις** originally meant **choice**, **school**, or **sect**, not “false teaching.” From Herodotus to Plato, from Josephus to Paul, the term was consistently used to denote a particular path or group within a broader tradition. The early Christians themselves were called a *hairesis* by the Jewish authorities, just as the later Gnostics were called *haireseis* by the bishops of the emerging Catholic Church.

When the meaning of *hairesis* shifted in the second century, it reflected not a change in truth, but a change in **power**. The dominant ecclesiastical party redefined the word to secure its own authority and suppress rival interpretations. But according to the original Greek sense, the Gnostics were not “heretics” at all; they were **sectarians**, thinkers who chose a distinct *way* of worshiping the Deity, much like Paul and his followers in the first century.

To reclaim the word *hairesis* is to restore historical accuracy and intellectual honesty. The Gnostics, like Paul before them, simply followed a chosen path—a *choice* of understanding the divine mysteries. Whether one accepts their doctrines or not, they stood within the legitimate spectrum of the early Christian *haireseis*, heirs to the same freedom of choice that characterized Greek philosophy and Jewish sectarianism alike.

In truth, the Gnostics were never false teachers; they were **choosers**—those who, like the philosophers of old and the apostle himself, sought truth along a different yet earnest path.

**The Gnostics and the Orthodox: Sectarians United by the Meaning of αἵρεσις**

---

In the history of early Christianity, the term *heresy* has often been used to draw a sharp boundary between “orthodox” belief and “false” teaching. Yet this modern understanding obscures the true meaning of the Greek word **αἵρεσις (*hairesis*)**, which in the first century did not mean *false doctrine* but rather a **sect, school, or chosen way**. The word comes from the verb *αἱρέομαι*, “to choose,” and referred to one’s deliberate alignment with a particular interpretation or community. The Stoics, Epicureans, and Peripatetics were all *haireseis*—distinct schools of thought. Likewise, within Judaism, Josephus used the same word to describe the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. Even the followers of Jesus were called a *hairesis* in Acts 24:14, where Paul admits before Felix, “After the way which they call *hairesis*, so worship I the God of my fathers.”

Thus, when we examine the so-called “Gnostic” writings, we should not assume they were false or deceptive doctrines. They were **Christian sects**—communities within the wider Christian movement who held different, yet often overlapping, understandings of the same truths. When read carefully, many texts from the *Nag Hammadi Library* affirm the same essential doctrines held by Orthodox Christianity: that Jesus was the Son of God and the Son of Man, that he came in the flesh, died, and rose bodily from the dead. Far from being deniers of the incarnation or the resurrection, these writings preserve a distinctly corporeal faith—one that speaks of *true flesh* and *real resurrection*.

---

### 1. The Lord as Son of God and Son of Man

The **Treatise on the Resurrection** begins with the statement:

> “How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature—but I call it ‘Death’. Now the Son of God was Son of Man.”

This passage confesses precisely what Orthodox Christianity professes: that Jesus is both *Son of God* and *Son of Man*. It affirms the union of divine and human nature in the one who revealed himself in flesh. The author contrasts the corruptible world, which he calls “Death,” with the divine life manifested in the Son’s incarnate existence. This is not docetism or illusion; it is a recognition of the Deity’s presence in human form—the same truth confessed in the Nicene and Apostolic traditions.

---

### 2. The Flesh of Jesus

The **Gospel of Thomas** (Saying 28) records Jesus’ own declaration:

> “I took my stand in the midst of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh.”

This simple statement is profoundly orthodox. The writer affirms Jesus’ corporeal presence in the world—the Word made flesh. The *Text of Melchizedek*, another work from the Nag Hammadi collection, defends the same belief with remarkable precision:

> “They will say of him that he is unbegotten, though he has been begotten; that he does not eat, even though he eats; that he does not drink, even though he drinks; that he is uncircumcised, though he has been circumcised; that he is unfleshly, though he has come in the flesh; that he did not come to suffering, though he came to suffering; that he did not rise from the dead, though he arose from the dead.”

This passage denounces those who deny the corporeal nature, death, and resurrection of Christ. It insists that Jesus *was begotten*, *ate and drank*, *was circumcised*, *suffered*, and *rose bodily*. Such statements directly oppose the later docetic movements that denied Christ’s real humanity. They affirm what the apostolic writings declare: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1 John 4:2).

---

### 3. The Resurrection of the Flesh

The **Treatise on the Resurrection** continues:

> “If you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.”

Here the author explicitly denies that the resurrection is symbolic or spiritualized. The resurrection is real, more real than the transitory world itself. The same insistence appears in the **Gospel of Philip**:

> “The resurrection is real; it is not an illusion. I condemn those who say the flesh will not rise… It is necessary to arise in this flesh, since everything exists in it.”

The text upholds the resurrection of the same body that now lives and dies. It describes the transformation from mortal to immortal—“spiritual flesh,” as Paul calls it in 1 Corinthians 15:44.

Later in the same gospel we read:

> “[The master] was conceived from what is imperishable, through God. The master rose from the dead, but he did not come into being as he was. Rather, his body was completely perfect. It was of flesh, and this flesh was true flesh. Our flesh is not true flesh but only an image of the true.”

This striking passage parallels Paul’s contrast between corruptible and incorruptible bodies (1 Cor. 15:42–53). The risen Christ’s body is “true flesh”—not illusion or ghost, but perfected corporeality. Such teaching stands in full agreement with the Orthodox belief in the tangible resurrection of Jesus.

---

### 4. The Death and Cross of Christ

The **Gospel of Philip** also recalls Jesus’ cry from the cross:

> “My God, my God, O Lord, why have you abandoned me? He said these words on the cross. But not from that place. He was already gone.”

The text recognizes the crucifixion as a real historical event, while also reflecting on the transcendent identity of the Savior. The **Apocryphon of James** conveys a similar reverence for the cross and death of Christ:

> “Remember my cross and my death and you will live… Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God.”

Such statements reveal that the authors of these works not only knew of the crucifixion but considered belief in it essential for salvation. This is the same central proclamation of the apostolic gospel: “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23).

The **Gospel of Truth** likewise affirms that Jesus’ death brought life to many:

> “The compassionate, faithful Jesus was patient in his sufferings until he took that book, since he knew that his death meant life for many… For this reason Jesus appeared. He put on that book. He was nailed to a cross. He affixed the edict of the Father to the cross.”

This passage portrays the crucifixion not as illusion but as divine act—the visible sign of the Father’s purpose, bringing life and revelation to humankind.

---

### 5. The Spiritual Body and the Post-Resurrection Appearance

The **Sophia of Jesus Christ** opens with a scene after the resurrection:

> “After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers… the Savior appeared—not in his previous form, but in the invisible spirit. His likeness resembles a great angel of light… But his resemblance I must not describe. No mortal flesh could endure it, but only pure, perfect flesh, like that which he taught us about on the mountain.”

This depiction matches Paul’s teaching that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,” but that the mortal puts on immortality (1 Cor. 15:50–54). The resurrected body is still flesh, yet perfected—*pure, perfect flesh* that transcends mortality. The author does not deny the body but exalts it as transformed and incorruptible.

---

### 6. Sectarians, Not Heretics

When one considers these passages, the line between “Gnostic” and “Orthodox” grows remarkably thin. Both affirm Jesus’ divine sonship, incarnation, death, and bodily resurrection. The differences lie mainly in interpretation and cosmology, not in the essential facts of faith. The authors of these texts did not deny the Deity or the resurrection; they sought to understand their deeper meaning.

By the standards of the first century, these believers were simply members of a different *hairesis*—a sect within the diverse landscape of early Christianity. Just as Paul’s movement was called a *hairesis* by the Jews, the Gnostics were labeled *haireseis* by the bishops of the emerging Catholic Church. Yet the original Greek term does not imply error; it denotes a chosen way, a distinct school of thought.

---

### 7. Conclusion

The evidence from the *Nag Hammadi Library* shows that many so-called Gnostic texts affirm the same core beliefs as Orthodox Christianity. They proclaim Jesus as Son of God and Son of Man, confess that he came in the flesh, died on the cross, and rose bodily from the dead. Their theology of resurrection—speaking of “true flesh” and “pure, perfect flesh”—is fully consistent with the apostolic message of transformation from mortality to immortality.

To brand these writings as “heresy” in the modern sense is to misunderstand both the Greek language and the history of early Christianity. In their own time, these communities were not “false teachers” but **sectarians**—followers of a particular *hairesis*, a chosen path within the diverse body of believers. As Paul himself once stood accused of belonging to a *hairesis*, so too did the Gnostics suffer the charge from their contemporaries. But as the Scriptures and the Greek language testify, *hairesis* originally signified not corruption, but choice—an act of seeking and devotion.

Therefore, the Gnostics were not enemies of truth; they were fellow seekers within the same great household of faith, choosing a path toward understanding the mysteries of the Deity. Like Paul before them, they could rightly say, “After the way which they call *hairesis*, so worship I the God of my fathers.”