Chapter 7 How did they do that?

 

Chapter 7

How did they do that?

 

Long time before the Council of Nicaea (325) was the Council of Antioch, in 267 A.D. At this council the doctrine of the trinity proposed by Sabellius was discussed. This Council is unknown and many do not know what decisions were made there. It is astonishing that what was proposed many years later at Nicaea, was also proposed at this council, but was rejected. The Greek term "homoousios" favored by Sabellius, but rejected at Antioch, ironically, was later favored at the Council of Nicaea.

 

Sabellius was a third-century theologian. His Trinitarian theology is identical to the one we read in the Apocryphon of John, so the question arises whether he or one of his disciples is the author of this falsehood. Many did not know his excommunication from 220 at Rome and as Sabellius' theology became popular, a Council examining this teaching was convened in Antioch in 267 AD.

 

At the Council of Antioch in 267 the church rejected Sabellius and his formula that Jesus is homo-ousios with the Father.  Homo-ouios means in Sabellius view “of the same essence, substance, or being,” so if the Father and Son is the same being, God died at the cross,  which the Synod of Antioch refused to admit and declared the idea of Sabelius gnostic (heretic).

(Sproul, R.C.; Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology; Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI; copyright 1997; p. 81)

 

After the Sabellian proto-trinitarian gnostic party loses the battle in the Council of Antioch (267), that is, the Father and the Son is the same being - because of the Scriptures in some Christian leaders hands were most still unchanged – the Sabellians began the offensive of bringing the text of the Scriptures on their side, falsifying the text, where it was clearly against their conceptions. The Sabellians believed that they were not well enough understood at the Council of Antioch and they cast this guilt upon the Scriptures held by their opponents, which they considered edited (forged). With this suspicion in mind, they set out on a counter-offensive, modifying the Scriptures that disadvantaged them in the discussions. Thus began a crusade of counterfeits or so-called corrections, with many involved. Indeed, the church had declined certain corrupt texts by the Marcionite Gnostics, whose congregations were flourishing, but the Sabellians saw something wrong in this, as they were not clear about who the Marcionites really were. They deceived themselves into believing that the Marcionite texts were correct.

 

What many fail to realize today is that some documents of the New Testament in some places was edited, by Marcionites and Sabellians, to confirm the doctrines of their branches. And not only this documents but also other Christian documents also.

The noted Church Historian Eusebius of Caesarea quotes the Church Father Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria in the third century (Hist. Eccl.,

Bk. 4. 23), who reports that his own epistles had been tampered by the

Gnostic party:

"When my fellow Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so. These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others. For them the woe is reserved. Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts".

 

In the book The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, we find another proof, of what happened in that ancient time, quoting Gaius, presbyter of Rome in the second and first half of the third century:

"Therefore they have laid their hands boldly upon the Divine Scriptures,

alleging that they have corrected them. That I am not speaking falsely of

them in this matter, whoever wishes may learn. For if any one will collect

their respective copies, and compare them one with another, he will find

that they differ greatly. Those of Asclepiades, for example, do not agree

with those of Theodotus. And many of these can be obtained, because

their disciples have assiduously written the corrections, as they call them, that is the corruptions, of each of them. Again, those of Hermophilus do not agree with these, and those of Apollonides are not

consistent with themselves. For you can compare those prepared by them at an earlier date with those which they corrupted later, and you will find them widely different. But how daring this offense is, it is not likely that they themselves are ignorant. For either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, and thus are

unbelievers, or else they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and

in that case what else are they than demoniacs? For they cannot deny

the commission of the crime, since the copies have been written by their

own hands. For they did not receive such Scriptures from their instructors, nor can they produce any copies from which they were transcribed".

 

Here is the model followed by them: the Gnostic party so many copies

did until they eclipsed with the multitude of copies, the true copies of the

Scriptures, the forged copies being more accessible to the uninitiated public, than the authentic ones.

 

Comparison of the manuscripts made by scientists, shows that indeed

errors were made by negligence, but also three intentional tricks were

made.

 

About the tricks made in the text:

1 words intentionally omitted

2 words added intentionally

3. words intentionally changed

 

Dr. F H The Scrivener text critic writes:

"In the second century, we see too many attempts to change the text of Scripture, some only recklessly, others proven to be dishonest."

 

Scrivener states that "this is no less true, though it sounds paradoxical that the worst mistakes the New Testament has ever been made were originally made within 100 years after the (New Testament) was made, and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers , and throughout the West, part of the Syrian Church used "inferior manuscripts. (FHA Scrivener, Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism).

 

Dr. FH Scrivener text critic noted two kind of scribes who altered the text:

"recklessly, others proven to be dishonest." Scrivener states that the first

100 years was the WORST TIME of the manuscripts.

 

Ernest Cadman Colwell, Which is the Best New Testament Text ?, p. 119: "The first two centuries witnessed a large number of (different text)

variations known to scholars today. Most (different text) versions of New

Testament manuscripts, I believe they did it consciously."

 

The testimony of Origen, third century: "It is a fact revealed today that

there is a GREAT VARIETY among the manuscripts, either because of

the carelessness of the scribes, or because of the outrageous daring of

the people who copied..." Origen, Contra Celsum

 

This rout was due to the fact that in the second century the Gnostic Christian rival groups reached a dozen of sects, each making their own

canon and their own favorite text (Raoul Vaneigem, The Resistance to

Christianity.The Heresies at the Origins of the18thCentury).