Part Four: Riders of the Wrecking Machine

GNOSTICISM AS BLASPHEMY

Bernard Pyron

This is on gnosticism in the second and third centuries AD as a

background for looking at the possibility that some of the changes

and omissions in the Westcott-Hort Greek text are consistent with

gnostic views. The Westcott-Hort Greek New testament was made mostly

from two Fourth Century Greek texts, the Vaticanus and the

Sinaiticus. And almost all the modern translations are based upon the

Westcott-Hort text.

There were different versions of gnosticism that made some use of

Christian terminology and which deceived some baby Christians in the

second and third centuries. And even a few early church fathers like

Origen of Alexandria, Egypt may have been in part influenced by

gnosticism. The effect of believing gnostic teachings is to bring

doubt about the basic doctrines of the Bible, which must have been

Satan's reason for inspiring the gnostics to hold forth as they did.

Gnostics thought that the Supreme Father is remote and unknowable.

He/she created supernatural beings called Aeons. One of the Aeons was

Sophia - wisdom in Greek - who gave birth to the "inferior" creator

being gnostics call the Demiurge. The Demiurge then created the

material world gnostics said was evil, corrupt and flawed. To

gnostics, the demiurge is the God of the Old Testament, seen by them

as evil, rigid, and lacking in compassion. Many gnostics said the

pride, ignorance and incompetence of the demiurge caused the sorry

state of the world as we know it.

Valentinus, a gnostic leader in Alexandria, Egypt taught that the

supposedly evil physical universe was created because of a mistake by

Sophia.

But in Genesis 1: 4-25 God says several times that the material

universe and the earth which he created was good, not evil. For the

gnostics to say the physical earth and material universe are evil is

an insult to God.

One of the major gnostic movements was founded by Valentinus whose

dates are about 100 to 153 AD. Tertullian (about 155 to 230) AD

wrote a book opposed to the teachings of Valentinus, Adversus

Valentinianos.

Irenaeus (about 130 to 200 AD) writes about the gnosticism of

Valentinus in his book Against Heresies.

 See

http://www.pohick.org/sts/fathers.html

for online texts of the five

books of Against Heresies. Irenaeus' Against Heresies contains a

number of quotes from the New Testament, many of which are identical

or almost exactly the same as wordings in the King James Version.

Scholars say he wrote this book in about 180 AD. Only fragments of

the original Greek text of Against Heresies have survived, though one

web site claims much of Book One has survived. A complete Latin

translation from 380 AD has survived. There are more than one English

translations of the Latin, such as that by Alexander Roberets and

James Donald (1867).

Esoteric or secret teachings were passed on in private by Jesus to

his apostles, so says Valentinus. Valentinus quotes Luke 8: 9-10 "The

knowledge about the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to

you, but to the rest it comes by means of parables so that they may

look but not see and listen but not understand."(Luke 8:9-10 See.

Ireneus Against Heresies 1:3:1). This information is found at:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Brief_Summary_Theology.htm

Also, Valentinus claims that when Paul met the risen Christ on the

Road to Damascus (Acts 9:9-10), he received this secret knowledge from

Jesus. Valentinus

says Theudas gave Valentinus the secret knowledge and that Theudas

received it from the Apostles.

The gnostic Valentinus taught that the scriptures are not easily

understood and their truth can only be had by those who have the

secret gnostic knowledge (Irenaeus Against heresies Book Three,

Chapter Two, paragraph One). Valentinian gnostics thought that the

secret knowledge is understood only by those who are spiritually

mature. The Valentinians claimed that the gnostic knowledge is

nonsense to those who are not ready to receive them. They said Paul

and other Apostles only gave these teachings to those who were

spiritually mature.

What Valentinus and his followers created was a false religion which

stole some of the terminology of Christianity. The gnostics tried to

make themselves an elite caste who were the only ones having the

correct knowledge which was said to be necessary to be saved at death

from the evil material world. Since they were not spiritually

regenerated by the Holy Spirit, they were arrogant in their assumed

elite status as the sole bearers of the truth.

In Revelation 2: 15 Christ says the church at Pergamos held to the

doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which he hates. It may be that Christ

hated the doctrine of the Nicolaitans because they engaged in pagan

ceremonies and orgies and because they were proud in their assumed

status as a religious ruling elite. Irenaeus and some other early

Fathers said some of the gnostics engaged in pagan practices and did

not follow Christian morals. As a movement that claimed to be a

religious elite possessing secret knowledge, the gnostics were

probably like the Nicolaitans in trying to rule over others as an

elite group. The lesson for us from this is that there should be no

elite, no priesthood, among Christians.

The Valentinian teaching draws a sharp distinction between the human

Jesus and the divine Jesus. The human Jesus was born the true son of

Mary and Joseph When he was thirty years old, he went to John the

Baptist to be baptized. As soon as he went down into the water, the

divine Savior, referred to as the "Spirit of the Thought of the

Father", descended on him in the form of a dove. This is the true

"virgin birth" and resurrection from the dead, for he was reborn of

the virgin Spirit.

Valentinian gnostics made a distinction between the human Jesus and

the divine Christ. They thought the human Jesus was born as the

biological son of Mary and Joseph. When he was baptized by John the

Baptist, the "Spirit of the Thought of the Father" descended on him in

the form of a dove, He was born of the Spirit.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/valentinus/Brief_Summary_Theology.htm

This account seems to suggest that the gnostics thought Jesus became

fully spiritual as a savior at his baptism. Other gnostics said that

the savior, who came from the spiritual world of the Eternal Father,

could not have entered the material world and taken on human flesh

because the material world and human flesh are evil. See:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html#oldest

The gnostics did differentiate between the human Jesus and the

spiritual Christ. Some said that the evil material world causes a

corruption of the spiritual state and so Christ as pure spirit could

not become human flesh in the material world.

Those of the gnostic movements who followed the Docetism of Julius

Cassianus believed that Christ was pure spirit and only appeared to be

in human flesh. Arianism, as taught by Arius, said that Jesus was a

created being and not God. These false teachings about Jesus Christ

are also blasphemy, as is the teaching that salvation is not by the

blood atonement of Christ, but by obtaining secret knowledge. And

remember, for the gnostics, salvation is not being set free from the

domination of sin and given eternal life with Christ. For them,

salvation is liberation at death from the bondage to the material

world. This implies a form of

reincarnation which some gnostics taught. I have read that Oregen,

the early Church father of Alexandria, believed in some form of

reincarnation and he also thought Jesus Christ was a lesser God than

God the Father.

Marcion (about 85 to 160 AD), another important gnostic, said Jesus

was a spirit and was not in the flesh. Marcion rejected the baby

stories about Jesus and on his crucifixtion and resurrection. Marcion

thought the Eternal Father took pity on humanity and sent Christ, as

spirit alone, to rescue some men from the material world and from the

God of the Old Testament.

Gnostics did not want to acknowledge that Jesus Christ took on human

flesh in the material world. If it was some of the gnostics who

removed words and phrases from some verse of the Greek New Testament,

in the copies associated with Alexandria, Egypt then this rejection

of

the teaching that Christ took on human flesh could account for some of

these omissions on the topics of the deity of Christ and his

incarnation.

The second and third century gnostics did not accept the Genesis

account saying that man and the earth degenerated as a result of the

sin of Adam and Eve. For the gnostics, the material world was evil

from its creation. Again, this insults the Lord.

There may have been some gnostics around during the first century when

Paul, John and other apostles wrote. Irenaeus in Against heresies,

Justin Martyr in Apologies and Hippolytus in Philosophemena all wrote

abut a Simon Magnus who was a heretic and perhaps an early gnostic.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies (wrote about 182-188 A.D.) devotes all of

chapter 23 of Book One to Simon Magus. He said that Emperor Claudius

honored Simon Magus with a statue because of his magic. Irenaeus says

that Simon taught that he appeared to the Jews as the Son, to the

Samaritans as the Father, and to other nations as the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian in Against All Heresies (200-210 A.D) also devotes the

first chapter to discussing Simon Magus. Tertullian says that Simon

called himself "The Supreme Virtue", and that his successor was

Menander. Tertullian also says in A Treatise on the Soul ch.34, that

Simon devoted his energies to destroying the truth after Peter rebuked

him.

Hippolytus in The Refutation of All Heresies book 6 chapters 2-7,

(225-235/6 A.D.) goes into Simon's pseudo-Platonic nonsense.

In Book One Chapter 23 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus has a lot to say

about Simon Magnus. He said: "Simon the Samaritan was that magician

of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, "But

there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical

arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring

that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from

the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is

called great..."

Irenaeus goes on to say " In fine, they have a name derived from

Simon, the author of these most impious doctrines, being called

Simonians; and from them "knowledge, falsely so called," received its

beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions." "They"

are the followers of Simon. Here Ignatious is quoting part of I

Timothy 6: 20.

Irenaeus ends his discussion of Simon in saying "The successor of this

man was Menander, also a Samaritan by birth, and he, too, was a

perfect adept in the practice of magic. He affirms that the primary

Power continues unknown to all, but that he himself is the person who

has been sent forth from the presence of the invisible beings as a

saviour, for the deliverance of men. The world was made by angels,

whom, like Simon, he maintains to have been produced by Ennoea."

Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 2, p. 496: "But it

need NOT be supposed that when Simon broke with the Christians HE

RENOUNCED ALL HE HAD LEARNED. It is more probable that he carried some

of the Christian ideas with him, and that he wove these into a system

of his own. This system did contain some of the later germs of

Gnosticism. Thus he became a leader of a retro-grade sect, perhaps

nominally Christian, and certainly using some of the Christian

terminology but in reality anti-Christian and exalting Simon himself

to the central position which Christianity was giving to Jesus Christ"

I Timothy 6: 20 and I John 4: 3, at least, seem to deal with the

problem of gnosticism.

I Timothy 6:20 says "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy

trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

and oppositions of science falsely so called." "Science" is from

"gnosis" and could have been translated as "knowledge." Paul might be

warning Timothy to stay away from gnosticism which promotes a kind of

"knowledge" that is false.

Then, I John 4:3 could be warning about the gnostic teaching that

Jesus Christ could not have taken on the flesh of man in the

incarnation. John says "And every spirit that confesseth not that

Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is the

spirit of antichrist..." The gnostics of the second and third

centuries had the spirit of antichrist. And - though there are many

different kinds of gnosticism -the contemporary New Age Occult

Movement is a continuation of aspects of that early gnosticism. And so

it too is the spirit of antichrist. It has infiltrated some of the

churches of the Multitude as a kind of religious mysticism that is not

authentically led by the Holy Spirit.

Here is the link for all five of the Irenaeus Books of Against

heresey:

http://www.pohick.org/sts/fathers.html

COMPARISON OF KING JAMES WORDINGS WITH QUOTES BY IRENAEUS

If the New Testament quotes by Irenaus in Against Hereses are faithful

copies of his original Greek text, then we have evidence that the

wordings of many verses

of the Textus Receptus and King James Version existed at the time he

wrote, in the late second century, somewhere around 175 to 185 AD. The

Westcott-Hort theory says that the two Greek manuscripts associated

with Alexandria, Egypt, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from the fourth

century, are best because they are the oldest copies available. There

are in existence fairly sizeable Papyrus fragments (p66 and p75 for

example) from the second and/or third centuries which contain wordings

supporting both the Textus Receptus and Westcott-Hort which suggests

the Textus Receptus wordings existed at least in the late second

century. Papyrus p66 is supposed to be from 125 to 200 AD, and

Papyrus p75 from 175 to 225 AD. An important consideration for p66

and p75 is that both were found in the dry climate of Egypt. Experts

claim these papyri were copied from other Greek texts in about the

time of the late second century. Some verses of these papyri are

like Textus Receptus wordings and some like Westcott-Hort wordings. It

is not certain what implications this mixed type of wording might have

for the transmission of early Greek New Testament texts. One

possibility is that in Egypt during the late second century, there was

a process of changing some verses going on, but it was not as far

advanced as it was by the time Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were copied

in the fourth century. Whatever the implications of the mixed wordings

in these papyri, the Textus Receptus wordings that are in the papyri

came from some Greek texts existing in the second century.

If Irenaeus had the Textus Receptus wordings in the late second

century, this shoots even bigger holes in the Westcott-Hort theory.

that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts are better because they are

older, while the Textus Receptus is inferior because its much later.

Scholars claim Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies in 175 to 185 AD.

I made a list of most of his quotes in all five Books of Against

Heresies, about 22 quotes and he has paraphrases of some more. Some

are identical to the King James wordings and others are almost

identical.

Here is II Corinthians 4: 4 in the King James Version: "In whom the

god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,

lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of

God, should shine unto them."

And this is from Against Hereses Book Four, Chapter 29: "In whom the

god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not,

lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto

them." And again, in that to the Romans: "And as they did not think

fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate

mind, to do those things that are not convenient."

Romans 1: 28 in the King James Version says: "And even as they did not

like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a

reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."

In the quote of II Corinthians 4: 4 by Irenaeus he leaves out "who is

the image of God."

Colossians 1: 14 in the King James says "In whom we have redemption

through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

Book Five, Chapter 2.2 of Against Heresies says: "For blood can only

come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance

of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he

redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, "In whom we have redemption

through His blood, even the remission of sins."

Colossians 1: 14 is one of those verses where an important word has

been left out of the New International Version. It reads: "in whom

we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

Lets look at the Westcott-Hort Greek text and see if blood is left out

there too for Colossians 1: 14. Their Greek says: "en w ecomen thn

apolutrwsin thn afesin twn amartiwn"

The Textus Receptus, used for the King James, says: "en w ecomen thn

apolutrwsin dia tou aimato autou thn afesin twn amartiwn"

The Greek words "dia tou aimato" are in the Textus Receptus but not in

the Westcott-Hort Greek text. "dia tou aimato" means "through his

blood."

OK. Luke 1: 6 in the King James reads: "And they were both righteous

before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord

blameless."

Book Three, Chapter 10.1 of Against Heresies says: "Luke also, the

follower and disciple of the apostles, referring to Zacharias and

Elisabeth, from whom, according to promise, John was born, says: "And

they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments

and ordinances of the Lord blameless." And again, speaking of

Zacharias: "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's

office before God in the order of his course, according to the custom

of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense; "

Irenaeus here is also quoting Luke 1: 8-9 which reads in the King

James, "And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's

office

before God in the order of his course, according to the custom of the

priest's office his lot was to burn incense when he went the temple of

the Lord." Irenaeus does not quote the last part of this sentence

"when he went into the temple of the Lord."

In the King James, Galatians 4: 4-5 has this wording: "But when the

fullness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,

made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we

might receive the adoption of sons."

In Book Three, Chapter 16.3 of Against Hereses, Iremaeus tyells

us: "And

again, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he says: "But when the fulness

of time had come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under

the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive

the adoption; " plainly indicating one God, who did by the prophets

make promise of the Son, and one Jesus Christ our Lord, who was of the

seed of David according to His birth from Mary; and that Jesus Christ

was appointed the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of

holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, as being the first

begotten in all the creation; the Son of God being made the Son Of

man, that through Him we may receive the adoption,--humanity

sustaining, and receiving, and embracing the Son of God."

Irenaeus leaves out "of sons" after adaption. In this paragraph he is

arguing from Scripture, as he does so often in Against Hereses,

against the gnostic confusion of the nature of the godhead, with their

many Aeons etc.

We might look at the NIV for Galatians 4: 4-5 because it says Christ

was born of a woman, implying he took on human flesh. The NIV says:

"But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman,

born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the

full rights of sons." Being born of a woman is not left out of the

NIV. But the wording in the NIV is different than in the King James

and in the quote of Irenaeus in Against Heresies. For many New

Testament verses the wording of the quotes of Irenaeus agree more

closely with the King James than with the NIV.

These examples I pulled out of Against Heresies  show doctrine differences

 for some verses

 between the NIV, on the one hand, and

the King James and Against Heresies, on the other hand. What I wanted

to show is that Irenaeus seemed to have one or more New Testament

copies in 175 to 185 AD that are almost identical in verse wordings to

the King James. There are much more important differences in doctrine

between the King James and the NIV for other verses, for John 3: 13,

for example, or even John 1: 18. The NIV severely weakens the

statement of the doctrine of the Trinity in I John 5: 7-8, and other

doctrines are reduced and weakened in that version.

Here is a link to several sites where you can compare wordings of the

Greek Textus Receptus, and Westcott-Hort, as well as many English

translations: http://unbound.biola.edu/

Here is another such site: http://www.olivetree.com/bible/index.html

And here is a web site that discusses the possible gnostic influence

on omissions of words, phrases and entire verses from the

Westcott-Hort Greek text. This site is valuable in the information it

gives on which of many Greek New Testament texts the words left out

of the Westcott-Hort are not left out:

http://www.olivetree.com/bible/index.html

Finally, I found a longer treatment of gnosticism, which could be a

Catholic site because of its name:

http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/defgnost.htm