A Discovery of Epic Proportions!

Sabellianism may have been the primary precursor to the Catholic Church, and a sect that stood right beside both the Marcionites and the Ebionites in the picture of early Christianity!

I believe I have made a discovery of epic proportions! If I am correct, I have discovered something that Irenaeus went to great lengths to hide; and I figure that anything which Irenaeus attempted to hide has to be critically important to the genuine history of the Christian faith!

Irenaeus' teacher was a man he called “the Elder” and in one place he claimed that his name was “Polycarp.” — Now first off their was no such man named “Polycarp;” it was a bunch of poly-crap! (Although, the “carp” part is supposed to mean “fruit,” and this makes me wonder about the meaning of the name of the guy called “Carpocrates!” - but I digress.) Polycarp was said to be the disciple of the Apostle John. But now, with the recent revelation that the actual name of Irenaeus' teacher was really likely to be a man named “Sabellius” it was only a matter of time before a clear picture of what had actually gone on hear came into focus.

As usual, most discoveries seem to point back to the city of Alexandria, and this discovery (I have to call it something, so why not call it a “discovery”) is no exception. The first ten bishops in the city of Alexandria have proved to be a good timeline for many things. Unlike the first bishops of Rome, there is very little confusion as to who they were and who came before who and I think even the dates of their bishopric are likely accurate. And why do I think this is so? It is because for the first ten bishops in Alexandria, the tradition that was followed there was that in all of Egypt there would be one and only one bishop for all of Egypt! It wasn't until the time of Pope Demetrius I (189–232) of Alexandria that there was for the first time three bishops ordained in Egypt. If you also take into account that every bishop in the line of the Coptic Church has been raised to sainthood in that church, you have got to realize if you think about it how hard it would be for the reconstructionist to go against this monolithic succession reinforced by tradition and alter the history of the line of bishops in Alexandria! Now with everything I said so far in mind take a look at the first four bishops of Alexandria:

Mark the Evangelist (43–68)

(John) Anianus (68–82)

02) (Sabellius) Avilius (83–95)

03) (Cerdo) Kedronus (96–106)

Take a look at the name of the bishop that preceded a man named “Sabellius” in the line; his name is “John!” To reiterate, Polycarp was said to be the disciple of “John;” and the real name of Irenaeus' teacher, rather than Polycarp was “Sabellius!” — Also consider the name of the bishop after Sabellius, a man named “Cerdo,” who just happens to be, according to Irenaeus, the same name as a heretic who was “excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren” (Irenaeus 1.4,3) and who was the teacher of Marcion! — Every time another name lines up the odds get greater that this is more than a coincidence. All that can be proven is that the names are the same, but I can't help but think it likely that they are in fact the same persons! The best scholars have little doubt that Irenaeus engaged in a degree of historical revisionism, and it would be wonderful if all that he doctored up could be reconstructed in order to find the truth. And it is looking to me like he may have heard of the sermons of “Polycarp” (actually Sabellius in Alexandria) when he was a child as he said. He used this knowledge as a framework to fabricate the stories in Asia Minor about the Apostle John and Polycarp, which he had hoped would be able to hijack the actual legacy there about Marcion of Sinope. He probably was afraid that if he called this teacher Sabellius rather than Polycarp, someone might catch on to him.

Another thing that comes out of this theory (if it is a true theory, of course) is that there may have been some sort of change in the way things were done in Alexandria when succession there passed over from Sabellius to Cerdo in 95 CE. Cerdo taught of two or three first principles (gods), but Sabellius (even though the Catholic Church fathers put him as late as the third century – a falsification I'm going to posit) – taught modalistic monarchianism, or modalism. The two can fairly easily be harmonized, but it is I think at least a change in emphasis.

It may well be that we know perhaps much more of what Sabellius taught if any theory proves true. Many have proposed the possibility that there is one author of 1^st Clement, Hebrews, parts of Corinthians, and 1^st Peter. The big question is who was this author? Some have proposed that it was Clement. But I think an Ebionite (as I think Clement was) would not likely quote from the epistles of Paul. Those books do have sort of a degree of a Marcionite flavor to them, but they are so much into the Old Testament you would have to assume lots of interpolations to get that idea to fly well. But considering that it was likely Irenaeus that had so much to do with these books (and many do postulate that they were written by Irenaeus!) I think it quite plausible that the author could have been this Sabellius! If so, it looks like another difference between Sabellius and Cerdo is that although Sabellius had a Marcionite orientation, he also had a fascination for Judaism. Irenaeus said that Polycarp [Sabellius] came to Rome to fight for the cause Quartodecimanism!

Now, having passed through this second level of theory we come to yet a third: Because Irenaeus was in good with Sabellius, the second bishop of Alexandria (after Mark the Evangelist), but hated Cerdo, the third bishop of Alexandria; and also Irenaeus often, it has been noted, seems to go out of his way to avoid making any mention of Alexandria; it paints a possible picture to me that in Alexandria this Sabellius, from the standpoint of his successor Cerdo, may have been seen as sort of a schismatic. But from the point of view of Irenaeus, Sabellius would be the true teacher, and Cerdo the schismatic. And with this in mind I can't help but think of the verses in 1^st Corinthians (which speculatively was the Epistle to the Alexandrians originally!):

“Each one of you is saying, I am ‘of Paul,’ I ‘of Apollos,’ I ‘of Cephas.’ Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:12-13).

Those ‘of Paul,’ would be the Marcionites – those of Mark the Evangelist in Alexandria. Those ‘of Cephas,’ would be the Ebionites. But who would those ‘of Apollos’ be? The name being so similar to that of “Apelles,” Marcion's disciple, several have made this assertion. But for this idea to be true either Marcion would have to be a 1^st century Christian, or Paul would have to be a 2^nd century Christian. And I know of two individuals that hold these two perspective respectively. But why couldn't Apollos have been Sabellius? The name isn't as close as Apelles, but if you remove the “S” [Abellius] then Sabellius isn't all that dissimilar either! This person called “Apollos” could have very well have been the same person as the second bishop of the City of Alexandria!; and by extension also the likely author of 1^st Clement, Hebrews, parts of Corinthians, and 1^st Peter! And you do find various scholars who have speculated that Apollos was the author of Hebrews as well.

The origin of the Catholic Church, it has been postulated, came from an unwilling marriage of the Ebionite and the Marcionte churches. But if this epic discovery proves to hold weight, there were actually three major players in early Christianity: 1) Ebionites 2) Marcionites, and 3) Sabellianism. And likely, instead of looking to the Ebionites or the Marcionites as the primary precursor to the Christianity of the Catholic Church, we should look to Sabellianism! It was a threesome marriage!