MILETO OF SARDIS BOOK: Gk., ( περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ ) "ON THE CREATION AND GENERATION OF CHRIST"
EUSEBIUS CHURCH HISTORY BOOK IV: CHAPTER 26:2.
( περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ )
"ON THE ( CREATION ) AND GENERATION OF CHRIST"
MILETO OF SARDIS (circa 110 to 177 C.E.): "...The following works of these writers have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, the two books On the Passover, and one On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets, the discourse On the Church, and one On the Lord's Day, still further one On the Faith of Man, and one On his Creation, another also On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses; besides these the work On the Soul and Body, and that On Baptism, and the one On Truth, and [περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ] ON THE CREATION AND GENERATION OF CHRIST; his discourse also On Prophecy..." - (Eusebius Church History Book IV: Chapter 26.2. Melito and the Circumstances which he records. ANF Roberts & Donaldson.)
[FOOTNOTE 1290]: "Six mss., with Nicephorus, read κτίσεως, “creation,” but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read πίστεως. The latter reading therefore has the strongest external testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with Stroth, Otto, Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word κτίσις in connection with Christ..."
NOTE: The Trinitarians tried to change Gk., (κτίσεως) = "Creation" to Gk., (πίστεως) "Faith" in the Fourth Century.
Why was there a "DOGMATIC CORRECTION"?
BECAUSE: "...AN OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE WORD (κτίσις) IN CONNECTION WITH CHRIST"
Because Christian doctrine HAD CHANGED!
What was orthodox in Mileto's time was no longer considered acceptable to the Post-Chanceldon Church.
SPICILEGIUM SYRIACUM Containing Remains Of Bardesan, Meliton, Ambrose And Mara Bar Serapion By William Cureton 1855. Page 98: "...1.22. On the Faith; with several manuscripts. Ruffinus, De fide. Some editions have κτίσεως. See Dr Routh's note on this place vol.1.page.139..."
I just want to quote a some comments cheifly about Rufinus as a translator and how he is said to have altered certain passages and tittles of "Christological works" in his Latin translation of Eusebius Ecclesiastical History.
Jerome based his "Live Of Illustrius Men" cheifly on Eusebius and is also said to have altered the tittles in "Christological works" in his version of Christian History.
Note the following:
Origens Homilies On Genesis And Exodus (The Fathers Of The Church Vol 71) Translated by Ronald E. Heine; Reprint 2002
[Sub-heading]: Rufinus Assumptions, Methodology and Reliability as a Translator
Page 30: “...Hal Koch makes the statement that that Koetschau's edition of the De Principiis and de Faye's investigations have shown that Rufinus cannot be trusted in his translation of that work.  ... G. W. Butterworth  and R. P. C. Hanson  agree with this principle. J. E. L. Oulton, in comparing Rufinus' translation of the Church History of Eusebius with the Greek text says, “Rufinus transgressed the bounds of freedom which every translator must be expected to observe.”  Hienrich Hoppe says Rufinus sometimes miss-reads the Greek text because of haste with which he works and in his insufficient mastery of the Greek language, and that he makes additions and alterations in areas of both theology and rhetoric.  Basile Studer has shown that ( BOTH ) RUFINUS ( AND ) JEROME ALTERED THE CHRISTOLOGICAL TITLES IN ORIGENS WORKS TO BRING THEM INTO LINE WITH THE THEOLOGY OF THEIR TIEM...” 
 Pronoia und Paideusis (1932) Page 322
 Ibid., 323
 Origen: On First Principles (Harper & Row, 1966) xlvii
 Tradition, 47.
 “Rufinus Translation of the Church History of Eussebius,” The Journal of Theological Studies 30 (1929): 150. Hereinafter cited as Oulton, “Rufinus Translation”.
 “Rufin als Uebersetzer,” in Studi dedicati alla memoria di Paolo Ubaldi (Milan 1937), 142-49.
 “A propos des traductions d'Origene par Jerome et Rufin,” Vetera Christianorum 5 (1968): 137-55.
Page 31: “...Nautin finds Rufinus' translation of the Apology by [Eusebius] Pamphilus altered on the discussion of the Trinity but almost literal in other passages which can be compared with Greek fragments where the doctrine of the Trinity is not discussed.”  ... “The conclusions enumerated in the preceding paragraphs were based, for the most part, on comparisons made between the Latin text of Rufinus and extant Greek texts or fragments. ... Some help in forming an opinion of what might be expected, at least, can be obtained from the statements Rufinus makes in his various prefaces to his translations and other related works. ... Wagners view. He thinks the prefaces of Rufinus are primarily apologetic statements aimed at his accusers, and that as theoretical statements of his actual methodology they are imprecise and insufficient.  The imprecision of these statements, moreover, he thinks, is a tactical move on Rufinus part. He does not work in a totally honest manner, he says...”
 Origene, 150-52.
 Winkelmann, “Einige Bemerkungen,” 534-35.
Pages 37,38: “...Rufinus statements about his translations permit us TO DRAW THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS about the reliability of his translations of Origen. First, except in those few places where Rufinus retains the Greek word in his translation, it is not possible from his translation to ascertain with any confidence Origen's precise words. Second, Origen's homiletic style may have been altered in places. Third, Rufinus may have supplied answers to some questions Origen left unanswered. Nevertheless, one may say that, on the whole, the substance can be regarded as representing Origen's thought. The MAJOR EXCEPTION to this statement is theological statements regarding the TRINITY and the resurrection of the body. WHENEVER statements on these subjects agree with doctrines of the fourth century Church they SHOULD BE REGARDED WITH SUSPICION...”
NOTE: The full context of these quotes and fuller discussion on Origen will be the subject of a future post.
Although it speaks of them changing the titles of certain works of Origen's there is no reason to doubt that one or both did the same with the above title of Miletos of Sardis work.
In fact the CCEL footnote confirms it.
If you are a Trinitarian reading this you may find this hard to swallow. The following statements from Rufinus himself should leave you in no doubt that he did alter works of the ANF to agree with later doctrine:
RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA (400 C.E.): "...after translating into Latin more than seventy of those treatises of Origen which are styled Homilies and a considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader would meet with nothing which could appear DISCORDANT WITH OUR BELIEF..." - (PREFACE TO HIS LATIN TRANSLATION OF ORIGENS "ON FIRST PRINCIPLES")
RUFINUS OF AQUILEIA (400 C.E.): "...If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, ANY STATEMENT OPPOSED TO THAT VIEW, which elsewhere in his works he had himself piously laid down REGARDING THE TRINITY, WE HAVE EITHER OMITTED IT, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, OR WE HAVE BROUGHT IT FORWARD AGREEABLY TO THE RULE..." - (PREFACE TO HIS LATIN TRANSLATION OF ORIGENS "ON FIRST PRINCIPLES")
I intend to post a lot more on Rufinus and his doctrinal re-editing. He is notorious and has tampered with a great deal of the most ancient Post-Biblical Chrisitian writings.
He is not the only one. Cassiodorus of the 9th Century can be added to the list.
There are others too.
But these are the ones we know about who have tampered with the text.
What about those who got away with it un-detected?
Certainly food for thought.
Mileto of Sardis Book on "THE CREATION AND GENERATION OF CHRIST" unfortunately no longer exists. (How conveinient for trinitarians). There are no copies of it that have survived ages and the centuries of trinitarian book burnings, inquisitions, censorship.
What a devistating blow it would be for a copy to turn up in an Egyption rubbish heap or Tel somewhere in the middle east.
The writing s attributed to Mileto today show a very differen't picture. But they are of very doubtful authenticity and have been attributed to a number of different authors over the last several centuries.
Yes Pre-Nicene and Pre-Chanceldon beliefs were different to what is taught as 'truth' in the Churches today.
Have you heard of Mileto's book "On the Creation and Generation of Christ" before this blog posted the above?
[Not completed more info to come later]