MJ

Rev. Giragos H. Chopourian Ph.D., was born in Adana, Cilicia in 1914. In June 1945 he received simultaneously a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors from the American University of Beirut and a diploma in religious education with distinction from the Near East School of Theology. He received his Master of Religious Education degree from Andover Newton Theological School and obtained a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Temple University of Philadelpia in 1971. Rev. Chopourian has served as pastor of a number of Armenian Evangelical Churches. He is the past Executive Director of the Armenian Missionary Association of America and holds the title of Honorary Executive Director of that organization. On the occasion of the 140th Anniversary of the Armenian Evangelical Movement, the Armenian Missionary Association of America presented a booklet, written by Rev. Chopourian, to our Churches and the Armenian Communities in North America as a ministry of evangelism and teaching. The text of that booklet is below. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fundamental Armenian Evangelical Teachings Rev. G.H. Chopourian, Ph.D. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All religions, or parts of them, such as denominations, have a way of deteriorating. It happens when followers gradually distance themselves from the essential and fundamental truths and teachings of the founder. This is true whether it is Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism or Judaism. Unfortunately, it has been true in the case of Christianity as well. Superstition, tradition, dogmatism and extraneous practices have and do make their entry. One natural consequence of such deteriorating trends has been a call for return to the teachings of the founder - a call for reform! The Reverend Roger Minassian, a colleague in Christian ministry serving in the Pilgrim Armenian Congregational Church of Fresno, wrote: “Recently I and my congregation have become quite excited by a historical discovery, which many of you may already know about. In reading Leon Arpeés, A Century of Armenian Protestantism and G.H. Chopourian’s, The Armenian Evangelical Reformation: Causes and Effects, (both available through the AMAA) I was impressed with the biblically-sound confession of faith which launched our movement as a separate church on July 1, 1846. By preaching a series of sermons on this confession, I have also discovered the following: A. Our Armenian Evangelical appreciate gaining a stronger Theological identity as to who they are and what they are to believe. B. Our Reformation began on a firm biblical foundation, which foundation has been less than clear to our people in the Armenian-American experience. C. The placing of this confession in our people’s hands is often revolutionary. “While preparing for these sermons, I became interested in the beliefs of the Armenian Apostolic Church as well. Most Armenians I know here in Protestant America assume that Apostolics and Evangelicals believe about the same, but differ in worship forms. This assumption, I am discovering, is due to ignorance on both sides. Although fairly clear on who Jesus Christ is, we both have been less than clear to our people when it comes to the important questions of salvation, faith and works, the Sacraments, the Priesthood, the Holy Scriptures, Worship, Eternal Life, and Missions.” The Rev. Minassian’s emphasis on the rediscovery brings to mind the story of an ascetic. Having withdrawn to the desert and pitched a tent, he discovered his prayers and devotions were interrupted by desert rats. He asked a friend to find a cat for him. He had not requested a cat with special features so he readily and happily accepted the pitch black cat his friend brought to him. Two generations later, there were many more tents in the desert area the ascetic had first settled. They had been attracted there as a result of the quality of Christian devotion the Founder had. Each ascetic had a pitch black cat tied to the tent like the Founder had done. But the ascetics did not know why they had a cat tied to the post of the tent. neither were there lives like that of the Founder. Life is too important for God’s creatures to be ignorant of truth, especially, of Christian truths of redeeming nature. Armenians in general are ignorant of the occurrence of Reform Movements among Armenians. Most of those who are aware, are prejudiciously informed about one Reform Movement, the one that occurred in 1846 when the Evangelical Church of Armenia (Hayastaniatz Avedaranagan Yegeghetzee) was founded. “Prejudiciously” informed because the criticisms that are directed against the Movement are unfounded (one can’t respond to those criticisms because they need to be treated as a separate chapter). Few, for instance, realize that there were other Armenian Evangelical Reform efforts in the Seventh and Ninth Centuries each lasting two centuries and which some writers believe were the harbingers (forerunners) of the Protestant Reformation under Martin Luther in Germany. The Evangelical Reform efforts referred to are the (1) Paulician Movement from the Seventh to the Ninth centuries and (2) the Tonrakian from the Ninth to the Eleventh. But first, a definition of the word EVANGELICAL. Evangelism is derived from the New Testament Greek word “Evangelistis,” viz., a proclaimer of the “Evangelion” or Gospel. In the New Testament the word is used three times of a traveling missionary. 1. In Acts 21:8: “And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came into Casesaria: and we entered into the House of Philip the EVANGELIST....” 2. Ephesians 4:11: “And he gave some, Apostles; and some Prophets; and some, EVANGELISTS; and some Pastors and Teachers.” 3. II Timothy 4:5: “But watch Thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an EVANGELIST....” The Evangelist therefore is one who reveals the Gospel by broadcasting the Evangelion (the Gospel of Christ). In a wider sense the term “Evangelical” has been applied since the Reformation (1517) to “the Protestant Churches by reason of their claim to base their teaching preeminently on the ‘Gospel’.” The term has been in long use in Germany (Evangelische Kirche); Switzerland; England; and the United States, which received all forms of it from immigrants from Europe and England. Theologically, Evangelicals have held these beliefs: (1) The verbal inspiration of the Bible; (2) The Scriptures the sole binding authority over the Christian (not the Church or Church tradition); (3) The near return of Christ to redeem His elect; (4) The supreme importance of “Kyrigma;” (5) Justification comes by faith alone; (6) Rejection of five of the seven Sacraments and acceptance of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as the two valid Sacraments; (8) Depravity of man; (9) God, Christ and the Holy Spirit as a Unified Trinity. Let us get back to the early Evangelical Reform Movements among Armenians. The first organized and strong resistance against the established Armenian Church came from the Paulician-Tonrakian Movement which showed Adoptionist-Unitarian strain of the so-called Monarchian type that some have suggested was evident among Armenians in the first three centuries. (The Adoptionist view, considered to be heretical, originated in Spain in the Eighth Century according to which Christ was considered to be in His Humanity, not the true, but only adoptive Son of God. In other words, Christ was Son only metaphorically. The Unitarian view, on the other hand, rejects the doctrine of the Trinity of Christ in favor of the Uni-personality of God. The unfortunate thing about the Paulician-Tonrakian Movement was this particular Adoptionist-Unitarian emphasis which gave the conservatives cause to suppress it). The movement extended in time from the middle of the Seventh to the middle of the Ninth Century for the Paulician portion, and from the middle of the Ninth to the middle of the Eleventh for the Tonramian portion. It was almost after complete annihilation that the sect showed itself active again under Smbat in the village of Tonrak, from where they received the last-stated name. Joining the Great Exodus at the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829, many Tonrakians settled in Russian-Armenia. In the period between 1837-1945 the Synod of Etchmiadzin held an inquest into the tenets and usage of the sect at which time a manuscript volume was seized from the secretaries, The Key of Truth. This Armenian text turned out to be “a copy of a copy” made in 1782 from a lost sample by a certain John Vartabedian. Conybeare published the text in 1898 with an introduction and translation. The “Key,” suggesting their roots might be in Paul of Samosota, makes it clear that the Paulicians and the subsequent Tonrakians were Unitarian-Anabaptists (we might define Anabaptists to be Rebaptizers since they rejected that infant baptism was true baptism) believing Christ to have become the head of a new creation by wroth and by obtaining adult baptism. Arpee and Conybeare both demonstrate that the beliefs of the Paulician sect were diametrically opposed to the traditions and beliefs of the Armenian Church. The Paulicians held to the following doctrines which contain important Evangelical teachings. 1. They held against the beliefs of the Church that Mary was a perpetual virgin. They maintained Mary bore other children after Jesus. (This is an opinion that is held to be true by all Evangelicals today). 2. The Paulicians also rejected the intercession of the saints believing that because of Christ individuals have direct access to God through Christ. 3. They condemned the veneration of the Cross on the grounds that there was no biblical authority for it and that the practice only made ignorant Christians. 4. They denounced the hierarchy of church as unscriptural. 5. They challenged the Scriptural basis of the liturgical aspects of worship and rejected the concept of Seven Sacraments, accepting only the spiritual intent of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. By “Spiritual Intent” they meant that it was a matter of commitment and remembrance. For such beliefs and others these believers endured “Scourgings, Imprisonments, Tortures, Reproaches, Sufferings and al the tribulations of the world” (Conybeare). The Paulician-Tonrakian Movement was crushed in its effectiveness by the combined strength of the state and the church between the Seventh and Eleventh Centuries. However, resistance to the “Errors” of the Armenian Church showed itself again in the Eighteenth Century with the criticism of Priest Dibajian. A prominent Armenian historian wrote the following about him: “But long before the coming of the Protestant Missionaries of the East, an Armenian Priest in 1760 had raised a voice regarding the Reformation of the Armenian Church.” (Y. Kassouny) Priest Dibajian is given the honor of being the first in modern times to attempt the reformation of the Armenian Church. In an unpublished book, he had exposed the glaring errors of his church, the inconsistencies in faith, practice and conduct of the priests and bishops, and the superstition of the people. He had tested every principle and ceremony against the high standard of the Bible, with the exception of the doctrine of justification by faith to which he had made no allusion. Priest Dibajian raised his voice while at Samatia quarter of Constantinople and hand-written copies of his book found circulation until 1820. Dibajian’s reflections about the past showed evidences that the Fourth and early mid-Fifth Century Armenian Church had a simple, apostolic form of worship, and was considered to be “A fellowship of believers” and not a hierarchy of priests. We have taken a long, circuitous route to come to the current Armenian Evangelical Church (The Evangelical Church of Armenia) and to the tenets, but better, to the teachings it holds. Does the Armenian Evangelical Church have a formulated updated Creed to which one can go for instruction? Technically speaking, the answer has to be in the negative. No Theologian has written on the Theology of the Armenian Evangelical Church. We have no specifically formulated, researched and written creed. That is because the Armenian Evangelical is satisfied by his ability to refer to The Book; and by the facility by which he can refer to the general prevailing Evangelical tenets of the main Protestant Denominations and the Lutheran Reformation. The Evangelicals do have, however, the confession of faith that the forty members of the first constituted church accepted. All the important Evangelical beliefs are contained therein, a summary of which follows: 1. GOD A. God exists as creator, sustainer and governor of the universe and is the only worthy object of worship. B. God’s nature is accepted as omnipotent, self-existent and infinite in wisdom, benevolence, holiness, justice, mercy and truth. C. God exists in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the three are one. Besides God, no other being is to be worshipped and adored - no golden calf, no mammon (wealth), no philosophy, no prestige, no status - nothing, absolutely nothing, is to replace the living God. 2. THE BIBLE Where does a Christian go for final authority on questions of belief and conduct? Does he go to a Priest, Monister, Bishop, Pope? Does he rely on tradition, dogma, creed? The Evangelical Armenian has been taught, and hopefully he has learned, that final authority is in the Bible. All are called to submit to the Bible as the final authority - Popes and Catholici, Patriarchs and Priests, Emperors and Eminent laymen - because the Scriptures are the inspired revelation of God. The Bible records the revelation of the Will and character of God. Christ, through His life teachings, death and resurrection, clarified God’s Will for all men to understand, practice and become perfect and holy. Thus, the Bible is the source of final authority for religious life and moral conduct. Because of this profound nature of the Bible, it is a Holy Book. The Result of this understanding has led the Evangelical to be a daily student of the Bible and to carry the burden of putting a copy in every hand and in every home. 3. JESUS CHRIST A. Christ is the only savior, mediator and intercessor between God and man. No other mediation is acceptable. Relics, pictures, crosses, images confession, forgiveness (absolution) uttered by priests in the name of Christ are worthless efforts for salvation. Only a personal response to, a close relationship with Christ, are acceptable avenues of salvation. B. How can one be saved? Is it by good works? Fastings? Alms? Penance? Confession? The New Testament is absolutely clear on this point: No externals, such as observances of works, can save because justification is through faith only. Has good works no place/ Not if it is practiced for the purpose of achieving salvation. Good works are valid as the fruit of salvation. A Christian is saved to serve not to serve to be saved. Those who enter the circle of faith are sharpened with a sense of responsibility: To achieve holiness of life; to discharge our duties to God, fellowmen and ourselves. To engage in works just as the source of a rich spring of water that rushes down to refresh thirsty souls. That will save, not pietistic practices for the purpose of earning salvation. 4. CHURCH AND SACRAMENTS A. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches accept and practice Seven Sacraments and consider a Church is a Church when unbroken grace is transferred by the laying of hands on the servant of the Church. Evangelicals are not threatened by the continuity concept of grace. They believe where Christ is present with his Holy Spirit, there is the Church. They reject assigning any intrinsic or inherent value to the laying of hands. Ordination is seen as full commitment to serve Christ. B. According to the teachings of the ancient churches, Christian faith and life are achieved by the intrinsic power contained within the “Sacraments.” The Sacraments, as though by inoculative power in them, make every participant a believer. For the Evangelical, Creed, Baptism, Sacraments are only external “Signs” of an inner “Experience.” In other words, the Christian faith is a matter of “New Birth” rather than a process of “Naturalization,” or inherited through church procedures. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom” (John 3:3). The unscriptural concept of inherited faith is due to the misconception that the repository of the Christian Sacraments, namely, Confirmation or Holy Unction, Communion, Penance or Confession, Ordination or Holy Order, Matrimony and Extreme Unction (The latter is not practiced in the Armenian Church) mediates between God and man the sinner through the Sacraments in the belief that divine grace dwells in the Sacraments. The priest as mediator, therefore, is invested with authority to grant absolution. When the priest, the wine, and the water to celebrate the Mass are present, the elements through transubstantiation represent the physical presence of Christ. The partakers become Christians, the administrators, the “Priestly order,” different from other men. It should be observed then that when the priest baptizes a newborn babe, the child becomes Christian; when he pronounces absolution, the sinner receives forgiveness; when he serves communion, the wine and bread change into the actual flesh and blood of Christ and the participant becomes cleansed and justified as a believer. The Evangelical is concerned that the practice of the Apostolic Churches belittles personal faith, conversion and covenanting with God. The Evangelical Church emphasizes the fellowship of the believers who are reborn through personal faith in Christ. Baptism and Communion do not possess efficacy in themselves. They are the visible signs of an invisible experience. The preacher has no power over the life of the believer. Only the ministry of the word has virtue, power and authority over his destiny. The penitent is free to come to Christ directly for He is the only mediator and intercessor. Every believer is his own priest. 5. PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL Finally, the Evangelical believes that the Gospel is the appointed instrument of Christ for the conversion and edification of humanity. That is because wickedness prevails in the world and all are destitute of holiness. Christians are expected to obey Christ’s command: “Go Ye Into All The World, and Preach the Gospel to Every Creature.” In conclusion let us summarize the most fundamental truths revealed in the Scriptures: 1. Evangelicals believe in the priesthood of all believers: Spiritual life is based on personal relationship with and discipleship to Christ, and all believers are priests; 2. Final authority for Christian life and conduct is the Bible, God’s revealed word; 3. Justification is by faith alone, and not by any other external means: “Lord, I believe” is the key for entry into God’s presence; 4. The true Christian knows he is an Apostle, sent out to practice the spirit of loving service on God’s creatures everywhere but specially to our Armenian nation and the dispersed communities. Life is too precious to be lived haphazardly, carelessly or ignorantly. “What doth it profit a man if he were to gain the whole world and lose his soul?” http://www.cacc-sf.org/c-faetGHC.html

Christian dualist heresies in the Byzantine world c. 650-c. 1450 Selected sources translated and annotated by Janet Hamilton and Bernard Hamilton Assistance with the translation of the Old Slavonic texts by Yuri Stoyanov Christian dualism originated in Armenia in the mid-seventh century, when Constantine of Mananalis, basing his message solely on the New Testament, began to teach that there were two gods: the good God who had made men's souls, and the evil God who had created the entire physical universe including the human body. His followers, who became know as Paulicians, led perfectly normal lives, despite their belief that the world was evil, and were renowned as good fighting men. An new form of Christian dualism, know as Bogomilism, developed in tenth-century Bulgaria, which combined a dualist belief system with an ascetic, world-renouncing life-style. Although there was some interaction between the two movements, Paulicianism and Bogomilism remained distinct. Bogomilism spread in the Byzantine world and also in Western Europe where its adherents were called Cathars. The Bogomils came to enjoy a certain esteem among some Orthodox Byzantine Christians who believed that they were skilled in controlling demons, whom most Byzantines considered very powerful. Despite sometimes fierce persecution by the Orthodox Church and the Byzantine state, both Paulicians and Bogomils survived until the Ottoman empire. These translations include the principal sources for the history of the Paulicians and the Bogomils, many of which have not previously been available in English. These texts shed light on the cultural and religious history of the Byzantine word and also the origins of Western Catharism. Entry to page one of the collection of documents for browsing and reading. A full contents list below is provided so you can find the document you are searching for quickly. Please note the list of contents below only work if you have a Netscape 4.7 browser or above. The contents are reproduced within the document itself enter here. CONTENTS: THE BYZANTINE LANDS MAP 1: EUROPE THE BYZANTINE LANDS MAP 2: THE ASIATIC LANDS GAZATEER I: Historical introduction: The origins of Christian dualism 1. Paulician population transfers under Constantine V (741-75) 2. The empress Irene (780-802) and the Paulicians 3. Alleged Paulicians in Constantinople in the early ninth century 4. Theodore of Studium (d. 826) opposes the death penalty for heresy 5. St Macarius of Pelecete converts a Paulician in prison 6. Renewed persecution of the Paulicians in Asia Minor and the martyrs of Amorium 7. Peter of Sicily's History of the Paulicians (870) 8. Peter the Higoumenos: an abridgment of Peter of Sicily 9. The death of the Paulician leader Chrysocheir (c. 878) 10. Theophylact Lecapenus (933-56) writes to Tsar Peter of Bulgaria about Bogomils 11. Abjuration formulae (tenth century) for Paulician converts to orthodoxy 12. Theodore, metropolitan of Nicaea (956- ), writes about Paulicians in Euchaita 13. St Paul of Latrus (d. 955/6) converts Paulicians near Miletus 14. John I Tzimisces (969-76) settles Paulicians at Philippopolis 15. The discourse of the priest Cosmas against Bogomils (after 972) 16. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy: clauses about Bogomils 17. Paulicians in eleventh-century southern Italy 18. St Lazarus the wonder-worker converts Paulicians near Ephesus (before 1054) 19. Euthymius of the Periblepton condemns Bogomils (c. 1045) 20. The Paulicians of the Philippopolis ally with the Patzinaks (c. 1050) 21. A letter of the patriarch Cosmas (1075-81) against the Bogomils 22. Alexius Comnenus (1081-1118) and the Paulicians 23. Extracts from the Euthymius Zigabenus' Dogmatic Panoply against the Paulicians and the Messalians 24. Anna Comnena's account of the trial of the Bogomil Basil (c.1098) 25. Extracts from Euthymius Zigabenus' Dogmatic Panoply against the Bogomils 26. Abjuration formula and form of reception into the Church for Bogomil converts 27. A sermon against the Bogomils for the Sunday of All Saints (c. 1107) 28. The posthumous trial of Constantine Chrysomallus 29. The Patriarch Michael II (1143-46) orders the burning of Bogomils 30. Two Cappadocian bishops are condemned for Bogomilism (1143) 31. The monk Niphon is condemned for Bogomilism (1144) 32. The Patriarch Cosmas (1146-47) is deposed for favouring Bogomils 33. St Hilarion of Moglena (1136-64) converts Bogomils in his diocese 34. An Anti-Bogomil work, possibly by Nicholas of Methone 35. Popular beliefs about Bogomilism recounted by George Tornices (1154) 36. Hugh Eteriano (a Pisan) writes a treatise against the Bogomils of Constantinople (c. 1165-80) 37. The mission of papa Nicetas of Constantinople to the West (c. 1170) 38. The Secret Book brought from Bulgaria (c. 1190) 39. Pope Innocent III and the Bogomils of Bosnia (1198-1203) 40. The Fourth Crusade and the Paulicians of Philippopolis (1205) 41. The Synodikon of Tsar Boril against the Bogomils (1211) 42. Pope Honorius III and the Balkan pope of the heretics (1221-23) 43. Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) urges the king of Hungary to crusade against the Bogomils 44. The Patriarch Germanus II (1222-40) writes and preaches against Bogomils 45. An Italian inquisitor's view of Bogomilism (c. 1250) 46. Evidence of Bogomilism in a liturgical commentary (date unknown) 47. Pope John XXII alleges that Cathars are fleeing to Bosnia (1325) 48. St Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) and the Bogomils 49. St Theodosius of Trnovo (c. 1350) legislates against Bogomils 50. Symeon, archbishop of Thessalonica, preaches against the Bogomils (before 1429) Appendix 1. The Ritual of Radoslav the Christian Appendix 2. Armenian sources and the Paulicians http://www.medievalsources.co.uk/christi.htm

Paulician member of a dualistic Christian sect that originated in Armenia in the mid-7th century. It was influenced most directly by the dualism of Marcionism, a Gnostic movement in early Christianity, and of Manichaeism, a Gnostic religion founded in the 3rd century by the Persian prophet Mani. The identity of the Paul after whom the Paulicians are called is disputed. The fundamental doctrine of the Paulicians was that there are two principles, an evil God and a good God; the former is the creator and ruler of this world, the latter of the world to come. From this they deduced that Jesus was not truly the son of Mary, because the good God could not have taken flesh and become man. They especially honoured the Gospel According to Luke and the Letters of St. Paul, rejecting the Old Testament and the Letters of St. Peter. They rejected also the sacraments, the worship, and the hierarchy of the established church. The founder of the Paulicians seems to have been an Armenian, Constantine, who took the additional name of Silvanus (Silas; one of St. Paul's companions). He gave a more distinctively Christian character to the Manichaeism that at the time was prevalent in the Asian provinces of the Byzantine Empire. The sect seems to have started a widespread political and military rebellion within the empire shortly after its appearance. Between 668 and 698 Constantine III and Justinian II sent two expeditions to repress it. Constantine (Silvanus) was stoned to death, and his successor, Simeon (Titus), was burned alive. In the early 9th century Paulicianism was revived. It expanded into Cilicia and Asia Minor under Sergius (Tychicus), who made it strong enough to survive the persecution and massacre instigated by the emperor Michael I and the empress Theodora. The number and power of the Paulicians were greatest under Karbeas and Chrysocheir, the leaders in the third quarter of the 9th century. An expedition sent by Basil I in 872 broke their military power, but they survived in Asia at least until the Crusades. After the 9th century their importance lay chiefly in Thrace, where many Paulicians had been forcibly located to serve as a frontier force against the Bulgarians. Paulician doctrines were disseminated among the Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks, especially among the peasants, and it seems that they contributed to the development of the doctrines and practices of the Bogomils, another neo-Manichaean sect, who first appeared in Bulgaria in the early 10th century. http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/...1+58784,00.html

A dualistic heretical sect, derived originally from Manichaeism. The origin of the name Paulician is obscure. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, liv), says it means "Disciples of St. Paul" (Photius, op. cit., II, 11; III, 10; VI, 4). Their special veneration for the Apostle, and their habit of renaming their leaders after his disciples lend some colour to this view. On the other hand, the form (Paulikianoi, not Paulianoi) is curious; and the name seems to have been used only by their opponents, who held that they were followers of Paul of Samosata (Conybeare, op. cit., cv). The birthplace of their founder evidently suggested this; but there is no connection between their doctrine and his. Photius relates that a certain Manichee woman, named Kallinike sent her two sons Paul and John to Armenia to propagate this heresy; the name is corrupted from Pauloioannoi (Friedrich op. cit., I). The existence of such persons is now generally denied. The latest authority, Ter-Mkrttschian (Die Paulicianer, 63), says the name is an Armenian diminutive and means "followers of little Paul", but does not explain who little Paul may be. It occurs first in the Acts of the Armenian Synod of Duin in 719, a canon of which forbids any one to spend the night in the house of "the wicked heretics called Pollikian" (Ter-Mkrttschian, 62). I. DOCTRINE The cardinal point of the Paulician heresy is a distinction between the God who made and governs the material world and the God of heaven who created souls, who alone should be adored. They thought all matter bad. It seems therefore obvious to count them as one of the many neo-Manichaean sects, in spite of their own denial and that of modern writers (Ter-Mkrttschian, Conybeare, Adeney, loc. cit.; Harnack, "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschicte", Tubingen, 1909, II, 528). But there is a strong Marcionite element too. They rejected the Old Testament; there was no Incarnation, Christ was an angel sent into the world by God, his real mother was the heavenly Jerusalem. His work consisted only in his teaching; to believe in him saves men from judgment. The true baptism and Eucharist consist in hearing his word, as in John, iv, 10. But many Paulicians, nevertheless, let their children be baptized by the Catholic clergy. They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures. Their Bible was a fragmentary New Testament. They rejected St. Peter's epistles because he had denied Christ. They referred always to the "Gospel and Apostle", apparently only St Luke and St. Paul; though they quoted other Gospels in controversy. The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy is bad, as also all Sacraments and ritual. They had a special aversion to monks. Their own organization consisted first of the founders of their sect in various places. These were apostles and prophets. They took new names after people mentioned by St. Paul, thus Constantine called himself Silvanus; apparently they claimned to be these persons come to life again. Under the apostles and prophets were "fellow-workers" (synechdemoi) who formed a council, and "notaries" (notarioi), who looked after the holy books and kept order at meetings. Their conventicles were called, not churches, but "prayer-houses" (proseuchai). They maintained that it was lawful to conceal or even deny their ideas for fear of persecution; many of them lived exteriorly as Catholics. Their ideal was a purely spiritual communion of faithful that should obliterate all distinctions of race. Their enemies accuse them constantly of gross immorality, even at their prayer-meetings. One of their chief leaders, Baanes, seems to have acquired as a recognized surname the epithet "filthy" (ho ryproz). They would recognize no other name for themselves than "Christians"; the Catholics were "Romans (Romaioi), that is, people who obey the Roman emperor, as the Monophysites called their opponents Melchites. Harnack sums them up as "dualistic Puritans and Individualists and as "an anti-hierarchic Christianity built up on the Gospel, and Apostle, with emphatic rejection of Catholic Christianity" (Dogmengeschichte, II 528). Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents. Conybeare (op. cit. ) thinks they were a continuation of the Adoptionists. Dr. Adeney calls them "in many respects Protestants before Protestantism" (The Greek and Eastern Churches, 219). This idea accounts for the fact that the sect has met among modern writers with more interest and certainly more sympathy than it deserves. II. HISTORY Constantine of Mananalis, calling himself Silvanus, founded what appears to be the first Paulician community at Kibossa, near Colonia in Armenia. He began to teach about 657. He wrote no books and taught that the New Testament as he presented it (his "Gospel and Apostle") should be the only text used by his followers (Georgios Monachos, ed. Friedrich, 2). The other Paulician Apostles after Constantine were Symeon (called Titus), sent by the emperor Constantine Pogonatus (668-85) to put down the sect, but converted to it; then Gegnesius an Armenian (Timothy); Joseph (Epaphroditus); Zachary, who was rejected by many and called a hireling; Baanes; Sergius (Tychicus). They founded six congregations in Armenia and Pontus, to which they gave the names of Pauline Churches (Kibossa was "Macedonia", and so on). Constantine-Silvanus, after having preached for twenty-seven years and having spread his sect into the Western part of Asia Minor, was arrested by the Imperial authorities (by Symeon), tried for heresy and stoned to death. In 690 Symeon-Titus himself, having become a Paulician, was also executed with many others. The history of these people is divided between their persecutions and their own quarrels. An Armenian Paul (thought by some to have given his name to the sect) set up congregation at Episparis in the (Armenian) district Phanaroea (d. c. 715). His two sons Gegnesius-Timothy and Theodore quarreIled about his succession. Gegnesius went to Constantinople in 717 and persuadeed the emperor Leo III and the patriarch Germanus I that he was orthodox. Armed with an imperial safe-conduct he came to Mananalis and succeeded in crushing Theodore's opposition. After his death his son Zachary (the "hireling") and his son-in-law, Joseph-Epaphroditus, again quarrelled and formed parties as to which should succeed. Zachary's party went under; many of them were destroyed by the Saracens. Joseph (d. 775) founded communities all over Asia Minor. Then came Baanes (Vahan; d. 801). Under him the sect decreased in numbers and influence. But a certain Sergius-Tychicus, who made a new schism, reformed and strengthened the movement in his party. The Paulicians were now either Baanites (the old party), or Sergites (the reformed sect). Sergius was a zealous propagator of the heresy; he boasted that he had spread his Gospel "from East to West. from North to South" (Petrus Siculus, "Historia Manichaeorum", op. cit., 45). The Sergites meanwhile fought against their rivals and nearly exterminated them. From the Imperial government the Paulicians met with alternate protection and persecution. Constantine IV, and still more Justinian II, persecuted them cruelly. The first Iconoclast emperors (Leo III and his successors) protected them; Conybeare counts these emperors as practically Paulicians themselves (op. cit.). Nicephorus I tolerated them in return for their service as soldiers in Phrygia and Lycaonia. Michael I began to persecute again and his successor Leo V, though an Iconoclast, tried to refute the accusation that he was a Paulician by persecuting them furiously. A great number of them at this time rebelled and fled to the Saracens. Sergius was killed in 835. Theodora, regent for her son Michael III, continued the persecution; hence a second rebellion under one Karbeas, who again led many of his followers across the frontiers. These Paulicians, now bitter enemies of the empire, were encouraged by the khalifa. They fortified a place called Tephrike and made it their headquarters. From Tephrike they made continual raids into the empire; so that from this time they form a political power, to be counted among the enemies of Rome. We hear continually of wars against the Saracens, Armenians, and Paulicians. Under Basil I the Paulician army invaded Asia Minor as far as Ephesus, and almost to the coast opposite Constantinople. But they were defeated, and Basil destroyed Tephrike in 871. This eliminated the sect as a military power. Meanwhile other Paulicians, heretics but not rebels, lived in groups throughout the empire. Constantine V had already transferred large numbers of them to Thrace; John I Tzimiskes sent many more to the same part to defend it against the Slavs. They founded a new centre at Philippopolis, from which they terrorized their neighbours. During the ninth and tenth centuries these heretics in Armenia, Asia Minor, and Thrace constantly occupied the attention of the government and the Church. The "Selicians" converted by the Patriarch Methodius I (842-46), were Paulucians. Photius wrote against them and boasts in his Encyclical (866) that he has converted a great number. In Armenia the sect continued in the "Thonraketzi" founded by a certain Smbat in the ninth century. Conybeare attributes to this Smbat a work, "The Key of Truth", which he has edited. It accepts the Old Testament and the Sacraments of Baptism. Penance, and the Eucharist. This work especially has persuaded many writers that the Paulicians were much maligned people. But in any case it represents a very late stage of their history, and it is disputed whether it is really Paulician at all. Constantine IX persuaded or forced many thousands to renounce their errors. The emperor Alexius Comnenus is credited with having put an end to the heresy. During a residence at Philippopolis, he argued with them and converted all, or nearly all, back to the Church (so his daughter: "Alexias", XV, 9). From this time the Paulicians practically disappear from history. But they left traces of their heresy. In Bulgaria the Bogomile sect, which lasted through the Middle Ages and spread to the West in the form of Cathari, Albigenses, and other Manichaean heresies, is a continuation of Paulicianism. In Armenia, too, similar sects, derived from them, continue till our own time. There were Paulician communities in the part of Armenia occupied by Russia after thc war of 1828-29. Conybeare publishes very curious documents of their professions of faith and disputations with the Gregorian bishop about 1837 (Key of Truth, xxiii-xxviii). It is from these disputations and "The Key of Truth" that he draws his picture of the Paulicianis as simple, godly folk who had kept an earlier (sc. Adoptionistic) form of Christianity (ibid., introduction). III. SOURCES There are four chief documents: (1) Photius, Four books against the Paulicians(Diegesis peri tes ton neophanton manichaion anablasteseos), in P.G., CII, 15-264. (2) Euthymius Zigabenus, in his "Panoplia", XXIV [P.G., CXXX, 1189, sqq., separate edition of the part about the Paulicians, ed. Gieseler (Gottingen, 1841)]. (3) Peter the Abbot, "Concerning the Paulicians and Manichees", ed. Gieseler (Gottingen, 1849), who idlentifies the author with Petrus Siculus, who wrote a "Historia Manichaeorum qui Pauliciani dicuntur", first published by Rader (Ingolstadt, 1604 ), of which work Gieseler considers "Concerning the Paulicians" to be merely an excerpt. (4) George Monachos, "Chronikon", ed. Muralt (St. Petersburg, 1853). Of Photius's work only book I contains the history; the rest is a collection of homilies against the heresy. There is interdependence between these four sources. The present state of criticism (due chiefly to Karapet Ter-Mkrttschian) is this: — Photius's account (book I) falls into two parts. Chapters i-xiv are authentic, xv-xxvii a later edition. The original source of all is lost. George Monachos used this. Peter the Monk either copied George or used the original work. Photius may have used Peter (so Ter-Mkrttschian ) or perhaps the original. Derived from these are Zigabenus and the spurious part of Photius's book. Bonwetsch (Realencyklopadie fur prot. Theol., 3rd ed., Leipzig 1904, XV, 50) represents (according to Friedrich and as probable only) the order of derivation as: (1) An account contained in a MS. of the tenth century (Cod. Scorial. I, phi, 1, fol. 164 sqq.) ed. Friedrich in the "Sitzungsbericht der Münchener Akademie", (1896), 70-81; (2) Photius, i-x; (3) George Monachos; (4) Peter the Abbot; (5) Zigabenus; (6) Pseudo-Photius, x-xxvii; (7) Petrus Siculus. Other sources are the Armenian bishop John Ozniensis [ed. by Aucher (Venice, 1834) and used by Dollinger and Conybeare] and the "Key of Truth" [Mrkttschian in "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte", 1895, and Conybeare's edition, Armenian and English, with introduction and notes (Oxford, 1898)]. TER-MKRTTSCHIAN, Die Paulicianer im byzantinischen Kaiserreich und verwandte ketzerische Erscheinungen in Armenien (Liepzig, 1893); DOLLINGER, Beitrage zur Sektengeschichte des Mittelalters, I (Munich, 1890), 1-31; LOMBARD, Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bonshommes (Geneva, 1879); HERGENROTHER, Photius, III (Ratisbon, 1869), 143-53: GIBBON, Decline and Fall, ed. BURY, VI London, 1898), liv, and appendix 6; ADENEY, The Greek and Eastern Churches (Edinburgh, 1908), v. ADRIAN FORTESCUE Transcribed by Richard L. George Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI Copyright © 1911 by Robert Appleton Company Online Edition Copyright © 1999 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm

THE LAWS OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE TORAH THIS TRANSLATION IS COPYRIGHT © IMMANUEL M. O'LEVY, 1993. THIS TRANSLATION MAY BE DISTRIBUTED IN ANY FORM (ON DISK, PRINTED, ETC) PROVIDED THAT IT IS DONE SO ON A NON-PROFIT BASIS AND THAT THIS COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS MESSAGE IS LEFT ATTACHED. THE TEXT USED FOR THIS TRANSLATION WAS THE RAMBAM LE'AM, PUBLISHED BY MOSSAD HA'RAV KOOK, JERUSALEM. WORDS IN THE TEXT THAT ARE IN SQUARE BRACKETS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE RAMBAM'S WRITINGS. BRITISH SPELLING HAS BEEN USED, AND SEPHARDIT PRONUNCIATION HAS BEEN USED FOR WORDS AND PHRASES THAT HAVE BEEN TRANSLITERATED. COMMENTS ARE WELCOME BY EMAIL - imo@medphys.ucl.ac.uk Back to RST23 homepage and its links. This page was designed by Koala Net. These chapters discuss the following six positive commandments and four negative commandments: 1) To recognise God. 2) Not even to speculate that there might be a god other than God. 3) To unify God. 4) To love God. 5) To have fear of God. 6) To sanctify God's Name. 7) Not to desecrate God's Name. 8) Not to destroy things on which God's Name is written. 9) To listen to a prophet who speaks in God's Name. 10) Not to test God. CHAPTER ONE This chapter explains that God, Lord of the universe and Master of the world, existed before anything else did, that He has no body, and that there is none other beside Him. 1) It is the most basic of basic principles and a support for wisdom to know that there is something [namely God] that existed before anything else did and that He created everything that there is. Everything in the skies, on the ground and in between exists only because of the fact that He created them. 2) Let it be known that if the Creator did not exist then nothing else would, for nothing can exist independently of the Creator. 3) Let it further be known that if everything ceased to exist, the Creator alone would exist and would not have ceased to exist like everything else had. All things in creation are dependant upon the Creator for their continued existence, but He does not need any of them [for His continued existence]. Therefore, the reality of His existence is not like the reality of the existence of any creation. 4) One of the Prophets said, "But the Lord is the true God", meaning that only God is everlasting and that nothing else is. This is what the Torah has said: "There is none else beside Him", namely, that there is nothing in existence that is everlasting, except for God. 5) The Creator is the God of the world and Master of the Earth, and He guides the [uppermost] sphere with a power that is never-ending, never-weakening and continuous. This sphere rotates perpetually, and it is impossible for it to rotate without being guided. It is God who guides it, even though that He has no hand or body. 6) It is a positive commandment to know these matters, for it is written, "I am the Lord your God". Anyone who even speculates that there might be a god other than the Lord is transgressing a negative commandment, for it is written, "You shall have no other gods besides Me". Anyone who denies this principle is [in effect] denying everything, for it is on this important principle that everything depends. 7) God is not two or more entities, but a single entity of a oneness even more single and unique than any single thing in creation. His oneness is not like that of a single type which consists of many individuals [like the oneness of a species], and nor is it like the oneness of the body, which incorporates many parts, but His oneness is absolutely unique, and there is nothing else in existence with a oneness like His. Had God been more than a single entity, then all of them would have physical bodies, for entities equal in existence differ only in bodily matters. If the Creator did have a body He would have had weaknesses and an end, for it is impossible for a physical body that has no end to exist. The strength of something that has weaknesses and an end also has an end, and a limit. The strength of our God is not like the strength of the body, for it has no end or pause, and perpetually guides the sphere. Since He has no body He has no bodily appearance, and cannot be sub-divided into different parts - therefore, it is impossible for Him to be anything other than one. It is a positive commandment to know this, for it is written, "...the Lord is our God, the Lord is one". 8) It has been stated in Scripture that God has no physical form, as it is written, "...that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath: there is none other". A physical body cannot be in two places at once. It is also written, "...for you saw no manner of form", and, "To whom then will you compare Me, that I should be his equal?" - had God had a body it would have been similar to other bodies. 9) If so, what does the Torah mean when it says things like, "under His feet" (Exodus 31:18), "written with the finger of God" (ibid), "the hand of the Lord" (Exodus 9:3), "the eyes of the Lord" (Genesis 38:7), "the ears of the Lord" (Numbers 11:1), et cetera? These phrases are in line with the level of understanding of people, who can only comprehend physical existence, and the Torah speaks in terms that we can understand. All examples of this nature are merely attributory. For example, when it says, "If I whet My glittering sword" - does God really have a sword and does He really kill with one?! Such phrases are figurative. Evidence for this is that one Prophet saw God as wearing garments as white as snow, whereas another Prophet saw God as wearing crimsoned garments from Bozrah. Moses our Teacher himself saw, at the time of the splitting of the Red Sea, God as a war-waging warrior, but at Sinai as a cantor to show him the order of prayer. This shows that God has no form or shape [because He appears different to different people]. God's appearance varies according to each prophetic vision and what it contains. It is beyond Man's intellect to investigate or comprehend [the nature of] God's existence, as it is written, "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the purpose of the Almighty?". 10) What motive did Moses have to comprehend [God] as it is written, "I beg of You, show me Your glory"? Just as one can recognise a particular person's appearance and know him to be different from other people, so Moses wanted to recognise God's existence and to be able to differentiate from everything else. God replied to Moses that is beyond the strengths of a living man, whose body and soul are as one, to understand the nature of His existence. God then made to Moses things which no man before or since had known so that Moses comprehended - that God is different in intellect from other things in existence, just as a particular person is different in dress and intellect from all other people. Scripture hinted at this matter by saying, "...and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen". 11) Once it is known that God has no physical body it will become clear that He doesn't experience any bodily sensations either, sensations such as formation, decomposition, occupying a physical space or size, rising or falling [in standard], a left or right side, a need to stand or sit, et cetera. God does not exist in Time, so He has no beginning or end. God also does not change, for there is nothing that can induce a change in Him. God cannot die, and does not live as life is known. God also has no stupidity or wisdom as we know them, does not sleep or wake up, and does not experience anger, merriment, joy, sadness, silence or speech as we know them. The Sages said, `God does not have a need to sit, a rival, a back or weariness". 12) Since matters concerning bodily experience are such, then all words connected to this mentioned in the Torah and by the Prophets are all exemplary and figures of speech. Examples of this are: "He who sits in the heavens laughs", "...that they provoked Me to anger", "...that as the Lord rejoiced", et cetera. The Sages said that the Torah is phrased in out terms. In Jeremiah 7:9 it says, "Do they provoke Me to anger?", whereas in Malachi 3:6 it says, "For I am the Lord, I do not change". If God [really] was sometimes angry and sometimes joyful, then He would be changing. Such characteristics are found only in the dark and gloomy [existence of having a] body, which lives in huts of mud and which was created from dust, but God is higher and raised above all this. CHAPTER TWO This chapter explains that it is a commandment to love God, that all creations consist of three parts, and starts the discussion of mystical and esoteric speculation. 1) It is a commandment to love and fear the venerable and feared Almighty, for it is written, "And you shall love the Lord your God", and it is also written, "You shall fear the Lord your God". 2) What is the way to love and fear God? Whenever one contemplates the great wonders of God's works and creations, and one sees that they are a product of a wisdom that has no bounds or limits, one will immediately love, laud and glorify [God] with an immense passion to know the Great Name, like David has said, "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God". When one thinks about these matters one will feel a great fear and trepidation, and one will know that one is a low and insignificant creation, with hardly an iota of intelligence compared to that of God, like David has said, "When I observe Your heavens, the work of Your fingers...what is man, that You are heedful of him?". Bearing these things in mind, I shall explain important concepts of the Creator's work, as a guide to understanding and loving God. Concerning this love the Sages said that from it will come to know God. 3) Everything that God created in His world can be placed in one of three classifications. Firstly, there are those creations, such as the bodies of men and animals, plants and the molten images, which have a shape and form which always exist and can be spoiled. Secondly, there are those creations which have a shape and form which does not vary from body to body or in appearance, like those in the first category do, but their shape is fixed by their form and can never change. These are the spheres and the stars contained therein. Their form and shape are like none other. Thirdly, there are those creations which have a form but no shape. These are the angels, which have no bodies, but whose form vary from angel to angel. 4) If so, what did the Prophets mean when they said that they saw angels of fire with wings? This is owing to the riddles of prophetic vision, for angels [in reality] have no bodies and are not affected by physical limitations, for it is written, "For the Lord your God is a consuming fire". This fire is merely analogous, as it is written, "...who makes the wings His messengers". 5) In what, therefore, are these forms different if they no bodies? They are not equal in their existence, some being below others and owing their existence to those above them, and all of them owe their existence to the power of God and to His goodness. Solomon in his wisdom hinted at this by saying, "...for there is a High One that watches over him that is high". 6) The phrase `some being below others' does not refer to positions in physical height, but just as one person can be more learned than another and we say that he is `above' the other, and just as says that one set of circumstances is `above' another, so is the meaning of this phrase. 7) Each level of angel has a different name. The highest level consists of the Holy Chayot, then come the Ophanim, the Erelim, the Chashmalim, the Seraphim, the Malachim, the Elohim, the Cheruvim and the Ishim. The highest level is that of the Holy Chayot and there is none other above it, except that of God. Therefore, in the Prophecies, it is said that they are underneath God's throne. The tenth level consists of the Ishim, who are the angel who speak with the Prophets and appear to them in prophetic visions. They are therefore called Ishim - `men' - for the reason that their level is closest to that of the intellect of Man. 8) All these forms live and know their Creator exceedingly well; each form according to its level and not according to its size. Even those on the topmost level cannot comprehend the reality of [the existence of] God for the reason that their intellect is insufficient for them to do so, but they understand and comprehend better than those on the levels below theirs do. Even those on the tenth level have some understanding of God, but it is beyond the capabilities of Man, who comprises both form and shape, to understand as well as those on the tenth level do. None know God the way He Himself does. 9) All things that exist, with the exception of God, from the Holy Chayot down to the smallest mosquito that lives in the mud, do so on account of God's might. Since God knows His own self and recognises His own greatness, glory and reality, He knows everything, and there is nothing that is hidden from Him. 10) God recognises His own reality and knows it as it is, but not with an external intellect in the way that we know things, since us and our intellect are not one. God, His intellect and His life, however, are one, in all manners of oneness. It would transpire that he is simultaneously the One that knows, the One that is known and the knowing itself, all as one. This subject cannot be spoken or heard, and it is beyond Man's understanding to recognise his Creator. Therefore, it is written, "By the life of Pharaoh", "As your soul lives" [but], "As the Lord lives"10, and not, "By the life of the Lord" - for the Creator and His life are not two, like physical life or the life of the angels. Therefore, God does not know the creations because of their own existence, but knows them of His own accord. Therefore, He knows everything, for everything relies on Him for continued existence. 11) What's been said in these two chapters is like a drop on the ocean compared to what has to be said to [fully] explain it. The explanations of the concepts in these two chapters is mystical and esoteric speculation. 12) The first Sages commanded us not to discuss these topics with more than one person and that person should be exceedingly wise. When teaching someone these topics, one teaches him first what is contained in the beginning of these chapters in small quantities, and he should be able to deduce further details on his own. These matters are extremely deep in nature, and not everyone can understand them. Solomon in his wisdom said, "Lambs shall provide Your clothing". In explaining this parable, the Sages said that those things that are His dominion over the world will be His clothing, namely, His and only His, and not for the many. On this it has been said, "Let them be only Your own, and not strangers' with You", and it has also been said, "Honey and milk are under your tongue". The first Sages said that anything that is like milk and honey should be under one's tongue. CHAPTER THREE This chapter names the spheres and discusses their physics, and also discusses the nature and physics of the four elements. 1) Those things which are called heaven, firmament, Zevul and Aravot are spheres, and there are nine spheres altogether. The sphere nearest to us is that of the moon. The second nearest is that which contains the planet Mercury, followed by the sphere containing the planet Venus, the sphere of the sun, the sphere containing the planet Mars, the sphere containing the planet Jupiter, the sphere containing the planet Saturn, and the sphere containing all the other stars which are visible in the firmament. The ninth sphere is that which moves from east to west every day, and which encloses and encircles everything. All the stars appear to be in the same sphere, even though the spheres are layered, for the reason that the spheres are pure and transparent like glass or sapphire, so that, for example, the stars in the eighth sphere [will] appear to be under the first sphere. 2) Each and every of the eight spheres which contain the stars is split up into many [sub-] spheres, like the skin of an onion. Some of these [sub-spheres] rotate from west to east, and some, like the ninth sphere, rotate from east to west. There is no free space between the sub-spheres. 3) None of the spheres is light or heavy, and none of them has a colour. What we see as blue [in the sky] is merely an illusion, caused by the height involved. Similarly, the spheres have no smell or taste, for these properties are found only in the physical bodies beneath the spheres. 4) All these spheres that surround the world are spherical like a ball [and concentric], with the world suspended at the centre. Some of the stars have small spheres around them; these small spheres do not surround the world, but they are non-surrounding small spheres contained within the larger surrounding sphere. 5) The number of spheres that surround the world is eighteen, whereas there are only eight non-surrounding small spheres. From the movement of the stars and from knowing their rate of progress each day and hour, and from their inclination from the equator, and from their distance from the Earth, the number of spheres and the way they move and surround [the world] can be deduced. Such calculations are the key calculations to working out the seasons and the [positions of the] Zodiac signs. The wise people of [Ancient] Greece wrote many books on this subject. 6) The early Sages divided the ninth sphere, which surrounds everything, into twelve parts. Each part was given a name appropriate to the pattern of stars it contains. The names of the Zodiac symbols are: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. 7) The ninth sphere has no divisions, or a form of one of the forms described above, or any stars, but with being in contact with the stars of the eighth sphere and the big stars contained therein, it appears to have these forms, or some form close to them. These twelve forms [of the Zodiac] were in conjunction with the appropriate divisions, but after the Flood, when they were named, they shifted slightly. All the stars in the eighth sphere rotate in the same way that the sun and the moon do, but slower; the distance that sun covers in one day will take these stars [of the eighth sphere] seventy years to cover. 8) Of the visible stars, there are some smaller than the Earth, and there are some considerably bigger than the Earth. The Earth is approximately 40 times bigger than the moon, and the sun is approximately 170 times bigger than the Earth, so the moon is approximately 6800 times smaller than the sun. No star is bigger than the sun, and none is smaller then Mercury, which is in the second sphere. 9) All the stars and spheres possess souls, intellect and understanding, and they are alive, exist and recognise their Creator. Like the angels, all of them praise and laud their Creator, and do so according to their importance and level. Just as they recognise God so do they recognise themselves and the angels who are above them. The intellect of the stars and spheres is less than that of the angels, but greater than that of men. 10) The Almighty created a shape which is unlike that of the spheres [themselves] beneath the lunar sphere. This shape has four forms, which [also] aren't like the forms of the spheres. Each of these forms possesses some of this shape. The first form is that of fire, and combines with this shape to form the body of fire. The second form is that of wind, and combines with this shape to form the body of wind. The third form is that of water, and combines with this shape to form the body of water. The fourth form is that of earth, and combines with this shape to form the body of earth. It transpires that there are four bodies under the firmament, one above the other, and each body surrounds that beneath it from all sides, like a ball. The first body nearest the moon is that of fire, followed by the wind, the water and the earth. There is absolutely no free space between these bodies at all. 11) These four bodies do not possess souls, and do not know or recognise God, but they are like non-living matter. Each body has its own nature, which it does not know or understand, and cannot change. David said, "Praise the Lord from the earth, O monsters, and all deeps: fire, and hail, snow and vapours", meaning that those that are found on the earth should praise the Lord for His might that is visible in the fire and hail and in all the other creations beneath the firmament, just as their might is always recognised. CHAPTER FOUR This chapter explains that all creations are made from the four elements, discusses the form of the soul, and the difference between mystical and esoterical speculation and the Action of Creation. 1) These four elements - fire, wind, water and earth - are the foundations of all the creations under the heavens. The shape of all things, such as Man, animals, birds, fish, metals, precious stones, pearls, building materials, plants, mountains, clods of earth, et cetera, is founded on these four elements. It transpires that all bodies under the heavens, except for these four elements, consist of a combined form and shape, the shape of which consists of the four elements, but each of the four elements consists of just a combined shape and form. 2) The fire and wind follow an upward vector from the centre of the world towards the sky, whereas the water and earth follow a downward vector from the sky to the centre, for the centre of the sky is the lowest point beneath which there is none lower. Their passage in this manner is without their knowledge or will, but is their in-built tendency and nature. The nature of the fire is that it is hot and dry, and is the lightest of all the elements. The wind is hot and humid, and the water is cold and wet. The earth is dry and cold, and is the heaviest of all the elements. The water is lighter than the earth, and is therefore found above the earth. The wind is lighter than the water, which is why it hovers above the water, and the fire is lighter than the wind. Since they are the foundations of all bodies under the firmament, it is found that each and every body, be it man or animal, beast or bird, fish or plant, metal or stone, et cetera, has its shape formed out of fire, wind, water and earth. The four elements are mixed together [in forming a body] and change in the process, so that the body formed by the mixture does not represent any single element. No part at all in this mixture will be found to be one of the four elements in its pure form, because they all changed and turned into a different body. Each and every body made out of these four elements will possess the properties of heat, cold, wetness and dryness. Some bodies, such as the bodies of living creatures, however, will contain a greater proportion of fire, which is why they are warm. Some bodies, such as stones, will contain a greater proportion of earth, so they are very dry. Some bodies will contain a greater proportion of water, so they will be the wettest [of all bodies]. In this manner, one will find one warm body hotter than another warm body, and one dry body drier than another dry body. Similarly, one will find bodies which are exceedingly cold, bodies which are exceedingly wet, or bodies which contain equal proportions of the elements. The element in the majority will be the one that will give the resultant body its [most noticeable] characteristics. 3) Anything made from these four elements will eventually be divided up again into them. Some are divided up after only a few days [following their formation], while others are divided up after many years. It is impossible for anything made from these elements not to be divided up. Even gold and rubies will be divided up. Upon division of a body, its elemental constituents return to their appropriate places. 4) If bodies are divided up into the four elements, why does it say about Man, "...and to dust you shall return"? This is because Man is composed mainly of the earth element. When a body divides up, its elemental constituents do not immediately return to their appropriate places, but turn into something else, which turns into another thing, and so on, but the elemental constituents eventually do return to their appropriate places. The elements return to [and leave] their appropriate places in a never-ending cycle. 5) The four elements are perpetually exchanging material every day and at all hours. What does this mean? Some of the earth which is nearest to the water changes and crumbles, and turns into water. Similarly, some of the water which is nearest to the wind changes and melts, and turns into wind. Likewise, some of the wind nearest the fire changes and turns into fire. Some of the fire nearest the wind turns into wind. Some of the wind nearest the water turns into water. Some of the water nearest the earth turns into earth. This process is long and slow. An element cannot change in its entirety into some other element, for it is impossible for one of the four elements to completely cease to exist, but can exchange material with one of the other elements. There is this exchange of material between each element and its neighbour in a never-ending cycle. 6) This process of change takes place because of the rotation of the spheres, as does fusion of the four elements to form the bodies of Man, living creatures, plants, stone, metal, et cetera. God, with the aid of the tenth type of angel, the Ishim, gave an appropriate shape to each body. 7) One will never see a shape without form, or a form without shape. It is because of a man's wisdom that he knows that a given body has a shape and a form, and that its shape consists of [material from] the four elements, and that there are bodies whose shapes are simple and have just a single constituent. The forms which have no shape are not visible to the eye, but are known by the power of intellect, just as we know God without seeing Him with our eyes. 8) The soul of a living creature is the form given to it by God [to differentiate it from plants], and the extra intellect found in a man's soul is the form of a man as he understands it. Concerning this form the Torah says, "Let us make Mankind in our image, after our likeness"; that is to say that Man will have a form that is capable of understanding [the concepts of] intellects without a shape, such as angels, who have a form but no shape, so that he will be similar to them. The words, "our image" do not refer to the form visible to the eye, namely the form which consists of a mouth, nose, jaw and other parts of the body, for this form is called the countenance. It is not [necessarily] a soul which is found in all living creatures that eat, drink, give birth, feel and think, but the intellect, which is in the form of the [essential] soul, concerning which Scripture said, "...in our image, after our likeness"4. This form is very often called the soul and breath. One has to very careful with these names so as not to make a mistake. Each and every name is self-explanatory. 9) This form of life is not made from the elements [just] to be able to get away from them, and is not created with the strength of or for the needs of the soul, as if the soul needs the body, but is created by God, and is from Heaven. Therefore, when a shape which is composed of the four elements divides up, the soul is `lost', because the soul is found only with a body and needs a body for all its actions, but knows and understands the knowledge which is distinct from the shapes, and knows God, and remains in existence for ever. Solomon, in his wisdom, said, "And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it". 10) These matters have been discussed very briefly here, and are deep matters, but not as deep as those discussed in the first two chapters. The matters discussed in the first two chapters are those of the Action of Creation. The first Sages commanded us not to discuss these matters in public either, but with a single person one may talk about them, and one may teach them to a single person. 11) What is the difference between mystical and esoterical speculation and these matters? The former is never discussed with even a single person, unless that person is a wise and understanding person, and even then one doesn't discuss it too deeply. The Action of Creation may be discussed with any single person, even if his intellect is such that he won't understand it, and one may tell him as much as he is capable of understanding. These matters are not discussed amongst many people, for the reason that not everybody is of an intellectual level which will enable them to understand these matters. 12) Whenever a man contemplates these matters and recognises the creations - angels, spheres, Man, et cetera - and sees God's wisdom in all the formations and creations, his love for God will increase, find his soul, and his very essence will yearn to love God. Furthermore, he will fear his baseness, meagerity and lightness when he compares himself to one of the great and holy forms which have no shape and are not elemental [namely, the angels], and he will see himself as an empty and superfluous vessel, full of shame and disgrace. 13) These four chapters have discussed the first five commandments [in the list at the beginning of these Laws], and are what the first Sages called esoterical philosophy, as it is written, "Four people went to study esoterical philosophy, et cetera". Even though those four people were giants of Israel and very great sages, not all of them had the capability to understand and comprehend these matters. I say that it is not fitting to study esoterical philosophy unless one has first studied what is metaphorically called `bread and meat', which is the study of what is permitted, what is forbidden, and other commandments. These matters were called small matters by the Sages, as they have said, "Mystical and esoterical speculation is a big matter, whereas the [still applicable] debates of Abbayeh and Ravah are small matters". Nevertheless, it is still fitting to study other commandments first, because they settle a man's mind. Furthermore, they are the great good which God gave to this world, by which we can inherit life in the World To Come. It is possible for everyone - adults, children, men, women, those who are narrow-minded and those who are not - to know these matters. CHAPTER FIVE This chapter explains that all Jews are commanded to sanctify God's Name, when to transgress when under a death a threat and when to die, and defines a what constitutes a desecration of God's Name. 1) Every Jew [including women] is commanded to sanctify God's Name, for it is written, "...but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel". We are warned not to desecrate God's Name, as it is written, "Nor shall you desecrate My holy Name"1. What does this mean? If, for example, a gentile forces a Jew to commit a sin by threatening to kill him if he doesn't, then he should commit the sin in order not to be killed, for concerning this commandment it is written, "...which if a man does he shall live by them" - and not die for them. If he allowed himself to be killed by not committing the sin, then he is liable as a suicide [in the World To Come]. 2) This is talking about any sin other than idolatry, adultery and murder, for if a gentile told one to commit one of these sins or else he will kill one, one has to allow oneself to be killed by not committing the sin. This difference [between these three commandments and the others] is applicable only when the gentile intends to receive benefit for himself, by, for example, forcing a Jew to build a house for him on the Sabbath, or cook him a meal on the Sabbath, or by forcing a Jewess to have intercourse with him, but if he just wanted the Jew to sin, then the following applies: If there were no, or fewer than ten, Jews present, then he may save his life by sinning, but if there were ten, or more, Jews present, then he has to allow himself to be killed by not sinning, even if the sin involved is not one of the three mentioned above but is one of the other commandments. 3) These matters do not apply during a time of non-persecution, but at a time of persecution, such as when a wicked king such as Nebuchadnezzar arises and decrees against the Jews that they should forego their religion or one of the commandments, then one may not sin and one should allow oneself to be killed, even if the decree concerns a commandment other than the three mentioned above, and whether one is forced into sinning in the presence of ten, or more, Jews, or not. 4) Anyone who says that he will sin and so not be killed but [in the end] was killed without having sinned is liable as a suicide. Anybody who says that he will not sin and will allow himself to be killed, and is killed without sinning, is sanctifying God's Name. If this happened in the presence of ten, or more, Jews, then it is a public sanctification, like what Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah and Rabbi Akivah and his colleagues did. These are people who were persecuted by a kingdom and above whose level there isn't one, and about them it is written, "But for Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are considered as sheep for the slaughter", and it is also written about them, "Gather My pious ones together to Me; those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice". Anybody who is told to sin, but is not threatened with death if he doesn't, and he does sin, then has desecrated God's Name. If this was in the presence of ten, or more, Jews, then it is a public desecration, and he has abrogated the positive commandment to sanctify God's Name by transgressing the negative commandment not to desecrate it. Even so, he is not liable to flogging, for the reason that the situation was forced on him. It need not be said that he is not executed by a Court of Law even if he was forced to commit murder, for the reason that flogging and execution are only for people who [of their own accord] willingly sin in the presence of witnesses who warned him, for concerning one who gives of his children to Molech it is written, "Then I will set My face against that man". According to tradition, we have learnt that the word "that" comes to exclude those people who are forced to sin, or who do so inadvertently or accidentally. Since one who is forced to commit idolatry, the worst sin of all, is not liable to karet, and it need not be said that he is not executed by a Court of Law either, then how much more so this rule applies to the other commandments of the Torah. Concerning adultery it is written, "...but you shall do nothing to the girl". {If, however, one could have saved oneself by running away from the [jurisdiction of the] wicked king but one didn't, then one is like a dog who returns to its vomit, and one receives the status of a wilful sinner [with respect to idolatry], and one will be banished from the World To Come and descend to the depth of Hades.} 5) If a group of gentiles said to a group of [Jewish] women, `Give us one of you and we will debauch her, or else we will debauch all of you', then they [may not select a `victim' and] must allow themselves all to be debauched, and they may not hand over to them even a single Jewish person. Similarly, if gentiles told a group of Jews to select one of themselves to be killed or else they will all be killed, then they must all allow themselves to be killed, and they may not hand over to them even a single Jewish person. If, however, they singled a person out by saying to the group, `Give us X to be killed, or else we will kill all of you', then if the person in question is liable to death in the way that Sheba the son of Bichri was they may hand him over, but this procedure should not, from the outset, be followed. If, however, the person in question was liable to death they should all allow themselves to be killed, and they may not hand over to them even a single Jewish person. 6) What has been said [regarding idolatry, adultery and murder, and other commandments] concerning situations forced upon one also apply to ill people. What does this mean? If someone was seriously ill and the doctors said that the cure involves breaching one of the negative commandments of the Torah [or any of the other commandments], then he may breach any of the commandments of the Torah except for idolatry, adultery and murder, in order to cure himself of a dangerous illness. One may not transgress any of these three commandments even to cure a dangerous illness. If one did transgress one of these three commandments and was cured as a result, then one is liable to the appropriate punishment in a Court of Law. 7) From where is it known that even in life-threatening situations these three sins may not be committed? It is written, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might" - this applies even if God is about to take one's soul. Concerning killing one Jew in order to cure another or to save another from a forced situation; common sense tells us that we dot kill one person to save another. Adultery is compared to murder, as it is written, "...for as when a man rises against his fellow and kills him, so is this matter". 8) When it has been said that commandments other than the three special ones may be transgressed in order to cure a life-threatening illness, it may be done only if the ill person receives some [other] benefit from it, such as if the cure involves eating creeping animals or insects, or chametz on Pesach, or eating on Yom Kippur, but if the cure does not involve some [other] benefit, for instance, if the cure involves making a bandage out of chametz [on Pesach], or from orlah, or he has to drink something bitter made from something forbidden, then even if the illness is not life- threatening, one may commit the sin. Vegetables grown together and meat/milk mixtures, however, are always forbidden, even if their administration does not involve some [other] benefit. Therefore, they are not used medicinally, even without involving some [other] benefit, unless the illness is a life threatening one. 9) If someone had his eyes on a particular woman and then developed a terminal illness, and the doctors said that he cannot be cured unless he has intercourse with that woman, then he may not do so and has to die, even if the woman was unmarried. We do not even allow him to speak to her through some sort of barrier [which does allow them to see each other], even if he will die, so that Jewish girls will not be casual about adultery. 10) One who is not in a forced situation and brazenly sins in order to anger God is desecrating God's Name. Therefore, concerning one who takes a false oath it is written, "...nor shall you profane the Name of your God; I am the Lord". If he desecrated God's Name in the presence of ten, or more, Jews, then he has done so publicly. In a similar vein, anyone who runs away from sin, and fulfills mitzvot for no reason other than that God commands it, in the way that Joseph ran away from his master's wife, is sanctifying God's Name. 11) There are other things which also count as a desecration of God's Name if a man very knowledgeable in Torah and known as being pious does them; things which ordinary people do. Even though these things are not sins, they still count as a desecration of God's Name. Such things include taking possession of an article and not paying for it immediately, even though one may have sufficient funds, and one will be messing the sellers around. Being excessively merry, or eating and drinking a lot amongst ignoramuses also fall into this category, as does speaking to others in an unreposed manner and without a pleasant facial expression, but in a quarellous and angry manner. Similar things also count. Every great sage has to judge himself, according to his greatness, how to be particular on himself and to act beyond the letter of the law. Similarly, if a wise person is particular to receive people in a reposed manner, and involves himself and receives them with a pleasant expression on his face, and does not hide from them, then even those people who [had previously] mocked him will now respect and honour him, and will trust him. He should, however, not partake of too many meals with ignoramuses, and should always be seen to be busying himself with Torah, and wrapped in his tsitsit and wearing his tephillin, and always acting beyond the letter of the law, which involves not being too withdrawn or bewildered. If he acts in this way, then everyone will adore and love him, and follow his example. This is a sanctification of God's Name, and concerning this it is written, "...and said to me, `You are My servant, Israel, amongst whom I will be glorified". CHAPTER SIX This chapter explains that it is forbidden to erase any of the Holy Names, and states which Names mat be erased. 1) Anyone who erases one of the holy and pure Names by which God is called is liable to flogging according to the Torah, for concerning idol- worship it is written, "...and destroy the name of them from that place. This you shall not do to the Lord your God". 2) The seven Names of God are: the Tetragrammaton, which is written as either Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey or Aleph-Daled-Nun-Yud [Lord], Aleph-Lamed [Almighty], Aleph-Lamed-Hey-Yud-Mem [God], Shin-Daled-Yud [Almighty], Tsadi-Vet-Aleph-Vav-Saf [Hosts] and Aleph-Hey-Yud-Hey [i am]. Anyone who erases even one letter of any of these Names is liable to flogging. 3) Any prefixes to any Name, such as a Lamed to form, `to the Lord', may be erased, because they are not holy. Any suffixes, such as a Chaf to form, `your God', may not be erased, because they are like the letters of the Name, which lend holiness to them. Even though these added letters are holy and may not be erased, anyone who does erase them is not liable to flogging according to the Torah, but is flogged because of a Rabbinical decree. 4) If one wrote the Aleph and Lamed of `Elokim', or the Yud and Hey of the Tetragrammaton, one may not erase them, and it need not be said that the Name which is spelt Yud-Hey [Jah] itself may not be erased, firstly because it is a Name in its own right, and secondly because it is part of the Tetragrammaton. If, however, one wrote the Shin and Daled of `Shakai', or the Tsadi and Vet of `Tsvakot', one may erase them. 5) Attributes, such as Merciful and Graceful, with which God is praised are like miscellaneous holy words, and it is permitted to erase them. 6) Concerning a vessel on which a Name is written; the part on which the Name is written must be cut out and relegated to the archives [before the vessel may be used]. Even if the Name was engraved [and not written] in a metal or glass vessel, then one who melts the vessel is liable to flogging. To be allowed to use such a vessel one first has to remove that part on which the Name is engraved and relegate it to the archives. Similarly, if one had a Name written on one's flesh, one may not wash or apply ointments or creams [on that place], and one may not stand in a place which is soiled with excrement. If, for whatever reason by way of a mitzvah, one has to immerse oneself in a ritual bath, one must cover the place on which the Name is written with something that is waterproof before immersing oneself. If one could not find something that is waterproof, one should wrap a garment round [that part of one's skin] without sticking it, so that it won't act as a barrier between one's skin and the water. The only reason he has to wrap up the Name [in the first place] is that it is forbidden to stand naked in the presence of God's Name. 7) Anyone who removes, by way of destruction, even one stone from the Altar, the Holy Hall or any other part of the Temple Courtyard is liable to flogging, for concerning idol-worship it is written, "And you shall overthrow their altars...This you shall not do to the Lord your God". Similarly, anyone who, for destructive purposes, burns any sanctified wood is liable to flogging, for it is written, "...and burn their asherim with fire...This you shall not do to the Lord your God"2. 8) It is forbidden to burn any holy writings, or any translations of or commentaries on them. It is also forbidden to tear them up, any anyone who does so is flogged because of a Rabbinical decree. This is talking about holy writings written by a Jew in holiness, but if a Jewish heretic wrote a Sefer Torah, it must be burned along with the Names therein, for the reason that the heretic does not believe in the holiness of the Names, and does not write them with the correct intention , but treats them as ordinary literature. Since his attitudes are such his writings of [any of] God's Names are not holy, and it is a mitzvah to burn them, so as not to give any credence to heretics or to their actions. Any Names written by a gentile, however, are relegated to the archives, as are any holy writings which have become worn out or which were written by a gentile. 9) Any Names mentioned in connection with Abraham are holy. Even where it says, "...and said, `My Lord, if now I have found favour in Your eyes'", the Name there is holy. All Names mentioned in connection with Lot are not holy, with this exception: "And Lot said to them, `Oh, not so, my Lord: behold, your servant has found favour in your eyes...in saving my life". All the Names mentioned at the hills of Benjamin are holy. The Names mentioned with Michah are not holy. All the Names mentioned in connection with Navot are holy. All that Solomon wrote in the Song of Songs is holy and has the same status as the other Attributes, with this exception: "You, O Solomon, may have the thousand". Any mention of any king in the book of Daniel is not holy, with the exception of, "You, O king, king of kings", which has the status of other Attributes. CHAPTER SEVEN This chapter discusses prophecy and who warrants it, and explains the difference between the prophecy of Moses and that of the other Prophets. 1) One of the bases of religion is to know that God visits people in prophetic visions, which come only to exceedingly wise people of outstanding characteristics, whose inclinations never lead them to earthly matters but who always conquer their inclinations, and who are of correct temperaments. A person who fulfills these criteria, and is of perfect health, will, when studying esoterical philosophy and is attracted by those elevated issues and is of an appropriate temperament to understand and comprehend them , and sanctifies himself by moving away from anybody who concerns himself with ephemeral matters, and encourages himself not to have any thoughts about useless matters and its contrivances, have his thoughts permanently attuned to above, from under God's Throne, to understand the pure and holy forms, and looks upon the wisdom of God [in Creation] in its entirety, from the first form [i.e the Holy Chayot] till the centre of the Earth, and sees in them God's greatness, and then prophecy will immediately come to him. At the time when prophecy comes to him, his soul will be on the same level as that of the Ishim angels, and he will become a different man, and he will realise that he is not [any more] as he was, but will rise above the level of other wise men, as it is written, "...and you shall prophesy with him, and shall be turned into another man". 2) There are [many] levels of prophecy - in the same way that one person can be wiser than another, so can he be more prophetic. Prophetic insights come only in nocturnal visions in dreams, or by day after falling asleep, as it is written, "I the Lord make Myself known to him in a vision, and speak to him in a dream". Whenever one is receiving a prophecy, one's limbs shake, the strength of one's body weakens, and one's thoughts become disturbed, leaving one's mind free to understand what one will see, as it is written in connection with Abraham, "...and, lo, a horror of great darkness fell upon him", and as it is written in connection with Daniel, "...for my comely appearance was horribly changed, and I retained no strength". 3) What is made known to a prophet during prophecy is done so by way of parable, and he will immediately realise what the parable means. For instance, when Jacob the Patriarch saw the ladder with angels ascending and descending it, it was a parable representing monarchy and its subjection. Similarly, the animals which Ezekiel saw, the boiling pot and almond tree which Jeremiah saw, and all the other objects seen by the other Prophets were also parables. Of the Prophets, some, like those mentioned above, related what they saw in their prophecy and their interpretation of it, whereas some related just their interpretation. Sometimes they related just the parables [of the prophecy], like Ezekiel and Zachariah sometimes did. All of the Prophets prophesied by way of parables and riddles. 4) None of the Prophets receive prophecies whenever they wanted, but they would attune their thoughts, be happy and of a good heart, and seek solitude, for prophecy does not come to those who are sad or lazy, but only to those who are happy. Therefore, the sons of prophets would have before them harps, drums and flutes, and would seek prophecy, as it is written, "...and they shall prophesy", that is to say that they will follow the ways of prophecy until they prophecise, progressing as they go. 5) Those who seek prophecy are called the sons of prophets. Even though they attune their thoughts, the Divine Presence may, or may not, inspire them. 6) All the Prophets, from the first to the last, prophesied in these ways, with the exception of Moses our Teacher, chief of the Prophets. In what ways did Moses differ from the other Prophets? Firstly, whereas the other Prophets received their prophecies in a dream or vision, Moses received his while awake and standing, as it is written, "And when Moses was in the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he heard the voice speaking to him, et cetera". Secondly, the other Prophets received their prophecies via an angel. Therefore, what they saw was by way of parable and riddle. Moses, on the other hand, did not receive his prophecies via an angel, as it is written, "With him I speak mouth to mouth", "And the Lord spoke to Moses face to face", "...and the outward appearance of the Lord does he behold"7, that is to say that what Moses saw what not by way of parable, but he saw each prophecy absolutely clearly without any parables or riddles. The Torah said about him, "...manifestly, and not in dark speeches"7, showing that when Moses received a prophecy he did not do so by way of riddles, but did so with clarity, and saw everything absolutely clearly. Thirdly, the other Prophets were scared [of their prophetic visions] and would shy away, but Moses wasn't and didn't. Scripture says, "...as a man speaks with a friend"8 - just as a man is not scared to listen to his friend, so Moses had the capabilities to understand his prophecies and to stand unafraid. Fourthly, none of the Prophets prophesied whenever they wanted to, but whenever God wanted to He would visitate Moses and bestow upon him prophecy. Moses did not have to attune his thoughts or otherwise prepare himself, for the reason that he was always prepared and stood like a ministering angel. Therefore, he would receive prophecies at any time, as it is written, "Stand still and I will hear what the Lord will command concerning you". In this God trusted him, as it is written, "Go say to them, `Return to your tents'. But as for you, stand here by Me, and I will speak to you, et cetera". From here we see that whenever any of the other Prophets had finished prophecising they would return to their houses [and families] and other bodily needs, like everybody else, so they therefore did not separate themselves from their wives. Moses, on the other hand, did not return to his home, and separated himself from his wife, and all that resembled her, for ever. His mind was [always] connected to God, and God's glory never left him at all; light emanated from his face, and he was holy like an angel. 7) It is possible for the prophecy of a prophet to be for him alone, to widen his outlooks and to increase his knowledge so that he will not know what he [previously] did not know from these great matters. It is also possible that he has to deliver the prophecy to one of the nations of the world, or to the people of a [particular] town, or to the citizens of a nation, [in order] to teach them wisdom, and to let them know what to do, or to prevent them from doing [again] any bad deeds. When a prophet is sent [by God] on such a mission, he is given a sign and proof [to present], so that people will know that God [really] sent him in truth. not everyone who presents a sign and proof is believed as a prophet, but only those people who are known to be suitable to receive prophecies on account of their wisdom and actions, and that they went in the ways of prophecy in its holiness and exegeses. When such people present a sign and proof and say that God sent them, it is a commandment to listen to them, for it is written, "...to him you shall listen". It is possible that although a person presents a sign and proof he is not a prophet, and the sign could be achieved by other means; even so, we are commanded to listen to him; because he is a great and wise man who is suitable to receive prophecy, we assume that his prophecy is true. In this we have commanded, just as we have been commanded to decide a verdict according to the testimony of two people who are eligible to bear testimony [together], even though they may be lying; since they have always been honest in the past, we assume that they being honest now as well. About this and similar matters it is written, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to use and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of the Torah", and it is also written, "...for a man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart". CHAPTER EIGHT This chapter discusses the signs that Moses performed and why he performed them, and that he did not do so to make the people believe in him. 1) The Children of Israel did not believe in Moses [solely] because of the signs he presented, for someone who believes [in a prophet solely] because of the signs he presents is tainted, for it could be that his signs are performed by means of spells and witchcraft. All the signs that Moses performed in the wilderness were done so according to the needs of the moment, and not to bring proof to his prophecies. There was a need to sink the Egyptians, so Moses split the sea and drowned them in it; the Children of Israel needed food, so Moses brought down the manna for them; they needed water, so Moses split the rock for them; Korah and his followers rebelled, so Moses opened up the ground and they were swallowed up. The same principle applies with all the other signs. It was the assembly at Mount Sinai that made them believe in Moses, when our eyes, and no-one else's, saw, and our ears, and no-one else's, heard, and Moses drew near to the darkness, and the voice spoke to him, and we heard it saying to Moses, "Moses, Moses, go tell them such-and-such". In connection with this it is written, "The Lord talked with you face to face", and it is also written, "The Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us". From where is it known that the assembly at Mount Sinai was the proof that the prophecy of Moses was true and that he was not speaking basely? It is derived from the verse, "Lo, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you for ever". From this we see that prior to the assembly at Mount Sinai their belief in Moses was not one that would have lasted for ever, but it was a belief that left room for discussion and thought. 2) It would transpire that those people to whom a prophet is sent are witnesses that his prophecy is true, and he need not perform any other sign, for them and they combine to form one unit with respect to this matter, in the same way that two people who saw the same thing together combine as witnesses, for each of them is a witness that the other is speaking the truth, and need not bring [additional] proof to back him up. So it was with Moses our Teacher, that all of the Children of Israel were his witnesses after the assembly at Mount Sinai, and he didn't have to perform for them any signs. This is what God said to him at the time when his prophecy started, when He showed him what signs to perform in Egypt: "And they shall listen to your voice". Moses knew that anyone who believes [solely] because of signs is tainted and will be doubtful, and expressed a reluctance to go by saying, "But behold they will not believe me". God told him that these signs will [continue to be performed and] applied only until they had left Egypt and assembled at Mount Sinai, whereupon any doubt will vanish, and also assured him that [at Mount Sinai] He will give signs that Moses had been sent by God in truth from the [very] beginning, and that no doubt will remain. This is what Scripture says: "...and this shall be a sign to you that I have sent you; when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall God upon this mountain". From this we learn that any Prophet that came after Moses is not believed solely because of his signs to make us think that if he makes a sign we should listen to everything he says, but [is believed] because of the commandment of Moses in the Torah: "...to him you shall listen", if he gives a sign. Just as we have been commanded to decide a matter according to the testimony of two witnesses, even though we do not know if his sign is Divine or achieved by spells and witchcraft. 3) Therefore, if a prophet arose and performed great signs and wonders, and tells us to deny the prophecy of Moses our Teacher, we do not listen to him, and we [will] know for sure that his signs are the result of spells and witchcraft. The prophecy of Moses was not dependant upon signs, so the signs of this prophet cannot outweigh the signs of Moses, for we saw and heard them, just as he did. This is similar to two witnesses who bear testimony that a particular person did a particular thing in front of them, but he is not like they say he is, so we do not listen to them and we know for sure that they are false witnesses. Therefore, the Torah said that if a prophet comes with signs and wonders, we do not listen to him, for he is coming to deny that what we saw with our eyes. Since we believe in wonders only because of a commandment of Moses, how can we accept a sign that is brought to deny the prophecy of Moses which we saw and heard?! CHAPTER NINE This chapter explains that a prophet may not make any changes whatsoever in the Torah and the commandments contained therein. 1) It is explicitly and clearly stated in the Torah that it [the Torah] is an everlasting mitzvah, and cannot be changed, subtracted from or added to, as it is written, "Every matter which I command you observe to do it; you shall not add to it, or subtract from it", and it is also written, "...but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of the Torah". From here we see that we have been commanded to keep all the commandments of the Torah for always. In connection with this it is written, "...a statute for ever throughout your generations", and it is also written, "It is not in heaven". From here we see that a prophet may not make any changes [at all] in the Torah. Therefore, if a man, whether a gentile or a Jew, arises and performs signs and wonders, and says that God sent him to add to, or take away from, a mitzvah, or to institute a new mitzvah which we did not hear from Moses, or says that the commandments with which we have been commanded are not for eternity but are meant only for a temporary period, then he is a false prophet, for he has come to undermine the prophecy of Moses. His punishment is death by strangulation, which is the punishment for deliberately speaking in the name of God without having been commanded to do so. God told Moses that all the commandments are for eternity, and no man can accuse God of being deceitful. 2) If so, why is it written in the Torah, "I will raise up for them a prophet from amongst their brethren, like you, and will put My words in his mouth, and he shall say to them all that I shall command him"? The prophet in question does not come to start a [new] religion, but to reiterate the commandments of the Torah and to warn the people not to transgress them, as the last Prophet said, "Remember the Torah of Moses My servant". Similarly, if he gave us commandment in optional matters, such as by saying, `Go (or don't go) to such-and-such a place', or, `Start (or don't start) a war today', or, `Build (or don't build) a wall here', et cetera, we are commanded to listen to him, and anyone who doesn't is liable to death at the hands of God, for it is written, "And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My Name, I will require it of him". 3) Similarly, a prophet who himself transgresses his own words, and a prophet who ignores his prophecy [and does not deliver it], are also liable to death at the hands of God, for it is written, "I will require it of him"7. Similarly, if a prophet who is known to be a [true] prophet tells us to transgress one, or many, of the commandments of the Torah, whether of the stringent or of the more lenient ones, but only as a temporary practice, then we are commanded to listen to him. So we learnt from the first Sages, that we should listen to a prophet whatever the commandments he tells us to transgress are, as with Elijah at Mount Carmel, except if the commandment he tells us to transgress is that of not practising idolatry, and provided that he tells us to transgress only as a temporary practice, like Elijah did at Mount Carmel, when he offered sacrifices outside Jerusalem, which is the city chosen for offering sacrifices in, and anyone who does so outside Jerusalem is liable to karet. Even so, since Elijah was a prophet, it was a mitzvah to listen to him. The verse, "...to him you shall listen" applies also in situations like the one with Elijah. Had the people asked Elijah how he could violate the Torah verse of, "Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in any place that you see", he could have told them that anyone offering sacrifices outside the Temple is liable to karet, in accordance with what Moses commanded, but he was offering sacrifices outside the Temple in accordance with what God had said to him, and in order to discredit the prophets of Ba'al. In this manner we are commanded to listen to any prophet who tells us to transgress as a temporary measure. If he tells us that a commandment of the Torah is to be abolished for ever, then his punishment is death by strangulation, for it is written, "...belong to us and to our children for ever". 4) Similarly, if he tries to abolish [for ever] a Rabbinical institution or decree, or, concerning one of the Laws of the Torah he says that God commanded for the Law to be one way,, but we practice [in a different way] according to the words of so-and-so, then he is a false prophet and is put to death by strangulation, even if he shows a sign, for he is trying to disprove the Torah's statement of, "It is not in heaven". If, however, he said that we should do what he says only as a temporary measure, we listen to him.

ENCYCLICAL OF KHRIMIAN HAYRIG: FOUNDING DOCUMENT OF THE DIOCESE OF THE ARMENIAN CHURCH OF AMERICA MGRDICH, SERVANT OF JESUS CHRIST, AND BY THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE WILL OF GOD CHIEF BISHOP AND CATHOLICOS OF ALL ARMENIANS, SUPREME PATRIARCH OF THE NATIONAL PRE-EMINENT SEE OF THE ARARATIAN APOSTOLIC UNIVERSAL MOTHER CHURCH OF HOLY ETCHMIADZIN. Christ-given greetings, together with our patriarchal blessings to all of you, beloved Armenian expatriates. You remain the children of our Holy Cathedral of Etchmiadzin, the Mother of light, though you are living in that New World, America, and her cities and suburbs of Worcester, New York, Boston, Lawrence, Providence, Fresno (California), Chicago, Philadelphia, as well as other cities and villages. Salutations to all of you who believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ and the heaven-taught doctrine about Him. Salutations to the reverend priests, honorable trustees, diligent merchants, hard-working artisans, farmers and tillers, virtuous ladies and faithful children-in-Christ of all ages. Salutations to you all, from the occupant of the throne of the Holy Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew, the first Enlighteners of the land of Armenia, and of our Holy father St. Gregory, her second Enlightener. May grace, love, peace and the bountiful, heavenly mercy of the Holy Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--descend and rest on you all, so that you may become strong and courageous, unshaken by the tribulations of this life, persevering in good conduct and in successful ventures. Amen. Beloved expatriated Armenians, after our patriarchal greeting and blessing, I shall now speak with you in a dialect you can understand, lest you blame me, your Hayrig, and complain that you don't understand the language of poetry. I know that you have many woes in that foreign land, and you are in need of much consolation and encouragement. In that distant country, away from the bosom of Mother Armenia, severed from your ancestral hearth, deprived of the comfort of your sweet family life, you seek happiness and consolation. If only such things were possible, even for just a moment. But how can they be? Who can compare the sweetness and happiness of life in one's native land, with existence in a foreign country, where one feels every minute the bitterness and the misery of life? Where the language, the natural surroundings, the land and people are foreign. Where even the climate and the water are strange. It is the will of a mysterious Providence that our nation should live in exile, as settlers in foreign lands. Yet that same God has not forgotten the Armenians, or Armenia. He has protected our people wherever they live, granted them success, and has day-by-day multiplied their number in the fatherland. May His will be done. The storm of violence in this world drove the Armenians from their native soil, scattering them to the far corners of the globe. Only distant America remained unexplored. But behold! In recent years Armenians have gathered there as well--and in great numbers. I am not certain, O Armenians, whether it was the freedom of life in America, or its gold mines, or its wondrous technology and inventions, which attracted you. Perhaps it was simply fate, the destruction of your ancestral abode and your suffering which led you across the limitless span of the sea? For whatever reason, having already departed and reached your destination, you have now come to comprehend your true situation. But my fatherly advice to you is this: Know who you are. The tribulations and calamities of this world are endless. The frost of winter is followed by life-bearing spring, spring is followed by fruitful summer, and summer is succeeded by autumn, when man harvests the results of his work and stores them in anticipation of yet another winter. The seasons change. The world turns. And the lot of man cannot stay the same. It may be true that the Armenians have always been persecuted and on the move. But God has never abandoned us. As long as the Armenians never forgot their homeland, and their Enlightener's faith-as long as they never lost their native tongue, and preserved with awe and sanctity their ancestral traditions, and their native respect for family and morality-many of them grew and multiplied in foreign lands. But many also were lost without trace. Some preserved their ancestral faith and language, their family life and sacred traditions, and absorbed the arts and sciences of foreigners into their own natural genius. These grew and multiplied. Others disposed of their language, forsook their faith, lost their family honor and sacred traditions, adopted from foreigners everything that was destructive and poisonous. These were led to the abyss of destruction; they fell headlong and disappeared. Let the experience of the past serve as an example for the future. And let the wise man remain vigilant, to speak out whenever necessary. Dear expatriates, remember the instructions our Savior gave to his disciples: This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you [John 15:12]. My command is the same: That you love each other as I love you. Let this be the sign that you are my children. If only I had the wings of an eagle, I could dart off and fly to you; I could speak to you and console you in person. But I am old, and limited by the bonds of mortal flesh, and burdened under many cares. I can only carry out my obligation to you through a simple letter. Together with the love exemplified in the Gospel, I bequeath to you the Savior's peace: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you [John 14:27]. The peace of the world is unstable. But God's peace is immortal and gives happiness to mankind. Live with each other in peace and in love, so that you may preserve your existence in a foreign land where many languages are spoken. Let your honest way of life and your civilized demeanor gain respect for you in the eyes of the non-Armenians. Give no one cause to trouble or hate you. Be of one mind, and of one will in the way you conduct your work and worship of God. Love your immaculate Mother, the holy catholic Church, which gave birth to you through the holy baptismal font, and nursed you with her pure, unadulterated milk--that is to say, with her true doctrine and simple orthodox teaching, bequeathed to us by the Holy Enlightener and his blessed successors. Do not be dazzled by the glitter of foreigners, and their eloquent, free-minded sermons. It should be sufficient to have a poor priest of the Mother Church instruct you through his rustic sermon, teaching you the philanthropy of the Gospel, love for friends, charity for the poor, awe before God, and a patriotic spirit. Remember that, over the course of many centuries, thousands of fierce tempests and floods have struck our people. But your Mother Church has remained firm and unshaken on her foundations, elevated from the fray by her spotless faith and sacred calling. For her foundations were built on rock. Besides the Church, love and preserve your native tongue, given to you as a gift from heaven. Whether in their own homeland or in foreign lands-and always in their Church -your fathers and mothers spoke, prayed, sang and wailed in this language. Bequeath it to your children and heirs, so that it will not be forgotten. For if you lose your language, you will lose everything. Stay firm in your ancestral traditions. Keep yourselves clean and spotless in every aspect of your life. Stay clear of every kind of addiction, which leads man to perdition. Love marriage and the family, which constitute the foundation of a moral life. Let life in the New World with all of its splendor and luster not lure you. Remember that you are expatriates in that foreign land. Remember that someday, the Lord God will deliver you out of that foreign place-as He did for Israel-and lead you back to your fatherland. Remember that a foreigner is always a stranger. Make an effort to live together. Help each other. Extend a consoling hand to a wretched brother, a fallen friend. Find a job for the poor and the newcomer. Help the sick. Care for orphans and the unfortunate. Provide them with food and education. Train them in work. And in all of your endeavors show that you are the true children of your fathers. Dear people, having considered these words sufficient, I end my admonitory encyclical and bless you all. I pray that all disagreements, quarrels and factions may disappear from your midst, and that the spirit of God's peace and gentleness will prevail. May you succeed in your undertakings; may you stay clear of all dangers; may you remain firm and unshakable beside your true Mother, the holy catholic Church. May the Lord God consider all our trials-which have drained our wretched people of their breath and spirit-to have been enough. O Armenian people: Do not forget to pray for the elderly Hayrig, so that God may give me the strength and ability to carry out the obligations imposed on me. I in turn will never forget you, nor the manifold needs that you and the Church possess. My love for my children and for their well-being has placed upon me the sweet obligation to carry out your longtime wish: namely to dispatch to you a high-ranking, able pastor. Behold! Providence has once again handed that heavy yoke, the helm of that storm-ridden ship, to an experienced and meritorious captain: namely, His Eminence Bishop Hovsep Sarajian -your first hard-working pastor in that foreign land. Overcoming great obstacles and hardships, he succeeded in establishing the Enlightener's faith in that foreign land. He raised the cross of the Armenians and built an Armenian church. I saw that he alone was suitable and worthy to be appointed as pastor of America, and for that reason I granted him the sacred episcopal rank in the name of the Armenians in America. Now you, O expatriate Armenians of America, hearken to the voice of your good pastor. Follow the steps of your leader. Carry out his good wishes and listen to his advice: you will see that it is all for your own good and benefit, and you will never stray from the path of truth and happiness. In consideration of his experience, and his love for his faithful people, we gave him full authority in his position as primate, knowing well that he will not fail our expectations and trust, and will always work for the good of the Church, so that you, dear children, may receive consolation and prosper. In all matters assist your new primate, particularly in paying the debts for your Holy Saviour Church. In consideration of your condition, we turned to other compatriots in order to alleviate some of the outstanding debt. But it is up to you to pay the greater part. You are the ones who contributed to its construction, and you must make provision to pay the remaining debt. For the purpose of fundraising, we gave His Eminence Bishop Hovsep a ledger bearing the seal of our name, so that you can sign in it. Accept the elderly Hayrig's loving and heartfelt blessing, which I have enclosed in my encyclical. I am sending this to quench your thirsty and anxious hearts, like heavenly, life-giving dew from Mother Armenia, from snow-capped Massis, from Mt. Arakadz, the place where the Enlightener prayed and rested, from the Araks River, and from Holy Etchmiadzin. May you be healthy and blessed, successful and comforted, now and forever. Amen. Mgrdich I, Catholicos of All Armenians July 2, 1898 http://www.armenianchurch.org/ENCYCLICAL.html

Quick Facts about the Armenian Church Origin of the Church The Armenian Church was founded in the middle of the 1st century by two of the original Apostles of Jesus Christ: St. Thaddeus and St. Bartho-lomew. It was fully recognized in AD 301 by Armenia's King Tiridates III, who was conver-ted to Christianity by St. Gregory the Illuminator (or Enlightener) of Armenia. As a result, Armenia was the first nation in the world to declare Christianity as its state religion. The Clergy The Church recognizes the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians as its leader. Priests, in certain categories, are permitted to marry. Clergy hear confessions en masse or on an individual basis if preferred by the person offering confession. The Catholicos is seated at Etchmiadzin in Armenia. The Church entered its most recent era of leadership on October 27, 1999, when Armenian Christians chose His Holiness Karekin II as leader for their worldwide church. He succeeded the deceased Catholicos Karekin I, who died in late June 1999. The Church in America The first Armenian Church in the United States was built in 1891 in Worcester, Massachusetts. Nearly one million Armenians live in the United States and Canada. Approximately 50,000 Armenians reside in the greater New York City area. His Eminence Archbishop Khajag Barsamian is Primate of the Eastern Diocese of the Armenian Church of America. The Armenian Church of America is made up of two dioceses-one serves the eastern United States and one the western U.S. The Eastern Diocese includes all of the United States except California, Washington, Nevada and Arizona, which are in the jurisdiction of the Western Diocese. A third diocese governs all of Canada. The Eastern Diocese has 63 organized and mission parishes. There are close to 60 Armenian clergymen serving the various parishes throughout the Eastern Diocese. Each Armenian parish includes a language and a Sunday school. The North American Seminary St. Nersess Armenian Theological School, in New Rochelle, New York is the seminary serving all three North American dioceses. Contact Information The Eastern Diocesan office is located at 630 Second Avenue (on the corner of 34th Street), New York, New York 10016-4885; Tel: (212) 686-0710; Fax: 212-779-3558. info@armeniandiocese.org THE ARMENIAN CHURCH-A BRIEF HISTORY The Armenian Church is an independent Christian church, also known as the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church. Its head is the Catholicos, who resides at Holy Etchmiadzin, near Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. http://www.armenianchurch.org/images/St%20Gregory.jpg Christianity was declared the state religion of Armenia in AD 301. Armenia thus became the first nation to adopt Christianity as a state religion. This was largely due to the efforts of St. Gregory the Illuminator. Born a nobleman, he converted Armenia's king Tiridates III, who had formerly perse-cuted the Christians. Conversion of the rest of the population soon followed. It was St. Gregory who built the Mother Church at Etchmiadzin in AD 303. Until the 5th century, Christian worship in Armenia was conducted in Greek or Syriac, since there was no Armenian alphabet, hence no written language. In AD 404, St. Mesrob (at that time a monk) completed an alphabet of 36 letters. His objective was to translate the Bible into Armenian, and the golden age of classical Armenian literature began shortly thereafter. Persia reduced Armenia to vassaldom and in AD 450 issued a decree ordering all Christians to embrace the Zoroastrian religion. The Armenians, under Prince Vartan Mamigonian, rose in revolt. This culminated in the Battle of Avarayr. Vartan lost the battle, but under the leadership of his nephew, Vahan, the Armenians continued the war for 30 years. They won a decisive victory through a peace accord in AD 484, and Armenian Christianity survived. St. Vartan Day-which is celebrated in February of each year-commemorates the battle and is a major Armenian holiday. The Armenian Church has traditionally maintained two patriarchates: one in Jerusalem and another in Istanbul. In Jerusalem, the Armenian Patriarchate is the guardian of the Holy Places in the possession of the Armenians. It is also one of the three principal custodians of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and other important shrines and sanctuaries in the Holy Land. The Patriarchate of Constantinople serves a community of approximately 50,000 Armenians living in Istanbul. Holy Etchmiadzin remains the central spiritual authority for millions of Armenian Christians living in diaspora communities around the globe. In recent years, the Armenian Church has taken an active role in the ecumenical dialogue among the clergy of all faiths. The Church entered its most recent era of leadership on October 27, 1999, when Armenian Christians elected His Holiness Karekin II as the 132nd Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, pontiff of the worldwide Armenian Church. He succeeded the deceased Catholicos Karekin I, who died in late June 1999 after leading the church for 4 years. Holy Etchmiadzin & St. Gregory the Illuminator The Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin is the pre-eminent center of authority in the worldwide Armenian Apostolic Church. Located near the capital of Yerevan in the Republic of Armenia, it is composed of (a) the Mother Cathedral of the entire Armenian Church; ( a monastery and monastic brotherhood; © the residence of the Catholicos of All Armenians; and (d) various religious and cultural institutions, such as the Kevorkian Theological Seminary and a museum. The cathedral dates back to the 4th century, and is reckoned the oldest Christian cathedral in world. Although the current sanctuary was erected in the 1600s, remnants of the 4th-century altar have been unearthed beneath the present structure. In its capacity as the residence of the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos (the pontiff of the Armenian Church) of All Armenians, Holy Etchmiadzin is known as the “Catholicate of All Armenians.” It became the seat of the Catho­licate of the entire Armenian nation in the 4th century, following the conversion of King Tiridates III to Christianity by St. Gregory the Illuminator in ad 301. According to the chronicler Agathangelos, soon after Armenia’s conver­sion to Christianity, St. Gregory had a vision of the Son of God. Appearing as a heroic figure of light surrounded by a mighty angelic host, Christ struck the ground with a golden ham­mer, indicating the place where the Mother Cathedral of the new Christian nation was to be established. The name Etchmiadzin—literally, “where the Only Begotten descended”—refers to this episode. Gregory was formally designated as the supreme head of the Church, and was sent to Caesarea to be ordained a bishop. He thus became the first in an unbroken line of 131 catholicoi (or “universal bishops”) of the Armenian Church. He built the first Christian cathedral in Vagharshapat, near Mount Ararat, then the capital of Armenia. Having accomplished his mission and advanced in age, he then retired from active life to live as a hermit until his death. PRESENT- DAY PATRIARCHATES & DIOCESES Under the Jurisdiction of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin · The Brotherhood of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin · The Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Brotherhood of St. James · The Patriarchate of Constantinople 1. Diocese of Ararat 2. Diocese of Shirak 3. Diocese of Gugark 4. Diocese of Siwnik 5. Diocese of Georgia 6. Diocese of Azerbaijan 7. Diocese of Arts'akh 8. Diocese of Nor Nakhichevan and Russia 9. Diocese of Atrpatakan [Tabriz] 10. Diocese of Teheran 11. Diocese of Isfahan 12. Diocese of Egypt 13. Diocese of Paris 14. Diocese of Marseille 15. Diocese of Lyon 16. Diocese of America, Eastern 17. Diocese of America, Western 18. Diocese of Argentina 19. Diocese of Brazil 20. Diocese of Uruguay 21. Diocese of Canada 22. Diocese of Iraq 23. Diocese of Australia and New Zealand 24. Diocese of England 25. Diocese of Roumania 26. Diocese of Bulgaria 27. Diocese of Greece 28. Office of the Pontifical Legate of Central Europe (Vienna) 29. Spiritual Ministry of Sweden 30. Diocese of Germany 31. Diocese of Switzerland 32. Pastorate of India 33. Pastorate of Italy (Milano) 34. Pastorate of Ethiopia (Adis Ababa) 35. Pastorate of Sudan (Khartum) http://www.armenianchurch.org/index.jsp [ February 19, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

RFE/RL Armenia: Yerevan Rejects Turkish Mediation Yerevan, 19 February 2001 (RFE/RL) -- Armenia today officially rejected Turkey's offer to mediate a solution to its conflict with Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Artsax region. Turkey's Foreign Minister Ismail Cem suggested on Saturday that Ankara could arrange trilateral talks with Armenia and Azerbaijan on ways to resolve the 13-year territorial dispute. But a spokeswoman for the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Dziunik Aghajanian, told RFE/RL that Turkey can not act as a mediator because it has an "explicitly one-sided position" in favor of Azerbaijan. Turkey, which has close ethnic and cultural affinity with Azerbaijan, has refused to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia until Yerevan recognizes Azerbaijani sovereignty over Artsax. Relations between Turkey and Armenia have deteriorated further since a recent decision by the French parliament to recognize as genocide the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in what was then the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish government denies there was a state policy of genocide.

I think fixing the colors of the flag would do it.

My-my. The Paradise is gone, and what do we have instead...

quote:Originally posted by Azat: MJ, I can't disagree with you when you say that the preservation of our identity has to come from Armenia and not the communities that are formed in the Diaspora. However I am not sure if Armenia can provide this for us. Today Armenia needs the Diaspora to survive and not the other way around. I guess what you are saying is that as time goes by and we loose our identity, the current generation will do less for the "Armenian" culture? I think that this is a sad fact. I don't think Armenia can provide it for us for the time being. Clearly, it is not in a position to do it, for now. I do agree that things look the opposite today, however one may see it as an investment. The Diaspora invests in Armenia (investment in a broad sense of the word) today, and recieves the returns tomorrow. I don't see Armenian culture being enhanced outside Armenia. However, Diaspora may be a very important link in advancing the Armenian culture, by serving as a conduit with the rest of the world in both directions.

Despan News, Georgia Hopes IMF Will Persuade Armenia To Restructure Georgia's Debts (2/18/01) Georgian Minister of State Gia Arsenishvili has said he is very pleased with his one-day visit to Armenia where he and other members of a Georgian government delegation requested that Armenia restructure Georgia's debts. Although Armenia insists that Georgia pay at least 5m dollars this year, Georgia hopes that the IMF will persuade Armenia to extend the payment terms, because, as Georgian Finance Minister Zurab Noghaideli said, Georgia "will not be able to pay this sum". Armenia, for its part, requested that railway tariffs be further reduced and retail markets in the border areas be turned into free trade zones. Working groups have been set up to analyse the current state of affairs and offer recommendations. The following is the text of a report by Despan correspondent on February 18: [Despan Correspondent] Georgia's debt to Armenia and future Georgian-Armenian cooperation were the major issues discussed by Armenian government and Georgian delegation yesterday [February 17]. The sides have agreed to set up a bilateral working group which will complete the analysis of the current state of affairs by April 1 and offer recommendations about settling the existing problems. The Georgian government delegation left for Tbilisi late last night. Here is a report with the details of the visit. The visit of Georgian delegation lasted one day. At Yerevan airport, Gia Arsenishvili was met by his counterpart, Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan. The first question to which Gia Arsenishvili had to answer upon his arrival at the airport was about Georgia's debts. [Gia Arsenishvili, the Georgian minister of state] Well, in what context can debts be discussed? Of course in the context of debts. [Despan Correspondent] Noteworthy to mention that Georgia's debt to Armenia totals 19m US dollars. Georgia was supposed to pay out a part of its debt, some 5m dollars. [Zurab Noghaideli, the Georgian finance minister] We do realize that the Armenian budget is facing rather serious problems, but we cannot exercise different attitudes with different creditors. Consequently, we have opted for this way, the way through the negotiations in the Paris Club. I believe that Armenia will by all means take part in the Paris Club session. [Vartan Khachatryan, Finance and Economics minister] This year, our budget already envisages 2.7bn drams, that is about 5m dollars. [Zurab Noghaideli] Yes, but we will not be able to pay this sum. [Despan Correspondent] While the prime minister Margaryan and the Georgian minister of state conversed face to face behind closed doors, other ministers held negotiations. Armenia requests that Georgia maintain the current discount fares for railway freights. These are the tariffs applied to Armenian goods transportation through Georgia: the 24% discount on oil products and the 17% discount on other goods. [Yervand Zakaryan, minister of Transport and Communications] The main thing is they should be economically acceptable and beneficial for both Armenia and Georgia. This is the only basis for our stand. [Merab Adeishvili, the Georgian minister of transport and communications] Goods turnover was supposed to double. If not double, then, at least, it should have risen a touch. However, on the contrary, the volume of goods has diminished. Hence, we can say that price liberalization has not had a more or less positive effect on the volume of goods turnover. However, we maintain that it is unimaginable to reduce tariffs beyond the current level. This is ruled out. [Andranik Margaryan] Our industry is already running and we do hope that goods turnover will grow. [Despan Correspondent] Are we ready for this? [Andranik Margaryan] Yes. [Despan Correspondent] Alongside these issues, Armenia requests that retail markets in the Armenian-Georgian border areas be declared as free trade zones. [Mikheil Chikviladze, the chairman of the Georgian Tax Department] It is a rather complicated theme and we have already agreed that we need concrete proposals to consider the proposals, because this issue cannot be settled easily. [Giorgi Gachechiladze, the chairman of the Georgian Customs Department] It is the actual fact that unrecorded goods go in and out of the markets, thus creating problems for both us and the Armenian side. We, the two sides, are concerned about it and, therefore, we should find a way to somehow resolve the problem and take the issue under control. [Despan Correspondent] Gia Arsenishvili and the other members of the delegation were received by President Kocharyan. The meeting was held behind closed doors. [Gia Arsenishvili] Here, actually, we discussed again all the issues we discussed at the Cabinet of Ministers. However, this discussion was held at a different level, it differed from that one in its depth. Viewing all this through a historical perspective, we all are very pleased, I mean myself and all the members of our delegation. The finance minister, as well as the minister of transport and communications, had an opportunity to speak out about all the problems that are to be resolved by Georgia and Armenia. [Despan Correspondent] The visit of the Georgian minister of state to Armenia ended at the residence of the Patriarch of the Armenian Church in Echmiandzin. It must be mentioned that the problem of debts was a domineering issue discussed at all the meetings throughout the visit. The categorical tone of the members of government was somewhat neutralized by President Kocharyan. Working groups have been instructed to settle a number of issues. The Georgian side, for its part, is to think about the reduction of railway tariffs, while the Armenian side is to think about the restructuring of Georgia's debts. Some time ago, the International Monetary Fund proposed that Armenia restructure Georgia's debts. Considering that the IMF intends to resume its long-term program in Armenia, we can presume that Armenia cannot disregard its recommendation. One way or another, working groups will be working untill April 1. They will work and take certain decisions, decisions which must be acceptable to both sides.

17-Feb-2001 -- Vatican Information Service APOSTOLIC LETTER: 1700TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIA'S BAPTISM VATICAN CITY, FEB 17, 2001 (VIS) - Made public today was the Apostolic Letter, dated February 2, written by the Pope for the occasion of the anniversary of the Baptism of the Armenian People. John Paul II recalled that the conversion of the Armenian people to Christianity occurred seventeen centuries ago. "It was an event which profoundly marked your identity; not only your personal identity, but that of the community as well. For this reason one can speak of the 'Baptism' of your nation, even if in reality the spreading of Christianity had already begun some time earlier in your land." After a brief narration of the events which, according to tradition, were at the origin of the massive conversion of the Armenian people, the Pope writes: "The preaching of the Good News and the conversion of Armenia are above all founded on the blood of witnesses to the faith. ... The component of martyrdom constitutes an constant element in the history of your people. ... The entire culture and very spirituality of the Armenians are pervaded by the boldness of the supreme sign of the gift of life in martyrdom. ... One such emblem is the sacrifice of Vardan Mamikonian and his companions" who, facing attempts to impose mazdaism (zoroastrianism), "gave their life to remain faithful to Christ and defend the faith of the nation." The Pope emphasized that since then similar events have been repeated, "up through the massacres suffered by the Armenians in the years spanning the 19th and 20th centuries and culminating in the tragic events of 1915, when the Armenian people suffered unspeakable violence, the painful consequences of which are still visible in the diaspora into which many of its sons have been constrained. It is a memory which cannot be lost." Furthermore, the Holy Father recalled, these bloody events have compelled the Armenian people "to continual migrations throughout the world." But, he writes, "the Christian faith, even in the most tragic moments of Armenian history, has been the propulsive spring which has marked the beginning of the rebirth of this tried people." Another element "of great value in your troubled history" is comprised of the "relation between evangelization and culture." From the term "'Illuminator,' as St. Gregory the Apostle of Armenia is named" is derived 'Illumination', a term which indicates that "through Baptism, the disciple ... is inundated by the splendor of Christ 'light of the world'." Such a term also indicates "the spreading of culture through teaching, entrusted in particular to the monk-teachers, who continue the evangelical preaching of St. Gregory." The Pope then points to the "powerful force of faith, which prompts us not to give in to the temptations of power and of the world, and which enables us to resist atrocious sufferings as well as the most seductive flattery." When man distances himself from God, "he loses his own dignity, debasing himself, and thus becoming a prisoner of his own avidity." An important truth in all of this emerges, he says: "An absolute sacredness of power does not exist, and this doesn't mean to say that it is always justified in everything one does. One must, rather, recognize the personal responsibility of one's choices: if they are wrong, they remain such, even if a king makes them." The Holy Father says he wants to express to the Lord "the gratitude of the entire Church for having inspired in the Armenian people a faith which is so firm and courageous and for having always supported them in their witness to it. ... I want to express my thanks to the Armenian people above all for their long history of fidelity to Christ, a fidelity which has known persecution and martyrdom." "The Armenian people's patrimony of faith and culture has enriched mankind with treasures of art and talent, which are now spread throughout the world. ... Ambassadors of peace and industriousness, Armenians have travelled the world and, ... have offered a precious contribution to transforming it and making it closer to the Father's project of love." John Paul II expressed "a special thought to all those who worked so that Armenia could rise from the sufferings of so many years of a totalitarian regime." "I also fervently hope that the faithful will courageously continue their commitment and their already notable efforts so that the Armenia of tomorrow will bloom again in the human and Christian values of justice, solidarity, equality, respect, honesty and hospitality which are at the basis of human coexistence." He underscores how "the already cordial relations between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Catholic Church have had, in recent decades, a decisive thrust through meetings between the Pope and the highest authorities of that Church." In particular he cites the encounter with His Holiness Karekin II to whom he gave the relics of Gregory the Illuminator for the new cathedral in Yerevan. Remarking on tomorrow's liturgy in the Armenian rite in St. Peter's Basilica, "with Armenians and for Armenians ... to praise God for the gift of faith they have received," the Pope writes: "It is my great hope that that sacred thanksgiving will embrace all Armenians, wherever they are."

Atlanta Journal Constitution Symbolic light from saint blesses Armenian church GLOBAL ATLANTA: Every Monday, a look at our changing communities Clint Williams - Staff Monday, February 19, 2001 The blessings of St. Gregory were delivered to members of the Armenian Church of Atlanta Sunday, nestled in the drink holder of a rental car for the 550-mile journey. The symbolic "Light of St. Gregory," was brought to a chapel in Roswell in an effort akin to that which brought the Olympic flame to Atlanta in 1996. St. Gregory, after spending 13 years in a dungeon at the fortress Khor Virab, converted the king of Armenia to Christianity in 301 A.D. The king proclaimed Christianity the state religion, making Armenia the first Christian nation. In celebration of the 1,700th anniversary of that event, the flame that now burns in the pit where St. Gregory was imprisoned was used to light a torch that was flown to America in January. That flame has been used to light candles and lanterns at parishes across the country. To get the light here, the Very Rev. Fr. Simeon Odabashian said he flew from his New York office to Richmond, Va., the closest place to Atlanta where a special flame was burning. With that flame he lit the wick of a candle lantern and a large prayer candle. The lantern rested in a cardboard box; the glass-encased prayer candle fit snugly in a cup holder of the rental car Odabashian drove to a parish in Charlotte and on to Georgia. While the anniversary is a jubilee, "a year of rejoicing unlike any other year," Odabashian said, "it is not enough that it just be a celebration of a historic event." Speaking in Armenian, and then in English, Odabashian told the 80 or so gathered at Epiphany Byzantine Catholic Church, "We must rededicate ourselves so this light never goes out in our hearts." After lighting a long, thin candle at the altar, many parishioners struggled with how to transport the flame home. Anita Karapetian of Marietta fashioned a paper cup as a wind guard on a larger, commemorative candle and lit the wick. "We're going to bless our home just by taking it (the flame) there," said Karapetian, who has lived in the United States for 15 years. About 1,100 Armenians live in metro Atlanta, said Albert Korikian, parish chairman. Odabashian holds services here once a month.

quote:Originally posted by Pilafhead: There's nothing like smoking a cigar while drunk in Las Vegas! Mike, isn't the Paradise described by you missing one very important component?

quote:Originally posted by LISA: I love bacon! I have bacon once a week. Forgive me I have sinned! Is that all? Then you should be a saint...

Dear Ali, Let me start from a disclaimer - I am not a historian, and have never conducted professional research in the areas subject to discussions. However I share a lot of your methodologies in looking at the issues at hand. On the subject of Phrygian and Balkan origin of Armenians, your claim is only partially true, I think. Much like you have described the Turkish origin as a conglomerate of multiple mingling and conversions of identities, which sounds to me pretty reasonable at least from the logical point of view, Armenian nation is also a result of such process. The Balkan origin of Armenians is attributable to only one of the three major tribes, the mutual assimilation of which has resulted in the establishment of Armenian ethnicity. These are the Armens. The other two tribes have been Nairis and Hyases. You might be aware that these are the foreigners who call as Armenians. We call ourselves Hai. In poetic literature we use the term Nairi to describe our lands. There is an opinion that Nairis were associated with the Urartian origin. The Haias tribe is associated with Haik, who we, following a legend by Movses of Khoren, consider to be the Patriarch of our nation. For whatever it is worth, Nairis and the Haiases are considered to be native to the lands subject to discussions. The conventional historiography attributes the beginning of the formation of the Armenian nation to about 2000 BC, and its end to about 700 BC. That’s why I have used an approximate age of 2000 years before the arrival of Seldjuks. However, I am strongly convinced that what we consider to be Armenian ethnos in our days is a result of much more complex and much more diverse mingling and assumptions of biological identities. I don’t believe in “pure” nations, and I think it is impossible to have them in the genetic sense of the word. I thing the only difference is that some nations have finished their formations earlier, and others have finished it later. Some may have mixed more than the others have. Additionally, according to the latest research in the area of genetics – as late as the year 2000, more than 90% of the people share the same DNA code- even those of different races. Also, we have to understand that for Armenians, as well as for many others, these events have taken place so long ago, that it is very hard to trace a simple logic in them. I am pretty indifferent to all these legends. I read them as nice stories, and discount them very significantly. To be open – I don’t even care about them. To me all the politisation of the formation of nations is ridiculously irrelevant. And I think that in the issues subject to interest to us, the ancient history is totally irrelevant. The history, as some of us have claimed multiple times, is a creative science, and is in the hands of the winners. And it is also an instrument of justification of existence for the losers. As I have said, I am pretty indifferent to the part of the ancient history, which supposedly is to define the origins of nations and their genealogy, with a presumption that this or that nation is native to this or that land. Any time I engage in such discussions, my brain switches off, and I start thinking on something more relevant or important. What I think manifests nations and legitimate claims on their behalf is their ability of formation of independent statehoods, i.e. their ability of self-organization. Just the mere fact of existance of a distinct genetic pool, however arguable this distinction may be, in my mind doesn’t manifest a nation. The reason is we, human beings, are not just biological elements. What makes us distinct from other biological elements, like animals, is that we are also social elelments. The disucssions on the genealogy of people remind me discussions of the breed of some lower lavel species. I think this is not a proper form of identification. We become nations through our ability of self-organization through social institutions that we establish, which results in the establishment of a specific cultural identity. The preservation of this cultural identity, and more importantly, its advancement and enhancement requires a framework of protection, which with some exceptions, may be achieved only through a sovereign statehood. This is perhaps why my interests in history are confined to its political dimension, as well as to the history of cultural evolution and philosophical thought. I am aware that many people don’t think this way, or don’t like hearing these kinds of opinions. Most frequently because they have not thought enough on these issues. Outside the academic framework, I find the historical perception or historical absolutisation of nations roles and their importance to be a degrading phenomenon. I am for the “perspective” rather than the “retrospective.” Back to our main subject. I have to tell you that your revelations on the Armenian origins of entire regions of modern day Turkish population are very intriguing. And it is very logical, at least to me, that they may hate Armenians more than some other segments of Turkish population may do. I personally would like to learn more about them. Have you thoroughly researched the subject or is it more on the level of a hypothesis? [ February 19, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Azat, I know that the Armenian identity fades away with time. That's natural. I have always said that the Diaspora, outside Syria, Lebanon, Iran, will disappear in 2-3 generations. Even in those countries it will disappear - only a little slower. I have also suggested that living in communities as we know them, is not the best way of preserving the identity. Sooner or later these communities will lose their identity, too. The only way that I can see the identity being preserved is through a mechanism of rotation, which requires creation of special economic incentives, attracting Armenians to Armenia. This requires strategic approach from the government of Armenia. Additionally, I think that if the preservation of Armenian identity is going to require ghettoized existence, and is going to undermine the abilities of the members of that ghetto to be successful, and the community is going be a reflection of misery, it is not worth to preserve such identity. Our discussion has started from communities, and living in communities. This is what I have denounced. My vision of preservation of Armenian identity is different. I don't think communities, as we know them, are a positive phenomenon. They are reflections of weakness and lack of courage and ambitions. I also don't see Armenians of Diaspora helping Armenia over the long run. If Armenia, over the long run, has to exist due to the help of Diasporan Armenians, why do we need Armenia and Armenian identity preserved. What is the purpose of our existance, after all? In fact, I see it working the opposite way - Armenia helping the Diasporan Armenians by providing them with mechanisms of participation in its economic and other success. I see the preservation of Armenian identity only through Armenia. I don't mean only in Armenia. But I mean through making Armenia the axis of Armenian identity, through participation in its economic growth, and through a strategic migration-rotation throughout centuries. This is a huge topic. [ February 19, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

HISTORY OF PROVOCATIONS By Antero Leitzinger Translation from Finnish by Anssi Kullberg Source: Eurasian Culture Institute - Helsinki (http://www.europenetworks.net) Date: February, 2000 The Western political research has been credulous in relation to ostensibly democratising societies, such as Russia. In reality, a political culture does not change in a moment, and it is not easy to be released from old habits and customs. Russia is still governed by the secret police, although its leader now uses the more democratic titles of prime minister and, since the New Year, acting president. Also among the other presidential candidates, former KGB officials are strongly represented. Does this signal a return to totalitarianism? Russia has governed her people through provocations, pogroms against minorities, and interventions committed against neighbours. All these were adapted to the Chechens since latest the 1860s, when the conquest of Caucasia was "completed". The strategy has been based on the "divide and conquer" method, used already by the ancient Romans, but every now and then it has been completed with direct military aggressions (1939-40, 1994-96, 1999-) and genocides. History of Provocations in Russia The goal of provocations is to infiltrate political oppositions, to stage them as criminals, and to agitate common hysteria. Already the police chief of the French Emperor Napoleon I, Joseph Fouch, learned the practical skills of politics 200 years ago: "A real police chief must always have at least two or three conspiracies in his suitcase." The use of provocations spread in the 1820s to other parts of Europe, too, as an effective weapon against revolutionary movements. The Prussian espionage chief Wilhelm Stieber imported this knowledge to Russia, too, where a special attraction to conspiracy theories has prevailed ever since. (Richard Deacon: "A History of the Russian Secret Service", London 1972, p. 67-68.) "In May 1862 a series of devastating fires broke out in St. Petersburg. Their origin remains obscure, but they were widely attributed to Nihilist students. The Nihilists for their part blamed the fires on police 'provocation' - a word which becomes increasingly common from now onwards to describe acts undertaken or instigated by the police in order to discredit and trap revolutionaries. That the fires were started by the police was maintained on the pages of Herzen's Bell. Whoever did or did not ignite the tinder, the result was a wave of revulsion against the Nihilists, which made it easier for the government to impose repressive measures... against freedom of speech." (Ronald Hingley: "The Russian Secret Police", New York 1990, p. 51-52) The provocations developed into their climax in the late czarist times, when especially the Bolsheviks were subject to the plots of the secret police, Ohrana - yet they also took the lesson of them. "Chekists very quickly learned to keep one step ahead of their quarry by resorting to the tactic of provocation, which indeed became standard Cheka practice, and a most effective one... In this, as in other techniques, the Vecheka modelled itself on the Okhrana, which had penetrated some of the main revolutionary parties - and especially the Bolsheviks - so competently through its agents provocateurs." (George Leggett: "The Cheka - Lenin's Political Police", Oxford 1981, p. 302) Also in Finland, the Investigating Central Police (EK) was in troubles in the 1920s, when the Cheka infiltrated its agents over the border, among refugees, and pretending to be supporters of the czarist rule. In the years 1921-1927 a feigned conspiracy called the "Trust" managed to damage permanently the reputation of the emigrants. (Leggett, p. 297.) The later president of Finland Urho Kekkonen, who was in the service of the EK in these times, planned the use of provocateurs to be the subject of his doctor's thesis. (Matti Simola & Jukka Salovaara: "Turvallisuuspoliisi 75 vuotta 1919-1994", Helsinki 1994, p. 55.) History of Pogroms in Russia Besides political parties, whole groups of people were branded by using provocations. In the 1800s, the most opportune ones for such branding were the Jews. People were commonly led to imagine that the Jews were planning a world revolution, and to prove this claim, the Ohrana falsified a document called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". This provocation is still inspiring anti-Semitic organisations around the world. [it must be remembered that in the 1800s the propaganda against the Jews, albeit it would sound absurd today, was taken seriously by large share of the population, in the same way that the anti-Muslim propaganda has spread today. AKK.] "A more serious by-product...was the outbreak, in spring 1881, of anti-Jewish pogroms, largely in the Ukraine. For these the Imperial authorities, including local police organisations, were partly to blame - if not for directly instigating such outrages, at least for conniving at them. ... Pogroms recurred over several years, but the nation as a whole seemed...relapsing into political apathy..." (Hingley, p. 70.) In Odessa, in October 1905, hundreds of Jews were massacred in a pogrom provoked by the Ohrana. This incident has been studied thoroughly by Robert Weinbert. (Pogroms - anti-Jewish violence in modern Russian history, Cambridge 1902, p. 248-289.) In February of the same year, the same methods were used in Baku, in order to provoke the Muslims and the Armenians against each other. (Isaac Deutscher: Stalin, London 1967, p. 68.) After the World War II, especially the Americans have taken care of that anti-Semitism cannot be fomented as far as into pogroms. When Russia has become economically dependent on the United States support, the Jews as a favourite target of hate-agitating have been replaced with the Caucasians, whom the Russians call contemptuously "the Blacks", and whom they accuse of all kind of criminality. Mysterious Bomb Explosions According to Russian research, the mafia reputation of the Caucasians is heavily exaggerated. In August 1995, the Caucasians were responsible of only 4,4 per cent of Moscow's crimes - in which number the share of the Chechens was only 0,18 per cent. (Moskovskiy Komsomolets, 13th August 1996.) It may express the situation somewhat, that one year earlier the share of persons formally accused of crimes in Moscow was, however, as much as 20,6 per cent. (Argumenty i fakty, 10th August 1995.) At the same time, the investigation, solving, bringing the guilty to the court, and conviction, in crimes committed by ethnic Russians is relatively rare. The Russian literature has produced an image of savage and cruel Chechens already since the 1800s. The image was strengthened when Stalin deported the whole nation from their homeland, falsely claiming them to be loyal to the Germans, although the war had not even reached as far as Chechenia. A new slander campaign began after the fall of the Soviet Union. Then the targets were two prominent Chechens, yet politically totally opposite to each other, who had both in their own ways got the hatred of Boris Yeltsin's regime upon them: Dzoxar Dudayev, who had declared his country independent in autumn 1991, and Ruslan Hasbulatov, who lead a rebellion in Moscow one year later. The reputation of them both could be damaged by fomenting fear and hatred against the Chechens as far as abroad. The bloody invasion and the humiliation of the Russian army, as the Chechen guerrillas liberated their capital in August 1996 - soon after Yeltsin's inauguration - left a desire of revenge to smoulder. Last September, bombs exploded in a shopping centre and in apartment blocks in Moscow. The guilty ones were never found, but very soon everybody "knew" that they would be Chechens. The militia arrested tens of thousands of people, judging by "dark" appearance, and when the arrested proved to be mostly Caucasians, the arrests were used as a new evidence of the "natural" criminal tendencies of Chechens. The Muscovian researcher Andrei Piontkovsky had already in summer 1998 been able to predict, that the next Chechen war would be preceded by explosions in Moscow. (Suomen Kuvalehti 48/ 3rd December 1999, p. 12.) Moskovskaya Pravda had published in July 1999 a secret plan [operation 'Storm in Moscow'], which predicted bombs preceding the Duma election. (Novaya Gazeta, 20th November 1999.) Besides prophets, the Moscow bombs seemed to have imitators. In the city of Ryazan, on 23rd September, three sugar sacks containing hidden explosives and a timer were discovered in an apartment block. At first the FSB [Russian secret service] announced that the incident was undoubtedly connected with the earlier bomb blasts. (Fakty i kommentarii 24th September 1999.) Then it was discovered that the bomb had been installed by agents of the FSB! At the same time it was remarked that in the sacks there was too much sugar that the bomb would have exploded with full volume. (Kommersant, 24th September 1999.) Finally the FSB admitted that it had installed the bomb for practise, in order to test the alertness of the inhabitants. The local authority, however, wondered why there was a bomb at all in the sack, and why nobody had been informed of any kind of practice. (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 25th September and 12th October 1999.) It remained an enigma, if the wave of terror in September ended with the embarrassing "bomb simulation" of Ryazan, or with the war in Chechenia, which Russia was suddenly very excellently prepared to start and to continue. The Russian press gave itself into the power of war fanaticism, and mainly just the foreigners were wondering, what had been actually the motive of the terrorists, and who they were. The only one benefiting of the bomb incidents was the chief of the FSB, the fresh Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, whose popularity as a successor of Yeltsin was suddenly raised from nothing to top results. Through Putin, also the new party that had been founded to back the regime, benefited, and won the Duma election. The traces of the bomb explosions in Moscow were repaired so quickly that any more profound investigations could not be done. But even conspiracy theories are not necessary. Since 1995, there have been over 40 bomb blasts to apartment blocks in Russia, and none of them has been solved. (Der Spiegel 37/1999, p. 197.) If the apparent series of bomb blasts is just a coincidence, the FSB has practised only disinformation instead of provocations. Disinformation in Russia Disinformation is a form of propaganda, in which the KGB in its time succeeded excellently. It means spreading false information, and leading astray the media. At its most skilful, the disinformation is indirect and aims at directing the discussion unnoticed instead of direct lying. For example the information centre founded by Russia (RusInformTsentr) started its tour in Helsinki on 21st October by spreading various papers, whose purpose was to offer suitable subjects for the journalists to write about. One paper was a list of bomb blasts made in the Moscow subway. Yet not a single case of them was even attempted to be connected with Chechens, and the first incident was already from 1970s, when, among others, an Armenian dissident Stepan Zatikyan was executed as a terrorist, although he had an alibi and he lacked a motive. In that time as well Andrei Sakharov as Amnesty International applied for Zatikyan. When the KGB was formally abolished, the case was in publicity as an example of the arbitrary terror of the KGB, but according to the present FSB, the KGB did after all act correctly, and the innocent victims of that judicial murder were proved guilty, "dangerous recidivists". Another paper was a vague and chaotic overview to Islamic extremist movements, but the paper aimed at exposing their heinous plans for the destruction of not only Russia, but also Europe. According to this disinformation, their goals include, among others, a) "to make Islam the second state church in France", and to lobby laws favouring Moslems in the West German parliament". These are quite goals, as there is not even a first state church in France, and a West German parliament has not existed for soon ten years! A third paper was a document of the Russian Ministry for the Federation and Nationalities of the Russian Federation, that, in its history of Chechenia, totally ignores the last war, and jumps directly from the year 1991 to 1997. Meanwhile, the population of Chechenia collapsed "due to the prevailing criminality and emigration". The majority of Chechens is said to "absolutely support the war that will promote the social and spiritual revival of the Chechen people". Finally, a fourth paper attempted to connect Islamism, terrorism, and Chechenia with each other. It referred of course to Osama bin Laden, who has been sighted, alone during the past year, when in Kosovo, when as far as in Cambodia. Apparently the goal is to make the Western public believe that bin Laden is making travels from Afghanistan all around the world to blow up bombs for the destruction of the French state church and West Germany, and that the Russian army is having in Chechenia a crusade for the European civilisation! Naturally the disinformation campaign of Russia is neglecting all questions about the relationship of the KGB with the terrorism in 1970s, and radical Islamism of 1980s. It mentions nothing about the support that the representatives of Iraq and Iran declare for the Russian war campaign in Chechenia, and neither anything about the warm relations of Russia and Turkmenistan with the Taliban. It does not tell, why Osama bin Laden is known of his attacks against American, not Russian, targets. For the support of their disinformation campaign, the Russians have presented violence videos, which are claimed to present the cruelty of Chechen kidnappers against their hostages. It remains totally unclear, where and when the videos have been recorded, by whom, and for which possible purpose. Why would Chechens have wanted to frighten representatives of international help organisations and foreign reporters out of their territory after the last war? Why the base of the groups running the hostage taking business was the city of Urus Martan, where the inhabitants are known to have been relatively loyal to Russia? Why Yeltsin released the Urus-Martanian politician Bislan Gantamirov from a prison in November; Gantamirov, who was convicted in Moscow for embezzlement, and who right so promised to serve Russia - after having rebelled against Dudayev already over five years ago? It may be that the FSB is only guilty to mere disinformation, exploiting suitable "evidence" or misunderstandings. However, it is equally possible that the FSB, like its predecessor the KGB, has also created "evidence" whenever needed. Then the activity is again provocation, where some human lives are sacrificed for advocating a greater purpose - isolation of the Chechens, and victory of Russia. Would that be too shocking to be credible? At all events, the September bomb blasts of Moscow, and the video tapes on Chechen cruelties that have been produced during the few years, fulfilled their purpose like a most successful provocation. Nobody has asked how safe is life in the loyal Dagestan, or elsewhere in the Caucasus, although some released hostages did remark that their kidnappers were not at all (solely) Chechens. Is the Truth more Miraculous than Tales? A Russian general informed that also a body of a Finnish "mercenary" was found in the battlefields. When the claim was investigated, it was rejected. What may be the case with the almost legendary Baltic female ski sniper battalion, who, according to the same sources of information, is making its adventures among the foreign "mercenaries" of the Caucasus? However, the soldiers of the Russian army cannot be called mercenaries, as they are not paid their salary? The bad tangle of lies has all over again got such scales that the Western public has it difficult to believe what it sees and what it hears the representatives of Russia to claim. The army is not going to attack Chechenia - and it attacks. The army is not going to seize the city of Dzoxar (former Grozny) - and yet it rushes directly into ambuscade. Hundreds of corpses are lying on the ground, but nobody was killed. There are no refugees - there are just people displaced from one place in Russia to another. Chechenia is a part of Russia, and the Chechens are equal citizens of Russia, but still they can be closed into "filtration camps", and they can be bombed. It is difficult for the Western reporters, researchers, and politicians to believe the "conspiracy theories", if they hint that the FSB is capable of even some of what its predecessor the KGB was capable of, by the very same officials. In spite of that, Russia seems to believe that all the rest of the world is in conspiracy against Russia, and that the international news agencies are working for this Jewish-bourgeois-Islamist conspiracy, when they suspect the official information given by Russia. Unfortunately history teaches that in Russia, things are often exactly as bad as they are feared to be. This is not only due to Russians, and due to the lack of democratic traditions, but due to the same problem that was faced in Western attitudes at Germany in the 1930s. The outside world did not believe - and neither did the Germans themselves at that time - before it was too late for millions of people. *** "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" A lesson on disinformation is offered by Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 17th December 1999 in an article that tells the history of the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". It is not a long way from the sensation of the last century shift to the challenges of the present media environment. The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was based on a writing of a Frenchman called Maurice Joly from 1864. Joly attacked against Emperor Napoleon III, but in the Russian version "Napoleon" has been replaced with "the Jews". Who had a Russian version made of the book, and why? Can it be proved that Joly did not, in the contrary, change some genuine, common, original source? A St. Petersburgian researcher Mikhail Lepekhin has investigated the issue in the Russian archives, and he published the results in November 1999: In 1899 the ultra-reactionary Ivan Goremykin, who had been fired from the post of minister of internal affairs, decided together with the co-ordinator of foreign espionage, Pyotr Rachkovsky, to persuade Czar Nicholas II to their own stand by writing a "document" that would show that industrialisation of the country, privatisation of state monopolies, use of foreign capital loan, releasing the censorship, and education of the people were a "conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons". Rachkovsky gave the task to his agent Matvei Golovinsky, stationed in Paris, as he had experience of literary falsifications. This was how the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were born - at first as one copy, which the confessor priest of the Czar was meant to bring to the Czar's consciousness personally. The Czar family was well-known of their prejudice, suspiciousness and being fond of mysticism. The plan, however, failed, as suddenly a wrong man was appointed to the confessor priest, and not the theologist publisher Sergei Nilus. Now the idea had to be spread into a larger publicity, and so Nilus published the "protocols" as an appendix of his own book's second edition in 1905. The book itself did not raise any larger attention, but its appendix became a bestseller that finally found its way to the library of the Czar family, too. It continued its own life long after both Nilus (in 1912) and the Czar family (in 1918) had died. Golovinsky became after the revolution a passionate communist, but he died already in 1920. Alfred Rosenberg had the text translated into German, and the car industrialist Henry Ford into English. After this, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were serving the goals of the German national socialists and other anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists. *** A Hidden Hand of Provocation The British newspaper The Independent has published an article, according to which the Russian military intelligence, the GRU, together with the FSB, organised the September bomb blasts. This claim is not a new one, and there have not yet been certain evidence for it. According to the article, in the video recorded by a Turkish reporter, also other GRU officers are mentioned by name, but apparently the newspaper did not want to publish them yet. The incapability of the Russian authorities to prove any of their own accusation has fomented suspicions of the possibility of a provocation. It is believed by, among others, the Duma Representative Konstantin Borovoi, who has told that he has got same kind of information from the GRU. (Monitor, 11th January 2000.) The credibility of the Russian authorities was hardly improved by Colonel Yakov Firsov's objection, either: "The Russian military is protecting the people. It is impossible that they would attack against their own people." (The Independent, 6th January 2000.) At the same time Russia rejected the Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov's offer for a cease-fire, during which foreign experts could have investigated, who had used chemical weapons. The last president of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, admits in an interview, that any clarity of who did the bomb blasts was never got. He, however, finds it enough that some Chechens invaded Dagestan in August. (Der Spiegel 2/ 10th Jan. 2000.) In fact also this has been lately questioned and debated ever more often. Helen Womack, reporter of the British newspaper, tells about a meeting of Putin's election team, where Grigory Amnouel boasted that it was Moscow's disinformation that had cheated Shamil Basayev to invade Dagestan in false beliefs: "They were made think that it would be easy, but it was a trap." (The Independent, 9th Jan. 2000.) *** The Regime that Bombs its Own Civilians American journalists have waken up to study the theory, according to which the September bomb blasts were a provocation by the FSB. The New York Times columnist William Safire wrote about the "bomb simulation" of Ryazan on 17th January, after Maura Reynolds had published a detailed study of the case in Los Angeles Times on 15th January: Saturday, January 15, 2000 Los Angeles Times Fears of Bombing Turn to Doubts for Some in Russia Terrorism: Told of attempt to blow up their apartments, residents fled. Now they're wary of their own government. By MAURA REYNOLDS, Times Staff Writer RYAZAN, Russia -On a chilly night last September, bus driver Alexei Kartofelnikov saw a suspicious car parked outside the 13-story apartment building where he lives in this working-class city. He called the police, who discovered three sacks of powder and a timing device in the basement. The sacks tested positive for explosives. The building's residents were evacuated and, haunted by the knowledge that 300 sleeping Russians had been killed in recent weeks in a wave of early-morning apartment bombings, spent the night dozing fitfully in a nearby movie theatre. Late the next day, security officials in Moscow, about 100 miles away, announced that it had all been a civil defence drill. The sacks, they said, contained nothing but sugar. Since then, Kartofelnikov and the other residents have kept asking themselves: Was it really just an exercise to test their vigilance? Or were they nearly the next victims of the bombers-whoever they might be? The government has yet to find the bombers. Security officials insist the culprits are linked to fighters in the separatist republic of Chechnya but have produced no conclusive evidence. For the most part, Russians buy the explanation: They have little love for the rebellious Chechens and believe that their new war against them is just payback to the "terrorists." But some Russians fear that the truth is darker, and the 250 residents of Kartofelnikov's building are among them. At a minimum, they believe that the government is covering up something. At a maximum, they fear that the government might itself have played a role in the bombings. Kartofelnikov, 47, considers himself a sensible man. He is not prone to suspicions or conspiracy theories. He tends to give people the benefit of the doubt. But at this point, he has too much doubt. "Somebody tried to blow us up," he says. "I have no doubt about that. But as for who did it, or why -I don't know what to think." But he does know what came next. The government, citing the attacks, went to war against Chechnya. "The government started bombing Chechnya the next day," Kartofelnikov says quietly. "I know Chechens. I served with them in the army. They are good people. How can one suspect them of such a thing? How can one suspect it of anybody?" Ivan Kirilin, a scrappy 67-year-old who talks through a cigarette, also has his suspicions. "Who should I believe-what the government says or what was in the basement?" he says. "I don't think the Chechens would blow up a residential house. You have to ask -who is responsible for the war? Who needed the war? The government, of course." Government Moves to Quell Questions Questions of government complicity in the bombing campaign are persistent enough that the Kremlin has taken steps to quash them. Just this week, the government's war press centre released a video purporting to show a bomb-making factory in the Chechen town of Urus-Martan that security officials say manufactured the bombs. The video showed sacks of chemicals that government investigators identified as ammonium nitrate, which they said was used in the Moscow bombs. The investigators also said they found instruction booklets from Casio watches that were used as the bombs' timing devices. The government explanations have a polemic tone-lots of generalisation, few specifics. And they beg the question: Even if the Moscow bombs were made in Urus-Martan, who ordered them in the first place? In Ryazan, the government's assertions have made little headway against residents' suspicions. There are too many details that don't fit. And there's the undeniable fact that the bombings led to the war, and the war fed the rise of Vladimir V. Putin. Putin was head of the KGB's main successor agency, the FSB, until just a few weeks before the bombings. He is now prime minister and acting president, and nothing appears to stand in the way of his becoming president in an election in March. "The authorities are trying hard to hush it up and hide everything," says Tatiana Borycheva, 45. "I don't believe the Chechens were behind it. I think it's a big political game. People are fighting for power, and our lives are not worth a kopeck in their game. I think somebody wanted to set up the Chechens to start the war and grab power." Nearly four months after the bomb scare, residents keep reviewing the sequence of events, seeking some kind of answers to their questions. Kartofelnikov was returning home about 9:10 p.m. when he noticed an ordinary Russian Zhiguli automobile parked next to his building's entrance. The car had an unusual license plate number, however -as a professional driver, Kartofelnikov tends to notice such things. And when he got closer, he realized it was more than unusual- the last two numbers, which in Russia indicate the city in which the car is registered, had been pasted over with a hand-drawn piece of paper. The glued-on number was 62, for Ryazan. Underneath, he could see the real number- -77, for Moscow. At the time, the country was in near-hysteria over the bombing campaign, in which five bombs had wreaked havoc in three cities. Authorities had urged citizens to report suspicious activities near their homes. So Kartofelnikov called the police. A few minutes later, so did Vladimir Vassiliev, a 53-year-old radio engineer, who not only saw the Zhiguli and the pasted-on license numbers but got a look at the people inside before it pulled away. There were two men and a woman, he says. They looked not like Chechens, who tend to be darker-skinned, but like Russians. Still, Vassiliev wasn't taking any chances. After all, the building had many of the same characteristics as the apartment houses in Moscow. It was tall, with a single entrance, a store on the first floor, little security and open access to the basement. By 9:20, the police were on their way. The car was gone by the time they arrived. They went straight to the basement and found the sacks of white powder and the timing device. The bomb squad did a quick test and detected explosive vapours. "Our preliminary tests showed the presence of explosives," says Lt. Col. Sergei Kabashov, chief of the local police precinct. "We weren't told it was a test. As far as we were concerned, the danger was real." The local branch of the FSB was also in the dark. "We were not informed about the exercise in advance, and that's why we acted in full and by the book," says Yury V. Bludov, spokesman for the security agency's Ryazan regional office. The building was evacuated, with the exception of five invalids who could not be moved. Investigators from the police, the FSB and the federal Emergencies Ministry combed the building for more explosives. The residents were permitted to return to their apartments at 7 a.m. The timing device on the sacks had reportedly been set for 5:30 a.m.-the same time that the Moscow bombs had gone off. Telltale Traces of Powder Disappear Vassiliev, the radio engineer, watched the police load the sacks into the back of a police car. He says that they looked like ordinary 100-pound bags of sugar and that some of the white powder fell on the ground. But when a resident who works in a chemical lab went to take a sample the next day, the spill had been cleaned up. It was late the next day, during the evening news, that FSB chief Nikolai P. Patrushev announced that the bomb scare had been just a drill. Nearly 24 hours had passed. "Of course no investigation is going on now in relation to this case. It was just an exercise," says Bludov, the FSB spokesman in Ryazan. Without an investigation to probe further, residents will keep asking themselves the same questions: a) If it really was a test, why did the authorities wait nearly 24 hours to say so? Who was being tested? The residents? The local police? The local FSB? c) Why haven't there been reports of tests in other cities? And then there are larger questions concerning the overall bombing campaign: a) Why would Chechen terrorists kill defenceless civilians in anonymous apartment buildings instead of choosing public targets like train stations or government buildings? Why has there been no credible claim of responsibility? Chechen authorities have denied any involvement by the separatists. c) Why were the remains of the Moscow buildings razed so quickly? In the days after the Ryazan incident, the local FSB chief came to speak to the apartment building's residents. He apologised but told them that filing a suit for damages would probably lead nowhere. So the residents asked for- and got -a new entranceway of heavy white brick, with an intercom security system. And they haven't filed a suit or a formal complaint. "The general opinion is that we'd better not challenge them or they will really blow us up next time," says Tatiana Lukichyova, 51. Vassiliev would like to forget the whole thing: He can't believe that it was just an exercise, but he doesn't like the line of thought that follows. "We have been manipulated. But by whom, and for what purpose, I can't say," he says. "I'm afraid we'll never know what really happened." - - - - - - - - - - - - Author: Antero Leitzinger, historian, researcher of the Finnish Bureau of Immigration, author of several books concerning the Caucasus, Middle East and the former Soviet Union http://www.amina.com/article/history_provoc.html

Who was Paul Chater? Sir Paul Catchick Chater was descended from a line of Armenian Christians in Calcutta with several generations of experience in the oriental trade. Arriving in Hong Kong in 1864, aged eighteen, he at first worked for the Bank of Hindostan, China and Japan. This early exposure to finance stood him in good stead, for very short]y he was running his own bill and bullion business. http://clarke.to/masonic/Image11.gif From broking it was a short step to property investment. What came to him then was nothing short of brilliant: waterfront reclamation was the only answer to Hong Kong’s land shortage and congestion. Filled with an unshakeable sense of purpose, he made a trip to London to lobby for help for his cause. Six days before permission for his praya [waterfront] reclamation scheme was granted, he formed a partnership with James Johnstone Keswick, the Taipan of Jardine Mathseon, to launch the Hongkong Land Investment and Agency Company, which was to profit enormously from the new reclamation. In time Hongkong Land, as the company is generally called, became the biggest landlord in the prime business district of Central. Much fanfare surrounded the laying of the foundation stone of the reclamation in 1889. The new waterfront road - Connaught Road - was named after the Duke of Connaught, one of Queen Victoria’s sons, who laid the stone. The old praya - Des Voeux Road - was named after the then Governor, Sir William Des Voeux. Sir Paul Chater was awarded his own road - Chater Road - in between them. Sir Paul Chater became a pillar of the Hong Kong community. He built himself a mansion, Marble Hall, above Conduit Road in Mid-Levels. He was a Justice of the Peace and Legislative Councillor, and he lavished his money on good works. His grave in Happy Valley cemetery is maintained through a bequest to St. John’s Anglican Cathedral, one of the churches he patronised. Sir Paul Chater was a dedicated Freemason. He was the District Grand Master of the District Grand Lodge of Hong Kong and South China from 1881 to 1909. On his retirement, the Craft established the Chater Masonic Scholarship Fund Trust as a memorial to his leadership. This charity still exists today and provides scholarships not only for the children of freemasons, but also for other children in Hong Kong. [ February 18, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Everybody can disable that feature for himself/herself from his/her profile page.

A Not-So-Grand Strategy: United States Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia since 1991 Politique étrangère, February 2001 Fiona Hill, Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies Reprinted with permission of Politique étrangère -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article, "Une stratégie incertaine: la politique des Etats-Unis dans le Caucase et en Asie centrale depuis 1991" was published in French in Politique étrangère, Review of the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI), Paris. United States policy toward the Caucasus and Central Asia over the last ten years has been marked by a distinct lack of direction. The U.S. stumbled into the region with only the vaguest idea of its geography, history, or political complexities. It has since failed to transform improvised responses to regional challenges into a coherent strategy. Bureaucratic wrangling over jurisdictions and attempts by domestic interest groups to push their own regional agendas have further undermined the rationality and unity of policy. Competing policy priorities, in turn, have served to confuse regional states. Instead of acting as an integrating or unifying force, U.S. policy has ultimately served to divide—although not to rule. The states of the Caucasus and Central Asia have become objects of policy rather than allies or partners. As a result, anti-American sentiment and disenchantment have replaced what was an enthusiastic embrace of relations with the United States only a few years previously. In looking forward to a new Administration, the U.S. government must finally decide what it wants to do in the Caspian region and set clear strategic priorities. No Vital National Interest The United States has no discernable vital national interest in either the Caucasus or Central Asia. It had no history of significant engagement with these regions before the 1990s and the regions were entirely inconsequential in U.S. bilateral relationships with the neighboring powers of the USSR, Turkey, Iran, and China both before and during the Cold War. Had it not been for the re-discovery of the energy resources of the Caspian Sea, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the regions would have likely remained a marginal backwater for crafters of U.S. foreign policy. As a consequence of this historical disinterest and inexperience in the regions, the U.S. made two fundamental mistakes from the very beginning of its active engagement in the early 1990s. The first was to view the Caucasus and Central Asia as one extended unit despite sharp differentiations in the historical experiences and political-cultural formations of the individual Caucasus and Central Asian states. The second was to fail to recognize the historical vested interests of the neighboring powers in the regions. Although they remain peripheral to China's interests, the Caucasus and Central Asia are a strategic border zone not a marginal backwater for Russia, Turkey, and Iran. The regions secured places on the geopolitical agendas of these three states long before large-scale energy exploitation in the Caspian Sea. These complexities are now apparent to U.S. policymakers, but only after a decade of interactions. The United States first official foray into the Caucasus and Central Asia came in 1991, as the Bush Administration grappled with the unexpected dissolution of the USSR and diplomatic recognition of the 15 new independent states (NIS) that emerged. But it was not until major oil contracts were signed between U.S. oil companies and the governments of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan in 1993-1994 that the region really began to register on the radar screens of the American public. The commercial interests of U.S. oil companies in exploiting new energy reserves gave U.S. policymakers a specific interest to protect in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The U.S. has come to see Caspian resources as one of the few prospects for diversifying world energy supply away from the Middle East. Setting Parameters for U.S. Policy The first U.S. policy parameters in the Caucasus and Central Asia were set before oil emerged as a specific strategic concern. In the absence of a vital interest, these parameters were less than clear. Although formal U.S. recognition was granted quickly to Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan (along with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine) in January 1992, the establishment of diplomatic ties with Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan took until February. Diplomatic relations with Georgia were further delayed until March 1992 in response to its civil war. These delays created the impression of a two-, if not three-tier, hierarchy of states in U.S. policy. This impression was reinforced later in the year, between April and October 1992, as the U.S. Congress debated the Freedom Support Act. This legislation was intended to provide for a wide range of U.S. bilateral assistance and economic cooperation activities with the NIS to help the states transform themselves into democracies and open markets. The consistency of the Act was immediately undermined by an amendment (Section 907) that precluded assistance to the government of Azerbaijan. The amendment was pushed through Congress by the representatives and supporters of the U.S. Armenian diaspora in response to Azerbaijan's blockade of Armenia during their territorial conflict over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Artsax. Although Section 907 was a congressional act, rather than an explicit initiative of the U.S. executive branch, it put Azerbaijan in a different category from all its neighbors in its relations with the U.S. This division was underscored by the fact that there was no similar response from Congress to the subsequent occupation of one fifth of Azerbaijan's territory by Armenian forces from Nagorno-Artsax in 1993. The occupation has persisted, and although Azerbaijan became central to U.S. oil interests in 1994, attempts by the U.S. government to rescind the legislation have failed. The Evolution of Clinton Administration Policy These inconsistencies in the U.S. approach to the NIS, and the tepid response of the Bush Administration to the independence of the Caucasus and Central Asian states set the tone for the Clinton Administration. Although the new U.S. government recognized the importance of formulating a coherent policy toward all the states of the former USSR, and underscored this with the appointment of Clinton confidant Strobe Talbott to the position of Ambassador-at-Large to the NIS in March 1993, the Caucasus and Central Asia were still viewed as second or third tier states. For the first four years of the Clinton Administration, Russia was the center of U.S. policy in the NIS and U.S. observers were skeptical of the viability of the other states. Policy initiatives in the NIS were all adjuncts to the Russia-first policy and to a strategic priority to dismantle the Soviet military machine and nuclear arsenal and confine it within Russia. The withdrawal of former Soviet troops from the Baltic States was secured in August 1994, and the removal of nuclear weapons from Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan was completed by 1996. With the exception of some initiatives related to conflict resolution, the Caucasus and Central Asia were largely incidental to United States policy until relations with Russia began to sour with the failure of its Western-inspired political and macro-economic transformation, and until the course of energy development in the Caspian began to conflict directly with U.S. policy toward Iran. In the meantime, between 1992-1996, responsibility for each NIS state and for various issues was parceled out to different U.S. government departments and sub-departments. The promotion of initiatives related to the democratic development of the NIS, for example, was split among the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department. In the Pentagon, Central Asia was assigned to the purview of the U.S. Central Command, while the Caucasus states fell to the U.S. European Command. In the absence of strong direction from the center on policy priorities, U.S. departments pursued their own narrow institutional policies. In 1995, for example, the Department of Commerce created its own ombudsman for energy and commercial cooperation with the NIS to promote the activities of U.S. companies in the Caspian. In this state of institutional confusion, a unified policy was rendered virtually impossible by conflicts over jurisdictions. A senior interagency group on the Caspian under the chairmanship of the National Security Council (NSC) had to be established to coordinate the various policies of the Treasury, State, Commerce, and Energy Departments, along with the Pentagon, Central Intelligence Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. public sector financing agencies, and the Office of the Vice President. Within this group there were additional interagency working groups on foreign policy, commercial policy, and financial issues, and an entirely separate set of groups in the individual departments. As the agency closest to the U.S. President, however, the NSC played the dominant role in addressing the security implications raised by U.S. involvement in the exploitation of Caspian oil. Here, worsening U.S. relations with Iran as a result of its sponsorship of international terrorism and pursuit of a nuclear weapons program were a major factor in shaping policy decisions in the Caspian. In 1995, the U.S. Congress demanded that the government take firmer action against Iran. By August 1996, with the passage of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) imposing penalties on major international investors in Iran's oil and gas industry, the U.S. had moved firmly toward a policy of isolating Iran in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere--including the Caspian. As a result, between 1995-1996, NSC analysts were the architects of a U.S. policy to construct multiple pipelines for the export of Caspian oil that would link the Caucasus and Central Asia to global markets while minimizing links to Iran. These pipelines would also serve to increase export options for regional governments by breaking Russia's monopoly on existing pipeline routes. In October 1995, the U.S. successfully lobbied for early Caspian oil to be transported from Baku in Azerbaijan to Georgia's Black Sea port of Supsa in addition to Russia's port of Novorossiisk. A decision was also made to push for the construction of a major export pipeline from Baku to Turkey's Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, in addition to a pipeline from Kazakhstan to Novorossiisk. The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline was explicitly intended to reward Turkey for its support of the U.S. in the 1991 Gulf War and willingness to forego transit revenues from Iraqi oil. The NSC, not the Department of Commerce or U.S. oil companies, set these priorities for pipeline construction. Pipelines became a U.S. strategic tool rather than an aid to regional business. A Strategy is Declared All of these policy decisions were ad hoc responses to increasing U.S. engagement in Caspian oil development. They were not part of a grander strategy for the Caucasus and Central Asian states based on a consideration of their internal dynamics. A more specific policy for the states themselves only emerged during the second Clinton Administration when it became apparent that Caspian energy resources could not be successfully developed without stabilizing and strengthening the Caucasus and Central Asian states. In 1996-1997, in a series of speeches by Strobe Talbott and others, the Administration defined four general objectives for the Caucasus and Central Asia that combined strengthening political and economic reform and mitigating regional conflicts, with bolstering energy security and enhancing commercial opportunities for U.S. companies. This coincided with the U.S. co-chairmanship, along with Russia and France, of the Organization for Security and Cooperation's "Minsk Group," whose objective was to negotiate peace in Nagorno-Artsax. A Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Artsax and Regional Conflicts in the NIS was appointed and Strobe Talbott declared that conflict resolution should be "Job One" for U.S. policy in the region. In spite of the espousal of a specific strategy in 1997, U.S. policy toward the Caucasus and Central Asia remained hostage to other foreign policy priorities, particularly the bilateral relationships with Iran and Russia. These priorities continued to focus U.S. policy in the Caspian on the narrow goal of creating an East-West transportation corridor that would reduce energy flows and regional trade and communications along the North-South axis between Iran and Russia. Indeed, at this particular juncture, the U.S. had reason to be concerned about activity along this axis. Given its location on the Caspian, its highly-developed energy sector, and its existing domestic network of pipelines, Iran offers the cheapest, most secure export route for Caspian oil. In 1998, a number of international oil companies explicitly challenged U.S. sanctions policy against Iran. The U.S. oil company, Mobil, for example, placed newspaper advertisements requesting that ILSA restrictions be eased so that the company could conduct oil swaps with Iran in the Caspian. Russian energy companies were particularly active in pursuing projects with Iran. In addition, the Russian government was concerned about the threat posed by U.S. pipeline projects to its formerly dominant role as the transit route for Caspian energy flows. Between 1995-1998, Russia applied considerable pressure on Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan to export oil and gas through its pipeline network rather than pursuing U.S.-backed export options. In the same period, Russia also began to move against the unipolar international security system established by the U.S. after the Cold War, reviving old alliances with powers inimical to U.S. interests. In response, in 1998, the U.S. declared its intention to promote the development of an additional pipeline across the Caspian Sea that would link Central Asian energy resources into the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, further diverting energy exports away from Russia and Iran. The Trans-Caspian and Baku-Ceyhan pipelines became the cornerstones of U.S. regional policy. Recognizing the diffusion of authority for Caspian affairs among a plethora of competing agencies, the Clinton Administration also created a new ambassadorial position in the State Department of Special Advisor to the President and the Secretary of State for Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy. The expressed intention was to assure maximum coordination within the executive branch of U.S. policy and programs relating to Caspian oil and gas resources. The creation of the Caspian energy coordinator in the State Department, rather than in Commerce or Energy, underlined the fact that by 1998 the geopolitics of energy development had become more important for the U.S. than other commercial considerations. The U.S. emphasis on geopolitics and on oil and gas resources in turn fed popular perceptions of a zero-sum game in Caspian energy development with the U.S. pitted against both Russia and Iran. Prior to 1998, Russia and Iran had tried to block the exploitation of Caspian resources by the other littoral states and international companies by demanding a new determination of the status of the Caspian Sea after the collapse of the USSR. In 1999, Russia and Iran went a step further, signing a cooperation memorandum on energy that could easily be extended to cover strategic issues; and in 2000, Russia appointed not one but two high-level officials with special responsibility for the Caspian. Complicating Regional Relationships U.S. efforts to exclude Iran and reduce Russia's role in Caspian oil development have distorted an already complex set of inter-state relationships in the region. While the U.S. has the luxury of distance and can only claim an Armenian diaspora, the ethnic borders of all the regional states are blurred, making it imprudent to ignore or antagonize neighbors. Kazakhstan, for example, has a large ethnic Russian population and its own Kazakh diaspora in China, and Russia and Armenia have close historic, political, economic, and military ties. Iran has an Armenian diaspora and a huge Azeri diaspora. Inter-state politics reflect all of these realities. Kazakhstan, for example, has pursued close relations with China and Russia, while Armenia has forged close ties with the U.S., Russia, and Iran. Azerbaijan has played a balancing act with the U.S., Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Inter-ethnic conflicts in Nagorno-Artsax, Abkhazia, Chechnya, and Central Asia's Ferghana Valley underscore the fragility of regional relations. U.S. domestic politics have further distorted regional geopolitics. Although there have been modifications to the prohibitions of Section 907 to permit assistance to Azerbaijan, the Clinton Administration has been hamstrung in attempting to act as an honest broker in the resolution of the Nagorno-Artsax conflict. Since the conclusion of a cease-fire in Nagorno-Artsax in 1994, and with the increasing involvement of U.S. oil companies in operations in Azerbaijan, the frontline of Nagorno-Artsax has in effect shifted from the Caucasus to Washington DC. Here the representatives of the Armenian diaspora and their supporters in Congress are pitted against the Azerbaijan oil lobby, which controls petro-dollars rather than constituent votes. Instead of acting as a disinterested mediator in the conflict, the U.S. has become a player with its own set of interests. In contrast, U.S. policy in Central Asia has not been hamstrung by domestic agendas but has instead been dominated by security issues, primarily the focus on dismantling and removing the Soviet nuclear arsenal from Kazakhstan. Because of increased congressional funding to the security agenda, the U.S. military has taken the lead with the U.S. Central Command spearheading joint exercises, language instruction, and training programs for Central Asian forces in peacekeeping and counter-terrorism. Because Central Asia is grouped with the Middle East, Iran, the Persian Gulf states, Pakistan and Afghanistan in the Central Command, policy toward the region has focused on meeting the challenges of porous borders that offer access to Russia and Europe for terrorists and drug traffickers emanating from Afghanistan. Fears of these incursions have tempered attempts to implement other U.S. initiatives such as democracy-building under the direction of the State Department. Flawed elections and human rights abuses have been met by lukewarm reprimands from top U.S. officials rather than meaningful penalties on regional governments. In 2000, civil society development programs for Central Asia were also cut by 30% in favor of an increased budget allocation to U.S. defense initiatives. As a result of simultaneously pushing and yet compromising on the democratic principles because of the security agenda, the U.S. has earned the resentment of regional leaders. During a visit by Madeleine Albright to Central Asia in April 2000, Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev publicly rebuked the U.S. Secretary of State for lecturing the government on its conduct of domestic politics. Policy Failures On the ground, the U.S. focus on Caspian oil politics and pipelines, and the Central Asia security agenda has been to the detriment of overall political and economic development. Oil company agreements and top-level U.S. government contacts with state governments have entrenched aging regional leaders and helped to transform governments into corrupt oligarchies that have enriched themselves with wealth generated through control of energy resources and suppressed opposition. In lieu of a large-scale economic assistance program for the region, the pipelines linking Central Asia to the Caucasus and Turkey were intended to provide the catalyst and framework for regional economic integration and development. However, the U.S. government decision to make the construction of these lines a geopolitical imperative has had the effect of removing the commercial underpinnings of the projects. In 1999, the Clinton Administration set a series of deadlines for completing the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline by 2004, in spite of the fact that the ultimate oil volumes in the Caspian are still uncertain and 2004 is the earliest possible date at which full production levels could be reached. In 2000-2001, international oil companies and regional governments must now secure financing for the pipelines in a period when long-term high oil prices are not guaranteed, regional conflicts persist, and Caucasus and Central Asian states face potentially violent changes of executive power as elderly leaders die. The U.S. government has made it clear that it will not subsidize construction beyond offering public sector loans and insurance. Other infrastructure development projects in the region have also failed to move ahead because of a lack of private and public sector financing. A Seriously Flawed Policy Ultimately, American engagement in the Caucasus and Central Asia has been seriously flawed. Since the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the U.S. has been long on rhetoric and short on capacity for reasoned, concerted action. Articles in the U.S. press on Caspian oil discoveries fostered false confidence in the regional states in the extent of U.S. interest in their development and in American willingness to ensure the region's security against hostile neighbors. This misplaced confidence prompted policy steps by regional states—including explicit official discussions in Azerbaijan and Georgia about seeking NATO membership—that merited the ire of Russia, or Iran, or both. In isolating Iran and diminishing Russia's role in Caspian energy development, the U.S. has skewed regional integration by seizing on pipeline projects that precluded infrastructure development to the South and North as well as the East and West. In excluding Azerbaijan from U.S. government programs, it also prevented itself from promoting cooperative projects between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Current attempts at regional integration reflect the exclusionary approach of the United States. The Caucasus and Central Asia states have become involved in competing arrangements for political, economic, and military cooperation. The most pointed of these arrangements is the GUUAM organization of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova that excludes Armenia. Where To Go from Here? With the end of the Clinton Administration, a new U.S. administration in January 2001 will have to deal with an increasingly complex situation. However, ten years after its first forays into the Caspian Basin, the U.S. has gained a better understanding of the larger dynamics and geopolitical significance of the region. In the last two years of the Clinton Administration, regional task forces were created and numerous high-level U.S. delegations visited the region. A new approach to policy can build on this experience. The first task is to set clear priorities for U.S. policy and to streamline decision-making. This would involve removing the legislative barriers to regional integration, such as Section 907, and delinking security issues from energy development to enable commercial and infrastructure projects to move ahead at their own pace. A change in the United States Iran policy, however, would have the most profound impact on regional development and integration. Shifting U.S. attitudes toward Iran and the emergence of a cautious rapprochement suggest a complete volte-face at some juncture that will negate the current policy of sanctions and isolation. Regional governments and oil companies are watching this closely—although the results would not be in everyone's favor. The reopening of Iran to U.S. commerce might increase Caspian export options, but it might also divert energy investment dollars from the Caspian to the more profitable Persian Gulf. In the absence of major policy changes, the U.S. needs to recognize its limitations and join forces with its allies to create a coherent broad-based development policy for the regional states. While Europe is also not a unified actor in foreign policy, collective European interests overlap with those of the United States in the region. Europe has been consistent in its approach to assistance through the European Commission and has not been constrained by domestic lobbies or policy toward Iran. The Commission has engaged in concrete projects outside the oil sector—particularly in infrastructure initiatives under the umbrella of its Transport Corridor Europe-Caucasus-Asia (TRACECA) program. The U.S. would be well-served in joining these endeavors and in targeting U.S. aid to the non-oil sector at the grassroots level beyond the reach of corrupt elites. In the meantime, the U.S. has squandered a decade of opportunity. Paraphrasing former Russian Prime Minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin's comment about attempts at Russian reform—"[the region] hoped for the best [from the U.S.], but it turned out as usual." Perhaps the most salient lesson for regional states from the past ten years of U.S. inconsistency is that they should allow their own interests to guide them rather than look to Great Powers for support. As one prominent Kazakh official remarked to me in August 1998 during a discussion of the U.S. role in Central Asia: "We don't want to replace one demagogue [Russia] with another [the U.S.]." Similarly, President Nazarbayev's criticisms of Madeleine Albright in April 2000 were a warning to the United States. In the future, the U.S. is likely to see itself played off against Russia, Iran, and others as regional governments make their own calculations based on the larger geopolitical dynamic, not on the economic, political, and security priorities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 2001 Politique étrangère Note: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and should not be attributed to the staff, officers or trustees of the Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.org/views/articles/fh...01politique.htm

You can not possible be too conservative for me. But you may be more or less wise...

Give it up, Rich... There are all kinds of Armenians doing all kinds of things. When are we going to understand that Armenians don't live in Heaven, and they do all the Earthly things?

I recall reading some details of her story many years ago. As much as many might be tempted to thing that she might've once been a prostitute herself, that would be a wrong proposition. She has maintained that she has never had anything to do with it personally . It just has been a business. She has lost her husband at a very young age. She has worked in an alteration manufacturing facility at the time. The owner of the facility has owned her money. He has not been able to pay her cash, and instead has surrendered to her one of the brothels belonging to him. Manokyan has turned to be savvy businesswomen, and has turned that small business into an empire. She has maintained a position of a devoted Turkish citizen throughout her life. I would imagine that she has hold in her hands many secrets of high profile officials, and has been a very powerful figure in Turkey. [ February 18, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]