Persecution of Paulicians

[MJ]

The Sabbath Church in Asia

 

The Church located in Asia Minor were termed Paulicians. The Paulicians had developed there for some hundreds of years. C. A. Scott was to say, of the Paulicians, that they were:

 

an anti-Catholic sect which originated in the 7th century (possibly earlier), experienced many alternations of imperial favor and ruthless persecution, remained influential till the 12th cent., and is not without descendants in Eastern Europe today. Making its appearance first on the eastern borders of the empire, and having its natural home in Armenia, Mesopotamia and N. Syria, it spread, partly through propaganda and partly through the transplantation of its votaries, westward through Asia Minor, then into Eastern Europe to establish new centres in the Balkan peninsula. The specific opinions which have been ascribed to it include a dualistic conception of the government if not the origin of the world, an Adoptionist doctrine of the Person of Christ, a vehement and stubborn rejection of Mariolatry and the worship of saints and images, a similar rejection of sacramental symbolism, and a special emphasis on adult baptism as the only valid form. The basis of these opinions is found in a concentration on Scripture as the sole and sufficient authority to the exclusion of tradition and the 'teaching of the Church' (ERE, art. Paulicians,. Vol. 9, p. 695).

 

The Paulicians increased greatly in numbers under Sergius Tychicus and they were found chiefly among the hardy mountain people of the Taurus. Scott says that

alike as defenders of the empire and as objects of imperial persecution, they showed the greatest stubbornness and courage (ibid., p. 697).

 

They were protected by Constantine Copronymous (741-775) and invited to settle in Thrace. Nicephorus (802-811) employed them in the protection of the empire on its eastern frontier. Michael and Leo V [the latest one is known as Armenian-MJ] ruthlessly persecuted them.

 

But the Paulicians were too numerous, too warlike, and too well organised to be dragooned into orthodoxy. They resisted, revolted, and even retaliated by raiding Asia Minor from their mountain fastness. After twenty years of comparative tranquillity they were exposed to still more violent persecution under Theodora (842-857), which under Basil developed into a war of extermination (see Krumbacher, p. 1075).[another Armenian-MJ] The Paulicians were driven into the arms of the Saracens, and with some assistance from them, under the leadership of an able ruler Chrysocheir, they not only successfully resisted the imperial forces but forced them back and pillaged Asia Minor up to its western shores (Scott, ibid.). This demonstrates two aspects of the Paulicians. Firstly they used arms and secondly the Muslims regarded them as a separate group to Trinitarian Christians and rendered them assistance and protection. This protection was not confined to Asia Minor, but also extended into Spain. The distinction between the groups was known and preserved in the Koran.

 

The comment by Christ against the Pergamum Church, which might be identified with this sect, is thus made more intelligible when he says in Revelation 2:16, that he will fight against [those holding false doctrines among them] with the sword of his mouth.

Scott records that a second deportation of Paulicians, on a large scale, from Armenia to Thrace, was carried out by John Tzimiskes (970) (ibib.). Latin crusaders found the sect in Syria in the eleventh century and Lady Mary Montagu, found them in the neighbourhood of Philippoplis, in the eighteenth century (Scott, op. Cit.).

In Europe they developed into or amalgamated with the Bogomils (q.v.), and their views and influences were propagated throughout the Middle Ages by various anti-Catholic sects - e.g., Cathari, Albigenses - whose filiation with the Paulicians is probable, though difficult to trace. Their name, like 'Manichaean,' became in turn a generic description of any of these movements which opposed the development of Catholic hierarchy and doctrine (Scott, ibid.).

Scott says it is impossible to decide whether the Pope-licani, the Piphles of Flanders, or the Publicani, who were condemned and branded at Oxford in 1160, were directly descended from the Paulicians, or bore their name as a term of reproach. Scott says the Paulicians are best understood as a section, in that continuous stream of anti-Catholic and anti-hierarchical thought and life, which runs parallel with the steam of 'orthodox' doctrine and organisation, practically throughout the history of the Church (cf. Krumbacher, p. 970, the Paulicians' setzten einer verweltlichen Reichsorthodoxie ein echt apostolisches Biblechristentum entgegen).

F. C. Conybeare (The Key of Truth, Oxford, 1898) holds they were Adoptionist in their Christology; held three sacraments of repentance, baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ (see also p. 124), declared infant baptism invalid, denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, and rejected the doctrines of purgatory and the intercession of saints, and the use of pictures, crosses and incense.

Thus the movement of the Church from Asia Minor into Europe, took place over several centuries and as can be seen above, was effected by word of mouth and the relocation of peoples. The denigration of the doctrines of the groups, is undertaken by the orthodox who, by and large, have written the histories of the matter.

East European Sabbath-keeping

It is evident, that the main works of the Sabbath-keeping Church, did not take place in Europe, until the works of the churches initiated from Smyrna (termed the Smyrna era) and those initiated from the Paulicians in Asia Minor (termed the Pergamos era) had run their course. Indeed it is obvious, that the work in Gaul was commenced from and was in contact with the Church in Smyrna, until after the death of Irenæus. The work was disjointed and uncoordinated, until the relocation of the Paulicians into Europe.

The spread of the Sabbath-keeping Christian faith, had been noted (below) to move from Thrace into Albania and Bulgaria, with the Paulicians. In the ninth century this dispute had erupted in Bulgaria. It is noted that:

Bulgaria in the early season of its evangelization had been taught that no work should be performed on the Sabbath (Responsa Nicolai Papæ I and Con-Consulta Bulgarorum, Responsum 10, found in Mansi, Sacrorum Concilorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, Vol. 15; p. 406; also Hefele, Conciliengeshicte, Vol. 4, sec. 478).

Bogaris, ruling prince of Bulgaria, wrote to Pope Nicholas I on a number of questions regarding this matter. In answer to Question 6 re bathing and work on the Sabbath, he replied:

Ques. 6 - Bathing is allowed on Sunday. Ques. 10 - One is to cease from work on Sunday, but not also on the Sabbath (Hefele, 4 346-352, sec. 478).

Nicholas was declared excommunicated by a counter synod in Constantinople. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, accused the Papacy

Against the canons, they induced the Bulgarians to fast on the Sabbath (Photius, von Kard, Hergenrother, 1, 643).

The Sabbath question became a bitter dispute between the Greeks and the Latins. Neale commented on this in regard to the split in 1064 (A History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol 1, p. 731).

The Athingians (or Athingani) of the ninth centure, were held by Cardinal Hergenrother, to have stood in intimate relation with Emperor Michael II (821-829) and he states that they held the Sabbath (Kirchengeschicte, 1, 527). The Athingani were a sect in Phrygia, who were referred to as Melchizedekites by Timotheus of Constantinople in his Reception of Heretics (see ERE, art. Sects, Vol. XI, p. 319b). Whitley says here that they:

observed the Sabbath day; as they touched no one, they were popularly called Athingani. This reads as if they observed the Jewish rules of cleanliness, but the information is too scanty to trace their origin and tenets (ibid.).

After the defeat of Chrysocheir, leader of the Paulicians in the ninth century, and the destruction of Tephrike, their stronghold, they were decimated and dispersed. They existed in scattered communities in Armenia, in Asia Minor and especially in the Balkan Peninsula. In the middle of the ninth century, they experienced revival in Armenia under Smbat, who according to Conybeare may have been the author of the Key of Truth (see ERE, art. Paulicians, Vol. IX, p. 697). Headquartered at the town of Thondrak, they received the name of Thondrakians.

Another branch from the same root is probably to be found in the sect known as 'Athingani' referred to by Theophanes (Chronographia, 413), and yet another in the 'Selikians.' The biographer of the patriarch Methodius claims for him the credit of having converted to orthodoxy one Selix and his followers, who held 'Manichæan opinions - opinions which in detail correspond with those charged against the Paulicians in Cod. Scor. (Ibid.).

The second deportation under John Tzimiskes (970) then occurred.

It is thus seen, that these sects are all interrelated and are attacked as having heretical doctrines, by the Trinitarians and broken up into different sects by name and persecuted where possible. The Paulicians were also iconoclasts and that appears to be consistent with what we know of the Sabbatati and Cathari in Europe.

The Paulicians always objected to their rivals worship of the Cross (Armenian, Chazus); therefore the term Chazitzarii, Chazinzarians (Staurolatræ) seems to denote no small sect, but the Established Church of Armenia as viewed by the Paulicians (Whitley ERE, art. Sects, p. 319).

Troitsky in his article on the Greek Orthodox Church (ERE, Vol. VI, p. 427), notes that the Athingani were linked to Judaism. They are grouped with, but not specifically identified as Paulicians. Troitsky seems to group the Paulicians as having a belief of a mystic character, which we know to be incorrect, from the extant works. There seems little doubt that the Paulicians and the Athingani, or the sects in Asia Minor, kept the Sabbaths and the food laws and carried these practices into Europe.

http://www.holocaustrevealed.org/english/s/p122.html

 

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

 

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[gamavor]

The movement and the teachings of Paulicians originated in Armenia as early as 4 century AD. Their leader and spiritual teacher was Boghos. Many scholars regard them as the first Protestants. It is true that unlike their most fervent followers (Bogomils - who were kind of Hippies), Paulicians were warlike. They believed that they should fought with sword in their hands against the Satan (Official Church), and thanks to their "efforts" lots of churches were destroyed. Around 6-7 century AD they were too numerous in Thrace and even they proposed to the King Boris I of Bulgaria to accept their teachings as official Christian doctrine in 9century when the Bulgarians were converted into Christianity.

Some of their settlements are still preserved. There is one village close to Gabrovo in Bulgaria, called Armeni. If you go there you might find out how the ancient Armenians look like!

 

PS: By the way one of the questions answered by Pope Nicolas I caused serious disturbance among the Bulgarian notability since they were used to take shower much more frequently than the Catholic Europeans. Question number 102 was about weather the newly converted Christian Bulgarian women should wear underwear. The answer was positive. What a discomfort!!!

 

 

 

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: gamavor ]

[MJ]

I would love to go there one day. How do they look like?

From all I understand, they have been rather militant. However, the allegations on them destroying Churches are exaggerated in my view. Agatangeghos describes just one such event, and even that of destroying a Cross. And I can see their reasoning, The Armenian Orthodox Church had/has converted the worship of Jesus Christ to worship of Cross, which is not what Christianity is about.
From all I have read, Paulicians were the real Christians, and they were the real Orthodox (in the genuine sense of this word). Their portrayal as non-Orthodox is a misleading attempt in my view. And indeed, they are the founders of Christian Reformism (or better to say the movement of returning Christianity to its real roots), which has later evolved into Protestant denomination, reforming the entire European non-Catholic thought. Paulicians have suffered great deal in the hands of Catholics, too. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church along with the Armenian Church have misrepresented for the history the Paulician doctrine. And I am not talking about their joint slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Paulician Armenians.

[gamavor]

MJ,

 

The difference was that Armenian Orthodox Church had been long ago (well, at least before the Paulicians) institutionalized. I think it should have been only matter of time to see how these "real Orthodox" would behave. It is more about human nature than the teachings and doctrines. The notion that Armenian Church was worshipping the Cross, instead of Christ in my opinion is a little bit too much.

[MJ]

Well, the history of Protestantism along with their doctrine demonstrates that they have remained/evolved as oriented towards faith rather than tradition or ceremony.

 

As far as worshiping the Cross is concerned, maybe there is a little bit exaggeration in my statement, bit just a little bit.

 

Additionally, the Armenian Orthodox Church while being a well defined institutionally speaking, is not well defined doctrinewise. It is still searching for its soul, as demonstrated, for example, by the documents signed by the last two Catholici with the Roman Church. Moreover, just a slightly meticulous analysis shows that the very foundations of the Church effective the Battle of Avarire are surrounded with a clout of misinformation, softely speaking. It is known that the mentioned Battle was a fight for the right to worship Christ. However, it is also known that the fight has been lost to the Persian Army. Moreover, Armenia has already been under the Persian dominance before the battle, and has remained so for centuries after the Battle. Meanwhile, the date of the Battle precisely coincides with the Calcedonian Counsel, to which the Armenian Church doesn't send its delegation. Subsequently, while starting the Battle of Avarair and not losing it, Persians, who were allegedly opposed to the Christianity of the Armenian elite, let Armenians continue to immerse even further into Christianity. Does all this make sense? Not to me... If you can make sense of this logical oxymoron, please help me to understand it.

 

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[gamavor]

About the Cross:

 

Paulicians and Protestants in general despise the Cross as a symbol of torture of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To say this means to put the emphasis on the human nature of God, which in my view is unacceptable.

Armenian Church unlike many other Churches has very clear understanding about the nature (the dual nature) of our Lord. The Cross has became the symbol of Salvation of the Human Kind through sufferings endured by Jesus, AS A HUMAN, meaning (in flash and blood). As God, perfect and eternal he has been resurrected, because God CAN NOT SUFFER, AS SUCH!

 

MJ,

 

It seems to me that the topic that we are discussing here has more religious coloring and I'm ready to continue our discussion in the Religion section. Lets do this tomorrow. OK?

 

PS: Just a little remark about Avarair. Persian domination before and after Avarair in my view was only nominal. Armenians were governed by Armenian nobility who were responsible to collect the taxes. Even after Avarair *(to me its an Armenian victory, because we showed the Persians this and that, although outnumbered) the battle for religious freedom continued. As to Chalcedon, as I have said earlier, We have no disagreement in the understanding with the rest of the Orthodox (Catholic) World, but rather its a matter of wording. That is why up until now Church leaders are trying to formulate their/our understanding in a way that would not cause deviation from the previous positions and in the same time will reaffirm the common understanding of the issue.

 

[ September 03, 2001: Message edited by: gamavor ]

[gamavor]

Hard to disagree with that. They turned their backs to Tradition and ceremony and embraced the Phoenician signs.

[MJ]

Tell me more about it.

[MJ]

Gamavor,

 

I don’t see why, necessarily, the Cross is the way to emphasize the Human nature of Christ. As far as I know, Protestants/Paulicians have no argument about that nature. I somehow am hesitant to accept that the Armenian Church has really good understanding about the dual nature of Christ. If it has, then it has difficulty throughout ages to articulate its position, and as late as a year ago found itself compelled to make new statements along those lines. But I do agree with your interpretations of the senselessness of the sacrifice of Christ in the absence of His Human Nature. However, Apostle Paul warns as to not go after the symbols of faith. Ironically, many ordinary Armenians would describe us as “khachabasht” – this is a historically established primitivism, which the Armenian Church has been rather tolerant towards.

 

As far as Avarair goes, I disagree that the Persian dominance was nominal in Armenia. In fact, throughout almost the 500 years of dominance before the Arab conquest, only two Marzbans have been Armenian. I think the Avarais is the biggest lie in Armenian history. Not in terms of the basic facts about its occurrence and the outcome, but in terms of the beyond the curtain events. It is obvious to me that after the Battle there was nothing stopping Persians to “convert” the Armenian elite back to Zorastrianism – they had all the power in the world, and for almost 500 years Armenian have not even been able to bring another army together, after having 66,000 people Army annihilated for reasons which I find hard to interpret or understand. Therefore, I am sure that the Church has cut a deal with the Persians. What was the deal? I am very interested in knowing. At the expense of what? One thing which is clear to me is that at the time, there were enormous geopolitical perturbations in the region, defining the East-West confrontation, and Armenia was caught in the middle. There is much to understand what has taken place here, and it is time to leave aside the primitive and illogical presentations of our history.

 

P.S. Opening this thread I mean to focus on the historic aspects of the underlying events. We can have the discussions of religious nature in the Religion forum.

[khodja]

NOT TRUE! Tondrakian beliefs were the anti-thesis of Paulician beliefs. The two ""heresies"" were diametrically opposed.

[MJ]

What's the basis of such statement?

[khodja]

"Armenian Christianity" by Aharon Sapsezian, published by Armenian Missionary Association of America, p. 29-31.

[MJ]

Anay online refrences to it?

[khodja]

Baron MJ,

 

I can only find references to purchase the book and biographical information on the Rev. Dr. Sapsezian, who due to his humility, a trait shared with Jesus, eschews any such titles. Nothing found in either Portuguese or Englsh on the reference I made to you. I am lucky that I hold over 300 titles on Armenian history, some in storage. I am sure that you can obtain this book from your local library.

[MJ]

I appreciate the honor given to me in your address, and I am sure that the book can be found at least in some library. However, if you have looked around in this forum, you would see that many of us go through the burden of making materials of common interest available online, as much as its within the limits of our possibilities, or as much as our time and energy allows. If you cannot make the passage subject to interest available here, that is fine, too. My appeal to you was only indicative of my interest, and I am sure of some others in this Forum, in the subject.

[khodja]

Baron MJ,

 

I am still perfecting my computer skills. I will attempt to scan the pages into my computer and post them here. I have not had success with this type of thing previously. My initial comment, however, was not totally correct. After perusing the text, I realized that Sapsezian discussed similarities between the Paulician and Tondrakian movements, but insisted that there were two central beliefs that were in direct conflict.

[MJ]

My name is Martin.

 

I am aware of a lot of similarities of the Paulician and Tondraletsi doctrines, and am used to think of the Tondraketsi movement as an evolution of Paulician’s. However, I have not come across testimonies of their differences. I would be interested in learning about it.

[gamavor]

MJ,

 

No need to search for some secret plans that the Church strike with the Persians (I wish it was so). The reasons why Persians were somewhat reluctant to enforce back Zoroastranianism is money. If you emancipate somebody, you need to treat him as equal. For the same reason Ottoman Turks stopped Islamization of the territories occupied by them, realizing that reduction of the Christian populace would affect badly the State Budget, especially for a highly bureaucratic state structure as the Ottoman Empire.

Of course people like Ali, Hasan, Mehmet and others will tell you that Greeks, Armenians and other Christians in the Ottoman Empire survived thanks to the “turkish humanism”.

 

As to the Doctrine of the Armenian Church - it is Crystal clear. If I have time, I will post some interesting materials, since I was not able to find any on line.

[MJ]

So, they didn't understand it before Avarair, and understood it immediately after demolishing the Armenian Army?


Ottoman Turks have systematically enforced Islamization of the Armenian population of Anatolia for centuries through taxation policies and terror. Only a minor part of the Armenians on the territory of historic Armenia has maintained its Christian identity throughout the 7 centuries.

[gamavor]

They demolished - We demolished! After all if one is ready to die for his faith and freedom is it worthy to try to convert him, especially when you have uninvited guests around your borders?

 

Many Armenians (not only Easterners, maintained their faith, going through torture, heavy taxation, humiliation, etc. My point was that, having in mind the Turkish power at the time it would not be so difficult to kill or to convert the most stubborn ones. Turks, cleverly changed their policies somewhere in the 17 century, when certain administrative reforms were introduced.

[MJ]

The only difference is that after the battle, at least shortly after dealing with their problems at their borders, they stil had all the military might they needed, and we didn't have it for another 500 years - till the times of Ashod Yergat.




Perhaps. But if you would look at it from the point of view of what was the Christian Armenian population in Historic Armenia, sey around 1200 AD, and what was it right before 1915, what is the conclusion that you come to, especially if also making some guestimates on the population growth?

[MJ]

… If the early Bagratuni Dynasty from 820-850 was hostile to Arab Khalifs, it was because latter hampered and curtailed the aspirations of Armenia after freedom, religious and political. For the same reason to the west of the Euphrates Paulicians were enemies of the Byzantines who persecuted, and friends of Arabs who protected, them. But the disasters which befell them in the west found their echo in Armenia Magna. And the persecution of the Empress Theodora, during whose regency (842-867) one hundred thousand of them were martyred, unquestionably weakened their influence further east. Smbat Bagratuni the Sparapet seems to have been the last of the petty Armenian dynasties who favored them. Local heads of the clans here and there, like the Wrwer [Latin –MJ], and man of Royal family like Mushel, continued here and there to take their part and share their sufferings. But they nowhere held the government in their hands; and from about the year 900 onwards they were outcasts, and their hands against every man’s. And such have ever since continued to be their fortunes.

 

But it is against itself that a state or a church rejects the counsel of God: and Eastern Christianity, Greek and Armenian alike, is to this day bleeding from the wounds which, in its cruel persecutions of these early Puritans, it inflicted on itself. To us who are the hairs of the ages the truth of things is slowly unrobed; and there is an irony too painfully clear in the circumstance that in the chronicle of Aristakes the pages immediately following the two malignant chapters about the Paulicians, translated in my appendix, have for their topic the capture of the Royal city of Ani and the massacre of its inhabitants by Alp Arslan. As we read these dreadful pages, which tell us of the cruelties of the human wolf of the eleventh century, we assume to hear the shrieks and groans of miserable victims of human wolf of to-day, still ravening in the plains and valleys of Armenia. Fortune does not always smile on bigots and prosecutors; and Gregory Magistros had scarcely ended his harryings of his Paulician countrymen, had hardly concluded his bombastic recital of his exploits as a prosecutor, before the star of his country set in a mist of Tartars bloodshed and oppression out of which it was never again to emerge. Nor was retribution really less certain, if it was less swift, in the country west of Euphates. Pauliciansim was the natural faith of the hardy mountaineers of the Taurus; and in destroying them the blind fanaticism Byzantium destroyed its only bulwark against Saracen invasion.

 

In the Greek borderlands, west of the Taurus and Euphrates, were encamped the Paulicians, opposing to the worldly orthodoxy of the empire, a genuinely apostolical Christianity founded on the Bible. Persecuted under the emperors of the seventh century, they enjoyed (in the eight) a through-going toleration, thanks to the wise policy of the Iconoclasts who followed. The brave bands of these Christian Maccabeans furnished a frontier-cordon against Islam as vigorous as it was indispensable. To strengthen the line of defense the extraordinary leadership of Sergius (about 800) [sergius was the leader of Paulicians – MJ] had done not a little. Yet the persecutions under the Caesers Michael I and Leo V [Leo V has been Armenian by ethnicity – MJ] drove a portion of them into the Arab domain. But when Theodora began her extraordinarily bloody persecution, this brave population was seized with universal despair. The commissioners sent to inquire into their faith rivaled in blood-thirstiness the officers of the Spanish inquisition. They were murdered, and the robber-incursions into the empire began. The sect found Karbeas, who had been a Roman officer, one who could lead them in the field as in the council-chamber; and from the frontier-fortress of Tephrike, like the later Waldesians against the Piedmontese, they waged a mist successful guerilla-war against the Empire1.

 

Thephrike fell (873). But the backbone of Oriental Christianity was broken. What the Protestant Churches have achieved in Europe, that the Paulicians might have accomplished in the east.

 

But from the ninth century onwards, wherever a Muslim met a Paulician, they met a friend; and the ultimate success of the most soldierly of the Mohammedan was assured. It is the Osmanly Turks that have proved themselves to be that race.

 

 

The Key of Truth

A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia

 

By Fred C. Conybeare

 

pp. lxxiv-lxxvi

 

-----------------

1. Translated from the ecellent "Abriss der Byzantischen Kaizergeschichte" in K. Krumbacher's Geschichte der Byzentinischen Literatur," 2nd Edition, p. 970.

 

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

The Key of Truth: Manual fo the Paulician Church of Armenia

by Fred C. Conybeare

 

Introduction

 

At the end of the Russio-Turkish war in 1828-1829, a number of Turkish Armenians settled in the newly acquired Russian territory between Akhaltzik and Erivan, under the leadership of their bishop Karapet. In February, 1837, this bishop warned the Synod of the Orthodox Armenians in Edjmiatzin that in the village Arkhweli in the province of Shirak there where twenty-five families of refugees from the village of Djewiurm in the canton of Khnus, who were Thondraketzi or Paulicians of Tondrak or Thonrak.

 

He complained that these heretics were carrying on a propaganda among the simple-minded neighbors, although in the presence of civil or ecclesiastical functionaries they feigned adhesion to the Orthodox Armenian Church. “Some of our villagers ,” he wrote, “inform us how they openly, in the presence of the simple-minded, deny that the saints help us, deny the value of fasting, the benefit of prayer, and the like… And although they have a priest, whom I saw in Khnus, and who is wholly without a knowledge of letters, he cannot lead them straight. Perhaps he does not care, for until now he keeps his peace.” The bishop then preys the Synod to send to Arkhweli a learned priest, to combat the spread of heresy.

 

Two priests armed with authority were, in consequence of this representations, sent to the neighborhood, but they could get no other answer from the persons suspected than: “We are children of the Illuminator. ” However, others who had listened to their attacks on religion, admitted that a false elder, preaching the heresy, had appeared in Khnus, and had wished to enter their houses; but they averred that they had repelled him with anathemas. Five man pleaded they had received the false teaching not knowing that it was opposed to that of the Armenian Church, and sued for forgiveness. This was in April, 13, 1837.

 

 

 

Not content with repressing the movement in Arkweli, the Holy Synod, through the Catholicos, made representations to the Bishop of Erzrum in Turkey, requesting him to send agents to Khnus, which was in his diocese, and where a priest since dead had spread the heresy. These agents where to root out the heresy, if it still survived there. The aid of the Russian government also was invoked in the person of Baron Posen, Governor of the Caucasus, to put down the heresies of Arkweli. The Governor in reply asked in what consisted the heresy of these villagers, and was informed that “they rejected the intersession of the saints and spurned their images, denied the value of fasts and the benefit of prayer, disbelieved in the immaculateness of the holy Virgin, Mother of God, repudiated the sacrament of baptism, and the rest.”

-----------------------

1. For most of the historical matter in pp. xxiii-xxviii I am indebted to an article published by M.A. Eritzean, of Tiflis, in the journal called Phords, Tiflis, 1880, under the title “The Armenian Tondraketzi.”

2. In general I shall drop the general termination -tsi, and speak of the Tonraki or Tondraki, though of coarse Tondraketzi is the only Armenian equivalent for a dweller in Tonrak.

3. See page 132 for the testimony of Aristaces to the fact that the Paulician Church was one with the Church founded by Grigor the Illuminator; and compare Grigor Mag[istros]., p. 147, “We are the tribe of Aram, and agree with them in faith.”

---------------------------------

 

About the same time, and inhabitant of Gumri (now Alexandrapole) named Karapet Mkrttchean, in a death-bed confession, revealed to an orthodox priest that he, with six others, some with their households, and some apart, had joined the Tondraki sect, being converted by person from Arkweli which is in the neighborhood. His written confession was sent to the consistory of Erevan. He could read and write, and it runs as follows:

 

“In 1837, at the feast of Transfiguration in the month of June, Kirakos of Giumru Oosababayean, after hearing George the elder of Arkhweli preach, renounced the holly faith, and also preached to me, Karapet, that Christ is not God. Through the preaching of Kirakos, Tharzi Sarkis with his family, Dilband Manuk, Grigor of Kajzwan with his household, Jagob Ergar, Avon of Kajzwan, and I, met in the room of Grigor of Kajzwan; and we took oath with one another not to diclose our secret to any. They in particular told me to inform no man of it. They

1. convinced me that Christ is not God;

2. made me blaspheme the cross, as being nothing;

3. told me that the baptism and holy oil of the Armenians is false; and that

4. we must re-baptize all of us on whose foreheads the sacred oil if the wild beast is laid;

5. The mother of God is not believed to be virgin, but to have lost her virginity.

6. We reject her intersession; and also

7. whatever saints there be, they reject their intersession.

8. They reject the mass and the communion and the confession, but say instead (I.e. to the orthodox): “Confess to your stocks and stones, and leave God alone.”

9. Moreover, those who choose to communicate eat the morsel and drink down the wine upon it, but do not admit the communion of the mass.

10. They say that we are the only true Christians on earth, whereas Armenians, Russians, Georgians, and others, are false Christians and idolaters.

11. On our faces we make no signs of cross.

12. Genuflexions are false, if made superstitiously.

13. During fasts they eat.

14. The canon-lore of the holy patriarchs they reject, and say that the councils of the patriarchs were false, and that their canons were written by the devil.”

 

 

After making these confession, Karapet affirmed his penitence and sought forgiveness. Three other confessions were obtained about the same time, which we give in the order in which M. Eritzean has printed them. The following is the deposition of Manuk Davthean of Gumri, who could not write: -

 

“In 1837, in February, during Shrovetide, on the first of the week, in the chamber of Grigor Kajzwan, I saw Tharzi Sargis reading the Gospel. First he read it, then he explained it.

 

1. He told us not to worship things made by hands; that is to say, images (or pictures) of saints and the cross, because these are made of silver, and are the same as idols.

2. Christ is the Son of God, but was born man of Mary, she losing her virginity, as it were by the earthly annunciation of Gabriel.

3. After suffering, being buried, and raising again, he ascended into heaven, and sat on the right hand of the Father, and is our Intercessor.

------------------------

4. The word answers to Theotokos, and was conventionally used by these late Paulicians to denote the mother of Jesus. They of coarse reject the idea conveyed in it.

5. The text has holelen (? – MJ) = earthly, or made of dust; but hogelen =”spiritual” should perhaps be read. On the heresy involved, see below, p. cixxxvii.

-------------------------

 

4. Except Christ we have no other Intercessor,; for

5. the mother of God they do not believe to be virgin; nor

6. do they admit the Intercession of saints;

7. Neither are fasts ordained by of God, but prelates have ingeniously devised them to suit themselves; wherefore it is right to break the fasts as we will. When you go into church, pray only to God, and do not adore pictures.

8. In the time of baptism it is not necessary to anoint with oil, for this is an ordinance of men, and not of God.

9. You shall not commit sin: but when you have committed sin, whatever or no ye confess to priests, there is no remission. It only avails you, if you pour out your sins to God.

10. Genuflexion is unnecessary.

11. To say “Lord, Lord,” to priests is not necessary, but it is meet to say regularly that God and not man is Lord.

12. Nor it is necessary to go to places on vows.

13. Last of all he told me that Christ is not God, and then I understood the falsity of his faith.

 

The third recantation written down was that of Avos Marturosean of Gumri, who could not himself write. He deposed that 1837 in February, in the chamber of Grigor of Kajzwan, he not only heard the teaching already detailed in the second recantation, but the following as well: --

 

1. Ye shall keep the ten commandments which God gave to Moses.

2. Christ is not God, but the Son of God and our Intercessor, sitting on the right hand of God.

3. Ye shall know Christ alone, and the Father. All other saints which are or have been on the earth are false.

4. There is no need to go on vows to Edjmiatzin or Jerusalem.

5. Ye shall confess your sins in church before God alone.

6. The holly oil of Edjmitzin is false, nor it is necessary unto baptism; but whenever ye pour one handful of water over the catechumen, he is baptized. For Christ commended us to baptize with water.

7. Ye shall always go to church; and to the priest at the time of confession ye shall not tell your sins, for they do not understand. But talk to them in general sort of ways.

8. Always go to church, not that our kind considers it real; but externally ye shall perform everything, and keep yourselves concealed, until we find an opportunity; and then, if we can, we will return to this faith of ours. And we swear, even if they cut is to peaces, that we will not reveal it.”

 

 

“Grigor of Kajzvan said as follows: “Behold, I am the Cross; light your tapers on my two hands, and give worship. I am able to give you salvation, just as much as the cross and the saints.”

 

The forth confession referred to four of persons whose names are given in the first. Two of them could read. Kirakos Khosay Babayean, already mentioned, deposes in his own writing to the truth of the previous recantations, and attests that he learned of Tharzi Sarkis Haruthiunean; and the latter, also is writing, admitted all, and added that he had learned everything in 1835 from George the church-singer (or elder) of Arkhweli, who had in his possession a MS. Called The Key of Truth , in which “everything was written.” It was this George who taught that all are false Christians, except the Nemetzni who are true Christians.

 

These revelations led to increased activity of the part of the Synod of Edjmiatzin. First representations were made to the Russian Governor of the Caucasus to put down the sectaries of Arkhweli, and also to suppress the newly-arrived German Protestant missionaries, with whose activity the recrudescence of ancient heresy was alleged to be continued. There werw thirty families of Paulicians in Arkhweli, who pretended that they had given up the heresy; and they had even built an orthodox church in their midst in order to avoid suspicion. Also, five of the inhabitants had drawn up a document, entitled, “About the causes of the heresy of the new Manicheans and their followers,” This they sent to the Government. In it was stated that “in the province of Khnus in the village of Djaurm (or Tschaurm) fifty-five years previously, a certain Armenian priest Ohannes (I,e, John) had joint the sect, and composed a book called The Key of Truth. This Ohannes, under pressure from the Osmanli Government, had afterwards, along with his companions, accepted Mohammedan faith.” Of this Ohannes we will give further details later from another source . It is enough here to remark that he was only the copyist, and not the composer of The Key of Truth, as his own colophon therein sufficiently proves.

 

In June 1838, in consequence of fresh representations on the part of the Holy Synod of Edjmiatzin, the Governor of Tiflis ordered an inquiry to be opened in Arkhweli, to which Erevan consistory was invited to send a deputy who could speak Russian, and should be versed in the doctrines of the Orthodox Armenian Church. What came of this inquiry we do not know. In 1847, in consequence of fresh reports on the activity of the Paulicians of Arkhweli in baptizing and communicating the peasants, the Erevan consistory once more petitioned the Holy Synod to set the civil power in motion. It is to the credit of the latter synod that, before taking so extreme a step, they advised the consistory to replace the incompetent orthodox priest of the village with one who could preach and had zeal and intelligence. The consistory replied that there was no priest in the diocese possessing such qualifications. ( LOL…. As if taken from our days. – MJ). It appears notwithstanding that the civil power was once more invoked; for in the 1841 the military governor of Tiflis, General Praigon, ordered the local judge of Alexandrapol to decide the matter; and the latter had actually drawn up a voluminous report, when a general a general letter of amnesty was issued by the new Czar, April 16, 1841. In this amnesty the sectaries were included along with other offenders, and so gained a brief respite from the malice of their own countrymen.

 

The Holy Synod, however, did not rest until in February, 1843, it procured that the sectaries should be excluded from the benefits of amnesty, and the judicial inquiry into their doings, after all, carried out. The result was that in 1845 the criminal court of Tiflis fined the sectaries accused forty rubles, ordered them to conform to the orthodox Armenian Church, and forbad their ministrant to call himself a deacon. The Synod represented that this punishment was quite incommensurable with the heinous character of the offenders; but their representation had no

----------------------------

6. Cp. P. lxxil below.

7. That is the German Millennarists from Wurtemburg who were settled in the Caucasus in 1817. They chose the Caucasus because they believed that at the end of the world Christians would find a place of refuge near the Caspian. See Missionary Research in Armenia, by Eli Smith and H.G. O. Dwight. London, 1834.

8. These missionaries came from Basle, and, with the approbations of the Czar Alexander, settled in Shusha, a little south of the present city of Elizabetpol, in 1827. There they set up in Armenian and Tartar printing-press, which before long was forbidden.

9. See below, pp. lxxi, lxxii.

-------------------------------

effect, and they do not seem to have since resumed these petty persecutions of their own compatriots. Perhaps one should be grateful to them for having, in coarse of the straggle in 1837, seized and kept safe until now the Paulician manual of which I proceed to speak in detail.

 

The copy of the Key to Truth, now preserved in the Archives of the Holly Synod of Edjmiatzin, is a small octavo MS. On a paper, written neatly in what the caked nolergir (?- MJ) or a minuscule in Taron in 1782. Many leaves are missing, about 38 out of the 150 which the book originally contained. According to the “Acts of the Holy synod” they were torn out by George of Arkhweli, the owner of the book, when he found that he was detected and feared that it would be seized. The pages torn out were certainly those of which the contents were likely to give most offence. For the context shows that the lost leaves contained attacks on the abuses of the orthodox churches and doctrinal expositions, especially of the Christology of the sect. It is unfortunate that so much is lost, along with the liturgy of the mass which the copyist of 1782 also transcribed; the first half of the colophon is also lost. These lost portions, if we only had them, would’ve furnished decisive evidence in regard to a point which must be raised at the offset, namely this: Can this Key of Truth be regarded as a monument of the Paulicians of the eighth to twelfth centuries?

 

That it was comprised long before 1782 is evident from the colophon, in which the copyist deplores the shortcomings, the faults of spelling, composition, and grammar in the book; and declares that they have all been introduced into it by unpractised copyists. He was conscious therefore that the work, before it reached his hands in 1872, had been handed down through at least several generations. The many omissions in the scripture citations plainly due to similar endings point to the same conclusion. The marginal notes in the book are written by a hand later than that which wrote the text. The citations of the scripture are in nearly all cases taken from the Amrenian Vulgate as it was completed soon after A.D. 400. What differences there are may be due to inaccurate copyists. The references to the chapters and verses of Stephanus – which are added after citations, sometimes in the text, sometimes in the margins, sometimes in both at once – were already given by the scribe of 1782, at which date printed copies of the Armenian New Testament containing the chapters and verses of Stephanus had long been in circulation in Armenia. Some copyists of the Key between 1680 and 1780 inserted these references; perhaps by way of shortening the work of transcription, for the text is often merely referred to and not copied out in full. Thus the colophon of 1872 at once disarms the criticism which would deny the book to be as old as the ninth century, because of the many vulgarisms of the text. These chiefly consist in a loose use of prepositions, such as would be most likely to creep in. Of the leading characteristics, however, which distinguish the modern dialects of Armenian from the old classical language there is barely any trace, as any one acquainted with them would be able to judge. Some of these characteristics, e.g. the lengthened form of verbs like karenam for karem already confront us in more popularly written books (like the Armenian version of the Geoponica)of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. The Key of Truthmust long precede the age. The use of the accusative of the relative pronoun sor[/i} (? –MJ) at the beginning of a new sentence, to connect it with what precedes, is very common in the Key, and at first sight modern; yet it is frequent in Zenob, who wrote about 800 A.D.a history of taron, the region in which Thondrak or Thonrak, a center of Armenian Paulicians , lay. This fact of near geographical origin of both books also explains the considerable resemblance of style between Zenob’s history and the Key. There are not a great many words in the Key foreign to classical Armenian of the fifth century; but what there are we find, with three or four exceptions, in writers of the eighth to the thirteenth centuries, particularly in Grigor of Narek of the tenth. This statement is based on study of nearly thirty such words.

--------------------------

10 See the excurses at the end of the appendices, in which I enter into a more technical discussion of the style of the book.

--------------------------

 

 

(To be continued)

 

[ December 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

It has to be borne in mind that, whereas all the works of the Armenian Church of an earlier time where composed in the learned language, The Key to Truth is not likely to have been written in any tongue except that which was spoken among the poorer country people to whom the great Paulician leaders addressed themselves. Certainly the use of the Armenian New Testament might impart slight classical tinge to their writings; but there was no other influence at work to produce such a result. Like the great heretical writers, who founded the vernacular literatures of modern Europe, Huss, Wycliffe, Luther, the unknown translators of the Provincial Testament of Lyon, so that the founders of the Paulician Church must have addressed themselves not to monks and learned men but to the common people. But if this be so, we cannot suppose The Key of Truth to have been written later than 850.

 

The prayers in it remain pure and limpid examples of the classical speech; and it is natural that they should have most successfully resisted the vulgarizing influence of centuries of rude and untaught copyists. They seem to me to be older than the controversial chapters which accompany them, and to belong to the fourth and fifth centuries. He who considers in what form an English book, written in the tongue of the ninth century and transmitted almost ever since entirely by copyists who were ignorant and persecuted peasants, would have come down to the present age, has a right to pass a judgment on the The Key of Truth. The history of the sect as we read it fills us with just wonder that their book is not tenfold more corrupt and vulgarized than it is. There is constantly visible in it the hand of some eloquent and earnest writer, who know how to pen clear, bold, nervous, freely flowing and unembarrassed paragraphs in an age when, to judge by the works of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros, the Armenian Church writers were about to reach the lowest level of obscurity and affection, or turgid pomposity and involution of phrase.

 

On the whole, therefore, the evidence if the style is in the favor of, and not against an early date. But when we consider the contents we are obliged to refer the book to the ninth century at least. The exordium is unmistakably is from the pen of some great leader and missionary of the Paulician Church. Mark the words: “I have not spared to give unto you, my new-born children of the universal apostolic Church of Lord Jesus Christ, the holy milk, whereby ye may grow in faith.” He has been inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal “the way, the truth, and the life” to those from whom till now the truth had been hidden by pedantry and deceit. He will with The Key of Truth open “the door of truth,” long since shut upon his flock by Satan. This exordium, almost Pauline in the mixture of tenderness and authority, bespeaks some great missionary and restorer of religion in Armenia. We have also hints of the cruel persecutions and vicissitudes which had to long delayed the appearance of a manual, to the composition of which “love of the truth of our Lord and zeal for the Holy Ghost, and the urgent entreaties of any believers had long since impelled him.” At least, in the response to the entreaties of many believers, and urged by supreme necessity, he has thrown aside all other interests of this transitory life in order to compose this humble and unpretentious book, which they are nevertheless to read and ponder unto the glory of Jesus Christ their mediator.

 

All this presupposes a numerous body of believer looking up to one great teacher who has spent his life in ministering to them. The “supreme necessity” must surely have been the approach of

----------------------------

 

10 See the excurses at the end of the appendices, in which I enter into a more technical discussion of the style of the book.

---------------------------

 

fierce persecution and perhaps of death. The reference in the context to the transitoriness of our life implies as much.

 

Who can this teacher have been? Gregory Magistros records that the ordinances of the Paulicians, whom A.D. 1042-1054 he drove out of the district of Tonrak and Khnus, had been drawn up for them 170 and 200 years before by Smbat, whom Gregory of Narek , c. 950, also accuses of being the founder of the sect. This Smbat seems from their accounts to have made Thondrak or Thonrak the focus from which his missionary efforts radiated. That he also died in this region, or that anyhow his tomb was there, may perhaps be inferred from the words of Gregory Magistros.

 

It is almost certain that the district of Thonrak continued to be after his death the religious center of Paulicians, who on that account were called Thonraki or Thondraketsi by the Armenians, just as the boni homines of the South of France were called Albigeneses, from their association with Albi. If we may take the words of Magistros to imply that Smbat left writings regulating the faith and rites of his church, what more natural than to see in The Key of Truth one of these writings? It is even not rash to suppose that our Key of Truth was actually in the hands of Gregory Magistros; since this writer ascribes to the “accursed Smbat” the teaching that dogs and wolves appear in the form of priests, a tenet which is thoroughly in keeping with Chapter viii of the Key. We do not, it is true, find the exact words, but they may well have stood in the lost chapters. But after all we here are moving in a realm of surmise only, and we cannot assume as a fact, but only suggest as a hypothesis, that this Smbat was the author of The Key of Truth. Apart from the notices of Gregory of Narek and Gregory Magistros, we should be inclined to refer the work to Sergius, the great Paulician apostle of the ninth century, concerning whom we have many notices in the Greek writers of that and the two following centuries.

 

Even if Smbat’s authorship be questioned, there can be no doubt that the Key accurately reflects the opinions and rites of the Paulicians of the four centuries, 800-1200. We may discount the falshood and ferocity of the orthodox or persecuting writers in their portraitures of those with whom they differed, and yet are struck by the agreement of the contents of the Key with the rites and beliefs of the Paulician Church as we can glean them from the writings of the John of Otzun in the eight, of Narekatzi in the tenth, of Aristakes and Paul of Taron and Magistros in the eleventh, of Nerses in the twelfth centuries. In the following summary of Pauliciantenets, as they may be gathered from the pages of the Key, we add continual references to the works of these contemporary Armenian writers. Thus the reader can himself make a comparison, and judge how closely The Key of Truth corresponds with their statements.

-------------------------------

11 See below, p. 148: “Smbat giving them their laws.”

12 See pp. 142, 145.

13 See pp. 126, 127, 129: “their founder Smbat.”

14 Cp. P. 146: “where the leaven of Sadduces was buried.”

 

 

(To be continued?)