Armenian anathema

First, a word of warning. Don't buy this book on Kindle, unless you can help it. The Armenian text (if that's what interests you) is illegible since Kindle apparently doesn't process the Armenian alphabet. The English text, while perfectly understandable, is badly edited, with footnotes and captions constantly interrupting the main text in a confusing manner. The actual book could also be problematic, since it contains long, untranslated quotes in Latin.

This is somewhat unfortunate, since “The Key of Truth, A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia” is a fascinating work, at least if you are interested in Church history. It was originally published in 1898. The author, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, was a British orientalist and professor of theology. Apparently, he was also a clergyman. His theology is somewhat unclear to me, since he sounds Adoptionist in the book, while being consecrated by the Order of Corporate Reunion, a somewhat obscure Anglo-Catholic or perhaps Old Catholic group which accepted all seven church councils and was hence “orthodox” in most matters of faith. I have also seen claims that Conybeare was consecrated by the Armenian Orthodox Church, which would have made him a Monophysite! OK, let me guess, the brother was a rather typical British maverick?

As for the book itself, its background is intriguing. In 1837, on Armenian territory controlled by Russia, the Armenian Church and the Russian authorities tried to stamp out a heresy which they identified as Paulician or Tondrakian. This must have peaked Conybeare's interest when he visited Armenia decades later, since these heretical movements are generally believed to have disappeared during the Middle Ages! From an Armenian Church library, Conybeare managed to obtain a copy of “The Key of Truth”, a Paulician scripture from 1782. His book contains the original Armenian text, an English translation and a lengthy exegesis and excursus by Conybeare himself.

I admit that I know next to nothing about the Tondrakians and only a few things about Paulicianism, so this work was a bit “over my head”. To history students, the Paulicians are mostly known as the victims of Byzantine empress Theodora's genocidal wrath against all groups heretical (Theodora ruled the Byzantine Empire from 842 to 855). Paulicianism is generally regarded as a Gnostic and dualist heresy which flourished in the Byzantine Empire and Armenia during the Early Middle Ages. The Tondrakians were a later movement in Armenia. Judging by Wikipedia's entertaining entry on the Tondrakians, their movement was seen by Soviet Communist historians as an early example of “anti-feudal” revolutionary struggle in Armenia. Whoever wrote Wiki's entry treats the Great Soviet Encyclopedia as a reliable source!

The enthusiastic Conybeare believed that the Paulician and Tondrakian movements were identical, that they were Adoptionist rather than Gnostic, that the origin of Paulicianism goes all the way back to the Montanists, and that Adoptionism was the original position of the primitive Church. The Christianity of Armenia was likewise originally Adoptionist. One wonders how a person like this could have been consecrated priest in the Armenian Orthodox Church?! I get the impression that the author is conflating several different “heresies”, including Nestorianism, Arianism, Montanism, Messalianism and the teachings of Paul of Samosata. Finally, Conybeare argues that the Paulicians must have influenced the Bogomils, who in turn inspired Cathars, Waldensians and Socinians, thereby laying the groundwork of the Protestant Reformation. Conybeare also sees a connection between Paulicianism and Iconoclasm, and claims that the Byzantine emperor Constantine Copronymus must have been a Paulician! While this is probably to take the matter too far, the author does raise some legitimate questions about early Christology and the exact relationship between Paulicians and the Gnostic Manicheans, which they are supposed to resemble (the author disagrees).

“The Key of Truth” does have an Adoptionist Christology. While Jesus was supernaturally born of the Virgin Mary, she didn't stay a virgin after his birth and is therefore not to be venerated. Jesus himself didn't became the Son of God until his baptism in the river Jordan at the age of 30. For this reason, the authors of the “Key” reject infant baptism. It's possible that they didn't baptize people until the age of 30. Baptism was by complete immersion. The Eucharist was celebrated after dark. They also opposed all forms of idolatry, including veneration of crosses and crucifixes. Indeed, the latter day Paulicians would break crosses if they found them! They also rejected an Armenian folk belief, according to which priests could consecrate rocks and tree-trunks with the spirit of Christ. However, on one point the group using the “Key” went much further than the official church: they evidently regarded their priests as living manifestations of Christ. The charge of anthropolatry was therefore leveled against them by the orthodox. It's tempting to assume that the Armenian villagers espousing these ideas were simply under the influence of Protestant missionaries, but these didn't arrive until long after 1782. Conybeare does manage to find impressive parallels between “The Key of Truth” and earlier heretical teachings. Of course, the idea that the priests are Christs isn't Protestant. Perhaps he really did discover evidence of surviving Paulicians…

I found very little material on the issues touched upon in this book on the web, which is impressive in itself. I also get the impression that the real mystery contained in this work isn't that of the Paulicians, but rather Conybeare himself! In the end, I will give this volume three stars.