Catholicos John of Ōdzun’S Polemic against Paulicians and the Armenian-Syrian Council of Mantzikert (726)

Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev Sofia University “St Kliment Ohridski” https://doi.org/10.53656/phil2025-02S-02 Abstract . The paper discusses the activity of the Armenian catholicos Yovhannēs Ōjnets̔i (717 – 728). It sets his polemical treatise against Paulicians, and its Christology, in the context of the council convened by the catholicos in Mantzikert with the participation of both Armenian and Syriac clerics. This council restored communion between two miaphysite Churches, Armenian and West-Syrian. Its significance also resides in the fact that it represented an initiative not of an overarching secular authority, but of separate ecclesiastical institutions. The circumstances conducive to the council’s convocation and its proceedings are analysed with reference to Armenian and Syriac historians of the eleventh to the thirteenth century. Keywords : Aphthartodocetism, Christological debates, Church councils, Dualism; Incorruptibility, John of Ōdzun, Miaphysites, Michael the Syrian; Paulicianism [emember_protected for='16-7-23' format_protected_msg='1' custom_msg=' Влезте в системата, за да прочетете пълната статия '] The first attested sect known as Paulicians was established on the westernmost bow of the Euphrates, in Western Armenia, from the eighth to the ninth century. No consensus has so far been reached concerning the evolution of the Paulicians’ cosmology. Since they did not possess a written canon, their doctrines were bound to be moving 1 . One of our main sources of the presence of Paulicians in Armenia, attesting the doctrines professed by them at the beginning of the eighth century, is the treatise ‘Against the Paulicians’ written by Catholicos John of Ōdzun (Yovhannēs Ōjnets̔i, 717 – 728). The Paulician group against which he wrote his tract was not dualist, whilst later Paulicians, who survived after the Emperor Basil I’s victory over their state on the plateau of Armenia Minor in 878 (879), and who also had followers in Greater Armenia, clearly upheld dualist cosmology. One of the main scopes of John of Ōdzun’s polemic is the defence of the Church’s sacramental symbols, icons and crosses in particular. John makes reference to ‘crosses of stone and gold’ ( Ənddēm pawłikeants̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 42, § 74), from which we may conclude that he aims at defending not only the veneration of ritual objects, used inside churches in liturgical context 2 , but also to cross stelae set in the open and thus becoming sacred landmarks of Armenia; in their later form such stelae, known as khach ̔ k ̔ ar s, would largely determine the cultural landscape of the country (various samples datable from the sixth to the seventh century have recently been discussed by H. Petrosyan 3 ). It is in association with John’s defence of the veneration of icons and crosses, as well as his claim that ordained ministers’ gestures and liturgical prayers make the power of the Trinity inhabit therein 4 , that we find in this tract a brief Christological exposition ( Ənddēm pawłikeants̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 42, § 78). This exposition enables us to set the polemic against Paulicians against the backdrop of John’s work as a whole. The author first evokes the primæval humankind going astray and falling into paganism. As a result of the humans’ worship of multiple gods, John of Ōdzun says, ‘the features of the [human] form ( կերպարանին ձեւ ) were altered, [so that] they lost their beauty, manifesting in themselves the filth of numerous illnesses and passions’ ( Ibid. , p. 41, §§ 68 – 69). According to the Armenian apocryphal text ‘Sermon concerning Hospitality’, these were already Noah’s sons and grandsons who, after Noah’s death, forgot God, also turning to the worship of idols 5 . Yet other Armenian apocryphal traditions set the origins of idolatry at a later point of the history of humankind, associating it with the dispersion of tongues after the destruction of the tower of Babel 6 . Similarly to John, various apocryphal stories associate idolatry with filth (Stone 2021, pp. 76 – 77). However, in such texts we do not find references to the ensuing physical degeneration which John indicates in his Christological exposition. According to him, it is against this background that the Son’s incarnation occurs. He pursues thus: Having mercy on the Creator’s image, he became an image of his creature; he who at the beginning had made man according to his image and resemblance, the selfsame one came also at the end of the times, took our form ( կերպարանս ) of a servant and was made manifest in human resemblance, so that by this means he may once more adorn with a primæval, God-like, resemblance the image [which at the beginning had] been composed with utmost beauty. And he also taught us to venerate the image of God the Word incarnate depicted with living human features and this honourable sign of victory ( Ənddēm pawłikeants̔ , in K̔eosēean, pp. 41 – 42, §§ 70 – 71). The veneration of icons (Christ’s ‘image depicted with living human features’) and crosses (‘honourable sign of victory’), according to John of Ōdzun, thus derives its meaning from the postulate that in the Incarnation the Creator manifests himself in human resemblance. He possesses this resemblance because he assumes not an ideal human form but ‘takes our form of a servant’. Yet John also specifies that by assuming our humanity, God the Son restores it to ‘primæval resemblance’. The humanity restored by Son in his incarnation possesses, therefore, a double resemblance, to historical humanity and to the first human beings. Here we encounter a key point of Armenian Christology: the juxtaposition of Christ’s humanity with that of the first human beings. John of Ōdzun’s position may by clarified with reference to his tract ‘Against the Phantasiasts’ (i.e. aphthartodocetists, the extreme followers of Julian of Halicarnassus), the sermon ‘Against Mayragomecʽi’, an Armenian aphthartodocetist writer, and the doctrinal canons of the council convened by him at Mantzikert (Manazkert). In the two writings indicated he rejects, in particular, every alteration of human nature assumed by the Logos, asserting the maintenance in Christ of ‘the natural and non-reprehensible feelings’. Indeed, the life in Eden itself implied some forms of normative human experience according to John 7 . Remarkably, in all three texts of John’s (the one against the Paulicians and the two against the aphthartodocetists), the doctrine contested is associated with Mani, which indicates that in John of Ōdzun’s eyes the denial of Christ’s full consubstantiality with postlapsarian humankind and the rejection of what is material in Christian worship are kindred conceptually (Dorfmann-Lazarev 2004, pp. 204 – 205). In his tract against the Paulicians, he explicitly claims that this sect follows Mani’s teaching 8 . Paulicians had been dubbed as Manichaeans as early as Theophanes the Confessor ( ca 760 – 817) (De Boor, vol. 1, p. 488, l. 22). Nina Garsoïan aptly observed in this connection that once the Paulicians were classified as Manichaeans, they could, as a consequence, be accused of aphthartodocetism, which in itself does not represent a warrant of their real views 9 . In order to clarify John of Ōdzun’s teaching and to apprehend its political dimension, I shall, in what follows, focus on the Council of Mantzikert convened by him in 726. The exceptional importance of this reunion resides in reaffirming communion between two different Churches, Armenian and West-Syrian. Each possessed its distinct hierarchy and doctrinal authorities, but both were established on the territories subdued to the Umayyad Caliphate. This reaffirmed communion consolidated the stance of ecclesiastic institutions vis-à-vis the Paulicians. The relationships between the two Christianities had a very long history. It is under the influence of West-Syrian missionaries reaching Armenia from the regions of Martyropolis and Tur-ʿAbdin (one of the strongholds of anti-Chalcedonianism), that in the middle of the sixth century also the Armenian Church definitively adopted the non-Chalcedonian faith. At the Council convened at the patriarchal see of Duin in 553, the Armenian Church confirmed its rejection of the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith. During the ensuing period, the major subject of doctrinal controversy amongst the non-Chalcedonians was the ‘incorruptibility’ of Christ’s body. The question of the properties of Christ’s humanity closely correlated to another one, namely: which of the human experiences were to be qualified as corruption? This amounted to asking: has the human being been from the outset conceived as susceptible to hunger, thirst, weariness, sadness, fear and suffering, or have these limitations resulted from the fall of Adam and Eve? These subtle doctrinal questions, which directly pertained to the polemic against the Paulicians, possessed a distinctly Biblical, and para-Biblical, background. Indeed, the account of the two trees in Genesis reveals a discrepancy between the initial threat for disobedience and the actual punishment: the couple does not die but is only expelled from the Garden. Does, then, the nature of Adam and Eve endure any change after their leaving of Paradise? And what does the restoration of human nature by Christ entail? That the later Biblical authors make almost no explicit references to the first chapters of Genesis is, arguably, one of the reasons that prompted the profusion of later Jewish and Christian speculation about human origins, also orienting the reflection on the salvation of the humankind. Of a particular relevance for our scope is the book of the Wisdom of Solomon, in which we read that ‘God created man for incorruptibility (ἐπ᾽ ἀφθαρσίᾳ), made him to be an image of his own eternity (var. his proper being)’ (Wis. Sol. 2. 23), whereas in the following verse this incorruptibility is opposed to man’s mortality after his fall: ‘Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world’ (2. 24). One of the points of debate concerning incorruptibility was whether the incarnate Logos was constrained by human nature or he endured sufferings deliberately. John of Ōdzun examines extensively this question in his tracts. His counsellor, Xosrovik the Translator ( ca 670 – ca 730), who also took part in the council, states in his ‘Doctrinal Chapters’ that Christ deliberately allowed his humanity, in certain circumstances, ‘to the extent that he wishes, and when and where’ he so wished to experience sufferings and other human limitations. Their another contemporary, Stephen of Siwnik̔, though he was absent from the council, articulates a close position, stating that by his sovereign decisions the Divine Logos allowed his humanity to live ‘temporarily’ in a common human way, thus becoming subject to human limitations (Dorfmann-Lazarev 2016, pp. 278, 287 – 288). This theology is reflected in the acts of the council of Mantzikert. The council took place at a critical moment in the history of the Armenian and the West-Syrian Churches. The wars that had followed the advent of Islam caused considerable destructions in the Near East, contributing to the reciprocal isolation of the two Churches. The years preceding the convocation of the council were marked by two crucial events: in the years 693–695 the Umayyad Caliphate established direct political control over Armenia, whereas as an outcome of the merciless campaigns conducted there by the Arabs between 699 and 705, the Armenian princes’ autonomy was definitively suppressed (cf. Martin-Hisard, pp. 223 – 225). The Church, which had not escaped violence either, acquired a new authority within the Armenian society; it gained at once legal, political and moral dimensions (Mahé 1993, pp. 477 – 478). The Armenian Catholicos was recognised as the legal chief directly responsible to the Islamic authority. Armenian sources indicate that at the beginning of his patriarchate, John of Ōdzun travelled to Damascus in order to negotiate the conditions of the dhimma (the legal convention that regulated relationships between the Caliphate and the subdued ‘Detainers of the Book’) with Caliph Omar II (717 – 720) (Manukean, p. 705). The Miaphyiste faith received support from the Caliphate against the Chalcedonian, pro-Byzantine, tendencies. The Caliphate sustained the jurisdiction of the Churches within their communities, seeing in them institutions able to assure civil control over the conquered populations. At the same time, however, it hindered the communications between different populations of dhimmi , also when such populations shared the same faith as did the West-Syrians and the Armenians. The reciprocal isolation of various Christian populations led to their dwindling and fastened the process of Islamisation. This situation must have been of concern for the conveners of the council. Our main sources on the history of the council of Mantzikert are John of Ōdzun and two later Syriac writers: the twelfth-century West-Syrian Patriarch Michael the Syrian (d. 1199), in Syriac and in his Armenian adaptation made in 1246-7 (extant in two recensions; see below: Jerusalem 1870 and 1871), and the thirteenth-century West-Syrian Catholicos (maphrian) of Mosul Gregory Bar-‘Ebroyo, known as Barhebræus (1225/6 – 1286). Both Syriac chroniclers were born in Melitene, a city which had a mixed, Armenian and Syriac population, where they thus might have access not only to Syriac, but also to Armenian sources. The information of these sources may be complemented by three Armenian chroniclers: Stephen of Tarawn (Asołik, writing at the very beginning of the eleventh century), the twelfth-century Samuēl of Ani and the thirteenth-century Kirakos of Ganjak (1200 –71). Compared to the Syriac text, the Armenian version of Michael the Syrian offers us an abridged and a slightly divergent account of the council and of the events that led to its convocation. It claims that on the eve of the council both the northern and the southern Armenia (the regions of Siwnik̔, Vaspurakan and Sasun), as well as Caucasian Albania and the Jacobite Syriac-speaking lands abided in communion 10 . Although the actual state of affairs could be more complex, this claim must reflect the vision, and the aspiration, of many, both in Armenia and the Syriac world. According to Michael the Syrian, Syriac Christians of the region of Martyropolis declared before the Armenian Catholicos to acknowledge the faith of Gregory the Illuminator, with whose name the Christianisation of the Armenian kingdom ca 313/314 was associated, as a criterion of orthodoxy 11 . This is not surprising if we take into consideration that the southern provinces of the Armenian Arsacid kingdom had a considerable Syriac-speaking population. From other sources we also know that Gregory’s authority was recognised even beyond the frontiers of the Armenian kingdom and the Armenian-speaking world. Therefore, the claim expressed in the Armenian version of Michael may reflect an enduring ambition of Armenian catholicoi. Both Michael the Syrian and Barhebræus (who largely relies on Michael), affirm that the cause for the convocation of the council was the divergent opinions regarding Julian of Halikarnassos and his teaching of ‘incorruptibility’. The Armenian version of Michael recounts, as Barhebræus does, of a travelling Syrian cleric (or two clerics) from Martyropolis who provoked a controversy between Syriac Christians and Armenians by claiming before the two prelates that, whereas the Jacobites professed the body of Christ to be ‘corruptible’, the Armenians were ‘Julianites’ 12 . Others claimed before the Syrian patriarch that the Armenians not only were followers of Julian of Halikarnassos; according to those claims, the Armenians also asserted that Christ’s body was not subject to sufferings, whilst the human qualities of Christ’s body were merely apparent. That such an extreme current existed in Armenia, is also known from other sources. The most famous figure of this current was John of Mayravank̔ (Yovhannēs Mayravanets̔i or Mayragomets̔i, 575? – 645?): failing to explain the Gospel passage on Christ’s agony in Gethsemane, he famously attempted to suppress the pericope of the bloody sweat (Luke 22.43-44) from Gospel codices. Therefore, the ‘Julianists’ mentioned in sources may imply different doctrinal trends which do not necessarily reflect the ideas known to us from Julian’s own writings. John of Mayravank̔ was persecuted by his Catholicos and he died in exile, a reason for which in some sympathetic Armenian sources he is qualified as ‘confessor.’ Aphthartodocetism did not disappear in Armenia overnight, and a century later it still existed there side by side with Chalcedonian leanings, so that John of Ōdzun found himself compelled to write a treatise against ‘Phantasiasts’ ( erewut ̔ akank ̔ ). In order to describe Christ’s humanity, John of Ōdzun examines, notably, whether or not life in Eden implied some form of normative human experience. The polemic mentioned in the two Syriac sources revived the controversy between the followers of Severos of Antioch (as the majority of the West-Syrian Christians were) and of Julian of Halikarnassos (as the Armenians), leading to a protracted epistolary exchange between the Armenian catholicos and the Syriac patriarch; each asked the other to dispatch to him his definition of faith. Both were reciprocally recognised as orthodox. The old suspicions being, however, rekindled, it was eventually agreed to convoke a council which would examine the question in depth. Unlike the Syriac sources, John of Ōdzun, followed by Stephen of Tarawn and Samuēl of Ani, suspiciously claim that the rejection of the Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon – i.e. a reconfirmation of the doctrinal stance of the council of Duin of 553, at which it had already definitely been rejected – was the main reason for the convocation of the council of Mantzikert 13 . According to John of Ōdzun, the Syrians who attended the council of Mantzikert accepted the ‘definition composed by him about the unity of divinity and humanity accomplished incorruptibly’ ( Saks žołovots ̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 126). According to Stephen of Tarawn, John of Ōdzun ‘set the Armenian Church free of Chalcedonianism’, a doctrine which had received a new support in Armenia during military campaigns of Emperor Heraclios (Manukean, p. 704). Kirakos of Ganjak specifies that in order to buttress the sound doctrine in Armenia, the texts of Cyril of Alexandria, the champion of the non-Chalcedonians, were ordained for reading in churches (Melik̔-Ōhanĵanyan, p. 69). Samuēl of Ani adds that side-by-side with the doctrine of ‘one nature’ in Christ the doctrines of ‘one will’ and ‘one energy’ were also declared (Hayrapetean, p. 105). The theory of ‘one energy’ had been accepted at the Armenian-Byzantine Synod of Karin (Theodosioupolis) in 632/3, a meeting promoted by Heraclios in the hope of reuniting Christendom after his reconquest of the non-Chalcedonian East. Whilst the Armenians never formally adhered to Monothelitism, its conception was analogous to Monenergism, and both can be recognised in various Armenian authors, and in particular in Stephen of Siwnik̔ (Dorfmann-Lazarev 2016, pp. 267 – 268, 277 – 280). Stephen of Tarawn also speaks of other two debatable matters which led to the convocation of the council, namely the preparation of the Eucharistic species and the fasting discipline (Manukean, pp. 704 – 705). These statements must express an attempt to conceal the fact that the Syrian clerics’ denunciation had a real basis and that aphthartodocetism still held sway in Armenia; the Armenian sources may try to obscure the fact that under the pressure from the Syrian part, the council convened in Armenia restricted the range of the doctrinal opinions that had thitherto been tolerated in Armenia, thereby excluding extreme forms of Julianism. Both Stephen of Tarawn and Michael support John of Ōdzun’s claim ( Saks žołovots ̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 124) that he was the initiator of the council. They explain that the Armenian Catholicos exhorted the Patriarch Athanasius of Antioch (724 – 740) to the unity of faith 14 . In both versions of Michael the Syrian, as well as in Barhebræus, the date of the council diverges from the Armenian sources. The former group of texts anticipates the council at forty years, which does not correspond to the time of the activity of its chief participants. This difficulty may, however, be resolved if we hypothesise that in an early text of Michael, which underlay both his Armenian translation, extant in two recensions, and Barhebræus, the letter ayin ( ܥ = 70) had mistakenly been read as a lamad ( ܠ = 30). The date provided by the Armenian sources, 726, may thus be reconfirmed (cf. Melik̔-Ōhanĵanyan, p. 69). The initial idea was to convene in Ardzǝn (Arzan/Arzon of the Syriac sources, near the present-day Siirt in Turkey). This city lay on the southern slopes of the Sasun mountains, i.e. in a territory with mixed, Syriac and Armenian population, where both communities had also their respective episcopal sees. Ardzǝn had once lain within the territory of the Armenian Arsacid kingdom, and now it was close to the southern border of the Caliphal province of Arminiyya. According to Michael, when the Armenian delegation set to Ardzǝn, ‘they were turned away by their head of army (ܪܒ ܚܝܠܐ ܕܝܠܗܘܢ)’ (Chabot, vol. 4, p. 458 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 493]). Jean-Baptiste Chabot, the editor of Michael the Syrian’s Chronicle , suggested that this could be the Armenian presiding prince who at that time was Ashot Bagratuni (715–748) (Chabot, vol. II, p. 493, n. 8); indeed, also after the incorporation of Armenia within the Caliphate, the Arabs still formally acknowledged the presiding prince as an intermediary between the Muslim administration and the Armenians. However, the prerogatives of the princes were now drastically diminished: the presiding prince’s role was reduced to assuring the conscription of Armenians to the Caliphal armies and to assisting the Arabs in levying taxes. Much more plausibly, the bishops could be stopped by the Arab military governor (called by the Armenians ostikan ) who detained a real military power in Armenia after the creation of the new province. Between 709 and 732 it was the famous general Maslama ibn Abd al-Malik. After the failure to convene in Ardzǝn, the choice felt on Mantzikert (Manazkert in Armenian; the present-day Malazgirt in Turkey) behind the Sasun mountains in the north. At that time Mantzikert was a small town ( gełak ̔ a ł ak ̔ ) which in some sources is even classified as a village ( geawł, geł ) 15 . This may indicate that a discrete locality, remote from Arab authorities, was now searched. Samuēl of Ani specifies, nevertheless, that the council was convened with a caliphal mandate, i.e. it was a licit event (Hayrapetean, p. 105). The assembly was convened by the chorepiscopos Grigoris Arsharuni invested for this task by the Catholicos. Referring to this task of Grigoris, John of Ōdzun praises him, however, not for any administrative skills but for being a ‘great philosopher’, which indicates his role in the theological discussions ( Saks žołovots ̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 124). Followed by Stephen of Tarawn, John of Ōdzun claims that ‘all the bishops of Armenia’ took part in the council 16 . According to Stephen, Samuēl of Ani, Kirakos of Ganjak and Barhebræus, also six Syrian Jacobite bishops attended the reunion, being commissioned by their patriarch 17 . In Mantzikert, a long debate on doctrinal matters ensued. Michael and Barhebræus provide us with a significant detail: while the Syrian party attempted to find various demonstrations of their position, the Armenians would let themselves to be persuaded only by Biblical texts 18 . At this point the Syrian bishops brought to John of Ōdzun’s attention Acts 13.34, which convinced the Armenian party and became a sufficient ground for agreement: ‘And as concerning that [God] raised [Jesus] up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption (μηκέτι μέλλοντα ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθοράν), he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David’. The Syriac and the Armenian versions of this verse were compared, and the locution ‘no more’ was found in both of them (ܕܬܘܒ ܠܐ ܢܗܦܘܟ ܢܚܙܐ ܚܒܠܐ ; ո ́ չ եւս դառնալոց է յապականութիւն ), which implied that after his death Jesus actually saw corruption, a direct result of his physical death (Cowe, p. 67). This provided a common ground enabling the two parties to envisage an agreement (Chabot, vol. 4, p. 458 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 495]). The Syriac sources specify that an agreement was achieved precisely about the orthodox understanding of the notion of ‘corruption’, although this is not evident from the canons. But at this point the union of the two Churches had been achieved: each side celebrated the Eucharist according to the opposite party’s rite, whilst the latter party also communicated. Next, a synodical letter was edited, whose Syriac copy remained with the Armenians, whilst the Armenian copy was kept by the Syrians. Preserved in the language of the opposite party, the letters were intended to be a pledge of the opposite party’s adherence to the doctrinal formula agreed and to the Church union. Significantly, both the Armenian and the Syriac sources regard the agreement as a triumph of John of Ōdzun who was acclaimed at the council as a hero of Church unity 19 . The synodical letter is preserved by Michael the Syrian. It contains a profession of faith, in which the reality of sufferings and death, which the incarnate Logos underwent in a body capable of sufferings, is asserted. This profession of faith is followed by the list of the canons promulgated by the council. Ten canons are preserved in Michael the Syrian and in Armenian sources (for a new collation, see Cowe, pp. 72 – 79), but not in the Armenian Book of Canons which had for the first time been codified by John of Ōdzun in 720. The Syriac and the Armenian version of the canons, which have recently been closely examined by S. Peter Cowe, reveal a number of divergences, more or less significant (See Cowe’s detailed analysis, op. cit. , pp. 73 – 80). Both versions affirm that Christ was united with our corruptible nature, and not with Adam’s prelapsarian nature. They also specify that Christ’s humanity was incorruptible since the conception in Mary’s womb and that no ontological change in Christ’s humanity occurred with regard to its incorruptibility after the Resurrection. Contemporary Armenian authors, such as Stephen of Siwnik̔, comment on this point, suggesting that the corruptible human nature assumed by the Logos was transformed by the virtue of the hypostatic union, being restored to Adam’s primordial state at its very moment 20 . The canons furthermore affirm that Christ’s body was subject to human feelings, suffering and death. Michael specifies that, while excluding the extremes, both sides tried to avoid polemics over nuances in order to achieve reunion (Chabot, vol. 4, pp. 458 – 459 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 495]). Thus, neither names of Severos or of Julian, nor those of their followers are mentioned. Furthermore, according to the Armenian version of Michael, it was also decided not to take the ritual divergences between the two Churches into consideration 21 . The importance of the council of Mantzikert resides not only in restoring communion between two Churches, but also in the fact this was an initiative of separate ecclesiastical institutions, and not an overarching secular authority seeking political cohesion (cf. Cowe, p. 80). A contemporary document shows that these two Christian societies of Dar al-Islam, the communications between which were not encouraged by Caliphal authorities, were now less isolated from each other. The document in question is the Armenian ‘Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt̔ǝn’ composed in 744. It speaks about Vahan, an Armenian youth imprisoned by Caliphal authorities in 737 in Ruṣāfa (Sergiopolis), a residence of Caliph Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik (724 – 743). Vahan was eventually martyred there for his refusal to abjure Christian faith. The ‘Jacobite’, i.e. West-Syrian, community was more numerous in the city, and it was precisely a Jacobite priest who visited Vahan in prison administering him communion (Greenwood et al ., pp. 39, 89). NOTES Cf. Gouillard, pp. 302-303; Lemerle, pp. 124 – 126; Alexander, p. 255; Dagron, pp. 229 – 230. Cf. Mahé 1997, p. 65; Mardirossian, p. 270 See the cruciform stele at Erǝndjatap̔, in Petrosyan, pp. 16 – 17, figs 3,4; crosses carved within a cliff, at Vank̔asar, ivi , p. 31, fig. 21 – 22. On crosses erected in the name of the Trinity, and bearing the name of the Trinity, see Petrosyan, p. 18. See ‘Sermon concerning Hospitality’, in Stone 2012, pp. 213 and 223. Cf ‘Story of Father Abraham’, in Stone 2012, pp. 37 and 41; ‘Sermon on the Word concerning the Sodomites’, ivi ., pp. 180 and 193; and ‘When Noah Went Forth from the Ark’, in Stone 2021, pp. 68 and 69 I analysed various aspects of John’s Christological doctrine, in: Dorfmann-Lazarev 2004, pp. 171 and 214; and Id. 2016, pp. 281 and 288. Ənddēm pawłikeants̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 39 [§31]; cf. Ənddēm erewut̔akanats̔ , in K̔eosēean, pp. 53 [§114], 54 [§128]. Garsoïan, p. 94; cf. also Lieu, pp. 210 – 211. Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i Žamanakagrut̔iwn 1870, pp. 351 – 352; Žamanakagrut̔iwn Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i 1871, p. 338. Chabot, vol. 4, p. 457 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 492]; Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i Žamanakagrut̔iwn 1870, p. 352; Žamanakagrut̔iwn Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i 1871, p. 338. Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i Žamanakagrut̔iwn 1870, p. 352; Žamanakagrut̔iwn Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i 1871, pp. 338 – 339; Abbeloos, vol. I, pp. 299 – 301. Saks žołovots̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 124; Manukean, p. 704; Hayrapetean, p. 105. Chabot, vol. 4, p. 458 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 493]; Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i Žamanakagrut̔iwn 1870, p. 352; Žamanakagrut̔iwn Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i 1871, p. 339. Saks žołovots̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 124; Žamanakagrut̔iwn Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i 1871, p. 339: different from Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i Žamanakagrut̔iwn 1870, p. 352, where it is defined as a ‘city’, k̔ałak̔ ). Saks žołovots̔ , in K̔eosēean, p. 124; Manukean, p. 704. Chabot, vol. 4, p. 458 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 493]; Manukean, p. 704; Melik̔-Ōhanĵanyan, p. 69; Hayrapetean, p. 105; Abbeloos, vol. I, p. 301. Chabot, vol. 4, p. 458 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, p. 494]; Abbeloos, vol. I, p. 301. Chabot, vol. 4, p. 459 [translation: ivi , vol. II, ch. XX, pp. 495 – 496]; Abbeloos, vol. I, pp. 301 – 303. Dorfmann-Lazarev 2016, p. 282; Cowe, p. 69. Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i Žamanakagrut̔iwn 1870, p. 353; Žamanakagrut̔iwn Mixayēli asoruots̔ patriark̔i 1871, p. 339. Acknowledgement This research was supported and funded by the Bulgarian National Science Fund, Project № КП-06-Н80/8 (08.12.2023) “Bogomilism in History and in the Present Day”. The opinions expressed in the publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the National Science Fund. REFERENCES ABBELOOS, J.B. (Ed.), 1872. Gregorii Barhebræi Chronicon ecclesiasticum , Leuven. ALEXANDRE, P.J., 1978. Religious Persecution and Resistance in the Byzantine Empire of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries: Methods and Justifications. In: Id., Religious and Political History and Thought in the Byzantine Empire , London, N°X, pp. 238 – 264. CHABOT, J.-B. (Ed.), 1899-1910. Chronique de Michel le Syrien , Paris. COWE, S.P., 2017. Doctrinal Union or Agreement to Disagree? Armenians and Syrians at the Synod of Manazkert (726 CE). In: Avetisyan, P.S. et al . (Eds), Bridging Times and Spaces: Papers in Ancient Near Eastern, Mediterranean and Armenian Studies , pp. 61 – 84, Oxford. DAGRON, G., 1993. L’Église et l’État (milieu IX e – X e siècle). In: Mayeur, J.-M., et al . (Eds), Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours , vol. IV, Paris, pp. 167 – 240. DE BOOR, C. (Ed.), 1883, Theophanes, Chronographia , Leipzig. DORFMANN-LAZAREV, I., 2004. Arméniens et Byzantins à l’époque de Photius : Deux débats théologiques après le Triomphe de l’orthodoxie , Leuven. DORFMANN-LAZAREV, I., 2016. Christ in Armenian Tradition: Doctrine, Apocrypha, Art (Sixth–Tenth Centuries) , Leuven. GARSOÏAN, N., 1971. Byzantine Heresy. A Reinterpretation. In: Dumbarton Oaks Papers , vol. XXV, pp. 87 – 113. GOUILLARD, J., 1965. L’hérésie dans l’empire byzantin dès origines au XII e siècle. In: Travaux et Mémoires , vol. 1, pp. 299 – 324. GREENWOOD, T., GRANT, A., HAGAN, K., PECORINI GOODALL, L., and READ, L., 2025. A Neglected Armenian Source of the Late Umayyad Era: The Martyrdom of Vahan of Gołt‘n. In: Al- ʿ U ṣ ūr al-Wus ṭ ā: The Journal of Middle East Medievalists , N° 33, pp. 30 – 106. HAYRAPETEAN, A., et al. (Eds), 2011. Samuēl Anets̔i , Hawak ̔ munk ̔ i grots ̔ patmagrats ̔ , Yerevan. K̔EOSĒEAN, Ya. (Ed.), 2007. Yovhannēs Ōjnets̔i, Ə nddēm erewut ̔ akanats ̔ . In: Matenagirk ̔ hayots ̔ , vol. 7, pp. 45 – 66, Antelias. K̔EOSĒEAN, Ya. (Ed.), 2007. Yovhannēs Ōjnets̔i, Ə nddēm pawłikeants ̔ . In: Matenagirk ̔ hayots ̔ , vol. 7, pp. 37 – 44, Antelias. K̔EOSĒEAN, Ya. (Ed.), 2007. Yovhannēs Ōjnets̔i, Saks žołovots ̔ or e ł en i Hayk ̔ . In: Matenagirk ̔ hayots ̔ , vol. 7, pp. 122 – 132, Antelias. LEMERLE, P., 1973. L’histoire des Pauliciens d’Asie Mineure d’après les sources grecques. In: Travaux et Mémoires , vol. V, pp. 1 – 144. LIEU, S.N.C., 1994, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East , Leiden. MAHÉ, J.-P., 1997. Confession religieuse et identité nationale dans l’Église arménienne du VII e au XI e siècle. In: Garsoïan, N. et al . (Eds), Dès Parthes au Califat : Quatre leçons sur la formation de l’identité arménienne , pp. 59 – 78, Paris. MAHÉ, J.-P. 1993. L’Église arménienne de 611 à 1066. In: Mayeur, J.-M., et al . (Eds), Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours , vol. IV, Paris, pp. 473 – 542. MANUKEAN, G. (Ed.), 2010. Step̔anos Tarōnets̔i, Patmut ̔ iwn tiezerakan . In: Matenagirk ̔ hayots ̔ , vol. 15/2 (Tenth Century), Antelias. MARDIROSSIAN, A., 2004. Le Livre des canons armeniens ( Kanonagirk̔ Hayoc̔ ) de Yovhannēs Awinec ̔ i , Leuven. MARTIN-HISARD, B. 2007. Domination arabe et libertés arméniennes (VII e – IX e siècle). In: Dédéyan, G., Histoire du peuple arménien , Toulouse, pp. 213 – 242. MELIK̔-ŌHANĴANYAN, K. (Ed.), 1961. Kirakos Gandzakets̔i, Patmut ̔ iwn hayots ̔ , Yerevan. Mixayēli asoruots ̔ patriark ̔ i Žamanakagrut ̔ iwn 1870, Jerusalem. PETROSYAN, H.L. 2008. Khach ̔ k ̔ ar. Tsagum ǝ , gortsa ṙ wuyt ̔ǝ , patkeragrut ̔ yun ǝ , imastabanut ̔ yun ǝ , Yerevan. STONE, M.E., 2021. Armenian Apocrypha from Adam to Daniel , Atlanta. STONE, M.E., 2012. Armenian Apocrypha Relating to Abraham , Atlanta. Žamanakagrut ̔ iwn Mixay ē li asoruots ̔ patriark ̔ i 1871, Jerusalem. Established researcher (R3) Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, Dr. Habil.

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1596-6006

WoS Researcher ID: GQZ-4066-2022

Author ID (SCOPUS):56167161200

Sofia University, Bulgaria

E-mail: dorfmann@uni-sofia.bg

>> Изтеглете статията в PDF [/emember_protected]

Catholicos John of Ōdzun’S Polemic against Paulicians and the Armenian-Syrian Council of Mantzikert (726)

Последвайте ни в социалните мрежи

Towards the Question of Armenian Anti-dualism of the 5th – 6th Centuries and its Philosophic and Theological Premises

Dualistic Principles and Formulations in the Teachings of the Paulicians and Bogomils through the Eyes of Presbyter Cosmas and Euthymius Zigabenus

Dualistic Principles and Formulations in the Teachings of the Paulicians and Bogomils through the Eyes of Presbyter Cosmas and Euthymius Zigabenus

Последни публикации

Полезни линкове

Вестник „Аз-буки”

Научните списания

Catholicos John of Ōdzun’S Polemic against Paulicians and the Armenian-Syrian Council of Mantzikert (726)

Свързани статии:

Последвайте ни в социалните мрежи

Towards the Question of Armenian Anti-dualism of the 5th – 6th Centuries and its Philosophic and Theological Premises

Dualistic Principles and Formulations in the Teachings of the Paulicians and Bogomils through the Eyes of Presbyter Cosmas and Euthymius Zigabenus

Dualistic Principles and Formulations in the Teachings of the Paulicians and Bogomils through the Eyes of Presbyter Cosmas and Euthymius Zigabenus

Последни публикации

Полезни линкове

Вестник „Аз-буки”

Научните списания