The Paulicians: Heroes or Heretics?

Introduction

The Paulicians were a medieval sect of Armenian people who were considered heretics in the 7th - 9th centuries. Some have claimed that they were primitive Baptists. However, most historians believe they were medieval, Byzantine, Dualist Manichaeans. The Paulicians are also charged with the heresy of Gnosticism. Given the severity of these charges, it is worth asking if modern Baptists are wise to include these people within their lineage. It ultimately comes down to question of, are the charges true? That is the question this paper seeks to answer.

The Charges Against the Paulicians

What are the charges against the Paulicians? There are two distinct accusations that would have bearing on the question being considered here. These are that the Paulicians were 1) Manichaeans, and 2) Gnostics. These terms are far from familiar to the average person, thus they will be defined. Manichaeanism is a form of religious dualism. Religious dualism holds that there are two gods, one is good and the other is evil. Gnosticism holds heretical views about the Lord Jesus Christ. It denies His deity and the physicality of His resurrection. Since Baptists (along with all orthodox believers) would never deny Jesus’ deity or physical resurrection, the Paulicians cannot be considered Baptists if these charges are correct.

The Historical Evidence

What is the relevant evidence? Unfortunately, most of the historical data about the Paulicians comes from their enemy -- the Roman Catholic Church. The only source that even might be from the Paulicians themselves is the book Key of Truth. This text (if it is indeed Paulician) is the only source that would be directly from the Paulicians. The Key of Truth does not contain anything directly Manichaean or Gnostic. However, Fred C. Conybear (who discovered the book) notes that it is purposely devoid of any Trinitarian terms. This does suggest that the Paulicians were at least influenced by the Gnostics. Unfortunately the remainder of historical data that can be gleaned comes from hostile sources. This data unquestionably bears witness to the idea that the Paulicians were Manichaeans. Boseutt and Peter of Sicily, for example, state in no uncertain terms that the Paulicians were indeed Dualists. History also says that the Paulicians denied that Jesus was in any sense physical, but rather a spirit being that appeared to be human (thus necessarily denying that the resurrection was physical). Of course, the charge of Manichaeanism was not uncommon for Catholics to make of their enemies. However, simply because it is possible that these charges were fabricated, is not reason enough to accept that they were actually fabricated. Possibility does not equal probability. In some cases, no doubt, these charges were true. After all, there were Manichaeans and Gnostic in that part of the world. Clearly, the weight of strictly historical data leads one to conclude that the Paulicians were both Manichaeans and Gnostics.

Attempts to Refute the Charges

Can these charges be reasonably answered? The defenses of three prominent, Baptist, apologists will be considered on behalf of the Paulicians. These include the works of Thomas Armitage, W. A. Jarrel, and Robert J. Sargent. Armitage correctly points out that the sources are heavily biased against the Paulicians. Unfortunately this is no defense at all. Armitage must do more than point out the very obvious fact that the Catholics were biased against the Paulicians. He must give some compelling reasons to believe that the Paulicians were not Manichaeans or Gnostics. It is telling that he admits that they might have held some beliefs that resembled Manichaeanism. W. A. Jarrel simply notes that the charge of Manichaeanism was fairly common during the middle ages. Once again, he is correct, but fails to give any positive reasons for believing the charge was misapplied to the Paulicians. This counter-argument is far too general to be effective. Hidden in a footnote, Jarrel finally admits, “That some of them [the Paulicians] held to a modified, and, almost harmless Manichaeanism is not denied. Some of them, for a time, may have been seriously Manichaean.” This confession alone is enough to confirm that the charge of Manichaeanism probably had some validity. Finally, Robert J. Sargent boldly states that the Paulicians were Trinitarian. However, he fails to support this claim with any data whatsoever. He hypothesizes that the doctrine of the two natures of a believer was mistaken for dualism. If the Paulicians’ enemies were pagans then there might be something to this charge. But, the Paulicians’ enemy was the Catholic church. The Catholics were also familiar with the Biblical doctrine of a believer’s dual nature. Thus, it seems implausible that the Catholics could have realistically mistaken a doctrine for dualism which they themselves also held to be true. As with the others, Sargent presents no reasons for believing the Paulicians were not Manichaean or Gnostic. Therefore, the arguments in favor of the Paulicians as Baptists are not very persuasive. They are primarily based upon the fact that the primary sources are biased. However, all sources are biased. That does not necessarily mean that what they record is false. It is undisputed that Manichaeans and Gnostics existed in Armenia at this time. It could just as easily be true that these charges were made because they were true. There is certainly no evidence to contradict these claims.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evidence about the Paulicians is fairly scant and mainly from their enemies. What exactly they believed is uncertain. As such, it is hard to draw any firm conclusions. Thus, in this author’s opinion, Baptists would be wise to not include the Paulicians in their lineage until more evidence arises. The weight of evidence seems to favor that the Paulicians had some form of Manichaean belief. Additionally, the evidence indicates (but by no means proves) that they were influenced by the Gnostics. These conclusions are not historically certain, but the evidence does currently show that they are more probable than not. Therefore, the Baptists should probably look elsewhere for their ecclesiastical ancestors.

Works Cited

Armitage, Thomas. A History of the Baptists: Traced by Their Vital Principles and Practices: From the Time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Year 1886; Volume 2. Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer Inc., 1890.

Cramp, J. M. Baptist History. Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer Inc., 1869.

Evans, Craig A. and Emanuel Tov, editors. Exploring the Origins of the Bible: Canon Formation in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Garsoïan, Nina G. “Byzantine Heresy. A Reinterpretation,” Dumbarton Oaks, Vol. 25, 1971.

Garsoïan Nina G. The Paulician heresy: a study of the origin and development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Procinces of the Byzantine empire. Paris, FR: Houton & Company, 1976.

Habermas, Gary. The Historical Jesus. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996.

Hamilton, Janet and Bernard Hamilton. Christian Dualist Heresies in the Byzantine World, C. 650-c. 1450. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1998.

Jarrel, W. A. Baptist Church Perpetuity. Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc., reprint 2000.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952.

Mosheim, J. L. Institutes of Ecclesiastical History Ancient and Modern, (Third Edition). New York, NY: Harper and Brothers, 1849.

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Ratzinger, Joseph, commissioner. Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Second Edition). New York, NY: Doubleday, 1995.

Runciman, Steven. The Medieval Manichee: A Study of the Christian Dualist Heresy. Charlottesville, VA: UniversityPress, 1947.

Sargent, Robert. Landmarks of Church History Vol. I. Oak Harbor, WA: Bible Baptist Church Publications, 1985.

The Key of Truth. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1898.