Anna Ohanjanyan - Eremia Chelebi's Polemics Against Sukias

Journal of the Society for
Armenian Studies 27 (2020) 7–69

brill.com/jsas
Creedal Controversies among Armenians in

the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire
Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean’s Polemical Writing against Sukʻias Prusacʻi
Anna Ohanjanyan
Mashtots Institute of Ancient Manuscripts “Matenadaran,”
Yerevan, Armenia
annaohanjanyan@gmail.com
Abstract
In the late seventeenth century along the lines of European confession-building and
Ottoman sunnitization, the Armenian Apostolic Church initiated the reshaping of its
orthodoxy in the face of growing Tridentine Catholicism. Through the contextualiza-
tion of the polemical writing attributed to the famed Constantinopolitan Armenian
erudite Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean, this article discusses the ways of detecting “bad
innovations” in the doctrine and practice of Armenian communities in the Ottoman
realms, and the doctrinal instruments used for enforcing “pure faith” towards social
disciplining of the Apostolic Armenians.
Keywords
Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean – anathema – Armenian Church – Armenian

Theology – Roman Catholic and Armenian Church relations – Tridentine Catholicism –
bad innovation – confessionalization – catechism – ʻilm-i hāl – Nicene Creed –
orthopraxy – polemics – sunnitization
© Anna Ohanjanyan, 2020 | doi:10.1163/26670038-12342708

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded
license. from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
8 Ohanjanyan
1 Introduction1
In the age of “mutually exclusive and restrictive infallible churchdoms” as Ernst

Troeltsch claims, the seventeenth-century Constantinople-based Armenian
author Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean (1637–1695) stood as “a man who res-
cued his century.”2 Eremia’s extensive historiographic heritage has not only
documented the socio-historical sweep of the Armenian communal life in the
Ottoman Empire, but has also represented the Armenian viewpoint regarding
major religious and political developments across the Empire and, in particu-
lar, within the Empire’s Armenian communities.
Ute Lotz-Heumann argues that early modern confession-building processes
noticeably affected literary genres, works, and their authors across Europe and
beyond its boundaries.3 Such an impact made polemical, catechetical, liturgi-
cal and spiritual writings from the period extremely valuable for better under-
standing the entangled social processes of the premodern world. In this regard,
Eremia Čʻēlēpi’s polemical writings are considered as important as his histori-
cal oeuvre. Largely recognized as a historiographer, Eremia Čʻēlēpi has not
been recognized as either a polemicist or a catechist. His polemical treatises,
however, contain rich material for the study of the confession-building dynam-
ics within the Armenian communities in the early modern Ottoman society.
This article seeks to explore Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean’s polemical writing
against Sukʻias, the Armenian prelate of Bursa. Through the polemical en-
counter of these two men, this article seeks to disclose creedal controversies
among the Armenian communities in the Ottoman Empire in the confessional
age. The article attempts to reconstruct Sukʻias’s life and relations with Eremia
Kʻēōmiwrčean as well as the politico-confessional context in the scope of
which their debate transpired.
1 I am grateful to Tijana Krstić and Sebouh David Aslanian for their helpful suggestions on this
article. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (erc) under
the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement
No 648498).
2 Ernst Troeltsch, “Die Bedeutung des Protestantismus für die Entstehung der Modernen
Welt,” Historische Zeitschrift 97, no. 1 (1906): 29. For a critical edition on Eremia Čʻēlēpi
Kʻēōmiwrčean, see Gayane Ayvazyan, “Eremia Chʻelepi Kʻyomyurchyani patmakan
žaṛangutʻyuně” [The Historical Heritage of Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean], (PhD diss.,
Institute of History, nasra, 2014). For a complete bibliography of Eremia’s works, see Gayane
Ayvazyan, “Eremia Kʻyomurchyani dzeṛagrakan zhaṛangutʻyuně” [The Manuscript Heritage
of Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean], Banber Matenadarani 20, (2014): 349–398. Yakob Siruni, Pōlis ev ir
derě [Constantinople and its Role], vol. 1, (Beirut: Mesrop Press, 1965), 606.
3 Ute Lotz-Heumann, Matthias Pohlig, “Confessionalization and Literature in the Empire,
1555–1700,” Central European History 40, no. 1, (2007): 35–61.
Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
Creedal Controversies among Armenians 9
2 Armenian Confession-Building within a Multi-Confessional

Ottoman Framework
The paradigm of confessionalization or confession-building (Konfessionsbildung)

was put forward by German historian Ernst Walter Zeeden in search for com-
mon models of confessional, social, political development and the means
of promoting the confessional identity during the period of the rise of
Reformation and Counter Reformation.4 Zeeden’s views were developed by
Wolfgang Reinhard and Heinz Schilling in the early 1980s.5 They argued that
the building of the Lutheran, Catholic, and Reformed confessions in the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries had deeper social and political implica-
tions beyond theology, including the processes of early modern state building.
Although Reinhard’s and Schilling’s theories have been vociferously criticized
and modified since their formulation, the confessionalization paradigm “still
addresses discord, disagreement and plurality within and between the various
confessional spheres,” hence, remains ongoing.6
In recent years scholars of the Ottoman Empire have begun to embrace
paradigm’s heuristic potential for understanding intra- and inter-communal
dynamics among Ottoman Christians and Muslims. Tijana Kritić and Derin
Terzioğlu studied a parallel process to confessionalization in the Ottoman
Empire by coining it “sunnitization.”7 The process of “sunnitization” aimed at
Sunni identity formation and the reshaping of Sunni orthodoxy through indoc-
trination of the Muslim population in the face of both Safavid Shi‘i challenge
and the polyphony of Sunni practice. Interestingly, the Ottoman Christians as
well experienced the impact of the confessional trends of the age. A multi-
tude of patterns of confession-building processes in Greek, Slavic and Syriac
4 Ernst Walter Zeeden, Konfessionsbildung: Studien zur Reformation, Gegenreformation und

katholischen Reform, (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1985).
5 Wolfgang Reinhard, “Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern State. A
Reassessment,” Catholic Historical Review 75, no. 3 (July 1989): 383–404. Heinz Schilling,
“Confessionalization: Historical and Scholarly Perspective of a Comparative and
Interdisciplinary Paradigm,” in Confessionalization in Europe, 1550-1700, ed. John M. Headley,
et. al. (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 21–36.
6 For a summary of critical works, see Ute Lotz-Heuman, “The Concept of ‘Confessionalization:’
a Historiographical Paradigm in Dispute,” Memoria y Civilización 4 (2001): 93-114; and “Forum”
German History 32, no. 4 (2014): 579-598. See the discussion in “Forum,” German History, 586.
7 On the processes of Sunnitization, and recent engagement with Sunnitization in the Ottoman
context, both Muslim and Christian, see Tijana Krstić, Contested Conversions to Islam:
Narratives of Religious Change in the Early Modern Ottoman Empire (Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press, 2011); Derin Terzioğlu, “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization:
A Historiographical Discussion,” Turcica 44 (2012–13): 301–38.
Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
10 Ohanjanyan
Christian Churches, reveals an important case of entangled histories in the

early modern era.8
One should exercise caution when engaging with the theory of confession-
alization as formulated by Reinhard and Schilling and its implications for the
Armenian communities living in very different conditions in the Ottoman
and Safavid realms. One can speak of the processes of confession-building
or re-articulation of doctrine and practice, especially among the Armenian
communities in the Ottoman Empire. However, Armenians never under-
went confessional processes like Europe, particularly with the emergence of
Protestantism in the sixteenth century. Armenian confessional developments
fail to fit in the timeline of the confessional age—the late 1540s–1700 and
1520s–1731/32, as suggested by Reinhard and Schilling.9 Before the schism in
the Armenian community of Lvov (1625–1630), relatively peaceful cohabita-
tion with Tridentine missionaries prevailed in both Ottoman and Safavid parts
of Armenia. As demonstrated by John Flennery and Christian Windler, the
relationship between the Armenian clergy and missionary orders in Safavid
Persia perfectly fit in the frames of “good correspondence.”10 The vector of
Armenian confession-building was internal rather than external, directed
against the “inner confessional enemy”—the Catholic Armenians. The confes-
sional consciousness of Armenian Apostolic clergy was triggered in the face of
conversions to Catholicism.11 Therefore, it seems that confession-building pro-
cesses in Armenian communities began in the early seventeenth century and
lasted till the second half of the eighteenth century. Given that the Armenian
Apostolic Church strove to reaffirm and reshape its miaphysite (or non-
Chalcedonic) faith through the preservation of traditions rather than to build
8 For recent scholarship, see Ovidiu Olar, “‘Io se puotesse reformare la mia chiesa, lo farei
molto volentieri…’ Kyrillos Loukaris and the Confessionalization of the Orthodox Church
(1620–1638); John-Paul Ghobrial, “The Conversion to Catholicism of the Christians of
Mosul in the Seventeenth century,” papers presented at Entangled Confessionalizations?
Dialogic Perspectives on Community and Confession-Building Initiatives in the Ottoman
Empire, 15th-18th Centuries,” Budapest, June 1–3, 2018 (Gorgias Press, 2020, forthcoming).
9 Lotz-Heuman, “The Concept,” 101–102.
10 Christian Windler, “Ambiguous Belonging: How Catholic Missionaries in Persia and
the Roman Curia dealt with Communicatio in Sacris,” in A Companion to Early Modern
Catholic Global Missions, ed. Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2018), 205–234;
John Flannery, The Mission of the Portuguese Augustinians to Persia and Beyond (1602–
1747), (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 111–147.
11 The term “Apostolic” has come into regular use in later centuries. For this period
Lusaworčʻadawan from the insiders’ perspective and Gregorian from the outsiders’ per-
spective was a common use. However, here I circulate “Apostolic” to distinguish between
miaphysite and Catholic Armenians.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
a new confession, the term “soft confessionalization” may be more suitable for
the Armenian context. The same term is applicable to the sui juris Armenian
Catholic Church, which, like the Chaldean Syrian Church, accommodated
ancient Armenian Apostolic traditions with some exceptions in doctrine and
practice, such as mixed chalice in the Communion and the doctrine of Filioque
(i.e. the doctrine of procession of the Holy Spirit also from the Son).12
The mechanisms of European confessionalization contributed to the sun-
nitization processes in the Ottoman Empire, and included the following: the
(re)formulation of “pure faith” through creeds and confessions of faith; the
distribution of “pure faith”; and its enforcement and internalization towards
social disciplining. Among other instruments of internalization—such as the
installment of the namazcı office and empowerment of mosque preachers—
the İlm-i hāl (“state of faith”) literature, that is the Islamic equivalent of Catholic
catechisms and Protestant pater familias literature, composed in the vernacu-
lar, became instrumental for training all Muslims in the vein of “correct Sunni
faith and conduct.”13 In constant contact and dialogue with both Western
Christian and Muslim communities, Eastern Christians too, increasingly paid
more attention to various formulas and definitions of faith and strove to de-
fine the limits of orthodoxy. In an attempt to redefine and enforce the “pure
faith,” the Armenian Apostolic Church gravitated toward appropriation of con-
fessionalization mechanisms by resorting to the confessions of faith, creeds
and catechisms.14 In this regard, Eremia K’ēōmiwrčean’s polemics with Sukʻias
Prusacʻi shines light on the employment of confessional literature for social
disciplining of the Armenian communities in the Ottoman lands.
12 More on the doctrine of Filioque, see A. Edward Siecienski, The Filioque: History of a
Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).
13 On the use of catechisms by Sunni Muslims, see Derin Terzioğlu, “Where İlm-i Ḥāl
Meets Catechism: Islamic Manuals of Religious Instruction in the Ottoman Empire in
the Age of Confessionalization,” Past and Present 220, no. 1 (2013): 79–114; Tijana Krstić,
“From Shahāda to ‘Aqīda: Confession to Islam, Catechization and Sunnitization in
Sixteenth-century Ottoman Rumeli,” in Islamisation: Comparative Perspectives from
History, ed. A.C.S. Peacock, (Edinburgh: University Press, 2017), 296–314.
14 For a more elaborate discussion on confessionalization for the early modern Armenian
world, see Sebouh D. Aslanian, Early Modernity and Mobility: Port Cities and Printers
Across the Armenian Diaspora, 1512–1800, chap. 3 (Yale University Press, forthcoming).
I thank the author for kindly sharing the manuscript of the book with me.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
12 Ohanjanyan
3 Eremia Čʻēlēpi’s Polemical Heritage
Eremia Čʻēlēpi was born to a wealthy and renowned priestly family in

Constantinople who contributed to the city’s most significant developments.
Well-educated and ambitious, he had never wished for a career as a cleric.
His father Martiros Kʻēōmiwrčean was the priest of Saint Sargis Armenian
Apostolic Church of Langa. In 1652, during his visit to the city, Catholicos
Pʻilipos Ałbakecʻi (1633–1655) appointed Martiros his vekil (“deputy”) and
treasurer of the alms-box of Ejmiatsʻin in Constantinople. Years later, Eremia
would assume this obligation unofficially replacing Mahtesi Ambakum—
Eremia’s uncle on his mother’s side, a descendent of a royal family, to whom
the Catholicos had entrusted the alms-box after Martiros’s death. Holding the
offices of patriarchal secretary and counselor, and active in the high society
of Constantinople, Eremia Čʻēlēpi fully integrated into the ecclesiastical, ad-
ministrative, and economic life of the Armenian communities of the Empire.
Running a bakery shop in the city market, where he spent most of his time,
Eremia acted as an observer or tʻemasha (“city-watcher”), which enhanced his
knowledge of the social fabric of the city.15 Eremia took his first steps as a his-
toriographer when he was still twelve years of age. His Ōragrutʻiwn or Diary, il-
lustrates the intra-, inter- and trans-communal history of the Ottoman Empire.
In 1939, Mesrop Nshanian published the Diary along with some of his epistles,
hymns, and laments. His Jewish Poems, containing polemical remarks about the
followers of Šabbetay Ṣevi, have been published and partly translated as well.16
His major polemical writings against the Jews, Greeks, Armenian Catholics,
and crypto-Protestants have heretofore remained unstudied.
Notwithstanding his early literary achievements as a historiographer,
Eremia Čʻēlēpi first voiced his objections against confessional “others” only in
1656 when he engaged himself in polemics with the Greeks in reaction to the
rivalry over disputed sacred sites in the Holy Land. The Greeks in Jerusalem
had been in fierce dispute with the Armenians since their deviation on the
15 The intense engagement of Armenians in urban life through city-watching people watch-
ing, promenading and exchanging information in maydans was an inseparable part of
daily life for an average inhabitant of Constantinople. See Polina Ivanova, “Armenians in
Urban Order and Disorder of Seventeenth-Century Istanbul,” Journal of the Ottoman and
Turkish Studies Association 4, no. 2 (2017): 239–260.
16 Paolo Lucca, “Šabbetay Ṣewi and the Messianic Temptations of Ottoman Jews in the
Seventeenth Century According to Christian Armenian Sources,” in Contacts and
Controversies between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Ottoman Empire and Pre-Modern
Iran, ed. Camilla Adang and Sabine Schmidtke (Würzburg: Ergon-Verlag, 2010), 197–206.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
date of Easter, referred to as cṛazatik (“curved Easter”).17 At that time the con-
fessional quarrels over the “curved Easter” reached their climax, giving rise to
a number of anecdotes among the Armenians and Greeks.18 In fact, the litiga-
tions between the Greeks and Armenians were for the domination over the
sites of the Copts, Ethiopians, and Syriac Orthodox in Jerusalem, which were
under the jurisdiction of the Armenian Church. Years later, in 1656, with the
help of their Constantinopolitan allies, the Greeks succeeded in obtaining a
permission from grand vizier Boynuyaralı Mehmed Pasha for the appropria-
tion of an Ethiopian church of Abba Abraham that used to be under Armenian
jurisdiction.
The Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem Astuacatur Taroncʻi (1645–1664; 1668–
1670) arrived in Constantinople to seek the assistance of wealthy Armenians
in settling the issue. Being aware of the wealth and influential role of vardapet
Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, the patriarch promised the position of vekil in return for his
support. Given that Ełiazar had found himself in the middle of a severe com-
petition for the patriarch’s office in Constantinople with the deposed patri-
arch Yovhannēs Mułnecʻi (1652–1655), he agreed to negotiate with Boynuyaralı
Mehmed Pasha to return the Ethiopian Church to the Armenians.19 Ełiazar
succeeded in his effort with the help of Xoǰa Ṙuhiǰan, a wealthy Armenian with
excellent connections to the Ottoman elite. As promised, he was appointed the
patriarchal vekil in Jerusalem, where he headed at the beginning of October,
1656. When Köprülü Mehmed Pasha (1656–1661) assumed the office of grand
vizier, Patriarch Paiseus of Jerusalem (1645–1660) negotiated on behalf of the
Greeks to obtain a firman, allowing the Greek Church to usurp not only the
17 For more details on the deviation of the date of Easter, see Pavel Kuzenkov, “Corrections
of the Easter Computus: Heresy or Necessity? Fourteenth Century Byzantine Forerunners
of the Gregorian Reform,” in Orthodoxy and Heresy in Byzantium: The Definition and
the Notion of Orthodoxy and Some Other Studies on the Heresies and the Non-Christian
Religions, ed. Antonio Rigo, Pavel Ermilov (Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma “Tor
Vergata,” 2010), 147–158.
18 For Greek sources about these events, see Pavel Kuzenkov, Konstantin Panchenko,
“‘Krivye Paskhi i Blagodatniy Ogon’ v Istoricheskoy Retrospektive” [“‘Curved Easters and
the Holy Fire’ in the Historical Retrospective”], Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta 13, no.
4, (2006): 3–29. It seems that Dositheos ii of Jerusalem and later historiographers have
simply seconded the famous narrative about the Ascent of the Holy Fire, circulating in the
early modern Orthodox folklore.
19 The real intention of Ełiazar was to diminish the influence of Ejmiacin over the
Armenians under Ottoman jurisdiction. Therefore, the newly elected Catholicos Yakob
Jˇułayecʻi (1655–1680) took the side of Yovhannēs Mułnecʻi. For this reason, the monks
in Constantinople refused to mention Yakob Jˇułayecʻi’s name during the Divine Liturgy
for some time. Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn [Diary], ed. Mesrop Nshanian,
(Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1939), 209.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
14 Ohanjanyan
Ethiopian dominions in Jerusalem, but also the Armenian Convent of Saints

James.20 Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi was accused of disobedience and persecuted dur-
ing this process, escaping to Aleppo. Afterwards, he was further detained by
the ruler of Damascus, Teyar Oğlu, then transferred to Bursa, from where he
escaped but was apprehended again and brought to face Köprülü Mehmed
Pasha. He was finally released thanks to the intervention of Xoǰa Ṙuhiǰan and
Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean. It was not until 1659, through the mediation of Köprülü
Mehmed Pasha’s kahya (“chamberlain”), that Ełiazar resumed the rights of the
Armenians to the Saints James Convent.21
In light of the aforementioned events in 1656, Eremia Čʻēlēpi composed his
Vičabanutʻiwn Yunacʻ. Jˇatagovutʻiwn Haykakan Ekełecʻwoy (Polemics with the
Greeks or Vindication of the Armenian Church) known also as the Apology of
the Rites of the Armenian Church—a work that has remained hitherto unpub-
lished.22 We know little about Eremia’s polemical treatise: he mentions once his
piece “on the Greeks,” but he might probably be referring to his Vipasanutʻiwn
Aṙman Surb Gēorg Ekełecʻwoy (Narrative on the Takeover of Saint Gēorg Church
from the Greeks) penned in 1677.23
20 According to a well-known anecdote this convent was granted to the Armenians in

Jerusalem by the prophet Muhammad. See Samuēl Anecʻi, Hawakʻmunkʻ i grocʻ patmagracʻ
[Compilation from the Writings of Historiographers], ed. Arshak Tēr-Mikʻelian,
(Vagharshapat: St. Ejmiatsin Press, 1893), 80; Mxitʻar Anecʻi, Patmutʻiwn [History], ed.
Kerovbe Patkanian (Saint-Petersburg: 1879), 47; Babken Kiwleserian, Islamě hay mat-
enagrutyan mej [Islam in Armenian Literature], (Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1930), 122.
21 For details, see Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 206, 225–226, et. cetera. Mikʻael Čʻamčʻian
describes these events based solely on Eremia’s Diary and Chronicle [Taregrutʻyiwn], see
Mikʻael Čʻamčʻian, Hayocʻ patmutʻiwn [History of Armenia], vol. 3, (Venice: St. Lazzaro,
1786), 671–687.
22 The manuscript is preserved in Mekhitarist Library of Venice, V621. For details see
Ayvazyan, “Eremia K‘yomurchyani,” 362. There is an uncatalogued polemical writing
against the Jews (old cat. no. V1155), which is not to be confused with Eremia’s Jewish
Poems on Šabbateans. Henceforth Armenian manuscripts are cited according to Bernard
Coulie’s system in Répertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscripts arméni-
ens. Liste des utilisés pour désigner les manuscrits, (Accociation Internationale des Études
Arméniennes, edition revue: 2002), https://sites.uclouvain.be/aiea/wp-content/up-
loads/2014/03/Sigles.pdf
23 «…իսկ Երեմիայի Զմաճարացն, և Զգանտիոյն, Զսուտ քրիստոսին, և Զսուլթան
մէհէմէտինս, Զօսմանցոցն Դ հատորս և Զլանկ թամուրին, Զխալիֆէիցն
պաղտատայ և Զպարսկացն, Զհռօմայեցւոց և Զյունաց, Զնոր նահատակացն
և Զհրկիզութիւն ստամպօլոյ, Զամէրիգային և Զառնաւուտին, Զհամառօտ
օսմանցուն, Զբագրատունեացն և Զկիլիկեցոցն համառօտ, Զմովսիսին
համառօտ և Զչուառութիւն հայոց, և Զժամանակագիրս և Զաշխարհացոյց և
Արարողութիւնք ոմանց ազգաց, և այլ բազումք ըստ օրում և սոյն մատեանս
մասնաւորապէս…» (… and Eremia’s on the Hungarians, and Crete, False Christ and

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Eremia Čʻēlēpi’s reproachful stance towards the Greek Orthodox Church was
expressed early on, versus his balanced attitude towards the Roman Catholic
Church—specifically Catholic Armenians. Eremia compiled an Armenian
Catholic catechism in 1681, titled Girkʻ harcʻmancʻ (“Book of Questions”).24
It was commissioned by an Armenian Catholic priest Tʻadēos Hamazaspean
Isfahancʻi (Erevancʻi), who along with the Julfan Armenian merchant residing
in Venice Xoǰa Gaspar Sarhadean, established a printing press in Venice and
published a Xorhrdatetr (“Missal”) and Čašoc‘ (“Lectionary”) in 1686.25 Tʻadēos’s
confessional identity seems to be rather ambiguous; in 1691 the Roman Curia
Sultan Mehmed, four volumes on Ottomans and Tamerlane, Caliphate of Baghdad and
Persians, on the Romans and Greeks, on New martyrs and the Fire of Istanbul, on America
and Albanian [baker], Brief on Ottomans, on Bagratide dynasty and Brief on Cilicians [i.e.
Rubenid and Hetumid dynasties], Brief on Moses, and the Flight of Armenians, on the
Chroniclers and Geography and Traditions of some nations, and many other things and
this codex in particular…), NOJ498, f.77r. Editio princeps published by Yarutʻiwn Kʻiwrtian,
“Vipasanutʻiwn aṙman Surb Gēorg ekełecʻwoy, or i Makēdoniay i Pʻilipupolis i jeṙacʻ azgin
Yunacʻ” [The Narrative on the Takeover of Saint Gevorg Church that is in Macedonia in
Philippopolis from the Hands of the Greeks], Bazmavep 84, no. 8–9, (1927), 237–239. For
the bibliographical details, see Ayvazyan, “Eremia Kʻyomurchyani,” 354–355, 385–386, n.
454–457.
24 Eremia’s Book of Questions is preserved in two copies: one in New Julfa (NOJ498), and an
incomplete version at the Matenadaran (M72; f.123r–179v). Its full caption is [H]arcʻ ew
patasxankʻ usumnasiracʻ xndrołacʻ, or uni inkʻean parunakeal i masancʻ astuacabanutʻeancʻ
ew pʻilisopʻayutʻeancʻ ew žamanakagrutʻeancʻ ew kerpicʻ ałōtʻicʻ aṙeal i latinacʻwocʻ, yunacʻ
ew hayocʻ, [Question and Answers of the Seeker Philomaths, that Contain Excerpts from
Theology and Philosophy and Chronicles and Kinds of Prayers Taken from Latins, Greeks
and Armenians].
25 «…Եւ սոյն մատեանս մասնաւորապէս ժողովեալ ի խնդրոյ թաթէոս երիցու
իսպահանցոյ շատ թախանձանօք» (…And this codex was especially compiled at the
behest of the priest T‘adēos Isfahanc‘i with much solicitation), NOJ498, f.77r–v. For Tʻadēos
Hamazaspean’s autobiography, see [Grigor Galemkʻerian], “Tʻadēi ericu patmakan mēk
gorcě”[An Historical Writing of Priest Tʻadēos], Handēs Amsōreay 1, no. 11 (1887): 168–173,
no 12: 194–197. For Tʻadēos’s letter to Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, see Čashocʻ [Lectionary], (Venice:
St. Lazzaro, 1686), 2–3. The fact that in Istanbul Tʻadēos Hamazaspean commissioned
Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean to compile an Armenian-Catholic catechism as his pocketbook has
remained hitherto unknown. However, Sahak Djemjemian talks about Hamazaspean’s
visit to Istanbul with Salomon de Leon, Oskan Eerevancʻi’s nephew and fellow printer. For
the details see his Hay tpagrutʻiwně ev Hṛom. ZHĒ dar [Armenian Typography and Rome:
xvii century], (Venice: St. Lazzaro, 1989), 151–155. Apart from the Missal and Lectionary
in 1687, Xoǰa Gaspar and T‘adēos published Xokumn K‘ristonēakan [Christian Meditation]
translated by Catholic Armenian author Yovhannēs Holov or Yakob Kostandnupolsets’i
(1635–1691). Presumably, the print was carried out by Giacomo Moretti’s printing house
or was under its nominal jurisdiction, as the book has his name on the title page. After
1688 Gaspar quit the printing enterprise. For more details see Raymond H. Kévorkian,
Catalogue des “incunables” arméniens (1511/1695) ou chronique de l’imprimerie arménienne.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
16 Ohanjanyan
labeled the missal he printed in Venice as “heretical,” because the text fol-
lowed the Armenian Apostolic tradition.26 However, the Book of Questions that
Eremia tailored for Tʻadēos might be considered the first Armenian-Catholic
catechism per se.27 The very existence of such a catechism proves that—if so-
licited and probably commissioned—Eremia would have written equally for
both the Apostolic and Catholic Armenians.
After 1691—when Eremia wrote against the Armenian Catholics and
Lutherans—he explained the social causes of such tolerance towards
Catholicism.28 Criticizing the wealthy youth of Constantinople as being keen
on “prestigious European” confessions, Eremia claims:
Եւ զի տեղեկացեալ էի ի նոցունց, զի զաղքատաց, այսինքն

զհայոց և զյունաց վկայութիւնս ոչ ընկալան որպէս զի ատեցին
և զհարուստս սիրեցին։ Բարիոք է զի և ինձ ուսուսցին սիրել
զմեծատունս զսիրելիս իւրեանց
And as I have been informed of them [the wealthy], that they do not
accept the attestations [of faith] of the poor, that is, of Armenians and
Greeks, for they loathed [the latter] and loved the rich [Catholics and
Protestants]. Fair enough, for I too was taught to love the wealthy—their
favorites [ms V317, f.1r].29
It seems that in the past Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean somewhat tolerated pro-

Catholic affinities among Armenians. It is important here to acknowledge that
Eremia’s attitude towards pro-Catholic Armenians changed after 1692, when
Préface de Jean-Pierre Mahé, (Geneve: P. Cramer, 1986), 106-107. I owe this information to
Sebouh D. Aslanian.
26 Djemdjemian assumes that in the Missal printed around that time, Tʻadēos attempted
to steer clear of deviations from the Apostolic tradition in spite of his being a Catholic.
Eremia played not the last role in keeping the Missal in line with the Armenian Church
tradition as we see him put his seal on a certificate in 1682 attesting that he was involved
in making corrections with Hamazaspean on the Missal: Djemdjemian, Hay tpagrutʻiwně,
154–155 and 173–179.
27 The first part of the Book of Questions is an excerpt from the Christian Doctrine pub-
lished by Oskan Erevancʻi in Amsterdam in 1667 (imprimatur by Brieven van Theodorus
Petraeus), which corresponded to the “needs of the Armenians” more than that of
Belarmin’s Dottrina Christiana. See Doctrina Christiana: Armenice, in Latinum versa
(Amstelodami: Imp. auctoris, et typis Armeniorum, 1667).
28 Bernard Heyberger, “Le Catholicisme Tridentin au Levant (XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles),”
Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée 101–102, no. 2, (1989): 902.
29 Unless otherwise indicated translations of these original texts are my own.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
he penned his two major vindications of Armenian Apostolic faith against the
“Frankish” practice. What exactly provoked this kind of switch in his attitude?
After the death of his three children—Yovsēp’ in 1680, Sołomē in 1690 and
his elder son vardapet Grigor in 1692, of whom he had great expectations—
Eremia got isolated from the outer world by “sacrificing himself to the books.”30
This period coincided with the surge in the activity of Catholic Armenian
priests educated in Collegium Urbanum (a college established in 1627 by de
Propaganda Fide in Rome to train Catholic missionaries from the East), who
continued to occupy offices in Armenian churches and enjoy the liberty of
preaching Tridentine Catholicism from their pulpits.31 In a letter to his friend
and mentor Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, Eremia Čʻēlēpi describes the heated intra-
communal debates on orthodoxy and orthopraxy initiated by vardapet Sargis
Tʻokʻatʻecʻ’i or Sargis Šahētcʻi Gasparean in 1690, who publicly differentiated
the Armenians into “Catholics and schismatics, Frank and Armenian.”32
It is widely known that the Catholic strategy of infiltration into Eastern and
Oriental Christian Churches turned out to be very productive. The access of
Catholic Armenian priests into the Armenian churches through communicatio
in sacris (here: participation of the Catholics in liturgical practices and sac-
raments like baptism, marriages and funerals with the Armenian Apostolics),
and their printing activities under the protectorate of Charles de Ferriol (1691–
1711)—Luis xiv’s Ambassador to Constantinople and the Levant—provide the
context in which the work and life of Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean can be better un-
derstood.33 The relatively patient attitude of the Ottomans towards European
30 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 66 and Appendix, 578–579.

31 Tridentine Catholicism represents Catholic doctrine and practice, in the celebration of
the mass, following the reforms of the Council of Trent (1545-1563). It was a reaction to
and against Protestantism. After the Council of Trent its decrees became imposed on
Catholics of all orders in an attempt to synchronize the faith.
32 Sargis was the bishop of Bethlehem from 1684–1690. Ordained a vardapet by Minas
Hamtʻecʻi, he traveled to Jerusalem. He was consecrated a bishop by Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi in
1676. For more details, see Grigor Galemkʻerian, Kensagrutʻiwnner erku hay patriarkʻneru
ev tasn episkoposneru ev zhamanakin katʻoghikēaykʻ [Biographies of Two Armenian
Patriarchs and Ten Bishops and the Catholics of the Time], (Vienna: Mekhitarist Press,
1915), 64–99; Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean, Patmutʻiwn Stampōlay [History of Istanbul],
ed. Vahan Torgomian, (Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1913), 176.
33 Altough communicatio in sacris was generally prohibited by the Holy Office in
1729, it continued to be exercised under certain conditions even after the prohibi-
tion. For an overview, see Cesare Santus, Trasgressioni Necessarie. Communicatio in
Sacris, Coesistenza e Conflitti tra le Comunità Cristiane Orientali (Levante e Impero
Ottomano, XVII–XVIII secolo), (Rome: Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises de Rome et
d’Athènes, 2019), 309-376. Idem, “La communicatio in sacris con gli ‘scismatici’ ori-
entali in età moderna” in Les Mélanges de l’École française de Rome, 2014, (https://

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
18 Ohanjanyan
presence in the Empire had changed after the Venetian occupation of Chios
between 1694–1695. The occupation resulted in the Sultan’s Hatt-ı Şerif (“edict”)
in May 1695, proscribing the proselytizing activity of Catholic missionaries.34
At the time of this historical backdrop, Eremia Čʻēlēpi decided to exercise his
talent as a polemicist and compose two works between 1692–1695:
(a) Jˇatagovutʻiwn Hayastaneaycʻ Ekełecʻwoy (Apology of the Armenian
Church) composed as a refutation of diverse accusations against the prac-
tice of the Armenian Church coming from various confessions, mainly
from crypto-Catholic and crypto-Protestant contexts.35
(b) Patasxani Astucov ev vasn Astucoy, or Argileacʻ ‘Zisk orkʻ asenn,’ zor
Asacʻeal en i Verǰn Hawatamkʻin (Response with God’s help and concerning
God to the Person, who Disallowed the Recitation of “As for those who say”
at the end of the Creed), a brief treatise aimed at defending the practice of
the Armenian Church against “precarious novelties.”36
Historian Gayane Ayvazyan considers the two writings as a single treatise, and
places them under the Apology of the Armenian Church—despite the fact that
Eremia’s biographer Nersēs Akinian, followed by a historian of Constantinople
Yakob Siruni, considered them separate texts.37 Presumably, the two works
journals.openedition.org/mefrim/1790#tocto1n2); Mardiros Abagian, “La Questione

della ‘communicatio in sacris’ nel secolo XVIII e la formazione del Patriarcato Armeno
Cattolico” [The question of Communicatio in Sacris in the Eighteenth Century and the
Formation of the Armenian Catholic Patriarchate], Bazmavep 139, no. 1–2 (1981): 129–184;
141, no. 1–4 (1983): 215–234; 146, no. 1–4 (1988): 155–174; 147, no. 1–4 (1989): 244–258; 148,
no. 1–2 (1990): 146–162; no. 3–4 (1990): 413–419; 149, no. 1–2 (1990): 461–476; 150, no. 1–4
(1992): 202-216; Guillaume Aral, Les Arméniens Catholiques: Étude historique, juridique
et institutionnelle XVIIe–XVIIIe siècle; suivi Les Mythes de la Christianistion de l’Arménie,
(Nice: Les Édition de Nichéphore, 2017), 104–112. On the common practice with Apostolic
Armenians in New Julfa in the seventeenth century, see Windler, “Ambiguous Belonging,”
205–234.
34 According to the Hatt-ı Şerif, Catholics were perceived as “not only Agents of the Roman
Pope, but Spies in [Ottoman] Empire,” thereby, the engagement of Armenians, Greeks and
Syriacs with any Frank was punishable by the law. See A. de la Motraye, Travels through
Europe, Asia and into Part of Africa, vol. 1, (London, 1723), 159, and 393–394. For a thorough
treatment of the subject, see Santus, Trasgressioni necessarie, 316–320, and 320–358.
35 Yakob Siruni places the Apology under the caption Responses to Those who Slander against
Armenian Church; Siruni, Pōlis, 630. I am thankful to Archbishop Boghos Levon Zekiyan
for his assistance in getting access to this manuscript at the Library of Mekhitarist
Congregation in Venice. I am currently working on preparing a critical edition of the
Apology.
36 Yakob Siruni mentions the Franks under the caption Response with God’s help and
Concerning God. Siruni, Pōlis, 630.
37 Ayvazyan, “Eremia Kʻyomurchyani,” 360 and 390, n. 74.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
were written simultaneously or shortly after each other as they contain similar
textual passages:
… և թէ Նեստոր այսպէս բարբանջեաց վասն Քրիստոսի, Արիոս

այսպէս բաջաղեց վասն Քրիստոսի, ֆիլան քեօփէկ այսպէս
կարծեց վասն Քրիստոսի և հաչեց։.…Քանզի փիրք նոցուն գիտունք,
բայց ամբարտաւանութեամբ հակառակեցան սրբուհւոյ եկեղեցւոյ,
որպէս Արիոս թիւր լի մի բարբանջելով, և Մակեդոն թավուր մի
բաջաղելով և Նեստոռ այլ իմն ղօղանջելով և նմանք նոցուն։
… and [telling] that Nestorius trifled in such-and-such manner about

Christ, and Arius prattled so-and-so about Christ, and the such-and-such
dog assumed so-and-so about Christ and barked [ms bnf Arm.334]….
For their [Protestants] sages are knowledgeable, but they contradicted
the Holy Church with haughtiness, likewise Arius trifling a lot of blun-
der and Macedon prattling something arrogant and Nestorius talking idly
something else, and the likes of them [ms V317].
Both writings reflect primarily on issues of orthopraxy within the Armenian

Church. The Apology is the first document in Armenian officially testifying
the existence of crypto-Protestant Armenians in Constantinople in the late
seventeenth century.38 It is also a set of questions and answers on the “true
faith” collected by Eremia from the representatives of various religious groups.
In contrast, Response with God’s help is a set of rhetorical questions and argu-
ments, which Eremia himself addressed to Sukʻias, the prelate of Bursa, ac-
cusing him of planting “precarious” novelties into the minds of the Apostolic
faithful. Sukʻias—Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi’s desciple and loyal assistant—was advo-
cating against the recital of the Nicene Anathema (incipit: “As for those who
say”) during the Divine Liturgy, which was the ancient custom of the Armenian
Church. It provoked Eremia to rebuke Sukʻias for a “bad innovation” aimed at
ruining the liturgical traditions and the reputation of the Apostolic Church.
38 It is worth noting that the scholarship on Protestants and Armenians has focused on
the work of nineteenth-century missionaries, and this earlier phase is in need of further
research.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
20 Ohanjanyan
4 Sukʻias Prusacʻi, the Author of “Bad Innovation”
Little is known of Sukʻias (Hesychius, Gr. Ἡσύχιος), the Armenian prelate of

Bursa, and his relations with Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean.39 Maghakʻia Ōrmanian
refers to Sukʻias as to a prominent archpriest, whose name has remained un-
known in history.40 To reconstruct his life, one has to delve into the small details
scattered in manuscript colophons. The manuscript catalogues have preserved
three vardapets by the name of Sukʻias who lived in the period in question,
namely Sukʻias of Bursa (Prusacʻi), Sukʻias of Van (Vanecʻi) and Sukʻias of Tokat
(Tʻokʻatʻecʻi).
Careful examination of manuscripts demonstrates these three individuals
to be the same person. Two arguments support this assumption. First is the
poem dedicated to the Holy Virgin (incipit: Iskuhi Astuacacin, Surb Koys) pre-
served in the collection attributed to Sukʻias Vanecʻi, which also appears under
the name of Sukʻias Prusacʻi, and Sukʻias Tʻokʻatʻecʻi.41 Second, is the unique
dating system used in the poems and colophons found under the name of ei-
ther Sukʻias Prusacʻi, Vanecʻi or Tʻokʻatʻecʻi. He writes the date, for instance,
as ԱՌԱՃԻԼ (1+1000+1+100+20+30=1152 +551=1703), which was not the com-
mon pattern of indicating a date according to the Armenian Era—otherwise
it would be ՌՃԾԲ (1152+551=1703). This numbering is unique across the three
figures, and therefore this particular system supports the assumption that
under all three names, the same Sukʻias is arguably to be recognized as the
same scribe.
A theologian and a poet, vardapet Sukʻias was also a masterful scribe, com-
missioner, owner, donator and dedicatee of a multitude of manuscripts cop-
ied in Jerusalem, Bursa, Tigranakert and elsewhere affixed with his personal
seal with the inscription “Sukʻias theologian vardapet.”42 In the colophon to a
manuscript copied in 1674 in Jerusalem and sealed by Sukʻias, the latter calls
himself Tʻokʻatʻecʻi and mentions his father’s and grandfather’s names—Sargis
39 The copyist of a Girkʻ harcʻołacʻ [Book of Questioners] (J619) reports in 1721 that he has
copied it from the sample of Sukʻias, the archbishop of Bursa. In fact, Sukʻias is rarely
called a bishop or an archbishop in the manuscripts, but rather “a theologian vardapet”
or “a philosopher vardapet” that underlines him to be famous for his education and theo-
logical knowledge.
40 Maghakʻia Ormanian, Azgapatum [Narratives of the Nation], vol. 2, (repr. Ejmiatsin,
2001), 3142.
41 M1635, f. 7v–8r; M1430, f. 68r–69v; bnf Arm. 85, f. 170
42 For instance National Library of Armenians in Galata (itt) 84, itt 92, itt 114; J623, J930,
J940, J1741, J1587, J1926, J2827, J3202, J3328, Karmir vankʻ (ankk) 124.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
and Tʻoros Tʻokʻatʻecʻi, a proof that he came from Tokat (Eudokia).43 In most of
the manuscripts he is called “theologian vardapet Sukʻias,” whereas in his tałs
(“poems”) and colophons he frequently refers to himself as “worthless and sin-
ful Sukʻias.”44 He was confusingly called Sukʻias Vanecʻi because in two of his
poems he mentions the city of Van in “Kurdistan” as the locus for some of his
poems, which reveals him having spent some time in Eastern provinces of the
Empire. The scribe of a Maštocʻ (“Ritual Book”) informs us that the nickname
of Sukʻias Prusacʻi was Karčahasak, meaning “of short height.” Here his fame of
being “a vardapet of vardapets” is also noted.45
Vardapet Sukʻias is said to have been born in 1636. At the end of a poem
which dates from 1702, he mentions that he is sixty-six years old.46 He was
Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi’s student and protégé, who frequently accompanied him
during his travels. In his Diary, Eremia remembers him as “vekil [deputy] of
vardapet Ełiazar” only once while describing the trip to Galata and Balat in
1653.47After his release and dispatch to Jerusalem in 1659—to assume the
office of the Patriarch’s vekil as well as to receive Saints James Convent back
from the Greeks—Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi conceived and carefully executed a plan
to establish an anti-Catholicosate of Jerusalem. His aim was to detach the
Armenian prelacies in Ottoman provinces from the pontifical seat of Ejmiacin,
then under the control of his arch-rival, Catholicos of all Armenians Yakob iv
Jˇułayecʻi (1655–1680).48 To this end, in 1663 Ełiazar won the trust of Catholicos
of Sis Xač‘atur Mintērči (1657–1674) to perform a service of consecration with
holy myrrh by calling for the preservation of the Catholicosate of Cilicia. To
justify his rivalry against Catholicos Yakob Jˇułayecʻi, Ełiazar had collected the
43 itt 92, f. 742; see in Tsʻutsʻak azgayin matenadaranin hayocʻ i Ghalatʻia, Kostandnupōlis
[Catalogue of Manuscripts in Armenian National Library in Galata, Constantinople], ed.
Babken Coadjutor Catholicos, (Lebanon: Antelias, 1961), 594.
44 Some of his poems were published in Ush mijnadari hay banasteghtsutʻyuně (XVI–XVII dd.)
[The Armenian Poetry of Late Middle Ages (xvi–xvii Centuries)], ed. Hasmik Sahakyan,
(Yerevan: Haykakan Gitutʻyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchutʻyun, 1975), 392–443.
45 J2298, f. 326r; Mayr Tsʻutsʻak dzeṛagratsʻ Srbotsʻ Yakobeantsʻ[Grand Catalogue of
Manuscripts of Saints James Convent], ed. Norayr Pogharian, (Jerusalem: St. James Press,
1974), vol. 7, 492. See also, Bishop Tsovakan (= Norayr Pogharian), “Gavazanagirk‘ varda-
petats” [List of Vardapets], Hask 22, no. 6–7 (1953): 171–172.
46 «Է վաթսուն եւ վեց տառապելոյս, // ՄԻՋԻԴ Է (1702) թիւըն զայս բան
գըրելոյս…», M1635, f. 40v.
47 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 47–48.
48 For the overview, see Avetis Sanjian, The Armenian Communities in Syria under
Ottoman Dominion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 104–109. See,
Hakob Anasyan’s seminal XVII dari azatagrakan sharzhumnerě Arevmtyan Hayastanum
[Liberation Movements During the xvii Century in Western Armenia] (Yerevan:
Haykakan Gitutʻyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchutʻyun, 1961), 241–272.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
22 Ohanjanyan
complaints about the vicious behavior of the Yakob Jˇułayecʻi’s nviraks (“leg-
ates”) in Ottoman lands. The legates started to sell the myrrh to the Western
prelacies and provoked mistrust among the Armenians of the Empire. In 1664,
with the efforts of Apro Čʻēlēpi—Eremia’s relative and the banker (sełanawor)
of grand vizier Köprülüzade Fazıl Ahmed Pasha (1661–1676)—Ełiazar received
the vizier’s permission by having him assured that the detachment of Western
prelacies from Ejmiacin in Persian lands would prevent the flow of Safavid
spies to the Ottoman Empire.49
In 1664 Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi was consecrated by Xhačʻatur Mintērči in
Aleppo and became the Catholicos of Jerusalem. This evoked the wrath of
Catholicos Yakob Jˇułayecʻi.50 Receiving the news from vardapet Martiros
Kafacʻi in 1665, he immediately summoned a council in Ejmiacin to launch a
campaign against Ełiazar and sent encyclicals everywhere warning of Ełiazar’s
uncanonical course.51 As a consequence, Ełiazar had to roam around for a
while, reaching Bursa, Edirne, and Constantinople while waiting for a firman
from the grand vizier affirming his appointment as a Catholicos of Western
Armenians and allowing him to take the throne of Jerusalem. Eventually, with
bribery and the backing of Apro Čʻēlēpi, he arrived in Jerusalem in 1667 as a
“patriarch and Catholicos.”52 At the end of the same year, however, Catholicos
Yakob Jˇułayecʻi’s trustee Martiros Kafacʻi armed with Sultan Mehmed iv’s
firman landed in Jerusalem and deposed Ełiazar for a short period. In 1670
Ełiazar recovered his rights to the seat, again resorting to bribery. The copy-
ist of a Tōnapatčaṛ (“Festal Homiliary”), priest Sahak reports in his colophon
that in 1677 once again Martiros Kafacʻi and in 1680 Yovhannēs Amasiacʻi Topal
49 Ōrmanian, Azgapatum, 2962-2965.

50 Ōrmanian, Azgapatum, 2965.
51 For Catholicos Yakob’s encyclical letter, see Yarut‘iwn Kʻiwrtian, “Yakob Katʻołikos
Jˇułayecʻii noragiwt xist karevor vaveratʻughtʻ mǝ” [Newly Discovered Extremely
Important Document attributed to Catholicos Yakob Jˇułayecʻi], Sion 43, no. 3–4 (1969):
126–133. Another letter to Ełiazar from Eremia’s father priest Martiros explicitly demon-
strates the ardent willingness of the westerners to see Ełiazar on the throne of Jerusalem
as the Catholicos of the Western provinces. See “Martiros kʻahanay Kʻēōmiwrčean K.
Pōlsēn aṙ Ełiazar Ayntʻapcʻi i Bera” [Priest Martiros Kʻēōmiwrčean from Constantinople to
Ełiazar Ayntʻapcʻi in Aleppo], Sion 6, no. 9 (1932): 278–280.
52 When in 1667 Ełiazar eventually settled in Jerusalem keeping the title catholicos, Apro
went so far as to call him “the Catholicos of all Armenians”—a title reserved exception-
ally for the Catholicos on the pontifical throne in Ejmiacin, see “Apro Čʻēlēpi aṙ Ełiazar
katʻołikos” [Apro Čʻēlēpi to Catholicos Ełiazar], Sion 15, no. 1-2 (1941): 40.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
usurped the patriarchal throne of Jerusalem while Ełiazar “was silently sitting
[somewhere] in Jerusalem.”53
Ełiazar’s loyal disciple vardapet Sukʻias was his patron’s inseparable compan-
ion throughout his intriguing career. Sukʻias was by his side during the clashes
between the Greeks and the Armenians in Jerusalem, 1656–1657.54 In 1660 he
was in Constantinople, in Üsküdar dispatched to settle fiscal issues on Ełiazar’s
behalf. Later in the same year he was in Jerusalem at his patron’s feet.55 Sukʻias
followed Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi all the way from Aleppo (1664–1667), where the
latter was ordained a catholicos, up to his final settlement in Jerusalem in
1667.56 We do not know much about the Jerusalemian period of his life. Minas
Hamtʻecʻi’s Ōragrutʻiwn (Diary) may contain valuable information about the
years spent in Jerusalem, but having its manuscript at hand, we have yet to
examine it thoroughly.57 Piecing together various manuscript colophons, we
do find Sukʻias in Jerusalem in 1668. In a manuscript colophon he claims to
have found that manuscript in the city of Tigranakert. Years later he commis-
sioned priest Tumas to copy it. Apparently, Sukʻias traveled to Tigranakert with
his patron in 1652, where Ełiazar used to be the prior of the monastery of the
Barjrahayeacʻ Surb Astuacacin (“Exalted Mother of God”).58
In 1674–75, Sukʻias was in Jerusalem with Ełiazar, where he commissioned
priest Eremia (known as a poet) to copy a collection of patristic works.59 In
1677, when Martiros Kafacʻi usurped the patriarchal throne in Jerusalem for the
second time, Sukʻias was in Bursa, where he commissioned deacon Nikołayos
to copy a collection of theological writings as a gift for Nahapet Edesacʻi.60 In
53 J120, f 919-921. See the colophon of the scribe Sahak in Tōnapatčaṙ, Połarian, Mayr Cʻucʻak,
vol. 1, 336–337.
54 “Martiros vardapet Kafacʻi Ṙotostʻoyēn aṙ Ełiazar vardapet Ayntʻapcʻi yErusałēm” [Vartapet
Martiros from Rodosto to Vardapet Ełiazar Ayntʻapcʻi in Jerusalem], Sion 4, no. 12 (1930):
384–385.
55 “Martiros Kafacʻi patriarkʻ K.Polsoy aṙ Ełiazar K. Polis” [Patriarch of Constantinople
Martiros Kafacʻi to Ełiazar in Constantinople], Sion 6, no. 8 (1932): 252.
56 We see Sukʻias in Aleppo attempting to dissuade Ełiazar from reading out the letter of
ignominy sent by Martiros Kafacʻi right after Ełiazar’s consecration. See Ōrmanian,
Azgapatum, 2972.
57 Mesrop Nshanian has selectively published passages relating to Eremia from Minas
Hamtʻecʻi’s Ōragrutʻiwn (J1316) in his edition of Eremia’s Diary. See Kʻēōmiwrčean,
Ōragrutʻiwn. Introducion, 136–144. Other brief passages might be found in, Połarian, Mayr
Cʻucʻak, vol. 4, 564–566.
58 itt114, f. 91, see in Babken Catholicos, Cʻucʻak, 297–299 and 728–730.
59 Not to be confused with Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean. itt84, f. 480, 591; itt92, f. 138, 206, 502,
742; Babken Catholicos, Tsʻutsʻak, 560–562 and 593–594.
60 J820, f. 551v, also Pogharian, Mayr Cʻucʻak, vol. 3, 293. Later Minas Hamtʻecʻi took this
codex to Saints James Convent in Jerusalem.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
24 Ohanjanyan
1680, Sukʻias was again in Jerusalem: his name appears in the list of the monks
of Saints James, along with Nahapet Edesacʻi, deacon Nersēs and many others.61
A number of manuscripts found in the library of Saints James Convent include
his seal, suggesting that Sukʻias engaged himself in commissioning, copying
and collecting the writings of church fathers and notable theologians, such
as Philo of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nisa, pseudo-Dionysius
Areopagite and others. Sukʻias was respected by many famous clerics, such
as Yovhannēs Mułnecʻi, Martiros Kafacʻi, Sargis Tʻekʻirtałecʻi, who sent their
respect and brotherly love to him through letters to Ełiazar, while he was in
Aleppo and Jerusalem.62 In the letters his name appears right next to Ełiazar’s
name proving him to be the erespʻoxan (“deputy”) at Saints James Convent.
Sukʻias had a great deal of influence on his patron Ełiazar. In 1667 Apro
Čʻēlēpi wrote a secret letter to Sukʻias in Aleppo threatening to block allow
the interference of the established peace, otherwise it “would not be good” for
him, for “kurb-i sultan ateş-i suzan” (“being close to the sultan is being close
to the fire”).”63 Apparently, Apro alluded to the long awaited truce of 1667 be-
tween Martiros Kafacʻi and Ełiazar. The latter was invited to Constantinople or
to Bursa—whichever city he preferred—to confirm and strengthen the recon-
ciliation of the sides.64 According to the content of Apro’s letter, Sukʻias was
the one to persuade Ełiazar to embark on this journey—further evidence of
the influence Sukʻias had over his patron and power he possessed in the eyes
of others.
When Catholicos Yakob Jˇułayecʻi passed away in 1680, the ecclesiastical
council decided to invite Ełiazar to assume the pontifical throne in Ejmiacin,
and thus to put an end to the schism of the Armenian Church. Ełiazar accepted
the offer, headed to Constantinople and from there to Ejmiacin in 1682. We
find Sukʻias together with the chronicler Minas Hamtʻecʻi (later Patriarch in
Jerusalem), Nahapet Edesac‘i (later Catholicos) and vardapet Nikołayos ac-
companying Ełiazar on his journey.65 As Minas Hamtʻecʻi reports in his Diary,
Sukʻias wandered about the monasteries of Eastern Armenia and went to view
61 For the entire list, see J120, f. 919-921; Połarian, Mayr Cʻucʻak, vol. 1, 336.
62 See various letters by the Armenian notables mentioning Sukʻias’s name in Sion 4, no 12
(1930): 384; 6, no. 8 (1932): 254; no. 9 (1932): 280; 7, no. 1 (1933): 24; no. 4 (1933): 121; 14, no.
5–6 (1940): 156; 15, no. 1 (1941): 40; no. 3–4 (1941): 85, et cetera.
63 “Apron Sukʻias vardapetin xstutʻeamb” [From Apro to vardapet Sukʻias with Austerity],
Sion 15, no. 5 (1941): 126.
64 “Yovhan episkopos yAdrianupolsēn aṙ Ełiazar episkopos i Halēp” [Bishop Yovhannēs from
Edirne to bishop Ełiazar in Aleppo,” Sion 15, no. 11-12 (1941): 308–310.
65 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, Introduction, 99. See also, “Le Prétendu Masque de Fer
Arménien ou Autobiographie du vardabied Avédik, de Thokhat, deposé du Patriarcat de
Constantinople de de l’emploi de supérior de Jérusalem,” Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Sałmosavank.66 In 1689, two years before Catholicos Ełiazar’s death, Sukʻias

was in the city of Van, where he suffered persecution by the nobles of “the
foreign land” of Kurdistan and a six-month-long detention. Apparently, he fell
victim to a hoax for the debts that he was ignorant of and was bailed out after
he payed to vardapets Mǝxik and Margar.67 This might contradict the rumor
spread in Ereamia’s times that Sukʻias was at Ełiazar’s deathbed in August, 1691.
In his piece against Sukʻias, Eremia reproaches him for spreading deceitful ru-
mors, that he was near Catholicos Ełiazar while the latter was at his last breath,
at which time he received instructions on doctrinal and disciplinary matters.
Eremia was certain that Sukʻias was not in Ejmiacin when the Catholicos
passed away. His opinion was based on the testimonies of his elder son, varda-
pet Grigor, who was pursuing his education in Ejmiacin, under the guidance
of the Catholicos. Grigor received the news of Ełiazar’s passing while travel-
ing to Constantinople early in August, hence he had no solid proof of Sukʻias’s
deception.
The date of Sukʻias’s consecration as bishop and prelate of Bursa has not
been established. Most probably it was after 1682. What we know for certain
is that he was already holding this office from 1691–1695, when Eremia com-
posed polemical writing against him. He was the very archbishop of Bursa who
buried the body of a neo-martyr named Nikołayos Prusacʻi, executed by the
Ottomans in 1694 upon the sham accusation of apostasy.68 Importantly, in the
martyrology of Nikołayos, Sukʻias acts as the impresario of the martyr-to-be.
He is the one who sent off a certain priest to jail to encourage Nikołayos to take
the “crown of martyrdom.”69
When exactly Sukʻias Prusacʻi had grown into a pro-Catholic agent is murky.
He was still the prelate of Bursa in 1704, when Eremia’s brother Komitas
des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, ed. Marie-Félicité Brosset, 20 (Saint-Petersbourg:

Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale de sciences, 1875): 5.
66 Manuscript in the Library of Saints James Convent, J1316, f. 21r.
67 «Վեց ամիս ի բանտ արգելած //Եկ զայս ծանըր բեռըն բարձ, //Քրդստան երկրի
պարոնաց, //Ոչ գիտեմ զինչ արարի։…//Մինչ զի և մեք տուգանած, //Մըխիկ և
Մարգար սև գլխաց, //Ոչ գիտեմ զինչ արարի», M1635, f. 25v–26v.
68 Hayotsʻ nor vkanerě (1155-1843) [Armenian Neo-Martyrs (1155–1843)], ed. Hrachya Achaṛyan
and Hakob Manandyan, (Vagharshapat: St. Ejmiatsin Press, 1903), 532-534.
69 Ačaṛyan, Hayotsʻ nor vkanerě, 533. For more on impresarios, see Krstić, Contested
Conversions, 121–132. Another testimony about Sukʻias being the bishop of the city is the
colophon dated to 1695; ankk 124, f. 546; see in Cʻucʻak jeṛagracʻ Ankiwroy Karmir Vanucʻ
ev šrjakayicʻ [Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Monastery Karmir Vank in Ankyra and its
Neighboring Monasteries], ed. Babken Coadjutor Catholicos, (Lebanon: Antelias, 1957),
617.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
26 Ohanjanyan
Kʻēōmiwrčean70 composed his scandalous writing against the then patriarch

of Constantinople Awetikʻ Evdokiacʻi (1657–1711), who, enjoying the patron-
age of Sheykh-ul-islam Feyzullah Efendi, waged “a holy war” against all the
Catholic Armenians.”71 According to Komitas, Awetikʻ solicited money from the
aged prelate of Bursa, “theologian vardapet Sukʻias… the disciple of Catholicos
Ełiazar…”72 under the threat of being accused of Catholicism and detention.
Komitas testifies that “Sukʻias being feeble in his body and grown old… expect-
ing his death any minute” was not able to pay; instead he temporarily won the
patriarch over by sending him small gifts.73 It was deemed that Sukʻias eventu-
ally was confined in jail and could redeem himself only by paying.74 Our main
source Komitas makes no mention of Sukʻias’s imprisonment.75
Importantly, in 1707 we find Komitas harbored by Sukʻias in his house in
Bursa a couple of weeks before the former’s martyrdom, suggesting that at
this point Sukʻias was still the prelate of Bursa.76 Echoing Mikʻaēl Čʻamčʻian,
Maghakʻia Ōrmanian considers Sukʻias not to have been guilty of what he was
accused of, whereas Eremia’s polemical writing against him seems to prove
his pro-Catholic sympathies. Sukʻias’s confessional affiliation remains ambigu-
ous in his actions: in 1702–1703, still persecuted by Awetikʻ, Sukʻias copied for
his personal use, a voluminous collection consisting of the writings of Nersēs
Šnorhali (d.1173) and Nersēs Lambronacʻi (d. 1198), theologians of the Apostolic
Church in the Cilician period, both of whom were famous in Catholic circles
for their alleged efforts towards formal union with Byzantine, and then Latin
70 According to Minas Hamtʻecʻi’s Diary Komitas was in Jerusalem till 1701. Minas does
not record the date of his return to Constantinople. Based on Minas’s account Mesrop
Nshanian disproves Father Meserianc‘’s assumption that Komitas was persecuted by
Awetikʻ as a crypto-Catholic and found refuge in Jerusalem. Komitas was very attached
to Minas Hamtʻecʻi and accompanied him in his trip to Jerusalem. Kʻēōmiwrčean,
Ōragrutʻiwn, Introduction, 84, n. 1.
71 For the most recent research on Awetikʻs controversy with Armenian Catholics, see
Cesare Santus, “The Şeyhülislam, the Patriarch and the Ambassador: A Case of Entangled
Confessionalization (1692–1703),” paper presented at Entangled Confessionalizations,
Budapest, June 1–3, 2018.
72 BnF Arm. 334, f. 44v.
73 BnF Arm. 334, f. 44v.
74 Čʻamčʻian has couple of sentences on Sukʻias’s imprisonment. Čʻamčʻian, Hayotsʻ
patmutʻiwn, vol. 3, 735. Following Č‘amč‘ian, Henry Riondel writes: “Sous Avédik, il avait
connu la prison d’où il n’était sorti qu’en déboursant force piastres,” in Henry Riondel, Une
Page Tragique de l’Histoire Religieuse du Levant: le Bienheureux Gomidas de Constantinople
Prêtre Arménien et Martyr, (Paris: Beauchesne 1929), 130.
75 Čʻamčʻian wrote this paragraph majorly grasping from Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčean’s accounts
without mentioning his source, while Maghakʻia Ōrmanian just quotes Čʻamčʻian’s text.
76 Riondel, Une Page Tragique, 130.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Churches on the grounds of preservation of the doctrine and the rite of the
Armenian Church.77 Sukʻias’s collection included also homilies on the refu-
tation of mixed chalice and purgatory, which testifies to his orthodoxy from
the point of view of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In one of his theological
poems Sukʻias transmitted the doctrine of the Armenian Church into versed
form. In fact, it is “the canon of the orthodox faith” in rhythm and metrics,
without any trace of “schism.” 78 Speaking on the procession of the Holy Spirit,
Sukʻias puts forth a formula acceptable to both the Apostolic and Catholic
Armenians: “Is not teeming as created, but [is] processing // Holy Spirit moved
from the Father (in)to the Son unchanging.”79 The poem is an acrostic dedi-
cated to his “beloved Ğendi Zade Nimetullah Çelebi” (Łēntizatē Neymēt’ulah
Č’elepi)—a nobleman in Aleppo.80
And again, Sukʻias’s friendship with converted Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčean and
Minas Hamtʻecʻi, who were suspected of holding pro-Catholic views, suggests
his being quite open to Catholicism. On the other hand, his close connections
to such conservative clerics and laics as Ełiazar and Eremia, and his commis-
sioning of non-Chalcedonic theological codices, prove his support of the non-
Chalcedonic faith. Even though Ełiazar, like both his predecessor on pontifical
throne Yakob Jˇułayecʻi and successor Nahapet Edesacʻi, were at times accused
of dubious attitude towards Catholics, it was rather a political choice rather
than personal disposition. Since these choices never affected the doctrine
and practice of the Armenian Church, Eremia rejects the tiniest possibility of
Sukʻias’s “bad innovation” to be inherited from Ełiazar.81
77 See J936 in Połarian Mayr Cʻucʻak, vol. 3, 472–479. This notion of Nersēs Šnorhali and
Lambronacʻi being active agents for the unity with Chalcedonic Churches is ensued by
the Teatine missionary to Armenia Clemente Galano (1611–1666), who attempted to prove
that Armenian Apostolic Church has been one with the Roman Catholic Church. Since
it fell into a schism in different historical periods Armenian “orthodox” high-ranking
clergy, such as Šnorhali and Lambronacʻi, attempted to reconcile it with Rome. Galano’s
treatise became a yardstick against which the “orthodoxy” of the Armenians was being
tested among the Catholics. See, Clemente Galano, Consiliationis Ecclesiae Armenae cum
Romana, t. 1-2, (Romae: Typis de Propaganda Fide,1650, 1658, 1690).
78 M1635, f. 57v–69r.
79 «Էարդնապէս ոչ ծընանի այլ կայ բըղխման //Հօրէ Հոգին շարժեալ յՈրդին
առկայական», M1635, f. 58r. Such a formulation could not be defined as the doctrine of
Filioque; it rather resembles the ancient doctrine of Perikhoresis (περιχώρησις; circuminces-
sion)—the eternal relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity.
80 It seems that Nimetullah, whose personality is yet to be identified, played a significant role
in internal life of the Armenian community in Ottoman realms. Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean,
with whom Nimetullah was in touch, calls him “İzzetli ve ürüfetli efendim” [My honor-
able and reverend master]. See, Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 517–519.
81 bnf Arm. 334, f. 147r–v.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
28 Ohanjanyan
Eremia’s relationship with Sukʻias Prusacʻi has never been fully studied.
Eremia had intimate acquaintance with Sukʻias as he used to be Ełiazar’s stu-
dent and frequently spent time with both of them in Constantinople, Bursa,
Jerusalem and elsewhere.82 Apparently, like Ełiazar, Sukʻias was welcomed in
the house of the Kʻēōmiwrčean family, for Martiros and Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčeans
were closely related to him. However, their ostensibly amicable relations did
not hinder Eremia from rebuking Sukʻias for the prohibition of the Nicene
Anathema, which he considered a transgression against the Apostolic rite.
The date of Sukʻias’s death remains obscure. Two manuscript colophons cop-
ied in 1721–1734 from his personal codices mention neither his life nor death.
The only hint is found in the collection of his poems, where the last—a poem
of penitence, death and its desperation—is dated to 1707.83 One of the most
learned and influential agents of the Armenian Church in the confessional age
found himself in deep depression towards the end of his life. Upon Sukʻias’s
passing his memory fell into oblivion overshadowed by the fame of his patron
Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi. If not for Eremia Čʻēlēpi’s polemic piece, we would likely
never learn much about him or be able to detect confessional ambiguity behind
his exterior orthodoxy. Moreover, Sukʻias’s attempts to infuse a “novelty” into
the practice of the Armenian Church would have remained totally unknown.
Before turning to the analysis of the arguments that Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean set
forth against the “novelty” imposed by Sukʻias, it is important to trace the causes
that prompted Eremia to insist on the recitation of the Nicene Anathema.
5 Creedal Controversies among Armenians: The Causes Analyzed
In his letter to the friends in Tʻekirdał (Rodosto) written in 1692, shortly after
he visited there with his son vardapet Grigor, Eremia Čʻēlēpi recalls a party in
the house of an Armenian named Pōłos, where a discussion over religious top-
ics took place.84 It seems that a certain Xoǰa Malxas, who, according to Eremia,
used vulgar language and was totally ignorant of theological matters, started a
discussion on the decrees adopted during the Seventh Ecumenical Council.85
82 On Sunday, November 6 in 1653 Eremia and his family took vekil Sukʻias and Małakʻia
Čʻēlēpi, the son of Xoǰa Eremia Hamtʻecʻi to Galata and from there to Balat to perform the
ceremony of matrimony in an Armenian church. Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 47–48.
83 «Incipit: Իրաւմամբք մատնեալ ես եմ մեղաւոր, //Յատենի մեծին ես եմ
պարտաւոր…», M1635, f. 52v–53v.
84 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn. Appendix, 543–549.
85 The Seventh Ecumenical Council, known as Second Council of Nicaea, summoned in 787
has never been recognized by the Armenian Church.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Supposedly Xoǰa Malxas opened a discussion about the “valid” confession of

faith. Eremia, who was trying to evade provocative questions and to keep the
peace between the arguing parties, suddenly stepped in claiming that true
belief had already been formulated in the Nicene Creed, and anything else is
considered dubious:
Տուաւ սահման սուրբ հաւատոյն,

Ի մեծ ժողովն սուրբ Նիկիոյն,
Հաւատամք ի մի Աստուած զնոյն,
Ընդհանուր ազգք ընդունելոյն
[The] definition to holy faith was given,

In the great holy Council of Nicaea,
The same “We believe in One God”
Accepted by all the nations.86
Eremia reproaches his friends in Rodosto for not having paid decent heed
to his son vardapet Grigoris’s preachings, instead every illiterate laic imag-
ined himself a theologian. Eremia even humors Xoǰa Malxas for his name
(“makas”—scissors in Turkish), for his vulgarity and ignorance and expresses
his preoccupation about the growing attention to Malxas being an attack on the
real teachers of the faith. This incident in Rodosto reveals that by 1692 debates
on confessional topics had gradually become part of everyday life. Society had
become more sensitive to the issues related to “true” confession of faith and
more and more laymen, in particular, the xoǰas, had become integrated into
theological discourse. Such intense discussions brought about acute creedal
controversies among diverse clusters of society, such as how Eremia begins his
letter to Rodostians with the quote from the Gospel of Matthew “blessed are
the peacemakers” (Mat. 5:9).87
Creedal controversies within Armenian communities of the Ottoman
Empire were intensified due to the abundance of diverse creeds and confes-
sions of faith circulating among Armenians in this period that were generated
86 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn. Appendix, 548. Here and elsewhere in the text the word “na-
tion” signifies “religious community” (millet).
87 The biblical verse from Matthew will later become an epigram for many polemical writ-
ings composed against Catholics and vice versa in the early eighteenth century such as
Gēorg Mxlayim’s Xałałarar meknutʻiwn ekełecʻwoy [Peacemaking Interpretation of the
Church], M1464, and Stepanos Daštecʻi’s Kočʻnak čšmartutʻean [Clapper of Truth], М781.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
30 Ohanjanyan
both in the Apostolic and Catholic milieu.88 The first Armenian codex enti-
tled Confession of Faith was published in 1688, with the blessing of the then
Catholicos Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi. It was rather a polemical book narrated by
Yovhannēs Mrkʻuz Jˇułayecʻi (1643–1715) in the form of a catechism.89 Its sec-
ond edition was published in 1713-14 during the tenure of Catholicos Alek‘sandr
Jˇułayecʻi (1707–1714). The new publication was informed by the fierce con-
frontation of the Armenian Apostolic faction with the Catholic Armenians in
Constantinople. In contrast, the Catholic confessions such as the Dawanutʻiwn
Čšmarit ev Ułłapʻaṙ Hawatoy vasn Aṙneloy Ekelecʻn Yarevelicʻ (Confession of the
True and Orthodox Faith to be Accepted in the Church of East) were abundantly
circulating in the Catholic Armenian intellectual circles. Among the first pub-
lished after the Council of Trent, was a bilingual Professio Orthodoxae fidei pub-
lished in 1596 by the order of Pope Clement viii (1592-1605) for the Armenian
converts.90 A later and more extended edition was published in 1642 during
the tenure of Pope Urban viii (1623–1644), bringing it in accordance with the
decrees of the Council of Trent.91 The 1678 edition, published the Dawanutʻiwn
Ułłapʻaṙi Hawatoy i Yamenicʻ Hayocʻ Aṙneloy (Profession of Orthodox Faith to be
Accepted among All Armenians) which greatly differs from that of 1642 in that
the text’s technical terms translated from Latin resulted in a new vocabulary,
closer to the one used in the 1670s.92
88 For definitions and distinction between the creeds and the confessions of faith, see
Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creed and Confessions of
Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 2003),
1–5 and 35–36. For the use of catechism in Europe, see Stefan Ehrenpreis, “Teaching
Religion in Early Modern Europe: Catechisms, Emblems and Local Traditions,” in Religion
and Cultural Exchange in Europe,1400–1700, eds. Heinz Schilling and István György Tóth
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 256–273.
89 See Girk‘ hamaṙōt vasn iskapēs ew čšmarit Hawatoy [A Brief Book on the True and
Veracious Faith] (New Julfa: Surb P’rkič‘ Print, 1688).
90 For the confession of faith, see Brevis Orthodoxae fidei professio, qaue ex praescripto
Santctae Sedis Apostolicae ab Orientalibus ad Sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae unitatem
venientibus facienda proponitur, (Romae: Typographia Vaticana, 1596). On the causes of
Councils of Trent and Tridentine terminology, see John W. O’Malley, Trent and All That:
Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern Era (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2000).
91 Professio Orthodoxae fidei ab Orientalibus facienda (Romae: Typis de Propaganda Fide,
1642), 20–21.
92 Professio Orthodoxae fidei ab Orientalibus facienda (Romae: Typis de Propaganda Fide,
1678). The change in translated theological terms might be seen when juxtaposing the
versions of Professio Fidei from 1642 and 1678, for instance «ի հայրն ամենակալ» vs «ի
հայրն ամենակարօղ», «արարիչն… երևելեաց և աներևութից» vs «յարարիչն…
տեսանելեաց ամենեցուն և անտեսանելեաց»:

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
During this period, various types of medieval confessions and creeds were
circulating within the Armenian theological community. Apart from the most
authoritative liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, there was a confession
of faith formulated in the thirteenth century by Vardan Arewelcʻi (d. 1271)
upon the request of Catholicos Konstandin Barjrberdcʻi (1221–1267) against
Byzantine duophysites. However, this confession never gained so much popu-
larity so as to be recited in the churches.93 Since the fourteenth century the
Armenian Church has favored a creed attributed to Grigor Tatʻewacʻi (1346–
1409)—the pinnacle of Armenian scholastic thought—structured in a way so
as to oppose the Dominican Unitor Friars and Muslims in Eastern Armenia. It
incorporated the Nicene Creed with the important amendments emphasizing
the doctrines of the Trinity against the Seljuk Muslims.94 Grigor Tatʻewacʻi’s
creed also included: the procession of the Holy Spirit solely from the Father
against the Filioque (procession also from the Son); the one nature of
Christ against the duophysites; His real body “from the blood of Holy Mother
of God” against the phantasists; his immaculate and virgin birth; his perfect
Deity and perfect Humanity; and the Harrowing of Hell and the eternal pun-
ishment of the sinful. In a fifteenth-century manuscript, the scribe calls this
particular creed “the true confession of faith of the Armenian Church,” while
its articles are described as “the gradations of faith through which we ascend
to God with one footstep.”95
The variants of Grigor’s creed became extremely popular in the age of con-
fessionalization. Due to its popularity it was included in collections such as
the confessions of faith assembled by Marquise de Nointel, where there is an
93 The profession of faith attributed to Vardan Arewelcʻi is structured in a way so that each
rubric of it starts with “We believe” (Credimus). It touches upon all debatable confes-
sional issues. Arewelcʻi’s confession of faith was not popularized or read aloud in the
churches. See Vardan Arewelcʻi, “Dawanutʻiwn hawatoy ułłapʻaṙutʻeamb srboy vardape-
tin Vardanay i xndroy srbazan katʻołikosin hayocʻ Kostandeay” [Confession of Orthodox
Faith by Saint vardapet Vardan upon the Request of Armenian Catholicos Konstandin],
Gandzasar Theological Review 7, (2002): 371–384.
94 For Armenian-Muslim interactions in the Middle Ages, see Sergio La Porta, “Conflicted
Coexistence: Christian-Muslim Interaction and its Representation in Medieval Armenia”
in Contextualizing the Muslim Other in Medieval Christian Discourse, ed. J. C. Frakes
(Palgrave: McMillan, 2011), 103–123; and “Gregory of Tatʻew” in Christian-Muslim Relations.
A Bibliographical History. Volume Five (1350-1500 CE), ed. David Thomas, Alexander
Mallett, et. al. (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 229–238. Current scholarship on the polemics of Grigor
Tatʻewacʻi’s with the Muslim world can be found in Seta Dadoyan, The Armenians in the
Medieval Islamic World: Paradigms of Interactions Seventh to Fourteenth Centuries (New
Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2014), 187–221.
95 W791, f. 184v–185r; «…զի աստիճանքն այս են հաւատոյ, որով ելանեմք առ
աստուած մի ոտնաքայլութեամբ».

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
32 Ohanjanyan
attestation of faith obtained via Ambroise de Tiger, French Consul to Egypt

and signed in 1671 by Gaspar, the prelate of the Armenian Church in Cairo.96
In contrast to all other attestations collected from high-ranking officials of the
Armenian Church, the confession provided by Gaspar stands out. Drawing
entirely on Grigor Tatʻewacʻi’s creed, it includes the addition of major coun-
terpoints against the Protestants in the vernacular—that is the veneration
of saints and the Virgin, iconolatry, perception of the Seven Sacraments and
Eucharistic transubstantiation.97
A few years later in 1676 the English Consul to Izmir, Sir Paul Rycaut wrote
the following about the confession of faith of the Armenians:
96 For the English translation of Tatʻewacʻi’s Creed, see Dadżad Tsaturyan, “The Creed of
Armenian Apostolic Church According to Saint Grigor of Tatʻev,” Warszawskie Studia
Teologiczne 28, no. 4 (2015): 103–104. For the confession of faith provided by Gaspar see
bnf Arm. 145, f. 30 and bnf Arabe 227.
97 Interestingly called “confession articulated by saint Grigor our Lusaworičʻ”:
«Դաւանութիւն հասարակաց, որ ասացեալ է սրբոյն Գրիգորի մեր
Լոյսայվորչին». Apparently, there was a confusion of the names of Grigor Tatʻewacʻi
and Grigor Lusaworičʻ. The text does not use the Armenian word «գոյափոխութիւն»
(goyap‘oxut‘iwn) for transubstantiation but replaces it with the sentence “We believe
[that] body and blood of Christ in the hands of priest are visible bread and wine, when
the priest performs the sacrament, at the very moment it turns into the body and blood
of Christ” («Հօատամք մարմինն և յայրունըն քրիստոսի ի ձեռն քահանայի
յերևելի հաց գինի է, յերբոր քահանան զկարքն կատարէ նէյ նոյն ժամու
մարմին և յարունն քրիստոսի կու դառնայ»): see bnf Arm. 145, f. 30. The Latin
translation of Gaspar’s attestation of faith does not use transubstantiatio, either; instead
there stands transmutantur in Corpus et Sanguinem Jesu Christi: see bnf Arabe 227. Other
attestations of faith collected by Marquis de Nointel following the textual pattern partly
designed by Hilarion Kigalas (1624-1682) and almost identical with the Greek professions
of faith in de Nointel’s collection, do not employ the Armenian word «գոյափոխութիւն»
(goyap‘oxut‘iwn) for transubstantiation. It reads, «Եւ թէ նոյն քրիստոսի մարմինն,
որ խաչեալ է, որ համբարձաւ յերկինս և նստաւ յաջմէ հօր է ներկա իրապէս,
թէպէտ աներևութաբար ի հաղորդութեանն ի ներքոյ տեսակաց արտաքնոց և
երևութեաց հացին և գինոյն միայն, քանզի հացն և գինին այնպէս փոխարկին
ի ճշմարիտ քրիստոսի մարմին և յարիւնն, որպէս զի գոյացութիւն հացին և
գինոյն ոչ ևս մնասցեն, այլ միայն պատահմունք. եւ վասն այնորիկ երկիր
պագանեմք քրիստոսի ընդ հաղորդութեան»: see bnf Arm. 145, f. 7. The French
translation also refrains from the use of transubstantiatio: “Lequel Corps a été crucifié, est
monte au Ciel où il est assis à la droite du père, et qu’il est réellement presence quoique
invisiblement dans l’Eucharistie sous les espèces et les apparences extérieures du pain
et du vin parce que le pain et le vin sont changés au Corps et au Sang de Jésus Christ de
façon qu’il ne reste plus de substance du pain et du vin, mais seulement les accidents.
C’est pourquoi Nous adorons Jésus Christ dans L’Eucharistie”: see bnf Arm. 145, f. 9.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
They allow and accept the Articles of Faith according to the Council of
Nicaea, and are also acquainted with that which we call the Apostles
Creed, which likewise they have in use… I have thought fit to represent
that which they call their Tavananck, or Symbolum, different from the
Apostles and Nicene Creed… Now the words of their Creed are Verbatim
as followeth…98
Sir Rycaut’s reference here is to a variant of Grigor Tatʻewacʻi’s creed with the
addition of the clause on postpartum virginity of the Holy Mother of God. To
highlight the popularity of this creed among Armenians, Sir Rycaut states that
Armenians repeated the Creed, “in the same manner as our Apostles Creed is
in our Divine Service.”99 This version has one essential difference: instead of
collective “We believe” (Credimus), here the Western “I believe” (Credo), ap-
parently in accordance with the Western creedal fashion of the confessional
age and the emphasis on the personal interiorization of faith, makes an ap-
pearance.100 Yovsēp Gatʻěrčian reckoned Sir Rycaut to be misled by his cleric
companion, who, instead of the Nicene Creed presented Grigor’s creed as the
accepted confession of faith of the Armenians.101 Perhaps, in some monas-
teries in Safavid Armenia the recital of this creed might have been preferred
over the liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, as there are sources alluding
to its inculcation into the Armenian Liturgy by the middle of the eighteenth
century.102
Towards the end of the seventeenth century, new ecclesiastical policy at-
tempted to oust all the creeds but the Nicene one, which was implemented in
order to stem the creedal polyphony and preserve the integrity of Armenian
98 Paul Rycaut, The Present State of the Greek and Armenian Churches (London: Printed for
John Starkey, 1679, reprint. New York: arm Press, 1970), 409–411. Yovsēp Gatʻěrčian gives
the Armenian version of this variant in, Hanganak hawatoy orov vari Hayastaneaytsʻ
ekełecʻi. Kʻnnutʻiwn hanganakin cagman, hełinakin ev žamanakin veray [The Creed that
the Armenian Church Follows: Research on the Origins, Author and Time of the Creed]
(Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1891), 40–41.
99 Rycaut, The Present State, 415. The text of the confession is on pages 411–414. Paul Rycaut
compares the Christological passages of this creed relating to the real body of Christ with
the passage in the Anatolian Confession promulgated by Greek patriarch of Jerusalem
Dositheos ii in 1672 to prove that the Armenian Church has never been monophysite, but
rather miaphysite.
100 On the topic, see Pelikan, Credo, 35–36.
101 Gatʻěrčian, Hanganak hawatoy, 40.
102 A very brief version of Tatʻewacʻi’s creed summarized in the fourteen articles as “grada-
tions of faith” and starting with “I believe” is found in an eighteenth-century manuscript
at the Matenadaran M8444, f. 377r–v. Nowadays, Tatʻewacʻi’s creed is chanted only at the
Sacrament of the Holy Orders both in the Armenian Apostolic and Catholic Churches.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
34 Ohanjanyan
orthodoxy. Church authorities conformed to the old Armenian liturgical ver-

sion of the Nicene Creed, that had been recited in the Armenian Church for
ages. This creed was proclaimed as the only true formula of faith by appealing
to its pre-Chalcedonic origin and to the uninterrupted tradition of its recital
during the Divine Liturgy. Consequently, Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean strove to single
out the Nicene Creed as the only formula of Armenian faith to counterpoise the
multitude of the variants of Grigor’s creed as well as to resist against the spread
of the Armenian version of the Tridentine and Apostles’ Creeds.103 A later au-
thor, Gēorg Mxlayim Ōłi (d. 1758), was a fervent advocate of such mono-creedal
policy; polemicizing with the Jesuits, he highlighted that the sole credo to
which the Armenians had adhered through the centuries was the Nicene Creed
in its ancient liturgical version.104 This prompts several questions: What was
the Armenian liturgical version of the Nicene Creed? Why did it become a mat-
ter of dispute in the confessional age? And why would Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean
insist on its exclusive credibility?
6 Multiple Facets of the Symbol of Faith: the Nicene Creed under the
Magnifying Glass
Creeds, as the rule of prayer, have always been the integral part of the Divine
Liturgy as the rule of faith in accordance with the formula lex orandi lex cre-
dendi (the law of prayer is the law of belief).105 The liturgical versions of the
creeds actually recited or chanted during the Divine Liturgy differ from the of-
ficially promulgated formulas of faith, such as the variants of the Nicene Creed
in the Psalters and Massora of the Syriac Churches, be it in Western Syriac
Church or in the Church of East (Nestorian).106
The liturgical version of the Nicene Creed of the Armenian Church or the so-
called Faith of the YŽƎ (318) Fathers, is an “enlarged” version of the Nicene Creed
promulgated at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325. The original
Nicene Creed was followed by the Nicene Anathema against the fourth-century
heresiarch Arius and his teaching on the Holy Trinity, that is:
103 For a version of the Tridentine Creed in Armenian with additions and marginal notes, see
manuscript in the Library of Mekhitarist Congregation in Vienna, W1595, f. 1–4.
104 See Matenadaran manuscript M1464, f. 97r–98v.
105 Pelikan, Credo, 178–184.
106 William Emery Barnes, “The ‘Nicene’ Creed in the Syriac Psalter,” The Journal of Theological
Studies 7, no. 27 (1906): 441–449; Willem Baars, ‘The “Nicene’ Creed in the Manuscripts of
Syriac Massora,” The Journal of Theological Studies 13, no. 2 (1962): 336–339.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ‘ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν’ καὶ ‘πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν’ καὶ ὅτι ἐξ
οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας, φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ τρε-
πτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ
ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.
And those who say ‘there once was when he was not,’ and “before he
was begotten he was not,” and ‘that he came to be from things that were
not,’ or “from another hypostasis or substance,” affirming that the Son of
God is subject to change or alteration—these the catholic and apostolic
church anathematizes.107
The Nicene Creed was reaffirmed at the Second Ecumenical Council summoned
in Constantinople in 381 with the addition of the third article on the divinity
of the Holy Spirit and exclusion of the Nicene Anathema. In fact, the creed
promulgated in Constantinople had little to do with the original Nicene Creed.
According to scholarly opinions, it used to be a baptismal creed already in use
among the Christians of Jerusalem, and was elaborated during the Council. Its
working title is Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed by the Orthodox,
Catholic and some Protestant Churches.108
Although the Armenians accepted the decrees of the first three Ecumenical
Councils, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed has never been incorporated
into the liturgical tradition of the Armenian Church. Instead, an “enlarged”
version of the original Nicene Creed became common. The testimonies to the
usage of this version by the Armenians could be traced back to the early sixth
century.109 The Creed is based on the section appearing in the 119th chapter of
Ancoratus by Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315–403), known to the specialists as
the second creed of Epiphanius.110 He composed it in 374 and placed right after
the Nicene Creed as its enlarged explanatory variant with the anti-Apolinarian
107 Original and translation cited here as they appear in Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the
Christian Tradition, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie R. Hotchkiss, vol. 1 (New Heaven and
London: Yale University Press, 2003), 158-159.
108 J. N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (Contiuum, 1972), 311. Creeds and Confessions, 100.
Catholic Church professes a Western Recension of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
with addition of the Filioque.
109 Gatʻěrčian, Hanganak hawatoy, 2–4.
110 For a critical edition of Ancoratus, see Epiphanius: Ancoratus und Panarion, ed. K. Holl
(Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1915), 1–149. For the English translation, see
Richard Kim Young, Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus: Ancoratus, in The Fathers of the Church,
vol. 128 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 51–227. For the
original see Holl, Epiphanius, 148–149.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
36 Ohanjanyan
and anti-Macedonian additions. Like the original Nicene Creed, Epiphanius’s

second creed ends with an Anathema:111
Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ὅτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ υἱὸς ἤ τὸ πνεῦμα το ἅγιον, ἢ ὅτι ἐξ
οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὐποστάσεως ἢ ουσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ⟨ἢ⟩ τρε-
πτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἢ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ
καθολικὴ καὶ αποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία, ἡ μήτηρ ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν. καὶ πάλιν ἀνα-
θεματίζομεν τοὺς μὴ ὁμολογοῦντας ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν καὶ πάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις
τὰς μὴ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως οὔσας.112
And those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or when
the Holy Ghost was not, or that either was made of that which previously
had no being, or that he is of a different nature or substance, and affirm
that the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are subject to change and muta-
tion; all such, the catholic and apostolic church, the mother both of you
and of us, anathematizes. And further we anathematize such as do not
confess the resurrection of the dead, as well as all heresies which are not
in accord with the true faith.113
The Armenian liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, though not identical,
largely follows Epiphanius’s enlarged variant. It retains the Anathema and adds
to it a doxology attributed to Grigor Lusaworičʻ’ (Gregory the Illuminator). In
the age of confessionalization this version was frequently called the Creed
of Lusaworičʻ—an allusion to the narrative, according to which Grigor
Lusaworičʻ’s son Aristakes brought its Greek original from Nicaea, while Grigor
Lusaworičʻ rendered it into Armenian. According to the narrative he also trans-
lated the Nicene Anathema, which is as follows:
111 The Greek original preserved a text almost identical to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creed. Scholars agree that it was a later insertion in Epiphanius’s text and that Epiphanius
most probably quoted the Nicene Creed rather than Niceno-Constantinopolitan: see Kelly,
Early Christian, 318–320; also Creeds and Confessions, 100. Athanasius of Alexandria’s let-
ters to bishop Serapion arguably served as a source for Epiphanius’s second creed. On this
basis Yovsēp Gat‘ěrčian assumes the Armenian liturgical version to be Niceno-Athanasian
(not to confuse with the Athanasian or pseudo-Athanasian Creed): see Gatʻěrčian,
Hanganak hawatoy, 34–37.
112 Holl, Epiphanius, 149.
113 The most recent translation is prepared by Young in Saint Epiphanius, 227. I rely on
Philipp Schaff’s translation which is closer to the Armenian variant in its archaic wording:
see Philipp Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Series
ii, vol. 14 (Peabody, MA: Hendirckson Publishers, 1994), 165.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Իսկ որք ասեն՝ էր երբեմն, յորժամ ո՛չ էր Որդին, կամ էր երբեմն,

յորժամ ոչ էր Սուրբ Հոգին, կամ թէ՝ յոչէից եղեն, կամ յայլմէ
էութենէ ասեն լինել զՈրդին Աստուծոյ եւ կամ զՍուրբ Հոգին, եւ
թէ փոփոխելիք են կամ այլայլելիք, զայնպիսիսն նզովէ կաթուղիկէ
եւ առաքելական սուրբ եկեղեցի:
As for those who say “there was a time when the Son was not”, or “there
was a time when the Holy Spirit was not”, or that “they came into being
out of nothing”; or who say that “the Son of God or the Holy Spirit are of a
different substance” and that “they are changeable or alterable,” such do
the catholic and apostolic holy Church anathematize:
Doxology by Grigor Lusaworičʻ:
Իսկ մեք փառաւորեսցուք, որ յառաջ քան զյաւիտեանս,

երկիրպագանելով Սրբոյ Երրորդութեանն եւ միոյ
Աստուածութեանն Հօր եւ Որդւոյ եւ Հոգւոյն Սրբոյ, այժմ եւ միշտ
եւ յաւիտեանս յաւիտենից, ամէն:
As for us, we shall glorify him who was before the ages, worshipping the
Holy Trinity and the one Godhead, the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit, now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen.114
Another anecdotal narrative circulating in the Armenian Catholic circles up

to the nineteenth century suggests that all the amendments to the Armenian
liturgical version of the Nicene Creed, including the addition of the third article
on the Holy Spirit promulgated at the Council of Constantinople, were made
later by the Armenian Catholicos Nersēs.115 Adding “novelties” to the Creed was
not unprecedented in the Armenian ecclesiastical tradition, thereby justify-
ing supplementation of the Fillioque to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
decreed at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439).116 In his reply to an
unknown addressee upon the request to explain the origin of the Armenian
liturgical version of the Creed, a Constantinopolitan Armenian Catholic priest
writes:
114 The Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church: English Translation, Transliteration, Musical
Notation, Introduction and Notes, ed. Daniel Findikyan (New York, 2005), 19.
115 It is not clear which Catholicos Nersēs the narrative refers to.
116 For the short-lived Bull of Union with the Armenians of the Council of Florence, see
Creeds and Confessions, 755–765.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
38 Ohanjanyan
Ու ինչպէս մեծն Ներսես աւելցուց այն առաջի հանգանակին

վրայ Կոստանդնուպօլսույ սուրբ ժողովոյն բացատրութիւնները,
նոյնպէս ալ պետք է որ աւելցուի նոյն հանգանակին վրայ
Փլորենտիոյ սուրբ ժողովոյն ըրած բացատրութիւնը հոգին սուրբի
վրայ՝ և որդւոյն բխի:
And as Great Nerses amended that first Creed, with the explanations
of the Holy Council of Constantinople, the same way the explanations
on the Holy Spirit of the Council of Florence, that is Filioque, should be
added to the same Creed [ms W111, f. 75].
Interestingly, the Bull of Union with the Armenians promulgated at the Council
of Ferrara-Florence imposed upon the Armenians the Western Recension of the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed as the rule of prayer to be sung or recited dur-
ing the Divine Liturgy in Armenian churches, and the Faith of St. Athanasius
or pseudo-Athanasian Latin Creed as the rule of faith to be professed as the
official declaration of Christian doctrine.117 The Council’s choice to make the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed incumbent on the Armenians testifies to
the disuse of this specific creed during the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian
Church up to the fifteenth century. Driven by the necessity to refute various
accusations of being Eutychean-minded monophysites, the Armenians em-
ployed Epiphanius’s enlarged variant of the Nicene Creed—penned seven years
prior to that of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan—by incorporating passages
against the “heresies” of which the Armenian Church was historically accused.
In his aforementioned letter to his friends in Rodosto, Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean
undoubtedly speaks of the Armenian liturgical version of the Nicene Creed.
Later he includes this version in his catechism compiled for an Armenian
Catholic priest Tʻadēōs Hamazaspean by having changed the archaic word-
ing “նոյն ինքն ի բնութենէ հոր” (“of the same nature of the Father”) that
stood for the Greek term homousion (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί), to “նոյն ինքն
համագոյակից հոր” (“consubstantial with the Father”), as well as adding
“որ ի հօրէ և յորդւոյ բղխի” (“ex Patre Filioque”) in due place.118 Apparently
Eremia was driven by interest in preservation of the “Armenianness” of the
Catholic Armenians along with their confessional affiliation. Therefore, he
capitalizes on the Nicene Creed to prove ethnic identity to be more important
117 Creeds and Confessions, 675–677, 757, 762, 764–765.

118 Museum of the All Savior Monastery in New Julfa, noj498, f. 12v–14r

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
than a confessional one. Eremia retained the Anathema and Lusaworičʻ’s dox-
ology at the end of the Creed for the use of the Catholic Armenians as a marker
of their “Armenianness.”
Eremia did not establish this creedal pattern, but rather followed the text in
the missals printed for the Armenian converts to Catholicism. He arguably had
access to the missals issued by De Propaganda Fide.119 A close examination of
the missals printed by the Catholic Church “for the Armenian nation” reveals
them to accommodate the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Apostolic Church.
Most of them preserved the Armenian liturgical version of the Nicene Creed
with the insertion of “consubstantial with the Father” and ex Patre Filioque.
The missal from 1677 and the one translated by Yovhannēs Holov into Italian
in 1690 contain the Armenian variant of the Nicene Creed, the Anathema and
the doxology.120 However, the earliest printed missal from 1646 inserts the
Western Recension of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed instead, excludes the
Anathema, but retains Lusaworičʻ’s’ doxology.121
The Nicene Anathema initially composed against the fourth-century Arians
and Macedonians was the key element of the Armenian Divine Liturgy—“the
seal of Nicene Faith,” as it was called. Inherited through the enlarged variant of
Epiphanius creed, it became an inseparable part of public prayer of the faith-
ful implicitly designating the ethno-confessional identity of the Armenians.
The recitation of the Nicene Anathema was the main indicator of confessional
affiliation on the one hand and orthodoxy on the other. For instance, there
is a famous story related to the renowned Dominican missionary to Safavid
Armenia Paolo Piromalli, preserved in the Chronicle of Grigor Daranałcʻi (d.
1643). The chronicler describes the inquisition of Piromalli, when he arrived
in Constantinople in 1636 after being expelled from Ejmiacin by Catholicos
P‘ilipos Ałbakecʻi (1633–1655). Piromalli lodged in the Galata district. Having
dressed as an Armenian vardapet, he started proselytizing among the Armenian
priests of the Surb Astuacacin (“Holy Mother of God”) church gaining the
favor of monks Xoǰa Davit and Kirakos Jˇułayecʻi. Therefore, the vardapets of
Constantinople, with Daranałc‘i in charge, sent the priest Łazar off to examine
119 For instance, see Liturgica Armena (Romae: Typis Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide,
1677), 8.
120 La Dichiaratione della Liturgia Armena (Venetia: Apresso Michiel’ Angelo Barboni, 1690),
18–20. Importantly, the Armenian Catholic translator Yovhannes Holov omits the line
“and that they are changeable or alterable.”
121 Ordo Divinae Missa Armeniaorum, (Romae: Typis Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide,
1646), 46–49. This Missal was proofread and edited by Vinccentius Riccardus in 1636. Its
Armenian translation was licensed to print by Giovanni Molino (Yovhannēs Ankiwracʻi),
the translator of de Propaganda Fide.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
40 Ohanjanyan
Piromalli’s faith. According to Daranałcʻi the only way to unmask Piromalli

was to make him recite the Nicene Creed. Reaching the Anathema, Piromalli’s
refusal to recite “As for those who say” was considered apostasy from the per-
spective of the Armenian ecclesiastical traditions. Piromalli was expelled and
banned from preaching in Armenian churches.122 It seems that the recital of
the Nicene Anathema was not considered challenging for Armenian-Catholics,
partly because of its inclusion into missals and catechisms, and partly because
of their intimate familiarity with the rule of prayer of the Armenian Church.
That said, in his letter from 1751 the Catholic Armenian priest from Mekhitarist
order Gēorg Ayntʻapcʻi (d. 1794) informed his flock in Engür (Ankara), that be-
fore he arrived in Rome he thought that “apart from the anathema there are no
schismatic rites in our nation.”123 In Rome he learned about other “schismatic”
elements of the Armenian Apostolic rite, hence, exhorted his flock to give up
communicatio in sacris with Apostolics.124
In the eyes of Eremia Čʻēlēpi, the banning of the recitation of the Nicene
Anathema was not a matter of orthodoxy, but rather of orthopraxy. The 1690s
were the years when Catholic Armenian priests would abstain from officiating
in Catholic churches. They had to undergo the communicatio in sacris with the
Armenian Apostolics, while clandestinely preaching and propagating Catholic
ideas to the Apostolic faithful. On these grounds, Eremia Čʻēlēpi assumed that
the preacher, be he a crypto-Catholic or an Apostolic, should follow the rule of
prayer of the Armenian Church if he preaches from its pulpits. From Eremia’s
point of view the recital of the Nicene Anathema was absolutely necessary for
it was not only a yardstick for “Armenianness,” but also the proof of the an-
cient roots of the Armenian liturgical tradition, and the mark of the continuity
in its practice. The prohibition of Nicene Anathema by Sukʻias Prusacʻi trig-
gered Eremia Čʻēlēpi’s vocal criticism. He started a campaign against the “bad
innovations.”
The concept of religious “innovation” resonated across confessional bound-
aries in the Ottoman context at this time, as Muslims themselves, particularly in
Constantinople, repeatedly clashed (sometimes violently) over the definition
of “tradition” and accused each other of bidà, meaning harmful “innovation,”
122 Grigor Daranałcʻi, Žamanakagrutʻiwn [Chronicle], ed. Mesrop Nšanian, (Jerusalem:

Saints James Press, 1915), 587; see also Henry Shapiro, “Grigor Daranaḷtsʻi: An
Ottoman-Armenian Priest in the Age of Confessionalization.” Paper presented at
Entangled Confessionalizations, Budapest, June 1–3, 2018.
123 «Հէմ տախի տէմիշ իտիմ շօլ քիթապտա՝ քի նզովքտան գայրը էօք տուր պիզիմ
միլլէթտէ հերձուածողլուք արարողութիւնու տէյի». See W1514, f. 4r.
124 W1514, f. 3r–4r.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
especially in the second half of the seventeenth century.125 The ideology of

Ottoman “puritanism” modeled by Mehmed Birgivi (1523–1573) in his promi-
nent book The Path of Muhammad, grew into active social and political move-
ment in the seventeenth century by preacher Kadizade Mehmed b. Mustafa
(1582–1635).126 The clashes between the “puritan” followers of Kadizade
Mehmed and various other Muslims, often with affinities for Sufi rituals and
beliefs, incited Katib Čʻēlēpi (1609–1657), a renowned Ottoman scholar, to re-
proach the Kadizadeli for the “spread of the extremist notions and provoking
the people”—labelling the attempts to uproot established innovations in the
community as stupidity.127 Along the lines of the “purification” movement of
Ottoman Sunnis that found its expression in refutation of “bad innovations”
(bidà), the reshaping of tradition in line with “pure doctrine” and “correct
conduct” grew into a common discourse in the Ottoman Christian milieu. As
Eugenia Kermeli argues, “the Greek Orthodox scholars committed to the spirit
of Renewal (ανακαίνιση), and challenged by Reformation and Catholicism, en-
deavored to redefine orthodox tradition in a sectarian manner, distinct from
the Protestants and Catholics.”128 Redefining of the tradition was not accepted
by conservative Orthodox theologians and was labeled as “bad innovation”
(καινοτομία). Eremia’s exploration of “bad innovation” (bidà) in polemics with
Sukʻias acquires great importance as it explicitly reveals deep engagement of
Armenians with common processes in the Ottoman Empire.
The term “innovation” was more common for early modern Armenian
theological vocabulary. Medieval Armenian authors, especially Eastern theo-
logians, would opt for other words to point to the deviations from “orthodox”
doctrine and practice. For instance, the twelfth-century polemicist Połōs
Tarōnacʻi uses the word bałbanjankʻ (“idle talk”) when he criticizes the Latin
125 Madeline C. Zilfi, “The Kadizadelis: Discordant Revivalism in the Seventeenth-Century

Istanbul,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, no. 4 (1986): 251–269. See also Zilfi, The
Politics of Piety: The Ottoman Ulema in the Post Classical Age (Minneapolis: Bibliotheca
Islamica, 1988), 129–182.
126 Imam Birgivi, The Path of Muhammad: A Book on Islamic Morals & Ethics, trans. Tosun
Bayrak (World Wisdom, Inc., 2005). On the social and political aspects of the movement,
see Marinos Sariyannis, “The Kadızadeli movement as a Social and Political Phenomenon:
the Rise of a Mercantile Ethic?” in Political Initiatives from the Bottom-Up in the Ottoman
Empire (Halcyon Days in Crete VII, A Symposium Held in Rethymno, 9-11 January 2009), ed.
A. Anastasopoulos (Rethymno: Crete University Press 2012), 263–289.
127 Katib Çelebi, The Balance of Truth, trans. G. L. Lewis (London: Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1957),
89–91.
128 Eugenia Kermeli, “Kyrillos Loukaris’ Legacy: Reformation as a catalyst in the 17th century
Ottoman Society,” The Muslim World 107, no. (2017): 748.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
42 Ohanjanyan
doctrine of Filioque.129 Likewise, Grigor Tatʻewacʻi (1346–1409), who lived on

the relative verge of early modern era, utilized the word molorutʻiwn (“error”)
for Filioque and for other “heretical” doctrines.130 Tatʻewacʻi lists not only the
“errors” of the Latins and Byzantines, but also of Muslims.131
The Armenian word norajevut‘iwn (“innovation”) appears in the Mistagogy
of the Cilician theologian Nersēs Lambronacʻi (1153–1198). He applies it to
the rigorist, conservative conduct of Eastern Armenian vardapets, brand-
ing such rigorism as “neopraxy” (“novelty in practice”). 132 The term acquires
new connotation in the Ottoman context, where norajevutʻiwn (“bad innova-
tion”) was first explored by the Patriarch of Constantinople Grigor Kesaracʻi.
In his letter from 1630, addressed to the monks in Ejmiacin, he warns them
against the Roman Catholic faith by calling it norajev banicʻn ev nor ałandoyn
(“novel words and new heresy”) and by considering it the revival of “the same
Byzantine duophysit heresy.”133 From the seventeenth century onwards “bad
innovation” becomes closely connected with the concept of bidà, denoting
not only a schismatic doctrine, but also an incorrect conduct and transgression
against canonical practice.
129 Połōs Tarōnacʻi, T‘ułtʻ ǝnddem Tʻēopʻisteay hoṙom pʻilisopʻayin [The Epistle against the
Byzantine Philosopher Theopistus] (Constantinople: Č‘nč‘in Yovhannes Print, 1752),
84–86.
130 Grigor Tatʻewacʻi, Girkʻ harcʻmancʻ [Book of Questions] (Constantinople: Astuacatur
Kostandnupolsecʻi Print, 1729), 61–62. For the Latin “list of errors,” see Tia M. Kolbaba,
Inventing Latin Heretics: Byzantines and the Filioque in the Ninth Century, (Kalamazoo:
Medieval Institute Publications, 2008). For a similar list for Byzantines, see Valentina
Covaci, “Contested Orthodoxy: Latins and Greeks in Late Medieval Jerusalem,” N.E.C.
Ştefan Odobleja Program Yearbook, 2018-2019, 53-78.
131 For the “errors” of Muslims, see Grigor Tatʻewacʻi’s Against Tajiks in Babken Kyuleserian,
Islamĕ hay matenagrutʻean mēj [Islam in Armenian Literature], (Vienna: Mkhitarist Press,
1930); Seta Dadoian, “Islam and Armenian Polemical Strategies at the End of an Era:
Matt‘ēos J̌ułayec‘i and Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i,” Le Muséon, 114, no. 3-4 (2001), 305-326.
132 Nersēs Lambronacʻi, “I xndroy haycʻmancʻ ericʻakicʻ ełbarcʻ kʻnnutʻiwn kargacʻ
ekełecʻwoy ew bacʻatrapēs orošumn artakʻust mteal i sa norajevutʻeancʻ srboyn Nersēsi
Lambronacʻwoy Tarsoni episkoposi.” Xorhrdacutʻiwnkʻ i kargs ekełecʻwoy ev meknutʻiwn
xorhrdoy patarakʻin [Mystagogy on the Rites of the Church and Commentary on the
Sacrament of the Divine Liturgy by Saint Nersēs of Lambron Bishop of Tarsus] (Venice:
St. Lazzaro, 1847), 21–41.
133 See Arshak Alpoyajian, Grigor Kesaratsʻi patirarkʻ ev ir zhamanakě [Patriarch Gregory of
Caesarea and his Time] (Jerusalem: St. James Press, 1936), 158.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
7 Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean’s Arguments against Sukʻias Prusacʻi
In banning the recitation of the Nicene Anathema, Sukʻias Prusacʻi might have
been affected by the Jesuit propaganda in Bursa, which provoked immediate
reaction in Armenian ecclesiastical circles, given that from 1612–1613 onwards,
the prelacy of Bursa had become an influential center of Anatolia, housing
a vast Armenian population.134 As a catechist, Eremia was perfectly aware
that the Nicene Anathema was an essential part of practice, even in Armenian
Catholic missals. Thus, the abolition of its recital by Sukʻias could pose a real
threat to the orthopraxy of the Armenian Apostolic Church.
Against Sukʻias’s “precarious novelty,” Eremia polemicized in forty-one
clauses. His polemics was informed by both social and confessional realities of
his day, reflecting a view of the secular Armenian community. Eremia imparts
first-hand information about the nuances of confessional switches, and the am-
biguities and ignorance of confessional matters among his fellow Armenians.
His main preoccupation seems to be the reputation of the Armenian Church.
Eremia feared that the discontinuation of the recitation of the Anathema
would call ridicule and outrage upon the Armenians, exposing the Armenian
Church tradition on the whole as erroneous.135 For Eremia, the “pure doctrine”
was rooted in the teachings of the Universal Church Fathers and decrees of
the first Ecumenical Council that the Armenian Church had uninterruptedly
preserved. Everything outside of these theological parameters was considered
norajevut‘iwn (“bad innovation”), and was i čʻarēn (“from evil”).136
Eremia defined “bad innovation” as not something to be found excep-
tionally in doctrinal deviations from “true faith.” For him, “bad innovation”
referred to the disciplinary aspects of communal life. Eremia condemned
Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi for the discord in the Armenian Church he brought about
by having attempted to establish anti-Catholicosate driven solely by his ego-
istic ambitions. Above all, Eremia was concerned about the chain-reaction in
the diffusion of “innovation”: if it infected the community in Bursa, it would
soon reach Constantinople, Edirne and other cities. His trepidation was hid-
ing far behind his anticipation of the possible discord in the community. The
unpleasant memories of the great turmoil in times of Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi were
still fresh, and a new discord would shake the very grounds of ecclesiastical
134 Arshak Alpoyajian, “Kpōlsoy patriarkʻutʻiwnn u Prusayi, Ētirnēi ev Ṛotostʻoyi

aṛaǰnordutʻiwnnerě” [Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Prelacies of Edirne,
Bursa and Rodosto], in Tʻēodik’s Amēnun taretsʻoytsʻě [The Annuary of Everything],
(Constantinople: Vahram ev Hrachʻya Der-Nersesyani, 1909), 209–214.
135 bnf Arm. 334, f. 146v.
136 bnf Arm. 334, f. 145r–v.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
44 Ohanjanyan
life of the Armenians, should Sukʻias’s teachings against Anathema be diffused.

In view of this, Eremia recalled the turmoil in Jerusalem, hence, reproaching
Sukʻias for imitating his patron’s controversial behavior, and appealing to him
to disseminate peace instead of discord.
According to Eremia, Sukʻias’s position was even at odds with “pure”
Roman Catholics—as they too agreed on the Armenian custom of reciting the
Anathema to be useful in terms of definition of the “heresy.” His arguments
were saturated with Catholic sources, in particular, with passages from the
treatise of Teatine missionary to Armenia Clemente Galano (d. 1666), whose
words Eremia quotes to demonstrate the wide acceptance of the recital of
the Anathema. In his two-volume bilingual edition about the history and doc-
trine of the Armenian Church, Galano attempts to prove that the Armenian
and Latin Churches were united from Christianity’s inception, but afterwards
Armenians deviated from “true faith.” In his attempt to correct the “errors” that
the Armenian Church was accused of in a Medieval anti-Armenian source,
Galano singled out the recitation of the Nicene Anathema to be a useful tra-
dition to oppose the Arian heresy.137 Eremia likened the Nicene Anathema to
one of the most important hymns or šarakan’s of the period “O, marvelous
patriarchs” dedicated to the 318 Fathers of the First Nicene Council. Originally
at the end of this hymn the fourth- and fifth-centuries heresiarchs like Arius
and Nestoruis are anathematized. In the confessional age the Council of
Chalcedon, the Tome of Pope Leo I and the Catholic doctrine of Filioque were
added to the text of anathema, the samples of which are preserved in many
printed Hymnaries from the period.138
137 The Medieval source Clemente quoted is the Epistle of Pseudo-Isahak. This famous anti-
Armenian piece attributed to an unknown Armenian chalcedonic author was quoted by
a number of Byzantine historiographers and polemists, such as Euthymius Zigabenus
(d. 1118), Niketas Choniates (d. 1217), Nikephoros Ksanphopulos (Kallistos) (d. 1340) et.
al., while composing chapters against the “Armenian heretics.” For the originals, see
Patrologia Graeca, vol. 132, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, (Paris, 1864), 1154-1266. See also,
Gérard Gartite, La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae: Edition Critique et Commentaire, Corpus
Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, 132, Subsidia 4 (Louvain: Durbecq, 1967). See also
Galano, Consiliationis, t. 2, pars 1, 36.
138 The passage reads “Christ’s martyr Saint Dioscoros disapproving of the unlawful Council
(i.e. Chalcedon) anathematized Leo and his obscene Tome” «Վըկայն Քրիստոսի
սուրբըն Դէոսկորոսը ոչ հաւանեալ անօրէն ժողովոյն նըզովեաց ըզԼևոն և
զտովմարն իւր պիղծ». The Tome of the Pope Leo I to the bishop of Constantinople
Flavianus about Eutyches became the basis for duophysite Christological formula ad-
opted in the Council of Chalcedon, and has been continually rejected by the Armenian
Church. See for instance, Šaraknocʻ [Hymnary] (Amsterdam: Surb Ejmiacin and Surb
Zōravar print, 1669–1680), 372–373, Šaraknocʻ [Hymnary], (Constantinople: Astuacatur

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Еremia further argues that the recitation of the Аnathema “As for those who
say” should not be prohibited on the grounds that it was compiled in the fourth
century and had lost its relevance. He pointed to the pan-Christian liturgical
elements, contemporary with the Nicene Anathema, such as the renunciation
of devil during the Baptism, the dismissal of catechumens before the Eucharist,
and the doxology “Glory in the Highest” established in the first centuries of
Christianity’s history.139 Eremia was practical in his arguments: if those three
ancient elements of Divine Office were complied with within the churches
of all confessions, then the Nicene Anathema had the right to be recited in
the Armenian Church, as the ancient unchangeable rule of prayer protected
throughout centuries being the marker of confessional identity. According to
Eremia, all the Catholicoi, including Sukʻias’s patron Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, had
been reciting the Anathema.140
Eremia’s polemics against Sukʻias succinctly illustrates the confessional
dynamics of the Armenian communities of the late seventeenth century. He
describes the populace as ignorant of doctrinal matters, hence, the social dis-
ciplining was possible mainly through practice and ritual. At the behest of his
son vardapet Grigor, Eremia attempted a popularization of certain sermons
by rendering them into Armeno-Turkish. Since 1679 he had rendered sermons
about Transfiguration, Passion of Christ, the Virgin Mary, Holy Communion, et
cetera. These sermons attempted to achieve fuller integration of the common-
ers into the doctrinal nuances preached from the stages of churches.141
According to Eremia, the populace would perceive whatever was preached
by priests from the bemas of churches as the ultimate truth and could eas-
ily be led astray from the orthodox practice. The recitation of the creedal
Anathema was an irreplaceable means for social disciplining; the common-
ers were periodically repeating the formula of the orthodoxy and listening to
the refutation of the heresy even if they did not exactly understand its mean-
ing. Armenian confession-building went hand in hand not only with Christian
confessionalization, but also with Muslim “sunnitization” policies. In Christian
milieu priests and pastors became powerful figures in internalization of the
“true faith.” Similarly, mosque preachers acquired great authority in Ottoman
Konstandnupōlsecʻi Print, 1703), 447; Šaraknocʻ [Hymnary], (Constantinople: Sargis Dpir

Print, 1710–1711), 510.
139 bnf Arm. 334, f. 144r. It seems that the first two ritual components once actually compiled
with in all Christian Churches were out of use in Catholic Church during the confessional
age, while the doxology “Gloria” was sung only during the Tridentine Solemn Mass.
140 bnf Arm. 334, f. 146r.
141 See W408. Grigor Kʻēōmiwrčean is the scribe of the manuscript.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
46 Ohanjanyan
Muslim society as an instrument of the internalization of Sunni doctrine and

practice formulated on the pages of ‘ilm-i hāls (“state of faith”).142
Although ‘ilm-i hāls had been designed to avert both doctrinal and behav-
ioral deviations from the “pure path,” the “heresy” could more likely be detected
in practice. Likewise, from Eremia’s point of view, the “heresy” on a demotic
level, could occur only in practice: it might be found in the altered order of
hymns, or in the altered position of hands (with arms spread or raised), in the
way doxology was chanted (concordant or voice by voice), in covered or un-
covered head.143 Practice was a touchstone for conversion; the severity of the
Lent and the length of the Liturgy in the Armenian Church could steer the
faithful toward more tolerable Roman Catholic rites. Eremia complains that in
the minds of commoners the orthodoxy was measured per wealth and author-
ity of a respective church. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church seemed more or-
thodox to wealthy Armenians: “Does not credibility of Easter belong to them,
who possess so many kingdoms and wisdom?”144 With all his innate aptitude
to peaceful cohabitation Eremia’s approach was explicitly confessionalized:
equalization to the “confessional others” through the facilitation of the rites
was an unacceptable course for the Apostolic Church. The dividing line with
other Christian confessions had to be drawn through the upholding of odd ele-
ments in traditions, such as Nicene Anathema.
It is unclear whether Eremia’s arguments affected Sukʻias’s further course of
action. The absence of sources does not allow us to trace their future contact.
All we know is that Eremia passed away shortly after composing his polemi-
cal piece, while a decade later Sukʻias sheltered Eremia’s martyr-to-be brother
Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčean—a persecuted convert to Catholicism.
8 In Lieu of a Conclusion
The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries marked the summit of the con-
fessional age for the Armenians in the Ottoman and Safavid realms while
Europe was long integrated into the process of confession-building stimulated
by the emergence of Reformation and, consequently, counter-Reformation.
Toward the end of the seventeenth century in the face of the rising influence
of Tridentine Catholicism on the one hand and Protestantism on the other,
the Armenian communities in Ottoman territories underwent confessional
142 See Terzioğlu, “Where ‘Ilm-i hāls Meet Catechisms,” 79–114.

143 bnf Arm. 334, f. 146v.
144 bnf Arm. 334, f. 147r.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
indoctrination. The time, when the mutually accepted practice of “good cor-
respondence” shaped the relations between the Armenians and Catholics
had ended. Now, the relationship within and between confessions was driven
by the need to delineate the doctrinal borders of a respective Church. In the
early 1600s, when Discalced Carmelites, Capuchins, Dominican Friars and
Augustinian missionaries from Goa were preaching among Armenians of
Safavid Persia, the cases of communicatio in sacris were allowed for both sides
as the evidences of irenic acts and the articulation of Christians’ unity in God.
Decades later, however, with the intensification of Jesuit propaganda result-
ing in growing conversion of the Armenians to Catholicism, the incidents
involving communicatio in sacris with the converts incited outrageous intra-
communal debates in Constantinople. To address the issue, the Armenian
Church authorities had to make attempts to redefine the boundaries of the
Armenian orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
The political and territorial constrains became decisive factors in tackling
the issue: having the spiritual center and head of the church—the Catholicos
of All Armenians—in the territory of rival Safavid Persia, in Ejmiacin, the prel-
acies in Ottoman lands found themselves in a complicated situation when it
came to the elaboration of new ecclesiastic policy. Though autonomous under
the rule of Sultans, they formally depended on Ejmiacin’s decisions not only
in doctrinal matters, but also in Armenian Church politics, specifically with
European countries and Roman Curia. The Catholicoi had to continuously
dispatch their legates to the Ottoman Empire where their presence and de-
meanor had become the cause of constant discontent of Constantinople’s
social elite. The plan to establish an anti-Catholicosate or, more precisely, a
new Catholicosate for the Western prelacies of the Armenian Church carried
out by Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, was fueled with the desire to gain independence
from Ejmiacin in decision-making and in acting accordingly with the Ottoman
Empire’s religious politics for its Christian subjects. On the other hand, it
would jeopardize the integrity of the Armenian Apostolic Church and might
lead to confessional assimilation, should Western prelacies happen to actu-
ally acknowledge the primacy of Rome. Therefore, when Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi
was elected the Catholicos of All Armenians in Ejmiacin, he still made at-
tempts to keep a close watch on the doctrinal and behavioral deviations in the
Constantinople community with the assistance of such go-betweens as Eremia
and Sukʻias.
In fact, Eremia was the one reacting to the growing influence of Catholicism
on the Armenian communities of the Ottoman Empire. With his late polemi-
cal pieces, he signaled the strong need in taking more explicit measures toward

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
48 Ohanjanyan
the redefinition of doctrinal boundaries of the Armenian Church and the en-
forcement of reshaped confessional norms. In contrast to the successful cat-
echization of the Catholic and Protestant population in Europe and elsewhere,
the Armenian Apostolic believers never became accustomed to catechisms,
because of the absence of mechanisms for making them incumbent, and sim-
ply because of the insufficiency of the catechisms per se. The various “books of
questions,” produced in this period in both classical and colloquial languages,
contained random questions and answers on variety of doctrinal, spiritual and
moral topics, and could hardly be considered well-structured catechisms.145
Despite the strong tendency towards the appropriation of the new patterns of
catechetic literature of the period, it would be a gross exaggeration to say that
Armenians underwent intensified catechization in the seventeenth-century
Ottoman Empire. The main channel for conveying the knowledge on “true
faith” to the Apostolic flock remained sermons and rituals—where the Divine
Liturgy, attended by the faithful every Sunday, occupied central place. Any ac-
tions at odds with ritual conformity, particularly the deviations from the canon
of Divine Liturgy, were to be branded as “schismatic.”
In the course of history, the non-Chalcedonic Armenian Church found itself
in constant debates on orthodoxy with Chalcedonic Churches, propelling it to
distinguish what it believed in from what it did not believe in.146 This in turn re-
sulted in employment of both doctrinal affirmations and denunciations, that
shaped the “true faith” of the Armenian Church, while their preservation grew
into the integral part of the confession-building. The refashioning of the con-
fessions could not be carried out through obliteration of the old elements of
practice as a means of aligning with the confessional fashion of the period. Not
only Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean, but also posterior apologists of the Armenian ec-
clesiastic tradition, saw the reshaping of the Apostolic faith from an “apocata-
static” perspective—that is to say from the point of view of the restoration to
the original, early Christian doctrine, and the preservation of the Armenian
Church practice in the very condition, which was inherited into the confes-
sional age.
145 The catechetic material of the period is hitherto unexamined. I am working on the cate-
chization paradigms that might have been applied to the Armenian communities in both
Ottoman and Safavid Empires, but the outcome is still forthcoming.
146 For the role of anathema and renunciation in the creedal and baptismal formulas, see
Pelikan, Credo, 189–195.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Appendix
Manuscripts used:
Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean’s polemical writing against Sukʻias Prusacʻi survived in two man-
uscript copies—bnf Arm. 334 and W779. The scribe of W779 made calculations on the
margins of his copy to detect the exact date of the writing. In his seminal book on
Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean’s biography Nersēs Akinian assumed it to be written in 1692.147
bnf Arm. 334, ff. 142r–148v

Collection. Date: 1697–1760. Place: Constantinople, church and college of Balat (ff. 113
and 148v); copyists: Komitas Kʻēōmiwrčean (ff. 1–49) and anonymous scribes (1773,
1793, 1817); material: European paper; size: 16x20.5 cm; lines: 21/27; folios: 184; script:
notrgir.148
W779, ff. 1r–4v149

Collection. Date: 19th century. Place: unknown; copyist: unknown; material: paper;
size: 27x20cm; lines: 33; folios: 335; script: notrgir.150
…
|142ա| Պատասխանի Աստուծով և վասն Աստուծոյ,151 որ արգիլեաց152 «զիսկ որք
ասենն», զոր ասացեալ են ի վերջն Հաւատամքին։ Ի նուաստ յԵրեմիայէ։
Նախ՝ միթէ՞ եգիտ նա ի գիրս պատմութեանց, եթէ այրն այն, որ ասացեալ է «իսկ
որք ասենն», խոտան իցէ՝ լեալ չարագործութեամբ, որ վասն այնորիկ արգիլէ
զասացեալն նորա։ Այլ ես ասեմ՝ ահա բանքն Սողոմօնի ընթեռնանի յեկեղեցիս,
և թուեալ ի շարս աստուածաշունչ Գրոց Սրբոց։
147 Nersēs Akinian, Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean: keankʻn u matenagrakan gortsunēutʻiwně

[Eremia Chʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean: the Life and Literary Activity], (Vienna: Mekhitarist
Press, 1933), 127.
148 For detailed description, see Manuscrits arméniens de la Bibliothèque nationale de France:
Catalogue, 943-947.
149 I am thankful to Fathers Poghos Kodjanian and Simon Bayan of Mekhitarist Congragation
in Vienna for their kind support in receiving the digital copy of this manuscript.
150 For detailed description, see Tsʻutsʻak hayerēn dzeṛagratsʻ matenadranin Mkhitareantsʻ
i Vienna [Catalogue of Armenian Manuscripts in Mekhitarist Library in Vienna], ed.
Hamazasp Oskian, vol. 2, (Vienna: Mekhitarist Press, 1963), 329–330.
151 A = BnF 334, ff. 142r–148v; B = W 779, ff. 1r–4v.
152 B արգելեաց

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
50 Ohanjanyan
Երկրորդ՝ թէ ով ոք իցէ սահմանօղն աղօթից ժամակարգութեանց, զսա ևս նոքա

են սահմանեալ։ Արդ՝ եթէ չհաւանի աղօթից նոցա, հարկի արգիլել զամենայն
ասացեալսն նոցա և ինքն նոր նոր աղօթքներ սահմանել։
Երրորդ՝ եթէ ընդունի զասացեալ աղօթս նոցա, որք Հոգւով153 Սրբով ասացին,
արդ պարտ է և «զիսկ որք ասենն» ևս ընդունիլ։
Չորրորդ՝ եթէ իւրեան տէրտէրն փէյտա*154 արար զայս, պարտի և ինքն ևս
ընդունիլ, իսկ եթէ ո՛չ ընդունիցի, ահա յայտնի եղև հակառակ իւր տէրտէրին և
ուսուցչին և ծնօղին։
Ե.երրորդ155՝ Յակօբ և Փիլիպպոս և Մովսէս կաթողիկոսունք, թողումք զհին
վարդապետսն, որք ընկալեալ ի ժամանակս իւրեանց ասէին զայս։ Եւ արդ սա
մե՞ծ է քան զնոսա իմաստութեամբ և գիտութեամբ, որ արգիլէ. զպատճառն ո՛չ
գիտեմք։
|142բ| Զ.երրորդ՝ մեծամեծ վարդապետք քարոզութեամբ և մեկնութեամբ և
ասացուածօք և ճառիւք փայլեցան, որպէս Մայրագումեցին156 և Մանդակունին,
և յօճաղն* Մագիստրոսի՝ Վկայասէրն և Գրիգորիսն և Շնորհալին և
Լամբրօնացին։ Այլ յառաջ Նարեկացին, զորոյ աղօթսն պաշտեմք, և Մեսրօպն
փիր* վարդապետութեան։ Սոքա և նմանքն, որք մեկնիչք և թարգմանիչք էին, և
առաջի իշխանաց և թագաւորաց պատասխանատուք էին, և ընկալեալ են զայս։
Արդ՝ սորա արգիլելոյ զպատճառն157 ո՛չ գիտեմ որպէս զձեզ։
Է.երրորդ՝ միթէ՞ սիւնհոդոսիւ եղև խափանումն դորին, զի դա համարձակեցաւ
յայտնել զայն ի մէջ քաղաքիս։ Մեք զայն սիւնհոդոսն ո՛չ լուաք։ Եւ զպատճառն
ո՛չ ցուցանէ ժողովրդեանն, թէ՝ վասն այսմ պատճառի արժան չէ՛ ասել «Իսկ որք
ասենն»։
Ը.երրորդ՝ և զի հինգ հարիւր սևագլուխք կան ի մէջ ազգիս, ո՞վ ոք իցէ, որ
համակամեցաւ դորա բանիւք, կամ թէ թղթե՞րք158 գրեցին դորա ի խափանել.
զա՛յն ցուցցէ մեզ։
Թ.երրորդ՝ և զի մինչև ցայսօր ինքն ասէր՝ ուսեալ և լուեալ այնպէս, արդ այժմիկ
ո՞վ ազդեաց դմա՝ մի՛ ասել։ Միթէ՞ ի տեսլեան հրեշտակ ամէնակալի159 ազդ
արար, կամ յօդս յափշտակեցաւ և լուաւ զհրեշտակաց բարբառ160, կամ թէ
ուսո՞յց պատգամաւոր նոր փէղամպար*161։
153 A հոգգով
154 For words marked with asterisks, see Glossary.
155 B հինգերրորդ
156 B մայրագոմեցին
157 B պատճառն
158 B թղթեր
159 B ամենակալի
160 B բառբառ
161 B փէղամպէր

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
|143ա| Ժ.երրորդ՝ յԷջմիածին և յԵրուսաղէմ և յամենայն վանորայս մինչև

ցայժմ պաշտի, և ոչ ոք մտաբերեաց զայս ի խափանել։ Ապա ուրեմն յայտ է, թէ
մասն է հպարտութեան նորաձևութիւն, այսինքն՝ քան զամենայնսն գիտուն և
իմաստուն համարեցաւ զինքն յաչս իւր։
ԺԱ.երրորդ՝ եթէ ոք, որք ընթեռնուլ կամիցին, ամենեքեան գրովք մակացութեան
իմաստնանան։ Եթէ պարծիլ կամիցի դա յաչս ռամկաց, թէ շատ է կարդացեր
քան զամենեսեան, բայց սակայն նախ հաստատել պարտի զմիտս ամենայն
ժողովրդեանն162 վկայիւք գրոց և ապա վստահասցի խափանել ինչ ի
ժամակարգութեանց, զի այս հասարակաց բան է և եկեղեցական։
ԺԲ.երրորդ՝ եթէ կաթողիկոս ոք խափանել կամիցէր զայս, կարօղ էին ասել
ազգ հայոց առ նա՝ բե՛ր ցո՛ւյց զգիրքն զայն, զոր ընթերցար դու, թէ խոտան և
անպատճաշ է ասել զայս յեկեղեցիս, և զպատճառն ծանո՛ մեզ։ Իսկ դա զիւրովին
որպէ՞ս համարձակի։
ԺԳ.երրորդ՝ բացարձակ պատասխան այս է՝ որ վասն Արիոսի և նմանեաց նորին
մոլութեանց ասացեալ են զայս։ Վասն որոյ և մինչև ցայսօր սուրբ եկեղեցին
նզովէ զայնպիսիսն։ Իսկ եթէ ոք չընդունի, թէ՝ թո՛ղ չասուի «իսկ163 որք ասենն»,
նա յի՞նչ կու դառնայ։
ԺԴ.երրորդ՝ զՀաւատամքն զոր ասացին ՅԺԸ սուրբ հարքն հանգամանք էր
կարճառօտ գլխաւորեալ |143բ| զսահման հաւատոյն։ Եւ ի վերջն եդին և զայս
կնիք ի մերայնոց, թէ՝ իսկ որք ասեն այսպէս և այնպէս, ո՛չ ընդունի եկեղեցի
զայնպիսիսն, այլ խոտան է և արտաքս անկեալ ի մօրէ՝ սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ, ո՛չ
թէ խորթ որդի, այլ օտար։ Թէպէտ ծնունդ ասէ զինքն սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ, այլ
հերձուածօղ և հակառակ է սուրբ աւետարանին, զի էակից չասէ՛ ընդ Հօր
զՈրդի, և զՀոգի, զի համագոյ չասէ զՀոգի և զՈրդի ընդ Հօր, քանզի ինքն Տէր
մեր Բանն Աստուած երևեալ մարմնովն առեցելով զինքն և զՀոգին սուրբ
համահաւասար էակից, գոյակից ասաց, ի Հօրէ բնութենէ և յէութենէ ասաց
զինքն, այսինքն՝ գնացէք մկրտեցէք զհեթանոսս յանուն Հօր և Որդւոյ և Հոգւոյն
սրբոյ (հմմտ. Մատթ. ԻԸ 19): Ահա յայտ է, թէ այլայլելի և փոփոխելի մարդիք թէ
գտանին՝ որք ասեն «էր երբեմն այսպէս և այնպէս», չարափառք են, ամբարիշտք
են, արիոսեանք են, վասն որոյ և նզովին ի սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ մարմնով և հոգւով,
որպէս հողմ, որ զփոշի հոսէ ի վերայ երեսաց երկրի
ԺԵ.երրորդ՝ եթէ պատճառեսցէ ասելով, թէ՝ այժմ արիոսեան ո՛չ գոյ, այլ ի նոյն
ժամանակին, որ վասն Արիոսի և համախոհիցն ասացեալ են, վասն որոյ պարտ
չէ՛ ասել։ Այլ ես ասեմ, թէ իրա՛ւ է բանդ, որ մեր հարքն կնքեցին և փակեցին, որպէս
Հաւատամքն յանձնառակա|144ա|նաւ կատարել ասացուածօք դաւանութեան
կատարել ի նոյնն։ Վասն որոյ և ի վերայ երկուցն յանձնառականին և
հրաժարականին գեղեցիկ իմն եդ կնիք սուրբ Լուսաւորիչն մեր, թէ՝ «և մեք իսկ
162 B ժողովրդեան
163 B իրկ [ իսկ

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
52 Ohanjanyan
փառաւորեսցուք, որ յառաջն է քան զյաւիտեանս՝ երկիր պագանելով Հօր և

Որդւոյ և Հոգւոյն Սրբոյ յաւիտեանս», ևն։
ԺԶ.երրորդ՝ եթէ բառնալ պարտ է հրաժարական պատւիրանացն, որ վասն
զգուշութեան եդեալ են, հարկ է արդ և բառնալ «զհրաժարիմքն ի սատանայէ»։
Բարձցէ «զմի ոք յերեխայիցն» և զնմանս սոցին, բարձցէ զյաճախագոյն «փառք ի
բարձունսն», քանզի ի նոյն ժամանակն ասացին, բարձցէ զաւետարանն, զի վասն
անհաւատից գրեցան, բարձցէ զմարգարէականսն, որ վասն Քրիստոսի գրեցան
և կատարեցան։ Որպէս լաւ արարեալ են ֆռանկք իւրենաց ժողովրդեանն՝ ո՛չ
առակք, ո՛չ մարգարէականք, ո՛չ Պօղոս, ո՛չ աւետարան և ո՛չ Հաւատամք, այլ
միայն աղօթք ինչ համառօտեն ի սուրբ Պատարագին, զի փութով արձակիցին։
ԺԷ.երրորդ՝ զխստագոյնն ցուցանեմ՝ «Ով հրաշալին» ի՞նչ է, որ կու երգեն, ա՛յ
մարդիկ, «իսկ որք ասենին» սուղն ի՞նչ է։
ԺԸ.երրորդ՝ եթէ պատճառեսցէ, թէ՝ ֆռանկն և հոռոմն չունին, որ ի մէջ ամենայն
ազգաց քրիստոնեայք են մեծամեծ և առաջին հաւատացեալ քրիստոնեայք են
նոքա։ Բարւո՛ք է, ահա վերնագոյն ասացի, թէ զոր նոքա չունին և դու ու|144բ|նիս,
բա՛րձ ի վեր զունեցեալն քո, որ չունեւորացն հետ հաւասար լինիցիս։
ԺԹ.երրորդ՝ յայլ տեղի զնոսա հերձուածօղ և յայսմ տեղի զնոսա վկայ բերէ. այս
այլ չեղև։
Ի.երրորդ՝ ես քեզ բերեմ հոռոմ և ֆռանկ, զի ասիցեն, թէ՝ լաւ բան է «իսկ որք
ասենն», քանզի հաստատէ զբան Հաւատամքին, և բնաւին բառնայ զկարծիս
արիոսեան՝ հրաժարելով և նզովելով զայնպիսիսն։
ԻԱ.երրորդ՝ ասեմ ձեզ զպատճառն. զայդպիսի նորաձևութիւն164 արարողութեան
առնօղ մարդոյն կամքն այն է, թէ՝ փորձեմ տեսնեմ զժողովուրդն, թէ նոր բանի
մի հնազանդին և ընդունին նա, վաղիւն այլ ևս ուրիշ բան շինեմ և խաղամ։
Յայտ է, թէ վասն փառամոլութեան իւրոյ խորամանկի և վրդովեցուցանէ,
խոտորեցուցանէ, խռովեցուցանէ, պատճառ աւերման և գայթակղութեան.
թահգիգ* թահգիգ, էլպէթ* էլպէթ։
ԻԲ.երրորդ՝ զի թէ զՊուրսայ տառապեցոյց պէսպէս իրօք, ապա թէ Իստամպօլ165
չհնազանդի նա. ահա եղև այլայլութիւն։ Թէ զՊալատ հնազանդեցոյց և զԷտրէնէ
ո՛չ կարիցէ. ահա եղև վրդովումն։ Թէ զԻւսկիւտար զապտեց և զԹօխաթ կարիցէ
ո՛չ. ահա եղև պղտորումն։ Ապա թէ կարիցէ երկոտասան առաքեալս և ՀԲ
աշակերտս ստանալ և առաքել զ|145ա|նոսա ընդ որ հայք սփռեալ և տարածեալ
են, զի քարոզեսցեն նոքա զոր ինչ կամիցի դա՝ դնել նորս և բառնալ զհինսն
յեկեղեցւոյ, ապա հարկի, որ արուեստիւք հրաշից և սքանչելեաց զօրութեամբ
լինի, եթէ ոչ՝ ալվի խարապ,* ալվի* վրդովումն. ախը՜ր խռովութիւն։
ԻԳ.երրորդ՝ վասն յԵրուսաղէմ կաթողիկոս նստելոյ այսքան գայթակղութիւն
եղև ի մէջ ազգիս, որ բազում ընչաւէտք չքացան, ոմանք ի բանտի մեռան,
164 B նորաձևութեան
165 B ի ստամպօլ [ իստամպօլ

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
փախուստ, գան և տուգան, թէրսանէ* և բանտ, թլֆանք*166 և կորուստ մալին

Երուսաղէմի, և փախուստ միաբանիցն Էջմիածնի, և փակելոյ դրան տաճարին,
և խայտառակութիւն ի մէջ ամենայն ազգաց։ Եւ այս ամենայն եղև վասն
փառամոլութեան նորաձևութեան։ Արդ՝ յայտ է, թէ հարազատն իցէ զաւակ այնմ
գայթակղեցուցչի. ասեմ և ո՛չ ամաչեմ։
ԻԴ.երրորդ՝ եթէ ըռզըն* Քրիստոսի սիանէթ* անէ, զի ժողովուրդն մի՛ լսիցէ
զհաչմունս հերձուածողաց, այլ պատասխան տամ այսմ, թէ այսքան ժամանակ
ասէին զայդ և ո՛չ ոք յազգէս վասն յայդմ իրի թուրքացան, այլ ի գարշութեան
ոմանց գայթակղեալ՝ ի հաւատոց ելին։ Անմտութիւն է այս առ լսօղս167 և
խորամանկութիւն յիւր168 բարս։
ԻԵ.երրորդ՝ վասն «իսկ որք ասենին» ո՛չ ոք երկբայեցաւ մինչև ցայսօր, այլ
զՀաւատամք ասօղսն169 ևս առաւել հաստատեն, զի նզովեն զայլայլելիսն
և զփոփոխելիսն, բայց վասն գործոց գարշութեան երկբային, խոտորին և
ա|145բ|նունն Աստուծոյ հայհոյի ի մէջ ազգաց։
ԻԶ.երրորդ՝ բարւոք է, թէ՝ նոյն խորհրդով իցէր զըռզն* Քրիստոսի պահել, ապա
ի դատաստանէ իւրմէ դատապարտեալ է նա, քանզի լսեմ, թէ ի մէջ քարոզին
անձն և անձն յիշելով, բնութիւն և բնութիւն յեղյեղելով, և թէ Նեստոր այսպէս
բարբանջեաց վասն Քրիստոսի, Արիոս այսպէս բաջաղեց վասն Քրիստոսի,
ֆիլան* քեօփէկ* այսպէս կարծեց վասն Քրիստոսի և հաչեց։ Որ այսպիսի չար
համբաւքս, որ ի չարեացն յամբարտաւան ախտիցն յառաջ եկին. ժողովուրդքն
ամենևին խապար* չունին, և գայթակղութիւն է պարզամտաց։ Ապա ուրեմն
չգիտէ պահել զըռզն* Քրիստոսի ըստ ինքեան անիմաստն այն, այլ վասն «իսկ
որք ասենին», որ եղև վրէժխնդիր՝ բառնալ, վասն Քրիստոսի ըռզին* պահելոյ
չէ՛, այլ արհեստ իմաստութեան կամի ցուցանել ժողովրդեան, և ո՛չ գիտէ, թէ ո՛չ
ծածկէ իմաստութիւն զյայտնի թիւրեալն և զմոլեալն յախտ սովորութեան։
ԻԷ.երրորդ՝ եթէ բան մի և իր մի, որ խաղաղութեամբ չլինի կատարածն, ահա
կատարի բանն Քրիստոսի, թէ՝ աւելին ի չարէն է (Մատթ. Ե 37), քանզի ո՛չ ի
շինութիւն ժողովրդեանն170 եղև, այլ ի վրդովումն։ Եւ խորհեցաւ խորհուրդ,
զոր ո՛չ կարաց հաստատել, և սկսաւ շինել և ո՛չ կարաց կատարել, և եղև
ծաղր տեսողաց, և գտաւ տեղի բամբասանաց ի մէջ պառաւանց. այս ինչպէ՞ս
իմաս|146ա|տութիւն, քան թէ անմտութիւն յո՛յժ յո՛յժ։
ԻԸ.երրորդ՝ անմտութիւն է առն, որ զամենեսեան անմիտ կարծէ, և միայն զինքն
գիտուն։ Եւ ո՛չ մտածեաց զայս, որ այսօր ինքն խափանեաց և եթող գնաց, և
վաղիւն ես գամ յեկեղեցի, բարձր ձայնիւ ասեմ «Իսկ որք ասենն»։
166 B + (այսինքն՝ թելիֆութիւն)

167 B լսողս
168 A նախ՝ իւր, ապա սրբգ.՝ յիւր
169 B ասողսն
170 B ժողովրդեան

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
54 Ohanjanyan
ԻԹ.երրորդ՝ զԵղիազարն գովէ ի մէջ քարոզին և հեկեկելով լայ զաղալն*

թիթալ*՝ թէրևս լացուցանել կարիցէ զպարզամիտ տխմարս, զի այն լինիցի
մխիթարութիւն անյագ սրտի իւրոյ, այսինքն՝ եթէ տակաւին խաբին ժողովուրդք
յարհեստ խորամանկութեան իւրոյ։ Նա՝ Եղիազար մինչ յօրն ի մահուն ասէր
«զիսկ որք ասենն»։ Ապա ուրեմն այնու հակառակ եղև իւրոյ գովաբանութեանն,
զի իմաստունն գովաբանէ զանմիտն և զանիմաստն։
Լ.երրորդ՝ եթէ իրաւ և արժան իցէ գովաբանութեանն, որ վասն Եղիազարու.
ահա այնու ախմախ* ինքն գտաւ, զի հակառակեցաւ իմաստնոյն. և զիւր
գովաբանութիւնն ստեաց, զի խոտորնակ եղև նմա, քանզի նա ասէր «զիսկ որք
ասենն»։
ԼԱ.երրորդ՝ ի մանկութեան մերում լսէաք յերկու ճրագալոյցսն ի սուրբ
Պատարագսն, առաջի մեծամեծ վարդապետաց հանդիպողաց «զիսկ որք
ասենն» ձայնիւ նուագէին։
|146բ| ԼԲ.երրորդ՝ ծաղեր և նախատանաց պատճառ գտաւ, զի ասել կարիցեն այլ
ազգ քրիստոնեայք, թէ հայք յայսմ ամի իմանալով զանգիտութիւն մոլորութեան
իւրեանց ի ձեռն Սիւքիաս ումեմն հռետորի և աստուածաբանութեան
վարդապետի բարձին ի Հաւատամքէն «զիսկ որք ասենն», զոր ասէին մինչև
ցայսօր ժամանակի։ Կարեն ասել այժմիկ այլ ազգ քրիստոնեայք, թէ ուրեմն
հաւաստի հաստատի ի մէջ հայոց գոլ շատ մոլորութիւնք, զորս ինքեանք
ծածկեն, և ոմանք անգիտաբար հետևին, որպէս այժմիկ ահա ծանեաւ Սուքիասն
ամէնիմաստ171 և եբարձ «զիսկ որք ասենն»։
ԼԳ.երրորդ՝ ասելի է, թէ այդպիսիքդ այլայլելի կամօք և փոփոխելի խորհրդովք
են, զի որ մերձ է ի չարիս, նա արագ է ի կարծիս, այսինքն՝ զնզովքն զայն լսելով՝
երկնչին հանգչիլ ի վերայ ինքեանց, վասն որոյ խափանել կամիցին զայն։
ԼԴ.երրորդ՝ այլայլելին այն է, որ զոմանս շարականս փոխել կամ վեր բառնալ,
կամ յայլ տեղի դնել։ Այլայլելին այն է՝ զփոխս և զքարոզս փոխել յետ և յառաջ,
այլայլելին այն է՝ ի պատարագին՝ այս պիտի և այն չպիտի172 ասել, կամ
ձեռնամած, կամ բազկատարած, կամ «Փառք ի բարձունս»՝ համաձայն կամ
դաս առ դաս, կամ ծածուկ գլխով կամ գլխի բաց:173 Այսպիսիքն ամենայն
այլայլութիւնք են և պղտո|147ա|րումն։ Վասն որոյ ի մոլորութիւն նորաձևութիւն
ախտին հպարտութեան զնզովսն արգիլէ, զի մի՛ հանգչիցի ի վերայ ինքեան։
Այլայլելին այն է, որ ի մերումս ժամանակի ոմանք ասեն՝ այս ինչ ծանր է հայոց
պահք, և ձկտին ի հոռոմս, թէ՝ մի՞թէ նոքա քրիստոնեայ չեն։
Այլայլելին այն է, թէ՝ այս ի՞նչ շատ ժամակարգութիւն է հայոց չորս հինգ սահաթ,*
և ձգին ի ֆռանկս՝ մի՞թէ նոքա քրիստոնեայ չեն։
171 B ամենիմաստ
172 B չիպիտի
173 B գլխիբաց [ գլխի բաց

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Այլայլութիւն է, թէ՝ մարտի քսանևհինգ և ի Ծաղկազարդն հոռոմն ձուկն ուտէ՝

միթէ՞ նոքա քրիստոնեայ չեն։
Փոփոխին ի ֆռանկս ասելով՝ միթէ՞ ստուգութիւն Զատկին նոցա չէ, որ այսքան
թագաւորութիւն և իմաստութիւն ունին։ Ահա տունկ փոփոխական արմատ
ո՛չ առնու, և ո՛չ գտաւ միտն հաստատուն այնորիկ, զի ի հայոց ելնու, ի հոռոմն
չմնայ և ի ֆռանկս ո՛չ պատուաստի։ Եւ իջաւ հիմն ի վերայ աւազի անվաւեր և
կործանումն է նորա (հմմտ. Ղուկ. Զ 49):
Արդ՝ պարտ էր զայսոսիկ և զայսպիսիս հաստատել ի միաբանութիւն, հարկ էր
զայսպիսեացն թերամտութեան զամբոխումն խաղաղացուցանել, պատշաճ էր
ստուգել զբան երանելի թարգմանչաց և մեկնչաց նախնեաց մերոց։
ԼԵ.երրորդ՝ եթէ ասիցէ ոք, թէ՝ Եղիազար ուրիշ մ|147բ|տօք ասէր կեղծաւորաբար
ի լսելիս ժողովրդեանն և ի ժամ մահուն կտակ է արարեալ սորա՝ չասել «իսկ
որք ասենն»։ Տամք պատասխան թէ՝ սա յԷջմիածին չէ՛ր ի ժամ մահուանն
Եղիազարու։ Իսկ թէ ասիցէ ոք՝ Եղիազար թուղթ գրեաց սորա ի ժամ մահուն
վասն այսմ, զայն ո՛չ գիտեմք։ Ցուցանել պարտի՛ զթուղթն զայն։
ԼԶ.երրորդ՝ Նորագոյն բան հանելով էարկ կարծիս ի միտս ռամկաց, ձգեաց ի
լեզուս պարզամտաց, թէ՝ միթէ՞ խոտան բան է լեալ «իսկ որք ասենն», զոր ասէին
անգիտաբար ազգս մեր։
ԼԷ.երրորդ, թէ՝ անիմաստք էին նախնիքն այնոքիկ, որք զդա գրեցին յաւանդ
մեզ, և նա զանիմաստիցն գիրս ընթերցար, և յանիմաստէս նա յարհեստ նոցա
արհեստիւքն իւրեանց։
ԼԸ.երրորդ, թէ՝ իմաստունք են նոքա և արժանաւոր յիշատակելոյ ի Պատարագն,
զտօն նոցա առնելոյ, զճառսն ընթեռնլոյ, զնոսա բարեխօս կարդալոյ։ Սա,
ասեմ, անարժան է զանուանս նոցա ի բերան առնելոյ174, զի զուխտադրութիւն
նոցա քամահէ, զյիշատակսն աղարտէ, զբանսն արհամարհէ, զշինեալսն քակէ,
զարձանսն կործանէ, և զգրեալսն եղծանէ, այսինքն՝ ցանկապատառութիւն,
որ տրտնջանաց և երկպառակութեան լինի պատճառ, և հայի կատարածն ի
խռովութիւն. յաւելին175 ի չա|148ա|րէն է (Մատ. Ե 37), խռովարարն սատանայ է։
ԼԹ.երրորդ, Մեկնութիւն է, այսինքն՝ եզրակացութիւն Հաւատամքին և վկայ
հաստատուն որովհետև Հայր և Որդի և Սուրբ Հոգին էակից և համագոյակից
դաւանեցաւ Դառնայ անդրադարձ բանն և վկայէ հաստատութեամբ, թէ՝ իսկ
որք գտանին բաց ի սմանէ ասօղք այսպէս և այնպէս, արտաքսեալ է, հեռացեալ
է, որոշեալ է, նզովեալ է ի սուրբ եկեղեցւոյ։
Խ.երրորդ, Կլէմէսն որ այսքան չարախոսեալ է զմեզ, գովաբանութիւն իմն վասն
ուղղափառաց մերոց ասէ ի գիրքն իւր յայսպէս՝ «և զկնի հաւատամքին դաւանին
ընդդէմ Արիոսի զէութիւն Աստուծոյ Բանին անփոփոխելի և անայլայլելի՝
երգելով զնիկիական վերաբերութիւնն, որ ասէ «իսկ որք ասենն», ևն։
174 B առնլոյ
175 B աւելին

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
56 Ohanjanyan
ԽԱ.երրորդ, Զայս բան գիրք սուրբ հաստատեն, որպէս Մովսէս յՕրէնսն

Աստուծոյ օրհնութիւն և անէծս գրեաց, և որպէս Յովհաննէս Մկրտիչ ասէ՝ որ
հաւատայ յՈրդի, ընդունի զկեանս յաւիտենականս, և որ ոչն հնազանդի Որդւոյ,
ո՛չ տեսցէ զկեանս, այլ բարկութիւն Աստուծոյ մնայ ի վերայ նորա (Յովհ. Գ 36):
Եւ որպէս Տէրն հրամայէ՝ որոց բարիս գործեալ իցէ ի յարութիւն կենաց, և որոց
զչար արարեալ ի յարութիւն դատաստանից (Յովհ. Ե 29): Եւ դարձեալ հրամայէ՝
ասացի ձեզ, թէ ի մեղս ձեր մեռանիցիք, զի թէ ո՛չ հաւատայցէք, թէ ես եմ՝
մեռանիցիք ի մեղս ձեր (Յովհ. Ը 24): Եւ |148բ| դարձեալ հրամայէ՝ ի դատաստան
եկի յաշխարհս այս, զի որք ոչն տեսանեն՝ տեսցեն, և որք տեսանենն ՝կուրասցին
(Յովհ. Թ 39): Եւ դարձեալ թէ՝ եկայք օրհնեալք հօր իմոյ (Մատթ. ԻԵ 34), և թէ՝
երթայք անիծեալք ի հուրն յաւիտենական (Մատթ. ԻԵ 41), և այլ բազում գոյ
Գրոց Սրբոց աշակերտաց և ճշմարտասիրաց։
Այս բաւական լսողաց, թէ մին մին լաւ տեղեկացեալ մտադրութեամբ
ընթերձցին176 և լուիցեն և զգուշասցին յայնպիսեաց։
Գրեցաւ օրինակմամբ յամի տեառն 1793, և ի ՌՄԽԲ (=1242) թուին հայոց, մարտի
Բ, և ի ۱۲۰۷-սէ Շապան ամսոյ մէկին, ի մանկատան սրբոյն Յակոբոյ Մծբնայ
հայրապետի, ի Պալատ։
…
[The] response with God’s help and concerning God [to the person] who disallowed
[the recital of the anathema] “As for those who say”177 that is recited at the end of the
Creed. [Narrated] by unworthy Eremia [Kʻēōmiwrčean].
First, is it that he [i.e. Sukʻias Prusacʻi] found in historical books, that the man, who
established “As for those who say” is a useless person full of villainy, and because of
that he [Sukʻias] disallows his words? But I say, behold the words of Solomon recited in
churches and accepted among the Holy Scriptures.178
Second, those who established the prayers of [Liturgy of] Hours179 also established
this [Anathema]. Thus, if he [Sukʻias] does not approve of their prayers, he is obliged
to forbid all their sayings, and constitute new prayers of his own.
Third, if he accepts the prayers articulated by them through the Holy Spirit, hence,
he is obliged to accept “As for those who say” as well.
176 A նախ.՝ ընթերձցին, ապա սրբ.՝ ընթերցցին B ընթերցցին

177 The incipit of the Nicene Anathema recited in the Armenian Church.
178 Eremia draws a parallel with the story of King Solomon, who turned to the pagan gods (1
Kings 11) towards the end of his life. His writings have remained canonical and recited in
all Christian churches.
179 The Armenian text reads «ժամակարգութիւն» (žamakargutʻiwn), lit. order of Hours
meaning the Divine Office of the Armenian Apostolic Church.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Fourth, if his patron180 acknowledged181 this [Anathema], then he is obliged to ac-

cept it as well. But if he does not accept it, behold, he is revealed as opposing his patron
and teacher and [spiritual] parent.
Fifth, the Catholicoi Yakob182 and Pʻilipos183 and Movsēs,184 let alone the old
vardapets,185 who accepted [it] at their times [and] had been reciting it. And now, is he
greater than them in his wisdom and knowledge, to forbid [its recital]? I am unaware
of the cause!
180 The Armenian text reads «տէրտէր» (tērtēr), lit. a priest. Here it means a patron hierarch
or a teacher. This is a reference to Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi, whose protégé was Sukʻias. The ref-
erence here is to his own father, Martiros Kʻēōmiwrčean as to “my տէրտէր (tērtēr),” lit.
my priest. See Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 192.
181 Armenian text reads «փեյտա արար» (pʻeyta arar). See Glossary.
182 Yakob iv Jˇułayecʻi (1598–1680) occupied the office of Catholicos in Ejmiacin from 1655 to
1680. He put a lot of effort to find support in Europe for the liberation of the Armenians
from Persian rule. Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean was supporting Yakob Jˇułayecʻi’s liberationist
policy.
183 Pʻilipos I Ałbakecʻi (1593–1655) was Catholicos in Ejmiacin from 1633 to 1655. Eremia
Kʻēōmiwrčean had personal acquaintance with this Catholicos. They first met in
Constantinople, when Eremia was fifteen years old. Eremia’s family too had an intimate
acquaintance with Catholicos Pʻilipos Ałbakecʻi and accompanied him while he was in
Constantinople between 1652–1653. Pʻilipos appointed Eremia’s father Martiros, a vicar
of Holy Ejmiacin in Constantinople. Eremia admired the educational pursuits Pʻilipos
Ałbakecʻi had engaged with, and devoted sentences to praise the latter in his Lament.
184 Movsēs iii Tatʻewacʻi (1578–1632) was Catholicos in Ejmiacin from 1629 to 1632. A student
of a prominent vardapet Srapion Uṙhayecʻi, Movsēs managed to obtain a firman from
Shah Abbas i for the renovation of the buildings in Ejmiacin two years prior to his official
consecration as a Catholicos.
185 Armenian word «վարդապետ» (vardapet) stands for a celibate priest and is rendered as
a teacher or doctor of theology.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
58 Ohanjanyan
Sixth, such tremendous teachers as Mayragomecʻi,186 and Mandakuni,187 and the

heir188 of Magistros189—Vkayasēr,190 and Grigor,191 and Šnorhali,192 and Lambronacʻi,193
radiated through their sermons and commentaries, and sayings, and homilies. But first
186 Yovhan Mayragomecʻi, also known as Mayrivanecʻi (570/5-652), is an Armenian theo-

logian and the prior of the monastery of Dvin. Yovhan spoke against the unity of the
Byzantine and Armenian Churches, hence was accused of phantasism and was exiled
during the tenure of pro-Chalcedonic Catholicos Nersēs Tayecʻi. Excerpts from his theo-
logical writings have survived in the key florilegium of the Armenian Church Knikʻ hawa-
toy (“Seal of Faith”).
187 Yovhan Mandakuni, who was an Armenian Catholicos, a canonist and hymnologist in the
second half of the fifth century, who established a new group of ecclesiastical canons en-
closed in the Book of Canons of the Armenian Church. The majority of important canons
refer to the observance of fasts and the Great Lent.
188 The Armenian text reads «յօճաղ» (yocał). See Glossary.
189 Grigor Magistros Pahlavuni (ca. 990-1058) is the Duke of Mesopotamia, the governor of
Edessa, a laymen scholar, who descended from the princely Pahlavuni family. Magistros is
famous for his letters written to various high-rank ecclesiastical figures on different doc-
trinal and disciplinary issues, which challenged both the Armenian and Syrian Orthodox
Churches.
190 Grigor Vkayasēr (Gregory Martyrofile) d. 1105, the son of Grigor Magistros Pahlavuni, oc-
cupied the office of the Catholicos in Hromkla (Rumkale) between 1066-1085 during the
Armenian Cilician period. He is also the founder of the Armenian Pahlavuni dynasty of
Catholicoi and earned the sobriquet Martyrofile for commissioning translations of mar-
tyrdoms and lives of saints from Greek into Armenian.
191 Grigor iii Pahlavuni (d. 1166) was elected as Armenian Catholicos at the age of twenty.
During his tenure, the Catholicosate was relocated to Copʻkʻ, later to Hṙomkla (Rumkale).
He was the first Catholicos to start a dialogue with the Latin Church on doctrinal differ-
ences. Grigor Pahlavuni was known for penning a number of hymns, canticles, poems,
and translating martyrdoms.
192 Nersēs iv Šnorhali (d. 1173) Armenian Catholicos in Hṙomkla (Rumkale). The great-
grandchild of Grigor Magistros and the brother of Catholicos Grigor Vkayasēr. Šnorhali
was engaged in the discourse for the union of the Byzantine and Armenian Churches
initiated by the Greek Emperor Manuel i Komnenos (1118-1180). The negotiations
were interrupted with the death of the Emperor. Both the Armenian Apostolics and
Armenian Catholics referred to Nersēs Šnorhali as to an “orthodox.” Clemente Galano,
who translated Šnorhali’s conversations with the Greek philosopher Theorianus into
Latin and Armenian—illustrates Nersēs Šnorhali as an admirer of the Chalcedon for-
mulas. Šnorhali’s book Jesus the Son, printed in underground Catholic printing press in
Constantinople, was banned by vekil Yovhannes Izmircʻi in 1703.
193 Nersēs Lambronacʻi (d. 1198) is a theologian, translator and a courtier descending from the
Hetumid and Pahlavuni royal dynasties in Cilicia. Lambronacʻi was accused by Eastern
vardapets of adhering to the doctrine of the Latin Church.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
of all [come] Narekacʻi,194 whose prayers we admire and Mesrop,195 the pinnacle196
of the doctrine. They and their equals—the commentators and interpreters [of the
faith], who took the responsibility before the princes and kings, accepted it. Hence,
just like you, I am also unaware of his judgment to forbid [its recital].
Seventh, is it that through a Synod, the abolition of this [Anathema] occurred, so
that he dared proclaim it in the city? We have not heard of that Synod! And he does
not reveal the cause to the public, [to prove], that due to this very reason, it is not of
consequence to recite “As for those who say.”
Eighth, and there are five hundred clerics197 among our nation. Which one of them
accorded with him in their words? Or perhaps they scribbled letters to him to abolish
[recitation]? Let him show it to us!
Ninth, and he has been hitherto reciting it himself as he learned and heard in this
manner. So, now who influenced him not to recite [this]? Is it possible, that the angel
of the Almighty manifested through a vision,198 or perhaps he ascended to the havens
and heard the angelic tongues,199 or perhaps a messenger [and] new prophet200 taught
[it to him]?
Tenth, it has been observed in Ejmiacin and Jerusalem and all the monasteries to
this day, and no one has made up his mind to abolish it. Hence, it is obvious that [this]
innovation is part of [his] arrogance, that is to say, he imagined himself more knowl-
edgeable and wiser than all others.
Eleventh, that the ones, who are willing to read [it]; they all become wise [by means
of] all writings of erudition. If he desires to boast to the peasants that he has read more
than the others, first he has to prove it in public with the testimonies from the writ-
ings, and then take the confidence to abolish anything from the Hours,201 since that is
a public matter, as well as ecclesiastical.
194 Grigor Narekacʻi (d. 1003) is an author of paramount importance: a monk, a mystical
poet, a theologian and a Universal doctor of the Church famous for his renowned Book of
Lamentation, which has been translated into many languages.
195 Mesrop Maštocʻ (ca. 362-440) is a theologian, translator, author of numerous hymns and
the inventor of the Armenian alphabet. He collaborated with Armenian Catholicos Sahak
i Partʻew (348-439) and king Vṛamšapuh (Bahram-Shapuh) (ca. 389/400-414) in pro-
moting Armenian Christian identity and the appropriation of Christian culture across
Armenia.
196 The Armenian text reads «փիր» (pʻir). See Glossary.
197 The Armenian text reads «սևագլուխք» (sevagluxkʻ), lit. blackheads, a calque from
Turkish karabaş. This name was applied to the Armenian Apostolic monks because of
their black hoods worn together with black cassocks.
198 Allusion to the visions in the Old Testament.
199 Allusion to Paul’s vision in 2 Corinthians 12:1-7.
200 Allusion to the vision of Muhammad in Islamic tradition.
201 The Armenian text reads «ժամակարգութիւն» (žamakargutʻiwn).

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
60 Ohanjanyan
Twelfth, if any Catholicos would wish to abolish this, the Armenian people could
tell him, “Bring and show [us] the book you read, [which says] that reciting this in the
church is useless and improper! Also acquaint us with the cause!” So, how dares he
[abolish it] himself?
Thirteenth, the perfect answer is that it has been articulated in consequence of the
vice of Arius and his equals. Therefore, the Holy Church anathematizes them hitherto.
And if one does not accept it [by saying], “Let “As for those who say” not be recited,”
then who will he turn into?
Fourteenth, the Creed,202 articulated by 318 Holy Fathers,203 was a way to succinctly
enclose the definition of faith. And at the end of it [the Creed] they put this seal of ours,
so that those who say so and so, are not accepted by the Church, and that he [Arius] is
worthless and external to the mother, [that is the] Holy Church—not [as] a stepson,
but an alien. Although he [Arius] claims himself to be begotten of the Church, he is a
heretic and adversary of the Holy Gospel, since he does not confess the Son and the
Holy Spirit [to be] of the very same nature with the Father, and does not confess the
Spirit and the Son consubstantial204 with the Father. For our Lord Word of God, while
revealing himself incarnated, proclaimed himself coequal, consubstantial, [and] co-
essential with the Holy Spirit, proclaimed himself of the very nature and the very es-
sence with the Father, that is “Go, baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, and
the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (cf. Math. 28:19). Thus, it makes clear, that if there appear
alterable and mutable people, who say “There was a time”205 and so forth; they will be
[considered] heretics,206 infidels, Arians. Hence, [the like of them] are anathematized
with body and soul, by the Holy Church, resembling the wind that disperses the dust
on the surface of the world.
Fifteenth, if he [Sukʻias] argues that there are no Arians nowadays, but [since] this
was articulated against Arius and his partisans at one time, therefore it is of no conse-
quence to recite [it any more]. Yet I say, your word[s] are true indeed, that our Fathers
sealed [this] up, and confined [it] to be observed the same way as the Creed is observed
202 The Armenian text reads «Հաւատամք» (Hawatamkʻ), lit. we confess.

203 The reference here is to the 318 hierarchs participating in the Council of Nicaea in 325 that
constituted the Nicene Creed.
204 The Armenian text reads «համագոյ ընդ Հօր» (hamagoy ǝnd Hōr), a calque from Greek
ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί. In the Armenian Liturgical version of the Niceno-Constantinoplitan
Creed, the term «համագոյ» (hamagoy), which is Greek ὁμοούσιος and Latin consubstan-
tialis, is not used. Instead, there stands «նոյն ինքն ի բնութենէ Հօր» (noyn ink‘n i
bnut‘enē Hōr), meaning “of the very same nature of the Father” or “of one essence with the
Father.”
205 A reference to the text of the Nicene Anathema.
206 The Armenian text reads «չարափառք» (čʻarapʻaṙk‘), a calque from Greek κακόδοξοι, me-
naing “the ones having wrong doctrine.”

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
through affirmation of the words of faith. Because of that, our Saint Lusaworičʻ207 put
a beautiful seal upon both the affirmation and renunciation, that is “As for us, we shall
glorify Him who was before the ages, worshipping … the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit, now and always and unto the ages of ages” and so forth.
Sixteenth, if the renunciations, which were established for the good of the cautious,
are to be abolished, then the “We renounce Satan”208 is to be abolished as well. Let “Let
none of the catechumens”209 and suchlike be abolished; let the frequent “Glory in the
Highest”210 be abolished, as it was composed in the same period; let the Gospels be
abolished, as they were composed for infidels, let the Prophets be abolished, that were
207 Grigor Lusaworičʻ (Gregory the Illuminator) is the founder of the Armenian Church as an
institution in the early fourth century.
208 Renunciation of the devil is an ancient baptismal practice of the Church, first witnessed
by Tertullian. See Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo, 191. In the Armenian Church it reads as follows:
“We renounce Satan and his every deceit, his wiles, his deliberations, his course, his evil
will, his evil angels, his evil ministers, his evil agents, and his every power renouncing,
we renounce.” See Frederic C. Conybeare, Rituale Armenorum being the Administration
of the Sacraments and the Breviary Rites of the Armenian Church, (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1995), 86-108; Mesrob Tashjian, “The Sacrament of Holy Baptism in the Armenian
Apostolic Church” in Baptism Today: Understanding, Practice, Ecumenical Implications,
ed. Thomas F. Best, (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2008), 17. All Christian
churches preserved the renunciation of the devil one way or another: the variant of this
formula occurs in the office of catechumens in the Eastern Orthodox Church (“Do you re-
nounce Satan and all his works and all his worship and all his angels and all his pomp?”),
but not in baptismal rite. Its usage appears in the old Gallican Rite of the Western Church
(“Do you renounce Satan, the pomps of the world and its pleasures?”). Renunciation of
the devil is accepted also in the Roman Catholic, Syriac Orthodox, Coptic and Ethiopic
rites. See Henry A. Kelly, The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama, (Wipf and
Stock Publishers, 2004), 104; Walter Caspari, “Renunciation of the Devil in Baptismal
Rite,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. Samuel M.
Jackson et al., vol. 9, (New York and London, 1911), 488-489.
209 The dismissal of catechumens was and still remains though nominally, part of the Divine
Liturgy in Christian churches. It made an appearance in the forth-fifth centuries in John
Chrysostom’s Liturgy, when the catechumens were ordered to leave the nave after the
Liturgy of the Word and to not approach the Holy Communion. The first part of the
Divine Liturgy is also called the Liturgy of Catechumens. In the Divine Liturgy of the
Armenian Church it is pronounced as follows: “Let none of the catechumens, none of
little faith and none of the penitents or the unclean draw near this divine mystery!” See
The Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church, 23.
210 “Glory in the Highest” (Gloria in Excelsis) is part of the Divine Office for all Christian
churches established from the forth century on. Its variants had been chanted during
Matins in the Armenian Apostolic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well as the Assyrian
Church of East. It is chanted in the Roman Catholic Church during the Tridentine Holy
Solemn Mass after Kyrie Elesion (Κύριε, ἐλέησον) and during evening prayer (Hosanna in
the Highest) in the Syriac Orthodox Church, it is chanted during the Coptic Liturgy of
Saint Basil within the Prayer of Reconciliation. See Conybeare, 134, 385, 456.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
62 Ohanjanyan
written and fulfilled for Christ. How commodious Franks211 made it for their people—
no Proverbs, no Prophets, no Paul,212 no Gospels, no Creed: only some brief prayers
during the Holy Mass in order to dismiss [people] rapidly.213
Seventeenth, I strictly declare: Oh, people! What is “O, marvelous!”214 that is sung
[during the Liturgy]? [And] what is the deficiency of “As for those who say” [so that
not to be recited]?
Eighteenth, that he [Sukʻias] argues that the Franks and the Greeks, who are the
greatest, and the first Christians among all nations, do not have this [Anathema]. That
is correct. Behold, like I said earlier, if they do not have it and you do, should you abol-
ish what you have to become equal with those who do not?
Nineteenth, on other occasions he refers to them [Franks and Greeks] as schismat-
ics, whereas here he refers to them as testifiers. This will not do either!
Twentieth, I can show you Greek[s] and Frank[s], who will say that “As for those
who say” is a good thing, since it affirms the words in the Creed and effaces entirely the
Arian conjectures by renouncing and anathematizing the likes [of Arius].
Twenty-first, I tell you the cause. The will of a man putting into practice such an
innovation is to test people to see if they obey and accept it, [then] tomorrow I will
invent something else and execute. It is obvious, that for the sake of his vanity, he
dissembles and disquiets, misleads and perplexes people, [becomes] the cause of de-
struction and dismay; that’s for sure;215 that’s for certain.216
Twenty-second, for if he managed to torment Bursa217 with various things, but
Istanbul would not obey him—behold, there will be distortion. If he managed to
211 The Armenian text reads «ֆռանկք» (fṙankkʻ), meaning Roman Catholics, at times
French or Europeans in general.
212 A reference to the Epistles of Paul.
213 Apparently Eremia’s words refer to the Roman Catholic Low Mass.
214 One of the hymns in the Canon of Holy Patriarchs in the Armenian Hymnal (Šaraknoč).
“O, marvelous patriarchs” refers to 318 Church Fathers partaking in Nicene Council of 325,
which contains an anathema against Arius.
215 The Armenian text reads «թահգիգ թահգիգ» (tʻahgig-tʻahgig). See Glossary.
216 The Armenian text reads «էլպէթ էլպէթ» (ēlpētʻ-ēlpētʻ). See Glossary.
217 Bursa or Prusa, a city in the northwestern Turkey, used to be an Ottoman capital in the
fourteenth century. Before the Armenian Genocide of 1915, there were more than seven-
teen Armenian churches in Bursa and neighborhood, the most famous of which were the
churches of the Holy Mother of God (Surb Astuacacin) and the Holy Archangels (Surb
Hreštakapetacʻ).

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
subjugate Balat,218 but could not [succeed in] Edirne219—behold, there will be disor-
der. If he managed to habituate Üsküdar,220 but could not [succeed in] Tokat—behold,
there will be disturbance. Then, if he is capable of acquiring twelve apostles along with
seventy-two disciples and forwarding them to where the Armenians are scattered and
spread, for they will preach whatever he desires —establishing new and abolishing
the old [customs] of the Church, then it is to happen through the thaumaturgy and the
power of wonderworking. If not, [then there will be] more destruction, [there will be]
more disquietude. But is that not a turmoil!?
Twenty-third, there was such a grand scandal among our nation because of [the
establishment of] Catholicosal throne in Jerusalem.221 A number of opulent [people]
eliminated, some died in prison. Escape, torment and indemnity, galley222 and jail,
fatigue and loss of the animals of Jerusalem, and escape of the monks of Ejmiacin, and
closure of the door of the monastery,223 and disgrace among all the nations [occurred].
218 Balat or Palat is a quarter in Constantinople, on the western bank of Golden Horn.
Traveling to Constantinople in 1608, Simēon Lehacʻi described Saint Nikolayos (Surb
Nikołayos) church of Balat, shared by the Armenians and Franks, where each served their
own service in “love and peace.” Balat also housed the Holy Archangels Armenian church.
According to the seventeenth-century Armenian chronicler Grigor Daranałcʻi, the Holy
Archangels was an abandoned Greek church in the Jewish neighborhood of Balat. Thanks
to Aristakēs Xarberdcʻi, the Armenians obtained a firman from Topal Recep Pasha (d.
1632) to attain the church.
219 Edirne, a city in northwestern Turkey, was the third Ottoman capital before Constantinople.
Before the Armenian Genocide of 1915, it housed three Armenian churches—Saint
Gregory the Illuminator (Surb Grigor Lusaworičʻ), Saint Toros (Surb Tʻoros) and Saint
Karapet (Surb Karapet).
220 Üsküdar or Scutari, a district of Constantinople on the shore of Bosphorus is one of the
three districts outside the city walls during the Ottoman period. The Holy Cross (Surb
Xačʻ) Armenian church is in Üsküdar.
221 Eremia refers to the turmoil in Jerusalem instigated by Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi when he estab-
lished an anti-Catholicosate there.
222 The Armenian text reads «թէրսանէ» (tʻērsanē). See Glossary.
223 Eremia alludes to the closure of the doors of Saints James Convent in Jerusalem. In 1656,
the tensions between the Greeks and Armenians over the sites in the Holy Land reached
their peak. When the Greeks managed to obtain a firman from grand vizier allowing them
to appropriate the Saints James Convent of Armenians. Ełiazar, then the deputy of the
Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem, appealed to the ruler of Damascus Teyar Oğlu to tackle
the issue. Having already been bribed by the Greeks, the ruler promised to find a solution
commanding Ełiazar to hand in the keys of the Convent to him until the problem was
solved. In the face of his apprehension, Ełiazar entrusted the keys to Teyar Oğlu, who kept
the Convent doors locked and sealed till 1657, when the Greeks took it over. The Convent
was returned to the Armenians in 1659.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
64 Ohanjanyan
And all these on behalf of the vanity of innovation. Thus, it is obvious, that he [Sukʻias]
is the genuine child of that scandalous man.224 I claim [this] and I am not ashamed!
Twenty-forth, if he wants to defend225 the honor226 of Christ in order for people
to refrain from hearing the bark of the heretics, then I reply to this—for such a long
time it has been recited and no one from our nation turned Turk,227 but rather they
betrayed their faith tempted by the abhorrence of certain people. This is bêtise for the
listeners and artifice in his course.
Twenty-fifth, to this day no one was misled because of “As for those who say.”
Moreover, those, who recite the Creed, rather affirm that they anathematize mutable
and changeable ones. But because of the deeds of abhorrence, they got perplexed and
were led astray, and the name of the God is blasphemed among the nations.
Twenty-sixth, it is good, if with the very same intention, the honor228 of Christ was
defended; yet he is condemned with his own judgment, for I hear him recalling the
person and person229 during the sermon and reiterating nature and nature,230 and
[telling] that Nestorius trifled in such-and-such manner about Christ, and Arius prat-
tled so-and-so about Christ, and the such-and-such231 dog232 assumed so-and-so about
Christ and barked. People are entirely ignorant,233 that this kind of wicked reputation
had emerged from malicious and haughty disease; hence, that is a temptation for the
simple-minded. Therefore, he himself is ignorant of the defence of the honor234 of
Christ. And it is not for the defence of the honor235 of Christ that he wishes to abolish
“As for those who say,” but rather desires to demonstrate to people the art of [his] wis-
dom. And he is not aware that wisdom never conceals the visible errors and insanity of
those, [driven] into the disease of wont.
Twenty-seventh, if a word and a thing is not carried out in peace, behold, the word
of Christ fulfils, that “anything more than this comes from evil” (Mat. 5:37), because it
224 A reference to the events related to Ełiazar Ayntʻapecʻi’s actions, claiming that Sukʻias was
allegedly following in Ełiazar’s footsteps.
225 The Armenian text reads «սիանէթ» (sianētʻ). See Glossary.
226 The Armenian text reads «ըռըզ» (ǝṙǝz). See Glossary.
227 The Armenian text reads «թուրքացան» (tʻurkʻacʻan), here means conversion to Islam.
228 The Armenian text reads «ըռըզ» (ǝṙǝz).
229 The Armenian text reads «անձն և անձն» (anjn ev anjn). A reference to the Christological
peculiarities of duophysitism.
230 The Armenian text reads «բնութիւն և բնութիւն» (bnutʻiwn ev bnutʻiwn), lit. nature and
nature. Apparently the author reiterates «անձն և անձն» (anjn ev anjn) and «բնութիւն
և բնութիւն» (bnutʻiwn ev bnutʻiwn) to accuse Sukʻias of duophysitism.
231 The Armenian text reads «ֆիլան» (filan). See Glossary.
232 The Armenian text reads «քեօփէկ» (kʻeōpʻēk). See Glossary.
233 The Armenian text reads «խապար» (xapar). See Glossary.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
was not for the sake of tranquility of people that it was performed, but for the sake of
turmoil. And he thought of the things which he could not affirm, and started to cre-
ate, but could not complete. And it became ridiculous for beholders, and became a
matter of gossip among the beldams. What kind of wisdom is this? Rather foolishness,
extreme236 [silliness].
Twenty-eighth, foolish is the man, who imagined everyone to be fools, and him
alone to be wise. And he has never thought of this, that today he might abolish this
[Anathema] and leave, and tomorrow I shall come to church and recite in a loud voice
“As for those who say.”
Twenty-ninth, during the sermon he praises Ełiazar, and [Sukʻias, this] feeble237
pretender,238 weeps sobbing, that perhaps he could make some simple-minded igno-
ramuses weep [too], for in case people are deceived by the art of his imposture, that
will become a consolation for his voracious heart. To the very day of his death Ełiazar
himself recited “As for those who say.” Therefore, this made him [Sukʻias] adversary of
his own eulogy, for [it turned out that] the wise one praises the foolish and the worth-
less one.
Thirtieth, if Ełiazar is justly worthy of his eulogy, then he [Sukʻias] made himself a
fool, for he opposed the sage. And his eulogy became deceptive, as he [Sukʻias] made
himself adversary to him [Ełiazar], because he [Ełiazar] used to recite “As for those
who say.”
Thirty-first, in our childhood we heard “As for those who say” sung before great hon-
orable vardapets at the Holy Divine Liturgy for the two Candlemases.239
Thirty-second, he became a matter of mockery and outrage, for other Christian na-
tions could say, that this year discovering the ignorance of their own error at the hands
of a certain orator and doctor of theology Sukʻias, Armenians eliminated “As for those
who say” from the Creed, which they had been reciting up until now. Other Christian
nations could say now, that consequently it turned out to be true, that there indeed are
many errors among Armenians, which they hide, and some people ignorantly follow
236 The Armenian text reads «յոյժ յոյժ» (yoyž yoyž) lit. very-very.
237 The Armenian text reads «թիթալ» (tʻitʻal). See Glossary.
238 The Armenian text reads «զաղալն» (załaln). See Glossary.
239 Eremia mentions the Candlemas Liturgies of Theophany or Nativity, and Easter, per-
formed on the vigil of each respective Dominical Feast. In the past, the vigils of all feasts
of the Armenian Church were accompanied by the Candlemas Liturgy. Later it was dis-
carded. Eremia’s words testify to the discontinuity of this custom in the seventeenth cen-
tury Ottoman Empire, proving that in his days the Candlemas Liturgies be exceptionally
performed on the Vigils of Theophany and Easter. The thirteen-year-old Eremia describes
in his Diary the Candlemas Liturgy and Holy Fire he witnessed in Jerusalem during
his pilgrimage with his custodian Mahtesi Ambakum and his wife. See Kʻēōmiwrčean,
Ōragrutʻiwn, 309-310.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
66 Ohanjanyan
them. Behold like nowadays all-wise Sukʻias perceived and abolished “As for those who
say.”
Thirty-third, they say, that such people are alterable in their will and unsteady in
their mind, for who is close to evil, he is swift in assumptions, meaning that while hear-
ing those anathemas, they fear those to be placed upon themselves, thereby they wish
to abolish those [anathemas].
Thirty-fourth, alterable is that, when [they wish] to change or override some hymns,
or change their order.
Alterable is that, when [they wish] to move the verses of the Psalms and the
Sermons backwards and forwards. Alterable is that, when [they command] to say this
and not that during the Divine Liturgy, or weather [it should be said] with raised or
spread arms, or whether “Glory in the Highest” [should be sung] concordant or voice
by voice, or whether with a covered or uncovered head. These all are mutabilities and
confusion. Therefore, [being] in delusion of the innovation of the disease of pride he
disallows the anathemas, lest they be placed upon him.
Alterable is that nowadays some people say, “How hard is the [observance] of the
Armenian fast!” And they lean toward the Greeks [with the words], “Are they not
Christians?”
Alterable is that, [when they complain], “How lengthy is the Armenian Service,
four-five hours long!” And they tend towards the Franks [by saying], “Are they not
Christians?”
Mutability is [when they complain] that the Greeks eat fish on March 25th240 and
on Palm Sunday—“Are not they Christians?”
They turn Frank by saying, “Does not the credibility of Easter belong to them, who
possess so many kingdoms and wisdom?” Behold! The mutable plant does not take
root! And that kind of mind did not find stability, for it egresses from the Armenians,
and does not remain among the Greeks, and is not replanted within the Franks. Thus,
the foundation rested on a variable sand and that is [the cause of] its destruction (cf.
Luke 6:49).
Thus, it would be suitable to establish this kind of people in peace; it would be
proper to pacify the confusion of mistrust of such people; it would be descent to check
the words of our forefathers—blessed commenters and interpreters.
240 The Annunciation is celebrated on March 25th in the Greek Orthodox and Catholic
Churches, while in the Armenian Church it is solemnized on April 7th and is accom-
panied with rigorous fast without fish, meat, and dairy. The Armenian fast is called
աղուհաց (ałuhacʻ), literally meaning “salt and bread” that denotes the products allowed
during the fast. Great Lent is also called «Աղուհացից պահք» (Ałuhacʻicʻ Pahkʻ), lit. Lent
on salt and bread. The tradition during Eremia’s time was to have salt and bread during
lent at least once a day. Armenian believers would complain about the rigidity of their
lent, compared to the less rigorous rules of the neighboring Greeks and Roman Catholics.

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Thirty-fifth, if someone argues that Ełiazar was hypocritically reciting it for the ears
of the people and on his deathbed made his will to this [Sukʻias] not to recite “As for
those who say,” we give a reply, that he was not in Ejmiacin at the time of Ełiazar’s
death. And if anyone says that Ełiazar wrote a letter to him on his deathbed concerning
this matter, that I do not know. He has to show [us] that letter!
Thirty-sixth, by propagating an innovative thing, he insinuated a thought in the
minds of peasants [and] on the tongues of the simple-minded—is it possible, that
“As for those who say” was a useless thing, which our people had been reciting out of
ignorance?
Thirty-seventh, if those forefathers, who composed it as a tradition for us, were
worthless, then he read the writings of the senseless ones, and by these senseless ones,
he was affected through their artifice.
Thirty-eight, if they are wise and meritorious so that to be remembered during the
Divine Liturgy, to be venerated at their feast days, to read their homilies, to pray for
their intercession, then I claim, he does not deserve to take their names on his lips, be-
cause he condemns their vow, denigrates their memory, disdains their sayings, demol-
ishes their statues, distorts their writings; that is called a schism,241 which will become
the cause of complaints and discord, and in the end will lead to turmoil. “Anything
more comes from evil” (Mat. 5:37), the troublemaker is a devil!
Thirty-ninth, this [Anathema] is the interpretation, that is to say, the conclusion of
the Creed and is the unchangeable testifier [of the Creed], as it confesses [the] Father,
[the] Son, and [the] Holy Spirit, coessential and consubstantial. [It] reflects the word
and testifies that those who are found external to this, [those] articulating so-and-so,
are expelled, dismissed, excommunicated, anathematized by the Holy Church.
Fortieth, Clement,242 who slandered upon us so many times, praises our orthodox
people in his book as follows: “And following the Creed they confess the nature of God
the Word to be unchangeable and immutable against Arius by singing the Nicene
anaphora “As for those who say,” etc.”
Forty-first, the Holy Scripture confirms this thing: as Moses recorded blessings and
condemnations in the Law of God and as John the Baptist says, “Whoever believes in
the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath re-
mains on them” (John 3:36). And as the Lord commands, “those who have done what is
good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned”
(John 5:29). And again he commands, “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you
do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins” (John 8:24). And again
commands, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and
241 The Armenian text reads «ցանկապատառութիւն» (cʻankapataṙutʻiwn), lit. discord in

confession.
242 A reference to Clemente Galano.

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access
68 Ohanjanyan
those who see will become blind” (John 9:39). And again, “Come, you who are blessed
by my Father” (Mat. 25:34), and “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal
fire…” (Mat. 25:41); and there are many other [testimonies] from [the words of] the
disciples and veracious of the Holy Scriptures.
This is enough for the auditors; if they read [it] word by word with the intention to
be well-informed, and if they comprehend and beware of such people.
Copied in 1793 of the year of [our] Lord and 1242 of the Armenian Era, on March 2,
and in ۱۲۰۷ [1207] on the first of month Sha’bān, in the orphanage after Saint Patriarch
Jacob of Nisibis in Balat.
Glossary of Words in Armeno-Turkish (Բառեր հայատառ

թուրքերենով)
Ախմախ [axmax]—ած. տխմար, հիմար—arab. ahmak—n., adj. stupid, simple-
minded, idiot
Էլպէթ, հէլպէթ [ēlpētʻ, hēlpētʻ]—մակ. անշուշտ, իհարկէ—elbet, arab. elbett—adv.
certainly, of course,
Ըռզ [ǝṙǝz]—գոյ. պատիվ—ırz; arab. ǝrz—n. honor, integrity, probity
Թահգիգ [tʻahgig]—մակ. ստույգ, հաստատ—trk. tahkik—n. investigation, verifica-
tion (here: adv. definitely, absolutely, for certain)
Թէրսանէ [tʻērsanē]—գոյ. նաւարան, թիարան trk. tersane—n. dock yard, navy yard
(here: n. galleys; penal servitude)
Խապար [xapar]—գոյ. լուր, տեղեկութիւն—trk. haber; arab. khaber—n. news,
information
Խարապ [xarap]—ած. աւեր, աւերած, փչացած—arab. kharab—adj. corrupt, de-
cayed, ruined
Յօճաղ=յ+օճախ [yočał], օջախ [ōǰax]—գոյ. կրակարան, փխբ. տոհմ,
գերդաստան—trk. ocak—n. fireplace, fig. n. kin, family (here: n. child, heir)
Սահաթ [sahatʻ]—գոյ. ժամ—arab. saat—n. hour
Սիանէթ ընել [sianētʻ]—բայ. պաշտպանել—trk. sıyanet—v. protection, defence
(here: v. protect, defend)
Փէղամպար [pʻēłampar]—գոյ. մարգարէ—trk. peygamber—n. prophet
Փէյտա, ֆայտա ընել [pʻēyta, fayta]—բայ. առաջ քաշել—pers. n. peyda—manifest;
v. produce, acquire, beget
Փիր [pʻir]—գոյ. կրթված ծեր, պատրիարք—pers. pir—n. chief; erudite; patriarch
Քէօփէկ [kʻēōpʻēk]—գոյ. շուն (այստեղ՝ վիրավորական բառ)—trk. köpek—n. dog
(here: a term of contempt)
Ֆիլան [filan]—այսինչը, այնինչը—arab. filan; trk. filan, falan—so-and-so

Studies 27 (2020) 7–69
via free access
Glossary of Dialectal Forms (Բարբառային ձևեր)

Ալվի [alvi]—մակ. մի փոքր էլ, այլ ևս—adv. a bit more
Զաղալ [załal]—ած. խաղի մեջ խարդախություն անող—adj. fraud, impostor,
pretender
Թիթալ [tʻitʻal]—ած. նիհար, տկար, տկարակազմ—adj. feeble
Թլֆանք [tʻlfankʻ]—գոյ. հոգնություն, թուլություն—n. fatigue, weekness

(2020) 7–69from Brill.com12/09/2020 09:39:20PM
via free access

Anna Ohanjanyan - Eremia Chelebi's Polemics Against Sukias

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anna Ohanjanyan - Eremia Chelebi's Polemics Against Sukias

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anna Ohanjanyan - Eremia Chelebi's Polemics Against Sukias

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the Society for

Armenian Studies 27 (2020) 7–69

Creedal Controversies among Armenians in

Eremia Čʻēlēpi Kʻēōmiwrčean – anathema – Armenian Church – Armenian

© Anna Ohanjanyan, 2020 | doi:10.1163/26670038-12342708

In the age of “mutually exclusive and restrictive infallible churchdoms” as Ernst

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

2 Armenian Confession-Building within a Multi-Confessional

The paradigm of confessionalization or confession-building (Konfessionsbildung)

4 Ernst Walter Zeeden, Konfessionsbildung: Studien zur Reformation, Gegenreformation und

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

Christian Churches, reveals an important case of entangled histories in the

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

3 Eremia Čʻēlēpi’s Polemical Heritage

Eremia Čʻēlēpi was born to a wealthy and renowned priestly family in

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

Ethiopian dominions in Jerusalem, but also the Armenian Convent of Saints

20 According to a well-known anecdote this convent was granted to the Armenians in

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

Եւ զի տեղեկացեալ էի ի նոցունց, զի զաղքատաց, այսինքն

It seems that in the past Eremia Kʻēōmiwrčean somewhat tolerated pro-

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

30 Kʻēōmiwrčean, Ōragrutʻiwn, 66 and Appendix, 578–579.

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

journals.openedition.org/mefrim/1790#tocto1n2); Mardiros Abagian, “La Questione

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

… և թէ Նեստոր այսպէս բարբանջեաց վասն Քրիստոսի, Արիոս

… and [telling] that Nestorius trifled in such-and-such manner about

Both writings reflect primarily on issues of orthopraxy within the Armenian

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

4 Sukʻias Prusacʻi, the Author of “Bad Innovation”

Little is known of Sukʻias (Hesychius, Gr. Ἡσύχιος), the Armenian prelate of

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

49 Ōrmanian, Azgapatum, 2962-2965.

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Sałmosavank.66 In 1689, two years before Catholicos Ełiazar’s death, Sukʻias

des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, ed. Marie-Félicité Brosset, 20 (Saint-Petersbourg:

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

Kʻēōmiwrčean70 composed his scandalous writing against the then patriarch

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

5 Creedal Controversies among Armenians: The Causes Analyzed

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Supposedly Xoǰa Malxas opened a discussion about the “valid” confession of

Տուաւ սահման սուրբ հաւատոյն,

[The] definition to holy faith was given,

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

attestation of faith obtained via Ambroise de Tiger, French Consul to Egypt

Journal of the Society for ArmenianDownloaded

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 27 Downloaded

orthodoxy. Church authorities conformed to the old Armenian liturgical ver-