Hubbry Logo
PaulicianismPaulicianismMain
Open search
Paulicianism
Community hub
Paulicianism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Paulicianism
Paulicianism
Paulicianism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on the
History of Armenia
Coat of Arms of Armenia
Coat of Arms of Armenia
Prehistory
Antiquity
Middle Ages
Early modern age
Modern age
Timeline • Origins • Etymology

Paulicianism (Classical Armenian: Պաւղիկեաններ, Pawłikeanner; Medieval Greek: Παυλικιανοί, "The followers of Paul";[1] Arab sources: Baylakānī, al Bayāliqa البيالقة)[2] was a Christian sect which originated in Armenia in the 7th century.[3][4] Followers of the sect were called Paulicians and referred to themselves as Good Christians. Little is known about the Paulician faith and various influences have been suggested, including Gnosticism, Marcionism, Manichaeism and Adoptionism,[5][6] with other scholars arguing that doctrinally the Paulicians were a largely conventional Christian reform movement unrelated to any of these currents.[7]

The founder of the Paulicians is traditionally held to have been an Armenian by the name of Constantine,[8] who hailed from a Syrian community near Samosata in modern-day Turkey. The sect flourished between 650 and 872 around the Byzantine Empire's frontier with the Arab Caliphate in Armenia and Eastern Anatolia, despite intermittent persecutions and deportations by the imperial authorities in Constantinople.[1] After a period of relative toleration, renewed Byzantine persecution in the mid 9th century prompted the Paulicians to establish a state centered on Tephrike in the Armenian borderlands under Arab protection.[9]

After prolonged warfare, the state of Tephrike was destroyed by the Byzantines in the 870s. Over the next century, some Paulicians migrated further into Armenia, while others were relocated by the imperial authorities to the Empire's Balkan frontier in Thrace. In Armenia, the Paulicians were assimilated into the related religious movement of Tondrakism over the next century.[10] In Thrace, the sect continued practicing their faith for some time, in some places until the 17th–18th centuries, before gradually converting to other religions and are considered to be the ancestors of the modern Roman Catholic Banat Bulgarians[9] and the Muslim Pomaks.[11] The movement may have also been an influence on medieval European Christian heteredox movements such as Bogomilism and Catharism.[5][9]

Etymology

[edit]

The Paulicians called themselves "Good Christians"[12] or "True Believers",[2] and referred to orthodox Christians as "Romanists".[13] The name 'Paulician' was used by outsiders to refer to the sect and literally means 'the followers of Paul'. The identity of the Paul for whom the movement was named is disputed.[5] It is most likely to be Paul the Apostle, a figure whom the Paulicians are consistently stated as according special veneration from the earliest sources up to their apparent extinction in the early modern period.[14][1][9] Certain medieval Byzantine and Muslim sources associate the sect with the 3rd century Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata.[15][16] This may be a conflation with the separate Paulianist sect, however,[17] and the earliest Byzantine source to describe the movement explicitly distinguishes the "Paul of Samosata" supposed to have given the movement its name from the more famous heresiarch.[18] Another possible source is Paul the Armenian, an otherwise obscure Paulician figure said to have led the sect in its migration to Episparis following its persecution by Justinian II at the close of the 7th century.[19]

History

[edit]

Origins and growth

[edit]

The sources indicate that most Paulician leaders were Armenians[20] and the founder of the sect is said to have been an Armenian by the name of Constantine,[8] who hailed from Mananalis, a community near Samosata. He studied the Gospels and Epistles, combined dualistic and Christian doctrines and vigorously opposed the formalism of the church. Regarding himself as having been called to restore the pure Christianity of Paul the Apostle, he adopted the name of Silvanus (one of Paul's disciples), and about 660, he founded his first congregation at Kibossa, Armenia. Twenty-seven years later, he was arrested by the Imperial authorities, tried for heresy and stoned to death.[8][1] Simeon, the court official who executed the order, was himself converted, and adopting the name Titus, became Constantine's successor. He was burned to death, the punishment pronounced upon the Manichaeans, in 690.[1]

The adherents of the sect fled, with their new leader Paul at their head, to Episparis. He died in 715, leaving two sons, Gegnaesius (whom he had appointed his successor) and Theodore. The latter, giving out that he had received the Holy Ghost, protested against the leadership of Gegnaesius but was unsuccessful. Gegnaesius was taken to Constantinople, appeared before Emperor Leo III, was declared innocent of heresy and returned to Episparis, but, fearing danger, went with his adherents to Mananalis in Eastern Anatolia. His death (in 745) was the occasion of a division in the sect.

In 747, Emperor Constantine V is reported to have moved a significant number of Paulicians from Eastern Anatolia to Thrace to strengthen the Bulgarian frontier, beginning the presence of the sect in Europe.[21] Despite deportations and continued persecution the sect continued to grow, receiving additions from some of the iconoclasts.[1]

In the late eighth century, the Paulicians suffered a schism and split into two groupings; the Baanites (the old party) and the Sergites (the reformed sect). Sergius, the reformed leader, was a zealous and effective converter for his sect; he boasted that he had spread his Gospel "from East to West; from North to South".[22] Sergius succeeded in supplanting Baanes, the leader of the old party, by 801 and was active for the next thirty-four years. His activity was the occasion of renewed persecutions on the part of Leo the Armenian. Upon the death of Sergius, the control of the sect was divided between several leaders.

Formation of Paulician state

[edit]
The massacre of the Paulicians in 843/844, from the Madrid Skylitzes

In 843, the Empress Theodora, as regent to her son Michael III, instituted a major persecution against the Paulicians throughout Asia Minor[23] in which 100,000 adherents in Byzantine Armenia alone were said to have lost their lives or property.[24]

In response to the renewed persecution many Paulicians, under their new leader Karbeas, fled across the border to the areas of Armenia under Arab control. Under the protection of Umar al-Aqta, the Emir of Melitene, the sect was permitted by the Arabs to build two fortress cities, Amara and Tephrike, and establish an independent state.[25][26][27] Karbeas died in 863 during Michael III's campaign against the Arabs and possibly was with Umar at Malakopea before the Battle of Lalakaon.

Karbeas's successor, Chrysocheres ('the goldenhand'), devastated many cities in the continued wars with the Byzantines; in 867, he advanced as far as Ephesus, where he took many priests as prisoners.[28][29] In 868, Emperor Basil I dispatched Petrus Siculus to arrange for their exchange. His sojourn of nine months among the Paulicians gave him an opportunity to collect many facts, which he preserved in his History of the empty and vain heresy of the Manichæans, otherwise called Paulicians. The propositions of peace were not accepted, the war was renewed, and Chrysocheres was killed at Battle of Bathys Ryax in 872 or 878.

Destruction of Paulician state and displacement

[edit]

By 878, the emperor Basil I had conquered the Paulician strongholds in Asia Minor (including Tephrike) and the survivors from the destruction of the Paulician state were largely displaced.[30] One group migrated east further into Armenia, where they were assimilated into the emerging Tondrakian sect throughout the 10th century.[10] Others were transferred to the Western frontier of the empire, including a military detachment of some 20,000 Paulicians serving in Byzantine Italy under the general Nikephoros Phokas the Elder.[10][30]

In 970, 200,000 Paulicians on Byzantine territory were reportedly transferred by the emperor John Tzimisces to Philippopolis in Thrace.[30] As a reward for their promise to keep back "the Scythians" (in fact Bulgars), the emperor granted the group toleration to practice their faith unmolested. This marked the start of a revival for the sect in the West.

Revival in Thrace

[edit]

The policy of transferring Paulicians to the West proved to be harmful for the Byzantines, with the group bringing limited economic and military benefits for the empire's Balkan frontier. The sect also failed to assimilate with the orthodox Roman and Bulgarian inhabitants and are reported to have successfully converted many existing inhabitants of Thrace to their heresy. According to Anna Komnene, by the end of 11th century Philippopolis and its surroundings were entirely inhabited by Paulicians and were being joined by new groups of Armenian migrants.[30]

According to Annales Barenses, several thousand Paulicians served in the army of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos against the Norman Robert Guiscard in 1081 but subsequently deserted the emperor and were imprisoned.[10] The Alexiad, written by the emperor's daughter Anna, reports that Alexios I succeeded in converting many of the sects around Philippopolis to Christian orthodoxy, building a new city of Alexiopolis for the converts.[1]

During the First Crusade some Paulicians, called "Publicani", were present in the Muslim armies although others were reported as assisting the Crusaders.[10] When Frederick Barbarossa passed near Philippopolis during the Third Crusade, on the contrary to the Greek inhabitants, they welcomed him as a liberator. In 1205, the Paulicians cooperated with Kaloyan to surrender Philippopolis to the Second Bulgarian Empire.[30]

Later history

[edit]
Main articles: Banat Bulgarians, Catholic Church in Bulgaria, and Pomaks

According to the historian Yordan Ivanov, some of the remaining Thracian Paulicians converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity during the Second Bulgarian Empire. After the fall of the Bulgarian Empire and the conquest of Thrace by the Ottoman Empire, this group then converted with some Bulgarians to Islam and became the Pomak people.[9]

The remaining Thracian Paulicians who still practiced their original faith are said to have eventually converted to Roman Catholicism during the 16th or 17th century.[9][31] At the end of the 17th century, these Roman Catholic descendants of Paulicians were living around Nikopol, Bulgaria, and suffered religious persecution by the Ottomans.[9] After the uprising of Chiprovtsi in 1688, a large number of this group fled across the Danube, settled in the Banat region and became known as Banat Bulgarians. After Bulgaria's liberation from Ottoman rule in 1878, a number of these Banat Bulgarians resettled in the northern part of Bulgaria.

In Armenia, after the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829, communities whose practices were believed to be influenced by the Paulicians or Tondrakians could still be found in the part of Armenia controlled by Russia. Documents of their professions of faith and disputations with the Gregorian bishop about 1837 were later published by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare.[1]

Beliefs

[edit]

The Paulicians self-identified as Christians, but much about the nature of their beliefs is disputed. Their beliefs prompted Christian critics to brand them as Jews, Muslims, and Manichaeans but it is likely that their opponents employed these as pejorative appellations meant as terms of abuse, rather than as an accurate reflection of their beliefs.[32] Examples of the disputed doctrines of the Paulicians include debate as to how they perceived the nature of God, the nature of Christ, and debate surrounding their worship rituals.

Sources

[edit]

There are few sources for the beliefs of the Paulicians except for the reports of opponents and some Paulician material preserved in the History of the Paulician Heresy by Petrus Siculus, comprising certain letters ascribed to Sergius-Tychicus and, seemingly, a reworking of an account of their history composed by the Paulicians themselves.[33] For some scholars, another major source is The Key of Truth, a text claimed to be a manual of the medieval Paulician or Tondrakian church in Armenia. This text was first identified by Armenian ecclesiastical authorities in 1837 while tracing a group of dissidents led by Hovhannes Vartabedian;[34] British Orientalist Frederick Conybeare published a translation and edition of it in 1898.[35][36] The manuscript transmission of the Key is traced to the late 18th century, leading historians to raise doubts over its background, with some suggesting that its composition was influenced by Protestant missionary activity in Armenia at that time.[34][37]

Dualism

[edit]

Some scholars argue that the Paulician belief system was dualistic,[38] a cosmological system of twin, opposing deities; an Evil demiurge who is author and lord of the present visible world; and a Good Spirit who is the God of the future world.[5][16] Dualist cosmologies were professed by the Near Eastern Manichaean faith, as well as early Christian sects such as the Marcionists, and the sect's identification with dualism led the Paulicians to be traditionally labeled as Manichaeans and Marcionists by critics and scholars.[10][39]

Eighteenth century scholar Johann Lorenz von Mosheim criticised the identification of Paulicians as Manichaeans, and although he agreed both sects were dualistic, he argued that the Paulicians differed on several points and undoubtedly rejected the doctrine of the prophet Mani.[10] Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler and August Neander saw the sect as deriving from Marcionism, considering them as descendants of a dualistic sect reformed to become closer to proto-orthodox Early Christianity yet unable to be freed from Gnosticism.[10] By the mid-19th century the mainstream scholarly theory was that the sect was a non-Manichaean, dualistic Gnostic doctrine with substantial elements of Early Christianity closest to Marcionism, although others disputed this.[10] Frederick Conybeare asserted that "The Paulicians are not dualists in any other sense than the New Testament is itself dualistic. Satan is simply the adversary of man and God".[40]

The reports of Catholic missionaries working among the remaining Paulicians in the Balkans during the 16th–18th centuries do not reference dualist beliefs.[41]

Christology

[edit]

Paulicians may have held several unorthodox beliefs about Jesus, including nontrinitarianism (the belief that Jesus was not coeternal, coequal and indivisibly united in one being with God the Father and the Holy Spirit) and docetism (the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion). Nontrinitarian beliefs were held by Arian Christians and many early Christian sects such as the Adoptionists. The identification with nontrinitarianism sometimes led the Paulicians to be labeled as Arians by critics[32] and Adoptionists by scholars.[3][10]

Frederick Conybeare, in his edition of The Key of Truth, concluded that "The word Trinity is nowhere used, and was almost certainly rejected as being unscriptural" and that Paulicians believed that Christ came down from heaven to emancipate humans from the body and from the world.[42] Conybeare also asserted that the movement were survivors of early Adoptionist Christianity in Armenia rather than dualist or Gnostic sects. Conybeare's theory, part of a broader argument that Adoptionism represented the original form of Christianity that had subsequently been suppressed by the Catholic Church, met a skeptical reception at the time.[43] In the 1960s, however, Nina Garsoïan, in a comprehensive study of both Greek and Armenian sources, argued in support of a link to Adoptionism, and asserted that Paulicianism independently developed features of docetism and dualism.[44]

In a paper presented to the Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference in 2022, Atlanta Bible College adjunct professor Sean Finnegan argued that the Armenian sect which produced The Key of Truth, while nontrinitarian, did not hold an Adoptionist Christology. Evidence against an Adoptionist Christology includes an affirmation of the virgin birth in chapter 23 of The Key of Truth, as well as the use of the phrase "only-born" in The Key of Truth chapters 2, 17, 21, and 22.[45][46]

Rituals, practices and views of scripture

[edit]

The Paulicians were said to have used a different canon of sacred texts from the orthodox Christian bible. Byzantine scholars claimed that the sect accepted the four Gospels (especially of Luke);[5] fourteen Epistles of Paul; the three Epistles of John; the epistles of James and Jude; and an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which they professed to have. On the Byzantine account, the Paulicians rejected the First Epistle of Peter and the whole Tanakh,[5] also known as the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament.

In common with the Nestorians, the Paulicians were said to have rejected the title Theotokos ("Mother of God") for Mary and refused all veneration of her.[16] The sect's places of worship were apparently called "places of prayer" and were small rooms in modest houses and, despite their potential ascetic tendencies, made no distinction in foods and practiced marriage.[9] Due to supposed iconoclasm it was asserted that the sect rejected the Christian cross, rites, sacraments, the worship, and the hierarchy of the established Church,[5][9] because of which Edward Gibbon considered them as "worthy precursors of Reformation".[10] Some historians have also viewed them as proto-protestants.[47]

In the putatively Paulician or Tondrakian work The Key of Truth, copied in the 18th century, the Old Testament, Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist are all accepted.[48] Early modern Catholic reports of the Paulicians remaining in the Balkans claimed that they were iconoclasts, rejecting the veneration of images and the Cross, that they used fire rather than water in baptism, and that they had a relatively simple conception of priesthood. The practice of baptism by fire by Paulicians in the region before their conversion to Catholicism is corroborated by the contemporary English diplomat Paul Rycaut.[41]

Historiography

[edit]

In the 1940s, Soviet scholars saw the sect primarily as a product of proletarian revolt which found expression through a theological movement. Garsoïan agreed that this assertion is supported by both Greek and Armenian sources, but held it only a limited description of the sect.[10][49]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Paulicianism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Paulicianism was a heterodox Christian movement that originated in seventh-century Armenia and eastern Anatolia under Byzantine rule, centered around the teachings of its founder Constantine (also known as Silvanus), who established communities emphasizing fidelity to the Apostle Paul's epistles while rejecting much of Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition. Adherents, termed Paulicians by opponents, operated in frontier regions such as Kibossa near Samosata and later Tephrike, where they formed autonomous settlements and occasionally allied with Arab forces against Byzantine authority. The sect's core doctrines included selective acceptance of New Testament texts—primarily the Gospels, , and Acts—while dismissing the , the of saints and icons, the material cross, and sacramental practices like and , which they interpreted allegorically rather than literally. Byzantine sources, such as Peter of Sicily's ninth-century account, accused Paulicians of Manichaean-style cosmological dualism positing an evil material creator, though they anathematized Mani himself and modern analyses suggest their views aligned more closely with moral opposition between good and evil spirits or adoptionist , where was seen as divinely empowered at rather than eternally incarnate. Lacking a formal priesthood, Paulicians organized under lay leaders called didaskaloi (teachers) and notarioi (notaries), fostering egalitarian communities that critiqued hierarchical church structures and . Paulicianism faced relentless persecution from Byzantine emperors, culminating in massacres—such as the reported slaughter of 100,000 under Empress Theodora in the 843–856 period—and forced resettlements to , yet it endured through military resilience and migration, influencing later dissident groups like the in and possibly Balkan heresies. Key figures like Sergius, Carbeas, and Chrysocheir led expansions and rebellions, establishing a short-lived at Tephrike until its fall in 872 CE. Despite biased Orthodox polemics in surviving sources, which exaggerate dualist extremes to justify suppression, archaeological and textual evidence underscores Paulicians' role as a persistent challenge to imperial religious uniformity on the empire's eastern marches.

Etymology

Derivation and Interpretations of the Name

The term Paulician (Byzantine Greek: Paulikianós; : Paulicianus) emerged as an exonym imposed by Byzantine orthodox sources in the mid-7th century, denoting adherents of the sect originating in . Its linguistic root traces to Paûlos (Παῦλος), the Greek form of "Paul," combined with suffixes -ikós and -ianós implying affiliation or descent, yielding a sense of "those of Paul" or "Paul's followers." The prevailing scholarly derivation connects the name to (c. 200–275 CE), the bishop of Antioch excommunicated in 268 CE for adoptionist , which denied the as divine. This link stems from the sect's putative founder, Constantine of Mananalis (active c. 650 CE), a resident of a village near Samosata who received two texts from a named Isaurian: one purportedly the Epistle to the Armenians ascribed to , which Constantine disseminated under the pseudonym Silvanus, emulating Paul's companion in Acts 15:22. The Armenian-influenced form Paulikēanoi reflects a construction, interpretable as "sons of little Paul" or "followers of Paulik," aligning with local naming conventions for sects tied to a diminutive or localized figure rather than the apostle. A secondary interpretation attributes the name to the Apostle Paul (c. 5–67 CE), emphasizing the sect's doctrinal prioritization of his epistles—viewing them as authoritative over law and much of the —coupled with practices like adopting pseudonyms from Pauline companions (e.g., Silvanus, Timothy, ). This view, echoed by 9th-century Byzantine patriarch Photius and historian (1737–1794), posits the Paulicians gloried in apostolic affinity despite adversarial origins of the label, potentially from an early leader named Paul. However, such affinity may reflect retrospective projection, as primary accounts tie transmission to Samosatene texts over direct Pauline devotion. The sect's members disavowed "Paulician" as pejorative, self-designating as Kristos ("Christians" or "Good Christians" in Armenian) to underscore purity against "Romanists," the term they applied to Byzantine imperial adherents. This rejection highlights the name's exogenous imposition amid early persecutions, with no internal evidence of self-adoption before the 8th century.

Historical Development

Origins in Seventh-Century Armenia

Paulicianism originated in the mid-seventh century in the Armenian-inhabited regions of the Byzantine Empire, particularly in areas near Samosata and Colonia (modern Koloneia in eastern Anatolia). The movement's founder was Constantine, a native of Mananalis, a village in a Syrian community influenced by earlier Marcionite traditions, who adopted the apostolic name Silvanus to signify his adherence to Pauline teachings. Around 660, during the reign of Emperor Constans II (641–668), Constantine established the first documented Paulician community at Kibossa, a locale near Colonia, where he preached a Christianity centered on the New Testament epistles while repudiating icons, the material sacraments, and much of the Orthodox ecclesiastical hierarchy. Constantine's propagation of these doctrines attracted followers across Pontus, , and over approximately 27 years, despite emerging in a context of imperial religious enforcement and Arab incursions that destabilized the eastern frontiers. In 684, under Emperor (668–685), he was arrested and executed by near Colonia on orders from the imperial officer Symeon, reflecting early Byzantine intolerance toward sects deemed disruptive to imperial unity. Symeon, reportedly converted by Constantine's steadfastness during interrogation, assumed leadership as "Titus" and briefly revitalized the group before his own execution by fire in 690 under Emperor (685–695, with interruption). These martyrdoms, totaling at least two foundational leaders within six years, underscore the sect's resilience amid targeted persecutions aimed at eradicating perceived Gnostic or Adoptionist deviations. Byzantine sources, primarily from Orthodox chroniclers like those referenced in later compilations, provide the core narrative of these origins but frame Paulicians as radical dualists akin to Manichaeans, rejecting the Old Testament and incarnational theology—a portrayal shaped by polemical agendas to justify suppression rather than neutral reportage. The scarcity of indigenous Paulician texts from this era, likely destroyed during inquisitions, limits verification, though the consistency of founder details across hostile accounts suggests a kernel of historical fact amid theological caricature; modern scholarship cautions against uncritical acceptance of the dualist label for the initial Armenian phase, positing possible roots in local anti-sacramental or iconoclastic currents predating full cosmological dualism.

Expansion and Initial Persecutions

Paulician communities expanded significantly in the eighth century across eastern Asia Minor, particularly within the Armeniakon and Anatolikon themata, as well as the Lykos Valley near Koloneia and frontier zones bordering . This growth occurred amid the Byzantine Empire's iconoclastic controversy (726–843), during which Paulician rejection of religious images aligned with imperial policies, allowing relative tolerance and proliferation along trade routes and pastoral networks. Under the leadership of Sergios-Tychikos (c. 801–835), the movement unified provincial groups into structured communities, establishing churches modeled on apostolic congregations such as the Laodicaeans and Ephesians, and extending influence to regions like Kibossa, Episparis, and Mananalis. By the early ninth century, Paulicians had developed heterogeneous networks incorporating , pastoralists, and urban dwellers, with increasing activity on the Byzantine-Arab frontier near Melitene (Malaṭiya). The first major persecutions commenced under Emperor Michael I (r. 811–813), instigated by Patriarch , who advocated for ; these involved executions and massacres targeting Paulician strongholds in the Armeniakon thema, , Lykaonia, and eastern Asia Minor. Continued under Emperor Leo V (r. 813–820) to secure divine favor amid military setbacks, the measures fragmented communities, prompting schisms (e.g., between Sergiotes and Baaniotes) and reprisals, including assassinations of officials, with some Paulicians fleeing to Arab-held Melitene and allying with emirs like Monocherares. A intensified persecution wave followed the 843 restoration of icon veneration under Empress Theodora's regency for (843–856), encompassing mass executions by hanging, sword, or drowning across the Anatolikon thema and eastern provinces, with contemporary accounts claiming approximately 100,000 deaths—figures likely exaggerated for rhetorical effect. This prompted the of about 5,000 Paulicians, led by the court official Karbeas (d. c. 863), to the of Melitene under 'Amr or Amer, initiating sustained raids on Byzantine territories and the foundation of fortified enclaves like Argaous and precursors to Tephrike. These suppressions, rather than eradicating the , reinforced Paulician cohesion, , and external alliances, transforming dispersed heretics into a frontier threat while diverting Byzantine resources from Arab conflicts. Primary evidence derives from Byzantine chronicles like Theophanes Continuatus and polemical tracts such as the Didaskalie, which, while biased against the Paulicians as Manichaean deviants, document the scale of imperial response.

Establishment of the Tephrike Principality

The severe persecutions initiated by Byzantine Empress Theodora in 843 against the Paulicians, viewed as heretics by Orthodox authorities, triggered widespread flight and rebellion among the sect's adherents. Karbeas, a prominent Paulician leader and former Byzantine military officer of Armenian origin, defected with thousands of followers from regions like Koloneia and Argaous in Armenia Minor, seeking refuge in territories controlled by the . Securing alliance with al-Aqta, the of Melitene, Karbeas received permission and resources to establish a fortified base at Tephrike (modern , ), transforming it into the principality's capital around 843. The Paulicians constructed additional strongholds, including Amara, leveraging the rugged terrain near the upper as a natural defense and between and Islamic frontier districts. This arrangement provided autonomy under nominal Arab overlordship, with the viewing the Paulician state as a strategic to Byzantine expansion. By 844, the principality had consolidated sufficient military capacity under Karbeas' governance, enabling it to function as an independent entity until his death in 863. The establishment reflected the Paulicians' adaptation of their communal organization into a proto-state structure, emphasizing martial prowess honed from prior Byzantine service and dualist rejection of imperial religious orthodoxy.

Wars, Alliances, and Destruction

The Paulicians of Tephrike conducted extensive military campaigns against the Byzantine Empire from the mid-9th century, leveraging their frontier position to launch raids deep into Anatolia in coordination with Abbasid-aligned Muslim forces. Under Karbeas, who defected from Byzantine service around 843 amid anti-Paulician persecutions, the Paulicians allied with Emir Umar al-Aqta of Melitene, enabling joint operations that included the establishment of Tephrike as a fortified base around 850. These alliances provided mutual strategic benefits, with Paulicians gaining autonomy and Arab emirs a buffer against Byzantine reconquests, resulting in sustained pressure on Byzantine defenses through the 860s. Karbeas's forces inflicted significant losses, culminating in his death during a Byzantine counteroffensive led by Caesar in 863 near the Lalakaon River, though Paulician resilience persisted under his nephew and successor, Chrysocheir. Chrysocheir escalated aggression, leading raids that reached as far as , , and by the late 860s and early 870s, exploiting Byzantine internal instability during the reigns of and . These operations, often synchronized with Arab incursions from the east, disrupted supply lines and terrorized Anatolian themes, with Paulician emphasizing mobility and hit-and-run assaults suited to the rugged . The principality's downfall began under , who prioritized its elimination after consolidating power in 867. In 870–872, Basil mounted targeted campaigns, allying temporarily with Armenian princes to isolate Tephrike, followed by the decisive sack of the capital in 872 or 873, where Paulician fortifications were breached and much of the leadership captured or killed. Chrysocheir reportedly met his end in these operations, either in battle or through treachery, shattering the Paulician military structure and scattering survivors eastward or into submission. By 878, remaining strongholds in Asia Minor fell, ending Tephrike's independence as a state and reducing the Paulicians to fragmented groups vulnerable to further Orthodox suppression.

Exile to Thrace and Dispersal

Following the destruction of the Paulician principality at Tephrike in 872 by Byzantine forces under Emperor , surviving Paulicians faced mass deportation to as part of a strategic resettlement policy. , who reigned from 867 to 886, aimed to repopulate and militarize frontier regions against Bulgarian incursions by relocating approximately 100,000 Paulicians and Syrians to areas including Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv) and the vicinity of Adrianople (Edirne). These deportees were often settled as thematic soldiers, leveraging their martial reputation despite their heretical status, though many resisted integration and maintained their communal structures. This exile marked a pivotal dispersal phase, with Paulician communities establishing enduring enclaves in and Macedonia. Subsequent emperors, including (913–959) and (969–976), continued the practice, deporting additional groups from eastern provinces to the , such as 10,000 families from Melitene and Theodosiopolis around 970. While some Paulicians assimilated or fled to Muslim territories in and , those in Thrace propagated their dualist theology, rejecting Orthodox sacraments and icon veneration, which influenced local Slavic and Bulgarian populations. The Thracian Paulicians' doctrines contributed significantly to the rise of in 10th-century , where priest Bogomil synthesized Paulician dualism with local apocalyptic traditions around 927–950. This transmission occurred through missionary activity and intermarriage, leading to widespread heresy in the under Tsar Peter I, prompting persecutions by both Bulgarian and Byzantine authorities. By the , Paulician influence waned in the region as adherents either converted, dispersed further into via trade routes, or were absorbed into emerging Cathar movements, though isolated communities persisted into the .

Theological Framework

Cosmological Dualism

The Paulician theological framework incorporated elements of cosmological dualism, viewing the material world as inherently opposed to the spiritual realm governed by the good God of the New Testament. This perspective entailed a rejection of the Old Testament's creator deity, whom they regarded not as the supreme Father but as a subordinate or malevolent Demiurge responsible for fashioning the physical cosmos from pre-existent matter, thereby associating materiality with evil or imperfection. Such beliefs aligned with broader Gnostic influences, distinguishing the transcendent God of light and spirit from the architect of corruptible creation, without affirming the Demiurge's co-eternality in all accounts. Byzantine Orthodox sources, composed by adversaries such as Peter of Sicily in his mid-9th-century anti-heretical treatise, portrayed Paulicianism as reviving Manichaean dualism, with the evil dominating the earthly domain and the good confined to heavenly affairs; these texts, however, reflect the biases of imperial persecutors aiming to equate the sect with long-condemned errors to legitimize suppression. In contrast, surviving Paulician documents like the Didaskalie (a from around 800–850) and the letters of Sergios, their leader circa 801–835, emphasize a single Creator God while disparaging the lawgiver's role in material origins, interpreting to argue that Christ descended into a flawed world not fashioned ex nihilo by the Father. These writings reject sacramental materiality and hierarchies tied to the "kingdom of this world," but stop short of positing two ontologically equal principles. Scholars have debated the depth of this dualism, with Nina G. Garsoïan arguing in her 1967 study that early Paulicianism lacked radical Manichaean cosmology, attributing the dualist to Orthodox polemics that conflated scriptural literalism and anti-materialism with ; instead, their views represented a rigorous Pauline critiquing Orthodox syncretism of Old and deities. Later analyses, including revisions to Garsoïan's framework, acknowledge possible evolution toward moderate dualistic expressions by the under pressures of and alliances, yet affirm that Paulician texts prioritize ethical and ecclesiological separation from worldly powers over metaphysical twinism. This nuanced position underscores the challenges of reconstructing doctrines from predominantly hostile records, where accusations served political ends amid Byzantine-Armenian frontier conflicts.

Christological Positions

The Paulicians rejected the orthodox doctrine of the , asserting that the divine Christ could not assume a material body due to the inherent evil of in their dualistic framework. Instead, they maintained that Christ was or spiritual entity sent by the good God to reveal true knowledge and liberate souls from the material world's dominion, without undergoing true human birth, suffering, or death. This position aligned with , wherein Christ's apparent humanity— including his , , and —was illusory, serving as a or apparent event rather than a literal union of divine and human natures. Byzantine heresiologists, such as Patriarch Photius in his ninth-century writings, accused the Paulicians of denying real flesh and blood, claiming they viewed the Virgin Mary not as his physical mother but as a symbolic figure or the heavenly , with no salvific sacrifice offered through a corporeal cross. These accounts, while emanating from orthodox adversaries who sought to justify persecutions, consistently portray Paulician as incompatible with Chalcedonian definitions, emphasizing a non-trinitarian subordination where was a created or adopted agent of the supreme spiritual God, empowered at baptism but not eternally coequal. Some historical analyses suggest early Paulician figures, drawing from third-century bishop Paul of Samosata's adoptionism, initially emphasized as a righteous man elevated by divine indwelling, though later dualist influences amplified docetic elements to reconcile their cosmology. This Christological stance underpinned their dismissal of orthodox sacraments like the , which they saw as affirming material reality over spiritual truth, and their toward crucifixes as idols venerating corrupt matter. Despite debates among modern scholars over the extent of versus — with some attributing exaggerated docetist labels to Byzantine polemics—the core rejection of remains a defining feature, as evidenced in surviving anti-Paulician tracts from the eighth to tenth centuries.

Scriptural Canon and Rejection of Orthodox Sacraments

The Paulicians maintained a scriptural canon limited to the New Testament, specifically the four Gospels and the epistles attributed to the apostles (termed the "Gospel and Apostle"), which they interpreted with a strong emphasis on Pauline writings to support their rejection of material creation and ecclesiastical authority. They dismissed the Old Testament entirely, viewing its depiction of God as the Demiurge—a malevolent creator of the physical world—distinct from the benevolent spiritual God revealed in the New Testament. This selective approach stemmed from their dualistic cosmology, prioritizing texts that aligned with a spiritual interpretation of Christianity over those endorsing ritual law or material origins. In rejecting Orthodox sacraments, the Paulicians opposed rituals involving material elements, such as water and the , as unnecessary illusions tied to the corrupt physical realm and institutional church hierarchy. They advocated instead for a spiritual "" or enlightenment through and moral purification, drawing on interpretations of passages like John 4:14 to argue against literal water rites, which they saw as insufficient for true salvation. The was similarly dematerialized; they rejected as a doctrinal fabrication, treating and wine as mere symbols of Christ's teachings rather than a transformative . Other sacraments, including and , were discarded as human inventions lacking apostolic warrant, with Paulician leaders ( or perfecti) conferring authority through rather than ordained priesthood. This stance reflected their broader ecclesiological view that true communion required personal adherence to scriptural , not sacramental mediation.

Ecclesiology and Communal Practices

The Paulicians viewed the church not as an institutional tied to material structures but as the invisible assembly of true believers adhering strictly to apostolic teachings, rejecting the Byzantine Orthodox ecclesiastical order as corrupt and unscriptural. Their emphasized a minimalist without ordained priests, altars, or church buildings, which they condemned as remnants of Jewish practices or pagan influences; instead, leadership consisted of didaskaloi (teachers or apostles), synechdemoi (fellow-workers forming advisory councils), and notarioi (notaries responsible for copying and safeguarding scriptures). This structure, derived from interpretations of models like the , avoided sacramental ordination and focused on itinerant preaching and communal oversight, with leaders adopting names of Paul's companions such as Silvanus or Timothy. Communal practices reflected their dualist rejection of material mediation in spiritual life, featuring simple gatherings in homes, fields, or open spaces for scripture reading, psalmody, and prayer without elaborate rituals, incense, or veneration of icons, crosses, or relics—elements they deemed idolatrous. Baptism was administered by immersion to adult converts after repentance and instruction, explicitly rejecting infant baptism as invalid and requiring rebaptism for those from Orthodox backgrounds; no eucharistic rite involving bread and wine was observed, as they denied the real presence and viewed such sacraments as carnal illusions. The community divided into "elects" (ascetic leaders committed to strict moral purity and itinerancy) and "hearers" (lay supporters who sustained the elects through labor and alms), a distinction echoing earlier dualist traditions but adapted to emphasize ethical dualism over ontological matter-spirit separation. Marriage and family life were affirmed among hearers, countering accusations of total asceticism, though elects maintained celibacy and poverty; fasting was limited to scriptural mandates without monastic excesses, and mutual aid was practiced without formalized property communism. These practices, documented primarily through Byzantine polemics like those of Photius (ca. 867–886 CE) and the Key of Truth manuscript (ca. 10th century, debated authenticity but consistent with heresiological reports), prioritized personal faith and scriptural fidelity over ritual, fostering resilience amid persecutions but drawing charges of anarchy from Orthodox authorities. Orthodox sources, inherently antagonistic, may exaggerate antinomianism, yet archaeological and textual consistencies (e.g., absence of Paulician ecclesiastical artifacts) support the sect's deliberate primitivism.

Political and Military Dimensions

Formation of an Autonomous Enclave

In response to intensified Byzantine persecutions initiated by Empress Theodora in 843, which resulted in the execution of Paulician leaders and of an estimated 100,000 adherents, surviving Paulician communities sought refuge across the frontier in territories controlled by Abbasid . Karbeas, a prominent Paulician figure whose had been impaled by imperial forces, led approximately 5,000 followers in defection to the protection of al-Aqta, emir of Melitene. This alliance provided the Paulicians with territorial autonomy in exchange for serving as frontier warriors against Byzantine incursions. Umar al-Aqta granted the Paulicians control over Tephrike (modern Divriği, ), a fortified stronghold strategically positioned for raids into and , enabling the rapid consolidation of an independent enclave. Under Karbeas' leadership from circa 843 until his death in 863, Tephrike functioned as the political and military capital of this principality, where Paulician settlers relocated from prior bases like Amara and Argaoun to fortify their position. The enclave's autonomy derived from its role as a in the Byzantine-Arab borderlands, allowing in religious and communal affairs while coordinating joint operations with Muslim allies, such as repelling Byzantine attacks in 856 and 859. This formation marked a shift from dispersed sectarian communities to a structured capable of sustained resistance, leveraging the Paulicians' expertise—honed through prior service in Byzantine armies—to maintain amid ongoing imperial campaigns. The principality's viability rested on pragmatic alliances rather than ideological alignment with , prioritizing survival against Orthodox enforcement of doctrinal conformity. Karbeas' successor, his nephew Chrysocheir, further expanded operations until the enclave's destruction by Emperor in the 870s.

Strategic Alliances with Muslim Powers

The Paulicians, driven by Byzantine persecutions under emperors such as Theophilos (r. 829–842), increasingly turned to Muslim potentates for sanctuary and military collaboration on the Anatolian frontier. In the aftermath of imperial campaigns that decimated their communities in , Paulician survivors under leader Karbeas (d. 863) relocated to Arab-held territories circa 843, establishing ties with Umar al-Aqta, emir of Melitene () from 837 to 863. This pact facilitated the creation of the Tephrike principality as a semi-autonomous enclave, serving as a base for coordinated raids against Byzantine holdings and providing the Paulicians with protection from Orthodox reprisals. These alliances proved strategically vital for both parties amid the fluid border dynamics of the mid-9th century. The Paulicians, renowned for their ascetic discipline and tactics, augmented Muslim forces in expeditions that penetrated deep into , such as joint operations in 856 that exploited imperial weaknesses following the Amorian dynasty's internal strife. The , through regional emirs like , extended implicit endorsement by granting territorial leeway, recognizing the Paulicians' utility as a disruptive buffer against Constantinople's reconquests; in return, the sect's doctrinal rejection of imperial aligned with their role as ideological outliers hostile to Byzantine . Early Islamic chronicles depict such collaborations without overt theological friction, framing Paulicians as valorous frontier warriors rather than infidels, underscoring the pragmatic calculus over religious purity. Karbeas's death at the in 863, where Umar's coalition suffered a reversal against Byzantine general , did not sever these bonds; his nephew and successor, Chrysocheir, perpetuated alliances with Melitene's emirs and other Abbasid vassals, sustaining Tephrike's operations until Emperor Basil I's campaigns razed the stronghold between 872 and 878. This era of entente, spanning roughly 845–880, exemplifies the Paulicians' adaptation to , leveraging Muslim patronage to preserve communal autonomy and wage , though it entrenched their pariah status in Byzantine eyes as traitorous heretics abetting infidels.

Military Tactics and Frontier Role

The Paulicians' centered on rapid, mobile raids from fortified bases, capitalizing on the fragmented terrain of the eastern Byzantine frontier to evade larger imperial armies. Leaders like Karbeas, a former Byzantine soldier who rebelled around 830, organized incursions that combined Paulician forces with Arab auxiliaries, striking supply lines and undefended regions before withdrawing to strongholds such as Tephrike, established as their capital in the mid-ninth century. These operations emphasized surprise and attrition, as seen in the 860 raid where Paulician warriors captured numerous Byzantine troops, demonstrating their proficiency in skirmishing over pitched battles. Defensively, the Paulicians relied on the natural fortifications of sites like Tephrike, located in the rugged near Melitene, which provided elevation and proximity to Arab territories for resupply and reinforcement. This strategic positioning allowed prolonged resistance against sieges, including those mounted by imperial forces under (r. 842–867) and (r. 867–886), with Tephrike holding out until its destruction in 872 after years of intermittent assaults. Their forces, drawn from dissident communities and defectors, favored lightweight armament suited to hit-and-run engagements rather than formations, enabling sustained harassment of Byzantine themes (military districts) in and . On the frontier, the Paulicians initially functioned as an ad hoc buffer against Arab caliphal expansions, with Emperor Theophilos resettling groups in frontier zones during the 830s to counter Umayyad and Abbasid pressures. Persecutions from the 843 Synod of Constantinople onward, however, prompted mass defections and alliances with Muslim emirs, transforming them into a destabilizing element that fragmented Byzantine defenses and forced resource reallocations from Arab fronts to internal suppression. By the 860s, under Chrysocheir, their raids extended to western Anatolia, reaching as far as Nicaea and compelling emperors to prioritize eradication over peripheral threats, thus indirectly aiding Arab incursions while exposing the vulnerabilities of Byzantine border strategies reliant on heterodox levies. This dual role—as both potential allies and existential foes—highlighted the tensions in imperial policy toward religious nonconformists on exposed frontiers, where tactical autonomy often bred rebellion.

Persecutions and Controversies

Byzantine Imperial Campaigns Against Paulicians

Following the end of in 843, Empress Theodora, as regent for , launched a severe against the Paulicians, whom Byzantine authorities deemed heretics for their rejection of icons and practices. This campaign resulted in the reported deaths of approximately 100,000 Paulicians, primarily in and eastern , with many executed or drowned, prompting survivors to flee and establish fortified enclaves like Tephrike under leaders such as Karbeas. Byzantine chroniclers, such as those in Theophanes Continuatus, portray these actions as righteous suppression, though their accounts reflect orthodox polemics that exaggerated Paulician dualism to justify imperial violence. Under (842–867), military efforts intensified to counter Paulician raids allied with Arab forces. In 863, the Byzantine general defeated Paulician leader Karbeas at the , killing Karbeas and weakening their frontier strongholds, which had served as buffers against Muslim incursions but now threatened imperial territories. This victory disrupted Paulician autonomy temporarily, though successor Chrysocheir rebuilt their military capacity, continuing cross-border raids into . Emperor (867–886) escalated campaigns against the Paulicians, targeting their capital at Tephrike. In spring 871, Basil personally led an expedition but suffered a defeat near Bathys Ryax, narrowly escaping capture by Chrysocheir's forces, highlighting the Paulicians' effective guerrilla tactics and alliances with the Paulician of Melitene. Undeterred, Basil regrouped; by 872, his armies crushed the Paulicians, sacking Tephrike, capturing and executing Chrysocheir, and dismantling their state, with surviving Paulicians resettled or dispersed. These operations, detailed in imperial vitae like the Vita Basilii, ended organized Paulician resistance by circa 880, though Byzantine sources may inflate successes to legitimize the .

Paulician Doctrinal Defenses and Heresiological Responses

Paulicians defended their doctrines by asserting adherence to the apostolic teachings of Paul, rejecting what they viewed as post-apostolic accretions in Orthodox Christianity, such as the veneration of icons, the cross, and material sacraments, which they deemed idolatrous and contrary to scriptural purity. Their leader Sergius, active around 801–835 CE, articulated this in epistles that emphasized a return to the "pure" faith of the , selectively interpreting texts like the Gospels, Acts, and while dismissing the as the work of a lesser and its prophets as deceivers. On baptism, they argued it symbolized immersion in the "" of Christ Himself, not immersion in physical water, which they saw as ineffective for spiritual regeneration; similarly, the was understood allegorically as partaking in Christ's words rather than transubstantiated elements. In response to accusations of docetism or adoptionism, Paulicians maintained that Christ was a divine being brought from heaven, appearing in human form without true fleshly incarnation, thereby avoiding what they considered the error of conflating the spiritual good God with the material world's creator. They rejected charges of Manichaean dualism by denying veneration of Mani and claiming their cosmology preserved the distinction between the heavenly Father and the earthly Demiurge without equating the latter to an absolute evil principle on par with the former. During interrogations, Paulician catechumens employed evasive, allegorical replies to Orthodox queries—for instance, identifying the cross with "Jerusalem" or baptism with Jesus—to project superficial orthodoxy while upholding their rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchy, saints' cults, and priestly mediation as human inventions alien to the Gospels. Byzantine heresiologists, drawing on earlier anti-dualist traditions, systematically equated Paulicianism with to underscore its threat to imperial unity and . Peter of Sicily, in his mid-9th-century History of the Manichaeans (c. 870 CE), cataloged Paulician practices and doctrines, accusing them of positing two gods—one of power (the good Father) and one of form (the )—and rejecting the , Peter's epistles, and as unscriptural, while refuting their symbolic sacraments as dilutions of Christ's real presence. He highlighted inconsistencies in their denial of , arguing their views on matter's inferiority and Christ's non-fleshly advent mirrored ' errors, justifying forced conversions and executions under emperors like (842–867 CE). Patriarch Photius I (858–867 CE and 877–886 CE) composed a multi-book treatise against the Manichaeans and Paulicians, condemning their alleged bifurcation of divinity and denial of the incarnation as undermining the Trinity and salvific economy, portraying their scriptural selectivity as arbitrary eisegesis that isolated them from the conciliar tradition. In Armenian contexts, Catholicos John III of Odzun (718–728 CE) refuted Paulician rejection of the cross and images as "detestation of Christ," defending material veneration as extensions of incarnational theology and accusing them of demonic parody in rituals, including distorted Eucharistic practices, to portray their anti-sacramentalism as atheistic rebellion against divine order. These responses, often embedded in broader anti-heretical polemics, emphasized the sacraments' objective efficacy through apostolic succession, contrasting Paulician subjectivism and fueling imperial campaigns that displaced thousands by the late 9th century.

Debates on Their Christian Orthodoxy

Byzantine ecclesiastical writers, including Peter of in his mid-9th-century History of the Manichaeans (also known as the History of the Paulicians), accused the Paulicians of adhering to Manichaean-style dualism, positing two co-eternal principles—one good (the Father) and one evil (the equated with the OT )—and docetic that denied Christ's true and suffering. These charges extended to rejecting the as the work of an inferior creator, scorning sacraments like and as material illusions, and dismissing the of icons and the cross as devilish , positioning Paulicianism as a radical departure from Nicene . Patriarch Photius echoed these condemnations around , framing Paulicians as crypto-Manichaeans who corrupted apostolic teaching by elevating Paul over the full scriptural canon and church . Paulician sources, however, preserved in fragments like the Didaskalie () and letters of Sergios-Tychikos (late ), reveal a monotheistic framework where the appears as a subordinate, fallen pretender to divinity rather than an independent principle, with explicit acceptance of prophets as foreshadowing Christ through typological . Their emphasized the community as the "," affirming and redemption without docetic denial, while critiquing Byzantine practices—such as worship and hierarchical sacraments—as deviations from Pauline simplicity and primitive . The Key of Truth, a late medieval Armenian manual attributed to Paulician or related Tondrakian circles (dated circa 1700s manuscript but claiming earlier roots), outlines a baptismal rite focused on spiritual adoption into sonship, rejecting and Trinitarian formulas in favor of a unitarian emphasis on as Father and as exalted man, yet maintaining core and scriptural fidelity without overt dualist cosmology. Modern scholarship debates the veracity of Byzantine portrayals, noting the polemical genre of —evident in Peter of Sicily's reliance on forged or exaggerated testimonies—tended to assimilate nonconformist groups to the archetypal "Manichaean" heresy to rationalize imperial persecutions under emperors like (741–775) and (867–886). Earlier 20th-century historians like Dmitri traced Paulicianism as a conduit for Eastern dualism to , inferring absolute dualism from their rejection of sacraments and alliance with iconoclast policies. In contrast, recent analyses, such as those revisiting Sergios's writings, argue Paulicians operated within a broadly orthodox theological frame—monotheistic, christocentric, and biblically grounded—but diverged ecclesially by prioritizing lay election over clerical and spiritual election over ritual efficacy, rendering their "orthodoxy" incompatible with Byzantine institutional norms rather than fundamentally heterodox. This perspective highlights causal distortions in sources, where political threats from Paulician on the frontier amplified doctrinal smears, akin to how institutional orthodoxies historically vilify reformist dissent as existential peril.

Legacy and Influence

Transmission to Bogomilism in the Balkans

The resettlement of Paulician communities into by Byzantine authorities beginning in the eighth century facilitated the doctrinal transmission of their beliefs into Bulgarian territories. Emperor (r. 741–775) initiated this process around 750 by relocating Paulicians from Melitene and Theodosiopolis to , including areas near the Bulgarian frontier such as Philippopolis (modern ), as a strategic measure to bolster frontier defenses. These movements placed dualist-leaning groups in proximity to Slavic and Bulgarian populations, enabling missionary activity and intermingling amid ongoing Byzantine-Bulgarian conflicts. Bogomilism arose in the circa 950 during the reign of Tsar Peter I (r. 927–969), propagated by a named Bogomil (meaning "beloved of ") in the regions of and Macedonia. The sect's core tenets—rejection of the material world as the creation of an evil (often equated with the ), denial of sacraments like and the as efficacious, , and emphasis on spiritual poverty and apostolic simplicity—mirrored Paulician practices, including their veneration of Paul as the true and dismissal of . Early Byzantine evidence, such as Patriarch Theophylact of Constantinople's letter to Tsar Peter (ca. 956), describes a spreading in with Paulician-like traits, suggesting infiltration via Thracian Paulician enclaves. Historians, drawing on Byzantine polemics like those of Euthymius Zigabenus (early 12th century), posit that Paulician refugees and proselytizers, fleeing intermittent persecutions, crossed into , adapting their teachings to local Slavic contexts while retaining dualistic elements traceable to earlier Armenian roots. Dimitri 's analysis identifies Paulicianism as the principal conduit for neo-Manichaean dualism into the , supported by doctrinal parallels and the geographic overlap in , though he notes the sects remained distinct, with Bogomils exhibiting a more pronounced ethical dualism. This transmission was reinforced in 970 when Emperor (r. 969–976) transferred approximately 200,000 Paulicians to Philippopolis for their military aid against forces, establishing a major dualist hub that sustained Bogomil networks into the . Byzantine sources, inherently adversarial as products of orthodox heresiology, consistently link the movements through shared rejection of icons and the —evident in Paulician uprisings and Bogomil preachings—lending credence to causal transmission despite potential exaggerations of Manichaean origins to discredit both. Subsequent scholarly reassessments, informed by Armenian and Syriac texts, affirm the Paulician role in seeding Balkan dualism, countering earlier views minimizing their influence in favor of indigenous developments. Paulician doctrines reached indirectly through the Bogomil movement in the , following the forced resettlement of Paulician communities by Byzantine Emperor in 872 CE, when approximately 100,000 Paulicians were deported from to near Philippopolis. There, their iconoclastic and anti-sacramental views—rooted in a rejection of authority, veneration of crosses and icons, and emphasis on a spiritualized reading of the —intermingled with local Slavic Christian practices, contributing to the formation of by the late under figures like the priest Bogomil. This intermediary transmission occurred amid broader Byzantine-Slavic interactions, including the spread of dualist ideas via refugee networks and trade along the and Adriatic routes, rather than direct Paulician migration to the Latin West. Bogomilism, in turn, disseminated westward during the 11th and 12th centuries through itinerant preachers and merchants, reaching by around 1020 CE as evidenced by ecclesiastical condemnations in and Monteforte, and influencing Cathar perfecti (spiritual leaders) in and by the 1140s. Doctrinal overlaps include a cosmic dualism distinguishing a transcendent spiritual realm from a demonic material creation, ascetic rituals for the , and repudiation of Catholic and oaths—elements traceable to Paulician critiques of Byzantine ritualism, though adapted into Cathar absolute dualism positing as the creator of the physical world. For instance, Cathar texts like the Book of the Two Principles (c. 1250) mirror Bogomil influenced by Paulician scriptural selectivity, such as prioritizing of John over Genesis. Scholarly consensus holds this chain as plausible but indirect, with limited archaeological or textual evidence of unbroken continuity; Paulician dualism was moderated (emphasizing Christ's non-material ) compared to Cathar radicalism, suggesting evolutionary adaptation rather than wholesale import. Critics of strong Eastern origins, such as those minimizing Bogomil-Paulician links, argue arose from local reformist dissent amplified by Catholic polemics, yet specific cosmogonies—like the entrapment of spiritual particles in matter—align more closely with Balkan dualist traditions than Western precedents. Byzantine and Western chroniclers, including Euthymius Zigabenus (c. 1100) and Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (c. 1240), attest to Eastern flows, supporting transmission via Dalmatian and Venetian intermediaries over indigenous invention. This indirect pathway underscores Paulicianism's role in seeding resilient anti-materialist currents, though diluted by regional .

Modern Scholarly Reassessments

In the early 21st century, scholars have increasingly challenged the long-standing portrayal of Paulicians as radical dualists heavily influenced by or , as depicted in Byzantine polemics. Instead, reassessments emphasize a more nuanced theology rooted in biblicist literalism, , and rejection of , with dualistic elements possibly exaggerated by orthodox sources to justify . Christopher Dixon's 2022 monograph argues that Paulician beliefs aligned more closely with early Christian anti-sacramentalism than absolute dualism, drawing on re-examination of ninth-century texts like the Key of Truth and Peter of Sicily's accounts, which reveal Paulicians as monotheists who denied the Byzantine "god of the Romans" without positing an evil . This view posits their as primarily ecclesiological—opposition to icons, relics, and —rather than ontological, supported by their military utility on the Byzantine , which delayed full eradication until the 870s. A 2025 article in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History further revisits dualism by analyzing Paulician self-identifications in captive interrogations and letters, concluding that accusations of two gods stemmed from misunderstandings of their Pauline-inspired rejection of legalism and Trinitarian . The author advocates three investigative lines: contextualizing Paulician texts against Armenian adoptionist traditions, cross-referencing with Bogomil parallels without assuming direct transmission, and scrutinizing Byzantine heresiologists' rhetorical strategies, which conflated Paulicians with prior heresies like for imperial legitimacy. This reassessment diminishes links to , viewing such connections as products of medieval Catholic historiography rather than empirical continuity, and highlights Paulicians' role as a socio-political movement fostering autonomy in frontier regions like Tephrike from circa 750 to 872. In post-Soviet Armenian scholarship, particularly since the , Paulicianism has undergone nationalist reinterpretation as a symbol of indigenous resistance against ecumenical , diverging from earlier Soviet-era dismissals as feudal reactionism. A 2023 analysis frames the as embodying Armenian particularism, where doctrinal divergences—such as and scriptural primacy—reflected cultural adaptation rather than imported dualism, evidenced by archaeological finds of Paulician settlements in eastern predating Byzantine reconquests. Critics, however, caution that such views risk romanticization, urging integration with broader Caucasian heterodoxies while acknowledging source biases in Armenian chronicles, which postdate events by centuries and blend with history. Overall, these reassessments prioritize interdisciplinary approaches, incorporating and to reconstruct Paulician agency beyond orthodox narratives.

Historiography

Reliability of Byzantine and Armenian Sources

The primary sources for Paulician history derive from Byzantine and Armenian ecclesiastical authors, who viewed the sect as heretical opponents, introducing inherent biases that prioritize theological condemnation over objective reporting. Byzantine texts, such as Peter of Sicily's History of the Paulicians (c. 870), composed during a mission to convert defectors, embed Paulician testimonies like formulae but frame them polemically to emphasize dualist deviations from , potentially amplifying unorthodox elements to justify imperial persecutions under emperors like Michael I (r. 811–813) and Theophilos (r. 829–842). Similarly, Photius' writings (9th century) associate Paulicians with , a charge echoed in later chronicles like those of Theophanes Continuatus, reflecting a heresiological strategy to link them to condemned ancient errors rather than documenting indigenous Armenian developments. Armenian sources, including chronicles like Aristakes Lastivertsi (11th century) and later compilations, provide sporadic references but often conflate Paulicians with Tondrakians or other dissenters, with minimal early attestation of the doctrinal traits detailed in Byzantine accounts, suggesting possible retrospective harmonization or nationalist filtering. The absence of pre-9th-century Armenian texts preserving Paulician self-descriptions undermines claims of radical dualism, as noted by Nina G. Garsoïan, who critiques these sources for lacking vestiges of beliefs matching Byzantine portrayals and argues that early Paulicianism centered on adoptionist Christology and iconoclasm derived from scriptural literalism rather than imported Gnosticism. Disputed documents like the Key of Truth (discovered 1899, purportedly 8th–10th century) exhibit linguistic and doctrinal anomalies inconsistent with verified Paulician practices, leading scholars to reject it as a reliable internal source and attribute it instead to later Unitarian or Tondrakian influences. Scholarly consensus holds that these sources' reliability is compromised by their adversarial context, with no surviving Paulician autographs, compelling reconstructions to cross-reference hostile narratives against archaeological and contextual evidence, such as frontier alliances documented in Arab chronicles. Contradictions between Byzantine emphasis on metaphysical dualism and Armenian focus on social highlight interpretive variances, where church authorities may have exaggerated eschatological or traits to align Paulicians with imperial iconoclasm debates (726–843), obscuring their role as Armenian provincial reformers. Garsoïan's , drawing on linguistic and chronological scrutiny, posits that while core events like the martyrdom of leader Sergius (d. 866) hold evidentiary weight, doctrinal attributions require caution against accretions from anti-heretical tropes prevalent in 9th–11th-century .

Evolution of Interpretations in Western Scholarship

Western scholarship on Paulicianism initially drew from Byzantine and Armenian polemical accounts, interpreting the sect primarily through the lens of radical dualism akin to or . In the eighteenth century, Johann Lorenz von Mosheim rejected simplistic equations of Paulicians with Manichaeans, highlighting instead their shared opposition to sacramentalism and ecclesiastical hierarchy while maintaining their distinct scriptural literalism. By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, scholars such as those cited in subsequent reviews entrenched the view of Paulicians as absolute dualists from their seventh-century origins in , positing an evil as creator and rejecting the material world outright, often linking this to their and anti-hierarchical stance. A pivotal shift occurred with Nina G. Garsoïan's 1967 The Paulician Heresy, which re-examined primary sources like the Historia Manichaeorum and argued for a doctrinal evolution: early Paulicians in adhered to —a non-Trinitarian emphasizing ' moral example over divinity—combined with and rejection of authority, without initial dualism. Garsoïan posited that full dualism emerged only later, after transplantation to around 750 CE, possibly influenced by interactions with iconoclast policies or residual Manichaean elements, rather than inherent from inception; this challenged prior assumptions of unchanging , attributing Byzantine portrayals to polemical exaggeration. Her analysis emphasized the Armenian context's role in fostering anti-hierarchical , diminishing over time as the movement militarized on the . Post-Garsoïan research has further revised these interpretations, questioning even the adoptionist-to-dualist trajectory. Works like Christopher Dixon's 2022 study The Paulicians critique Garsoïan's iconoclastic-dualistic linkage as over-reliant on biased heresiographies, advocating instead for viewing Paulicians as pragmatic dissidents whose beliefs resisted neat categorization, with dualist labels serving imperial more than doctrinal reality. Recent articles, such as "Paulician Dualism Revisited" (2025), extend this revisionism by undermining evidence for absolute or even moderate dualism, proposing that Paulician texts and practices reflect with Pauline literalism, not cosmological opposition, and cautioning against retrojecting later Bogomil or Cathar dualism onto them. These debates underscore ongoing scrutiny of , where Byzantine accounts' theological agendas inflate otherness, prompting scholars to prioritize archaeological and non-polemical fragments for causal reconstruction of Paulician resilience amid .

Contemporary Debates on Dualism and Nationalism

Contemporary on Paulicianism increasingly challenges the traditional characterization of the sect as committed to absolute dualism, positing instead that Byzantine polemical sources, such as those by Photius and Peter of in the , exaggerated or misconstrued their beliefs to justify . Recent analyses, including a 2025 reassessment in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History, argue that Paulicians rejected literal dual ontology—worshipping a singular heavenly Father while critiquing material sacraments and ecclesiastical hierarchy—aligning more closely with adoptionist or Pauline than Manichaean cosmology. This view posits that accusations of two opposing gods stemmed from orthodox misinterpretations of their rejection of the creator as the true , rather than doctrinal endorsement of cosmic twins. Such reinterpretations highlight systemic biases in Byzantine , where theological deviation was framed as existential threat to imperial unity, potentially inflating dualist elements absent in Paulician self-descriptions preserved in fragments like the Key of Truth. Debates over arise particularly in Armenian , where post-Soviet scholars have reframed Paulicians as precursors to ethnic resistance against , interpreting their 8th–9th century revolts in Armenia Minor as proto-nationalist uprisings. Soviet-era researcher Hrant Bartikyan, drawing on Armenian chronicles, portrayed the movement as an anti-feudal liberation force rooted in local grievances, a narrative echoed in some modern Armenian works seeking to integrate heterodox groups into a cohesive national . However, critics contend this anachronistic lens—projecting 19th-century onto medieval sectarians—overlooks the Paulicians' universalist, anti-materialist , which diverged sharply from Armenian Apostolic and lacked ethnic markers, as evidenced by their resettlement in and alliances with Muslim Abbasids. Armenian nationalist reinterpretations, such as those by A. Mirumyan, face methodological scrutiny for subordinating doctrinal evidence to , potentially mirroring the very imperial biases they critique by selectively emphasizing rebellion over . These intertwined debates underscore tensions between theological rigor and historiographic agendas: while dualism critiques rely on re-examining primary texts for non-polemical intent, nationalist claims risk instrumentalizing Paulicianism to bolster contemporary Armenian self-conception amid regional conflicts, as seen in debates over their legacy in modern and the . Empirical data from archaeological sites like Tephrike reveal fortified enclaves suggestive of military autonomy rather than doctrinal purity alone, complicating both framings. Scholars advocate causal analysis prioritizing Paulician agency—evident in their scriptural literalism and rejection of icons—over imposed binaries of dualism or proto-nationalism, urging caution against sources influenced by 20th-century ideological pressures in Soviet and post-Soviet academia.

References

  1. https://ceraejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/8.-Vol.-9-Cartledge-Griffin-pp.-235-271-1.pdf
  2. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1228055
  3. https://www.cristoraul.org/BYZANTIUM/The-Paulicians-and-Iconoclasm.pdf
  4. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11583b.htm
  5. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Paulician
  6. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004517080/BP000001.xml
  7. https://www.gotquestions.org/Paulicians.html
  8. https://sacred-texts.com/cla/gibbon/05/daf05032.htm
  9. https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/4_ch12.htm
  10. https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52984/1/CSDixon%2520Polemics%2520and%2520Persecution%2520postViva.pdf
  11. https://religiondatabase.org/browse/2128
  12. https://pbe.kcl.ac.uk/data/D42/F45.htm
  13. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004517080/BP000007.xml
  14. http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8708
  15. http://www.ehw.gr/asiaminor/forms/fLemmaBodyExtended.aspx?lemmaID=9146
  16. https://www.worldhistory.org/Basil_I/
  17. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004517080/BP000001.pdf
  18. https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/download/25180/25075/62005
  19. https://doaj.org/article/12649d43fdf646d697a779fba1fbe3de
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-ecclesiastical-history/article/paulician-dualism-revisited/5E5A8DEDBC87597E92714D235D6FE6A3
  21. https://www.kroraina.com/varia/kaluzh/cdhfins.pdf
  22. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004517080/BP000004.xml
  23. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/5E5A8DEDBC87597E92714D235D6FE6A3/S0022046925000065a.pdf/paulician-dualism-revisited.pdf
  24. https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Paulician_heresy.html?id=sk9Q-A0zwq0C
  25. https://brill.com/display/title/62393
  26. https://lutheranspokesman.org/2021/10/01/paulicianism/
  27. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/paulicians
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340393155_Continuity_between_Early_Paulicianism_and_the_Seventeenth-Century_Bulgarian_Paulicians_the_Paulician_Legend_of_Rome_and_the_Ritual_of_the_Baptism_by_Fire
  29. https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/download/6744/6334/18223
  30. https://archive.org/download/keyoftruthmanual00paul/keyoftruthmanual00paul.pdf
  31. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/478607
  32. https://gnosis.study/library/%25D0%2594%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B5%2520%25D1%2583%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%258F/%25D0%259F%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B5/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8/ENG/Conybeare%2520F.%2520-%2520The%2520key%2520of%2520truth%2C%2520a%2520manual%2520of%2520the%2520Paulician%2520church%2520of%2520Armenia.pdf
  33. https://www.jhiblog.org/2017/01/16/rejecting-church-and-state-in-medieval-anatolia/
  34. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/8871/4659
  35. https://ams.ceu.edu/2000/Pogossian.pdf
  36. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=clmlang_facpub
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384570324_Review_of_Dixon_Carl_The_Paulicians_Heresy_Persecution_and_Warfare_on_the_Byzantine_Frontier_c750-880
  38. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004517080/BP000005.xml
  39. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004517080/BP000006.xml
  40. https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52984/1/CSDixon%20Polemics%20and%20Persecution%20postViva.pdf
  41. https://books.google.com/books?id=JJJwEAAAQBAJ
  42. https://www.doaks.org/resources/online-exhibits/gods-regents-on-earth-a-thousand-years-of-byzantine-imperial-seals/rulers-of-byzantium/basil-i-ca.-868
  43. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/classical-review/article/the-campaign-of-basil-i-against-the-paulicians-in-872-ad/54ADA461DC76DA87C5D907C9C9311D5C
  44. https://archive.org/details/peter-of-sicily-paulicians
  45. https://gnosis.study/library/%25D0%2594%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B5%2520%25D1%2583%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%258F/%25D0%259F%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B5/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8/ENG/Garso%25C3%25AFan%2520N.G.%2520-%2520The%2520Paulician%2520Heresy.pdf
  46. https://www.cristoraul.org/BYZANTIUM/Catholicos-John-Ill-s-Against-the-Paulicians.pdf
  47. https://jamesattebury.wordpress.com/2024/01/23/were-the-paulicians-christians/
  48. https://gnosis.study/library/%25D0%2594%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B5%2520%25D1%2583%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%258F/%25D0%259F%25D0%25B0%25D0%25B2%25D0%25BB%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BA%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B0%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B5/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8/ENG/Dixon%2520C.%2520-%2520The%2520Paulicians.%2520Heresy%2C%2520Persecution%2520and%2520Warfare%2520on%2520the%2520Byzantine%2520Frontier%2C%2520c.750-880.pdf
  49. https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/view/25180
  50. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-christian-heresy/bogomils/7CE28C6F475CCF7D0E3F7CDF29DDFADB
  51. https://gnosis.study/library/%25D0%2594%25D1%2580%25D1%2583%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B5%2520%25D1%2583%25D1%2587%25D0%25B5%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D1%258F/%25D0%2591%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B3%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BB%25D1%258B/%25D0%259A%25D0%25BD%25D0%25B8%25D0%25B3%25D0%25B8/ENG/Obolensky%2520D.%2520-%2520The%2520Bogomils.%2520A%2520Study%2520in%2520Balkan%2520Neo-Manichaeism.pdf
  52. https://brill.com/view/journals/scri/14/1/article-p334_23.xml
  53. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/cathars-albigensians-and-bogomils/
  54. https://orthochristian.com/154380.html
  55. https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/sceranea/article/view/25174
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389456449_Eastern_Elements_in_Cathar_Doctrines_-_an_Argument_for_the_Traditional_Interpretation_of_Catharism
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359952402_If_not_Bogomilism_than_What_The_Origins_of_Catharism_in_the_Light_of_the_Sources
  58. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/display/title/62393.pdf
  59. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8312/e0d6337c57997284ad3e9295889177365cd3.pdf
  60. https://arar.sci.am/Content/368537/20-37.pdf
  61. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377621326_The_Paulician_Heresy_Contradiction_of_National_and_Universal
  62. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/medieval-manichee/greek-sources-for-paulician-history/1D42430116AED4F5D6304F302F4237B2
  63. https://restitutio.org/2022/10/15/the-key-of-truth-a-monument-of-armenian-unitarainism-paper/
  64. https://www.academia.edu/123475045/The_Paulician_Heresy_Contradiction_of_National_and_Universal
  65. https://www.academia.edu/129158461/Paulician_Dualism_Revisited
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.