
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The Key of Truth is a fascinating book, written by a sect of Armenian Unitarian Christians in the 1700s. Originally under Muslim rule, this group of Christians migrated to Russian-controlled Armenia in the nineteenth century. Sadly, they faced investigation, persecution, fines, and probably exile at the hands of the Armenian Church authorities. Although lost to history, this group of twenty-five families lives on in their intriguing and bold surviving text--the Key of Truth. Translated into English by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, this book testifies to a biblical unitarian community trying to survive in a hostile environment.
Here's the original paper (available to read online or to download as a pdf) that accompanied this presentation. It delves into the proposal that the Key of Truth was actually a medieval Paulician document. I conclude that the arguments of Conybeare (19th c.) and Garsoïan (20th c.) fail to stand up to scrutiny, especially in light of the work of Hamilton (20th c.) and Ohanjanyan (21st c.).
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4hQa-3g_YE
—— Links ——
By Sean P Finnegan4.8
146146 ratings
The Key of Truth is a fascinating book, written by a sect of Armenian Unitarian Christians in the 1700s. Originally under Muslim rule, this group of Christians migrated to Russian-controlled Armenia in the nineteenth century. Sadly, they faced investigation, persecution, fines, and probably exile at the hands of the Armenian Church authorities. Although lost to history, this group of twenty-five families lives on in their intriguing and bold surviving text--the Key of Truth. Translated into English by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, this book testifies to a biblical unitarian community trying to survive in a hostile environment.
Here's the original paper (available to read online or to download as a pdf) that accompanied this presentation. It delves into the proposal that the Key of Truth was actually a medieval Paulician document. I conclude that the arguments of Conybeare (19th c.) and Garsoïan (20th c.) fail to stand up to scrutiny, especially in light of the work of Hamilton (20th c.) and Ohanjanyan (21st c.).
Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4hQa-3g_YE
—— Links ——

15,958 Listeners

8,633 Listeners

2,027 Listeners

19,226 Listeners

954 Listeners

124 Listeners

1,460 Listeners

7,088 Listeners

33,382 Listeners

543 Listeners

80 Listeners

222 Listeners

61 Listeners

56 Listeners

16 Listeners