EASTERN CHRISTIANITY IN CONTEXT

Third Europaeum Joint Graduate Studies Symposium

Leiden – Bologna – Oxford
Saturday 21 May 2011
Leiden University

Grigor Magistros Pahlawuni’s Letters against the T‘ondrakians - Federico Alpi

Grigor Pahlawuni Magistros, who lived in the XI century between Armenia and Byzantium, was
one of the greatest minds of his age.
He was born around 990 from a noble armenian family, and as such, in the first half of the XI
century, he played a significative role in the military and political events of the armenian Kingdom
of Ani. When the kingdom eventually fell to Byzantium, in 1045, Grigor accepted to give up his land
domains to the emperor Constantine IX Monomachus, who in exchange granted him the title of
“Magistros”, by which Grigor is known to this day, together with relevant tasks in the military
administration of the empire.
The political career of this character, however, is surpassed by his boundless culture and erudition,
which is known to us through one of the most important works of Grigor, his Letters.
It consists of 88 letters, addressed to various characters of his epoch (kings, monks, wise men and
relatives), containing a huge amount of information about the many disciplines that he mastered
and about the actions that he undertook during his career. It is a priceless treasure, albeit still
largely without translation. Some letters have been published separately, either in reviews or in
monographs, but more than a century after the first printed edition of Grigor's Letters, they still
remain without a complete and comprehensive translation.
Actually, if this translation is still missing, we must admit that Grigor himself is somehow to blame.
His prose is very complicated, filled with rhetorics, his vocabulary is incredibly rich (including, other
than armenian, greek, arabic and persian words) and he makes extensive use of allusions that are
often very difficult to understand. This complicated things a lot for those who dared to approach to
the Letters. That's why I decided to start working on Grigor's Letters with a so-called “low profile”,
starting from three letters that had already been translated in english. They are the letters 67, 68
and 69, written by Grigor against the Tondrakian heretical movement, and translated at the end of
the XIX century by Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare, in a context that I will briefly outline later: for
now, it's enough to say that Conybeare produced only a partial translation, not based on the printed
edition of the Letters, for the simple reason that such printed edition didn't exist at his time, as we
will see.
Since, as it will be clear, these letters are still today of the greatest importance for the studies on the
Tondrakian heresy, I thought it reasonable to review and rework Conybeare's translation at the
light of the printed armenian text of the Letters.
The operation hasn't been simple at all, as is the case with any of Grigor's writings, since apart from
grammatical and syntactial difficulties, the letters contain also very learned allusions that were
ignored or not recognized in Conybeare's translation. To give an idea of such issues, the best thing
is maybe to show a couple of examples of the difficulties encountered. Here is a passage from letter
67:
«աւանդեն դարձեալ ոչ յայտնելով զչար աղանդ իւրեանց իբրեւ զՊիւթագորոսին, որ ոչ եթէ Թէովնեան
այն միայն զմեծ ոլոռունսն ոչ ճաշակէր, այլ եւ, զանճառագործութիւնսն ոչ կամելով ասել,
ատամամբք զլեզուն հատեալ յառաջագոյն մեռանէր:»
«awanden darjeal očՙ yaytnelov zčՙar ałand iwreancՙ ibrew zPiwtՙagorosin, or očՙ etՙē Tՙēovnean
ayn miayn zmec oloŕunsn očՙ čašakēr, ayl ew, zančaŕagorcutՙiwnsn očՙ kamelov asel, atamambkՙ
zlezun hateal yaŕaĵagoyn meŕanēr».
Conybeare translated this passage as:
«But in so far as they transmit all this, they hide their evil heresy like Pythagoras. For this
θέων would not only not eat beans, but, to prevent himself from divulging the marvellous character
of his creation, he bit off his tongue with his own teeth, and died forthwith».
Now, it doesn't appear in any source that Pythagoras died bitting off his tongue with his own teeth,
neither it's clear what does the word θέων (corresponding to the armenian Թէովնեան Tՙēovnean)
mean here; lastly, the name «Pythagoras» is in genitive in the armenian text, not in accusative as
translated by Conybeare.
1
We know , however, that a pythagoric woman, a certain Timycha, was known for biting off her
tongue because she didn't want to reveal the secrets of the pythagoric doctrine. Another woman,
2
named Theanò, was according to some the wife or an apprentice of Pythagoras himself. We know,
at last, that in the late antiquity the two characters merged into one, so that in an agiographic text of
uncertain datation (in any case anterior to the IX century), the Passio Artemii, once attributed to
John of Damascus we read:
«Θεανὼ δέ, ἡ τούτου [scil. di Pitagora] γαμετὴ καὶ μαθήτρια, μὴ θέλουσα τὴν αἰτίαν κατειπεῖν, δι’
3
ἣν τὸν κύαμον οὐκ ἐσθίουσι, τὴν γλῶτταν ἐκτμηθεῖσα πρότερον καὶ αὐτὴ προσαπόλλυται»
It is now clear that this passage and the one from Grigor's letter must be put in relationship to each
other, as even the syntax is almost identical (note the corrispondence between πρότερον-

1 U. KLEIN (post L. DEUBNER), Iamblichi de vita Pythagorica liber. Leipzig: Teubner, 1937 (repr. 1975), XXXVI, 194.
2  I. BEKKER (ed.) Suidae Lexicon, Berlin 1854, s.v. Theanò.
3 Cfr. Passio Artemii in P.B. KOTTER (ed.), Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 5 , Berlino­New York 
1988, par. 29.
յառաջագոյն yaŕaĵagoyn). Finally, the passage can be translated as:
«They transmit anew their evil doctrine, without manifesting it, as [the wife (or the doctrine)] of
4
Pythagoras, that Theano who not only did not eat beans, but also, not wanting to reveal the
ineffable works, died prematurely, after biting off her tongue with her own teeth». Note also that
the name of Pythagoras in the genitive is perfectly explained here, since Grigor is referring to the
wife of the philosopher.
Another passage, from letter 68, displays the vastity of Grigor's cultural horizons: he writes:
«որպէս ոչ թողացոյցն Պետրոսի, որ յԱղէքսանդրիայ, հաւանել Արիոսի. քանզի ցուցանէր Միածինն
պատառեալ զպատմուճանն իւր, եւ յայտնէր զծածկեալսն որ ի նմա բունեալ վիշապին:»
«orpēs očՙ tՙołacՙoycՙn Petrosi, or yAłēkՙsandriay, hawanel Ariosi. kՙanzi cՙucՙanēr Miacinn
pataŕeal zpatmučann iwr, ew yaytnēr zcackealsn or i nma buneal višapin».
My translation:
«As [Jesus] did not let Peter, who was in Alexandria, come to terms with Arius. For the only-born
showed his tunic torn into pieces, and revealed the hidden dragon concealed in him [i.e. In Arius]».
In this case what matters is not to correct Conybeare's translation, that is more or less identical with
mine, but to correctly identify the episode Grigor is referring to.
The reference here is to an obscure episode of the life of Petros I patriarch of Alexandria (300-311)
(himself a character not outstandingly famous, to tell the truth): Peter however, recluded in prison
during Diocletian's persecution, refused to revoke an excommunication against Arius, future leader
of the famous Arian heresy, because he was prompted to do so in dream by Jesus. Well, this
episode, exactly in this shape, (even with the particular of the torn dress) can be found, as far as I
know, only in the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria by Severus of Ashmunein, a coptic
5
historian of the VIII century who wrote in arabic. Indeed, the arabic text is once again very similar
to that of Grigor:
‫ي و وجهه يضيء كضوء الشمس و عليلله ثللوب متشللح بلله إل ل‬
ّ ‫»انا اعلمكم ا ّني ف هذه الليلة ّملا اكملت صليتي و نت رأيت شاب ًا قد دخل عل‬
‫رجليه و هو مشقوق وهو يسك موضع الرق بيديه و يغطي به صدره و عريه فل ّما رأيته نهضت مسرع ًا وصرخت بصوت عللال و قلللت يللا‬
.«‫س ّيدي من الذي شق لباسك فقال ل أريوس خرقه فل يتقبله ول يتكن له معك شركة‬
«I reveal to you that this night, when I finished my prayer and I laid down for sleeping, I saw a young man
coming in, and his face was bright as the light of the sun; he had a pale dress, long to his feet, and it was
torn. He took the torn end of the tunic with his hands, and covered with it his breast and his nudity.
When I saw him, then, I got up in haste and I shouted aloud, and said: “oh, Lord, who has torn your
dress?” And he answered “Arius has torn it, and don't accept him, neither go along with him».]

4 In the text ԹէովնեանT
  ՙēovnean, almost certainly a corruption of the Greek feminine name Theanò. 
5 Actually, thanks to Prof. Dr. Jacques van der Vliet of Leiden University, during the discussion at the symposium, I
have come to know that the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria is now dated to the XI century, contemporary to
Grigor's Letters, and was probably ascribed to Severus because of the great importance and authority of this
character. The similarity of the two passages could thus be the result of a common unknown source of both Grigor
and the compilator of the History.
Unless we suppose the existence of a common source both for Grigor and Severus, that has not
come to us or is still unknown, we must assume that Grigor is quoting from Severus, implying that
his knowledge of arabic language was real and extensive.
To this point, we have seen the exceptionality of the character, and the refinement of his culture.
Let us now examine the historical facts of which he was witness: as we have noted before, in fact,
these three letters deal with a christian heresy active in Grigor's years on the border between
Armenia and the Byzantine Empire, an heresy tenaciously fought by Grigor: the Tondrakians.
The Tondrakians took their name from the village of Tondrak, near the Lake of Van, that was one
of the centers of the heresy. They questioned the ecclesiastical hierarchy, rejected the cult of the
holy images and most of the orthodox sacraments, mainly the baptism of infants and marriage.
[Persecuted both by the Byzantine and by the Armenian Church, the Tondrakians turned to the
head of the syriac Church for protection: Grigor then hurried to write to the syrian patriarch, in
6
order to warn him not to believe them: this is our lettere 67 . Afterwards, he wrote to the heretics
7
themselves, trying to convince them to give up their heresy: this is our letter 68 . The letter 69, at
8
last, is maybe addressed to a former heretic, converted to orthodoxy .
The Tondrakians were known to modern scholars because they were put in relationship with an
other famous but older heresy, that of the Paulicians (known from armenian and byzantine sources)
and with the later movement of the Bogomils in the Balkans (often compared to the Cathars of
southern France). The interest about the Tondrakian movement, however, blew up at the end of
the XIX century, following a curious and interesting discovery.
Around the half of the XIX century, in fact, during an inquiry run by the armenian Church, some
heretics were discovered, who were named “Tondrakians” and, what is more noteworthy, a book
was confiscated from them carrying the title Բանալի Ճշմարտութեան Banali Čšmartutՙean (The
Key of Truth), which survived to this day. This is obviously a remarkable event, since it is extremely
uncommon for a text written by heretics to survive. Usually, in fact, such books were burned
(together with their writers).
It is just because of this peculiarity that the text has been (and is still now) the object of a sharp
debate that involves also (as we will see) Grigor's letters.
In 1898 as said before, Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare translated the text (thenceforth known as

6 It is courious that as far as I know no one has tried to identify the person Grigor is writing to, nor to date this letter. 
In the letter, Grigor is called Duke of Vaspurakan and Taron, so it must be later than 1045, the year when Grigor 
gave up his domains to the byzantine emperor, thus beginning his career in the byzantine administration. Also, in the 
letter there is no mentions of the seljuk raids, which became quite frequent from 1053 onwards, an event that 
probably also forced Grigor to put aside his energic persecution of the heretics. On the other hand, the syriac see of 
Antioch was vacant from 1044 until 1049, when John VIII became patriarch, and remained in charge until his death 
in 1057. Thus the letter must be addressed to John VIII, and is probably to be dated between 1049 and 1053.
7 From internal references, it appears that this letter is chronologically subsequent to letter 67
8 There are not enough hints to date letter 69.
The Key of Truth), considering it a manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia”. His point was that
the Paulicians of the armenian and byzantine were identical with the Tondrakians, who afterwards
survived until his own times, continuing to use the Key of Truth as a textbook.
It is in this context that Conybeare attached to the publication of the Key of Truth, the translation
of three long sections of the letters 67 68 and 69 of Grigor Magistros, taking for granted that the
Tondrakians fought by Grigor, the Pauliciani of the armenian sources, those of the byzantine
sources, and the XIX century heretics were expression of the same heresy. Conybeare's translation
was based on a Venice manuscript (that he did not identify) and some partial translations by
Karapet Ter Mkrtcean: a printed edition of Grigor's Letters, as I said before, did not exist until
9
1910, thanks to Karapet Kostaneanc .
Since the publication of The Key of Truth, the studies on the tondrakian and the paulician
movements have evolved considerably, thanks to the contribution of many scholars.
In short, the debate (in which Grigor Magistros' letters are quite relevant) is wether and to which
degree the Paulicians, the Tondrakians and the heretics who used the Key of Truth in the XIX
century can be identified as the same group of heretics or not
According to Conybeare, as we said, these thre groups are essentially one the prosecution of the
other, and this allows him to state that the manuscript of the Key of Truth, however late it can be
(XVIII century), reflects a very ancient text, that would date even to the IX century: if this is true,
there is no doubt that the key of truth would be a priceless resource.
The matter is that this position does not completely match with what appears in the sources; in
particular, the most serious hindrance to an identification of the Paulicians and the Tondrakians, is
the fact that all of the byzantine sources (and only the byzantine sources) dealing with them affirm
that the Paulicians were radical dualists, as far as to believe that the world, and even the old
10
testament were a work of the Devil .
The armenian sources, on the other hand, agree that the Paulicians were heretics, just like the later
Tondrakians, but they never mention the fact that they rejected the Old Testament, or thought the
creation to be Satan's work. In the armenian sources the rejection of the ecclesiastical hierarchy is
mentioned, along with the refusal to adore the holy images and the cross, and the rejection of some
sacraments, but there is no trace of dualism. What sometimes appears, instead, is a denial of the
11
divinity of Christ.

9 K. KOSTANEANCՙ, Grigori Magistrosi Tՙłtՙerǝ, Ałēkՙsandropōl 1910.
10 The Byzantine sources are mainly: The historia manichaeorum, supposedly by Peter of Sicily, who was ambassador 
among the Paulicians in the IX century, but the authorship and the date of the work is disputed; the history of Peter 
the Igoumenos, not to be confused with the former Peter; the speeches against the Paulicians of the byzantine 
patriarch Photius, preserved with the title contra manichaeorum, still from the IX century.
11 The most important armenian sources for the Paulicians are the canons of the council of Dvin (VI century) and the 
speeches against the Paulicians of the catholicos Yovhannes Ojnec'i (VIII cent.); the main armenian sources about 
the Tondrakians are a letter of Grigor Narekac'i to the monks of Kchaw, accused of hosting some heretics (X cent.), 
Indeed, such a difference not only seems to make the Paulicians incompatible with the
Tondrakians, but also traces a trench between the Paulicians themselves, who appear dualist in the
byzantine sources, but not in the armenian ones.
To this problem proposed a solution Nina G. Garsoian, in her work The Paulician Heresy: Study of
the Origin and Development of Paulicianism in Armenia and the Eastern Provinces of the
Byzantine Empire. Basing on a careful and detailed study of the sources, she si able to adjust
Conybeare's supposition, and points out that the armenian Paulicians can actually be identified with
the Tondrakians and afterwards with those using the Key of Truth. Particularly, she thinks that they
are expression of an adoptionist heresy, believing that Jesus was not son of God from his birth, but
was “adopted” by God at the time of baptism. The importance accorded to baptism in the Key of
Truth seems to suppert this thesis. As for the byzantine Paulicians, the dualist ones, she concludes
that they are movement that originated from the armenian Paulicians, but migrated within the
borders of the Empire, and developed subsequently into a radically dualist movement: as such, they
would be completely different from the armenian Paulicians, apart from the name.
So, is the issue settled? Not at all: one of the few obstacles to this sharp distinction between
Byzantine Paulicians on one side, and Armenian Paulicians/Tondrakians/People of the Key of
Truth on the other are these three letters of Grigor Magistros: in them, in fact, particulary in the
letter 67, it looks like the Tondrakians are called "Paulicians", and it seems that they are accused of
professing a dualist doctrine.
On this basis, the theory of Garsoian has been criticized by other scholars, who think that the three
groups must be considered separately. Among these scholars, one of the most accurates has been
Vrej Nersessian, who dedicated a book to the topic, The Tondrakian Movement, which is until now
the last book written about this matter. In his work, Nersessian moves from the letters of Grigor to
express his doubts on Garsoian's hypothesis.
Let us see, at last, what do Grigor's letters say. All the scholars that have been mentioned have used
and quoted the letters as they appear in the translation of Conybeare, and in the crucial passage,
paragraph 25 of the letter 67, Conybeare translates as follows:
«These are the crimes of these malefactors [i.e. the Tondrakians]. No fasts are theirs, except out of fear;  
no differences do they observe between men and women, not even as regards the family, though they do 
not venture openly on this. They respect nothing, either of things divine or of things created; but laugh all  
to scorn, the old law as well as the new. When, however, you ask them openly, they anathematize and  
swear vehemently and deny; though we know well enough what a pretence all this is.
Here you see the Paulicians, who got their poison from Paul of Samosata. When we take on ourselves to  
question them, they say "we are Christians". [They are forever sing­songing, quoting the Gospel and the 
Apostolon; and when we ask: "Why do you not allow yourselves to be baptized, as Christ and the apostles 
enjoined?" They answer: "You do not know the mystery of baptism; we are in no hurry to be baptized, for  
baptism is death; and Jesus in the evening meal spoke not of an offering of the mass, but of every table".  
They say "We love Paul, and execrate Peter: also Moses saw not God, but the devil". That is to say, ] they 

the letters of Grigor Magistros (XI cent.) and the history of Aristakes Lastivertc'i (XI century).
 hold Satan to be the creator of heaven and earth, as well as of the whole human race and of all creation;  
yet they call themselves Christians.
Look now at some others, at Persian magi of (the stock of) Zoroaster the Magus; nay, rather at the Sun­
worshippers envenomed by these, whom they call the Arevordi. In your district are many of them, and 
they also openly proclaim themselves to be Christians. Yet we know that you are aware what error and  
lewdness thy practise.»
Indeed, it seems that Grigor is “unmasking” the heretics, showing that actually they are nothing but
Paulicians, who think that the maker of the universe is Satan, and not God. After this, Grigor
quotes another heretical group, that of the arewordik, as an example of “false christians”.
In front of such a challenge, Garsoian admits that her thesis would be contradicted by Grigor's
letter, and she holds that Grigor is an unreliable witness, being influenced by byzantine literature.
12
This is not completely convincing , and Garsoian's opponents, first of all Nersessian, point out that
Grigor was a learned and reliable eyewitness, who directly dealt with the Tondrakians.
But let us now consider where a careful examination of the armenian text can lead. The armenian
reads:
«Եւ այս ինչ են անօրէնութիւնք չարագործացն այնոցիկ. ոչ պահք նոցա, եթէ ոչ երկնչին, յայտնի եւ ոչ
խտրութիւնք արանց եւ կանանց եւ ոչ ընտանեաց, թէպէտեւ ոչ յայտնապէս համարձակին, եւ ոչ պատուեն եւ ոչ
զմի ինչ` ոչ յաստուածայնոց եւ ոչ յեղելոց. այլ զամենայնն ծաղր առնեն` զհին եւ զնոր օրէնս. եւ յորժամ
յայտնի հարցեալք լինին, անիծանեն սաստիկ, ուրանան եւ երդնուն. եւ այսպիսի խաբէութեան ո՞չ եմք
տեղեակ. աւադիկ Պօղիկեանքդ, որք ի Պօղոսէ Սամոստացւոյ դեղեալ. յորժամ ձեռնարկեալ հարցանեմք, ասեն
եթէ քրիստոնեայք եմք, [զաւետարանն եւ զառաքեալն սաղմոսեն յամենայն ժամ. եւ յորժամ հարցանեմք եթէ
ընդէ՞ր ոչ մկրտիք, զոր հրամայեաց Քրիստոս եւ առաքեալն. ասեն, Ոչ գիտէք դուք զխորհուրդ մկրտութեան.
մեզ ոչ է փոյթ մկրտել. քանզի մկրտելն մահն է. եւ Յիսուս ոչ ասաց յընթրիսն վասն պատարագի, այլ վասն
ամենայն սեղանոյ: Եւ ասեն. զՊօղոս սիրեմք եւ զՊետրոս անիծեմք. եւ Մովսէս զԱստուած ոչ ետես այլ
զսատանայ.] եւ ասեն արարիչ երկնի եւ երկրի զսատանայ եւ ամենայն մարդկային սեռի եւ ամենայն
ստեղծուածոց. եւ ինքեանք զինքեանս անուանեն քրիստոնեայս: Ահա եւ այլ ոմանք ի Զրադաշտ մոգէ`
մոգպարսկականք. եւ այժմ ի նոցունց դեղեալ արեգակնապաշտք, զոր Արեւորդիսն անուանեն. եւ ահա' են
յայդմ գաւառի բազումք եւ ինքեանք քրիստոնեայք զինքեանս յայտնապէս կոչեն: Բայց եթէ ո՞րպիսի
մոլորութեամբ եւ անառակութեամբ վարին, գիտեմք, զի ոչ ես անտեղեակ:»
Grigor, it is true begins speaking of the Tondrakians, and holds that, if captured, they deny, curse
and swear ( անիծանեն սաստիկ, ուրանան եւ երդնուն). But afterwards he does not write at all
"though we know well enough what a pretence all this is", full stop; instead, he asks rhetorically:
"are not we well aware of this deception? [ scil. The dissimulation of the heretics]" (եւ այսպիսի
խաբէութեան ո՞չ եմք տեղեակ). Does this change anything? Yes, it does: let us see how the
translation turns out to be:
«and here are their impious evil deeds: they don't observe fasts, unless out of fear, nor they have clear  
differences between men and women, nor among family members, even though openly they don't go too 

12In the letter 67, for example, Grigor affirms that he assisted to some kind of public debate between the heretics and 
the orthodox armenians. He also tells that two heretics priests (as he calls them) repented, converted to orthodoxy, and 
came to him, revealing a lot of information about their beliefs; thus we can not discard Grigor as just being “unreliable”.
 far on this, and they don't respect anything at all, neither divine nor created, but they scorn everything,  
the Old Law as well as the New. And whenever they get caught, they curse vehemently, deny and swear.  
And are not we well aware of this deception? Here are the Paulicians, who were poisoned by Paul of  
Samosata! When we question with them they say «we are Christians», and they sing the gospel and the 
Apostoe   all   the   time;   and   when   we   ask   «why   are   not   you   baptized,   as   Christe   and   the   Apostle  
commanded?» they reply «you do not know the mystery of baptism, for baptism is death. And Jesus , at  
the supper, did not speak of the mass, but of every table». And they say «we love Paul and curse Peter. 
And Moses didn't see God, but Satan». And they say that the maker of heaven and earth, of the human 
race and of every creature is Satan. And they call themselves Christians! Here are also some others, who  
became persian mages following Zoroaster the mage, and those who now are poisoned from them, the 
sun worshippers, who are called  Arewordikՙ. And here are also many in your land that in public call 
themselves Christians, though we know well that you don't ignore with which lewdness and error they 
behave!»
The identification of the Tondrakians with the Paulicians, in truth, is only apparent: it disappears
with a careful analysis of the armenian text. Grigor is only trying to explain that these Tondrakians,
even if they profess themselves Christians, are in truth heretics. And to strengthen his point he
makes three examples of heretical movements that used to behave similarly: the Paulicians (he
clearly intends the byzantine Paulicians), the Arewordik, and “many other who call themselves
christians in public”, maybe an allusion to muslim converts.
So we can conclude that Garsoian's thesis is not undermined by Grigor Magistros: not only he does
not identify the Tondrakians with the dualist byzantine Paulicians, but also it turns out that he
13
considered the two groups to be completely different .
Many other passages, in these letters, have turned out to be interesting as these, once reviewed at
the light of the armenian text, but it is not possible to discuss all of them here. To sum up, we have
seen what horizons an up-to-date translation of some of Grigor's can disclose: it is thus legitimate to
wander which and how many other treasures could be found by translating the whole book, which
unfortunatly remains, to this day, a well sealed chest, from which we could only steal few (but
precious) pearls.

13 Briefly, another critic moved to the theory that the Tondrakians are substantially compatible with the heretics of the 
Key of Truth, is that while the latter did accept some form of communion and baptism, as well as the ordination of 
their own priests, some (for instance Nersessian) hold that the former did not accept any of such practices. This also 
is contradicted by the letters of Grigor, who speaks of “unholy baptism” and “false priests” among the heretics. Also, 
remember the case of the two former heretics who converted to orthodoxy: they were, according to Grigor, “false 
priests”.