Abstract
AbstractIn tracing three possible answers to the question what the 'first millennium' might be for the Armenians, various layers of the Armenian tradition constitutive of the formation of Armenian identity are presented. Three periods are distinguished: the Nairian-Urartian stretching from about 1200 bce to the conquest of the Armenian plateau by the Achaemenids; followed by the Zoroastrian phase, in which political, religious, social, and cultural institutions in Armenia were closely related to Iranian ones, lasting until the adoption of Christianity as state religion in Armenia at the beginning of the fourth century. This heralds the third and last phase considered in this contribution, concluding with the cornerstone of Armenian identity formation in the direction given to Armenia and its Church by Yovhannēs Ōjnec'i (John of Odzun, d. 728), who opted for a moderate form of Miaphysitism after the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. The developments in each of the three periods are measured against the criteria Smith considered central for the presence of an ethnie, while attention is given to the Iranian aspects of Armenian society, the presence of a Hellenistic strand in its culture, and its western turn upon the adoption of Christianity.
Highlights
The Dutch glasspainter and Anabaptist prophet David Joris (1501–1556) was the Netherland’s most infamous heretic who became a spiritualist who depreciated the scriptures, condemned confessional conflict, and argued that the devil did not exist external to a person’s mind
In the early 1520s, a young Dutch glasspainter, David Joris (1501–1556), travelled as a journeyman to England to work on a series of windows on the Passion of
By the time of his return to Holland in 1531, he had become captivated by the apocalyptical Anabaptism of Melchior Hoffman but was reluctant to take on any active role as Anabaptism became more militant in 1533 under Jan Matthijs’s leadership and Münster became an Anabaptist city, kingdomunder-siege
Summary
Against Calfhill’s claim that since evil people use the sign of the cross it is powerless, Martiall counters by saying no, “vnlesse he [Calfhill] were a younge God, or nere Cosyn to Dauid George that would be Christe.”[32] In the 1560s, Joris’s messianic pretensions were known well enough in England to be used by Catholic writers as a weapon against their Protestant rivals This tactic was referenced by the Anglican bishop John Jewel in his critique of the Puritans in 1567, and in a translation of a Danish work by the Lutheran theologian Niels Hemmingsen on the gospels two years later. I ... do expect shortly to heare, that there will arise some, who will not sticke to preache, that Christ himselfe is to be denyed,” a passage that Creasacre More claims had foretold of “David George the Hollander, who called himself Christ.”[43]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
