| “The absolute chronology of the Babylonian first group of kings is easy to establish because, as has been mentioned, Ptolemy quotes the report of an eclipse in the time of king Mardokempados. Even more important, this absolute chronology has been independently confirmed by cuneiform texts from Babylon which contain astronomical observations. These number more than 1000 pieces of daytoday astronomical observations of positions and phases of the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, beginning around 650 B.C. and continuing, in increasingly dense numbers, into the first century before the beginning of our era. Thanks to these astronomical diaries, numerous overlaps with the royal list in Theon’s Handy Tables have been established, always in agreement. In other cases, the lengths of the reigns of individual kings in Theon’s royal list can be confirmed by the careful study of the dates given in contemporaneous economic and administrative texts found in Babylonia; this is possible because for parts of the period covered by the royal list, we have so many of these texts that they average out to one every few days. In this way namely, by using Theon’s royal list, Babylonian astronomical diaries, and Babylonian dated tablets–one is able to establish with confidence the absolute chronology back to the middle of the eighth century B.C., i.e. the reign of king Nabonassar of Babylon.” (A. J. Sachs, “Absolute dating from Mesopotamian records,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A, Vol. 26,1971, p. 20; emphasis added) As Professor Sachs points out in this statement, the Royal Canon has been gradually replaced in recent times as the foundation of ancient chronology by the many native sources from Babylonia, in particular by the great number of astronomical cuneiform documents, which provide “numerous overlaps” with the Royal Canon, “always in agreement,” thereby replacing it at these many points. The earlier role of the Royal Canon as the foundation of ancient chronology has dwindled to a fraction of the period it covers. At some points, it is still needed as a trusted complement because of its proven reliability. Depuydt, a renowned Egyptologist and specialist on ancient chronology who has been examining the history and reliability of the Royal Canon for a long time, aptly describes the shifting foundation of the chronology of antiquity: |
| THE URUK KING LIST (obverse) 21 years K(anda)lanu Sinshumlishir and Sinsharishkun 21 years Nabopolassar 43 (ye)ars Nebuchadnezzar 2(ye)ars AwelMarduk ‘3’ (years) 8 months Neriglissar (...) 3 months LabashiMarduk ‘17[?]’ (years) Nabonidus As is seen, the royal names and the preserved figures for the NeoBabylonian period agree with those of Berossus and the Royal Canon: Nabopolassar is given 21 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, and AwelMarduk (Evilmerodach) 2 years. The only deviation is the length of LabashiMarduk’s reign, which is given as 3 months against Berossus’ 9 months. The smaller figure is without doubt correct, as is proved by the economic documents unearthed. 184 In contrast to the Royal Canon, which always gives whole years only, the Uruk King List is more specific in also giving months for the reigns of Neriglissar and LabashiMarduk. The damaged figures for Neriglissar and Nabonidus may be restored (reconstructed) as “3 years, 8 months,” and “17 years,” respectively. The economic texts also indicate Neriglissar’s reign to have been three years and eight months (August 560April 556 B.C.E.). 185 Thus, once again, we find the figures of Berossus and the Royal Canon confirmed by this ancient document, the Uruk King List. Admittedly, this king list was composed (from older documents) more than 300 years after the end of the NeoBabylonian era. On this basis it might be argued that scribal errors may have crept into it. So it is important to ask: Are there then no historical records preserved from the NeoBabylonian era itself which establish its chronology? Yes, there are, as is immediately evident. c) Royal inscriptions Royal inscriptions of different kinds (building inscriptions, votive inscriptions, annals, etc.) from the Assyrian and Babylonian eras themselves have been found in great numbers. In 1912 a German translation of the thenknown NeoBabylonian inscriptions was published by Stephen Langdon, but since then many new ones from the period in question have been unearthed. 186 A new translation of all the NeoBabylonian royal inscriptions is therefore being prepared. 187 |
| If only they could come empty, empty of self, He would fill them with Himself, and then they would have untold power for good in the world. He knows when pain is needful, when loss is the only way to gain, when suffering is necessary to hold us at His feet. He gives us trouble in order to bless us in some way, and we shall always be losers when we chafe or reject our thorn.” (p. 45). Two Letters From the Royal Martyr Alexandra, The Empress The Following Introduction and Two Letters are excerpts from the book compiled by Father Demetrios Serfes: “The Royal Martyr Sisters: “Empress Alexandra and Grand Duchess Elizabeth”,1982. The last Russian Tsar, his wife and their children were glorified with the New Martyrs of the 20th Century, on October 19/ November 1, 1981, by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in the Synodal Cathedral in New York City. Sadly enough we are patiently awaiting the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow, Russia, to open up it’s mind, heart, and soul to either recognize this holy canonization or do the same! Those familiar with the history of the reign of Tsar Nicholas II, the circumstances under which he labored, the devotion of the Royal Family to the Orthodox Church, etc., understand the reason for their holy glorification. But there were some who questioned it, not realizing the Christian precendent for proclaiming the Royal Family as saints…Passion-bearers. An eloquent witness to the deeply Christian character of the members of the Tsar’s family are their letters during the tragic period from March 1917 to May 1918. These letters were written from imprisonment: first at Tsarskoye-Selo, then from Tobolsk, and the last ones from Ekaterinburg, where the family, with their loyal servants, were martyred on July 4/17, 1918. The letters speak of the Royal Family’s faith in risen Christ and the patient carrying of their cross through the months of mockery and cruelty that were inflicted upon them. Two letters of the Emrpess Alexandra, written shortly after the family’s arrest, movingly express her spiritual strength before the “distant journey” which her family was to endure. The first letter was written to S.V. Markoff, a 19-year-old officer of Her Majesty’s Crimean Cavalry Regiment, who was wounded in the war and was placed in the Lianozov Hospital, where the Empress and her daughters had often visited him. The second letter also was written to a former patient of Her Majesty’s Palace Hopsital at Tsarskoe Selo, Colonel A.V. Syroboyarsky, whose family the Empress knew: |
| The results from our discussion of the NeoBabylonian historical records are summarized in the following table. TABLE 3: THE REIGNS OF THE NEOBABYLONIAN KINGS ACCORDING TO THE NEOBABYLONIAN HISTORICAL RECORDS ROYAL NAME THE NEOBAB. CHRONICLES THE URUK KING LIST THE ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS B.C.E. DATES Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 21 years 625605 Nebuchadnezzar 43 43 (ye)ars 43 years 604562 AwelMarduk 2 2 (ye)ars 2 years 561560 Neriglissar 4 ‘3’ (y’s)+8 m’s 4 years 559556 LabashiMarduk some 3 months Nabonidus 17 years’ T7?’ (years) 17 years 555539 These figures in the chronicles are preserved only via Berossus and/or the Royal Canon. See discussion. As may be seen from the table, the NeoBabylonian chronology adopted by secular historians is very strongly supported by the ancient cuneiform sources, some of which were produced during the NeoBabylonian era itself. Three different lines of evidence in support of this chronology are provided by these sources: (1) Although important parts of the NeoBabylonian Chronicles are missing and some figures in the Uruk kinglist are partially damaged, the combined witness of these documents strongly supports the NeoBabylonian chronologies of Berossus and the Royal Canon, both of which were actually – independendy of each other – derived from NeoBabylonian chronicles and kinglists. (2) The royal inscription Nabon. No. 18 and the Royal Chronicle fix the second year of Nabonidus astronomically to 554/53 B.C.E. The whole length of the NeoBabylonian period prior to Nabonidus is given by Nabon. No. 8, which gives the elapsed time from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar up to the accessionyear of Nabonidus as fiftyfour years. The stele thus fixes the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar to 610/09 and his first year to 625/24 B.C.E. These two inscriptions, therefore, establish the length of the whole NeoBabylonian era. (3) The Adadguppi inscription gives the reigns of all the NeoBabylonian kings (except for LabashiMarduk’s brief, monthslong reign, which may be disregarded) from Nabopolassar up to the ninth year of Nabonidus. As the Watch Tower Society indirectly accepts a seven teenyear rule for Nabonidus, this stele of itself overthrows their 607 B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem. |
| Καραγιαννπουλος 1996 – Καραγιαννπουλος . Τ Βυζαντιν κρτος. Θεσσαλονκη, 1996. Lesetre 1912 – Lesetre Η. Voie//Dictionnaire de la Bible/Ed. F. Vigouroux. p., 1912. T.5.C0I. 2445–2447. Lilie 2007 – Lilie R.-J. Einfuhrung in die byzantinische Geschichte. Stuttgart, 2007. Pascher 1931 – Pascher J. Η ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ ΟΔΟΣ: Der Königsweg zur Wiedergeburt und Vergottung bei Philon von Alexandria. Paderborn, 1931 (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums. 17. 3–4)). Πλακογιανκης 2006 – Πλακογιανκης Κ. Ε. Δημσιος και ιδιωτικς βος και πολιτισμς των Βυζαντινν: Θατρο, μουσικ, μουσικ ργανα, Ιππδρομος της Κωνσταντινοπολης, εορταστικς – τελετουργικς – ψυχαγωγικς – αθλητικς εκδηλσεις, μτρα και σταθμ. Θεσσαλονκη, 2006. Pila, Berardino 2010 – Atlante storico del cristeanesimo antico/Ed. G. Pila, A. di Bel rardino. Ferrara, 2010. Reviv 2001 – Reviv H. The Canaanite and Israelite Periods (3200–332 BCE)//A History of Israel and the Holy Land/Ed. M. Avi-Yonah. New Tork, 2001. Abstract Dionysius (Shlenov), hegumen. Representations of the «royal way» in Byzantine theology and ascetics: On the example of st. Nicetas Stethatus’s teaching about the soul’s movement to the God The article deals with the usage of the phrase «the royal way» ( βασιλικ δς) in Greek Christian literature. This phrase goes back, on the one hand, to the ancient ideas of proportionality, on the other hand, it has a purely Biblical origin (see Numbers 20,17). Having received a vivid revelation in the exegesis of Philo of Alexandria, it turned out to be more than in demand in expounding the dogmatic and ascetic teachings of the Church as a royal path in order to avoid doctrinal or moral extremes. A detailed description of the soul’s path from the Byzantine ascetic author of the 11th century the monk Nicetras Stethatus can be interpreted as a continuation of the theme of the royal path: not so much as a path between extremes, but as the only ideal path leading to God. Keywords: path, soul, king and royal, extremes, measure, middle, Philo of Alexandria, dogmatics, asceticism, Byzantine Empire, st. Nicetas Stethatus. |
| In order to gain full understanding of the entirety of the concept realized in ia, the contents of its treasury is the key element. Research has shown that relics of this rang, tied to the most prominent members of celestial hierarchy and gathered in such a manner at a place of locus regalis status, constitute a highly conceptualized entity of complex meaning and function. Firstly, the most significant relics related to Christ, the Virgin and the Prodromos were used to present the entire program of the oikonomia of salvation through its main dogmatic and “historical” stages: incarnation and baptism, passion and triumph over death. Relics of the apostles, on the other hand, served the idea of apostolic tradition and thus had a pronounced ecclesiological meaning 432 . In view of the fact that Zica was a royal endowment and the crowning church of Serbian rulers, there is strong reason to believe that the mentioned relics belonged to the domain of state symbolism. Most probably they represented prototypes of the insignia regalia ofthe first Nemanides. Nemanja’s lance and pectoral with its particle of the True Cross, for example, definitely had insigniological meaning just like the “holy wreath”, that is the crown used in the coronation ceremony of the first Serbian king, Stefan. The context in which the particle of the True Cross is mentioned in Serbian written source is also very telling. In those passages, the Serbian ruler is compared to Old Testament king David and Constantine the Great, thus giving this relic a pronounced ideological meaning, that is a political purpose 433 . An analysis of inventories of medieval royal treasuries shows that, like the one at ia, they too possessed the most precious relics related to Christ, the Virgin, John the Prodromos and the apostles. It is well known that these relics, among others, also had the function of royal insignia, above all particles of the True Cross and the holy lance – regalis lancea. Such was the inventory of the treasury of Charlemagne and his heirs, as well as of royal treasuries of Hungary, Poland and Bohemia 434 . In an extraordinary Gothic setting they were displayed in the Sainte Chapelle of Saint Louis 435 . There are numerous and very convincing testimonies indicating that the precious collections of relics which had over the centuries been gathered in Russia had undeniable ideological meaning and political function 436 . A similar practice has also been recorded in the immediate vicinity of Serbia, in Bulgaria. Thus, relics played an important role in the formation of state centers – at first that of Samuilo, on Lake Prespa, and later that at Tirnovo, the capital of the Second Bulgarian Empire 437 . No need to stress, the common prototype of all these royal collections was the treasury of the imperial palace at Constantinople, located in the church of the Virgin of Pharos 438 . |
| The assessment of the royal family in the immediate post-perestroika era focused mainly on the fate of Nicholas and his family and servants, with people seeing in this tragedy a harbinger of the entire subsequent history of Soviet repression and mercilessness, even toward children. There was no great interest in his rule as a whole or in his politics. His image as a melancholy and politically weak leader went unchallenged. Then, under the influence of the émigré Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, a reverence for the last emperor as a saint started to spring up in some parts of the country. The Moscow patriarchate still opposed canonization in the early 1990s and it refused to accept conclusively the authenticity of the remains of the royal family that had first been uncovered in 1971 by the Ryabov-Avdonin group. As the 1990s progressed, Nicholas’ image began to take on new meaning. Society became more divided after Yeltsin’s election to a second term in 1996 as hopes dissolved for a rapid integration with the West after the collapse of Communism. Nicholas II became an important symbol for the conservative opposition, who regarded him as a sacred figure protecting the Russian people and their faith from a godless Western civilization. Nicholas’s political moves were interpreted within the framework of a global fight to preserve the only true Christianity, the belief in Russia as “the Third Rome.” The royal family was discussed in the press throughout the 1990s after Yeltsin formed a commission in 1993 to identify their remains. In 2013 Patriarch Kirill suddenly issued a statement declaring that new information had appeared. Although the site of the royal family’s initial burial at Ganina Yama, outside Yekaterinburg, became a destination for pilgrimage, it is possible that those who declared the true burial place to be the nearby Porosenkin Ravine will be considered correct. For Yeltsin, Nicholas’s fate also had a personal aspect. He was a Communist party official in Sverdlovsk when the decision was made to destroy the building (Ipatiev House) in which the royal family was shot. He thus attached significance to the historical image of Nicholas II and his family. |
| e) Neriglissar to LabashiMarduk to Nabonidus (7) That Neriglissar was succeeded by his son LabashiMarduk is plainly stated by Nabonidus in one of the royal inscriptions discussed earlier, Nabon. No. 8 (the Hillah stele). In column iv of this stele, Nabonidus relates that the cult of the goddess Anunitum in Sippar had been renewed by Neriglissar. Then he goes on saying: After (his) days had become full and he had started out on the journey of (human) destiny his son LabashiMarduk,a minor (who) had not (yet) learned how to behave, sat down on the royal throne against the intentions of the gods and [three lines missing here]. 239 After the three missing lines Nabonidus, in the next column, goes on to speak of his own enthronement, evidently as the immediate successor of LabashiMarduk. In doing so, he also names the last four of his royal predecessors: Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar (whom he regarded as legitimate rulers), and their sons AwelMarduk and LabashiMarduk (whom he regarded as illegitimate usurpers). He states: They carried me into the palace and all prostrated themselves to my feet, they kissed my feet greeting me again and again as king. (Thus) I was elevated to rule the country by the order of my lord Marduk and (therefore) I shall obtain whatever I desire–there shall be no rival of mine! I am the real executor of the wills of Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar, my royal predecessors! Their armies are entrusted to me, I shall not treat carelessly their orders and I am (anxious) to please them [i.e. to execute their plans]. AwelMarduk, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and LabashiMarduk, son of Neriglissar [called up] their [troo]ps and ... their ... they dispersed. Their orders (78 lines missing). 240 This inscription, then, interlinks the reigns of Neriglissar and LabashiMarduk, and evidendy also those of LabashiMarduk and Nabonidus. The possibility of inserting an “extra king” somewhere between these three kings is ruled out by this text. (8) Some legal documents, too, contain information that spans the reigns of two or more kings. One example is Nabon. No. 13, which is dated to “the 12th day of (the month) Shabatu [the eleventh month], the accession year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon [February 2, 555 B.C.E.]. “The inscription tells about a woman, Belilitu, who brought up the following case before the royal court: |
| This strong element of synthesis is what unifies the Ethiopian peoples. The earliest suggestion of a kingdom in the land of Kush derives from the Azbi-Dera inscription on a large altar dedicated to the god Almouqah, which was a South Arabian deity. As the South Arabian traders moved into the interior of the Ethiopian highlands, they brought with them a lucrative trade market. It seems the first group to profit from this trade was the city of Aksum in the North. Earlier Eurocentric scholars working from unexamined racist premises viewed the expansion of Aksum as a Semitic victory of the forces of “civilization” in Ethiopia, as if the indigenous groups were not civilized at all before this. The historical and cultural record simply does not support such a reconstruction. The Ethiopian highland was already home to a diverse array of indigenous cultures, but little is known about them as archeological work has barely been initiated in the region outside of Aksum and other Christian holy sites. The kingdom of Aksum, however, is the first cultural group to succeed in edging its way into considerable power and cultural influence. This was made possible by the apparent conquest of the neighboring kingdom of Meroe in the 4th century BCE. The earliest mention of the kingdom of Aksum was in the 2nd century CE by Ptolemy. An anonymous text called the Periplos is the first to describe the boundaries of the Aksumite territories, which are closely related to the modern state of Eritrea along the coast, extending into Northern Ethiopia. Beyond the historic-archeological record, the Ethiopian Orthodox faithful have a variety of “foundation stories” of their own. The best known is the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles (8.26–40). On this occasion an Ethiopian eunuch serving in the royal court of the queen (the Candace) of Ethiopia (which St. Luke mistakes for a personal name) was baptized by the Apostle Philip and sent on a mission to preach the gospel in Ethiopia. This tells us, at least, that the presence of Ethiopian “Godfearers” in Jerusalem was already an established fact in the time of Jesus. The most historically substantial foundation story is that of the Syrian brothers Frumentius and Aedesius in the 4th century. There may well have been various forms of Christianity present in Ethiopia before Frumentius and Aedesius, but they were the first to convert a royal Ethiopian court to the new faith. This seems to have been a common missionary strategy of the church at this time: convert the royal courts and the countryside would follow. This strategy had the advantage of rapidity, but often failed to establish indigenous forms of Christianity that could survive future religious sways of the royal courts themselves. The defect of this strategy is exemplified in the rapid demise of the Nubian Orthodox Church, to the south, after eleven hundred years, when the royal court went over to Islam. |
| If this was Nabopolassar’s sixteenth year, his twentyfirst and last year was 605/04 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar’s first year, then, was 604/03 B.C.E. and his eighteenth year was 587/86, during which Jerusalem was destroyed. (3) Nabon. H 1, B (the Adadguppi’ stele) Nabon. H 1, B (the Adadguppi’ stele) gives the reigns of all the NeoBabylonian kings (except for that of LabashiMarduk, as his brief reign does not affect the chronology presented) from Nabopolassar up to the ninth year of Nabonidus. Since the Watch Tower Society indirectly accepts a seventeenyear rule for Nabonidus (as was shown above in the discussion of the Nabonidus Chronicle), this stele of itself overthrows their 607 B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem and shows this event to have taken place twenty years later, in 587 B.C.E. These three lines of evidence may logically be grouped together because it cannot be clearly established that the various documents involved are wholly independent of one another. Reasons for believing that Berossus and the Royal Canon both got their information from Babylonian chronicles and kinglists have already been pointed out. It is also possible that the chronological information given in the royal inscriptions was derived from the chronicles (although this is something that cannot be proved). 261 Grayson’s suggestion, that the chronicles themselves may have been composed with the help of the information given in the astronomical “diaries” has been strongly argued against by otherscholars. 262 This possible interdependence of some of these sources, however, does not nullify their conclusive power. As the ancient royal inscriptions preserve chronological information that is contemporary with the NeoBabylonian era itself, we have every reason to accept it as factual and true information. This would be true even if this information was based upon contemporary Babylonian chronicles. For, although the chronology of these chronicles is preserved only in a few fragmentary copies, in a late kinglist, and by Berossus and the Royal Canon, the agreement between these later sources and the ancient royal inscriptions is striking. This agreement confirms that the figures of the original NeoBabylonian chronicles have been correctly preserved in these later sources. |
|
|
