| Suppose now that twenty years have to be added to the NeoBabylonian era, which is required if the destruction of Jerusalem is set at 607 rather than 587 B.C.E., and that we add these twenty years to the reign of Nabonidus, making it thirtyseven years instead of seventeen. Then his first year must have been 575/74 B.C.E. instead of 555/54. Nabonidus’ sixth year, when Astyages was defeated by Cyrus, would then be moved back from 550/49 to 570/69 B.C.E. Those dates, however, are impossible, as Cyrus did not come to power until c. 559 B.C.E., as was shown above. He clearly could not have defeated Astyages ten years before he came to power! This is why the Society correctly dates this battle in 550 B.C.E., thereby indicating Nabonidus’ reign of seventeen years to be correct, as is held by all authorities and classical authors. 178 Though the chronicles available do not furnish a complete chronology for the NeoBabylonian period, the information which they do preserve supports the dates for the lengths of the reigns of the NeoBabylonian kings given by Berossus and the Royal Canon. As the earlierpresented evidence strongly indicates that both of these sources derived their information from the Babylonian chronicles independent of each other, and as their figures for the NeoBabylonian reigns agree, it is logical to conclude that the chronological information originally given in the NeoBabylonian chronicles has been preserved unaltered by Berossus and the Royal Canon. Even if this is agreed upon, however, can the information given by these Babylonian chronicles be trusted? It is often pointed out that the Assyrian scribes distorted history in order to glorify their kings and gods. “It is a well known fact that in Assyrian royal inscriptions a serious military setback is never openly admitted.” 179 Sometimes scribes garbled the narration by changing the date of a defeat and weaving it into an account of a later battle. 180 NeoBabylonian chronicles treat history in this way, too? |
| In order to gain understanding of this question, both important and interesting, it is useful to keep in mind the appropriate analogies. Thus, for example, the concept of the ruler-saint was not typical of medieval Bulgaria. Impulses of that nature, documented in the first period of the existence of the Bulgarian state, remained without any response in the Second Bulgarian Empire 450 . In the East, the concept of the holy founder and protector of the state played an important role in Kievan Russia and its “political” function was fully articulated in the cult of the prince-martyrs Boris and Gljeb. Scholars have pointed out that their cult spread most intensely at the time of Tartar invasion when the given historical circumstances inspired Russian rulers to follow the example of the first Russian saints and sacrifice themselves willingly for the Kievan state 451 . On the other hand, the cult of the holy ruler was the key element of royal ideology and national integration in a number of states of western, northern and central Europe. In the diffusion of this cult, the relics of rulers played a crucial role as well as the rituals related to their veneration 452 . In Serbia, a result of the activities of Saint Sava, that program, based on the ruler-monk-saint concept, was promoted at the proclamation of sainthood of the progenitor of the dynasty, Simeon Nemanja, and from then on became a lasting tradition of Serbian royal ideology 453 . At that time the cult of royal relics was already fully developed in all its fundamental elements – theological, liturgical and material 454 . In accordance with common practice of the Orthodox world, the cult of Simeon Nemanja was the fruit of a gradual and complex process including several stages: taking of the monastic habit and the name Simeon and practicing xeniteia i.e. life in ascesis on Mount Athos; death and first announcement of sanctity in the monastery of Chilandar which may have been accompanied by myrrh pouring as one of the most convincing signs of sainthood; “invention” of relics, their translation to Serbia and deposition of the body at Simeon’s mausoleum in Studenica; final declaration of sainthood, accompanied by myrrh pouring and miracles. |
| This is an enormous task. PaulRichard Berger estimates that about 1,300 royal inscriptions, one third of which are undamaged, have been found from the NeoBabylonian period, most of them from the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar. 188 For the chronology that we are concerned with, three of the inscriptions are especially valuable. All of them are original documents from the reign of Nabonidus. 189 How do they aid in establishing the critical date for Jerusalem’s destruction? We have seen that in advocating a 607 B.C.E. date, the Watch Tower Society questions the reliability of the duration of the NeoBabylonian period as presented by both Berossus and the Royal Canon (often called Ptolemy’s Canon), finding the total 20 years too short. The first of the royal inscriptions to be discussed, called Nabonidus No. 18, confirms the length of reign for that king as found in those ancient sources. The second cuneiform tablet, Nabonidus No. 8, clearly establishes the total length of the reigns of the NeoBabylonian kings up to Nabonidus, and enables us to know both the beginning year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the crucial year in which he desolated Jerusalem. The third, Nabonidus No. 24, provides the length of the reign of each NeoBabylonian king from the first ruler, Nabopolassar, onward and down to the ninth year of the last ruler, Nabonidus (Belshazzar was evidendy a coregent with his father Nabonidus at the time of Babylon’s fall). 190 Following are the details for each of these cuneiform tablets: (1) Nabon. No. 18 is a cylinder inscription from an unnamed year of Nabonidus. Fulfilling the desire of Sin, the moongod, Nabonidus dedicated a daughter of his (named EnnigaldiNanna) to this god as priestess at the Sin temple of Ur. The important fact here is that an eclipse of the moon, dated in the text to Ululu 13 and observed in the morning watch, led to this dedication. Ululu, the sixth month in the Babylonian calendar, corresponded to parts of August and September (or, sometimes, parts of September and October) in our calendar. The inscription explicitly states that the moon “set while eclipsed,” that is, the eclipse began before and ended after sunrise. 191 invisible at Babylon. |
| At this point we shall summarize the information we have about Zographou’s sponsors during the fourteenth century. In 1342 the Bulgarian Tsar John Alexander (1331–71) issued the only medieval Bulgarian royal charter in favour of Zographou which has survived. It is written according to the Bulgarian orthographic style of the late medieval Slavic language. 139 Being one of the very few Bulgarian royal charters to have survived, John Alexander’s chrysobull contains three basic points: (1) it states that the monastery of Zographou had been placed under the auspices of the Bulgarian tsars ever since the time of John Alexander’s grandfather; 140 (2) it makes it clear that John Alexander had asked his relative, the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaiologos, to bequeath to Zographou the village of Chandax which was situated near the river Strymon; 141 (3) the charter also sanctions a tax exemption of 50 golden coins (hyperpyra) which John Alexander had asked his Byzantine cousin, John V , to grant to Zographou. 142 In truth, quite a modest donation for a person of royal rank. Another Bulgarian benefactor of the Bulgarian monastery was one Stracimir, a pinkernes or high civil official of the Bulgarian Tsar John Alexander. In 1344 he bequeathed to the monastery the village of Marmarion on the coast of the Strymonic gulf. 143 In July 1372 the Patriarch of Constantinople, Philotheos Kokkinos, 144 issued a special charter in favour of Zographou. According to this document, there was a church dedicated to St Demetrios in the Bulgarian Athonite monastery. It was erected by a certain Branislav who was Philotheos’s spiritual son. The church of St Demetrios is said to have been directly under the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarch. 145 Branislav was surely the second eminent aristocrat of Slavic (presumably Bulgarian) origin, who had acted as Zographou’s major benefactor. Branislav is not mentioned in any other source, 146 but Philotheos’s act makes it clear that he must have been an eminent person. His social background and ethnic origin remain uncertain, but it is clear that it was he who had asked the patriarch to issue a confirmative charter in favour of the Bulgarian monastery of Zographou. 147 On the other hand, the tax exemption granted by Philotheos Kokkinos in July 1372 concerned only Branislav’s church of St Demetrios and did not apply to the whole monastery, which was promoted to the rank of a stavropegic (dependent on the Patriarchate) foundation by the Patriarch Theoleptos I in 1521. 148 |
| But let us remember that this crime of the entire people was committed on the day of the Holy Hierarch Andrew of Crete, who calls us to profound repentance. Let us remember that there is no sin that cannot be washed away by repentance. But our repentance must be complete, without any self-justification, without reservation, condemning ourselves and the entire evil deed from its very beginning. After the deliverance of the Royal Family in Borki, an icon was found depicting the saints whose names the members of the Royal Family bore. Perhaps the time will come when not only their patron saints, but the Royal Martyrs themselves, will be depicted on icons, in memory of the event we have recalled here. But for now we will pray for the repose of their souls, asking of the Lord profound tears of repentance and forgiveness for ourselves and the entire Russian people. Translated from the Russian Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Related articles Archpriest Igor FOMIN, Rector of the house church of St. Alexander Nevsky of the Moscow State… The remains of Tsar Nicholas II and his wife Alexandra have been exhumed as part of… Sermon by Metropolitan Anastassy (Gribanovsky,+1965) on the day of the martyric death of Tsar. Also by this author Today " s Articles Most viewed articles Functionality is temporarily unavailable. Most popular authors Functionality is temporarily unavailable. © 2008-2024 Pravmir.com |
| After the transfer to Ekaterinburg of several members of Nicholas II’s family along with persons from his circle of friends, the following people on 30 April 1918 were placed under house-arrest in the home of N.N. Ipatiev [usually known as the “Ipatiev House”]: Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra Feodorovna, Grand Duchess Maria Nicholaevna, physician to the royal family Professor E.S. Botkin, the valet T.I. Chemodurov, and the lady’s maid A.S. Demidova. On the same day, V.A. Dolgorukov and I.D. Sednev were put in prison. On 23 May 1918, from the city of Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg were transferred Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaevich, and Grand Duchesses Olga Nicholaevna, Tatiana Nicholaevna and Anastasia Nicholaevna, who were all placed in the Ipatiev House. Together with them also arrived a large group of servants and people from their circle of friends. In the Ipatiev House were placed the boy L. Sednev and the manservant A.E. Troop. The valet T.I. Chemodurov was transferred from the Ipatiev House to prison in Ekaterinburg. Immediately after the arrival in Ekaterinberg of the above-named group, the following were arrested and put in prison: I.L. Tatischev, [maid of honor] A. V. Gendrikova, [children’s instructress] E.A. Shneider, K.G. Nagornyi and A.A. Volkov. On the night of 16-17 July 1918 in the city of Ekaterinburg in the home of engineer N.N. Ipatiev were shot the [following] members of the Russian imperial house: Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich Romanov, Empress Alexandrovna Feodorovna Romanova, the successor to the throne Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaevich Romanov[age 13], [the Tsar’s 4 daughters, ages 17-22:] Grand Duchesses Olga Nicholaevna Romanova, Tatiana Nicholaevna Romanova, Maria Nicholaevna Romanova, and Anastasia Nicholaevna Romanova. Together with them were shot physician-in-ordinary E.S. Botkin, servants A.S. Demidov and A.E. Troop, and the cook I.M. Kharitonov. The fact of the shooting and death of the royal family and servants is common knowledge, but few people know that together with the family of the former Emperor, totally innocent people from among the servants also underwent repression —people who voluntarily followed the family into exile, helped the dethroned Tsar, or had some kind of contact with the royal family. In essence, these people voluntarily chose the path of selfless devotion and death. The repressions of these people did not end in 1919, but continued into the 1920’s and 1930’s. Unfortunately, the fate of many of these people, voluntarily having gone into exile, is now unknown, as also unknown are the full personal particulars of several of the sufferers; but that does not deprive them of the right to rehabilitation, and does not deprive their descendants of the right to be proud of their ancestors. |
| However, the fundamentalists did manage to pressure the Russian Orthodox Church into not recognizing the remains of the royal family that were found in 1979 at “Porosyonkov Log,” two kilometers away from Ganina Yama. The remains were exhumed in 1991 and, after multiple examinations in Russia and abroad, were solemnly buried in the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg in 1998, with President Boris Yeltsin and members of the Romanov family present. The cult of the royal family was formed mainly in Russian émigré circles influenced by the work of White investigator Nikolai Sokolov, who concluded that the royal remains were completely destroyed at Ganina Yama – a version that fitted well with the “ritual murder” concept. In the 1990s, after many examinations, the investigators discovered that two bodies – those of Crown Prince Alexis and Princess Maria – were missing from the “Porosyonkov Log” remains. But in 2007, Yekaterinburg “searchers” – amateur archaeologists who search for unburied soldiers from World War II – working in conjunction with professional archeologists, found the bones of two young people buried under the ashes of a bonfire 70 meters away from the first grave. New research has proven beyond reasonable doubt that these are the remains of Alexis and Maria. But the Church has not recognized the findings and the remains, which would otherwise be venerated as the relics of saints, are kept in Sverdlovsk forensic laboratories. Another site While thousands of believers walked in procession to Ganina Yama, archeologist Sergei Pogorelov and “searchers” Leonid Vokhmyakov and Sergei Plotnikov, who discovered the remains of Alexis and Maria, marked the “Royal Days” in their own way. Sitting around a bonfire, they recollected the details of their discoveries. With them they had a probing rod and metal detector to look for fragments of the containers in which the Bolsheviks brought the sulfuric acid they poured over the bodies of the tsar and his children in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy them. |
| Around the procession The ancient Christian tradition of long processions has been revived in Russia in recent years, and the night-long marches from Yekaterinburg to Ganina Yama and from Alapayevsk to the scene of Elizabeth’s murder are by no means the longest. Some take several days. The procession is often associated with repentance. Viktor Varnavkin, a driver from Orenburg, says that for him the procession is a “form of expressing one’s repentance,” and not only a personal one. “The procession is not a one-man enterprise,” he said, “it is both private and public – like a church service.” The processions often attract marginal, fundamentalist trends within the church, usually connected with various unofficial cults. In Alapaevsk, while most of the pilgrims sang what is known in the Orthodox Church as the “Jesus Prayer” and carried icons of Elizabeth or the “Royal Passion-Bearers,” one group from the Volga region carried a heavy icon of the royal family and, along with it, several uncanonical icons, including the depictions of Grigory Rasputin and Ivan the Terrible with the halos of saints, and sang their own prayer asking the “Royal Martyrs” to “save Russia.” Before the liturgy a middle-aged woman stood near the gates of the monastery, singing to an old Soviet sounding melody a song that connected Orthodoxy with monarchy and denounced tax identification numbers as “Satan’s seals.” Unlike the canonization of Grand Duchess Elizabeth, which was more or less unopposed either in the church or society at large, the canonization of the royal family was delayed several times by the church hierarchy precisely because it was vigorously promoted by such marginal groups of believers, for many of whom the belief in the “saint tsar” was closely connected with nationalist, anti-Semitic and anti-globalist ideas. The movement to canonize Nicholas was also strongly associated with a belief in the tsar’s “ritual murder” as the result of a “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy” of which the Bolsheviks were supposedly a part. The church hierarchy tried to cleanse the cult of the royal family from all of these political connotations. The “ritual murder” version was overtly rejected, as well as the heresy of “tsar-worship” (“tsareslavie”), which presumed the tsar to be the “co-redeemer” of the Russian people on a par with Jesus Christ. |
| In the duration of this process, appropriate hagiological-liturgical texts were gradually composed and received their final form in Simeon’s two vitae and the Service of St. Simeon. Likewise, from the very beginning and throughout the course of cult development its dynastic and political function was strongly emphasized. It made up the kernel of royal ideology of the Nemanides and played a decisive role in the creation of the concept of the holy progenitor and protector of the state 455 . The cult of Serbian ruler-saints comprised several important elements. First, following the example of Simeon Nemanja, Serbian rulers erected their own sepulchral churches and prepared their representative tombs inside them. Nemanide mausolea were not only individual by also historical and liturgical memoriae. As the most highly esteemed monasteries of their day, and what’s more as centers of enlightenment and culture, they addressed the broadest interests of society. In that sense, the activities of the Nemanides as ktetors numbered, as in any other part of the Christian world, among the standard virtues and duties of the ideal ruler. In the Serbian milieu, such achievements were obviously highly valued and can thus be considered an important element of Nemanide royal ideology 456 . Like a number of similar royal mausolea in the Middle Ages, Nemanide endowments were standard bearers of the idea of statehood and centers of dynastic propaganda. They secured that status in the first place by the relics of holy rulers they treasured. These relics were the material and spiritual focus of the cult of Serbian ruler-saints. They rested in splendid reliquaries taking up the place of honor in a church interior, in front of the iconostasis. They reached that position following a translation performed upon the announcements of their sanctity and their elevation from the tomb located in the western bay of the church and marked by a sarcophagus. Thus, rulers who had passed away traveled the path, both literally and symbolically, from the west to the east. |
| In 1614 Shah Abbas informed King Teimuraz that his son would be taken hostage, and Teimuraz was forced to send his young son Alexandre and his mother Ketevan to Persia. As a final attempt to divide the royal family of Kakheti, Shah Abbas demanded that the eldest prince, Levan, be brought before him, and he finally summoned King Teimuraz himself. The shah’s intentions were clear: to hold all of the royal family in Persia and send his own viceroys to rule in Kakheti. He sought to eliminate King Luarsab II of Kartli as well, but Teimuraz and Luarsab agreed to attack the Persian army with joint forces and drive the enemy out of Georgia. Shah Abbas sent his hostages, Queen Ketevan and her grandsons, deep into Persia, while he himself launched an attack on Kakheti. With fire and the sword the godless ruler plundered all of Georgia. The royal palace was razed, churches and monasteries were destroyed, and entire villages were abandoned. By order of the shah, more than three hundred thousand Georgians were exiled to Persia, and their homes were occupied by Turkic tribes from Central Asia. Hunger and violence reigned over Georgia. The defeated Georgian kings Teimuraz and Luarsab sought refuge with King Giorgi III of Imereti. After they had spent five years exiled in Shiraz (Persia), the princes Alexandre and Levan were separated from Ketevan and castrated in Isfahan. Alexandre could not endure the suffering and died, while Levan went mad. St. Ketevan, meanwhile, remained a prisoner of the ruler of southeastern Persia, the ethnic Georgian imam Quli-Khan Undiladze, who regarded the widowed Queen of Kakheti with great respect. According to his command, Ketevan was not to discover the fate of her grandsons. Queen Ketevan spent ten years in prison, praying for her motherland and loved ones with all her might and adhering to a strict ascetic regime. Constant fasting, prayer and a stone bed exhausted her previously pampered body, but in spirit she was courageous and full of vitality. She looked after those assigned to her care and instructed them in the spiritual life. |
|
|
