Chapter 2.
IMPERATOR ANDRONICUS KOMNIN OF THE XII CENTURY - IT IS JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PRESENCE IN TSAR-GRAD OF THE XII CENTURY.
- A CONCISE CHRONICLE BIOGRAPHY OF EMPEROR ANDRONICUS.
The Scaligerian-Romanov version of history tells us the following. In 1801 Alexius I Comnenus becomes the Byzantine emperor in Czar-Grad in Bosphorus and the founder of the new Komnenian (Komnenoi, Komnenos, Comnenus) dynasty. Andronicus Comnenus, murdered in 1185, was the last emperor of that dynasty.
We will use various sources describing the rule of Andronicus I Comnenus, in particular a well-known ‘Historia’ by Nicetas Choniates (also called Akominatos) [140], [141]. Choniates’ ‘Historia’ is considered to be the main and the most detailed source describing the Byzantine events of that time [44].
In 1118 Alexius I dies and leaves the throne to his son John Comnenus, who ruled from 1118 to 1143. In 1143 John’s son Manuel becomes the emperor. Manuel ruled for quite a long time from 1143 to 1180. The question of Manuel’s heir was rather complex. Manuel had a son Alexius II Comnenus, who he wished to pass the throne to, which he did in the end. But besides Alexius II Andronicus Comnenus, a close relative of Manuel I, also was entitled to the throne. According to the Comnenus family tree given in [140], p.380. Andronicus Comnenus was the son of Isaac Comnenus, the brother of Emperor John. Thus Andronicus was Manuel’s cousin on his father’s side (see fig.2.1.)
During Manuel’s lifetime his cousin Andronicus was an obvious rival of the Emperor’s son Alexius. Many thought that it was Andronicus who should have succeeded to the throne after Manuel’s death [44], p.257. ‘Andronicus’ inherited from his father the pursuit of the throne’ [140], p.292.
As a result Andronicus was imprisoned ‘in the Tower of Anema, the most terrifying prison in Constantinople. Having spent several years there, Andronicus escaped, was recognised, captured, escaped for the second time and succeeded in making it to the Russian Prince of Galich (Halicz)Yaroslav Osmomysl’ [44], p.257-258.
Later Andronicus repeatedly made peace and fell out with Manuel. He was even at the head of Manuel’s army for some time, but then he had to flee again and spent a number of years in exile. Andronicus travelled to many different countries, he was in Jerusalem, Bagdad, the Kingdom of Iconia, Damascus [44], p.258. But he had particularly close ties with the Scythians, i.e. with Russia. The Czar-Grad chronicles accused him of favouring the Scythian customs and the Scythians themselves. According to Nicetas Choniates before he died Andronicus was trying to get across to the Tauroscythae, i.e. to Russia: ’He decided to flee to the Tauroscythae, as all the Roman regions as well as the lands of the other peoples, he considered unsafe for himself’ [140], p.355. S.V.Dashkov calls Andronicus’ Scythian guard as ‘Varangian’ [44], 261. Nicetas Choniates says: ‘He (Andronicus – Author) had quite a few bodyguards, all of them were barbarians… who… mostly did not understand Greek’ [140], p.331.
At the same time Andronicus, as it is thought, did not like the ‘Latins’[44], p.258. In fact having come to power ‘Andronicus declared a war on the Latins populace of Constantinople’ [140], p.264.
After Manuel’s death in 1180 the reign passed onto his young son Alexius. But in Czar-Grad unrest was fermenting: nobility and townsmen called Andronicus to rule as czar. At the time he was ruling in the city of Enei in Paphlagonia, not far from Czar-Grad [44], p.258.
‘In the spring of 1182 the Paphlagonian troops moved on to the capital. On its way Andronicus’ army, like a snow ball accumulated the citizens of the Eastern provinces, heralding Comnenus’ entrance, who freed them from the dominance of the ‘Latins’. Just the mere name of Andronicus caused exultation in the capital, the people composed songs of adoration about his accomplishments. Andronicus Angelos, who was sent to crush the revolt, defected and took the rebels’ side … Andronicus Comnenus did not enter the capital for a long time, waiting for the right moment… Only in April 1183… Andronicus triumphantly entered Constantinople’ [44], p. 258-259.
Having become the emperor ‘Andronicus significantly reduced the court’s expenses …and flung himself into eradicating corruption of the nobles and officials’ [44], p.259. On that subject Nicetas Choniates (who incidentally had a very negative opinion of Andronicus) writes the following: ’He was generous towards his poorer subjects… He curbed the predatory behaviour of the nobles and restrained their rapacious hands so, that during his reign the population increased in many regions … Those who rendered to CAESAR the things that are CAESAR’S (once again the expression from the Gospels – Author) were not asked for more, were not robbed of their last robe as they used to before… Just the name of Andronicus … was enough for the greedy tax collectors to scatter away…; it was a scary bogeyman for those who demanded on top of what was owed, those hands that were used to only taking became numb and dropped… He did not sell the official posts, but gave them out for free and to those who were deserving. [140], p.333-334.
The nobility, including the closest relatives of Andronicus, naturally were unhappy. They thought that he offended the nobles by demanding equality for all before the law. ‘The unhappy nobility instigated the uprisings against Andronicus’ [44], p.259. Nicetas Choniates when expressing the point of view of Andronicus’ adversaries spares no dark colours describing Andronicus’ rule as ‘actions of a beast’, see in detail below. S.B.Dashkov writes: ‘The emperor orchestrated terror against the nobles previously unheard of.’ [44], p.260.
In the end, when Andronicus was in his country residence, a rebellion started in Czar-Grad in favour of Isaac Angelos, one of Andronicus attendants and distant relative (the Angelos and the Comnenus families were related). Andronicus tried to supress the rebellion and arrived to the capital himself. However he failed. Then Andronicus attempted to flee to Russia with a small circle of those close to him. But a terrible storm overcame his boat on the Black Sea and thwarted his escape. Those who were sent to pursue him captured the emperor and brought him to Czar-Grad.
Andronicus was tortured and then publically executed at the Hippodrome. The description of his torments and execution strikingly resemble the Gospel story of Passion of Christ and His Crucifixion [140], p.356-358.
Andronicus’ body was taken by ‘some people’. Then Nicetas Choniates continues with the following peculiar phrase: ‘They took the corpse of Andronicus and put it in some flat place… HERE THOSE WHO WISH CAN STILL SEE HIM; HE DID NOT DECOMPOSE COMPLETELY’ [140], P.360. It should be said that ‘Historia’ by Nicetas Choniates extends to 1206. Hence informing us that ‘his composition did not decompose completely’ over at least two hundred years sounds rather strange. Here either it was Choniates who wanted to hide something, or a more recent scribe-editor did not understand something.
Our analyses of Andronicus’ ‘chronicle biography’ will rest in particular, upon the renowned ‘Historia’ by Nicetas Choniates. Looking ahead we will say straight away that based on the facts we found out that Choniates, it appears, copied or edited some kind of old text close to the Gospels. It is possible that it was not the Gospels themselves, but some book giving the accounts of the Gospel events of the XII century.
But first of all we will remind the reader the Gospel story.
2. THE DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE GOSPEL EVENTS ACCORDING TO THE OLD BOOK ‘PASSION OF CHRIST’.
Today the four canonical Gospels are considered to be the main sources of information about the Gospel events. However along with the events framework they speak of the Christian teaching itself, interspersing the events with the parables and logia. Besides, the order of events sometimes differs in different Gospels. As an example there is a known disagreement among the synoptics, i.e. Matthew, Mark and Luke and the evangelist John in regards to the time of the beginning of Judaic Passover at the time of the crucifixion. The Synodic translation of the Gospel of John says that it commenced on Saturday, and the synoptics claim that Christ had his Passover meal on as early as Thursday during the Last Supper. Certainly, this information can be adjusted, but the problem of how does arise. Generally speaking, it can be accomplished in different ways. See the details further on.
There are a lot of books in Christian literature one way or another describing the Gospel events. These books are not limited to the four canonical Gospels. In particular, in Russia there was a well-known book called ‘Strasti Khristovy’ (Passion of Christ) giving a detailed account of the last days of Christ’s life. The book was well known and was republished many times in the Old Believers printing houses in the XVIII-XX cc. We used the new edition of 2001 [127].
In the book ‘Passion of Christ’ the Gospel events are presented in the following order.
2.1. CHRIST RAISES LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD AND HE BECOMES A BISHOP PONTIFF IN HE CITY OF KITION.
The book begins with a story about Christ resurrecting Lazarus, see fig.2.2 and fig.2.3. Later on Lazarus became the Bishop of Kition (‘Kiteiskiy Grad’) [127], p.4-7. A natural question arises – what is Kition or Kitaiskiy Grad? It was hardly situated on the territory of modern China. We will see further that most likely it meant Russia. It is for a reason that in Moscow there is still exists an area called Kitay-Gorod. In our previous publications we repeatedly spoke of the fact that in the old chronicles ‘Kitay’ meant Russia, see CHRON5, part 2 and our book ‘Imperia’ (‘The Empire’ – Tr.). Thus, Lazarus resurrected by Christ later on becomes the RUSSIAN PONTIFF.
We shall also point out that in fig.2.2 and fig.2.3 resurrected Lazarus is depicted as an ‘Ancient’-Egyptian mummy tightly wrapped up in the linen covers. The nobles were buried in the central imperial cemetery in African Egypt. In this way Lazarus is also presented in the other Mediaeval images. See, for example, the painting by Benozzo Gozzoli [81], p.77.
2.2. ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM, EXPULSION OF THE MONEY-CHANGERS FROM THE TEMPLE AND, AS A CONSEQUENCE - A PLOT AGAINST CHRIST.
Next there is described the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The description of the triumph itself differs little from the well-known canonical Gospel descriptions. But unlike the Gospels it is directly stated in ‘Passion of Christ’ that on entering Jerusalem the first thing Christ did was expel the money-changers from the Temple, WHICH SERVED AS A MAIN REASON FOR THE PLOT AGAINST HIM. It says that
"Вшедшу же Господу Нашему Исусу Христу Сыну Божию во святый град Иеросалим, вниде в церковь святая святых, и взем бич от верви сплетен и изгнав всех торгующих из церкви, и пенязи им испроверже, глаголя: Дом Мой, дом молитвы Богу и Отцу, вы же его сотвористе вертеп разбойническ (see, for example, fig.2.4 and fig.2.5 - Author) ). И се видевши, архиереи и книжники жидовския власть и славу Его, завистию вознегодоваша на Творца своего и Господа: яко людие мнози радостно хвалу воздают Ему ЯКО ЦАРЮ. Зависти же архиереи и книжники жидовския исполнившеся, начаша часто собиратися в соборище, и проклятое сонмище свое... скрежещуще зубы своими на Христа" [127], лист 9.
As a result Christ was forced to flee."Тогда паки отыде Исус от Иеросалима со ученики Своими в Вифанию" [127], p.11.In the canonical Gospels the direct connection between expelling the traders from the Temple and the plot against Christ is not stated. There is quite a detailed account of other things happening between these events. But the book ‘Passion of Christ’ draws a rather clear event line and directly points out the causal link between the events.
It is important that the book ‘Passion of Christ’ clearly states that the URGENT FLIGHT OF CHRIST from Jerusalem somewhere far, into Bethany was the consequence of the ‘numerous meetings’, i.e. in its essence the plot of the nobles and priests against Christ. Here is how this event is described by Matthew for example: ‘Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by guile, and kill him. But they said, not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him…’ (Matthew 26:3-6).
We see that Matthew omits Christ’s flight itself. After the plot Jesus as if accidentally finds himself, it is unclear why, in Bethany. The causal link is omitted, though the events themselves are the same. In this sense ‘Passion of Christ’ gives an account of events more clearly.
