Chapter 2.
IMPERATOR ANDRONICUS KOMNIN OF THE XII CENTURY - IT IS JESUS CHRIST DURING HIS PRESENCE IN TSAR-GRAD OF THE XII CENTURY.
3. THE NAME OF ANDRONICUS AND HIS ATTENDANTS.
The Greek name ‘Andronicus’ consists of two parts. The first part – ANDRO – means a ‘man’. The second part – NIC or NICA – means ‘victor’. Thus the meaning of this mane is: A MAN from Nicaea or a victorious MAN.
In the Gospels when speaking of Himself in the third person Christ almost always uses the words: ‘Son of MAN’. For example: ‘Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." (Matthew 8:20) According to the biblical dictionary ‘The Complete Concordance’, such words are used in the Gospels over fifty times [108], p.1202.Thus the first half of the name Andronicus – A MAN or HUMAN – ANDROS in Greek – coincides with the name Christ calls himself in the Gospel: Son of MAN.
Moreover the word NICA, i.e. the second half of the name ‘Andronicus’ is also closely associated with Christ. Almost on every crucifix we can see the words: IC XC NICA, i.e. ’Jesus Christ NICA’. See for example fig.2.13, fig.2.14 and fig.2.15.
Thus, the name of Andronicus is quite close to the names given to Christ.
Now the following famous passage from the Gospels also becomes clear. Pilate before convicting Christ brings him in front of the Jews and says: ‘Here is the man!’ (or ‘Behold the man!’) Here is what the Gospel of John says: ’Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
or
(When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!” As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”)
(John 19:5-6) If we were to understand this passage literally, a baffling question naturally arises – what did Pilate mean saying ‘Behold the man!’ These words sound nonsensical. As it is already clear that a man is a man. But now we can see that here the name ‘Andronicus’ was simply represented in a wrong way. A component of this name is indeed ANDROS, i.e. a MAN in Greek. Someone among the later scribes or editors here replaced the name ‘Andronicus’ with its literal translation: a ‘Man’. It resulted in a kind of absurdity. If desired it is of course possible to look for some kind of philosophical depths. This is what some do.
There is another example in the New Testament of adding the word ‘MAN’ to the name of Christ in rather an unusual manner. We are talking about The First Epistle of Apostle Paul to Timothy. There are the following words there:’For there is one God and one mediator also between God and mankind, the MAN CHRIST JESUS, man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church-Slavonic text:’ "Един бо есть Бог. и един ходатай Богу и человеком. ЧЕЛОВЕК ХРИСТОС ИСУС" – There is one God and there is one mediator between God and men MAN CHRIST JESUS [121], v.8, p.320. Indeed, it is possible to interpret this passage in Apostle’s Epistle in different ways. However, in the New Testament there is no more mentioning of the expression ‘man Christ’, see ‘The Complete Concordance’ [108] and it somewhat offends the ear. After all originally there was probably ANDRONICUS CHRIST JESUS there. But the name Andronicus was later translated as ‘a man’. It is a correct translation. However the proper name 'Andronicus' turned into a neutral word ‘a man’.Furthermore. Using the name index to the books of Nicetas Choniates we looked through all the names of the people mentioned by him who have the root CHRIS, i.e. CHRIST. It turned out that these people were directly connected specifically with Andronicus. As for instance the chief of Andronicus’ personal guards, a man utterly devoted to him was called Stephen Hagiochristophorites. I.e. Stephen Who Defends Holy Christ. As HAGIO – Holy/saint in Greek and PHORITE = Supporting, Protecting (in Greek) [44], p.262; [140], p.304-349. By the way Nicetas Choniates, or to be precise a more recent Latin editor writing under this name (see below), was clearly anxious about such a striking nickname of the chief of Andronicus’ royal guards. That is why Choniates is trying to smooth out the impression informing us that the contemporaries allegedly replaced the name of Hagiochristophorites with Antichristophorites, i.e. ‘Supporting Antichrist’ [140], p.304. We will repeat once again that the attitude of Nicetas Choniates towards Andronicus was extremely hostile and he is trying his best to tarnish Andronicus’ name in any possible way.
Here is another name bearing in it a root CHRIST in ‘Historia’ by Choniates. It is Хрисохоопул (Christochoopul) >[140], p.142. Thus a man who helped Andronicus was also given the name of ХРИСОхоопул (CHRISTOhoopul). It is possible that the word POOL originated from a Slavic word ‘PLYT’’PLYVU’; an English word POOL. It suits well a boatman who took Christ across the water, something like: Christ Pulled (referring to rowing in a boat – Tr.)And so we can see that the name Christ though indirectly is closely connected with Andronicus. For some reason it is his attendants and not those of the Byzantine kings that acquired the names with a root - Christ. We would like to clarify that the names appearing on the pages of a chronicle are often the nicknames connected with a person’s activities and not the names given at birth. For instance the name Hagiochristophorites is not a name given at birth. It is clearly connected with the activities of a person as the chief of royal guards, i.e. supporting the king (Phorite). It is absolutely clear that it was not a child’s parents who providently gave him such a name foreseeing that in many years he would become the chief of guards of Andronicus-Christ.
In the same way the name of a boatman Christohoopul most likely means something like: ‘The one who took Christ across water’.
4. CZAR OF SLAVA (GLORY in Russian) = CZAR OF THE SLAVS = CZAR OF THE CHRISTIANS.
Various images of the crucifixion show Christ being called ‘Czar of Glory’, see for example fig.2.13, fig.2.14, fig 2.17. The interpretation of such a name of Christ is considered to be not very clear. Usually there is suggested a rather general and vague explanation, something like ‘Glorious Czar’. On the other hand there is a question of the origins of the word the ‘Slavs’. Many historians including Orbini and Sherbatov commented on this subject. Some were of the opinion that the word SLAVS originated from the word SLAVA (Glory in Russian), whereas others thought it originated from SLOVO (WORD in Russian), i.e. a ‘conversation’, the Slavic language.
It is well-known that SLOVO (WORD in Russian) or LOGOS is one of Crist’s names. In the old texts Christ was called the ‘Word Incarnated’ or Logos. See also the beginning of the Gospel of John: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’ (John 1:1).
On the other hand apparently in the epoch of Andronicus I Comnenus there existed a title of SEBASTOS or SEBASTOKRATOR. It is Greek for ‘venerable’ or GLORY [21], [22]. The historians inform us: ‘The title of sebastos was used to render the imperial title of Augustus. The first person to receive this title among those who did not have the royal power was… Alexios Komnenos, the founder of the Komnenoi Dynasty. Having become the emperor Alexios Komnenos invented the titles of Pansebastos and Protosebastos, etc.’ [141], p.74. Thus the title of SEBASTOS, i.e. GLORY was closely connected with the Komnenoi dynasty, which Andronicus I Comnenus belonged to. His father was a Sebastokrator. Therefore Andronicus himself had the succession right to this title. Nicetas Chiates informs us that Andronicus ‘came from a noble family, - as from the same father, Alexios, the grandfather of Manuel, descended both czar Ioann, the father of Manuel (Emperor Manuel
Komnenos – Author) and the Sebastokrator Isaac, Andronicus’ father’ [140], p.115.
It is thought that Andronicus I himself was not a sebastokrator, and this title belonged to ‘another Andronicus’ Comnenus, his contemporary and a brother (not a cousin) of Emperor Manuel [140}, p.63. However, it is quite possible that Nicetas Choniates was confused at this point, as the brother – the sebastokrator Andronicus – is mentioned in the ‘Historia’ by Choniates only once fleetingly, but there is quite a lot said about his cousin, Andronicus I.
Thus the czar Andronicus and the Comnenus dynasty in general was closely associated with the title of Sebastos, i.e. Glory or Venerable. Andronicus was the last of the Komnenoi. We will repeat that all of them were the Sebastoses, i.e. carried the title of GLORY. Therefore the following quite natural thought occurs that the sign ‘Czar of Glory’ near to Christ’s crucifixion indicates the title of Andronicus – GLORY, i.e. the family name of the Comnenus dynasty. It is quite possible that the WORD (or LOGOS) – as the name of Christ – is a slightly distorted title GLORY (SLOVO and SLAVA in Russian – Tr.). But then the Christians, i.e. the followers of Andronicus-Christ should have received the name of the Slavs, as the followers of SLAVA (GLORY) or SLOVO (LOGOS).
We are arriving at the conclusion that the very name the SLAVS is simply another name for the Christians. It is for a reason that the Slavs in their majority are Christian. And the Church-Slavonic language is used specifically in the Christian service and only there. Therefore instead of CZAR of GLORY it could have easily been said CZAR of the SLAVS. The meaning is the same.
If in the name of Logos we omit the Greek-Latin ending OS then we will have Log or LG without the vowelization. Which is reminiscent of the word ALLAH – the God by the Muslims. It is possible that ALLAH and LOG (os) is the same word pronounced differently. Both of them are the names of God.
5. CHRIST-ANDRONICUS AS KING OF THE JEWS.
Another rather common sign present on Christ’s crucifixions and even mentioned in the Gospels is as following: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews’, see for example fig.2.18 and fig. 2.19. In the Gospel of John it is said: ’Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: jesus of nazareth, the king of the jews… The high priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews’… Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.” The argument between Pilate and the high priests is now quite clear. As Andronicus-Christ was already dethroned, that is why his opponents demanded that Pilate drop the word ‘King’. True, for a king who was just deposed a question of whether to write or not his royal title becomes disputable. However Pilate had it his way.
Thus the Romaic (Rhōmaiōn; Imperium Romanum) or Byzantine Empire of the XII century with its capital in Czar-Grad in Bosphore is called JUDAEA in the Gospels. It corresponds well with our reconstruction according to which Judaea is Byzantine, later Ottoman Empire and then - Turkey. Whereas Israel is Russia-Horde, and in a wider sense – the entire Great = ‘Mongol’ Empire including the Ottoman Empire. Incidentally it is exactly this view point given in the Bible: Judaea is a small part of Israel separated from it in the course of the division of the kingdom after King Solomon. However it is in Judaea where Jerusalem, the old capital of the Empire is situated. According to our research it is also – Troy, Czar-Grad, Constantinople, Istanbul, see [PAP] and CHRON4, CHRON5.
6 ANDRONICUS’ JUDGEMENT WRITTEN ON BEHALF OF GOD.
Niketas Choniates indignantly and wordily describes some decree by Andronicus composed on behalf of God himself. This fact troubles Choniates. He discusses this topic with irritation and at length.
We cite: ‘This judgement began thus: ‘AS TOLD BY THE LORD, and not on the orders of our sovereign and holy monarch and emperor, we decree and declare, that for the good of the state and, in particular, for the welfare of Andronicus, the SAVIOUR OF THE ROMANS, it is necessary …’ [140], p.344. In regards to the text of the judgement itself presented by Choniates, it is clearly trifling and reached us in a distorted way. But what attracted us here is that Andronicus’ royal decree was apparently written ON BEHALF OF GOD HIMSELF. And secondly Andronicus is called here THE SAVIOUR of the Romans (we would like to remind you that Christ was called the Saviour). Nichetas Choniates is outraged with Andronicus identifying himself with God, which can be heard in this judgement. Choniates’ discontent is quite understandable. He does not understand any longer that the old text he was editing refers to Christ who was referred to as God.
For some reason Andronicus hides this judgement in the palace. Soon a revolt breaks out, which somehow is connected with this judgement. At the same time ‘God’s letter’ disappears from the palace. It is this letter, and not any other relic, Choniates mentions when giving us an account of the plundering of Andronicus’ palace.
He says, that Andronicus ‘having taken the judgement … kept it carefully in his chest’ [140], p.345. After Andronicus was overthrown his palace was looted. Nicetas Choniates writes: Looting reached even the temples, situated in the royal palace, and there the decorations from the holy icons were ripped off, and even a holy tabernacle in which, according to word of mouth reaching us today, the LETTER FROM GOD handwritten by Him to Abgar, was also stolen’ [140], p.355.
It is clear that the judgement probably denouncing those who organised the revolt, was to be stolen and destroyed. And, as we are being informed, stolen was the Letter from God. The impression emerging from this is that the judgement written by Andronicus and the Letter from God is simply the same thing. To remind you, the judgement was written ‘on behalf of God’ (according to Choniates).
7. THE APOSTLES TEACHING OF ANDRONICUS AND THE BAPTISM OF RUSSIA.
According to Nicetas Chonates, Andronicus spoke of himself that ‘he travelled across almost the entire East, apostle-like, carrying and preaching the name of Christ to all the peoples, wherever he went to he was welcomed with great honours and returned with honorary entourage’ [140], p.342. Clearly Choniates does not believe one single word and attributes his words to Andronicus’ ‘excessive boasting’ [140], p.342.
But according to the Gospels Christ travelled a lot and preached to various peoples and then entrusted this mission to his apostles. Besides, as we will see it below, apostles teaching of Andronicus in the East reflected in the Russian chronicles as the Baptism of Russia by Andrew First-called. Thus it turns out that Russia was baptised by Christ himself in the second half of the XII century.
8. THE RUSSIAN CUSTOMS AT THE COURT OF ANDRONICUS-CHRIST.
N.M.Karamzin informs us: ‘According to our chronicles, Andronicus arrived at Yaroslav Galtskiy in 1165 and the same year returned to Czar-Grad… Andronicus hunted bison (Author), which are plentiful in Russia… Andronicus was martyred in 1182. The Byzantine Chroniclers say that HE FELT RELIANCE UPON THE RUSSIANS MORE THAN THE GREEKS, and hoping to leave for Russia on a royal galley he donned a barbarian hat with a pointed top’ [69], book 1, commentary 414 to volume 2, ch.16, column 164.
And further: ‘Galitskiy prince welcomed Andronicus Comnenus as a friend, the enemy of Manuel, the son of Isaac, who escaped the prison on Constantinople and gave him a number of cities as his domain. As the Byzantine Historians write, Andronicus always went hunting with Yaroslav, was present at his State Council, lived in his castle, dined at the prince’s table and was gathering an army for himself … This fugitive in several years reached the Imperial dignity: being a grateful friend of the Russians he moulded himself upon them in everything: he loved hunting, running, and dethroned he wished for the second time to travel to our fatherland; but was captured and tortured to death in Constantinople [69], book1, v.2, ch.16, column 184-185.
Nicetas Choneates informs us, that the walls of the Royal chambers which Andronicus erected for himself in Czar-Grad were adorned with Russian hunting scenes [140], p.341.
Besides: ‘At the same time Andronicus, who escaped imprisonment also returned to the fatherland and resided in Galitsa (Galiza). Galitsa (Galiza) is one of the toparchies which belonged to the ROSSY, who are also called the Hyperborean SCYTHIANS [140], p.141. Here Russia is named directly and is identified with Scythia and the place of Andronicus’ whereabouts. Subsequently, the King Manuel was anxious about Andronicus’ escape, as there were rumours circulating that he was gathering together a large SCYTHIAN CAVALRY with an intention to invade Roman territory’ [140], p.144.
9. ANDRONICUS’ WANDERING BEFORE HIS ENTHRONEMENT AND THE WANDERING OF CHRIST BEFORE HIS ENTERING INTO JERUSALEM.
The Gospels speak repeatedly of Joseph and Mary and later Christ being compelled to wander away from Jerusalem as they were afraid of Herod and subsequently his successor Archelaus. The wanderings started from the flight to Egypt and continued for a long time. After Herod’s death Joseph and Mary with the infant Christ attempted to return to Jerusalem, but got scared: ‘After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egyptand said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee’ (Matthew 2:19-22).
Thus both Herod and his successor Archelaus presented a serious danger for Christ. According to the Gospels Christ is constantly travelling. His travels end with a triumphant entrance into Jerusalem, following which over some time he was captured and crucified.
Here, for example, is how evangelist Matthew describes the journeys of Christ. Christ is born in Bethlehem, then he is taken to Egypt [144], page 8 reverse, then to Nazareth [144], p.9. Leaving Nazareth Christ flees to ‘Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali’ [144], p.10 reverse. Jesus travelled across Galilee and news about him spread all over Syria [144], p.11. Jesus enters Capernaum [144], p.17. Then it says that Jesus got in a boat (ship) and sailed to the country of Gerasenes on the other side of the sea [144], p.17 reverse (side). Jesus once again gets into a boat (a ship) and crosses over and comes to his own city [144], p.18.We will point out, that in the synodical translation instead of the word ‘ship’ there was written evasively a ‘boat’. As a result it looks like Christ sails across some small pond in some boat. It vividly brings an image of a frail little vessel suitable only for sailing along the shore or across a lake, but not in the sea (Matthew 8:23-24). The effect they wanted to achieve is clear: they wished to lessen the geographical scale of Jesus’ journeys. They ‘forced’ him to move allegedly in the vicinity of a small lake. But in the old text they clearly refer to the distant travels, in particular, about crossing a vast sea by ship. An entirely different Gospel picture comes to light.
The following passage is also very interesting. Being somewhere in his own city or its vicinity, Jesus reproaches the cities, where his significant forces were situated: "Тогда начати Исус поношати градовом, в них же бышаМНОЖАЙШИЯ СИЛЫ ЕГО, зане не покаяшися. Горе тебе Хоразине, горе тебе Вифсаидо. Яко аще в Тире и Сидоне быша силы бывшия в вас..." [144], p. 22 reverse (side). The meaning is clear. Christ is displeased with the actions of the cities, where large military powers were under his control. He was annoyed, that having such forces they did less than they could have.In the synodical translation this place, unsurprisingly, was somewhat skewed: ‘Then he began to reproach the cities in which most of his deeds of power had been done…’ (Matthew 11:20) Instead of forces which were situated in the cities, it refers to the deeds of power which ‘had been done in the cities’. But adding this word ‘done’ changes the meaning of the text. Forces which are situated in the city are immediately understood as military forces located in it. But the deeds of power which were done in the city mean an entirely different thing – miracles which were performed. The original meaning of Gospel
of Matthew here is most likely specifically in the fact that Christ had the military forces in those cities which were under his command. It is difficult to understand the old text of the Gospel differently.
But in that case we are getting a wonderful correspondence with the biography of Andronicus, see below.
To continue the description of Christ’s journey according to the old Gospel of Matthew. Jesus came to his hometown, but then having heard of the execution of John the Baptist he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place [144], p.28, p.28 reverse. Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon and from there to ‘the Sea of Galilee’ [144], p. 30 reverse (side). In the end he arrives from Galilee to Judea and enters Jerusalem, [144], p.36, 38.
Mark mentions the following places where Christ travelled before entering Jerusalem, namely: Nazareth, Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, the coastal countries, the region of Gadarenes, the regions of Tyre and Sidon, region of Decapolis (once again Decapolis), countries of Dalmanutha region (Dalmatia of the Balkans?), Bethsaida, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Jericho, Bethsphage, Bethany, Mount of Olives, Jerusalem [144], p. 59 reverse, 60 reverse, 61, 63 reverse, 65 reverse, 66, 67, 69, 69 reverse, 71, 72 reverse, 74 reverse, 77 reverse, 78.
Luke recounts the following: Galilee, Nazareth, banishment from Nazareth, Capernaum, Lake of Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee), Bethsaida, Samaria, Jerusalem [144] P. 102, 103, 108, 109, 112 reverse, 113 reverse, 115, 117.
John tells us less of Jesus’ travels. In fact he begins his narrative with Jesus entering Jerusalem. Nevertheless the following places where Christ travelled to earlier are named: Cana of Galilee, Capernaum, the land of Judea (‘Judeans’), Samaria, a city of Sychar in Samaria, Galilee [144], p. 155, 157, 158, 159 reverse.
The Gospel of John STATES DIRECTLY that they wanted to PROCLAIM Jesus the KING even before he entered Jerusalem. However he refused at that point. "Человецы же видевше знамение, еже сотвори Исусъ, гл[агол]аху, яко сей есть воистину пророкъ, грядый в миръ. Исусъ же разумевъ, яко хотятъ приити, да восхитятъ Его, И СОТВОРЯТЪ ЕГО ЦАРЯ, отиде паки в гор у единъ" [144], p. 163. See also the synodical translation (14 After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and MAKE HIM KING [by force], withdrew again to a mountain by himself)(John 6:14-15). Thus in the Gospels there remains a clear record that they wanted to proclaim Jesus king. And as we understand it now, they did proclaim him.
To sum up. According to the Gospels, Christ travelled a lot across many cities and countries prior to his triumphal entrance to Jerusalem. Let us address the story of Andronicus.
Without going into the details it can be described in following words. Andronicus spent many years in exile as persona non grata in line for the throne. There were moments when the exile would cease and Andronicus made peace with the emperor Manuel (Gospel Herod), but this would be relatively short lived. Most of his time he spent at an enforced distance from Czar-Grad [140]. In the end after emperor Manuel’s death the rebellion rises up against his young son Alexios II, the Empress-Regentess Maria and the actual ruler the protosebastos Alexios Comnenus [44], p.255-257. The whole matter ends up with Andronicus seizing the throne from Alexios. ‘The ‘Westerners’ Maria and protosebastos Alexios… by accommodating the foreigners to the detriment of Byzantium’s interests, incited the righteous fury of the intellectual sector of the society. The capital opposition was headed by the daughter of Manuel I, also named Maria, and her husband… Caesar Raymond (Renier) of Montferrat. Besides, Andronicus (the future emperor)… actively influenced the situation in Constantinople…from Paphlagonia. At Easter on the 5th April 1182 Maria Komnene, together with her husband, fled to Hagia Sophia and demanded… from Patriarch Theodosius the deposition of the hated protosebastos … on the 2nd May on the empress’ orders the Latin mercenaries stormed Hagia Sophia. Fighting erupted in the city… the resident population attacked the Latin quarters… Those few who survived the horrors of that massacre, so named the ‘Constantinople bloodbaths’, escaped the city by sea. The capital became unruly, the only reliable power left in the hands of the government were the surviving mercenaries and a fleet under the command of Andronikos Kontostephanos. The latter without delay brought the ships to Andronicus Comnenus. For the next ten months the Synkletos took power into their hands and then … Andronicus entered the capital unopposed and seized the throne’ [44], p.256-257. According to Nicetas Choniates, prior to his enthronement Andronicus travelled to various countries and lands. He fled Czar-Grad several times escaping Manuel-Herod. Andronicus ruled the cities of Vranitsova and Velingrad in the Balkans [44], p.113. For some time he lives in Galicia (Halicz) in Russia [44], p.141. Then Andronicus makes peace with Manuel and lays siege of Zemun [44], 146, then he rules over Cilicia [44], p.150, moves to Antioch [44], p.152, from there escapes to Jerusalem [44], p.154, after that he flees to Saltuch, the sultan of Colonia[44], p.155. Then he makes peace with Manuel once again. Andronicus receives the city of Oenoe (Oinaion) to rule and settles down there for a long time [44[, p.242. From there in the head of an army he enters Paphlagonia [44], p.244. From there he moves to Heraclea Pontica. Then on to the cities of Nicae, Nicomedia. Then the battle at Харакс (Kharaks?) where Andronicus won the victory over the government troops headed by Andronikos Angelos following which Angelos defected to Andronicus’ side [44], p.259. Shortly Andronicus triumphantly enters Czar-Grad [44], p.260.When comparing this story with the Gospel descriptions we can see that the framework of the events is the same. The long term travels, complex relations with King Herod and finally the triumphant entering of the capital followed by enthronement.
The Gospels call the King of Jerusalem – the enemy of Christ, by the name of Herod. In Andronicus’ story Manuel and Alexios Comnenus, Andronicus’ predecessors on the throne, correspond to Herod. We would like to note that in the family name of the Komnenoi the name EROTIKOS is present. It was the name of Isaac I Comnenus, the progenitor of the Konenoi dynasty [44], p.223. It was their family name. So all of them were ‘Herods’, ‘Erotikos’. At the same time the word ‘HEROD’ itself possibly meant ‘ROD’ (‘family line’ – in Russian – Tr.) In this case the royal family line.