A.T.Fomenko , G.V.Nosovskiy

Chapter 8.


As we have shown in [6v], the significant part of the Old Testament was created in Russia-Horde in XIV-XVI cc. Moreover, some of the books of the Old Testament were reworked in Moscow in the first half of the XVII century. However, in the epoch of the break-up of the Empire, a struggle ensued between Horde and the Romanovs. The Bible, as a holy Imperial book was also implicated in this conflict. The Romanovs alongside their Western allies did their best to obscure the true meaning of the Old Testament books to conceal the fact that contained in them was a description of the Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. It was necessary to change the attitude towards the Old Testament, to edit it with a new viewpoint. That is why alongside the rewriting of many fragments of the Bible behind the false mask of the 'ancient text restoration' the Romanovs struck a blow upon the former Hordian-Biblical beliefs from an unexpected angle. A decision was made to ridicule the original books of the Old Testament which were being destroyed at that point in order to set the way for a new edition of the same books (under the same names) in people's consciousness. To put this important plan in action, foreigners - 'Germans', were summoned to Moscow.

'Under Czar Alexei (Mikhailovich – Author) there emerged in the palace theatrical performances… Our past … quite unexpectedly found itself centre stage in a comedic spectacle, in a programme of similar mockery, only presented in a different way, the czars way, BESIDES IT IS OF GERMAN ORIGIN, which consequently meant that it was somehow more excusable to appear before the old piety. The Germans acted their plays from the Bible. IT SEEMED TO BE IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE NOTIONS OF THE PAST. But such was the force of the general movement in our life (Zabelin thinks naively not understanding the very essence of the events – Author), which carried us closer and closer towards the European world… The impossible and rejected (by the severe Hordian Domostroy – Author) in one way, seemed possible and accepted by another; and during heated discussions JUST ABOUT THE LETTERS OF SCRIPTURE, THE BIBLE WAS PERFORMED IN A COMIC FASHION ON A PALATIAL STAGE. However the matter didn't seem to be particularly heinous mainly because it was PERFORMED BY THE GERMANS, i.e THE STRANGERS, UNORTHODOX, ALSO REJECTED. FOR A RUSSIAN HIMSELF IT WAS SOMEHOW UNNATURAL TO START SUCH AN UNHEARD OF THING. How would he even dare: what would the tough authorities of Domostroy said to and do to an innovator' [282:1], part 2, p.317.

We see how subtly the Romanovs acted. The blow to the old Hordian Bible was carried out at the hands of the 'Germans', purporting that you can't expect too much of them. They are not Orthodox, they are outcasts. Let them mock the 'not so correct' Bible. It is even interesting how the Germans did it. You see what fun it is, because it is a comedy. In the end scepticism and mistrust towards formerly sacred things were successfully and surreptitiously embedded into society. Instead they quickly replaced it with new ones, having edited the Biblical text in the required key. And then they made a loud statement, that: now everything is in order. We will allow no one to mock this 'reconstructed' Bible. Even the Germans. As now the reconstructed Bible suits us, i.e. the Romanovs and the Western reformers, very nicely. In particular, all the 'Northern traces' are now removed from the Old Testament and hardly anyone could guess that many biblical books are in fact telling us about Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. And in order to kill any doubts before they could grow, as some among the not so well informed were outraged and argued, it was loudly declared that not only we have edited the Bible, but finally reconstructed its old, forgotten, definitive text written many-many years ago. On the shores of the desolate Dead Sea in Palestine, long before the beginning of our era (BC).

This shows how the Romanovs foisted their new outlook on the Biblical history. Presumably not everyone liked that at the time. Many still remembered the true history of Russia-Horde, they could see what the Biblical books of 'Esther' and 'Judith' were in fact telling them. They did not want to watch the buffoonery and ridicule which the former history was subjected to at that time. In order to break down this covert but persistent opposition, the Romanovs ORDERED THAT IT WAS OBLIGATORY FOR ALL THEIR ATTENDANTS TO BE PRESENT AT THE PERFORMANCES. Chances are that when the czar's messenger knocked on the door and politely invited you to attend 'a comedy', few would dare to refuse. The bare fact of the czar's ORDER TO TURN UP WITHOUT FAIL clearly indicates the depth of discrepancies which were tearing the society apart during that time.

It was probably considered a matter of courtesy not only to attend the biblical comedies, but also to demonstratively laugh at the grotesque Assyrians and rightly vanquished Persians. I.e. at the XVI century Hordians, recent ancestors of whom were among the audience. It was unpleasant to some of the courtiers of the XVII century Moscow, but they had to publically demonstrate their loyalty.

The underlying struggle surrounding the biblical comedies at the czar's court was intense. The Hordian opposition did its best to get its former influence back. There were grounds for hope. To remind you, at that time and up until the middle of the XVIII century, before the defeat of 'Pugachev' in the East there existed a vast Hordian state – Moscow Tartary, which the Romanovs feared so much [4v]. It is not inconceivable that the Hordian opposition in the Kremlin hoped for the restoration of the Horde in the very heart of Russia, in Moscow. After all, the boundaries of Moscow Tartary were just a short distance away.

In any way, as soon as Alexey Mikhailovich died, THE COMEDIES CEASED AT ONCE, and the jokesters fell from grace. Domostroy and Stoglav raised their heads. But later the supporters of the horde still lost.
(Domostroy - Domestic Order; Stoglav - The Book of One Hundred Chapters is a collection of decisions of the Russian church council of 1551 that regulated canon law and ecclesiastical life in the Russian Church, especially the everyday life and mores of the Russian clergy – Translator's note)


Today's version of the Russian history was created in the XVIII century based on the sources written and edited in the late XVII – early XVIII cc. This version was written in the epoch of Peter I, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. Following the publication of 'History' (History of the Russian State – Translator's note) by N.M.Karamzin this view point was disseminated among the public. Prior to this only a narrow circle of people were familiar with it. Gradually it was incorporated into the school curriculum.

The story of the 'most ancient' Russian Radzivill manuscript is roughly as follows. It was made in Königsberg in the early XVIII century, apparently due to Peter I visiting the city and immediately prior to this visit. Most likely some truly old chronicle of the XV-XVI cc. was used. BUT THIS ANCIENT RECORD SUFFERED SIGNIFICANT ALTERATION, before it became a part of the Radzivill chronicle [4v], ch.1. The old original was destroyed.

Königsberg 'Nestors' of the XVIII century adhered to mainly the Romanov version of the old-Russian history, outlined in the official 'Synopsis' of the XVII century. The idea was to create, or rather to forge the missing primary source, an allegedly authentic manuscript, confirming the Romanov version. Peter approved of the Königsberg job and since then the Radzivill chronicle started to be referred to as the 'most ancient Russian chronicle'. The primary source on the Russian history has 'emerged at last'.

But the activities on laying a 'scientific foundation' underpinning the court version did not end there. To fulfil the order 'according to the European standards' the historians from overseas were invited: Bayer, Schlözer, Müller and others. Fulfilling the order they were given they wrote a 'smoothed down' variant of the Romanov version meeting the requirements of contemporary science. Thus the Romanov version from the court one transformed into the 'scientific' one.

Still there were left the traces of alternations in the Radziwill manuscript [4v1], ch.1. This could have prompted unwanted questions. That is why it was necessary to keep the original manuscript away from prying eyes. Only more than hundred years later they finally published the Radziwill chronicle. Forgetting that it shouldn't be done by any means. As at that point the secret was out.


The real Bulgarian history is known to us only since 1280. Today the years between 1396 and 1700 are considered to be the dark period of the brutal Ottoman domination. Even before 1878, fig.97. Prior to 1280 there are phantom reflections of the period 1280-1700. The factitious transferral of the documents into the past denuded the epoch of years 1396-1700 and turned it into a purportedly dark time. But it has shined an eerily illusive light into the distant past. Later the allegedly dark period of 1396-1700 declared the 'grim Ottoman yoke in Bulgaria'. Many Bulgarian chronicles perished or were deliberately destroyed [6v2], ch.9.

Both in Russia and in Bulgaria the full blooded history of XIV-XVII cc. Horde named the epoch of the infinite suffering. Thus by shifting the emphasis' the history was turned on its head. The Bulgarian history of 1280-1700 should be called the khans and Ottoman's = Attaman's epoch. At that time Bulgaria was a part of the Ottoman Empire. The list of the Bulgarian khans includes both the local rulers, the Imperial governors and the khans-emperors of the entire Great Empire. This includes Batu Khan and George (Terter – Tr. note).

The period of the pro-Bulgarian khans of allegedly years 145-581 is the duplicate of the Ottoman Bulgarian epoch of years 1280-1700 which is furthest pushed back into the past. Batu Khan, for instance, was dated into the phantom VII century, i.e. 600-700 years into the past.

Another 'dark period' in Bulgarian history – the 'rule of Byzantine' in 1018-1186 – is also a phantom reflection of the Ottoman = Attaman epoch.

When the absurd wars between Romanov Russia and Turkey-Atamania began, Bulgaria turned into one of the battle grounds. The invented myth about the 'grim Turkish yoke' which was allegedly prevailing over Bulgaria since XIII century was put to good use by the European and Romanov diplomats to split Turkey into the Muslim and Christian Orthodox parts. Muslims and Orthodox Christians were set against each other.

Next we discovered that the old Bulgarian texts, for example 'The Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans', were written in exactly the same language as OLD-RUSSIAN texts (not to be confused with Church Slavonic). They are practically identical in both the language and the shape of the letters! Without a prior warning of what text it is – Old Bulgarian or Old Russian – it is unlikely one could tell them apart [6v2]. We had no problem reading it using our knowledge of Old Russian language. But it is difficult for us to understand later Bulgarian texts. Unfamiliar endings, distorted use of prepositions, a lot of new words.

It is clear. Having originated from the Old Russian in the XIV-XV cc. the Bulgarian language with time deviated from it and began to develop more or less independently. It did not get very far, however as there appeared some noticeable differences. The Bulgarians of the XIV-XVII cc. still spoke the Old Russian language. Aka – the Old Bulgarian or the former language of the 'Volga population'. The language of Russia-Horde. Practically unchanged, it was used in Bulgaria UP UNTIL THE XVIII CENTURY. The grammar was slightly changed. Very soon the new Bulgarian language began to differ from the Russian language. Though they remain close until today, complete equivalence has gone.

Why was this done? In order to draw the 'ethnically-linguistic' boundary between the Bulgarians and the Russians. They strived to deepen the split in the Empire. The fact that up until the XVIII-XIX cc. there were practically identical languages in Bulgaria and Russia clearly contradicted the Scaligerian history. Which claimed that the Bulgarians and the Russians allegedly lived as separate nations for many hundreds of years. But how then did they manage to keep similar languages for such a long time? As living separately they should have quite quickly started speaking in different ways. That is why we insist that the reform of the Bulgarian language was conducted consciously. The 'new world order' was being secured and the glaring inconsistencies in the 'Reformist' history of the Balkans was being smeared over.

The Bulgarians after arriving to Balkans among the Hordian-Ottoman army in the XIV-XV cc. were simply Russian. Up until the XVII century the ties between the Balkans and Russia remained very close. Hence the language was practically identical. As incidentally we see in some of parts of Russia rather distant from each other.

For the remote regions of the 'Mongol' Empire which found themselves more isolated from Russia-Horde the picture could have been rather different. The language changes most slowly on the territory of its native land. There is a large homogeneous population there. But a comparatively small group of people who found themselves far from their fatherland - for instance, the Horde-Ottoman army – land in a strange linguistic environment. The language of the conquerors begins to transform significantly faster due to the foreign language setting. Probably, something of the kind happened to the Cossack troops who in the XIV-XV cc. came to Egypt, the remote regions of Western Europe, Asia and China, Japan, America and etc.


Today the term TURKS is tangled up in the Scaligerian history. To simplify we should say that the indigenous population of Asia Minor is called the Turks. It is thought that the Ottomans are also the Turks, as the historians trace them from Asia Minor. Allegedly they at first were attacking Constantinople from the South of Asia Minor, and then, following their unsuccessful attempts, crossed over to Europe, to the Balkans and conquered the developed European countries [455]. In the end, they turned back and succeeded in conquering Constantinople in 1453. According to our results the alleged origin of the Ottomans=Attamans from Asia Minor is the historians' error. The Ottomans came from the North, from Russia-Horde and the majority of them were Slavs, and some of them were Russian Turks. I.e. those very Turks, who still live in Russia in the Volga region.

As the Ottomans-Attamans invaded Turkey-Byzantium from the Balkans in the XV century, the contemporary population of the Balkans are primarily the descendants of those very Ottomans. This is exactly why the famous Turkish Janissaries were Slavic [5v]. It is difficult to imagine the strange picture, which today is being imposed upon us, purporting that the GUARDS – JANISSARIES, the hand-picked elite unit was entirely comprised of the 'foreigners' – the Slavs. Moreover this lasted for several centuries. Based on the structure of the ROYAL GUARD it is possible to estimate which people had the leading role in the multinational army. For example, Napoleon's guard consisted of the French.

Later, as we have already said, in the XVIII-XIX cc. the Sultan court forgot about its Slavic past. They came to terms with the disintegration of the Great Empire and preferred to orientate themselves towards the West. Dissenting guards of the Slavs-Janissaries – 30 thousand people – were slaughtered in 1826 [336], v.5, p.176.


The Gypsies are a nomadic people, who to this day do not recognise national borders. Today, of course, there are also domicile gypsies, however the traditional way of Gypsy life is perennial travel. The existence of such people makes you think that sometime in the past all the places where they wandered were once a part of a one sole state. But then the Kingdom should have covered vast territories of Eurasia and Africa. It seems likely that its borders roughly match the borders of the Eurasian and African parts of the Great Empire. The Gypsies call themselves THE ROMANY, THE ROMAI, i.e. the citizens of the Roman Empire. Most likely, the gypsies are the surviving 'living trace' of the Empire. There was a time when a lot of people were required to maintain the numerous long caravan tracks connecting the remote territories. The contemporary gypsies are the descendants of those, who maintained those tracks. The very nature of this service suggested the constant relocation together with the caravans. Their entire existence was defined by travel. At least until the early XX century the life of nomadic gypsies was closely connected with the horses. This is some kind of reminiscence about the 'service as horsemen' on the caravan tracks. Following the split of the Empire the professional social class turned, over time, into a separate nation.


Russia occupied by the Western Europeans in the XVII century nevertheless 'digested' the pro-Western regime of the Romanovs. The first Romanovs controlled only a small part of Central Russia. But subsequently, after the war with 'Pugachev' in 1773-1775, having secured their position on the throne and being at the head of a vast country, the Romanovs felt themselves to be the real masters of a large and wealthy state. They 'got out from under control', lost the piety towards their former owners and decided to revive the Russian Empire in the broad sense of the word. As vague recollections of the 'Mongol' Empire still existed in Russian state circles and appealed to many. Suffice to recall the famous 'Testament of Peter the Great' in which he puts forward an ambitious program of conquering the world [4v2], ch.2:7. It is not certain for sure whether this document was written by Peter himself. Some historians dispute that. But the very fact that this 'Testament' originated from Peter's court and therefore reflected the mentality of the time is enough. Though Peter's I programme was not realised in full, however the Romanovs succeeded in reviving a part of the former Horde Empire, although on a much smaller scale. By the early XX century the Russian Empire acquired an enormous influence. Western Europe was naturally bothered by that. So maybe it is not a coincidence that the revolution, resembling the Time of Troubles in the early XVII century, took place in Russia in the beginning of the XX century.

After a prolonged global indoctrination of the people with the distorted history, an image of 'aggressive Russia' was formed, who due to its purportedly congenital malignity constantly strives to expand the sphere of its influence all over the world. The new chronology clarifies many accrued misconceptions. It becomes clear, for example, that historically the union of Russia and Turkey was the closest. Pan-Slavism and Pan-Turkism – is essentially the same thing. The Slavic conquest of allegedly the IV-V cc. and the 'Mongol' conquest of the XIII-XIV cc. are the Slavic-Turkic conquest which commenced from the banks of Volga-river. The Slavs and the Turks always found common ground in the Russian-Horde Empire.

Russia and China once had a long shared history. In the epoch of the Great Empire China was a part of it. It became independent only after it collapsed, under the Romanovs. China's animosity towards Romanovs' Russia during the Manchurian epoch can be attributed to the fact that the Manchurians left Russia-Horde. Only later the Manchurians assimilated with China and became Chinese in the modern sense [5v1], ch.6.

Vague recollections of the former Empire still exist in Western Europe. Although today people do not fully realise it, the 'Mongolian' legacy greatly influences modern life. This was vividly illustrated by the events of the XX century, when the idea of the ancient Great Empire was used by various politicians. For example, in Germany and Italy. It turned out that this idea appeals to many. On this occasion it was aimed at the war against the USSR in 1942-1945. But this leant heavily on the erroneous understanding of history.

In the reconstructed picture of the past we discovered a curious effect which we can tentatively refer to as 'the swing of the pendulum' or the 'pulsation' of the Great Empire. The 'Mongol' Empire was either expanding toward the vast borders, or temporarily diminished. There are several such pulsations which can be traced back. At first – the ancient Czar-Grad Kingdom which ended with the revolt in the XIII century. Then – the Horde Empire of the XIII-XVI which collapsed during the Revolt of the XVII century. Then – the Romanovs Russia which once again spread significantly in many different directions. Followed by the uprising in the early XX century. Then the emerging of the USSR with a vast sphere of influence. Then a new revolt and the collapse of the USSR in 1990s…

We will repeat that the main result of our research is not the reconstruction, fig.98, but the innovative approach of dating of the events. It is the chronology that forms the 'Backbone' of history and lies at the heart of the reconstruction.



The two-headed eagle - the emblem of the Great Empire of the XIV-XVI cc. – spread all over its territory which at that time covered Eurasia and the significant parts of Africa and America. But later, during the falsification of ancient history, the imperial eagle was 'pushed back into the past' and declared to be the symbol which allegedly existed long before the XIV century. As a result beginning with the XVIII century the historians and archaeologists when stumbling across here and there onto the mediaeval depictions of the two-headed 'Mongol' eagle were compelled to date many of them 'to the deepest past'.

The 'Mongol' eagles can also be seen on the monuments of 'ancient' Egypt [7v1], ch.5. For example the images of the eagles on the temples of Karnak in Egypt. Sometimes in Egypt the heads of the eagles were depicted as the heads of snakes. This shouldn't surprise us. In Russian-Horde heraldry the eagles' heads sometimes resemble those of a snake. They even depicted a long snakes' tongue from its beak. Here, for instance, the Imperial eagle on the state seal of Ivan the Terrible, fig.86 [4v2], ch.2. Two eagle-snake heads on the long necks, looking to the East and to the West.

So the images of the Imperial eagle with the snakes' heads on the temples of 'ancient' Egypt and on the seals of Russia-Horde of the XV-XVI cc. are essentially the identical. It is possible that on the early Hordian emblems which didn't survive to our day the similarity between the Russian and Egyptian heraldry was even more apparent.

The two-headed eagles on the Mediaeval and 'ancient' monuments are the Imperial symbolism of the XIV-XVI cc.
All the documents, coins and seals everywhere were adorned with a two-headed eagle. Its two heads looked East and West, which symbolised the unity of the East and the West.

The two-headed eagle reigned practically on every main mediaeval emblem in Europe. 'It is possible to list the NUMEROUS ARTEFACTS of sphragistics and numismatics of Mediaeval Europe (XII-XV cc.) on which we can see the two-headed eagle: the coins and seal of Ludwig of Bavaria, the counts of Wurzburg and counts and dukes of Savoy, the seals of King Wenceslaus of the House of Luxembourg and his seals as the Czech King Vaclav IV, the confidential seals, the coins of Bertrand III of Baux in France, the seals of the Archbishops of Cologne and Main in Germany, as well as the Fribourg coins of the city of Palermo, Savoy and Netherlands' [134], p.13. Etc.


After the collapse of the Empire some of the split territories of Western Europe kept the eagle as their national symbol. As if claiming back a part of the legacy of the Horde Empire and its history. However the right head was removed. I.e. they cut off the East head of the imperial eagle, which was indicating the Eastern metropoly of the Empire. The Western Europeans only kept 'their own Western head' of the eagle-emblem. They were striving to forget as soon as possible that very recently there existed a UNITED EAST-WEST Kingdom. As a result, since the XVII-XVIII cc. the majority of the Western European 'national eagles' look Westwards with their one remaining head. For example the contemporary German eagle-emblem. In [7v1], ch.5, we can see the transformation, for instance, of the German eagle from a two-headed one in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc. into the one-headed one, after the uprising of the XVII century.

We can see the two-headed eagle on the old emblem of the German city of Cologne [7v1], ch.5. Incidentally there are turbans and pagri depicted on the eagles' heads. There is something of the kind also on the emblems of the Emperors Frederick Barbarossa and Conrad. Later these Hordian-Ottoman 'turbans' would turn into the royal crowns. We can see such 'Reformist' crowns on the eagles on the coat of arms of the Romanovs and on the coat of arms of the Habsburgs since the XVII century. The depiction of a turban or a pagri on the old emblems of the empire was natural. The Hordian and the Ottoman czar-khans, as eventually did the Turkish sultans, often wore a turban or a pagri on their heads.

On the German map of Tyrol of 1662 we can already see a one-headed eagle looking West [7v1], ch.5. The separation of Germany and Austria from the 'Mongol' Empire became a factor and gradually it was expressed in the national symbols. It was then when the 'reformed' German one-headed eagle appeared.

At first the old symbols were 'corrected' carefully and discretely. Initially the two-headed 'Mongol' eagle was sort of cut in half to emphasise the split of the Empire in the Western and Eastern regions. There is an interesting depiction of the four eagles on the coat of arms of Berlin of 1740, fig.99. The Eastern eagle remained unchanged for some time as a reminder of the former unity of the Empire. But the central, i.e. the main eagle is already confidently looking only West. 'To emphasise' above it there was depicted another Western eagle. The meaning is clear. Germany and Western Europe are breaking away from the metropoly. Eventually the Eastern eagle was removed altogether. When the danger of the revival of the Empire was considered quite slim. Out of the four Berlin eagles only one remained – the present day one-headed German eagle looking West.

There are Western-European emblems, though very few, where a one-headed eagle looks East. For example, on one of the German barons' (similar to 'barin'? – 'nobleman' in Russian – Translator's note) coats of arms [7v1], ch.5. It may be that this very family wanted to stress their devotion to the idea of the 'Mongol' Empire. Among the military Bavarian coats of arms of the barons = barins (noblemen) we can see the Ottoman crescents [7v1]. But eventually all these Imperial, loyalist factions were crushed by the rebels. Those who survived accepted the new rules of life. 'The cutting off of the eagle-emblems Eastern heads' was only one element of the 'new ideology' in Europe.

There is an interesting coat of arms on the map of year 1634 of the city of Geneva and Lake of Geneva. The one-headed eagle is looking West. But it is clear that THERE USED TO BE A HORDIAN TWO-HEADED EAGLE IN ITS PLACE BEFORE. In order not to spend too much time on alterations the reformers simply painted over the right half of the eagle and painted a key, fig.100. It very well could be that it was done this way not only in the province of Geneva, turning the two-headed eagle into a one-headed one by violently cutting it in half. Then, when the rebellious emotions calmed down, they simply began to paint the 'Western eagle'.

As far as we could find out while analysing the coats of arms, maps and etc., the reformers always covered just the right, i.e. the eastern half of the eagle. I.e. they covered the unpleasant East. They kept only the good West for themselves.

On the map of Poland, Silesia and Bohemia of 1634 we can see a one-headed Polish eagle looking East and a one-headed Bohemian eagle looking West, fig.101. On the Western eagle floating above Bohemia and Moravia RIGHT ON ITS CHEST THERE IS STILL SHINING AN ENORMOUS OTTOMAN CRESCENT [7v1], ch.5, [4v1], ch.10:2. It is possible that eventually the Bohemian and Polish reformers changed their minds and the imperial crescent which displeased them was removed. In order to forget the recent past when the Ottoman-Hordian crescent was reigning over the entire Europe. And not just Europe. It is hardly the case that anyone in today's Bohemia would remember that some time ago this country was shielded by the wings of an eagle with the Ottoman crescent on its chest.

In the symbolism of the Western Europe of the XVIII-XIX cc. amongst other things there survived in some places the two-headed eagles, but the one-headed Western eagles are still prevalent. We don't know any official Western-European emblem of any significant state of the XVII-XIX cc. where a one-headed eagle would look East. If such do exist, there must be very few.

The Romanovs kept the two-headed eagle as a symbol of their new Russia. They cherished the idea of restoring the vast Empire, but this time under their rule. In any case such intentions are being attributed to Peter I [4v2], ch.2:17.