Parmi les diverses variantes de l'iconographie dite de la “Majestas Domini”, appliquées à la décoration des absides paléochrétiennes ou byzantines, il y en a qui représentent, en s'inspirant entre autres des visions prophétiques d'Ezéchiel et d'Isaïe, le thème de la Parousie glorieuse du Sauveur à la fin du temps, acclamée par les différentes sortes de l'ordre angélique et contemplée par ces prophètes-visionnaires. Nous avons réunis ici d'abord les monuments appartenant à des régions périphériques, les fresques coptes d'une part et les fresques cappadociennes de l'autre, les premières s'échelonnant à peu près du 6^e au 7^e siècle, les dernières de la fin du 9^e au 11^e siècle. Grâce à des recherches récentes par A. Grabar, A. Frolow, C. Mango et J. Lafontaine-Dosogne, nous savons maintenant que le centre de l'élaboration—nous ne dirions pas de la création—de cette iconographie pourrait bien avoir la chance d'être Constantinople. Aucun exemple métropolitain avant l'Iconoclasme n'est parvenu, mais ses reflets plus ou moins directs sont encore bien reconnaissables soit dans les miniatures (Paris gr. 510, Cosmas du Vatican) s'inspirant des modèles plus anciens, soit d'après les copies et les descriptions des décorations monumentales perdues, exécutées tout de suite après l'Iconoclasme. En outre, ces dernières nous permettent de supposer une certaine modification apportée à ce même thème à la suite des discussions théologiques pendant et après la période des Querelles des Images, et d'entrevoir comment s'est éffectuée la transposition d'un thème jadis décorant une abside à la surface deux fois plus élargie d'une coupole.
A notre opinion, ce développement significatif d'une iconographie, consacrée à la décoration absidale de l'époque pré-iconoclaste, ne s'expliquerait qu'en tenant compte du développement simultané de la liturgie byzantine. Car, la liturgie byzantine—qui s'était formée pendant la même période allant du 4^e au 7^e siècle—s'inspire elle aussi à plusieurs reprises de ces visions prophétiques, ainsi que le témoignent ses hymnes de la doxologie angélique (Trisagion, Chérubikon etc.). Non moins importants sont des commentaires mystagogiques par les Pères de l'Eglise ou par les théologiens-liturgistes contemporains (Cyrille de Jérusalem, Jean Chrysostome, Théodore de Mopsueste, Narsai d'Edesse, ps. Denys-l'Aréopagite, Maxime le confesseur etc.), sur les passages bibliques introduits dans la liturgie byzantine (ou dans les autres liturgies régionales) et sur le sens mystique des étapes successives des rites ou encore sur le sens symbolique des divers actes des officiants au cours de la cérémonie rituelle. Les témoignages d'une autre catégorie des écrits théologiques, celle qui insiste sur le symbolisme cosmologique de la structure architecturale de l'édifice sacré, nous aident également à comprendre la signification de la décoration absidale: abside étant considérée comme symbole de la sphére céleste où trône le Juge souverain.
Il en résulte ainsi que ce thème de la parousie finale, une fois introduit dans le cadre de la liturgie byzantine, et appliquée à la décoration de l'abside, devant lqauelle se déroule la

View full abstract

In the Islamic World, the highest title kept by a sovereign was “Caliph” or “Sultan”. Originally the successors or agents of the prophet Muhammad claimed to be “Caliph”. They held, in the earlier periods, the supreme power either in the secular or in the religious affiars. Only with the lapse of time, they lost their secular power and became mere religious leaders. This took place especially in the late-Abbasids. Consequently the “Sultan” appeared on the stage as a person of power who had replaced the “Caliph” in the secular affairs. In short, these two titles which are important in the Islamic history underwent some changes. But, in the Ottoman empire, they were again unified under the so-called Sultan-Caliph System. It is said that in 1517, the Sultan Selim I inherited, on the occasion of his conquest of Egypt, the title “Caliph” from the Caliph al-Mutawwakil, who was a descendent of the Abbasids and eked out a bare existence under the protection of the Mamluk Sultan Tuman Bey in Cairo. That is the origin generally accepted of the Sultan-Caliph System. But we have no evidence to support such a story in the contemporary sources. Accordingly scholars tend at the present to attribute this legend, at least for its first mention, to a work of M. d'Ohsson (Tableau Général de l'Empire Ottoman, pp. 269-70, t. l, 1788) written two centuries and half later than the reign of Selim I. Moreover, d'Ohsson himself states that the abdication in question is not as a historical fact, but as a leagal theory.
That is why we may doubt a fictious character of the above-mentioned story. On the other hand, we should not overlook the fact that the Ottoman Sultan was recognized in general as Caliph in the Muslim world as well as in Europe from the 18th untill the 20th century. Why could the fiction be accepted as a reality?
At first, it is necessary to examine the problem from Islamic point of view. In this case, the conquest of Egypt under the Mamlukids and the following occupation of Mecca and Medina, the two holy cities of Islam, by Selim are very important.
Secondly, we must consider the idea of sovereignity among the Turks together with the particularities of their faith. Up to the present, the study of the Sultan-Caliph System has been limited into the scope of Islamic history. Now, isn't it required for us to take a step into the new scope, that is the history of Turks as a whole? The comparative study on their traditions, institutions or ideas in the pre-Islamic periods will be much effective for the solution of our problem.

View full abstract

In 1950 and 1951 the American Foundation for the Study of Man sent archaeological expeditions to Wadi Beihân in South Arabia which was once dominated by the Qatabanian Kingdom. During the expeditions, a small mound called Hajar Bin Humeid was excavated, and its report was published in 1969 under the title of “Hajar Bin Humeid: Investigations at a Pre-Islamic Site in South Arabia”. The reporter is Gus W. Van Beek.
This excavation was made mainly for the purpose of establishing a ceramic chronology for South Arabia. For this purpose a small area of the west side of the mound was selected, and dug down to the virgin soil, and eighteen strata or so from A to S were found together with many building remains, potsherds, and other artifacts.
From the lowest stratum S to stratum L, most structures were found to be built of mud brick without stone foundations and few changes could be seen in their alignments. In stratum K, however, the old town plan disappeared, and at the same time stone began to be used for structure foundations. In stratum G the exterior walls of buildings consisted of three or more courses of blocks and superstructure of mud brick. Then, in stratum C ahlar masonry began to be used, the technique of which was also seen in the uppermost stratum of Timna, the capital of Qatabân.
As for pottery, the most obvious aspects are its paucity and primitiveness. For instance, the potters of this site were consistently fond of using straw as tempering material, the technique of which had already been abandoned in other parts of the Near East in the third millenium B. C. Pottery unearthed was classified according to four categories, that is, choice of tempering materials (straw, steatite, mixed lithography, and sand), surface coating (slip and wash), surface finish (burnishing), and surface decoration (incised and painted). Pottery, thus classified, shows different aspects in various strata, and this difference is especially remarkable in stratum C. From this difference and that in the masonry technique mentioned above, the reporter assumes that there might be a gap of fifty or a hundred years between strata D and C.
Though it shows many peculiarities of its own, the pottery of this mound also includes a number of finishing styles and decorative motifs which are parallel and must be contemporary with developments in Syria and other parts of Orient. By comparing the pottery with those of the northern districts, dating of the strata of this site is possible to a certain extent, especially of the earlier strata. Besides these ceramic similarities, radiocarbon tests as well as glass, stone, bronze, iron, and other objects also give some clues to the chronology. From these materials, it is presumed that this site had been occupied by peasants for about fifteen hundred years from the end of the second millenium B. C. to the fourth or fifth century A. D.

View full abstract

Clement of Alexandria professes in his “Stromateis”, that he intends to treat about “gnostical knowledge”. This knowledge, as understood by Clement, is based on the Judeo-Christian revelation. “Gnosis” is the main object of Clement's research. “Gnosis” means the real knowledge of God gained through the revelation in Jesus Christ.
Clement points out, however, that the truth known by the Greek philosophers is due to the Logos of God and is a preparation of man for receiving grace. Clement considers philosophy necessary for the understanding of the Christian Faith.
For Clement the “true gnostic” in the strict sense of the word is Christ alone, but in a large sense also his precursors and perfect Christians can be called “true gnostics”. The “true gnostic” 1) must possess certain knowledge of truth, 2) he must have reached spiritual perfection, 3) he must be a teacher leading others towards true knowledge.
For Clement “Gnosis” has a very practical character. It is based on the participation in the cross of Christ; it means the leading of a new life, imitating the model of Christ. In order to become a “true gnostic” man has to follow faithfully the divine Logos and to multiply the efforts of his will. This description shows again clearly that the “Gnosis” preached by Clement has a Judeo-Christian character.

View full abstract

'äh^eyäh '^ašär 'äh^eyäh in Ex 3;14_a, which many scholars have explained and most of them connected with origin and meaning of YHWH, remains unsolved. We reexamine Elohist's intention in this passage.
Against the traditional translations or analysis of the syntax, such as “Ich bin, der ich bin” (most German versions) and “I am that I am” (AV and RV), E. Schild, translating “I am the One who is” in 1954, and Joh. Lindblom, “Ich bin derjenige, der ist” in 1964, maintained that the first 'ah^e yäh denoted “identification” and the second did “existence”. Their attractive explanations are, however, questionalbe in a few points. The comparative material which is the basis of their analysis of syntax of the disputed clause is a nominal clause, whereas 'äh^e yäh '^ašär 'äh^eyäh is a verbal one. Considering moreover that forms of god's self-introduction in the Hebrew Bible are nominal clause, we cannot equate them to Ex 3;14_a.
According to Th. C. Vriezen, 'äh^eyäh '^ašär 'äh^eyäh, which stresses the meaning of 'äh^eyäh, is a paronomastic relative sentence. In addition '^ašär is not a relative pronoun but a relative which leads up to indicating the basis of the preceding clause, the reaffirmation, the purpose, the reason and the result.
Jahwist and Elohist identified the deity of Moses with that of patriarchs, Priester code setting up a clear distinction between the former and the latter. According to K. Sacon, we can discriminate god's self-introduction and his self-demonstration in self-revelation of the patriarchs' deity materials (Gen 15;7, 26;24, 28;13, 46;3, and Ex 3;6). In this self-demonstration the god reveals his relations with the patriarchs or Moses. Thereupon we may conclude that Ex 3;11-14 indicates the extended god's self demonstration in Elohist, 'äh^eyäh in question expressing not “existence”, but “relation”. And we translate Ex 3;14a into “I'm present, that is, I'm present (with you)”. In this sence W. F. Albright's causative interpretation of this passage appears to deviate from the context in Ex 3;11-14, at the least, from Elohist's intention in this part.

View full abstract

The romantic epic, “Vis u Ramin” was composed by Fakhr al-din As'ad Gurgani in the eleventh Christian century. On account of the following three aspects, this epic may be ranked as one of the most valuable works in Persian literature:
(1) Being the earliest romantic epic extant, the work must have influenced on Persian literature to follow after it, to a great extent.
(2) It is said that Fakhr al-din As'ad Gurgani versified in Persian from the basis of the story then existed in Pahlavi (a some earlier form of Pahlavi). The process, therefore, presents important materials to the field of philology as well.
(3) The story “Vis u Ramin” is considered as a work of the Arsacid dynasty.
With regard to the last two aspects, it should be best a for us to examine what the author-himself describes about them in his own epic.

View full abstract