In Russian
Contents Huns
Contents Tele
Contents Alans
Ogur and Oguz
Kurgan Culture
Ethnic Affiliation Scythians
Scythians and their descendents
Burgund Dateline
Ephthalite Dateline
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Türkic languages
Yu. N. Drozdov
Türkic-lingual Period Of European History
Moscow, Yaroslavl, “Letter", 2011, ISBN 978-5-904729-20-2
Chapter 14. On Christianity
Preface  ¤ Chapter 1.6 ¤ / ¤ / ¤ Chapter 14


http://books. google. com/books?id=Prd4Ij5HGLQC (2nd ed. , 2011)
YNDrozdov<oops>yandex. ru

 Posting Foreword

The early Christian history supplied galore of materials for generations of scholars mostly focused on the me-world of sanctioned Christianity and Western European history. With that, heavy layers of materials were left undisturbed, leaving gaping holes in numerous disciplines from theology to linguistics, heavily loaded with “origin unknown” and accelerated glosses across inhospitable cracks. A glance at the map readily shows the extent of the terra untouchable, the early Christian territories are but islands surrounded by the lands of Scythian and Sarmatian nomadic tribes interspersed with islets of sedentary agriculturists. The cultural and technological inheritance left by the nomadic people is indelible, its distinct traits are detectable from social organization and etiology to religious traces and material innovations brought over from the lands totally unknown.

Ptolemy's European Sarmatia map ca 125 AD (Reconstr.)
Sarmatia continues east and south of the green European border, extending to Siberia and Parthia

Sarmatians, Alans, Tokhars (Dahae), Parthians, Kangars, Tele, Usuns, Sakas - all nomadic tribes - ca 1 AD
Asiatic Sarmatia continues east and north, extending to Urals and Siberia

The offered citation from the work of Yu.N. Drozdov attempts to sort out through the void left by studies, Eurocentric in general and “Western Civilization” in particular, that leave huge gaps unfilled for centuries. Scientific advances in European and religious history largely increased the gap, advancing both the civic national and Church versions of the European history, and bringing to the surface numerous conflicts that remain institutionally avoided. Numerous disciplines push scholars' ingenuity, forcing development of theoretical scenarios that explain observations without demolishing the established version. Much of the data does not fit readily into instituted models, attracting unscholarly excursions into inhospitable territories, raising problems of fundamental character, which in humanities tend to remain peacefully coexisting with the historical mythology of the day.

It may be taken as given that not all etymologies suggested by Yu. N. Drozdov hold the water, and will be properly discarded. No research gets it on the first attempt, and many explorations conclude with substituting one dead end for another, but the ball is rolling, and the wind has changed. The value of the undertaking is not in the few questionable etymologies, but in historical analysis supported by a mass of convincing etymologies. The history of the Catholic Churches propagates an idea that monotheism, dubbed Arianism and Bogomilism among other monikers, sprang onto innocent Catholic Churches from nowhere. As is frequently in history, it was the opposite, the Church militant and victorious for a moment gained power, and sprang on peoples whose religion conflicted with its dogmas by accessibility, simplicity, and aversion to religious intermediaries.

Page numbers are shown at the beginning of the page. Posting notes and explanations, added to the text of the author are shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes, or highlighted by blue headers.

Chapter 1 SCYTHIANS 17
  1. Tribes of North Black Sea Region and Neighboring Tribes 26
  2. Tribes mentioned by Strabon 39
  3. Tribes mentioned by Pliny the Elder 42
  4. Tribes mentioned by Ptolemy 51
  5. Goths 55
  6. Huns 74
  7. Avars 93
Chapter 2 ENETOI AND WENDS 100
  1. Sclavenes 107
  2. Antes 122
  3. Vandals 125
Chapter 6 GERMANS 221
Chapter 7 FRANKS 236
Chapter 8 GAUL 250
Chapter 9 BRITAIN 260
  1. Ruses 331
  2. Magars 356
  3. As-Saqaliba 387
  4. Cheremises 396
  5. Chuvashes 400
  6. Bulgars 408
  7. Burtas 426
  8. Khazars 430
  1. Antique Sources 436
  2. Ancient Scandinavian Sources 440
  3. Russian Chronicle Sources 445
  4. Muscovy 490
  5. Toponymy 522
Chapter 14 ON CHRISTIANITY 540
Yu. N. Drozdov
Türkic-lingual Period Of European History
Chapter 14. On Christianity


The Christian religion began taking shape two thousand years ago. Naturally, its religious and church terminology reflects ethno-linguistic mileiu where it formed. And that terminology would have remained the same across preaching languages and language of canonical religious texts. Otherwise, eventually religion would experience significant distortion and lose its original identity. It is believed that Christianity was born in Jewish milieu. But all Scripture texts (I.e. New Testament), beginning with the earliest, come only in the ancient Greek language. Naturally, the Greek could not be a source for these texts and, consequently, the Christian religious terminology was not Greek. But most significantly, the terminology can't be derived from the ancient Hebrew language. This suggests that the linguistic mileiu where Christianity was formed as a religion was not Greek and was not Jewish.

According to the Gospel, after resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, all twelve Apostles dispersed throughout the world, “proclaiming repentance and forgiveness of sins for those who would believe in His Holy Name". 1051 In that, indeed, was the main mission of the Apostles. In the places of their preaching started forming communities of those who repented, and having had believed in the bright Name of Jesus Christ, were waiting for forgiveness of their sins. According to a legend, it supposedly was Antiochia the members of these communities started to be named Christians. Over time, this name extended to all members of those communities, regardless of their geographic location.


According to modern understanding, in the Jesus' homeland very few were His followers. "The most significant Christian communities were formed outside of it (Jesus' homeland), first of all in Syria and Asia Minor ... By the middle of the 1st c. Christian communities formed in the cities of Asia Minor and Greece. From there, missionaries were sent to other areas, quite early Christianity emerged in Egypt, especially in Alexandria...” 1052 And of course, these communities primarily formed in the places where Apostles were sent to. All twelve Apostles went to preaching missions to various countries and regions, which included: Eastern Europe (Scythia), /541/ Asia Minor, Syria, Greece and Rome. Precisely in those regions was born the early Christianity. On these territories is reported the following: "And having risen up, the Apostles threw cast lots, who goes to where to and to what people carry salvation. And Peter had the land of circumcised, James and John received the eastern lands, Philip received the cities of Samaria and Asia, Bartholomew received Albanopolis, Matthew received Parthia and the city Mirmnida (?), Thomas received Greater Armenia and Indian country, Levi and Thaddeus Beronikida (?), Simon the Zealot (Simon the Canaanite) received Barbaria (Not Scythia: “In Jesus Christ there is neither barbarian nor Scythian” [Col 3:11]). Along with all others Andrew also cast lots, he received Bithynia, Lacedaemon (Sparta), and Achaia". 1053

In fact, the history of evangelization starts with the history of the Jerusalem Church. Jerusalem was the first location of “the first Christian church". The disciples 1.Simon, aka Peter; 2.Andrew, his brother; 3.James; 4.John, his brother; 5.Philip; 6.Bartholomew, aka Nathanael; 7.Matthew, aka and Mark; 8.Thomas; 9.James, another; 10.Simon, another; 11.Jude, aka Lebbaeus and Judas; 12.Judas, another (Iscariot) lived and taught there for some time. James, Simon, Joseph, and Judas were Jesus' brothers. Jesus' brother James was a church leader. In about 50,. James, Simon/Peter, and John called the Council of Jerusalem, which confirmed legitimacy of the Barnabas' and Paul's mission to gentiles, and  Jewish Noahide Law that gentile converts' freedom from most Mosaic law. Those sent as proselytizing emissaries were called Apostles. There were 70 Apostle emissaries from the Jerusalem Church. Only 2 disciples were sent as Apostle emissaries.

Albanopolis, Balkans
“Bartholomew received Albanopolis”
Albanopolis, Caucasus
“Bartholomew received Albanopolis”;
“Bartholomew preached to Indians”

But other sources indicate somewhat different names of territories divided among the Apostles. For example, the bishop Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine says: “...of the holy Apostles and disciples of our Savior, who settled in the whole world. Thomas, as legend has it, received Parthia, Andrew received Scythia, John received Asia ....” 1054 St. Hippolytus, telling “abot 12 Apostles, where each of them preached and where he died,” said: “Andrew, who preached Scythians and Thracians, was crucified in the Achaean Patras on an oleaster tree, and was buried right there.” 1055

The land of  Scythians and Thracians?

Later in the areas where Apostles went to emerged Christian communities. It should be emphasized that none of the Apostles ever visited either the Central nor the Western Europe. During the first centuries AD the Christian communities in the visited regions were very small. And to the Central and Western Europe, Christianity came mostly from the Eastern Europe, where it appeared in the first apostolic times.

The Christian communities formed initially were not a unified community. In this respect, I.S. Sventsitsky noted: “When we say “the Christians of the first centuries of our era” we must realize that this term is generic, it covers a variety of groups with their theology, their holy books, rituals, etc. A common feature of these groups was that they revered Jesus Christ as the mediator between people and God, although notions about His nature were very different”. 1056 The issue of the nature of God at that time was transformed into a question of a symbol of creed. On that issue were at least two main views. A part of the bishops and theologians accepted as a symbol of faith a position where God the Father, God the Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in consubstantial Trinity. A Alexandria bishop Arius at the beginning of thee 4th c. held a different view, according to which God is one and all things were created by Him, and Jesus Christ was also created. The proponents of this view on the creed started to be called (by the Church) Arians, and the theological thought - Arianism. The Christianity was split into two parts, supporters of Arius and his opponents.

In order to find a compromise and end the schism in Christianity /542/, the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 AD convened in the city Nicaea a First Ecumenical Council ("Ecumenical” = “Worldwide"). Naturally, at the Council was also present an East European bishop called Theophilus: “Among the fathers of the cathedral were a Persian John, and a Gothic Bishop Theophilus ...". 1057 In the cathedral documents he was called Scythian bishop and Gothic bishop. By decision of the Council of Nicaea the Consubstantial Trinity was adopted as a symbol of faith (credo), and the Arius proposal was rejected, condemned, and proclaimed heresy. However, the majority of dioceses on the ground probably did not agree with the decision. In this connection historian D. Belikov noted: “Arianism, condemned at the first “Worldwide” (Ecumenical) council, through cunning and perseverance of its main representatives, started to come alive soon after the council.

This is no big news, it is well-known. In the conclave gathered partisans of monotheism and polytheism, the last were the partisans of St.Paul who deified Jesus, paid lip service to his mamma, and despised his other siblings. Fortunately, the opposing dispositions were formulated beforehand, and lowly elected church custodians somehow attained dogmatic power over electorate. Monotheists were akin to Republicans, an unyielding ideological minority representing traditional monotheistic beliefs; the polytheists were a pragmatic majority in search of a compromise between various religions, Imperial state-building needs, tastes of their heterogeneous flocks, and inclinations of the super-influential Rome crowd, akin to Democrats. After much talking, quoting of authorities, and mutual insults, Republicans and Democrats took to the polls, and after a month of voting, intimidation, and horse-trading, Democrats finally won. Since the Emperor postulated unanimity, the stubborn dissenters were excommunicated, exiled, their writings were very Christianly burned, anyone in possession of writings were most Christianly executed. For a time, the Trinity triumphed, or at least was created a legislative impetus for a future triumph.

And when the heresy found its defense and protection in the Emperors Constantius and Valens, it acquired, at least in the Eastern Empire, the status of the dominating religion. Arians occupied nearly all more or less important bishoprics, most of the secular superiors were Arians, in general the cities of East were full of Arians." 1058  But the Eastern adherents of Christianity, that is the Goths, continued adhering to the Nicene Creed and did not become Arians. However, the subsequent course of historical events forced a part of Goths to change this decision. A Constantinople lawyer Socrates the Scholastic described in his “Ecclesiastical History” events that allegedly led Goths to convert to Christianity at the time of Emperor Valens, who ruled from 364 to 378. He said that during a military conflict between two Gothic rulers Atanarih and Fritingern the last turned to the emperor Valens with a request for military assistance. Valens gave support to the Fritingern army. Then Socrates writes: “ Beyond Ister, they won a victory over Atanarih and turned enemies to flight. That led to adoption of Christianity by many barbarians. For Fritingern, in gratitude for the help, adopted the faith of the Emperor, and coaxed to the same his subject barbarians. Therefore later the majority of the Goths adhere to Arianism, having accepted it for the sake of the emperor.

At the same time the Gothic Bishop Ulfilaila invented Gothic alphabet, and translating Holy Scripture to Gothic, prepared barbarians for the study of the divine verbs. When Ulfila taught the Christian faith not only to the Fritingern subjects, but also the barbarians subject to Atanarih, then Athanaric, seeing it as a distortion of the religion of the ancestors, subjected to punishment many who have adopted Christianity, so that barbarians adhering to Arianism then become martyrs". 1059

Tengriism is a non-hierarchical syncretic religion, open to any external influence. At the same time, since it is based on personal reincarnation, it is inherently personal religion, free of dogmas and intercessors. Switching from personal religion to sanctioned religion presents the same problems that would face today's born again Christians compelled to convert to a religion like Roman Catholicism with its dogmas and dictates of hierarchy: it is no go, nobody with a sane mind would abandon direct contact with Almighty in favor of sweet-and-thunder talking middlemen. Thus, the first hurdle in conversion is not the choice between scholastic dogmas, but a choice between the Almighty and middlemen pretenders, with no chances for middlemen. The second hurdle is that the Church advocated Christianity with hierarchy, while Tengriists could only accept  Christianity without hierarchy, i.e. accept divinity without apparatus that claims to represent that divinity. Hence, all Christian ecclesiastical memoirs do not address the heart of the problem, with their unstated a priori acceptance of equivalency of hierarchy and religion and the middleman-sponsored salvation; they depict change of religion or switch between denominations as routine and easy step, akin to changing hats, while the subject is communion with the Almighty and personal reincarnation at the will of the Almighty. And the ancestral tradition of dealing directly with the Almighty could not be improved by substituting a divine offspring for the Creator; the concept of divinities created by the Creator to handle earthly tasks was already integral to the asestral religion; adding another divine creature was consistent with the etiology of the ancestral religion, while splitting Almighty into separate functional entities was not an easy concept to syncretize, and the concept of statutory priesthood was totally alien to the people who could pray in their own language anywhere and anytime directly to the Almighty.


In that report, three points draw attention. First. From the context, before the events Goths were not Christians. That seems strange and suspicious: after all, Socrates was of course familiar with documents of the 325 Nicaean Council, with signature of the Gothic bishop Theophilus. Second. Due to the efforts of Bishop Ulfila, all Gothic tribes switched to Arianism, not only those on the right bank of Danube. Third. It is unlikely that all Gothic barbarians became Christians only out of gratitude to the Emperor Valens. Something is clearly wrong.

From other sources can be reckoned that the events unfolded somewhat differently from Socrates description. In the second half of the 4th c. Huns started attacking Goths in the north, and a part of Atanarih subject Goths decided to seek refuge in the territory of the Roman Empire. Ammianus Marcellinus described these events: “Therefore, most of the people who left Atanarih because of lack of provision were looking for a place remote from any rumors of the barbarians, and after many meetings on how to choose a place for settlement, decided that the Thrace would be a perfectly suitable refuge for two reasons; firstly becauseit has extremely fertile soil, and secondly, the strong flow of Ister separates it from the fields already open  ...for the thunderbolts of the alien Mars. The same have also decided the others, like at the general assembly. So, led by Alaviv they occupied the Danubian bank, and having sent envoys to Valens, humbly asked to take them, promising to live quietly and to provide assistance as the circumstances required.” 1060 The Emperor Valens allowed Goths to cross Danube and settle in Thrace. Among these settlers also was the bishop of the Gothic Diocese Ulfila. For the Gothic migrants in religious terms has developed a rather difficult situation. Because half a century ago, in 325 at the Council of Nicaea the Gothic or Scythian (which are the same) Bishop Theophilus signed documents condemning Arianism. And after Arianism has once again revived in the empire, probably the Gothic diocese was not affected (Probably Ulfila's signature did not affect Goths either, it only obligated Ulfila to preach to his flock that instead of Almighty they need to appeal to divine Christ, a dubious proposition). But the Goths who settled in the Danube in the territory of the Roman Empire faced a choice: either they had to accept Arianism, revived in the empire, or they found themselves in hostile religious environment (This supposition is based on a premise of people bound in sedentary settlements and subject to coerced worship, which conflicts with the known Gothic enology. Dispersed population tending to their herds does not fall into category of coerced worship). And they took the first option (This supposition is based on a premise of the masses of Goths having already switched from their monotheistic religion to the Trinity religion, a dubious proposition). An important if not decisive role was played by their bishop Ulfila, who headed the embassy of the Goths that asked Emperor Valens to allow them to settle in the empire.

Here is what a Constantinople lawyer Hermia Sozomen wrote about these events in his “Ecclesiastical History": “At the head of this embassy was the bishop of Gothic people Ulfila ... I think, however, that this fact alone (a gratitude for the support of Emperor Valens in fight against Atanarih - Yu.D.) /544/ not was the reason that until now the whole Gothic tribe adheres to the Arian belief: after all Ulfila, who then was their priest, at first in no way departed from the Catholic Church ... But when he came back to Constantinople, it is said that he has entered into a discussion on dogmas with the followers of the Arian heresy, and having received a promise of help with the emperor in the affairs of his embassy ​​if he would believe the same with him, he under influence of the need or having recognized it better to to think that way about God, entered in communion with the Arians, and tore himself and all his people from the Catholic Church ... This is the reason why almost all the barbarians inhabiting Ister keep to the Arianism.” 1061 This report confirms that the Goths were forced to adopt Arianism (Like changing hats. In exchange for abandoning future personal reincarnations and eternal cycle of life, they've got what? A promise to intercede with an Emperor? Would you exchange your eternal salvation for a promise to intercede or anything else short of immediate threat to your life? And if you did, how sincere you would keep it?). And it is also noted that all Gothic tribes became Arians, not just those that have moved to the right bank of the Danube. This corresponds with the Socrates' message.

The only conclusion drawn from the story is that the Goths were monotheists (“Arians”) from the very beginning, and were not changing their religious traditions like old hats. Most peoples of the Roman Empire were promised eternal life through Christianity, a novel concept that did not exist in their religions, and could be persuaded to trade their Hades for a new shining Paradise. Not the Goths, who already had eternal reincarnation, and had nothing to be enticed with. The were born with knowledge that they are God's creatures, their lives were run by God, God personally endowed each one with his soul, and at death they return back to God for future disposition through reincarnation.

A few years after these events in the history of the Christian Church of the Roman Empire occurred events that dramatically changed its fate. In 379 the Roman emperor Gratian appointed as an August (his co-ruler) a chief of the Roman army Theodosius. Under an influence of Arianism's opponents, sometime in 380 the Emperor Theodosius issued an edict, a legislative act, which stated:

“We desire that all people, ruled by our mercifulness and moderation, firmly held the religion which St. Peter taught the Romans, which was faithfully preserved by tradition and which is now professed by the priest Damas and Alexandrian bishop Peter, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the teachings of the Apostles and the rules of the Gospel we will believe in one divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with equal greatness uniting in the blessed Trinity.

The followers of this doctrine we permit to take the name of Catholic Christians (Christianorum Catholicorum), and all others we hold to be cockamamie madmen, brand them with ignominious name of heretics (haeretici dogmatis), and declare that their gatherings should not arrogate the honorary name of Churches (Ecclesiarum). In addition to the sentence of divine justice, they should expect severe penalties, which our power also may like to impose on them...” 1062

Thus, the Catholicism in the Christian religion was introduced by a personal edict (a secular legislative act) of the Roman emperor, without any discussion and without any religious and moral argumentation. In 381 was convened a Second Ecumenical Council, where has been restored and supplemented the Nicene symbol of faith (Nicene Creed), and all dissenters were condemned. But the Christians of the Scythian tribes, in particular the Goths and kindred peoples, not subjects of the Roman Empire, /545/ had not changed their symbol of faith and remained faithful to Arianism. So, Constantine Porphyrogenitus wrote: “At that time the Goths and other numeous nations lived in the most northern regions up to the Danube. Particularly noteworthy of them are the Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, and Gepids, except in name no different from each other, and speaking the same language. They all profess the craze of Arius. At time of Arcadius and Honorius, having crossed Danube, they settled in the land of the Romans. And the Gepids, from which later descended Longivards and Avars, occupied lands in the districts of Singidon and Sermius. The Visigoths, who devastated Rome with Alaric, went to Gaul and took possession of its population. And the Goths, who at first possessed Pannonia, after 19 years in the reign of Theodosius Junior, after his permission settled the lands of Thrace, and after spending 58 years in Thrace, under a leadership of their patrician and consul Fevderic, with permission of Zinon, seized the western kingdom (Western Roman Empire). As for the Vandals, they united with Alans and Germanic tribes, now called Franks, and having crossed the Rhine under the Godigiskl leadership, settled in Spain...” 1063 This message implies that Christianity in the form of Arianism was brought over to the Central and Western Europe by the Goths and their kindred tribes, who settled there from the beginning of the 5th c. In other words, the Christianity to the Central and Western Europe had been brought from the Eastern Europe by the  Scythian tribes only in the 5th c.

It should be noted that the Catholicism was initially introduced within the Roman Empire by piecemeal. Here's what noted on this D. Belikov: “Coming from Thessaloniki (where Theodosius signed his edict on introduction of Catholicism - Yu.D.) to Constantinople, the emperor demanded that the local Arianist archbishop Demophyl chose one option: either to embrace the belief in consubstantiality, or retire from the archbishop chair (This is beyond unimaginable: “I demand you to believe”! To today's ears it phonemes incomprehensible, the best that could have been demanded was to pretend to believe. That's what happen to you if you are raised with the army discipline).

Demofil preferred the latter, and immediately, by the will of the King, his post was taken by St. Gregory Nazianzen. Then followed orders to take churches away from the Arians, into exclusive possession of the Orthodox (Catholic - Yu.D.) denomination, first only in the capital city, and soon thereafter in all other cities and provinces of the East (Eastern Roman Empire, Byzantine). The convened in 381 Second Ecumenical ("Worldwide") Council, having solemnly restored and complemented the Nicene Creed, declared anathema on all obstinating in disagreement with the truth. The actions of the secular government in respect to heretics were reinforced afterwards. Stricter regulations confirmed the former edicts regarding the transfer to the Orthodox (Catholics - Yu.D.) of the churches, and was forbidden to the “Arians, Eunomians (Anomeans) and Aetians” to build and open new churches or houses of worship, on pain of forfeiture of both the buildings and land belonging to private individuals and estates, wherever such illegal buildings would be found" 1064. Thus, the Catholicism was introduced by administrative feat at first only in the Eastern Roman Empire.

The part ortho in Orthodox is one of numerous words strikingly reminiscent of the Türkic lexicon in phonetics and semantics. In Türkic utra is in front, opposite, otra is center, middle; both indicate spatial location in respect to a viewer, and related figurative extended semantics, identical to the Greek ortho = straight, right, proper. In Türkic otra became center of the army, i.e. horde, many languages have calques of Greek ortho meaning “square, right”, as in “square deal” and “right attitude”. Highly unlikely that a Greek word was borrowed by Sakha Yakuts, but Greeks could likely acquire it from the Scythians and their predecesors.


The linguistic, and consequently the ethnic milieu where Christianity formed can fairly safely be determined by examining semantics of the original, reliably Christian, names and terms.

The first Christian communities outside of Palestine were established in Syria, Asia Minor, Scythia, Greece, and in Alexandria. In that regard, I.S. Sventsitsky noted: “It seems that already in the 1st c. in some communities were elders-presbyters; their functions, as can be judged from the fragmentary data, were organizational and economic: they distributed aid, collected contributions, visited the sick and prisoners. The presbyters were elected by communities, and inaugurate by the most revered preachers (Apostles). In the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles of Paul presbyters are also called bishops... Till some time these were not different positions, just the supervision over the inner life was one of the elders' functions.” 1065 From the above description follows that  from the 1st c. in the Christian communities presbyter and bishop were names for elected official, whose responsibility was organizational and economic functions. And at the time they were not clergymen yet.

The semantic and etymological analysis of the words 'presbyter' and 'bishop' shows that they both are typical, somewhat distorted Türkic words. The word 'presbyter' can be parsed into its constituent parts as follows: pr-es-vit-er (With some gentle accent). The first component pr is a non-vowelized phonetic version of the word bar 'is, is there'. The second component es is a distortion of the word ys 'smoke, soot'. The third component vit is a Latin pronunciation of the word bit 'face'. The last component er is a phonetic version of the word er 'man, male'. The original title of this position was barysbiter with semantics 'man with sooty face'.

Conventional or Greek etymology: The word presbyter derives from Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros), a comparative form of πρέσβυς (presbus), “old man", link.

The Greek etymology solely substitutes one Greek unknown with another Greek unknown, demonstrating usage of the word in a sense “elder, superior” in derivative semantics ascending to Homeric time, but does not demonstrate the Greek origin; essentially the Greek etymology is a dead end that not only leaves the source an open question, but necessitates a search for a non-Greek source. In Greek, “old man” is γέροντας (gerontas), a far cry from πρέσβυς (presbus). The barysbiter remains a viable tentative source.

The word 'episcope' can be parsed into its component parts as follows: ep-is-kopp. The first component ep is a phonetic variant of the ancient Türkic word eb (əb) 'house, lager'. The second component is is, a Latin pronunciation of the ancient Türkic word ys 'smoke, soot'. The last component kop is an ancient Türkic word kop 'rise, exalt'. The original title of this post was ebyskop with semantics 'rising smoke of house' or 'smoke rising above house'.

Conventional or Greek etymology: The word episcope derives from Greek επίσκοπος (epískopos), which means “overseer" link.

It is obvious that episcope is a Greek synonym of presbyter with more transparent meaning for the Greek-lingual users. Since the Greek origin of επίσκοπος is inescapable, the Türkic alternative is not warranted.


The semantics of these two names allows to understand the following. The names 'presbyter' and (not the) 'episcope' came from the pre-Christian religious-conceptual traditions, /547/ which were associated with reverence to fire, widespread at many ancient European nations. The responsibility of the host at first may have included only starting and maintenance of the fire, that is “smoke rising above house'. After prolonged stay at an open fire, the face of the host was of course covered with soot, becoming 'smoky', and he was called barysbitir. Somewhat similar functions relating to the maintenance of fire also performed the episcope. Over time, presbyters and episcopes apparently carried other household duties related to the religious activities. And when the first Christians began forming communities, the community members involved in administrative activities were traditionally called presbyters and episcopes. But since both these names addressed the same duties, eventually survived only one, the episcope, which later acquired new content and meaning.

Incidentally, the name of the ancient Egyptian Christian community, 'Copts', also ascends to the Old Türkic word kop. Into its constituent parts the word 'Copts' is divided as follows: kop-ty. The first component kop in this context can be translated as 'rise', the second part ty is here an affix of tribal marker. The semantics of the names Copts would be “sublime tribe".

Conventional or Greek etymology: Copt is a reverse borrowing into Egyptian of Greek word for Egyptian Αiγύπτιος “Egyptian", link. The Türkic alternative is not warranted.

Disciples of Jesus Christ were called Apostles (Disciples of Jesus Christ were called disciples. Apostle was the name for traveling proselytizing missionaries). This is a slightly distorted Türkic word which can be parsed into its component parts as follows: ap-os-tol. The first component ap is a corruption of the ancient Türkic word eb (əb) 'house, lager’. The second component os is a somewhat distorted word ys 'smoke, soot'. The last component tol ascends to the root of the verb tolurga 'fill up, fill'. The original name was ebystol with semantics '(someone) filling house with smoke'. Again, this name ascends to the ancient reverence to fire, to the pre-Christian religious beliefs. It is easy to see that the names ebystol (Apostle) and ebyskop (episcope) have very close semantics. This suggests that in the original, the original meaning of these words might even be synonymous (The similarity is deceptive, episcope is a Greek word). Incidentally, in the modern Balkar language the word 'Apostle' has a form abystol, and in the  Khakas language the word abys means 'clergy, priest".

I.S. Sventsitsky, who studied the inner life of the Christian communities in the mid-first century, noted: “Community meals (potlucks) apparently were a main component of the  Christian assemblies... The Christians, surrounded by pagan customs, filled the community meal with new meaning, turning it into a rite of Eucharist (Thanksgiving, a word that also existed in the pagan lexicon), breaking of bread and wine, like they also filled with new meanings the concept of gospel and ekklesia.” 1066

This fragment contains three Christian Church's terms: Eucharist, Gospel, and ecclesia. Above all, it should be noted that all these terms existed “in the pagan lexicon". In other words, they were borrowed from the pre-Christian religion. The word 'Eucharistia' (in Greek transcription ευχάριστία) can be parsed into its component parts as follows: eu-charis-t-ia (Considering that the Greek eucharist means “thank you, thanks”, etymologizing eucharist is as productive as etymologizing Germanic “thank you”, Slavic “spasibo”, or Romance “gracias” and “merci”). The first component eu is an ancient Türkic word ev (əv) 'home, premises'. And the second component charis is obviously quite distorted in the Greek transcription Türkic word with three phonemes substituted. The Türkic language has phonemes that do not exist in Greek. In particular, these are [k], [y] [sh]. Usually, in the Greek transcription as a rule they were replaced with the phonemes [x], [i] [s]. And in this case, these three phonemes are present in this word. Therefore, retracing substitution of the phonemes allows to understand that the distorted formant charis in Türkic may correspond to the original ancient Türkic word qarïš (karysh). This polysemantic word has the meanings:
to meet;
to be different, differ, oppose;
gather for competition, battle, or fight;
feud, quarrel.
The third component t is a short version of the affix -ty. The last component -ia, in this case is likely to be translated as 'Lord, Lord's'. Combining these, the original term had to have the form evkaryshtiya. Its semantics is determined by the second component. From the above statements of I.S. Sventsitsky follows that Eucharist was originally a  name for a meeting and joint meal of co-religionists. And they were gathering together because they were united by beliefs in certain common spiritual meanings, different from the others. Accordingly, for the meaning of karyshty for example can be taken 'differing'. Then the semantics of the word evkaryshtia can be 'Lord's house of differing'. Can't be also excluded the with semantics 'Lord's house of gathering (people)' (Conventional or Greek etymology: εὐχαριστία (eucharistia) for thanks, thanksgiving does not warrant an alternative etymology, link).

Now, regarding the possible semantics of the word 'Christian'. This word, according to the text of the “Acts of the Apostles” of the New Testament (Acts 11:26), first came into use in the 1st c. to refer to the supporters of the new faith in the city of Antioch. However, neither the ancient nor the modern written sources have convincing materials on the semantics and etymology of the term. In Greek, this word has the form Χριστιανοί, and in Latin Christianorum. /549/ In the considered above word 'Eucharist' draws attention the formant charis, which corresponded to an equivalent Türkic-lingual qarïš (karysh) with the above meanings. Treated as a separate word, in Greek transcription it could be written without a vowel in the first syllable - 'Χριστ' or in Latin transcription 'Christ'. And in combination with anti formant, which is a distorted Türkic word en 'category, genus', this term will receive a form of 'Christian' or 'Κristian'. Accordingly, in the original Türkic version this word can correspond a version karyshtyen with semantics 'differing tribe'. Can't be excluded other semantical versions within the above listed meanings for  karysh.

Some ancient European tribes had two names, one name was ethnonym, and the other name was given to the tribe by their religious beliefs. Sometimes the religious-conceptual  name solidified as an ethnonym. And in this connection, the endonym of one of Türkic Christian nations is of interest.

In the Itil arrea in Tatarstan, is a home to a small indigenous Türkic-lingual people who profess Christianity from the earliest times. The endonym of this nation is Kerəshen, and the Russians call them Kryashens. It is presumed that 'Kryashen' is a corruption of Kerəshen, which in Russian means 'baptized' or 'christened'. The word Kerəshen can be parsed into its component parts as follows: kerəsh-en. It is likely that the first component kerəsh may be a phonetic variation of the ancient Türkic word qarïš (karysh) with the above meanings. The second component en is 'clan' or 'lineage'. Accordingly, the original form of this etnic name could be karyshen with semantics 'outstanding tribe' or 'tribe of gathering (people)'. Apparently, grammatically and semantically the word Karyshen ascends to the word Karyshtyen, which is the original version of the Türkic word, recorded in the Roman script as 'Christian', and in the Greek as 'Χριστιανοί'. The presence of the affix -ty (-ti) does not essentially change the semantics of the word. It seems that the ethnonym Kerəshen or 'Kryashen' ultimately ascends to the word 'Christian'. Thus, the endonym Kerəshen probably ascends to the notion of 'Christian' and not 'baptized'.

The Russian  'baptized' ~ “kreschen” is semantically “crossed”, which is much homophonic with the Russian  'Christ' ~ “Khristos”, hence the semantics could  be cross-laced and attributable only tentatively. Türkic Christians are known from times long before the emergence of Rus and Russia, and Türkic people lived through many waves of forced baptisms and relocations, so the time of the appearance of the term Kerəshen is extremely obscure


Now we turn to the name of Jesus Christ (Χριστός ~ Khristos ). It is not possible to establish the time of appearance of this name from the written sources yet. It is clear that this happened after the emergence of the name 'Christians' and it could not happened in his lifetime. In Latin transcription the name has a form Iesu Christi, and in Greek Ίησούς Χριστος.

Iesus was a Greek rendition of the name Ieshua, English rendition is Joshua and Yeshua, the Hebrow “Yeshua ישוע Ha Mashiach” מָשִׁיחַ is English Yeshua the Messiah ~ Massaya ~ מָשִׁיחַ.  with acquired semantics “chosen liberator of people”, i.e. Yeshua the Liberator. Yeshua ישוע in Hebrew is verbal derivative from “to rescue", “to save".

The etymological sequence is Heb. שמן shemen “oil", שמן המשחה  ha-mishchah “to rub (oil), to oil”  =>  Messiah; Gr. calque χριην khriein =  “to rub (oil), oiled”, from χρισμα “oil with balzam” => Χριστός “chosen liberator of people”, hence  Ίησούς Χριστος = Iesus the Liberator, semantically transfigured to Iesus the Saivior. Etymologically, the Greek composite Jesus Christ = Yeshua the Liberator is a tautology common in foreign adaptations: Rescuer the Rescuer.

In Türkic the same concept of oiling is expressed with the term Jalair = “Oiled Man”, known from Manichean rituals, with the same semantics of “oiled” = “chosen” = Jalair = Messiah = Χριστος, but without Christian entailments. Jalair was a name of the dynastic clan in the Uigur Kaganate.


The first part of the name Iesu or Ίησούς in Russian has the form 'Iesu'. That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: Ie-su. /550/ The component Ie in this context is the phonetic variant of the ancient Türkic word Ijä (Iyə) 'Lord, Almighty'. The second component su is a third person possessive affix singular. In the literal sense of the word, Iyəsu means 'Lord, somebody's Lord'. The second part of the name Christi or Χριστος is a Latin, and respectively the ancient Greek transcription of the ancient Türkic word qarïštï (karyshty) 'distinct' or 'gathering'. The original form of the name was Iyəsu Karyshty with semantics 'Lord of distinct (people)' or 'Lord of gathering (people)'. It should be noted that the ancient word iyə (s) 'owner, lord' was used only as a name for divine patrons (Greek Gods, Christian anthropomorphic saints, Tengrian Alps = protecting angels innately non-anthropomorphic, but able to adopt earthly anthropomorphic appearance). But before Christianity, it was never a name for the Almighty God (The name Tengri = Heaven retained its original name for the Almighty in all Türkic languages independently of conversion to Islam, Christianities sanctioned and persecuted, Buddhism, etc.)

The composition of the Bible, the main books of Christians, has four Gospels (Greek Euangelion, Latin Evangelium, fr. Greek eu- “good", -angelion “message"). Into its constituent parts the word 'Euangelion' can be parsed as follows: Eu-angel-ion. The first component eu is an ancient Türkic word  ev (əv) 'home, premises'. The second component angel is the word angly (in non-Türkic pronunciation 'angly'), which in this context should be translated as 'wise' (in this sense the word is used in modern Karachai language). The last component ion in this case is an ancient Türkic word ijä (iye) 'master, lord' in relation to God. The original name had the term Evanglyie with semantics 'House of wise Lord' or 'Receptacle of wise Lord'. But a somewhat different semantics may have eisted. The ancient Türkic word ev (əv) in a figurative sense also means 'part of the heaven'. Then the word Evanglyie in this case may have with semantics 'Heaven of wise Lord'.

From the contents of the Emperor Theodosius edict follows that gatherings of Catholic Christians were called Ecclesiarum. All people who at that time were under the rule of Constantinople automatically became Catholics (Too bad Theodosius did not order them to become butterflies, all Romans would instantaneously become flying Romans), and their meetings were called ἐκκλησία 'ecclesia'. Over time, these people switched to European inflected languages (I.e. Indo-European), but the name survived, with some distortions due to phonetic features of each language. Thus, in French the word became eglise, in Spanish Iglesia, in Welsh eglwys.

The word 'ecclesia' was borrowed from the ancient Greek, where it had the following meanings: a place or premises for meetings, assembly, popular assembly, general assembly. Originally, the word had nothing to do with religion, and its semantics is not traceable from the Greek language. But it seems it is derivable from the ancient Türkic. /551/ The word can be parsed into its component parts as follows: ek-kles-ia. The first component ek is somewhat distorted word ak 'bright, white'. The second component kles probably is a distorted ancient Türkic word qal¿siz (kalysiz), which means “complete, absolute". The last component ia in this case probably has with semantics 'household, territory, place'. The original name could have a form akkalysiziya with semantics 'brightest area' or 'brightest place'.

After introduction of Catholicism a part of the Christians remained Arians, and called their religious meetings differently, because according to the edict of Theodosius “their gatherings should not arrogate the honorary name of Churches (Ecclesiarum)” (Too bad Theodosius did not order them to call mammas papas, all Roman mamas would instanteneously become papas). The actual name of the religious meetings can be guessed by analyzing terms related to the Russian concept of 'church' in the languages ​​of some European nations, whose ancestors remained Arians. Table 43 shows terms in seven European languages.

Table 43    
No Language Original Parsing
1 2 3 4
1 German Kirche kir – he
2 Dutch Kirche kir – ke
3 Norwegian kirke kir – ke
4 Swedish kyrka kir – ka
5 English church kur – ê
6 Czech cirkev kir – kev
7 Russian tserkov tser – kov

Transcription of these versions requires some explanation. All versions in the third column, with the exception of Russian, are distorted records in Latin lettering of the same Türkic word. It is evident that the Russian version is very similar to Czech (Slavic) cirkev, where the initial letter stands for a phoneme [ts] rather than [k]. So, instead of 'kirkev' or 'kerkev' comes out 'tserkov' (cf. Kimbrs - Tsimbrs). In English version the letter combination ch now reads like Ch in Charlie. But in ancient times, this combination in Türkic words denoted the Türkic phoneme [q]. Accordingly, the word church sounded like 'kurk' or 'kirk'.

The parsing analysis indicates that the first component the considered term is an ancient Türkic word kir 'enter'. /552/ The second component in the first five versions is obviously a somewhat distorted word ka, while in the last two versions it is a corruption of the word kyu. In Türkic language they both mean 'light' (Like in Scythian Kau-kas for Caucasus, “White Rockies", with kas = rocks). The formant ka is a phonetic version of the word kyu. Thus, among the Christian nations of the Arian faith in the Türkic-lingual period of their history, the religious gatherings became known as a kirka or c kirkyu with possible semantics of 'light entry'. Since that time, the name has changed very little. In Russian, the parish ("neighbor", from Gr. para- “near” + oikos “house") over time probably acquired the semantics of the concept 'coming, entry' (Russian parish = “prihod” = 'coming').

The etymology of the word Church/Kirche/Tserkov from Greek is well-established, although the Greek - PIE connection is quite dubious:

Church - O.E. cirice "church, public place of worship, Christians collectively", from W.Gmc. *kirika (cf. O.S. kirika, O.N. kirkja, O.Fris. zerke, M.Du. kerke, O.H.G. kirihha, Ger. Kirche), from Gk. kyriake (oikia), kyriakon doma “Lord's (house)", from kyrios “ruler, lord", from PIE base *keue- “to swell” ("swollen,” hence “strong, powerful"). On kyrios “ruler, lord” and PIE see note below.

Gk. kyriakon (adj.) “of the Lord” was used in the East for houses of Christian worship since c.300; it was probably used by Gothic people in pre-Christian period. Also picked up by Slavic (cf. O.Slav. criky, Rus. cerkov). Romance and Celtic languages were not infected by Gothic version, they use variants of L. ecclesia. Fr. église (11c.) is from L. ecclesia.

The pantom PIE *keue- “to swell” leading to “Prince” is quite dubious, considering the proliferation of straightforward cognates of Kir in Türkic tutelage quite remote from the *PIE and Greek languages: Sumerian Ishkur was recorded as early as 26th c. BC, Gor in Egyptian mythology, Western Huns' god of war Kuar, Chinese rendition Ching Lu, Türkic Kurbat, Gur-Khan, Gur as part of tribal names, Gurchi and Kuarchi for royal bodyguards for Chingizids and Safavids, Charik for Khan's guard regiment, Jenichars for Ottoman swordsmen, Gorgud and Korkut for prophets, Persian Gurchesh and Cyrus, all point to continued cultural borrowings. In Sumer the word “kur”means “foreign hostile country”, hinting on invaders. The Türkic proper name Kur/Chur/Gur indicates a military leader. None of these swell examples are *PIE swollen. From Sumerian kur to Greek  kyrios “ruler, lord” and Türkic kir  “Prince” we come to Gothic pre-Christian “Lord's (house)” kirika.

The edict of Emperor Theodosius has several key terms which semantics is of particular interest. The followers of the Nicene Creed, who “firmly held the religion which St.. Peter preached” he commanded to call “Catholic Christians" (Christianorum Catholicorum), and to call “all others” heretics. The word 'Catholic' is a corruption of thr Türkic word which is parsed into its component parts as follows: the katho-lik. The first component katho is the word katy where, as is usual in such cases, the Türkic phoneme [y] is substituted in the Latin with  the phoneme [o]. The word katy in Türkic means 'solid, strong'. The second component -lyk is an affix. The original name was katylyk with semantics 'firm (community)'. That was a self-appellative of the Arianism's opponents who held fast to the Nicene Creed.

According to the Emperor Theodosius' edict , the word 'heretic' (αἱρετικός) was a “shameful name". That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: eret-ik. The first component eret probably ascends to the root of the verb eretergə, which in particular translates as 'dissolve, melt'. The second component ik is a distorted version of the formative affix ək. The original form of this name was eretək with semantics 'seducer, libertine'.

Heretic - “Gk. hairetikos “able to choose,” middle voice verbal adjective of hairein  “to choose,” of unknown origin”; The Türkic etymology suggests a known origin, probably ascending to Scythian sources; the VCVCVC 'heretic' statistically suggests extremely long chances for phonetical and semantical coincidence, something on the order of 1/25,000,000, dutifully allowing for all caveats addressed in the M. Rosenfelder's study.

The concept of 'God' the Catholics is defined by Türkic word Dəү 'great' or De¢ 'Giant, Colossus'. In Latin transcription the word received the form Deo, and in Greek Θηoξ. And the Eastern European (Scythian) tribes converted to Christianity by the Apostle Andrew probably defined the concept of 'God' with the word Kot 'Spirit' (in mythical sense of the word). From this name, the converted tribes received the name Kotts or 'Gotts' ('Goths').

Considering widespread ancient usage of the word “Get” in respect to all kinds of nomadic tribes, which survived to the modern times in the form “Guz” for the nomadic tribes, and was equally popular for the Ogur nomadic tribes in the form “Gur”,  and their ubiquitous usage as generic for “tribe”, the suggestion that “Goth” was a dialectal generic for “tribe” is beyond reproach, and does not need an intermediary explanation. The  “tribe” meaning is amply confirmed by a slew of adjectival modifiers for individual tribes in standard Türkic format modifier + tribe: Massagets, Masguts, Ogurs, Oguzes, Cutugurs, Onogurs, Visigoths, and so on without an end.

On the term Deos/Theos etc, see G.H. Fraser Tengri, Khuday, Deos and God

Later, when the Goths migrated into Central and Western Europe and settled there, some peoples retained the term Kot with that semantics even after they switched to the present European languages. Naturally, the term eventually was adapted to the phonetic features of each language. For example, in German it received a form Gott, in English God, in Danish Gud, in Norwegian gud /553/, in Swedish gud. But in the Slavic languages, the notion somehow was determined by the word 'God', which apparently ascends to Türkic Böək 'Great'.

Irrespective of the conjecture Kot ~ Goth, the cognateness of the Common Türkic kut = “spirit, soul”, and its dialectal allophones, with the Grmanic Gott/God/Gud/gud, is beyond reproach


Catholics define concept of 'holy' with the Türkic word san, which literally means 'respect'. With added affix of possession ty, this word should be translated as 'having sanctity' (Literally, “respected”). In Latin transcription, this term has the form santa.

The titles of the upper hierarchy of the Christian Church were formalized by the Ecumenical Council: "Consistent with interpretation of the rule 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council (451), the bishop of Constantinople had titles οίκουμενικός (oíkoumenikos = ecumenical, universal) and παναγιότατος (panagiótatos = Holiness), but none of them were used. These titles were used by others, Constantinople patriarch's subordinates. For example, Herman II (1222 - 1240)with a residence in Nicaea was called οίκουμενικός πατριάρχης (oíkoumenikos patriarchis = ecumenical Patriarch) in the letter of the Navpakt Metropolitan John Apokavka". 10677 Can be made an attempt to derive semantics of the titles in the church hierarchy mentioned in the above citation.

In Russian, the word Οίκουμενικός should have a form of 'oykumenik'. The word is parsed into its component parts oy-ku-men-(n)ik. The first component is a somewhat distorted Türkic word öy 'home, homy'. The second component ku is a phonetic version of the word kyu 'light'. The third component men literally means 'I', but in this context the word may have with semantics 'man'. The last component (n)ik is an ancient Türkic word nik 'beneficial, good' with the initial n probably merged with the finite n of the previous component. The original form of the word was öykumennik with semantics 'good (people) of houses of enlightened people'. (Possibly, in ancient times the word nik could have somewhat different semantics). It is quite clear that the word 'Oikumena' (Greek - οίκουμενη; Turk. - Öykumen) literally means 'house of enlightened people’ (Like English “light”, the Türkic ak/ku = “light, white” is very polysemantic, including “noble, aristocratic, east, facing east” and a number of other meanings. The same with öy “home, homey”, thus reconstruction leads to a range of possibilities).

In Russian, the word Παναγιότατος would take the form of 'panagiotat'. That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: pan-ag-iot-at. The first component pan or ban is a phonetic version of the word 'I', which in this context may have with semantics 'man'. The second component ag is an ancient Türkic word 'climb, rise’. The third component iot is the word yot, which in this context literally means 'greedy'. The last component at should likely be translated as 'name'. The original form of the title was panagyotat with possible with semantics 'man called to insatiably raise (faith)’ or 'people called  to constantly raise (faith)'.

It was already shown that the word 'patriarch' can be parsed into its component parts as follows: patr-i-arch. The first component  patr is a phonetic version of the word batyr, which in antiquity in particular had the with semantics 'father', and in this context 'Holy Father'. The second component i seems to be the affix y. The last component arch is a somewhat distorted Türkic word argy 'remote', which in the church terminology meant a functionary of a higher rank. The original name was batyryargy with semantics 'distant Holy Father' or 'supreme Holy Father'.

It should be noted that the generalized name 'hierarch' is a Türkic word. That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: ie-r-arch. The first component ie is clearly traced to the Old Türkic word ijä (iye or ie)  'master, lord' in relation to God. The second component r is the word ar 'man, male' in a non-vowelized version. The last component arch is identical to the previous case (argy 'remote'~ higher rank). The original form of the word was iearargy with semantics 'upper chief man' or 'senior chief man'.

Hierarch - “Gk. ta hiera “sacred rites” (neuter plural of hieros “sacred") + arkhein “to lead, rule"”. Both  hier and arch/arkhein can be semantically and phonetically reasonably seen as cognates of the Türkic iye and argy.

The head cover of the Orthodox patriarch is called 'kukol' (Eng. cowl, Gr. κουκούλα~ koukoula). That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: kuk-ol. The first component kuk is Türkic kük word 'heaven, heavenly'. The second component ol is slightly distorted word oly 'venerable, respected'. The original form of this name was kükoly with the possible with semantics 'heavenly reverence' (Cowl - O.E. cugele, L. cucullus “hood, cowl,” of uncertain origin).

The archbishop who headed the Roman Catholic Church, since the 5th c. was called Pope, although officially this title has never been instituted. In a slightly different phonetical version, this religious term existed among the European Türkic nations since ancient times. Thus, Herodotus wrote: “In Scythian language Hestia is called Thabit, Zeus (and, in my opinion, entirely correctly) is called Papey...” 1068 A Christian theologian of the 2nd c. Origen stated: “Although the Scythians say that Pappai is a god standing above all, we are not to agree with them: although we recognize a standing above all God, but do not calling this God with proper name, Pappai, as is the tradition with Scythians who received in possession the desert.. and their people... and their language...” 1069 The Lavrentiev Chronicle called the Roman Pope about the same were using the ancient Scythians: “...behold also heard Roman Papej...” 1070 In the modern Balkar the word babas (phonetic version papas) means 'priest, father (appellation to the priest)' (Gr. πάππας (pappas), a child's word for father. No even feeble attempt to eymologize, what language the child was born into: of uncertain origin).

A bishop is in charge of a territory called eparchia (ἐπαρχία ~diocese) in church-religious sense. That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: ep-arch-ia. The first component ep is the ancient Türkic word eb (əb) ‘house, lager’. The second component arch is the word argy 'distant'. The third component ia in this case could mean 'Lord's'. The original word was ebargyiya with semantics 'Lord's distant places' (No even feeble attempt to etymologize: of uncertain origin).

Christians have a Church’s punishment called έπιτιμία (epitimia)  ‘penance’. That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: ep-it-im-ia. The first component ep is eb (əb) ‘house, lager’. The second component the it literally means 'meat', and a third component im means 'magic spell, conjuration'. The last component ia in this case means 'Lord'. The original name of this punishment was ebitimiya with semantics 'camp with Lord's spell on meat', i.e. the camp where is forbidden to eat meat. In ancient times that was a religious punishment (Presumanbly in nomadic animal husbandry societies that lived on meat and kumis; for the grain-eating agriculturists that would not be a punishment).

In the Catholic Church, from the 5th to 9th c., the clerics holding permanent positions in certain parish churches were called cardinals. But then, their status has suddenly changed, and they were raised to the very top of the Catholic hierarchy. Perhaps the nature of their work was in high demand at the top. The word 'cardinal' can be parsed into its component parts as follows: car-din-al. The first component kar ascends to the root of the verb kararga 'look'. The second component din in a literal translation from Türkic means 'religion, faith'. The last component al is 'front, first'. The semantics of the name cardinal comes out 'first overseer of faith' (Of unknown origin, but with plenty of cognates in Latin with semantics of “pivot, pivotal”: cardo (gen. cardinis) “shaft, axle, door hinge”, cardinalis “principal, chief, essential”, a Türkic root for  'look' or compound 'look-faith' for cardo seems to be a long shot).

A priest's deputy on certain issues in Catholic churches is called vicar. The word 'vicar' is parsed into its component parts as follows: vik-ap. The first component vik is a Latin rendition of the Türkic word bik 'lock, latch'. The second component ap is one of the phonetic variants of the word 'man, male'. The original name was bikar with semantics 'gatekeeper' or 'man locking (the door)'. Perhaps that was reference to the door of the temple (Latin vicis “turn, change, exchange, substitution" > vicarius “substitute, deputy", with Germanic cognates in O.N. vikja “bend, turn"; Swed. viker "willow twig, wand"; Ger. wechsel “change").

The people professing non-Christian persuasion in Latin were called paganus. In Latin this word means “rural, rustic, simple, uneducated". In fact, it is not Latin, but a Türkic word, with the base form 'pagan'. Into its constituent parts it is divided as follows: pag-an. The first component pag is a phonetic version of the formant bug that ascends to the verb bagarga with meanings 'foretelling, divine'. The second component an is a somewhat distorted word en 'category, genus'.  The original form of the word was bagen with semantics 'foretelling category' (soothsayers). This suggests that at the spreading of Christianity in the Apennines, the villagers were not accepting that teaching, remaining committed to their ancient, based on divination religion. Therefore, Christians called them 'soothsayers'.  Over time, the semantics of this moniker expanded, /556/ and with the word paganus (bagen) started to be called not only the adherents of the ancient religion based on divination, but in the figurative sense the entire rural population.

The term pagan in the 7th c. did not have its modern Christian derogatory meaning, in Latin it had semantic corresponding to the modern “rustic, inept”. Later, it came into usage as “retard, old fashioned”, and as such entered the Christian lingo as corresponding to the “old religion”. The Eurocentric etymology derives pagan from pangere “to fix, fasten” > pagus “rural district” > paganus “pagan” in Classical Latin “villager, rustic, civilian", quite a convoluted path from fixed to rural. The path bagen “soothsayer” > pagus “rural district” > paganus “simpleton” > pagan “heathen” is not much less convoluted.

A hint on the etymology is given by the name of Danube Bulgarian Khan Pagan at the time, in the 7th c., when the word has not yet acquired the modern Christian derogatory connotation. No royal ever had a derogatory name, and all Danube Bulgrian Khans before Khan Simeon had pristine Türkic, functionally non-religious names, thus pointing to some original noble connotation of the word pagan in the Türkic Bulgarian language. Whatever etymology may come up, it has to be able to explain the proper name of the 7th c. Bulgarian king.


According to modern concepts, Jesus Christ and His disciples were ethnically Arameans and of course spoke Aramaic. In resspect to that language I.S. Sventsitsky notes the following: “Among the eastern possessions of Rome a special position occupied Palestine, the area here the teaching of Jesus Christ was born ... The Palestine population was ethnically very diverse and spoke different languages: the majority Aramaic, one of the western-Semitic languages ​​that by that time have become a spoken language in many areas of Asia Minor." 1071 Nevertheless, the word 'Arameans' or 'Arameys' is very resemblant of the Türkic-lingual. It can be parsed into its component parts as follows: ara-mey. The first component ara in literal translation means 'middle, center'. The second component mey (y as y in key) is a somewhat distorted word myiy ((y as i in sit, i as I in India: my-ih-y) 'brain, mind, intellect'.  The original form of this ethnic name could be aramyiy with semantics 'central smart'.

Toponym A-ra-mu appears ca 2250 BC in Antiochia, in nearby Aleppo, in Akkad as “patesi” Prince Dubul of Arame of S.Caucasus, as Aram people (ca 1900 BC and ca 1300 BC) in N.Syria and mentioned in Assyria ca 1100 BC, and in S.Arabia in early Islamic times. Aram (Alamu ~ Ahlamu = wanderers in Semitic Babylonian/Akkadian, calqued in Egyptian Shasu  = wanderer) were highly mobile, competitive nomadic pastoralists apt to sudden raids, collection of taxes, and tribute from, naturally, their sedentary neighbors. In today's lingo, they were farming their neighbors as they were farming their cattle. They ruled Israel in the 14th century BC, before the invention of the monotheistic Judaism. Thus, the etymology of the term Arameans is clear and well documented, while their language is open question.

There is another moment that attracts attention in the same respect. I.S. Sventsitsky states: “Because the sole place of Yahweh worship was the Jerusalem temple, synagogues were the meeting place for the religious Jews throughout the whole of Palestine and beyond ... there were read the Pentateuch Hole Scripture and books of Prophets, delivered sermons and conducted prayers. Because the spoken language was Aramaic, next to the reader usually stood “tolmach” (interpreter), who translated from Hebrew to Aramaic (so it was natural for Jesus to quote the Bible in Aramaic).” 1072 From that citation first of all follows that Jesus did not understand Hebrew, and secondly, for translation from Hebrew he needed not just a translator, but specifically an interpreter. But the word  “tolmach” (interpreter) is a somewhat distorted Türkic word tylmach 'translator'. Such term is usually used when it comes to translation from Türkic or to Türkic. In other cases, that man is simply called a translator. But here the citation is specifically about an interpreter.

Then the Bible was translated for Jesus from ancient Hebrew to Türkic, and Jesus quoted Bible in Türkic: otherwise why on earth he would needed the services of a “tolmach” (interpreter). There is still another fact indicating that in antiquity the Arameans were probably Türkic-lingual people.

In 1875 was discovered a monument of early Christian literature from the turn of the 1st and the 2nd centuries, called “Didache” or “Teaching of Twelve Apostles". That monument has texts of several prayers, including a text of the prayer “Our Father". /557/ With regard to that prayer I.S. Sventsitsky states: “The above prayer is characteristic only for this monument: apparently, the prayers varied from community to community. That prayer has an Aramaic phrase - the Lord has come (maran ata) and proclaimed Hosanna to the God of David". 1073 Here, of course, of interest is the 'Aramaic phrase' “maran ata". It is in fact a Türkic phrase. The first word “maran” has a very slight distortion. It can be parsed into its component parts as follows: mar-an. The first component mar is the ancient Türkic word mar, translated as 'mentor, religious teacher'.  The second component is a somewhat distorted affix yn. The original form of the word was maryn. The second word ata in this sentence literally means 'father'. The Türkic-lingual phrase maryn ata can be translated as 'father teaching faith' or 'father-faith tutor'. But there is more.

An impression is being made that the title of the monument, “Didache", is a somewhat distorted ancient Türkic word. That word is parsed into its constituent parts as follows: dida-he. The first component dida is probably the ancient Türkic dedä (dedə) 'father', and the second component he is a somewhat distorted adjectival affix γ¿ (gy). The initial Türkic form of the name probably was Dedäγ¿ (Dedəgy) with a literal translation of 'fatherly' or 'paternal'.

The Biblical names are Adam and Eve are also Türkic.

In the modern Tatar language they have the form of Adam belən Hava, and in Balkar Adam blu Ha¢a. The word adam in Türkic literally means 'man', and the word hava or ha¢a means 'air'. So, 'Adam and Eve' means 'Man and Air'. Perhaps in ancient times the word hava or ha¢a also had some different semantics.

The semantics is in fact quite different. Apparently, among animal husbandry people the concept of sex had quite different significance than among cloistered sedentary people, probably because nomads were intimately managing the sex and reproductive life of their flocks and herds for millennia; and also, traditionally the human sex in Türkic societies was organized on incompatibly freer and egalitarian principles than within land-bound societies; in Türkic languages “copulate” is more like “mate” or “cover”,  expressed in Türkic ebi/ebe; not until the word reached sedentary people it acquired ominous connotations of sin and immorality, like “fuck” (Eng.) and “ibat” (Sl.). The Türkic Ebi/ebe has numerous cognates connected with female procreation and anatomy that establish solid link between Eve and Ebi/ebe, perfectly complementing the Türkic adam = “man” for Adam and Eve duet, and consistent with the name of the Scythian mamma-Godess Tabiti, recorded for us by Herodotus. See Tabiti

Interestingly, the name of the city Jerusalem appear to have Türkic roots. In ancient Greek the word took the form of Ίεροσολύμοίς. This name can be parsed into its component parts as follows: Ie-rus-alim. The first component ie is certainly a Türkic word that can be translated in this context as 'possession'. The second component rus is probably somewhat distorted word ras 'rightful, truthful'.  The last component alim is an ancient Türkic word alim 'learned'. The original form of the name of the city was Ierasalim with a literal translation 'Possession of truthful scholar'.  Possibly, in the past the semantics of the name was a bit different: 'Possession of righteous teacher'.

Now about Christianity in the Russian ethnic territory. The fact that Christianity has existed in that ethnic territory from apostolic times was stated in the first publicly accessible essay on ancient Rus (Or Russia?) history, the “Kiev synopsis": “It is well known to every wake, for before Vladimir the Ruses (Or Russians?) also christened in some countries. /558/ First christened Sloveno-Rus (Or Russiaan?) people still from St. Apostole Andrew the Firstcalled. Because he hath come to the hills of Kiev and blessed them and erected a cross on them, how above described, at that time many people living there taught of the Christian faith and christened, as many chroniclers, best of all as Reverend St Nestor of the Caves testifies. Also in the Novgorod the Great, coming from Kiev, many to the faith of Christ converted, and by Holy christening enlightened. Also the Rus (Or Russiaan?) chronicler gives in his chronology, as also the high and holy Apostle Paul taught and preached the Christ gospel in Mysia and Illyricum, as written also in the Acts; and Misiya and Illyricum are Slav's lands. Then the Holy Apostle Paul sent to the Slavs also his disciple Andronicus, one of seventy Apostles, to teach and christen in Illyricum and Mysia. He was in Bulgars, Bosnia, and Moravia, then went to the Pani or Pannonia as a Bishop.” 1074 There, the population of Kiev and Novgorod regions at the time of St. Andrew is called “Sloveno-Rus (Or Russian?) people". But direct and indirect evidence of different sources in the 1st c. AD in these regions did not record Slovenes and Ruses.

So, originally Christianity spread there among some other local peoples. And there is more. The above citation states that on the christening of the Dnieper population “best of all as Reverend St Nestor of the Caves testifies". However, the  commonly known today texts of the Russian (Or Slavic? Or Rus?) chronicles have a message about St. Andrew visit to the Dnieper and Ilmen area: “Ondrei studied in Sinop and coming to Korsun (Chersinesus) saw that Korsun is near Dnieper estuary; and wanted to go to Rome, and entered the Dnieper estuary from there went upstream by the Dnieper river; and happened to come and stay in the mountains on a birch tree, and having raised in the morning said to his pupils: “Do you see these mountains, how on these mountains will shine the grace of God; will stans a large city, God will erect many churches"; and ascending these mountains blessed and erected cross; and prayed to the God and descended from that mountain, and came to be there Kiev; and went up by the Dnieper and came to Slaves where today is Novgorod; and saw there local people; what are their customs and how they wash and steamed; and they amazed him, and went tp Vikings; and came to Rome and told how he taught and what he saw..." 1075 But this report describes only the fact of Apostle's Andrew travel and says nothing about the Acts of the Apostle and the purpose of his pilgrimage. But the goal of all Apostles has always been the one and the same, preaching of Christianity and conversion of the local population to Christianity. Therefore, doubtlessly this message should have a recorded fragment indicating the purpose of the Apostle St. Andrew pilgrimage, a christening of the local people. But in the publications of the chronicle that reached us this fragment is missing. So then, it was eviscerated from there sometime after the 17th c.

Many Western medieval authors wrote on the existence of Christianity in the ethnic territory of Russia from apostolic times. Thus, Johann Fabri in his published in 1525 treatise “Religion of the Muscovites” wrote: “But most importantly, they hold Christian faith (Confess Christian faith, initially inducted by the Apostle Andrew), which they claim was initially proclaimed to them by the Holy Apostle Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. Everything that was under Constantine the Great by 318 bishops in 318 in Nicaea, a city in Bithynia, at the first Council of Nicaea, and everything authorized and proclaimed by Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom, they revere as sacred, immutable, and pure, that from that, like from the gospel of Christ, to this day none of them were allowed to deviate even an inch. And such is their humility that everything once established by the holy fathers at the councils, no one would ever dare to question (With what kind of reverence they honor what was establised by the fathers, and hold it sacred). So, with greater constancy of soul than many of our people, they are firm in the first faith  his successors andthe Holy Fathers soaked by them with breast milk". 1076 Sigismund von Herberstein also wrote: “The Russians openly boast in their annals, that before Vladimir and Olga, the Russian land received christening and blessing from the Christ's Apostle Andrew, who, in their testimony, came from Greece to the esttuary of Borisphen (Borisphen is a Greek record of Türkic name Burichai for Dnieper from Herodotus time), sailed up the river to the mountains, where there is Kyiv now, and there baptized and blessed the land. He erected there a cross and prophesied that the place will be a great grace of God, with many Christian churches. Then from there he got to the very source of Borisphen, at a large lake Wolok (Volok from Slavic “voloch” meaning “to drag”, a reference to dragging boats across Gorodok/Nevel watershed, 55°N 33.5°E) and the River Lowat down to the lake Ilmen, thence along the river Wolchow (Volkhov), which flows from the lake, arriving in Novgorod, then by the same river he reached Lake Ladoga and Neva River, and then the sea, which they call the Viking (Varyag), and we the German, and passing between Finland (Winlandia) and Livonia, reached Rome. Finally, in the Peloponnese, he was crucified for Christ by Ag Antipater. So say their chronicles.” 1077 Here Sigismund von Herberstein clearly states that "the Russians openly boast in their annals” of their christening by the Apostle Andrew.

Tsar Ivan the Terrible, in a conversation about religion with the papal legate Antonio Possevino said: “We have from the very foundation of the Christian Church accepted the Christian faith, when the Apostle Peter's brother Andrew came to our lands, then went to Rome, and later, when Vladimir turned to faith, religion was spread even wider. /560/ So in Muscovy we got Christian faith at the same time as you did in Italy. And we keep it clean, while in the Roman faith are 70 faiths, and in that you are my witness, Anthony, you told me this in Staritsa.” 1078 This fragment contains a principle statement expressed by Ivan the Terrible “...and later, when Vladimir turned to faith, religion was spread even wider.” From that follows that Vladimir solely “turned to the faith” that already existed in his land, and he never was a founder of Christianity in the Russian ethnic territory.

In 1633 - 1634 Adam Olearius visited Muscovy as part of the German Embassy. At the end of his journey he published notes, where in particular was reported this: “In their chronicle, they (Russians - Yu.D.) write that Christian faith penetrated into Russia still in thye apostolic times. As if the Apostle Andrew from Greece, sailing up the river Borisfen or Dnieper, passed through Lake Ladoga to Novgorod, there preached the gospel of Christ and established the true worship and build churches and monasteries. After a long time, however, with many wars with Tatars and Gentiles, the true Christian faith in Russia was mostly suppressed and extinguished, and just the opposite, was introduced paganism and idolatry; so it was up to the time of the Grand Duke Volodimer, who also was once a pagan". 1079 And this again states that “in their chronicle, they write” about  their christening by the Apostle Andrew. This once again confirms the fact that, at least after 1634, the message of the first apostolic christening of the ancient population in Russian ethnic territory was eviscerated from the chronicles.

Since all later reports are regurgitations of the the same source by various proponents of the primacy of the incipient Russian state at the time of its exlosive expansion, when the Russian Church leaders and monarchy came to lust to become “a third Rome”, the testimonies of the later witnesses are about the Russian ambitions, and not of the Christianity in the Eastern Europe

A Norse geographical essay “What lands lie in the world” has such message: “In that part of the world is Europe, and the easternmost part of it is Great Svitod. There came to christen Apostle Philip.” 1080 As was shown above, the Great Svitod is the Lower Scythia. So, the local population of that region also was christened by Apostle Philip in the 1st c. Unfortunately, no additional information about acts of this Apostle came to light. And it is not clear, in what part of the Eastern Europe the Apostle Philip was teaching. But even this brief message of the Scandinavian source provides sufficient grounds to hold as credible the fact of Eastern European (Scythian) people conversion to Christianity.

If the Slavic annals can be held as late forgeries by politically-motivated adventurers, would not be prudent to apply the same scrutiny to other late writings?

The tribes of the Northern Caucasus were also converted to Christianity. On the North Caucasus Alans' belonging to Christianity, in the 13th c. directly pointed Guillaume de Rubruck: “On the eve of Pentecost came to us Alans, who are called there Ass (Ases), the Christians of the Greek rite, who have Greek letters and /561/ Greek priests.” 1081 This is also evidenced by the preservation by their descendants of the ancient traditional Christian calendar.

Direct descendants of the Alans are Karachaians and Balkars. Although the term 'Alan' was not an ethnonym, butt a general appellative for a large group of tribes, the modern Balkars and Karachaians from time immemorial in communications between themselves call each other Alans. These two peoples, like some other Eastern European nations, have preserved their ancient Türkic language. But they have not preserved their ancient Christian religion. At a time when the North Caucasus was conquered by the Kipchak Khanate (Orig.: Golden Horde), the Karachaians, Balkars, and some other people had to accept Islam, which they profess to date. And yet, the Balkars and Karachaians still have preserved their pre-Islamic calendar, which is called traditional. 1082 It is quite possible that it was an ancient pan-Christian calendar of the Eastern Europe's peoples.

In that calendar the month of January is called in Türkic Bashil ai (Aka spelled ay in English) with semantics 'leading month'. February is called Bairam ai, which means 'festivity month'. But the name of the month of March was associated with a Christian religious ceremony. This month is called in Türkic A¢uznu art ayy (Orig.: à¢óçíó àë àéû = ai-uznu al ai-y, with y as i in sit), which can be translated as 'month before breaking fast'. April, respectively, is called A¢uznu art ayy, which means 'month after breaking fast'. It is quite clear that these names are associated with the Lent before Easter, which fall on April. The name of the month of May Hychaman ai was associated with the end of the spring field work. On that occasion everywhere were baked special cakes, called hychaman hychyla (Hallah? Sounds suspiciously homophonic). And one of the names of the month of June was Nikkol ai, which in Türkic means 'month of elder man'. After all, Nikolai (Nicholas) originally is not a name, it is a Türkic word literally meaning 'ancient, old'. Apparently, the month was named in honor of St. Nicholas, or more correctly in honor of holy Elder (I.e. Nicholas) Wonderworker. Another summer month of July is called in honor of the Prophet Elijah, Elijah ah. Incidentally, the word elijah in Balkar also means 'lightning bolt'. The month of August is called Kyrkar ai, literally translated from Türkic as 'month of forty men'. Perhaps the name of that month is after the martyrs of Sebaste forty. September in the traditional calendar of the Balkars and Karachaians is Kyrka¢uz ai, which can be translated as 'month of forty breaking fast'. It is difficult to tell why this month bore that name. In any case, the connection of the name with Christianity is obvious. The next month October in the calendar is called et yiyk ai (Orig.: ýò ûéûêú àé = et yiyk ai, with y as i in sit and i as Y in York), which literally means 'month of meat week'. This name is pointing to the fact that according to the Christian canons, for one week in this month /562/  meat could be used daily. In other weeks that was not allowed. And November had twio names: kach ai, which means 'month of christening' and abystol ai - 'Apostlic month'.

From these two names is can be understood that Apostle St. Andrew christened people in the month of November. Therefore, in the people's calendar the month of christening was named after the event. And that the Apostle Andrew christened the local people is clear from the title of the next month. December has three names: Andreyich ai, Endre¢yuk ai, abystolu art aiy. The first two names are phonetic variations of the name 'Andrew'. In Türkic, these two versions of the month mean 'death of Andrew month'.  The third version of the name translates as 'death of Apostle month'.  The meaning of all these names is quite transparent - December named in memory of the fact that this month was martyred Apostle Andrew. Apparently, the considered calendar came from a group of Eastern European nations that tied their baptism directly to the Apostle Andrew. It is unlikely that this could be a fiction, because such an event for all people is the life-changing, and there can not be any place for fiction.

Since all later reports are regurgitations of the the same source by various proponents of the primacy of the incipient Russian state at the time of its exlosive expansion, when the Russian Church leaders and monarchy came to lust to become “a third Rome”, the testimonies of the later witnesses are about the Russian ambitions, and not of the Christianity In the Eastern Europe happened dozens of christenings, people had dozens of calendars, but the events connected with religion were noted only in the particular religious calendars, without affecting the traditional calendars. Notably, every christening was by default a local affair that could not initially affect the majority of any ehnic or political group, which would continue the use of common traditional calendar for centuries to come. The modern universal calendar is a good example, we still live by the pre-Christian calendar without months of Lent and months of baptism, quite the opposite, the Christian religious events were accomodated to the pre-Christian calendar. Thus, the first possibility is that the “traditional ” Balkar calendar is a vestige of the religious Balkar calendar preserved by a tiny minority of “old believers” who maybe clandestinely did not conver to Islam for generations. This minor comment does not contradict with the author's observation on Christian traces in the Balkar “traditional ” calendar.

Christianity was also widespread, at least until the Middle Ages, among the peoples of the Itil and Kama. Early medieval Arab and Persian writers repeatedly pointed to that. For example, according to Ibn Khordadbeh, the Rus merchants arriving in Baghdad “are posing as Christians and pay jizya".

The subject here is clearly of Upper Kama Ruses. Further, al-Istahri pointed out that “the internal Bulgars are Christians". It meant the Volga Bulgars. Al-Masudi, describing the tribes of al-Sakaliba, said: “The Slavs are divided into many nations, some of whom are Christians. ... They have many cities, also churches where they hung bells wich they strike with a hammer, just as our Christians strike board with a wooden mallet". 1083 Here, a few moments attract attention. First, all that al-Masudi wrote not later than 920 - 950, i.e. before, per the official version, the Kiev prince Volodimer adopted Christianity.

Secondly, the subject here are the al-Sakaliba people somewhere in the north-eastern region of the future Rus, not the Slavs of Kiev. Thirdly, in the described period al-Sakaliba already had many cities and churches with bells, indicating a long Christian tradition of that nation. Not to be ruled out that Christianity of the Bulgars and al-Sakaliba ascends to the Apostle Philip missionary days in those parts. After all, if his mission was unsuccessful, he is unlikely to be remembered centuries later.

Thus, there is reason to believe that Christianity in /563/ Eastern Europe, including the Kama and Itil regions, first appeared in the early apostolic times, that is in the 1st c. AD.

However, the Rus (I.e. Slavic) chronicles and a number of other sources testify that Christianity in the Russian ethnic territory, specifically in the Middle Dnieper, appeared sometime around 988 (Slavic annals have both tracks, the 988 christening in Kyiv, and pre-Rus Khazar Kyiv with gates, churches, and residencies, but propaganda machine of both Church and state accentuated only the Rus events). It is believed that the “baptizer of Rus' was the prince of Kiev, Vladimir, who converted to Christianity in the Crimea in the Byzantine colony Chersonesus, from an ordinary Greek priest. Here's how it is related in the Lavrentiev Chronicle: “The Korsun (Chersonesus) bishop with Tsar's (Byzantine Emperor) priests, announcing, baptized Vladimir. And when he laid his hand on him, that immediately regained his sight. And Vladimir, having felt the sudden healing of his, glorified God: “Now I know the true God”. Many of his retainers, seeing that, converted. He converted in the Church of St. Basil, that church stands in the Korsun (Chersonesus) city in the middle of the town, where Korsunians gather for trade". This point of view on the “christening of Rus' is adopted both by the modern historical science (Following the tradition of official Tzar's history), and the Russian Orthodox Church. Moreover, in the Russian Federation in honor of this event at the state level and by lagislation is instituted Memorial Day of “Holy Apostolitic-like St. Vladimir".

That day, July 28, is titled “Day of Rus' christening". But in substance, historical sources indicate that in the 988 was christen not the “Rus” (not the entire population of the Russian ethnic territory), but “Ruses", that is the pagan Ruses, who just over a hundred years beforehand migrated to the Middle Dnieper area. They adopted the Byzantine branch of Christianity ("Greek rite"). And the local population that adopted Christianity as early as the apostolic times probably professed a form of early Christianity, which was later named the Old Believers' branch, Old Faith, or ancient Orthodoxy.

The Old Believers were decimated in the relugious coup of the 17th c., the old hierarchy was exterminated, and tenacious Old Believer flock displaced with compliant associates and exiled. All Old Believers were banned. The official Russian (which means Church) historiography depicts the coup as shism, but shism implies split into branches, which is not the case with the Russian religious revolution since the old religion was nearly physically eradicated, and new theology instituted, claiming the inheritance of history, structure, and material possessions of the Old Church, including arrogation of the very title Orthodox. The old Orthodox stopped being Orthodox, they became Judasing non-entities. The exiles fled to the fringes of the country, which at the time of the religious revolution was still relatively small. With time and expansion of the newborn Russian state, the Old Believers were consistently pushed further and further, until their front wave reached America, settling in Alaska and on the western seaboard. In America, the Old Believer Church was the dominant Church until the Russian Bolshevik revolution, when masses of new Russian Orthodox adherents, with fragments of new Russian Orthodox hierarchy emihrated in mass. After that, in the Norh America the two Russian Orthodox Churches existed simultaneously, with unrestrained hatered toward each other and relentless catfight. The new Russian Orthodox hierarchy keeps the mantra of supremacy that it obtained by force on the Russian soil, its supremacy being a part of their theology, and the old Russian Orthodox Church despising the crafty deviates.


Summing up the evidence on the spread of Christianity in the Russian ethnic territory, the following can be noted. According to fairly numerous historical sources, Christianity in that area appeared in the 1st c. AD and was brought there by the Apostle Andrew, and probably by Philip. At that time, Ruses or Slavs did not exist there, and to Christianity were converted the local Scythian (Türkic) peoples. /564/ It was the early Christianity. In the 5th c. in the Ilmen area and in the Itil-Oka interfluve appeared southern Slavs, who probably were Christians. The time of arrival of another group of Slavs to the Middle Dnieper and Oka River basin is not clear. But they were not Christians at that time. The Ruses reappeared again in the Ilmen area in the middle of the 9th c. From there they reached the Middle Dnieper, according to the Rus chronicles still being “pagans”. In 988 they converted to the Byzantine branch of Christianity, in time making it a state religion. And from that time on the (geographically) Russian ethnic soil existed two branches of Christianity, the Byzantine and early Christian branches (The influence of Greek clergy before the 17th c. coup was sporadic and minimal, the religion of the land was solely early Christian). The first was the official, the second was informal and persecuted. However, despite centuries of persecution, few Old Believer Christian communities have survived to this day. It is in that branch of Christianity where are found its most ancient traditions, dating back to the apostolic times.

Briefly summing up the above review of Christianity, the following can be noted. All above evidence indicates that as a religion the early Christianity was formed in Türkic-lingual environment. But then arises a question - in what ethnic territory it took place, and why all early Christian documents known at the present time are written in ancient Greek? Based on the above rather limited information the following preliminary scenarios can be suggested. Apparently, the source areas in forming Christian terminology were Asia Minor, Syria, and possibly Northern Egypt. It was there where originated most of early Christian communities, and it is there that the first theological centers arose later. At the beginning of the first centuries AD the language of the local population in these areas remained mostly Türkic, and the elite also used the ancient Greek (Greek laguage was ). A part of the indigenous population in these territories could have languages other than Türkic, but they were not dominant among the Christians. Christian communities appeared in the local milieu of common people, so the terminology evolved in that environment. Originally, it was borrowed from the preceding pre-Christian religion (Tengriism). But some of it was shaping an anew. in these areas, Of course, the service at that time was conducted in Türkic language. But at the end of the 4th c., in its approach to the nature of God the Christianity split into two divisions, supporters of teachings of the Alexandrian Bishop Arius and his opponents. Ultimately, by the end of the 4th c. in the territory of  the Roman Empire the dominant position occupied Arius opponents, and their branch of Christianity received a name of  /565/ Catholic; by an order of Emperor Theodosius I “”having gathered, bishops determined that the beliefs of the Nicaean Council remained dominanting, and all heresies were subjected to prohibition” 1085. Initially, the Roman Catholicism spread in the Eastern Empire, where along with the Türkic language the  Greek also held a sway. Thus, all people professing Arianism automatically became heretics. It was probably at that time that the worship in Türkic language was forbidden across the Roman Empire.

“Arianism” is a Church codeword for monotheism. The Roman Catholic Church fought Tengriism under a number of names, the most known of which are Arianism and Catharism, while the Greek Orthodox Church fought it under the names Khudaiyar in Türkic and its calque Bogomil (God-worshipper) in Slavic. The offshoot of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church fought it by labeling its followers “Judizers”, but they called themselves “Old Believers”. In every case, that was a multi-faceted fight of Trinity against monotheism, wrapped in the early Christian lingo, with depiction of the theological competitors as Christians, the bad Christians, but the Christians nevertheless. With their profound differences in the adopted historical positions, both the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church do not acknowledge the Tengrian roots of neither the schism, nor the Türkic ethnic background of the “Bulgars” or “Scythians” that followed the Tengriism in either unadulterated or in Christianized form. However, the glossing over “Bulgars” or “Scythians” carries a great historical load, the the religious history of the Tengriism is as much a part of the Türkic history as are the Huns or Türkic Kaganates.

The sources of the eastern monotheism are readily apparent, although in the Christological theology they are camouflaged under different names and falsely attributed to the recognized early Christian luminaries, who in fact had nothing to do with the effects ascribed to them, Arian had nothing to do with “Arianism”, St-Augustine had nothing to do with “Catharism”. This religion came to the Central and Western Europe with the kurgans and Kurgan people in the 4th millennia BC. Only in the beginning of the 1st millennia AD it became an enemy of the bifurcated canonized Christianity on its miltant roll to gain primacy in the Northern and Eastern Europe. The Goths, the Alans, the Huns, and all people of the Hunnic circle by the 2nd millennia AD resettled across Europe, occupied aristocratic positions among their tribesmen and locals, probably largely lost their mother tongue, but continued following the precepts of the millennium-old religion.


However, in the “barbarian” ethnic territorires, located north of Danube and in Spain, the Arianism (Tengriism) has survived, it was preached in Türkic. In other words, Türkic language became associated with the heretical  Arianism (Tengriism). Consequently, the worship in the Eastern Empire was transferred to Greek, and all Türkic written sources, including those of non-Christian content, were to be destroyed as heretical.

It doubtful that the feat of destruction involved too many manuscripts, it was long before the adoption of paper, and except for few isolated locations where papyri was used, the religious books had to be written on precious parchment, were affordable to very few, and were easily located and destroyed. More non-religious records could have survived for a time at second-third societal layers, of utilitarian function like family sherjere.

That was probably the period when the whole Scripture was translated into Greek. Butcertainly can't be excluded that the Greek diaspora could have Christian texts translated from Türkic to Greek much earlier. After Catholicism at the end of the 4th c. also spread to the Western Empire, on the orders of Pope Damasus I the Bible was translated in Rome into Latin, and probably all services were transferred into Latin. However, in the official version translation of the Bible into Latin was made from Greek. And the translation was done by Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus (ca. 347-420), known as Blessed.

At that time, in the territories of the “barbarian” states Arianism (Tengriism) continued to dominate, and the liturgical language naturally was the Türkic (Scythian peoples did not use neither Latin nor Greek). Somewhere by the 9 - 10th cc. the former barbaric states of Western and Central Europe that were confessing Arianism (Tengriism), were forced to accept Catholicism under an active pressure of Vatican, with the Latin liturgical language. But before that, the vernacular and liturgical language of the Western, Central, and Eastern Europe was mainly Türkic, associated, naturally, with heresy. And the Catholic Church dealt with heretics very cruelly. Apparently, to eradicate Arianism (Tengriism) and other non-Catholic faiths in the “barbarian” Europe was established Inquisition. Therefore, the Türkic part of the European population in the former barbarian states, in fear of an all-powerful Catholic Church of Rome, probably was switching from their native language to the inflectional languages ​​of the indigenous population.

The validity of this conclusion is attested by indelible layer of lexical Türkisms, vestiges of agglutination, appearance of pidgin languages dubbed as “analytic” morphology (i.e. English, Bulgarian, Old Church Slavonic, and a number of “proto” and “old” linguistic stages of various modern languages), and absence of gender still detected, for example, in some Greek dialects. Naturally, these hallmarks have scholarly explanations, like “lost” gender and “acquired” analyticity. And naturally, these explanations in reality are constatations of facts that explain notthing.

Naturally, all Türkic written records had to be destroyed. Probably, in that period was destroyed, /566/ the bulk of European written historical records. But apparently, some of them were first translated into Latin and Greek. Only these written historical monuments have preserved to this day.

How these processes went on in the Russian ethnic territoryis not clear yet, because of complete lack of information. However, the influence of the church on these processes is undisputable, for at that time existed no alternative mechanism for influencing the the minds of great population masses. The only fact that is confirmed by reliable data is a complete absence of Old Russian language in the Christian worship across the entire Russian ethnic territory: “The Russian liturgy is borrowed from the Greek Church and is writen in the Slavic language, which for the Russians is as understanddible as the Latin for papists (Roman Catholics)". 1086 Matthew Mehovsky about that language had spoken more distinctly: “In Russian churches during worship the reading and singing are in Serbian, that is in the Slavic language". 1087 It should be noted here that the “Serbian", or more precisely the South Slavic language was spoken by the population of Volga - Klyasma interfluvial (Here the term Volga stands in its modern Russian designation, historical Oka - Klyasma interfluvial, where Oka stands for Ak Idel or Agidel), and possibly Ilmen area, where in the 5th c. AD migrated the tribes of the South Slavs from Dalmatia. Judging by the written sources, for that period of time in the Middle Dnieper area that language is not attested.

Thus, the analyzed evidence suggests that the terminology of early Christianity formed in the Türkic milieu, probably in the territories of the Asia Minor, Syria, and possibly in the Northern Egypt. In the Türkic language likely also have been written all of the first texts of the Christian Scriptures. The translation of these texts from the ancient Türkic language to Greek, and then to Latin, probably occurred at the end of the 4th c., after Catholicism gained a dominance in the Roman Empire. The Türkic-lingual texts of the Scripture seem to have been exterminated during Inquisition as written in the language of heretics.


1051. The Martyrdom of St. Andrew / / I.S. Sventsitsky first Christians and the Roman Empire. M., 2003. C. 329.
1052. Sventsitsky JS The first Christians and the Roman Empire. M., 2003. p. 103.
1053. Ibid. C. 329.
1054. VDI, 1948, No 3. P. 219.
1055. VDI, 1948, No 2. C. 306.
1056. Sventsitsky JS The first Christians and the Roman Empire. M., 2003. p. 182-183.
1057. Bolotov VV, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. M., 1994, T. IV. P. 240.
1058. Belikov D. Christianity in Goths. Kazan, 1887, vol. I. , P. 96.
1059. VDI, 1948, No 3. C. 289.
1060. VDI, 1949, No 3. p. 306, 307.
1061. VDI, 1948, No 3 p. 307.
1062. Belikov D. Christianity in Goths. Kazan, 1887, vol. I. C. 124.
1063. Constantine Bagryanorodsky. On the control of the empire. M., 1991. Pp. 93.
1064. Belikov D. Christianity among Goths. Kazan, 1887, vol. I. P. 125.
1065. Sventsitsky JS The first Christians and the Roman Empire. M., 2003. C. 156.
1066. Ibid. C. 123.
1067. Nicholas nomadic. Schism of 1054 and the East-West relations / / early feudal Slavic states and peoples. Sofia. 1991. , P. 102.
1068. Herodotus. History, Vol. IV, 1972, sec. 59.
1069. VDI, 1948, No 2. P. 299.
1070. Lavrentiev Chronicle. M., 2001. , P. 27.
1071. Sventsitsky JS The first Christians and the Roman Empire. M., 2003. Pp. 46, 49.
1072. Ibid. Pp. 79, 80.
1073. Ibid. , P. 158.
1074. The dream of Russian unity. Synopsis of Kiev (1674). M., 2006. P. 106.
1075. Lavrentiev Chronicle. M., 2001. Pp. 8, 9.
1076. A Treatise of Johann Fabri “Religion Muscovites” / / Russia and Germany. M., 1998. No. 1. p. 20-21.
1077. Sigismund Herberstein. Notes on Muscovy. M., 1988. Pp. 88 - 89.
1078. A. Possevino. Historical essays on Russia in XVI. M. 1983. , P. 79.
1079. Adam Oleary. Description of Muscovy / / Russia of the X8th c. Memories of foreigners. Smolensk, 2003. C. 438.
1080. Melnikova EA Norse geographical works. M., 1986. , P. 65.
1081. J. Del Piano Carpini. History mogalov. Guillaume de Rubruck. Journey to the East. The Book of Marco Polo. M., 1997. , P. 104.
1082. Karachay-Balkar-Russian dictionary / ed. ER Tenisheva, H. I. Suyuncheva, M., 1989. C. 805.
1083. Harkavy J. A. Legend of Muslim writers of the Slavs and Russian. St Petersburg. , 1870. P. 125.
1084. Lavrentiev Chronicle. L., 1926-1928. PSRL. T. 1. AS 78.79.
1085. Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen Ermiya Salamis. St Petersburg. 1851. C. 490.
1086. Composition of Samuel Collins, who spent nine years at Moscow Court as a physician of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich / / Reading in Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. M. 1846. P. 1.
1087. Mehovsky Matthew. Treatise on two Sarmatias. Moscow - Leningrad 1936. , P. 98.
In Russian
Contents Huns
Contents Tele
Contents Alans
Ogur and Oguz
Kurgan Culture
Ethnic Affiliation Scythians
Scythians and their descendents
Burgund Dateline
Ephthalite Dateline
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Ðåéòèíã@Mail.ru “” Türkic