A contribution to the understanding of the numbers (2:6

from Theology & Culture 4 (June 2022)

by Departamenti i Theologjisë dhe Kulturës, Kolegji Universitar Logos

of Albania after the fall of the Communist System

3 Numerology in the Gospel of John I: A contribution to the understanding of the numbers (2:6)

Thomas Mavromoustakos Sotirios Despotis

Professor, Director of the Laboratory of Organic Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, Zografou 15171, Athens Greece

Professor, Section of Biblical studies and Cultural life of the Mediterranean, Canon Law and Byzantine Theology since the 9th Cen. C.E. Faculty of Social Theology and the Study of Religion, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimiopolis, Zografou 15171, Athens Greece

Corespondence:

e-mail: sotdespo@yahoo.gr

Abstract

For the Fathers the number six expresses the completeness and is related to (re-creation) of the world. For many contemporary readers the six water-pots are a symbol of the imperfect purification which will be substituted by the incarnated and crucified resurrected Logos through the baptism and the blood donation. The Messianic dinner is established between the Jewish in Cana of Galilea. The phrase two or three measures express the volume of stone water-pots probably not only literally but also in a poetic way. Therefore, the abundance/and richness arrive from just the presence of Jesus as in the first sign he does not speak or order for the transformation of water to wine. The presence of two consecutive numbers recalls for a gradual or climactic scheme to intensify the content of the sentence. Remarkably this does not appear only in Bible but also in Modern Greek poetry and music.

Keywords:

Number six, measures, synthetic parallelism, climax scheme.

Citation:

Mavromoustakos T. G. & Despotis S. Christ, Numerology in the Gospel of John I: A contribution to the understanding of the numbers (2:6). Theology & Culture. 2022; 4: 43-56. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18634.85443

As it is well known, numbers in Bible and especially seven are recognized to have not only an arithmetic value but also a symbolic meaning1. There is ample evidence that numbers in the time of Jesus were not only recognized as tools for routine calculations in their daily life or scientific work but also as symbolic entities. The understanding of the symbolic and allegoric meaning of these numbers allows the faithful person to enjoy and comprehend the scriptures as well as reveal new theological meanings2. Any interpretation that does not deviate from the basic Christian dogma offers new spiritual enjoyment to the faith people. Of course, the existence of the opposite view does not escape our notice (Davis, 1991). This opposing view considers the effort to understand the symbolism of numbers as a “waste of time” and rather a “destructive occupation” (Thompson Allis, 1946; Schimmel, 1993). We support the first view as the examples in Bible where the numbers are set in purpose to show symbolic meaning are numerous. We cannot deny for example the often accounting of the number seven in Revelation to be accidental.

It appears that Jews were borrowed some symbolism from the Babylonian (Mc Guire, 2002), Egyptian and Greek with which the Jews came in contact (Gabai, 2002). Greek symbolism of numbers and mathematics was introduced by Pythagoras3 (c. 570-490 BC), Plato (427-347) and continued with neo-Pythagoreans and neo-Platonists (Barry, 1999). In Plutarch (c45-120 AC) works examples of isopsephy (i.e., On the E of Delphi) and numbers symbolism are found (i.e., On Isis and Osiris, The Roman and Greek questions). The active symbolism of the numbers is well understood as Gnosticism a trend of the following second and third centuries introduced extensive numeric symbolism (Kalvesmaki, 2006). Philo who also lived at the times of Jesus Christ wrote a

1 See for example P.J. Bentley, The books of Numbers, The Secrets of Numbers and how they changed the world, Cassel Illustrated, 2008, passim. 2 See (a) Robert D. Johnston, Numbers in the Bible, God’s Unique Design in Biblical Numbers (Michigan: Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501, 1990). (b) Ed Vallowe, Biblical Mathematics. Keys to Scripture Numerics. How to count the Bible (Lexington: The Olive Press, 2014) (c) J. Kalvesmaki, Number Symbolism in Platonism and Early Christianity, Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University Washington, DC. Distributed by Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England 2013. (d) A. Schimmel, The mystery of numbers (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press (1993). 3 Pythagoras believed that numbers are of divine feature. John Chrysostom was against this idea of Pythagoras and expressed the view that “God is superior the numbers” (Ἀριθμοῡ γάρ τὸ θεῑον ἀνώτερον καὶ χρόνων ἀκολουθίας) (PG. 59.31).

lot of works which contain allegory on the numbers (c. 25 BC – c. 50 CE).

In East Church Clemens (150-211-216 AC), Origen (c185-251 AC) and Saint Cyril from Alexandria (378-444 AC) were the first to introduce heavily the number symbolism. Saint Gregorius Nazianzenous (329-390 AC), Gregorius Nyssenus (335-395 AC) and John Chrysostom (c 344-407) were also using a moderate number symbolism. Saint Gregorius Nazianzenous was the one that urges faithful people to get in the deep understanding of numbers4 . Saint Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AC) was the most systematic and deepest theologist in providing allegoric meaning to numbers. (PG 90.463).

In the Western Church Saint Augustine (354-430 AC) also systematically used symbolic way to interpret numbers. Saint Augustine considered numbers (mathematics) as the study of divine ideas. Numbers are originating in God’s minds. The central premise of Saint Augustine approach was widely applied for one thousand and five hundred years. Saint Thomas Aquinas (12251274 AC), another very important father of Western Church differed on some of the details -for example, he viewed mathematical knowledge as abstraction from experience rather than as a priori knowledge as did Saint Augustine, but he accepted the central premise. Today, this perspective is largely disappeared and that is the reason we have difficulty to understanding the symbolism of numbers in Bible (Bradley, nd). From the above reasons J.N. Sanders and B.A. Mastin realized that it is a standing temptation to read in allegorical interpretation into all numbers in the Fourth Gospel; many no doubt have a symbolic significance (Sanders & Mastin, 1968).

In two articles, which refer to the beginning and the end of the action of the Lord Jesus in John, we will consider the meaning of the numbers in John, considering the interpretation of the Fathers and the modern Scholars.

The chapter two of the John Gospel starts with the information that “and the third day was a marriage in Cana of Galilee” and Jesus was bidden with his disciples. His mother was already there. When the wine failed his mother said it to him. Although Jesus answered in a peculiar way that “his time is not yet come” his mother feels the incoming miracle and says to servants “whatsoever are told do it” (2:1-5). Indeed the “first sign” of Jesus will be performed on the six water-pots (or pitchers) of stone set there after the Jew’s manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins a piece. These will be filled with water and Jesus will order them to bear them unto the ruler of the feast who will confirm

4 Καί σύ δ’ ἄν κατά σαὐτόν ἀναλεγόμενος, πολλούς τηρήσαις ἀριθμούς ἔχοντας τὶ τοῦ φαινομένου βαθύτερον (PG 36.428).

the conversion to wine (2:9).

Gibson mentions that these larger than the vessels water pots were placed in the outer court, away from the guest-chamber. It is natural that an eyewitness should remember the number and know roughly their size. Mikvaot (= Jewish ritual baths) and other stone vessels were developed during Christ times as an explosion for the religion purification and as a passive resistance against the characteristics of the Roman civilization which were considered unsurpatory (Gibson, 2010).

In general, the water is often mentioned in John Gospel in various narratives as a symbol of change-transfiguration that incarnated Logos offers. Christ being wearied with his journey on Jacob’s well (4:6) appears as a donor of “living water”, a water that whoever drinks never gets thirsty again as it becomes a well of water springing up within him for eternal life (4:14). He substitutes now the sheep gate pool Bethesda (5:2) curing a thirty-eight-year sick person that he had no man, when the water is troubled by the angel, to put him into the pool (5:7). In the same place he treated a man who was blind from his birth. In the last day of Tabernacle feast invites in the Temple, which was expected to function in the Eschatological Days as a “living fountain” if any man is thirst, to come unto him and drink (7:37) because from within him shall flow rivers of living water (7:38). From the side of the crucified new Adam came out blood and water (19:34) to form the Church.

In this article the interpretation of the meaning of the numbers of John 2:6 will be sought. These numbers include the six stone water-pots that contain two or three firkins a piece. The interpretation will cover representative Fathers and Ecclesiastical Authors from West and East as well as contemporary interpreters.

1. The six stone water-pots containing two or three firkins a piece

The word “μετρητής (firkin)” is met in Josephus (37-c100 A.C.), but not as a measurement unit5, and not in and Philo (c. 25 BC – c. 50 CE). According to Origen (Principles 4.2.5) the Evangelist mentioning the two or three “μετρητές” reflects the reception of the scripture word in a (a) psychic and

5 Προϊόντι δὲ εἰς τὴν πολεμίαν Τίτῳ προῆγον μὲν οἱ βασιλικοὶ καὶ πᾶν τὸ συμμαχικόν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ὁδοποιοὶ καὶ μετρηταὶ στρατοπέδων. ἔπειτα τὰ τῶν ἡγεμόνων σκευοφόρα καὶ μετὰ τοὺς τούτων ὁπλίτας αὐτὸς τούς τε ἄλλους ἐπιλέκτους καὶ τοὺς λογχοφόρους ἔχων κατόπιν δ᾽ αὐτῷ τοῦ τάγματος τὸ ἱππικόν (De bello Judaico 5,47).

(b) spiritual way thus in two “μετρητές” but also (c) according to the flesh (σαρκικά) thus in three «μετρητές». The six firkins symbolize the six days of creation and it is a perfect number (see also Philo, De opificio mundi 1:89). By perfect number we mean that the sum of its dividends come to the number: 6=1(6:6) +2(6:3) +3 (6:2)=6.

Saint Augustine (354-430 AC) (PL 35.1461) pointed out: “But what means this: They contained two or three metretæ; apiece? This phrase certainly conveys to us a mysterious meaning. For by metretæ he means certain measures, as if he should say jars, flasks, or something of that sort. Metreta is the name of a measure and takes its name from the word measure. For μέτρον is the Greek word for measure, whence the word metretæ is derived. They contained, then, two or three metretæ; apiece. What are we to say, brethren? If He had simply said three a piece, our mind would at once have run to the mystery of the Trinity. And, perhaps, we ought not at once to reject this application of the meaning, because He said, two or three apiece; for when the Father and Son are named, the Holy Spirit must necessarily be understood. For the Holy Spirit is not that of the Father only, nor of the Son only, but the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. For it is written, if any man loves the world, the Spirit of the Father is not in him (1 John 2:15). And again, whose has not the Spirit of Christ is none of His (Romans 8:9). The same, then, is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. Therefore, the Father and the Son being named, the Holy Spirit also is understood, because He is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son. […] That is the reason why it is not said, some containing two metretæ; apiece, others three apiece; but the same six water-pots contained two or three metretæ; apiece. It is as if he had said, when I say two apieces, I would have the Spirit of the Father and of the Son to be understood together with them; and when I say three apiece, I declare the same Trinity more plainly”.

John Chrysostom (349-407 A.C. PG 59.135) does not comment on the number of the firkins but he is giving a valuable information about their previous use. “It is not without a reason that the Evangelist says. After the manner of the purifying of the Jews, but in order that none of the unbelievers might suspect that lees having been left in the vessels, and water having been poured upon and mixed with them, a very weak wine had been made. Therefore, he says, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, to show that those vessels were never receptacles for wine. For because Palestine is a country with but little water, and brooks and fountains were not everywhere to be found, they always used to fill water-pots with water, so that they might not have to has-

ten to the rivers if at any time they were defiled but might have the means of purification at hand. And why was it, that He did not the miracle before they filled them, which would have been more marvelous by far? For it is one thing to change given matter to a different quality, and another to create matter out of nothing. The latter would indeed have been more wonderful but would not have seemed so credible to the many. And therefore, He often purposely lessens the greatness of His miracles, that it may be the more readily received. But why, says one, did not He Himself produce the water which He afterwards showed to be wine, instead of bidding the servants bring it? For the very same reason; and also, that He might have those who drew it out to witness that what had been effected was no delusion since if any had been inclined to be shameless, those who ministered might have said to them, We drew the water, we filled the vessels”.

Saint Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AC) provides allegoric interpretations to the Abbot of Libya Thalassios who asked him several questions on difficult chapters of Bible. The 40th question of Thalassios was about the mystic meaning of the six firkins. Saint Maximus answered that six firkins represent the “natural power” which implements the Divine Commandments. Unfortunately, humans emptied the knowledge of the “natural power” in the futile materialism. Jesus had come to fill them with good wine. The number six symbolizes the creative power of the nature for the following reasons: (a) declares the six creative days by God in the Genesis of the world; (b) it is a perfect number as it is already explained; It appears that Saint Maximus uses identical allegoric elements as Origen. (c) Consists of the same parts (3+3); (d) Jesus as the Logos of love is expressed in six general ways taking care of the bodies and spirits of: (1) hungry; (2) thirsty; (3) aliens; (4) naked; (5) sick and (6) prisoners (PG 90.396-403).

Saint Maximus provides an explanation why the water-pots contained two or three firkins: (a) The natural (physical) theory is the knowledge of body and spirit “δύο μετρητές”; (b) The feasible in our nature theological mystagogy is understood as the knowledge and enlightening of Holy Trinity, thus the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit “τρεις μετρητές”. Finally, Saint Maximus wishes all faithful people to implement Cana marriage. Very clearly bridegroom is the human mind that marries the virtue. When Jesus is invited, he honors this spiritual marriage and makes it concrete in such a way to produce many spiritual children. Jesus is then visiting us with his mother to return us back the lost knowledge due to our sins and leads us to “theosis”. The knowl-

edge of the nature is forcified and in a way is gingered from theosis to remain unchanged. Theosis resembles with wine quantity that strengthens the water.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 A.C.) mentions that in the mystical sense, the six water jars signify the six eras of the Old Testament during which the hearts of men were prepared and made receptive of God’s Scriptures and put forward as an example for our lives. He describes the interpretation of Saint Augustine in more detail way. “The term metretes, according to Augustine, refers to the Trinity of persons. And they are described as two or three because at times in Scripture three persons in the Trinity are distinctly mentioned: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19), and at other times only two, the Father and the Son, in whom the Holy Spirit, who is the union of the two, is implied: “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him. Or they are described as two on account of the two states of mankind from which the Church arose, that is, Jews and Gentiles. Or three on account of the three sons of Noah, from whom the human race arose after the deluge” (St Thomas Aquinas, 2010).

Martin Luther (1483-1546 A.C.) interprets that the six water-pots of stone, for the purification of the Jews, are the books of the Old Testament which by law and commandment made the Jewish people only outwardly pious and pure; for which reason the Evangelist says, they were set there after the Jews’ manner of purifying, as if to say: “This signifies the purification by works without faith, which never purifies the heart, but only makes it more impure; which is a Jewish, not a Christian or spiritual purification. There being six water pots signifies the labor and toil which they who deal in works undergo in such purification; for the heart finds no rest in them, since the Sabbath, the seventh day, is wanting, in which we rest from our works and let God work in us. For there are six workdays, in which God created heaven and earth, and commanded us to labour. The seventh day is the day of rest, in which we are not to toil in the works of the Law, but to let God work in us by faith, while we remain quiet and enjoy a holiday from the labours of the Law. The water in the pots is the contents and substance of the Law by which conscience is governed and is graven in letters as in the water-pots of stone. And they are of stone, as were the tables of Moses, signifying the stiff-necked people of the Jews. For as their heart is set against the Law, so the Law appears outwardly to be against them. It seems hard and difficult to them, and therefore it is hard and difficult; the reason in that their heart is hard and averse to the Law; we all find, feel

and discover by experience that we are hard and averse to what is good, and soft and prone to what is evil. This the wicked do not feel, but those who long to be pious and labor exceedingly with their works. This is the significance of the two or three firkins apiece”6 .

Calvin (1509-1564 A.C.) is giving the following interpretation. “And there were there six water-pots of stone. According to the computation of Budaeus, we infer that these water-pots were very large; [ …] . Christ supplied them, therefore, with a great abundance of wine, as much as would be sufficient for a banquet to a hundred and fifty men. Besides, both the number and the size of the water-pots serve to prove the truth of the miracle. If there had been only two or three jars, many might have suspected that they had been brought from some other place. If in one vessel only the water had been changed into wine, the certainty of the miracle would not have been so obvious, or so well ascertained. It is not, therefore, without a good reason that the Evangelist mentions the number of the water-pots, and states how much they contained7. It arose from superstition that vessels so numerous and so large were placed there. They had the ceremony of washing, indeed, prescribed to them by the Law of God; but as the world is prone to excess in outward matters, the Jews, not satisfied with the simplicity which God had enjoined, amused themselves with continual washings; and as superstition is ambitious, they undoubtedly served the purpose of display, as we see at the present day in Popery, that everything which is said to belong to the worship of God is arranged for pure display. There was, then, a twofold error: that without the command of God, they engaged in a superfluous ceremony of their own invention; and next, that, under the pretense of religion, ambition reigned amidst that display. Some Popish scoundrels have manifested an amazing degree of wickedness, when they had the effrontery to say that they had among their relics those water-pots with which Christ performed this miracle in Cana, and exhibited some of them, which, first, are of small size, and, next, are unequal in size. And in the present day, when the light of the Gospel shines so clearly around us, they are not ashamed to practice those tricks, which certainly is not to deceive by enchantments, but daringly to mock men as if they were blind; and the world, which

6 http://www.martinluthersermons.com/ Luther, Sermon for the Second Sunday after the Epiphany; John 2:1-11. 7 The editor points out that the exact size of the firkin cannot be easily ascertained. If «μετρητής» be here used by the Evangelist as a purely Greek word, we must conclude it to be an Attic measure, which was nearly equal to nine English gallons. If, again, it be placed here as a substitute for the Hebrew word Bath, as the Septuagint has done in 2Chronicles 4:5, it will probably be rated at seven gallons and a half.

does not perceive such gross mockery, is evidently bewitched by Satan”8 .

In contrast to the Fathers and Philo, who consider number six as a perfect number, the contemporary interpreters think that is not a complete number as it is less by one from the number seven (6=7-1) which is well known to symbolize completeness in the Bible (Morris, 1993). Thus, the Jewish purification is not complete and needs Jesus Christ as the seventh water-pot to lead in a complete purification (Moloney, 1998). This interpretation of number six is especially eminent between 1953-decade of 1970, the time that Second Quest is predominated and the difference between Jewish and Christianity is accentuated (Gibson & Mckinley, 2015). The presence of the six water-pots impresses the high necessity in the Greek-Roman ages for purification. The water-pots to be easily accessible were laid in the dining room or in a passage near the yard or atrium where existed an impluvium. In addition, these were made of the stone to secure the highest possible purity of the vessels and the hands after washing (Lev 11:33). Thus, John who is aware of the Jewish customs (Keener, 2012), expresses the antithesis between the older Jewish laws regarding the purification and the “ecstatic wine” of the New Testament referred to those who will be born from water and spirit. With Cana sign is shown that we have all received grace for the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (1:16-17) (Schlatter, 1948). Of course, the Bridegroom Jesus asseverates that salvation comes from Jewish (4:22) as he is also Jewish (4:9) (Moody Smith, 1999). As he is the Lamb of God clears the sins of the world and through his blood cleans the world9 .

The number six may interconnect with the number of Jesus’ disciples including him. In the marriages people offer gifts. Jesus offers with his five disciples the best quality wine that people ever sampled. The six water-pots full of wine is the best reward for the hospitality and attention that Jesus and his five disciples had.

May be this specific beginning of the signs by Jesus symbolizes his declare to transfer the spiritual wine in the world through his water-pot-flesh and the testimony of the other five disciples. It must be noted that in the sign of multi-

8 John Calvin, C John, vol. 1, a new translation from the original Latin by the Rev. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI Christian Ethereal Library (http://www.ccel.org commentary on the Gospel According to John) pp. 50-51. 9 G. Wheaton in his dissertation entitled The Role of Jewish Feasts in John’s Gospel [Scotland, University of St. Andrews, 2009] 34) provides references of many interpreters of six water-pots as symbol of incompleteness. He claims that this conception is for narrative purposes without blaming the incompleteness of the Jewish Law. He just makes appreciable the reality that indeed, we have all received grace after grace from His fullness (Joh 1:16).

plication of the five loaves and two fishes he is with all twelve disciples and the five thousand people will not only be satiated but also will result with left over of twelve baskets (6:13). It may not be accidental that in these two signs, where Jesus provides the in need by the people as a gift, there is a correspondence between the materials of the miracle with the presence of the disciples. In his mission to transfigure the dessert hearts of the gentiles to salvated fountains with living water nobody is in excess.

If every water-pot contained two or three measures, the total quantity of the water which is converted into wine nagged to the huge volume of 492737 liters, as each measure was equivalent with nine gallons or approximately forty-one liters. The apothegmatic water-pot which was used for oil, wine and wheat contained up to fifty liters. This high quantity in water-pots mentioned by John aims to show the great and exact gratitude of the sign. The richness of the gift constitutes one of the characteristics of the specific Gospel. It is remarkable to note that if the Evangelist mentioned the source of the water and not the water-pot it would not be a way to measure the quantity of the water. We can compare the six stone water-pots with: (a) twelve baskets that were left over after the satiation of five thousand people from five loans and two fishes; (b) the pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious that Mary used and anointed the feet of Jesus; (12:3) (c) one hundred liters of myrrh and aloes with which Nicodemus anointed the burial body of Jesus (19:39) and (d) 153 great fishes which his disciples fished after the order of the resurrected Jesus (21:7).

The magnitude of the oncoming sign appears more intense on the audience as the question “what has this concern of yours to do with Me, woman? (2:4) to her mother who notified him “that they have no wine (2:3)” does not point the extension of the offer of Jesus to the couple. After the water-pots have been filled with water the transformation of the water into wine is performed (Karakolis, 1996).

Of course, these quantities are small in relation to corresponding Jewish and first Christian descriptions of messianic age as these are mentioned in Ι Enoch (10.19.2), Baruch (29:5) and Hierapolis Papias (cf Ireneos, Against Heresies 5:33.3-4). This is since Evangelist wishes his data to testify a real history. It must be noted that Jesus does not create a seventh water-pot (Morris, 1995). In any case Jesus provides Life and offers an abundance of gift more than the expectation (Joh 10:10) (Ramsey, 2010).

They have been reported also the following extreme allegoric interpreta-

tions: (a) the six water-pots express the 6000 cosmic years10; (b) if we multiply the number of water-pots with their maximum volume (3x6) it comes out the number eighteen which symbolizes the first letters of word Jesus ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (IH=10+8)11. This semeiology meets for the first time in Barnavas Epistle (9:8)12 .

2. Two or three firkins as a poetic and a climax scheme in John Gospel

We have already pointed out that in 2:6 are mentioned the two or three measures of liquids that water-pots can contain. J.J. Davis studied the rhetorical use numbers and more specifically the formula X/X+1 where X represents any number and X+1 its greater number by one. This formula is not met only in the Bible but also in myths of Cananite-Ugaritic mythology like that of the king Keret13 (Epic of King Keret, is an ancient Ugaritic epic poem, dated to Late Bronze Age, circa 1500 – 1200 B.C.) (Davis, 1991). This climax scheme (X/X+1) functions in Semitic text as a synthetic parallelism.

Α chapter from Isaiah supports in our view the climax meaning of the scheme Yet gleanings will be left in it like the shaking of an olive tree, Two or three olives on the topmost bough, Four or five on the branches of a fruitful tree, Declares the LORD, the God of Israel. (Isa 17:6 The New American Standard Bible (NASB) (Skolnik, 2007). It is the prophesy against Syria and the king of Israel. The meaning of the chapter is that the destroy will be not total but some of the population will survive. To express this reality the prophet uses metaphors and moments from the rural life. During the collection of olives usually on the high branches are left one or two which cannot be gathered. In Deuteronomy is clearly stated that these remaining oils belong to the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless

10 A.D. Delimpasis, (Pascha of our Lord, Creation-Renovation and Apostasy [Athens 1995, 193]) provides references in which is shown that during Jesus’ age the cosmic year was not the 6000. 11 H.A. Hutmacher, Symbolik der Biblischen Zahlen und Zeiten (München: F. Schoningh 1993) 199. In this book the author provides a plethora of Bible chapters in which the symbolic meaning of the numbers is explained. The imagination of the author to find gematrias (words that symbolically correspond to numbers) is impressive. 12 Λέγει γάρ «Καὶ περιέτεμεν Ἀβραὰμ ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἄνδρας δεκαοκτὼ καὶ τριακοσίους». Τίς οὖν ἡ δοθεῖσα αὐτῷ γνῶσις μάθετε ὅτι τοὺς δεκαοκτὼ πρώτους καὶ διάστημα ποιήσας λέγει «τριακοσίους». Τὸ δεκαοκτὼ Ι [δέκα] Η [ὀκτω] ἔχεις Ιησοῦν Ὅτι δὲ ὁ σταυρὸς ἐν τῷ Τ ἤμελλεν ἔχειν τὴν χάριν λέγει καὶ τοὺς τριακοσίους Δηλοῖ οὖν τὸν μὲν Ἰησοῦν ἐν τοῖς δυσὶν γράμμασιν καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ τὸν σταυρόν (9,8). 13 http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze33gpz/canaanite-faq.html (therein references).

you in all the work of your hands (24:19). The second scene is the use of the sticks to collect the olives. At the side branches are left four or five olives. In this climax scheme are used the numbers four and five which are greater than two and three. As some olives remain on the tree, the same way God cares to raise from ashes his people through the ages without being destroyed from an invasion. Thus, the purpose of the author is to show the result through the progressive increase of the numbers. In reality, this fundamental operation of this idiom is to strengthen the parallelism in such a way the listener/reader to imprint in his heart its echo14 .

Conclusions

A. For the Fathers the number six expresses the completeness and is related to (re-creation) of the world. For many contemporary readers the six water-pots is a symbol of the imperfect purification which will be substituted by the incarnated and crucified resurrected Logos through the baptism and the blood donation. The Messianic dinner is established between the Jewish in Cana of Galilea. Next, in Chapter four participants in the messianic dinner is Samaritan woman and a gentile nobleman.

B. The phrase two or three measures express the volume of stone water-pots probably not only literally but also in a poetic way. Therefore, the abundance/ and richness arrive from just the presence of Jesus as in the first sign he does not speak or order for the transformation of water to wine. The presence of two consecutive numbers recalls for a gradual or climactic scheme to intensify the content of the sentence. Remarkably this does not appear only in Bible but also in modern Greek poetry and music.

14 J. Blenkinsopp, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary The Anchor Bible v. 19, Isaiah 1-39 (USA: Doubleday, 2000) 305. This climactic of the meaning remains alive and is manifested in our days in poetry and music in Greece. An example is the song awarded the Oscar prize in 1960 called “The children of Piraeus” (The lines and music are written by Manos Chatzidakis). http://www.stixoi.info/stixoi.php?info=Lyrics&act=details&song_id=2505

Barry, K. (1999). The Greek Qabalah, Alphabetic Mysticism and Numerology in the Ancient World, York, Beach, Maine: Samuel Weiser. Bentley, P. J. (2008). The books of Numbers, The Secrets of Numbers and how they changed the world, Cassel Illustrated, passim. Blenkinsopp, J. (2000). A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary The Anchor Bible v. 19, Isaiah 1-39. USA: Doubleday. Bradley, J. (n.d.). An Augustinian Perspective on the Philosophy of Mathematics. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.511.8468&rep=rep1&type=pdf Calvin, C. J. (n.d.). Commentary On The Gospel According To John, (W. Pringle, trans.), Grand Rapids, MI Christian Ethereal Library. Retrieved from https:// ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34/calcom34.i.html. Davis, J. J. (1991). Biblical Numerology. A Basic Study of the Use of Numbers in the Bible, USA: Baker Book House Company. Deines, R. (1993). Jüdische Steingefüsse und Pharisäische Frömmigkeit: Ein Archäologisch-Historischer Beitrag zum Verständnis von Joh 2, 6 und der Jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2; 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Gabai, H. (2002). Judaism, Mathematics, and the Hebrew Calendar, USA: Jason Aronson Inc. Gibson, D., Mckinley, D. (2015). The Jesus Code, New York, St. Martin’s Press. Gibson, S. (2010). The Final Days of Jesus: The Archaeological Evidence. NY, USA: HarperCollins. Hutmacher Η.Α. (1993). Symbolik der Biblischen Zahlen und Zeiten. München: F. Schoningh. Johnston, R. D. (1990). Numbers in the Bible, God’s Unique Design in Biblical Numbers, Michigan: Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Kalvesmaki, J. (2013). The theology of Arithmetic: Number Symbolism in Platonism and Early Christianity. Hellenic Studies Series 59. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies.

Karakolis, C. (1996). The Theological Meaning of Miracles according to John Gospel, Thesalloniki: Pournaras Editions.

Keener, C. S. (2012). The Gospel of John, A Commentary, USA: Baker Academics.

Mc Guire, M. R. P. (2002). Numerology, New Catholic Encyclopedia, USA: Thomson.

Moloney, F. J. (1998). The Gospel of John, Minnesota: Liturgical Press. Moody D. (1999) Smith, John, Nashville: Abingdon Press. Morris, L. (1995). The Gospel according to John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. Ramsey, J. (2010). The Gospel of John, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. Sanders, J. N. (1968). A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John, B. A. Mastin.

Schimmel, A. (1993). The mystery of numbers, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schlatter, A. (1948). Der Evangelist Johannes, Stuttgart: Calwer. Skolnik, F. (2007). Numbers, Encycopaedia Judaica, Detroit: Thomson Gale. St T. Aquinas (2010). Commentary on the Gospel of John. Chapters 1-5. Translated by Fabian Larcher, James Weishpeif with introduction and notes by Daniel Keating and Mathew Levering. (Washington: Catholic University of America Press 2010) 139. Thompson Allis, O. (1946). Bible Numerics, USA: Moody Press. Vallowe, E. (2014). Biblical Mathematics. Keys to Scripture Numerics. How to count the Bible, Lexington: The Olive Press.

4 Religious freedom and millet during the Tanzimat Reform

Georgios Gaitanos

Head of the Department of Theology & Culture, Lecturer of Religious Studies, University College Logos, Tirana Corespondence:

e-mail: gaitanosg@yahoo.gr

Abstract

From the end of the last century, a significant shift in Ottoman history was attempted, as it sought to overthrow the ideological pattern of decline and focus on renewed trends and contemporary issues. One of these issues that will concern us in the present paper is the evolution of the system of separation of peoples and inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire based on religion. Through the system of separation and classification of the inhabitants of the various regions occupied by the Ottoman Empire, religion seems to have played a decisive role and was used as a factor to limit any confrontation with a national sign. Thus, the Ottoman Empire established the millet system, to institutionalize its relations with religious minorities. The work will seek to show whether this institution respected the religious freedom of the people of the Bible, as stated in the Qur’an, and whether the Tanzimat reform improved the functioning of the institution and the relations of the Orthodox Church with the Ottoman Porte.

Keywords:

Tanzimat, millet, religious freedom, nationalism, Ecumenical Patriarchate. Citation:

Gaitanos G. Religious freedom and millet during the Tanzimat Reform. Theology & Culture. 2022; 4: 57-79. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35412.07040

One of the first concerns of the present study was the way of approaching the historical development and socio-political transformations observed in the Late Ottoman Empire. It is characteristic that since the beginning of the 21st century the way of perceiving the Ottoman history has changed significantly, since new trends in research and differentiated representations of the Ottoman past have developed (Gkara, 2008). The treatment of Ottoman social, political and economic history went through various stages after the gradual establishment of departments of Ottoman Studies in the international community. The most important research trends were concentrated in the Orientalist tradition1, to the contribution of Turkish historians who cultivated a national Turkish narrative2, and in the historiography that formed a specific interpretive scheme of Ottoman history about the “classical period” (1300-1600) and the “period of decline or post-classical” (1600-1914)3. The common approach of these research trends was that they studied exclusively the state structure of the Ottoman state, its tax system and political developments, without being interested in the developments and transformations of the society, while in general they agreed with the ideology that from the 17th century onwards there is a “decline” of the Ottoman state due to defeats in wars with major European powers (Inalcik, 1978; Quataert, 2003). Overall, a historiography of the Ottoman state and not of the various

1 According to Orientalist tradition, Islam was treated as a timeless substance and Ottoman society from the 18th century onwards as a degenerate civilization. In fact, Islam was presented as the central difference between the Ottoman Empire and Christian Europe and a key factor in the failure to modernize the East (See R. Owen (1976). “The Middle East in the Eighteenth Century: An Islamic Society in decline? A Critique of Gibband Bowen’s Islamic Society and the West”, Bulletin of British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 3.2, 110-117). 2 From the 1930s onwards, Turkish historians, using exclusively and systematically Ottoman archival sources not available to Western scholars, attempted to present Ottoman history as a continuation of the modern Turkish state and thus cultivate a glorious history in the past, degrading the Islamic element in many places and establishing an apologetic attitude, with the aim of restoring the Ottoman Empire (See S. Faroqhi (2006). Προσεγγίζοντας την Οθωμανική Ιστορία: Εισαγωγή στις Πηγές (transl. in Greek Κ. Καμπουρίδης), Θεσσαλονίκη: University Studio Press. S. Hanioglu (1999). “Review: Pan-Islamism: Indian Muslims, the Ottomans and Britain (1877-1924) by Anmi Ozcan”, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 31.1, 145-147. B. Ersanli (2002), “The Ottoman Empire in the Historiography of the Kemalist Era: A Theory of Fatal Decline”, in F. Adanir & S. Faroqhi (eds.), The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography, Leiden: Brill, 115-154). 3 Typical works of this trend are H. Inalcik & D. Quataert (1994). An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press and F. G. Metallinos (2008). Τουρκοκρατία: Οι Έλληνες στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Ακρίτας.

Ottoman societies was developed, as if we exclude some studies that tried with a holistic approach to present the history and society of different cities and societies4, no attempt was made to give a different perspective (Gkara, 2008).

However, since the end of the last century, a significant shift in Ottoman history has been attempted, with the aim of overthrowing the ideological pattern of decline and focusing on renewed trends and contemporary issues. Thus, several studies have dealt with the transformation of institutions5, the difference between the societies of the center and the periphery6, the ideological framework of power formation7, the question of the coexistence of many religious and ethnic communities8, the presence of women as a special social group9, the issue of human rights10 .

One of these institutions that will concern us is the evolution of the system of separation of peoples and inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire, based on re-

4 See, L. Fawaz (1983). Merchants and Migrants in Nineteenth Century Beirut, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. N. Todorov (1986). Η βαλκανική πόλη, 15ος-19ος αιώνας: κοινωνικο-οικονομική και δημογραφική ανάπτυξη, Αθήνα: Θεμέλιο. A. Marcus (1989). The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century, New York: Columbia University Press. S. Faroqhi (1992). “Political Activity among Ottoman Taxpayers and the Problem of Sultanic Legitimation (1570-1650)”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34,1-39; (2000). Κουλτούρα και καθημερινή ζωή στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: από τον Μεσαίωνα ως τις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα, Αθήνα: Εξάντας. 5 See, A. Salzmann (1993). “An Ancient Regime Revisited: “Privatization” and Political Economy in the Eighteenth Century Ottoman Empire”, Politics & Society 21.4, 393-423. L. Darling (1996). Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660, Leiden: Brill. 6 See, J. Hathaway (1996). The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of Qazdaglis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D. Douwes (2000). The Ottomans in Syria: A History of Justice and Oppression, London: I. B. Tauris. 7 See, S. Deringil (1999). The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909, London: I. B. Tauris. 8 See, B. Braude & B. Lewis (1982). Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers. Ε. Gkara (2005). «Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία των πρώιμων νεότερων χρόνων: ιστοριογραφικές προσεγγίσεις», in M. Greene (ed.), Κρήτη, ένας κόσμος. Χριστιανοί και μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο των πρώιμων νεότερων χρόνων, Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις του Εικοστού Πρώτου, 15-37. N. Doumanis (2013). Before the Nation: Muslim-Christian Coexistence and its Destruction in Late Ottoman Anatolia, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 9 See, J. Tucker (1985). Women in the Nineteenth-Century Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. L. Peirce (1993). The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press. M. Zilfi (ed.) (1997). Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era, Leiden: Brill. I. Agmon (2004). “Women’s History and Ottoman Sharia Court Records: Shifting Perspective in Social History”, Hawwa 2.2, 72-209. 10 See, B. Aral (2004). “The idea of Human Rights as Perceived in the Ottoman Empire”, Human Rights Quarterly, 26.2, 454-482.

ligion. As is well known, the Ottoman Empire covered a large area, especially around the Mediterranean, which meant that it included many different ethnic and religious groups in their historic homelands. Through the system of separation and classification of the inhabitants of the various regions occupied by the Ottoman Empire, religion seems to have played a decisive role and was used as a factor to limit any confrontation with a national sign. Thus, the Ottoman Empire established the millet system, to institutionalize its relations with religious minorities. The concept of minority in Islam classified religious minorities as “people of the Bible” (Barkey, 2005; Quataret, 2006; Liolios, 2013), as recognized in the Qur’an as such, Christians, Jews and Sabaeans (Braude & Lewis, 1985). However, in the millet system (religious community) only Christians and Jews were recognized as official religious groups. This separation arose from the Islamic legal tradition, which separated the non-Muslim population in the Muslim state (Rachieru, 2002; Mpalta, 2006).

1. The Millet system

In general, the millet system was a socio-cultural and community framework, based primarily on religion and secondarily on nationality (Karpat, 1985). Of course, this system was not implemented overnight, but was a continuous process with constant transformations. In fact, it should be noted that it covered smaller communities and even neighborhoods. For example, in the Balkans there were societies organized into groups of urban and rural communities rather than ethnic groups (Karpat, 1985). With this in mind, the Ottomans took advantage of the universality of faith and religion. Of course, although they did not try to destroy the linguistic or ethnic differences of these groups, at the same time they did not seek to strengthen the national identity and uniqueness of the different people (Karpat, 1985). In essence, the complex system of millet arose from the attempt to organize non-Muslim populations under an Islamic understanding without disregarding religious and cultural freedoms (Karpat, 1985; Mpalta, 2006). The basic differentiation became more apparent in the tax system because non-Muslims were required to pay two special taxes, the haraç (land tax) and the cizye (capital tax) (Karpat, 1985; Mpalta, 2006). The multi-layered understanding of non-Muslim groups has allowed many non-Muslims to rise to the highest levels of government and enjoy social recognition, as the system helped to achieve this goal (Karpat, 1985).

Of course, the fact of the transformation of this system on Tanzimat through

the two constitutional changes is of particular interest to our research. Thus, the Ottoman identity was reconstructed through the recognition of new millet, such as Protestant and Bulgarian, but also the establishment of self-governing rules for certain millet, such as Armenians and Jews (Rachieru, 2002). This growing segregation of the populations of the Ottoman Empire led to the establishment of dichotomous tendencies in Ottoman society, resulting in the introduction of the concept of “nation” from the West in the 19th century (Matalas, 2002).

Although historians have developed various theories, such as “push”11 and “attraction”12, for the rise of nationalist and revolutionary movements in the 19th century Ottoman Empire, most likely the revolutionary movements arose from class groups seeking more economic privileges than the central government, which with the reforms fueled rivalries between groups with conflicting interests (Quataret, 2006). Gradually, various nationalisms sprang up, cultivating a “fantasy ideology” for the pre-existence of nations and the creation of national identities13. But the reality is that first these states emerged and then their presence was “strengthened” with the ideology of a nation (Quataret, 2006).

In any case, before the notion of “nation” was more strongly cultivated, the millet system determined the way non-Muslims were governed. As we mentioned, the main injustice of this system was the extra taxation of these populations. After all, taxation was a constant source of revenue for the Empire (Asdrachas, 2003; 1978), especially through the taxation of the agricultural and livestock sector and commercial activity. In particular, the economic activity

11 According to the “push” theory, the Ottoman state undertook important reforms that helped equalize Muslims and non-Muslims economically and politically, but as change proceeded slowly, revolutionary movements emerged out of frustration. In essence, the state has fallen victim to its own policy. See, H. Inalcik (1976). Application of the Tanzimat and its social effects, Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. 12 According to the theory of “attraction”, the Ottoman state pursued an authoritarian and harsh economic policy to the detriment of its citizens, with the result that local rulers developed nationalist sentiments and embarked on independence movements. See, L. Stavrianos (2000). The Balkans since 1453, New York: New York University Press. Of course, this theory can be overturned in the case of Bulgaria, as it enjoyed considerable economic prosperity during the period of independence due to the economic policies and interventions of the Ottoman authority (See, D. Quataert (2006). Η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία. Οι τελευταίοι αιώνες, 1700-1922, 125-126). 13 The term “imaginary community” was first used by B. Anderson and was a useful analytical tool for examining objectively the idealistic way of constructing a nation or different groups within a nation. (See, B. Anderson (1997). Φαντασιακές Κοινότητες: Στοχασμοί για τις απαρχές και τη διάδοση του εθνικισμού (transl. in Greek Π. Χατζαρούλα), Αθήνα: Νεφέλη, 12-19).

and taxation of the Rum millet, which was the largest and most important of all (Skendi, 1982), is another important parameter that should be taken into account, because the gradual granting of privileges to various communities of today’s Greek territory by the Ottoman center (Kontogiorgis, 1982; Dalègre, 2006; Pylia, 2001; Petmezas, 2005) in conjunction with the international treaties that the Ottoman Porte was obliged to sign, helped the economic progress of inland and island communities (Asdrachas, 1982; Vakalopoulos, 1973; Chatziioannou, 2005; Petmezas et al., 2012).

2. The establishment of the Millet

The notion has been established that from the beginning the Ottoman authority recognized three nations, the Rum (Greek Orthodox), the Armenian (Gregorian) and the Jewish14. The first included the populations of the Balkan Peninsula and Central Asia and was under the guidance of the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople (Inalcik, 1991; Mpalta, 2006; Ribolov, 2013). The second millet included mainly the Armenians, but also the other Christian groups and mainly the pre-Chalcedonian Monophysites, such as the Copts of Egypt, who did not belong to the Orthodox Patriarch (Sugar, 1977). The third included all the Jews of the Empire, Romans, Ashkenazi, Sfaradites, who were officially recognized in the mid-19th century because of their decentralized administrative system, unlike the other two nations who had a hierarchical administration after the fall of Constantinople (Sugar, 1977).

However, historical research has raised concerns about the historical use of the term millet and its significance, as depending on the approach of each historian, the term was sometimes associated with the religious community recognized by the Ottoman state and sometimes associated with an ethno-religious ensemble, which was the matrix for the production of nationalist movements of the 19th century15. In essence, there was a difficulty in defining and understanding the term historically within the Ottoman legal system.

14 Generally on the subject of millet in the Ottoman Empire, see B. Braude & B. Lewis (eds.) (1985). Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers. S. Anagnostopoulou (2004). The Passage from the Ottoman Empire to the Nations-States, Istanbul: Isis, 37-55. S. Shaw (1978). “The Ottoman Census System and Population, 18311914”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 9.3, 325-338. S. Mutlu (2003). “Late Ottoman Population and its Ethnic Distribution”, Turkish Journal of Population Studies 25, 3-38. 15 For example, the approach of the 16th or 17th century with the rationale of the nationalist tendency, which began to prevail in the 19th century, is an anachronistic conception, which in no way helps to understand the millet as a religious community. See, I. Hassiotis (1999). “From the “Refledging” to the “Illumination of the Nation”: Aspects of Political Ideology in the Greek Church under Ottoman Domination”, Balkan Studies 40, 41-55.

However, studies from the 1980s onwards included the use of the term by the Ottoman regime in the official granting of privileges, without this meaning that this process began in the first centuries of the Ottoman conquests (Braude, 1985). Specifically, these studies showed that the performance of privileges through the introduction of the official status of millet took place during the increasing demands of the political elites of the national groups in the 19th and 20th centuries (Braude, 1985). Therefore, the official validity of the term dates back to the 19th century onwards.

Historical data may prove that the term millet was introduced in the 19th century, but at least in the case of the Greek Orthodox community it seems to have been established since the 18th century (Stamatopoulos, 2006; Gkara & Tzedelopoulos, 2015). Official Ottoman documents from the 16th to the 18th century used the term taife kafirlerin, meaning group of infidels, to identify the Orthodox populations under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Therefore, it was normal for the Orthodox population to be considered the most important group of unbelievers, as they outnumbered other non-Muslim religious and ethnic groups, such as the Armenians and the Jews. Nevertheless, around 1700 a very important change took place. The Patriarch of Constantinople is no longer officially referred to as the “Patriarch of the infidels”, but as the “Patriarch of the Romans”, ie the Orthodox subjects of the Empire, who usually spoke Greek. So the use of this term, especially from the beginning of the 18th century, paved the way for the introduction of the term Rum millet or millet-i Rum16, that is, of the religious group of the Romans, as a replacement for the previous term taife kafirlerin (Konortas, 1999; Zachariadou, 1996; Dalègre, 2006).

Over the years, the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople was considered the leader of the Rum millet, that is, of the Orthodox Christians, who were under the rule of the sultan. Since religion and nationality were identical concepts in the perception of the Turks, the Ottoman Porte formed a framework of

16 In Constantinople, the rise of a new social class with great political and cultural influence, the Phanariotes, was essentially a consequence of the same historical development. This Greek-speaking aristocracy, ideologically dependent on the Patriarchate and engaged in commercial and political activities, managed to control the promotion of leaders in the Danube Hegemony and to hold important positions in the Ottoman administration. We can therefore assume that the Phanariots, a social group that ensured the maintenance of Ottoman rule in frontier states vital to the Empire, owe much to the designation of the Orthodox millet as Rum. See, D. Stamatopoulos (2006). “From Millets to Minorities in the 19th-Century Ottoman Empire: an Ambiguous Modernization”, 254-255. S. Anagnostopoulou (1997). Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.-1919. Οι Ελληνορθόδοξες Κοινότητες: Από το Μιλλέτ των Ρωμιών στο ελληνικό έθνος, Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα, 23-37.

self-government in the Rum millet under the pretext of religious tolerance (Cahnmann, 1944; Mpalta, 2006; Liolios, 2013). So when the security of the Ottoman state was not threatened, then the only thing the officials were interested in was the collection of taxes, resulting in the introduction of the term raya (herd), which was used to present the citizens as tax subjects (Gibbons, 1916; Mpalta, 2006).

3. The Orthodox Church during the Ottoman Empire

As we have mentioned, the most important millet was the Rum millet and therefore it is necessary to investigate the relationship that the Ottomans developed with the Orthodox Church, its privileges and whether the principle of religious tolerance was applied or whether it was finally violated and to what extent. Having mentioned how this relationship was formed and established, we will then focus on the 19th century, which is the central interest of this paper. From the moment Muhammad II conquered Constantinople, he sought to cut off the danger of the Christians of the East becoming dependent on the Pope (Archbishop of Athens Papadopoulos, 1934; Liolios, 2013). Thus, in order to cut off the possibility of any connection between East and West, he decided to preserve the position of Patriarch of Constantinople by turning it into an office with an official proclamation. The proclamation of Gennadios Scholarios as Patriarch of Constantinople was accompanied by an official document of Mohammed II, which forbade any abuse of the Patriarch, while exempting him from all taxes and any personal violation (Frantzis, 2001).

This document may have been the first berat (distinction, honor, privilege) (Arnakis, 1952; Liolios, 2013). Since then, similar documents have been issued by the sultans, which confirmed the election of each new Patriarch, while the pashas in each region used this practice for the respective cases of the newly elected bishops. Each berat, imperial or regional, secured most of the rights granted to Gennadios in 1453-54. Now, through historical research, it is accepted that through the berats the Ottoman state granted privileges to religious leaders, without this necessarily meaning that it was also a legal recognition of religious communities (Konortas, 1998; Cohen, 1996; Dalègre, 2006; Myrgioti, 2013). Thus, the official berat document does not mean that it was also a document of legitimacy of millet.

However, we should note what the privileges were granted to the Church and to the Orthodox Christians according to the berat, signed by the sultans. First of all, there was a mention of respect for freedom of conscience. Those

who belonged to the Rum millet would not be converted without their will. So, if a Christian wanted to convert to Islam, then he had to be an adult, and the religious leader of his community could persuade him in front of his parents and relatives. During the long Ottoman rule, this term was violated many times, but at least its inclusion in many berats prevented the violent Islamization of thousands of Christians. At the same time, the state undertook not to engage in the performance of Christian religious duties, while Christians could keep their holy books and icons in their homes, as well as be allowed to perform services in churches (Arnakis, 1952).

The administration and the committee of the Church were safe, as long as the taxes were paid and there were no fears of betrayal. The Patriarchate and the Holy Synod were free to appoint the clergy, maintained oversight of churches and monasteries, and investigated complaints against clergy. The official state had no right to arrest, dismiss or exile bishops or priests without the approval of the Patriarchate. Also, the Patriarch could issue a sentence against clergy without the consent of the Holy Synod. In cases of complaints against the Patriarch and the higher ranks of the clergy, the trial could only take place in the capital before imperial judges and officials. The summonses of criminal cases concerning the lower clergy went either to the Patriarch or to the bishops, while during the waiting period of the trial the accused remained confined to the place of the respective governor. After the trial, if he was found guilty, then he remained confined to either the Patriarchate or the Diocese, while in the case of serious crimes he was dismissed and imprisoned (Arnakis, 1952; Liolios, 2013).

The ownership of churches, monasteries and institutions belonged to the Patriarch and the bishops. Abuses of an economic nature were investigated and punished by the Patriarchal court. In addition, the Church could impose taxes for its own purposes. Priests and their parishes would have to pay an annual fee to cover the cost a bishop would have to pay to the state for his appointment to the Episcopal position. If the payment was made without any controversy, then the state did not charge for goods charges and tolls during transportation. The state, by collecting the assistance of the parishioners, formalized its support for the bishop. It is therefore easy to assume that the power of the bishop was a tool of corruption by unscrupulous ecclesiastical circles. As for the property of an unmarried clergyman, after his death it was transferred to the Patriarchate and not to the imperial treasury. Any Christian who wished could bequeath up to 1/3 of his fortune to the church and its institu-

tions. This property remained safe and protected, unless an imperial decree was issued ordering otherwise (Arnakis, 1952; Liolios, 2013; Myrgioti, 2013).

The social status of Orthodox Christians remained under the individual jurisdiction of the Patriarch, who had the sole right to issue permits for marriages and divorces. Thus, the Church maintained a way of controlling and preserving the family, matters of inheritance, while giving the right to operate community courts, which for the most part adjudicated civil cases. Also, various cases were trailed in the Patriarchate, as Christians preferred the system of Christian justice to the verdict of kadi (Arnakis, 1952; Liolios, 2013; Doxiadis, 2011; Metallinos, 2008; Siatras, 1997).

In short, these were some of the most important privileges that established the framework of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s relationship with the Ottoman Empire. However, the official documents may have provided privileges and protection for the Patriarch and the Christian subjects, but the situation and the relations with the Ottoman authority were not so peaceful. So we could not miss the problems that the Patriarchate often faced and the limitations it had to overcome in order to survive. The position of the historian and Metropolitan of Didymoteicho, Filaretos Vafeidis, is typical, that the fate of the peoples of the Balkan Peninsula would be different, if the Ottomans followed without deviation the policy first implemented by Muhammad II in 1453 (Bishop Vafeidis, 1902).

The reality is that the state recognized the rights of the Church in official documents, but government officials and Ottoman citizens in many cases violated the institutional tolerance, as they speculated at the expense of church property, blackmailed, humiliated and persecuted the clergy, while forcibly converted Christians to Islam. Of course, this does not mean that the head of the Church was not attacked, since he was persecuted in periods of fanaticism on the pretext of suspected treason. Several Patriarchs were exiled or imprisoned, while some, such as Cyril Loukaris (1638), Cyril II (1639), Parthenios II (1651), Parthenios III (1657) and Gregory V (1821), died as martyrs. It is noteworthy that their execution took place after the Ottomans had replaced them, resulting in their condemnation not as Patriarchs, but as traitors. Thus, although the Ottoman Porte did not aim to attack the Church as an institution, it was clear to the Patriarch that he was helpless in times of crisis (Arnakis, 1952).

Also, difficulties and peculiarities arose regarding the performance of the services in temples. On the spot where there were old churches, the Greeks

were allowed to build small and humble buildings with wooden roofs. Of course, it was quite difficult to get a permit for this construction, as the ulema had to argue that the new place of worship would not be disgusting to Islam and the state. At the same time, the bribery of various officials was necessary, while it turned out that money would have to be distributed to the Muslim families in the neighborhood where the temple would be built, so that they would not react during its construction. It is understood that under these circumstances it was not possible for Christians to have a “normal” church (Gedeon, 1909). Of course, at the beginning of the 19th century there was a relaxation in the strictness of the construction of temples, since until 1830 it was possible to build a church without the issuance of an imperial firman. Many churches were built in Constantinople at that time, to replace those that were destroyed during the Greek revolution. There was more freedom in the provinces. For example, monasteries far from the cities were not disturbed, although their property was often confiscated and monks were required to pay a capital tax. However, some monasteries near Constantinople were destroyed for no particular reason (Arnakis, 1952).

In general, the Greek Orthodox population, represented mainly by the Phanariot elite and the upper Orthodox clergy, gradually gained significant political and social power, preparing the ground for the establishment of its own cultural supremacy among the rest of the Orthodox (Sarigiannis, 2011; Dalègre, 2006; Metallinos, 2008). Also, the result of the Russo-Turkish wars at the end of the 18th century (1768-1774, 1788-1792) contributed to this development, as Catherine the Great set Russia as the protector of the Orthodox populations of the Ottoman Empire (Muge, 1996; Mpalta, 2006), while giving the opportunity for a huge economic growth in the rising urban elements of the Greek territory17 .

17 The rise of the Greek bourgeoisie in the 18th century led to the organization of communities with statutes that emphasized the element of self-government that characterized them. The example of the Aegean islands is typical. The new order consisted of nobles, landowners, merchants, ship owners of the islands, military and wealthy immigrants abroad. At the same time, trade in the Balkans was mainly in the hands of the Greeks. The most important trade centers were Thessaloniki and Smyrna, where the growth of trade was so great that it was considered the financial capital of the empire. The Greeks found a way out of the maritime trade and navigation. Conditions were favorable, as the conclusion of the treaty of Kyuchuk Kainartzi (1774) allowed them to use the Russian flag and under its auspices all the orthodox citizens of the empire, to achieve the free movement of their products by sea. It is characteristic that the Greeks, taking advantage of their abilities, the Napoleonic wars and the Anglo-French conflicts, succeeded in becoming the second naval power in the Mediterranean after England. See, F. G. Metallinos (2008). Τουρκοκρατία: Οι Έλληνες στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, 141-142, 145-147, 166. A. Delis (2014). “From Lateen to Square Rig: The evo-

However, it is characteristic that the beginnings of the Tanzimat reforms coincided with the national revolutions, which affected the character of the millet, their function and the relations between them. For example, the Greek revolution marked the collapse of the old Phanariot world. Phanariotic families were forced to seek refuge outside the Empire, as some settled in Moldavia (Stamatopoulos, 2006; Dalègre, 2006; Metallinos, 2008). The tolerance or secret support of the Phanariots in the Greek revolution led the Ottomans to reconsider the privileged position held by the Rum millet in the political scene. This automatically contributed to the improvement of the position of the other millet of the Empire and especially of the Armenians (Artinian, 1970), while for the first time there was recognition of a Catholic millet. However, in addition to the establishment of the Protestant and Catholic millet, the dismemberment of the Orthodox millet also emerged through the prevalence of the ethnocentric tendency (Kamouzis, 2012) and the creation of national churches, namely the Kingdom of Greece (1850), Serbia (1879), Romania (1885) and Bulgaria (1945) (Stamatopoulos, 2006; Dalègre, 2006; Clogg, 1996; Quartaret, 2006).

Although the Patriarchate was limited in size to the remaining provinces of European Turkey and Central Asia, it was more homogenous in structure and organization. Under the guidance of wise leaders, it maintained a distinguished position, moral strength and image among all Orthodox peoples, with the exception of schismatic Bulgaria. At the same time, the establishment of national churches as a consequence of the nationalist movement that occupied the Balkans from the 18th century (Kitromilides, 1998; Stamatopoulos, 2006) saved the Patriarchate from complicated political situations, which could hardly be managed. Certainly, the transfer of ecclesiastical power to the new churches did not take place without great cost and intensity, since with great delay and political intensity the Autocephaly of the Church of Greece or the ecclesiastical autonomy of Romania was recognized, let alone the removal of the schism with Bulgaria (Arnakis, 1952; Matalas, 2002).

In addition to the Balkan nations, the influence of the nationalist movement seems to have influenced the Ottoman leadership, as Ottoman officials made various attempts to change the mechanism and institutions of the state with those of the Western states. Thus, after the formalization of the Hatt-i

lution of the Greek-owned merchant fleet and its ships in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries”, The Mariner’s Mirror 100.1, 44-58.

Sherif (1839) and in particular of Hatt-i Humayun (1856) a concept of guaranteeing and respecting political and religious rights without discrimination on the basis of race or gender was established, resulting in the establishment of equal rights and privileges for non-Muslims as well (Quartaret, 2006; Papastathis, 1984; Nikolaides, 2012; Miller, 1936; Mplata, 2006; Dalègre, 2006; Myrgioti, 2013).

In addition, the Hatt-i Humayun guaranteed the safety of life, property and life of all citizens of the Empire. However, it went one level further, aiming at the homogenization of the population of the Empire through the establishment of new administrative institutions and the construction of a new Ottoman identity18, reorganized religious communities. At the same time, the validity of the privileges granted to the Patriarch of Constantinople by various sultans of the past was confirmed (Konortas, 1999), while the creation of special councils under the supervision of the Ottoman Porte was envisaged. These councils would discuss the need to reaffirm these privileges and introduce the necessary changes to upgrade the millet structure (Papastathis, 1984). However, the imperial decree of 1856 is marked by a remarkable contradiction, as although it insisted on the establishment of equality among all citizens of the Ottoman state, at the same time it maintained the millet system as a basic organizational structure of Ottoman society (Anagnostopoulou, 1997). So while the religious factor as an element of differentiation between citizens was theoretically eliminated in the constitution, eventually the millet was given legal status, thus establishing the differentiation of the population through the millet (Davison, 1963).

As we have mentioned, the change in the way things are perceived has brought about significant changes in the recognition, segregation and management of millets. According to the imperial decree, special councils had to be formed to formalize the way each millet was governed. As far as the Orthodox millet is concerned, the discussions on the application of the provisions of Hatt-i Humayun took place in the period 1858-1860 (Bishop Nanakis, 2008; Stamatopoulos, 2006). The result of the discussions was the composition of an official text, known as the “General Regulations”. Thus, the meetings between the Patriarchate and the National Council moved to formalize changes, among others, regarding the election of the Patriarch19 and the bishops, the

18 Perhaps this was the basic ideological trend of Ottomanism during the Tanzimat period. 19 An important change in the election of the Patriarch was the imposition of the requirement by the Ottoman Porte to exclude from the electoral process individuals who were not to its liking.

composition and operation of the Holy Synod and the joint council, the revenues of the Patriarchate, the administration of monasteries and institutions, the management of the finances of the parish through the participation in the council of laity (Bishop Nanakis, 2008; Stamatopoulos, 2006; Kostakis, 1991). Essentially, for the Greek Orthodox side, this process of formalization of the regime and its privileges through institutionalized changes did not differ much from the regime that had been established with the berats of previous years (Arnakis, 1952). After talks in 1861-1862, the Ottoman Porte ratified the final corrections and the agreed text was published by the Patriarchal Printing Office under the title “General Regulations of the Holy Churches in Constantinople” (Bishop Nanakis, 2008; Stamatopoulos, 2006; Arnakis, 1952).

The law of the General Regulations allowed the permanent intervention of the representatives of the Neo-Phanariot circles, that is, of the families that replaced the old Phanariotes after the end of the Greek revolution, and of the rising social class of merchants and bankers in terms of financial, management, educational and social issues of the Patriarchate. It is characteristic that the Regulations provided for the establishment of a Joint Council, i.e. a body that would include eight lay people and four clergy, members of the Holy Synod, with the main responsibility of controlling the financial and administrative operation of the Patriarchate. At the same time, a new type of Holy Synod was legislated, according to which all priests and bishops under the service of the Patriarchate would participate in it in rotation. This development essentially meant the abolition of the old system of “Gerontism”, which had been established in the Patriarchate until the middle of the 19th century, which allowed the bishops of the Synod (Elders) to coexist with the Patriarch (Papadopoulos, 1952; Bishop Nanakis, 2008; Stamatopoulos, 2006; Gkara & Tzedolopoulos, 2015). In any case, the most important change concerned the participation of the people in the process of electing the Patriarch, although the final phase, ie the election of the Patriarch among three candidates, remained under the control of the Holy Synod (Stamatopoulos, 2003). Essentially, these reforms increased the influence of the Neo-Phanariots and the new bourgeoisie of merchants and bankers (Stamatopoulos, 2006).

Although the legislation of the General Regulations helped to form a new political group, which controlled the Church, the same did not happen with the intended reorganization of the financial operation of the Patriarchate. One of the goals of the Ottoman reformers was to change the salaries of the upper class. The implementation of the Ottoman Porte program aimed at controlling

the ecclesiastical property and incomes of the bishops to meet its own financial needs, at categorizing the Orthodox clergy as civil servants of the Ottoman state, in order to limit its political activities, but also at satisfying of the Bulgarian claims, which sought to determine the income of the bishops, in order to reduce the heavy taxation of the provinces. In the end, both the conservative and the reformist circles of the National Council did not implement the specific salary plan and supported the solution of the donation, in fact a kind of ecclesiastical tax. The difference from the previous forms of income of the dioceses was that it was a single monetary fee, which depended on the population of each province and not on the population of the whole Empire. This contributed to an imbalance in both the distribution and collection of this tax (Stamatopoulos, 2006).

The introduction of the new pay system for bishops laid the groundwork for the smooth expansion of reform efforts from the center to the periphery. Obviously, it was a turning point for this effort, which ultimately led to a total failure of the new system. The reasons for the failure of this regulation were due to the inaction shown by the provincial bishops and dignitaries, the unequal distribution of sums among the population of the provinces, the reactions of local prominent personalities who contributed to charities and educational institutions and to national rivalries. In any case, this failure led to the deterioration of the finances of the Patriarchate, with the result that it provoked a reaction and required the revision of the General Regulations (Stamatopoulos, 2003).

5. Evaluation of the Reform

Although there was a perception that the introduction of European legislation and the concept of human and equal civil rights during the Tanzimat period would bring satisfaction, it eventually led to an increase in complaints against the state (Bishop Nanakis, 2008; Aral, 2004). This observation applies not only to Muslim citizens but also to non-Muslims. A significant percentage of non-Muslim citizens, especially from the Greek Orthodox community, opposed the reforms for a variety of reasons. One of these reforms was the abolition of full control by religious leaders over members of their communities (Kamouzis, 2012), as lay members were added to the ecclesiastical council20 . Also, non-Muslims were now obliged to serve in the army, as in the past they

20 This may justify the emergence of competing tendencies between the clergy and the laity within the various parishes, as they had a different perception of the decisions of the respective ecclesiastical council.

had the right to be excluded from this service. Finally, the Greek community, which was hierarchically in second place before the Muslims, after the reforms they had to share the same rights with the rest of the millet and be in the same social position with the other non-Muslim communities (Aral, 2004). Perhaps, we could assume that the Tanzimat reforms did not necessarily help the integration and cooperation of the millet with the Muslims, but ultimately accelerated the process of disintegration among the millet. Thus, the attempt to restore rights and homogenize brought the opposite results, as it eventually sparked the process of perceiving differences and the formation of national identities among nations, which contributed to the loss of territory and change for the Ottoman Empire.

Archbishop of Athens Chrysostomos Papadopoulos. (1934). «Η θέσις της Εκκλησίας και του ελληνικού γένους εν τω τουρκικώ κράτει μετά την άλωσιν της Κπόλεως (Α΄)», Θεολογία ΙΒ΄, 11. Agmon, I. (2004). “Women’s History and Ottoman Sharia Court Records: Shifting Perspective in Social History”, Hawwa 2.2, 172-209. Anagnostopoulou, S. (2004). The Passage from the Ottoman Empire to the Nations-States, Istanbul: Isis. -------- (1997). Μικρά Ασία, 19ος αι.-1919. Οι Ελληνορθόδοξες Κοινότητες: Από το Μιλλέτ των Ρωμιών στο ελληνικό έθνος, Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα. Anderson B. (1997). Φαντασιακές Κοινότητες: Στοχασμοί για τις απαρχές και τη διάδοση του εθνικισμού (transl. in Greek Π. Χατζαρούλα), Αθήνα: Νεφέλη. Aral, B. (2004). “The idea of Human Rights as Perceived in the Ottoman Empire”, Human Rights Quarterly, 26. 2, 454-482. Arnakis, G. (1952). “The Greek Church of Constantinople and the Ottoman Empire”, The Journal of Modern History, 24.3, 237-249. Artinian, V. (1970). The Armenian Constitutional system in the Ottoman Empire, 1839-1863, London. Asdrachas, Sp. (1978). Μηχανισμοί της Αγροτικής Οικονομίας στην Τουρκοκρατία (ΙΕ΄-Ιστ΄ αιώνας), Αθήνα: Θεμέλιο. -------- (1982). Ελληνική Κοινωνία και Οικονομία: ιη και ιθ αιώνες, Αθήνα: Ερμής. -------- (2003). Ελληνική Οικονομική Ιστορία: ΙΕ΄-ΙΘ΄ αιώνας, τ. Α΄, Αθήνα: Πολιτιστικό Ίδρυμα Ομίλου Πειραιώς. Barkey, K. (2005). “Islam and Toleration: Studying the Ottoman Imperial Model”, International Journal of Politics Culture and Society, 19, 16. Bishop Arkalochoriou Kastelliou & Viannu A. Nanakis. (2008). «Γενικός Κανονισμός των εν Κωνσταντινούπολει Ιερών Εκκλησιών», Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής 17 (2008), 204. Bishop Didimoteichou F. Vafeidis. (1902). Εκκλησιαστική Ιστορία, Κωνσταντινούπολη. Braude, B. & Lewis B. (eds.). (1985). Christians and Jews in the Ottoman

Empire, New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers. Cahnman, W. J. (1944). “Religion and nationality”, American journal of sociology XLIX, 524-529. Chatziioannou, M. (2005). “Greek Merchant Networks in the Ages of Empires (1770-1870)”, in I. McCabe, G. Harlaftis & I. Pepelasis Minoglou (eds.), Diaspora Entrepreneurial Networks: Four Centuries of History, 371-382. Oxford; New York: Berg. Clogg, R. (1996). Anatolica: Studies in the Greek East in the 18th and 19th Centuries, Aldershot: Variorum. Cohen, A. (1996). “Communal Legal Entities in a Muslim Setting Theory and Practice: The Jewish Community in Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem”, Islamic Law and Society 3, 149-181. Dalègre, J. (2006). Έλληνες και Οθωμανοί, 1453-1923: Από την πτώση της Κωνσταντινούπολης έως την καταστροφή της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας (transl. in Greek Σ. Μπίνη-Σωτηροπούλου), Αθήνα: Σ. Ι. Ζαχαρόπουλος. Darling, L. (1996). Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and Finance Administration in the Ottoman Empire, 1560-1660, Leiden: Brill. Davison, R. (1963). Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856-1876, Princeton. Delis, A. (20140. “From Lateen to Square Rig: The evolution of the Greekowned merchant fleet and its ships in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries”, The Mariner’s Mirror 100.1, 44-58. Deringil, S. (1999). The Well-Protected Domains: Ideology and the Legitimation of Power in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909, London: I. B. Tauris. Doumanis, N. (2013). Before the Nation: Muslim-Christian Coexistence and its Destruction in Late Ottoman Anatolia, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Douwes, D. (2000). The Ottomans in Syria: A History of Justice and Oppression, London: I. B. Tauris.

Doxiadis, E. (2011). “Legal Trickery: Men, Women, and Justice in Late Ottoman Greece”, Past & Present 210, 129-153. Ersanli, B. (2002). “The Ottoman Empire in the Historiography of the Kemalist Era: A Theory of Fatal Decline”, in F. Adanir & S. Faroqhi (eds.), The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography, 115-154. Leiden: Brill. F. Metallinos, G. (2008). Τουρκοκρατία: Οι Έλληνες στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία, Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Ακρίτας.

Faroqhi, S. (1992). “Political Activity among Ottoman Taxpayers and the Problem of Sultanic Legitimation (1570-1650)”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34, 1-39. ------ (2000). Κουλτούρα και καθημερινή ζωή στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: από τον Μεσαίωνα ως τις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα, Αθήνα: Εξάντας. ------ (2006). Προσεγγίζοντας την Οθωμανική Ιστορία: Εισαγωγή στις Πηγές (transl. in Greek Κ. Καμπουρίδης), Θεσσαλονίκη: University Studio Press. Fawaz, L. (1983). Merchants and Migrants in Nineteenth Century Beirut, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Frantzis, G. (2001). Χρονικόν, τ. Γ΄ (transl. Απ. Τζαφερόπουλος), Αθήνα: Πατάκης. Gedeon, Μ. (1909). Βραχεία σημείωσις περί των εκκλησιαστικών ημών δικαίων : Υποβληθείσα τη 12 Δεκεμβρίου 1908 τω Παναγιωτάτω Οικουμενικώ Πατριάρχη, Κωνσταντινούπολη. Gibbons, H. A. (1916). The foundation of the Ottoman Empire, New York: The Century. Gkara, Ε. & Tzedelopoulos, G. (2015). Χριστιανοί και μουσουλμάνοι στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία. Θεσμικό πλαίσιο και κοινωνικές δυναμικές, Αθήνα: ΣΕΑΒ.

Gkara, Ε. (2005). «Χριστιανοί και Μουσουλμάνοι στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία των πρώιμων νεότερων χρόνων: ιστοριογραφικές προσεγγίσεις», in M. Greene (επιμ.), Κρήτη, ένας κόσμος. Χριστιανοί και μουσουλμάνοι στη Μεσόγειο των πρώιμων νεότερων χρόνων, 15-37. Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις του Εικοστού Πρώτου. Hanioglu, S. (1999). “Review: Pan-Islamism: Indian Muslims, the Ottomans and Britain (1877-1924) by Anmi Ozcan”, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 31.1, 145-147. Hassiotis, I. (1999). “From the “Refledging” to the “Illumination of the Nation”: Aspects of Political Ideology in the Greek Church under Ottoman Domination”, Balkan Studies 40, 41-55. Hathaway, J. (1996). The Politics of Households in Ottoman Egypt: The Rise of Qazdaglis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inalcik, H. & Quataert D. (1994). An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inalcik, H. (1978). “Impact of the Annales School on Ottoman Studies and New Findings”, Review 1, 70. ------ (1991). “The status of the Greek Orthodoxe Patriarch under the Ottomans”, Turkica 21-23, 407-436. ------ (1976). Application of the Tanzimat and its social effects, Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press, 1976. Kamouzis, D. (2012). “Elites and the formation of national identity: the case of the Greek Orthodox millet (mid-nineteenth century to 1922)”, in Benjamin C. Fortna, Stefanos Katsikas, Dimitris Kamouzis, Paraskevas Konortas (eds.), State-Nationalisms in the Ottoman Empire, Greece and Turkey: Orthodox and Muslims, 1830-1945, 16-25. London; New York: Routledge. Kitromilides, P. (1998). “Orthodox culture and collective identity in the Ottoman Balkans during the Eighteenth Century”, Δελτίο Κέντρου Μικρασιατικών Σπουδών 12, 89-93. Konortas, P. (1999). “From tai’fe to millet: Ottoman Terms for the Ottoman Greek-Orthodox Community”, in D. Gondicas & Ch. Issawi (eds.), Ottoman Greeks in the Age of Nationalism: Politics, Economy and Society in the Nineteenth Century, 169-179. Princeton: Darwin Press. ------ (1998). Οθωμανικές θεωρήσεις για το Οικουμενικό Πατριαρχείο,17ος –αρχές 20ου αιώνα, Αθήνα: Αλεξάνδρεια. Kontogiorgis, G. (1982). Κοινωνική δυναμική και πολιτική αυτοδιοίκηση: Οι Ελληνικές κοινότητες της Τουρκοκρατίας, Αθήνα: Νέα Σύνορα-Α.Α. Λιβάνη. Kostakis, Κ. (1991). «Κοινότητες, Εκκλησία και Μιλλέτ στις «Ελληνικές» περιοχές της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας κατά την περίοδο των μεταρρυθμίσεων», Μνήμων 13, 69-74. Liolios, G. (2013). Η Εκκλησία και το δίκαιο στην Τουρκοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα κατά τον Gustav Geib (μεταπτυχιακή διατριβή που κατατέθηκε στο Τμήμα Ποιμαντικής & Κοινωνικής Θεολογίας), ΑΠΘ: Θεσσαλονίκη. Marcus, A. (1989). The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century, New York: Columbia University Press. Matalas, P. (2002). Έθνος και Ορθοδοξία: Οι περιπέτειες μιας σχέσης. Από το «Ελλαδικό» στο Βουλγαρικό σχίσμα, Ηράκλειο: Πανεπιστημιακές Εκδόσεις Κρήτης. Miller, W. (1936). The Ottoman Empire and its successors, Cambridge.

Mpalata, Ε. (2006). «Πρόσληψη και χρήση της θρησκευτικής ετερότητας στην Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία: Ζίμμι-Ρωμιοί και Μουσουλμάνοι-Τούρκοι», Σύγχρονα Θέματα 93, 71. Muge, G. (1996). Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire. Ottoman Westernization and Social Change, New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mutlu, S. (2003). “Late Ottoman Population and its Ethnic Distribution”, Turkish Journal of Population Studies 25, 3-38. Myrgioti, Aik. (2013). Βυζαντινά και Μεταβυζαντινά έγγραφα ακίνητης μοναστηριακής περιουσίας. Ιστορική θεώρηση και σύγχρονη νομική προσέγγιση από τις δωρεές των Βυζαντινών αυτοκρατόρων στο αυτοκρατορικό οθωμανικό Κτηματολόγιο και από την ανασύσταση του κράτους στη σύγχρονη νομολογία (μεταπτυχιακή διατριβή που κατατέθηκε στο Τμήμα Νομικής), ΑΠΘ: Θεσσαλονίκη. Nikolaidis, D. (2012). Οθωμανικοί Κώδικες, τ. III, Αθήνα: Το Νομικό Βιβλιοπωλείο. Owen, R. (1976). “The Middle East in the Eighteenth Century: An Islamic Society in decline? A Critique of Gibband Bowen’s Islamic Society and the West”, Bulletin of British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 3.2, 110-117. Papadopoullos, Th. (1952). The History of the Greek Church and people under Turkish domination, Brussels. Papastathis, Ch. (1984). Οι Κανονισμοί των Ορθόδοξων Ελληνικών Κοινοτήτων του Οθωμανικού κράτους και της Διασποράς, Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοί Κυριακίδοι. Peirce, L. (2004). “Changing Perception of the Ottoman Empire: the Early Centuries”, Mediterranean Historical Review 19.1, 22-23. Peirce, L. (1993). The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Petmezas, S. Charlauti, T. Limperatos, A. & Papakonstantinou, K. (eds.) (2012). Θεωρητικές αναζητήσεις και εμπειρικές έρευνες. Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Οικονομικής και Κοινωνικής Ιστορίας. Ρέθυμνο, 10-13.12.2008, Αθήνα: Αλεξάνδρεια. Petmezas, S. (2005). “Christian Communities in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-century Ottoman Greece: Their Fiscal Functions”, in M. Greene (ed.), Minorities in the Ottoman Empire, 71-127. Princeton: Markus Wiener. Pylia, Μ. (2001). «Λειτουργίες και αυτονομία των κοινοτήτων της

Πελοποννήσου (1715-1821), Μνήμων 23, 67-98. Quataert, D. (2003). “Ottoman History Writing and Attitudes Towards the Notion of ‘Decline’ ”, History Compass 1.1, 2. ------ (2006). Η Οθωμανική Αυτοκρατορία. Οι τελευταίοι αιώνες, 1700-1922 (μτφρ. Μ. Σαρηγιάννης), Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Αλεξάνδρεια. Rachieru, S. (2002). “Invented Identities – Case Study: The Ottoman Citizenship”, Southeastern Europe, 90. Ribolov, S. (2013). “The Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire and its Perspectives for Theological Dialogue”, Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe, 33.2, 12. Salzmann, A. (1993). “An Ancient Regime Revisited: “Privatization” and Political Economy in the Eighteenth Century Ottoman Empire”, Politics & Society 21.4, 393-423. Sarigiannis, Μ. (2011). «Φαναριώτες και Οθωμανική Παράδοση: ΕπιδράσειςΣτεγανά, 17ος-18ος αι.». in Γ. Σαλακίδης. (ed.), Τουρκολογικά: Τιμητικός τόμος για τον Αναστάσιο Κ. Ιορδάνογλου, (305-322). Θεσσαλονίκη: Εκδοτικός Οίκος Αντώνης Σταμούλης. Shaw, S. (1978). “The Ottoman Census System and Population, 1831-1914”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 9.3, 325-338. Siatras, D. (1997). Ελληνικά κοινοτικά δικαστήρια κατά την Τουρκοκρατία, Βόλος: Δημοτικό Κέντρο Ιστορικών Ερευνών Τεκμηρίωσης Αρχείων και Εκθεμάτων. Stamatopoulos, D. (2001). «Η Εκκλησία ως Πολιτεία: Αναπαραστάσεις του Ορθόδοξου Μιλλέτ και το μοντέλο της Συνταγματικής Μοναρχίας (δεύτερο μισό 19ου αι.)», Μνήμων 23, 187-188. -------- (2003). Μεταρρύθμιση και Εκκοσμίκευση: προς μια ανασύνθεση της Ιστορίας του Οικουμενικού Πατριαρχείου τον 19ο αιώνα, Αθήνα: Αλεξάνδρεια. -------- (2006). “From Millets to Minorities in the 19th-Century Ottoman Empire: an Ambiguous Modernization”, in Steven G. Ellis (ed.), Citizenship in historical perspective, 254. Piza: Piza University Press. Stavrianos, L. (2000). The Balkans since 1453, New York: New York University Press.

Sugar, P. (1977). Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Todorov, N. (1986). Η βαλκανική πόλη, 15ος-19ος αιώνας: κοινωνικοοικονομική και δημογραφική ανάπτυξη, Αθήνα: Θεμέλιο. Tsimpiridou, F. & Stamatopoulos, D. (eds.). (2008). Οριενταλισμός στα όρια. Από τα οθωμανικά Βαλκάνια στη σύγχρονη Μέση Ανατολή, Αθήνα: Εκδόσεις Κριτική. Tucker, J. (1985). Women in the Nineteenth-Century Egypt, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vakalopoulos, A. (1973). Ιστορία του νέου Ελληνισμού, τ. Δ΄, Τουρκοκρατία 1669-1812: Η οικονομική άνοδος και ο φωτισμός του Γένους, Θεσσαλονίκη. Zachariadou, Ε. (1966). Δέκα Τουρκικά Έγγραφα για την Μεγάλη Εκκλησία (1483-1567), Αθήνα: Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών. Zilfi, M. (ed.) (1997). Women in the Ottoman Empire: Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era, Leiden: Brill.

A contribution to the understanding of the numbers (2:6

Next Article

of Albania after the fall of the Communist System

Thomas Mavromoustakos Sotirios Despotis

Abstract

Keywords:

2. Two or three firkins as a poetic and a climax scheme in John Gospel

Conclusions

Georgios Gaitanos

Abstract

Keywords:

1. The Millet system

2. The establishment of the Millet

3. The Orthodox Church during the Ottoman Empire

5. Evaluation of the Reform

More articles from this publication:

of Albania after the fall of the Communist System

and the significance of the numbers two and one hundred

Acknowledgements

Numerology in the Gospel of John II: The Jesus’ burial, the resurrection

Religious Freedom and Millet during the Tanzimat Reform 57

This article is from:

Theology & Culture 4 (June 2022)