94 CHAPTER 1
The role of the great prince seems more suitable for a warrior-king than for the
sacral person of the khagan, which would remove the contradiction, found by
A. Novosel’tsev. In other words, Joseph does not use this title for the khagan, but
for the king (bek)—as it is used in the Cambridge Document. The text clearly
shows that Bulan was worried about the reaction of the people, and therefore
sought the assistance of the great prince. It seems to me that the above is very
similar to the account of Al-Masudi, according to which the people, indignant
at the misery that had befallen Khazaria, demanded the death of the khagan
from the bek; the latter deciding his fate.344
Later on, while discussing the religious dispute, Joseph once again puts
emphasis on the wisdom of the king. Bulan, and the dispute as a whole, can
easily be compared to the parables of King Solomon. Among the descendants
of Bulan were Obadiah and Joseph himself. It is clear that Bulan and Joseph
should have the same title and position in the Khazar state. In this sense, of
particular interest are the first sentences from Joseph’s Reply: “The letter
of Joseph the King, son of Aaron, king of Togarmah [.. .] a mighty king that
no armies turn to flight and no troops force to retreat”.345 This definition has
a correspondence (albeit exaggerated) in the accounts on the khagans of
Khazaria, found in Eastern sources. When they exited the capital, hostilities
were terminated.346 Afterwards Joseph defines himself as “wise and honoring
the wise [.. .] that chose (for himself ) the word of the Law”.
The account of Joseph allows the presumption that his title, like that of
Bulan, was khagan. Nevertheless, it contradicts the Cambridge Document.
This contradiction falls away if we presume that Sabriel and Bulan are dif-
ferent people. But then we would also have to assume that the author of the
Document calls Joseph and his ancestors by the title which Sabriel first adopted
in Khazaria, without the two being identical. And this is highly unlikely. In
any case, it should be borne in mind that the Cambridge Document presents
a Jewish point of view on the dual kingship in Khazaria, while Joseph’s Reply
is a manifestation of the official state view, which is also Khazar! If there are
differences between the two, they should perhaps be sought in the traditions
of Jews and Khazars, as well as in their understanding of sovereignty. It is also
noteworthy that both documents refer to the Judaization as spread not only
among the rulers and part of the nobility, but also among the rest of the nation,
which was far from the reality in Khazaria.
344 Zakhoder 1962, 218.
345 Kokovtsov 1932.
346 See for instance Stepanov 2003a, 227. This parallel is also reflected in the notion of the
khagans as peace-makers of the world (see Stepanov 2005a, 115 with n. 415).