48 CHAPTER 1
Scientists have varying opinions on whether Joseph was a khagan or a bek
(king) of Khazaria. Joseph himself calls himself “king” (melek). In Eastern
sources the word “king” (malik) refers to both the bek and the khagan.131
Therefore, when we call Joseph a “king” without the necessary clarification, it is
not clear whether we are referring to the khagan or to his vicegerent. D. Dunlop
draws attention to the controversy of the sources (especially the Khazar ones)
and assumes that “on the whole, it must be allowed that Joseph is the Khaqan”.132
P. Golden also uses the khagan title for Joseph (as well as for his predeces-
sors Obadiah and Bulan), noting the ambiguity of the Khazar Correspondence.133
S. Pletneva calls Joseph (and Obadiah) a khagan as well.134 Joseph is considered
a king (in the sense of bek) by M. Artamonov, A. Novosel’tsev and V. Petrukhin
(who remains unsure as to the exact title of Bulan).135 B. Zakhoder examines
this problem in detail and sees Joseph, whom he calls both king and khagan,
as the successor of the beks and the bearer of the title khagan-bek or tarkhan-
khagan. During Joseph’s reign the transition from diarchy to monocracy was
complete.136 Ts. Stepanov expresses a similar point of view, asserting that the
title khagan-bek, used by Ibn Fadlan regarding the Khagan’s vicegerent, marks
the end of the “modernization” process in Khazaria, which was initiated by the
beks in the mid-eighth century.137
The question of Joseph’s title is part of two major topics, linked to Khazaria.
The first one concerns the Khazar diarchy, the moment of its appearance
and the tradition it originated from. The second one is related to the role that
the Judaization played in the development of the state institutions in Khazaria.
It is necessary to consider the position that the khagan’s institution held in
the steppe world in order to understand how Judaism could have affected the
Khazar ideology and the Khazar notions of power.
The Byzantine authors (Constantine Porphyrogenitus and the Continuator
of Theophanes) who mention the khagan and pekh of Khazaria do not specify
the nature of their power. Certain aspects regarding this topic can be found
in the Khazar Correspondence. They will be discussed later on. It should be
emphasized that the information on the nominal power of the khagan and the
131 Novosel’tsev 1990, 138.
132 Dunlop 1967, 145. According to Dunlop 1967, 161, Bulan, whose later descendants were
Obadiah and Joseph, belonged to the house from which earlier Khazar khagans stemmed.
133 Golden 1980, 79 and 169–170; Golden 2003, no. 3, 148–150.
134 Pletneva 1976, 7 and 61; Pletneva 1982, 102.
135 Artamonov 1962, 269 and 276; Novosel’tsev 1990, 136–137; Petrukhin 2001, 76.
136 Zakhoder 1962, 208–225.
137 Stepanov 2003a, 220–221.