Judaism Heresy

“Heresy of the Judaizers” (aka Novgorod-Moscow heresy ) is an ideological movement that engulfed part of Russian society at the end of the 15th century, mainly Novgorod and Moscow.

As the name of heresy implies, it is assumed that significant elements of Judaism were present in the worldview of adepts. At the very least, the non-recognition of the divine nature of Jesus Christ and the denial of the dogmas associated with this, as well as following certain ritual prescriptions of Judaism.

Despite the abundance of research and publications on heresy, there is no consensus on its nature, origin and place in Russian medieval society. Often he is associated with Protestant and reformist tendencies in Russian society, they see in this movement the beginning of the Russian Renaissance . The Soviet historiographic school ( A.I. Klibanov , Ya. S. Lurie , A.A. Zimin, and others) sees the movement as an anti-feudal orientation and regards it as a reformation-humanistic one. Another trend is to compare this movement with the mystical sects of the Bogomils or Messalians, which were widespread at one time. Metropolitan Macarius sees pure Judaism in the worldview of the Judaizers. A. L. Yurganov finds him quite Orthodox. Academician D. S. Likhachev writes about the heresy of the Judaizers: “Apparently, these heresies did not have any complete and orderly doctrine ... Most likely, this was not even a heresy, as much as a free-thinker movement. It was in all likelihood a humanistic movement ” ^[11] . O. George Florovsky , considers the heresy of the Judaizers to be mere freethinking too: “It is more true that there was no heretical community at all. There were well-known moods, namely the reeling of minds, freethinking ” ^[12] . A professor at the Hebraic University of Jerusalem, M. Taube, believes that the goal of Sharia was to convert Russians to Judaism from mystical motives, "carefully hidden from their unsuspecting audience" ^[13] .

Events develop against the background of the formation of the Russian centralized state. Relations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a result of the schism at this time were interrupted.

Beginning of the Judaic Heresy Case

Set in 1484 by the will of the Grand Duke to the Novgorod Archbishopric Chair, Father Superior of the Chudovsky Monastery Gennady was greeted by the townspeople with obvious wariness and hostility ^[14] . The conflict began with the fact that the archbishop became aware that the German hegumen Zakharia forbade his communion from communion, and he himself did not receive communion either. The old man called to the lord answered: “And who has the dei, taking communion? The priests, dei, were appointed for bribes, and the metropolitans, dei, and lords were placed for bribes. ” He was reproached, first of all, against Gennady himself, for many believed that he had been placed for a bribe given to him by the Grand Duke. The conflict dragged on for three years. In the end, Gennady sent the obstinate abbot into exile, but Ivan III voluntarily saved the old man from punishment and released him back to the Nemtsov Monastery. However, Zachary prudently chose not to return to his master’s arm, but went to Moscow, under the protection of the Grand Duke.

Soon other oddities of Novgorodian life were revealed. In 1487, a denunciation was received against two Novgorod priests, Gregory and Gerasim, who, in a drunken state, "swore at the holy icons." Other cases of mockery at the images of the saints were revealed: “But what about the packs of nameless ones, there are not even numbers, some are cut, and not news.” The desecration of icons in Novgorod proved to be widespread. Gennady, alarmed by the scale of the iconoclastic movement, writes to Metropolitan Gerontius , Bishops of Suzdal Nifont , Perm Philotheus , Sarai Prokhor and other hierarchs of the Russian Church. In February 1488, the prince and the metropolitan ordered Gennady to conduct an investigation, and the prince's governor, Yakov Zakharyin and his brother Yuri, to participate in the investigation by the secular authorities. However, Gennady considers these measures to be insufficient and seeks a council for heretics.

Soon, both unworthy priests, granted on bail, fled to Moscow, hoping to find protection from their lord there. And, as subsequent events have shown, not in vain. The matter has risen. But among the heretics there was a certain pop Naum, who declared that he wanted to go back from the "Judaism" to Orthodoxy. He confessed to the archbishop, and the investigation was continued. Naum betrayed four more heretics, introduced to the lord some “tetrati” by which the Judaizers prayed. The investigation revealed that the liturgy by the followers of the Judaism is not worthy of service, usually after a good and hearty breakfast. And heresy was brought up a long time ago, back in 1470 , by a certain Zhidovite Sharia , who arrived in Novgorod surrounded by Lutsk Prince Mikhail Olelkovich . The first he persuaded the priest Dionysius to Judaism, and he brought to him another Novgorod priest Alexei. The case went well, and two more Jews arrived from Lithuania: Joseph Shmoylo-Skarovei and Moses Hanush. Already Alexei and Dionysius persuaded the son-in-law of Ivan Maximov, his father, and many others, both priests and ordinary laity, to the rule of Alexei. Novgorod heresy was mainly distributed among the priesthood and kliroshan.

Soon, the son of the priest, Grigory Samsonk, during the interrogation of the princely governor Zakharyin, admitted that clerk Fedor Kuritsyn , one of the most influential politicians surrounded by the prince, was also involved in the heresy. He named Samsonk and archpriests Alexei and Dionysus, whom the prince took to Moscow in 1480 and placed him in significant positions ^[15] . The matter took a completely different turn and on a different scale. Probably, after the disclosure of the facts of participation in the heresy of persons from the grand ducal encirclement in Moscow, heresy lost interest. Vladyka of Novgorod began to seek trial of heretics in the capital. Inspired by the example of the Spanish Inquisition, about which he knew from the envoy of the German Emperor Frederick III, George von Turn, and his collaborator, Dominican monk Benjamin, the Bishop began to seek the most severe measures against heretics. Gennady wrote to Metropolitan Gerontius, but he ignored his letters. And in May 1489 the metropolitan died.

The matter was complicated by the fact that the year 1492 approached, according to the Christian calculus, 7000 from the creation of the world. It was in this year that the end of the world ^[16] and the second coming of Christ were expected. Three years before the expected event, in a message to the former Rostov archbishop Joasaph, Gennady writes: “Yes, if you could send according to Paisey and across the Nile, you should advise them about this: they will be away for three years, the seventh thousand will end; we dei will then be needed. The heretics repaired themselves reliably. ” Indeed, the sign of the end of time in 1489 was clearly not observed, and this caused new temptations. Freethinkers and heretics took advantage of this, accusing the hierarchs of the Church of spreading rumors about the end of the world. In addition, according to the Jewish calendar, the sixth thousand barely began, and this was reflected in the book of astronomical tables “Six-winged”, compiled by the Provencal Jewish astrologer Emmanuel bar-Jacob. According to the Judaizers, this was another proof in favor of their innocence. In 1491, many did not sow their fields, which caused hunger. Three years before the Council, which adopted the new Easter, Archbishop Gennady also still shared faith in the imminent end of the world. In the prayer book of 1536 at the end there is “Easter with a lunar” and on page 286 it says: “Typical Scare these things are known, yes, because the circle of the moon is starting from 1 genoa and kept for 19 years.” What kind of “Skare” is it, Academician V.N. Peretz asks, and immediately makes a very likely assumption: “is this not the original of the mysterious“ Sharia ”, which is considered to be a preacher and incubator of the heresy of the Judaizers? That is, the confidence of heretics and freethinkers in the absence of the end of the world in 1492 due to their astronomical observations could be understood as a consequence of their studies in astrology. ^[17]

Heretics Cathedral 1490

The heretics council was already held under the new Metropolitan, who in 1490 became the protege of the clerk Fedor Kuritsyn, hegumen Simonov of Zosima Monastery. In his letter to Bishop Nifont of Suzdal, Joseph Volotsky himself refers to Zosima himself as “an evil wolf”: “He defiled the holy throne, teaching the Judaism alone, desecrating the other Sodom, he trampled the Son of God, blasphemed the Most Holy Theotokos and the Virgin; he calls the icon of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Most Holy Mother and the icon of all saints blockheads ... ”Volotsky attributes to Zosima the words ^[18] :

However, not many trust these accusations, suspecting the Monk Joseph of bias and excessive passion. Cautionary in his findings is Metropolitan Macarius ^[19] . The conciliar definition cursed the heretics and enumerated their guilt. Among them are disrespect for the icons and the cross and mockery of them, non-recognition of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, blasphemy against Christ and the Mother of God. Non-recognition of the Holy Fathers and the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils , disbelief in the Resurrection of Christ and His Ascension, veneration of the Sabbath above the Resurrection of Christ, non-observance of fasting. “Otherwise, everything was repaired naturally according to the Jewish tradition, opposing the Divine law and the faith of Christians,” the conclusion follows. According to the conciliar sentence, priests must be cast out of the rank, and all heretics betrayed by excommunication.

Authoritative Belozersky elders Paisiy Yaroslavov and Neil Sorsky participated in the cathedral. There is a strong opinion that it was thanks to their participation in the cathedral that the sentence to heretics was relatively lenient ^[20] . Unless, of course, excommunication can be called a lenient sentence ^[21] . However, there is no documentary evidence of how their opinion influenced the conciliar decision. In the IV-th Novgorod annals only their participation in the cathedral is reported. Gennady himself was not allowed into the cathedral allegedly “for the sake of great things” that the saint had in Novgorod.

Heresy and internal political struggle

The heresy at the cathedral was condemned and anathematized , but none of the high-ranking Moscow heretics was injured. Only Novgorodians who had previously fled under the protection of the Grand Duke were punished. They were handed over to the Bishop of Novgorod, and he subjected them to a kind of civil execution , having carried around the city on horses, mounted backwards, in birch bark hats and with the inscription on his chest: "Behold Satanine army." At the end of the execution, the caps were burned directly on the heads of the prisoners. In the method of execution itself, modern researchers see the influence of the practice of the Spanish Inquisition ^[22] . However, after this autodafe, the convicts did not go to the stake, as foreign experience required, but were sent to monasteries. At this, the first stage of the fight against heresy was completed. Archbishop Gennady himself no longer participated in such acts, preferring to engage in educational works.

As for the Moscow heretics, headed by the Duma clerk Fedor Kuritsyn , their position at the court did not shake at all, but on the contrary, only intensified. Attracting the daughter-in-law of Grand Duke Elena Stefanovna to heresy significantly strengthened the position of heretics.

The struggle of political groups around the princely throne polarized Moscow society. In fact, two political parties were formed. One of them was grouped around the widow of Ivan Ivanovich the Young , who died in 1490, Elena Stefanovna . It was surrounded by the widow of the princess heretics. Another group was associated with the second wife of Grand Duke Sophia Paleolog , who retained her ties with Rome ^[23] . Archbishop Gennady was also close to Sophia's entourage.

There was a different foreign policy orientation. If the party of Elena Voloshanka (daughter of the Moldavian ruler Stephen the Great ) energetically established relations with the countries of Central Europe and the Crimea ^{[24] [25]} , then, surrounded by the Grand Duchess, they showed great interest in the Catholic German Empire and Lithuania ^[26] . It was Sofia’s daughter Elena Ivanovna who became the wife of the Lithuanian king Alexander . The Greeks Trahanioti were in trouble about marriage ^[27] .

According to I. B. Grekov, the ideology of the heresy of the Judaizers reflected "strictly oriented international contacts of the leading participants in this complex ideological and political current" ^[28] .

In addition to the foreign policy orientation, another component is also clear regarding internal relations. Supporters of liberties are grouped around Sophia, while heretics support the idea of ​​tough autocratic power. The party, led by the Judaizers, is for political reasons only anti-clerical. Denying monasticism in general, the Judaizers also oppose church tenure. Monks of the northern monasteries are close to them in the matter of monastic land tenure. At the same time, the side opposed to the heretics, primarily the ideologist of large monastic land tenure Joseph Volotsky, as well as Archbishop Gennady, advocates maintaining the monastic possessions and strengthening the influence of the church in public affairs. It was the Volotsky abbot who subsequently wrote about the possibility of disobedience to the unrighteous sovereign, for "such a king is not God's servant, but the devil, and there is no king, but a tormentor."

As a result, there is a visible polarization of the Moscow elite, the formation of two influential political parties. One of them, whose leaders are associated with heresy, is focused on strengthening the princely power, weakening the influence of the church. Her foreign policy relations are oriented to the countries of Southeast Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Another party, which linked its policy with the defense of Orthodoxy, is inclined to support "antiquity" (in the sense of maintaining the high authority of the Church in political affairs and boyar liberties) and is focused on rapprochement with Western, Catholic countries.

Thus, a very complex knot of political, ideological and simply self-interested interests was formed, which could not but lead to a bloody denouement. In the case of the Judaizers, various and sometimes incompatible interests were intertwined.

In 1482, Fedor Kuritsyn was sent to the capital of the Hungarian kingdom, to negotiate the Moscow-Hungarian Union ^[29] . The Moscow ambassador returns from Buda with a kind of “Eel Martynka,” who will later play a role in the formation of the Moscow heresy. It was on this trip, according to Archbishop Gennady, that the clerk was converted to heresy.

In 1483, a dynastic marriage was concluded between the son of Ivan III, Ivan the Young, and the daughter of Stephen Elena. Mikhail Olelkovich, a former protege of King Casimir to Novgorod, in whose retinue the same Sharia was found, is the cousin of Elena Stefanovna: their mothers were sisters and came from the Tver prince’s house ^[30] .

The Grand Duke, almost throughout this history, clearly patronizes heretics. It would be correct to assume that the patronizing attitude of Ivan III to heretics is determined by political calculations and other state benefits associated with the circle of educated heretics with extensive political connections. The prince cannot help but be impressed by the idea of ​​strengthening the authority of grand-princely authority and weakening the influence of the Church.

The only real political success that the opponents of the Judaizers achieved during this period was the displacement of Metropolitan Zosima, which followed in October 1494. Kuritsyn was absent in Moscow at that time.

The literary struggle against heresy

The history of the apostasy that has declared has clearly raised the question of the unacceptably low level of education of not only the laity, but also the clergy. The layer of educated clergy and laity was very thin. Metropolitan Macarius writes about the unacceptably low level of education among the clergy of that time: “Most pastors of the Church barely knew how to read and write, and there were people in the circle of archpastors who were not able to answer how many evangelists there were and the like.”

Archbishop Gennady, faced with the books of the Judaizers, could not find even some necessary patristic books in the Sofia House, in particular the works of Athanasius of Alexandria . With a request to help him in resolving the book issue, he writes to the Bishop Joasaph of Rostov, in whose diocese then there was the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery , known for its library. The list of books is very varied, including Menander, Logic, Dionysius Areopagitus , part of the books of the Old Testament, books of anti-heretical controversy. Another way to change the situation was active translation activity, which developed under the hierarch Gennady in Novgorod. First of all, a complete and systematic translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Slavic language was made. The Gennadiev Bible was the first full edition of the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Slavic language. Translations are made of other books necessary for polemics with heretics. A remarkable feature of the activities of Gennady, it is noted by many authors, including George Florovsky , its Latin orientation. O. George, probably not exaggerating very much, writes: “Under Gennady we observe a whole movement of the Latin style.” The inclusion of deuterocanonical books is made following the example of Latin practice and they are translated from Latin. The necessary translations are also made up from Latin. Greek books were practically not used in this work. From Latin, the then-famous book of Duranti "Rationale divinorum officiorum" was translated, for polemics with the Judaizers, the books of Nicholas De Lear and Samuel Evrein. And even Gennady writes out a new Passover from Rome. Probably from Latin the “Word in defense of church property” was translated, which affirms the complete independence of the spiritual order from secular authority. O. George notes the tendency to emphasize the superiority of spiritual authority over secular authority and at the same time, the softening of intonations regarding the insignificance of earthly goods ^[31] .

Dmitry Trakhaniot writes for Gennady messages "On the trekking hallelujah" and "On the years of the seventh thousand." The Greek writer takes a rather cautious stance, not denying the weekliness of the onset of the Parussia, but denying the fame of the exact date. It is Yuri Trahaniot (Old) who mediates in the meeting of Gennady with the imperial ambassador Georg von Turn, from whom he hears the story of the Spanish Inquisition ^[32] .

After 1492, Gennady no longer takes efforts in the fight against heresy, focusing on literary activity. Previously, he opposed the debate with heretics because of the "simplicity" of the clergy. Now he is struggling with education with this “simplicity”, not only organizing translation activities, but also taking care of schools ^[33] .

The defeat of heresy. 1504 Cathedral

In 1498, the Kuritsyn party seemed to achieve maximum political success. Vasily and his mother were in disgrace. Young Dmitry is married to the kingdom and from now on is the co-ruler of his grandfather. However, not even a year had passed before the son of Vasily became co-ruler of the grand duke. And in 1502, the grandson of Dmitry, together with his mother, ended up in prison. It is difficult to say what led to such rapid changes, but in the end Sophia's party was the winner. Now, on the part of the prince, one should expect concessions with regard to the heresy itself.

The Cathedral of 1503 considered disciplinary issues: they spoke of protege duties (the reason for accusing Simony ) and the behavior of widowed priests. Already after the cathedral a dispute arose (probably at the initiative of the Grand Duke) about monastic land tenure. However, it is not difficult to notice that the cathedral discussed problems that the heretics also pointed to not without reason.

On the eve of the cathedral, Ivan III promised Joseph to begin the persecution of heretics. Speech about heresy began by the Grand Duke himself. The prince confesses that he knew "which heresy was held by Fedor Kuritsyn." The next meeting took place at a feast. Here, and with witnesses, Ivan III asked Joseph if it was a sin to execute heretics. Joseph began to convince the prince that it was not a sin, but rather the duty of the secular authorities to prosecute heretics and betray them with "fierce executions." But the prince stopped him and did not ask about that anymore. It is clear that the idea of ​​executions of heretics was not close to Ivan, and he reluctantly agreed to pursue them. Поэтому он не поспешил начать дело, и Иосиф вынужден был обращаться с просьбой оказать содействие в убеждении князя сначала к его духовнику архимандриту Андроникова монастыря Митрофану, затем к соправителю и великому князю Василию . У Василия он встретил горячую поддержку, и в декабре 1504 года собор на еретиков состоялся.

Председательствовал на соборе великий князь Василий. Старый князь в деятельности собора участия практически не принимал и, по-видимому, не из-за старческой немощи. Новгородского архиепископа опять на соборе не было. Незадолго до собора он был сведён с кафедры за невыполнения постановления предыдущего собора о невзимании ставленнических пошлин. Собор постановил предать казни главных еретиков через сожжение. Жгли в специально построенных деревянных срубах, вероятно не желая демонстрировать собравшимся ужасы предсмертной агонии. В Москве казнены были брат Фёдора Курицына Иван Волк Курицын , Иван Максимов, Дмитрий Пустосёлов. Некраса Рукавова по урезанию языка отослали в Новгород, где его сожгли вместе с юрьевским архимандритом Касьяном, братом Иваном Самочёрным и другими. Остальных разослали по монастырям.

Вопрос об отношении к еретикам после собора

Казни еретиков вызвали неоднозначную реакцию в русском обществе. Смущение вызывало несоответствие практики казней Евангелию, писаниям святых отцов и каноническим нормам ^[34] . Поэтому уже вскоре после собора, очевидно Иосифом Волоцким, было написано «Слово об осуждении еретиков» . Иосиф соглашается с недопустимостью преследования только за инакомыслие, но попытки проповеди ереси, по его мнению, должны пресекаться самыми жёсткими мерами: «Егда невернии и еретици никого же от православных прельщают, тогда недостоит им зло творити или ненавидети их; егда же узрим неверныя же и еретики, хотящих прелстити православныя, тогда подобает не точию ненавидети их, или осужати, но и проклинати и язвити». По всей видимости, «Слово» своей цели не достигло: полемика год от года только разгоралась, став ещё одним предметом разногласий между кирилловскими и волоцкими монахами.

Следы этих споров (об отношении к еретикам) мы находим в послании ^[35] волоцкого постриженика Нила (Полева) , прожившего долгое время среди Белозерских скитников, кирилловскому монаху Герману Подольному . Вспоминая минувший спор, он цитирует слова Германа: «Нам не подобает судить никого ни верна, ни неверна, но подобает молиться о них, а в заточение не посылати». Судя по посланию, отношения иноков двух монастырей вначале были вполне дружелюбными. Однако именно в это время начинают портиться отношения иноков двух монастырей. Товарищ Нила Дионисий Звенигородский пытается обнаружить ересь в самих заволжских скитах, и в результате пишет донос своему игумену. Иосиф Волоцкий представил донос великому князю Василию , тот поставил в известность Вассиана Патрикеева . Вассиан, который считался учеником Нила Сорского , защищал белозерцев перед великим князем и потребовал свидетеля, доставившего донос старца Серапиона, на допрос. Допрос закончился смертью свидетеля. Великий князь в гневе приказал сжечь пустыньки волоцких монахов, а самих их отправить под надзор в Кирилло-Белозерский монастырь . Однако вскоре по велению великого князя они были отпущены в свой монастырь. Судя по вкладным записям Нила (Полева), произошло это не позднее 1512 года .

В появившемся вскоре «Слове на списание» автор, по всей видимости Вассиан Патрикеев выступает с критикой карательных мер Иосифа, призывает не бояться богословских диспутов с еретиками. Вассиан апеллирует к Иоанну Лествичнику: «Немощнии с еретикы не ядят, сильные же на славу Божию сходятся». Покаявшиеся еретики, по мысли Вассиана, должны быть прощены. «Слово о еретицех», документ более поздний, отличается хорошо разработанной аргументацией с привлечением канонических источников. Вассиан различает кающихся и некающихся еретиков, при этом допускает казни, но признает их делом светских властей ^[36] .

О личности новгородского ересиарха прямых достоверных сведений практически нет. Сообщения о неком «жидовине», положившем начало ереси, появляется в 1490 году у новгородского архиепископа Геннадия в послании митрополиту Зосиме. По имени он назван в анти-еретическом трактате Иосифа Волоцкого «Просветитель». Известно, что этот учёный еврей прибыл из Киева, в свите луцкого князя Михаила Олельковича , поставленного королём Польши Казимиром князем на Новгород в 1470 году . От него-то, по утверждению архиепископа Геннадия и Иосифа Волоцкого, и пошла ересь в Новгороде.

Скудность сведений о Схарии позволила выдвинуть предположение, что это легендарная личность, выдуманная противниками жидовствующих (архиепископом Геннадием и Иосифом Волоцким) для дискредитации движения. Эта версия получила широкое распространение в советской историографии. Активным сторонником этой версии был Я. С. Лурье . Подобных взглядов придерживался и Р. Г. Скрынников . А. А. Зимин высказывался более осторожно, предполагая, что в качестве проповедника-иудея противники ереси представили реально существующего Схарию, но отрицает его влияние на формирование ереси.

Однако, кроме «Просветителя» Иосифа Волоцкого, есть ещё, по меньшей мере, один источник, который упоминает имя новгородского ересиарха. Это — послание инока Саввы с Сенного острова послу Ивана III в Крыму Дмитрию Шеину ^[37] . Этот компилятивный труд содержит анти-иудейскою полемику, упоминает известного иноку «жидовина Захария Скару», представленного как соблазняющего в «жидовскую веру» великокняжеского посла. Упоминание Саввой «новгороцких попов, веру жидовскую приемшим» не оставляет сомнения, что речь идёт о «начальнике жидовской ереси» Схарии.

Тот же самый «жидовин Захария Скара» упоминается в дипломатической переписке московского великого князя с бывшим правителем Матреги Захарией Гизольфи .

Согласно первой версии иудейским эмиссаром в Новгороде стал Захария де Гизольфи , получеркес, полуитальянец по происхождению. По мнению Г. М. Прохорова Гизольфи стал обращенным из христианства караимом и был тем странствующим проповедником, смутившим веру новгородцев. Однако эта версия содержит ряд противоречий и анахронизмов. Своим появлением эта версия обязана сохранившейся в «Посольской книге» переписке великого князя Ивана III с «таманским князем» Захарией, который сначала именуется «Захарией евреянином» (в тексте послания), «Захарией Скарой жидовином» (в комментарии в посольской книге) ^[38] , затем, после получения послания от Захарии, отправленного на этот раз с доверенным лицом и так же сохранившемся в посольской книге, «князем таманским» и даже «фрязиным» ^[39] . Биография таманского князя достаточно хорошо известна благодаря документам генуэзского архива, исследованным в XIX веке профессором Новороссийского университета Ф. К. Бруном ^{[40] [41]} , и она не оставляет места для его далёкого путешествия на север в 1470 в свите луцкого князя. Почему возникла такая путаница в именах, остаётся только догадываться. Это могла быть и интрига, и просто ошибка. Одно несомненно: имя Захарии Скары московским посольским дьякам было известно.

Вторая версия была предложена Юлием Бруцкусом . Согласно этой версии иудейским эмиссаром мог оказаться известный киевский учёный еврей Захария бен Аарон га-Коген ^[42] . Эта версия активно поддержана профессором Иерусалимского университета гебраистики М. Таубе. Имя Схарии-философа неожиданно обнаруживается в Псалтыри XVI века из библиотеки Киевской Духовной Академии. Профессор Таубе обращает внимание, что термины Схарии из Псалтыри совпадает с терминами, применяемыми в «Логике» жидовствующих ^[43] . Очевидно, Схарии принадлежит и перевод части ветхозаветных книг из Виленского Ветхозаветного свода ^[44] . Текстологические исследования основного корпуса литературы жидовствующих подтверждают причастность к переводам этого представителя еврейской образованности ^[45] . А. Ю. Григоренко по этому поводу пишет: «…Мы не знаем, что Иван III приглашал к себе на службу Захарию бен Арона га Когена, сведений о том, что этот Захария ездил на Русь, у нас нет» ^[46]

Несмотря на то, что сохранился соборный приговор 1490 года, послания главных обличителей ереси Геннадия Новгородского и Иосифа Волоцкого, ряд других документов, имеющих отношение к ереси, вследствие того, что они исходят из лагеря противников еретиков, доверять им вполне не принято. Однако никаких серьёзных противоречий среди этого довольно внушительного корпуса документов не выявлено и о ереси мы знаем прежде всего по ним. Наиболее полное описание содержится в «Просветителе» Иосифа Волоцкого.

Каких-либо документов, последовательно излагающих учение самих еретиков, не найдено. Вероятнее всего, их вообще не было. Сами еретики не признавали себя таковыми. Признания, полученные на допросах, в том числе под пытками, тоже ставятся под сомнение.

Косвенными источниками, по которым можно судить о взглядах еретиков, является обширная полемическая литература, появившаяся в связи с ересью. Прежде всего это «Просветитель» Иосифа Волоцкого, Послание инока Саввы великокняжескому послу Дмитрию Шеину, которое представляет собой компилятивный сборник антииудейской полемики, литература, переведённая с латыни в Новгороде при архиепископе Геннадии, послания основных участников событий.

Известна философская и астрономическая литература, которой пользовались жидовствующие. Среди этих книг астрономический трактат Иммануэля бен Якоба Бонфуса «Шеш кнафанаим», известный как «Шестокрыл», трактат Иоанна де Сакробоско «О сфере», «Логика» Моисея Маймонида , дополненная фрагментами из аль Газали , книга «Тайная Тайных» ^[47] Псевдо-Аристотеля , известная в русской версии как «Аристотелевы врата» и восходящая к еврейскому переводу « Secretum Secretorum » Иегуды Алхаризи . Книги «Шестокрыл» и «Логика» прямо упоминаются Геннадием Новгородским в письме архиепископу Иоасафу в списке литературы жидовствующих [2] . «Аристотелевы врата», известный на Руси текст, появляется в употреблении русскими книжниками как раз в это время. Текстологический анализ показывает, что все эти тексты были переведены с иврита на западно-русский (рутенский) язык во второй половине XV века евреем, получившим образование, по всей видимости, в Византии, и связанным с еврейской рационалистической традицией Испании и Прованса ( сефардов ). Таким образом вся литература подобного характера оказывается связана с одним регионом. Профессор Иерусалимского университета гебраистики М. Таубе обращает внимание на то, что переводчик стремился скрыть авторство арабских философов, заменяя арабские имена еврейскими, и делает вывод, что для славянского читателя предложенная литература должна была выглядеть, как плоды еврейской мудрости ^[48] . Аудиторией, для которой предназначались переводы, по мнению учёного, являются именно московские еретики ^[49] .

Определённый интерес представляют тексты, вышедшие из-под пера еретиков. Это прежде всего « Лаодикийское послание » Фёдора Курицына . Им же написано « Сказание о Дракуле воеводе » — пересказ легенд о правившем Валахией в середине XV века воеводе Владе Цепеше . Кроме писаний дьяка Курицына — предисловие к «Еллинскому летописцу», сделанное одним из еретиков Иваном Чёрным , его же глоссы на полях «Еллинского летописца» и Библейского сборника.

• Схария

• Mocking heresy // Jewish Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron . - SPb. , 1908-1913.
• On the heresy of the Judaizers : New materials collected by S. A. Belokurov, S. O. Dolgov, I. E. Evseev and M. I. Sokolov. - M.: Publishing. Imp. Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow. un-te, 1902.- X, 164, p.
• J. S. Lurie, N. A. Kazakova. Antifeudal heretical movements in Russia of the XIV - beginning of the XVI centuries . "M .; L., 1955. Here are the texts of the primary sources on the Judaic Heresy.
• Messages from Novgorod Archbishop Gennady on heretics;
• The "news" of Metropolitan Zosima about the Cathedral of 1490 ;
• The Enlightener by Joseph Volotsky is the brightest source.
• “Cultural movements in Moscow Russia” // “ Philological notes ”, Voronezh, 1908.
• Metropolitan Makarios (Bulgakov). History of the Russian Church. Volume 3. Division 2. Chapter II. The Metropolis of Eastern Russia, or Moscow: its chief priests and the course of its most important events.
• Moshe Taube. The Kievan Jew Zacharia and the Astronomical Works of the Judaizers 1995.
• Moshe Taube. The Fifteenth-Century Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the Judaizers: Is There a Connection?
• Moshe Taube. Transmission of Scientific Texts in 15th-Century Eastern Knaan
• Moshe Taube Afterword to the Logical Terms of Maimonides and the Heresy of the Judaizing
• S. Yu. Temchin. Cyrillic handwritten textbook of the Hebrew language and the Vilnius Old Testament vault
• S. Yu. Temchin. Skaria and Skorina: On the sources of the Vilnius Old Testament vault (F19-262). Senoji Lietuvos literatūra. No. 21, Vilnius 2006 .
• Galina Zelenina. Sephardic philosophizing, phantom heresy and the glory of the Spanish king.
• D. S. Likhachev. The development of Russian literature of the 10th-17th centuries. Epochs and styles. // Selected works in 3 volumes. T.1 - L .: "Fiction", 1987.
• Prot. George Florovsky. Ways of Russian theology. - K .: Christian-charity association "The Way to Truth", 1991.
• I. B. Grekov. The Ottoman Empire and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the 50-70s of the XV century. // The Ottoman Empire and the countries of central, eastern and southeastern Europe in the XV-XVI centuries. - M .: "Science", 1984.
• Zimin A. A. Russia at the turn of the XV — XVI centuries (Essays on socio-political history) .— M.: “Thought”, 1982.
  • Chapters:
  • Novgorod sedition.
  • The defeat of the Moscow heresy.
• Bulanin D.I. Trakhaniot Yuri Dmitrievich // Dictionary of scribes and books of Ancient Russia .
• Bulanin D.I. Trakhaniot Yuri Manuilovich // Dictionary of scribes and books of Ancient Russia.
• Lurie Ya. S. Gennady, Archbishop of Novgorod .
• Pliguzov A. I. Polemic in the Russian Church of the first third of the 16th century. M .: 2002.
• N. Karamzin . “History of the Russian state” T. 6. Ch. 4 .
• Likhachev D. S. The Movement of the "Judaizers" of the 70s and 90s of the 15th Century // History of Russian literature in 10 volumes. T. 2. Part 1. Literature of the 1220s-1580s. M .; L., 1945.S. 377-383.
• M.S. Karetnikova . Russian God-seeking. The national roots of the Evangelical Baptist movement . - Almanac on the history of Russian Baptism, third edition. - SPb. : The Bible for All, Protestant, 2006. - S. 3-84. - ISBN 5-7454-0380-2 .

• Moody // Jewish Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron . - SPb. , 1908-1913.
• Merry - article from the Jewish Electronic Encyclopedia
• Hera - an article from the Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia
• Subbotniks - an article from the Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia
• Merging // Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary : in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - SPb. , 1890-1907.
• Creation of St. Reverend Joseph of Volotsk "Enlightener". Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, 1994.
• Smirnov V.G. Sovereign freethinkers, Veche, 2011.