The ancient Jewish synagogue and its liturgical forms in relation to the ancient Christian temple and its liturgical forms

(Regarding the book by A. Nikitin entitled: “Jewish synagogues as places of public worship. Kiev. 1891”). The book named was written by Mr. Nikitin, a teacher at Bethany Seminary, to obtain a master's degree in theology, which he was awarded by the Council of the Kyiv Theological Academy. We take up the pen to determine the scientific interest of this dissertation and to introduce our readers to the literary techniques of its author. The entire work of Mr. Nikitin falls into two unequal parts, although evenly divided into four chapters each. In the first part, in addition to the introduction, the question of “the origin of synagogues” (Chapter I), “of synagogue buildings, their accessories and sacred times” (Chapter II), “of the officials of the synagogue” (Chapter III) and finally “of the relationship of the Christian temple to the synagogue” (Chapter IV) is considered. We will not touch upon the introduction, in which the author tries to prove the benefit and necessity of his work “for all theological sciences” (p. 2), introduces the reader to the extensive German Protestant literature on the issue he raised, which he did not even get half-acquainted with on his own (p. 6), and exposes the peculiarity of his work in comparison with his predecessors - the Germans, who worked on the same issue and “did not pay due attention” to the fact that “synagogues, as worship centers, arose not only as a result of the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity, as some thought, but that their historical basis lies both in the very nature of the Old Testament religion, and in the mental characteristics of the Jewish people” (p. 10). Let us pass in silence the first chapter of the book, where the author reviews all the known hypotheses of German scientists about the origin of Jewish synagogues, some of which, due to their fantasticality and frivolity (for example, Bertram’s hypothesis) would not even deserve mention in a serious essay, and through imaginary analysis tries to find a solution to the question that interests him; but in reality it does not find the truth and gives us an unimaginable confusion of concepts, a remarkable confusion in judgments, reaching complete contradiction with itself, and a misunderstanding of the matter in question. For us, in this analysis, only one thing is clear, that it was made by the author at a time when he had absolutely no idea about the origin of Jewish synagogues, although, as we will see below, this idea did not become clearer for him even later, after finishing his dissertation. For now, we will focus carefully on the other three chapters of this part, since they occupy a central position in the book and the author spent more work on them and showed more independence and originality here, in their processing, than in the others. We hasten, however, to warn our readers so that they abandon all hope of encountering in the book any original thought in the true sense of the word, although, as we said, the author personally declared this originality in comparison with his predecessors. In reality, his statement remains a simple beautiful phrase that has nothing in common with what we see and read in the book. True, Mr. Nikitin “wanted to see in the institute of prophetic schools the first beginnings of synagogue meetings and synagogue worship, which acquired its own specific form over time” (p. 32), which, according to him, “very many scientists” do (p. 33), and even made historical comparisons that were not devoid of interest, but then he himself was afraid of this idea, expressed from someone else’s voice, and began to limit it with a statement that he “did not insist and does not insist on this idea” (p. 84). As for the consideration of the “mental characteristics of the Jewish people” as one of the reasons for the emergence of synagogues as “liturgical centers,” there is no mention of this in the author’s dissertation. G. Nikitin followed the well-established path in resolving this issue and stated that “it personally seems to him most likely that the origin of synagogues followed from the time of Ezra” (p. 49), i.e., he adhered to the opinion that was expressed by many German scientists (pp. 48-49). But, leaving aside the author’s statement about originality in resolving the issue regarding the time and causes of the origin of Jewish synagogues, we turn to that part of his book where he gives his readers the concept of the Jewish synagogue. Is it possible, on the basis of a new dissertation, to get acquainted at least approximately with the structure of these buildings in the initial period of their existence, or, what is much more important for us, during the life of Jesus Christ and His apostles, since the author aims to prove that “Jewish synagogues undoubtedly (?) represented one of the most convenient types of buildings so that Christians, preferably over other buildings, could choose them for their sacred ceremonies" (p. 172)? In the book of Mr. Nikitin Not only are there no answers to these important questions, but, as we will see below, the author himself does not know and does not clearly represent the plan and structure of the ancient Jewish synagogue. True, in his book almost an entire chapter (the second) is devoted to the structure of synagogues; but woe to anyone who, out of trust in the scholarly title of its author, would become acquainted with this device based on his composition and would believe that at the moment we are interested in, the Jewish synagogue had precisely such a structure and not another. Easily, simply, but at the same time highly original, Mr. Nikitin creates for himself and his readers an idea of ​​the plan and internal structure of the ancient Jewish synagogue. Using accessible descriptions of Jewish synagogues (p. 9), the existence of which “is evidenced only by the silent ruins of Palestinian synagogues” and not entirely certain “written evidence in Jewish literary monuments” (p. 175), Mr. Nikitin collected many examples. On the pages of his book appear - a synagogue described by Abbot Donillard; the Elijah synagogue in Jubar near Damascus, the synagogue in Aleppo, the Baghdad synagogue, the synagogue near the village of Kefr Bereim, the synagogues in Meiron, Gum el-Amud, Irbid (pp. 83‒84), the synagogue in the city of Makhuz (p. 85), the Sidonian synagogue (p. 86), the synagogue of the city of Nablus (p. 79), the Worms synagogue (p. 177) and many others scattered across the face of the globe, not excluding the modern synagogue in Vienna, Berlin and even in our Odessa (p. 97). Not at all embarrassed by the fact that the chronological dates 1 of these “silent ruins” and other synagogue monuments have not been established at all 2 and that they are scattered in different parts of the world over the space of entire tens of centuries, having stocked up with a certain amount of courage and unceremoniousness, Mr. Nikitin, with his rich imagination, makes an attempt to depict before his readers the appearance and internal structure of his, so to speak, universal synagogue, in the real existence of which he himself doubts. This is how the author portrays this curious synagogue. Let us try to speak in the words of our young scientist. “The synagogues were a type of basilica building" (p. 178). Next to this: “the Jewish synagogue from its outside is a quadrangular building of more or less unique architecture” (p. 66). "The ancient Jewish synagogue was a relatively tall building, resembling a house in its type" (?) (Ibid.). "Sometimes one of the walls (?) of the synagogue was something similar to the apse of Christian basilicas; this can be concluded from the fact that Epiphanius, describing the Shechem synagogue, says that it was ϑεατροειδής, that is, it had the shape of an amphitheater (and this is the concept of an apse?!), or one of the walls in the form of a semicircle” (p. 77). “The testimony of Epiphanius that the Shechem synagogue was ϑεατροειδής provides a strong basis (!!) for the assumption that in the building of the synagogue the niche was sometimes very wide and took on the appearance of that architectural part (?) Which is known as the apse" (p. 178). "Geneberg indicates that the Worms synagogue has an apse in the form of a semicircle, in the middle of which the teacher’s seat rises” (p. 177). – “As for the shapes of the roofs of the most ancient synagogues, it is difficult to say anything definite about this; but most likely (?), the roofs were flat, like the roof of the ancient Temple of Solomon, or hemispherical, as we see in the mentioned synagogue in the city of Nablus. In order to give the synagogue roof a flat shape, columns were placed inside the building, on which were supported (how?) vaults, the other end of which rested on the longitudinal walls of the building. Earth was poured onto these arches. (We admit, we refuse to understand the meaning of this period). But in ancient times (which synagogues are older, with roofs or without roofs?) there undoubtedly existed synagogues without roofs, as Cassius Dio testifies to this" (p. 79). "As for the type of columns, the surviving ones show similarities with Doric, and sometimes Corinthian. But the largest number of columns preserved from ancient Jewish synagogues belongs to the ancient Canaanite type, the characteristic features of which were: the insignificant height of the column with its relatively massive core and the presence at both ends of the column of two completely similar, simple cornices" (p. 80). In Galilean synagogues, for example, the columns "are distinguished by the nature of their solidity", i.e. all of them "were their own constituent parts hewn from one stone" (p. 81). - "The walls of the synagogues had quadrangular windows to illuminate the interior" (p. 78). “The quadrangular embrasures of the windows were surrounded by cornices, representing, as it were, window jambs. Another type of window is a large round hole in the ceiling of the building." "The round shape of the windows of the synagogue seems (!) to be of the most ancient, although not purely Jewish origin. Along with the real windows, there were also so-called false windows, which did not have an embrasure for the passage of light, but represented a shallow quadrangular niche from the outside, surrounded by cornices. Sometimes a cornice was installed above the upper jamb of such windows, which looked like an isosceles triangle, the base of which was the upper horizontal cornice of the window" (p. 79). "It goes without saying that roofless synagogues did not have windows, because there was no need for them" (p. 80). “The first part of the synagogue building was a portico; it consisted of columns connected to each other by architraves, on which the roof rested" (p. 80). "The number of columns forming the synagogue portico is not the same: there were at least four of them, as far as can be concluded from the ruins of ancient Jewish synagogues. As for the frieze of synagogues (?), its appearance dates back to the time of the Maccabean dynasty, when the Jews became familiar with the methods of construction buildings from other nations” 3, from where, let us add on our own, the Jews hardly borrowed only the frieze, but something else more significant. The frieze of the ancient Jewish (again ancient?) synagogue was richly decorated with carvings, representing not only elements of the “vegetative kingdom, but also other objects" (for example, chariots). “Near the entrance to the synagogue there was a special iron bracket, on which every Jew was obliged to cleanse his feet from the dust and dirt adhering to them, before entering the building itself" (p. 81). From the portico “usually three entrances led into ancient Jewish synagogues, of which the middle one was higher and wider than the side ones.”... “Above the main horizontal jamb of the entrance there was an inscription, either immortalizing the name of the builder of the synagogue, or containing the text of Psalm CXVIII, 20,” or “various kinds of bas-relief images flaunted (for example, wreaths of flowers intertwined with ribbons, heads of rams, a seven-branched candlestick, etc.)” (p. 82). “The interior of the synagogue was a quadrangular hall, divided by rows of columns into several naves; the number of naves formed by rows of columns ranges from three to five" (p. 83). "The distance between the columns is usually 6-10 feet, and their height does not exceed 17 feet. The columns served as much for decoration as they did for the overall system of construction, for on the one hand they provided new points (?!) of support for the roof, and on the other hand they contributed to the construction of special compartments for women. For this last purpose, the columns were connected between with gratings 3-4 cubits high, which provided a special isolated compartment similar to the gynekons of ancient Christian churches. Often synagogue gynekons were a type of lattice galleries, arranged in exactly the same way as choirs in modern Orthodox churches. In this last case, the columns served to support the beams on which the galleries lay” (p. 84). “As for the walls of the synagogue, we can think that they were covered with relief images of the plant kingdom, if we take into account that the Jews tried to make their synagogues as similar as possible to the temple, and the walls of this latter, as is known, were covered with images of cherubs and objects of the plant kingdom" (pp. 85–86). "In 1833, in the ruins of a Tunisian synagogue (Hamman Lif) the remains of a wall mosaic were discovered, the Jewish origin of which, according to Mr. Nikitin, can now be considered proven.” “The open remainder of it for us,” he writes, is important in the sense that it introduces us in general to the nature of the internal decoration of ancient (?) synagogues. The found mosaic picture (2 m and 5 m and 25 cm wide) is divided into three unequal fields; the right and left ones are covered with images of plants, birds and animals (for example, hares p. 87), and the middle field is in turn divided into three smaller quadrangles; the upper one depicts the sea with fish and water birds, the lower one represents the vegetation of the country (palm trees and flowers) and in places groups of peacocks and other birds. On the middle field there are images of two seven-branched candlesticks and an inscription immortalizing the name of the builder of the synagogue" (pp. 86–87). “The floor in the most ancient synagogues was usually stone; its material was limestone, which Palestine is so rich in. Synagogues often had a marble floor" (p. 86). Mr. Nikitin speaks both about the orientation of the synagogues and about their external position. “Both in cities and outside of them, synagogues were always built in such a way that the side opposite the entrance (i.e., absidal in all likelihood) was facing towards the place where the Jerusalem temple was previously" (p. 75). “It was necessary to give the synagogues such a position that their walls, opposite the entrance 4, were facing Jerusalem" (p. 76). “Initially, synagogues were built outside cities, in fields, near cemeteries and rivers" (p. 67). “The ruins of ancient Jewish synagogues that have survived to our time are all located in fields outside villages" (p. (39). But despite this categorical statement, our author admits, on some basis, the idea that “Christianity responded to the history of Jewish synagogues,” which “before the destruction of Jerusalem was also in the center of cities" (p. 72). "In cities, the most elevated point was usually chosen as the site for the construction of a synagogue, so that the external height would correspond to the spiritual grandeur of the house of God" (p. 73). This is what a synagogue is like according to our author. This universal synagogue cannot be dated absolutely to any time or place, and the author himself does not give us any definite criterion, limiting himself to a simple and meaningless statement “ancient Jewish synagogues” and “ancient synagogues”, so that we can connect the synagogue he depicts with some architectural structures of a certain historical moment. But this is not enough. The universal synagogue of Mr. Nikitin will remain existing only in his fantasy and will never become a real fact, since it was collected by the author “from the silent ruins” of different eras or, better to say, from that archaeological rubbish, on the basis of which it is very risky to establish any strong positive conclusions. In addition, while leaving his idea of ​​"ancient Jewish synagogue" in force, we must keep in mind that curious phenomenon in the history of architecture that the basilica itself went through certain stages of its development before receiving its definite typical plan. Hence, it is understandable that art historians do not find very many essential parts of the basilica in the most ancient buildings of this type and therefore do not agree on the understanding of which architectural structures should be considered basilica and which parts in them are essential and inessential. The classical Roman basilica went through certain stages of development, but did not immediately appear in the light of God in the complete form we now imagine it to be, and the Christian basilica, therefore, cannot be that the “ancient Jewish synagogue” of Mr. Nikitin was a happy exception and appeared by the wave of supernatural power in the form in which he depicts it. But if we take a closer look at the plan, arrangement of parts and decorations of the ancient Jewish synagogue, according to Mr. Nikitin, then we will immediately be convinced not only of the impossibility of the real existence of such a synagogue and the complete fantasticality of its plan, but we will directly understand that Mr. Nikitin has absolutely no idea about the matter, which he took on apparently due to a misunderstanding... In fact, what kind of architectural structure is this - an “ancient Jewish synagogue”, which either “represented the appearance of basilica buildings”, then “a quadrangular building of more or less original architecture”, then finally “a very relatively tall building, its type reminiscent of a house”? If the synagogue resembled a house, then it was quite noticeable, even in appearance, especially if we take into account the apse protruding outwards, it differed from the type of basilica building; if it was a building of “peculiar architecture,” then it again did not resemble the type of basilica buildings, and we would very much like to know from the author what the characteristic features of this “peculiar” building are? But Mr. Nikitin chose to wisely keep silent about these features and began to draw his “synagogue" with a basilica plan, although here again his confusion of concepts is unimaginable. For example, who would have thought of the word: ϑεαροειδής or located in an amphitheater, said by St. An epiphany about one synagogue should be considered as a “strong proof" of the existence of this type of structure, an apse, with which clear and definite concepts are connected in archeology. Is it really a matter of complete indifference for Mr. Nikitin, no matter which “of the walls of his synagogue" has the appearance of a recess reminiscent of an absidal conch? The apse was located in the wall opposite the entrance, and St. Epiphanius, when he talks about the location of the synagogue as an amphitheater, he undoubtedly means the semicircular appearance of the entrance side of the synagogue, which is far from the same thing. Frankly speaking, we resolutely refuse to understand his speech about the structure of the “flat form" of the synagogue roof. How it was stated that the vaults supposed by the author were on columns and “the other end rested on the longitudinal walls" and how then “earth was poured onto these vaults” - we do not have enough imagination to imagine all this. In these same vaults, in all likelihood, the round windows of the synagogue ceiling were also built. The structure of the gynekons is no less difficult to understand. in the synagogue in Nikitin. The author, drawing his “ancient Jewish synagogue,” did not say a single word about the existence of an “elevated middle ship” in it, and only when he started talking about the synagogue as a place of Christian worship, he noticed his mistake and declared that “its presence in the synagogue is more difficult to prove,” although not impossible. In this case, Mr. Nikitin allegedly refers to “the solid assumption of Mr. Krasnoseltsev that the elevated middle nave was also in the synagogues" (p. 176). Without this completely erroneous quotation 5 and the rather late statement about the elevated middle nave of the synagogues, we would never have understood, especially if we take into account the extreme ambiguity in the presentation of the structure of the synagogue roof, how the “latticed roofs” could have been constructed galleries" for women. Finally, we directly refuse to believe that “in the ancient synagogues” there could have been mosaic images of animals such as hares on the walls, which were considered directly unclean (Lev. 11:6). Bearing in mind the type of synagogue presented by the author, as an architectural structure, its internal structure and decoration, we must not forget for a moment that he insistently asserts that “at the heart of the synagogue building is a tabernacle or temple” (p. 66), “an exact reproduction of which the synagogue has always represented” (p. 77), that “the Jews tried to make their synagogues as similar as possible to the temple” (p. 86), that “the temple Jerusalem is the prototype of the synagogue” (p. 113), that finally “the external forms of the synagogue, as well as its accessories, are taken directly from the Jerusalem temple” (p. 126). description of the 3rd book of Kings ch. VI, VII and 2 Chronicles ch. II, III, IV and V, in order to make sure in the most obvious way that there is, one might say, nothing in common between the synagogue and the temple. The Holy of Holies has the shape of a cube and there is no apse in it. In the sanctuary, which is 40 cubits long, 20 wide and 80 high, there is no division into naves or ships. There are no columns inside the sanctuary, but there are only two bronze columns Jahun (correction) and Boos (fortress), which decorate the entrance to the closed portico of the church. There were no windows in the ceiling, but they were located in the walls of the church, only “bowed, hidden.” We do not see images of fish, peacocks and hares in Solomon’s temple, but for that “on all the walls of the church near the sculpture there was an inscription (i.e. Solomon) in the likeness of cherubs and dates, and statues pronouncing oud inside and outside.” The church was surrounded by inner and outer courtyards, which Mr. Nikitin does not even mention when he speaks of his “ancient Jewish synagogue." There is no talk of gynaekons in the Solomon Temple. We cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of citing here in full one highly original passage from Mr. Nikitin’s book, which explains to us the author’s conviction and his insistence in pursuing the idea of ​​​​the similarity of the Jerusalem temple with the synagogue. “The similarity between the Jerusalem temple and the synagogue will become even more obvious to us,” he writes, if we pay attention to the fact that the front courtyard of the temple in the synagogue corresponds to a lowered front space, intended to accommodate members of the community; the sanctuary and holy of holies correspond to a further, apparently elevated, rear space with its altar (?!) elevation in the middle and the ark for the holy books. Finally, the similarity between the synagogues and the temple is revealed in the fact that both in the latter and in the former, women and men had special premises" (p. 77). With such a fantastic comparison, the limits of which exist, it is not at all surprising if the synagogue of the city of Nikitin is similar not only to the Jerusalem temple, but even to the Muslim mosque and Kalmyk pagoda. In this case, we will remind him of his own remark, read to the scientists Germans. “The comparative method, we will say in the words of Mr. Nikitin, does not represent such a powerful and sufficient means with which one could come to indisputable and reliable conclusions” (p. 325). But if it turned out to be difficult, or even completely impossible for Mr. Nikitin to indicate the prototype of the “ancient Jewish synagogue” he composed in the tabernacle or temple of Solomon, then he needed to have much more work and courage in order to put forward such a bold thesis with his essential position that “Jewish synagogues undoubtedly (?) represented one of the most convenient types of buildings so that Christians, preferably over other buildings, could choose them for their sacred rites" (p. 171), that "during this period (i.e., the first two centuries) Christian architectural art (and partly even iconographic (?!)) developed under the direct and immediate influence of Judaism and that the Jewish synagogue served as a model for determining the type of early Christian places of worship" (p. 183) and that finally, "if we turn to a detailed examination of the internal arrangement synagogues and their accessories, we will see that from this side they represent strict correspondence with Christian churches” (p. 187). Before objecting to the author’s thesis, we consider it very appropriate to state in advance that we in no way can recognize the “ancient Jewish synagogue" as a fact in the history of architectural art. No matter how much the author strives to exalt and elevate his synagogue of “peculiar architecture" on the basis of “silent ruins" and through a peculiar reinterpretation of words that have a clear and definite meaning, the genius of man, sometimes to the point of complete depersonalization and identification of it with basilica buildings, his synagogue, we have a strong belief, as a type of architectural structure, did not and will never fall into the history of art, because the synagogue has never been recognized and is not recognized as a place of public public worship and does not occupy an independent place in the chain of historical sequence of architectural types with the synagogue as a place of worship. Jewish collections, we meet only among Christian exegetes on the books of the New Testament. But if we again assume that the “ancient Jewish synagogue” of Mr. Nikitin is a real fact, and compare it with the so-called ancient Christian basilica, as it is described by the best experts on this issue (for example, Tsisterman, Oscar Motes, etc.) and how it can be studied from monuments that are still well preserved (for example, the Basilica of Bethlehem, Peter's Basilica in Rome, etc.), then here, as when comparing the synagogue with the Jerusalem temple, we will come to conclusions exactly opposite to those that Mr. Nikitin would like to see, i.e., that his basilica synagogue is not similar in essential features to a Christian basilica, and therefore in no case can it serve as a place for the original Christian liturgical meetings. So, for example, the apse in a Christian basilica was, it is possible. to say, a necessary part, since it was needed for the construction of the altar, and its absence in some basilicas must be understood to mean that the concha or recess did not protrude outward. It was located in the wall opposite the entrance, and was located opposite the middle nave, from which it was separated by a triumphal arch. The Christian apse-altar can in no way be compared with “that niche that the synagogues had in their rear (?) wall and where the book ark was placed" (p. 177), and the author too naively imagines the adaptation of this niche to the Christian altar. "Since, he argues, the center of the Christian cult was the Eucharist, and not the reading of the Holy Scriptures, the bookcase had to give way to its place the throne on which this sacrament was performed; the cabinet with the sacred books was moved to the right side of the altar - to the deacon” (p. 189). The author completely forgets that the necessary accessories of the Christian altar, in addition to the throne and the cabinet with books, were considered to be a seat or armchair for the bishop, a sacred altar (σύνϑρονος) for the priests, who sometimes stand in front of the bishop in large numbers and serve him, a place for the altar, on which the gifts brought by believers were placed - bread and wine, a room for the sacristy and vessels; in a word, the Christian altar was a rather large room, which, no matter how much we move the cabinet with holy books, will never turn out to be out of the synagogue niche, designated only for the placement of this cabinet. Further, the middle nave of a Christian basilica is certainly higher and twice as wide as the side ships, which was achieved by installing a second row of columns on which lay architraves with beams directly supporting the gable roof of the basilica. The ceiling in the basilica was missing and the rafters of the roof were visible from the middle of the basilica. The windows were not located in the ceiling or in the main walls of the building, although they were occasionally located here, but in the upper walls, between the second row of columns. Gynekons were always placed on choirs, which sometimes ran not only on the western side, but also on the southern and northern sides. Mr. Nikitin does not speak about the atrium or courtyard in the synagogue, but it was also an integral part of the Christian basilica. The entrance to the atrium was through the propylaea, and inside it we see a phial with water (cautharus, nympheum, phiala, etc.) and covered porticoes on columns. As for the position of Christian churches in the first centuries of Christianity and their orientation, our author does not deny their difference in this respect from the “ancient Jewish synagogues." At least regarding the custom that appeared among the Jews even “before the destruction of Jerusalem,” to build synagogues “in the center of cities,” Mr. Nikitin directly, although in a way unexpected for us, stated that in this respect “Christianity responded to history (and not to history itself). synagogue?) Jewish synagogues” (p. 72). Regarding the orientation of the Christian church, we have very clear evidence from the apologist Tertullian, in his treatise against the Valentinians, where he says: “the house of our dove is simple, always in an elevated and open place and facing the light," and in other literary monuments. The church in Neocessarea, founded by Gregory the Wonderworker, was built "in the most prominent place in the city." “On an eminence," in view of even the imperial palace, stood the church in Nicomedia, destroyed by order of the Emperor Diocletian. So, here are the significant main features of the differences between the Christian basilica "from the ancient Jewish synagogue" created by the imagination of Mr. Nikitin. The differences we have indicated are deeply rooted in Christianity itself and flow naturally from the essence of Christian worship, from its specific features in comparison with all other cults of known religions. Now we will return to our author’s theses and follow step by step, his logical passages (salto mortale) and unceremonious breaking, distortion of established concepts in archeology, ignoring facts known to everyone almost from childhood, in order to arrive at the positions that he put forward in his dissertation. To prove his position that “Jewish synagogues undoubtedly represented one of the most convenient types of buildings so that Christians, preferably over other buildings, could choose them for their sacred rites,” Mr. Nikitin first of all focuses on the fact that “places of Christian liturgical gatherings in the first centuries were given names similar to those by which synagogues are designated” (p. 173). Christian places of worship are called συναγωγὴ (meeting), ευκτήρια, προσευκτήρια (prayer books), διδασκαλεῖα (schools), etc.; a natural conclusion because they, being places for the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice - the liturgy, at the same time served as a meeting place for Christians for prayer, teaching in the law and the prophets and for preaching about Christ crucified; but this is not what our author concludes. “Such a similarity between the names of the places of worship of Jews and Christians, says Mr. Nikitin, can be satisfactorily explained only by the assumption that both had significant similarities in their external (?!) forms” (p. 174). The next four pages, for “greater persuasiveness,” are devoted to comparing basilicas with synagogues and looking for “real similarities,” in which all those scientific techniques that our author is fluent in and with which we have already had the opportunity to introduce our readers are put into action. The result of this comparison is the author's conclusion. “Jewish synagogues,” he writes, provided numerous (aren’t they many?) facilities for performing such Christian worship. In fact, the synagogue provided a convenient place for reading the Holy Scriptures, prayers and sermons - an elevated pulpit 6; The synagogue niche (!), located at the central point (no longer in the apse?) of the rear wall of the building, open to the gaze of all those present, provided a wonderful room for the Eucharistic altar or (this is very appropriate!) the seat of the teaching bishop" (p. 179). A truly marvelous room, especially if we imagine that in the synagogue of the city. Nikitin, in the niche for the cabinet there is a “teaching bishop’s chair” instead of a throne, and all the worshipers and the preacher occupy the pulpit! It is hardly necessary to add that the position expressed by Mr. Nikitin would have had its significance if he had succeeded, we are no longer talking “in silent ruins,” but at least in “clear historical evidence,” to find facts indicating that “Jewish prayer houses were often made places of Christian worship” (p. 179), that “in the first centuries of the existence of Christianity there were very frequent cases of synagogues being converted into Christian temples” (p. 182). These facts turn out to be the dubious work “De passione imaginis Domini nostri Jesu Christi”, attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria, one place in the “Psalter” of Hermas, in the “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew” by St. Justin the philosopher, in the book “Contra haereses” by St. Irenaeus of Lyon, in the “Stromata” of Clement of Alexandria and in the Chronicle of Alexandria (pp. 179–182). Indeed, quite a number of facts are indicated by Mr. Nikitin; but the question is - what are these facts, can they be considered “clear historical evidence” and “completely reliable”? First of all, it is impossible not to pay attention here to the arrangement of the evidence itself, which follows in this order: St. Athanasius the Great - IV century, Hermas I century, Justin Martyr - II century, etc. until the Alexandrian Chronicle - V century. This is not an accident, but a deliberate combination. The fact is that only in the work attributed to St. Athanasius of Alexandria 7 and the Alexandrian Chronicle really clearly speaks of the transformation of Jewish synagogues into Christian temples, which is why these testimonies took pride of place among our author, among the evidence from the works of the first centuries of Christianity. As for other evidence of a very, very dubious nature 8, in no case can they be interpreted, in our opinion, in a sense favorable to our author, since there is not even a faint hint in them of the transformation of Jewish synagogues into Christian churches. In many cases, the word συναγωγή found here, translated in Latin by the word ecclesia 9, should be understood not in the sense of indicating special buildings called synagogues, and, with very rare exceptions, always expressed by adding to the word συναγωγή a member of ἡ, but in general a meeting of any Christian or Jewish or even pagan. Among the evidence, Mr. Nikitin refers to verse 2 of the second chapter from the conciliar epistle of St. the Apostle James, who allegedly “by adopting the name συναγωγή to the place of Christian worship indicates the fact of the transformation of the synagogue into a Christian temple" (p. 179). In this case, he repeats the opinion of his learned predecessors Vitringa, Kreiser, etc. We deliberately did not point out this fact above, since we intend here to dwell on it carefully and consider in detail the very text of the text that interests us verse in order to decide whether it is possible to refer to this place of St. James as proof of the mentioned thought. Literally and in context, the passage that interests us reads like this: “If your husband enters into the host (εὶς τὴν συναγωγήν), wearing a gold ring in a light robe, a beggar in thin clothing comes in, and look at him who wears a light robe, and say to him: sit here You say to the good and to the poor: stand there or sit here on my footstool: and do not consider in yourself and quickly the judge of evil thoughts. Hear, my beloved brethren, has not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he promised to those who love him; But you are reproaches of the poor" (James 2:2-6). If we carefully delve into this text, we can hardly directly and naturally draw the conclusion that it is said here about the liturgical meetings of Jewish Christians and specifically in synagogues. If we understand the expression εὶς τὴν συναγωγήν in the sense of indicating a synagogue, as our author understands it (pp. 173 and 179), to which the member τὴν and the translation of this expression in the Latin Vulgate with the word synagoga gives us the right, then the conclusion is, in our opinion, natural such that St. The Apostle James speaks in this place about the liturgical customs that took place in the Jewish synagogue. This conclusion has every chance of being probable because, although there were divisions of believers into classes in the liturgical meetings of Christians of the first centuries, the basis for this division lay not in the poverty or wealth of the believers, in their expensive and rich attire, or thin, tattered clothes, but in the time of their inclusion in the Church of Christ, in the degree of their assimilation of Christian doctrine, in their morality. As for synagogue worship, we have very definite evidence that there purely external random merits were of no small importance for obtaining a place of honor. About the basilica-synagogue in Alexandria, built by Onias IV, the Talmud says this: “there were 70 golden chairs there, according to the number of elders, decorated with precious stones and pearls: each of them cost 25 myriads of denarii... The people did not sit one next to the other, but each workshop, each craft separately (division into workshops, the occupation of a craft entirely depend on material security, wealth), so that if an outsider (foreigner) came, he sat down with his fellow craftsmen and used the services here." Taking into account, however, that most exegetes understand the expression τὴν συναγωγήν, as an indication of the liturgical meeting of believers in Christ, the same as the church (cf. Heb. 10:25 τὴν ἐπισυναγωγήν; 1 Cor. 11:18 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν) (see Explanatory Apostle, book II. Conciliar Epistles of St. Apostle Bishop Michael. Kyiv. 1890, p. 39), one can also allow such an interpretation that St. Apostle James denounces here the custom of the Jewish Christians, adopted by them from the synagogue and, perhaps, practiced even in their Christian liturgical meetings 10. But if we take into account the text of the epistle of the Apostle James, published by the famous scientist Konstantin Tischendorf, where the member τὴν before the word συναγωγήν is completely omitted (S. de-Tischendorf. Novum Testamentum graece, edit. XVI, Lipsiae 1888 an. 815), then it seems that we will understand this passage absolutely correctly and it will not present any difficulties for us. According to Tischendorf's text, the speech of St. The Apostle James is talking about simple non-liturgical meetings of Jewish Christians, at which, not only in ancient times, but even to this day, not only in Jewish society, but even in Christian society, the rich are very often preferred to the poor, a luxurious outfit is preferred to wretched rags, etc. “They are greeted by their clothes,” says the Russian proverb. It is against such an unfounded and purely random external sign for dividing people into honorable and dishonorable and the Holy Apostle James arms himself in his epistle. For both understandings of the above quoted passage from the epistles of St. of the Apostle James, we find reasons for ourselves, in addition to the direct text of the place that occupies us, taken in context, and in the interpretations of this conciliar message of Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria. The Holy Apostle James, he says, “conducts affairs with thorough calculation, yielding, as far as it was harmless to him, in the new covenant and by-law rituals... Through this compliance, having captured their attention to his own words, he little by little convinces them to lag behind by-law rituals (wearing rings, dividing people during liturgical and ordinary meetings according to costume, etc.), as useless and leading to slavery, and not to the freedom given in Christ... Because you did not judge as you should, you became judges with evil thoughts... Your indiscrimination led you to partiality, made you praise one as rich, and despise another as poor" (Explanatory on the conciliar letters of the Holy Apostles (in Russian translation). Kazan, 1865, p. 22–23). In a word, even Blessed Theophylact does not hint in a single word that St. the Apostle James spoke about the liturgical meetings of Jewish Christians in synagogues; and if this is allowed, then he means the customs “under the law” that passed from the Jewish synagogue into Christian worship. So, neither from the identity of the names of the synagogues and the place of liturgical gatherings of the first Christians, nor from the literary data indicated by the author, which supposedly speak of the transformation of Jewish synagogues into places of Christian liturgical gatherings, in our opinion, can in no way be deduced that, according to the plan and internal structure, the ancient Christian basilica is genetically dependent on the ancient Jewish synagogue. This idea cannot be confirmed by any passage from the book of the Acts of the Apostles. There are no clear indications that Christians use the synagogue specifically for their Christian services, for the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Following the example of Jesus Christ (Matthew 13:54; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16), the apostles very often used the synagogue to preach about Christ, and there are a lot of similar facts in the book of the Acts of the Apostles; but from here it is too hasty to conclude, as our author does, that Christians could be satisfied with the same synagogues for their liturgical meetings. “If Vigouroux is right in asserting that Providence prepared audiences in synagogues for apostolic preaching, then, Mr. Nikitin concludes, it will be no less true (?) that Providence prepared in synagogues the type of buildings that most satisfied the needs of Christian worship” (p. 191). The followers of Christ, now after His resurrection, began to have a special position among their blood brothers and were forced to sit together “with the door shut,” “for fear of the Jews” (John 20:19). Closedness and isolation in Christian society from the Jews continued to exist even after Pentecost, after the descent of St. Spirit upon the apostles when their missionary activity began. “The fear was great upon all of them. All who believed were in common and in common" (Acts 2:44), and therefore it is very natural that for their liturgical meetings they could not use Jewish synagogues and held them in private houses where they spent time. "All the days enduring with one accord in the church, we read in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and breaking bread in the house (κλῶντες κατ᾽ οἶκον τὸν ἄρτον), I take my food with joy and in simplicity of heart, praising God and having grace among all people” (p. 46). Christians kept themselves apart from the Jews in a separate circle, even at a time when, observing old Jewish customs, they went to pray or preach in the Jewish church. “And I beat with one accord in the porch of Solomoni,” notes St. Evangelist Luke. No one dares to cleave to them from others, but their people are great" (Acts 5:12-13). Given such an isolated position of a small circle of Christians and the extremely hostile attitude of their blood brothers of the Jews towards them, it is hardly possible to admit the idea that Christians could be tolerant in the Jewish synagogue and could conduct their worship there. If for the preaching of the apostles Peter and John about Christ in the porch of Solomon (Acts 3:11, 12) the priests, the church governor and the Sadducees “laid their hands on them and placed them in observance (εὶς τήρησιν)” (Acts 4:3), i.e. subjected them to preliminary imprisonment; if against the apostles Paul and Barnabas for preaching also in the Iconian synagogue, “the unbelieving Jews raised up and embittered the souls of tongues against the brethren” (Acts 14:2) (many such examples can be cited; - Acts. 13:50; 14:19; 17:5; 18:6, 20:3, etc.), then the Jews would hardly have remained indifferent if they had seen Christian worship performed in their synagogues. This is why we do not find any indications in the books of the New Testament for the transformation of Jewish synagogues into places for Christian liturgical meetings, which were always located in private homes. About these meetings of leading Christians in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, in addition to the mentioned testimony (Acts 2:46), we also have others, of which the most interesting in terms of the thoroughness and details indicated in it can be considered the XX chapter of the same book, verses 7-11. “Only from the Sabbaths, the Christian worship in Troas is described here, the disciples gathered to break bread (τοῦ κλάσαι ἄρτον, Paul talked (διελέγετο αὐτοῖς) to them, although to go out in the morning, simply word until midnight (παρέτεινε τὸν λόγον μέγρι μεσονυκτίου). λαπάδες ίκαναὶ ἐν τῶ ὑπερῴῳ), where to gather. A certain young man named Eutychus was sitting (καϑήμενος) in the window (ἐπὶ τῆς ϑυρίδος), weighed down with a deep sleep, speaking to Paul about the multitude, bowed down from sleep, fallen from the bloodshed (ἀπὸ τοῦ τριστέγου) down, and taking him dead. But Paul (καταβὰς) came down and attacked and said: “Speak not, for his soul is in him.” “I went up and broke bread and ate, and had enough of a conversation even until dawn, and so I left.” ίκανόν τε ὁ μιλήσας ἄχρις αὐγῆς, οὕτως ἐξῆλϑεν). Here are the places, under what conditions, in what order or sequence, and at what time of day, Christian worship was performed. The custom of celebrating the Eucharist in private homes, which began under the apostles, was firmly maintained under their successors until the 4th century, when a special conciliar definition put a limit on it. “It is not proper for bishops and elders, says Canon 58 of the Council of Laodicea in 364, to make offerings in homes.” However, we should not forget that “the apostles themselves, as we know, says Mr. Nikitin, performed divine services primarily in oecus (ὑπερῷα) 11, the election of which was by no means an accidental phenomenon, but a fact as expedient as it was expedient (?) and their election of synagogues for worship (James 2:2). Oecus, he continues, in their essence (?) were a kind of home synagogues (author’s italics), used by Jews for religious purposes and as such, due to their convenience (?), quite naturally became places of public Christian worship in cases where there was no public (communal?) synagogue in a given community, or when most of the Jews of a certain area turned out to be hostile to Christianity” (p. 183). Of course, before talking about the expediency and convenience of ikos or home synagogues for Christian worship, it would be necessary to eliminate the difficulties we have indicated in the very possibility of Christians doing this, and secondly, it would not be superfluous to prove that ikos were a kind of home synagogues, which we cannot take at our word. Does the author think that the relations of Jews towards Christians were hostile only in the early days of the advent of Christianity and that these relations improved later? No. We have too strong data to assert that these relations not only did not smooth out, but became more and more aggravated as time went on; both the Jews and the Jewish synagogue harmed Christians and Christian preachers in their missionary activities not only in the first half of the first century of Christianity, but at the end of this century, in the second century and even in the third, and not only in Palestine, but in Asia Minor and even in Europe. “You, writes St. The Apostle Paul in his first letter to Thessalonians, likewise, brethren, the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus, have you also suffered from your fellow tribesmen, just as you did from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and his prophets, and who drove us out and did not please God and who opposed us with all men, (and) rebuked us speak with the tongue, that they may be saved, so that they may always fulfill their sins: but wrath has come upon them to the end" (1 Thess. 2:14-16). St. John the Theologian, who suffered many troubles from the Jews and the synagogue of Smyrna, brands it with the name "the host of Satan." “I know your deeds and sorrow and poverty,” writes St. John to the angel of the church of Smyrna, but you are rich: and the blasphemers of those who say that they are Jews, and are not, but the host of Satan." I give from the host of Satan (ἐκ τῆς συναγωγής τοῦ σατανᾶ) who say they are Jews, and are not, but lie: Behold, I have created them, that they may come and worship before thy feet, and understand that I I have loved you” (Rev. 3:9). About the strong Smyrna synagogue, for example. we know that she was very hostile to Christians in the second century. In addition to the crowd of pagans, the Jews also took part in the indignation of the mob against the Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp, “with special zeal, as usual,” and the Jews, who convinced the crowd to ask the proconsul not to hand over the remains of the martyr Polycarp to Christians, “lest they, Christians, begin to worship him, leaving the Crucified One,” and thanks to the “hostile persistence” of whom the proconsul was forced to burn the body of St. Polycarp (Eusebius. Church. History IV, 25). After all that we have said, one can only wonder how Mr. Nikitin began to prove not only that in Palestine the places of Christian liturgical gatherings of the first centuries were completely dependent on the Jewish synagogue, but also put forward a bolder position - about the same dependence of the former on the latter even outside Palestine. Jewish influence in the establishment of places of public worship was inevitable even for non-Palestinian Christians” (p. 183). Here are Mr. Nikitin’s verbatim arguments regarding the “necessity” and “inevitability” of Jewish influence on the places of public worship of Christians outside Palestine. “If it is true,” he writes, that the catacombs can be considered at least as architectural elements for the formation of a Christian church, then it should be noted (logic can hardly recognize this conditional period as successfully built) that they (i.e., the catacombs) owe their origin to Judaism (!). Before the spread of the Christian religion in Rome and even before its appearance, says Fricken, the Jews already had their own catacombs in this city, which in their structure were no different from Christian ones (?!). One of these (?) catacombs, located at porta Capena, begins with a building that represents all the characteristic features of the location of the synagogue and which communicates with the underground, where the arrangement of the tombs is quite similar to the Christian catacombs. In the Jewish catacombs there is also a cubicula, decorated with various kinds of images, such as. seven-branched candlesticks, peacocks, fish, loaves, trees, palm branches, etc. Taking into account, on the one hand, the high antiquity (Fricken directly defines it as 2nd or 3rd century A.D. p. 75) of these catacombs, and on the other hand, their similarity with Christian catacombs (about which Fricken says nothing), we think (?!) that these latter owe their origin to the imitation of the Jews. The Jews, despised by the Romans, settled in separate quarters of Rome and, true to the customs of Palestine, buried their dead in stone caves. This is how the catacombs were formed, large cubeculae (?!) of which could serve the Jews as places of public worship (?!) in those unfavorable moments when the Roman government initiated persecution against them" (p. 184). How much historical untruth, deliberate distortion of facts and unceremonious manipulation of them is in this tirade; what a misunderstanding of the nature of the Jewish religion and what a logical inconsistency! For our author it is obvious and still a secret that in church archaeological science the question of the purely Christian origin of the Roman catacombs has been accepted and finally resolved. He obviously had not yet heard of the names of the Jesuit Marchi and the Cavalier de Rossi, who are still happily alive and have received great European fame for their remarkable work on the study of the Roman Christian catacombs. In particular, the first of the named scientists, Jesuit Marchi, in the forties of the last century, worked mainly to resolve the issue of the purely Christian origin of the Roman catacombs. In his research, he achieved remarkable results, which are accepted in their entirety in archaeological science and are repeated by all later scientists who studied the Roman catacombs. It is not surprising, therefore, that we were extremely amazed when we read in Mr. Nikitin’s book a position about the dependence of the Christian Roman catacombs on the Jewish catacombs, allegedly based on the words of von Fricken. The latter lived almost his entire life in Italy, studied the catacombs under the guidance of the gentleman de Rossi himself, and based his work “Roman Catacombs and Monuments of Primary Christian Art” on de Rossi’s major work “Roma soterranea christiana” and his scientific final results on the study of these catacombs, and therefore in no way could he not have known about the works of Marchi and expressed the idea imposed on him by Mr. Nikitin. Based on the reference with a quote from Fricken, it turns out that our author simply slandered the innocent Fricken. Indeed, Mr. von-Fricken says that “before the spread of the Christian religion in Rome and even before its appearance, the Jews already had their own catacombs in this city” (Roman catacombs, part 1, m. 1872, p. 74), but that’s all; the idea could not even occur to him that these catacombs “in their structure are no different from Christian ones” (Nikitin, p. 184). True, our author takes this phrase from the book of Mr. von Friken (p. 75), but it belongs to the “Columbus of Underground Rome” scientist of the 16th-17th centuries. “Bosio and refers to the Jewish catacomb, located approximately in the middle of the Monte Verde hill, and not to all Jewish catacombs. “Bosio saw it in 1602 and says, by the way, we read in von-Fricken, that it is no different from Christian cemeteries of this kind (this phrase is by means of the pronoun “which” Mr. Nikitin attached to the words of Mr. von-Fricken himself), but is made carelessly, roughly and contains only two small rooms (cubicula). In the entire catacomb, Bosio did not find a single remains of painting, not a piece of marble, but he saw an image of the ark of the covenant, the sacred Jewish lamp with seven branches and a large number of inscriptions in which the dead are sometimes given the title of father or mother of the synagogue (p. 75).” It was not without a purpose that we made this large extract from Mr. von Fricken’s book. In our opinion, Mr. Bosio quite correctly described the Jewish catacomb, attributed by Mr. Fricken, “to the last times of the republic or to the first century of the empire" (p. 75), as a place unclean according to Jewish belief and abandoned, abandoned by them. It is this catacomb, the most ancient in its origin, that should be kept in mind when deciding the question of the identity of the Christian and Christian catacombs. Jewish; but Mr. Nikitin wisely kept silent about it. He preferred to deal with “one of these catacombs” (that is, which appeared in Rome “before the spread of the Christian religion and even before its appearance”), “located at porta Capena,” and, taking into account “the high antiquity,” although Mr. Fricken, according to Garruchi, directly dates its origin “to the second or third century after R. H.“ (p. 75 and note), and its decoration “with various kinds of images, such as. seven-branched candlesticks, peacocks, fish, loaves, trees, palm branches, etc.," they began to "think" that the Christian catacombs "owe their origin to the imitation of the Jews," although there is absolutely no basis for such a thought in Mr. Fricken's book. Let's not even talk about the fact that the Jewish catacomb at Porta Sarena is of very late origin (2nd or 3rd century A.D.), about its decoration Mr. Fricken spoke quite definitely: “This cemetery belonged to richer Jews, but not all of its monuments, however, are of a purely biblical nature. For example, in one of the rooms there is an image of two human figures, which was not allowed by the law of Moses; they are not borrowed from the Old Testament, or from the history of the Jewish people, but from the pagan world, and represent a winged woman, probably a victory, who holds a palm branch in one hand and the other. raises a wreath over the head of a naked young man with a laurel branch in his hand. In the same cubiculum, that is, the room, peacocks standing on spheres, pegasi, birds, fish and other animals are visible, the meaning of which is difficult to explain. On the walls of another room are painted four winged geniuses representing the seasons, and a woman wearing a crown holding a cornucopia in one hand and a flat vase in the other from which liquid is pouring onto the ground. This allegorical image of fortune, abundance, happiness, the eternal ideals of the Jewish people, was adopted from Roman pagan art. If we assume, Mr. Fricken concludes, that Roman converts to the Jewish religion are buried here, and not native Jews, then, despite this, the presence of such paintings near their tombs is a fact not without interest, which can be explained by the fact that the tendency to get closer to the pagan world prevailed in many Jewish synagogues outside Palestine" (p. 76). Consequently, the painting of the Jewish catacomb Porta Sarena is not of Jewish origin and it is at least premature to interpret the development of “Christian iconographic art” “under the direct and immediate influence of Judaism.” Could the “large (?!) cubicules” of the Jewish catacombs “serve the Jews as places of public worship in those unfavorable moments when the Roman government initiated persecution against them” (p. 184), we do not know, since there is no historical documentary evidence for this, but we doubt the credibility of Mr. Nikitin’s real “thought”, because a little higher he himself stated that “cemeteries, from the point of view Jews are unclean places” (p. 70). Also on the conscience of our author, we leave his other “thought” that “Christians tried, if possible, to make the cubeculae of the tombs look like synagogues for the convenience of performing divine services, and into the crypts formed in this way (how is this? - we absolutely do not understand the author) 12 Christians transferred even those images that they found in the cubeculae of the Jewish catacombs and which were convenient for symbolizing Christian ideas, such as, for example, images of fish, peacock, image of loaves, palm branch, etc.“ (p. 185). In order to completely put an end to the question of the dependence of Christian places of worship in the first centuries on the Jewish synagogue, for the sake of curiosity it now remains to cite the following tirade of his book. “But if the Christians in the catacombs tried to reproduce the synagogue, Mr. Nikitin concludes his studies or “thoughts” on this issue, then there is nothing to be surprised (would it be?!) that even after Christianity was declared the dominant religion and Christian churches appeared on the surface of the earth (and weren’t churches built in open and elevated places before this?) they look like basilicas, i.e. buildings that most resemble in its design it is primarily a synagogue” (p. 185). Finis coronat opus! involuntarily escapes from our lips. In order to finish with the first part of Mr. Nikitin’s book, due to the importance of the subject he touched upon in it, which has held our attention for a very long time, we must also say a few words about the interior decoration or furnishings of the Jewish synagogue and its accessories (the second half of Chapter II) and about the “officials of the synagogue" (the entire III Chapter). We could call these sections of the first part of Mr. Nikitin’s new book not devoid of interest for those who study biblical and church archaeology, but, bearing in mind the extremely interesting article known to us: “The Jewish synagogue and its functions (mainly according to the teachings of the Mishnah)” by N. N. Zezyulinsky, published in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education” for January 1887, we prefer this latter to the verbose arguments of our author on the same issue. very small in volume (it takes up only ten pages) reveals the deep erudition of its author and remarkable brevity and clarity of presentation. To get acquainted with the internal belongings of the synagogue and the main functions of its officials, we recommend this article to our readers. This article is well known to G. Nikitin, although he mentioned it only in passing and only once in a footnote in the introduction to his work (p. 7, note 2), but in fact he owes very, very much to this article when compiling his work not only on these issues, but also on others, which he treats in the second part. Through this article, he undoubtedly became acquainted with extensive literature on his chosen subject, and borrowed a lot of quotes in both parts directly into his book (please pay special attention to his quotes on pp. 92–116; 146–166; 209, etc. Here are examples of these quotes: Hilcoth. schopar I, 1; Rosch haschana IV, 1, Hilcoth. schopar II, 6 (p. 106); Zezyulinsky. Under the strong influence of the same article, our author treats the use of horn and silver trumpets in synagogue services (p. 106 and notes 4, 6, 7, etc. Compliant article by Zezyulinsky, p. 4, notes 7,8,12 and p. 5), about the arrangement of worshipers in the synagogue by age (p. 104, note 3 and 4, compare Zezyulin, p. 6 and note 8), about the meaning in the synagogue of Scheliach Zibbur (p. 161, compare Zezyulin, p. 6, note 7) (p. 168, note 2, 4, 7; p. 164, note 1, 4, 6, 7; p. 165, Notes 1, 2, etc. Comp. Zezyulin, pp. 6, notes 1, 3, etc. But there are also direct literal borrowings and again tacite. For example, here is one such example: The difference between the original and the copy lies only in the words we underline, in the placement of quotations under the line in the copy and in the transfer of the Greek text, which is placed under the line, in the Russian translation, with the addition of the phrase: “as St. Epiphanius, saying." To reduce the volume of our review, we do not take on the completely vain labor of making such comparisons of Mr. Nikitin’s copy with the original, although these extracts should begin with the very next line after the above: “It is curious that Christian teachers,” etc. (p. 147, compare art. Zezyulin, p. 5, note 4). Such tacit borrowings are scattered from the beginning of the book (p. 13, note 1; cf. Zezyulin. p. 2, note **; pp. 14, 15, note 1; cf. ibid. p. 1, note 1, etc.) to the end, which our readers will see below. The second part of Mr. Nikitin’s book that we are examining consists, in addition to the introduction, which explains the “general view of synagogue worship,” from treatises “on synagogue prayers” (Chapter I), “on reading the Holy Scriptures in the synagogue” (Chapter II), “on synagogue sermon and blessing, on religious rites performed in the synagogue (Chapter III), and “on the attitude synagogue worship to Christian” (chapter IV). The first two chapters of the new tell us nothing. When reviewing synagogue prayers, as above, Mr. Nikitin is strongly influenced by the already well-known article by Mr. Zezyulinsky, from which he draws much entirely without reference to the source (p. 216 cf. p. 7, note 2; p. 220 c. 3, 4, p. 221, note 2, 4 c. p. 7 note 5; p. 222, 227 coll., note 6; page 228, note 3, page 8; and regarding the liturgical order of prayers (pp. 240‒253), he interprets, having before his eyes a very interesting book by A. Alekseev “Divine services, holidays and religious rites of modern Jews" (Novgorod 1861, p. 2‒20). Based on this last book, not only is the order of synagogue prayers outlined, but from here the tacite was taken by Mr. Nikitin and the translation of some (for example, p. 245 note 1. coll. Alekseev, p. 45) of Jewish prayers. The second chapter of this part differs in the same compilative nature, although in a smaller size than the previous one. Our author repeats the thoughts and quotes of Mr. Zezyulinsky (p. 255 coll. p. 9, note 9; p. 259 coll. p. 8, note 7, 8, pp. 9, note 6; pp. 261–272 pp. 8, pp. 9, note 3; 6; pp. 279, 384 coll. p. 10, etc.), then he uses Mr. Alekseev’s book (pp. 55‒57). Compared to the previous chapters, the third chapter on preaching and rituals in the synagogue is distinguished by greater independence, although here too the influence of Vitringa, “De vetere Synagoga", the main manual that our author had at hand, is very noticeable. This, firstly. And secondly, it includes completely unnecessary treatises on circumcision and marriage, which, however, is not denied by Mr. Nikitin (p. 309). Quite original. and thus only the last chapter “on the relationship of synagogue worship to Christian worship” remains independent, and for this reason we will dwell on it with special attention. It would seem that, if anywhere, then precisely in the question of the relationship of synagogue forms of worship to the forms of Christian worship of the first centuries, Mr. Nikitin could fearlessly and with greater insistence speak about the genetic dependence of the latter on the former than about anything else. The similarity of liturgical forms in different cults is quite natural, since these forms of worship, as our author is not unaware of, “originally arise from the mental characteristics of a person" (p. 334) and are expressed outwardly in exactly the same way, no matter what religion he professes. This is, firstly. Secondly, particular in relation to the forms of worship in the Jewish synagogue, the first Christians and It was the Jews who could in no way be hostile. They were born with these forms of worship, they were received with their mother’s milk, they were taught in the temple and in the synagogue as the only right and true, with their help they hoped to please God, they were finally not denied, but on the contrary, they were used for their own purposes in the matter of great service to the human race by the Founder of the new religion, the Lord Jesus Christ; Therefore, it would be very difficult and even impossible for the leading Christians to immediately lag behind the previous forms of worship of God, and for the very leaders of these communities, the apostles, to come up with these new forms and instill them in the members of the new church. The personal example of the Divine Teacher (Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26, 14, 15, 22; Luke 22:19, 40, 41; John 17:1), and the direct commandment (Luke 22:19) were a dear heritage for His followers, and they kept them as a shrine. We now need to more accurately determine the points of contact between the liturgical forms of the first Christians and the forms of synagogue worship in order to more clearly imagine their similarities and differences. From the very name of the synagogue - διδασκαλεῖα, φροντισήρια the main purpose of constructing this type of building is clearly visible. Reading and direct study of the Holy Scripture, the desire to understand the meaning of its text, which had become obscure to most Jews, who had little or no knowledge of the ancient Jewish language, was the main goal of synagogue worship. In Jewish church worship, where sacrifices were chiefly performed, the study of the law and the prophets was not an essential part of the service. In the liturgical meetings of the first Christians, the reading of the law and the prophets was given the same place as in the Jewish synagogue; not a single Christian liturgical meeting could do without it. In direct and close connection with the reading of the word of God in the synagogue there was a sermon, since with its help the direct literal meaning of what was read from the law and the prophets was explained, and sometimes the preachers encouraged their listeners to the moral life that is outlined in the law and deviation from which was depicted by the prophets with all those disastrous consequences that await a person who lives differently. This liturgical form, sanctified by the example of the Lord Himself (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; Luke 4:15, 44), was widely used by His successors, St. apostles (Acts 2:14-41; 3:12-26, etc.), since the purpose of their missionary service, according to the Savior’s commandment: “Going into the whole world, preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 15:15), was mainly to preach the Gospel. “Throughout all these days,” notes St. Luke about the holy apostles, in the church and in houses 13 (κατ᾿ οἶκον) I do not cease preaching and preaching the good news of Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). The same holy evangelist Luke tells about Christians: “But the apostle is patient in teaching (τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων) and in fellowship and in the breaking of bread τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτον and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). As for the rituals that accompanied the delivery of a sermon, such as anointing with a hand with an orar as a sign of the intention to speak and the desire to establish the necessary silence (Acts 12:17; 21:40), sitting during the delivery of a sermon by all those present at the service (Acts 20:9) and etc., then they are the same ones that were developed in the synagogue worship of the previous time. The very right to preach sermons, which developed widely in the synagogue, where every educated member of the community and capable of preaching had free access to the preaching pulpit (examples in the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are numerous), also had an influence on the practice of this and the first Christian liturgical meetings. They preached the word. God's holy apostles (Acts 6:4), Archdeacon Stephen (Acts 7:2‒54), “many others” of the believers (Acts 15:35; 1 Cor. 14:9, 12, 13, 19, 28‒33), and even “the catechumen of the way of the Lord,” but “mighty in the books” Apollos (Acts 18:24‒25). Only women do not have the right to preach publicly in Christian churches (1 Cor. 14:34). Everything that we have said regarding preaching can be fully applied to the prayer of the early Christian liturgical meetings, since prayer has much in common with preaching and can even be directly recognized as one of the types of preaching aimed “to build up and comfort and strengthen” people (1 Cor. 14:3). The frequent use of prayer in the synagogue, the rituals accompanying and preceding it, and the wide right to pronounce prayers by every member of the community capable of this, on behalf of the entire community, which usually expresses its consent with the word “Amen,” remained not without influence on the liturgical practice of the first Christians. We find clear evidence of this from the Apostle Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians. Denouncing the passion among Corinthian Christians to pronounce prophecies and prayers in incomprehensible languages ​​in their meetings, he writes: “If it is unwise, give the word with the tongue, so that what is spoken is understood; You will be speaking into the air.... Since you are zealous in spirit for the building of the church, ask, so that you may abound. Speak in the same language, let him pray, let him speak. Even though I pray with my tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. Whatever it is; I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the mind; I will sing in spirit, and I will also sing in mind. Since you blessed in spirit, you fulfilled the place of the ignorant, as he says, Amen, according to your thanksgiving; I don't know what you're saying. You are kind, give thanks, but another is not created... But in the church I want to speak five words with my mind, and I use others, rather than ten thousand words with my tongue... Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, a legend: let everything be for creation. If anyone speaks with his tongue in twos, or multiplies in threes and in parts, let one speak. If there is no narrator, let him remain silent in the church; let him speak to himself and to God. The prophets, two or more, speak, but the friends reason: if it is revealed to another who sits, let the first be silent. You can all prophesy in one way, so that everyone can learn and be comforted. (1 Cor. 14:9, 12‒17, 19, 26‒31). It goes without saying that now there is another question: did these synagogue forms and rituals completely pass into the Christian worship of the first centuries, did they have the same meaning and significance, and did their essence or content remain the same as these forms had in Judaism, or was all this significantly transformed and radically modified? It is to this question that we must give an answer such that the liturgical forms of Christians of the first centuries, in their content or essence, no longer have anything in common with the forms of synagogue worship, and are completely different from the latter. Regarding the reading of the law and the prophets in Christian liturgical assemblies, we do not have definite information in the books of the New Testament, but on the basis of apologetic writings of the 2nd century we can believe that regarding this there was greater freedom in church practice than in the Jewish synagogue. From the testimony of St. Justin the Martyr, that from the Scriptures is read during the divine services of Christians “as much as possible,” and from the words of Tertullian: “we are going to read the Holy Scriptures, from which, depending on the circumstances, we draw the information and instructions necessary for us” (Apolog. p. XXXIX), we can draw the conclusion that in the Christian Church, firstly, the previous synagogue division into parashas and haftars did not exist, secondly, there was no obligation to read the entire Old Testament within a certain period, but, depending on the need and convenience of the time, a well-known section of the Scriptures was chosen as the leader, the one that most provided abundant material for the next word, edification or sermon. By its nature, Christian preaching has nothing in common with Jewish synagogue preaching. “Even though the Jews ask for a sign and the Greeks seek wisdom, we, says St. The apostle Paul preaches Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks: but to those who are called Jew and Greek, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1 Cor. 1:22-24). The special nature of Christian preaching is indicated, among other things, by the curious fact of how the Jews themselves treated this preaching. After the famous sermon of Christ the Savior in Nazareth the synagogue, “filled with all rage in the congregation” and “rising Him out of the city and leading Him to the top of the mountain” (Luke 4:28, 29), in order to cast him down from there. The apostles often ended up in prison for their sermons from the synagogue pulpit or were insulted by the indignant mob (examples are indicated above with the content). apostolic sermons, in numerous examples preserved for us by St. Evangelist Luke, we can get acquainted with the book of the Acts of the Apostles. In parallel to the prayer of the synagogue, to which the words of the prophet Isaiah are fully applicable: “These people draw near to Me with their lips and with their lips they honor Me, but their heart is far from Me: but they honor Me in vain, teaching by teaching, the commandment of men” (Matthew 15:8, 9), Christian worship, Christian prayer cannot be formulated in any way. “The hour is coming and now is,” says the Savior about the spirit and character of Christian prayer, when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeks such as those who worship Him: the Spirit is God, and those who worship Him in spirit and in truth are worthy to worship” (John 4:23, 24). And in external manifestations, Christian prayer should, according to the teachings of the Savior, differ sharply from Jewish synagogue prayer. “Whenever you pray, do not be a hypocrite, for they love to pray worthily in the congregations and in the hundreds of ways, that they may appear to man: Amen, I say unto you, that they may receive their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your closet, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret: and your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you in reality.” In form and volume, Christian prayer should not contain excessive floridity or verbosity, but should be brevity. “When you pray, do not say too much,” the Savior inspires his followers and immediately gives the best example of Christian prayer: “Our Father...” (Matthew 6:5-7, 9-13; Luke 11:2-4). We know a few Christian prayers of the apostolic time (the prayer of the Apostle Peter before the election of the Apostle Matthias instead of Judas (Acts 1:24-25), the prayer after the healing of the lame man at the Red Gate (Acts 4:24-30) and the prayer of Archdeacon Stephen before his death (7:59-60); but these prayers, according to the instructions of Christ the Savior, are brief and in their deep inner meaning and content, which speaks of all-forgiving love even to one’s enemies, they have nothing in common with the pompous and proud synagogue prayer. In general, we will repeat again: there is a connection between Christian liturgical forms and Jewish synagogues, and we cannot deny this, but this connection is only visible, external. The content and inner meaning of both have nothing in common with each other. "The canopy is the law of the good things to come, and not the very image of things" (Heb. 10:1). This is how St. Apostle Paul defines the relationship of the Old Testament to the new. In relation to worship, this means that if there is any similarity between the liturgical forms of Christians and the liturgical forms of Jews, then this similarity is no great, just as the similarity between an object and its shadow is not great. Christian worship, having absorbed some forms of Old Testament worship, updated their internal content and gave them meaning in accordance with those principles of spirit and truth, which are the qualities that distinguish all Christian New Testament doctrine. Consequently, the relationship of the liturgical forms of the synagogue with the same forms in the Christian temple is much weaker, since the synagogue worship lost its main and most essential component - sacrifice, and was, as Mr. Nikitin puts it, a “supplement" (p. 329) of the church worship. Servant Hagar, as church teachers sometimes liken the Jewish synagogue (p. 330) in comparison with the Christian church, in the house of Abraham cannot be placed in any parallel with the free Sarah. However, Mr. Nikitin looked at the issue we are considering differently. Having spent - and completely in vain - courage and energy on solving the first question of the dependence of the Christian basilica on the Jewish synagogue, where he turned all the concepts inside out and where he resolved the most complex Gordian knots of archaeological science with one hand of his pen, here at the end of the book he became sluggish and even overly undecided. Completely forgetting that he is becoming in complete contradiction with himself, Mr. Nikitin begins to speak in a different spirit, of a different character. “Christianity, universal in nature, he now writes, could not be limited in any of its aspects (how could the synagogue be completely suitable for the liturgical purposes of Christians?) by the narrow framework of the Jewish synagogue. History shows (?) that Christianity never took the side of an exclusive and preferential preference for Jewish rites and never considered them closely connected 14 with its essence” (p. 326). "The pastors and teachers of the early Christian communities are aware (?) that the worship of the New Testament religion should be created not on the basis of imitations of Judaism, but on the basis of the internal requirements of Christianity" (p. 327). But this is not enough. "Christian worship, as a pure and free product of the Christian spirit, has its starting point not in the synagogue, but in the temple worship, which is in it (in whom or in what?) reaches its full actual fulfillment, clarification and completion” (p. 331). G. Nikitin does not want to “dispute” the fact that “sermon arose and developed in Christianity by borrowing from the synagogue” (p. 343). One also cannot “disagree that the prayer part of Christian worship has some borrowings (?) from the synagogue...” In an example, he points out that “certain expressions of Christian prayers closely resemble synagogues, for example, the formula keduscha came into liturgical use in the early church; similarly, prayers of petition are partly reminiscent of schemoneesre” (p. 335). Unfortunately for us, Mr. Nikitin did not point out to us these borrowings in exact quotations, and therefore we consider his statement to be unfounded. As for the liturgical use among Christians of the formula keduscha, by which he means that part of the blessing, which contains the glorification of God in the words of the seraphim, seen by the prophet Isaiah: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory” (pp. 231, 230), then the source of these words, in our opinion, lies not in the synagogue, but much more ancient, in the book of the prophet himself Isaiah (Isaiah 6:3). It can also hardly be considered “undoubted that the use of the singing of psalms during worship has its origins in the synagogue” (p. 335), because the use of psalms took place to a greater extent in temple worship than in synagogue worship. But regarding the reading of Holy Scripture and other forms of liturgy, he thinks so. “The reading of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament in the Christian church is by no means due to the imitation of synagogue worship, but because the nature of the Old Testament writings and the historical circumstances of the New Testament religion itself caused the liturgical use of the Old Testament writings" (p. 339). "It cannot be proven, says the author, that the order of reading and the rituals that accompanied it were completely identical with the synagogue" (p. 341). The exclamation “Amen” and “Alleluia” was indeed borrowed from the Jews (not unimportant news!), although it is difficult to decide whether from the synagogue or from the Jerusalem temple (p. 337). The sacred blessing used in Christian worship has its origin not at all from the synagogue, but from the very essence of the Christian religion." (p. 345). Although understanding this definition is not an easy matter, our author does not stop there and allows himself to say a phrase that is, in any case, frivolous. It is clear (?!), he writes, that if the synagogue blessing is related to the Christian, it is only representative (?), pre-indicative, since it was only a symbol of sanctification, and not a message of actual sanctification" (p. 345). With this peculiarly original thought, we end the analysis of the second part of Mr. Nikitin’s work. In order to completely finish with the book that occupies us, we will now define its relationship to the manuals that were at the hands of its author in several examples. We have already seen that our author most conscientiously exhausted Mr. Zezyulinsky’s excellent article in his book, without mentioning it where it should have been done. With his attention he showed a due honor to Messrs. Vitringa and Alekseev, making quite extensive extracts from them. We noted above how peculiarly he reacted to Mr. Von-Frieken's book “Roman Catacombs", imposing on him such thoughts that he had never expressed, and deliberately omitting a very interesting fact that speaks against Mr. Nikitin. Almost more unceremoniously, he acted with a quote from the famous book: “The Holy Land" (Kyiv. 1875) by the learned professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy A.A. Olesnitsky. “The Jews, writes Mr. Nikitin in his book, zealously took care of the restoration of their ancient synagogues, which were destroyed. The Ashkenazim synagogue in Jerusalem, which is still well known today, is nothing more than the ancient Jewish synagogue restored by Maimonides (in the 13th century). The Jerusalem synagogue El-Ehudi 15 represents the restoration of the city in 649. Aaron Ghanazi, the building of the synagogue Bet Midrash Haggadol" (p. 117). A reference to justify this idea is made to the first volume of the said book by Mr. Olesnitsky on pp. 449-450; but according to the reference on these pages we find something completely opposite to what Mr. Nikitin is talking about. "In 649, says Prof. Olesnitsky, Aaron Ghanazi came to Jerusalem from Babylon, received permission from Caliph Ali to build a new synagogue, where the midrash of R. Joachan ben Sakkai was located. Tradition adds that the Caliph demanded that Rabbi Aaron build his synagogue underground so as not to desecrate the surface of Zion - Evidence of the origin of the Jerusalem Ashkenazim synagogue is found in Maimonides from 1227. In a letter from Jerusalem to his son, who was in Spain, Maimonides writes among other things: “We have found here a beautiful but ruined building, with marble columns and a beautiful dome, and we are thinking of restoring it for a synagogue.” This building was restored, and then further enlarged by adding side buildings and received the name Ashkenazim.” In neither case nor in any other case does Mr. Olesnitsky make any mention of the restoration of synagogues, for the first synagogue was built “newly,” and the second, although restored, but, judging by the letter of Maimonides, from the ruins of one excellent Christian temple, built either during the time of the Byzantine emperor Justinian or after him. A fact borrowed from Prof. Olesnitsky is consequently presented in Mr. Nikitin’s book in distorted form from beginning to end. But the most interesting phenomenon in the book we are examining is the highly peculiar attitude, to say the least, to the works of Prof. N.F. Krasnoseltsev, who dealt with the issue of “the relationship of the synagogue to the Christian temple and worship” (p. 9). Despite the fact that Mr. Nikitin knows both works of Mr. Krasnoseltsev (Ibid.), in which he touched on this issue, however, in chapter (IV) “on the relationship of the Christian temple to the synagogue” (p. 169), for some reason he preferred to deal only with his extensive critical article: “On the origin of the Christian church.” Kazan, 1880 (note 1 to p. 169), completely ignoring his more solid work of many years: “Essays from the history of the Christian church" v. 1, published in Kazan as a separate publication a year later (i.e. in 1881) after the mentioned critical article. Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy N.V. Pokrovsky in his special study: “Origin Ancient Christian Basilica" St. Petersburg. 1880 named work by prof. Krasnoseltseva gives full justice to the first in Russia experience in solving such important archaeological issues on ancient monuments, and recognizes it as “deserving special attention” (pp. 24 and 19); but Mr. Nikitin chose to keep silent about this book, since in it he saw a complete refutation of his thoughts, which he decided to persistently and contrary to all the obvious facts of history and archeology to develop in his book. How did Prof. Krasnoseltsev, who was not sympathetic to our author in this book, turned out to be his ally in the article: “On the origin of the Christian church"? our perplexed readers will ask us. For the same reason, we will answer, for which Messrs. Von-Fricken and Prof. Olesnitsky reinforce in Mr. Nikitin’s book such provisions that neither one nor the other expressed. The widely used method in the book we are examining is to manipulate facts, to impose and attributing to famous authors thoughts that they never expressed and could not even express, found full application in relation to quotes from Prof. Krasnoseltsev’s article. We had the opportunity to note above that Mr. Krasnoseltsev not only “does not make the assumption that the elevated medium-sized ship was also in the synagogue” (p. 176), but directly says the opposite idea. Prof. doesn't say. Krasnoseltsev and the following phrase: “we have niches similar to synagogues (?) in the catacombs, where they replaced the place of the apse” (p. 177), not on any of the three pages quoted by Mr. Nikitin, pages 76, 78, 81 of his “essays on the history of the Christian church.” The passage we have analyzed from the epistle of the Apostle James, prof. Krasnoseltsev “comes across a very probable assumption that in the first times of the spread of Christianity, when preachers of the Gospel, coming to any city, addressed their sermons primarily to the Jews, there were cases that with the conversion of the majority of the Jews living in that city, their synagogue converted to the Christian church” (On the origins of the Christian temple, p. 47), but he does not consider the existence of such facts to be completely proven and needs proof, “that synagogues and ancient Christian churches were similar to each other not only in name, but also in their structure, in their form” (p. 48), which, as we have seen, our author failed to do. And judging by the comparative quote (p. 179 approx. 1) from Vitringa, there are no such facts or they belong to a later time. Page 448 of the book “De vetere Synagoga“ by Mr. Vitringi, indicated by Mr. Nikitin, contains a reference to the work we mentioned above: “De passione imaginis Domini nostri Jesu Christi“, attributed to St. Athanasius, and therefore cannot have any relation to the “preachers of the Gospel in the first times of Christianity." The references to pages 76 and 85 of Prof. Krasnoseltsev’s book have no relation to the author’s thoughts expressed on page 189 of his book. The quotation from Prof. Pokrovsky’s book cannot be called quite successful here, since on this page he indicates examples of the existence of thrones in catacombs completely separate from niches or catacombs walls From all that has been said, we can now form a very definite concept of the scientific and literary merits of Mr. Nikitin’s book. Scientifically, this book is beyond criticism. Presenting an unscrupulous compilation in a fairly significant part, as well as a deliberate manipulation of facts and false quotations, this dissertation reveals in its author a poor knowledge of history and archeology, his unfamiliarity with the elementary truths and concepts of church archaeological science and a complete misunderstanding of the spirit and nature of the Christian and Jewish faiths. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mr. Nikitin expressed a completely incorrect judgment regarding the relationship of the synagogue and its liturgical forms to the temples and forms of worship of Christians of the first centuries. As for the literary merits of the book, they do not deserve approval either. Incorrect construction of periods, obscurity and darkness in the presentation of thoughts, and hence constant contradictions to oneself, are scattered in the book with rare generosity from beginning to end. Of the dated synagogues, Nikitin’s book mentions the Persian synagogues of the 6th century (p. 85), two Toledo synagogues in Spain - one of the 4th century and the other of the 14th century (p. 89), the Jerusalem Ashkenazim synagogue of the 13th century and the other in the same place El-Ehudi of 649 (p. 117), but all these synagogues have no significance for the main purpose of the author. Of all the synagogues mentioned in Mr. Nikitin’s book, the Alexandrian synagogue, described in the Talmuds of Alexandria and Jerusalem, has a specific date. It was built by Onias IV in 162 BC (N. Pokrovsky. Origin of the ancient Christian basilica. St. Petersburg. 1880, p. 56). But this synagogue is also dated back to the Seleucid period and the researcher did not make any remark about the inaccuracy of the date indicated by Josephus and repeated after him by the German scientist Kreiser. Elsewhere in his book, on page 88, the author says that the Jews became accustomed to European architecture only “after the Roman legionaries finally conquered Judea, destroying Jerusalem with its majestic church,” etc. Somewhat earlier, giving a general definition of a synagogue, Mr. Nikitin says the following regarding orientation: “The Jewish synagogue, on its outer side, is a quadrangular building of more or less unique architecture (?!), facing with its rear wall (hence, not the wall opposite the entrance (?!)), to the site of the ancient temple in Jerusalem” (pp. 66–67). On the indicated page 51 of Mr. Krasnoseltsev’s book “On the Origin of the Christian Temple” (Kazan, 1880), firstly, evidence is presented in favor of the dependence of Christian churches on the synagogues of others, and not his own, which is clear from the last two lines of the indicated page and the one following it, and secondly, in the transmission of other people’s thoughts, we not only do not see the position imposed on Prof. Krasnoseltsev. Nikitin, but something completely opposite to what the author assures us. “In most cases, writes Mr. Krasnoseltsev, Christian churches of the first three centuries probably did not have columns and a raised middle ship, were illuminated from the side and were covered with a simple gable or other kind of roof. Christian churches of that time did not have artistic decoration, were poor and not extensive. All these are features that give them a great resemblance to synagogues.” Let us remind Mr. Nikitin of the description of the liturgical meetings of Christians in the apology of Justin the Martyr, where not a single word is mentioned about the pulpit. “Here,” writes St. Justin, the monuments of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as much as possible. Then, when the reader has finished, the primate, through words, gives instructions and convinces them to follow those excellent rules. After that, we all get up and say prayers both for ourselves and for the newly enlightened, as well as for all others everywhere. At the end of the prayer, we kiss each other with the kiss of love,” etc. ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἐποίηαεν (i.e. bishop), says the mentioned work of St. Afanasia. In the essay “Against Heresies” St. Epiphany of Mr. Zezyulinsky claims that St. Epiphanius in it “says nothing about specifically Jewish places of prayer.” Journal of the Ministry of the People, Enlightenment, January 1887, p. 1, note *. The exception in this case is the translation of the indicated passage by Mr. Nikitin from the apology of Justin the Martyr (p. 180), where the Greek text: μιᾷ ἐκκλησίαν is translated as follows: “cum una sint anima et una synagoga ac ecclesia,” but this unsuccessful translation turned out to be because the translator of the Greek word συναγωγή did not find an equivalent Latin word, and was embarrassed to translate it into the ordinary word ecclesia, for fear repeating the same word twice in a row. “The example,” explains Bishop Michael, was not borrowed by the apostle abstractly, but, it seems, from the practice of life of the readers of the epistle; Probably something similar happened to them” (Interpretation of the Apostle, book II. Council Epistles, p. 39). The same idea is expressed more decisively by St. T. Butkevich, saying that “divine services in Jewish synagogues, on the model of which the first Christian meetings were subsequently established (James 2:2), took place several times a week, especially on trading days.” Faith and Reason, 1887, No. 10, p. 762. One cannot help but pay attention to the author’s unfortunate comparison of the words “oecus” and “ὑπερῷα”, the first designates the dining room of Roman houses, and ὑπερῷα – the upper floor of Jewish houses, or one of the upper floors of these houses, in which the dining room, according to the terminology of O. Motes, accepted in archeology, is called οἶκος'om, not oecus'om. Undoubtedly, Mr. Nikitin does not have a clear idea about cubiculs or crypts, which explains all this unimaginable confusion in his reasoning. “It’s like they’ve been hurt by something useful,” says St. The Apostle Paul to the elders of Ephesus, tell you and teach you (διδάξαι ὑμᾶς δημοσία καὶ κατ᾿ οἶκους) before men and at home” (Acts 20:20). This does not prevent the author from writing the following three pages later: “The influence of the synagogue on the development of the Christian cult was inevitable due to the historical conditions of the existence of the new religion (p. 331). “Christianity naturally had to borrow some elements from Old Testament Jewish (temple and synagogue) worship” (p. 383). But what is “inevitably” and “naturally” borrowed into Christian worship from Judaism remains completely unknown. “Form and content are so inseparably united in it (i.e., in Christian worship), says Mr. Nikitin, that the first (i.e. Form) at no point (?!) can be called borrowed, as something already completely ready" (p. 333). Was it really “inevitable and natural” that Christians of the first centuries borrowed the content of liturgical forms?! It should be noted that Mr. Olesnitsky does not call this synagogue by that name, but says that this “wonderful synagogue in Jerusalem stands on El-Ehudi Street” (p. 549). You might be interested in: