CC BY
22
пред Друг Другом. Аксенов-Меерсон (Протоиерей Михаил). Созерцанием Троицы Святой ... Парадигма Любви в русской философии троичности. Киев: Дух и Литера, 2007. C. 51, 279.
13 Суковатая В.А. Утопические мотивы в философии всеединства Владимира Соловьёва // Россия и Вселенская Церковь: В.С. Соловьёв и проблема религиозного и культурного единения человечества / Под ред. В. Поруса. М., 2004. С. 126 - 141.
14 По мнению Зизиулоса, достижение церковного единства зависит от полноценного синтеза христологии и пневматологии в рамках экклезиологии. Митрополит Иоанн (Зизиулас). Бытие как общение. Очерки о личности и церкви. М.: Свято-Филаретовский православно-христианский институт. 2006. С. 141.
15 Автор использует этот термин, включая в него пятидесятническое, харизматическое и «не-опятидесятническое» движение, хотя некоторые исследователи настаивают на различении этих понятий. См.: Stanley M. Burgess & Eduard M. van der Maas (eds.), The New International Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003): xix-xxii.
16 Иеромонах Иларион (Алфеев), Преподобный Симеон Новый Богослов и православное предание. М.: Крутицкое Патриаршее подворье. Общество любителей церковной истории. 1998. С. 444.
17 Moltman. P. 194.
18 Аксенов-Меерсон (Протоиерей Михаил). Там же. С. 296.
19 Richie T. The Unity of the Spirit': are Pentecostals inherently ecumenists and inclusivists? JEPTA 26.1, 2006. С. 21 - 35.
20 Ежов О.Н. Духовность как принцип и механизм освоения времени // Духовность: традиции и проблемы. Уфа, 1991. С 13 - 19.
21 Ваайман К. Духовность. Т. 1. М.: ББИ, 2009. С. 308 - 309.
Д. РУБИН
Государственный университет - Высшая школа экономики,
г. Москва
ALL-UNITY, CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM
Исследуется философская сторона отношений С.Н. Булгакова, Л.П. Карсавина и А.З. Штейнберга к евреям и иудаизму. Первые два мыслителя оправдывали еврейство через идею обновленного соборного иудео-христианства. Штейнберг же рассматривал еврейство и христианскую Россию как участников единой мессианской миссии - «воплотить Слово в дело». Противопоставляя эти взгляды, раскрываем их значение для нашего понимания категории инаковости в рамках философии всеединства.
The author researches the philosophical attitudes of S.N. Bulgakov, L.P. Karsavin, and A.Z. Steinberg to Jews and Judaism. The first two thinkers found a place for Jewry in their Christian philosophies of all-unity by positing a revived, collective Judeo-Christianity. Steinberg's all-unity saw Jewry and Christian Russia as engaged in the same Messianic mission to «incarnate the Word in the deed». However, inconsistencies remained in all these systems and the author examines what this means for the treatment of Otherness in the framework of all-unity.
Ключевые слова: еврейство, всеединство, иудеология, личность, священный материализм, Логос, софиология, еврейско-христианские отношения.
Key-words: Jewry, all-unity, Judeology, personhood, sacred materialism, Logos, sophiol-ogy, Jewish-Christian relations.
1. Introduction
Christianity's relationship to Judaism has always been problematic. In this paper, I would like to focus on a very specific aspect of the Jewish-Christian relationship: the writings of Russian philosophers of all-unity about Judaism. Even this is a large topic, so I will discuss only aspects of Sergei Bulgakov, Lev Karsavin, and Aaron Steinberg, a far less well-known Russian philosopher of all-unity, who was an observant Jew. I will also make passing reference to Pavel Florensky.
What interests me is the following situation: on the one hand, Russian Christian thinkers believed Jews should convert to Christ and were unsympathetic to Judaism, viewing it as a superseded Old Testament. On the other hand, their philosophy of multiplicity-in-unity meant that some of them allowed that Jewry should form a particularistic national church within the Christian ecu-mene, i.e. that Jews should convert but not assimilate. Pre-Holocaust, that was a fairly original view.
But the plot thickens. Since Soloviev, these thinkers had used Kabbalistic concepts like Ein Sof, Adam Kadmon and Chochmah-Sofia to express their all-unity1. It is my contention that when these philosophers turn their Judaically inflected thought to ponder Jewry, it is only with great difficulty that they can achieve the result, necessary from a Christian viewpoint, of making Judaism inferior to Christianity. And their proposal of an integrated Judeo-Christianity seems so utopian that it raises the question of whether perhaps an all-unity in which Jews remain Judaic would not be more in keeping with the presuppositions of their thought-system. Below, I will explore what I mean in detail by exploring and developing Bulgakov and Karsavin in light of this thesis.
Before doing that, a word about Florensky: as should be well-known by now (cf. Hagemeier, Burmistrov, Katsis), Florensky viewed Jews as a poisonous race that was degrading to Christendom. Politically, he opposed the abolition of the Pale of Settlement and wrote articles with Rozanov spreading the blood libel against Mendel Beilis2. However, Florensky's Judeology is a) full of painful contradictions from a Christian point of view, and b) full of a self-confessed envy of Jewish concrete religiosity. Not surprisingly then, his own monistic sophiological theory of religion and culture rather resembles the paradigm of integral religiosity that Soloviev detected in the all-encompassing details of Talmudic Judaism3. In other words, even Florensky seems to show that excluding Jewry from humanity using the generous philosophy of all-unity is doomed to failure. In fact, though I have mentioned him briefly, Florensky's Christian philosophical anti-Semitism should hover like a dark warning shadow in the background of the analyses of Bulgakov and Karsavin that now follow.
2. Bulgakov: the sacred blood of the Jews
During the Russian Civil War, Bulgakov experienced a serious phase of anti-Semitism triggered by the Bolshevik revolution, which he was convinced was driven by atheistic Jews4. In Paris in 1941 - 1942, however, while some of that anti-Semitism survived, Bulgakov wrote a series of essays in which he applied his sophiological theology in a far more beneficent way to the Jewish question, conceived in its broadest sense5. I will outline some of the main elements of this Judeology, before addressing some critical questions to it.
One of Bulgakov's concerns was to distance Christianity from Nazi racism and anti-Semitism, and to work out a Christian approach to Jewry and Judaism. For Bulgakov, the notions of blood and nation were essential Biblical concepts - purloined and distorted by Nazism - without which the nature of Jewry could not be understood. Blood, explains Bulgakov, is not a physical substance which predetermines personality; instead «the blood is the life (Leviticus)» and the locus where the divine «breath of life (Genesis)» coheres with the «dust of the earth (Genesis)». A nation is founded on blood-unity - but blood itself is always open to new elements for it is a material-spiritual bi-unity, and partakes in the openness of the spirit. Through their nation and blood, then, an individual can experience human universality. Thus, Bulgakov attempted to re-appropriate the concept of a sacred nation for Christianity, while firmly rejecting any hints of racist supremacy.
Of course, the Nazis believed that Jewish blood and nation were poisonous and through intermarriage were leading to the degeneration of the Aryan race. Following his Biblical philosophy, Bulgakov shows how Jewish blood and nation are indeed special, but in a positive sense. For Christ's blood was received from Mary, a full Jewess. Luke traces Jesus' genealogy back through David and Abraham to Adam, calling the latter «a son of God». He thus retrospectively makes Adam, and even God, a Jew! In a wonderful phrase, Bulgakov writes that the nations of the world if they unite with Christ also partake in Jew-ishness, «the co-Jewishness of all humanity in Him.»
Moreover, Bulgakov's «sacred materialism» means that he intends this in the most literal sense, for, as he writes, «a certain biological absoluteness exists in the chosen people, the ancestors of the Savior and his relatives by blood, in the race of the Mother of God. This is the blood and soul of the whole humanity in its multiple unity». That is, the Jewish race has a direct blood-line to the first man created by God, and a blood-unity with God that has been diluted in the other nations. The latter can only regain that blood-closeness with God by uniting themselves to the blood of Christ.
There are other interesting nuances in Bulgakov's bold theory of sacred Jewish blood to do with the connection of Jewish blood, the Eucharistic blood and the blood that poured from Christ's side on the Cross. One can also add in passing that Bulgakov's «sacred materialism» also seriously disrupts the Augus-
tinian dichotomy between carnal and spiritual Israel, i.e. Jewry versus the Church. Again, Bulgakov's ideas on nation show similarities to some Jewish mystical thought, such as the XVI century Maharal of Prague6.
But, leaving this aside, we will now consider what Bulgakov had to say about Jewry after Christ. Bulgakov is insistent that through their blood, Jews continue to be chosen after Christ. He points out that the two heralds of the Second Coming mentioned in Revelations 11.13 will be Jews. Thus the Jewish blood-line must survive until that time and those who persecute Jews risk killing the ancestors of those witnesses and hence subverting world redemption.
Nonetheless, despite this continued blood-chosenness Jewry has been allotted a tragic fate due to its rejection of Christ. Here, Bulgakov divides Jewry into two parts: the 'sacred remnant' who accepted Christ (of which Bulgakov knew several examples among his Russian-Jewish acquaintances) and the rest of Jewry who rejected Him. Due to the blood-unity of the nation, the righteous believers suffer the same fate as the unbelieving majority, and in a theology reminiscent of Edith Stein, Jewish believers in Christ are an innocent atonement for the guilty majority, as all of Jewry perishes together. (Bulgakov's writings were also a reaction to the first stages of the Holocaust).
For me, it is at this point that we hit a serious snag. Bulgakov is convinced that non-Christian Jews, in whose veins runs the sacred blood of the world's Messiah, have no real religion; instead they are prone to the temptations of materialism and false utopianism which led them to seek the destruction of sacred Russia. And yet, in terms of Bulgakov's own sophiology, this seems odd: how could this Messianic blood have taken such a wrong turn? If blood is the bearer of spirit, how can Jewish blood now be unspiritual? Finally, if Jewish blood in fact contains no spirit, how now does Bulgakov's «Jewish blood» differ from the Nazis' conception: it is a material substance that forces Jews to engage in the destructive work of the anti-Christ. In fact, unwittingly, Bulgakov's analysis converges on that magical, determinist Judeology of his friend, Pavel Florensky, whose own analysis was strikingly close to Nazi racism. This is unfortunate, as I suspect that Bulgakov had intended to reject Florensky's racism in his new analysis of Jewry, just as in other matters, he had distanced himself from many of Florensky's neo-pagan tendencies.
The solution to these inconsistencies is, I believe, clear. Bulgakov has forgotten - or does not know - that Jewish blood is preserved by its own special spirit: the ethos of Talmudic Judaism. Consider the fact that changes to the ha-lakhah concerning who is a Jew alters the very composition of Jewish blood, and you will understand that Judaic religious ethnicity is not a blind racial entity, but follows its own laws of spiritual self-definition. Thus we must add a third, and in fact central, category to the division of Jewry: religious Jewry.
Bulgakov, of course, is aware of this category, but utterly neglects it. The problem becomes acuter still when on the basis of his theory of Jewish sacred blood, he proposes that the Christian ecumene can only become whole once a
Jewish Christianity is restored to its heart. However, he is deafeningly silent as to what this Judeo-Christianity might look like. It could not be what we now call Messianic Judaism, that is a 'Torah Christianity' as Bulgakov is quite clear that the Law does not save. And surely he could not have meant to identify it with the scattering of Christians of Jewish blood whose Christianity differed not a whit from that of non-Jews.
After much thought, I have come to the belief that Bulgakov's work, perhaps against his will, in fact contains a covert «dual covenant» proposal. In other words, one must add more pluralism to that multiplicity-in-unity embraced by Bulgakov, accepting - as Levinas might say7 - that the other really is Other, and making space accordingly. For if one takes seriously Bulgakov's idea of blood, one must see in Jewish blood a sacred spirit, that of the Torah. At first glance, of course, the idea that Bulgakov would countenance the legitimacy of Judaism seems entirely wrong. But there is another work which throws this assumption into question: Judas the Apostle-Traitor8.
In that work, Bulgakov argued that the hated Bolsheviks were like Saul before he became Paul: adherents of a wrong-headed ideology who were nonetheless protected by God's grace due to the genuineness of their convictions and their desire, mistakenly implemented, to help humanity. Extraordinarily, there is hardly any mention of Jewry in the essay on Judas - but the parallel is too striking to be missed. If we transfer his forgiving thoughts about the Bolsheviks -beloved by Bulgakov, I should point out, because of their «co-Russianness» - to religious Jewry, can we not slightly adapt Bulgakov and see in the latter a spiritual entity with a task in the divine economy?
Bulgakov applied two telling phrases to the Judas-Bolsheviks: «And will they not be justified on Christ's judgment day who did not know Christ but yet served Him?». And: «In Judas more essential and unshatterable must be reckoned not his treachery, but his apostleship. He disowned the first by repenting, and the second is inseparable from him even after his fall. Apostleship also cannot be taken away from the Russian people...»
By changing «Russian» to «Jewish», we would have in Bulgakov a Judeology which sees in contemporary Jewry more than a mere means to an end, namely to produce the two heralds of the Second Coming, but which during this process is itself excluded from present salvation. Instead, true all-unity would demand that Jewry be perceived as a people filled with a different Spirit, following a different Law, but also partaking in the salvation of all-humanity. This is a threatening proposition for Orthodox Christianity, and would need further pondering, but it is certainly one possible reading of Bulgakov's thought. Of course, its main innovation is to see not just Jewry as sacred, but Talmudic Judaism - a step I believe is necessary if his Judeology as it stands is not to degenerate into Florenskian racism.
3. Karsavin and Steinberg
I now turn to Karsavin. Karsavin actually came to a conscious recognition of the drawbacks of his 'all-unity' approach to Jewry, but never overtly offered a solution.
In 1927, he wrote an article called «Russia and the Jews»9, to which his friend Aaron Steinberg responded with «A reply to Lev Karsavin»10. Both pieces appeared in Versti, the journal of the Eurasian movement to which Karsavin and Steinberg were both close.
In his article, Karsavin articulated a far more systematic description of Jewry than Bulgakov, dividing Jews into core, assimilating and assimilated. For Karsavin, core (national-religious) Jewry should be supported by Christians: it was assimilating Jews that were dangerous, as belonging to no culture, they spread anti-national cosmopolitanism and undermined Christianity with liberal ideologies. Therefore, if Christian society strengthens core Jewry, it will be spared Jewish radicalism, and religious Jewry seeing true Christian love, will finally abandon its doubts over the Messiahship of Jesus and convert en masse, forming a Judeo-Christian religio-political entity in the body of the universal church. In essence, this really just gives theoretical expression to the views of many mystically-minded Russian Christian intellectuals of the time, including Bulgakov.
What is interesting, however, is that Karsavin later seems to have experienced some of the contradictions I claim are inherent in Bulgakov's Judeology -but for different reasons. For having been friends with Steinberg for several years, Karsavin moved to Kaunas, a Lithuanian city with a large traditional Jewish population. Several Jewish encounters convinced him that Jews have the same depth of personality (Rus. lichnost') that Christians have, though they do not know Christ - a thought he confided to Steinberg and which is recounted by the latter in his memoirs11. I believe that in terms of his own philosophy, this is tantamount to claiming that Jews can be saved through Judaism, without Christ - the very position I extrapolated from Bulgakov. Let me explain.
Firstly, Karsavin's philosophy needs to be sketched. He believed that the human personality achieves wholeness by imitating the inner Trinitarian life of God. God-the-Father eternally dies to Himself in expressing Himself through the Son-Logos; He eternally restores Himself to Himself through reunification through His Holy Spirit. In human psychology, the subject gives rise to objective aspects of the self; however, these aspects dissipate and are lost, and only through self-consciousness does a person realize the unity of his objective and subjective selves.
Seeing as every man is in a deep sense a universal man (Adam Kadmon -Karsavin uses the Kabbalistic term in some works), the chase for self-conscious appropriation of all one's «moments» would be infinite and impossible. Therefore, a person must die to the small slice of humanity that is individuality, so letting the universal man, or Christ, who is within, shine forth. God wants noth-
ing less than that the individual become the universal man, and for the universal man to become God. This step from human to divine is possible due to God's fUrther self-emptying in the Incarnation: thus Christ dwells silently in human souls, so allowing the individual to freely choose their own negation: when that is achieved, not only does man know his real Self, but - merging with Christ -he is deified, as Karsavin depicts salvation, in terms drawn from the Eastern Christian tradition.
This thumbnail sketch of Karsavin's philosophy12 shows what it means for a human being to become a «person» - it is in effect Christian deification, or theosis. We therefore have a right to be astonished at Karsavin's admission to Steinberg that the deep Jewish decency and humanity he had witnessed in the faces of ordinary Kaunas and Berlin Jews had convinced him that Jews had lichnost. And as Karsavinians, we would be forced to ask ourselves: how could a pious Jew, who has no knowledge of the death and rebirth of God and self, have achieved a state of spiritual rebirth in which he or she recognizes in the Other the same divinity as resides in themselves? For that is what I take Karsavin to be implying.
In fact, Steinberg's own philosophy of all-unity, cast entirely in Judaic terms with Christ replaced by the Logos, offers just such an account of how Jews could be divinized.
Steinberg, rather like Vladimir Ern, was a philosopher of the Logos. He called his philosophy concrete, or prophetic, idealism, and believed that each unique person is the concrete incarnation of a transcendental idea of the Logos13. By serving the Logos, a person transmutes reality into idea and thus «divinizes» the world. Thrown into reality, a human being must learn to choose Being voluntarily: this involves a move from consciousness, which is merely biological life, to self-consciousness. The latter is achieved when a person, tempted by suicide at the chaos of existence, rejects death and chooses life. This rejection is, as in Karsavin, a diminishment of narrow individualism and the self of biological necessity. Instead, the self now expands unendingly away towards true Selfhood, thus becoming filled with a higher Personhood, and becoming supra-personal. Biological life thus transcends itself and becomes Life with a meaning, Life infused with and serving the Logos.
Steinberg mixes Judaic and Hellenic categories in his philosophy. Some Biblical themes are obvious: man's pivotal encounter with nothingness is a recognition of his createdness ex nihilo; the choice of genuine Life is framed in terms drawn from the famous passage in Deuteronomy. Man's transmutation of reality into idea is referred to as the transformation of the Tree of Life into the Tree of Knowledge. The very name that Steinberg gave his thought-system was «prophetic idealism»: unlike abstract Kantian idealism, it was meant to be imbued with a Judaic awareness of the role of history, of the concrete moment, and could snatch meaning for the present out of the seeming disasters of history,
rather than offering vapid scientific generalizations and treating man as a rational machine.
Steinberg was true to the universalist assumptions of all-unity: he believed both Jew and gentile could be prophetic idealists if they channeled their creativity through the Logos. In fact, for Steinberg it was the Russian writer (and, of course, anti-Semite) Dostoevsky who was the best exemplar of prophetic idealism. Steinberg saw him as an «ideologue», one of those heroes who connect all cultures because while immersed in their own culture they are out of time and space and connected with universal ideals beyond any division into periods or regions. (This recalls Bulgakov's, as well as Karsavin's, idea that the individual lives his universal humanity through his nation). Indeed Russia's world-historic mission, preached by Dostoevsky, to «incarnate the word in the deed», thus creating the kernel of a world spiritual utopia that would cure the degenerate West, was also an explosion of Judaic Messianism.
In other words, Steinberg's universalism was such that he believed the world's Messianic destiny in the twentieth century lay in the hands of a non-Jewish nation. Does this Judaic all-unity, with its recognition of the Other, not pose a serious challenge to Christian all-unity which could not find a place for imperial Russia's five million Jews as Jews in all-humanity?
Of course, Steinberg's system is not without its own problems. But I will end this paper by reflecting on Karsavin's philosophic relationship to Steinberg. In his key work Poem on Death, Karsavin sketched his philosophy in semi-autobiographical terms. There is a section in Poem called «Israel», which represents both a stage of development in his own life, as well as that of humanity. Briefly, we can discern three levels in Karsavin's Israel: firstly, there is the Israel who sees God as a potter and man as a heteronomous lump of clay. Secondly, there is the Israel who relates to the God of creation, seeing in God not a distant potter-god but a young girl or a lover, who has withdrawn himself to make room for his beloved. Karsavin actually uses the Kabbalistic term tzim-tzum, or divine contraction, to describe this image.
Finally, however, when Karsavin ponders on the meaning of Sinai he develops a patristic insight which compares Sinai to Golgotha. For Karsavin, the wrathful God of Sinai is also the suffering God of Gologotha: the giving of the Law is also a divine self-crucifixion - God yearns to reveal Himself fully to his people as eternally dying Love, but fears that such knowledge will terrify them and compromise their freedom; the Law is a torturous compromise.
Let's draw out the meaning of this. It is interesting that Karsavin's second level of Israel corresponds to Steinberg's picture of man confronting the nothingness of his createdness. This critical religiosity is an abandonment of so-called Old Testament totemism and ritualism, and betokens a recognition by Karsavin of the depths of Judaism, as well as of his Jewish friend's All-unity. Still, Karsavin clearly indicates that even 'higher Judaism' falls short: the Jews at Sinai, and their heirs in Lithuania, faced in the flames of Sinai the Crucified
love of Christ, but this aspect was not revealed openly to their consciousness. Indeed, we can formulate the difference between Karsavin and Steinberg thus: while the latter sees nothingness and turning away chooses Life, the former must enter into that nothingess to undergo total death, followed by resurrection.
It is therefore possible to differentiate Judaic and Christian philosophies of Russian all-unity - but is it possible to choose between them on purely philosophic grounds? Further, the Karsavinian contradiction still remains: we still do not know how a Jew who has not entered Nothingness can be reborn as a resurrected Person, though Karsavin intimated that they could.
4. Conclusion
In concluding, we can throw out some final rough-and-ready answers to these questions based on our readings of Bulgakov, Karsavin and Steinberg.
Could it be that Jews are deified by the crucifying fire of Sinai unconsciously? Karsavin was rather Gnostic: he believed un-cognized being was non-being. Strictly, he would have to reject such unconscious salvation, even though in life and in other parts of his work he seems to accept such a notion. For instance, a key recurring image in Poem is that of a Jewish conversa who, as I have discussed elsewhere14, seems to act as a Christ-like figure in redeeming the inquisitor who condemns her to death for heresy. I do not have time to explore here how this can be read as an allegory of the different paths of salvation for Jew and gentile.
Another speculation: Bulgakov saw Jewry as being connected by sacred blood to the unfallen Adam. Karsavin saw individual ontological death as necessary to uncover the Christic Adam Kadmon in the individual's soul. Can we deepen Steinberg's rather problematic Rosenzweigian dual covenantism by suggesting that Jewry is already bound by genealogy to Adam Kadmon? Then Jews do not need to enter nothingness to uncover the Adam Kadmon within; rather if they adhere to the flames of Sinai, they partake of that Primal Man whom God created in the space of his kenosis-tzimtzum. Creation for Jews is Incarnation; the halakhah binds their blood to that first Adam, God's blood-child, full of His undiluted Spirit, and they can partake of that Spirit if only they remain close to God's Logos, the Torah. Indeed, the fact that when a gentile converts to Judaism they change their genealogy and are referred to as ben or bat Avraham seems to suggest a similar consciousness in Judaism itself15.
To round off: I do not pretend that these ideas do not raise as many questions as they answer. Bulgakov invited his readers to ponder the dogmatic meaning of the blood-chosenness of Israel, and again, this paper is far from being a dogmatic excursus. Nor are my readings the only possible interpretations of these essays in all-unity. Still, I believe they have a certain logic and can perhaps serve as a preliminary ground for further engagement, even if only to encourage refutation.
References
1 Burmistrov K. The interpretation of Kabbalah in early 20th-Century Russian Philosophy. So-
loviev, Bulgakov, Florenskii, Losev // East European Jewish Affairs. Vol. 37. No. 2. August 2007. P. 157 - 187; Kornblatt J. Androgynous Sophia and the Jewish Kabbalah // Slavic Review. 1991. 50/3. P. 487 - 496; Kornblatt J. Vladimir Solov'ev on Spiritual Nationhood, Russia, and the Jews // Russian Review. 1997. 56/2. P. 157 - 77.
2 Florensky P. O terafimakh // Obonyatenl'noe i osyaznatel'noe otnoshenie yevreev k krovi, edited by
A.N. Nikolyukin. Moscow: Respublika, 1998; Florensky P. Predislovie k sborniku «Izrail v prosh-lom, nastoyashchem, i budushchem» // Florensky P. Sobraniye socheniye v 4 tomax. T. 2. Moscow: Mysl, 1996. P. 705 - 708.; Florensky P. Iudei i sudba khristian. (Pismo k V.V.Rozanovu) // Obonyatenl'noe i osyaznatel'noe otnoshenie yevreev k krovi, edited by A.N. Nikolyukin. Moscow: Respublika, 1998; Florensky P. ««Ekhad». Trinadtsat' ran Yushchinskogo» // Obonyatenl'noe i osyaznatel'noe otnoshenie yevreev k krovi, edited by A.N. Nikolyukin. Moscow: Respublika, 1998.
3 Soloviev V. Talmud i noveishaya polemicheskaya literature o nyom v Avstrii i Germanii. Mos-
cow, 1884. Also at: www.vehi.net/soloviev/talmud.html
4 Bulgakov S.N. Avtobiograficheskiye zametki. Paris, YMCA-Press, 1991; Budinitsky O.V., Rossiskie yevrei mezhdu krasnymi i byelami (1917 - 1920). Moscow: Rosspen, 2006; Rubin D. Holy Russia, Sacred Israel: Jewish-Christian encounters in Russian religious thought. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2010.
5 Bulgakov S.N. Rasizm i khristianstvo // Tajna izrailja. 'Yevreiskii vopros v russkoi religioznoi mysli
kontsa XIX-pervoi polovinoi XX vv. (St Petersburg, Sophia: 1993). P. 352 - 406; Bulgakov S.N. Sudba Izrailya kak krest Bogomateri // Tajna izrailja. 'Yevreiskii vopros v russkoi religioznoi mysli kontsa XIX-pervoi polovinoi XX vv. (St Petersburg, Sophia: 1993). P. 348 - 452.
6 Sherwin B. Mystical theology and social dissent. The life and works of Judah Loew of Prague.
Oregon: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1982. 7Levinas E. Nine Talmudic Readings. Bloomingston: Indiana University Press, 1994; Levinas E.
The Levinas Reader. Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1989. 8 Bulgakov S.N. Iuda Iskariot Apostol Predatel (dogmaticheskaya) // Put. 1931. No. 27. S. 3 - 42;
Bulgakov S.N. Iuda Iskariot Apostol Predatel (istoricheskaya). Put. 1931. No. 26. S. 3 - 60. 9Karsavin L.P. Rossiya i yevrei // Versty. 1928. No. 3. S. 65 - 86.
10 Steinberg A. Otvet L.P. Karsavinu // Versty. 1928. No.3. Paris. S. 87 - 93.
11 Steinberg A. Lev Platonovich Karsavin // Steinberg A. Druzya moikh rannikh let (1911-1928), ch.8. Paris: Syntaxis, 1991.
12 Karsavin L.P. Poema o smerti // Karsavin L.P. Put' pravoslavija. Moscow.2003; Karsavin L.P. Noctes Petropolitanae // Karsavin L.P. Put' pravoslavija. Moscow, 2003; Karsavin L.P. O lich-nosti // Karsavin L.P. Put' pravoslavija. Moscow.2003.
13 Belousov V. A.Z. Shteinberg // Volphila. T. 2. S. 581 - 648. Moscow: Tri Kvadrata, 2005; Be-lousov V. A.Z. Shteinberg o smysli istorii // Volphila, ili, Krizis kultury v zerkale obshchest-vennogo samosoznaiya. Moscow: Mir, 2007. S. 307 - 335; Steinberg A. Dostoevsky kak filosof. Paper presented at Volphila Session 'Pamyati F.M. Dostoevskogo', 16th Oct. 1921 // Belousov V. Volphila. T. 1. S. 637 - 679. Moscow: Tri Kvadrata, 2005.
14 Levinas E. Nine Talmudic Readings. Bloomingston: Indiana University Press, 1994.
15 Sherwin B. Mystical theology and social dissent. The life and works of Judah Loew of Prague. Oregon: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1982. Ch. 8 - 9.
