MOSCOW: DMITRY POZHARSKY UNIVERSITY, 2013, 520 p. (in Russian).

The historiography of the study of the history of the Jewish community of Chersonesos, as well as its religious building-synagogue, is small. After the publication in the XIX century of three hagiographic sources related in one way or another to the Chersonese Jews ("The Lives of the Holy Bishops of Chersonese", "The Life of St. Constantine (Cyril) the Philosopher" and "The Life of Eustratius Postnik" [Seraphim, 1868, pp. 120-131; Life, 1981, pp. 70-92; Life, 1903, p. 147-150]), there is silence in historiography due to the lack of additional materials on this topic. A new outbreak of interest in the history of local Jews, associated with the discovery of previously unknown archaeological and epigraphic monuments, dates back to the 50s of the XX century. It was during this decade that the Chersonesus Museum employees made several discoveries that significantly enriched our knowledge base about the Jewish community of the city. First of all, in 1950, when clearing the south nave of the so-called "Basilica of 1935", fragments of plaster from a building that chronologically preceded the basilica were discovered. Numerous graffiti in Greek and Hebrew were found on these fragments. This discovery made it possible to assume that in the Byzantine period, this plaster decorated the walls of the local synagogue. At the same time, scientists S. F. Strzheletsky and A. P. Shokhin attempted to read and attribute some of these graffiti (Shokhin, 1950, pp. 18-19; Strzheletsky, 1950, pp. 37-38).

New discoveries soon followed, providing us with additional information about the Chersonesus Jewish community. Thus, in 1956, during the excavations of pottery workshops and a burial ground of the III-II centuries BC, a massive stone slab with a crudely scratched seven-branched candle was found in secondary use by V. V. Borisova. The slab was turned upside down and used for the construction of a fish and saline tank (Borisova, 1956(1), p. 1, 11, fig. 59; Borisova, 1956(2), pp. 15, 19-20]. Then, during the restoration of the so-called Basilica in 1935, G. E. Zherebtsov found another plate with the image of the menorah, etrog and lulav. This slab was also found in secondary use [Solomonik, 1997, p. 15].

A new wave of interest in the history of the local Jewish community broke out after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s. Just at this time, as part of the joint project "Black Sea Project", Crimean and American scientists excavated the site near the "Basilica of 1935" in order to clarify the historical and archaeological context in which the Chersonesus synagogue existed. After the excavations, a number of domestic ones were discovered [Zolotarev and Korobkov, 1997, p. 4-7; Zolotarev and Korobkov, 1999, p. 24-30; Solomonik, 1997, p. 9-22; Korobkov, 1998, p. 27-28; Korobkov, 2001(1), p. 22; Korobkov, 2001(2), p. 127-136; Zavadskaya 2003, p. 415-416] and foreign researchers [Overman et al., 1997, p. 57-63; MacLennan, 1996, p. 44-51; Eshel, 1998, p. 289-299; Edwards, 1999, p. 158-173] review the results of research in the 1950s and offer their own vision of the history of the Jewish community of Chersonesos and its synagogue. In 2013, the materials of the "Black Sea Project" were combined into a single whole in the form of a voluminous collective monograph, which is the object of this review.

The monograph is divided into three chapters, the first of which contains a brief analysis of early excavations in the area adjacent to the "Basilica of 1935", as well as existing literature on the Jewish community of Chersonesos (pp. 17-37). The second chapter (the most extensive) describes in detail the archaeological work of 1994-1998 (pp. 38-240). The third, analytical one, summarizes the results of the works and tries to restore the general historical context of the existence of the synagogue and the Jewish community of the city (pp. 241-280). In addition to numerous illustrations, bibliography,

KIZILOV Mikhail Borisovich-Doctor of Philosophy, Senior Researcher at the Crimean Center for Ethnocultural Research, e-mail: mikhail.kizilov@gmail.com.

Mikhail KIZILOV - DPhil in Modern History, senior researcher, Crimean Centre for Ethno-cultural studies.

page 199
The monograph was supplemented with articles by A. V. Ivanov and A. Yu. Vinogradov on anthropology and Greek epigraphy (pp. 428-491, 497-498).

From the point of view of archeology, the book provides the reader with scrupulously collected information about the research conducted by scientists (the analysis of this part of the monograph, however, will be provided to specialists-archaeologists and numismatists). Unfortunately, the part of the book devoted to the main issue-the synagogue itself and the Jewish community of the city-does not look so unambiguous. The book's undoubted achievements in this area include its detailed coverage of the history of the synagogue as a Jewish architectural monument. From the materials of the monograph, it follows that the synagogue building was a "mud brick structure decorated with frescoes and mosaics", with graffiti in Greek and Hebrew (p.276, 280). At the end of the fourth century AD, presumably as a result of the activities of Bishop Kapiton, the building passed into the hands of local Christians, a five-sided stone apse was added to its eastern wall, and inscriptions and drawings in Greek with pronounced Christian content appeared on the plaster next to the former graffiti (p. 280).

According to the materials of the book, in the middle part of the floor there was a rectangular recess of 5×3 m, which was, apparently, the basis for a raised platform that served as a bima, i.e., a podium for a rabbi or cantor. Along the two walls of the synagogue on the north-east and north-west sides, presumably, there were benches. On the south-eastern wall, where, apparently, there was a niche for the Torah scroll, there was a rich picturesque panel with images of pheasants, peacocks and lush garlands. The entrance to the building (again, presumably) was located in the south-western wall. Since no supports for pillars or columns were found in the building, the authors of the monograph assumed that the structure had a simple rafter ceiling (pp. 252-254). We also agree with the statement that the original building was a simple residential building, later adapted as a hall for religious meetings, i.e., a chapel or synagogue (p. 255). One of the most important arguments in favor of this assumption, in our opinion, is the fact that on the south-eastern wall there was a secular painting made clearly for a residential building, and not for a synagogue.

The Jews of Chersonesus lived and worked on a site in the 19th quarter of the city, where they apparently "equipped or adapted for their needs a significant part of the public territory" (pp. 25-26). In quarters IX or XII, lamps interpreted by the authors of the monograph as Jewish were found, with the image of an arch over a niche for the Torah (or a seven-branched menorah); some of them were damaged, which could have had a deliberate religious anti-Jewish character (pp. 256-266). Thus, from the materials of the monograph, it is possible to reconstruct in general terms the picture of the daily and religious life of the local community in Chersonesos of the IV century AD, as well as the architecture and history of the local synagogue. All this is an undoubted success of the authors of the monograph and an important contribution to our understanding of the history of the Jews of Taurica in the context of the history of the late Antique Jewish diaspora.

Vinogradov's article on reading Greek graffiti is also very interesting (pp. 497-498). The author read the name "Judas" on fragment I 82, and also published previously unknown inscriptions on fragments I 269 and I 243. Among the Greek inscriptions, one can also read the word "eulogia "(Greek:"blessing, praise").1. Unfortunately, the scientist apparently does not analyze the opinion of E. I. Solomonik, who also saw the names Enoch, Isaiah, and the toponym Judea 2 among the Greek graffiti. In my opinion, Vinogradov should have commented on this statement by E. I. Solomonik, confirming or refuting it.

Against the background of the above achievements, the subsection "Hebrew inscriptions on fragments of frescoes from the Basilica of 1935 "(pp. 268-272) looks sharply dissonant, which largely repeats the mistakes of previously published articles by E. A. Abramovich. Overman, R. McLennan, M. I. Zolotarev, and E. Eshel [Overman et al., 1997, pp. 57-63; MacLennan, 1996, pp. 44-51; Eshel, 1998, pp. 289-299]. These errors are primarily based on a misreading of the Hebrew graffiti by E. Eshel, who has not seen it before.

1 Here the term appears to be the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "berachah" (blessing). Fragment i367 and i247. However, the term eulogy also belonged to the Christian terminology [Solomonik, 1995, p. 42].

2 The author expresses his gratitude to theologian Yu. V. Oleneva (Riga) for her help in working with Greek graffiti.

page 200
their de visu, already understood by me in the publications of 2011. [Kizilov, 2011(1), pp. 27, 33-37; Kizilov, 2011(2), pp. 170-187]. Unfortunately, both publications of the author of these lines were not used by any of the authors of the collective monograph 2013. I will add that due to the lack of a professional Hebraist among the team of authors, even when reproducing the inscription in Hebrew, 7 (!) technical errors were made due to poor knowledge of the Hebrew alphabet. Given that my publications were never taken into account by the authors of the monograph, I will give my argument again.

Esther Eshel combined the graffiti found on fragments 267 and 269 into the following text::

The researcher also suggested that the first line ("he who chose Jerusalem") is a quote from Zech. 3: 2 and denotes one of the epithets of the God of Israel. The general meaning of the inscription, in her opinion, said that the Lord would bless the Chersonesus Jew Ananias, who came there from the city of Bosporus (hence his nickname Bosporus, i.e. "Bosporus"). This led to a conclusion about contacts between Bosporan and Chersonesus Jews in the ancient era. The ritual formula "amen amen sela" was supposed to strengthen and confirm what was said [Eshel, 1998, p. 289-299].

E. Eshel, unfortunately, made a methodological mistake, relying on the drawings and photos of graffiti sent to her. If Eshel had seen these de visu graffiti, she would certainly have noticed that each of the lines on fragment 269 was clearly drawn by a different hand and at different times. As a result, they can no longer form a single text for this reason. However, even in the drawings and photos of graffiti available to the researcher, it is clearly visible that the first line before the word Yerushalayim does not have the letter bet; instead, there is a crossed-out and apparently accidentally got there lamed. In addition, there is an empty space on the right side before the same word Yerushalayim. This clearly indicates that nothing was written before this toponym and that it is simply impossible to attach the word found on fragment 267 to it. Moreover, fragment 267 contains four illegible letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which, with all their desire, can not be glued together in a word In such a way as e. Eshel could avoid misreading graffiti even if she carefully and unbiased works with the graffiti fragments sent to her. To the researcher's credit, it should still be noted that, despite the incorrect interpretation of the text of graffiti 269 in general, the researcher correctly saw the word Yerushalayim in the first line, the name Ananias in the second, and the ritual formula amen amen sela in the third. The general reconstruction of the text as a whole by adding the non-existent word ha-boher to it, alas, led the researcher to a completely fantastic and incorrect reading. Unfortunately, the misreading of Eshel was used by all authors of the late XX - early XXI centuries, who uncritically relied on the scientific authority of the first graffiti publication carried out by an Israeli researcher [Overman et al., 1997, pp. 57-63; MacLennan, 1996, p. 50; Edwards, 1999, p. 168-169].

3 Translated from the Hebrew by M. Kizilov. I will add that Russian authors who translated the content of this graffiti not from the Hebrew original, but from the English translation (i.e., actually making a double translation), made stylistic mistakes due to the literal translation from English. Thus, the biblical ha-boher birushalayim should be translated as "he who chose Jerusalem" [Zech. 3: 2], and not as "the one who chose Jerusalem" [cf.: Overman et al., 1997, p. 59].

4 The Bible text is somewhat different: [Zech. 3:2].

page 201
Correct reading of graffiti on fragment 269 (the word on fragment 267, let me remind you, is not decipherable):

So, the historical truth is much more prosaic. Based on these graffiti, no conclusions can be drawn about the contacts between the Jewish community of Bosporus and Chersonesus and other circumstances of applying this inscription, which can be found in the article by E. Eshel. However, from my reading of the graffiti, several important conclusions can also be drawn. Chersonesus Jews still continued to reach out to their historical homeland, the land of Israel, as evidenced by the use of the toponym "Jerusalem". Despite the fact that they spoke Greek in everyday life, Hebrew continued to be the main language of the liturgy for them, as clearly indicated by the use of the ritual formula "amen, amen, sela". In addition, the Jews of Chersonesus continued to bear classical Jewish names, such as Ananias and, apparently, Shabtai (and also, as the Greek graffiti on fragment II 82 makes clear, Judas (ειυδας, i.e. Yehuda)). The graffiti found is one of the few finds of its kind outside of the Late Hellenistic and Byzantine Eretz Yisrael period.

Unfortunately, when reading a monograph, you sometimes feel the fact that it was written by different people and at different times. Some discrepancies in the data and conclusions relate to such a fundamental issue as determining the exact time of the synagogue's functioning. The authors of the monograph unequivocally rejected I. Zavadskaya's point of view that the synagogue building belonged to Jews even in the fifth century. In their opinion, according to archaeological data, the synagogue building ceased to belong to Jews in the late IV-first half of the V century AD; written sources and general historical considerations allowed them to assume that the transfer of the building to local Christians occurred during the time of Bishop Kapiton, in the 80-90s of the IV century.8
Agreeing with the authors 'arguments regarding the infidelity of I. Zavadskaya's assumption, it is impossible not to notice some discrepancy in the authors' statements regarding the upper date of the synagogue's existence: some chapters indicate that the synagogue existed only in the second half of the IV century, or rather until the 80-90s of the century (i.e., only about 30-40 years!). (p. 252, 281). Others mention the possibility that, according to archaeological data, the building may have ceased to belong to the Jews somewhat later, in the first half of the fifth century (pp. 272, 280, 507). Even more obscure are the statements about the lower date of the synagogue's existence: based on some passages, it can be understood that the building was built ca. the middle of the fourth century (p. 252); in others, the authors speak of the third century (p.272), and in some places they generally avoid commenting on the question of the time when the synagogue was built. 9 A. Y. Vinogradov, in an article devoted to Greek graffiti of a Jewish nature left on the walls of the synagogue, dates the inscriptions (and, accordingly, the building itself) to the third century AD. In this case, if the authors of the monograph agree with A. Y. Vinogradov's conclusion about the dating of these inscriptions to the third century AD, then the lower date of the synagogue's existence should also be moved in the third century. However, the scientist's suggestion was left without comment.

5 In the name " Ananias ben Sh(?)[a]bt [ay]" the patronymic "Shabtai" is very difficult to read (the first letter is more like "tsade" than "shin", and only a scratch remains of" yud " at the end of the fragment). As another version, you can also read (Hebrew: "[I, A]nania, wrote").

6 The ritual formula "amen amen sela", dating from the fourth century AD, is found in the mosaic floor of the Hammat Tiberias Synagogue (Israel) [Fergus, 1993, p. 384; The New Encyclopedia, 1993-2008(2), p. 575], as well as on a slab from the synagogue in the Kohav ha-Yarden settlement [The New Encyclopedia, 1993-2008 (1), p. 186]. This formula was also used in medieval times, in poetry and tombstone inscriptions. In poetry, it indicated the pause or end of a poem, and on tombstones it was used to enhance and emphasize the power of blessing.

7 The one at the beginning of the word lamed, in my opinion, was crossed out and got here by accident.

8 I note that the authors of the monograph adhere to the indisputable point of view of K. Zuckerman, who dated Kapiton's activity to a later period than is customary in church sources.

9 See, for example, "a synagogue was built on the site of buildings of the Hellenistic era" (p. 507); "at the first stage, a mud brick structure appears" (p.280). None of these paragraphs indicate the exact or approximate time of construction of this building.

page 202
In addition, based on their own observations and excavations, the authors of the book made an attempt (in my opinion, quite rightly and successfully) restore the schematic plan of the synagogue (p. 253, fig. 131: 2). However, the researchers did not go any further and did not specify the total area of the building, nor did they attempt to determine the total number of worshippers who might have visited it. I will try to do this in this review. Based on the scale shown on the schematic plan, the synagogue was a rectangular building of 15×12 m, i.e., about 180 sq. m. This makes the Chersonesus synagogue comparable in size to the late antique Jewish houses of worship in Ostia and Philippopolis (160 square meters). m and 170 sq. m. m, respectively). If we subtract from this area the space occupied by the intended pews and podium for the rabbi, we get approximately 140 square meters. m. Thus, we can very cautiously assume that the synagogue could be visited by a maximum of 100-140 baele batim (i.e., male heads of families, literally "owners of houses")10. Assuming that the Jewish family of that time consisted on average of 4-5 people, we can assume that the entire Jewish community of Chersonesos at that time could have been no more than 400-700 people; most likely, it was even smaller.

And finally, the last thing. At the end of the monograph, the authors conclude that the transfer of the synagogue into the hands of local Christians and the subsequent reconstruction of the building into a Christian basilica, presumably, serve as evidence of "the gradual assimilation of a small Jewish community that prepared the ground and became the basis for the establishment of Christianity in Chersonesos" (p.507; cf. pp. 277, 280). This conclusion, made, to the credit of the authors of the monograph, rather cautiously, is also very controversial. The concept of kiddush hashem ("sanctification of [God's] name"), interpreted as the necessity to suffer martyrdom in order to keep the faith, has been one of the cornerstones of Judaism since, perhaps, the council of Rabbinic teachers of the law in the city of Lod in the second century.But it was not until the time of Maimonides (1138-1204) that Jews began to talk about the possibility of temporarily adopting a different religion in order to return to the bosom of Judaism later. However, in an earlier era, the mass conversion of local Jews to Christianity seems rather doubtful. As far as I know, for the period IV-V bb. h.e., despite some cases of individual conversion of Jews to Christianity in Byzantium, mass cases of this kind were not recorded. For the above-mentioned period, there are no cases of attempts to force entire communities to convert to Christianity by the Byzantine administration. If, for some reason, the presence of Jews in Chersonesos really annoyed the authorities, they would most likely be given the opportunity to leave the city unhindered. One way or another, but the" gradual assimilation " of local Jews with Christians, in my opinion, was the least likely scenario.
* * *

Summing up, I would like to note that the 2013 collective monograph on the synagogue in Tauric Chersonesus makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the general historical and archaeological context of the Jewish community and their religious building in Late Antique Chersonesus. The book provides us with detailed and important information about the archaeological research of the site in 1994-1998, and also allows us to restore the general appearance of the synagogue with a high degree of probability. Unfortunately, the position regarding the exact time of the synagogue's existence remains unclear (there is some discrepancy in determining the lower and upper dates of its existence); the conceptual conclusion about the "gradual assimilation" of the local Jewish community after the synagogue was rebuilt into a Christian temple in the late fourth or first half of the fifth century AD seems controversial. It would be necessary to analyze such an important source as Greek graffiti left on the walls of the building in different periods. Finally, the section devoted to reading the central source, i.e. graffiti in Hebrew (Ancient Hebrew), looks extremely unfortunate. The authors of the monograph not only relied on an incorrect reading of the graffiti by E. Estelle, who had not seen these de visu inscriptions, but also were not familiar with the existing publications that provided the correct reading. However, these shortcomings do not detract from the importance of this book, which has contributed to our understanding of the history of the Jews of Taurica in the early period of the community's existence.

10 The faithful could not stand close to the southeast wall, where the Torah scroll niche was located. It is also not very clear how the problem of women visiting the synagogue was solved: there was no special women's department for this function, nor a balcony on the second floor.

page 203
list of literature

Borisova V. V. Report on excavations of pottery workshops and necropolis of ancient Chersonesus in 1956, Album No. 2 / / Archive of the National Reserve "Chersonesus Tauris", 730/2.

Borisova V. V. Report on excavations of pottery workshops and necropolis in 1956 / / Archive of the National Reserve "Chersonesos Tauris", 730.

The Life of Constantine // Skazaniya o nachale slavyanskoi pismennosti [Tales of the beginning of Slavic writing]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1981, pp. 70-92.

The Life of our Venerable Father Eustratius, the Fasterer and Martyr / / Kievo-Pechersk paterik. K., 1903. pp. 147-150.

Zavadskaya I. A. Christianization of the Early Byzantine Chersonese (IV-VI centuries) / / Materials on archeology, history and Ethnography of Taurica. Issue X. 2003, pp. 402-426.

Zolotarev M. I., Korobkov D. Yu. To understanding the plot of several late Antique lamps (1997) / / Archive of the National Reserve "Chersonesos Tauris", 3424.

Kizilov M. B. Crimean Judea. Simferopol: Dolya Publ., 2011 (1).

Kizilov M. B. Jewish community of Chersonesos (Kherson) in ancient and medieval times // Українська орієнталістика. Спеціальний випуск з юдаїки. К., 2011(2). С. 170-187.

Korobkov D. Yu. Late antique ceramic lamps with Jewish symbols // Tirosh, vol. 2, 1998, pp. 27-28.

Korobkov D. Y. Ob osobennostei planirovaniya zdanija pozdneantichnoj sinagogi v Chersonese [On the features of planning the building of the Late Antique Synagogue in Chersonese]. Abstracts of reports and reports of the III International Crimean Conference on Religious Studies. Sevastopol: National Reserve "Tauric Chersonesos", 2001(1). p. 22.

Korobkov D. Yu. O stroykakh iudeyskoi sinagogi v Chersonese Tavricheskom [On the buildings of the Jewish Synagogue in Tauride Chersonese]. Ed. by K. Burmistrov et al. Moscow: Sefer, 2001(2). Part I. pp. 127-136.

Overman, E., McLennan, R., and Zolotarev, M. I., On the study of Jewish antiquities in the Tauric Chersonese, Archeology. 1997. N 1. pp. 57-63.

Serafimov S., Archpriest. Kherson saints. The suffering of the Holy Martyrs of Kherson, bishops: Vasilevs, Kapiton and others / / Notes of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities. 1868. Vol. 7. pp. 120-131.

Solomonik, E. I., Two groups of inscriptions on ceramic vessels from the Crimea of the first centuries of Our Era, Problemy arkheologii drevnogo i srednevekovogo Kryma (Problems of Archeology of the Ancient and Medieval Crimea), ed. by Yu. M.Mogarichev, I. N. Khrapunov. Simferopol: Tavriya Publ., 1995, pp. 38-46.

Solomonik E. I., Lunev D. Drevneishie evreiskie poselenie i obshchestva v Krymu [The oldest Jewish settlements and communities in the Crimea]. Simferopol: Jerusalem: Mosty Publ., 1997, pp. 9-22.

Strzheletskiy S. F. Otchet o raskopkakh v Khsrsonsss v 1950 g. [Report on excavations in the Khsrsonsss in 1950] / / Archiv of the National Reserve "Chersonesos Tavrichesky". D. 1301. I.

Shokhin A. P. Restorer's journal of cleaning and fixing frescoes from the excavations of Chersonesus in 1950 / / Archive of the National Reserve "Chersonesus Tauris". d. 617.

Edwards D. R. Jews and Christians at Ancient Chersoncsus. The Transformation of Jewish Public Space // Evolution of the Synagogue. Problems and Progress / Eds. H.C. Kee and L.H. Cohick. Harrisburg: Trinity press, 1999. P. 158-173.

Eshel E. A Hebrew Graffito from a Synagogue in Crimea // Jewish Studies Quarterly. 1998. Vol. 1:5. P. 289-299.

Fergus M. The Roman Near East, 31 BC-AD337. Cambridge-London: Harvard University, 1993.

MacLennan R. S. In Search of the Jewish Diaspora. A First-Century Synagogue in Crimea? // Biblical Archaeology Review. 1996. N 2. P. 44-51.

The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land / Eds. E. Stern ct al. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Carta, 1993-2008(1).

The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land / Eds. E. Stern et al. Vol. 2. Jerusalem: Carta, 1993-2008(2).

Zolotarev M., Korobkov D. 1999. Conversion into Orthodoxy at Chersonesos of Taurica: Sinagoga versus Ecclesia / / Text of the report presented at the Congress on Christian Archaeology. Vienna (unpublished).

page 204

Permanent link to this publication: