"Heresy of the Judaizers" - a religious and political movement that existed in Russia at the end of the 15th century, still conceals a lot of mysteries. In the history of our state, it was destined to become a landmark phenomenon.
Origins
Opposition movements in Russia appeared for a long time. At the end of the 14th century in Pskov and Novgorod, the centers of free-thinking, a movement of "strigolniks" arose, which expressed its protest against church bribery and money-grubbing. Pskov deacons Nikita and Karp questioned the sacraments conducted by the official ministers of the cult: “Don't deserve the essence of a presbytery, we supply you with a bribe; It is unworthy to receive communion from them, neither repent, nor receive baptism from them."
It so happened that it was the Orthodox Church, which determines the way of life in Russia, that became a bone of contention for various worldview systems. A century after the activity of the strigolniks, the followers of Nil Sorsky, known for his ideas about "non-acquisitiveness", are making themselves known. They advocated the abandonment of the accumulated wealth by the Church and encouraged the clergy to lead more modest and righteous lives.
On this fertile soil, in the 1470s, first in Novgorod, and then in Moscow, the "heresy of the Judaizers" arose - a phenomenon so-called by the Orthodox Church for undermining the foundations of the Christian faith and ties with Judaism. The initiator of the movement was recognized the Kiev Jew Skhariya, who brought the false teaching to Novgorod. However, the struggle between the Church and the "sectarians" had not only a religious background, but also a very clear political outline.
Promotional video:
Hula on the Church
It all began with the fact that hegumen Gennady Gonzov, called by his contemporaries "a bloodthirsty intimidator of criminals against the church," called to the archbishop's service in Novgorod, suddenly discovered a ferment of minds in the flock. Many priests stopped taking communion, while others defiled icons with swear words. They were also noticed to be fond of Jewish rites and Kabbalah.
Moreover, the local hegumen Zakhariya accused the archbishop of having been appointed to office for a bribe. Gonzov decided to punish the obstinate abbot and sent him into exile. However, the Grand Duke Ivan III intervened and defended Zacharias.
Archbishop Gennady, alarmed by the heretical revelry, appealed for support to the hierarchs of the Russian Church, but did not receive real help. Here his role was played by Ivan III, who, for political reasons, clearly did not want to lose ties with the Novgorod and Moscow nobility, many of whom were ranked among the "sectarians".
However, the archbishop had a strong ally in the person of Joseph Sanin (Volotsky), a religious figure who defended the position of strengthening church power. He was not afraid to accuse Ivan III himself, admitting the possibility of disobedience to the "unrighteous sovereign", for "such a king is not God's servant, but the devil, and there is not a king, but a tormentor."
Oppositionist
One of the most important roles in opposition to the Church and the movement of the "Judaizers" was played by the Duma clerk and diplomat Fyodor Kuritsyn - "the head of the heretics", as the archbishop of Novgorod called him.
It was Kuritsyn that the churchmen accused of implanting heretical teaching among Muscovites, which he allegedly brought from abroad. In particular, he was credited with criticizing the Holy Fathers and denying monasticism. But the diplomat did not confine himself to the propaganda of anti-clerical ideas.
Kuritsyn's party, close in its views to Western rationalism, defended the position of strengthening secular power and weakening the rights of church land tenure. The diplomat's foreign policy was focused on regions far from the influence of Catholicism - South-Eastern Europe, the Crimean Khanate and the Ottoman Empire. This manifested sharp contradictions with the group of supporters of Ivan III's wife Sophia Palaeologus, who zealously defended the interests of the Christian faith and the Orthodox Church, relying on the support of Catholic countries.
Heresy or conspiracy?
But there was one more person around whom heretics and free-thinkers gathered - the daughter-in-law of Ivan III and the mother of the heir to the throne Dmitry, the princess of Tver Elena Voloshanka. She had influence on the sovereign and, according to historians, tried to use her advantage for political purposes.
She succeeded, although the victory was not long. In 1497, Kuritsyn sealed the letter of Ivan III for the great reign of Dmitry. It is interesting that a double-headed eagle appears for the first time on this seal - the future coat of arms of the Russian state.
The coronation of Dmitry as co-ruler of Ivan III took place on February 4, 1498. Sofia Paleologue and her son Vasily were not invited to it. Shortly before the appointed event, the sovereign uncovered a conspiracy in which his wife tried to disrupt the legitimate succession to the throne. Some of the conspirators were executed, and Sophia and Vasily were in disgrace. However, historians argue that some accusations, including an attempt to poison Dmitry, were far-fetched.
But the court intrigues between Sophia Palaeologus and Elena Voloshanka did not end there. On the political arena, not without Sophia's participation, Gennady Gonzov and Joseph Volotsky again enter the political arena, forcing Ivan III to take up the case of "Judaizing heretics". In 1503 and 1504, Councils against heresy were convened, at which the fate of Kuritsyn's party was decided.
Russian Inquisition
Archbishop Gennady was an ardent supporter of the methods of the Spanish inquisitor Torquemada, in the heat of controversy he urged Metropolitan Zosima to adapt strict measures in the conditions of Orthodox heresy.
However, the Metropolitan, suspected by historians of sympathies with heretics, did not set the stage for this process.
The principles of the "punishing sword of the Church" were no less consistently pursued by Joseph Volotsky. In his literary works, he repeatedly called for "execution by fierce betrayal" of dissidents, because the "holy spirit" itself punishes with the executioners' hands. Even those who did not testify against the heretics fell under his charges.
In 1502, the Church's struggle against the "Judaizers" finally found a response from the new Metropolitan Simon and Ivan III. The latter, after a long hesitation, deprives Dmitry of the grand ducal dignity and, together with his mother, sends him to prison. Sophia achieves her goal - Vasily becomes the co-ruler of the sovereign.
Councils of 1503 and 1504, by the efforts of the militant defenders of Orthodoxy, are turning into real processes. However, if the first Council is limited only by disciplinary measures, then the second sets in motion the punishing flywheel of the system. Heresy that undermines not only the authority of the Church, but also the foundations of statehood must be eradicated.
By the decision of the Council of the main heretics - Ivan Maksimov, Mikhail Konoplev, Ivan Volk, they burned in Moscow, and Nekras Rukavov was executed in Novgorod, after cutting off his tongue. The spiritual inquisitors also insisted on the burning of Yuryev's archimandrite Cassian, but the fate of Fyodor Kuritsyn is not known for certain.
Outcome
Historians are ambiguous about the phenomenon of "heresy of the Judaizers." No documents have been found outlining the teachings of heretics or accusing them of anti-state actions. And the confessions they made under torture are being questioned.
Thus, Oleg Starodubtsev, associate professor of the Sretensky Theological Seminary, writes that the political and religious views of heretics are still largely unclear, and it is impossible to determine the goals they pursue.
Soviet historiography in the "heresy of the Judaizers" sees primarily an antifeudal orientation and assesses its character rather as a reformation-humanistic one. Metropolitan Macarius calls this movement “purest Judaism,” but for the theologian Gregory Florovsky, this is nothing more than free-thinking. Researchers differ in their views, but the essence of this movement as the first serious opposition in Russia will remain unchanged.