НАРОДЫ И РЕЛИГИИ

ЕВРАЗИИ

Барнаул

Издательство

Алтайского государственного

университета

2019

ISSN 2542-2332

2019 № 3 (20)

Издание основано в2007г.

Главный редактор:

П. К.Дашковский, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Барнаул)

Редакционная коллегия:

С. А.Васютин, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Кемерово)

Н. Л.Жуковская, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Москва)

А. П.Забияко, доктор философских наук (Россия, Благовещенск)

А. А.Тишкин, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Барнаул)

Н. А.Томилов, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Омск)

Т. Д.Скрынникова, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Санкт-Петербург)

О. М.Хомушку, доктор философских наук (Россия, Кызыл)

Л. И.Шерстова, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Томск)

Е. А.Шершнева (отв. секретарь), кандидат исторических наук (Россия, Барнаул)

Редакционный совет журнала:

Л. Н.Ермоленко, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Кемерово)

Ю. А.Лысенко, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Барнаул)

Л. С.Марсадолов, доктор культурологии (Россия, Санкт-Петербург)

Г. Г.Пиков, доктор исторических наук, доктор культурологии (Россия, Новосибирск)

А. К.Погасий, доктор философских наук (Россия, Казань)

К. А.Руденко, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Казань)

С. А.Яценко, доктор исторических наук (Россия, Москва)

А. С.Жанбасинова, доктор исторических наук (Казахстан, Усть-Каменогорск)

Н. И.Осмонова, доктор философских наук (Кыргыстан, Бишкек)

Н.Цэдэв, кандидат педагогических наук (Монголия, Улан-Батор)

Ц.Степанов, доктор исторических наук (Болгария, София)

З. С.Самашев, доктор исторических наук (Казахстан, Астаны).

Журнал утвержден научно-техническим советом

Алтайского государственного университета изарегистрирован Комитетом РФ

попечати. Свидетельство орегистрации ПИ № ФС 77–69787 от18.05.2017г.

перепечатаны безписьменного разрешения авторов илииздателя.

Журнал подготовлен приподдержке РНФ «Религия ивласть: исторический опыт

государственного регулирования деятельности религиозных общин вЗападной

Сибири исопредельных районах Казахстана вXIX–XXвв.» (проект № 19-18-00023).

Алтайского госуниверситета, 2019

ISSN 2542-2332

2019 № 3 (20)

NATIONS AND RELIGIONS

OF THE EURASIA

Barnaul

Publishing house

of Altai State University

2019

e journal was founded in 2007

Executive editor:

P.K. Dashkovskiy (doctor of historical sciences)

e editorial Board:

S.A. Vasutin, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Kemerovo)

N. L.Zhukovskay, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Moskow)

A. P.Zabiyako, doctor of philosophical sciences (Russia, Blagoveshchensk)

A. A.Tishkin, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Barnaul)

N. А.Tomilov, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Omsk)

T. D.Skrynnikova, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Saint-Petersburg)

O. M.Homushku, doctor of philosophy (Russia, Kyzyl)

L. I.Sherstova, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Tomsk)

E. A.Shershneva (resp. secretary), candidate of historical sciences (Russia, Barnaul)

e journal editorial Board:

L. N.Yarmolenko, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Kemerovo)

U. A.Lusenko, doctor of historical sciences Russia, Barnaul)

L. S.Marsadolov, doctor of Culturology (Russia, St. Petersburg)

G. G.Pikov, doctor of historical sciences, doctor of cultural studies (Russia, Novosibirsk)

A. K.Pogassiy, doctor of philosophical sciences (Russia, Kazan)

K. A.Rudenko, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Kazan)

S. A.Yatsenko, doctor of historical sciences (Russia, Moscow)

A. S.Zhanbosynov, doctor of historical sciences (Kazakhstan, Ust-Kamenogorsk)

N. I.Osmonovа, candidate of philosophical sciences (Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek)

N.Cedev, candidate of pedagogical sciences (Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar)

Ts. Stepanov, doctor of historical sciences (Bolgariy, Soy)

Z. S.Samashev, doctor of historical sciences (Kazakhstan, Astana)

Approved for publication by the Joint Scientic and Technical Council of Altai State University.

permission of the authors or the publisher. Registered with the RF Committee on Printing.

Registration certicate PI № ФС 77–69787. Registration date 18.05.2017.

e journal was prepared with the support of the RSF project “Religion and power: historical

experience of state regulation of religious communities in Western Siberia and neighboring

regions of Kazakhstan in the XIX–XX centuries” (project № 19-18-00023).

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ

Раздел I

АРХЕОЛОГИЯ ИЭТНОКУЛЬТУРНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ

ПиковГ. Г.Найманский этап истории государства Си Ляо (Западное Ляо) ....................7

ДашковскийП. К.Курган эпохи палеометалла измогильника Ханкаринский

дол (Горный Алтай) ......................................................................................................................19

ПлетневаЛ. М.Лазурит всоставе украшений изпамятников

басандайской культуры ...............................................................................................................34

АртемьеваН. Г.Склеп вселе Фадеевка Приморского края ...............................................59

МурзинВ. Ю. «Города» кочевых скифов...................................................................................72

Раздел II

ЭТНОЛОГИЯ ИНАЦИОНАЛЬНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА

БурнаковВ. А.Вода втрадиционном мировоззрении хакасов: образ исимвол

(конец XIX— середина XXв.) ....................................................................................................86

ЛебедевР. В.Кпроблеме локализации «Малых Эргенеконов» Саяно-Алтая ...............101

Раздел III

РЕЛИГИОВЕДЕНИЕ ИГОСУДАРСТВЕННО-КОНФЕССИОНАЛЬНАЯ

ПОЛИТИКА

СлепцоваВ. В.Отношение иудаизма кдругим религиям ..................................................122

ЛысенкоЮ. А.Позиция чиновников Оренбургского ведомства повопросу

правового регулирования духовной жизни казахов Уральской

иТургайской областей (40–80-е гг. XIXв.) .......................................................................... 128

ТерноваяГ. А.Магические атрибуты вискусстве ипредставлениях народов

Центральной Азии иСибири ...................................................................................................139

Раздел IV

ПЕРСОНАЛИИ

МукановаГ. К.Археология какискусство: Виктор Федорович Зайберт

(к50-летию научно-педагогической деятельности) .......................................................... 160

ДЛЯАВТОРОВ ........................................................................................................................... 167

Cайт журнала: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

CONTENT

Section I

ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETNO-CULTURAL HISTORY

PikovG. G.Naiman phase of the history of the state Hsi Liao (Western Liao) ......................... 7

Dashkovskiy



P. K.e mound of the paleometal period of burial Khankarinsky doll

(Gorny Altai) ....................................................................................................................................19

PletnevaL. M.Lazurite in jewelry from monuments of the Basandaika culture ....................34

ArtemievaN. G.e burial vault in the village of Fadeyevka in Primorye ..............................59

MurzinV. Y.e “cities” of nomadic Scythians ...........................................................................72

Section II

ETHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL POLICY

BurnakovV. A.Water in the traditional worldview of the khakases: image and symbol

(late XIX— mid XX century) ........................................................................................................86

LebedevR. V.To the problem of localization of “Small Ergenecons” of Altai-Sayan ...........101

Section III

RELIGIOUS STUDIES AND STATE-CONFESSIONAL RELATIONS

SleptsovaV. V.Some Judaic attitudes to other religions ...........................................................122

LysenkoYu. A.e position of ocials of the Orenburg Department on the legal

regulation of the spiritual life of the Kazakhs of the Ural and Turgay regions

(40–80-ies of XIX century) .......................................................................................................... 128

TernovayaG. A.Magic attributes in the art and perceptions of the peoples

of Central Asia and Siberia ..........................................................................................................139

Section IV

PERSONALITIES

MukanovaG. K.Archeology as art: Viktor Fedorovich Zaybert (on the 50th

anniversary of scientic and pedagogical activity) .................................................................. 160

INFORMATION FOR THE AUTHORS ................................................................................167

122

Cайт журнала: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

ISSN 2542-2332 • Народы и религии Евразии • 2019 № 3(20). C. 121–127

works some ideas that allow to refer his views not to the pure pluralistic model, but to the

universalistic and occasionally inclusivistic ones as well.

Key words: exclusivism, inclusivism, Judaism, pluralism, universalism, Alan Brill, John

Hick, Mordecai Menahem Kaplan.

В. В. Слепцова

Институт философии РАН, Москва (Россия)

ОТНОШЕНИЕ ИУДАИЗМА К ДРУГИМ РЕЛИГИЯМ

Целью данной статьи является изучение классификации отношения иудаизма кдру-

гим религиям, данное Аланом Брилом вего работе «Иудаизм идругие религии: модели

понимания», вышедшей в2010г. Первая часть статьи посвящена разъяснению поня-

тийного аппарата, используемого Брилом. Алан Брил развивает иинтерпретирует мо-

дель Хика вприложении киудаизму. Вслед заАланом Рейсом иДжоном Хиком Брил

рассматривает четые категории: эксклюзивизм, инклюзивизм, плюрализм иунивер-

сализм, однако применяет ихдляописания отношения иудаизма кдругим религиям.

Кроме основных четырех категорий, Брил выделяет несколько подкатегорий иразно-

видностей каждой изних. Эксклюзивизм вприложении киудаизму означает, чтотоль-

ко иудаизм обладает всей полнотой истины изнанием путей спасения. Инклюзивизм

означает, чтоодна религиозная группа обладает полнотой истины, приэтом другие

группы обладают толко ее частями, т. е. вприложении киудаизму: иудаизм— уникаль-

ная религия, ноидругие религии имеют свою ценность. Согласно универсализму идея

Бога значимее различий между организованными религиями. Если универсализм яв-

ляется теоцентрической позицией, топлюрализм, согласно Брилу, антропоцентричен.

Универсализм утверждает возможность длявсех религий достичь некой истины, тогда

какплюрализм отрицает адекватность понятия истины вообще.

Анализируя основные идеи видных мыслителей— представителей иудаизма, отГа-

леви, Маймонида иНахманида дор. Кука, Генри Перейры-Мендеса иГорация Каллена,

Алан Брил классифицирует каждого изних водну изсвоих категорий.

Вторая часть статьи посвящена анализу концепции Алана Брила. Во-первых, оче-

видно, чтомы можем рассматривать универсализм иплюрализм какдве более илиме-

нее «мягкие» формы инклюзивизма. Во-вторых, инклюзивизм, универсализм иплю-

рализм неявляются взаимоотрицающими точками зрения. Довольно сложно выде-

лить чистые формы этих категорий, некоторые изихэлементов могут быть найдены

вработах одного философа. Реконструктивизм Мордехая Менахема Каплана является

примером этого. Брил касается работ Каплана лишь мимоходом иотносит его взгля-

ды кплюрализму. Вцелом можно согласиться сэтим утврждением, однако прибли-

жайшем рассмотрении оказывается, чтовтрудах Каплана можно обнаружить также

универсалистскую ииногда даже инклюзивистскую позиции наряду сплюрализмом.

123

Journal homepage: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

ISSN 2542-2332 • Nations and religions of Eurasia • 2019 № 3(20). P. 121–127

Ключевые слова: инклюзивизм, иудаизм, плюрализм, универсализм, эксклюзивизм,

А.Брил, М. М.Каплан, Дж. Хик.

Слепцова Валерия Валерьевна, кандидат философских наук, научный сотрудник

Института философии РАН, Москва (Россия). Адрес дляконтактов: leka.nasonova@

gmail.com.

e can found Judaic attitudes to the other religions in Judaic texts from Hebrew Bible.

However modern models of religious diversity is a “new commer” for Judaism. I

believe it is very interesting and very important to inverstigate this theme. We need

to understand to what degree were adopted Hick’s classication and what new was found by

Jewish thinkers.

Some Jewish views about religious diversity were created, for example, by David Hartman

[Hartman, 1983], Dan Cohn-Sherbok [Cohn-Sherbock, 1994; Con-Sherbock, 1999], Raphael

Jospe [Jospe, 2007]. ese authors standed on the ground of pluralism and formulated Jewish

theology of religious pluralism.

Very signicant work for the developing of the theme of Judaic attitudes to religions is the

Allan Brill’s book “Judaism and Other Religions: Models of Understanding” (2010). Brill aims

for complete objectivity in his consideration about religious diversity and Jewish theology of

religions.

I would like rst note Brill’s main ideas and his scheme of forms of the Judaic attitudes

to other religions that are well worth highlighting for audiences that might not be familiar

with this work. He underlines that in the modern world, “religion in its traditional forms has

returned as a force in politics and civil society. In order to come to terms with the current

clash of civilizations and the increasing tensions between forces of globalization and those

of tradition, we need to view the conict as a moral challenge for faith…” [Brill, 2010: 2–3].

He rejects that the answer to conict “must come in the form of a secularized meeting and

dialogue, where one’s religious identity is bracketed. Naturally, we do not want to return to

theocratic religion. Yet, a straightforward acceptance of Enlightenment values is discordant

with twenty-rst-century reality” [Brill, 2010: 2–3]. In his opinion, “the urgent agenda is to

construct usable moderate theologies from traditional religious positions’ [Brill, 2010: 3].

Famously, serious present-day deliberation on interfaith’s interaction began as a result of the

initiative of the Catholic Church in assembling the Second Vatican Council. e consequence

of this stage of discussion on interreligious dialogue and ocial statement on other religions

was Nostra Aetate. is Declaration on the Relation of the Catholic Church to Non-Christian

Religions was promulgated on 28 October 1965. is document considered many religions

of the world, and conrmed that God’s presence can be available in other religions as rays

of truth. In relation to Jews, Nostra Aetate acknowledged that God still has a covenant with

the Jewish descendents of Abraham, acquitted them on deicide, armed the unique spiritual

relation between Christians and Jews and decried anti-Semitism.

Terms and categories used by Brill were created by Alan Race in his work “Christians and

Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian eology of Religions’ in 1982. ese categories

124

Cайт журнала: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

became widely known and widely used aer John Hick’s writings [Hick, 1982]. In 1987 Hick

and Paul Knitter “consolidated the pluralist position by gathering in a single volume essays

by many scholars who agreed with the pluralist position” [Brill, 2010: 19]. A philosophical

pluralist model has merits for understanding the human condition but Hick and most other

pluralists invoke the theologian “to make a “Copernican shi” to accepting pluralism as a

starting point and then to ask when one’s own religion ts into the pluralism. en one is no

one longer speaking from within a given faith, but as a theology of pluralism” [Brill, 2010: 19].

Brill develops original models of these attitudes in its relation with Judaism. Universalism

used by Brill together with “big triad”.

Exclusivism claims that only Judaism posesses the truth. Brill notes Judeo-centricity of

the universe for the Jewish exclusivist. For an exclusivist other religions are not relevant; at

most sometimes he or she can admit the possibility that there is a knowledge among the

nations. e present-day variations of Jewish exclusivism accept a radical perspectivism in

which every person is entitled to have a dierent perspective, incommensurate with others.

For these exclusivists, Judaism is absolutely true and other religions are false, but they assume

and accept that other faiths should feel the same way toward their own faith.

Inclusivistic way of thought is that one religious group posesses the fullness of the truth,

but other groups have parts of truth, i. e. Judaism is an unique religion, but other religions

have their value. Jewish inclusivists tend to consider an ethics that is derived from the Torah

ethics, or they conrm that there is a historic mission for the other religions (e. g. with both

Halevi and Maimonides).

From universalistic point of view the idea of God is greater than the specics of organized

religons. Universalists believe in God, revelation, and the soul but regard that relationship with

God as available to every human because every human, as an image of God, actually shares

God, revelation, or providence.

e pluralist accepts that the great world religions have equally valid truth claims and

addresses others in their own language.

Brill focuses on the demarcation between pluralism and universalism. Whereas universalim

is a God-centered point of view, pluralism is, in Brill’s view, a human-centered one. Universalism

insists on possibility for all to reach the same truth, while pluralism recognizes the inadequate

nature of any truth at all.

Brill writes the following points:

For a Jewish example of how each of these positions can play out theologically, let me look

at how the shema

can be imagined dierently for each of the positions. For the exclusivist, the

shema’s signicance lies in its particularistic call for martyrdom, a reminder of the position of

a besieged minority comprised of the sole bearers and oppressed proclaimers of the truth of

God’s unity. An inclusivist may hear the shema as a vision of all faiths acknowledging God’s

Shema is the first word of the verse and of the chapter containing the confession of the Jewish faith, in as

much as the main dogma of Judaism (monotheism) is proclaimed in the first verse of Deuteronomy, 6: 4.

Shema consists of three parts: a) Deuter. 6: 4–9; b) Deuter. 11: 13–21, and c) Numbers, 15: 37–41. The

first verse — “Hear, Israel: Our Lord is One God” (שמע ישראל) — has always been considered as the formula

of the Jewish monotheism.

ISSN 2542-2332 • Народы и религии Евразии • 2019 № 3(20). C. 121–127

125

Journal homepage: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

kingship, either now or at the eschaton. And for the universalist, it speaks of a unity of Jewish

version of a common religious truth. [Brill, 2010: 21].

Brill offers such subdivisions of pluralism as philosophical, ethical, mystical or

epistemological one.

Now I believe it may be reasonable to display that there are “inner” and “external”

components in every Brill’s category. “Inner” is a Jew’s attitude to one or another elements of

Judaism itself (rites, feasts, theology). “External” component is a Jew’s attitude to the same

elements of other (“great” or “world” as says Brill) religions. e Judaic model of religious

diversity for Brill focuses on the signicance and meaning of other religions

. More specically,

on the two grounds that are posession of truth on the one part and signicancy of rites, feasts,

observations on the other. ese grounds doubtless are interrelated. To say, for example, Brill’s

exclusivist demands adhering to all practices by reasons that they are absolutely true. However

interrelation is not complete equivalence. For instance, pluralism, for Brill, acknowledges

signicancy of Judaic practices, but denies their posession of truth by putting an emphasis on

the relativeness of world-outlook.

On the closer examination it can be seen that exclusivism and inclusivism are equivalent

(or rather intercross each other) in the point of “inner” attitude. Universalism and inclusivism

are equivalent in the external component. And a part of the “inner” component is common

to pluralism and inclusivism, that part of “inner” component which includes signicance

of Judaic practices. Apparently, some elements of every Brill’s category may be found out in

works of one philosopher.

A clear illustrations of this statement are the works of Mordecai Menahem Kaplan, who was

one of the most inuential thinkers of American Jewry during the rst half of the twentieth

century and the founder of Judaic Reconstructionism, that became a third branch of American

liberal Judaism [Samuelson, 1989: 43]. Brill classies Kaplan’s view as a pluralistic one. Indeed,

the basis of his worldview is pluralism. But more detailed study shows that in Kaplan’s works

we can nd out elements of universalism and inclusivism as well.

One of the main conceptions of Kaplan’s view is the conception of civilization. Civilization is

“the accumulation of knowledge, skills, tools, arts, literatures, laws, religions and philosophies

which stand between man and external nature and which serves as a bulwark against the

hostility of forces that would otherwise destroy him” [Kaplan, 2001:179]. Organized religions

therefore make parts of particular civilizations and cannot be understood regardless of them.

e founder of Reconstructionism claimed that there is no common standard of measurement

the truth, and “the meaning of religion is involved in its relationship to all other phases of the

civilization which has produced it and cannot be abstracted from this context without damage.

We can no more separate a religion from a civilization than we can separate a whirlpool from

a river” [Kaplan, 1936: 281]. He criticizes therefore the concept of superiority as meaningless.

It’s pluralistic view. But further Kaplan notes that the dierences of religions are not “merely

quantitative variations in the degree of truth that each contains in its tradition, but each is a

unique manifestation of the divine, just as each human being is such a unique manifestation”

In the original (Christian) model all these terms, as puts it Brill, focused on the question of salvation.

ISSN 2542-2332 • Nations and religions of Eurasia • 2019 № 3(20). P. 121–127

126

Cайт журнала: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

[Kaplan, 1936: 281]. Consequently, he believes that there is one divine entity above all

dierences of religions. It’s obviously an universalistic view.

For Kaplan, like for universalists, universe is theo-centric, notwithstanding his interpretation

of God is not classically theistic. e founder of Reconstructionism oen denes God via

nonsynonymos terms such as for example “dynamics”, “process’ etc)

. One of the denitions

is that God is “the sum of the animating, organizing forces and relationships which are forever

making a cosmos out of chaos. is is what we understand by God as the creative life of the

universe” [Kaplan, 1994: 76]. One more denition of God as the “power that makes for the

highest good” allows us to conclude, that with the notion of Kaplan’s God inseparable from

the ethics. He declares one universal ethics for every human: “Every normal society reects

some sensitiveness to the universal values of reason and to the eternal values of the spirit”

[Kaplan, Goldsmith, Scult, 1991: 175]. In other words, any ideal that is of universal signicance,

that belongs to the worship of spirit “is capable of adoption by, and adaptation to, any and all

religious traditions’ [Kaplan, Goldsmith, Scult, 1991: 184].

At rst sight, it may seem that Kaplan, like universalists, does not attach importance to

religious rites and practices. However that’s not the case. Kaplan aims to reinterpret traditional

Jewish symbols, rites and observances in terms, that “reckon with modern psychological and

ethical insights’ and that are relevant to the needs and interests of living Jews. He points out

the importance of these aspect of religion. Jewish people should adhere to Judaic rules and

norms but most of them must be rethought. For example, Jews should observe Yom Kippur

(Day of Atonement), that is the day of the forgiveness of sins and the resolve to improve

morally and spiritually as a symbol of a protest against the waging of war. Sabbat as Day of

salvation (“having a share in the world to come”) means nothing to the modern Jews, unless

the term “salvation” is given new meanings. en “… can we, as modern Jews, fully benet by

their observance” [Kaplan, Goldsmith, Scult, 1991: 179].

Kaplan, similarly to inclusivists and exclusivists, opposes Judaism to other religions. For

instance, Christianity has in its core (i. e. in its eschatology) spirit of fatalism that came from

Ancient Greek mythology and philosophy. is spirit of Western mind “has acted like a canker

which disintegrates the soul of every people it has attacked”. And for Judaic religion “life is

concieved not as the working out of doom but as the fulllment of a blessing… e suering

and the tragedy have always been viewed merely as interraption which have postponed the

fulllment of the blessing” [Kaplan, 1994: 66–67].

Let’s come to conclusions.

Brill added the term universalism in his model of religious diversity. Universalism partly

intercrossed by pluralism. It is absent in the Hick’s model.

By analysing the main ideas of some Judaic philosophers and theologians from Halevi,

Maimonides and Nahmanides to Rav. Kook, Henry Pereira-Mendes and Horace Kallen Brill

divides them accordingly to the four divisions: exclusivism, inclusivism, universalism or

pluralism. From my point of view it’s clear that in Brill’s denitions: 1. We are able to regard

universalism and pluralism as two more or less “so” forms of inclusivism; 2. Inclusivism,

Some aspects of Kaplan’s theory of God places him in close quarters with Whitehead’s, Cobb’s, Hartshorne’s

process-theology.

ISSN 2542-2332 • Народы и религии Евразии • 2019 № 3(20). C. 121–127

127

Journal homepage: http://journal.asu.ru/wv

universalism and pluralism are not contradictious views. In fact it’s dicult to distinguish

them strictly and some of their elements may be found out in works of one philosopher.

Reconstructionism of Mordecai Menahem Kaplan exemplies this position. Skating over

Kaplan’s views, Brill classies his attitudes toward other religions as pluralism. I agree with this

standpoint, however, under close examination we can nd in Kaplan’s works some ideas that

allow refer his views not to the pure pluralistic model, but to the universalistic and occasionally

inclusivistic ones as well.

References

BrillA.Judaism and Other Religions: Models of Understanding. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan. 2010. 292 p.

Cohn-SherbockD.Judaism and Other Faiths. L., NY: Palgrave Macmillan. 1994. IX, 186 p.

Con-SherbockD.Jews, Christians and religious pluralism. NY: Edv. Mellen Press. 1999.

336 p.

HartmanD.On the Possibility of Religious Pluralism from a Jewish Viewpoint. Immanuel.

1983, no.16, pp. 101–13.

HickJ.God Has Many Names 2nd ed. Phil.: e Westminster Press. 1982. 144 p.

JospeR.Pluralism out of the Sources of Judaism: Religious Pluralism without Relativism.

Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations. 2007, no.2, pp. 92–113.

KaplanM. M.Judaism as a Civilization: Toward a Reconstruction of American Jewish Life.

Illin.: Varda Books. 2001. 601 p.

KaplanM. M.Meaning of God. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 1994. 381 p.

KaplanM. M.; GoldsmithE. S.; ScultM.Dynamic Judaism: The Essential Writings of

MordecaiM.Kaplan. New York: Fordham University Press. 1991. 264 p.

KaplanM. M.Judaism in Transition. New York: Covici, Friede. 1936. xii, 312 p.

SamuelsonN. M.An Introduction to Modern Jewish Philosophy. New York: State University

of New York Press. 1989. 330 p.

Цитирование статьи:

СлепцоваВ. В.Отношение иудаизма кдругим религиям // Народы ирелигии Евразии.

2019. № 3 (20). С. 121–127.

Citation:

SleptsovaV. V.Some Judaic attitudes to other religions. Nations and religions of Eurasia.

2019. № 3 (20). P. 121–127.

ISSN 2542-2332 • Nations and religions of Eurasia • 2019 № 3(20). P. 121–127