Shortened text of the section. Full text in ukrainian version.
In this section, we will consider the opinions prevalent in historical science concerning synodikons, and their complete inconsistency and error are shown.
There can not be fictitious names in synodikons
This is false. Exactly can be, and actually are. And that in considerable quantity.
The same names can not repeated in synodikons
This is false. Exactly can be repeated and actually quite often repeated.
The synodikon records were kept in chronological order
In this general formulation, this is not true. And what is true?
Synodikons contain information
from very old times
And this statement in such a general formulation is incorrect.
Synodikon records were kept
in the order of genealogical precedence, or
Synodikons is an important genealogical source
This is false. Any synodikon does not contain some useful for genealogy.
Synodikons contain unique genealogical information
This is false. What is unique in synodikon’s data – is not genealogical, but what is genealogical – is not unique.
Synodikons provide accurate genealogical information
This is false. Often this information experiences great distortions.
Synodikons accurately reflect the composition
of the recorded genera, or
There can not be author’s reconstructions in synodikons
This is false. Exactly can be "reconstructions", and in fact they are.
Synodikon records must write down
parents of record initiators
In this categorical form this is not true. Synodikon records can contain the names of parents, and may not contain them.
Only the dead were recorded in synodikons
In this categorical form this is not true. Recorded persons may be dead, but may be alive at the time of recording in the synod.
Only Orthodox persons were recorded in synodikons
This is false. Could recorded Catholics, and actually recorded them.
For the record in the synodikon one must made contributions to the monastery, or
The conduct of the synodikons was monastery income source
In this categorical form this is not true.