03 — What Sophiology Claims

Before the condemnations can be understood, the doctrine must be. This section expounds Bulgakov’s sophiology accurately and charitably, in his own terms and from his own texts: where the Wisdom tradition came from (Scripture, the Fathers, Russian iconography, Solovyov, Florensky), what Bulgakov actually asserted about Divine Sophia and creaturely Sophia, what he explicitly denied, and where the difficulties lie that his critics pressed.

Tradition: Russian Orthodox (emigration) — expounding Fr. Sergius Bulgakov’s own theology, not the dogma of the Orthodox Church

A Necessary Warning

Sophiology is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. It is Bulgakov’s theological work, and the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad both acted against it in 1935 (see Section 05). Nothing in this section should be read as the Church’s dogma. What this section provides is an accurate account of the position, which is a precondition both of taking the condemnation seriously and of reading the modern reappraisal intelligently.

The reason for putting exposition before condemnation is stated in the master README and is worth repeating: sophiology is routinely described in one line — “a fourth hypostasis,” “a divine feminine principle,” “pantheism” — and Bulgakov denied all three descriptions in print, at length, and repeatedly. Whether his denials succeed is exactly the disputed question. A reader who has not seen the denials cannot weigh the charge.

Files in This Section

File Description
The Sources of Sophiology Proverbs 8 and the Wisdom books; the patristic identification of Wisdom with Christ; Hagia Sophia and the Novgorod icon; Solovyov’s vseedinstvo and Sophia; Florensky; German idealism and Schelling
Divine Sophia and Creaturely Sophia The doctrine itself: Sophia as the ousia revealed, the two Sophias, Sophia and the three Persons, Sophia and creation, and what Bulgakov explicitly denied

See Also