The ‘Sophiological’ Origins of Vladimir Lossky's Apophaticism
Vladimir Lossky (1903–58) and Sergii Bulgakov (1871–1944) are normally taken as polar opposites in modern Orthodox theology. Lossky's theology is portrayed as being based on a close exegesis of the Greek Fathers with an emphasis on theosis, the Trinity and the apophatic way of mystical union wi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2013
|
| In: |
Scottish journal of theology
Year: 2013, Volume: 66, Issue: 3, Pages: 278-298 |
| Further subjects: | B
Lossky
B Bulgakov B Antinomy B Sophiology B Orthodoxy B Apophaticism |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1817623370 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20220929034922.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220928s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1017/S0036930613000136 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1817623370 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1817623370 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |e VerfasserIn |0 (DE-588)1038246474 |0 (DE-627)756818753 |0 (DE-576)311984673 |4 aut |a Gallaher, Brandon |d 1972- | |
| 109 | |a Gallaher, Brandon 1972- |a Gallaher, Brandon F. 1972- |a Gallaher, Anastassy Brandon 1972- |a Gallaher, Brandon Delville Frederick 1972- |a Gallaher, Anastassy 1972- | ||
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The ‘Sophiological’ Origins of Vladimir Lossky's Apophaticism |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2013 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Vladimir Lossky (1903–58) and Sergii Bulgakov (1871–1944) are normally taken as polar opposites in modern Orthodox theology. Lossky's theology is portrayed as being based on a close exegesis of the Greek Fathers with an emphasis on theosis, the Trinity and the apophatic way of mystical union with God. Bulgakov's ‘sophiology’, in contrast, if it is remembered at all, is said to be a theology which wished to ‘go beyond the Fathers’, was based on German Idealism and the quasi-pantheist and gnostic idea of ‘sophia’ which is a form of the ‘Eternal Feminine’ of Romanticism. In short, Lossky's theological approach is what people normally think of when they speak of Orthodox theology: a form of ‘neo-patristic synthesis’ (Georges Florovsky). Bulgakov's theological approach is said to be typical of the exotic dead end of the inter-war émigré ‘Paris School’ (Alexander Schmemann) or ‘Russian Religious Renaissance’ (Nicolas Zernov). Lossky, we are reminded, was instrumental in the 1935 condemnation, by Metropolitan Sergii Stragorodskii of the Moscow Patriarchate, of Bulgakov's theology as ‘alien’ to the Orthodox Christian faith. Counter to this widely held ‘standard narrative’ of contemporary Orthodox theology, the article argues that the origins of Vladimir Lossky's apophaticism, which he characterised as ‘antinomic theology’, are found within the theological methodology of the sophiology of Sergii Bulgakov: ‘antinomism’. By antinomism is understood that with any theological truth one has two equally necessary affirmations (thesis and antithesis) which are nevertheless logically contradictory. In the face of their conflict, we are forced to hold both thesis and antithesis together through faith. A detailed discussion of Lossky's apophaticism is followed by its comparison to Bulgakov's ‘sophiological antinomism’. Lossky at first appears to be masking the influence of Bulgakov and even goes so far as to read his own form of theological antinomism into the Fathers. Nevertheless, he may well have been consciously appropriating the ‘positive intuitions’ of Bulgakov's thought in order to ‘Orthodoxise’ a thinker he believed was in error but still regarded as the greatest Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century. Despite major differences between the two thinkers (e.g. differing understandings of reason, the use of philosophy and the uncreated/created distinction), it is suggested that Lossky and Bulgakov have more in common than normally is believed to be the case. A critical knowledge of Bulgakov's sophiology is said to be the ‘skeleton key’ for modern Orthodox theology which can help unlock its past, present and future. | ||
| 601 | |a Sophiologie | ||
| 601 | |a Lossky, Vladimir | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Sophiology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Orthodoxy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Lossky | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bulgakov | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Apophaticism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Antinomy | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Scottish journal of theology |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1948 |g 66(2013), 3, Seite 278-298 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)342893688 |w (DE-600)2072577-2 |w (DE-576)097935182 |x 1475-3065 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:66 |g year:2013 |g number:3 |g pages:278-298 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930613000136 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/sophiological-origins-of-vladimir-losskys-apophaticism1/416AC003BE9D0C9E6FEF264471C81E37 |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 66 |j 2013 |e 3 |h 278-298 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4192567261 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1817623370 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220928052622 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220928||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-09-27#4BB6ADF361F7530134D5BD895562268B43EC0958 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||