Sophia in the patristic tradition

[Kevin Teo]

I am currently doing some independent study and research on the Sophia tradition in patristics and Byzantine theology. There are a few questions I would like to ask more or less because of my ignorance in this field and matched though with a large degree of passion in wanting to know and understand how this was being understood by the Orthodox church.

What books and sources pertaining to the Church Fathers can I turn to in the case of how they interpreted and understood sophia(wisdom)?

[matt]

One book pops to mind that may be of interest. Oskar Skarsuane's "Incarnation: Myth or Fact?" goes into great detail with wisom, and I think its early patristic use. It certainly covers the bases in terms of the scriptural use of the concept as a christological catagory.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Kevin,

There is no Sophia tradition in patristics & Byzantine theology. It was taken up by certain Orthodox (mainly Russian) thinkers of the late 19th & early 20th centuries but was condemned by the Church of Russia (Moscow Patriarchate)- August 24, 1935 & by the Russian Church Abroad- October 17, 1935.

When we speak of the wisdom of God we mean it as an attribute of the nature of God although of course wisdom is also referred to each Person of the Holy Trinity. In this life of Divine wisdom we are also called to participate- this in turn is an aspect of deification.

The following is from St Dionysios Areopogite (DN 865 B)"Come then if you will and we will celebrate the good & eternal life as wisdom, wisdom itself and, even greater, as giver of subsistence to every wisdom and as beyond be-ing beyond every wisdom and understanding. For God is not only over full of wisdom such that there is no number of his understanding, but He is even founded beyond every logos, intellect, and wisdom. That divine man who is common to us and our teacher has brilliantly conceived this when he says that, 'the foolishness of God is wiser than men.'(1Cor 1:25)"

In Orthodoxy we refer to wisdom both as an aspect of God and as a human virtue; but we need the guidance of divine wisdom so that unintentionally we do not fall into foolishness while speaking of wisdom.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Arsenios]

Kevin wrote:


"What books and sources pertaining to the Church Fathers can I turn to in the case of how they interpreted and understood sophia(wisdom)?"

Forgive me for not knowing much of books and sources - The only one I can think of who talked about Sofia of late that I have actually read is "Being as Communion" [Zizoulas]...

And the underlying theme, as I recall, of Wisdom...
is silence...

Sorry to not be more help...

Arsenios

[Charalambos Andrew Geo]

isn't Christ referred to as the Wisdom of God? i could be incorrectly suggesting but in the liturgy the priest does say "Sophia" "Wisdom".

with love in Christ
Charalambos

[matt]

Christ is indeed the Wisdom of God. I thought that I would write a few things that I have read from Oskar Skarsaune’s “Incarnation: Myth or Fact?” on Christ as the Wisdom and Logos of God. First it is important to remember that Wisdom is the creative thought of God. See also these NT passages and compare them to some OT ones. Heb 1:2-3 to Wisdom 7:26, Col 1:15-20 to Wisdom 7:26, Prov 8:22-23, and Gen 1:1. Also 1 Cor 8:6, Rev 3:14 and Prov 3:19, 8:29-30, and Wisdom 9:2,9 and 8:4. In these passages the preexistence of Christ has a decided shape. Christ is the agent of creation and it is tied with Wisdom by those who knew Him as the Messiah and Lord. Remember too that Gen 1:1 can be read “Through Wisdom, God created heaven and earth” since Wisdom is the Beginning (prov 8:22: “The Lord created [gave birth to] me as the Beginning.”

Secondly, Wisdom was coming to dwell with Israel. See Sirach 24:3-11 and Baruch 3:15-4:4. Of course this is used for Christ as the Logos of the God in John 1:14.


“Jesus appears in roles and functions that burst all previously known categories in Judaism. He was a prophet, but more than a prophet. He was a teacher, but taught with a power and authority completely unknown to the rabbis. He could set His authority alongside of, yes, even ‘over’ God’s authority in the Law. In a Jewish environment zealous for the Law, only one category was large enough to contain this description of Jesus: the category of Wisdom.”

“According to my understanding, there can be no doubt that Jesus conducted Himself in a manner that made it impossible to avoid identifying Him with Wisdom. The sovereign authority with which Jesus conducted Himself towards the Law could not be understood and accepted in a Jewish society zealous for the Law unless it recognized that Jesus belonged to the same theological category as the Law- or, better yet, that He was the one who rightfully belonged there and that the Law had to be understood through Him and not the reverse. But then Jesus would have to be understood as the one who embodied God’s whole plan of salvation. In the same manner as Wisdom and Law had previously done, He had to unite creation and redemption, creation and regeneration, in His own person. He who said of Himself what was usually reserved only for Wisdom and Law could not be understood as anything less than the incarnation of Wisdom.”

“The Jewish concept of Wisdom had also come to involve temple worship, yes, even its expiational aspect. When Jesus, functioning through His words and acts, entered into the role of the Law, sacrificial atonement was central to that Law (Matt 5:23-24). If Jesus was to be the embodiment for the Law and Wisdom of God for His people, it was not so unthinkable that the Wisdom of God had to include the folly of the cross. Then it becomes understood that He who had the characteristic of Wisdom and upheld the world through His powerful word (heb 1:3) also had to be our rightful high priest.”

To shed more light on the Messiah as Wisdom, one could look at the Ethiopic book of Enoch. Tons more can be said abut this, but I would again recommend Skarsaune’s works. He is a leading figure in research into the Jewish backgrounds of Christianity and Christological thought in particular. He is fantastic.
As an aside, St Paul’s and St John’s use of the “apocryphal” books of the Septuagint, and their categories of Wisdom, also may help some of our Protestant friends realize that the early Church had a broader and more organic “acceptance policy” than what many now hold. Put another way, sola scriptura is too Quranic and non-organic to work in light of Christian history in its worship and experience.

[matt]

I may have wsted some time typing my last post. Here is a great summary of much of what I said.

http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_AOA.html


Concerning Wisdom Christology in the Fathers, I think a case can be made for its appearance in underlying form in the apostolic Fathers, Origen, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian (see his Against Praxaes chapters 5-8 and his Apology, chapter 21, ANF3:600.1-603.2; CCL 2:1163.2-1168.34). Theophilus may do the same. Of course they need not be explicit, but rather implicit assumptions based upon their own exposure to and nurturing by early christological categories in use at the time.


Such references should not be confused with Sergei Bulgakov’s sophiology, deemed as heresy by several jurisdictions and criticized by G Florovsky, which some say tended towards making Wisdom the fourth hypostasis of the Trinity. For a complete summary of his sophiology, I suggest the excellent work by Fr. Aidan Nichols, “Light From the East: Authors and Themes in Orthodox Theology”, chapter four. It is the best summary available. Bulgakov’s reprimand at the hands of some of his friends was a major blow to not only him, but to Florovsky as well. Andrew Blaine recalls some of the details in his, “Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman”.

Oscar Cullmann’s “The Christology of the New Testament” is also useful for wisdom in the NT, OT and extra-canonical sources and influences.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Charalambos,

Fr Michael Pomazansky has an essay on Sophianism(from the book Selected Essays, p.167)in which he says,

"The Son of God, as a Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, contains in Himself all the Divine attributes in the same fullness as do the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, as having manifested these attributes to the world in its creation and its salvation, He is called the Hypostatic Wisdom of God. On the same grounds, the Son of God can be called the Hypostatic Love...; the Hypostatic Light...; the Hypostatic Life...;and the Hypostatic Power of God."

At the Liturgy the priest proclaims "Wisdom" (Sophia, Premudrost') before the Prokeimenon & reading of the Epistle, before the Alleluia (in Russian practice) and before the Gospel. About this Nicholas Cabasilas says in Commentary on the Divine Liturgy, "Then he [the priest] calls to mind the wisdom with which they should enter into the holy mysteries and attend to them. What is this wisdom? It is the sum of those thoughts which are in accord with the ceremony, which should occupy those full of faith when they behold and listen to the ceremonies & prayers, so that they are concerned with no purely human sentiment. Such is the wisdom of Christians; that is the meaning of the cry, 'Wisdom' which the priest says to the faithful many times during the liturgy; it is a reminder of these things. Is this not how we stir each others' memories, often by the use of a single word calling a whole sentence to the minds of our listeners?"

It is possible however that the proclamation of 'wisdom' could be interpreted as referring to the Wisdom of Christ immediately before the Gospel. I may have heard of this but do not recall.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matt,

You wrote,"Concerning Wisdom Christology in the Fathers...Origen..."

Probably it was unintentional on your part, but Origen is not considered among the Church Fathers by the Orthodox Church having been condemned at the 5th Ecumenical Council. He was condemned for his teachings about the pre-existance of souls and also about apokatastasis (ie:"that Satan and all the demons will finally return to their former angelic state; that hell is not perpetual , but merely a temporary means for the purgation of sins; and that after this purgation every single man & demon will be reinstated." Melitus).
About Origen, Melitus further explains, "Origen became more famous than anyone else and in word & deed was greatly admired for his mode of living as well as for his great intelligence, his learning, his ability, and his experience. However, his renown, according to Epiphanius, did not remain untarnished until the end; for he proved the author of the great blunder of too much experience." Melitus' explanation for the downfall of Origen (who in much was greatly admired in his time) is basically that he was given too much to idle theological speculation.

In more recent times Origen has been rehabilitated by some of the non-Orthodox along with Nestorius, etc. The idea behind this seems to have been that the Church was too harsh and misunderstanding in its condemnations. Implicit in this was the suggestion that the Church had no 'right' to judge at all. Most contemporary Orthodox now criticise Origen for a too-harsh asceticism and theologically for the idea of 'neccesity' in the Divine nature of God.

I provide this only to try to show how the Church sees Origen, not as a criticism of Matt.
Lastly, about an underlying Wisdom Christology in the fathers. This would be a fascinating discussion I think. From my work on this (mainly through my thesis at seminary) the underlying theme of these fathers (later taken up by St Maximos the Confessor) is a cosmology based on Christ as Pre-eternal Logos, "in Whom and through Whom are all things." Here one could also bring in Clement of Alexandria & St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[matt]

Fr Raphael,

Yes, Origen is not a Father, and would we say the same of Tertullian? Even so, I wonder if he would have had such a bad rap had he not some students who took his ideas and ran with them. ANy speculative and creative person runs the risk of going too far, and as far as I know he never tried to do anything outside of the mind of hte church. And I think that St. Hilary of Poitier said that he would ratehr be wrong with Origen than right with anyone else! Interesting. I am not trying to revive Origen here, but like Nestorius, he wasn't trying to be different than the Church's mind. Correct me if I am getting confused. ANd about the apakatastasis, his main error is that he taught it as a necessity while others, like St Basil (?) said it was a hopeful possibility.

Anyway, much of the sophia issue ties in directly to the Logos identity and I would suggest that anyone interested would at least check out the link I posted a few days ago.
GOd BLess,
Matt

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Fr Raphael, Kevin Teo, Matt and others,

This could become an interesting thread (though I would encourage the emerging Origen discussion--also interesting--to be taken to its own thread, to save on future confusion). A few thoughts:

Firstly, I think that when Fr Raphel notes 'There is no Sophia tradition in patristics & Byzantine theology', he is referring not to a tradition of importance given to Sophia, or the Wisdom of God, but to the matter of so-called 'Sophiology', mentioned by Matt, which was a rather late discussion (19th/20th centuries) and which -- as has already been mentioned -- was condemned by various local councils/synods for veering dangerously close to making Sophia a 'fourth person' of what would then be the 'Holy Quatternity'.

Matt is correct to draw attention to the Wisdom-theology of the early Fathers, which was (and thus still is) a matter of high importance. Those who have a strong interest in this might consider writing (via post) to Dr Marcus Plested at the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge (UK), as I do believe it has been the focus of his ongoing research now for some time.

Matt, the article on Tektonics.org to which you provided a link is interesting, though on my rather swift read-through it seemed to have some rather serious flaws in its analysis of Trinitarian thought (especially as the author there finds parallels in Philo, for example; and Sirach). Still, the fact that it draws attention to the early Church's ready identification of Sophia with the Logos is helpful -- this was current at least as early as Justin, whose whole Logos/Logos-spermatikos theology is reflective of an equation of the Word who became incarnate with the 'Wisdom' of God (keeping in mind that the Greek logos, which we often translate simply 'word', actually has connotations of rationality, reason, intellect, etc., all of which make it a natural partner to sophia).

INXC, Matthew

[Kevin Teo]

Since I am relatively new in my readings to this topic, I think I will keep my post short.

From what little I know of Jewish-Talmudic notions of Wisdom, Wisdom is very much personified as feminine, as in the Book of Proverbs where it is shown crying out to the wise to come to her. This, of course, is typologically contrasted with the strange adulterous woman--the harlot--who forms the opposite to Sophia-Wisdom in the Book itself. Talmudic traditions seem to point very much towards the idea that Wisdom as Wisdom found in God will incarnate in the person of the Messiah, and the idea of Christ the logos as the Sophia of God is very much in continuity with this as it appears.

What I would then try to find out would however be the extent to which figures like Gregory Palamas, Pseudo-Dionysus, and Church Fathers(especially the Greek Church Fathers) took on that issue.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear All,

Yes Matthew S. that is how I meant it- sophiology. To not cause confusion to Kevin I basically just quoted his question about the "Sophia tradition in patristics & Byzantine theology."

I wonder if there is really a direct 'wisdom-theology' in the Fathers? Isn't this a bit abstract and speculative? I am really no expert here but my impression is that Matthew S. is correct in his explanation about the Church's, "ready identification of Sophia with the Logos." This last point is very important- from the early Church onwards we see a focus on Christ as Logos. Christ as the Logos is set in a cosmological framework- all things come from and lead to Him. He is the summation (recapitulation) of all things. Thus I believe for the fathers the primary focus is cosmological & soteriological.

Matt-I am not sure if Tertullian is considered a Church Father or not. He seems to be quoted more favourably than Origen. About Origen- I do not believe he has been condemned only because of the intemperance of his students (eg:Evagrius). As you point out there were a number of Church fathers who deeply respected Origen. He was condemned for his teachings about the pre-existance of souls & concerning apokatastasis- also at a certain point (I believe after his death) one comes across many monastic criticisms of his excessive ascetic teaching. Of course I do not know the inner workings of his mind or his deepest motivations but I think the condemnation of the 5th Ecumenical Council puts the balance towards some sort of willful wandering astray in his speculations. Seen within the larger context of the Church's thinking at this time these two teachings of his do seem strange and unique to himself.

About apokatastasis: yes the main theological error is posting neccesity in God's nature. But some like St Gregory of Nyssa (I am not sure about St Basil) also held to apokatastasis. Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos writes that the teaching of St Gregory is actually different from Origen's, in that St Gregory means a final RESOLUTION of all things in Christ; not the disappearance of hell.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Hussam X]

Fr. Raphael,

how does the EO church view theologians like Fr.Sergei Bulgakov who is famous for his contributions to the teaching of sophiology ?

Regards.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Hussam X,

Following along with what has has been written above I would say that that sophiology as a modern speculative teaching is deeply mistrusted to the point of being openly condemned as heretical by some Orthodox churches and otherwise ignored by others. I would say that in Orthodoxy at present we tend to stress wisdom more as a gift that can only come from God- a virtue connected to discernment which we are all in need of in order to have a fruitful spiritual life.

Specifically as to your question: "how does the EO church view theologians like Fr.Sergei Bulgakov who is famous for his contributions to the teaching of sophiology ?"

Following the exact way in which you ask this- this is just my sense of things- but I think as time passes we tend to appreciate the personal struggles and insights of these 20th century churchmen (generically used- I'm including women also http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif Olympiada!) despite any occasional slip-ups.

Fr Alexander Elchaninov is a good example of this. In his Diary of a Russian Priest there are one or two passages that could be strongly objected to as being speculative- there is however a real depth & fire to the book.

Perhaps as time passes these writers who represent a particular time, place & even culture within the Church can be seen with more balance than was possible in the past.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

I'm not Fr Raphael, however, I can tell you that sophiology is considered to be a heretical teaching by the Orthodox Church. Fr S Bulgakov has written quite a bit of theological work, but his writings on sophiology are considered to be heretical and are rejected by the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Olga]

You are quite right, Fr David. Also considered heretical are the "icons" of Holy Wisdom, and its variation Angel of Great Council/Holy Silence, where a Christ figure is depicted as an androgynous or obviously female winged figure. Christ must only be depicted in His "historic" form, i.e. as a man, as he was during His earthly life, and not in symbolic form such as a lamb, a fish, or a winged figure representing Holy Wisdom. Iconographic canons which rule on this go back at least as far back as St John of Damascus's treatise, and various councils over the centuries, of ecumenical and local status, have also confirmed this. Yet to this day, such images continue to be produced, in the same way that Orthodox and non-Orthodox religious writers persist in promoting this notion of "the divine feminine". I would be happy to make available articles I have on this subject to anyone who is interested, please feel free to email me privately.

[Olympiada]

> I'm not Fr Raphael, however, I can tell you that sophiology is considered= to > be a heretical teaching by the Orthodox Church. Fr S Bulgakov has written > quite a bit of theological work, but his writings on sophiology are consi= dered > to be heretical and are rejected by the Church. >=20 > Fr David Moser=20 >=20 > Where can I find Fr S Bulgakov=B9s writings on sophiology? > In Christ > Olympiada

[Scott Pierson]

Christ must only be depicted in His "historic" form, i.e. as a man, as he was during His earthly life, and not in symbolic form such as a lamb, a fish, or a winged figure representing Holy Wisdom. Iconographic canons which rule on this go back at least as far back as St John of Damascus's treatise,

I remember reading on a few occasions that the early Christians identified themselves with fish symbols and that the lamb symbol was also used fairly early on. Where these used in a way differing from the way the cannons prohibit? Could they possible have been early errors that later canons cracked down on? I notice the Latins often use Lamb and Fish symbols to symbolize Christ.

[Mina Soliman]

Dear all,

Forgive me for ressurrecting this thread. I just have one question. I'm confused about the tradition of St. Sophia. The "Hagia Sopia," what was this great cathedral named after? An aspect, an "energy" of God, or an actual martyr/saint named Sophia (as is recorded in the Coptic tradition)?

God bless.

Mina

[Dane E. Ryan]

I think some of the Syrian Fathers used "Wisdom" to designate the Holy Spirit and "Word" to designate the Son. Of course the Son is the one identified in the New Testament by St. Paul, that doesn't mean this usage is exaustive of others I don't think though. It seems to me that this might indicate a wider sophiological patrisic Tradition then simply for Christology.