What do you think?
Rate this book
Sophia: The Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology
“[Bulgakov] was a torchbearer for what was coming to be called Sophiology .... His championship for Sophia was clearly an attempt to revitalize Orthodoxy and to reestablish the spirit of the divine feminine so that the Church should not remain off-balanced by its Christocentric view.” ― Caitlin Matthews , Sophia, Goddess of Wisdom There is a great hunger to recover the feminine aspect of the Divinity. But much searching has left Christians disappointed and seeking the "Goddess" elsewhere. In this brave theological work, Bulgakov shows how the Divine Sophia, in whom all things are created, is present in the Holy Trinity itself and how, as the "creaturely Sophia," she works together with her divine counterpart in the work of the Holy Spirit for the redemption of the world.
224 pages, Paperback
First published March 15, 1993
7 people are currently reading
374 people want to read
About the author
Sergius Bulgakov
54 books64 followersSergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (/bʊlˈɡɑːkəf/;[1] Russian: Серге́й Никола́евич Булга́ков; 28 July [O.S. 16 July] 1871 – 13 July 1944) was a Russian Orthodox Christian theologian, philosopher, and economist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
November 14, 2019
Originally published in 1937, this introduction to the philosophy of Sophiology is very good and VERY ACADEMIC. The language is dated and dense, but the ideas are well outlined and explained. I’ve always learned about Sophia as the personified wisdom of God and one of the (many) feminine characterizations of God in the Old Testament. This book presented an Eastern Orthodox analysis of the importance and prominence of Sophia and greatly expanded my knowledge. It is well worth the effort but plan on taking your time in order to process the author’s scholarship.
Read
August 4, 2011Sophia the Wisdom of God: An Outline of Sophiology
Sergei Bulgakov attempts to restate Trinitarian theology using Sophianic categories. While his conclusions, much less his arguments, appear esoteric and even heretical at times (though I will maintain and try to show he is within Orthodoxy), he asks questions about Trinitarianism, Christology, and Creation that have to be answered. He phrases the problems on the horns of a dilemma: for example, what is the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity? (or one could substitute the two natures of Christ, God and creation, etc). Most answers in church history have either said there is no relation between the persons (ending in a weird sort of Trinitarian Nestorianism) or positing some relation between them but they are not able to show how this new relation, a third-term, isn’t itself a new hypostasis of the Trinity. Bulgakov attempts to correct that.
A few more words about “third term aporias” (e.g., what was stated above). All philosophical and theological systems, especially the latter, have to deal with them. Plato struggled to say how the forms related to the particulars. It is the tension between an absolute perfect God (being) and created reality (becoming). Many evangelical and Reformed theologians will say that God created the world, not from any lack in himself, but out of love and beauty. That’s true, but that’s more an illustration than an explanation. Anyway, it’s step four or so in the argument, and by no means self-evident. Reformed philosopher Scott Oliphint helpfully explains the problem: “More specificially, once God determines to bring into existence something that is contingent, finite, and of a different metaphysical order than himself, the relationship of that existence to his own becomes a problem (Reasons for Faith, 212ff). If that is so, then before one critiques Bulgakov for fanciful and dangerous reflection, consider the problem before us (and it doesn’t just involve God and creation, but the two natures of Christ and the three persons of the Trinity).
In short, he argues that the “divinity in God constitutes the divine Sophia (glory), while at the same time we also assume that it is the ousia: ousia = Sophia = glory” (33). The task before Bulgakov is to show how Sophia is distinct from the hypostases yet cannot exist apart from them while eternally being enhypostasized. Through dense reflection, Bulgakov comes to the conclusion that Sophia, the principle of God, is non-hypostatic but capable of being eternally hypostasized at any moment (35). This is important because Bulgakov rebuts the charge that his construction of Sophia is a “fourth hypostasis.” I think he is successful in that but not always clear.
Bulgakov spends the rest of the book showing how Sophia illuminates Creation, Christology, Mariology, and the Church. Some chapters are better argued than others are. However, he makes a very important move in his chapter on Creation. Bulgakov sets forth the conundrum like this: “is the content of the life of the world something new for God himself, which was unknown to him prior to creation…” or is creation simply identified with God (63)? If we say the former, then we have to see creation as a self-revelation for God himself. If we accept the latter, then we are pantheists. Bulgakov maintains, in order to avoid these horns, that God creates the world out of the abundance of his own divine resources (63). But isn’t this pantheism, too? No, for “the creature [or creation] is distinct from the deity itself not in respect of the source of its being [doesn’t St Paul say ‘in him we live and move and have our very being?’], but only in respect of the particular mode of its reception of that being” (61). Some would say, “That’s still pantheism.” Fair enough. St Paul, too, is a pantheist (Acts 17:28, especially ‘we are his offspring’). Anyway, Bulgakov is simply repeating the Fathers, especially Maximus and Gregory of Nazianzus. This means that creation is divinely charged with the Glory of God (English lyrical poetry says as much).
Analysis
Pros: Bulgakov shows us the “interconnectedness” of the Christian faith. If one talks about Trinity then one is speaking also about creation, salvation, and the Church. This is where the East has routinely outperformed the West. It is refreshing to open a small dogmatic treatises (Bulgakov would renounce the word!) and move straight into Trinity and Worship. This openly Trinitarian and doxological approach seems to allow Bulgakov to deal with thorny ontological problems with apparent ease.
Cons: It’s easy to see how Bulgakov was thought heretical! Even though I gave him a charitable reading, and even though I believe he defended himself ably, he was skating on very dangerous ground. One objection commonly brought against sophiology is this: “Is it even necessary?” Fair enough. If one comes to the table with specifically Western frameworks and asks only the questions found in a Western treatise, then no, Sophiology is not necessary. But is the Western reading the only one?
Sergei Bulgakov attempts to restate Trinitarian theology using Sophianic categories. While his conclusions, much less his arguments, appear esoteric and even heretical at times (though I will maintain and try to show he is within Orthodoxy), he asks questions about Trinitarianism, Christology, and Creation that have to be answered. He phrases the problems on the horns of a dilemma: for example, what is the relationship between the three persons of the Trinity? (or one could substitute the two natures of Christ, God and creation, etc). Most answers in church history have either said there is no relation between the persons (ending in a weird sort of Trinitarian Nestorianism) or positing some relation between them but they are not able to show how this new relation, a third-term, isn’t itself a new hypostasis of the Trinity. Bulgakov attempts to correct that.
A few more words about “third term aporias” (e.g., what was stated above). All philosophical and theological systems, especially the latter, have to deal with them. Plato struggled to say how the forms related to the particulars. It is the tension between an absolute perfect God (being) and created reality (becoming). Many evangelical and Reformed theologians will say that God created the world, not from any lack in himself, but out of love and beauty. That’s true, but that’s more an illustration than an explanation. Anyway, it’s step four or so in the argument, and by no means self-evident. Reformed philosopher Scott Oliphint helpfully explains the problem: “More specificially, once God determines to bring into existence something that is contingent, finite, and of a different metaphysical order than himself, the relationship of that existence to his own becomes a problem (Reasons for Faith, 212ff). If that is so, then before one critiques Bulgakov for fanciful and dangerous reflection, consider the problem before us (and it doesn’t just involve God and creation, but the two natures of Christ and the three persons of the Trinity).
In short, he argues that the “divinity in God constitutes the divine Sophia (glory), while at the same time we also assume that it is the ousia: ousia = Sophia = glory” (33). The task before Bulgakov is to show how Sophia is distinct from the hypostases yet cannot exist apart from them while eternally being enhypostasized. Through dense reflection, Bulgakov comes to the conclusion that Sophia, the principle of God, is non-hypostatic but capable of being eternally hypostasized at any moment (35). This is important because Bulgakov rebuts the charge that his construction of Sophia is a “fourth hypostasis.” I think he is successful in that but not always clear.
Bulgakov spends the rest of the book showing how Sophia illuminates Creation, Christology, Mariology, and the Church. Some chapters are better argued than others are. However, he makes a very important move in his chapter on Creation. Bulgakov sets forth the conundrum like this: “is the content of the life of the world something new for God himself, which was unknown to him prior to creation…” or is creation simply identified with God (63)? If we say the former, then we have to see creation as a self-revelation for God himself. If we accept the latter, then we are pantheists. Bulgakov maintains, in order to avoid these horns, that God creates the world out of the abundance of his own divine resources (63). But isn’t this pantheism, too? No, for “the creature [or creation] is distinct from the deity itself not in respect of the source of its being [doesn’t St Paul say ‘in him we live and move and have our very being?’], but only in respect of the particular mode of its reception of that being” (61). Some would say, “That’s still pantheism.” Fair enough. St Paul, too, is a pantheist (Acts 17:28, especially ‘we are his offspring’). Anyway, Bulgakov is simply repeating the Fathers, especially Maximus and Gregory of Nazianzus. This means that creation is divinely charged with the Glory of God (English lyrical poetry says as much).
Analysis
Pros: Bulgakov shows us the “interconnectedness” of the Christian faith. If one talks about Trinity then one is speaking also about creation, salvation, and the Church. This is where the East has routinely outperformed the West. It is refreshing to open a small dogmatic treatises (Bulgakov would renounce the word!) and move straight into Trinity and Worship. This openly Trinitarian and doxological approach seems to allow Bulgakov to deal with thorny ontological problems with apparent ease.
Cons: It’s easy to see how Bulgakov was thought heretical! Even though I gave him a charitable reading, and even though I believe he defended himself ably, he was skating on very dangerous ground. One objection commonly brought against sophiology is this: “Is it even necessary?” Fair enough. If one comes to the table with specifically Western frameworks and asks only the questions found in a Western treatise, then no, Sophiology is not necessary. But is the Western reading the only one?
September 2, 2019
I’d have to read though this at least one more time to fully grasp some of the arguments, especially the first few chapters. Bulgakov’s idea of the under-theorization of the Ousia was striking, however.
Many paragraphs seemed repetitive, and I’m not sure if this has more to do with the translation into English , or the dense, thorny writing that seems to me to characterize much Russian trinitarian theology (Lossky, etc.)
Many paragraphs seemed repetitive, and I’m not sure if this has more to do with the translation into English , or the dense, thorny writing that seems to me to characterize much Russian trinitarian theology (Lossky, etc.)
September 28, 2019
I would respectively disagree on a few points, but it would lead to some great discussions.
January 30, 2021
This is a very subjective review because mostly it just wasn’t what I expected. I thought it would include more history of how the idea of Sophia came to be, but it was a theological proof text mathematically proving her existence in Eastern Orthodox dogma.
June 28, 2023
Not sure I’m any closer to understanding sophiology or what exactly Ousia-Sophia is, but Bulgakov is characteristically compelling to read.
January 20, 2025
Very interesting overview of Bulgakov’s controversial thesis regarding the divine Wisdom of God - Sophia. I’d say it read as pretty Orthodox all things considered, but there’s probably some issues in the minutia of the Christology which is often beyond me. He makes frequent reference to the Fathers as well as the Ecumenical Councils, so it wouldn’t seem this is a willful subversion of existing theology, maybe more of a new way of communicating the same ideas. It didn’t ring as totally alien to me, but it did get pretty dense, which given the length is a blessing. I’ll definitely read more of Fr Bulgakovs work, I feel like there’s something there, although I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone.
March 7, 2025
It is difficult to say if I fully agree with the theology of Bulgakov here, but it is safe to say that it sprouted a full set of ideas and got me thinking deeply about theology while reading. This is an achievement of a great book, and it did not loose me. He is soundly within the noms of theological thinking, able to explain in an educated way, what is needed in order to set the land about Sophilogoy, the theology of Sophia, the Wisdom of God. It does need some pre-theological knowledge - I mean, one should know about the trinity and the debate that formed it, even if Bulgakov gives us a short recap it can be too much to take in if it is the first time you are peeking into the credal formation of the Church. This is Trinity 2.0.
April 18, 2023
Despite what the summary on the back cover might lead you to believe, this book is not some unhinged attempt at making Sophia into a new goddess. Instead, this a very good introduction into Trinitarian theology. Bulgakov is Orthodox, but fairly displays and discusses Catholic positions.
A short and very worthwhile read.
A short and very worthwhile read.
May 17, 2023
More like a 2.5 for me. I can see both Bulgakov and Florovsky's points, and while I'm hesitant to say it's irrelevant to the Christian life, it feels maybe peripheral?? In any case I'm not smart enough to really delve into this fully and pick a side, so I'll have to return to this later and settle with a 2.5 for now.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews