What do you think?
Rate this book
The Christian Tradition #2
The Christian Tradition 2: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom 600-1700
The line that separated Eastern Christendom from Western on the medieval map is similar to the "iron curtain" of recent times. Linguistic barriers, political divisions, and liturgical differences combined to isolate the two cultures from each other. Except for such episodes as the schism between East and West or the Crusades, the development of non-Western Christendom has been largely ignored by church historians. In The Spirit of Eastern Christendom , Jaroslav Pelikan explains the divisions between Eastern and Western Christendom, and identifies and describes the development of the distinctive forms taken by Christian doctrine in its Greek, Syriac, and early Slavic expression.
"It is a pleasure to salute this masterpiece of exposition. . . . The book flows like a great river, slipping easily past landscapes of the utmost diversity—the great Christological controversies of the seventh century, the debate on icons in the eighth and ninth, attitudes to Jews, to Muslims, to the dualistic heresies of the high Middle Ages, to the post-Reformation churches of Western Europe. . . . His book succeeds in being a study of the Eastern Christian religion as a whole."—Peter Brown and Sabine MacCormack, New York Review of Books
"The second volume of Professor Pelikan's monumental work on The Christian Tradition is the most comprehensive historical treatment of Eastern Christian thought from 600 to 1700, written in recent years. . . . Pelikan's reinterpretation is a major scholarly and ecumenical event."—John Meyendorff
"Displays the same mastery of ancient and modern theological literature, the same penetrating analytical clarity and balanced presentation of conflicting contentions, that made its predecessor such an intellectual treat."— Virgina Quarterly Review
"It is a pleasure to salute this masterpiece of exposition. . . . The book flows like a great river, slipping easily past landscapes of the utmost diversity—the great Christological controversies of the seventh century, the debate on icons in the eighth and ninth, attitudes to Jews, to Muslims, to the dualistic heresies of the high Middle Ages, to the post-Reformation churches of Western Europe. . . . His book succeeds in being a study of the Eastern Christian religion as a whole."—Peter Brown and Sabine MacCormack, New York Review of Books
"The second volume of Professor Pelikan's monumental work on The Christian Tradition is the most comprehensive historical treatment of Eastern Christian thought from 600 to 1700, written in recent years. . . . Pelikan's reinterpretation is a major scholarly and ecumenical event."—John Meyendorff
"Displays the same mastery of ancient and modern theological literature, the same penetrating analytical clarity and balanced presentation of conflicting contentions, that made its predecessor such an intellectual treat."— Virgina Quarterly Review
329 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
26 people are currently reading
988 people want to read
About the author
Jaroslav Pelikan
176 books132 followersJaroslav Jan Pelikan was born in Akron, Ohio, to a Slovak father and mother, Jaroslav Jan Pelikan Sr. and Anna Buzekova Pelikan. His father was pastor of Trinity Slovak Lutheran Church in Chicago, Illinois, and his paternal grandfather a bishop of the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches then known as the Slovak Lutheran Church in America.
According to family members, Pelikan's mother taught him how to use a typewriter when he was three years old, as he could not yet hold a pen properly but wanted to write. A polyglot, Pelikan's facility with languages may be traced to his multilingual childhood and early training. That linguistic facility was to serve him in the career he ultimately chose (after contemplating becoming a concert pianist)--as a historian of Christian doctrine. He did not confine his studies to Roman Catholic and Protestant theological history, but also embraced that of the Christian East.
In 1946 when he was 22, he earned both a seminary degree from Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri and a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago.
Pelikan wrote more than 30 books, including the five-volume The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (1971–1989). Some of his later works attained crossover appeal, reaching beyond the scholarly sphere into the general reading public (notably, Mary Through the Centuries, Jesus Through the Centuries and Whose Bible Is It?).
His 1984 book The Vindication of Tradition gave rise to an often quoted one liner. In an interview in U.S. News & World Report (June 26, 1989), he said: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide.
"Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."
According to family members, Pelikan's mother taught him how to use a typewriter when he was three years old, as he could not yet hold a pen properly but wanted to write. A polyglot, Pelikan's facility with languages may be traced to his multilingual childhood and early training. That linguistic facility was to serve him in the career he ultimately chose (after contemplating becoming a concert pianist)--as a historian of Christian doctrine. He did not confine his studies to Roman Catholic and Protestant theological history, but also embraced that of the Christian East.
In 1946 when he was 22, he earned both a seminary degree from Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri and a Ph.D. at the University of Chicago.
Pelikan wrote more than 30 books, including the five-volume The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (1971–1989). Some of his later works attained crossover appeal, reaching beyond the scholarly sphere into the general reading public (notably, Mary Through the Centuries, Jesus Through the Centuries and Whose Bible Is It?).
His 1984 book The Vindication of Tradition gave rise to an often quoted one liner. In an interview in U.S. News & World Report (June 26, 1989), he said: "Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition lives in conversation with the past, while remembering where we are and when we are and that it is we who have to decide.
"Traditionalism supposes that nothing should ever be done for the first time, so all that is needed to solve any problem is to arrive at the supposedly unanimous testimony of this homogenized tradition."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
August 19, 2023
I wish this entire series was better known and more widely read. I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that my life was transformed as I worked through this series (not in order after volume 1). Encountering the broad sweep of Christian doctrine as it developed across the centuries and across significant divides (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) has both broadened and deepened my understanding and appreciation of “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).
February 19, 2018
In this volume Pelikan gives a thorough introduction and analysis of Christendom's exotic brother: The ancient Eastern Orthodox Church. Given Pelikan's overall project, doctrine can't be said to "develop" for the East in the same way it did for Rome and Protestantism. Pelikan covers the main areas of disagreement or distinction: tradition, Christology, icons, the challenge of Rome, the challenge of other Eastern monotheisms, and the fading and resurrection of Byzantine thought.
Pelikan's first chapter on traditions is in many ways a string of quotations from St Maximus the Confessor, arguing that the Orthodox does not change the content of the faith, but simply receives it from the fathers who have passed it down. And for the east the content of the faith, the definition of salvation, is deification.
Pelikan's next chapter is a survey of Christological disputes, or more particularly it showed the disagreements and implications for the post-Chalcedonian world.
His chapter on "The Challenge of Rome" is fair and balanced. He points out that Rome was on the "orthodox" side in every council (though he rebuts a common Catholic claim that the Pope called every council). Therefore, Rome's authority and honor cannot be dismissed so easily. This leads into discussions of the Filioque. While Rome may have had more impressive theologians, the Orthodox rightly pointed out that the Pope had no authority to insert that phrase into the clause.
The chapter on "the Vindication of Trinitarian Monotheism" was the best. We see how the Orthodox responded to a number of different attacks, varying in intelligence, yet holding the same ground on every line: the good God, the creator of the world, is Triune and also the redeemer of th world. Thus, the Orthodox would use that to respond to Judaism, Islam, and Manicheanism (Bogomils et al). The response to the Bogomils was the best.
Pelikan follows with a suprisingly brief discussion of St Gregory Palamas. In any case Palamas theology is vindicated as the theology of light. Also noted is a helpful few paragraphs on the "essence/energies" distinction. However, at this time Byzantium was fading politically. As she was overrun by the Muslim hordes, she passed on her faith to daughter Russia. The conversion of the Slavs and the earlier invention of the Cyrillic alphabet was a unique moment in Missions history. Sts Cyril and Methodius were able to facilitate a conversion to a faith without drowning national identity (something that would become a very Russian idea). This is unlike Rome, who would often convert by force and pressure and impose a foreign-language liturgy on the populace.
All in all, a good book.
Pelikan's first chapter on traditions is in many ways a string of quotations from St Maximus the Confessor, arguing that the Orthodox does not change the content of the faith, but simply receives it from the fathers who have passed it down. And for the east the content of the faith, the definition of salvation, is deification.
Pelikan's next chapter is a survey of Christological disputes, or more particularly it showed the disagreements and implications for the post-Chalcedonian world.
His chapter on "The Challenge of Rome" is fair and balanced. He points out that Rome was on the "orthodox" side in every council (though he rebuts a common Catholic claim that the Pope called every council). Therefore, Rome's authority and honor cannot be dismissed so easily. This leads into discussions of the Filioque. While Rome may have had more impressive theologians, the Orthodox rightly pointed out that the Pope had no authority to insert that phrase into the clause.
The chapter on "the Vindication of Trinitarian Monotheism" was the best. We see how the Orthodox responded to a number of different attacks, varying in intelligence, yet holding the same ground on every line: the good God, the creator of the world, is Triune and also the redeemer of th world. Thus, the Orthodox would use that to respond to Judaism, Islam, and Manicheanism (Bogomils et al). The response to the Bogomils was the best.
Pelikan follows with a suprisingly brief discussion of St Gregory Palamas. In any case Palamas theology is vindicated as the theology of light. Also noted is a helpful few paragraphs on the "essence/energies" distinction. However, at this time Byzantium was fading politically. As she was overrun by the Muslim hordes, she passed on her faith to daughter Russia. The conversion of the Slavs and the earlier invention of the Cyrillic alphabet was a unique moment in Missions history. Sts Cyril and Methodius were able to facilitate a conversion to a faith without drowning national identity (something that would become a very Russian idea). This is unlike Rome, who would often convert by force and pressure and impose a foreign-language liturgy on the populace.
All in all, a good book.
December 19, 2021
Religiobibliophagia
If, as Bacon said, "Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested," then volume 2 of Pelikan's history of Christian doctrine -- like the other volumes in the series -- defines the latter appellation. This is a book that should occupy a place in every Christian's library; combined with the other volumes, one could spend a lifetime alone going over the hundreds of primary and secondary sources that each volume references.
It is is a humbling undertaking to write a review, or even a synopsis, of any of Pelikan's books: what more possibly could be said? One has the feeling of sacrilege, as if trying to add a book to the Bible. Volume 2 addresses the growing importance the church placed on tradition; iconography; the Filioque controversy; the Trinity; the rise of Islam; and "the final break with Western doctrine," amongst other topics. Like volume 1, there is a density of prose that somehow seems necessary given the prolix subject matter -- perhaps akin to the necessity of force-feeding geese for foie gras (minus any of the negative connotations).
There are authors whom one simply must read when presented with one of their books, and Pelikan is one of them. While the firehose of information is not what one would call "easy reading," continued chewing and digestion will reward the reader for years to come.
April 27, 2019
I finally understand the difference between and the significance of the various christological heresies of the 400's through 600's. Pelikan is the only person who helped me do this. An incredible volume.
October 12, 2022
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) Volume 2, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Print Edition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1974. 329 pp. $22.50
The doctrines of Eastern Christendom can be difficult for us in the West to comprehend. Their use of mysticism and apophatic theology make it difficult to know what they believe. Jaroslav Pelikan, the Sterling Professor of History at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and once a Lutheran pastor who converted to the laity of the Eastern Orthodox church, has sought to give Westerners a glimpse into the doctrinal developments of Eastern Orthodoxy starting in the 7th century and ending in the 18th century. In his book The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) Volume 2, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Pelikan clearly demonstrates a mastery about Eastern thought as it developed through that period while also attempting to give the western reader a deeper understanding of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
The doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy and its development has in many ways been neglected by the West, mainly because many Western historians viewed Eastern Orthodoxy as a capitulation to state run religion or changeless in a desire to resist novelty. Pelikan’s desire is to give “Ex Oriente lux” (out of the east, light) to Western readers. He readily admits writing this “for Western readers and in a Western Context.” (p. 7). Pelikan overall thesis is to demonstrate to Western readers that Eastern Orthodox theology has developed from A.D. 600 to A.D. 1700 in patristic authority, Christology, iconoclasm, relations with Rome, and trinitarian monotheism that set the stage for the final break with the West and development of what makes them different.
Pelikan begins the book by clarifying Eastern Orthodox views on salvation, doctrine, church councils, and mystical theology, demonstrating the authority structure of Orthodoxy (chapter one). He then develops the Christological debate going on in Eastern thought dealing with the union and division in Christ (chapter two). In chapter three Pelikan walks us through the iconoclast debate by developing both sides of the argument. Pelikan uses chapter four to expound on the developments that lead to the Great Schism of A.D. 1054. He then explains how the Eastern church battled Judaic, Islamic, and philosophical influences in maintaining a trinitarian monotheism (chapter five). Finally in chapter six Pelikan explains how these developments in Eastern doctrine led to a “flowering of Byzantine Orthodoxy” (pg. 252) in response to Rome and the Protestant Reformation.
In chapter one Pelikan is helpful in explaining the authority structure of Eastern Orthodoxy as the Scriptures, the church fathers, and the seven councils. In fuller detail it is not that one exceeds the other, but that each is needed to rightly understand the other. He reminds the Western reader that Orthodoxy views salvation as deification, the process making it possible for one to bear divine light in the world. Pelikan should be commended for his effort at making the Eastern Orthodox use of apophatic (negative) theology less ambiguous to Western readers. Apophatic theology is the use of statements that demonstrate what something is not, though there are uses for this type of theology it makes it difficult for a reader to know what something is when all you are stating is what it is not. That said Pelikan seeks to help Western audiences have a glimpse into the Orthodox understanding of God this way. Due to the ambiguous nature of apophatic theology this makes this chapter the most difficult in comprehending Eastern thought.
Chapter two helps the Western reader understand the Christological issues that faced the Eastern church. The issue within the Eastern church was about union and division in Christ. Pelikan helpfully identifies the three groups debating this topic. The Monophysites believed in one hypostasis and one nature, the Melchites (Chalcedonians) believed in one hypostasis and two natures, while the “so-called Nestorians” (g. 49) held to the view that Christ was one person with a dual hypostasis and nature. The strength of this chapter is once again a better clarity to the Eastern churches heavy use of apophatic theology.
Pelikan uses chapter three to explain the iconoclastic controversy. This is a most helpful chapter for anyone seeking to understand this debate as it transpired in the Eastern church. The iconophiles argued that these images were not adored but honored in worship. That the images can help the worshiper better understand a divine reality through a more concrete physical reality. The iconophiles termed this the melody of theology. Pelikan explains that it was at the core of their liturgical doctrine and practice.
In chapter four Pelikan highlights the main differences that lead to the Great Schism of A.D. 1054. He rightly argues that this schism did not just happen in A.D. 1054 but that it was a development over time. Pelikan explains that the Eastern church took issue with Rome’s claim to be right in all its decisions, apostolic succession, papal primacy, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, original sin, and the Filioque clause added to the Nicene creed by Rome. Pelikan section on the Filioque clause clarifies the differences between Eastern and Western thought.
Pelikan delves into the apologist response of Eastern Orthodoxy about its belief in trinitarian monotheism. He explains how the Orthodox church used the Shema to defend the trinity against Judaism, battled dualism and asceticism, confronted Islam concerning monotheism and Jesus as the prophet predicted by Moses, and finally how philosophy (especially Platonian) could be helpful in defending trinitarian monotheism. His explanation of how the Eastern Orthodox church has used Platonian philosophy, clarifies their mystic theology. In chapter six Pelikan describes how these developments in doctrine through the centuries lead the Eastern Orthodox to a final “flowering” from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries. Pelikan explains that apophatic theology is embraced by the Eastern church to protect the impassability of God. This emphasis Pelikan argues lead to an elevated importance of personal religious experiences in Eastern Orthodoxy. He explains that this “flowering” is not new but a redefinition of what the Eastern Orthodox church has believed all along. Pelikan ends the chapter by pointing to the Russian Orthodox church as the heir apparent as the third Rome, which he further elaborates on in a later volume.
In his desire to bring light from the east Pelikan succeeds in some ways yet fails in others. He has given a better understanding to the doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy and how it has developed over time, but due to the ambiguous nature of apophatic theology it is still difficult at times to know what Orthodoxy believes. Pelikan has worked hard to make this work readable and helpful to various Western audiences. I would not hesitate in recommending this work to serious students of church history seeking to understand the development of thought in Eastern Orthodoxy. What makes Pelikan’s work so readable is that he lays out the development of these doctrinally ideas in the Eastern church as if you are watching the debates happen throughout time.
The doctrines of Eastern Christendom can be difficult for us in the West to comprehend. Their use of mysticism and apophatic theology make it difficult to know what they believe. Jaroslav Pelikan, the Sterling Professor of History at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, and once a Lutheran pastor who converted to the laity of the Eastern Orthodox church, has sought to give Westerners a glimpse into the doctrinal developments of Eastern Orthodoxy starting in the 7th century and ending in the 18th century. In his book The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700) Volume 2, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Pelikan clearly demonstrates a mastery about Eastern thought as it developed through that period while also attempting to give the western reader a deeper understanding of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine.
The doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy and its development has in many ways been neglected by the West, mainly because many Western historians viewed Eastern Orthodoxy as a capitulation to state run religion or changeless in a desire to resist novelty. Pelikan’s desire is to give “Ex Oriente lux” (out of the east, light) to Western readers. He readily admits writing this “for Western readers and in a Western Context.” (p. 7). Pelikan overall thesis is to demonstrate to Western readers that Eastern Orthodox theology has developed from A.D. 600 to A.D. 1700 in patristic authority, Christology, iconoclasm, relations with Rome, and trinitarian monotheism that set the stage for the final break with the West and development of what makes them different.
Pelikan begins the book by clarifying Eastern Orthodox views on salvation, doctrine, church councils, and mystical theology, demonstrating the authority structure of Orthodoxy (chapter one). He then develops the Christological debate going on in Eastern thought dealing with the union and division in Christ (chapter two). In chapter three Pelikan walks us through the iconoclast debate by developing both sides of the argument. Pelikan uses chapter four to expound on the developments that lead to the Great Schism of A.D. 1054. He then explains how the Eastern church battled Judaic, Islamic, and philosophical influences in maintaining a trinitarian monotheism (chapter five). Finally in chapter six Pelikan explains how these developments in Eastern doctrine led to a “flowering of Byzantine Orthodoxy” (pg. 252) in response to Rome and the Protestant Reformation.
In chapter one Pelikan is helpful in explaining the authority structure of Eastern Orthodoxy as the Scriptures, the church fathers, and the seven councils. In fuller detail it is not that one exceeds the other, but that each is needed to rightly understand the other. He reminds the Western reader that Orthodoxy views salvation as deification, the process making it possible for one to bear divine light in the world. Pelikan should be commended for his effort at making the Eastern Orthodox use of apophatic (negative) theology less ambiguous to Western readers. Apophatic theology is the use of statements that demonstrate what something is not, though there are uses for this type of theology it makes it difficult for a reader to know what something is when all you are stating is what it is not. That said Pelikan seeks to help Western audiences have a glimpse into the Orthodox understanding of God this way. Due to the ambiguous nature of apophatic theology this makes this chapter the most difficult in comprehending Eastern thought.
Chapter two helps the Western reader understand the Christological issues that faced the Eastern church. The issue within the Eastern church was about union and division in Christ. Pelikan helpfully identifies the three groups debating this topic. The Monophysites believed in one hypostasis and one nature, the Melchites (Chalcedonians) believed in one hypostasis and two natures, while the “so-called Nestorians” (g. 49) held to the view that Christ was one person with a dual hypostasis and nature. The strength of this chapter is once again a better clarity to the Eastern churches heavy use of apophatic theology.
Pelikan uses chapter three to explain the iconoclastic controversy. This is a most helpful chapter for anyone seeking to understand this debate as it transpired in the Eastern church. The iconophiles argued that these images were not adored but honored in worship. That the images can help the worshiper better understand a divine reality through a more concrete physical reality. The iconophiles termed this the melody of theology. Pelikan explains that it was at the core of their liturgical doctrine and practice.
In chapter four Pelikan highlights the main differences that lead to the Great Schism of A.D. 1054. He rightly argues that this schism did not just happen in A.D. 1054 but that it was a development over time. Pelikan explains that the Eastern church took issue with Rome’s claim to be right in all its decisions, apostolic succession, papal primacy, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, original sin, and the Filioque clause added to the Nicene creed by Rome. Pelikan section on the Filioque clause clarifies the differences between Eastern and Western thought.
Pelikan delves into the apologist response of Eastern Orthodoxy about its belief in trinitarian monotheism. He explains how the Orthodox church used the Shema to defend the trinity against Judaism, battled dualism and asceticism, confronted Islam concerning monotheism and Jesus as the prophet predicted by Moses, and finally how philosophy (especially Platonian) could be helpful in defending trinitarian monotheism. His explanation of how the Eastern Orthodox church has used Platonian philosophy, clarifies their mystic theology. In chapter six Pelikan describes how these developments in doctrine through the centuries lead the Eastern Orthodox to a final “flowering” from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries. Pelikan explains that apophatic theology is embraced by the Eastern church to protect the impassability of God. This emphasis Pelikan argues lead to an elevated importance of personal religious experiences in Eastern Orthodoxy. He explains that this “flowering” is not new but a redefinition of what the Eastern Orthodox church has believed all along. Pelikan ends the chapter by pointing to the Russian Orthodox church as the heir apparent as the third Rome, which he further elaborates on in a later volume.
In his desire to bring light from the east Pelikan succeeds in some ways yet fails in others. He has given a better understanding to the doctrine of Eastern Orthodoxy and how it has developed over time, but due to the ambiguous nature of apophatic theology it is still difficult at times to know what Orthodoxy believes. Pelikan has worked hard to make this work readable and helpful to various Western audiences. I would not hesitate in recommending this work to serious students of church history seeking to understand the development of thought in Eastern Orthodoxy. What makes Pelikan’s work so readable is that he lays out the development of these doctrinally ideas in the Eastern church as if you are watching the debates happen throughout time.
December 21, 2012
The whole set is good, volume (2) is especially good. This is a very helpful contribution the understanding the theological climate of Byzantium... past and even present. Pelikan is a great communicator and is more than qualified to lead the tour.
December 26, 2009
Amazing, as usual ...
March 2, 2020
Pelikan wades through a massive amount of history, theology, and culture in this volume and, as is characteristic, does so quite well.
July 25, 2023
2023 Jan. While not as eloquent as the blurbs say, Pelikan's first volume proved him to be a good writer. His learning is enormous, reasonable, and, as far as I can tell, fair. His material and argument are carefully delimited. Moving on to volume two.
Takeaways:
*Near the beginning Pelikan quotes an earlier scholar: "The chief idea of St Maximus, as of all of Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification" (10).
* On the insufficiency of scripture apart from tradition, especially the ecumenical councils. Paraphrasing Maximus: "It was not enough to know the Scriptures thoroughly and to have been trained in them; the heretics, despite these advantages, still managed to deceive themselves" (17, cf 23-30).
* No less than the Roman west, Orthodoxy insists on the authority of tradition. Again paraphrasing Maximus: "The lamp of Scripture could be seen only when it stood on the lampstand of the church" (18). "The authority of Scripture, then, was the authority of a Scripture properly interpreted, that is, interpreted according to the spiritual sense and in harmony with patristic exegesis" (19). "To identify the orthodox doctrine of the catholic church meant to hold to that which the fathers had handed down.... A wise and orthodox teacher of church dogma was like a lantern, safely illuminating the obscure mysteries that were invisible to the many" (20). Apparent conflicts between fathers, or apparent agreements between an orthodox father and (say) an Origen in speculative mode, were creatively explained away (21). What mattered above all was the "consensus patrum" which "reflected the mind of the Catholic and Universal Church" (22, citing Florovsky). The Orthodox affirm the reality and consistency of the faith, even as they admit the need for new language to meet the challenge of new errors or problems.
* "Nestorian" Christianity is more complicated than I supposed. Since they accept only the first two ecumenical councils, the Nestorians can be considered ultra-conservative. Their crucial difference from the Chalcedonian and Monophysite traditions lies in metaphysics or logic, for its clerics distinguish "person" and "hypostasis," a move apparently encouraged by the Syriac tongue (44-45). They insist that "it was [the] assumed man, and not the indwelling Logos, who had been crucified" (41), which resolves a theoretical problem (how could God die?) at enormous cost (he can't and didn't). Pelikan draws from many Nestorian sources but focuses on Babai the Great, a 7th-century Persian systematizer or dogmatician. I look forward to the comparison with the other christologies, which should clarify some of the positions and stakes in the debate. Here's a helpful point from a later section: the Monophysite Severus of Antioch says that while Nestorianism denies the title "Theotokos" to Mary, it grants it, in a way, to the man Jesus Christ himself ("a God-bearing man" [60]).
* Monophysite Christians are similarly complex, and closer to orthodoxy than Nestorianism. They accept the first three great councils, opposing Nestorianism as "man worship" while rejecting Chalcedon and Leo's "Tome" for conceding too much to the man-worshippers (52, 60). Like the Nestorians, the Monophysites distinguish hypostasis and person (56); it was only the "divine hypostasis," not the "divine nature," of the Logos that became man for our salvation. There is no separate, subsistent human nature in the Lord Jesus: "The humanity [of Christ] never had an existence of its own, but had come into existence with the union... only his deity was a hypostasis" (57). (Chalcedonians could agree with this formulation, see 84). One of their great fathers, Severus of Antioch, wrote, "Do not use the word 'two' after the union! ... [I]f you want to confess two natures after the union, go find yourself some other union!" (59). Nestorians tend toward a "memorialist" doctrine of the Eucharist and Monophysites tend toward real presence (61, cf 47). These alternative christologies should prove a helpful context for the mainline doctrine, but this is pretty deep inside baseball, and I do not understand much of it at all, let alone its importance.
* On to the Chalcedonian sections (62-75 and 76-90): Perhaps this whole question matters because of the logical consequences of christology: "the very point of the duality [in Nestorian and Chalcedonian formulae] was to safeguard the reality of the union by preserving the integrity of its constituent elements" (62-63). The definitive arguments, as far as history goes, were articulated by Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus, and were later summarized in a seventh- or eighth-century document called THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS. Pelikan paraphrases the orthodox doctrine: "In the Trinity there were three hypostases, but only one divine nature; otherwise there would be three gods. There was also a single will and a single action. Thus will was an attribute of a nature and not of a hypostasis, natural and not hypostatic. Hence, the person of Christ, with a single hypostasis and two natures, had to have two wills, one for each nature" (72). The notion of the "communication of properties," i.e., across two natures within one incarnate hypostasis, resolves any lingering contradictions into mere paradox (73, 83). For additional summaries of orthodoxy—tough to paraphrase!—see 82 (on the Trinity or Theology) and 84 (on the Incarnation or Economy). One striking soteriological expression is found in Maximus's citation of Gregory of Nazianzus: "whatever has not been assumed has not been healed" (74). If the Logos assumed only part of human nature, then the remaining part(s) are unredeemed. Because the Son assumed human nature and not (as the Nestorians would have it) a human person, human nature itself, the essence or 'universal' in a philosophical / Aristotelian sense, has been redeemed (84-85). As before, divinization by union/participation is the central theme of salvation (62, 73-75).
* Whoa! on sex and the Fall: "It was widely held that procreation through the union of man and woman had not been the original will of God [who] would have devised another method of procreation if man had not fallen to the level of animals, and...would have abolished the difference between male and female" (87).
* The iconoclast controversy (8c.-9c.) was largely a "power struggle that used doctrinal vocabulary to rationalize an essentially political conflict" (92). Pelikan lists several assumptions shared by iconoclast and iconophile:
- The principle of sacramentalism: the Eucharist presents the true body and blood of the Lord, so that, at least in this case, material objects can have spiritual power
- Fear for unlearned believers: everyone supposed the illiterate paid more attention to pictures and statues than words, but one side thought this sociological fact an argument FOR, the other AGAINST, the propriety of images in Christian worship
- Belief that humankind, and especially Jesus Christ, is the true and complete "image of God"
- Belief in the authority of the church, e.g., fathers and councils or "the tradition"—which proved (alas), on this question at least, "ambiguous" (101) and "equivocal" (103)
- Veneration of one symbolic, material object: the cross (110-111, 125); also the Gospel books themselves (131)
* Pelikan offers a tidy resolution to a problem that has long confused me, the two enumerations of the Ten Commandments. "[Exodus 20:4] was a part of the Decalogue itself that could be used against the images; for in Eastern Christendom (and later in Calvinism) this prohibition was counted as the second of the ten commandments, while in Latin Christendom (and later in Lutheranism) it was regarded as only an appendix to the first commandment" (107).
* In ideas at least, much of the iconoclast drama arose from competing definitions of "image." Emperor Constantine V defined an image, quite unaccountably as far as I am concerned, as "homoousious" with its subject (109). The orthodox definition (e.g., from Patriarch Nicephorus) was the much more reasonable "likeness" or "similarity" or "imitation" of the original (119). Eventually the arguments moved into Christology (the Word made flesh has shown us God) and liturgical practice (we have been worshipping, i.e., honoring, icons for generations).
* On developments leading to the Great Schism:
- Papal infallibility: "In the period with which we are dealing in this volume, East and West agreed that Leo had indeed been the spokesman for Peter and for the Holy Spirit at Chalcedon" (149). "Those who argued against the Latin case were not entirely bereft of documentation for their counterclaim that Rome had not been absolutely right every single time, but the weight of the evidence for the astonishingly high average accumulated by the see of Peter sometimes proved to be all but overwhelming" (150). The most obvious (and relatively recent) counterexample was Pope Honorius I, who taught monotheletism "in fact if not in intention" (151). Constantinople II anathematized Honorius half a century after his death, and he was condemned by some later Popes and western-origin documents (152), although not all, e.g., popes Martin I and Agatho (153).
- Roman primacy among the patriarchs: "At the risk of oversimplification, one might say that to the East the pope was chief bishop because he was orthodox, while to the West he was and always would be orthodox because he was chief bishop" (161).
- Rumor (171) especially about untranslated texts—in both directions (179-181); also sacramental and liturgical variations (174-179)
- Different degrees of theological “maturity” in the 10th c.: "The valid point behind these charges of naïveté [East re: West] and of decadence [West re: East] was the difference between a more sophisticated theology which by the end of the tenth century had worked out a modus vivendi with its past and with philosophy and with a more rudimentary theology which was not to undertake that assignment at the same depth until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries" (179).
- Different starting-places or structures for theology, e.g. in soteriology:
Finished. Ran out of time to take notes on the final hundred pages; the part I found most interesting is the "Definition of Eastern Particularity" (280-295), which summarizes the response of the orthodox communities to Protestantism and Tridentine Catholicism. In brief, they defined a few more doctrines to exclude various perceived errors, but mostly doubled down on ancient positions; sometimes this meant a refusal to assert rather than positive dogmatic assertions (290 on Mary, 292 on the Eucharist). Their theology of the sacraments, as codified in various seventeenth-century confessional documents, is closer to Rome than to any of the Protestant variations.
Takeaways:
*Near the beginning Pelikan quotes an earlier scholar: "The chief idea of St Maximus, as of all of Eastern theology, [was] the idea of deification" (10).
* On the insufficiency of scripture apart from tradition, especially the ecumenical councils. Paraphrasing Maximus: "It was not enough to know the Scriptures thoroughly and to have been trained in them; the heretics, despite these advantages, still managed to deceive themselves" (17, cf 23-30).
* No less than the Roman west, Orthodoxy insists on the authority of tradition. Again paraphrasing Maximus: "The lamp of Scripture could be seen only when it stood on the lampstand of the church" (18). "The authority of Scripture, then, was the authority of a Scripture properly interpreted, that is, interpreted according to the spiritual sense and in harmony with patristic exegesis" (19). "To identify the orthodox doctrine of the catholic church meant to hold to that which the fathers had handed down.... A wise and orthodox teacher of church dogma was like a lantern, safely illuminating the obscure mysteries that were invisible to the many" (20). Apparent conflicts between fathers, or apparent agreements between an orthodox father and (say) an Origen in speculative mode, were creatively explained away (21). What mattered above all was the "consensus patrum" which "reflected the mind of the Catholic and Universal Church" (22, citing Florovsky). The Orthodox affirm the reality and consistency of the faith, even as they admit the need for new language to meet the challenge of new errors or problems.
* "Nestorian" Christianity is more complicated than I supposed. Since they accept only the first two ecumenical councils, the Nestorians can be considered ultra-conservative. Their crucial difference from the Chalcedonian and Monophysite traditions lies in metaphysics or logic, for its clerics distinguish "person" and "hypostasis," a move apparently encouraged by the Syriac tongue (44-45). They insist that "it was [the] assumed man, and not the indwelling Logos, who had been crucified" (41), which resolves a theoretical problem (how could God die?) at enormous cost (he can't and didn't). Pelikan draws from many Nestorian sources but focuses on Babai the Great, a 7th-century Persian systematizer or dogmatician. I look forward to the comparison with the other christologies, which should clarify some of the positions and stakes in the debate. Here's a helpful point from a later section: the Monophysite Severus of Antioch says that while Nestorianism denies the title "Theotokos" to Mary, it grants it, in a way, to the man Jesus Christ himself ("a God-bearing man" [60]).
* Monophysite Christians are similarly complex, and closer to orthodoxy than Nestorianism. They accept the first three great councils, opposing Nestorianism as "man worship" while rejecting Chalcedon and Leo's "Tome" for conceding too much to the man-worshippers (52, 60). Like the Nestorians, the Monophysites distinguish hypostasis and person (56); it was only the "divine hypostasis," not the "divine nature," of the Logos that became man for our salvation. There is no separate, subsistent human nature in the Lord Jesus: "The humanity [of Christ] never had an existence of its own, but had come into existence with the union... only his deity was a hypostasis" (57). (Chalcedonians could agree with this formulation, see 84). One of their great fathers, Severus of Antioch, wrote, "Do not use the word 'two' after the union! ... [I]f you want to confess two natures after the union, go find yourself some other union!" (59). Nestorians tend toward a "memorialist" doctrine of the Eucharist and Monophysites tend toward real presence (61, cf 47). These alternative christologies should prove a helpful context for the mainline doctrine, but this is pretty deep inside baseball, and I do not understand much of it at all, let alone its importance.
* On to the Chalcedonian sections (62-75 and 76-90): Perhaps this whole question matters because of the logical consequences of christology: "the very point of the duality [in Nestorian and Chalcedonian formulae] was to safeguard the reality of the union by preserving the integrity of its constituent elements" (62-63). The definitive arguments, as far as history goes, were articulated by Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus, and were later summarized in a seventh- or eighth-century document called THE DOCTRINE OF THE FATHERS ON THE INCARNATION OF THE LOGOS. Pelikan paraphrases the orthodox doctrine: "In the Trinity there were three hypostases, but only one divine nature; otherwise there would be three gods. There was also a single will and a single action. Thus will was an attribute of a nature and not of a hypostasis, natural and not hypostatic. Hence, the person of Christ, with a single hypostasis and two natures, had to have two wills, one for each nature" (72). The notion of the "communication of properties," i.e., across two natures within one incarnate hypostasis, resolves any lingering contradictions into mere paradox (73, 83). For additional summaries of orthodoxy—tough to paraphrase!—see 82 (on the Trinity or Theology) and 84 (on the Incarnation or Economy). One striking soteriological expression is found in Maximus's citation of Gregory of Nazianzus: "whatever has not been assumed has not been healed" (74). If the Logos assumed only part of human nature, then the remaining part(s) are unredeemed. Because the Son assumed human nature and not (as the Nestorians would have it) a human person, human nature itself, the essence or 'universal' in a philosophical / Aristotelian sense, has been redeemed (84-85). As before, divinization by union/participation is the central theme of salvation (62, 73-75).
* Whoa! on sex and the Fall: "It was widely held that procreation through the union of man and woman had not been the original will of God [who] would have devised another method of procreation if man had not fallen to the level of animals, and...would have abolished the difference between male and female" (87).
* The iconoclast controversy (8c.-9c.) was largely a "power struggle that used doctrinal vocabulary to rationalize an essentially political conflict" (92). Pelikan lists several assumptions shared by iconoclast and iconophile:
- The principle of sacramentalism: the Eucharist presents the true body and blood of the Lord, so that, at least in this case, material objects can have spiritual power
- Fear for unlearned believers: everyone supposed the illiterate paid more attention to pictures and statues than words, but one side thought this sociological fact an argument FOR, the other AGAINST, the propriety of images in Christian worship
- Belief that humankind, and especially Jesus Christ, is the true and complete "image of God"
- Belief in the authority of the church, e.g., fathers and councils or "the tradition"—which proved (alas), on this question at least, "ambiguous" (101) and "equivocal" (103)
- Veneration of one symbolic, material object: the cross (110-111, 125); also the Gospel books themselves (131)
* Pelikan offers a tidy resolution to a problem that has long confused me, the two enumerations of the Ten Commandments. "[Exodus 20:4] was a part of the Decalogue itself that could be used against the images; for in Eastern Christendom (and later in Calvinism) this prohibition was counted as the second of the ten commandments, while in Latin Christendom (and later in Lutheranism) it was regarded as only an appendix to the first commandment" (107).
* In ideas at least, much of the iconoclast drama arose from competing definitions of "image." Emperor Constantine V defined an image, quite unaccountably as far as I am concerned, as "homoousious" with its subject (109). The orthodox definition (e.g., from Patriarch Nicephorus) was the much more reasonable "likeness" or "similarity" or "imitation" of the original (119). Eventually the arguments moved into Christology (the Word made flesh has shown us God) and liturgical practice (we have been worshipping, i.e., honoring, icons for generations).
* On developments leading to the Great Schism:
- Papal infallibility: "In the period with which we are dealing in this volume, East and West agreed that Leo had indeed been the spokesman for Peter and for the Holy Spirit at Chalcedon" (149). "Those who argued against the Latin case were not entirely bereft of documentation for their counterclaim that Rome had not been absolutely right every single time, but the weight of the evidence for the astonishingly high average accumulated by the see of Peter sometimes proved to be all but overwhelming" (150). The most obvious (and relatively recent) counterexample was Pope Honorius I, who taught monotheletism "in fact if not in intention" (151). Constantinople II anathematized Honorius half a century after his death, and he was condemned by some later Popes and western-origin documents (152), although not all, e.g., popes Martin I and Agatho (153).
- Roman primacy among the patriarchs: "At the risk of oversimplification, one might say that to the East the pope was chief bishop because he was orthodox, while to the West he was and always would be orthodox because he was chief bishop" (161).
- Rumor (171) especially about untranslated texts—in both directions (179-181); also sacramental and liturgical variations (174-179)
- Different degrees of theological “maturity” in the 10th c.: "The valid point behind these charges of naïveté [East re: West] and of decadence [West re: East] was the difference between a more sophisticated theology which by the end of the tenth century had worked out a modus vivendi with its past and with philosophy and with a more rudimentary theology which was not to undertake that assignment at the same depth until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries" (179).
- Different starting-places or structures for theology, e.g. in soteriology:
"No less striking was the contrast between the Augustinian tradition and the Greek tradition in the understanding of grace and salvation. An epitome of the contrast is the formula of Maximus: 'Our salvation finally depends on our own will.' For 'one could not conceive a system of thought more different from Western Augustinianism; and yet Maximus is in no way a Pelagian.' This is because the dichotomy represented by the antithesis between Pelagianism and Augustinianism was not a part of Maximus's thought. Instead, 'his doctrine of salvation is based on the idea of participation and of communion that excludes neither grace nor freedom but supposes their union and collaboration, which were re-established once and for all in the incarnate Word and his two wills'" (183)and in pure theology, the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed (183-198):
"Western trinitarianism…took the unity of God as its starting point [and] was then able to go to some such view of the Spirit as the bond between Father and Son" (196-197), while "Eastern trinitarianism, by contrast, continued to begin with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and it needed to formulate the relation between them in such a way as to assure their unity" (197).
Finished. Ran out of time to take notes on the final hundred pages; the part I found most interesting is the "Definition of Eastern Particularity" (280-295), which summarizes the response of the orthodox communities to Protestantism and Tridentine Catholicism. In brief, they defined a few more doctrines to exclude various perceived errors, but mostly doubled down on ancient positions; sometimes this meant a refusal to assert rather than positive dogmatic assertions (290 on Mary, 292 on the Eucharist). Their theology of the sacraments, as codified in various seventeenth-century confessional documents, is closer to Rome than to any of the Protestant variations.
May 1, 2024
This is, I suppose, a great work of learning (in the sense that the author has obviously read a lot). They tell me it is a standard work on its subject, and I don't wish to dispute it. But it is certainly not a great work of history, in the sense that it is also great writing. Each page is heavily indented - so that the book is really only 2/3 as long as it appears. This is to allow Pelikan to include his references opposite the relevant place in the text. I can see why he thought this was a good idea, because there is a very high density of references and quotations, up to 10 per page. Inevitably therefore it reads somewhat like a student's work. A true historian doesn't just cite sources, they synthesise them into their own narrative.
December 13, 2025
This volume helps to clarify the distinctives of Eastern Theology, at least prior to the modern era.
Very fascinating to see how the roots of the East-West Schism far preceded the Filioque incident, but also very fascinating to see why it was, & still is, such an important part of the split between East & West.
Also fascinating to see how the difference in language & culture played such an important role in the differences the Eastern Church faced versus the Western Church, & why they each emphasized different focuses in dogma & liturgy.
Very fascinating to see how the roots of the East-West Schism far preceded the Filioque incident, but also very fascinating to see why it was, & still is, such an important part of the split between East & West.
Also fascinating to see how the difference in language & culture played such an important role in the differences the Eastern Church faced versus the Western Church, & why they each emphasized different focuses in dogma & liturgy.
September 24, 2019
An extremely helpful exploration of Eastern Christianity. Most enlightening for me were the discussions of the Eastern encounter with Islam, divisions between East and West from the Eastern perspective, and use of icons in liturgy (“the melody of theology”). Pelikan continues to be on top of the discussion. Most of my knowledge of Eastern Christianity has been orientation to its theology and praxis, so it’s wonderful to read a history of its doctrine.
October 14, 2021
Woof. This series is getting worse, not better, as it goes on. Need caffeine injected directly into my veins to get through this.
Read
May 17, 2025Partial.
December 13, 2011
Pelikan followed up his magisterial first volume in the development of Christian doctrine by focusing on the flowering of Byzantine doctrine. As expected, the treatment is incredibly thorough and complex. The text is so well referenced that anyone but the extreme specialist would have an incredibly difficult time finding fault with Pelikan's methodology or scholarly review.
Pelikan divides the study into six major sections, the authority of the fathers, the development of eastern doctrine with respect to Christ's nature, the conflict over iconography, the relationship with the Latin church, the Byzantine trinitarian & monotheistic response to Islam, and its late flowering led in part to exposure and definition brought on by the Protestant reformation. To cover so many broad topics over 1100 years of history is quite difficult, but Pelikan is more than up to the task.
I had always understood Byzantine theology and doctrine to be intricate and well-grounded in the wisdom of the early church fathers. What I had not understood were many of the nuances that came to define Eastern theology, and its absolute grounding on the theological underpinnings of the early church councils. Pelikan also reveals the source material for all of the controversies and heresies throughout the ages, many of which I was unaware.
The only criticism of this book is that most people, I'm afraid, would find it quite inaccessible. Pelikan presupposes a grounding in theology, history, and deep understanding of Christology. His terminology and style are both quite dense, making this thoroughly unenjoyable, I would imagine, for a reader who is not sufficiently knowledgable or passionate about the subject.
Pelikan divides the study into six major sections, the authority of the fathers, the development of eastern doctrine with respect to Christ's nature, the conflict over iconography, the relationship with the Latin church, the Byzantine trinitarian & monotheistic response to Islam, and its late flowering led in part to exposure and definition brought on by the Protestant reformation. To cover so many broad topics over 1100 years of history is quite difficult, but Pelikan is more than up to the task.
I had always understood Byzantine theology and doctrine to be intricate and well-grounded in the wisdom of the early church fathers. What I had not understood were many of the nuances that came to define Eastern theology, and its absolute grounding on the theological underpinnings of the early church councils. Pelikan also reveals the source material for all of the controversies and heresies throughout the ages, many of which I was unaware.
The only criticism of this book is that most people, I'm afraid, would find it quite inaccessible. Pelikan presupposes a grounding in theology, history, and deep understanding of Christology. His terminology and style are both quite dense, making this thoroughly unenjoyable, I would imagine, for a reader who is not sufficiently knowledgable or passionate about the subject.
June 12, 2008
The second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's church history magnum opus focuses on the Eastern church. Much like the first volume, he visits primary sources to trace the history of the church by what the church teaches as doctrine and dogma. The constant tension between East and West was particularly engaging in this volume.
April 20, 2015
I'm repeating myself from my review of volume one, but Pelikan really was a very fine author. This volume two of five explains the development of doctrine from about A.D. 600 to approximately 1700, but overwhelmingly from the perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy as distinct from Western Catholicism. And again, I'll say this is the best I've read for what it attempts to do. I highly recommend it.
August 9, 2009
This is simply the best series available in English on the history of Christian thoguht.
Read
November 21, 2009Rebind
February 13, 2013
Helpful.
October 8, 2014
A great look at Eastern Orthodoxy from a non-Eastern Orthodox view (though the author later converted).
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews