The Concept of Neopatristic Synthesis at a New Stage

Abstract

The structure of G. V. Florovsky’s concept of neopatristic synthesis is analyzed and reassessed here in light of the current state of philosophy and theology. As a result, the concept receives a new configuration, in which its core is formed by the ancient Orthodox idea of the Living Tradition, understood as the union of the work of the Church Fathers and the hesychast practice. As for the idea of Christian Hellenism, which formed the core of the previous configuration, it has been relegated to the periphery of the concept. This article reveals the philosophic potential of the concept that has not yet been realized—its hermeneutical aspects, its connection with the mainstream of phenomenology, and so forth. The new configuration is then projected onto the situation of Russian philosophy. I demonstrate that the concept possessed vast conceptual, epistemological, and methodological resources capable of stimulating the creation of a new philosophic formation that would be distinct from the modernist thinking of the Silver Age. However, those resources have remained untapped.

Keywords:

• Florovsky
• neopatristic synthesis
• Church Fathers
• Christian Hellenism
• tradition
• Living Tradition
• hesychasm
• Russian philosophy
• conservatism
• modernism

This article is the republished version of:

The Concept of Neopatristic Synthesis at a New Stage

Notes

1. G. V. Florovsky, “Debate about German Idealism,” in From the Past of Russian Thought (Moscow, 1998), p. 430 (in Russian). All further references with no indication of the author are to G. V. Florovsky’s works.

2. “Theological Passages,” in Selected Theological Writings (Moscow, 2000), p. 136 (in Russian).

3. In some works in English, the “ecclesiastized” Hellenism is referred to as “sacred Hellenism.”—Trans.

4. Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century (Paris, 1931), p. 5.

5. Byzantine Fathers of the 5th–8th Centuries (Paris, 1933), p. 42.

6. “Debate about German Idealism,” p. 428.

7. Byzantine Fathers of the 5th–8th Centuries, p. 42.

8. M. Heidegger, “Der Spruch des Anaximander,” in Holzwege (Fr. am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1963), pp. 310–11.

9. Both Florovsky and his commentators pointed out that the concept of Christian Hellenism is polemically directed against A. von Harnack’s theory of the harmful Hellenization of Christianity.

10. See, for example, Paul L. Gavrilyuk, “Harnack’s Hellenized Christianity or Florovsky’s ‘Sacred Hellenism’: Questioning Two Metanarratives of Early Christian Engagement with Late Antique Culture,” in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 2010, v. 54, pp. 323–44.

11. “Saint Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers,” in Selected Theological Writings, p. 284 (the italics are by the author).

12. The Russian terms podvizhnik and podvizhnichestvo, often used in this contribution from here on, are not readily translatable. The terms apparently derive from podvig, “exploit, (heroic) feat.” Originally, podvizhnik used to mean “ascetic” and “anchorite,” and podvizhnichestvo, “asceticism” and “life of religious devotion.” With time, the former came to mean “someone selflessly devoting themselves to a cause (especially in the sphere of science and the arts),” and the latter, “life of self-sacrifice devoted to a cause.” In the predominantly secular life of the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, the new meaning prevailed, whereas the author of this article uses these words in their original sense. Because the expressions “asceticism and asceticism” (or “ascetic asceticism” and the like), which could be obtained as a result of literal translation, would look preposterous, the terms in question are sometimes rendered differently, according to the context.—Trans.

13. “Saint Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers,” p. 283.

14. S. Bulgakov, “Heroism and Asceticism,” in Vekhi: A Collection of Articles on the Russian Intelligentsia (Moscow, 1909), p. 53 (in Russian).

15. “Theological Passages,” p. 132.

16. “Christianity and Civilization,” in Selected Theological Writings, p. 224.

17. “Love of the Good,” an important collection of Orthodox ascetic texts.—Trans.

18. Protoiereus (Archpriest) Sergius Bulgakov, The Comforter: On the Godmanhood, Pt. II (Paris, 1936), pp. 354–56 (in Russian).

19. Cf., for example, “The Russian school has the stronger claim … Here is the basis for criticizing the Neopatristic conceptuality” (P. Valliere, Modern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov. Orthodox Theology in a New Key [Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000], p. 385). Following A. Schmemann, the author applies the name “Russian school” to the trend of religious thought represented by the Russian Religious-Philosophic Renaissance.

20. Byzantine Fathers of the 5th–8th Centuries, p. 144.

21. P. Valliere, op. cit., p. 299.

22. S. S. Horujy, “Neopatristic Synthesis and Russian Philosophy,” in On the Old and the New (St. Petersburg, 2000), p. 35 (in Russian).

23. I. V. Kireyevsky, “A Review of Russian Literature of 1829,” in Critique and Aesthetics (Moscow, 1979), p. 68 (in Russian).

24. Idem., “On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles for Philosophy,” in op. cit., p. 322.

25. “The Metaphysical Premises of Utopianism,” in From the Past of Russian Thought, p. 291 (in Russian).

26. A more detailed analysis of the reception of Florovsky’s work in Russia was given in my talk at the “Father Georges Florovsky and the Revival of Orthodox Theology in the 20th Century” conference (Paris, 2009). The text of that otherwise unpublished contribution, titled “The Reception of Father Georges Florovsky’s Heritage in Contemporary Russia,” can be found on the website of the Institute of Synergistic Anthropology: www.synergia-isa.ru.

27. P. Gavrilyuk, Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 232. I express my gratitude to Fr. Pavel Gavrilyuk for the opportunity to study his monograph prior to its publication.

28. P. Valliere, op. cit., p. 7.

29. V. V. Petrunin, “Social Ethics of Orthodoxy: The Hesychastic Perspective,” in The Phenomenon of Man in Its Evolution and Dynamics. Works of the Open Seminar of the Institute of Synergic Anthropology (Velikiy Novgorod, 2013), pp. 196, 238 (in Russian).

30. Ibid., p. 196.

31. A. S. Filonenko, “Theology of Communication and Eucharistic Anthropology,” talk at the 6th International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church, “Life in Christ,” November 2010. See http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/876935.html.

32. A. V. Chernyayev, G. V. Florovsky as a Philosopher and Historian of Russian Thought (Moscow, 2010), p. 83 (in Russian).