{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029636711281070746, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008604206500956023, 'mean_word_length': 5.794372294372295, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart (review)

a sophianic dogma (172). However, in some places the susceptibility of Bulgakov’s Orthodox theology to this “catholicization” is surely overstated. For example, Slesinski’s assumption that “Catholics and Orthodox subscribe to the same ontological understanding of sanctification” (95) overlooks the specificities of the Orthodox understanding of Theosis, and the typically Orthodox disputes surrounding Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Seminara. Furthermore, the question as to whether the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception would reduce the significance of the incarnation is not addressed. The following three chapters (9–11), along with chapters 13 and 14, focus on the “Greater Trilogy,” and introduce the reader to Bulgakov’s Paterology, Christology, Pneumatology, and Ecclesiology. We find lucid expositions of his ideas alongside constructive development and notable critique. Chapter 12 dwells on Bulgakov’s work on relics and miracles, concluding that both miracles and relics point to the “inherent dignity of the corporeal human body as confirmed by the incarnation” (185). Slesinski is especially critical of the ecclesiology outlined in The Bride of the Lamb, which he claims fosters an overemphasis on the historical character of hierarchy. In the penultimate chapter Slesinski goes far beyond previous introductions to Bulgakov and wrestles with his complex philosophy of language, sensitively expounding the triadic dynamic of subject (podlezhaschee), predicate (skazuemoe), and copula (sviazka) (232). In the final chapter “Eschatological Hopes,” Slesinski paints Bulgakov, alongside his in some ways kindred Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, as a universalist, who ascribes no ontological value to hell, but rather views it as a privation (244), supporting his argument throughout with reference to The Bride of the Lamb. Understandably, not all areas of Bulgakov’s extensive theological output could possibly be explored in a single volume. Arguably, more space ought to have been devoted to Bulgakov’s noteworthy theological appropriation of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy, particularly their philosophies of antinomy. Additionally, although Slesinski reminds us of the importance of prayer and liturgy for Bulgakov (40, 87), his uniquely Orthodox liturgical spirit is somewhat overlooked. Instead, the author draws more attention to unfortunate miscalculations of liturgical feast days. Bulgakov’s iconology is by no means insignificant but is also left untouched in the volume, and even more surprisingly Slesinski avoids any analysis of Bulgakov’s lengthy treatment of the Filioque, an obvious point of contact for any Catholic author. This being said, Slesinski’s contribution is an indispensable and engaging read for any student of Russian religious thought. The present publication will surely establish itself as an authoritative and insightful addition to the ever-increasing secondary literature on Sergei Bulgakov and may even provide valuable material for future ecumenical dialogue between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.