Witnesses to Christ: “They [apostles] do not even claim the same kind of infallibility that rationalists critique them for” (10). I don’t want to get into the inerrancy debate right now, but if JM is right, then why are Protestants pressed to have a kind of historical and epistemological certainty on the canon and the church?
He justifies Hellenism on the basis that the Church, to minister to the Greeks, had to think in Greek categories. (Oddly enough, he later rebuts Harnack et al for charging that the Byzantine Church thought in Greek categories).
“The Christological problems of the fifth and sixth centuries thus can be said basically to have shaped the Byzantine theological mentality and to have provided its main theme until about the ninth century” (14).
The first chapter dealt with Cyrillene Christology. I have no major comments except that Meyendorff didn’t touch the issue of whether deification soteriologies necessitate an instrumentalization of the human nature. They do. This becomes hugely problematic when these same guys tie into the communicatio idiomatum.