SOURCE: González, Justo L. “The Theology of Athanasius.” In A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon, pp. 291-302. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970.

[In the following excerpt, González explains that Athanasius did not develop a formal system of thought because his theological interests were of a practical, not an academic, nature.]

One of the best patristic scholars of our time has said about Athanasius that “the history of dogma in the fourth century is identical with the history of his life.”¹ In fact, the life and work of Athanasius are so interwoven with the development of theological discussion in the fourth century that it is impossible to tell the history of that development apart from the biography of Athanasius. He became the symbol of the Nicene faith, and his repeated exiles and returns serve as a weather vane to show which way the doctrinal and political winds were blowing. This is why the preceding chapter, while recording the course of the Arian controversy after the Council of Nicea, has also outlined the biography of Athanasius. It is not necessary to repeat that story. Let it suffice to say that Athanasius was without any doubt the most remarkable bishop ever to occupy the ancient see of Alexandria, and that he was as well the greatest theologian of his time. The purpose here is, therefore, not to repeat what has already been said about the life of that great church leader, but rather to attempt to show what were the major theological concerns that led him in his bitter struggle against Arianism, as well as to outline some of the main aspects of his theology.

Athanasius was a pastor rather than a systematic or speculative thinker. This does not mean that his thought is not orderly, or that it lacks system, but that his work and his theology developed in response to the needs of each moment rather than on the basis of the requirements of a system. Therefore, one would seek in vain among his works for one that attempts to present the totality of his theology. His works are pastoral, polemical, exegetical, and there is even a biography among them; but in none of them does he attempt to theologize for the mere pleasure or curiosity of it. The oldest of his writings is a single work usually published as two treatises: Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation. These were probably written before the beginning of the Arian controversy²; but in them—especially in the second treatise—one can already find the theological principles that would later serve Athanasius as points of departure in his controversy with the Arians. Among his other works of theological interest, one should mention his Discourses against the Arians, On the Incarnation against the Arians, Apology against the Arians, History of the Arians, and the Four Epistles to Serapion. On the other hand, the Life of Saint Anthony which he wrote, although not concerned primarily with doctrinal issues,³ did greatly influence the further development and popularity of the monastic movement, for it was through this work that the great ascetic deeds of Anthony became widely known.

Athanasius' theology is more concerned with religious matters than with those which are purely speculative in nature. It was precisely this difference of interest which led him away from the Origenistic school, to which most of his predecessors in the see of Alexandria had belonged. Yet, in his trinitarian doctrine, and perhaps even without being conscious of it, Athanasius had been influenced by that form of right-wing Origenism which prevailed in Alexandrine circles.

The content of his theology is often very near that of Origen, but his method is radically different from that which the ancient Alexandrine theologian followed, for his interest is practical and religious rather than speculative or academic. This does not mean that he discusses only practical themes and leaves doctrinal questions aside, but rather that he is constantly seeking the religious significance of every doctrinal issue.

This religious significance is to be found in the implications that each doctrine has for certain basic principles that are at the heart of Christianity. The truth or falsehood of a doctrine is to be judged on the basis of the degree and manner in which it expresses the principles of the Christian religion. For Athanasius, these principles are basically two: monotheism and the Christian doctrine of salvation.

Even before the Arian controversy developed, Athanasius had given some thought to the nature of God and the means by which we can know the divine. This may be seen in his early treatises, Against the Heathen and On the Incarnation.

In Against the Heathen, after attacking pagan polytheism in a manner similar to that of the ancient apologists, Athanasius discusses the means by which God can be known. These are principally two: the soul and nature.

God may be known through the human soul, for “although God Himself is above all, the road which leads to Him is not far, nor even outside ourselves, but is within us, and it is possible to find it by ourselves.”⁴ Every one has been on this road which is the soul, although some have refused to follow it. By studying the soul we may infer something about the nature of God. The soul is invisible and immortal, which makes it superior to all things visible and perishable.⁵ Therefore, the idols that pagans worship, being visible and destructible, are not gods, but are even inferior to those who make them.⁶ The true God, like the soul, must be invisible and immortal. By its own nature, the soul is capable of seeing God, although sin prevents it from attaining that vision. The soul was made according to the divine image and likeness, and it was intended to be like a mirror in which that image, which is the Word of God, would shine. Sin, however, dulls that mirror, so that without a previous cleansing it is impossible to see the Word in it.⁷ This is a Platonistic theme that had become part of Alexandrine theological tradition since the time of Origen.

On the other hand, it is possible to know God through creation, which “as though in written characters, declares in a loud voice, by its order and harmony, its own Lord and Creator.”⁸ Being by nature invisible and incomprehensible, God has placed around us this universe so that we may know the divine through God's works.⁹ From the observation of this universe one can infer the existence of God.¹⁰

The order of the universe shows, not only that there is a God, but also that God is one. If there were more than one God, the unity of purpose that can be seen throughout the universe would be impossible. “The rule of more than one is the rule of none.”¹¹ The order of the universe, in which opposites are balanced and distributed in an admirable fashion, must have only one source.¹² This source is the Christian God. Over against it, pagan gods seem weak, for several of them are needed in order to create and rule a single world.¹³

Finally, the order and reason within nature show that God has created it and rules it through the divine Reason, Wisdom, or Word.¹⁴ This Word is not to be understood as the Stoic Logos, that is, as an impersonal principle that is the order itself of nature. The Word of God who rules the world is the living Logos of God. That is, the Word who is very God. This Logos or Word is not a mere sound, as human words are, but is rather the unchangeable image of the Father. He is the one and only-begotten God. This Word has taken a hand in all created things because they are made out of nothing, and they would therefore perish if the Word did not constantly keep them in existence. Therefore, the Word is the great sustainer and the source of order in the universe. He administers and rules the opposing principles of which the world is made—cold and heat, air and water, and so forth—so that they all coexist in harmony, and do not destroy each other.

But by Word I mean, not that which is involved and inherent in all things created, which some are wont to call the seminal principle, which is without soul and has no power of reason or thought, but only works by external art, according to the skill of him that applies it,—nor such a word as belongs to rational beings and which consists of syllables, and has the air as its vehicle of expression,—but I mean the living and powerful Word of the good God, the God of the Universe, the very Word which is God, Who while different from things that are made, and from all Creation, is the One own Word of the good Father, Who by His own providence ordered and illumines this Universe. For being the good Word of the Good Father He produced the order of all things, combining one with another things contrary, and reducing them to one harmonious order. He being the Power of God and wisdom of God causes the heaven to revolve, and has suspended the earth, and made it fast, though resting upon nothing, by His own nod. Illumined by Him, the sun gives light to the world, and the moon has her measured period of shining. By reason of Him the water is suspended in the clouds, the rains shower upon the earth, and the sea is kept within bounds, while the earth bears grasses and is clothed with all manner of plants.¹⁵

This shows that, probably even before being involved in the Arian controversy, Athanasius had developed a doctrine of the Word that was different, not only from that of the Arians, but also from that which had been held by many earlier theologians. Before Athanasius, there was a tendency among many theologians to establish the distinction between the Father and the Word on the basis of the contrast between the absolute God and a subordinate deity. Thus, Clement of Alexandria, for instance, affirmed that the Father was immutable and inaccessible, and the reflected light of the Son was adequate for human eyes. As Athanasius would show during the course of the Arian controversy, this view turned the Word into a subordinate deity, which was incompatible with Christian monotheism. On the other hand, as will be shown later on, Athanasius was convinced that the Savior must be God. There was, therefore, no alternative left but to affirm that the Word was God in the strictest sense. This view, which would become explicit during the Arian controversy, is to be found already in the earliest work of Athanasius that has been preserved.

Whereas Against the Heathen shows how Christian monotheism is one of the pillars on which Athanasius builds his theology, the second part of that work, usually called On the Incarnation, shows the other pillar upon which that theology is grounded: the doctrine of salvation.

According to Athanasius, the salvation of which we stand in need is continuous with creation, for it is in fact a re-creation of our fallen nature.¹⁶ The most merciful God, on creating humanity, did not wish that this creature, made out of nothing, would have to return to nothingness. In order to avoid this necessity, God created humankind according to the divine image, so that we, by communicating with the Word, could also participate in being and reason. Therefore, although the human creature was by nature mortal, in the very act of creation it received the gift of immortality, which we would retain as long as we duly reflected the Image according to which we had been made.¹⁷

But humans sinned and abandoned that Image, and ever since we have been prisoners in the claws of death.¹⁸ Sin is not, therefore, a mere mistake that must be corrected; nor is it a debt that it is now necessary to pay; nor is it even that we have forgotten the way that leads to God and must be reminded of it. Sin is rather the introduction within creation of an element of disintegration that leads toward destruction, and that can only be expelled through a new work of creation.

From this follows the core of Athanasius' doctrine of salvation: only God can save humankind.¹⁹ If the salvation that we need is really a new creation, only the Creator can bring it to us. Besides, as the immortality that we have lost consisted in existence according to the Image of God, and was therefore an existence similar to that of God, the salvation that we now need is a sort of divinization. …²⁰ This also requires that the Savior be God, for only God can grant an existence similar to the divine.

Although the foregoing has been taken from a work of Athanasius which was probably written before the Arian controversy broke out, his later works clearly show that the principles that are expounded above led him in the formulation of his arguments against the Arians.

Let us now see some of those arguments which Athanasius develops.

The Arian doctrine according to which the Word is of a different substance from that of the Father and is not God in the absolute sense, destroys Christian monotheism and leads us back to pagan polytheism.²¹ If the Son does not share in the nature of the Father in such a way that it is possible to speak of both as of a single God, and if at the same time we worship the Son, as the Church has always done, there is no reason left why Christians should condemn polytheism, for they are in fact practicing it.

Besides, the doctrine that sees the Word as an intermediate being between the world and the wholly transcendent God does not solve the problem posed, for it would then be necessary to place other intermediate beings between God and the Word and between the Word and creation, so that the difficulties would only be multiplied unto infinity.²² In fact, the doctrine that takes as its starting point the absolute transcendence of God and leaves divine immanence aside, turns the question of the relationship between God and the world into an insoluble problem. The introduction of the Word within that framework does not solve the difficulty, but merely postpones it.

Likewise, if the Son is mutable, and is the result of an act of the Father's will and not of the divine nature itself, it is impossible to see the immutable Father through him. If the Son reveals the Father to us, this can be not because he is less than the Father, but because he is like him.²³

Furthermore, the Arian doctrine regarding the Word destroys the possibility of salvation, for a being who is not God cannot attempt to restore creation.²⁴ If God is the Creator, God must also be the Savior.

Finally, as divinization is part of the work of the Savior, and only God can achieve this, the Savior must be God.²⁵

In short, there are two fundamental reasons why Athanasius abhors Arian doctrine: first, that Arianism approaches polytheism and, second, that it implies that salvation comes from a creature. In consequence, it is clear that Athanasius is opposed to Arianism, not because it attacks or denies some point of his theology, but because it is incompatible with the two pillars on which his faith stood, even before the controversy.²⁶

Leaving aside the Arian controversy, we must now turn to other important aspects of Athanasius' theology.

In his doctrine of the Godhead, Athanasius shows once again that balance and fine perception which make him one of the greatest theologians of all times. He sees God as a transcendent being, but this is not to be interpreted in such a way that God cannot enter into direct contact with creatures.²⁷ Although existing apart from and above the world, God has established a direct relationship with it in the work of creation itself, and even now is in constant contact with it in order to keep it in existence. This understanding of God's relationship with the world is important, for now it is no longer necessary to posit the Word as an intermediate being between God and the world. Those who affirm the absolute transcendence of God turn the Word into a subordinate deity that serves as an intermediary between the absolute God and this transient world. Athanasius, because of the way in which he understands the relationship between God and the world, can affirm that the Word or Son is truly and eternally God, and yet can assert that this does not hinder his relationship with creatures.

This God is triune, existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Athanasius contributed in a positive way to the development of trinitarian doctrine, for his insistence in the divinity of the Son was one of the main factors that led to the defeat of one of the greatest enemies of that doctrine as it finally evolved, Arianism. But the struggle itself against Arianism led Athanasius to devote his attention to the relationship between the Father and the Son to such an extent that the discussion regarding the Holy Spirit was pushed into the background. Later on, with the rise of the Pneumatomachians, who accepted the divinity of the Son but denied that of the Holy Spirit, Athanasius developed his doctrine on this point and affirmed that the Spirit is also of the same substance as the Father.²⁸

The main weak point in Athanasius' trinitarian theology is his lack of a fixed terminology that could serve to express the multiplicity as well as the unity within the Trinity. Athanasius did become aware of the need for such a terminology, as can be seen by the action taken by the synod that met in Alexandria in 362. Yet, he himself never developed that terminology, which was a task left for the Cappadocians. Here, as well as in the rest of his theological work, Athanasius showed that he was a person of sharp religious perception, but without great interest or gift for the formal systematization of thought. Without him, the work of the Cappadocians would have been impossible. Without the Cappadocians his work would not have come to its final fruition.

As far as the relationship between the Word and the human nature of Jesus is concerned, the Christology of Athanasius is similar to that of Arius—actually, both theologians can serve as examples of the type of Christology that was current among Alexandrine theologians of the fourth century.²⁹ Athanasius and Arius are opponents on the question of the divinity of the Word, but they both interpret the union of that Word with humanity in a similar way. According to Athanasius, the Word was united to flesh, but one never finds a clear affirmation in his works that the term “flesh,” within this context, has to do with both the body and the soul. It seems that Athanasius takes for granted that there was in Jesus no human rational soul, and the Word took the place of that soul.³⁰ This doctrine, which was later called “Apollinarianism” and which will be discussed in another chapter, was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381. Although Athanasius does not seem to have become aware of this,³¹ this interpretation of the person of Jesus Christ does not agree with his own soteriological principles, for—as the Cappadocians would later point out—the Word took human nature in order to free it from sin, and as the soul is also involved in sin, the Word must also have taken it in border to save it.

Likewise, Athanasius emphasizes the unity between the divine and the human in Christ in a fashion that is characteristic of Alexandrine Christology. In this union, the divinity becomes the subject of all the actions of Jesus Christ. It is an unbreakable unity, which is different from all the cases that one finds in the Old Testament of people in whom the Word of God dwelt.³² In Christ, the flesh becomes an instrument of the Word, and the union between these two is such that that which is properly said of one of the terms of that union can also be transferred to the other term.³³ This is the typical Alexandrine doctrine that is usually called “communication of properties”—communicatio idiomatum. Thus, for instance, Athanasius affirms that it is proper to worship the man Jesus, although worship belongs only to God.

We do not worship a creature. Far be the thought. For such an error belongs to heathens and Arians. But we worship the Lord of Creation, Incarnate, the Word of God. For if the flesh also is in itself a part of the created world, yet it has become God's body. And we neither divide the body, being such, from the Word, and worship it by itself, nor when we wish to worship the Word do we set Him apart from the Flesh, but knowing, as we said above, that “the Word was made flesh,” we recognize Him as God also, after having come in the flesh.³⁴

In consequence, Athanasius affirms that Mary is Mother or Bearer of God.³⁵ This doctrine is also typically Alexandrine, and in the fifth century would be the catchword of bitter controversies. Athanasius believes that this title is to be given to Mary as a clear consequence of the indivisible union between divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ, and of the resulting communicatio idiomatum. To deny that Mary is the Mother of God would be tantamount to denying that God was born of Mary, and this in turn would be a denial of the incarnation of the Word.

In conclusion, Athanasius is a typically Alexandrine theologian, although he is free of the excessive speculation that is perhaps the greatest weakness of that theological tradition. Instead of the Alexandrine speculative method, Athanasius takes certain basic principles of the Christian faith, and from their standpoint judges every other doctrine. These principles are monotheism and the doctrine of salvation, and they are the ground on which Athanasius opposes Arianism.

However, the particular nature of Athanasius' interest and of his intellectual gifts, although allowing him to show with greater clarity than others why Arianism was inacceptable, kept him from developing a formula that would serve as a rallying point for those who found Arianism unpalatable. This would be the task of the Three Great Cappadocians, to whose work we must now turn.

Notes

1. Johannes Quasten, Patrology (Utrecht: Spectrum Publishers, 1960), 3: 66.

2. E. Schwartz, “Der sogenannte Sermo maior de fide des Athanasius,” SBAW, 41 (1925), 44-46, places this work at a later date (a.d. 335-337), but his arguments have not been generally accepted. Of the two extant recensions, the longer one seems to be the original. The shorter recension may well be also by Athanasius, but is probably a revision of the other. Cf. C. Kannengiesser, “Les différentes recensions du traité ‘De incarnatione Verbi’ de S. Athanase,” SP, 7 (1966), 221-29.

3. Gregg and Groh, Early Arianism, pp. 131-59, argue that Athanasius' Life of Saint Anthony was written in order to claim the support of this towering figure for the Nicene cause. While I find their general case for a reinterpretation of early Arianism most enlightening, I do not find their argument on the particular issue of the Life of Anthony to be equally compelling.

4. Contra gentes 30. 1.

5. Ibid., 33. 4.

6. Ibid., 34. 2.

7. Ibid., 34. 3.

8. Ibid., 34. 4 (NPNF, 2nd. series, 4: 22).

9. Ibid., 35. 1.

10. Ibid., 35. 4-36. 1.

11. Ibid., 38. 3 (NPNF, 2nd series 4:24).

12. Ibid., 38. 4.

13. Ibid., 39. 2.

14. Ibid., 40. 2-3.

15. Ibid., 40. 4-5 (NPNF, 2nd series, 4:25-26).

16. De incar. 7. 5.

17. Ibid., 3. 3-4. Cf. Régis Bernard, L'image de Dieu d'après St. Athanase (Paris: Aubier, 1952), pp. 21-56.

18. De incar. 6. 1-2.

19. Ibid., 7.

20. Ibid., 54. 3 (NPNF, 2nd series, 4: 65): “For He was made man that we might be made God.” Cf. D. Ritschl, Athanasius: Versuch einer Interpretation (Zurich: EVZ, 1964), pp. 36-59.

21. Ad. episc. Aegypti 14; Or. contra Ar. 1. 8; 2. 23; 3. 8; 3. 15-16; De syn. 50; Ep. lx ad. Adel. 3.

22. Or. contra. Ar. 2. 26.

23. Ibid., 1. 35.

24. Ibid., 2. 14.

25. Ibid., 2. 70.

26. There are certainly some arguments adduced by Athanasius in which he simply makes use of the same type of logic that the later Arians employed. Such is his use (or. contra Ar. 1. 28, 29) of Origen's argument that, if the Son is not eternal, the Father is not eternally such. But this argument, which would ultimately lead to the eternity of creation, is not central in Athanasius, who uses it and other similar ones as so many additional supports for a doctrine that in any case is established on firmer grounds. On Athanasius' arguments in general, see: Samuel Laeuchli, “The Case of Athanasius against Arius,” CTM, 30 (1959), 403-20.

27. Or. contra Ar. 2. 25; De decretis 7.

28. This may be seen in his Four Letters to Serapion, to which I have referred earlier.

29. There is some question as to whether or not Arius did consciously hold that there was no human soul in Jesus. This will be discussed in another chapter (see Chap. XVI, n. 1).

30. Marcel Richard, “Saint Athanase et la psychologie du Christ selon les Ariens,” MScRel, (1947), 5-54. Against this view, Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1965), pp. 193-219, attempts to prove that, although the soul of Christ is not a “theological factor” for Athanasius, it is indeed a “physical factor,” in the sense that it does exist. This argument, however, does not seem convincing. Cf. G. C. Stead, “The Scriptures and the Soul of Christ in Athanasius,” VigCh, 36 (1982), 233-50; R. Lorenz, “Die Christusseele im Arianischen Streit: Nebst einigen Bemerkungen zur Quellenkritik des Arius und zur Glaubwürdigkeit des Athanasius,” ZschrKgesch, 94 (1983), 1-51.

31. There is a possible indication that at a late date he became aware of this in the following very ambiguous words, in which it is still not clear whether Jesus had a human soul or whether it was the Word that performed in him the functions of the soul: “that the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence; for it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body should be without intelligence: nor was the salvation effected in the Word Himself a salvation of body only, but of soul also.” (Tom. ad Ant. 7; NPNF, 2nd series, 4: 485.) Cf. Ep. ad Epic. 7.

32. Or. contra Ar. 3. 31.

33. Ibid., 31-32.

34. Ep. lx ad Adelph. 3 (NPNF, 2nd series, 4: 575).

35. Or. contra Ar. 3. 14.

List of Abbreviations

ACW: Ancient Christian Writers

AkathKrcht: Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht

ANF: The Ante-Nicene Fathers

Ang: Angelicum

AnglThR: Anglican Theological Review

AnnTh: L'Année Théologique

Ant: Antonianum

AntCh: Antike und Christentum

Aug: Augustinus

Augm: Augustinianum

BAC: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos

BLE: Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique

BThAM: Bulletin de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale

Byz: Byzantion

ByzZschr: Byzantinische Zeitschrift

BZNtW: Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAH: Cambridge Ancient History

CD: La Ciudad de Dios

Ch: Church History

ChQR: Church Quarterly Review

CommVind: Commentationes Vindobonenses

CTM: Concordia Theological Monthly

DHGE: Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques

DivThom: Divus Thomas: Commentarium de Philosophia et Theologia

DKvCh: Das Konzil von Chalkedon:Geschichte und Gegenwart (ed. Grillmeier und Bacht)

DomSt: Dominican Studies

DTC: Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique

EphemTheolLovan: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

Est: Estudios

EstEcl: Estudios Eclesiásticos

ExpT: The Expository Times

GItFil: Giornale Italiano di Filologia

Greg: Gregorianum

GrOrthThR: Greek Orthodox Theological Review

HD: A. von Harnack, History of Dogma (New York: Russell & Russell, 1958)

HE: Ecclesiastical History (usually, that of Eusebius)

HJb: Historisches Jahrbuch

HTR: Harvard Theological Review

IDB: The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

IER: Irish Ecclesiastical Record

IntkZtschr: Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift

IrThQ: The Irish Theological Quarterly

JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature

JEH: Journal of Ecclesiastical History

JES: Journal of Ecumenical Studies

JQR: Jewish Quarterly Review

JRel: The Journal of Religion

JRelSt: The Journal of Religious Studies

JRH: The Journal of Religious History

JTS: Journal of Theological Studies

Kairos: Kairos: Zeitschrift für Religionswissenschaft und Theologie

ΚLΗ: Κληρονομία

KuD: Kerygma und Dogma

Lat: Latomus: Revue d'Études Latines

LCL: Loeb Classical Library

LumVie: Lumière et Vie

MisMed: Miscelanea Mediaevalia

MScRel: Mélanges de Science Religieuse

MusHelv: Museum Helveticum

NAKgesch: Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis

NDid: Nuovo Didaskaleion

NedTheolTschr: Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift

NPNF: The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

NRT: Nouvelle Revue Théologique

NT: Novum Testamentum

NTS: New Testament Studies

Numen: Numen: International Review for the History of Religions

OrCh: Orientalia Christiana Periodica

PG: Patrologiae cursus completus … series Graeca (ed. Migne)

PL: Patrologiae cursus completus … series Latina (ed. Migne)

PO: Patrologia orientalis

Prot: Protestantesimo

RAC: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum

RelStRev: Religious Studies Review

RET: Revista Española de Teología

RevBénéd: Revue Bénédictine

RevBib: Revue Biblique

RevEtAug: Revue des Etudes Augustiniennes

RevEtGr: Revue des Études Grecques

RevScRel: Revue des Sciences Religieuses

RGG: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Dritte Auflage

RHE: Revue d'Histoire Ecclésiastique

RicRel: Ricerche Religiose

ROC: Revue de l'Orient Chrétien

RScF: Rassegna di Scienze Filosofiche

RScPhTh: Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques

RscRel: Recherches de Science Religieuse

RStFil: Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia

RThAM: Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale

RUOtt: Revue de L'Université d'Ottawa

SBAW: Sitzungsberichte der bayrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in München

SC: Sources Chrétiennes

SCatt: La Scuola Cattolica

Sch: Scholastik: Vierteljahrschrift für Theologie und Philosophie

ScrVict: Scriptorium Victoriense

Sef: Sefarad: Revista de la Escuela de Estudios Hebraicos

SP: Studia Patristica

StCath: Studia Catholica

StTh: Studia Theologica

StVlad: Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly

Th: Theology

ThBl: Theologische Blätter

ThGl: Theologie und Glaube

ThLit: Theologische Literaturzeitung

ThPh: Theologie und Philosophie

ThR: Theologische Revue

ThSK: Theologische Studien und Kritiken

ThSt: Theological Studies

ThViat: Theologia Viatorum

ThZschr: Theologische Zeitschrift

TIB: The Interpreter's Bible

TQ: Theologische Quartalschrift

TrthZschr: Trierer theologische Zeitschrift

VetTest: Vetus Testamentum

VieSpirit: La Vie Spirituelle

VigCh: Vigiliae Christianae

WuW: Wissenschaft und Weisheit

ZkT: Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie

ZntW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

ZschrKgesch: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte

ZTK: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche