What CARM does not understand, or understands but refuses to accept because that would be conceding a point, is when listing the books, many of the ECF’s were listing books that would be read in the liturgy, if they omit a book, did not mean they considered them uninspired. The following is taken from website I linked to in previous post:
**St. Athanasius, in the Festal letter number 39, gives a list of the canon. Now, of the Deuterocanonicals he does term Baruch as a canonical book. He does exclude the other Deuterocanonicals. He also excludes Esther. So Protestants pointing to him is of no use as his list does not match the Protestant canon. However, as we will also see with St. Cyril of Jerusalem and others, the list of the canon is not all of inspired Scripture, and because books are excluded from the canon does not necessarily mean that they are not Scripture.St. Athanasius says this about the Deuterocanonicals:
But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity;*that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon,*but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read… Athanasius the Great: Part of Festal Letter 39 (c. 367 A.D.)
[2]Mark Bonocore elaborates on the possible meaning of St. Athanasius excluding the Deuteros from the canon itself:In regard to Athanasius, what I think we need to consider is that, in his Epistle 39, he is speaking as the Patriarch of Alexandria --a liturgical office. What he seems to be doing, therefore, is defining the Liturgical canon for the Alexandrian Patriarchate (a diocese including all of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis in Palestine …and, by association, Ethiopia). Such an address by a reigning Patriarch can only be Liturgical in nature, and would not …at this time …address the inspiration or lack of inspiration of a particular book. In this, what cannot be denied is that the Egyptian and Libyan Church did believe the books of Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. to be inspired Scripture. They were unquestionably included in the Alexandrian Septuagint from pre-Christian times; and remain in the Biblical canon of the Ethiopian Jews to this very day. (Email from Mark Bonocore, August 2, 2001)
Thus, the theory that we saw at the beginning of this paper, that the term ‘canon’ sometimes only means ‘those books that are read in the Liturgy’ will most seem to fit St. Athanasius when we see him in practice. He is not meaning to describe through the term ‘canon’ the full extent of Scripture. That is what the Protestant apologists falsely assume when he gives us the list. St. Athanasius refers to the Deuterocanonical books according to my count 46 times, as noted in the index of Schaff, NPNF2, Volume 4, which does not in fact give all his writings. Here is a sampling of some of St. Athanasius’ citations and references to the Deuterocanonicals:**
nk came from.
