Question re: Athanasius

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff_B

Guest
In my (non-denominational) church, our Pastor is teaching
a course based on Wayne Gruden’s “Systematic Theology”
book.
Code: 
 I heard there was a reference to Athanasius acknowledging
that the “deutero-canon” books were not regarded as Scripture.

I remember reading, not that long ago, that in one of his
writings, that he only recommended avoiding use of those
books that might be in dispute, while evangelizing, so that
they wouldn’t become an issue.

By chance would anyone know the book this would be
found in?

Thanks, and God bless this forum,

Jeff
 
umm…the unreformed Bible (yes, Luther took 7 books out) – nowadays known as “Catholic Bible”
 
The Deuterocanonicals were disputed by some of the early fathers. However, they were often not consistent. The link below provides some background:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Athanasius%20[295-373%20A.D.]

Interestingly, below are some quotes from Athanasius quoting from the Deuteros as scripture:

Since, however, after all his severe sufferings, after his retirement into Gaul, after his sojourn in a foreign and far distant country in the place of his own, after his narrow escape from death through their calumnies, but thanks to the clemency of the Emperor,- -distress which would have satisfied even the most cruel enemy,-- they are still insensible to shame, are again acting insolently against the Church and Athanasius; and from indignation at his deliverance venture on still more atrocious schemes against him, and are ready with an accusation, fearless of the words in holy Scripture, 'A false witness shall not be unpunished;’ [Proverbs 19:5] and, ‘The mouth that belieth slayeth the soul;’ (Wisdom 1:11) we therefore are unable longer to hold our peace, being amazed at their wickedness and at the insatiable love of contention displayed in their intrigues. Athanasius the Great: Defence Against the Arians, 3 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:101

Let us not fulfill these days like those that mourn but, by enjoying spiritual food, let us seek to silence our fleshly lusts(Ex. 15:1). For by these means we shall have strength to overcome our adversaries, like blessed Judith (Judith 13:8), when having first exercised herself in fastings and prayers, she overcame the enemies, and killed Olophernes. And blessed Esther, when destruction was about to come on all her race, and the nation of Israel was ready to perish, defeated the fury of the tyrant by no other means than by fasting and prayer to God, and changed the ruin of her people into safety (Esther 4:16) Athanasius the Great: Letter 4, 2 (A.D. 333), in NPNF2, IV:516.
 
He must’ve been referring to St. Athanasius’s 39Festal Letter:

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the twelve being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. . . .

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; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
So St. Athanasius not only includes the Catholic deuterocanonical book of Baruch, but excludes the book of Esther, which both Catholics and Protestants include in their Bibles.
 
So how was the Church able to determine which is inspired? What was the criteria?
 
By the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the promise by Christ that His Church would not fall into error, Matthew 16:18, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it.”
 
Thanks, for the replies, I think I am a step closer to being
clearer on this.
I guess what I read, an dit was by a source taking to defend
the deuteros as canon, wasn’t saying exactly what I remembered
it to be. I got the impression that Athanasius was simply
imploring evangelizers to not reference those writings, as they
might be source of contention.
But as he writes in Festal 39:
7. 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; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple
Code: 
 What I am seeing from this is, that these other seven books
were added by the Fathers, to be used for instruction by those
who “newly joined us”. I guess one could make a conclusion,
that he considered them as part of the teachings, but he does
draw a distinction from the rest of the Old Testament cannon.

Even though one could say, that since he encouraged their use
for those who newly joined, that he considered them "inspired’,
and therefore that the point of removing a point of contention
for the Jewish people, is plausible, it is still a deduction.
I don’t know if the Maccabees books are considered included
in what he cause the teachings of the Apostles, and the Shepherd, but he doesn’t mention them by name, and one
arguing against the deuteros as canon, could take that
last sentence (about being an invention of heretics) and
run with it out of context.

I was hoping, though I could have made a stronger case against
Gruden’s claim in his reference to Athanasius.

It’s much easier to dispute his contention that
the “council” of Jamnia, ruled out those books. I think
the case is fairly overwhelming against that ruse.

Thanks, again for your answers,
In Christ,
Jeff
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top