coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

Meghalo05

posted on May 23, 2008 - 01:17 AM

Christ has descended into Hades,

A buddy came across this, and wanted your thoughts and opinions. It states that Athanasius only accepted the 39 books of the Old Testament, and rejected the deuterocanonical books. What are you guys opinions? Is this true? Theologians, Scholars, and Historians out there you know who you are. Please help us out!!! Is not this an enormous contradiction? How can other Orthodox fathers accept the other canonical books while the Great Athanasius reject? Love to hear back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_c ... te_note-28

He has opened the gates of Paradise

_________________
Abraham Ghattas

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

copt07

posted on May 23, 2008 - 01:48 AM

I do not have much to offer, but here is the reference Megalo05 is referring to:
___________________________________________________
St. Athanasius is often quoted as endorsing 39 books in his Old Testament, rejecting any apocryphal writings. However his 39 books are a little different from the Protestant canon in that he rejects Esther and includes Baruch.

"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.[29]"
_____________________________________________________

Joined: Apr 17, 2006 | Posts: 13

Biboboy

posted on May 23, 2008 - 01:50 AM

Agape,

"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.."

See: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204 ... i.xxv.html

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Publican

posted on May 23, 2008 - 02:17 AM

Agape,

I am not sure if I see a contradiction. To my knowledge the term 'deuterocanonical' is exclusively a Catholic term (Council of Trent - 1545) although it is currently widely used by the Orthodox. The Orthodox do not believe in a 'secondary canon'. Therefore the additional 10 (not 7) books are readable or 'anaginoskomena' according to St Athanasius and still apart of the canon.

God Bless,
Publican

_________________
"Fight the battle for your Heart" -- St. Antony the Great

"Sit in the presence of the Lord every moment of your life, as you think of him and recollect him in your heart." -- St. Isaac the Syrian

The greater the Knowledge of God, the greater the Love, and the greater the Love for God the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Love, the greater the Knowledge, the greater the Suffering.-- St. Silouan

Joined: Nov 18, 2005 | Posts: 101

Meghalo05

posted on May 23, 2008 - 04:06 AM

I apologize if I used the term deuterocanonical. As Orthodox we consider these books as Divinely Inspired Scripture, correct? So why does Athanasius claim they are an invention of heretics? This is the contradiction. Orthodox view them as holy divinely inspired, but the great champion of Christianity, St. Athanasius, says they are not divine. Why? How? love to hear responses

Christ is Risen

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Biboboy

posted on May 23, 2008 - 04:20 AM

Agape,

He doesn't say that the deutrocanonical books are invented by heretics - on the contrary, he says that other books, which he calls "apocrypha," were written by heretics. This might have been mixed up by modern people because the deutrocanonical books in the (Protestant) Bibles are called "Apocrypha," but the apocrypha that St. Athanasius was referring to were different books altogether. He even mentions an example of these apocrypha at the beginning of the letter: "which they call books of tables, in which they shew stars, to which they give the names of Saints."

So I suggest reading the whole letter in the link I gave above to see what he was really saying. Don't rely on what you read in wikipedia.

_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).

"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.

In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member


+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!

Joined: Sep 28, 2004 | Posts: 722

Peter

posted on May 23, 2008 - 02:10 PM

These passages/books were "canon" (technically the Jews never truly developed an OT canon until the 1st century AD (after the rise of Christianity), there were regional variations namely Alexandria vs. Jerusalem) in the Septuagint (and preusumable the original Hebrew source for the Septuagint). By St. Athansius time there was little debate or question as to OT canon. It would not make sense either that he would reject such books since there are rather heavily quoted through out the NT and by Christ himself.

Also from a reading comprehension point of view,the passage is not clear (perhaps a poor translation) for it says the those OT books (which also are only part of the deutercanonical books for the others were accepted) are not canon but are canon. Not canonical according to whom; for the fathers considered them canon but the Jews rejected them.

Joined: Mar 18, 2003 | Posts: 423
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Meghalo05

posted on May 23, 2008 - 08:07 PM

"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"

So Athanasius does not consider Wisdom of Sirach, Ester, Judith and Tobit as part of Biblical Canon? Only books of instruction? This seems really weird. Responses?

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 304
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Fortunatus

posted on May 23, 2008 - 09:49 PM

+Pi`<rictoc aftwnf!

Meghalo,

My understanding about this was that the "latter" refers to the Shepherd of Hermas, which is not in the canon. It used to be read in the Churches.

Pray for me.

_________________
 Agapy,
Vortounatoc
Amyn, Maren a;a!

Administrator for Content, Newsletters, and the Book Exchange
coptichymns.net
- a taste of what is Coptic ...

Questions? Comments? E-mail or PM me!
Need help? - Post here. Comment or criticism? - Use our Feedback Form

Joined: Sep 04, 2003 | Posts: 401
Location: the Coptic Orthodox Church

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 25, 2008 - 02:14 PM

There's clear and documented evidence that many of the Fathers did not like many of the OT books ("Deuterocanonical" for lack of a better word to distinguish the 39 books accepted by all and the others). Clearly St. Athanasius did mean to say that the books he listed are non-canonical, let's not go out of our way to try to make it seem like he didn't say something he clearly did. The Book of Revelations itself had much dispute surrounding it.

So, some saints disagreed with some books being in the Canon, a problem? No - Saints are not infallible. One saint didn't even want to translate the Deuterocanonical books into the vulgate because he thought they were all made up (St. Jerome). If a saint disagrees with the Church, he/she is wrong. However, as far as St. Athanasius, he couldn't have disagreed with the Church because he passed away before Councils even decided the matter.

So - the title of this thread doesn't make sense (with all due respect to Meghalo, I know one must pick a catchy title). You can't reject "Biblical Canon" if it doesn't exist.

Personally, I don't know what they were thinking when they included Esther in the Canon - the book is obviously factually wrong. Perhaps it is to be taken metaphorically or something.

P.S. when a person writes "the latter," there's usually two topics - one is the former with respect to the latter, and the latter with respect to the former. You don't write "the latter" when you list several books, because that just doesn't make sense - book two is latter to book one and so on. In this context, when you say, "latter" it means nothing. Having read much of St. Athanasius's work, he wouldn't make such a mistake - he was distinguishing between books he deems canonical and the books he listed. The latter being "the latter."

There's a question as to how important the Deuterocanonical books are altogether - we outright disagree with the Ethiopian Church about which books to be included, but it's still a sister-church. That leads to me believe it's not that important of an issue.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on May 25, 2008 - 09:31 PM

Truth.seeker...define Church

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 25, 2008 - 09:45 PM

The word can be used in various ways. As far as my usage here, a decision of the Church is a decision of a Council. A Council is the Church's "decisional arm." This is what I meant by, "However, as far as St. Athanasius, he couldn't have disagreed with the Church because he passed away before Councils even decided the matter."

Acts 15 --> even an Apostle (St. Paul) couldn't make a doctrinal decision by himself.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on May 25, 2008 - 09:56 PM

Great, and what are councils made up of?

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 25, 2008 - 11:31 PM

Make your point. I'm not going to engage in this.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 25, 2008 - 11:40 PM

P.S. the socratic method should only be used if where you're going is not obvious, and more importantly - when you're not making a strawman. "Even an Apostle (St. Paul) couldn't make a doctrinal decision BY HIMSELF." Find me a Council made up of one bishop, then you'll have a point.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on May 25, 2008 - 11:42 PM

It's a simple question with a very simple answer, but you don't want to answer it because you know where it will lead you. That''s because Councils are made up of People, in fact holy people, that are fallible, but do have responsibility entrusted to them by the Lord Jesus Christ which they received from the Apostles, and the Holy Spirit guides them. Now obviously it is not they who are the Holy Spirit, but He guides them, as such they are still fallible you are right about that, but that is why we work as a Body, and not just any Body, but the Perfect Body of Christ. Thus, we work together in a way in which the majority view of the Saints agree, like in councils to reach a consensus about the Truth through the grace of the Holy Spirit. We stand as One Body together, with each are own role to play, as complimenting organs, lead by Christ Himself. Please non of this individualistic nonsense where we put ourselves in front of others. This is not a Church of a group of individuals but of One Body of Consensus.

Your second post was irrelevant, don't sway the topic, I already made this point in another post and you ignored it.
GB

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 25, 2008 - 11:44 PM

Again, the Holy Spirit guides the Council. If the Holy Spirit guided every single Bishop in his individualistic capacity, then all bishops would be infallible. It is your point that is individualistic, not mine.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 25, 2008 - 11:51 PM

More importantly, are you disagreeing with me on anything? I see a post of a disagreeing tone, but one which doesn't disagree with anything I said.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on May 25, 2008 - 11:53 PM

Again, you repeated what you had to say before. Indeed Saints are fallible and make mistakes, but the way which you INDIVIDUALISTICALLY judge them is heterodox.

I always made mention of the Church working as ONE Body, not several individuals, and this is where Church springs forth, from the One Christ, who in Him is a multitude of Apostles. That is why He said to them concerning His words of truth: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14:26)

And together guided by the truth, as the Perfect Body of the Infallible Christ they could not go wrong for Christ tells this to St. Peter: "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18)

And who in the right mind would think that with the death of St. John the Theologian that the living Apostolicity of Truth died? No but the power of the Holy Spirit which the Lord granted to His disciples were also given to the Bishops who in turn for generations gave it on till this twenty first century, for in this very day we have Holy Apostles among us.

It is not a Church that belongs to anyone but the Perfect One Himself, therefore shall He never leave His bride to decay in the darkness of Falsehood. And as the Apostles worked together as One Body back in the first days, so too the Church is comprised of One Body Who together collaborate to find the Truth of Christianity as it was first handed down.

What is individualistic about a Body, and the Bond of the Fountain of Love, from which all virtues spring forth? It is this that is exactly the antonym of Individualism.

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 26, 2008 - 12:03 AM

"But the way which you INDIVIDUALISTICALLY judge them is heterodox."

I'm not judging anyone, the Church's decisional arm has judged their ideas. If St. Athanasius thought the Deuterocanon shouldn't be in the Canon, then the Church's Councils have decided that he was wrong about that.

In the other thread, the simple point I was making is that since a Council did not speak on the issue, we cannot know if they are right or wrong.

If you don't want me to repeat myself, write something that is in disagreement with me.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 26, 2008 - 12:05 AM

Sts. Theophilus and Cyril had St. John Chrysostom deposed. Were they right about that? Obviously not.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

mikokiko

posted on May 26, 2008 - 12:06 AM

Well you kept mentioning how Saints are fallible. Indeed they are. But together they are infallible, because "Where two or three meet in My Name I will be there in their midst."

Joined: Feb 11, 2003 | Posts: 1001

Truth.Seeker

posted on May 26, 2008 - 12:10 AM

"Well you kept mentioning how Saints are fallible. Indeed they are. But together they are infallible, because "Where two or three meet in My Name I will be there in their midst."

I'll just quote myself - "Sts. Theophilus and Cyril had St. John Chrysostom deposed. Were they right about that? Obviously not." There you are - two saints that were wrong with respect to the same decision.

Councils are infallible, all else is fallible.

Joined: Feb 25, 2008 | Posts: 411

Iqbal

posted on May 26, 2008 - 02:07 AM

Meghalo,

I think at the heart of your difficulty dealing with the relevant extract from St Athanasius' letter is your implicit confusion of the concept of "canonical Scripture" with the concept of "divinely inspired Scripture."

Most Biblical scholars are more inclined to conclude that, for the early Church, the "canon" was not so much concerned with setting apart inspired Scripture from non-inspired Scripture; rather, it was primarily concerned with defining a standard list of books to be read within a liturgical context. Such a liturgical standard varied from region to region, and still does. St Athanasius was strictly concerned with defining that standard for the Alexandrian Patriarchate.

As most Biblical scholars would further note, the shape of the canon at any given time was based on certain historical contingencies. As NT scholar Harry Gamble notes, the eventual formulation of even the NT canon was 'the product of a complex range of conditioning factors' in the early life of the Church. Today there appears to be a greater need to emphasise the so-called deuterocanonical books as Scriptural canon in light of their wholesale rejection as inspired texts by a large segment of the Christian world. The factors conditioning the shape of earlier canons were different--some factors bearing more weight than others. The shape of the canon dictated by St Athanasius thus must be understood in its historical context; in this sense the canon so proposed by him can neither be deemed "right" nor "wrong."

In XC
Iqbal

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 124

copt07

posted on May 26, 2008 - 03:30 AM

From Iqbal:Meghalo,

I think at the heart of your difficulty dealing with the relevant extract from St Athanasius' letter is your implicit confusion of the concept of "canonical Scripture" with the concept of "divinely inspired Scripture."

Most Biblical scholars are more inclined to conclude that, for the early Church, the "canon" was not so much concerned with setting apart inspired Scripture from non-inspired Scripture; rather, it was primarily concerned with defining a standard list of books to be read within a liturgical context. Such a liturgical standard varied from region to region, and still does. St Athanasius was strictly concerned with defining that standard for the Alexandrian Patriarchate.

As most Biblical scholars would further note, the shape of the canon at any given time was based on certain historical contingencies. As NT scholar Harry Gamble notes, the eventual formulation of even the NT canon was 'the product of a complex range of conditioning factors' in the early life of the Church. Today there appears to be a greater need to emphasise the so-called deuterocanonical books as Scriptural canon in light of their wholesale rejection as inspired texts by a large segment of the Christian world. The factors conditioning the shape of earlier canons were different--some factors bearing more weight than others. The shape of the canon dictated by St Athanasius thus must be understood in its historical context; in this sense the canon so proposed by him can neither be deemed "right" nor "wrong."

In XC
Iqbal


Hello Iqbal,

I am very hesitant to believe for many reasons that the Biblical canon was based on "certain historical contingencies." I would like more in depth explanation!

After rereading, I feel St. Athanasius's letter was taken out of context especially by the wikipedia author. I hope we can discuss the content of the letter and its interpretation.

I hope we can break down the following:
_________________________________________________
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.[29]
______________________________________________

There are many ambiguous sentences which I feel we should try to clarify, rather than discussing the fallibility of saints...etc.

Peace

Joined: Apr 17, 2006 | Posts: 13