Do we believe Athanasius

[Always in His Presence]

How were the books of the Bible chosen?

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the

www.biblica.com

It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.

• He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
• The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.

 

[public hermit]

How were the books of the Bible chosen?

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the

www.biblica.com

It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.

• He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
• The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.

What are you asking? Are you asking if Athanasius' list is an accurate account of what was generally accepted at that time? I see no reason to think it isn't.

 

[jas3]

For context, here is the letter of St. Athanasius in question:

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

In particular, paragraph 4 is relevant:

"4. 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."

So for those who would deny the canonicity of Baruch, no, they don't believe St. Athanasius.

 

[AlexB23]

How were the books of the Bible chosen?

The 39 books of the Old Testament form the Bible of Judaism, while the Christian Bible includes those books and also the 27 books of the New Testament. This list of books included in the

www.biblica.com

It was actually not until 367 AD that the church father Athanasius first provided the complete listing of the 66 books belonging to the canon.

• He distinguished those from other books that were widely circulated and he noted that those 66 books were the ones, and the only ones, universally accepted.
• The point is that the formation of the canon did not come all at once like a thunderbolt, but was the product of centuries of reflection.

Ooh, I am not a theologian, but apparently, Athanasius is a saint in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglican and Lutheran churches.

Sounds like a trustworthy guy, theologian Saint to me:

Athanasius of Alexandria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PloverWing]

For context, here is the letter of St. Athanasius in question

Thanks for the link. Besides the mention of Baruch, I note:

1. In paragraph 7, Athanasius puts Esther in the non-canonical category.

2. It's not clear from the list whether Athanasius intends the longer or shorter version of Daniel in his list.

I'd say that, while this is a useful list, the canon still seems to be in flux at this point.

 

[The Liturgist]

For context, here is the letter of St. Athanasius in question:

CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 39 (Athanasius)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

In particular, paragraph 4 is relevant:

"4. 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."

So for those who would deny the canonicity of Baruch, no, they don't believe St. Athanasius.

Also aside from Baruch, we have the two books of Ezra (one of which is actually Nehemiah, but the other of which is definitely 1 Esdras), and also notice what is absent, for instance, Esther.

The canon of St. Athanasius for the Old Testament was not consistent with the 66 book canon. And it was not ultimately kept by the early Church, unlike his New Testament canon, which was, aside from the proviso allowing the use of The Shepherd of Hermas and one other book for catechesis provided it not be read in the Church - while most would agree with this, the Roman church did not and if I recall the Decretum Gelasianum declared it to be apocrypha and anathematized anyone using it, which was rather harsh, but at any rate it shows that the main part of the Athanasian Canon which became ecumenically accepted was the 27 book New Testament protocanon.

 

[The Liturgist]

Thanks for the link. Besides the mention of Baruch, I note:

1. In paragraph 7, Athanasius puts Esther in the non-canonical category.

2. It's not clear from the list whether Athanasius intends the longer or shorter version of Daniel in his list.

I'd say that, while this is a useful list, the canon still seems to be in flux at this point.

Indeed, it was in flux; his letter was authoritative only within the Church of Alexandria, but what made the 39th Paschal Encyclical important was that it was the first document that has the 27 book New Testament protocanon that everyone now accepts, which at the time was not the case (you had for example the Peshitta Canon, which excluded 2 Peter, Revelation and 3 other books and was for a time the official canon of the Church of the East, and still is the basis of their lectionary system).