The Bible is the Word of God, and is God Himself

[The Liturgist]

St. Athanasius disagrees -- he explicitly stated he was passing on what he had received. He didn't make a canon, he inherited one -- by his own words.

He obviously received guidance on what books were and were not authentic, however, he was the first to enforce this as an actual canon. Prior to the Athanasian canon, we only have proposed canons, for example, the list of books Eusebius of Caesarea deemed authentic, and the list Origen deemed authentic, and so on. And the canon of St. Athanasius is closely related to these, it should also be stressed.

And this fact is unsurprising, since St. Athanasius spent his entire career defending the Apostolic faith and making sure that local churches were required to teach it.

The Athanasian Canon was a bit like the Creed and the Canons of the Council of Nicaea; it was not doctrinally new, but it was new in that finally, orthodoxy was being enforced. Such enforcement became increasingly possible since Christians were no longer being killed as a form of recreation by pagans with official state sanction.

 

[Roymond]

scripture and Tradition disagrees with you.

Huh? Scripture is my source! Search all you want, but there is nothing in scripture about infallible teaching except what was stated to the Apostles as a group. And according to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, tradition is not valid if it does not conform to the scriptures.

 

[Roymond]

that's the first time I've seen that claim made. Having multiple keys isn't consistent with was was preconfigured in the OT or the development of the Church.

St. Augustine says something close to it, stating that Peter is merely a figure for the whole church and the keys belong to the whole church. For that matter, St. Cyprian wrote that the keys belong to all bishops and St. Gregory indicates that the keys belong to all the patriarchs, meaning all the successors to the Apostles.
In fact it's hard to find any claim that the keys belong to Peter solely any time before the Great Schism. The first clear statement of the Roman position today is from St. Anselm.

 

[Valletta]

No, my beef is with you misrepresenting what those patriarchs and councils said: every single one of them said they were just passing on what was handed down. St. Athanasius didn't make a list, he passed one on -- in other words, according to Athanasius he was just relating a list that existed. The same is true of every single authority put forth as "deciding" the canon.

I've read these sources in the original language and am merely reporting what they say.

And the keys of the kingdom have no relevance here; all that any pope did was to state the same thing: they were passing on what they had received.

Saint Athanasius is credited by most scholars with the first NT list, it is the oldest list that we know of and contains the same books in the same order we use today. I don't recall hearing your interpretation of his writings before, that someone previously provided him with the exact list. Certainly the Word of God has been handed down within the Catholic Church from generation to generation, but I don't interpret the comments of the Saint in that regard to mean he was provided that exact list from some other Catholic. But I respect your interpretation and you are free to disagree. I was hoping you read Eusbesius as I had recommended so you are not confused about the Catholic Church process of choosing the books of the Bible. As I mentioned, the process spanned centuries and the potential canon was getting closer to the final canon in the time of Ecclesiastical History, just decades before the Athanasius list. Here is just an excerpt, I urge you to read more.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 3, Chapter 24, Ecclesiastical History--The Order of the Gospels (approx. 324 A.D.)

"17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. 18 But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. 20 But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients. 21

​

CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)

As I mentioned, Revelation was the last book disputed, Ecclesiastical History confirms it had not been selected by approx. 324 A.D. Note that it is mentioned that it will be decided in the future from "the testimony of the ancients," in other words, as Saint Athanasius says, what has been "handed down." It is possible that your conjecture that some other Catholic between 324 A.D. and 367 A.D. came up with the St. Athanasius canon is true, but again this was not my take on the writings of St. Athanasius.

 

[dzheremi]

My understanding is that the Eastern Orthodox in Uganda are the fruit of evangelism

Hmm. Well my understanding of their roots is from this article by Met. Makarios of Kenya which says it is a result of native Ugandans converting due to their own searching, rather than evangelism by outsiders. I haven't really researched it outside of this and the little bit that's mentioned in whatever edition of Met. Kallistos Ware's book that I don't even have anymore, so I can't double-check it now (hence I took the number of EO Ugandans from Wiki).

like the Copts in Zambia (there is an album on Apple Music of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy sung in the indigenous language and traditional musical style by the Zambians)

Ooo...heading over there now! Thanks!

, whereas the Alexandrian Greeks in Egypt, whose numbers I had heard were as low as 90,000, are of course descended from the ancient Greeks and Hellenized Egyptians who founded Alexandria during the empire building of Alexander the Great

Ehhh...from my understanding, which comes from one of the deacons in my old parish in NM who is from Alexandria, the number of ethnic Greeks in the city is very small (like in the low thousands), and the children of mixed Coptic-Greek couples tend to think of themselves as Copts primarily (I guess the Coptic identity is stronger in Egypt than the Greek? That would make sense given the relative numbers, though I would keep in mind the source here: an ethnic Coptic person), even if they're members of the Greek Church. It's sort of funny, because what few Coptic historians I am aware of who have written on this dynamic (like Maged S.A. Mikhail in his From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt) tend to suggest that in the old days it was the other way around, with the ethnic Egyptians in Alexandria thinking of themselves as more 'Hellenic' (~ cultured/civilized?) and actually preferring the use of Greek in their liturgy to Coptic (even if Coptic was actually their native tongue). These were communicants in the Coptic Orthodox Church post-Chalcedonian schism, and this disparity in attitude towards the different languages by those from the prestigious, Hellenized elite of the city is theorized to be one of the big things that eventually hastened the death of Coptic in Egypt after the establishment of Islamic Cairo in the 10th century (and indeed the very latest original Coptic documents we have, marriage documents from the 13th century, come from Upper/Southern Egypt, on the other side of the country from Alexandria, and also well enough away from Cairo).

 

[Roymond]

Saint Athanasius is credited by most scholars with the first NT list, it is the oldest list that we know of and contains the same books in the same order we use today. I don't recall hearing your interpretation of his writings before, that someone previously provided him with the exact list. Certainly the Word of God has been handed down within the Catholic Church from generation to generation, but I don't interpret the comments of the Saint in that regard to mean he was provided that exact list from some other Catholic. But I respect your interpretation and you are free to disagree. I was hoping you read Eusbesius as I had recommended so you are not confused about the Catholic Church process of choosing the books of the Bible. As I mentioned, the process spanned centuries and the potential canon was getting closer to the final canon in the time of Ecclesiastical History, just decades before the Athanasius list. Here is just an excerpt, I urge you to read more.

Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 3, Chapter 24, Ecclesiastical History--The Order of the Gospels (approx. 324 A.D.)

"17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. 18 But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. 20 But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients. 21

​

CHURCH FATHERS: Church History, Book III (Eusebius)

As I mentioned, Revelation was the last book disputed, Ecclesiastical History confirms it had not been selected by approx. 324 A.D. Note that it is mentioned that it will be decided in the future from "the testimony of the ancients," in other words, as Saint Athanasius says, what has been "handed down." It is possible that your conjecture that some other Catholic between 324 A.D. and 367 A.D. came up with the St. Athanasius canon is true, but again this was not my take on the writings of St. Athanasius.

This sounds like you haven't even been reading what I've written. I said I read those sources in the original.

Why you insist on reducing the process to individuals handing others a list I don't grasp, because I've made clear that the decisions were made in all the churches, a process that began when the first churches with letters from Paul swapped copies and which proceeded "up the line" as small groups of churches did the same, and then larger groups, and eventually up to Athanasius and others who reported what their churches had decided.
As for what Ecclesiastical History reports, it isn't that the named books weren't "selected", they were selected by some but not by others.

Canonization wasn't a nice tidy linear process except early on when the core of Paul's major letters and some Gospels were received fairly quickly.

And I made no conjecture; you're making that up. I reported what Athanasius said, which is that he had received what he published. The most likely scenario was that one of his bishops had a question about one or more books and Athanasius decided to ask all his bishops to send their lists, and he collated the results.

 

[Valletta]

This sounds like you haven't even been reading what I've written. I said I read those sources in the original.

Why you insist on reducing the process to individuals handing others a list I don't grasp, because I've made clear that the decisions were made in all the churches, a process that began when the first churches with letters from Paul swapped copies and which proceeded "up the line" as small groups of churches did the same, and then larger groups, and eventually up to Athanasius and others who reported what their churches had decided.
As for what Ecclesiastical History reports, it isn't that the named books weren't "selected", they were selected by some but not by others.

Canonization wasn't a nice tidy linear process except early on when the core of Paul's major letters and some Gospels were received fairly quickly.

And I made no conjecture; you're making that up. I reported what Athanasius said, which is that he had received what he published. The most likely scenario was that one of his bishops had a question about one or more books and Athanasius decided to ask all his bishops to send their lists, and he collated the results.

I already told you that Saint Athanasius is credited by most scholars with the first NT list, that's a fact. I did read what you said but respectfully that does not mean your interpretation is superior to that of scholars. Have you published your interpretation? You SUMMARIZED your interpretation without citing a specific passage and putting your translation within quotations. Has anyone else gone along with your conjecture about Athanasius asking all bishops for lists and then collating the result? Finally, I never said that canonization was "a nice tidy linear process."

 

[Roymond]

I already told you that Saint Athanasius is credited by most scholars with the first NT list, that's a fact. I did read what you said but respectfully that does not mean your interpretation is superior to that of scholars. Have you published your interpretation? You SUMMARIZED your interpretation without citing a specific passage and putting your translation within quotations. Has anyone else gone along with your conjecture about Athanasius asking all bishops for lists and then collating the result? Finally, I never said that canonization was "a nice tidy linear process."

You keep saying "I told you" when it's things I said. I'll try this again:

I HAVE READ YOUR SOURCES IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.

Since you're referencing Athanasius I assumed that you were aware of his festal letter where he makes his statement. I'm not interpreting anything, I'm reporting what he said -- the word used to describe the list he is about to give is παραδέδοται; he describes the canon as παραδοθέντα, and he also uses παρέδοσαν, all of which you would know if you actually were familiar with the sources. He also wrote that the recipients of his letter were already familiar with the matter, which indicates that the list he is giving is one they already knew.

BTW, "Saint Athanasius is credited by most scholars with the first NT list" is not a fact; there are partial lists from before, plus mention of lists that people knew of but of which we have no manuscripts. The list handed down by Athanasius is the first list of which there are extant manuscripts and which matches later lists.

The conjecture about the process is based on how the canon got established from the beginning.

You represented the transmission of the canon as one person handing another person a list.

 

[Valletta]

You keep saying "I told you" when it's things I said. I'll try this again:

I HAVE READ YOUR SOURCES IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES.

Since you're referencing Athanasius I assumed that you were aware of his festal letter where he makes his statement. I'm not interpreting anything, I'm reporting what he said -- the word used to describe the list he is about to give is παραδέδοται; he describes the canon as παραδοθέντα, and he also uses παρέδοσαν, all of which you would know if you actually were familiar with the sources. He also wrote that the recipients of his letter were already familiar with the matter, which indicates that the list he is giving is one they already knew.

BTW, "Saint Athanasius is credited by most scholars with the first NT list" is not a fact; there are partial lists from before, plus mention of lists that people knew of but of which we have no manuscripts. The list handed down by Athanasius is the first list of which there are extant manuscripts and which matches later lists.

The conjecture about the process is based on how the canon got established from the beginning.

You represented the transmission of the canon as one person handing another person a list.

As I told you, the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries, and I provided a quotation from Eusebius as to what the list was like in his time, just decades before the Athanasius list, which mentioned that Revelation was in dispute. As I had previously informed you, Revelation was the last book disputed before the actual NT list of books by Athanasius, which is the same list and in the same order approved by the Catholic Church in the late 300s, the same list we use today. Protestants keep even the same order as part of their tradition. Most scholars credit that first actual list (of the final eventually approved list) to Athanasius, I did not say all, there is almost always someone who disagrees with historical information. Could you provide the entire quotation that you maintain supports your theory and your personal translation rather than individual words and your own summary? But from what we can see the list of books came closer to the final list as time progressed, that does not mean there were not setbacks or differences of opinion. We have some documents which have survived to this time from the early centuries that give us a picture of where the Church was at various points in time.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 3, Chapter 24, Ecclesiastical History--The Order of the Gospels (approx. 324 A.D.)

"17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. 18 But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. 20 But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients. 21

This last statement lets us know that whether to include Revelation or not, for example, was based on what had been passed down within the Church, indeed so much of Revelation parallels the Catholic mass that it should be no surprise it was included.

 

[Diamond7]

Word of God in the Bible is God Himself.

God proclaims His word (from the beginning) and He watches over His word to perform what He says He is going to do. If we understood the first word or even the first letter in "Beginning" We would understand everything that follows.

The letter B means tent or tabernacle. God is creating a dwelling for HImself. He wants to be a part of His creation.

 

[Diamond7]

the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries

Only Moses and Jesus give us the word of God. All the others, even David are commentary to explain what we learn from Moses and Jesus.

Numbers 12:7,8 "He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, will reveal Myself to him in a vision; I will speak to him in a dream. But this is not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you unafraid to speak against My servant Moses?

Deuteronomy 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses] from among you, from your countrymen (brothers, brethren). You shall listen to him.

I think most people do listen to Jesus. They just do not have much regard for His disciples. Only Moses and Jesus speak plain and clearly. Everyone else speaks in riddles.

 

[Roymond]

As I told you, the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries, and I provided a quotation from Eusebius as to what the list was like in his time, just decades before the Athanasius list, which mentioned that Revelation was in dispute. As I had previously informed you, Revelation was the last book disputed before the actual NT list of books by Athanasius, which is the same list and in the same order approved by the Catholic Church in the late 300s, the same list we use today. Protestants keep even the same order as part of their tradition. Most scholars credit that first actual list (of the final eventually approved list) to Athanasius, I did not say all, there is almost always someone who disagrees with historical information. Could you provide the entire quotation that you maintain supports your theory and your personal translation rather than individual words and your own summary? But from what we can see the list of books came closer to the final list as time progressed, that does not mean there were not setbacks or differences of opinion. We have some documents which have survived to this time from the early centuries that give us a picture of where the Church was at various points in time.
Eusebius of Caesarea, Book 3, Chapter 24, Ecclesiastical History--The Order of the Gospels (approx. 324 A.D.)

"17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. 18 But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. 20 But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients. 21

This last statement lets us know that whether to include Revelation or not, for example, was based on what had been passed down within the Church, indeed so much of Revelation parallels the Catholic mass that it should be no surprise it was included.

You haven't bothered to even read the sources you keep referencing as though I hadn't read them all in the original languages, have you? It certainly seems that you are citing Athanasius without having read the actual source even if only in translation -- here's a decent one:

I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance†, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.​

​

3. In proceeding to make mention‡ of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered§ to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.​

​

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.​

​

† i.e. bringing to mind things they all know (as indicated by the next phrase also)
‡ lit. "remind; call to mind/memory"
§ or "handed down"
- = - = -

I bolded the instances where Athanasius indicates that he is not doing anything new but is relaying what he had received.

 

[Roymond]

The letter B means tent or tabernacle. God is creating a dwelling for HImself. He wants to be a part of His creation.

Source? I know that the Hebrew letter 'beth' stands for a home or dwelling, as well as for an "opening up" or mouth.

Trivia: all these meanings are used by ancient rabbis in looking at the first word of Genesis, בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית, "brehsheet": the ב is the opening up of Creation from nothing (the little extension on the bottom right, which is the start of the letter) by words from God's mouth which went forth to make a great, vast dwelling for God.

 

[Roymond]

Only Moses and Jesus give us the word of God. All the others, even David are commentary to explain what we learn from Moses and Jesus.

That would come as a surprise to some fellows named Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Mica, Joel.... and a bunch of others.

Numbers 12:7,8 "He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, will reveal Myself to him in a vision; I will speak to him in a dream. But this is not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD. Why then were you unafraid to speak against My servant Moses?

Deuteronomy 18:15 “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me [Moses] from among you, from your countrymen (brothers, brethren). You shall listen to him.

I think most people do listen to Jesus. They just do not have much regard for His disciples. Only Moses and Jesus speak plain and clearly. Everyone else speaks in riddles.

The Prophets and the Apostles spoke quite plainly.

 

[Valletta]

You haven't bothered to even read the sources you keep referencing as though I hadn't read them all in the original languages, have you? It certainly seems that you are citing Athanasius without having read the actual source even if only in translation -- here's a decent one (although it's missing important portions):

I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance†, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church.​

​

3. In proceeding to make mention‡ of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered§ to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.​

​

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.​

​

† i.e. bringing to mind things they all know (as indicated by the next phrase also)
‡ lit. "remind; call to mind/memory"
§ or "handed down"
- = - = -

I bolded the instances where Athanasius indicates that he is not doing anything new but is relaying what he had received.

Thank you. That quotation is from Letter 39. Consider the following quotation of Athanasius from On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. ,

'Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.

CHURCH FATHERS: De Synodis (Athanasius)

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

www.newadvent.org

Athanasius speaks of the Councils, specifically the Nicene Council in this instance, but the sentiment goes for all Catholics and Catholic beliefs. We believe what has been handed down through the Apostles. We may come to a deeper understanding of what has been handed down.

Athanasius does not specifically say some person handed him the NT list. I understand your interpretation of his words, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. What we do know for a fact is that the oldest list in existence that is the NT canon formalized by the Catholic Church forever just decades later, was that from Athanasius. But as I have explained to you the Catholic Church process of selecting books of the Bible spanned centuries. The Catholic approach is the same with the OT, Catholics use the Septuagint because that's what the Apostle's taught from. Earlier in that century the lists were getting close to the final canon written down by Athanasius. If you take the text to be saying that some other Catholic handed him the list you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. A Catholic understanding the Catholic approach and teaching might believe his reference did not mean a person handed him the list, that instead he was referring to teachings handed down through the Apostles and their successors.

 

[Diamond7]

That would come as a surprise to some fellows named Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Hosea, Amos, Mica, Joel.... and a bunch of others.

In what way do you feel they add to what we receive from Moses?

 

[Roymond]

He obviously received guidance on what books were and were not authentic, however, he was the first to enforce this as an actual canon. Prior to the Athanasian canon, we only have proposed canons, for example, the list of books Eusebius of Caesarea deemed authentic, and the list Origen deemed authentic, and so on. And the canon of St. Athanasius is closely related to these, it should also be stressed.

And this fact is unsurprising, since St. Athanasius spent his entire career defending the Apostolic faith and making sure that local churches were required to teach it.

The Athanasian Canon was a bit like the Creed and the Canons of the Council of Nicaea; it was not doctrinally new, but it was new in that finally, orthodoxy was being enforced. Such enforcement became increasingly possible since Christians were no longer being killed as a form of recreation by pagans with official state sanction.

It was being enforced already on the local and probably city level, with slight differences most likely, but you have a point in that this is the first patriarchal-level summation, which given the force of Athanasius' words means everyone is going to abide by this list now; whatever arguments or discussion anyone might be having were done with within the reach of the Alexandrian see.

Interestingly, theologians continued to give their opinions of specific books; the difference was that while theologians were allowed their opinions, when it came to what to read in church the discussion was ended: the churches had been heeding the Spirit for decades and had built the canon, and Athanasius' summary and designation meant the process was becoming more focused.

I wish I still had my grad school notes available so I could indicate sources for the bottom-up process, but since it's recognized by some major scholars it's not that much of an issue any more, except for the misrepresentation of the process as though suddenly patriarchs and councils were throwing out these lists as though they came from nowhere. It irks me when people do that because it kills the actual catholicity of the canon, that it was καθ' ὅλου, "according to the whole" and ἐκ καθολικῃ, this second term being somewhat redundant since καθολικῃ was built from the first term, so ἐκ καθολικῃ means "from according to the whole". It's a wonderful and awesome process that the canon was built by the churches even as the growing canon 'fed' those churches, like the "two are better than one" from Ecclesiastes, and with the oral tradition still in use gives the "threefold cord" that is "not quickly broken".

 

[Roymond]

Thank you. That quotation is from Letter 39. Consider the following quotation of Athanasius from On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. ,

'Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles.

CHURCH FATHERS: De Synodis (Athanasius)

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

www.newadvent.org

Athanasius speaks of the Councils, specifically the Nicene Council in this instance, but the sentiment goes for all Catholics and Catholic beliefs. We believe what has been handed down through the Apostles. We may come to a deeper understanding of what has been handed down.

Athanasius does not specifically say some person handed him the NT list. I understand your interpretation of his words, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. What we do know for a fact is that the oldest list in existence that is the NT canon formalized by the Catholic Church forever just decades later, was that from Athanasius. But as I have explained to you the Catholic Church process of selecting books of the Bible spanned centuries. The Catholic approach is the same with the OT, Catholics use the Septuagint because that's what the Apostle's taught from. Earlier in that century the lists were getting close to the final canon written down by Athanasius. If you take the text to be saying that some other Catholic handed him the list you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. A Catholic understanding the Catholic approach and teaching might believe his reference did not mean a person handed him the list, that instead he was referring to teachings handed down through the Apostles and their successors.

You've come a full turn: you started by saying the church just decreed the canon, and I was insisting it was a bottom-up process that began when two churches first swapped copies of letters they had from Paul.

I don't know why you're stuck on this "someone handed him the list" notion you invented. I suppose its possible that bishop Alexander handed him a list, but I think it more likely that he canvassed his bishops.

 

[Roymond]

In what way do you feel they add to what we receive from Moses?

Everywhere they said, "The Word of the LORD" or "Thus says the LORD".

 

[The Liturgist]

You've come a full turn: you started by saying the church just decreed the canon, and I was insisting it was a bottom-up process that began when two churches first swapped copies of letters they had from Paul.

I don't know why you're stuck on this "someone handed him the list" notion you invented. I suppose its possible that bishop Alexander handed him a list, but I think it more likely that he canvassed his bishops.

It could have been both/and rather than either/or, since the Church of Alexandria has always been governed by its Holy Synod, and one cannot help get the impression that St. Alexander and St. Athanasius were of one accord on pretty much everything, since their legendary first meeting, which may or may not have happened, when according to the hagiography Pope Alexander saw young Athanasius “playing church” with some of his friends, and recruited him as a Psalti, which makes sense because in the Coptic and Byzantine church one can find Psaltis who are as young as eight, or at the moment even younger in some Coptic churches*, and St. Athanasius was made a Psalti at 13, taught to read and then made a lector, subdeacon and so on, so by the time of Nicaea he was Protodeacon, and when St. Alexander died a couple of years later he was the natural successor, since at Nicaea he had acted as the main prosecutor of Arius on behalf of St. Alexander. I doubt there was any substantial controversy between the Orthodox bishops of Alexandria and St. Athanasius over the contents of Paschal Encyclical XXXIX.

*These days I have seen some first graders vested as Psaltis, in both the Syriac and Coptic Orthodox churches. I believe this is because of an initiative of the Coptic church to revive the vernacular use of the Coptic language by teaching it to small children, and the infrastructure they had to teach Tasbeha (Coptic chant) to 7 and 8 year old boys can be adapted to teach the language to five and six year old boys and girls. The Assyrian Church of the East, which as @Pavel Mosko can attest, having unusually been a member of both, is greatly disliked by the Coptic church, has a similar program in place to preserve the vernacular East Syriac dialect in use the diaspora. The Coptic Orthodox program is even more ambitious, with its goal being to replace Arabic with Coptic in the diaspora.

Likewise, the replacement of Arabic with some form of Syriac (ideally Classical Syriac with a Western accent) in the diaspora is the goal of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, in which due to the genocide in 1915 there has been a severe decline in the use of the several vernacular West Syriac dialects like Turoye, and Mhlaso (the latter now having just two surviving native speakers) historically used alongside Arabic by the Suroye, the members of that church in the Middle East (whereas Malayalam with Syriac loanwords is the predominant language among the Nasrani, the St. Thomas Christians of Malankara under the Jacobite jurisdiction of the Maphrian, which is part of the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the break-away faction which has managed to seize most churches from the Patriarchate known as the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and as the Indian Orthodox Church, led by the Catholicos of India, and the neutral Malankara Independent Syrian Church, which is the only Oriental Orthodox church to be in full communion with a Protestant church, the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, which is a member of the Anglican Communion).