Why do so many Protestants claim that Athanasius and Origen rejected the Apocrypha?

[Anthony16]

This site has lists of the ancient canons Ancient Canon Lists and this is where I get most of my information in this post from.

First they falsely claim that Athanasius did not regard any of the apocrypha as inspired which is flase because in his list he considers Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as inspired and also most likely he considered the so called “additions to Daniel” as inspired as well. He also has a second canon for the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit and Judith. He even includes Esther as not part of the main canon and puts it in with books like Wisdom. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

They also claim that Origen did not regard the apocrypha as inspired which is flase. He even defended “additions” to Daniel as inspired and even wrote about how the Jews corrupted the scriptures. Also according to Eusebius, Origen believed that the Epistle of Jeremiah and either two or three books of the Maccabees were inspired. He definitely considered the extra chapters of Daniel as inspired and probably Esther as well. Origen on the Canon of Scripture

It’s fine if you don’t consider the “apocrypha” as inspired (I personally do) for it’s not a salvation issue but why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view? It doesn’t seem like they have much support so they have to make lies up instead.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view?

If you believe these books are inspired

This site has lists of the ancient canons Ancient Canon Lists and this is where I get most of my information in this post from.

First they falsely claim that Athanasius did not regard any of the apocrypha as inspired which is flase because in his list he considers Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as inspired and also most likely he considered the so called “additions to Daniel” as inspired as well. He also has a second canon for the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit and Judith. He even includes Esther as not part of the main canon and puts it in with books like Wisdom. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

They also claim that Origen did not regard the apocrypha as inspired which is flase. He even defended “additions” to Daniel as inspired and even wrote about how the Jews corrupted the scriptures. Also according to Eusebius, Origen believed that the Epistle of Jeremiah and either two or three books of the Maccabees were inspired. He definitely considered the extra chapters of Daniel as inspired and probably Esther as well. Origen on the Canon of Scripture

It’s fine if you don’t consider the “apocrypha” as inspired (I personally do) for it’s not a salvation issue but why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view? It doesn’t seem like they have much support so they have to make lies up instead.

This site has lists of the ancient canons Ancient Canon Lists and this is where I get most of my information in this post from.

First they falsely claim that Athanasius did not regard any of the apocrypha as inspired which is flase because in his list he considers Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as inspired and also most likely he considered the so called “additions to Daniel” as inspired as well. He also has a second canon for the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit and Judith. He even includes Esther as not part of the main canon and puts it in with books like Wisdom. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

They also claim that Origen did not regard the apocrypha as inspired which is flase. He even defended “additions” to Daniel as inspired and even wrote about how the Jews corrupted the scriptures. Also according to Eusebius, Origen believed that the Epistle of Jeremiah and either two or three books of the Maccabees were inspired. He definitely considered the extra chapters of Daniel as inspired and probably Esther as well. Origen on the Canon of Scripture

It’s fine if you don’t consider the “apocrypha” as inspired (I personally do) for it’s not a salvation issue but why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view? It doesn’t seem like they have much support so they have to make lies up instead.

There must be some reason why. It is known that these books as a whole have unknown authors and or unknown origin. The fathers took many positions on many doctrinal issues. I do not believe any of them had a consensus. Which leads me to believe, they are fallible.
A person can read these books as extra curricular reading, like we read a Christian book however, in order to claim inspiration from God, it would have to to follow suit with the Gospels with no compromise.
In conclusion, if there was any sentence in any of these books that added to the foundation already set by the Apostles with Jesus Christ of Nazareth as the cornerstone, then they would have made it in.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

This site has lists of the ancient canons Ancient Canon Lists and this is where I get most of my information in this post from.

First they falsely claim that Athanasius did not regard any of the apocrypha as inspired which is flase because in his list he considers Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as inspired and also most likely he considered the so called “additions to Daniel” as inspired as well. He also has a second canon for the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit and Judith. He even includes Esther as not part of the main canon and puts it in with books like Wisdom. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture

They also claim that Origen did not regard the apocrypha as inspired which is flase. He even defended “additions” to Daniel as inspired and even wrote about how the Jews corrupted the scriptures. Also according to Eusebius, Origen believed that the Epistle of Jeremiah and either two or three books of the Maccabees were inspired. He definitely considered the extra chapters of Daniel as inspired and probably Esther as well. Origen on the Canon of Scripture

It’s fine if you don’t consider the “apocrypha” as inspired (I personally do) for it’s not a salvation issue but why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view? It doesn’t seem like they have much support so they have to make lies up instead.

The problem is that there is so much misinformation and it is difficult to weed through to determine the truth, so often we just accept what was handed down. If the visible church had never become corrupted and twisted the truth, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I found a great catholic source on Athanasius that included more of the letter. Certainly, the catholic writer is also trying to support his doctrine just like those who want to support the protestant side make their claims.

The Catholic Voyager: Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

My understanding--even from reading what the catholic writer quoted of him--is that Athanasius didn't consider them equal to Scripture, but that they were valuable books for devotion. It sure seems like he made a distinction, even according to the catholic source between Scripture and the extra books. He also alluded to other books that were out there whose use would be heresy. BUT, contrary to protestant sources he didn't call them apocrypha either--which was a term he used for other writings. So, he was taking neither the protestants or the catholics side. In contrast to protestants, he was saying these books have devotional value and should be read in church, just like the Scriptures. In contrast to catholics, he was saying they aren't on the level of Scripture.

The catholic writer claimed that the orthodox and catholics accept the same books as Scripture, but I have been told that the orthodox accept another book. Here is a great source on why there is that difference.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

BTW, I'm not roman catholic.

 

[Anthony16]

The problem is that there is so much misinformation and it is difficult to weed through to determine the truth, so often we just accept what was handed down. If the visible church had never become corrupted and twisted the truth, this wouldn't even be a discussion.

I found a great catholic source on Athanasius that included more of the letter. Certainly, the catholic writer is also trying to support his doctrine just like those who want to support the protestant side make their claims.

The Catholic Voyager: Did Athanasius reject the Deuterocanon?

My understanding--even from reading what the catholic writer quoted of him--is that Athanasius didn't consider them equal to Scripture, but that they were valuable books for devotion. It sure seems like he made a distinction, even according to the catholic source between Scripture and the extra books. He also alluded to other books that were out there whose use would be heresy. BUT, contrary to protestant sources he didn't call them apocrypha either--which was a term he used for other writings. So, he was taking neither the protestants or the catholics side. In contrast to protestants, he was saying these books have devotional value and should be read in church, just like the Scriptures. In contrast to catholics, he was saying they aren't on the level of Scripture.

The catholic writer claimed that the orthodox and catholics accept the same books as Scripture, but I have been told that the orthodox accept another book. Here is a great source on why there is that difference.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

BTW, I'm not roman catholic.

Yeah I don’t believe that a book like Tobit or the Shepherd of Hermas is on the same level of something like the Torah but to be fair some books in the 66 book canon were considered by many to be part of a second canon not the main one. Some of the books were Esther and Revelation. I think it’s a shame that so many Bibles don’t include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, The Shepherd, etc, for they are very great books.

 

[Johnny4ChristJesus]

Yeah I don’t believe that a book like Tobit or the Shepherd of Hermas is on the same level of something like the Torah but to be fair some books in the 66 book canon were considered by many to be part of a second canon not the main one. Some of the books were Esther and Revelation. I think it’s a shame that so many Bibles don’t include Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, The Shepherd, etc, for they are very great books.

Esther, I agree with you on, based on what I have read. But, while not all of the early "fathers" considered Revelation, it was never off the official list of NT Books, once they started working together to determine a canon.

Still I found it interesting to see that some of the New Testament books weren't universally accepted until the canon was locked in.

 

[Anthony16]

Esther, I agree with you on, based on what I have read. But, while not all of the early "fathers" considered Revelation, it was never off the official list of NT Books, once they started working together to determine a canon.

Still I found it interesting to see that some of the New Testament books weren't universally accepted until the canon was locked in.

I actually agree with Church Fathers that Esther is part of the second canon.

Even later some books of the New Testament were challenged by people. For example Martin Luther believed that Revelation, Hebrews, James, and Jude should be put into the apocrypha. He didn’t in the end but I personally don’t think it would really matter to much as long as their in the Bible it’s fine.