A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[Andrew]

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 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 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 [minor prophets] 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.

5. Is about the New Testament

6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, 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 any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

It is clear that he differentiates between the "Old Testament" and "other books". And that these other books are not included in the Canon but to be "merely read" for instruction in godliness.

Yeah, I know they weren't canon according to the Jews, the Church eventually did officially declare them canon so to not confuse Church Tradition with the 'canon' of an unbelieving Jewish sect, less we believe the word of men and not God who prepared Christianity with the books that every church would depend on before Jeromes translation.

Did God bless the Jews by inspiring them to set a canon to give to the Nations?
Or did God bless the Nations with Scripture so that no Goat could tamper with them?

Had Jerome gone to the Samritan sect and found that everything outside of the Pentateuch was acporypha? It would make Jesus a gnostic cult leader.

Had Jerome truly accepted the Hebrew as the final cut of the canon of God's Word, the Gospel would be Apocrypha.

Yet even they are found guilty had they accepted the book of Wisdom (chapter 2) so why not make the claim that ever since Moses, God had communicated through men to write down his words, but all of a sudden God gave them 400 years of silence, and to Jews today, God remains silent and no Messiah has come according to Daniel's timeline.

No, God never kept His silence, the Prophets of Gods word whome the Jews cut off prematurely, ended with the deaths of last Apostles...them of the New Testament.

Jews today no longer plead for the coming of Messiah as we do for His second coming. They are saved by their Jewish DNA and/or the Torah, if you ask them if the Messiah is necessary for their salvation they will NOPE!!!

 

[Andrew]

Do you have a link. I can't find it on New Advent.

Post 276 and 277 are from the letters of Rufinus to Jerome

 

[NathanH83]

No. I've explained that mistake in my previous post. Read it again.

What post? I’ve read the whole entire letter of 1 Clement, and he clearly referenced Judith as scripture. You think you can just make me forget what I read? Where’s your brain washing post? You might want to call the Men In Black and borrow their neuralizer, because I can’t think of any other way you’re going to get me to forget what I read in 1 Clement.

I can see Will Smith right now being all like,

“You think Clement referenced Judith as scripture? Nah. Psh. He was just, you know, mentioning how he liked her decorations, and how he wanted to take her down to Bloomingdales and buy her something fancy. But he wasn’t referencing her as scripture. Nah, he didn’t mean that. Come on, now.”

 

[Lanman87]

Yeah, I know they weren't canon according to the Jews

Anthanasius was telling us what he (probably the most respected Christian Bishop at the time) considered to be canonical and non-canonical. He wasn't telling us what the Jews thought.

Anthanasius wrote the Festal letter in 367. Jerome didn't start translating the Scripture into Latin until 382.

Jerome was following the lead of Anthanasius and the tradition of many in the church. Not just some unbelieving Jews.

 

[Albion]

What post? I’ve read the whole entire letter of 1 Clement, and he clearly referenced Judith as scripture.

Sorry. I was referring to the one immediately prior to yours--post #268.

I also explained the point in an earlier reply to you. See the second section of post #260.

 

[Andrew]

Anthanasius was telling us what he (probably the most respected Christian Bishop at the time) considered to be canonical and non-canonical. He wasn't telling us what the Jews thought.

Anthanasius wrote the Festal letter in 367. Jerome didn't start translating the Scripture into Latin until 382.

Jerome was following the lead of Anthanasius and the tradition of many in the church. Not just some unbelieving Jews.

"Merely" was originally in brackets and inserted by the translator.
He himself reffered to certain books as scripture multiple times in his writings.. and I'm seriously warn out from constantly quoting from the volumes, these videos may be useful to your understanding of Anthanasius.

 

[Lanman87]

Post 276 and 277 are from the letters of Rufinus to Jerome

I'm looking for a source to read the entire thing for my self. No disrespect meant but anytime anyone (either Catholic or Protestant apologist) quote church fathers I try to find and independent source and read it for myself. I've found both sides have either just made up quotes, misquoted, taken a sentence or two out of context, or quote something that many textual critics things is a later addition to a work or is not authentic.

For instance, I found several Protestant Apologist saying the Synod in Laodicea named the Hebrew/Protestant Old Testament. However, upon further investigation I found that the paragraph listing those books may be a later addition. Even though it was probably added well before the reformation I didn't list it for you as a source that showed a tradition in the Catholic church that held the Reformers views of the Duetero books.

I have three main sources. If you have another source that includes the letters of Rufinus to Jerome I would appreciate you linking it.

NewAdvent - A Catholic Source

EarlyChristianWritings.com

ccel.org

 

[Josiah]

the Church eventually did officially declare them canon

Yet, you can't tell us when or where (or even what) "The Church" did this. We've asked you for this for MONTHS (years?) and you've always ignored it (and we all know why).

YES, there were 3 tiny, regional, western, Latin, synods... none authoritative, none ecumenical, none "the Church." Just 3 dioceses of the Western Latin church (by no means the whole church) declaring an issue of the lectionary for that particular western Latin diocese. Other dioceses would not be interested and OBVIOUSLY no diocese of the East paid any attention to it at all. Nathan admits these were not meetings of the church.

And this claim - yet another, still another, one in a LONG, LONG list - is entirely unsubstantiated. You've already stated, "I could care less." But for those of us who think truth matters, it's noted that this claim - like SO MANY OTHERS you've made on this point - is not shown to be true. But as you say, "I could care less."

And it creates a problem for you.... you claim the books that must be included in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover MUST include the books numerated in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (and in the 1611 KJV authorized by the King and leader of the Church of England). But NONE of those 3 regional, diocesan, non-authoritative, non-ecumenical meetings numerated the exact set of books you insist must be numerated and mandated to appear in any and all books called "BIBLES."




.

 

[Andrew]

I'm looking for a source to read the entire thing for my self. No disrespect meant but anytime anyone (either Catholic or Protestant apologist) quote church fathers I try to find and independent source and read it for myself. I've found both sides have either just made up quotes, misquoted, taken a sentence or two out of context, or quote something that many textual critics things is a later addition to a work or is not authentic.

For instance, I found several Protestant Apologist saying the Synod in Laodicea named the Hebrew/Protestant Old Testament. However, upon further investigation I found that the paragraph listing those books may be a later addition. Even though it was probably added well before the reformation I didn't list it for you as a source that showed a tradition in the Catholic church that held the Reformers views of the Duetero books.

I have three main sources. If you have another source that includes the letters of Rufinus to Jerome I would appreciate you linking it.

NewAdvent - A Catholic Source

EarlyChristianWritings.com

ccel.org

Rufinus Book 2, starts around chapter 30 or 31 I believe

CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Jerome, Book II (Rufinus)

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

www.newadvent.org

 

[Josiah]

Andy -

Again, still another time, guilty of spamming because I've said this so often..... IF, IF, IF you had been saying, "Look, there are a lot of works beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even placed into collections with "the 66" ... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among Christians today, especially modern "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, encouraged to read them." IF, IF, IF you had said THAT, I would have fully agreed and championed that - quoting Luther and my own parish pastor, noting how some Lutheran Lectionaries include readings from them, how Lutherans have a lectionary exclusively for them (readings for each day of the year from them), how my parish had a 6 month study of them. And I know Albion, Lanman87, Origen and others too would have noted their value.

But that's not what you've said. We've gotten all the Jewish Conspiracy theories, how the list of books (you've wavered all over the place on
WHICH books - perhaps unaware that they lists you keep referencing at not the same!) and how "they" were regarded as equal to the rest, how they were in books (there were no books back then!!!) together with the rest, how Christianity and Christians adopted them, and on and on and on and on and on and on.... NONE of it substantiated, just a HUGE glob of such entirely unsubstantiated claims, increasingly thrown together as if that makes any of them true, each used to try to support the other (as if 2 wrongs make a right), with a lot of circular reasoning and personal accusations thrown in. And I long ago lost track of how many times you claimed I said something and when I asked "where?" (because I KNOW I never did), that's just ignored (substantiation seeming to be entirely irrelevant). Frankly, all your wild claims about "them" just has served to discredit them as those who use them. Frankly, the one who has most served to push people away from them just might be you - by all the obviously baseless claims.



Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Lanman87]

"Merely" was originally in brackets and inserted by the translator.
He himself reffered to certain books as scripture multiple times in his writings.. and I'm seriously warn out from constantly quoting from the volumes, these videos may be useful to your understanding of Anthanasius.

Dr. Meade is correct. The word Scripture at the time just meant sacred writings. The Duetero books are "Sacred writings". But they aren't canonical (God Breathed and Inerrant). That is what Athanasius was doing, Categorizing the "Sacred Writings" as either Canon(God breathed and inerrant) and those writings that are edifying and instruct in holiness. It isn't surprising that the church fathers quoted them often in their writings. However, we see in Athanasisus (and many others) they weren't considered part of the Canon. There was a distinction between categories.

That distinction was held by many in the church throughout the middle ages. The problem with Trent was that it did away with that distinction (that the early protestants also held) and made all the books equal in the eyes of the Catholic church.

 

[Lanman87]

Rufinus Book 2, starts around chapter 30 or 31 I believe

CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Jerome, Book II (Rufinus)

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

www.newadvent.org

Thank you,

These are the only three things listed under him on New Advent. Maybe the need to update their links.

 

[Andrew]

Thank you,

These are the only three things listed under him on New Advent. Maybe the need to update their links.

View attachment 1828

I noticed that too, I actually bought the entire catalog they are selling, perhaps that's why?

Sacred-Text.com also has the complete writings of the Church fathers, [under Christianity or Bible] and you can find Rufinus there as well.

 

[Lanman87]

This is interesting. Perhaps Rufinus was just mad because Jerome didn't want to translate those particular books.

At any rate, it is also clear that he holds the same distinction (that was done away with at Trent) as Anthanasius and many others: And is very close to what the Protestant Dr. Meade said in the video you posted.

From Exposition on the Creed by Rufinius

37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the Son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.


Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.


38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches.


These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.

 

[Andrew]

This is interesting. Perhaps Rufinus was just mad because Jerome didn't want to translate those particular books.

At any rate, it is also clear that he holds the same distinction (that was done away with at Trent) as Anthanasius and many others: And is very close to what the Protestant Dr. Meade said in the video you posted.

From Exposition on the Creed by Rufinius

37. Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Then Jesus Nave, (Joshua the Son of Nun), The Book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings (Reigns), which the Hebrews reckon two; the Book of Omissions, which is entitled the Book of Days (Chronicles), and two books of Ezra (Ezra and Nehemiah), which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the twelve (minor) Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the Churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. These comprise the books of the Old Testament.


Of the New there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke; fourteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, two of the Apostle Peter, one of James, brother of the Lord and Apostle, one of Jude, three of John, the Revelation of John. These are the books which the Fathers have comprised within the Canon, and from which they would have us deduce the proofs of our faith.


38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches.


These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken.

Notice he does not call them Apocrypha, that was his argument against Jerome.
Notice also that he says that after he says that these are the traditions which the fathers have handed down to us he then says "which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken."

Thus the lists he gives are from the fountains of the Word of God must be taken opposed to those not listed which are called Apocrypha.

The tradition included the Canonical and Ecclesiastical books but not the Apocrypha (which again, he does not list)

Moreover, Jerome could not have translated those books because they werent in the Hebrew, he was upset because he labeled them Apocrypha which according to his list, they weren't.

 

[Lanman87]

Notice he does not call them Apocrypha, that was his argument against Jerome.
Notice also that he says that after he says that these are the traditions which the fathers have handed down to us he then says "which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken."

Thus the lists he gives are from the fountains of the Word of God must be taken opposed to those not listed which are called Apocrypha.

The tradition included the Canonical and Ecclesiastical books but not the Apocrypha (which again, he does not list)

Moreover, Jerome could not have translated those books because they werent in the Hebrew, he was upset because he labeled them Apocrypha which according to his list, they weren't.

Yes, the tradition included two different "levels" of books. So you are saying Jerome got it half right. The books are not in the canon but are ecclesiastical and not apocrypha? Basically, saying apocrypha (which makes them sound like they are heretical) instead of ecclesiastical (which are to be read but are not part of the canon).

Either way, the Dogma of the Catholic Church (since Trent) is that the books are neither Ecclesiastical or Apocrypha but 100% Canonical. Which is not the tradition handed down from the Fathers, at least according to Rufinus, Anthanasius, and others.

From the Council of Trent

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, the tradition included two different "levels" of books. So you are saying Jerome got it half right. The books are not in the canon but are ecclesiastical and not apocrypha? Basically, saying apocrypha (which makes them sound like they are heretical) instead of ecclesiastical (which are to be read but are not part of the canon).

Either way, the Dogma of the Catholic Church (since Trent) is that the books are neither Ecclesiastical or Apocrypha but 100% Canonical. Which is not the tradition handed down from the Fathers, at least according to Rufinus, Anthanasius, and others.

From the Council of Trent

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

Yes, you are correct about Jerome labelling Ecclesiasticals as Apocrypha!

..Before Jerome's vulgate all of those books were considered Holy by the Church, they wanted the Holy books translated from Hebrew into Latin instead of from Greek.

 

[Lanman87]

.Before Jerome's vulgate all of those books were considered Holy by the Church, they wanted the Holy books translated from Hebrew into Latin instead of from Greek.

Didn't Jerome end up translating the books from Greek into Latin?

Also, from a practical point of view, did Jerome's wording really make a difference? I mean, From what I can tell even those in the "thread" that held them to be "not in the canon" still held them in high esteem. As you pointed out, even the Protestant/Reformed traditions included them in their Bibles, not to glean doctrine or dogma but for edification, devotion and historical understanding. Isn't that at least one definition of Ecclesiastical?

It seems to me that it was Augustine who changed the "Traditions of the Fathers handed down to us" that was expressed by Athanasisus, Rufinus, and (poorly worded) by Jerome. Augustine was perhaps the most influential person in Church History. So when he wrote,

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:—Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles, these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:—Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.

Augustine seems to started the new "thread" in the church that the Deutero Books are equal and part to the canon books. Augustine had a huge influence on the council of Hippo and they seemed to follow his lead.

From that point on there were two "Threads", as the New Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, in the church as to the status of the Deutero books.

At Trent, the Council, in reaction to the Reformation, chose the historically weaker thread/tradition. Basically, they chose Augustine over Athanasisus, Pope Gregory the Great, Rufinus, Jerome, Milto, Origen and others ( several of midieval theologians) who we have writings that say that part or all of the Deutero books are not part of the "canon".

 

[MoreCoffee]

"Merely" was originally in brackets and inserted by the translator.
He himself reffered to certain books as scripture multiple times in his writings.. and I'm seriously warn out from constantly quoting from the volumes, these videos may be useful to your understanding of Anthanasius.

One recurring theme in anti-deuterocanon apologetics is how sermons, surviving ancient bibles, and church liturgical readings are skipped over or completely ignored when enquiring into what the early churches used as holy and inspired scripture. It is a serious flaw in the anti-deuterocanon position. It highlights how anti-deuterocanon arguments are constructed by cherry picking quotes from early church writers while ignoring the bibles and liturgical readings and passages preached upon in the early churches.

Thanks for the two videos.

 

[Andrew]

One recurring theme in anti-deuterocanon apologetics is how sermons, surviving ancient bibles, and church liturgical readings are skipped over or completely ignored when enquiring into what the early churches used as holy and inspired scripture. It is a serious flaw in the anti-deuterocanon position. It highlights how anti-deuterocanon arguments are constructed by cherry picking quotes from early church writers while ignoring the bibles and liturgical readings and passages preached upon in the early churches.

Thanks for the two videos.

Exactly! That's what did it for me, they all used them and from quoted them as scripture along side other scripture without any distinction or favoritism. Yes the post-Christ Hebrew Canon became the OT canon for Christians but this was based off of Jerome's Latin translation of the Hebrew and wrongful use of the word Apocrypha; because no Apocryphal books were ever allowed in the churches and it was mainly the false and heretical New Testament writtings. Yet the early church quoted the so called "Apocrypha" books more than the other OT books in their writings!
Martin Luther used them for doctrine by using Scripture to defend his 95 theses.

Either way, the ante-nicene Church Fathers quote the Apocrypha over 400+ times in their writings.