I omitted it because it is an opinion, and an immature one at that. "Unfair" is not a fact that belongs to encyclopedias. It is an 'argument' used by five-year-olds "it's not faaaair." Apparently, it seems to be good enough for you, but not for me. When you can demonstrate that "fair" is a valid argument, then we can talk.
Goodness, if a bishop is guilty of resorting to bribery and violence is "unfair judgment" then the line separating virtue from vice is completely obliterated.
I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views
I would like to see exactly what Athanasius wrote regrading the OT. And even if it is true that he believed that only Hebrew scriptures were 'true' that doesn't make him "proto-Protestant" because his theology was not "proto-Protestant." Jerome was also fooled by the rabbis that the "true" OT was the one they had and not the one the Apostles used. That doesn't make him "proto-Protestant."
There were Greek Church Fathers who believed that even those who end up in hell will eventually be redeemed (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen), those who believed that Mary was not sinless (St. John Chrysostom), who refused the Revelation of St. John as canonical (lots of them, including the 9th century John of Damascus), etc. Saint Augustine retracted many of his beliefs at the end of his life, etc.
You ignore the fact that an opinion of one Church father means nothing as far as the Church is concerned, unless the Church as a whole reaches a consensus that the teaching is correct.
It is this consensus patrium that has been the guiding tradition of entire Church in the first millennium and certainly for the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since then.
That was not the question, the question was where does it say that was the only reason he was well respected by the Orthodox faith
As good as the only one. There were others who proposed the same or very closely the same canon and in that he was not unique. There was no imminent danger for the Church or any pressure to mean a deadline to pronounce the canon after 300 years of searching.
Arain heresy was very much the watershed that could have taken the Church in a completely wrong direction, was widespread and was supported by many bishops and even the Roman Emperor. Defeating Arian heresy and Athanasius' contribution in defeating it by far outweighs anything esle he has done.
Moreover, it seems that Athansasius' view on the Apocrypha, as being less then Canonical is shared by Orthodox scholars... http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=39
And the sentence before that says "These [deutero-canonical books] were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be genuine parts of Scripture." So, what this OCA site is saying is that (without proof of course) that 'most Orthodox scholars' do not believe what the Church believes.
Coming from the so-called OCA, a make-believe "Orthodox Church" infected with scores of Protestant converts, it does't surprise me.
You seem to have a knack for using peripheral, questionable, or unreliable sources, rather than genuine ones that have been around for the longest time. And GOARCH is not one of them. GOARCH didn't exist until the 1920 and was founded by a heretic, mason-Ecumenical Patriarch who all on his own "recognized" Anglican orders as "valid" and proclaimed the "union" between the Orthodox and Anglican communities. Luckily, GOARCH has since then cleaned up its shameful roots.
And I omitted it because it was irrelevant to the discussion on Athansius influence on the Orthodox Church and it was a opinion.
Goodness, if a bishop is guilty of resorting to bribery and violence is "unfair judgment" then the line separating virtue from vice is completely obliterated.
The opinion was also that he might not have been guilty of those charges against him.
The judgment the historian were disputing were the sources
However, there are also many modern historians who object to this view and point out that such hostile attitude towards Athanasius is based on an unfair judgment of historical sources.
It seems you have a reading comprehension problem.
I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views I would like to see exactly what Athanasius wrote regrading the OT. And even if it is true that he believed that only Hebrew scriptures were 'true' that doesn't make him "proto-Protestant" because his theology was not "proto-Protestant." Jerome was also fooled by the rabbis that the "true" OT was the one they had and not the one the Apostles used. That doesn't make him "proto-Protestant."
The fact is that he held the Apocrypha to be of a secondary nature (non-Canonical) because they were not written in Hebrew (as did Jerome, and later Luther and the other Protestants)
There were Greek Church Fathers who believed that even those who end up in hell will eventually be redeemed (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen), those who believed that Mary was not sinless (St. John Chrysostom), who refused the Revelation of St. John as canonical (lots of them, including the 9th century John of Damascus), etc. Saint Augustine retracted many of his beliefs at the end of his life, etc.
And so?
You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father.
Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them.
All you have shown is why we put so little confidence in them.
You ignore the fact that an opinion of one Church father means nothing as far as the Church is concerned, unless the Church as a whole reaches a consensus that the teaching is correct.
No, I am not ignoring that fact, what I am stating is that the Protestant views on many issues had Greek Father support.
It is this consensus patrium that has been the guiding tradition of entire Church in the first millennium and certainly for the Eastern Orthodox Church ever since then. That was not the question, the question was where does it say that was the only reason he was well respected by the Orthodox faith As good as the only one. There were others who proposed the same or very closely the same canon and in that he was not unique. There was no imminent danger for the Church or any pressure to mean a deadline to pronounce the canon after 300 years of searching. Arain heresy was very much the watershed that could have taken the Church in a completely wrong direction, was widespread and was supported by many bishops and even the Roman Emperor. Defeating Arian heresy and Athanasius' contribution in defeating it by far outweighs anything esle he has done.
Well, that is your opinion, because what was regarded as a major contribution by Athanasius by the Orthodox source I cited, was his listing of the Canonical books as well as his defense of the Trintiy.
Moreover, it seems that Athansasius' view on the Apocrypha, as being less then Canonical is shared by Orthodox scholars... http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=39 And the sentence before that says "These [deutero-canonical books] were declared by the Councils of Jassy (1642) and Jerusalem (1672) to be genuine parts of Scripture." So, what this OCA site is saying is that (without proof of course) that 'most Orthodox scholars' do not believe what the Church believes.
Well, he is from your Orthodox Church.
Maybe you have another heretic loose!
Coming from the so-called OCA, a make-believe "Orthodox Church" infected with scores of Protestant converts, it does't surprise me.
LOL!
Maybe you better inform someone of this heresy!
You seem to have a knack for using peripheral, questionable, or unreliable sources, rather than genuine ones that have been around for the longest time. And GOARCH is not one of them. GOARCH didn't exist until the 1920 and was founded by a heretic, mason-Ecumenical Patriarch who all on his own "recognized" Anglican orders as "valid" and proclaimed the "union" between the Orthodox and Anglican communities. Luckily, GOARCH has since then cleaned up its shameful roots.
And you seem to try to wiggle out of anything that goes against your own personal opinions.
I cited a legitimate Orthodox source that states that most Orthodox scholars reject the Apocrypha as Canonical.
It seems that your 'church' has as much confusion in it as the Protestant ones regarding doctrinal issues.
The fact is that the Protestant views are early views on the Canon and Sola Scriptura that were put forth by Greek Fathers, Athansisus and Chrysostom.
Athanasius of Alexandria (born ~293 CE, Alexandria -- died May 2 373 CE, Alexandria)
This icon is taken from Orthodox Byzantine Icons. The artist and date are unknown. A larger version is available.
Saint Athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and Egyptian national leader, was the chief defender of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like, but not of the same, substance as God the Father. Athanasius attended the Council of Nicaea (325) and shortly thereafter became bishop of Alexandria (328). For the rest of his life he was engaged in theological and political struggles with the Emperor and with Arian churchmen, being banished from Alexandria several times. He wrote many important works, including his major theological treatises, The Life of St. Antony and Four Orations against the Arians, and a number of letters on theological, pastoral, and administrative topics. A Catholic Encyclopedia article is online at St. Athanasius.
A clear acknowledgment of the NT canon of 27 books appears in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius. Here the threefold division of Origen or Eusebius is abandoned. As 'springs of salvation' there are only the 27 writings in which 'the doctrine of piety is proclaimed'. Over against them are set the apocrypha fabricated by the heretics. Only the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas -- besides a few OT apocrypha -- are permitted for reading by those newly received into the Church, since the Fathers have so appointed. But these writings are not "canonical". We may however infer from the concession that the two writings mentioned still enjoyed very great esteem. For a visual summary of Athanasius' opinions see the Cross Reference Table.
There is no question that the emphasis on the exclusiveness and finality of the canon is closely connected with Athanasius' total theological conception, anti-heretical and Bible-related. Over and above that it has to be observed that precisely in the years after 362, his concern was directed towards the unity of the 'orthodox' Church, and hence that for him a uniform canon was also a necessity.
It is important that Athanasius turns sharply against all apocrypha, so that the lines are drawn as sharply as possible between canonical and apocryphal writings. Whatever they may be in terms of their origin, their content or their age, the 'apocrypha' are downgraded as heretical and therefore excluded from any ecclesiastical use. We cannot establish what effect Athanasius' letter had outside of Egypt. We may conjecture that it advanced the recognition of the 7 'catholic' epistles in the East, but it could not remove the opposition to the Revelation of John. This book only achieved its firm place in the canon of the Greek Church in the 10th century.
http://www.ntcanon.org/Athanasius.shtml