What was being judged was the validity of the historical sources.
All historian have a responsibility to judge the validly of the sources they are using.
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) Okay, I admit that you have presented enough on this for me to believe that you have something there. Having been Orthodox one way or another all my life, I can honestly say that this is something utterly unknown and new to me, if it indeed true, as it seems to be. The story with Jerome, on the other hand, is well known.
Well, Amen.
Alexandria has a large number of Jews and it is possible that Athanasius was also influenced by the rabbis, as Jerome was, to reject the OT used by the Apostles and embrace only the Palestinian version of the OT. For my part I have written to the OCA that claims "most Orthodox scholars" supporting this view. I will also inform other points of contact bringing that to their attention, as it is contrary to the extant Orthodox scripture and teaching. The books that comprise Orthodox Bible include the deutero-canonical books, which are regarded as Scripture, and all Scripture is profittable...so there is no 'lesser' scripture, as there could be no lesser word of God. If a majority (which has yet to be documented) Orthodox scholars truly believe they are not, then they do not believe their own Bible and the Church! And so? It must be that comprehension issue agian! And so, individual fathers did not always teach what the Church as a whole taught. As long as they deferred to the official doctrine, they were free to speculate, and therefore free to each wrong conclusions.
First, the Apostles never used the LXX, since it was not in existance.
Second, the Protestant view on the Fathers is that they are only to regarded when they follow the Scriptures.
Yours is when they follow the Church.
You first denied that Athanasius was a 'Greek' Father I don't think I denied that he was Greek, I simply stated that he was a Western Father.
You stated that he was an Alexandrian (which is true), but not a Greek.
One was defined as a Greek Father by the language he wrote in and Athansisus wrote in Greek and thus, was considered a Greek Church Father.
Protestants don't care about any Church Fathers, Greek or Latin, it is you guys who make a big deal over them Correct. Protestants only care about their own private, man-made theology, based on personal interpretation of the Bible, generally out of context, that is habitually decorated with the Holy Spirit.
Well, I would like to see what we interpret 'out of context'.
Our final authority is the 66 Books, yours is of consensus of men.
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 Some of them taught all sorts ofmthings. but none of them put forth the sola scriptura myth.
Chrysostom said regarding scripture, that every word was pure, directly from the Prophets and Apostles, and when one read the scriptures, it was as if they were there speaking directly to them.
He placed all tradition as being subject to the scriptures.
You flatly rejected what he said on the subject.
Well, sorry, most scholars would disagree with you.
Second, the Protestant view on the Fathers is that they are only to regarded when they follow the Scriptures...Yours is when they follow the Church.
The Church does not follow Scripture? One could also say that Protestants regard others only if they personally agree with their interpretation of the Scripture.
Our final authority is the 66 Books, yours is of consensus of men
The 66 books you follow are put together by a consensus of men!
Chrysostom said regarding scripture, that every word was pure, directly from the Prophets and Apostles, and when one read the scriptures, it was as if they were there speaking directly to them
Yeah, but who decides what is scripture?
He placed all tradition as being subject to the scriptures
...which were decided by a consensus of men.
You flatly rejected what he said on the subject
First, we don't have any originals (not even original copies of the originals!), so we can't state that reading the scriptures is like the Apostles and prophets speaking to us directly.
Chrysostom did that on his own assumption, and so do others who agree with him. It's their choice, their personal belief based on nothing but hope, not on fact.
Second, the books of the Bible are anonymous. Ignatius and Papias are the first people (2nd century) who are identifying certain writings with "Matthew."
There is an awful lot of assuming in that statement of John Chrysostom, none of which is historically factual.