“If Athanasius is saying that these are not part of scripture, but shall be taught to those seeking instruction in the ways of Godliness, what is he saying? Is he directly contradicting the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura?”
I have no idea how you are coming to that conclusion. There’s a big difference between “not to be used for doctrine” and “may be used for edification.” If someone wants to read about Judith for what it is, a fictional story, by all means, do so. Maccabees is actual history too, even though it does not pretend to be holy scripture. But don’t demand we shelve our brains away and make them what they are not, and have never been, nor even claim to be.
“Moreover, his list is utterly confuses as to what constitutes scripture and what doesn’t; it shows the need for the Church to identify what is scripture and what isn’t, ebacuse Athanasius certainly cannot tell:”
He can’t be as confused as your grammar!
“he falsely asserts that Esther is not canon at all, and includes the Didache (teaching of the 12) and the Shepherd of Hermes as part of the New Testament. Why would you cite him as expert?”
You’re pulling stuff out your butt. Read slowly:
“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 [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
He doesn’t endorse the Shepard or the teaching of the Apostles as doctrine making books. He lists them as books to be read for edification. Why not? They included LOTS of books under that designation. The Didache condemns abortion specifically and is not all bad. Hermes has a bad rap, since its wording is imprecise in its instruction on the Trinity, if I recall correctly. Though I’ve read research on the matter that says it is simply misunderstood. (It was written in a day when attacks on the Trinity had not yet sharpened our blade.) Athanasius is no heretic on those matters, if you take the time to read his books on the matter. Irenaeus recommended the Shepard be read too, since it was a book written in his own day by a Christian.
And why do I cite him? It’s simple. He doesn’t agree with you, and the basis of your claims is that everybody has always agreed with you with a single, unchanging tradition since Pope Peter was given the keys to heaven. Right?
Athanasius doesn’t say “for edification.” That could ambiguously be interpreted as strengthening one’s faith, inspiring courage, whatever. Athanasius says it’s purpose is to instruct Christians in the ways of Godliness. In other words, moral doctrine. He certainly does not say that hey are “not to be used for doctrine.” And he most certainly doesn’t call them fiction.
He merely admits that they aren’t “canon.” Whose canon? Athanasius’ own incorrect enumeration of the New Testament makes plain that there is no settled Christian canon. He is referring to the Jews.
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways: Athanasius is either contradicting Sola Scriptura, by looking to something outside scripture for moral doctrine, and/or by “canon” he doesn’t mean the Christian canon.