And how convenient it is for you to have left out the entire view on the subject.
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 judgement of historical sources.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria
and he is counted as one of the four Great Doctors of the Eastern Church So is Saint Augustine and the Orthodox teach absolutely nothing from him. So is Saint Gregory of Nyssa, who believed in universal salvation and was Origen's disciple. Athanasius was one of the people responsible for finializing the Christian canon. The Church chooses to look the other way about his methods and behaviors. It is only concerned with the correctness of his theology, especially vis avis Arianism. And, most importantly, the Church did NOT accept his sola-Hebrew OT formula.
I didn't say that the Orthodox church did accept His view of the Old Testament Canon, the point that I was making (and have made) is that there were Greek church fathers who held Proto-Protestant views.
And where does it say that he is celebrated solely because of his stance on the Trinity? His opposition to Arianism, a major heresy that plagued the early Church and tore deep into the heart of Christology, was and is the central event for which he is best known.
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.
Clearly, he was also held in high esteem for his work on the Canon.
THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH Another contributing source to the knowledge of the orthodox Faith are some outstanding Fathers of the Church who wrote discourses and homilies on subjects of faith, which the Ecumenical Synods accepted as canonical teachings. These prominent Fathers are: Athanasius the Great (c.295) for his letter enumerating the canonical books of the Bible; http://www.goarch.org/print/en/ourfaith/article7064.asp
Moreover, it seems that Athansasius' view on the Apocrypha, as being less then Canonical is shared by Orthodox scholars.
most Orthodox scholars at the present day, however, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Deutero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament. http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=39
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.