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.
I see he mentions "Jeremiah with Baruch, (Jeremiah & Lamentations) but other than getting close (but not close enough) you guys are either out of luck in trying to say the "the Catholic Bible is the same today as it was two thousand years ago" , or else would have to by default take some position as towards Athanasius having been an ignoramus.
The man was long ago "sainted", both East & West.
6. These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. 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 Me7. But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and 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 in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple.
There are more witnesses which could be brought to these pages once again, who's own testimony lines up well with Athanasius --- like Melito of Sardis (approx. 170 AD) , (coming down to us through Eusebius) Melito in no manner or way included writings of so-called deuterocanon in his own description of "Old Testatament" (OT) canon, Melito being the earliest Christian witness who is attributed to having written detailed listing concerning what the OT canon consisted of.
There's two more "saints". Should they be given dunce caps, also? Or is is it more true that they were faithfully enough conveying what was commonly, and widely recognized as OT, and what was not?
Others also made mention of partial listings of those same writings which they too regarded as not being canonical...though there is a sprinkling of witnesses in the other direction, whom are seldom united as for all seven of the disputed writings, at times accepting some but rejecting others, which yet other persons wrote they themselves viewed as part of the canon.
But here we get into possibly murky grounds, for some of those individuals may not have known very well the difference between canon proper - and "ecclesiastical writings" which had been accessed for a verse or a passage (a few verses) from here & there which were used then in liturgy.
Although by the time the Council of Trent came along, there were admittedly those within the RCC who viewed the writings which make up the 'deuterocanon' as generally and indiscriminately equal to the protocanonicals , while we are at it in "admitting things", it should be confessed that not only was the voting at Trent not unanimous as far as consideration of the deuterocanonicals to be fully equal with the rest of the OT, but that the very term 'deuterocanon' comes from that era, and as expressed could well have been viewed by *some* of those who voted for positive inclusion of those writings was that what they were agreeing with (perhaps in the minds of *some*) was a degree of inclusion that was a "secondary" rank, and thus as I said, a less-than fully canonical ranking, yet not put in an appendix as Martin Luther had done.
Then there is the testimony of (St.)Jerome indicating what in the 16th century came to be called the deuterocanon were Apocryphal -- not to be considered the same as the rest of the OT, Jerome recommending those writings not to be used for establishment of doctrine, but allowable to be read in church as "ecclesiastical writings" (yet not to be confused with Scripture).
Luther was following St. Jerome's lead in differentiating what Jerome himself referred to as Apocrypha, Luther emphasizing that with moving those writings to an appendix.
All of which leaves the usual RC apologetic concerning this issue, and statements such as italicized at the top of this note -- all wet, like a wet and stinky dog, and as about as well educated and informed (as that dog) also.
All the vigorous shaking and slinging around the ignorant "claim" is about as welcome as a wet dog in the library, where there are men, books, the little tiny glasses of port, cups of coffee, maybe a snifter of cognac, and cigars. There's nothing quite like a good smoke...
Meanwhile, though it's too cold for the dogs to go sleep in the backyard --- they do find themselves banished to the "mud room" adjacent to the side-rear entry of the Hacienda.
[psst... they could do less "barking" and a lot more studying if they wish to be in the company of men (in the library) with all those finer things like---little aperitif glasses, vintage port, fine coffees and good tobacco]
Additional documentation (which disputes the claim that the Catholic Bible is the same...as it was two thousand years ago;
- The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha
Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation
Endnotes for The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha, for Part 3: From Jerome to the Reformation
and here, for the beginning of the series;
The Old Testament Canon and the Apocrypha A Survey of the History of the Apocrypha from The Jewish Age to the Reformation which careful reading of can show there was no uniform agreement for inclusion, and even wide rejection of the writings which came to be known as the deuterocanon, showing also how deceitful some of 'Rome's' apologists have been in their own presentations.
Gentlemen (or gentle doggies, whatever the case may be) you've been had -- by those of the RCC, for the "story" which you must have been(?) told about this issue by various "Catholic' apologists --- must have been bunk (not true, if but not true enough) in order for you both have to have expressed the opinions which you have, in regards to this issue...
And now, with great assistance of Philip Schaff, Henry Wace, and William Webster, your claims have done been whupped, and whupped but good.
Don't bring the same argument, in the same phrasing, back to these pages again.
Change the wording at least.