This consistent position is deserted by modem Catholics for the unhistorical view that the LXX Can. was the original one, which was shortened by Jews for an antichristian purpose ; so that the words proto-can. and deutero-can. reverse the true state of the case, and have not even an historical justification (Kaulen, in AVetzer u. Welte, Encyk.^ art. ' Kanon').
(b.) Protestant. — Even on the ground of Catholic scholarship those who denied the authority of the Church must give the A. a secondary place. The first Prot. eilort to fix the place of the A. was made by Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, in his De canonicis scripturis, 1520. He discusses the views of Augustine and Jerome, and vindicates Jerome's position. He gives the Heb. OT Can., Law, Pro- phets, and Hagiographa, thinks these divisions indicate a decreasing order of value, and makes corresponding discriminations in NT. OT A. he divides into two classes: (1) Wis, Sir, Jth, To, 1 and 2 Mac ; ' Hi stmt apocryphi, i.e. extra canonem hebrseorum, tamen agiographi.' (2) 3 and 4 Ezr, Bar, Pr. Man, Ad. Dn : 'Hi libri sunt plane apocryphi virgis censoriis animadvert endi.' This significant efibrt remained almost without effect.
In contrast to this attempt to solve the problem by historical means (to return to the original posi- tion), Luther wavered between a free criticism of the Can. by the Christian consciousness, and, for practical purposes, the acceptance of the current Bible. He wished 1 Mae had the place of Est in the Canon. Of Jth, To, Sir, Wis, he judges favourably. Even Ad. Dn and Ad. Est have much good in them. Bar and 2 Mac, on the other hand, he condemns.
In Luther's Bible (completed 1534) the A. stand between OT and NT, with the title: 'A., that is books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read.' They include our A- with the exception of
APOCRYPHA
APOLLONIUS
123
1 and 2 Es. Luther's judgment on these two books waa especially unfavourable, but for their omission he had the authority of Jerome, whose view per- haps airected their exclusion at Trent.
The Reformed Church took a somewhat less favourable view of the A. In the Zurich Bible (1529-1530) they stand, in Leo Jud.'s tr., after NT, as an appendix to the Bible, with the non-committal preface : ' These are the books which by the ancients were not written nor numbered among the Biblical books, and also are not found among the Hebrews.' Here 1 and 2 Es are included, as well as 3 Mac ; while Three, Pr. Man, Ad. Est were added only in later edd.
The French Bible of Cah-in (1535) puts the A. between OT and NT, with the title : 'The volume of the a*" books contained in the Vulg. tr., which we have not found in Heb. or Chaldee.' Here 1 and 2 Es are included. A preface, doubtless by Calvin, reaffirms Jerome's view as to the value of these books,
Coverdale was the first to tr. the A from Gr. into Eng. (1536). He put them between OT and NT, witL the title : ' Apocripha. The bokes and treatises ■which amonge the fathers of olde are not rekened to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they foQde in the Canon of the Hebnie.'
Matthew's Bible (1537) reproduces Coverdale's A, and translates Calvin's Preface, stating that these books are not to be read publicly in the Church, nor used to prove doctrine, but only for ' furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the instruction of godly manners.'
Cranmer's Bible (1540) di\'ides OT into three parts: (1) Pent., (2) Hist, books, (3) Remaining books ; and adds, * Tlie volume of the bokes called Hagiographa,' so called ' because they were wont to be read not openly and in common, but as it were in secret and apart' ! But in the reprint of 1541 tliey appear as A., and suuply 8:9 ' the fourth part of the Bible.'
The Bishops' Bible (1568) treats the A. still more favourably. The table of contents gives it as ' The fourth part called Apocryphus.' The separate title-page reads, 'The Volume of the bookes called Apocrj-pha.' But a classified list of ' the whole Scripture of the Bible,' under the headings Legal, Historical, Sapiential, and Prophetical, is given, which follows the Vulg., with two changes of order due to its scheme (puts 1 and 2 Mac after Job, and Ps before Is), and with the addition of 3 and 4 Ezr, with the explanation in the case of these two books only that they are apocryphal.
In the Authorized Version (1611) 'the bookes called Apocrypha ' are marked by the running title ' Apocrypha at the top of the page, but have no preface or separate table of contents ; and in the table of lessons at the beginning they are included under OT.
The edd. so far seem to indicate a growing rather than diminishing regard for the books. It was not long, however, before edd. of AV began to appear in which the A. was omitted (1629, etc.).
The Confessions of Lutheran and Reformed Churches agree substantially with Article VI. of the Eng. Church (Lat. 1562, Eng. 1571), which, with the list ')f A., explains : ' And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners ; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.' But a less favourable judgment, held at first by few, Ims grmlually, through much controversy, prevailed in Protestantism. At the Synod of Dort (1618) a strong, though unsuccessful, elFort was made to re- move the A. wholly from the Bible. In England the opposition came especially from the Puritans, and took final form in the Westminster Confession