Cut off.— Since then the Deutero-canoni cal Appendix (along with all Apocrypha) has been omitted from nearly all Protestant Bibles in English-speaking countries, though still re taining its ambiguous position among other Protestants, and still furnishing lessons, though in diminishing numbers, for the Anglican lit urgy, and even appearing in a separate volume of the Revised Version (1894), in a translation inferior to that of the canonicals.
True Worth.— Meantime, however, with the general deepening and broadening of re search, due to the critical spirit of modern scholarship, interest in all the ((outsiders* has been revived andgreatly intensified and has as sumed a thoroughly rational character: It is now seen that these works are natural and intelligible expressions of the Hellenistic soul, of the Jewish mind active under the profoundly altered conditions of its intimate contact with the spirit of Greece. It is also perceived that they sustain the most vital relation to the greatest event of all history, the proclamation of the Gospel, the propaganda of primitive Christianity, to which they form a prelude and accompaniment, and to the correct understand ing of which they are well-nigh indispensable.
Kautzsch.— Accordingly, as attention has been centred more and more on the origins of Christianity, the Apocrypha have been studied more and more intently. An unequivocal sign of this lively interest may be seen in the splen did editions that have recently appeared, not only of separate books, but also of the whole body of such literature discovered thus far. The great work of Kautzsch, collaborating with 16 German scholars, on
Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphen * des Alten Testaments> ap peared in 1900 in two volumes of 542 and 540 large pages, treating 24 of these books, and the reader must remember that the whole Hebrew Canon has also been similarly treated by Kautzsch (assisted by ten German scholars) in two volumes of 960 and 637 slightly larger pages, on
Charles.— The scholarly work of Kautzsch has been quickly followed and surpassed by a still more ambitious work, bearing the like title,
conjunction with many others* (Oxford 1913), professing to include "all the extant non-ca nonical Jewish books written between 200 B.C. and 100 A.D., with possibly one or two excep tions,* though the reader will not find Josephus nor Philo; what is meant, is the non-canonical literature of unknown authorship, but even then the profession remains too wide for the abooks* and too narrow for the dates. Plainly, then, these 30 ((outsiders* have at length been established immovably in their rights, not in deed as inspired or in any way superhuman, but as shedding much welcome light on a very ob scure but extremely important transition period in history.
New Base.— It remains to add that the position of Protestants with respect to the Canon, after they had abandoned the solid rock of authority and rejected the witness of tra dition, seemed somewhat insecure and difficult to defend. It became necessary to find some still firmer foundation than either Jerusalem or Rome could offer, and this was sought, with the most extraordinary diligence and with the utmost prodigality of learning and ingenuity, in the Scriptures themselves which were to be their own witness, self-luminous, self-evident, self-proving. 'Canonical authority of Scrip ture does not depend on the Church or on its councils,* but 'lies in the Scripture itself ; it is inherent in the books so far as they contain a revelation or declaration of the divine will. Hence . . . the authority of Scripture is from God alone.* These words of the eminent scholar and critic, Dr. Samuel Davidson, are found in the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' (9th edi tion 1875), but neither they nor any equivalent in the 1 lth edition (1910),— where the whole matter is left undefined and floating in the air, — such is the change a generation has wrought. The deliverance of Davidson is clear and direct, except for the elastic clause 'so far . . . divine will,* which saps it of force and value: for this clause simply means, 'so far as they are inspired of God,* but leaves the question 'How far are they inspired?* entirely un touched. The proposition that the Scriptures are authoritative so far as they are divinely in spired, it is indeed impious to deny, but it is also vacuous to affirm.