Misplaced Pages

Apocrypha: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:56, 5 May 2006 editSlimJim (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,408 edits Reverted edits by 203.94.136.99 (talk) to last version by Marysunshine using VandalProof← Previous edit Revision as of 15:16, 7 May 2006 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 editsm removed commaNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
{{christianity}} {{christianity}}


'''Apocrypha''' is a ] word (απόκρυφα, neuter plural of απόκρυφος), from αποκρυπτειν, to hide away. In a modern sense, the term is applied to texts of uncertain authencity, or writings where the authorship is questioned. '''Apocrypha''' is a ] word (απόκρυφα, neuter plural of απόκρυφος), from αποκρυπτειν, to hide away. In a modern sense the term is applied to texts of uncertain authencity, or writings where the authorship is questioned.


In ] ], the word '''apocrypha''' refers to specific texts some traditions do not consider as ], or ], but in style and age are similar to the Hebrew ] Scriptures, and in some cases are accepted as Biblical by other ] denominations. These include, but are not limited to, books in the ] ], where ] coined the term to refer to books of the ] that fit this criteria. From controversies over the ] in the sixteenth century, the word '''Apocrypha''' acquired a negative connotation, and has been synonymous in the past with "spurious" or "false". This connotation usually involved accounts that were plausible enough to commonly be considered as truth. For example, the ] account of ] and the cherry tree is considered '''apocryphal.''' In ] ], the word '''apocrypha''' refers to specific texts some traditions do not consider as ], or ], but in style and age are similar to the Hebrew ] Scriptures, and in some cases are accepted as Biblical by other ] denominations. These include, but are not limited to, books in the ] ], where ] coined the term to refer to books of the ] that fit this criteria. From controversies over the ] in the sixteenth century, the word '''Apocrypha''' acquired a negative connotation, and has been synonymous in the past with "spurious" or "false". This connotation usually involved accounts that were plausible enough to commonly be considered as truth. For example, the ] account of ] and the cherry tree is considered '''apocryphal.'''

Revision as of 15:16, 7 May 2006

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Globe icon.The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article.
When placing this tag, consider associating this request with a WikiProject.
Part of a series on
Christianity
Principal symbol of Christianity
Theology
Nicene
Restorationist
Related topics

Apocrypha is a Greek word (απόκρυφα, neuter plural of απόκρυφος), from αποκρυπτειν, to hide away. In a modern sense the term is applied to texts of uncertain authencity, or writings where the authorship is questioned.

In Judeo-Christian theology, the word apocrypha refers to specific texts some traditions do not consider as canonical, or Biblical, but in style and age are similar to the Hebrew Tanakh Scriptures, and in some cases are accepted as Biblical by other Christian denominations. These include, but are not limited to, books in the 5th century Vulgate, where Saint Jerome coined the term to refer to books of the Old Testament that fit this criteria. From controversies over the Biblical canon in the sixteenth century, the word Apocrypha acquired a negative connotation, and has been synonymous in the past with "spurious" or "false". This connotation usually involved accounts that were plausible enough to commonly be considered as truth. For example, the Parson Weems account of George Washington and the cherry tree is considered apocryphal.

This article is about the history and content of the apocrypha. For discussion of the proper use or dogmatic authority of the apocrypha, see the article on the Biblical canon.

Apocrypha in the editions of the Bible

Due to the unavailability of a definitive and authoritative list of the canon of scriptures before the Protestant and Catholic Reformations, most surviving manuscripts of the whole Christian Bible include at least some of the Apocryphal books. When the early printed editions of the Bible were published, these works were not omitted, but were separated from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their disputed canonical status.

Apocrypha of the Clementine Vulgate

Pope Clement VIII placed these three books in an appendix after the New Testament in his 1592 Vulgate.

In earlier editions of the Vulgate these books were placed in the Old Testament. For example, in the Gutenberg Bible, the Prayer of Manasses follows the Books of Chronicles and 3 and 4 Esdras follow 2 Esdras (a.k.a. Nehemias).

For additional information, see Books of the Latin Vulgate.

Apocrypha of the King James Version

The Apocrypha of the 1611 King James Version Bible were placed between the Old and New Testaments under a separate heading. For this reason, the Apocrypha are often referred to as Inter-Testamental books. All three books of the Vulgate Apocrypha were included, as well as other books (and parts of books) found in the Vulgate Old Testament.

Apocrypha in earlier Bible editions

All English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew's Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-Testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained the Apocrypha minus Baruch and the Prayer of Manasses. The 1560 Geneva Bible omitted the Prayer of Manasses from its Apocrypha, but did include the other texts. The Douai Rheims Bible(1582-1609) placed the Prayer of Manasses and 3 and 4 Esdras into an appendix of the Old Testament.

The 1534 German Luther Bible had a section between the testaments containing the same content as the later King James Bible Apocrypha except 1 and 2 Esdras. In 1569 the Spanish Reina Bible following the example of the Latin Vulgate contained the deuterocanonical books in its Old Testament. Valera's 1602 revision of the Reina Bible removed these books into an inter-Testamental section following the other Protestant translations of its day.

Apocrypha in modern editions

The first King James Bible published without the Apocrypha appeared in 1640. By 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to refuse to distribute Bibles containing the Apocrypha. Since then, most modern editions of the Bible, even most modern reprintings of the King James, Vulgate, and Douay-Rheims versions, omit the Apocrypha section. This trend reflects the increasing importance of dogmatism relative to tradition in modern Christianity.

There are some exceptions to this trend, however. Some editions of the Revised Standard Version of the King James Bible include not only the Apocrypha listed above, but also the third and fourth books of the Maccabees, and Psalm 151. The Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate (the printed edition, not most of the on-line editions) contains the Clementine Apocrypha as well as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Psalm 151.

Pseudepigrapha

Technically a Pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style which is ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term Pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings which do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the Apocryphal texts listed above.

Cultural impact

  • Christopher Columbus was said to have been inspired by a verse from 4 Esdras 6:42 to undertake his hazardous journey across the Atlantic. See article.
  • The introitus, "Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them", of the traditional Requiem in the Catholic Church is loosely based on 4 Esdras 2:34-35.

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Judaism

Although Judaism historically insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the 24 books in the Tanakh, it also claimed to have an oral law handed down from Moses. Just as apocryphal books sometimes overshadowed canonical scriptures in Christianity, so did the oral laws of Judaism sometimes overtake the written ones.

Certain circles in Judaism, such as the Essenes in Palestine and the Therapeutae in Egypt, were said to have a "secret" literature (see Dead Sea scrolls). The Hassidim, and their successors, the Pharisees, were also familiar with these texts.

A large part of this "secret" literature was the apocalypses. Based on unfulfilled prophecies, these books were not considered scripture, but rather part of a literary form that flourished from 200 BC to AD 100. These works usually bore the names of ancient Hebrew worthies in order to establish their validity among the true writers' contemporaries. To reconcile the late appearance of the texts with their claims to primitive antiquity, alleged authors are represented as "shutting up and sealing" (Dan. xii. 4, 9) the works until the time of their fulfillment had arrived; as the texts were not meant for their own generations but for far-distant ages (also cited in Assumption of Moses i. 16-17).

This literature was highly treasured by many Jewish enthusiasts, in some cases more so than the canonical scriptures. The book of 4 Ezra reinforces this theory: when Ezra was inspired to dictate the sacred scriptures which had been destroyed in the overthrow of Jerusalem, "in forty days they wrote ninety-four books: and it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled that the Highest spake, saying: the first that thou hast written publish openly that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last that thou mayst deliver them only to such as be wise among the people; for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom and the stream of knowledge." (4 Ezra xiv. 44 sqq.) Such esoteric books are apocryphal, in the original conception of the term.

In due course the Jewish authorities drew up a canon in response to Christianity; they marked other books off from those which claimed to be such without justification. Whether Judaism had any distinct name for the esoteric works is unknown. Scholars Theodor Zahn, Emil Schürer, among others, stated that these secret books formed a class by themselves and were called "Genuzim" (גנוזים), and that this name and idea passed from Judaism over into the Greek, with αποκρυφα βιβλια as a translation of ספרים גנוזים. But the Hebrew verb does not mean "to hide" but "to store away", and is only used of things that are in themselves precious. Moreover, the phrase is unknown in Talmudic literature. The derivation of this idea from Judaism has therefore not yet been established.

Writings that were wholly apart from scriptural texts, such as the books of heretics or Samaritans, were designated as Hisonim, Sanh. x. I (ספרים חצונים and ספרי המינים. After the 3rd century A.D., Sirach and other apocryphal books were included in this category; until then, Sirach was largely quoted by rabbis in Palestine, indicating some change in this classification throughout the centuries.

Apocrypha in Christianity

Some of the contemporary, religious literature of Judaism was composed of books of an apocalyptic character, and dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom. Some of these also became popular in the rising Jewish-Christian communities, and were possibly held by them in higher esteem. Occasionally these Jewish writings were re-edited or adapted to their new readers by Christian additions, but on the whole it was found sufficient to submit them to a system of reinterpretation in order to make them testify to the tenets of Christianity. Christianity, moreover, moved by the same apocalyptic tendency as Judaism, gave birth to new works, though, in the case of some of them, the subject matter was traditional and derived from Jewish sources.

Another prolific source of apocryphal gospels, acts and apocalypses was Gnosticism. While the characteristic features of apocalyptic literature were derived from Judaism, those of Gnosticism sprang partly from Greek philosophy, partly from oriental religions. They insisted on an allegorical interpretation of the apostolic writings: they alleged themselves to be the guardians of a secret apostolic tradition and laid claim to prophetic inspiration. With them, as with the bulk of the Christians of the 1st and 2nd centuries, apocryphal books as such were highly esteemed. They were so designated by those who valued them. It was not until the current age that the term became one of reproach.

The Jewish apocrypha—especially the apocalyptic section and the host of Christian apocryphs—became the ordinary religious literature of the early Christians. This was not strange, seeing that of the former such abundant use was made by the writers of the New Testament. (The New Testament shows undoubtedly an acquaintance with several of the apocryphal books. Thus James i. 19 shows dependence on Sirach v. II, Hebrews i. 3 on Wisdom vii. 26, Hebrews xi. 35 on II Maccabees vi., Romans ix. 21 on Wisdom xv. 7, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4 on Wisdom ix. 15, &c.) Thus Jude quotes the Book of Enoch by name, while undoubted use of this book appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The influence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is still more apparent in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels, and the same holds true of Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses, though in a very slight degree. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Ep. of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, and much of the early church. But the high position which apocryphal books occupied in the first two centuries was undermined by a variety of influences. All claims to the possession of a secret tradition were denied (Irenaeus ii. 27. 2, iii. 2. 1, 3. 1; Tertullian, Praescript. 22-27): true inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and universal acceptance by the church was required as a proof of apostolic authorship. Under the action of such principles, apocryphal books tended to pass into the class of spurious and heretical writings.

Esoteric writings

The word "apocryphal" itself was applied, in its earliest use, in a laudatory sense to writings which were kept secret because they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge which was too profound or too sacred to be imparted to any save the initiated. Thus it occurs in a magical book of Moses, which has been edited from a Leiden papyrus of the 3rd or 4th century by Dieterich (Abraxas, 109). This book, which may be as old as the 1st century, is entitled: "A holy and secret Book of Moses, called eighth, or holy" (Μωυσεως ἱερα βιβλος αποκρυφος επικαλουμενη ογδοη ἡ ἁγια). The disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus boasted (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15. 69) that they possessed the secret (αποκρυφους) books of Zoroaster. 4 Ezra is, in its author's view, a secret work whose value was greater than that of the canonical scriptures (xiv. 44 sqq.) because of its transcendent revelations of the future. It is in a like laudatory meaning that Gregory reckons the New Testament apocalypse as εν αποκρυφοις (Oratio in suam ordinationem, iii. 549, ed. Migne; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. li. 3). The word enjoyed high consideration among the Gnostics (cf. Acts of Thomas, 10, 27, 44).

Questionable writings

But the word was also applied to writings that were kept from public circulation not because of their transcendent, but of their secondary or questionable value. Thus Origen distinguishes between writings which were read by the churches and apocryphal writings; γραφη μη φερομενη μεν εν τοις κοινοις και δεδημοσιευμενοις βιβλιοις εικος δ ὁτι εν αποκρυφοις φερομενη (Origen's Comm. in Matt., x. 18, on Matt. xiii. 57, ed. Lommatzsch iii. 49 sqq.). Cf. Epist. ad Africam, ix. (Lommatzsch xvii. 31): Euseb. H.E. ii. 23, 25; iii. 3, 6. See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 126 sqq. Thus the meaning of αποκρυφος is here practically equivalent to "excluded from the public use of the church", and prepares the way for the third and unfavourable sense of this word.

Spurious writings

The word came finally to mean what is false, spurious, bad, or heretical. This meaning appears in Origen (Prolog, in Cant. Cantic., Lommatzsch xiv. 325): "De scripturis his, quae appellantur apocryphae, pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a majoribus tradita non placuit iis dari locum nec admitti ad auctoritatem."

Other meanings

In addition to the above three meanings, strange uses of the term appear in the western church. Thus the Gelasian Decree includes the works of Eusebius, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, under this designation. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xv. 23) explains it as meaning obscurity of origin, while Jerome (Protogus Galeatus) declares that all books outside the Hebrew canon belong to this class of apocrypha. Jerome's practice, however, did not square with his theory. The western church did not accept Jerome's definition of apocrypha, but retained the word in its original meaning, though great confusion prevailed. Thus the degree of estimation in which the apocryphal books have been held in the church has varied much according to place and time. As they stood in the Septuagint or Greek canon, along with the other books, and with no marks of distinction, they were practically employed by the Greek Fathers in the same way as the other books; hence Origen, Clement and others often cite them as "scripture", "divine scripture", "inspired", and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon rigidly exclude all but the books contained there. This view is reflected, for example, in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. Augustine, however (De Doct. Christ. ii. 8), attaches himself to the other side. Two well-defined views in this way prevailed, to which was added a third, according to which the books, though not to be put in the same rank as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, yet were of value for moral uses and to be read in congregations—and hence they were called "ecclesiastical"—a designation first found in Rufinus (ob. 410). Notwithstanding the decisions of some councils held in Africa, which were in favour of the view of Augustine, these diverse opinions regarding the apocryphal books continued to prevail in the church down through the ages till the great dogmatic era of the Reformation. At that epoch the same three opinions were taken up and congealed into dogmas, which may be considered characteristic of the churches adopting them. In 1546 the council of Trent adopted the canon of Augustine, declaring "He is also to be anathema who does not receive these entire books, with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church, and are found in the ancient editions of the Latin Vulgate, as sacred and canonical." The whole of the books in question, with the exception of 1st and 2nd Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. On the other hand, the Protestants universally adhered to the opinion that only the books in the Hebrew collection are canonical. Already Wycliffe had declared that "whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five (Hebrew) shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief." Yet among the churches of the Reformation a milder and a severer view prevailed regarding the apocrypha. Both in the German and English translations (Luther's, 1537; Coverdale's, 1535, &c.) these books are separated from the others and set by themselves; but while in some confessions, e.g. the Westminster, a decided judgment is passed on them, that they are not "to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings," a milder verdict is expressed regarding them in many other quarters, e.g. in the "argument" prefixed to them in the Geneva Bible; in the Sixth Article of the Church of England, where it is said that "the other books the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners," though not to establish doctrine; and elsewhere.

Old Testament apocryphal books

Books commonly found in bibles

The Apocrypha of the King James Bible constitutes the surplusage of the Vulgate or Bible of the Roman Catholic Church over the Hebrew Old Testament. Since this surplusage is in turn derived from the Septuagint, from which the old Latin version was translated, it thus follows that the difference between the Protestant and the Catholic Old Testament is, roughly speaking, traceable to the difference between the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. But this is only true with certain reservations; for the Latin Vulgate was revised by Jerome according to the Hebrew, and, where Hebrew originals were wanting, according to the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Vulgate rejects 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm cli., which generally appear in the Septuagint, while the Septuagint and Luther's Bible reject 4 Ezra, which is found in the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper. Luther's Bible, moreover, rejects also 3 Ezra. It should further be observed that the Vulgate adds the Prayer of Manasses and 3 and 4 Ezra after the New Testament as apocryphal.

It is hardly possible to form any classification which is not open to some objection. In any case the classification must be to some extent provisional, since scholars are still divided as to the original language, date and place of composition of some of the books which must come under our classification. (Thus some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasseh are most probably derived from a Semitic original written in Palestine, yet in compliance with the prevailing opinion they are classed under Hellenistic Jewish literature. Again, the Slavonic Enoch goes back undoubtedly in parts to a Semitic original, though most of it may have been written by a Greek Jew in Egypt.) We may, however, discriminate

  • the Palestinian and
  • the Hellenistic literature

of the Old Testament, though even this distinction is open to serious objections. The former literature was generally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and seldom in Greek; the latter naturally in Greek. Next, within these literatures we shall distinguish three or four classes according to the nature of the subject with which they deal. Thus the books of which we have to treat will be classed as:

  • Historical,
  • Legendary (Haggadic),
  • Apocalyptic,
  • Didactic or Sapiential.

The Apocrypha Proper then would be classified as follows:--

Since all these books are dealt with in separate articles, they call for no further notice here.

References

Texts:

Commentaries

  • O. F. Fritzsche and Grimm, Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu den Apok. des A.T. (Leipzig, 1851-1860)
  • Edwin Cone Bissell, Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1880)
  • Otto Zöckler, Die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments (Munchen, 1891)
  • Henry Wace, The Apocrypha ("Speaker's Commentary") (1888)

Introduction and General Literature:

  • Emil Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, vol. iii. 135 sqq., and his article on "Apokryphen" in Herzog's Realencykl. i. 622-653
  • Porter in James Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible. i. 111-123.

Other Old Testament apocryphal literature

  • Historical
    • History of Johannes Hyrcanus.
  • Legendary
    • Book of Jubilees
    • Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch
    • Martyrdom of Isaiah
    • Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum
    • Books of Adam
    • Jannes and Jambres
    • Joseph and Asenath.
  • Apocalyptic

Historical

History of Johannes Hyrcanus

The History of Johannes Hyrcanus is mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23-24, but no trace has been discovered of its existence elsewhere. It must have early passed out of circulation, as it was unknown to Josephus.

Legendary

Book of Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 B.C. Jubilees was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic and Latin. It is preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic. Jubilees is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the midrashic tendency, which was already at work in the Book of Chronicles. This is a rewriting of the book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus. His work constitutes an enlarged targum on these books, and its object is to prove the everlasting validity of the law, which, though revealed in time, was superior to time. Writing in the palmiest days of the Maccabean dominion, he looked for the immediate advent of the Messianic kingdom. This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung not from Judah but from Levi, that is, from the reigning Maccabean family. This kingdom was to be gradually realized on earth, the transformation of physical nature going hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man. (For a fuller account see Book of Jubilees.)

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch

This book has been preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic. The Greek was first printed at Venice in 1609, and next by Ceriani in 1868 under the title Paralipomena Jeremiae. It bears the same name in the Armenian, but in Ethiopic it is known by the second title. (See Baruch.)

Martyrdom of Isaiah

This Jewish work has been in part preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah. To it belong i. 1, 2a, 6b-13a; ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12; v. 1c-14 of that book. It is of Jewish origin, and recounts the martyrdom of Isaiah at the hands of Manasseh. (See Ascension of Isaiah)

Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum

Though the Latin version of this book was thrice printed in the 16th century (in 1527, 1550 and 1599), it was practically unknown to modern scholars till it was recognized by F. C. Conybeare and discussed by Cohn in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1898, pp. 279-332. It is an Haggadic revision of the Biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul. Its chronology agrees frequently with the LXX. against that of the Massoretic text, though conversely in a few cases. The Latin is undoubtedly translated from the Greek. Greek words are frequently transliterated. While the LXX. is occasionally followed in its translation of Biblical passages, in others the Massoretic is followed against the LXX., and in one or two passages the text presupposes a text different from both. On many grounds Cohn infers a Hebrew original. The eschatology is similar to that taught in the similitudes of the Book of Enoch. In fact, Eth. En. li. 1 is reproduced in this connexion. Prayers of the departed are said to be valueless. The book was written after A.D. 70; for, as Cohn has shown, the exact date of the fall of Herod's temple is predicted.

Life of Adam and Eve

Writings dealing with this subject are extant in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian and Arabic. They go back undoubtedly to a Jewish basis, but in some of the forms in which they appear at present they are christianized throughout. The oldest and for the most part Jewish portion of this literature is preserved to us in Greek, Armenian, Latin and Slavonic,

  1. The Greek Διηγησις περι Αδαμ και Ευας (published under the misleading title Αποκαλυψις Μωυσεως in Tischendorf's Apocalypses Apocryphae, 1866) deals with the Fall and the death of Adam and Eve. Ceriani edited this text from a Milan MS. (Monumenta Sacra et Profana, v. i). This work is found also in Armenian, and has been published by the Mechitharist community in Venice in their Collection of Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament, and translated by Conybeare (Jewish Quarterly Review, vii. 216 sqq., 1895), and by Issaverdens in 1901.
  2. The Vita Adae et Evae is closely related and in part identical with the Διηγησις. It was printed by W. Meyer in Abh. d. Münch. Akad., Philos.-philol. Cl. xiv., 1878.
  3. The Slavonic Adam book was published by Jajic along with a Latin translation (Denkschr. d. Wien. Akad. d. Wiss. xlii., 1893). This version agrees for the most part with the Διηγησις. It has, moreover, a section, §§ 28-39, which though not found in the Διηγησις is found in the Vita.
  4. :Before we discuss these three documents we shall mention other members of this literature, which, though derivable ultimately from Jewish sources, are Christian in their present form,
  5. The Book of Adam and Eve, also called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881).
  6. A Syriac work entitled Die Schalzhöhle translated by Carl Bezold from three Syriac MSS. in 1883 and subsequently edited in Syriac in 1888. This work has close affinities to the Conflict, but is said by Dillmann to be more original,

Armenian books on the Death of Adam (Uncanonical Writings of O.T. pp. 84 sqq., 1901, translated from the Armenian), Creation and Transgression of Adam (op. cit. 39 sqq.), Expulsion of Adam from Paradise (op. cit. 47 sqq.), Penitence of Adam and Eve (op. cit. 71 sqq.) are mainly later writings from Christian hands.

Returning to the question of the Jewish origin of Διηγησις, Vita, Slavonic Adam book, we have already observed that these spring from a common original. As to the language of this original, scholars are divided. The evidence, however, seems to be strongly in favour of Hebrew. How otherwise are we to explain such Hebraisms (or Syriacisms) as ευω ῥεει το ἑλαιον εξ αυτου (§ 9), οὑ ειπεν... μη φαγειν απ αυτου (§ 21). For others see §§ 23, 33. Moreover, as Fuchs has pointed out, in the words ἑση εν ματαιοις addressed to Eve (§ 25) there is a corruption of חבליס into הבליס. Thus the words were: "Thou shalt have pangs." In fact, Hebraisms abound throughout this book. (See Fuchs, Apok. u. Pseud, d. A.T. ii. 511; Jewish Encyc. i. 179 sq.)

Jannes and Jambres

These two men are referred to in 2 Tim. iii. 8 as the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses. The book which treats of them is mentioned by Origen (ad Matt. xxiii. 37 and xxvii. 9 ), and in the Gelasian Decree as the Paenitentia Jamnis et Mambre. The names in Greek are generally Ιαννησ και Ιαμβρης (=יניס וימבריס) as in the Targ.-Jon. on Exod. i. 15; vii. ii. In the Talmud they appear as יוחני וממרא. Since the western text of 2 Tim. iii. 8 has Μαμβρης, Westcott and Hort infer that this form was derived from a Palestinian source. These names were known not only to Jewish but also to heathen writers, such as Pliny and Apuleius. The book, therefore, may go back to pre-Christian times. (See Schürer iii. 292-294; Ency. Biblica, ii. 2327-2329.)

Joseph and Aseneth
Main article: Joseph and Aseneth

The statement in Gen. xli. 45, 50 that Joseph married the daughter of a heathen priest naturally gave offence to later Judaism, and gave rise to the belief that Asenath was really the daughter of Shechem and Dinah, and only the foster-daughter of Potipherah (Targ.-Jon. on Gen. xli. 45; Tractat. Sopherim, xxi. 9; Jalkut Shimoni, c. 134. See Oppenheim, Fabula Josephi et Asenethae, 1886, pp. 2-4). Origen also was acquainted with some form of the legend (Selecta in Genesin, ad Gen. xli. 45, ed. Lommatzsch, viii. 89-90). The Christian legend, which is no doubt in the main based on the Jewish, is found in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic and Medieval Latin. Since it is not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century, it will be sufficient here to refer to Smith's Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. 176-177; Hastings' Bible Dict. i. 162-163; Schürer, iii. 289-291.

Didactic or Sapiential

Pirkei Avoth
Main article: Pirkei Avoth

The Pirkei Avoth, a collection of sayings of the Jewish Fathers, are preserved in the 9th Tractate of the Fourth Order of the Mishnah. They are attributed to some sixty Jewish teachers, belonging for the most part to the years A.D. 70-170, though a few of them are of a much earlier date. The book holds the same place in rabbinical literature as the Book of Proverbs in the Bible. The sayings are often admirable. Thus in iv. 1-4, "Who is wise? He that learns from every man.... Who is mighty? He that subdues his nature.... Who is rich? He that is contented with his lot.... Who is honoured? He that honours mankind."

Biblical Canon

Main article: Biblical canon

Regarding the latter-day pejorative use of "apocrypha," R.M. Wilson wrote:

"The Greek word apocryphos was not always used in the disparaging sense in which it later was. In Gnostic circles it was used of books the contents of which were too sacred to be divulged to the common herd, and it was in fact the heretical associations which it thus came to possess which led to its use as a term of disparagement..."
—from Studies in the Gospel of Thomas (the "apocryphal" Gospel of Thomas)

The definition of "apocryphal" material usually depends on one's Biblical canon and thus varies between sects: Catholic and Orthodox Christian Bibles contain several texts not included in the Biblical canon by Protestant Christians. The Hellenist (Greek speaking) Jews also include seven apocryphal books. Early Christians received the Bible by way of the Hellenist Jews, and thus were familiar with the seven books of the Apocrypha.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians consider some of these texts equally canonical to other books of the Bible (with Catholics terming them deuterocanonical, from Greek: "second canon," or "measuring rule"), and consider them divinely inspired; written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, whereas Protestants typically do not. The Church of England takes an intermediate position; its sixth article of religion says of the Apocrypha that "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine".

The Council of Jamnia

At least until the Council of Jamnia in 92 AD, Jews did not have a single unified canon of Scripture. Some ancient Jewish sects (including the Essenes, as evidenced in the Dead Sea scrolls) included as Scripture much that modern Jews consider non-canonical. The Council explicitly excluded certain books for reasons that included their late composition or because they were not written in Hebrew (although some parts of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh itself are in Biblical Aramaic). The word Apocrypha means hidden writing, and it was given to such books by the Jews to distinguish them from the books which they accepted as canonical.

Gentiles continued to use Greek translations made in the period from the third to the first centuries BC, which a legend ascribes to a school in Alexandria, Egypt. These works, which collectively became known as the Septuagint, included several that were rejected at Jamnia.

The Jewish view today of the rejection of some of these works says they lack the unction of the prophetic books of the canon. However they are regarded as consistent, for most part, with the wisdom which rests on the fear of God and loyalty to His law, and some Jews have at various times drawn from them as a legitimate part of Jewish literary creativity, even using elements from them as the basis for two important parts of the Jewish liturgy.

In the Mahzor (High Holy Day prayer book), a medieval Jewish poet used the book of Sirach as the basis for a beautiful poem, Ke'Ohel HaNimtah.

A closing piyyut in the Seder Avodah section, in the Yom Kippur Musaf begins:

"How glorious indeed was the High Priest, when he safely left the Holy of Holies.
Like the clearest canopy of Heaven was the dazzling countenance of the priest."

Mahzor replaces the medieval piyyut with the relevant section from Ben Sira, which is more direct.

Apocrypha have even formed the basis of the most important of all Jewish prayers, the Amidah (the Shemonah Esrah). Sirach provides the vocabulary and framework for many of the Amidah's blessings, which were instituted by the men of the Great Assembly. The description of the origins of Hanukkah is also to be found in the books rejected at Jamnia.

While the texts themselves may not be accepted as canonical, some of their contents are regarded as historical truth. In particular, 1 Maccabees is cited by Jewish scholars as highly reliable history and was used by Josephus in his history of the Maccabean revolt.

Majority Christian usage

Main article: Biblical canon

The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches accept as part of the Old Testament some books excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canon. Roman Catholics refer to them as deuterocanonical books, a term first used by Sixtus of Siena in 1566, signifying that definitive recognition of their canonical status came later than that of the other books. Catholics and Orthodox do not call these books "apocrypha", a term they apply only to other books that fall within the definition given in the first paragraph of this article.

The deuterocanonical books are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch, as well as some parts of Esther and Daniel.

Eastern Orthodox Churches sometimes also consider 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras and/or 2 Esdras to be deuterocanonical and include Psalm 151 with the Psalms, while the Ethiopian Orthodox venerate additional books, such as Jubilees, Enoch, and the Rest of the Words of Baruch. The inclusion of Enoch is justified on the grounds that the Book of Jude quotes it as Scripture. See here for conflicting accounts on what is actually included in the Ethiopian canon.

Since there was no fixed canon even among Jews until the Council of Jamnia (c.70-90 AD), it is not surprising that, historically, there have been hesitations among Christians, especially in the early centuries, about which Old Testament books to consider canonical. St Jerome explicitly denied the canonical character of any Old Testament book not included in the Hebrew Bible; but later, in his Preface to the Book of Tobit (PL 29, 24-25), stated that he translated the deuterocanonical books into Latin as a concession to the authority of the bishops; and in 402 AD declared he had not really denied the inspiration of these books, but had only given the opinion of the Jews (Apol. contra Ruf. 11, 33. PL 23, 476).

In view of that controversy, a list of canonical books (with the deuterocanonical books included) was drawn up at councils in Africa and approved by the Pope of the time. This was generally accepted in the West, while in the East, particularly in Syria, general agreement was reached only in the seventh century. Within the Roman Catholic Church, individual leaders and scholars, even at a later date, sometimes expressed contrary views, but the matter was definitively settled in 1546, when the Council of Trent, reacting to the views of the Protestant Reformers, declared that it accepted all the books of the Old and New Testaments with equal feelings of piety and reverence, and named them in accordance with the list of the fifth-century African councils. The First Vatican Council reaffirmed this declaration.

Protestant views

Main article: Biblical canon

Martin Luther rejected the books that do not appear in the Jewish Tanakh, partly because of the stress the Reformers laid on translating from the original text, and partly because some passages contradicted his views, especially where 2 Maccabees speaks, by implication, of purgatory: "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (12:46).

Protestants called the deuterocanonical books apocrypha. Luther and the Anglican Church regarded them as useful for edification, but not to be relied upon for doctrine, while Calvin and in general his followers attached no value to them beyond that of any other human writing, and objected to any use of them in church.

In 1615, the Archbishop of Canterbury imposed a year’s imprisonment for publishing Bibles without the "Apocrypha"; but in later printings of the Bible in English these books were omitted more and more. In the early nineteenth century, the Edinburgh Bible Society denounced them as superstitious and absurd, and soon all the Bible Societies decided not to publish them. More recently, in spite of the expense involved, Protestant Bibles in English have again sometimes included them, placing them in a separate section either between the Old Testament and the New or at the end.

What most Christians consider to be integral parts of Esther and Daniel are in some instances counted by Protestants as additional books. In the book of Esther, it is difficult to separate these from the rest, since they are tightly integrated into the Greek text, and even the common parts of the book contain small variations from the Hebrew text. Protestant Bibles therefore sometimes give the entire book of Esther in two versions, one, based on the Hebrew text, as part of the Protestant Old Testament, and one, translated from the Greek, in the "Apocrypha" section.

Not all Protestants have omitted the deuterocanonical books. For example, all Luther Bibles in the Lutheran areas of Germany included them until World War II. Only after the war, when American Bible Societies offered funding on condition that the Apocrypha were omitted, they began to be dropped from most editions. Additionally, the original edition of the KJV (1611) included them between the Old and New Testaments.

See also: Books of the Bible, a side-by-side comparison of the Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox canons.

New Testament apocryphal literature

Main article: New Testament apocrypha

New Testament apocrypha — books similar to those in the New Testament but rejected by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants — include several gospels and lives of apostles. Some of them were clearly produced by Gnostic authors or members of other groups later defined as heterodox. Many were discovered in the 19th and 20th centuries, producing lively speculation about their importance in early Christianity among religious scholars.

Though Protestants, Catholics and, in general, Orthodox agree on the canon of the New Testament, the Ethiopian Orthodox have also included I & II Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. This is no longer the case, according to Biblical scholar R.W. Cowley.

Martin Luther considered the Epistle of James apocryphal, doubting authorship by any of the several New Testament figures named James, and also because the epistle contains a statement that seemingly contradicts Luther's teachings of Salvation by faith alone: "Faith without works is dead" (2:26). His edition of the Bible relegated this and three other books (Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistle of Jude and the Revelation, to an appendix. Later Lutherans included these books with the Protestant Canon in their New Testament, but placed them after those books. Thus, the books of the Lutheran New Testament (at least in German) are ordered somewhat differently than other Protestant Bibles.

A well-known New Testament apocryphal book is the Gospel of Thomas, the only complete text of which was found in the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi in 1945. The Gospel of Judas, a Gnostic gospel, also received much media attention when it was reconstructed in 2006.

Artists and theologians have drawn upon the New Testament apocrypha for such matters as the names of Dismas and Gestas and details about the Three Wise Men. The first explicit expression on the perpetual virginity of Mary is found in the pseudepigraphical Infancy Gospel of James.

References

Information concerning the Hellenist Jews was incorporated from the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.com.

External links

Categories: