above facts are summarized], and the Literature there referred to; Nestle, Urteat, etc., 211 ff.; Kean, The Bible in Russia.
xiii. MODERN GREEK VERSIONS.—1. The earliest translation into modern Greek dates from 1547, when the Pentateuch, the five ‘Rolls,’ and the other parts of the OT read in the Jewish services were translated from the Hebrew, and printed at Constantinople, in three columns which contained the Spanish, modern Greek, and the Targum of Onkelos. All three columns were printed in Hebrew characters; but the edition had no wide- spread circulation, and had a literary rather than a religious value.
2. The first really important translation was that of the New Testament made by Maximus Callipoli. This was printed at Geneva in 1638 at the expense of the Government of the United Provinces, and contains an introductory preface by Cyril Luear, patriarch of Constantinople, who had studied at Geneva. This translation, in the Greek of the 17th cent., follows closely the original text; and of the edition of 1500 copies many were by per- mission distributed in the East.
3. The translation of Maximus was reprinted in 1703 in London at the expense of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, after having been re- vised by Seraphim ; and after further correction by Anastasius and Kollettis an edition was published at Halle in 1710 at the queen of Prussia’s expense.
In Greece the favourable reception originally given to Maximus’ work was modified later, on the ground that it was made in a dialect, and there- fore not generally intelligible. The real under- lying ground of opposition was distrust of Pro- testant influence. Whatever the cause, the cir- culation of Seraphim’s work was forbidden by the patriarch Gabriel, as that of Maximus had been earlier.
The influence of the British and Foreign Bible Society at the beginning of the 19th cent. made the matter of a modern Greek version again prominent. In 1810 Maximus’ translation of the New Testament was reprinted, and several editions were circulated before 1830, the necessary per-
mission having been obtained from the patriarch,
Cyril in 1814.
4. But the need of revision was recognized, and accordingly in 1819 the archimandrite Hilarion was entrusted with the work, the ultimate respon- sibility for the revision being undertaken by the learned archbishop Constantius of Sinai. ~ Cer- tain difficulties arose as to the inclusion of the OT Apocrypha, for Hilarion’s version of the Old Testament was made from the Septuagint. Ulti- mately it was decided by the British and Foreign Bible Society that the translation of the Old Testament should be made from the Hebrew, and the headquarters of the work were established at Corfu. Here two English scholars, with a know- ledge of Hebrew, and with the help of other scholars, including two learned Greeks, Bambas and Tipaldo, began the work, using not only the Hebrew, but the French translation of Martin, the Italian of Diodati, the Septuagint, Vulgate,
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS
and other versions. Parts of the Old Testament (e.g. the Psalms) were printed and circulated as they were finished, and by 1836 the whole Old Testament was completed. The New Testament translation of Hilarion was also revised by Bambas, and an edition appeared in 1848. This ‘revision is considered so correct and idiomatic that it has now completely superseded that of Hilarion.’
As once before, so again, a reaction set in against Western influences, and Biblical translations were forbidden in the Orthodox Church. But, in spite of this, the British and Foreign Bible Society con- tinued to print translations into modern Greek.*
LirErRATURE.—Legrand, Bibliographie Hellénique, 1885-1895 ; Bagster, Bible of Every Land ; Nestle, Uvteat, etc. p. 178 ff. ; Bible Society Reporter for Jan. and May 1902.
Lu. J. M. BEB.
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS.—
iv. Reception and influence, v. Classification. Literature.
i. DeFINITION.—The history of the word ‘ Apo- crypha’ accounts for its various uses, and its ety- mology explains its diverse meanings (see art. APOCRYPHA in vol. i. p. 112). ‘Apocryphal’ was a title of honour when it was applied to writings which were Aidden on account of the unique value of their contents ; their secret doctrines imparted to them a special authority (awctoritas secreta). But ‘apocryphal’ was a term of reproach when it was applied te writings which were hidden on account of the heterodoxy of their contents ; their heretical teaching rendered them specially harm- ful. An approximation of the two opposite senses of ‘apocryphal’ may, however, be traced ; for the secrecy which was originally a claim to peculiar regard soon became a mark of inferiority, owing to the suspicion which rests on books of hidden origin. From these differences in the application of the word it is not difficult to understand how it came to pass that Gospels which were held in high esteem, as, ¢.g., by Gnostic sects, were condemned by the Christian Church and declared to be un- worthy of a place in the Canon, notwithstanding that for some of them Apostolic authorship was claimed ; it is also not difficult to understand how Gospels, which were not condemned for their false teaching, were excluded from the Canon because of their inferiority to the writings of the four Evan- gelists. Hence ‘apocryphal,’ which{in the early Fathers means heretical, acquired the sense of wn- canonical, which it now most frequently bears.
Under the heading of ‘ Apocryphal Gospels’ it is customary to include all extra-canonical writings which claim to be Gospels, whether they are rivals of or supplements to the canonical Gospels, whether they are dependent on or independent of the writ- ings of the four Evangelists, whether the tradition they embody has the appearance of being authen- tic or is manifestly fictitious. But when the term ‘apocryphal’ has this wider denotation, it has a narrower connotation. To Jerome this extension of the meaning of the word is generally ascribed, for he applies it to those Jewish writings which had a place in the LXX Greek version of the OT but were not included in the twenty-two books of the Hebrew Canon (Prologus Galeatus : ‘ Quidquid extra hos est, inter dmréoxpypa esse ponendum’). Nevertheless, Jerome held that some of the OT apocryphal books might be read ‘ for the edifica-