APOCRYPHA.
2. Syriac.
The Peshito and Hexaplar Syriac Versions (§ 2). IV. Origin and Contents of the Individual Writings.
1. The Apocryphal Ezra.,
2. Additions to Esther.
3. Additions to Daniel.
(a) The Song of the Three Children. (6) The History of Susanna, (c) Bel and the Dragon.
4. The Prayer of Manasses.
5. Baruch.
6. The Epistle of Jeremiah.
7. Tobit.
8. Judith.
9. I Maccabees.
10. II Maccabees.
11. Ill Maccabees.
12. Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).
13. The Wisdom of Solomon.
B. New Testament Apocrypha. I. Apocryphal Gospels.
1. The Protevangelium of James.
2. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.
3. The Gospel of the Nativity of
Mary.
4. The History of Joseph the Car-
penter.
5. The Gospel of Thomas.
6. The Arabic Gospel of the In-
fancy.
7. The Gospel of Nicodemus—
Writings Connected with the Name of Pilate and Relating to the Trial and Death of Jesus. 8-37. Apocryphal Gospels Preserved only in Fragments or Known only by Name. II. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. III. Apocryphal Epistles. IV Apocryphal Apocalypses.
Apocrypha is a Greek word meaning " hidden," which, when applied to writings, may signify either those which are kept in concealment or those the origin of which is unknown. ' The word is used in both senses in patristic literature. When the
followers of Prodicus, according to Clement of" Alexandria (Strom., I. xv.69), boasted of possessing the " apocryphal books " of Zoroaster, they called these works "apocryphal" not because they did not know their origin (since they ascribed them to
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Apocatastasis Apocrypha
Zoroaster), but because they regarded the books
as not to be made public. The reason in this
case for keeping the writings con-
i. Writings cealed was the special value at-
Withheld tached to them. But writings may from Pub- also be withdrawn from general use
lie Use. because they are inferior.. With this thought in mind Origen and Didymus of Alexandria make a distinction between the "common and widely circulated books " (Gk. koina kai dedemeumena or dedemosieumena biblia) and the apocryphal books of Scripture (Origen on Matt, xiii 57, ANF, ix, 425; Didymus of Alexandria on Acts viii, 39, MPG, xxxix, 1669). In like manner Eusebius calls the canonical books which were used in the churches dedemosieumena (Hist, eccl, III, iii, 6, and elsewhere). Similarly Jerome (Epist., xevi) explains the Greek apokryphos by the Latin absconditus. (For further illustration cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, i, Leipsic, 1888, 126 sqq.)
The Christian usage is clearly derived from a Jewish custom. The Jews, because they hesitated actually to destroy copies of sacred writings, were in the habit of either depositing in a secret place (genizah) or of burying such as had become defective or were no longer fit for public use. The new-Hebrew word for this " concealing " ?s ganaz, " to save, hoard." Writings which were withdrawn from public use because of questionable contents were treated in the same way; thus King Hezekiah is said to have " stored up " the " Book of Remedies " because it prejudiced faith and trust in God (Pesahim iv, 9). Hence ganaz came to mean "to declare uncanonical " (Shabbat 30b; cf. Fiirst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Leipsic, 1868, pp. 91-93). Since the Christian phraseology undoubtedly followed the Jewish, it can not be questioned that " apocryphal " in ecclesiastical usage according to its original and proper signification means nothing else than " excluded from public use in the Church."
But " apocryphal " in both Greek and Latin may be applied also to writings the origin of which is unknown, and this meaning led to that of " forged, spurious." In this sense Augustine speaks of " the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal because their origin, being obscure, was unknown to the fathers " (De civitate dei, XV, xxiii, 4, NPNF, 1st ser. ii, 305); and again he says the apocryphal books " are so called, not because of any mysterious regard paid to them, but because they are mysterious in their origin, and in the absence of clear evidence have only some obscure presumption to rest upon "^(Contra Faustum, xi, 2, NPNF, 1st ser. iv, 178). In many cases it can not be decided which meaning 2- Writings was intended (cf. Hegesippus in
ofUncer- Eusebius, Hist, eccl, IV, xxii, 8; tain Origin. Clement of Alexandria, Strom., Ill, iv, 29; Apostolic Constitutions, vi, !6). It seems, however, that the original meaning, so sharply and consistently expressed in Origen, was not that generally given to the word before [us time. At any rate, it is questionable whether it was clearly present to the mind of Irenseus and
Tertullian in the following passages. The former, speaking of the Marcosians, says: " They adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged " (Host., I, xx, 1, ANF, i, 344); and Tertullian says: " I would yield my ground to you, if the scripture of the Shepherd [of Hermas] . had deserved to find a place in the divine canon; if it had not been habitually judged by every council of churches among apocryphal and false writings " (De pudicitia, x, ANF, iv, 85). After the word was once introduced, its ambiguity easily led to a notion differing from the original meaning. In the case of Augustine this is certain. Jerome, too, seems to use the word in the sense of " obscure in origin " when he says that all apocryphal writings " are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed" (Epist., cvii, 12, NPNF, 2d ser. xi, 194) The two senses — " exclusion from public use in the Church " and " obscure in origin " — are often combined in the same passage. ( The meaning became finally so generalized that the word signifies simply what is wrong and bad, as in the Latin adaptation of Origen's " Preface to the Song of Solomon " at the end: " Those writings which are called apocryphal (which contain much that is corrupt and contrary to the true faith) should not be given place or admitted to authority;" — the words in parentheses appear to be added by the Latin editor. (For further information cf. C. A. Credner, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, Berlin, 1860, pp. 110 sqq.; A. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon und die Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Halle, 1863, pp. 6 sqq.; H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 145 sqq.; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I, i, Leipsic, 1888, pp. 123 sqq.)
In the ancient Church and in the Middle Ages the term " apocryphal " was almost never applied, as in the Protestant Church, to those portions of the Greek and Latin Bibles which were foreign to the Hebrew canon. Indeed, it could not be so applied, for those books have always been a part of the Greek and Latin Bibles. Jerome alone once made a statement (in the Prologus galeatus) implying that these writings do indeed fall into the category of apocrypha. During the Middle Ages there were at the most a very few isolated voices which spoke to that effect (Hugo of St. Cher; cf. de Wette-Schrader, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin, 1869, p. 66). It was in
3. Use of the Protestant Church that this the Term by nomenclature first became customary. Protestants. The earliest to introduce it, appealing expressly to Jerome, was Carlstadt in his De canonicis scripturis libellus (Wittenberg, 1520; reprinted in Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, Halle, 1847, pp. 291 sqq.). He there expressly stated that by " apocryphal " he understood " non-canonical^; and in this sense the Protestant Church has always understood the word. The first edition of the Bible. in which the writings in question were expressly cj^sd* apocryphal was that of Frankfort, 1534, which was followed in the same year by Luther's first edition (cL G. W.
Apocrypha