The true scriptures, according to the Jewish canon (Yad. iii. 5; Toseph. Yad. ii. 3), were those which defiled the hands of such as touched them. But other scholars, such as Zahn, Schürer, Porter, state that the secret books with which we have been dealing formed a class by themselves and were called “Genuizim” (גנוזים), and that this name and idea passed from Judaism over into the Greek, and that ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία is a translation of ספרים גנוזים. But the Hebrew verb does not mean “to bide” but “to store away,” and is only used of things in themselves precious. Moreover, the phrase is unknown in Talmudic literature. The derivation of this idea from Judaism has therefore not yet been established. Whether the Jews had any distinct name for these esoteric works we do not know. For writings that stood wholly without the pale of sacred books such as the books of heretics or Samaritans they used the designation Hisonim, Sanh. x. 1 (ספרים חצונים and ספרי המינים). To this class in later times even Sirach was relegated, and indeed all books not included in the canon (Midr. r. Num. 14 and on Koheleth xii. 12; cf. Jer. Sabb. 16).[1] In Aqiba’s time Sirach and other apocryphal books were not reckoned among the Hisonim; for Sirach was largely quoted by rabbis in Palestine till the 3rd century A.D.
Apocrypha in Christianity.—Christianity as it springs from its Founder had no secret or esoteric teaching. It was essentially the revelation or manifestation of the truth of God. But as Christianity took its origin from Judaism, it is not unnatural that a large body of Jewish ideas was incorporated in the system of Christian thought. The bulk of these in due course underwent transformation either complete or partial, but there was always a residuum of incongruous and inconsistent elements existing side by side with the essential truths of Christianity. This was no isolated phenomenon; for in every progressive period of the history of religion we have on the one side the doctrine of God advancing in depth and fulness: on the other we have cosmological, eschatological and other survivals, which, however justifiable in earlier stages, are in unmistakable antagonism with the theistic beliefs of the time. The eschatology of a nation—and the most influential portion of Jewish and Christian apocrypha are eschatological—is always the last part of their religion to experience the transforming power of new ideas and new facts.
Now the current religious literature of Judaism outside the canon was composed of apocryphal books, the bulk of which bore an apocalyptic character, and dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom. These naturally became the popular religious books of the rising Jewish-Christian communities, and were held by them in still higher esteem, if possible, than by the Jews. 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 truth of Christianity and foreshadow its ultimate destinies. Christianity, moreover, moved by the same apocalyptic tendency as Judaism, gave birth to new Christian apocryphs, though, in the case of most of them, the subject matter was to a large extent 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 till later times that the term became one of reproach.
We have remarked above that the Jewish apocrypha—especially the apocalyptic section and the host of Christian apocryphs—became the ordinary religious literature of the early Christians. And this is not strange seeing that of the former such abundant use was made by the writers of the New Testament.[2] 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. 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.
The Term “Apocryphal.”—Turning now to the consideration of the word “apocryphal” itself, we find that in its earliest use it was applied in a laudatory sense to writings, (1) 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” (Μωυσέως ἱερὰ βιβλος ἀπόκρυφος ἐπικαλουμένη ὀγδόη ᾒ ἁγία). The disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus boasted (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15. 69) that they possessed the secret (ἀποκρύφους) 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 ἐν ἀποκρύφοις (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). (2) But the word was 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; γραφῇ μὴ φερομένῃ μἐν ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσιευμένοις βιβλίοις εἰκὀς δ᾽ ὅτι ἐν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένῃ (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 ἀπόκρυφος 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. (3) The word came finally to mean what is false, spurious, bad, heretical. If we may trust the text, 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.”
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 (Prologus 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
