[1] See the separate headings for the various apocalyptic books
mentioned in this article.
APOCATASTASIS, a Greek word, meaning "re-establishment," used as a
technical scientific term for a return to a previous position or
condition.
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. The history of the earlier usage of the term
"Apocrypha" (from [Greek: apokruptein], to hide) is not free from
obscurity. We shall therefore enter at once on a short account of the
origin of this literature in Judaism, of its adoption by early
Christianity, of the various meanings which the term "apocryphal"
assumed in the course of its history, and having so done we shall
proceed to classify and deal with the books that belong to this
literature. The word most generally denotes writings which claimed to
be, or were by certain sects regarded as, sacred scriptures although
excluded from the canonical scriptures.
_Apocrypha in Judaism._--Certain circles in Judaism, as the Essenes in
Palestine (Josephus, _B.J._ ii. 8. 7) and the Therapeutae (Philo, _De
Vita Contempl._ ii. 475, ed. Mangey) in Egypt possessed a secret
literature. But such literature was not confined to the members of these
communities, but had been current among the Chasids and their successors
the Pharisees.[1] To this literature belong essentially the apocalypses
which were published in fast succession from Daniel onwards. These works
bore, perforce, the names of ancient Hebrew worthies in order to procure
them a hearing among the writers' real contemporaries. To reconcile
their late appearance with their claims to primitive antiquity the
alleged author is represented as "shutting up and sealing" (Dan. xii. 4,
9) the book, until the time of its fulfilment had arrived; for that it
was not designed for his own generation but for far-distant ages (1
Enochi. 2, cviii. 1.; Ass. Mos. i. 16, 17). It is not improbable that
with many Jewish enthusiasts this literature was more highly treasured
than the canonical scriptures. Indeed, we have a categorical statement
to this effect in 4 Ezra xiv. 44 sqq., which tells how 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." Such esoteric books are apocryphal in the original
conception of the term. In due course the Jewish authorities were forced
to draw up a canon or book of sacred scriptures, and mark them off from
those which claimed to be such without justification. 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, Schurer, Porter, state that the secret
books with which we have been dealing formed a class by themselves and
were called "Genuizim" [Hebrew: gnazim], and that this name and idea
passed from Judaism over into the Greek, and that [Greek: apokrypha
biblia] is a translation of [Hebrew: sfarim gnuzim]. 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 ([Hebrew: sfarim hizonim]
and [Hebrew: sifrei haminim]). 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).[2] 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.[3] 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" ([Greek: Mouseos iera biblos apokryphos
epikaloumene ogdoe e hagia]). The disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus
boasted (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 15. 69) that they possessed the secret
([Greek: aprokryphous]) 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 [Greek: en apokryphois] (_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;
[Greek: graphe me pheromene men en tois koinois kai dedemosieumenois
bibliois eikos d oti en apokryphois pheromene] (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 [Greek: apokryphros] 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 (_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.