Uncanonical Books (I)
[LITERATURE.—Kautzsch, _Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des
alten Testamentes_, vol. I, pp. xi.-xxiii. (1900); Moore, in the
_Jewish Encyclopædia_, II, 1-6 (1902); Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp.
42-65. See also the literature referred to in the footnotes.]
I. THE MEANING OF THE TERM _Gānaz_.
For reasons which will appear sufficiently obvious as we proceed, it
is necessary, in speaking about uncanonical books, to say something
about the meaning of the Hebrew word _gānaz_, “to hide,” and the
Greek word _apokryphos_, “hidden,” and the relationship of these
terms to one another. The word _Apocrypha_ means “hidden things”; but
in what sense and for what purpose is, or was, this term applied to
those books which we call the books of the Apocrypha? That is one of
the main points to be dealt with in the following discussion.
First as to the Hebrew word _gānaz_; this means originally “to
store up,” but it also has the meaning “to store up in secret,” and
thus “to hide.”[236] In the technical sense in which it is used in
the present connection, i.e. in reference to books, it means “to
withdraw from use.” But, it may be pointed out in passing, the word
was not used in this sense prior to the fixing of the Hebrew Canon;
it referred to the withholding of secret wisdom from all excepting
the initiated. The question as to how the word is used in the Talmud
is of the first importance, but a difficult one; it is said, on the
one hand, that as applied to books, “it is used only of books which
are, after all, included in the Jewish Canon, never of the kind of
literature to which the Church Fathers give the name ‘Apocrypha’...
the only exception is a reference to Sirach.”[237] The latter part
of this statement is undoubtedly true; but Hölscher has shown
conclusively that to say that _gānaz_ is only used in reference to
books which are included in the Jewish Canon is not in accordance
with the facts. “This view,” he says, “directly contradicts the
sources, which in a number of cases use _gānaz_ in reference to
uncanonical books.” He shows further that when the Rabbis use _gānaz_
in reference to the canonical books it is a question of something
of which they themselves disapprove; for example, they speak of
canonical books which in time past certain people had desired to
“hide,” i.e. to declare uncanonical; but they mention this in order
to record their disapproval; not the Rabbis but certain unnamed
individuals apply the term _gānaz_ to canonical books. The Talmudic
view is that canonical books may _not_ be “hidden,” for this is
only done in the case of books which are really offensive.[238] In
the only other instances in which the word is used in reference
to canonical books, it is not to the books as such, but only to
particular copies of them, and this for certain specific reasons;
for example, if a roll had become moth-eaten or damaged in other
ways, or if part of the text had been rubbed out through use; in such
cases the copy in question was “hidden,” i.e. withdrawn from public
use, because there was something objectionable about it. So that in
the Talmud _gānaz_ implies, as Hölscher says, “drastic action,” the
total withdrawal from public use, and therefore it cannot have been
used in reference to the canonical books, for in that case it would
have implied their excision from the Canon, a “naturally impossible
thought for the Rabbis.” The books which the Rabbis “hide” (_gānaz_)
and forbid are always such the contents of which were regarded as
thoroughly objectionable, viz., heretical.[239] It follows also that
_gānaz_ would never have been applied to the books of our Apocrypha,
or at all events to the more important of them, for not only were
they regarded as containing edifying and orthodox teaching, but it
is well known that the reading of them was permitted.[240] So that
when the word _gānaz_ is used in the Talmud in reference to books it
means that the books in question are such as must be withdrawn from
use because they contain heretical teaching[241]; for this reason
the word would be inapplicable if applied to the books of the Hebrew
Canon or to the books of our Apocrypha.[242]
II. THE MEANING OF THE TERM _Apokryphos_
We turn next to the Greek word _apokryphos_ (“hidden”), from which
our word Apocrypha comes. The term, in its technical sense, is
neither specifically Jewish nor Christian originally, but “is derived
from the practice common among sects, religious or philosophic, of
embodying their special tenets or _formulæ_ in books withheld from
public use, and communicated to an inner circle of believers.”[243]
Examples of such books can be given; a magical _papyrus_ preserved
in Leyden has the title “The holy and secret (_apokryphos_) Book
of Moses, called the eighth or the holy.”[244] According to Suidas,
Therecydes of Syros learned his wisdom from “the secret books of the
Phœnicians.”[245] Clement of Alexandria (Strom., i. 15, 69) speaks
of an Agnostic sect, the followers of Prodicus, who gloried in the
possession of secret books of Zoroaster.[246] Irenaeus (I, xx. 1)
mentions an early Christian sect called the Markosians who had their
secret books, and Hippolytus (Refut., vii. 20) says the same of the
Basilidians.[247] Moreover, we have references to the same kind of
thing in books which have come down to us; it is said in Daniel xii.
4, “But thou, O Daniel, shut up (lit. ‘hide’) the words, and seal
the book, ...” and in xii. 9, “Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are
shut (lit. ‘hidden’) and sealed till the time of the end.” In the
Ethiopic Book of Enoch (cviii. 1)[248] reference is made to a book
which was written for the elect: “Another book which Enoch wrote for
his son Methuselah and for those who will come after him and will
keep the Law in the last days”; the same seems to be implied in the
Slavonic Book of Enoch (lxviii. 2),[249] where it is said: “He wrote
down the descriptions of all the creation which the Lord had made,
and he wrote three hundred and sixty-six books, and gave them to
his sons.” Still more pointed is the passage in 2 (4) Esdras xii.
36-38[250]: “Thou alone hast been found worthy to learn this mystery
of the Most High; therefore write all these things which thou hast
seen in a book, and put them in a secret place; and thou shalt teach
them to the wise of the people, whose hearts thou knowest are able to
comprehend and keep these mysteries.” But perhaps the most striking
passage of all is 2 (4) Esdras xiv. 44-47: “So in forty days were
written ninety-four books. And it came to pass when the forty days
were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me, saying: The
twenty-four books which thou hast written publish, that the worthy
and unworthy may read therein; but the seventy last thou shalt keep,
to deliver them to the wise among thy people; for in them is the
spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of
knowledge.” The “twenty-four books” are the canonical ones which were
read in the synagogue and therefore known to all, but the “seventy
last” are the secret ones which are reserved only for the initiated.
From these passages it will, therefore, be seen that originally the
term “apocryphal,” as applied to books, was used in a good sense;
such books were held to contain deep and mysterious truths which
might only be communicated to the initiated, and were therefore
hidden from the outside world; this applies both to Gentile and to
Jewish usage. It will also have been noticed, from the passages
quoted, that there is a twofold idea contained in the term
“apocryphal”; it means, on the one hand, hidden teaching which the
book contains, and on the other, that the book itself is hidden.[251]
Neither in the passages quoted, nor anywhere else, is the word
“apocryphal” ever applied to the books of our Apocrypha; this is true
right up to the fourth century A.D.
Before pursuing further the history of the word “apocryphal,” and
how it came to be applied to sacred books of the second rank, we
must briefly consider the not unimportant question of the connection
between the Hebrew _gānaz_ and the Greek _apokryphos_. It is better
to do so at this point before we deal with _apokryphos_ in the later
sense in which it was used.
III. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TERMS _Gānaz_ AND _Apokryphos_
We have seen that _gānaz_ is only used, properly speaking, of
objectionable books, i.e. those which were regarded as heretical,
and therefore “hidden,” or “withdrawn.” We have also seen that
_apokryphos_ is used in a good sense of books which contain “hidden”
teaching, and must therefore be “hidden” from the unworthy. This
would seem to imply that there could have been no connection between
the two terms since they refer respectively to books the character of
which is diametrically opposed, _gānaz_ being applied to bad books,
_apokryphos_ to good ones. But here another factor comes in. From
the root _gānaz_ comes the word _Genizah_; this name was applied to
a small chamber, adjoining the ancient synagogues, in which were
kept hidden away those rolls of the Scriptures which after continued
use at the synagogue services began to show signs of wear and tear.
It was a laudable custom among the Jews that whatsoever was used
in the service of God should be of the best; so that when a roll
of the Scriptures had been in use for a certain number of years
and had become tarnished or torn, they did not consider it fit to
be used in divine service. On the other hand, the roll contained
Holy Scripture, and had also been sanctified by service; it was,
therefore, unfitting that it should be thrown away. For this reason
it was placed in the _Genizah_, and thus hidden away from profane
hands.[252] Here, then, we have another reason for which books were
“hidden,” though it applies in the main to canonical books (see
below); at the same time it must be remembered that the technical
term _gānaz_ is not used in reference to books in this connection.
But then we have this further important fact; it was not only damaged
copies of the Scriptures which were placed in the _Genizah_; as Prof.
Schechter says: “Another class of works consigned to the _Genizah_
were what we may call disgraced books, books which once pretended
to the rank of Scriptures, but were found by the authorities to be
wanting in the qualification of being dictated by the Holy Spirit.
They were ‘hidden.’”[253] The _Genizah_, therefore, as it has been
well put, served “the twofold purpose of preserving good things from
harm, and bad things from harming.”[254] This, therefore, suggests a
distinct connection between the ideas conveyed by the terms _gānaz_
and _apokryphos_. Such connection is, moreover, confirmed by the
witness of Origen, (d. 254 A.D.), who, together with Africanus,
his contemporary, was the first to apply the term “apocryphal” to
books used by the Church; Origen expressly says that he borrowed
his terminology from the Jews[255]; and, as Hölscher has shown, his
use of _apokryphos_ entirely corresponds with the Rabbinical use of
_gānaz_; both use these terms in reference, not to the canonical
books, nor to the books of our Apocrypha, but to the books known
as “Pseudepigrapha.”[256] These latter books were condemned by the
Rabbis after the Canon had been fixed (though this had not always
been the case) because they were looked upon as harmful; but in
the early Church they were freely used. But though _gānaz_ and
_apokryphos_ are thus shown to express similar ideas, as technical
terms they are obviously not to be thought of as meaning the same
thing. Originally they did in all probability connote similar ideas,
viz., the hiding of secret wisdom from all but those who were fit
to receive it; but that was before the Canon was fixed and when the
line of demarcation between different categories of books was not so
rigid. Both terms originated independently; _apokryphos_ continued,
anyhow up to the time of Origen, to be applied in reference to books
which contained hidden wisdom; _gānaz_, on the other hand, while
being originally used in the same way as _apokryphos_, came to be
used in quite a different way; it always meant “to hide,” but while
originally it referred to the hiding of what was good,[257] it was
finally used in reference to what was bad. The term did not change,
but its meaning did.
IV. HOW THE TERM “APOCRYPHA” CAME TO BE APPLIED TO SACRED BOOKS OF
THE SECOND RANK
But we must return to the question as to why the term Apocrypha was
applied to the books which we include under that title. As we have
seen, “apocryphal” was first applied to books which contained hidden
wisdom; then it was used by Origen in reference to pseudepigraphic
books. In the fourth century the attempt was first made (in the
Greek Church) to distinguish between canonical books and those
which were read for edification; the latter referred to the books
of our Apocrypha, but the term apocryphal was still applied
only to pseudepigraphic books. The example of the Greek Church
was followed by the Latin Church headed by St. Jerome (d. A.D.
420) who made a distinction between the “libri canonici” and the
“libri ecclesiastici,” meaning by the latter term the books of the
Apocrypha. It was not arbitrariness which prompted St. Jerome to
do this; the Latin Church was in the fourth century inundated with
a flood of religious writings hitherto unknown outside the Greek
Church; these now appeared in Latin translations. Their appearance
in the West created a great sensation, the more so as they bore in
their titles names which were greatly honoured.[258] They were not
all good for the faithful to read, yet only too frequently there
was no sufficiently learned churchman at hand to give guidance. In
St. Jerome’s time, therefore, there was a mass of literature in
circulation which was used without discrimination; so that it needed
someone of learning and authority to guide and direct. To this fact
was no doubt largely due St. Jerome’s activity in this matter, and
he commenced by making a clear distinction between the canonical
books and those of the second rank to which he now gave the name of
apocryphal.[259] But stress must be laid upon the fact that he used
the word “apocryphal” in a new sense. Hitherto, as we have seen, this
word was applied to the Pseudepigrapha and to other extra-canonical
books; St. Jerome was the first to use it in reference to the books
which are now included in the Apocrypha, i.e. in the sense in which
it is now used. This new use of the term did not at once become
general; St. Augustine (d. A.D. 430), for example, uses “apocrypha”
in the old sense in his _De Civitate Dei_, xv. 23; but by degrees
St. Jerome’s nomenclature was adopted throughout the West, and this
has continued to the present time. Thus it has come about that we
call the sacred books of the second rank the Apocrypha, though there
is not, nor ever has been, anything “hidden” about them or their
teaching.
V. THE READING OF UNCANONICAL BOOKS
We shall deal in detail with the books of the Apocrypha in Part II,
and some account of the Pseudepigrapha will be given in the next
chapter; here we purpose to say something about the early use of
uncanonical “books,” apart from the two categories just mentioned,
during the period with which we are mainly concerned, i.e. roughly
B.C. 200-A.D. 100.
As we have already seen, the idea of a Canon presupposes the
existence of a number of books from which those to be included in
the Canon are selected. So that before the formation of the Canon
a variety of books was in existence among the Jews, the reading of
which was not forbidden. This continued until after the Canon had
been finally fixed, though it was not long before _all_ uncanonical
books, with the exception of some of those which belong to our
Apocrypha,[260] were forbidden. Rabbi Akiba, for example, who lived
towards the end of the first century A.D. and during the first half
of the second, reckoned among such as had no portion in the world to
come those who read “outside books”[261]; these were called _Sepharim
hachizônim_, the latter word being equivalent to the Greek οἱ ἔξω,
which is used in the New Testament of persons “that are without,”
i.e. outside the company of the faithful.[262] In Jewish writings
the _Sepharim hachizônim_ are synonymous with _Sifre hamînîm_, “the
books of the heretics.”[263] The Rabbis regarded such books with the
greatest horror; it is said of Rabbi Tarphon, a contemporary of Rabbi
Akiba, that he burned every book belonging to the _Minim_ which
he could get hold of; he went so far as to say that if a man was
being pursued by a murderer or a serpent it would be better to take
refuge in the house of an idolater than in that of a heretic.[264]
We deal with the subject of these books in the next chapter. It is
often asked what _data_ we have for believing in the existence of
the wide prevalence of “books” in these early ages; as the question
is not without importance in the present connection it will not be
out of place to indicate some of the _data_. We may refer first to
Ecclesiastes xii. 11, 12: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as
driven nails are the members of collections; they are given by one
shepherd. And besides these, my son, be warned. Of making many books
there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” What
the preacher here means is that the words of the wise stimulate the
reader to good thoughts; the words “members of collections” refer
to wise words which have been embodied in collections of sayings;
all these come from God, the one Shepherd. A warning is then given
as to the reading of other literature; “the editor would deter his
pupils from unorthodox or heathen literature by the thought of the
weariness of study.”[265] The passage shows that there must have been
a quantity of unorthodox literature available. “Books” of another
character were Aramaic Targums which were certainly much in use in
pre-Christian times[266] as well as later; these are often referred
to in the Talmud.[267] It is said in one of the Midrashic[268] works
that when the Israelites were in Egypt they possessed rolls in
the reading of which they delighted every Sabbath; the statement
is, of course, merely pictorial, but it implies the spread of
literature—though, to be sure, at a much later time than that
referred to. Among “books” mentioned by name are the following[269]:
“Megillath Taanith,” which enumerates and discusses fast-days which
should not be observed as fasts because joyful events occurred on
them in days gone by; this probably belongs to the first century of
our era. Of about the same date is “The roll of Genealogies”; what
the precise contents of this work were is not known, as only one
quotation occurs in the Talmud, in the tractate Jebamoth 49_b_. Rabbi
Jochanan ben Nuri, a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba, possessed, we are
told, a “Megillath Sammānim” (“The roll of powders”), in which is
given a list of spices used for making incense; this, it is said, was
an heirloom belonging to the “house of Abtinas.” Rabbi Chijja (third
century A.D.) had a “book” called “Megillath Sethārim” (“The roll of
hidden things”), in this he wrote down precepts and the like which,
it is said, did not receive general approval. Besides these Strack
gives references to a large number of Haggadic[270] and Halakic[271]
“books” which need not be enumerated here.
But the most striking proof of the existence of “books” in more or
less general use is afforded by the recently found[272] Aramaic
_papyri_ of Elephantiné (belonging to the fifth century B.C.). We
have already referred to these,[273] and shall have to speak in some
detail about one of these _papyri_ in dealing with the Book of Tobit;
but, so far as we are now concerned, the main fact is worth recording
that centuries before the beginning of the Christian era numbers of
Aramaic _papyri_ were to be found in private houses; the contents of
these _papyri_ varied from household accounts and _memoranda_ to such
a story as “The history of the wise Achikar.”[273]
These various “books” which have been briefly referred to—and they
represent but a small number of the available _data_—are sufficient
evidence to show that there was a considerable amount of literary
material for use among those who desired it. The question may be
asked whether in these early days there were so many people able to
read as to make the wide distribution of literature likely; it may
be replied that probably there was a larger percentage of men among
the Jews able to read and write than among any other nation during
the period of which we are speaking. But, as a matter of fact, the
actual number, whether small or great, of those able to read was not
the important point; for where one read and expounded, there were a
number who would listen, and thus be influenced by the contents of
a “book.” We have an interesting example of this in Ecclesiasticus
l. 29, where, according to the Hebrew text, Ben-Sira speaks of those
who attended his _Yeshibah_, i.e. lecture-room or academy; there can
be little doubt that Ben-Sira’s book (Ecclesiasticus) formed part
of the instruction there given.[274] But as Ben-Sira speaks of the
_Yeshibah_ as a well known institution we may be sure that others
existed.
In one way or another, then, men became acquainted with and were
influenced by the contents and teaching of “books”; and when a
distinction had come to be made between “books” which were permitted
and “books” which were forbidden, a strict vigilance was kept by the
religious authorities in order to suppress unorthodox “books.” Among
these unorthodox “books” there was one class which was regarded as
very dangerous, and therefore strictly forbidden, viz. those which
dealt with the subject of Apocalypse; to these some attention must
next be devoted.
SUMMARY
The Hebrew root _gānaz_ and the Greek word _apokryphos_ must be
properly understood if the subject of canonical and uncanonical books
is to be discussed. Originally, _gānaz_ meant “to store up,” and
then “to store up in secret,” thus “to hide,” and especially to hide
secret wisdom from the masses; later, it came to have the technical
sense, in reference to books, of “withdrawing from use.” The Talmudic
use of the term is important; when there used in reference to books
it means that such books, on account of their heretical teaching,
must be withdrawn from public use; the word is never, in the Talmud,
used of canonical books themselves nor of the books of our Apocrypha.
The Greek word _apokryphos_ had in its origin, as a technical term,
a meaning somewhat similar to _gānaz_ in its early, though not in
its later, connotation; it was used of books containing secret
teaching only to be communicated to the initiated. _Apokryphos_
was, therefore, used first in a good sense; the “hidden” character
of “apocryphal” books consisted in their being hidden from the
outside world for which they were too good. But in its later usage
_apokryphos_ also corresponded to the later usage of _gānaz_; both
were used in reference to uncanonical books; but these books were not
merely uncanonical, they were also heretical, namely those which
we now include under the term “Pseudepigrapha”; neither term was
originally used of the books of our Apocrypha.
It was not until the fourth century A.D., and in the Greek Church
first, that a distinction began to be made between canonical books
and books which, though not canonical, were nevertheless to be read
for edification, i.e. the books of our Apocrypha. But even then the
term “apocryphal” continued to be used only in reference to heretical
books, and not to those of our Apocrypha.
The fundamental change in the use of the term apocryphal was brought
about by St. Jerome; owing to the influx, during the fourth century,
of a number of religious writings from the Eastern Church, many of
which it was thought better to withhold from the faithful, St. Jerome
drew a sharper distinction than had obtained hitherto in the West
between the canonical and other writings; he now applied the term
“apocryphal” to the books of our present Apocrypha, and though this
new connotation of the term did not at once become general, it was by
degrees adopted and has continued ever since.
There were many uncanonical books, in addition to the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha, the reading of which was not forbidden prior to the
formation of the Canon; but later, all books outside the Canon, with
the exception of some belonging to our Apocrypha, were forbidden;
they were called books “that are without.” Many _data_ regarding
the existence of books, apart from Scriptural ones, among the Jews
in pre-Christian times are available; from these it is evident that
there must have been much literary activity. As these books were
varied in character and did not by any means necessarily always
contain orthodox teaching, the fact of their existence illustrates
the need of the discrimination which the Jewish religious authorities
saw fit to exercise.