|
|
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[Image:lighterstill.jpg]] | + | [[File:lighterstill.jpg]][[File:Clayfield_apocrypha.jpg|right|frame]] |
| | | | |
| − | '''Apocrypha''' (from the Greek ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away" Specifically, ἀπόκρυφα is the neuter plural of ἀπόκρυφος, a participle derived from the verb ἀποκρύπτω [infinitive: ἀποκρύπτειν], "to hide something away".) are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In [[Judeo-Christian]] [[theology]], the term ''apocrypha'' refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the [[Biblical canon|canon]]. Given that different denominations have different ideas about what constitutes canonical [[scripture]], there are several different versions of the apocrypha. During sixteenth-century controversies over the [[biblical canon]] the word "apocrypha" acquired a negative connotation, and it has become a synonym for "spurious" or "false". This usage usually involves fictitious or legendary accounts that are plausible enough to commonly be considered as truth. For example, the [[Parson Weems]] account of [[George Washington]] and the cherry tree is considered '''apocryphal'''. | + | ==Origin== |
| | + | Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of ''apocryphus'' [[secret]], not canonical, from Greek ''apokryphos'' obscure, from ''apokryptein'' to hide away, from ''apo''- + ''kryptein'' to hide |
| | + | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_century 14th Century] |
| | + | ==Definitions== |
| | + | *1: [[writings]] or [[statements]] of dubious authenticity |
| | + | *2capitalized. a : [[books]] included in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint Septuagint] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate Vulgate] but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant [[canons]] of the [[Old Testament]] |
| | + | b : early Christian writings not included in the [[New Testament]] |
| | + | ==Description== |
| | + | '''Apocrypha''' are statements or claims that are of dubious authenticity. The word's [[origin]] is the medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the [[Greek]] adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apocryphos), "obscure", from verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apocryptein), "to hide away". |
| | | | |
| − | == Denotation and connotation ==
| + | It is commonly applied in [[Christian]] religious contexts involving certain disagreements about biblical [[canonicity]]. The pre-Christian-era Jewish translation (into Greek) of holy scriptures known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint Septuagint] included the writings in [[dispute]]. However, the Jewish canon was not finalized until at least 100–200 years into the A.D., at which time considerations of Greek language and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts. Some were not accepted by the Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible canon. Over several centuries of consideration, the books of the Septuagint were finally accepted into the Christian [[Old Testament]], by A.D. 405 in the west, and by the end of the fifth century in the east. The Christian canon thus established was retained for over 1,000 years, even after the 11th-century [[schism]] that separated the church into the branches known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism Roman Catholic] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox Eastern Orthodox] churches. |
| − | The term "apocrypha" has evolved in meaning somewhat, and its associated implications have ranged from positive to pejorative. The term '''apocryphal''', according to [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apocryphal Merriam-Webster], means "writings or statements of dubious authenticity."
| |
| | | | |
| − | === Esoteric writings ===
| + | Those canons were not challenged until the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation Protestant Reformation] (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reaffirmed them. The reformers rejected the parts of the [[canon]] that were not part of the [[Hebrew Bible]] and established a revised Protestant canon. Thus, concerning the [[Old Testament]] books, what is thought of as the "Protestant canon" is actually the final Hebrew canon. The [[differences]] can be found by looking here or by comparing the contents of the "Protestant" and Catholic Bibles, and they represent the narrowest Christian application of the term ''Apocrypha''. |
| − | The word "apocryphal" (ἀπόκρυφος) was first applied, in a positive sense, to writings which were kept secret because they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge considered too profound or too sacred to be disclosed to anyone other than the initiated. It is used in this sense to describe ''A Holy and Secret Book of Moses, called Eighth, or Holy (Μωυσέως ἱερὰ βίβλος ἀπόκρυφος ἐπικαλούμενη ὀγδόη ἢ ἁγία), a text taken from a [[Leiden University Library|Leiden papyrus]] of the third or fourth century AD, but which may be as old as the first century. In a similar vein, the disciples of the [[Gnostic]] Prodicus boasted that they possessed the secret (ἀπόκρυφα) books of [[Zoroaster]]. The term in general enjoyed high consideration among the Gnostics (see [[Acts of Thomas]], 10, 27, 44)[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica].
| |
| | | | |
| − | === Questionable value ===
| + | Among some Protestants, apocryphal began to take on extra or altered connotations: not just of dubious [[authenticity]], but having spurious or [[false]] content, not just obscure but having hidden or suspect [[motives]]. Protestants were (and are) not unanimous in adopting those [[meanings]]. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England Church of England] agreed, and that view continues today throughout the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church Lutheran Church], the worldwide Anglican Communion, and many other denominations. Whichever implied meaning is intended, Apocrypha was (and is) used primarily by Protestants, in reference to the [[books]] of questioned canonicity. Catholics and Orthodox sometimes avoid using the term in [[contexts]] where it might be considered disputatious or be misconstrued as yielding on the point of canonicity. Very few Protestant published [[Bibles]] include the apocryphal books in a separate section (rather like an appendix), so as not to intermingle them with their canonical books. |
| | | | |
| − | "Apocrypha" was also applied to writings that were hidden not because of their divinity but because of their questionable value to the church. Many in [[Protestant]] traditions cite Revelation 22:18-19 as a potential curse for those who attach any canonical authority to extra-biblical writings such as the Apocrypha. However, a strict exegesis of this text would indicate it was meant for only the [[Book of Revelation]]. Revelation 22:18-19 (ESV) states: "(18) I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, (19) and if anyone takes away from the words of '''the book of this prophecy''', God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." It should be obvious no one has license to distort any original writing. In this case, if we hold to a strict hermeneutic, this "book of prophecy" does not refer to the Bible as a whole but to the Book of Revelation. [[Origen]], in [http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1016.htm ''Commentaries on Matthew'', X. 18, XIII. 57], distinguishes between writings which were read by the churches and apocryphal writings: γραφὴ μὴ φερομένη μέν ἒν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσιευμένοις βιβλίοις εἰκὸς δ' ὅτι ἒν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένη (''writing not found on the common and published books in one hand, actually found on the secret ones on the other''). The meaning of αποκρυφος is here practically equivalent to "excluded from the public use of the church", and prepares the way for an even less favourable use of the word[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica].
| + | Explaining the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox Eastern Orthodox Church]'s canon is made difficult because of differences of [[perspective]] with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism Roman Catholic] church in the [[interpretation]] of how it was done. Those differences (in matters of [[jurisdiction]]al [[authority]]) were contributing factors in the separation of the Roman Catholics and Orthodox around 1054, but the formation of the canon was largely complete (fully complete in the Catholic view) by the fifth century, six centuries before the separation. In the eastern part of the church, it took much of the fifth century also to come to [[agreement]], but in the end it was accomplished. The canonical books thus established by the undivided church became canon for what was later to become Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike. The East did already differ from the West in not considering every question of [[canon]] yet settled, and it subsequently adopted a few more books into its [[Old Testament]]. It also allowed consideration of yet a few more to continue not fully decided, which led in some cases to adoption in one or more jurisdictions, but not all. Thus, there are today a few remaining differences of canon among Orthodox, and all Orthodox [[accept]] a few more books than appear in the Catholic canon. Protestants accept none of these additional books as canon either, but see them having roughly the same [[status]] as the earlier Apocrypha. As Protestant awareness of the Eastern Orthodox increases in nations like the United States, interest in the full Orthodox canon might also increase enough for them to be published in the Apocrypha of some Protestant Bibles. That is not common yet in 2013, so they are not as widely available in [[English]]. |
| | | | |
| − | === Spurious writings ===
| + | Before the fifth century, the [[Christian]] writings that were then under [[discussion]] for inclusion in the canon but had not yet been accepted were classified in a group known as the ancient [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena antilegomenae]. These were all candidates for the [[New Testament]] and included several books which were eventually accepted, such as: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews The Epistle to the Hebrews], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter 2 Peter], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_John 3 John] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_of_John Revelation of John] (Apocalypse). None of those accepted books can be considered Apocryphal now, since all Christendom accepts them as canonical. Of the uncanonized ones, the Early Church considered some [[heretical]] but viewed others quite well. Some Christians, in an extension of the [[meaning]], might also consider the non-heretical books to be "apocryphal" along the manner of Martin Luther: not canon, but useful to read. This category includes books such as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas Epistle of Barnabas], the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache Didache], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shepherd_of_Hermas The Shepherd of Hermas] which are sometimes referred to as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers Apostolic Fathers].[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha] |
| − | The word "apocrypha" came finally to mean "false, spurious, bad, or heretical." This meaning also appears in Origen's prologue to his commentary on the [[Song of Songs]], of which only the [[Latin]] translation survives: ''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.'' | |
| − | [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica] "Concerning these scriptures, which are called apocryphal, for the reason that many things are found in them corrupt and against the true faith handed down by the elders, it has pleased them that they not be given a place nor be admitted to authority." (''Translation by a Wikipedia editor''.) | |
| | | | |
| − | === Other meanings ===
| |
| − | Other uses of ''apocrypha'' developed over the history of Western Christianity. The [[Gelasian Decree]] refers to religious works by [[church fathers]] [[Eusebius]], [[Tertullian]] and [[Clement of Alexandria]] as apocrypha. [[Augustine of Hippo|Augustine]] defined the word as meaning simply "obscurity of origin," implying that any book of unknown authorship or questionable authenticity would be considered as apocrypha. On the other hand, [[Jerome]] (in ''Protogus Galeatus'') declared that all books outside the Hebrew canon were apocryphal [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica]. In practice, Jerome treated some books outside the Hebrew canon as if they were canonical, and the Western Church did not accept Jerome's definition of apocrypha, instead retaining the word's prior meaning (''see: [[Deuterocanon]]''). As a result, various church authorities labeled different books as apocrypha, treating them with varying levels of regard.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Some apocryphal books were included in the [[Septuagint]] with little distinction made between them and the rest of the [[Old Testament]]. [[Origen]], [[Clement]] and others cited some apocryphal books as "scripture", "divine scripture", "inspired", and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with [[Palestine]] and familiar with the [[protocanonical books|Hebrew canon]] excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of [[Melito of Sardis]], and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica]. A third view was that the books were not as valuable as the canonical scriptures of the [[Hebrew]] collection, but were of value for moral uses, as introductory texts for new converts from [[paganism]], and to be read in congregations. They were referred to as "[[ecclesiastical]]" works by [[Rufinus]] [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | These three opinions regarding the apocryphal books prevailed until the [[Protestant Reformation]], when the idea of what constitutes canon became a matter of primary concern for [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Protestant]]s alike. In 1546 the Catholic [[Council of Trent]] reconfirmed the canon of Augustine, dating to the second and third centuries, 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 [[1 Esdras|1st]] and [[2 Esdras|2nd Esdras]] and the [[Prayer of Manasses]], were declared canonical at Trent[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica]. The Protestants, in comparison, universally held the belief that only the books in the Hebrew collection were canonical. [[John Wycliffe]], a 14th century reformer, had declared in his Biblical translation that "whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief" [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica]. Nevertheless, his translation of the Bible included the [[Biblical apocrypha|apocrypha]] and the Epistle of the Loadiceans. [http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/ Wyclif's Bible]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The respect accorded to apocryphal books varied between Protestant denominations. In both the [[Luther Bible|German]] (1537) and [[Coverdale Bible|English]] (1535) translations of the Bible, the apocrypha are published in a separate section from the other books, although the Lutheran and Anglican lists are different. In some editions, (like the Westminster), readers were warned that these books were not "to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings." A milder distinction was expressed elsewhere, such as in the "argument" introducing them in the [[Geneva Bible]], and 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 [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | According to [http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.PDF ''The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments'' at orthodoxanglican.net]: "On the other hand, the [[Anglican Communion]] emphatically maintains that the Apocrypha is part of the Bible and is to be read with respect by her members. Two of the hymns used in the American Prayer Book office of Morning Prayer, the Benedictus es and Benedicite, are taken from the Apocrypha. One of the offertory sentences in Holy Communion comes from an apocryphal book (Tob. 4: 8-9). Lessons from the Apocrypha are regularly appointed to be read in the daily, Sunday, and special services of Morning and Evening Prayer. There are altogether 111 such lessons in the latest revised American Prayer Book Lectionary [The books used are: [[II Esdras]], [[Book of Tobit|Tobit]], Wisdom, [[Ecclesiasticus]], Baruch, Three Holy Children, and [[I Maccabees]].] The position of the Church is best summarized in the words of Article Six of the [[Thirty-nine Articles]]: “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church… And the other Books (as Hierome [St. Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine…”
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Apocryphal texts by denomination==
| |
| − | === Jewish apocrypha ===
| |
| − | Although traditional rabbinical Judaism insists on the exclusive canonization of the current 24 books in the [[Tanakh]], it also claims to have an oral law handed down from [[Moses]]. The Sadducees,[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#_note-9]] - unlike the Pharisees but like the Samaritans - seem to have maintained an earlier and smaller number of texts as canonical, preferring to hold to only what was written in the Law of Moses[http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=40&letter=S&search=Sadducees] (making most of the presently accepted canon, both Jewish and Christian, ''apocryphal'' in their eyes). Certain circles in Judaism, such as the [[Essene]]s in Judea and the [[Therapeutae]] in Egypt, were said to have a secret literature (see [[Dead Sea scrolls]]). Other traditions maintained different customs regarding canonicity[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm]. The Ethiopic Jews, for instance, seem to have retained a spread of canonical texts similiar to the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians[http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/BIBLE/ethold.stm], cf Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol 6, p 1147. A large part of this literature consisted of the apocalypses. Based on prophecies, these apocalyptic books were not considered scripture by all, but rather part of a literary form that flourished from 200 BC to 100 AD.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === Biblical books called apocrypha ===
| |
| − | During the birth of Christianity, some of the Jewish apocrypha that dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom became popular in the rising Jewish-Christian communities. Occasionally these writings were changed or added to, but on the whole it was found sufficient to reinterpret them as conforming to a Christian viewpoint. Christianity eventually gave birth to new apocalyptic works, some of which were derived from traditional Jewish sources. Some of the Jewish apocrypha were part of the ordinary religious literature of the early Christians. This was not strange, as the large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek [[Septuagint]], which is the source of the [[deuterocanonical books]]<ref>''Deuterocanonical books'' literally means books of the second canon. The term was coined in the 16th century.</ref> as well as most of the other [[biblical apocrypha]].<ref>The ''Style Manual for the Society of Biblical Literature'' recommends the use of the term ''deuterocanonical literature'' instead of ''apocrypha'' in academic writing, although not all apocryphal books are properly deuterocanonical.</ref>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Slightly varying collections of additional Books (called deuterocanonical by the Roman Catholic Church) form part of the [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]], [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox]] and [[Oriental Orthodox Church|Oriental Orthodox]] canons. New Testament possible reliance on these books includes these examples: [[Epistle of James|James]] 1:19-20 shows dependence on [[Ecclesiasticus|Sirach]] 5:13-14, [[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]] 1:3 on [[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom]] 7:26, [[Epistle to the Hebrews|Hebrews]] 11:35 on [[2 Maccabees]] 6, [[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 9:21 on [[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom]] 15:7, [[2 Corinthians|2 Cor.]] 5:1, 4 on [[Book of Wisdom|Wisdom]] 9:15, etc.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[Book of Enoch]] is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, the [[Epistle of Jude]] quotes the prophet, Enoch, by name, and some believe the use of this book appears in the four gospels and [[1 Peter]]. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the [[Epistle of Barnabas]], [[Irenaeus]], [[Tertullian]] and [[Clement of Alexandria]], and much of the early church. The epistles of Paul and the gospels also show influences from the [[Book of Jubilees]], which is part of the Ethiopian canon, as well as the [[Assumption of Moses]] and the [[Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs]], which are included in no biblical canon.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The high position which some apocryphal books occupied in the first two centuries was undermined by a variety of influences in the Christian church. All claims to the possession of a secret tradition (as held by many Gnostic sects) were denied by the influential theologians like [[Irenaeus]] and [[Tertullian]], the timeframe of true inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and universal acceptance by the church was required as proof of apostolic authorship. As these principles gained currency, books deemed apocryphal tended to become regarded as spurious and heretical writings, though books now considered deuterocanonical have been used in liturgy and theology from the first century to the present.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | === New Testament apocryphal literature ===
| |
| − | [[New Testament apocrypha]] — books similar to those in the [[New Testament]] but almost universally rejected by Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants — include several gospels and lives of apostles. Some of these were clearly produced by [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] authors or members of other groups later defined as [[Christian heresy|heterodox]]. Many texts believed lost for centuries were unearthed in the 19th and 20th centuries, producing lively speculation about their importance in early [[Christianity]] among religious scholars, while many others survive only in the form of quotations from them in other writings; for some, no more than the title is known. Artists and theologians have drawn upon the New Testament apocrypha for such matters as the names of [[Dismas]] and [[Gestas]] and details about the [[Three Wise Men]]. The first explicit mention of the [[perpetual virginity of Mary]] is found in the pseudepigraphical [[Infancy Gospel of James]] but it has been a widespread Christian doctrine since a very early date.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[Gnosticism|Gnostic tradition]] was a prolific source of apocryphal gospels. While these writings borrowed the characteristic poetic features of apocalyptic literature from Judaism, Gnostic sects largely insisted on allegorical interpretations based on a secret apostolic tradition. With them, as with most Christians of the first and second centuries, apocryphal books were highly esteemed. A well-known [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] apocryphal book is the [[Gospel of Thomas]], the only complete text of which was found in the Egyptian town of [[Nag Hammadi]] in 1945. The [[Gospel of Judas]], a [[Gnosticism|Gnostic]] gospel, also received much media attention when it was reconstructed in 2006.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians as well as Protestants generally agree on the canon of the [[New Testament]]. However there is one notable exception. The [[Ethiopian Orthodox]] have in the past also included [[Epistles of Clement|I & II Clement]], and [[Shepherd of Hermas]] in their [[New Testament]] canon. This is no longer the case, according to Biblical scholar [[R.W. Cowley]]. According to Abba Brahana Selassie (an Ethiopian Orthodox priest currently residing in England) at the end of the New Testament, the Ethiopian canon contains the following Books of Church Order: The Order of Zion, Commandments, Gitzew, Abtils, 2 Books of the Covenant, Clement and Didascalia. The Ethiopian Orthodox canon also places the General Epistle of [[St. James]] immediately before the General Epistle of [[St. Jude]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Information concerning the Hellenist Jews was incorporated from the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.com.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == See also ==
| |
| − | * [[Biblical canon]]
| |
| − | * [[Biblical apocrypha]]
| |
| − | * [[Deuterocanonical]]
| |
| − | * [[Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture]]
| |
| − | * [[Pseudepigraphy]]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==External links==
| |
| − | * [http://www.riseisrael.com/apocrypha.htm Read the Apocrypha] Free online downloadable version of the Apocrypha.
| |
| − | * [http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/apo/bel.htm Bel and the Dragon] online text which is included in the longer version of the Septuagint in the book of Daniel but is apocryphal to the Masoretic texts.
| |
| − | *[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/ethiopican.html Ethiopian Orthodox Canon] Cowley, R.W. "The Biblical Canon Of The Ethiopian Orthodox Church Today." Ostkirchliche Studien, 1974, Volume 23, pp. 318-323. Accessed online via islamicawareness.org.
| |
| − | *[http://www.comparative-religion.com/christianity/apocrypha Complete NT Apocrypha] Claims to be the largest collection of New Testament apocrypha online
| |
| − | *[http://www.pseudepigrapha.com Major collection of pseudepigrapha] Large number of NT and OT apocrypha and general pseudepigrapha
| |
| − | *[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/nt-apokrypha.html German Apocrypha research] Scholarly research site on individual manuscripts.
| |
| − | *[http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Asfar_El-Kanoneya_El-Tanya__0-index.html Deuterocanonical books] - Full text from Saint Takla Haymanot Church Website (also presents the full text in Arabic)
| |
| − | *[http://www.atmajyoti.org/ul_unknown_lives_forward.asp The Unknown Lives of Jesus and Mary] from the Apocrypha and other little-known sources.
| |
| − | *[http://scriptures.lds.org/bda/apcryph LDS Bible Dictionary > Apocrypha] Definition & LDS POV, including brief book descriptions.
| |
| − | *[http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/index.htm Noncanonical Literature]
| |
| − | *[http://www.timelessmyths.com/mirrors/index.php Dark Mirrors of Heaven] A look at the Biblical creation myth from non-canonical literature.
| |
| − | *[http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=a&word=APOCRYPHA Christian Cyclopedia article on Apocrypha]
| |
| − | *[http://www.bombaxo.com/allusions.html New Testament Allusions to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha]
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Category: General Reference
| |
| | [[Category: Religion]] | | [[Category: Religion]] |
| | + | [[Category: Languages and Literature]] |
Origin
Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide
Definitions
b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament
Description
Apocrypha are statements or claims that are of dubious authenticity. The word's origin is the medieval Latin adjective apocryphus, "secret, or non-canonical", from the Greek adjective ἀπόκρυφος (apocryphos), "obscure", from verb ἀποκρύπτειν (apocryptein), "to hide away".
It is commonly applied in Christian religious contexts involving certain disagreements about biblical canonicity. The pre-Christian-era Jewish translation (into Greek) of holy scriptures known as the Septuagint included the writings in dispute. However, the Jewish canon was not finalized until at least 100–200 years into the A.D., at which time considerations of Greek language and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts. Some were not accepted by the Jews as part of the Hebrew Bible canon. Over several centuries of consideration, the books of the Septuagint were finally accepted into the Christian Old Testament, by A.D. 405 in the west, and by the end of the fifth century in the east. The Christian canon thus established was retained for over 1,000 years, even after the 11th-century schism that separated the church into the branches known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
Those canons were not challenged until the Protestant Reformation (16th century), when both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reaffirmed them. The reformers rejected the parts of the canon that were not part of the Hebrew Bible and established a revised Protestant canon. Thus, concerning the Old Testament books, what is thought of as the "Protestant canon" is actually the final Hebrew canon. The differences can be found by looking here or by comparing the contents of the "Protestant" and Catholic Bibles, and they represent the narrowest Christian application of the term Apocrypha.
Among some Protestants, apocryphal began to take on extra or altered connotations: not just of dubious authenticity, but having spurious or false content, not just obscure but having hidden or suspect motives. Protestants were (and are) not unanimous in adopting those meanings. The Church of England agreed, and that view continues today throughout the Lutheran Church, the worldwide Anglican Communion, and many other denominations. Whichever implied meaning is intended, Apocrypha was (and is) used primarily by Protestants, in reference to the books of questioned canonicity. Catholics and Orthodox sometimes avoid using the term in contexts where it might be considered disputatious or be misconstrued as yielding on the point of canonicity. Very few Protestant published Bibles include the apocryphal books in a separate section (rather like an appendix), so as not to intermingle them with their canonical books.
Explaining the Eastern Orthodox Church's canon is made difficult because of differences of perspective with the Roman Catholic church in the interpretation of how it was done. Those differences (in matters of jurisdictional authority) were contributing factors in the separation of the Roman Catholics and Orthodox around 1054, but the formation of the canon was largely complete (fully complete in the Catholic view) by the fifth century, six centuries before the separation. In the eastern part of the church, it took much of the fifth century also to come to agreement, but in the end it was accomplished. The canonical books thus established by the undivided church became canon for what was later to become Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike. The East did already differ from the West in not considering every question of canon yet settled, and it subsequently adopted a few more books into its Old Testament. It also allowed consideration of yet a few more to continue not fully decided, which led in some cases to adoption in one or more jurisdictions, but not all. Thus, there are today a few remaining differences of canon among Orthodox, and all Orthodox accept a few more books than appear in the Catholic canon. Protestants accept none of these additional books as canon either, but see them having roughly the same status as the earlier Apocrypha. As Protestant awareness of the Eastern Orthodox increases in nations like the United States, interest in the full Orthodox canon might also increase enough for them to be published in the Apocrypha of some Protestant Bibles. That is not common yet in 2013, so they are not as widely available in English.
Before the fifth century, the Christian writings that were then under discussion for inclusion in the canon but had not yet been accepted were classified in a group known as the ancient antilegomenae. These were all candidates for the New Testament and included several books which were eventually accepted, such as: The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3 John and the Revelation of John (Apocalypse). None of those accepted books can be considered Apocryphal now, since all Christendom accepts them as canonical. Of the uncanonized ones, the Early Church considered some heretical but viewed others quite well. Some Christians, in an extension of the meaning, might also consider the non-heretical books to be "apocryphal" along the manner of Martin Luther: not canon, but useful to read. This category includes books such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and The Shepherd of Hermas which are sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Fathers.[1]
