Apocrypha

[1] In Christianity, the word apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφος) was first applied to writings that were to be read privately rather than in the public context of church services.

The word apocrypha in its ancient Christian usage originally meant a text read in private, rather than in public church settings.

The word apocryphal (ἀπόκρυφος) was first applied to writings that were kept secret[9] because they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge considered too profound or too sacred to be disclosed to anyone other than the initiated.

[10] Sinologist Anna Seidel refers to texts and even items produced by ancient Chinese sages as apocryphal and studied their uses during Six Dynasties China (AD 220–589).

Most of these texts have been destroyed as Emperors, particularly during the Han dynasty, collected these legitimizing objects and proscribed, forbade and burnt nearly all of them to prevent them from falling into the hands of political rivals.

[13] 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 apocriphae, pro eo quod multa in iis corrupta et contra fidem veram inveniuntur a maioribus tradita non placuit iis dari locum nec admitti ad auctoritatem.

[10] "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.

Augustine defined the word as meaning simply "obscurity of origin", implying that any book of unknown authorship or questionable authenticity would be considered apocryphal.

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.

Lutherans and Anglicans retained the books as Christian intertestamental readings and a part of the Bible (in a section called "Apocrypha"), but no doctrine should be based on them.

[15] John Wycliffe, a 14th-century Christian Humanist, 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.

Anabaptists use the Luther Bible, which contains the intertestamental books; Amish wedding ceremonies include "the retelling of the marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Apocrypha".

[10] Among some Nonconformists, the term apocryphal began to take on extra or altered connotations: not just of dubious authenticity, but having spurious or false content,[19] Protestants, being diverse in theological views, were not unanimous in adopting those meanings.

The adjective apocryphal is commonly used in modern English to refer to any text or story considered to be of dubious veracity or authority, although it may contain some moral truth.

Apocryphal Jatakas of the Pāli Canon, such as those belonging to the Paññāsajātaka collection, have been adapted to fit local culture in certain Southeast Asian countries and have been retold with amendments to the plots to better reflect Buddhist morals.

[36] Anabaptists use the Luther Bible, which contains the intertestamental books; Amish wedding ceremonies include "the retelling of the marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Apocrypha".

[24] The Revised Common Lectionary, in use by most mainline Protestants including Methodists and Moravians, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar, although alternate Old Testament scripture lessons are provided.

The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria[10] and many others of the early church.

[19] The first ecclesiastical decree on the Catholic Church's canonical books of the Sacred Scriptures is attributed to the Council of Rome (382), and is correspondent to that of Trent.

[51] The status of the books that the Catholic Church terms Deuterocanonicals (second canon) and Protestantism refers to as Apocrypha has been an issue of disagreement that preceded the Reformation.

[19] While a few scholars conclude that the Jewish canon was the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty,[57] it is generally considered not to have been finalized until about 100 AD[58] or somewhat later, at which time considerations of Greek language and beginnings of Christian acceptance of the Septuagint weighed against some of the texts.

There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas.

[citation needed] The East already differed from the West in not considering every question of canon yet settled, and it subsequently adopted a few more books into its Old Testament.

[10] 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.

[10] 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.

A well-known 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.

Prophetic texts called the Ch'an-wei were written by Han dynasty (206 BC – AD 220) Taoist priests to legitimize as well as curb imperial power.

Emerging from the instability of the Warring States period (476–221 BC), ancient Chinese scholars saw the centralized rule of the Zhou as an ideal model for the new Han empire to emulate.

These were a class of nobles who were not part of the state administration; they were considered specialists or occultists, for example diviners, astrologers, alchemists or healers.

Seidel points out, however, that the scarcity of sources relating to the formation of early Taoism make the exact link between the apocryphal texts and the Taoist beliefs unclear.