It’s so important to know what a word means before you start disagreeing with someone about it. I remember a whole debate that I had with an old roommate about the ethics of punching someone that was “imminently” about to attack one of your friends or you. I insisted that you should always try to de-escalate things first while he insisted that it was unethical to let someone get punched because you weren’t willing to step in. We went back and forth and back and forth for about an hour, much to the annoyance of his girlfriend. It wasn’t until we started roleplaying different scenarios (yes, it went that far) that we realized that the way that we were defining “imminent” was very different. I assumed that the hostile party had just started to become erratic and hostile, showing their fast escalation towards an attack, while he assumed that they were already deeply hostile and were literally about to throw a punch. When we recognized the difference, we realized we didn’t disagree at all on any point, much to the continued annoyance of his girlfriend, who took the opportunity to say, “You two are so stupid. I’ve been saying this all along.” We weren’t arguing about ethics; we were arguing about a definition. Unclear terms are the real culprit behind a lot of disagreements.
One theological term that is infamously unclear is “apocrypha.” The word is varyingly defined as…
•Those extra books the Catholics have (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees 1 and 2, etc.)
•Any ancient Christian-y book that didn’t make it into the Bible (Book of Jasher, Book of Adam and Eve, Book of Enoch, etc.)
•Helpful ancient books that wise Christians know about (The Epistles of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.)
•Harmful ancient books that are mostly heretical (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.)
That boils down to two key factors that our word is trying to get at: canonicity and doctrine. First, it might be an attempt to discuss the canonical status of a book. Maybe someone is trying to say it’s only canonical for Roman Catholics (or “deuterocanonical” to Protestants). That’s one option. But it might also be saying that a book is flat out non-canonical. Or maybe the key concern isn’t about canonicity, but about the doctrine presented in a particular book. That doctrine could be sound without being a piece of Scripture, or it might be horrendously heretical. Again, the term can mean either of these things. It’s saying something about canonicity and/or doctrine… but what exactly? The vagueness in the term isn’t a modern invention; it’s baked into the term from the earliest days of the Church.
Factor One: Deuterocanonical vs. Purely Non-Canonical
A fair understanding of the first factor (canonicity) can be uncovered by just looking at the meaning of the word “apocrypha”. It comes from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα (apokryphos), which means “hidden” or “secret.” The word was originally used by ancient Christians (or heretics) to refer to books that were wise, but had somehow been obscured because they represented a threat to authority. It should be obvious how often this term was used by heretics to introduce “sacred” literature that violated church doctrine. It’s not hard to find early Church Fathers railing against apocryphal books, meaning those things that were obviously non-canonical and harmful. A good example can be found in that famous hunter of heresy , Irenaeus, when he’s against the Gnostics:
“[T]hey adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth.”
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (1, 20, 1)
Cleary, he uses the word to warn Christians about harmful, non-Canonical books. Another good example comes from that rhetorician of Carthage, Tertullian, in his Treatise on the Soul. He notes that some philosophers arrived at partial truths about the world by using non-Christian sources such as Greek myths, but it doesn’t concern him because they don’t actually seem to hold those myths in particularly high esteem:
“[T]hese philosophers have also made their attacks upon those writings which are condemned by us under the title of apocryphal, certain as we are that nothing ought to be received which does not agree with the true system of prophecy, which has arisen in this present age; because we do not forget that there have been false prophets, and long previous to them fallen spirits, which have instructed the entire tone and aspect of the world with cunning knowledge”
Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, 2
Again, apocryphal here means any book that’s not a canonical part of Christian scripture. Clearly that is indeed a valid, historic, Christian use of the term.
At the same time, we can find Church Fathers that use the term to refer to just the opposite on this particular axis! Some use it to refer to consent that would go on to be accepted in the Catholic canon and not the Jewish or Protestant canon. For those that might be unfamiliar with this kind of so-called “apocryphal” content, the Catholic Bible contains a number of additions in the Old Testament that don’t appear in the Jewish or Protestant Bibles. Why? Early Christians often spoke Greek and consequently read Scripture from a Greek copy of the Old Testament called the Septuagint. The Septuagint contained seven extra books (Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach/Ecclesiasticus, and Baruch) and a few additional chapters in the books of Daniel and Esther. Even though a broad segment of Greek speaking Jews that used the Septuagint for Scripture readings also considered this content legitimate, ultimately the authorities in Israel neither used it nor considered it canonical. As time went on, Jews used the content less and less, returning to the Hebrew Scriptures, and Christians used it more and more. Eventually, there was debate in the Church about it. Why were Christians using versions of the Jewish Scriptures that the Jews didn’t actually think was canonical? Why use the septuagint at all instead of something that would have circulated in the region that Jesus actually lived? Should the church remove that extra content that had been used for generations? Or did it still count as sacred Scripture? In his Letter to Africanus, the ever-abstract and theological genius, Origen, argued for the legitimacy of the story of Susanna (a story from the additional chapters in Daniel):
But probably to this you will say, Why then is the History not in their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in uncanonical writings (Apocrypha).
Origen, Letter to Africanus, 9
A word that was elsewhere used to condemn non-canonical writing is now used to point at the additional Septuagint literature as actually purer, uncorrupted, Scripture, hidden away from the tyranny of Israelite authorities. You can see that from the earliest days of the faith and in the highest circles of authority, the word is used in multiple senses to talk about the canonicity of sacred writings.
Factor Two: Safe or Dangerous Doctrine
We’ve seen how the term historically was used in different circumstances to refer to different aspects of a document’s canonicity, but that’s not all it could do! Apocryphal could also be a way to discuss expectations for the reliability of a document’s doctrine. Obviously, Irenaeus and Tertullian used the term to refer to books that were actively heretical and not worth reading, and Origen used it to refer to books that should be considered canonical and are doctrinally pure, but we can also find people that use the term to refer to things that aren’t dangerous, per se, but don’t have any claim towards anything resembling canon.
The compiler of the Vulgate, Jerome, is a perfect illustration of this still further way of using the word “apocryphal.” In the fourth century, Jerome was debating the details of the emerging Christian canon, and he objected to the inclusion of both deuterocanonical content and certain other books that had arisen popularly in key Christian communities. He listed the Old Testament books he thought ought to be canonical (identical to the modern Protestant and historic Jewish canon), and then makes this note:
Whatever falls outside these must be set apart among the Apocrypha. Therefore, wisdom, which is commonly entitled Solomon’s, with the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.
Jerome, Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings
At first glance, this appears to be little more than a further exploration of canon. Jerome is condemning the Catholic epistles to a non-canon status, just like Irenaeus and Tertullian did with dangerous books. But Jerome doesn’t have that same attitude of suspicion and frustration when regarding these books. To the contrary, he seems to like them. He occasionally quotes them in his other writings. Jerome has the utmost respect for some of these documents that he’s calling apocryphal; he just doesn’t think they’re canonical. That’s a far cry from Tertullian and Irenaeus’s use of the term, which was essentially “horrible heresy carriers.” He uses the term “apocryphal” to refer to books that have positive, doctrinally-sound additions to the Christian life.
To recap, we’ve established that even from the beginning of the church, the word “apocryphal” could refer to a writing that is either canonical or deuterocanonical/Catholic, or it could be a reference to the reliability of the doctrine within a non-canonical book. It’s a broad, flexible term! And it get’s thrown around pretty readily among church people that are exploring non-canonical writings enough that it causes issues from time to time. When you’re talking with fellow Christians about apocrypha, just remember how much history this particular term has and be careful to define what you mean when you use it. It might just save you an argument.
Classic Theology 