CHAPTER IX

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.