VOLUME II SLICE II Anjar to Apollo (continued 11)

APIS or Hapis, the sacred bull of Memphis, in Egyptian Hp, Hope, Hope. By Manetho his worship is said to have been instituted by Kaiechos of the Second Dynasty. Hape is named on very early monuments, but little is known of the divine animal before the New Kingdom. He was entitled “the renewal of the life” of the Memphite god Ptah: but after death he became Osorapis, i.e. the Osiris Apis, just as dead men were assimilated to Osiris, the king of the underworld. This Osorapis was identified with Serapis, and may well be really identical with him (see Serapis): and Greek writers make the Apis an incarnation of Osiris, ignoring the connexion with Ptah. Apis was the most important of all the sacred animals in Egypt, and, like the others, its importance increased as time went on. Greek and Roman authors have much to say about Apis, the marks by which the black bull-calf was recognized, the manner of his conception by a ray from heaven, his house at Memphis with court for disporting himself, the mode of prognostication from his actions, the mourning at his death, his costly burial and the rejoicings throughout the country when a new Apis was found. Mariette’s excavation of the Serapeum at Memphis revealed the tombs of over sixty animals, ranging from the time of Amenophis III. to that of Ptolemy Alexander. At first each animal was buried in a separate tomb with a chapel built above it. Khamuis, the priestly son of Rameses II. (c. 1300 B.C.), excavated a great gallery to be lined with the tomb chambers; another similar gallery was added by Psammetichus I. The careful statement of the ages of the animals in the later instances, with the regnal dates for their birth, enthronization and death have thrown much light on the chronology from the XXIInd dynasty onwards. The name of the mother-cow and the place of birth are often recorded. The sarcophagi are of immense size, and the burial must have entailed enormous expense. It is therefore remarkable that the priests contrived to bury one of the animals in the fourth year of Cambyses.

See Jablonski, Pantheon, ii.; Budge, Gods of the Egyptians, ii. 350; Mariette-Maspero, Le Sérapéum de Memphis.

(F. Ll. G.)

APLITE, in petrology, the name given to intrusive rock in which quartz and felspar are the dominant minerals. Aplites are usually very fine-grained, white, grey or flesh-coloured, and their constituents are visible only with the help of a magnifying lens. Dykes and threads of aplite are very frequently to be observed traversing granitic bosses; they occur also, though in less numbers, in syenites, diorites, quartz-diabases and gabbros. Without doubt they have usually a genetic affinity to the rocks they intersect. The aplites of granite areas, for example, are the last part of the magma to crystallize, and correspond in composition to the quartzo-felspathic aggregates which fill up the interspaces between the early minerals in the main body of the rock. They bear a considerable resemblance to the eutectic mixtures which are formed on the cooling of solutions of mineral salts, and remain liquid till the excess of either of the components has separated out, finally solidifying en masse when the proper proportions of the constituents and a suitable temperature are reached. The essential components of the aplites are quartz and alkali felspar (the latter usually orthoclase or microperthite). Crystallization has been apparently rapid (as the rocks are so fine-grained), and the ingredients have solidified almost at the same time. Hence their crystals are rather imperfect and fit closely to one another in a sort of fine mosaic of nearly equi-dimensional grains. Porphyritic felspars occur occasionally and quartz more seldom; but the relation of the aplites to quartz-porphyries, granophyres and felsites is very close, as all these rocks have nearly the same chemical composition. Yet the aplites associated with diorites and quartz-diabases differ in minor respects from the common aplites, which accompany granites. The accessory minerals of these rocks are principally oligoclase, muscovite, apatite and zircon. Biotite and all ferromagnesian minerals rarely appear in them, and never are in considerable amount. Riebeckite-granites (paisanites) have close affinities to aplites, shown especially in the prevalence of alkali felspars. Tourmaline also occurs in some aplites. The rocks of this group are very frequent in all areas where masses of granite are known. They form dykes and irregular veins which may be only a few inches or many feet in diameter. Less frequently aplite forms stocks or bosses, or occupies the edges or irregular portions of the interior of outcrops of granite. The syenite-aplites consist mainly of alkali felspar; the diorite-aplites of plagioclase; there are nepheline-bearing aplites which intersect some elaeolite-syenites. In all cases they bear the same relation to the parent masses. By increase of quartz aplites pass gradually, in a few localities, through highly quartzose modifications (beresite, &c.) into quartz veins.

(J. S. F.)

APNOEA (Gr. ἄπνοια, from ἀ-, privative, πνέειν, to breathe), a technical term for suspension of breathing.

APOCALYPSE (Gr. ἀποκάλυψις, disclosure), a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the mass of men. The Greek root corresponds in the Septuagint to the Heb. gālāh, to reveal. The last book of the New Testament bears in Greek the title Άποκάλυψις Ίωάννου, and is frequently referred to as the Apocalypse of John, but in the English Bible it appears as the Revelation of St John the Divine (see Revelation). Earlier among the hellenistic Jews the term was used of a number of writings which depicted in a prophetic and parabolic way the end or future state of the world (e.g. Apocalypse of Baruch), the whole class is now commonly known as Apocalyptic Literature (q.v.).

APOCALYPSE, KNIGHTS OF THE, a secret society founded in Italy in 1693 to defend the church against the expected Antichrist. Agostino Gabrino, the son of a merchant of Brescia, was its founder. On Palm Sunday 1693, when the choir of St Peter’s was chanting Quis est iste Rex Gloriae? Gabrino sword in hand, rushed to the altar crying Ego sum Rex Gloriae. Though Gabrino was treated as a madman, the society flourished, until a member denounced it to the Inquisition, who arrested the knights. Though chiefly mechanics they always carried swords even when at work, and wore on their breasts a star with seven rays. Gabrino styled himself monarch of the Holy Trinity. He was credited by his enemies with a desire to introduce polygamy.

APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. The Apocalyptic literature of Judaism and Christianity embraces a considerable period, from the centuries following the exile down to the close of the middle ages. In the present survey we shall limit ourselves to the great formative periods in this literature—in Judaism to 200 B.C. to A.D. 100, and in Christianity to A.D. 50 to 350 or thereabouts.

The transition from prophecy to apocalyptic (ἀποκαλύπτειν, to reveal something hidden) was gradual and already accomplished within the limits of the Old Testament. Beginning in the bosom of prophecy, and steadily differentiating itself from it in its successive developments, it never came to stand in absolute contrast to it. Apocalyptical elements disclose themselves in the prophetical books of Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, while in Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. and xxxiii. we find well-developed apocalypses; but it is not until we come to Daniel that we have a fully matured and classical example of this class of literature. The way, however, had in an especial degree been prepared for the apocalyptic type of thought and literature by Ezekiel, for with him the word of God had become identical with a written book (ii. 9-iii. 3) by the eating of which he learnt the will of God, just as primitive man conceived that the eating of the tree in Paradise imparted spiritual knowledge. When the divine word is thus conceived as a written message, the sole office of the prophet is to communicate what is written. Thus the human element is reduced to zero, and the conception of prophecy becomes mechanical. And as the personal element disappears in the conception of the prophetic calling, so it tends to disappear in the prophetic view of history, and the future comes to be conceived not as the organic result of the present under the divine guidance, but as mechanically determined from the beginning in the counsels of God, and arranged under artificial categories of time. This is essentially the apocalyptic conception of history, and Ezekiel may be justly represented as in certain essential aspects its founder in Israel.

We shall now consider (I.) Apocalyptic, its origin and general characteristics; (II.) Old Testament Apocalyptic; (III.) New Testament Apocalyptic.

I. Apocalyptic—its Origin and General Characteristics

i. Sources of Apocalyptic.—The origin of Apocalyptic is to be sought in (a) unfulfilled prophecy and in (b) traditional elements drawn from various sources.

(a) The origin of Apocalyptic is to be sought in unfulfilled prophecy. That certain prophecies relating to the coming kingdom of God had clearly not been fulfilled was a matter of religious difficulty to the returned exiles from Babylon. The judgments predicted by the pre-exilic prophets had indeed been executed to the letter, but where were the promised glories of the renewed kingdom and Israel’s unquestioned sovereignty over the nations of the earth? One such unfulfilled prophecy Ezekiel takes up and reinterprets in such a way as to show that its fulfilment is still to come. The prophets Jeremiah (iv.-vi.) and Zephaniah had foretold the invasion of Judah by a mighty people from the north. But as this northern foe had failed to appear Ezekiel re-edited this prophecy in a new form as a final assault of Gog and his hosts on Jerusalem, and thus established a permanent dogma in Jewish apocalyptic, which in due course passed over into Christian.

But the non-fulfilment of prophecies relating to this or that individual event or people served to popularize the methods of apocalyptic in a very slight degree in comparison with the non-fulfilment of the greatest of all prophecies—the advent of the Messianic kingdom. Thus, though Jeremiah had promised that after seventy years (xxv. 11., xxix. 10) Israel should be restored to their own land (xxiv. 5, 6), and then enjoy the blessings of the Messianic kingdom under the Messianic king (xxiii. 5, 6), this period passed by and things remained as of old. Haggai and Zechariah explained the delay by the failure of Judah to rebuild the temple, and so generation after generation the hope of the kingdom persisted, sustained most probably by ever-fresh reinterpretations of ancient prophecy, till in the first half of the 2nd century the delay is explained in the Books of Daniel and Enoch as due not to man’s shortcomings but to the counsels of God. The 70 years of Jeremiah are interpreted by the angel in Daniel (ix. 25-27) as 70 weeks of years, of which 69½ have already expired, while the writer of Enoch (lxxxv.-xc.) interprets the 70 years of Jeremiah as the 70 successive reigns of the 70 angelic patrons of the nations, which are to come to a close in his own generation.

But the above periods came and passed by, and again the expectations of the Jews were disappointed. Presently the Greek empire of the East was overthrown by Rome, and in due course this new phenomenon, so full of meaning for the Jews, called forth a new interpretation of Daniel. The fourth and last empire which, according to Daniel vii. 10-25, was to be Greek, was now declared to be Roman by the Apocalypse of Baruch (xxxvi.-xl.) and 4 Ezra (x. 60-xii. 35). Once more such ideas as those of “the day of Yahweh” and the “new heavens and a new earth” were constantly re-edited with fresh nuances in conformity with their new settings. Thus the inner development of Jewish apocalyptic was always conditioned by the historical experiences of the nation.

(b) Another source of apocalyptic was primitive mythological and cosmological traditions, in which the eye of the seer could see the secrets of the future no less surely than those of the past. Thus the six days of the world’s creation, followed by a seventh of rest, were regarded as at once a history of the past and a forecasting of the future. As the world was made in six days its history would be accomplished in six thousand years, since each day with God was as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day; and as the six days of creation were followed by one of rest, so the six thousand years of the world’s history would be followed by a rest of a thousand years (2 Enoch xxxii. 2-xxxiii. 2). Of primitive mythological traditions we might mention the primeval serpent, leviathan, behemoth, while to ideas native to or familiar in apocalyptic belong those of the seven archangels, the angelic patrons of the nations (Deut. xxxii. 8, in LXX.; Isaiah xxiv. 21; Dan. x. 13, 20, &c.), the mountain of God in the north (Isaiah xiv. 13; Ezek. i. 4, &c.), the garden of Eden.

ii. Object and Contents of Apocalyptic.—The object of this literature in general was to solve the difficulties connected with the righteousness of God and the suffering condition of His righteous servants on earth. The righteousness of God postulated according to the law the temporal prosperity of the righteous and the temporal prosperity of necessity; for as yet there was no promise of life or recompense beyond the grave. But this connexion was not found to obtain as a rule in life, and the difficulties arising from this conflict between promise and experience centred round the lot of the righteous as a community and the lot of the righteous man as an individual. Old Testament prophecy had addressed itself to both these problems, though it was hardly conscious of the claims of the latter. It concerned itself essentially with the present, and with the future only as growing organically out of the present. It taught the absolute need of personal and national righteousness, and foretold the ultimate blessedness of the righteous nation on the present earth. But its views were not systematic and comprehensive in regard to the nations in general, while as regards the individual it held that God’s service here was its own and adequate reward, and saw no need of postulating another world to set right the evils of this. But later, with the growing claims of the individual and the acknowledgment of these in the religious and intellectual life, both problems, and especially the latter, pressed themselves irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and made it impossible for any conception of the divine rule and righteousness to gain acceptance, which did not render adequate satisfaction to the claims of both problems. To render such satisfaction was the task undertaken by apocalyptic, as well as to vindicate the righteousness of God alike in respect of the individual and of the nation. To justify their contention they sketched in outline the history of the world and mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the final consummation of all things. Thus they presented in fact a theodicy, a rudimentary philosophy of religion. The righteous as a nation should yet possess the earth, even in this world the faithful community should attain its rights in an eternal Messianic kingdom on earth, or else in temporary blessedness here and eternal blessedness hereafter. So far as regards the righteous community. It was, however, in regard to the destiny of the individual that apocalyptic rendered its chief service. Though the individual might perish amid the disorders of this world, he would not fail, apocalyptic taught, to attain through resurrection the recompense that was his due in the Messianic kingdom or in heaven itself. Apocalyptic thus forms the indispensable preparation for the religion of the New Testament.

iii. Form of Apocalyptic.—The form of apocalyptic is a literary form; for we cannot suppose that the writers experienced the voluminous and detailed visions we find in their books. On the other hand the reality of the visions is to some extent guaranteed by the writer’s intense earnestness and by his manifest belief in the divine origin of his message. But the difficulty of regarding the visions as actual experiences, or as in any sense actual, is intensified, when full account is taken of the artifices of the writer; for the major part of his visions consists of what is to him really past history dressed up in the guise of prediction. Moreover, the writer no doubt intended that his reader should take the accuracy of the prediction (?) already accomplished to be a guarantee for the accuracy of that which was still unrealized. How, then, it may well be asked, can this be consistent with reality of visionary experience? Are we not here obliged to assume that the visions are a literary invention and nothing more?

However we may explain the inconsistency, we are precluded by the moral earnestness of the writer from assuming the visions to be pure inventions. But the inconsistency has in part been explained by Gunkel, who has rightly emphasized that the writer did not freely invent his materials but derived them in the main from tradition, as he held that these mysterious traditions of his people were, if rightly expounded, forecasts of the time to come. Furthermore, the visionary who is found at most periods of great spiritual excitement was forced by the prejudice of his time, which refused to acknowledge any inspiration in the present, to ascribe his visionary experiences and reinterpretations of the mysterious traditions of his people to some heroic figure of the past. Moreover, there will always be a difficulty in determining what belongs to his actual vision and what to the literary skill or free invention of the author, seeing that the visionary must be dependent on memory and past experience for the forms and much of the matter of the actual vision.

iv. Apocalyptic as distinguished from Prophecy.—We have already dwelt on certain notable differences between apocalyptic and prophecy; but there are certain others that call for attention.

(a) In the Nature of its Message.—The message of the prophets was primarily a preaching of repentance and righteousness if the nation would escape judgment; the message of the apocalyptic writers was of patience and trust for that deliverance and reward were sure to come.

(b) By its dualistic Theology.—Prophecy believes that this world is God’s world and that in this world His goodness and truth will yet be vindicated. Hence the prophet prophesies of a definite future arising out of and organically connected with the present. The apocalyptic writer on the other hand despairs of the present, and directs his hopes absolutely to the future, to a new world standing in essential opposition to the present. (Non fecit Altissimus unum saeculum sed duo, 4 Ezra vii. 50.) Here we have essentially a dualistic principle, which, though it can largely be accounted for by the interaction of certain inner tendencies and outward sorrowful experience on the part of Judaism, may ultimately be derived from Mazdean influences. This principle, which shows itself clearly at first in the conception that the various nations are under angelic rulers, who are in a greater or less degree in rebellion against God, as in Daniel and Enoch, grows in strength with each succeeding age, till at last Satan is conceived as “the ruler of this world” (John xii. 31) or “the god of this age” (2 Cor. iv. 4). Under the guidance of such a principle the writer naturally expected the world’s culmination in evil to be the immediate precursor of God’s intervention on behalf of the righteous, and every fresh growth in evil to be an additional sign that the time was at hand. The natural concomitant in conduct of such a belief is an uncompromising asceticism. He that would live to the next world must shun this. Visions are vouchsafed only to those who to prayer have added fasting.

(c) By pseudonymous Authorship.—We have already touched on this characteristic of apocalyptic. The prophet stood in direct relations with his people; his prophecy was first spoken and afterwards written. The apocalyptic writer could obtain no hearing from his contemporaries, who held that, though God spoke in the past, “there was no more any prophet.” This pessimism and want of faith limited and defined the form in which religious enthusiasm should manifest itself, and prescribed as a condition of successful effort the adoption of pseudonymous authorship. The apocalyptic writer, therefore, professedly addressed his book to future generations. Generally directions as to the hiding and sealing of the book (Dan. xii. 4, 9; 1 Enoch i. 4; Ass. Mos. i. 16-18) were given in the text in order to explain its publication so long after the date of its professed period. Moreover, there was a sense in which such books were not wholly pseudonymous. Their writers were students of ancient prophecy and apocalyptical tradition, and, though they might recast and reinterpret them, they could not regard them as their own inventions. Each fresh apocalypse would in the eyes of its writer be in some degree but a fresh edition of the traditions naturally attaching themselves to great names in Israel’s past, and thus the books named respectively Enoch, Noah, Ezra would to some slight extent be not pseudonymous.

(d) By its comprehensive and deterministic Conception of History.—Apocalyptic took an indefinitely wider view of the world’s history than prophecy. Thus, whereas prophecy had to deal with temporary reverses at the hands of some heathen power, apocalyptic arose at a time when Israel had been subject for generations to the sway of one or other of the great world-powers. Hence to harmonize such difficulties with belief in God’s righteousness, it had to take account of the rôle of such empires in the counsels of God, the rise, duration and downfall of each in turn, till finally the lordship of the world passed into the hands of Israel, or the final judgment arrived. These events belonged in the main to the past, but the writer represented them as still in the future, arranged under certain artificial categories of time definitely determined from the beginning in the counsels of God and revealed by Him to His servants the prophets. Determinism thus became a leading characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic, and its conception of history became severely mechanical.

II. Old Testament Apocalyptic

i. Canonical:—

Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii.; xxxiii.; xxxiv.-xxxv.

(Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26?)

Ezekiel ii. 8; xxxviii.-xxxix.

Joel iii. 9-17.

Zech. xii—xiv.

Daniel.

We cannot enter here into a discussion of the above passages and books.1 All are probably pseudepigraphic except the passages from Ezekiel and Joel. Of the remaining passages and books Daniel belongs unquestionably to the Maccabean period, and the rest possibly to the same period. Isaiah xxxiii. was probably written about 163 B.C. (Duhm and Marti); Zech. xii.-xiv. about 160 B.C., Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. about 128 B.C., and xxxiv.-xxxv. sometime in the reign of John Hyrcanus. Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26 is assigned by Marti to Maccabean times, but this is highly questionable.

ii. Extra-canonical:—

(a) Palestinian:—

(200-100 B.C.)

Book of Noah.

1 Enoch vi.-xxxvi.; lxxii.-xc.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.

(100 B.C. to 1 B.C.)

1 Enoch i.-v.; xxxvii.-lxxi.; xci.-civ.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi., T. Jud. xxi. 6-xxiii, T. Zeb. ix., T. Dan. v. 6, 7.

Psalms of Solomon.

(A.D. 1-100 and later.)

Assumption of Moses.

Apocalypse of Baruch.

4 Ezra.

Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.

Apocalypse of Zephaniah.

Apocalypse of Abraham.

Prayer of Joseph.

Book of Eldad and Modad.

Apocalypse of Elijah.

(b) Hellenistic:—

2 Enoch.

Oracles of Hystaspes.

Testament of Job.

Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.

Sibylline Oracles (excluding Christian portions).

Book of Noah.—Though this book has not come down to us independently, it has in large measure been incorporated in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and can in part be reconstructed from it. The Book of Noah is mentioned in Jubilees x. 13, xxi. 10. Chapters lx., lxv.-lxix. 25 of the Ethiopic Enoch are without question derived from it. Thus lx. 1 runs: “In the year 500, in the seventh month ... in the life of Enoch.” Here the editor simply changed the name Noah in the context before him into Enoch, for the statement is based on Gen. v. 32, and Enoch lived only 365 years. Chapters vi.-xi. are clearly from the same source; for they make no reference to Enoch, but bring forward Noah (x. 1) and treat of the sin of the angels that led to the flood, and of their temporal and eternal punishment. This section is compounded of the Semjaza and Azazel myths, and in its present composite form is already presupposed by 1 Enoch lxxxviii.-xc. Hence these chapters are earlier than 166 B.C. Chapters cvi.-cvii. of the same book are probably from the same source; likewise liv. 7-lv. 2, and Jubilees vii. 20-39, x. 1-15. In the former passage of Jubilees the subject-matter leads to this identification, as well as the fact that Noah is represented as speaking in the first person, although throughout Jubilees it is the angel that speaks. Possibly Eth. En. xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., lix. are from the same work. The book may have opened with Eth. En. cvi.-cvii. On these chapters may have followed Eth. En. vi.-xi., lxv.-lxix. 25, lx., xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., liv. 7-lv. 2; Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15.

The Hebrew Book of Noah, a later work, is printed in Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, iii. 155-156, and translated into German in Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen, 385-387. It is based on the part of the above Book of Noah which is preserved in the Book of Jubilees. The portion of this Hebrew work which is derived from the older work is reprinted in Charles’s Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, p. 179.

1 Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.—This is the most important of all the apocryphal writings for the history of religious thought. Like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Megilloth and the Pirke Aboth, this work was divided into five parts, which, as we shall notice presently, spring from five different sources. Originally written partly in Aramaic (i.e. vi.-xxxvi.) and partly in Hebrew (i.-vi., xxxvii.-cviii.), it was translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic and possibly Latin. Only one-fifth of the Greek version in two forms survives. The various elements of the book were written by different authors at different dates, vi.-xxxvi. was written before 166 B.C., lxxii.-lxxxii. before the Book of Jubilees, i.e. before 120 B.C. or thereabouts, lxxxiii.-xc. about 166 B.C., i.-v., xci.-civ. before 95 B.C., and xxxvii.-lxxi. before 64 B.C. There are many interpolations drawn mainly from the Book of Noah.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.—This book, in some respects the most important of Old Testament apocryphs, has only recently come into its own. Till a few years ago, owing to Christian interpolations, it was taken to be a Christian apocryph, written originally in Greek in the 2nd century A.D. Now it is acknowledged by Christian and Jewish scholars alike to have been written in Hebrew in the 2nd century B.C. From Hebrew it was translated into Greek and from Greek into Armenian and Slavonic. The versions have come down in their entirety, and small portions of the Hebrew text have been recovered from later Jewish writings. The Testaments were written about the same date as the Book of Jubilees. These two books form the only Apology in Jewish literature for the religious and civil hegemony of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic standpoint. To the Jewish interpolation of the 1st century B.C. (about 60-40), i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi.; T. Jud. xxii.-xxiii., &c., a large interest attaches; for these, like I Enoch xci.-civ. and the Psalms of Solomon, constitute an unmeasured attack on every office— prophetic, priestly and kingly—administered by the Maccabees. The ethical character of the book is of the highest type, and its profound influence on the writers of the New Testament is yet to be appreciated. (See Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.)

Psalms of Solomon.—These psalms, in all eighteen, enjoyed but small consideration in early times, for only six direct references to them are found in early literature. Their ascription to Solomon is due solely to the copyists or translators, for no such claim is made in any of the psalms. On the whole, Ryle and James are no doubt right in assigning 70-40 B.C. as the limits within which the psalms were written. The authors were Pharisees. They divide their countrymen into two classes— “the righteous,” ii. 38-39, iii. 3-5, 7, 8, &c., and “the sinners,” ii. 38, iii. 13, iv. 9, &c.; “the saints,” iii. 10, &c., and “the transgressors,” iv. II, &c. The former are the Pharisees; the latter the Sadducees. They protest against the Asmonaean house for usurping the throne of David, and laying violent hands on the high priesthood (xvii. 5, 6, 8), and proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the Son of David, who is to set all things right and establish the supremacy of Israel. Pss. xvii.-xviii. and i.-xvi. cannot be assigned to the same authorship. The hopes of the Messiah are confined to the former, and a somewhat different eschatology underlies the two works. Since the Psalms were written in Hebrew, and intended for public worship in the synagogues, it is most probable that they were composed in Palestine. (See Solomon, The Psalms of.)

The Assumption of Moses.—This book was lost for many centuries till a large fragment of it was discovered by Ceriani in 1861 (Monumenta Sacra, I. i. 55-64) from a palimpsest of the 6th century. Very little was known about the contents of this book prior to this discovery. The present book is possibly the long-lost Διαθήκη Μωυσέως mentioned in some ancient lists, for it never speaks of the assumption of Moses, but always of his natural death. About a half of the original Testament is preserved in the Latin version. The latter half probably dealt with questions about the creation. With this “Testament” the “Assumption,” to which almost all the patristic references and that of Jude are made, was subsequently edited. The book was written between 4 B.C. and A.D. 7. As for the author, he was no Essene, for he recognizes animal sacrifices and cherishes the Messianic hope; he was not a Sadducee, for he looks forward to the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (x.); nor a Zealot, for the quietistic ideal is upheld (ix.), and the kingdom is established by God Himself (x.). He is therefore a Chasid of the ancient type, and glorifies the ideals which were cherished by the old Pharisaic party, but which were now being fast disowned in favour of a more active role in the political life of the nation. He pours his most scathing invectives on the Sadducees, who are described in vii. in terms that recall the anti-Sadducean Psalms of Solomon. His object, therefore, is to protest against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular Messianic beliefs and political ideals. (See also Moses, Assumption of.)

Apocalypse of Baruch—The Syriac.—This apocalypse has survived only in the Syriac version. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek, and the Greek in turn from the Hebrew. The book treats of the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, the woes of Israel in the past and the destruction of Jerusalem in the present, as well as of theological questions relating to original sin, free will, works, &c. The views expressed on several of these subjects are often conflicting. We must, therefore, assume a number of independent sources put together by an editor or else that the book is on the whole the work of one author who made use of independent writings but failed to blend them into one harmonious whole. In its present form the book was written soon after A.D. 70. For fuller treatment see Baruch.

4 Ezra.—This apocryph is variously named. In the first Arabic and Ethiopic versions it is called I Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the English authorized version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra. With the majority of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra. In its fullest form this apocryph consists of sixteen chapters, but i.-ii. and xv.-xvi. are of different authorship from each other and from the main work iii.-xiv. The book was written originally in Hebrew. There are Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian versions. The Greek version is lost. This apocalypse is of very great importance, on account of its very full treatment of the theological questions rife in the latter half of the 1st century of the Christian era. The book, even if written by one author, was based on a variety of already existing works. It springs from the same school of thought as the Apocalypse of Baruch, and its affinities with the latter are so numerous and profound that scholars have not yet come to any consensus as to the relative priority of either. In its present form it was composed A.D. 80-100. For fuller treatment see Ezra.

Apocalypse of Baruch—The Greek.—This work is referred to by Origen (de Princip. II. iii. 6): “Denique etiam Baruch prophetae librum in assertionis hujus’ testimonium vocant, quod ibi de septem mundis vel caelis evidentius indicatur.” This book survives in two forms in Slavonic and Greek. The former was translated by Bonwetsch in 1896, in the Nachrichten von der königl. Ges. der Wiss. zu, Gött. pp. 91-101; the latter by James in 1897 in Anecdota, ii. 84-94, with an elaborate introduction (pp. li.-lxxi.). The Slavonic is only of secondary value, as it is merely an abbreviated form of the Greek. Even the Greek cannot claim to be the original work, but only to be a recension of it; for, whereas Origen states that this apocalypse contained an account of the seven heavens, the existing Greek work describes only five, and the Slavonic only two. As the original, work presupposes 2 Enoch and the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch and was known to Origen, it was written between A.D. 80 and 200, and nearer the earlier date than the later, as it would otherwise be hard to understand how it came to circulate among Christians. The superscription shows points of connexion with the Rest of the Words of Baruch, but little weight can be attached to the fact, since titles and superscriptions were so frequently transformed and expanded in ancient times. As James and Kohler have pointed out, part of section 4 on the Vine is a Christian addition. A German translation of the Greek appears in Kautzsch’s Apok. u. Pseud, ii. 448-457, and a strong article by Kohler on the Jewish authorship of the book in the Jewish Encyclopedia, ii. 549-551. (See Baruch.)

Apocalypse of Abraham.—This book is found only in the Slavonic (edited by Bonwetsch, Studien zur Geschichte d. Theologie und Kirche, 1897), a translation from the Greek. It is of Jewish origin, but in part worked over by a Christian reviser. The first part treats of Abraham’s conversion, and the second forms an apocalyptic expansion of Gen. xv. This book was possibly known to the author of the Clem. Recognitions, i. 32, a passage, however, which may refer to Jubilees. It is most probably distinct from the Άποκάλυψις Άβραάμ used by the gnostic Sethites (Epiphanius, Haer. xxxix. 5), which was very heretical. On the other hand, it is probably identical with the apocryphal book Άβραάμ mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and the Synopsis Athanasii, together with the Apocalypses of Enoch, &c.

Lost Apocalypses: Prayer of Joseph.—The Prayer of Joseph is quoted by Origen [In Joann. II. xxv, (Lommatzsch, i. 147, 148); in Gen. III. ix. (Lommatzsch, viii. 30-31)]. The fragments in Origen represent Jacob as speaking and claiming to be “the first servant in God’s presence,” “the first-begotten of every creature animated by God,” and declaring that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (and was identified by Christians with Christ) was only eighth in rank. The work was obviously anti-Christian. (See Schürer3, iii. 265-266.)

Book of Eldad and Modad.—This book was written in the name of the two prophets mentioned in Num. xi. 26-29. It consisted, according to the Targ. Jon. on Num. xi. 26-20, mainly of prophecies on Magog’s last attack on Israel. The Shepherd of Hermas quotes it Vis. ii. 3. (See Marshall in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 677.)

Apocalypse of Elijah.—This apocalypse is mentioned in two of the lists of books. Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Euthalius ascribe to it I Cor. ii. 9. If they are right, the apocalypse is pre-Pauline. The peculiar form in which I Cor. ii. 9 appears in Clemens Alex. Protrept. x. 94, and the Const. Apost. vii. 32, shows that both have the same source, probably this apocalypse. Epiphanius (Haer. xlii., ed. Oehler, vol. ii. 678) ascribes to this work Eph. v. 14. Isr. Lévi (Revue des études juives, 1880, i. 108 sqq.) argues for the existence of a Hebrew apocalypse of Elijah from two Talmudic passages. A late work of this name has been published by Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 1855, iii. 65-68, and Buttenwieser in 1897. Zahn, Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, ii. 801-810, assigns this apocalypse to the 2nd century A.D. (See Schürer3, iii. 267-271.)

Apocalypse of Zephaniah.—Apart from two of the lists this work is known to us in its original form only through a citation in Clem. Alex. Strom. v. II, 77. A Christian revision of it is probably preserved in the two dialects of Coptic. Of these the Akhmim text is the original of the Sahidic. These texts and their translations have been edited by Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstucke der Sophonias-Apokalypse (1809). As Schürer (Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1899, No. I. 4-8) has shown, these fragments belong most probably to the Zephaniah apocalypse. They give descriptions of heaven and hell, and predictions of the Antichrist. In their present form these Christianized fragments are not earlier than the 3rd century. (See Schürer, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes3, iii. 271-273.)

2 Enoch, or the Slavonic Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch.—This new fragment of the Enochic literature was recently brought to light through five MSS. discovered in Russia and Servia. The book in its present form was written before A.D. 70 in Greek by an orthodox Hellenistic Jew, who lived in Egypt. For a fuller account see Enoch.

Oracles of Hystaspes.—See under N. T. Apocalypses, below.

Testament of Job.—This book was first printed from one MS. by Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. (1833), VII. i. 180, and translated into French in Migne’s Dict. des Apocryphes, ii. 403. An excellent edition from two MSS. is given by M.R. James, Apocrypha Anecdota, ii. pp. lxxii.-cii., 104-137, who holds that the book in its present form was written by a Christian Jew in Egypt on the basis of a Hebrew Midrash on Job in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Kohler (Kohut Memorial Volume, 1897, pp. 264-338) has given good grounds for regarding the whole work, with the exception of some interpolations, as “one of the most remarkable productions of the pre-Christian era, explicable only when viewed in the light of Hasidean practice.” See Jewish Encycl. vii. 200-202.

Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.—For an account of these three Testaments (referred to in the Apost. Const. vi. 16), the first of which only is preserved in the Greek and is assigned by James to the 2nd century A.D., see that scholar’s “Testament of Abraham,” Texts and Studies, ii. 2 (1892), which appears in two recensions from six and three MSS. respectively, and Vassiliev’s Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina, (1893), pp. 292-308, from one MS. already used by James. This work was written in Egypt, according to James, and survives also in Slavonic, Rumanian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions. It deals with Abraham’s reluctance to die and the means by which his death was brought about. James holds that this book is referred to by Origen (Hom. in Luc. xxxv.), but this is denied by Schürer, who also questions its Jewish origin. With the exception of chaps. x.-xi., it is really a legend and not an apocalypse. An English translation of James’s texts will be found in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Clark, 1897), pp. 185-201. The Testaments of Isaac and Jacob are still preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic (see James, op. cit. 140-161). See Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.

Sibylline Oracles.—Of the books which have come down to us the main part is Jewish, and was written at various dates, iii. 97-829, iv.-v. are decidedly of Jewish authorship, and probably xi.-xii., xiv. and parts of i.-ii. The oldest portions are in iii., and belong to the 2nd century B.C.

III. New Testament Apocalyptic

When we pass from Jewish literature to that of the New Testament, we enter into a new and larger atmosphere at once recalling and transcending what had been best in the prophetic periods of the past. Again the heavens had opened and the divine teaching come to mankind, no longer merely in books bearing the names of ancient patriarchs, but on the lips of living men, who had taken courage to appear in person as God’s messengers before His people. But though Christianity was in spirit the descendant of ancient Jewish prophecy, it was no less truly the child of that Judaism which had expressed its highest aspirations and ideals in pseudepigraphic and apocalyptic literature. Hence we shall not be surprised to find that the two tendencies are fully represented in primitive Christianity, and, still more strange as it may appear, that New Testament apocalyptic found a more ready hearing amid the stress and storm of the 1st century than the prophetic side of Christianity, and that the type of the forerunner on the side of its declared asceticism appealed more readily to primitive Christianity than that of Him who came “eating and drinking,” declaring both worlds good and both God’s.

Early Christianity had thus naturally a special fondness for this class of literature. It was Christianity that preserved Jewish apocalyptic, when it was abandoned by Judaism as it sank into Rabbinism, and gave it a Christian character either by a forcible exegesis or by a systematic process of interpolation. Moreover, it cultivated this form of literature and made it the vehicle of its own ideas. Though apocalyptic served its purpose in the opening centuries of the Christian era, it must be confessed that in many of its aspects its office is transitory, as they belong not to the essence of Christian thought. When once it had taught men that the next world was God’s world, though it did so at the cost of relinquishing the present to Satan, it had achieved its real task, and the time had come for it to quit the stage of history, when Christianity appeared as the heir of this true spiritual achievement. But Christianity was no less assuredly the heir of ancient prophecy, and thus as spiritual representative of what was true in prophecy and apocalyptic; its essential teaching was as that of its Founder that both worlds were of God and that both should be made God’s.

(i.) Canonical:—

Apocalypse in Mark xiii. (Matthew xxiv., Luke xxi.).

2 Thessalonians ii.

Revelation.

(ii.) Extra-Canonical:—

Apocalypse of Peter.

Testament of Hezekiah.

Testament of Abraham.

Oracles of Hystaspes.

Vision of Isaiah.

Shepherd of Hermas.

5 Ezra.

6 Ezra.

Christian Sibyllines.

Apocalypses of Paul, Thomas and Stephen.

Apocalypses of Esdras, Paul, John, Peter, The Virgin, Sedrach, Daniel.

Revelations of Bartholomew.

Questions of Bartholomew.

Apocalypse in Mark xiii.—According to the teaching of the Gospels the second advent was to take the world by surprise. Only one passage (Mark xiii. = Matt. xxiv. = Luke xxi.) conflicts with this view, and is therefore suspicious. This represents the second advent as heralded by a succession of signs which are unmistakable precursors of its appearance, such as wars, earthquakes, famines, the destruction of Jerusalem and the like. Our suspicion is justified by a further examination of Mark xiii. For the words “let him that readeth understand” (ver. 14) indicate that the prediction referred to appeared first not in a spoken address but in a written form, as was characteristic of apocalypses. Again, in ver. 30, it is declared that this generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled, whereas in 32 we have an undoubted declaration of Christ “Of that day or of that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” On these and other grounds verses 7, 8, 14-20, 24-27, 30, 31 should be removed from their present context. Taken together they constitute a Christian adaptation of an originally Jewish work, written A.D. 67-68, during the troubles preceding the fall of Jerusalem. The apocalypse consists of three Acts: Act i. consisting of verses 7, 8, enumerating the woes heralding the parusia, Act ii. describing the actual tribulation, and Act iii. the parusia itself. (See Wendt, Lehre Jesu, i. 12-21; Charles, Eschatology, 325 sqq.; H.S. Holtzmann, N. T. Theol. 1-325 sqq. with literature there given.)

2 Thessalonians ii.—The earliest form of Pauline eschatology is essentially Jewish. He starts from the fundamental thought of Jewish apocalyptic that the end of the world will be brought about by the direct intervention of God when evil has reached its climax. The manifestation of evil culminates in the Antichrist whose parusia (2 Thess. ii. 9) is the Satanic counterfeit of that of the true Messiah. But the climax of evil is the immediate herald of its destruction; for thereupon Christ will descend from heaven and destroy the Antichrist (ii. 8). Nowhere in his later epistles does this forecast of the future reappear. Rather under the influence of the great formative Christian conceptions he parted gradually with the eschatology he had inherited from Judaism, and entered on a progressive development, in the course of which the heterogeneous elements were for the most part silently dropped.

Revelation.—Since this book is discussed separately we shall content ourselves here with indicating a few of the conclusions now generally accepted. The apocalypse was written about A.D. 96. Its object, like other Jewish apocalypses, was to encourage faith under persecution; its burden is not a call to repentance but a promise of deliverance. It is derived from one author, who has made free use of a variety of elements, some of which are Jewish and consort but ill with their new context. The question of the pseudonymity of the book is still an open one.

Apocalypse of Peter.—Till 1892 only some five or more fragments of this book were known to exist. These are preserved in Clem. Alex. and in Macarius Magnes (see Hilgenfeld, N.T. extra Can. iv. 74 sqq.; Zahn, Gesch. Kanons ii. 818-819). It is mentioned in the Muratorian Canon, and according to Eusebius (H.E. vi. 14. i) was commented on by Clement of Alexandria. In the fragment found at Akhmim there is a prediction of the last things, and a vision of the abode and blessedness of the righteous, and of the abode and torments of the wicked.

Testament of Hezekiah.—This writing is fragmentary, and has been preserved merely as a constituent of the Ascension of Isaiah. To it belongs iii. 13b-iv. 18 of that book. It is found under the above name, Διαθήκη Έζεκίου, only in Cedrenus i. 120-121, who quotes partially iv. 12. 14 and refers to iv. 15-18. For a full account see Isaiah, Ascension of.

Testament of Abraham.—This work in two recensions was first published by James, Texts and Studies, ii. 2. Its editor is of opinion that it was written by a Jewish Christian in Egypt in the 2nd century A.D., but that it embodies legends of an earlier date, and that it received its present form in the 9th or 10th century. It treats of Michael being sent to announce to Abraham his death: of the tree speaking with a human voice (iii.), Michael’s sojourn with Abraham (iv.-v.) and Sarah’s recognition of him as one of the three angels, Abraham’s refusal to die (vii.), and the vision of judgment (x.-xx.).

Oracles of Hystaspes.—This eschatological work (Χρήσεις Ύστάσπου: so named by the anonymous 5th-century writer in Buresch, Klaros, 1889, p. 95) is mentioned in conjunction with the Sibyllines by Justin (Apol. i. 20), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. vi. 5), and Lactantius (Inst. VII. xv. 19; xviii. 2-3). According to Lactantius, it prophesied the overthrow of Rome and the advent of Zeus to help the godly and destroy the wicked, but omitted all reference to the sending of the Son of God. According to Justin, it prophesied the destruction of the world by fire. According to the Apocryph of Paul, cited by Clement, Hystaspes foretold the conflict of the Messiah with many kings and His advent. Finally, an unknown 5th-century writer (see Buresch, Klaros, 1889, pp. 87-126) says that the Oracles of Hystaspes dealt with the incarnation of the Saviour. The work referred to in the last two writers has Christian elements, which were absent from it in Lactantius’s copy. The lost oracles were therefore in all probability originally Jewish, and subsequently re-edited by a Christian.

Vision of Isaiah.—This writing has been preserved in its entirety in the Ascension of Isaiah, of which it constitutes chaps, vi.-xi. Before its incorporation in the latter work it circulated independently in Greek. There are independent versions of these chapters in Latin and Slavonic. (See Isaiah, Ascension of.)

Shepherd of Hermas.—In the latter half of the 2nd century this book enjoyed a respect bordering on that paid to the writings of the New Testament. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote it as Scripture, though in Africa it was not held in such high consideration, as Tertullian speaks slightingly of it. The writer belongs really to the prophetic and not to the apocalyptic school. His book is divided into three parts containing visions, commands, similitudes. In incidental allusions he lets us know that he had been engaged in trade, that his wife was a termagant, and that his children were ill brought up. Various views have been held as to the identity of the author. Thus some have made him out to be the Hermas to whom salutation is sent at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, others that he was the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome in the middle of the 2nd century, and others that he was a contemporary of Clement, bishop of Rome at the close of the ist century. Zahn fixes the date at 97, Salmon a few years later, Lipsius 142. The literature of this book (see Hermas, Shepherd of) is very extensive. Among the chief editions are those of Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868); Gebhardt and Harnack, Patres Apostolici (1877, with full bibliographical material); Funk, Patres Apost. (1878). Further see Harnack, Gesch. d. altchristl. Literatur, i. 49-58; II. i. 257-267, 437 f.

5 Ezra.—This book, which constitutes in the later MSS. the first two chapters to 4 Ezra, falls obviously into two parts. The first (i. 5-ii. 9) contains a strong attack on the Jews whom it regards as the people of God; the second (ii. 10-47) addresses itself to the Christians as God’s people and promises them the heavenly kingdom. It is not improbable that these chapters are based on an earlier Jewish writing. In its present form it may have been written before A.D. 200, though James and other scholars assign it to the 3rd century. Its tone is strongly anti-Jewish. The style is very vigorous and the materials of a strongly apocalyptic character. See Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum (1869); James in Bensly’s edition of 4 Ezra, pp. xxxviii.-lxxx.; Weinel in Hennecke’s N.T. Apokryphen, 331-336.

6 Ezra.—This work consists of chapters xv.-xvi. of 4 Ezra. It may have been written as an appendix to 4 Ezra, as it has no proper introduction. Its contents relate to the destruction of the world through war and natural catastrophes—for the heathen a source of menace and fear, but for the persecuted people of God one of admonition and comfort. There is nothing specifically Christian in the book, which represents a persecution which extends over the whole eastern part of the Empire. Moreover, the idiom is particularly Semitic. Thus we have xv. 8 nec sustinebo in his quae inique exercent, that is ב אשנ: in 9 vindicans vindicabo: in 22 non parcet dextera mea super peccatores = φείσεται ... ἐπί = לע ... לומחי. In verses 9, 19 the manifest corruptions may be explicable from a Semitic background. There are other Hebraisms in the text. It is true that these might have been due to the writer’s borrowings from earlier Greek works ultimately of Hebrew origin. The date of the book is also quite uncertain, though several scholars have ascribed it to the 3rd century.

Christian Sibyllines.—Critics are still at variance as to the extent of the Christian Sibyllines. It is practically agreed that vi.-viii. are of Christian origin. As for i.-ii., xi.-xiv. most writers are in favour of Christian authorship; but not so Geffcken (ed. Sibyll., 1902), who strongly insists on the Jewish origin of large sections of these books.

Apocalypses of Paul, Thomas and Stephen.—These are mentioned in the Gelasian decree. The first may possibly be the Άναβατικὸν Παύλου mentioned by Epiphanius (Haer. xxxviii. 2) as current among the Cainites. It is not to be confounded with the apocalypse mentioned two sections later.

Apocalypse of Esdras.—This Greek production resembles the more ancient fourth book of Esdras in some respects. The prophet is perplexed about the mysteries of life, and questions God respecting them. The punishment of the wicked especially occupies his thoughts. Since they have sinned in consequence of Adam’s fall, their fate is considered worse than that of the irrational creation. The description of the tortures suffered in the infernal regions is tolerably minute. At last the prophet consents to give up his spirit to God, who has prepared for him a crown of immortality. The book is a poor imitation of the ancient Jewish one. It may belong, however, to the 2nd or 3rd centuries of the Christian era. See Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocryphae, pp. 24-33.

Apocalypse of Paul.—This work (referred to by Augustine, Tractat. in Joan. 98) contains a description of the things which the apostle saw in heaven and hell. The text, as first published in the original Greek by Tischendorf (Apocalypses Apocr. 34-69), consists of fifty-one chapters, but is imperfect. Internal evidence assigns it to the time of Theodosius, i.e. about A.D. 388. Where the author lived is uncertain. Dr Perkins found a Syriac MS. of this apocalypse, which he translated into English, and printed in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 1864, vol. viii. This was republished by Tischendorf below the Greek version in the above work. In 1893 the Latin version from one MS. was edited by M.R. James, Texts and Studies, ii. 1-42, who shows that the Latin version is the completest of the three, and that the Greek in its present form is abbreviated.

Apocalypse of John (Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocr. 70 sqq.) contains a description of the future state, the general resurrection and judgment, with an account of the punishment of the wicked, as well as the bliss of the righteous. It appears to be the work of a Jewish Christian. The date is late, for the writer speaks of the “venerable and holy images,” as well as “the glorious and precious crosses and the sacred things of the churches” (xiv.), which points to the 5th century, when such things were first introduced into churches. It is a feeble imitation of the canonical apocalypse.

Arabic Apocalypse of Peter contains a narrative of events from the foundation of the world till the second advent of Christ. The book is said to have been written by Clement, Peter’s disciple. This Arabic work has not been printed, but a summary of the contents is given by Nicoll in his catalogue of the Oriental MSS. belonging to the Bodleian (p. 49, xlviii.). There are eighty-eight chapters. It is a late production; for Ishmaelites are spoken of, the Crusades, and the taking of Jerusalem. See Tischendorf, Apocalypses Apocr. pp. xx.-xxiv.

The Apocalypse of the Virgin, containing her descent into hell, is not published entire, but only several portions of it from Greek MSS. in different libraries, by Tischendorf in his Apocalypses Apocryphae, pp. 95 sqq.; James, Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 109-126.

Apocalypse of Sedrach.—This late apocalypse, which M.R. James assigns to the 10th or 11th century, deals with the subject of intercession for sinners and Sedrach’s unwillingness to die. See James, Texts and Studies, ii. 3. 127-137.

Apocalypse of Daniel.—See Vassiliev’s Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina (Moscow, 1893), pp. 38-44; Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament (Venice, 1901), pp. 237 sqq., 387 sqq.

The Revelations of Bartholomew.—Dulaurier published from a Parisian Sahidic MS., subjoining a French translation, what is termed a fragment of the apocryphal revelations of St Bartholomew (Fragment des révélations apocryphes de Saint Barthélemy, &c., Paris, 1835), and of the history of the religious communities founded by St Pachomius. After narrating the pardon obtained by Adam, it is said that the Son ascending from Olivet prays the Father on behalf of His apostles; who consequently receive consecration from the Father, together with the Son and Holy Spirit—Peter being made archbishop of the universe. The late date of the production is obvious.

Questions of St Bartholomew.—See Vassiliev, Anec. Graeco-Byzantina (1893), pp. 10-22. The introduction, which is wanting in the Greek MS., has been supplied by a Latin translation from the Slavonic version (see pp. vii.-ix.). The book contains disclosures by Christ, the Virgin and Beliar and much of the subject-matter is ancient.

(R. H. C.)

1 See the separate headings for the various apocalyptic books mentioned in this article.

APOCATASTASIS, a Greek word, meaning “re-establishment,” used as a technical scientific term for a return to a previous position or condition.

APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE. The history of the earlier usage of the term “Apocrypha” (from ἀποκρύπτειν, to hide) is not free from obscurity. We shall therefore enter at once on a short account of the origin of this literature in Judaism, of its adoption by early Christianity, of the various meanings which the term “apocryphal” assumed in the course of its history, and having so done we shall proceed to classify and deal with the books that belong to this literature. The word most generally denotes writings which claimed to be, or were by certain sects regarded as, sacred scriptures although excluded from the canonical scriptures.

Apocrypha in Judaism.—Certain circles in Judaism, as the Essenes in Palestine (Josephus, B.J. ii. 8. 7) and the Therapeutae (Philo, De Vita Contempl. ii. 475, ed. Mangey) in Egypt possessed a secret literature. But such literature was not confined to the members of these communities, but had been current among the Chasids and their successors the Pharisees.1 To this literature belong essentially the apocalypses which were published in fast succession from Daniel onwards. These works bore, perforce, the names of ancient Hebrew worthies in order to procure them a hearing among the writers’ real contemporaries. To reconcile their late appearance with their claims to primitive antiquity the alleged author is represented as “shutting up and sealing” (Dan. xii. 4, 9) the book, until the time of its fulfilment had arrived; for that it was not designed for his own generation but for far-distant ages (1 Enochi. 2, cviii. 1.; Ass. Mos. i. 16, 17). It is not improbable that with many Jewish enthusiasts this literature was more highly treasured than the canonical scriptures. Indeed, we have a categorical statement to this effect in 4 Ezra xiv. 44 sqq., which tells how Ezra was inspired to dictate the sacred scriptures which had been destroyed in the overthrow of Jerusalem: “In forty days they wrote ninety-four books: and it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled that the Highest spake, saying: the first that thou hast written publish openly that the worthy and unworthy may read it; but keep the seventy last that thou mayst deliver them only to such as be wise among the people; for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom and the stream of knowledge.” Such esoteric books are apocryphal in the original conception of the term. In due course the Jewish authorities were forced to draw up a canon or book of sacred scriptures, and mark them off from those which claimed to be such without justification. The true scriptures, according to the Jewish canon (Yad. iii. 5; Toseph. Yad. ii. 3), were those which defiled the hands of such as touched them. But other scholars, such as Zahn, Schürer, Porter, state that the secret books with which we have been dealing formed a class by themselves and were called “Genuizim” םיזנג, and that this name and idea passed from Judaism over into the Greek, and that ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία is a translation of םיזונג םירפס. But the Hebrew verb does not mean “to bide” but “to store away,” and is only used of things in themselves precious. Moreover, the phrase is unknown in Talmudic literature. The derivation of this idea from Judaism has therefore not yet been established. Whether the Jews had any distinct name for these esoteric works we do not know. For writings that stood wholly without the pale of sacred books such as the books of heretics or Samaritans they used the designation Hisonim, Sanh. x. 1 (םינוצח םירפס and םינימה ירפס). To this class in later times even Sirach was relegated, and indeed all books not included in the canon (Midr. r. Num. 14 and on Koheleth xii. 12; cf. Jer. Sabb. 16).2 In Aqiba’s time Sirach and other apocryphal books were not reckoned among the Hisonim; for Sirach was largely quoted by rabbis in Palestine till the 3rd century A.D.

Apocrypha in Christianity.—Christianity as it springs from its Founder had no secret or esoteric teaching. It was essentially the revelation or manifestation of the truth of God. But as Christianity took its origin from Judaism, it is not unnatural that a large body of Jewish ideas was incorporated in the system of Christian thought. The bulk of these in due course underwent transformation either complete or partial, but there was always a residuum of incongruous and inconsistent elements existing side by side with the essential truths of Christianity. This was no isolated phenomenon; for in every progressive period of the history of religion we have on the one side the doctrine of God advancing in depth and fulness: on the other we have cosmological, eschatological and other survivals, which, however justifiable in earlier stages, are in unmistakable antagonism with the theistic beliefs of the time. The eschatology of a nation—and the most influential portion of Jewish and Christian apocrypha are eschatological—is always the last part of their religion to experience the transforming power of new ideas and new facts.

Now the current religious literature of Judaism outside the canon was composed of apocryphal books, the bulk of which bore an apocalyptic character, and dealt with the coming of the Messianic kingdom. These naturally became the popular religious books of the rising Jewish-Christian communities, and were held by them in still higher esteem, if possible, than by the Jews. Occasionally these Jewish writings were re-edited or adapted to their new readers by Christian additions, but on the whole it was found sufficient to submit them to a system of reinterpretation in order to make them testify to the truth of Christianity and foreshadow its ultimate destinies. Christianity, moreover, moved by the same apocalyptic tendency as Judaism, gave birth to new Christian apocryphs, though, in the case of most of them, the subject matter was to a large extent traditional and derived from Jewish sources.

Another prolific source of apocryphal gospels, acts and apocalypses was Gnosticism. While the characteristic features of apocalyptic literature were derived from Judaism, those of Gnosticism sprang partly from Greek philosophy, partly from oriental religions. They insisted on an allegorical interpretation of the apostolic writings: they alleged themselves to be the guardians of a secret apostolic tradition and laid claim to prophetic inspiration. With them, as with the bulk of the Christians of the 1st and 2nd centuries, apocryphal books as such were highly esteemed. They were so designated by those who valued them. It was not till later times that the term became one of reproach.

We have remarked above that the Jewish apocrypha—especially the apocalyptic section and the host of Christian apocryphs—became the ordinary religious literature of the early Christians. And this is not strange seeing that of the former such abundant use was made by the writers of the New Testament.3 Thus Jude quotes the Book of Enoch by name, while undoubted use of this book appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The influence of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is still more apparent in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels, and the same holds true of Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses, though in a very slight degree. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Ep. of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. But the high position which apocryphal books occupied in the first two centuries was undermined by a variety of influences. All claims to the possession of a secret tradition were denied (Irenaeus ii. 27. 2, iii. 2. 1, 3. 1; Tertullian, Praescript. 22-27): true inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and universal acceptance by the church was required as a proof of apostolic authorship. Under the action of such principles apocryphal books tended to pass into the class of spurious and heretical writings.

The Term “Apocryphal.”—Turning now to the consideration of the word “apocryphal” itself, we find that in its earliest use it was applied in a laudatory sense to writings,’(1) which were kept secret because they were the vehicles of esoteric knowledge which was too profound or too sacred to be imparted to any save the initiated. Thus it occurs in a magical book of Moses, which has been edited from a Leiden papyrus of the 3rd or 4th century by Dieterich (Abraxas, 109). This book, which may be as old as the 1st century, is entitled: “A holy and secret Book of Moses, called eighth, or holy” (Μωυσέως ἱερὰ βιβλος ἀπόκρυφος ἐπικαλουμένη ὀγδόη ᾒ ἁγία). The disciples of the Gnostic Prodicus boasted (Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 15. 69) that they possessed the secret (ἀποκρύφους) books of Zoroaster. 4 Ezra is in its author’s view a secret work whose value was greater than that of the canonical scriptures (xiv. 44 sqq.) because of its transcendent revelations of the future. It is in a like laudatory meaning that Gregory reckons the New Testament apocalypse as ἐν ἀποκρύφοις (Orátio in suam ordinationem, iii. 549, ed. Migne; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. li. 3). The word enjoyed high consideration among the Gnostics (cf. Acts of Thomas, 10, 27, 44). (2) But the word was applied to writings that were kept from public circulation not because of their transcendent, but of, their secondary or questionable value. Thus Origen distinguishes between writings which were read by the churches and apocryphal writings; γραφῇ μὴ φερομένῃ μἐν ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς καὶ δεδημοσιευμένοις βιβλίοις εἰκὀς δ᾽ ὅτι ἐν ἀποκρύφοις φερομένῃ (Origen’s Comm. in Matt., x. 18, on Matt. xiii. 57, ed. Lommatzsch iii. 49 sqq.). Cf. Epist. ad Africam, ix. (Lommatzsch xvii. 31): Euseb. H.E. ii. 23, 25; iii. 3, 6. See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 126 sqq. Thus the meaning of ἀπόκρυφος is here practically equivalent to “excluded from the public use of the church,” and prepares the way for the third and unfavourable sense of this word. (3) The word came finally to mean what is false, spurious, bad, heretical. If we may trust the text, this meaning appears in Origen (Prolog, in Cant. Cantic., Lommatzsch xiv. 325): “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.”

In addition to the above three meanings strange uses of the term appear in the western church. Thus the Gelasian Decree includes the works of Eusebius, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, under this designation. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xv. 23) explains it as meaning obscurity of origin, while Jerome (Protogus Galeatus) declares that all books outside the Hebrew canon belong to this class of apocrypha. Jerome’s practice, however, did not square with his theory. The western church did not accept Jerome’s definition of apocrypha, but retained the word in its original meaning, though great confusion prevailed. Thus the degree of estimation in which the apocryphal books have been held in the church has varied much according to place and time. As they stood in the Septuagint or Greek canon, along with the other books, and with no marks of distinction, they were practically employed by the Greek Fathers in the same way as the other books; hence Origen, Clement and others often cite them as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine, and familiar with the Hebrew canon, rigidly exclude all but the books contained there. This view is reflected, for example, in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. Augustine, however (De Doct. Christ. ii. 8), attaches himself to the other side. Two well-defined views in this way prevailed, to which was added a third, according to which the books, though not to be put in the same rank as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, yet were of value for moral uses and to be read in congregations,—and hence they were called “ecclesiastical”—a designation first found in Rufinus (ob. 410). Notwithstanding the decisions of some councils held in Africa, which were in favour of the view of Augustine, these diverse opinions regarding the apocryphal books continued to prevail in the church down through the ages till the great dogmatic era of the Reformation. At that epoch the same three opinions were taken up and congealed into dogmas, which may be considered characteristic of the churches adopting them. In 1546 the council of Trent adopted the canon of Augustine, 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 1st and 2nd Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasses, were declared canonical at Trent. On the other hand, the Protestants universally adhered to the opinion that only the books in the Hebrew collection are canonical. Already Wycliffe had declared that “whatever book is in the Old Testament besides these twenty-five (Hebrew) shall be set among the apocrypha, that is, without authority or belief.” Yet among the churches of the Reformation a milder and a severer view prevailed regarding the apocrypha. Both in the German and English translations (Luther’s, 1537; Coverdale’s, 1535, &c.) these books are separated from the others and set by themselves; but while in some confessions, e.g. the Westminster, a decided judgment is passed on them, that they are not “to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings,” a milder verdict is expressed regarding them in many other quarters, e.g. in the “argument” prefixed to them in the Geneva Bible; 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; and elsewhere.

Old Testament Apocryphal Books

We shall now proceed to enumerate the apocryphal books: first the Apocrypha Proper, and next the rest of the Old and New Testament apocryphal literature.

1. The Apocrypha Proper, or the apocrypha of the Old Testament as used by English-speaking Protestants, consists of the following books: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Additions to Daniel (Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon), Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees. Thus the Apocrypha Proper constitutes the surplusage of the Vulgate or Bible of the Roman Church over the Hebrew Old Testament. Since this surplusage is in turn derived from the Septuagint, from which the old Latin version was translated, it thus follows that the difference between the Protestant and the Roman Catholic Old Testament is, roughly speaking, traceable to the difference between the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. But this is only true with certain reservations; for the Latin Vulgate was revised by Jerome according to the Hebrew, and, where Hebrew originals were wanting, according to the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Vulgate rejects 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm cli., which generally appear in the Septuagint, while the Septuagint and Luther’s Bible reject 4 Ezra, which is found in the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper. Luther’s Bible, moreover, rejects also 3 Ezra. It should further be observed that the Vulgate adds the Prayer of Manasses and 3 and 4 Ezra after the New Testament as apocryphal.

It is hardly possible to form any classification which is not open to some objection. In any case the classification must be to some extent provisional, since scholars are still divided as to the original language, date and place of composition of some of the books which must come under our classification.4 We may, however, discriminate (i.) the Palestinian and (ii.) the Hellenistic literature of the Old Testament, though even this distinction is open to serious objections. The former literature was generally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and seldom in Greek; the latter naturally in Greek. Next, within these literatures we shall distinguish three or four classes according to the nature of the subject with which they deal. Thus the books of which we have to treat will be classed as: (a) Historical, (b) Legendary (Haggadic), (c) Apocalyptic, (d) Didactic or Sapiential.

The Apocrypha Proper then would be classified as follows:—

i. Palestinian Jewish Literature:—

(a) Historical.

1 (i.e. 3) Ezra.

1 Maccabees.

(b) Legendary.

Book of Baruch (see Baruch).

Judith.

(c) Apocalyptic.

2 (i.e. 4) Ezra (see also under separate article on Apocalyptic Literature).

(d) Didactic.

Sirach (see Ecclesiasticus).

Tobit.

ii. Hellenistic Jewish Literature:—

Historical and Legendary.

Additions to Daniel (q.v.).

Additions to Esther (q.v.).

Epistle of Jeremy (q.v.).

2 Maccabees (q.v.).

Prayer of Manasses (see Manasses).

Didactic.

Book of Wisdom (see Wisdom, Book of.)

Since all these books are dealt with in separate articles, they call for no further notice here.

Literature.—Texts:—Holmes and Parsons, Vet. Test. Graecum cum var. lectionibus (Oxford, 1798-1827); Swete, Old Testament in Greek, i.-iii. (Cambridge, 1887-1894); Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi V.T. Graece (1871). Commentaries:—O.F. Fritzsche and Grimm, Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu den Apok. des A.T. (Leipzig, 1851-1860); E.C. Bissell, Apocrypha of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1880); Zockler, Apok. des A.T. (Munchen, 1891); Wace, The Apocrypha (“Speaker’s Commentary”) (1888). Introduction and General Literature:—E. Schürer3, Geschichte des jud. Volkes, vol. iii. 135 sqq., and his article on “Apokryphen” in Herzog’s Realencykl. i. 622-653; Porter in Hastings’ Bible Dic. i. 111-123.

2 (a). Other Old Testament Apocryphal Literature:—

(a) Historical.

History of Johannes Hyrcanus.

(b) Legendary.

Book of Jubilees.

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch.

Martyrdom of Isaiah.

Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum.

Books of Adam.

Jannes and Jambres.

Joseph and Asenath.

(c) Apocalyptic.

(See separate article.)

(d) Didactic or Sapiential.

Pirke Aboth.

(a) Historical.—The History of Johannes Hyrcanus is mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23-24, but no trace has been discovered of its existence elsewhere. It must have early passed out of circulation, as it was unknown to Josephus.

(b) Legendary.—The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 B.C. Jubilees was translated into Greek and from Greek into Ethiopic and Latin. It is preserved in its entirety only in Ethiopic. Jubilees is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the midrashic tendency, which was already at work in the Old Testament 1 and 2 Chronicles. As the chronicler rewrote the history of Israel and Judah from the basis of the Priests’ Code, so our author re-edited from the Pharisaic standpoint of his time the book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus. His work constitutes an enlarged targum on these books, and its object is to prove the everlasting validity of the law, which, though revealed in time, was superior to time. Writing in the palmiest days of the Maccabean dominion, he looked for the immediate advent of the Messianic kingdom. This kingdom was to be ruled over by a Messiah sprung not from Judah but from Levi, that is, from the reigning Maccabean family. This kingdom was to be gradually realized on earth, the transformation of physical nature going hand in hand with the ethical transformation of man. (For a fuller account see Jubilees, Book of.)

Paralipomena Jeremiae, or the Rest of the Words of Baruch.— This book has been preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian and Slavonic. The Greek was first printed at Venice in 1609, and next by Ceriani in 1868 under the title Paralipomena Jeremiae. It bears the same name in the Armenian, but in Ethiopic it is known by the second title. (See under Baruch.)

Martyrdom of Isaiah.—This Jewish work has been in part preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah. To it belong i. 1, 2a, 6b-13a; ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12; v. 1c-14 of that book. It is of Jewish origin, and recounts the martyrdom of Isaiah at the hands of Manasseh. (See Isaiah, Ascension of.)

Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.—Though the Latin version of this book was thrice printed in the 16th century (in 1527, 1550 and 1599), it was practically unknown to modern scholars till it was recognized by Conybeare and discussed by Cohn in the Jewish Quarterly Review, 1898, pp. 279-332. It is an Haggadic revision of the Biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul. Its chronology agrees frequently with the LXX. against that of the Massoretic text, though conversely in a few cases. The Latin is undoubtedly translated from the Greek. Greek words are frequently transliterated. While the LXX. is occasionally followed in its translation of Biblical passages, in others the Massoretic is followed against the LXX., and in one or two passages the text presupposes a text different from both. On many grounds Cohn infers a Hebrew original. The eschatology is similar to that taught in the similitudes of the Book of Enoch. In fact, Eth. En. li. 1 is reproduced in this connexion. Prayers of the departed are said to be valueless. The book was written after A.D. 70; for, as Cohn has shown, the exact date of the fall of Herod’s temple is predicted.

Life of Adam and Eve.—Writings dealing with this subject are extant in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian and Arabic. They go back undoubtedly to a Jewish basis, but in some of the forms in which they appear at present they are christianized throughout. The oldest and for the most part Jewish portion of this literature is preserved to us in Greek, Armenian, Latin and Slavonic, (i.) The Greek Διήγησις περὶ Άδὰμ καὶ Εὔας (published under the misleading title Άποκάλυψις Μωυσέως in Tischendorf’s Apocalypses Apocryphae, 1866) deals with the Fall and the death of Adam and Eve. Ceriani edited this text from a Milan MS. (Monumenta Sacra et Profana, v. i). This work is found also in Armenian, and has been published by the Mechitharist community in Venice in their Collection of Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament, and translated by Conybeare (Jewish Quarterly Review, vii. 216 sqq., 1895), and by Issaverdens in 1901. (ii.) The Vita Adae et Evae is closely related and in part identical with (i.). It was printed by W. Meyer in Abh. d. Münch. Akad., Philos.-philol. Cl. xiv., 1878. (iii.) The Slavonic Adam book was published by Jajić along with a Latin translation (Denkschr. d. Wien. Akad. d. Wiss. xlii., 1893). This version agrees for the most part with (i.). It has, moreover, a section, §§ 28-39, which though not found in (i.) is found in (ii.). Before we discuss these three documents we shall mention other members of this literature, which, though derivable ultimately from Jewish sources, are Christian in their present form, (iv.) The Book of Adam and Eve, also called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan, translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881). (v.) A Syriac work entitled Die Schalzhöhle translated by Bezold from three Syriac MSS. in 1883 and subsequently edited in Syriac in 1888. This work has close affinities to (iv.), but is said by Dillmann to be more original, (vi.) Armenian books on the Death of Adam (Uncanonical Writings of O.T. pp. 84 sqq., 1901, translated from the Armenian), Creation and Transgression of Adam (op. cit. 39 sqq.), Expulsion of Adam from Paradise (op. cit. 47 sqq.), Penitence of Adam and Eve (op. cit. 71 sqq.) are mainly later writings from Christian hands.

Returning to the question of the Jewish origin of i., ii., iii., we have already observed that these spring from a common original. As to the language of this original, scholars are divided. The evidence, however, seems to be strongly in favour of Hebrew. How otherwise are we to explain such Hebraisms (or Syriacisms) as ἐνᾦ ῥέει τὸ ἔλαιον ἐξ αὐτοῦ (§ 9), οῦ εῖπεν ... μὴ φαγεῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ (§ 21). For others see §§ 23, 33. Moreover, as Fuchs has pointed out, in the words ἔσῃ ἐν ματαίοις addressed to Eve (§ 25) there is a corruption of םילבח into םילבה. Thus the words were: “Thou shalt have pangs.” In fact, Hebraisms abound throughout this book. (See Fuchs, Apok. u. Pseud, d. A.T. ii. 511; Jewish Encyc. i. 179 sq.)

Jannes and Jambres.—These two men are referred to in 2 Tim. iii. 8 as the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses. The book which treats of them is mentioned by Origen (ad Matt. xxiii. 37 and xxvii. 9 [Jannes et Mambres Liber]), and in the Gelasian Decree as the Paenitentia Jamnis et Mambre. The names in Greek are generally Ίαννῆς καὶ Ίαμβρῆς (= םירבמיו םיני) as in the Targ.-Jon. on Exod. i. 15; vii. ii. In the Talmud they appear as ארממו ינחוי. Since the western text of 2 Tim. iii. 8 has Μαμβρῆς, Westcott and Hort infer that this form was derived from a Palestinian source. These names were known not only to Jewish but also to heathen writers, such as Pliny and Apuleius. The book, therefore, may go back to pre-Christian times. (See Schürer3 iii. 292-294; Ency. Biblica, ii. 2327-2329.)

Joseph and Asenath.—The statement in Gen. xli. 45, 50 that Joseph married the daughter of a heathen priest naturally gave offence to later Judaism, and gave rise to the fiction that Asenath was really the daughter of Shechem and Dinah, and only the foster-daughter of Potipherah (Targ.-Jon. on Gen. xli. 45; Tractat. Sopherim, xxi. 9; Jalkut Shimoni, c. 134. See Oppenheim, Fabula Josephi et Asenethae, 1886, pp. 2-4). Origen also was acquainted with some form of the legend (Selecta in Genesin, ad Gen. xli. 45, ed. Lommatzsch, viii. 89-90). The Christian legend, which is no doubt in the main based on the Jewish, is found in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic and Medieval Latin. Since it is not earlier than the 3rd or 4th century, it will be sufficient here to refer to Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. i. 176-177; Hastings’ Bible Dict. i. 162-163; Schürer, iii. 289-291.

(d) Didactic or Sapiential.—The Pirke Aboth, a collection of sayings of the Jewish Fathers, are preserved in the 9th Tractate of the Fourth Order of the Mishnah. They are attributed to some sixty Jewish teachers, belonging for the most part to the years A.D. 70-170, though a few of them are of a much earlier date. The book holds the same place in rabbinical literature as the Book of Proverbs in the Bible. The sayings are often admirable. Thus in iv. 1-4, “Who is wise? He that learns from every man.... Who is mighty? He that subdues his nature.... Who is rich? He that is contented with his lot.... Who is honoured? He that honours mankind.” (See further Pirke Aboth.)

2 (b). New Testament Apocryphal Literature:—

(a). Gospels:—

Uncanonical sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish writings.

Gospel according to the Egyptians.

Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Protevangel of James.

Gospel of Nicodemus.

Gospel of Peter.

Gospel of Thomas.

Gospel of the Twelve.

Gnostic gospels of Andrew, Apelles, Barnabas, Bartholomew, Basilides, Cerinthus and some seventeen others.

(b) Acts and Teachings of the Apostles:—

Acts of Andrew and later forms of these Acts.

Acts of John.

Acts of Paul.

Acts of Peter.

Preaching of Peter.

Acts of Thomas.

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

Apostolic constitutions.

(c) Epistles:—

The Abgar Epistles.

Epistle of Barnabas.

Epistle of Clement.

“Clement’s” 2nd Epistle of the Corinthians.

Clement’s Epistles on Virginity.

Clement’s Epistles to James.

Epistles of Ignatius.

Epistle of Polycarp.

Pauline Epp. to the Laodiceans and Alexandrians.

3 Pauline Ep. to the Corinthians.

(d) Apocalypses: see under Apocalyptic Literature.

(a) Gospels.—Uncanonical Sayings of the Lord in Christian and Jewish Sources.—Under the head of canonical sayings not found in the Gospels only one is found, i.e. that in Acts xx. 35. Of the rest the uncanonical sayings have been collected by Preuschen (Reste der ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, pp. 44-47). A different collection will be found in Hennecke, NTliche Apok. 9-11. The same subject is dealt with in the elaborate volumes of Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, vols. i.-iii., 1893-1895).

To this section belongs also the Fayum Gospel Fragment and the Logia published by Grenfell and Hunt.5 The former contains two sayings of Christ and one of Peter, such as we find in the canonical gospels, Matt. xxvi. 31-34, Mark xiv. 27-30. The papyrus, which is of the 3rd century, was discovered by Bickell among the Rainer collection, who characterized it (Z. f. kath. Theol., 1885, pp. 498-504) as a fragment of one of the primitive gospels mentioned in Luke i. 1. On the other hand, it has been contended that it is merely a fragment of an early patristic homily. (See Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 780-790; Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, v. 4; Preuschen, op. cit. p. 19.) The Logia (q.v.) is the name given to the sayings contained in a papyrus leaf, by its discoverers Grenfell and Hunt. They think the papyrus was probably written about A.D. 200. According to Harnack, it is an extract from the Gospel of the Egyptians. All the passages referring to Jesus in the Talmud are given by Laible, Jesus Christus im Talmud, with an appendix, “Die talmudischen Texte,” by G. Dalman (2nd ed. 1901). The first edition of this work was translated into English by A.W. Streane (Jesus Christ in the Talmud, 1893). In Hennecke’s NTliche Apok. Handbuch (pp. 47-71) there is a valuable study of this question by A. Meyer, entitled Jesus, Jesu Jünger und das Evangelium im Talmud und verwandten jüdischen Schriflen, to which also a good bibliography of the subject is prefixed.

Gospel according to the Egyptians.—This gospel is first mentioned by Clem. Alex. (Strom. iii. 6. 45; 9. 63, 66; 13. 92), subsequently by Origen (Hom. in Luc. i.) and Epiphanius (Haer. lxii. 2), and a fragment is preserved in the so-called 2 Clem. Rom. xii. 2. It circulated among various heretical circles; amongst the Encratites (Clem. Strom. iii. 9), the Naas-senes (Hippolyt. Philos. v. 7), and the Sabellians (Epiph. Haer. lxii. 2). Only three or four fragments survive; see Lipsius (Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 712, 713); Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, ii. 628-642; Preuschen, Reste d. ausserkanonischen Evangelien, 1901, p. 2, which show that it was a product of pantheistic Gnosticism. With this pantheistic Gnosticism is associated a severe asceticism. The distinctions of sex are one day to come to an end; the prohibition of marriage follows naturally on this view. Hence Christ is represented as coming to destroy the work of the female (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 9. 63). Lipsius and Zahn assign it to the middle of the 2nd century. It may be earlier.

Protevangel of James.—This title was first given in the 16th century to a writing which is referred to as The Book of James (ἡ βίβλος Ίακώβου) by Origen (tom. xi. in Matt.). Its author designates it as Ίστορία. For various other designations see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 1 seq. The narrative extends from the Conception of the Virgin to the Death of Zacharias. Lipsius shows that in the present form of the book there is side by side a strange “admixture of intimate knowledge and gross ignorance of Jewish thought and custom,” and that accordingly we must “distinguish between an original Jewish Christian writing and a Gnostic recast of it.” The former was known to Justin (Dial. 78, 101) and Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. 16), and belongs at latest to the earliest years of the 2nd century. The Gnostic recast Lipsius dates about the middle of the 3rd century. From these two works arose independently the Protevangel in its present form and the Latin pseudo-Matthaeus (Evangelium pseudo-Matthaei). The Evangelium de Nativitate Mariae is a redaction of the latter. (See Lipsius in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. ii. 701-703.) But if we except the Zachariah and John group of legends, it is not necessary to assume the Gnostic recast of this work in the 3rd century as is done by Lipsius. The author had at his disposal two distinct groups of legends about Mary. One of these groups is certainly of non-Jewish origin, as it conceives Mary as living in the temple somewhat after the manner of a vestal virgin or a priestess of Isis. The other group is more in accord with the orthodox gospels. The book appears to have been written in Egypt, and in the early years of the 2nd century. For, since Origen states that many appealed to it in support of the view that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, the book must have been current about A.D. 200. From Origen we may ascend to Clem. Alex. who (Strom. vi. 93) shows acquaintance with one of the chief doctrines of the book—the perpetual virginity of Mary. Finally, as Justin’s statements as to the birth of Jesus in a cave and Mary’s descent from David show in all probability his acquaintance with the book, it may with good grounds be assigned to the first decade of the 2nd century. (So Zahn, Gesch. Kanons, i. 485, 499, 502, 504, 539; ii. 774-780.) For the Greek text see Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 1-50; B.P. Grenfell, An Alexandrian erotic Fragment and other Papyri, 1896, pp. 13-17: for the Syriac, Wright, Contributions to Apocryphal Literature of the N.T., 1865, pp. 3-7; A.S. Lewis, Studia Sinaitica, xi. pp. 1-22. See literature generally in Hennecke, NT liche Apok. Handbuch, 106 seq.

Gospel of Nicodemus.—This title is first met with in the 13th century. It is used to designate an apocryphal writing entitled in the older MSS. ὑπομνήματα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ίησοῦ Χριστοῦ πραχθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου; also “Gesta Salvatoris Domini ... inventa Theodosio magno imperatore in Ierusalem in praetorio Pontii Pilati in codicibus publicis.” See Tischendorf, Evang. Apocr.2 pp. 333-335. This work gives an account of the Passion (i.-xi.), the Resurrection (xii.-xvi.), and the Descensus ad Inferos (xvii.-xxvii.). Chapters i.-xvi. are extant, in the Greek, Coptic, and two Armenian versions. The two Latin versions and a Byzantine recension of the Greek contain i.-xxvii. (see Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha2, pp. 210-458). All known texts go back to A.D. 425, if one may trust the reference to Theodosius. But this was only a revision, for as early as 376 Epiphanius (Haer. i. 1.) presupposes the existence of a like text. In 325 Eusebius (H.E. ii. 2) was acquainted only with the heathen Acts of Pilate, and knew nothing of a Christian work. Tischendorf and Hofmann, however, find evidence of its existence in Justin’s reference to the ῎Ακτα Πιλάτου (Apol. i. 35, 48), and in Tertullian’s mention of the Acta Pilati (Apol. 21), and on this evidence attribute our texts to the first half of the 2nd century. But these references have been denied by Scholten, Lipsius, and Lightfoot. Recently Schubert has sought to derive the elements which are found in the Petrine Gospel, but not in the canonical gospels, from the original Acta Pilati, while Zahn exactly reverses the relation of these two works. Rendel Harris (1899) advocated the view that the Gospel of Nicodemus, as we possess it, is merely a prose version of the Gospel of Nicodemus written originally in Homeric centones as early as the 2nd century. Lipsius and Dobschütz relegate the book to the 4th century. The question is not settled yet (see Lipsius in Smith’s Dict. of Christ. Biography, ii. 708-709, and Dobschütz in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, iii. 544-547).

Gospel according to the Hebrews.—This gospel was cited by Ignatius (Ad Smyrnaeos, iii.) according to Jerome (Viris illus. 16, and in Jes. lib. xviii.), but this is declared to be untrustworthy by Zahn, op. cit. i. 921; ii. 701, 702. It was written in Aramaic in Hebrew letters, according to Jerome (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2), and translated by him into Greek and Latin. Both these translations are lost. A collection of the Greek and Latin fragments that have survived, mainly in Origen and Jerome, will be found in Hilgenfeld’s NT extra Canonem receptum, Nicholson’s Gospel according to the Hebrews (1879), Westcott’s Introd. to the Gospels, and Zahn’s Gesch. des NTlichen Kanons, ii. 642-723; Preuschen, op. cit. 3-8. This gospel was regarded by many in the first centuries as the Hebrew original of the canonical Matthew (Jerome, in Matt. xii. 13; Adv. Pelag. iii. 1). With the canonical gospel it agrees in some of its sayings; in others it is independent. It circulated among the Nazarenes in Syria, and was composed, according to Zahn (op. cit. ii. 722), between the years 135 and 150. Jerome identifies it with the Gospel of the Twelve (Adv. Pelag. iii. 2), and states that it was used by the Ebionites (Comm. in Matt. xii. 13). Zahn (op. cit. ii. 662, 724) contests both these statements. The former he traces to a mistaken interpretation of Origen (Hom. I. in Luc.). Lipsius, on the other hand, accepts the statements of Jerome (Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christian Biography, ii. 709-712), and is of opinion that this gospel, in the form in which it was known to Epiphanius, Jerome and Origen, was “a recast of an older original,” which, written originally in Aramaic, was nearly related to the Logia used by St Matthew and the Ebionitic writing used by St Luke, “which itself was only a later redaction of the Logia.”

According to the most recent investigations we may conclude that the Gospel according to the Hebrews was current among the Nazarenes and Ebionites as early as 100-125, since Ignatius was familiar with the phrase “I am no bodiless demon”—a phrase which, according to Jerome (Comm. in Is. xviii.), belonged to this Gospel.

The name “Gospel according to the Hebrews” cannot have been original; for if it had been so named because of its general use among the Hebrews, yet the Hebrews themselves would not have used this designation. It may have been known simply as “the Gospel.” The language was Western Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jesus and his apostles. Two forms of Western Aramaic survive: the Jerusalem form of the dialect, in the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra; and the Galilean, in isolated expressions in the Talmud (3rd century), and in a fragmentary 5th century translation of the Bible. The quotations from the Old Testament are made from the Massoretic text.