Rules for Determining What Books Are Apocryphal
Of the Apocryjihal books of the New Testament, the greater part have long since sunk into oblivion, but a few of them are still extant. All of them can be proved to be spurious, or at least not Canonical. Their claims have so little to support them, that they might be left to that oblivion, into which they have so generally fallen, were it not, that from time to time, persons unfriendly to our present Canon, bring forward these books, and pretend that some of them, at least, have as good claims to Canonical authority, as those which are received. It will be satisfactory to the reader, therefore, to know the names of these books, and to understand the principles on which they have been uniformly rejected by the church.
In the first place, then, 1 will mention the rules laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it may be determined that a book is Apocryphal, and then I Yill give some account of the hooks nf this class, which have been lost; and finally, consider the character of those which are still extant.
1. That book is certainly .Apocryphal, which contains ?nani/cst cunt rudict ions.
Tlic reason of this rule, is tot) evident to need any elucidation.
‘^. That book is Apocryphal, tohich contains any doctrine or histo7li/, plainly contrary to those IV Inch arc certainly known to be true.
This rule also is too clear to require any thin<’ to be said in confirmation of its propriety,
3. That book is Apocryphal which contains any thing ludicrous or trijiin<r, or ichich abounds in silly and fabulous stories.
This rule is not only true, but of great importance, in this inquiry; as on exaniin;.tion, it will be found, that the largest part of apocryphal books may be detected by the application of this single rule.
4. That book is Apocryphal, which me/itions things of a date ?nuch later than the tune in which the author, ufider whose nariie it goes, lived.
This rule does not apply to predictions of future events, which events occurred long after the death of the prophet; but to a reference to facts, or names of places, or persons, as existing when the book was written, which are known to have exisled, only at a period lung since the time when the supposed author lived. The rule will be better unilerstood, if illustrated by particular examples. The book entitled, The Constitutions of THE Apostles, speaks of the controversy which arose in the” third century, respecting the rehaptization of heretics, therefore, it is not the work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been ascribed, nor was it written in his time, but long afterwards.
Again, the bonk under’ the name of Hf.gesip« PUS is not genuine, for if mentions Constantine, and Constantimple, which had no existence until long after the death of Hegesippus.
Moreover, in The Constitutions of the Apostlks, there is mention of rites and ceremonie*’, relative to baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c. which it is certain had no existence in the times of the apostles, therefore this book was not written by an apostolical man, nor in the days of the apostles, but centuries afterwards.
5. That book is Apocryphal, the style of which is entirely different from the known style of the author, to lohom it is ascribed.
It is easy to counterfeit an author’s name, age, country, opinions, &c.; but it will be found almost impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is true, may vary his style, to suit different subjects, but there is commonly some peculiarity by which he maybe distiiguished, from all others. “Jerome,” says Sixtus, “writes one way, in his epistles, another in his controversies, a third, in his commentaries; — one way when young, another when old, yet he always so writes, that you may know him to be the same Jerome still, as a man knows his friend, under all the various casts and turn.s ol hs cuiitcnancr.”
Thus, Augustine says of Cyprian, ‘•’ His st le has a certain peculiar face, by which it may be known.”
It should be remembered, h<’wcver, that this rule, alth()us;h it may often furnish a certain detecti in of spurious writin;i;s, is one which requires much caution in the application. There is ne.cl of a lonji; and intimate acquaintance with the st) le of an author, before we are competent to determine whciher a book could have been written by him: and the difference oua;ht to be very distinctly marked, bi’fore we make it the ground of any important judgment, respictino; the genuineness of a work ascribed to him, especially if there be external evidence in its favour. In fact, too free an application of this rule has led to many errors, both in ancient and modern times.
6. That book is spurious and JJpocryphal, whose idinrn and dialect are different from thoe of the country to which the reputed author belonged.
The idiom and dialtct of a language, are very different from the style of an author. Every language is susceptible of every variety of style, but the idiom is iht sime, in all who use the laiigju.ige: it is the peculiarity, not of an individual, but of a while -ountry.
“But as every writer has a style of his own, whiol; t 306
cannot easily be imitated by another; so, every- country has an idiom, which other nations, even if they learn the language, cannot, without g;reat difficulty, acquire. And for the same reason that a writer cannot acquire the idiom of a foreign tongue, he cannot divest himself of the peculiarities of his own.
An Englishman can scarcely write and speak the French lanjguage, so as not to discover by his idiom, that it is not his vernacular tongue. Hence also, a North Britton can be distinguished, not only from the peculiarity of his pronunciation, but by his idiom. And this is the reason, that modern scholars can never write Latin, in the maimer of the classic authors.
This rule, thercfoiC, is of great importance in detecting the spuriousness of a book, when the real author lived after the time of the person whose name is assumed, or in a country where a diffrrtnt language, o- a difftrent dialect, was in use. It will be found almost imj)ossibie, to avoid phrases and modes of speech, which were hot in Uvse in the time of the person, under whose name the work is edited: and the attempt at imitating an idiom which is not perfectly familiar, leads to an affectation and stiffness of manner, which usually betrays the impostor.
The influence of native idiom, appears no where more remarkably, than in the writirngs of the New Testament. These books, although written in the
Greek tonsjue, coniiiiii an idiom so manifestly different from that of the lan<^uaa;e in common use at iliat time, that it cannot but be observed by all, who have even a superficial acquaintance with Grecian literature.
The fact is, as has often been observed by learn’ ed men, that while the words of these books are Greek, the idiom is Hebrew The writers had, from their infancy, been accustomed to the Syro-Chaldaic language, which is a corruption of the ancient Ilel)rew. Now, this peculiarity of idiom could never have been successfully imitated by any native Greek; nor by any one,not early conversant with the vernacular tongue of Palestine, ai that time. When, therefore, men of other countries, and other times, undertook to publish books, under Xh’- name of the apostles, the imposture was manifest at once, to all capable o? ju’lging correctly on the suhj- ct; because, although they could write in the same language as the apostles, they could not |)ossibIy imitate their idiom. This theref)re furnishes a most i’liportant characteristic, to distinguish between the genuine writings of the apostles, and such as are supp isiiious.
7. That hook is .spurious which exhibits a disposition and temper of mind, very different from that of the person to whom it is ascrit)ed.
‘Vh’xs rule depends -in .» principle in humin nature, well understood, and needs no particular elucidation.
6. That book is not genuine, which consists principally of tnerc extracts from other books.
This is also so evident, that it requires no illustration.
9. Those books lohich were never cited, nor 7’eferred to as Scripture, by any writer of credit for the first four hundred years after the apostles days, is Apocryphal.
10. Those books which were expressly rejected by the Fathers of the first ages as spurious, and attributed by them to heretics, are Jlpocryphal.
By the application of the foregoing rules, it can be shown, that every book which claims Canonical authority, not included in our present Canon, is apocryphal. When we denominate all books apocryphal, which are not Canonical, we do not mean to reduce them all to the same level. A book which is not Canonical may be a very instructive and useful book. As a human composition, it may deserve to be highly esteemed; and as the writinsj; of a pious and eminent man of antiquity, it n)ay claim peculiar respect.
The ancient method of division was more accurate than ours. They divickd all books into iliree classes; first, the Canonical; SC’ ondly, the Ecclesiasdcal; and thirdly the Spurious. And there is reason to believe, that some books which were written without the least fraudulent desig, by anonymous authors, have, by the ia;norance of ;beir successors, been ascribed to the wrong persons*
That the Fathers did sometimes cite apocryphal books, in their writinojg, is true; hut so did Paul cite ilie Hralht-n Poets. If ‘hrs*- hooks an* sometimes mentioned, without any note of disapprobation annexed, it can commonly he cle;trly ascertained from other places in the same author, that he held them to he Apocryphal. Thus, Okigen, in one place, quotes the (;o.>>pel accirding to THK Hebri-,w>, without any expression of disapprobation; but in another pince, he rejects it, as spurious, and declares, “That the church receivei: no more than four onspels.”
Sometimes, the Fathers cited these Apocryphal books, to show that their knowledge was not confined to their own books, and that they did not reject others, through ignorance of their contents. Remarkably to this purpose, are the words of Origen. “The chunh,” says he, “r<cpives only four gospels: heretics have many, such as, the gnspel of the Egyptians, the gospel (f Thomas, &.C.: these we reatl, that we may not seem to he ignorant, to those who think they know something extraordinary, if they are acquainted with those things which are recorded in these books.”
To the same purpose, speaks Ambrose; for havii’.g mentioned several of these books, he says, “VVc read these that they may not be read by others; we read them, that we may not seem to be isnorant; we read ihem, not that we receive them, bui that we may reject them; and may D n kno’v what those things are of which they make such a boast.”
In some instances, it seems probable, that some of the Fathers took passages out of these books, because they wore acknowledged by those against whom they were writmg; being vlilling to dispute with them on their own principles, and to confute them by their own books.
It may perhaps be true also, that one or two of the Fathers, cited passages from these books, because they contained facts, not recorded in the Canonical gospels. The apostle John informs us, that our Lord performed innumerable miracles, besides those which he had recorded, the which, if they should be written, every one, I suppose the world itself, could not contain the books lohich should be written. Now, some tradition, of some of th* se things, would undoubtedly be handed down as low as to the second century, and might find its way into some of the Apocryphal gospels, and might be cited by peisons who did not believe the book to be of Canonical authority, just as we refer to any profane author, for the proof of such facts as are credibly related by then. There is, at least, one example of this. Jerome, refers to ‘he gospel according to the Hebrews, for a fact: and yet he most explicitly rejects this book, as Apocryphal
The only books which were ever read in the churches, besides the Canonical, were a few written by apnsfolioal men: which, althono;h not written by a [)|{?nnry i: spiration, wrrc thi’ iiriiuiiie writings ol’ tht.- persons whose ii;ini»’S th’y b<Te, and were pious produriions, and tonilocl to edification; such as, the Kpislh- of Cl( nient the Sl.epherd of Hernias, ai.d the Epistle of Barnabas; but no spurious books were ever read in the churchi s.
None of the writings falsely ascribed to Christ and bis apostles, ever acquirrd so much authority, :is to be publicly read in any church, as far as we knou-. Indeed, although the Apocryphal books of the New Testament, were very numerous, yet they did not appear in the aye of the church, next after the times of the apostles. In the first century, no hooks of this rlcscripiion are referred to, unless we suppose that Luke, in the beginning of his gospel, intends to speak of such. In the second •■entury, a few s))urious writings began to be first put into circulation, as, the Tiospel accokding TO THK Hebrews; the (Jospel op Truth, used by the Valentinians; the Pkeaching of Petek; the Tkadttions op Matthias; the Acts of Paul and Thecla; the Gospel of Marcion; THE Revelation of CERrNTnus; and a few others <jf less note. Hut in the third century, the number of Apocryphal books, was considerably increased; and in the fourth and fifih centuries, t.hey were exrefdingly multiplied.
If it be inquired, how it happened that so many
Apocryphal books were written, it may confidently be answered, ll.at the principal cause was, the aboui.dii g of heresies. Ahnost all tht- spurious writings, under the names of the aposiles, are the produciions of heretics, as we learn from the testimony iftho.se Fathers who have made mention of them. It is, hnwevr, true, that some mistaken well-measiing people, thought, that they could add honour to the apostles, or contribute to the edification of ;he church, by resorting to (what have improperly been cdle.6) piovs frauds. They imagined, also, that they could recommend Christianity to the Gentiles, by inventing stories, which they rashly pretended, were sayings, or actions of Christ. Thus a opting the pernicious maxim, so peremptorily denounced by Paul, that we may do evil that good may come; or that the goodness of the end, will satisfy the badness of the means. Of this, we have one remarkable example, in the spurious book, still extant, entitled, The %B.cts of Paul and Thecla, which a certain Asiatic presbyter confessed that be had forged, and assigned as his reason for this forgery, that he wished to show resiiect to Paul. But in connexion with this fact, we have satisfactory proof of the vigilance of the church, in guarding the Sacred Canon from corruption; for the book was no sooner published, than a strict inquiry was instituted into its origin, and the prtsbUer mentioned above, having been detected as the author.
d!3
was deprived of his ofticc in tlic church. This account is given by Tertullian; and Jerome adds, that the detection of this forgery was made by the apostle John.
It is probable, also, that sonic of ihese books were written without any evil purpose, by weak men, who wrote down ail the stories they had received by tradition; for, no doubt, a niultitudc of traditions rcvspecting Christ and his apostles, with extravagant distortions and additions, would be handed down for several generations.
By all these means, the number of Apocryphal books of the New Testament was greatly multiplied. But by far the greater number of these have perished; yet there is no difficulty in determining, that none of them had any just claim to a place m the Canon. By one or more of the rules laid down above, they can all be demonstrated to have been Apocryphal: and indeed most of them are never mentioned by any ancif-nt author, in any other light than as spurious writings. * There is a famous deciee of pope Gelasius, in which, at least twenty -five of these books are named, and declared to be Apocryphal. It is not certain, indeed, whether this decree ought to be ascribed to Gklasius, or to one of his predecessors, Damasus; but there can be no doubt that it is very ancient, and is by most sufiposed to have been formed, in the council which met at
* See Note D
D D *
Rome, A. D. 494. A translation of this deeretexir-jcied from Jones, will be found in the notes at the end of the vokime.
* See Note E.