APOCRYPHA (̓Απόκρυφος, hidden). Applied technically to the relationship of certain books to the Heb. Canon. In general it constitutes the excess of the LXX over the Heb. Scriptures, with the material concerned being written during the last two centuries b.c. and the 1st cent. a.d.

1. The concept of the Apocrypha. The word “apocrypha” was used originally as a literary term with regard to books which were unsuitable for public reading because of their esoteric content. It was felt that the secret doctrines which they enshrined would lose their authority if they were profaned by the gaze of the common people, an attitude particularly in evidence among the Gr. Gnostics. After a.d. 70 the apocalyptic works fell into disfavor in Judaism, and the term “apocrypha” became equally debased. The esoteric nature of the “hidden” books actually worked against them, since the uninitiated believed that the secret lore was really heresy. The word “apocrypha” thus came to mean heretical or spurious, and books of this nature were forbidden to be read either in public or private. This situation had become normative by the 4th cent. a.d., since Athanasius (d. a.d. 373) and Rufinus (d. a.d. 410) spoke of apocryphal material in this manner. Some books in the NT Canon were occasionally regarded as apocryphal, and Gregory of Nyssa (d. a.d. 395) put the Book of Revelation into that category. In the 5th cent. the term “apocryphal” was used to designate noncanonical rather than heretical works, as in the writings of Jerome (d. a.d. 420), and this usage has survived to modern times in Protestant thought.

2. The Apocrypha in Judaism. During the two centuries prior to the birth of Christ a great many books were written by Jewish authors. Since it was only about a.d. 100 that the idea of a “closed” Heb. Canon was implemented, the problem of the canonicity of these compositions was not serious. These “outside books” were known in Jewish circles as “writings which do not defile the hands” and enjoyed considerable popularity, as shown by the large number of Heb. and Aram. works of this kind, some of which were recovered from Qumran. The members of this Jewish sect made little serious effort at distinguishing between the canonical Heb. writings and other works of a similar character, and this attitude undoubtedly reflected current practices in Judaism. Most of the apocryphal compositions in circulation at that time were of an apocalyptic, legendary, historical, or theological nature, and in addition to the OT Apocrypha included such works as the Book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Story of Ahikar, and other books from the intertestamental period which are sometimes styled Pseudep. The popularity of much of this lit. came to an abrupt end with the fall of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, and the apocalyptic writings in particular, in which so much hope had been placed, fell into outright disfavor with the collapse of the Jewish state. In addition, Christian compositions written in Aram. were increasingly available, and when Christian interpolations began to appear in Jewish apocryphal works, the designation of the “outside books” became an urgent matter. Some action in this area may have taken place c. a.d. 100, although the precise occasion, the supposed Synod of Jamnia, has been a matter of some scholarly debate. However, by the beginning of the 2nd cent. a.d. the excluded lit. was no longer a problem to the Jews, particularly since by that time a substantial corpus of rabbinic lit. had arisen to replace it. Interestingly enough, the apocryphal writings of Judaism survived more as the result of the activities of Christians than through any serious interest on the part of the Jews.

3. The Apocrypha and Christianity. At the beginning of the Christian era the LXX was the VS of Scripture used predominantly by the Jews. When the Christian Church came into existence, its members felt no particular urge to repudiate those familiar compositions found in the LXX Canon which were not represented in the Heb. Scriptures. Although there may be instances where certain NT writers reflected the imagery or phraseology of some apocryphal compositions, they never cited them either as inspired or as sources of spiritual authority. One of the great values of the Apoc. for the Christians was the fact that it bridged the gap between the end of prophecy and the writing of the NT books, furnishing valuable historical, political, and religious information which would otherwise have been difficult to obtain.

a. The Early Church. Quite aside from the possibility that apocryphal writings were reflected in the NT (cf. Heb 1:1-3; Wisd Sol 7:25-27), it seems clear that they were used for instructing believers in the early Christian period. First Clement (d. a.d. 95) included quotations from the Wisdom of Solomon, while Polycarp of Smyrna (d. c. a.d. 156) quoted from Tobit. Tertullian (d. c. a.d. 225) and Irenaeus (d. c. a.d. 200) cited certain books of the LXX Canon as scriptural and were followed in this by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Cyprian in the 3rd cent. a.d. Jerome (d. a.d. 420) declared as apocryphal all those writings which stood outside the Heb. Canon, but in his Vul. VS he included them according to church practice, though not without some reservations. Jerome and Cyril of Jerusalem (d. c. a.d. 386) were the first to use the term Apoc. for the excess of the LXX over the Heb. Canon. In his earlier writings Augustine (d. a.d. 430) accepted the traditional church view that the Apoc. was canonical, but later he admitted to a difference between the Heb. Canon and the “outside books.” Thus in the Early Church the degree in which the Heb. Canon was esteemed determined the attitude adopted toward the Apocrypha.

b. The Reformation. For the Reformers the Bible was the sole and supreme authority in matters of belief and conduct, raising questions as to the status of the Apoc. in this connection. Luther gathered the “outside books” from Gr. and Lat. MSS and placed them at the end of his 1534 Ger. VS under the heading of “Apocrypha.” The Roman Catholic Church responded quickly in the Council of Trent (1546) by acknowledging as canonical all of the Apoc. except 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. In the 1592 Vul. these three works formed an appendix to the NT. Calvin and his followers explicitly rejected any authority that the Apoc. might have claimed or received, holding that the contents were not divinely inspired. After Luther’s day, translations of the Bible in various European languages segregated the Apoc., and after 1626 some edd. of the KJV appeared without it.

c. Post-Reformation attitudes. The controversy regarding the canonicity of the Apoc. ended in a stalemate, with the Roman Catholic Church holding that it was of equal inspiration and authority with the rest of Scripture, while Reformed tradition firmly rejected it as divinely inspired Scripture. The Church of England formularies (Article VI) recognized its use “for example of life and instruction of manners,” but the Westminster Confession (1647) forbade it to be “in any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.” In modern times the value of the Apoc. for both Judaism and primitive Christianity has been amply recognized, and the discoveries at Qumran have given new zest to studies of the intertestamental period and its massive lit. Interestingly enough, the Apoc. is not represented significantly in MSS discoveries to date at Qumran, the reason prob. being that the community was oriented in terms of the Torah, anticipating by a cent. the attitude of Judaism after a.d. 70.

4. Contents. The works commonly designated by the term Apoc. are as follows: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Additions to the Book of Daniel, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Some LXX MSS include the quasi-historical books designated 3 and 4 Maccabees, but these belong properly to the Pseudep.

First Esdras. In the Vul. this book is called 3 Esdras, and in the Lucianic recension of the LXX is entitled 2 Esdras. It furnished a parallel account of events recorded in Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah, with the addition of an old Pers. tale, the Debate of the Three Soldiers (1 Esd 3:1-5:6). Thus the book covered by selection the history of Israel from the late preexilic period to about 444 b.c., when Ezra promulgated the law in the restored Jewish state.

The parallels with canonical lit. are as follows: 1:20, 23-25, cf. 2 Chron 35:1-36:21; 2:1-11, cf. Ezra 1:1-11; 2:12-26, cf. Ezra 4:7-24; 5:7-71, cf. Ezra 2:1-4:5; 6:1-9:36, cf. Ezra 5:1-10:44; 9:37-55, cf. Neh 7:73-8:13.

An indication of the popularity of this type of lit. in the intertestamental period is seen in the fact that Josephus preferred 1 Esdras as his authority over the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah. First Esdras is not a tr. of the MT of these two books, however, though prob. being based on a closely related text from a family now known, from discoveries at Qumran, to have been circulating in Judaea in the immediate pre-Christian period. Nor does 1 Esdras depend on the Heb. text underlying the LXX recension, as shown by the divergence of readings and the variation in the chronology of the Pers. kings. Perhaps 1 Esdras may even have been based on a Heb. text which rivals the MT in intrinsic value. The date of the composition is as difficult to determine as its origin, but it is certainly later than the Pers. period and perhaps emerged from 2nd cent. b.c. Alexandria. It was in circulation in the time of Christ, since Josephus employed it as a source. The work is rather fragmentary, and whether it has survived as part of a more complete book is unknown.

Its purpose of writing is also problematical, since the history of the period was already known from canonical sources, and the errors and contradictions in it would hardly commend it to a serious student of Jewish history. Certainly the inclusion of pagan folklore would depreciate its value for orthodox Jews. The book opened in the preexilic era, but went on to describe the Captivity, return, and the frustrations relating to the rebuilding of the Temple and city walls. The central section (3:1-5:6) told of a competition between three Pers. soldiers to decide the most powerful thing in the world. The winner, who held truth to be the strongest, gained as a reward the return of the Temple treasures and the rebuilding of the Temple itself. The remainder of the narrative dealt with the religious reformation of Ezra. Clearly the book cannot be taken seriously as history, and is at best a moralizing composition glorifying truth.

Second Esdras in the Eng. VSS is 4 Esdras in the Vul., and was also called the Apocalypse of Ezra in some Gr. canons. It is a Palestinian-Jewish apocalypse to which Christian material had been added, and the resemblance of it to parts of the NT commended it to the Early Church. It was quoted by certain Fathers, beginning c. a.d. 200 with Clement of Alexandria. The first two chs., of Christian origin, can be dated c. a.d. 150, and the central apocalyptic portion was written perhaps fifty years earlier, since the writer apparently saw Jerusalem destroyed. The final two chs. may be dated c. a.d. 250 and are an appendix to the apocalypse, which is one of the latest sections of the Apoc. The original work comprised seven visions, the first (3:1-5:19) demanding a reason for the sufferings of Zion and continuing this theme into the second vision (5:20-6:34). The angel Uriel answered that this problem is incomprehensible to man, but that the coming age would bring salvation. The third vision (6:35-9:25) dealt with the small numbers of the elect and the coming age of grace, a theme continued in the fourth vision (9:26-10:59) with the transformation of Jerusalem. The fifth vision (11:1-12:51) dealt with the supplanting of Rom. power by the Messiah, while the sixth vision (13:1-58) comprised an adaptation of the Son of Man vision (Dan 7). The final vision in ch. 14 described legendary activities of Ezra the Scribe, continuing the theme of the first two chs. which spoke of his background and work. The dualistic and eschatological elements of the book were typical of ancient apocalyptic writers who were convinced that mankind was caught up in the inexorable struggle between good and evil. In 2 Esdras the evil will of man (yēṩer) was held to be the principal cause of human wickedness, and the only hope for humanity was the inauguration by God of a new age of grace. The presence of a Messiah in Jewish apocalyptic was considered of secondary importance, and 2 Esdras is no exception to this tendency. While the book reflected the determinism of apocalyptic thinking generally, it estimated the human situation in realistic terms and manifested a firm belief in the banishment of evil through divine intervention. For the apocalyptic writers, Israel was righteous, and therefore they did not reflect that sense of moral and ethical crisis found in the canonical prophets. While there are certain bizarre and tedious elements in the book, it does in fact constitute a theodicy, endeavoring to justify the divine workings to man.

Tobit is a pious romance narrating the fortunes of a righteous captive of the Israelite Exile and was a popular story in the intertestamental period. It was transmitted in three Gr. recensions, as well as in the Lat., Syr., Eth., and Heb. VSS. Fragments of Tobit in Heb. and Aram. were found among the MS deposits in the Qumran caves, and suggested an Aram. original. However, the language of composition is unknown, as is the place. A Palestinian background is possible, but Mesopotamia seems more probable, and the time of writing is not the Assyrian or Babylonian Captivity, but most prob. c. a.d. 200. The book contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:15) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares. Again, the writer placed Rages one day’s journey from Ecbatana instead of two weeks by camel caravan.

The story narrated the privations of Tobit in exile, which culminated in the misfortune and shame of blindness. A young Heb. woman named Sarah who lived in Ecbatana was also ill, and the angel Raphael was sent to heal them both. He joined Tobias, son of Tobit, on a journey to Media and instructed him to preserve the heart, liver, and gall of a fish which they caught in the Tigris. On returning home he anointed Tobit’s eyes with the fish gall, after which his sight was restored. The tale taught fidelity to the Torah and humility and obedience toward God, as well as the importance of discharging family and social obligations properly. Although unhistorical, it gives a useful glimpse of traditional Jewish piety in the 2nd cent. b.c., and throws interesting light on the growing doctrines of angels, demons, and spirits in the pre-Christian period.

Judith was another story which was extremely popular in intertestamental times, and which was accorded historicity by some early Fathers. Four different forms of an early Gr. VS have survived, all of them based on a lost Heb. original. The fact that the chief character was a woman added to the appeal of the work, and the courageous nature of her exploits was in the tradition of other Israelite women who had managed at various times to stave off disaster by their counsel or cunning.

The story was set in the early days of the return from captivity and told of the overthrow of Nebuchadnezzar’s armies by Judith’s guile. Because Judaea had not helped Nebuchadnezzar in his war against Media, the province was put under siege. Judith left her native Bethulia to visit Holofernes, the enemy commander, on the pretext of betraying military secerets. Having aroused the amorous interests of Holofernes, she was able to behead him while they were dining alone one night. She returned to Bethulia with his head, whereupon the besieged inhabitants launched an attack on the Assyrians (sic), who retreated in disorder. Hymns of praise were then sung, and the nation enjoyed a period of peace. The story fits readily into the time of the Maccabean uprising (2nd cent. b.c.), but cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was given an impossibly long reign, as was the ruler of Media, while the Assyrians and Babylonians were hopelessly confused and the armies were made to perform impossible feats of mobility. The story was intended to show that even the most desperate circumstances warranted faith in God, and that individual courage and enterprise were never to be discounted on such occasions. Judith herself typified the legalistic Pharisaic piety of the Maccabean period, but by her behavior showed her awareness that Israel’s troubles were the result of sin. Submission to the divine will alone would bring salvation, and this could be readily effected by obedience to the Law.

The Additions to Esther do not form a separate continuous narrative when taken together and were meant to be inserted into the LXX text at various points. Of the six sections, the first, which prefixed the canonical Esther, dealt with Mordecai’s dream and his prevention of a plot against the king, while the second contained the royal edict for the destruction of Pers. Jews and followed Esther 3:13. The third consisted of the prayers of Mordecai and Esther and was meant to follow ch. 4 of the Heb. book. The fourth section described Esther’s audience with the king, supplementing Esther 5:12, and the fifth recorded the royal edict permitting Jewish self-defense, to follow Esther 8:12. The final addition interpreted the dream of Mordecai and furnished a chronological note regarding the date when the letter concerning Purim was brought to Egypt. All the additions seem to have been written in Gr., and a diversity of authorship is quite possible. There is little likelihood that the Heb. text was an abbreviated form of a larger book in Heb. or Aram., of which the Gr. was a tr., if only because the Additions contain too few Semitisms to require a Heb. original. From the Epilogue it appears that the Book of Esther was tr. into Gr. in the 2nd cent. b.c., and presumably the Additions were prepared at that time. Contrasted with the canonical Esther, the Additions are marked by open references to God and by expressions of devotion, faith, and piety.

The Wisdom of Solomon was one of the most notable of the Heb. Gnomic compositions, having its roots deep in the teachings of the ancient Heb. sages. Under the influence of Gr. canons of thought, the Book of Wisdom attained to a more formal presentation than other examples of this type of lit. The book was valued by Patristic authors and found its way into a number of languages including Sahidic and Armenian. Although purporting to be written by Solomon, the pseudonymous character of the book was recognized from early times. Attempts at that point to identify the author caused it to be credited variously to Philo, Ben Sira, the Essenes, and the Therapeutae of Egypt. Modern views on authorship are affected by considerations relating to the unity of the work, with some scholars maintaining that chs. 1 to 9 are from a different writer than chs. 10 to 19. While diversity of authorship is certainly possible, it may be that the work was composed deliberately in two halves as a bifid, with the first section dealing with the theoretical aspects of wisdom and the second showing wisdom at work in the history of Israel. While the author is unknown, an Alexandrian origin is most probable, and a date of composition between 150 b.c. and 50 b.c. seems to suit the content of the book best. If composed at Alexandria, the original language of Wisdom was almost certainly Gr., though some scholars have argued for a Heb. original of the first ten chapters. This latter seems improbable because some of the least Hebraic concepts of the entire work occur in the first few chapters. In writing the book the author may have been trying to rekindle zeal for God and the Heb. Torah at a time of apostasy in Judaism, and may even have attempted to influence the Gentiles against the follies of idolatry. The book exhorts all men to pursue wisdom and deals with the blessings which will result, including righteousness, immortality, humility, prosperity, and justification in the day of judgment (1:1-5:23). Without wisdom (hypostatized as a feminine celestial being), earthly rulers cannot govern properly, and Solomon was adduced as an example of how wisdom was bestowed through prayer (6:1-7:14). After enumerating the characteristics of wisdom, the author explained how they were communicated to the human mind (7:15-8:16). A subsequent prayer, which again hypostatized wisdom, comprised an expanded form of 2 Kings 3:7ff. and 2 Chronicles 1:8ff. (8:17-9:18). The remainder of the book reviewed OT history to illustrate the thesis that wisdom had helped the Jews consistently, as in Egypt (10:1-21), in the Wilderness (11:1-26), and against Canaan (12:1-11). Polytheism came in for scathing denunciation (12:12-15:19), being blamed for all the vices afflicting human society. Idols occasionally brought punishment on their worshipers (16:1-14), but in general what was friendly to Israel became punitive to her enemies (16:15-18:4). The humiliation of Egypt was continued by an elaborate account of the crossing of the Red Sea (18:5-19:19), at which the book closed without reaching a conclusion. The Platonic concept of the preexistence of the individual soul was upheld by the author, as was the theory that matter was eternal and evil. Stoic tenets in Wisdom included the Four Cardinal Virtues and the idea of a world-soul. The immortality and resurrection of the soul were taught in Wisdom also, as was the final felicity of the righteous. In the book, wisdom was consistently personified and favored with omnipotence and omniscience, being regarded as active in the creation and subsequently serving as an intermediary between man and God. There are few Messianic ref erences in Wisdom, and the work is a demonstration of the universal and constant activity of God on behalf of His people.

One of the most valued intertestamental books was Ecclesiasticus or “The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach,” its alternative title. The author, commonly referred to as “Ben Sira,” following Jewish usage, was a scribe of the old tradition who had conducted a school in Jerusalem for many years. During this time he compiled his book, parts of which have survived in Heb. in MSS contained in the Cairo genizah or synagogue storeroom. He instructed young men orally, after the fashion of the ancient Heb. sages, and wrote down his teachings to give them permanence, using the canonical Proverbs as a model. His thought was orthodox, giving no hint of Hellenic culture, and was Sadducean in emphasis. He wrote c. 180 b.c., since according to a preface his grandson migrated to Egypt in the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes (170-117 b.c.).

The book is in two parts, comprising chs. 1-23 and 24-50, with a short appendix, ch. 51. The first section based a successful life on reverence for God and observance of the law, while the second praised famous men of Israel, ending with Simon II, the high priest c. 200 b.c. The characteristic themes of Proverbs were expounded and illustrated with examples from the experience of the author. Ecclesiasticus or “the Church Book” was highly valued in the Early Church and was sometimes cited by the rabbis as Scripture. The book is the last great example of Hebraic Wisdom lit., and its typical stress is on the identification of wisdom with the law.

Baruch is a brief work attributed to the friend and scribe of Jeremiah, purporting to have come from the Captivity period and addressed to the Jewish deportees. It falls into three sections: the first (1:15-2:10) being a confession, the second (2:11-4:4) a plea for mercy and pardon, followed by a homily on wisdom, and the third (4:5-5:9) a section of consolation and assurance. A good deal of literary skill is evident in the work, though its dependence on sections of Job, Daniel, and Isaiah are obvious. Baruch was read widely by the Jews of the Diaspora and became part of the synagogue liturgy (cf. 1:14), surviving into the early Christian era. Synagogue usage would suggest an original Heb. composition, and if the book is a unity, which many scholars dispute, it could have been written by 350 b.c. If it came from diverse hands, a 2nd cent. b.c. date of composition seems more likely.

The Letter of Jeremiah is a typical Hel. Jewish attack on idolatry, in the form of a letter from Jeremiah to the Babylonian exiles. Using the original letter of Jeremiah (Jer 29:1ff.) as a model, the pamphlet demonstrated the carelessness of idols and the stupidity of worshiping them. It was written after 300 b.c. in good Gr. and may have had an Aram. original.

Additions to Daniel occurred in the LXX and in Theodotion’s tr. To Daniel 3 was added the Prayer of Azariah, uttered in the fiery furnace, and the Song of the Three Holy Children, chanted as they walked about in the flames. Probably these compositions existed in a Heb. original in the 3rd cent. b.c., the Prayer perhaps originating in Jerusalem. The Song has survived in Christian worship as the canticle Benedicite omnia opera.

Prefaced to Daniel in Theodotion (c. a.d. 175), but following it in the LXX, was the story of Susanna. This beautiful and virtuous wife of a Babylonian Jew was caught by two elders while bathing, and they demanded that she submit to them or else be accused of adultery. Choosing the latter, she was condemned, but the youth Daniel obtained a retrial and exposed her accusers. The literary form of the story is prob. from the 2nd cent. b.c.

The tales of Bel and The Dragon came at the end of the LXX Daniel and were designed to ridicule idolatry and cult worship. The first story showed Daniel exposing the priests of Bel for eating the food offerings which they declared the god himself had devoured, as a consequence of which the king ordered the idol destroyed. The second tale recounted how Daniel was put in a lion’s den for destroying a mighty cultdragon in Babylon. For six days Daniel was fed miraculously and on the seventh was released by the king. These stories comprise pious embellishments of the canonical Daniel and date from about 100 b.c.

The Prayer of Manasseh is prob. the best lit. in the entire Apoc., constituting a model of liturgical form and exuding the genuine air of religious piety. It claims to give the prayer mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:11-19, and its liturgical pattern was in existence c. 400 b.c. The ascription to Manasseh, however, is unhistorical, and the Prayer may not be earlier than 250 b.c. The work lauds God’s majesty (vv. 1-4), makes confession (vv. 5-10), seeks forgiveness (vv. 11-13), and concludes with a doxology (vv. 14, 15). Sin was related to idolatrous practices, but repentance, forgiveness, and divine compassion were stressed.

First Maccabees is a historical work covering events between 175 and 134 b.c., i.e., the struggle with Antiochus IV, the Hasmonean wars, and the rule of John Hyrcanus. The period of Judas Maccabeus may have drawn on biographical material, and special sources may also underlie the traditions of Mattathias. After an introduction (1:1-64), the defiance at Modein was described (2:1-70), followed by the activities of Judas Maccabeus (3:1-9:22), Jonathan (9:23-12:53), and Simon (13:1-16:24). The book thus described the fortunes of a minority group struggling for independence and is of great value as a source which deals authoritatively with the turbulent history of pre-Christian Judaism. Although the book contains certain internal inconsistencies, Josephus used earlier sections of it as source material in compiling his celebrated Antiquities.

In 2 Maccabees the reader passes from a fairly credible historical record to a work of an entirely different nature. It is a theological interpretation of some of the events of 1 Maccabees 1-7, but does not continue the narrative beyond the campaigns and defeat of Nicanor, and shows how divine help for Judaism resulted consistently from timely intercession. The unknown author excerpted much of his book from a five volume history by Jason of Cyrene, being sometimes known as the “Epitomist” in consequence. To him belong the prologue (2:19-32) and the epilogue (15:37-39), and perhaps the letter to the Egyp. Jews (1:1-2:18). The dating of underlying source materials presents problems, but it seems that 2 Maccabees was in existence by a.d. 50. Internal text. disarrangements raise questions as to the integrity of the composition, and there has been much debate over the historical value of the letters and edicts which 2 Maccabees contains. There are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion on the part of the epitomist, his sources, or both. The book stressed the sovereignty of God and His purpose for Judaism and reflected Pharisaic doctrines, particularly in eschatology. See separate articles on the books mentioned.

Bibliography R. H. Charles (Ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913); ibid., Religious Developments Between the Old and New Testaments (1914); C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature (1945); R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (1949); B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (1957); R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1969).