The name is the feminine form of Aphek, but the towns mentioned as in its vicinity do not seem to allow for identifying it with any of the several towns called Aphek.

APHIAH

(A·phiʹah) [perhaps, renewed or breeze].

A Benjamite and one of King Saul’s ancestors.—1 Sam. 9:1.

APHIK

See APHEK No. 2.

APHRAH

(Aphʹrah) [dust].

A place mentioned by Micah (1:10) evidently in the Shephelah or the Plains of Philistia, according to the other towns mentioned in the context. Micah evidently makes a play on words in saying: “In the house of Aphrah [dust] wallow in the very dust.”

APOCRYPHA

(A·pocʹry·pha) [things hidden or concealed].

The Greek word a·poʹkry·phos is used in its original sense in three Bible texts as referring to things “carefully concealed.” (Mark 4:22; Luke 8:17; Col. 2:3) As applied to writings, it originally referred to those publications not read publicly, hence “concealed” from others. Later, however, the word took on the meaning of spurious or uncanonical, and today is used most commonly to refer to the eleven additional writings declared as forming part of the Bible canon by the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deutero-canonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from proto-canonical.

These eleven additional writings are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The exact time of their being written is uncertain, but the evidence points to a time no earlier than the second or third century B.C.E.

EVIDENCE AGAINST CANONICITY

While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Nehemiah and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “For there are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty [the equivalent of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From the time of Artaxerxes up to our own everything has been recorded, but the records have not been accounted equally worthy of credit with those written before them, because the exact succession of prophets ceased.”—Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The lnterpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163).

Inclusion in Septuagint does not prove canonicity

Arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that the apocryphal books were originally included in that work. Many, perhaps most, of the apocryphal writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work.

Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such apocryphal writings into the Septuagint Version and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.

Additional ancient testimony

One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the eleven writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.

Not without weight also is the fact that leading Bible scholars and “church fathers” of the first centuries of the Common Era, on the whole, gave the Apocrypha an inferior position. Origen, of the early third century C.E., as a result of careful investigation made such a distinction between these writings and those of the true canon. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and Amphilochius, all of the fourth century C.E., prepared catalogues listing the sacred writings in accord with the Hebrew canon and either ignored these additional writings or placed them in a secondary class.

Jerome, who is described as “the best Hebrew scholar” of the early church and who completed the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible in 405 C.E., took a definite stand against such apocryphal books and was the first, in fact, to use the word “apocrypha” explicitly in the sense of noncanonical as referring to these writings. Thus, in his Prologus Galeatus to the Vulgate, Jerome lists the inspired books of the Hebrew Scriptures in harmony with the Hebrew canon (in which the thirty-nine books are grouped as twenty-two) and then states: “Thus there are twenty-two books . . . This prologue of the Scriptures can serve as a fortified approach to all the books which we translate from the Hebrew into Latin; so that we may know that whatever is beyond these must be put in the apocrypha.” In writing to a lady named Lœta on the education of her daughter, Jerome counseled: “All apocryphal books should be avoided; but if she ever wishes to read them, not to establish the truth of doctrines, but with a reverential feeling for the truths they signify, she should be told that they are not the works of the authors by whose names they are distinguished, that they contain much that is faulty, and that it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay.”

Differing Catholic views

The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), although even he in later works acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.” However, the Catholic church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E. It was, however, not until as late as 1546 C.E., at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of these additions into its catalogue of Bible books, and this action was deemed necessary due to the fact that, even within the church, opinion was still divided over these writings. John Wycliffe, the Roman Catholic priest and scholar who, with the subsequent help of Nicholas of Hereford, in the fourteenth century made the first translation of the Bible into English, did not include the Apocrypha in his work, and the preface to this translation declared such writings to be “without authority of belief.” Dominican Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534 C.E.) and called by Clement VII the “lamp of the Church,” also discriminated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.

It is to be noted as well that the Council of Trent did not accept all the writings previously approved by the earlier Council of Carthage but dropped three of these: the Prayer of Manasses and 1 and 2 Esdras (not the 1 and 2 Esdras that, in the Catholic Douay Bible version, correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah). Thus, these three writings that had appeared for over 1,100 years in the approved Latin Vulgate version were now excluded.

Internal evidence

The internal evidence of these apocryphal writings weighs even more heavily against their canonicity than does the external. They are completely lacking in the prophetic element. Their contents and teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. The writers in some cases are guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of earlier inspired writers. They show themselves to be under Greek influence, and at times resort to an extravagance of language and literary style wholly foreign to the inspired Scriptures. Two of the writers imply that they were not inspired. (See the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-40, Dy.) Thus, it may be said that the best evidence against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself. A consideration of the individual books here follows:

TOBIT (TOBIAS)

The account of a pious Jew of the tribe of Naphtali who is deported to Nineveh and who becomes blinded by having bird’s dung fall in both of his eyes. He sends his son, Tobias, to Media to collect a debt and Tobias is led by an angel, impersonating a human, to Ecbatana (Rages). En route he acquires the heart, liver and gall of a fish. He encounters a widow who, though married seven times, remains a virgin due to each husband’s having been killed on the marriage night by Asmodeus, the evil spirit. Encouraged by the angel, Tobias marries the widowed virgin and, by burning the fish’s heart and liver, he drives away the demon. Upon returning home he restores his father’s sight by use of the gall of the fish.

The story was probably written originally in Aramaic and is estimated to be of about the third century B.C.E. It is obviously not inspired by God because of the superstition and error found in the narrative. Among the inaccuracies it contains are these: The account states that in his youth Tobit saw the revolt of the northern tribes, which occurred after Solomon’s death in 997 B.C.E. (Tobit 1:4, 5, JB), also that he was later deported to Nineveh with the tribe of Naphtali, in 740 B.C.E. (Tobit 1:11-13, Dy) That would mean that he lived more than 257 years. Yet Tobit 14:1-3 (Dy) gives the age of Tobit as 102 years at the time of his death.

JUDITH

This is the account of a beautiful Jewish widow of the city of “Bethulia.” Nebuchadnezzar sends his officer Holofernes on a campaign to the W to destroy all worship except that of Nebuchadnezzar himself. The Jews are besieged in Bethulia by the tremendous host, but Judith pretends to be a traitoress to the Jews’ cause and is admitted to the camp of Holofernes, where she gives him a false report of the conditions in the city. At a feast, in which Holofernes becomes drunk, she is able to behead him with his own sword and then return to Bethulia with his head. The following morning the enemy camp is thrown into confusion and the Jews gain complete victory.

As the Catholic translation, The Jerusalem Bible, comments in its introduction to the writing: “The book of Judith in particular shows a bland indifference to history and geography.” Some of the inconsistencies pointed out in that introduction are: The events are stated as occurring during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who is called the king “who reigned over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh.” (Judith 1:1, 7 [1:5, 10, Dy]) The introduction and footnotes of this translation point out that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon and never reigned in Nineveh, since Nineveh had been destroyed earlier by Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.

Concerning the traveling itinerary of Holofernes, this introduction states that it is “a geographical impossibility.” The New Bible Dictionary, by Douglas (p. 45), comments: “The story is frank fiction—otherwise its inexactitudes would be incredible.”

The book is thought to have been written in Palestine during the Greek period toward the end of the second century or the start of the first century B.C.E. It is believed to have been originally written in Hebrew.

ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER

These form six additional passages. Preceding the first chapter in some ancient Greek and Latin texts (but 11:2–12:6 in Dy) is the first portion, of seventeen verses, presenting a dream of Mordecai and his exposing a conspiracy against the king. Following 3:13 (but 13:1-7 in Dy) the second addition presents the text of the king’s edict against the Jews. At the close of chapter four (but 13:8–14:19 in Dy) prayers by Mordecai and Esther are related as the third addition. The fourth is made to follow 5:2 (but 15:1-19 in Dy) and recounts Esther’s audience with the king. The fifth comes after 8:12 (but 16:1-24 in Dy) and consists of the king’s edict allowing the Jews to defend themselves. At the close of the book (but 10:4–11:1 in Dy) the dream presented in the apocryphal introduction is interpreted.

The placement of these additions varies in different translations, some placing them all at the end of the book (as did Jerome in his translation) and others interspersing them throughout the canonical text.

In the first of these apocryphal sections Mordecai is presented as having been among the captives taken by Nebuchadnezzar, in 617 B.C.E., and as being an important man in the king’s court in the second year of Artaxerxes’ reign a century and a third later. This statement that Mordecai occupied such important position so early in the king’s reign contradicts the canonical part of Esther. The apocryphal additions are believed to be the work of an Egyptian Jew and to have been written during the second century B.C.E.

WISDOM (OF SOLOMON)

This is a treatise extolling the benefits to those seeking divine wisdom. Wisdom is personified as a celestial woman, and Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is included in the text. The latter part reviews the history from Adam to the conquest of Canaan, drawing upon it for examples of blessings for wisdom and calamities for lack of it. The folly of image worship is discussed.

Though not mentioning him directly by name, in certain texts the book presents Solomon as its author. (9:7, 8, 12) The Catholic translation, The Jerusalem