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