Apocrypha

We tend to misunderstand "apocrypha" and assume it means heretical or false, at best fiction, when in fact the ancient view fully understood that there was three categories of text: canonical, apocryphal, and heretical.

Categories of Text

Our modern view of writing has only two broad categories:

1. fiction
2. non-fiction

We tend to assume these two categories are universal, existing in all cultures through all of time; when in fact these are a modern invention exclusively from western secularism. For every other culture and every other period of time, even prior to Christianity, we had three broad categories of writing:

1. Canonical
2. Apocryphal
3. Heretical

Canonical refers to texts that are accurate, true, and divinely inspired. We still have this understanding today, albeit mostly constrained to theology. Similarly, heretical refers to texts that are false or blatantly misleading. And yet apocryphal is a category that is completely absent in our modern view. An apocryphal text is not false nor misleading, for that would be classified as heretical. So what is this mysterious 3rd category?

The word "apocrypha" means hidden or private, not to be confused with "occult" which is better understood as "to be kept secret".

At a time when canonical texts were read publicly as part of liturgical worship, apocryphal texts were read in private with careful discernment. The closest we have today is the expression, "it's not for everybody". Like reading Dostoyevsky in order to better understand Christianity; this isn't something you'd see in liturgical worship, but this is something you'd read at home.

And again this is different than "occult", which is a modern concept born from enlightenment era "secret societies" where something should stay "hidden". Apocryphal texts were never hidden nor banned, they are just simply not canonical nor heretical. This doesn't fit into our modern worldview, which is unfortunate as this is a very useful category. Much of today's fiction and non-fiction could be classified as heretical, but a surprising amount of it would best be classified as apocryphal. For example, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago is not the divinely inspired word of God, but it's also not false nor misleading, it'd rightfully be in the Apocryphal section in an ancient library.

Old Testament

Most protestants have an old testament that is strictly canon only, and "the apocrypha" usually refers to a set of books that were explicitly left out of the King James Bible, and yet remain in Catholic Bibles or in Orthodox Bibles.

These additional books are sometimes referred to as the "extended canon", which sounds like a misguided reaction to the modern misunderstanding of the word, apocryphal. Importantly, these books were never really canonical. They were always apocryphal (with few exceptions), and yet were included in the Bible for a reason.

For example, 1 Enoch was always apocryphal and has never been considered canonical even in the Ethiopian Orthodox Bibles that faithfully preserved 1 Enoch. Is this book false? No, in fact the canonical Bible, Genesis in particular, explicitly references the book of Enoch. For those wanting to understand the references, the apocryphal book of Enoch explains exactly who Enoch was, who the nephelim were, and this provides a deeper understanding of the flood, of angels, and of demons.

Yet is anything in the book Enoch necessary for one's salvation? Clearly no. While we cannot understand the New Testament without understanding the canonical Old Testament, which is the soil in which the New Testament emerges, we can obviously understand the New Testament without 1 Enoch. It is, "not for everyone", and would make little sense if read aloud in liturgical worship. Yet it is still profitable for Christians who wish to go deeper into Genesis to also read 1 Enoch.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W5JUU9czCxQ