I call this phrase an abomination. Granted, it fits the second use of “apocryphal” (from answers.com, below), but as long as the first meaning alone perfectly conveys the obvious meaning of the construct, I find “possibly” rather superflous.
Of course this should be a pitting and not a GQ, but I’m just checking now that even Cecil is using it.
I don’t see much wrong with 1 and 3. Number 2 is redundant. Rumors are of doubtful authenticity by definition. “Wild rumors … raced through the Russion trenches …” ought to be enough.
I see a difference between calling something “apocryphal” meaning that after extensive research there simply is no credible evidence and “possibly apocryphal” meaning that less diligence has been undertaken and that the speaker is still very open to the possibility that proof is available. In my opinion it’s a useful distinction.
You’re in Norway? That’s not a good source for definitions of classical words.
Main Entry: apoc·ry·pha
Pronunciation: &-'pä-kr&-f&
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology: Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide – more at CRYPT
1 : writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalized a : books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament – see BIBLE table b : early Christian writings not included in the New Testament