Notes on the Seforim Chitzonim - pt.2

The attitude of the rabbis to Seforim Chitzonim after the Talmudic period ; Reasons for the exclusion of the Seforim Chitzonim from Tanakh

Part of a series on Seforim Chitzonim. Based on הספרים החיצוניים – ויקיפדיה, with adjustments. First part here:

The attitude of the rabbis to Seforim Chitzonim after the Talmudic period 

Even in a later period, we can still find references in Jewish literature to external books, especially to Ben Sira, Jubilees (ספר היובלים) and Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Some Sages referred negatively to the Seforim Chitzonim, and some positively.

Rashi in his commentary on Tractate Sanhedrin mentions them negatively, stating that these books contain heresy and cause neglect of Torah study.

Rashbam related negatively to the external books and wrote "there is no need to consider external books", but on the other hand, Ramban expressed a positive attitude towards them, and in his introduction to his commentary on the Torah, he brings passages from Wisdom of Solomon (חכמת שלמה), which was probably available to him in its Syriac translation; also the story of Susanna (שושנה), from the additions to the Book of Daniel, was familiar to Ramban in its Syriac source.

It is known that already in the 9th century, at least parts of the Book of Jubilees were preserved by Asaph the physician (אסף הרופא), and possibly also by the students of Saadia Gaon.

In the following generations, the Hebrew versions of the Seforim Chitzonim were lost, and the rabbis used translations and not the original. For example, some commentators interpret the words of the author of the Zohar (זוהר חדש יתרו ל"ז, ב') expressing his sorrow that the Enoch (חנוך ) and the Book of Adam were not preserved in their Hebrew original.

In medieval books such as the Yosippon ( יוסיפון), the Yerachmiel b. Shlomo’s Chronicles (דברי הימים של ירחמיאל בן שלמה) and Avraham Zacuto’s Sefer Yuchasin, stories from the external books are used. From the Asaph the physician, we learn that the author was familiar with Jubilees.

At different times, translations of the external books were made back into Hebrew. For example, there is a Hebrew translation of Maccabees, which dates back to before the 11th century, translations of the Toviah, Judith, and others. R’ Azariah dei Rossi translated for himself some of the external books and used them in his works.
There was a renewed interest in the Seforim Chitzonim during the Jewish Enlightenment period in the 19th century. In that period, Naftali Hertz Weisel and Yehuda Leib ben Ze'ev translated some of the Seforim Chitzonim into Hebrew.

Reasons for the Exclusion of the Seforim Chitzonim from Tanakh

According to the tradition of the Sages, books written by the divine inspiration were included in the Ketuvim section of the Tanakh. The Seforim Chitzonim were not included even though they were written (at least some of them) during the same period, and are even cited as statements of human wisdom (but not divine).

There is no concensus among scholars regarding why the Seforim Chitzonim did not become part of Tanakh. Previously it was commonly argued that these books were rejected for theological reasons, but this view has increasingly been seen as unlikely, for several reasons:

1. The Talmudic Sages indeed spoke against the Seforim Chitzonim. However, there several places in the Talmud where Ben Sira is quoted. These quotations are presented in the same format used for quoting Tanakh: “as it is written” (דכתיב). The use of this phrase to quote from Ben Sira implies not only that everyone is supposed to recognize the source (since it isn't specified in the Talmudic text), but also that there's no need to apologize for reading it.

2. The only hints we have of any debate on the inclusion or exclusion of books from the Hebrew canon pertain to books that were ultimately included: Esther, Ezekiel, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. This suggests the debate was purely theoretical and related only to the nature of books that had already been sanctified and to the caution required when reading them.

3. It's hard to argue that all the unsanctified books belonged to a stream opposing the Pharisees, as there are contradictory examples (e.g., Ben Sira, Tovia, and Yehudit).

4. From the evidence we have, it seems that the non-sanctification of these books isn't a result of theology, but rather of historical circumstances. These circumstances are probably related to the period in which the books were written, as most of the Seforim Chitzonim were written later than the canonical books. However, this reason cannot be the sole determining factor, since according to Bible scholars, the canonical Daniel is about a hundred years later than Enoch in its final version.