Hitzonim | Outsiders

I have a new book! The Jewish Annotated Apocrypha. I have no idea how this one slipped under my radar for so long! Released in October 2020, how am I just now learning about this book? I’m surprised both because, as you all well know, this is an area of deep interest for me, and also, an earlier annotated version of sacred texts in this series, the Jewish Annotated New Testament (you’ll often see me abbreviate this as ‘JANT’), is an indispensable guide in my study and writing.

I wanted to summarize the Introduction, especially the mention of “HaSefarim HaHitzonim” (the external books), given its connection and somewhat conceptual foundation of this very space where you are now reading! So hang out for a few. You can still expect a post tomorrow for our planned Thursday parsha summary, where we’ll dive into a new Torah book, Deuteronomy.

The editors and authors of the introduction, Jonathan Klawans and Lawrence Wills, for what it’s worth, a born Jew and Jew by choice, begin by addressing each word in the title: Jewish, Annotated, and Apocrypha taking the last noun first. Apocrypha is itself a Protestant concept. The editors are quick to acknowledge (and give thanks) to earlier generations of Christian translators, editors, and scribal authorities for preserving the books of the Apocrypha. Truly, without these Christian leaders, the Jewish literature of the Apocrypha would be lost to history.

Yet the editors also note that Apocrypha, as an adjective, has come to be associated with falsehoods, given the non-canonical status of these texts; still, even this history is complicated. For example, the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, does manage to include some of these texts, evidenced by ancient codices, read: bound books verse scrolls, that preserve all or partial manuscripts of the Septuagint. Interestingly, like the tradition of preserving the Apocrypha, the tradition of the Codex as a literary unit also comes by way of Christian tradition. Does this make the Apocryphal texts Christian if preserved by Christians and organized by Christians? Klawans and Wills explain, “The Jewish books of the Apocrypha made their way into Christian Bibles precisely because Jews were reading and learning from these books too, in many of the same locations,” citing Alexandria, Judea, and Rome. Despite Christian preservation, the Apocrypha is “Jewish” in just the same way as large portions of the Christian Old Testament, despite being transmitted through Christian communities, is of Jewish origin.

I understand the potential for felt tension here when seeking to identify, “Whose books are whose?” But to return to a salient and foundational commitment that I’ve held for at least several years: while the Christian Old Testament and Christian New Testament are “Christian,” we could just as easily speak of the Hebrew Bible, or Tanakh, and Jewish Apocalyptic literature, much of it apocryphal by the way, as Jewish writings that serve as the foundation for the OT and NT, in Christian understanding. Indeed, as far as I’m concerned, it is largely the outcome of Christian theological interpretation that distinguishes between the rightful “owners” of the sacred documents. The Tanakh is shorthand for Torah (the Law), Neviim (the Prophets), and Ketuvim (the Writings). Should things have gone differently here or there, I could see the writings continuing along nicely with the Jewish good news of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

I suspect that to my Jewish siblings, and especially to the ears of my rabbinic friends, what I’ve said sits precariously on the fence between acceptable and heretical. We should not lose sight of the fact that the following description fails to distinguish between Jesus and a Second Temple period rabbi: One who interprets Torah, follows ritual purity laws, observes the sacrificial system, travels to the Temple for festivals, and calls Jewish people to teshuvah, or return, aka repentance.

I’m no dummy, in our contemporary context, Christianity and Judaism are different streams, with different theologies, different understandings of scripture, and markedly different worldviews. And no, I do not think Jesus is the fulfillment of Jewish prophetic tradition. What I do mean to assert, however, is that largely, neither Jews nor Christians fully appreciate how Jewish the New Testament really is, and despite being preserved in Christian codices, the apocryphal texts are Jewish, too.

In other words, that Christians may have preserved these texts, it is not improper to call them Jewish, and this means a little less pearl-clutching for both Christians and Jews alike! Sorry about that aside, back to summarizing the Introduction.

Klawans and Wills explain that not being canonical, there is no set order for the sequence of books in the Apocrypha. Still, considering that the Tanakh can also be described in units of Law, History, Prophecy, and Poetry, loosely corresponding to Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim, they organize their presentation of the Apocrypha in like-division of literary genres within the apocryphal corpus. They have also purposely excluded writings that are explicitly Christian, meaning apocryphal texts that are written or expanded long after a clear split between the traditions. To the extent that this approach undermines the statements I’ve just made above about blurring lines of distinction between the traditions, I suppose I’d have to save that conversation for a fireside chat with the editors. Someone have my people call their people.

The desiderata used by the editors to identify books for inclusion in their collection are two-fold: first, that the books are Judaically informed, and second, that the books should reflect historical awareness. Similarly, in the selection of contributors for the commentary and essays included in the volume, the editors have prioritized academic qualifications and specialties in the field of Second Temple period Judaism rather than ethnic or apologetic orientation. They recognize that this has brought them many Jewish scholars, but not all scholars included are Jewish, and the editors explain that this collection of Jewish scholars is by outcome, not intention.

As I noted in my post explaining the choice of name for this blog, Hitzonim, the editors discuss the Talmudic origins of HaSefarim HaHitzonim, or External Books, and point to a collection of Apocrypha published under this same name in the 1930s, but with little draw for Jewish readers, specifically, which is a gap that I’ve also noted in my study on this topic for a decade plus.

Ok! That’s it for now. You will no doubt soon begin seeing references to the Jewish Annotated Apocrypha in my posts alongside the already extant JANT references.

Keep up the reading, friends! One person’s heresy is another person’s apocrypha! Until tomorrow, when we discover a “Scroll of Torah,” from the 7th century BCE King, Joshiah!