Geoffrey D. Miller, «Canonicity and Gender Roles: Tobit and Judith as Test Cases», Vol. 97 (2016) 199-221
Clues from rabbinic literature suggest that several factors were at play in establishing the early Jewish canon, including the dating, theology, and language of disputed texts. Another vital yet overlooked criterion is adherence to patriarchy, and a careful analysis of the Books of Judith and Tobit illustrates how these texts failed to meet rabbinic standards for gender roles. Most notably, the countercultural figures of Judith and Anna would have scandalized the rabbis by their encroachment on traditionally male spheres of activity, their freedom of movement inside and outside the home, and their ability to chastise male characters without repercussions.
202 GeoFFreY d. MILLer
secular songbook since it was frequently sung at banquets and not
afforded the dignity befitting a biblical text (Sanh. 101a). The charge
of secularity was sometimes levelled against parts of the wisdom
literature as well. According to ’Abot R. Nat. 1,4, each of the books
traditionally attributed to Solomon (Proverbs, Qoheleth, and Song of
Songs) should be removed since they “merely contained aphorisms
and were not part of the [holy] writings”. A similar sentiment was ex-
pressed by t. Yad. 2,14 regarding Qoheleth, which only contains
“Solomon’s wisdom” rather than divine counsel.
Texts can only qualify as canonical, therefore, if they are
demonstrably theological and if their theology is sound. The book in
question must present divine revelation as opposed to merely human
cogitation, and it must be internally coherent as well as consistent with
earlier texts revered as sacred by the Jewish community. Along with the
criterion of “adaptability” described above, theological consistency is
one of the driving factors in rabbinic debates over the Jewish canon,
but the weight of this criterion should not be exaggerated. After all, the
non-disputed texts reveal much theological diversity among themselves,
forming “a literary and conceptual framework of written scriptures in
which mercy and sacrifice, promise and fulfillment, grace and
responsibility are all allowed to retain the integrity of their individual
witness — not harmonized” 9. Job and deuteronomy, for example, offer
very different views on the doctrine of retribution, and theological
tensions exist even within the Pentateuch, as seen in the deuteronomic
revision of earlier laws from exodus. Theological consistency is certainly
important but not a sine qua non for a book to be admitted into the canon.
other factors were involved in determining canonicity but are less
significant. Numerous scholars have pointed to the dating of texts as a
reason for exclusion 10. Some rabbinic and early Jewish sources claim
9
S. CHAPMAN, The Law and the Prophets. A Study in old Testament Canon
Formation (FAT 27; Tübingen 2000) 284.
10
e.g. J.N. LIGHTSToNe, “The rabbis’ Bible: The Canon of the Hebrew Bible
and the early rabbinic Guild”, The Canon Debate, 163-184, here 184; L.M. MC-
doNALd, Forgotten Scriptures. The Selection and rejection of early religious
Writings (Louisville, KY 2009) 78; S. zeITLIN, “An Historical Study of the Can-
onization of the Hebrew Scriptures”, The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew
Bible. An Introductory reader (ed. S.z. LeIMAN) (New York 1974) 145; S.z.
LeIMAN, “Inspiration and Canonicity: reflections on the Formation of the Biblical
Canon”, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (ed. e. SANderS) (Philadelphia,
PA 1980-1983) II, 56-63, here 61; Moore, “Why Wasn’t the Book of Judith
Included?”, 65.