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.
CANoNICITY ANd GeNder roLeS 203
that the age of prophecy ceased with ezra in the fifth century, suggest-
ing that divine revelation had now come to a close. According to Jose-
phus, the prophetic period lasted “from the death of Moses until
Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes” 11, and the thirteen
prophetic books of the Jewish canon all fall within this range. The
Tosefta seems to rule out Sirach for this very reason, rejecting it
as non-canonical along with “all other books written from then on”
(t. Yad. 2,13). ezra enjoys great esteem throughout rabbinic literature,
receiving a status comparable to that of Moses. The revelatory period
begun by Moses was brought to a close with ezra who restored the old
covenant and brought the people back to Israel and its Law. ezra is
sometimes dubbed “Moses, our rabbi”, and his stature as a defining
figure for biblical prophecy is best illustrated in 4 Ezra, where “over
a period of forty days, God ‘re-reveals’ to ezra the twenty-four books
of Scripture” 12.
Many of the books debated in the Talmud were composed after the
time of ezra (e.g. esther, Sirach), as were all of the deuterocanonical
books. However, it does not appear that this belief in a fifth-century
cessation of prophecy was universal. The second-century book of 1
Maccabees acknowledges that no prophet exists in its own day, but
two passages indicate an expectation that a prophet would come in the
future to instruct the people regarding cultic matters and governance
(1 Macc 4,46; 14,41). Another second-century book, Sirach, was very
popular among many rabbis and cited as if authoritative 13, and the
rabbis’ acceptance of the Book of daniel, without any objection in the
Talmudic literature, makes little sense in light of this criterion, having
been completed in the second century BCe as well. The rabbinic em-
phasis on ezra and the occasional reference to time of composition in-
dicate that the late dating of texts (i.e. after the Persian period) posed
a problem for canonicity, but that it was not a deciding factor.
Another commonly cited factor in omitting books from the Jewish
canon is the language of the text. By the time of the rabbis, Jews had
grown accustomed to speaking and writing in the languages of their
11
Ag. Ap. I,38; I,40. All translations of Josephus’ works are from the editions
by S. MASoN Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden – Boston,
MA 2000-2014). Artaxerxes I reigned 464-424 BCe.
12
LIGHTSToNe, “The rabbis’ Bible”, 174. See 4 Ezra 14.
13
e.g. Ḥag. 13a; Yebam. 63b; B. Qam. 92b. Altogether the rabbis cite Sirach
over eighty times. See P. SKeHAN – A.A. dILeLLA, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB
39; New York 1987) 20.