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.
204 GeoFFreY d. MILLer
foreign oppressors, and they even translated their sacred texts into
Aramaic and Greek. Nonetheless, Hebrew still held pride of place as
the native Jewish tongue, and several rabbinic tractates express un-
easiness about reading scriptures written in another language. Accord-
ing to Yad. 74a (4,5), any text originally composed in Hebrew but
translated into Aramaic ceased to render the hands unclean, i.e., ceased
to be considered sacred. Meg. 9a similarly warns against the dangers
of reading a scriptural text in Greek, implying that the Septuagint
translation was a unique case in that it was undertaken only at the in-
stigation of King Ptolemy of egypt. According to rabbi Judah, “When
our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the
Torah” 14. However, the same passage acknowledges that the Aramaic
portions of ezra and daniel are to be regarded as sacred, and that
translating them into Hebrew would actually render them profane.
Moreover, Šabb. 115a avers that scriptures “written in any language”
must be considered sacred, and so it seems that the rabbis were not
united on the criterion of language. As with the question of dating, the
language of a text could pose a challenge for its canonicity, but this
would not necessarily preclude its inclusion in the Jewish canon.
A careful reading of the Talmud and rabbinic literature suggests
that these four criteria played some role in the formation of the early
Jewish canon, even if modern scholars have exaggerated their impor-
tance. When applied to the books of Judith and Tobit, one can see how
the rabbis would have been hesitant to regard these books as sacred
scripture, yet, by themselves, these factors could hardly have justified
their exclusion. As shown above, the criteria for dating and language
are somewhat tenuous measures and not sufficient to rule out a disputed
text. even though Judith and Tobit were likely composed in the third
and second centuries BCe respectively 15, the Book of daniel also falls
within this timeframe, as does Sirach, which continued to be held
in high regard by many rabbis well into the early medieval period.
As for linguistic hurdles, both Judith and Tobit were preserved for cen-
turies in Greek through their inclusion in the Septuagint, and most
14
See also Gen. Rab. 36,8 and Deut. Rab. 1,1.
15
on the dating of Judith, see oTzeN, Tobit and Judith, 132-135; d.L. GerA,
Judith (Commentaries on early Jewish Literature; Berlin – Boston, MA 2014) 34-
44. For Tobit, see J. FITzMYer, Tobit (Commentaries on early Jewish Literature;
Berlin – New York 2003) 51-52. on a potential second-century date for Tobit, see
G. ToLoNI, L’Originale del libro del Tobia. Studio filologico-linguistico (Madrid
2004) 153-157.