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.
200 GeoFFreY d. MILLer
I. Criteria for Canonicity
despite numerous studies on the subject, the precise details of the
canonization of the Hebrew Bible remain elusive. No official record
of the process survives from antiquity, and “one searches in vain
through the talmudic and midrashic literatures for a systematic ac-
count of the formation and closing of the biblical canon” 3. The so-
called “Council of Jamnia” in 90 Ce was thought to have set the limits
of the Jewish canon, but scholars now recognize that this event was
merely a rabbinic discussion of disputed books rather than an official
gathering whose decisions were binding on all Jews 4. A first-century
date for the finalization of the canon is unlikely given that both the
Jerusalem (ca. 400 Ce) and Babylonian (ca. 600 Ce) Talmuds evince
ongoing debates among the rabbis about particular books. Nonetheless
the basic contours of the canon were probably coming into place dur-
ing the Mishnaic period (ended 220 Ce). Josephus (Ag. Ap. 1,39-41)
and B. Bat. 14b both list the books that Jews today deem canonical,
and other contemporaneous texts attest to a canon of the same size,
possibly with the same books (e.g. 4 Ezra 14,22-48; Jub. 2,23-24).
The rabbis clearly wrangled over a number of texts in the first
centuries of the Common era, but they rarely indicate the reasons for
the disagreement. Passages from the Talmud typically identify the text(s)
in question — usually esther, Qoheleth, Song of Songs, or Sirach —
and the positions of various rabbis regarding the books but say little
otherwise 5. Modern scholars have pored over these tractates and carefully
searched for common traits among the disputed books as well as other
relevant texts from the Second Temple Period (e.g. Jubilees, 1 Enoch).
The resulting consensus is that the following factors were operative in
allowing or denying books entry into the Jewish canon: dating, language,
appeal for Jewish readers in their ancient cultural milieu, and theological
consistency with already established texts. I will consider each of these
in turn, beginning with the latter two since they carry the most weight.
In order for a text to merit an authoritative status in the Jewish
community, it must address the people in their own context. More
specifically, it must aid the community “in its own self-definition” and
3
S. LeIMAN, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture. The Talmudic and
Midrashic evidence (Hamden, CT 1976) 51.
4
See J. LeWIS, “Jamnia revisited”, The Canon Debate (eds. L.M. MCdoNALd
– J. SANderS) (Peabody, MA 2002) 146-162; A. SuNdBerG, Jr., “The Protestant
old Testament Canon: Should It Be re-examined?” CBQ 28 (1966) 194-203.
5
See, for example, Yad. 73a (3,5); Yoma 29a; t. Yad. 2,13.