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 201
“offer guidelines for living” 6. In other words, a scriptural text must
direct its audience toward an authentically Jewish lifestyle and enable
them to remain true to that identity. Moreover, it must have enduring
appeal by speaking not only to the present generation but to subse-
quent ones as well, having applicability to multiple contexts. Israel’s
core beliefs and values must be reiterated in every age and be relevant
to any situation in which Jewish people find themselves. As James
Sanders puts it, a scriptural text must be “adaptable”, constantly pro-
viding “relevance to the ongoing life of the community that passes it
on from generation to generation” 7.
Canonical texts must also be rooted in the past, showing continuity
with Israel’s theological tradition. A scriptural text should not contradict
the teachings of texts already considered authoritative but must be
consistent with them, especially if those teachings stem from the Torah.
Several of the disputed books struggled to meet this criterion. According
to Šabb. 13b, at least one scholar wanted to remove the Book of ezekiel
since “its words contradicted the Torah” 8. The tractate never specifies
which section(s) of ezekiel presented a problem, but any tension in this
regard made a text suspect. Canonical texts must also be internally con-
sistent. According to Šabb. 30b, several rabbis debated over the Book
of Qoheleth since “its words are self-contradictory”.
Some of the disputed books were not considered theological at all,
and two of the most commonly discussed texts, esther and Song of
Songs, never mention God. The latter was also viewed by some as a
6
L.M. MCdoNALd, The Biblical Canon. Its origin, Transmission, and Au-
thority (Peaboby, MA 32007) 64. See also G. BurNS, “Canon and Power in the
Hebrew Scriptures”, Canons (ed. r. VoN HALLBerG) (Chicago, IL 1984) 65-84,
who defines this same criterion as “power”.
7
J. SANderS, “The Issue of Closure in the Canonical Process”, The Canon
Debate, 252-263, here 256.
8
All quotations from the Talmud and Genesis Rabbah are taken from the Son-
cino editions. The Talmud frequently speaks about books being “removed” (zng),
as here in Šabb.13b. Some scholars debate whether the term refers to removing a
book from the canon or merely storing away sacred texts because they are unfit
for popular use. A similar dispute has arisen regarding the phrase “defile the
hands”, which the rabbis often use when discussing canonicity. The consensus
view has been that “defiling the hands” implies sacredness (and thus canonicity),
but some scholars contend that the phrase merely refers to any text containing the
divine name yet not authoritative for the community. It is not possible to resolve
the debate about either term here, but most scholars regard a “removed” book
as one omitted from the canon and a book that “defiles the hands” as sacred. See
further LeWIS, “Jamnia revisited”, 157.