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 205
Christians read these texts in Greek. However, the discovery of five He-
brew and Aramaic fragments of the book of Tobit among the dead Sea
Scrolls confirmed that the book was composed in a Semitic language,
probably Aramaic 16. A Semitic Vorlage might underlie LXX Judith
as well, though current scholarship seems to favor a Greek original 17.
The two books fare even better when measured against the criteria
of adaptability and theological consistency. Jews of the Second Tem-
ple Period would easily find these books theologically useful and rel-
evant to their current situation. In keeping with the literature of the
time, God, while never appearing or intervening directly in either story,
is actually mentioned dozens of times in each book, operating behind
the scenes to deliver the people from an Assyrian threat and to insure
their survival either in their homeland (Judith) or the diaspora (Tobit).
These books also address many pressing concerns for communities
struggling to maintain their Jewish faith and culture in the midst of
Gentile hegemony. As foreign domination and amalgamation to other
cultures threaten the existence of Judaism both at home and abroad,
Judith and Tobit remind their audiences of the fundamental beliefs and
values that have held them together for centuries, employing the genre
of didactic novel to do so 18. Both books encourage the persecuted
faithful to hold fast to their ancient traditions, and both reiterate key
theological emphases found in earlier biblical literature, such as
prayer, theodicy, probationary suffering, the enduring validity of the
Torah, divine providence, endogamy, adherence to the dietary laws,
the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, and the restoration of the
16
Nearly all scholars agree that Tobit was originally composed in a Semitic
tongue, and most opt for Aramaic. For a survey of the scholarship, see FITzMYer,
Tobit, 21-22, nn. 72-73, and B. eGo, Buch Tobit (JSHrz 2/6; Gütersloh 1999)
876-877, n. 11. For a more detailed analysis of the arguments in favor of an Ara-
maic Vorlage, see Moore, Tobit, 34-39; M. HALLerMAYer, Text und Überlieferung
des Buches Tobit (dCL.St 3; New York – Berlin 2007) 175-179.
17
See J. CorLeY, “Septuagintalisms, Semitic Interference, and the original
Language of the Book of Judith”, Studies in the Greek Bible. essays in Honor of
Francis T. Gignac (eds. J. CorLeY – V. SKeMP) (CBQMS 44; Washington, dC
2008) 65-96; B. SCHMITz – H. eNGeL, Judit (HThKAT; Freiburg im Breisgau
2014) 40-43.
18
FITzMYer, Tobit, 31; eGo, Buch Tobit, 884; L. WILLS, The Jewish Novel in
the Ancient World (Ithaca, NY 1995) 88-92; G.W.e. NICKeLSBurG, Jewish Litera-
ture between the Bible and the Mishnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction
(Minneapolis, MN 22005) 34, 101; P. dAVIeS, “didactic Stories,” Justification and
Variegated Nomism. Vol 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (eds. d.A.
CArSoN – P. o’BrIeN – M. SeIFrId) (Tübingen – Grand rapids, MA 2001) 99-133.