Canonicity and Gender Roles: Tobit and Judith as Test Cases Many Jews and Christians read the books of Judith and Tobit in antiquity, and members of both groups afforded them a high status in their communities. Both texts were read by Greek-speaking Jews as part of the LXX, copies of Tobit were preserved by the Jews at Qumran in both Hebrew and Aramaic, and many Christians included these books in their old Testament 1. The rabbis, however, seemed less enthusiastic about these books and chose to omit them from the Jewish canon. They offered no rationale for their decision, but a careful reading of the Talmud and other early rabbinic literature suggests that gender was a key factor 2. In this article, I will re-examine the scholarly consensus regarding the criteria the rabbis used to determine if a text should be deemed canonical or not. I will begin with a summary of the criteria identified by scholars as most important, followed by an analysis of their appli- cability to the books of Judith and Tobit. After showing how these cri- teria fail to account for the exclusion of these two books, I will turn to the question of patriarchy and gender roles in the rabbinic corpus. In the final two sections of the article, I will read the books of Judith and Tobit in light of the rabbis’ androcentrism, demonstrating how the vi- olation of patriarchal norms in these books — especially by the figures of Anna and Judith — was the primary obstacle to their canonicity. 1 For the use of both books among early Christians, see C. Moore, Judith (AB 40; Garden City, NY 1985) 88-90; Id., Tobit (AB 40A; Garden City, NY 1996) 52-53. 2 A few scholars have hinted that gender may have played a role in the can- onization process, at least for Judith. See, for example, C. Moore, “Why Wasn’t the Book of Judith Included in the Hebrew Bible?” No One Spoke Ill of Her. essays on Judith (ed. J. VANderKAM) (early Judaism and Its Literature Series; Atlanta, GA 1992) 61-72, here 65; T. CrAVeN, Artistry and Faith in the Book of Judith (SBLdS 70; Chico, CA 1983) 117-118. No one has developed this thesis fully, however. The closest is T. ILAN, “Canonization and Gender in Qumran: 4Q179, 4Q184, 2Q18 and 11QPsalms”, Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Cul- ture. Proceedings of the International Conference held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (July 6-8, 2008) (eds. A. roITMAN – L. SCHIFFMAN – S. TzoreF) (Leiden – Boston, MA 2011) 513-545, who argues that concerns about gender influenced the Masoretic scribes in their decisions about which form of a given text to include in the Tanak. BiBlica 97.2 (2016) 199-221