I find your statement incredible but naive. Of course, this is your opinion. But I would suggest to you that the fundamental concepts of the "original sin" are reflected in the Jewish law code. All those sacrifices pointing to the blood of Christ wiping away sin. Jesus being the sacrificial lamb is a very profound reference in Christian dogma. So it is clear you have to separate your writings from the interpretation of your writings by the Jews.
But they do have an interesting concept of a messiah. Can you comment on that for me. They have a concept of two messiahs. One is "messiah ben Joseph" and one is "messiah ben David." You can look both up on Wikipedia for the basics. So what gives? These two messiahs are Jewish concepts and interpretations, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_ben_Joseph
The other issue of concern is that generally speaking, Christians think Jews add way too much tradition to the scriptures they think the Jews are just incorrect in everything they do, even when that criticism is unwarranted, which in turn, means there are many fundamental misconceptions Christians have of Jewish law, custom and folklore.
But since we are speaking about Scripture and the Jewish take on Scripture, I hope you don't mind me sharing this perception I have of Jewish literature. I visited the Holocaust Museum in West Los Angeles, which has a small little Jewish library. I came across a folkloric version of "Neamias" only to discover he was considered to be what we'd call in our modern culture, a rather "flaming queen." (yes, you should laugh!) It was shocking. The story made no bones about Nehemiah being infatuated with the handsome Artaxerxes. When he requested to return home to Jerusalem, he was depicted as sitting on the king's lap and batting his eyes flirtatiously at the king. I was in shock. Of course, the historical background for Persia at that time and even the Bible reflect on Nehemiah being a eunuch.
But then it dawned on me how similar the story of Nehemiah was to the elements in the Book of Esther. In fact, it became quite clear to me that the Book of Esther was actually an adaptation of the story of Nehemiah, except the character of Nehemiah was split into different characters to reflect two themes related to Nehemiah's story; one being Nehemiah's personal relationship with this king, the other being his high position as cupbearer to Artaxerxes. Thus Nehemiah's character was split into the two characters of Esther and Mordecai. Mordecai, of course, would reflect on Nehemiah's Babylonian name: Marduka.
It's the basic same story though. Basically Esther/Nehemiah get bad news from home and want to do something about it. They both get the king in a good mood before dumping his/her tantrum on him. The king empathizes and at some point down the road later on, we find the Jews armed in self defense against their enemies. Only in the Book of Esther the story gets exaggerated and the Jews triumphantly kill off half the Persians (haha!) In the canonical Nehemiah, of course, the reference is to the Jews arming themselves against attacks while they repaired the outside of the wall.
But here's the point. Jews have these Yeshivas where they discuss every word every rabbi ever wrote. They analyze all the scriptures. So why is it something so obvious got past them? I mean, surely they could see that the book of Esther was based on Nehemiah being a "queen of the court" in another way! Certainly, they know that the character of Mordecai is a take-off of Nehemiah's Babylonian name, Marduka. Right?
In the end, the Book of Esther is only semi-historical when you superimpose this story during the time of Artaxerxes and Nehemiah. It's a popular fable parading as history. The Book of Esther, therefore, is likely what Timothy specifically had in mind:
1 Timothy 4:7 "But turn down the false stories which violate what is holy and which old women tell."
Esther is a wonderful fairy tale turned historical. Women love telling these fables. And that is what Esther is, a fable. But it is based on Nehemiah and thus has pseudo-historical benefits. For instance, it mentions that Mordecai became so honored in Persia, he was second to the king. That's confirmed by the bas reliefs at Persepolis showing Nehemiah following behind King Artaxerxes in several scenes. But this also links Mordecai to Nehemiah.
Getting back to the NT canon though, it is noted that there are three books in the popular canon that are considered inspired but are not cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers. Note this reference under "Apocrypha - Additional Ancient Testimony" (It-1 p. 121):
"One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrphas is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiates, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant."
Of course, it is significant, now that we know the Book of Esther is just a pseudo-historical fable. It's far more acceptable to have Nehemiah as a woman sitting on the kings lap and batting her eyes at him than a man. It is understandable why Nehemiah was converted to a beautiful Jewess. But the fact is, that Song of Solomon and Esther are definitely not "inspired," with the exception of Song of Solomon which might have been personally inspired by Satan. Point being, there is absolutely no problem dismissing the Book of Esther from the sacred canon, now that we know it is a historical fable.
Even so, I'm concerned why Jews haven't recognized this or if they have, why they don't make this public?
Have you ever heard of the "Kabbalah"?
At any rate, when you criticize the Bible, OT or NT, you also have to decide which books to include as part of the "inspired" or "sacred" canon, and some include Esther, Ecclesiates and Song of Solomon, which others like myself definitely dismiss as apocryphal. Further, the concept of a internal canon should be looked at. That is, the effective canon that is created by OT books cross-quoted from by the NT Bible writers. If you make that a strick rule, then Esther, Ecclesiates and SOS must be excluded from the canon. Of course, Esther is non-historical, SOS is blatantly pagan, and Ecclesiates might be a general book of good wisdom, but simply is not inspired. Critical textual discussions should thus exclude those three books.
Thanks.
