Interesting discussion, but I'd like to point out that these "false stories" and "fables" are not what the elite rabbis were focussed on but stories that "old women" liked to tell. This suggests we are talking about very popular literal "fables" in circulation at that time that women enjoyed. In that sense, one could hardly exclude Judith and Esther.
Esther, in fact, is just an adaptation of a more flagrant folkloric tale of Neamias (Nehemiah) where in the original form it is clearly a funny story that women would love retelling just because it is so much fun. I read a version of Neamias in the Holocaust Museum Library in West Los Angeles, where when Nehemiah is requesting from Artaxerxes to return to his homeland, he is actually sitting in the lap of Artaxerxes and batting his eyes at the king. Later when in Jerusalem dealing with the rebuilding of the walls his character is quite colorful as well and exaggerated with this "flailing his arms", etc. Clearly, an ancient form of the exaggerated gay stereotypes we see in the popular culture now. In the meantime, isn't what is so adorable about the story of Esther fablelike? The beautiful Jewish woman, more beautiful than any other woman in the land is chosen by the king and at some point she comes to the rescue of her people? What is so interesting is that the world of literary analysis hasn't figured out yet that the Book of Esther is simply an adaptation of these earlier exaggerated folkloric tales of Nehemiah, only someone adopted a well-developed historical procedure when revising history of splitting the character of Nehemiah, who was both a favorite of the king and the cupbearer (a position equivalent to Prime Minister) into Esther and Mordecai. "Mordecai" was based on Nehemias' Babylonian name, Marduka. Nehemiah was also known to be a eunuch and was very greatly honored by Artaxerxes which is quite evident by his being depicted even in the bas-reliefs at Persepolis alone with the king, and serving throughout the entire 41-year rule of Artaxerxes save for a 12-year interruption when Nehemiah was governor in Judea from the 20th to the 32nd year of Artaxerxes.
Here Nehemiah is following directly behind Artaxerxes (Xerxes) while he was co-ruler with Darius.
Here Nehemiah is shown alone in a bas-relief with King Artaxerxes, the chin covering an indication that he is a eunuch.
The high court position only second to the king is the position of the cupbearer. In the above bas-relief you can see that Nehemiah is holding a cuptowel. This represents his "badge of office" just as the individual standing behind him in the bas-relief above with Darius is holding a sword, indicating he is the military chief, clearly a high position but still second to the prime minister. Here's a quote from Esther regarding the high position of Mordecai in the court of Artaxerxes per the LXX:
Esther 10:2 As for all his energetic work and his mightiness and the exact statement of Mor´de·cai’s greatness with which [U]the king magnified him[/U], are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Me´di·a and Persia? 3 For Mor´de·cai the Jew was [U]second to King [Artaxeres, LXX] [/U]and was great among the Jews and approved by the multitude of his brothers, working for the good of his people and speaking peace to all their offspring.
Now the version in circulation at this time was the LXX version of Esther and so the above would contradict the canonical Ezra/Nehemiah on face value, since it shows Mordecai as the prime minister and second in command rather than Nehemiah, Artaxerxes' cupbearer in the Bible. However, it may not have been fully understood that because the Jews were sympathetic with hiding the identity of thier favorite king Artaxerxes, who was also Xerxes from the Greeks, that the historical connection of Nehemiah with Artaxerxes was being cryptically transferred this way in the story of Esther and Mordecai. Esther, of course was a fictional character loosely based on the eunuchoid and effeminaet nature of Nehemiah and perhaps his love for the handsome Artaxerxes. It would clearly fall into the category of a "fable", but that would violate what is holy, which is the sacred word, because the fable is a pseudo-historical fable.
Another thing that is amazing, is that the splitting of characters to cover revisionisms is quite developed. For instance, in the Bible we find the characteer of Darius the Mede nearly non-existent in the Babylonian records. Per the Bible Darius the Mede conquered Babylon with Cyrus, then became king for six years, after which Cyrus became king over both the Medes and the Persians. But per extant Babylonian records such as the Cyrus Cylinder, it mentions the events the Bible attributes to Darius, the Mede certainly, but split between the two characters of Ugbaru and Gubaru, with one conquering Babylon with Cyrus, then dying shortly thereafter, and the other ruling as governor for 14 years and dividing up the empire into satrapys (something the Bible sayd Darius the Mede accomplished). When we combine the two with the presumption of revisionism, we apply six out of the fourteen years to an actual kingship meaning Darius the Mede remained as governor at Babylon, a second capital in the empire, for the remaining 8 years. Cyrus ruled for 9 years after he became king in Babylon. This dovetails, though, perfectly with Kambyses, the son of Cyrus, beginning his rule as co-ruler with his father Cyrus from Babylon for one year. Obviously, when Darius the Mede died, Kambyses then took his place of administration at Babylon. Therefore, when we see a clearly split-character process like this, it's an automatic red flag that there has been a revision. When history was revised characters and events were not necessarily just wiped out of history and replaced, they often survived in a cryptic reference or in new characters carrying different aspects of the revised character. In the case of Nehemiah, he became Esther and Mordecai.
But don't we see something wrong here? For all the detailed analysis of words and knowledge of gnosticism and other literature, why haven't the scholars seen that the Book of Esther and the story of Nehemiah were not the same? These are the same story. An effeminate favorite of the king gets shocking news from home and then plies the king with wine to get him in a good mood before making the request to go and rescue his people. In the process of doing that, we find the Jews arming themselves against their enemies. It's the same story line. Further, if you know that Mordecai is Marduka who is Nehemiah, and you compare the artwork from Persepolis which shows Nehemiah as the chief cupbearer to Artaxerxes, you have a direct confirmation that the historical character who is the "prime minister" and second to the king Artaxerxes in Esther has to be the same as the cupbearer to Artaxerxes in Nehemiah. And the high honor paid to Nehemiah by Artaxerxes referenced in Esther has to do with how Artaxerxes depicted Nehemiah/Marduka so prominently in the artwork at Persepolis. There are at least two other bas-reliefs from Persepolis that always shows Nehemiah in the highest court position directly behind Artaxerxes.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_th/2F3_72dpi.png
http://oi.uchicago.edu/gallery/pa_iran_paai_per_th/2E9_72dpi.png
Thus we have a perfect example of a Jewish "fable", one about a beautiful Jewish woman popular with the great King of Persia, something that is light and popular that would be a favorite story with old women, but that is presented as historical that directly contradicts the Bible, and thus "violates what is holy."
In turn, once we understand the context relates to historical fables, the "genealogies" mentioned can likewise be considered in this context. The common familial genealogies of individuals would not be of issue here, certainly. Further, there would be no encouragement to avoid these "genealogies" unless they were problematic and contradictory of scripture. So what genealogies could these be? Gnostic geneologies of the pagan false god pantheon? Absolutely not! What is clearly pagan has nothing to do with the scripture. But then that leaves us historical genealogies throught the "aeons" to consider. This historical genealogies of kings throughout the ages, if they were revised at some point, would indeed prove problematic when compared to the Bible's chronology. Case in point, the genealogies found in Herodotus and Xenophon, both written in the 4th century BCE which mentions that Darius I ruled for 36 years and Xerxes followed him on the throne for 21 years then followed by Artaxerxes who ruled for 41 years. All of this contradicts the Bible which assigns only a 6-year rule to Darius I and combines the history of Xerxes and Artaxerxes into one, besides assigning Nehemiah as the prime minister of Persia during the reign of Artaxerxes. So you have historical contradictions by both "genealogies" of the Persian kings as well as historical fables during the same time of these Persian kings that "violate what is holy."
So it all works out when "genealogies" and "fables" popular with old women are linked together as the same type of historical contradiction to the Bible, and which, of course, to resolve, would be something that becomes a matter of "research." Plain, simple research of historical records, not some new and unique concept of "research" here. See how "genealogies" takes on a mystical meaning and "research" becomes a mystical meaning in some intellectual references when just more direct and common reference works out so well?
Further, the fact that especially the Book of Esther was a clear contradiction to the Bible is the fact that the Jews rewrote the book, creating the "Hebrew version" which is the one used in the Bible, but they changed who Esther was married to. The original cryptic story/fable was clearly set in the setting of the kingship of Artaxerxes since it was a takeoff of Nehemiah's love for the king and being his cupbearer and being so greatly honored by him. But that didn't work with the Bible's history, a clear conflict with Ezra/Nehemiah. So it was revised in the Hebrew version so that Esther was married to "Ahasuerus" which could be understood to be Xerxes, a separate king from Artaxerxes, even though they were both the same king.
So this is what also troubles me. Often we have scholars discussing with great finnese and detail of how gnostic writing are influencing the Bible and this and that, but none of it references the historical impact of revisionism by the pagans. Biblical corruption and revisionism is treated like it was quite common, but if anyone mentions the pagans revising their history they are labeled as crackpots or the scholars pretend they don't understand a thing, like they have never heard of it nor understand it.
But this addresses the same ongoing tendency of the academic world to develop and encourage Bible-bashing as much as possible with a suppression of anything substantial in archaeology or comparison with other records that would support the Bible, things we seldom hear. It amazes me that we presume, for instance, in a Jewish Yeshiva where the students discuss almost every line every rabbi ever wrote, and every detail of the Midrash and the Torah and the Misnha, plus likely all the apocryphals works and fables and folklore, that they couldn't figure out that the book of Esther wasn't an adaptation of the story of Nehemiah.
This, brings us to another related reference here though. We see that Paul is dismissing these "fables" as something that violates what is holy. In the context that this is directly referencing Esther at the very least, it would seem strange if the NT Bible writers would quote from that Book if they considered it non-historical. Thus we find, indeed, that the NT Bible writers cross-quoted from all the books of the OT that are in the current cannon except for some later editions of three books, those books being, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon.
The Song of Solomon, now that we mention it, could be another one of those "fables" or "false stories" that women like to tell. It's a story about another beautiful woman, a romance with a king. But the book is said to have been written by Solomon and considered perhaps semi-historical, perhaps one of his many wives or concubines, but in fact, it is a book about the pagan Mother goddess, with specific references to Artemis of Ephesus, a goddess that did not come into existence until long after Solomon appeared. So certainly if the SOS was considered in any way historical, even being written by Solomon, it would contradict the Bible. The SOS actually talks about this goddess having "breasts like date clusters" and "goats in her hair", a clear reference to Artemis of Ephesus who amazingly does have breasts like date clusters and goats in her hair!
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/papers/coffeyartemis/artemisephesus.jpg
Now, why is it that such cryptic references of subtle revisionism is so developed, and something as direct as the description of this later form of this goddess is comletely missed? Even those claiming some of the Bible is based upon pagan ideas should have been quite happy to see the Shulamite maiden described so specifically as this goddess. Why? Because no real woman has "breasts like date clusters" nor "goats in her hair hopping down" from a mountain. But that is precisely understood when you look at Artemis of Ephesus. Thus it is imortant at this point to note, in the dismissal of certain works that might have been considered historical and that might have eventually found their way into the credible Bible's canon, that the NT Bible writers cross-quoted from the books that were holy in the OT but did not quote from others that later found their way into the canon.
Here is the concept and quote from the Insight volume under "Apocrypha" about cross-quoting (Vol 1, page 121).
Additional ancient testimony . One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha 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, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.
Only problem here is, that since Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king per the Bible and we know Song of Solomon clearly references false goddesses, we would wonder why the NT Bible writers would have quoted from those books anyway. Of course, they don't! That would thus underscore the general concensus that the NT Bible writers included those books considered sacred but excluded those books or writings they would not consider sacred, and we can see why. Thus the excluding of Esther and Song of Solomon in the cross-quoting was another way Paul had of dismissing these "fables" as unholy as he is encouraging Timothy not to pay any attention to them.
Again, one wonders where the in-depth scholarly examination and theoretical development of many things far more apparent seemed to get skipped over when it leads to supporting the Biblical position? Why the consistently biased scholary anti-Biblical stance and the absolute silence for the proto-Biblical? I'm sure most don't want my answer to that, so I won't bother.
Still, quite an interesting topic.
IN SUMMARY: Different people have different views about what these "fables" were and these "genealogies" are and why they are being dismissed. My view is that these are references to some of the popular writings in those times that were considered historical that contradicted the Bible's history, and these "genealogies" were the popular historical genealogies from the "ages" (aeons) past of kings that would contradict the Bible's timeline or kingship genealogies, particularly during the Persian Period where this became quite evident and where historical fable (Esther) and the historical geneologies of Persian kings came together to both contradict the Bible's history and timeline. That's what I think is the reference here and that's why Paul is saying to ignore this information since really it is not a matter that related to practice of faith but historical "research." Others think there is a more complex and sophistocated reference here, and they certainly are entitled to that opinion; it is interesting and important to hear all different sides.
JCanon
