Esther-Job

Job is a unique combination of historical narrative and Ancient Near Eastern dialectic (dialogue) literature. Esther is a historical narrative.

A defense of Esther starts here with matters related to canonicity and thereafter contains links listed below.

On the book of Job as Wisdom literature, this item [off site] about allegations of borrowing from pagan literature is relevant.

Esther 2:5-6, 12: Wouldn't Esther be an old hag by this time, according to the dating? Maybe that's why she needed that excessive beauty treatment?

Job 1:1: Is Job described as sinless -- contrary to the teaching of Romans 3?

Job 1:6, 2:1: If Jesus is God's only son, what about these "sons of God"? Critics need to read carefully: Jesus is described as God's only begotten son -- all others are sons of God via other means (whether by adoption or by authority).

Job 5:2: Resentment kills a fool, and envy slays the simple. Dennis McKinsey makes the smart-alecky remark that "God himself should have died on numerous occasions." The context of course is proverbial and therefore not absolute, and even so, was said by Eliphaz and is therefore not necessarily guaranteed to be endorsed, for it is a quote. Nevertheless, this is typical of McKinsey's wiseacre approach to scholarship.

Job 11:7: Canst thou by searching find out God? Doesn't this counterpoint Rom. 1:20, which says God is obvious? No, first because it is merely a quote of Zophar the Namaathite, Job's discussion partner, in a back and forth about life, the universe, and everything -- all that is said by people in the Bible is not necessarily endorsed by the sponsor. Second, the context indicates that the question is whether one can match God in knowledge and power, not merely find Him. ("If he cut off, and shut up, or gather together, then who can hinder him?")

Job 21:17: How can this say, "Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?" when elsewhere the Bible says the wicked will not live long? In all cases the cites are from proverbial literature and are not absolutes.