There may, as you say, be little value in continuing this conversation at this point. I have, neverteless, made some comments, concentrating on Jonah. Paul & David have already made some points, which I agree with, about Genesis 1-2. I have posted some material on "myth" separately.
Peter Ruest wrote:
George Murphy wrote (some time ago):...
> > GM: First, however, a general comment. It is all very well to agree in principle that the Bible contains various literary genres, and that not everything is historical narrative. But those who practice concordism never actually seem willing to admit that anything in the Bible that looks as if it _might_ be an historical account didn't actually happen, or didn't happen in the way described there. Genesis 1 & 2, the different parts of the flood story, the 2 accounts of Saul's 1st acquaintance with David - all of these _look_ as if they're composed of material from different sources, but the concordist immediately starts to figure out ways to "harmonize" them as historical narratives - as Peter did when I commented on the flood story. Why is this the case if one seriously entertains the idea that everything doesn't have to be historical narrative? <
>
> PR: George is confounding two things which are quite different issues:
> (1) "never actually seem willing to admit that anything in the Bible
> that looks as if it _might_ be an historical account didn't actually
> happen, or didn't happen in the way described there" and (2) "_look_ as
> if they're composed of material from different sources". An historical
> account may very well be composed of material from different sources,
> such as many cases in the New Testament, where we have, e.g., four
> evangelists (4 sources), but with an implied common historical origin.
> Similarly, Luke in turn indicates having collected information from
> various sources (1:1-3). In such cases, an attempt at harmonization
> certainly is one the first rational steps required to understand what is
> meant by the text. On the basis of differences between the four accounts
> of the resurrection of Jesus, I certainly don't conclude that the
> resurrection didn't actually happen. I agree that the Genesis flood
> story might be composed of different accounts (although I'm not yet
> convinced that it is), but if this is the case, it doesn't yet
> definitely exclude historicity, and if it is in any way historical,
> attempts at harmonization are certainly reasonable. In order to reject
> the historicity of a story that looks historical, much more is required
> than an impression that it looks as if it is composed of material from
> different sources. (By the way, if I am talking of an historical flood,
> I am thinking of a local one, like Dick Fischer).
I have "confounded" nothing. The existence of material from different sources which tell of what are putatively the same events differently is one reason why an exegete will take seriously the possibility that one or both accounts are not historical narratives. That holds for the various gospel ccounts as well as for those of the OT.
> > GM: Am I overstating the matter? Below I mention briefly the book of Jonah, & though this probably _isn't_ made up of material from different sources, there are good reasons to think that it isn't an historical account? Or will Peter & other concordists immediately start explaining that Nineveh really was as big as it says, that Jonah really said more than 5 words, that all the animals really did put on sackcloth, that the capital of Assyria really did undergo a mass conversion, &c. Or will they really consider the possibility that this isn't history. Surprise me. <
>
> For Jonah, as well, George is overstating the matter. At least the
> person of Jonah the son of Amittai is treated as an historical prophet
> of Gath-Hepher in 2 Kings 14:25, which places him somewhere around the
> time of the reign of Jeroboam II (782-753 BC). Niniveh was destroyed in
> 612 BC, and the contents of the book of Jonah are most reasonably placed
> before the fall of Israel (the northern kingdom) in 721 BC. According to
> Gen. 10:11-12, the "great city" of Niniveh apparently included the city
> Niniveh proper, as well as Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen, which are
> distributed along a certain length of the river Tigris. Dur-Sarrukin and
> Balawat may also have been included in "Greater Niniveh". Jonah 3:4
> doesn't say the 5 words were all he said, and 3:8 doesn't say the
> animals "put on sackcloth", but that the king gave the orders "let man
> and beast be covered with sackcloth", which is not the same thing. I am
> not in a position to comment on the extent of the awakening indicated.
> But the way George formulates his argument is certainly prejudicial, not
> really matter-of-fact.
>
> The fact that Jonah clearly has a didactical thrust doesn't preclude
> it's being historical narrative, at the same time. We may compare it
> with its New Testament correlate, Acts 10-11:18 (introducing Peter to
> the requirement of bringing the gospel to the Gentiles), which certainly
> is both didactical and historical. Similarly the presence of miracles
> doesn't eliminate the possibility of its being historical. Does it look
> reasonable to assume that Jesus said, "as Jonah was three days and three
> nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days
> and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Niniveh will
> arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they
> repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than
> Jonah is here" (Mat. 12:40-41), while holding Jonah to be a parable?
> Similar considerations apply to "This generation is an evil generation;
> it seeks a sign, but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of
> Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Niniveh, so will the Son
> of man be to this generation" (Luke 11:29-30). Would a purely
> hypothetical "should not I pity Niniveh?" (Jonah 4:11) make sense in a
> merely didactical parable?
>
> Notice that, up to this point, I haven't indicated whether I believe the
> story to be historical. But I certainly have difficulties taking it as
> entirely fictitious.
Some analysis here will bring out the defects of insisting that all the stories in the Bible are historical narratives. (& in spite of Peter's theoretical disclaimers that he's willing to consider the possibility that they aren't, he never seems to recognize that any story that looks superficially like history is _non_ historical.)
First, I have emphasized that there was a real Jonah and of course a real Nineveh. But that doesn't make the Book of Jonah historical narrative. Historical novels with Joan of Arc or Hitler as characters, or ones set in New York or Tokyo aren't historical simply because they make use of real people or places.
Second, you ask below, 'And who was the "writer of Jonah", if the text itself claims to be written by the historical "Jonah the son of Amittai"?' An interesting question - if the text made that claim. But it doesn't. 1:1-2 is God's command to Jonah, within the framework of the story, to go to Nineveh, not a command to write the Book of Jonah!
Third (I am not following Peter's order), those who are "in a position to comment on the extent of the awakening indicated" agree that there is no evidence at all that such a mass conversion of the capital of the Assyrian empire took place in the time of Jonah. The records are fairly detailed and there is no mention of the worship of YHWH, pagan deities continued to be worshipped down to the destruction of the city, & the Assyrians continued to be as ruthless as ever. If the whole capital of the superpower of the time had been converted to Yahwism, there ought to be some independent evidence of it. There isn't - & not for lack of any records of the period.
Fourth, Gen.10:11-12 doesn't show that all the cities mentioned were included in Nineveh. In fact, the Hebrew word order would naturally mean that Calah, not Nineveh, was "the great city" - & it in fact would have outranked Nineveh in political importance before the rise of the later Assyrian empire. (Vgl.E.A. Speiser, _Genesis_, in The Anchor Bible.)
Fifth, of course one can postulate that Jonah actually preached long sermons in addition to the 5 words actually given in the text - but why? Why not first pay attention to what the text says before introducing all kinds of "might have, could have" explanations to make it fit with what you think should have happened? & in fact the 5 word message and its amazing effect in converting the whole city (including those who only heard of it 2d, 3d, &c hand since Jonah only got a little way into the "great city" & only a few would have heard him) is quite consistent with the whole point of the story.
Because remember - Jonah doesn't _want_ Nineveh to be converted! That's why he ran away in Ch.1 - not because he was afraid of persecution or anything of the sort but because he hated the Ninevites (as, given their treatment of Israel, what Jew wouldn't) & didn't want them to repent. He wanted God to destroy them - vgl. 4:1-3. So he walks a little way into Nineveh, says the minimum message that God has told him to speak, and walks out. He can say, "OK God, I've done what you told me to" - confident that his few words can't have any effect. But God _does_ want Nineveh to be converted, and uses even this feeble means in order to save it.
Sixth, of course "Should not I pity Niniveh?" (Jonah 4:11) make[s] sense in a 'merely didactical parable' - though it is hardly "hypothetical." IT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY! It's the quite non-hypothetical attitude of the God of Israel to the insular Israelite Jonah, expressed in a rhetorical question. (Because Jonah already knows that YHWH is "a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm" [4:2].)
But it's more than that, going beyond the bounds of the story of Jonah. It reaches out and grabs the collar of Peter Ruest and George Murphy and everybody else who hears the story and demands "Should I not pity Nineveh - and Nazi Germany - and al Qaeda - and ... [fill in your nemesis here]."
Seventh, there are a lot of other occurrences which are improbable as history which come together to make the story work. Not only the city of Nineveh but the pagan sailors are converted by Jonah's preaching (1:14). Not only is Jonah swallowed by a fish unknown to science, but he sings a hymn of _thanksgiving_ while still inside it. (& BTW, a hymn which sounds as if he were threatened with drowning [2:5] rather than being digested.) & yes, I exaggerated a bit in saying that the animals actually were clothed in sackcloth - though the command to do so is remarkable enough!
.........................................................
> > GM: Furthermore, you are contradicting what you said in another place - that in inspiring the biblical writers God (inter alia) "fully respects the prophet's personality including his language, culture, lack of knowledge, way of thinking, etc." If the writers' cultures, ways of thinking &c made use of mythic language, legends &c, then God could have used them. <
>
> If you consider what I said to be contradictory, you probably have not
> understood it. I have repeatedly emphasized that I believe God is
> perfectly capable of using a mode of inspiration which respects the
> prophet's personality and culture, while gently persuading him to
> select, from his own repertory of language and thought forms,
> expressions and ways of writing which are not in conflict with what God
> (perhaps not the prophet) knows to be true. Of course, this would allow
> for the possibility of using a myth or legend, but not without clearly
> labelling it as what it is (perhaps at least introducing it by something
> like "Some people tell a story saying..."). I see this as being in the
> same category of statements as saying that God cannot do
> self-contradictory things, that he cannot lie, that he cannot deceive a
> person trusting him, etc. Would such statements be presumtuous?
If I failed to understand what you were saying, it was only to the extent of not realizing that you were going to qualify that statement away. If God "fully [N.B.] respects the prophet's personality including his language, culture, lack of knowledge, way of thinking, etc" then God is willing to make use of mythical ways of thinking in order to convey his message if such ways of thinking are part of the prophet's culture. But then note what I said earlier, which follows here.
> GM: Having said this, I would add that much of the use of "myth" in the Bible is in the form of what Brevard Childs called "broken myth" - i.e., not just uncritical presentation of pagan myths but use of their language to express the faith of Israel. Childs' _Myth and Reality in the Old Testament_ is a very helpful treatment including detailed study of several texts.
> > & the assumption that there has to be an explicit "fiction" label on an account in order for it not to be an historical narrative has no basis. Jesus doesn't do that with most of his parables. When I give a "story sermon" I don't always tell the congregation that it didn't really happen since I can assume that they have some brains. & if the writer of Jonah wanted to tell a story to argue against tendencies toward exclusivism in Israel, he would have weakened its effect by prefacing it with "This is just a story." He could have assumed that his readers had enough sense to see that the humorous exaggerations built into the account make its historical character questionable - though of course many modern readers don't! <
>
> Even though Jesus often doesn't explicitely label his parables as such,
> the context makes it abundantly clear which stories are parables. It is
> just as clear that the collapse of the tower of Siloam, killing 18 (Luke
> 13:4), wasn't a parable, although he mentioned it in order to press a
> didactical point. And who was the "writer of Jonah", if the text itself
> claims to be written by the historical "Jonah the son of Amittai"?Do
> you think such a deceptive label would be acceptable in a canonical
> book? Humorous exaggerations are a normal language feature; they don't,
> by themselves, make a story nonhistorical (e.g. British
> understatements).
But when the whole story is pervaded by humorous exaggeration one ought to start thinking seriously about what kind of account it is.
................................................
> > GM: This is archaic geography & astronomy, not mythology. It is mythological when the world was made out of the body of Tiamat or Ymir, when the stars are deities that control human lives, &c. & the writer of Gen.1 demythologizes this cosmology by, e.g., putting the creation of the "great lights" - sans names that suggest divinity - in the middle of the week to serve definite purposes, & leaving the stars as an afterthought. It's more subtle demythologizing than calling the Babylonian gods nasty names, at least as effective. <
>
> That's one interpretation.
It's an interpretation of the text that makes sense in its cultural context. That is quite different from your interpretation which assumes a scientific understanding of the world for which we have no evidence in the culture in which Genesis was written.
.............................................
> > PR You may not remember what Armin Held and I published in PSCF 4/1999, 231: we consider Gen.1:26f to deal with the creation of humans and 2:7 with the much later call of Adam, who was not the first man. But thinking these two passages talk of the same event is one of the main stumbling blocks for Genesis interpreters. It is probably one of the two main mistakes responsible for the fact that even evangelical theologians seem to feel that the only feasible way to interpret Gen.1-2 is to accept the source-critical speculations (the other main mistake is thinking Gen.1:14ff deals with the creation of the heavenly bodies).
>
> > GM I see little merit in the arguments of that article. The idea that these are "stumbling blocks" is mere assertion on your part. The sun, moon and stars were made on the 4th day: The statement in your article that God "caused the previously permanent cloud cover to break open" is pure speculation. You are rewriting the Bible to make it fit your notions. It is a more serious error to imagine that 2:7 is the "call" of Adam, as I note below. <
>
> I am sorry, George, if you would really mean what you write here, I
> would have to return your compliments of "mere assertion", "pure
> speculation", "rewriting the Bible to make it fit your notions", and
> "serious error". I hope you don't, because in such a way, no rational
> discourse and discussion is possible.
And I am sorry that I have to reject your claim that there is some symmetry in our approaches to interpretation. Concentrating here on Gen.1:14-19, there is simply nothing in the text about any cloud cover breaking open. The claim that that's what the text is talking about is, indeed, pure assertion. If you think that's too harsh, find 20 intelligent but biblically illiterate people who have never read Genesis. (In the present state of Christianity in Europe, that shouldn't be hard.) Have them read Genesis 1 in a good translation and ask them what they think vv.14-19 is about. Let me know how many think it's about "the previously permanent cloud cover breaking open."
& there's no need for any sophisticated knowledge of Hebrew or anything like that. There's nothing about cloud cover in the Hebrew either.
> > PR Adam was not the first human. And "Yahweh God fashioned [yatzar] the Adam - dust [^afar] of the ground" (Gen.2:7) need not imply that this was Adam's miraculous creation out of non-living matter, just as little as for Job, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, who use analogous metaphors, even partly exactly the same words. "I too was taken from clay" (Job 33:6). He pleads with God: "Your hands shaped me and made me ... Re-member that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust [^afar] again?" (Job 10:8-9). But he also specifies: "Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form [not yatzar] us both within the womb?" (Job 31:15). Isaiah 64:8 says: "We are the clay [not ^afar] and you are our potter [participle of yatzar], we are all the work of your hand". Similarly, Jeremiah (1:5) was formed [yatzar] in the womb by God. Thus, "to be formed out of dust" by God, or "formed out of clay" (as a potter does) was a customary metaphor for God's making one !
grow in one's mother's womb. Didn't Job, Isaiah and Jeremiah consider their own births to be historical events (in addition to whatever theological statement they wanted to make in that connection)?
> > GM: If you focus narrowly on the language of Gen.2:7 you can draw parallels with the passages you mention, but reading the entire story of 2:4b-25 makes it quite clear that it is about the first humans. The creature made in 2:7 is "the Adam" - "the human" who is given the commission of all humans, to guarad & keep the earth & to know the animals. "It is not good for the man to be alone" - which he wouldn't have been if he weren't the first human. <
>
> Adam was not told to keep the earth, but to keep or guard [shamar] the
> garden. In it, he first was alone. Outside, there were various Sumerian
> and other tribes, engaged in cruel warfare, idolatry, superstition and
> other perversions. They were apt to immediately kill any foreign
> fugitive encountered, such as Cain. Satan was preparing to lure away
> this new protégé of God. Yes, Adam, brought into a new, beautiful
> spiritual relationship with God, was truly alone in Eden. From time to
> time, God made a new beginning in his "Heilsgeschichte": with Noah,
> Abraham, Moses, David,... Before Noah, it was with Adam. The aim always
> was to prepare a way for his humans to be freed from the slavery of
> godlessness, sin and corruption, into which they were fallen. Adam was a
> representative for all humans - before, in, and after his time - just as
> Christ is the "firstfruits" of the new race of the redeemed ones - of
> all times.
There is just as much mention of the Sumerians outside the Garden as of the permanent cloud cover in Chapter 1 - d.h., zero.
Shalom,
George
Received on Mon Dec 15 14:02:30 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 14:02:31 EST