Peter Ruest wrote:
> In this post, I am just keeping George's last comments, skipping the
> discussions that had occurred before.
>
> george murphy wrote:
> >... 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. <
>
> George, the question whether an apparent narrative is composed of
> accounts from two different sources is not the same thing as the
> question whether this (possibly composite) narrative is historical. Both
> may be true or false, or one may be true and the other false. This is
> the issue I addressed, because you brought these two questions together,
> and, as I understood it, mixed them. Now you are bringing up yet another
> question: whether two narratives of what appears to be the same story
> must be attributed to different authors because they appear to
> contradict each other. There may also be one or more possible ways of
> harmonizing the two accounts without forcing any text: either the
> contradiction is only apparent, or they really relate to two different
> events.
You continue to suggest that I am "confounding" things but I am not. & I am not "bringing up yet another question": It was the question to begin with.
Of course the use of different sources doesn't prove that the events described didn't happen. But when different parts of an account appear to describe events differently then we should consider the possibility that these differences are the result of using material from different sources. And when there are differences to the extent that it's hard to see how both accounts of the same putative event could be correct, we should consider the possibility that one or perhaps both accounts are not accurate historical narrative.
In such a case it may be possible to "harmonize" the 2 accounts on an historical level, or they may actually be of 2 different events. But in some cases such attempts become highly implausible. They often require imaginary reconstructions for which there is no evidence in the text.
> GM: 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.) <
>
> I have clearly said before that I consider various stories in the Old
> and New Testaments as non-historical, e.g. the crowning of a tree, the
> Ohola/Oholiba story, various parables Jesus told and probably others.
> But I have never made an inventory. On the other hand, all the cases you
> have brought up so far are more questionable cases, which other
> theological commentators take as historical. Jonah is a borderline case
> - and I have said before that I am not yet sure whether to take this
> book as basically historical. It's just that so far I have brought up
> arguments for historicity, because you brought up exclusively ones
> against it.
Your realization that these stories are parabolic don't really constitute much recognition "that any story that looks superficially like history is _non_ historical." The parable of the trees choosing a king hardly looks like history & Ezekiel's allegory is clearly set out as such at the beginning (23:4).
I am not going to respond in detail to all your points about Jonah. The kind of argument I'm making is cumulative: One strange occurence could be accepted easily enough in an historical narrative but the totality that I argue for certainly ought to give a person who wants to argue for historicity pause. But if it doesn't there's not a lot more I can add. Nevertheless, I will respond at a few points.
> > GM: 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. <
>
> You only emphasized that there was a real Jonah after I had said so. But
> I agree that this doesn't necessarily make the book historical
> narrative.
I've always agreed that there was a real Jonah. Why would I deny it?
> > GM: 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! <
>
> The formula "The word of the Lord came to [the prophet's name]" (Jonah
> 1:1) appears to be one of the usual ways by which a writing prophet
> introduced his own writing (cf. Hosea, Joel, Micah, Zeph.).
But since the form of Jonah is quite different from that of other prophetic books - d.i., it's the story of a prophet instead of the sayings or writings of a prophet - this proves little. If an Isrealite were writing a story about a prophet, he'd of course begin with the prophet's call using the conventional formula.
> > GM: 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. <
>
> Negative evidence is notoriously weak, and, in addition, you request an
> unreasonable extent of an awakening. What's the historical record of the
> impact of Hezekiah's and Josiah's reforms? Did _all_ Judea repent on the
> basis of John's preaching? (Mat.3:5 says "all"). In order to compare the
> impacts of these "awakenings" with that of Niniveh, we would have to
> look what the spiritual situation of Israel some years after Hezekiah,
> Josiah, or John the Baptist was. We would hardly find much more
> spirituality than in the Niniveh Nahum denounced, although Hezekiah,
> Josiah, John and their spiritual impact on many are undoubtably
> historical. Do we have _any_ biblical report of an awakening lasting 100
> years? Jonah lived 100-150 years before the fall of Niniveh. Humans are
> fickle.
The fact remains that there's utterly zero evidence for any conversion at all - & this in a prominent city in which abundant records have been found. The reforms of Hezekiah & Josiah weren't complete changes of religion, but events in which superficial Yahwists became serious ones. The supposed conversion of Nineveh would have been from the worship of Assyrian gods to Yahweh, something which would have been more radical & should have produced a good deal of social change.
> > GM: 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.) <
>
> I concede this possibility.
>
> > GM: 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. <
>
> I agree that this is a plausible interpretation. All I said is that the
> text does not explicitely say Jonah said nothing but the 5 words
> recorded. But whatever the case, I don't see what this implies about the
> historicity (or not) of the story. In both cases, whether in the story
> or in reality, it would have been a divine miracle, as you indicate,
> therefore no argument against historicity.
> > GM: 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]." <
>
> Yes, I agree that this is the central point of the story. But then, _if_
> the story is indeed but a parable, why did God not send Jonah _in
> reality_ to preach to the Ninivites, if he so pities them? This is what
> I meant to point out.
Why didn't he send prophets to preach in Babylon or Thebes or Athens? I don't know.
>
> > GM: 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! <
>
> The sailors are deeply moved by the very genuine testimony of Jonah (not
> any "preaching"), as well as by their very realistic fear of drowning
> themselves. Conversion may be an exaggeration. We don't know whether
> it's a fish or a whale (old Hebrew probably didn't make the difference),
> and I am not sure whether all of these are scientifically excluded. And
> I am not so convinced as you seem to be that in a whale's belly he would
> not be in danger of drowning before being digested. As to Jonah's hymn
> of thanksgiving, I understand it as having been written after the
> experience. 2:1 mentions his praying while in the belly of the whale,
> but 2:2-9 sounds more like having been formulated afterwards, and having
> being placed between v.1 and 10 as an insertion to mark the dramatic
> situation. If 2-9 were the formulation of his prayer while in the whale,
> it would have to be cast in the present tense, not in the past, which is
> used by all translations I checked. The fact that it is a thanksgiving
> is in accordance with this interpretation.
>
> > GM: 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. <
>
> I did not take back or "qualify that statement away", but added a
> complementary aspect to it. A prophet being divinely inspired to
> formulate a message for his hearers/readers in the name of his Lord is a
> two-sided proposition: it has a human, but also a divine side. If God
> wants to commmunicate something, he certainly is not going to let the
> prophet talk any odd pieces out of his own ideas, without providing him
> with any hint or guidance. There are a lot of possibilities between
> God's dictating word for word and his letting the prophet completely
> unrestrained. I don't see any reason why God _has_ to employ myth, even
> broken myth, unless it is presented as a story in such a way that both
> the prophet and his audience are absolutely clear about the fact that it
> is "just a story" and that it never "happened as told". But if the
> prophet and/or his hearers/readers are of the mistaken impression that
> "it really happened like this", although it never did, there is
> something wrong. Would God use such bad didactics?
>
> > GM: But when the whole story is pervaded by humorous exaggeration one ought to start thinking seriously about what kind of account it is. <
>
> Your arguments have not convinced me that Jonah is fiction. As I said, I
> think it might possibly be a parable, but the evidence for such an
> interpretation remains weak.
WE obviously continue to differ on this. I think the cumulative effect of the points I mentioned make the case quite strong & that, conversely, the cumulaative improbability of the various arguments that have to be brought against these points make the case for historicity quite weak.
>
> > > > 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. <
> > >
> > > PR: That's one interpretation.
> >
> > GM: 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. <
>
> Your claim that Armin Held's and my interpretation assumes a scientific
> understanding of the world _by the ancients_ is without foundation. We
> don't claim Genesis provides _any_ scientific information. We just claim
> that, by God's gracious guidance of the inspiration process, it may be
> _compatible_ with it. Nor do we claim that this compatibility modifies
> the theological understanding the ancients or the early Christians or
> those of the Middle Ages or anybody else can have of the text. But its
> significance is the removal of stumbling blocks for those who are
> cognizant of such scientific realities. As it stands, the text makes
> sense not just in its cultural context, but for people of all times and
> cultures, but not with a mythological interpretation. People of
> different times and cultures may clothe the theological kernel in
> somewhat different worldviews when reading the text, but all can do so
> without running into conflicts with genuine realities known in their own
> times. The natural flexibility of human languages (not mathematical
> ones) would allow for such a possibility. Flexibility doesn't mean
> "anything goes", but it makes dogmatic statements of a single correct
> specific interpretation of a given expression rather questionable.
Today, with our present scientific picture of the world, we can interpret the text in such a way as to agree (at least superficially) with that picture, but there is no reason to think that that was what biblical authors meant. Nor is there any reason to think that the Holy Spirit was trying to bring about any such agreement which would have become evident to readers only centuries after the text was written. This seems to me to be eisegesis, pure and simple.
> > GM: 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. <
>
> Although I have explained many times why I am engaging in this approach
> (together with Armin Held) and what it implies and entails, you still
> seem to misunderstand it. If you want to, I can try again. As I told
> Dave Siemens, if you want to prove our proposal impossible, you'll have
> to deal with it on its own terms, not on yours. You keep pounding on
> some detail, taken out of its context, and deal with it in the context
> of your own axioms. Gen.1:14-19 neither says that there is a solid dome,
> nor that God fixed the luminaries onto it. With respect to your
> suggestion to have 20 intelligent, biblically "naive" people say what
> they think it means, is virtually impossible to put into practice in a
> meaningful way, although I don't dispute the abysmal biblical illiteracy
> among modern Europeans. I have 6 good German translations (which are not
> just Uebertragungen), i.e. Elberfelder, Schlachter, Luther '84, Zwingli,
> Menge, Bruns. But _all_ of them formulate something like "an der Feste",
> "am Himmelsgewölbe", etc., which confirm what is the old and mistaken
> prejudice, as can be seen by contrasting it with the correct translation
> in the NIV Interlinear, which says "in the expanse" for "be-raqia^".
> Similarly, Segond correctly has "dans l'étendu du ciel", Darby "dans
> l'étendu des cieux", Casa della Bibbia "nella distesa dei cieli",
> Sociedadas Bíblicas en América Latina "en la expansión de los cielos".
> In addition, we have, all over Europe, the deplorable state church
> system or its derivatives, which still have the power to influence
> virtually all young people through compulsory classes, and most of the
> time, this occurs in a theologically liberal and
> destructively-bible-critical environment. Even if I ventured to try, I
> probably could not find a single unprejudiced reader in German-speaking
> areas. Unfortunately, the Vulgate "firmamentum" has been impressed upon
> European culture and thinking for nearly 2 millennia, and German
> theology, which passed from scientific ignorance to liberal
> destructive-criticism ignorance, never seemed to be properly motivated
> to correct this old mistake. I am desolate that modern evangelical
> theologians are mostly content to continue this sad state of affairs.
Maybe they know something.
But my argument was not about the translation of /raqia'/. It was that there is no evidence that vv.14-19 describe cloud cover breaking open rather than the formation of the sun, moon & stars in the /raqia'/ - whatever that is.
(Having said that, I also don't find your arguments about /raqia'/ compelling. Calling the NIV translation correct doesn't make it so, any more than my calling NRSV's "dome" correct would make it so.)
> > GM: There is just as much mention of the Sumerians outside the Garden as of the permanent cloud cover in Chapter 1 - d.h., zero.
>
> Have I ever claimed the text to mention Sumerians directly? Of course,
> on the prejudice that Gen.1-2 cannot have any historical basis, they
> must not be found indirectly, either.
They're not in the text Peter! Of course if you assume that these chapters are set in the appropriate historical period, you "know" that there are Sumerians out there. But the text (Genesis 2) says nothing about them, either directly or indirectly.
Shalom,
George
Received on Tue Dec 23 20:44:21 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 20:44:30 EST