RE: [asa] On Job

Chris,

I forwarded your question to a friend of mine who is a Christian, a Ph.D.
student in history, and who talked with me some time ago about the
historical/evidence issues that suggest that Jonah was probably allegorical
rather than literally true; i.e. many of the statements given in the text
contradict known facts about Ninevah of the approx. 7th century B.C. period,
etc. At the time I was surprised with this, because I had always assumed it
to be historical, and was a little uncomfortable admitting the possibility.

Below are some of my questions and his response. I thought he made some
worthwhile comments to be shared in this discussion.

>>Jon Tandy wrote>>
>I know you made some comments about Jonah possibly not being a historical
>but rather literary work, and I was curious if you have any reaction to the
>comment immediately below about Jesus' reference to the "men of Ninevah"
>standing in judgment against this generation. I realize Jesus' statement
>could be interpreted as a rhetorical device without absolutely demanding
>historicity of the account; and that the problems of the story are not just
>literary, but have to do with historical verification of the facts
presented
>in Jonah. Yet, if those men were not literal, and were not literally
>converted at the preaching of Jonah, Jesus' statement that the Jews would
be
>judged by those men seems vacuous, even as a polemic argument, if not
>founded in fact.

His response:

In response to your query, I can see at least four or five different
approaches to the question that could still affirm Jonah as a parable. Not
all of the approaches seems very satisfying (such as the idea that the words
were not literally Jesus' words, but like all the gospels, somehow a
traditional record of what Jesus spoke--which I find somewhat
problematic--this idea is both true and not true). When we approach this
question, we are suddenly plunged into all the problems of how narratives
are constructed, transmitted, etc. These are not problems that can be given
sound bite answers or neat slogans.

In the end, I am inclined to see Jesus' words as a rhetorical device, like
you suggested. Personally, I don't see how any of this means that we take
Scripture less seriously if we interpret Jonah as a parable or Genesis 1 and
Genesis 2 as separate creation accounts that significantly modify Babylonian
creation stories. Some accounts in Scripture are more "historical" than
others; some Scripture is obviously not history, but a different genre
altogether. The real problem here is not Scripture itself, but us. We want
Scripture to conform to modern ideas that "history=facts=truth." This is
surely a very impoverished view of truth. If Christians for millennia could
primarily interpret Genesis allegorically, surely we can, too. (Allegory was
the primary way that "pre-modern" people read Scripture, hence Genesis being
understood as something to do with the fall and salvation when it really
does not say such a thing literally in the most ancient texts.)

When we want a modern construct like science to apply to an ancient text not
written in a world where people understood modern "science," we place
ourselves at the center of the universe. Scripture actually meant something
meaningful to people other than ourselves (hence our myopic preoccupation
with the book of Revelation without ever asking how first century Christians
understood the work). Calvin is useful here with his idea that God
accomodated His self to the understanding of people in their own times and
places. When Scripture is turned into a divine "fact" book, we do violence
to the text. When Scripture is taken as a reliable guide to living and the
human condition, we glimpse its enduring, salvific power.

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Chris Barden
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 9:49 AM
To: Don Winterstein
Cc: asa; Robert Schneider
Subject: Re: [asa] On Job

If I may interject here -- and this may be slightly off-topic -- is the
tendency to read Jonah as literal bolstered by Jesus' mention of the story?
His analogy to the three days in the fish can be easily read as allegorical,
true, but what about Matthew 12:41? "The men of Nineveh will stand up at
the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the
preaching of Jonah, and now one[a] greater than Jonah is here." This
doesn't sound like Jesus treated the story as allegory.

Chris

On 10/5/06, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think the message of Jonah was intended for Israel, not Nineveh.
> The purpose was to tell Israelites that God could easily be more
> successful with other nations than he was at the time with his own, so
> they'd better shape up. It was working the jealousy angle. Hence the
> book is allegory or parable.
>
> Also, the most far-fetched event IMO is the zealous repentance of king
> and citizens of what was probably the most dominant city of the time
> at the word of a probably unknown foreigner speaking on behalf of a
> probably unknown foreign God. The Bible tells us that God has rarely
> (if ever) had anything like that kind of success in dealing with human
> hearts; to expect it among foreigners who were dominating the world at
> the time would be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h.
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Schneider
> To: Don Winterstein ; asa@calvin.edu ; Carol or John Burgeson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 5:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] On Job
>
>
> I would follow some OT scholars who say that the Book of Jonah is
> constructed in the literary form of a "mashal," an extended parable
> with theological purposes. The purpose of the book is to teach that
> the justice, mercy and forgiveness of God is universal. There is
> another purpose: once God gives you a call, you can try to run away,
> but you cannot escape his call. Now if anyone wants to believe that it
> is literally and historically a fact that Jonah spent three days in
> the belly of a great fish (not a whale), they are welcome to do so.
> But the truth of this story for God's purposes is not dependent upon
> their doing so.
>
> I suppose it is not easy always to discern what in the OT is to be
> taken as a bald historical account or as story teaching theology. It
> is best to keep an open mind. But there are elements of literary form
> and story construction that can help one to make one's own decisions
> about this. I don't doubt that God will forgive me if I err on any
> single interpretation.
>
> Bob Schneider
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Winterstein
> To: asa@calvin.edu ; Carol or John Burgeson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] On Job
>
>
>
> Would you assign Jonah similar status? Then, how about Elijah calling
> down fire on the captains of fifty? Once we get started, how do we
> know where to stop?
>
> Don
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carol or John Burgeson
> To: asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 6:37 AM
> Subject: [asa] On Job
>
> Vernon commented: "Can such passages as Job 1:6-12 =
> and 2:1-7 be 'interpreted' to mean something different from their =
> account of actual meetings, actual discussions and actual
> consequences? = And if, in your view they must be accepted as real
> events, what might we =
> usefully glean from them?"
>
> The most reasonable interpretation of Job is that it is a morality
> play. To consider it as sober factual history is ludicrous. Sort of
> like believing ALICE IN WONDERLAND.
>
> Burgy
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 6 12:15:23 2006