Re: [asa] On Job

This doesn't seem very satisfying to me. Jesus seems to refer to the
Ninehvites as historical people. 2 Kings 14:25 also refers to Jonah
apparently as a historical prophet. There are some ways to explain some of
the apparent historical discrepancies such as the three-day walk that aren't
too far-fetched (see, e.g., the article on Jonah in the NIV Archeological
Study Bible). It doesn't seem that Jonah fits into an "either-or" category
-- either it's historical or it's not. Why not conclude that it's
historical, but that it's a genre of history very different than modern
"objective" history? It can be historical and include elements of
accomodation at the same time.

On 10/6/06, Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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 13:19:25 2006