Re: [asa] On Job

Jon,

I appreciate the contribution. I agree with your friend that allegory
doesn't mean scripture can't be "true" in the broad sense, yet that
doesn't satisfy me with respect to this passage. Exigetically it
seems that Jesus speaks of history, if only because he makes analogous
reference to the (presumably historical) Queen of Sheba. Still, given
that the Markan narrative lacks the Ninevite reference entirely,
merely indicating "no sign will be given this generation", I'm willing
to accept it _could_ be a rhetorical device.

Commenting on the subject of allegory, I have a 1924 Peake's
commentary that so argues for Jonah:

".. the Book of Jonah is a protest of the most beautiful and most
powerful kind, calling on Israel to acept the mission appointed to it
and save the Gentiles by the proclamation of the truth." It goes on
to assert that Jonah is a stand-in for Israel, Ninevah the Gentiles,
and his rescue by the fish symbolically represents the Exile and the
Restoration. Are we to really believe that the original readers of
Jonah understood the story as such? It seems implausible.

Chris

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 14:35:26 2006