Re: [asa] On Job

I agree with all this

Has anyone read Ernie McMullin's excellent chapter in The Cambridge
Companion to Galileo? If you havent then you must. It is brilliant

Michael

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
To: "'asa'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:14 PM
Subject: 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.
>

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 17:55:30 2006