Re: [asa] On Job

At 01:23 PM 10/6/2006, Dick Fischer wrote:

>Either the fish-man was a lingering mythological
>belief based upon the prophet, Jonah (Oannes),
>or else the prophet was somehow seen as a
>fulfillment of their myth. Even today fish-men
>cartoons can still be seen in Mosul.
>
>There are some intriguing historical elements
>that point to the book of Jonah as being an
>historical narrative. Not enough to prove it
>true, unfortunately, but certainly enough to
>suggest it is not allegorical at all. ~ Dick

@ I think you're right. See item below. ~ Janice

[snip]

Section V: The Sign of Jonah

[snip]

.....So, if we are correct in affirming that
Jesus did speak of the Sign of Jonah, the
question remains as to what exactly he meant by it.

Matthew gives us his definition (12:38-40) [16],
which may well have comported more or less with
how such a phrase would have been understood in
that day and time, i.e. divine vindication. On
the other hand, it could be argued that this is
simply the evangelist's spin on an otherwise
enigmatic saying of Jesus as the former viewed it
through the lens of what transpired during Jesus'
passion and the events of Easter.

Thus it would be helpful to have some
corroboration for Matthew's understanding of the "Sign of Jonah".

When considering the events that are narrated in
the book of Jonah, it seems remarkable that the
Ninevites would have responded so favorably to
Jonah's pronouncement that God was going to
destroy their city, driving them to the point of
repentance in ashes and sackcloth. It seems
unlikely that Jonah would have gotten such a
response merely by delivering the brief message
as it is contained in Jonah 3:4-5.

This suggests that there might be more to the
story than is contained within the brief summary
found in these verses. Bayer states, in regards to this:

Merrill suggests a further reason for the
immediate response of the Ninevites to Jonah's
preaching and possible explanation168; since
'Nineveh' denotes 'fish' and the city had a
fish-symbol, identifying Nineveh's mythological
roots, the tale of a sojourn in the belly of a
fish must have proven most overwhelming to the
Ninevites, leading to immediate repentance169. Of
particular interest are Merrill's elaborations on
the mythological traditions regarding the founder of Nineveh.

Assyrian mythological traditions identify the
founder of Nineveh as a fish-god who is possibly
identical with Oannes. The Ninevites thus may
have participated in the Oannes-myth, placing
great significance on fish-symbolism. Merrill
concludes: "Such a sign (regurgitation from a
fish) would be particularly convincing to a
people whose aetiology taught them that their
city had been founded by a fish-god"170 We must
stress, however, that Merrill's entire argument
rests on the above-stated conjecture that Jonah
spoke to the Ninevites of his miraculous survival
in the depths of the sea (ibid. 135).

And indeed it is conjectural, as we are not told
that they were told of this in the actual book of
Jonah. However, it remains likely that such a
positive response of the Ninevites entailed that
something more took place to influence them than
a mere pronouncement of doom that we are told
about in Jonah 3:4-5. If this is true, news of
Jonah's miraculous fish story could have fueled
the impetus of belief by the Ninevites that Jonah was to be taken seriously.

Bayer also surveys some literature from the
inter-testamental and Rabbinic periods in hopes
of further elucidating the Sign of Jonah. Of the
references discussed, the following two are worth quoting:

3 Mac 6:8 refers to the fact that the
contemporaries of Jonah are believed to have
heard about the miraculous recovery of Jonah from
the depths of the sea177. Jeremias translates 3
Mac 6:8 as follows: "On Jonah, who passed into
the belly of the monster which lived in the
depths, thou, O Father, didst direct thine eyes
…, and thou didst show him unharmed to all his
hearers."178 Vögtle challenges Jeremias'
rendering of as 'hearers', suggesting the
rendering of 'relatives' instead179. However,
according to the word usage and context180, the
most appropriate rendering for is 'associates'
(Genossen), suggesting that the miraculous
resuscitation of Jonah became known to the sailors. (ibid. 136)

The rendering of as 'associates' would harmonize
with PRE 1, 10181 which states: "… the sailors
saw the signs ([ôwth]) and great wonders which
the Holy One - blessed be He - did to Jonah"182.
We agree with Vögtle that PRE 1, 10 only refers
to the sailors, not to the Ninevites183.
Nevertheless, it is significant that Jonah's
resuscitation from the belly of the fish is
identified as [ôwth]/ . Despite the apparently
late date of the PRE, it is likely that prior to
the recording of this tradition the Rabbis
believed that the miracle of Jonah's
resuscitation had been known to the sailors and
that this miracle was considered to be an [ôwth].
(ibid. 137; emphasis added; note: PRE = Pirque de Rabbi Eliezer)

Thus it is quite possible that the audience of
the Gospels (as well as contemporary Jews) would
have automatically understood the "Sign of Jonah"
to be referring to Jonah's resuscitation and
escape from being trapped inside the giant fish.
So, Jesus' reference to the "Sign of Jonah"
likely carried implications of his own impending
passion with subsequent vindication, even if the
actual "three days and three nights" saying that
we find in Matthew's Gospel is a parenthetical
comment added by the evangelist, or even a later scribal insertion. ..."

More: http://www.tektonics.org/guest/catpass.html

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Oct 8 23:01:10 2006