Both good articles. The second made an especially good point about an ancient Jew's reticence to invent a story in which he attributes words and actions to God which He did not actually say and do.
I provide another article in defense of the historicity of Jonah on my website: http://www.pugiofidei.com/jonah.htm
Jonah is not a prophetic book because it doesn't begin, "The word of the LORD that came to Jonah" so it is really a biography of Jonah. But it's not very flattering. He's a prophet who doesn't want to prophesy. Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God. Even the fish obeys's God's voice and even the animals in Ninevah repent. When the storm rocks the ship, everyone prays "every man his god" except Jonah, even after the shipmaster asked him to pray. And Jonah goes downhill from there. If the work was intended to be a true biography it was less charitable than a biography of Al Franken written by Ann Coulter, and if it was an autobiography it would be one of the most self-effacing one ever written.
But it is when Jonah is inside the belly of the fish that the author of Jonah gives the game away. Jonah says his prayers went in to God in his holy temple. Guess what? The holy temple was in Jerusalem, but Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel, whose capital was Samaria where Mount Gerizim (rather than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was believed to be the place chosen by God for his holy place. This alone, far more than any anachronisms or historical inaccuracies or lack of geographic detail, reveals that the book was written by someone in the Kingdom of Judah well after the fall of the northern kingdom.
Jonah is not a prophetic book because it doesn't begin, "The word of the LORD that came to Jonah"
Actually, Jonah does begin this way: "Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me'" (Jonah 1:1-2).
Or are you arguing it's not a prophetic book despite beginning this way?
How do you understand the term "prophetic book"? Do you mean to imply it's not a book which belongs in the category of the (minor) prophets? Or do you mean to imply it's not inspired or inerrant and therefore non-canonical? Or something else?
so it is really a biography of Jonah.
Well, it's not like, say, the gospel of Luke, if that's what you're getting at. And even the gospels aren't necessarily ancient biographies.
T. Desmond Alexander argues in his article that Jonah is didactic historical narrative.
But it's not very flattering.
There are many unflattering portraits of those whom God has chosen contained in the Bible.
He's a prophet who doesn't want to prophesy.
He was a prophet who didn't want to tell the Ninevites to repent (and receive God's grace and mercy). But then he did, as the book of Jonah recounts.
Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God.
Even if that were the case, so what?
What about the Ninevites at the beginning of the book? You know, the ones to whom God wanted Jonah to preach repentance?
Even the fish obeys's God's voice and even the animals in Ninevah repent.
Are you suggesting fish and other animals (e.g. cattle) need to repent?
When the storm rocks the ship, everyone prays "every man his god" except Jonah, even after the shipmaster asked him to pray.
So by referencing Jonah 1:6 here, are you now admitting that there were indeed "other character[s] in the book who disobey[ed] God"?
And Jonah goes downhill from there. If the work was intended to be a true biography it was less charitable than a biography of Al Franken written by Ann Coulter, and if it was an autobiography it would be one of the most self-effacing one ever written.
Who ever argued that Jonah was biography let alone autobiography?
But it is when Jonah is inside the belly of the fish that the author of Jonah gives the game away. Jonah says his prayers went in to God in his holy temple. Guess what? The holy temple was in Jerusalem, but Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel, whose capital was Samaria where Mount Gerizim (rather than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was believed to be the place chosen by God for his holy place.
The northern kingdom of Israel is not equivalent to Samaria.
In fact, using Samaria here would be anachronistic. Many scholars believe that Jonah prophesied in Israel from approximately 782-753 BC. The Assyrians hadn't yet conquered Israel in Jonah's day. That wouldn't occur until 722 BC. And the Samaritans didn't begin to inhabit Samaria until after the Assyrians conquered Israel.
Likewise, the term "Temple Mount" would be an anachronism.
Are you suggesting Jonah was a Samaritan prophet?
This alone, far more than any anachronisms or historical inaccuracies or lack of geographic detail, reveals that the book was written by someone in the Kingdom of Judah well after the fall of the northern kingdom.
It seems to me it's your argument that's riddled with "historical inaccuracies," not the book of Jonah.
Of course, having said that, it's possible Jonah was written by someone in Judah sometime after 722 BC. Even if so, though, it wouldn't mean the book isn't inspired or inerrant -- if that's your game.
'Actually, Jonah does begin this way: "Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah..."'
Precisely. If the book was a collection of oracles like Isaiah or Jeremiah it would begin, "The world of the LORD that came to Jonah..." (this is why I highlighted "that" also in my original post by the way). The only oracle Jonah gives is one line about Ninevah being overthrown in forty days, with no mention of God.
"Do you mean to imply it's not a book which belongs in the category of the (minor) prophets? "
Yes. The book of Jonah was written in the southern kingdom centuries after the death of the real Jonah of Ammitai and the destruction of Ninevah. In this way it resembles Daniel, which was written during the Hellenstic period, but retroactively set in the period of the Babylonian captivity.
("Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God.")
"What about the Ninevites at the beginning of the book?"
Do you understand what you read? When I say Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God, I mean precisely that.
"Are you suggesting fish and other animals (e.g. cattle) need to repent?"
No, but the king of Ninevah did (and by the way, there never was a king of Ninevah, a historical error which suggests the book was written well after the events).
"are you now admitting that there were indeed "other character[s] in the book who disobey[ed] God"?
No human, animal or plant character disobeyed God except Jonah.
"The northern kingdom of Israel is not equivalent to Samaria."
The capital of the northern kingdom was Samaria, just as Jerusalem was the capital of the southern kingdom. If I said "Jerusalem moved against Edom" it would be shorthand for all of Judah, like saying "Washington blocked Russia's move in the UN".
"In fact, using Samaria here would be anachronistic. Many scholars believe that Jonah prophesied in Israel from approximately 782-753 BC. The Assyrians hadn't yet conquered Israel in Jonah's day. That wouldn't occur until 722 BC. And the Samaritans didn't begin to inhabit Samaria until after the Assyrians conquered Israel."
The city of Samaria existed before, during, and after the conquest of the Assyrians. The Samaritans exist even today.
'Likewise, the term "Temple Mount" would be an anachronism.'
That is precisely my argument, Jonah says his prayers sent to Temple Mount, but he was supposed to be a prophet from the northern kingdom.
"Are you suggesting Jonah was a Samaritan prophet?"
Jonah was a prophet of the northern kingdom, I gave the chapter which sets Jonah during the reign of Jeroboam II.
“Yes. The book of Jonah was written in the southern kingdom centuries after the death of the real Jonah of Ammitai and the destruction of Ninevah. In this way it resembles Daniel, which was written during the Hellenstic period, but retroactively set in the period of the Babylonian captivity.”
All you’re doing here is to use one question-begging claim to prop up another question-begging claim. It’s not as if conservative scholars haven’t fielded liberal objections to the traditional date of Daniel.
“No, but the king of Ninevah did (and by the way, there never was a king of Ninevah, a historical error which suggests the book was written well after the events).”
This is another unsubstantiated assertion on your part. And, of course, the whole point of Wiseman’s article was to defend the historicity of Jonah.
BTW, you’ve been less than candid about your motives. You came here under false pretenses. When you first began to post comments on my Rev 21:1 piece, you presented yourself as if you were a conservative Christian. You’ve been moving to the left ever since.
A little something I just posted in the meta over at JTs' blog:
steve said...
It might benefit readers to know that Ruby Red is not what he/she appears to be. RR is playing a double game. On the one hand, he/she poses as a Christian. On the other hand, he/she has been playing the sceptic over at my blog, attacking the inerrancy of Scripture (among other things). So don't be taken in. RR is playing you.
Steve said, "...the whole point of Wiseman’s article was to defend the historicity of Jonah."
I do not deny the historical Jonah as a prophet, he appears in 2 Kings 14:25 where it speaks of the fulfillment of the "word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Ammatai, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher".
But the Book of Jonah is not a collection of these oracles nor is it a historical narrative. Were the book historical, it would include the place where Jonah was vomited up by the fish, it would list the sins of the Ninevites, it would describe the calamity by which the city was to be destroyed, and it would give the name of the Assyrian king who converted to the True God. Therefore it should not be included in the minor prophets, but in the writings, with Job and Ruth.
This is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. There is no left and right, Steve, there is only true and false. "...ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." (2 Cor 13:7-8)
I participated in a nearly 400 comment thread here where your article was cited and which I referred to often in a very positive way. If you have the time, I highly recommend that you read it as I debated both modern Catholics and LibProts who staunchly deny the historicity of Jonah.
Ben, I do have a serious question for you. Bishop Spong (whom I generally detest) levies a serious charge against the Catholic Church, and I haven't yet seen the refutation of his charge. Worse, many modern Catholics rather gladly accept Bishop Spong's observations about the RCC's evolution on the historicity of Jonah. In fact, I cite his charge in that long thread I mentioned above:
"There's some commonality between Bishop John Shelby Spong and the Catholic Church.
Bishop Spong on the Book of Jonah:
The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to make its point by putting the resurection of Jesus Christ and the reputation of the Catholic Church on the line: "If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction."
Contrast that with the 1970 edition of the Catholic Bible, bearing the signature of the Pope himself. In the preface to the Book of Jonah it states, "this book is a didatic story with an important message." All claims to this being a historical fact-narrative are gone. The Catholic Church has quietly made a complete reversal of its previous position that it defended so adamantly, and is left yet again in the embarassing position of admitting that it was wrong.
(No mention is made that according to their own previous logic this now implies Christ is not and never was a Deity, and the alleged stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is and always was just a fiction.)
"If the Catholic Church has indeed rejected the historicity of Jonah and agrees with Bishop Spong that it's a fictional work of literature with a didactic message, then it's interesting how this now follows (courtesy of Stuart):
Does the Catholic Church reject the fact that the Church Fathers believed in the historicity of the Book of Jonah.
Answer; NO.
2. Does the Catholic Church reject the historicity of the Book of Jonah?
Answer: Generally speaking, yes--though belief in its historicity is a permissible opinion.
Conclusion: The Catholic Church rejects the fact-narrative beliefs of the Church Fathers who believed in the historicity of Jonah.
What does this say about the principle of Universality, Antiquity, Consent by St. Vincent of Lerins?
This is all very interesting. If what Stuart claims is true, I'd be curious to learn about the process and people involved. Spong's claims that the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the beliefs of the Church Fathers in the historicity of the Book of Jonah in order to make an embarrassing reversal is fascinating."
I later follow this up with the following comment:
[As of January 2006] "The Roman Catholic Church has not made any definitive pronouncement on the literal meaning of the book. Thus, there has not been any clear, official affirmation that Jonah was indeed a historical figure, or that, if he was, the events described in the Book of Jonah actually happened as described.
...
In conclusion, we need not make a hard and fast choice between Jonah’s basis in history and the story’s clear use of literary devices to convey its theological message. It is possible to draw upon the insight of modern scholars who have focused on the literary message. The tale may well be history that has been shaped into a carefully constructed theological allegory, in which Matthew in the New Testament sees a parallel to his own historical situation."
from: http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/56160
But there certainly has been considerable change in the RCC since the early 1900's regarding the historicity of Jonah. Spong is right about that.
Also, this change in attitude towards the historicity of Jonah probably also required some nuanced thinking about the Church Fathers and Tradition as well within the RCC hierarchy.
I find the influx of modern historical scholarship and modern science upon RCC Tradition and Dogma rather fascinating.
-------
FWIW Ben Douglas, we have this review of your article in the aforementioned thread:
The long article posted by Bob, by the way, consists mainly of smoke-and-mirrors arguments, that studiously avoid addressing the central issue--does the account of Book of Jonah conform to known historical facts about what the Germans would call the "sitz im leben"--to which, of course, the answer is no.
1. Does the Catholic Church reject the fact that the Church Fathers believed in the historicity of the Book of Jonah.
Answer; NO.
2. Does the Catholic Church reject the historicity of the Book of Jonah?
Answer: Generally speaking, yes--though belief in its historicity is a permissible opinion.
If I may continue to (crudely) present the horns of a dilemma for you:
(1) If it's true (and there's no formal declaration to say either way, but let's just suppose that it is true) that the Vatican now denies the historicity of the Book of Jonah, and yet you, Ben Douglass, do believe in the historicity of the Book of Jonah, then aren't you guilty of doing what Catholics accuse Protestants of doing? Namely, guilty of private interpretation?
(2) Given the current status of the Magisterium refusing to say whether the Book of Jonah is historical fact-narrative or not, then how can anyone honestly say that the Magisterium gives specific guidance for exegetical interpretation?
The Magisterium is now saying that it doesn't really matter whether people believe in the historical fact-narrative of Jonah or not.
(a) How is this helpful to people who really do want to know whether the Book of Jonah is historical fact-narrative or not?
(b) Doesn't this then undercut the claim that the Magisterium makes about itself as being the Interpreter of Scripture?
(3) If the Magisterium has changed its mind over the last century or so about the historicity of Jonah, then why should the word "tradition" have a capital "T" in it when referring to Catholic dogma? The Tradition can be changed. And so now we have "Living Tradition" which doesn't seem quite entirely honest.
Doesn't it all seem a bit disjointed to you too, Ben Douglass?
Yes, the New American Bible does deny the historicity of Jonah, and the NAB does bear the apostolic blessing of Paul VI. However, it is unclear to what extent Pope Paul VI personally examined the text and commentary of the NAB before granting it his blessing. English was not his strongest language.
As for your specific questions:
(1) If, per impossibile, the Vatican officially, magisterially denied the historicity of Jonah, then yes, I would be disloyal for not accepting it.
(2) The Magisterium doesn't give specific guidance regarding every biblical issue. The Council of Orange contains much interpretation of the Bible's doctrine of grace. Trent contains much interpretation of the Bible's doctrine of justification. The two Vatican councils contain much interpretation of the Bible's ecclesiology. Etc. The Magisterium has answered sufficient questions for us to save our souls; it does not need to answer all of them. Although, it will continue to gradually answer more and more questions until the second coming.
(a) You can know based on inference from our Lord's words in the Gospel. If the Magisterium hasn't given a definitive answer, use your reason.
(b) The Magisterium claims that when it does interpret Scripture, its interpretation is true. It does not claim to interpret Scripture exhaustively.
(3) If the Magisterium in fact reversed its position regarding an issue which it had taught infallibly, this would be destructive of its credibility. If it reversed its position on an issue it had taught with a high level of authority, even if not infallibly, this would be severely damaging. I deny, however, that this has occurred.
(Softly chuckling to himself) Responding to your responses would derail this thread. (Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you! And if someone else wants to take it up, then....)
I do want to say again that I appreciate the translation work you did in establishing the historicity of Jonah.
Do you understand what you read? When I say Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God, I mean precisely that.
RR, Patrick's point is that the people of Nineveh were *sinners* (which by definition means one who disobey's God) in need of repentance, and that the other people on the ship prayed to their false gods (which by definition is idolatry, and therefore disobedience toward the one true God who requires prayer to Him alone).
But it is when Jonah is inside the belly of the fish that the author of Jonah gives the game away. Jonah says his prayers went in to God in his holy temple.
RR, it seems to me that "the Holy Temple" *might* (also or alternatively) refer to the Temple in the heavenlies (heavenly realm). If you recall, Exo. 25:40 tells us that the tabernacle in the wilderness was patterned after the design God showed Moses. Even Hebrews 8:5 makes reference to this. Obviously the tabernacle in the wilderness wasn't the same thing as the temple in Jerusalem, since one was basically a tent and the other a building. However, by then Jonah may have assumed (rightly/wrongly, literally/symbolically) that just as there was a temple in Jerusalem, so there might have been a temple in Heaven.
The holy temple was in Jerusalem, but Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel, whose capital was Samaria where Mount Gerizim (rather than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was believed to be the place chosen by God for his holy place. This alone, far more than any anachronisms or historical inaccuracies or lack of geographic detail, reveals that the book was written by someone in the Kingdom of Judah well after the fall of the northern kingdom.
I don't see how this follows since a genuine prophet in Israel would have known that the proper place of worship would be in Judah. Just as a genuine prophet in Israel (or Judah) would have known that worship of YHWH was not to be mixed with the worship of Asherah. The assumption you seem to be having is that a prophet that really came from Israel would follow Israel's cultic tradition. But that's doesn't follow.
Precisely. If the book was a collection of oracles like Isaiah or Jeremiah it would begin, "The world of the LORD that came to Jonah..." (this is why I highlighted "that" also in my original post by the way). The only oracle Jonah gives is one line about Ninevah being overthrown in forty days, with no mention of God.
Isaiah is not only a collection of alleged Oracles of Isaiah that allegedly were inspired by YHWH/Jehovah. Yet that doesn't take away from its being a prophetic book. The exact style of the beginning of a book doesn't, in itself determine whether it belongs in the category of prophecy or not. You're setting up a false criteria for classification.
No, but the king of Ninevah did (and by the way, there never was a king of Ninevah, a historical error which suggests the book was written well after the events).
King need not refer to a monarch as we know it. The term "king" in the Bible has many senses. So, for example, it can merely mean the current leader (highest ruler) in the land.
It seems to me you're looking for errors in the Bible.
Ben Douglass: "If, per impossibile, the Vatican officially, magisterially denied the historicity of Jonah, then yes, I would be disloyal for not accepting it."
Dear Ben, if I may beg your indulgence yet again (pun laughingly intended!), you need not worry about being disloyal to the Vatican's Magisterium.
Don't you see?
As Bishop Spong points out: "The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to make its point by putting the resurection of Jesus Christ and the reputation of the Catholic Church on the line: "If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction.""
And then you confirm Bishop Spong's gleeful observation with your acknowledgement (albeit weakly qualified):
"Yes, the New American Bible does deny the historicity of Jonah, and the NAB does bear the apostolic blessing of Paul VI."
Don't you see Ben? Think it through again.
Okay, enough time. Liberal Catholic theologians and liberal Catholic clergy presumbably used modern historical-critical methods to *PRIVATELY INTERPRET* the Book of Jonah as being didactic fiction and not as historical fact-narrative.
And so Ben Douglass, what was the consequence to these modern Catholic theogians and Catholic priests/bishops/cardinals for *PRIVATELY INTERPRETING* the Book of Jonah as fiction?
NOTHING!
Actually, worse than nothing. Not only did the Vatican-Magisterium do nothing when its own theologians and priests engaged in *PRIVATE INTERPRETATION* by denying the historicity of Jonah (possibly preaching it in the pulpits, teaching it in Catholic seminaries, and publishing it in Catholic journals), but the Magisterium incorporated the findings and teachings of these historical-criticism Catholic scholars into its own bosom, contra its own previous position on the historicity of Jonah, thus, in all honesty compromising itself.
To wit, if the Magisterium ever declared that Jonah was not historical fact-narrative, it wouldn't matter if you were disloyal and engaged in *PRIVATE INTERPRETATION* and affirmed Jonah's historicity. There'd be no penalty. And at least in this instance, intellectual integrity acknowledges that the Magisterium permits (and even encouraged as evidenced by its eventual adoption) *PRIVATE INTERPRETATION*.
Which then begs the question:
"What's up with the hypocritical consternation that Catholics pose when they accuse Protestants of engaging in *Private Interpretation*?"
Patrick, thanks for posting these articles from Tyndale!
ReplyDeleteActually, Steve's the one who first saw these, so he gets all the credit.
ReplyDeleteThanks much Steve. Thanks much Patrick for posting these on behalf of Steve.
ReplyDeleteBoth good articles. The second made an especially good point about an ancient Jew's reticence to invent a story in which he attributes words and actions to God which He did not actually say and do.
ReplyDeleteI provide another article in defense of the historicity of Jonah on my website:
http://www.pugiofidei.com/jonah.htm
Jonah is not a prophetic book because it doesn't begin, "The word of the LORD that came to Jonah" so it is really a biography of Jonah. But it's not very flattering. He's a prophet who doesn't want to prophesy. Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God. Even the fish obeys's God's voice and even the animals in Ninevah repent. When the storm rocks the ship, everyone prays "every man his god" except Jonah, even after the shipmaster asked him to pray. And Jonah goes downhill from there. If the work was intended to be a true biography it was less charitable than a biography of Al Franken written by Ann Coulter, and if it was an autobiography it would be one of the most self-effacing one ever written.
ReplyDeleteBut it is when Jonah is inside the belly of the fish that the author of Jonah gives the game away. Jonah says his prayers went in to God in his holy temple. Guess what? The holy temple was in Jerusalem, but Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel, whose capital was Samaria where Mount Gerizim (rather than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was believed to be the place chosen by God for his holy place. This alone, far more than any anachronisms or historical inaccuracies or lack of geographic detail, reveals that the book was written by someone in the Kingdom of Judah well after the fall of the northern kingdom.
Ruby Red said:
ReplyDeleteJonah is not a prophetic book because it doesn't begin, "The word of the LORD that came to Jonah"
Actually, Jonah does begin this way: "Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me'" (Jonah 1:1-2).
Or are you arguing it's not a prophetic book despite beginning this way?
How do you understand the term "prophetic book"? Do you mean to imply it's not a book which belongs in the category of the (minor) prophets? Or do you mean to imply it's not inspired or inerrant and therefore non-canonical? Or something else?
so it is really a biography of Jonah.
Well, it's not like, say, the gospel of Luke, if that's what you're getting at. And even the gospels aren't necessarily ancient biographies.
T. Desmond Alexander argues in his article that Jonah is didactic historical narrative.
But it's not very flattering.
There are many unflattering portraits of those whom God has chosen contained in the Bible.
He's a prophet who doesn't want to prophesy.
He was a prophet who didn't want to tell the Ninevites to repent (and receive God's grace and mercy). But then he did, as the book of Jonah recounts.
Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God.
Even if that were the case, so what?
What about the Ninevites at the beginning of the book? You know, the ones to whom God wanted Jonah to preach repentance?
Even the fish obeys's God's voice and even the animals in Ninevah repent.
Are you suggesting fish and other animals (e.g. cattle) need to repent?
When the storm rocks the ship, everyone prays "every man his god" except Jonah, even after the shipmaster asked him to pray.
So by referencing Jonah 1:6 here, are you now admitting that there were indeed "other character[s] in the book who disobey[ed] God"?
And Jonah goes downhill from there. If the work was intended to be a true biography it was less charitable than a biography of Al Franken written by Ann Coulter, and if it was an autobiography it would be one of the most self-effacing one ever written.
Who ever argued that Jonah was biography let alone autobiography?
But it is when Jonah is inside the belly of the fish that the author of Jonah gives the game away. Jonah says his prayers went in to God in his holy temple. Guess what? The holy temple was in Jerusalem, but Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel, whose capital was Samaria where Mount Gerizim (rather than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was believed to be the place chosen by God for his holy place.
The northern kingdom of Israel is not equivalent to Samaria.
In fact, using Samaria here would be anachronistic. Many scholars believe that Jonah prophesied in Israel from approximately 782-753 BC. The Assyrians hadn't yet conquered Israel in Jonah's day. That wouldn't occur until 722 BC. And the Samaritans didn't begin to inhabit Samaria until after the Assyrians conquered Israel.
Likewise, the term "Temple Mount" would be an anachronism.
Are you suggesting Jonah was a Samaritan prophet?
This alone, far more than any anachronisms or historical inaccuracies or lack of geographic detail, reveals that the book was written by someone in the Kingdom of Judah well after the fall of the northern kingdom.
It seems to me it's your argument that's riddled with "historical inaccuracies," not the book of Jonah.
Of course, having said that, it's possible Jonah was written by someone in Judah sometime after 722 BC. Even if so, though, it wouldn't mean the book isn't inspired or inerrant -- if that's your game.
Patrick Chan said:
ReplyDelete'Actually, Jonah does begin this way: "Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah..."'
Precisely. If the book was a collection of oracles like Isaiah or Jeremiah it would begin, "The world of the LORD that came to Jonah..." (this is why I highlighted "that" also in my original post by the way). The only oracle Jonah gives is one line about Ninevah being overthrown in forty days, with no mention of God.
"Do you mean to imply it's not a book which belongs in the category of the (minor) prophets? "
Yes. The book of Jonah was written in the southern kingdom centuries after the death of the real Jonah of Ammitai and the destruction of Ninevah. In this way it resembles Daniel, which was written during the Hellenstic period, but retroactively set in the period of the Babylonian captivity.
("Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God.")
"What about the Ninevites at the beginning of the book?"
Do you understand what you read? When I say Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God, I mean precisely that.
"Are you suggesting fish and other animals (e.g. cattle) need to repent?"
No, but the king of Ninevah did (and by the way, there never was a king of Ninevah, a historical error which suggests the book was written well after the events).
"are you now admitting that there were indeed "other character[s] in the book who disobey[ed] God"?
No human, animal or plant character disobeyed God except Jonah.
"The northern kingdom of Israel is not equivalent to Samaria."
The capital of the northern kingdom was Samaria, just as Jerusalem was the capital of the southern kingdom. If I said "Jerusalem moved against Edom" it would be shorthand for all of Judah, like saying "Washington blocked Russia's move in the UN".
"In fact, using Samaria here would be anachronistic. Many scholars believe that Jonah prophesied in Israel from approximately 782-753 BC. The Assyrians hadn't yet conquered Israel in Jonah's day. That wouldn't occur until 722 BC. And the Samaritans didn't begin to inhabit Samaria until after the Assyrians conquered Israel."
The city of Samaria existed before, during, and after the conquest of the Assyrians. The Samaritans exist even today.
'Likewise, the term "Temple Mount" would be an anachronism.'
That is precisely my argument, Jonah says his prayers sent to Temple Mount, but he was supposed to be a prophet from the northern kingdom.
"Are you suggesting Jonah was a Samaritan prophet?"
Jonah was a prophet of the northern kingdom, I gave the chapter which sets Jonah during the reign of Jeroboam II.
RUBY RED SAID:
ReplyDelete“Yes. The book of Jonah was written in the southern kingdom centuries after the death of the real Jonah of Ammitai and the destruction of Ninevah. In this way it resembles Daniel, which was written during the Hellenstic period, but retroactively set in the period of the Babylonian captivity.”
All you’re doing here is to use one question-begging claim to prop up another question-begging claim. It’s not as if conservative scholars haven’t fielded liberal objections to the traditional date of Daniel.
“No, but the king of Ninevah did (and by the way, there never was a king of Ninevah, a historical error which suggests the book was written well after the events).”
This is another unsubstantiated assertion on your part. And, of course, the whole point of Wiseman’s article was to defend the historicity of Jonah.
BTW, you’ve been less than candid about your motives. You came here under false pretenses. When you first began to post comments on my Rev 21:1 piece, you presented yourself as if you were a conservative Christian. You’ve been moving to the left ever since.
A little something I just posted in the meta over at JTs' blog:
ReplyDeletesteve said...
It might benefit readers to know that Ruby Red is not what he/she appears to be. RR is playing a double game. On the one hand, he/she poses as a Christian. On the other hand, he/she has been playing the sceptic over at my blog, attacking the inerrancy of Scripture (among other things). So don't be taken in. RR is playing you.
1/09/2009 10:21:00 AM
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/01/battling-doubt.html#5543045171728280800
Steve said, "...the whole point of Wiseman’s article was to defend the historicity of Jonah."
ReplyDeleteI do not deny the historical Jonah as a prophet, he appears in 2 Kings 14:25 where it speaks of the fulfillment of the "word of the Lord the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Ammatai, the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Opher".
But the Book of Jonah is not a collection of these oracles nor is it a historical narrative. Were the book historical, it would include the place where Jonah was vomited up by the fish, it would list the sins of the Ninevites, it would describe the calamity by which the city was to be destroyed, and it would give the name of the Assyrian king who converted to the True God. Therefore it should not be included in the minor prophets, but in the writings, with Job and Ruth.
This is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. There is no left and right, Steve, there is only true and false. "...ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates. For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth." (2 Cor 13:7-8)
Dear Ben Douglass,
ReplyDeleteI participated in a nearly 400 comment thread here where your article was cited and which I referred to often in a very positive way. If you have the time, I highly recommend that you read it as I debated both modern Catholics and LibProts who staunchly deny the historicity of Jonah.
Ben, I do have a serious question for you. Bishop Spong (whom I generally detest) levies a serious charge against the Catholic Church, and I haven't yet seen the refutation of his charge. Worse, many modern Catholics rather gladly accept Bishop Spong's observations about the RCC's evolution on the historicity of Jonah. In fact, I cite his charge in that long thread I mentioned above:
"There's some commonality between Bishop John Shelby Spong and the Catholic Church.
Bishop Spong on the Book of Jonah:
The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to make its point by putting the resurection of Jesus Christ and the reputation of the Catholic Church on the line: "If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction."
Contrast that with the 1970 edition of the Catholic Bible, bearing the signature of the Pope himself. In the preface to the Book of Jonah it states, "this book is a didatic story with an important message." All claims to this being a historical fact-narrative are gone. The Catholic Church has quietly made a complete reversal of its previous position that it defended so adamantly, and is left yet again in the embarassing position of admitting that it was wrong.
(No mention is made that according to their own previous logic this now implies Christ is not and never was a Deity, and the alleged stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is and always was just a fiction.)
from: http://home1.gte.net/deleyd/religion/jonah.html
-------
"If the Catholic Church has indeed rejected the historicity of Jonah and agrees with Bishop Spong that it's a fictional work of literature with a didactic message, then it's interesting how this now follows (courtesy of Stuart):
Does the Catholic Church reject the fact that the Church Fathers believed in the historicity of the Book of Jonah.
Answer; NO.
2. Does the Catholic Church reject the historicity of the Book of Jonah?
Answer: Generally speaking, yes--though belief in its historicity is a permissible opinion.
Conclusion: The Catholic Church rejects the fact-narrative beliefs of the Church Fathers who believed in the historicity of Jonah.
What does this say about the principle of Universality, Antiquity, Consent by St. Vincent of Lerins?
This is all very interesting. If what Stuart claims is true, I'd be curious to learn about the process and people involved. Spong's claims that the Roman Catholic Church abandoned the beliefs of the Church Fathers in the historicity of the Book of Jonah in order to make an embarrassing reversal is fascinating."
I later follow this up with the following comment:
[As of January 2006] "The Roman Catholic Church has not made any definitive pronouncement on the literal meaning of the book. Thus, there has not been any clear, official affirmation that Jonah was indeed a historical figure, or that, if he was, the events described in the Book of Jonah actually happened as described.
...
In conclusion, we need not make a hard and fast choice between Jonah’s basis in history and the story’s clear use of literary devices to convey its theological message. It is possible to draw upon the insight of modern scholars who have focused on the literary message. The tale may well be history that has been shaped into a carefully constructed theological allegory, in which Matthew in the New Testament sees a parallel to his own historical situation."
from: http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/56160
But there certainly has been considerable change in the RCC since the early 1900's regarding the historicity of Jonah. Spong is right about that.
Also, this change in attitude towards the historicity of Jonah probably also required some nuanced thinking about the Church Fathers and Tradition as well within the RCC hierarchy.
I find the influx of modern historical scholarship and modern science upon RCC Tradition and Dogma rather fascinating.
-------
FWIW Ben Douglas, we have this review of your article in the aforementioned thread:
The long article posted by Bob, by the way, consists mainly of smoke-and-mirrors arguments, that studiously avoid addressing the central issue--does the account of Book of Jonah conform to known historical facts about what the Germans would call the "sitz im leben"--to which, of course, the answer is no.
1. Does the Catholic Church reject the fact that the Church Fathers believed in the historicity of the Book of Jonah.
Answer; NO.
2. Does the Catholic Church reject the historicity of the Book of Jonah?
Answer: Generally speaking, yes--though belief in its historicity is a permissible opinion.
Dear Ben Douglass,
ReplyDeleteIf I may continue to (crudely) present the horns of a dilemma for you:
(1) If it's true (and there's no formal declaration to say either way, but let's just suppose that it is true) that the Vatican now denies the historicity of the Book of Jonah, and yet you, Ben Douglass, do believe in the historicity of the Book of Jonah, then aren't you guilty of doing what Catholics accuse Protestants of doing? Namely, guilty of private interpretation?
(2) Given the current status of the Magisterium refusing to say whether the Book of Jonah is historical fact-narrative or not, then how can anyone honestly say that the Magisterium gives specific guidance for exegetical interpretation?
The Magisterium is now saying that it doesn't really matter whether people believe in the historical fact-narrative of Jonah or not.
(a) How is this helpful to people who really do want to know whether the Book of Jonah is historical fact-narrative or not?
(b) Doesn't this then undercut the claim that the Magisterium makes about itself as being the Interpreter of Scripture?
(3) If the Magisterium has changed its mind over the last century or so about the historicity of Jonah, then why should the word "tradition" have a capital "T" in it when referring to Catholic dogma? The Tradition can be changed. And so now we have "Living Tradition" which doesn't seem quite entirely honest.
Doesn't it all seem a bit disjointed to you too, Ben Douglass?
Dear TUaD,
ReplyDeleteYes, the New American Bible does deny the historicity of Jonah, and the NAB does bear the apostolic blessing of Paul VI. However, it is unclear to what extent Pope Paul VI personally examined the text and commentary of the NAB before granting it his blessing. English was not his strongest language.
As for your specific questions:
(1) If, per impossibile, the Vatican officially, magisterially denied the historicity of Jonah, then yes, I would be disloyal for not accepting it.
(2) The Magisterium doesn't give specific guidance regarding every biblical issue. The Council of Orange contains much interpretation of the Bible's doctrine of grace. Trent contains much interpretation of the Bible's doctrine of justification. The two Vatican councils contain much interpretation of the Bible's ecclesiology. Etc. The Magisterium has answered sufficient questions for us to save our souls; it does not need to answer all of them. Although, it will continue to gradually answer more and more questions until the second coming.
(a) You can know based on inference from our Lord's words in the Gospel. If the Magisterium hasn't given a definitive answer, use your reason.
(b) The Magisterium claims that when it does interpret Scripture, its interpretation is true. It does not claim to interpret Scripture exhaustively.
(3) If the Magisterium in fact reversed its position regarding an issue which it had taught infallibly, this would be destructive of its credibility. If it reversed its position on an issue it had taught with a high level of authority, even if not infallibly, this would be severely damaging. I deny, however, that this has occurred.
Dear Ben,
ReplyDelete(Softly chuckling to himself) Responding to your responses would derail this thread. (Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, mind you! And if someone else wants to take it up, then....)
I do want to say again that I appreciate the translation work you did in establishing the historicity of Jonah.
Kind Regards.
RR said:
ReplyDeleteDo you understand what you read? When I say Jonah is the only character in the book who disobeys God, I mean precisely that.
RR, Patrick's point is that the people of Nineveh were *sinners* (which by definition means one who disobey's God) in need of repentance, and that the other people on the ship prayed to their false gods (which by definition is idolatry, and therefore disobedience toward the one true God who requires prayer to Him alone).
But it is when Jonah is inside the belly of the fish that the author of Jonah gives the game away. Jonah says his prayers went in to God in his holy temple.
RR, it seems to me that "the Holy Temple" *might* (also or alternatively) refer to the Temple in the heavenlies (heavenly realm). If you recall, Exo. 25:40 tells us that the tabernacle in the wilderness was patterned after the design God showed Moses. Even Hebrews 8:5 makes reference to this. Obviously the tabernacle in the wilderness wasn't the same thing as the temple in Jerusalem, since one was basically a tent and the other a building. However, by then Jonah may have assumed (rightly/wrongly, literally/symbolically) that just as there was a temple in Jerusalem, so there might have been a temple in Heaven.
The holy temple was in Jerusalem, but Jonah was a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel, whose capital was Samaria where Mount Gerizim (rather than the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) was believed to be the place chosen by God for his holy place. This alone, far more than any anachronisms or historical inaccuracies or lack of geographic detail, reveals that the book was written by someone in the Kingdom of Judah well after the fall of the northern kingdom.
I don't see how this follows since a genuine prophet in Israel would have known that the proper place of worship would be in Judah. Just as a genuine prophet in Israel (or Judah) would have known that worship of YHWH was not to be mixed with the worship of Asherah. The assumption you seem to be having is that a prophet that really came from Israel would follow Israel's cultic tradition. But that's doesn't follow.
Precisely. If the book was a collection of oracles like Isaiah or Jeremiah it would begin, "The world of the LORD that came to Jonah..." (this is why I highlighted "that" also in my original post by the way). The only oracle Jonah gives is one line about Ninevah being overthrown in forty days, with no mention of God.
Isaiah is not only a collection of alleged Oracles of Isaiah that allegedly were inspired by YHWH/Jehovah. Yet that doesn't take away from its being a prophetic book. The exact style of the beginning of a book doesn't, in itself determine whether it belongs in the category of prophecy or not. You're setting up a false criteria for classification.
No, but the king of Ninevah did (and by the way, there never was a king of Ninevah, a historical error which suggests the book was written well after the events).
King need not refer to a monarch as we know it. The term "king" in the Bible has many senses. So, for example, it can merely mean the current leader (highest ruler) in the land.
It seems to me you're looking for errors in the Bible.
Ben Douglass: "If, per impossibile, the Vatican officially, magisterially denied the historicity of Jonah, then yes, I would be disloyal for not accepting it."
ReplyDeleteDear Ben, if I may beg your indulgence yet again (pun laughingly intended!), you need not worry about being disloyal to the Vatican's Magisterium.
Don't you see?
As Bishop Spong points out: "The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to make its point by putting the resurection of Jesus Christ and the reputation of the Catholic Church on the line: "If, then, the stay of Jonah in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction.""
And then you confirm Bishop Spong's gleeful observation with your acknowledgement (albeit weakly qualified):
"Yes, the New American Bible does deny the historicity of Jonah, and the NAB does bear the apostolic blessing of Paul VI."
Don't you see Ben? Think it through again.
Okay, enough time. Liberal Catholic theologians and liberal Catholic clergy presumbably used modern historical-critical methods to *PRIVATELY INTERPRET* the Book of Jonah as being didactic fiction and not as historical fact-narrative.
And so Ben Douglass, what was the consequence to these modern Catholic theogians and Catholic priests/bishops/cardinals for *PRIVATELY INTERPRETING* the Book of Jonah as fiction?
NOTHING!
Actually, worse than nothing. Not only did the Vatican-Magisterium do nothing when its own theologians and priests engaged in *PRIVATE INTERPRETATION* by denying the historicity of Jonah (possibly preaching it in the pulpits, teaching it in Catholic seminaries, and publishing it in Catholic journals), but the Magisterium incorporated the findings and teachings of these historical-criticism Catholic scholars into its own bosom, contra its own previous position on the historicity of Jonah, thus, in all honesty compromising itself.
To wit, if the Magisterium ever declared that Jonah was not historical fact-narrative, it wouldn't matter if you were disloyal and engaged in *PRIVATE INTERPRETATION* and affirmed Jonah's historicity. There'd be no penalty. And at least in this instance, intellectual integrity acknowledges that the Magisterium permits (and even encouraged as evidenced by its eventual adoption) *PRIVATE INTERPRETATION*.
Which then begs the question:
"What's up with the hypocritical consternation that Catholics pose when they accuse Protestants of engaging in *Private Interpretation*?"