For class, Brian had us read The Book of Jonah and do preliminary analysis and study.I am not proud of it, but I have doubts about the historicity of The Book of Jonah. There is still a little atheist inside of me which raises two points:
- No work outside of Jonah records the conversion of the Assyrians, which would have been a momentous event in their social history.
- Plenty, however, do record further generations of ruthless and savage Assyrian conquest and destruction.
The little atheist suggests the application of Occam's Razor to the story: perhaps a prophet feels called to prophesy destruction upon Nineveh, which then does not take place. This prophet is angry at God for making him look like a fool in public, but eventually creates the story that Nineveh did actually repent just enough to merit God's mercy. History outside of the prophet's account does not record this revolution.
I know that these are not Christian thoughts and I hope that I don't offend anyone. But I have these niggling doubts about The Book of Jonah. The historical record flatly contradicts its central event.
UPDATE: Jeff the Baptist shares his thoughts on what we can learn from Jonah.
12 comments:
(1) Expressing the repentence of the Assyrians as a "conversion" might be a bit of an overstatement. While they repented, it is doubtful that they actually converted from worshiping their Pantheon to worshiping Jehovah alone.
That and some nations can be very selective about what they record. For instance the Egyptians never recorded defeats, at least not in a way that has survived to today.
(2) The bible also says that the Assyrians were not nice people. It says this both before and after Jonah's missionary journey. Finally God does send his judgement down on the Assyrians. I recall some of the other prophets being especially happy about this.
This is perhaps one of those areas that requires more faith since proof is not available (yet.)
The fact that Jesus referred to Jonah not as a "parable" but as an event is enough "proof" for me.
And perhaps it is as J. Vernon McGee often said in speaking about archaeological finds, "History will one day catch up with the Bible..."
I don't think it makes you an atheist or un-Christian either. I (personally) think God would rather have our honest questions than our faithless acceptance. Because when we question, we will dig for the answers, leaving us open to hearing His Word.
Betty
Not to mention that he got SWALLOWED BY A WHALE!!!
...that is to say, if a skeptic needs any more fuel for that fire.
No, your thoughts do not qualify as atheist or un-Christian in my estimation, either. A prof of mine once said that looking for proof of your faith may actually serve to lessen your faith. Faith isn't about proving it happened. Didn't Paul say something somewhere about "things unseen"?
The fish story never bothered me. That's a small miracle for God.
I agree that there's no basis in the text to believe that the Assyrians converted to Judaism. But there was a total, if temporary, overthrow of their moral system. Now we all sin, repent, and then sin again. But the changes described in the Book of Jonah would have some sort of impact. Yet history (outside of Jonah) is silent -- in fact, contradictory, as the Assyrians continued to be barbaric.
Here's my take:
1. The literal historicity of Jonah is not required either by the text of Jonah or by Jesus' reference to Jonah. (After all, I can refer to something Luke Skywalker did without claiming Luke Skywalker is a historical personage. I merely do so in a community that is familiar with the story).
2. Claims that historicity in the biblical texts are generally unimportant are misguided. Some actual events ARE essential to the faith. In this category I would include the call of Abraham, the Exodus, the Incarnation, the crucifixion, the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit as a very minimum.
3. Our use of Jonah is not dependent on its historicity.
4. The story could have happened. The Assyrians could have repented of their evil ways - without "converting to Judaism" [most likely an anachronistic notion], and then later repented of their repenting, receiving God's judgment. It wouldn't be the first - or last time - such a thing had happened.
If you are interested enough to read a little there is a fairly short yet helpful discussion of this in James Limburg's commentary on Jonah from the Old Testament Library series. I found it helpful and I suspect it would address the issues you have brought up here.
Shane - Thanks for that comment, it gave me some food for thought.
Richard H. - Star Wars reference: very nice!
Wait -- are you guys saying that Star Wars isn't real?
Don't worry John, I'm sure they're just trying to fool us...right?
As for historicity, I have read at least one reference (and I hope I can find it soon) which suggested that Job was not a real person and that there is no historic or archaelogic reference to the existence of Uz. The whole book of Job, it was suggested, is a work of fiction. It contains valuable lessons from the author's theological perspective, but it is not historically accurate.
Would this idea diminish the impact of the book as a valuable reference? I don't think so. Much of what we read, whether biblical or extra-biblical, is a perspective from the writer or writers.
So my question as it pertains to the Assyrians is this: what exactly was the writer trying to say? Was he trying to be historically accurate, or is there a larger picture? I think the latter. What the answer is, of course, one can only guess or pray.
And Star Wars is real.
Post a Comment