The Book of Jonah considered "pure fiction"?

[R Harris]

This is an excerpt taken from the CNN website. The broader context of the article is that ISIS plans to wipe out anything associated with Christianity, and the blowing up of the purported tomb of Jonah is considered the first of many things. But it was this excerpt that interested me:

"In the end, speculations about the actual location of Jonah’s burial are probably moot, as virtually all scholars agree that the book is a work of pure fiction – is perhaps even a comedic novella of sorts – and that it is quite likely to have been written around the fifth century B.C., around 200 years after the city of Nineveh was destroyed."

Joel S. Baden is professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. Candida Moss is a professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed in this column belong to Baden and Moss.


When they say "virtually all scholars", are they only thinking of their fellow liberals, or are there actually "evangelicals" who also hold this view? I don't keep up with this sort of thing, but it does seem odd that a professor of New Testament at Notre Dame would be allowed to hold to such a view - I thought at least the RCs maintained a conservative viewpoint on the historicity of the OT.

 

[Peairtach]

Those in their liberal milieu hold to this. The others - evangelical and Reformed - don't count as far as they're concerned. Then again they consider the whole Bible to be riddled with fiction, so why do they pick on Jonah?

Probably because of the story of the great fish, a miracle which their proud hearts find particularly ridiculous.

 

[whirlingmerc]

At least they used the word virtually ...."virtually all scholars agree that the book is a work of pure fiction" Liberal scholars perhaps.

The reality is you do not have hypothetical fictional characters standing up at real judgment against real as exhibit A. It's meaningless.
"The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here." ESV

The book of Jonah is more than genius. In less than 50 verses it exposes a cold heart and challenges a merciless religious world view
It makes the story almost meaningless if its a parable.... the God of heaven and earth can only affect the wind and waves and fish and worm and weed and sinner heart only in fiction? I think not. It illustrates that God often does things in a manner than appear foolish to some and are wisdom to others. That might be understood at some level by a child but are deep and rich for the mature

Long long before this, Nahum prophesied against Nineveh distantly. Distant condemnation was fine with Jonah, but he freaked when God told him to go there and tell them personally. Telling them in person may mean God is mercifully telling of judgment if they persist but in the telling betrays an underlying mercy of extending an offer of repentance. How in the world would the repentance of Ninevah for a time be explained in the parable approach?

 

[arapahoepark]

It is estimated something like 80% of all Bible scholars are liberals.

 

[hammondjones]

I recall RC Sproul recounting that he amazed his seminary professor with a paper on Jonah in which he took the stance that it actually happened.

 

[SRoper]

Not that he's an Evangelical, but CS Lewis didn't seem to think the historicity of Jonah was important. I don't think we can dismiss the position as only arising from an anti-supernatural bias. It might be convenient for Jonah, but it doesn't work for Esther which is also frequently seen as fiction.

 

[Andres]

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar... Rom 3:3,4

 

[arapahoepark]

Not that he's an Evangelical, but CS Lewis didn't seem to think the historicity of Jonah was important. I don't think we can dismiss the position as only arising from an anti-supernatural bias. It might be convenient for Jonah, but it doesn't work for Esther which is also frequently seen as fiction.

Why should we care what CS Lewis thinks?
And yes it does rise from an anti supernatural bias those are their arguments against it. Those who believe in evolution are pretty much the same who deny Jonah, believe me having been a Biologos follower. They try to get away with believing as little as possible.
Sorry if I sound like I am being argumentative I don't intend to.

 

[SRoper]

Why should we care what CS Lewis thinks?

I don't know. I was just trying to answer the original post: "When they say 'virtually all scholars', are they only thinking of their fellow liberals, or are there actually 'evangelicals' who also hold this view?"

And whatever CS Lewis's faults, he can hardly be considered "anti-supernatural."

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Can one deny the historicity of Jonah without imperiling the Gospel?

“For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly;
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”
Matthew 12:40​

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Ultimately, liberal elitists will never acknowledge one who believes the account of Jonah as being literally true is in any sense a scholar. The same goes for the resurrection.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar... Rom 3:3,4

Amen.

 

[DMcFadden]

It is a bit of a vicious circle. Only people who take critically agreed upon positions are counted as scholars so virtually all scholars take critically agreed upon positions.

Many professing "evangelicals" take a non-historical view of Jonah. One of the new residents in the retirement community where I am the CEO (but, I'm retiring next week!!!) is Leslie C. Allen, author of the NICOT commentary and retired professor at Fuller.

He argues that Jonah is of the genre of satirical parable.

1. The Book of Jonah is not an ordinary prophetic narrative.
a. It differs from the other Minor Prophets: it is narrative, whereas they are mainly oracles.
b. Further, the Jonah narrative is different from other prophetic narratives (such as 1
and 2 Kings): the prophet is ridiculed, not vindicated.
2. The Jonah narrative is not history but parable.
a. The narrative of Jonah contains many ‘surprises’: being sent to Nineveh, his
disobedience, the storm, the fish, Nineveh’s repentance, the plant and the worm.
While one or two exciting events would raise no question, the
bombardment of the reader with surprise after surprise in a provocative
manner suggests that the author’s intention is other than simply to
describe historical facts... Not impossible but improbable is how they
strike the ordinary reader.
b. Allen suggests that the account has an ‘old world air’ (like Gen. 6 and 19) and that it
exhibits a creative use of the Elijah-Elisha narratives. Hence he concludes that it is
parable. Allen does not accept that Jesus’ words confirm Jonah’s historicity. Rather,
he suggests, our Lord was employing the popular Jewish understanding of it as a
preacher today might quote Macbeth.
3. Its tone is satirical.
If it is correct to describe the literary genre of the book of Jonah by the loose
designation of parable, as the majority of commentators conclude, then it is
possible to add that its literary tone is that of parody or satire. Jonah is made
to appear a ridiculous figure that none would be prepared to defend... There
are extensive parallels between the parable of the Prodigal Son and our story.

I must not have learned anything in seminary. My position is that it is historical.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Incidentally, the "Christo-thelic" school has had a devastating impact on men in NAPARC denominations teaching, in essence, that there are myths and such in the OT that get "redeemed" by the New Testament.

It's funny to consider but most people think of us as "fundamentalists" and that no real scholarship can proceed from the pen of a person who believes in the Scriptures.

I'm going through The Heresy of Orthodoxy right now and it is amazing to think how men like Bart Ehrman are hailed as scholars. I was just thinking today how his "scholarship" would be laughed to scorn in a court of law. I was considering how he might be brought in as an expert witness where some copyist error existed between two versions of a legal document and how he might concoct some amazing tale of how some careless emendation or missing word would permit him some wild speculation about the motives of the person who did it. He's a "scholar" after all and so it must be the case that whatever fish tale he tells about how the differences between documents came about really is the way things were.

Seriously, think about how mainstream it is to think that the early Church was the wild west with respect to what Christianity was and that the "orthodox" is simply one small group eventually taking over to force the others out. When you examine the evidence it is laughable.

But that's scholarship and that's what people who drink their tea with their pinky out and listen to NPR believe and so it is what virtually all scholars believe.

 

[DMcFadden]

Back to one of my old saws about a robust confessionalism.

When the individual human mind is made autonomous and we live in an academic culture that rewards the novel, the de novo, and the ideology of idolizing the contemporary over the "old," this is what you get. I have little faith in the ability of the academy to self-correct in the face of all of this.

We need a healthy respect for the generations of Christianity that have gone before us and have hammered some of these things out already. We do not need to pretend that we begin with a blank tablet when we come to the Bible. That is the danger of Biblicism, of the right and of the left.

 

[nick]

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools..."

 

[DMcFadden]

I was speaking with Leslie Allen today and pushed him a little bit about his "satirical parable" view. He said that one of the leading voices in his movement (English Plymouth Brethren) accused him of heresy for his commentary on Jonah. But, according to him, the man's son (a former student of Allen) convinced him that the book was OK.

It is one of the curious aspects of evangelical scholarship today that you can be considered "conservative" and make proposals such as denial of the historicity of Jonah.

 

[Peairtach]

It is a bit of a vicious circle. Only people who take critically agreed upon positions are counted as scholars so virtually all scholars take critically agreed upon positions.

Many professing "evangelicals" take a non-historical view of Jonah. One of the new residents in the retirement community where I am the CEO (but, I'm retiring next week!!!) is Leslie C. Allen, author of the NICOT commentary and retired professor at Fuller.

He argues that Jonah is of the genre of satirical parable.

1. The Book of Jonah is not an ordinary prophetic narrative.
a. It differs from the other Minor Prophets: it is narrative, whereas they are mainly oracles.
b. Further, the Jonah narrative is different from other prophetic narratives (such as 1
and 2 Kings): the prophet is ridiculed, not vindicated.
2. The Jonah narrative is not history but parable.
a. The narrative of Jonah contains many ‘surprises’: being sent to Nineveh, his
disobedience, the storm, the fish, Nineveh’s repentance, the plant and the worm.
While one or two exciting events would raise no question, the
bombardment of the reader with surprise after surprise in a provocative
manner suggests that the author’s intention is other than simply to
describe historical facts... Not impossible but improbable is how they
strike the ordinary reader.
b. Allen suggests that the account has an ‘old world air’ (like Gen. 6 and 19) and that it
exhibits a creative use of the Elijah-Elisha narratives. Hence he concludes that it is
parable. Allen does not accept that Jesus’ words confirm Jonah’s historicity. Rather,
he suggests, our Lord was employing the popular Jewish understanding of it as a
preacher today might quote Macbeth.
3. Its tone is satirical.
If it is correct to describe the literary genre of the book of Jonah by the loose
designation of parable, as the majority of commentators conclude, then it is
possible to add that its literary tone is that of parody or satire. Jonah is made
to appear a ridiculous figure that none would be prepared to defend... There
are extensive parallels between the parable of the Prodigal Son and our story.

I must not have learned anything in seminary. My position is that it is historical.

Interesting to see how these sorts of guys think on particular books of the Bible.

It sounds as if he rejects the notion that God extended His mercy in history to Nineveh through Jonah. This great real history example of God's grace to the Gentiles in contrast to Jonah's national prejudice and self righteousness is to be jettisoned, all because of a fish. How the men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment and condemn the cities in which our Lord preached, I don't know, since their faith was merely parabolic.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2