JONAH, rE
The Word of the Lord Heals Jonah
Introduction,
Part 2
II. Text Criticism
Even though a thorough evaluation of the text is beyond our scope and capabilities,[1] we believe that the
published Greek text is essentially sound.
Indeed, we also believe that the Septuagint (LXX)[2] is the oldest and best
witness to the underlying Hebrew prototype manuscript as it existed in the
second century BC. Next to the LXX, the
Vulgate is the best witness to the underlying Hebrew prototype manuscript as it
had evolved by the late fourth century AD.[3] Trailing centuries behind LXX and Vulgate
quality as witnesses, lies the Masoretic Text (MT).[4] This is counterintuitive to many, who expect
modern Hebrew to be the best witness to an archaic Hebrew prototype.[5] We have quite forgotten the historical fact
that for centuries Hebrew was a dead language; eclipsed first by Aramaic, and
then by Greek. It was only revived among
scholars as the MT, and as a popularly spoken language with the founding of the
State of Israel in 1948.[6]
Neither does there seem to be any substantial
conflict with the Hebrew text.
Aristobulus
... supplies ... a statement that the standard Greek translation of the
Pentateuch was made.... about 160 BC ...
that the Septuagint Pentateuch had been translated about a hundred years before
... and is the oldest datable Jewish work in Greek.[7]
Since there does not seem to be any substantial
conflict between the Greek and the Hebrew text of Jonah we will treat any
differences as they arise, one verse at a time.
The reader can find any number of commentaries and translations based on
the MT;[8] Vulgate based commentaries
and translations are a little harder to find;[9] LXX based commentaries and
translations are nearly nonexistent.[10] This being the case, we will build our work
on a fresh LXX translation and focus our comments on that.
III.
Divine Relationship
There is a definite
centrality of divine relationship in the life of Jonah, or in the book that
bears his name. Direct references to the
divine occur some forty-six times in the Greek Old Testament text.[11] For the human author of the book of Jonah,
YHWH, God of the heavens, who has created the sea and the dry land,[12] is pivotal to the
story. It is cardinal that references to
the Divine Person occur roughly twice as often as references to Jonah himself. Thus, the book of Jonah is about God, with
Jonah being a secondary character. We
could even say that the true author of the book is YHWH Himself. For all of Jonah’s faults, he is rather more
YHWH-absorbed than he is self-absorbed.
For Jonah, life itself begins and ends with YHWH, and with Jonah’s
personal relationship with YHWH.
IV.
Authorship
There is much debate over the authorship of
Jonah. Volumes stand written on the
subject. Multiple authors and redactors
are proposed. Theories run
from the laughable to the ridiculous to the trivial. None are compelling. Jonah is a vignette of a biography of God,
written by an autobiographical- observer named Jonah. Thus, Jonah inserts himself as a participant
in God’s biography.
The I
and my Proof
Numerous “I” passages reveal that the book is
largely autobiographical:[13] the standard formula or
idiom is, “Then Jonah prayed ... saying ... I”, corresponding to the first
person singular, and occurring in both Greek and Hebrew approximately ten
times. The pronoun, μου, in Greek (my: genitive singular), is also
amply represented, roughly fourteen times.
The
Psalms Objection
The objection that Jonah is not
autobiographical because these prayers are all quotations from Davidic Psalms.
Our reply: this objection is met by Jonah
4:1-10, where the standard formula “ ... Jonah ... prayed ... I” is not
followed by any Psalm, as is the case in roughly four other places with another
four or so echoing pronouns, μου
(my). Because Jonah 4 has such material
that is not contained in any Psalm, it is much harder to make Jonah 4 into a
quotation of prior literature. Besides,
it is perfectly normal in prayer to include references to favorite hymns and
Psalms: this simply does not militate against Jonah’s autobiography.[14]
The He
Objection
Jonah is not autobiographical because the book
is cast in the third person singular.
Our reply: this objection about passages in the
third person singular may indicate a second party narrator, but more likely an
autobiographer wrote in third person for greater effect, else Julius Caesar
could not have written Gallic Wars. So, this argument also falls flat.
The
Parable Objection
The book cannot be autobiographical because
Jonah is not an historic person, the book is an extended parable, typical of
rabbinic teaching.
Our reply: references to Ἰωνάς [15] are made some twenty-four times in the Greek
Old Testament, four of them outside of the book itself.[16] Most of these instances would normally
indicate historical events and persons. It
is difficult to see how an historic Jeroboam II can fulfill the prophesies of a
parabolic Jonah. Occurrences from the
Greek New Testament are Matthew 12:39, 40, 41 2X; 16:4; Luke 11:29, 30, 32 2X. Matthew 12:41-42 and Luke 11:31-32 are
particularly telling, because an historic Nineveh cannot very well repent at
the preaching of a parabolic Jonah.
Similarly, the historic persons “queen of the South” and Solomon are
paralleled to Jonah and Nineveh. If
Jonah is not an actual historic person, then how can the “queen of the South”
and Solomon be historic persons?
The
Science Objection
Jonah must be parabolic because it is
scientifically impossible for a whale or fish to swallow a man whole and keep
him alive for three days.
Our reply: this objection fails on several
grounds. “The Lord positions[17] a great sea creation[18]....” The word, whale, is a translator’s
interpretation which suggests the necessarily great size. It is impossible that an eighth century BC
author had in mind a twentieth century AD scientific species. We simply do not know, and it is useless to
speculate about what this great fish or whale might be. Since this objection was first put forth,
species of both sharks and whales were shown to be capable of swallowing a
whole man. The parallel claim that it is
scientifically impossible, because it is miraculous, is equally preposterous:
by this line of logic, the world does not exist. Contrary to all these claims, is the fact
that the sea itself, is the probable great sea creation, which Jonah intends.[19]
The
Language Objection
Aramaisms in the text prove that this is the
work of a later author, not the historical Jonah. Our reply: Aramaisms do not establish a late
authorship or date any more than the existence of the King James translation
militates against the existence of the earlier Greek text. Aramaic has already begun to replace Akkadian
as the lingua franca of several Mesopotamian and other empires as early as 900,
over 100 years before Jonah writes.[20] The text brought back from Babylon around 516
BC is an Aramaic translation and transliteration of writing in Jonah’s day,
over 200 years prior to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. It necessarily contains Aramaisms. Moreover, Jonah spent his childhood and youth
in Gath-Hepher, which is only
a few miles away from Syria (Aram): he naturally learned some Aramaic from trade relations.
So with the development of Aramaic 100 years before Jonah, the
Babylonian captivity 200 years after Jonah, and the powerful Syrian influence,
the presence of Aramaisms in Jonah is not unusual: it is a guaranteed
certainty. Jonah would necessarily speak
Aramaic to deliver God’s message to Nineveh.
The
Detail Proof
The book is also full of personal quotations,
the kind that would only be known by Jonah or a close friend. The author is plainly stated to be Jonah the
son of Amittai. This would normally
satisfy most scholars. We do not deny
the possibility, in the process of manual scribal copying, that editorial comments and footnotes were
added or that errant copies got past all the safeguards used by professional
scribes: yet this is an argument from silence.[21] However, normal scribal work[22] is easily accomplished without
changing or tampering with authorship or doing other violence to the text.
Arguments
from Silence
Since we are discussing a text published so
long ago with only manual means of transmission, crossing many cultural
boundaries (like war), we do not accept arguments from silence that cast doubt
on probable authorship.
We conclude that there is no compelling
biblical, grammatical, historical, statistical, textual, theological or traditional
reason to doubt that a prophet to Israel named Jonah the son of Amittai wrote
the book of Jonah.
V. Abuses from Friends
Haddon W. Robinson[23] warns us that, “More
heresy is preached in application than in Bible exegesis.”[24] If the book of Jonah has suffered at the
hands of its enemies, it may have suffered more at the hands of its
friends. Noted Christian scholars have
made Jonah into a tirade against the Roman Catholic Church, a program of
evangelism to the Jews, a sequence of tropes or allegories, a sermon on resurrection,
a discourse concerning the son of the widow of Zarephath, and a twentieth
century social justice program. Nevertheless,
Jonah is exclusively about God,
one bitter grieving man, a handful of terrified sailors, and a multitude of
Ninevites, God Himself being the primary subject, Jonah being the primary
object. The reader is left to his or her own opinion.[25]
VI.
Date
This date is more important than it seems to be
on the surface. A late date is
incorrectly thought by some to put Jonah into unnecessary conflict with his
contemporaries Hosea and Amos, since Jonah shows Assyria at peace with Israel,
whereas Hosea and Amos show Assyria as the final conqueror of Israel. But if Jonah acts and writes early in
Jeroboam II’s reign or even before it, while Hosea and Amos are late in
Jeroboam II’s reign, no conflict exists.
Moreover, no conflict exists because the subject matter differs: Jonah
predicts the recovery of territory from Aram, nowhere does he deal with the
final state of Israel at the hands of Assyria, even though he, as a prophet of
God, most likely knew the outcome already: so, conflict only exists in the
minds of detractors. The gainsaying
critics are comparing apples to oranges: doing that is a philosophical category
mistake. We must attempt to find
relationships that fit best with all the facts.
The 2 Kings 14:23-27 passage[26] is very useful, it fixes
the date, Jonah’s profession, and Jonah’s locale.
“In the fifteenth year of Amaziah, son of Joash, king of
Judah, Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of Israel began to reign in Samaria, and
reigned forty-one years. He did what was
evil in the sight of the Lord: he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam,
son of Nebat, who caused Israel to sin. He
restored the borders of Israel from Lebo-Hamath to the Arabah, according to the
word of the Lord God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of his servant
Jonah, son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher:[27] for the Lord saw that the
affliction of Israel, was very bitter: for Israel was few in number, caught in
a narrow place, living in want, destitute, and had no champion. So, the Lord promised that He would not blot
out the name of Israel from under heaven: yet he saved them by the hand of
Jeroboam the son of Joash.[28]”
Jeroboam II reigned for 41 years around 793-753
BC.[29] While the exact date of restoration for the
Lebo-Hamath to Arabah Sea border is uncertain, a conservative date, prior to
793 BC is indicated for Jonah. There is
no good reason to prohibit Jonah from being dated as early as 820 BC or even
earlier. The Aramaisms in the text
(mentioned above) do not argue for a later historical date. However, both Hosea and Amos also serve
during the reign of Jeroboam II, so the exact nature of their contemporary
interaction cannot be determined: even so, no contradiction exists.
The phrase, “in
accordance with the word....” found in 2 Kings 14:23-25 indicates that Jonah most
likely acted and wrote before Jeroboam II ascended to power. Indeed, this text suggests that Jeroboam II
skated into a position of enduring prominence on Jonah’s coattails, for it was
not Jeroboam II who defeated the Assyrians, but Jonah subdued them.[30] It is this text, above all other evidence,
that is most compelling in our selection of around 820 BC, during the reign of Shamshi-Adad
V of Assyria; certainly prior to 793 BC
for the original writing of Jonah. This
fact together with the autobiographical nature of the book suggests such a
conclusion.[31]
Even though we were unable to pinpoint exact
dates for each of Jonah’s activities, there is yet a better answer for the date
of the writing of the book. This answer
holds much of the key to, and unlocks any understanding of the book, we might
have. Without this key, we could not
possible know that any of the events in the book ever happened, or that Jonah
ever went to Nineveh. Without this key,
all knowledge of the book is impossible.
Jonah wrote the book after he returned from Nineveh, after he had again
met with the sailors who had thrown him into the sea.
VII.
Locations
Gath-hepher
The Kings passage[32] locates Jonah at
Gath-hepher, which is in Galilee, about three miles north of Nazareth and just
over half a mile from Cana: Gath-hepher is possibly his birthplace, hometown or
principal residence.[33] Jonah is thought to have a tomb here.
Samaria
However, his work necessarily takes him other
places like Samaria:[34] for his first assigned
task appears to be to bring the message of the kingdom of God to Israel, since
he is most likely the direct successor of Elijah and Elisha. The assignment to Nineveh appears to be secondary.
Jerusalem
Still, Jonah 2:4, 7 and 9 place him at
Jerusalem. These verses do more than
express a prayer toward a distant holy place, Jerusalem. They express longing for a place where Jonah
has previously been,[35] a place for which he
longs, at which he prayed,[36] and if redeemed, to which
he will return; offering sacrifice,[37] thanksgiving, and vows. Jonah had to be at Jerusalem three times a
year to be observant in his calling as prophet.
He would have been continuing his conversation with God in Jerusalem. Still, his location when he is sent to
Nineveh is not specified.
Nineveh
He was, of course, at Nineveh. The expression, “Nineveh, the great city,”
may be the standard idiom for greater Nineveh, as opposed to a specific mound (tell)
within the greater Nineveh complex.[38] Nineveh was reported to be many magnitudes
larger and more magnificent than Babylon.
A tomb or monument to Jonah is located there. One explanation for this second burial site
would be that when Assyria defeated Israel in 722 BC, Jonah’s remains were
relocated to Nineveh out of the Assyrians’ love and respect for the great
prophet. Another explanation would be
that loyal Israelites brought Jonah’s relics with them to Nineveh around
722. The only evidence we have for such
respect and affection today is the existence of this second tomb.
We so deeply regret our technical inability to include these four maps of Nineveh at this location. They can be found at the four references cited in end note 39.
Joppa
Joppa or Jaffa was a significant Mediterranean
Sea port during the Iron Age and beyond.
It was active at least from 970 BC until around 100 AD, being best known
for Solomon’s imports of building timber and his acquisition of precious
metals. It is, of course, Jonah’s point
of departure from his prophetic assignment.[40]
Tarshish
Even though Jonah never got there, Tarshish is
important for the historic credibility of the book. Today we have very firm evidence that
Tarshish is a very real place at the western end of the Mediterranean Sea. Her reality is attested by the Nora
Stone. Now, scholars have traced the
unique isotope map of Levantine silver hoards, still reported to be the largest
on earth, to specific locations in Sardinia and or Spain. There can be no doubt that Jonah intended to
follow the ancient silver route to get as far away from Nineveh, Jerusalem, and
God as possible.[41]
Assyria
Genesis 10:22 informs us that Elam (the
Elamites), Asshur (the Assyrians), Arphaxad (the Hebrews), Lud (the Luwians)[42], Aram (the Syrians), and Cainan[43] comprise the (complete)
list of all the Semitic branches. Thus
the political interactions and wars observed in relationship with Jonah are
inter-Semitic, not anti-Semitic confrontations.
In Genesis 10:11[44] we learn that Asshur took
exception to Nimrod’s bullying tactics, separating himself from that
civilization, to build Nineveh, Rehoboth[45], Calah (Nimrud)[46], and Resen (Dasé)[47]. The phrase, “the same is a great city”, could
indicate that greater Nineveh is in view, and that the conceptual size of
Nineveh was, during the times of Genesis, much larger than anything indicated
by the above maps.[48]
Whatever the historic details turn out to be,
there is little doubt that Nineveh became the central cosmopolitan, and
metropolitan jewel of the very sophisticated Assyrian culture. They had access to advanced ideas of law
stemming from the Code of Hammurabi (1754).[49] Their war craft was highly advanced.[50]
Assyrian commerce was extended widely. Precursors of the Silk Road date from 2000.[51] We know that the Iron Age (1200) was
supported by puddled iron from India. By
800 trade with China and possibly even Japan was well established. Assyria was the gateway to the Silk
Road. Once the Levant was conquered, the
Via Maris[52]
also came under Assyrian control. Very
possibly all major commerce in the Mediterranean basin and across Asia, from
Spain to Japan, and from Anatolia to Egypt, passed through Assyrian hands.[53]
We are not surprised then, to learn that the
man Asshur was eventually granted deity status.
Ancient peoples often pronounced their ancestors to be gods. Even the Israelites made such use of words (Psalm
82:6). Since the word god appears to
have something to do with provision, we can understand how the practice arose:
it is not clear that ancient peoples always saw their providers as servants of
the One Great Provider.[54]
Shalmaneser III (859-824)[55], Shamshi-Adad V (824-811)[56], and Adad-nirari III
(811-783)[57]
followed in close succession on the throne of Assyria. Note that the latter two have both adopted
the name of the Syrian God, Hadad.[58] “Despite Adad-nirari’s vigor, Assyria entered
a several decades long period of weakness following his death.”[59] Although, the point cannot be proved
absolutely, this decline fits very well with the success and timing of Jonah’s
mission.[60] Shalmaneser IV (783-773)[61], Ashur-dan III (772-755)[62], and Ashur-nirari V
(755-745)[63],
by Assyrian standards of savagery, were weak kings; perhaps they simply heard
Jonah’s message, perhaps they had been subdued by a higher power. The seeming truce ended with Tiglath-Pileser
III (745-727)[64], Shalmaneser
V (727-722)[65],
and Sargon II (722-705)[66]. Shalmaneser V conquered Israel; Sargon II
most likely managed the deportation.
When Sennacherib (705-681)[67] “came down like the wolf
on the fold”[68],
Assyrian dominance was all but ended; by 612 Nineveh was nearly uninhabited.[69] It seems as if Jonah had won thirty-eight
years of relative peace for Israel, and extended the survival of Israel as a
kingdom for nearly eighty years.
Summary
The purpose of all this journeying begs for
explanation. What are the real reasons
for Jonah’s perambulatory, wandering travels?
Is he simply rebellious? Or is
something deeper involved?
VIII. Profession
His profession is stated in Kings and in the
New Testament as prophet.[70] But, in the book of Jonah itself he is never
called a prophet. A search of many
prophet-related words in a variety of forms turned up nothing with any sense of
title.[71] Only one remote superscription was found.[72] Why is Jonah called a prophet? Still, Jonah talks with God.[73]
The
Duty of a Prophet
To be sure, “the word of the LORD came to Jonah.[74] Everyone knows that God is acting here.[75] In these senses Jonah is a prophet. God sees and Jonah sees, but there is no specific
statement that Jonah is a seer.[76] The duty of a prophet is to listen carefully
to the voice of God and publish it faithfully.[77] Hence, the internal work of a prophet is
obedience. More than publishing words or
books, a prophet presents the living person, YHWH, to a broken, needy world. It would almost seem that Jonah falls
miserably short of this duty of a prophet.[78]
The
Work of a Prophet
The major external work of a prophet is
preaching great powerful sermons (forth telling) that serve to warn of the
folly and danger of evil behavior. The
prophet is the night watchman or town crier who signals of approaching enemies
within or without. The minor external
work of a prophet is indicating the future consequences for repentance or its
lack (foretelling). Instead, Jonah has
two puny little sentences (sound bites, really). Throw me overboard and you’ll be spared.[79] And
Nineveh will be destroyed in three days.[80] Jonah’s
only obedience is angrily, bitterly and grudgingly given. Out of all the great sermons in the Bible
these two stand as jokes. On the basis
of these sentences we are amazed, even startled, that Jonah could be classed as
a prophet. If Jonah is a prophet, he is
such a prophet, only in the most extraordinary sense of the word. Further explanation is due.
The
Hope of a Prophet
The hope of a prophet is to see the conversion
of his audience. This is necessarily
true. If one hoped for the destruction
of any group he would simply be silent, speaking only to himself or to
cronies. Why would he speak at all? There is neither compulsion nor necessity to
speak if there is no hope of conversion.
Yet Jonah is the direct opposite of the logical necessity. Why?
Jonah is not really very afraid of God.
Nor is he afraid that God will kill him, this is in fact his stated
preference. Jonah is afraid he won’t be
able to pray anymore, see the face of God anymore, be able to behold the
beatific vision anymore: which is his expectation even in the face of death.[81] As rebellious as he is, Jonah is wondrously
captivated by the face of the Person of God, so much so that he seems to
exercise his reason to suppress his own volition; yet, he is severely
conflicted by both: he runs from God’s face, while He seeks it; he longs for
death, while he clings to it; he knows, or at least suspects, that God will
convert Nineveh, still, he opposes it, even though the preaching of repentance
and forgiveness is his life’s work….. He
preaches at Nineveh, but against the logical necessity of hope. What kind of prophet is this? If
Jonah is a prophet, he fails any ordinary test we might concoct to define a
prophet. Jonah forces us to rethink our
definition of what a prophet is and does.
Hence, we are forced to return to Moses’ definition.
The
Status of a Prophet
I suppose most of us think of a prophet as some
sort of scruffy, shaggy, unkempt eccentric, who does not “like anybody very
much”[82]. We would not be paying attention to the
details, if strange garb, and extreme introversion were all we saw in a
prophet.
First and foremost, a prophet is a God
designated ambassador of the kingdom of God on earth. Moses is a quiet man; yet, when he speaks, he
speaks to the pharaoh of Egypt, and to the new nation, Israel. Samuel, is also quiet and shy, yet he sleeps
in the holy Oracle, terminates the period of Judges, anoints kings, and
introduces the whole new kingdom covenant era of David and Solomon.
A fair reading of the books of Samuel and Kings
discloses that the prophets had more to do with the administration of Israel,
the northern kingdom, than any of their kings; as well as having a fairly
sizeable hand in Judean politics.
John the Baptist was no mean person either: all
Judea came out to be baptized by him (Matthew 3:5-6; Luke 3:15). Even when John was in prison, Herod payed
attention to John’s advice (Mark 6:20).
How many of us could get the ear of any politician, let alone a king?
Nor was it completely strange for a prophet to
offer divine amnesty to pagans (2 Kings 6:15-23).
Conclusion
So is Jonah a professional prophet? Yes, of course he is, the Scripture says so
in at least three places.[83] There can be no question that he is a
prophet. He is a prophet in such an extraordinary
sense, that his book was singled out, not originally included with the twelve
minor prophets, and accepted in the cannon ahead of them.[84] But Jonah is not just a prophet, he is more
than a prophet, he is the slave of God.[85] And much more than either prophet of God or
slave of God, Jonah is the sign of Christ.[86]
[1] The Stuttgart critical apparatus is not available
to us either in the “Larger Cambridge Septuagint” or in the “Larger Göttingen
Septuagint”. The cost of such editions
places them out of reach of common students, such as we are.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/editions.html
[2]
Technically speaking, there is more than one contender to the title LXX, so we
might better have said, the Septuagints are, since a sizable family or even
families of manuscripts is/are in view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome
[4] Orlinsky:
page XXXVI. As with LXX, MT represents a
complexity of manuscripts, most of which have crumbled to dust. There is no single MT.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+1-4&version=WLC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_Text
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretes
[5] The writer is
aware that laying claim to the
priority of the Greek text is contrary to so called “conventional
wisdom”. However, this is more than a
baseless and unfounded statement of opinion.
LXX was the “Received Text” from well before 4 BC until well past the
fifth century AD. There is simply not enough
space here for further defense of the
priority of the Greek text.
[6] It
was revived even earlier among Jewish intellectuals and scholars by the Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement of the
nineteenth century: yet, not among the common Jewish people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revival_of_the_Hebrew_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish
[7]
Beckwith: page 20. Jonah cannot be far
behind.
[8]
With rare exception, works written in English are based on MT: for example KJV,
NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, and many others.
Even the Roman Catholic translation, The Jerusalem Bible
is MT based.
[9] Wycliffe,
Douay-Rheims, Confraternity, and Knox are good examples.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+1-4&version=DRA
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah+1-4&version=WYC
http://ronaldknoxsociety.blogspot.com/2012/01/knox-bible-online.html
The only source we have for Roman Catholic commentary is New
Advent, where tabs lead to The Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica, The
Fathers of the Church, The Bible, and a Catholic Library. The Bible tab has the LXX, the Knox
Translation, and the Vulgate in parallel columns. http://newadvent.org/
[10]
The only modern work of which we are aware is The Orthodox Study Bible. Elpenor has the older Brenton translation and
LXX in parallel columns. Brenton appears
to have pioneered the older translation work singlehandedly, but it needs
careful review and updating.
Nevertheless, we are greatly indebted to giants like Brenton, who toiled
assiduously without the sorts of benefits we derive from modern personal
computers.
[11]
H&R: Κυριος, pages 292
and 800 (Jonah 1:1, 3, 3, 4, 9,
9, 10, 14, 14, 14, 16, 16; 2:1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11; 3:1, 3; 4:2, 2, 3). H&R: Θεος, page 630 (Jonah
1:5, 6, 6, 9; 2:2, 3, 7; 3:3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 10; 4:6, 7, 8, 9). H&R: Παντοκρατωρ is not used, page 1053.
A similar conclusion is drawn from the equivalent words in the Hebrew
text, Lisowsky: pages 1612ff. Mandelkern:
pages 76f, 79ff, and 1416ff. EH: p.76f & 79ff. The reader should be aware that, because 1:17
in the MT is 2:1 in the LXX, the verse references will shift by one verse in chapter
2 depending on which version or translation is being read.
[12] Jonah 1:9
[13] Jonah 2:1-10
[14]
Calvin: page 73, note 1 cites and links verse 1 (1:17) with Psalm 120:1; 4
(2:3) with Psalm 42:7; 5 (4) with Psalm 31:22; 6 (5) with Psalm 69:1; 8 (7)
with Psalm 142:3; 9 (8) with Psalm 31:6; and 10 (9) with Psalm 3:8.
[15] Evidently this is the same identical historical
person.
[16] H&R: Ἰωνάς, page 1126, supplement pages
59 and 93. Specific instances outside of
Jonah are 4 Kingdoms 14:25 [2 Kings 14:25]; Tobit 14:4, 8; 3 Maccabees 6:8. Similar references can be found in
Hebrew. Within Jonah we find Jonah 1:1, 3,
5, 7, 12, 15; 2:1 [1:7] 2X, 2 [1], 11 [10]; 3:1, 3, 4; 4:1, 4, 5, 6 2X, 8, 9.
[17]
Or appoints; an act of special creation is not out of the question. However, a far more likely reality is that
the Lord appoints the sea itself.
[18]
Or sea monster; the specific creature is neither designated nor relevant. The whole event suggests a miraculous
intervention. Certainly, there are
species of sharks, and whales capable of swallowing a whole man. However, all of these suggestions overlook
the simpler probability that the sea itself is the great sea creation,
creature, or monster intended. Jonah
loves colorful metaphorical descriptions and language, so it is not at all out
of character for Jonah to describe a perfect storm in such a glowing
fashion. We must not read the Pinocchio
myth into the biblical text. Such
superstitions are out of place in Scripture.
[19] I
am indebted to Dr. Bruce K. Waltke, who first suggested this possibility in a
class around 1971-76. The idea was not
well received at the time, so the discussion was dropped. Over the years, the idea that the sea itself
is the great monster, has prevailed in my thinking. There are relatively few grammatical or lexical
reasons to support any idea of a great fish, mammal, or monster. The use of metaphorical language to emphasize
and intensify action does not militate against its historicity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Waltke
[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
[21] This is not an
assertion that we possess the Autographa. The
Autographa were lost during the destruction of Jerusalem (586). Today, the Autographa are archived in heaven
(Revelation, Chapter 5 – The Great Scroll or Book, and Chapter 10 – The Little
Book).
[22] e.g. translation of Scripture from Greek to
English
[23] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haddon_Robinson
[24] http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/1997/fall/7l4020.html
[25] Further
investigation may be pursued via the plethora of commentaries and elsewhere: resources that are commonly found in
church libraries, or on the internet. A
partial list of Jonah commentaries includes:
Calvin:
Calvin provides
extensive explanatory information and detailed grammatical and other
analysis. Still, Calvin devotes too much
energy to eisegesis and not enough energy to exegesis. His frequent railing tirades against Roman
Catholic theology are no longer timely or valid today. Had Calvin devoted half as much time to the
text of Jonah, as he does to the errors of the Catholic Church, we might have
made some real progress with Jonah. The
world has moved on from the sixteenth century: so that we need to rethink Jonah
afresh from twenty-first century perspectives.
Other errors stem from the technical limitations of sixteenth century
knowledge: these must be corrected.
Still, Calvin’s applications are quite profitable.
We believe
Calvin errs concerning Jonah’s motivations about the limitation of the Gospel
to Israel: if this were true, Jonah would not have fled to Tarshish: he would
have remained fixed in Israel, where his ministry evidently began. That being said, many Israelite sailors were
thought to serve in the Phoenician fleet; so, Jonah might have considered
himself among friends. Still, it has
ever been evident, from before the time of Abraham, that God’s goal was the
world: the Gospel was never limited to Israel.
According to the
Nora Stone, Tarshish is a real place. Hacksilber
isotope tracing locates Tarshish as Sardinia and/or possibly the Iberian Peninsula,
where mining was pursued from the time of Solomon; not Cilicia as Calvin
supposes. Jonah is evidently taking
advantage of the silver trade route to get as far from Nineveh as is humanly
possible.
Calvin is also a
bit anachronistic in his treatment of the casting of lots: he especially reads
too much of mediaeval superstitions about sin into the text. The text simply notes that lots were cast,
and the outcome identifies Jonah. This
is similar to the judgment of Achan, so an influence of Israelite sailors is
possible: nevertheless, we are still in danger of reading into the text, rather
than drawing out of the text.
Perpetuation of such criticisms is especially unfair to the Roman
Catholic Church today. We did not know
that Jonah had the Roman Catholic Church in mind, circa 793 BC and beyond.
Calvin also
seems excessive in doubting that the repentance of the sailors was complete and
genuine, leading ultimately to sincere faith in the living God, which is what
we believe was the actual case: God does not clutter up our faith with a
barrage of unnecessary Pharisaical conditions (Acts 15:29).
Calvin misses
again the intent of Scripture: for he fails to understand that Jonah needs far
more healing than all of the Ninevites combined. One sentence in Jonah is about the pagan
sailors; another is about the Ninevites themselves. The rest of the book is devoted to God’s
dealing with Jonah.
Cohen, A.
(1887-1957), ed., The Twelve Prophets, (Soncino, London, 1948;
eighth impression, 1970: 368 pages); Goldman, S. (1893-1953), “Jonah:
Introduction and Commentary” pages 137-150
Goldman has a
brief, yet inciteful, even profound introduction; as well as outline; brief,
yet helpful exegetical and grammatical notes. His primary defense of Jonah is applicational:
it doesn’t matter if Jonah is allegorical, historical, or parabolical — the basic meaning remains the same in every
case.
Feinberg, Charles Lee (1909-1995), the Major Messages of the
Minor Prophets, “Jonah – God’s Love for All Nations”, (American Board
of Missions to the Jews, NY, © 1951: 163 pages), pages 11-50
Feinberg is
anachronistic in his treatment of evangelism.
He reads twentieth century evangelical views into the text, right down
to the standard error of making the participle, going, into an imperative, go (Matthew
28:19). He makes Jonah into a witnessing
manual for working with Jews. We
seriously doubt that Jonah had the evangelization of the Jews in mind circa 793
BC and beyond.
Hailey, Homer (1903-2000), A Commentary on the Minor Prophets,
“Jonah – Dove”, (Baker,
Grand Rapids, 1972: 428 pages), pages 62-80
Hailey provides background information, dating, historic details, and
a detailed outline; careful and well-reasoned exegesis.
Hegedus, Timothy Michael, Jerome's [347-420] commentary on
Jonah: Translation with introduction and critical notes (1991). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). Paper 115
At least Jerome is no worse than many of the modern commentators. We can see in Jerome the seeds of nearly
every modern interpretive folly. That
being said, regarding tropes: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Sigmund Freud?).” Nevertheless, Hegedus’ introductory remarks
are very enlightening and fill in a great deal of our knowledge of the history
of exegesis, as well as Jerome’s personal history, including many of the
squabbles in which Jerome found himself entangled. This historical information helps us
understand that the Great Schism of The Church did not suddenly happen out of
thin air in 1054.
http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=etd
Msgr. McCarthy, John F., J.C.D., S.T.D., ed., et al, Living
Tradition, Crean, Thomas, “On the Prophet Jonah”, (Roman Theological
Forum, St. Louis, 2002), Number 101
Crean provides an excellent analysis of interpretive methods and
reasoning.
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt101.html
McGee, J. Vernon (1904-1988), Jonah – Dead or Alive?,
(Miracle Press, St. Louis, 1969: 48 pages)
McGee lists a host of “extravagant theories”, which he credits to
“critics” and Septuagint “translators”; yet, he produces no evidence that the
Septuagint translators either corrupted the text or multiplied allegorical,
mythological, or parabolical interpretations of it.
McGee mounts a strong defense for the death and resurrection of Jonah:
this is the main feature of the commentary.
McGee perpetuates the common evangelical myth that Jonah is about the
resurrection. In doing so, he is reading
the words of Jesus back into Jonah, rather than reading Jonah to see what he
has to say for himself: this is the common error of eisegesis rather than
exegesis, which is our proper focus.
Nevertheless, a good number of modern evangelicals will readily respond
with the view that Jonah is about the resurrection of Jesus. While it is clearly true that Jonah is a type
of Jesus, one has to read Jonah with a fine-tooth comb and microscope to find
hints of resurrection: most readers will not find any such reference.
K&D:
K&D has a wealth of information, generally more, and generally
broader in scope than other commentaries, leading to a more balanced view, with
extensive discussions of Hebrew grammar — sometimes in comparison with Greek.
K&D develop the idea that Jonah is an essential link in salvation
history without letting it take over the entire substance of the book.
K&D remind us, quoting Jerome, who is quoting 1 Kings 17:24, “Matre
postea dicente ad eum: nunc cognovi, quia vir Dei es tu, et verbum Dei in ore
tuo est veritas; et ob hanc causam etiam ipsum puerum sic vocatum, Amathi enim
in nostra lingua veritatem sonat.” ‘The
mother then said to him: now I know that you are a man of God, and the Word of
God is truly on your lips’; yet because of this so-called account, the boy
[was] imagined [to be Elijah’s] servant, Amathi: which sounds like the truth in
our language. K&D thus remind us
that we do not accept rumor without evidence.
The rumor of the son is that Jonah is the son of the widow of Zarephath,
who was raised by Elijah for which there is no real evidence (1 Kings
17:24). K&D: page 380
However, even K&D fall into the trap of MT supremacy. Too little attention is devoted to LXX. Both MT and LXX are text families, not single
homogenous documents or manuscripts, as the printing process leads us to
believe. K&D also presume that the
best textual prototype of MT is MT; rather than LXX which was published by Jews
roughly 1000 years earlier; or even Vulgata, which is about 500 years earlier
than MT. The problem is further clouded
by adducing AD variations to LXX, rather than by striving for the LXX
prototype. All of these are serious
technical errors.
Pickard, William M. (1920-2002), Rather Die than Live – Jonah,
(Pilgrim Press, Philadelphia, © 1970, 1974, original printing 1921: 140
pages)
Pickard’s vast wealth of information and evident love of Christ is
spoiled by his modernist background, and unbalance treatment of what he calls
mission; all of his applications tend to be about mission: and this is no more
accurate a characterization of Jonah, than the idea that Jonah is a whale
story. Pickard, without stating so, is
continually bringing in ideas from the Documentary Hypothesis, which so
evidently poisons his thinking.
One of these modernist ideas is that Jonah was written by a historian
after 516 BC; it is, according Pickard, not Jonah’s autobiography (circa 800
BC). This claim is quickly overthrown,
because the book is filled with minute details, which only Jonah himself could
possibly know. Moreover, Jesus treats it
as history.
The outcome of this modernist influence is that Pickard can only
conceive of Jonah as an analysis of Jewish, post 516 BC immoral, isolationist
behavior; from there it becomes an analysis of contemporary U. S.
behavior. This is also a preposterous
application of Jonah: for Jonah is not written about the times of Judaism; it
is written about the times of Israel; yet, the immoral isolationist behavior of
pre-722 BC Israel is not once mentioned in the book. In the process, Pickard reverses the thrust
of the book: Pickard sees a Hebrew elitist forced to reach out to the hoi
polloi; while Jonah, an Israelite survivor, in fact preaches to the corps d’elite,
which Nineveh is. Even the claim Hebrew,
stretches the truth, and is not supported by LXX.
The point that Pickard so tragically misses is that the book of Jonah
as about God’s focused attention on one person.
(See pages 131-132, especially 132: “The book of Jonah speaks of God’s
action from beginning to end….”)
Pickard also responds harshly to the post-exilic compulsory divorces
of priests who married outside of the faith, citing it as an indicator of
bigotry, isolationism, racial prejudice, and the like. He fails to note that the same restrictions
are applied to Christians in the New Testament, for the same reason, with a
somewhat different remedy (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:1-16). What Pickard fails to observe is that as the
chef must be clean to do his job, as the surgeon must use sterile technique in
surgery, so also the spiritual servant must be spiritually pure to effectively
lift up the pagan world to Christ; so also, one of the drowning people must
find solid rock before helping the others.
Marriage is more than a sexual union, it is a spiritual union, a yoking
together in which the unequal yoke of believer-unbeliever seriously damages the
believer’s ability to serve God. So,
Pickard from his false presuppositions launches into a cruel, extended, false,
and misleading tirade on this topic.
That being discovered, doubtless the Jews, especially the Pharisees and
the Sadducees have become extreme racists by 4 BC; yet their behavior is not
the behavior of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubbabel around 516 BC. Pickard does not understand the point
correctly. Pickard ends up doing the
very things he so fervently preaches against: he becomes an elitist, looking
down his nose at “poorer” Christians.
Pickard’s emphasis on mission leads to considerable guilt centered
preaching. Expect to be blamed for
starting or not starting everything from WWII to ISIS: which Pickard claims is
a U. S. church mission failure; or for failing to do your share of evangelism,
even if your name is Graham. This simply
ignores the reality of spiritual gifts; everyone is not gifted or called to be
an evangelist or missionary: folks who attempt to do these tasks, motivated by
guilt, are destined to failure. The
Spirit moves where He wishes (John 3:8; 1 Corinthians 12:11). Jonah is driven by bitterness and grief, both
wrong motives; guilt motivation is not different than bitterness or grief
motivation: both struggle against God, both end up going overboard.
Spirit motivation is the only right motivation. It has taken me the better part of
seventy-nine years to figure out what God wanted me to do, over seventy years
floundering helplessly and hopelessly in the sea; all because I did not seek
the Spirit’s leadership early enough or often enough: and nobody told me that I
needed to do so. Still, I learned many
things failing, flailing, and floundering in the sea: because God is always in
Sovereign control. Let the Spirit run
your life: this is about more than spiritual gifts; this is about
minute-by-minute hearing and obeying, quietly listening and seeking for the
Spirits voice as He teaches the Scripture to you: thus, He shows us what we
are, what the Father created us to be.
Pickard presents a very credible analysis of worldwide twentieth
century cultural ills, and a precursor of the same social ills that will
certainly continue to plague our world in this new twenty-first century; at best,
he presents only a mediocre commentary of the book Jonah: because, he really
does not care about Jonah, he only cares about social and cultural issues:
which is really okay, except for the fact that Pickard’s commentary is
misleadingly named. Pickard’s analyses
are accurate and to the point; they are just not found in the book of Jonah:
few, if any of Pickard’s notions ever entered Jonah’s mind.
In the final analysis, Pickard wants The Church to repent and change;
not in conformity to the Bible; only in conformity to Pickard’s cultural and
social values: he seeks to persuade all who will listen, to this end, and
provides the brainwash to accomplish his goal.
Pusey, E. B. (1800-1882), The Minor Prophets a Commentary, 2 Volumes,
“Introduction to the Prophet Jonah” and “Jonah”, (Baker, Grand Rapids, 1973: 427 and 504
pages), Volume I, pages 371-394 and 395-427
Pusey’s
introduction is a delight; those looking for scientific details will find a
trail of many evidence claims here.
Pusey’s
commentary is somewhat disappointing. He
inflates the Greek and Hebrew words for, “and”, with entirely too much force;
in either language the word, and, is often only as basic stop-start: it is used
where we would begin with a capital letter, and end with a period and space. Still he includes many tidbits of local
color, useful for those of us who have never seen this area of planet Earth.
Robinson, George L. (1863-1958), The Twelve Minor Prophets, “Jonah the
Prophet of Catholicity”, (Baker,
Grand Rapids, 1926: 203 pages) pages 70-93
Robinson’s retelling of Jonah in a modern story format tends to
oversimplify and trivialize the profound nature of the book of Jonah: telling
us that the book is a profound delight does not completely make up for this
error. Nevertheless, Robinson has some
valuable insights, and a worthwhile bibliography.
Sherwood, Yvonne, A Biblical Text and its Afterlives,
(University Press, Cambridge, 2000: 321 pages)
Sherwood likes the clever and flowery use of ornate words, with little
content. Sherwood is right about one
thing: the history of the interpretation of Jonah is a meandering path of
mutually contradicting ideas, which have little to say about Jonah as God gave
us the book.
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam031/00031176.pdf
[26] The identical Jonah, is indicated by the
addition of “the son of Amittai”. This
makes it nearly impossible to believe that another, different Jonah is in
view. The MT and LXX texts are nearly
identical throughout this passage.
[27]
We recall that this is the same period during which Assyria attacks Aram
(Syria), year after year until Aram is crushed and unable to prevent Israel
from taking this territory. Jonah
predicts these events as certainty. He
does not speak to the fact that eventually Nineveh will also conquer
Israel. Delivering the message of
Israel’s defeat at the hands of the Assyrians is a job for Hosea and Amos, not
for Jonah.
[28]
This shows us how badly Israel had been hammered by Aram (Syria), before God
intervened and Aram had to cope with a more powerful foe, Assyria. Jonah does not speak of deliverance from the
boot of Assyria; rather from the heel of Syria.
Yes, Israel was delivered from Syria.
Yes, Israel would eventually be defeated by Assyria. Both are true. Neither Jeroboam II nor Jonah would live long
enough to see both events come to pass.
[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeroboam_II:
Thiele has demonstrated theories that show considerable improvement over
Albright’s understanding of the dating of the Hebrew kings: still Thiele’s work
is flawed by its excessive devotion to MT.
Subsequent work continues, especially with Kenneth Kitchen, which
eclipses Thiele’s work by light years.
In any case the differences of opinion are only seven years. This is a very firm ancient date. See Kitchen.
[30]
As Elisha also subdued the Syrians before Jonah: 2 Kings 5:5-8; 6:8-23;
7:1-20. This places Jonah in the
immediate succession behind Elijah (circa 875-849) and Elisha (circa 851-790). Hence Jonah (circa 800-741, starting
preaching before the reign of Jeroboam II).
Kitchen, page 375. Hosea (circa 791-686, from the middle of Jeroboam’s
reign) and Amos (circa 791-735, from
the middle of Jeroboam’s reign) appear to have written later. Kitchen, page 376.
[31] While the specific date of 793 BC might slip
a few years, a pre-Jeroboam II date is still probably indicated.
[32]
2 Kings 14:23-25, Matthew 12:39-42 and Luke 11:29-32; perhaps more
significantly, Jesus calls Jonah a sign.
We will explore this in greater length.
The implication is that Jonah is indeed a prophet, but even more than a
prophet, he himself is a sign, the very sign of Christ.
[33]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gath-hepher
[34]
If he in fact addresses dignitaries and kings like Jeroboam II
[35]
Verse 5 [4] The implication is that Jonah had personally witnessed the glory
cloud and fire.
[36]
verse 8 [7]
[37]
verse 10 [9] Prayer to Jerusalem could and was made from remote locations, but
sacrifice requires the physical presence of the offeror and the offering in
Jerusalem at the Temple.
[38] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh
[39] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Nineveh_map_
city_ walls_%26_gates.JPG/220px-Nineveh_map_city_walls_%26_gates.JPG
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/ancientmap13.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsoLFJ42m17GAo7m1
W1j0ZDI9xN80FnigjOdF4K-VDPQ0-6znidQ
https://www.google.com/search?q=ruins+of+Nineveh&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS691US691&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif1OjLwtbSAhWMU7wKHUD7CkUQsAQILg&biw=1097&bih=543
[40] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa
[41] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarshish#Sardinia
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/biblical-archaeology-topics/tarshish-hacksilber-hoards-pinpoint-solomons-silver-source/
https://opencontext.org/projects/CF179695-1E6A-440F-1DDB-4FEA7B02A5B5
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue35/thompson_index.html
Thompson, C., and Skaggs, S. (2013). King Solomon's Silver? Southern Phoenician Hacksilber Hoards and the
Location of Tarshish. Internet
Archaeology, (35). http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.35.6
[42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lud,_son_of_Shem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language
[43]
Cainan, spelled differently than Canaan, is omitted by MT, possibly because of
the embarrassing similarity of sounds: note the sound differences between Cainan
(Ca-iy-nán) versus Canaan
(Chan-a-án). Luke 3:36-38 shows the same genealogy as LXX
with two Cainans in the holy line: one before the Flood, before Noah (Genesis
5:9-14), and one after the flood, a Semite (Genesis 10:22). Unfortunately, we have no real knowledge of
any of Cainan’s descendants
There are a variety of hypotheses that explain the differences
between the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke: one is thought to be Joseph’s
genealogy, while the other is considered to be Mary’s genealogy. It seems to us that the name is missing from
MT because the Jews removed it.
The name is also absent from Vulgate. If Luke 3:36-38 is the inerrant Word of God,
we are hard pressed to justify MT: MT is errant and therefore cannot be
Scripture. If this line of logic presses
too tightly, as we believe it does, then may need to abandon the idea of
Inerrancy of Scripture, and stick with the idea of the Truth of Scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cainan
[44]
MT clouds the issue here: for it can be translated, “From that land he [Nimrod]
went forth to Assyria….” This takes the
third person of the verb as a pronoun reflecting back to the antecedent,
Nimrod: yet, it turns the sentence into gibberish, making Asshur the direct
object. The more standard V-S-O
construction places Assur immediately after the verb, “From that land he
[Asshur] went forth….” The ensuing
conflicts make no sense, without antagonism between the Hamitic (Nimrod) and
Semitic (Asshur) tribes. LXX supports
the latter idea, which is also preserved in KJV: the rabbis who translated LXX
under Sanhedrin authority, should certainly have recognized the correct
idiom. Beware, several of the Wikipedia
articles follow the MT error in falsely attributing the founding of these
Assyrian cities to Nimrod, rather than Asshur.
[45] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehoboth_(Bible)
Since Rehoboth may be translated as some kind of general open
area, the sense may be, Nineveh, with its lanes, parks, streets, and squares
(anything that could be expressed by the aggregate sense of Rehoboth). On the other hand, LXX seems to emphasize
that it is a specific city. Even so, an
adjectival expression is not impossible: for example, “city lanes, parks,
streets, and squares.”
[46] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrud
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrud#Archaeology
Nimrud or Calah is only twenty miles south of Nineveh, so
Nineveh-Calah may simply be twin cities, part of a greater complex. The name Nimrud associates the city with
Nimrod, which may be mistaken: for Calah is considerably north of the city
Asshur. While we concur that Nimrod is
one of the causes, if not the cause of Assyria becoming entrenched to the east
of the Tigris, it seems strange that Genesis would not clarify this point. LXX retains Calah, so it is very likely that
Nimrud is an anachronism originating in western scientists based on a faulty
translation of Genesis. Vulgate retains
Calah as well.
[47] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resen_(Bible)
Resen, named Dasé
in LXX, has not yet been located with any certainty. Resen may have constituted a third part of
the greater Nineveh complex; if Rehoboth is a yet unidentified city, then the
fourth part of the greater Nineveh complex.
It is very difficult to make progress with such research, because ISIS
is destroying the evidence.
[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Assyrian_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assur
[49] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
[50]
Older generations of scholars have wrongly attributed the phalanx to
Alexander. We have solid archaeological
proof that the phalanx was already in use in ancient Sumer (ANEP: page 95,
plate 300; with description on page 284).
From the phalanx it is just a short step to the Testudo (tortoise)
formation: it is hard to believe that Assyrians in phalanx, approaching a city
gate with a battering ram, never thought to shield their heads. A third important tactical formation, the
infantry square will develop later.
Since some authorities confuse these three tactics, it seems important
to note that they are quite distinct, have three different purposes, and as far
as we can prove, only the phalanx is known to the Assyrians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testudo_formation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square
[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#Precursors
[52] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Maris
[53]
Followed by the control of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Byzantium, and
Venice. So, it is no mystery why all the
major nations wanted to control this key territory. It was the virtual spigot of world
wealth. Marco Polo (1254-1324), from
Venice, was a late player.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Polo
[54]
This is to be taken with a large grain of salt; yet, it provides an idea of the
complexities and confusions of Assyrian and other oriental worship.
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/eagle/congress/reedea.html
Perhaps these are more factual and easier to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mesopotamian_deities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria#Ancient_Assyrian_religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic_religion#Akkad.2C_Assyria_and_Babylonia
[55] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_III
[56] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamshi-Adad_V
[57] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adad-nirari_III
[58] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadad
[59] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adad-nirari_III#Biography
[60]
ANEP, page 204, plate 621; with description on page 324
[61] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_IV
[62] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashur-dan_III
[63] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashur-nirari_V
[64] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III
[65] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shalmaneser_V
[66] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_II
[67] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib
[68] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_Sennacherib
[69] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh
[70]
2 Kings 14:23-25; Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29 — Far beyond any dispute is
the fact that Jonah is the lesser part of an ongoing conversation of God. Such a spiritual gift of inspiration, which
enables a human being to actively participate in conversation with God is the
very definition of a Prophet.
[71]
The Greek words: αναγγελλειν,
γιγνωσκειν, ειδειν, ιδεινn, ιδου, μαγος, προφητεια - προφητης, φρονιμος
– H&R, pages 74f, 267ff, 374f, 669ff, 673ff, 891, 1231ff, 1280f, 1439. And similar Hebrew words – EH, p.410f, 426f,
782f, 784ff, 1133ff.
[73]
This, we believe, is the very definition of a prophet: someone, male or female,
who talks, enters into conversation directly and personally with God (Exodus
33:11). The spiritual gift of
inspiration is necessary to partake of this conversation.
This gift of inspiration does not appear to have been given
since the original thirteen Apostles fell asleep. The RCC claims such a gift, or one very
similar to it, in the papacy: we doubt this notion. We believe that the Pope speaks ex-cathedra,
when he confirms the unanimous decision of all bishops.
Since all legitimate bishops are no longer in communion with
the RCC, it is no longer possible to speak ex-cathedra. This follows from the fact that The Church is
only One body (Hebrews 12), which cannot speak the truth with its members in
disagreement.
[74]
verses 1:1, 4; 3:1; 4:8, 10: not all spoken, but all with Divine instance
[75]
verses 1:10, 12; 4:2, 11
[76]
verses 3:10 and 4:5
[77]
This is especially the meaning of servant or slave of God (2 Kings 14:25).
[78]
By any fair measurement of success, Jonah is an abysmal failure. Even though he correctly predicted the
recovery of territory from Aram (Syria), there is no evidence that he ever got
the attention of the Israelite kings, no periods of drought were commanded, no
victories over Baal are known, no overwhelming miracles are seen, as with both
Elijah and Elisha. As Jonah seems to be
the successor to Elijah and Elisha, he is almost a disgrace to their memory. At first blush, it appears that Jonah lives a
life of humiliation and shame.
[79]
verse 1:12: which is more like a pagan animism sacrifice to Neptune than a
message from YHWH
[80]
verse 3:4 — MT has forty days.
[81]
verse 2:4: (see 1:3 where the Greek word, προσωπου, means face. It is
not that Jonah faced death in the sea, he longed to die; rather Jonah faced a
little slice of Hell in the sea; the cold inky darkness of Hell showed Jonah
the one thing he could not give up: the face of God.
[82]
Harnick, Sheldon, “The Merry Minuet”, (Capitol Records, 1959).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Harnick
[83]
2 Kings 14:23-25, Matthew 12:39-42 and Luke 11:29-32
[84]
Beckwith: pages 306f.
[85]
This title, far from being demeaning, it is a title of highest rank and honor.
[86]
A sign is greater than the greatest title, it is the representation, the icon
of Christ Himself. We are surprised;
because, considering the content we expected the even greater word,
symbol. A sign, in the Greek mindset,
tells about something usually absent; but a symbol tells about something
actually invisibly present. The sign,
free, expresses the idea remotely, but a flag flowing in the breeze is actually
free, its fluttering symbolizing the fact that the eternally free wind is
present. If Jonah were a symbol of
Christ, then Christ would be actually invisibly present wherever Jonah is. It is increasingly difficult not to believe
that wherever Jonah is, Christ is also there: not ordinarily by virtue of His
ubiquity, but extraordinarily, sacramentally, miraculously. Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29, 30.
[87] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations,
please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish. No rights are reserved. They are designed and intended for your free
participation. They were freely
received, and are freely given. No other
permission is required for their use.
No comments:
Post a Comment