Several compelling reasons exist for reading the book of Jonah as a fictional story or parable. First, the miraculous story of Jonah surviving being swallowed by a fish lends itself to fiction to anyone holding to naturalism (Jon 2:1). The second reason pertains to historical vagueness. Tremper Longman and Raymond Dillard recognize that Jonah is the only character named in the book, the king of Nineveh is not named, and the title “king” is unusual since Nineveh was the name of a city and not an empire (Jon 3:6).[1] Furthermore, it seems odd that animals repent (Jon 3:7-8), and the size of Nineveh, a 3 days’ walk, has been questioned (Jon 3:3-4). The idea that the people of Nineveh, who executed such severe atrocities against humanity, would repent is also highly debated.[2] Finally, the various literary features also support the view that Jonah is a fictional story or a parable. Douglas Judisch references literary arguments advanced by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America that support a fictional account, which include (1) the observation that the Bible includes various genres, (2) the possibility that Jonah is unique among the prophets in its delivery, (3) the concept that Jonah’s name, meaning dove, is a metonym for Israel, and (4) the idea that Jonah is an allegorical parable similar to the story of Nathan in 2 Samuel 2:1-15.[3]
The identity of the king garners much attention. Paul Lawrence explains that some modern scholars assume the reference to the king of Nineveh (Jon 3:6) instead of the king of Assyria is inaccurate, and the reference to nobles (Jon 3:7) is characteristic of the Persian period, rather than the timeframe of 2 Kings 14:25.[4] Lawrence’s solution revolves around three powerful governors or nobles of the land surrounding Assyria between 808-752 BC.[5] The hypothesis asserts that the three governors rendered the Assyrian monarchy impotent during the time of Jonah. Accordingly, one of the Assyrian kings may have been limited to ruling Nineveh and may even have made his residence in Nineveh.[6] Lawrence’s solution solves why the king of Assyria was referred to as king of Nineveh, explains why the king would be living in Nineveh, and resolves Jonah’s reference to the nobles.
Jay Lemanski addresses the king’s identity by providing a brief historical survey of the Assyrian empire that begins with the reign of Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858-824 BC) and moves through four other Assyrian kings before Tiglathpileser ascends the throne in 747 BC.[7] Lemanski’s point is that, although the king of Nineveh was not the king of the Assyrian Empire, the Assyrian empire experienced significant political instability during the time of Jonah; thus Nineveh could have been an “independent or semi-independent city-state with its own ruler.”[8] If Lemanski is correct, then Nineveh could have had its own king.
Jesus’s statements in Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:29-30 appear to add credibility to the historicity of Jonah. Eugene Merrill, like Lemanski, recognizes the political instability of the region during Jonah’s time and suggests that Nineveh was founded by a fish-god.[9] Furthermore, the sign mentioned by Jesus that convinced the pagan city to repent must have been quite persuasive. Merrill contends that Jonah’s experience of being swallowed by a whale during a political crisis caused Jonah’s lackluster sermon to be quite effective because the people perceived the prophet as a divine messenger, who was quite persuasive to a city founded by a fish-deity.[10] Merrill’s hypothesis not only explains why the Ninevites might repent, but also provides support for the historicity of the book.
Scholars have addressed several literary issues used to question the historicity of Jonah. Judisch explains that just because the Bible contains a variety of genres does not mean an allegorical reading is appropriate. [11] Furthermore, Judisch continues, just because Jonah is a story does not make it unique for other prophets also include stories. [12] Just because Jonah’s name means dove does not mean he is not the biological son of Amittai. [13] And just because comparisons can be made between the story in 2 Samuel 12 and the book of Jonah does not mean that Jonah is not historical.[14] Judisch also explains that nothing in Jonah suggests it is not historical; the book includes various geographical and historical references, and both the ancient Jews and Jesus affirmed the historicity of Jonah.[15] At minimum, anyone challenging the historicity of Jonah must address Judisch’s arguments.
I believe that Jonah should be read as history, but I am not dogmatic in my view. There appears to be valid arguments for both readings. First, it is difficult to ignore the literary masterpiece of the book, but the literary attributes do not preclude the telling of historical events. Second, it is difficult to ignore Jesus’s apparent historical reference to Jonah, but Jesus could have been referring to a parable. Third, it is difficult to believe the miraculous nature of Jonah’s impossible whale adventure, but miracles accomplish the impossible, so if one believes in miracles, the whale story should not be a stumbling block to a historical reading. I do not believe that the inerrancy or reliability of Jonah depends on the story being historical. The book’s theological message and the exegesis applied to Jonah do not depend on its historicity. Accordingly, the most important aspect of the book is its message, which shines a light on God’s grace and mercy irrespective of whether the interpreter is reading a parable or history.
_____________________________________
[1] Tremper Longman and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 444.
[2] Erika Belibtreu, “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death,” Biblical Archaeology Review 17, no. 01 (January/February 1991): 1–11.
[3] Douglas Judisch, “The Historicity of Jonah,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 63, no. 2 (April 1999): 146–47.
[4] Paul Lawrence, “Assyrian Nobles and the Book of Jonah,” Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986): 121–22.
[5] Ibid., 130.
[6] Ibid., 130–31.
[7] Jay Lemanski, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” Concordia Journal 18, no. 1 (January 1992): 43–46.
[8] Ibid., 46.
[9] Eugene H. Merrill, “The Sign of Jonah,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23, no. 1 (March 1980): 25–27.
[10] Ibid., 29–30.
[11] Judisch, “The Historicity of Jonah,” 146–52.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., 153–57.
Bibliography
- Belibtreu, Erika. “Grisly Assyrian Record of Torture and Death.” Biblical Archaeological Review 17, no. 01 (January/February 1991): 1–11.
- Judisch, Douglas. “The Historicity of Jonah.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 63, no. 2 (April 1999): 144–57.
- Lawrence, Paul. “Assyrian Nobles and the Book of Jonah.” Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986): 121–32.
- Lemanski, Jay. “Jonah’s Nineveh.” Concordia Journal 18, no. 1 (January 1992): 40–49.
- Longman, Tremper, and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.
- Merrill, Eugene H. “The Sign of Jonah.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23, no. 1 (March 1980): 23–30.