JONAH IN THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION: A Redactional Critical Analysis and Typological Exegesis of Luke 11,16.29-32 and its parallels

By Isaac Agbenohevi

This book is the fruit of a dissertation which seeks to get beyond the impasse in the modern interpretation of the "Sign-Jonah" Traditions by building upon the achieved results of previous studies (both diachronic and synchronic) examining some Jewish Writings from Second Temple Judaism (the historical ambience of the Synoptic tradition), engaging recently refined concepts and methods of literary-narrative analyses such as the use of synkrisis and utilizing the revised understanding of typology in examining the specific role of Jonah in Luke's Christology. Applying the redactional-critical approach, typological exegesis, and literary (narrative) analysis, it examines three specific questions: (1) what the appropriate "image" of Jonah in Second Temple Judaism (historical) is, (2) what the specific form of the "Sign-Jonah" saying in the gospel narratives (literary) is, and (3) how Jonah's figure contribute to Lucan Christology (theological). The entire study concludes with some revealing elements which shed light on the questions which underpin the dissertation: (1) Jonah's figure was replete and frequently invoked in Second Temple Judaism (his fish ordeal, preaching in Nineveh, death experience, considered as sign, commonplace recourse in crisis situation); and (2) "Sign-Jonah" and "Solomon-Queen" traditions (pieced together with the Beelzebul controversy) are interwoven in narration to make a syncretic-typological correlation between Jesus and Jonah (prophetic character in person and activity) and bring a clear definition to the enigmatic logion to semeion Iona; 3). Jonah's figure, in the context of Luke's Christology, serves as an element of both continuity (consistency with OT tradition) and discontinuity (redefinition--Jesus is the fulfillment and plenitude of OT tradition).

• Language: English
• Publisher: Fulton Books, Inc.
• Release date: Feb 28, 2024
• ISBN: 9798889825876

Book preview

Table of Contents

Title

Copyright

Acknowledgment

Abbreviations

0.1 General Introduction

0.2 Survey of the History of Interpretation and Methodological Considerations

0.2.1 Status Quaestionis

0.2.1.1 Introduction

0.2.1.2 Nineteenth-century scholarship

A) Before 1880 (historical critical approach)

B) After 1880 (philological approach)

0.2.1.3 Twentieth-century scholarship

A) Before 1950 (form-critical approach)

B) After 1950 (redactional critical approach)

0.2.1.4 Specific Purpose of the Study

0.2.1.5 Formulation of exegetical questions

A) Historical question

B) Literary question

C) Theological question

Chapter 1

Preliminary Questions and Observations

Context and Structure

1.1 Context

1.1.1 Introduction

1.1.2 General narrative framework/outline of the Third Gospel

1.1.3 Recent scholarship

1.1.4 A general narrative outline

1.1.5 Broad Lucan context (9,51–19,27)

A) Introduction

B) Recent scholarship

C) Function in context

D) Conclusion

1.1.6 Proximate context of the text in Luke (11,14–36)

A) Introduction

B) Critical text (Luke 11,16.29–32)

C) Delimitation

D) Luke 11,14–54

E) Luke 11,16.29–32

1.1.7 Setting and context

A) Luke 11,14–54

B) Luke 11,16.29–32

1.2 Structure

1.2.1 Introduction

1.2.2 Narrative structure

1.2.3 Thematic structure

1.2.4 Proposed structure

1.2.5 Conclusions

Chapter 2

Reception History of the Jonah Traditions

2.1 Introduction

2.2 The biblical book of Jonah234

2.2.1 Structure and unity

2.2.2 Message

2.2.3 Liturgical use of the book

2.2.4 Some significant themes in the book of Jonah

2.2.4.1 The nature of God

2.2.4.2 Universal salvation

2.2.4.3 The Underworld

A. Critical Text (Jonah 2,2-10)

2.2.4.4 The הקריאה or κήρυγμα of Jonah

2.2.4.5 Repentance and conversion

2.2.5 Conclusions from the book of Jonah

2.3 The Feast of שבתון שבת (Sabbath of Sabbaths) and Jonah

2.3.1 Yom Kippur (יום כיפור)

2.3.2 Rituals

2.3.3 On Jonah

2.4 The document De Jona403

2.4.1 On Jonah

2.4.1.1 Jonah as a sign of rebirth (վերստին ծննդեան կերպարան)

2.5 The third book of Maccabees (6,2–8)

2.5.1 Text (3 Macc 6,2–8)452

2.5.2 Context and structure

2.5.3 Interpretation

2.5.4 Message and significance

2.6 Vitae Prophetarum (Lives of the Prophets)

2.6.1 Text518

2.6.2 Context and structure

2.6.3 Interpretation

2.6.4 Message and significance

2.7 The Jewish Antiquities 9,205–214

2.7.1 Text (Jewish Antiquities 9,205-214)539

2.7.2 Context and structure

2.7.3 Interpretation

2.7.4 Message/significance

2.8 Targum Neofiti (Neophyti) (Deuteronomy 30,12–14)

2.8.1 Text561

2.8.2 Context and structure

2.8.3 Interpretation

2.8.4 Message and significance

2.9 Conclusions on our discussions

Chapter 3

Pre-Gospel Traditions

The Reception of the Sign-Jonah Traditions into the Written Gospels

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Marcan version of the saying

3.2.1 Reconstruction of pre-gospel saying

3.2.2 Conclusions

3.2.3 Interpretative elaboration of the saying in Mark 8,11–12

3.2.3.1 Preliminary analysis

A) Delimitation

B) Formal structure

C) Proximate narrative setting

3.2.3.2 Close reading

A) Jesus' encounter with the Pharisees (v.11)

B) Jesus' response to the request (v.12)

3.2.3.3 Conclusions

3.2.4 Interpretative elaboration of saying in Matt 16,1–4

3.2.4.1 Preliminary analysis

A) Delimitation

B) Source-critical analyses (vis-à-vis Mark 8,11–12)

C) Formal structure

D) Proximate narrative setting

3.2.4.2 Close reading

A) Demand for a sign (v.1)

B) Response of Jesus (vv.2–3)

C) Jesus' pronouncement (v.4)

3.2.4.3 Conclusion

3.3 Q version of the saying

3.3.1 Reconstruction of Logion in Q

3.3.1.1 Comparison of Lucan and Matthean versions

3.3.1.2 Critical text

A) Language

B) Structure

C) Setting/context

3.3.2 Original Q version versus Lucan/Matthean redactions

3.3.3 Interpretation of saying in Q

A) Sign from Heaven: sign sections in Q

B) Sign of Jonah: judgment warning in Q

C) Solomon and Queen of the South: Wisdom sayings in Q

3.3.4 Two versions of the saying: Mark and Q

3.4 Conclusions

Chapter 4

Exegetical Analysis

Redactional Critical Approach and Typological Exegesis

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Proposed narrative structure

4.3 Close reading

4.3.1 Jesus casts out a demon (see v.14a–b)

A) Introduction

B) Critical text

C) Close reading

4.3.2 Reaction of the crowds (vv.14c–16)

A) Introduction

B) Close reading

4.3.2.1 Request for a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (v.16)

A) An excursus on τò σημεῖον

B) σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (sign from/out of heaven)

4.3.3 Jesus' response to the Beelzebul accusation (vv.17–28)

A) Divided kingdom and household (vv.17–23)

B) Return of an unclean spirit (vv.24–26)

C) True blessedness (vv.27–28)

4.3.4 Response to the demand for a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (vv.29–32)

A) Denial of a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ and promise of τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ

B) Jesus' clarification of v.29—Jonah and Jesus as σημεῖον (v.30)

C) Jesus' further comments: equivalency or superiority

4.3.5 Lamp-light and eye-body (darkness) (vv.33–36)

A) Lamp and light (darkness)

B) Sound eye and body

4.4 Conclusions

Chapter 5

Theological Considerations: (Contribution to Lucan Theology)

(Contribution to Lucan Theology)

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Theological synthesis

5.2.1 Biblical tradition

5.2.2 Christology

5.2.3 Exorcism and power of God

5.2.4 Eschatology

6.0 General Conclusion

Bibliography

About the Author

cover.jpg

JONAH IN THE SYNOPTIC TRADITION

A Redactional Critical Analysis and Typological Exegesis of Luke 11,16.29-32 and its parallels

Isaac Agbenohevi

Copyright © 2023 Isaac Agbenohevi

All rights reserved

First Edition

Fulton Books

Meadville, PA

Published by Fulton Books 2023

ISBN 979-8-88982-586-9 (paperback)

ISBN 979-8-88982-587-6 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

To

the loving memory of my mother,

Mary Ami Nuglozey

(June 6, 1936–March 13, 2022)

and

my diocesan bishop,

Most Rev. Joseph Kwaku Afrifah-Agyekum, DD, STD

(Catholic bishop of the Koforidua Diocese, Ghana)

Acknowledgment

Μεγαλύνει ἡ ψυχή μου τὸν κύριον,

 καὶ ἠγαλλίασεν τὸ πνεῦμά μου ἐπὶ τῷ θεῷ τῷ σωτῆρί μου,

ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης αὐτοῦ.

(Luke 1,46b–48b)

L iving in a state of gratitude is the gateway to grace. It is appropriate to render thanks where and when it is due. In this light, I would like to register my deepest sentiments of gratitude to God for the gift of life, the privilege of becoming a Catholic priest, and the opportunity to study at the Pontifical Biblical Institute (Biblicum), Rome, Italy. I am very grateful to my moderator, Prof. Dean Béchard , SJ, and other professors, for their openness, useful fraternal guidance, and patience as I was working on and preparing my doctoral dissertation. Their great inputs enhanced the quality of the work. In a special way, I would like to thank Prof. Pasquale Basta for his extraordinary contribution to the completion and success of the dissertation, which has metamorphosed into this book. I acknowledge with deep gratitude the rector, Prof. Michael F. Kolarcik , SJ, and the professors at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, the library staff, the secretary general, Signor Carlo Valentino , and other collaborating staff for their support and prayers. I thank my diocesan bishop, Most Rev. Joseph Kwaku Afrifah-Agyekum , STD, DD, for the opportunity to study at the Pontifical Biblical Institute (Biblicum), Rome, Italy, and for his great fatherly support all these years. Special words of gratitude also to my dear family (the priests and religious of the Catholic Diocese of Koforidua) for their prayers, love, and support. My family (both nuclear and extended) has always walked this path with me. I am very grateful to them especially my beloved mum, Mary Ami Nuglozey , who passed on a few months ago, my siblings (Stella, Paul, Joseph, David, and Frederick) and nephews and nieces (Samuel, Curtis, Dora, Gladys, Mary, Veronica, and Veneranda). I acknowledge, with profound love and gratitude, the chief and people of Akwatia, especially all the parishioners of the St. Anthony Catholic Parish (in Akwatia and its outstations) for their perennial prayers and support. We love Akwatia, and we will never forget what Akwatia has done for us. Only God knows how grateful I am to the parish priest, Herr Pfr. Harry F. Karcz , and parishioners of the St. Maria–Berliner Süden ( Vom Guten Hirten Katholische Kirchegemeinde , St. Alfons Katholische Kirchegemeinde and Mater Dolorosa Katholische Kirchegemeinde ), Berlin–Lankwitz-Marienfelde, for their love, support, prayers, and encouragement all these years. Words cannot express my gratitude to these individuals who have supported me all these years: Msgr. Alex Bobby-Benson, Msgr. Sylvester Agyapong, Very Rev. Fr. Robert Sackey, Very Rev. Fr. Joseph Aggrey Quainoo, Sr. Florence Akos Bagidah, HDR, Carol Meyer and family (USA), Michelle Charmaine James and family (Rachel James, Sean Anthony, and Gertrude James in the UK), Frau Desiderata-Maria Bonafilia Wiegand (Germany), Herr Marcel Langner (Germany), Frau Theodora Llanes-Reichel (Germany), Paola Bramati and family (Italy), Angela Luisa Lattuada and family (Italy), Armando Obletter and Carla Vincenza Grumelli and family (Italy), Marina Mengoni and family (Italy), Gina Pela and family (Italy), Yvette Léon Santos (Ecuador), and Paulette Santos (USA) with their mother Teresa Léon (Ecuador). The constant support and care of my brother priests and friends are duly acknowledged: Rev. Fr. Dr. Michael Mensah (Ghana), Sr. Dr. Wilma Mancuello (Paraguay), Rev. Fr. Dr. Emmanuel Adu Addai (USA), Rev. Fr. George Yeboah, Rev. Frs. Emmanuel Kwadwo Antwi, Wisdom Lomotey Larweh, John K. Dorborkoe, SVD, Eric Kwame Damoah, Anthony Agnes Adu-Mensah, and all my friends (priests, religious and laymen and laywomen). I acknowledge, with sincere affection and gratitude, the extraordinary moral and financial support of the pastor, Fr. Jeffrey Maurer, and the parishioners of the St. Christopher's and Good Shepherd Catholic Parish in Red Hook & Rhinebeck, New York (USA), in seeing to the publication of this book. God bless you all.

Abbreviations

0.1 General Introduction

There is an episode in Jesus' public ministry where a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (a sign from heaven) is requested from him, and he categorically refuses. ¹ This episode comes down to us in two traditions (the Marcan and Q) ² but expressed in four ways in the Synoptic Tradition (see Mark 8, 11–12; Matt hew 12,38–42; 16,1–4; Luke 11:16.29–32). ³ The two principal traditions of the episode are placed in different contexts in narration. ⁴ The Marcan tradition (with its parallel version in Matthew 16,1–4) is placed in the immediate context of Jesus' feeding of the four thousand people (see Mark 8,1–10; Matthew 15,32–39) and his warning against the yeast of the Jewish religious and political authorities (see Mark 8,14–21; Matthew 16,5–12). The counterpart tradition in Q (which stands behind Matthew 12,38–42 and Luke 11,16.29–32) is located within the context of the Beelzebul controversy (see Luke 11,14–26; Matthew 12,22–30.43–45) and closely joined to the Jonah Tradition (see Luke 11,29–30.32; Matthew 12,39–41) with the tradition about Solomon and the Queen of the South (see Luke 11,31; Matthew 12,41). ⁵

The various diachronic, synchronic, and theological issues that are generated by these traditions have not gone unnoticed in scholarship over the centuries.⁶ Several scholars with different methodologies have worked on these traditions, but there has not been any consensus in their analyses and conclusions: different approaches resulted in different conclusions, and different scholars with the same approach arrived at different conclusions.⁷ This status quo leaves the discussions ongoing and the debate still open. It is against this backdrop that we make our contribution to the ongoing discussion and open debate (with a novel approach). Methodologically, we have adopted a broad approach involving some diachronic (historical critical analysis, redaction criticism, typological exegesis) and synchronic (textual, narrative, and lexico-grammatical) analyses that seek to answer three principal questions—historical, literary, and theological quests:

What was the appropriate image of Jonah in Second Temple Judaism?

What is the specific form of the Sign-Jonah saying in its proximate narrative context?

How does the figure of Jonah impact Lucan Christology?

In this light, this book has been organized into five chapters with an introduction and a conclusion. These are preceded by some preliminary considerations that deal with the Status Quaestionis (history of interpretation) and other methodological issues. Chapter 1 focuses on issues regarding the literary, thematic, and narrative structure and context of the episode in narration (in its proximate and remote contexts). Chapter 2 investigates and analyzes the reception history of the Jonah traditions in Second Temple Judaism focusing on certain Jewish literature and traditions with the object of reconstructing the appropriate image of Jonah in the historical ambience in which the Synoptic tradition arose. In chapter 3, our attention turns to the pre-gospel traditions (involving the Sign-Jonah traditions) that evolved into the written gospels and how the source-form critical approaches have dealt with these issues coupled with the interpretation of both traditions in Mark and Q. Furthermore, engaging the tools of redaction criticism, typological exegesis, narratology with some literary and lexico-grammatical techniques, chapter 4 focuses on a close reading of the episode in the Synoptic tradition (from the Lucan perspective with its parallel texts). Chapter 5 does a theological synthesis of the study with emphasis on how the Sign-Jonah traditions contribute to Lucan theology. This book is the fruit of my doctoral dissertation which was defended at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, Italy, on February 24, 2023, and an extract of it has been published already in Rome. However, the extract has also been captured in this publication (book) to bring clarity and coherency to the discussions therein. Certain aspects of the dissertation (which are captured herein) are also being comprehensively developed further and their scope broadened for publication in certain specific academic and theological journals. Finally, even though this book examines the figure of the prophet Jonah in the Synoptic tradition, the analyses are done from the Lucan perspective.

0.2 Survey of the History of Interpretation and Methodological Considerations

0.2.1 Status Quaestionis

0.2.1.1 Introduction

In the Third Gospel, ⁸ the episode is initiated by Jesus' exorcism where he casts out a demon from a mute man (11,14), which generates different reactions from his audience: amazement (v.14c); accusation of casting out demons by the instrumentality of Beelzebul, the master of demons (v.15); and the request for a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ from Jesus (v.16). ⁹ Jesus delays his response to the quest for a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ until v.29. In his unique presentation of Jesus' response, Luke has Jesus categorically deny the request for a σημεῖον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (v.29b) and promises τò σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ (v.29c). The Lucan Jesus follows up this discourse with two sayings concerning Solomon and the Queen of the South (v.31) and Jonah and the Ninevites (v.32). The Lucan tradition's counterpart tradition is Mark (8,10–13), and its parallel version is Matthew (12,38–42; 16,1–4—this short version influenced by Mark's). ¹⁰ Unlike Luke, the Marcan tradition describes a scenario where the Pharisees demand a σημεῖον from heaven from Jesus (8,11), but Jesus categorically turns down their request: this outright denial of their request terminates the episode (v.12). Matthew does not only have a parallel episode of the Lucan tradition, but also the two versions of the tradition (about the request for a σημεῖον) involves a reference to Jonah. In the longer Matthean version of the episode (see 12,38–42), the scribes and the Pharisees demand a σημεῖον from Jesus (v.38), and Jesus absolutely denies it (v.39a) but promises τò σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ (v.39b). The Matthean Jesus follows this saying with a double saying about Jonah and the Ninevites (v.41) and Solomon and the Queen of the South (v.42). The close literary semblance between the Matthean version of the tradition and the Lucan version points to a possible dependence on a common source (the Q source). The difficulty with this position lies in the seeming disagreement between Matt 12,40 and Luke 11,30 over the meaning of τò σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ. In the shorter Matthean version (16,1–4), the Pharisees and the Sadducees demand a σημεῖον from heaven from Jesus (v.1), and denying it, as in the first tradition, he promises τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ (v.4). ¹¹ This version of the episode is close to the Marcan version (8,11–12), in its formulation and proximate context, pointing to a plausible Marcan influence.

The different ways of presenting the tradition in the Synoptic gospels have not gone unnoticed. For centuries, the traditional interpretation of this tradition was based on the Matthean version (especially the τò σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ), which refers to Jonah's ordeal in the belly of the fish, which prefigures (typologically) the death and resurrection of Jesus.¹² It is only in the modern era that there emerges critical reassessment of the traditional interpretation, i.e., with the emergence of new questions about the form and meaning of the saying in Jesus' life and in the pre-gospel traditions. In the following pages, we will embark on a brief assessment of how modern and contemporary scholars have examined these traditions and their contributions to this ongoing discussion. The discussions will be organized this way: (a) nineteenth century (before and after 1880) and (b) twentieth century (before and after 1950).

0.2.1.2 Nineteenth-century scholarship

A) Before 1880 (historical critical approach)

This era witnessed the prevalent use of the historical-critical approach in biblical research (diachronic approach).¹³ The application of this approach to the examination of the traditions under consideration occasioned a sharp, radical shift in paradigm from the past. Scholars like Ferdinand Christian Baur, Michael Baumgarten, and Friedrich Zimmer did a critical assessment of the pertinent issues at stake and shed light on their understanding of the episode.

Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860)

F. C. Baur¹⁴ applied the radical historical critical approach to the study of the New Testament (NT), and this changed the face of NT scholarship. In 1837, he advanced an argument which radically broke away from the past and initiated a new era in the debate regarding the reception history of these Sign-Jonah traditions and their interpretations in the context of the Synoptic gospels. In his Über das Buch Jonas: ein apologetischer Versuch, he engaged the historical-critical approach delving into the historical stages behind the book of Jonah. He strongly advanced two principal arguments that (a) the book of Jonah is Volkssage or legend and (b) the belief of the author that the apologetic discussion herein is not the only historic truth of the book but also instructs on a position about the prevailing theocracy and demonstrates its completely Symbolic-Prophetic character.¹⁵ In a footnote remark, he appreciated previous allegorical-typological efforts to explain the episode involving the request for a sign from heaven (especially the Jonah traditions) in the light of the death and resurrection of Jesus, but he debunks it as untenable due to lack of scriptural evidence since Jesus was not in the heart of the earth (death) for three days and nights unlike Jonah's fish ordeal.¹⁶ This is just a hindsight reinterpretation of the episode to give an OT equivalence and credibility to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Based on this inconsistency, he argued that the traditions should rather be interpreted within the context of the person and mission of Jonah.¹⁷ By his previous experience,¹⁸ Jonah became an effective sign to the Ninevites.¹⁹ This supposition is, however, far-fetched since there is no evidence to support the claim that the Ninevites became aware of Jonah's fish experience. For him, the traditions reflect the person and mission of Jonah for just as Jonah, in his person and mission, became an effective sign of conversion to the Ninevites, so is Jesus to this evil and adulterous generation.²⁰

Michael Baumgarten (1812–1889)

Michael Baumgarten also brought new, radical views to the debate. Working on the Jonah traditions in the Synoptic gospels, he strongly contested the position of F. C. Baur due to the lack of specific evidence to explain how Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites.²¹ He, nevertheless, subscribed to the second aspect of Baur's views concerning the prophetic mission of Jonah in Nineveh. He contends that the traditions regarding the teaching on the request for a σημεῖον should be examined and understood in the context of the mission of Jonah in Nineveh. Baumgarten explains that the reference to τò σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ logion points to a profound reality since every outward sign has an inner (inward) significance and reality.²² He analyzed Jonah in his historical context²³ and concluded that the traditions point to Jonah's preaching and the positive response of the Ninevites.²⁴ This conviction is evidenced by Jonah's specific mission for the conversion of the heathens (the fulfillment of the promises of YHWH to the patriarchs).²⁵ He, further, explains that Jonah represents the idea of the conversion of the heathens, and the inner significance of this is Jesus' preaching of the gospel to the heathens and their conversion.²⁶ He, however, notes that Jonah's stay in the belly of the fish for three days and three nights is an external parallelism of the death and resurrection of Jesus,²⁷ and that, for him, is not the σημεῖον.

Friedrich Zimmer (1855–1919)

Friedrich Zimmer, using the source critical approach (but with some trappings of the historical critical approach), furthered the opinions²⁸ of both Baur and Baumgarten. His principal quest was to unravel and examine the pre-gospel traditions and source materials that underpin this gospel tradition regarding Jesus' teaching about the request for a σημεῖον from heaven. He distinguished the primitive version of the saying from later additions and modifications introduced in the transmission process. He discerned the different shades of material that underlie the various Jesus traditions we have in the Synoptic tradition. He acknowledged and examined the different textual formulations of the Synoptic gospels, underscoring the priority of Mark (admitting the peculiarity and anteriority of the Marcan version of the tradition),²⁹ Luke's closeness to Q (Q's elaborated version of the tradition),³⁰ and Matthew's interpretation of his sources such as the use of μοιχαλίς,³¹ τοῦ προϕήτου,³² and the different version of the tradition expressed in 12,40. He explains that Matthew 12,40 constitutes a hindsight rereading of the original tradition well-preserved in Q.³³ He argues that the σημεῖον to be given is the person of Jonah, for just as Jonah, the preacher of conversion, appeared as a sign to the Ninevites, so would Jesus be to his generation.³⁴ Excluding Matthew 12,40 as later explanation, he isolates the original saying in Mark and Q which, for him, is better preserved in Luke. The results of his analysis support Baur's conclusion which interpreted the σημεῖον in the context of Jonah's mission.³⁵

Conclusions

The application of the tenets of the historical critical approach to the study of this episode was revealing, and positive strides were made in this regard. The first group of modern scholars (Baur, Baumgarten, and Zimmer) whose contributions brought a paradigm shift to the debate, introduced a new trend of focusing on the text in any form of analysis regarding the debate, and this affected the focus of scholarship in the subsequent centuries, hence the complete breakaway from the traditional allegorical approach of the patristic and medieval interpretation of the Sign-Jonah traditions. The emergence of different conclusions and analyses with the use of the historical critical approach opened the debate to further discussions.

B) After 1880 (philological approach)

The decades after 1880 saw a sudden paradigmatic shift in the debate and the emergence of another novel, radical tendency which established a new trend in the interpretation of the Sign-Jonah traditions. This shift in interpretation differed sharply from the radical views of Baur, Baumgarten, and Zimmer with a shift in attention from the historical critical approach to a focus on the etymology of the names of the principal actors in the episode. This approach, in general, posits that the teaching concerning the σημεῖον was in direct reference to John the Baptist and not Jonah, the prophet. The misinterpretation of the traditions concerning this teaching resulted in the use of the name of Jonah.

A. J. H. Wilhelm Brandt (1867–1950)³⁶

The novel approach was pioneered by A. J. H. Wilhelm Brandt.³⁷ He examined Jonah in his historical context and, also, analyzed the traditions that underlie the teaching on the request for a σημεῖον from heaven. He argued that the personality in question is John the Baptist, not Jonah. This is in view of the misinterpretation of the original name, Johanna. Both names (Jonah and John) have a similar root (יוחנן which is a shorter form of יהוחנן).³⁸ Against this backdrop, Brandt interpreted the traditions in the context of the person and mission of John the Baptist, insinuating that the Jonah, mentioned by Jesus, is in reference to John the Baptist.³⁹ He explains that the confusion (the reference to Jonah instead of John the Baptist on the part of the Synoptic evangelists) comes from a lack of proper understanding of this teaching of Jesus. In other words, the original teaching of Jesus referred to John the Baptist, but the subsequent transmission process misunderstood this teaching, hence the reference to Jonah instead of John the Baptist. His radical shift in opinion was explained in his Die jüdischen Baptismen (1910) where he argues that the preaching of John the Baptist, like Jonah's, is the σημεῖον.⁴⁰ John the Baptist's preaching evoked conversion by means of die Taufe τῆς μετανοίς just as Jonah's did.⁴¹ His Ruf zur Buße und Bekehrung refers to Jonah's.⁴² For him, it is John the Baptist, not Jonah, who is the σημεῖον.

Thomas Kelly Cheyne (1841–1915)

The English biblical critic T. K. Cheyne, agreeing with Brandt, took up the challenge and shed light on Brandt's idea, giving it an etymological spin.⁴³ Like Brandt, Cheyne also purported that Jesus referred to John the Baptist and not Jonah. His argument was based on the analysis of the original root of both names. By a word-study approach, Cheyne argued that Jesus referred to John, not Jonah, since the terms Joha (יוחא an abbreviated form of יוחנן), Johanan (יוחנן), Johannes (יוחנס) and Jonah (יונא) are identical names and shortened form of Jehohanan (יהוחנן) (see John 1,43).⁴⁴ Johanan (יהוחנן) is the σημεῖον and not Jesus himself.⁴⁵ This suggestion relieves Jesus of self-laudation.

Alban Blakiston (1875–??)

Engaging the same approach as Cheyne, Alban Blakiston developed and advanced Cheyne's ideas further.⁴⁶ He insisted, like Brandt and Cheyne, that the Sign-Jonah traditions were, in fact, in reference to John the Baptist and not the prophet Jonah. For him, the unique mission and personality of John the Baptist makes him the most likely candidate to be associated with τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ logion. On the question of the etymological implications of both names, Blakiston explains that both Jonah and John are a fanciful corruption of the root "Jehonatan (יהונתן). He cites an example in the gospel of Matthew (16,17) where Jona (יונא) is mentioned—which, for him, is a shortened form of Johanan" (יהוחנן) (see also John 1,43). John, then, is the τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ and not Jonah the prophet. He also notes the editorial misunderstanding of Matthew 12,40 and Luke 11,30, hence, be ignored.⁴⁷

Conclusions

Even though the three scholars in the late nineteenth century (after 1880) agree on the fact that the Sign traditions have to do with a prophetic ministry, they all disagree with the traditional identification of this Jonah with Jonah the prophet in the OT. For them, the reference is to John the Baptist. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to reconcile this position with the direct and categorical reference to the prophetic ministry of the prophet Jonah in Luke 11,30 and Jonah's fish ordeal in Matthew 12,40. If both the Lucan (11,30) and Matthean (12,40) texts shed further light on their understanding of τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ, can John the Baptist fit in both contexts? Or are these texts (Luke 11,30; Matt 12,40) later interpolations? The radical views of this group of scholars generate certain fundamental and legitimate questions that deserve attention. Perhaps, in an earlier stage, the tradition preserved Jesus' teaching about John the Baptist as σημεῖον, but this original teaching was misunderstood by Luke and Matthew (probably also by Q) as a reference to Jonah, the prophet. But this is difficult to substantiate, and the theory did not receive wide acceptance in scholarship since it is practically unknown in any contemporary Hebrew or Aramaic sources regarding the supposed derivation and correspondence of the Hebrew יונא (Yônāh) with a shortened form of יהונתן (Yĕhôḥānān).⁴⁸

0.2.1.3 Twentieth-century scholarship

A) Before 1950 (form-critical approach)

Twentieth-century scholarship did not see much shift in paradigm in the debate. In fact, the approaches, analyses, and conclusions of scholars, in this era, had traits and trappings of the methodological approach of the previous era (nineteenth century). However, the era before 1950 saw a predominant use of the form-critical approach in Synoptic studies and in examining the issues at stake. This approach focused principally on an analysis of the oral traditions and component units which underlie the Synoptic gospels.⁴⁹ It sought to study the development of the oral tradition prior to its crystallization in the Gospels, prior even to the written documents or cycles of fixed tradition upon which they appear to rest—such as Q, the pre-Marcan outline of Jesus' ministry, the Passion Narratives, and so on.⁵⁰ We will look at three renowned scholars who made outstanding contributions to the debate in this era, i.e., Julius Wellhausen, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann.

Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918)

Like other source critics in his time, J. Wellhausen was also interested in the pre-gospel materials and traditions which underlie the Synoptic tradition. The analyses of these source materials and traditions, especially their evolution into the written gospels, contributed to an understanding of both the historical and oral stages behind the Synoptic tradition. Engaging in this debate, he also acknowledged the textual differences of Matthew 12,38–42, Luke 11,29–32, and Mark 8,11–12.⁵¹ He noted the difficulties presented by Matthew 12,40 and Luke 11,30; however, he considers them not as mutually exclusive but complementary since they both contribute to the same understanding. He, further, explains that Luke 11,30 is transitory (Übergang) or serves as a bridge from τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ logion to the double sayings (Matthew 12,41–42; Luke 11,31–32)⁵² since the double sayings were not originally part of the teaching concerning the request for a σημεῖον from heaven. Hence, verdient die Deutung desselben bei Mt. 12,40 den Vorzug vor der bei Lc. 11,30.⁵³ He contends that Luke 11,30 is just an explanation of Matthew 12,40, which spells out the specific connotation of the τὸ σημεῖον Ἰωνᾶ logion. Wellhausen explains that this preference of Matthew 12,40's originality (as against Luke 11,30) renders it the σημεῖον.⁵⁴ The greatest weakness of this argument lies in the lack of literary evidence (on the part of Wellhausen) to argue for Matthew's originality over and above Luke. Furthermore, he notes that Jesus was three days and nights (drei volle Tage und Nächte)⁵⁵ in the grave; hence, that does not generate any incongruity of duration (of time) with Jonah's experience, and the duration of both experiences should not be literally taken.⁵⁶ But he does not explain how Jesus spent three days and nights in the grave.⁵⁷

Martin Dibelius (1883–1947)

Martin Dibelius, in his seminal work Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, primarily sought to reconstruct and analyze the materials and traditions about Jesus and penetrate into the period previous to that in which our Gospels and their written sources were recorded.⁵⁸ He examined the Jesus traditions under the following headings: Sermons, Paradigms, Tales, Legends, Analogies (i. Rabbinic; ii. Greek [Chriae and Tales], and iii. Patristic Apothegms), Passion Story, Synthesis, Exhortations, and Mythology. He classified the saying concerning the request for the sign under "Chriae (a reproduction of a short, pointed saying of general significance, originating in a definite person and arising out of a definite situation").⁵⁹ He contends that these sayings (see Mark 8,11ff; Matthew 8,19–22 et cetera) usually