Nineveh vs. Israel: How the Christian Exegetes of the Book of Jonah Interpret Historical Events
https://doi.org/10.31802/BCA.2022.13.1.003
Abstract
Most Christian exegetes of the 1st–5th centuries in their interpretations of the Book of the Prophet Jonah concern the confrontation between Nineveh and Israel, interpreting it in such a way that the Ninevites are the prototype of the Gentiles who believed in Christ, while the Jews rejected Him. The present publication focuses on the question of whether the exegetes juxtapose this spiritual confrontation with real, military confrontation between the Ninevites and the Jews — Assyria’s conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (722/721 BCE). In sum, only two exegetes of the 4th century — the Syrian theologian Ephraim the Syrian and the Greek exegete Theodore of Mopsuestia concern these historical events. It makes clear that two theologians in their interpretatio ns of the Book of the Prophet Jonah use a similar tool of historical exegesis, despite the difference in genres. However, two exegetes demonstrate an opposite approach to the historical events. For Ephraim, the destruction of the Northern Kingdom is a result of the wicked behavior of the Jews compared to the righteous repentance of the Ninevites. The Syriac exegete examine the conquest as an illustration of theology of supersessionism, according to which the pagan peoples replaced the chosen people of Jews. Unlike St. Ephraim the Syrian, the Greek theologian Theodore of Mopsuestia evaluate the Assyrian conquest of Israel very negatively, emphasizing
that the Ninevites subsequently endure appropriate punishment for their sinful deeds. The paper at
tempts to present that such a difference in opinions could be a result of a different attitude of two
theologians towards the Jews. St. Ephraim the Syrian interprets the biblical story of Jonah and the
Ninevites within the framework of his sharp anti-Jewish polemics, while Theodore of Mopsuestia
with his doctrine of «mitigated supersessionism» is distinguished by some sympathy for the Jews.
About the Author
S. F. Fomicheva
PhD student of the University of Goettingen
Germany
Germany
Sofia V. Fomicheva - PhD student
(Poste restante), Saint-Petersburg 194214, Russia
References
1. Мар Нарсай. Против иудеев / вступительная статья и перевод с сирийского Д. Ф . Бумажнова и С. В. Фомичёвой // Богословские труды. 2019. № 49. С. 320–355.
2. Ben Zvi E. The Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Jehud. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. (Journa l for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series; vol. 367).
3. Bickerman E. Les deux erreurs du prophète Jonas // Revue d’histoire et de philosophie. 1965. Vol. 45. P. 232–264.
4. Ego B. Denn die Heiden sind der Umkehr nahe. Rabbinische Interpretationen zur Buße der Leute von Ninive // Die Heiden. Juden, Christen und das Problem des Fremden / hrsg.
5. R. Feld mei er, U. Heckel. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament; Bd. 70). S. 158–176.
6. Ego B. The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahumʼs Prophecy of the Cityʼs Destruction: Aggadic Solutions for an Exegetical Problem in the Book of the Twelve // Society of Biblical Literature 2000: Seminar Papers. 2000. P. 243–253.
7. Fomicheva S. Educational Background of Mar Narsai: Between the «Tradition of the School» and Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Exegesis // Studia Syriaca: Beiträge des IX. Deutschen Syrologentages in Eichstätt 2016 / hrsg. P. Bruns und T. Kremer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2018. (Eichstätter Beiträge zum Christlichen Orient; Bd. 6). S. 61–70.
8. Kavvadas N. Translation as Taking Stances: The Emergence of Syriac Theodoranism in 5th Century Edessa // Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. 2015. Bd. 19. S. 89–103.
9. Köckert C. Der Jona-Kommentar des Theodor von Mopsuestia. Eine christliche Jona-Auslegung an der Wende zum 5. Jahrhundert (mit einer Übersetzung des Kommentars) // Der problematische Prophet. Die biblische Jona-Figur in Exegese, Theologie, Literatur und Bildender Kunst / hrsg. von J. Anselm und W. Kühlmann. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2011. S. 1–38.
10. Kofsky A., Ruzer S. Theodor of Mopsuestia On Jews and Judaism: Mitigated Supersessionism in Christological and Hermeneutical Context // Revue des études juives. 2015. Vol. 174 (34). P. 279–294.
11. Lund J. Observations on Some Biblical Citations in Ephrem’ s Commentary on Genesis // Aramaic Studies. 2006. Vol. 4. P. 207–220.
12. Murray R. Symbols of Church and Kingdom. A Study in Early Syriac Tradition. Revised edition. Piscataway (N. J.): Gorgias Press, 2006.
13. Neusner J. History of the Jews in Babylonia. Pt. 1: The Parthian Period. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
14. Rompay L., van . Narsai // Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage / ed. by S. Brock, A. Butts, G. Kiraz, L. van Rompay. Piscataway (N. J.): Gorgias Press, 2011. P. 303.
15. Sasson J. Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary and Interpretation. New York: Doubleday, 1990. (Anchor Bible; vol. 24B).
16. Shepardson C. Anti-Judaism and Christian Orthodoxy: Ephrem’s Hymns in Fourth-Century Syria. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. (North American Patristics Society Patristic Monograph Series; vol. 20).
17. Sweeny M. The Twelve Prophets. 2 vols. Collegeville (Minn.): Liturgical Press, 2000.
18. Thome F. Jona — Typos Christi. Narsais Memra Über Jona im Lichte der Exegese Theodors von Mopsuestia zum Jonabuch // Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag / hrsg. von D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou u. a. Leuven: Peeters, 2011. S. 363–385.
19. Wolff H. Jona, Dodekapropheten 3. Obadja und Jona. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977.
Review
For citations:
Fomicheva S.F. Nineveh vs. Israel: How the Christian Exegetes of the Book of Jonah Interpret Historical Events. Bible and Christian Antiquity. 2022;13(1):68-87. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31802/BCA.2022.13.1.003
Views:
53
JATS XML
Email this article 