In synoptic perspective
Rehearsing the synoptic history of the Jonah saying is more obligatory
than necessary, and necessary only because it is obligatory. On the
two-source hypothesis, some form of the Jonah saying occurs in Q. A
variation without mention of Jonah occurs in Mark 8:11-12. Matthew (12:
39-41) and Luke (11:29-32) independently choose to adapt the Q version
for their purposes. Curiously, Matthew (16:4) makes double use of the
tradition, and in doing so preserves a briefer form of the saying (Cf.
Dunn, 2003, pp.658-60).
On the Griesbach-Farmer hypothesis, Matthew 12:39-41 and 16:4 are the
first occurrences of the saying. Luke then adapts his version of the
saying from Matthew; and Mark offers a compromise version based upon
both Matthew and Luke (Farmer, Synoptic Problem , 1976, pp.
200-201). However, given the tenuous nature of all documentary
hypotheses I decline to depend upon any in this tradition-critical
investigation (Cf. Farmer, “Matthew and the Bible,” 1976, pp. 57-66).
James Dunn (2003) makes a compelling case to shift the focus from
anachronistic literary theories to the phenomenon of oral tradition and
narrative performance. He argues that the Jonah saying can be traced
back to the impact of Jesus on the earliest witnesses to the saying.
Differences in the parallel versions can be attributed to performance
variations (pp.658-60).
Dunn would further characterize the comparison between Jonah and Jesus
in Matt 12:40 as a Matthean elaboration in regard to the Son of Man’s
burial (pp.659-60).11Dunn says. “And though one of Matthew’s
versions elaborates the sign of Jonah in terms of the Son of Man’s
burial for three days (Matt.12:40), that is assuredly to be regarded
as elaboration in hindsight.”
. I would agree that the passage is Matthean, although I would rather
describe it as a parenthetical remark. I also would not characterize the
passage as a reference to burial time. In this case, the gospel writer
did not intend for the comparison in 12:40 to be understood as a saying
of Jesus. The occurrence of the duplet in Matt 16:4 where the comparison
is not reproduced, the idiomatic Jewish character of the phrase “heart
of the earth,” and the absence of the comparison in Luke 11:29-32
indicates the Matthean origin and parenthetical character of the saying.