+- SFL Forum (http://www.stufffundieslike.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Deep Discussions (/forumdisplay.php?fid=28)
+--- Forum: General Theology Discussion and Debate (/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Reading Jonah (/showthread.php?tid=4159)
Pages: 1 2
Reading Jonah - redbeardiam - 04-09-2012 11:29 AM
Who here reads Jonah literally? [Correction: what I meant to say was 'historically,' not 'literally.' Just to be more clear.
I was brought up reading it this way and most people in my evangelical circles still do. But I find the arguments for it less and less compelling.
An old friend of mine is blogging this week about why he reads it differently.
Here's a link to the first post, which is just a cursory overview: http://jbyas.com/2012/04/09/is-jonah-historical-the-overview-part-1-of-5/ The second post, which goes into a little more detail on stylistic elements, is here. http://jbyas.com/2012/04/09/is-jonah-historical-the-way-its-written-part-2-of-5/
RE: Reading Jonah - Lady Julian - 04-09-2012 11:47 AM
I'm in the middle of some lesson planning, so I'll have to read the links later. But I will, I promise!
Perhaps your friend answers this, but does reading Jonah literally preclude reading it allegorically as well? Medieval theologians and scholars would have seen it both ways, in their incredibly detailed and intricate four-part allegorical structure. Allegorical simply refers to the meaning; theological to the truths taken from the story, and eschatological to how the story foresahdows the end of time. Here's how this structure works out for Jonah:
1. Literal: Jonah was eaten by a whale, then vomited up three days later.
2. Allegorical: Jonah's "death" and "rebirth" pictures the rebirth of the soul.
3. Moral / Theological: Jonah's emergence from the whale pictures the death and resurrection of Christ.
4. Eschatological: As Jonah was "reborn" from the belly of the whale, so believers will be removed from death into life at the end of time.
In other words, the literal level serves as a grounding for the allegorical level. Mostly (but not always) they believe that the literal level really happened; however, the allegorical level is more important. I don't see a problem with God, if He is truly all-powerful, making Jonah survive in the belly of and be vomited up by a "big fish", but I also don't see why both the literal and allegorical levels can't both be true at the same time.
RE: Reading Jonah - redbeardiam - 04-09-2012 01:43 PM
(04-09-2012 11:47 AM)Lady Julian Wrote: I'm in the middle of some lesson planning, so I'll have to read the links later. But I will, I promise!
Perhaps your friend answers this, but does reading Jonah literally preclude reading it allegorically as well? Medieval theologians and scholars would have seen it both ways, in their incredibly detailed and intricate four-part allegorical structure. Allegorical simply refers to the meaning; theological to the truths taken from the story, and eschatological to how the story foresahdows the end of time. Here's how this structure works out for Jonah:
1. Literal: Jonah was eaten by a whale, then vomited up three days later.
2. Allegorical: Jonah's "death" and "rebirth" pictures the rebirth of the soul.
3. Moral / Theological: Jonah's emergence from the whale pictures the death and resurrection of Christ.
4. Eschatological: As Jonah was "reborn" from the belly of the whale, so believers will be removed from death into life at the end of time.
In other words, the literal level serves as a grounding for the allegorical level. Mostly (but not always) they believe that the literal level really happened; however, the allegorical level is more important. I don't see a problem with God, if He is truly all-powerful, making Jonah survive in the belly of and be vomited up by a "big fish", but I also don't see why both the literal and allegorical levels can't both be true at the same time.
No, if Jonah were historical that would not in the slightest prevent it from being theological/allegorical as well.
I'm thinking that in the next few posts he will be writing about the additional reasons not to read it historically. 'You don't believe in God's power' won't be one of them...
RE: Reading Jonah - Lady Julian - 04-09-2012 02:03 PM
Quote:No, if Jonah were historical that would not in the slightest prevent it from being theological/allegorical as well.
Okay, question answered for now. I'll go read your friend's posts for more information, since this sounds like an interesting question.
Quote:I'm thinking that in the next few posts he will be writing about the additional reasons not to read it historically. 'You don't believe in God's power' won't be one of them
Oops. I didn't realize until right now that my previous post had sounded like a Jesus Juke. I absolutely did not mean to imply that people who don't read Jonah historically don't believe in God's power. Sorry 'bout that.
RE: Reading Jonah - redbeardiam - 04-09-2012 02:21 PM
(04-09-2012 02:03 PM)Lady Julian Wrote: Oops. I didn't realize until right now that my previous post had sounded like a Jesus Juke. I absolutely did not mean to imply that people who don't read Jonah historically don't believe in God's power. Sorry 'bout that.
That actually came across a bit rougher than I intended it. It wasn't really directed at you, more of a pre-emptive strike.
RE: Reading Jonah - oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest - 04-09-2012 08:30 PM
I read Jonah as story, not history. The message of the book is not affected either way. CS Lewis read it as story, as does Leslie Allen in the NICOT (a very conservative commentary). Doesn't mean they're right, but one can keep their faith and discard literal historical readings of OT narratives like Jonah. Same for talking donkeys, talking snakes, magic trees, sun standing still (i.e. earth ceasing it's rotation) and other indicators of story/legend.
RE: Reading Jonah - myotch - 04-09-2012 10:06 PM
A Catholic perspective:
After I became Catholic, I was highly interested to read the Deuterocanonical books. Yeah, that's a mouthful, and you are probably more familiar with the Protestant term: the Apocrypha.
Tobit, along with Judith, is nestled between Nehemiah and Esther.
Judith reads a LOT like Esther. Both are narratives about when Israel was under war and occupation and diaspora. Judith is a bit on the graphic side. Tobit is included in the historical books, but reads as fantastical as some of Genesis and, of course, the prophetic book of Jonah.
We see aspects of all the Deuterocanonical books as well as historical and prophetic books, including Tobit, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, even Judith, directly referenced in the New Testament.
I dunno how to hammer the square peg of Tobit into the New Testament. But the New Testament references to Tobit are indisputable. Tobit is too fantastical to be historical fact (in my modern mind) and has anachronisms and "bad science". Standing alone, the story begs questions, like, should we only look for mates within our kinsmen? Are fish entrails good medicine? On the whole, though, the story is a road script waiting to be made - a good guy and an angel traveling and all the cool stuff they do. The destination is not nearly as meaningful as the routes they take to get there.
Spoiler:
I look at Jonah, Tobit, and books like Job, as really cool books imparting Scriptural wisdom for our benefit. It doesn't matter if they are factual events. Job imparts some incredible, ridiculously important perspective of what it means to have God-worshipping faith in the very fabric of our character. Jonah shows the importance of obedience, and how profound our disobedience is - and that sometimes, our obedience/disobedience is not just about us, but to the others who may be affected by our lives.
Why would it matter if it were historical fact, or symbolic stories, or stories based on real men and real places and real events with certain "legendary" and "metaphorical" information thrown in? I think we are called by God to the wisdom imparted by them.
One of the great things about Sripture is not only the places and events mentioned, the historical context. Look also at the "meaning" given these people, places, and events which is far more subjective.
We try to find similar meaning in our own lives. Spetember 11 happened - we know just about everything we need to know. But what transcendent meaning comes from the event? Someone we know dies, or gets divorced. What was the meaning of their lives, or their lives together? We can understand facts all day long. It's meaning that keeps us awake at night.
I think Scripture is the same way, where the writers and the prophets were led to a meaning of events and places. And they sometimes found meaning or communicated meaning with metaphors, similes, symbolic stories. Jesus spoke in fictional metaphors to get a very real point, a spiritual truth across. Why can't we see Job and Jonah in the same light?
RE: Reading Jonah - redbeardiam - 04-10-2012 09:15 AM
(04-09-2012 08:30 PM)oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest Wrote: I read Jonah as story, not history. The message of the book is not affected either way. CS Lewis read it as story, as does Leslie Allen in the NICOT (a very conservative commentary). Doesn't mean they're right, but one can keep their faith and discard literal historical readings of OT narratives like Jonah.
I'm generally familiar now with most of the arguments for reading specifically Jonah as story, not history. They make sense to me. I guess I'm wondering, since I've heard it passionately defended as history before, if there's anyone who holds this view who would also care to make as thorough a case as they can for it.
Quote:Same for talking donkeys, talking snakes, magic trees, sun standing still (i.e. earth ceasing it's rotation) and other indicators of story/legend.
Along with the miracles performed by Jesus and the resurrection? It sounds like you're suggesting that most of the miraculous events in the Bible are simply legend. That's not where I'm coming from.
RE: Reading Jonah - redbeardiam - 04-10-2012 09:18 AM
(04-09-2012 10:06 PM)myotch Wrote: I dunno how to hammer the square peg of Tobit into the New Testament. But the New Testament references to Tobit are indisputable. Tobit is too fantastical to be historical fact (in my modern mind) and has anachronisms and "bad science". Standing alone, the story begs questions, like, should we only look for mates within our kinsmen? Are fish entrails good medicine? On the whole, though, the story is a road script waiting to be made - a good guy and an angel traveling and all the cool stuff they do.
I don't know about a movie, but Frederick Buechner already made it into a novel: http://www.amazon.com/On-Road-Archangel-Frederick-Buechner/dp/0060611251
Quote:I think Scripture is the same way, where the writers and the prophets were led to a meaning of events and places. And they sometimes found meaning or communicated meaning with metaphors, similes, symbolic stories. Jesus spoke in fictional metaphors to get a very real point, a spiritual truth across. Why can't we see Job and Jonah in the same light?
I really appreciate your thoughtfulness and your tone. I agree with most of what you've said here.
RE: Reading Jonah - redbeardiam - 04-10-2012 09:23 AM
Also, third installment of the blog series I was referencing is up:
http://jbyas.com/2012/04/10/is-jonah-historical-the-way-it-borrows-part-3-of-5/