Reading Jonah

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(04-10-2012 09:15 AM)redbeardiam Wrote:  

(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.

Not exactly. I think you have to read a narrative and ask if it reads like story, history, or metaphorical history (history retold with legendary/mythical elements). The presence of the miraculous does not make it legendary automatically to me. But the garden of Eden narrative reads like myth to me and the Joshua narrative with the sun standing still reads like idealized history. The miracle stories of Jesus... it would depend on which story. The resurrection narraties: I believe the early followers of Jesus had an experience of Jesus alive after his death. The narratives relate this experience in ways that include, in my opinion, legendary or story-telling material.