Jonah and the Whale

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ohana
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Timothysis, thank you. I tried finding it but had no luck at all.
 
Timothysis said:
For the last time, your infatuation with St. Augustine is misplaced.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you think my confidence with St. Augustine is misplaced?
Timothysis said:
In any event, the Church in her Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation says* “12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture*, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.”

BTW, notice the word “dogmatic” in the title of the constitution and the fact that it was promulgated by a pope. I think that trumps your “Nihil Obstat from a Cardinal.” 😃
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that St. Augustine failed to carefully investigate the meaning of the sacred writers when he argued for a literal interpretation of Jonah?

Dei Verbum which as you point out is a dogmatic statement also says
It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.
Click to expand...
It is very clear that the Sacred Tradition teaches that Jonah was to be interpreted literally as a real historical event. Nothing in Sacred Tradition teaches that the story is not a description of true events. Therefore by changing the sense and interpretation of the scripture you are divorcing it from Sacred Tradition when Dei Verbum specifically tells us not to.

Dei Verbum also says this
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith.
Click to expand...
Whereas you are casting aside the tradition of the WHOLE Church in order to follow what you regard as a valid harmonisation of the intents of the writer of Jonah.

Dei Verbum merely repeats what the Council of Trent says, and it is a common fault of modernists to read the documents of Vatican 2 out of the context of all the preceding councils. As we know Vatican 2 is a continuation of the previous councils. It utterly upholds each and every one of them. Vatican 2 is not an invitation for modernists and rationalists to run rampant with the scriptures.

The Council of Trent states
“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”
Click to expand...
Without question there are many petulant spirits in need of restraint today.

So what is the unanimous consent of the Fathers with regard to the account of Jonah? Of course the unanimous consent of the Fathers is that it describes real, historical events.
 
Lessons to learn from the story:
  • It is impossible to flee from the presence of GOD. Jonah tried to flee from GOD & he failed.
  • We have to trust GOD by obeying & following the LORD.
 
Warrenton said:
This is all wrong. The Church gives us permission not to believe the literal truth of the story. The Church never teaches that someone cannot, or should not, believe the literal truth of the accounts that the Bible contains.
Click to expand...
You really need to read and understand Dei Verbum. It dogmatically states that there are many forms of writing in the bible and that you do have to consider the literary form of every story.

I have heard many people ask the question, “How do you know that this is a fictional rather than a historical narrative?” As mentioned before, the answer is in the setting, the plot, and the tone. The setting of the book is not realistic - a prophet from Israel preaching in Nineveh before the fall of the northern kingdom. The plot of the book is obviously unrealistic. The episode with the fish, the psalm from the belly of the fish, the immediate repentance of the Ninevites, and the whole episode with the castor oil plant are perfect for a humorous fictional narrative and ludicrous for a historical narrative. And finally, the humorous tone clues us in to the fact that we are reading fiction: Jonah is not a historical prophet but a parody of a historical prophet. His total lack of concern for the Ninevites, even after receiving his call , his angry and accusatory tone toward God, and his constant pettiness all make him delightful fictional creation rather than a serious historical prophet who could only be regarded with contempt.
Nor does the Church churn out a bunch of theories to justify non belief in the truth of scripture.
Click to expand...
You are seriously confusing the truth of scripture with literalistic truth. No one is arguing against the “truth of scripture”, we are discussing the literary form of the stories which are the vehicle for that truth. Overly focusing on the historicity of such stories can distract one from recognizing the real truth that is being taught.
Moreover, such an interpretation does not even make sense.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe it makes perfect sense in every way.
The story is no more meaningful by thinking it is fiction than believing it is real. Non belief adds nothing to the understanding of the story in the Christian context.
Click to expand...
Not true - recognizing all the fictional techniques of the story greatly adds to the understanding.
What you are really saying is that the less you need to believe, the easier it is to believe whatever it may be that you do hold necessary to believe. While this may be human, and while the Church has always tolerated it among its members, it is tepid.
Click to expand...
As I said, you really need to read and understand Dei Verbum. You are ignoring the most basic dogmatic instructions on scripture analysis - the church has come a long way from the naive fundamentalism of even a hundred years ago.

The story of Jonah is powerful story teaching great truths. It is also a carefully constructed work of didactic fiction with a clear literary form. In this genre the author could use humor, parody, and irony to teach his audience a lesson that was very difficult for them to accept: God loves other nations too, and so must we. Fictional, humorous narratives are a great way to help people see their own prejudices and foibles. There is ample evidence in the setting, the plot, and the tone that the intent of the author is not to report history.

References: Very little of the above is original from me. I am indebted to numerous scripture scholars, especially Margaret Ralph whose book “And God Said What?” is the textbook for many Catholic adult scripture education classes.
 
petrel said:
Shall we also show a degree of respect to folks who believe that the virgin birth is didactic fiction?
Click to expand...
The Virgin Birth is de fide. It’s in the creed, and is taught dogmatically. The story of Jonah is not de fide. It’s not a dogmatic teaching, and the Church does not require us to believe it in a literalistic matter? Can you not understand that difference? Those who don’t believe it are no less Catholic for it. Those who don’t believe the Virgin Birth are not in full communion.

If you believe it to be a dogmatic teaching the burden of proof is on you.
 
petrel said:
Please provide evidence that the church says that you do not need to take the story of Jonah and the Whale literally. I regard this as mere heresay and urban myth.
Click to expand...
Hey, Petrel! I’ll try to answer this question, and as you know if you’ve followed my posts to this thread, you and I agree on the literal truth of Jonah.

Our friends, though, are correct when they say that the Church does not “require” them to believe that the events in Jonah actually occurred.

Where our friends are incorrect, though, is the lesson that they extrapolate from that accomodation to doubt, or ignorance, or scruple.

They make a virtue out of what is actually a fault.

Long, long, ago, the Church realized that many of her claims and aspects of her history would be difficult for various sorts of people to accept. Therefore, she reduced the amount of things we must hold as verities in order to call ourselves Christian to a bare minimum. She pared it down to the Apostles’ Creed, and with a few additions here and there, so it remains.

This, though, does not mean that non believing fully the truth of scipture is a good thing. It’s not a good thing. In fact, it’s a bad thing, because the human brain synthezises information by analogy. If one thing is false, then a similar thing is false. That’s how we reason. If we come to hold the view that one miracle is fiction, we are more likely to believe that the next miracle is fiction. And so on.

Christ told us that all things are possible with God. We are also
told that had we faith, each of us could move mountains. If we had the faith of angels, we would never doubt, never question whether God can, or would, do something. The only thing astonishing in our eyes would be the goodness of God, not his methods. That is the light in which, ideally, I think that we would be able to read every word of scripture. The great saints - especially the Fathers - read scripture that way not because they were naive, as has been suggested, but because they were spiritual titans, especially compared with us.

They spent hours, even days fasting, accepting heat and cold, training the body to obedience, contemplating the scripture to the exclusion of everything else, meditating on the Word at the expense of family, friends, wealth, everything.

It is error, and pride, to think it was easy for them to believe. It was hard. Far harder than it is for us to make excuses for why we don’t think like they did. What is easy is for us today not to believe. That is the error that plagues the approach taken by some of our friends here.
 
I think Jonah and the Whale literally happened. There’s no reason to think otherwise.
 
I agree. Apparently, especially when looking at the Old Testament, some would say that each story was meant to teach a lesson and not be literal. Who were the prophets and where did they get their information?

bible.cc/2_peter/1-21.htm

It is understandable that some would need some further proof of a miracle, like Jesus rising bodily from the dead, which Thomas doubted:

John 20:25

biblebrowser.com/john/20-25.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
Ohana said:
Can anyone help me with this. Our grandson really scoffs at the Jonah and the Whale story, saying that that is impossible. The God can do anything argument just isn’t making it.
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. Your grandson can believe all the following in the Bible:
  1. The plagues on Egypt, including frogs in the sky, the power of God swooping in and killing the first born, and a locust horde.
  2. A pillar of fire foiling pharaoh’s army.
  3. The wall of Jericho tumbling down after the blowing of the horn.
  4. Christ somehow turning two loaves into hundreds with put a look/word/gesture.
  5. Christ raising Lazarus from his grave.
  6. The Apostles healing people with a touch or gesture.
  7. Etc…(And I didn’t even mention the Genesis events).
But a man getting swallowed by a whale for 3 days is over the top? That is illogical. It really is the case of “in for a penny, in for a pound”. Believe in one miracle and you believe and know nothing is beyond God’s power.

How does one even go about comparing miracles anyway? If we’re getting into which miracle is more believable, I happen to think living in a whale for 3 days is more “plausible” than loaves magically multiplying. Nothing is beyond God’s reach.
 
Warrenton said:
Hey, Petrel! I’ll try to answer this question, and as you know if you’ve followed my posts to this thread, you and I agree on the literal truth of Jonah.

Our friends, though, are correct when they say that the Church does not “require” them to believe that the events in Jonah actually occurred.
Click to expand...
Thankyou, good post which I basically agree with.
However you too affirm that the Church does not require belief in the literal understanding of the story of Jonah and the Whale. If that is the case then please produce evidence of this from a recognised church authority that we are permitted to accept a sense of the scripture which differs from the interpretation which we have received by sacred tradition.

Are Catholics required to obey the Council of Trent which says
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.”
Click to expand...
I say yes we are required to believe and obey the Council of Trent which as I stated in a previous post was affirmed by the Dogmatic statement of Dei Verbum.

There is a false belief in the church today that the church only requires us to believe what is declared as dogma. This is absolutely false.
We are required to believe the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition. We are also required to believe everything that is in the Catechism.
Some people are only prepared to believe when the Pope gets on his big chair and pronounces a dogma. Does the Pope have to declare everything as a dogma before we will believe? This is the modern heresy which I like to call “Dogma Alone” where people pick and choose what they want to believe is dogma.

It is the same attitude which adherents to Scripture Alone have.
Scripture-Aloners are inclined to not believe the church, so they reject those things which they want to believe are not contained in scripture. Dogma-Aloners in the same way reject those things which they want to believe are not contained in the dogmatic statements of the Church.
 
I think we all need to get a few things straight here:
  1. The Church has never said, one way or the other, whether the story of Jonah and the whale is meant to be believed as literally happening, or if the story is allegorical.
  2. It is therefore not required that we believe in the literal historicity of the story of Jonah and the whale.
  3. Nor is it required that we deny the literal historicity of the story.
These things the Church rightly leaves to biblical scholars for them to discuss. Whether or not the prophet Jonah actually lived for three days in the literal belly of a whale, or was imprisoned for three days doesn’t really make a difference to matters pertaining to our salvation.

In discussing the story we must first discern in what genre the story was written. Is it allegory, history, narrative, a combination of several genres, etc.? I leave the answer to the scholars (as does the Church).

Personally, I’ll just plug in my copy of Veggie Tales’ “Jonah and the Whale,” have a few laughs at a story well and humorously told, and go on my merry way for the time being. (What can I say? I’m a simple guy who is easily amused). Studying the story of Jonah and the whale isn’t currently at the top of my biblical studies list. I’m still trying to understand the opening two chapters of Genesis. 😃
 
petrel said:
Thankyou, good post which I basically agree with.
However you too affirm that the Church does not require belief in the literal understanding of the story of Jonah and the Whale. If that is the case then please produce evidence of this from a recognised church authority that we are permitted to accept a sense of the scripture which differs from the interpretation which we have received by sacred tradition.
Click to expand...
We could likewise ask you to produce evidence that the Church has explicitly decreed we are to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literally true.

I personally believe it. But I can admit that the Church does not require it for belief.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
We could likewise ask you to produce evidence that the Church has explicitly decreed we are to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literally true.

I personally believe it. But I can admit that the Church does not require it for belief.
Click to expand...
I already have. St. Augustine who defended the literal belief in the story against the pagans. The Catholic Encyclopedia which defended it against the rationalists.
I also provided A direct statement from the Council of Trent which requires that Catholics may not adopt a sense of the scripture which differs from the Sacred Tradition.

And again the Council of Trent insists that we may not adopt a sense of the Scripture which is opposed to that of the general consensus of the patristic fathers. There is not a single church father who believed it was fiction. NOT ONE. Therefore the Council of Trent requires you to believe it as a literal historical event.

You can’t just keep repeating “the church does not require us to believe it is a real event”.
You need to back up your claim. So far NOBODY has produced a single Catholic authority which states that we are free to believe it is a fiction.

In fact the reality of the story of Jonah is corroborated by another inspired writer of scripture.
14:8 And now, my son, depart out of Nineve, because that those things which the prophet Jonas spake shall surely come to pass.

Clearly Tobit was not expecting the Ninevites to repent. Are we to say that Tobit was warning his son to leave Ninevah because a fiction had been written about it? Or perhaps our opponents believe that the book of Tobit is also a work of didactic fiction.

Jesus Christ stated that the men of Ninevah would rise in judgement against those who do not repent at the gospel. A clear reference to the repentance of Ninevah as related by Jonah.
So was Jesus saying that fictional men would rise in the judgement? Clearly he believed that they were real men. As we know he also referred to the story of Jonah in the belly of the whale as a real event to which he likened his death and resurrection.

St. Iraneus in Against heresies newadvent.org/fathers/0103320.htm writes about Jonah without providing a hint of a sense that it is fictional.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem regards it as equally true as the resurrection of our Lord saying "“To me both alike are worthy of credence. I believe that Jonah was preserved, for all things are possible to God; I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead”. "

St. Jerome says this.
“I am aware that some will be incredulous that a man should be preserved three days and three nights in the belly of a whale, to which the shipwreck had led him; these people are either believers or non-believers: if they are believers, they are obliged to believe much greater things.”
Clearly therefore if he believes we are obliged to believe this lesser story.

St. Augustine as I linked to before says
“Either all the divine miracles are to be disbelieved, or else there is no reason why this should not be believed. We should not believe in Christ Himself, and that He rose on the third day, if the faith of Christians feared the laughter of the pagans.”
Only a few posts ago a poster made this very point. What is the problem with believing the story?
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
But I can admit that the Church does not require it for belief.
Click to expand...
It is heresay and urban myth that the church does not require us to believe it. Admitting something which is an urban myth is easy and falls off the tongue with no effort. It is altogether a different thing to justify your admission with hard facts.

I suppose what you mean is that the Church will not excommunicate you for believing its a fiction. What does that prove though? The church won’t excommunicate you for not believing that the Holy Spirit came down with tongues of fire on the first century church. Please provide the dogmatic proclamation that we must believe that the Holy Spirit was given on Pentecost. There is none. Does that mean we are free to not believe it?

I have shown that the Council of Trent requires Catholics must not believe a sense of the scripture different to that which was received by Sacred Tradition.

Therefore what you are admitting to is that the Church does not require us to follow the Council of Trent.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
My wife read somewhere that it is, in fact, possible to survive in a whale’s belly for up to three days. 🤷
Click to expand...
You have to remember though that the narrative itself does not speak of “whale” in the sense that we understand it today, but a more vague “a great fish” (Hebrew דָּג גָּדוֹל dag gadol; Greek κήτει μεγάλῳ) AND the Greek word used in the Septuagint and the Gospels, kētos, originally denoted a sort of sea-monster: in Greek mythology, Perseus and Herakles/Hercules have slain cetea. It was only in the medieval period that the Latinized form of the word, cetus, began to refer specifically to the mammals we call ‘whales’. This explains why in early Christian art, Jonah is swallowed by a serpentine aquatic creature like the Cetus of Greco-Roman mythological art - with ears and front paws/legs no less!


Perseus rescuing Andromeda chained to a rock

http://employees.oneonta.edu/farber...ristian/painting/catacombs/jonah_catacomb.jpg
Jonah
 
petrel said:
However you too affirm that the Church does not require belief in the literal understanding of the story of Jonah and the Whale.
Click to expand...
I do not think that is what I affirm.

I meant “require” in the sense that one can be within the fold of the Church, take the sacraments, and hope for salvation while not believing that something contained in the Old Testament literally happened.

This does not mean that someone is also not “required” to refrain from teaching error as fact, or refrain from propagating doubts, or is not required to pray for more wisdom so that the individual understanding harmonizes with the understanding of the Church.

Hope that clarifies the matter!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top