Jonah

[luciasclay]

Reading in Jonah this week the thought came to me. Was Jonah dead ?

And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the belly of the fish, saying, “I called to the Lord out of my distress, and he answered me: out of the belly of Sheol I cried,…” – RSV

The fact that he prayed I always understood to be because he was alive in the belly. But now that I have come to understand the dead also pray and Jonah refers to himself as in the belly of Sheol.

If he was dead in the belly for 3 days then the messianic aspects of this and “the sign of Jonah” would be even stronger. A man died and three days later rose again to bring salvation to gentiles.

Not arguing this is how its to be read. Just a thought that came wafting over the transom of my feeble mind today.

 

[LanD]

That’s very interesting. I’ve never noticed that before. Could Jonah have been in sheol for 3 days? I think that he was just speaking in a metaphoric or poetic way though, just like how David said “For Your lovingkindness toward me is great, And You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.” (Psalms 86:13)

 

[Murray1105]

I asked the same question when I heard this verse in a sunday reading when I was going through R.C.I.A. The answer I recieved was that bsefore jesus we really had the wrong image of god. if you look at the parable of “the prodigal son” when he decides to come home he does’nt veiw his father as a loving father but a man he must somehow earn his mercy and accept his punishment, instead he is a loving father who is ready to celebrate the return of his son and treat him as his son. Before jesus men often had that image of God instead of the loving father that he is. So when the old testament was written they often attributed man’s characteristics with God. which comes from their lack of understanding at that time. So when they said God repented of the evil he was going to do it was a misunderstanding on the part of man. I hope that helps

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is a commentary on Jonah that I put together that has quotes from the Church Fathers, lots of quotes litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Jonah+Commentary

I personally believe that Jonah was at death’s door but did not actually die. I accept what St. Jerome said, By the “belly of Hades” we understand the stomach of a whale of such great size that it took the place of Hades. But this can better be referred to the person of Christ (Matt 12:40)."

 

[Murray1105]

I have never heard that theory of “sheol” before but it is an interesting one I would like to learn more about. According to “a catholic guide to the bible” by fr. Lukefar, (hope I spelled his name right) The book of jonah is put into the fiction category by many sholars. When I say fiction I don’t mean not inspired by God but a story ment to convey God’s truth. Other books like Tobit and I think Esther or Ruth are other examples of this.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have never heard that theory of “sheol” before but it is an interesting one I would like to learn more about. According to “a catholic guide to the bible” by fr. Lukefar, (hope I spelled his name right) The book of jonah is put into the fiction category by many sholars. When I say fiction I don’t mean not inspired by God but a story ment to convey God’s truth. Other books like Tobit and I think Esther or Ruth are other examples of this.

The theory of fiction is held by some modern scholars, but it has always been held as historic by not only ancient Christianity but also by the Jews before Christ came. In my personal opinion I feel that the modernist position causes more doubts and obscurity about the reliablity of the Bible.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I have never heard that theory of “sheol” before but it is an interesting one I would like to learn more about. According to “a catholic guide to the bible” by fr. Lukefar, (hope I spelled his name right) The book of jonah is put into the fiction category by many sholars. When I say fiction I don’t mean not inspired by God but a story ment to convey God’s truth. Other books like Tobit and I think Esther or Ruth are other examples of this.

Note that Ruth is an ancestress of David and Jesus.

5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of David the king. And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah,

Matthew 1:5-6

She is a real person; so one presumes that the book is true. It is interesting because she is a Moabite. Elsewhere Moabites and their descendants are forbidden to enter the Temple, which was built by Solomon.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The theory of fiction is held by some modern scholars, but it has always been held as historic by not only ancient Christianity but also by the Jews before Christ came. In my personal opinion I feel that the modernist position causes more doubts and obscurity about the reliablity of the Bible.

Exactly. My answer is that only the Magisterium teaches. Modernist Biblical Scholars are mainly technicians dissecting the Bible like a dead frog. They overstep their bounds when they try to “teach” what the Bible means or says.

 

[Murray1105]

To say only the magesterium teaches I feel is wrong IF you mean if the pope didn’t declare it an offical teaching it can’t be taught. There are a lot of things that have been believed before there was ever an infalliable statement. Perhaps I was wrong about Ruth. I wasn’t sure when I mentioned her. As far as declaring parts of the bible as stories rather than authentic history introduces some serious problems. Tobit is a fictional story. I have never heard anyone declare it other than that. It is still God’s Word. It still speaks God’s Truth just as much as one of the historical books or the wisdom literature. God used different ways to speak to us. In support of Jonah being “fiction” one does not have to believe that, but one can if they wish. Just like the story of creation there are many interpretations of it by the jews, the fathers and modern christians. It is the same with “Revelation”. The church has set up boundaries that we must stay in when we interpret them. And to say modernist are “dissecting the Bible like a dead frog” I believe is overstepping your bounds. At one point Augustine and Aquinas were modernist. Trying to understand the Bible better is a way to know God better as long as we are staying within the church’s boundaries.

 

[luciasclay]

Exactly. My answer is that only the Magisterium teaches. Modernist Biblical Scholars are mainly technicians dissecting the Bible like a dead frog. They overstep their bounds when they try to “teach” what the Bible means or says.

I agree with you. Especially modernism etc.

From my end when I ask something like I did above I’m asking if its in accordance with accepted teaching. So far no one has come out and said yes that has been taught that way so I’m willing to say its not correct.

 

[COPLAND_3]

To say only the magesterium teaches I feel is wrong IF you mean if the pope didn’t declare it an offical teaching it can’t be taught. There are a lot of things that have been believed before there was ever an infalliable statement. Perhaps I was wrong about Ruth. I wasn’t sure when I mentioned her. As far as declaring parts of the bible as stories rather than authentic history introduces some serious problems. Tobit is a fictional story. I have never heard anyone declare it other than that. It is still God’s Word. It still speaks God’s Truth just as much as one of the historical books or the wisdom literature. God used different ways to speak to us. In support of Jonah being “fiction” one does not have to believe that, but one can if they wish. Just like the story of creation there are many interpretations of it by the jews, the fathers and modern christians. It is the same with “Revelation”. The church has set up boundaries that we must stay in when we interpret them. And to say modernist are “dissecting the Bible like a dead frog” I believe is overstepping your bounds. At one point Augustine and Aquinas were modernist. Trying to understand the Bible better is a way to know God better as long as we are staying within the church’s boundaries.

True, the Church does not require you to believe that Jonah was historic. Me being an orthodox thinker and one who prefers to follow the traditional beliefs of the Church about the Bible, I have issues with some of the modern critical approaches. It gives the impression that the Bible is some completely fiction compilation of stories that we are in turn suppose to hold as sacred. I would lay my life down for the Bible and defend it till my last breath, but if I believed it was full of tall tales with no historical value, I think I would not be so zealous about it. I’m just saying! First of all Jesus speaks of Jonah, Daniel, etc as being actual people. 2000 years of Christian tradition has always understood it that way to, as well as the ancient Jews.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

And to say modernist are “dissecting the Bible like a dead frog” I believe is overstepping your bounds. At one point Augustine and Aquinas were modernist.

How am I overstepping my bounds? (see my sig ) The Critical/Historical exegete sees himself as a scientist/medical examiner and the Scriptures are his cadaver. He has a definite function, and an important one, but interpreting the meaning of Scripture in the Faith context is NOT one of them. He is strictly a technician, not always a good one, but if he is good, he will strengthen and illuminate further our appreciation of the Holy Scriptures, not overturn it and destroy it.

Further, you must have an only dim idea of how the ECF’s commented on the Scriptures. St. Augustine would never have qualified as a modernist, even in the early 5th c. If anything he was a staunch traditionalist, often at odds with St. Jerome (whom we might say is somewhat like a modernist (except for his profound holiness, and the high esteem he earned from Pope St. Damasus, who commissioned him to correct and translate the old Latin Scriptures.)

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I agree with you. Especially modernism etc.

From my end when I ask something like I did above I’m asking if its in accordance with accepted teaching. So far no one has come out and said yes that has been taught that way so I’m willing to say its not correct.

The only thing I would say is that most commentators see the reference to sheol as simply meaning in grave danger (get it, “grave”)

 

[COPLAND_3]

How am I overstepping my bounds? (see my sig ) The Critical/Historical exegete sees himself as a scientist/medical examiner and the Scriptures are his cadaver. He has a definite function, and an important one, but interpreting the meaning of Scripture in the Faith context is NOT one of them. He is strictly a technician, not always a good one, but if he is good, he will strengthen and illuminate further our appreciation of the Holy Scriptures, not overturn it and destroy it.

Further, you must have an only dim idea of how the ECF’s commented on the Scriptures. St. Augustine would never have qualified as a modernist, even in the early 5th c. If anything he was a staunch traditionalist, often at odds with St. Jerome (whom we might say is somewhat like a modernist (except for his profound holiness, and the high esteem he earned from Pope St. Damasus, who commissioned him to correct and translate the old Latin Scriptures.)

The modernists of today has nothing in common with the Church Fathers and they almost always disregard the Fathers. Though they do resemble some of the heretics.

 

[Murray1105]

Perhaps I don’t fully understand “modernist”. I am new to the church and want to make it clear I am in no way trying to be a reformer in anyway. So far I think I am more into what I believe to be “traditional” church teaching. I personally don’t know if I believe Jonah. I do believe that it is overstepping bounds though to label all “modernists” as just treating the bible like a dead frog or closer to heretics, just because they have a different view than you do. I also love to read the fathers. It is one of the things that brought me into the church. I so far have not read any commentaries on Jonah, However I find it hard to believe that all Jews and Christians only held a literal view of Jonah.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Perhaps I don’t fully understand “modernist”. I am new to the church and want to make it clear I am in no way trying to be a reformer in anyway. So far I think I am more into what I believe to be “traditional” church teaching. I personally don’t know if I believe Jonah. I do believe that it is overstepping bounds though to label all “modernists” as just treating the bible like a dead frog or closer to heretics, just because they have a different view than you do. I also love to read the fathers. It is one of the things that brought me into the church. I so far have not read any commentaries on Jonah, However I find it hard to believe that all Jews and Christians only held a literal view of Jonah.

Sorry for coming across so hard-core, but this is a strong conviction of mine, and I struggle with not biting my tongue when I should. I just feel that there is a movement among some schools of thought that does not cross the line but flurts with the idea of reducing the Bible to an inspired fairly tale all for the sake of trying to be religious but “intellectual.” If I offended you or anyone else on here then I am very sorry.

 

[Murray1105]

I just feel that there is a movement among some schools of thought that does not cross the line but flurts with the idea of reducing the Bible to an inspired fairly tale all for the sake of trying to be religious but “intellectual.”

Now this I can whole heartedly agree with. There are many who try to reduce the whole bible to nothing but fairy tales. I am not one. I believe God used men to write his word and in doing so we have historical accounts, poetry, stories, and much more. I believe the Bible is a very diverse book and it can not be lumped into one category, however as diverse as it is, it is still God’s Word no matter how he chose to relate it to man or from man to paper. I think it contains all types of literature. One cannot place The Psalms in a category with Maccabees Job is not placed in the prophets because it is a story being told by a jew about a pagan man to help people at the time understand their exile. I believe as long as we stay inside the magisterium’s teaching we are ok. I hope I didn’t offend you also or anyone else. If so I am sorry also. We are all Children of God and the last thing we need is more conflict in the church.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Murray1105:

Perhaps I don’t fully understand “modernist”. I am new to the church and want to make it clear I am in no way trying to be a reformer in anyway. So far I think I am more into what I believe to be “traditional” church teaching. I personally don’t know if I believe Jonah. I do believe that it is overstepping bounds though to label all “modernists” as just treating the bible like a dead frog or closer to heretics, just because they have a different view than you do.

Yes, modernist is a sweeping term and really too vague. What I refer to when I speak of modernists treating Scripture like a dead frog, is a very strong push among certain intellectuals to reduce the scriptures to fictional, or poetic, or creative accounts of what today we would almost call pulp fiction. In other words they are carried away with their own conceits, and despise and hold in scorn the early church fathers as completely lacking in the “critical” understanding, that these present day scientists of the Bible claim they have. They have no concern for the scandal they cause, nor the innocent and devout Faith which they may shake or unhinge, in fact, they rather prefer doing just that. It’s not a case of various interpretations, but rather a haughty arrogance toward those that hold the Scriptures as true. Not just fundamentalist, mind you, but people that believe that the Resurrection of Jesus actually happened, or that Jesus was actually born of a virgin. In other words the foundational beliefs found in the Gospels are not only seen as fictional and creative narratives to illustrate some fuzzy truth, but they believe that whoever wrote the Scriptures knowingly made up these stories, as their generation fully expected them to and “understood” them as being pious parables and fables.

It is a serious problem. On an internet forum like this, there are dozens of posters that are “faux-exegetes.” This radical rejection of many (if not all) former beliefs is exactly what they are looking for, and they wish to foist these false beliefs onto good and devout Catholics.

So you can see why this topic can bring out strong language!

 

[COPLAND_3]

One of the main reasons why I take such a stern position against the modernist position is because I spent about a couple of years learning about the Catholic Church with some guidance but depending only on my own research. I learned that the Catholic Church was the Church that Christ established mainly through the Early Church Fathers, and I reached a point to where I was going to follow that truth wherever it led and to make adjustments in what I believed. During that process I got a hold of some very liberal material, one book called “Catholicism” by Richard P. McBrien. I studied that book, and I was very disappointed because it made the Catholic Church look like super liberal, but like I said, I was willing to follow truth wherever it led me. Then I also had an NAB translation, and the footnotes are extremely liberal as well, but I was accepting it but holding my nose at the same time. But then I finally was led to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and some good traditional resources, and this helped me to realize the Catholic Church has 2000 years of consistant traditional beliefs about the Bible even though there has been a movement within the last 100 years that traces back to some German theologians, which spread from them into seminaries to where that school of thought was passed on. Protestant institutions have it too, I dealt with it when I was a Protestant.

Those going to seminaries are usually pressured into adopting that school of thought because you get those in the ranks of higher education who are super liberal and will paint the picture that only the uneducated and narrow-minded zealots are traditionalists.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

One of the main reasons why I take such a stern position against the modernist position is because I spent about a couple of years learning about the Catholic Church with some guidance but depending only on my own research. I learned that the Catholic Church was the Church that Christ established mainly through the Early Church Fathers, and I reached a point to where I was going to follow that truth wherever it led and to make adjustments in what I believed. During that process I got a hold of some very liberal material, one book called “Catholicism” by Richard P. McBrien. I studied that book, and I was very disappointed because it made the Catholic Church look like super liberal, but like I said, I was willing to follow truth wherever it led me. Then I also had an NAB translation, and the footnotes are extremely liberal as well, but I was accepting it but holding my nose at the same time. But then I finally was led to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and some good traditional resources, and this helped me to realize the Catholic Church has 2000 years of consistant traditional beliefs about the Bible even though there has been a movement within the last 100 years that traces back to some German theologians, which spread from them into seminaries to where that school of thought was passed on. Protestant institutions have it too, I dealt with it when I was a Protestant.

Those going to seminaries are usually pressured into adopting that school of thought because you get those in the ranks of higher education who are super liberal and will paint the picture that only the uneducated and narrow-minded zealots are traditionalists.

Just as you say, COPLAND 3. Have you read Pope Benedict’s book “Jesus of Nazareth?” In it, he addresses many of these German exegetes, and their supposed findings. It is both encouraging and comforting to know that the Pope sees the Bible basically as we have long believed since Apostolic times. He is able to refute their claims in a very cogent and perspicuous fashion. He does make use of some of their work, but then it is in order to underscore the meaning and even bring additional depth to the understanding of Scripture, and not like some posters on this board, to overturn and destroy.