Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[Pete_Holter]

OK, except that Matthew does not say that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth, he says when they returned from Egypt they were going to go to Judea but they were “afraid to go back there.” Instead they went “to a town called Nazareth.” If they already lived in Nazareth they wouldn’t be going “back there” to Judea, and the evangelist wouldn’t refer to Nazareth as if they had never lived there.

They were going back to Bethlehem because that’s where they were living before they left for Egypt. Matthew doesn’t mention going back to Nazareth because, as you pointed out, he didn’t narrate their living there previously to begin his gospel. It seems that you are trying to force him to use Luke’s starting point for his own gospel and to narrate a comprehensive biography surrounding His birth and infancy. It would be confusing for Matthew to introduced Nazareth at the end of Chapter 2 as if his readers were already familiar with it. Nevertheless, it makes sense to think that they had lived there previously because otherwise, why move there at all? “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46)

Also, Luke does not mention the multi-year trip to Egypt. Luke says they went to Jerusalem every year for Passover until Jesus was twelve, something they couldn’t have done from Egypt.

I’m not sure where you got “multi-year trip” from.

It seems that you want to force Luke into narrating everything that Matthew narrated and vice versa. Just as narrating their previous life in Nazareth was inconsequential to Matthew’s purposes, so the flight into Egypt was evidently inconsequential to Luke’s purposes.

The accounts don’t agree. I find it odd and ironic to twist the accounts and jump them through hoops to try show they are literally true, when the literal meaning conflicts so clearly.

I’m not sure where they disagree. I’m also not sure of what twisting or hoop-jumping I’ve done. The conjectures I’ve made to reconcile the “irreconcilable” seem highly plausible to me.

“I find it odd and ironic” that those who deny the historicity of the gospels try to force them into contradictions that don’t exist and read them more literally than do those who defend their historicity.

Have a blessed day!

 

[Pete_Holter]

An extended quote from Cyril of Jerusalem:

“But again they say, A corpse then lately dead was raised by the living; but show us that one three days dead can possibly arise, and that a man should be buried, and rise after three days. If we seek for Scripture testimony in proof of such facts, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself supplies it in the Gospels, saying, For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. And when we examine the story of Jonas, great is the force of the resemblance. Jesus was sent to preach repentance; Jonas also was sent: but whereas the one fled, not knowing what should come to pass; the other came willingly, to give repentance unto salvation. Jonas was asleep in the ship, and snoring amidst the stormy sea; while Jesus also slept, the sea, according to God’s providence , began to rise, to show in the sequel the might of Him who slept. To the one they said, Why are you snoring? Arise, call upon your God, that God may save us; but in the other case they say unto the Master, Lord, save us. Then they said, Call upon your God; here they say, save Thou. But the one says, Take me, and cast me into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you; the other, Himself rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. The one was cast into a whale’s belly: but the other of His own accord went down thither, where the invisible whale of death is. And He went down of His own accord, that death might cast up those whom he had devoured, according to that which is written, I will ransom them from the power of the grave; and from the hand of death I will redeem them.

“At this point of our discourse, let us consider whether is harder, for a man after having been buried to rise again from the earth, or for a man in the belly of a whale, having come into the great heat of a living creature, to escape corruption. For what man knows not, that the heat of the belly is so great, that even bones which have been swallowed moulder away? How then did Jonas, who was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, escape corruption? And, seeing that the nature of all men is such that we cannot live without breathing, as we do, in air, how did he live without a breath of this air for three days? But the Jews make answer and say, The power of God descended with Jonas when he was tossed about in hell. Does then the Lord grant life to His own servant, by sending His power with him, and can He not grant it to Himself as well? If that is credible, this is credible also; if this is incredible, that also is incredible. For to me both are alike worthy of credence. I believe that Jonas was preserved, for all things are possible with God; I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead; for I have many testimonies of this, both from the Divine Scriptures, and from the operative power even at this day of Him who arose—who descended into hell alone, but ascended thence with a great company; for He went down to death, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose through Him.

“Death was struck with dismay on beholding a new visitant descend into Hades, not bound by the chains of that place. Why, O porters of Hades, were you scared at sight of Him? What was the unwonted fear that possessed you? Death fled, and his flight betrayed his cowardice. The holy prophets ran unto Him, and Moses the Lawgiver, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob; David also, and Samuel, and Esaias, and John the Baptist, who bore witness when he asked, Art Thou He that should come, or look we for another? All the Just were ransomed, whom death had swallowed; for it behoved the King whom they had proclaimed, to become the redeemer of His noble heralds. Then each of the Just said, O death, where is your victory? O grave, where is your sting ? For the Conqueror has redeemed us.

“Of this our Saviour the Prophet Jonas formed the type, when he prayed out of the belly of the whale, and said, I cried in my affliction, and so on; out of the belly of hell, and yet he was in the whale; but though in the whale, he says that he is in Hades; for he was a type of Christ, who was to descend into Hades. And after a few words, he says, in the person of Christ, prophesying most clearly, My head went down to the chasms of the mountains ; and yet he was in the belly of the whale. What mountains then encompass you? I know, he says, that I am a type of Him, who is to be laid in the Sepulchre hewn out of the rock. And though he was in the sea, Jonas says, I went down to the earth, since he was a type of Christ, who went down into the heart of the earth. And foreseeing the deeds of the Jews who persuaded the soldiers to lie, and told them, Say that they stole Him away, he says, By regarding lying vanities they forsook their own mercy. For He who had mercy on them came, and was crucified, and rose again, giving His own precious blood both for Jews and Gentiles; yet say they, Say that they stole Him away, having regard to lying vanities . But concerning His Resurrection, Esaias also says, He who brought up from the earth the great Shepherd of the sheep ; he added the word, great, lest He should be thought on a level with the shepherds who had gone before Him” (Cyril of Jerusalem, , Lecture 14, 17-20Catechetical Lectures).

 

[Pete_Holter]

“The prophet Jonah, not so much by speech as by his own painful experience, prophesied Christ’s death and resurrection much more clearly than if he had proclaimed them with his voice. For why was he taken into the whale’s belly and restored on the third day, but that he might be a sign that Christ should return from the depths of hell on the third day?” (Augustine, , Bk 18, Ch 30City of God).

“But, say they, many Christians were even led away captive. This indeed were a most pitiable fate, if they could be led away to any place where they could not find their God. But for this calamity also sacred Scripture affords great consolation. The three youths were captives; Daniel was a captive; so were other prophets: and God, the comforter, did not fail them. And in like manner He has not failed His own people in the power of a nation which, though barbarous, is yet human—He who did not abandon the prophet in the belly of a monster. These things, indeed, are turned to ridicule rather than credited by those with whom we are debating; though they believe what they read in their own books, that Arion of Methymna, the famous lyrist, when he was thrown overboard, was received on a dolphin’s back and carried to land. But that story of ours about the prophet Jonah is far more incredible—more incredible because more marvellous, and more marvellous because a greater exhibition of power” (Augustine, , Bk 1, Ch 14City of God).

Would fiction offer the same consolation?

“The prison here is a true image of everlasting Hell: to cruel tortures of every kind—shackles, iron chains, manacles—are added hatred, vengeance, calumnies, obscene speech, quarrels, evil acts, swearing, curses, as well as anguish and grief. But the God who once freed the three children from the fiery furnace is with me always; he has delivered me from these tribulations and made them sweet, for his mercy is for ever. In the midst of these torments, which usually terrify others, I am, by the grace of God, full of joy and gladness, because I am not alone —Christ is with me” (Benedict XVI quoting martyr Paul Le-Bao-Tinh in Spe Salvi).

Would fiction offer the same consolation?

 

[Pete_Holter]

They could rise again, in the sequel to Jonah. It’s perfectly valid to refer to fictional characters and comment on whether they would rise again at the Judgement or not. Of course, if they are fictional, and they will not receive a real judgement. But the point is the same - that the characters in Jonah put to shame the people who don’t recognize Jesus.

That’s the thing about the ancient biblical stories… their message and how we use them to teach is completely 100% the same whether they are fiction, legend, or history. You can’t tell from how Jesus or an apostle quoted the story and used it in teaching, whether they thought it was historical or not, unless they specifically address that question, which is unlikely, since they weren’t hung up about it like we are.

Hey Neil!

Not only will they not receive a real judgment, but they won’t rise again at the judgment at all. I appreciate but at the same time object to the proposition that the point is the same, although there is some shared ground. If the Ninevites are fictional, then they do in an abstract sense put those who rejected Jesus to shame; but the Ninevites will not at all rise up at the judgment to condemn them. If, however the repentant Ninevites are historical personages, then not only do they put them to shame, but they will indeed rise at the judgment to condemn Jesus’ generation, just like Jesus said that they would. The words are His, not mine: “I am not so dull-witted nor so coarsely ignorant …] I am not, I repeat, so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord’s words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired” (Jerome, , 1Letter 27).

Is it valid to talk in the way that you propose? Can what Jesus actually said be turned into what you’re proposing? What does it say about Jesus for Him to claim of Himself that “something greater than Jonah is here”? Not much, if Jonah is just a figment and if he’s as petty and as much of a prophet’s parody as has been proposed. What does it say about the final judgment if He is bringing in make believe characters as the judges of your final destiny? It must not be that serious. It is almost laughable. Perhaps, after all, the final judgment isn’t real either… it’s just a work of fiction to get us to act nice towards each other. If Jesus was referring to Jonah in this way in order to instill a holy fear in His listeners… well it’s no wonder the Jews who rejected Him felt safe in doing so. There’s no seriousness to it.

But the judgment is real. Fictional characters cannot rise at the real judgment. It’s just that simple. To my simple mind, anyway. Human beings do not refer to fictional characters doing things in real future events, unless they’re in a comic book club or into role playing games (anachronistic, I know). If he was trying to bring a people to repentance before the day of salvation had passed, do you honestly think He would resort to drawing from fictional characters in order to make it happen? “If the story of Jonah was real, and he really preached to the Ninevites, and if the Ninevites really repented at his preaching, and if they were real people who could rise up at the judgment, they would condemn you for not repenting at what you’ve seen Me do and say.” We would do well to answer Him, “So what?” and “well, they’re not real… soooooo… they can’t.”

Again, is Jesus using a fictional tale of humor in order to drive home a point about a very non-humorous, future judgment? It strikes me as shockingly out-of-place levity. It is possible, but highly incongruous to the setting and to the tenor of his reproach and to the severity of the future judgment.

And so I do not believe that the message is the same either way.

Did the Biblical authors say that they weren’t hung up on whether what they wrote about had a basis in history (Luke 1:1-4)? I’m not talking about modern day historical precision (which itself will be found very imprecise in the future), but about a historical basis. There are many cases in the New Testament Scriptures where the historical or fictional character of an Old Testament citation cannot be determined from its New Testament usage. But whenever the case can be verified, it always turns out to be historical. Someone else on the thread gave the example of the blood of Abel and the blood of Zechariah coming against the current generation (Mat 23:35 and Luke 11:51). I gave the example of Paul recounting a number of historical events in 1 Corinthians 10: “these things happened” and they were subsequently “written down.” It sounds like you’re not convinced of there being a similar case here in Matthew’s reference to Jonah and the Ninevites rising at the judgment, but I put it forward nonetheless because of its absolute reasonableness.

I hope you had a blessed day and that God holds you close to His heart.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Indeed we may learn also from the Saviour Himself, when He says, ‘For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’ For Jonah was not as the Savior, nor did Jonah go down to hades; nor was the whale hades; nor did Jonah, when swallowed up, bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth, when the whale was bidden (Athanasius, , Discourse 3, Ch 25, 22-23Against the Arians).

I think this quote requires a little commentary to establish whether Athanasius understood Jonah being in the belly of the whale as a historical event. I think two points in favor of historicity can be made.

1.) Jonah says that he was in the belly of Hades, but Athanasius says that Jonah was not in Hades and did not go down to Hades because the whale is not Hades. If Athanasius took the book to be fiction, then he would more readily say that Jonah wasn’t in Hades simply because the book itself was fiction. Since he rejected the Hades parallel specifically on the grounds that the whale is not Hades – which would be silly and superfluous to say about a figure in a work of fiction and counter to the purpose of a work of fiction whose sole purpose is to signify real things by imagined things – and since he enumerated several other differences in like manner, I think we can safely say that Athanasius viewed the incident as historical.

2). Having already rejected that Jonah is in Hades by means of the whale, Athanasius seems to believe that the kind of whale that swallowed Jonah was a man eating one, hence his observation that Jonah did not “bring up those who had before been swallowed by the whale, but he alone came forth.”

Or possibly there are some who advise you to hide, because you have given your word upon oath not to accept the office if elected. For I hear that they are buzzing in your ears to this effect, and consider that they are thus acting conscientiously. But if they were truly conscientious, they would above all have feared God, Who imposed this ministry upon you. Or if they had read the divine Scriptures, they would not have advised you contrary to them. For it is time for them to blame Jeremiah also, and to impeach the great Moses, in that they did not listen to their advice, but fearing God fulfilled their ministry, and prophesying were made perfect. For they also when they had received their mission and the grace of Prophecy, refused. But afterwards they feared, and did not set at nought Him that sent them. Whether then you be of stammering utterance, and slow of tongue, yet fear God that made you, or if you call yourself too young to preach, yet reverence Him Who knew you before you were made. Or if you have given your word (now their word was to the saints as an oath), yet read Jeremiah, how he too had said, ‘I will not name the Name of the Lord Jeremiah 20:9,’ yet afterwards he feared the fire kindled within him, and did not do as he had said, nor hid himself as if bound by an oath, but reverenced Him that had entrusted to him his office, and fulfilled the prophetic call. Or are you not aware, beloved, that Jonah also fled, but met with the fate that befell him, after which he returned and prophesied? (Athanasius, Letter 49, 5).

 

[Pete_Holter]

I have to correct an error in something I wrote.

it may be that all we have is a king repenting inwardly, who then issues a decree for his people to repent outwardly, and in this way “they turned from their evil way.” Cuius regio, eius religio. It could also have unfolded differently. I’m sure there were some people authentically repenting before word reached the “king,” and within a day of Jonah’s preaching.

It cannot be that all we have is a king repenting while his people don’t. Otherwise, the Ninevites can’t rise at the judgment to condemn Jesus’ generation. Whoops! So I retract that statement; and although it could still be that only “some” people authentically repented, in fidelity to what I think Jesus was saying, I think it was at least a majority that ended up sincerely repenting.

 

[Pete_Holter]

The following comes from the ESV Study Bible and helps towards seeing the reasonableness of the repentance of the Ninevites:

Jonah prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:23–28), who ruled in Israel (the northern kingdom) from 782 to 753 b.c. Jeroboam was the grandson of Jehoahaz, who ruled in Israel from 814 to 798 b.c. Because of the sins of Jehoahaz, Israel was oppressed by the Arameans (2 Kings 13:3). But because of the Lord’s great compassion (2 Kings 13:4, 23), Israel was spared destruction and delivered from this oppression (2 Kings 13:5). This deliverance came through a “savior” (2 Kings 13:5), who may have been Adad-nirari III (810–783 b.c.), king of Assyria.

Jeroboam’s father, Jehoash (798–782 b.c.), capitalized on this freedom from Aramean oppression and began to expand Israel’s boundaries, recapturing towns taken during the reign of Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:25). Though Jeroboam “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Kings 14:24), he nevertheless expanded Israel even farther than his father did, matching the boundaries in the days of David and Solomon (2 Kings 14:25); this was “according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath hepher” (2 Kings 14:25). Thus Jonah witnessed firsthand the restorative compassion of God extended to his wayward people.

In God’s providence, the expansion by Jeroboam was made easier because of Assyrian weakness. The Assyrians were engaged in conflicts with the Arameans and the Urartians. There was also widespread famine, and numerous revolts within the Assyrian Empire (where regional governors ruled with a fair degree of autonomy). Then there was an auspicious eclipse of the sun during the reign of Ashur-dan III (771–754 b.c.). This convergence of events supports the plausibility of the Ninevites being so responsive to Jonah’s call to repent.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Judith 13:18: “O daughter, you are blessed by the Most High God above all women on earth.”

If the book of Judith is a historical account it seems that rather than Judith serving as a type for Mary, she is actually in competition with her to see who will be “most blessed!” It seems to actually hurt the biblical case for Mary’s sinlessness and Immaculate Conception. I think it has more apologetic value, and more clearly draws emphasis to the blessedness of Mary, if Judith is a character in a work of fiction that God used to prefigure her. I’ve seen the response that, “well, Judith was most blessed, at that time,” but I haven’t found this argument very persuasive. Maybe there is a better way of presenting this argument that I haven’t seen.

I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. Does the Church have a solid tradition concerning the interpretation of this book? Links to any good surveys of its interpretation throughout church history? I am a recent revert to the Catholic Church, so I am not as familiar with the Deuterocanonical books.

Thank you!

 

[mpartyka]

Just got back from vacation, so I’m playing catch-up.

With regard to the supposedly “malicious” miracles of Jesus:

1. I’ve always assumed the fig tree was wild. But let’s say that it belonged to someone. Doesn’t Jesus as God have the authority to decide, “You want to use this tree to make money, but I want to use this tree to teach my disciples a lesson?” Moreover, could it not be that the hardship suffered by the tree’s owner would be to that owner’s spiritual benefit?
2. Concerning the drowning of the swine, should the Gadarenes (or Gerasenes) have been herding swine to begin with, given that the Law of Moses forbids eating swine flesh? Maybe Jesus’ actions were a chastisement against the Gadarene pig-herders – and again, who’s to say the owners of the herd could not have benefitted spiritually from the loss of the herd?
3. Early on I had more of a problem with Jesus’ sending his disciples to “steal” a donkey on which to ride into Jerusalem. But, as I was told, God’s ownership of every piece of creation supersedes any human being’s claim of ownership to those things, so Jesus as God was “well within his rights” commandeering the mule (just as, I suppose, a police officer can commandeer someone else’s car in an emergency).
4. The tsunamis in Indonesia a few years back killed 200,000 humans. Was that an act of malice by God? If not, how could the withering of a fig tree, the elimination of a herd of swine, or a temporary loss of donkey privileges be considered an act of malice by God?

As for the historicity of Jonah:

I find it hard to understand why anyone would have a hard time accepting Jonah as a historical narrative given that (1) there is nothing which prevents God from having done such a thing in history, and (2) there is no evidence suggesting God never did such a thing in history. I mean, if somebody were to find a whale fossil with human bones inside sporting a “My Name Is Jonah; Allergic to fish and nuts” Medicalert badge that was C-14 dated to the proper period, then, yes, there would be reason to suggest that maybe Jonah is a fiction rather than a history. But there is no such evidence, so why not take the path the Fathers obviously took and say it was indeed real history?

On the other hand, when we look at Genesis 1-11 as a historical narrative, we see that (1) there is nothing which prevents God from having done such things but (2) there is a TON of evidence which suggests that God took a different path of creation, etc., than what is related in Genesis.

–Mike

P.S.: As has been pointed out, there has been sufficient work done by the Fathers in explaining the harmony of the gospels that any apparent contradictions can hardly be considered “deal-breakers” for anyone considering the Bible as a whole. As far as I’m concerned, Genesis 1-11 (and all the other passages in Scripture which appear to establish its historicity) is the only real “problem area” in Scripture, so that’s where I think the focus of this discussion should remain.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Also, Luke does not mention the multi-year trip to Egypt. Luke says they went to Jerusalem every year for Passover until Jesus was twelve, ***something they couldn’t have done from Egypt. ***

The accounts don’t agree. I find it odd and ironic to twist the accounts and jump them through hoops to try show they are literally true, when the literal meaning conflicts so clearly.

Says who? The Roman empire had very mature routes with paved roads, security, inns and bazaars, and there was a substantial Jewish population in Alexandria (where the Septuagint was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic). It only stands to reason that a 2-3 week journey on foot (250 miles at 12 miles per day would take about 14 days) would be taken up by the holy family as many caravans were traveling between the Nile region and Jerusalem.

You also neglect Luke’s testimony to his research:

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
Luke 1:1

Also, Luke clearly shows the holy family was in Nazareth prior to the journey to Bethlehem:

And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David, to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. Luke 2:2

Nothing in St. Matthew’s Gospel contradicts this account.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming 9 of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father 10 when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” 18 We 11 ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. (2 Peter 1)

True story: I was with the 82nd Airborne Division in the invasion of Iraq. We captured Baghdad and were sent out to survey the battle damage in order to repair the city. My boss and I were sent to the Churches and Mosques. We struck up a rich friendship with the Chaldean Rite Catholics at Sts. Peter and Paul Church. In this photo, Fr. Warda Bashar and I are holding a 13th century manuscript of the Gospel of Matthew written in Aramaic. The Chaldean Rite Catholics actually celebrate Mass in the original tongue spoken by Jesus and have for 2,000 years. I had the privilege to worship with them many times - in Aramaic.

The idea that Tradition is unreliable or that Jesus didn’t use historical examples is the testimony of demons and fools. These Christians are still using the vernacular of Jesus Christ (!) of Nazareth. They have unbelievable courage and fidelity to the faith. This is not what “professor so and so says…” or some worldy ‘expert’. I experienced this with my own eyes, ears, and hands. Not to mention heart!

We also visited the ruins of Babylon - it is today exactly as the Prophet Jeremiah said it would be: perpetually in ruins, never to be rebuilt, even though Saddam Hussein tried to on several occasions. The Muslim curator who led our ad hoc tour of the ruins of Babylon was a PhD who showed us the exact dais used by Nebudchanezzar, Cyrus and Alexander the Great, and the chamber that Muslims believe was the lion’s den of St. Daniel.

I visited the ziggurat at Talil air base (a tactical airfield) which was the site of Ur of the Chaldees - where Abraham was called by God (Genesis 12).

I crossed the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (per Genesis chapter 1), between which civilization began (Mesoptamia) and is the location of the Garden of Eden.

The Arabs, who have lived there for millenia do not even blanche at the historicity of any of this - they take it all as archeological, palentological, geological and anthropological fact with mountains of evidences and a tradition that traces back to the original accidents.

Now, I was there as a Soldier, not a seminary student, but you can bet I got the education of a lifetime! The liturgies in Aramaic of the Chalden Rite Christians will always stand out in my mind as an encounter with the historical Jesus of Nazareth that would be possible no other way on earth in our time.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

More on travel from Egypt to Jerusalem:

In exile, Jews continued to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem three times a year, during the festivals of Pesach (Passover), Sukkot (Tabernacles) and Shavuot (Pentecost).

These pilgrimages to Jerusalem began when Solomon built the First Temple. Jews from all over the country would travel to Jerusalem to bring sacrifices to the Temple, study Torah, pray and celebrate. Once the Romans went to conquer the Jewish city Lydda, but they found the city empty because all the Jews had gone to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles.

During the Second Temple, Jewish pilgrims would travel to Jerusalem from Alexandria, Antioch, Babylon, and even from distant parts of the Roman Empire.

The 2nd Temple period includes the life of Jesus and the Holy Family. Alexandria, Egypt hosted a very large Jewish population.

 

[patg]

This doesn’t sound like humor to me. The tone of the book, when I read through it, does not prompt me to laughter, although some incredible things are narrated. Hopefully this helps to make a historical interpretation seem more reasonable in your eyes, even if you don’t adopt it as your own.

I think this thread is spreading branches quite wildly! I usually take weekends off from this so maybe it’s too late to try to continue where we were. Anyway, here are some thoughts on this (most are not original with me; they are a summary of the teachings of the scripture scholars I have worked with over many years in Catholic adult bible programs, especially Margaret Ralph’s And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms which is used as the textbook in many parishes.).

To fully appreciate the humor woven into the story of Jonah, one must consider the pattern of other prophetic literature. The plot of the book of Jonah, when seen against this background, becomes all the more obviously humorous, for it seems to be a parody of serious prophetic literature.

The prophet Jonah is called by God as Israel’s historical prophets were. Like them, Jonah objects to his call. The historical prophets, however, objected to their calls because they themselves felt unworthy or they feared the persecution that would come to them when the people refused to listen to the truth which they taught, Jonah, on the other hand, refuses to accept his call not because he thinks he is unworthy but because he thinks the Ninevites are unworthy. Although Jonah does finally preach to the Ninevites, he does not want them to repent. He is looking forward to their destruction. He thinks that when they are destroyed, which is only what they deserve, he will be recognized as the prophet he is.

Much to Jonah’s dismay, the Ninevites do repent. Again, to appreciate the humor in this account we must once more see it against the background of the experience of the historical prophets. When we read the other prophets, we read page after page of the content of their message. Invariably, however, their prophecy falls on deaf ears. The anguish of the prophet resides in the fact that his prophecies are ignored. Jonah, merely states in his first day in town, “Forty days more and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” and the whole nation immediately repents. Even the king hears the news and immediately responds. He sends out a proclamation that all are to repent and do penance, even the animals. The incredible exaggeration here adds to the humor and the obviously fictional nature of the work. God responds by not destroying the city after all.

The expectation would now be that Jonah would be jubilant. After all, he had been God’s instrument of salvation for the Ninevites. They had responded to his words and were saved. The author humorously and ironically disappoints this expectation by having Jonah react in just the opposite way. Jonah is furious because he wanted the Ninevites to be destroyed. After all, they are the Israelites’ enemies. Jonah cries out in anger to Yahweh and says, “…I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love…” One would expect such words to be a song of praise, but our author has ironically made them an accusation. Jonah is angry that God has these characteristics, for they are the very characteristics that have resulted in God’s not destroying the Ninevites.

Fictional, humorous narratives are a great way to help people see their own prejudices and foibles. When this story began, many of the Israelites who read it must have understood Jonah’s reluctance to preach to the Ninevites. After all, the Ninevites were enemies who, in 721 BC, had conquered the northern tribes. The Ninevites were responsible for the loss of ten of the twelve tribes. Who could want them to be saved? But as the story continues Jonah, as a prophet, becomes a parody. He is so “unprophet-like” that he is obviously being ridiculed by the author. Jonah’s behavior is simply ridiculous, his position totally untenable. We see this very clearly in the incident with the castor oil plant. God arranges for a bush to grow over Jonah to give him shade. God then arranges for a worm to destroy the bush and for the sun and wind to scorch Jonah. Again, Jonah complains bitterly and begs for death. In scripture, we can read other prophets who rail against God, particularly Jeremiah. But as the historical prophets make their complaints against God, we understand the depth of their suffering and pain. Here Jonah appears as petty and silly. Still, he argues boldly with God, claiming that he has every right to be angry. God responds to Jonah’s anger by comparing Jonah’s fondness for the bush to God’s fondness for the Ninevites.

"Then the Lord said, “You are concerned about the bush, for which for which you did not labor and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Ninevih, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?”

With these words the author reveals the theme of his story. God created the Ninevites just as he created the Israelites. God is loving. Therefore, God must love the Ninevites just as he loves the Israelites, even if they can’t tell their right hand from their left.

Those in the audience who might have shared Jonah’s point of view when the story began can only want to separate themselves from such a shallow and ridiculous character as the story ends. Jonah’s position becomes absurd. In separating oneself from Jonah, one separates oneself from Jonah’s petty nationalistic thinking. Perhaps God does love other nations. It becomes narrow-minded, even ridiculous, to believe anything else.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I don’t remember reading about this in the Holy Scriptures.

Greek myth, Hebrew myth - to a modernist, they’re all the same. The Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. How can you compare that to a pagan myth?

Why on earth not ? The Israelites did not float down from heaven - they were no different from any other people; they belched, defecated, farted, sweated, blushed, wept, laughed, no differently from the peoples round about them. Hebrew is a dialect of Canaanite - it wasn’t dictated by angels or God. They didn’t have a planet of their own tobe inspired & holy on. They were just one Semitic people among others, & not a particularly impressive one at that.​

Since they are not different from any other people - historically; what they were for theology, is another matter - they can be studied in the same way as another people. So it’s entirely in order to compare their literature with that of their neighbours. To do otherwise, is to imply that the Incarnation is a fiction, & that grace is the same as nature.

This doesn’t even make sense. People who believe in the inspired, inerrant nature of the Bible can be written off as “fundamentalists.” How convenient. What point are you trying to make with the Superman comments? They don’t make any sense. Are you saying there are people that think Superman comics are the inspired, inerrant Word of God?

Comparing the Holy Scriptures to pagan myths, calling them “Hebrew myths,” and then comparing them to Superman comics shows a lack of reverence towards the inspired, inerrant Word of God that only a modernist could have.

Go back to sleep - then you may be better equipped to understand: I don’t know how to make matters any clearer. (You aren’t the only person who can be insulting & dismissive. - & it doesn’t prove anything.) If an analogy makes a point for me, I’ll use it, whether you object or not ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Jesus believed that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.

Is He wrong? Is he manipulating His hearers?

:ehh:

Jesus was not an expert on Biblical exegesis. He had more important things to be & do. He was probably no different from his contemporaries in His ideas about the book of Jonah, or in much else for that matter. He was not the Encyclopaedia Britannica made flesh, but a man of His time & place. Something can be useful for making a point, without being historically real - the usefulness of the illustration from the book of Jonah, tells us absolutely nothing about that book, nor is it intended to: Jesus is not giving an eternally perfect, infallible, & non-contingent interpretation of a book in the OT, but talking about Himself - or rather, “Matthew” (or his source) is doing so.​

To make a saying about Jesus into one about an OT book is to change gold into lead; it misses the point of the text completely, brilliantly.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholic Johnny;4491235:

Jesus believed that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish.

How do you know this? I asked towards the begginnig of this thread for any authority for the proposition that Jesus believed in the literal historical inerrancy of Scripture and have seen none.

Nor will you see any, as none exists. ​

People often make references to iconic stories or characters to make a point or to incorporate a theme – that says nothing about whether the story or character referenced was literally true.

Precisely. That should be self-evident - but it’s not ​

The teaching authority of the Church is on the other side of this. Others have posted what the Church teaches about Scriptural interpretation, and its not the fundamentalist line that you are setting out. Do you reject Dei Verbum and the teaching of the Magisterium on this point?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sorry, I’m with the pope on this one, who does not regard a moving earth as heresy. Nor do the staff at the pope’s own scientific institution, the Vatican Observatory.

StAnastasia

If it is heresy to say the earth moves, that means it is a sin deserving damnation to say so. Talk about a lack of proportion. ​

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Jesus was not an expert on Biblical exegesis.​

There is no need to argue with anyone taking positions like these. This person is clearly (as St. Paul puts it) self-condemned.

Jesus was not only an expert, He was so by the time He reached the age of Bar Mitzvah (Luke 2:46-47).

This was all settled long ago in Lamentabilli Sane.

 

[StAnastasia]

Jesus was not only an expert, He was so by the time He reached the age of Bar Mitzvah (Luke 2:46-47).

Jesus’ knowledge about science and the cosmos was limited to what could be known in first century Palestine. His knowledge about the composition of scripture and the history of its redactions and literary history over a millennium was limited by what was known at the time.

StAnastasia

 

[Pete_Holter]

I think this thread is spreading branches quite wildly! I usually take weekends off from this so maybe it’s too late to try to continue where we were. Anyway, here are some thoughts on this (most are not original with me; they are a summary of the teachings of the scripture scholars I have worked with over many years in Catholic adult bible programs, especially Margaret Ralph’s And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms which is used as the textbook in many parishes.).

Not too late! Thank you for your gracious and thorough response. I hope that I also have something beneficial to offer you in return. I don’t have the time that I wish I had to invest in editing my words before I “publish,” so hopefully you’ll catch me in something I’ve said because I need the humility. May the Lord be with you.

To fully appreciate the humor woven into the story of Jonah, one must consider the pattern of other prophetic literature. The plot of the book of Jonah, when seen against this background, becomes all the more obviously humorous, for it seems to be a parody of serious prophetic literature.

The prophet Jonah is called by God as Israel’s historical prophets were. Like them, Jonah objects to his call. The historical prophets, however, objected to their calls because they themselves felt unworthy or they feared the persecution that would come to them when the people refused to listen to the truth which they taught, Jonah, on the other hand, refuses to accept his call not because he thinks he is unworthy but because he thinks the Ninevites are unworthy. Although Jonah does finally preach to the Ninevites, he does not want them to repent. He is looking forward to their destruction. He thinks that when they are destroyed, which is only what they deserve, he will be recognized as the prophet he is.

Interesting. Thank you for sharing these thoughts and those that follow. I think that this is the danger in literary analysis and the mental constructs derived from such activity. The constructs are very neatly organized and they help us to make sense of the data that we read and to draw conclusions from it. But what they also do is create an artificial security in thinking that we have uncovered the meaning of the story, and we can be haplessly drawn away from the real storyline by the very ease with which the data seems to fit our imagined paradigm. We strike on something true, but then we emphasize it in a disproportionate measure. The trouble, of course, is that our paradigm may sound very plausible, but not be what the author himself was trying to create. Such paradigms may indeed capture something of what the author was trying to communicate, and I think that the analysis presented here succeeds in capturing something of what the author of Jonah really wanted captured. But I think that it also creates a caricature of Jonah that was not intended, and, in this capacity, fails at attaining a true representation of the book.

Taking a specific example from what you’ve just shared… Your research indicates a play on the perceived self-worth of the prophets and that of their hearers, and the dynamic that this creates in their ministries. And yet, if we look at Jonah, we do not have any clear indication that he thought of himself as either worthy or unworthy of his call. His solution to calming the storm is for the evidently pagan foreigners to throw him into the sea. This scene works against the idea that his driving characteristic is a parodist sense of prophetic self-worth with a necessarily ensuing contempt for the Ninevites. He does indeed spurn the Ninevites, but it may be that this is stemming from the idolatrous offences that the Ninevites have committed and God’s deserved curse which follows upon that: “Those who pay regard to vain idols forsake their hope of steadfast love” (Jonah 2:8). It could very well be that part of his reason for not preaching to the Ninevites is that he honestly thinks that they have forfeited the right to hear a message of repentance on account of his theological perspective. So I’m not sure that Jonah is waiting for people to acknowledge him as something of an Ahithophel among prophets.

I can’t entirely reject the point made here. But what I want to do is prevent us from boxing Jonah in too tightly within one of his exhibited personality traits and then over amplifying any one of those traits.

And quickly, if we compare Jonah with Elijah and Elisha, whose ministries his most closely resembles literarily, we lose the effect of the somewhat illegitimate comparison that was trying to be made with the other prophets on this point. The question needs to be answered: when the author of Jonah wrote the book of Jonah, did he have in mind an Isaiah type figure, an Elijah type figure, both, or neither? A comparison of Jonah with anyone else may not have been a purpose of his. So we can make those compasions and learn something from them, but we do not know if this was the author’s intent and the only explicit comparison made using Jonah in the Bible is with Jesus where he is cast in a somewhat favorable light.