Talk:Book of Jonah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Formatting[edit]

Citations[edit]

I've begun adding citations following the SBL footnote style. Jonberglund (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Conventions[edit]

Anyone know why BCE is being used on a Biblical article? Come on, do we have to atheise everything? 70.168.32.250 09:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BCE and CE are standard dating abbreviations, even in biblical scholarship. Sure it's a bit silly, but so is using archaic Latin terminology. Common Era makes more sense than Anno Domini. Besides, if "CE" has the flavor of contemporary skepticism, so "AD" has the flavor of the "Christian" empire from the Middle Ages. Neither are appealing to a biblical article, so why not use the current standard? Jonberglund (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the BCE/CE dating convention as it has become widely accepted in historical studies and biblical scholarship. If you have an objection, please state your reasons thoughtfully. Jonberglund (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to state facts in support of your argument. The AD/BC dating convention has historical legitimacy and is commonly understood. Consequently, the burden falls on you to advance consensus building arguments for abandoning the AD/BC convention.99.117.61.154 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BCE/CE are not atheist abbreviations. The Jonah entry is important not only to Christianity (IMHO using BC/AD would only be appropriate, though not required, for Christian-specific texts). Also, it's confusing to refer to aspects as being "around the time of Christ" unless specifying it's a Christian viewpoint. Iansocool (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Dating Convention AD/BC[edit]

We need to obtain a consensus on this dating issue. The article orginally was created with the AD/BC format and then "converted" to the other non-historical revisionist format. Rather than having an edit war, I invite comment and opinions. Further, I also suggest that anyone advocating the alternate format justify conversion away from the original AD/BC usage.99.117.61.154 (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing it back to BC. (Nothing against the use of Before Christian Era/Christian Era)
Reasoning:
-Wikipedia policy on not reverting between dating systems (original was BC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Era_style
-Most of the other minor prophets us BC/AD and we should strive for consistency.
-It is BC in the opening lines.
Wilson (talk) 08:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia policy about not reverting only applies when there is no actual reason for choosing AD/BC over CE/BCE. But in this case,
there is a very good reason to use BCE/CE - this is an article about a book written by Jews. Jews do not call Jesus Lord (AD = ante Domino) nor do they center history on Jesus. Scholarly articles use CE/BCE out of respect for the Jewish historical origins. The book obviously has deep ::significance outside the Jewish community, but it's a form of cultural dominance to date any book by Jews using a Christian dating system. I do hope wikipedia editors will change the dates to BCE/CE in this article. ::2A02:ED0:6FBF:D200:9955:CDA8:8998:8553 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: both notations were invented by Christians to write down the Christian calendar. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify "atheist interpretation"[edit]

The article says:

The interpretative styles of Jews, Christians, Muslims, and atheists have all been employed to understand the Book of Jonah

It's possible, of course, that atheist interpretations of this book were published, but the article doesn't say anything more about it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations[edit]

Firstly, this is a Jewish book, and any non-Jewish interpretations are a transgression and invalid. Jonah means Dove, true enough, but the metaphor has escaped this article. A dove was sent out by Noah to look for land, so a Dove is an animal that is searching for something on land (Tarshish) Jonah's father was Amitai. The Semetic root origin of Amitai is Emet. Emet means truth. Jonah ben Amitai is the son of truth searching for something. The ultimate truth in Judaism is God So Jonah ben Amitai is someone searching for God. QED. Leviathan (Litar) in Hebrew is a whale. But the origin goes back to Canaanite or Ugaritic mythology. Chistopher Siren http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Siren/canaanite-faq.html explains this as........... Chaos gods, death gods and baneful gods. Yam (Nahar, Yaw, Lotan?, Leviathan?) He is god of sea and rivers, he dwells in a palace under the sea. He carries a feud with Baal. He may have had in his following a dragon (tnn) which lives in the sea, a serpent (btn), and/or Lotan/Leviathan, or may have been all of those creatures. He is given kingship by El. He threatens vast destruction until El names him 'beloved of El' and sends him on his way to oust Baal. Upbraided by Kothar-and-Khasis, he dispatches messengers to El to demand the delivery of Baal. Baal strikes him with Yagrush and Chaser in the chest and forehead, knocking him down. He is slain and scattered at the urging of Athtart. The battle may have been representative of rough winter sea-storms which calmed in the spring and which were preceded and accompanied by autumn rains which ended summer droughts and enabled crops to grow. The parallel between this an Jonah is clear, especially as the early Jewish religion is loaded with the names from the Ugarit, Canaan and Persian pantheons. Historygypsy (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Jonah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satire[edit]

The article on the prophet Jonah mentions in its opening paragraph that mainstream Biblical scholars consider the Book of Jonah to be fictional/satirical, and that article goes into great depth about the satirical elements of the book. Obviously this is far from the only interpretation of the book, but it seems strange that this article makes no mention of the view of mainstream Biblical scholars. Altay8 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah = Javan[edit]

Jonah = Javan (Greece)

Jonah swallowed by a whale = Greek empire swallowed by Rome.

Just granpa (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Jonah&oldid=1195692571"