Talk:Jonah

Yeah original research in one sentence

There is original research in one of the sentences.

“ The consensus of mainstream Biblical scholars holds that the contents of the Book of Jonah are entirely ahistorical.[93][94][3]”

None of the sources cited in that sentence say there is a consensus, here on Wikipedia if a source doesn’t directly say there is “a consensus”, “scholars agree on A”, or “most scholars agree on this” we don’t say there is a consensus. Yes the sources do say there is a consensus.

Some people may accuse me of being some religious POV pusher, but I’m only saying this because here on Wikipedia we are supposed to write down what sources actually say instead of combining all the details we read together to come to a conclusion.

It would be better to just rewrite that sentence to something like “mainstream biblical scholars view the book of Jonah as ahistorical.”CycoMa (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, the section in question is full of WP:WEASEL wording. We need to specify who exactly has a consensus or a view on these aspects of the book, not outline them in super-vague terms such as "some scholars..." or "many..." At the very least, we could identify what different schools of thought, or what different Christian traditions, believe. Elizium23 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure the sources do indeed say that scholars don’t think it’s historical but, the issue here is that editors collected tons of sources and assumed that just because tons of scholars think it’s not historical doesn’t mean there is a consensus on the topic.

Also I think one of the sources said many that many scholars hold the view a Jonah figure existed. Although that source was from the 80s and it’s hard to tell if it still holds up.CycoMa (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional"

An IP removed this claim from the lead on the basis that the cited ref not only doesn't support the claim, but even contradicts it . Here are quotes from the cited ref:

• There still seems to be the question whether the Biblical account is a legendary account of no person or a legendary account built on a real person [...] while Biblical scholars generally hold that Jonah did exist, the account not only of his being swallowed by a big fish but even going to Nineveh to preach or anything else that is said in the Biblical story is assumed to be substantially false.
• The scholarly consensus regards all details about Jonah in the book as legendary and not even based on a factual substratum, excepting the bare statement that he was a Hebrew prophet, which is hardly uniquely identifying.
• The cited ref also quotes from another book: 'The "hero" of this tale, the prophet Jonah son of Amittai, is a historical personage ... (but) this book is not history but fiction.'

I reverted the IP because it seems clear to me that the cited ref does support the claim that mainstream scholars regard the Book of Jonah (i.e. the Biblical story) as fictional, albeit a fictional story that may be based on a real person. Similar to how Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a fictional story based on the real person Abraham Lincoln. The lead already addresses the fact that the story may be based on a real person since the sentence that immediately follows says: "The character of Jonah son of Amittai may have been based on the historical prophet of the same name..." Bennv123 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, what did you mean by "it is one authors opinion that the swallowing of the whale account etc is fictional..." ? You quoted the part where the cited ref says: "Biblical scholars generally hold that Jonah did exist", but conveniently leave out the rest of the sentence which says that those same Biblical scholars regard "... the account not only of his being swallowed by a big fish but even going to Nineveh to preach or anything else that is said in the Biblical story is assumed to be substantially false." Again, Jonah being a historical person does not make the Book of Jonah historical. Just as Abraham Lincoln being real does not make Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter real history. The cited ref clearly states that "Biblical scholars"/"the scholarly consensus" regard the Book of Jonah to be "legendary"/"substantially false"/"legendary and not even based on a factual substratum"/"fiction". Bennv123 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The author you cite, a philosopher, cites a Talmudic professor. These two do not make up the whole of "Mainstream Bible scholars". My ask is that you simply reword the sentence to accurately convey the writings of one Talmudic professor and one philosopher. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The author only cites the Talmudic professor as an example in one of three quotes above. The other two quotes are about what "Biblical scholars generally hold" and "The scholarly consensus". Bennv123 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus" is written by H.L. Ginsberg, the Talmudic professor I referred to. "Biblical scholars generally hold" is Saul Kripke's, a logician and philosopher, summation of his opinion. He states before, " I chose this case because..." 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus" quote is not written by Ginsberg. The sentence before that which is under quotation marks is where Kripke quotes Ginsberg ('The "hero" of this tale... (but) this book is not history but fiction.'). After the quotation marks end, it is no longer Kripke quoting Ginsberg, but rather Kripke's summation of what the scholarly consensus is. Similarly, the first quote is Kripke's summation of what "Biblical scholars generally hold". Bennv123 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fulfills WP:RS/AC: Mathews, Jeannette (2020). Prophets as Performers: Biblical Performance Criticism and Israel's Prophets. Cascade Books. p. 195. ISBN 978-1-5326-8552-1. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I do not see where this page supports the sentence, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional" I see a reference where scholars debate the integrity of the text but nothing else that supports this sentence. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First two lines of text from page 195 fulfill WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are incorrect, "The scholarly consensus regards all details..." is on p.114 of H.L. Ginsberg, The Five Megilloth and Jonah, from the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This fulfills it, too: Perrotta, Kevin (2010). Jonah/Ruth (in German). Loyola Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8294-3002-8. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Perrotta is a journalist, not a mainstream Bible scholar, he also does not cite his, "that most scholars today regard..." statement. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct about Kripke's summation of "Biblical scholars generally hold" but again he is not a Modern Biblical scholar but a philosopher and logician. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yet another: Gamber, Jenifer; Kimball, Lisa (2014). My Faith, My Life, Revised Edition: A Teen's Guide to the Episcopal Church. Church Publishing Incorporated. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-8192-2962-5. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And this one: Vogt, Brandon (2022). What to Say and How to Say It, Volume III: Even More Ways to Discuss Your Faith with Clarity and Confidence. Ave Maria Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-64680-161-9. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? I just checked Ginsberg's book (The Five Megilloth and Jonah, from the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969) and "The scholarly consensus regards all details..." is not on that page, or any of the surrounding pages. Only the part that Kripke puts under quotation marks is. Bennv123 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Something more fussy: Jenson, Philip Peter (2009). Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-567-44289-5. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus granted by someone who opposes the consensus: Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. (2009). Handbook on the Prophets. Baker Publishing Group. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-58558-365-2. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have this book and like this source, however it states "Modern scholarly consensus" not "Mainstream Scholarly consensus" 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may have read the citation incorrectly. It does look like the citation is Kripke's summation of H.L. Ginsberg's p. 114. This does not change the content of "Mainstream biblical scholars" as being solely represented by these two persons. A Talmudic professor and philosopher. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again my ask is for the original sentence to be reworded to accurately convey what the author is saying, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional" is not represented by the original citation. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're either in denial, or you never took Bible classes from a mainstream university. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't need to be rude, you do not need a degree to read a citation and come to the conclusion that the citation does not support the statement. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided several WP:RS/AC claims and I have not exhausted my search yet. In fact, it has been the academic consensus for so long in the mainstream academia, that it is hard to remember when it wasn't (I probably wasn't born then, and I'm nearing 50). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again the original cited source does not support the sentence, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional" it is the summation of a philosopher. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the content of your beliefs, but the source to state them as truth. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not say something is WP:THETRUTH or THEFALSE, although, yes, we apply WP:DUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus" quote is not "Kripke's summation of H.L. Ginsberg's p. 114." Again, it is Kripke's summation of what the general scholarly consensus is (not just Ginsberg). The Ginsberg source itself does not say anything about that. If you are saying that Kripke is not a reliable enough source on its own, then 1) are there reliable sources that contradict Kripke? and 2) perhaps tgeorgescu can add his other sources to the article. Bennv123 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It would seem by the use of H.L. Ginsberg citation that it is the summation of the Talmudic Jewish Scholar Society which is not the whole of "Mainstream Biblical scholars". 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are reading the citation incorrectly again. Kripke merely quotes Ginsberg as an example of the typical scholarly view of the Book of Jonah (hence his use of "See, for example, ..." before quoting Ginsberg). After that, he is no longer quoting or summarizing what Ginsberg says on p. 114, but rather giving his own summation of the scholarly consensus of the book and his own examination on Jonah's historical existence. Bennv123 (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Kripke, a philosopher, is using a Talmud professor to state he believes that scholarly consensus is that Jonah is a work of fiction, however this does not support that "Mainstream Biblical Scholars" all come to this same conclusion, I just ask that the sentence is reworded to support the actual source given. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, you got that wrong, the WP:RULES say WP:RS/AC, you might want to read it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Kripke is using a quote from Ginsberg as an example of what ONE scholar has said. Hence why he calls it "an example" and not the entire basis for all his claims. Again, Kripke's two quotes about what "Biblical scholars generally hold" and "the scholarly consensus" are Kripke's own summations of the general consensus, not his summation of Ginsberg. Again, if your contention is that Kripke is not a reliable source, then are there reliable sources that contradict him? Bennv123 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there are reliable sources that contradict him. However the rebuttal sentence, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as non fiction" would not be correct either. I personally believe those with educated opinions simply present information from all sides of a particular subject and let the reader come to their own conclusion. However the given source is referenced multiple times to state that "Mainstream Biblical scholars..." however the given source is not the whole of the Biblical scholar community and the reader should be allowed to come to their own conclusion without being led into believing that "Mainstream Biblical scholars" generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have quoted a full professor from Cambridge University and a full professor from Dallas Theological Seminary, who are normally speaking at each other's guts throats, but they both agree there is a consensus, precisely as stated by Kripke. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Modified. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that there are reliable sources that contradict Kripke; I was asking you if there are any. WP:RS/AC does not require us to cite "the whole of the Biblical scholar community", it only requires that we cite a reliable source "that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view", which Kripke does say. Bennv123 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I note that tgeorgescu has cited two more refs in the article. I have no comment on those two sources as I've not read them. Bennv123 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Got to go, I enjoyed our conversation, thanks for your time. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the consensus of mainstream Bible scholars vs. most scholars vs. the consensus of modern scholars is splitting hairs. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Idea of a person being a Jonah, a pariah

In the film Master and Commander, one of the ships officers is shunned by the crew and is considered a Jonah. What is meant by this? How and when did this develop as a concept? Can a section be added to the article about it? 86.139.247.14 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not Israel, being historically accurate, It's actually Palestine.

. 41.216.204.134 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Moving "Book of Tobit" subsection.

Under the section "In Christianity" is a subsection "In the Book of Tobit." Being that the Book of Tobit was written before the time of Jesus and is known as an apocryphal Jewish work, I think this subsection should be moved to "In Judaism." I wanted to at least put there here for comment before making the change. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree as I am Christian and have never heard of "Book of Tobit".

To me it makes sense, but you should wait for someone that has been here longer to respond.

Sheriff U3 talk 04:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)