Once Again The sign of Jonah 2.pdf (original) (raw)

The Sign of Jonah in the Gospel of Matthew

St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 2022

What is the meaning of the “Sign of Jonah”? Despite numerous studies in nearly a century, scholarly consensus is apparently still lacking. This essay re-examines the use of the “Sign of Jonah” in the Gospel of Matthew. It argues that, although Jonah had already become a symbol of the miracle of rebirth and the conversion of Gentiles in the Second Temple period, it is the Jewish evangelist Matthew who re-interpreted it afresh in the light of the early Christian kerygma about Jesus within an eschatological context. It is due to Matthew’s treatment of the “Sign of Jonah” that it became the most characteristic Christian symbol of the passion of Christ and the resurrection of all humanity, in the early centuries and beyond.

From Jonah to Jesus and back: three Ways of Characterization and their Reverse Application

2018

The resemblance between the Gospel story about Jesus stilling a storm in the Sea of Galilee (Mt. 8:18, 23-27, Mk. 4:35-41, Lk. 8:22-25) and the Jonah story (Jon. 1:1-16) has been long acknowledged by scholars. This article contends that since the relations between the two stories are those of polar opposition, it should be possible, by way of reversal, to reconstruct from the three Synoptic versions of the storm-stilling story another three underlying images of Jonah, in addition to the multiply and often contradictory images of this unusual figure, current in the Second Temple literature. Aside from it, the comparison to other storm-stilling stories and a brief discussion of the "Sign of Jonah" pericope yield some additional methodological insights.

(ETS Presentation) Theological Interpretation of Jonah 4

Solomon’s temple marked the zenith of Israelite prosperity, becoming the center for worship as well as a national symbol. The return of Ezra from exile brought a renewed focus on Torah and Temple, resurrecting Jewish nationalism. Ultimately, the person and work of Christ Jesus upsets this temple-centric form of worship. The Book of Jonah, in particular, acts as a polemic against this nationalistic, temple-centered mindset. In this paper, the Book of Jonah and the Sign of Jonah (Mt. 12:28-45) will be discussed in light of a theological interpretation that compares the “plant” in Jonah 4 to the Temple (center for Israelite worship). A thorough analysis of the text should purport new significance: God is concerned with reaching the nations, not sustaining the Temple.

Signs of the Messiah: The Meaning of Matthew 12:39-41 in Jesus’ Use of Old Testament Typology

The meaning of the “sign of Jonah” in Matthew 12 and Luke 11 has proven enigmatic for centuries, and consensus has never been reached as to the exact meaning of the phrase. This in large part is due to the seemingly disparate accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke and the confusing correlation between Jonah’s three-day chthonic sojourn and Christ’s death and resurrection. The texts do not seem to make readily apparent how Jonah functioned as a sign to Nineveh, much less how Jesus functions as a sign to his opponents clamoring for divine authentication. Often overlooked, the answer to this debate lies in the typological correspondence Jesus makes between Jonah and himself in a proclamation of judgment upon the religious leaders and a prophecy of salvation for those who believe.

The Sign of Jonah: Matthew 12:40

A discussion on the Sign of Jonah text in the Gospel of Matthew, against the backdrop of the Bible and the Rabbinic corpora. Does the Matthean text require the somatic states of Jesus and Jonah to be identical? Can one interpret Jonah as having died and come back to life? How does one reconcile "three days and three nights" with the traditional time frame given regarding Jesus' time in the tomb? Is the verse an interpolation (whether as an addition to the Q-source or within the Gospel of Matthew itself)?

The Sign of Jonah: Initiatory Symbolism in Biblical Mythopoetics

Coreopsis: Journal of Myth and Theatre, 2017

This paper examines archetypal, initiatory symbolism in interconnected Biblical narratives, the Old Testament story of Jonah and the Fish (or Whale) and the apocryphal story known as the Harrowing of Hell, a metaphorical relationship alluded to in Jesus Christ’s cryptic reference to the “sign of Jonah.” An amplification of the imagery indicates the symbolic identity of these two mythico-ritual, structural motifs and relates the imagery in both stories to widely distributed primordial rebirth symbolism common to aboriginal people across the world. The interpretive framework for this literary analysis is grounded in a cross-cultural, trans-medial, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary perspective derived from the psychological criticism of Carl G. Jung and scholars influenced by Jung’s archetypal theories, including Joseph Campbell (comparative mythology/literary mythology), Mircea Eliade (history of religions), Northrop Frye (archetypal literary criticism), and others. The study contributes to an interdisciplinary hermeneutic of archetypal, mythico-ritual imagery found in dreams, fairy tales, and religious myths and rituals, as well as literary and film narratives. Keywords: literary analysis, hermeneutics, myth-criticism, mythopoeic, mythopoetic, archetypes, amplification, theology, mythology, initiation, rebirth, monomyth, night-sea journey, individuation

The Archpoet's use of the Jonah-figure

Neophilologus, 1973

Among the Archpoet of Cologne's nine complete works, the "Fama tuba" (Grimm, c. II): is unique in its employment of an extended literary allusion. Up to this time, however, critical discussion of this poem has been chiefly directed toward its supposed biographical evidence, while very little has been said about its artistic execution and meaning ~. This paper is intended to correct that deficiency by focusing attention upon the technical use made of the Jonah-figure. In particular, it will explore the following propositions. First, the Jonah myth is employed for comic effect and becomes a device which separates the work itself from whatever personal situation may have formed the background of composition. Furthermore, Jonah is also a means of introducing and maintaining a deeper level of irony which undercuts and corrects the apparent submission of the poem's protagonist. When the Archpoet introduces the biblical allusion at line 19, he calls direct attention to the device itself. Jonah is afiguram satis bonam (20) which will conceal the author's own name and person. It would seem that the author means to draw a distinction between himself and the speakeras-Jonah. This speaker is a created character whose monologue forms the substance of the poem. He, and not the Archpoet, is the "repentant sinner". The artificiality of the extended metaphor is emphasized, and the reader is warned that the speaker's entreaties need not be taken too seriously. The speakei, in his role as repentant sinner, draws an extremely clever parallel between himself and the ancient prophet. As the Hebrew fled from the wrath of his God, so this servant has fled from the anger of his patron. The misfortune in which he now finds himself is a direct consequence of his master's displeasure, even as the storm and the whale were supernaturally ordained visitations upon Jonah. Yet the whale was subject to divine command; likewise, the speaker's present distress can be relieved by one word of pardon. There is a g:eat deal of deliberate parody in the application of the Jonah myth 3. The initial events of the story are summarized in four impertinent lines: Ionam deprehensum sorte reum tempestatis orte, condempnatum a cohorte rnox absorbent ceti porte. (35-38) The great fish is a particular source of fun. The monstrous size of his jaws is caricatured in a later passage: 9 si ceto des mandatum, cetus cuius os est latum more suo dans hiatum vomet vatem decalvatum...