In any event, I find Moo's post above utterly unconvincing. There was nothing puerile regarding the disciples' reaction to the peril they were facing....
Their being alarmed at the danger was not puerile, but I still think their saying, " Don't you care?" was childish.
mousethief: My university Hebrew prof says that if you write the book of Jonah in cuneiform, the word for "vomit" (what the fish does to Jonah) and the word for "Ninevah" are only one stroke off. It's a pun.
mousethief: My university Hebrew prof says that if you write the book of Jonah in cuneiform, the word for "vomit" (what the fish does to Jonah) and the word for "Ninevah" are only one stroke off. It's a pun.
....and the point is?
I guess the idea is that puns are funny, hence the pun in Jonah counts as biblical humour.
Though, actually, puns aren't always funny, but usually become so due to their relation to something else. For example, in Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, the pseudonym of the mysterious killer, U.N. Owen("unknown") is not funny at all, and is, in fact, meant to add to the atmosphere of impending doom.
By contrast, in Voltaire's Candide, Dr. Pangloss(he puts a gloss of optimism over everything) has a funny name, mostly because it matches the hilarious stupidity of the character.
I don't know anything about Hebrew language or culture, so I have no idea if the pun mentoned by Mousethief would have been viewed as funny. Certainly, in the contemporary west, vomiting is often seen as humourous.
mousethief: My university Hebrew prof says that if you write the book of Jonah in cuneiform, the word for "vomit" (what the fish does to Jonah) and the word for "Ninevah" are only one stroke off. It's a pun.
....and the point is?
I guess the idea is that puns are funny, hence the pun in Jonah counts as biblical humour.
Sounds kinda obvious when it's stated flat out like that.
Humor is going to be cultural, so there's no need to assume bad faith here. I find the road to Emmaus stuff hilarious, but I can see how others wouldn't.
Cultural/linguistic differences hide humour.
The Italian story of a man telling another that his dog only goes after dead birds gets the response "Well, I hope he doesn't go after mine!"
This is a like a Decameron story* where the daughter of the family asks to sleep out on the balcony where it is cooler and she can hear birds singing, but so her boyfriend can sneak in to her. When the next morning the couple are found sleeping the father tells the mother that their daughter has caught a bird and caged it.
A delayed response for me, but when I understood it became funny.
Humor is going to be cultural, so there's no need to assume bad faith here. I find the road to Emmaus stuff hilarious, but I can see how others wouldn't.
I think if you maybe overlay a tone onto the story, it could be read in a funny way.
JESUS: So what'cha guys all talkin' about?
CLEOPAS: Huh? Did you just blow in here from Sicily? Lemme clue ya in on a few things.
Etc etc. But that's kinda going beyond what's put forth in the text.
I do think there are some implicit sight gags in Jesus’ wisecracks: Imagine a Pythonesque animation of a camel squeezing through a needle’s eye, or some dude walking around with a 4x4 in his eye…
I believe we often miss the humor of the Bible because we have been acculturated to assume that since it is the "Word of God" it must be taken seriously. It was not until I began to learn Greek and Hebrew (throw in some Historical Critical tools) that I began to see the stories differently.
Here is an article that discusses humor in the Bible. I particularly like its concluding paragraphs:
What do we get from this, and what difference does it all make? That is always the question.
Maybe it opens a means for us to enter more completely into biblical passages to test for what each one says or can say to us; it might also be a means to let the passage enter into us, to make every aspect of a passage available to us, not simply the humorous, so that it can change us. Both directions of that opening to the Bible are actually aspects of that same listening and truly hearing God's word to us. A readiness to hear a passage in depth, free at least in part of our previous understandings and insights, is a true openness to God's word.
That answer is far from satisfactory to me. I see the humor and I feel a certain joy in reading such passages, but as for what value does it have? I think that I shall have to wait until I am older and hopefully wiser to find a satisfying explanation for this aspect of Holy Writ.
That answer is far from satisfactory to me. I see the humor and I feel a certain joy in reading such passages, but as for what value does it have? I think that I shall have to wait until I am older and hopefully wiser to find a satisfying explanation for this aspect of Holy Writ.
To me the value is that it makes the Bible more human.
I read the article and was mildly dismayed to find that the author thinks we ought to approach all Scripture with solemn reverence and the like. I think the humorous (enraged, lyrical, stultifying) bits of Scripture are there precisely because we are to approach Scripture with our whole selves--and meet God's whole self there as well. And the whole self is NOT solemn reverence. To confine one's dealings with God to solemn reverence is to miss out on 9/10s of what makes God delightful.
@josephine finds the end of the book of Jonah hilarious. Here you have a great prophet, preaching fire and brimstone to a mighty city, and he ends throwing a tantrum like a toddler because a plant died. And of course the parting shot, "and lots of cows, too."
I do like the cows. Like, “If you don’t give a shot about the people, perhaps you’ll consider our four-legged friends?”
In fairness, you can't milk people, you can't harness them to your plough and plough your fields, and you get complaints if you butcher them and slap a couple of steaks on the grill. Cows, by contrast, are useful.
I read the article and was mildly dismayed to find that the author thinks we ought to approach all Scripture with solemn reverence and the like. I think the humorous (enraged, lyrical, stultifying) bits of Scripture are there precisely because we are to approach Scripture with our whole selves--and meet God's whole self there as well. And the whole self is NOT solemn reverence. To confine one's dealings with God to solemn reverence is to miss out on 9/10s of what makes God delightful.
Funny, I read the article several times. It comes from a conservative writer, but throughout the article he talks about the humor he sees in the Bible. He particularly talks about teasing his disciples as a way of teaching them. As a preacher I know how telling a humorous story can drive a point home in unique ways.
What about the passage in Acts 12 when an angel releases Peter from prison, he initially thinks he's dreaming and just wonders out of jail in a trance. Eventually he comes to, the angel goes, and he makes his way to the upper room, knocks on the door. Rhoda comes to the door, hears his voice and is so excited that she runs back to the others, without letting him in. Peter has to virtually pound the door in to get anyone to pay him any attention, while they're all discussing whether or not it is really him. Makes me crack up every time.
What about the passage in Acts 12 when an angel releases Peter from prison, he initially thinks he's dreaming and just wonders out of jail in a trance. Eventually he comes to, the angel goes, and he makes his way to the upper room, knocks on the door. Rhoda comes to the door, hears his voice and is so excited that she runs back to the others, without letting him in. Peter has to virtually pound the door in to get anyone to pay him any attention, while they're all discussing whether or not it is really him. Makes me crack up every time.
Seems like Peter was always the butt of jokes. Good read.
One thing that I wonder about with this story is if it is kind of like a resurrection story in that Peter was in prison. No one expected him to get out. An earthquake happens and he is released. But, unlike Jesus appearing to the disciples behind a locked door, Peter has to keep pounding to get someone to let him in.
Comments
Their being alarmed at the danger was not puerile, but I still think their saying, " Don't you care?" was childish.
....and the point is?
I guess the idea is that puns are funny, hence the pun in Jonah counts as biblical humour.
Though, actually, puns aren't always funny, but usually become so due to their relation to something else. For example, in Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, the pseudonym of the mysterious killer, U.N. Owen("unknown") is not funny at all, and is, in fact, meant to add to the atmosphere of impending doom.
By contrast, in Voltaire's Candide, Dr. Pangloss(he puts a gloss of optimism over everything) has a funny name, mostly because it matches the hilarious stupidity of the character.
I don't know anything about Hebrew language or culture, so I have no idea if the pun mentoned by Mousethief would have been viewed as funny. Certainly, in the contemporary west, vomiting is often seen as humourous.
Sounds kinda obvious when it's stated flat out like that.
Cultural/linguistic differences hide humour.
The Italian story of a man telling another that his dog only goes after dead birds gets the response "Well, I hope he doesn't go after mine!"
This is a like a Decameron story* where the daughter of the family asks to sleep out on the balcony where it is cooler and she can hear birds singing, but so her boyfriend can sneak in to her. When the next morning the couple are found sleeping the father tells the mother that their daughter has caught a bird and caged it.
A delayed response for me, but when I understood it became funny.
* This was an Italian version I saw on TV.
Here is an article that discusses humor in the Bible. I particularly like its concluding paragraphs:
To me the value is that it makes the Bible more human.
In fairness, you can't milk people, you can't harness them to your plough and plough your fields, and you get complaints if you butcher them and slap a couple of steaks on the grill. Cows, by contrast, are useful.
Funny, I read the article several times. It comes from a conservative writer, but throughout the article he talks about the humor he sees in the Bible. He particularly talks about teasing his disciples as a way of teaching them. As a preacher I know how telling a humorous story can drive a point home in unique ways.
Seems like Peter was always the butt of jokes. Good read.
One thing that I wonder about with this story is if it is kind of like a resurrection story in that Peter was in prison. No one expected him to get out. An earthquake happens and he is released. But, unlike Jesus appearing to the disciples behind a locked door, Peter has to keep pounding to get someone to let him in.