A S R (our common friend) : You make Jonah seem like such a dark story, when it's probably the funniest one in the whole Bible!
o Καθολικός διάκονος : It is hilarious and Jonah is an utterly ridiculous figure. It's hard to find light even in a fictional character who is unhappy with a God who seeks to save even those whom we hate. I absolutely love the Veggie Tales Jonah movie because it shows how ridiculous Jonah is. I have shown it to adult groups. Plus, keeping it short today.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl (ego) : If Jonah is fictional, whence come the Jewry and later Christendom of Northern Iraq? Like: if Ruth is fictional, whence comes King David and how come God permitted St Matthew to say a lie in the genealogy?
o Καθολικός διάκονος : I think we can chalk it up to immigration, as with the ancient Jewish communities that were rather far flung throughout the ancient Near East, probably most specifically the Babylonian captivity.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Ah, but how come they remembered it otherwise, as beginning with the prophet Jonah? Are you doubting US began with Founding Fathers and Poland Lithuania with marriage of Hedwig and Jogailo too?*
Catholicus Diaconus seems here to have deleted a post which I give the answer to:
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Of course it remains the same. My problem is not with typology, but with not taking the story literally. Human fiction writers are able to make typology in made up characters, but God is able to make them in real persons.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : I'm not really sure where you are coming from with your questions (i.e., whether you are being serious or sarcastic). I think memories of the Babylonian captivity are well-documented in the Hebrew Scriptures. But if you are asking me whether I believe that Jonah is an historical account, my answer is simple, No. In fact, I think the truth of the book is lost by reading it in such a flat way. Either way, it is an inspired text, that is, scriptural.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl Check list:
- Origen believes in typology but not reality of Flood/Arc of Noah
- Theodorus of Mopsuestia believes in historic reality of Flood/Arc of Noah, but not typology
- Saint Augustine states one must believe in both.
Applicable to Jonah too, and I cannot see any flatness in believing both historic fact and typologic dimension. And anyone denying historicity of purported origin of a community, is worthy to be asked if he doubts US had a George Washington too. Just to make things very, very clear, about first post on your blog:
I do not agree with your naive belief in so called consensus, especially if it is modern, and neither did Sts Stephen and Isidore
o Καθολικός διάκονος : That is all fine and well, but let's stick with the text at hand and not multiply instances, thus complicating matters and being, if unintentionally, sophistic. It is not a question of Alexandria or Antioch, but a matter of dealing the text at hand and applying the appropriate exegesis. If you take the trouble to read my post you will see what I mean.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : Well, appropriate exegesis is Hippo rather than Antioch or Alexandria. Speaking of typology, noticed St Paul in his story? Tarshish, unwilling witness, enemy of those he preaches to ... except there is a serialism in St Paul that differs in detail of course
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Feel free to believe in the historicity of the story of Jonah, many fine Christian people do. I won't get into name-calling and needlessly multiplying instances and confusing categories to make my point. My belief may be many things, but it is not naive. While my first post was a quite a few years ago now, I stand by it. There are certainly historical parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, which are to be treated and evaluated in a different way. Again, what I posted on Jonah does not preclude those, like you, who want to read it more literally.
o A S R : No, there wasn't. Neither were the writers of Jonah not aware they themselves were writing fiction.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : "My belief may be many things, but it is not naive." - Your belief in the Bible, like CSL's is not naive enough. Your belief in scholarly consensus is, until you prove it otherwise, too naive. So where is the tradition from these purported colleagues of Tolkien writing Farmer Giles? I see none, I see a tradition that it was regarded as historical.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Jonah is the Israelite who believes Israel's chosen-ness is something just for them, not a responsibility to make God known among the nations. Hence, he is ridiculous and foolish, but God will not be thwarted by the petty and small-minded.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I believe that too - and that he existed.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Anyway, a blessed Sunday to you both.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : You want to exonerate Israelites from producing him and his likes?
o Καθολικός διάκονος : At least those who did not view their chosen-ness in that narrow way, among whom one must number the author of this short text. Since I am not sure where this is headed, I will warn up-front that anything I even perceive as being anti-Semitic will be deleted.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : What if the author was Jonah - after a conversion similar to that of St Paul? Including of course two stages, the storm and whale's belly and the bush that went down under the hot sun. (wondering if this is going to be deleted)
o Καθολικός διάκονος : A conversion like that of St Paul would not have been possible for the author of Jonah because the Christ had not yet come, let alone been killed and resurrected. Who knows how the author of Jonah came to see the responsibility of chosen-ness? It just matters that he did and that he wrote about it in an inspired way, a way that is highly relevant for those who, by virtue of Jesus Christ, came share in the covenant.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I consider the recorded two step conversion of Jonah as a conversion like that of St Paul.
o Καθολικός διάκονος : Except for the small matter, which is essential to the story, that Jonah is never converted.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : As far as I can see, he is at least converted when writing this autobiography. (third person does not rule out autobiography, so did Moses and Caesar) If not at heart, at least in words and deeds. Here is anyway ...
Afterthought: It seems possible that a diaspora could have takena fictional precursor, in the mere light of human evidence of this one matter. But the Ninevites converted under Jonah were not the first precursors, it seems, there was rather before them the Assyrian officer who was cured from leprosy by a bath in the Jordan. And that first recorded pious man in Nineve after Nimrod is too well attested to be dismissed as a mythicalised precursor of people who were really first, because his story is quite well known from Palestine./HGL
o *A S R : Poland actually began in 966 with the conversion of Mieszko. Or actually, that's a useful fiction, because there was no such thing as Poles until very late in the game.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : There was a Poland before Poles, just as their was a Francia before anyone spoke French - I have no trouble with Poland beginning with Mieszko. Saying there was no Poland before Poles is ethnocentric. There are instances of political unities harbouring more than one ethnicity or starting with only part of it.
o A S R : No, there were no Poles of whatever ethnicity before Poland.
o Hans-Georg Lundahl : I did not say there were Poles before Poland. I said there was a Poland, founded by Mieszko, before Poles were united as a nation. @A S R
Mieszko I (ca. 930 – 25 May 992),[2] was a Duke of the Polans[3] from about 960 until his death. A member of the Piast dynasty, he was son of Siemomysł; grandchild of Lestek; father of Bolesław I the Brave, the first crowned King of Poland; likely father of Świętosława (Sigrid), a Nordic Queen; and ....
Of course I do not agree about the theories ruling out he was blind.
Siemowit (also Ziemowit) was, according to the chronicles of Gallus Anonymus, the son of Piast the Wheelwright and Rzepicha. He was considered one of the four legendary Piast princes, but is now considered as a ruler who existed as a historical person.[1]
Piast - Siemowit - Lestek - Siemomysl - Mieszko - as far as I can tell they all existed.
Afterthought: Piast was of course contemporary of Popiel. And Popiel was eaten to death by persecuting mice. About as horrible as Jonah is funny (along with the Gepetto and Pinocchio story and the Sindbad story, which are obviously indebted to Jonah.) Logically, if you call Popiel mythical it is difficult to say Piast was historical. Ultimately people calling Popiel and Piast, Jonah and the Whale fictions, are people not believing either God or the devil capable of altering the zoologically recorded behaviour of animals./HGL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire