Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Son of God Trailer
A message from Roma Downey and Mark Burnett
Jewel - Oh Holy Night
Son Of God | "Jesus Savior" | 20th Century FOX
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The Unique Identity of Jesus Christ
by
Damien F. Mackey
Once I had a lively encounter with a Moslem at a bus stop in Earlwood (Sydney, Australia). Our discussion, generally friendly, sometimes a bit noisy, attracted the attention of bystanders who listened, smiled or laughed, and even occasionally joined in. The question that this man seemed most eager to ask, and for which he dearly wanted an answer, was this: ‘What do you think of Muhammad?’
Whatever an individual Christian may think of Mohammed, the real question that should most preoccupy his or her mind is that burning question that Jesus himself was most desirous of asking, and for which He awaited an answer: ‘Who do men say that I am?’ This question is posed in all three Synoptic Gospels.
The fact is that Jesus’ contemporaries were not really sure who he was. ‘Elijah’, said some. ‘John the Baptist’, said others. ‘One of the prophets returned from the dead’. Or, perhaps, ‘Jeremiah’. Some great man, for sure, but not one utterly unique.
It was the Apostle Peter who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave the right answer when the question was personalised by Jesus to: ‘Who do you say that I am?’; though Peter still had very much to learn about the significance of what he had proclaimed, for he would soon be rebuked by Jesus as a ‘Satan’ (Mark 8:33).
Pope Benedict XVI has marvellously discussed the whole question of Jesus’ identity – and the contrast between opinions of, and belief in, Him – in Chapter Nine of his book, Jesus of Nazareth, beginning with (pp. 287-288):
Peter’s Confession
All three Synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ question to the disciples about who the people think he is and who they themselves consider him to be – (Mk 8:27-30; Mt 16:13-20; Lk 9:18-21) as an important milestone on his way. In all three Gospels, Peter answers in the name of the Twelve with a confession that is markedly different from the opinion of the “people”. …. In all three Gospels, however, he also interprets this “following” on the way of the Cross from an essentially anthropological standpoint: It is the indispensable way for man to “lose his life”, without which it is impossible to find it (Mk 8:31-9:1; Mt 16:21-28; Lk 9:22-27).
And finally, in all three Gospels there follows the account of the Transfiguration of Jesus, which once again interprets Peter’s confession and takes it deeper, while at the same time connecting it with the mystery of Jesus’ death and Resurrection (Mk 9:2-13; Mt 17:1-13; Lk 9:28-36).
Only Matthew immediately follows Peter’s confession with the bestowal upon Peter of the power of the keys – of the power to bind and loose – and this is connected with Jesus’ promise to build his Church upon Peter as on a rock. Parallel passages concerning this commission and this promise are found in Luke 22:31f. in the context of the Last Supper and in John 21:15-19 after Jesus’ Resurrection.
It should be pointed out that John, too, places a similar confession on Peter’s lips, which once again is presented as a decisive milestone on Jesus’ way, giving the circle of the Twelve its full weight and profile for the first time (Jn 6:68f.) ….
So, what was the answer that Peter gave, that so pleased Jesus? Peter had replied (Matthew 16:16):
‘Thou art the Christ [or the Messiah], the Son of the living God!’
To which Jesus responded: ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven’ (v. 17).
Clearly there were now two basic views abroad about the identity of Jesus: the one, his “unique filial being”, as the Pope puts it – as Peter was inspired to utter (“Peter’s confession”) – and the other, the common one of the people. Pope Benedict goes on to tell how the former view, the correct one, crystallised in the disciples who were now “on the way”, distinguishing them from the people (pp. 290-291):
The great period of preaching in Galilee is at an end and we are at a decisive milestone: Jesus is setting out on the journey to the Cross and issuing a call to decision that now clearly distinguishes the group of disciples from the people who merely listen, without accompanying him on his way – a decision that clearly shapes the disciples into the beginning of Jesus’ new family, the future Church. It is characteristic of this community to be “on the way” with Jesus – what that way involves is about to be made clear. It is also characteristic that this community’s decision to accompany Jesus rests upon a realization – on a “knowledge” of Jesus that at the same time gives them a new insight into God, the one God in whom they believe as children of Israel.
In Luke – and this is entirely in keeping with his portrait of the figure of Jesus – Peter’s confession is connected with a prayer event. Luke begins his account of the story with a deliberate paradox: “As he was praying alone, the disciples were with him” (Lk 9:18). The disciples are drawn into his solitude, his communion with the Father that is reserved to him alone. They are privileged to see him as the one who – as we reflected at the beginning of this book – speaks face-to-face with the Father, person to person. ….
[These various opinions … do not arrive at Jesus’ identity, at his newness. They interpret him in terms of the past, in terms of the predictable and the possible, not in terms of himself, his uniqueness ….]
This ‘speaking face-to-face with the Father’ will become a most important consideration when later (beginning on p. 24) we consider a challenge by another Moslem, Islamic missionary Ahmed Deedat of Indian-South African descent (now deceased), that Jesus Christ could not have been the one foretold to Moses in Deuteronomy 18:18: “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee …”, but that Mohammed was that one. We are going to find that, whilst Deedat’s Christian opponent, a dominee (or minister) of the Dutch Reformed Church, was not really able adequately to counter the Moslem’s forceful argument, Pope Benedict XVI has, in his book, provided the perfect answer to an argument such as Deedat’s. Whether the many will respond to it, though, and enter upon “the way”, or just the few as in the case of the disciples, remains to be seen. For those who do make the leap in faith, then the privileges are untold and unique. Thus the Pope continues (pp. 291-292):
[The Twelve] are privileged to see him in his utterly unique filial being – at the point from which all his words, his deeds, and his powers issue. They are privileged to see what the “people” do not see, and this seeing gives rise to a recognition that goes beyond the “opinion” of the people. This seeing is the wellspring of their faith, their confession; it provides the foundation for the Church.
Here we may identify the interior location of Jesus’ two-fold question. His inquiry about the opinion of the people and the conviction of the disciples presupposes two things. On the one hand, there is an external knowledge of Jesus that, while not necessarily false, is inadequate. On the other hand, there is a deeper knowledge that is linked to discipleship, to participation in Jesus’ way, and such knowledge can grow only in that context. All three Synoptics agree in recounting the opinion of the people that Jesus is John the Baptist, or Elijah, or some other of the Prophets returned from the dead; Luke has just told us that Herod, having heard about such accounts of Jesus’ person and activity, felt a wish to see him. Matthew adds an additional variation: the opinion of some that Jesus is Jeremiah.
The common element in all these ideas is that Jesus is classified in the category “prophet”, an interpretative key drawn from the tradition of Israel. All the names that are mentioned as interpretations of the figure of Jesus have an eschatological ring to them, the expectation of a radical turn of events that can be associated both with hope and with fear. While Elijah personifies hope for the restoration of Israel, Jeremiah is a figure of the Passion, who proclaims the failure of the current form of the Covenant and of the Temple that, so to speak, serves as its guarantee. Of course, he is also the bearer of the promise of a New Covenant that is destined to rise from the ashes.
By his suffering, by his immersion in the darkness of contradiction, Jeremiah bears this twofold destiny of downfall and renewal in his own life.
These various opinions are not simply mistaken; they are greater or lesser approximations to the mystery of Jesus, and they can certainly set us on the path towards Jesus’ real identity. But they do not arrive at Jesus’ identity, at his newness. They interpret him in terms of the past, in terms of the predictable and the possible, not in terms of himself, his uniqueness, which cannot be assigned to any other category. Today, too, similar opinions are clearly held by the “people” who have somehow or other come to know Christ, who have perhaps even made a scholarly study of him, but have not encountered Jesus himself in his utter uniqueness and otherness. Karl Jaspers spoke of Jesus alongside Socrates, the Buddha, and Confucius as one of the four paradigmatic individuals. He thus acknowledged that Jesus is of fundamental significance in the search for the right way to be human. Yet for all that, Jesus remains one among others grouped within a common category, in terms of which they can be explained and also delimited.
[End of quotes]
Pope Benedict XVI accounts for the utter uniqueness of Jesus Christ, as opposed to a “common” view of him – an old but also a contemporary view – as just one amongst a group of history’s most enlightened individuals. But we are also going to introduce into this discussion, Mohammed, to whom the Pope did not refer.
[Ultimately, though, this notion of Jesus’ “experience of God” remains purely relative and needs to be supplemented by the fragments of reality perceived by other great men. It is man, the individual subject, who ends up being himself the measure ….]
The former Pope Benedict XVI continues his critical account of the typical view of Jesus Christ, whereby “man, the individual subject … ends up being himself the measure” (the theme of a previous MATRIX article, “The Futile Aspiration to Make ‘Man the Measure of All Things’”). Thus (p. 293):
Today it is fashionable to regard Jesus as one of the great religious founders who were granted a profound experience of God. They can thus speak of God to other people who have been denied this “religious disposition”, as it were, drawing them into their own experience of God. However, we are still dealing here with a human experience of God that reflects his infinite reality in the finitude and limitation of a human spirit: It can therefore never amount to more than a partial, not to mention time- and space-bound, translation of the divine. The word experience thus indicates on one hand a real contact with the divine, while also acknowledging the limitation of the receiving subject. Every human subject can capture only a particular fragment of the reality that is there to be perceived, and this fragment then requires further interpretation. Someone who holds this opinion can certainly love Jesus; he can even choose him as a guide for his own life. Ultimately, though, this notion of Jesus’ “experience of God” remains purely relative and needs to be supplemented by the fragments of reality perceived by other great men. It is man, the individual subject, who ends up being himself the measure: The individual decides what he is going to accept from the various “experiences”, what he finds helpful and what he finds alien. There is no definitive commitment here.
[End of quote]
This really sums up the Moslem view, too, of Jesus as a great prophet, “peace be upon him”, though lesser than Mohammed himself. In fact it also sums up the Moslem God, Allah, as one derived from man’s being the measure, not God. Though it does not mean that a Moslem cannot love and serve God (as according to the Pope’s explanation regarding “love” of Jesus Christ even without full knowledge of him), and that he cannot “choose him as a guide for his own life”.
However, there is also that true saying that ‘one cannot love what one does not know’, which, in our context, could be re-stated as ‘one’s capacity for loving Jesus Christ must be greatly enlarged by one’s having a proper concept of who He is, according to the Pope’s explanation’.
Similarly, a God of whom Jesus Christ is not the perfect image and reflection is not God in his true actuality. He cannot therefore be loved as a St. Augustine, for instance, loved God, Christo-centrically. It is only through Jesus Christ that God can truly be known. ‘Whoever has seen me has seen the Father’ (John 14:9).
And of course it is our AMAIC spirituality that the perfect way to Jesus Christ himself is through Mary, his Mother; the only human person with a clear, undimmed vision of God. That is why the AMAIC has always urged for a profound and true devotion to holy Mary. By this means one’s spiritual ‘lenses’ can be properly cleansed and brought into focus, so to speak, thereby enabling one to recognise the true face of Jesus Christ.
Why Islam Thinks that Mohammed, not Jesus, was Foretold by Moses.
We are now going to conclude by looking at Ahmed Deedat’s argument (much edited) against the South African Christian dominee. Deedat’s argument might throw many a Christian, as it apparently gave trouble to the dominee. But it would not throw the Pope, who has authoritatively shown how Jesus Christ, and He alone, was the fulfilment of the One whom Moses had foretold.
Islamic lecturer, Ahmed Deedat, tells of an interview he once had with a dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church in Transvaal, van Heerden, on the question: “What does the Bible say about Muhummed?” Deedat had in mind the Qur’an [Koran] verse 46:10, according to which “a witness among the children of Israel bore witness of one like him…”. This was in turn a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18′s “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.” The Moslems of course interpret the “Prophet … like unto [Moses]” as being Mohammed himself.
Faced with the dominee’s emphatic response that the Bible has “nothing” to say about Mohammed – and that the Deuteronomic prophecy ultimately pertained to Jesus Christ, as did “thousands” of other prophecies – Deedat set out to prove him wrong. Firstly he asked the dominee: Out of the ‘thousands’ of prophecies referred to, can you please give me just one single prophecy where Jesus is mentioned by name? The term ‘Messiah’, translated as ‘Christ’, is not a name but a title. Is there a single Prophecy where it says that the name of the Messiah will be JESUS, and that his mother’s name will be MARY, that his supposed father will be JOSEPH THE CARPENTER; that he will be born in the reign of HEROD THE KING, etc. etc.? No! There are no such details! Then how can you conclude that those ‘thousand’ Prophecies refer to Jesus (Peace be upon him)?
To which the dominee replied: “You see, prophecies are word-pictures of something that is going to happen in the future. When that thing actually comes to pass, we see vividly in these prophecies the fulfilment of what had been predicted in the past”. Deedat responded: “What you actually do is that you deduce, you reason, you put two and two together.” He said: “Yes”. Deedat said: “If this is what you have to do with a ‘thousand’ prophecies to justify your claim with regards to the genuineness of Jesus, why should we not adopt the very same system for Muhummed?”
The dominee agreed that it was a fair proposition, a reasonable way of dealing with the problem. He argued that the key phrase in the Deuteronomic prophecy was “like unto thee” – LIKE YOU – like Moses, and Jesus is like Moses”. Deedat questioned: “In which way is Jesus like Moses?” The answer was: “In the first place Moses was a JEW and Jesus was also a JEW; secondly, Moses was a PROPHET and Jesus was also a PROPHET – therefore Jesus is like Moses and that is exactly what God had foretold Moses – “SOOS JY IS” [in Afrikaans]“.
Whilst the dominee’s reply here is basically true (though Moses was strictly speaking not a Jew, but a Hebrew or Israelite – ‘all Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews’) – he probably gets off on the wrong foot straightaway by attributing to Jesus what could be attributed to any number of Jewish prophets. In other words, he does not begin with what makes Jesus unique, and with – in the context of Moses – what makes Him “like” the latter, but unique nevertheless, as explained by the Pope. Now, whether someone will listen attentively to the argument is another matter. I, for instance, fresh from reading Pope Benedict XVI, had used his main point in my discussion with the Moslem. But it seemed not in any way to have been absorbed. However, the important thing is that we know what the answer is, and can enunciate it. And, hopefully, there will be some who will be able to comprehend it. It is greatly to be hoped that the Pope’s book will be read, studied and absorbed by many.
Deedat quickly realizes that his opponent has not attributed to Jesus anything singular. “Can you think of any other similarities between Moses and Jesus?” Deedat asked.
The dominee said that he could not think of any.
Deedat replied: “If these are the only two criteria for discovering a candidate for this prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18, then in that case the criteria could fit any one of the following Biblical personages after Moses: – Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Malachi, John the Baptist etc., because they were also ALL Jews as well as Prophets. Why should we not apply this prophecy to any one of these prophets, and why only to Jesus? Why should we make fish of one and fowl of another?”
[Or why, one might ask, does Islam not say that the prophecy was in fact referring to one of these above-mentioned sages of Israel?; a point that I shall be taking up again on “A Personal View of Who Mohammed Might Have Been”].
The dominee had no reply. Deedat continued: “You see, my conclusions are that Jesus is most unlike Moses, and if I am wrong I would like you to correct me”.
So saying, Deedat reasoned with him: “In the FIRST place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to you – ‘JESUS IS A GOD’, but Moses is not God. Is this true?” He said: “Yes”. Deedat said: “Therefore, Jesus is not like Moses!
SECONDLY, according to you – ‘JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD’, but Moses did not have to die for the sins of the world. Is this true?”
He again said: Yes”. Deedat said: “Therefore Jesus is not like Moses! THIRDLY, according to you – ‘JESUS WENT TO HELL FOR THREE DAYS’, but Moses did not have to go there. Is this true?” He answered meekly: “Y-e-s”.
Deedat concluded: “Therefore Jesus is not like Moses!” “But dominee,”, Deedat continued: “these are not hard facts, solid facts, they are mere matters of belief over which the little ones can stumble and fall. Let us discuss something very simple, very easy that if your little ones are called in to hear the discussion, would have no difficulty in following it, shall we?”
The dominee was quite happy at the suggestion. Deedat will now proceed to list a whole lot of biographical points according to which Moses and Mohammed – human persons who were married and had children – were alike, but were quite unlike Jesus. This is to prove his point that Mohammed, not Jesus, was ‘like unto Moses’, and that Mohammed therefore, and not Jesus, was the one who fulfilled the Deuteronomic prophecy. We shall take only a few of these cases from Deedat’s long-winded and well-rehearsed spiel:
Father and Mother
“Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had a father and a mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. Is this true?” He said: “Yes”. Deedat said: “DAAROM IS JESUS NIE SOOS MOSES NIE, MAAR MUHUMMED IS SOOS MOSES!” Meaning: “Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses!”
Miraculous Birth
“Moses and Muhummed were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the physical association of man and woman; but Jesus was created by a special miracle. You will recall that we are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew 1:18: ‘…..BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, (Joseph the Carpenter and Mary) SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD BY THE HOLY GHOST’. And Dr. Luke tells us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announced to her, Mary reasoned: ‘…….HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? AND THE ANGEL ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HER, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE:……’ (Luke 1:35).
In short, Deedat said to the dominee: “Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth of Moses and Muhummed?” He replied proudly: “Yes!” Deedat said: “Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 “LIKE UNTO THEE” (Like You, Like Moses) and Muhummed is like Moses”.
Marriage Ties
“Moses and Muhummed married and begat children, but Jesus remained a bachelor all his life. Is this true?” The dominee said: “Yes”. Deedat said: “Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses”.
Jesus Rejected by his People
“Moses and Muhummed were accepted as prophets by their people in their very lifetime. No doubt the Jews gave endless trouble to Moses and they murmured in the wilderness, but as a nation, they acknowledged that Moses was a Messenger of God sent to them. The Arabs too made Muhummed’s life impossible. He suffered very badly at their hands. After 13 years of preaching in Mecca, he had to emigrate from the city of his birth. But before his demise, the Arab nation as a whole accepted him as the Messenger of Allah. But according to the Bible: ‘He (Jesus) CAME UNTO HIS OWN, BUT HIS OWN RECEIVED HIM NOT’. (John 1:11). And even today, after two thousand years, his people – the Jews, as a whole, have rejected him. Is this true?” The dominee said: “Yes”. Deedat said: “THEREFORE JESUS IS NOT LIKE MOSES, BUT MUHUMMED IS LIKE MOSES”. …
How they Departed
“Both Moses and Muhummed died natural deaths, but according to Christianity, Jesus was violently killed on the cross. Is this true?” The dominee said: “Yes”. Deedat averred: “Therefore Jesus is not like Moses but Muhummed is like Moses”.
And so it goes on, with Deedat, like an eager prize fighter, landing virtually all of the punches, and becoming ever more emboldened and aggressive.
‘What do you think of Muhammad?’, the similarly keen and feisty Moslem in Earlwood had been so keen to ask me. Here is my own most tentative – at this stage – view of who Mohammed was, not to be found in any text books.
Who The Prophet Mohammed Really Was
Above, I had queried, in the context of Deedat’s argument: “… why, one might ask, does Islam not say that the [Deuteronomic] prophecy was in fact referring to one of these above-mentioned [by Deedat] sages of Israel?”
Let me explain what I am getting at. The Koran is, broadly speaking, so much like the Old Testament in many places that one could argue that it is simply the latter mixed with a lot of Arabic folklore and mythology, and derived from much unreliable oral tradition. In the Koran we meet again with all of the familiar Hebrew patriarchal and prophetical characters and sages of the Old Testament.
There is also the problem of chronology.
There are chronological problems, not only with the life of Mohammed himself, and the writings, but also with the early history of Islam. Books have been written ‘In Search of the Historical Mohammed’, who can be something of a conundrum.
I have for some time now thought that the prophet Mohammed must simply be one of the Old Testament characters, or perhaps a composite biblical character, re-written into an Arabian and New Testament scenario. In “Lost Cultural Foundations”, I had pointed to some very striking parallels between, for instance, the life of Mohammed and (as is reinforced by Deedat) the life of Moses.
But I also pointed there to certain aspects associated with Mohammed that I thought paralleled Jesus Christ; mainly the spiritual or miraculous, since Deedat is quite right in arguing that there can be no worthwhile comparison between the details of the lives of Jesus and Mohammed. I had also in the same series of articles pointed out such striking likeness between aspects of Buddha (even Krishna) and Jesus Christ – and other of those “paradigmatical” sages referred to above by both Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen – that I had concluded, in the context of a revised chronology (on which the AMAIC has by now done much work), that these supposedly individual sages or gurus were just later local versions – even paganised or agnostic/heretical versions – of Jesus Christ himself.
Mohammed himself may be something of a composite biblical character.
However, there is also enough serious biographical information about him to make one think that he was basically a very real character; but one who has become chronologically – and perhaps even geographically – distorted. As a case in point, I was once asked to review for publication a book written by an Islamic scholar, Ahmed Osman, Out of Egypt …, according to which some of the greatest Hebrew and Jewish Old and New Testament characters, namely: Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, and the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, were all not only re-identified as native Egyptians, but were all lumped together by the author into the Eighteenth Pharaonic Dynasty of Egypt (conventionally, but wrongly, dated to c. 1550-1300 BC). That is, almost 2000 years of history jammed into about 200 years. Now that is mad historical revisionism at its worst! I entitled my review of this historical absurdity, “Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses”
Can it be that Islam sometimes does not have a clear sense of chronological or geographical perspective?
Might not Mohammed, too, be from a nation and an era quite different from the Arabian c. 600 AD era to which Islam has attributed him?
….
Note written on 17th February 2014:
wherein it uncovers the true identity of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad). See article:
The Serious Historical Dislocation of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad)
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Jesus Was Not Wrong About Jonah
by
Damien F. Mackey
Introduction
Apart from the Book of Tobit, which is included in the Catholic Old Testament canon (14:4): “Go into Media my son, for I surely believe those things which Jonas [Jonah] the prophet spake of Nineve …”, the prophet Jonah is mentioned only twice in the Old Testament, on both occasions as “Jonah son of Amittai” (2 Kings 14:25; Jonah 1:1), with the 2 Kings version adding this further information about the prophet:
[Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel] was the one who restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo Hamath to the Dead Sea, in accordance with the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, spoken through his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath Hepher.
It needs to be noted that, whilst the Codex Vaticanus (B) version of Tobit (as above) refers to Jonah, the Codex Sinaiticus (S) substitutes “Nahum” for“Jonah”.
In the New Testament, Jesus Christ famously couples the prophet with the Queen of the South in his condemnatory words as recorded in Matthew (12):
38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”
39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.
and similarly, in Luke (11):
29 As the crowds increased, Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. 30 For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the Son of Man be to this generation. 31 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here. 32 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now something greater than Jonah is here.
There is a brief reference to Jonah again in Matthew 16:4: “A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah”.
There is already enough here to suggest that Jonah may perhaps have been a real, flesh and blood Israelite, especially considering that Jonah’s ‘partner’ in witness and condemnation, “the Queen of the South”, has - thanks to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, I, 1952) - been so convincingly identified with Hatshepsut, the queen (later pharaoh) of 18th Dynasty Egypt. See my defence, but modification, of Velikovsky’s thesis:
Why Hatshepsut can be the 'Queen of Sheba'
Thomas Crean, when writing “On The Prophet Jonah”, has this to say about what he considers to be the historical aspect of the holy man (http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt101.html):
Scriptural Evidence
How does the Old Testament speak of Jonah? First of all, the author of the book of Jonah identifies the prophet as the son of Amittai. In so doing, he would seem clearly to identify him as the prophet called Jonah, son of Amittai, who is mentioned in 2 Kings 14, as having prophesied in the northern kingdom around the time of Jeroboam II. So the protagonist of the book of Jonah is presented as a real person. It does not follow from this alone that the story related of him happened in reality, since it is possible to invent stories about real people, as happens in the apocryphal gospels. Nevertheless, this fact may serve as a warning against simply assuming that this book, because it is written in the style of a popular narrative or ‘cautionary tale’, is not, therefore, also a narrative presenting historical events and happenings that really did take place.
The only other reference to the prophet Jonah in the Old Testament is to be found at the end of the book of Tobit, where Tobit warns his son to leave Nineveh "because what the prophet Jonah said will surely happen" (Tob.14, 8). For one who accepts the historicity of the book of Tobit, this would be a sufficient confirmation at least of the historicity of Jonah's preaching as related in the book of Jonah, if not of the other events narrated therein; but since many of those who hesitate to admit the reality of the events described in the book of Jonah would have similar reservations about the book of Tobit, the investigation of the Scriptural evidence must be continued.
If we turn, then, to the Gospels, it is evident that the prophet Jonah holds an important place in the Dominical preaching. It would seem that, on at least three separate occasions, the Lord compares the prophet Jonah to Himself. There is first of all the passage in Matt. 12:38-41. …. Next comes a passage further on in the same Gospel (Matt. 16:4), where the Pharisees again request a sign, but this time with the Sadducees …. Finally, there is found a passage in St. Luke's Gospel, 11:29-32, addressed it would seem to the multitude, that "as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation". It is added that the Queen of the South will arise at the judgement in condemnation, and then it is the men of Nineveh who this time are introduced by way of climax as also destined to arise on the last day.
Obviously, much could be drawn from these few words, but our purpose is to consider their bearing only upon the historicity of the book of Jonah. How might they be interpreted by one who denies that this book is, or was intended to be, historical in content? Such a one would perhaps reply that the Lord had used‘the ideas of His time’ in preaching the Gospel. This, without further explicitation, is ambiguous. It could mean, in the first place, that one of the ideas used was the false one that the book of Jonah narrates real events. In that case, in using this false idea, Christ would either have known of its falsity or not. If not, one would have to say that He was either ignorant of the meaning of the Scriptures (more ignorant than some modern exegetes, and on a point as fundamental as the historicity or fabulousness of an entire book) and also in error in supposing that certain men had repented at Jonah's preaching and would rise again - but neither of these things can be said. If, on the other hand, He was aware of the falsity of the idea used and the multitude was not, then in saying that the men of Nineveh who had repented at Jonah's preaching would indeed rise again when they could not because they had never existed, He would have been confirming them in their wrong opinion and teaching them something false, which again is entirely impossible.
On the other hand, it could be argued that one of the ideas of the time was that the book of Jonah was not an account of real events; that it was universally recognised to be not only a popular narrative but also a fictional one, imaginative not only in style or genre, but also in content. Although the witness of Josephus tells against this view (Antiquities, IX, 10, 2), one can at least consider how well it fits with the passages of the Gospels just quoted. Here one may want to distinguish the references to the sign of Jonah from the references to the resurrection of the Ninevites. In the first case, whilst the several analogies between Jonah and our Lord would in a sense hold good whether or not Jonah had done or suffered in reality that which is related of him, yet it can easily be seen how much the solemnity of the Lord's words would be prejudiced if he had not. To take an analogy, of which the absurdity will be unavoidable: imagine that a great popular preacher of repentance, a Savanarola or a St. Vincent Ferrer, had been asked for a sign to justify the apparent novelty of their declarations, and had replied that just as Robin Hood had been persecuted by the wealthy for defending the poor, so would he be. It would seem frivolous, futile and odd. Yet, if Jonah is to be placed on the same level as Robin Hood, the fictional hero of picturesque adventures, it is with such an answer that one would apparently have to place the answers given to the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees according to which the sign validating the Lord's mission is the similarity to it of the life of Jonah.
In the second case, however, that of the resurrection of the Ninevites, Christ's words would be simply impossible on the hypothesis that no one supposed the story of Jonah to be true. For here there is not simply a comparison of two items, but a statement that two groups of people will exist together, the men of Nineveh who repented at the preaching of Jonah and ‘this generation’, which cannot be true if the men of Nineveh had never existed. Nor is it possible to say that this is a literary allusion, as a preacher to-day might make an allusion in his homily to, say, Lady Macbeth. It would be quite possible for a preacher to use Lady Macbeth as an example of how sin may lead to despair. What would be wholly morally impossible would be for him to say, for example: "It is not only active crimes that are punished but inner ones as well. On Judgement Day you will see Judas Iscariot punished not only for treason but also for despair. You will see Lady Macbeth punished not only for killing King Duncan but also for despair". Yet, if this sounds ridiculous, it is how the passage quoted from St. Luke would have sounded, where, after the Queen of the South's resurrection, the resurrection of the men of Nineveh is foretold by way of climax, if the story of Jonah had been generally believed in the 1st century A.D. to be fiction.
[End of quote]
Rabbinical tradition adds the possibility of some further information about the prophet Jonah. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_in_rabbinic_literature):
Ancestry
The tribal affinities of Jonah constitute a point of controversy; generally assigned to Asher, he is claimed for Zebulun by R. Johanan on the strength of his place of residence. 2 Kings 14:24 These opinions were harmonized by the assumption that his mother was of Asher while his father was of Zebulun (Yer. Suk. v. 1; Gen. R. xcviii. 11; Yalḳ., Jonah, 550; Abravanel's commentary to Jonah).[1]
According to another authority his mother was the woman of Zarephath that entertained Elijah (ib.; Pirḳe R. El. xxxiii.). As this prophet, who was also of priestly descent, would have profaned himself if he had touched the corpse of a Jew, it was concluded that this woman, whose son (Jonah) he "took to his bosom" and revived, was a non-Jew (Gen. R. l.c.).[1]
He received his prophetic appointment from Elisha, under whose orders he anointed Jehu. 2 Kings 9 (Ḳimḥi, ad loc.; and Tzemach Dawid).[1]
He is said to have attained a very advanced age (more than 120 years according to Seder Olam; 130 according to Sefer Yuchasin; while Ecclesiastes Rabbah viii. 10 holds that the son (Jonah) of the Zarephath widow never died).
[End of quote]
There are two other possible indicators, I find, towards the reality of Jonah.
The first one, though it can by no means in itself be regarded as being hard historical evidence, may, in its uniqueness, point us to the very era of the famous Jonah incident. I refer to the impressive man inside a fish bas-relief as depicted on the wall of the palace at Calah (Nimrud) of the mighty king of Assyria, Ashurnasirpal II (883 BC to 859 BC, conventional dates).
If the era of Ashurnasirpal II really happens to be the time of the prophet Jonah’s ministry to Nineveh, then he must certainly have been old, later, when he made his prediction regarding the expansion of the kingdom of Israel by Jeroboam II; for the latter is thought to have begun to rule around 790 or 780 BC.
The second indicator is the Jonah-like description of “Oannes” that was supposedly recorded in a history of Mesopotamia written in the third century BC by Berossus, a Babylonian priest whose work survives only in fragments recorded by later Greek historians. According to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah):
….Biblical scholars have speculated that Jonah may have been in part the inspiration behind the figure of Oannes in late Babylonian mythology.[28] The deity name "Oannes" first occurs in texts from the Library of Ashurbanipal (more than a century after the time of Jonah) as Uanna or Uan but is assimilated to Adapa, a deity first mentioned on fragments of tablets from the 15th or 14th century B.C. found in Amarna in Egypt.[29][30] [Mackey’s comment: In Velikovsky’s revised chronology, El Amarna actually belongs to the C9th BC. I follow him here in general, though not in detail]. Oannes is described as dwelling in the Persian Gulf, and rising out of the waters in the daytime and furnishing mankind instruction in writing, the arts and the various sciences. Berossus describes Oannes as having the body of a fish but underneath the figure of a man—a detail that, some Biblical scholars[who?] suggest, is not derived from Adapa but is perhaps based on a misinterpretation of images of Jonah emerging from the fish.
[End of quote]
And, on the actual name ‘Oannes”
….The name Oannes for Jonah appears in the Septuagint and in the New Testament with the addition of I before it (Ioannes). However, according to Dr. Herman V. Hilprecht, the eminent Assyriologist, in the Assyrian inscriptions the J of foreign words becomes I, or disappears altogether. Hence Joannes, as the Greek representation of Jonah would appear in Assyrian either as Ioannes or as Oannes. Therefore, in his opinion, Oannes would be a regular Greco-Babylonian writing for Jonah.5
The preservation of the name "Yunas" or "Jonah" at the ruins of Nineveh also confirms the historicity of the Jonah story. As soon as modern discoverers unearthed the mound that had been known for centuries by the name of "Neby Yunas," they found beneath it the ruined palaces of the kings of Nineveh.6 ….
[End of quote]
Apart from these, there are the various Jonah-like legends in ancient mythology, notably the story of Jason. On this, see (http://bookofjonah2amaic.wordpress.com/2013/07/05/243/).
Ashurnasirpal II as the Book of Jonah’s
“King of Nineveh”
In case the fish man depicted above is an actual representation of the prophet Jonah in Assyria.
Ashurnasirpal II, arguably the most brutal of all the typically brutal Assyrian kings, was a man of many guises according to what I determined in my postgraduate thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
For a simpler reading of this subject (though it may need some up-dating now), see my article:
The Many Faces of Ashurnasirpal and his Son
Basing myself on Dr. Velikovsky’s inspired twin identifications of the biblical pair of Syrian rulers, Ben-hadad I and Hazael, with the El Amarna pair of rulers of Amurru, respectively, Abdi-ashirta and Aziru, which I consider to be rock solid, I then proceeded to make further historical identifications of this pair. Ben-hadad, a veritable master king, with 32 other kings in train (I Kings 20:1, 20): "King Ben-Hadad of Aram gathered all his army together; thirty-two kings were with him, along with horses and chariots”, must have been more than just a king of Damascene Syria.* Through his Velikovskian alter ego of Abdi-ashirta, I extended this Ben-hadad to be the similarly strong Mitannian king of the El Amarna archives, Dushratta (from AbDU-aSHRATTA). But furthermore, since Dushratta (Tushratta) had sent a statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to an ailing pharaoh Amenhotep III, I considered that this composite king, Ben-hadad, may also have been the current king of Assyria, who was Ashurnasirpal II.
Most interestingly, though it completely defies the conventional view of chronology, Amenhotep III and Ashurnasirpal (usually separated by half a millennium) appear to have been, in reality, archaeologically contemporaneous
* (Damascus seems to have been associated with Ben-hadad only at the very beginning of his arrival on the biblical scene, 2 Chronicles 16:2, and then again right at the end, when he is on his death bed, 2 Kings 8:7).
I then, (i) having this ‘inside information’ that the powerful Syrian king Ben-hadad had also been one of Assyria’s greatest ever rulers, Ashurnasirpal II, and (ii) knowing that there was a uniquely Jonah-like depiction in the palace of this same Ashurnasirpal II, and (iii) being aware of the Jewish legends locating the beginnings of Jonah to the time of the prophet Elijah, which was also the time of Ben-hadad (Ashurnasirpal II), was then able to find (iv) a biblical scenario that had overtones of the Jonah incident of (a) the sparing of a non-Israelite people, much to the chagrin of an Israelite prophet, and (b) the change of heart of the king of that spared foreign people, with both (a) and (b) involving “sackcloth”.
Before going on to tell of that biblical incident, I should like to note that Jesus Christ never, in his references to Jonah and the conversion of the Ninevites and their king, actually praises the king himself, just “the men of Nineveh” or “the Ninevites”.This ruler of Assyria was, as I have shown in my thesis, a very wily and duplicitous character - full of presumption.
Now the biblical incident to which I refer - and that I think may be an other face to what is recorded in the Book of Jonah - is to be found in I Kings 20, Ben-hadad’s failure, twice, with a massive army, to defeat king Ahab of Israel and to take Ahab’s capital city of Samaria. And I would like to knit in to these two incidents (though without attempting any chronological precision at this stage), the two calls of Jonah, viz.:
(1:) 1 The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me.”
and
(3:) 1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.”
The story begins with king Ben-hadad, the “king of Aram” (Syria), apparently at the height of his power and his arrogance and determined to pick a fight:
(I Kings) 20 Now Ben-Hadad king of Aram mustered his entire army. Accompanied by thirty-two kings with their horses and chariots, he went up and besieged Samaria and attacked it. 2 He sent messengers into the city to Ahab king of Israel, saying, “This is what Ben-Hadad says: 3 ‘Your silver and gold are mine, and the best of your wives and children are mine.’”
4 The king of Israel answered, “Just as you say, my lord the king. I and all I have are yours.”
5 The messengers came again and said, “This is what Ben-Hadad says: ‘I sent to demand your silver and gold, your wives and your children. 6 But about this time tomorrow I am going to send my officials to search your palace and the houses of your officials. They will seize everything you value and carry it away.’”
7 The king of Israel summoned all the elders of the land and said to them, “See how this man is looking for trouble! When he sent for my wives and my children, my silver and my gold, I did not refuse him.”
8 The elders and the people all answered, “Don’t listen to him or agree to his demands.”
9 So he replied to Ben-Hadad’s messengers, “Tell my lord the king, ‘Your servant will do all you demanded the first time, but this demand I cannot meet.’” They left and took the answer back to Ben-Hadad.
10 Then Ben-Hadad sent another message to Ahab: “May the gods deal with me, be it ever so severely, if enough dust remains in Samaria to give each of my men a handful.”
11 The king of Israel answered, “Tell him: ‘One who puts on his armor should not boast like one who takes it off.’”
12 Ben-Hadad heard this message while he and the kings were drinking in their tents,[a] and he ordered his men: “Prepare to attack.” So they prepared to attack the city.
But the king suffered an unexpected setback. The un-named prophet to Israel referred to in this next section may or may not be Jonah himself. Jewish legend has him as Micaiah (http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Legends/v4_06.htm):
Ahab Defeats Ben-Hadad
13 Meanwhile a prophet came to Ahab king of Israel and announced, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Do you see this vast army? I will give it into your hand today, and then you will know that I am the Lord.’”
14“But who will do this?” asked Ahab.
The prophet replied, “This is what the Lord says: ‘The junior officers under the provincial commanders will do it.’”
“And who will start the battle?” he asked.
The prophet answered, “You will.”
15 So Ahab summoned the 232 junior officers under the provincial commanders. Then he assembled the rest of the Israelites, 7,000 in all. 16 They set out at noon while Ben-Hadad and the 32 kings allied with him were in their tents getting drunk. 17 The junior officers under the provincial commanders went out first.
Now Ben-Hadad had dispatched scouts, who reported, “Men are advancing from Samaria.”
18 He said, “If they have come out for peace, take them alive; if they have come out for war, take them alive.”
19 The junior officers under the provincial commanders marched out of the city with the army behind them 20 and each one struck down his opponent. At that, the Arameans fled, with the Israelites in pursuit. But Ben-Hadad king of Aram escaped on horseback with some of his horsemen. 21 The king of Israel advanced and overpowered the horses and chariots and inflicted heavy losses on the Arameans.
It may be at this point, with the king and his army in disarray, that the prophet Jonah -yet a young man (and perhaps for this reason assigned the arduous task instead of, say, Elijah) - was first commissioned to go to Nineveh whose “wickedness”is here referred to.
But Jonah had other ideas and it is at about this point that I would place his attempted flight to Tarshish, the consequent storm incident and that of the “great fish”.
I think that this famous incident must needs be separated well in time from Jonah’s second calling (note the word “Afterward” in v. 22 below). And was Jonah the prophet (the same as the one we met above, in vv. 13-14) who thus estimated the time for king Ahab (v. 22) “Afterward, the prophet came to the king of Israel and said, ‘Strengthen your position and see what must be done, because next spring the king of Aram will attack you again’.”?
At this same approximate time the Syrian king’s officials were providing their master with a‘theology’ for military effectiveness:
23 Meanwhile, the officials of the king of Aram advised him, “Their gods are gods of the hills. That is why they were too strong for us. But if we fight them on the plains, surely we will be stronger than they. 24 Do this: Remove all the kings from their commands and replace them with other officers. 25 You must also raise an army like the one you lost—horse for horse and chariot for chariot—so we can fight Israel on the plains. Then surely we will be stronger than they.” He agreed with them and acted accordingly.
So, true to the word of the prophet (who also must have known the military patterns of the day), the enemy of Israel attacked in spring. The colossal army of more than 120,000 (**) suffered a crushing defeat, with its proud king forced to flee and hide:
26 The next spring Ben-Hadad mustered the Arameans and went up to Aphek to fight against Israel.
27 When the Israelites were also mustered and given provisions, they marched out to meet them. The Israelites camped opposite them like two small flocks of goats, while the Arameans covered the countryside.
28 The man of God came up and told the king of Israel, “This is what the Lord says:‘Because the Arameans think the Lord is a god of the hills and not a god of the valleys, I will deliver this vast army into your hands, and you will know that I am the Lord.’”
29 For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. The Israelites inflicted a hundred thousand casualties on the Aramean foot soldiers in one day.
30 The rest of them escaped to the city of Aphek, where the wall collapsed on twenty-seven thousand of them. And Ben-Hadad fled to the city and hid in an inner room.
** Though it is very hard to imagine a fallen wall killing 27,000 men. Snaith has this: "The destruction of the city wall is often used to describe the capture of a city; and the verse may actually mean that this large, number of men lost their lives when the city was captured and taken."[16]
Now, with the fallen Syrian king completely at the mercy of king Ahab, the king of Israel would have been expected to have done what king Saul had been expected to do in the case of king Agag the Amalekite, to destroy him utterly. (I Samuel 15) 9 “But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were unwilling to utterly destroy them”. And perhaps Ben-hadad’s officials recalled this incident, for:
31 His officials said to him,“Look, we have heard that the kings of Israel are merciful. Let us go to the king of Israel with sackcloth around our waists and ropes around our heads. Perhaps he will spare your life.”
32 Wearing sackcloth around their waists and ropes around their heads, they went to the king of Israel and said, “Your servant Ben-Hadad says: ‘Please let me live.’”
The king answered, “Is he still alive? He is my brother.”
33 The men took this as a good sign and were quick to pick up his word. “Yes, your brother Ben-Hadad!” they said.
“Go and get him,” the king said. When Ben-Hadad came out, Ahab had him come up into his chariot.
34 “I will return the cities my father took from your father,” Ben-Hadad offered. “You may set up your own market areas in Damascus, as my father did in Samaria.”
Ahab said, “On the basis of a treaty I will set you free.” So he made a treaty with him, and let him go.
Ahab had, just like king Saul, proved an abject failure.
It was with great forebodings, now, that the prophet Jonah finally heeded the call of the Lord and headed for Nineveh from whence the massive army of Ben-hadad (Ashurnasirpal II) had probably largely massed. The supposed son of Ashurnasirpal II, “Shalmaneser III once boasted a force of 120,000 men” in his western campaigns.
Attuned to the ways of the Lord, Jonah may have sensed that, as a prophet will actually say to Ahab in the aftermath of all this: “Therefore it is your life for his life, your people for his people” (v. 41). And, indeed, it was the “people” of Ben-hadad (Ashurnasirpal II), the Ninevites, not the king directly, who responded to the words of the prophet (Jonah 3:4): “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” (***)
*** The forty days may perhaps have been another time estimate by the prophet of how long it would take for Israel and her allies to mobilise themselves against Nineveh.
Then, later -perhaps much later - the king himself (Jonah 3:6): “When the message reached the king of Nineveh, he got up from his throne, removed his royal garments, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat down in ashes”. This very cunning and duplicitous king, who had already been forced to humble himself before Ahab, may have later, when back in Nineveh, made a big show of things as was his wont (Jonah 3):
7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink.
8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence.
9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
I suggest that it was for the sake of the people of Nineveh, and not their king, that (v. 10): “When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened”.
But Jonah himself, having foreseen all this, was furious (Jonah 4):
But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. 2 He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.”
While Jonah had become sullen and angry in Nineveh, a prophet back in Israel - perhaps Jonah upon his return there (Jewish legend has this prophet as Micaiah) - was to become incandescent with rage against king Ahab for his failure to destroy Ben-hadad, thereby causing Ahab, in turn, to become “sullen and angry” (exactly as Ahab had been, incidentally, in the case of Naboth, I Kings 21:4). Thus we read in this strange but most significant incident (I Kings 20):
A Prophet Condemns Ahab
35 By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.
36 So the prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.
37 The prophet found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” So the man struck him and wounded him.
38 Then the prophet went and stood by the road waiting for the king. He disguised himself with his headband down over his eyes.
39 As the king passed by, the prophet called out to him, “Your servant went into the thick of the battle, and someone came to me with a captive and said, ‘Guard this man. If he is missing, it will be your life for his life, or you must pay a talent of silver.’
40 While your servant was busy here and there, the man disappeared.”
“That is your sentence,” the king of Israel said. “You have pronounced it yourself.”
41 Then the prophet quickly removed the headband from his eyes, and the king of Israel recognized him as one of the prophets.
42 He said to the king, “This is what the Lord says: ‘You have set free a man I had determined should die. Therefore it is your life for his life, your people for his people.’”
43Sullen and angry, the king of Israel went to his palace in Samaria.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)